World Champions without Cooperstown
In honor of Hall of Fame week, I was goofing around on Baseball-reference.com and decided to check the connections between winning a World Series and getting enshrined in Cooperstown. Baseball's Hall of Fame doesn't put quite the emphasis on winning a World Title as the Pro Football Hall of Fame does, but it is interesting to see how many Hall of Famers are on World Championship Teams.
First off, every team that won the World Series from 1903 to 1980 had at least one hall of famer on their roster. This shouldn't come as a surprise. It's been well documented that the players of the 1920s and 1930s were inducted en masse during the 1960s and 1970s. According to Joe Posnanski, fully half of major league position players who retired in the 1930s with more than 5000 at bats ended up in Cooperstown. It's almost a third of the players of who retired in the 1950s. So it shouldn't surprise us that World Series winners all had Hall of Famers on them. Even during the war years, the Cardinals still had Stan Musial (and Enos Slaughter in 1942) and the Yankees still had Bill Dickey and recent inductee Joe Gordon. The Tigers who defeated the Cubs in the 1945 World Series got Hank Greenberg back from Uncle Sam on July 1 of that season. Had the Cubs won Game 7 that year, they likely would have been the first World Champion without a Hall of Famer. However, had the Cubs won in 1945, it's possible Stan Hack would have gotten in to Cooperstown.
Most Champions in the pre-expansion era have at least two Hall of Famers and often more. Even an almost completely forgotten champion like the 1920 Indians had Tris Speaker and Stan Coveleski. The 1924 Washington Senators had Walter Johnson, of course, but they also had Goose Goslin and Sam Rice. (Bucky Harris was also on that team, but he was inducted into Cooperstown as a manager, not as a player.)
You'd expect those numbers to slow down in the 60s and 70s, but they really don't. Most titles in the first 20 years of expansion were won by powerful dynasty teams--the Dodgers, Yankees and Cardinals in the 1960s and the Athletics, Reds, Orioles and Yankees in the 1970s. But the Tigers snuck in a title in 1968 with an aging Al Kaline as their only HOFer and the Miracle Mets (boo) only had Tom Seaver and some kid in the bullpen named Nolan Ryan.
Almost unbelievably, the first World Series Champion without a Hall of Famer on the roster was the 1981 Los Angeles Dodgers. This was the team at the end of the 1970s Dodgers dynasty that could just never get over the hump until the strike year. It's surprising because as I've written before, pretty much everyone at the time thought that Steve Garvey was headed to Cooperstown and many would have made a case for Ron Cey as well. They also had a rookie kid pitcher name Fernando Valenzuela who looked to all the world like a potential Hall of Famer. As it stands, the only members of that team now who has any chance at induction would be Mike Scioscia or Dusty Baker, although since they would be inducted as managers, that really doesn't count.
They (along with the 1988 Dodgers) did have a Hall of Fame manager in Tommy Lasorda. So while they had no players in Cooperstown, they are represented.
The 1982 Cardinals had Ozzie Smith and the 1983 Orioles had Cal Ripken and Eddie Murray, so the next team without a Hall of Famer is a team ironically often mentioned as the greatest team of the decade: the 1984 Detroit Tigers. Like the Dodgers, they did have a Hall of Fame manager in Sparky Anderson. It's up to you to decide whether or not that counts.
The 1984 Tigers are not permanently shut out though. I suspect that Alan Trammell will go into Cooperstown one day, although it will probably have to be through a Veteran's Committee rather than the baseball writers. Lou Whitaker and Darrell Evans aren't out of the question either.
The 1988 Dodgers were one of the worst teams to ever win a World Series, and it's reflected in their lack of support in Cooperstown. However, they did actually have a Hall of Famer on the team that year, in that Don Sutton came back to Los Angeles for one last go around that season. But Sutton didn't win a game after May 14 and was released on August 10. I'm sure he got a ring for his efforts, but he was long gone from the team when Gibson hit that home run off of Eckersly in game 1. It's up to you whether you want to count that
The best player on that 1988 team was Orel Hershisher, whose pitching career was very good but probably not enough of a peak for induction. Then there's Mike Scioscia again, whose only chance at induction would be as a manager of a different team.
Once we get into the 1990s, we've got a lot of question marks as there are players who simply haven't come up for a vote yet. Here's a list of the teams that do not as of yet have a player in Cooperstown and an assessment of the chances of an eventual induction.
1990 Reds: I believe that Barry Larkin will be inducted one day. The odds are very good they will have just one player and possibly a manager in Lou Piniella. If only Eric Davis could have stayed healthy.
1995 Braves: Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz and Chipper Jones will all go in. It's a lock.
1997 Marlins: Here's a tricky one. It's kind of ironic for a team that got accused of buying a championship, but they don't have a lot of obvious candidates. In fact, it comes down to one player: Gary Sheffield. Now by just looking at the stats, it's clear to me that Gary Sheffield had a Hall of Fame career. But the off-the-field stuff, such as steroids and accusations of being a disruptive force in the clubhouse will likely keep him out for a while.
