2018-2
I am traveling today. Tomorrow, weather permitting, I will be on MLB-TV, shooting our annual shows ranking the players and also doing some time on live TV with Brian Kenny, I would guess.
64. Jackie
A fellow you have probably heard of was by far the best second baseman in baseball from 1949 to 1952.
|
YEAR
|
Rank
|
First
|
Last
|
HR
|
RBI
|
Avg
|
OBA
|
SPct
|
Value
|
|
1949
|
1
|
Jackie
|
Robinson
|
16
|
124
|
.342
|
.432
|
.528
|
32.14
|
|
1949
|
2
|
Bobby
|
Doerr
|
18
|
109
|
.309
|
.393
|
.497
|
25.06
|
|
1949
|
3
|
Eddie
|
Stanky
|
1
|
42
|
.285
|
.417
|
.358
|
23.51
|
|
1949
|
4
|
Joe
|
Gordon
|
20
|
84
|
.251
|
.355
|
.407
|
19.15
|
|
1949
|
5
|
Red
|
Schoendienst
|
3
|
54
|
.297
|
.351
|
.356
|
18.06
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1950
|
1
|
Jackie
|
Robinson
|
14
|
81
|
.328
|
.423
|
.500
|
32.38
|
|
1950
|
2
|
Eddie
|
Stanky
|
8
|
51
|
.300
|
.460
|
.412
|
25.79
|
|
1950
|
3
|
Bobby
|
Doerr
|
27
|
120
|
.294
|
.367
|
.519
|
22.77
|
|
1950
|
4
|
Red
|
Schoendienst
|
7
|
63
|
.276
|
.313
|
.403
|
18.70
|
|
1950
|
5
|
Jerry
|
Priddy
|
13
|
75
|
.277
|
.376
|
.401
|
18.13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1951
|
1
|
Jackie
|
Robinson
|
19
|
88
|
.338
|
.429
|
.527
|
35.08
|
|
1951
|
2
|
Eddie
|
Stanky
|
14
|
43
|
.247
|
.401
|
.369
|
22.12
|
|
1951
|
3
|
Red
|
Schoendienst
|
6
|
54
|
.289
|
.335
|
.405
|
20.33
|
|
1951
|
4
|
Nellie
|
Fox
|
4
|
55
|
.313
|
.372
|
.425
|
18.59
|
|
1951
|
5
|
Bobby
|
Doerr
|
13
|
73
|
.289
|
.378
|
.448
|
17.03
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1952
|
1
|
Jackie
|
Robinson
|
19
|
75
|
.308
|
.440
|
.465
|
32.56
|
|
1952
|
2
|
Red
|
Schoendienst
|
7
|
67
|
.303
|
.347
|
.424
|
23.56
|
|
1952
|
3
|
Nellie
|
Fox
|
0
|
39
|
.296
|
.334
|
.366
|
21.03
|
|
1952
|
4
|
Bobby
|
Avila
|
7
|
45
|
.300
|
.371
|
.415
|
19.79
|
|
1952
|
5
|
Billy
|
Goodman
|
4
|
56
|
.306
|
.370
|
.394
|
19.51
|
In 1952 Jim Gilliam had a big year with Montreal in the International League, hitting .301 with 100+ runs scored and RBI, and with a strikeout/walk ratio of 18 to 100, and also some speed. In 1953 the Dodgers brought Gilliam to the majors as a second baseman, moving Jackie to the outfield. My understanding is that the thinking at the time was that moving Jackie to the outfield would protect his legs.
From the beginning of Joe Gordon’s career until the end of Jackie Robinson’s career is just 18 years (1938 to 1956); 19 seasons inclusive. They’re all really the same era, but the era is so torn up by World War II and the breaking of the color line that it appears to be very different.
65. The Nellie Fox Era
Gil McDougald is a one-of-a-kind figure in baseball history before 2010. In modern baseball the expansion of the bullpens has shrunk the bench so that most competitive teams now have a Ben Zobrist-type player who can play wherever he is needed. McDougald wasn’t exactly that; he actually played only three positions in his major league career—second base, third base and shortstop. He never played an inning at first base or in the outfield, as the modern Ben Zobrist-, Marwin Gonzalez-, David Descalso-type player would. He was an infielder.
Teams in the 1950s usually carried multiple backup infielders, sometimes in odd combinations; a team which had a good shortstop might carry two second basemen, one of whom backed up third base and pinch hit, and the other of whom backed up shortstop and pinch ran. There were other multi-position players who were regulars, like Junior Gilliam, Pete Runnels and Billy Goodman.
