53 thoughts on “The Mount Rushmore of the Los Angeles Dodgers”

1. Hartvig March 18, 2015 at 9:37 pm

   Still mulling this one over. I like to go by eras but that can be tough with this club. Uncle Robbie is probably the name most closely associated with the early years of the club. Wheat or Vance would both probably work their too but the reality is that only die hard fans are going to recognize any of those names much less their faces. There are a lot of well known names in the 50’s- Robinson, Snider, Reese, Hodges, Campanella- and they had a lot of success but only 1 WS title to show for the group (2 if you count 59 by which time Hodges & Snider were winding down & the rest were history). Koufax is probably the face of the 60’s. The best player of the 70’s was probably Cey but I suspect that even a lot of Dodger fans would even gaze on the mountain and wonder who they guy with the cheesy mustache is. I’d rather save Garvey’s face for dart boards. I suppose Fernando or Bulldog would work for the 80’s but Lasorda is probably the best known face from both eras. Piazza has to be the face of the 90’s & Kershaw is the only modern name deserving consideration. As of this moment I’m leaning towards Wheat, Robinson, Koufax and… somebody else.

   Reply ↓
   1. Voomo Zanzibar March 19, 2015 at 12:43 am

      Hard to overlook Koufax given his Postseason numbers.
      After all, it is ultimately about winning championships.

      Here are some regular season comparisons between Koufax and Vance:

      165 – 87, 2.76 (131)
      187 – 129,3.15 (130)

      Best WAR seasons:
      10.7 .. 10.4
      10.3 .. 10.0
      8.1 … 7.8
      7.4 … 7.1
      5.7 … 6.1
      4.4 … 5.1
      2.1 … 4.6
      1.5 … 3.7
      1.3 … 3.5

      Reply ↓
   2. Hartvig March 20, 2015 at 11:19 am

      I wound up going with Wheat, Robinson, Koufax and… Piazza.

      I seem to recall reading that Wheat was pretty popular among the fans so I went with him altho I’m sure Vance was as well. I was really tempted to go with Babe Herman just to see what they would do about the ears.

      Jackie was easy even though it meant if I was going to stick with a timeline leaving off some of the best known and loved players in the franchises history. Koufax was the same.

      I went with Piazza partly because his best seasons were as a Dodger, he’s one of the top 5 or so catchers ever and finally he has the Lasorda connection.

      Reply ↓
2. Voomo Zanzibar March 19, 2015 at 12:53 am

   I voted for Wheat, Jackie, Koufax, and Kershaw.
   _____

   The vote leaders at this moment have 15 each, and it looks like Im the first to choose Zack Wheat.

   He’s the franchise leader in Games, PA, hits, doubles, triples, and Total Bases.
   And what spectacular slightly-above-average consistency!

   5 separate season with exactly 2.7 WAR.
   9 between 2.5 – 2.9

   Batted exactly .375 in both his age 35 and 36 year.
   And ended his career with exactly 10,000 PA.

   Reply ↓
3. MJ March 19, 2015 at 6:03 am

   Steve Garvey is listed twice.

   Reply ↓
   1. Doug Post authorMarch 19, 2015 at 11:06 am

      Fixed it. Thanks,

      Reply ↓
4. Bryan O'Connor March 19, 2015 at 7:23 am

   Interesting that the career leaders in position player WAR and pitching WAR are outside the top four at the moment. I excluded them as well- went with Jackie, Sandy, Clayton, and the Duke.

   Reply ↓
5. David P March 19, 2015 at 7:29 am

   The Dodgers are one of those odd franchises that’s arguably as famous – if not more famous – for it’s managers and executives than for it’s players.

   Managers: You have Lasorda, Alston, and Wilbert Robinson as long tenured managers who are in the HOF. Durocher was pretty evenly split between the Dodgers, Giants and Cubs. They were also the first team managed by Casey Stengel.

   Owners/Executives: You have the O’Malley’s (Walter and his son Peter), Buzzie Bavasi, Al Campanis. Going way back there’s Charles Ebbets. And of course Branch Rickey who perhaps made a bigger impact with the Cardinals but the Jackie Robinson signing holds a lot of weight.

   Reply ↓
   1. Dr. Doom March 19, 2015 at 8:57 am

      I was JUST going to make that point! It’s too bad they’re not listed. The “write-ins” never get enough love, so it would’ve been nice to see some (or even ALL) of the names you mention on the ballot.

