David Ortiz, crushing it / US PRESSWIRE
We’re down to just two teams from the Junior Circuit–the Yankees and the Red Sox. These should both be pretty interesting.
The Red Sox playoff history is pretty well known. When they started off as the Boston Americans, they were strong out of the gate, finishing no lower than 3rd each of their first 4 years (1901-1904) and winning the World Series in 1903. After a run as a middling team from 1905 to 1911 (during which they changed their name to the Red Sox), they embarked on a great run from 1912 to 1918, where they appeared in and won 4 World Series.
After that, the team has had some major ups and downs. They had 6 straight last-place finishes from 1925 to 1930. They were quite respectable from the late 1930 through the 1950s, but made just one post-season appearance, losing the World Series in 1946. After being dismal for most of the 1960s, they made the World Series again in 1967, only to lose again. They were great throughout the 1970s but lost another Series in 1975.
Starting in 1986, the team has had a strong run continuing to present day. In the 26 completed season since then, they have finished lower than 3rd only 5 times. However, they also reeled off 7 more post-season exits until finally winning the World Series in 2004. They followed that up with another win in 2007, as well as 3 more playoff losses.
Anyway…let’s dig in.
Here are the top Red Sox batters in terms of career WAR:
| Rk | Player | WAR/pos | From | To |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ted Williams | 119.8 | 1939 | 1960 |
| 2 | Carl Yastrzemski | 90.1 | 1961 | 1983 |
| 3 | Wade Boggs | 70.3 | 1982 | 1992 |
| 4 | Dwight Evans | 62.3 | 1972 | 1990 |
| 5 | Tris Speaker | 53.1 | 1907 | 1915 |
| 6 | Bobby Doerr | 47.4 | 1937 | 1951 |
| 7 | Jim Rice | 44.3 | 1974 | 1989 |
| 8 | Nomar Garciaparra | 40.2 | 1996 | 2004 |
| 9 | Carlton Fisk | 37.2 | 1969 | 1980 |
| 10 | Harry Hooper | 36.4 | 1909 | 1920 |
| 11 | Rico Petrocelli | 35.7 | 1963 | 1976 |
| 12 | David Ortiz | 34.9 | 2003 | 2012 |
| 13 | Jimmie Foxx | 33.2 | 1936 | 1942 |
| 14 | Reggie Smith | 31.8 | 1966 | 1973 |
| 15 | Manny Ramirez | 31.0 | 2001 | 2008 |
Oh, boy. This is not going to be easy. David Ortiz, arguably one of the most important players the team’s ever had, is only 12th. We’ve got HOFers as low as 9th, 10th, and 13th. We’ve got 2 guys at the copy in Williams and Yaz who were lifelong Red Sox and are inner-circle HOFers. Where does this leave fantastic players like Boggs, Evans, and Speaker?
I really have no idea how decisions like this can be made. Forget it. Let’s look at pitchers.
| Rk | Player | WAR | From | To |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Roger Clemens | 77.7 | 1984 | 1996 |
| 2 | Cy Young | 63.2 | 1901 | 1908 |
| 3 | Pedro Martinez | 51.9 | 1998 | 2004 |
| 4 | Lefty Grove | 42.5 | 1934 | 1941 |
| 5 | Luis Tiant | 34.1 | 1971 | 1978 |
| 6 | Tim Wakefield | 28.7 | 1995 | 2011 |
| 7 | Smoky Joe Wood | 28.3 | 1908 | 1915 |
| 8 | Ellis Kinder | 25.9 | 1948 | 1955 |
| 9 | Dutch Leonard | 25.7 | 1913 | 1918 |
| 10 | Mel Parnell | 25.5 | 1947 | 1956 |
| 11 | Tex Hughson | 23.1 | 1941 | 1949 |
| 12 | Jon Lester | 22.9 | 2006 | 2012 |
| 13 | Josh Beckett | 21.8 | 2006 | 2012 |
| 14 | Ray Collins | 21.7 | 1909 | 1915 |
| 15 | Bob Stanley | 21.6 | 1977 | 1989 |
Oh…Clemens, Cy Young, Pedro, and Lefty Grove? Is that all?
Seriously, I really don’t even know what to say. They have so many good players. And Curt Schilling isn’t even on here–all that guy did was win a game in every single playoff series the Red Sox played in 2004 and 2007.
When thinking of Red Sox managers, it’s hard not to think of Terry Francona. He took a team that hadn’t won a title in 86 years and delivered 2 in a 4-year span. The only other Red Sox manager to win two World Series was Bill Carrigan.
Anyway…good luck with this one, folks. For the first time, I’ve included all 15 guys from one of the lists–in this case, I put all 15 of the batters. The only ones I even considered leaving off were Harry Hooper and Reggie Smith, but thought better of it.
