User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6835 seconds
47 querie(s) executed
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.
http://world.std.com/~pgw/Deadball/all.america.html
Deadball Era Resources
His prompt identification as a professional star doesn't mean that Sisler's impact was sensational. Like some high school basketball players today, and collegians 25 years ago, he was known as a great player before his arrival in the majors, as a University of Michigan collegian.
Konetchy was never selected by Baseball Magazine (thru 1919) but he is the STATS retroactive League All-Star 1909-1912 and FL1914. STATS selected Wally Pipp, Sisler, George H. Burns, and Sisler for AL 1916-1919.
Deadball Era Resources
In 1927, his OPS+ was 101, which is pretty close to replacement level for a 1B. Tony Clark, for example, had a 97 OPS+ this year. John Olerud put up a 98. They are the definition of replacement level.
Sisler may have had a lot of hits, but he was also 2nd in the league in AB each of those seasons. He batted leadoff, and he never walked. That's only a slight exaggeration, he walked 51 times combined in the two seasons.
His OBP, .371 and .357 those two seasons, was below the park adjusted league average in each season. Sportsman's Park was a great hitters park back then too.
He was just nothing special after his return. He only had two seasons significantly above replacement level after 1922, those being 1925 and 1928, and neither were anything special (110 OPS+).
Sisler's OPS+ ranking as a first baseman (1924-1930)
1924: 8th in the AL; tied for 12th in the majors
1925: 5th in the AL; tenth in the majors
1926: 7th in the AL; tied for 13th in the majors
1927: 3th in the AL; tenth in the majors
1928: 6th in the NL; eleventh in the majors
1929: 5th in the NL; twelfth in the majors
1930: 8th in the NL; fifteenth in the majors
George who?
He was consistently below average after 1922.
Two reasons he still had many hits after 1922:
1) His teams had nobody else to take over his position so he was able to obtain many PA by default
or
2) They were still dreaming about the pre-1922 Sisler and closed their eyes to the guy that was actually playing after 1922.
He really couldn't hit or field anymore and there is no way at getting around that fact. He was never close to making the top half of major league first basemen after 1922. While I still think those years add something to Sisler's HoM case, they're minimal at best.
I think that Sisler may have gotten the playing time after 1924 because batting average was still the central hitting statistic of the time. That and his hit totals just made him overrated. I doubt the Browns really looked at OBP and gave little heed to positional and park adjustments. Though, your reasons are entirely valid as well.
That's 100% true. We'll make it that reason #3. :-)
4-4-4-2-6-3
Without even looking, I suspect a large portion of those who finished ahead of him are HOMers.
He's damn overrated post-1923, but this guy was a stud in the first half of his career. Sometimes I almost think voters penalize Sisler for having the mediocre second part, like it's so 'romantic' to only have 7-8 years of significant play.
Sisler's in the middle of my ballot.
Sometimes I almost think voters penalize Sisler for having the mediocre second part
I'm not penalizing him at all. There's just not that much value there and, for the most part, becomes padding for his stats.
If anything, I give him a little more credit for his Deadball play than the uber stats do. It's just a balancing act and he just falls short for me.
in 1924 Sisler finished 7th in Hits, 7th in triples, 10th in HRs, and 8th in steals
in 1925 Sisler finished 6th in RBIs, 4th in Hits, 5th in total bases, 3rd in triples, and 9th in times on base
in 1926 Sisler finished 9th in triples
in 1927 Sisler finished 9th in RBIs, 3rd in Hits, 8th in total bases, and 1st in steals
in 1928 Sisler finished 4th in batting average
in 1929 Sisler finished 9th in Hits
For those who think Sisler’s RBIs post injury were solely do to his teammates
in 1925 Sisler finished 6th in RBIs while his team finished 6th in on base%
in 1927 Sisler finished 9th in RBIs while his team finished 6th in on base%
even acording to you shouldn't durability be rewarded
That's about the only thing that I reward him for those post-1922 years, yest. It's still not enough (I have him at #33 right now) because of the below average quality of his offense at first for those years.