I think the odds are good that Sheffield eventually gets in as he was just too good a player. But it might take the 2040 Veteran's Committee to do it. Jim Leyland is also a candidate as a manager.
1998 Yankees (and all subsequent Yankee champions): Jeter and Rivera are locks for Cooperstown. Please note that the 1996 team already has an inductee in Wade Boggs.
2001 Diamondbacks: If Randy Johnson isn't inducted, no starting pitcher will ever get inducted again. Curt Schilling isn't a lock, but I consider him as very likely to go in one day.
2002 Angels: Now we're stuck. The player on this team with the best career was Tim Salmon, but he never even made an All-Star Game (an injustice, to be sure). Amongst players that are still active, John Lackey would seem to have the best chance at putting together a Cooperstown career, and that seems like a massive long shot at best. Manager Mike Scioscia has a chance, of course.
2003 Marlins: Unless the Hall drops a huge black ball on anyone with any suspicion of steroids on them, I think Ivan Rodriguez will end up in Cooperstown. Josh Beckett still has a chance to put together a Hall of Fame career.
2004 Red Sox: If Pedro Martinez doesn't go in, then no starting pitcher will ever get inducted again. Curt Schilling and his bloody sock will likely join him. Manny Ramirez's case is like Gary Sheffield's, only more so. He should go in one day.
2005 White Sox: Here's a case like the 1988 Dodgers. The White Sox had a no-doubt, first ballot Hall of Famer in Frank Thomas. Of course, he only played 34 games that year and none of them after July 20. I think that counts anyway since he gets the ring, but I can see the case otherwise. No one else on that White Sox team is a serious candidate.
2006 Cardinals: Albert Pujols could retire today and still get into Cooperstown, and he's only 30. Jim Edmonds and Scott Rolen will have their supporters as well.
2007 Red Sox: See Curt Schilling and Manny Ramirez. Along with Josh Beckett, we have no idea what kind of a career Dustin Pedroia is going to put together.
2008 Phillies: It's still early, but Chase Utley has put together the first half of a Hall of Fame career. Ryan Howard has too, as long as he doesn't eat his way out of the game.
2010 Giants: Way too early to tell what kinds of careers Tim Lincecum or Buster Posey are going to put together.
So to conclude, it's looks like the only two teams sure to not have a player inducted into Cooperstown are the 1981 Dodgers and the 2002 Angels. You can add the 1988 Dodgers and 2005 White Sox, depending on how you feel about Hall of Famers who didn't actually play for the team in the post-season. The 1984 Tigers and the 1997 Marlins have a real chance to be shut out. And World Series champions are no longer virtually guaranteed two or more Cooperstown inductees.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
100 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Mark Buehrle 2005
What is it, a decade of double-digit wins, a nono, and a perfecto? And he doesn’t get in? Huh…
He's been good, but never consistently great.
He could have a shot if he can extend his career into his forties, but at 148 wins, he’s gonna need to do alot more to have HOF consideration.
Buehrle doesn't rate particularly well in either HoF Standards or the HoF Monitor
Those measures were devised by Bill James to reflect the things which (rightly or wrongly) the voters appeared to consider important. That said, James came up with them quite a long time ago (they were extensively described in The Politics of Glory, which was published in 1994, so before then) and it would be interesting to know whether recent inductees reflect any changes in voter behaviour
by Limey Cub Fan Jay on Jan 1, 2011 8:58 PM CST up reply actions
Buehrle
could make it in only if they change the standard for starting pitchers in light of new patterns of usage. But Buehrle utterly fails in the “Black Ink” test, meaning he just never lead the league in anything other than innings pitched. (He did have one WHIP title) He only once got any Cy Young votes, which lead a fifth place finish in 2005.
The no-no and the perfecto are meaningless. David Wells had a decade of double-digit wins and a perfect game. Do you think Boomer is going to Cooperstown? (Wells even won 20 games, something Buehrle has never done.
For Buehrle to go to the Hall, he’s have to continue to pitch like he’s been pitching until he’s 45. Not impossible, I guess, but extremely unlikely.
by Josh Timmers on Jan 1, 2011 10:14 PM CST up reply actions
Buehrle??? Seriously?
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Jan 2, 2011 10:24 AM CST up reply actions
David Cone did basically the same achievements, give or take the no-no...
…and he couldn’t even stay on the HoF ballot. I really like Buehrle, but unless he sticks around a LONG time at his current level of performance (which admitted is possible for soft-tossing lefties, relatively speaking) he really doesn’t have a good shot.