McDougald was unique in that he was (a) a multi-position player who was a key player on championship teams, and (b) defensively the equal of anybody in the league at any of the three positions. He wasn’t a guy who could play shortstop if need be; he was a first-rate shortstop. Casey Stengel loved that kind of guy because it fit Stengel’s managerial style, which was to deploy all players—pitchers and hitters—in multiple roles in order to search out matchups. In any season it is difficult to say what McDougald’s position was, but when he played second base he was among the best second basemen in baseball, and in 1955 we actually have him as the best second baseman in baseball.
Nellie Fox did not completely dominate the position, but if you have to ascribe the years 1953 to 1960 to any one second baseman, Fox is obviously the man. He was a small player, slow, very poor arm. But he took what the game offered him, slapped singles to the opposite field, took a walk whenever he could, could bunt if he needed to, and was the best hit-and-run man in baseball. He stayed in the lineup, played 154 games a year on a 154-game schedule, and at the time of his retirement held the record for the highest career fielding percentage at second base.
|
YEAR
|
Rank
|
First
|
Last
|
HR
|
RBI
|
Avg
|
OBA
|
SPct
|
Value
|
|
1953
|
1
|
Red
|
Schoendienst
|
15
|
79
|
.342
|
.405
|
.502
|
24.54
|
|
1953
|
2
|
Nellie
|
Fox
|
3
|
72
|
.285
|
.344
|
.375
|
22.47
|
|
1953
|
3
|
Jim
|
Gilliam
|
6
|
63
|
.278
|
.383
|
.415
|
19.44
|
|
1953
|
4
|
Bobby
|
Avila
|
8
|
55
|
.286
|
.355
|
.379
|
19.37
|
|
1953
|
5
|
Billy
|
Goodman
|
2
|
41
|
.313
|
.384
|
.409
|
18.22
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1954
|
1
|
Nellie
|
Fox
|
2
|
47
|
.319
|
.372
|
.391
|
24.06
|
|
1954
|
2
|
Gil
|
McDougald
|
12
|
48
|
.259
|
.364
|
.416
|
22.69
|
|
1954
|
3
|
Bobby
|
Avila
|
15
|
67
|
.341
|
.402
|
.477
|
21.69
|
|
1954
|
4
|
Red
|
Schoendienst
|
5
|
79
|
.315
|
.366
|
.428
|
21.56
|
|
1954
|
5
|
Jim
|
Gilliam
|
13
|
52
|
.282
|
.361
|
.418
|
19.60
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1955
|
1
|
Gil
|
McDougald
|
13
|
53
|
.285
|
.361
|
.407
|
24.98
|
|
1955
|
2
|
Nellie
|
Fox
|
6
|
59
|
.311
|
.364
|
.406
|
24.40
|
|
1955
|
3
|
Red
|
Schoendienst
|
11
|
51
|
.268
|
.335
|
.376
|
19.07
|
|
1955
|
4
|
Bobby
|
Avila
|
13
|
61
|
.272
|
.368
|
.400
|
18.53
|
|
1955
|
5
|
Jim
|
Gilliam
|
7
|
40
|
.249
|
.341
|
.355
|
18.17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1956
|
1
|
Nellie
|
Fox
|
4
|
52
|
.296
|
.347
|
.376
|
22.98
|
|
1956
|
2
|
Jim
|
Gilliam
|
6
|
43
|
.300
|
.399
|
.396
|
18.68
|
|
1956
|
3
|
Red
|
Schoendienst
|
2
|
29
|
.302
|
.356
|
.370
|
18.28
|
|
1956
|
4
|
Johnny
|
Temple
|
2
|
41
|
.285
|
.344
|
.332
|
16.91
|
|
1956
|
5
|
Bobby
|
Avila
|
10
|
54
|
.224
|
.323
|
.318
|
15.77
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YEAR
|
Rank
|
First
|
Last
|
HR
|
RBI
|
Avg
|
OBA
|
SPct
|
Value
|
|
1957
|
1
|
Nellie
|
Fox
|
6
|
61
|
.317
|
.403
|
.415
|
27.34
|
|
1957
|
2
|
Red
|
Schoendienst
|
15
|
65
|
.309
|
.344
|
.451
|
21.56
|
|
1957
|
3
|
Johnny
