Quote:
Originally Posted by nat
The 1930s were an exceptionally forgiving time for hitters. Surpassed only by 1993-2004ish. Cuyler's on-base plus slugging percentage was only about 25% better than league average. Compare to Matt Holliday at 32% better. While they are obviously very different players (Holliday isn't about to lead the league in stolen bases, which Cuyler did several times), in terms of over all value, Cuyler and Holliday are pretty similar. Cuyler was certainly a good player (so is Holliday), but he's on the weaker end of the hall of fame.
Unfortunately I don't have any Cuyler cards to show, but I liked that DeLong.
|
+1, generally. Cuyler played in the greatest hitter's era ever (runs were actually easier to score in 1927, when Ruth hit his 60 HR's, than in 1998, when McGwire hit 70, when comparing teams' runs averages per game (I was curious about this several months ago, and actually checked). Hence the somewhat deflationary effect attached to players' stats established during the 1920's to early '30's. He was, however, an outstanding player, though probably in the lowest of the three echelons of HOF'ers I usually divide them into.
Happy collecting,
Larry
10-12-2017, 04:58 PM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode