Thursday, May 23, 2013
Richie Ashburn’s Widow in Tears Over His Endangered Gladwyne Grave
(blogs.phillymag.com)
Read More...It has been nearly 16 years since Philadelphia lost Richie Ashburn, one of the greatest Phillies players of all time. The beloved Hall of Famer, who played for the team from 1948 through 1959, died of a heart attack in 1997 after broadcasting a Phillies-Mets game from Shea Stadium. His family buried him in the cemetery outside of Gladwyne Methodist Church, where all was quiet until some developers announced plans to turn the church into condos and put a parking lot next to the cemetery. ...
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 2 of 2 pages
< 1 2Squinting really hard?
I think you probably have to be making a league adjustment for the fact that the NL during much of Aaron's career was the superior league while Bonds played in a lesser version. Not saying it's the right call but that's the only logic for it that I can see.
#22 F. Robinson. Ordered a lad off his lawn then beat him with a tire iron anyway. Golfed his way to Washington as the Expos burned.
I still don't really get Aaron ahead of Musial, but that is partially my personal bias of course.
While everyone can quibble here and there, the only significant ranking I object to is Tris Speaker coming in at 25. I have him at #10 all-time.
But Halladay does have 2 CYAs, 2 2nds and a 3rd. The comparison to Morris is of course absurd -- Halladay has a decade of something close to dominance and a career 134 ERA+ while Morris's career best ERA+ was a 133. Halladay dominated a decade in the way that Gibson or Feller dominated, not in the way that Morris just managed to be the only survivor.
Halladay 2002-11: 2200 IP, 148 ERA+, 170-75 (694 WP).
Gibson 1961-79: 2650 IP, 139 ERA+, 184-106
Feller 1938-1950: 2700 IP, 130 ERA+, 194-113 and a war
Halladay's "problem" is the same problem that all current starters have -- usage has changed so they don't build up the IP totals. Pitchers are notoriously challenging to adjust for era due to regular and sometimes dramatic changes in usage. If you ignore that completely and just focused on quality, Halladay would be much higher on the list (Gibson is #32, Feller is #59). We can debate whether they've come up with the right balance for adjusting eras but that is one awesome pitching peak.
PA 13,900 vs 12,700 (plus 1 war year)
OPS+ 155 vs 159
R 2174 vs 1949
RBI 2297 vs 1951 (still the record)
H 3771 vs 3630
HR 755 vs 475
OBP 374 vs 417
SB 240 vs 78
WAR 137 vs 123
It's very close obviously, even closer if you give Musial back his war year when he was regularly putting up 8-9 WAR, but Aaron is ahead on almost everything and was the better all-around player (not that Stan was a slouch). Really Musial's only arguments are 3 MVPs vs. 1 and the OBP edge and I suspect the latter is partly (but not wholly) due to era differences.
I don't really see Aaron as ahead on almost everything, just look at obp that you listed alone. That is a pretty healthy discrepency in my book. On top of that you could argue that Musial dominated his era more than Aaron dominated his era. Of course the counter argument is that Aaron had an influx of greater talent playing during his era. And of course if you are a war fan, then you can compare their best war years.
Musial Aaron
10.8-- 9.1
9.3-- 8.8
8.9-- 8.4
8.8-- 8.4
8.7--8.1
8.4-- 8.0
7.8--7.7
7.5--7.7
6.9--7.6
6.8--7.5
10 best years. Aaron makes up ground in the lesser years, although a little bit of that is a function of the longer schedule.
Note:I admit it's the bias I grew up with that is probably coloring my perception, just as I find it hard, even now, to think of someone as better than Ty Cobb.
He still beats him on their top years. Again I know it's my bias, but I just don't see Aaron as better than Musial, see him as more consistent and good for a longer period of time, but Musial dominated his era unlike Aaron. (product of different leagues, increased competition etc. I know, but ultimately I think Musial was the better player) Aaron gains ground by 13 years in a league with 8 more games a season, by not missing a full year due to war and of course any timelining. Musial was the better rate hitter, better peak, and only reason there is any real difference in their numbers, is due to about 2 seasons of games, 80 of which is due to extra schedule length, and 150 of which is due to WWII.
