54 thoughts on “The Mount Rushmore of the Atlanta Braves”

1. Dr. Doom December 3, 2014 at 9:48 pm

   Aaron, Spahn, C. Jones, and Maddux for me. I REALLY wanted to vote for Mathews, but I couldn’t justify three guys from one team, even if it was the 50s Milwaukee Braves, the greatest team of all-time. 🙂

   Reply ↓
2. Steven December 3, 2014 at 9:51 pm

   Murphy, Spahn, Mathews and Aaron. Thought about Bob Horner, but I pulled a muscle while typing his name.

   Reply ↓
3. David Horwich December 3, 2014 at 10:01 pm

   I wish we could vote for a triptych of Maddux-Glavine-Smoltz…

   Reply ↓
4. Voomo Zanzibar December 3, 2014 at 11:08 pm

   Zoinks. This one is busy.

   Here’s what Kid Nichols did as a Beaneater…
   From 1890 to 1901 (his years with the team), leaders:

   WAR
   110.2 .. Cyclone Young
   108.5 .. Kid Nichols
   68.9 … Amos Rusie
   52.1 … Ted Breitenstein
   50.9 … Clark Griffith
   40.7 … Sadie McMahon
   40.4 … Nig Cuppy
   _____

   Wins
   329 … Kid Nichols
   319 … Cy Young
   234 … Rusie
   191 … Jack Stivetts
   190 … Clark Griffith
   180 … Guy Weyhing

   Reply ↓
5. John December 3, 2014 at 11:09 pm

   Aaron, Spahn, Chipper and Smoltz. I agree with David Horwich. I’d’ve preferred a three-headed monster of Smoltz Glavine and Maddox. Murph, Knucksie and Bobby Cox were tough to leave off. Andruw Jones is the poster child for someone who might be HOF-worthy who still leaves you wondering what might have been. He had that much potential. Chipper on my ballot because he grew up 30 miles from here.

   Reply ↓
6. no statistician but December 3, 2014 at 11:19 pm

   Unlike the Reds and Phils, the Braves have a superfluity of worthy pitchers to choose from, so I’m going with four pitchers here—but which four? Kid Nichols, one of my all-time favorite players because he’s so often forgotten, half hidden in the shadow of Cy Young, even though he was probably better than the Cyclone overall in the 1890s. Warren Spahn, lost some time to WWII, otherwise might have rung up 400 wins. All right, didn’t like him much but—Phil Niekro, who was just a more recent version of Vic Willis in a way, laboring for lots of bad teams and not getting too much support, but doing it longer. Lastly, Greg Maddux over Smoltz or Glavine (or Willis) because he belongs on a monument for what he did.

   I know Aaron ought to be there, too, and Mathews, and Chipper Jones, but there are only four places, and I’m honoring pitchers.

   Reply ↓
7. David Horwich December 4, 2014 at 12:25 am

   I voted Aaron, Spahn, Niekro, C Jones. Hard to leave off Mathews and the pitching troika of the ’90s, of course, not to mention Murphy and Nichols, but something’s got to give.

   Reply ↓
8. Darien December 4, 2014 at 3:20 am

   Hank Aaron, Chipper Jones, Greg Maddux, and John Smoltz.

   Reply ↓
9. David P December 4, 2014 at 6:58 am

   Phil Niekro, 90 WAR, 5% of the vote. Is there anyone else who has that level of WAR and received a really low vote percentage for their team´s Rushmore? Hard to imagine…

   Reply ↓
   1. Artie Z. December 4, 2014 at 10:21 am

      On the other hand, his 90 WAR is 5th all-time for the Braves. And none of the 4 players ahead of him are from the 1990s era teams.

      When I first see these posts I try to think of who immediately comes to mind – I thought of Aaron, Spahn, and Mathews first, then Murphy, then Chipper, the pitching trio, and Andruw. From there I try to figure out who to vote for.

