Pie Traynor cards and memorabilia are awesome

[Chuck9788]

I really like my 1935 "Diamond Stars" Pie Traynor.

Do you have any Pie Traynor cards or memorabilia to share?

[Hankphenom]

Don't have any of his stuff, but when I was growing up, he was the third baseman on most "All-Time All-Stars" teams, as in the book "Big-Time Baseball."

[nolemmings]

Here's a sweetie pie:

[bn2cardz]

Pie Traynor with some children at the 1929 Spring Training.



https://www.flickr.com/photos/bn2cardz/35776108262/

[kcohen]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Don't have any of his stuff, but when I was growing up, he was the third baseman on most "All-Time All-Stars" teams, as in the book "Big-Time Baseball."

Hi Hank. Hope you are well. That's amazing, my mother bought that book for me in 1960 or so. I still have it and pull it out from time to time. I spent hours reading the anecdotes and factoids. I was just recounting the other day to someone that, as of the writing of that book, Nick Altrock was the only pitcher to be credited with a win without throwing a pitch. I never forgot reading that. I think it's been done since.

I apologize to the OP for taking the thread on a little detour.

[btcarfagno]

I recently sold a Pie Traynor side written game used bat. This is all the more rare because Traynor is infamous for never ordering bats of his own, instead he constantly "borrowed" bats from others. He bragged about never placing a bat order of his own over like the last 15 years of his career or something like that. So a sidewritten bat with his name is one of the only ones that can 100% be linked to him.











Also, and I say this as a lifetime Pittsburgh Pirates fan, Traynor is one of the least Hall Of Fame worthy players enshrined in Cooperstown.

Tom C

[John V]

I always dig out my personalized autograph for threads like these.

[nat]

I don't have any Traynor items, but I can talk about him a little bit.

IIRC he had a sterling defensive reputation, and was a big star in his day. History has not been so kind to him. Defensive measures are always dicey, and the older they are the dicier they get, but our best attempts to quantify his defense has it come out looking not good. A bunch of 100 RBI seasons probably helped his reputation, but having Paul (and to a lesser extent Lloyd) Waner in the line up probably helped with that. (Grantham too.)

[bbcard1]

A beneficiary of the inflated offensive numbers of his time, I alway thought it curious that he was chose for the Sporting News all time team in the 1976 Topps set. One of these things is not like the others...

[Exhibitman]

Radio station premium:

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

A beneficiary of the inflated offensive numbers of his time, I alway thought it curious that he was chose for the Sporting News all time team in the 1976 Topps set. One of these things is not like the others...

He was a gold glove 3rd baseman who hit .320 over his career. At the time he was the only 3rd baseman elected to the HOF by the BBWAA. He was also elected as the 3rd baseman Baseball's All Time Team in 1969. His numbers today suffer because he played in a pitcher's park and didn't hit many home runs. Eddie Mathews would have been a better choice, but it was probably too close to the end of his career and he wasn't even in the HOF yet.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rats60

He was a gold glove 3rd baseman who hit .320 over his career. At the time he was the only 3rd baseman elected to the HOF by the BBWAA. He was also elected as the 3rd baseman Baseball's All Time Team in 1969. His numbers today suffer because he played in a pitcher's park and didn't hit many home runs. Eddie Mathews would have been a better choice, but it was probably too close to the end of his career and he wasn't even in the HOF yet.

He was a .320 career hitter. The NL overall batting average over his career was .283. That includes pitchers hitting. His career slugging percentage was .435. The NL overall slugging percentage over his career was .396.

He was a slightly above average hitter (as is shown by his career OPS+ of 107...7% above average) and seems to have been overrated as a defender.

Tom C

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

He was a .320 career hitter. The NL overall batting average over his career was .283. That includes pitchers hitting. His career slugging percentage was .435. The NL overall slugging percentage over his career was .396.

He was a slightly above average hitter (as is shown by his career OPS+ of 107...7% above average) and seems to have been overrated as a defender.

Tom C

The people that saw him play voted him into the Hall of Fame. They elected no other 3rd baseman until 30 years later. Those who saw him play said he was an elite defensive player. I would say you are under rating his defensive ability since you didn't see him play and you don't know. His slugging percentage suffered from playing in a big park and not benefiting from cheap home runs that other NLers did. He was top 10 in hitting 6 times, hits 7 times, total bases 5 times and RBIs 9 times. He was much better than an average hitter, he was exceptional for his position in his era. That is why he was elected to the Hall of Fame and none of his contemporaries at the position were. Brooks Robinson had an OPS+ 104, I guess he stinks and should be kicked out of the HoF.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rats60

The people that saw him play voted him into the Hall of Fame. They elected no other 3rd baseman until 30 years later. Those who saw him play said he was an elite defensive player. I would say you are under rating his defensive ability since you didn't see him play and you don't know. His slugging percentage suffered from playing in a big park and not benefiting from cheap home runs that other NLers did. He was top 10 in hitting 6 times, hits 7 times, total bases 5 times and RBIs 9 times. He was much better than an average hitter, he was exceptional for his position in his era. That is why he was elected to the Hall of Fame and none of his contemporaries at the position were. Brooks Robinson had an OPS+ 104, I guess he stinks and should be kicked out of the HoF.