Please choose 4:
Started with Yaz and Williams. As Red Sox lifers, I think they have to be on there. Next, I decided to balance things out a bit with two pitchers. Added Cy Young next since I’m pretty sure he wasn’t on the Indians list and he really should be on some team’s Rushmore. I decided to skip Clemens, not because of anything steroid related but because I think there’s still a lot of hatred in Boston toward him based on how he left the team. Not sure Red Sox fans would want him up there. I then looked at Martinez and Grove and went with Martinez since his dominant years were with the Red Sox whereas Grove’s were (arguably) with the A’s.
That’s my four as well, and for many of the same reasons. When you get this many outstanding players, you have to then look for people who were also icons and Boston heroes. The four you took are in both categories.
I’d actually cheat a little and make a hitters Rushmore and then a pitchers’ Rushmore. (I’m sure there are other commenters taking this approach as well, so I’m going to list mine before reading down.) The trouble with that is, once you get past the two locks on either mountain, the other two spots become much more debatable. Just for the hitters: the under-appreciated and under-rated Dewey Evans could get spot three, and fourth could probably be Jim Rice, newly-minted Hall of Famer, who often felt like a slugger without honor in his own city. Oh, unless you want Nomah and Fisk. Or Big Papi and Wade Boggs. Hmph.
Same with the pitchers. Pedro and Cy Young seem like constants, but if you add two, do you take Clemens and make everyone in Boston hate your mountain? Go old-school with Grove? Add on Wakefield and El Tiante?
This is impossible.
I’m thinking Williams/Yaz/Clemens/Pedro, but I’m going to have to think on this some more. Sheesh.
Adam,
I originally agreed on both counts, that “this is impossible”, and the player selection.
Then I got to thinking that I need to honor the great pre-1920 teams that won five WS, so I was going to take Clemens off, and replace him with… Young? Speaker? My first thought was, replace a pitcher w/a pitcher, so Cy Young. But then I thought more about Speaker.
Speaker probably still is the best all-around player in Red Sox history, with great hitting, defense, and baserunning. He has more WAR over seven full years than HOFer Bobby Doerr over his entire 14-year career. He was one of the two best AL deadball-era players, so I went with Speaker.
Again, this is a team that cries out for multiple Mt. Rushmores – maybe as many as five different eras?
If the Red Sox are impossible, what will that make the Yankees??? I don’t even want to think about that one!
I actually think the Yankees will be much more straightforward—Ruth, Gehrig, Dimaggio, and then Mantle, Berra, Ford, or someone else in the 4th spot.
Maybe. But there’s also Jeter and Rivera. Plus numerous other options.
Am I crazy for thinking Mantle over DiMaggio? Guess it all depends how much WWII credit you give.
I think I’m going to agree with Andy on this point. Yankees have large contingent of great players, but some separate themselves. Yankees are going to be Ruth, Gehrig, Dimaggio, and the dogfight for the 4th spot. As much as I admire both Jeter and Rivera, neither is at the level of Mantle. FYI, from 1950-1956, playing on a loaded team that won six WS, Berra had three MVP, two 2nds, a 3rd and a 4th.
Am I alone in thinking that Mick is more of a lock than DiMaggio? I think Joe is the 4th, so its moot to me, but just feels that way.
I’d rate the Yankees all-time greats as follows:
1) Ruth is clearly #1
2) Gehrig and Mantle battle it out for #2; I’ll take Mantle for a better peak.
3) The other one from #2
4) DiMaggio
5) Yogi
6) Jeter
Somehow it doesn’t seem right that there’s no one in the Top-5 from their great run of 1996 – present. Also, it’s somewhat subjective, so DiMaggio is probably going to be ahead of everyone except Ruth.
Oh, for goodness sakes. It is the Red Sox Rushmore and you guys are arguing about the Yankees! No wonder Boston hates NY so much!!
I don’t worry about finding balance between eras or hitters vs. pitchers. I err on the side of contribution over a player’s entire career. Some great players on the list that were only with the team for 5-10 years (Young, Grove, Martinez, Speaker). I went with four lifers or near lifers: Williams, Yaz, Evans and Boggs.
I’m a Tiger fan though; I can understand Red Sox fans voting for guys that contributed to breaking the curse and winning a couple of WS.
I don’t know the definition of “lifer”, but I am not sure how Red Sox fans would feel about the image of Wade Boggs on top of the NYC Police Horse riding around Yankee Stadium to celebrate the 1996 World Series etched into their Mount Rushmore. 🙂
As a Red Sox fan, it is my opinion that Manny Ramirez was far more important to the two most recent championships than Ortiz. If Duquette doesn’t sign him in 2000 (one move we should thank him for)…Schilling never agrees to come to Boston, Ortiz likely doesn’t become the hitter he became, and the foundation of a culture of winning is never built.
