IOW, WTF?

Ironically, he still had to wear a Red Sox cap.

He's 50th in hits for TB, tied with Logan Morrison and one behind Mallex Smith. I'm sure they'll join him in the Ray HOF when they're eligible.

Boggs hit .289/.360/.391 in his 2 seasons with the Rays, good for a .750 OPS, 94 OPS+ and 1.2 WAR. His retired number & Rays HoF enshrinement are for what he did elsewhere, which has become more common in MLB in recent years.

This is like Pete Rose in the Canadian Baseball HOF -- which, after some Googling, I discovered didn't actually happen. (Nich job, eh?)

And Don Sutton continues to languish outside the Astros' Hall of Fame. There's no justice.

I wonder if Juan Guzman is next for the Rays HOF.

It's hard to think of a less prestigious honor that Wade Boggs could receive than induction into the Rays Hall of Fame.

His retired number & Rays HoF enshrinement are for what he did elsewhere

Sure, he was great elsewhere, but the Rays aren't honoring him simply for having been good elsewhere. He was, most importantly, a local boy who wanted to be part of a new franchise in his hometown, got hit #3000 in a Rays uni, and lended some reason to come to the park for an otherwise awful team. He had importance to the org that wasn't merely racking up stats between the lines. The Rays Hall of Fame isn't the Hall of Merit and it shouldn't be.

It's hard to think of a less prestigious honor that Wade Boggs could receive than induction into the Rays Hall of Fame.

The Margo Adams Award?

I suppose team HoFs have more leeway for enshrining memorable moments and I suppose Bogg's 3000th hit is the most memorable moment in the Rays short and not very illustrious history. It's almost surely the only moment anybody outside of Tampa might remember.

I'm sure Carl Crawford will be joining him soon enough and Longoria once he's retired and I assume McGriff any day now too. I'm pretty sure Rolando Arrojo is in my fantasy team's HoF just for his 1998 efforts in keeping my good not great staff close enough that my offense could lead the way to a title but that moment may be less memorable to Rays' fans.

For my money, the most memorable moment in Rays history is pulling a cruising Blake Snell in the sixth inning of a World Series game.

2011 Game 162, no?

I suppose Bogg's 3000th hit is the most memorable moment in the Rays short and not very illustrious history.

The Rays went to the World Series twice.

Amazing playoff race as well

It's hard to think of a less prestigious honor that Wade Boggs could receive than induction into the Rays Hall of Fame.

Celebrity Candy Bar Hall of Fame?

2011 Game 162, no?

Or 2008 ALCS Game 7.

At least Boggs actually played for the Rays, unlike the other TBR HOF inductee.

I think history has actually been pretty kind to Wade Boggs. From 1982-1991, he was as good as hitting a baseball and getting on base as anybody in my lifetime - but he was a weird dude, right from the start. I was 8 years old and watching the game when Carney Lansford broke his leg sliding into home trying to get an inside-the-park home run, which basically gave Boggs an everyday job the rest of that year. Lansford, who had won the batting title and finished 6th in the MVP the year before, never played for Boston again.

But even as a kid, you'd read the stories about weird stuff - the chicken, the legendary womanizing, the Margo Adams stuff, being a prick and what we would now identify as some serious ADHD-related symptoms. He always had a chip on his shoulder, because he probably should've been in the bigs a year or two earlier.

You could have seen how he'd be remembered for the weird stuff, but I think he's basically known for being a 3,000 hit guy. It makes sense he'd be in the Tampa Bay Rays HOF - they are made for each other. And his quote about it in the excerpt - just more weird ####.

Ever since Charlie bested his most infamous record, the limelight is harder to find.

Or 2008 ALCS Game 7.

That was a wild series, and that game was f__ing awesome. Rookie David Price came in with the Rays leading 3-1 in the 8th but Boston had the bases loaded. Price strikes out JD Drew swinging. What a moment.