      Niekro never even registered in my mind, likely because he spent years pitching for teams that didn’t do very much. And Nichols is way too far back in time (because team locations and names change it’s difficult for me to associate Nichols with the Braves).

      Really we could probably do a Boston/Milwaukee Braves Mt. Rushmore and an Atlanta Braves Mt. Rushmore. Aaron, Mathews, Spahn, and Nichols for the former, and then for the latter it is still a little more difficult (Chipper, Murphy, Niekro, and a three-headed beast called Smadine).

      Reply ↓
10. Steve December 4, 2014 at 7:51 am

    OK a given Hank Aaron then Warren Spahn and Eddie Mathews, John Smoltz & Chipper Jones but sorry but Kid Nichols spent too much time pre-1900 so no vote for him

    Reply ↓
11. Steve December 4, 2014 at 7:55 am

    Phil Niekro he of 90 WAR is just further proof that WAR is a useless stat. I do not think there are many if any people that can say with a straight face that Phil Niekro was a dominant pitcher and would be their choice in a must win situation.

    Reply ↓
    1. mosc December 4, 2014 at 9:49 am

       You know I criticize stuff all the time. I don’t think WAR’s perfect. But I at least try to understand it and say what’s good and bad. It says Neikro allowed 3.89 Runs per 9 with a below average defense and mostly in hitters parks and expected the league average arm to allow about 4.66 runs per 9. That’s a significantly better than average result. Dominant? Maybe not. But he also pitched 5400 innings for a savings of 419 runs. Then you also have to consider that his replacement wouldn’t have been league average which equates to about 498 runs (between average and AAA replacement) over 5400 innings. Then you look at all those runs, 917, and say that based on the league scoring rates at the time, his team had a better chance to win a lot of games he pitched in (he did appear in 864 of them) hence 97.4

       I can understand complaints about the park factor of 4.4% higher scoring enviornments over his career than league average (not really). I can totally get on board with questioning the strength and weaknesses of his team’s defense and how being a knuckleballer might be skewing that (but -0.18 isn’t that crazy and his wild pitch rate was a very reasonable 1 every 24 innings). But war being useless? No.

       I think it’s a real stretch to say the guy was league average. He was clearly better. And he sure as hell pitched more than league average innings.

       Reply ↓
       1. Steve December 4, 2014 at 2:00 pm

          I’ll agree he was marginally better than average for a very above average length of service but still who would select him to win the one big game?

          Reply ↓
          1. RJ December 4, 2014 at 2:19 pm

             But no one statistic can answer that question. WAR is not useless because it cannot tell us who the most dominant one-game pitcher of all time is, in the same way that ERA or Ks or Wins are not useless because they cannot tell us the same thing either. Each statistic answers a specific question (in the case of WAR, how much value a player brought over a theoretical replacement level player).

             Just because Phil Niekro has more career WAR than, say, Pedro Martinez, it does not mean he is a more dominant pitcher. It just means he has more WAR.

             Reply ↓
             1. Dr. Doom December 4, 2014 at 3:20 pm

                Bingo. Fantastic post.
             2. Lawrence Azrin December 4, 2014 at 3:56 pm

                WAR is a great ‘single-number’ stat as a starting point. It’s a whole lot better than the commonly used mainstream stats of Batting Average or RBI or Pitcher Wins, if you are going to use just one particular number to evaluate a player. It’s pretty good as a middle point too; usually as good or better than OPS+ or ERA+, or most other ‘non-mainstream’ stats you can use.

                BUT – and this is a big but – I would never use WAR as the as the endpoint for any evaluation of a player, as the final word in comparing one player to others. Too many other factors need to go into that; the conditions of the era, the ballparks played in, other factors that apply to the time and place that player was in.

                Increasingly, I see more and more people use a player’s WAR as a shorthand for “How good was he?”. WAR is very useful for that, but it should never be the final word.
             3. David P December 4, 2014 at 4:12 pm

                Lawrence – Perhaps you`ve seen this already but Dave Cameron had a great article last year that said basically the same thing. Though it took him a lot more words. Bravo for succinctness!

                http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/what-war-is-good-for/
             4. Lawrence Azrin December 4, 2014 at 4:42 pm

                @35,

                David P – thanks.

