1974 Topps #130 Reggie Jackson
Well, we’re back into the truly classical era now, moving to a franchise that was founded in 1901. For our purposes, this poll includes the Philadelphia, Kansas City, and Oakland A’s.
OK here are the top 15 batters ranked by WAR:
| Rk | Player | WAR/pos | From | To |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rickey Henderson | 70.2 | 1979 | 1998 |
| 2 | Jimmie Foxx | 59.7 | 1925 | 1935 |
| 3 | Eddie Collins | 55.1 | 1906 | 1930 |
| 4 | Sal Bando | 48.8 | 1966 | 1976 |
| 5 | Al Simmons | 48.0 | 1924 | 1944 |
| 6 | Bert Campaneris | 45.9 | 1964 | 1976 |
| 7 | Reggie Jackson | 45.2 | 1967 | 1987 |
| 8 | Bob Johnson | 41.9 | 1933 | 1942 |
| 9 | Home Run Baker | 40.3 | 1908 | 1914 |
| 10 | Mark McGwire | 40.3 | 1986 | 1997 |
| 11 | Mickey Cochrane | 38.0 | 1925 | 1933 |
| 12 | Harry Davis | 33.5 | 1901 | 1917 |
| 13 | Max Bishop | 33.1 | 1924 | 1933 |
| 14 | Danny Murphy | 32.4 | 1902 | 1913 |
| 15 | Eric Chavez | 32.1 | 1998 | 2010 |
Whoa…major shock compared to all the other teams we’ve done so far. We’ve got 6 Hall of Famers in the top 9.
Here are the top 15 pitchers by WAR:
| Rk | Player | WAR | From | To |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Eddie Plank | 69.5 | 1901 | 1914 |
| 2 | Lefty Grove | 61.2 | 1925 | 1933 |
| 3 | Eddie Rommel | 46.2 | 1920 | 1932 |
| 4 | Rube Waddell | 44.5 | 1902 | 1907 |
| 5 | Chief Bender | 40.5 | 1903 | 1914 |
| 6 | Tim Hudson | 29.4 | 1999 | 2004 |
| 7 | Barry Zito | 29.2 | 2000 | 2006 |
| 8 | Vida Blue | 26.9 | 1969 | 1977 |
| 9 | Rube Walberg | 26.3 | 1923 | 1933 |
| 10 | Catfish Hunter | 23.2 | 1965 | 1974 |
| 11 | Jack Coombs | 19.4 | 1906 | 1914 |
| 12 | Mark Mulder | 18.5 | 2000 | 2004 |
| 13 | Bobby Shantz | 18.1 | 1949 | 1956 |
| 14 | Dave Stewart | 16.9 | 1986 | 1995 |
| 15 | Jack Quinn | 15.4 | 1925 | 1930 |
Hmm..more HOFers. 5 out of the top 10 guys are enshrined already.
We’ve also got to consider two managers–Connie Mack and Tony LaRussa. I don’t even know what to say about these guys…
Please choose 4.
I went with Eddie Plank and Lefty Grove right away as they represent
the A’s dynasties of the early 1910’s and the late 20’s and early 30’s.
I also took Jimmie Foxx who played with Grove and put up “Ruthian” numbers.
The final choice was tough. I took Connie Mack, because as owner/manager for
50 years, he was the creator and destroyer of multiple great teams.
He once said that the best season was fourth place. You stay in the race
long enough to help the attendance, then fade at the end and avoid having
to give the players raises next season, because they didn’t win.
Wow, I forgot to put Charlie Finley in the poll…
And you forgot the “s” in Henderson’s name.
Fixed that, thanks.
Connie Mack, Lefty Grove, Bert Campaneris, and Charlie Finley. Mack represents virtually the entire Philadelphia era; Grove was at his peak with the A’s at a time when hitting was dominant; Campaneris was great both in Kansas City and as a three-time Oakland world champion. Then there was Finley. He took the A’s from Kansas City, where they didn’t draw, to Oakland, where they won and still didn’t draw. Maybe I should replace him with Ed Charles.
There is a statue of Mack outside the Phillies Ballpark. That is good enough for me. I want to see the Mt Rushmore of just the KC A’s – Thinking Roger Maris might have a chance of making that foursome.