On a side note for the 2005 White Sox, even though Frank Thomas only played 34 games that season, I forgot what a monster 34 games those were. 12 HRs, 26 RBIs, .905 OBS & 131 OBS+ in scarcely 100 AB. Insane…
Buehrle wont survive the his first round of votes
nice pitcher, nice career, but not even close to HOF
ask not what the Cubs can do for you - ask what you can do for the Cubs.
by holy mackeral on Jan 3, 2011 6:20 PM CST up reply actions
That depends.
If Buehrle played 10 more seasons — till age 41 — and won 15 games a year, he’d have 300 wins. Toss another no-hitter and he’s probably in.
Too early to judge. You are probably right, but it’s too early.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Interesting writeup
Not suprising to me the the 2002 Angels didn’t have a HOF-caliber player on their roster. That was a team in every sense, where the sum was greater than the total of it’s parts. They had some very good players, but that team just really clicked.
DEJESUS!!!
2002 Angels.
Anyone think K-Rod might have a shot at the Hall? He debuted with that team.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I considered him
but the standards for closers going into the Hall are ever evolving and somewhat nebulous. With Lee Smith getting as little support as he does, I don’t see how Frankie Rodriguez goes in unless he continues to rack up 50 saves a year until he’s 40. With his recent health and legal issues, I don’t see how he continues that long. I suppose it’s possible, but I don’t know how impressive 500 saves are going to sound in 20 years. Lee Smith had 478, and so far Cooperstown isn’t buying.
The only closers I feel comfortable saying are going to go to Cooperstown are Rivera and Trevor Hoffman.
by Josh Timmers on Jan 1, 2011 10:04 PM CST up reply actions
I agree the HOF standards for closers is not yet set.
But so far I believe every closer in the HOF had a great career and won a WS title sometime in their prime. While Hoffman might end this streak, he came pretty close with a low budget franchise (nobody was going to beat the ‘98 Yankees). If K-Rod has some more good years and wins a WS while a closer I’d guess he makes it.
"I'd rather hit home runs you don't have to run as hard." -- Dave Kingman
by BucknerKongCardenal on Jan 1, 2011 10:25 PM CST up reply actions
HoF closers
Right now are Hoyt Wilhelm, Rollie Fingers, Bruce Sutter, Goose Gossage and Dennis Eckersly. Eckersly is in as a starting/relieving hybrid.
It’s really hard to generalize from the other four, but the one thing that distinguishes them is that they weren’t the “one-inning save” guys. That started with Tony LaRussa and Eckersly. When closers only had to pitch one inning, save totals went up dramatically and Cooperstown hasn’t sorted that out yet. With Lee Smith not being able to break 50% in the vote, Rodriguez is going to have a tough challenge to get in.
I’ll confess that it’s possible K-Rod goes to Cooperstown. I just don’t think it’s likely.
by Josh Timmers on Jan 1, 2011 10:36 PM CST up reply actions
any chance Pinella
had of making the hall as a manger went away in 2010
13- Warner, 23- Sandberg, 40- Tillman, 11- Walter
I doubt it'll make much difference
Last year dropped Piniella’s winning percentage as a manager from .521 to .517. I don’t see that tipping the balance one way or the other.
by Limey Cub Fan Jay on Jan 1, 2011 9:51 PM CST up reply actions
Wasn't a HoF manager anyway
The 2001 Mariners and 2008 Cubs are giant red marks against his candidacy, imo. Keep him out of the Hall unless he buys a ticket.
RIP Ronnie James Dio (July 10, 1942 - May 16, 2010) and Ron Santo (February 25, 1940-December 2, 2010).
I dunno.
The combination of his playing career and the longevity of his managing career, plus the one WS, probably gets him in.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Good but not great playing career
Good but not great managerial career. Even with the WS, I don’t see him in the Hall. His win total is largely a function of his long career as a manager (although I suppose you could make a Darwinian argument that the very length of his career proves how great he was): his winning percentage is pretty low for a manager with that many wins.
Someone (probably you, Al) suggested a bit back that one of the attractions of the Cubs for Piniella was that a WS title in Chicago would push him over the line and into the Hall. I don’t know whether that was his thinking but I definitely think that it would have had that effect. In fact, given the historical resonance of the Cubs’ drought, maybe even getting to the WS would have done it.
by Limey Cub Fan Jay on Jan 2, 2011 5:30 PM CST up reply actions
Agreed on a Cubs WS getting Lou in.
He still might be in anyway. We’ll see.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
and his WS winner witht the Reds
"A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality." John Lennon
"My favorite food is Macaroni and Cheese, from the blue box." Geovany Soto
"They played like son of a guns......lord have mercy." Mike Quade
I forgot to add
that I expect Jack Morris to get inducted one day soon as the old guard’s revenge against the Sabermetricians putting Bert Blyleven in. It’s amazing how many writers are arguing for Morris over Blyleven despite Blyleven having superior “traditional” stats like Wins and ERA. It just seems like they want to put Morris in just to spite the new guard, and they probably will. I don’t think Morris should go in, but that seems to be the way things work these days.