                I think that the best baseball minds of any generation have usually understood the importance of adjusting any hitting stat to ballpark and lineup position, plus factoring in defensive position and value, when determining their overall evaluation of any particular player.

                However, it’s only been in the past decade+, with the widespread availability of so many baseball stats through B-R, plus the ability to manipulate those numbers in an almost infinite number of ways through the use of PC’s, that the concept of Wins Above Replacement is even possible. So I wouldn’t be too tough on previous generations of baseball experts for not grasping (what may seem obvious to us) the large differences in value between player X and player Y.
             5. Steve December 4, 2014 at 5:12 pm

                Hey he could eat innings – very effectively – and as you say – It just means he has more WAR – I would love to see what a pitcher like Pedro would have been like if he had to pitch into the 8th and 9th every start – would his numbers still be so gaudy?
    2. RJ December 4, 2014 at 10:20 am

       I see mosc has responded, but just adding on with some stuff I had already written:

       WAR is a counting stat and Phil Niekro pitched more innings than anyone else in the live-ball era. His 5404 innings pitched are more than the career totals of Pedro Martinez and Sandy Koufax put together. He had 15 seasons of recording 200 IP with an above average ERA+. In short, he was a good to great pitcher for a really, really long time.

       Niekro’s peak isn’t in the same category as the peaks of guys like Pedro and Sandy, but said peak was obscured by the uselessness of his team.

       Just looking at the five years between 1975 and 1979, Niekro pitched five seasons of 270-342 IP and had four ERA+s in the 111-119 range and one of 142, averaging out to an ERA+ of 120 overall. But if we factor the Braves defense (one of the worst of all-time) into Niekro’s ERA+ over that period, it rises to a scarcely believable 141. Given that he pitched roughly 150 more innings than anyone else over that timeframe and you have a guy providing a lot of value for his team.

       Essentially Niekro’s perception problems are threefold: both his team defense and the high run-scoring environment of his home park made his raw ERAs look relatively unimpressive, and the abysmalness of his teams contributed to his high loss total and general lack of recognition. He was never really as dominant as the higher-tier Hall of Famers, but being a comfortably above average pitcher for a very long time has value.

       Reply ↓
    3. Hartvig December 4, 2014 at 10:39 am

       To flesh out what mosc said a little bit:

       1) he pitched in a ballpark known as “The Launching Pad” that was also responsible for Hank Aaron’s hitting a remarkably consistent # of home runs each season until he was in his 40’s (by moving from a lousy home run park to a great one at age 32.

       2) His teammates in key defensive positions were such immortals as Pepe Frias, Craig Robinson, Darrel Chaney and Rod Gilbreath not to mention a post knee-surgery Rico Carty lumbering around in left field (read what Whitey Herzog had to say about the season in Texas when he had Carty & Alex Johnson platooning in left & at DH sometime if you’re in need of a good laugh)

       3) In an 11 year stretch he had at least 268 IP’s 8 times, only falling below 245 once (230) with totals as high as 342, 334, 330 & 302. He threw over 300 innings as a 40 year old and 200 7 times in his 40’s.

       4) The George Steinbrenner owned Yankees of the mid-80’s thought enough of him as a 45 & 46 year old to sign him twice as a free-agent to anchor their staff.

       Reply ↓
       1. RJ December 4, 2014 at 12:34 pm

          This quote Hartvig?

          “With Alex Johnson and Rico Carty in Texas, I had two good hitters, but I still can’t tell you which in the hell was the worse left fielder. I’d DH one and play the other in left, then switch it around the next day. That way I could hide one of ’em and they never got tired.”

          http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3uSbqUm8hSAC&pg=PA690

          Incidentally, if I was to get myself one Bill James Abstract, is The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract the one to go for? I’m figuring some baseball literature might be a good Christmas present to myself.

