Our mailbox is always full of esoteric questions from our readers. So every week, we pass along some of their most interesting queries to baseball historians who know the answers.
» Have a question? Ask the experts at BOLexperts@idealog.com! (Due to the volume of mail received, we cannot guarantee a response.)
» Are you an expert? Let us know by writing to BOLexperts@idealog.com.
HEY A-ROD, WELCOME TO THE CLUB
Q: Were there ever any players who had a higher
batting average than their team's winning percentage, and if so, who?
-- NYYANKS809
A: Since 1900, there have been many cases where a player had a higher batting average than his team’s winning percentage. The wretched Phillies and Browns teams of the 1930s and 40s are examples of the famously floundering clubs that littered the first half of the century. After 1950, however, only five players accomplished the feat. Four of them happened to be on the same team: the absolutely awful 1962 Metropolitans. The expansion Mets, of whom manager Casey Stengel said, “They’ve shown me ways to lose that I never knew existed,” bumbled their way to a 40-120 record and the National League cellar. Only the 1916 Athletics and 1935 Braves have had worse winning percentages than the Mets’ .250. The four players who batted over .250 that year were 2B Charlie Neal, 3B Felix Mantilla, CF Richie Ashburn, and LF Frank Thomas. Ashburn was highest at .306. Three years later the Amazins won only 31% of their games, but the best hitter on the team, Ed Kranepool, batted only .253.
The fifth and final player to bat higher than his team’s winning percentage was Dick Groat of the 1952 Pittsburgh Pirates. Groat did not have a spectacular season, slugging only .313 in 95 games. Still, the rookie’s .284 average was 11 points higher than Pittsburgh’s winning percentage. The Pirates spent another six years near the bottom of the NL standings, but Groat’s perseverance paid off with a championship in 1960.
Q: Who are the players with more than 2,500 career hits who are not members of the Hall of Fame?
-- Joe Miles
A: It is common knowledge among players that 3,000 hits is an automatic ticket into the Hall of Fame. Even those who have come close to this number can get in if they displayed some amount of power, speed, or clutch play over their careers. As a result, no eligible player with more than 2,800 hits has been left out of Cooperstown. There are currently 23 players with more than 2,500 hits that are not in the Hall. Five of them are still active:
Henderson and Ripken are surefire first-ballot Hall of Famers. Gwynn and Raines are almost guaranteed to get in, though perhaps not in their first year of eligibility. Baines, a DH since 1987, has only three 100 RBI seasons and has never had 30 home runs, and is on the bubble. Four other players are retired, but not yet eligible to be voted in:
Boggs, Murray, and Molitor will all get in when their turn comes. Dawson is less certain, but will probably be there as well. Finally, there are those who came close, but not quite close enough. These are the fourteen players that are eligible for Hall election but have not been deemed worthy of occupying its hallowed halls:
Q: Who holds the record for the most consecutive hits in uninterrupted consecutive at-bats?
-- Jerry Zagarri
A: BoSox third baseman Pinky Higgins and Tigers’ first baseman Walt Dropo share the record with 12 consecutive base hits. Starting on June 19, 1938, Higgins went 4-for-4 in three straight games to surpass the mark of 11 set by Tris Speaker. This streak suggests that Higgins had a fantastic year at the plate, but he finished the season at only .303. Dropo went 5 for 5 on July 14, 1952, at Yankee Stadium to begin his streak. Though he was a slugger, only two of his 12 hits were for extra bases. Catcher Mickey Grasso denied Dropo a chance to break the record when he caught a pop foul in Dropo’s final at-bat of the third game.
A: Though player-managers were a common occurrence during the early part of the century, they became an endangered species after the early 1950s and have been extinct since 1986. Pete Rose was the last to do it, managing the Reds for the last three years of his career. He played terribly at first base during all three years, but maneuvered a last place team into second place in ‘85 and ’86. He stayed at the Reds’ helm after his retirement, until he was forever banned from baseball in 1989.
Joe Torre is most famous for leading the Yankees to four championships in five years, but he got his managerial start while playing 26 games for the Mets in 1977. His 49-68 record that year was a portent of things to come; he never finished higher than fifth place in his five years with the Mets.
Hall of Famer Frank Robinson gave himself only limited playing time as skipper of the Cleveland Indians. In 1975-76, he played in less than 100 games total while leading the team to a near-.500 record both seasons.
Hank Bauer also played in a limited capacity while beginning his equally limited time as manager of the Kansas City Athletics. He won only 35 of 102 games in 1961, and was not much better the next year. He was subsequently booted.
Solly Hemus's managerial career closely resembled his playing career – short and fairly mediocre. As a shortstop, Hemus was a good on-base guy with little power, as a manager with the Cardinals he finished 190-192. 1959 was his only year as both.
Q: Roger Clemens, a great pitcher, #21, had a horrid post-season
career with the Red Sox. Bucky Dent's 1978 game-winning playoff homer
came off Mike Torrez, #21. Who wore #21 for the Red Sox in
1975, 1967, 1946, years where the Red Sox have crumbled when it counted most? Is the real Red Sox jinx due to the #21, instead of being due to the ghost of Ruth?
-- Stephen Jordan
A: Sorry Stephen, but until further notice the Bambino is still the one putting the hex on the Sox. Starting pitcher Tex Hughson wore #21 in 1946, when Boston lost to the St. Louis Cardinals in the World Series. Though he took the Game Four loss, he pitched well overall, giving up five runs in 14 1/3 innings. Reliever Hank Fischer had #21 in 1967, when Boston again lost to the Cards in seven games. However, he tossed only 26 innings that year and was not on the playoff roster. Another reliever, Rick Kreuger, had the number in 1975 when the Sox lost to Cincinnati in the Series, but like Fischer he was not on the playoff roster.
Q: There is a common belief that pitching and defense are more important than hitting. Is this true for all World Series teams?
-- D. Noah Appley
A: One way to check this is to look at every World Series team since 1905, when the Fall Classic became a permanent fixture. To determine whether they relied more on pitching or hitting, we simply check their league ranking for runs scored and runs allowed, then compare them. If they ranked higher in runs scored, we can determine that they relied more on offense. If they ranked higher in runs allowed, we can determine that they relied more on pitching and defense. Compiling the totals gives us the overall picture of whether, in the long run, good pitching wins out over good hitting.
Since 1905, 95 World Series have been played. On the National League side, 35 teams have been ranked higher in runs scored, 42 teams have been ranked higher in runs allowed, and 18 teams ranked the same in both. The American League representative has ranked higher in runs scored 35 times, runs allowed 32 times, and had the same ranking in both 28 times. This suggests that NL teams need to focus more on pitching and defense, while the AL is too close to call. As for the winners of those 94 World Series, 31 teams ranked higher in runs scored, 47 teams ranked higher in runs allowed, and 27 teams ranked the same in both. These numbers indicate that the cliché is quite accurate; pitching and defense do indeed win championships.
BALLPLAYERS | TEAMS | CHRONOLOGY | TODAY | BOOKS | NEWSLETTER | ERRATA | FAQ