Sure, he was great elsewhere, but the Rays aren't honoring him simply for having been good elsewhere. He was, most importantly, a local boy who wanted to be part of a new franchise in his hometown, got hit #3000 in a Rays uni, and lended some reason to come to the park for an otherwise awful team. He had importance to the org that wasn't merely racking up stats between the lines. The Rays Hall of Fame isn't the Hall of Merit and it shouldn't be.

I think Boggs in the Rays Hall of Fame is perfectly fine for exactly why you note (though perhaps not first class worthy). But he shouldn't have his number retired by them.

I guess some of us have different definitions of "moment." Making the WS is a team/season thing. And of course winning it would help a lot. :-) But sure, G7 of the 2008 ALCS.

Willy Aybar for Rays HoF!

So great for the Rays to have this memorial for Wade Boggs. Really felt like he was there.

RIP, big guy.

Very similarly, the Mets retired Willie Mays's number last year. It was a surprising move but once people thought about it there wasn't any significant complaining. I think it's because Mays is not a weirdo.

Joan Payson was the only member of the NY Giants ownership group to vote against moving to SF.

She later bought the Mets, and in 1972 she told Mays - as part of her effort to bring him back to NY t end his career - that she would retire his number with the franchise.

she died not too much later, alas.

Cohen found out about it, and decided it was long past time to make good on the promise.

Willie also played a healthy amount of time in NY before becoming a Met. And he’s Willie Mays.

Duplicate

But he shouldn't have his number retired by them.

That's just like, your opinion, man. I really don't care enough either way, but the Rays org gets to pretty much do what they want when it comes to their Hall of Fame or retiring numbers. Why should any of us give a damn? Your first grader's fingerpainting isn't going to be mistaken for a Rembrandt by anyone, but only you get to decide what goes on the fridge.

6. Howie Menckel Posted: July 11, 2023 at 11:45 AM (#6136739)
Joan Payson was the only member of the NY Giants ownership group to vote against moving to SF.

She later bought the Mets, and in 1972 she told Mays - as part of her effort to bring him back to NY t end his career - that she would retire his number with the franchise.

she died not too much later, alas.

Cohen found out about it, and decided it was long past time to make good on the promise.
27. SoSH U at work Posted: July 11, 2023 at 12:58 PM (#6136741)
Willie also played a healthy amount of time in NY before becoming a Met. And he’s Willie Mays.

And he's not a weirdo.

29. I hope that’s just a bit.

by my (shaky) math, Willie had

8717 PA in SF
3828 PA in NY

so just over 30 percent in NY. but as in SF, it was glorious.....

But even as a kid, you'd read the stories about weird stuff - the chicken, the legendary womanizing, the Margo Adams stuff, being a prick and what we would now identify as some serious ADHD-related symptoms. He always had a chip on his shoulder, because he probably should've been in the bigs a year or two earlier.

I remember Margo Adams of course but didn't recall the womanizing in general--was that a thing? I'm also curious what you saw as ADHD like behavior.


As for the chip, who can blame him. He kept getting passed over for the likes of Glenn Hoffman and Dave Stapleton, and when they didn't work out, the team traded for Lansford to play 3rd. He finally makes the team in 1982 and before Lansford got injured, Boggs had just 29 PA in the team's first 66 games. With Lansford out for a month, Boggs get to play essentially full time and hits .391/.437/.424 in the month while Lansford is out. After Lansford returns in 7/23, Boggs shifts to 1b, playing mostly full time over the next couple weeks. On 8/11, his slash line stands at: .354/.417/.417. I don't know what happened at that point, but for some reason, Boggs rides the bench for the team's next 13 games, starting zero times, and appearing only as a PH, PR, and defensive replacement. He gets 12 PA and hits .417. At this point, something clicks with the team's management and Boggs is finally put back in the starting lineup.

this is the first time I can recall that a SABR bio did not solve a question like the one posted in 33.

the author did not notice the PA issues; only that Boggs never stopped appearing in almost every game.

based on usage before and after that weird 13-game stretch, but I am very confident that Boggs was injured. I can see no other plausible explanation for an every-day player who is raking to basically disappear for two weeks, then re-emerge and start every game thereafter as if nothing ever happened.

