User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.4608 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
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.
1. Craig Calcaterra Posted: February 04, 2009 at 03:20 PM (#3067275)I never will :-)
Best Regards
John
Methinks Ted Kluszewski had five such seasons as well with four meeting the "minimum 20 HR" clause often added.
With that proviso, only one of Lombardi's seasons qualifies (which does nothing to diminish the accomplishment).
I don't think he was older, I think it was the injuries.
In 1980 he had 48 Sb and 15 Cs - his performance had already declined- he had lost the ability to drive the ball- when injured in 1977/78. Then he lost his plus speed after that.
C - Elston Howard*
1B - Norm Cash
2B - Del Pratt
SS - Vern Stephens
3B - Ron Cey
LF - Bob Johnson
CF - Tommy Leach**
RF - Bobby Bonds
SP - Tommy Bridges or Don Newcombe
RP - Tom Henke (if Quiz doesn't count)
* Don't know if he counts as not being the subject of buzz. Next would be Munson, same issue, and then Schang.
** This is the one guy who I was surprised not to see even getting a runner-up position somewhere on Matt's list. If I had him at 3B, he'd be ahead of Cey.
Not really, but he's up there. He's 5th in TBs among eligibles, 5th in hits, etc.
He also had more of a peak than people give him credit for, top 5 OPS+ seasons:
166, 153, 147, 139, 137.
The vast majority of his career was spent in a very poor offensive context (.259/.325/.383).
Had he played his whole career in Fenway or Wrigley or Philly he'd likely be in the HOF (without actually being any better a player) Most permutations of BBREF's neutralize function puts him close enough to 3000 hits, 300 HR, 1500 RBI- that if he really did get up to 2925 hits there's little doubt he'd gotten the ABs to let him get over - from ages 37+ his OPS+ was 109 in 700 PAs, he could still hit enough to be quasi-useful
(basically as a hitter he was comparable to Tony Perez, he was a little better than Tony, but Tony got to play in better parks and had better teammates for him to drive in- so Tony's in and le Grand Orange is out. BTW I think Tony was a HOF mistake so I'm not advocating for Staub, jut pointing out that with a little luck he could have cleared the MSM's "definitions" of a HOF worthy player)
1B - Norm Cash
2B - Larry Doyle
3B - Ron Cey
SS - Bert Campaneris
LF - Bob Johnson
CF - Tommy Leach
RF - Bobby Bonds
SP - Rick Reuschel
RP - Dan Quisenberry
my post-1900 non-HoF/HoM team.
yes, and PAs (until Palmeiro is eligible).
1B - Frank Howard (played enough there so he wouldn't be a liability)
2B - Larry Doyle
3B - Ron Cey
SS - Vern Stephens
LF - Jose Cruz - one of my favorite all time and a really nice guy when I met him
CF - Tommy Leach
RF - Gavvy Cravath
SP - Tommy Bridges
RP - Quisenberry
IMHO
1B - Norm Cash
2B - Del Pratt (Fred Dunlap is higher)
3B - Ron Cey
SS - Jim Fregosi (Bus Clarkson)
LF - Bob Johnson
CF - Tommy Leach (if he's too early, then Dom DiMaggio)
RF - Gavy Cravath
SP - Tommy Bridges
RP - Lee Smith
Well, it makes some sense. Generally speaking, as they decline with age, 3B don't have the bat to move a less-demanding defensive position and certainly not the range to move to SS/CF. It also may be a physically demanding position that shortens careers (given how many 3B seem to fall off cliffs). Either way, few 3B are able to amass long careers which essentially makes the vast majority of 3B HoF/HoM cases "pure peak" cases. The same applies to 2B. So unless you followed a fairly strict "the top X at each position" rule, you wouldn't expect as many 2B and 3B.
And I'll throw another hypothesis out there. 3B (and 2B and CF) are positions which have transitioned substantially during baseball's history (in terms of their mix of desired offensive/defensive capability). Players who get "caught" in these transition periods may end up looking worse than they were. This may particularly hurt in terms of HoF chances since those voters weren't likely to be tracking that sort of thing (the HoM has had the benefit of historical hindsight).
But even after that, it was still true that offensive performance of CF wasn't all that much below the offensive performance of LF and RF - until about 1960. Then something happened, and CF haven't hit as well since.
Think about it this way: from the start of Cobb's career to the end of May's career is a little less than 70 years. In those years we had Cobb, Speaker, DiMaggio, Mantle, Mays - and also Charleston, Stearns, and Torriente. Since then it's been nearly 40 years, and who have we had? There's Griffey, and then we argue about the Hall qualifications of Wynn, Murphy, Dawson, Edmonds, and so on. It's not the same level of talent at the position. (The elite players aren't even really the argument, but what's happening underneath that is tracking in the same direction.)