That being said, this is still hard. Ted Williams is a no-brainer. Yaz is too. Then it gets tricky. I tend to give credit for being part of champions, so Pedro gets the next spot. Clemens would be the last in. Despite his troubles, he was the best pitcher in Sox history.
One player missing who has a claim is Babe Ruth. For the mini-dynasty of he late 1910’s, arguably no one was more valuable to the team.
It’s true that Babe Ruth has a claim to being on the ballot, but I just couldn’t imagine anyone voting for him for this, given how clearly identified he is with another franchise.
I happen to be someone who thinks the Sox should retire the No. 3 for Ruth, despite the fact that he never wore it in Boston, because he was the greatest player to have ever played for the team (but not necessarily the best Red Sox player ever, obviously) and I think retired numbers should recognize team history, and though he was not on the team long, he had a profound impact both during and after his tenure.
It looks like with the Sox, Babe had roughly 20 WAR as a batter and 20 WAR as a pitcher. If I’m seeing that correctly that 40ish puts him in Nomar / Lefty Grove territory.
One note of similarity scores on the Babe:
At age 24 his comp (pitching)is Smokey Joe Wood
At age 26 his comp (batting) is Ted Williams
@6
Andy, i think you underestimate how many smart-ass Yankee fans read your blog and would be delighted to vote for George Herman. And besides, it would not be a joke. He helped them to three titles, and in 1916 had arguably the greatest one-game pitching performance in WS history.
Williams, Yaz, Dewey, Cy
I have a soft spot for Johnny Pesky and Joe Cronin for some reason but don’t know if they belong.
Not sure about Cronin, but I don’t see any problem with voting for the guy for which the “Pesky Pole” is named.
Speaking of Fenway Park, I think this is a scenario where the Ballpark could actually be up for nomination for a team’s Rushmore. Maybe even the Green Monster itself.
Interesting idea to put Fenway as one of the four. But in that case, I’d say that Pesky will have to settle for a pole, and no shame in it.
This one’s HARD! No matter what I do, I’m leaving off somebody I don’t want to leave off. I ended up going with Pedro, Clemens, Teddy Ballgame, & Yaz. Anyone who leaves off Ted & Yaz, don’t know a thing about the Red Sox history. I was torn for the rest… but I chose Clemens ’cause he was basically the Red Sox during most of my youth. I thought Pedro deserved the last spot ’cause he really helped the team “end the curse”. I remember this old interview where he denied the curse’s existence with conviction. Yeah, an attitude like that can help a ballclub feel like the universe isn’t against them. That goes a long way towards winning it all.
How can any Mount Rushmore of the Boston Red Sox not include their only All Star selection from 1993 and 1994, Scott Cooper?
In the inexplicable absence of the Cooper Scooper from the ballot, I went Ted, Yaz, Clemens and Papi. Even with my recent player bias this was a toughie…
Williams and Yaz automatic, of course, then it gets tough–so many HOFers who split their careers. So I stuck with 10+ years as the minimum: Clemens next, and then, because of game 6, slight edge to Fisk over Rice.
Before I vote I have to go back and figure out if I voted for Foxx & Grove for the A’s and Speaker for the Indians- if I didn’t, then this absurdly difficult task will have become simply impossible. And we haven’t even begun to talk about characters like Bill “Spaceman” Lee or Dick “Dr. Strangeglove” Stuart or one of the most human of all owners, Tom Yawkey or one of the most despised, Harry Frazee.
At this moment my gut is telling me Young-Williams-Yaz-Clemens. We’ll see how/if that holds up.
If you don’t mind, could you please clarify your “most human of all owners” comment about Yawkey, considering his intolerance of black players and legacy as the owner of the last team in MLB to integrate? Yes, he bought a floundering team and rebuilt the ballpark, but he was not the messiah that some make him out to be (and I believed until I learned more).
As far as I’m aware most of the credit for Boston’s late arrival to integration lies with Joe Cronin plus Lou Boudreau and particularly Pinky Higgins. Yawkey of course hired them so was in that sense responsible but I’ve never seen any information that he was more of a racist than your typical white American was at that time. If you can point me to information that shows otherwise then your point stands.
“More racist than your typical white American” isn’t really an excuse. He still fostered a racist atmosphere for quite sometime. Did he arguably save the franchise after the sale of Ruth and the fire at Fenway? Yes. But to call him “the most human of all owners” seems to be a stretch.
Seriously. Next somebody is going to say that a particular rapist did it gently.
Well, if he was like everyone else then calling him “the most human,” is kind of right-on, isn’t it? 😉 It’s not like he said “most humane.”
I take “most human” as a somewhat florid way to say that Yawkey was both virtuous and flawed; neither a saint nor a demon. One hears stories of his being very kindly and generous. His family’s southern holdings in South Carolina eventually were willed to the state as a national park, and he was a staunch supporter of the Jimmy Fund. Finally he was well-known and well-loved in Boston for sparing no expense to build a winning ball club – but of course, not if it meant employing black players.