So if Morris goes in, that will take care of the 1984 Tigers, even if Trammell doesn’t.
You can be small hall and argue against Blyleven
But if you turn around and argue for Morris, you’re really not a small hall proponent.
RIP Ronnie James Dio (July 10, 1942 - May 16, 2010) and Ron Santo (February 25, 1940-December 2, 2010).
Lance Parrish
There was a time in the mid-1980’s that I thought he was going to have a Hall of Fame career, but he really fell off after going to the National League with the Phillies. Once upon a time, Parrish and Carlton Fisk were the two best catchers in the American League. No one in their right mind would think of Lance Parrish as a Hall of Famer now.
2011 - The 103rd time is the charm.
Apparently TheHawkRules got banned, so I guess I'll do his dirty work for him
Josh, on those 2002 Angels you forgot the immortal David Eckstein. Once he’s signed as the Cubs leadoff hitter, forces Castro over to 2B, and leads the Cubs to the 2011-12-13 three-peat of World Series championships, he’ll be a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame…
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
Mock if you must
but the Angels don’t even make the playoffs that year without Eckstein. The cult of Eckstein is ridiculous, but he was a decent ballplayer eight years ago.
by Josh Timmers on Jan 1, 2011 11:42 PM CST up reply actions
Oh, I must... ;-)
Actually, I’d agree that Eckstein was a pretty good ballplayer back then. In fact, the 2004 Eckstein is my poster-child for arguing that the League MVP is just that – the League’s Most Valuable Player, instead of the apparent conventional wisdom that the MVP is the Most Valuable Player for his team.
When Guerrero won the AL MVP in 2004, just about everyone on that club said that hands down Eckstein was the team’s MVP, even though Vlad had far superior numbers. Which proves to me that being the MVP on a team can be a heckuva lot different than the MVP of a League.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
Eckstein was a more than decent player
not just 8 years ago, but last year.
I am going to persist with this until I’ve breathed my last…you guys that feel you have to make evaluations of players by pulling numbers off Baseball Reference miss a big part of the overall picture.
Eckstein in the first 3 months of last year had a great deal to do with the surprising run that the Padres made. I saw a lot of their games and I know of which I speak.
He was hurt most of July and August and had a very poor September (probably tried to play through the injury) and guess what, that coincided with the Padres swoon that cost them the Division. He was the team’s spark plug, pure and simple.
Besides, David has an outrageously hot wife.
the spark plug part in particular reminds me a lot of Craig Counsel
Chronologically inept since 2060
"I could be writing this crap!" -- Crow T. Robot
Me: Q: I can run but not walk. Wherever I go, thought follows close behind. What am I?
Wrigster A: Theriot
Funny you should bring up Craig
I was thinking about him in relation to the MVP comments.
Randy Johnson and others were quoted as saying that CC was the MVP of the 2001 Diamondbacks. His stats weren’t eye popping, but he sure got a lot of big hits that year. And indeed, he was the MVP of the NLCS.
IMHO they ar good comparisons when it comes to the intangibles of the game
Chronologically inept since 2060
"I could be writing this crap!" -- Crow T. Robot
Me: Q: I can run but not walk. Wherever I go, thought follows close behind. What am I?
Wrigster A: Theriot
Very interesting post, Josh
plenty of food for thought.
I really think Garvey should’ve gotten more HOF consideration. He meets all of the criteria that seems logical to me. Fernando should’ve gotten some consideration, too. The only thing they lack is career longevity. Both fell off dramatically in their performance in their early 30’s.
But, in their prime they were dominant players, and imo, that is what should count most. Garvey, for instance, has better offensive numbers than Ryne Sandberg.
As a side comment, not long ago I saw the official MLB film of the 1945 World Series for the first time. I was absolutely stunned by the way Hank Greenberg dominated that series. It seemed like every time he came up with a chance to do damage, he did so.
By the 4th or 5th game, I was yelling at my TV, “Why do you keep pitching to that guy??”. I guess teams just weren’t as prone to pitch around star players back then. I am convinced if the Cubs had been more willing to take the bat out of Greenberg’s hands, they could’ve won that series.
Garvey?
You can’t be serious. Garvey has one significant record — the NL record for consecutive games played — and led the league twice in a significant category (hits). He also led the league in DP twice.
He had seven very good years at the peak of his career and won one MVP award. After that seven-year stretch, he had some absolutely awful seasons.
The comparison to Sandberg is irrelevant, as Sandberg was a Gold Glove second baseman. Garvey won Gold Gloves, too — at first base.
