Oh Rickey you’re so fine
Posted: December 9th, 2008 | Filed under: Baseball | 148 Comments »
The Winter Meetings have been a dud so far; basically it has been a bunch of people sitting around talking baseball and complaining that nothing is happening. So it’s not a whole lot different from every day life around my house.
But it has led to a few interesting thoughts. Baseball writing cowboy Tracy Ringolsby brought up an interesting point about why Rickey Henderson should get 100 percent of the Hall of Fame vote. Henderson, of course, will not get 100 percent of the vote because NOBODY gets 100 percent of the vote*. It’s one of those bizarre quirks of the Baseball Writers voting, bizarre because at some point there were some among the baseball writers who started to take PRIDE in the quirk, started feeling gratified by the fact that Willie Mays and Babe Ruth and Mike Schmidt and Tom Seaver and Stan Musial and Hank Aaron did not get every vote. I guess they thought (think) of themselves as guardians of the gate.
Here is a quick list of the players who were closest to unanimous, not by percentage but by how many votes they missed:
1. Ty Cobb, 4 missed votes (222 of 226)
2. Tom Seaver, 5 missed votes (425 of 430)
3. Nolan Ryan, 6 missed votes (491 of 497)
4. Cal Ripken, 8 missed votes (537 of 545)
5. George Brett, 9 missed votes (488 of 497)
6. Hank Aaron, 9 missed votes (406 of 415)
7. Bob Feller, 10 missed votes (150 of 160)
– This was in the odd year of 1962, when only 160 writers voted — by far the fewest in the history of the Hall. Jackie Robinson was elected the same year with 77.5% of the vote — 36 people did not vote for him.
8. Babe Ruth, 11 missed votes (215 of 226)
tie Honus Wagner, 11 missed votes (215 of 226)
– Of course both of them were in the original class; I’ve wondered if the same 11 people did not vote for Ruth and Wagner — call them the 11 curmudgeons of their time.
10. Tony Gwynn, 13 missed votes (532 of 545)
– This was the same year as Ripken, of course, and I’ve already noted that (at least) five people voted for Ripken who did not vote for Gwynn. I still find this fascinating — that means five voters drew their Hall of Fame line right there between Ripken and Gwynn; to them, yes, Ripken was deserving but Gwynn, no, not quite.
11. Mike Schmidt, 16 missed votes (444 of 460)
12. Johnny Bench, 16 missed votes (431 of 447)
13. Steve Carlton, 19 missed votes (435 of 455)
14. Ted Williams, 20 missed votes (282 of 302)
15. Willie Mays, 23 missed votes (409 of 432)
16. Stan Musial, 23 missed votes (317 of 340)
– I have to admit that I’m more baffled by the 23 who did not vote for Musial than any other player. Let’s assume the worst for a moment about certain voters. Let’s say that some of them were driven by some low-end human qualities — racism, jealousy, hypocrisy, being overly judgmental, whatever. What in the heck could have prevented them from voting for Stan Musial, who was by all accounts a great player, a class act, a true role model and everything else? I mean, it’s an disgrace that Willie Mays did not get 23 votes; he certainly has a case as the greatest all-around player in baseball history. But understanding the times and that people don’t always live up to our highest ideals, I guess I’m even more surprised that Musial did not get 23 votes.
*Actually, it’s not exactly true that no player has ever gotten in with 100 percent of the vote. Everyone reports that — including me in this very blog post — but in truth Lou Gehrig went into the Hall of Fame unanimously in 1939, when they held a special election for him. His election was completely separate from the official 1939 election (that year George Sisler, Eddie Collins and Wee Willie Keeler were elected). Strangely, the Hall of Fame does not report much about that special election. In fact, if you look up Gehrig’s voting page at the Hall of Fame Web site, you will only find that he got 51 votes in the first election back in ‘36 (22.6%) while he was still active — no mention at all of 1939. They never do say how many people voted in the special 1939 election. But it was apparently unanimous — no voter was cold-hearted enough to vote against the Iron Horse the year of “Luckiest man on the face of the earth.â€
OK, so that takes us to Rickey Henderson. You already know that Henderson holds the Major League record for most stolen bases with 1,406 — and that record isn’t getting broken for a long, long time. You know who is the active leader in stolen bases? Juan Pierre. You know how many he has? Four hundred and twenty nine. The guy is about ONE THOUSAND stolen bases shy of Rickey. That stolen base record is mind-bogging.
Rickey also is the all-time leader in runs scored. The idea of the game is to score runs. He’s done it more than anyone in baseball history.
He won an MVP Award (and certainly could have won it in 1981 and 1985). He won a Gold Glove in left field. He hit 28 homers in a season twice, he stole 100 bases or more three times, he scored 100 or more runs 13 times and so on and so on and so on. He also was part of two World Champions and hit .339 in the World Series if such things are important to voters.
Obviously, you don’t need anything else. Rickey Henderson is utterly unique; if the Hall of Fame is supposed to represent the greatest players in baseball history, then there simply is not a plausible reason I can think of to NOT vote for Henderson. He’s not the greatest left fielder in baseball history — not with Williams and Bonds on the list — but he IS the greatest leadoff hitter in baseball history, and if you were putting together an all-time team you should probably find a way to have Rickey Henderson at the top of the lineup. I would love to hear explanations from those who will not vote for Rickey; you know, something other than the “Well nobody has ever been voted in unanimously†tripe.
OK, so we don’t need to add anything to the Rickey case — but Tracy brings up a good point: Rickey Henderson is also the greatest walker in baseball history. Now, if you look at the list of all-time walks, it does not look that way.
1. Barry Bonds, 2,558 walks.
2. Rickey Henderson, 2,190 walks
3. Babe Ruth, 2062 walks
4. Ted Williams, 2,021 walks
5. Joe Morgan, 1,865 walks
6. Yaz, 1,845
7. Mickey Mantle, 1,733
8. Mel Ott, 1,708
9. Frank Thomas, 1,667
10. Eddie Yost, 1,614
So, Henderson is second on that list — and by quite a lot to Barry Bonds. But, here’s another way to look at that list:
1. Rickey Henderson, 2,129 walks
2. Babe Ruth, 2,062 walks
3. Red Williams, 1,935 walks
4. Barry Bonds, 1,870 walks
5. Joe Morgan, 1,789 walks
6. Mel Ott, 1,708
7. Yaz, 1,655
8. Mickey Mantle, 1,607
9. Eddie Yost, 1,599
10. Lou Gehrig, 1,508
You are, of course, way ahead of me on this: Those are the all-time leaders in UNINTENTIONAL walks. Ruth, Ott, Gehrig remain the same because unintentional walks were not registered during their time, though I think it’s fair to suspect that Ruth got plenty of them. It seems pretty obvious that intentional walks and unintentional walks are two very different things — different enough that, really, they should be different categories. The intentional walk gives you a great sense of how much respect everyone had for the players hitting abilities (and also how little respect everyone has for the hitting abilities of pitchers). When you look at the top of the all-time intentional walk list, you see some of the most feared players in baseball history (or at least in the history since they started keeping tabs around 1954):
1. Barry Bonds, 688 intentional walks
2. Hank Aaron, 293
3. Willie McCovey, 260
4. Ken Griffey, 244
5. Vlad Guerrero, 239
6. George Brett, 229
7. Willie Stargell, 227
8. Eddie Murray, 222
9. Frank Robinson, 218
10. Tony Gwynn, 203
*I don’t think it’s insignificant that Jim Rice only got 77 intentional walks in his career — placing him 184th on the list. At least part of the Hall of Fame case for Rice is that he was the most feared hitter of his time, the guy pitchers and managers were utterly intimidated by in the big moments. And it just isn’t true — in his best years, 1975-86, he received 72 intentional walks placing him 33rd on the list, behind, among others, Chris Chambliss, Bill Madlock and Warren Cromartie (and also some eighth place hitters in the NL like Chris Speier).
Now, it wasn’t Rice’s fault that he had good hitters hitting behind him, and the intentional walk is hardly the only or even the best way to gauge the level of respect/fear players and managers had for a player. Rice’s Hall of Fame case does not hinge on his menace — as numerous people have pointed out, the man did lead his league in any number of categories from 1975-86 including homers, RBIs and runs scored. He has a strong case, and I feel certain he will go in this year. But I don’t think the intentional walk thing is insignificant. I think much of the aura surrounding Jim Rice has built up in more recent years, as memories grow nostalgic.
The unintentional walk obviously is a different weapon; it is earning a base the other team did not want to give up. It can frustrate pitchers, it can change the tone of a game, and nobody ever drew more unintentional walks than Rickey.
And think about this: Pitchers REALLY did not want to walk Rickey for all the obvious reasons. I mean, Ted Williams, sure, walking him often made sense; I suspect most pitchers did not kick themselves for walking Ted Williams. But Rickey — he was probably going to steal second on you, maybe steal third. Even if he didn’t steal, he was going to create all sorts of tension. Nobody WANTED to walk Rickey Henderson.
But they could not help it because Rickey would get in that crouch (Jim Murray wrote that his strike zone was the size of Hitler’s heart), and he would foul off pitches, and he would just WILL his way on base. Put it this way — and I’m about give you one of my all-time favorite statistics: Rickey Henderson walked 796 times in his career LEADING OFF AN INNING. Think about this again. There would be nothing, absolutely nothing, a pitcher would want to avoid more than walking Rickey Henderson to lead off an inning. And yet he walked SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY SIX times to lead off an inning.
He walked more times just leading off an in inning than Lou Brock, Roberto Clemente, Luis Aparicio, Ernie Banks, Kirby Puckett, Ryne Sandberg and more than 50 other Hall of Famers walked in their entire careers (more than Jim Rice too).
I simply cannot imagine a baseball statistic more staggering.
Rickey doesn’t need another reason for people to give him their Hall of Fame vote, but he should be recognized as the man who drew more unintentional walks than anyone else. And if that gets him an extra vote or two, one or two votes closer to unanimous, that’s even better.
Loading ...
FIRST!
Stole second
I can’t think of anyone associated with baseball who won’t vote for Rickey Henderson, Greg Maddux, you name the can’t-miss candidates. But inevitably, there will be someone —probably more than one someone — who won’t vote for Mad Dog in the Hall. I think those people should have to explain themselves in writing as to why they did not vote for one of the greatest of all time.
“WOWEE! RICKEY HENDERSON!” *
(*The kid from that late-80s commercial for either Panini sticker albums or Topps baseball cards, after opening a pack of stickers or cards to find a sticker or card the then-Oakland A’s leadoff man.)
Rickey approves.
You know the one thing that I never understood about the guys who don’t vote for the slam dunk candidates is that they can never say that they voted for the all time greats. They know these guys are going to get in anyway, so they won’t have a chance the next year to cast their ballot in that player’s favor. So some of these guys have a voting record that includes “never voted for Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn, George Brett, Nolan Ryan, etc.” Is that the legacy they want to leave? I don’t get it. Wouldn’t you rather brag to your grandkids that you helped vote those guys into the Hall of Fame rather than that you never cast a vote in their favor?
I’ve railed about this before, but the only reason that a writer will not vote for a guy like Rickey or Maddux or any of the all-time greats the first time around is because, in their minds, the vote is all about them…not the player. It’s showing the world the “power” that they have to make a statement about a player. And it’s sad.
I betcha there will be one or two guys out there who won’t vote for Rickey because he was rude to them or something on a road trip to Baltimore or Texas or Seattle. Something stupid like that. And they will be proud that they didn’t cast their vote because he is gonna get in by a huge majority anyway. Like I said…sad.
Is it possible that some of the “no” votes are actually just ballots that were not returned for whatever reason, or do they only count received ballots? I only ask because I don’t know… and because I can’t imagine why somebody would NOT vote for a guy like Mays, Musial, Aaron, Henderson, etc. As Perry White once complained, “Just how brilliant do you have to be?”
Ah, who could forget the immortal Red Williams, with his long, crimson hair flowing with the breeze, as he made his way to first base after yet another unintentional walk…
How much of the reason that Rickey likely won’t get 100% of the vote is precisely that nobody ever has? Obviously he gets in, and no right minded person is going to say that he shouldn’t. But how many voters just think, “why should he be the first person voted in unanimously? Ruth wasn’t, Cobb wasn’t. Aaron wasn’t. Seaver wasn’t. Why should Rickey be?” Yeah, stupid, but it’s a silly badge of honour now I think. Course I guess that’s what Joe’s saying.
