This is an idea I got while writing the Vern Stephens post; look at the greatest players at each position on teams (not necessarily franchises, of course) that no longer exist. Why not (aside from the fact that I'm completely certain it's been done before)? Might as well start with Stephens' own squad.

The Milwaukee Brewers jumped ship after one season in the new American League, moving to St. Louis and taking the National League team's old nickname, the Browns. From 1902 to 1953, the Browns toiled away as the Cardinals' boring little brother. They won a single pennant, and that in the depeted wartime AL of 1944 -- losing the Series to the Cardinals, naturally -- and of the eight teams in the league, finished fifth or worse in 40 of the 52 seasons of their existence.

So, this isn't much of a half-century team. But it's interesting, anyway. Here are my picks, with slash stats, OPS+, and Wins Above Replacement totals from Rally's database (all from time with the Browns only):

The Infield
C: Hank Severeid (.290/.342/.369, 92, 12.3)
1B: George Sisler (.334/.381/.481, 131, 50.1)
2B: Del Pratt (.282/.332/.396, 120, 19.5)
3B: Harlond Clift (.274/.394/.433, 118, 33.4)
SS: Vern Stephens (.293/.357/.451, 125, 22)
(click here to read more)

Rick Ferrell is in the Hall of Fame for some reason, and Wally Schang probably should be, but Severeid played almost as many games with the team as the two of them combined, and he played relatively well.

Sisler manages to be overrated nearly 80 years after his retirement -- hitting .420 and having your 84 year old hits record broken by Ichiro will do that -- but he's very easily the best player in Browns history, pacing the field in plate appearances, hits, doubles, triples, runs, RBI, and steals.

Pratt was a fine hitter for the Browns in his 20s, and then became a nice little player for the Yanks, Red Sox, and Tigers in his 30s, though his offensive game didn't translate as well to the 1920s. He topped out at 6 homers, but twice topped 100 RBI, including leading the league with 103 for the Browns in 1916. He led the league in games played four straight times from 1913-1916, and again for the Yankees in 1920.

Clift is one of the great unappreciated players of history, recognized as such in a really interesting essay in Bill James' New Historical Baseball Abstract. He was a solid third baseman with good power back before third basemen were supposed to have power, and hit .299/.418/.550 (141 OPS+) with 63 homers in 1937 and 1938 while the Browns were losing 205 games. He crashed and burned at age 30, and somewhat fittingly left the club in 1943, fading away with the Senators while the Browns reached their one and only World Series the following year.

Gotta be honest: I'm cheating a little bit to put Stephens here. Wallace, a Hall of Famer, played many, many more games with the Browns than Stephens, and put up 36 Wins Above Replacement. But Wallace's Browns OPS+ is just 103; he had some good years with the stick, and some terrible ones. His WAR comes mostly from his defensive value, and if people think our defensive numbers are suspect now, how confident can we be about the ones from over a hundred years ago? Plus (perhaps most importantly), Wallace's time with the Browns came in the first decade of the 20th Century, when the American League was new and not really all that much of a Major League. So I'm kind of randomly making the judgments that (a) the 'aughts AL was even weaker than the wartime AL; (b) the gap between Stephens' and Wallace's defense probably wasn't as great as it looks; and (c) Stephens' superior offense beats Wallace's defense and longevity. I'm totally willing to believe that I'm completely wrong about each of those things. Wallace just didn't feel right.

The Outfield
Ken Williams (.326/.403/.558, 144, 35.7)
Baby Doll Jacobson (.317/.364/.459, 115, 22.9)
Wally Judnich (.283/.367/.462, 122, 12.4)

The first two are guys with really pretty, 1920s-boosted numbers, but they were both still very good players. Ken Williams probably has a better claim to the Hall than a lot of his contemporaries who did get in thanks to Frankie Frisch's Veterans Committee shenanigans, but being a Brown for almost his entire career hurt him there. Jacobson was nothing special, but he led all Brown outfielders by quite a bit in plate appearances, was a good hitter, and seems to have been a decent enough center fielder. Those two are easy.

The third is really, really tricky. A lot of very-good-to-great outfielders played for the Browns, and played well, but didn't play for them for long: Goose Goslin, Vic Wertz, Jeff Heath, Tilly Walker, Bob Cullenbine, Bob Nieman and others were all star-quality players, but mostly for other teams. Burt Shotton seems to be the #3 in career WAR, but Judnich has to be the sentimental pick and, had only Adolf Hitler never been born, would probably be the clear #3, and maybe a whole hell of a lot more than that. In 1942, Judnich was 25, coming off two very nice full years with the Browns, and exploded, hitting .313/.413/.499 (155 OPS+) and seventeen home runs, racking up 5 wins above replacement in 132 games. Judnich spent the next three years in the Air Force. He was 29 when he came back, wasn't even close to the same player, and was out of baseball after ten games with the Pirates at age 32. So Judnich is my pick for the last spot on this roster, less for what was than for what might (almost certainly would) have been.

