Requested new cards Part 1, 1894

Requested new cards Part 1, 1894

Postby The Last Druid » Fri May 27, 2011 7:21 pm

I want to continue to increase the viability of small ball teams and many of these requested cards may already be on George Barnard’s excellent list. I’m not checking though, these are just some of my current preferences. Many of the pre-dead ball era guys in ATG are HOF’ers but are represented by only average seasons for them. Sometimes not even average. Let’s fix that with a bang!

1894 was the 1930 of the era, let’s mine some of these cards!

1. Hugh Duffy 51 16 18 145 .440 .502 .694 Small ball equivalent of Hack 1930.
2. Sam Thompson 32 28 13 .415 .465 .696
3. Ed Delahanty .404 .475 .584 Hit .404 in ’95 and .410 in ’99
4. Billy Hamilton .403 .521 .523
5. Joe Kelley .393 .502 .602
6. Cap Anson .388 .457 .539 24th year of his 27 years
7. Lave Cross .387 .424 .528 3b, c, ss, 2b
8. Ed McKean .357 .412 .509 ss Consistent guy on leaderboards, #179 lifetime BA
9. Jake Stenzel .352 .440 .577 Career .338 hitter
10. Bobby Lowe .346 .401 .520 2b
The Last Druid
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm

Postby PillPop » Sat May 28, 2011 9:24 am

Wow! Drool-worthy numbers. Make it happen!
PillPop
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm

1894 vs. 1930

Postby gfg001 » Wed Jun 01, 2011 2:25 pm

Your comparison of Duffy to Hack is interesting. The whole 1894 league is a lot like a small ball version of 1930.Normally great pitchers often had era's 4-5.. and whips 1.5, Some teams were phenominal...the Phillies had 3 .400 batters! But didn't win because of pitching... every body was hitting.
gfg001
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm

Postby The Last Druid » Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:25 pm

I think those were the two most offensive outlier seasons in baseball history.

Originally I never wanted the 1930 Hack in ATG. Nor the '61 Cash. But they do make things more interesting. So if we have 1930 stars like Hack and Chuck Klein, let's roll out the small ball anomalies as well.

Makes you wonder if they all started drinking Coca-Cola for that one year. You know, the original cocaine based cola, the 1886 start up of the year. After all it was even touted as medicinal...:lol:
The Last Druid
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm

Postby nevdully's » Wed Jun 01, 2011 11:32 pm

I think we would hit .370 if we could tell the pitchers what to throw and where to throw it....oh and how hard to "toss" it lol
nevdully's
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm

Postby Valen » Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:36 am

Definitely in favor of more Billy Hamilton. Man had 914 career SBs and stood alone for decades before Wills, Brock and Henderson came along to challenge. He stole 100 bases 4 times and just missed a 5th time with 97.

What do we have? 1896 which was his 6th best season at only 83 SBs. Imagine if we only had Babe ruth's 6th best HR season.

Adding insult to injury with that 17-12 steal rating and all the great throwing catchers we have the 1896 card is almost useless as a SB threat. I have said many time it is not that small ball cannot compete with HR ball, it is that we do not have the cream of the crop for potential small ballers like we do the big sluggers.

His throwing arm rating is probably dismal in all seasons. But with his speed hard to believe some of those other cards might not have better range.
Last edited by Valen on Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Valen
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm

Postby FRANKMANSUETO » Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:02 am

Bruce, love that list and they would make an excellent addition to ATG. :D But I also want to see Irish Meusel. :D
FRANKMANSUETO
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm

Postby Valen » Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:17 pm

Additional note on Hamilton. In 1896 those 83 steals were good for 3rd. Wouldn't mind having whomever the 2 were who finished ahead of him.
Valen
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm

Postby Valen » Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:02 pm

There is more to small ball than stealing bases. But would still like to have the option of loading up on base stealers. Consider the following seasons we do not have yet.

1897 John Ward 111 SB
1974 Lou Brock 118 SB
1891 Billy Hamilton 111 SB
1887 Jim Fogarty 102 SB
1890 Billy Hamilton 102 SB
1980 Ricky Henderson 100 SB
1889 HJim Fogarty 99 SB
1894 Billy Hamilton 98
1895 Billy Hamilton 97 SB
1915 Ty Cobb 96 SB
1988 Ricky Henderson 93 SB
1912 Clyde Milan 88 SB
1892 John Ward 88 SB
1986 Rickey Henderson 87 SB
1896 Joe Kelley 87 SB
1891 Artie Latham 87 SB
1890 Hub Collins 85 SB
1887 King Kelly 84 SB
1896 Bill Lange 84 SB
1890 Billy Sunday 84 SB
1989 Willie Wilson 83 SB
1888 Dummy Hoy 82 SB
1910 Eddie Collins 81 SB
1911 Bob Bescher 80 SB
1888 Emmett Seery 80 SB
1980 Dave Collins 79 SB
1892 Tom Brown 78 SB
1894 John McGraw 78 SB
2007 Jose Reyes 78 SB
1989 Rickey Henderson 77 SB
1983 Rudy Law 77 SB
1899 Jimmy Sheckard 77 SB
1991 Marquis Grissom 76 SB
1896 Dusty Miller 76 SB
1890 Walt Walmot 76 SB
1913 Clyde Milan 75 SB
1984 Tim Raines 75 SB
1966 Lou Brock 74 SB
1997 Brian Hunter 74 SB
1894 Walt Wilmot 74 SB

The above list was selected from the top 100 SB single seasons and only including the NL and AL seasons. AA, etc was ignored. That is 33 of the seasons. So the chart in the url below only has top 67 from AL and NL. Yet we are lacking 40 of those seasons. And about a dozen of those above we have no card for at all for any season.

[url]http://www.baseball-almanac.com/hitting/hisb2.shtml[/url]

Now anyone care to count the number of top HR seasons are missing from the top 67 HR hitters?

[url]http://www.baseball-almanac.com/hitting/hihr4.shtml[/url]

Perhaps just as telling how far down that list you have to go before finding someone who is not represented in our set at all? Luis Gonzalez at #14. Is it any wonder so many feel they have to use a bomber park to get enough top players to fill their team?

I personally have a huge preference for speed and small ball but rarely go that route because there are so few good fits it is impossible to fill a team. I can set a team in Wrigley and even at 200 mil have numerous options left over on FA list after the auto draft.
Valen
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm

Postby doug_tucker10 » Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:57 pm

I'm in favor of adding more small ball types to the ATG pool but don't put so much emphasis on SB's, better to measure with the OBP perhaps?

I was curious and checked out Hugh Nicols 1887 season..strange stats but maybe commonplace for the era.

BA .215 OBP 335 SLG.267 with those 138 steals...note slugging pct, .267! :shock:

thats a muddy .602 ops and if i remember correctly his fielding isn't so great (bad fielders were most of even the best players back in the 1880's)

I checked 3 different sources and see varying numbers on his actual obp for 1887. Prior to 1898 a player was credited with a "stolen base" when he advanced an extra base on another players base hit. I don't know if there is a record of how many of Nicols steals were of this variety.
doug_tucker10
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm

Next

Return to Strat-O-Matic Baseball: All-Time Greats

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests

cron