Always thought it was interesting that when that first group were voted in, Cobb was the number one vote getter. Maybe the list was alphabetic and people had filled their ballots before they got to Ruth, Wagner, et al.
Roarke –
That’s a great point. I know that if I had the privilege to take part in something that has a lasting legacy like the HoF, I would want to be proud of my contribution. There is no legitimate argument to be made against guys like Henderson, Ripken, or Brett. These people should have their voting privileges revoked.
I believe that in some years (maybe in most?) there are some ballots that are not returned, and that these are counted in the totals. If so, then a writer who fails to turn in a ballot for any reason will be counted as not voting for anyone that year.
I think it would be better to discount ballots that are not sent in, or ballots that are deliberately left blank as a form of protest (or for any reason that does not involved actual voting). And I also think that any writer who uses a HoF ballot as a tool of protest should not be allowed to vote in the future. You’re a writer, write about your gripe. Don’t diminish the HoF process just to draw attention to yourself or your cause.
I agree that Rickey Henderson should be a first-ballot 100%-of-the-vote Hall-of-Famer.
To me, the “Player X didn’t get in unanimously, so nobody did” argument – which is about the ONLY argument you can make for not voting for a lot of these players – is the equally flawed mirror of “mediocre player X is in the HoF so mediocre player Y should be too” argument. The argument clearly goes something like “well, was Rickey Henderson better than Babe Ruth? No? Then he shouldn’t get in unanimously because nobody’s gotten in unanimously, Ruth included.”
The thing is, all this does is propagate a colossal mistake. To me, either a player’s a Hall of Famer or he isn’t. Some of the borderline cases, I could see changing my mind on, so I can see how some people gradually pick up support over the years (especially with new statistical ways to show their value), but a decent portion of the Hall consists of players that pretty much everyone can agree are Hall of Famers (including everyone on Joe’s list). The fact that they weren’t unanimous is a travesty, and continuing to prevent people from being voted in unanimously using the original mistake as justification is an even bigger mistake. Just like using people who shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame but are to justify including other people who shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame.
In Tom Seaver’s case, I believe that he lost three voters who turned in empty ballots in protest of Pete Rose’s exclusion.
There’s always the idea of trying to keep good players on the ballot too. If you know Rickey’s getting in anyway, why not vote for another deserving player like, say, Bert Blyleven or Tim Raines? Of course, looking at the ballot, someone would say, you are not voting for the best, but you are still voting for who you think is a hall of famer and may not make it without your vote.
I know it’s not likely to be the reasoning, but how many players can you vote for, ten? That’s a big logjam at certain points in history.
What’s more amazing to me is how high Nolan Ryan’s percentage is. Only Seaver is better.
I think I threw up in my mouth a little when I saw a “first!” comment.
The fact that not only did Ricky amass 1406 stolen bases, but that he was successful over 80% of the time has always floored me. There’s a fair amount of high totals out there with fairly paltry success rates.
(Though Brock, Raines, Coleman and others stole at great success rates too.) But look at some of the early guys, Eddie Collins is 7th on the list, but for the years for which we have caught stealing data, its not nearly as impressive. 46 bags in 1915, caught 30 times. The next year stole 40, caught 21 times. Ricky clearly slowed down later, but never had years with those kinds of rates.
The best part of Rickey’s induction will be getting to hear the Rickey Henderson stories again (Tenure?!?! Rickey’s got more like 18-20 year!)
Having read Bill James’ book “Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame”, I seem to remember that non-returned ballots are not counted, but blank ones are; and that part of the reason the early greats were left off some ballots was that there were so many deserving players, there was no general consensus as to which ones deserved to be in now and which ones should wait another year. I know at some point the voting rules were such that practically no one was getting in, because you could only vote for so many and there were so many to choose from, none could get the required percentage.
My guess about Cobb, Ruth, and Wagner is that there were probably certain segments who felt one was better than the other and that only the very best should get in that first year. I’m sure Cobb figured he was the only one who should get recognized in the initial class.
Lou Gehrig got votes for the HOF while he was still an active player?
That’s greatness.
Poz, we just need to get your name on the HOF ballot since it’s obvious you’d get some votes. I mean, your sportswriting ability dwarfs that of, say, Jay Marrioti, and since he has received 0 votes for the HOF, the only way to show you are better is for you to get at least 1 vote.
http://www.Poz09For09The09Hall.org
I could be (and probably am) wrong on this, but wasn’t it determined that the original HOF class would be comprised of five honorees, no more, no less? This might explain the voting quirks that year — no consensus about voting etiquette had been established, so maybe some folks thought it appropriate to first honor players of an earlier era (which would go some way towards explaining Cobb outpolling Ruth), while others had a more contemporary bent (i.e. Gehrig getting all those votes while still active).
I agree with JP on the “first” nonsense. When Joe posted about the people who nitpick his columns, I was going to mention that at least he doesn’t have to deal with the insufferable firsties. It baffles me as to what people get out of that.
Onto Rickey, it’ll be a shame if (well, when) he doesn’t go in unanimously, but some writers cling to the whole if-Ruth-wasn’t-unanimous argument. There’s quite simply no baseball argument to keeping certain players out.
One voter (I can’t remember who it was) said he wouldn’t vote for ANYONE now that we’ve entered a time where steroid-era guys are showing up on the ballot. That’s all fine and good, but now that he’s drawn that line in the sand, I think the BBWAA should be willing and able to take his vote away. If you’re just being a bull-headed curmudgeon about things rather than actually taking the time to think about your ballot, you should have to surrender the torch.
I don’t believe anyone is going in unanimously…ever. Aren’t there writers out there with ballots who have sworn off voting for ANYONE from the Steroid Era??? It’s a stupid way to attempt to demonstrate morality & fairness but I do believe there is a segment out there that will be proud to have a blank ballot until the “Steroid Era” players give way to a new group of nominees.
Sorry, looks like Justin beat me to the point…
Leadoff hitter.
Top ten in on-base% 16 times!!! (And walks 16 times.)
Top ten in runs scorred 12 times!!
Top ten in stolen bases 21 times!!!!
This guy was not just the best leadoff hitter in a decade. He was the best leadoff hitter in TWO decades.
Add his power, pure bonus from the leadoff position, and there’s no case to be made than anyone else could be the greatest leadoff hitter of all time.
Think about that. How many greatest claims in baseball are really uncontested like that. Greatest pitcher? Depends. Best hitter? Depends. Greatest slugger? Well, Ruth. But so much of why baseball is so great is the data and the debates. But there is no debate about greatest leadoff hitter.
That’s amazing.
I’m guessing 97% for Rickey (Rickey gets on, Rickey steals, Rickey scores, Rickey plays cards). By that standard, Raines deserves at least 75%.
Ricky says, “ricky wants you to vote for ricky”
Best Ricky story: Tony Gwynn’s rendition of the “cleats” story
As a liflelong George Brett fan, I can say with conviction that there are nine people on this planet who desperately need to walk in front of speeding projectiles.
As far as Rickey goes, I never cared for his attitude. As for his accomplishments, however – no argument whatsoever that he’s a HOFer. His acceptance speech oughta be interesting … I would anticipate frequent third-person references to himself.
“I think much of the aura surrounding Jim Rice has built up in more recent years, as memories grow nostalgic”
I think the current success of the Red Sox plays a role as well.
Compare Rice to Dave Parker. Parker, I would say, has a somewhat comparable HoF resume to Rice, and Parker’s HoF buzz is roughly zero.
Is it just coincidence that Parker played his peak seasons with a team that is now completely awful and gets no attention (other than getting ripped) from casual fans and national media?
Of course, there are other factors in play with Parker, including his drug use. But i think it’s interesting to consider if the current status of a HoF candidate’s team impacts their candidacy.
“How many greatest claims in baseball are really uncontested like that?”
Fun question. Other than Rickey, hmmm…..
Greatest defensive third baseman ever – Brooks
Greatest defensive pitcher ever – Maddux
Greatest shortstop ever – Honus
Even among these it may be that only Rickey and Brooks Robinson are beyond reasonable disagreement.
You want inanimous votes? Make the vote totals public. If everybody could identify the eight morons that didn’t feel Cal Ripken was Hall-worthy, well… In that situation, they probably _would_ have voted for him. The veil of anonymity allows voters to act like dicks without fear of reprisals. Isn’t that the biggest problem with the internet? I don’t see the harm in the HOF saying, “Look, if you want to vote for this, then your vote will not be anonymous. You’ll be forced to defend your vote. Good luck with that, Buzz.” A little accountability couldn’t hurt the sportswriters these days.
It’s true that a lot of voters do run columns detailing their ballots, but we need to identify the uber-small-Hall tools that apparently think the doors should have closed after Mays and Mantle got in. Any BBWAA member who doesn’t think Rickey Henderson is a Hall of Famer should be forced to defend their opinion, and if that’s too much to ask, then they should lose the privilege of voting.
The support for Cobb over Ruth is testament to the changes that have taken place in our view of baseball over the course of the century. I believe there was a poll in 1950 asking who was the greatest player of the first half of the century. I do not recall who voted, although I think it was people involved in the game (journalists probably). Cobb was the clear winner. By the year 2000 it is doubtful Cobb would even have been second to Ruth.
Some of that early vote might have been the residue of Cobb’s continuing claim that Ruth made baseball less scientific and more a question of brute strength. We see the remnants of that attitude in the nostalgia for small ball.
Among the things that never should be said about ANY event happening in Vegas:
“…basically it has been a bunch of people sitting around talking baseball and complaining that nothing is happening.”
When in doubt – poker.
Mikey –
Brooks Robinson is NOT the best fielding 3B of all-time.
In fact, he was not necessarily the best even during his career. Just to focus on the Yankees (since they were my team back then), both Clete Boyer and Graig Nettles were significantly better for several years each, and each of them should have won the GG more than once.
IIRC, in his Historical Baseball Abstract, Bill James graded Boyer and Nettles as A (Nettles may have been A-), and B Robby as B+. Having seen all three of them many, many times, both in person and on TV, I would have to agree with his assessment.
Greg Maddux, OTOH — well, what can I say about him that hasn’t already been said? Some guy came up with some stuff:
http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/12/06/1260/#comment-43735
Have you ever noticed if you say “Mike Sweeney” and
“Mike’s a weiney” quickly they sound exactly the same.
Is it that clear that Brooks was a better defensive third baseman than Mike Schmidt. I think the gap there is less than the gap between Rickey and the second-best lead-off hitter.
And while I would agree that Mad Dog was the greatest defensive pitcher of all time, defense is relatively far down the totem pole for evaluating pitchers. It’s sorta like naming an all-time king of sacrifice bunters.
There are at least three people who voted for Nolan Ryan who didn’t vote for George Brett, and they are the ones who made me throw up in my mouth. Not disputing that Ryan should be in or should be in on the first ballot, but the cat was barely above .500 for his career, and as Herm says, well, nevermind. I mean, there is something very significant that is mediocre about Ryan’s career. What hole is there in George’s case? How could you put the line between them?
I am stunned at some of the no votes. Absolutely stunned. I am as big a Brett fan as there is, but that four times as many people left off Mays and twice as many left of Schmidt is staggering.
I do disagree with the sentiment that voting against people should cost electors their votes. How the electors get their votes is another matter, but the content of the vote should not effect future eligibility.
Hopefully they don’t leave it up to Rickey to do the math and figure out how many votes he needs:
A reporter asked Henderson if Ken Caminiti’s estimate that 50 percent of Major League players were taking steroids was accurate. His response was, “Well, Rickey’s not one of them, so that’s 49 percent right there.â€
The obvious reason that Musial didn’t get those 23 other votes is due to anti-Polish bigotry. We Polish people have long suffered the indignities of bigotry. Oh we’re all laughs at the jokes on the outside but on the inside we all cry a little and remember that neither Musial, Coveleski, or Yastrzemski got in unanimously.
Blackjack is number 1?? How can a bunch of people that understand statistics miss the only even odds in the casino, at a craps table.
That being said, the buffet is always the best way to gamble money in Vegas. You never know if your $12.00 (or better yet the comp) will get you grade a prime rib, or the remains of barbaro, is the salad fresh or did they use the same paint on the lettuce that they use at Arrowhead when the field is torn up.
