Maury Wills, the unicorn

They say the Dodger speedster was a trendsetter for the stolen base. But he was so unique that it didn't happen.

In the first spring of Dodger Thoughts, I wrote about Maury Wills and the Hall of Fame. To be honest, it’s a harsh post, not so much toward him as the people who believed he was among the most important ballplayers in history. There’s a level of snark that wasn’t called for, nor is it really my style. Just about me at my worst.

Twenty years later, hopefully in a gentler manner, I’m revisiting the topic because of the announcement that Fernando Valenzuela’s jersey number will be retired, the door is open for a few other Dodger greats, a list that includes Wills.

Of course, the Dodgers would have retired Wills’ jersey long ago if he had been inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame. That he hasn’t found a spot in Cooperstown sticks in the craw of a lot of Dodger fans, old and young.

The problem is that Wills’ case depends on the widespread narrative that he revolutionized the game with his stolen bases. And that narrative is a complete myth.

I don’t mean that as a criticism of Wills. Quite the opposite. The singular quality of his basestealing prowess is the best thing he has going for him.

Dodger fans, read this with an open mind. (The italicized portions are adapted from my 2003 post.)

First, let’s get his hitting and fielding stats out of the way. For his career, Wills’ OPS+ was 88, meaning that his OPS was 88 percent of the league average. In 14 seasons, the longtime Dodger shortstop exceeded the league average once.

In those 14 seasons, Wills made 331 errors, or more than 27 per 162 games. By comparison, Jose Offerman has made 26.3 errors per 162 games, excluding the 62 games in which he was a designated hitter. Wills would need Ozzie Smith range to compensate for those mistakes and be worthy of the Hall.

Now, if you look at Fangraphs today, you’ll find that I sold Wills’ glove short back in 2003, and not only because I made errors the prime statistic. His best years were about the same as Smith’s average years, and that’s nothing to complain about.

And then, of course, the stolen bases speak for themselves.

Wills stole 586 bases in his career, at a success rate of 73.8 percent, winning six consecutive stolen base titles from 1960, his third season, through 1965. In 1962, one year after Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth’s home run record, Wills broke the stolen base record by stealing 104, in 117 attempts, and won the National League Most Valuable Player award.

But Wills’ bat was so poor, that even with his stolen bases, he ranks only 50th among shortstops according to Jay Jaffe’s Hall of Fame ratings system, JAWS. Not counting Alex Rodriguez, 24 shortstops who aren’t in the Hall of Fame rest above Wills. It takes something extraordinary even to allow Wills into a Hall of Fame conversation.

Which brings us to the notion that Wills changed baseball.

As much as I truly hate to say it, it’s not true. It’s not even close to being true.

Here’s the problem:

Here are the NL stolen base totals for 1962, when Wills’ stole 104, and the ensuing 10 seasons:

1962: 788
1963: 684
1964: 636
1965: 745
1966: 737
1967: 694
1968: 704
1969: 817
1970: 1045
1971: 900
1972: 954

This is a revolution? Perhaps I’m being overly simplistic, but shouldn’t stolen base totals have gone up following Wills’ record year?

Let alone in the next six years?

Honestly, I’m not sure how the narrative about Wills developed. My best guess is that Wills changed so many games on his own that fans decided he had to be a game-changer for the entire sport. But it’s just not there.

Take 1963, the year after Wills set the steals record. Hampered by injuries, Wills dropped all the way down from 104 to 40 … and still, he tied Luis Aparicio for the MLB lead in steals. In the NL, no one else had more than Hank Aaron’s 31.

Aparicio stole 506 bases in his career, leading the American League in 1956, 1957 and 1958, leading the major leagues in 1959, 1960 and 1961. Why wouldn’t Aparicio get credit for the revolution? Why wouldn’t he get credit for handing Wills the baton? If anything, isn’t Wills the follower, not the leader?

I don’t see any answer to this that favors Wills.

If you relocate the conversation about Wills from Cooperstown to the left-field balcony below the office suites at Dodger Stadium, that’s something I can easily engage with. There are a few Dodgers outside of the Hall of Fame whose numbers I would retire first — Don Newcombe foremost — but I’ve got no issue in this context with nominating Wills.

I just wish fans would appreciate the true brilliance of Wills rather than the false narrative. For the better part of 60 years, people have misunderstood his legacy. Maury Wills wasn’t a trendsetter. He was a unicorn. In that context, he was a blessing.