74 thoughts on “The Mount Rushmore of the Chicago Cubs”

1. Baltimorechop November 11, 2014 at 8:12 pm

   I should’ve voted for chance. What a mistake.

   Reply ↓
2. Phil November 11, 2014 at 9:15 pm

   Banks, Fergie, Santo, Williams. I know Sandberg will make it, but I’m a ’70s guy.

   Reply ↓
3. Steven November 11, 2014 at 9:55 pm

   Santo, Banks and Williams-who finally played on some good teams in the mid-to-late stages of their careers-and Frank Chance, the only manager (and first-baseman) of a Cubs’ World Championship team.

   Reply ↓
4. John November 11, 2014 at 10:20 pm

   Ernie is a gimme. No doubt the greatest Cub of all time. Fergie was my second choise. Williams was tough to leave off, but I wanted more than 1 era represented. Cap Anson was probably the greatest 19th century player/manager. Ryno was always my favorite player & it was tough leaving him off, too. Santo was the last player cut, in favor of The Peerless Leader. I considered Jack Brickhouse & Harry Carey – they are commemorated on the Foul Poles at The Friendly Confines. In the end, my foud choices are Cap Anson, Frank Chance, Ernie Banks, and Fergie Jenkins. That’s today. Check with me tomorrow, and it’s sure to be Ernie Banks and three others.

   Reply ↓
5. Hartvig November 11, 2014 at 10:25 pm

   I’m going strictly timeline this time around.

   #1 Frank Chance- The Peerless Leader The only other thought was a mini-3-headed figure of Tinker, Evers & Chance

   Anson is out for me. The guy who is probably most responsible for segregating baseball ain’t going up on no Mt. Rushmore of mine.
   Next was probably the hardest call. Alexander didn’t make the Phillies cut and he deserves to be up there somewhere but there are just too many other players with stronger links to the Cubbies. Thought briefly about Stan Hack and longer about Phil Cavarretta but finally decided the answer was “The homer in the gloamin'”

   #2 Gabby Hartnett

   Santo and Williams and Jenkins are all certainly worth but when you play with a guy called Mr. Cub, well…

   #3 Ernie Banks

   #4 Ryne Sandberg

   This also might be the Mt. Rushmore with the 4 most widely recognized and easily identifiable nicknames ever.

   Reply ↓
   1. Hartvig November 11, 2014 at 10:29 pm

      And might I also add that in addition to Gabby, Charles Leo Hartnett also answered to the moniker…

      Old Tomato Face

      Peerless Leader, Old Tomato Face. Mr. Cub and Ryno

      Top that.

      Reply ↓
6. John November 11, 2014 at 10:57 pm

   Wonder who the D’bag was that didn’t vote for Ernie Banks.

   Reply ↓
7. no statistician but November 11, 2014 at 11:21 pm

   I went with Banks—my gut said Santo, but Ernie carried the team on his shoulders from 1954 through 1960, and that ought not to be overridden by the fact that Ron was undervalued literally to death.

   Hartnett—lynchpin on three NL champs, MVP. Retired holding several of the batting records for catcher, including hits, HRs, and RBIs. Also games played.

   Brown—he led the best pitching staff in the majors during the real glory years of the Cubs, out-duelled Mathewson more often than not, and won five WS games, three of them shutouts. Fergie was a great pitcher for longer, but he wasn’t as good as Miner for his time with the Cubs.

   Chance—HOF player/manager. His stats are hurt by the fact that he never played close to a full season—topping out at 136 games. WAR of 45.6 in just 1288 games. He and Brown were the secret weapons of the Cub dynasty that fought it out with Matty’s Giants and Wagner’s Pirates, winning four years out of five.

   A second monument : Santo, Sandburg, Williams, and Jenkins.

   Reply ↓
8. Miranda November 12, 2014 at 12:41 am

   Banks, Santo, Sandberg, and Frank Chance — not just as a member of the famous double-play combo, but because he “is the all-time leader in managerial winning percentage in Cubs history,” according to Wikipedia.

   Reply ↓
9. Doug November 12, 2014 at 1:08 am

   Charlie Root is one of the more under-appreciated pitchers you’ll come across. His 266 NL relief appearances lead all pitchers with 300 NL starts. His major league total of 291 relief appearances ranks 8th among those with 300 ML starts. Not bad for a pitcher with only 60 IP before his age 27 season.

   Root’s 26 wins in 1927 also make him the last Cub to win 25 in a season. Root is also the *only* 200-game winner to have all of those wins come at age 27+. That last factoid is a convenient segue to Mordecai Brown, just behind Root with only 9 of Brown’s 239 wins coming before age 27. Brown is also one of those rare pitchers with 100 more wins than losses.

   Reply ↓
10. Tubbs November 12, 2014 at 7:30 am

    I voted for Anson, Hartnett, Banks, & Sandberg

    If it is close I like to have as many eras represented as possible so Hartnett gets the nod over Williams
    Anson gets a spot despite being a despicable person, he was probably the greatest player of the 19th century. I’m okay with his part of the monument being grafittied

    I’m glad to see the Mt. Rushmore series back and would also like to see the “Does He Belong in the Hall of Fame” polls brought back, especially with the Golden Era Veteran Committee election coming up in December. I’d love to see what the readers here think of Miñoso, Kaat, Boyer, Hodges, Tiant and others HOF candidacies. Also, there a lot of recently retired players such as Abreu, Rolen, and Helton who would make interesting subjects

    Reply ↓
11. Dr. Doom November 12, 2014 at 8:08 am

    I like to have representation across eras, like many of the voters here. That being said, there are other considerations, too. Banks and Sandberg were the obvious ones for me. Then I went with Santo. Had he JUST been a player, I might’ve left him off. But his time announcing for the team and staying a part of the organization for so long puts him over the top. That leaves one spot. I don’t care about 19th century baseball that much, plus who wants Cap Anson honored? So that means I really wanted a pre-1960 Cub, and I also wanted a pitcher. So Three Finger got my last spot.

