I should have been paying more attention. But yeah...not a bad ballplayer, all in all. In fact, statistically, Clarke was actually a little better than Bobby Richardson. But to this day, he's remembered—even by old teammates—as much, much worse.
Advantage: Bobby. BUT with this huge caveat: Richardson almost always played on much, much better hitting teams than Hoss. For instance, Bobby was on the 1961 Yankees, who set the home-run record. Horace, on the 1968 Yankees, who batted a record-low, .214 as a team. And Horace played in more of a pitching era.
Consider this: hitting leadoff, ahead of Elston Howard, Roger Maris, Bill Skowron, Yogi Berra, and Mickey Mantle—among others—Bobby never scored as many as 100 runs in a season.
Running: Horace: 151-209 in stolen bases. Bobby: 73-121.
Advantage: Horace, though Bobby did not play in a big base-stealing era.
Fielding: Horace: .983, with 5,965 chances in 1,102 games. Bobby: .979, with 6,713 chances in 1,339 games.
That is, Horace had 5.41 chances a game—to 5.01 for Bobby.
This is the category that is the hardest for many people to accept. After all, Bobby Richardson was an acclaimed glove man, who won 5 straight Gold Gloves at second. It has become conventional wisdom that Horace was an awful fielder. But as the song goes, it ain't necessarily so...
For starters, baseball reference gives Clarke a 6.2 dWar in 10 years—over 4.9 for Richardson. Richardson never led the AL in fielding pct. Clarke did it once (1967). Richardson led the AL in putouts twice. Clarke did it 4 years in a row, 1968-1971. Richardson never led the AL in assists. Clarke did it a record 6 years in a row, 1967-1972.
You want new stats? Okay, how about things called "Range Factor per 9 innings" and "Range Factor per game"? Bobby never led in either. Horace led in "per 9 innings" 3 times, and "per game" 4 times. Richardson did lead once in "Total Zone Runs as 2B," where Clarke never did better than second in that category.
The big knock on Horace—long after everybody was retired—was that he would not stand in on the DP. But again, actual facts contradict this. While Richardson led the AL in DPs 4 times—Clarke also did it twice, 1969 and 1972...
Hey, I'm the first to argue that fielding, more than any other aspect of the game, eludes easy statistical judgement. But the preponderance of evidence is so great here, that I think it's impossible not to conclude that Horace Clarke was at least as good a fielder at second as Bobby Richardson—which is to say, quite good indeed.
In fact—and here is the value of having actually lived through an era—I don't remember anyone AT THE TIME calling the New York Yankees from 1965-1975 (a team which, generally, had a winning record), "the Horace Clarke Yankees." On a roster that included the likes of Jerry Kennel, Jake Gibbs, and whoever was in RF, he was far from the biggest problem on the team—AND NOBODY THOUGHT HE WAS. THEN...
—He had what sportswriters considered to be a funny name. —He was what (white) sportswriters considered to be funny looking. —He was somewhat eccentric. Among other things, he was about the only player on the team to remain living in the Concourse Plaza Hotel, even after the Bronx had begun to crumble. —He played on (relatively) bad teams, following a time of great, champion teams. —He followed a much-admired (if overrated) player at his position. —He was not white.
I was a young boy when the Hoss played. All my LL and Town League ball was when he was a Yank. I grew up in a very racially mixed city which had race riots in two different summers. I watched White Flight. Grew up very "Italian."
I never heard one Yankee fan denigrate Hoss during that entire time.
Fans of other teams, like the O's mocked him, but that was revenge for the years that we thumped them. They made up for it during the Brooks-Palmer years.
I think that he was the face of the down period.
Everything today seems to be seen through the prism of race. Maybe I was lucky that I knew almost no racists and played football with a dozen of so Black and Spanish kids. You were treated as you treated others.
Seriously, Horace was a decent player. But stats like putouts and assists are very misleading. The more walks and hits your pitcher gives up, it follows that both second base AND shortstop will have more chances at the above 2 stats. And to a lesser extent, outfield assists.
Two-thirds of a half inning. Bottom of the first. Six runs. Eight hits. After a day off (bullpen slightly rested, maybe). Anyone reading this who thought the ninth or tenth hit was the time to make a pitching change? The twelfth? The forty-first? Just asking.
If they sent Mickey Mantle down, they can send Volpe down. Played 59 games and is batting .190 with a .268 OPS and 69 Ks. And he has a downward trajectory. Needs time at AAA to figure it out.
Peraza HAS figured it out. He can't do anymore at AAA.
Members of the blog can comment. To receive an e-mailed invitation, write to johnandsuzyn@gmail.com. And check spam if it doesn't show up. (Google account required.)
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
He was a giant during our second division history. RIP.
ReplyDeleteHorace was underrated.
ReplyDeleteI should have been paying more attention. But yeah...not a bad ballplayer, all in all. In fact, statistically, Clarke was actually a little better than Bobby Richardson. But to this day, he's remembered—even by old teammates—as much, much worse.
ReplyDeleteHitting:
Horace: .256/.308/.313/.621
Bobby: .266/..299/.335/.634
Advantage: Bobby. BUT with this huge caveat: Richardson almost always played on much, much better hitting teams than Hoss. For instance, Bobby was on the 1961 Yankees, who set the home-run record. Horace, on the 1968 Yankees, who batted a record-low, .214 as a team. And Horace played in more of a pitching era.