|
Temple
|
0
|
37
|
.284
|
.387
|
.341
|
18.47
|
|
1957
|
4
|
Don
|
Blasingame
|
8
|
58
|
.271
|
.343
|
.368
|
17.10
|
|
1957
|
5
|
Charlie
|
Neal
|
12
|
62
|
.270
|
.356
|
.411
|
16.70
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1958
|
1
|
Nellie
|
Fox
|
0
|
49
|
.300
|
.357
|
.353
|
24.61
|
|
1958
|
2
|
Pete
|
Runnels
|
8
|
59
|
.322
|
.416
|
.438
|
22.03
|
|
1958
|
3
|
Johnny
|
Temple
|
3
|
47
|
.306
|
.405
|
.402
|
19.58
|
|
1958
|
4
|
Charlie
|
Neal
|
22
|
65
|
.254
|
.341
|
.438
|
18.85
|
|
1958
|
5
|
Frank
|
Bolling
|
14
|
75
|
.269
|
.328
|
.392
|
17.97
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1959
|
1
|
Nellie
|
Fox
|
2
|
70
|
.306
|
.380
|
.389
|
25.67
|
|
1959
|
2
|
Pete
|
Runnels
|
6
|
57
|
.314
|
.415
|
.427
|
22.09
|
|
1959
|
3
|
Charlie
|
Neal
|
19
|
83
|
.287
|
.337
|
.464
|
20.25
|
|
1959
|
4
|
Johnny
|
Temple
|
8
|
67
|
.311
|
.380
|
.430
|
20.12
|
|
1959
|
5
|
Frank
|
Bolling
|
13
|
55
|
.266
|
.339
|
.403
|
16.70
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1960
|
1
|
Pete
|
Runnels
|
2
|
35
|
.320
|
.401
|
.394
|
21.16
|
|
1960
|
2
|
Nellie
|
Fox
|
2
|
59
|
.289
|
.351
|
.372
|
20.53
|
|
1960
|
3
|
Bill
|
Mazeroski
|
11
|
64
|
.273
|
.320
|
.392
|
18.54
|
|
1960
|
4
|
Frank
|
Bolling
|
9
|
59
|
.254
|
.308
|
.356
|
15.96
|
|
1960
|
5
|
Tony
|
Taylor
|
5
|
44
|
.284
|
.331
|
.377
|
15.85
|
66. The Best Second Basemen 1900 to 1960
Hall of Famers in gold. Eddie Collins had 11 seasons as the #1 second baseman in baseball, three seasons as the #2 second baseman, and four seasons as #3:
|
YEAR
|
Y1
|
Last
|
Rank
|
First
|
Last
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
YOPDI
|
|
1930
|
1906
|
1930
|
1
|
Eddie
|
Collins
|
11
|
3
|
4
|
0
|
0
|
147
|
|
1937
|
1915
|
1937
|
2
|
Rogers
|
Hornsby
|
12
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
134
|
|
1916
|
1896
|
1916
|
3
|
Nap
|
Lajoie
|
12
|
3
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
118
|
|
1942
|
1924
|
1942
|
4
|
Charlie
|
Gehringer
|
8
|
0
|
3
|
1
|
2
|
96
|
|
1937
|
1919
|
1937
|
5
|
Frankie
|
Frisch
|
3
|
6
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
80
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1960
|
1947
|
1965
|
6
|
Nellie
|
Fox
|
5
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
77
|
|
1951
|
1937
|
1951
|
7
|
Bobby
|
Doerr
|
3
|
5
|
2
|
0
|
2
|
75
|
|
1950
|
1938
|
1950
|
8
|
Joe
|
Gordon
|
5
|
0
|
2
|
3
|
0
|
64
|
|
1947
|
1931
|
1947
|
9
|
Billy
|
Herman
|
0
|
6
|
4
|
2
|
1
|
63
|
|
1956
|
1947
|
1956
|
10
|
Jackie
|
Robinson
|
4
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
60
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1920
|
1907
|
1920
|
11
|
Larry
|
Doyle
|
0
|
6
|
2
|
1
|
2
|
54
|
|
1953
|
1943
|
1953
|
12
|
Eddie
|
Stanky
|
0
|
5
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
47
|
|
1924
|
1912
|
1924
|
13
|
Del
|
Pratt
|
0
|
2
|
6
|
1
|
2
|
42
|
|
1915
|
1900
|
1915
|
14
|
Danny
|
Murphy
|
0
|
3
|
4
|
2
|
0
|
41
|
|
1960
|
1945
|
1963
|
14
|
Red
|
Schoendienst
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
41
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1939