Maris, Vic Power, Ed Charles and Bob Cerv.
Maris played two years in KC, one very ordinary. Norm Siebern’s four years are far better.
And how about a Mt. Rushmore for the guys who shuttled back and forth between the Yankees and KC A’s.
Managers don’t play the game, so they are not eligible in my book. I voted straightforward on this one: Henderson, Foxx, Plank, Grove.
Is “Managers don’t play the game” going to be the new “Pitchers have their own award, so they should NOT get MVP votes” of our Mt Rushmore voting?
This is a Mt. Rushmore, not a Mt. WAR. On my Mt. Rushmore I want the guys who really personify the team. As such, I want a combo of personality, longevity with team, and real identification with the team. Of course, being good also matters. The problem with the A’s is that in all of their incarnations, being good has sooner or later meant being shipped to another team…
The first two were easy. Connie Mack The first managed for over 50 years and instantly says “Philadelphia Athletics” to me. He’s in, no problem. Rickey Henderson had 4 different stints with the A’s and put up just amazing numbers with the team. Obviously, his WAR shows that. While he played for just about every other team in baseball, he is pretty clearly an Athletic at heart. And, he grew up in Oakland too.
The next two were more difficult. I voted for Reggie Jackson because he was part of the team that won 3 straight World Series, was a real character who you can instantly identify, provides a bridge who played on the KC A’s for a year, and he definitely got tie-breaker points for being from Oakland.
For my fourth guy, I picked Jimmie Foxx, one of the great sluggers who represents the last great Mack teams in the late 20s and early 30s. This vote could have gone to one of the Philadelphia pitchers, but as a kid, Jimmie Foxx always struck me as the best A during Mack’s time.
I can definitely see a case for Charlie Finley. I wouldn’t have voted for him because nobody liked him, but I think you better make sure to get some other important owners on future ballots.
Gabriel, this exercise is entirely subjective. Whatever rules you want to use to determine your top 4 are completely up to you. So if some people want to use WAR as their only benchmark, I don’t see the problem with that. My personal belief is it should be players only, but I don’t have a problem with others voting for Mack, or McGraw, or Stengel, etc.
I like Jason Z’s quote about the best season finish being fourth place. In 50 seasons managing the A’s (01-50), they only came in fourth three times (’01 ’06 ’48).
As you would expect, his habit of building a dynasty then dismantling it produced many pennants, but also many years as the cellar-dweller.
Half of his seasons ended in an AL pennant (eight) or a last-place finish (17).
Here are the fifty seasons broken down by place in the standings from first to eighth:
8-7-3-3-3-6-3-17
Unbreakable records: 3731 wins, 3948 losses, 53 yrs as mgr (50 w one team), and how about managing at 87!
Not to mention that he managed in a suit and hat. 🙂
I also picture him with a cane and monocle. That might be Mr. Peanut, though.
Not long ago John Autin, I believe, posted a blog in defense of Mack. He stated that the dismantlings of the A’s teams were largely due to economic conditions caused by the competition of the Federal League and the depression and not merely by stinginess on the part of Mack. Also Mack’s sole source of income was from his ownership of the team and did not have other sources as other owners did.
Other managers who wore civilian clothes while managing: Bill Armour, Emil Fuchs, John McGraw, Burt Shotton and George Stallings.
Who was the last MLB manager _not_ to wear his team’s uniform when managing?
Tommy Lasorda. They stitched together TWO Dodgers uniforms for him.
That’s pretty funny, Andy.
Bad timing, though:
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120605&content_id=32800824&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb
Seriously, according to my book, the last two were Mack and Shotton in 1950.
Doesn’t Joe Maddon wear that team-logo pullover thing or a sweatshirt and no jersey underneath? Not exactly street clothes, but also not the team’s uniform per se.
Since so many of the Athletic’s greatest players spent a significant part of their careers with other teams as well and, in many of those cases, are better remembered on those other teams even if they may not have played as well for them (Collins, Foxx, Grove, Jackson, Hunter) I decided to take a “span of the franchise” approach.
