The 100 Greatest Royals of All-Time - #63 Clint Hurdle
When he was a rookie, many thought he'd be among the greatest Royals of all-time. Instead, Clint Hurdle is #63 on the list of Greatest Royals of All-Time.

Before there was Angel Berroa, before there was Bob Hamelin, there was Clint Hurdle
Clint was the starting right-fielder for the first pennant winning ballclub in Kansas City history, but he is probably better known for being a bust after being labeled "This Year's Phenom" on the cover of Sports Illustrated in 1978. Had he come up in the late 90s, instead of coming up when the Royals were in "win now" phase, a more patient team probably could have coaxed a more productive career out of Hurdle.
Clint was a first round pick in 1975 out of high school in Merritt Island, Florida. He signed for $50,000, a large sum at the time and was considered a "bonus baby." At six foot three, many projected great power numbers from the young athlete. At age seventeen, he hit .274 with 31 walks and just 24 strikeouts in 49 games at Sarasota. The next season at A ball he dramatically increased his power, slamming nineteen home runs, but it came at the expense of making contact. His walk-to-strikeout numbers took a huge tumble as he drew just eighteen walks and struck out 112 times, with his average plummeting to .235. Nonetheless, the Royals skipped him past AA, and sent him to AAA Omaha in 1977, where he responded with his best professional season, hitting .328 with 96 walks, just 61 strikeouts and sixteen home runs.
The Royals promoted him in September for a cup of coffee and in just his second at-bat in the big leagues he blasted a pitch into the fountains at Royals Stadium. By his third game, he was hitting cleanup, behind Royals star George Brett, and he blasted a home run that hit on top of a sign in the right field fountains and bounced out of the ballpark.
"He was the can't-miss prospect."
-Paul Splittorff
The Royals had a pair of rookie outfielders generating buzz in the spring of 1978. Willie Wilson and his blazing speed were expected to compete for a starting outfield role. Even greater expectations were thurst upon Hurdle after Sports Illustrated crowned him as a "phenom" on their cover that spring. Although he had come up as an outfielder, Hurdle was asked to learn first base to take over for the disappointing John Mayberry, who was traded just before Opening Day.

Hurdle struggled right off the bat, hitting just .205 that first month. By June he had lifted his average to .260, but he was still not hitting with the power many scouts thought he was capable of. When Al Cowens went down with injury and Willie Wilson was demoted, Hurdle moved back to the outfield. He ended the season at .264/.348/.398 with seven home runs and 56 RBI. He had decent numbers for a twenty year old rookie, but hardly the "phenom" many had projected him to be.
My list of biggest Royals busts
10. Jaime Quirk
Had a decent career, but never lived up to his first round draft pick billing
9. Carlos Febles
One half of "Dos Carlos", Febles never really capitalized on a solid rookie season
8. Bob Hamelin
Wasn't a hot prospect as a minor leaguer, but he did surface as Rookie of the Year, only to fade back into obscurity
7. Roy Branch
I don't know much about this guy, but he was the fifth overall selection in 1970 ahead of guys like Frank Tanana and Jim Rice. He never pitched an inning for the Royals, and only spend eleven innings in the big leagues.
6. Angel Berroa
Really only had one great minor league season and did win Rookie of the Year, but it was all a fluke
5. Dee Brown
Great blend of power and speed. Posnanski had a great piece on how the Royals messed him up
4. Jim Pittsley / Jeff Granger / Matt Smith / Dan Reichert / Chris George / Matt Burch / Jeff Austin / Jimmy Gobble / Jay Gehrke / Mike MacDougal / Kyle Snyder / Mike Stodolka
These are the pitchers selected in the first round by General Manager Herk Robinson. Some turned out to be decent relievers, but most were huge busts.
3. Gary Thurman
Boy he was fast. He couldn't hit that much but he was fast. Did I mention he was fast?
2. Colt Griffin
Colt didn't start pitching til age 16, then came out of nowhere to become a first round pick by wowing scouts with a 100 mph fastball. Trouble is, he had no idea where it was going. Retired at the age of 24.
1. Clint Hurdle
Hey, not everyone with a career OPS+ of 105 makes the cover of Sports Illustrated
The Royals clinched their third consecutive division title and for the third consecutive year faced the hated New York Yankees. Hurdle started the first three games and his triple in Game Two broke the game wide open and turned it into a laugher. Otherwise, he had a very quiet series, and he was benched in a crucial Game Four. He was called on to pinch hit in the ninth inning with the tying run in scoring position, but he struck out against Rich Gossage as the Yankees beat the Royals for the third straight year.