|
1926
|
1939
|
16
|
Tony
|
Lazzeri
|
0
|
4
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
37
|
|
1960
|
1951
|
1960
|
17
|
Gil
|
McDougald
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
36
|
|
1941
|
1925
|
1941
|
18
|
Buddy
|
Myer
|
0
|
2
|
4
|
1
|
2
|
34
|
|
1952
|
1943
|
1952
|
19
|
Snuffy
|
Stirnweiss
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
29
|
|
1929
|
1902
|
1929
|
20
|
Johnny
|
Evers
|
0
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
23
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1934
|
1920
|
1934
|
20
|
Marty
|
McManus
|
0
|
0
|
3
|
5
|
1
|
23
|
|
1934
|
1922
|
1934
|
22
|
George
|
Grantham
|
0
|
0
|
4
|
2
|
2
|
22
|
|
1909
|
1899
|
1909
|
23
|
Jimmy
|
Williams
|
0
|
2
|
3
|
1
|
0
|
17
|
|
1915
|
1901
|
1915
|
24
|
Jim
|
Delahanty
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
13
|
|
1960
|
1953
|
1966
|
24
|
Jim
|
Gilliam
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
2
|
13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1960
|
1952
|
1964
|
26
|
Johnny
|
Temple
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
12
|
|
1959
|
1949
|
1959
|
27
|
Bobby
|
Avila
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
11
|
|
1941
|
1931
|
1941
|
27
|
Odell
|
Hale
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
11
|
|
1908
|
1896
|
1908
|
27
|
Sammy
|
Strang
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
11
|
|
1916
|
1904
|
1916
|
30
|
Miller
|
Huggins
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
2
|
10
|
Those counts (above) include seasons at other positions; Rogers Hornsby, Frankie Frisch, Jackie Robinson, Eddie Stanky and others had outstanding seasons playing other positions. This is the Top 40 second basemen of 1900 to 1960 by Peak Value, and this time I’ll add the age of the Peak Value season.
|
Rank
|
YEAR
|
First
|
Last
|
HR
|
RBI
|
Avg
|
AGE
|
OBA
|
SPct
|
OPS
|
Peak
|
|
1
|
1922
|
Rogers
|
Hornsby
|
42
|
152
|
.401
|
26
|
.459
|
.722
|
1.181
|
42.30
|
|
2
|
1914
|
Eddie
|
Collins
|
2
|
85
|
.344
|
27
|
.452
|
.452
|
.904
|
38.82
|
|
3
|
1901
|
Nap
|
Lajoie
|
14
|
125
|
.426
|
26
|
.463
|
.643
|
1.106
|
38.21
|
|
4
|
1951
|
Jackie
|
Robinson
|
19
|
88
|
.338
|
32
|
.429
|
.527
|
.957
|
35.08
|
|
5
|
1934
|
Charlie
|
Gehringer
|
11
|
127
|
.356
|
31
|
.450
|
.517
|
.967
|
33.32
|
|
6
|
1944
|
Snuffy
|
Stirnweiss
|
8
|
43
|
.319
|
25
|
.389
|
.460
|
.849
|
29.05
|
|
7
|
1923
|
Frankie
|
Frisch
|
12
|
111
|
.348
|
24
|
.395
|
.485
|
.880
|
29.02
|
|
8
|
1936
|
Billy
|
Herman
|
5
|
93
|
.334
|
26
|
.392
|
.470
|
.862
|
28.30
|
|
9
|
1911
|
Larry
|
Doyle
|
13
|
77
|
.310
|
24
|
.397
|
.527
|
.924
|
27.96
|
|
10
|
1908
|
Johnny
|
Evers
|
0
|
37
|
.300
|
26
|
.402
|
.375
|
.777
|
27.74
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
1942
|
Joe
|
Gordon
|
18
|
103
|
.322
|
27
|
.409
|
.491
|
.900
|
27.72
|
|
12
|
1957
|
Nellie
|
Fox
|
6
|
61
|
.317
|
29
|
.403
|
.415
|
.818
|
27.34
|
|
13
|
1935
|
Buddy
|
Myer
|
5
|
100
|
.349
|
31
|
.440
|
.468
|
.907
|
27.21
|
|
14
|
1944
|
Bobby
|
Doerr
|
15
|
81
|
.325
|
26
|
.399
|
.528
|
.927
|
27.10