Garvey is basically Dale Murphy, except with fewer home runs. He belongs in the Hall of Very Good.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Garvey
10 x All Star
1 x NL MVP
All Star game MVP
2 x NLCS MVP
Played in 4 World Series and won one
9 points Higher average than Sandberg
242 More RBI’s than Sandberg
More total bases than Sandberg
10 less HRs as Sandberg playing in a ball park that is much harder to hit HRs
Roberto Clemente and Lou Gehrig Award Winner
You say Garvey was “awful” late in his career? He had a better year at age 36 than Sandberg did at same age.
I fail to see your point about Gold Gloves. Do gold gloves at first base not count?
Sandberg was an excellent defensive player at a key defensive position.
… and won more gold gloves than Garvey.
Compare Garvey’s offensive production to other first basemen, not a second baseman. He’s not a Hall of Famer, not even close. His top ten most comparable players, from baseball-reference:
1. Garret Anderson (913)
2. Al Oliver (889)
3. John Olerud (865)
4. Ruben Sierra (859)
5. Mickey Vernon (857)
6. Bill Buckner (855)
7. Cecil Cooper (853)
8. Orlando Cepeda (853) *
9. Will Clark (849)
10. Mark Grace (847)
One HoFer in the bunch — Cepeda — and at 853 that’s not that close a comp. The rest of the list seems pretty close — a lot of very good but not great players.
Steve Garvey is not a Hall of Famer.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I'm not a big proponent of B-R comps
Here are Sandberg’s comps:
Lou Whitaker (901)
Joe Torre (874)
Barry Larkin (865)
Alan Trammell (859)
Ray Durham (854)
Miguel Tejada (852)
Ken Boyer (843)
Bobby Doerr (835) *
Roberto Alomar (834)
Bernie Williams (818)
Only one HOFer, and at 835 that’s even less of a comp.
Here are Ron Santo’s comps:
Dale Murphy (875)
Ken Boyer (874)
Gary Gaetti (873)
Ruben Sierra (865)
Chili Davis (865)
Bobby Bonilla (863)
Brian Downing (861)
Graig Nettles (860)
Ron Cey (853)
Robin Ventura (852)
Zero HoFers.
I still do not agree that 1B is not a key defensive position. A first baseman handles twice as many chances as a 2nd baseman.
The 10 x All Star game selection
addresses how Garvey stacks up against other 1st baseman during his career.
Clearly, for most of his career he was perceived as one of the top two 1st baseman in the NL. To me, that counts for more than statistical comps.
Also, being a league leader in a key stat for a couple of years is not as persuasive to me as being a top 5 or top 10 guy for many years.
Cal Ripken did not lead the league in more than one or two key stats, (excluding games played), but he finished top ten a lot and was in a whole slew of All Star games. Hence, he was a clear first ballot HOFer.
Not really
It addresses his popularity. I’m betting he was elected by the fans most if not all of those times. If you can remember those times, you remember that Steve Garvey was the Derek Jeter of his time in that the guy was everywhere—endorsing products as well as doing an episode of Fantasy Island. I don’t think the fact that he was marketed as “America’s Golden Boy” in the late 1970s is an argument for enshrinement.
I don’t like B-R.com’s “comps” much for this sort of thing, but on your Sandberg point, it’s pretty disingenuous to say “There’s only one hall of famer” on the list when there’s Robbie Alomar who is widely expected to be enshrined as well as Barry Larkin who will likely go in one day soon too. Alan Trammell and Bernie Williams are serious candidates. There’s no one on the Garvey list who’s a serious candidate except Cepeda. So it doesn’t help your case when you make an intentionally misleading statement like that,
by Josh Timmers on Jan 2, 2011 1:01 PM CST up reply actions 4 recs
Not misleading at all
I prefaced it by saying I didn’t put much stock in those things, I was just refuting Al’s argument by duplicating it.
And I don’t agree that you can discount Garvey’s All Star appearances any more than you could discount Sandberg’s. Time has proven that the fans have actually done a pretty good job over the years of selecting the most qualified players and if you go back and look at the years Garvey was selected, he was clearly deserving.
Here’s another thing that relates to that….Garvey won one league MVP just like Sanberg…but Garvey also finished in the top ten in MVP voting four other times and Sandberg only did twice.
Like Rose, Morgan and Mike Schmidt, The Garv was a classic anti-Cub...
…In short, a winner on the field, but an often-obnoxious presence in national media during the 70’s and 80’s, when he and his wife Cyndi appeared ready to launch themselves into big-time politics along a path followed years later by Ahhnold & Maria.
To Cubs fans, Garvey’s sins are manifold, including, of course, the three biggest:
• Rejecting Dallas Green’s generous offer in ’83, after using the Cubs for weeks as a negotiating ploy.
• Breaking Billy’s NL consecutive games record (IIRC, there were at least one or two pinch-hitting appearances required to keep Steve’s streak alive).