Hurdle began 1979 with lower expectations surrounding him. He began the year as the starting right fielder and was hitting .272 in mid-May before a 2-22 slump dropped his average thirty points. With Willie Wilson hitting well, and veterans Amos Otis and Al Cowens entrenched in the outfield, Hurdle was the odd man out. The Royals demoted him to Omaha so he could regain his stroke. Hurdle struggled even more in Omaha, hitting just .236 with just six home runs in 68 games. He rejoined the Royals in August, but did little to impress.
The next spring, the Royals dealt Cowens to Anaheim for first baseman Willie Aikens, opening a spot in right field. The Royals went with a combination of Hurdle, John Wathan and veteran Jose Cardenal. With the pressure off, Hurdle began to hit. He had back-to-back three hit games in late May. On June 11, he went 3-3 with a home run. Two days later he began a streak of six multi-hit games in a row. On July 25, he went 3-3 with an inside-the-park home run and four RBI against the Yankees. He finished with his best season ever, hitting .294/.349/.458 with ten home runs and 60 RBI.
The Royals clinched their fourth division title and once again faced their rivals from New York. Manager Jim Frey had concerns about Hurdle against lefties, and sat him in favor of veteran John Wathan.
''I've always felt the best possible lineup was one that had me in it. But we can still win with this lineup. Besides, we're going to have to use more ball players than the starting nine to win this thing. I'll just have to produce when my role comes up.''
Hurdle did start Game Three, going 0-2, but his services would not be needed as the Royals easily swept the Yankees and advanced to their first World Series. Hurdle did start four of the six games against the Phillies in a losing cause.
Hurdle came into 1981 looking for a starting spot. The Royals were concerned he couldn't hit left handed pitching, and he had become a bit of a defensive liability, committing ten errors in 1980. Still, he was coming off his first successful season in the big leagues, and there was still hope that he could fulfill some of the potential he tantalized scouts with.
''I had a good, solid consistent year last year. It's something I've been striving for. In the past I've been inconsistent at times. I'd have a good week and then a bad one and you can't afford to do that. There are too many good ballplayers. You have that bad week and somebody's in there the next. I showed a little consistency and I think that's what Skip is looking for."
Hurdle went 3-4 with a home run on opening day, then followed that up with another home run the next game. Just two weeks later, he went down with a back injury, missing a month of action. When he returned, he hit a game winning home run in Minnesota. Two weeks later, the players went on strike.
While on strike, Hurdle got a job serving beers at a local Kansas City bar called "Thirsty's". "I spill a lot, but it's good showmanship," he admitted.
When play resumed in August, Hurdle again found himself sidelined with injuries. He would return in September, but he would end the year having appeared in just twenty-eight games, hitting .329.
The Royals ran out of patience waiting for Hurdle to put his career together, and that December they dealt him to Cincinnati for relief prospect Scott Brown. Hurdle continued to struggle, and spent most of the season in the minor leagues. The Reds released him after just one season and he bounced around the Mets organization, spending time mostly in the minors.

After another season in the minors in 1987, Hurdle decided to finally retire at the age of twenty-nine. He immediately became a manager in the Mets system, reaching AAA by 1993. A clash with minor league director Steve Phillips caused Hurdle to leave for the Colorado Rockies. In 1997, he was named hitting instructor for the Rockies big league team and in 2002 he was promoted to manager after the firing of Buddy Bell. In 2007, he led the Rockies to their first ever World Series.
"I'd done everything I could've done. Did I come up short? In my own mind, I came up short. But I'm proud of the resiliency I had in most situations. I sleep well at night....Making it to the big leagues was like turning a corner on a cold winter's day and wow - you're living a dream.. Then, there were some sour times, when you think, 'Is this all worth it? Is this all there is?' You have to have belief in the dream. I decided I was going to ride this out until I abhor coming to the park."
0 recs |
43 comments
Comments
There's no way...
This is a supremely irritating claim. Even Griffin at #2 would be a better choice: he ~never~ even had the proverbial "cup of coffee." Hurdle, however, at least had one respectable season (1980). In many ways he is no worse or better than Berroa or Hamelin.
If Hurdle's career can be characterized as anything, we just have call it <u>unsuccessful</u>. To call him a "bust" is to feed the SI myth-making machine. Without the cover, he's just a major leaguer who lacked a distinguished pro career.
Finally, how many of these other busts have gone on to have successful careers as coaches? - TL
by timlacy on Mar 18, 2008 12:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I see what you're saying
It does seem like quite a few busts go on to successful careers in baseball. Billy Beane was a huge bust. Dick Howser I believe had injuries and didn't live up to his potential.