          And apropos of nothing, last night I watched sci-fi spectacular “Interstellar”, in which an early scene depicts the future New York Yankees as being reduced to barnstorming in small Midwest towns. Apocalyptic indeed.

          Reply ↓
          1. Hartvig December 4, 2014 at 1:46 pm

             That’s it exactly.

             And yes I’d go with the newer version of the HBA (originally published in 2001, I think) rather than the original. There’s some good stuff in the original that didn’t get carried forward but by and large the new incorporates the best of the original (often word for word) plus lots and lots of really good new stuff plus the player rankings are far less subjective.

             My hardcover copy is quite literally falling apart at the seams it’s been read so often.

             And I was thinking of catching Interstellar in an afternoon matinee this coming weekend.

             Reply ↓
          2. no statistician but December 4, 2014 at 3:41 pm

             Hey, R.J., treat yourself. You can pick up a used copy of the original for as little as 2 cents plus $3.99 shipping right now at Amazon. Otherwise you’ll miss some brilliant commentary on people like Reggie Jackson, Johnny Evers, Al Simmons, even Stan the Man, that does not appear in the later version.

             Reply ↓
             1. RJ December 5, 2014 at 8:21 pm

                Thanks Hartvig and nsb, I’ll look into it.
    4. John Autin December 4, 2014 at 10:43 am

       Steve, here’s one way of comparing Phil Niekro and Warren Spahn:

       — In Niekro’s 17 qualified years with the Braves (1967-83), he made 593 starts, with a team record of 315-276. In all other games, the Braves went 969-1,125 (.463). Applying that non-Niekro record to Niekro’s starts gives an expected record of 273-318. Niekro’s starts beat that record by 42 wins.

       — In Spahn’s 18 qualified years with the Braves (1947-64), he made 617 starts, with a team record of 379-237. In all other games, the Braves went 1,156-1,024 (.530), creating an expected record of 327-289 in Spahn’s starts. He beat that by 52 wins.

       That’s 10 extra team wins in Spahn’s starts — with one extra year in which to compile them. Niekro had a good year or two after leaving the Braves, which Spahn did not.

       I think that’s a pretty good picture of the difference between them. Spahn played for much better teams. The gap in their performance is smaller than their W-L records suggest. I actually think Niekro had a higher peak, but Spahnie was a bit more consistent at a “very good” level.

       Reply ↓
12. Jim December 4, 2014 at 11:29 am

    Aaron, Mathews, Aaron, and Aaron

    Reply ↓
13. J.R. December 4, 2014 at 11:30 am

    I went more with “feel” rather than metrics on this one. Hank was a no brainer, as was Chipper for me. You think of the Braves, you think of them. I went with Eddie Mathews and Greg Maddux as my other two selections, but it was awfully difficult to leave Warren Spahn off the list.

    I would have loved to have done the two different Rushmore’s from their different cities. Would have made this much easier.

    Reply ↓
14. Voomo Zanzibar December 4, 2014 at 12:10 pm

    Too many great players. This is hard.
    Makes the most sense to me to do it by era.

    This makes Kid Nichols the #1 pick.

    And brings a choice between Aaron, Mathews, and Spahn.
    Yeesh. That’s just not fair.
    Well, has to be Aaron.

    Chipper-Smoltz-Glavine-Maddux-Andruw?
    Maddux actually played the least number of years for the team (eleven), but I’m picking him, for reasons of awesomeness.

    That leaves Knucksie with a vote for his 5000 fluttering IP in the dark years.
    ______

    Vote:

    Kid Nichols
    Hank Aaron
    Phil Niekro
    Greg Maddux

    Reply ↓
15. Doug December 4, 2014 at 12:15 pm

    Nichols, Spahn, Aaron and Chipper for me.

    The 1890s Beaneaters won 5 pennants, so seemed there must be a player from those years. Spahn and Aaron for the 40s and 50s championship teams, and Chipper for the 90s.

