Username:	Password:

Remember me

Forgot your username/password?

Print Email

Home>Articles

Second Base from Jackie to Joe

By Bill James

January 4, 2018

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 9^th 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	1	59	.287	.317	.348	17.13

1967	1	Dick	McAuliffe	22	65	.239	.364	.411	27.18
1967	2	Joe	Morgan	6	42	.275	.378	.411	24.69
1967	3	Glenn	Beckert	5	40	.280	.314	.369	19.35
1967	4	Julian	Javier	14	64	.281	.314	.404	17.13
1967	5	Davey	Johnson	10	64	.247	.325	.376	17.11
1967	6	Rod	Carew	8	51	.292	.341	.409	17.02

1968	1	Dick	McAuliffe	16	56	.249	.344	.411	26.77
1968	2	Mike	Andrews	7	45	.271	.368	.354	22.22
1968	3	Glenn	Beckert	4	37	.294	.326	.369	20.79
1968	4	Ron	Hunt	2	28	.250	.371	.297	19.21
1968	5	Davey	Johnson	9	56	.242	.308	.359	17.51
1968	6	Julian	Javier	4	52	.260	.291	.347	16.92

69. The First True Great since Jackie Robinson

1969-1977

YEAR	Rank	First	Last	HR	RBI	Avg	OBA	SPct	Value
1969	1	Joe	Morgan	15	43	.236	.365	.372	24.17
1969	2	Mike	Andrews	15	59	.293	.390	.455	22.48
1969	3	Dick	McAuliffe	11	33	.262	.369	.458	20.98
1969	4	Rod	Carew	8	56	.332	.386	.467	20.55
1969	5	Davey	Johnson	7	57	.280	.351	.391	18.60
1969	6	Glenn	Beckert	1	37	.291	.325	.341	18.29
1969	7	Ron	Hunt	3	41	.262	.361	.341	18.21
1969	8	Felix	Millan	6	57	.267	.310	.345	17.93

1970	1	Joe	Morgan	8	52	.268	.383	.396	26.52
1970	2	Mike	Andrews	17	65	.253	.344	.390	20.36
1970	3	Dick	McAuliffe	12	50	.234	.358	.345	19.89
1970	4	Davey	Johnson	10	53	.281	.360	.392	18.62
1970	5	Felix	Millan	2	37	.310	.352	.380	18.40
1970	6	Rod	Carew	4	28	.366	.407	.524	17.92
1970	7	Ron	Hunt	6	41	.281	.394	.381	17.89
1970	8	Glenn	Beckert	3	36	.288	.323	.349	17.83

1971	1	Joe	Morgan	13	56	.256	.351	.407	31.10
1971	2	Davey	Johnson	18	72	.282	.351	.443	20.68
1971	3	Rod	Carew	2	48	.307	.356	.380	20.46
1971	4	Glenn	Beckert	2	42	.342	.367	.406	18.11
1971	5	Ron	Hunt	5	38	.279	.402	.358	17.97
1971	6	Dick	McAuliffe	18	57	.208	.293	.379	17.61
1971	7	Mike	Andrews	12	47	.282	.400	.439	17.45
1971	8	Felix	Millan	2	45	.289	.332	.362	17.06

YEAR	Rank	First	Last	HR	RBI	Avg	OBA	SPct	Value
1972	1	Joe	Morgan	16	73	.292	.417	.435	37.30
1972	2	Rod	Carew	0	51	.318	.369	.379	24.07
1972	3	Davey	Johnson	5	32	.221	.320	.335	18.28
1972	4	Tito	Fuentes	7	53	.264	.310	.379	17.70
1972	5	Dick	McAuliffe	8	30	.240	.339	.353	17.59
1972	6	Cookie	Rojas	3	53	.261	.315	.331	15.64
1972	7	Ron	Hunt	0	18	.253	.363	.298	15.50
1972	8	Dave	Cash	3	30	.282	.316	.374	15.20