Consider this: hitting leadoff, ahead of Elston Howard, Roger Maris, Bill Skowron, Yogi Berra, and Mickey Mantle—among others—Bobby never scored as many as 100 runs in a season.
Running:
Horace: 151-209 in stolen bases.
Bobby: 73-121.
Advantage: Horace, though Bobby did not play in a big base-stealing era.
Fielding:
Horace: .983, with 5,965 chances in 1,102 games.
Bobby: .979, with 6,713 chances in 1,339 games.
That is, Horace had 5.41 chances a game—to 5.01 for Bobby.
This is the category that is the hardest for many people to accept. After all, Bobby Richardson was an acclaimed glove man, who won 5 straight Gold Gloves at second. It has become conventional wisdom that Horace was an awful fielder. But as the song goes, it ain't necessarily so...
For starters, baseball reference gives Clarke a 6.2 dWar in 10 years—over 4.9 for Richardson.
Richardson never led the AL in fielding pct. Clarke did it once (1967).
Richardson led the AL in putouts twice. Clarke did it 4 years in a row, 1968-1971.
Richardson never led the AL in assists. Clarke did it a record 6 years in a row, 1967-1972.
You want new stats? Okay, how about things called "Range Factor per 9 innings" and "Range Factor per game"? Bobby never led in either. Horace led in "per 9 innings" 3 times, and "per game" 4 times. Richardson did lead once in "Total Zone Runs as 2B," where Clarke never did better than second in that category.
The big knock on Horace—long after everybody was retired—was that he would not stand in on the DP. But again, actual facts contradict this. While Richardson led the AL in DPs 4 times—Clarke also did it twice, 1969 and 1972...
So what to make of all this?
ReplyDeleteHey, I'm the first to argue that fielding, more than any other aspect of the game, eludes easy statistical judgement. But the preponderance of evidence is so great here, that I think it's impossible not to conclude that Horace Clarke was at least as good a fielder at second as Bobby Richardson—which is to say, quite good indeed.
In fact—and here is the value of having actually lived through an era—I don't remember anyone AT THE TIME calling the New York Yankees from 1965-1975 (a team which, generally, had a winning record), "the Horace Clarke Yankees." On a roster that included the likes of Jerry Kennel, Jake Gibbs, and whoever was in RF, he was far from the biggest problem on the team—AND NOBODY THOUGHT HE WAS. THEN...
So how to account for Hoss' reputation now?
ReplyDeleteI put it down to the following:
—He had what sportswriters considered to be a funny name.
—He was what (white) sportswriters considered to be funny looking.
—He was somewhat eccentric. Among other things, he was about the only player on the team to remain living in the Concourse Plaza Hotel, even after the Bronx had begun to crumble.
—He played on (relatively) bad teams, following a time of great, champion teams.
—He followed a much-admired (if overrated) player at his position.
—He was not white.
I was a young boy when the Hoss played.
ReplyDeleteAll my LL and Town League ball was when he was a Yank.
I grew up in a very racially mixed city which had race riots in two different summers.
I watched White Flight.
Grew up very "Italian."
I never heard one Yankee fan denigrate Hoss during that entire time.
Fans of other teams, like the O's mocked him, but that was revenge for the years that we thumped them.
They made up for it during the Brooks-Palmer years.
I think that he was the face of the down period.
Everything today seems to be seen through the prism of race.
Maybe I was lucky that I knew almost no racists and played football with a dozen of so Black and Spanish kids.
You were treated as you treated others.
I never thought badly of Hoss and I don't remember any of the neighborhood kids making fun of him. He was fine by us.
ReplyDeleteHORACE CLARKE Interviewed by Leo Cloutier @ Yankee Stadium in 1972
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/eLxy_sY05Fg
Hoss is boss.
ReplyDeleteLOL, and one Hoss was bow-legged and the other lived in the nineteenth century.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, Horace was a decent player. But stats like putouts and assists are very misleading. The more walks and hits your pitcher gives up, it follows that both second base AND shortstop will have more chances at the above 2 stats. And to a lesser extent, outfield assists.
ReplyDeleteThree Zero - Who will be our Hero - Jackie Daughterson needs a haircut
ReplyDeleteSeverino pitching a gem…smh
ReplyDeleteCan we take our first-inning mulligan? We get one of those a season, right?
ReplyDeleteThis one may be over, fellow commenterz.
ReplyDeletePlease do not be alarmed.
Please stay in bed, insert your Yankee Binky into your pie holes and snooze as we lose.
Gonna see IKF pitching at this rate…
ReplyDeleteSet back Stanton, Donaldson and Sevy
ReplyDeleteTwo-thirds of a half inning. Bottom of the first. Six runs. Eight hits. After a day off (bullpen slightly rested, maybe). Anyone reading this who thought the ninth or tenth hit was the time to make a pitching change? The twelfth? The forty-first? Just asking.
ReplyDeleteIf they sent Mickey Mantle down, they can send Volpe down.
ReplyDeletePlayed 59 games and is batting .190 with a .268 OPS and 69 Ks. And he has a downward trajectory.
Needs time at AAA to figure it out.
Peraza HAS figured it out.
He can't do anymore at AAA.