After a brief layoff, the Mount Otsego series returns with a discussion of one of the most important positions on the field, and one that should warrant a lot of passionate debate. That position, of course, is Shortstop.
Chas’ Picks
Derek Jeter
At this position, only three guys—Honus Wagner, Arky Vaughan and Alex Rodriguez—have a higher win shares per year average than Jeter. He’s also the captain, and undisputed leader, of a team that won four World Series in a five year stretch. His 2607 career hits put him within range of overtaking Lou Gehrig this year for the most by any Yankee in history. Additionally, Jeter adds 1502 runs, 214 HR, 1028 RBI, 287 SB, a .315 lifetime batting average, .386 OBP and three Gold Gloves to his resume. Lastly, he’s played almost an entire season in the postseason, and the numbers are outstanding: 123 games, 85 runs, 153 hits, 17 HR, 16 SB, .309 BA, .377 OBP, and he won the 2000 World Series MVP.
Cal Ripken Jr.
The Iron Man was more than just an exceptionally durable, hard-working player and an excellent leader among his peers. He was simply a great player, who amassed 3184 hits, 431 HR, 1695 RBI and 1647 runs, while winning two MVPs, two Gold Gloves, and being named to 19 consecutive All-Star teams during a 21-year career. He’s also second all-time among shortstops in career win shares.
Alex Rodriguez
This one is going to be a bit controversial, but not because he has played third base for the past 5+ years, of course. On that subject, he’s still played 500 more games at short than at third, and—despite the fact that we’re talking hypothetically about carving these players’ heads in stone on a fictitious mountain—I consider Mount Otsego to be a living, breathing entity. That is, if we decide to revisit this concept in a few years, we can easily decide to replace one guy with another, or even to move someone from one spot on the mountain—i.e. position—to a different one. Regarding the real controversy, you have every right to decide against him, but if it wasn’t for the steroid issue, he would no doubt belong on the mount. Therefore, he needs to be part of the discussion. Oh yeah, the numbers: 561 HR, 1631 RBI, 1621 runs, 2430 hits and 147 OPS+, not to mention the three MVPs, two Gold Gloves and the fact that only Ripken, Wagner and Robin Yount have more career win shares. All this, and he doesn’t turn 34 until next month.
Arky Vaughan
The greatest left-handed hitting shortstop of all-time, Vaughan was Honus Wagner’s successor as the best at the position. He played 12 outstanding years until serving in World War II from 1944 to 1946. Unfortunately, he was in his mid-30s upon returning and the time he missed cost him, as he never regained a full-time job. Still, he amazingly accumulated 356 win shares, averaging close to 30 per year during the dozen seasons that made up his prime. Only Rodriguez and Wagner can match that level of performance. A lifetime batting average of .318, on-base percentage of .406, 2103 hits, 1173 runs, 926 RBI and a 136 OPS+ are among his statistical accomplishments. He also was named to nine consecutive All-Star teams from 1934 to 1942.
Honus Wagner
John Peter Wagner is arguably among the 10 greatest players of all-time, and there’s little doubt that he’s tops among those who manned this position. Bill James’ Black Ink Test ranks players based on the number of times they led the league in various categories, with more important categories weighted more heavily. It’s called Black Ink because leading numbers are typically represented in boldface type. Although it was easier to lead the league during the time frame that Wagner played, it’s still pretty amazing to look at his hitting record and see how covered in black it is. I’ll let Smitty rattle off Honus’ numbers, although I’m confident his case needs very little support.
Robin Yount
Yount made his major league debut at the age of 18, so when he switched to the outfield, due to a shoulder injury in his late 20s, he had already spent 11 years as a shortstop. He finished his career having played 200+ more games at short than in the outfield, and ranks third all-time at the position in win shares. He finished his 20-year career with 3142 hits, 251 HR, 271 SB, 1632 runs, 1406 RBI, two MVPs, a Gold Glove, and a first-ballot Hall of Fame election.
Smitty’s Six
Ernie Banks
Mr. Cub certainly deserves to be on this list. The 11-time All-Star finished his career with a .274 career batting average, 512 HR and over 1600 RBI. Banks was a two-time MVP who also won the Gold Glove award in 1960. To date, Banks still holds Cubs records for games played (2528), at bats (9421) and total bases (4706).
Cal Ripken Jr.