Maybe it helps to be able to know what its like to be at the top of your game and dominate at lower levels, but also be humbled by not being able to reach the pinnacle of success and learning from your mistakes.
by RoyalsRetro on Mar 18, 2008 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also
Berroa was not really considered much of a prospect until 2001, when had a great year and made BA's top prospects list. And then he sucked after 2004. So he's a bust in that respect.
Hamelin's kind of a weird case. I don't think he was ever considered a prospect. More of a Huber type who didn't have a position in the minors but just hit. He had one great season and proved that to be a fluke.
Hurdle was the ninth player selected in the draft. He had a sensational season in AAA in 1977 at age 19. The dude had tremendous power.
He got to the big leagues, didn't hit for much power or average, had one decent season, got hurt and was never heard from again. Its not his fault that his play generated so much hype, but its also true he fell far, far, short of the expectations set forth for him. That for better or worse, is what defines a "bust". I stand by my decision to label him the biggest bust in Royals history.
by RoyalsRetro on Mar 18, 2008 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you're going to bring up context, ...
When Hurdle came up in the late 1970s, the parent club was in the midst of a three-year run of ALCS appearances. They had Brett, McRae, etc. They didn't need offense as much as they simply needed Reggie Jackson to go away. In sum, Hurdle wasn't a bust with respect to the Royals overall needs and expectations.
But when Griffin, Hamelin, Feebles, and the slew of pitching prospects you listed were drafted, the parent club was (and unfortunately still is) in the midst of a dozen-year slide from respectability. The team at the K needed Griffin, Berroa, and the rest ten times worse than the late 70s Royals needed Hurdle.
So, with respect to context, Hurdle is still not the #1 bust. - TL
by timlacy on Mar 18, 2008 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its an interesting point
The Royals needed good players period. By your rationale, everyone they drafted in those years who didn't make it would be considered a bust.
And you can also make the case that the late 70s Royals needed Hurdle to come through just as badly. They were hurting for power after they dealt Mayberry. They had a lot more to play for than the late 90s Royals. Had Hurdle been the great power hitter people expected him to be, maybe we'd have a few more World Championships?
I like Clint Hurdle and I certainly don't take any pleasure in calling him a bust. Its a mixture of unfair expectations combined with unfortunate timing, injury and bad luck that usually produces the label of "bust." But I'm also not going to give him a pass because he's a lot more likeable than Angel Berroa or Colt Griffin.
by RoyalsRetro on Mar 18, 2008 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Retro is right on this one
No one thought Griffin was going to be the next great thing. Everyone was impressed with his fastball and many thought he'd become a good major league pitcher, but he was never a top prospect in baseball...ever.
Hurdle's failure is similar to what it would be like if Gordon fell flat on his face this year and for the rest of his career. It is hard to make a case for a bigger bust than Clint Hurdle.
by NYRoyal on Mar 18, 2008 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is like the most heated
by royalsreview on Mar 18, 2008 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just wait
by RoyalsRetro on Mar 18, 2008 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That made me think of something
by NYRoyal on Mar 18, 2008 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's no doubt that...
by timlacy on Mar 18, 2008 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Surprisingly
by RoyalsRetro on Mar 18, 2008 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
20 of the top 50, eh?
Al Fitzmorris
Steve Busby
Paul Splittorff
Jim Colborn
Dennis Leonard
Doug Bird
Larry Gura
Dan Quisenberry
Bud Black
Charlie Leibrandt
Bret Saberhagen
Danny Jackson
Mark Gubicza
Steve Farr
Tom Gordon
Jeff Montgomery
Kevin Appier
David Cone
Jose Rosado
Jeff Suppan
So, how'd I do?
by cmkeller on Mar 19, 2008 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well that would spoil the surprise!
I misspoke, there are actually only 19 pitchers. The two you missed both pitched back in the 70s, so its understandable you overlooked them.
by RoyalsRetro on Mar 19, 2008 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, I'll see them soon
by cmkeller on Mar 19, 2008 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait, did I just...
You're telling me that the Royals were not counting on Mark Quinn, Hamelin, Feebles, or Griffin to make it?
And yes, I'm saying that that many of those players from those years should be considered as big or bigger busts. Even if they weren't hyped nationally, they were hyped by the Royals---to the fans and (mistakenly, of course) to themselves by poor management.
The biggest all-time bust of the Royals organization is David Glass. Just thinking of all the bad administrative decisions that have been made under his "leadership" makes my fan blood boil.