    Tough to leave off Mathews, Niekro and Smolgladdux.

    Reply ↓
16. Paul E December 4, 2014 at 12:22 pm

    Aaron, Mathews, Spahn, Chipper.

    According to Bill James, Nichols was every bit as good as Cy Young and the stats definitely back him up. Oh, that’s right – James is going entirely by statistical analysis and didn’t see the guy pitch, either. I’m too lazy to check, but I believe I recall seeing Nichols went to the minors in mid-to-late-career and won another 50 games there and returned to the majors and won another 50 or so in the bigs. Probably as many deserving Circle of Great caliber and Rushmore level players as any franchise we’ve reviewed thus far.

    Reply ↓
    1. David Horwich December 4, 2014 at 12:32 pm

       Nichols went to the minors at age 32, pitched 2 seasons with a 47-19 W-L record, then returned to the majors at age 34 for 2+ years, going 32-25 to finish his career.

       Reply ↓
    2. Voomo Zanzibar December 4, 2014 at 12:33 pm

       Too lazy to check?
       Right. Trip to the library, dewey decimal system, walk through the stacks, haul out the 40 pound encyclopedia, sift through to page 749, and squint for the information in 7-point type.
       ______

       Or…
       Sarcasm, click three buttons, and:

       47 games won for the Kansas City Blue Stockings at age 32-33.
       Player/Manager and part owner of the team.

       Reply ↓
       1. Voomo Zanzibar December 4, 2014 at 12:34 pm

          Best Old School quote:

          “You never heard anyone with a sore arm in my day. When we weren’t pitching, we either played the outfield or doubled as ticket takers. The biggest strain my arm ever underwent was at the Polo Grounds when I counted 30,000 tickets.”

          – Kid Nichols, 1948

          Reply ↓
       2. Lawrence Azrin December 4, 2014 at 4:11 pm

          @25,

          Did Nichols also add “We used to walk to school six miles uphill (in both directions)every day, whether it was raining or snowing”?

          Reply ↓
       3. Paul E December 5, 2014 at 3:16 pm

          “too lazy to check”

          Yes, too lazy to open another tab 🙁 Not quite digging ditches

          So, Nichols may have been a 400-game winner if he doesn’t get the offer of ownership. That’s high cotton.

          The way the game is evolving (5 man rotation may have started with Mets and Dodgers in early 1970’s ?), we’re overdue for the sixth starter and further downfall of the “workhorse”. Aces will go 190 innings and get paid $ 100,000/inning

          Reply ↓
17. RJ December 4, 2014 at 1:40 pm

    Lots of talk about how stacked the ballot is. How do the Braves compare to the other fifteen original teams in this regard? First, let’s look at which clubs have the most position players with X amount of WAR for their team:

    60+: Tigers (7)
    70+: Tigers/Yankees (5)
    80+: Tigers/Yankees/Braves/Cardinals/Giants (3)
    90+: Yankees/Giants (3)
    100+: Yankees/Giants (3)

    Now pitchers:

    60+: Braves (5)
    70+: Braves (3)
    80+: Braves (3)
    90+: Braves (3)
    100+: Braves/Senators (1)

    Combing pitchers and position players:

    60+: Braves (9)
    70+: Braves (6)
    80+: Braves (6)
    90+: Braves (5)
    100+: Yankees/Giants(3)

    So indeed, the Braves have an unusual amount of talent to choose from. Their hitters have done very well, but their handful of elite pitchers puts them above most franchises. Ten of the original sixteen have no 70+ WAR pitchers, whereas most have at least two 70+ WAR position players.

    Reply ↓
    1. Hartvig December 4, 2014 at 8:06 pm

       I was trying to remember another franchise that presented as many problems with trying to narrow down the field to just 4 and and I was coming up blank. It’s hardly ever easy- except maybe for a few of the expansion clubs- but this time around I am completely at a loss with even where to begin.

