Riggs Stephenson

[Baseball Guru]

I'm just curious, for the sake of discussion, what everyone's views are on Riggs Stephenson?

.366 career average/.407 career OBP%

Is comparable to Ross Youngs, who played in the same era and is in the HOF...

Sorry if he has been discussed before...

[ElHalo]

I've often thought about Stephenson. His numbers are phenomenal, just really stick out among the greats. However, he was a backup almost for almost all of his career... only had four seasons where he was the full time starter. If you look at his ink totals, they're not that impressive... because he only had 4 total qualifying seasons. Great player, not really used enough (don't know enough about him to know whether or not there was a reason for this?).

[iPod]

It might have been that he was just seen as a godawful fielder and not worth his bat. In 1927, his first year as a regular, his BA was 4th in the league, he led the NL in doubles, and the Cubs were good, but Stephenson barely got any MVP attention, finishing 20th, behind several other Cubs. This, to me, strongly suggests that the voters saw significant downsides to playing him to partially offset the obvious benefits of it. Maybe he was known as a bad fielder, I don't know. He also was probably very slow, since he hit very, very few triples for the era he played in. I'm pretty ignorant about Riggs though, aside from what the numbers say, so I could be wrong on both counts.

Gotta say, however, what everyone says about Stephenson is "Man, those numbers just look amazingly incredible, but you gotta remember the context." But I, to be honest, don't even think his numbers look that great. He had doubles power, but hit very few triples or homers. Even in that awesome run scoring environment, his RBI totals aren't that great. In his 4 years as a regular he drove in 100 just once. He slugged .500 only once in those 4 years. Basically, he's got the .336 batting average, and a bunch of other decent, but unspectacular, complementary numbers. The way people talk about Riggs Stephenson, though, you'd think he was hitting .350 with 40 homers those years or something.

[leecemark]

--Ipod, I seldom hear people talk about Stephenson at all. I do agree with the rest of your post though. Stephenson was widely regarded as having the worst throwing arm of his day and wasn't well regarded in other aspects of defense either. Alot of hitters of similar (or better) skill spent most or all of their careers in the minors for the same reason. Buzz Arlett, Ike Boone and Ox Eckhardt were PCL stars who put up huge numbers (and nearly matched them in brief MLB careers), but who weren't seen as major league defenders. Defense being taken more seriously then. Stephenson did hit for a pretty empty average too. A lousy defensive LF has to add either power or speed to even a terrific average (and Riggs wasn't leading the league) to have real value.

[oscargamblesfro]

it appears that stephenson would have perhaps been a part time dh or a bench player, maybe even a pinch hitting, 'lenny harris' kind of guy today- IF he was even good enough to play in today's game, which is highly suspect IMO. his lack of power would hurt him today, as power is expected from dh's. there were a lot of guys in that era that were in the big leagues solely because they could hit, such as fatty fothergill, who was a true regular in only one or two years, i believe. stephenson may be the best of the players of that era not in the hall, whose high averages alone comprise the bulk of their worth though.

[RuthMayBond]

I'm just curious, for the sake of discussion, what everyone's views are on Riggs Stephenson?

.366 career average

Now that WOULD be amazing

[Baseball Guru]

Now that WOULD be amazing

Obvious typo as it should be .336..

[538280]

Is comparable to Ross Youngs, who played in the same era and is in the HOF...

I suppose he is somewhat comparable to Youngs, but Youngs got in mostly becaue of favoritism of the Veterans' Committee and sympathy for his premature death.

Youngs wasn't a tremendous fielder, but he was certainly better than Stephenson, who was just god awful. Riggs could hit, but his numbers are big time inflated by time and place. His relative line of 115/115/115 is good, but not HOF worhty for a guy with only 5134 PAs. Horrible fielding, good hitting, and a really short career puts a guy 10 miles or more from the Hall.

