Prospect Preview: 1974

For someone like me, who grew up with the baseball played in the late-'80s and early-'90s (from Gibson's home run to the strike-year and on), looking back through preview guides from the 1970s can seem a little foreign. I know the names and strengths of the players listed, but I don't know them the same way that I know players from the early-'90s.

If, for example, someone told me that a pitcher reminded them of Ben McDonald, then I know something about that player's talent because I remember his hot start for the Orioles. Or if they say that someone looks like Terry Steinbach, then I know something else about that player. But if they say that the pitcher reminds them of Catfish Hunter or that the hitter reminds them of Dave Concepcion, then I can only try to understand what they're saying. I can appreciate that someone might say Troy Tulowitzki looks like Garry Templeton, but I can't know innately if it's a valid comparison.

The minor league prospects sections of these magazines are a little different story, though. When I look through these, the Hall of Fame and other notable names pop-out just as much as any other time frame, and the comments and predictions about these players feel just as understated and odd as anyone else. Fewer names of the Chris Sabo or Chilli Davis variety - quality players who didn't quite reach the annals of immortality - jump out at me, but the All-Star and Hall of Fame names are hard to miss. The names below caught my attention from the 1974 Street and Smith's preview guide.

Frank Tanana: "Southpaw Frank Tanana was great last year in the Texas League. The 20-year-old posted a 16-6 mark, 2.58 ERA, led the loop in strikeouts (197 in 205 innings), while chalking up 15 complete games.""

Tanana's career did not take him to Cooperstown's doorstep, but he was a productive pitcher for 20 years. Pitching for few quality teams, Tanana retired with a 240-236 record and a slightly better-than-average 3.66 ERA. He also had 143 complete games in his career. He did finish high in the Cy Young voting in 1975 and 1976, and he is currently 21st in all-time strikeouts, just behind Mike Mussina and Cy Young and just ahead of David Cone and Tom Glavine. He's in good company there. The most surprising thing is how well the minor league scouting report does of encapsulating his career.

Ken Griffey: "National League fans had a preview of a leading candidate for 1974 rookie ofthe year honors when lefty Ken Griffey was called up from Indianapolis in late August last season, after hitting .327. Griffey responded by hitting .384 for the Reds and should be Sparky Anderson's starting rightfielder this year."

Father of all-time great Ken Griffey, Jr., the senior Griffey was a quality player himself, and a highly touted prospect for what turned out to be the greatest team of all time. Griffey played in 88 games in 1974 and performed adequately. He became a full-time player in 1975 and played very well, earning a starter's spot for what was to become a 19-year career.

Jim Rice: "A year away are infielder Frank Vazquez, a switch hitter who hit .269 after making the jump from Class A to AAA and outfielder Jim Rice. He'll be in Triple A after a spectacular Double A campaign at Bristol (.317, 27 HRs, 93 RBIs). He also mashed AAA pitching the last year [sic] of the season."

Dave Parker: "This time, it'll be another outfielder, 6-5, 225-pounder Dave Parker. Most talented player in the International League in '73, Parker hit .317 with 57 RBIs in 84 games at Charleston and gained All-Stars honors, then batted .288 the last couple of months with the Buccos. Keeping Parker out of the starting lineup could be impossible."

I put Rice and Parker together because, for much of their career, these two were linked. They won matching MVP awards with monster seasons in 1978, and there were three other seasons where they both placed in the top-5 in the MVP voting of their respective leagues at the same time. Though Parker ended up playing in 73 games in the 1974 season, he didn't get to play a full season until the '75 season, the same as Rice. Though today Rice enjoys heated discussions on an annual basis about his Hall-worthiness, Parker seems to be forgotten in the discussion despite a similar case (1 MVP award & 7 all-star appearances, .290/.339/.471 with 339 HRs and 1493 RBIs) to Rice (1 MVP award & 8 all-star appearances, .298/.352/.502 with 382 HRs and 1451 RBIs). I think it's great to see that the two were linked together even during their minor league careers.

Gary Carter: "Also down on the farm is 19-year-old catcher Gary Carter, who hit .253 at Quebec City and led the Expos' Instructional hitters."

Here's where we finally reach our first definite Hall of Fame player from this preview guide. Though Carter didn't fully reach the bigs until 1975, when he finished second in Rookie of the Year voting, the young Carter was still noteworthy. Having been drafted just a year-and-a-half before, in June 1972, he was moving through the minors quickly on the way to his Hall of Fame career.

George Brett: "Third base is the infield hole [for the Royals]. Vet Paul Schaal batted .288 last year and is the incumbent but is 31 years old and will be challenged by George Brett, an impressive 20-year-old who batted .284 at Omaha."

"The Royals, whose minor league clubs had an over-all winning percentage of .552, have some other players who may stick. There's Amer. Assn. All-Star third baseman George Brett (.284), a quick gloveman and only 20 years old."