Pick number 1 was Rube Waddell not only to represent not only the early glory of the franchise but also a time when you could be completely certifiable and still have a relatively long and successful major league career plus you get the added bonus of all those great stories about him for the kids to read and those magnificent ears up on the mountain. The runners up were Baker, who would have represented the 100,000 infield and Mack, who spans the first 50 years of the team but I don’t feel that he really became the face of the franchise until much later when they had begun their long run of futility. I think Collins is most associated with Chicago because of the Black Sox and Plank and Bender are just not names that casual baseball fans will remember.
Pick number 2 was Simmons partly because of his association with the team and Mack following his playing days. Foxx and Grove are probably more familiar to fans from their days in Boston and Cochrane in Detroit.
Pick number 3 had to represent the Kansas City era and here I went with Dagoberto over Reggie and Catfish because again they are most remember for their time with another team. Bando was just to blando. Charlie O was actually my second pick.
Pick number 4 required the most thought (which was still pretty minimal as I haven’t fully woken up yet) and I gave serious consideration to both of the bash brothers partly because of their close association with the steroids era but decided that Rickey was the man for the job.
Wow I can’t believe I didn’t even think of Jose Canseco.
For me, this is the toughest one yet. So many truly great players — yet few spent the bulk of their careers with the A’s. It’s hard to believe that their all-time leader in games (Campaneris) has just 1,795; Detroit has nine players with more, the Yankees eight.
Foxx spent barely half his career there; Reggie and Collins less than half; McGwire had his greatest years in STL; Grove won 4 of his 9 ERA titles in Boston; etc., etc., etc.
Since the team has turned over its roster perhaps more than any other of the original 16, I’m shifting away from a career view and picking one from each of their 4 dynasties (3+ pennants in a 4-year span):
— Eddie Collins (close call over the underrated Home Run Baker);
— Lefty Grove;
— Sal Bando (I admit, it’s boosterism to take him over Reggie); and
— Rickey.
Wow, that was exhausting.
The multi-city teams are going to be particularly tough, since their identities change so dramatically. I voted for Henderson out of deference to the A’s post-Philadelphia days, even though Jackson better represented Oakland’s era of greatest success. (I worried that Jackson’s head might not leave room for any others.) No Mack, no A’s: he’s Washington (not Herb). I think Grove’s in the competition for greatest pitcher of all time (not his fault the reserve clause forced him to contribute 100 victories to an independent minor league team because he was too good to sell), and unlike Plank, he was dominant on the staff (Plank stood out much less against, first, Waddell, and then Bender & Coombs). My remaining spot went to Collins rather than Foxx. I see Collins as the core of the early championship team of the ’10s, and he came back to be Mack’s chief support for his second dynasty, even though he was hardly on the field. His career WAR is far above Foxx’s (and well above any other A’s) – he’s something like Joe Morgan with +20 WAR.
As for the A’s KC days, with all deference to deal (@#4), perhaps a plaque at the Rushmore Snack Bar?
“As for the A’s KC days, with all deference to deal (@#4), perhaps a plaque at the Rushmore Snack Bar?”
Where they could sell the Ed Charles(ton) Chew bars?
Or have a sign that says:
No Shirt
No shoes
No Cerv(ice)?
I’m shocked that Collins has just 5% of the vote so far. No player was more important to their first dynasty, 3 titles and 4 pennants in 5 years from 1910-14.
The A’s got good in his first full season (1909, 95-58, 2nd place), and in his 6 full years there (1909-14), Collins led all MLB position players with 51.8 WAR, and ranked 1st in Runs, 2nd in steals (with a high of 81), 3rd in BA and OBP (trailing only Cobb and Jackson), 4th in OPS+, 5th in games.
I know he played more with Chicago, and he can go on their Rushmore. But he was in 4 World Series with the A’s, hitting .347. Among A’s position players, he had 5 of the top 13 WAR seasons ever, including nos. 2 and 4. He’s the greatest second baseman in history, and had his best years with the A’s.
P.S. Home Run Baker should be on the ballot. For 1909-14 combined, he ranks 4th in MLB position-player WAR, trailing only Collins, Cobb and Speaker, and well ahead of Wagner.
