So who was a better player, Richie Ashburn or Dom DiMaggio?   A May 11, 2013 New York Times article by Tom Clavin has this to say:

But Dom, who died in 2009, did not measure up in the eyes of Hall of Fame voters, or later with the veterans committee. When the committee voted the less-accomplished center fielder Richie Ashburn into the Hall of Fame in 1995, Williams, who was on the panel, said that Dom had been a better ballplayer statistically and that "if the game was on the line and you needed a clean hit or a hard-hit ball, he was as good as anybody."

Really?   Dominic was a good player, but if he was better than Ashburn I am afraid I had missed it.   In the Historical Abstract I had Ashburn rated as the #16 Center Fielder of all time, Dominic 24^th.    Baseball Reference has DiMaggio at 31.8 Wins Above Replacement, Ashburn at 63.4—a whopping 2 to 1 advantage for Whitey.  Their fan EloRater has DiMaggio as the 197^th best player ever, Ashburn at 86^th.  

FanGraphs has different numbers; they have Ashburn at +57.5, Dominic at +34.5.   They’re similar players. ..small, singles hitters, center fielders, leadoff men. DiMaggio was a right-handed hitter, Ashburn left.    Retrosheet (Pete Palmer’s method) compares players not to replacement level but to average; they have Ashburn at +22.8, DiMaggio at +10.1.  Both men retired when they could still play, or at least still put up good numbers.    What exactly does Clavin mean by describing Dominic as "more accomplished" than Ashburn?   Ashburn had a higher batting average (.308 to .298), DiMaggio a higher slugging percentage (.419 to .396).  Their on base percentages were almost the same.   Ashburn stole more than twice as many bases.

In MVP voting, again, Ashburn did better than DiMaggio, Ashburn earning a career total of 0.62 Award Shares, DiMaggio 0.30.    DiMaggio did play in more All-Star games, 7 to 6, actually 7 to 5, because Ashburn played in two in one season.   

Dominic scored runs at a much higher frequency rate, but then, he had Ted Williams batting behind him, rather than Del Ennis, not that Del Ennis wasn’t pretty good.    Dominic is entitled to a break on his career numbers because he did give up three seasons to World War II; in my view he should be treated as if he had played those seasons and played at the same level as he did in surrounding seasons.    Other people have other opinions.  Using FanGraphs (Fangraphs?   fangraphs?). .. .using Tom’s numbers and this position, one can make an argument that DiMaggio is equal to Ashburn.    The three years that DiMaggio is missing from his career are the years when he was 26, 27 and 28 years old—the very heart of a player’s prime.   If we assume that DiMaggio’s 1943-44-45 seasons would have been as good as the surrounding seasons—which I am willing to assume—then DiMaggio’s career Wins Above Replacement would be about 48.  

If we assume that DiMaggio’s 1943-44-45 seasons would have been the best seasons of his career—which I think is a reach—then one could maybe get him to +54 or some similar number. .. .up close to Ashburn.

OK, Matty Alou is a similar player, too, so let’s throw him in the pot, not that anybody believes that Matty is the equal of the other two.   Matty is closer to Dominic than Felipe is to Joe.     And, to keep as much phony drama going as we can for as long as we can, let’s compare them age to age.

Richie Ashburn and Matty Alou were both in the major leagues when they were 21 years old.    Ashburn, however, was a major league regular at that age.   Ashburn had been a hot property since he was 16 years old.   Alou, on the other hand, spent most of his age-21 season at Tacoma, where he hit .306 with more power than he would have as a major leaguer—39 doubles, 8 triples, 14 homers.  He made his major league debut late in the season, and got three at bats:

Alou, as you can see, actually played better as a 22-year-old than Ashburn did, with an OPS 119 points higher.   Alou, however, had a problem.   The problem was called "Willie Mays".   Alou, a natural center fielder, found himself competing with Willie Mays for playing time or, since that wasn’t going anywhere, playing left field or right.    He didn’t have the power managers prefer in left or right, plus the Giants had both Willie McCovey and Orlando Cepeda and were trying to get them both in the lineup by playing one or the other in the outfield.

Dominic DiMaggio reached the majors at age 22, with the Boston Red Sox.  He didn’t have to beat out Willie Mays to earn playing time; he only had to beat out Doc Cramer.   He was able to take care of that in a half-season or so, so from ages 22 to 24 DiMaggio and Ashburn were regular players, whereas Alou was swimming upstream, his career still going nowhere.

"Going nowhere" is actually too kind; his career was going somewhere.   In 1963 he went back to Tacoma for a month to get himself straightened out.    Meanwhile, back to Ashburn and DiMag; Ashburn outplayed the Little Professor at ages 23 and 24, but DiMaggio, who had a little more power, outhit and outplayed Ashburn at age 25. 