Brooks Robinson was pretty much as good a hitter as Traynor (as you said...104 OPS+ for Robby versus 107 for Traynor) and he sustained that level for over 3,500 more plate appearances than did Traynor. Thus being that kind of hitter for six more full seasons than did Traynor. And if you want to discuss defense and try to compare the two as being in the same stratosphere it would be a losing argument on your part. Robinson was a slightly above average hitter for almost 12,000 plate appearances and the best defense player ever at his position. So yes. He belongs in the Hall, although in the lower tier.

Players who had a higher slugging percentage as a Pirate during Pie Traynors years there who were apparently not as adversely affected by the huge park as poor ol' Pie was:

Kiki Cuyler
Paul Waner
George Grantham
Max Carey (6 year period)
Glenn Wright (5 year period)
Gus Suhr

All of their career slugging numbers as a member of a Pirates team alongside Pie Traynor are higher than Traynor.

My list of better third basemen than Pie Traynor before he played:

Home Run Baker
Jimmy Collins
Heinie Groh
Larry Gardner (maybe a tie)

And players who came more towards the end of Traynor's career who were better:

Pinky Higgins
Stan Hack
Harlond Clift (not sure...Clift much better over much shorter time)

Pie Traynor was basically George Kell during a more offensive era and with better teammates.

I don't dislike Traynor. I agree that during the period 1922-1935 he was the best third baseman in the game overall. But only in maybe four of five of those individual years was he the best, and on his own team he may have had one year where he was the best. Very good player. Just not a HOFer. And I put little stock in any body that votes for Joe Tinker for the HOF.

Tom C

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Brooks Robinson was pretty much as good a hitter as Traynor (as you said...104 OPS+ for Robby versus 107 for Traynor) and he sustained that level for over 3,500 more plate appearances than did Traynor. Thus being that kind of hitter for six more full seasons than did Traynor. And if you want to discuss defense and try to compare the two as being in the same stratosphere it would be a losing argument on your part. Robinson was a slightly above average hitter for almost 12,000 plate appearances and the best defense player ever at his position. So yes. He belongs in the Hall, although in the lower tier.

Players who had a higher slugging percentage as a Pirate during Pie Traynors years there who were apparently not as adversely affected by the huge park as poor ol' Pie was:

Kiki Cuyler
Paul Waner
George Grantham
Max Carey (6 year period)
Glenn Wright (5 year period)
Gus Suhr

All of their career slugging numbers as a member of a Pirates team alongside Pie Traynor are higher than Traynor.

My list of better third basemen than Pie Traynor before he played:

Home Run Baker
Jimmy Collins
Heinie Groh
Larry Gardner (maybe a tie)

And players who came more towards the end of Traynor's career who were better:

Pinky Higgins
Stan Hack
Harlond Clift (not sure...Clift much better over much shorter time)

Pie Traynor was basically George Kell during a more offensive era and with better teammates.

I don't dislike Traynor. I agree that during the period 1922-1935 he was the best third baseman in the game overall. But only in maybe four of five of those individual years was he the best, and on his own team he may have had one year where he was the best. Very good player. Just not a HOFer. And I put little stock in any body that votes for Joe Tinker for the HOF.

Tom C

"He was a mechanically perfect third baseman." Branch Rickey

"The greatest team player I ever saw." John McGraw

"Watching Traynor play was like looking over daVinci's shoulder." Red Smith

"Most marvelous pair hands you'd ever want to see." Billy Herman

"Pie had the quickest hands, the quickest arm of any third baseman." Charlie Grimm

He wasn't better than Brooks, but he was the best of the prewar era. His peers considered him the best, better than any of the players on "your list." I value their opinions over those of people who never saw him play and just want to hate on him. In 1947 Baker received 49 votes for the HOF, Traynor 119. Baker better than Pie? Lol.