If first base had still been like it was during the Deadball Era, that would have helped Sisler's case considerably.
wouldn't Foxx and Gehrig have a very signifagant effect on the avrage first baseman?
The problem is that first base changed during the Lively Ball Era. You didn't find Gehrig or Foxx-type players at first betweeb 1890-1920. Since the ball stayed in the infield more, a premium was placed on more defense at the expense of offense. That all changed during the twenties.
granted but comparing Sisler to the almost unanimous 2 best first basmen ever seems a little harsh
91
110
85
101
110
98
81
I would submit there is no era, even including the huge pre-Gehrig 1B HOMer drought, during which those were acceptable OPS+'s for 1Bs.
He wasn't Tommy Thevenow: we're not really talking about a Punch and Judy hitter here. He had a few seasons where is Isolated Power (which measures his extra-base power) was over the league average.
True, but I weight his rate stats equally with his counting stats, so that won't hurt him in that regard.
His OPS+ in the second half of his career is crappy because he was a crappy player during the second half of his career, with an exception of the one year where he reached the lofty heights of average.
Players who had the most singles in the 20‘s in the AL
1. Sam Rice------------1506
2. Harry Heilmann------1284
3. Charlie Jamieson----1266
4. Joe Sewell----------1253
5. George Sisler-------1126
6. Joe Judge-----------1123
7. Eddie Collins-------1056
8. Ty Cobb-------------1048
9. Bucky Harris--------996
10. Bob Meusel---------994
11. Baby Doll Jacobson-986
12. Goose Goslin-------978
13. Bing Miller--------964
14. Bibb Falk----------957
15. Tris Speaker-------953
15. Joe Dugan----------953
17. Lu Blue------------950
18. Jack Tobin---------948
19. Marty McManus------923
20. Wally Gerber-------916
that's as HR hitters where the HR to single ratio is 5-2.
Sisler's also in the top 30 most singles ever
but that was a big part of his game and OPS underrates it tremendosly
I think it's more the case that you're overrating singles, yest.
And don't you think that a HR might be worth 2.5 times as much as a single? As I remember a single is worth .4 (roughly) in RC, Linear Weights, and many other similar offensive measures, while a HR is worth more than 1 (1.25 or something). This is born out by painstakingly figuring out the amount of runs all singles have produced throughout baseball history, or at least through a particular era.
It is entirely possible that OPS+ OVERRATES singles compared to these measures, which are the backbone of SLWTS, WS, and VORP. What OPS+ underrates is walks, or OBP in general. I realize that it normalizes both OBP and SLG so it isnt' as far off as raw OPS, but it still treats the two as equals, which they are not. On the other hand, singles are part of both OBP and SLG. They get their fair shake.
And a 1B that is a singles hitter isnt' terribly valuable. We call these guys Doug Mientkiewicz. Want to argue with me that Minky has bene playing anywhere near a HOM level the past 5 years or so?
After 1922, he gets a few points for his one slightly above average season and a few points for the extra WS,WARP, hits, HR's, etc. that he piles onto his career total. Those are just small parts of my admittedly peak heavy system.
and 3 who placed 8th, 9th, and 31st (with 106 points)in the last election
and if Joe Judge hit 340 for his career he would also be on my ballot!
And I don't understand your comment that Sisler's average stats were relatively low due to his high playing time. Gehrig played every game for 14 years; I didn't notice that lowering his averages.
That's fine, yest, but what do you base that on?
Slugging percentage has an extremely high correlation with driving in runs (depending on the opportunities, of course). IOW, the top-ten in park adjusted SLG will usually be the top-ten in highest percenatge of driving in runs per opportunities.
Since Sisler's post-1922 SLG was, at best, mediocre, he wasn't really a good RBI man.