    Reply ↓
12. Steve November 12, 2014 at 8:32 am

    Ernie, Fergie, Billy Williams, Santo over Cap Anson – sorry no room for Ryno

    Reply ↓

13. Pingback: The Daily CCO: Rumors Dominate the News During Day Two of the GM Meetings - Chicago Cubs Online

14. mosc November 12, 2014 at 9:27 am

    Hartnett is in the conversation for greatest catcher of all time. The rest of these guys are further from the premier players at their positions. Santo’s underrated but he wasn’t Mike Schmitt or even Wade Boggs. I was expecting more love for Hartnett.

    Reply ↓
15. no statistician but November 12, 2014 at 11:16 am

    I’m going to step gingerly into the path where angels fear to tread here.

    When I look at the results after ninety-one voters have expressed their beloved preferences, I see 4 of the top 6 spots being held by members of the hardly-dynastic late-sixties teams, a team that finished a distant third twice before the split to divisional play, and finished second three times—none particularly close—and third once after the change. Is this supposed to be a love feast for the glory that never happened, or an assessment of the franchise as a whole, taking into account the much greater eras in the 19-oughts and the 1930s? Sandburg is the representative of a later era, and I won’t quibble about his prominence after Banks in the voting, but this is as if their were a vote on the real Mount Rushmore and Reagan, Bushes one and two, and a president to be named later were in the lead because they were recent and the voting is being dominated by fans of supply side economics.

    Gabby Hartnet with nine votes?

    Real Cub fans should know and appreciate the whole story of the franchise and vote accordingly, I think.

    Reply ↓
    1. John Autin November 12, 2014 at 11:37 pm

       no stat, you seem to imply the question: “If Banks, Santo, Williams and Jenkins were among the greatest Cubs, why were the teams they shared so mediocre?”

       I’ll offer a two-part answer:

       1) Banks was great before Santo and Williams came along. By the time they were regulars, he was an average player. By Fergie’s time, Ernie was well below average.

       2) The primes of Santo and Williams dovetail nicely. From 1963-72, they tallied about 42 Wins Above Average (Santo) and 29 WAA (Billy). That’s outstanding — 5th and 9th among all of MLB. But the Cubs were a .500 team in that span. Is it plausible that two great players are unable to lift their team into contention?

       Absolutely. I started looking at 1996-2005, for comparison to the recent Yankee dynasty. But in the process, I noticed that Todd Helton and Larry Walker both topped 30 WAA for the Rockies in that span, ranking 7th and 8th among all players. Yet the Rockies were BAD, averaging 75-87 — mainly because they had no pitching. No Rockies hurler in that time had even 5 WAA.

       The Cubs did have some good pitchers from 1963-72, not just Fergie (27 WAA for 1966-72). Bill Hands had about half that in the same years. Milt Pappas, Ken Holtzman and Burt Hooton also contributed towards the end of that span, and earlier, Dick Ellsworth and Larry Jackson.

       But they also had a lot of dreck on those staffs. While the seven listed above totaled 69 WAA for 1963-72, everyone else adds up to minus-31.

       For position players, the divide is even sharper. After Santo and Williams, only two other Cubs totaled even 2 WAA in those 10 years: Adolfo Phillips 6.5, and Jim Hickman 2.5. That’s 80 WAA from four position players — and minus-92 from all the rest.

       The Rockies’ story is similar for 1996-2005: After Walker and Helton, four others scored from 4 to 6 WAA in that whole span. Those six totaled 82 WAA, and everyone else had -92.

       No one would quibble over Helton and Walker on the Rockies’ Mount Rushmore. Of course, the Cubs have a far longer history. But how many of their long-term stars were better than Banks, Santo, Williams or Jenkins? Anson, probably — but a lot of us don’t want him on that mountain for other reasons. The candidates from the 1900s dynasty — Brown, Chance, Tinker and Evers — weren’t great for that long; none of the infield trio amassed 7,500 career PAs. That dynasty (like so many) was about depth as much as star power.

       I get your desire to represent all of Cubs history. But I also see the case for having Fergie, Ernie, Billy and Ron in the top six — even though they never won a pennant.

       Reply ↓
       1. no statistician but November 13, 2014 at 4:41 pm

          JA:

          I’ll have to make a reply here to clarify one point. I didn’t indicate that the teams the magic four played on together were “mediocre.” My focus was on the years during which the Cubs had winning records, 1967-1972. Only by expanding the era backwards can you say that they were mediocre, and only then if you lump all the seasons together and figure an average. The fact is, from 1963 to 1966, the team was lousy, on the whole, then it gelled into a good but not great team.

          And—I might as well go on—your imaginary question puts words into my mouth that to you may seem deducible from my comments, but that are far from my emphasis, which was to bemoan the lack of overall perspective of the responders to this particular poll. Too many have tunnel vision here. It isn’t a poll about who were the best players the team ever had but who among its best players ought to represent the franchise from its inception onward to the present.

          Hope this makes my meaning clear.

