62 Responses to “30-Or-Younger & 90+ Hits In Final Season Since 1947”

1. Jon Says:
   December 20th, 2010 at 4:32 pm

   The Tony Horton entry was fascinating.

2. Flanagan Says:
   December 20th, 2010 at 4:44 pm

   Wow, what happened to Dave Nilsson? A .954 OPS catcher out of baseball at age 29?!?!

3. Rob Says:
   December 20th, 2010 at 4:46 pm

   Thanks for the Tony Horton tip. Easily the most in-depth "bullpen" entry I've seen so far. 😉

4. Tmckelv Says:
   December 20th, 2010 at 4:48 pm

   I am really surprised Bobby Richardson was only 30 his last season. I guess the Yanks REALLY wanted to get Horace Clarke in the lineup every day.

5. Brett Says:
   December 20th, 2010 at 4:53 pm

   @2: Nilsson left to go play for Austrailia in the 2000 olympics. And despite, what he said at the time, he never came back...obviously.

6. Detroit Michael Says:
   December 20th, 2010 at 4:56 pm

   It'd be nice if a table like this had WAR in it.

7. Pageup Says:
   December 20th, 2010 at 4:57 pm

   I wonder how Bostock's career would have projected? He probably would have been an all star. I see his father played in the Negro leagues. I didn't know that...

8. Tmckelv Says:
   December 20th, 2010 at 4:58 pm

   Pancho Herrera 1961 Topps All-Star baseball card...

   http://cgi.ebay.com/1961-Topps-Set-Break-FRANK-HERRERA-High-569-All-Star-/110626359798?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item19c1d849f6

   I am not sure if the honor is for his 1960 or 1961 performance (since it was for a late series issue in 1961), but niether season really warranted his inclusion in the subset.

   He never played after 1961.

9. Tmckelv Says:
   December 20th, 2010 at 5:03 pm

   Poor Lyman Bostock, it is not bad enough that he is number one on a list soley because he was a good player that died before age 31, but then on top of it the list is created just after PI is updated such that we can highlight the fact that he led the league in double plays his final season.

10. Steve Lombardi Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 5:06 pm

    LOL. Sorry about Tony Horton guys!

    His wiki has more:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Horton_(baseball)

    And, yes, he's NOT the P90X dude!

11. Steve Lombardi Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 5:07 pm

    Re: Bobby Richardson
    IIRC, it was his call to walk away. Church called him, I believe.

12. Jeff Trotter Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    It completely escaped my attention that Elijah Dukes didn't catch on anywhere last season.

13. Jimbo Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 5:26 pm

    Junior Felix finally started hitting like an all star and then never played again.

14. dukeofflatbush Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 5:57 pm

    I don't know if there are any fans here of HBO's comedy series EAST BOUND AND DOWN, but Bobby Richardson put out a first person narration of his life on LP records titled;
    "The Bobby Richardson Story, The Exciting First-Person Account of His Own Life, By the Yankees' Famous Second Baseman".
    I'd love to know if this is available anywhere.
    Does anyone here recall hearing it.

15. Jeff Trotter Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 5:58 pm

    I was a bit too young to remember the career of Bump Wills. Anyone remember why Maury's kid retired so young?

16. dukeofflatbush Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 6:15 pm

    Nilsson, whom had the best season on this list, turned down big money so he could play in the Olympics. The year he retired, he was listed as the second highest paid Australian athlete, behind Greg Norman.
    After the Olympics he started an Australian Baseball league, which quickly folded. But now scouts for MLB in Australia.
    He made over 5.6 million in '99 and became only the eighth catcher in MLB history to have a season of .300 BA, .400 OBP and 20 HR. So it was likely he could of signed a big money long term deal.

17. dukeofflatbush Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 6:18 pm

    Too bad your list only goes back to '47, there are a bunch from the 1919 White Sox team, whom would of made your list.

18. LJF Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 6:30 pm

    Wow. Tonly Horton's comps through age 25 are an impressive group. 2 active players - (Derrek Lee and Paul Konerko) and the the 8 retired players averaged nearly 1500 games, had 1500 hits and 200 HR after age 25. Only 1 real bust (West) and one so-so (Pepitone) and 1 HOF (Winfield). Usually the list at that age is a real mixed bag, but he looked headed for a good career.

19. Jeff Trotter Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 6:49 pm

    "Too bad your list only goes back to '47, there are a bunch from the 1919 White Sox team, whom would of made your list"

    Yeah, it looks like Buck Weaver, Swede Risberg and Happy Felsch would all make the list.

    It would be interesting to see if any guys would make these lists due to having their careers ended by service in either WWI or WWII. Doesn't look like the Korean War created any entries though.

20. Soundbounder Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 7:04 pm

    Tony Horton vs the Folly Floater
    Yankee Stadium June 1970

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFvp7kMraAw

21. DavidRF Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 7:12 pm

    @15
    Evidently, Bump Wills signed with a Japanese team in 1983

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=sQcwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5O4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3423,5519712&dq=bump+wills&hl=en

22. DoubleDiamond Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 9:45 pm

    Are Bostock and Hubbs the only ones on the list whose careers were ended by their premature deaths?

23. Anon Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 10:11 pm

    Sparky Anderson is interesting - I'd always known he wasn't much of a ballplayer but I didn't realize he was that bad. But what I find interesting is that was his ONLY year in the bigs and he was pretty much in the lineup every day and then never played again in the majors (4 more years in the minors).

24. John Autin Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 10:49 pm

    The Tony Horton lead got me to looking at some of his teammates on the 1970 Indians. I guess this is part of why some believe in the Curse of Colavito; Cleveland had several talented players that year, but Tony Horton wasn't the only one who went south:

    -- Ray Fosse, a 23-year-old catcher in his first full season, had an outstanding first half, batting .312 with 16 HRs, .527 SLG, .893 OPS (the BA and SLG would have ranked 5th in the AL that year, the OPS 7th). But he got steamrollered by Pete Rose in the All-Star game, and while he did not actually miss any time immediately thereafter, he hit just 2 HRs the rest of the season, missed most of September (I don't know why) and never had another season near that caliber.*

    -- Sam McDowell: At 27 in 1970, Sudden Sam notched his first 20-win season and copped his 5th K crown (3rd straight leading both leagues, and his 2nd 300-K season). To that point, he had a 109-92 record, just under 2,000 Ks (more than a K per inning), and a 120 ERA+. He pitched just 5 more years, going 32-42 with a 95 ERA+.

