Wee Willie Keeler, the most “useful” player of all time?
Sorry for the long delay. The holidays killed me, too much travel and them home computer imploded. Also keep in mind this blog is a function of how much research i’m activly doing, while I would love to spend 10 hours a day 4 days a week in the “stacks”, life doesn’t always allow it. With that said, back to regularly scheduled quotes. This is a great one from the December 26th 1919, Boston Globe:
Joe Kelley is quoted by “Skipper” Sinnott in the New York Mail as saying that Willie Keeler was the greatest ball player he ever saw, and Tom McCarthy agreed with him. My own recollection is that I heard Joe once say that Honus Wagner was the most useful ball player on his club; but it may be that we that we were making a comparison between Ty Cobb and Honus. However if we accept the most useful player as the greatest, it lies in my mind between Wagner and Keeler, and there is no question that “Wee Willlie” was far more scientific and calculating.
Now here is where it really starts to get interesting:
With one out and a man on third and but one run needed to win the game, Willie Keeler could bring that run home oftener than any man who ever played the game in my day. He was the most scientific batsman I ever saw. He came nearer to being a “place” hitter in the sense of hitting more accurately than merely batting to left or to right than any of the other noted batsman. He exemplified his own quaint saying of the secret to successful batting, “hitting’em where they ain’t.” Seldom did he give an infielder an easy play, and for that reason rarely hit into a double play, which so often in baseball kills what often looks like the winning rally.
Reading that for the first time I instantly thought of Ichiro! And his ability to hit’em where they ain’t, and to also never give an infielder an easy play. It seems to me that the author the “Sportsman” and Joe Kelley and Tom McCarthy are making similar miscues we still see today in player evaluation. Giving additional credit to what is visually pleasing to watch, no doubt Ichiro, or in his day Willie Keller was one of the most exciting players to watch, a speedy ball in play offense is in my eyes the most appealing to watch, that doesn’t necessarily translate to most “useful” or “greatest” or what have you.
\
Mister High Standards
Posted: January 16, 2006 at 03:19 PM |
7 comment(s)
Related News:
History
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Out of curiosity, when did Babe Ruth overtake Ty Cobb in the public's eye as "the greatest player of all time"?
Sam - I think that’s an interesting question. While not answering the question definitively here is a list of position players who debuted before 1910, who also accumulated more than 300 career win shares.
Keeler is exactly 20th on that list. Now lets see if we shine the brightest light possible on Wee Willies career, lets see how high we can get him. Lets just look at batting win shares, since win shares doesn't think favorably of his defense. Keeler jumps to 15th. Of those 15 guys we can pick a few guys off the list since there body of work wasn't yet complete. So lets pick off anyone who debuted after Cobb... that takes Speaker, Collins and Wheat off the list, and brings Keeler to around 12th. Now let pick a few more guys off who perhaps the media at the time didn't realize how great they were. So lets cut Billy Hamilton, George Davis, Sherry Magee, and Ed Delahanty. So that brings us to Wee Willie being 8th. Now lets toss out Dan Brouthers, and Roger Connor because they debuted 30 years before the quote, and maybe people forgot how great they were. So that leaves us 5 guys: Cobb, Wagner, Sam Crawford, Fred Clarke, and Jesse Burkett.
So I guess 5th in the most favorable light, viewed through the prism of win shares.
This is the list I was referring to previously.
nameFirstnameLastPosBatWSFieldWSPitchWSTotWSTy Cobb CF639.782.70.4722.6
Honus Wagner SS513.9141.70.7656.2
Tris Speaker CF511.91180629.6
Eddie Collins 2B463.3108.60572.3
Nap Lajoie 2B398.895.90494.7
Sam CrawfordRF398.848.60447.5
Fred Clarke LF335.664.10399.7
George Davis SS296.8100.20396.9
Bill Dahlen SS248.9143.30392.2
Jesse Burkett LF335.252.90.4388.5
Zack Wheat LF322580380.2
Roger Connor 1B322.340.10362.5
Dan Brouthers1B329.125.50354.5
Ed DelahantyLF311.142.60353.5
Sherry Magee LF305.846.60352.5
Bobby Wallace SS201.5114.129.9345.9
George Van HaltrenCF256.447.640.4344.7
Jimmy SheckardLF272.666.50338.7
Billy HamiltonCF287.4490336.6
Willie Keeler RF284.648.60333.1
Tommy Leach CF232.596.10328.8
Harry Hooper RF268.553.10.3321.7
Jake Beckley 1B278.638.10316.8
Jimmy Ryan CF252.355.77.3315
Bid McPhee 2B206.998.70305.4
Joe Kelley LF252.351.60303.7
Frank Baker 3B234.965.20300.3
Focusing just on 90's and Oughts-centered outfielders:
Billy Hamilton: Eligible 1907, elected 1907
Ed Delahanty: Eligible 1909, elected 1909
Jesse Burkett: Eligible 1911, elected 1912 (Had to wait in 1911 elect-one year for Kid Nichols)
[Harry Stovey: Eligible 1899, elected 1914 - a leftover from an earlier time]
Fred Clarke: Eligible 1917, elected 1917
Elmer Flick: Eligible 1916, elected 1918
Joe Kelley: Eligible 1914, elected 1919
Willie Keeler: Eligible 1916, elected 1919
Sam Thompson: Eligible 1907, elected 1929
Jimmy Sheckard: Eligible 1919, elected 1930
(The elections of Thompson and Sheckard waited for some later outfielders: Sam Crawford, Sherry Magee, Joe Jackson, Pete Hill.)
Hugh Duffy: Eligible 1907, still on ballot in 1968, possible future election
Geo. Van Haltren: Eligible 1913, still on ballot in 1968, possible future election
It's very clear that the three top-quality 1890's outfielders were Delahanty, Burkett, and Hamilton. Kelley and Keeler are on a second rung - good enough for us to elect them, but not so compelling as to keep us from doing some other business (Clarke, Flick) first.
That quote from Kelley is steeped in dead-ball ideology, with the word "scientific" the highest available praise. I doubt that Kelley would have chosen the same words, or even the same tone, had he been quoted from 20-25 years earlier when he and Keeler were teammates on the pennant-winning Orioles. Dead-ball-ideology quotes can be a strange thing sometimes - I've seen some quotes that absolutely gush about Hal Chase. And note what the quote above says about Wagner, and I've seen others of similar tone. You couldn't avoid the fact that Wagner was good - you couldn't avoid the fact that he was great - but you don't always get the sense that he was appreciated by his contemporaries as the dominant player of the age. He didn't look like a shortstop - big, barrel-chested, enormously strong, and he always hit the ball hard. Wagner hitting the ball hard might not always have met the ideal of "scientific" but it won baseball games for the Pirates.
My book on the 1908 NL pennant race had quotes that suggested otherwise--that the Pirates were a one-man team, and that one man made them pennant contenders.
I think you underestimate the respect Wagner had.
My book
You wrote that book?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main