Campanella or Fisk?

[538280]

I posted this on another thread.....

Campanella over Fisk is not a good choice either.....I'd take Fisk. Fisk lasted much, much longer (I don't give Campy credit for his accident). Fisk's peak also wasn't really far behind. His 1972, 1975, and 1977 are just as good if not better with league quality adjustments than Campanella's 1951, 1953, and 1955. Look at their top 3 Win Share seasons:

Fisk-33, 31, 30
Campanella-33, 33, 28

How can you choose Campanella when A) He played much longer, and B) HIs peak is not any better (Fisk's peak is better with league quality adjustments)? You can't.

Plus, Campy was wildly inconsistent. We don't have to look past the batting averages to see that. Look at his averages-.325, .269, .312, .207, .318, .219, .242. What do you want, Fisk, who's solid all the time and great sometimes, or Campy, who's great sometimes but horrible at other times?

You may be thinking about how Campy was segregated from the majors a few years, and we can give him credit for that. Well, Campy played in the Negro Leagues from 1937-1945, nine years, which is a significant chunk. However, he was a backup until 1941, when he finally became a starter. By all accounts, he was very good until he left the Negro Leagues in 1945. But, I feel it is unrealistic to assume he was any better in those Negro League years than he was in his first MLB year in 1948, when he was a below average hitter. He receives some Negro League credit, but not all that much. Fisk still was around for much longer and stayed at a high level of performance longer, and his peak was just as good.

Fisk is a better player than Campanella, I don't consider Campy to be particularly close either.

So, who do you think is better, Campanella, or Fisk?

[egautographs]

I would think Fisk is. Isn't it ironic that Campy had that accident right when the Dodgers were moving to LA? He never played one game there

[leecemark]

--I think Campanella was clearly better at his peak, but Fisk was just as clearly more valuable for his career. I would agree that Fisk played in a better league, but wouldn't say it was a huge difference. It may or may not have been big enough to make up the difference between Campy's 154 or Fisk's 162 game seasons in the Win Shares comparison. Also, while Campy was inconsistent from season to season, Fisk had some big variations in value too - mostly due to injuries as is true of most catchers. His top 3 seasons were spread MUCH further apart than Campanella's (Fisk has the biggest gap between 150 OPS+ season of any catcher with more than one).
--You are also a little too quick to dismiss the Negro League years of Campy's career. He was a backup because he broke in at 16 behind Negro League legend Biz Mackey. His performance in his rookie year in MLB baseball does not neccessarily reflect his quality in the preceding seasons. Most player struggle when moving up in class, be it from A to AA or AAA to the majors. Campy was facing a level of competition he hadn't seen before and that it took him a year to adjust shouldn't be taken as a clear indicator that he wasn't a top catcher before.
--In the end I agree that Fisk was slightly more valuable than Campanella. Not better maybe, but more valuable.

[oscargamblesfro]

i think leecemark has it pegged- fisk for career, campanella for peak.

[Cubsfan97]

Fisk by a lot. Even if Campy played the whole career he would not have surpassed Fisk.

[Brian McKenna]

Fisk by a lot. Even if Campy played the whole career he would not have surpassed Fisk.

way off in that assessment

how many mvps does fisk have? campy had three - i think that means he was the best player in the league three times not just the best catcher.

campy didn't reach the major because of something i forget what until he was 26.

fisk had a longer major league career - that's true.

[Wee Willie]

I think Campy was better at his peak, even though he had those .207 and .219 seasons in the middle of it. My dad saw him play a lot and to this day he thinks Campy and Bench were basically equals at their peak. I think Bench was better, but even he had a couple of off years in the early 70's.

Fisk was probably more valuable because of his career productivity. Campy is certainly the hardest C for me to rank - I've relied more on opinions for him because of the time spent in the Negro Leagues, and since most of the opinions are so glowing, I've always had him ahead of Fisk. I'll probably re-evaluate my rankings soon.

[ElCaminoSS]

ya I'd have to go with Campanella

[538280]

ya I'd have to go with Campanella

Why? Just stating your opinion without any reasons doesn't do any good, especially considering this thread was led off with a post that disagrees with your opinion. Could you please share with us your reasoning, or at least tell us why you disagree with the opening post?