At the end of the buffet, you either got more than your money’s worth or you spent the rest of the trip in your room with a bottle of pepto bismal. You either won or saved handing over your cash (and you credit card) to the corporation that runs the casino.
I mean no disrespect to Greg Maddux, who WAS one of the greatest pitchers ever, and MAY have been a superb fielder as well.
Thing is, I never once saw him make a memorable defensive play. Come to think of it, I’ve hardly ever seen ANY pitchers make memorable defensive plays. Ask most sportswriters or coaches, and they’ll probably acknowledge that THEY’VE hardly ever seen pitchers making spectacular defensive plays, either.
And THAT, I’m afraid, is why Greg Maddux and Jim Kaat won so many Gold Gloves. NOT so much because they were phenomenal fielders as because they had a reputation as great fielders, and voters couldn’t think of anybody notably better. So, when in doubt, voters kept deciding to give the Gold Glove to the guy who’d won it the year before.
What I like best about Rickey:
When he broke Brock’s record, and promptly declared himself the “greatest of all time” right on the spot.
Reason I liked it so much:
It REALLY pissed off the abundant Cardinal fans surrounding me here in Jefferson City.
Yes, Ricky was arrogant, but as I endlessly pointed out (at my own peril) to these Cardinal fans – Brock couldn’t hold Rickey’s jock as a leadoff man.
There are also some that argue Maddux’s general disinterest in attempting to hold runners is a pretty big negative mark against his defense.
I love the Rickey “49 percent” quote — because, in a way, he’s correct. If you have one guy say “half are using steroids” and someone else reply “I know I’m not, and I don’t pay any attention to anybody else. So he can have half of everybody else, and it’s still not going to add up to 50%, because I’m not”…that’s valid internal logic for the absolutely self-absorbed, is it not?
What a beauty.
What’s worse:
someone not voting for a candidate to prevent them from being unanimoulsy elected
or
that person proudly writing a column explaining why he did it.
I’m looking at you, Bill Conlin.
Astorian –
If you think “best fielder” is related to making the most “memorable defensive plays”, then you are not getting the point of defense, which is to make outs, not just pretty plays.
Just check the stats, and you will see that NOBODY at the pitcher’s position was better at making outs than Maddux — he is the all-time leader in putouts, total chances, and double plays, not to mention the all-time leader for most seasons leading the league in putouts, assists, double plays, and total chances.
Raven 1908: Maddux’s lack of interest in holding runners on is just another indicator of how smart he is. Stolen bases are quite possibly the most overrated statistic in BB, as is the running game in general.
First of all, Maddux very rarely had runners on. Second, when he did, he knew that his best bet for getting out of the inning was to retire the next batter, not to waste time with the guy on first.
Faulting Maddux for not holding runners on is about the same as faulting Babe Ruth for not sacrificing enough.
And, since this is a post mostly about the greatest base stealer of all time, a relevant Maddux stat:
Since the color line was broken, there are two pitchers in MLB history with double-digit stolen bases in a career — Bob Gibson (13) and Greg Maddux (11).
I Miss FMJ:
When you count cards, Blackjack has better odds than Craps. I’m assuming a lot of the people voting took that into account.
David in NYC:
“Stolen bases are quite possibly the most overrated statistic in BB, as is the running game in general.”
Tell that to Dave Roberts and the rest of the 2004 World Champion Red Sox.
David in NYC, that’s funny.
In today’s game, Gibson would have been a Hall of Fame shortstop, not a pitcher. Think Jimmy Rollins with 10% more power & plate discipline.
My all-time team is going to be full of #3 hitters, so one of them (Willie Mays? Honus Wagner? the 2nd baseman?) is going to lead off, and Ted Williams is going to play left field.
Hey Joe, your point on people not being unanimously selected into the Hall just makes me want to comment on the idea that the Hall of Fame is a credible institution. I’m a huge baseball fan and I follow your blog, Neyer’s, Law’s, FMJ (R.I.P.), baseballanalysts and those of others every day; I enjoy reading about baseball history and about accomplishments. And to be honest – I’d rank the importance of the Hall of Fame below my need as a smoker to see what lung cancer feels like. I don’t view the Hall as a credible source of source of defining athletic accomplishment and my favorite ballplayers are great irregardless of their status in the Hall or not. Furthermore, most people don’t remember an athlete because he/she was a hall of famer, but because of their perception of the quality and personality of that athlete.
Point is: the Hall of Fame is only credible because fans and writers alike cling to it for the simple reason that there’s no other equivalent institution. Not because they view the Hall as the definitive mark of a good athlete in the sport, although they may draw that conclusion. The fact that so many people worry about the Hall, and who is in it, is so farcical that it is as obtuse as the complaints of those who wouldn’t vote for Obama on the sole basis of his middle name.
love the blog, keep up the good work. (sorry, meant to put that in at the end). Someone commented on it earlier – you should get paid for this.
Maybe I’m just goading Paul White here. But I was born in 1975, so none of this is fresh in my mind.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/event_bat.cgi?n1=riceji01#divisory=1&pitchORbat=bat&n1=riceji01&year_game=1978&event=15&out_type=
In 1978, Jim Rice’s best season, he was only intentionally walked seven times. (Once in the top of the 8th in a 7-1 game. In May.) He had an OPS of .600 and he was only intentionally walked seven times. Yaz was batting behind him almost all year — certainly no slouch, but also not a world-beater at this stage of his career. Seventeen homers, OPS+ of 112.
The next year, when everyone had to know how great he was — when the Fear And Respect Factor should have been at its strongest, he was intentionally walked just 4 times. (Once in the bottom of the 4th in a 6-0 game. Yaz followed with a single, Hobson followed with a double. Boston 10, Oakland o.)
I think Joe’s onto something about intentional walks measuring something important, but — looking at 1978 and 1979 — I don’t get how that applies to Rice. Maybe Yaz’s clutchiness was overrated at that point, which would make sense, given how unforgettably clutchy he was in 1967. Sort of like not walking Dustin Pedroia to face David Ortiz, no matter how the big man’s hitting.
to Steve from Cleve:
that’s the example that proves the rule. there are far fewer famous steals than famous plays of other types… I’m hard-pressed to think of another successful steal that defined a game, a series, or a postseason – while famous home runs, hits, etcetc abound… even in just that 2004 ALCS, David Ortiz won games *twice* with his bat, while Dave Roberts did it only once with his legs.
(and yes, this coming from a Red Sox fan… only about 18 years of suffering, though, luckily – I started following the team in 1986 and they promptly … well, you know what they did.)
I wonder if they had called the strike zone correctly on Ricky would he have had so many walks?
The best thing about baseball to me is that they have been grading the umpires on balls and strikes. Balls and stikes are a lot better than back in the 80’s. However, I still think they should do like tennis and have the computers grade balls and strikes. Just put an ear piece in the ear of the umpire. If the pitch is a strike, make the ear piece make a sound and the umpire can call strike.
Jake:
A game-defining steal is also far less likely to be noted, whereas it’s kind of hard to miss a game-defining homer.
Are steals a bit overrated? Yes. Can a well-timed, well-executed steal absolutely be the difference between winning and losing? Again, yes.
Mikey, Brooks has a lot of competition as the greatest defensive 3b ever. He was very, very good, but on a per-innings basis, a few of the modern third basemen who had more defensive win shares include Mike Schmidt, Graig Nettles, Gary Gaetti, Buddy Bell, Darrell Evans, and Tim Wallach.
My favorite Rickey story comes from his early minor league days. He joined a new team and the manager gave him the signs — steal, bunt, hit-and-run, the whole thing, including the “take off,” i.e., the sign that negated everything. So Rickey gets to first base and the coach goes through all the gyrations, ending with the takeoff. Rickey steals second. Next pitch, same thing. Rickey steals third. When he gets back to the dugout the manager confronts him, asks him if he knows the signs. Sure, Rickey said. The manager said, well, didn’t you see the takeoff? Yeah, I got it, Rickey said, so I took off for second and then I took off for third.
688 intentional walks. Wow.
Which (out of the 10 teams he played for) hat will Rickey wear in the Hall? Oakland probably but I think his moving around so much will give people a reason not to vote for him. ‘Heck, if so many teams gave up on him, there had to be something wrong’ type of logic.
It is somewhat baffling he moved so much, given his effectiveness as a ballplayer. Was it a love/hate thing with Oak or what?
Off Topic: I think Rickey and Pete share an ancient ancestor. I always thought they had equal (and borderline insane) intensity and drive and an insatiable appetite for piling up statistics.
I didn’t read all the comments above, but does anybody else find it crazy that Tony Gwynn has the 10th most intentional walks since they began recording intentional walks? I know that the Padres never had a great lineup, but were they really that scared of him hitting a single? His career average was .338 and for most of his career was really not a threat to walk by himself… his value was all practically tied to his ability to single. I don’t know… to me that is almost as mindblowing as 1400 stolen bases.
I liken the ability to steal bases to having an ace closer. Its not a big piece of the puzzle to get to the playoffs. But once you’re there, and a single tight game can mean the season, its an invaluable weapon.
Here is my favorite mind-boggling stat about Rickey’s 1,406 stolen bases. Joe Morgan is 11th all-time in stolen bases with 689, Honus Wagner is 10th with 722. That means only nine other players in history stole HALF as many bases as Rickey.
Just the fact that no one is ever voted in at 100% should tell you that 75% is way too high a goal to reach. They should drop it to 60%. And the writers need to get the sticks out of their butts and let some people into their brand new Hall of Very Good.*
*I hate the jackasses that think HOVG is clever. Fame does not equal best players of all time. It means well known players. Guys like Andre Dawson, Bert Blyleven, Jim Rice, Ron Santo, etc. should be in.
to Johnny Hildo:
Share the Gwynn story about Rickey please.
My favorite, which may or may not be apocryphal, is the story about John Olerud. The two were teammates with the Mets during the 1999 season. Olerud went to Seattle in 2000. After playing 31 games with the Mets in 2000, Rickey was released and ended up signing with Seattle.
One day he’s in the dugout as the Mariners are in the field, with Olerud playing first base. Rickey leans over and asks one of his teammates why the guy playing first is wearing a batting helmet in the field. The teammate relates the story of Olerud’s aneurysm while at Wash. St.
Rickey ponders it for a moment and says, “That’s amazing, we had a guy just like that on the Mets.”
Sadly, that Rickey/Olerud story is fiction.
So going by your 20 year rule, Rickey led off an inning with a walk, 39.8 times every year for 20 years. That, for ayone, is a staggering stat.
Rickey’s been my favorite player since almost the moment I got into baseball, which was, interestingly enough, 1982.
I agree 100% with the earlier commenter who said that voters who don’t vote for an obvious great, should have to publically explain themselves. Of course, we’re not talking about voters who didn’t vote for the Rice’s, Sutter’s, or Blyleven’s of the world their first time on the ballot, but talkin’ about guys who have 355-steroid-free-wins or scored more than anyone ever or who hit 714 HR’s (how on earth did 11 people NOT vote for the Babe?).
I realize it’s already been quite a few posts ago, but I vote for Erik for the Joe Posnanski Comments Hall of Fame.
I’m going to second David in Toledo…on my all-time team, I don’t have Rickey Henderson. I don’t need “the best lead-off hitter of all time” when I can have even better hitters who could hit lead-off. If your team has Wagner, Mays, Ruth, and Williams, you can’t bat them all at third or fourth. But all of them would be greater lead-off hitters than Rickey.
Hey Joe–
Inspired by your post – I was looking at Rickey’s stats, especially his ‘82 season when he stole 130 bases. What amazed me almost as much as the steals was this fact – That year Rickey had 4 triples.
I wondered how could this fantastic hitter and base runner and hands down “greatest lead-off hitter of all time” have only 4 triples that year?
Then I looked at his career lines.
2,190 walks, 3,055 hits, 510 doubles and… 66 triples.
And as you so eloquently explained:
“…And here are the Top 5 triples guys the last 25 years:
1. Brett Butler, 128
2. Steve Finley, 124
3. Lance Johnson, 117
4. Kenny Lofton, 106
5. Juan Samuel, 102 ”
Juan Samuel had 38 more triples than Rickey in his 16 year career. Steve Finley had TWICE as many triples as the Rick in his 19 seasons. Rickey played all or part of 25. Rickey had, by my count 8 full seasons with one or less (zero) triples.