One more thing, how he does in all of Bill James' HOF tests. He does horrible:

Black Ink: Batting - 2 (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 41 (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 33.3 (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 56.5 (Likely HOFer > 100)

Especially considering those aren't era adjusted, and Stphenson played in one of the biggest offensive era of all time, that closes the book on his case.

[Baseball Guru]

So do you think he doesn't get looked at mostly because he wasn't really a fulltime player?

If you look at his career #'s though he compares very favorably to Ross Youngs, who is in the HOF...

Youngs:
1211-Games
4627-AB's
1491-Hits
236-Doubles
93-Triples
42-hr's
592-rbi's
.322-avg
.399-obp%
.441-slg%
********************************
Riggs:
1310-Games
4508-AB's
1515-Hits
321-Doubles
54-Triples
63-Hr's
773-rbi's
.336-avg
.407-obp%
.473-slg%


So looking at just those raw #'s, Riggs looks to have the edge over Youngs in just about every catagory and the fact that he wasn't an everyday player makes it even more amazing... So I am thinking he is getting penalized for not being an everyday player.. How else can you justify Ross in over Riggs?

Personally I don't think Youngs really should be in but if he is in, I'm just curious as to why Riggs is not....

[Baseball Guru]

I suppose he is somewhat comparable to Youngs, but Youngs got in mostly becaue of favoritism of the Veterans' Committee and sympathy for his premature death.

Youngs wasn't a tremendous fielder, but he was certainly better than Stephenson, who was just god awful. Riggs could hit, but his numbers are big time inflated by time and place. His relative line of 115/115/115 is good, but not HOF worhty for a guy with only 5134 PAs. Horrible fielding, good hitting, and a really short career puts a guy 10 miles or more from the Hall.

One more thing, how he does in all of Bill James' HOF tests. He does horrible:

Black Ink: Batting - 2 (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 41 (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 33.3 (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 56.5 (Likely HOFer > 100)

Especially considering those aren't era adjusted, and Stphenson played in one of the biggest offensive era of all time, that closes the book on his case.

Thanks for those HOF test #'s.... I wrote my post while you were doing yours...lol

Can you show me the #'s for Youngs according to James?

[KCGHOST]

I think everyone has clearly covered the reasons why Riggs isn't an HoFer. To be a RFer who played the majority of his career in the 1920's and only hit 42 HR's is pretty damning.

Not meaning to give offense to anyone, but citing Ross Youngs as a close comparable is evidence the player should not be in the HoF. Youngs probably ranks in the Top 15 mistakes in the HoF.

[Freakshow]

I think everyone has clearly covered the reasons why Riggs isn't an HoFer. To be a RFer who played the majority of his career in the 1920's and only hit 42 HR's is pretty damning.

Not meaning to give offense to anyone, but citing Ross Youngs as a close comparable is evidence the player should not be in the HoF. Youngs probably ranks in the Top 15 mistakes in the HoF.

Indeed. Youngs was the 9th player outed in the Hall of Mistakes elections, which seems about right.

Youngs is the only hall of famer on Stephenson's comp list at BBRef, another indication of Riggs' lack of HOF qualifications.

[538280]

Thanks for those HOF test #'s.... I wrote my post while you were doing yours...lol

Can you show me the #'s for Youngs according to James?

Ross Youngs
Black Ink: Batting - 5 (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 115 (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 32.0 (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 72.5 (Likely HOFer > 100)

[Baseball Guru]

Thanks 538280

[ElHalo]

Not that I think the guy's a HoF'er (or anything even remotely close to it), but the guy was a much better hitter than he's being given credit for. Give a floor of 100 PA's, and he never hit below .319. A 130 OPS+ is fairly impressive. If he'd been able to stay at 2B, where he started, he'd have a fairly legitimate excuse for being brought up in a Hall of Fame conversation. As it is, he's a good, not great, player, on the outside of the top 100 of all time looking in, along with similar players like Bob and Irish Meusel, Dave Parker, Harold Baines, and Reggie Jackson.