Comments (7)

...
written by Ron R, October 28, 2009

Severied  -  good choiceSisler  -  how is he overrated? that one always irritates me. Consdier the           time in which he playedPratt  -  good choiceStephens  -  toss up with Wallace and either one would be goodClift   -  great choiceWilliams  -  no brainerJacobsen  -  no brainerJudnich  -  over Stone. No way. I don't see that one at all. And for pitcher  -  Urban SchockerCouple of disagreements, but good post nonetheless.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Bill@TDS, October 28, 2009

Thanks for the feedback, Ron. That anyone but me is interested in this -- particularly the day of Game 1 -- is a pleasant surprise.

Sisler is overrated exactly because of the time in which he played. His .340 batting average is great and all, but the league's batting average was .288. And he had gap power, but almost no home run power and didn't draw walks (he leads the Browns in PA by a huge margin but is something like ninth in walks and sixth in HR). Among 1Bs with at least 5000 plate appearances, his 124 OPS+ would put him 38th all time, just ahead of John Mayberry (and his 131 OPS+ just with the Browns would be 27th, between Mo Vaughn and Hal Trosky). I do think he's a legit Hall of Famer, and as I said he's clearly the all-time greatest Brown, but his batting-average-based heroics give him this reputation (among many casual fans, at least) of being up there with Horsnby, Wagner, etc., and he's just not even close to that level.

I didn't even seriously consider Stone. He played only five full seasons, and put up some impressive offensive numbers, but (a) played in the 'aughts, when, as I said, I consider the American League to have been essentially a minor league, so dinging Wallace and not Stone for that would be inconsistent; and (b) was a left fielder, not a center fielder. Personally, I have no doubt that without WWII, Judnich would have been the best non-Browns OF outside of Ken Williams. I'd also consider all the guys I named up there ahead of Stone, because while their Browns careers were short, they were genuine stars in a genuine major league. That said, a strong argument can definitely be made for Stone, too. It's a personal preference.

I ignored pitchers purely for time reasons, but Shocker would definitely be the ace of the staff.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Ron R, October 28, 2009

Bill, not to beat a dead horse, but the live ones kick back. Here's some numbers on George Stone. Remember, he didn't start in the AL until he was 28. At the time, there were 8 teams in the NL, most of them carrying 18 players. That was a grand total of 150 players in the major leagues at the turn of the century. Many of the better players never had a chance to make the NL, or were more than happy to make better money playing in the minors, which were really independent leagues at the time. RE: Left Grove.


Here are the numbers for Stone from 1905 - 1910 (his entire career) using OPS+ and a minimum of 500 games.

1 Ty Cobb 171
2 Elmer Flick 149
3 Sam Crawford 147
4 Sherry Magee 147
5 George Stone 143
6 Harry Lumley 133
7 Cy Seymour 131
8 Fred Clarke 128
9 Topsy Hartsel 126
10 John Titus 125
11 Mike Mitchell 124
12 Ginger Beaumont 120
13 Johnny Bates 119
14 Red Murray 119
15 Roy Thomas 117
16 Charlie Hemphill 116
17 Matty McIntyre 115
18 Jimmy Sheckard 115
19 Frank Schulte 113
20 Fielder Jones 112
21 Patsy Dougherty 111
22 Tommy Leach 111
23 Danny Hoffman 102
24 Willie Keeler 101
25 George Browne 97
26 Ed Hahn 97
27 Bob Ganley 97
28 Al Burch 94
29 Spike Shannon 92
30 Jimmy Slagle 92
31 Billy Maloney 85

STone is 5th, behind 3 Hall of Famers, and Magee makes the Hall of Merit. If your marginalize Stone's career due to the years he played, don't you have to do the same to Cobb, Flick and Crawford? You can do that, if you want, but I'll bet you get opposition.

Just to expand a little bit more, to be fair. Here are the numbers for what might have been a normal career,

age 24 - 38 (15 seasons) 1901 - 1914 and a minimum of 825 games.