In the lo scoring era, it took 2.29 singles to = 1 HR (+1.29 outs)
In the hi scoring era, it took 2.07 singles to = 1 HR (+1.07 outs).
So there probably is some difference, but not huge. At extreme cases, as in slo-pitch softball, it might be down to 1.8-1.0 singles per HR.
Where Sisler placed in Singles
1916-141-4
1917-149-3
1918-122-5
1919-124-7
1920-171-1
1921-148-5
1922-178-1
1924-148-5
1925-176-2
1926-138-6
1927-156-2
1928-133-9
1929-155-4
Car-2121-29
Do you have anything else that favors Sisler besides singles? Do doubles, triples, walks, and home runs matter?
see post 22, 25, and 36
Do you have anything else that favors Sisler besides singles? Do doubles, triples, walks, and home runs matter?
see post 9
The problem was after 22 he lost most of his power. I'm not saying that Sisler was the same player he was before his injury but that he was still a way above avrege player.
The other problem is he lost a huge chunk of his BA.
Before 1923: .361
After 1923: .320
It should also be pointed out that a big chunk of his pre-sinus infection BA was created during the Deadball Era, so the difference between those two numbers is actually greater than it appears.
A .320 average during the twenties wasn't anything special.
1B is an offense first position, the average 1B hits a good deal better than the average hitter. because of this George Sisler was average at best after 1922. And it isnt' like he was Keith Hernandez with the glove after 1922, etiher.
AVG/OBP/SLG
.361/.404/.510
AVG+/OBP+/SLG+
135/ 121/ 142
Rank in the plus categories (out of the 34 MLB players with 4000 PA):
2nd/5th/3rd
===========
Sisler 1924-30:
AVG/OBP/SLG
.320/.354/.426
AVG+/OBP+/SLG+
110/ 100/ 104
Rank in the plus categories (out of the 19 MLB players with 4000 PA):
12th/18th/14th
=============
The great numbers in the first list are why he's made my ballot before. The mediocre numbers in the second list is part of why he fell off my ballot this year.
1924 1B stats-------H…/1B./2B/3B/HR/BB/BA/OBP/SA
George Sisler hit----194/148/27/10-/9--/31-/305/340/421 with 636 at bats
Earl Sheely hit ------171/131/34/3--/3--/95-/320/426/411 with 535 at bats
Joe Judge hit -------167/117/38/9--/3--/53-/324/393/450 with 516 at bats
Wally Pipp hit ------174/116/30/19-/9--/51-/295/352/457 with 589 at bats
Joe Harris hit -------148/100/36/9--/3--/81-/301/406/430 with 491 at bats
George H. Burns hit 143/97-/37/5--/4--/29-/310/370/437 with 462 at bats
Joe Hauser hit ------162/96-/31/8--/27-/56-/288/358/516 with 562 at bats
Lu Blue hit ----------123/88-/26/7--/2--/64-/311/413/428 with 395 at bats
There is no way that Sisler is the worst First Baseman in the AL
Who said he was the worst, yest? He was the worst regular offensive first baseman rate-wise, but he did play a lot that year so that had value. Unfortunately for Gorgeous George, he still winds up in the second divison of first basemen for 1924.
who would you rank above Sisler because Judge and Sheely are the only ones I can see ranked above Sisler
Don't expect this crown to use hits as the column on which to rank these people.
Just as an example, look at Harris:
Sisler leads Harris in hits 194-148. Harris leads in walks 81-31. Using H+BB as a proxy for times on base, that puts them roughly equal, with Harris slightly ahead.
But the same data shows Sisler making 442 outs. (Just the crude version of outs, AB - H.) Harris made 343 outs.
The same number of times on base in 100 fewer outs? I'll take Harris as the better hitter, since there's no great pile of extra base hits to push it the other direction.
How did you come to that cunclusion expantion, players not caring abought their batting averge, pitchers batting less ext. would make this imposible to compare?