    -- Roy Foster, age 24, won the Sporting News 1970 AL Rookie award with 23 HRs, a .357 OBP and 122 OPS+. Cleveland got him from the Brewers just before Opening Day (in a steal for 2 washed-up players who didn't make it past 1970), and he homered in the first game. But he would play just 2 more years before injuries ended his career.

    -- Vada Pinson had a strong comeback at age 31 in his first year with Cleveland, with 24 HRs, .286 BA and a 115 OPS+. Pinson, who had started young and was on a possible HOF track through most of his 20s, would never again top 11 HRs.

    -- Rich Hand, 21-year-old rookie pitcher picked #1 overall in 1969, made a solid debut, with a 102 ERA+ in 160 IP. Hand slumped in '71 and was gone from the majors by age 24.

    -- Steve Hargan, who had been a terrific young pitcher for 2 years in the mid-'60s before 2 years of struggles, had a promising comeback at age 27, going 11-3 with a 135 ERA+ in 19 starts. Over the next 2 years with Cleveland, Hargan went 1-16 with an ERA over 6.

    -- Graig Nettles came over from Minnesota in the offseason, in a 5-player swap centered on 28-year-old injured ex-aces Luis Tiant (to MN) and Dean Chance (to CLE). Chance would never again approach his old form, but El Tiante also struggled and was released by the Twins. So although reliever Stan Williams had a fine year in Minny, it looked like Nettles would make the trade a win for Cleveland, as he slugged 26 HRs, drew 81 walks and played a brilliant 3B (the Twins had him in the OF), giving him a 4.5 WAR despite a .235 BA. After 2 more solid years, the Indians sent Nettles to NY in what looked like a reasonable swap for younger talent, mainly Charlie Spikes and John Ellis; but after a promising start, both Spikes and Ellis faded quickly, while the older Nettles kept progressing and was a 5-time All-Star for the Yanks. (Oh, and Tiant wasn't quite done, after all: After hooking on with Boston in '72, he averaged 19 wins, 260 IP and a 125 ERA+ in his first 5 years there.)

    After going 76-86 in 1970, Cleveland lost 102 games in '71.
    ----------------------
    * Ray Fosse's B-R Bullpen page includes a statement about the Rose collision that is completely misleading, if not plain bogus: "Legend has it that Fosse was never the same afterwards, but his season splits show him hitting very well through the entire summer." Bah. Fosse did hit for a .297 average in the 2nd half, but with no power; his SLG was down 166 points. He never again slugged even .400 in a season nor had an OPS over .726.

25. John Autin Says:
    December 21st, 2010 at 10:27 am

    Junior Felix -- does anybody know why his MLB career ended at 26 after a strong season? His last year in the bigs was 1994 with Detroit. In '95, B-R shows him on Montreal's AAA team, then nothing for the 4 years 1996-99. In 2000-01, he played in the Mexican League, putting up what look like good numbers, until you realize what a hitter's league that was.

    I've looked at several sources, including Wikipedia, but found nothing that explains the end of his MLB career.

    Except for the banished Happy Felsch, no player age 28 or under in his final season had 300+ PAs and a higher OPS than Felix (.897).

    P.S. I used to say my favorite player was Ken Griffey Junior Felix Jose Canseco. (Yeah -- I'm weird.)

26. John Autin Says:
    December 21st, 2010 at 10:42 am

    Lennie Merullo -- I'd never heard his name until a few days ago. Then it comes up twice in a week: After Phil Cavarretta died, Merullo was mentioned as one of the few survivors of the Cubs' last WS appearance. And now here he is at the bottom of this list.

    At least there's no mystery why his career ended: Merullo couldn't hit a lick -- career 69 OPS+, including 45 in the 2 years after WWII -- and his fielding at SS doesn't look so good, either.

    With a lifetime .232 BA in the minors and no power at all, it's pretty clear that Merullo would not have had a MLB career if not for the war. But he managed to put in 5 years as a regular.

    Little funny: Merullo, the regular SS, was benched in the '45 WS for Roy Hughes, to get more offense in the lineup. For the season, Merullo had a .297 OBP and .299 SLG; Hughes was at .311 and .306.

27. John Autin Says:
    December 21st, 2010 at 11:34 am

    Ken Hubbs -- I hope this doesn't seem mean, but ... from all I'd heard about his tragic death in a plane crash at 22, it sounded like he was a budding star. His actual record looks awful; his '62 Rookie-of-the-Year season must be one of the worst ever: .260 BA, .299 OBP, .346 SLG. He led the NL with 129 strikeouts and 20 GIDP, was thrown out 7 times in 10 SB tries, and his paltry raw stats were puffed up by Wrigley; his road OPS was .592. On top of it all, the Cubs lost 102 games.

    And he hit just as poorly in '63.

    Hubbs did win a Gold Glove as a rookie, with a good range factor and high DP total. But those numbers look like a classic case of what Bill James called the "false normalization" of defensive stats on bad teams. Cubs pitchers had the worst WHIP of any team save the Amazing Mets, and were next-to-last in strikeouts, so there were a lot of balls in play for defenders to catch. WAR rates Hubbs -0.6 in '62 and -0.2 for his 2-year career.

    Hubbs had an odd progression to the majors. Signed at 17, he started out in the low D league and hit well. At 18, he split time between class A and AA, but hit quite poorly at both stops, with a combined .217 BA. At 19 he was back down in class B, posting solid batting numbers but nowhere near the league leaders in anything. And at 20, he played 160 games in the majors. Hubbs won the job away from Don Zimmer, who had been an All-Star in '61 for reasons lost in the sands of time.