          Reply ↓
       2. Paul E November 13, 2014 at 5:50 pm

          JA:
          I remember reading somewhere Jenkins, Hands, Pappas, and maybe Holtzman had more WAR in a single season together (maybe 1969 or ’70 or ’71)than any of the pennant winners of the time. Not sure how to confirm that on the Play Index….

          Anyway,
          Banks, Santo, Sandberg, Jenkins. Sorry Billy

          Reply ↓
          1. Dr. Doom November 13, 2014 at 7:28 pm

             You may be remembering this from the New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract. He was talking Win Shares rather than WAR, of course, but I believe the 1969 Cubs showed up as the best rotation of the 1960s, and I think the ’71 team was the best of the 1970s. Kind of odd and remarkable, when you think about it.

             Reply ↓
             1. bstar November 13, 2014 at 8:47 pm

                If it’s about WAR, it’s the 1970 Cubs rotation, featuring Fergie, Pappas, Hands, and Holtzman. All four starters had over 4 WAR, making them one of only 13 teams since 1901 to accomplish that.
16. Doug November 12, 2014 at 1:06 pm

    Banks, Sandberg and Santo lead the way with Anson and Jenkins (currently tied) battling for the fourth and final Rushmore spot.

    Write-in votes are for Greg Maddux and Andre Dawson.

    Reply ↓
17. Alan November 12, 2014 at 1:31 pm

    Banks (no-brainer), Anson (this is Mt. Rushmore–George Washington HAS to be on there), Santo (I’m sentimental that way), and Three-Finger Brown. I mean, Brown needs to be on SOMEBODY’s Mt. Rushmore, and…that would be the Cubs.

    Reply ↓
18. Voomo Zanzibar November 12, 2014 at 6:12 pm

    I respect folks’ modern sensitivities regarding race.
    But judging a ballplayer who was born in 1852 based upon those sensitivities is a logical stretch at best, and smells of contrived honky overcompensation at worst.

    Talking about Cap Anson here.
    Pop was player-manager of the Chicago NL team from age 28 – 45.
    And he raked at an inner-circle clip.

    Dude was a major player in the very birth of modern baseball.

    Here’s an article with some historical context:

    http://www.capanson.com/chapter4.html

    Reply ↓
    1. Voomo Zanzibar November 12, 2014 at 7:08 pm

       For personal context, I am predominantly Sicilian. Which means I have enjoyed being beaten and robbed by blacks for being white. And I’ve been rebuffed professionally by the old boy network for not being white enough.

       It also means that I get to have fun with being chameleonic.
       Just last week I debuted a new theatrical character:
       an Iraqi stand-up comedian.
       (I’ll post video sometime, perhaps)
       _______

       Maybe we should call this exercise The Each Team Hall of Fame for 4 Guys Who Were Great at Baseball and Also Not Jerks
       _______

       Mt. Rushmore?
       Two of those guys owned slaves. A third got credit for freeing slaves when that piece was a byproduct of a bigger political agenda. And Teddy Roosevelt?

       “I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians; but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn’t inquire too closely into the case of the tenth. The most vicious cowboy has more moral principle than the average Indian.”

       .
       .
       .

       (please excuse my digressions – I’m home sick today.
       Time on my hands and ornery.)

       Reply ↓
       1. Hartvig November 13, 2014 at 4:44 am

          I started writing a long reply about stuff like being products of our environment and holding people from different times and places to different standards and a little of my own personal history but frankly I wasn’t really making the point I was trying to make plus even I though it was turning out pretty boring so I just erased it.

          Instead I’ll let Bill James in his first HBA do the talking for me when he was comparing Hal Chase to Shoeless Joe Jackson.

          “This is not the corrupted; this is the corrupt.”

          I’m sure that many and probably most ballplayers of Anson’s time were racist to one degree or another. And if were going to use that or other human foibles to keep them off our Mt. Rushmores there are going to be a lot of blank spaces up there.

          But it was Anson who used his power and influence to insure that no black ballplayers would ever play in a major league game. He didn’t just support the policy; he made it- at least as much as any one man did. And, like with Chase, what he did was a stain on the history of the game.

          Reply ↓
       2. Dr. Doom November 13, 2014 at 7:49 am

          As Hartvig stated, just because many people were racists, that doesn’t make all racists the same.

          Beyond that, though, there are other reasons not to vote for Anson. I, for one, have trouble putting a professional softball player on ANY team’s Mount Rushmore. And pre-1893 “baseball” (you know, the fist 22 years of Anson’s career) were played with underhand pitching from 50′. I don’t think there’s a single team in MLB for whom I would vote for a primarily pre-1893 player. Anson’s racism just seals the deal beyond any doubt, for me, anyway.

          Reply ↓
          1. Voomo Zanzibar November 13, 2014 at 8:52 pm

             Dr. Doom, I hear you that it may have been easier to hit a ball way back in the day. But we dont have to compare Anson to today’s players. He stands out as the greatest player in the first 50 years of the game.

             We as baseball fans are historians.
             It is literally short-sighted to dismiss a part of history that doesn’t fit today’s moral or technical standards.

             Here’s the leaders for the first 40 years, of which Anson played 27.

