NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you give an opinion of a person or company your full name needs to be in your post. Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
ebay GSB

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 10-24-2017, 03:43 PM
triwak's Avatar
triwak triwak is offline
Ken Wirt
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Springfield, Missouri
Posts: 747
Default

Interesting discussion. Gives me chance to post my card (my only Traynor).
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 55. Pie Traynor.jpg (79.1 KB, 83 views)
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-24-2017, 04:38 PM
Mark's Avatar
Mark Mark is online now
Mark L
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: out west
Posts: 725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by btcarfagno View Post
He played almost 1000 games at third base. Granted, that is half of what Traynor played at the position. But if you take the totality of his career versus Traynor's, or if you extrapolate Leach's 3B numbers to a 154 game schedule and do the same for Traynor, Leach is the better player.

I will grant you that he was not a 3B his entire career (basically half of his career) and that perhaps that should take him out of the discussion. But Leach was a better player at 3B for the Pirates than was Traynor, and he did so over a fairly large number of years.

Tom C

Edit:

Also, total games played by position for Leach as a member of the Pittsburgh Pirates:

3B 850
OF 630
I guess you are very well-informed, since you know more about baseball than Barney Dreyfuss. Poor, benighted Barney traded Leach (and a talented Lefty) to the Cubs for a washed up 4th outfielder and a bad pitcher but neglected to trade the immensely over-valued but unproductive Pie Traynor.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-24-2017, 05:29 PM
btcarfagno btcarfagno is offline
T0m C@rf@gn0
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 2,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark View Post
I guess you are very well-informed, since you know more about baseball than Barney Dreyfuss. Poor, benighted Barney traded Leach (and a talented Lefty) to the Cubs for a washed up 4th outfielder and a bad pitcher but neglected to trade the immensely over-valued but unproductive Pie Traynor.
Holy overreaction Batman.

A few things.

1. Yes I (and all of us) know a crapton more than Mr Dreyfus did 100 years ago.
2. Who said Traynor was unproductive? I certainly haven't. Strawman argument.
3. I have said in the thread that during Traynor's career he was overall the best 3B in baseball. I have also said that that isn't saying much given his competition at the time.
4. I have been arguing that Traynor is not a worthy HOFer. Which, as the links I have provided show, I am far from alone in so feeling.
5. It has been said in this thread that Traynor was the best 3B of the first 80-90 years of baseball. Which is certifiably insane when Frank Baker is part of the equation.
6. Tommy Leach was a more productive third baseman than Pie Traynor. Traynor played the position for a longer time, I get that. I simply said that Leach, while a third baseman for the Pirates, was more productive than Traynor . Not sure how that means that Traynor was unproductive.
7. Not sure your point regarding the trade you mention. To me it shows why we know more now in some ways than Barney did then. It was a smart trade in as much as Dreyfus got the team younger. He took a chance that the year Solly had two years prior (when he was one of the top four hitters in the NL) was not a career year. Turned out it was. He took a chance on King Cole who two years prior had been the toast of the league in his rookie season. 20-4 with a league leading ERA. Barney may have been a bit fooled by Cole's pedestrian sophomore season because he went 18-7 and wins were everything back then. Today we know that Cole's peripherals were way down from his rookie year and that should have been a warning sign. It wasn't a bad trade as, like I said, they got younger and took two players with potentially higher upside. It didn't work out and Leach had a couple solid years left in him.
8. As an aside, I bet the Pirates wish they had traded Traynor at the same age as they traded Leach. Traynor wasn't very good thereafter whereas Leach actually had some better than average years remaining.

Tom C
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-24-2017, 06:06 PM
nat's Avatar
nat nat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 438
Default

FWIW, the defensive stats that we now have are not kind to Mr. Traynor. He comes in at -32 Rfield, meaning that he was a slightly below average defensive third baseman for his career. (That is, an average third baseman would have prevented 32 more runs than he did.) Old defensive stats are certainly suspect, and he could have been a fair bit better than that. But "a fair bit better than that" doesn't get you from "slightly below average" to "one of the best ever". I know that he had an excellent defensive reputation, but it's very easy for observation to lead to really inaccurate opinions when not backed up with anything quantitative. He could have made plays with style (like Jeter) without actually making many or difficult plays (like Jeter). Or they could have seen a great play or two and think that that's his norm. Or observers could hear the opinions of others, and then confirmation bias kicks in when they're watching him play. Or etc. Observers are prone to so many biases that contemporary observations aren't really worth much.

