Bump [Hadley]

In response to #99, Jesus take the fucking wheel.

I can't discern much reason in any team's number retirements, whether that's examples like you just cited (both omissions and honorees), Garvey with the Padres, no Dewey for Boston, etc.

Boston used to have published criteria:

1. Play for the Red Sox for 10 years
2. End their career as a member of the Red Sox
3. Be enshrined in the BBHoF

...But then Dan Duquette bent one of them for his childhood hero Carlton Fisk, by hiring him in the front office and "ending" his career in that fashion. Since then they have dispensed with those criteria, though they have stuck with the BBHoF rule with two exceptions: Johnny Pesky, who spent something like 60+ years with the team as player, manager, and coach; and David Ortiz, who eventually made it into the HoF anyway but whose number was retired before he was elected.

As Bill James once commented, for some odd reason [Nettles 1978 WS fielding] left little lasting impression on anyone

Except 8-year-old me! It was damned incredible.

Except 8-year-old me! It was damned incredible.

Samesville here to a 14-year-old third baseman. I would bounce tennis balls off the foundation at an angle so I could lay out for them. It's weird to me to see a photo of Nettles upright.

I mean, some here are saying Reggie was a weak choice for the Yankees, while at least one other person says three swings of his bat and a nickname are enough.

My intent in #60 was not that 3 swings and a nickname are enough (I agree that Reggie's case for number retirement is weak) but that they were enough. IMO, without the 1977 WS, Jackson's NYY number would still be available.

Reggie's number was obviously going to get retired by the Yankees (and the A's who also retired his 9). I guess you have to have living memories of it to understand it, or something, because it wasn't even a serious question that it was going to happen.

Were there quiet plodders who ate their vegetables and flossed every day and provided more WAR to the Yankees? I mean, yeah, I guess -- sure. But there isn't a speck of doubt that Reggie was ahead of Roy White on the "list" and the "reasons" are blatantly obvious.

while at least one other person says three swings of his bat and a nickname are enough.

Don't forget the candy bar ...

I'm a Mets fan but I loved the round, chocolate, nutty Reggie Bar.

ate one at school every day, I think it was senior year of HS.

3 pitches. 3 different pitchers*. 3 swings. 3 HR. in a World Series game.
* - which never happened in that era.

and that, after all the bravado - it is hard to explain.

3 pitches. 3 different pitchers*. 3 swings. 3 HR. in a World Series game.

All on prime-time TV, too.

As Bill James once commented, for some odd reason [Nettles 1978 WS fielding] left little lasting impression on anyone

Like Lassus and Rowland I remember it vividly.

That's the single most dominant fielding game I've ever seen in baseball.

yes, Nettles 1978 and Brooks Robinson 1970 in each WS were compared often in that era.

It would be nice -- and completely appropriate -- for the Red Sox to retire Clemens' number but I don't know if it will happen. That could be another thing to blame on Bill Buckner.

I presume Nettles got injured after 1979 and that is why his defense deteriorated? Metrics seem to agree something happened. Sure he was older but typically defense ages ok for guys who were elite in prime

Anyone know?

I presume Nettles got injured after 1979 and that is why his defense deteriorated? Metrics seem to agree something happened. Sure he was older but typically defense ages ok for guys who were elite in prime

Anyone know?

I don't recall an injury, I think he just got old.

My beloved Detroit Tigers recently retired Lou Whitaker’s #1, making him only the second non-HOFer to be so honored. The other is Willie Horton, and I can see that based on Horton A. Growing up in Detroit, B. Being a local high school baseball legend, C. Having a fine career with his hometown team, D. Being integral in Detroit winning the 1968 World Series, with his throw home to nail Lou Brock a turning point in the Series, and D. Going out after a game (still in his uniform) among the street crowds in the midst of the first night of the 1967 Detroit riot in an attempt to stop the violence, a feat of courage and love of his hometown that would have been deserving of having his number retired on its own.

Willie Horton is the perfect example of a non-HOFer who deserved the honor of having his number retired.