So I looked a bit deeper. That season (’82) Rickey had 143 hits and 116 walks. Of those hits, 24 were doubles – 4 triples and 10 home runs. If we exclude Homeruns and triples from steal opportunities we see that Rickey had 283 opportunities to steal. As we know he stole 130 and he was caught 42 times. That’s 172 attempts. 283 opportunities, I believe that’s a good 61%.
I haven’t done the research but you got to believe a good number of those opportunities were with 2 outs or the batter gets out on one pitch so that percentage of actual opportunities could be much higher.
I’d say looking at those numbers the guy was stealing. Period. Every chance he could.
So a question emerged… Did Rickey hold up?
I realize I counted doubles separately from hits which was a mistake.
143 +116 259-14 = 245 chances. 172 attempts… 70%.
You also have to count the times he stole second and had a chance to steal 3rd. So conservatively add another 60.
Still comes out to about 60% which is crazy.
I guess you might also have to count hit and runs and walks that would negate stolen base attempts. But regardless, he was basically stealing every other time he was on base.
The king of the sacrifice bunt, apparently, was Eddie Collins. I’ve seen it said several times on public forums and never seen any disagreement, so I guess he has it by default. I think they have always kept account of them, though, so probably there is an official count somewhere.
[...] “You already know that Henderson holds the Major League record for most stolen bases with 1,406 — and that record isn’t getting broken for a long, long time. You know who is the active leader in stolen bases? Juan Pierre. You know how many he has? Four hundred and twenty nine. The guy is about ONE THOUSAND stolen bases shy of Rickey. That stolen base record is mind-bogging.” [Joe Posnanski] [...]
To Justyo –
If you compare any list of right handed batters and left handed batters/switch hitters, the left handed batters/switch hitters will always have significantly more triples. There are two reasons for this – First, the batter will always get a better jump out of the left handed batters box and second and more importantly its roughly a million times easier to hit a triple to the gap in right center or down the right field line then it is to hit one to left or left center.
That being said, I don’t think that a lack of triples is anything to detract from Rickey’s claim to being the best lead off hitter of all time.
To Bucky –
Bill James did some research some years ago – I think it was the 1992 Abstract – specifically about Rickey being the best lead off hitter of all time and ran hundreds of seasons comparing Rickey, Willie Mays and Steve Sax (his choice for a average lead off man)… IIRC he came to the conclusion that the Rickey led teams did score more runs with him in the one hole. Of course all time greatest type players could possibly adjust to a change in role and focus more on getting on base, but I don’t think its a slam dunk conclusion. Fact of the matter is that Rickey Henderson was the lead off man that all should be measured against. I don’t think its fair to his legacy to assume that Willie Mays could have easily adjusted to doing that job as well as the best that ever lived at doing that job. Not to say that he couldn’t, but we’ll never know if he could have either.
I have only been to Vegas one time, and I was 18 in the late spring of 1991. It seems like it was May. I am a huge Royals fan, and my best friend is a huge Twins fan, and so we decided we would each put $10 on both of them to win the world series that year. The Royals were pretty good and something like 50-1 at that point, and the Twins were coming off a last place season, and still in last place, and were 100-1. We mainly did this just to say we had gambled in Vegas.
Soon after, the Twins got on a huge winning streak and exploded up the standings. We were both college sophomores by the end of the season, with our heart in our throats down the stretch and through the post-season. Game seven against the Braves seemed to take three nights to finish. A thousand bucks is more money than I had ever seen at one time. Even now, seventeen-odd years later with all the stuff that typically goes with guys in their late-30’s, that night remains on the short list for the most joyful days of my life.
So my vote goes to the sports book as the best place to gamble.
You can bet that some jackass will vote for Ron Gant or Dan Plesac this year. That’s why there are no unanimous votes.
RICKY’S THE GREATEST! RICKY’S THE GREATEST! RICKY’S THE GREATEST!
Apologies if this point was already made, I haven’t had time to go through all the comments (but I have to get mine in, of course):
Separating intentional from unintentional walks alleviates only part of the problem. Yes, it does separate, to some extent, the walks allowed due to fear of the hitter vs. those coaxed by a batter with a really good eye. But you have to assume that there are a large number of DE FACTO intentional walks — how many times did a pitcher “pitch” to Barry Bonds, not allowing the ball to go anywhere near the strike zone. I’ll never forget when Barry was one homer away from the record and ESPN kept going live to the Giants game – he got absolutely nothing but garbage to work with. And then someone finally dared to give him one pitch in the strike zone and it landed in the water.
To fix the problem, you’d have to look at the scenario/context of the walks. Walks with men on base vs. walks with the bases empty is a good place to start (the leadoff walk stat for Rickey is just unbelievable).
You might go further and tie walks to the slugging percentage of the guy behind you. It becomes more and more complicated to separate “coaxed walks” from “de facto intentional walks”. Unless you can siphon the latter out of the equation in some creative way (Bill James, are you listening?) then you pretty much have to lump them together.
86th! I have nothing more to add other than the “first” thing utterly ticks me off. Who are you racing? If you have nothing to say, does being the first one to say it get you extra points in the game of life? A pay raise? How is this accepted internet practice?
And really, the exclamation point for it is way over the top…are you actually that excited that you were fortuitous enough to read this column before the rest of the general population? Is there an award for this somewhere? It’s overwhelmingly stupid.
/end rant.
Here’s another interesting thing about Ricky.
How many players do you know that throw left and bat right? I always found that extremely odd.
JKB, I’m about to make mountain from molehill, since the point here is to acknowledge that Henderson was a remarkable ballplayer.
However, if I have 108 years of ML history to choose from, for my “all-time” team I’m going to have a left-fielder who hits better than Rickey and a leadoff man with a higher OB% (Rickey ranks 57th). I’m willing to give up something in stolen bases to have Ted Williams or his near-equal in left field.
Hornsby/Collins/Jackie? Cobb? Yes, Willie Mays didn’t get on as often or steal as frequently as Rickey, but he brings other value.
In fact, maybe Barry Bonds plays left field and leads off (he did it at his skinniest). What better way to start a baseball game than with an intentional walk?
How did Rickey Henderson hit 28 homers in a season? Heck, how many great base stealers can hit 10-15 in a season, much less 28? I never remember Henderson having any power, but I guess my memory is faulty. Good stat, Joe.
Mike Bagnall –
I have always heard the Phil Rizzuto was the best bunter/sacrificer (is that a word?) of all time, though I can’t really dispute anyone who says Collins. After all, he is the career leader.
BTW, I think Collins is one of the most underrated players in MLB history. He is in the top 25 career leaders in G, AB, PA, H, R, 3B, BB, SB, TOB, SH — that’s just the counting stats. He is also 14th all-time in OBP, and 27th in BA. In addtion, contemporary accounts indicate that he was one of the best fielders of his day (or at least was thought so).
One of my favorite MLB odd stats: the AL record (and modern MLB record) for SB in a game is 6. It has been done twice: by Eddie Collins on 9/11/12, and by Eddie Collins on 9/22/12. So, twice in MLB *history* has someone stolen 6 bases in one game — and it was the same guy, 11 days apart.
Craig Hooten –
In modern MLB history, there are 9 players (excluding pitchers) with at least 500 games who batted right and threw left. If we set the cutoff at 1,000 games, there are 5. The others besides Ricky in the latter category:
Rube Bressler
Hal Chase
Johnny Cooney
Cleon Jones
Yet another way that Ricky stands out from the pack.
I think my all time lineup doesn’t have Rickey leading off either.
Probably, it would be Bonds LF, Wagner SS, Ruth RF, Mantle CF, Gehrig 1B, Schmidt 3B, Bench C, Collins 2B.
Now if Barry is too controversial, then put The Splendid Splinter in LF, move Honus up to leadoff and bat Collins second (or Morgan, if you think he is better). Bat Williams after Schmidt (to break up the lefties a little bit)
Sorry, the Say Hey Kid ain’t leading off either, cause he can’t crack the lineup. The Mick was a better hitter and I am willing to sacrifice a little D for him in the middle of my order.
Of course, I could be convinced to put the Mick and Willie in the lineup with the Mick in LF and then bat the Mick leadoff.
And Joe, I am a little surprised that no blog on Joe Gordon yet, given his importance in both Cleveland and KC baseball history.
Don’t forget Rickey’s ’snatch’ catch. That little twist of the glove after catching a flyout. Used to drive Rizzuto crazy. I loved those days of watching the Yankees on WPIX up in Boston. Can’t get enough baseball.
For Craig Hooten:
The only current non-pitcher I can think of who throws L and bats R is Ryan Ludwick.
“So it’s not a whole lot different from every day life around my house.”
With the exception that the people around your house probably know more about baseball than the average person who attends the Winter Meetings, but hey.
And now your title has got cheerleaders singing the Mickey song stuck in my head. Thank you!
Here’s another thing about Rickey. Some great players have been curmudgeons. Some great players have been nice people, but you’ve kind of wondered if they really loved baseball with all their hearts.
Is there a single human being on the planet who doesn’t think that Rickey Henderson loves baseball with all his heart? The man is fifty years old, and if you called him today and said you had a spot for him on your team, not ONLY would he break every speed record to get to your field, not ONLY would he be happier than a young puppy to be playing, but he’d also bust his ass to make sure he was in the right shape to still be playing.
I thought long and hard about the question of “Would you put Rickey Henderson on your all-time team?” and it’s a tough one. Just going by position, I’d say no. Going purely by “get the best 9 hitters on your lineup” I’d say no again.
But if you construct that lineup with a marginal attention to “I need an excellent leadoff hitter,” I don’t think there’s any other person you pencil in except for Rickey Henderson.
Btw, Rickey won’t go in unanimous. In fact, I doubt he’ll break 96%. This is the BBWAA we’re talking about. They’re the last bastion of incompetency left in the country that hasn’t been (or isn’t going to be soon) bailed out by the government yet.
Btw, ballots that are not returned do NOT count in the vote. They are simply dismissed. Ballots that are returned blank DO count in the vote (The Tom Seaver Story).
This is why the ballot total changes from year to year, because some BBWAA writers apparently have far more important things to do than vote for the Hall of Fame. (though some have refrained from submitting a ballot in some form of protest over the steroids years, which I can sort of marginally agree with.)
So, no, a ballot lost in the mail will not stop a player from getting 100%. That’s purely and alone the stupidity of the people doing the voting.
I’ve long argued that the BBWAA should not have these ballots. We can’t take the MVP and Cy Young etc away from them, because those are the BBWAA’s awards. But a bunch of crusty old idiots who feel that THEY are the most important part of baseball should not be allowed to determine who gets enshrinement in the greatest Hall of Fame on the planet.
Make a panel that has one function, and one alone. Determine HoF candidacy every year. Put in a few ex players, a few current players, a union guy, a baseball guy, a few writers who’ve shown they actually have a braincell and don’t have to rely on tired old platitudes about Heart and Grit and Hustle and “He’s a Real Baseball Player!” to write their columns (this includes Joe), Bill James, Rob Neyer, and some of the better known SABR guys.
A total of 68 guys can vote, so it takes 51 ballots to say yes to put a guy in the Hall of Fame.
And these people agree to vote for the Hall every year, no matter what. Unless they’re dead, in which case a reserve can get called up. Seriously, some of these writers can’t find the time an afternoon a year to figure out who needs to go into the Hall? Aren’t you involved with baseball all freaking year anyways? Don’t you already KNOW who you’re going to vote for?
Well, I guess the BBWAA doesn’t, no, because they never look at stats to begin with. I’m sure most of them will see a name on a ballot and go “Who?”
Bah.
(sorry Joe, I know you’re a member and all, but…)
“Greatest defensive third baseman ever – Brooks”
Really? You don’t think Scott Rolen should at least enter the discussion?
Great Ricky stories here…
http://100percentinjuryrate.blogspot.com/2007/07/definitive-rickey-henderson.html
Couldn’t believe The Rickey was only 56th on the all time OBP list, so I was perusing the list. Mostly players who were perceived as great players, but some really unusual names too.
