1887: Sam Thompson v. Dan Brouthers

Wolf Hopper · 11-14-2003, 05:32 AM

Who had a better season in 1887 and why?

Jim Rice · 11-14-2003, 09:27 AM

Thompson. Close but convincing in my view.

They were of essentially equal offensive value - 169 OPS+ for Brouthers, 168 for Thompson - but Thompson played a more valuable defensive position, RF, and he played it better than Brouthers played first base. He also played an extra four games that Brouthers didn't, and when the offensive performances are this close, those four games matter. What matters more is that, in the "World Series" of that year against the St. Louis Browns, which Thompson & Brouthers' Detroit team won 10 games to 5, Brouthers only played one game. Thompson played all fifteen, and did so quite brilliantly.

The gap is much larger looking at the WARP numbers. All three - WARP1, WARP2, and WARP3 - favor Thompson by a wide margin. (Thompson - 11.9/9.0/10.7; Brouthers - 6.2/4.7/5.5) I don't think the gap is that wide, but I still think Thompson was convincingly better.

Wolf Hopper · 11-14-2003, 09:45 AM

Brouthers has a big lead in Total Average and a lead in OWP and RC/G, FWIW.

SmedIndy · 11-14-2003, 10:30 AM

I think Thompson was better because of the position he played - but it's close.

Wolf Hopper · 11-14-2003, 10:53 AM

Jim Rice - Smed - -
what is the question was just as a "batter" - and not including fielding? Who would you pick?

Jim Rice · 11-14-2003, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolf Hopper

Jim Rice - Smed - -
what is the question was just as a "batter" - and not including fielding? Who would you pick?

Brouthers by a hair.

sweaver · 11-14-2003, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Rice

but Thompson played a more valuable defensive position, RF,

This is debatable for the year 1887. RF was still where you stuck a guy that couldn't play defense, like in Little League. Fewer LH hitters, fewer actually caught fly balls. At the time, I would say 1B might be the more important defensive spot.

Wolf Hopper · 11-14-2003, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweaver

This is debatable for the year 1887. RF was still where you stuck a guy that couldn't play defense, like in Little League. Fewer LH hitters, fewer actually caught fly balls. At the time, I would say 1B might be the more important defensive spot.

Good point.

SmedIndy · 11-14-2003, 11:48 AM

I think RF made more plays, even then, than 1B. Bunting wasn't in vogue.

For batting alone, Brouthers.

Wolf Hopper · 11-14-2003, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmedIndy

I think RF made more plays, even then, than 1B. Bunting wasn't in vogue.

Brouthers had 1,214 TC at 1B in 1887. Think Thompson had that many in RF?

SmedIndy · 11-14-2003, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolf Hopper

Brouthers had 1,214 TC at 1B in 1887. Think Thompson had that many in RF?

You could make that same argument now, Wolfie.

Wolf Hopper · 11-14-2003, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmedIndy

You could make that same argument now, Wolfie.

I would - 1B is more demanding than RF.

Jim Rice · 11-14-2003, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolf Hopper

I would - 1B is more demanding than RF.

Sorry, but I don't think being on the receiving end of a thousand generally straight throws is as demanding as tracking down 300 fly balls of varying varieties.

Wolf Hopper · 11-14-2003, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Rice

Sorry, but I don't think being on the receiving end of a thousand generally straight throws is as demanding as tracking down 300 fly balls of varying varieties.

Bill James' defensive spectrum would agree.
But, I think it's easier to hide a guy in RF than it is to hide him at 1B, no?

Jim Rice · 11-14-2003, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolf Hopper

Bill James' defensive spectrum would agree.
But, I think it's easier to hide a guy in RF than it is to hide him at 1B, no?

No, I wouldn't agree. I think LF has long since passed RF as being the spot to hid a bad defensive outfielder. And I think neither of them is as visible as a bad defensive first baseman. An outfielder can go a whole game without getting the ball hit to them - a first baseman is guaranteed of being involved in a few plays each game, and even with their reduced variety and difficulty, there's such a differential in opportunities to look bad that I think they're harder to hide.

11-14-2003, 05:32 AM	#1
Wolf Hopper NetShrine Creator & Curator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: NetShrine WHQ Posts: 6,191	1887: Sam Thompson v. Dan Brouthers Who had a better season in 1887 and why? __________________ Steve, Forum Administrator POSTING TIP FOR THE DAY: When composing a post, think about what you would say if the intended recipient was an individual who was actually sitting just two feet in front of you, in person, rather than just some far away and anonymous audience who only can identify you as text on a PC screen - - and then write your post in that manner. It makes for remarkable and sincere discourse.

11-14-2003, 09:45 AM	#3
Wolf Hopper NetShrine Creator & Curator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: NetShrine WHQ Posts: 6,191	Brouthers has a big lead in Total Average and a lead in OWP and RC/G, FWIW. __________________ Steve, Forum Administrator POSTING TIP FOR THE DAY: When composing a post, think about what you would say if the intended recipient was an individual who was actually sitting just two feet in front of you, in person, rather than just some far away and anonymous audience who only can identify you as text on a PC screen - - and then write your post in that manner. It makes for remarkable and sincere discourse.

11-14-2003, 10:53 AM	#5
Wolf Hopper NetShrine Creator & Curator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: NetShrine WHQ Posts: 6,191	Jim Rice - Smed - - what is the question was just as a "batter" - and not including fielding? Who would you pick? __________________ Steve, Forum Administrator POSTING TIP FOR THE DAY: When composing a post, think about what you would say if the intended recipient was an individual who was actually sitting just two feet in front of you, in person, rather than just some far away and anonymous audience who only can identify you as text on a PC screen - - and then write your post in that manner. It makes for remarkable and sincere discourse.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
NDF 2003-04 Winter Fun - 1887 Award Winners	Wolf Hopper	NDF 2003-04 Winter Fun - Season Award Winners	4	11-16-2003 10:59 PM

11-14-2003, 09:27 AM	#2
Jim Rice Inducted Into The NetShrine Assembly of Fame Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Shawnee, KS Posts: 783	Thompson. Close but convincing in my view. They were of essentially equal offensive value - 169 OPS+ for Brouthers, 168 for Thompson - but Thompson played a more valuable defensive position, RF, and he played it better than Brouthers played first base. He also played an extra four games that Brouthers didn't, and when the offensive performances are this close, those four games matter. What matters more is that, in the "World Series" of that year against the St. Louis Browns, which Thompson & Brouthers' Detroit team won 10 games to 5, Brouthers only played one game. Thompson played all fifteen, and did so quite brilliantly. The gap is much larger looking at the WARP numbers. All three - WARP1, WARP2, and WARP3 - favor Thompson by a wide margin. (Thompson - 11.9/9.0/10.7; Brouthers - 6.2/4.7/5.5) I don't think the gap is that wide, but I still think Thompson was convincingly better.

11-14-2003, 10:30 AM	#4
SmedIndy NetShrine's Historian Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Zionsville, IN Posts: 10,569	I think Thompson was better because of the position he played - but it's close.

11-14-2003, 11:48 AM	#9
SmedIndy NetShrine's Historian Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Zionsville, IN Posts: 10,569	I think RF made more plays, even then, than 1B. Bunting wasn't in vogue. For batting alone, Brouthers.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)