I found a 1982 UPI article, but unfortunately it was from July 31 - just before the mystery began.

Best i can come up with is that it was a Carney Lansford thing. As mentioned Carney severely sprains his ankle. Comes back and they put him at 3rd for like a week. Perhaps he's not 100%. So they put him at DH until August 11th and during this time he's tearing it up. So they move him back to 3b and he stays there the rest of the season. Wade would eventually get moved to first and perhaps they didn't start him until they thought he learned the position well enough. Stapleton gets moved from 1b to SS which is such a weird move that you rarely see. Glenn Hoffman gets benched before sharing the SS position with Stapleton.

Looks like there is an article in the Boston Globe on August 14, 1982 that explains what Houk was doing with Boggs at that time and then there is an article or two at the end of August with Houk going over what he was doing with Boggs at that point.

You can get a free trial access to the archives.

8/14

The decision was a tough one for Red Sox manager Ralph Houk to make. There aren't many managers who would bench a .354 hitter, which is exactly what he had to do last night.

The return of Carney Lansford to third base meant Houk had to decide between Dave Stapleton or Wade Boggs (he of the .354 mark) for first base against the Orioles. Houk went with Stapleton, who began the year as the regular first baseman and was later benched for light hitting.

The Orioles helped in the decision by starting lefthander Mike Flanagan, although Houk indicated that it was a desire for a return to a run-producing lineup that most influenced his decision.

"The key to it is Lansford, and not Boggs," Houk said. "Lansford is an ideal fifth hitter in our lineup and we really missed his bat when he was hurt (with an ankle injury). The first three hitters - Remy, Evans and Rice - complemented each other; and with Perez and Yaz, we had the threat of power in the No. 4 spot. With Lansford fifth, it's like having a second leadoff man. When he's hitting, Stapleton has a lot of success on the hit and run."

Houk said that, if nothing else, the Red Sox now have a quality lefthanded pinch hitter, and there would be games in which Boggs might start.

"I assured him that he has nothing else to prove," said Houk. "He showed what he could do. He came in and did a great job for us at the plate and in the field."

Stapleton went 1 for 4 last night, and although he twice failed to hit with men in scoring position, he did hustle to score a controversial run in the sixth inning and made an outstanding defensive play on a grounder by Gary Roenicke to end the second inning.

Boggs did not play but said that the recent deployments have not discouraged him. He played 43 games at third base and 11 at first.

"It was a learning experience for me," he said. "Every day that I went to either position, I was learning something, something about the hitters and about the position. Ralph has shown that he has confidence in me. I don't think he's afraid to use me in any situation."

Lansford said he was just glad to be back on the field after a 14- game absence during which he served as designated hitter.

"You're more into the game when you're playing," he said. "My ankle feels fine right now. I'm still having a little problem cutting sharply to the right or left. But overall it feels much better.

"Being the DH is fine. But I was having trouble just standing around between innings. Often my ankle would get stiff. By playing, I stay loose."

I'm surprised the OPS+ edge for Boggs over Lansford wasn't larger - 128 vs 114.

Lansford was a 133 the year before - and a 135 the year after.

I guess it's not crazy to play Lansford every day there. but since he preferred to play third, why not put Boggs at DH, then?

ah,the DH slot mainly was future HOFers Yaz (103) and Tony Perez (45).

their OPS+s were only 111 and 105, but they were Yaz and Tony Perez. and the manager was Ralph Houk, in his 18th year as an MLB manager.

it is an odd collection of players, and only Dwight Evans at that point was a superstar - 149 OPs+ in 162 games and with his 2nd of 5 consecutive Gold Gloves.

P.S. This team even included the last man to be on an MLB active roster all season and hit .400 - while heroically going 2-for-5 in his final game while putting the magical mark at risk.