For instance, at #17, just above the Mick, is Maxie Bishop, Connie Mack’s 2Bman for his second set of great A’s teams (the Foxx/Grove teams). Lifetime OBP .4227. Pretty obvious that the old time managers did not have any idea what they had in Maxie. Oh, maybe Connie Mack did, he led him off, even when his BA dropped in some years, but once he was traded to the BoSox, his career ended at age 35, despite good OBP in both years with them (and giving half his playing time to vastly inferior players)
Ferris Fain at #15, another victim of managers not knowing what they had. 1950s manager: Fain is a high average (sometimes), low power first basemen. Modern sabrematrician: Fain is a walk machine, no matter what his average might be that year. In 1955, splitting his time at age 34 between the Indians and Tigers, he posted a total OBP of .455, yet he didn’t have a job the next year.
Eddie Stanky at #35. His last regular year in the majors was 1951, when he was 34. He “only” hit .247 that year, but managed 127 walks along with some power. Yet after that year, he was discarded by the Giants and didn’t play much the next two years for the Cards.
Roy Cullenbine, 1940s outfielder. His career ended after his 1947 season (age 33). He walked 127 times(!!!!) that year. Yes his BA was “only” .224, but his OBP was .401, his OPS+ was 126 (and the year before it was 176 in limited play). No job the next year.
With respect to that future blog on Joe Gordon:
It seems to me that perhaps the 12-person committee that voted on the pre-1943 players found a way to do what they were supposed to do, and that the 64 living HofFamers who voted by mail on the post-1942 ballot failed. (Have the names of the 12 people ever been announced?)
As a player, even with WWII credit, Joe Gordon was, as previous elections showed, an under-the-borderline candidate. This year’s rules, however, explicitly state, “Those whose careers entailed involvement as both players and managers/executives/umpires will be considered for their overall contribution to the game of Baseball.” So Joe Gordon surely received — if his managing is considered a net positive — some credit for the 305 wins (and 308 losses) of his record as a manager.
Assume for the sake of argument that Joe Torre was a similarly under-the-borderline candidate as a player only. The same rules should have been applied to his case. Clearly they were not.
The BBWAA Screening Committee had placed Torre on the player’s ballot because they had “determined” that “the role in which [he was] most prominent” was as a player. But Torre is now the 7th winningest manager of all time (will become 5th after 45 more wins), and all of the top 11 who are eligible are in the Hall. Torre’s status as a de facto HofF manager should have been be added to his playing record, and the logical result is obvious. On this score, at least, the 64-member group did not know, or did not do, what they were supposed to do. (I would go from on to contend that this imperfect grouping of perfectionists failed in at least one other way.)
I wonder how many of the 64 said to themselves, “I will vote for this person only if he was a better baseball player than I remember myself to have been.”
There are also some that argue Maddux’s general disinterest in attempting to hold runners is a pretty big negative mark against his defense.
(Sorry, I realize I’m making 500 comments in a row again.)
I find this a fascinating argument. I can see the side that says that pitchers should focus a lot of their attention on keeping the runner on first base (or second base), and not give up that extra base.
I’m more of the opinion that the pitcher should worry about the guy at the plate, and leave the catcher to worry about the runners. An expected Runs Matrix actually backs this up, as an out is far more important than an extra base.
If Mariano Rivera hadn’t been so distracted by Dave Roberts on 1st base in the 2004 ALCS, and instead had just focussed on getting the hitters out, would the Red Sox have 9 billion bandwagon fans nowadays? Or would everyone hate the Yankees even more because they won the WS in 2004?
I’m firmly convinced that Rivera focussed WAY too much on Roberts, and way too little on the hitter (Mueller, I think?)
I think Maddux’s indifference towards runners is born out of a realization that the BATTER is far more important and that’s what he needs to focus on.
And that, in my opinion, just strengthens his case rather than weakens it.
And finally, for the person who can’t understand why people don’t like craps in Vegas : Because they’re boring. At least with blackjack, you’re in control every single card. YOU decide to hit or not.
What control do you have with craps?
Why not make a game where a guy tosses a coin in the air, if it lands heads you get 50 bucks from him, if it lands tails he gets 50 bucks from you? Would you play that? Without calculating it, I think those are better odds than craps?
I saw an article by Mike Schmidt somewhere on the net today advocating a “one and done” HOF vote. You’re either an HOFer or you’re not, you don’t magically become one over a span of 15 years. I think that would be a very good way to get rid of the ego-driven “no first ballot” voters.
Brent!
Great post, that is fascinating stuff and indeed maybe fodder for a future column, pre-moneyball achievers
Did anyone mention Rickys leadoff homeruns?
Dave in Toledo… just saying. I don’t take Henderson for my all time team either, but I wouldn’t want to say that anybody might be a better lead off hitter than Henderson. Me? I probably take Cobb or Bonds for that role. I guess my point is is that Henderson is undeniably the best lead off man of all time, but I wouldn’t bump Bonds or Williams out of left field for him…
BENNOJ – I can see some sense to a one and done selection, but I fear you would start to only see the slam dunk Hall of Famers OR you might see some marginal guys get in. 15 years is probably too many, but historically the BBWAA usually gets their end right, and guys I said usually. Its the Veterans committee that has traditionally trashed the Hall. Sometimes it takes a little while to put some things into historical context.. for instance the Steroid era, I don’t think we really have figured out what’s what just yet. In a few years we’ll have a better idea of what to do with Palmeiro, McGwire and Sosa and how to compare them to the “clean” guys like Bagwell, Thomas and Thome…
I think I threw up in my mouth a little when I saw a “first!†comment.
What always get me about the “If Superman wasn’t unanimous than neither should _____” argument is that the ones making it never claim that Ruth, Mays, etc. not getting votes was a good thing. It’s just what happened. They follow precedent for following precedent’s sake. Do these people do that in the rest of their lives? If they’re on a New York City train and no one is acting crazy, do they start mumbling to themselves just to make things normal again?
OK guys, enough with the “in my mouth”, first of all, by its nature, all throw up passes through the mouth and therefore at one point all throw up is in the mouth so must we add this disgusting redundancy to every mention of puke?
Apologies all.
Can’t say I’m a huge fan of Tracy Ringolsby, though that’s largely due to his unofficial leadership of the ‘us sportswriters are man’s men who understand what it takes to win and write about other men who understand what it takes to win as opposed to you wimpy stat geeks’ club when ‘Moneyball’ first came out. (Michael Lewis, of course, got his back by referring to Ringolsby as the head of MLB’s “womens auxiliary”.)
In this case, though the argument for Rickey based on unintentional walks has some merit, treating intentional and unintentional walks differently has some very unpleasant side effects — for instance, I suspect a Vlad Guerrero for Hall of Fame bandwagon will form based, at least partly, on his drawing more intentional walks than George Brett, which supposedly will demonstrate that he was more feared as a hitter than Brett.
Though if you want a wacky-stat: over 1/3 of Guerrero’s career bases on balls are intentional (239 out of 666). That’s gotta be some kind of record, even for a #8 hitter in the NL.
Was inspired to head out to baseballreference.com to look for the anti-Guerrero: the good hitter with discipline who was nonetheless seldom intentionally walked. One good candidate is Gary Sheffield — he’s drawn 127 intentional walks (almost exactly 6 per season in the majors), while drawing 1,308 unintentional walks, which puts him at least within earshot of that top-ten list Joe posted in his essay.
Of course, the real reason I’m wasting space by commenting twice in a row is because I felt the need to point out that baseballreference.com is now listing park-adjusted OPS+ in its player seasonal records, which is just six kinds of hickory-smoked awesome.
Regarding the poll — there’s nothing better at a casino than finding a good group of people at a Pai Gow table. It’s relaxed and communal, you can discuss your hand with the person next to you, and there’s little relationship between your hand and anyone else’s — so no inter-player irritation. You push a lot, and the cocktails keep coming as long as you tip. Great way to spend an evening….
“in my mouth” – They say that to imply that it didn’t actually LEAVE the mouth. Otherwise they would say it “made me vomit” or something similar.
So I agree with them…….the “first” comment made me “throw up in my mouth”
I’m 110th.
To Perry:
The thing about the per-inning defensive win shares is that Brooks played ALOT more defensive innings than all the players listed, about 3-4 seasons more than Gaetti, Bell, Schmidt, and Wallach (more than 8 seasons for Evans), and that’s assuming they play all 9 innings every game of the season. In addition, those would be 4 seasons of severe decline phase, tacking on 4 additional years at the tail-end of all of these guys career would definitely change their numbers.
Not to say that I think Brooks is the undisputed champ, but just that per-inning defensive ws’s would only tell part of the story even if they were 100% accurate.
I think that the “in my mouth” comment re. puking implies that though the poster did vomit, it was not a mouth-stretcher. For example, you get on an elevator after someone crop dusted it – you may gag and have a small amount of bile come up – this would be tagged as a “puked in my mouth” experience. However, say you ate some bad seafood and chased it down with several shots of tequilla, and then accidentally drank some ipecac syrup while watching a tape of the Chiefs/Falcons game from earlier this year – you would advance from the “puked in my mouth” to the “mouth-stretcher”. Make sense?
Mike
I think the whole intentional walk thing might be a little overblown. I think Rice didn’t get walked intentionally more because of the kind of hitter he was, which was an aggressive swinger that wasn’t overly selective. If you look at the list of intentional walks leaders, eight of those guys were fairly patient to extremely patient hitters, which means they had a good idea of the strike zone and wouldn’t normally stray outside of it. The other two (Vlad Guerrero and Frank Robinson) were known to be free swingers but they were also known as bad-ball hitters that could hurt with anything close to the strike zone. At least, I know that is the case for Vlad and I believe I read that about Robinson.
My point is, that if a team is “fearful” of a hitter in a certain situation, they have two choices: the intentional walk or to pitch around the player. If the hitter has a keen eye at the plate, there is little chance of him swinging outside of the zone and making an out and the pitcher risks making a mistake over the plate. If the hitter is a bad-ball hitter, then you could make a pitcher’s pitch and still get hurt or the pitcher has to go so far out of the zone that you risk a wild pitch or injury to your catcher in Vlad’s case. As for Rice, he wasn’t patient and I don’t think he was really known for being a bad-ball hitter, so managers would more often choose to pitch around him than walk him intentionally.
Of course, these decisions are also influenced by the batter on deck and the handedness of the pitcher. I would note that seven on the top 10 list are left-handed or a switch-hitter. Rice was of course right-handed.
I think there are better arguments to not vote for Rice than his intentional walk totals.
So speed merchant Rickey Henderson had 66 triples, and Jim Rice had 79? That’s incredible!
I hate the ‘first’ comment too, but only to the retching and gagging stage.
I can think of one reason why somebody will not vote for Rickey. While watching a baseball game (from the stands), he got a foul ball and would not give it to the 3 year old girl beside him. He said he never got a ball that way before.
That would not preclude me from voting for him, I am just saying one person will remember that incident and think negatively about him.
By the way, isn’t Rickey still playing in the minors? Just kidding. Maybe.
I just hate the fact that I was not first. That is what really gets me.
But I make a solemn promise to you all right now: Soon there will be a day when you come here to a new blog post here and it will be I, Gate, who is the first to comment. Mark my words, it SHALL come to pass.
David WIntheiser:
Are you implying that Guerrero shouldn’t be considered a Hall of Famer, or simply that the IBB reasoning shouldn’t be used as the primary reason for his case?
Because I would definitely consider Vlad a HoFer. This year, he posted his lowest OPS+ in 11 years (since his rookie year), and it was still a Hall-worthy 130. For his career, he’s at 147. In my mind, he’s already there.
Socaltwinsfan:
While the IBB numbers aren’t an ideal way to show how “feared” a hitter was, I think it DOES dispel at least some of the Rice mystique. Some Rice proponents make it sounds like of all the players of the 70s and 80s, he was the ONE guy who you didn’t want to face.
Given that pitchers felt comfortable enough that he could be pitched to (and your argument even states that he would often hack away, even though it didn’t often help him to do so because he wasn’t known as a good bad ball hitter), it sort of throws a bit of water on him as being the near-invulnerable hitter some seem to make him out to be.
Joe, you make many interesting arguments, and I wholeheartedly agree that Rickey Henderson deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. I personally believe Henderson’s career as a player is Hall-worthy while that of his fellow left-fielder Jim Rice is not. My reasoning is based on the belief that the consideration of which players deserve to be in the Hall of Fame should be limited to an evaluation of their accomplishments (and actions). This would seem obvious, but much HOF discussion is misled because of poor perception of a player’s achievements. The following arguments have been made elsewhere, but here it is in a nutshell: the three most prominent ways in which HOF consideration is misguided:
1. Reliance on poor measurements of performance. I won’t get into this at length, but many assessments of players’ careers are still made by the inadequate and/or misleading means of wins and losses, rbis, strikeouts etc. and without recourse to better evaluative tools like on-base percentage, walks+hits/innings pitched, etc. Much has been written on this topic, but it amazes me how difficult it is for HOF voters to quit their bad habits.
