ESPN MLB

Editor's note: The following is an excerpt from "100 Things Phillies Fans Know and Do Before They Die" by Bill Baer. Copyright 2012 by Bill Baer. Excerpted with permission from Triumph Books. (Check out more of Bill's work at Crashburn Alley, our Phillies SweetSpot blog.)

53. Ed Delahanty

Ed Delahanty was the first marquee player in Phillies franchise history. The right-handed hitter joined the club in 1888, but did not rise to stardom until 1892. Early in his career, he was a jack-of-all-trades, but as he became more established in the league, he settled in nicely as an outfielder.

In his first four seasons -- which included one season with the Cleveland Infants of the Players League -- Delahanty showed decent contact skills, but scant power. In 1892, he broke out with 57 extra-base hits and 91 RBI. The next year, Delahanty barely missed out on the triple crown, leading the league with 19 home runs and 146 RBI, but his .368 average trailed teammates Billy Hamilton (.380) and Sam Thompson (.370).

Delahanty hit .404 in each of the next two seasons. The trio of Delahanty, Hamilton, and Thompson are the only Phillies to hit over .400; no one has accomplished the feat since the turn of the 20th century.

From 1893-96, Delahanty hit .392 with a 1.069 OPS. He led the league in doubles, home runs, RBI, and OPS twice.

Delahanty did not slow down much as he aged. In 1899, at the age of 31, he led the league in average at .410 and RBI at 137, missing out on the triple crown again. He also had an astonishing 238 hits. Impressively, Delahanty was also a great base runner, finishing his career with 455 stolen bases, averaging one every four games.

Delahanty was easily the best hitter in the Phillies' young history, but he has also remained among the best in franchise history more than 100 years later. He still ranks in the franchise's top-ten in batting average (2), on-base percentage (5), slugging percentage (10), OPS (6), runs (2), hits (3), doubles (1), triples (1), RBI (2), walks (7), and stolen bases (2).

Additionally, along with Rogers Hornsby, Delahanty is one of only two three-time .400 hitters. His career .346 average is fifth all-time in baseball history, behind Ty Cobb, Hornsby, "Shoeless" Joe Jackson, and Lefty O'Doul.

Along with his impressive numbers, Delahanty is remembered for one of "the most shameful home runs of all time." In 1892, the Chicago White Stockings were in Philadelphia at the Huntingdon Street Grounds. In the eighth inning, Cap Anson hit a fly ball to center field. The ball hit a pole and caromed into a "doghouse," where numbers were stored for the scoreboard.

Delahanty went after the ball but got stuck. His teammate Sam Thompson had to retrieve Delahanty with the ball, but Anson had already circled the bases by the time the two had emerged. The book "Baseball Hall of Shame" by Bruce Nash and Allan Zullo referred to the home run as an "inside-the-doghouse home run."

45. The Ryne Sandberg Trade

The Phillies have made quite a few trades with the Chicago Cubs over the years, but arguably none as bad as the Ryne Sandberg trade. Sandberg was drafted by the Phillies in the 20th round of the 1978 draft. In the minor leagues, he performed well enough to merit significant attention from other teams as a trade chip.

After the 1981 season, 36-year-old shortstop Larry Bowa and the Phillies could not reach an agreement on a new contract. Bowa requested a three-year deal, but team president Bill Giles had no intention on handing out a multi-year deal to an aging shortstop. When the team flat refused to grant Bowa the contract he desired, Bowa went on a tirade, accusing the organization of lacking class.

Bowa was still under his old contract, though, so the Phillies either had to keep a disgruntled player on their team or trade him to another organization. With a trade, however, the Phillies would not have any leverage as their dispute with Bowa was in the public eye.

Former Phillies manager and newly-installed Cubs GM Dallas Green saw an opportunity for his club. The Phillies wanted to swap Bowa for Ivan DeJesus, but Green knew he could extract more from the Phillies by playing on Bowa's shortcomings. Later speaking about the trade, Green said, "We knew we had them over a barrel." After a back-and-forth conversation, Green convinced the Phillies to include Sandberg in the deal.

On January 27, the two teams had reached an agreement. The Phillies sent Bowa and Sandberg to Chicago and the Cubs sent DeJesus to Philadelphia. While Sandberg went on to enjoy a highly-successful career with the Cubs that would lead to enshrinement in the Hall of Fame, DeJesus had three very lackluster years with the Phillies, hitting just .249 between 1982-84.

From 1984 to 1993, Sandberg made 10 consecutive All-Star teams. He won the NL Gold Glove at second base each year from 1983 to '91, and he finished first in MVP voting in 1984.