1973	1	Joe	Morgan	26	82	.290	.406	.493	39.80
1973	2	Rod	Carew	6	62	.350	.411	.471	28.21
1973	3	Bobby	Grich	12	50	.251	.373	.387	27.47
1973	4	Davey	Johnson	43	99	.270	.370	.546	23.13
1973	5	Cookie	Rojas	6	69	.276	.320	.372	16.86
1973	6	Tito	Fuentes	6	63	.277	.328	.358	16.76
1973	7	Dave	Cash	2	31	.271	.328	.342	16.54
1973	8	Ted	Sizemore	1	54	.282	.365	.334	15.64

1974	1	Joe	Morgan	22	67	.293	.427	.494	40.50
1974	2	Rod	Carew	3	55	.364	.433	.446	31.20
1974	3	Bobby	Grich	19	82	.263	.376	.431	30.67
1974	4	Jorge	Orta	10	67	.316	.365	.440	20.40
1974	5	Dave	Cash	2	58	.300	.351	.378	19.86
1974	6	Davey	Lopes	10	35	.266	.350	.383	19.40
1974	7	Rennie	Stennett	7	56	.291	.322	.374	17.51
1974	8	Felix	Millan	1	33	.268	.317	.311	14.33

YEAR	Rank	First	Last	HR	RBI	Avg	OBA	SPct	Value
1975	1	Joe	Morgan	17	94	.327	.466	.508	42.19
1975	2	Rod	Carew	14	80	.359	.421	.497	32.17
1975	3	Bobby	Grich	13	57	.260	.389	.399	29.72
1975	4	Jorge	Orta	11	83	.304	.363	.450	21.89
1975	5	Davey	Lopes	8	41	.262	.358	.359	21.26
1975	6	Dave	Cash	4	57	.305	.356	.388	21.06
1975	7	Rennie	Stennett	7	62	.286	.324	.383	18.33
1975	8	Derrel	Thomas	6	48	.276	.347	.381	15.96

1976	1	Joe	Morgan	27	111	.320	.444	.576	37.58
1976	2	Bobby	Grich	13	54	.266	.373	.417	28.89
1976	3	Jorge	Orta	14	72	.274	.316	.410	21.55
1976	4	Davey	Lopes	4	20	.241	.333	.342	20.23
1976	5	Dave	Cash	1	56	.284	.337	.345	19.08
1976	6	Phil	Garner	8	74	.261	.307	.400	18.46
1976	7	Rennie	Stennett	2	60	.257	.277	.341	16.75
1976	8	Willie	Randolph	1	40	.267	.356	.328	16.61

1977	1	Joe	Morgan	22	78	.288	.417	.478	30.90
1977	2	Davey	Lopes	11	53	.283	.372	.406	21.61
1977	3	Phil	Garner	17	77	.260	.325	.441	21.02
1977	4	Willie	Randolph	4	40	.274	.347	.387	20.80
1977	5	Don	Money	25	83	.279	.348	.470	20.10
1977	6	Jorge	Orta	11	84	.282	.334	.417	19.86
1977	7	Bump	Wills	9	62	.287	.361	.410	17.55
1977	8	Dave	Cash	0	43	.289	.343	.375	17.47

COMMENTS (31 Comments, most recent shown first)

garywmaloney
When is someone going to mention -- Eddie Stanky's awesome showing in these rankings? He is split over two emails -- but always near the very top. An underrated, outrageous talent / character

The discussion about time spent producing a study relating to its worth -- sounds suspiciously like the labor theory of value, defined by some as "the economic value of a good or service is determined by the total amount of socially necessary labor required to produce it, rather than by the use or pleasure its owner gets from it."
12:59 AM Jan 11th

ventboys
Steve, does that mean Bucky Dent was a hitter, too? One homerun makes for a great story, but it doesn't make Maz a great hitter.

The rant reminded me of what you - Bill, not Steve - said about Steve Carlton in the first abstract, about how he was surprisd to find himself surrounded by assholes. I hope you don't stop talking to us, though.

9:27 PM Jan 8th

raincheck
Maz got in for his fielding. The argument was always that defense was half the game and it was undervalued, and he was the greatest ever so it was a travesty to keep him out. Of course, pitching was estimated to be 90% of the game. So that left, apparently, -40% for hitting. Which was all we really understood and what really got guys into the Hall, and even earned them Gold Gloves.