[pretorius]

Campy had been buried in the Negro Leagues for like a decade before he ever got his shot. His peak is higher and more valuable.

The original Pudge was just a really good player who played forever.

To me it makes about as much sense as ranking Phil Niekro higher then Koufax.

[Blackout]

Roy was voted best player in his league 3 times

Fisk never had an MVP once

[redban]

Tough to really say,since Campanella started so late and had that accident.

But his peak was ,far and away,better.

Fisk played long,but wasn't as good as Campy.

I think pretorious said it perfect...it's like ranking Phil Neikro higher than Koufax.

[AstrosFan]

OPS+ comparison of Campanella's career and Fisk at the same age.


Age Campanella Fisk
26 102 159
27 131 150
28 135 109
29 159 139
30 121 126
31 155 96
32 75 119
33 153 109
34 89 103
35 81 134

[AstrosFan]

I think what it shows is that Campanella's peak isn't that much better, and he was showing a sharp decline. Fisk had several good seasons left in him. The analogy of Fisk/Campanella to Niekro/Koufax isn't a very good one. Fisk's career performance could be the greatest ever by a catcher. You can't say that about Niekro among pitchers.

[DoubleX]

For one game or season or 5 year run, or even decade, I'd rather have Campanella on my team than Fisk. Fisk had the better and longer career, but Campanella was pound for pound, the better player, IMO.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

It is painful for me that this is even a question, although I realize there is a good chance my side of it can lose. I agree that Carlton Fisk is one of the Top 10 catchers of all time, and I agree it's not unreasonable to put him as high as #5, #6 or #7.

But I think Roy Campanella is #1.

He made the All-Star game multiple times in the Negro Leagues, and had one of the two best arms--probably THE best--from the time he arrived in the majors. Despite the fact he'd caught well over 1,000 games at that point, a point of decline for most catchers, he then proceeded to win THREE Most Valuable Player Awards, as many as Mays and Aaron combined, from a bunch of largely racist sportswriters.

He was a spectacular player, despite the fact his physically best years were behind him when he got past Jim Crow and into the majors. A tremendous defensive player at a position where most people at this forum are willing to say that alone is nearly enough. And, strangely, he was great offensively in alternating years, so he won those three MVP's.

In a way, he was like Bench: a great defensive catcher; offensively great at his best, but capable of being mediocre or even lousy, in his off years. Giving him credit for his Negro League years from Age 20 on only (i.e., not counting the ones at age 16, 17, 18 and 19), I consider him the greatest catcher in MLB history. It's the most idiosyndratic of my #1 picks, but it's by no means irrational. If you give him credit for those years he was a defensive stud in the Negro Leagues, and becoming a good hitter, I see no case for Fisk over him. Fisk didn't come within a mile of having three MVP seasons.

BHN

[baseballPAP]

I voted Campy as well. He was the best catcher in the NeL in the early 40s...both defensively and offensively. Up and down in MLB, he was still very good even in his off years. Even in '54 while battling injury, he managed 19 HRs while still being the best defender behind the dish in the league. Not a great year, but it puts Bill Bergen to shame(Bergen hung on for years with no stick at all because of being a great defender).

Fisk is the bridesmaid of catchers....never the number 1. Early on he was considered a step behind Bench(a BIG one), later he was considered (not neccesarily correctly) behind Munson, and then Parrish. And lets not forget that while he hung on into his 40s, he was hitting .245 with 16 HRs more often than not the last 10 years of that.

[KCGHOST]

Us old Brooklyn fans will always go with Campy.

[leecemark]

, he then proceeded to win THREE Most Valuable Player Awards, as many as Mays and Aaron combined, from a bunch of largely racist sportswriters.
BHN


--The sportswriters may have been racist, but it sure didn't show up in the MVP voting. 8 of 10 NL MVP's from 1949-58 (basically Campanella's career) were black men. That trend continued through the subseqent decade. Camapanella had another thing in common with the other MVP's. Catchers and New Yorkers were also disproportionally represented in this period (although to be fair all the catchers and New Yorkers who won were reasonable selections) .