2. As Jonah Keri and others have pointed out, there is a strong irrational bias to rewarding players for reaching or exceeding base-ten milestones and faulting others for not doing so: a .300 batting average, 100 rbis, 300 career wins, 20-win season, etc. (I’ve always admired Al Kaline for resisting this base-ten terror and retiring with 399 home runs). As many correctly remarked upon Mike Mussina’s retirement, his career should not be judged by the fact that he won 20 games once (this past year), just as Jim Bunning should not have waited so long to be enshrined in the HOF because four times he just missed 20 wins. I’m with you on Bert Blyleven regardless of the fact he won “only” 287 games. It is difficult to overstate the psychological power these milestone numbers have had and continue to have: some (300 wins, 3,000 hits, 400 –oops, now 500– home runs) are often even cited as arbitrary thresholds for induction! Tommy John and Bert Blyleven are undoubtedly languishing in HOF purgatory for not having quite won 300 games while Don Sutton is on the other side of the pearly gates because he stuck around long enough to do so.
3. Awards are not accomplishments: they are subjective recognitions. Unfortunately, MVP awards, all-star selections, Gold Gloves (gulp!), etc.– are often cited as evidence of HOF-worthiness as though they were actual accomplishments of objective merit. Like Oscars and other subjective awards, they do not indicate quality of performance but rather the perception of that quality. As such, by using them as HOF-consideration criteria we essentially often compound the original mistake of perception. (I’ve never understood why even among more discerning voters, all-star voting is based solely on performance in April, May and June, but that’s another argument).
Here’s a stereotypical endorsement of a Hall-of-Fame candidate that combines all three of the above types of poor reasoning: “An eight-time All-Star, he hit .300 six times, batted in 100 or more runs eight times and won one MVP award (and finished in the top-five six times), and was one of the most feared hitters of his era.” This sounds good at first, but doesn’t hold up to scrutiny: many players have had underwhelming seasons while either batting .300, hitting 100 rbis, or being named to an all-star team. An MVP winner has certainly had a good season, but the award itself is no guarantee of truly great play. Of course, the number of times the player achieved the batting milestones and was cited in MVP voting suggests a very good player, but the evidence is still circumstantial.
The player is, of course, Jim Rice. It could and should also be noted that his on-base percentages were unspectacular, he was an average fielder and his statistics benefitted greatly from playing in Fenway Park. Rice’s career is roughly comparable to those of his outfield-mates, Fred Lynn and Dwight Evans, neither of whom ever garnered much support in HOF voting. In my opinion, Evans was the best of the three, but in the years the trio played together (1975-1980) he was the weakest hitter, and I think that perception stuck. Rice, on the other hand, has surely benefitted from the perception that he was the Sox’ alpha dog: the strongest player who hit the most and longest home runs and while still batting for a decent average. Rice may finally make it into the Hall of Fame in 2009 (his last year eligible); I have no doubt that if he had retired with 400 home runs and a .300 average rather than 382 homers and a .298 average, he would have made the Hall long ago, perhaps in his first year of eligibilty.
Silly me, I forgot overrating fielding in HOF consideration. It is exasperating that Ozzie Smith was a first-ballot shoo-in while Alan Trammell, clearly a superior player at the same position in the same era (though different league) cannot get within sniffing distance. As some other readers have observed, even the mere perception of superior defense can be the difference between HOF lock and also ran: see Brooks Robinson vs. Graig Nettles.
Sorry more thoughts…
Rickey Henderson is obviously deserving of induction, but not because he is the greatest lead-off hitter ever (and he is, by far). I’m worried “Greatest lead-off hitter” will be engraved on his Cooperstown plaque. I hate to spoil the party, but “greatest lead-off hitter ever” should be taken as a back-handed compliment. I’ll explain…
Bill James has noted that “great-fielding left-fielder” is something of an oxymoron: if a player had better speed, he’d play center, and if he had a better arm, he’d play right field. “Greatest leadoff hitter” isn’t quite as bad, but if a lead-off hitter had more power, he’d bat second; if he had a lot more power he’s bat third. No one ever talks about the greatest number 7 hitter ever, or even the greatest number 2 hitter ever, because it’s irrelevant. Why should we pay homage to the greatest leadoff hitter ever? A manager takes the players he has decided to start (almost always determined positionally) and then fills out the lineup according not only to orthodoxy but according to an order in the decision-making process: the best hitter bats third, the next-best hitter bats fourth if he has power, second if he has less power or first if he has less power and great speed. The fifth spot is usually a power hitter who hits for a lower average than the 3 and 4 hitters, and the 6, 7, 8 and 9 spots are assigned in descending order of hitting prowess, with hitters evidencing any power sure to be assigned to bat 6th or 7th.
The point is that because managerial orthodoxy dictates that the team’s best hitter bat third, the lead-off hitter is rarely a team’s best hitter. As a corollary, a team’s best hitter could be the lead-off hitter only if he is incorrectly perceived to be inferior to the player batting third. The interesting thing is that the batting-order orthodoxy, so rarely challenged, is mistaken: the best hitter should bat first, the second-best second, etc. The explanation is obvious: the first batter in the order will have progressively more plate appearances than each other batter in descending order over the course of the season. If a team’s last out is made by the first or second batter, they will each have had one more plate appearance than the third batter. By my calculations, over the course of a season a number 1 batter can expect to have about 30-35 more plate appearances than the same team’s number 3 batter. Baseball Prospectus has done good research on this argument, but I don’t have it handy at the moment.
Let’s say you are Jim Frey, the manager of the 1980 Kansas City Royals. You bat Willie Wilson, a classic no-power speedster, first. You start the season with Frank White batting second (a terrible choice) but over the course of the season you plug in U.L. Washington (better), Hal McRae (much better) and John Wathan (excellent: an exceptionally fast catcher having a career year). George Brett, when healthy, almost invariably bats third. In about two of every nine games, Wilson bats at the end of the game while Brett is on-deck or in the hole. In about one of every nine games, White, Washington, McCrae or whoever is batting second makes the last out while Brett looks on helplessly from the on-deck circle. Jim Frey, what are you thinking? In hindsight, Brett’s OBP in 1980 was .454 while White’s was .289: in other words, Brett was almost twice as likely not to make an out (including the last out of the game)! Willie Wilson is the textbook definition of a lead-off hitter and George Brett is the number-three hitter from central casting, but the Royals would have generated more runs switching the two in the order (actually, Jim Frey, after Brett at 1 I don’t care who you bat in the 2, 3 and 4 spots among Wilson, Wathan and McRae; White bats ninth, please). Occasionally Wilson won’t be able to stretch a single to a double or score from first on a hit into the gap because Brett’s on base ahead of him, but that’s a small price to pay. (There are exceptions to having your best hitter bat first: namely, if he’s not a significantly better hitter than a much faster teammate, e.g. you would not want to have Lenny Dykstra running behind John Kruck).
A few other readers have balked at your notion of fitting-in Henderson somehow as the lead-off hitter on an all-time team. Any all-time team will be comprised of almost exclusively number 3 and 4 hitters: whoever is your center-fielder –Cobb or Mays or Mantle– would make an incredible lead-off hitter. Of course, given my earlier argument of who should bat first (essentially whichever player creates the most runs per plate appearance), my lead-off hitter would be Babe Ruth! Batting second… Ted Williams.
Here’s my all-time team:
1. Babe Ruth (LF)
2. Ted Williams (RF)
3. Barry Bonds (CF)
4. Lou Gehrig (1B)
5. Josh Gibson (C)
6. Mickey Mantle (3B)
7. Honus Wagner (SS)
8. Rogers Hornsby (2B)
9. Walter Johnson (P)
Yes, only Gehrig and Johnson look “right” in their positions on the field and in the batting order. With apologies to Ty Cobb, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Stan Musial and Joe Jackson, I think the players I chose are more-or-less the best hitters in the history of the game. I admittedly didn’t choose the batting order very carefully after the clear 1-2-3 choices: with the obvious exception of Johnson, the others are all such amazing hitters I can afford myself this carelessness. A number of players are out-of-position, most notably Mantle (I’m sure he’ll make a fine third baseman; with his bat he’ll more than make-up for whatever difficulties he might have with the glove). The standard choices at third base (Mike Schmidt) and catcher (Johnny Bench or Yogi Berra) are great hitters but clearly in a category below those mentioned above. If Josh Gibson is unacceptable I’ll substitute Jimmie Foxx (who played some catcher very early in his career). Alex Rodriguez and Albert Pujols are the two current players worth keeping an eye on in considering all-time teams.
Rickey is just 150% incredible. Never seen a player like him in my lifetime, that’s for sure. Easily Top 10 player in the HISTORY of the game, no doubt.
I cannot wait to see him inducted live on July 26, 2009.
GO RICKEY!
Uncool Papa Bell –
Fortunately for us Bill James has addressed the Greatest Leadoff hitter of all time argument – in response to a letter in the 1992 Baseball Book he wrote “… To say that Willie Mays would have been a better leadoff hitter than Rickey Henderson is like saying that he would have been a better second baseman than Rogers Hornsby, or like saying that Walter Johnson would have been a greater relief pitcher than Rollie Fingers if he had just been used as a relief ace. The speculative creation of a greater leadoff man does not diminish the fact that Rickey Henderson is the greatest leadoff man. Nobody would have used Willie Mays in his prime as a leadoff man, since this is an apparently inefficient use of his skills…” He continued to state that “The bit about the most effective number eight hitter is a red herring, because being a number eight hitter isn’t a distinct offenseive role…”
To me, clearly, James does not feel the same way about the leadoff role as he does that of the left field argument.
I think there is something to be said about Rickey not being one of the steroid users either during an era of that mess….let alone, being a teammate of Canseco.
Nightfly, the reason some guys didn’t (or wouldn’t) vote for Mays, Musial, Aaron, Henderson, is the same reason why Satchel, Buck, and so many others had to toil outside the big leagues for so many years. But those voters, and there are still some out there, won’t have that excuse not to vote for Maddux. Maddux not only did everything well that could have been asked of him, but by all accounts has been a model team mate and the past few years even an unpaid pitching coach. Unless the Dodgers’ announcers were fibbing, some of the improvement of Chad Billingsley has come from sitting next to Maddux so much, and I doubt not the other young pitchers were also taking their chance to learn how the old man with weak stuff could still outpitch them.
B. E. Earl, there is a built in reason why Rickey won’t get 100% of the votes. He was a jerk, a hot dog, a diva, very egocentric. Or at least that’s the persona he displayed on the field. I *don’t* know if I really believe it. From what little I’ve heard of the man, he very well knew that his value to his team went up the more the other team was worried about him, and he may well have cultivated the attention hog persona in order to better get into their heads. And note: it doesn’t help Rickey much to have the other team thinking about him all the time. Quite the opposite; if they forgot about him, it probably would have been easier to steal bases and accumulate personal stats. But it does help the team to have the defenders worrying about Rickey; it helps the batter, and then when Rickey walks or steals it increases the pitcher’s dismay and lack of focus, which helps more hitters, and so forth.
I’m not stating an opinion either way on Rickey. Maybe he needed to be that arrogant in order to have the right mindset to play that well, or maybe it was all an act. Regardless, I’m sure some voters are turned off by it, and will choose to not for him. I think he *should* be unanimous. If you are building the top two teams of all time, Rickey is starting on one of them, no matter how much you may favor Ty Cobb as a leadoff hitter or pure sluggers from your power positions. My rule of thumb is that anybody on the top two rosters of all time should be on every ballot (but might not be) and everybody on the top four rosters of all time should be in the HOF (but again, may not be, e.g. Blyleven). I’d probably go Cobb over Rickey because Rickey’s not a center fielder and doesn’t have the arm to play right, so Rickey forces Ruth or Williams off the roster (or creates a weaker outfield defensively). But I’m not sure. There’s a lot to be said for just going with all walks and wearing out the pitchers.