    BTW, isn't it odd that in the expansion year of 1962, the NL rookie crop was so bad that the only ones who got any ROY votes were Hubbs and Donn Clendenon, who played less than half the year? No eligible rookie had both 300+ PAs and an OPS+ of at least 100. Tom Haller was easily the best "rookie" hitter, by today's rules (and was the starting catcher for the pennant-winning Giants to boot -- sound familiar?), but by the rules of the time he was ineligible, having appeared on the active roster between May 15 and Sept. 1 the previous year (even though he got just 73 PAs that year).

28. Chuck Says:
    December 21st, 2010 at 12:23 pm

    Thirteen of the twenty-four seasons on this list took place within five years of an expansion year, and seven of the twenty-four since the last round of expansion in 1998.

    Without looking, I'd bet the majority of the thirteen had losing records.

    That's not coincidence.

    The 1961, '62 and '69 expansions created the pitching era, combined with changes to draft philosophy brought on by cookie cutter, artificial turf stadiums.

    Adding 3-5 AAA, or in your language, replacement level players to each roster overnight does nothing to enhance quality. Teams will pick up a Steve Cox from the expansion draft or call him up from the minors to fill a hole created by losing a player and stick him in the lineup everyday because they have no choice.

    The next year comes around and the teams recycle him back down to the minors because they were able to acquire a capable replacement.

    There are simply too many teams now. The talent level just hasn't caught up this time around and this trend will continue.

    If WAR was invented fifty years ago I believe there would be a different definition of "replacement" player than there is now for the simple reason being he would have been a better player.

29. Bobby Says:
    December 21st, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    Interesting, if you combine Bump's stats through age 28 with Maury's from age 29 on, you might have a hall of famer

30. Johnny Twisto Says:
    December 21st, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    There are simply too many teams now. The talent level just hasn't caught up this time around and this trend will continue.

    This may be true (though I doubt it), but your numbers do nothing to show that. First of all, nearly half the seasons played since 1947 have been within five years of an expansion, so it means nothing that a little more than half of the players above played within five years of expansion. Steve Cox played for the Rays in their 5th season. What did he have to do with the expansion draft? Furthermore, this was *far* more common pre-expansion. If you run the same search from 1907 (six years post-American League) through 1960, there are 98 players age 30 or younger who got at least 90 hits in their final season.

31. Johnny Twisto Says:
    December 21st, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    Take out all the Black Sox and Federal Leaguers, it's still a ton more.

32. John Autin Says:
    December 21st, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    Seven random facts about Bump Wills:

    1. He still holds the Texas Rangers/Senators II franchise record of 52 SB in a season, set in 1978.

    2. He was the first Texas Ranger to score 100+ runs in a season, with 102 in 1980. (He was the 2nd to do it in Texas/Washington franchise history; Frank Howard scored 111 in 1969.)

    3. He had 35 SB in his last year, a live-ball final-season record. No other player since 1920 has swiped more than 28 bags in his swan song.

    4. He hit 26 HRs in his last minor-league season before joining the big leagues, ranking 2nd in the PCL. He hit 36 HRs in his 6-year MLB career, no more than 9 in a season. (Sacramento was a HR haven; they hit 183 HRs in '76, while the other 7 PCL teams averaged 107.)

    5. He topped 600 PAs in each of his first 4 seasons. He and Eddie Murray were the only players to do that in the 1970s; 21 others have done it in the modern era. Wills scored 357 runs in those first 4 years -- 1 more than Murray.

    6. In his rookie year, Wills started at least 2 games in 8 of the 9 spots in the batting order.

    7. Before Bump Wills, the Rangers/Senators II had a winning record just twice in 16 years. They had a winning record in 4 of his 5 years with Texas. After trading Wills, they had a losing record in 4 straight years and 6 of 7. (I don't claim this is anything more than coincidence.)

33. John Autin Says:
    December 21st, 2010 at 4:27 pm

    @28, Chuck -- I don't understand what it is that you consider Steve Cox to be an example of. I don't know what the scouts said about him, but the stats Cox put up in the minors mark him as a legit prospect:

    -- Age 20, led the high-A California League with 30 HRs, 110 RBI; among the top 10 in OPS and several other categories.

    -- Age 24, led the AAA International League in Total Bases, RBI, Doubles, and had the highest full-season OPS and BA.

    -- As a rookie with Tampa, Cox had 369 PAs with a .283 BA, .379 OBP, 111 OPS+.

    It's hard for me to look at those seasons and square them with your comment about "stick[ing] him in the lineup everyday because they have no choice."

    I'm also puzzled by this one: "The next year comes around and the teams recycle him back down to the minors because they were able to acquire a capable replacement." Well, why would they have been able to acquire that capable replacement, if the talent level is as much of an issue as you claim? I don't get it.

    In a broader sense....

    When you say "too many teams," what is your reference point for when there was an ideal number of teams?

    -- In 1946, the U.S. population was about 141 million. There were 16 teams drawing almost all their players from that population, but excluding all blacks.
    -- In 2010, the U.S. population is about 310 million, an increase of 120%; blacks are no longer excluded; and a large number of players are signed from outside the U.S.
    -- Yet in that span, the number of teams in MLB has increased by only 88%.

    These population facts tilt the floor of this inquiry towards the presumption that the general MLB talent level is higher in 2010 than it was in 1946. You have a mountain to climb in order to prove the opposite.

    Now, if someone feels that the ideal moment in MLB history was 1960 -- the last year before the first expansion, when the number of teams hadn't changed in 60 years, when the game was open to all races, when the number of players from Latin America had reached a significant level -- well, it's a pretty narrow moment in time to argue from, but that's their prerogative. I still think it would be hard to prove that the ratio of MLB roster spots to the population from which they were drawn was actually better in 1960 than it is now.

34. Soundbounder Says:
    December 21st, 2010 at 5:27 pm

    @33 John,
    I agree with you that the US population has doubled, and there are now MLB players that come from many places outside the US. It is usually the first point I make when responding to the "watered down talent pool" argument.