StL 120
Bos 106
Phi 99
Chi 99
Det 97
Cle 95
NY 94
Was 91
Home Run Factor:
StL 216
NY 186
Phi 111
Det 97
Chi 64
Cle 61
Bos 52
Was 17
Also, Sisler was last in on base percentage among regular first basemen and 7th out of 8 in slugging.
Extra-base hits:
Hauser 66 / 562 AB or 1 per 8.5
Burns 46 / 462 AB or 1 per 10
Pipp 58 / 589 AB or 1 per 10.2
Harris 48 / 491 AB or 1 per 10.2
Judge 50 / 516 AB or 1 per 10.3
Blue 35 / 395 AB or 1 per 11.3
Sheely 40 / 535 AB or 1 per 13.4
Sisler 46 / 636 AB or 1 per 13.8
I wasn't trying to teleport Sisler to our time. I was trying to show approximately how valuable his numbers were using our "currency." As you can see, they weren't very valuable.
BTW, I hope you don't accept the twenties numbers at face value and assume that there were giants back then when it came to hitting for average. I alternately could say that the reason the BA's were so high back then was because the pitchers were terrible - no pitchers today give up as many hits today, so that means those pitchers were horrible in that department, right? Wrong.
Context, context, context.
These appear unadjusted for road games. bb-ref lists STL at a batting park factor of 106 with the other 7 parks bunched between 97-101.
As OCF pointed out, its quite ironic that yest himself posts the best evidence against Sisler. The fact that Sportsman's was a hitters park removes any doubts in my mind.
Lets not forget how good he was from 1915-22, though. He'd been on my ballot for ten years before this years stellar class bumped him off.
Sisler in late career has a lot in common with Ernie Banks in late career. These 1924 numbers illustrate the problem. There he was, playing nearly every day and batting high in the order, so he could consume an enormous number of outs without any great power production to counterbalance it. (If you throw in DP and CS, the number of outs is up around 470) He still got R and RBI just because that lineup spot comes with its own opportunities. Why was he in that prime lineup spot? Why did he play against all opponents and pitchers when maybe a platoon arrangement or other substitution pattern might have been justified? Why? Because he was George Sisler, Superstar, that's why!
His 1920 and 1922 seasons tower above the rest of that, but yes, let's not forget. (And let's not forget how good Ernie Banks was when he played SS.)
George Sisler hit----194/148/27/10-/9--/31-/305/340/421 with 636 at bats
Earl Sheely hit ------171/131/34/3--/3--/95-/320/426/411 with 535 at bats
Joe Judge hit -------167/117/38/9--/3--/53-/324/393/450 with 516 at bats
Wally Pipp hit ------174/116/30/19-/9--/51-/295/352/457 with 589 at bats
Joe Harris hit -------148/100/36/9--/3--/81-/301/406/430 with 491 at bats
George H. Burns hit 143/97-/37/5--/4--/29-/310/370/437 with 462 at bats
Joe Hauser hit ------162/96-/31/8--/27-/56-/288/358/516 with 562 at bats
Lu Blue hit ----------123/88-/26/7--/2--/64-/311/413/428 with 395 at bats
There is no way that Sisler is the worst First Baseman in the AL"
Sisler has the lowest OPS of the group. he has the 7th best slugging and the 8th OBP. He even has the 5th best average, which is nearly meaningless because of the lack of walks. And only three of these players had fewer than 500 AB's, so it isn't like this is a list of part timers. And when David said that Susler was 8thi n the Al, he meant in OPS. In that list he is 8th in the AL in OPS.
BTW, I hope you don't accept the twenties numbers at face value and assume that there were giants back then when it came to hitting for average. I alternately could say that the reason the BA's were so high back then was because the pitchers were terrible - no pitchers today give up as many hits today, so that means those pitchers were horrible in that department, right? Wrong.
I give around a 50% difference how well they did against the average between high and low offensive eras.
