hot topics

If the measure is rate statistics, then Chance is a great one, more effective per game played than any first baseman after ABC and before Gehrig. As a high-average, high-OBP hitter with terrific speed and baserunning, he was the offensive leader of a great team. And John McGraw has terrific rate statistics as well. Chance and McGraw share a problem: games played, in particular, games played per season at their peaks.

There's only one missing piece of information out there that could make any difference: do we have any idea which teams Chance was playing against and which teams he benched himself for? Was it random and injury-determined? Or is there any possible claim of leverage?

Chance played when he could play. He sat when his life was threatened due to repeated beanings. I don't think there is any claim of leverage.

There is a good joint biography of Tinker, Evers, and Chance published by McFarland, if you want to learn more about them.

1896 was the last decent year for Anson, Brouthers and Connor. So just looking from 1897 thru 1930 (George Sisler's last year)

RCAP RCAP
1 Lou Gehrig 427
2 Frank Chance 308
3 Jack Fournier 269
4 George Sisler 211
5 Harry Davis 207
6 Jim Bottomley 186
7 Ed Konetchy 180
8 Charlie Hickman 155
9 Bill Terry 144
10 Jimmie Foxx 141

So it's not JUST rate stats that suggest Chance might be worthy of HOM.

OWP OWP
1 Lou Gehrig .795
2 Jimmie Foxx .741
3 Frank Chance .719
4 Jack Fournier .679
5 Tim Jordan .671
6 Ray Grimes .666
7 Bill Terry .662
8 Jim Bottomley .653
9 Joe Harris .649
10 Eddie Morgan .644

Oops, didn't mean to be unfair to Beckley. Here's from 1888 (Beckley's first year) to 1930:

RCAP
1 Lou Gehrig 427
2 Dan Brouthers 406
3 Roger Connor 331
4 Frank Chance 308
5 Jack Fournier 269
6 Jake Beckley 245
7 George Sisler 211
8 Jim Bottomley 186
9 Harry Davis 184
10 Ed Konetchy 180

OWP
1 Lou Gehrig .795
2 Dan Brouthers .748
3 Jimmie Foxx .741
4 Frank Chance .719
5 Roger Connor .685
6 Jack Fournier .679
7 Tim Jordan .671
8 Harry Stovey .669
9 Ray Grimes .666
10 Bill Terry .662

RCAP is compared to average, right?

The big problem with guys like Chance and McGraw is that even if you consider long-term replacement level average (which I don't), these guys were missing so many games in season, that the lower replacement level has to apply to that missed time - because those are short-term replacements.

I like Chance, more than most, he's actually close to being on my ballot (I give him a bonus for playing 1B pre-lively ball and for his catching). But this is something those that use average replacement level need to consider for players that weren't durable, whether their careers were long or short.

RCAP is compared to average, right?
Runs Created Above Average at Position.

The big problem with guys like Chance and McGraw is that even if you consider long-term replacement level average (which I don't), these guys were missing so many games in season, that the lower replacement level has to apply to that missed time - because those are short-term replacements.

We actually agree on this - Chance and McGraw's RCAA/RCAP should be slightly discounted due to the replacement TIME factor.

What I think we need to consider for Chance is that the only contemporary that was close to him offensively was Fournier, and when you consider that:

1. Even though it's close, Chance was still the better offensive player and

2. Fournier was a terrible fielder while Chance was a very good fielder, and

3. Chance played on one of the greatest teams of all times, and

4. he's the best 1st basemen in about a 35 year period

it doesn't seem to make sense that Chance is not receiving more credit here....