Rusty was a pinch hitter extraordinare for several seasons. He was a unique player - a guy with no defensive abilities, and might have been the slowest player in the game, playing in a non-DH league, but who could still hit. He created an impression in many people's minds at that time. Not to mettion he was doing this on a New York team. I'm guessing there's a lot of poeple my age who think of Rusty in this way only.
then i noticed a lot of new orleanians became giants fans when will clark played there.
I did. TWIB ran a feature on his routine once that always stuck with me. It was only my obsessive scanning of stats on the back of baseball cards that clued me in to the more glorious years of Rusty Staub. He was one of those guys that had so many years they had to shrink the font to fit everything. I always liked reading the stats of the shrunken font guys!
Yeah. Sadly, I'm wedded to the Shooty handle. I do like Shrunken Font Guy as a handle, though.
I'm always surprised by Rusty Staub. When I was a kid he was a pinch hitter for the Mets, and as far as I knew he'd never been much more. I never heard tales of the great young Rusty. I was well into my 20s before I found out he had almost 3000 hits and 1500 RBI. Jeez, Rusty Staub?!
Like Tim Raines!
How does Fred Lynn compare to the players mentioned in the article? I don't know his Win Shares, but here are some other stats from bb-ref...
Lynn: .648 OWP, 289.4 BtRuns
Cedeno: .610 OWP, 225.7 BtRuns
Otis: .593 OWP, 146.7 BtRuns
Davis: .536 OWP, 39.4 BtRuns
And Lynn has a few Gold Gloves too, so his argument is probably not entirely based on his batting. It's unclear to me why he wouldn't trump Cedeno -- Lynn isn't in the HOM is he? He didn't come particularly close to induction into the HOF, did he? (Maybe he did and I've forgotten).
For me it was Pete Rose and Phil Niekro. Those baseball cards were like novels. I always felt kinda sad for the guys who had so few years in the bigs that they had to put their stats from Hawaii or Bakersfield on the card. Yeah, I was a stupid kid.
Well, it makes some sense. Generally speaking, as they decline with age, 3B don't have the bat to move a less-demanding defensive position and certainly not the range to move to SS/CF. It also may be a physically demanding position that shortens careers (given how many 3B seem to fall off cliffs). Either way, few 3B are able to amass long careers which essentially makes the vast majority of 3B HoF/HoM cases "pure peak" cases. The same applies to 2B. So unless you followed a fairly strict "the top X at each position" rule, you wouldn't expect as many 2B and 3B.
And I'll throw another hypothesis out there. 3B (and 2B and CF) are positions which have transitioned substantially during baseball's history (in terms of their mix of desired offensive/defensive capability). Players who get "caught" in these transition periods may end up looking worse than they were. This may particularly hurt in terms of HoF chances since those voters weren't likely to be tracking that sort of thing (the HoM has had the benefit of historical hindsight).
All true enough. But I think the larger issue is simply that third base, occupying dead center on the defensive spectrum, thus serves as the "crossroads" in players' career paths. Middle infielders with some pop in their bats move over there for the end of their career, while corner outfielders often spend some time at third before finally moving along to first base, etc. Few players play a full career as primarily a third baseman.
And, the best young athletes rarely are allowed to focus on playing third base. The best gloves/legs are moved to middle infield or center field, and the best bats are moved to first base or corner outfield, and the guys with exceptional arms are often moved to catcher or pitcher. Third base becomes the "utility man" among the defensive positions, not a glamour spot.
The early burnout rate for those CFs who might have been great since 1960 is very high- Cedeno, Lynn, Murphy, Eric Davis, Andruw Jones. Perhaps CFs bear a disproportionate long-term brunt of the effects of turf because they have to run more. Lynn, of course, played on a grass field in the AL, so it is unlikely that was a factor for him. Griffey might have had a better career had he played on grass.
He was an exceptional case in so many ways. Robinson's reflexes were unbelievably quick, and his hands unbelievably soft, but his arm wasn't all that strong, certainly not the kind you like to see in a third baseman. Nor, when he was young, did he hit with the kind of power that modern teams have preferred in a third baseman.
Paul Richards toyed with Robinson at second base, presumably because it better suited his arm, and where his light bat would be less problematic, but Robinson, though quick, was so darn slow that he didn't have the range to handle second base.
So he stayed at third base, just because his odd set of strengths & weaknesses really didn't allow him to fit anywhere else.
It sure isn't. I suspect that part of the issue is that those elite caliber athletes are more often being deployed at shortstop in the modern era.
Also, as Mike points out, a high proportion of great young CFers have burned out in the modern era. It might be a systemic issue, or it might be just coincidence.
Never thought of that. I certainly remember the great Raines, but there are probably some younger people who recall him as a Yankees part-time OF and get surprised by the HOF talk.