And on to1925
Sisler's OPS+ ranking as a first baseman in 1925
5th in the AL; tenth in the majors
1924 1B stats-------H…/1B./2B/3B/HR/BB/BA-/OBP/SA
George Sisler hit ---224/176/21/15/12/27/345/371/479 in 649 at bats
Earl Sheely hit ------189/134/43/3-/9-/68/315/389/442 in 600 at bats
Lu Blue hit ---------163/133/18/9-/3-/83/306/403/391 in 532 at bats
George H. Burns hit 164/113/41/4-/6-/24/336/371/473 in 488 at bats
Jim Poole hit -------143/101/29/8-/5-/27/298/338/423 480 at bats
Phil Todt hit --------151/98-/29/13/11/44/278/343/439 in 544 at bats
Lou Gehrig hit ------129/76-/23/10/20/46/295/365/531 in 437 at bats
Joe Judge hit -------118/74-/31/5-/8-/55/314/406/487 in 376 at bats
I personally think Sisler was the best First baseman that year
I have him less than half of Gehrig's value for that season, but at least Sisler was decent that year.
1925 1B stats----BA-/OBP/SA-/1B%/2B%/3B%/HR%/BB%
George Sisler hit 345/371/479/256/031/022/017/039 in 649 at bats and 688 PA
Lou Gehrig hit ---295/365/531/153/046/020/040/093 in 437 at bats and 497 PA
(I divided by Plate Appearances to make these stats 1B%/2B%/3B%/HR%/BB%)
I don't see how anyone can rank Gehrig above Sisler
Yankees pitching gave up 4.96 runs per game with a 4.33 era
Browns pitching gave up 5.88 runs per game with a 4.92 era
The Yankees' pitching wasn't that great that year. If you take into account the parks, we're not talking about a great difference between the two teams.
Sportsman's Park - 108
Yankee Stadium - 96
That's included in the batting park factor (BPF) at baseball-reference.
Team production at 1B (Runs Above Replacement/Game, (BRAR1+FRAR1)/G; source: BP) 1920 StA .91 StN .41 Was .54 NYN .36 NYA .40 Cin .32 Bos .26 Bro .28 Cle .19 PhN .27 Det .18 Pit .21 ChA .16 BoN .16 PhA .08 ChN .16 .34 .31 .27 1924 PhA .45 Bro .58 Was .44 NYN .44 Cle .43 Cin .35 Det .42 StN .29 NYA .40 Pit .24 Bos .31 BoN .18 ChA .29 ChN .18 StA .12 PhN .15 .36 .33 .30The team was mediocre 1916-1929, pitiable in the early 10s and entire 30s.
interaction with success of the tenant Cardinals? unknown
In 1920, Sisler was a monster. He was the best first baseman in baseball, with no one particularly close to him. If he had had two more years like he had in 1920 and 1922, or if he had had four more years like he had in 1917-1919 and 1921, then we wouldn't be having this particular debate.
But in 1924 it's very hard to count the fact that Sisler had more AB than any other first baseman as an asset for his team. Those other guys, the first baseman for other teams - maybe they came out of the lineup against certain pitchers, maybe they were hurt a little or rested a little. But their replacements were OK as well. And some of those guys who should have batted 6th or 7th in the order did bat 6th or 7th. Sisler put himself in position to consume more than his share of the team's outs, and the payoff for his team was poor production from his position. The chart in #68 is unmistakeable - the worst RARP/game from first base of any of the 16 teams.
1924 was a low-water year for Sisler. He was quite a bit better in 1925, and a little better in 1927 and 1928 - but he still wasn't exactly good in any of those years.
What kind of system could have Gehrig's 1925 more than twice as meritorious/valuable as Sisler's 1925 -- OPS+ minus 100 times plate appearances? I have that year as basically a draw between the two -- park factors included.
I'm using a combination of WS and WS per 162 Games for the comparison. It's arbitrary, but I like it.
I certainly get the idea behind WS/162, trying to get a feel for how productive they were per game. But factoring out reliability alltogether, even as just one factor, seems a bit extreme over a one-season basis.
