All-time HR leaders by team among single-franchise players (prepare to be amazed!)

I started tweeting some of this last night and realized it would make a pretty awesome post. Among players who played their entire careers for just one franchise, here are the leaders in HR for each franchise. The disparity is unbelievable.

I went with retired players only, since many current players who would appear on a single team’s leader list will ultimately change teams later and fall off the list. I tried to list at least 5 players for each team but set a cutoff at a minimum of 2 career homers.

Diamondbacks
Rusty Ryal - 6
Alex Cabrera - 5
Doug DeVore - 3
Josh Whitesell - 2

Angels (includes CAL, ANA, and LAA)
Tim Salmon - 299
Buck Rodgers - 31
Gary Disarcina - 28
Felix Torres - 27
Robb Quinlan - 25

Braves
Andres Thomas - 42
Butch Nieman - 37
Chet Ross - 34
Sibby Sisti - 27
Biff Pocoroba - 21
Billy Urbanski - 19
Bruce Benedict - 18

Orioles (Browns)
Cal Ripken - 431
Brooks Robinson - 268
Chris Hoiles - 151
Dick Kokos - 59
Rich Dauer - 43
Jim Traber - 27

Red Sox
Ted Williams - 521
Carl Yastrzemski - 452
Jim Rice - 382
Bobby Doerr - 223
Rico Petrocelli - 210
Mike Greenwell - 130

Dodgers (BRO & LAD)
Roy Campanella - 242
Carl Furillo - 192
Jackie Robinson - 137
Pee Wee Reese - 126
Johnny Frederick - 85
Jim Lefebvre - 74
Mike Scioscia - 68

Cubs
Ernie Banks - 512
Stan Hack - 57
Bill Serena - 48
Bill Lange - 39
Vince Barton - 16

White Sox
Ron Karkovice - 96
Luke Appling - 45
Happy Felsch - 38
Johnny Mostil - 21
Buck Weaver -21

Reds
Johnny Bench - 389
Barry Larkin - 198
Dave Concepcion - 101
Bug Holliday - 65
Bid McPhee - 53

Indians
Al Rosen - 192
Luke Easter - 93
Roy Foster - 45
Bob Lemon -37
Mickey Rocco - 30

Rockies
Luis Gonzalez - 23
Jorge Piedra - 12
Jason Bates - 12
Brent Butler - 11
Jayhawk Owens - 11

Tigers
Al Kaline - 399
Lou Whitaker - 244
Bill Freehan - 200
Bobby Higginson - 187
Alan Trammell - 185
Charlie Gehringer - 184

Marlins
Darrell Whitmore - 5
Amaury Garcia - 2

Astros
Jeff Bagwell - 449
Craig Biggio - 291
Tony Eusebio - 30
J.R. Richard - 10
Jim Campbell - 7

Athletics (PHA, KCA, and OAK)
Dick Green - 80
Pete Suder - 49
Troy Neel - 37
Lou Limmer - 19
Jim Poole - 13
Lance Blankenship / Rene Lachemann - 9

Royals
George Brett - 317
Frank White - 160
Mark Quinn - 45
Ken Harvey - 27
Carlos Febles - 24

Brewers
Robin Yount - 251
Dave Nilsson - 105
Jim Gantner - 47
Mark Brouhard - 25
Joey Meyer - 18

Twins
Kent Hrbek - 293
Bob Allison - 256
Tony Oliva - 220
Kirby Puckett - 207
Randy Bush - 96
Tim Laudner - 77

Expos / Nationals
Coco Laboy - 28
Ron Calloway - 10
Peter Bergeron - 8
Bob Henley - 3
Jim Cox - 3

Giants (NYG & SFG)
Mel Ott - 511
Bill Terry - 154
Travis Jackson - 135
Robby Thompson - 119
Mike Tiernan - 106

Mets
Ed Kranepool - 118
Ron Hodges - 19
Bruce Boisclair - 10
Dave Schneck - 8
Rod Kanehl - 6

Yankees
Mickey Mantle - 536
Lou Gehrig - 493
Joe DiMaggio - 361
Bernie Williams - 287
Don Mattingly - 222

Phillies
Mike Schmidt - 548
Pancho Herrera - 31
Frank Parkinson - 24
Kevin Jordan - 23
Leo Norris - 20

Pirates
Willie Stargell - 475
Roberto Clemente - 240
Bill Mazeroski - 138
Pie Traynor - 58
Gene Alley - 55