At age 22 both Ashburn and Alou played on pennant-winning teams, the 1950 Phillies (the Whiz Kids) and the 1962 Giants, who didn’t get a nickname because nobody realized they might win the pennant until the middle of September.   Both teams lost to the Yankees in the World Series.  

Ashburn in 1951 had an MVP-type season, hitting .344 and collecting 221 hits.    Through the age of 24, then, we have Ashburn with a career won-lost log of 108-55 (.660), DiMaggio at 55-36 (.608), Alou trailing a little behind at 18-21 (.462).   

DiMaggio then took a three-year break from his career to enjoy some recreational time in the United States Navy.   (I served my country; I’m allowed to joke about it.)    Alou, meanwhile, had one more horrible season, and then came alive when he was traded to Pittsburgh in 1966:

Alou won the National League batting title in 1966, while his brother finished second; not even the DiMaggios can match that one.   At ages 27 and 28 Alou played at a level comparable but not equal to Ashburn’s.    At age 28 both players hit .338 with about the same power.  Ashburn, however, drew 105 walks.    Matty drew 24 walks.   Ashburn was a very good defensive center fielder.   Matty Alou was not as good.

Harry the Hat Walker played a critical role in the careers of both Ashburn and Alou.    In 1947 Harry Walker was the Philadelphia center fielder, and led the National League in batting (.363), on base percentage (.436), and triples (16).   He was the same kind of player as Ashburn and Alou—a left-handed, singles-hitting center fielder/leadoff man.   1947 was his first really good year, and, as it turned out, his last one.   In the spring of 1948 he held out for more money, so the Phillies put Richie Ashburn in center field.   Walker, even though he was coming off a superb season, never got his job back.

When Matty Alou was traded to Pittsburgh in 1966 Harry Walker was managing the Pirates.   Walker convinced Alou to use a heavy bat, as Nellie Fox had done (and Ashburn) and chop down on the ball.   Alou essentially duplicated what Harry the Hat had done in 1947:  traded to a new team, he came out of nowhere to win the National League batting title, in his case at .342.

And then, in a sense repeating what he had done twenty years earlier, Walker overplayed his hand again.  He started taking credit for what Alou had done, too much credit.  There’s an ethic here; the manager is supposed to give all the credit to the player, the player is supposed to give some of the credit to the manager, the hitting coach, and his new girlfriend (unless he is married, in which case he isn’t supposed to mention the girlfriend.)   Harry wasn’t shy about taking his share of the credit for what Alou had done.   Here’s a paragraph from Sports Illustrated in 1966, from an article praising Harry Walker for his good work as Pirates’ manager:

Manager Harry Walker has an incessant tongue, and he admits it. Last year. Walker's first as Pittsburgh manager, the Pirates lost 24 of their first 33 games and were in last place, lower than—yes—even the Mets. Whereas Danny Murtaugh, who had retired as manager after the 1964 season, always let the Pirates play their own game and rarely blasted them verbally. Walker hounded them. He chattered away, Bill Mazeroski says, about "little things we never heard before, and the guys couldn't understand this."

For a time the situation bordered on a rebellion.

                Harry was the younger brother of Dixie Walker, Jackie Robinson’s racist teammate from 1947—consistent with the theme of the ball-playing families, I guess.   Harry Walker’s father and uncle had also played in the major leagues.    Harry Walker, Matty Alou, Dominic DiMaggio—all younger brothers, all similar players.   In all three cases the older brother was a better hitter with more power.    Based on this, we can observe that if Richie Ashburn had had an older brother, he would have had 4000 hits and 800 homers.

                Harry should have understood the ethic, but—like Dixie—he had trouble adapting when the world wanted to get better.   In 1947 a manager could ride his players, "hound them", in the words of the Sports Illustrated article, and "blast them", and take credit in the newspapers for what they had done.   By 1966 these things were on the way out.   Harry didn’t get the memo.   By the summer of 1967 the team once more "bordered on a rebellion", and this time Harry was fired.

                In 1946 Dom DiMaggio returned from his three-year Carnival Cruise, so from ages 29 to 31 all three players were mainstays of their organizations:

                At ages 29 and 30, then, Matty Alou was the best player of the three—not by much of a margin, but he was the best.   Alou had 231 hits in 1969.  Let me make an argument, then, on behalf of Matty.

                Matty Alou was a career .307 hitter.    Once Matty Alou finally got the opportunity to play, he was as good a player as Ashburn or DiMaggio.   His career won-lost record, as we will see, is actually very similar to Dominic DiMaggio’s.    DiMaggio in his career won 0.30 MVP Award Shares; Alou won 0.26.   Baseball Reference has DiMaggio at 30.8 Wins Above Replacement, Alou at 23.3.  

                On what basis, then, does the Fan EloRater place DiMaggio as the 197^th best player of all time, and Matty Alou at 545^th?   What’s the basis for that?