• Game 4, 1984.
On top of all this, he may have been the first MLB player to sell ad space on his batting gloves. That alone should keep him in the just-miss category of HoF rejects.
"Elder White! Look at the talent on those Cubs!" Harry Caray, KMOX Radio, 4/22/62
"And you have to wonder – What's the matter with Broglio?" Harry, KMOX, 5/24/64
He Is In the Just-Miss Category
His playoff exploits were impressive. After 1981, he had his moments and was a solid player, but he wasn’t a great player. His highest OPS+ after 1981 in a full season was 109 in 1985. He did a have an OPS+ of 124 in 1983, but he only played 100 games that season. I view his decline in a similar way to Pete Rose’s. Rose had his moments after 1981 being in the 1983 World Series and hitting really well with the Reds in his return to Cincinnati in 1984. Rose wasn’t a great player after 1981. Garvey’s in the Hall of Very Good along with Keith Hernandez in my mind. Garvey is hurt by the fact his career high in walks was 50.
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
Tony Perez, Keith Hernandez, Pete Rose, Bill Buckner
I suppose at various times during Garvey’s career that the main competition for the distinction of best first basemen in the National League was with Tony Perez in the mid and late 1970’s with the Reds and Expos. In the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, the competition was with Keith Hernandez with the Cardinals and Mets, Pete Rose in his Phillies days, and Bill Buckner with the Cubs. That list includes one Hall of Famer, one that would be had it not been for gambling, and two members of the Hall of Very Good.
2011 - The 103rd time is the charm.
curious
you say compare Garvey’s offensive production to other first basemen (a philosophy I happen to agree with). But then you quote B-R’s comps, which include a couple of non-1B in Anderson and Sierra, and a 2/3 non-1B in Oliver.
Doesn’t really impact your overall assessment, in that if you take Anderson, Oliver and Sierra out, you’re still left with 7 very good but not great 1B (excepting Cepeda). And I understand that’s just the way B-R does their comps, but the apparent inconsistency in this particular argument did jump out at me.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
I have a little different take on this
in the first place, the 1920-1965 period is kind of skewed by the dominance of the Yankees, and the fact that they had a plethora of legendary players that went into the Hall of Fame.
The 1970-2010 era is completely different in my view. Free agency saw to that. While there were dominant teams (the early 70s As and Orioles, the mid 70s Reds and late 70s Yankees) there were also a lot of “one year wonders” that didn’t really have any dominant players in terms of career achievement. There have been even more teams in the last 20 years that managed to win WS Championships that were simply good teams with good chemistry, but without dominant players.
If you really look at baseball as a whole, it is much more volatile now than it ever was in the pre-1970s. You get teams that go from worst to first in one or two years and back again. That just didn’t happen in the old days.
I still trot out the 1998-1999 Diamondbacks. The 1998 team, in their expansion year, lost 97 games. They added Randy Johnson and a couple of other free agents in 1999 and won 100 games. Two years later, they won a world series. 3 years later, they lost 111 games.
Pre-1965, things were more predictable. If you bet the Yankees to be in the World Series, you would be right more often than you were wrong. If you bet the Philadelphia Phillies to finish last, you would be right more often than you were wrong.
It would be interesting to me if you expanded it to include World Series participants and not just World Series champions.
The Yankees
won a lot of World Series and they always had a hall of famer on the team, but that’s not the explanation. They just enshrined way too many people from the 1920s to the 1950s.
Let’s look at 1936. (I just picked that year at random.) The Yankees won the World Series, and they had Dickey, Gehrig, Lazzeri, DiMaggio and Lefty Gomez, who are all in the Hall of Fame. But the losing Giants had Carl Hubbell, Mel Ott, Travis Jackson and Bill Terry.
But it wasn’t just those two teams. The Cardinals and Cubs finished tied for second. The Cardinals had Frankie Frisch, Johnny Mize, Joe Medwick and Dizzy Dean. The Cubs had Gabby Harnett, Billy Herman and Chuck Klein, who they traded to the Phillies in May. The Pirates had Arky Vaughn and the Waner brothers. Cincinnati had Ernie Lombardi and Kiki Cuyler. Boston had Al Lopez, although he was mainly inducted for being a manager. Even last place Philadelphia had the aforementioned Klein. In all, seven of the eight teams in the NL in 1936 had a Hall of Famer on the roster.
Same story in the American League, where six of the eight teams had a Hall of Famer on the roster: the only exceptions being a terrible last place Philadelphia Athletics team and an actual surprisingly good Washington Senators (and they had a Hall of Fame Manager in Bucky Harris).
So the reasons why no one in the pre-expansion era won a World Series without a hall of famer is that you had to be an especially bad or obscure team to not have a hall of famer on your roster.
There's another reason.