    But I don't think it is the slam-dunk that you make it out to be; it's much more complicated. Baseball is no longer the dominant sport it once was. Football, soccer, basketball etc all have a bigger share of the pie than they did 60 years ago. I am also not so sure most 10 year old kids today dream of being a baseball player. The share of Black-Americans playing professional baseball has been decreasing in the past few decades.

    There are flaws in judging the talent level solely on population. The world population is 3 times the size it was during the Impressionist Era, but today we are not producing 3 times the number of impressionist painters as talented as Renoir, Degas, and Monet etc. Obviously, something changed along the way.

35. Chuck Says:
    December 21st, 2010 at 6:23 pm

    What does population have to do with talent levels, John?

36. Soundbounder Says:
    December 21st, 2010 at 6:36 pm

    @35 John
    Exactly!
    But you made this comment above:

    "These population facts tilt the floor of this inquiry towards the presumption that the general MLB talent level is higher in 2010 than it was in 1946. You have a mountain to climb in order to prove the opposite"

37. Soundbounder Says:
    December 21st, 2010 at 6:44 pm

    Ignore my post #36 above. I saw the name John and mistakenly thought he wrote it.

    @35 Chuck,
    Population matters if you are drawing the top talent from a pool. My point was that a larger population alone does not guarantee a larger pool of top talent. There are other factors to also consider.

38. Chuck Says:
    December 21st, 2010 at 7:50 pm

    "My point was that a larger population alone does not guarantee a larger pool of top talent."

    That's my ONLY point.

    There are alot of guys taking up major league roster spots who have no business being there. If the population increase was matched by an increase in the talent pool then that wouldn't be the case.

    One doesn't have anything to do with the other.

39. Soundbounder Says:
    December 21st, 2010 at 7:58 pm

    @38 Chuck

    "One doesn't have anything to do with the other"

    I disagree strongly. Both you and John are taking extreme positions on populations. You are saying it plays zero role while John is basing his entire argument upon it.
    I think you are both wrong! Population certainly matters, but other factors need to be considered.

40. Johnny Twisto Says:
    December 21st, 2010 at 7:59 pm

    There are alot of guys taking up major league roster spots who have no business being there.

    How do you know/define that? And how do you know there are more of these players today? If it's by the test of how many players get 90+ hits and then disappear from MLB, as I said that happened far more often pre-expansion. If there's another statistical test, what is it (and does it control for the fact that baseball is ultimately a zero-sum game)? If it's your eyes, I very much doubt that the worst MLB player now is worse than the worst MLB player in 1960, who probably drank and smoked and never worked out.

41. Chuck Says:
    December 21st, 2010 at 8:20 pm

    Soundbounder @ #39

    "Population certainly matters, but other factors need to be considered."

    I agree.

42. dukeofflatbush Says:
    December 21st, 2010 at 8:27 pm

    I am going with Johnny Twisto here.
    I think the players from before 1960 were coached poorly as youngsters or not at all. Most kids used sticks instead of bats.
    Today, the likes of JD Drew (first player to come to mind) were in batting cages at 10 years old, watching tape of MLB players, were in competitive leagues, had equipment, etc.
    and if you just count the number of African American players and the non-US born players on each team, as compared to pre 1947 and pre 1960 numbers, you have no choice, but to admit that there is more talent out there today.
    Just look at Rick Dempsy. He looks like the guy at the end of the bar, not the starting catcher to a WS winner. Do you think Dempsy would make it today?

43. John Autin Says:
    December 21st, 2010 at 9:48 pm

    Soundbounder -- I agree with the general point you made @34: population is not the end of the story. I didn't mean for it to be the end; I only meant to present enough facts to bat the ball back into Chuck's court.

    But while population is not the end of the story, it's a big chapter. I understated the increase in population from which MLB players are drawn, particularly regarding Latin America. Just look at the results: Through 1955, there had not been a single MLB player from the Dominican Republic. Since 1956, there have been 516. Venezuela has produced 256 MLB players and Puerto Rico 231, all but 4 of them first appearing after integration. (All numbers per B-R.) I didn't put any numbers on this population, or the black population; I just wanted to show that the increase in the talent pool was bigger than the 88% increase in the number of teams since 1960. It's actually far bigger.

    -- It's axiomatic that in every athletic field that can be objectively measured -- running, jumping, swimming, lifting, etc. -- the top performers today are way better than they were 50 or 100 years ago. Virtually every world record in every sport that keeps them has been set in the last 50 years. And this is true in dozens of sports that give champions just a fraction of the financial reward that baseball does. Why would baseball be exempt from that trend? And if the top tier of today is more talented than the top tier of 50 years ago, it follows that there's a second tier today that is as talented as the best of 50 years ago. And that's a further blow to the claim that expansion has lowered the skill level of the average MLB player.

44. Johnny Twisto Says:
    December 21st, 2010 at 10:30 pm

    While I do believe that the quality of play has improved, because of the growing potential talent pool, because of improved training, and because of the increased pay, I'll play devil's advocate:

    Soundbounder is right that we just don't know how big the actual talent pool is. Presumably a higher percentage of young players who could become MLB quality do enter the pros, because of improved scouting networks and the lure of potential millions. But how many youths never become players at all, because of the draw of other sports/activities, because of the expense in joining elite amateur teams, because there are fewer places to play, because they have no fathers to teach them the game. It's an impossible question to answer with any precision.

    Secondly, while it's true that there has been great improvement in every athletic field that can be objectively measured, we should not necessarily expect the same amount of improvement in baseball because it cannot be so measured. In the 100M dash, there are objective goals one can aim for. If you can run 10.00 seconds, you are world class. If you can run 9.50 seconds, you will break a record. One can singlemindedly train until one has maximized one's performance, and it is very clear by the clock when that has occurred. There are no similar benchmarks to aim for in baseball, and training cannot simulate actual gameplay. Yes, there are records to break, but they don't measure absolute ability, and breaking one does not necessarily mean a better level of performance due to all the contextual factors. Plus players (for the most part) are not playing with the goal of hitting 74 HR, or whatever. They are trying to win games, which takes a variety of skills and techniques. Have baseball players improved? Almost certainly. But I would not expect it is necessarily by the same amount that athletes in "purer" disciplines have. There is no singular benchmark against which they can measure their improvement, only their competition.