No, Ted Williams did not make a comeback. This was Roger LaFrancois, the third-string catcher who finished the season 4-for-10.

In unrelated news, Houk was a catcher for the NYY WS champs in 1947 and from 1949-53.

his PA totals in those years were:
104

7
9
5
7
9

so Houk - who was on the active roster for four of those six World Series - gave LaFrancois "more time" than he got !

Roger never played in the majors before or since, so his .400 career AVG remains intact.

Seems like Houk let the playoff race get the better of him and he opted for veterans and the supposed better defensive lineup and benched Boggs. Lots of fans and Boston media appeared to give him grief about it while Boggs was benched and the team treaded water. Apparently Houk had a little bit of a tirade when asked about it and then a few days later he put Boggs in and kept him in the lineup the rest of the way.

Anyone who whines about sabermetrics’ influence on the game should be forced to read Houk’s quote above, ten times aloud. Dear lord. Old “baseball man logic.”

Let's not get too down on Houk, whose record as manager was damn good -- he and Durocher were my managerial heroes!

The problem was in the front office. Boggs should have been a regular the previous year (1981) in which he hit 335/437/460 for the PawSox, but the front office had expensively purchased Lansford to block him. This was the same front office that "forgot" to mail Carlton Fisk his contract on time and also managed to not re-sign Fred Lynn.

As one of the few who goes back that far as a Sox fan, those memories are still painful!

The problem was in the front office. Boggs should have been a regular the previous year (1981) in which he hit 335/437/460 for the PawSox, but the front office had expensively purchased Lansford to block him.

Well, they certainly didn't know he was going to hit .335/.437/.460 when they acquired Lansford. The slugging was particularly a surprise, since he was coming off a season where he slugged .364. I don't care how much Pawtucket played as a pitcher's park, that's an absolutely dreadful level of pop, and the Sox front office was completely justified in believing that Boggs may not be able to hit enough for a corner infielder at the big league level with such an anemic (power-wise) bat.

Now, you can say he warranted a call-up sometime in 1981, though Lansford was legitimately excellent that year and it was a strike-shortened campaign, so there wasn't much of a midseason for a midseason callup.

29. I hope that’s just a bit.

Not even remotely. The Rays get to do what they want to do in their own house, with their own time, and on their own dime. Weird cranks on outdated and obscure message boards don't get a vote.

We also don’t get a vote on their acquisitions, their roster decisions or anything else they choose to do, but that doesn’t stop us from offering our opinions. Similarly, Rob Manfred doesn’t give a #### what you think about the pace of play rules, but that hasn’t stopped you from sounding off (nor should it). Why the #### should number retirement policies be immune from our opinions? Christ, it’s the entire reason this dying site exists.

Retiring a player’s number (almost every team’s highest honor), should be done with consideration, to avoid cheapening the distinction and with the realization that taking a number out of circulation forever comes with a slight cost (see the recent kerfuffle from Marcus Stroman on the Mets and Shohei and Keith Hernandez*). That’s not a hassle worth creating to recognize in perpetuity two mediocre years of decaying Wade Boggs. And I’m going to say that even knowing my thoughts are entirely nonbinding.

*I don’t know if it would ever come to pass with Shohei, but we have seen other instances of teams asking to unretire numbers at some new player’s request.

Retiring a player’s number (almost every team’s highest honor), should be done with consideration, to avoid cheapening the distinction and with the realization that taking a number out of circulation forever comes with a slight cost (see the recent kerfuffle from Marcus Stroman on the Mets and Shohei and Keith Hernandez*). That’s not a hassle worth creating to recognize in perpetuity two mediocre years of decaying Wade Boggs.

In general, sure. But this is a team that has just 12 players with even *500* career hits, and only four pitchers with 50 career wins. They're a small-market franchise which operates like one, so it's hard to imagine anyone truly great sticking around for very long. Which is why were 25 years into the franchise and, despite having a very successful first quarter decade, all they have for an iconic player is Longoria, and no one else even on deck.