Brett is viewed by many as the greatest third-baseman of all time (though that view is probably stronger in the Kansas/Missouri area than in the rest of the country), and is one of three members of the prestigious 1999 Hall of Fame class (along with Nolan Ryan and Robin Yount). He finished third in the Rookie of the Year voting this year, and went on to win an MVP award in 1980 and be selected to 13 All-Star teams, among other more memorable events.

Thirty-five years ago, when the above comments were written, it was impossible to know who would live up to their promise, and who would never pan out. The comments on George Brett were just as valid as the comments on Rick Sawyer. And I love the uncertainty and promise of it because it means that any magazine I pick up today or in the future could have the next Gary Carter or George Brett featured in it, hidden under my nose. And it'll be my pleasure to read the magazines and watch the games and try to figure it all out.

Through the Years: Rickey Henderson

A couple of weeks back, the Baseball Writer's released the official ballot for the 2009 Hall of Fame class. The ballots are never a surprise, because we know that once a player retires he'll be placed on the ballot five years later. Still, the unveiling of the ballot is news because it marks "Hall of Fame Season", when the baseball blogosphere (and some long-time writers) goes crazy for a few weeks debating the merits of their favorite candidates (or anti-candidates). This is a fun time, as it gives us baseball junkies something substantial to talk about.

So I've decided to join in the fun in my own way. Last week, I wrote about the newly-retired Greg Maddux in a piece I called "Through the Years." I went back through my collection of preview guides and reviewed how Maddux was looked on by contemporary writers from year-to-year as he entered his prime. With such a great and unique talent, I felt it would be interesting to see how his talent developed in front of everyone's eyes and to find out how long it took the writers of the day to notice it for what it was. I've decided to do the same type of piece for some of the current Hall of Fame nominees. I'm starting this week with the only no-doubt candidate on the ballot, the always entertaining and superbly qualified Rickey Henderson.

Drafted in the 4th round of the 1976 draft at the age of 17, Rickey was obviously an attractive player to his hometown Oakland Athletics. Making his debut on a double-header Sunday in 1979 against Texas in Oakland, Rickey got a double and single in his first two at-bats and never looked back over his 25-year career. Despite this solid start, Rickey did not garner a mention in either the 1979 Sports Illustrated baseball preview issue or anywhere in the 1979 run of Baseball Digest. This is more a product of the magazines' short word limit and of the A's ineptitude at the time, though.

Heading into Rickey's first full season in 1980, neither Baseball Digest nor Sports Illustrated had room enough to mention him. The closest recognition Rickey got in that year's SI was a reference to Oakland's "speed in the outfield" even though they devoted an article to the future "Stars of the '80s" (in which they predicted stunning success for Keith Hernandez, Carney Lansford, Bob Horner, Rick Sutcliffe, and Paul Molitor).

But 1980 was a doozy, and it would be a long time before any preview guide would feel able to leave out Rickey again. In his first full season, Rickey was named to the All-Star team and finished 10th in the MVP voting that year. Batting .303 with a .420 on-base percentage, he stole 100 bases (setting an AL record), scored 111 runs and helped the A's improve their record by 29 games over the year before. The Sporting News was rightfully impressed in their preview guide the next year, and couldn't wait to see how someone so young could improve:

"At age 21, Henderson became the first American League player ever to steal 100 bases. He was the only player on the A's to hit .300 (.303) and he did it in his first full season. As the season progressed, Henderson's defense in left progressed, and he showed some critics that his throwing arm is anything but weak."

The strike-shortened year of 1981 led to an even better year with the bat for Rickey, where he increased his batting average and slugging percentage on his way to a second-place finish in the MVP voting. In 1982's Street and Smith's preview guide, the writers did their best to show both sides of Rickey's talent:

"The Oakland outfield is nothing short of superb... Not only do Rickey Henderson, Dwayne Murphy, and Tony Armas take hits and runs away from the opposition, they provide most of the team's offensive punch. Henderson barely missed winning the MVP award after a season in which he stole 56 bases and batted .319."

But the talent on display in 1982 was that which Rickey will forever be remembered for: the stolen base. And 1982 was the year of the stolen base, when Rickey set the record for steals in a season at 130 (from 261 times on base). The next year's preview guides definitely noticed this, though they also noticed his drop in batting average as he marched toward the record. From the 1983 Sporting News:

"Last year, for the first time in his career, he failed to hit .300 (.267), perhaps because he was too busy stealing bases. His 130 steals broke Lou Brock's major league record of 118, and now that the record is safely tucked away, Henderson intends to reconcentrate his efforts on hitting."

And from 1983's Street and Smith's:

"So what is left for him? His on-base percentage was the league's third best last year. His 116 walks ranked first, and his runs scored (119) fourth. The season before he led the league in hits even while playing in Oakland, a notoriously bad park for hitters. All that really remains is to establish himself as a power hitter, which he intends to do this season. He has stated the intention to hit 25 home runs this year, something leadoff hitters not named Brian Downing just don't do."

Rickey didn't increase his power all that much in 1983, but he did put together another all-around great year, stealing 108 bases and scoring 105 runs while batting .282/.414/.421 and an OPS+ of 139. It was a much better all-around performance than the record breaking year before, but it wasn't as celebrated. He put up similar numbers in 1984, though he was able to increase his power, hitting .293/.399/.458 with 16 HRs and an OPS+ of 145.