Somewhat in the same vein, I was shocked to find out one day that Don Baylor had once stolen 52 bases in a season. Baylor, our big lumbering DH? How the hell did he do that?
And conversely, I remember looking up guys like Keith Moreland and Bob Dernier and being dismayed to learn they weren't really superstars.
I read one time, though probably incorrectly, that Brooks was actually born a lefty and as a kid used to throw left handed. Somewhere along the line he put he glove on the left hand and learned to throw righty.
Anyone else here ever hear of this or have I read some drivel somewhere?
Several of the long-career third basemen have been remarkably slow runners: Yost, Clete Boyer, Santo, Cey. Boggs was very slow for a top-of-the-order hitter. There were some really inert third basemen when I was a kid: Don Wert, Ken McMullen. Ken Keltner would score "yes" on the question "Was he the slowest man on his team" if he hadn't played alongside Lou Boudreau. And it's not just big muscle-bound guys (Eddie Mathews, Aramis Ramirez). Graig Nettles was a wonderful fielder, but slow. Buddy Bell was a good athlete, but the man was slow. Aurelio Rodriguez was athletic-looking, but he stole 35 bases in his entire career. How many long-career third basemen in the past 50 years or so could be described as actually "fast"? Schmidt and Terry Pendleton in their youth, and maybe also George Brett when younger. Usually however they don't move forward at any kind of notable rate – certainly not compared to SS and 2B.
Forgive me if this is a rehash of what somebody posted in an ancient HOM thread. I am not consciously plagiarizing :)
Well, pardon me, but: duh. That's why they're third basemen and not SS or 2B!
The modern model of the third baseman came into vogue in the 1940s/50s (and Keltner was probably its most prominent model), and has never gone out of style: he's there for his arm and his bat, not his legs. Because there's vastly less bunting than in the deadball era, teams are quite willing to sacrifice quickness in a third baseman, so long as he can handle the smash behind the bag and make the long throw to first.
The occasional old-style third baseman who comes along in the modern era (the young Pendleton, or Chone Figgins) really stands out, but until the 1930s/40s that's what most third basemen were like.
He had some defensive abilities- if you count knowing how to play an ability- he just didn't have the athletic ability to play defense- the end result was a poor fielder but not a horrendously bad one (like Luzinski).
Until that time period, there was very little distinction drawn between 2B, 3B, and SS, a good infielder could, and often did, play ANY of those three positions. In fact, until the mid-20s teams often didn't draw distinctions between *any* of the infield positions; 1Bs often could, and often did, play other positions in the infield.
-- MWE
That was true earlier in his career, but by 1984 or 1985, he was pretty close to Luzinski level, at least as far as I remember.
Cedeno: .610 OWP, 225.7 BtRuns
Lynn: 72/54 SB/CS
Cedeno: 550/179 SB/CS
That probably evens things out to some degree - I'm pretty sure SB/CS don't factor into BtRuns, although I'm not sure about OWP. But Lynn would have been worth mentioning, which was your primary point.
Most steals for a third baseman (>50% of games at third base that season), since 1980:
46 Chris Sabo 1988
41 Howard Johnson 1989
41 Chone Figgins 2007
41 Paul Molitor 1982
41 Paul Molitor 1983
41 Paul Molitor 1988
37 Carney Lansford 1989
34 Chone Figgins 2004
34 Chone Figgins 2008
34 David Wright 2007
34 Howard Johnson 1990
32 Howard Johnson 1987
32 Aaron Boone 2002
32 Ryne Sandberg 1982
32 Luis Salazar 1982
30 Howard Johnson 1991
29 Carney Lansford 1988
28 Alex Rodriguez 2004
27 Paul Molitor 1989
27 Carney Lansford 1987
27 Corey Koskie 2001
And as is traditional, when Corey Koskie shows up in the leaderboard, I stop with him.
Always happy to be on the receiving end of a "duh" :) but, it's interesting that some of the very best defensive 2B and SS have been exceedingly slow runners too: Mazeroski, Bobby Knoop, Dick Green. Boudreau, of course, Bobby Wine, Ed Brinkman. There's no necessary correlation between sprinting speed and infield play; most of an IF's motion is lateral. Now, many 2B and SS are better overall athletes, and their positions demand it, and thus on the whole they're faster. But their positions don't demand flat-out speed per se.
Yep. And, of course, under deadball conditions with the constant bunting, good range was demanded of a first baseman. The model of the lumbering power-hitting first baseman didn't become the norm until, like third basemen, a good 20-30 years after 1920.
Throw Dick Groat in there, too.
But of course it is just some; they're the exceptions, not the rule. Most middle infielders have substantially more running speed than most third basemen, in the modern era.
Luzinski was always that bad.