Padres
Tony Gwynn - 135
Dave Staton - 9
Tim Flannery - 9
Dave Hilton - 6
Mike Darr / Dan Walters / Kevin Ward / Mike Corkins - 5

Mariners
Edgar Martinez - 309
Kenji Johjima - 48
Mickey Brantley - 32
Bucky Jacobsen - 9
Paul Serna - 7

Cardinals
Stan Musial - 475
Whitey Kurowski - 106
Terry Moore - 80
Mike Shannon - 68
Pepper Martin - 59

Rays
Steve Cox - 39
Jared Sandberg - 25
Bob Smith - 21
Damian Rolls - 9

Rangers
Rusty Greer - 119
Ken Retzer - 14
Travis Metcalf - 11
Bud Zipfel - 10
Bob Johnson - 9

Blue Jays
Garth Iorg - 20
John-Ford Griffin - 2
Eric Crozier - 2
Joe Lawrence - 2
Domingo Martinez - 2
Ron Shepherd - 2
Danny Ainge - 2

91 thoughts on “All-time HR leaders by team among single-franchise players (prepare to be amazed!)

  1. 1
    Dr. Doom says:

    The Braves’ disparity is about to get a whole lot bigger – Chipper ain’t goin’ nowhere.

    • 16
      Lawrence Azrin says:

      Even if Chipper retires a Brave, the remaining lack of long-term Braves-only players for a team that’s been around since, well, the _very beginning_ of professional baseball is quite stunning.

      The A’s and the White Sox low totals are almost as stunning; every other Original Sixteen team has a player (and often a couple more) with a decent HR total.

      • 28
        Steven says:

        Chipper, Sibby and Biff for the Braves. A “Bowery Boys” Murderer’s Row.

      • 67
        Tmckelv says:

        This list shows how the A’s were a “Break-up” franchise as they traded away there dynasty players in multiple generations (10’s, 30’s, 70’s, 80’s).

        • 85
          Jason Z says:

          It is interesting to note that Connie Mack who managed and owned the A’s from 1901-1950, broke his great teams
          up for purely financial reasons.

          As owner he wanted maximum profits. This was accomplished by reacting to market conditions.

          It is my thought that when Connie Mack had a great
          team, he paid them. Evidenced by the $100,000 infield.

          But when the market changed, as seen with the emergence
          of the Federal League in 1914 and the great depression
          in 1929, Mack was quick to react.

          In both instances he traded multiple future HOF’ers because he could no longer afford to keep them and
          win while simultaneously surviving financially.

          Knowing that owner Mack would not fire manager Mack, he jettisoned players from his roster in a way that would
          have made Wayne Huizenga envious.

          Mack was quoted to have said that he preferred a fourth place finish. This way the team could compete for most
          of the season, which kept attendance high and maximized his profits. The best part was that he wouldn’t have to reward players with raises after a 4th place finish.

        • 86
          Jason Z says:

          It is interesting to note that Connie Mack who managed and owned the A’s from 1901-1950, broke his great teams
          up for purely financial reasons.

          As owner he wanted maximum profits. This was accomplished by reacting to market conditions.

          It is my thought that when Connie Mack had a great
          team, he paid them. Evidenced by the $100,000 infield.

          But when the market changed, as seen with the emergence
          of the Federal League in 1914 and the great depression
          in 1929, Mack was quick to react.

          In both instances he traded multiple future HOF’ers because he could no longer afford to keep them and
          win while simultaneously surviving financially.

          Knowing that owner Mack would not fire manager Mack, he jettisoned players from his roster in a way that would
          have made Wayne Huizenga envious.

          Mack was quoted to have said that he preferred a fourth place finish. This way the team could compete for most
          of the season, which kept attendance high and maximized his profits. The best part was that he wouldn’t have to reward players with raises after a 4th place finish.

          As for the more recent 70’s. Charlie Finley operated similarly.

        • 87
          Jason Z says:

          It is interesting to note that Connie Mack who managed and owned the A’s from 1901-1950, broke his great teams
          up for purely financial reasons.

          As owner he wanted maximum profits. This was accomplished by reacting to market conditions.

          It is my thought that when Connie Mack had a great
          team, he paid them. Evidenced by the $100,000 infield.

          But when the market changed, as seen with the emergence
          of the Federal League in 1914 and the great depression
          in 1929, Mack was quick to react.