|
|
15
|
1914
|
Duke
|
Kenworthy
|
15
|
91
|
.317
|
27
|
.372
|
.525
|
.896
|
26.61
|
|
16
|
1929
|
Tony
|
Lazzeri
|
18
|
106
|
.354
|
25
|
.430
|
.561
|
.992
|
26.27
|
|
17
|
1904
|
Danny
|
Murphy
|
7
|
77
|
.287
|
27
|
.320
|
.440
|
.760
|
26.17
|
|
18
|
1950
|
Eddie
|
Stanky
|
8
|
51
|
.300
|
33
|
.460
|
.412
|
.872
|
25.79
|
|
19
|
1914
|
Frank
|
LaPorte
|
4
|
107
|
.311
|
34
|
.361
|
.436
|
.797
|
24.73
|
|
20
|
1953
|
Red
|
Schoendienst
|
15
|
79
|
.342
|
30
|
.405
|
.502
|
.907
|
24.54
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21
|
1913
|
Del
|
Pratt
|
2
|
87
|
.296
|
25
|
.341
|
.402
|
.743
|
24.40
|
|
22
|
1929
|
George
|
Grantham
|
12
|
90
|
.307
|
29
|
.454
|
.533
|
.987
|
24.21
|
|
23
|
1911
|
Heinie
|
Zimmerman
|
9
|
85
|
.307
|
24
|
.343
|
.462
|
.805
|
23.67
|
|
24
|
1901
|
Tom
|
Daly
|
3
|
90
|
.315
|
35
|
.371
|
.444
|
.815
|
23.63
|
|
25
|
1913
|
Jim
|
Viox
|
2
|
65
|
.317
|
22
|
.399
|
.427
|
.826
|
23.47
|
|
26
|
1901
|
Jimmy
|
Williams
|
7
|
96
|
.317
|
24
|
.388
|
.495
|
.883
|
23.40
|
|
27
|
1923
|
Marty
|
McManus
|
15
|
94
|
.309
|
23
|
.367
|
.481
|
.848
|
22.97
|
|
28
|
1911
|
Buck
|
Herzog
|
6
|
67
|
.290
|
25
|
.365
|
.418
|
.783
|
22.89
|
|
29
|
1905
|
Miller
|
Huggins
|
1
|
38
|
.273
|
26
|
.392
|
.326
|
.718
|
22.88
|
|
30
|
1902
|
Sammy
|
Strang
|
3
|
46
|
.296
|
25
|
.387
|
.364
|
.751
|
22.81
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31
|
1954
|
Gil
|
McDougald
|
12
|
48
|
.259
|
26
|
.364
|
.416
|
.780
|
22.69
|
|
32
|
1936
|
Odell
|
Hale
|
14
|
87
|
.316
|
27
|
.380
|
.506
|
.887
|
22.51
|
|
33
|
1910
|
Jim
|
Delahanty
|
3
|
45
|
.294
|
31
|
.379
|
.370
|
.749
|
22.35
|
|
34
|
1959
|
Pete
|
Runnels
|
6
|
57
|
.314
|
31
|
.415
|
.427
|
.841
|
22.09
|
|
35
|
1914
|
Baldy
|
Louden
|
6
|
63
|
.313
|
28
|
.391
|
.399
|
.790
|
22.06
|
|
36
|
1915
|
Lee
|
Magee
|
4
|
49
|
.323
|
26
|
.356
|
.436
|
.792
|
21.97
|
|
37
|
1954
|
Bobby
|
Avila
|
15
|
67
|
.341
|
30
|
.402
|
.477
|
.880
|
21.69
|
|
38
|
1905
|
Charlie
|
Hickman
|
4
|
66
|
.277
|
29
|
.311
|
.405
|
.716
|
21.65
|
|
39
|
1903
|
Claude
|
Ritchey
|
0
|
59
|
.287
|
29
|
.360
|
.381
|
.741
|
21.57
|
|
40
|
1910
|
John
|
Hummel
|
5
|
74
|
.244
|
27
|
.314
|
.351
|
.665
|
21.39
|
And this chart summarizes the ages of second basemen having their peak seasons. Eight of the 40 top second basemen had their peak value at age 26, the most of any age:
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
32
|
33
|
34
|
35
|
|
1
|
1
|
4
|
5
|
8
|
6
|
1
|
4
|
2
|
4
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
67. Lumpe, Maz and the Not-Ready-For-Primetime Second Basemen
From 1961 to 1963 one of the best second baseman in baseball played for my hometown heroes, I think probably the only Kansas City Athletic ever to reach the top of the chart for even one year. Jerry Lumpe in his best seasons was a .300-area hitter, had doubles and triples power, walked more than he struck out, and for fifteen years after he retired held the career record for fielding percentage at second base. He took that record from Nellie Fox, and held it until Bobby Grich beat him.