[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

[bbcard1]

I am not implying Traynor is an egregious selection for the hall...he's not at all. Best of all time, even in 1976? That's probably a stretch. He may not make the top ten now, certainly not the top 5 which is something no other player on that 1976 Topps All Time team would say (you can argue Cochrane, but he is one of a cluster of catchers, though Bench or Campy would be my pick). We have had a good run of quality third basemen in the last 40 or so years and are in the midst of quite probably the best crop of third sackers ever top to bottom (Bryant, Arenado, Donaldson, Machado, Beltre, Seager, Turner, Ramirez, Rendon, plus others like Longoria, Lamb, Bregman, Castellanos, Frazier etc.). Interesting times.

[rats60]

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.

[71buc]

1923

[midmo]

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

I am not implying Traynor is an egregious selection for the hall...he's not at all. Best of all time, even in 1976? That's probably a stretch. He may not make the top ten now, certainly not the top 5 which is something no other player on that 1976 Topps All Time team would say (you can argue Cochrane, but he is one of a cluster of catchers, though Bench or Campy would be my pick). We have had a good run of quality third basemen in the last 40 or so years and are in the midst of quite probably the best crop of third sackers ever top to bottom (Bryant, Arenado, Donaldson, Machado, Beltre, Seager, Turner, Ramirez, Rendon, plus others like Longoria, Lamb, Bregman, Castellanos, Frazier etc.). Interesting times.

It was Sporting News list. Even in 1999, they still had Traynor highly rated. #70 all time (Cochrane was #65) and the 4th best 3rd baseman behind Schmidt, Brett and Mathews with Brooks and Boggs below, but ranked.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

I recently sold a Pie Traynor side written game used bat. This is all the more rare because Traynor is infamous for never ordering bats of his own, instead he constantly "borrowed" bats from others. He bragged about never placing a bat order of his own over like the last 15 years of his career or something like that. So a sidewritten bat with his name is one of the only ones that can 100% be linked to him.

Also, and I say this as a lifetime Pittsburgh Pirates fan, Traynor is one of the least Hall Of Fame worthy players enshrined in Cooperstown.

Tom C

I agree that the best bat is the side-written bat. Nothing like it. I have also heard that Pie didn't order bats for himself, but that claim is belied by the shipping records. He ordered at least 14 shipments, up to his later playing years. So, I must disagree with the claim that side-written bats are the ONLY bats that you can associate with old Pie. If you have a Traynor bat that matches his orders, then you have a pretty cool bat. (I'm keeping mine).

Also, you are wrong about Traynor not deserving his place in the Hall. In the pre-war era, clubs considered third base to be a key defensive position. It wasn't far behind ss. Traynor was one of the few who were good enough to excel at third AND to hit in the top of the order. As has been said here, the people who knew baseball during Pie Traynor's era considered him to be a great fielder and a great hitter for his position. He was considered to be the best third baseman ever. That counts for something.

I had the pleasure of talking to him 3 or 4 times when I was a little kid. I sat in the same row with him at the last game at Forbes and at game 3 of th 71 WS. He was a very genial and dignified man. He was the kind of man who makes you proud to be a Pirates fan.

[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

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.

Players on your list:

Graig Nettles
Ken Boyer
Buddy Bell
Sal Bando
Darrell Evans
Ron Cey
Toby Harrah

Players on your list who were better 3B than Pie Traynor:

Graig Nettles (insanely better 3B than Traynor)
Ken Boyer (insanely better 3B than Pie Traynor)
Buddy Bell (insanely better 3B than Pie Traynor)
Sal Bando (insanely better 3B than Pie Traynor)
Darrell Evans
Ron Cey

Do they belong in the HOF? Not saying that. Just that they are all (minus Toby Harrah) better than Pie Traynor.

I would also add the following non-HOF 3B as easily better than Pie Traynor:

Scott Rolen
Robin Ventura
Stan Hack
Bob Elliot
Heinie Groh
Matt Williams

Others who a good argument could be made that they are better than Traynor:

Tommy Leach
Troy Glaus
Tim Wallach
Gary Gaetti
Ken Caminiti

So, by the time of Traynor's retirement, the following players were better or a good argument could be made that they were better, than Pie Traynor:

Frank Baker
Jimmy Collins
Heinie Groh
Tommy Leach

Your statement that Traynor is "better all around" than Baker and Jimmy Collins is laughably inaccurate. Collins was at least as good a hitter and far better defensively. Baker was a far better hitter and at least Traynor's equal defensively, if not slightly better.