          In both instances he traded multiple future HOF’ers because he could no longer afford to keep them and
          win while simultaneously surviving financially.

          Knowing that owner Mack would not fire manager Mack, he jettisoned players from his roster in a way that would
          have made Wayne Huizenga envious.

          Mack was quoted to have said that he preferred a fourth place finish. This way the team could compete for most
          of the season, which kept attendance high and maximized his profits. The best part was that he wouldn’t have to reward players with raises after a 4th place finish.

          As for the more recent 70’s. Charlie Finley operated similarly. The market forces that led to his teams downfall were free agency.

        • 88
          Jason Z says:

          It is interesting to note that Connie Mack who managed and owned the A’s from 1901-1950, broke his great teams
          up for purely financial reasons.

          As owner he wanted maximum profits. This was accomplished by reacting to market conditions.

          It is my thought that when Connie Mack had a great
          team, he paid them. Evidenced by the $100,000 infield.

          But when the market changed, as seen with the emergence
          of the Federal League in 1914 and the great depression
          in 1929, Mack was quick to react.

          In both instances he traded multiple future HOF’ers because he could no longer afford to keep them and
          win while simultaneously surviving financially.

          Knowing that owner Mack would not fire manager Mack, he jettisoned players from his roster in a way that would
          have made Wayne Huizenga envious.

          Mack was quoted to have said that he preferred a fourth place finish. This way the team could compete for most
          of the season, which kept attendance high and maximized his profits. The best part was that he wouldn’t have to reward players with raises after a 4th place finish.

          As for the more recent 70’s. Charlie Finley operated similarly. The market forces that led to his teams downfall was free agency.

  2. 2
    nightfly says:

    That is crazy. Not surprising that all the more recent franchises have the low numbers… not just because some of them haven’t been around for more than ten or fifteen seasons, but also because players tend to move around a lot nowadays and it makes it harder to simply be in one place beginning to end. Salmon, Bagwell, Biggio, and Martinez are the only franchise leaders to play a significant time and retire in the past ten seasons.

    Here’s to hoping that Todd Helton never leaves Colorado and gives them a solid entry in this list.

  3. 3
    David says:

    Makes me wonder if number of long-term single-franchise players is simply a function of the age of the franchise prior to the free agent era, or if some franchises do truly have a disproportionate number of long-term (>500 games?) single-franchise players? Perhaps number of long-term single-franchise players divided by years of franchise existence.

  4. 4
    DaveKingman says:

    J.R. Richard clocking in for the Astros. That made me smile.

    There is a trivia question somewhere regarding consecutive home runs hit in high school play….I think the answer is 6 consecutive, shared by J.R. Richard and Scott Skiles (the basketball player/coach).

  5. 5
    David says:

    How many pitchers here? J.R. Richard. Mike Corkins…

  6. 7

    I like the Marlins’ list best…

    Hard to establish yourself as a franchise player on a team that routinely has a fire sale every five years….

  7. 8
    James Smyth says:

    Awesome post…now that Jorge Posada is retired, he checks in at fifth on the Yankee list at 275 over Mattingly.

    Since he played last year he probably comes up as active in a search.

    • 10
      Andy says:

      Great point. Varitek should be up there too.

    • 53
      MikeD says:

      Careful, James. As Andy Pettitte has shown, retirements are sometimes just vacations. And considering Raul Ibanez looks more and more done, we may want to wait before declaring Posada retired.

      And, technically, Williams has yet to retire.

      J/k on both. Williams is not coming back, and while Posada may still have something left in the tank, there is no fit.

  8. 9
    Richard Chester says:

    Berra would have made the Yankees list if he didn’t have a few AB while coaching for the Mets.

    • 26
      Lawrence Azrin says:

      Berra is kind of a technicality; I think of him in the same way as I think of Christy Mathewson. Berra is a Met, Mathewson is a Giant, despite the games at the very end for the Mets and Reds respectively.

  9. 11
    Kevin says:

    Call me crazy, but whenever this list comes up, I’m always amazed how extremely unloyal Mets players are. Granted, they’ve only been around since the merger in ’61 but all of their best players have gone to different teams, quite early in their careers. Seaver, Gooden, Strawberry, and more recently Jose Reyes come to mind. For such a “storied” franchise, players don’t seem to fare too well in the spotlight of New York, I suppose?
    I mean, if you look at other teams: Royals have George Brett, Astros got their Jeff Bagwell. The wonderful Mets have… Ed Kranepool?

