Why should Ashburn rank higher than Brett Butler?

[Gregory Pratt]

Someone challenged me to argue that Ashburn should rank higher than Brett Butler. I have a few ideas, but I am not entirely sure why he should, exactly. Is anyone willing to give their thoughts and break it down for me as if I were a two-year old?

[Chickazoola]

Well Ashburn is one of the greatest defensive centerfielders of all-time to go with being a great leadoff hitter.

Butler was also a great leadoff hitter, and stole more the twice as many bases but that is negated by his pretty mediocre stolen base %(68.4). He also wasn't as good defensively.

Consider that Ashburn made 6 all-star teams despite being in direct competition with Willie Mays and Duke Snider, while Butler only made one all-star team.

I think Butler is underrated, but Ashburn is the better player.

[Gregory Pratt]

I'd like to elicit more opinions from others, and additional from you if there is more you have to say about it.

[The Dude]

Good question sir, very good question. I have Ashburn 6th Amongst CF's, and Butler 13th. Very similar players. Speedy, in contention for the title of "greatest leadoff hitter", could be argued to be the best player on their teams, more years than not...

But Ashburn is clearly in the lead. First of all, it's arguable that Ashburn is the greatest defensive center fielder of all time. For the purpose of this thread, I will only claim that he's better than Butler.

Ashburn:
Range Factor: .91 Better than League
RAA2: 98
League Leads: 13 PO, 4 A, 4 DP

Butler:
Range Factor: .22 Better than League
RAA2: -39
League Leads: 4 PO, 5 DP

RAA2 Totals for others...:
Mays: 204
Speaker: 85
Griffey Jr: -74

Ashburn has no gold gloves, but played in a time when they were not given out, so we can't fault him for that.

And as for Butler having more SBs than Ashburn, that is true. However, it's already been mentioned that Butlers percentage wasn't that good. Also, he never led his league in SB ... or took 2nd. Ashburn led his league once, and took 2nd twice. Or try this one on ... the most SB in a season during Ashburns prime speed years (Up to the age of 32), was 56. During Butlers career, was 130. THis isn't because they're faster in the 1980s, but because they were allowed to run. It is arguable that Ashburn was a far more valuable baserunner because of these differences.

And those are just the non-major offensive reasons ... but school is calling.

[leecemark]

--Wil, I think you seriously overrate both of these players, but the gap you have between them is at least close to right. If you have Ashburn 6th amoung CFers which of the following is he better than; Mays, Cobb, Mantle, Speaker, DiMaggio, Griffey or Snider? I assume your ranking also does not include Negro Leaguers or Oscar Charleston (and probably Christobal Torriente and possibly Coool Papa Bell) would rank ahead. Or 19th century players where Billy Hamilton and Paul Hines were greater players. I can't see Ashburn in the top 10 - or Butler in the top 20 amoung all time CFers.

[jalbright]

Not at home right now, so I can't do win shares, but Ashburn:

was a six time all star to Butler's one;
is 357th in MVP shares to Butler's 532nd;
has two batting titles and two runner-ups, 4 OBP titles and a SB title versus Butler's leading the runs scored category twice;
is 52nd in Black Ink while Butler is 140th;
is 78th in Gray Ink while Butler is 171st;
is 133rd in HOF standards against Butler's 178th;
had more plate appearances (9736 to 9545);
had a higher OPS+ (111 to 110); and
had a better Offensive winning percentage (.611 to .587). Note here that Ashburn's higher OBP and lower out rate help him more in OWP than OPS+ because he is both on base more often and creates less outs.

Add to that Ashburn's defensive superiority, and it's pretty easy to see why Whitey legitimately is seen as superior. It also doesn't hurt that he was a long-time beloved broadcaster in Philly, but that has nothing to do with whether he was actually the better player--but it can change perceptions.

[The Dude]

--Wil, I think you seriously overrate both of these players, but the gap you have between them is at least close to right. If you have Ashburn 6th amoung CFers which of the following is he better than; Mays, Cobb, Mantle, Speaker, DiMaggio, Griffey or Snider? I assume your ranking also does not include Negro Leaguers or Oscar Charleston (and probably Christobal Torriente and possibly Coool Papa Bell) would rank ahead. Or 19th century players where Billy Hamilton and Paul Hines were greater players. I can't see Ashburn in the top 10 - or Butler in the top 20 amoung all time CFers.

Ashburn is ahead of Snider and Griffey Jr. It's to be said that I really have just given up arguing for my beliefs. I've made some long and strong ones (IMHO) for Ashburn and Butler being underrated, oh a year or so ago, but as with most of the discussion in the history forum, it's everyone trying to prove why their right, and nobody trying to understand the other persons ideas, so I've given up hope.

[Gregory Pratt]

I don't want this thread to become an Ashburn v. Snider case. Frankly, I think Ashburn will lose that one and deserves to.

I just want thoughts on Ashburn v. Butler.

Does anyone have anything more to add?

[jalbright]

The win shares verdicts, all won by Ashburn:

career: 329-295
top 3 seasons: 85-80
best 5 consecutive seasons: 137-124

[csh19792001]

But as with most of the discussion in the history forum, it's everyone trying to prove why their right, and nobody trying to understand the other persons ideas, so I've given up hope.

Don't give us hope; I'm listening, Duder. I'll play along even if I don't necessarily agree at the moment.