While it’s true that Collins had most of his greatest seasons in Philadelphia and played on some very successful teams I do think that all the time he spent with Chicago and the Black Sox scandal tend to fix him there in peoples minds. If not for Mack’s need/practice of selling off his best players when money got tight it’s almost hard to imagine how much longer those teams might have dominated. Other than at shortstop and center field they put an all-time team on the field that is as good as any. When you figure the depth of their pitching and the talent they would have on the bench along with their lineup I think they my well have the best 25 man roster of all time, especially if you sacrifice a little defense and move Henderson to center field (Rickey that is, not Dave). A lot would come down to what team you assigned players to if they were limited to one franchise and what criteria you used to do it.
A young Reggie could probably play CF too. (92 games there in 1972). For the first 3 or 4 years of his career, Al Simmons was a CFer too. So, if you want to squeeze Reggie, Rickey and Bucketfoot Al all into your outfield, I think you could probably play any one of them in CF.
At SS, you either are going to have to play Miggy Tejeda or Dagoberto.
Still, I agree, a really good 25 man roster. The Yankees have a better lineup and bench, the Giants might have a better pitching staff, but yeah, the A’s might have the best overall team.
I think that the Mack vote really cut into the Collins vote. I think most everyone has Rickey and Mack on the ballot, leaving two spots for the rest of A’s history. There’s a good case for Collins, but also a good case for several others, and Mack covers the same era as Collins, putting them in competition.
Yeah, good point Gabriel about Mack maybe stealing some votes for Collins. I agree, JA, this one is really tough. I want to pick Rickey, Foxx, Collins, and Lefty Grove and be done with it but then the ’72-’74 A’s don’t have a representative at all. Reggie gets my vote from that dynasty but who do I leave off? Since Collins had more WAR with Chicago, I think I will wait and cast my vote for him later. Reggie, Rickey, Foxx, and Grove.
By the way, JA, did you say Eddie Collins is the best second baseman of all-time? Rogers Hornsby’s ghost may want to have a word with you.
I’d be sorry for anyone who was tapped by Hornsby’s ghost – they say he was scary enough pre-mortem. But I think a case could be made that John’s right. Hornsby’s WAR is about 5% beyond Collins’ – sort of margin of error – and Collins was much more a pure second baseman: he played over 1000 more games at second than Hornsby.
Of course, peak-Hornsby is practically in a class by himself – in more ways than one, since after a few years, peak-Hornsby’s teams couldn’t wait to get rid of him: McGraw practically gave him away after a 10-WAR season.
Hornsby’s WAR total is beyond Collins’ and he accumulated that figure in ~2500 fewer PAs. That’s 4-5 seasons worth. Oh yeah, and the two Triple Crowns….
bstar, I stand by my opinion. I wouldn’t get into a quarrel about it, since Hornsby was fantastic — but so was Collins, and at their super-elite level I think it’s fair to look to other things, like championships won, performance in the WS, and whether teams liked having them around.
Hornsby won 2 pennants and 1 title, and hit poorly in both WS (.245/.615 combined, no HRs in 12 games, -0.612 WPA). Collins won 6 pennants and 4 titles and hit well in the WS (.328/.790, 0.220 WPA).
I also downgrade Hornsby a bit for the fact that he was traded 3 times in 3 years during his prime, by teams that generally had some idea of what they were doing.
The Cards won the ’26 title with Hornsby as player/manager, but dealt him for Frisch that winter — and won 4 of the next 8 pennants and 2 titles. Hornsby never won another title, as player or manager. McGraw dealt him after 1 year of typically great stats, for a couple of guys who never did much.
The Braves got Hornsby after a 60-94 season, clearly “winning” the trade — but lost 103 games with him, then shipped him along to the Cubs for a number of bodies and cash.
Hornsby did help the ’29 Cubs reach the WS, but they lost in 5 games. He never played more than 100 games in a season after that. The Cubs released him in August ’32, then caught fire under Charlie Grimm (37-18) to snag the flag.
Part of the problem is that Rajah demanded to manage as a condition of playing, but a lot of guys just didn’t like playing for him. The story of the ’52 Browns’ player revolt is well known, but there were other points of friction.
