The most runs scored per game over a career
Posted by Andy on January 9, 2011
Among players with at least 500 games played, here are the only 5 whose runs scored total is at least 80% of their games played total:
| Rk | Player | R | G | From | To |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Babe Ruth | 2174 | 2503 | 1914 | 1935 |
| 2 | Lou Gehrig | 1888 | 2164 | 1923 | 1939 |
| 3 | Joe DiMaggio | 1390 | 1736 | 1936 | 1951 |
| 4 | Earle Combs | 1186 | 1455 | 1924 | 1935 |
| 5 | Red Rolfe | 942 | 1175 | 1931 | 1942 |
Red Rolfe sticks out as a surprise until you realize that all 5 of these guys are Yankees and played from the team in the 1920s, 1930s, or 1940s.
If we drop the requirement to 70% (meaning R total is at least 0.7 times G total) then we get these 25 players:
| Rk | Player | R | G | From | To ▾ | Tm |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alex Rodriguez | 1757 | 2303 | 1994 | 2010 | SEA-TEX-NYY |
| 2 | Hanley Ramirez | 562 | 760 | 2005 | 2010 | BOS-FLA |
| 3 | Albert Pujols | 1186 | 1558 | 2001 | 2010 | STL |
| 4 | Derek Jeter | 1685 | 2295 | 1995 | 2010 | NYY |
| 5 | Ian Kinsler | 437 | 618 | 2006 | 2010 | TEX |
| 6 | Barry Bonds | 2227 | 2986 | 1986 | 2007 | PIT-SFG |
| 7 | Kenny Lofton | 1528 | 2103 | 1991 | 2007 | HOU-CLE-ATL-TOT-NYY-PHI-LAD |
| 8 | Jeff Bagwell | 1517 | 2150 | 1991 | 2005 | HOU |
| 9 | Rickey Henderson | 2295 | 3081 | 1979 | 2003 | OAK-NYY-TOT-SDP-NYM-BOS-LAD |
| 10 | Ted Williams | 1798 | 2292 | 1939 | 1960 | BOS |
| 11 | Dom DiMaggio | 1046 | 1399 | 1940 | 1953 | BOS |
| 12 | Joe DiMaggio | 1390 | 1736 | 1936 | 1951 | NYY |
| 13 | Tommy Henrich | 901 | 1284 | 1937 | 1950 | NYY |
| 14 | Hank Greenberg | 1051 | 1394 | 1930 | 1947 | DET-PIT |
| 15 | Jimmie Foxx | 1751 | 2317 | 1925 | 1945 | PHA-BOS-TOT-CHC-PHI |
| 16 | Charlie Gehringer | 1774 | 2323 | 1924 | 1942 | DET |
| 17 | Red Rolfe | 942 | 1175 | 1931 | 1942 | NYY |
| 18 | Earl Averill | 1224 | 1669 | 1929 | 1941 | CLE-TOT-DET-BSN |
| 19 | Lou Gehrig | 1888 | 2164 | 1923 | 1939 | NYY |
| 20 | Mickey Cochrane | 1041 | 1482 | 1925 | 1937 | PHA-DET |
| 21 | Babe Ruth | 2174 | 2503 | 1914 | 1935 | BOS-NYY-BSN |
| 22 | Max Bishop | 966 | 1338 | 1924 | 1935 | PHA-BOS |
| 23 | Earle Combs | 1186 | 1455 | 1924 | 1935 | NYY |
| 24 | Lu Blue | 1151 | 1615 | 1921 | 1933 | DET-SLB-CHW-BRO |
| 25 | Ty Cobb | 2246 | 3034 | 1905 | 1928 | DET-PHA |
Now we get all players from either the 1920s-1940s, or from the modern high-offense era. Very little of these 25 careers occurred in the 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s.
If you're curious, among the career runs scored leaders, the highest-ranking players who don't make this cut are Hank Aaron, Pete Rose, and Willie Mays.
Keep in mind that active players on this list are reasonably likely to fall off before they are finished, particular if their OBP drops toward the end of their time (as is common.)
Ian Kinsler, for example, has a ratio now of .707 runs per game scored, one of the lowest ratios on this list. If his OBP drops by just a few points, it's likely his career ratio will drop below 0.7.
January 9th, 2011 at 7:51 am
By the way, Lu Blue has got to be one of the greatest names I've ever heard, especially since Lu is just a shortened form of his real first name (and not a nickname fabricated to fit nicely--such as Dusty Rhodes.)
January 9th, 2011 at 8:20 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by MLBSpies. MLBSpies said: baseball_ref: B-R Blog: The most runs scored per game over a career http://bit.ly/hm5Do1: baseball_ref: B-R Blog... http://bit.ly/he2fz7 [...]
January 9th, 2011 at 8:28 am
You know, this list astonishes me. I just realized that none of these great's, come all that close to one of my favorite 1800's guys, Billy Hamilton, who scored 1.06 runs per game.
January 9th, 2011 at 8:55 am
Oh you busted me, Devon. I forgot to mention that these lists are 1901-present.
January 9th, 2011 at 9:46 am
Andy-
Is there a way to include the R/G stat in the tables?
January 9th, 2011 at 10:04 am
On a completely different topic.
NPR is reporting that the little girl killed in Arizona was the granddaughter of former Phillies GM Dallas Green.
January 9th, 2011 at 10:24 am
Devon- You beat me to it. When I read the title of the article, my first thought was: "I wonder who's second to Billy Hamilton?"
January 9th, 2011 at 10:50 am
I'm with you in that right away I thought of Rose, Aaron and Mays.
I thought maybe it was just that they played too long.
Rose was the biggest surprise- even by 35 he was quite short of 70%.
Mays in the 75% range until 35 but played too long.
Aaron was never really close- maybe the mediocre teams he played on?
Still, what a monster stat.
January 9th, 2011 at 10:56 am
I know 1870s-1880s baseball isn't quite comparable to modern stats, but check out Ross Barnes' 1876 numbers for the Cubs.
66 Gs, 126 Rs, 158 TOBs.
He led the league in TOB and scored 80% of his times on base.
His 162 game average would of been 309.
Oh, just checked his NA numbers and he had an almost identical season in 1873 for the Boston Red Stockings.
125 Rs, 60 Gs, same hits and BBs, TOBs
January 9th, 2011 at 11:23 am
Kenny Lofton!!!!
January 9th, 2011 at 11:28 am
#6 has been confirmed by the Phillies:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/nl/phillies/2011-01-09-dallas-green-grandchild_N.htm
Regardless of whose granddaughter she was, it's such a terrible story for her family and those of the other victims.
January 9th, 2011 at 11:29 am
#5 BSK, there is no way to get it automatically included in the table, sorry.
January 9th, 2011 at 11:51 am
In the case of Mantle, though he was in 2,401 games I know that he pinch hit about 110 times or so, and in his last couple of years he would be replaced in the 6th or 7th inning to save his legs. So his games total is not indicative of the actual amount of ball he played. So if adjusted somehow I am sure he would be similar to Jeter since they scored almost the same amount of runs. One thing -only Ruth and Williams before him led the major leagues in runs scored more (Ruth 8) or as much (Williams -5 same as Mantle who had 6 before being downgraded to 1 behind Maris in '61)
I think Henderson tied him since and maybe Bonds and Rodriquez.
January 9th, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Just read a little on Red Rolfe, since I knew so little about him and was pleasantly surprised by his life.
I assumed his short career was due to WWII, but he left after '42 to coach at Yale, basketball and baseball.
He was an Ivy Leaguer as well, Dartmouth (also attended the very prestigious Exeter High School), so imagine playing on the 30's Yankees and having two Ivy League graduates. You'd of been lucky to have been the third smartest guy on the team.
And how's this for coincidence, he wore # 2 for the Yankees, as does a very well known contemporary Yankee, and was born in a town named Penacook, NH - Jeter was born in Pequannock, NJ.