1. Ashburn vs. Snider
I can see Ashburn ahead of Snider because Duke couldn't hit left handed pitching. Fundamental flaw there. He was historically fortunate enough to fall into a situation where his glaring weakness couldn't be exploited, due to his park and the lineup around him.

1954, 1956-63
Against RHP
.293 .388 .554

Against LHP
238 .326 .402

I went back to compile all the available information (mostly by hand) for the Dodgers using retrosheet and baseball-ref. I looked at 1954 and 1956-63 since those are the available years Snider was playing. I wanted to also see how much of an effect Ebbets Field had, since purportedly it was part of the reason for the ridiculous platoon splits, so I also divided it into pre and post move to LA.

I attached an excel file with the data.

In 1954, 56, and 57, the Dodgers faced left handed pitchers 9.8% of their total PA's. Only 1.85% of the Dodgers' total PA's were by left handed Dodger hitters against left handed pitchers during those years!!!

The National League averages were around 25% of PA's thrown by left handed pitching during those years.

From 1958-63, the Dodgers faced left handed pitching in 23.7% of their total PA's. 5.3% of the total PA's were by left handed Dodger hitters against left handed pitchers.

Duke Snider faced left handed pitching only 7.4%of the time in 54' and 56'-63'. Even after the Dodgers went to LA and lost power in the lineup, Snider continued to almost always sit against lefties.

My conclusion? Well, presuming that the retrosheet data for about half his career is closely representative of his entire career, I'd say that Snider is tremendously overrated, since hardly anyone to my knowledge, has taken fully into consideration that:

A) he couldn't hit lefties
B) he hardly ever had to face lefties, as the other greats did

No omnibus metric I know of deals with/adjusts for handedness and platoon splits, either.

It's obviously possible that he hit very, VERY well against LHP from 1947-53 and in 1955, but how likely is it?

2. Griffey vs. Ashburn
Griffey played in a bandbox in the best HR era in baseball history, and some say he was tremendously overrated as a center fielder. The guy hasn't had a great real- or a full year- since 2000. He was incredibly injury prone and never stayed in shape or took care of himself. He's reminiscent of his father now at the same age now- in pretty lousy shape for this date and age in sports nutrition, trainers, chefs, etc. Hence the constant DL from hammy injuries, etc. Since going to Cincinnati (and remember, he was only 29 when traded) Grif has been only a marginally more productive hitter overall than average (OPS+ 119). He never steals a base anymore, doesn't run the bases well, and his fielding dropped off substantially over the past several years.

BTW- range factor is a lousy statistic, as are it's derivatives (fielding runs, FRAA, etc.) It's easily accessible, but I'd stay away from it if you want accurate results.

Baseball Think Factory on Fielding Runs

Why Range Factor Is A Lousy Statistic.

Another Article

[KCGHOST]

I've made some long and strong ones (IMHO) for Ashburn and Butler being underrated, oh a year or so ago, but as with most of the discussion in the history forum, it's everyone trying to prove why their right, and nobody trying to understand the other persons ideas, so I've given up hope.

In times similar to yours I try to remember Ben Franklin's great speech to the Constitutional Convention urging the adoption of the newly framed U.S. Constitution.

[AstrosFan]

A 119 OPS+ isn't marginally above average by any stretch. It's not Hall of Fame level for a player who is now a mediocre fielder and can't run that well anymore, but Griffey already established himself as probably the second-best overall player of the 1990s.

I was curious what the park factors looked like for the Kingdom in Junior's Seattle years. Lefty-righty data from KJOK's database:

Hand	PA	AB	H	1B	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	IBB	K	HBP	SF	SH	GDP	BA	OBP	SLG	ISO	AB/HR	wOBA
L	26374	23382	6176	4358	1127	133	558	2907	2625	298	3390	126	241	167	658	0.264	0.338	0.342	0.078	41.9	0.318
R	35655	31766	8233	5671	1527	143	892	4023	3271	163	5782	337	281	299	1003	0.259	0.332	0.34	0.081	35.61	0.321

[csh19792001]

A 119 OPS+ isn't marginally above average by any stretch.

For starters, I was playing devil's advocate....

Second, though.........a guy with a 119 OPS+ is marginal for a guy averaging under 100 games a year, with no base running/base stealing value, and rapidly depreciating fielding value.

Games played by year
111
70
53
83
128
109
144

If he were playing 140-162 games a year, you'd be correct. As it stands, it seems you're the one stretching things too far with the statement above.

[AstrosFan]

No, because in the context of what OPS+ is measuring, a rate is a rate is a rate. If your intent was to argue that Griffey hasn't produced much more than an average hitter, that's fine, but you can't follow that with OPS+ to make your point, because it leads the reader into the idea that your position is that a 119 OPS+ is indicative of a marginally above average hitter. It is your responsibility to show how playing time turns Griffey's solid OPS+ into barely above average run production. Otherwise, when making the case that a player is marginally above average offensively, you have to find a runs produced above average formula to support your case.

[csh19792001]

Otherwise, when making the case that a player is marginally above average offensively, you have to find a runs produced above average formula to support your case.

True. You're right, strictly speaking.

But when looking at Griffey since 2000, I would think, though, that any fan (casual or otherwise) would see he was a little more than half his team's games for 7 years. Maybe I give the average fan too much credit?

Explicitly stated vs. implied, I guess.