Or something like that.
8:52 AM Jan 6th

steve161
Obviously, Tom Tango could offer a vastly more authoritative answer to tampabob's question, if he's so inclined, but my guess is that it's too soon. It'll probably need five years or so of data to separate the trends from the outliers. And that's after getting the bugs out of the system.
7:32 AM Jan 6th

tampabob
Has Statcast materially advanced the discussion around relative fielding performance? When it was introduced, it seemed to offer up more definitive answers to the Lenny Dykstra-Garry Maddox, ease vs hustle, assessment. If it has helped, how well do its findings match up with the pre-Statcast state-of-the-art fielding metrics?
8:06 PM Jan 5th

Steven Goldleaf
I simply think that whenever someone brought up the counter-argument that, good as he was, Maz was just a glove-guy, he got the counter-counter-argument "GLOVE guy!!!? He hit maybe the most important HR in the Series, ever! Are you nuts?" to which the glove-guy guy could only say, "Oh, yeah, right. My bad."
6:20 PM Jan 5th

MarisFan61
I've never understood the (very) widespread thought that Mazeroski got into the Hall of Fame mainly because of that home run, for multiple reasons including because of how Bobby Thomson hasn't gotten more consideration for the Hall of Fame. As near as I've ever been able to tell, Thomson's home run has been considered more notable, in every era including even in the early '60's when Maz's HR was fresh in everybody's minds -- and by a pretty wide margin.

BTW someone who might disagree with that is Art Ditmar, who was wrongly said in one of the radio broadcasts to be the pitcher on the mound when Mazeroski was at bat.
4:14 PM Jan 5th

villageelliott
In my opinion, Bill Mazeroski is in the Hall of Fame for his slugging. After all, timing is everything, except for location. Combine them, you have a walk-off, like Bill.
3:03 PM Jan 5th

MarisFan61
Well I don't know about more complicated than physics, but it's more complicated than F= ma and anything else I came across in physics until we got to stuff that we can't really see. :-)
11:01 AM Jan 5th

DaveNJnews
I noticed that 4 of Bill's long-term No. 1 second basemen changed teams at least once during their reign - Lajoie, Collins,Hornsby, Morgan. That seems unlikely.
10:02 AM Jan 5th

steve161
Well said, Maris, and I agree: baseball defense is much more complicated than physics. As nasty as the three-body problem is, Newton still gets us to Jupiter with three gravity assists.
8:52 AM Jan 5th

MarisFan61
......but I'd better add (part of my problem, besides my views themselves, is that I don't think of enough right away).....

Just to clarify, regarding the "quality" of the work: I think Steve will agree with this too although it might seem like I'm criticizing his wording. Just clarifying, probably for us both. And I hope I did imply this in the earlier posts.

I think the quality of the work (per se) has been superb, beyond superb. It's brilliant. What I'm saying is that I think baseball defense, while not quite like trying to metricize something like the beginning of the universe, is more complex than we've yet been able to accurately and reliably metricize, and that I suspect that some of the results, even from the very highest quality work, are highly questionable in their accuracy. That's no reflection, not really, on the quality of the work, just on the complexity of the subject. As Steve says (more generally), it's true that having worked hard and long on something doesn't mean either that the quality of the work is good, and merely talking about how hard and long you worked on it (BTW which is a defense I found myself using once or twice but eventually caught myself at it and joined others in laughing at it a little) .....talking about how hard and long you worked at it isn't a great argument.

I can understand people being particularly annoyed at criticism from those who are far below them in their knowledge of the thing, and who they know can't understand the work in its fullest depth. Maybe that's part of what's going on here, and I would understand it. However, when you look at exactly what it is that I said -- which basically is just that our defensive metrics on catchers and first basemen are particularly challenging and are worthy of doubt, and that some of the results feel quite wrong -- I do think it's surprising that this should have been so criticized.
7:51 AM Jan 5th

thoughtclaw
It occurs to me, after reading the comments on a recent Joe Posnanski article that is not behind a paywall, then reading the comments on this article, that it's worth the money just to read comments made exclusively by people who have paid for the privilege of doing so.