      Reply ↓
   2. Lawrence Azrin March 19, 2015 at 12:25 pm

      @6, @8;

      Agree entirely; I’m a little disappointed that none of the important Dodgers managers or owners/executives were listed on the ballot. I could easily justify a ballot solely of them, that was something like:
      -Rickey
      -Walter O’Malley
      -Alston
      -Lasorda

      OR EVEN:
      -Robbie (Wilbert Robinson)
      and
      – Buzzie Bavasi

      as alternates to the four above.

      Reply ↓
      1. Doug Post authorMarch 19, 2015 at 3:36 pm

         OR EVEN: Vin Scully?

         Reply ↓
         1. bells March 20, 2015 at 12:23 am

            If only you could somehow carve a voice into Mount Rushmore…

            Reply ↓
         2. Lawrence Azrin March 20, 2015 at 11:46 am

            #30,

            You could attach a battery-powered amplifier and speaker on the mountainside of Mt. Rushmore, and run a continuous loop of Vin Skully’s play-by-play of the ninth inning of Sandy Koufax’s perfect game in 1965. Pure poetry.

            Reply ↓
   3. Richard Chester March 19, 2015 at 1:49 pm

      I don’t think that many long-time Dodger fans would consider anybody named O’Malley as the face of the Dodgers. They might consider a different part of the human body.

      Reply ↓
      1. :Lawrence Azrin March 19, 2015 at 2:45 pm

         @13,

         RC – understood, but I’m guessing that most of us here are _not_ long-time Dodger fans.

         Reply ↓
      2. :Lawrence Azrin March 19, 2015 at 2:45 pm

         @13,

         RC – understood, but I’m guessing that most of us here are _not_ long-time Dodger fans.

         Reply ↓
      3. David P March 19, 2015 at 3:29 pm

         Richard – I assume that’s because of the move to LA? Or is it something else?

         Reply ↓
         1. Richard Chester March 19, 2015 at 3:42 pm

            It is because of the move to LA. Dodger fans protested loudly but to no avail.

            Reply ↓
            1. David P March 19, 2015 at 6:32 pm

               As a fan of the Cleveland Browns, I can relate to how Brooklyn Dodger fans felt/feel. Of course, as a baseball fan, it’s hard to ignore O’Malley the elder’s impact on the game.
6. no statistician but March 19, 2015 at 8:43 am

   The Dodgers really are a peculiar franchise. Their truly dominant players have had short careers for various reasons—Vance, Robinson, Koufax—and while the dominant team they fielded in the forties and fifties—NL dominance, anyway—was noted for offense, not pitching, the WAR figures for Reese, Snider, Hodges, Gilliam, Furillo, and Campy, don’t bowl you over. It’s interesting that none of the pitchers from 1947-1956 era even make the charts above except for Podres, and he put up most of his WAR later. Erskine, Loes, Newcomb, Roe, Branca, et al, were secondary to the guys around them. The same could be said for the ’70s era Dodgers, except that they weren’t nearly so dominant.

   I’m voting for Vance, Robinson, Snider, and Koufax out of frustration. Wheat was consistently good, Kershaw needs another couple of years to prove he belongs.

   Reply ↓
7. David March 19, 2015 at 11:55 am

   Jeff Pfeffer? Can’t recall reading about him before. Interestingly, Edward Joseph “Jeff” Pfeffer is the brother of Francis Xavier “Big Jeff” Pfeffer.

   http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/pfeffje01.shtml
   http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/pfeffbi01.shtml

   Reply ↓
8. Richard Chester March 19, 2015 at 1:44 pm

   Concerning Gionfriddo’s “…spectacular over-the fence catch…that robbed Joe DiMaggio of a 3-run homer…”, I don’t think that it has been definitely established that the ball would have been a HR. You can see the catch via youtube and it is clear that when Gionfriddo had the ball in his glove he was a few feet in front of the low bull-pen fence and his momentum carried him a couple of steps back to that fence. It is difficult to ascertain if the trajectory of the ball would have taken it over the fence on the fly. Also it wasn’t deepest left-center, which was 467 feet. Gionfriddo is a few feet in front of the 415ft sign.

   Reply ↓
   1. Doug Post authorMarch 19, 2015 at 2:48 pm

      Thanks for the correction, Richard. I’ll amend the narrative.