It was a different game
1: Many more sac bunts
2: More bunting for hits
3: Many more hit and runs
4: More SB attempts
5: Less Ks, less flyballs, far more IF plays
The 3b had to be far more mobile than a modern 3b, the lightening reflexes that a Robinson or Nettles had would not have been as important as the ability to run in and field a bunt, or cove the hole to his left when the SS is at 2nd base.
The 1b had to be mobile as well- and he had to be able to throw- to 3b, to 2b, to home.
Oddly the 2b was less important defensively than now- they didn't need an SS's or a 3B's arm, they didn't have to run in as regularly as the 1b or 3b- there were far fewer DP opportunities (fewer baserunners- and they were always on the move- and thr ball was in platy more frequently)- so turning the DP was not as important as it would be later. It was a hitter's position- a team playing 1900-1920 could rationally decide that 1B was the position for the better fielder.
That was true earlier in his career, but by 1984 or 1985, he was pretty close to Luzinski level, at least as far as I remember.
Roger Angell made an insightful observation (as he has done so often) regarding Staub, sometime like in the early 1970s. He noted that Staub, though a major star, never gave the impression of looking like anything came easily to him on the ball field, that he was working very hard just to get the basic moves accomplished.
Give the Colt .45s scouting operation (and GM Paul Richards) kudos for signing Staub even though he was the furthest thing from a toolsy prospect. They saw something beyond his slowness and awkwardness. I suspect many such prospects never get signed, even though they might have turned out to be excellent hitters.
You have to be pretty bad for that, I have to say.
I'm not entirely convinced that the conclusion that Jack Fournier (presumably because of his fielding) wasn't good enough for a major league 1B job in 1917 and 1918 counts as a rational decision.
"Big guys who could really hit" did have an earlier day as the 1B fashion - in the 1880's.
It wasn't so much that the conclusion that Jack Fournier wasn't good enough for a MLB 1B job from 1917-19 was irrational- it was the conclusion that he wasn't good enough for an MLB job PERIOD (any position, LF etc) that was irrational.
People did. But they were Quebecers, so there is that.
Very interesting. I've never seen this mentioned in the HoM analysis threads, not that I read them all or anything.
If a guy like Fred Luderus, for example, was being compared against all 2Bs of all time instead of all 1Bs, he could be close to being a candidate.
Or someone like him whose power isn't inflated by Baker Bowl, anyway.
I'm pretty sure that Brooks Robinson signs autographs lefthanded, and I've also heard that he does everything in life lefthanded except bat and throw on a baseball field.
EDIT: Here's a picture of Brooks signing autographs lefthanded.
That's not exactly what happened.
According to his SABR bio, Fournier was a terrible defender, which meant that the instant he stopped hitting, in 1916, he was gone. In 1917 and 1918 he played in the PCL, and the Yankees brought him back east to fill in for Wally Pipp after the latter went into military service. He hit well, but the Yankees were unimpressed with his all-around game and elected not to bring him back. The White Sox did try to get him back, but they apparently didn't mail him a contract until two days after the deadline, so Fournier went back to the PCL.
In those days, playing in the PCL wasn't exactly a step down the ladder - it was more like a half-step down or even a quarter-step down. The majors weren't the be-all and end-all that they are today.
-- MWE
True. But it was really a half-step down, or perhaps a three-quarter step. The folklore that the PCL or the International League in their glory days were nearly equal in quality of play, or revenue/average salary, to the majors is often overdone. Even in those days, they called them "minor" leagues, and the National Association regulated them as such.
He didn't keep his hands apart, but he did choke up a bit. Altogether it was a stance and presence not designed to strike fear in the hearts of pitchers.
But, once the swing began, Staub's excellence presented itself. The stroke was clean, swift, and beautifully balanced, destined to make consistent contact with meaningful power.
You have to be pretty bad for that, I have to say.
It was this game. The Mets would call 'time,' and Staub and Clint Hurdle would crisscross in the outfield, over and over and over.
Best of all, after the Mets had tried to keep Staub as far away from the ball as possible, 2-out pinch hitter Rick Rhoden (!) poked a ball to rightfield in the 18th inning. The score was tied, and the Pirates had a baserunner running. And Staub makes an unpretty running catch to end the inning. Well, a power walking catch, anyhow.
What a Luderus proposition!
Except for Jeremy Brown ;-)
Ballplayers who age well tend to be smart and adaptable like Speaker, Ozzie Smith and Morgan. Staub seems to fit into that category, even if his talents were pitched lower than those greats.
I do remember his throws as having distinctly more mustard on them before his 1973 injury ... elbow, I think? The Mets kept him in the lineup, but in the '73 post-season he could barely throw overhand.
I am pretty sure that he kept his hands apart, at least while he was in Montreal.
Certainly could be, but I don't remember that.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main