|
YEAR
|
Rank
|
First
|
Last
|
HR
|
RBI
|
Avg
|
OBA
|
SPct
|
Value
|
|
1961
|
1
|
Bill
|
Mazeroski
|
13
|
59
|
.265
|
.298
|
.380
|
17.98
|
|
1961
|
2
|
Jerry
|
Lumpe
|
3
|
54
|
.293
|
.348
|
.392
|
17.69
|
|
1961
|
3
|
Jake
|
Wood
|
11
|
69
|
.258
|
.320
|
.376
|
16.97
|
|
1961
|
4
|
Frank
|
Bolling
|
15
|
56
|
.262
|
.329
|
.379
|
16.40
|
|
1961
|
5
|
Nellie
|
Fox
|
2
|
51
|
.251
|
.323
|
.295
|
15.50
|
|
1961
|
6
|
Tony
|
Taylor
|
2
|
26
|
.250
|
.304
|
.322
|
14.63
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1962
|
1
|
Bill
|
Mazeroski
|
14
|
81
|
.271
|
.315
|
.418
|
20.31
|
|
1962
|
2
|
Jerry
|
Lumpe
|
10
|
83
|
.301
|
.341
|
.432
|
19.93
|
|
1962
|
3
|
Billy
|
Moran
|
17
|
74
|
.282
|
.324
|
.407
|
18.38
|
|
1962
|
4
|
Bobby
|
Richardson
|
8
|
59
|
.302
|
.337
|
.406
|
18.08
|
|
1962
|
5
|
Bernie
|
Allen
|
12
|
64
|
.269
|
.338
|
.403
|
17.38
|
|
1962
|
6
|
Jim
|
Gilliam
|
4
|
43
|
.270
|
.370
|
.335
|
16.67
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1963
|
1
|
Jerry
|
Lumpe
|
5
|
59
|
.271
|
.333
|
.363
|
18.31
|
|
1963
|
2
|
Tony
|
Taylor
|
5
|
49
|
.281
|
.330
|
.367
|
17.64
|
|
1963
|
3
|
Bill
|
Mazeroski
|
8
|
52
|
.245
|
.286
|
.343
|
17.37
|
|
1963
|
4
|
Jim
|
Gilliam
|
6
|
49
|
.282
|
.354
|
.383
|
17.27
|
|
1963
|
5
|
Bobby
|
Richardson
|
3
|
48
|
.265
|
.294
|
.330
|
17.18
|
|
1963
|
6
|
Julian
|
Javier
|
9
|
46
|
.263
|
.296
|
.381
|
16.98
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1964
|
1
|
Pete
|
Rose
|
4
|
34
|
.269
|
.319
|
.326
|
17.38
|
|
1964
|
2
|
Bill
|
Mazeroski
|
10
|
64
|
.268
|
.300
|
.381
|
17.24
|
|
1964
|
3
|
Bobby
|
Richardson
|
4
|
50
|
.267
|
.294
|
.333
|
16.86
|
|
1964
|
4
|
Jerry
|
Lumpe
|
6
|
46
|
.256
|
.312
|
.338
|
16.77
|
|
1964
|
5
|
Felix
|
Mantilla
|
30
|
64
|
.289
|
.357
|
.553
|
16.32
|
|
1964
|
6
|
Julian
|
Javier
|
12
|
65
|
.241
|
.282
|
.363
|
15.51
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1965
|
1
|
Joe
|
Morgan
|
14
|
40
|
.271
|
.373
|
.418
|
26.32
|
|
1965
|
2
|
Pete
|
Rose
|
11
|
81
|
.312
|
.382
|
.446
|
23.77
|
|
1965
|
3
|
Cookie
|
Rojas
|
3
|
42
|
.303
|
.356
|
.380
|
16.93
|
|
1965
|
4
|
Felix
|
Mantilla
|
18
|
92
|
.275
|
.374
|
.416
|
16.31
|
|
1965
|
5
|
Jim
|
Lefebvre
|
12
|
69
|
.250
|
.337
|
.369
|
16.17
|
|
1965
|
6
|
Bill
|
Mazeroski
|
6
|
54
|
.271
|
.294
|
.346
|
16.00
|
Pete Rose and Joe Morgan, the 1964-65 leaders, would be huge stars in the 1970s and are still central figures circling baseball today, but had detours ahead of them before reaching their pinnacles. Rose ranks first in 1964 because somebody has to. His score is only 17.38—the lowest figure ever for a #1 second baseman, and a raw score which would not rank among the leaders in many, many seasons. The raw score would not be in the Top 10 in any season between 2008 and 2016. The 1961 and ’63 figures are the second- and third-lowest ever for a major league leader. Sometimes there just isn’t a great player at the position. This—and a fantastic rookie season—enabled Joe Morgan to rank first at the position as a rookie, which not a lot of players have done.