I don't recall an injury, I think he just got old.

Indeed. Nettles turned 35 in August 1979.

I just watched the YouTube of the '78 World Series plays by Nettles and, well, let's just say that as the 'Wagon noted a few years after that Series -- the tales grow taller on down the line.

Nice plays to be sure, no question about it. Special? Probably a stretch. The best defensive game ever by a third baseman? Not a chance.

The line drive catch off Lopes's bat made for nice photography, iconic even -- but not really that special a play. To those who disagree, I'd simply commend the video; it's easily available for free.

With the shrinking of the country with the internet, we tend to forget the pre-net times when people rightly noted that a lot of stuff that happened in New York or by a NYC athlete got pumped up beyond any serious reality. This appears to be a textbook example. Just not really that big a deal.

Gotta tell it like it is.

Willie Horton is the perfect example of a non-HOFer who deserved the honor of having his number retired.

Bingo.

I just watched the YouTube of the '78 World Series plays by Nettles and, well, let's just say that as the 'Wagon noted a few years after that Series -- the tales grow taller on down the line.

To be fair, we're a bit spoiled these days. It seems like a highlight reel of any given week in 2016-2022 has more amazing plays than the entire 20th century combined.

It's tough to judge the quality of hitters and pitchers over time, as it's kind of a balance between the two of them. But all fielders from the beginnig of time are competing against...I don't know, physics? I feel more comfortable comparing them across the eras. And even just going back to when I first started watching baseball in the early 90s, the increased quality of defensive play is just mind-boggling.

I've seen plays in recent years by the likes of Machado and Arenado that were more spectacular / unworldly than any plays I ever saw by either Brooks or Nettles or the Boyer brothers, and those were among the more storied defensive third basemen in history. The incredible athleticism of today's hitters and pitchers tend to cancel each other out, but where it really shows up is in fielding plays that never even would've been attempted 50 or 60 years ago, let alone made successfully. It's not just by the All-Star caliber players, either, but by at least several players on each and every team. It's the midair, off-balance arm strength on top of the range that has me dropping my jaws on almost a nightly basis.

BTW this isn't meant to downgrade the Mayses or the other great fielders of past generations. It's just that today there are so many more of them.

Re: #118 -

Not enough scare quotes.

Some elements of fielding are probably constant over the years, but I think you do have to adjust for the quality of equipment, playing surfaces – and going back to deadball times, the baseball.

Look, for example, at Pee Wee Reese's page at the Baseball Hall of Fame. Reese is catching a baseball with his hand inside what appears to be a slab of frozen beef liver. Even Nettles, in old pictures, wears a glove that, compared to Nolan Arenado's today, looks like something the dog chewed over.

I remember when people went apeshit over a great one-handed TD grab by Odell Beckham in his rookie year.

Terry Bradshaw right away said basically that "the glove caught it" - and there is a lot of truth to that.

unusual full-circle in not even 50 years - Raiders WR Fred Biletnikoff in the 1970s with so much stick-um on his hands and body that he was almost like velcro. just get the ball near his body, and it will stick to it.

they outlawed that, so receivers had to use their hands to catch the ball - until, many decades later, not as much anymore/again.

Nice plays to be sure, no question about it. Special? Probably a stretch. The best defensive game ever by a third baseman? Not a chance.

Mr. context, are you going to ignore that it was game 3 of the World Series with his team down 2-0?

Some elements of fielding are probably constant over the years, but I think you do have to adjust for the quality of equipment, playing surfaces – and going back to deadball times, the baseball.

Look, for example, at Pee Wee Reese's page at the Baseball Hall of Fame. Reese is catching a baseball with his hand inside what appears to be a slab of frozen beef liver. Even Nettles, in old pictures, wears a glove that, compared to Nolan Arenado's today, looks like something the dog chewed over.