45. Johnny Twisto Says:
    December 21st, 2010 at 10:33 pm

    I'll also add that even in these "pure" sports, the amount of improvement may not be as much as it seems. How fast would Jesse Owens have run with modern spikes, starting blocks, and track surfaces? How fast would Mark Spitz have swum with modern pools designed to reduce waves and set for the optimal temperature? Faster than they did, almost certainly.

46. DoubleDiamond Says:
    December 21st, 2010 at 10:37 pm

    @24 - If I recall correctly, wasn't Sam McDowell the guy that Cleveland traded for Gaylord Perry? Perry won a Cy Young Award and depending on your point of view, brought either respectability to the team on the days when he pitched or brought some notoriety to the team on the days when he pitched.

    @27 - As a young baseball fan in an American League-only market, I devoured the sports pages every day for any kind of baseball news I could find. (I had no interest in any other sport back then.) One National League story in 1962 concerned this rookie second baseman, Ken Hubbs, on the Cubs who set some kind of consecutive errorless games record. At the end of the season, when the Rookie-of-the-Year winners were announced, I was not surprised to see that it was a Yankee (Tom Tresh) and this Hubbs guy. That was one of the things that made me realize that defense was part of the package. I think it was that errorless games streak (since broken, I'm sure) that put him over the top.

47. Jimbo Says:
    December 21st, 2010 at 11:14 pm

    So does anybody know what happened to Junior Felix?

48. dukeofflatbush Says:
    December 21st, 2010 at 11:31 pm

    Jimbo,
    That was the strike year, so some guys who hadn't yet had a big pay day, or guys who just needed money- jumped ship- and played in either Japan or South of the border. I know one example was Julio Franco. That might be the only reason he missed 3000 hits.
    He jumped around between Mexico and Japan for almost three full years. If he played through, he might of gotten into the hall some day.
    So maybe Felix, who was young and relatively underpaid, headed East?

49. dukeofflatbush Says:
    December 21st, 2010 at 11:43 pm

    Jimbo,
    Felix did play '95 in the minors, then has a 5 year gap before he turns up in the Mexican league for two seasons, '00-'01.
    I'm sure you already read this, but for a guy with a short career, he sure managed some neat tricks.
    1 of ten guys to homer on their first major league pitch.
    Hit a bases loaded in side the park homerun.
    And started a franchises first game- Marlins.

50. John Autin Says:
    December 22nd, 2010 at 1:19 am

    Johnny Twisto, great points @44-45, as usual.

    On the equipment front, though, I'll just ask: What would Ichiro or Tony Gwynn have batted if all opposing fielders had worn gloves from the dead-ball era?

51. Johnny Twisto Says:
    December 22nd, 2010 at 2:03 am

    Good question. I wonder how much effect that has. We'd have to estimate how many diving or lunging plays now result in catches which 100 years ago (a) would not have been caught and (b) would not have been charged as errors. It doesn't seem like it could be *that* many, but even 10 more hits a year is almost 20 points of batting average.

52. dukeofflatbush Says:
    December 22nd, 2010 at 2:08 am

    @ twisto
    I remember a piece that Bill James did on the lack of idiosyncrasies in the development in modern ballplayers. I believe he used Hank Aaron as an example. He mentioned that Aaron, a right handed batter, played most of his minor league games with his hands in the 'wrong' positions; right hand on top and left hand on bottom. He was switched to the 'natural' position by a coach in either his last year in the minors or his first in the majors.
    As we all know, Hank was known for having extremely fast and strong wrists, and James postulates that it was Aaron's unorthodox beginnings that may have led to his strong wrists. James furthers that today's modern baseball machine would discover and change an Aaron of today. Basically homogenizing everyone into the same mechanics.
    Thus, eliminating any future Aarons.

53. Soundbounder Says:
    December 22nd, 2010 at 6:14 am

    @43 John,
    I agree with most of that. And for the record, I believe the level of play has increased in the past 60 years. Not a lot, but it has increased. I think it was Bill James who said the lowering of talent from expansion washes out in 2-3 years. I tend to agree.
    The one area that might need further review is pitching. Along with expansion, teams have gone from 4 starters to 5; have middle relievers; closers; left handed specialists; etc. Sure, teams had bullpens 50 years ago, but they didn't pitch as high a percentage of innings, and when they did, it was one ace reliever who pitched 2-3 innings, or someone in a mop-up role. There are many more pitchers today playing a bigger role in the games played.
    Of course, you already know what the flip side to this argument is: would you rather face a somewhat tired SP in the 7- 8th inning, or a rested middle reliever and closer?
    It's early and I haven't had my coffee yet.
    Still, I think this area needs further review.
    If every team today had a starting SS, plus a LH or RH pinch-hitting SS, and a 9th inning defensive replacement SS, who were used in nearly every game, the talent pool of SS's would grow very thin. There would be many SS's in the game who would otherwise not be.

54. Mike Says:
    December 22nd, 2010 at 11:13 am

    Career stats, Bobby Richardson vs Horace Clarke:

    Richardson Clarke
    OPS + 77 83

    WAR 5.6 7.7

    I guess the Yankees couldn't wait to to strart the Horace Clarke era!