But, on players, we can't underestimate local and team hype versus national media hype. - TL
by timlacy on Mar 18, 2008 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I mean by that
As a group, yea, the Royals needed them to succeed. But it wasn't like the Royals were counting on any one player to succeed. I don't think you can really compare the gap in expectations and performance between Quinn, Febles, Hamelin, and Griffin and the gap in expectations and performance with Hurdle. None of the guys from the 90s were expected to be big stars. Hurdle was.
by RoyalsRetro on Mar 18, 2008 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clint Hurdle
by MileHighKCfan on Mar 18, 2008 1:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Ditto. One must...
I think the whole "bust" subset of this post ought to be removed for another diary. - TL
by timlacy on Mar 18, 2008 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The definition of a bust
He was a bust as a player and a success as a manager.
by NYRoyal on Mar 18, 2008 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and a former thief of valentine's day cards
by royalsreview on Mar 18, 2008 1:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Hah! But...
by timlacy on Mar 18, 2008 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Biggest Bust Or
by philofthenorth on Mar 18, 2008 2:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Defending Retro
by loyal2s dad on Mar 19, 2008 2:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely stunning
by loyal2s dad on Mar 19, 2008 2:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Interesting
Considering he had been through virtually all disconcerting scenarios once as a young player himself (position changes, lofty expectations, failures), perhaps this is the type of manager a team building from scratch (like the Royals) should look for, instead of an old retread like Bell.
(Sorry, NYRoyal, can't ever miss an opportunity to take a shot at Bell, no matter how much of a reach it may appear to be) : )
by loyal2s dad on Mar 19, 2008 2:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Let's pray
I am fairly confident they will, but the comparison of Hurdle to Gordon is downright eerie.
by loyal2s dad on Mar 19, 2008 2:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yet another comment
Gordon did not win ROY.
Look at our past winners, and two of the three ended up as busts (Hamelin and Berroa). Only Lou Piniella managed to improve on his ROY campaign.
by loyal2s dad on Mar 19, 2008 3:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Carlos Beltran!
by RoyalsRetro on Mar 19, 2008 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
POP QUIZ TIME!
Which of the following Royals had the highest career OPS?
Jermaine Dye
Mike Sweeney
Johnny Damon
Bob Hamelin!
Carlos Beltran
If you picked Bob Hamelin! you... lost. Sorry. He's nearly last on the list (but ahead of Damon and .07 behind Dye.)
On the other hand Bob Hamelin! was ahead of Damon and .07 behind Dye, so it's not like he couldn't contribute offensively, and he despite his unathletic frame, he wasn't a total disaster in the field.
Bob Hamelin!'s failure was the result of a combination of factors, chief among those being unrealistic expectations by the team, low batting average, and eye wear that your grandfather would consider lame.
Had Hamelin! started his career in a different era, and on a different squad (say, 8 years later with the Oakland A's), Hamelin! probably would have ended his career with close to 300 homeruns and a fine reputation. But this was before the new OBP enlightenment, before the days of Moneyball, and before the time when the Royals would start caring if people walked or not. (Actually, I'm not sure that's changed, although it looks like 2008 may be the year we turn a corner.)
Still not convinced that Bob Hamelin! is! Awesome!?
Well, look no further than our current roster of reprobates -- Bob Hamelin! would easily be the king of OPS on the squad, besting even the current Savior of the Month, Jose Guillen, in career OPS.
Granted, Gordon and Butler will likely eventually surpass Hamelin! in that category, but unless there's a plan to shift Gordon to 1B fulltime, and Butler to DH, it's hard not to see how Hamelin!, if he were still young and playing, wouldn't have made this club a whole lot better.
by marbotty on Mar 19, 2008 3:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That OPS
He did have a pretty good 1996 season with the Royals before they let him lose, but he also had injuries limiting him to just 89 games.
by RoyalsRetro on Mar 19, 2008 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
he also had an excellent 1997
Hamelin did suffer from various leg injuries and an eye problem so perhaps those are what ultimately did him in. But to put him in the same category as Berroa, Hurdle, and Febles is an insult to the guy.
I'd place him more in the Bo Jackson category. Except in the end, he put up better numbers than Bo. Sort of.
by marbotty on Mar 19, 2008 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interestingly
Was Bo a bust? Certainly it wasn't his fault he had a hip injury. But it wasn't Clint Hurdle's fault that back injuries forced him to retire.
by RoyalsRetro on Mar 19, 2008 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
in general, I don't think injuries should qualify
So, list away!
by marbotty on Mar 19, 2008 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait! Everything I said above...
If this is true, then I absolutely and irrevocably believe that Hurdle was not a bust but a mere victim of circumstance.