[leecemark]

I voted Campy as well. He was the best catcher in the NeL in the early 40s...both defensively and offensively. Up and down in MLB, he was still very good even in his off years. Even in '54 while battling injury, he managed 19 HRs while still being the best defender behind the dish in the league. Not a great year, but it puts Bill Bergen to shame(Bergen hung on for years with no stick at all because of being a great defender).

Fisk is the bridesmaid of catchers....never the number 1. Early on he was considered a step behind Bench(a BIG one), later he was considered (not neccesarily correctly) behind Munson, and then Parrish. And lets not forget that while he hung on into his 40s, he was hitting .245 with 16 HRs more often than not the last 10 years of that.

--Fisk did have some great year, although I agree his best years were not as good as Campy's. Those .245/16 seasons as an old man were actually pretty valuable too - and better an a couple of Campanella's prime seasons. Roy had a couple a really ugly seasons mixed in with those MVP campaigns.

[WJackman]

I found a surprizing article by Dan Burley, sports editor and columnist for the African-American newspaper New York Amsterdam News. This was from a winter story after Campy had spent his first season with Nashua. Campy went on to say that it had been a very smart move on Rickey's part to start him at the Class B level for he learned a tremendous amount about catching technique and throwing technique; things he had not been taught during his years in the Negro Leagues. Make what you will out of this, I am just passing on what I read.

[wamby]

I found a surprizing article by Dan Burley, sports editor and columnist for the African-American newspaper New York Amsterdam News. This was from a winter story after Campy had spent his first season with Nashua. Campy went on to say that it had been a very smart move on Rickey's part to start him at the Class B level for he learned a tremendous amount about catching technique and throwing technique; things he had not been taught during his years in the Negro Leagues. Make what you will out of this, I am just passing on what I read.

I think this is the same reason why Jackie Robinson made a sucessful transition to the Majors and Larry Doby did not, at least not first. Robinson had the year in Montreal and Doby spent no time in the minors. The minors would have tough on Doby, though. He liekely would have been sent to either Baltimore or Kansas City.

I think that Veeck did the right thing integrating the American League, but the way he did it was pretty slipshod. The skills Doby learned in the Negro Leagues seem to have been pretty neglible.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

AND, Doby didn't learn to play CF until he got to the majors, though he got 1-on-1 lessons from the very best, Tris Speaker, when he got there. But even with Speaker as your personal tutor, I have to believe it takes quite awhile to learn the nuances of that position.

[LouGehrig]

This MUST be a joke.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

LG, am I wrong? I read Speaker's bio very carefully, and reread numerous parts of it. As a favor to Cleveland, despite his own greater-than-Cobb's racist past, Speaker gave one-on-one lessons in CF play to Larry Doby when he came to MLB. That's the truth, and it's something Doby remembered him fondly for when the Reaper took Spoke in 1958, at age 70.

As far as I know, he'd NEVER played CF before. If he had, he'd played it horribly.

BHN

[CTaka]

Despite the fact he'd caught well over 1,000 games at that point, a point of decline for most catchers, he then proceeded to win THREE Most Valuable Player Awards, as many as Mays and Aaron combined, from a bunch of largely racist sportswriters.

BHN

I can't find any reference on how many games Campy caught in the Negro Leagues, but if Campy did actually catch close to 1,000 games before hitting the majors, then I would put comfortably ahead of Fisk. I typically don't give credit for time missed due to injury; in Campy's case, I think I should, but I don't think it would change the outcome much since it seemed that he was already in his decline phase. But I do give credit for time missed due to segregation. If Campy had been allowed into the majors earlier, I think the difference in career values would be much closer - or possibly even in Campy's favor.

Despite having a much shorter career, Campy finished in the top ten in slugging percentage, home runs, adjuted OPS+, and RBIs more often than Fisk. I'd also give Campy the edge on defense.

If you are just basing Campy's 10 year MLB career vs Fisk's 24 year career, I can understand voting for Fisk. But since I am giving Campy credit for Negro League play, I am voting for Campy.

[flash143817]

My gut was to vote Campy, but the arguments for Fisk have been good in his favor. I don't know if I can cast a vote here.

But 2 curious things came to mind reading this thread:

1. What caused Campy's terrible years in between his MVP seasons? He would go from awesome to terrible every other year? Any particular reason for this?


2. Larry Doby really got help from Tris Speaker? I always thought Speaker was a well-known racist. Did these views of his change in his later life or were they overblown during his playing career?

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I can only say to read Timothy Gay's bio. It was very well-received by critics of baseball history books, and it supports me on both scores:

1. Speaker was rabidly racist, xenophobic and anti-Catholic... all to a greater degree than Cobb; but

2. In 1948, when he was 60, his old team asked him to teach Larry Doby how to play CF and he did so, 1-on-1, which was the absolute best tutelage Doby could have asked for, except possibly from Oscar Charleston.

Please read the book. It's one of the greatest baseball bio's I've ever read, and I've read a ton of them. You'll want to cry, however, when you read about Game Six of the 1912 World Series. Probably the gravest sin in baseball history, other than the sin of segregation, and while Speaker was not the biggest sinner on the team that day (Joe Wood was), he was the team's star and thus certainly one of the biggest sinners.

[SABR Matt]

It boggles my mind how severely underrated Carlton Fisk is.

Period.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Not by me.

Fisk is one of my candidates for the #6 catcher in MLB history, which scarcely constitutes an underrating for a guy who never came within a mile of an MVP, and really didn't do that well at all in MVP voting. But I see no argument for him ahead of the five guys I mentioned--except Piazza, by the guys who think he's been a horror behind the plate, which I disagree with.

That leaves Campy, Bench, Berra and Cochrane. I realize many think Fisk goes ahead of Campy. As I've said, I give Campy Negro League credit from age 20 on, and rate him as the #1 MLB catcher ever, so I see that as a rout. As for the others, I really don't see contests there, either. Mickey Cochrane was a tremendous catcher, with a very high OBP and about as much foot speed as any catcher ever, plus a great baseball mind; and you've heard all about Berra and Bench.

I think those five guys are almost as "all alone" as the legendary Five Great CF's: (in order of birth): Cobb, Speaker, DiMaggio, Mays and Mantle. We can argue all day about who's #6, Snider long having been the consensus pick, and Griffey being mine, but there's really no doubt who the top 5 are.

I know the top 5 MLB catchers aren't that clear, but in my mind, they're not far behind--until Josh Gibson is included, at which point he runs away with #1, to the same extent Wagner does at SS and Ruth in RF, and then it's the magic #'s 2-6.

I realize this is just my opinion. I realize that while pretty much EVERYBODY agrees with me about The Great Five in CF (unless they're choking on some Time-Line Adjustment), a helluva lot of people have Fisk higher than me, and cut Piazza and/or my #1 man off/down their lists. But unlike the #2-5 positions at some other spots (1B, SS, P), this is one I'm comfortable with.

BHN

[wamby]

LG, am I wrong? I read Speaker's bio very carefully, and reread numerous parts of it. As a favor to Cleveland, despite his own greater-than-Cobb's racist past, Speaker gave one-on-one lessons in CF play to Larry Doby when he came to MLB. That's the truth, and it's something Doby remembered him fondly for when the Reaper took Spoke in 1958, at age 70.

As far as I know, he'd NEVER played CF before. If he had, he'd played it horribly.

BHN

When DOby first moved to the outfield for the Indians, he played RF, and he played it pretty poorly to the point that on Opening Day in 1948, he nearly got hit on the head by a fly ball. To his credit, however, he didn't give up. Doby started off very slowly in 1948 and was probably about to be sent down when he hit a monster HR in Griffith Staium in May. This HR seemed to be a turning point and his play slowly improved. He did benched for a time after it, but he never did get sent down to the minors. Later in '48, he did begin to play CF, effectively moving Judnich to RF and Tucker to the bench.

Doby also struck out a lot, especially early that season. In 1948, striking out was considered to be about the worst thing a batter could do. The Indians had ahigh strikeout power hitter named Pat Seerey, and they traded him because of his strikeouts.

[SABR Matt]

Campanella #1 MLB catcher ever?? Wow.

Just wow.

You like to talk about how much Foxx was helped by his parks...what about Campy? Negro League parks were tiny and poorly maintained...benefiting hitters immensely...and oh BTW Ebbots Field. ehem. MAJOR hitter's park.

[538280]

It boggles my mind how severely underrated Carlton Fisk is.

Period.

Agreed. Campanella over Fisk is ludicrous IMO.