Well, in comparing the two it seems to me that more WS rings is about the only way Collins had a better career than Rogers Hornsby. As for their performance in the postseason, are you prepared to call Derek Jeter a better SS than Honus Wagner? Jeter has 5 rings and 7 appearances in the World Series and has hit well(.321/.832) while Wagner hit way below average (for him) in his two WS appearances with one win and one loss(.275/.766). You’ve got to admit, there is some similarity there between Collins/Hornsby and Jeter/Wagner.
As for Hornsby being a terrible teammate and his Triple-Crown-winning stats somehow not being enough to overcome his deficiencies as a person and actually being a detriment to his team, I’m sure there is some truth to it but I’m not prepared to take it as far as you on that(see Barry Bonds and Ty Cobb).
As for Bill James’ list below, he’s proven before that he can take the “team chemistry” thing way too far. His destructive and very nearly truthless take on Dick Allen comes to mind.
The Dick Allen snafu aside, James’s essays on both Collins and Hornsby in the Historical Abstract cite multiple sources in the process of reaching his conclusions. Have you read those essays lately?
I do give Jeter some extra credit for his WS titles and his own performance therein — but the Jeter/Wagner comparison still doesn’t get out of the gate. For Collins/Hornsby, we’re talking about a difference of about 6 WAR, 118.5 for Collins, 124.6 for the Rajah. For Jeter/Wagner, we’re almost talking about a factor of 2 — 68.1 for Jetes, 126.2 for Wagner.
Come on, b. Don’t insult my intelligence.
Furthermore, every contemporary comment about Wagner is a rave — I challenge you to find a serious observer who didn’t consider Honus to be an absolute, all-around gem of a player and person. So Jeter can’t possibly rate an edge there.
Finally, Wagner’s WS performance was far more productive, in context, than Hornsby’s. Honus hit .275, drove in 9 runs and scored 6 in 15 games, with a slight positive WPA. Hornsby’s R+RBI was just a little lower (11 in 12 games), but the difference in context between 1926/1929 and 1903/1909 is significant.
It’s not really merely a 6 WAR difference, JA. It’s two wins per season:
Hornsby WAR/150 8.3
Collins WAR/150 6.3
In defense of Honus, he was on four pennant winners, but there were no WS in 1901 and 1903. The Pirates, in fact, finished second four times, and third most of the others from 1901 through 1912 when Wagner flourished, battling it out yearly with the Cubs and Giants, who each also won 4 pennants in the 12 year span.
I’d say, re Hornsby, if batting alone counts, he’s obviously #1. If fielding is brought in, however, his position at the top is open to argument, and that’s why such things as how his teams finished, how he performed post-season, and how he impacted on the players around him need assessing in order to rank him honestly.
And honestly, overall I’d rank him behind Collins, about equal with Morgan. It depends, though, on which lens you use to enlarge the picture, mine—or that blurry Coke-bottle bottom everyone else seems to keep looking through. (Irony alert?)
no stat, Hornsby had more dWAR in his career than Collins. He even played shortstop for two full seasons, in 1917 and 1918, and finished second in the league in dWAR both years. Although Collins was a good fielder also, could he have played shortstop full-time and been an elite defender as Hornsby was in his time at SS?
Hornsby dWAR 13.9
Collins dWAR 8.1
But why should “per 150 games” carry the argument? Hornsby played in 23 seasons, Collins in 25.
And I notice you don’t address the Hornsby trades. St. Louis, with long experience of Hornsby and with every intention of winning championships, traded him for Frankie Frisch. And while you can never tell what they might have done had they kept Hornsby, the fact is that they were the class of the NL for the next decade, and Frisch — a lesser star, but still a legit HOFer — was by all accounts a huge part of that.
John McGraw — was there anyone with a greater desire to win, or a better understanding of how to do it? But McGraw dumped Hornsby after one year in spite of great stats. Does that mean nothing to you?
Differences in peak performance can be telling in many situations. But here, we’re talking about 2 guys who both were the best player in the game (by WAR) during their multi-year prime.
I do not dispute that, by the measurable numbers, Hornsby’s big seasons were bigger. But the point of the game is to win championships, and it’s obvious that Collins’s big seasons were plenty big enough to get the job done.
