Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Network Bar & Login
Section Navigation
Main Blog Content
Secondary Sidebar: Links to Recent Stories, FanPosts and FanShots
Masthead

Around SBN: Dana White Announces Koscheck vs. Hendricks for UFC on FOX

All-timers

by dajafi on Mar 6, 2008 10:26 PM EST in News

Hot on the heels of Bill Conlin's latest statement of the obvious--that Ryan Howard, Chase Utley and Jimmy Rollins are the greatest Phillies ever at their respective positions--comes this series of philly.com polls on the greatest Phils ever at every position.

My votes, and thus my Phillies all-time team, went as follows:

P Carlton
C Boone
1B Howard
2B Utley
3B Schmidt (how dare they even ask this one?)
SS Rollins
LF Ennis
CF Ashburn
RF Klein
MGR Ozark

The only ones that gave me real pause were catcher, right field, and manager. Boone over Seminick or Lieberthal is a really close call; it ultimately comes down to my subjective memories of the old guy from the '70s and the fact that the team was so good then. Similarly, I voted for Ozark--whom I don't think was anything special as a manager--because the other options were Gene Mauch, who presided over the 1964 collapse; Dallas Green, wrecker of arms and enduring big mouth; Bowa, 'nuff said; and Jim Fregosi, who left Mitch Williams in to pitch the end of Game Six. In an open poll, my vote probably would have been for Eddie Sawyer, who skippered the 1950 Whiz Kids, or Uncle Cholly Himself. In right field, Klein seems to translate for all-time, but really who knows. It's probably a jump ball between him and Bobby Abreu--who has drawn a surprising 14 percent of the total vote as of this writing.

No closer is listed, I guess out of fear that someone would disrespect the Tugger's memory. Fair enough.

Tweet Comment 45 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Re: All-timers

It may be a statement of the obvious, but it is amazing that 3 of the all-time best Phillies are currently on the roster and in their respective primes (or close thereto).

Not to mention that Cole Hamels could one day be looked back on as one of the greatest pitchers ever to don Phillies red.

by FuquaManuel on Mar 7, 2008 12:03 AM EST reply actions

Re: All-timers

so all Hamels has to do is put up a better career than Steve Carlton, Pete Alexander, Robin Roberts, Jim Bunning, Curt Simmons, and Curt Schilling? that's not setting the bar too high or anything :)

by perfectdepth on Mar 7, 2008 7:42 AM EST up reply actions

Re: All-timers

Obviously he has to compete with those guys. But it is still quite an elite club.

by FuquaManuel on Mar 7, 2008 11:21 AM EST up reply actions

Re: All-timers

I think you gotta give LF to Delahanty. In 1895 he hit .404/.500/.617 with 46 SB (in just 116 games) and played excellent defense. He walked 86 times and struck out just 31 times.

Not that Ennis wasn't great, but Delahanty was one of the greatest hitters of all time.

by Tommy on Mar 7, 2008 1:58 AM EST reply actions

Re: All-timers

most of the spots are pretty obvious for the Phils, but I would put Sherry Magee in left (very underrated deadball hitter who doesn't have the same quality-of-competition issues that Delahanty arguably does and was much better than Ennis) and Abreu in right (Klein had some of the most severe home/road splits in history, and Abreu is really all over the Phillies leaderboard).

by perfectdepth on Mar 7, 2008 7:39 AM EST reply actions

Re: All-timers

Pat Burrell in left baby.

by jonk on Mar 7, 2008 8:08 AM EST reply actions

Re: All-timers

Yeah, I can't get with the 19th-century hitters. Call it a bias, possibly along the lines that partial knowledge (I know the numbers of 1899 don't mean the same thing as those from 1999, but I'm not exactly sure how to compare them even with the sabermetric equalizing tools) is sometimes more dangerous than total ignorance.

Admittedly, though, I wasn't sure about Ennis. If Del, Burrell and Magee are the best of the last 100 years, that really doesn't speak well for the Phillies' outfield corner legacy.

by dajafi on Mar 7, 2008 10:57 AM EST reply actions

Re: All-timers

sure, we've never really had a Williams or Ruth, but I think Delahanty - Magee - Ennis - Luzinski - Burrell is a pretty solid history of good-to-great left fielders. you've got a big 20-year hole in there, but still.

by perfectdepth on Mar 7, 2008 11:12 AM EST up reply actions

Re: All-timers

To level the playing field a bit:

Delahanty had six seasons with WARP3 scores above 10.0 (five with the Phils). His career EqA was .319.