This fifth straight all-star caliber performance paved the way for free agency that off-season, and led Rickey into George Steinbrenner's open bill-fold. Signing for a then-large sum of $8.5 million over 5 years, Rickey moved over to Yankee Stadium's spacious centerfield and brought some major expectations with him:

"Henderson (.293, 16 HR, 58 RBI at Oakland) will switch from left field, which he played adeptly for five years with the A's, to center. He was down to 66 stolen bases last season but has gone over 100 three times, including a major-league record 130 in 1982. He'll lead off... The Yankees stole but 62 bases last season. Henderson should have that many by August. Just think of the RBI situations he'll create for Don Mattingly, Winfield,and Don Baylor."

The season proved to be a success for Rickey and the Yankees. Rickey's excellent season - .314/.419/.516 with 80 SBs, 146 Rs, 24 HRs, 157 OPS+ - helped the Yankees win 97 games that year and helped Don Mattingly win the 1985 MVP:

"Mattingly credits the presence of Henderson and Winfield as major factos in his success. 'When you have Henderson hitting in front of you and Winfield behind you,' Mattingly said, 'it means someone's always on base and pitchers can't pitch around you. I put up some great numbers last year but I couldn't have done it without them.'"

The 1986 Sporting News preview guide continues:

"Henderson, whose ankle injury at the beginning of the 1985 season was a major factor in the team's slow start and the early-season firing of Manager Yogi Berra, came on strong to make his first Yankee season after six years with Oakland a rousing success."

Rickey's second season in New York was less spectacular than the first, but he did increase his power that year (28 HRs, .469 SLG) and play in his fifth straight All-Star game. He also stole another 87 bases, setting the Yankees club record for the second year in a row. His 1987 season did not go to plan, though, as he found himself sidelined for 67 games with a nagging hamstring injury. The New York City media naturally came down on Rickey in this disappointing season, but he seemed to have the right attitude about it over the off-season. From the 1988 Athlon baseball preview:

"'What I do naturally,' says Henderson, 'is get on base, intimidate pitchers and get hitters pitches to hit.' Henderson will be watched closely this summer after a season in which his desire was increasingly questioned the longer he remained sidelined."

With his full health back in 1988, Rickey proved himself to his doubters, hitting .305/.394/.399 with 118 runs and 93 stolen bases. His performance didn't carry over into 1989 though, the final year of his deal with the Yankees. Starting off the season poorly, Rickey was traded back to the A's in mid-June and missed the All-Star game for the first time since 1981. His performance picked up in the second-half of the season as the A's marched on to the World Series.

The Series victory - and a 4-year, $12 million offer - must have pleased Rickey, as he stayed with the A's after the season. It was the second of three consecutive series appearances for the A's, who were filled with stars such as Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco, Dave Henderson, Dennis Eckersley, Dave Stewart and Bob Welch. The quality of the team wasn't lost on Rickey. In the 1990 Street and Smith's, it says:

"Left fielder Rickey Henderson, a free agent who signed back on, thinks the A's will continue to repeat in the AL West. 'I think we fit right in with the great teams,' he said. 'I watched those A's teams in the '70s and we fit in with them. That team won three World Series in a row. I feel this club can do that.'"

But Rickey's value was still there, as the magazine called the new A's outfield "the best in baseball." He did everything in his power to prove it that year, hitting .325/.439/.577 with 28 home runs, 119 Rs, 65 SBs, and a 188 OPS+. It was Rickey's best season in the majors, and he was rewarded with his first and only MVP award.

By the end of the 1990 season, Rickey was "already recognized as the greatest leadoff hitter of all time" and was sitting only two steals shy of Lou Brock's record of 938 career stolen bases. He would go on to break the record on May 1, 1991, and then steal 468 more bases over the remaining 12 years of his career.

From 1992 and on, Rickey played on 10 different teams, always looking for one more year of work. Even as his bat and speed left him, he was still a valuable player, posting on-base percentages routinely .100-.150 points better than his batting average. In 1996, he had 112 hits but 125 walks; in 2001, he had 86 hits and 81 walks. As Joe Posnanski points out, Rickey retired with the most walks in Major League history (2,190, since surpassed by Barry Bonds), and still holds the record for most un-intentional walks (2,129).

Rickey was a very special talent in the game of baseball, and it showed through very early in his career. He seemed to set challenges for himself often - steal 100 bases, break Brock's record, become a power hitter - and he was always able to rise up and surpass them. Even when he heard whispers of worry and doubt or when he signed large contracts acknowledging his production, Rickey did nothing but prove that he was the star he claimed to be. Contemporary writers, as shown in this collection of preview guides, were able to recognize this quickly, praising Rickey for his many talents year after year.

It seems obvious that Rickey will get the call to the Hall in January. The only real question remains to be, will he get in unanimously?

Site Updates

Just a couple of quick notes about the blog here...

• I've added a list of categories on the side so that posts can be found by their topic/category.
  