Most of what I know about the topic comes from anecdotes about Yawkey in books written about other things, so they don’t go into details. But a good spot to read up is this old Hardball Times Q & A with Howard Bryant, who wrote a book specifically about race and baseball in Boston called “Shut Out.”
I’d never heard of the book before this article, so now of course I want to read it. As for Yawkey, perhaps he can be well-summed up by noting that he was one of the few people who was a lifelong friend of Ty Cobb’s, and he liked to take him on hunting and fishing expeditions down in that future national park he owned at the time.
First of all you left out the “one of the” part of the quote which is a little different context.
Second other than the fact that they were the last to integrate- which was something that someone was going to be- and that he had one kind of well known and a couple of possible racists working for him I have still seen no evidence that any of this was done at his behest. It’s one thing to go along with the prevailing attitudes of your times, it’s another entirely to be one of the people manning the barricades. Maybe there is proof or evidence that he was one of the people at the barricades, I’ll have to read more about him and try to find out. To this point the only evidence that I have seen is all circumstantial.
As for his being human: in the context of what we are talking about Branch Rickey is an icon, second only to Jackie Robinson. And while he said of himself that he was more of a businessman smart enough to recognize a vast pool of untapped talent than an emancipator it is also true that he was motivated by a sense of decency and fair play. But at the same time he was never known for being close to his players or to the fans and even had some reputation for being kind of a cold fish. Many people have called him a great man. Do you suppose that many people would describe him as being one of the most human of people that they have know? There are a lot of people that despise Richard Nixon. Many of those same people despise Ronald Reagan. But if I asked you which of those two people was more human would you have a difficult time deciding?
Look I’m not in any way, shape or form trying to defend racism. I grew up in rural North Dakota in the late 50’s and 60’s with parents who were vaguely racist because that was all that they had ever known. I never even met a black person until I was in college in the mid-70’s. But by then because I was lucky enough to come of age at a time when people like Martin Luther King and many others had stood up and shined a light on the evils of racism I had already outgrown most of my racist upbringing.
My father eventually came around somewhat to recognize how wrong it was, my mother was a little more reluctant although eventually she made a little progress. Yet I still loved them both because a) they were my parents and b) it would have been pretty damned hypocritical of me to stand on the shoulders of giants and claim that I am better than them because I can see farther.
Look I never claimed that Yawkey was a paragon of moral virtue and certainly never claimed that he was a god. He was an owner who actually loved baseball and was popular with most of the fans and the press and the players. He also had some serious flaws in his character, perhaps more serious than I realized. But while I don’t know how you would characterize that kind of makeup but I know how I still would.
“b) it would have been pretty damned hypocritical of me to stand on the shoulders of giants and claim that I am better than them because I can see farther.”
Wow, Hartvig, forgive me for not knowing, but is that a line of yours? If so, or if not, damn, that is good stuff…..
oh yeah, Yaz, Williams, Young, Pedro.
@ Nash, not to detract from some great writing by hartvig, but its an old metaphor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants
Many have said the same thing already – longevity counts.
My votes went to Ted, Yaz, Dewey and Clemens.
I picked Dewey over Boggs for two reasons – one, Boggs bawled like a baby in the dugout visible to all cameras after the 1986 World Series, and two, he hopped on the back of a horse to celebrate the 1996 World Series as a YANKEE.
For similar reasons, I considered Wakefield instead of Clemens, but it has to be Clemens
Shouldn’t Boggs get some credit for drinking 64 beers?
I went with Williams and Yaz (of course), then after that it came down to choosing two of four guys: Clemens, Young, Pedro and Boggs. It’s hard to argue against Clemens as the greatest pitcher in Sox history, so he’s the third. Then, I gave Pedro the edge over Young because of his contribution to the 2004 team and his peak brilliance. Boggs probably has the highest team WAR total (70) of any player I didn’t vote for throughout this process, but he was damn close too, obviously.
Since the word “Go!” the Boston Americans/Red Sox have absolutely been crushing it. They one the WS in 1903 (which actually caused John McGraw to not let his team participate in the 1904 WS), and a third of the first 15 post season series that included the AL. They haven’t looked back.
There was one prolonged down period (like every team) during the post-Babe Ruth/pre-Ted Williams years. But otherwise they have always been solid.