Ennis didn't have one 10+ WARP3 season and his career EqA was .286.

by Tommy on Mar 7, 2008 1:51 PM EST up reply actions

Preach it!

Amen, Brother Tommy. It's a little depressing how little support the old-timers get. Manny Trillo pulling more votes than Nap Lajoie? Come on people.

I do wish dajafi would say more about non-support for the nineteenth centurions. On WARP3 - adjusted for all time as best they're able - Delahanty is way the heck ahead of Del Ennis, and I've come to think of him as a true all-time great. Cleraly the game has evolved greatly since Delahanty started playing, but IMHO there's no magic switch in 1901 just because the AL starts playing - once they moved the mound to 60' 6" in 1894, IIRC, it's been the game we know. I think you can reasonably apply a discount to numbers from way back there to account for the difference in the game, but that difference is one of degree, not of kind.

On paper, G.C. Alexander's peak > Carlton's peak, but it's close enough that you can fairly discount Petey for the scuffed balls, lack of integration, etc. and call Carlton's 1972 the best single pitching season, and figure he had the greatest single peak, if that's your standard for measuring the greatest (of course Carlton also had twice as many seasons in red pinstripes). With Delahanty, though, he's about an order of magnitude greater than Ennis on paper, and I don't see how the discounting factor gets Ennis over the top.

by The Navigator on Mar 7, 2008 5:11 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Preach it!

once they moved the mound to 60' 6" in 1894, IIRC, it's been the game we know.

um, Jackie Robinson?

by perfectdepth on Mar 7, 2008 6:53 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Preach it!

I should've known someone would say something like that. Look, my comment pretty clearly acknowledged that the game had continued to change by degrees since 1894. The end of segregation was obviously one huge change. I just don't think you can say that it's been a different game since 1947 - and that wouldn't make sense, anyway, since true and full integration took at least a decade. Surely Robinson and Doby didn't fully end the effects of segregation by their mere, lonely presences. So, what, are you saying no stats from before 1957 count, because it wasn't the game we know until then?

My argument is that the expansion to two full major leagues as of 1901, the abandonment of the scuffed, dirty, spit-enhanced balls (for the most part) after 1920, the changing rules about foul balls, ground-rule doubles, balls going into crowds standing more-or-less on the playing field, night baseball, integration, expansion, the changing mound height, the DH, the wide embrace of Latin and Asian players, et al., they were all changes of greater or lesser significance, but I don't view any one of them as marking a cut-off that distinguishes modern from pre-modern baseball. To me, it's when everybody was pitching from the same distance of today's mounds. I think you can fairly take stats from that point forward, adjust them for context as best you can, and reasonably say that you're making a generally fair comparison between players from different eras.

by The Navigator on Mar 9, 2008 6:32 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: All-timers

Rollins?

What an insult to Larry Bowa. Rollins is a steroid product. Why don't the blind Phillie fans see the obvious. 5 8 160 pound shortstops do not discover 30 hr power at age 27. My heavens are you that blind. Does anybody notice the way the ball jumps off his bat? Anyone remember that in 2004? And while Rollins is a steady sure handed fielder he his not a "hit stealer" he seldom makes the great "webjem" play. His gold glove is more a product of simply no great defensive shortstops in the league anymore.

Wake up and smell the "juice" Phillie Fans!
Boo Barry Bonds and cheer Jimmy Rollins you fakes!

by Stupidwrthlsboy on Mar 8, 2008 8:55 AM EST reply actions

Re: All-timers

I guess this 5'7, 160 pound guy was also juicing in his big power seasons. Playing in bigger parks. In a more pitching-friendly era.

by dajafi on Mar 8, 2008 1:49 PM EST up reply actions

Re: All-timers

Wow.. I am sure some players on the Phils may have used steroids, but Rollins? Really?