• I've also added an area for "Useful Pages". These are pages that I think might be useful or informative to people, and this makes it much easier to find them. For example, the list of preview guides that are available for viewing online will be updated as I discover them. It should make for a good one-stop shop for these links.

And here's an important truth that needs to be pondered...

Pitcher of the '80s?

In recent years, December brings a few certainties to the baseball world. There's the intrigue over the wheeling-and-dealing at the Winter Meetings (see: this last week); there's the debate over the true definition of "valuable"; and, more certain than anything else, there's the debate over the Hall of Fame merits of Jim Rice and Jack Morris. For those of us who have seen these debates time and again, their eventual re-emergence is not necessarily anticipated.

So why am I bringing it up? My goal isn't to rekindle old arguments (at least not too much), but I did come across something that seemed like it should be discussed.

One of the main points of Jack Morris supporters is that Morris was the "Pitcher of the '80s", having won more games than anybody else in the decade and with the most complete games (162 wins, 133 complete games). I noticed recently, though, that when naming the "players of each decade" in the 1990 Street and Smith's Baseball Preview Guide (which compiled a list of players- and events-of-the-decade from each of its five decades of its publication), the editors named Jack Morris the right-handed pitcher of the 1980s and Fernando Valenzuela the left-handed pitcher of the 1980s.

Having heard, many times before, Morris's merits as "Pitcher of the '80s", and having grown-up around Fernando-mania in and out of Los Angeles during the early-to-mid 1980s, I was surprised to see Fernando's name given equal weight with Morris's. By the time 1990 was rolling around, Fernando was declining and he didn't have too many productive years left. It's because of this, I think, that he was never really considered for the Hall, and deservedly so (he fell off the ballot on the second year). He was brilliant at the start of his career, but he was never able to keep that up across a long-enough career to be considered Hall-worthy.

But Morris's HOF case is debated every year and, if Fernando can truly be considered alongside Morris as the "Pitcher of the '80s", then shouldn't we be asking ourselves - and all Morris supporters - why Fernando isn't given the same amount of consideration?

Here are some stats:

………………………………………W…………L…………PCT………GS………CG………SHO………IP……………H…………ER………HR………BB………SO…………ERA………WHIP
J. Morris……………162……119……0.577……332……133……20……2443.7……2212……995……264……858……1629……3.66……1.256
Fernando V.………128……103……0.554……287……102……27……2144.7……1876……760……133……838……1644……3.19……1.265

Those are the two players' stats for all games played from 1980-1989, and it actually penalizes Fernando because his rookie year wasn't until 1981 (he did pitch 17 innings in 1980, all in relief). In 45 more starts, Morris was able to accumulate 34 more wins and 31 more complete games than Fernando. As a percentage, Morris won more of his games than Fernando did (.577 vs .554), and completed more (40.1% vs. 35.5%). Beyond those two glamorous numbers, though, Fernando is either the same pitcher or better.

In 45 fewer starts and 31 fewer complete games, Fernando actually managed to throw more shutouts that Morris. Also, in 299 fewer innings pitched, Fernando struck out more batters and gave up half as many home runs (264 for Morris vs. 133 for Fernando). Fernando did have a much higher walk rate, but it's balanced out by his fewer hits allowed (you can see how well they cancel each other out by comparing the two WHIPs, which are nearly identical across 2100+ innings). Across the decade, Fernando struck out 6.9 batters per 9 innings, and Morris struck out 6.0 batters per 9 innings. Fernando also has a much lower ERA for the decade.

These numbers, as stated, seem to say that there wasn't too much difference between the two pitchers over that ten-year period. Morris won more games, and he played as big of a part in most of those games as he could by completing them. But the other stats we normally use to rate pitchers on - or, at least, the stats people regularly used in the 1980s - seem to show Fernando as the superior pitcher. So what are we missing?

The biggest difference is that Fernando played in the National League in Dodger Stadium while Morris played in the American League in Tiger Stadium. Taking a quick look at Baseball Reference, it looks like the NL during the 1980s had a league ERA about half-a-run lower than the AL. And, though I don't know exactly how Tiger Stadium played, I imagine that it was a bit more hitter-friendly than Dodger Stadium. I don't yet know how to neutralize these stats, so this is the best I can do right now. Still, I find it hard to believe that someone in 1990 would have looked at these stats and have been able to say, unequivocally, that Morris was the pitcher of the '80s over Fernando. (The fact that they were named co-pitchers of the '80s in the article I mentioned above actually supports this).

Despite all of this, Morris still gets considerable debate every year for his Hall of Fame candidacy, predicated mostly on the presumption that he was the "Pitcher of the '80s", while Fernando didn't even last past two elections. Obviously, the legacies of the two pitchers are very different, as Morris continued pitching fairly well until 1994 and Fernando flailed around, in and out of the Majors, until 1997. Of course, Morris also had Game 7 to help prove his case.

