View Profile
View Forum Posts
View Blog Entries
Visit Homepage
View Articles
Reply With QuoteAs a Brooklyn Dodger fan I always liked Jim Gilliam, but in truth he was just a guy.
Anyway, who would you rather have, Gilliam or Gil MacDougald??
Jim Gilliam played from 1953 to 1966, hitting .265 with 203 stolen bases and 1,163 runs scored. He had a great eye at the plate, walking 1,036 times and striking out only 416 times in his 14 season career.
In 1953, Gilliam won the Rookie of the Year award, and he went on to be an All-Star twice, in 1956 and 1959. He led the league in plate appearances once, triples once, walks once, times on base once, sacrifice hits once, and AB/K five times. On the all-time list, he is 98th in walks, ahead of Roberto Alomar, Sal Bando and Jesse Burkett, but behind Rogers Hornsby, Max Carey and Roy Thomas.
Gilliam played all over the place over the course of his career. He spent 1,046 games at second base, 761 games at third base and 222 games in the outfield.
Statistically, he is similar to one Hall of Famer: Dave Bancroft. He is also similar to Tony Taylor, Roger Peckinpaugh, Mark McLemore, Ossie Bluege, Willie Randolph, Pete Runnels, Steve Sax, Stan Hack and Bill Russell. Through age 34, he was most similar to Pee Wee Reese.
The Baseball Page ranks Gilliam as the 34th best second baseman of all-time, ahead of Lonny Frey, Max Bishop and Chuck Knoblauch, but behind Tony Taylor, Manny Trillo and Davey Johnson.
What do you think about Jim Gilliam? Should he be in the Hall of Fame? Did he have Hall of Fame potential?
As a Brooklyn Dodger fan I always liked Jim Gilliam, but in truth he was just a guy.
Anyway, who would you rather have, Gilliam or Gil MacDougald??
Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball
Gilliam's career was shortened by at least two years due to his color. Like so many Black players of his generation, his path to MLB was delayed by teams' slowness to integrate. Well into the 1950's there were MLB teams not open to them. The teams that were integrated usually had quotas, they couldn't be too black. Furthermore, in a more open market for signing colored players, guys like Gilliam could have signed with a team that didn't have a stacked farm system, with a quicker path to the majors.
The Dodgers signed Gilliam at age 22, after four solid years in the Negro leagues. After two very good years with Montreal he stepped right in and was the 2nd best 2B in MLB in 1953, winning the ROY.
Eradicate, wipe out and abolish redundancy.
After he retired he was the first black coach, I believe. (If not...I think it actually may have been Buck O'Neil...he was among them. Maybe the first black base coach).
That's a significant intangible, in my opinion.
Registered User
The case for Gilliam turns on evaluation of his entire career (as Dan FS says) because he would be out at the Curbstone strictly as a major leaguer. He is not a viable candidate because viability does in fact depend strictly on major league careers.
He succeeded Jackie Robinson at secondbase in 1953. That first major league season was probably his best and he "fell off the cliff" as a batter in his fifth season (OPS+ 67 followed by five seasons at ~87) What happened? That was 1957 in Brooklyn, so what happened was not simply the move to LA and its Coliseum.
Something happened again and again the two world series championship seasons 1963 and 1965. That OPS+ 120 stands out like Popocatepetl. That season he also stole 19 bases in 24 tries, far above his career rate of success. He was the regular thirdbaseman in 1966 until mid-September, then made only two PH appearances and didn't play in the Series.
KC Ghost had the right question: Gillliam or McDougald.
I would take McDougald because (A) he had more power, and (B) he could play shortstop as well as second and third.
"I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do it will encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended and I don't care if it wrecks the National League for five years. This is the United States of America and one citizen has as much right play as another. The National League will go down the line with Robinson whatever the consequences. You will find if you go through with your intention that you have been guilty of complete madness."
NL President Ford Frick, 1947
Jim Gilliam was a good, valuable (partly due to his versatility) ballplayer. He was one of those guys who did a good job wherever you put him. In his early ML seasons he had very good speed, which regressed slowly. He was a good defender at 2B and 3B and perfectly adequate in LF. As I remember, he didn't have the arm to play SS well. He didn't have much homerun power but he got a reasonable number of doubles and triples. He had a very good batting eye. He took a lot of walks and he was quite effective batting second behind Wills since he was willing to take pitches. He was a good baserunner, perhaps bordering on excellent his first few seasons. As pointed out earlier, he lost a season or 2 to the color issue.
That said, Jim Gilliam was not a Hall of Fame-caliber player. Good, yes- valuable to his teams, yes. But his play was not of HOF quality.
As someone mentioned, he was the Dodgers' answer to Gil McDougald, who was a slightly better player. McDougald played 2B, SS, and 3B well, giving Stengel amazing flexibility in his lineup. He also had good power for an infielder of the time, though some of it was negated by Yankee Stadium's left-center power alley. McDougald retired early when he was drafted by the Angels in the 1961 expansion draft.