A couple of citations from the Abstract:
“Collins is described by various sources as the best bunter in the history of baseball, the best hit-and-run man in the history of baseball, the best defensive second baseman in the history of baseball, the best sign-stealer who ever lived…. Kid Gleason who managed Collins on the White Sox, said that Collins was the greatest team player who ever lived [as did Connie Mack]. Billy Evans, who was an umpire for many years while Collins was on the field, later a General Manager, said that Collins was the quickest thinker that he ever saw.”
John McGraw called him the greatest: “His mental attitude is an inspiration to his fellow players.” Bucky Harris said the same, and that he modeled his entire game on Collins.
Of Hornsby, HOFer Billy Herman said: “He was a very cold man. I broke in with the Cubs under Hornsby in 1931. He ignored me completely, and I figured it was because I was a rookie. But then I realized he ignored everybody.”
I’ll omit Bill’s own opinions, but with regard to the Dick Allen thing, let’s remember that James’s error there stands out because of its rarity. If there’s a more reliable all-around historical authority on baseball than Bill James — not just on who did what, but on what it takes to win — I haven’t heard of him.
In light of all that, I’ll take the guy with the longer career.
I’m big on stats, obviously. But I don’t believe that they tell the whole story. I would rather have Hornsby than almost any other second baseman in history, because those huge stats can overcome a LOT of jackass-ness. But I’d rather have Collins than Hornsby, because (a) he wasn’t far behind Hornsby in the metrics, and (b) he wasn’t just NOT a jackass — he was the complete OPPOSITE of Hornsby as a team player. And I think the gap between the two in that regard is worth 2 wins per 150 games.
And yes, I do downgrade Bonds and Cobb for those same reasons. It’s a long season, and it’s hard to win as a team with a top dog who’s a real dog. I wouldn’t dump Cobb for a mediocre player, because team chemistry can only go so far. But I would definitely trade Cobb for a slightly lesser star who wasn’t an ass.
That’s just my opinion, of course. 🙂
James essentially ranked Morgan, Collins, and Hornsby equal: the number difference is miniscule and he excludes issues like Hornsby’s difficulties with teammates and management. I think arguing the ranking of these guys is exceptionally appropriate: any pick is justifiable and no one’s going to win outright, although WAR isn’t quite as kind to Morgan.
bstar, I understand the point about Hornsby compiling his WAR more quickly, but Collins was not just accumulating counting stats towards the end of his career; he was exceptionally consistent over 20 years, and that’s a balance against Hornsby’s fantasic (and remarkably sustained) peak. Hornsby gives you 3-4 extra wins a year for a long time, then he goes away and you get a replacement player while another team gets about 4 surplus wins per year out of Collins for awhile. Hornsby comes out a little ahead, but not much.
I think the thing that really distinguishes the two is era. Both saw the dead ball era end, but Hornsby was a young player of 24 – devoted to self-improvement with abnormal intensity – and he adapted better than anyone else (reasoning that Ruth didn’t adapt, baseball adapted to Ruth). In that limited but important sense, there is perhaps no better hitter in history, as I’m sure Hornsby would be the first to admit.
Collins was 33 with fourteen seasons behind him and you’d never guess from his record that baseball had undergone the slightest change – who knows whether he would have adapted a decade earlier, or whether Hornsby would have adapted if he’d been ten years older. In that sense, Hornsby had a tremendous advantage in timing – and he took better advantage of it than any other person.
At this point, Hornsby’s disruptive stuff might come in as a tie-breaker (although Bob O’Farrell, who played under and succeeded Hornsby managing the Cards, thought Hornsby was a prince) – that trade for Hogan and Welsh in ’27 just has to ring an alarm (not just because the Giants were that anxious to unload the league’s best hitter, but because they couldn’t get a better deal). I’m not sure about the WS stuff – I don’t usually think of individual players earning pennants unless you can say that they put the team on their backs (like Koufax in ’66 or Yaz in ’67), and post-season records aren’t normed for comparison (although, like all humanity, I’m glad that Wagner outplayed Cobb in ’09).
I’d bet it would have blown those guys’ minds to know a bunch of strangers would have this conversation with their fingers 100 years in the future.
OK, you guys can take the great player who’s also a great teammate and I’ll opt for, while definitely an ass, the best right-handed hitter in the history of the game of baseball. I’m tired, going to bed.