Musial .331/.417/.559/.976 159ops+ 3026 games played
Aaron .305/.374/.555/.928 155ops+ 3298....by the rate numbers Musial wins. The extra playing time is a property of extra games played for reasons already mentioned. You can talk speed all you want, but Musial played in an era where stolen bases didn't happen, his speed was fairly good(more accurate, it was excellent) and he hit into fewer gidp per plate appearance so there is no hidden value that Aaron gets because of untracked numbers. Both were good fielders, edge goes to Aaron here, probably. Basically it's do you like the better best seasons and the years of dominance, or the guy who put up nearly as great of years, but added a more consistent great season after season (Musial has 10 seasons of 6+ war, Aaron 15...although you could probably add 1 or 2 more to Musial if he would have played in 162 game season)
Again a minor nitpick, this is not anything in comparison of including Rivera in the top 100 list, or Jeter in the top 50.
That two of Musial's MVPs came before integration and one when it had barely started, gives me a little pause. (Note that I love the Joe Black story oft told about how welcoming Musial was to the Dodger's hurler.) Take out the war depleted years and the fact that in several of Musial's best season, the league functionally wasn't integrated -- Jackie Robinson, Don Bankhead, and half a season of Roy Campanella, give or take, in his best WAR season -- and I'd prefer Aaron's peak. It's splitting hairs between two of the absolute best players, and frankly best people, to ever play but if there's not a dime's worth of difference, my penny is on Aaron.
Speaking of nitpicks... In the side-by-side columns comparing Ruth and Bonds, Tim Kurkjian writes of Ruth:
"He hit 136 triples, more than any active player at the time."
This is not just incorrect; it's not even close to being true. We'll ignore the fact that Ruth's career has about a 15-year overlap with Ty Cobb's, and Cobb was second all-time in triples. Even taking the most generous possible interpretation of the statement (which would be: "Ruth was the active leader in triples at the time of his retirement" (1935)), it's still not within shouting distance of correctness.
As best I can tell, Ruth was 10th on the active triples leaderboard at the end of the 1935 season. As it happens, the nine players ahead of him are all Hall of Famers.
That sounds like a trivia question if I've ever heard one! Name the top 9 active players in triples at the end of the 1935 season.
My only problem with this is that Speaker has to rank behind contemporaries Ruth, Cobb, and Johnson (plus Wagner, if you consider him a contemporary), and he's not too far ahead of Hornsby, Collins, and Alexander, either. The 4th or 5th best player from one era probably shouldn't be top 10 all time, IMO. I'd have a hard time placing him above the best player of another era (like Schmidt), personally.
I suspect a lot of people here would include all of Ruth, Cobb, Johnson, Speaker, Collins, Hornsby, and Alexander in their top 20. But that'd be 7 players - more than a 3rd of the entire top 20 - that debuted between 1905-1915, and who's careers all overlapped for a full 14 seasons (1915-1928). That seems unreasonably high to me. I know that talent distribution is random and all and that it really is possible for that to happen, but it seems much more likely to me that the average player was just so much worse back then that the stars of that era looked better in comparison, and we're simply not making strong enough era adjustments.
Thoughts?
You would have to be more specific as to what time frame. Ruth doesn't crack the top 50 if you include the "NL Era". 1876-1935.
Top ten from that era.
Rk Player 3B
1 Sam Crawford 309
2 Ty Cobb 295
3 Honus Wagner 252
4 Jake Beckley 244
5 Roger Connor 233
6 Tris Speaker 222
7 Fred Clarke 220
8 Dan Brouthers 205
9 Joe Kelley 194
10 Bid McPhee 189
11 Eddie Collins 187
12 Ed Delahanty 186
13 Sam Rice 184
14 Edd Roush 182
15 Ed Konetchy 182
16 Jesse Burkett 182
17 Buck Ewing 178
18 Rabbit Maranville 177
19 Harry Stovey 174
20 Zack Wheat 172
21 Tommy Leach 172
22 Rogers Hornsby 169
23 Shoeless Joe Jackson 168
24 Sherry Magee 166
25 Jake Daubert 165
-----
58 Babe Ruth 136
If you limit it to the World Series era you get
Rk Player 3B
1 Ty Cobb 295
2 Sam Crawford 249
3 Tris Speaker 222
4 Eddie Collins 187
5 Sam Rice 184
6 Honus Wagner 183
7 Edd Roush 182
8 Ed Konetchy 182
9 Rabbit Maranville 177
10 Zack Wheat 172
11 Rogers Hornsby 169
12 Shoeless Joe Jackson 168
13 Sherry Magee 166
14 Jake Daubert 165
15 Goose Goslin 164
16 Pie Traynor 164
17 George Sisler 164
18 Harry Hooper 160
19 Joe Judge 159
20 Max Carey 159
21 Paul Waner 156
22 Earle Combs 154
23 Harry Heilmann 151
24 Wally Pipp 148
25 Bobby Veach 147
---------
30 Babe Ruth 136
Did TK mean that Ruth had more triples than anyone active during Bonds's time (not Ruth's)?