Do I need to add more? The Iron Man himself revolutionized the shortstop position as he proved that taller, bigger shortstops could be successful at the major league level. 2632 consecutive games played, 19-time All-Star, two-time Gold Glove winner, 3184 hits, 431 HR, 1695 RBI, and two-time MVP. Can I stop now?
Ozzie Smith
The Wizard is not on this list because of what he did with his bat, but rather what he did with his glove. He was a 13-time Gold Glove winner, with a career .262 batting average, 2460 hits and 580 stolen bases. Smith was also a 15-time All-Star, and as Bud Harrelson was once quoted as saying: “The thing about Ozzie is, if he misses a ball, you assume it’s uncatchable. If any other shortstop misses a ball, your first though is, ‘Would Ozzie have had it?’”
Arky Vaughan
Vaughan is possibly the greatest shortstop you have never heard of. It wasn’t until I started researching the shortstop position that I actually found out about him. He’s considered by many, including Bill James, to be the second greatest shortstop to ever play the game, behind Honus Wagner. With a career batting average of .318, 2103 hits and 926 RBI, Vaughan also lost three years of playing time due to WWII. He was also a nine-time All-Star.
Honus Wagner
The Flying Dutchman is considered by many—including Bill James—to be the greatest shortstop ever to play the game. Wagner was one of the first five players to be inducted into the Hall of Fame. His peers, such as Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth, considered him the greatest player of their time. A .327 career batting average, 3415 hits, and 1732 RBI, Wagner also had 722 stolen bases and 252 triples during his 21-year career. Plus, his T206 card is one of the rarest and most expensive baseball cards in the world. That says something, right?
Robin Yount
Yount spent most of his career at shortstop for the Milwaukee Brewers until a shoulder problem forced him into the outfield. He finished with a career batting average of .285, 3142 hits, 251 HR and over 1400 RBI. He was a three-time All-Star, who also won a Gold Glove, and was a two-time MVP. In fact, Yount is one of four players in Major League Baseball history to win the MVP trophy at two different positions.
Can you name the other three? Without looking it up, of course. Oh, and don’t forget to chime in with your opinions of who are the greatest shortstops of all-time.
Alternate: Yount, but we don’t get 5!
Let me start off by saying that I never played serious baseball and I don’t talk to managers, they’re arrogant and think that they’re God’s gift to the team.
Casey:
I promised I was coming for you. You decided to pick the exceptions to the rule, to prove what? Let’s look at the list you mentioned above. First thing that I see is that these are almost all American League teams, in other words they have DH’s that will account for the offense not delivered by the 1B’s.
Mark Grace (Arizona ‘01), seriously you could have played 1B for them. The team was Top 5 or better in almost every major offensive category(including sacrifice bunts, I’m not saying that its a major category, but it blew my mind so I added it). If that wasn’t enough, they had the 2 best pitchers in baseball and they were Top 5 or better in almost every pitching category. That’s why I said you could have played first base for them and they would have still won, you’d even have a ring now.
Scott Spezio (Angels ‘02), there was other people hitting the ball. As a matter of fact he hit 7th on the team. Glaus and Anderson both had 100+ RBI’s.
Jon Olerud (Blue Jays 92-93), I’m going to assume that you meant only 92, cause Olerud was a hitting machine in 93. As I have stated above the presence of hall of famer Dave Winfield was to there to allow Olerud to develop into the hitter that he became in 93.
Youkilis (Sox ‘07), Millar & Mientkiewicz (Sox ‘04). They played with the best duo of the new millenium, so I’m not even going to look at numbers to refute this one.
Tino Martinez had 117 RBI’s in ’96, 123 RBI’s in ’98, 105 RBI’s in ’99 and a lesser ’91 RBI’s in 2000. So I guess you were right about Tino Martinez in 2000.
The point I’m trying to make is that on a good hitting team, you can make an exception to the rule and get a 1B that doesn’t hit as well in order to save money. Or simply put there was other people hitting the ball and that’s why it was possible to make an exception.
Casey:
You’re right Mark Belanger played in a world series. Ozzie Smith played in 3. Gold Glove mean a lot to you, well you’re on my side, you just don’t know it yet.
Since Gold Gloves mean something to Casey, I move that he be added to my side supporting excellent fielding shortstops.
Casey:
I missed the 3 consecutive years on the Belanger comment. Ignore the above comment.
Gino
You are far too humble my friend. You have played as ‘serious’ of baseball as anyone in this thread. Actually, you have probably played the most serious ball of anyone.