Yeah, no question that the pre-A2000 gloves were primitive compared to today's. But those came into the game over 60 years ago. And anyway, I'm not really referring to the difference between balls snared in today's webs vs balls that Reese's glove couldn't hold onto. I'm primarily talking about non-equipment factors like range and the degree of arm strength that enables those Jeteresque jump throws to reach the base before the runner. You see plays like that on a fairly routine basis now,** whereas not all that long ago they were in the skill set of only a tiny handful of players.

Same with the sort of diving cross-body catches in the outfield, where the main equipment factor may be today's carefully manicured grass compared to outfields like this. The infields today are also muchly improved inconsistency over those like Forbes Field and Memorial Stadium, but again, that affects fielding percentage more than it does those other skill sets.

** The Yankee alone have five current infielders (Donaldson, Cabrera, Kiner-Falefa, LeMahieu and Torres) who can execute the midair "Jeter Jump" every bit as deftly as Jeter ever did.

-------------

OTOH Howie's absolutely right about the effect of WR gloves on the rise of spectacular football catches. No way in the world most of those catches would be made without them. You could also add to that the much better rotation of dry and newly cleaned balls on wet and muddy fields.

I'm primarily talking about non-equipment factors like range and the degree of arm strength that enables those Jeteresque jump throws to reach the base before the runner.

cheeky of me here given your kind comment about my comment about NFL receivers, but many/most SS didn't do the Jeteresque jump throws because they got to the ball so much earlier that they could make a regular throw instead.

#pastadivingJeter

I would credit Jeter for coming up with an adaptation that partly made up for his freakishly-slow reaction time to ground balls.

:)

Undoubtedly the athleticism of today’s players has improved over previous generations. On the other hand, 40 years on and there’s never been a first baseman in Keith’s class and I’m not sure the same isn’t also true of his shortstop of many years.

125 Lester hayes also used the stickum playing defense.

As long as mentioning Biletnikoff, also note that he also vomited before almost every game (great facts).

As long as mentioning vomiting athletes, goalie Glenn Hall threw up quite a bit also.

yes on Hayes, but his name was raised indirectly in a silly and quickly-extinguished baseball-related gaffe earlier this year so I figured I'd let that pass.

re Keith: I have gotten some young baseball fans to watch Youtube videos of how he would absolutely attack sac bunts and nail runners at third base. have not seen that skillset ever again (and not only because no one bunts anymore - except Mets backpu C Nido, who I think is up to 12 sac bunts this year).

I used to describe Keith's aggressive movements at bunts as being "like a praying mantis."

and lo and behold, I was at a recent Mets game at Citi Field and that very (large) bug landed 5-6 seats away in our row an hour before the game. my pal has an actual camera, and went to take a shot - and the alien being pivoted those weird eyes into a death stare into the lens.

hijinks ensued. first the mantis went under a seat, went vertical to the next row, leaped atop an empty seat, and started doing those herky-jerky movements. at one point it was about to reach its spiny little tentacles onto an oblivious fan's pant leg, so another fan pointed it out. unfazed, the dude just brushed it away with a napkin or handkerchief (I expected the beast to latch onto the cloth and then exact its revenge).

finally a big family showed up in the row - and, well, Mom's blood pressure spiked for sure. the kids seemed divided on how to take in this unexpected challenge. bug still wouldn't move and - I didn't look back, but I infer that its tiny little tombstone will have that date of death on it.

was fascinated by every bug, rodent, and reptile as a kid, and caught many of them with my bare hands.

but if I had a nemesis, it was the praying mantis. such erratic movements, and they did not seem to fear humans. plus, the damn thing could fly - and like a heat-seeking missile, if so inclined.

[We now return you to our originally-scheduled programming.]

I'm primarily talking about non-equipment factors like range and the degree of arm strength that enables those Jeteresque jump throws to reach the base before the runner.

cheeky of me here given your kind comment about my comment about NFL receivers, but many/most SS didn't do the Jeteresque jump throws because they got to the ball so much earlier that they could make a regular throw instead.

No amount of improved webbing in SS and 3B gloves can account for the dramatic increase in the number of highlight reel worthy plays by 3B / SS / 2B. If that were the case, you would've seen countless plays like that fail only because the ball couldn't stay in the glove, but trust me, that didn't happen.