Bobby Richardson was very well thought of at the time, finishing second in the MVP voting in 1962, but in retrospect most analysts would look back on that as a blind spot of the era. Richardson made huge numbers of outs while doing very little to change the scoreboard. He was a drain on the Yankee offense, which was so outstanding in other areas that they could score as many runs as they needed to score despite Richardson’s interference. I have pointed this out before, but in 1961 Richardson, batting leadoff for the ’61 Yankees, made 523 outs and scored 80 runs. With Maris, Mantle, Skowron and Elston Howard coming up after him. Dick Howser, batting leadoff for a Kansas City A’s team that was 9th in the league in runs scored and lost 100 games, made 460 outs and scored 108 runs. He made 63 fewer outs than Richardson, but scored 28 more runs. The most outs made in a season, 1961-1965:
1. Bobby Richardson, 1964 536
2. Ken Hubbs, 1962 532
3. Bobby Richardson, 1962 529
4t. Bill Virdon, 1962 527
4t. Bobby Richardson, 1965 527
6. Bobby Richardson, 1961 523
More by default than virtue, Bill Mazeroski has to rank as the #1 second baseman of the era. Mazeroski had one great virtue, which was that he was better at turning the double play, probably, than anybody else ever. It saved a certain number of runs, a limited number but some, and this offsets to an extent the fact that he was not much of a hitter, either, and he made too many outs, also.
In the early 1980s, someone put on the back of one of my books some nonsense about Bill Mazeroski having tremendous value as a fielder and deserving to be in the Hall of Fame, which he was not at that time. I don’t know if you know this, but writers do not write the cover copy for their books. Somebody else writes it, and we get to argue about it. Sometimes what goes on the back of your book is written by someone who hasn’t actually read the book, and who has a second-hand understanding of what the book is about.
You CAN control what goes on your books, more or less, within reason, but I didn’t really understand that at that time. I used to have a lot of conflicts with publishers. I used to get into terrible fights with editors and copy editors and publicists and all of those people. When this nonsense about Bill Mazeroski appeared on one of my books, I was in the middle of several other fights, and I thought I should just let this one go. It wasn’t a good decision, but then I was young and didn’t really understand what I was doing in the publishing world, so I made a lot of not-very-good decisions.
I’m not sure if I ever believed in Bill Mazeroski’s mythic defensive value, and this leads into another debate. Earlier in this series of articles, one of you assholes. . . .excuse me. Earlier in this series of articles, one of you fine readers, who had his head up his ass. . ..excuse me; let me try again. Earlier in the series of articles, in discussing some defense-first player who might have been rated higher than he was, one of you distinguished scholars offered the stupid opinion that my rankings might have failed because defensive value is difficult to document, compared to offensive value, so defensive players wind up getting short shrift in rankings of this nature.
That was a good argument, in 1983. Historical defensive numbers are very poorly designed, and difficult to read.
But every statistical analyst of my generation or the one after me has dedicated thousands of hours to figuring out how to interpret fielding statistics. I have spent many, many, many more hours trying to make sense of fielding statistics than I have trying to make sense of batting statistics, and the same is true of John Dewan, Craig Wright, Tom Tippett, Sean Forman, and probably every other person in my field who was born before 1980. We are not where we were in 1983. We are not stumbling around in the dark. We are not confused about defensive value, and we are not blind to defensive value.