55. Robert_M Says:
    December 22nd, 2010 at 7:44 pm

    @24, John Autin wrote: * Ray Fosse's B-R Bullpen page includes a statement about the Rose collision that is completely misleading, if not plain bogus: "Legend has it that Fosse was never the same afterwards, but his season splits show him hitting very well through the entire summer." Bah. Fosse did hit for a .297 average in the 2nd half, but with no power; his SLG was down 166 points. He never again slugged even .400 in a season nor had an OPS over .726.
    ==========

    On one level it could be called misleading since his stats before the All-Star game were stronger than after, yet I don't put much faith in that. We're dealing with a very, very small sample size of a couple months from a guy playing his first full year (as a starter) in the Majors, compared to the next eight years of his career. I'm guessing the blurb's intent is to discredit the myth that the collision with Rose substantially impacted his career, and if that's the case, the writer of the B-R Bullpen page has a point.

    Fosse had a hot start that year during his first full season as a starter, and was producing at a rate that was not going to continue. Breaking it down further, his hot start really boiled down to a hot six weeks, specifically June through mid-July when he hit a blistering .382/.405/.600. Ray Fosse was never going to be that good of a player outside of a hot few weeks or so. (Before that six week run, Fosse ended May with a line of .254/.343/.421.) It is those six weeks on which much of the legend of Ray Fosse is built, yet he was certainly not the first, nor the last, young player to have a well-timed hot month or two to make the All-Star team, only to cool off, especially once the league caught up to him.

    Fact is, he did hit nearly .300 the second half of the year, including a triple slash line of .306/.345/.472 in July followed by .309/.370/.412 line in August, darn good numbers for a rookie catcher whose career supposedly ended during a collision at the All-Star game earlier that year. Fosse never went on the DL or missed a game (although Rose did miss several games due to the collision) until September, when he had an unrelated injury and broke his finger, ending his season. (Fosse did suffer a number of injuries throughout his career.) He suffered no loss in his catching and throwing (he was a righthanded batter and thrower, and the collision impacted his left shoulder) winning the Gold Glove that season, as he did the following year, when he made the All-Star team yet again, hitting .276 with 12 HRs, all after his career was supposedly over.

    The real physical downfall for Fosse came only a few years later after he was traded to the A's, when he suffered a neck fracture breaking up a clubhouse fight between teammates, one of which was Reggie Jackson. He was on the disabled list for a couple of months and was never quite the same player after the neck injury, never able to handle the demands of being a full-time catcher.

    Fosse produced a .282/.312/.375 line in the minors before he was called up in late '68, sitting on the bench for most of 1969, before taking over as the starting catcher in 1970. There was nothing that suggested he was going to be a great power hitter, save for that six-week hot streak. He did only hit two HRs the remainder of the 1970 season, but keep in mind it was only six weeks before the broken finger and is season ended. Perhaps the drop in HRs that season was a result of the play, but the evidence that it robbed Fosse of greatness for his entire career is too weak to be taken seriously. He's simply a guy who had a well-timed hot streak and came back to earth, yet the myth goes on, retold and replayed every July during the All-Star game, with never a mention of the neck injury several years later that really ended Fosse's career early.

56. Robert_M Says:
    December 22nd, 2010 at 8:57 pm

    @42, Dukeofflatbush wrote: Just look at Rick Dempsy. He looks like the guy at the end of the bar, not the starting catcher to a WS winner. Do you think Dempsy would make it today?
    ===========

    Sorry, I came to this thread late, but I'll throw in another two cents here.

    I absoluetly do think Rick Dempsey would play today. In fact, wasn't he playing just two years ago? : -)

    Seriously, Dempsey was a defensive specialist, quick behind the plate, very strong arm, known for giving a good target and calling a good game. Pitchers like pitching to him. You do realize he played in the majors for 24 seasons until he was 42, retiring in 1992? We're not talking about someone from 1870. He was playing in today's game! The fact he didn't look pretty means nothing.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "just look at Rick Dempsey, he looks like the guy at the end of the bar." John Kruk was the guy at the end of the bar, and he could hit a baseball. David Wells was the guy fighting at the end of the bar, and he was a damn fine pitcher. CC Sabathia is the entire bar! Tony Gwynn played the last years of his career with quite a few pounds around his gut. Hitting a baseball and throwing a baseball are not skills that come with the best-looking package. You can have a hefty Babe Ruth playing right next to a finely-chiseled Lou Gehrig, yet Ruth was the better athlete and player. Conditioning overall has improved, yet I don't know if that impacts the actual skill level.

    The overall competitive quality of MLB has improved and continues to improve, although it's probably on the outer margins. By that I mean that great players will be great players no matter what period of time they played in. I don't have any difficulty in believing that the greatest HR hitter ever just happened to play in the 1920s and 30s. It wouldn't surprise me if Ruth came up today and played for the next twenty years that he'd win more HR titles than any other player during his tenure. He'd be a little different than the Ruth we know, but the great skill would be there. He wouldn't hit .378 with all that power, but the HRs would still be there. He'd have more competition every year, but his skill would translate easily. I have no problem believing that the hardest throwing pitcher played the game from the 1960s to the 1990s, with his peak velocity being in the 1970s, because evidence indicates that Nolan Ryan was the hardest throwing starter ever. (Bob Feller grumbles from beyond.) Maybe someone has thrown as hard, but I doubt any starter has ever thrown faster and for as long a period of time as Ryan.

    So where I think the game has improved is on the margins by having a deeper pool to draft from. I think the marginal players and bench players from today are better than the past, which elevates the game. That said, I'm not convinced that all things today are better. I think if the likes of Juan Marichal and Jim Palmer and Luis Tiant pitched today that they'd drive hitters crazy because of their pitching motions, breaking balls, and ability to pitch deeper into games, which I do believe refines a pitcher's ability. The homoginizing of pitchers' motions has probably reduced injuries, and maybe has improved control among pitchers as a group, but I think we might be losing something on the high end of pitching. Just a theory.

    Sorry for the ramble on what is probably a dead thread!

57. John Autin Says:
    December 23rd, 2010 at 2:34 am

    Robert_M -- From one rambler to another: Don't be sorry! Nice posts. I'm not too proud to admit that made some nice points rebutting my Fosse post. (BTW, I hope you're not the Bullpen author I trashed....)

