M101-4 George Sisler eBay Auction Results

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Ruth Speaker Wagner Gehrig Cobb Hornsby and many others do JUST FINE under sabermetrics. Sisler is the only one I can think of he rates notably lower than some of the traditional rankings, maybe Heilmann too.

So what?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

So what?

You commented the modern metrics were not well suited to judging players from the early years or that is how I understood you. My point is that the players from that era we always list as all time greats do quite well by those metrics, which to me seems contrary to your proposition.

Specifically you said
the stats and numbers people like James use are borne and derived from the more modern game, and IMO do not properly or fully take in the context and changes that have occurred over the years.

Put another way, if the metrics fairly rate all those players consistent with our expectations, they probably are rating Sisler fairly too. IMO.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You commented the modern metrics were not well suited to judging players from the early years or that is how I understood you. My point is that the players from that era we always list as all time greats do quite well by those metrics, which to me seems contrary to your proposition.

Specifically you said
the stats and numbers people like James use are borne and derived from the more modern game, and IMO do not properly or fully take in the context and changes that have occurred over the years.

So, because some players do measure well using modern statistics, they all should? Cause that is exactly what you're implying by the statement you are making. I find stats interesting, but don't put the time and energy a lot of people do into them because they are at best, an imperfect way to measure, compare and predict performance. Aren't a lot of these advanced measures based on how well players perform against and in relation to their contemporary peers? We've gone over this BS before about how trying to compare players of today and long ago doesn't work because of all the context and other differences.

I am not going down this back and forth road. If you think James and his numbers are right, good for you. If not, good for you. Believe what you like, and I'll do the same. i just find it somewhat reprehensible when people keep putting down old players because of modern stats, and yet they've never even seen them actually play. I would tend to think the people putting Sisler in the HOF knew a lot more about him as a man and a player than Bill James ever will. So let him spew whatever crap he wants. And if you want to stick up for him, so be it. You win, Sisler is a crap player and doesn't deserve to be in the HOF. Feel better!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

So, because some players do measure well using modern statistics, they all should? Cause that is exactly what you're implying by the statement you are making. I find stats interesting, but don't put the time and energy a lot of people do into them because they are at best, an imperfect way to measure, compare and predict performance. Aren't a lot of these advanced measures based on how well players perform against and in relation to their contemporary peers? We've gone over this BS before about how trying to compare players of today and long ago doesn't work because of all the context and other differences.

I am not going down this back and forth road. If you think James and his numbers are right, good for you. If not, good for you. Believe what you like, and I'll do the same. i just find it somewhat reprehensible when people keep putting down old players because of modern stats, and yet they've never even seen them actually play. I would tend to think the people putting Sisler in the HOF knew a lot more about him as a man and a player than Bill James ever will. So let him spew whatever crap he wants. And if you want to stick up for him, so be it. You win, Sisler is a crap player and doesn't deserve to be in the HOF. Feel better!

Nice straw man Bob. Who said Sisler doesn't belong in the HOF? Not Bill James and certainly not me. I think he's more a mid-tier HOFer than the elite upper tier HOFer some perceive him to be. I suspect James said the same thing. Shades of gray, Bob, not black or white. You can be overrated but still belong in the Hall.

Statistics have always been used to measure and predict performance in baseball. How many people in any era saw enough games of ALL teams to make accurate comparisons just based on what they witnessed in person? I mean even if I watched every single Red Sox game over a decade, could I fairly compare Clemens to Greg Maddux, or even Randy Johnson? Most people see a relatively small sample of games. You need the stats. You can argue about which stats.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Nice straw man Bob. Who said Sisler doesn't belong in the HOF? Not Bill James and certainly not me. I think he's more a mid-tier HOFer than the elite upper tier HOFer some perceive him to be. I suspect James said the same thing. Shades of gray, Bob, not black or white. You can be overrated but still belong in the Hall.

That is yours and James' opinion based on modern sabermetrics. You can't be proven right, or wrong, so say what you want. My comments were more directed to the fact that some people rely almost exclusively on these sabermetrics as their reasons for thinking of certain players as they do, and yet, having never actually seen them play, they have no idea how the person actually played and how well they performed, aside from those numbers on the page.

I feel these modern statistics include some modern bias as they are geared more for how the game is played today, not back in the dead ball or other early eras. But if you don't feel that way, good for you. You are very adept at playing both sides of an argument till an advantage presents itself, and you can take it. I think that at the time Sisler was elected to the HOF he was definitely not considered a lowly, mid-tier HOFer. But using changes to the game and solely modern statistics, you and James are now downplaying such a legendary player in light of what is happening in today's game and how it is played differently now.

That kind of talk and dissing of some old player's career starts to sound akin to someone else saying things like how Hyun-jin Ryu is a so much greater pitcher than Warren Spahn ever was. Talk and comments like that are disrespectful to the player, and those that actually saw him play and originally elected him to the HOF.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

That is yours and James' opinion based on modern sabermetrics. You can't be proven right, or wrong, so say what you want. My comments were more directed to the fact that some people rely almost exclusively on these sabermetrics as their reasons for thinking of certain players as they do, and yet, having never actually seen them play, they have no idea how the person actually played and how well they performed, aside from those numbers on the page.

I feel these modern statistics include some modern bias as they are geared more for how the game is played today, not back in the dead ball or other early eras. But if you don't feel that way, good for you. You are very adept at playing both sides of an argument till an advantage presents itself, and you can take it. I think that at the time Sisler was elected to the HOF he was definitely not considered a lowly, mid-tier HOFer. But using changes to the game and solely modern statistics, you and James are now downplaying such a legendary player in light of what is happening in today's game and how it is played differently now.

That kind of talk and dissing of some old player's career starts to sound akin to someone else saying things like how Hyun-jin Ryu is a so much greater pitcher than Warren Spahn ever was. Talk and comments like that are disrespectful to the player, and those that actually saw him play and originally elected him to the HOF.

If you look at the lists generated by metrics like JAWS, most would say there is an ANTI modern bias since they are dominated by the usual suspects. Take RF, Ruth, Aaron, Musial, Ott, Frank Robinson, for example. Let's try 2B. Hornsby, Collins, Lajoie, Morgan, Gehringer. 1B Gehrig, Pujols, Foxx, Anson, Roger Connor. That's two 19TH CENTURY players. Really don't follow your point here.

[oldjudge]

With the exception of Ruth, Cobb, Thorpe and Jackson M101-4/5s are horribly underpriced. I also agree with Brian that his M101-5 is the more desirable card.