In any case, I have often wondered whether Mazeroski would have gotten into the Hall if he hadn't hit that home run. I would imagine not. No disrespect to him, but one swing of the bat is a pretty flimsy reason to put someone in the Hall of Fame, no matter how important that swing was. Joe Carter also hit a World Series-winning home run, and I don't hear anyone clamoring for him to get in.
7:45 AM Jan 5th

MarisFan61
Steve, you're brave. :-)
7:34 AM Jan 5th

steve161
Bravo, Maris. You beat me to it: whining about hard work says nothing about the quality of it. I think you'd agree with me that there's been a tremendous advance in understanding defense purely through statistics (necessary for most of baseball history), but that the error bars are still too wide for a high degree of confidence.

I didn't say anything about it at the time, because I didn't want to make the effort to do the computations, but my gut felt that rating Mike Piazza consistently ahead of Ivan Rodriguez looked very much like a case of getting the offense:defense ratio wrong.
7:14 AM Jan 5th

77royals
mskarpelos
My mother was very intelligent, but she grew up during the depression, and her father died soon after she graduated from high school, so she didn't have the opportunity to go to college as a young woman. When my brothers and I were finally out of the house, however, she went back to college at Cal State Hayward, now called Cal State East Bay, eventually graduating summa cum laude with a history degree. This was back in the mid 1980s. She was in her 50s at the time, so she was often three times older than the other students in class, but in one class there was an African American gentleman who was in his forties. Being the two oldest students in the class, she struck up a conversation with him. It turns out the man was Joe Morgan.

Apparently he had quit college to play baseball, and he had promised his own mother that he would eventually get his degree when his playing days were over. True to his word, he went back and got his degree even though it probably made no difference to him financially at that point. I know that Morgan annoys many folks in the sabermetric community, but I always admired him for going back to finish his degree.

I admire your mother.
6:36 AM Jan 5th

Steven Goldleaf
I almost uniformly love the adult students in classes, the older the better as a rule, precisely because they are mostly NOT there to "enhance their incomes" by getting a diploma but because they're otherwise motivated--or, more simply, because they're motivated, period. Usually all I need is to see a head of gray hair, and I know for sure on Day One that I'll putting down at least one A on my final grade sheet. Good for Joe. I like everything about him, except his commentaries.
4:25 AM Jan 5th

mskarpelos
My mother was very intelligent, but she grew up during the depression, and her father died soon after she graduated from high school, so she didn't have the opportunity to go to college as a young woman. When my brothers and I were finally out of the house, however, she went back to college at Cal State Hayward, now called Cal State East Bay, eventually graduating summa cum laude with a history degree. This was back in the mid 1980s. She was in her 50s at the time, so she was often three times older than the other students in class, but in one class there was an African American gentleman who was in his forties. Being the two oldest students in the class, she struck up a conversation with him. It turns out the man was Joe Morgan.

Apparently he had quit college to play baseball, and he had promised his own mother that he would eventually get his degree when his playing days were over. True to his word, he went back and got his degree even though it probably made no difference to him financially at that point. I know that Morgan annoys many folks in the sabermetric community, but I always admired him for going back to finish his degree.
5:49 PM Jan 4th

kgh
In response to smbakeresq's question regarding who Robinson replaced in the Dodgers' outfield: In January of 1953, the Dodgers traded starting outfielder Andy Pafko to the Braves, opening a spot in the outfield for Robinson.
4:10 PM Jan 4th

DavidHNix
Isn't Maz in the Hall because he hit perhaps the most dramatic home run in history? More than anything else, he stands out from all the other great-glove, light-bat guys for that one big swing, ending a grotesquely lopsided World Series and a memorably topsy-turvy Game 7.
3:34 PM Jan 4th