A brief, belated reply to bstar:
You seem not to respect Bill James, but his comments on Hornsby as a fielder are telling. The Rajah couldn’t or wouldn’t make certain plays, and he was a decent, but not great, glove man otherwise.
My opinions on defensive WAR are notoriously negative, so citing them cuts no ice with me.
And it’s not that people deliberately have a down on Hornsby as a personality. It’s that the evidence is too overwhelming to believe otherwise. He had a habit of poisoning the workplace with his attitudes and powerful personality.
It was Captain Bligh that caused the mutiny, not the poor sailors.
I have plenty of respect for James, no stat, but I don’t believe player evaluation is his strong suit. I think it’s his innovative thinking and the fact that in a general sense he changed the way we look at the game. I also think he’s a really great writer, period, and very entertaining to read. If I had no respect for Bill James, I wouldn’t have subscribed to his website for years.
For what it’s worth, Bill James rates the second basemen as:
1) Morgan
2) Collins
3) Hornsby
4) Robinson
I cant get over the fact that Collins was just too much of a slap hitter. 3315 hits but only 672 for extra bases. He maintained a high OPS+ thanks to walks, but Ill take a 2nd baseman who can 3 instead of 1.
Henderson/Foxx/Grove are pretty obvious, but it’s the fourth one that’s tricky. Kinda have to go with a guy from the 70’s, and my choice is Catfish Hunter. So many other good choices though.
The A’s are interesting because they have 5 different great eras and 1 mini-era. 4 Dynasties, another squad with a few playoff appearances, and a 2-season burst with personality and historical significance. I think you could make a legitimate Mount Rushmore for each of the eras.
1910 thru 1914 – Eddie Plank, Eddie Collins, Home Run Baker, Connie Mack (over Coombs)
1929 thru 1931 – Jimmie Foxx, Al Simmons, Lefty Grove, Mickey Cochrane
1971 thru 1975 – Reggie Jackson, Catfish Hunter, Sal Bando, Gene Tenace (over Finley, Fingers, Rudi, Campy, and Vida)
1980 thru 1981 – Billy Martin, Rickey Henderson, Mike Norris, Rick Langford
1988 thru 1992 – Dennis Eckersley, Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire, Dave Stewart (over Lansford, Welch & Steinbach)
2000 thru 2006 – Miguel Tejada, Eric Chavez, Barry Zito, Tim Hudson (over Mulder & Giambi)
I feel bad about leaving 90% of these guys off the final list. But Here we go:
Ricky Henderson (covers 2 eras – “Billy Ball” and “Bash Brothers”)
Connie Mack (covers 2 eras – “Dead Ball Connie” and and “Live Ball Connie”)
Reggie Jackson – “Charley Finley A’s”
Jimmie Foxx – “Live Ball Connie”
Good well thought out post Tmckelv. Wish I had read it before voting.
This is where I make my argument for TWO separate Mt Rushmore’s, done chronologically – maybe three in the case of a storied franchise such as the A’s. Expansion would be a good dividing line.
PRE-EXPANSION: Mack, Collins, Grove, Foxx
POST-EXPANSION: Catfish, Reggie, Ricky, TLR
I do understand that this exercise is to force us to make these difficult decisions.
Tmckelv, great comment about the ups & downs of the A’s franchise. I went with Connie Mack, Jimmie Foxx, Catfish Hunter, and Rickey Henderson. Mack got the nod over Collins to represent the A’s first dynasty while Foxx represents the second. I gave Catfish the nod over Reggie, Campy, & Sal–Cat & Campy were there for some the lowly KC years, Reggie was awesome but an outcast on the team, Sal was the captain but when Cat left via free agency that was the end of 72-74 Championship run. I know saber stats show Cat was overrated & pitching at the Coliseum during a pitcher’s era made him look better than he was but in the early to mid-70’s there was no pitcher I’d want more than Catfish on the mound in a must win game. I’d even take Catfish over Palmer & Seaver during those years. Rickey gets the final spot edging out Eck. While I love Eck, Rickey was there for the Billyball & Bash Bros years.
