As a complement to Andy’s Mount Rushmore series, this post looks at the most durable teammates for each club. This idea was inspired by a discussion in the Royals’ Rushmore thread. That discussion aroused my curiosity and, I’m guessing (or hoping), the curiosity of other readers as well.
As a preview to future Mount Rushmore posts that Andy will soon be directing his attention towards, the longest tenured teammates for the original 16 major league clubs are after the jump.
So, here are the sets of 2, 3 or 4 teammates who have played together for the same club for the most seasons. If the longest span was not a contiguous period, I’ve also indicated the longest span of consecutive seasons that players have stayed together. This was all done by eyeball reckoning from lists generated from B-R’s PI, so if you see any errors or omissions, please let me and the other readers know.
[table id=50 /]
A couple of surprises to me are how some of the longest tenured players with one club don’t show up in the lists. I’m thinking of players like Ty Cobb, Zack Wheat and Hank Aaron, and I’m sure you can think of a few more.
Does Jeter, Rivera, Posada, and Williams not make 12 years exceeding the Yankees quartet shown?
Bang on, StrikeOne. I’ll update the list.
Thanks.
Trammell & Whitaker
Time for the HOF to rectify their error and elect them together.
A lot of familiar names you think of as pairs- Snider & Hodges, Hubbell & Ott, Jeter & Rivera, Kaline & Cash, Schmidt & Carlton and a couple that I at least, do not: Clemente & Mazeroski, Hornsby and frankly anyone.
Good food for thought when considering our future Mt. Rushmores
Joe Judge.
Excellent player with a 20 year career whom I had never heard of.
I admit to the same. I didn’t know about Joe Judge’s career until his name was brought up in the discussion that sparked this article by Doug.
Judge finished 3rd in MVP voting in 1928, partly because the league’s two best players, Ruth and Gehrig, had already snagged MVP awards previously and until 1930 in the AL you were only allowed to win the award once. It’s kind of strange how Judge finished third while Joe’s teammate Goose Goslin finished sixth in voting with far better stats:
Judge in 1928 3 HR/93 RBI/.306 BA/.813 OPS
Goslin in 1928 17HR/102RBI/.379 BA/1.056 OPS
Perhaps Judge was viewed as a team leader, a clutch guy, blah blah blah. The actual MVP winner that year was Mickey Cochrane.
Who knows how seriously they took MVP voting back then since they removed a number of the very best candidates right up front because they were prior winners. Maybe some got votes for a long career, others for leadership, etc.
Really have no idea why Cochrane won. I suppose we could attempt and argue they had a better grasp of positional adjustment than some BBWAA members to today, yet if that’s the case they should have penalized Judge even more since he was a 1B’man. Based on WAR, which of course was unknown back then, Manush and Goslin were the two most valuable players who were eligible. Yet even going by more traditional stats, Manush finished behind Cochrane despite hitting .378, getting 241 hits and having more than 100 RBIs and runs scored.
I never really looked at MVP voting from the 1920s. I wonder if there’s some pattern where it was more obvious what voters valued back then.
How about this one, most years together for 9 teammates.
10 years for Gates Brown, Bill Freehan, Willie Horton, Mickey Lolich,Al Kaline, Norm Cash, Dick McAuliffe, Jim Northrup and Mickey Stanley, Detroit Tigers, 1964-1973.
Incidentally my reference lists 13 years for the four Tiger teammates from 1963-1975. I have not had a chance to check it out yet. Also it shows 13 years for the four Pirate teammates and includes the 1899 Louisville team.
As far as the Tiger teammates from 1963-1975, it’s not the group of four that Doug has listed at 12 years from 1964-1975 because Mickey Stanley did not debut with the Tigers until 1964.
I should have mentioned that those four teammates were Brown, Freehan, Horton and Lolich. From 1964 to 1975 Stanley joined those four to make five teammates for twelve years
Thanks, Richard.
I’ll correct.
I’m not sure what the story is about Louisville, but 1899 was their last season. It appears, they may have merged with Pittsburgh. I say this because of this trade.
December 8, 1899: Honus Wagner traded by the Louisville Colonels with Fred Clarke, Bert Cunningham, Mike Kelley, Tacks Latimer, Tommy Leach, Tom Messitt, Deacon Phillippe, Claude Ritchey, Rube Waddell, Jack Wadsworth and Chief Zimmer to the Pittsburgh Pirates for Jack Chesbro, George Fox, Art Madison, John O’Brien and $25,000.
Despite being traded to Louisville, Chesbro ended up back in Pittsburgh for the 1900 season, but the other three (who all played in Pittsburgh in 1899) never played in the majors again.
Even if there was a merger, I think B-R has it right in not calling the two as the same franchise, simply because those two teams were competing against each other in 1899 and earlier. So, bottom line, I wouldn’t include the Louisville 1899 (or earlier) season(s) in any follwing Pirate streaks.
Yes, Doug, as I recall (not personally) Barney Dreyfuss, the Colonel’s owner, bought the Pirates when the NL contracted after ’99 and shifted the players he wanted to keep (like Honus). I think this is spelled out in Tommy Leach’s story in “The Glory of Their Times.”
Thanks epm,
So, if I have this right, the Louisville owner bought the Pittsburgh club and then disbanded the Louisville club, keeping such Louisville players as he desired. Thus, the Dec 1899 “trade” that I related was most likely a sham, conducted preparatory to acquiring the Pittsburgh club.
Yup. Here’s what I’m looking at in “Richter’s History and Records of Base Ball” under “The Season of 1900”:
“This year the National League returned to the eight-club circuit. Cleveland, Baltimore, Washington, and Louisville were vacated. The Louisville team was consolidated with the Pittsburgh team. Cleveland was ceded to the Western League, which this year assumed the American League title, while Baltimore and Washington were allowed to remain idle, though the Eastern League desired the territory.”
So you’ve got an ambiguous situation with regard to the Louisville-Pittsburgh teammates – and an even tougher call regarding possible continuity among teammates on the Cleveland club, as it transitioned from the Spiders to the Outcasts, and then to the AL for 1900 and after as the Blues, Broncos, Naps, etc.
Luckily for your workload, though: 1) You probably can’t even get the 1900 AL rosters; 2)Cleveland was so ground up by its “syndicate baseball” merger with the St. Louis Perfectos in ’99 that there actually was no continuity of teammates (not even the original for the later team nickname, Lou Sockalexis, stayed on for the transition, much less Harry Colliflower, one of baseball’s greatest names), and 3) likely nobody cares.
Babe Adams and Max Carey were together for 16 years as Adams missed the 1917 season.
Thanks, Richard. I’ll update.
Jim Palmer and Mark Belanger were together for 16 years, 1965-67 and 1969-81.
Got it. Thanks, Richard.
The Waners were together on the Pirates for 14 years.
For 4 Yankees teammates there were Jeter, Rivera, Posada and Pettite for 13 years, 1995-2003 and 2007-2010.
Good stuff, Richard. Thanks.
Doug, I love this idea.
Re: Sam Rice and Joe Judge — The Senators of the teens through WWII had quite a few long-tenured players:
– Walter Johnson, 1907-27
– Clyde Milan, 1907-22
– George McBride, 1908-20
– Howie Shanks, 1912-22
– Rice, 1915-33
– Judge, 1915-32
– Bucky Harris, 1919-28 (manager 1924-28, ’35-42, ’50-54)
– Goose Goslin, 1921-30, ’33, ’38
– Ossie Bluege, 1922-39
– Firpo Marberry, 1923-32, ’36
– Buddy Myer, 1925-27, ’29-41
– Joe Kuhel, 1930-37, ’44-46
– Cecil Travis, 1933-41, ’45-47
– Buddy Lewis, 1935-41, ’45-47, ’49
– Mickey Vernon, 1939-43, ’46-48, ’50-55
BTW, I think Rice, Judge and Walter Johnson should be the “3 teammates” set for the Senators/Twins franchise; they were together 13 years, 1915-27. An equal tenure for Milan, McBride and Johnson (1908-20).
Thanks for the finds, John.
You (or, at least, I) can go bleary-eyed, scanning lists up and down, trying to figure you who played with who when.
What was your methodology, Doug? Was it similar to your recommendation about how to find teammates with the most doubles, i.e. doing a search for one team only based on, perhaps, games played?
It was Find Players with Most Seasons Matching Criteria, setting a team and date range. After that, it’s just scanning up an down the list, trying to figure out contemporaries – as you’re seeing, an inexact science. Glad to have all these other eyes taking a look.
Many thanks for the effort – *great* post, and fun that there’s some work left to do.
Absolutely, Doug. Eye-blear is an occupational hazard of the historical stat sleuth.
This hunt would be much easier, using the P-I and Excel formulas, if the P-I would reflect actual years played for the team instead of just first & last year. It’s the gaps in service that make this sort of hunt so challenging — e.g., Buddy Myer with the Senators 1925-41 except for 1928.
For the White Sox there’s Ted Lyons and Luke Appling, 14 years from 1930-1942 and 1946. Three years lost to WWII.
Sometime during the 1973 season, Steve Garvey, took over at first base for Bill Buckner. From that point through the 81 season, the Dodgers infield
remained the same.
Steve Garvey 1B
Davey Lopes 2B
Bill Russell SS
Ron Cey 3B
Has any team had their infield remain intact longer?
Bill James says they are by far the longest running group. See p. 555 of the NBJHBA.
Yes, it’s hard to find an infield group that lasted half that long. I’ve got Brooks Robinson-Belanger-Davey Johnson-Boog Powell at five years for the 1968-72 Orioles.
The current Yankee infield will hit the five year mark next year if they stay healthy enough and the Yankees
pick up Cano’s 15 million dollar option for 13.
The Orioles had six players (B. Robinson, Powell, Belanger, Etchebarren, Blair, & McNally) who were teammates for 10 consecutive years (’65-’74). Would that be the longest for six?
See my post 39 somewhere below.
Not quite. The 1960s and 70s Tigers had 6 players for 12 years, 8 for 11 years, and 9 for 10 years.
Those numbers are courtesy of Richard Chester. See comment #39 below and #6 above.
The Cubs had Banks, Beckert, Kessinger & Santo from 1965-69. Banks and Jim Hickman split time at first in 1970. The Pirates had the same starting eight (Burgess, Stuart, Mazeroski, Groat, Hoak, Skinner, Virdon & Clemente) from 1959-62. I wonder if any other franchise can match that.
One way to do it would be to go PI, select combined seasons, select a team, select 50% of games at the position, check 1B, 2B, 3B and SS, select games => say 1000 and sort by year. Then look at the results to search for four guys, one at each position, who played in the same time frame. Then search each team on BR by the Defensive Positions chart for that team for the years in the time frame. Each year has to be done one at a time. Check to see who played at the positions.
Possibly the closest to the 70s Dodgers are the 1903-10 Cubs of Tinker, Evers and Chance. The only change in that 8 year period was Doc Casey being replaced at 3B by Harry Steinfeldt, starting in the 1906 season.
In the 5 seasons of Tinker, Evers, Chance and Steinfeldt, the Cubs won 4 pennants and 2 WS, missing out on a 5th pennant in 1909, despite winning 104 games. Their 1908 WS season of 99 wins was their only time under 100. The 1906 season at 116-36 is the highest winning percentage ever, at .763.
In the Reds’ column for 4 teammates, you actually have 5 players listed. No doubt that’s just an accident, but now I’m curious what the records would be for five teammates in each organization. Anyone care to do the math on that one?
That Reds group will be hard to beat. The Yankees had five HOFers for eight years, 1930-1937: Gehrig, Lazzeri, Dickey, Gomez, and Ruffing.
…which gets me to wondering. What’s the record for most HOFers on one team at any given time?
According to this article, the 30-33 Yankees had 8:
http://research.sabr.org/journals/hall-of-fame-teams-a-study-in-paradox
Actually, Ed, it was 9 HOFers for those Yankee teams.
1930 – Earle Combs, Bill Dickey, Lou Gehrig, Lefty Gomez, Waite Hoyt, Tony Lazzeri, Herb Pennock, Red Ruffing, Babe Ruth
1931-33 – Earle Combs, Bill Dickey, Lou Gehrig, Lefty Gomez, Tony Lazzeri, Herb Pennock, Red Ruffing, Babe Ruth, Joe Sewell
The 1928 Yankees also had 9, but one the players (Durocher) is an HOFer as a manager.
Teams with 8 HOFers are the 1934 Yankees (all players) and the 1923-26 Giants, 1929 Yanks, and 1933 Cards, all with one of their HOFers enshrined as a manager.
The indvidual game which featured the most HOFers occurred on May 24, 1928. Thirteen players were on the field: Combs, Durocher, Ruth, Gehrig, Lazzeri, Hoyt, Cobb, Speaker,Simmons, Grove, Foxx, Cochrane and Collins. Not playing that day were Pennock and Coveleski. Also managers McCarthy and Mack were there as well as umps Bill McGowan and Tom Connally. That adds up to 19 HOFers.
If it was 1928 the Yankee manager must have been Miller Huggins, also a HOFer. McCarthy managed the Cubs that year.
My slip, it was Huggins.
Daniel, the 5 Reds teammates is not an accident – all were teammates during the indicated period. So, any four of the five fit the bill.
Ah, that clears it up.Thanks, Doug!
Doing a quick check the Indians had 9 teammates for 8 years(1949-1956): Hegan, Mitchell, Doby, Rosen, Avila, Feller, Lemon, Wynn and Garcia.
Looks to me like Hegan, Mitchell, Doby, Rosen, Feller, and Lemon were all on the roster at some point for 10 years, 1947-1956. Not too shabby.
Most years together for 6 teammates: Brown, Freehan, Horton, Lolich, Kaline and Cash (12 years,1963-74).
For 7 teammates: The above plus McAuliffe (11 years, 1963-73).
For 8 teammates: Brown, Freehan, Horton, Lolich, Kaline, Cash, Northrup and Stanley (11 years, 1964-74).
For 9 teammates: See my post #6.
As with the Cleveland crew, this one produced a lot of second place finishes, but without Stengel’s Yankees to blame. Not being a Tiger fan, I’m wondering about the reason for this prolonged run of stability at the good-but-not-great level, with only one HOF player, still good but past his best seasons.
In contrast, the Cleveland team was really outstanding for its era, just outplayed by New York most of the time, owing to God knows what, when you look at the details—Stengel managing and Berra behind the plate, yeah, but Rizzuto peaking and declining, DiMaggio fading early and Mantle just getting into gear, really, until 1955. Lopat, Reynolds, and Raschi are regarded as journeymen compared to the Cleveland big four, and Ford was gone into the service for two years in the middle of the run. Hegan, Mitchell, and Avila balanced off the Yankee role players like Woodling, Bauer, and McDougald pretty well, and the Indians had some role players of their own like Luke Easter. It’s often forgotten that Al Rosen put up hall-of-famer stats for his first five years as a regular, but got stuck behind Ken Keltner early and succumbed to injuries that ended his career at age 32.
My point? The Cleveland group deserves much more respect than it gets. Does the Tiger contingent?
nsb: Having started following baseball during the later years of those Indians teams, it seemed at the time that they received plenty of respect. There was a ton of hoopla about them in their record year of ’54. I thought they were invincible and eagerly anticipated their predestined sweep the Durocher’s Giants. (Why I don’t believe in predestination.) Like Seattle’s comparable record in ’01, the post-season may account for the short half-life of the team’s reputation.
If those Tigers hadn’t encountered Weaver’s Orioles of ’69-’71, they might have made more of a mark. Cleveland’s deep strength lay in starting pitching. Apart from Lolich, the Tigers didn’t have continuity in that area, though they had McLain for his brief explosion, and then Coleman; Baltimore had their Big Three year after year, and a lot else. (Still, those Tigers were my home team for many years, and they were a wonderful fan’s team.)
epm:
I was thinking more of retrospective reputation re Cleveland. As I noted once before here, the five consecutive wins by the Yankees weren’t cakewalks but dogfights.
Your reasoning about Tiger pitching makes sense, but it doesn’t completely satisfy me. Why did the Tiger management stick with the lineup? It’s an apparently unique situation.
epm,
Going into that ’54 WS, do you recall whether there was any talk about the fact that the Tribe had only played at .500 against teams who finished over .500?
Doug, I’m afraid that was my first full year paying attention. I think I learned to count to 111 that year – over/under 500 was for next season. But I do remember talk about whether the Giants would be able to win any games.
But checking into the stats, your question raises an interesting issue of language. Cleveland played at or above .500 with all teams, but split season series with both the Yankees and Chisox, a .670 and a .610 team (in a league not marked by competitive parity, Cleveland being over .720). You could spin those results in a different direction.
It was certainly a bit of a weak league, no doubt about it. Chicago, as noted by epm, played even with the Tribe (11-11) but went a woeful 7-15 against the 2nd Place Yankees. Every other team finished with 69 wins or less.
Still, doesn’t take away from the excellent regular season by the Tribe. You’re supposed to feast on lesser competition, and the Indians had a banquet, annihilating under .500 competition to the tune of an .809 Winning Percentage (89-21).
The Athletics were the preferred whipping boy of all 3 over .500 teams. They were 4-18 against the Tribe, 4-18 against the Yanks, and 5-17 against the ChiSox. That was their last year in Philly, so I’m sure many of the fans were glad to be rid of such a putrid team when they packed up and moved to Kansas City.
Sort of amazing with the A’s. They move to KC, don’t put up a single winning record, then in Oakland, it takes them until 1977 to have a single *losing* record.
. . . two more years and they’re at 108 losses . . . wait two more and they’re in the post-season.
The A’s franchise has been a roller coaster since Mack broke up his first team. You expect some teams to have a lot of seasons winning 100 and others to have a lot of seasons losing 100. The A’s have over ten of both – I haven’t done all the legwork, but I don’t think there are others like that.
Those Tigers got a championship, so I can’t see that team as a disappointment, but I also think the team gets as much tribute as it deserves. (Not so for some of the players.)
Maybe they fit somewhere between the ’60s Giants and the ’90s Braves. The Giants won no championships, just one pennant, another division crown in ’71, but they were almost always in the race. The ’90s Braves won the division every year it was settled and won a title, but they lost 4 WS and so are seen by many as a disappointment.
The Tigers might have forced a playoff for the ’67 AL crown, but they were the only team with a doubleheader on the final day, and after winning the first game, they lost the second and finished 1 GB. They won the division in ’72 and gave Oakland all they could handle in one of the closest LCS ever played; one play could have turned that series into a Tigers pennant.
Sometimes a coin flip comes up heads 5 times in a row.
Thanks, JA. I like the reference to the Braves, and the comment differentiating among the players is consistent with my own thinking, so it must be right—right?
Sorry I missed all this detail on the Tigers when I made my Orioles comment. That’s some serious continuity that I actually remember well.
I see what you mean about the close Yankee pennants, nsb, but Cleveland was only truly a close second in ’52 – it was a race the other years, but the margins were either fairly comfortable (5, 7 games), or it was actually another team in second. Even in ’52, the 2-game margin wasn’t as close as it seems. Both teams finished very strong, but NY was 3+ games ahead till the last day: close, but not really a dogfight like the ’48-’49 races.
But if people don’t still think of the Indians as one of the great all-time rotations, then you’re certainly right, they are undervalued.
I think I should let longer term Tiger fans like Hrtvig say more about the decision Tiger management made in retaining the ’64-’74 core. But I do think there may still have been sensitivity about the terrible fan response to the Kuenn-Colavito trade after the ’59 season. I mean it was a steal for Detroit, but my impression was that the fans were outraged and booed Colavito for years. . . Just speculation.
Hate to argue semantics but Cleveland was in first place most of August and the first half of September in 1951, leading by a game or two or falling back. The Yankees won two from the Indians mid month and gradually pulled away. The five game lead came in the last two weeks. In 1952 the Indians were 1 game back with 5 to play.
Close races.
not semantics nsb: I stand corrected.
Not to take us in a different direction, but one of the things that has always amazed me about the 1954 Indians is that they very easily could have replaced the sub-par Dave Philley and most of Wally Westlake’s PAs with an MVP-type season from Minnie Minoso had they not basically given him away for nothing a few years back.
Of course, while it would have made little difference in the standings in 1954, it could have won them the pennant in 1953.
Minnie Minoso was also involved in another ‘what-if’ trade for the Tribe, as they sent him back to the White Sox in a package for Norm Cash and John “Honey” Romano, then almost immediately flipped Cash to the Tigers. That was in 1960, and we all know that it was only a year later that Cash and his corked bat terrorized AL pitching to the tune of a .361 average and a 201(!) OPS+.
Speaking of the magical 200 OPS+ mark, Cash and Mantle are still the last AL players to reach it in a non-strike season. Brett in 1980 and Thomas in 1994 topped 200, and currently Konerko and Hamilton are above that mark.
Cash is certainly the odd-man-out in the 200 OPS+ club in AL history. It goes: Lajoie, Cobb, Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Williams, Mantle, Brett, Thomas, and Cash. Pretty good company to be in.
Did Cash admit to using a corked bat? Was that trick being practiced as early as ’61?
Cursed, what’s the best evidence you have that Norm Cash used a corked bat in 1961? I’d never heard that before.
Also, go ahead and include George Brett in the +200 OPS club. 1980 was not a strike year, 1981 was.
Pretty sure he admitted to it later in his life. Either way, I think the jury’s still out on whether corking a bat is particularly useful, so it’s still an amazing season.
You’re right about Brett, though. I was confused because he only played in 117 games, but he still qualified for (and won) the batting title.
From a Hardball Times article:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/361-in-61/
“Pop the Cork
An incidental aspect of Cash’s career that often comes up in discussion of him is the corked bat issue. One often hears references to the effect of, “He hit so well in 1961 because he used a corked bat that year.” Cash did, in fact, admit to using a corked bat; I recall a Sporting News article in the mid-1970s which included photographs of Cash demonstrating precisely how he manufactured corked bats, in his home woodshop. But here’s the thing about that:
– First of all, Cash admitted to using corked bats, not just in 1961, but throughout his career.”
So not only is corking of somewhat dubious effectiveness, Cash admitted to corking throughout his career, not simply in 1961. 1961 remains one of those all-time great fluke years, and one of the greatest offensive seasons in AL history.
Thanks. Interesting line from the author about Cash and his corked bat and why he continued to use it his entire career:
“Indeed, if Cash had used a corked bat in 1961, and then never done so again, he could fairly be considered just about the stupidest baseball player of all time. One might question Cash’s ethics, but there is no evidence he was anything close to stupid.”
So if anyone took steroids and had success with them the first year, they would be “just about the stupidest baseball player of all time” also if they quit, right?
A couple of things with regard to “Stormin Norman” Cash as either Ernie Harwell or George Kell referred to him at the time. 1961 was a great offensive year in the AL as they expanded to 10 teams from 8 (the NL would expand the following year), and 18-20 AAA pitchers were added to the equation. Of course Maris and Mantle chased the Babe and The Yankees hit 240 hr, but Jim Gentile of the O’s also had a career year.
The second thing is that Norm was a drinker and its possible that prevented him from reached his full career potential though that is sheer speculation on my part. I have many fond memories if his blasts to RF in Tiger Stadium (and occasionally out of tiger stadium (3 times?).
Excellent point re: expansion dilution, Bill. I’m sure that was a factor. 1961 was a crazy year. Maris hit 61, Mantle had an even better year statistically, Gentile blasted 46, knocked in 141 and had a 187 OPS+.
Still, Cash wasn’t the only guy facing expansion pitching, and he was over 100% better than the league. He was on some kind of tear that season, no doubt about it.