1 Ty Cobb 182 1
2 Tris Speaker 168
3 Sam Crawford 149
4 Elmer Flick 146
5 George Stone 143
6 Sherry Magee 142
7 Fred Clarke 137
8 Socks Seybold 132
9 Topsy Hartsel 129
10 John Titus 127
11 Ginger Beaumont 126
12 Cy Seymour 123
13 Roy Thomas 123
14 Johnny Bates 122
15 Jimmy Sheckard 121
16 Patsy Dougherty 117
17 Frank Schulte 116
18 Willie Keeler 115
19 Clyde Milan 114
20 Mike Mitchell 114
21 Fielder Jones 112
22 Tommy Leach 112
23 Bob Bescher 110
24 Matty McIntyre 110
25 Red Murray 109
26 Dode Paskert 109
27 Rube Oldring 107
28 Chief Wilson 107
29 Charlie Hemphill 106
30 Davy Jones 103
31 George Browne 100
32 Jimmy Slagle 99

Stone is still 5th, behind 4 HOF'ers (add Speaker) and ahead of Magee. Now, granted, he might have had a fall off, but he also might have posted even higher numbers at a younger age. If we'r going to speculate what Judnich might have done without WWII intervening, don't we get to speculate what Stone might have done if their had been roster spots, and he hadn't had injuries (back problems, I believe, ala Ralph Kiner)?

Not that Judnich was a bad choice, but I want some love for my deadball players, and my Brownies.

As the saying goes, I'll provide the numbers, you deciede.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Ron R, October 28, 2009

As for the Sisler issue, particularly in regards to John Mayberry (and remember I'm a Royals fan who came of ages in the 70's) here are some numbers.

This covers Sisler's career (1915 - 1930) with a minimum of 1500 games (remember, he missed a full season due to an eye injury.

1 George Sisler 124
2 Joe Judge 117
3 George Burns 112
4 Wally Pipp 104
5 Charlie Grimm 93


Some people might want to cherry pick the number of games played, but if you drop it to 1000 games, he's 3rd behind guys who playe 700 - 900 games less than he did. So, in the years he played, head-to-head, Sisler was he best 1B in the game. Granted, he overlappe Gehrig some, but Lou was just starting his career and you can't compare them against each other.

As for Mayberry:


Using '72 - '82 (his full-time career and 1000 games, this is what we have:

1 Keith Hernandez 131
2 Mike Hargrove 126
3 John Mayberry 125
4 Steve Garvey 124
5 Tony Perez 122
6 George Scott 120
7 Chris Chambliss 109
8 Willie Montanez 99

Mayberry was only the 3rd best 1B of his career. And since you mentioned power stuff, I don't think Hernandez or Hargrove either one was ever known for thier slugging. Mayberry might have finished ahead of Sisler in OPS+ career-wise, but it as in a different time. Sisler was the best 1B of his career over 2000 games, while Mayberry was 3rd best using a baseline of 1000 games.

I'm not saying Sisler was the greatest of all-time, but I certainly wouldn't call the best 1B of a 16 year period overated.

As for the number of games I selected, 2000/16 = 125 per year. 1000/11 = 9 per year.

You know I like you stuff. I just don't get anyone calling Sisler overrated. Players have to be compared to who they played against and the era they played in.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Ron R, October 28, 2009

Sorry, 1500 (games)/16 = 94.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Bill@TDS, October 29, 2009

Ron, you make some good points here. I'm going to respond later tonight (Stone here and Sisler in a new piece for the site for tomorrow, I think).

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Bill@TDS, October 29, 2009

So Sisler will have to wait until Saturday or Monday. Ran out of time tonight. But Stone:
I won't disagree that for those five years that he played (or at least for three of them), was pretty awesome, relative to the league he played in. But here are some things:
1. Small point, but you left Honus Wagner (#1) off that list.
2. No, you don't need to ding Crawford's or Cobb's stats (or not very much). My premise is that as a brand new league, the AL for the first decade or so just wasn't very good. Stone's career basically ended with that decade; Cobb was one of the best hitters in baseball for another 16 years or so, long after the AL had proved to be just as legit as the NL. Crawford was excellent into the teens. Flick I do think is a little suspect. But anyway, on the point of the AL being a minor league, look at some of his competition in his biggest year, 1906; the champion White Sox started Lee Tannehill (.183/.254/.220), Ed Hahn (.227/.335/.262), and Billy Sullivan (.214/.262/.297) pretty much full-time. All eight teams had at least one full-time guy like that, who just couldn't hit major league pitching at all. That'll bring the averages pretty far down.
3. I'm not generally in favor of giving players credit for missing time for whatever reason. I do think WWII is a special case; if you took (voluntary or otherwise) 1-3 years out of your already very short career to serve the country, I'll give some credit for that. Back injuries and ditching the AL for a(nother) minor league until your late 20s 'cause the money is better? Seems less compelling.
4. One other reason Stone's career OPS+ is so high is likely because his career is basically all peak; he wasn't in the Majors for the ages at which he'd be developing or declining, so what you see is him at his very best. In Judnich's big year, he was 25 and still on the climb.

I don't think any of these reasons really justify picking Judnich over Stone. There are certainly good arguments either way. That's just my attempt to explain why I can't just take Stone's career OPS+ and such at face value.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Add Comment