Sandberg finished his career with 62 Wins Above Replacement (WAR), a sabermetric statistic that factors in a player's contributions on both offense and defense, then accounts for the position he plays and compares him to the expected production of a replacement-level player (a theoretical player who would be freely available to play for the league minimum salary). Prior to Chase Utley, the Phillies franchise leader in WAR for second baseman was Tony Taylor at 11.9. There is no doubt that, if Sandberg had stayed in the Phillies organization, he would have retired as the greatest second baseman in Phillies history.

They say hindsight is 20/20, but the outcome of this trade could have been seen coming from a mile away. Unfortunately, the Phillies were forced into action by an ugly contract dispute with one of the team's most recognizable players in Larry Bowa. Bowa, of course, would later return to the Phillies as a manager in 2001, but left at the end of the 2004 season after many clashes with his players, including third baseman Scott Rolen.

Bowa's fiery personality was one reason why he was and still is such a controversial figure in Philadelphia sports history, but the Sandberg trade is as big a part of it. Who knows just how good the 1984-1992 Phillies would have been with Sandberg -- they may not have had to wait 10 years to reach the postseason.

Ryne Sandberg was the most famous second baseman of the 1980s. In 2005 (his third try), Sandberg went into the Hall of Fame. And deservedly so, I think.

Lou Whitaker, however, was the BEST second baseman of the 1980s. In 2001, Whitaker received 15 of 515 votes (2.9 percent) and fell off the ballot forever. And that's the biggest mistake the BBWAA has ever made.

I don't have the time (or space) to prove this, but second basemen seem to burn out faster than any position other than catcher. The abrupt fade of Roberto Alomar was unusual, but not THAT unusual, for someone at his position. Also, of course, it's traditionally been a defense-first position.

So while Whitaker's career line doesn't scream "Hall of Fame," put into the context of his position (and without the support of newfangled stats like WAR), the case becomes clearer. When Sweet Lou retired, among players to have primarily played second base, he was seventh all time in plate appearances (and less than one season's worth away from third), ninth in hits, ninth in doubles, fifth in homers, eighth in runs, ninth in RBI, and fourth in walks.

That may or may not sound like a Hall of Famer to you, but it certainly is. Every player ahead of Whitaker on every one of those lists, and even several behind him, is now in the Hall. And it's not as though he was a mere "compiler" (whatever that means); his 116 OPS+ is equal to or better than 10 of the 18 major league second basemen currently in the Hall of Fame as players. Craig Biggio, Alomar and Jeff Kent have since passed him in many of those categories above, but only Alomar was even arguably in Whitaker's class defensively. I hate to repeat my Jim Edmonds argument from last week, but there's a legitimate argument in 2011 that if you're a top-10 all-time player at your position, you should be in the Hall.

And he was better than Sandberg. Ryno had more speed and a touch more power (the difference is exaggerated by the park he got to play in), but a hitter's most important skill is getting on base, and Whitaker's 19-point advantage in OBP -- over a longer career -- is vital. To match Whitaker's on-base ability (ignoring park and league differences) in equal opportunities, Sandberg would have had to play one more season in which he reached base 433 times in 685 trips. He couldn't have grounded into a single double play, and he would have to put up a .632 OBP -- crushing Barry Bonds' single-season record of .609. Looked at differently, Sandberg collected 19 more hits than Whitaker and hit nearly 40 more homers, but Whitaker reached base more than 400 more times. It shouldn't be that hard to see which of those was more valuable.

And the metrics suggest Whitaker was every bit Sandberg's equal on defense, to say the least. Both were excellent, and Sandberg won nine Gold Gloves to Whitaker's three, but Sandberg didn't have to contend with an incumbent like Frank White, one of the two greatest ever to field the position.

One could argue that Sandberg's best was better than Whitaker's best, and that's probably true. Whitaker was never QUITE as good as Sandberg was in '83, and didn't have four consecutive seasons that can quite match Ryno's '89-'92. But he also didn't suffer the valleys Sandberg did in the mid-'80s, and I'd argue that "consistently good and sometimes great" can be just as valuable as "inconsistent but sometimes slightly greater."

Even if you'd still put Sandberg above Whitaker, though, it's close enough that there's no way one should get in easily and the other should be one-and-done. They're both Hall of Famers, and you shouldn't need fancy new metrics to see it.

The writers have made errors of omission before, of course. Ron Santo was a huge one, and they're making one now with Lou's teammate Alan Trammell. But at least with those players, they took the full 15 years to think it over. Letting a rock-solid Hall of Famer like Whitaker fall through the cracks on the first try is the biggest mistake they've ever made.

Bill spouts this kind of nonsense regularly on The Platoon Advantage, and in shorter, snarkier form on Twitter.

No, it's probably not going to happen overnight. Gordon Wittenmyer:

Cubs chairman Tom Ricketts says it's up to general manager Jim Hendry to identify the right guy to replace Lou Piniella as manager.

