Quote:
Originally Posted by btcarfagno
Are you using HOF votes as your argument that Traynor was the best pre war third baseman? That's not just lol worthy. I'll give you a lulz.
Frank Baker was far superior to Pie Traynor. It's not close. And Jimmy Collins was slightly better.
Pie Traynor was statistically the best third baseman in the sport for just three years. 1923, 1927 and 1929. That's it. Any idea how many times he was one the the two best hitters on his own team? Twice.
He played at a time when there was a severe lack of quality third basemen in baseball. Being the best of a bad lot should not make one HOF worthy. Statistically there were several players before him that were better. One career contemporary that was almost as good (Travis Jackson...who also shouldn't be in the HOF). Several statistically better 3B came just after him, and then the floodgates opened in the 50's and 60's.
Recent career contemporaries would swear that Derek Jeter was a gold glove caliber defender for the better part of 20 years.
Lol.
Tom C
|
Hof voters are more qualified than you, lol. They saw Traynor, Baker and Collins play and they overwhelmingly believed that Pie was the best. All you care about is one offensive stat, OPS+, and ignore the rest. Most importantly, you completely ignore defense at a time when the position was primarily a defensive one. Pie was a better all around player than either Baker or Collins and it isn't close, just ask John McGraw who also played the position.
Graig Nettles, Ken Boyer, Buddy Bell, Sal Bando, Darrell Evens, Ron Cey and Toby Harrah all had a higher OPS+ than Brooks Robinson. Why aren't they all in the HoF? Your simplistic argument is that if a player has a higher OPS, we should ignore all other batting stats and defense. Sorry, that is ridiculous. Players aren't elected to the HoF strictly on offense.