Steven Goldleaf
As the "other member who had raised the basic issue," I felt I had some right to claim the honor of being designated a "distinguished scholar" by Bill, plus I have a LOOOONG track record of Bill referring to me as that particular bodypart, but I think Maris is right, reviewing the threads in question, where MF61 doubted at some length and considerable depth whether the measurements of defensive play were in any way inadequate. I still maintain that Jerry Grote's absence from the catcher charts 1967-through 1974 or so puzzled me--I was under the impression that the guy was some sort of defensive-catching genius (his pitchers said so all the time) and I thought I was reflecting the ratio between "Defensive Reputation" and "Ranking on Bill's List" being surprising. I was and am willing to hear that "D.R." is just total B.S. and that I've been hornswoggled all these years hearing a lot of empty blather about Grote, Vic Power, Garry Maddox, Clete Boyer and all the light-hitting defensive stars who more than compensated for their hollow bats. Looks like D counts for less than I'd thought, or their D wasn't as good as I'd been led to believe. Good to know that it was mostly mythical--I hadn't gotten that memo about how few runs these D-first guys actually saved. Re-reading MF61's post, not only did Dick Stuart win a world's championship as his team's 1Bman, of course, but Vic Power didn't win squat.
2:52 PM Jan 4th

kseesar1
This reminds me of the Joe Morgan section of the second Abstract, which argued for Morgan as the greatest at his position, and this does nothing to dissuade that argument. Just a great, great ballplayer. Along with that, is also shows some pretty excellent talent right behind him--Carew, Grich, McAuliffe, etc. Certainly a far cry from the early sixties, as Bill pointed out.
2:07 PM Jan 4th

MarisFan61
......I checked back, and indeed it was multiple people who expressed ideas along this line, but I'm probably the 'scholar' that Bill meant.
Looks like it was 2 posts of mine, one under the "Catcher of the Last 40 Years" article, the other under "From Jacques Fournier to John Mayberry."

Here they are.
The first was in reply to another member who had raised the basic issue.

My reaction too, and I don't think for a second that it means we've been overrating catchers' defense in anything.
I'm figuring (close to assuming) that this method underrates defense.....or actually not exactly that, more like that the method doesn't measure defense accurately enough in order to consistently put the best defensive catchers where they ought to be, and often has players way up there who shouldn't be.

I think a great little example highlighting the difficulty of measuring defense of 1B's, including the difficulty of just knowing how much to count defense, is the relative showings here of Dick Stuart and Vic Power, who are about as close to a yin and yang as you can get.
They show similarly on the lists; Power just a little less well but the thing is, he doesn't make the lists at all in the years that Stuart does (really, not at all after Stuart came up, not counting his first half-season).

Who would you rather have on your team?
For me it's an easy call in favor of Vic Power, and I would have felt like saying Stuart is a guy you'll never win a championship with if he's at 1B, except that Pittsburgh did.

Looking at their hitting numbers for the years that they both played and taking account of what we think we know about their fielding, I have trouble imagining that Stuart was a better player to have as your regular 1B, and I'm inclined to think that any method that shows he was isn't taking enough account of fielding. I'm skeptical that any analytic method could resolve it -- I think that our pick of either Stuart or Power is mostly a reflection of our 'philosophy' about the game (and about metrics).

BTW part of where I'm coming from is that I think metric systems tend to overrate hitters like Stuart and underrate ones like Vic Power, but I'd say basically all the same even if we assume those valuations to be right.

I hold to all of that, and I find it surprising that one might think that we yet have any analytic method that measures catching defense or 1st base defense well enough to find these comments offensive or not decently taken.
11:11 AM Jan 4th

MarisFan61
(pardon the typo -- not "bow") :-)
10:55 AM Jan 4th

MarisFan61
I may well have been the distinguished scholar. I definitely said something along that line -- but others might equally claim this 'title' because my impression was that at least one or two others were expressing similarly.

It's worth emphasizing that just as Bill correctly puts it here, I didn't say (I hope I didn't) that Bill's system fails to accurately value fielding; I said that it MIGHT be somewhat underestimating the value of defense and the value of defensive play, at least at the extremes of good and bad. I hold to that, and I don't think it's fair to dismiss that as dumb or disrespectful.

Certainly it does not represent any lack of awareness or respect for bow much work has been put into it, nor any lack of respect for the findings. In fact, and we might say ironically, I think it's accurate that out of all the people who have ever posted on this site, I'm probably the one who has most praised the fielding aspect of Win Shares, the one who has most given it the highest regard, in terms of both its results and its methodology. I think the fielding aspect of Win Shares is very, very, very good -- but I don't think that necessarily means that in all instances it's very close to a real answer, just better than anything else that we've got.