The Yankees have made the jersey number situation work despite an entire century of greatness and retiring the number of pretty much every position player in the 90s dynasty. I doubt the Rays are going to run into any issues.

Boggs was a local kid, and a HOFer who was in their first-ever lineup, had the first HR and RBI in Rays' history, and had his 3000th hit in a Tamps uniform.

It's grading on a massive curve, sure. But that stuff is important to teams

no one else even on deck.

No issue with your main point but ... Wander Franco is under contract through 2032. Along with Arozarena and Diaz, he will likely be top 10 in Rays' career WAR by season's end (all three are currently tied at 10.3 WAR; Aubrey Huff currently sits at #10 with 11.9 WAR). I think it's fair to say that Franco is "on deck" to be the franchise's second star.

(We shouldn't diss Longoria as the team's #1 ... I've done it ... the man had 51 WAR for the Rays. For example, nobody in Cleveland history has cracked 50 WARpos since Boudreau left in 1950. As Howie can tell you, the most recent Dodger position player with 50+ WAR for the team was Willie Davis who last played for them in 1973. Kershaw (easily) and Sutton (barely) cracked 50 WARpit in the last 55 years. Frank Thomas and Wilbur Wood (barely) are the ones who cracked 50 WAR for the White Sox since 1950. 50 WAR for a team is a big deal and is presumably increasingly rare in the FA/salary dump/CBT era.

Brandon Lowe is already in the top 10 so the 2024 Rays lineup might feature 4 of the 10 greatest position players in team history. I wonder when the last time that happened was. (Cubs with Ernie, Santo, Williams and Fergie are in the mix if we drop the position player requirement.) Longoria's having a very nice year so they could bring him back as a bench player.

(Cubs with Ernie, Santo, Williams and Fergie are in the mix if we drop the position player requirement.)

The 1998 Mariners would have had four position players and a pitcher who were Top 10 in club history (Griff, Edgar, Arod, Buhner and Randy). And they're still all in the Top 10 25 years later.

I guess some of us have different definitions of "moment." Making the WS is a team/season thing. And of course winning it would help a lot. :-) But sure, G7 of the 2008 ALCS.

The Longoria walkoff HR in game 162 then.

BITD the Cubs had Stan Hack, Gabby Hartnett, Charlie Root, and Billy Herman. Billy might have been on that list until Mark Grace came along.

So then in 90s you had Grace, Sandberg, and Sosa all on the team and eventually being in the top ten though I think Sosa would knock Grace out of the top ten. Greg Maddux might have been on the top ten list before Zambrano knocked him off

The early 90's Rangers had Pudge, Palmiero, Juan Gone, and Kenny Rogers, still all top 10.

The Braves from 96-02 had the big three pitchers and the Jones brothers, all still top 10.

The Brewers from 77-83 had Yount, Molitor, Cooper, Don Money, and Jim Gantner. They lost Don Money in 84, but in 85 they picked up Teddy Higuera, and had 5 for another 3 years. Ben Oglivie is currently #12, but was 7 when he retired in 86. Gorman Thomas is currently 17, but was 8 when he retired in 86. Mike Caldwell is #20, but was 10 when he retired in 84.

Yes, but a lot of those combinations weren't all in the Top 10 while they were playing, as is the case with Walt's hypothetical 2024 Rays team. Andruw didn't pass Murphy to crack the Top 10 until after Maddux was gone, for instance.

When the Mets began dismantling the core from their strong '80s team with the July '89 trade for Juan Samuel (for Dykstra and McDowell), they had 5 of their 10 bWAR positional leaders: Strawberry, Hernandez, Mookie, HoJo, and Dykstra. Mookie was traded two weeks later, Hernandez left after the season as a free agent.