But no matter how good Hendry's new manager is, if the Cubs plan to contend next season, that's probably going to be up to the Ricketts ownership.

Because without at least two or three significant free-agent additions -- probably on the pitching staff alone -- it will be a long, slow climb back toward the top of the National League Central. And it's unclear how big a hit Hendry's opening $146 million payroll will take for 2011 as he tries to fix all that broke down this season.

--snip--

One thing ownership won't do, Ricketts said, is favor a managerial candidate for marketing and fan-draw value, such as Ryne Sandberg.

"The fact is, it's Jim's job to decide which manager to bring in," said Ricketts, who expects to get involved as part of the interview process once Hendry has a short list of finalists. "But it's about winning, not about marketing.

"I don't think we need a marquee name to sell tickets. What we need is a team that produces on the field. That's really what's most important to us."

If you're a Cubs fan, that's exactly what you want your owner to say.

Reportedly, Ricketts once lived across the street from Wrigley Field and met his wife in the Wrigley Field bleachers. His love for the Cubs seems genuine. Today, much of his great wealth comes from the family business, but even before joining the family business he seems to have done quite well for himself. And he seems to believe in modern objective analysis.

I don't know if Ricketts is good at hiring people or managing them. I don't know how he'll respond to another losing season (if there is one). But less than a year into his ownership, he's said most of the right things and the Cubs seem to be in pretty good hands. They're down now, but I don't expect them to be out for long.

Honestly, I can't remember seeing the baseball writers as worked up about anything as they are about Roberto Alomar. Here's Ken Rosenthal with a fairly representative opinion:

Our membership is too bloated, too riddled with voters who do not take the process seriously enough to educate themselves properly.

Oh, we usually get it right, and we’ll surely get it right next year with Alomar, who fell short by only eight votes. But the eligibility requirements for voters need to be tightened before worse mistakes are made.

To vote for the Hall, a writer must be a 10-year member of the BBWAA. But one sports editor from each outlet also is eligible, and so are feature writers and current or former columnists who rarely attend games.

The sports editors should be eliminated immediately; they simply do not develop the same feel for the game as writers who cover the sport regularly. Drawing the line on feature writers and columnists would be more difficult; many columnists, in particular, are astute observers of the game. But somehow, the local chapters need to police their memberships more diligently. There has to be a better way.

--snip--

Virtually every voter I know is honored to participate in the process. Virtually every voter I know considers the ballot a tremendous responsibility. It’s the voters I don’t know — the ones I never see at ballparks — who worry me. I fear that some do not give the candidates the consideration they deserve.

The BBWAA has done a fine job in recent years of adding Web-based writers, including several whose work is strongly influenced by sabermetrics. The next step is to go the other way, trim the fat from the membership, purge those who do not study the game closely enough to warrant Hall of Fame votes.

The Alomar snub is an embarrassment.

If people’s feelings get hurt, too bad.

Rosenthal isn't the only prominent BBWAA member calling for change. Shoot, Buster Olney believes the writers shouldn't be involved at all (Jeff Pearlman agrees, snarkily).

Rather than editorialize -- Rosenthal and Olney have beaten me to the punch, with style -- I'll simply offer a bit of knowledge and a humble prediction.

First, Rosenthal is absolutely right about the voting population. I've written about this at some length, and if the die-hard baseball fans knew who's being sent Hall of Fame ballots every year, it would be a major scandal.

Or a minor kerfuffle, at least.

But my prediction is that little will come of this. Sure, it would be a neat story if the snubbing of Alomar wound up as the tipping point for real reform. But the BBWAA is a big ship that takes a great deal of time and effort to change directions. I suspect that if a candidate like Alomar was repeatedly snubbed, something might actually change after a few years. But it takes time, and any real movement toward change will likely be forgotten a year from now, when Alomar is elected. The next controversy will come in a few years if Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds aren't elected. That will result in a great deal of hand-wringing and self-reflection, and might eventually lead to something.

I take it back. I will editorialize. I agree with Rosenthal the system is flawed. I don't necessarily agree that the writers shouldn't be involved, but I believe they (we) should be somewhat less involved. But be careful what you wish for. If the BBWAA culls all the current voters who don't really pay any attention to baseball -- and there are many dozens of them -- we'll have more candidates elected. How many more, I don't know. But more, for sure.

More isn't necessarily bad. But more wouldn't mean Tim Raines and Alan Trammell. It would mean Jack Morris and Lee Smith. The standards for election would inevitably be lowered. Not maintained. Lowered.

