Pie Traynor cards and memorabilia are awesome

[btcarfagno]

An outstanding argument can be made the Traynor wasn't even the best Pittsburgh Pirates third baseman of all time by the time of his retirement. Let alone of all 16 teams.

See also: Leach, Tommy.

Tom C

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

An outstanding argument can be made the Traynor wasn't even the best Pittsburgh Pirates third baseman of all time by the time of his retirement. Let alone of all 16 teams.

See also: Leach, Tommy.

Tom C

Lol. Leach was such a great 3rd baseman that is why he played most of his games in the outfield.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rats60

Lol. Leach was such a great 3rd baseman that is why he played most of his games in the outfield.

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

[Mark]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

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.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Mark

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

[nat]

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.

[Mark70Z]

To me it’s 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 he’d 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 you’re going to do it this way.

[nat]

Rfield is a measure of defense.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

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.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Mark

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