Rickey Henderson: career OPS+ 127, career OBP .401. Ty Cobb: career OPS+ 167, career OBP .433. Cobb was mostly a center fielder, Rickey mostly a left fielder. Both players spent most of their careers leading off. It’s always tough comparing across different eras, but there are *reasons* why Cobb got the most votes of the first HOF ballot. Cobb was clearly the best player of all time before the lively ball era, and a *lot* of those voters did not like the changes in baseball. If I’m picking my all time team, Cobb may well be the first outfielder I choose, because with Cobb in center, I can either have Ruth or Williams in left, or, if somebody else takes both Ruth and Williams, then I’m gonna have enough of a better defensive outfield to be meaningful (and probably have Rickey in left). Talk about a 1-2 punch at the start of the lineup. If I *did* get them both, I’d put Rickey first (SP, BA, and walks), because, and lets face it, OPS+ of 167 could bat second, or maybe third if I got somebody like Boggs or Hornsby or Wagner to bat second.
I rank all time leadoff hitters as Cobb, Rickey, Raines. I consider it a travesty that baseball does not reward the guys who *score* the runs as much as the guys who drive them in. Study after study has shown that getting on base (OBP) is more important than driving them in (SP) in context of a team’s overall run expectations, and still Mattingly gets the 1985 MVP with about the 100th best #3/4 hitter season since Yankee Stadium was built (arguably about 30th best just for Yankee players) when Henderson had perhaps the best leadoff season in history, or at least since Cobb retired.
Okay, since somebody else went there, my all time team (excluding pitcher) (noting that on different days I’ll change my mind): CF Cobb, 2B Hornsby RF Ruth DH Williams LF Bonds 1B Gehrig SS Wagner 3B Boggs C Piazza, batting in that order. Please note that I don’t necessarily pick some of these players best at that position, but once I’m going down the high OBP high pitch count route pitcher’s arm destroying route, it makes sense not to stop, so Piazza gets in ahead of Bench, Campanella, or Berra; Wagner gets in ahead of Banks, ARod or Ozzie, Bonds gets in ahead of several worthy candidates, Boggs beats out Brett or Schmidt, and so forth. I think my team will substantially outfield the other (nobody is badly out of position) and not be much outhit. Hornsby, career OPS+ 175 plus the rare right handed batter to try and achieve some level of lefty righty balance, bats second. If I drop Bonds (because young Bonds doesn’t make the team) then I go with Mantle in right, Ruth in left, and also get another right handed bat. Before the arguments fly, go to baseball-reference.com (as I did) and look these guys up. I was surprised at just how good Mantle was, so I have to pick him ahead of Musial (and could accept picking him ahead of Bonds). Yeah, Collins is probably a better all around second baseman, but OBP plus power > steals plus defense, and I need the RHB for balance.
If stats aren’t meaningful forever, why bother talking about this at all?
Justyo-
Triples? The way Rickey watched his majestic fly balls, if it didn’t go out of the park, he was lucky to get into second base.
Brian –
I totally agree. Does it really matter? Rickey deserves the HOF. But my perceptions of a player are more important than any institution they may be inducted into. I cherish the stories my dad told me about the players he watched growing up and I’m looking forward to telling similar stories to my kids about players that made an impact on my life, whether they’re in the Hall or not.
JKB, thanks, I wasn’t aware of the 1992 Bill James essay on the greatest leadoff hitter. I agree that the greatest number eight hitter is a red herring because the role has no meaning (my apologies, I stretched in trying to belittle the importance of the “greatest leadoff hitter”), but I still stand behind my argument that “greatest leadoff hitter” is a back-handed compliment as the role has been used historically. While it’s inarguably true that “The speculative creation of a greater leadoff man does not diminish the fact that Rickey Henderson is the greatest leadoff man,” I disagree with James on a couple other points.
First: “To say that Willie Mays would have been a better leadoff hitter than Rickey Henderson is like saying that he would have been a better second baseman than Rogers Hornsby, or like saying that Walter Johnson would have been a greater relief pitcher than Rollie Fingers if he had just been used as a relief ace.â€
Of course, we have no idea how Mays would have performed as a second baseman (or Mantle as a third-baseman, my idea from my previous post, in which finding a place on the field for his offense was the point), but it’s pretty easy to imagine with confidence how Mays would have performed as a leadoff hitter: the situational differences between a 1 and a 3 hitter only exist in the first inning on an all-time team in which all the hitters are formidable (as opposed to potentially wasting a slugger in the one-hole on a conventional team in which he’s more likely to come up with empty bases due to the relative on-base incompetence of the 8 and 9 hitters preceding him). I didn’t choose Mays on my all-time team, and thus I wouldn’t choose him to lead off. I think he’s the embodiment of the Durocher five-tool player: the most well-rounded player, perhaps, but not necessarily the best in the aggregate of his skills or performances. He’s kind of the Oscar Robertson of baseball. Anyway, my top-of-the-order guys need to have a much higher on-base percentage than Mays, so the obvious choices are Ruth or (I change my mind) Williams, who has a higher OBP and slightly less power.
This brings me to the last of James’ points you quoted: “Nobody would have used Willie Mays in his prime as a leadoff man, since this is an apparently inefficient use of his skills…”. I agree, nobody would have, but would it be an inefficient use of his skills? I’d rather give Mays all those extra late-game at-bats every season than Alvin Dark or San Francisco’s pathetic cadre of leadoff hitters in May’s historic 1965 season:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-ten-worst-leadoff-hitters-since-1957/
I just found the above link now, and the author makes the same argument (see notes on second-worst leadoff hitter).
Last, I’m not sure James feels so differently about leadoff hitters as he does left-fielders, he just draws a rightful distinction between history and fantasy.
Richard:
“B. E. Earl, there is a built in reason why Rickey won’t get 100% of the votes. He was a jerk, a hot dog, a diva, very egocentric. Or at least that’s the persona he displayed on the field.”
That’s what the MEDIA wants you to believe. Yes, Rickey had his showboat moments, who doesn’t at that level, but the pleasure of playing in NY (twice) will turn anybody and anything into a media eyesore. I do agree though, he road that persona very well and totally towards his advantage, I give him credit for that.
Also, the media can be thanked for hyping up the “Greatest of all-time” quote to the fullest extent after he broke the SB record. What people don’t realize, thanks to the media never mentioning it, is the rest of the speech where he thanked everybody. In fact, he ran the speech by Lou Brock, got his feedback, and with his blessing said those words. Again, most people don’t realize that.
Here is the full speech….
“It took a long time, huh? (Pause for cheers). First of all, I would like to thank God for giving me the opportunity. I want to thank the Haas family, the Oakland organization, the city of Oakland, and all you beautiful fans for supporting me. (Pauses for cheers). Most of all, I’d like to thank my mom, my friends, and loved ones for their support. I want to give my appreciation to Tom Trebelhorn and the late Billy Martin. Billy Martin was a great manager. He was a great friend to me. I love you, Billy. I wish you were here. (Pauses for cheers). Lou Brock was the symbol of great base stealing. But today, I’m the greatest of all time. Thank you.”
I am indeed fully aware of the idea of putting your absolute best hitter in the one hole and in all honesty, I think I’d like to see somebody try it. I mean, it actually has been done (thinking back to when Boggs led off in Boston off and on in the late 80’s and to when Henderson did it in Oakland in the early 90’s, before McGwire could, you know, actually hit). You’d think LaRussa might give it a shot some time… we can hope right?
Anyway… Joe’s blog is awesome and its always great to see what he starts and the discussions that come from it.
Excellent blog, Poz. “Most walks to lead off an inning” isn’t the sexiest stat (or most concise) but it’s juicy. I’m sure it won’t go unnoticed by a few curmudgeons.
Re. Maddux — Astorian, I saw Maddux play with the Cubs in the early days. He was an exceptional fielder. It’s not about making spectacular plays, it’s about MAKING PLAYS. His reflexes were cat-like. He prevented many hundreds of base hits with his fielding alone. His follow through never took him out of position to field.
Look at K-Rod! He doesn’t give up a lot of hits but that dude couldn’t make a defensive play on a beach ball the way he falls off the mound. Besides his mechanics may lead to a short injury filled career. Greg Maddux, good mechanics, 23 years.
JKB,
Yeah, someone like LaRussa will consistently hit his best batter first at some point and it’ll be fascinating.
The Red Sox the last two seasons, I believe, sometimes batted Kevin Youkilis first. While he wasn’t the best hitter on the team (certainly not before Ramirez was traded), he obviously didn’t fit the stereotype of a leadoff man. I also seem to recall (from reading “Moneyball”, I imagine) that the Athletics a few years ago hit Scott Hattererg (!) first, at least on occasion.
This is speculative, but it stands to reason that many managers don’t try things like this not because they haven’t considered the benefits, but because of their incentive to manage conservatively. Essentially, when they make orthodox decisions, they know they’ll be absolved if their choice backfires. No one will second-guess their choices. In harsher terms, their modus operandi is not to do whatever they think will help the team win but rather whatever will keep them from being the target of criticism.
If the long-term result is that their team performs poorly and they’re fired, well, the manager always takes the fall. It looks almost heroically stoic, like the captain going down with the ship. Writers and talking heads opine, “It was time for him to go, but he was always a class-act, accepting the responsibility and never blaming his players. Maybe it just wasn’t the right situation. We wish him better luck wherever he next lands.” The failed managers are basically lauded for being well behaved and unfortunate instead of cowardly, inept and self-serving.
The problem is that almost all managers behave like this: a team has little hope of hiring a replacement who will actually risk flouting orthodoxy and thus the inevitable backlash if his choices don’t succeed and he can’t excuse himself with the pathetic “anyone would have made the decision I did”. Occasionally there are managers like LaRussa who have earned the right to experiment in the eyes of ownership and even the press because they have a proven record of winning (often by making smart unorthodox decisions).
There is also the rare brand of manager who just doesn’t give a f_ and thus has the courage to make whatever deviant choices he wishes. The obvious example is Billy Martin, who was beloved by fans and players not simply because he was a character, but because he had the courage of his convictions.
Going back to the examples of Youkilis and Hatterberg, there’s compelling evidence that upper management and ownership had their managers’ back, that the risk-taker was someone higher up (John Henry/ Theo Epstein and Billy Beane and Co., respectively). More teams should take this approach or encourage their managers in an even stronger manner by telling them they are expected to make intelligent decisions regardless of orthodoxy and that they’ll be fired and blamed if they don’t.
In his ESPN.com column, Gregg Easterbrook has long decried the cowardly punt play-calls of coaches whose motivation is to avoid criticism rather than win. Rather than giving their team a better chance to win by going for it on fourth down, coaches often punt to avoid criticism of the “riskier” run or pass play. Likewise, owners and general managers should tell their coaches, “I will fire you if you punt when we’re down by 23 points in the third quarter, because that’s essentially throwing in the towel.” The NFL coach most likely to “risk” (actually usually playing the percentages) going for it on fourth down is Bill Belichick, who is the Tony LaRussa of the NFL: successful and respected to the point of being a fire-proof “genius”.
The reception to Grady Little’s choice of keeping Pedro Martinez in the game against Aaron Boone in game 7 of the ALCS was fascinating. He was basically run out of town because of the result of one hit ball, a fate not even suffered by John McNamara for not pulling Buckner in game 6 of the 1986 World Series. Perhaps Little would have been criticized as roundly if he had pulled Martinez and Boone had hit the homer off a relief pitcher. What was remarkable, though, was how the fallout from his decision proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the sea-change in managerial orthodoxy in the last twenty or twenty-five years. Had the sequence of events occurred in 1973 or even 1983, Little would certainly not have been criticized for keeping Martinez in the game. He likely wouldn’t have even been questioned about it: it went without saying that he had not pulled the best pitcher in baseball.
So, strategies change, and conventional wisdom follows. It took a couple decades, but by 2003 Tony LaRussa’s once-radical bullpen use had become conservative orthodoxy. There’s hope for less punting on fourth down and batting the Scott Hatterbergs of the world first.
Progress comes slowly.
I have long thought that the HOF process is flawed. They should set a cutoff, say 95%. If a player gets 95% of the vote, then anyone who doesn’t vote forthat player loses their vote. The writers who vote in this election use their prejudices and biases to penalize worthy candidates without being accountable.
While I agree there is no baseball reason for Rickey to not be voted in unanimously, I think voters also consider character. And in my book, Rickey was a first-class jerk.
