The Top 100 Cubs Of All Time - #77 Riggs Stephenson

Riggs Stephenson, pictured in 1932
Profile by BCB reader Molechaser
The Riggs Stephenson story is generally told as one of "what might have been." Born in Akron, Alabama on January 5, 1898, Stephenson attended his homestate school, the University of Alabama, and according to his standard narrative, Stephenson's defense was harmed by a shoulder injury incurred playing football at 'Bama; as a result, he was unable to make long throws. While Stephenson played sports with the Crimson Tide, Dr. George Denny, president of the university, said of him: "He is the embodiment of cleanliness, manliness, and courage."
During his early career with Cleveland, he was a second baseman, where his suspect arm made it difficult for him to turn double plays. As a result, he saw limited playing time, averaging only 66 games per season during his five years in Cleveland.
But with the Cubs, Riggs Stephenson was converted to a serviceable defensive outfielder. In nine seasons, he averaged 109 games per season. The Cubs put him in left field; although he would have shorter throws from this position than in any other outfield spot, his shoulder still limited his ability. While he did have markedly fewer outfield assists than either of his partners in the Cubs' outfield (Kiki Cuyler and Hack Wilson), he still averaged over 10 per 154-game season, comparable to most modern-day left fielders.
Regardless of whether his defense is properly described as "suspect" or "serviceable," Stephenson's offense was outstanding. He led the National League in doubles in 1927, and he batted worse than .319 only once, in 1934, his last season with the Cubs, when injuries had finally caught up with him. He was instrumental in two Cubs World Series runs (1929 and 1932), achieving a .378/.410/.432 line, scoring five runs, and racking up seven RBI over the course of the two Series. In Stephenson's best offensive season, 1929, each of the three Cubs starting outfielders (Stephenson, Cuyler, and Wilson) had over 100 RBIs, the only time such a feat has been accomplished in National League history.
At .336, Riggs Stephenson's lifetime batting average is the highest of any eligible batter who is not in the Hall of Fame, ranks 20th all-time in Major League Baseball, and still leads all players in the history of the Chicago National League Ball Club (tied with Bill Madlock). Admittedly, his batting numbers were inflated somewhat by playing during the live-ball era, and he never led the league in batting average (or, indeed, in any offensive category except doubles in 1927). Still, he was a patient hitter, walking exactly twice as often as he struck out (494 to 247), and he could slug a little, leading to a lifetime .880 OPS (.868 with the Cubs).
Although there is some truth to the standard "what might have been" narrative, Stephenson's career was far from a failure. Had he played 50 years later, when his shoulder could have been surgically repaired and he consequently could have had much more playing time, Stephenson would certainly be in the Hall of Fame. Were it not for the incomparable Billy Williams, Riggs Stephenson would probably be remembered as the greatest Cubs left fielder of all time.
He played for a few years in the minor leagues after his major league career ended abruptly in 1934 due to the accumulated injuries, finally retiring in 1939. Stephenson returned to his home state of Alabama, where he was inducted into the state Sports Hall of Fame in 1971. He ran a car dealership in Tuscaloosa for many years, and passed away there on November 15, 1985.
0 recs |
22
comments
Comments
Darn typos.
by Al on
Dec 4, 2006 8:51 AM CST
up
0 recs
Otherwise....
by Neifi Puppy on
Dec 4, 2006 9:03 AM CST
up
0 recs
Great article
by VS on Dec 4, 2006 10:48 AM CST 0 recs
I agree
by danimal15 on
Dec 4, 2006 10:52 AM CST
up
0 recs
I discounted...
by Al on
Dec 4, 2006 11:10 AM CST
up
0 recs
I figured as much
by VS on
Dec 4, 2006 11:17 AM CST
up
0 recs
I'm not sure I would say top 30
by rlpete on
Dec 4, 2006 11:29 AM CST
up
0 recs
Why discount his numbers?
by ctcoff99 on
Dec 4, 2006 5:44 PM CST
up
0 recs
Not that many.
I probably could have ranked Stephenson somewhat higher.
by Al on
Dec 4, 2006 6:00 PM CST
up
0 recs
Forget about it...
by DudeVf1 on
Dec 8, 2006 12:53 AM CST
up
0 recs
You need not worry.
by Al on
Dec 8, 2006 7:04 PM CST
up
0 recs
What's
If it takes 6 or 7 runs to win a game like it did in Stephenson's era, then his production is not worth as much as it would have in the 1960s, where it took 3 or 4 runs to win a game.
And if you want to give them credit for not taking steroids, I can give a huge black mark on everyone from that era for what they did ban--African-American players. How would Riggs have hit if he had to face Satchel Page, Bullet Joe Rogan or Martin Dihigo? Heck, one could add Eiji Sawamura to that list too, although he wasn't banned (Connie Mack tried to sign him) as much as he had cultural reasons to stay home.
I think Al's got Stephenson about twenty places too low (His OBP is awfully good even for his era), but I also think he's got a good, legitimate argument for why he placed him where he did and I respect that.
by Josh77 on
Dec 4, 2006 7:16 PM CST
up
0 recs
Relax, man.
by ctcoff99 on
Dec 4, 2006 7:56 PM CST
up
0 recs
No
I'm guessing you are saying that they didn't take steroids. But I find that argument to be silly for many reasons--ones that would take a book to go into (and other people have). But there is no way of estimating how much, if any, offense is increased by steroids. (Don't forget, pitchers take steroids too.) Honestly, I don't understand how people who think everyone in baseball is currently on the juice can even remain a baseball fan.
Why are his stats legitimate when he didn't play against black players?
by Josh77 on
Dec 4, 2006 8:56 PM CST
up
0 recs
So let me get this right....
by ctcoff99 on
Dec 4, 2006 9:07 PM CST
up
0 recs
The Stevenson ranking looks especially
I'm sure Al chose the greatest 100 of all-time to kill the offseason but it is sad to see what well over a century of baseball has produced in the way of "great" players. Maybe it should be called the Cubs' Hundred Best Players. Or the Cubs Hundred Least Objectionable Players.
Anyway, good idea, Al. You wanted to spur debate and you have.
by TR on
Dec 5, 2006 8:59 AM CST
up
0 recs
There seems to be
Most of the articles, though, have been great. Especially the ones that have gone beyond stats and brought to life the heroes of the past.
BTW, SABR has a biography series online. It might be a good idea to cycle the ones they don't have after they've been published here.
by Clark Addison on Dec 4, 2006 11:13 AM CST 0 recs
I expect that some of the players
by rlpete on
Dec 4, 2006 11:16 AM CST
up
0 recs
Exactly.
Not ALL of them, of course, and I think you can figure out who those players will be, and (approximately) where they will rank.
by Al on
Dec 4, 2006 11:21 AM CST
up
0 recs
Riggs stiffed
by KedzieKid on Dec 4, 2006 11:44 AM CST 0 recs
One of two eras I missed.
by ctcoff99 on Dec 4, 2006 5:47 PM CST 0 recs