The point of this post, though, was to compare the two pitchers' claims as "Pitcher of the '80s" and not to compare their overall careers or their Hall-worthiness. Though there's always been a soft-spot in my baseball heart for Fernando, I don't think he has much of a case, statistically, for the Hall (see this BBTF post for a further look into his case). I also don't think Morris belongs, though I can understand the at-first-blush, gut-feeling support he gets (and how that emotion causes people to "find the numbers" to back their gut). But, strictly comparing these two for title of "Pitcher of the '80s", I think Jack Morris's claim to the title is much less obvious than his supporters would have you believe.

Plus, I think Fernando deserves a little more recognition than he gets these days.

Finding Guides Online

A quick note that I discovered earlier today:

As part of their Book Search service, Google is now offering full text searching of certain magazines. They haven't released a full listing of what magazines are available, but the examples they cite include Popular Science and Ebony. Poking around it myself, I've discovered that the full back-catalog of Baseball Digest Magazine is available, meaning that every page of every issue can be viewed (and searched) online for free. That's a pretty sweet deal, especially considering their annual preview issues (check out the 1948 or 1962 or 1989 issues).

Couple this with the complete text search abilities of the Sports Illustrated Vault, and we can get a taste for just how cool this digital age really is. It effectively grows my preview guide collection by decades.

I plan on adding a page to the blog focusing on these external sources, for later reference. I figure it could be useful.

And now something cool just for reading...

Prospect Preview: 1982

As I've said before, one of my favorite reasons for owning and reading these preview guides is reading through the old previews and seeing what contemporary writers had to say about players at the time. Not only can this be entertaining (for a number of reasons), but it can also be quite insightful: it can show how certain players broke through into the national consciousness; it can remind you of the big stars of the day who have since been mostly forgotten; and it can tell you about all the unfulfilled expectations of the up-and-coming players.

The best example of this, where all three of these aspects intersect, is the "prospects" section. When a magazine like these are written, it's impossible to know one prospect's future from another - their possible fortune is just as likely as their possible folly. But when we look at them with the benefit of hindsight, we know who made good on that potential and who did not. So when we go looking through these magazines for players who we know are Hall of Famers, it makes the statements sometimes rather underwhelming (and rather overwhelming for those we know are flame-outs).

Tonight, I've decided to share some of these "prospects views" from the 1982 Street and Smith's baseball preview guide. Looking back, it was actually a very strong year for rookies. In Rookie of the Year voting, there were three future Hall of Famers, and, among the other vote-getters, there were seven All-Stars, one MVP winner, and one Cy Young winner. That's a pretty solid class.

Here are some excerpts from the magazine:

Tony Gwynn: Outfielder Tony Gwynn certainly needs more seasoning after blistering Double-A pitching over just 23 games. But his .462 average and 19 ribbies were impressive.

Now, this is cheating a little, as Gwynn didn't really make it to the bigs until 1983 (though he did play 54 games, with 190 at-bats, in 1982). Still, you can clearly see that Gwynn's biggest strength was noticeable right from the beginning.

Cal Ripken, Jr.: Third base in Baltimore has become crowded with Ripkens this season. Cal has been the Birds' third-base coach for years. And now, son Cal Jr. has dislodged Doug DeCinces as the O's starting third sacker. When a deal found DeCinces going elsewhere, to the West Coast, from where he hails, the younger Ripken was planted at the hot corner. Ripken can also play shortstop, but not nearly as well as third. His hitting is not in doubt. Last season, the International League was loaded with outstanding prospects at third, not the least of which was Ripken (.288, 25, 75 at Rochester). Impressive as a .276 hitter in Puerto Rico the year before, his winter ball improvement was tremendous this time around. Playing third for Caguas, Ripken was the league's runaway RBI leader and a possible Triple Crown winner as the season neared its end.

It seems that Cal was a pretty highly regarded prospect because that synopsis was pretty spot-on. There wasn't much hemming or hawwing there. I liked the comment on how he doesn't play short "nearly as well as third", and that the O's needed to move DeCinces off of third in order to make room for Cal (he only played 71 of his 160 games that year at third). I wonder how the O's brass felt when they switched him over to shortstop that first time. I suppose it worked out.

Chili Davis: Giants' manager Frank Robinson knows a little about judging offensive prospects. He was one himself once, before going on to become the National League Rookie of the Year, MVP in both leagues (nobody else has done that) and...elected to the Hall of Fame. So when he suggests that center fielder Chili Davis's talent is similar to Montreal's Andre Dawson, you listen. Robinson said of Davis, who batted .350, had 19 homers, 40 stolen bases in 88 AAA games for Phoenix, "He simply can do everything - run, throw, steal 40-50 bases, hit 30-35 homers with power from either side." What more can a manager say about his top prospect? "He's a great kid," added Robinson.

Davis certainly went on to have a fine career, playing 18+ years with three all-star appearances, 2,380 hits, 350 home runs, and a .274/.360/.451 line. But there's some very high praise there - being compared to Andre Dawson in 1982 may be like being compared to Carlos Beltran or Vlad Guerrero today - that he didn't quite live up to (I don't see Rob Neyer debating Davis's Hall of Fame merits after all) and it comes from a pretty respected source. In that light, this quote might be one of the more overly optimistic, but, all in all, I don't think fans of the '80s Giants and Angels were complaining too much.