    • 17
      Hartvig says:

      And from that same class of expansion teams (61/62) the Angels have Tim Salmon with a not-to-shabby 299 home runs as well.

      Still, next to Tom Seaver, the first player that comes to mind when I think of the Mets is usually good old Eddie.

      Remember Marv (Throneberry) spelled backwards is VRAM!*

      *that’s a Roger Angell reference for those who may not know.

    • 19
      nightfly says:

      Well, Seaver was traded. Reyes wasn’t offered a new contract. Doc Gooden had a lot of injury and substance abuse issues and was entirely OOB for 1995 before re-emerging. Strawberry’s the only one who spurned the Mets to willingly go elsewhere, IIRC.

      A lot of the Mets’ stars wound up shipped out rather than leaving of their own accord… Seaver was traded to Cincy. Lee Mazzilli was traded to Texas. (Brought back Ron Darling, who was himself eventually traded to Montreal.) Wally Backman was traded to Minnesota, as was Rick Aguilera (brought back Viola, not too shabby). McDowell and Dykstra were rather infamously traded to Philadelphia. (JUAN FREAKIN’ SAMUEL, people. Pisser.)

      Jeffries, Burnitz, both Mookie AND Preston Wilson… all traded. (Though Preston was only a rookie, and brought back Piazza, so cool.) Perhaps strangest of all was Hubie Brooks – drafted originally by Montreal in 1974, didn’t sign, and was eventually traded to them for Gary Carter. But in between I think I may have stumbled across some sort of record. Brooks was drafted SIX times before finally signing with the Mets in 1978; five of those times he was taken in the first round! KC took him fifth overall, Oakland took him second, and the White Sox took him twice (fourteenth in June of ’76, and third in June of ’77). Finally the Mets took him third and he went pro.

      Has anyone else ever been drafted so often, and so repeatedly high?

      • 49
        Howard says:

        Seaver asked to be traded when he was getting bad publicity during contentious contract negotiations.

      • 74
        JDV says:

        Regarding Hubie Brooks…certainly no one will again be drafted so many times. Four of his six selections were in draft phases that no longer exist. Since 1987, there is only one consolidated annual draft.

        • 76
          bstar says:

          When I think of Hubie Brooks, I immediately think back to him always declaring himself as “the clutchest hitter in all of baseball” or whatever. What’s odd is his career clutch stats actually DO support his claim. All his tOPS+ clutch stats are over 100, and he hit progressively better the higher the leverage for his career also. Not saying I ever take much from “clutch” stats, but I did find this interesting.

    • 23
      Andy says:

      When I read Kevin’s comment, it also struck me as a bit off the mark, in the sense that the argument could be made that it’s the team that’s not loyal to its players, not the other way around.

      • 54
        MikeD says:

        Yup. That was my reaction.

      • 72
        Kevin says:

        Yeah, I guess you could put it both ways. As a lifelong Mets fan, it just seemed a bit off-the-mark to see why the Mets organization and the players “hated” each other, without even one player that great who wanted to play their entire career here.

        • 75
          Lawrence Azrin says:

          What, Ed Kranepool doesn’t qualify as “great” for you, ha ha ha…? See my #24 below.

          So, who’s the best Mets player that spent most of their career with the Mets, Cleon Jones? (1201 of 1213 games; finished up his career at age 33 with 12 G for the White Sox. 17.3 WAR, but just as important, he was a major part of that magical 1969 year).

    • 24
      Lawrence Azrin says:

      I don’t think this is accurate – Seaver was traded, Gooden was with the team his first 11 years, the Mets expressed little interest in keeping Reyes. Besides, the “disloyal” term isn’t really fair – it’s “free” agency, isn’t it? Besides, I think that the majority of their good players have come from other teams, as opposed to coming up through their farm system.

      You are right about Ed Kranepool being the best Mets-only player. At first I thought that was impossible, considering all the good-to-great players the Mets have had in their history. Is he even one of the 50 best players in their history? I’d guess yes, but barely.

  10. 12
    Andy says:

    Someone on Twitter sent me this link:

    http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2011/12/15/color-by-numbers-lasting-legacy/

    which is a nice article looking at single-franchise players by team.

    • 13
      David says:

      Nice. So Cubs, Phillies, and Reds have smaller numbers of “Legacy” players proportional to years of franchise existence. Brewers and Royals are the highest of the expansion teams.