I'm not saying that the defensive numbers are right. The old ones are only rough approximations. But they're the most trustworthy data that we've got, and there's no reasonable amount of correction for their known inaccuracies that will make Traynor a decent selection for the hall of fame. He was elected because he was a well-regarded player, but he wasn't actually a great player. The comparison that someone made up-thread with George Kell is spot-on.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-24-2017, 06:11 PM
Mark70Z's Avatar
Mark70Z Mark70Z is offline
M@rk Comer
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 1,195
Default 3rd Baseman

To me its kinda funny how people think we know more today about the players in the past just because we use fancy metrics and statistics, which many are flawed, and think they know more than the ones who watched them play on a daily basis. Such a BiG part of the game of baseball is missed just using these measures.

Third base was my favorite position growing up and still is to this day. From what I have read Pie was the best defensive 3rd sacker in history of the game till Brooks came along. To me, if your comparing this position the best at the position itself is worth something. As an example Mike Schmidt is arguably the best all around 3rd baseman of all time. Yet, if he was on the Orioles during the time of Brooks hed have been playing a different position.

Most people look at mainly the offensive numbers for some reason. If you do this then just compare their offense numbers to everyone else in baseball; why even bring up position on the field if youre going to do it this way.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-24-2017, 08:22 PM
nat's Avatar
nat nat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 438
Default

Rfield is a measure of defense.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-24-2017, 08:43 PM
btcarfagno btcarfagno is offline
T0m C@rf@gn0
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 2,988
Default

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

Last edited by btcarfagno; 10-24-2017 at 08:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10-24-2017, 08:58 PM
mpemulis mpemulis is offline
J@m1€ MG0v€n
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 25
Default E120 Traynor

Here's one of mine...
Attached Images
File Type: jpg traynor.jpg (70.5 KB, 53 views)
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 10-24-2017, 10:29 PM
Mark's Avatar
Mark Mark is online now
Mark L
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: out west
Posts: 725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by btcarfagno View Post
Holy overreaction Batman.

A few things.

1. Yes I (and all of us) know a crapton more than Mr Dreyfus did 100 years ago.
2. Who said Traynor was unproductive? I certainly haven't. Strawman argument.
3. I have said in the thread that during Traynor's career he was overall the best 3B in baseball. I have also said that that isn't saying much given his competition at the time.
4. I have been arguing that Traynor is not a worthy HOFer. Which, as the links I have provided show, I am far from alone in so feeling.
5. It has been said in this thread that Traynor was the best 3B of the first 80-90 years of baseball. Which is certifiably insane when Frank Baker is part of the equation.
6. Tommy Leach was a more productive third baseman than Pie Traynor. Traynor played the position for a longer time, I get that. I simply said that Leach, while a third baseman for the Pirates, was more productive than Traynor . Not sure how that means that Traynor was unproductive.
7. Not sure your point regarding the trade you mention. To me it shows why we know more now in some ways than Barney did then. It was a smart trade in as much as Dreyfus got the team younger. He took a chance that the year Solly had two years prior (when he was one of the top four hitters in the NL) was not a career year. Turned out it was. He took a chance on King Cole who two years prior had been the toast of the league in his rookie season. 20-4 with a league leading ERA. Barney may have been a bit fooled by Cole's pedestrian sophomore season because he went 18-7 and wins were everything back then. Today we know that Cole's peripherals were way down from his rookie year and that should have been a warning sign. It wasn't a bad trade as, like I said, they got younger and took two players with potentially higher upside. It didn't work out and Leach had a couple solid years left in him.
8. As an aside, I bet the Pirates wish they had traded Traynor at the same age as they traded Leach. Traynor wasn't very good thereafter whereas Leach actually had some better than average years remaining.

Tom C
You think you know more about evaluating baseball talent than Dreyfuss?!!! Are you familiar with his record? I don't need to read another word.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10-25-2017, 05:30 AM
btcarfagno btcarfagno is offline
T0m C@rf@gn0
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 2,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark View Post
You think you know more about evaluating baseball talent than Dreyfuss?!!! Are you familiar with his record? I don't need to read another word.
Again with the strawman.

When did I say anything about evaluating baseball talent? The words never crossed my mind, nor did they emanate from my keyboard.

What I did actually say was that we know more than Dreyfuss did 100 years ago. If that was unclear I apologise, as what I meant by it was that we understand more about the game than did Dreyfuss 100 years ago. Home runs are more important than bunts. Batting average for hitters and wins and losses for pitchers are not the best way to understand performance...that there are ways to dig deeper. That black people can play the game pretty darn well and there's no reason not to allow them to do so at the highest level. Things like that.

Not a knock on Dreyfuss at all. Just that it's 100 years later and we know and understand more now than they did then. That includes Barney Dreyfuss. Has nothing to do with talent evaluation, of which I wouldn't know the first thing. It's just a fact. After 100 years of playing the same sport with thousands of games played per year, it's fairly natural to have a better understanding.

Tom C

Last edited by btcarfagno; 10-25-2017 at 05:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cards vs. Memorabilia Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 23 03-25-2009 06:12 PM
Graded memorabilia other than cards Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 6 01-15-2007 09:46 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:48 PM.


ebay GSB