From 1920-1960, eleven teams won ALL the World Series (Yankees, Giants, Cardinals, Tigers, Athletics, Reds, Pirates, Senators, Indians, Dodgers, Braves).
Narrowing that down further, here’s how many each of those won in those 41 seasons:
Yankees 18
Cardinals 6
Giants 4
Indians 2
Tigers 2
Pirates 2
Athletics 2
Dodgers 2
Senators 1
Reds 1
Braves 1
Of those eleven, the Yankees alone account for almost half, and three teams (Yankees, Cardinals, Giants) account for 28 of the 41 World Series wins from 1920-1960.
Those teams also had many of the aforementioned Hall of Famers.
Also of note in that list, of the other five teams in existence before expansion, three of them (Cubs, Red Sox and Phillies) made the World Series in that period without winning it, and the other two (White Sox and Browns/Orioles) did not make it in that period.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Have you forgotten
the 1944 Brownies? The All-Saint Louis Series?
Oh, that’s right. You were crossing the Rhine and liberating Europe during that series. Otherwise you’d have taken the train to Sportsman’s Park.
That '59 Go Go Sox team
had three HOFers, off the top of my head – Nellie Fox, Luis Aparicio and Early Wynn.
Yep, those are the three.
Trivia question: the 1966 Cubs had four Hall of Famers. Name them.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Six if you count Durocher
I have very strong memories of watching the 1966 Cubs in Spring Training in Scottsdale. I was 9 years old and used to hawk cokes at the games. I remember sitting in right field about 10 feet from Johnny Callison watching him rocket throws into home plate. My goodness, that man had a cannon.
I still have my signed 1966 Johnny Callison Cubs Topps baseball card, :-)
I didn't count Durocher.
The four players were Jenkins, Banks, Williams and Roberts. Obviously, they should have five.
Johnny Callison was not on the 1966 Cubs — he didn’t come to the Cubs until 1970.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
But all the HOFers would have been around
in 1970, except for Roberts (who wasn’t there in ST in ’66), right?
Yeah, I'd think so.
Here’s another cute bit of trivia: the 1965 New York Mets, who lost 110 games, had two Hall of Famers. Name them.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Well I'll go with Stengel and Kiner off the top of my head
but I’m guessing you’re only talking about players, so I had to “Hook” myself up to the internet so I could “observe a lot” just by clicking… ;-)
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
Warren Spahn and Yogi Berra.
Both played for the 1965 Mets. Spahn later played for the Giants that year; the 1965 Giants had six Hall of Famers: Marichal, Mays, McCovey, Cepeda, G. Perry and Spahn.
A quick look through the rosters of teams that have lost 100+ games in the 162-game era shows that the most HoF players on any roster was two, except for those 1966 Cubs.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I guessed Duke Snider
but he was on the 1963 Mets. And Richie Ashburn retired after he 1962 season.
The Mets in their early years had a habit of just picking up big past-their-prime names to sell tickets.
The thing with the 1966 Cubs is that two of those players, Santo and Williams were in their prime and Banks was just a little past his. Jenkins was a kid and Roberts was a washed up veteran.
The '62 Mets could have two if they ever put Gil Hodges in.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I haven't checked.
But I’m guessing that’s the most Hall of Famers on any 100+ loss team.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
It's gotta be
Although the 2010 Mariners had three potential Hall of Famers in Ichiro, Felix Hernandez and Cliff Lee. (Of course, it’s hard to predict pitchers because they get injured.)
The 1982 Reds, who lost 100 games, had two.
Bench & Seaver.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
True.
You can skip the 2003 Tigers. Well, unless you think Carlos Pena will make it someday. ;)
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Here's a curious one.
1915 Philadelphia A’s — the year after Connie Mack broke up the team — lost 109 games.
Two Hall of Famers — Nap Lajoie and Herb Pennock.
But you’re right. I haven’t found any other team with more than two.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Might have a three
The 1993 Padres had Tony Gwynn, Trevor Hoffman and Gary Sheffield. All depends on if Sheffield goes in one day. Hes got the stats.
One last one
The 1906 Boston Americans (Red Sox) had Cy Young and Jimmy Collins.
I think we can safely say the 1966 Cubs have the record, even without Santo.
True.
That’s an impressive collection on the 1988 Orioles, who were awful. Not only that, they wound up being managed by a Hall of Famer, Frank Robinson, after Cal Ripken Sr. was fired.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
The 1959 Phillies
lost 90 games with three Hall of Famers…Robin Roberts, Whitey Ashburn and….drum roll please….Sparky Anderson!
The 2010 Mariners
have a shot. Two sure HOF’ers in Ichiro and Griffey Jr. and two guys who may have a shot in Cliff Lee and Felix Hernandez.
Nice work, Josh...
Some good points to think about.