                The basis for it is the perception that DiMaggio was cheated out of three prime seasons by World War II—but what about Matty?   Matty was cheated out of five prime seasons by being forced to compete for playing time with Willie Mays.   When he came to the majors he hit very well for his first two seasons—and then his playing time went backward.    He hit .310 as a rookie, and got less playing time his second year.   He hit .292 his second year, and got less playing time his third year.

                Yes, he went through a frustration cycle, but. . .wouldn’t you?    Wouldn’t anybody?    At the bottom of it, he is not an obviously inferior player to Richie Ashburn or Dom DiMaggio.

                OK, that’s the argument.   Do I believe it?

                Well, no, but. …there’s nothing there that isn’t true.   Missing playing time because you are blocked behind an all-time great is not the same as being denied the opportunity to play because of your race or because your country needs you.   Yes, he was frustrated, but baseball is a frustrating game.   Willie Mays was so frustrated, as a rookie, that he reportedly asked Durocher to take him out of the lineup.   The game measures how well you cope with that.   Matty didn’t cope for a couple of years.    I’m sorry, but that’s the game.  

                OK, through age 31 Ashburn has a career won-lost contribution of 251-102, a .712 percentage.    DiMaggio had a career won-lost contribution of 114-73, .610, and Alou was at 126-92, .578.    They were entering. .. .that stage of their careers. After the 1970 season Matty Alou, aged 31, was traded to St. Louis for a pitcher, Nelson Briles, and for Vic Davalillo, who was another similar player, another little leadoff hitter/center fielder.    At age 32 Richie Ashburn had his first subpar season, and after that year he was traded to the Cubs for John Buzhardt, a pitcher, and an aging Alvin Dark.    And Dom DiMaggio had his best seasons.

                Well, actually. ..they weren’t his best seasons.    DiMaggio had his best numbers in 1949 and 1950, but he was playing in a super-heated offensive environment in those years.   By modern value systems, DiMaggio in 1949-1950 was still very good, but he was not the player he had been in 1946-1948.    Alou, meanwhile, was traded in mid-season, 1972, and again in mid-season, 1973:

                But, again defending Alou, even though he was traded in mid-season, Alou was as good a player at age 32 as DiMaggio, and better than Ashburn, was as good as Ashburn or DiMaggio at age 33, and was better than Ashburn at age 34.    At age 35 all three of them played their final seasons, although DiMaggio got three at bats at age 36:

                Both DiMaggio and Alou walked away from the game when they could still play, and at essentially the same age.    DiMaggio quit in early 1953 in a dispute with Lou Boudreau, who was his manager.   DiMaggio had an injury in spring training, wasn’t ready to play on opening day, and Boudreau put Tommy Umphlett in center field.    Umphlett started out well, hitting .339 through his first 15 games, and Umphlett was a good defensive center fielder.   When DiMaggio was ready to play he asked to get back in the lineup, but Boudreau decided to keep playing Umphlett, so DiMaggio decided to retire. 

                Ashburn hit .306 for the 1962 Mets with a .424 on base percentage, but he also decided to retire after the season.   What people always say about that is that Ashburn was embarrassed to be a part of that awful team, and I’m not saying that is untrue, but Ashburn had played on last-place teams in 1958 and 1959 and on a team that missed finishing last by one game in 1960, and he didn’t retire after those seasons.    Do you know where Richie Ashburn played his last major league game?

                Second base.

                It was the only time in his career that Ashburn had played second base, other than one inning a couple of weeks earlier; he had been an outfielder since he came to the majors.    He couldn’t throw any more, and at the end of the year Casey Stengel was just using him to pinch hit, even though he was the best offensive player on the team.   On September 30, the last game of the season, Stengel put him in the lineup for the first time in three weeks—at second base.   In the 7^th inning Ashburn made an error on a ground ball, setting up two un-earned runs.   In the top of the 8^th Ashburn hit a one-out single—and then was picked off of first base as a part of a triple play.    Stengel took him out of the game at that point.   A more humiliating end to a Hall of Fame career is difficult to imagine the season would be difficult to imagine—a costly error at an unfamiliar defensive position, picked off base in a triple play, then taken out of the game so that Solly Drake could play.   Both Ashburn and DiMaggio retired after they were embarrassed by their managers.

                Let’s summarize the Win Shares and Loss Shares for the three players:

                In summary, then:

1)  Alou’s won-lost contribution is 177-135, .567; DiMaggio is 186-127, .594; Ashburn is 302-148, .671.

2)  DiMaggio and Alou are dead even as hitters; DiMaggio has an edge because he was a better center fielder, and because we give him credit for his missing seasons.

3)  DiMaggio and Ashburn are pretty much even as defensive players, but Ashburn was a far more effective hitter, when his numbers are put in context. 