Wow! Quite a slagging of the managers. 🙂
Judging by Tino’s precipitous drop off in offensive production after the Yanks let him go, I would say he gained a benefit from sitting in the middle of that lineup. Don’t get me wrong. He was as clutch as anyone on that team, and I could not have been happier to see him leave. I just don’t think the Yanks acquired him for offense, (Yes, he did well one year with the Mariners. Of course, I could have hit well behind Griffey). I don’t have actual stats to support what I am saying, but Tino was just as valuable with the glove as with the bat. I have heard this argument before about offense at 1st base. I disagree with it. You need someone who can field his position at every spot. My guess, is the Yankees would tend to agree with me. They brought in Giambi and all his offense. How well did that work for them? Those exceptions I found are pretty recent. The only reason Olerud didn’t win Gold Gloves those years was because of Don Mattingly.
I think I said every thing I was going to say on Ozzie Smith. Now it’s time to pick up this Arky discussion again.
On Arky Vaughan:
You dont think that the fact that the writers didn’t vote him into the hall of fame diminishes him, I can accept that (I still don’t accept that Bert Blyleven is not a hall of famer). My biggest problem with Arky is that I’m not blown away by him. The most fascinating stat he has is that he was an all star 9 consecutive years. And by the above comments I read, I shouldn’t trust the public cause I don’t know how well liked he was in his time.
Plus he was in his early 30’s when he was deployed. As a shortstop you are pass your prime at that age. If this is not so, why did change positions before the war?
Arky was a solid hitter. 1 batting title and no mvp’s. But, Arky made over 40 errors 5 times including a 52 error season. He made over 30 errors 8 times in a season, and all of that in a 10 year span.
Fielding is truly more important at the position, Honus Wagner made errors, but he outhit his mistakes.
My top 4: Wagner, Banks, Smith, Ripken
If you wanna discuss that Yount is better than Banks, just let me know.
I get what you are saying. But, all stats aside, 1B’s are guys that need to hit for power unless my team is getting the power elsewhere. I could have said that without stats, but than it would just be my opnion.
Oh and I forgot to give you guys my honorable mention:
John Henry “Pop” Lloyd.
If the Dutchman and the Bambino both made him worthy, who am I not to.
I’ve pretty much given up the Arky Vaughan cause (at least in this particular discussion) Gino, but I have answers to every one of your points:
I’m pretty sure fans didn’t vote for the all-stars in 1934-1942, but I’m not 100% sure of this.
Vaughan was moved from SS to 3B when he was traded from Pittsburgh to Brooklyn, and there was a 23-year old kid named Pee Wee Reese there.
The game was completely different in Vaughan and Wagner’s day (for one thing the gloves weren’t nearly as good as they are now), so you can’t compare error totals. Vaughan’s lifetime fielding percentage was .951. The league average for a shortstop during the time-frame that he played was .949. This certainly doesn’t make him Ozzie Smith, but as a comparison, Smith’s career fielding percentage was .978. League average for shortstops during his career was .965. The spread between Wagner’s pct. and league average is actually larger than for Smith (.940 to .926).
So, Vaughan was, at worst, a little better than average defensively. From what I’ve read, his reputation was better than that, but I never saw him play.
I could argue for his offensive numbers, but I don’t see the point. Much of my argument for Vaughan is based on win shares, and those points don’t seem to resonate with people here. Besides, you think Bill James is evil. 😉
On the subject of All-Star selections, Gold Gloves and Hall of Fame voting again…
I never meant to say that All-Star selections are meaningless, but we’ve all witnessed those years when a superstar having an off year beats out a more deserving upstart player in the fan voting. Also, it’s a mid-season honor.
I don’t think I downplayed the Gold Gloves, but I’ll use Derek Jeter’s three awards as an example. How many of those do you think he deserved? I’ll contend that the first one was somewhat deserved (he had a very good defensive year and there was no other obvious choice), but the next two were not. Do I need a better example than that?
So, I’m still going to consider the subjective awards as criteria, but I go into it knowing that using them as a benchmark has its limitations.
Managers selected the all-star teams until 1947, by the way.
Regarding HOF voting, I definitely feel that there’s been an evolution in terms of what skills and statistics are valued, which isn’t reflected in the earlier voting records. Most importantly, I think that batting average is the most over-rated offensive statistic in baseball, and I’ve been thinking that before the advent of SABRmetric statistics. I’d much rather have a guy who hits .270, walks a lot and has pretty good power than a slap hitter with a .300 average and little patience at the plate.