             1871 – 1911

             Hits
             3435 … Anson
             2934 … Beckley
             2932 … Keeler
             2850 … Burkett
             2676 … Clarke
             2665 … Davis
             2651 … Cross
             2639 … O’Rourke
             2636 … Honus Wagner
             2597 … Delahanty
             2572 … Lajoie
             _____

             RBI
             2075 … Anson
             1578 … Beckley
             1466 … Delahanty
             1440 … Davis
             1384 … Wagner
             1378 … Cross
             1323 … Connor
             1305 … Thompson
             1302 … Duffy
             _____

             WAR Position Players
             108.2 … Wagner
             95.2 … Lajoie
             93.9 … Anson
             84.7 … Davis
             84.1 … Connor

             Reply ↓
             1. Dr. Doom November 14, 2014 at 12:05 am

                All due respect, I disagree. My prerogative as a baseball fan is not to preserve history. My prerogative is to enjoy baseball. I think it is perfectly fair of me to judge that people playing a game with different rules were, in fact, playing a different game. When we list the greatest football players of all time, I feel no obligation to list rugby players. Not only that, but I feel no obligation to include players who played before the forward pass was made legal. That is because I think football is a fundamentally different game now. Likewise, I just don’t see baseball as really being “baseball” until 1893. I don’t think that makes me shortsighted. It makes me a person who has made a judgment. You are welcome to disagree with my assessment. And I don’t deny Anson’s dominance, so I’m not really sure what you were trying to prove to me there with his stats. I know perfectly well how dominant he was relative to his own time. But I am under no obligation to include him. I can, in fact, use criteria of my own choosing. And one of those is “played post-1893.”
             2. Voomo Zanzibar November 14, 2014 at 2:41 am

                ……………….
                …….
                Yah, I hear you. Mostly agree with you, actually.
       3. JasonZ November 13, 2014 at 12:00 pm

          Voomo:

          You always write directly from the heart, and I appreciate that.

          The recollections of your youth strike a personal chord. My father grew up in the Melting Pot of the Grand Concourse, Bronx, NY in the years after WWII.

          My dad got beat up by blacks all the time. When I was a young boy he would advise me to cross the street if I saw a group of black kids.

          His crime?

          Being 6″2 125 lbs at age 12. Not allowed to fight back and
          therefore a target of those who prey on the different.

          As for Mr. Anson.

          This from his SABR BIO sums it up.

          Regrettably, Anson used his stature to drive minority players from the game. An 1883 exhibition game in Toledo, Ohio, between the local team and the White Stockings nearly ended before it began when Anson angrily refused to take the field against Toledo’s African-American catcher, Moses Fleetwood Walker. Faced with the loss of gate receipts, Anson relented after a loud protest, but his bellicose attitude made Anson, wittingly or not, the acknowledged leader of the segregation forces already at work in the game. Other players and managers followed Anson’s lead, and similar incidents occurred with regularity for the rest of the decade. In 1887, Anson made headlines again when he refused to play an exhibition in Newark unless the local club removed its African-American battery, catcher Walker and pitcher George Stovey, from the field. Teams and leagues began to bar minorities from participation, and by the early 1890s, no black players remained in the professional ranks.

          If we accept the above, there is simply no place for Mr. Anson on a Mt. Rushmore.

          Whatever positive impact he had is simply buried by his active role in spurring a movement that would deny blacks an opportunity for 60 years.

          I would respectfully suggest Cap Anson has a much greater moral
          burden then the founders.

          To me, the players and teams who followed Anson’s lead are the
          moral equivalent to the founders actions, in regards to the slave ownership analogy you introduced.

          But, Mr. Anson, from his position, of influence to push for it, to be the architect, to yell and scream but then relent and take
          the money afterward.

          Hypocrite.

          Great player.

          Mt. Rushmore?

          No.

          Reply ↓
          1. Voomo Zanzibar November 13, 2014 at 12:39 pm

             Jason Z, yep, my father is from the South Bronx, too.
             _______

             (and, just to make my point clear: if we are going to cherrypick when to dismiss someone’s ‘greatness’ because of their political/social beliefs, then we should be honest about the fact that the Mt Rushmore (Six Grandfathers) monument is deeply offensive to everyone who is indigenous to the Black Hills (the few who have survived, that is).

             This bothers me not because I’m a political activist (I’m not). I’m interested in keeping language and intelligent discourse alive. And I’ve watched most of our country lose the ability to have informed arguments. Mostly this is because classical education is all but gone, and most folks’ world view is no longer grounded in any kind of encompassing history.

             Just pointing this sort of thing out make me a pedant in most circles. So let me just say that I watched Moneyball last night, and that movie was surprisingly boring, and maddeningly inaccurate for an historical piece.)

             Reply ↓
             1. Dr. Doom November 13, 2014 at 1:34 pm

                As someone who lives in SD, I would say that criticism of actual Mt. Rushmore is alive and well. Admittedly, I live across the state from the actual Mount, but there are definitely voices who regularly point that out.

                You are stretching dangerously into “you kids get off my lawn” territory with your second parenthetical paragraph. Nonetheless, point taken.

                The point that has to be taken is that human beings are, as it turns out, incredibly flawed. Every single rotten generation of us. We absolutely have to acknowledge that. On the other hand, that does not make all evils equal, just because the presence of evil is ubiquitous. Many people here HAVE voted for Anson; many of us will not. I see a HUGE difference, for example, between Ty Cobb (also a racist) and Cap Anson. I will unquestionably vote for Cobb on the Tigers Mt. Rushmore. The argument about Anson, as has been pointed out, is about MUCH more than just “he didn’t like black people.”

                As to your point about keeping language and discourse alive, kudos. Job done.

                As to your point about Moneyball, I would hardly call it “an historical piece.” It was a Hollywood drama using history as a backdrop. The inaccuracies and caricatures didn’t really bother me, because when you’re making a 300-page book into a 2-hour movie, some things are necessary to be changed. I thought it captured the spirit of Lewis’ book well, and Brad Pitt was shockingly compelling as a GM, which is an AWFULLY hard thing to be compelling as. Reasonable minds will always disagree when it comes to movies, though, and I can see your perspective.
             2. Voomo Zanzibar November 13, 2014 at 1:44 pm

                Yes, I agree. Pitt was good. In fact, I watched the movie because I trusted that if nothing else, Pitt would be good.
             3. Voomo Zanzibar November 13, 2014 at 1:50 pm

                My entire contribution to this thread indicates severe withdrawal symptoms from having actual baseball to watch.
             4. no statistician but November 13, 2014 at 5:45 pm

                Anyone interested in a new vote for the real Mt. Rushmore? At the time it was conceived the only controversial choice, to my mind, was Teddy R., just because he didn’t have the gravitas and stature of the others.

                Who—for instance—would be the politically correct top four if we voted now? The darlings of economic freedom top four? The—what the heck—post Teddy R top four?

                I’ll volunteer these names as a nominal starter to the last question: FDR, DDE, LBJ just barely, and . . . I can only come up with three. Damn. Truman and Kennedy—overrated. Reagan—wrongheaded in the extreme. The rest? Are you serious?
          2. Joseph November 14, 2014 at 1:47 pm

             If it weren’t disrespectful to the other players, perhaps it would be poetic justice to put Anson on the Cub’s Rushmore with Banks, Jenkins, and Sosa.

             Reply ↓
             1. Hartvig November 14, 2014 at 2:20 pm

                How about Banks, Williams, Jenkins & Sosa with a statue of a dumbfounded looking Anson in the viewing area staring up at them?
    2. bells November 13, 2014 at 10:33 am

       He’s a product of his context, I’m a product of mine. If you’re implying (which I believe you are) that it’s supposed to be fair for him in his context to have used his power and influence to be instrumental in excluding an entire race of people from baseball, I think it’s just as fair for me in my context to think that how he used his influence was inexcusable and exclude him from some theoretical exercise.

       Questions of race and how people talk about it are inherently tricky, but my analysis of it feels like while yes, it’s definitely possible to have historical-eyed overcompensation by a group of people who feel guilty in retrospect, that doesn’t mean that making that compensation is wrong. It’s perhaps lazy analysis to say ‘that guy’s a racist’ and ignore the fact that everyone else was. But the pendulum swings both ways, and I think it’s also pretty lazy to say ‘everyone was a racist back then’ and ignore the fact (at least, it seems to be well established in everything I read) that this was a guy who essentially lobbied vocally for the exclusion of blacks from baseball. Everything I’ve read suggests that although the cogs of the machine of segregation were well in place, he was more vocal and in more a position of influence than his peers, and so I think it’s appropriate that he’s held more accountable in the historical record.

       Anyway, I forgot he was even a Cub, I just thought of him as an old-timey baseball player on some generic old-timey teams. There are a bunch of other Cubs that seem like more the face of the franchise than that guy, racism aside.

       Reply ↓
       1. Voomo Zanzibar November 13, 2014 at 11:36 am

          Mostly I made those comments because I trust this as maybe the one place on the internet where sensible, reasoned replies will appear.
          ________

          Here’s a breakdown of the pitcher’s ‘mound’ through history:

          http://www.19cbaseball.com/field-8.html

          Reply ↓
19. Voomo Zanzibar November 12, 2014 at 6:14 pm

    Vote:

    Cap Anson
    Three-Finger Brown
    Ernie Banks
    Ryne Sandberg

    Reply ↓
    1. Voomo Zanzibar November 12, 2014 at 6:33 pm

       3F
       Mordecai spent his rookie year in St. Louis.
       The next nine in Chicago.

       Here’s where stacks up, historically, for the first 10 seasons of a career.
       (and he only pitched 89 innings that 10th year. So if we looked at first 9 seasons it would be more impressive, but I’m trying to look at him historically AND as a Cubbie)

       And this is, of course, starting in 1901. Would be nice if the Play Index ran back to 1893:

       WINS
       236 Mathewson
       235 Alexander
       231 Johnson
       203 Grove
       202 Plank
       196 Mullin
       195 Three Finger Brown
       192 Hubbell
       191 Marichal
       _______

       Shutouts

       77 Alexander
       63 Johnson
       61 Mathewson
       55 Walsh
       49 Three Finger Brown
       45 Joss
       45 Marichal
       _______

       ERA+ (minimum 1500 IP)

       172 Walter Johnson
       169 Pedro
       153 Three Finger Brown
       147 Alexander
       147 Walsh
       145 Clemens
       144 Mathewson
       144 Grove
       143 Johan Santana
       142 Joss
       141 Seaver
       _______

       Impressive to see Marichal compete with the deadball guys in Wins and shutouts.

       Reply ↓
       1. Doug November 12, 2014 at 9:34 pm

          Actually, Play Index goes back to 1871. Here are those same lists, for the first 10 seasons of a career since 1893.

          WINS
          246 McGinnity
          236 Mathewson
          235 Alexander
          231 Johnson
          203 Grove
          202 Plank
          196 Mullin
          195 Three Finger Brown
          195 Willis
          192 Hubbell
          191 Marichal
          190 Walsh
          189 Robin Roberts
          _______

          Shutouts

          77 Alexander
          63 Johnson
          61 Mathewson
          55 Walsh
          49 Three Finger Brown
          45 Joss
          45 Marichal
          40 Waddell
          40 Doc White
          40 Stottlemyre
          40 Sutton
          39 Seaver
          39 Blyleven
          _______

          ERA+ (minimum 1500 IP)

          172 Walter Johnson
          169 Pedro
          153 Three Finger Brown
          147 Alexander
          147 Walsh
          145 Clemens
          144 Grove
          143 Johan Santana
          142 Mathewson
          142 Joss
          141 Seaver
          140 Waddell
          140 Hubbell
          140 Newhouser

          Reply ↓
          1. Voomo Zanzibar November 12, 2014 at 10:07 pm

             Ah yes, that information has been half an inch under the year box all this time… makes one wonder just how many important details are lingering in the periphery.

             Reply ↓
20. Doug November 12, 2014 at 11:30 pm

    I took Anson, Brown, Hartnett and Banks.

    Covers all of their pennant winners save for 1918 and 1945.

    Reply ↓
21. John Autin November 12, 2014 at 11:57 pm

    I committed the sacrilege: Santo, Sandberg, Jenkins and Chance (with a nod to his peerless leadership). Sorry, Mr. Cub.

    I just think that Santo was Banks’s equal in peak value, and he had more good years.

    Reply ↓
    1. Voomo Zanzibar November 13, 2014 at 1:04 am

       About halfway through watching “Moneyball” for the 1st time.
       I understand how to build a compelling narrative, but did they have to do it at the expense of basic accuracy? Giambi and Pena were traded 6 weeks apart! There is nonsense like this every 5 minutes.

       … i should just close my b-r tabs and enjoy the movie…

       Reply ↓
    2. no statistician but November 13, 2014 at 9:34 am

       JA:

       Your choices, despite the critique at #26 above, aren’t that different from mine. I almost took Santo over Banks, but I’m old enough to remember how great Banks was in the ’50s, plus he was the face of the franchise. The 1930s team get short shrift in people’s memories, but Hartnett was every bit as good as Sandberg for what he was doing in the era he played in, considering his position. As for Fergie over Brown, it’s a matter of what syllable you put the emphasis on. We both took a chance on Frank, despite his low numbers.

       Reply ↓
    3. Alan November 13, 2014 at 12:03 pm

       Wow, that is indeed bold. I myself regret failing to find a vote for Gabby Hartnett, but skipping over Banks, the 2-time MVP, 500 home run man, and face of the franchise for over 50 years–why, I can scarcely credit you sir! Ryne Sandberg over Mr. Cub?

       Reply ↓
       1. John Autin November 13, 2014 at 1:34 pm

          Yes, Alb, I choose Ryno over Ernie. This “face of the franchise” business … That would mean a bit more to me if Banks had some tangible contribution to the club’s on-field success after his playing career. As for on-field “face of the franchise,” I think Sandberg filled that every bit as much as Banks. In terms of performance value, I think Banks had a higher but shorter peak. Ryno had more good years. Their best 10-year spans are about the same, to me. So it’s a coin flip, and I just went with the contrarian option.

          Reply ↓
22. Steven November 13, 2014 at 9:04 am

    Charlie Grimm would qualify as a legitimate write-in candidate. Good hitter, and managed three pennant winners.

    Reply ↓
23. Mike L November 13, 2014 at 1:42 pm

    At the risk of doing something really stupid I wanted to direct people to the real Mt. Rushmore and the following link.

    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-lincoln-douglas-debates-4th-debate-part-i/

    As noted in the Ford 1910 “debate” I’m a politics junkie, but I started as a history junkie, and that started with a kid’s-abridged Sandburg’s Lincoln series. I don’t remember this particular statement being extensively quoted by Sandberg.

    Everyone is a product of their environment. Some let “the better angels of our nature” direct their actions, and some don’t. I’m skipping this vote because I don’t have a good feel for it. But if I had to pick yes or no on Anson, I might be inclined to go the same direction I did when Clemens came up, and simply say “great player, but I’ll pass”

    Reply ↓
    1. Voomo Zanzibar November 13, 2014 at 4:41 pm

       Inspiring speech!

       I reproduced the first five minutes of it.
       (and note, the laugh track is indicated in the script)

       Home sick with a head cold – creativity is sometimes the product of being completely freaking stir-crazy.

       Enjoy:

       http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/0db6ae7ac4/abraham-lincoln-september-18th-1858-first-five-minutes

       Reply ↓
       1. Mike L November 13, 2014 at 10:21 pm

          Try this one. No laughs, but perhaps the most basic definition of liberty ever given. 7th Lincoln Douglas Debate, Sept, 1858.

          “That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles—right and wrong—throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, “You work and toil and earn bread, and I’ll eat it.” No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.”

          Reply ↓
24. JasonZ November 13, 2014 at 9:36 pm

    NSB, a Mt. Rushmore post Teddy??

    Personal Politics aside, in order…based on impact…

    1. FDR
    2. Reagan
    3. JFK
    4. WJC

    Broadcasting Mt. Rushmore

    1. Red Barber (Go Gators)
    2. Vin Scully
    3. Harry Caray
    4. Ernie Harwell

    Manager Mt. Rushmore pre-expansion.

    1. Connie Mack
    2. Casey Stengel
    3. John McGraw
    4. Joe McCarthy

    Manager Mt. Rushmore post expansion.

    1. Tony LaRussa
    2. Joe Torre
    3. Sparky Andesson
    4. Bobby Cox
    4a. Bob Brenly (Cox is almost dust).

    Mt. Rushmore of Owners.