    • 18
      Richard Chester says:

      Tony Kubek had 4493 PA, all with the Yankees, but played in only 9 seasons instead of the required 10 for that list.

  11. 14
    Hartvig says:

    The two that I find the most amazing are the Braves and the A’s, simply because those franchises are over 100 years old.

    On a side note- I notice that for several franchises you include all their incarnations: the A’s in Philadelphia, Kansas City & Oakland, etc – but that you didn’t note if that was the case with the Braves (Boston, Milwaukee & Atlanta), the Twins (Minnesota & Washington), the Rangers (Washington & Texas) and the Brewers (Seattle & Milwaukee). Were they included & not noted, simply an oversight, something to do with search limitations or did no one from the original franchise qualify?

  12. 25
    Richard Chester says:

    Here’s an abbreviated list for all-time HR leaders single-franchise pitchers only:

    Bob Lemon————Indians—37
    Walter Johnson——-Senators–24
    Bob Gibson———–Cards—–24
    Hal Schumacher——-Giants—-15
    Larry Christenson—-Phils—–11
    Vernon Law———–Pirates—11
    J.R. Richard———Astros—-10
    Spd Chandler———Yankees—-9
    Ted Blankenship——White Sox–9
    Bob Feller———–Indians—-8

    (Clint Hartung doesn’t count, he was also an outfielder. Bob Lemon was an outfielder but I included him because his OF days were brief.)

    • 27
      Doug says:

      Don Drysdale should figure pretty high on your list, with 29 homers for the Dodgers.

      • 31
        Richard Chester says:

        You are correct. When I brought up my results page on PI I quickly scanned through the “Tm” column and looked for players with one team listed. Drysdale had a BRO-LAD listing making it look like two teams so I missed it. Thanks for the correction.

  13. 29
    Luis Gomez says:

    Am I the only one who tried to guess the answers before scrolling down on them?

    • 38
      Hub Kid says:

      I did, but Andy is right in warning us to be amazed. The only teams for which I got multiple guesses right before looking were: Red Sox, Astros, Yankees and Pirates. No, I didn’t guess a single pitcher. I think the Tigers, Twins and Orioles are easier guesses, too, because I felt more than a little silly after I looked.

  14. 30
    Mike L says:

    what’s notable about both the A’s and the Braves is the number of times each team moved, which would imply economic instability.

    • 33
      Lawrence Azrin says:

      The Braves time in Milwaukee (1953-1965) was surprisingly brief, considering their initial success there both on the field and filling the seats. The A’s in KC were pretty much a failure on both accounts.

      • 34
        Dr. Doom says:

        Hank Aaron always said something to the extent of “We spoiled the fans too early.” The Braves were SO successful SO soon in Milwaukee that, as soon as things started to dwindle, the fans just stopped showing up. It’s really too bad. My dad was a HUGE Braves fan growing up, and then basically stopped following baseball because of their move (he did kinda-sorta follow the White Sox). He started really getting into it again in 1970, when the Brewers came. I know many people in Milwaukee about my dad’s age (born ca. 1950) who are still Cubs or White Sox fans because of the Braves moving.

      • 35
        Doug says:

        It’s surprising the fan support dwindled so quickly. The Braves were not a bad team in the early 60s, just consistently middle of the pack with 83 to 88 wins every year from 1959-65. During 1953-58, they won 85 to 95 games every year, so better but no massively so.

        Hard to see why fans would stop supporting a team that had never had a sub-.500 season.

        • 36
          Lawrence Azrin says:

          Yes, the Milwaukee Braves were always over .500, and only once in the second division. The Kansas city A’s were always _under_ .500, often by a lot. Yet both teams moved about a dozen years after they arrived at those cities.

        • 47
          Dr. Doom says:

          I recall reading somewhere the the Milwaukee Braves have the highest all-time winning percentage of any franchise in one location in all of MLB. Anyone know offhand if that’s true?

          • 48
            Richard Chester says:

            From 1953 to 1965 the Milwaukee Braves had a winning pct. of .563. From 1903 to 2011 the Yankees have a winning pct. of .570, I would assume that’s the best mark of any team in one location. If you want to count the Federal League the Chicago Whales had a winning pct. of .565. This data is easily retrieved from the BR PI.

          • 59

            The Yankees moved from Manhattan to The Bronx in 1923. May seem like a small distinction, but having lived in both boroughs myself, I’d call it a move.