      Reply ↓
9. mosc March 19, 2015 at 3:12 pm

   If kershaw wins the cy young in 2015 and the dodgers win the world series (both of which are decent possibilities), I think he’d be near Jackie Robinson levels of voting this time next year. He’s still young but the ice cream truck would have to get hella lucky to deny Kershaw a spot IMHO.

   Kershaw, Koufax, Robinson, Campanella (because I can’t see Reese or the Duke being any easier a choice than Campy)

   Reply ↓
10. Paul E March 19, 2015 at 4:34 pm

    Vance, Robinson, Snider, & Koufax.

    I wanted to vote for Pedro Guerrero ever since I first heard the tape of the OJ Simpson 911 call made in Florida…..I wish I knew how to drop in the link

    Reply ↓
11. Doug Post authorMarch 19, 2015 at 5:01 pm

    Don Drysdale is languishing in the early results, currently ranking 9th, 11 votes out of fourth spot.

    I suppose, though, it’s tough to pick Drysdale AND Koufax, and tough not to pick Sandy if you feel you have to choose one or the other.

    Reply ↓
    1. Dr. Doom March 19, 2015 at 6:09 pm

       My thinking exactly.

       Also, your comment (jest?) above regarding Vin Scully – yeah! He’s probably more the face (voice?) of the Dodgers than anyone ever.

       Reply ↓
12. Gary Bateman March 19, 2015 at 5:11 pm

    I voted for Koufax, Wheat, Robinson & Snider. I realize the list was based on WAR, but a shout out to Don Newcombe, who accumulated 22.8 bWAR in just eight seasons and missed two prime years due to military commitment. Despite his post-season problems, he was the best pitcher on the early/mid 50’s teams.

    Reply ↓
13. Steven March 19, 2015 at 8:39 pm

    I voted Koufax, Reese, Robinson, Drysdale. All four spent their entire major league careers with the Dodgers, and played significant roles on championship teams.

    Reply ↓
14. john March 19, 2015 at 9:21 pm

    If Jackie Robinson is left off, the whole thing lacks credibility. Babe Ruth, Jackie Robinson, and Curt Flood changed the game. Period. No discussion. Had a terrible time narrowing the list down to 3. Would been happier with the 2-headed monster of Sandy Don Koufax Drysdale. I finally chose both of them. Tough call. That left a shout out to my fellow Hoosier Gil Hodges. Not satisfied with my choices, but I’ll live with them.

    Reply ↓
    1. paget March 19, 2015 at 10:58 pm

       I hear you about Jackie and the Babe. But I have to be frank: it would never, not in a million years occur to me to list Curt Flood on my Cardinals Mt. Rushmore. For as much as I admire his moral courage (despite some other personality flaws), and for as much as he changed the game, would you ever list him over
       Musial
       Gibson
       Hornsby
       Pujols
       ?
       And I wouldn’t be much tempted to list him above
       Ozzie
       Medwick
       Dean
       Boyer
       Brock

       The great thing about Jackie is that you don’t have to wrestle with the question of history vs. talent — the guy was just a total monster on the diamond. I can’t believe that anyone would leave him off his/her ballot.

       For my part, I’m going to vote Robinson, Vance, Koufax, Rickey. I feel a little weird about leaving Kershaw off, but only a little — if he blew his arm out tomorrow I don’t think he’d remain one of the four faces of the franchise. Projecting into the future -especially with pitchers- is just too speculative. Another seven or eight years like this, then definitely he’d replace either Koufax or Vance. (By the way, I can’t wait to talk about Vance when 1891 COG rolls around. This guy’s career is totally stupefying.)

       Reply ↓
       1. paget March 19, 2015 at 11:07 pm

          Actually, I’d be sorely tempted to even include Branch Rickey on my Cardinals Mt. Rushmore over Curt Flood.

          I wonder, is there any other executive who could lay a convincing claim to Rushmore status for two separate organizations?

          Reply ↓
          1. Hartvig March 20, 2015 at 12:34 am

             Casey as manager for the Mets & the Yankees maybe

             Bob Howsam would be an interesting case:
             a) instrumental in forcing baseball to expand
             b) one of the founders of the AFL
             c) helped create the 67-68 Cards
             d) helped build the Big Red Machine

             Reply ↓
          2. David P March 20, 2015 at 6:26 am

             Paget – Probably the closest equivalent to Rickey would be Lee MacPhail who had a role in dynasties with the Yankees and the Orioles. There’s also Bill Veeck who was the owner of several franchises. All of his tenures were short but he made his mark on each franchise.

