[btcarfagno]

An anecdote does not become more truthful the more often it is told. Are we to believe John McGraw when he said that Pie Traynor was the best 3B of all time? Or when he said the same thing about Jimmy Collins?

And it's difficult to imagine anything that does not become more clear after it is repeated for 100 years. I am not sure why there is a reluctance to assume that books we read as children containing anecdotes from 70 years ago would somehow be more reasonable to believe are correct than regressive statistical analysis would be. Why is there this sort of anti intellectual nature to sports, especially baseball? Old ways of playing the game, old ways of looking at the game, even old anecdotes seem to take forever to move past. I never do understand that.
There is not a single statistical measure that takes into account the era in which a ballplayer played that shows Pie Traynor to be superior to Frank Baker. Not a single one. These same measures show other players before and slightly after Traynor made the Hall who were simply better at the position of third base than he was.

Also, let's not forget that he went from 22% of the ballots in 1946 to 73% in 1947. Really? Why the jump? Nice guy? Broadcaster?

The 22% was about right.

Tom C