Red Sox eras:
1) Early 20th century – Babe Ruth, Cy Young, Tris Speaker, Smoky Joe Wood, Dutch Leonard, Larry Gardener, Jimmy Collins, Freddie Parent, Ray Collins
Down Period (1920 thru 1938) – Lefty Grove, Jimmy Foxx, Joe Cronin
2) Teddy Ballgame (1939 thru 1960) – Ted Williams, Bobby Doerr, Johnny Pesky, Dom Dimaggio, Frank Malzone, Billy Goodman, Jackie Jensen, Ellis Kinder, Mel Parnell, Tex Hughson, Frank Sullivan, Pete Runnels
3) Yaz the Superstar (1961 thru 1970) – Carl Yastrzemski, Tony Conigliaro, Rico Petrocelli, Jim Lonborg, George Scott, Reggie Smith, Bill Monboquette
4) Yaz the not-so-Superstar (1971 thru 1983) – Carlton Fisk, Jim Rice, Fred Lynn, Luis Tiant, Dwight Evans, Bill Lee, Rick Burleson, Dennis Eckersly, Mike Torrez, Jerry Remy, Bob Stanley, Butch Hobson, Dick Drago, Tom Burgmeir, Sam Malone, Bill Campbell, Mark Clear, Don Zimmer
5) Rocket (1984 thru 1996) – Roger Clemens, Wade Boggs, Mo Vaughn, Mike Greenwell, Ellis Burks, Rich Gedman, Bill Buckner, Marty Barrett, John Valentin, Bruce Hurst, Oil Can Boyd, Al Nipper, Luis Rivera, Troy O’leary, Dennis Lamp, Jeff Reardon
6) Break-through (1997 thu present) – Varitek, Millar, Youkilis, Dustin Pedroia, Bill Mueller, Mike Lowell, Nomar Garciaparra, Manny Ramirez, Johnny Damon, Coco Crisp, Trot Nixon, J.D. Drew, David Ortiz, Tim Wakefield, Pedro Martinez, Derek Lowe, Bronson Arroyo, Curt Schilling, Daisuke Matsuzaka, John Lester, Clay Buchholz, Josh Beckett, Jonathan Papelbon, Keith Foulke, Julian Tavarez, Mike Timlin, Alan Embree, Hideki Okajima, Daniel Bard, Terry Francona
That is a lot of guys.
Uh-oh I have a big problem here…
I HAVE to include Williams
I Have to include Yaz
I have to include Clemens
I want to include a 19th century rep (Young)
I need to include a 2000’s WS rep (Francona or Ortiz or Manny)
That is 5 guys. OK I will drop Clemens for various reasons. so that leaves…
Mount Rushmore – Williams, Yaz, Cy Young, and Terry Francona.
“I want to include a 19th century rep (Young)”
That would be extra difficult since the Boston Americans/Red Sox did not play in the 19th century. I meant early 20th century.
1) You mean “deadball era” instead of “19th century”, right? The Boston Red Sox never existed in the 19th century.
2) If you’re going to include pitchers the likes of Burgmuir, Drago, Nipper, Lamp and even a guy that doesn’t really exist (Sam Malone), HOW oh HOW can you leave out from Era #3 (1961-1970) “The Monster”, Dick Radatz?
Otherwise, a very good summation of the most significant players in the history of the Boston Red Sox.
I intended to add Radatz, it was a mistake, you are correct it is not complete without him. Thanks.
Five MOUNT RUSHMORES for the Red Sox –
No one asked for it, here it is anyway (see my #18):
1) Pre-1920 (1901-19) –
-Tris Speaker
-Cy Young
-Smokey Joe Wood
-Jimmy Collins (over Hooper, because he was a player and manager)
2) Between the Wars (1920-1941) –
-Joe Cronin
-Lefty Grove
-Jimmy Foxx
-Bobby Doerr (could also go under #3)
3) Pre-divisional play (1942-68) –
-Ted Williams
-Yaz (could go under #4, but his signature year was 1967)
-Johnny Pesky (more of a “Lifetime Achievement” emeritus award, though he was outstanding with the RS)
-Mel Parnell
4) Pre-wild card (1968-94) –
-Carlton Fisk
-Dewey Evans
-Wade Boggs
-Roger Clemens
5) Wild-card to present (1995-present) –
-Terry Francona
-Nomah!!
-Pedro Martinez
-Manny Ramirez or David Ortiz (OK, I’m cheating…)
If the Red Sox need five, the Yankees are going to need (at least) six – one just for the managers…
Does this mean that you voted 5 separate times???
See #18 (under #2) – no, I voted just once (Speaker/ Williams/ Yaz/ Pedro).
In #26 above, I am just expressing my frustration with the extreme over-abundance of good choices,and am listing more RS players who deserve recognition.
Or, looked at another way, the Yankees will be the easiest of all in choosing only one.
Hey guys,I am an avid Yankee fan but I think that all discussions about them should be reserved for their own Mt. Rushmore blog. After all we took Babe Ruth from the Sox, let’s at least let them have their own blog.
I agree with Richard-I should have waited. Let the Sox fans have their moment in the sun.