I also wonder about flat decuctions, like used in PA, for setting a higher replacement level.
Has anyone thought about (or, for all I know, is anyone already using) some sort of measure like WS (or WARP) - X * PA? Something that neutralizes the "piling up the numbers" effect of playing every day, while not factoring out additional playing time altogether?
X could be determined by figuring out the average WS/WARP per PA leaguewide, then dropping it some percentage to set an appropriate replacement level.
Digression, I know. :)
I don't know if you were referring to me, Michael, but I definitely don't factor out reliability.
I have him as the third best First baseman in 1924 (though I can easily here a case for him being as low as 7th)
and as the best First baseman in 1925
I've worked in various companies and I think there are two management styles. There are managers who manage from the basis of what their employees CAN do, and there are managers who manage from the basis of what their employees CANNOT do. IOW, you put them in the right sandbox and turn 'em loose or you put all kinds of structures around them to make sure they never get a chance to do anything that isn't right in their wheelhouse.
And of course there are baseball managers in both camps.
Apropos of George Sisler.
I doubt that we have ever had a serious contender in the HoM elections who was rated by so many voters on the basis of his worst years. Some of course do rank him on peak/prime, which is why he is 10th (?) in the current voting.
Then we've got the career voters. Well, here's a guy with a career 124 OPS+ in 2000 games and 8000+ AB. And a streak of 7 years above 133 and 5 of 6 over 150. And 2,800+ base hits.
For comparative purposes, that's:
Career OPS+ Joe Jackson 169 Goslin 128 Sisler 124
Above 150 Jackson 7 Sisler 5 Goslin 2
Above 130 Jackson 9 Sisler 7 Goslin 7
Games Goslin 2200+ Sisler 2000+ Jackson 1300+
AB + BB Goslin 9600 Sisler 8700+ Jackson 5500 exactly
Hits Sisler 2812 Goslin 2735 Jackson 1772
Best 9 years
OPS+ Jackson ~169 Sisler ~146 Goslin 143
Above 150 Jackson 7 Sisler 5 Goslin 2
Above 130 Jackson 9 Sisler 7 Goslin 7
Games Goslin ~1340 Jackson <1300 Sisler ~1150
AB + BB Sisler ~5100 Goslin ~5100 Jackson <4800
Hits Sisler 1800+ Jackson 1700+ Goslin 1680
And Sisler was very clearly the most valuable fielder of the 3. So what gives? Are some of us ranking Sisler based on what he wasn't (a guy with an ordinary career curve a la Goose Goslin) or what he was?
Or just for another cut (and I understand about OPS+ vs. ERA+, this is just food for thought). Best OPS+ vs. ERA+ in BA or ERA eligible years, best to worst (dropping the 100).
Sisler 79 69 63 59 53 37 33 19 9 0 -1 -10 -16 -18
Rixey 45 43 43 38 37 29 24 15 15 13 10 9 9 7 -2 -5 -19
HoM ballots
Rixey 34 @ 13.5 pts each
Sisler 25 @ 12
IOW, if Sisler had spaced out his best and worst years instead of clustering them, would that make him a better player?
But the different results for Goslin (especially) and Sisler don't seem quite right to me. I keep hearing how an average player has value, yet people are deducting value, I think, for Sisler's second career. He was sure as hell more valuable than Joe Jackson after 1920.
This is a misconception on your part, Marc. The career and career/peak voters are voting on the totality of his career, not just the worst years. But the second half of Sisler's career just doesn't add much. We can't help it, but that's just the way it is.
I agree completely with you and I know who you're referring to, Jim, but I think they're a very small subset of the career and career/peak group(though I may be wrong about that).
I'd do the Sisler-Goslin OPS+ comp, not Rixey.
There's still position and timeline and other things beyond it, but that would be a good starting point.
I'm pretty friendly to Sisler myself.
His peak puts him in the top 20, however.