             Hartvig in #31 mentions Stengel’s time with the Yankees and Mets. In both roles, his boss was George Weiss.

             Reply ↓
       2. john March 20, 2015 at 9:31 pm

          OK, Paget, you are right. I guess I didn’t explain myself as well as I should have. Would I put Flood on the Cardinals Rushmore? Not on a bet! I’d barely put him on over Don Kessinger! (Don’t forget my beloved Cubs traded Dandy Don to the Cardinals for a catcher’s mitt and car fare and he spent I think a year and a half with the Redbirds.)

          Reply ↓
15. bells March 20, 2015 at 12:37 am

    Jackie Robinson is on MLB’s Rushmore, let alone the Dodgers. No question. Koufax also goes on without question; even if some of the marvel at his dominance was overhyped by the context of the pitchers’ era he was in, he’s still synonymous with mound dominance and changed what was possible for expectations about strikeouts. I think Duke Snider is a harder choice, but only slightly more so. I’m usually all for pushing guys from different eras, but the Dodgers of the 50s/60s were just where it’s at, it’s hard to deny. I’d consider Vance and Wheat for sure, Fernando-mania was amazing but was too close to being a mere flash in that pan to immortalize in stone; in the end I can’t ignore how good Pee Wee Reese was – he’s the all-time leading WAR-getter for the Dodgers and he lost years to the war.

    Kershaw gets a papier mache bust for now; he needs at least 3 more years and/or at least 1 good postseason before he’s crossed the line permanently for me. Considering when this series started, I thought maybe he WOULD be at that point before we got to the Dodgers mount rushmore, ha!

    Reply ↓
16. Brent March 20, 2015 at 1:57 pm

    I voted Reese, Robinson, Snider and Koufax b/c I think those are the best 4 Dodgers. I did consider Zack Wheat and Dazzy Vance as well.

    If I been given the choice, I would have seriously considered Uncle Robbie (when they rename the team after you, you should probably be considered an important part of the team’s history), Walt Alston and Branch Rickey.

    And I think they would have to have some sort of video tribute at the monument to the Gibson HR. No, he wasn’t a Dodger long enough to be on the monument, but that is the greatest single moment in Dodgers history in my lifetime. 27 years later, still amazing and unbelievable. The one time in my sports fandom that I jumped off the couch b/c of that kind of moment when I wasn’t particularly rooting for the team it happened for.

    Reply ↓
17. bstar March 20, 2015 at 11:19 pm

    Is anyone else having trouble seeing the comments on this thread? When I click on the article or on a specific comment in the Recent Comments thread, all it shows is Hartvig’s post #1 and nothing else.

    Reply ↓
    1. David P March 21, 2015 at 8:54 am

       I see everything Bstar…though it sounds like you may not see my reply!

       I still think it’s strange that Andy said he was going to change the theme and eliminate the ads. I haven’t noticed any changes. The theme looks the same and there are still ads.

       Reply ↓
       1. Voomo Zanzibar March 21, 2015 at 11:50 am

          The problems seem to have increased after the ‘fix.’
          I’m using firefox, and the consistent issues are:

          Recent Comments not updating,
          My name and email address no longer being saved in the form,
          Loading to a blank page after I comment.

          Reply ↓
          1. Richard Chester March 21, 2015 at 2:04 pm

             Voomo: I have problems similar to yours. To retrieve the latest comments I have to bring up a blog and scroll down to see the number of comments. If that number is greater than the previous time I accessed the blog, then I have to scroll down the entire list to find the new comments. Painstaking especially for the blogs with a large number of comments.

             Reply ↓
          2. Lawrence Azrin March 23, 2015 at 11:22 am

             @40/VZ;

             I’ve had the same three problems as you stated – practically speaking, most annoying is my name/email address no longer being saved in the form.

             Comments I’ve posted recently do sometimes appear under ‘Recent Comments, though it seems rather random.

             Reply ↓
       2. bstar March 21, 2015 at 8:42 pm

          David — thanks, I can now get to these comments with a different web browser but am still experiencing the problems that Voomo and RC mentioned.

          Reply ↓
          1. David P March 22, 2015 at 7:12 am

             I use firefox and my name and address are still saved. That sounds like a browser issue more than a HHS issue. The other issues I think are universal at this point.