Steve Finley.
Rk Player 3B
1 Steve Finley 124
2 Lance Johnson 117
3 Kenny Lofton 116
4 Brett Butler 92
5 Johnny Damon 87
6 Jimmy Rollins 81
7 Roberto Alomar 80
8 Ray Durham 79
9 Vince Coleman 79
10 Tony Fernandez 78
11 Barry Bonds 77
12 Barry Larkin 76
13 Andy Van Slyke 76
14 Paul Molitor 75
15 Carl Crawford 74
That does make more sense. I suppose "active at the time" could be a legendarily bad phrasing of "active now" - Carl Crawford, with 114.
Of course, both of those comparisons are useless, because triples have gone into the tank leaguewide in the last century. It's roughly as valid a tool for establishing Ruth's versatility as comparing his career stolen base total to Joe DiMaggio's.
Which Kurkjian also does.
Look, I don't have any particular quibble with Ruth as #1 all time. But it's not an argument you make with triples.
He's just trying to overcome the popular image that Ruth was a fat slob. At the end of his career (which are the photos and film clips everybody knows) Ruth was a fat slob. As a young guy, he was not.
To wit, if you were comparing Bonds to Ted Williams, wouldn't most of your argument focus on Bonds' all-around superiority to Williams not on quibbles about who was the better hitter? To the extent anybody (well, your average joe) would argue for Bonds over Ruth, their #1 argument is going to be Bonds wasn't a fat slob. (Or maybe #2 behind integration.) Kurkjian is just trying to head off that argument and show that Ruth was a great all-around player.
But if I create a top 20 offhand, it also includes a lot of playrs active in the late 50s. Is that wrong.
(timeline approx)
Wagner ...... Ruth .................. Mays .......... Bonds
Cobb Johnson ..Gibson Williams Musial Mantle Aaron .. Clemens
Speaker Collins Hornsby Grove Charleston Morgan Schmidt
Alexander
I think that anytime there is a seismic shift in the game, that it's going to lead to a group of players who "get" the shift better than their contemporaries. The 20's you have the Ruth offense, 50's integration and 90's the TTO era takes hold. I fully expect to find a larger group of greats in those time frames than others. I also expect to find more greats from when the game fully matured(which is again what I consider the Ruth era to be the catalyst to that)
No, but the color barrier was broken by then, so MLB was drawing from a larger talent pool. Plus there still isn't as many players from that era in the top 20 or whose careers overlapped for as long of a time.
1915-1927: Ruth, Cobb, Johnson, Speaker, Collins, Alexander, Hornsby
That's 7 players who all played together for 13 years
1954-1960: Aaron, Mays, Mantle, Williams, Musial
That's 5 players who all played together for 7 years
So from a larger talent pool, the late 50's still had 2 fewer players in the top 20 and who's careers overlapped for only half as long. I'm not saying it's impossible that the 1915-1927 era might have been the greatest ever WRT all time greats, I just don't think it's the most LIKELY explanation. YMMV.
Edit: Oh, and that's not even considering that if you narrowed the time frame, you could also add Wagner to the beginning of that group from 1915-1917 and Gehrig at the end from 1923-1927. So that'd actually be 8 of the top 20 who all played at the same time, depending on which end of the time frame you wanted to focus on.
edit: and now I see I forgot Mr Gehrig who would be about 13th.
Page 2 of 2 pages
< 1 2You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.