Wade Boggs: What is it about Wade Boggs? All he does is slap out all those base hits, yet he continues to wear a Triple-A label. He's been a first baseman, outfielder, and third baseman. He was nipped by less than a point for the IL batting crown two years ago, but in 1981 won it by .0006 points, hitting .353 for Pawtucket, where he drove in 60 bases. Surely he ought to find a niche with some club, even as a pinch-hitter, although he isn't laden with home run power.

That actually may be my favorite write-up. I like how it nails Boggs the MLBer down perfectly, but still leaves plenty of room for things to go differently (a pinch-hitter? seriously?). I imagine it's hard to predict greatness when all you see is base hits; for some reason, base hits don't impress upon you the mantle of "greatness" the same way a towering home run ball might. It probably should, though, as we've seen some great pure hitters in recent times.

Looking through those comments from almost 27 years ago about players who eventually had long, productive, Hall of Fame careers (well, except Chili...), it's hard to see anything that guaranteed greatness. In fact, if you pick up any preview guide today, current or past, you'll probably find countless other entries making similar statements. Which I find fascinating... if I look at my 2008 preview guides, will it be possible for me to find the Wade Boggs's and Tony Gwynn's in its pages? After all, there's a good chance that there are 2 or 3 future Hall of Famers waiting to be found...

Through the Years: Greg Maddux

It's a sad day for Major League Baseball, as Greg Maddux officially announces his retirement (sometime) today. With the "pre-official" announcement he made on Friday, I've been reading tributes and reminisces about Mad Dog all weekend, and it's pretty clear that he made quite an impact on baseball fans across the country. Some remember his brilliant commercials; some have tried to figure out just how this seemingly unremarkable man turned into one of the greatest pitchers of all time; and at least two have taken the time to share their "quintessential" Maddux game. He is obviously a pitcher that people have been fascinated by for these last 23 years.

And I'm no different. And though I'm just as fascinated with Maddux and the way he hypnotized batters and umpires alike, I'm not sure I can add anything that hasn't been said many times before. (I was lucky enough to see him pitch twice, though not until late in his career. He didn't pitch particularly well either time, but I still feel grateful to have seen him.) Instead, I thought it might be interesting to see what people were saying about him from year-to-year as he entered his prime, to see if they were able to realize what was materializing in front of them.

I went through my collection of annual preview guides and found what they had to say about Maddux. Unfortunately, his rise to stardom coincides with the thinnest era of my collection. For those years that I don't yet have a preview guide, I visited the Sports Illustrated vault and looked through their annual baseball issue.

After reading through issues spanning the first 10 years of his career, ending after his fourth consecutive Cy Young award in 1995, I'd say that Maddux's career was much like his game: so much better than a man of his frame should be capable of that no one could really comprehend that it was happening until he had already blown through the line-up multiple times.

Drafted in 1984, Maddux doesn't make an appearance in the preview guides until 1987, his official rookie year. Though he ended up starting 27 games that year, it was unclear if he (or his draft-class mate, the ageless Jamie Moyer) would make it to the big club that year:

[GM Dallas] Green would like to see such youngsters as Moyer and Maddux step into the starting rotation to replace high-priced veterans who have been unproductive since the Cubs' big year in 1984. But Manager Gene Michael said he is not looking to replace Rick Sutcliffe, Dennis Eckersley, Scott Sanderson and Steve Trout.

--clip--

Moyer, a 24-year-old lefthander, won seven of 11 decisions despite his 5.05 ERA after being called up from Iowa (American Association) last June. Maddux, who will turn 21 in April, is less likely to join the Cubs right away, but the righthander's combined 14-4 record at Pittsfield (Eastern) and Iowa last season indicate that he'll be ready sometime this year...

Despite a few good games that year (including his first career shutout and his first 10 strikeout game), 1987 was a pretty forgettable year for Maddux, going 6-14 with a 5.61 ERA. That may explain why there is no mention of him in the 1988 Street & Smith's preview guide. But the year turned out well for him, as he posted a 18-8 record with a 3.18 ERA. It also led to this first mention in SI (at least the first mention I can find using SI's search functionality):

FAMILY OF THE WEEK
Greg Maddux became the first Chicago Cub since Milt Pappas in 1971 to pitch complete-game victories in his first two starts of the season. He went 17 2/3 innings before allowing a run. Maddux's brother, Mike, a reliever with the Philadelphia Phillies, had 16 K's in 12 scoreless innings before yielding his first run in his fifth appearance Sunday.

As Maddux threw very solid years in 1989 and 1990, the up-and-down nature of the Cubs kept the focus of the preview articles off of Maddux and on the team. By the time 1991 rolled around, though, experts were able to recognize the growing talent of Mad Dog. The annual Sporting News baseball yearbook made the bold prediction that Maddux would win the Cy Young that year, calling him "a not-so-friendly pitcher, even in Wrigley Field." They also had this to say in the team preview section, under a large picture of Maddux on the hill:

...Returning starters have much to prove from last year, when Manager Don Zimmer had to use 16 starters because of injuries or ineffectiveness. The big three of Maddux, Rick Sutcliffe, and Mike Bielecki fell from a combined 53-30 record and a 3.24 ERA in 1989 to 23-28 and 4.16. Sutcliffe had shoulder surgery in May and didn't pitch until late August, while Bielecki was inconsistent and pitched himself into bullpen duty.