If Morgan can learn to call a game as good as he played I might enjoy ESPN more.

by Homer on Mar 8, 2008 5:53 PM EST up reply actions

Re: All-timers

Joe Morgan hit 15 18 and 14 HR's in the ASTRODOME!! He always had power. It did not suddenly come from no where. Keep your head buried in the sand if you wish! Players have learned how to use steroids so they don't look so obvious, not to mention todays performance enhancing drugs are much harder to test for.

by Stupidwrthlsboy on Mar 11, 2008 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: All-timers

Yeah, don't you know, they have magic steroids that make your muscles stronger without doing anything to increase their size. Your muscles just get really dense, like Superman's.

Idiot.

by taco pal on Mar 11, 2008 7:43 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: All-timers

Bowa was on greenies.

by jonk on Mar 8, 2008 7:44 PM EST up reply actions

Re: All-timers

5'9", 170 lbs., and 37 homers in the friggin' Astrodome.

And what the f- is a "webjem"?

Go away, grownups are talking.

by WholeCamels on Mar 8, 2008 9:05 PM EST up reply actions

Re: All-timers

Guess grownups don't watch much ESPN. Web gems are highlight defensive plays.

by Stupidwrthlsboy on Mar 11, 2008 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: All-timers

Yes, we know what webgems are. The question was: What's a webjem? Still waiting for your answer.

by taco pal on Mar 11, 2008 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: All-timers

Guess grownups don't watch much ESPN.

Okay, a stopped clock is right twice a day...

by WholeCamels on Mar 12, 2008 9:10 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: All-timers

Duh prove my point for me some more. So why is Rollins powered explained away by CBP. Why couldn't he hit 20 at the Vet. Come on it's not hard to figure out.

by Stupidwrthlsboy on Mar 11, 2008 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: All-timers

Now that comment is so stupid I don't even know what to say.

by taco pal on Mar 11, 2008 7:51 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: All-timers

Steroid product? Yes, I guess that's why he weighs a MASSIVE 160 pounds, if he's even that.

by richard on Mar 9, 2008 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: All-timers

Yea I know 160 lb players go from hitting 12 HR to hitting 30 all the time. My mistake.

by Stupidwrthlsboy on Mar 11, 2008 7:39 PM EDT reply actions

Re: All-timers

It is your mistake. They just gave you two examples, which you've ignored like a stubborn little child.

Now, question for you: Do you know any steroid users who got stronger without gaining any muscle mass? I'm sure you must since you're such an expert on these matters.

by taco pal on Mar 11, 2008 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: All-timers

I also know that the first example of steroid use I can pin down was Lenny Dykstra. 1993 at age 30. We all hopefully can admit to that. It would be my opinion that he was not the first. When did the steroid era really begin? Perhaps as early as 89-90 around the time of Sandbergs 11 hr rise and 10 the next? Do you really think there are no major league players doing steroids today? Do you really think that if a major star had his test come back positive that MLB would tell us? Not a chance! There gonna bury it. There's no way they want that kind of stuff getting out.

by Stupidwrthlsboy on Mar 11, 2008 9:22 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: All-timers

Question for you: Do you know any steroid users who got stronger without gaining muscle mass?

by taco pal on Mar 11, 2008 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: All-timers

Ryne Sandberg went from 7 HR as a rookie to 40 HR in his age-30 season. So he was on steroids, right?

by taco pal on Mar 11, 2008 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: All-timers

Once again "head in the sand" "not listing to what I say" Ryan Sandberg was 6'2 180 pounds. Joe Morgan was a power hitter from the start. Lets all see if Jroll has one of those sudden injury prone seasons like Brian Roberts. Who I'm sure also "didn't" do any steroids.

by Stupidwrthlsboy on Mar 11, 2008 8:44 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: All-timers

First of all, Rollins is 175, not 160. Quit looking at baseball-reference for your figures, they aren't official.

Second, if Morgan was a "power hitter from the start", then so was J-Roll. Morgan hit 14 homers in his rookie year - exactly the same as J-Roll. Then, Morgan hit 5, 6, 15, and 8, for an average of less than 10 per year. J-Roll averaged 12 per year in his first five seasons.

