yes but under the rules that they played by during his era, offense was hard to come by, and yet he was very good at providing offense. it's not as silly as derwood's "everyone was very bad at baseball back then," but i don't think that different rules are a good reason to discount someone's ability as a player. offense was hard to come by? I picked a random "good" year by Anson (1884) where Cap had an OPS+ of 176. He had teammates with OPS+ of 152, 169, 150, 150 and 184. In 1886 (the year Anson had 147 RBI), he OPS+'d 178. Other teammates had 152, 117 and 191. That's just looking at his own teammates. does that mean the majority weren't very bad at baseball? It means Anson was on a really good team. OPS+ is relative to league averages, so saying that a bunch of his teammates had good OPS+s means little.