       How can you not include arguably the best third baseman in the games first 100 years or a pitcher who led his teams to 5 pennants in a decade or a 2 time MV? Just among the pitchers you have 4 guys who rank in the top 12 in Adam Darowski’s Hall of Stats plus 2 others who pitched very recently who rank #23 & #28.

       I’ve got to think about this for a while.

       Reply ↓
       1. Lawrence Azrin December 4, 2014 at 8:18 pm

          @40,

          That’s a good argument for splitting the Original 16 MLB franchises into two eras, pre-expansion (before 1961) and post-expansion (post-1961). Even so, I still count 7/8 worthy candidates just post-expansion.

          Reply ↓
18. John Autin December 4, 2014 at 3:23 pm

    Career pitching WAR from 60 feet (since 1893):
    — 7th, Maddux
    — 9th, Niekro
    — 13th, Spahn
    — 16th, Nichols
    — 24th, Glavine

    That’s a glut of Rushmore candidates, especially with only three spots really up for grabs.

    I went for Bad Henry, Nichols, Spahn & Knucksie.

    Reply ↓
19. Alan December 4, 2014 at 4:35 pm

    Man, this was a tough one. Had to let two 300-game winners go by the wayside, along with Smoltz, Chipper and Kid Nichols. Still, Aaron, Matthews, Spahn and Maddux rose highest in my mind, and got my votes.

    Reply ↓
20. Lawrence Azrin December 4, 2014 at 6:43 pm

    Maddux vs. Chipper Jones is an interesting conundrum. Maddux was clearly a lot more dominant when comparing their respective peaks, but spent only half of his career with the Braves. Plus, Larry Wayne was hardly chopped liver, as when he retired he was almost certainly one of the five best 3Bmen ever (I have him behind Schmidt, Brett and Mathews, maybe ahead of Boggs – Beltre closing fast).

    This is one of those cases I was referring to in #33 above, where WAR is not going to give you the final answer. Chipper has nearly 20 more WAR than Maddux for the Braves (85-66), but I would still choose Greg Maddux for his incredible peak in the mid/late 90s.

    Reply ↓
    1. Hartvig December 4, 2014 at 8:51 pm

       And of course Mathews is the 3rd leg of that quandary- how do you pick Jones and not pick Mathews if you rank Mathews higher (as I think most probably do)?

       Four dominant pitchers from different eras as well as 3 dominant pitchers from the same era, two of the greatest third basemen off all time and the all time home run leader (without an asterisk next to his name).

       I’m going with Nichols, Spahn, Aaron & Maddux.

       Nichols would be the “easiest” one to drop because he played so long ago and is not generally well known but he was the best player on a team that dominated for nearly a decade.

       If I were to go strictly timeline I could see putting Niekro in place of Spahn but until Aaron surpassed Mays in home runs he was probably the most identifiable face of the franchise.

       You made a good case for Chipper over Maddux already and we’ve already got 2 players from the 50’s so that sort of explains Mathews.

       But there was never any doubt about Hammerin’ Henry.

       Reply ↓
21. PP December 4, 2014 at 9:42 pm

    Neutralize Chipper’s stats to 1960 and Eddie Lee blows him away. And I like Chipper.

    Reply ↓
22. Michael Sullivan December 5, 2014 at 12:58 pm

    Of course for me the face of the Braves while I’ve known and watched them play, is Maddux, Smolz, Glavine, Jones, Jones and Murphy. Given how amazing all of them were, and that each, except maybe for Murphy had hall of fame level careers just with the Braves, it’s really weird to see them at #3-5 on the position player list and #4-6 on the pitcher WAR list. I forget just how much of Maddux’s great performance came with the cubbies.

    But that’s what happens when some inner circle greats played their whole careers with this team.

    For me then, the Mt. Rushmore has to represent each era.

    Nichols is the only legit choice from the early years, IMO, so if I leave him out, I’m basically ignoring the 19th century.

    Aaron has got to go on, he was a lifer and one of the best 10 players ever.