Yeah, I think I jumped the gun by mentioning the Yankees back in #20. But Richard is 100% correct. More Red Sox talk please!!!
No Babe Ruth on your deadball era Mt. Rushmore?
Ruth’s Red Sox career was short, at just over five years; Foxx at 6+ years is about the shortest career length I’ll accept. Plus, I am leaving Ruth for the Yankees.
Ruth did come in 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, and 2nd in WAR in the AL his last 4 yrs with the Sox, enough to get him a placement for sure.
I suppose according to pure dominance Ruth would rank over Wood and Collins, but I wanted to acknowledge:
-Jimmy Collins’ 6+ years as player-manager and premier defensive third baseman, helping to establish Boston as an outstanding AL franchise.
-Joe Woods’ amazing 1912 season
Easy. Williams, Yaz, Clemens and Boggs.
I went with Williams, Yaz, Clemens (hated to do it but 3 CYs, a 2nd place finish (probably should have had the 1 in ’90 too), a 3rd, an MVP, another 3rd place MVP finish (in ’90)), and a personal favorite, Dewey (19 yrs with the Sox, and a near HOFer, if not one in my opinion). I’m a Sox fan…
Before we get to the Yankees, I’m going to raise an issue that bothers me a little. We can call it the Cy Young issue, or the “what have you done for me lately” issue, or the “lack of historical perspective” issue, but what it amounts to is that far too many voters in these polls, it seems to me, vote on the basis of what they’ve seen or known in their lifetimes and nothing else except when an elephant like Ted Williams is present in the room, that is, one so huge that even they can’t ignore him.
If the people behind the real Mt. Rushmore had behaved similarly, it’s quite possible that the monument would at the least include the face of Woodrow Wilson, not Thomas Jefferson, and if the project were only starting today, there would be voters who would insist on all Republicans from the last sixty years. Those earlier guys didn’t have the right pWAR, you see, and that’s all that matters. Washington and Jefferson were slaveowners, Lincoln’s career was too short, and TR was a blatant progressive who hamstrung the freedom of the marketplace with anti-trust legislation. Besides, who can say how really hard it was to start a republic, or win a civil war, or make a place for the country in the world back then when the competition was so much easier than it is today.
Cy Young has an award named after him for excellence in pitching. He also is polling behind Clemens and Martinez even though his WAR per year average with the team is higher than either of them, much higher than Clemens, whose career, post-Red Sox, is open to question on ethical grounds, whereas Young’s career prior to joining the team is one of unstained excellence. Oh, but I forgot—he never won a single Cy Young award and Clemens won seven. I’m sorry I raised the point.
Forgot to include this for #54:
Irony and sarcasm alert. Be warned.
I don’t think it’s because people here are forgetting Cy Young (after all, he’s gotten 43 votes so far). Let me try to explain:
Ted Williams and Yaz are the two obvious picks, then a lot of people are trying to first pick a pitcher, then someone from a different era than Yaz and Ted. Young, Clemens, and Pedro are the three leading candidates for “greatest Red Sox pitcher ever”.
However (despite what you may think), Cy Young is not clearly the best pitcher by a wide margin. All three were quite dominant, but also pitched at least half their careers for other teams, making them harder to compare to each other.
Now I think that Pedro was the best because of his peak, but he didn’t have the Red Sox career the other two had. So I do not see how it is so totally _clear-cut_ that Cy Young should be choosen, over both Pedro and Clemens. Plus, he did pitch over a hundred years before Pedro, making direct comparisons of his stats almost impossible.
Also, many people were looking for a 4th player more recent than Yaz. Combining these various factors splitting up the vote, I see why Cy Young has not gotten the support you believe he should get.
I think you miss my point, and it’s only about the poor support for Young as an instance. Throughout these ballots for the older teams there has been a plethora of posts by enthusiasts for more recent players, players “I saw,” favorite players. Fine. Grover Cleveland, the guy Pete Alexander was named after, was a huge favorite among presidential aficionados at the time Mt. Rushmore was conceived. Since Cal Coolidge, president at the time, insisted on Washington, one Democrat, and two Republicans for the carving, a popular vote might have immortalized Cleveland’s pudgy countenance in place of Jefferson’s handsome features.
A last point: looking for a player earlier than the Splinter is worse than looking for a player more recent than Yaz? You may have picked Speaker, I don’t know, but hardly anyone else has.
snb- I get your point and I’m largely in agreement. I do think that while there needs be be some consideration for discounting performance prior to or because of historical markers- 60’6″, the live-ball era, minor leagues, breaking the color barrier, expansion, steroids- I also think that we need to be careful not to over compensate also. Just as there is little argument the Honus Wagner belonging on the Mount Rushmore of the Pittsburgh Pirates I think there should be little argument that Cy Young also belongs on someones Mount Rushmore as well. But unlike some of the players that split their time fairly evenly between 2 teams- like Young, Speaker, Foxx and Grove have done in the case of the Red Sox- Young has nowhere else to go but here.