I think John, you made my point for me, which was (in a much more long-winded fashion, of course, but which was):
With Sisler, are we missing the forest for the trees? The trees are an oddly shaped career. The forest is an extremely high peak (Jacksonesque, not Gehrigesque, but not Goslinesque [i.e. better than Goslinesque]) peak and a high total career value.
John, your response was, if I may paraphrase, "Marc, you are mistaken. It's not about the shape of his career. It's about the shape of his career."
Except its not Jacksonesque:
Sisler -- age 30: 154 OPS+/4500 PA
Jackson -- career: 170 OPS+/5700 PA
Add two years of OPS+ > 170 to Sisler's career and he'd probably have been inducted.
Also note that Sisler's later eligibility has made him face stiffer competition.
From "Baseball's All-Time Best Sluggers"
Players with the largest drops in % HR's after adjusting for Park Effects:
1. Hugh Duffy - 39%
2. Gavy Cravath - 39%
3. Ken Williams - 33%
4. Tilly Walker - 30%
5. GEORGE SISLER - 24%
Sisler: 14.2, 9.0, 8.9, 8.9, 8.5, 7.5, 7.4
Jackson: 12.9, 12.8, 11.2, 10.2, 9.7, 9.0, 8.1
So unless one has an exceedingly narrow view of peak, Sisler's peak is most certainly not Jackson-esque.
John, your response was, if I may paraphrase, "Marc, you are mistaken. It's not about the shape of his career. It's about the shape of his career."
Not really, Marc.
I'm not a total peak voter, but I understand those would place Sisler high on their ballots because of his very best seasons. I have no problem with their reasoning in the slightest.
But this is the way I look at Sisler's career: 88% of the value that I give to Sisler was pre-1924. I give him about 12% for the mediocre. A couple more seasons of the old Sisler would have landed him on my ballot, but...
BTW, the latter half doesn't affect the first half of Sisler's career in my system not one iota because I give credit for each individual season, so a player will not find his value slipping because of sub par performances at the tail end or beginning of a career (i.e. Brooks Robinson). That was might point when I responded to your post.
I also agree his peak was not Jacksonesque, either.
I wasn't really responding to you, but point taken on the Gehrigespue point. However, his peak wasn't even Jenningsesque. I just don't think that Sisler's peak was historically high. More than enough for the HOM if he wasn't so mediocre from 1924 on. And he still might make my PHOM one day if we make good progress through the backlog.
1925 1B stats----H…/1B./2B/3B/HR/BB/BA-/OBP/SA
George Sisler hit 224/176/21/15/12/27/345/371/479 in 649 at bats
Lou Gehrig hit ---129/76-/23/10/20/46/295/365/531 in 437 at bats
How much can a Park effect the stats to make Gehrig better then Sisler?
George Sisler hit 224/176/21/15/12/27/345/371/479 in 649 at bats
Lou Gehrig hit ---129/76-/23/10/20/46/295/365/531 in 437 at bats
Frankly, according to BP, there isn't a lot of difference between the value of those two batting lines compiled in those two parks. After adjusting for park, and for Gehrig's extra power, what Sisler then adds is slightly sub-replacement level hitting for the extra 200+ AB's. (BRAR: Gehrig 34 Sisler 31).
What then makes the difference is that young Lou is an above-average fielder, while George's vision problems are affecting his fielding too (FRAR: Lou 15 George -1).
"The Seattle music scene is the backdrop for this tale of twentysomethings trying to find themselves and each other in the 1990s. Linda (Kyra Sedgwick) and Steve (Campbell Scott) meet in a club and begin to play the dating game. Janet (Bridget Fonda) has a thing for Cliff (Matt Dillon), who barely acknowledges her existence. Cameron Crowe's script tackles the ups and downs of romance with humor and honesty. Highlights include live performances by Alice in Chains and Soundgarden, as well as cameos by the members of Pearl Jam."
I'm SOMETIMES sabermetric :-))
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main