    You may well be right that Fosse's 1st-half stats in '70 were a mirage, based on his minor-league stats. But I'll offer some counterpoints:

    -- Every season has hot streaks. If we take out the best 6-week stretch of any slugger's season, it's going to look a lot worse.

    -- In posting Fosse's slash stats for July 1970, you (perhaps unintentionally) implied that all of July was part of the "2nd half." The effect is highly misleading. Fosse hit 5 July HRs before the A-S break; but in 13 July games after the Rose collision, Fosse didn't have a single extra-base hit -- not one! I think the 1st-half/2nd-half splits I posted are much more relevant: .527 SLG and 16 HRs before the break, .361 SLG and 2 HRs after.

    -- The .421 SLG that you noted for his April/May combined (as perhaps more representative of his true ability) is actually pretty good for a catcher in 1970, when only 7 AL hitters slugged .500+, and much better than the .356 SLG he posted for the rest of his career.

    -- In 1968, his last year at AAA, Fosse hit .301 and slugged .428; his BA was 9th in the league (min. 300 PA). At 21, he was one of the youngest players in the league.

    -- Catchers tend to develop a bit later than other hitters. The Rose collision happened when he was 23, before he had even 500 PAs in the majors. I don't think we can know what kind of hitter he was going to be.

    -- I did note that Fosse missed no games immediately after the collision. But I don't think that proves that he wasn't affected by it. Of all the position players, I think a catcher is the one most likely try to stay in the lineup even when he isn't 100%, and the same goes for the manager's decision.

    I come to this issue with no preconceptions. I'm not a Cleveland fan, nor one of those folks who think it was a dirty play by Rose; unnecessary, yes, but that's the way Pete played, and everybody knew it. And I don't think a catcher has a right to block the plate without the ball. Nor do I think we can say that Fosse was going to be a great hitter, based on one good half. I just didn't think there was enough evidence for the Bullpen writer to debunk the popular theory. There certainly wasn't enough evidence presented.

    I found a similar debunking statement on Wikipedia: "The injury is often incorrectly cited as what caused the downfall of Fosse's career. In reality, Fosse played 42 games in the second half of 1970, hitting .297 and winning the American League Gold Glove Award." And you wrote, "He suffered no loss in his catching and throwing (he was a righthanded batter and thrower, and the collision impacted his left shoulder) winning the Gold Glove that season."

    I'd like to know the basis for your claim about his throwing. I mean, I see his great SB/CS stats for 1970 and later years. But did you look at box scores from before and after, and count SB? I don't know a ready source for 1st-half/2nd-half fielding splits.

    That he won the 1970 Gold Glove Award little to me. Gold Gloves are voted by players and coaches, I believe; quite subjective. Maybe he'd made a dazzling impression in the first half. Maybe he got some sympathy votes from his AL brethren. Maybe the AL catching crop was weak.

    In any case, as you noted, the impact was to his left shoulder -- so we wouldn't necessarily expect to see a big effect on his throwing. But for a right-handed batter, the left arm is the main follow-through arm. If I know a RHB suffered a left-shoulder contusion, and I see his power vanish immediately afterward, I'm going to infer a connection, absent other information.

    I just now spent a few minutes googling for a direct comment from Fosse about the collision's effect on his season and/or career, one way or the other. I didn't find it. But here's something from a 2005 article written after an interview with Fosse:

    "Fosse sustained a shoulder fracture and separation that went undiagnosed, and he didn't receive the medical treatment he would have gotten in 2005. Back then, men were men, and MRIs were scarce. So the Cleveland Indians kept playing Fosse, 23, who wasn't the same player in the second half. Or, for that matter, the rest of his career." (emphasis added)
    ...
    "'I don't look back and say, 'Geez, poor me.' I played 11 years in the big leagues. I have a great job. I've been with the A's for 20 years. So if I look at my life and my career and know I was able to play nine years after that collision, I was blessed.'"

    (http://articles.sfgate.com/2005-07-10/sports/17380407_1_center-fielder-amos-otis-ray-fosse-rose-s-biography)

    It's just one quote from Fosse, but it's the best I can find. He doesn't directly say that it hindered him -- but there's a whiff of implication when he denies saying "Geez, poor me."

    So until I hear a denial from the horse's mouth, or see some evidence more compelling than his empty .297 BA in the second half, I'll continue to believe that it is possible, even likely, that the Rose collision did have a significant effect on Fosse's power, for at least the rest of that year.

58. John Autin Says:
    December 23rd, 2010 at 2:55 am

    P.S. I have the same problem with anyone saying Fosse wasn't really as good as his 1970 first half that I do with an essay Bill James wrote about Mark Fidrych in his New Historical Abstract. James argued that Fidrych could not have sustained the success he had before his arm injury, because of his low K rate. Now, I do believe in the importance of a solid K rate for MLB success, in general. But there are some exceptions. And the facts are: Fidrych had one great full year in the majors, at 21; he was great in a short stint in AAA the year before; he was great over 11 starts in his 2nd year, before a leg injury ended his season; and he was great in 3 starts in his 3rd year, before another major injury. He had superb control (1.8 BB/9 over those 3 years), a great ground-ball rate, got lots of DPs and allowed very few HRs. That is exactly the kind of pitcher who CAN succeed with a low K rate.

    And geez, the kid was only 23 when he shredded his arm. He sure had an idea about what he was doing out on the mound. Maybe he would have improved his K rate. We can't know; all we know is that for 353 MLB innings, spread over 3 years, he was a great pitcher, and then he hurt his arm and was never any good again.

    With Fosse, I just don't think it's fair to look at a guy who was a 1st-round draft pick, hit well his last year in the minors, hit very well for his first full half-year in the majors, and then basically got run over by a train, and say that his reduced hitting after the injury was inevitable, was a reflection of his true ability, and had nothing to do with the collision. Yes, the 1970 1st half and the 1968 AAA season comprise a small sample, but not much smaller than the minor-league stats that came before, which is the only relevant counterexample of his "true ability" that I have seen so far.