Sadly, I have put myself into a real bind by arguing on the Athletics Mount Rushmore that Foxx and Grove were better fits in Boston. Thankfully I did include Speaker with Cleveland.
Still, that leaves me from having to choose 4 from Young, Foxx, Grove, Williams, Yaz, Fisk, Boggs, Clemens and Martinez which I am finding just impossible to do.
It’s possible I may end up voting for Young, Grove, Williams and Yaz just because of the modern player bias that you alluded to even though I don’t know how much of an effect that bias has had so far.
At this point I’m still unsure what I’m going to do except that whatever it is I’m going to vote before I go to bed tonight.
I get your point, if your point is that older (say, pre-WWII) players often don’t get their due from many fans who consider themselves knowledgeable concerning MLB history.
I do not get your point, if your point is that Cy Young is an obvious choice for the Red Sox Mt Rushmore.
I also see a certain logical inconsistency – if you are encouraging people not to diminish the value of older players, why is Young so much a better choice than Speaker, who started with the Red Sox only eight years (as a regular) after Young? They have roughly the same value and time with the Red sox (Young has an extra full year and about 10 more WAR)?
I could easily have chosen a number of players after Yaz and Ted: besides Speaker, Pedro, Roger Clemens and Young already considered, there’s Terry Francona, Jimmy Foxx, Nomar, and Dwight Evans who would’ve made good choices. I am not totally committed to Speaker belonging on this list.
as an aside, I’ve been to Cy Young’s home (boyhood home, I think, can’t tell if it’s still open), driving through Ohio 15 or so years ago I saw a sign for it, bought a little blue booklet about his life too, was quite fun, unexpected, I still pick Clemens over him though
Not being a Red Sox fan, I think I underestimated how much people liked Pedro (in terms of a Red Sox Mount Rushmore). I am surprised he has so many votes. It is NOT a comment about how he shouldn’t get any votes, I just found it interesting how far off I was.
Even if I vote for someone who ends up with a low total (like Francona this time), I can typically guess who would be the guy(s) that would get the most votes from other people. Not this time with Pedro.
With Pedro, it was three things. First, he was lights-out every single time. His peak is one of the most ridiculous things ever. It was a must-see game when he was pitching. Second, he loved the Sox. He gave them his best and probably shortened his career by doing so. Third, he did all that in the aftermath of the fanbase’s acrimonious falling-out with Roger Clemens – the golden arm traded after being out-of-shape and disinterested, possibly over-the-hill, and his responding by having a ridiculous second career that seemed calculated to completely piss off all of Boston, not least of which was his Yankees stint.
(BTW, I’m not saying it was fair of Red Sox Nation to react that way. Clemens was actually better than people thought in his last Boston season, and they were legitimately sad to see him go that off-season. But sympathy swung pretty quickly when he hopped into the Wayback Machine and vintage Rocket suddenly stepped back out over the next several years. His going to the Yanks completed the heel turn and I’m sure a lot of Sox fans just have never forgiven him for it.)
Someone jumped the gun on me by considering Fenway for a spot on the Rushmore. I had already concluded that Wrigley Field would be on the Cubs Rushmore. But I like the idea of The Monster for Fenway and the enire park for Wrigley.
Baseball sells nostalgia like Apples sells i-whatevers and is excellent at it. If you think of other old-time sports like horse racing and boxing, they are unable to compete with baseball in the 21st century for various reasons, but a major one is that they are unable to sell nostalgia as intelligently and efficiently. A lot of this has to do with venue.
All the notable new parks, since the fiasco of the 1970s all-purpose stadia, mirror either Fenway (a cathedral: closed, contained, quirky, like Reims) or Wrigley (a national park: open, expansive, admitting the elements, like Yellowstone or Yosemite) in important ways. Fenway and Wrigley are naturally what the new wannabe parks, through their expensive architectural firms, strive so hard to be.
Both parks define their franchises more than any single player, even Williams or Banks. And both in a way have become symbolic of modern corporate baseball, where your entire “experience” in the ballpark is marketed. I used to love going to Wrigley; now not so much. I went to Fenway in the 1970s and most recently this spring. I don’t know. I think I’d put The Monster and Wrigley on their respective Rushmores and then blow both of them up. And have Frank Gehry or Rem Koolhaus or Herzog and De Meuron design new ballparks in both cities.
What does this have to do with the Red Sox? As you can tell, not a whole lot: Williams, Yaz, Pedro (it should be Clemens but, naaah), The Monster.
The more I think about these the less I care about the stats or WAR. It should be a hall of fame with the emphasis on actual fame for the franchise, and I like to spread it out over all the different eras. Whereas I think the real HOF should be about the stats. I also am leaning more and more to guys who spent their entire careers or at least all of their productive years with the team.