Incidentally, if you didn’t gather this, having worked as hard as I have worked to understand fielding, I sincerely do not appreciate some jackass wandering into the middle of the conversation blathering about how fielding is difficult to understand so people like me don’t put an appropriate value on it. I really don’t appreciate that. It is disrespectful to me, and it is disrespectful to the field of knowledge in general, to talk about fielding statistics as if we had not done the many thousands of hours of hard work that we have in fact done, or as if we had not written hundreds and hundreds of articles in an effort to make that work accessible to you.
It is not that we don’t understand fielding, or that we don’t place the right amount of value on it. What it is, is this. When people have no way of measuring something, they tend to make spectacularly inaccurate estimates of its size. I have done this myself many times. I can remember writing that a runner had to go from first to third 100 times a year. We didn’t know; I didn’t know. In reality, no one in the major leagues went from first to third or a single 25 times in 2017, but we didn’t know things like that until we started counting.
When you don’t know how large something is, some people will argue that it is much larger than it really is. This is what happened to fielding. Before we spent thousands of hours studying fielding, we really didn’t have any idea how many runs a good fielder could save, as opposed to a weak one. We didn’t have any idea how to get that information out of old data.
Because we didn’t know, because we couldn’t put hard numbers on it, the defensive value of players like Mark Belanger, Mike Hegan, Larry Bowa, Aurelio Rodriguez, Bobby Richardson and Bob Boone was exaggerated to mythic proportions by some of their contemporaries. We believed it was possible that they might be saving 100 runs a year with their defensive excellence—we believed that, that is, until we thought it through. Once we worked through the math, we realized that that was completely impossible. We have not fully resolved our differences about the scope of defensive value, but we’re not where we were a generation ago.
Bill Mazeroski did make maybe 15, 20 double plays a year more than an average second baseman would have made, and this adds something to his value. It adds enough to his value to justify his spot in the lineup, and it adds enough to his value to make him the #1 second baseman in the game in a period when there just isn’t anybody who was really good, no Joe Gordon or Bobby Doerr or Jackie Robinson or Joe Morgan or Ryne Sandberg. There is no way in hell he should be in the Hall of Fame, but he was a pretty decent player. He got into the Hall of Fame because (1) some people mythologized his defensive contribution, and (2) some early sabermetrics overstated his defensive value.
2018-3
I should be on MLB-TV some today, I would guess. Look for me. Thanks.
68. The Mighty McAuliffe
Whitey Herzog, when he managed the Royals in the 1970s, would refer to John Wathan as his "cornfield player", by which he meant that Wathan played the game as if he had learned to play it in a cornfield somewhere. Dick McAuliffe was ten times the player that John Wathan was, but that is sort of a way of explaining him to those of you who are under 60; he was a tremendous player, but he played the game as if he had learned to play it somewhere where he might at any moment trip and fall into a cow pie. He had a rough-hewn face and a unique batting stance. He played the field, first shortstop and later second base, with more power than grace. He played them well, but he played the positions more like a bricklayer than a ballet dancer.
Despite a career batting average of .247, McAuliffe was an extremely effective offensive player because he walked 100 times a year and homered essentially twice as often as a typical second baseman in that era. He was a leadoff man, mostly, and he never scored 100 runs a year, but then, neither did Luis Aparicio. Most players didn’t, in that era, even the leadoff men. McAuliffe wasn’t fast, but he scored more runs per plate appearance than Aparicio did.
McAuliffe reached the majors as a shortstop, and played primarily shortstop through 1966, often ranking as one of the top shortstops in baseball. The Tigers were a good team that would win 85-90 games a year, and finally broke through with a 103-win, World Championship season in 1968. McAuliffe was not a great player, but he was a near-great player who wore a thick disguise of mediocrity.
|
YEAR
|
Rank
|
First
|
Last
|
HR
|
RBI
|
Avg
|
OBA
|
SPct
|
Value
|
|
1966
|
1
|
Dick
|
McAuliffe
|
23
|
56
|
.274
|
.373
|
.509
|
27.14
|
|
1966
|
2
|
Pete
|
Rose
|
16
|
70
|
.313
|
.351
|
.460
|
25.36
|
|
1966
|
3
|
Joe
|
Morgan
|
5
|
42
|
.285
|
.410
|
.391
|
22.42
|
|
1966
|
4
|
Jim
|
Lefebvre
|
24
|
74
|
.274
|
.333
|
.460
|
19.18
|
|
1966
|
5
|
Bill
|
Mazeroski
|
16
|
82
|
.262
|
.296
|
.398
|
17.37
|
|
1966
|
6
|
Glenn
|
Beckert
|