        • 55
          bstar says:

          A similar dynamic is happening now in Atlanta. The Braves fans got so spoiled by the team making the playoffs 14 straight years in the 90s and early 00s that’s it made qualifying recently a very uncelebrated thing. Then add in the fact that the Braves only converted on those playoff chances one time with the ’95 World Series win and you’ve got yourself a very unexcited fanbase right now, despite the Braves still usually being perennial contenders for at least a wild card.

        • 71
          John Autin says:

          The Milwaukee Braves were sold in 1962 to Bill Bartholomay, who — for no obvious reason — immediately started shopping for a new city.

          They led the league in attendance for their first 6 years (averaging over 2 million), but given the size of that city, it was unreasonable to expect attendance like that to continue, especially when overall attendance started declining in the ’60s.

          By ’61, the Braves were down to 5th in NL attendance, but still with a respectable 1.1 million. But Bartholomay’s attitude really alienated the fan base; in ’62 only 776,000 showed up. By ’65 the move to Atlanta was pretty much set, and the fans basically boycotted.

          • 73
            Andy R says:

            Could some of the Braves’ attendance problems in the early ’60s be attributed to the Senators moving to Minneapolis and taking some of the outlying fans from the Braves? Just wondering…

    • 37
      Doug says:

      Kansas City As never had a .500 season – their best year in 1958 was only 73-81. Immediately after leaving KC, the As had a 9-year run of finishing over .500. Not that that made a lot of difference in their fan support.

      It’s been a long time since fans in Washington have had a team with a decent run. Counting the old Senators, new Senators, and Nationals, they’ve had one .500 season, and one season above .500 in the last 25 years of MLB in the capital. Going back further, it’s two .500 seasons and 5 seasons above .500 in the past 45 years (back to 1934). You have to go all the way back to 1933 to find back-to-back seasons over .500.

  15. 39
    Artie Z says:

    I don’t think it is surprising that the A’s do not have a player with a high number of homeruns while only playing for the A’s as they were owned by Connie Mack and later Charlie Finley during the pre-free agency era. Both owners (in my opinion) seemed willing to cut or trade someone, even a fan favorite, if that player wasn’t currently helping. Plus, if I’m recalling my history correctly, the A’s under Mack didn’t have much of a farm system, so they probably used a few players who had cups of coffee with other teams. The A’s single franchise HR leaders come from the end of the Mack-beginning of the Finley era (Dick Green, Pete Suder, Lou Limmer, Rene Lachemann – was that the Arnold Johnson era?) and a few guys in the 1990s when HRs were hit more frequently (Neel and Blankenship, though Blankenship isn’t really a power hitter). And there’s one random guy from the 1920s (Jim Poole – the link goes to the pitcher, not the 1920s first baseman).

    The question I’d ask is if the “disloyalty” by the teams ultimately works out in the fans’ favor. The A’s seemed to have some really good teams (early 1910s A’s), followed by a dismantling and some really bad teams, then some really good teams (early 1930s A’s), then another dismantling. They have won 9 World Series (5 under Mack, 3 under Finley, and the 1989 WS), which is a good number. Is it a bad strategy to cut/trade players who have been with the team a long time but could still catch on elsewhere? I would think it may be unpopular temporarily, but overall it could be a good strategy to get younger players into the mix.

    • 40
      Richard Chester says:

      The Mack dismantlings were largely driven by financial problems, partially due to player salary demands, especially after the pennant-winning seasons. He was reputed to have stated that he would rather have a second-place finish because if the team won the pennant the players would only ask for more money.

      • 45
        John Autin says:

        1914 was a tough year for all established MLB teams, as the upstart Federal League siphoned off 20-25% of their attendance. Nowhere was it tougher than Philadelphia: Despite their 4th pennant in 5 years, the A’s lost 41% of their attendance, while the Phillies, after a 1913 pennant-chase spike to #2 in attendance, fell back to the 2nd division and lost almost 80% of their attendance.

        Mack had already seen Chief Bender jump to the FL for 1914. With the fans seeming fickle, the financial future looking grim, and the speculation on whether or when the U.S. would join the war in Europe, it’s perhaps understandable that he sold off the rest of his stars over the next 3 years.

  16. 41
    Dr. Remulak says:

    Numerous single-team players from the Yankees makes for great all-time team lists. Posada & Jeter have both eclipsed Mattingly already, and I can’t imagine either wearing another uniform.

