Pie Traynor is to.....

[sweaver]

When I was a lad, Pie Traynor was regarded as the greatest third baseman ever, largely due to his .320 lifetime average. With modern analysis, we have discounted Traynor a bit, since he hit for little power in a hitters' era.

Who would you rank Traynor with as roughly equal in value? I have tried to list them in order of quality, though you may disagree.

[JamesI]

I think he's a hall of famer, but not in the Brett/Schmidt/Mathews class. So I voted Collins.

[LeGrandOrange]

Kind of a tough pick. I consider Pie Traynor a HOF'er based on my standards...but I could vote two ways. Since I don't rate Jimmy Collins as highly as most do, I could compare him to Jimmy...but when I rated 3B, the guy that Traynor was next to was Bando, who's seriously underrated as a player.

And, considering I consider Bando better than Heinie Groh, I could've voted for him too.

I chose to vote for Bando...but thinks he deserves a plaque anyway. Go figure.

[nyy26wc]

With just 75 career RCAA and a career OPS just 35 points above the league average, he's closest to Buddy Bell (76 RCAA, OPS +.030) than anyone on the list.

He's inferior to everyone on the list, except for Fryman, who he was superior to. The gap between the others and Traynor is greater than the gap between Traynor and Fryman, so I'll go with Fryman.

[pwdennis]

I regard him as being of equivalent to Bob Elliott, maybe a hair better

[KCBOOMER]

If you look at 3B's from 1876 to 1950 Traynor ranks 18th in RCAA, over 40th in OWP, and 35th in OPS versus the league. I am in agreement with Lee that Traynor based on today's analysis of the numbers shouldn't be in the HoF. He does rank third in career hit as a 3B.

[LeGrandOrange]

Originally Posted by nyy26wc

With just 75 career RCAA and a career OPS just 35 points above the league average, he's closest to Buddy Bell (76 RCAA, OPS +.030) than anyone on the list.

He's inferior to everyone on the list, except for Fryman, who he was superior to. The gap between the others and Traynor is greater than the gap between Traynor and Fryman, so I'll go with Fryman.

*very angry sigh*
I am going to try and keep this as restrained as I possibly can...
Lee, your reasoning is very flawed. Third basemen in the 1920's and 1930's were not expected to hit as they do now. They were quite a ways below league average. In all of your announcements where you put dampers on positive historical threads, you have never accounted for this. It annoys me so very much because you have done this way too often.

For example, your comparison of Traynor in Bell fails to take any context into account. Bell was just an average hitter at the position for his era in comparison. Huge difference in timeframes. That never seems to register with you.

I'm kind of impressed, however, that your logic was even more convuluted and non-sensical than mine.

[SmedIndy]

LGO - The fact is Traynor's not as good as people thought - I don't care how others hit during his era - he just wasn't as productive. No one though Harlond Clift was that good - but he was better than Traynor. Stan Hack was better - it could be argued that Fred Lindstrom - an egregious HOF selection - was better.

Traynor doesn't get much love here...

I don't think he's the strongest candidate - mainly because of low walk rates compared to guys like Lindstrom, Hack and such (Lindstrom didn't play long enough IMO, and for that matter I don't think Jimmy Collins belongs, Deadball or not, he didn't do enough 1901-on, maybe not his fault as it was the end of his career...but still). Still he has a good BA, good lot of RBI's and a good peak of 1923-1930. By today's thinking this is pretty passe, but HOF has yet to become the Hall of Best Players.....

Traynor was a good player, he batted for a good average, drove in a lot of runs (he drives in people at about the same rate as Mathews, who was the first guy to pass him in post-dead ball era RBI for 3Ber and had 7 100 RBI seasons in 13 full seasons vs. 5 for Mathews in 16 - and batted 50 points higher). So I understand why he was put in, not that I agree.

Why he's in and Santo not is another question.