The idea that having worked so hard and for so many many hours on something (and with great intelligence, knowledge, and capability) means that the results are unfailingly terrific is an odd claim and an odd argument. Working so hard and long, and with great intelligence, knowledge, and capability, means that you're likely to do a superb job. It doesn't mean that the results are guaranteed to be uniformly terrific and beyond question, and if it's on a highly complex subject, as I think baseball defense is, it doesn't even necessarily mean that the results will be real good. Mind you, I do think the results largely are real good. I just don't think they're necessarily uniformly real good, and moreover I just shake my head a bit at the notion that the fact of having worked so long and hard at it puts it beyond doubt.

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

Another thing, not particularly related: Bill puts that in the context of Mazeroski's fielding quality and fielding value and his 'Hall-of-Fame-ness.' In my view, the argument here is stuck in a certain kind of thinking which I know reflects the thinking of many, but it's a certain kind of thinking, and it's in neglect of a different and broader thought that has been expressed on this site many times. It goes on the assumption, the tenet, that Hall of Fame-ness is essentially just based on value or something like it. (I sometimes say "calculatable value" to put that idea perhaps a little more in play, but for this I'll just say value.) That's not necessarily so. It can also be based on other things, like special isolated achievements or, as in the case of Mazeroski, a single extraordinary important skill: I think a big part of why he made it was how he was seen in turning the double play, completely aside from the "value" or double plays or his overall value as a player. I think we see it also in the relative Hall of Fame results of certain players, a good example being Jim Rice and Roy White. Even if we accept that they had very similar value and that White may even have had more, we might well think Rice was a good HOF candidate and White wasn't at all -- without any ignorance involved, without being at all ignorant of their relative value.
10:53 AM Jan 4th

smbakeresq
I am not old enough to remember the situation, but what are some other details of Gilliam switching in for Jackie at 2B? It was a clearly a good decision, as Gilliam appears on these lists many times after as one of the best second baseman, allowing Jackie to move to another position and replace a lesser player there. But who was that?
10:48 AM Jan 4th

MWeddell
How many of the regular commenters will go back and identify who the "distinguished scholar" was? The joke is on us partially.

I enjoy Bill's writing with verve as usual. That's the best short description of Dick McAuliffe that I recall. I grew up in southeast Michigan during that era, and all the guys could imitate McAuliffe's batting stance, vaguely similar to how Craig Counsell later held his bat.

To some extent, much of that 1968 championship Tigers team suffered from the same oversight. Sportswriters at the time looked at the team batting average and wondered how the team could have won over 100 regular season games, completely overlooking other ways (power / walks / fielding most notably) that those position players could have been helping to win ballgames.
8:57 AM Jan 4th

chuck
Bill, thank you for this tremendously interesting series of articles. Looking forward to catching you on MLB-TV.

Can you venture an estimate on how many runs Dick Howser might have scored playing for the 1961 Yankees and batting leadoff? You may have done this at some point- I know you've put out a formula for estimating RBI, given a hitter's stats- but is there a formula for estimating how many runs a player is likely to score on average, just based on his stats (and, perhaps, his batting order position)?
8:46 AM Jan 4th

bjames
1) I screwed up the posting here and posted tomorrow's article along with today's. Oh, well. . .

2) My flight to New York was cancelled due to the weather. We are scrambling to save the MLB show. . .
8:44 AM Jan 4th

JohnPontoon
Mr. James, you are hilarious when you're pissed off. If you wrote an autobiography called "My Problems With Various Assholes," I'd buy five copies. I guess that title probably wouldn't pass muster...

I'm amazed that Joe Morgan, after grabbing the #1 spot for keeps, got better for six straight years. Incredible. It almost makes me want to avoid throwing shade at his reversal of that trend in his critical-thinking skills.
8:21 AM Jan 4th

tigerlily
Glad to hear you're doing "Best Now" series at the MLB Channel again this year. I'm looking forward to watching you on that series.
8:06 AM Jan 4th

Second Base from Jackie to Joe

COMMENTS (31 Comments, most recent shown first)

Leave a comment

Report inappropriate comment


Type of Abuse:
Comments: