2001 Fleer Red Sox 100th

 

NAME: Boo Ferriss

POSITION: Starting Pitcher

WHY IS HE HERE? Ferriss was one of the two top pitchers on the team during the 1946 season in which the Red Sox steamrolled their way to the World Series.  His Major League debut was delayed a bit due to service in World War II, but he won 20+ games in each of this first two seasons and finished in the top ten in the MVP vote both years.  

WOULD I PUT HIM IN IN 2001?: Yes.

ANY BETTER CHOICES IN 2001?: Any of the better choices are already here.

WOULD I PUT HIM IN NOW?: Yes.

ANY BETTER CHOICES NOW?: Of course there are other pitchers that should be in, but Ferriss was a big part of the team at a certain point. In order to tell a full history of the team, he has to be in.  He was one of the aces of a team that went to the World Series and that means something.

2001 Fleer Red Sox 100th Pt. 20: Bill Monbouquette

NAME:  Bill Monbouquette

POSITION:  Starting Pitcher

WHY IS HE HERE?  At this time, Monbouquette is one of those guys you have to be a big fan of the team to have heard of him.  He was the team's best starting pitcher in the early 1960's, a time period in which the team was simply not that good.  Ted Williams was retired and Yaz hadn't become a big star yet.  But Monbouquette was a 20 game winner in 1963 and was an All Star four times.  He had a 96-91 record with a 3.69 ERA for Boston. 

WOULD I PUT HIM IN IN 2001?:  Yes.

ANY BETTER CHOICES IN 2001?:  Any of the better choices is already here.  

WOULD I PUT HIM IN NOW?:  Yes.

ANY BETTER CHOICES NOW?:  Of course there are other pitchers that should be in, but Monbouquette was a big part of the team at a certain point.  In order to tell a full history of the team, he has to be in.

2001 Fleer Red Sox 100th Pt. 19: Tony Conigliaro

NAME:  Tony Conigliaro

POSITION:  Right field

WHY IS HE HERE?  Conigliaro was a phenom, but is also unfortunately one of the biggest tragedies in Red Sox history after his career ended prematurely following a beaning that hit him in the eye.  He was one of the youngest players of all time to make it to 100 home runs and led the league in home runs in just his second season.  He was easily one of the biggest stars on the team in the 1960's. 

WOULD I PUT HIM IN IN 2001?:  Yes.

ANY BETTER CHOICES IN 2001?:  Any of the better choices is already here.  

WOULD I PUT HIM IN NOW?:  Yes.

ANY BETTER CHOICES NOW?:  Conigliaro's story is bigger than his numbers.  Obviously, players like Mookie Betts and possibly even Trot Nixon should be included in the set, but not at the expense of Conigliaro.

2001 Fleer Red Sox 100th Pt. 18: Pete Runnels

NAME:  Pete Runnels

POSITION:  Second base/first base

WHY IS HE HERE?  Runnels spent six years in Boston, winning two batting titles (.320 in 1960 and .326 in 1962).  He finished second to Ted Williams in 1958.  During his time in Boston, Runnels hit .320/.408/.427.  He was an All Star five times.

WOULD I PUT HIM IN IN 2001?:  Probably.

ANY BETTER CHOICES IN 2001?:  All of the better choices are already here.  Dale Alexander is the only Red Sox batting champ to not appear, but Runnels has a better argument than him anyway.

WOULD I PUT HIM IN NOW?:  Maybe.

ANY BETTER CHOICES NOW?:  So, the major key here is batting champions since that is Runnels's primary claim to fame.  The Red Sox batting champs since 2001 are Manny Ramirez, Bill Mueller and Mookie Betts.  Of those, Ramirez and Betts would be obvious selections for inclusion.  Mueller is a little more questionable.  Runnels probably deserves a spot over him.  

2001 Fleer Red Sox 100th Pt. 17: Doc Cramer

NAME:  Doc Cramer

POSITION:  Center field

WHY IS HE HERE?  The center fielder spent five seasons in Boston and was an All Star in four of them.  He led the league in at-bats twice and hits once (200 in 1940).  He hit over .300 in four of the five seasons and had a cumulative line of .302/.349/.378.  He did not have much power or speed, but he didn't strike out much either (99 strikeouts versus 207 walks during his Boston tenure).

WOULD I PUT HIM IN IN 2001?:  Probably.

ANY BETTER CHOICES IN 2001?:  All of the better choices are already here.

WOULD I PUT HIM IN NOW?:  Maybe.

ANY BETTER CHOICES NOW?:  Several center fielders would deserve a place over Cramer since 2001, including Johnny Damon, Jacoby Ellsbury, perhaps even Jackie Bradley, Jr. 

2001 Fleer Red Sox 100th Pt. 16: Babe Ruth

NAME: Babe Ruth

POSITION: Starting Pitcher, Outfielder

WHY IS HE HERE?:  Arguably the most famous baseball player of all time.  Ruth started his career in Boston as a starting pitcher, but gradually was moved to the outfield.  He had a record of 89-46 with a 2.19 ERA in 1,190.1 innings with 483 strikeouts.  He had his best season in 1916 when he was 23-12 with a league-leading 1.75 ERA.  In his only full season as a position player for the Red Sox in 1919 he set a then-record with 29 home runs and led the league in runs (103), RBIs (113) and twice led in home runs.     

WOULD I PUT HIM IN IN 2001?:  Absolutely.  

ANY BETTER CHOICES IN 2001?:  The only better choices are already in the set.

WOULD I PUT HIM IN NOW?:  Once again, of course.

ANY BETTER CHOICES NOW?:  Guys like David Ortiz and Mookie Betts are probably among the more popular players since this set came out.  And those players absolutely would be in the set.

2001 Fleer Red Sox 100th Pt. 15: Joe Dobson

NAME: Joe Dobson

POSITION: Starting Pitcher

WHY IS HE HERE?:  Dobson was a consistent and reliable starting pitcher for the team during the late 1940's and was an All Star in 1948 (16-10, 3.56).  He won 106 games with the Red Sox which is tenth in team history.  He had a record of 106-72 with a 3.57 ERA in Boston.  

WOULD I PUT HIM IN IN 2001?:  Probably not.  I was a little surprised by Dobson's inclusion in the set.  Even though he was seventh in career wins in team history at the time the set came out, he was never really dominant.  

ANY BETTER CHOICES IN 2001?:  Well, just looking at the wins leaders, Bob Stanley does not appear in the set and he had more wins than Dobson.  Ellis Kinder is also not in the set and he had some huge seasons for Boston.  Tom Brewer, Ernie Shore and Rube Foster also deserve consideration.

WOULD I PUT HIM IN NOW?:  Not unless it's a huge set.

ANY BETTER CHOICES NOW?:  Among starting pitchers since 2001 that are not present in the set are Tim Wakefield, Curt Schilling, Josh Beckett, Jon Lester, Clay Buchholz, Rick Porcello and Chris Sale.  

2001 Fleer Red Sox 100th Pt. 14: Pedro Martinez

NAME: Pedro Martinez

POSITION: Starting Pitcher

WHY IS HE HERE?:  One of just a few active players in the set, Martinez had only been in Boston for three years by the time this was released, but won the Cy Young Award twice and finished second in the other season.  He was an All Star all three seasons and finished second in the MVP vote in 1999 as well as winning the All Star Game MVP.  He led the league in wins once, and ERA and strikeouts twice while setting a new team record in strikeouts in a season with 313 in 1999.  That record still stands.  

WOULD I PUT HIM IN IN 2001?:  Yes.  It was just three seasons at that point, but they were amazing seasons and he was already putting up some of the best numbers by any pitcher in team history.

ANY BETTER CHOICES IN 2001?:  All of the better choices are already in the set. 

WOULD I PUT HIM IN NOW?:  Absolutely.  He didn't win another Cy Young Award, though he deserved at least one, but he only added to his legacy, helped the team win a World Series and entered the Hall of Fame with a Red Sox cap on his plaque.

ANY BETTER CHOICES NOW?:  Again, the only better choices (and that's a debate) are already in the set.  There really was no one like Pedro Martinez from 1998-2004.

2001 Fleer Red Sox 100th Pt. 13: Carlton Fisk

NAME: Carlton Fisk

POSITION: Catcher

WHY IS HE HERE?:  He was elected the A.L. Rookie of the Year unanimously in 1972 and was a seven-time All Star while in Boston.  He was a Gold Glove winner in 1972 as well and finished in the top ten in MVP balloting three times.  He was the holder of multiple team records for a catcher when he left.  He hit one of the most famous home runs in team history with his game-winning home run in Game 6 of the 1975 World Series.  He was elected to the Hall of Fame in 2000, his second year on the ballot.  

WOULD I PUT HIM IN IN 2001?:  Yes.

ANY BETTER CHOICES IN 2001?:  No.  As of 2001, Fisk was still the top catcher in team history. 

WOULD I PUT HIM IN NOW?:  Yes.

ANY BETTER CHOICES NOW?:  There are no better choices now.  Jason Varitek should certainly be in the set since he has broken a number of the team records for catchers, but that is due more to longevity.  He should not replace Fisk, but he should be in it alongside Fisk.      

2001 Fleer Red Sox 100th Pt. 12: Cy Young

NAME: Cy Young

POSITION: Starting Pitcher

WHY IS HE HERE?:  He is on the short list for greatest pitcher in team history, tied for the team record in wins (192).  He threw the team's only perfect game in 1904 and helped the team to the first World Series championship.  He had a 192-112 record with Boston with a 2.00 ERA and won 20+ games in six seasons, including four seasons in a row.  He led the league in wins three seasons in a row and peppered some other league leaderships in there as well. 

WOULD I PUT HIM IN IN 2001?:  Absolutely.

ANY BETTER CHOICES IN 2001?:  The only pitchers really close in stature to Young are Roger Clemens, Pedro Martinez and Lefty Grove, all of whom are in this set.

WOULD I PUT HIM IN NOW?:  Definitely.

ANY BETTER CHOICES NOW?:  No one that would replace Young.  I could see including Josh Beckett and Chris Sale to go along with Young.  But Young is definitely in the set.    

2001 Fleer Red Sox 100th Pt. 11: Luis Aparicio

NAME: Luis Aparicio

POSITION: Shortstop

WHY IS HE HERE?:  Well, he is a Hall of Famer, and he was an All Star twice.  In 1972 he even received some MVP consideration, but he was only a Red Sox for the last three seasons of his career and he was not much of a hitter to begin with.  Even his defense and baserunning, the primary things he was good at, were not especially impressive in Boston. 

WOULD I PUT HIM IN IN 2001?:  No.  I get the idea that they wanted to have the Hall of Famers, and Aparicio had been a two-time All Star, but he was not particularly good in Boston.  Also, not all Hall of Famers were in the set.  

ANY BETTER CHOICES IN 2001?:  Several.  Looking just at shortstops, there is Freddy Parent (sort of a forgotten early star), Heinie Wagner (who was on the team for a couple championships), Everett Scott (who had the consecutive games streak before Gehrig), and Eddie Bressoud, who was an All Star and had a better season in the 1960's.

WOULD I PUT HIM IN NOW?:  No.

ANY BETTER CHOICES NOW?:  Obviously there's Xander Bogaerts.  I might even put in Orlando Cabrera over Aparicio because of his impact in 2004.  

2001 Fleer Red Sox 100th Pt. 10: Roger Clemens

NAME: Roger Clemens

POSITION: Starting Pitcher

WHY IS HE HERE?:  Tied for the team all-time team record in wins (192) and the all-time team leader in strikeouts (2,590).  He won three Cy Young Awards with the Red Sox (1986, 1987, 1991) and the A.L. MVP in 1986.  Twice struck out 20 batters in a game.  

WOULD I PUT HIM IN IN 2001?:  Absolutely.

ANY BETTER CHOICES IN 2001?:  No.  Clemens is on the short list of best Red Sox pitchers of all time.

WOULD I PUT HIM IN NOW?:  Nothing has changed.

ANY BETTER CHOICES NOW?:  Again, no.  The only pitchers who have arguments as being better than Clemens are already in the set.

2001 Fleer Red Sox 100th Pt. 9: Ted Williams

 

NAME: Ted Williams

POSITION: Left field

WHY IS HE HERE?:  Because if he wasn't, it would be a terribly incomplete set.  Williams is THE franchise player.  Two-time MVP, two-time Triple Crown winner, the last hitter to bat .400.  He is quite possibly the greatest hitter who ever lived.  Also, his career OBP is .482, best in history, and mind-boggling to think that for his entire career, he got on base nearly half the time.

WOULD I PUT HIM IN IN 2001?:  I would be stupid not to.

ANY BETTER CHOICES IN 2001?:  No.

WOULD I PUT HIM IN NOW?:  Again, it would be stupid not to.

ANY BETTER CHOICES NOW?:  I think the only player who comes close to this standard is David Ortiz, who was nowhere near the hitter that Williams was (and Ortiz was a fantastic hitter), but whose status as face of the team is similar.  Ortiz led the team to three World Championships, the one thing Williams could not do.  He's not a better choice, but he would be here.

2001 Fleer Red Sox 100th Pt. 8: Rico Petrocelli

NAME: Rico Petrocelli

POSITION: Shortstop, Third Base

WHY IS HE HERE?:  Petrocelli spent his entire 13-year career with the Red Sox and was a two-time All Star as well as a part of two pennant-winning teams.  He holds the team record for home runs by a shortstop in a single season, which was a league record for almost 30 years.  

WOULD I PUT HIM IN IN 2001?:  Yes.

ANY BETTER CHOICES IN 2001?:  Any better choices at the time are already in the set.  Petrocelli was not a big star, but due to spending his whole career in Boston and having some great seasons gets him a place.

WOULD I PUT HIM IN NOW?:  Yes.

ANY BETTER CHOICES NOW?:  I would not replace Rico, but I would definitely want Mike Lowell, Rafael Devers and Xander Bogaerts in alongside him.  

2001 Fleer Red Sox 100th Pt. 7: John Valentin

NAME: John Valentin

POSITION: Shortstop, Third Base, Second Base

WHY IS HE HERE?  Valentin is the only Major League player to have a three homer game, hit for the cycle and turn an unassisted triple play.  He was a Silver Slugger winner at shortstop in 1995 and had a 20/20 season.  He led the league in doubles with 47 in 1997.  He was one of just a few active players to make it into this set and one of just three still with Boston.

WOULD I PUT HIM IN IN 2001?  Maybe?  I am a big fan of Valentin, but the notoriety was never really there for him.  He did win a Silver Slugger, but was never an All Star.  He is one of the most underrated Red Sox players of my lifetime.

ANY BETTER CHOICES IN 2001?  Looking at infielders that did not appear in the set, there is Freddy Parent (a star shortstop in the early years of the franchise) and Larry Gardner (Deadball Era third-baseman) from a time period that is underrepresented here.  There is also Marty Barrett from the 1980's.  Valentin does probably deserve to be here over a couple of others that I will get to soon.

WOULD I PUT HIM IN NOW?  I'm still stuck on maybe.

ANY BETTER CHOICES NOW?  Valentin's Red Sox career was over after 2001, which was an injury-plagued season, so his numbers did not really improve.  Left-side infielders since have included Bill Mueller (batting title and Silver Slugger in 2003), Mike Lowell (World Series MVP in 2007), Xander Bogaerts and Rafael Devers. 

2001 Fleer Red Sox 100th Pt. 6: Fred Lynn

NAME: Fred Lynn

POSITION: Center field

WHY IS HE HERE?  The first player to win both the Rookie of the Year and MVP in the same season, Lynn was a six-time All Star and four-time Gold Glove winner.  He won a batting title in 1979 and led the league in runs scored, doubles and on-base percentage once and slugging percentage twice.  He hit .308/.383/.520 with 124 home runs and 521 RBIs with the Red Sox.

WOULD I PUT HIM IN IN 2001?  Definitely.

ANY BETTER CHOICES IN 2001?  All of the better choices are already in the set.

WOULD I PUT HIM IN NOW?  Yes.

ANY BETTER CHOICES NOW?  I would not say better choices.  Players like Johnny Damon, Jacoby Ellsbury and Jackie Bradley Jr. probably would deserve to be in the set, but not at the expense of Lynn.

2001 Fleer Red Sox 100th Pt. 5: Nomar Garciaparra

NAME: Nomar Garciaparra

POSITION: Shortstop

WHY IS HE HERE?  Arguably the best shortstop in team history, Garciaparra won the 1997 A.L. Rookie of the Year, was an All Star five times with the Red Sox and won a Silver Slugger.  He led the league in batting average twice, as well as hits, doubles and triples once each.  Garciaparra was one of the few players still active when this set was released.

WOULD I PUT HIM IN IN 2001?  Absolutely.  He was still playing at the time, but he looked like a future Hall of Famer and was the biggest star on the team.

ANY BETTER CHOICES IN 2001?  As I said, he is arguably the best shortstop in team history and the only players with potential cases above him will be here later.

WOULD I PUT HIM IN NOW?  Yes.  He put up another couple of All Star seasons after this set was released.  He still has an argument for best shortstop in team history.

ANY BETTER CHOICES NOW?  I would not take Nomar out, but I would definitely include Xander Bogaerts, another player who would have a possible argument as best shortstop in team history.

2001 Fleer Red Sox 100th Pt. 4: Tex Hughson

NAME: Tex Hughson

POSITION: Starting Pitcher

WHY IS HE HERE?:  Three-time All Star and one of the aces of the staff in the pennant-winning season in 1946.  Two-time 20 game winner led the league in wins once, winning percentage once, complete games twice, innings pitched once and strikeouts once.  Career record of 96-54 with a 2.94 ERA.

WOULD I PUT HIM IN IN 2001?:  Yes.

ANY BETTER CHOICES IN 2001?  Most of the better choices are here.  Hughson was the top starting pitcher on a pennant-winning team so his place is fairly well-assured.  His career was not long due to injuries but his performance in 1946 makes him a good bet.

WOULD I PUT HIM IN NOW?:  Probably.

ANY BETTER CHOICES NOW?  Obviously you want the same kind of correlating players in now, so Curt Schilling, Josh Beckett, Jon Lester and Chris Sale would need to be included, but probably not at the expense of Hughson.  Rather they should be alongside him.

2001 Fleer Red Sox 100th Pt. 3: Birdie Tebbetts

NAME: Birdie Tebbetts

POSITION: Catcher.  

WHY IS HE HERE?:  Local-ish catcher (from Vermont) who spent three-plus seasons in Boston during a period when the team was competing with the Yankees for the pennant.  Tebbetts was a two-time All Star and hit .287 during his time with Boston.  He was a highly-respected leader behind the plate.

WOULD I PUT HIM IN IN 2001?:  Probably not.  

ANY BETTER CHOICES IN 2001?:  Tebbetts is one of four catchers in the set, two of whom clearly belong here.  Tebbetts is a bit of a weird choice, but he was a two-time All Star.  But so was Rich Gedman, who also played longer than Tebbetts.  Other possible choices that did not appear in this set were Bill Carrigan, who was a player/manager and is the only manager to lead the team to consecutive World Series titles (should have gotten him in right there) and Sammy White, who was an All Star and spent most of the 50's behind the plate.

WOULD I PUT HIM IN NOW?:  No.  Since this set, there are even more choices that would be better than Tebbetts.

ANY BETTER CHOICES NOW?:  Obviously there is Jason Varitek, who had only been in the Majors for four seasons at the time this set was released, and had not yet been an All Star.  Victor Martinez was a short-term player, like Tebbetts, who was an All Star.  There's also Christian Vazquez, who had a nice career with Boston.  

2001 Fleer Red Sox 100th Pt. 2: Mel Parnell

NAME: Mel Parnell

POSITION: Starting Pitcher.  

WHY IS HE HERE?:  He is a career Red Sox and is the winningest southpaw in Red Sox history, yes, more than Babe Ruth, Bill Lee, Bruce Hurst and Jon Lester.  He is a two-time All Star and finished fourth in the MVP vote in 1949.  Had there been a Cy Young Award at the time, he likely would have won as he led the league in wins and ERA.  He won 20 games twice and pitched a no-hitter.  He had a career 123-75 record with a 3.50 ERA.

WOULD I PUT HIM IN IN 2001?:  Yes.

ANY BETTER CHOICES IN 2001?:  Probably not.

WOULD I PUT HIM IN NOW?:  Probably.  Parnell is somewhat forgotten now because his career was shortened due to injury, but since he is still the winningest lefty in team history, he probably still has a place.

ANY BETTER CHOICES NOW?:  Probably not.  I maybe would consider Jon Lester and/or Chris Sale, but I don't think I would replace Parnell with either of them.