Yes I’m biased as Rickey walked past a 10 year old boy (me 20+ years ago) holding a pennant in his hand for him to sign. His response was “I ain’t got time” as he strolled into a bar some of his old Yankees teammates were hanging out in. There was no one else asking for an autograph, just one kid who learned first-hand how self-centered the guy was.
That being said, his performance in the ‘89 playoffs was probably the most dominant of any player I’ve ever seen. When he reached first base, it was automatic that he’d make it to third on his own. The Blue Jays never had a chance (and sadly neither did my Giants).
I hate to say it, but it almost makes sense — if you were going to have someone be the first guy (okay, second) unanimously elected to the Hall, would you really want it to be Rickey?
He’s absolutely the guy I’d want hitting first for any club I put together — but he’s not THAT guy to be the first unanimous choice.
Man, I can’t believe I wrote that.
<>
Jin Rice must have been one scary hitting dude to be walked in that situation
1000! (Lame.) On the Rice candidacy, and in referral to the Dave Parker reference earlier: Jim Ed (I’m from Boston so I know him) was the most dangerous hitter in the league for a bunch o’ years. Parker ditto in the NL. But Rice’s stats are not much different from his mate Dewey Evans. And a slew of other fine ballplayers from that era. Sounds like he might be in this year, and I’ll be happy for him, but if I’m voting he doesn’t quite make the cut. Rickey unanimous. Blyleven is the deserving one that has been hung out to dry. Anti-Dutch bias I think.
Joe, for years I’ve said Gammons belonged, and I hope you’ll get yours one o’ these years. I love your writing. Hall-worthy.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/scomp.cgi?I=parkeda01:Dave+Parker&st=career
PS – I like the Schmidt idea. Not perfect but you kinda know an HOFer when you see one. There are the Rickeys & Seavers, then there are the Rices. No idear about the steroids guys. Maybe they were all on an even playing field?
Hudson Valley Slim,
Wow, great link: it’s essentially a group photo of many of the most contentious “Far Side of Paradise” players (other than Billy Williams, who seems to had a roughly equivalent but slightly longer career than many of the others and passed the 400-homer threshold: HOF voters love those silly round-number base-ten milestones). Rice proponents are exasperated that their guy has been overlooked for fifteen years, but it’s clear by comparing his stats with the other players on the page that the only reason he’s received as much HOF voting interest as he has is because he was overrated during his career and continues to be.
I grew up in Boston and first started rooting for the Sox in ‘78: if Yaz was God, then Rice was the son of God. Lynn and Fisk were popular, but Evans was pretty much an afterthought (I mean, even Rick Burleson and Jerry Remy probably got more love) until he grew into one of the league’s best hitters in the early 80s. Even then, Rice was definitely perceived as the power-hitting alpha dog of the lineup. When Wade Boggs came up, he was considered a chicken-eating, high-average-hitting perfectionist, but was always derided as a “singles-hitter.” The prevailing notion was that pitchers were frustrated by him but intimidated by Rice and Tony Armas, the “big bats” in the lineup.
Boggs always carried the stigma of being “one-dimensional” and “selfish”, whereas Rice was the well-rounded slugger who hit for a high average. Evans was a player we all liked and respected, but there was a sense that he was an overachiever with a funny stance whereas Rice was the born power-hitting savant who was the rightful heir to the left-field throne of Williams and Yastrzemski. Heck, even the 406 total bases he hit in 1978 evoked memories of the most famous number in team history. There were radio rumors of trading Rice straight-up for Dave Winfield, which reminded everyone of the Williams-for-Dimaggio rumors 35 years or so before (famously nixed because the Sox demanded the Yanks throw-in the young, unknown then-outfielder Lawrence Berra). And there are the Bunyan-esque stories of how far he could drive a golf ball and how he broke bats on checked swings.
Of course, Dave Parker was to the NL what Rice was to the AL in the late 70s: the young slugging outfielder who hit for a high average. In their peak years of ‘77-’79 they had enormous exposure: they were their respective leagues’ MVPs in 1978, played in pennant races (and in Parker’s case, won a World Series) and shared the cover of Sports Illustrated. While Parker fell into drugs and emerged a good but lesser player, Rice declined a bit but had a resurgence in 1984 and played in the ‘86 World Series. Their career numbers are remarkably similar, but Parker mysteriously got much less traction with HOF voters, as did Evans.
Rice had four very good years and another five or six good ones, but the notion that he somehow “dominated” the league is just silly. He played in an era in which offensive performance was essentially measured in batting average, home runs, and rbis: those happened to be his strong suits. He also struck out a lot, hit into an inordinate number of double plays and didn’t walk too much. A mediocre fielder and base runner, he was the best hitter in the league exactly one year, as were, arguably, his teammates and fellow outfielders Fred Lynn and Dwight Evans. If they received too little attention from HOF voters, Rice has already received too much.
For what it’s worth, my HOF ballot selections would be Henderson, Raines, Blyleven and Trammell, reserving judgement on McGwire. The first two are clear-cut choices while Blyleven and Trammell are more borderline. They are well within the HOF margins for their respective positions, however, and in a just world would merit greater consideration.
You ever hear the story of how Rickey framed his first MLB check, rather than depositing it? Or how when he was reunited with John Olerud on the Mariners he told Olerud that he played with a guy in Toronto that wore a helmet in the field?
Has there been a mass brain washing or perhaps none of you lived in the NY area when Rick the quick played for the Bronx Bombers or later in his career for the Mets?
There’s no debate that Henderson is one of baseball’s all time talents, but there is a very valid reason he shouldn’t go in with 100% of the vote.
Henderson dogged it. Henderson stayed out of games when he just wasn’t into playing. He turned it on and off at his own whim.
To me, that doesn’t make him one of the truly great ones. And before we all annoint him a first ballot hall of famer the plain fact that he didn’t always give his teams and his fans his best effort at least needs to be mentioned.
Wake up everybody!
Thanks for the chance to comment,
Tidewater Jackson
http://www.fullcontactsports.wordpress.com
PS – He loved the game so much that when his Mets where on the verge of playoff elimination this all time great was busy playing cards in the clubhouse.
“PS – He loved the game so much that when his Mets where on the verge of playoff elimination this all time great was busy playing cards in the clubhouse.”
Oh brother….the NY media again. Such drama. You do realize that other players where in the clubhouse as well, right? He wasn’t there alone. Valentine has said several times that he didn’t mind that happening and even suggested it at times during other games throughout the season.
And if that were the “worst” thing to happen in a 25-year career….ummm, that’s just awesome. No drugs, no convictions, no DUI’s, happily married to his high school sweetheart. Now THAT IS SOMETHING TO BE PROUD OF.
RICE OVER RICKEY
There are a zillion ways to evaluate baseball players – so while it strains credulity that someone would leave a player like Rickey (or Seaver or Aaron or Ruth or ….) of their ballot, the mere fact that some voters have inexplicably chosen to do so invalidates any argument that relies on percentage of HoF vote as a measure of a player’s greatness. It should not even be part of the discussion – either someone is in the Hall of Fame or not (or alternatively – should be in/should not be in – which is much more fun).
We should be (and are) having discussions like so many of the good posts above such as whether Jim Rice was one of the most feared hitters of the era or were his stats inflated by Fenway and where does Rickey Henderson fit in among the greatest players of all-time, rather than wasting mental energy on whether Player A is better than Player B because they got a higher percentage of the BBWAA HoF vote or whether so-and-so should be a unanimous choice.
Regarding Rickey’s stature among all-time greats, I postulate that he is one of the top 5 players of the last 50 or so years (i.e post-Williams/Musial/Dimaggio era). Using Joe’s “Willie Mays HoFers”, of those non-pitchers who began their careers after 1950 (Murray; McCovey; Carew; Morgan; Jackie Robinson; Ripken; Ozzie Smith; Banks; Yount; Brett; Schmidt; Boggs; Brooks Robinson; Aaron; Gwynn; Jackson; Clemente; Frank Robinson; Kaline; Winfield; Mays; Mantle; Puckett; Yastrzemski; Stargell; Brock; Bench; Molitor) and other HoF eligibles, who is “greater than” or “as great as” Rickey – Aaron and Mays, for sure; Mantle, Clemente – probably; others in the discussion – Morgan? Ripken? What if we include active players whose careers are largely complete – Griffey? Bonds (who opens a host of other issues)?
MR, a small history note: Jackie Robinson retired before Williams and Musial did. But as to the top 10 position players more than half of whose careers came after 1958? Mays, Mantle, Aaron, Bonds, Frank Robinson, probably Morgan and Bench (9/9/09), perhaps Rose (9/9/09). Griffey Jr. before his injuries. Then there are those still playing: A-Rod, Pujols, maybe someone else. IMO, if Rickey had been one of the top ten, managements wouldn’t have allowed him to be such a vagabond. (Recommendation: see p. 656 of James’s Win Shares.)
Joe, you might want to make a note of this: Y-A-S-T-R-Z-E-M-S-K-I.
You ought to do the guy the same honor of using his full name that you gave to everyone else you listed. It’s not really that hard to remember how to spell it out. I learned when I was 6. (Of course that was in 1973 and I grew up in a diehard Sox household, but still. Not that hard, especially for a professional wordsmith.)
Rickey be Rickey….the great thing about Rickey going in to the HOF will be the acceptance speech. Might be the only one in history to be given entirely in third person.
When even the HOF votes aren’t 100%, it makes me wonder when they do an election re-count and all 100 “missing” ballots were for just the one candidate. Makes you stop and think just how “missing” those ballots really were.
Yes, Rickey Henderson deserves the Hall of Fame. He has earned it, to say the least. Still, Henderson had his bad moments – though very few – and he does NOT deserve 100% of the vote.
Henderson, like many, stayed well past his prime. He was hanging on LONG after teams, fellow players were telling him to call it a career. Yes…he could still get the job done when he wanted to.
I still remember, sadly, when his play in the Postseason as a Met was ineffective – he was taken out of the game. Still, Henderson should have been on the bench and in the dugout cheering on his team. He ended that year playing chess, checkers or some other board/card game in the clubhouse. Sorry…he loses a vote or two for that selfishness.
Oh, yeah – all those stolen bases. How many were just to steal bases? Joe Morgan wouldn’t have come close in career, but I wonder how many more bases he would have had if he was stealing bases for that feat alone. Morgan stole bases in meaningful situations…to help the team win. He would have stolen over 1000 easily if he would have taken the Henderson approach.
Still, Henderson has EARNED his spot on the Baseball Hall of Fame Roster. I hope MLB, and the HOF shows forgiveness and kindness and allows Pete Rose to join Henderson, Cobb, Ruth, Schmidt, Bench and the others one day…hopefully before Charlie Hustle dies.
Given the usual level of numerical literacy on this blog, the percentage numbers on the poll need to be fixed. They are being rounded to the nearest percentage point, which is fine, but they are showing one decimal place always being 0. Which is clearly not correct. So either round them to the nearest decimal place, and don’t show a decimal place, or round them to the nearest tenth of a decimal point and show that. Thanks!
Tidewater Jackson
Did Rickey really dog it as a Yankee?
According to the always accurate and kind
New York Press, he did.
What is the history of how this story started? Had he ever
been accused of dogging it before in his career? No, he had NOT.
Rickey had come to “Sweet” Lou Piniella complaining of a terrible pain in
his leg, and asked to take some time off so it could heal. “Sweet Lou”
not known for much compassion basically told Henderson to get his tail
out on the field. And continued to make him play daily in extreme pain.
“Sweet Lou” also complained to George Steinbrener and the NY press that
that Rickey was “dogging it”. George decided to go into the locker room
before one of the games and scolded Rickey for dogging it per Piniella’s
tattelng. Rickey told George he was not dogging it, he was really hurting.
George said to him, lets get the leg checked out and get to the bottom of this.
The results came back that Rickey had severely torn tendon that ran from
the top of his leg to the bottom of his buttock. The doctor was amazed that
he was able to play on it at all. George appologized to Rickey, and told him
to take off as much time as needed to heal. He also told “Sweet Lou” the
results. “Sweet Lou” never told the press the true story, so the story of
Rickey dogging it stayed attached to his persona. Steinbrenner did try to
get the NY press to write a retraction, but they never did.
He did play cards while with the Mets, but the story about him dogging it all
came from “Sweet Lou” who did give a shit about his players. And was too
chicken shit to tell the press he was wrong.