    1. Big Stein. Easily the most important and influential owner of the last half century.
    2. Bill Veeck
    3. Walter O’Malley
    4. Jacob Rupert

    Mt. Rushmore of Ballparks

    1. Yankee Stadium
    2. Fenway Park
    3. Wrigley Field
    4. Elysian Fields

    Mt. Rushmore of Mascots

    1. Al Schact
    2. Max Patkin
    3. The San Diego Chicken
    4. The Philly Phanatic

    Mt. Rushmore of Baseball Movies.

    1. The Pride of the Yankees
    2. Baseball by Ken Burns
    3. Major League
    4. Eight Men Out

    Reply ↓
    1. no statistician but November 13, 2014 at 10:48 pm

       JasonZ:

       FDR to the San Diego Chicken?

       You’ve got it all covered.

       Reply ↓
    2. Voomo Zanzibar November 13, 2014 at 11:01 pm

       Brenly? Do you mean Bochy?

       (And if you do mean Bochy, well, he has a career W% of .502.
       As average as average.

       Of course, 34-14 (.708) in the playoffs since 2010)

       Reply ↓
    3. John November 29, 2014 at 9:51 am

       I agree whole-heartedly with most of your picks, but not your Owner’s Mt. Rushmore. You have 4 very good suggestions, and each are worthy, but I would have to replace Col. Ruppert with Charlie Finley. yes, I am serious. Sure, he did a lot of outrageous things, like using a live mule as a team mascot, and firing his second baseman midway thru the World Series, but he also is more responsible for putting the World Series games at night when more people can watch it than anyone else. His stinginess as much as anything led to free agency. Col. Ruppert brought the Babe and many others to the Bronx, but in my humble opinion, Finley is HOF worthy, too. He, and the Boss should both go in.

       Reply ↓
25. JasonZ November 13, 2014 at 9:58 pm

    I agree that Cap Anson between the lines was one of the very best in his time.

    For our purposes it seems to be between the ears where he comes up short.

    Mt. Rushmore in our culture is reserved for the best of the best.

    Those who led. (GW)

    Those who inspired. (TJ)

    Those who sacrificed. (AL)

    Those who are admired. (TR)

    The Chicago Cubs have a glorious history.

    They can do alot better then Anson.

    1. Frank Chance
    2. Ernie Banks
    3. Ron Santo
    4. Billy Williams, length of service gets the nod
    over Ferguson Jenkins.

    Reply ↓
26. JasonZ November 14, 2014 at 12:03 am

    Meant Bochy.

    A fourth World Series would supplant Cox.

    The NFL has turned into Arena Football.

    I too miss baseball big time.

    Reply ↓
27. JasonZ November 14, 2014 at 12:07 am

    I Meant Bochy.

    A fourth World Series would supplant Cox.

    Four is a big number.

    I also am suffering.

    The NFL has turned into Arena Football.

    Aaron Rogers just through another TD pass against the Bears.

    I miss baseball big time.

    Reply ↓
28. oneblankspace November 14, 2014 at 7:57 am

    The comment I typed after voting got lost because I waited to long to submit.

    I had a write-in vote for Hack Wilson, and I also voted for the player the Cubs brought up because Gene Baker needed a roommate and they did not want to make a white player room with him: Ernie Banks.

    For over 60 years, Wilson had the NL record in HR with 56 [1930] (although some say it should have been 57, as he had a double that bounced off a wall behind the fence in Cincinnati). That is still the most HR by a Cub leading the league in HR.

    The high HR totals at Lake Front Park in 1884 were due to a very short distance down the lines. (The White Stockings hit 142 HR; the seven other teams averaged less than 26 HR each. The eight-team league average would have been good enough for 2nd place. The top 4, 6 out of 7, and 7 out of the top 10 HR sluggers played for Chicago. The pitching staff’s combined batting HR would have tied for 9th place, ignoring any other combined pitching staffs.) Somehow they still finished 22 games out of first…

    From 1973-2014, the Cubs have had 10 seasons above .500 and one other at .500. They have made the playoffs in 6 of those seasons, including once as a wild card.

    From 1884-1890, the NL played the AA in a postseason championship series. The NL won five of those series and was unbeaten when Chicago did not play; Chicago went 0-1-1 in the other two series.

    Reply ↓
    1. Lawrence Azrin November 14, 2014 at 11:42 am

       @59,

       Fair balls hit over the fence in Chicago’s Lake Front Park were doubles until 1884; when they became home runs. Predictably, Chicago players’ doubles totals in 1884 dropped, and their HR totals soared.

       I think that was a similar situation in the Boston 1894 season, when their ballpark burned down in mid-season and they moved into a much smaller ballpark and scoring soared.

       Reply ↓
    2. Hartvig November 14, 2014 at 11:45 am

       I have probably 150 to maybe 200 books about baseball in my library. Many of them are related to the past history of the game- from Bill James’ Historical Baseball Almanacs to Ritter’s The Glory of Their Times to biographies on everyone from Ruth to Radbourn. I would think that at least should make me more knowledgable about the games history than most baseball fans.

       We have been going back and forth pretty much ad nauseam about wether or not Cap Anson should be included on the Cubbies Mt. Rushmore- to which I contributed more than my fair share- but it wasn’t until bells made a brief comment about thinking of Anson playing on “generic old-timey teams” that it dawned on me that I had never thought of Anson as a Cub either and that feeling had kind of been lurking in the back of my mind through this entire process as well.

       It wasn’t until I read your post that I connected all the dots and realized why that was.