             If Andy were to grant me admin access to the backend of the site, I could probably get things fixed in an hour or two. Just with the little bit of checking I can do without such access, I see that one of the plugins he’s using has been completely replaced by a new plugin. That’s likely a major source of the problems, though there could be others as well.

             Reply ↓
             1. Voomo Zanzibar March 22, 2015 at 10:42 am

                I’m thinking that the site either needs tommy john surgery, or else everything will simply be fine after opening day.
18. bluejaysstatsgeek March 21, 2015 at 10:29 pm

    I can’t do it, I simply cannot choose only 4.

    Reply ↓
19. John Autin March 23, 2015 at 6:49 pm

    Jackie Robinson, Dazzy Vance, Duke Snider and Sandy Koufax.

    I’m surprised that Koufax has a huge lead on Vance. Dazzy seems clearly better to me, particularly as a Dodger. E.g., 39.9 to 30.7 in WAA; 3.62 to 3.30 in WAA per 250 IP.

    Seems like Vance is close to Koufax on 5- to 7-year peak, but has several more good seasons.

    FWIW, Hall of Stats and JAWS — both with a big peak component — have Dazzy way ahead. And that’s on total career; his Dodger career has all his best seasons.

    Of course, folks may be voting on iconic stature as much as “who was better.” But it’s a shame that Vance’s Dodgers were so mediocre. In his 11 consecutive years there (1922-32), they only won 90 games once:
    — 1924, 92-62, 1.5 games behind … Vance went 28-6, led the majors with 10.4 WAR/pitch.

    Vance also led the NL in WAR/pitch in 1930, the other year they sort of contended.

    In those 11 years, Brooklyn was slightly under .500 over all, while Vance went 187-129, leading the majors in wins, WAR/pitch, and of course strikeouts (by a 34% margin). That’s iconic enough for me.

    Koufax can match that trifecta for a 9-year stretch, but not longer. And his team had the NL’s best record in that 9-year stretch.

    Reply ↓
20. John March 26, 2015 at 9:04 pm

    I’d like to know who left Jackie off their Rushmore, and their reasoning. A complete, baffling mystery to me.

    Reply ↓
    1. Bryan O'Connor March 27, 2015 at 9:50 am

       Jackie was on my list- probably my first choice- but it’s not a travesty to leave him off. Reese and Snider accumulated more value with the team, while Vance, Drysdale, and Wheat were all in the same range. Koufax had arguably the highest peak and may define the Dodgers as well as, or better than, Jackie does.

       Any framework that takes historical import and/or peak value into account will include Robinson, but one that seeks to represent various eras with the player who contributed most to the team’s success in that era might take Vance or Wheat, Reese or Snider, Koufax, and Hershiser/Valenzuela/Kershaw.

       Reply ↓
    2. Lawrence Azrin March 27, 2015 at 12:25 pm

       @48,

       As has been demonstrated countless times in our COG voting, people here often vote strategically for “favorite sons”, sentimental favorites that they know are not the most qualified candidates, but that they wish to keep on the ballot and/or give some support.

       I don’t think that this reasoning is baffling or any mystery in the leas;t it’s just human nature. Besides, this little exercise in picking our ‘real’ baseball HOF would be a lot less interesting if we followed the monolithical mentality you suggest.

       Reply ↓
       1. John March 27, 2015 at 9:43 pm

          I’m sorry you feel I’m suggesting I’m following a “monolithical mentality.” As I said in @27, Jackie Robinson changed baseball. How different would MLB be today if Robinson had retaliated against the blatant racism he encountered? Not just that, he was a great great player.

          However, I agree with you. It is human nature, which by definition is mysterious and baffling. Why I find someone being left off a ballot and you do not is baffling. I find it baffling that Cy Young, whom we consider the greatest pitcher to ever throw a ball, was elected to the HOF in 1937 instead of in the 1st election, 1936, astounding, mysterious and baffling, moreso than discovering that Babe Ruth not only wasn’t unanimous, he wasn’t even the leading vote-getter in 1936! So, we agree to disagree.

          Also, note that I never said they were wrong, just baffling and mysterious. And it shall ever be.

          Thank you for your comment!

          Reply ↓
          1. Richard Chester March 28, 2015 at 9:10 am

             Concerning Ruth I believe there were some voters who were traditionalists and resented the way Ruth had changed the game.

             Reply ↓

21. Pingback: Mount Rushmore for each of the 30 MLB franchises - OOTP Developments Forums