Maddux won 15 games last season despite a horrendous two-month stretch in which he went 0-8 with five no-decisions. In the last three years, he has posted 52 victories.

The season didn't prove as well for Maddux as TSN suggested it would, but he did end up with a respectable 15-11 record with a 3.35 ERA. He proved them right the next year, however, winning his first Cy Young with a 20-11 record, 2.18 ERA, and 199 strikeouts. Of course, Sports Illustrated, in its usual brevity, only had the briefest of notes on him:

Beyond these three, Chicago has ace Greg Maddux and a lot of question marks.

The Cy Young made his free agency that year very compelling, and led to a feature in SI's baseball issue. Speaking with Maddux's father (a card dealer in Las Vegas), his brother Mike, and Greg himself, the magazine had this to say:

"Quality entertainment," Greg says when [Wayne] Newton's name is invoked. "They call it the entertainment capital of the world, and it is." But the brightest new star in that desert-sky galaxy may be Greg. Consider that he won the Cy Young for the Chicago Cubs, a fourth-place team. In seven of his 11 losses last season (how are those, for Vegas numbers?), the Cubs scored zero runs for him. He has won three consecutive Gold Gloves and 87 games in five years. All of which is why Greg hit the free-agency jackpot on Dec. 9, eight days before Mike was traded from San Diego to New York for reliever Roger Mason and a minor leaguer.

Obviously, 1992 was a fantastic year for Maddux, but it was nothing compared to 1993 or 1994. Maddux won his second consecutive Cy Young in 1993, compiling a 20-10 record with a 2.36 ERA and 197 strikeouts. The next year's SI baseball preview had only this to say about him:

Ace: Greg Maddux: No one has won three straight Cy Youngs; he may.

And he did, posting one of the most absurd lines in baseball history in that strike-shortened year: 16-6, 32 walks in 202 innings pitched, and a 1.56 ERA. That's an ERA+ of 271.

Maddux wasn't entirely happy with the way the season ended, though. In an "Opportunities Lost" article in the 1995 Sporting News yearbook, Maddux says this:

...'It would have been special to win 20 three seasons in a row, that's for sure,' said Maddux, who tied for the NL lead with 16 victories in 1994. 'That's always a goal of any starting pitcher. When you win 20, that means you're going out there and taking the ball every fifth day and doing your job. And 20 wins just has that special feeling to it in baseball. It would have been nice, but what could I do? Things happened and I have to be content with what I did.'

What he did was win an unprecedented third consecutive Cy Young Award. His most impressive statistic en route to capturing baseball's top pitching prize was his 1.56 ERA, which was the third-best mark in the big leagues since 1919. Despite the disappointing end of the season, Maddux tried to make the most of his extended off-season.

'In a lot of ways, the strike has been a blessing in disguise,' he said. 'I don't think (players) have had a hard time finding things to do. Your body has recovered from the season and it feels stronger. It doesn't feel like we ever went on strike.'

The team preview for that 1995 Braves team, which would go on to win their only World Series title, was more than impressed with Maddux and his staff-mates:

What pitching coach wouldn't love this staff? Two starters own the past four NL Cy Young awards, two others are former championship series MVPs, and the fifth starter has a pair of no-hitters under his belt [Kent Mercker - who knew?].

Atlanta's top three starters - Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and Steve Avery - are the winningest trio (97 victories) in baseball the past two seasons. Maddux, the first pitcher in history to win three consecutive Cy Youngs, is the undisputed staff leader. After posting a 1.56 ERA last season - the third-best ERA in the majors since 1919 - he is in a league of his own.

But beyond the World Series ring, Maddux accomplished something even more special and rare: winning his fourth consecutive Cy Young, and besting his 1994 season in just about every possible way. His line looked like this: 19-2, 28 GS, 209.2 IP, 23 BB, 0.811 WHIP, 1.63 ERA, 262 ERA+.

At this point, there was no denying the greatness of Greg Maddux, and the Sporting News had no choice but to focus on Maddux, at least a little. They predicted yet another Cy Young for him, saying this:

In Maddux, the Braves have baseball's best pitcher and a model for others to emulate. There is seemingly nothing he can't do. Besides leading the league with 10 complete games last season, a total surpassed by only four other NL teams, he also led the majors with a 1.63 ERA and set a record with 17 consecutive road wins.