    I’ll bet the single-team pitchers win list is even more bizarre for the various ballclubs.

    • 42
      Dr. Remulak says:

      …and another reason to be a Yankee fan. As if 27 were not enough.

    • 44
      Andy says:

      I’ll post that in a couple of days. It’s just as interesting.

    • 70
      Richard Chester says:

      Here’s a sneak preview: the Indians list will contain three 200+ game winners.

    • 79
      Brent says:

      I would guess the Yankees don’t do nearly as well there. In fact, I guarantee it. Although Whitey Ford isn’t too shabby. And Lefty Gomez has a Christy Mathewson end to his career with the Senators (which seems almost unfair that those two are not Lifetime Giants and Yankees respectively because of 1 game each)

      • 82
        MikeD says:

        Agreed. The Yankees have always had an interesting approach toward starting pitchers that runs counter to what they do with hitting. It goes against what I believe teams should do around the development of starting pitching, which means the Yankees are quite lucky I have nothing to do with their organization.

        While they like to hold hitters for long stretches, they seem to cycle through their pitchers in short bursts, perhaps trying to catch their peak value, and much less inclined to hold pitchers compared to their hitters.

        Considering the more mecurial nature of pithing, perhaps there is some logic at work here.

  17. 43
    Doc_Irysch says:

    Nice to see Kent Hrbek top a list 🙂

  18. 46
    John Autin says:

    Looks like the Yankees take the prize for depth (their 6th man, Bill Dickey, had 202), followed by the Red Sox and my Tigers. NYY and DET are the only team with 6 guys at 180+.

    The gap between Mike Schmidt and Pancho Herrera is humorous, but Ryan Howard has 286 and I’d think a decent chance of remaining a Phil phorever.

  19. 50
    Howard says:

    I wouldn’t have thought that Sibby Sisti played his entire career for the Braves. It makes me wonder who was the worst player he spent his entire career of over 1,000 games with just one team. Sisti and Kranepool seem like good possibilities.

    • 52
      Hartvig says:

      That would be another great list to see. Maybe lowest WAR with at least 1000 games or something. I thought Hal Lanier (-6.0 WAR in 1196 games) might be another but his final -1.1 WAR were achieved playing 95 games for the Yankees in his final 2 seasons.

      • 57
        Dr. Doom says:

        Alfredo Griffin, I believe, has the most games played by a player with a subzero WAR (not my research – I think someone brought it up here a while ago). Not only did he play nearly 2000 games (1962), but he also played a full slate 4 times (1982-3, ’85-’86). Sure, he won the ROY and led the league in triples as a sophomore; but he never hit .300; heck, he only OBP’d .300 three times in his career! He only slugged .364 twice (hit that number on the nose both times). It’s possible that TotalZone drastically misvalues him as a fielder. If it’s even remotely accurate, though, he was a below average fielder with a below average bat, even for a shortstop. The Yuni of the ’80s – only Yuni has actually provided positive value in his career. Seriously, Griffin is a mystery.

        • 58
          Mike L says:

          Dr. Doom, I distinctly remember Bill James writing a piece in one of his Abstracts about how Alfredo Griffin had one of the lowest baseball IQ’s of all time. No plate selection,lousy base runner, terrible instincts. Other than that, he was great.

          • 64
            Ed says:

            And oddly, the one year that Griffin made the All-Star team was also his worst year in terms of WAR (-2.3). Doubt many other players can claim that.

      • 62
        Doug says:

        Here are the lowest career WAR scores, by career PA level.
        3000 – Bill Bergen, -17.6
        4000 – Doug Flynn, -12.1
        5000 – Bob Kennedy, -5.2
        6000 & 7000, Alfredo Griffin, -2.4
        8000 – Don Kessinger, 5.0
        9000 – Doc Cramer, 5.4
        10000- Bill Buckner, 12.1
        11000- Harold Baines, 37.0
        12000- Dave Winfield, 59.7
        13000, 14000 & 15000 – Pete Rose, 75.3

        • 63
          Ed says:

          Doug Flynn finished in the top 10 in intentional walks twice in his career. This is what happens when you let the pitcher hit!

        • 65
          Ed says:

          How about the opposite…highest WAR per career PA level. Retired players only, pitchers excluded, players who played before 1901 excluded.