All that being said, I think being elected to the HOF by the writers is a pretty good criterion for Mt Otsego. There’s a certain elitism to that honor and I have no problem putting Ernie Banks’ head up there, based on his status as one of the icons of the game, even though I don’t think he’s top four. I’m not going to rule out guys who didn’t get elected by the writers, though, but it’s a factor I’m going to consider.
I made my vote before I read through everything thoroughly. WOW! It really got heated! My vote doesn’t change, but I need to explain how I vote. I consider stats, but in the end I ask myself “who would I want on my team?” Gold Gloves and MVPs and All Star selections are nice, but in the end it’s my sense/feel that counts the most in my mind. My top 5 stands as is. I do not get that sense about Vaughn probably because of the length of his career. I can’t explain why I don’t get that sense about Smith, but I don’t.
I guess you really want to talk Bill James. Bill James is not a baseball expert, he is a sabrmetrics expert. My problem is not with the man, and as a mathmatician I have no direct problem with sabrmetrics.
My problem is the perception of sabrmetrics. Sabrmetrics should be used as a complement to everything else already in play to judge talent and compare players. But more and more sabrmetrics is being used as a substitute. I believe it has a place in baseball, but only as another tool to help and confirm what is already in place. Much in the way that it is done with baseball prospectus.
I need more than Win Shares to judge a player!
Plus you gotta read the baseball abstract to think that Bill James is evil and there is no way that I’ll read the whole book. It’s way to big, no book should be over a thousand pages!!!
This is where I think you’re missing my point, Gino. We’re not talking about Bill James’ ability as a talent evaluator. We’re not looking at a bunch of young kids and trying to figure out whose skills are going to translate into performance. We’re talking about comparing players we already know are great, but who come from different eras.
How are we going to compare players across eras? With statistics. Yet, how are we going to do that when the game has changed so much over the years. You just pointed out that Arky Vaughan made over 30 errors a year eight times, but didn’t realize (I can only assume) that errors were a lot more common in his day. The same thing would apply if we tried to compare Ty Cobb to Ichiro Suzuki, or Roger Connor to Barry Bonds. We know that the statistics of today don’t translate well in comparison to the statistics of 60-80-100 years ago. So what modern statistical methods are doing are allowing us to compare players while leveling the playing field across leagues, eras, etc.
I said I had given up the Arky Vaughan cause, because I’m not going to try to convince you based on win shares. It’s obvious that you’ve known a lot about baseball for too long to accept an argument based on something so new that you haven’t had a chance to try to absorb yet, and maybe never will. I guess that all depends on whether these methods gain more mainstream acceptance.
There are plenty of more traditional arguments for Vaughan (he led the league in triples three times, runs three times, walks three times, OBP three times, even slugging percentage and stolen bases once each), but because his career was so short, the thing that elevates his rating to me is his win shares per year. I’ve read a lot about win shares, and read James’ explanations of his methods to the minute details, and I think it’s a great system, but I’m aware that I can’t possibly explain it, and therefore, I certainly can’t convince you of someone’s value based on it.
NO, I didn’t want to talk about Bill James, because I knew you were someone who is more of a traditionalist, and that’s absolutely fine. That’s why I added the wink/smile to the statement that you think Bill James is evil. It was an exaggeration and, therefore, a joke.
By the way, if you’re at all curious about James’ methods, you don’t have to read the entire Historical Baseball Abstract. I could point you to about 40 pages that might be worth your time. That won’t tell you all you need to know (you have to read the even more ridiculously long and detailed book simply entitled Win Shares for that), but will give you an idea. I was thinking about writing a really basic post about the system, because I think some of you guys might appreciate it more than you realize. Or, it could bore you to death. I don’t know which.
One more thing…Bill James is a baseball expert, from a historical perspective. He may not be able to teach someone the footwork of turning the pivot on a double play, or the finer points of calling a game. I honestly don’t know his level of expertise about the mechanics of playing the game, although I have read a few things he’s written that make me believe he’s not (an expert), but he’s much more than a statistician, and he doesn’t base his lists of the top 100 players at each position on statistics alone. He’s a historian, so he’s researched and studied the game extensively. He just happens to have the added skill of having some mathematical prowess as well.