They also made him the starting pitcher on their "All Throwback Team", along with such other gritty stalwarts as Will Clark, Chuck Knoblauch, Matt Williams, Steve Finley, and Tony Gwynn. But it was the section called "How Good is Greg Maddux" that proved their true affection:

How Good is Greg Maddux
Facts and figures about Mr. Maddux

• His ERA over the past four seasons is 1.98
• With an ERA of 1.57 in 1994 and 1.63 in 1995, Maddux is the first pitcher to have back-to-back ERAs below 1.75 since Walter Johnson in 1918-1919.
• No pitcher had ever had an ERA a full run better than anyone else in the league - before Maddux. Last season, Maddux came within .19 of Hideo Nomo of doing it two years in a row
• He was 13-0 with a 1.12 ERA on the road last season
• He was 17-1 after May 17 last season
• He allowed one run in the middle innings (fourth, fifth, sixth) all season
• He yielded one or no runs in 18 of 28 starts last season

That's as good a place as any to stop (if you haven't stopped already). It seems clear that Maddux's status as an all-time great was as deceiving as his fastball. From year to year, contemporary writers knew that they were dealing with a star pitcher. But, even as he compiled Cy Young awards over and over, the writers seemed unwilling or unable to notice that he was more than just an "undisputed ace", until the fact was right on top of them and they could do nothing but stare slack jawed and wonder "how in the world did he do it?"

Career length of players by position played

Well, I'll say it: if you aren't reading Joe Posnanski's blog every day, or buying his book, then you are missing the best sports writing there is. I don't think I'm more excited to see a post show up in my RSS reader than I am when I see a new post from Joe.

Yesterday, Joe posted 4,400 words exploring the make-up of the Hall of Fame, trying to walk us (and himself) through its 75 year history, to see if we can get a handle on what it truly is, and not just what it claims to be. The post is informative, well-written, and thought provoking. I highly recommend it.

As good as the post is, though, the comments are just as good, with people chiming in on what makes the Hall special and why certain people were inducted when others weren't. Reading through the comments, I came across this one from Brent, who is apparently a big fan of second basemen in general. He asks this question:

I think 2B is a hard position for the Hall to judge. The only two recent (if the early 80s are recent) are Joe Morgan and Ryne Sandberg (and the dubious inclusion of Rod Carew as a 2Bman). Why is that? Let me propose two possible reasons.

The two reasons he proposes are sensible, and boil down to this: second basemen, due to the unique nature of the base on the field and due to the physical toll one takes turning double plays and the like, play much fewer games than players at other positions. So, when the Hall comes along, their counting stats are inferior to those of other positions, leaving them in the cold.

It seemed like a good theory to me, so I went looking at the data to prove it. For each defensive position on the field, I found everybody who played 1000 games at the given position (it seemed like a decent threshold for a “long-time” player), and then I found the average total games that those players played (for example, Cal Ripken would be on the "SS with 1000+ games" list, but his games at SS and 3B would be added into the average total games, since it shows how long he was able to play the game). I also ran the list for players who played 1200 games at a given position, to try to limit it to longer tenured players. This is the data that I came up with:

………………MIN: 1000 G ……………………MIN: 1200 G
………………#……………Avg Games………………#…………Avg Games
C……………109………1406.83……………………67………1576.25
1B…………125………1709.25……………………92………1823.05
2B…………107………1623.43……………………72………1748
SS…………120………1716.86……………………90………1862
3B…………100………1667.15……………………67………1825.64
OF…………424………1583.91……………………288……1754.27
DH…………8……………2181.38……………………5…………2237.6

Taking a quick look at the counts, it seems that the 1200-G group might be the better dataset. The count of players at the infield positions stay pretty steady between the two datasets, but the outfield count seems a little high in the 1000-G group. We would expect the ratio of outfielders to, say, first basemen to be about 3:1, since there are three outfield spots. In the 1000-G group, however, the ratio is a little more extreme. The ratio in the 1200-G group is much closer to our expectations.

Now to look at the games played by position player: Catchers play the fewest games in their career, by far, with more than a season's worth of fewer games played than the next lowest position in each dataset. Besides catchers, the next lowest position is inconsistent between the two, with outfielders taking that ranking in the 1000-G group and second-basemen taking that ranking in the 1200-G group. But we've already established that the 1200-G group is likely the better dataset, so we'll use that. And it does show us that second-basemen play the fewest career games outside of catchers. Outfielders are very close behind, though.

The count of players at each position is also an interesting datapoint. In both groups, the third-basemen give us the least number of players with the qualifying number of games. Does this tell us something about the demands of the position, or is it more a comment on the types of players who play that position (eg, are they more injury prone, etc)? In both groups, however, the count of second basemen is at the bottom of the list.

With the shortest average career besides catcher, and with the fewest number of players even able to play that long, I think it's pretty clear that there's something about the second base position that keeps players from having long careers. Whether its for the reasons Brent brings up - not able to switch to another position, the physicality of turning the double play - or some other reason, I can't really say, but I believe that there's something there.

One final note about the numbers: in both groups, shortstops have both the longest careers and the (second-) most players making the list. I haven't investigated this further to prove this suspicion, but I suspect that this is because both high-offense and high-defense shortstops can hang around for a long time, either as a bopper at another position (Banks, Cal) or as a defensive specialist whose offense can be overlooked (Ozzie, Vizquel). It's good to be the shortstop.