Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Tuesday, April 05, 2005

Dick Bartell

Dick Bartell

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 05, 2005 at 05:41 PM | 17 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 05, 2005 at 06:11 PM (#1233648)
hot topics
   2. BDC Posted: April 05, 2005 at 11:24 PM (#1234377)
This is not going to increase his Merit, I know, but Bartell is the teller-to (Norman Macht) of one of the better baseball books, Rowdy Richard. Must reading for interested HOM voters.
   3. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 06, 2005 at 02:19 AM (#1234716)
i don't have my numbesr in front of me, but anyone who has Bartell in the top 30 must be a fan of Joe Sewell. I don't see how one can say they had comparable value. I have Sewell at #25 or so, and bartell will struggle to make my top 50.
   4. Ardo Posted: April 06, 2005 at 04:53 AM (#1235075)
Bartell is an interesting fellow - 8000+ PA, 98 OPS+, excellent SS defense. Sounds almost exactly like Dave Bancroft, eh?

Joe Sewell, who is Bartell's 9th-best comp, is #10 on my ballot. Bancroft would be about #30 (the difference, IMO, is not that great, but my ballot is tightly bunched), and Bartell would rank a spot above or a spot below Bancroft.

Looking at contemporaries, Appling, Vaughn, and Cronin were clearly better. Bartell was never more than 4th best in MLB, save for his age 28-29 peak.
   5. DL from MN Posted: June 19, 2006 at 08:14 PM (#2068668)
I think Rowdy Dick needs another look now that we're figuring out the in-out line. Bartell was a very good defensive SS, an average hitter and had a long career. I have Joe Sewell #15 and Dick Bartell just off ballot.

Bartell served in WWII but it was at the tail end of his career so I'm not sure how much credit he deserves. I like the Bancroft comparison but WARP has Bartell as the better fielder _and_ the better hitter. I have Bancroft at #45 and Sewell at #15. I think you have to slot Bartell somewhere in between but I think I'm the only voter mentioning Bartell.

Bartell also batted .294/.360/.426 in 68 World Series AB. He was arguably the MVP of the 1936 WS except that the Giants lost it to the Yankees.
   6. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 19, 2006 at 08:25 PM (#2068685)
Bartell also batted .294/.360/.426 in 68 World Series AB.

That's really not that impressive considering the context.
   7. DL from MN Posted: June 19, 2006 at 08:46 PM (#2068715)
The context was a .290/.350/.410 league so he was an average hitter in the postseason.
   8. DavidFoss Posted: June 19, 2006 at 08:55 PM (#2068728)
The context was a .290/.350/.410 league so he was an average hitter in the postseason.

Perhaps a bit better than that. Its a bit difficult to nail down the context for these games. In 1936-7, the NL was considerably lower scoring than the AL. What would be the context for the playoffs?

His 1936 WS was indeed a great one. Powell perhaps hit a bit better, but he didn't play SS.
   9. Steve Treder Posted: June 19, 2006 at 08:56 PM (#2068733)
The context was a .290/.350/.410 league so he was an average hitter in the postseason.

No, it wasn't. The NL and the AL were very, very different run environments in the 1930s, moreso that at any other point in history, even after the imposition of the DH in the AL.

The highest league BA in the NL from 1931-39 was .278; highest OBP .335; highest SLG .396. And in 1940, Bartell's year in the AL in which he went to the WS, the league was at .271/.342/.407.
   10. Steve Treder Posted: June 19, 2006 at 09:01 PM (#2068741)
In 1936-7, the NL was considerably lower scoring than the AL. What would be the context for the playoffs?

As I speculated
here and here, the huge difference in run production between the leagues was very likely due to different ball specs for each league. I suppose the home team supplied the ball in WS games, so that would mean that WS games in NL parks were in the low-scoring environment, and WS games in AL parks were in the high-scoring environment.
   11. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 19, 2006 at 09:13 PM (#2068756)
Sure but...

Why Rowdy Richard and not Beauty Bancroft?

Why Rowdy Richard and not Scooter Rizzuto?

Why Rowdy Richard and not Joe Sewell?

Why Rowdy Richard and not Germany Long?

Why Rowdy Richard and not Junior Stephens?

Why Rowdy Richard and not Johnny Pesky?

Why Rowdy Richard and not Cecil Travis?

Why Rowdy Richard and not Bus Clarkson?

Why Rowdy Richard and not Jim Fregosi? (Is he up next year? or this?)

Why Rowdy Richard and not Eddie Joost, Ed McKean, Joe Tinker, Maury Wills, Dick Lundy, Rabbit Maranville, Hank Thompson, Tom Daly, Artie Fletcher, Silvio Garcia, and Donie Bush?

I don't oppose Bartell. I just think we'd have to answer to these other guys if we selected him.

[/theatrics]
   12. sunnyday2 Posted: June 19, 2006 at 09:25 PM (#2068765)
Win Shares

28. Dave Bancroft 269/31-27-26/115/22.8
37. Dick Bartell 252/28-24-21/106/20.2

Tinker and Long among those in between.

OPS+

Bancroft 98/122-22-19-10-9-9-4-and 4 additional years >100 games but <100 OPS+/about 8000 PA
Bartell 96/124-9-2-1-and 7 years >100 games but <100 OPS+/about 8400 PA

Raw Fielding

Bancroft 1873 G at SS/.944/4623 PO/6561 A/660 E/1017 DP
Bartell 1679 G at SS/.953/3872 PO/5590 A/471 E/1072 DP

Bartell's rookie year was 1928, Bancroft's final year was 1930. I would guess Bancroft's .944 was as good or better vs. league and he certainly fielded a lot more chances. Whether that was typical of the league (and I'm sure it was) it still has a lot of value ("it" being 1750 additional chances).

WS Fielding

So Bancroft accumulated 105 fielding WS and Bartell 96. Bancroft is an A and Bartell at B+.

Small differences, yes, but not a one to rate Bartell over Bancroft that I can see. Anybody who likes either one of them ought to at least give consideration to Dick Lundy.
   13. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 19, 2006 at 09:26 PM (#2068769)
In regard to Bartell's WS performance, whatever the actual context, it wasn't an outstanding performace overall. Don't get me wrong, it was good, but how much of a boost should he get for it? Pepper Martin he wasn't.
   14. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 19, 2006 at 09:31 PM (#2068775)
Anybody who likes either one of them ought to at least give consideration to Dick Lundy.

Sewell and Lundy are the highest shortstops on my list. I don't see them making my ballot in the near future, however.
   15. DL from MN Posted: June 19, 2006 at 09:37 PM (#2068783)
I didn't see Lundy as a 98 OPS+ kind of hitter, more of a 94 OPS+ hitter.
   16. sunnyday2 Posted: June 19, 2006 at 10:21 PM (#2068820)
Lots of guesswork with Lundy, it's true. Like Bancroft and Bartell, probably in the 90s (not that there is any difference between 94 and 98 for a NeL MLE, both within the margin of error, I would think). But a longer career than either and probably a better glove than Bartell, at least.
   17. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 20, 2006 at 11:31 AM (#2069498)
Sewell and Lundy are the highest shortstops on my list.

I forgot that Moore was on my ballot, so those two are behind him.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BFFB
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.2854 seconds
49 querie(s) executed