The early RoSox won 4 WS is 7 series, much better than the current team that bought 2 in 4 years. The best player from those teams was Speaker, but he was only around for 2 of them for less than half of his career. This leads me to HOFer Harry Hooper (I see I am the only one who voted for him). He was on all 4 WS teams in the most famous outfield before any of us were born; Hooper, Speaker and Lewis (fancy, I just used a semicolon). Cy Young wasn’t on any of these teams and spent only half of his career in the crimson hose.
Williams and Yaz no doubt, Williams in contention for best baseball player ever and Yaz still in people’s minds with the triple crown and a participant in the ’75 series.
Next it comes down to 4 more for me. Boggs/Clemens or Manny/Pedro. Boggs has the best mustache and dietary habits but no WS with the team and spent a few too many years donning other outfits. Clemens and Pedro are a wash, each on the short list of pitcher GOAT status. Both spent some good years elsewhere but Pedro was around for 1 title…but Manny was there for both including a WS MVP. (No thanks Papi, this is baseball not bar league softball, get of the bench between ABs). So Ill let Manny represent the 2 recent championships. I also do not understand how you could chose Francona for this era? He’s nothing special, I think a lot of baseball people could have done what he did with those rosters. Coming back from a 0-3 series deficit, I guess he made great managerial choices calling for David Ortiz to hit some late game HRs when most managers would have had him bunt. If you are dropping the manager threshold that low then any mutli-WS winning manager should be on the mountain for every team.
Topper, not to get all pedantic on you but you used a semi-colon poorly; a colon would have been more appropriate there :-).
I liked the rest of your points, especially about Papi (if not the rest of your punctuation: why the question mark after the statement about Francona?) 🙂 :-). At least you didn’t use any exclamation marks! 🙂 🙂 🙂
topperOO9:
Perhaps unintentionally you suggest that Cy Young was never in the WS. In fact, he was in the first real one ever played (to me, the 19th Century post-season series don’t qualify. Only revisionist history considers them). In the 1903 best of 9, he had a 2-1 record and a 1.85 ERA. Bill Dinneen’s 3-1 record outshone him, but together they put the powerful Pirates of Wagner, Clarke, and Leach to bed in eight games.
I meant more of the dynasty version of the team from 1912-1918. 1903 was a good start but pretty isolated.
I am not saying that anyone else must vote for Francona, but the Sox had a lot of great rosters between 1919 and 2003, but none of those teams won a WS.
You spend the first few sentences of your post explaining how stats are not as important as overall “Fame” for these Mount Rushmores. I think that can extend to the managers also. I didn’t choose Francona because of his tactical moves, it was the fact that he is the only Red Sox WS winning manager for the last 80+ years. He is pretty famous for that.
Speaker, Williams, Yaz, Fisk/Rice/? or if that doesn’t work for you, how about: DiMaggio, Zarilla, Malzone, Conigliaro (just kidding)
Ted Williams, Yaz, Cy Young, and Dick Williams. Dick Williams really turned the franchise around after several years of mediocrity. The Sox were probably headed for multi-purpose stadium Hell until the rest of the world discovered Fenway in 1967.
It’s helpful that we’ve reached the Red Sox Rushmore late in the game, since the totals on the Athletics and Indians voting makes it clear that Grove, Speaker, and Foxx all have an HHS mountain home already.
Williams (not Dick) and Yaz seem clear to everyone.
I personally think Cy Young is not a difficult choice – he won nearly 200 games (192-112) in the team’s first eight seasons, with an ERA+ of 147. Then there’s the Clemens: his record is eerily similar to Young’s (192-111/ERA+ 144) – they could be twins. Of course, Clemens took 13 years to get there. Still, Clemens has far, far more wins than Pedro’s 117 (and only The Rocket has been found innocent by a jury of his peers!). So Clemens has got to be the fourth.
But then Pedro has a .760 W-L Pct. and an ERA+ of . . . 190? . . . that’s got to be a misprint, right? Clemens has 50% more BoSox WAR than Pedro – but in over 100% more innings.
On balance, though, I think Clemens should be the fourth head. I voted for Pedro.
Late to party.
Voted THEN read all your resoning.
Williams / Yaz and then…no clear answer
There are different tracts based on gracimg the uniform or nostalgia
Don Draper says that “nostalgia” means “pain from an old wound,”
Gracing: Williams / Yaz / Pedro / Manny…. HM = Foxx, Speaker
nostalgia: Williams / Yaz / Tiant / Petrocelli… HM = Dewey, Wakefield
Final Williams / Yaz / Manny / Petrocelli
Williams and Yaz, Clemens and Young. I did make it easier on myself because I had Grove in Philly and Speaker in Cleveland. I could probably be talked into Pedro over either pitcher I chose.