59. JDV Says:
    December 23rd, 2010 at 1:44 pm

    Regarding Tony Horton, I think he was the most prominent player of the era to never have a Topps baseball card. Not sure why. By the way, what happened to the card-of-the-week feature?

60. John Autin Says:
    December 23rd, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    I dunno about Tony Horton's baseball card. I just wanted to say that this Scott Raab essay from Deadspin is well worth reading:

    http://deadspin.com/5548412/taunting-tony-horton-the-day-after-he-slit-his-wrists-a-cleveland-fan-repents

    And here's the Bill Madden column from 1997 that apparently broke the news of Horton's suicide attempt to the general public; I haven't read it yet.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/1997/06/08/1997-06-08__breakdown_the_strange_case_.html

61. Mike Felber Says:
    December 24th, 2010 at 6:04 am

    Why was Ryan the hardest starting pitcher ever? It is quite true that some raw skills can be at least near maximized by pure practice, while most abilities (running, weight lifting) have a lot of training methodology that can help. Bill Jenkinson, renowned baseball historian, has carefully researched the furthest HRs ever, & concluded that Ruth & Foxx are #1 & 2, Mantle 3, then Hondo & Dick Allen. He notes how manual labor & farm work got guys strong, & I would add that for many players like big Mac, much muscle & drugs maximized their ability. And better bats...But the best guys must not have left much on the table.

    The various speed tests on Feller, considering whether he threw from a mound, & especially that the ball speed was measured after crossing the plate, not near release, seem to show he threw faster than anything Ryan ever recorded. Even though a gun was ubiquitous by his time, & a few outings almost certainly did not catch Feller at his absolute fastest.

    Though most agree that Johnson was even faster, at least comparing their primes, as Feller said was likely. And considering that Johnson is a major candidate for best ever, & had peak better than almost everyone, certainly Feller, with only one great pitch, a fastball-while Feller had a great curve too-I doubt Any starting pitcher at least was faster.

    In the 1 primitive, inaccurate speed test he had in '11, we has ~ 9% faster than the other fastest in the league guy tested. Johnson 122 feet per second, other guy 113. a generation later the 2 fastest guys tested? 113 & 111.

    When taken to see Feller, he praised his speed. The sports writer then asked the inevitable question of is he as fast as you were. Johnson's modesty struggled with his honesty & quiet pride. Finally he quietly answered "no".

62. Robert_M Says:
    December 29th, 2010 at 5:16 pm

    @61, Why was Ryan the hardest starting pitcher ever?
    ============

    I believe he was the hardest thrower, but there can never be final proof, no matter which candidate is picked as the "hardest thrower." Another way of asking your question is "Why not Nolan Ryan?" There's no evidence to show that Bob Feller or Walter Johnson or Randy Johnson or Joel Zumaya (sure, I'll throw him into the mix since he clearly throws extremely hard and has many of the high radar gun readings, which I'll address in a bit) or Sudden Sam McDowell, or Goose Gossage or JR Richard or _________ threw harder than Ryan. I'm not saying they didn't. I just think it is highly unlikely. Maybe they threw as hard, but unlikely any threw harder, and certainly no one threw harder for as long a period of time as Ryan.

    For example, the 107 mph pitch that Feller threw was eventually recalculated at 98 mph. Perhaps it was over 100. Who knows, becase even the recalculation can only be as accurate as the data being input. The technology back then could not give an accurate reading. We do know Feller threw quite hard and we can make a reasonable assumption that he therew somehwere around that 100 mph out of his hand (peak velocity, but the exact number, be it 98 or 105 is something we'll never know.

    In the case of Ryan, we do have two very accurate readings conducted by Rockwell International in 1974, using laser-technology that was used to track the speed of jets and missiles. The readings were more accurate than any reading you'll get from today's hand-held radar guns, and certainly more accurate than the numbers we see on Stadium boards, which in many cases are highly inflated for marketing puposes.

    What's lost when comparing Ryan's 101 mph (100.9) record (and it's still considered the record because of both the scientific conditions under which it was conducted and where the pitch was recorded in flight) with other supposed record pitches from the likes of Joel Zumaya and Billy Wagner, is Ryan's 101 mph record was clocked ten feet in front of home plate, while all these other "record" pitches were recorded at peak velocity right out of the pitchers' hands. Ryan's pitch had already lost at least five miles per hour, so he was somewhere up in the 105-107 mph range out of hand, which is probably the physical limit of a human (some think it's 105, but that's a bit sketchy).

    I don't know of any starting pitcher today who can approach that velocity. The only time we see numbers in the 103+ range is usually from a reliever today such as Zumuya, or a young Billy Wagner, or a Joba Chamberlain pre shoulder injury, or Chapman last year. In other words, guys who didn't pace themselves, but were throwing at absolute peak velocity for an inning or so, maybe twenty-plus pitches. We see some starters such as Stasburg last year hitting 100+, and Randy Johnson when he was younger, but nothing quite on the Ryan velocity scale.

    Ryan at 46 was still at times hitting 96/97 mph on the hand-held radar guns. He obviously hadn't lost only four mph off his heater. He had lost about eight to ten miles per hour since his 20s. He just threw so damn hard that losing 8-10 mph still made him one of the hardest throwers in the game. Ryan's strike-out rate actually increased in his 40s, although it wasn't because he threw harder. He developed better control as he aged, although for the most part, the increase in K/9 had more to do with the evolving approach of hitters, who were becoming much more agressive at the plate, swinging hard even when they were down on two strikes. If both Feller or Ryan played in today's game, they'd pitch less innings, but their K/9 rate would probably be much, much higher. Ryan still would probably have the all-time single season strike-out record, but in less innings! Maybe. We really don't know.

    One of the more amazing things about Ryan's 101 mph pitch was it came in the 8th inning, on approximately the 150th pitch. I just can't imagine how hard Ryan threw when he was totally rested and at peak velocity. That's why I believe he was the hardes thrower ever. I can't prove it totally, but I believe it, and there's enough evidence to support that it's likely.