          Less than 1000 – Frank Fernandez, 5.9 (Frank just will not go away!)
          1000-2000 – Jack Lapp, 10.9
          2000-3000 – Monte Irvin, 20.5
          3000-4000 – Benny Kauff, 31.3
          4000-5000 – Charlie Keller, 43.4
          5000-6000 – Jackie Robinson, 63.2
          6000-7000 – Home Run Baker, 63.7
          7000-8000 – Joe Dimaggio, 83.6
          8000-9000 – Johnny Bench, 71.3
          9000-10000 – Rogers Hornsby, 127.8
          10000-11000 – Babe Ruth, 172
          11000-12000 – Tris Speaker, 133
          Above 12000 – Barry Bonds, 171.8

        • 69
          Lawrence Azrin says:

          I’m not quite sure how to define it (minimum 9000 PA, less than 20 WAR?), but Cramer and Buckner are two of the players with the longest careers who were pretty much average over the course of their entire careers.

          Larry Bowa might be another candidate (17.2 WAR, 9109 PA), depending upon what your definition of “average” is.

  20. 56
    bstar says:

    I am nominating the Braves list as the most hilarious, mainly for the inclusion of 5th place finisher, Biff…..Pocoroba!!

    • 60

      The Braves’ list is hilarious for its leader having a .334 SLG, a -6.4 WAR, and 50% more double plays than homers.

      • 61
        bstar says:

        There’s that, too. Andres Thomas played for Atlanta in the Dark Days(’85-’90), where the Braves would average 65 wins over that period with 4 last-place finished in the old NL West. Interestingly, Thomas’ career spanned that exact same time period.

  21. 68
    Tmckelv says:

    biggest surprise on this list was that Ron Karkovice had more HR than Mike Scioscia.

  22. 77
    Jon SC says:

    How many people think of Danny Ainge as a Blue Jay and not a Celtic?

    • 78
      John Autin says:

      Not only do I think of Ainge as a Blue Jay, I also think he’s really the same person as Doug Ault, his OPS+ doppelganger on the 1980 Jays.

    • 80
      MikeD says:

      He’s a Blue Jay who went off to play an inferior sport after baseball kicked his butt.

      • 81
        Lawrence Azrin says:

        If you are a Celtics fan, you are very very very glad that baseball kicked his butt. Especially for what he’s done the last five years as Celtics GM.

        • 84
          MikeD says:

          If you are a Blue Jays fan, you are also pleased that he went and played basketball. : -)

          I wonder how many multi-sports stars are actually good enough to be top players on a professional level in all those sports. Did Ainge not succeed because he never quite had the skills to be a MLB player, or did splitting his playing time between sports prevent him from fully dedicating himself and developing the right skills. In Ainge’s case, it seemed to me the Blue Jays really rushed him.

  23. 83
    CursedClevelander says:

    Thank you to Mr. Al Rosen for making the Indians list slightly less pathetic.

    Sizemore would likely finish high on this list, but I doubt he’ll end his career with the Tribe. Travis Hafner has hit 188 of his 189 career HRs with the Indians, so were it not for a cup of coffee with the Rangers, he’d likely overtake Rosen this season.

    Ken Keltner is the closest near miss the Indians have. He hit all 163 of his HRs with Cleveland, and played in a measly 13 games with the Red Sox in his final season before retiring. Of course, even with his very respectable 28.7 bWAR, he’d be stuck behind Rosen on the all-time only-played-for-the-Indians team.

    Brook Jacoby is another player who hit all of his HRs in Cleveland (120 of them), but he had 223 PAs between Oakland and Atlanta.

    Other Tribe near-misses:

    Hal Trosky had 216 of his 228 HRs with the Tribe. Earl Averil had only 509 PAs with other teams, and hit 226 of his 238 HRs with the Indians.

    Also, the amazing thing about the Athletics is that they’ve actually had 25 guys hit at least 100 HRs with the franchise, but none of them spent their entire career as A’s. I always thought Eric Chavez would retire with the A’s and claim all of those one-franchise records, but alas, it wasn’t meant to be.

  24. 89
    LVW says:

    With Helton announcing his retirement, he becomes the Rockies all time leader.

  25. 90

    Your style is very unique compared to other folks I have read stuff from.

    Thank you for posting when you have the opportunity,
    Guess I will just book mark this site.

  26. 91
    agadir says:

    Very good info. Lucky me I came across your website by accident
    (stumbleupon). I’ve book marked it for later!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *