Mount Rushmore and Tenured Teammates

72 Replies

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.

0 0 votes

Article Rating

72 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

StrikeOne

11 years ago

Does Jeter, Rivera, Posada, and Williams not make 12 years exceeding the Yankees quartet shown?

Author

Doug

11 years ago

Reply to StrikeOne

Bang on, StrikeOne. I’ll update the list.

Thanks.

Hartvig

11 years ago

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

Voomo Zanzibar

11 years ago

Joe Judge.
Excellent player with a 20 year career whom I had never heard of.

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

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… Read more »

MikeD

11 years ago

Reply to bstar

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… Read more »

Richard Chester

11 years ago

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.

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to Richard Chester

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.

Richard Chester

11 years ago

Reply to bstar

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

Author

Doug

11 years ago

Reply to Richard Chester

Thanks, Richard.

I’ll correct.

Author

Doug

11 years ago

Reply to Richard Chester

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… Read more »

e pluribus munu

11 years ago

Reply to Doug

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.”

Author

Doug

11 years ago

Reply to e pluribus munu

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.

e pluribus munu

11 years ago

Reply to Doug

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… Read more »

Richard Chester

11 years ago

Babe Adams and Max Carey were together for 16 years as Adams missed the 1917 season.

Author

Doug

11 years ago

Reply to Richard Chester

Thanks, Richard. I’ll update.

Richard Chester

11 years ago

Jim Palmer and Mark Belanger were together for 16 years, 1965-67 and 1969-81.

Author

Doug

11 years ago

Reply to Richard Chester

Got it. Thanks, Richard.

Richard Chester

11 years ago

The Waners were together on the Pirates for 14 years.

Richard Chester

11 years ago

For 4 Yankees teammates there were Jeter, Rivera, Posada and Pettite for 13 years, 1995-2003 and 2007-2010.

Author

Doug

11 years ago

Reply to Richard Chester

Good stuff, Richard. Thanks.

Editor

John Autin

11 years ago

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… Read more »

Author

Doug

11 years ago

Reply to John Autin

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.

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to Doug

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?

Author

Doug

11 years ago

Reply to bstar

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.

e pluribus munu

11 years ago

Reply to Doug

Many thanks for the effort – *great* post, and fun that there’s some work left to do.

Editor

John Autin

11 years ago

Reply to Doug

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.

Richard Chester

11 years ago

For the White Sox there’s Ted Lyons and Luke Appling, 14 years from 1930-1942 and 1946. Three years lost to WWII.

Jason Z

11 years ago

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?

no statistician but

11 years ago

Reply to Jason Z

Bill James says they are by far the longest running group. See p. 555 of the NBJHBA.

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

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.

Jason Z

11 years ago

Reply to bstar

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.

JDV

11 years ago

Reply to bstar

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?

Richard Chester

11 years ago

Reply to JDV

See my post 39 somewhere below.

Author

Doug

11 years ago

Reply to JDV

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.

Gary Bateman

11 years ago

Reply to bstar

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.

Richard Chester

11 years ago

Reply to Jason Z

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.

Author

Doug

11 years ago

Reply to Jason Z

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.

Daniel Longmire

11 years ago

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?

no statistician but

11 years ago

Reply to Daniel Longmire

That Reds group will be hard to beat. The Yankees had five HOFers for eight years, 1930-1937: Gehrig, Lazzeri, Dickey, Gomez, and Ruffing.

MikeD

11 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

…which gets me to wondering. What’s the record for most HOFers on one team at any given time?

11 years ago

Reply to MikeD

According to this article, the 30-33 Yankees had 8:

http://research.sabr.org/journals/hall-of-fame-teams-a-study-in-paradox

Author

Doug

11 years ago

Reply to Ed

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.

Richard Chester

11 years ago

Reply to MikeD

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.

no statistician but

11 years ago

Reply to Richard Chester

If it was 1928 the Yankee manager must have been Miller Huggins, also a HOFer. McCarthy managed the Cubs that year.

Richard Chester

11 years ago

Reply to Richard Chester

My slip, it was Huggins.

Doug

11 years ago

Reply to Daniel Longmire

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.

Daniel Longmire

11 years ago

Reply to Doug

Ah, that clears it up.Thanks, Doug!

Richard Chester

11 years ago

Doing a quick check the Indians had 9 teammates for 8 years(1949-1956): Hegan, Mitchell, Doby, Rosen, Avila, Feller, Lemon, Wynn and Garcia.

no statistician but

11 years ago

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.

Richard Chester

11 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

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.

no statistician but

11 years ago

Reply to Richard Chester

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… Read more »

e pluribus munu

11 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

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.… Read more »

no statistician but

11 years ago

Reply to e pluribus munu

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.

Author

Doug

11 years ago

Reply to e pluribus munu

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?

e pluribus munu

11 years ago

Reply to e pluribus munu

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… Read more »

CursedClevelander

11 years ago

Reply to e pluribus munu

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,… Read more »

e pluribus munu

11 years ago

Reply to e pluribus munu

. . . 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.

Editor

John Autin

11 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

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… Read more »

no statistician but

11 years ago

Reply to John Autin

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?

JDV

11 years ago

Reply to Richard Chester

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.

e pluribus munu

11 years ago

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,… Read more »

no statistician but

11 years ago

Reply to e pluribus munu

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.

e pluribus munu

11 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

not semantics nsb: I stand corrected.

CursedClevelander

11 years ago

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… Read more »

Doug

11 years ago

Reply to CursedClevelander

Did Cash admit to using a corked bat? Was that trick being practiced as early as ’61?

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to CursedClevelander

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.

CursedClevelander

11 years ago

Reply to bstar

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.

CursedClevelander

11 years ago

Reply to bstar

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… Read more »

bstar

11 years ago

Reply to CursedClevelander

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?

Bill Johnson

11 years ago

Reply to CursedClevelander

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… Read more »

CursedClevelander

11 years ago

Reply to Bill Johnson

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.