-----------------

Undoubtedly the athleticism of today’s players has improved over previous generations. On the other hand, 40 years on and there’s never been a first baseman in Keith’s class and I’m not sure the same isn’t also true of his shortstop of many years.

The question has never been whether the very best fielders of past generations (the Keiths, the Ozzies, and going back, the Hal Chases and the Speakers) could compare to today's best. It's just that there are so many defenders today who play at a much higher level than the average defender of yesteryear. And the equipment and playing conditions can only account for so much of that difference.

It's just that there are so many defenders today who play at a much higher level than the average defender of yesteryear.

I'm not sure about that. Yes, in one sense, the overall athleticism has increased. But I don't think guys are going to be selected for defense as much as they were in the past (and, for good reason, given fewer balls in play).

We undoubtedly see the best defensive plays more often today than we did 40 years ago, which I suspect makes today's defenders look better.

I have gotten some young baseball fans to watch Youtube videos of how he would absolutely attack sac bunts and nail runners at third base. have not seen that skillset ever again (and not only because no one bunts anymore -

Anthony Rizzo used to do that a lot. Maybe not the same class as Hernandez, but he was pretty good.

5 best field runs for Rizzo and Hernandez.

13, 12, 11, 10, 9

14, 13, 13, 11, 11

Rizzo just a touch below Hernandez. Keith kept it up longer though with another 9, 9, 8, 8, 7 while Rizzo was 6, 5, 4, 4, 2.

We undoubtedly see the best defensive plays more often today than we did 40 years ago, which I suspect makes today's defenders look better.

I went to several hundred games between the 50's and the 70's, and saw many more on TV.** In all those years put together, the number of truly spectacular fielding plays I witnessed wouldn't equal the number I see in a month's worth of Yankees games today, and of course I'm talking about both the Yankees and their opponents. I saw Brooks through his entire prime years, and when Manny Machado was at 3rd base in Baltimore, Machado was at least his equal. That's not a knock on Brooks, but I'm not basing my opinion on just a handful of viewings.

** Admittedly all of them outside the World Series and All-Star games were AL games. While I saw Brooks, Blair, and Clete Boyer (widely considered Brooks's defensive equal) many times, I seldom got to see Mays or Clemente.

We undoubtedly see the best defensive plays more often today than we did 40 years ago, which I suspect makes today's defenders look better.

This.

You can't begin to judge whether there are more "highlight worthy" plays today without adjusting for the relatively massive amount of highlights today.(*)

Two prehistoric highlights come to mind, and only because they were shown so much BITD. One is the Dave Parker cannon throw in the All-Star game; the other is Braves Gary Matthews's catch over the CF fence in Fulton County that was always on the lead-in to TBS Braves games. Those would easily fit in "Web Gems" of today and probably even stand out. Same for Mays's catch in the Polo Grounds, which was ridiculous.

Are MLBers more "athletic" today? I mean, yeah, in a sense of course they are because they train for "athleticism" (rather than baseball per se) generally more than BITD. Not sure what the point of that is, though. The only athleticism that matters is applied athleticism.

I saw Brooks through his entire prime years, and when Manny Machado was at 3rd base in Baltimore, Machado was at least his equal. That's not a knock on Brooks, but I'm not basing my opinion on just a handful of viewings.

Manny Machado is an elite third baseman. Hardly surprising that he would seem roughly equal to an elite 3B of a previous era. OTOH, I saw Alan Trammell a bunch of times in person and on TV and I saw Derek Jeter a bunch of times in person and on TV. Trammell was way better. Not really even close.

(*) This observation will probably be more controversial and it isn't as certain to be sure, but there's an ethos today more than BITD of what I will call "acrobatics for acrobatics' sake," which also would tend to cause an illusion of better "athleticism." It's much the same impulse that has led to the bat flips and the posing and all the rest. Think of it as Edmonds-ism with the volume turned to 11. None of we attentive observers were really fooled by Edmonds.