The system that's in place, however flawed, usually arrives at a good result, eventually. It took too long, but eventually Ryne Sandberg and Gary Carter were elected. It's taking too long, but eventually Bert Blyleven and Roberto Alomar will be elected. Raines and Trammell? Sure, they've been terribly jobbed. But the Hall of Fame would never endorse any reform that would get either of them elected.

Be careful what you wish for.

You'll pardon me if I'm not leading three cheers for the Hall of Fame's Veterans Committee(s). There were two lists of candidates, one of them loaded with outstanding candidates and one of them almost bereft of good candidates. And the results? Of course: none of the outstanding candidates were elected from the loaded list, while two were elected from the other:

Results of the 2009 Managers/Umpires Ballot (12 votes needed for election): Doug Harvey (15 votes, 93.850 percent), Charlie Grimm (3 votes, 18.8%). Davey Johnson, Tom Kelly, Billy Martin, Gene Mauch and Steve O’Neill each received less than 3 votes.

The Veterans Committee for Managers and Umpires consisted of Hall of Famers Jim Bunning, Tommy Lasorda, Eddie Murray, Phil Niekro, Tony Perez, Robin Roberts, Ryne Sandberg, Ozzie Smith, Billy Williams and Dick Williams; former executive Jim Frey; current executives Roland Hemond (Diamondbacks) and Bob Watson (Major League Baseball); and veteran writers Tim Kurkjian (ESPN), Jack O’Connell (BBWAA) and Tom Verducci (Sports Illustrated).

The Veterans Committee for Executives and Pioneers also considered 10 candidates for election to the Hall of Fame in 2010. No candidate on that ballot received the necessary 75 percent of all ballots cast needed for Hall of Fame election. Former Detroit Tigers executive John Fetzer received eight votes, the highest total of any of the 10 candidates.

Results of the 2009 Executives/Pioneers Ballot (9 votes needed for election): John Fetzer (8 votes, 66.7%),
Marvin Miller (7 votes, 58.3%), Jacob Ruppert (7 votes, 58.3%), Ewing Kauffman (6 votes, 50 percent). Gene Autry, Sam Breadon, Bob Howsam, John McHale, Gabe Paul and Bill White each received less than 3 votes. The Veterans Committee for Executives and Pioneers consisted of Hall of Famers Robin Roberts and Tom Seaver; former executive John Harrington (Red Sox); current executives Jerry Bell (Twins), Bill DeWitt (Cardinals), Bill Giles (Phillies), David Glass (Royals), Andy MacPhail (Orioles) and John Schuerholz (Braves); and veteran media members Rick Hummel (St. Louis Post-Dispatch), Hal McCoy (Dayton Daily News) and Phil Pepe(New York Daily News).

My four choices from the Executives/Pioneers ballot were Miller and Ruppert (who both came close) and Breadon and Howsam (who both did not). Just a reminder: There are 11 owners in the Hall of Fame, and Breadon accomplished more than almost all of them. Before Breadon owned the Cardinals, they hadn't won any sort of championship since the 1880s. While Breadon owned the Cardinals, they won nine National League pennants and six World Series. In the 60-some years since Breadon sold the Cardinals, they've won three World Series. With the exception of George Steinbrenner, it's hard to imagine who might clear the bar for owners if Breadon can't even come close. (Oh, and by the way, Fetzer's Tigers won one American League pennant and one World Series in his 28 years as owner. One can only assume that he nearly gained election because he played a pivotal role in negotiating TV contracts. Or something.)

My three choices from the Managers/Umpires ballot were Doug Harvey, Billy Martin, and umpire Hank O'Day. Harvey should have been elected a long time ago. O'Day, because he umpired a century ago, is easy for some voters to ignore. In response, a commenter wrote this:

You seem to ignore the fact that Billy Martin routinely took the very good teams he created and routinely destroyed them, mostly by the same method. He wore out his best pitchers arms' by overwork (What he did to Ron Guidry alone should disqualify him for the Hall of Fame) and he micromanaged his players, who eventually got tired of playing for him. He usually deserved to be fired, which is not great credentials for the Hall of Fame.

Point taken. I suspect that I fall victim to the same impulse that often afflicts the real voters: the desire to vote for someone, even if there's no obviously deserving candidate. I also suspect that this impulse explains Herzog's election. He picked up 14 of 16 possible votes? After failing to gain election in many previous elections? Herzog's 1,281 wins rank just 32nd all-time, and his .532 career winning percentage is good but not great. I suspect that he was elected because he (and his teams) had a personality -- in St. Louis, they called it "Whiteyball" -- and because his teams did win six division titles and three league championships.

Essentially, Herzog doesn't obviously rank among the managers already in the Hall of Fame -- or for that matter, with Tony La Russa, Bobby Cox, and Joe Torre -- but was (arguably) the best candidate on the ballot. It's more fun to elect someone than not.