[manny tortolero]

Probably Traynor is one of those players extreme perjudice by sabermetric measures. He played his whole carrer for Pirates, between 1920 and 1937, in old Forbes Field which was very unfriendly park for RHB power hitters.
Let's check the measures of this park in those days:

LF-----LF-CF------CF------CF-RF--------RF
360......462.........410......... 410...........376 ( down to 300 feet in 1925)

The highest number of hrs by Traynor in a single season was 12. In fact during his carrer he had 371 2b, 164 3b and 58 hrs which were in line with the team's total in that time lapse ( 4519 2b, 1738 3b and 925 hrs).
Traynor's OPS+ (107) fails in slugging vs lg (435 vs 416), but any sabermetric measure can calculate how manny flyouts, 2B or 3B hit in 15 years of homefield games in old Forbes by Traynor will be meaning a Hr in other park, as Arlington Stadium, for example?

BTW, let's see the measures of Arlington Stadium where Buddy Bell played his prime years carrer years, from 1979 to 1984, for Texas Rangers:

LF-----LF-CF------CF------CF-RF--------RF
330......380.........400.........380...........330

The higher Hrs numbers of Bell in that time lapse was 18Hrs in 1979 and he never passed .500 slugging in his carrer.

Bell played in a pitcher friendly era, granted, but Traynor played his whole carrer with the huge handicap of his homefield large power alleys killing his power numbers . I suspect that under Traynor's numbers there is a better power hitter than he finally was regarding others 3B.

[nyy26wc]

Traynor played in a good hitter's park. The Pirates had a park factor that showed it favored offense in 8 of his 13 years as a starter.

To conclude that it's a pitcher's park, based on dimensions and not a comparision of what the actual runs/game rate was in the park vs. road games, is as erroneous as it would be to conclude that Coors Field must not be good hitter's park, since the dimensions aren't necessarily pro-hitter.

[manny tortolero]

Originally Posted by nyy26wc

Traynor played in a good hitter's park. The Pirates had a park factor that showed it favored offense in 8 of his 13 years as a starter.

To conclude that it's a pitcher's park, based on dimensions and not a comparision of what the actual runs/game rate was in the park vs. road games, is as erroneous as it would be to conclude that Coors Field must not be good hitter's park, since the dimensions aren't necessarily pro-hitter.

Where I said that Forbes was a pitchers park? If your read my coment what I said is that definitive this park killed the power numbers for RHB , the main lack in OPS+ of Traynor.
Between 1920 and 1937 the highest figure of Hrs by a Pittsburgh RHB in all those years were 18 by KiKi Cuyler and Glen Wright in 1925 (that year Hornsby was leader with 39 hrs).
Large outfields helps hitters to increase numbers in slapping hits, doubles or triples but kills Hrs totals due long flyes are automatic outs, which reduce the slugging . Traynor was nothing near to Mike Schmidt as power hitter but definitive his hrs figures were reduced by the dimension of his homefield park.

[sweaver]

I thought this one might bring in a wide difference of opinion.

I chose Bando, although I think Traynor is actually between Bando and Fryman, and no HOFer. He was a fairly prolific singles hitter in a hitters' era in a pretty good park for average, and a good but not spectacular defensive player.

[Throwback]

Traynor is the best ever. Refer to the NDF Draft contest thread for my arguments.

[LeGrandOrange]

Originally Posted by SmedIndy

LGO - The fact is Traynor's not as good as people thought - I don't care how others hit during his era - he just wasn't as productive. No one though Harlond Clift was that good - but he was better than Traynor. Stan Hack was better - it could be argued that Fred Lindstrom - an egregious HOF selection - was better.

Point acknowledged and accepted. Traynor only JUST got into my hall, and Harlond Clift wasn't particularly far behind him if I remember right. Clift is virtually identical to Traynor as a hitter, and I'd presume Traynor was a bit better at the hot corner.

All I'm saying is that he was a better than some modern people tend to give him credit for. He's not as good as the old-time people made us believe by a long shot, but he was still a very fine 3B. (Somewhere in here, I should be making some of a definitive point.)

BTW, about using Lindstrom as a comparison...Lindstrom is a very comparable comparison to the one Lee made for Bell. The reasoning is different though, he's hampered by playing the OF in his later years. If he stays at 3B, he looks an awful lot like Traynor, but in the proper context, he doesn't look particularly good.

Maybe I should stop looking at RCAP.

Oh, and Elmo...I thought I was the only person who felt that Collins wasn't a HOF'er. Small world...