He was at various times a scout, an athletic director at Dartmouth, the MLB Tigers Manager.
I'm not sure of how to accurately check for this, but Rolfe's 99 OPS+ must be a record for a guy with his penchant for scoring runs. Granted, he batted in front of the all time greats... Still not bad.
January 9th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Rolfe wore #2 and he batted #2 as well -- that's often how the numbers were first assigned and in the early 30s there was still a bit of a rough correlation between the two.
Most common players following Rolfe in the lineup:
1934 - Rolfe->Ruth->Gehrig
1935 - Rolfe->Chapman->Gehrig
1936 - Rolfe->DiMaggio->Gehrig
1937 - Rolfe->DiMaggio->Gehrig
1938 - Rolfe->Henrich->DiMaggio
1939 - Rolfe->Keller->DiMaggio
1940 - Rolfe->Keller->DiMaggio
1941 - Rolfe->Henrich->DiMaggio
1942 - Rolfe->Henrich->DiMaggio
Rolfe is one of my favorite under-the-radar Yankees (along with Gene Woodling and Gil McDougald) and he was a solid OBP guy in his better seasons but he also had some of the best hitters batting after him in the order that you could get. And his was a high-offense era for the AL, too.
January 9th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
The name that caught my eye on the 2nd list:
Mickey Cochrane -- a catcher.
Cochrane was an on-base machine: His career OBP of .419 is 20th all-time. In 13 seasons, his OBP was at least .400 10 times, with a high of .459; only once did he come in below .395. At 34, he was still going strong, working on his 3rd straight year with OBP of .450+ and scoring 27 runs in 27 games (starting all but 2 of Detroit's contests), when he was beaned and suffered a severe skull fracture, ending his career.
Cochrane's rate of .702 R/G obviously benefitted from his era, his teams and his parks. But it still shows that you don't need a lot of power or speed to put a whole lot of runs on the board.
January 9th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Mickey Mantle missed the list by less than 5 Runs!
January 9th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
I wonder what this list would look like if it was hits rather than runs? Perhaps that might be as meaningful in its own way.
January 9th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
Hey Andy;
I'm not sure how to reach you without connecting it to a maybe unrelated post, but..... Hope you see this.
I posted in a different thread that I had to give you recognition for your efforts on behalf of Bert Blyleven, in addition to this page as a whole, as being a major factor in getting him into the Hall.
You and I have clashed on Bert many a times before this, and I think you have just taken to ignoring my posts. Even if that is the case I hope you read this.
I readily and freely recognize that your efforts collectively were almost hand-in-hand in step with the rise of Bert's popularity among the Hall's electors. Additionally, your efforts collectively have to be seen as a ground-swell in the efforts of your legion to elect people like Zach Greinike to the Cy Young.
Honest, my own view is this: Agree with the "statheads" or not, they are steadily seizing the reigns of the debate in how to evaluate major league players.
Congratulations.
You and your like are the Bill James' of the last decade
January 9th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
#19, I saw your earlier post, and have been formulating a response to it. I certainly appreciate the sentiment. I plan to make a post about it soonish.
January 9th, 2011 at 9:01 pm
BSK -- Here are the R/G for the second table:
Rk. Player, R/G
1. Lou Gehrig, 0.87
2. Babe Ruth, 0.87
3. Earle Combs, 0.82
4. Red Rolfe, 0.80
5. Joe DiMaggio, 0.80
6. Ted Williams, 0.78
7. Charlie Gehringer, 0.76
8. Alex Rodriguez, 0.76
9. Albert Pujols, 0.76
10. Jimmie Foxx, 0.76
11. Hank Greenberg, 0.75
12. Dom DiMaggio, 0.75
13. Barry Bonds, 0.75
14. Rickey Henderson, 0.74
15. Ty Cobb, 0.74
16. Hanley Ramirez, 0.74
17. Derek Jeter, 0.73
18. Earl Averill, 0.73
19. Kenny Lofton, 0.73
20. Max Bishop, 0.72
21. Lu Blue, 0.71
22. Ian Kinsler, 0.71
23. Jeff Bagwell, 0.71
24. Mickey Cochrane, 0.70
25. Tommy Henrich, 0.70
January 9th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
John-
Thanks! I'd be interested to see the same for RBIs. I remember looking at Manny's stats and noticing he had (I think) a 3 year run where he averaged more than an RBI per game (one was a shortened season, I believe). Not sure where he is for his career, but it's always interesting to look at things "per game", since we so rarely do that in baseball.
January 9th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
FWIW, from 1998 - 2000, Manny went 145RBI/150G, 165RBI/147G, and 122RBI/118G (respectively). I remember marveling at back to back seasons with more than 1RBI/G and a three year span that averaged more than that. For his career, he's at .786RBI/G, with that likely to (continue to) fall if he continues to play.
Just throwing it out there to whet the appetite of anyone who can put a similar search together.
January 9th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
OK Guys! Who wants to put together the "Runs Created" per Gamme Played Table????
January 9th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
I think it's interesting that all 5 of the players shown in the first list were Yankees.
January 9th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Sorry about mentioning all 5 were Yankees:
Andy already mentions it in his lead in to the Post.
I just missed it...
January 9th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
BSK -- Manny ranks 11th among modern players in RBI/G at 0.80, right behind Ted Williams and right ahead of A-Rod.
Here's the list of all modern players (1901-present) with 500+ games and at least 0.7 RBI/G. Note that 10 of the top 30 are active:
Rk. Player, RBI/G, RBI, G, OPS+
1. Lou Gehrig, 0.92, 1995, 2164, 178
2. Hank Greenberg, 0.92, 1276, 1394, 158
3. Joe DiMaggio, 0.89, 1537, 1736, 155
4. Babe Ruth, 0.88, 2213, 2503, 206
5. Ryan Howard, 0.85, 748, 875, 140
6. Juan Gonzalez, 0.83, 1404, 1689, 132
7. Jimmie Foxx, 0.83, 1922, 2317, 163
8. Al Simmons, 0.82, 1827, 2215, 132
9. Albert Belle, 0.81, 1239, 1539, 143
10. Ted Williams, 0.80, 1839, 2292, 190
11. Manny Ramirez, 0.80, 1830, 2297, 155
12. Alex Rodriguez, 0.80, 1831, 2303, 145
13. Albert Pujols, 0.79, 1230, 1558, 172
14. Hack Wilson, 0.79, 1063, 1348, 144
15. Zeke Bonura, 0.77, 704, 917, 121
16. Bob Meusel, 0.76, 1067, 1407, 118
17. Mark McGwire, 0.75, 1414, 1874, 162
18. Hal Trosky, 0.75, 1012, 1347, 130
19. Jose Canseco, 0.75, 1407, 1887, 132
20. Mark Teixeira, 0.74, 906, 1218, 134
21. Carlos Delgado, 0.74, 1512, 2035, 138
22. Miguel Cabrera, 0.74, 879, 1190, 145
23. Frank Thomas, 0.73, 1704, 2322, 156
24. David Ortiz, 0.73, 1170, 1596, 134
25. Ryan Braun, 0.73, 420, 579, 140
26. Rudy York, 0.72, 1152, 1603, 123
27. Harry Heilmann, 0.72, 1539, 2147, 148
28. Justin Morneau, 0.72, 679, 948, 128
29. Vladimir Guerrero, 0.72, 1433, 2002, 143
30. Jim Bottomley, 0.71, 1422, 1991, 124
31. Jeff Bagwell, 0.71, 1529, 2150, 149
32. Johnny Mize, 0.71, 1337, 1884, 158
33. Sammy Sosa, 0.71, 1667, 2354, 128
34. Roy Campanella, 0.70, 856, 1215, 123
35. Mo Vaughn, 0.70, 1064, 1512, 132
36. Goose Goslin, 0.70, 1609, 2287, 128
37. Rogers Hornsby, 0.70, 1584, 2259, 175
January 9th, 2011 at 11:07 pm
I remember in the early '90s Jose Canseco was the first guy since Ted Williams to drive in at least 750 runs in his first 1000 career games. I think this has been done several times since then.
We can't look this up directly via PI (I don't think), but we can see who had the most games with at least 1 RBI in one's first 1000 games. Unfortunately I guess the search is so labor-intensive that one has to limit the number of years on each search so it's a big pain in the ass to do.
January 9th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
Upon glancing over the replies I noticed that Billy Hamilton had the highest total of runs per game.
There was a George Gore, who played from 1879 through 1892. He scored 1327 runs in 1310 games for a percentage of 1.013.
Another 19th century star with a high total was John McGraw. He scored 1024 runs in 1099 games for a percentage of .932. Some people feel he was the best third baseman in the 19th century. Some have the opinion that had he not managed, he would have made Hall of Fame as a player.
Hamilton, Gore and McGraw were all lefthanded batters.
January 10th, 2011 at 12:34 am
Bill Tuck @29 -- Interesting points on those 19th-century stars. But not all 19th-century stars played the same game. Various basic pitching and batting rules that we know today were still in flux before 1893, which many historians consider the true start of the "modern era" in baseball.
George Gore's entire career (1878-92) was played under conditions very different from what we know today, or even those that John McGraw played under. In his big-league career, Gore never faced a pitcher from the modern distance; he played 6 seasons against underhand pitching; and until his last year, bats could be flat on one side. We can compare him to players of his time, but it's almost impossible to include him in a meaningful comparison to modern players.
"Sliding Billy" Hamilton (1888-1901) spanned the eras, and was a star in both. He was a star in 1894, when NL teams averaged 7.4 R/G; he was a star in 1901, when they averaged 4.6 R/G (and Hamilton scored 71 runs in 102 games). It's a safe bet that Hamilton would have been a star in almost any period in MLB history.
John McGraw was probably the all-around greatest "baseball man" ever. As a player (almost entirely under the modern rules), he had a .466 on-base percentage (3rd in history) in almost 5,000 plate appearances; he led the league in OBP three times, with marks of .547 in 1899 (83 points above the #2 man) and .505 in 1900 (54 points clear). For the period 1893-1901, McGraw had a .480 OBP, the highest in baseball (min. 500 games); he ranked 7th in total runs scored (despite playing less than 100 games in 4 of those seasons), and joined Hamilton and Wee Willie Keeler as the only players to average over a run per game during that period (min. 500 games). In those years, McGraw averaged 133 walks per 162 games, compared to 41 walks per 162 G for Keeler -- so that, although Keeler "outhit" him by 30 points, McGraw's OBP was 60 points higher.
His playing career dwindled after 1902, when he became manager of the Giants. The duties of a manager encompassed so much more in that era than it does now -- at least, they did for some managers, including McGraw -- so it's not surprising that he chose to devote his energies off the field, even though he obviously was still capable of playing; in 55 games in 1902 (the last year he played more than 12 games), he had a .420 OBP, higher than that of every qualifying batter in either league save Ed Delahanty.
It would have been fascinating to see what McGraw might have done as a player-manager had he played 30 years later, after most personnel duties had been assumed by a general manager. But then, McGraw probably wouldn't have wanted to manage under those conditions.
January 10th, 2011 at 2:29 am
Here is the 19th century list using Andy's 500 G cutoff:
George Wright - 1.13
*Billy Hamilton - 1.06
Cal McVey - 1.05
*George Gore - 1.01
*Harry Stovey - 1.00
Hub Collins - 0.96
Andy Leonard - 0.96
*King Kelly - 0.93
*John McGraw - 0.93
*Mike Griffin - 0.93
*Dan Brouthers - 0.91
*Arlie Latham - 0.91
Bill Joyce 0.91
*-would also pass a 1000-game cutoff.
This includes the NA which technically isn't a Major League (though it should be). The NA was an extremely high-scoring league in its early shorter seasons. And of course, it was a different game in the 19th century. I make no judgements. The main reason why 19th century players rank higher on this list is that teams generally scored more runs per game in the 19th century... often quite a bit more. Same reason why the 1920s/1930s players rank higher than the 1960s players.
January 10th, 2011 at 2:55 am
@30
Being a manager probably was distracting, but John McGraw had bad knee. He had durability issues for much of his career and the rough playing style of the times along with poor medical practices compounded things. His knee gave out in spring training of 1903 which effectively ended his playing career.
January 10th, 2011 at 3:25 am
Jeff Bagwell in both the runs per game and RBI per game lists, but barely halfway to the 75 percent for HOF induction. I think he'll get in eventually but may take a little while.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:04 am
@32, DavidRF -- Thanks for the info on McGraw's injury. I didn't see anything about an injury on B-R Bullpen or Wikipedia. Do you know of a good McGraw biography? Thanks.
January 10th, 2011 at 11:11 am
#9/ dukeofflatbush Says: "I know 1870s-1880s baseball isn't quite comparable to modern stats, but check out Ross Barnes' 1876 numbers for the Cubs: 66 Gs, 126 Rs, 158 TOBs.
He led the league in TOB and scored 80% of his times on base."
Dukeofflatbush, it was probably less than 80%, as this does not includes times reached on error. In 1876, there was an average of 6 (!) errors a game (3123/520), for a fielding % of 866.
This means about one of every seven chances resulted in an error; this is undoubtably due to playing barehanded, plus the lower level of ability (this is the first year a league was considered "major"). Ross must have reached a large number of times on errors, plus he also scored on errors when he was on base .
January 10th, 2011 at 11:45 am
@34
The SABRBio project has a short mention of the spring 1903 injury:
http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=983&pid=9279
The biography by Charles Alexander documents the knee problems that limited his playing time in the previous few seasons as well.
January 10th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
John #30, lots of good stuff there but I must disagree about the date you use to divide from "modern baseball". Before about 1903 (it was a different year in each league), foul balls were not strikes. (Except that foul bunts were strikes sometime earlier, 1892 maybe.) Obviously this was a great advantage to batters, hit a lot of fouls and still have strikes left. I think if you look at the team R/G over time you can see a big drop at this time.
January 10th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
There are a lot of different dates one can use to separate "modern" baseball. I tend to use 1893 as well, but it depends on what you're looking at, I guess.
January 11th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Rudy @24,
That would be interesting. One of my favorite rate stats is RC/PA. To compensate for players who pinch hit or were replaced in late innings (as Bill discussed @13), you could look at R or RBI per PA as well. That also partially compensates for higher-scoring teams, where a player has more PA per game.
January 15th, 2011 at 3:53 am
@37, Kds -- I need a good source for baseball rules history. What do you use? The best one I've found online is baseball-almanac:
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/rulechng.shtml
While it mentions, "Foul strike rule was adopted by the American League" in 1903, it doesn't say when that same rule (whatever it was, exactly) was adopted in the NL.
So, in looking for the decline in scoring that you suggest, I don't know where to expect the change in the NL. Can you help with this?
As far as the AL goes, 1903 does indeed show a decline in scoring, from 4.89 R/G in 1902 to 4.10 R/G in 1901, a drop of 19.3%. Two problems, though:
(1) Scoring had also declined the year before, by 9.4% (from 5.35 R/G in 1901 to 4.89 in 1902).
(2) Scoring continued to fall in 1904, by 15.8% (from 4.10 to 3.54).
From that scoring trend alone, I can't draw a big conclusion about the impact of the foul strike rule.
Let's take a look at strikeout rates (K/9):
-- 1901: 2.6
-- 1902: 2.5
-- 1903: 3.9
-- 1904: 4.1
-- 1905: 4.2
That's definitely a clearer sign of an impact of the foul strike rule. The question then becomes, does that increase in strikeouts really constitute enough of a change in the fundamental nature of the game to draw a bright line between 1902 and 1903?
I'm just not sure. I'd love to hear more from you on this. Thanks.