You are just making up fake facts to fit your conclusion. You're clearly a really dishonest person.

by taco pal on Mar 11, 2008 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: All-timers

Bobby Grich: 12 HR as a rookie to 30 in his age-30 season. Steroids?

by taco pal on Mar 11, 2008 7:55 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: All-timers

6 2 190 pounds

by Stupidwrthlsboy on Mar 11, 2008 8:46 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: All-timers

See above.

by taco pal on Mar 11, 2008 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: All-timers

Robin Yount: 8 HR in his first full season to 29 in his best year. Steroids?

by taco pal on Mar 11, 2008 7:56 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: All-timers

Great Job, Robin Yount came up as a full time major league player at age 18. One could say Yount spent his minor league years in the majors. That could explain his 8-23 HR increase in one year. However he went back to 10 the next year before hitting his 29 a couple years later. He was also 6 feet tall 180 pounds.

by Stupidwrthlsboy on Mar 11, 2008 9:11 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: All-timers

Why exactly would that explain his 8-23 increase in one year? The increase happened when he was 24, not when he was a teenager.

Why would the fact that he was 18 in his rookie season matter when he also hit 9 when he was 22 (which is how old Rollins was in his rookie year) and 8 when he was 23 (which is how old Rollins was in his second year)?

How does the fact that Yount went back to 10 in 1981 have anything to do with anything?

by taco pal on Mar 11, 2008 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: All-timers

Lou Whitaker: 3 HR as a rookie. 28 in his best year.

Alan Trammell: 2 HR as a rookie. 28 in his best year.

Davey Lopes: 6 HR as a rookie. 28 in his best year.

Clearly, all of them were on steroids.

by taco pal on Mar 11, 2008 8:01 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: All-timers

All bigger players except Lopes who had one 28 hr season at age 34 never to see anything close to that again.

Whitaker hit in the HR's in the teens for years before he hit 28.

none of those guys went from hitting 12 to 30 all at once. None of these guys were as lame a hitter as Rollins was and suddenly became Mike Schimdt.

by Stupidwrthlsboy on Mar 11, 2008 9:00 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: All-timers

Whitaker was 160 pounds, so you're wrong even according to your own assumptions. Trammell was 175, same as Rollins.

By the way, news flash for you: Rollins has also always hit homers in the teens for years. He was below double digits only one season in his entire career. Your argument makes no sense at all.

by taco pal on Mar 11, 2008 10:11 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: All-timers

FWIW, Rollins' main strength from when he first came up was his power. 14 homers (not to mention 29 2B & 12 3B) as a 22-year-old rookie is pretty good. His power numbers since then have pretty well fit a typical career path -- his homers have fluctuated, but look at the total bases progression: 275, 242, 243, 299, 292, 329, 380. His two big seasons have been at age 27 and 28, right smack in the actuarial peak.

Looking at these numbers and assuming steroids is absurd. Not to say that he definitely never used (he could have been all along, for all I know), but there's absolutely nothing in the numbers that suggests it.

by phatj on Mar 11, 2008 9:39 PM EDT reply actions

Re: All-timers

This is the end of the argument right here. Rollins always had surprising pop for a guy his size. The recent increase in power has come from his natural progression as a hitter and park effects from moving to OFJOAB.

by Seth @ The Good Phight on Mar 13, 2008 6:46 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: All-timers

Well, maybe we're being unfair here. I mean, Rollins is a low-profile guy. It's not like the media tracks his behavior or pays very close attention to him. He's flown under the radar for years, in a media market where nobody pays attention or is obsessive about sports teams. And it's not like players are under the microscope for PEDs or are tested or anything.

So it's perfectly plausible that this seven-year vet could have been juicing, even though it's never been so much as whispered, his physical appearance hasn't changed beyond the norm for a guy between ages 21 and 29, and his numbers have been pretty consistent for four years now.

by dajafi on Mar 11, 2008 10:54 PM EDT reply actions

Re: All-timers

http://blogs.phillynews.com/inquirer/zozone/jroll.jpg

http://www2.jsonline.com/sports/brew/image/2001/sep/mark910.jpg

well, I'm convinced

by perfectdepth on Mar 12, 2008 10:35 AM EDT reply actions

Comments For This Post Are Closed

Recent Posts

Next Game

Philadelphia Phillies The Good Phight
@ Pittsburgh Pirates Bucs Dugout

Thursday, Apr 5, 2012, 1:35 PM EDT
PNC Park

Complete Coverage >

Copyright © 2012 Vox Media, Inc. All rights reserved.

Newsletter Signup About Us Frequently Asked Questions Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guiding Principles Advertise With Us Contact Us

Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.

OpenCalais - Powered by Thomson Reuters • Odds Shark