       Reply ↓
29. John Autin November 14, 2014 at 11:56 am

    About excusing Cap Anson’s racist views as a product of his time, and comparing him to the two slave-holders on the real Mt. Rushmore as well as well-known racists like Ty Cobb who presumably would go on their team’s Mt. Rushmore:

    I think there’s an important difference between acquiescing in an established wrong, and leading the charge to institute a wrong. For an analogy, don’t we take a different view of those who “pioneered” steroid use, versus those who began using after it was widespread, or those who only failed to blow the whistle?

    Another thing … Anson grew up in Iowa, a relatively progressive state:
    — 1838: The Supreme Court of the Iowa Territory ruled that a slave from a slave state could not be forced to return to the slave state.
    — 1851: Iowa became the second state to legalize interracial marriage. [Anson was born the next year.]
    — 1868: Iowa became the second state to outlaw segregated schools. [Anson turned 16 that year.]
    http://councilbluffscommunityalliance.wordpress.com/iowa/iowas-progressive-history/

    Unlike Cobb, Anson did not grow up where the inhuman treatment of blacks was deeply ingrained in the prevailing culture. Of course, he might have been “brainwashed” in other ways. But I think these facts put a certain shading on his push to segregate baseball. He knew that he was pushing against the tide of history.

    I’m aware of Anson’s crucial role in the resurrection of the National League. I respect the view of those who would put him on the Cubs’ “Mt. Rushmore.” But I think those who’d leave him out have reasonable grounds that are not inconsistent or hypocritical.

    Reply ↓
30. Kirk November 14, 2014 at 12:22 pm

    Just some random thoughts from a White Sox fan. Banks, because he has been the face of the franchise forever. Chance, because he best represents the “glory years”. Santo, not for his play so much as they way he connected with the fans after he retired. That leave my fourth pick which is hard. I eliminated Anson because he never played for the Cubs. Then between Ryno, Ferggie and Sammy. I have to go with Sammy because he was the biggest (pun intended) thing for the Cubs for over a decade. Think what might have been if the Cubs traded Grace not Palmerio or Grace had worked on his body as much as his night life, or if even they could have gotten Ryno to hit in a run producing position instead of wasting his bat in the two spot.

    Reply ↓
    1. brp November 14, 2014 at 2:49 pm

       I will preface this by saying Mark Grace (warts and all) will always be my favorite player, so this will be heavily biased. I of course threw a vote at him.

       Sosa’s productive years with the Cubs were 1993-2004. Grace left for Arizona in 2001 and promptly helped them win the WS. In any case, they overlapped in 1993-2000.

       Grace slashed .313/.394/.466 for a 125 OPS+ over that time frame and had 29.2 WAR or 3.6 per year – smack in the middle between an average starter and an all-star.

       Raffy hit .296/.381/.558 for 140 OPS+ and 38.4 WAR, or 4.8 per year, often batting in a lineup with certainly as many or more sluggers than Sosa’s Cubs for a few of those years. I guess Palmeiro spent time “working on his body” via the Canseco method. Hey, results are results. Presumably the Cubs would have been better off with Palmeiro instead of Grace, but it’s not like he was the missing piece to some dynasty.

       One such larger problem is that Steve Trachsel, the real Human Rain Delay, is representative of the pitching they had during most of the years Grace and Sosa were together.

       Reply ↓
    2. oneblankspace November 14, 2014 at 3:15 pm

       Santo was traded to the Sox for Steve Stone.

       Reply ↓
31. Darien November 16, 2014 at 6:48 am

    Ernie Banks is obvious. I’m showing my (lack of) age here, but I have to pick Sammy Sosa and Kerry Wood — two guys who defined the Cubs of the late 90s and early 2000s, which was when I started to get interested in baseball again. For my fourth pick… Derrek Lee is my all-time favourite player of all time, so it’s hard not to pick him.

    Honorable mentions: Cap Anson, while I know he’s a big deal historically, is honestly just a name to me. I don’t really have any grasp of the man himself. Fergie Jenkins, Mark Grace, Ron Santo, and Ryne Sandberg are all knocking hard on the door to my mountain. Greg Maddux, though I love him, is an Atlanta Brave in my mind. Ryan Dempster is possibly the most “Cubs” player of all time — he was mostly pretty good but never quite good enough, he’s a total screwball, and he once appeared in public in this suit: http://ll-media.tmz.com/2013/10/25/1024-ryan-dempster-twitpic-3.jpg

    Reply ↓
32. Jason November 19, 2014 at 4:04 am

    Banks, Sandberg, Jenkins, Maddux

    Off topic, but when did it become “Pete Alexander”? Grover Cleveland Alexander has a more regal, legendary ring to it in my mind, and that’s how I always heard it growing up.

    Reply ↓
33. Doug Post authorNovember 25, 2014 at 2:11 pm

    Last day to vote on the Cubs’ Mount Rushmore.

    Cap Anson and Ferguson Jenkins are currently tied for the fourth and final Rushmore spot.

    Reply ↓
    1. Dr. Doom November 25, 2014 at 3:41 pm

       We just love close votes here at HHS! Just ask the COG in 1910.2!

       Reply ↓
34. Matt May 22, 2017 at 4:12 pm

    Although Cap Anson has the highest WAR for any Cub, it’s hard to put him on a Cubs Mount Rushmore, because the guy was a huge racist. He played a huge role in why African Americans didn’t play in the MLB for many decades.

    Reply ↓
    1. Matt May 22, 2017 at 4:17 pm

       Ah I see there is already a chain on this topic. http://www.highheatstats.com/2014/11/the-mount-rushmore-of-the-chicago-cubs/#comment-92660

       Reply ↓