It's unjust to lable someone a bust who battled injuries. You're a bust if you don't perform out of laziness, overrated talent, bad attitude, etc. You can't in good conscience be called a bust for injuries.
Tim's Law---analogous to the NFL rule of not losing one's starting position due to injury:
You can't be a bust due to injury alone. - TL
by timlacy on Mar 19, 2008 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And yes...
by timlacy on Mar 19, 2008 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Had a back injury in 1981
by RoyalsRetro on Mar 19, 2008 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hamelin
I doubt it. He really proved himself to be a pretty poor major leaguer. Detroit picked him up in 1997 and he had a good season as a part-timer and then he was with Milwaukee in 1998 (at age 30) and had a really bad season as a part-timer. After that, no major league team thought he was worthy of a single at bat. Quite frankly, Hamelin got more major league at bats than his limited talent deserved. Sometimes that's what happens to ROY's. They show something great in a rookie season and then the team keeps trotting the sucky player out there for years, despite the fact that's proven himself to be bad (see also Angel Berroa).
by NYRoyal on Mar 19, 2008 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
nothing was really proven
146
53
110
122
82
That looks like a guy plagued by injuries or inconsistency, or both. It also looks like a guy whose career ended prematurely.
For comparisons sake, here's Joe Randa:
98
111
80
110
96
72
95
104
94
107
120
88
81
Randa had a lot more value defensively, obviously, but there's no question that he wasn't every bit as streaky as Hamelin, if not worse.
Here's a better comparison:
82
84
67
89
85
66
142
121
116
75
116
And here's the two guys side by side, from age 26 through age 30:
Hamelin Mr. X
146 66
53 142
110 121
122 116
82 75
Looks about the same, right? I'll give you a hint, though. Mr. X is considered one of the worst defensive right fielders in baseball/
Oh, and we also just spent $33 million on him.
by marbotty on Mar 19, 2008 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So many differences, so little time
For all I know, Hamelin's suckitude and short career may have been entirely caused by injury, but I don't think so. His skills were always questionable. He was always quite heavy and out of shape. He really couldn't handle a position in the field. He was a marginal major leaguer who unsurprisingly didn't last very long in the game. He was basically a little better version of Craig Brazell or Cal Pickering, a couple other players that every major league team passed on.
by NYRoyal on Mar 19, 2008 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i should probably let this go, but
Why didn't he play full time? If you look at his splits, you'll see he missed games for entire months at a time. Unless opposing teams started a consecutive string of left handed pitchers, we have to assume it was because of injuries and other factors, and not because managers were trying to use him against Righties only.
Look at 1994 -- he was on pace for a full season, but the strike occured, and he missed all of August and September.
---
Injuries and defense aside, from a purely offensive statistical angle, Guillen and Hamelin put together almost identical years from age 26 - age 30, in terms of OPS+.
I'm not suggesting Hamelin's a better player overall, or that he was more durable. I'm not even really suggesting he's a good player.
I am saying, however, that you either have to admit Hamelin's not as bad as you suggest or that Guillen's not that really that great. You can't have it both ways.
Think of it like this, had Guillen suffered a career ending injury at the start of the 2007 season, by your logic, he would have "sucked" because he didn't play again after age 30 and didn't play full seasons in 2006 and for the majority of his career.
But that's not representative of Guillen's true ability. Clearly, if Guillen does not have a career ending injury, he would go on to have a productive 2007 and hopefully several more productive seasons.
by marbotty on Mar 20, 2008 4:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The benefit of part-time play
The numbers disagree. I compared the percentage of plate appearances of 3 full-time LH batters against Hamelin and there are some pretty big differences:
David Ortiz - 28.6%
Hideki Matsui - 31.0%
Justin Morneau - 31.7%
Bob Hamelin - 14.9%
So Hamelin faced LH pitchers about half as frequently as a regular does. That really helped his stats. His career OBP against lefties was almost identical to his OBP against righties. But there was about a 100 point differential in SLG. He had no power at all against lefties. That's a big reason he wasn't allowed to face them very often. If he had played as a regular (as Guillen has), then his stats would have plummeted. Using his career splits, if 30% of Guillen's 1283 PA's had been against lefties, his career numbers would have been:
243/352/448
So we're talking about a slow 1B with poor defensive skills and an .800 OPS. Yuck. Taking all of this into account, Guillen's 26-30 years were significantly better than Hamelin's.
By the way, do we know that it was injury that ended Hamelin's career?
by NYRoyal on Mar 20, 2008 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh. and now
Good day!
by marbotty on Mar 19, 2008 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 