    Tough for me to leave anybody out on those 90s-00s Braves, but I’d have to let two of them go, even if I ignored Hank-freaking Aaron, along with everybody else.

    So, the obvious candidates are Spahn, Mathews, and the big 6, but we can only take two of the eight, or three if displacing Nichols.

    This would be much easier if we did a boston/milwaukee and an Atlanta. All 8 would be legitimate Rushmore level candidates.

    Boston/Milwaukee: Nichols, Aaron, Mathews, Spahn
    Atlanta: Niekro (bright spot in a lot of dark years), Maddux, Chipper… And then it’s *still* hard: Glavine or Smolz? Or Andruuw? Or Murphy, the quintessential fan favorite? I’ll go with Smolz. The braves have been known for pitchers, so they should get 2 in each.

    Which leaves me exactly nowhere in determining the final four.

    Here’s what I come up with: Hank, Maddux …
    …

    goddamit…

    Alright, I’ll vote Chipper and Mathews.

    But everytime I put somebody down it feels wrong to leave some other guy out.

    Reply ↓
23. bells December 9, 2014 at 3:03 pm

    Late for the party, but agree with the obvious consensus that this one’s a toughie. Weighing the greatness of players with the amount of time they spent with the organization… it’s hard not to think of Maddux, and the trio of him and Glavine and Smoltz immediately after, when thinking about the Braves, because they were the face of the dominant team I grew up with (I was 11 when they went to the WS against Minnesota). But then, they kind of cancel each other out in a sense because of how intertwined they were – Maddux was clearly the best, but the other two were great as well, and Maddux didn’t really spend enough of his career with the Braves to justify putting him above the others. I’d prefer if they got a statue at the entrance to the viewing area of this Mount Rushmore. Still, putting Chipper on there seems a bit weird, as it wasn’t until his last few years in the majors that I really realized what a solid and great contributor he was to those Braves. But, there’s something to be said for spending your whole career with the team, so I feel okay choosing him from the modern era.

    Going back in time, I think I have to include Nichols. All accounts were that he was fantastic, and the numbers back that up. I’m fine having ‘old guy president that we don’t know much about today’ up there to remind people of greatness before their time. The Teddy Roosevelt of the Braves? Sorry, I really don’t know much about Teddy (I guess I’m Canadian so hopefully that’s an acceptable excuse)

    The other obvious candidate from no particular era of dominance would be Niekro. But honestly, I can’t justify putting him on over two of Aaron, Spahn, and Mathews. Aaron is the most obvious of all Braves, so that leaves one spot. (sidenote: the braves have a number of players who were so good for so long that people couldn’t ignore them any more, Aaron being the poster boy for this, but Chipper, Niekro, and to a certain extent Spahn also went their whole careers without being thought of as THE best at their position). Gah, the three-way coin toss goes to… Spahn. I wash my hands of it.

    Reply ↓
24. Phil December 11, 2014 at 12:23 pm

    Aaron, Matthews, Spahn, Maddux.

    Reply ↓
25. David Horwich December 18, 2014 at 12:21 pm

    So we have a tie for the last spot – do the Braves get 5 on their Rushmore, or do we have a runoff?…

    Reply ↓
    1. Doug Post authorDecember 18, 2014 at 1:51 pm

       I suppose we should have a runoff.

       Reply ↓
       1. mosc December 18, 2014 at 1:59 pm

          I thought some of the intent with these was that polling was left open going forward? So we kind of always have a runoff?

          Reply ↓
    2. Alan December 19, 2014 at 10:35 am

       Naw, Maddog and Matthews are both all-timers, and the Braves are stacked with candidates. All 5 should be in!

       Reply ↓
       1. David Horwich December 19, 2014 at 11:15 am

          Well, there are other franchises that are just as stacked – Yankees are the obvious example – but only have 4 Rushmorites. Doesn’t seem fair to give the Braves an extra just because of the luck of the drawn vote.

          Reply ↓

26. Pingback: High Heat Stats » Atlanta Braves Mount Rushmore Runoff Election