Tom C

[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

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Players on your list:

Graig Nettles
Ken Boyer
Buddy Bell
Sal Bando
Darrell Evans
Ron Cey
Toby Harrah

Players on your list who were better 3B than Pie Traynor:

Graig Nettles (insanely better 3B than Traynor)
Ken Boyer (insanely better 3B than Pie Traynor)
Buddy Bell (insanely better 3B than Pie Traynor)
Sal Bando (insanely better 3B than Pie Traynor)
Darrell Evans
Ron Cey

Do they belong in the HOF? Not saying that. Just that they are all (minus Toby Harrah) better than Pie Traynor.

I would also add the following non-HOF 3B as easily better than Pie Traynor:

Scott Rolen
Robin Ventura
Stan Hack
Bob Elliot
Heinie Groh
Matt Williams

Others who a good argument could be made that they are better than Traynor:

Tommy Leach
Troy Glaus
Tim Wallach
Gary Gaetti
Ken Caminiti

So, by the time of Traynor's retirement, the following players were better or a good argument could be made that they were better, than Pie Traynor:

Frank Baker
Jimmy Collins
Heinie Groh
Tommy Leach

Your statement that Traynor is "better all around" than Baker and Jimmy Collins is laughably inaccurate. Collins was at least as good a hitter and far better defensively. Baker was a far better hitter and at least Traynor's equal defensively, if not slightly better.

Tom C

None of those players were better than Traynor. There is absolutely no evidence provided, although I would guess you would provide the extremely flawed OPS+. Neither Baker or Collins were in Traynor's class defensively. It is a shame that we have very incomplete data, as Traynor's greatness will be lost as more and more skeptics refuse to believe eyewitness testimony and put their faith in unscientific statistical analysis by those uneducated in the subject.

Hitting data is also incomplete, but from partial data, we know Pie was very good in clutch situations, but NO data on Baker or Collins. Pie also had a longer peak which resulted in higher counting stats as well as have a much higher BA, but you only consider that for Brooks to hate on Pie. It is truly sad that people now completely disregard the opinions of experts for opinions of the uneducated misusing statistics and analytical methods. Pie was the best 3rd baseman of the first 80-90 years of MLB and no one is close. Having a website on the internet and post contrasting opinions will never change that fact.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rats60

None of those players were better than Traynor. There is absolutely no evidence provided, although I would guess you would provide the extremely flawed OPS+. Neither Baker or Collins were in Traynor's class defensively. It is a shame that we have very incomplete data, as Traynor's greatness will be lost as more and more skeptics refuse to believe eyewitness testimony and put their faith in unscientific statistical analysis by those uneducated in the subject.

Hitting data is also incomplete, but from partial data, we know Pie was very good in clutch situations, but NO data on Baker or Collins. Pie also had a longer peak which resulted in higher counting stats as well as have a much higher BA, but you only consider that for Brooks to hate on Pie. It is truly sad that people now completely disregard the opinions of experts for opinions of the uneducated misusing statistics and analytical methods. Pie was the best 3rd baseman of the first 80-90 years of MLB and no one is close. Having a website on the internet and post contrasting opinions will never change that fact.

Some light reading for the obviously misinformed:


http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/...on/pie_traynor

http://www.hallofstats.com/player/traynpi01

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/exam...me-selections/

https://books.google.com/books?id=Xy...20fame&f=false

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/20...-third-basemen

[btcarfagno]

Dick Bartell on Pie Traynor:

“He had some deficiencies that you weren’t aware of unless you played next to him. When making a throw to second base he would lob the ball like a shot put instead of throwing it.”

Tom C

[btcarfagno]

Additional reading for the misinformed. I particularly like the following:

"That leaves three players in the conversation with Traynor. They were Home Run Baker, Heinie Groh, and Larry Gardner. I prefer Gardner, though reasonable people could disagree with me. I also prefer Groh, and it would take a less reasonable person or less thoughtful analysis to select Traynor over Groh. And Baker? There’s no way a reasonable person could find Traynor and Baker even comparable. Baker was far and away better. To help you make up your mind, I created the below chart of guys ranked by my eqWAR at the same level at their positions as Baker and Traynor at 3B.

3B Home Run Baker Pie Traynor
C Gabby Hartnett Rick Ferrell
1B Pete Rose Harry Stovey
2B Bobby Grich Del Pratt
SS Luke Appling Dick Bartell
LF Goose Goslin Mike Smith
CF Richie Ashburn George Van Haltren
RF Reggie Jackson Brian Giles

To understand and agree with my point, you need not agree that the players above are ranked where I have them. Hell, I don’t know if I agree with my rankings. You only need to believe the player on the left is better than the player on the right."

https://homemlb.wordpress.com/2013/1...d-pie-traynor/

Tom C

[triwak]

Interesting discussion. Gives me chance to post my card (my only Traynor).

[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.

[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

[mpemulis]

Here's one of mine...

[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