"I've never complained about it. I'm thankful to have a jersey." Mark DeRosa, 22 Aug 2007
I'm still pissed...
that the HOF didn’t induct Ron Santo five or six years ago while he could enjoy it.
by montecarlo on Jan 3, 2011 12:58 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
Rec'd
Great post Josh!
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-cubs-wrigley-bound/
great post. By the way, the '68 Tigers had Eddie Matthews along with Kaline
ask not what the Cubs can do for you - ask what you can do for the Cubs.
Addendum to the 1997 Marlins
Since I wrote this, a debate has broken out in the blogosphere over whether Kevin Brown in a Hall of Famer. The answer is a definitive “I don’t know, maybe.” I strongly agree. This is why someone is on the ballot of 15 years. I think it’s going to take at least that long to sort out Kevin Brown’s career.
I dunno.
Brown is kind of a slightly better Jack Morris. I don’t think Morris is qualified, and I’d put Brown in the Hall of Very Good, too.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
That was my initial reaction
but Brown had a career ERA of 3.28 in a much higher scoring environment than Jack Morris’s 3.90. Brown also had much better control than Morris had and he rarely gave up home runs. Morris won more games, but Brown had a better winning percentage.
Career ERA+ for Morris was 105. For Kevin Brown in was 127.
The argument has been going “I never thought Kevin Brown was a Hall of Famer” and then “Waitaminute, isn’t that what people said about Bert Blyleven?”
I think Brown was better than Morris. Good enough for the Hall of Fame? I’m not ready to say that yet, but as I said, that’s why they can stay on the ballot for 15 years. I’d like for future analysts to go over his career and make the case for or against it. Then we can make up our minds.
Brown was good enough to be in the conversation.
by Josh Timmers on Jan 4, 2011 11:43 PM CST up reply actions
The difference between Brown & Blyleven is pretty obvious...
… Brown doesn’t have nearly the counting stats that Blyleven had. Brown may have had a higher peak than Blyleven did, but it was pretty short.
Brown better than Morris? Sure, but I don’t think Morris is even close to being a Hall of Famer.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
He fell off the ballot
with only 2% of the vote, which I think is a shame although I wouldn’t have voted for him either. So he’s out until the Veterans Committee or until he gets restored to the ballot, which has happened in the past.
I doubt they'll do any more ballot restorations.
I think the Hall is tending toward smaller ballots rather than the ungainly 33-man ballot from this year.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
you guys aren't very moved by Morris' post-season career
The 10 inning shutout in game 7 of ‘91 WS is mega-extra points as far as I’m concerned. Ditto with being the ace of 3 seperate WS winners (Tigers, Twins Bluejays). Combined with most wins in the 80’s and he would get my vote. But hey, half the voters voted for him, and the other half cant get over that 3.90 ERA and other stats.
ask not what the Cubs can do for you - ask what you can do for the Cubs.
by holy mackeral on Jan 5, 2011 4:33 PM CST up reply actions
Might as well put in Livan Hernandez
for his performance in the 1997 NLCS. Or Don Larsen for his perfect game in 1956.
If we’re talking World Series heroics, then Mickey Lolich has to go in for the 1968 World Series. Dude went 3-0 with a 1.67 ERA. Gave up a solo home run to Mike Shannon with two out in the ninth inning and a 4-0 lead. And it’s not like Mickey Lolich had a bad career: the guy won over 200 games in the major leagues. Had the exact same career ERA+ (105) as Morris did.
If we’re giving Morris credit for Game 7 in 1991, shouldn’t we also take into account Game 5 of the 1992 World Series when he got rocked for 7 runs in 4.2 innings?
Morris’ post-season record in 7-4 with a 3.80 ERA, pretty much in line with the rest of his career.
No. I do not give Morris “mega-extra points” for Game 7 of 1991. It’s a point. If his case was close, it might be a tipping point. But his case isn’t.
Come back to me when Mickey Lolich gets into Cooperstown. Then I’ll consider Jack Morris.
by Josh Timmers on Jan 5, 2011 5:54 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Forgot to add
that complete game win that he gave up a HR to Shannon was also Game 7. But unlike Morris, he had already won two games in the series. (And Morris did have 3 starts in the 1991 WS.)
53% of the voters agree with me about Morris, so I am not completely insane
and heck yes, Lolich was top shelf as well. When he retired, I think he was 1st or 2nd all time in K’s for a LHP, and top 10 all time. The ’68 Series earns him mega extra points as well!
ask not what the Cubs can do for you - ask what you can do for the Cubs.
by holy mackeral on Jan 5, 2011 11:19 PM CST up reply actions
If agreement with Hall of Fame voters was a benchmark of sanity...
….we’d live in a very scary world :)
+1
ask not what the Cubs can do for you - ask what you can do for the Cubs.
by holy mackeral on Jan 6, 2011 2:39 PM CST up reply actions

by 