The A’s are the only team that could do a Great Rushmore on non-players: Mack, Finley, LaRussa and Beane. All of them contributed heavily to the game and how it was played/managed/evaluated. All of them were outstanding at some aspect of management and were innovative in their own way.
Anyway, for players on the Mount, I went with Rickey, Foxx, Grove and Collins.
Does anyone else want to see a giant stone monument of Rollie Fingers?
How could I leave him off my team?!!?
I never even thought about that great mustache up on the side of the mountain.
Dagoberto’s got to go and up with Rollie.
I don’t know where else to put this, so I’ll ask this question here-did you intentionally skip the Texas Rangers for some reason? You had the Mets, then the Astros, then the Angels, skipped the Rangers, and now you’re on to teams that started in 1901. Just wondering, unless I somehow missed that post somewhere.
No…that was a mistake on my part. They’ll be up next.
Okay, thanks. I’m loving this series so far.
Lots of love for Grove, almost none for Rommel. Same story for Foxx and Simmons.
No write-in votes for WS hero Howard Ehmke, holder of the WS strikeout record for 24 years?
But, what a team that was!
Impossible, basically…Mack, Grove, Reggie, Henderson. Leaving off Foxx and Collins is ridiculous, I know. But I’ve gotta get Reggie onto one of these, and there won’t be any room with the Yankees.
You have to go with Mack. I favor Grove, Henderson and Collins for the other three. I do think it’s interesting that this franchise has two owners who could be considered–both of whom couldn’t/wouldn’t keep quality talent for an extended time.
BTW–did I miss the Senators/Rangers post?
Sorry, I just saw the reply on the Rangers.
If a poll has Chief Bender on it, I will always vote for Chief Bender. I hold this truth to be self-evident.
If I had all the men I’ve ever handled and they were in their prime and there was one game I wanted to win above all others, Albert (Chief Bender) would be my man.” Source: Hall of Fame Yearbook (1989)
For those who voted Campy Campaneris: I salute you.
Every time I read Campaneris´ name I think of “Dagoberto”. One of the greatest hispanic baseball names of all time, along with Orestes Saturnino Minoso 🙂
I’ll up the ante for “greatest name” (any nationality), with Cal McLish:
Calvin Coolidge Julius Caesar Tuskahoma McLish
Cocky
Lefty
Jimmie
Rickey
Cornelius can get a statue next to the mountain.
#64/ R HORNSBY’S FIELDING ABILITY –
In 1923, he started having problems with his equilibrium that affected his fielding ability for the rest of his career. It seems that he couldn’t go back for pop-ups, but the nature of his condition prevented him from playing other positions regularly for most of the rest of his career.
The team would cover for him on pop-ups he couldn’t get. Fielding WAR in B-R doesn’t draw a dramatic dividing line, but he seems to have gone from a very good defensive 2nd baseman to a merely adequate one.
Andy, nice card choice. Great picture of the classic Reggie swing and the classic A’s uniforms, down to the white shoes.
I always loved the 1974 Topps set for some reason. Even to the point I made my first major card collecting blunder.
Sometime during the late 1970’s, my father gave me the choice of the 1973 or 1974 topps baseball sets as a birthday present (in November). My older brother wisely begged me to choose the 1973 set but I loved 1974 so much I couldn’t resist, so that is what I got. Unfortunately, before my brother’s birthday rolled around (in July), the Mike Schmidt rookie went through the roof and the 1973 set became too expensive to be his gift. Eventually the 1973 set would outpace the value of the 1974 set six-fold. My brother gives me crap about that choice to this day. But when it comes to collecting cards, the heart wants what it wants.
This one is easy for me. I’d go with Canseco, McGuire, LaRussa and Giambi. As they were dynamiting the granite into shape I’d pilfer plenty of the tri nitro toluene and lard their rock faces liberally with it, and then push the plunger the moment the monument was finished. It’s not that I didn’t like these guys or that I want to conduct a moral crusade against steroid users, but you are responsible for your actions and what they did was basically reduce a lot of baseball history to rubble (LaRussa is lumped in here for other crimes, the advent of the closer being chief among them), and so I’d just be returning the favor. And then I’d take the piled-high Rushmore ruins and cart it off to Charlie O’s house. Just because.