                In my opinion, Richie Ashburn is an absolutely legitimate Hall of Fame player.    My rule is, if you have 300 Career Win Shares OR if you are +100 (100 more wins than losses), then you’re a legitimate Hall of Fame candidate.    If you have both, you’re an absolute Hall of Famer; if you have neither, you’re not a legitimate candidate.

                Ashburn has both.   DiMaggio has neither.

                Hey, if Phil Rizutto can go in the Hall of Fame, Dom DiMaggio can go in the Hall of Fame.   If Lloyd Waner can get in the Hall of Fame, Dom DiMaggio can get in the Hall of Fame.   If Rick Ferrell can get in the Hall of Fame, pretty much anybody can get in the Hall of Fame.

                But Ashburn’s advantage over DiMaggio isn’t that his career was longer or that he played more games or that DiMaggio missed three seasons due to the war.   Ashburn’s advantage is that he was a better player.   I’m completely willing to give Dom DiMaggio extra credit for what he could have done in World War II, and I’d be  happy to see him go in the Hall of Fame if that was in the cards.   

                Comparing my ratings to those of other people who do this kind of thing. . . Retrosheet (Pete Palmer) has Richie Ashburn at 22.8 games (68 Win Shares) above average; I have him at 77 Win Shares above average.    Retrosheet has DiMaggio at 10.1 games (30 Win Shares) above average; I have essentially matched that.   But Retrosheet has Matty Alou at 6.2 wins (19 Win Shares) below average; I have him at 5.3 Win Shares above average.  That’s a very big discrepancy.

                Compared to replacement level. . .let us say that replacement level is .300.    Baseball Reference has Ashburn at 63.4 Wins Above Replacement.  FanGraphs has him at 57.5.    Assuming Replacement Level is .300, I have him at 55.7.  

                Baseball Reference has DiMaggio at 31.8 Wins Above Replacement.   FanGraphs has him at 34.5.   I have him at 30.7.

                Baseball Reference has Alou at 23.3 Wins Above Replacement.   FanGraphs has him at 20.4.    I have him at 26.7.   

                So I am essentially in the ballpark with everybody else in terms of Wins Above Replacement, but for some reason my methods are more favorable to Matty Alou than are the other three systems. 

                OK, one more thing before I go.   In the report I did a couple of days ago about Doc Cramer, I failed to report his Team Success Percentage, which was an oversight.   Team Success Percentage works in this way.    The success of each team in each season is assessed on a one-to-five scale based on the team’s record compared to their record in previous seasons.    If the team exceeds expectations based on their previous seasons, that’s a "5"; if they have a disappointing year, that’s a "1".   In 2012 Washington was a "5", Boston was a "1".

                But Philadelphia in 2012 was 81-81, while Pittsburgh was 79-83—yet Philadelphia’s season is scored a "1" (very disappointing), while Pittsburgh’s season is scored a "4" (fairly successful.)   It has to do with expectations based on previous seasons.    Philadelphia was 97-65 in 2010, 102-60 in 2011; we would expect them to go 93-69 in 2012.   They missed that by 12 games, so that’s a very disappointing season.    Pittsburgh was 57-105 in 2011, 72-90 in 2012; we would expect them to go 73-89 in 2013.   They beat that by six games, so that’s a pretty decent.   Nobody would argue the point, I don’t think, that Philadelphia’s season was disappointing, and Pittsburgh’s wasn’t bad.  

                We take those 1-to-5 grades, weight them by the playing time for the player, and look at the career average.   It is a way of asking objectively, "Did this player’s teams meet their expectations?"   An average Team Success Percentage is .500; actually it’s a little over .500, but let’s say .500.

                Doc Cramer’s career Team Success Percentage was .550.   So. ..say what you want about Doc Cramer or the teams that paid him good money to make 500 outs a year, but the fact is that he played generally, most of his career, for teams that met and exceeded expectations.

                Matty Alou’s Team Success Percentage was .644, which is extremely good.   Alou played on eight teams that exceeded expectations, whereas he played on only two teams that failed to meet expectations—and neither of those was terrible.    

                Dom DiMaggio’s Team Success Percentage was .685, which, of course, is even better.   DiMaggio played for 11 major league teams.   Four of them—the Red Sox of 1942, 1946, 1948 and 1949—had outstanding seasons relative in baseline expectations.     Those four teams averaged 96 wins.   The only time in his career that the Red Sox fell significantly short of reasonable expectations was in 1952, when Ted Williams was in Korea, the team had many injuries, and they finished just under .500.  

                Richie Ashburn’s Team Success Percentage was .289, which is exceptionally poor.   Through his first five seasons, 1952, this figure was .616, as the Phillies, long the doormats of the National League, won the pennant in 1950 and were competitive in 1949 and 1952.    From 1953 to the end of his career, however, Ashburn played on almost nothing except disappointing teams.