Point taken. But the Brewers were for the most part. All but Higuera. At the start of the 1983 season, Yount had 37. Molitor 19. Cooper 26. Money 29. Oglivie 17. Thomas 19. Caldwell 17. Jim Slaton 15. That's 8 of the franchise top 10 at the time.

A few thoughts about the 1982 Red Sox:

1) There were five Hall of Famers on that team, but at the time, how many of them would have been thought of as likely Hall of Famers? Probably only two: Yaz and Rice. (And one could argue that Rice was only the 6th-best HOF candidate, it turns out, after the four who eventually made it, plus Dwight Evans.)

2) The team won 89 games; at the time, people commonly described them as "all hit, no pitching". If you look at their staff, though, you realize that they just missed having an outstanding rotation:

Eckersley - started the All Star Game, but was fighting alcohol at the time, and wasn't really in shape. A few earlier, and he was one of the best starters in the game; several years later, and he would be one of the great closers of all time. But in 1982, he wasn't quite at the top of his game.

Bruce Hurst - By 1986, he'd be one of the lefties in baseball. Even in 1983, he would become a markedly better pitcher. But in 1982, he wasn't yet ready.

John Tudor - He was pretty good in 1982, but a few years later, he would be the ace of the 1985 Cardinals, almost unhittable for a while.

Bobby Ojeda - Struggled in 1982 as a young starter; got better after that, and would be one of the best players on the 1986 Mets.

Mike Torrez - He was toast by 1982, but had been a longtime durable, always solid, sometimes excellent starter for years before that.

Hurst, Tudor and Ojeda were a little young; Eckersley and Torrez a little past their prime. In 1982, none of them were at their peak.

3) The bullpen was awesome! Bob Stanley finished 7th in the Cy Young, and got MVP votes that year. 48 games as a reliever, 168 innings, lead the league in ERA+. Mark Clear was an all star, went 14-9 in 55 games a reliever, 109 Ks in 105 IP, 145 ERA+. Tom Burgmeier went 7-0 with a 2.29 ERA. Even Luis Aponte (who later would be nicknamed "Sunoco" because he always put gas on the fire) had a good year.

4) For all of the great performances on the team, Jerry Remy, Glenn Hoffman, and Dave Stapleton were so awful in significant roles that it probably prevented the team from winning the division.

At the start of the 1976 season, Perez's last with the Reds for a while, he had 42 WAR. Rose had 64. Bench 50. Morgan 38. That was good for spots 1, 3, 5, and 8 at the time. They are all still in the top 10

At the start of the 1976 season, Perez's last with the Reds for a while, he had 42 WAR. Rose had 64. Bench 50. Morgan 38. That was good for spots 1, 3, 5, and 8 at the time. They are all still in the top 10

That's going to be tough to top, considering that by 1976 the Reds had a little bit longer to grow a franchise Top 10 than the Rays, M's or Brewers.

1956 Dodgers. Robinson's last. At the start of the season, they had 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 among position players at the time. Reese, Robinson, Snider, Campy, Hodges, Furillo in that order. Furillo had 30 at the time.

1998 Devil Rays had 10 of their franchise top 10, all playing together in the same game if you can believe it.

No issue with your main point but ... Wander Franco is under contract through 2032. Along with Arozarena and Diaz, he will likely be top 10 in Rays' career WAR by season's end (all three are currently tied at 10.3 WAR; Aubrey Huff currently sits at #10 with 11.9 WAR). I think it's fair to say that Franco is "on deck" to be the franchise's second star.

(We shouldn't diss Longoria as the team's #1 ... I've done it ... the man had 51 WAR for the Rays.

If Franco sticks around for the entire contract, and continues at this pace, yes, in 10 years, he'll be a star. Which means we have no idea.

I didn't diss Longoria as a star. But by this point in their franchise history, the Rockies had moved two clear Hall of Famers their ranks, while the Diamondbacks had a better claim to Randy Johnson's HOF career than the Mariners did, and had another one on deck before Brandon Webb's shoulder disintegrated.