[Fuzzy Bear]

way off in that assessment

how many mvps does fisk have? campy had three - i think that means he was the best player in the league three times not just the best catcher.

campy didn't reach the major because of something i forget what until he was 26.

fisk had a longer major league career - that's true.

Campy had a LOT of fluctuation between the quality of his MVP years and the quality of his off years. I'd count on Fisk to have the better year, even though Campy's best years were better than Fisk's

Campy was pretty much on the downslide when the accident occurred.

Truthfully, I think that if Campy is in the HOF, Al Rosen should be there, too. Look at the stats, look at their peaks, then tell me if I'm nuts.

[SABR Matt]

BTW, Fisk deserved two MVPs according to PCA...screw the voters. They wouldn't know good baseball if it bit them in the arse. Sorry.

[Dodgerfan66]

you have got to be kididng me???

how do you compare campanella to fisk???

campanella's best seasons are better suited as a 1b season.

is julio franco better than juan gonzalez???

campanella led the dodgers to championships.and he won 3 mvp's!!!!!!!!!!!! during the decade he was a much better player than yogi berra (who btw is overated)

really why even compare, when its not even close.

i feel a anti-dodger campaign on these boards

:laugh fisk

[leecemark]

--Why do I get the feeling your all time team would be all Dodgers?

[SABR Matt]

LOL

Yeah...um...might want to look beyond the three great seasons Campanella had and recognize that he pretty much SUCKED otherwise in the majors...well OK that's overstating it a bit, but he was not a very good players when not having one of his three great performances.

[Dodgerfan66]

LOL

Yeah...um...might want to look beyond the three great seasons Campanella had and recognize that he pretty much SUCKED otherwise in the majors...well OK that's overstating it a bit, but he was not a very good players when not having one of his three great performances.

remember he was a catcher, so his numbers arent to be taken at face value.
anyway ops+ of 135,131 and 121 are actually quite good for a C.

[SABR Matt]

Yes...the thing is...Fisk is also a catcher and we're comparing those two. Fisk's great years were every bit as good as Campy's and I strongly believe Fisk was a better fielder.

[Dodgerfan66]

Yes...the thing is...Fisk is also a catcher and we're comparing those two. Fisk's great years were every bit as good as Campy's and I strongly believe Fisk was a better fielder.

but add on to the fact that campy had a better peak.......imo its not close.

[sturg1dj]

before the age of 36 I'd say Campy......but after that Campy started slowing down a little....on account of being paralyzed....haha


too far?

[538280]

Campy probably did have a better peak, but I don't see how it's so clear cut as people are making it out to be. Fisk's best year was 1972, when he had an OPS+ of 162, higher than that of any Campanella season. Fisk had quite a few more seasons when he had OPS+ over 130 in a full season, as well as some part time years over 150. As far as fielding, from what I've heard about them they're probably about equal, I might give the edge to Fisk just because catching required bigger responsiblity in his time because more people were stealing bases. Matt's PCA apparently has Fisk ahead, Win Shares has them the same for best three years. Add that along with Campanella's extreme inconsistency and Fisk's huge edge in longevity and it's a REALLY easy decision for me.

[SABR Matt]

On the issue of who had the better "peak"...each catcher's seasons sorted in descending order of offensive PCA-BA:

Cartlon Fisk

Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1988 298 5.49 0.345
1974 216 3.84 0.341
1972 514 8.54 0.334
1975 294 4.28 0.321
1983 545 7.37 0.315
1978 658 8.74 0.313
1977 632 8.08 0.310
1985 620 7.91 0.310
1990 521 6.52 0.308
1971 49 0.58 0.304
1989 419 4.90 0.303
1980 530 4.66 0.285
1976 557 4.80 0.284
1982 536 4.43 0.282
1981 394 3.02 0.278
1973 558 3.53 0.270
1984 395 2.48 0.270
1987 508 2.74 0.264
1979 340 1.55 0.259
1992 214 0.77 0.253
1991 501 1.54 0.250
1986 491 -1.14 0.217
1993 58 -0.31 0.199

Roy Campanella

Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1951 562 9.01 0.330
1953 590 8.30 0.318
1955 522 7.26 0.317
1949 507 5.74 0.301
1950 494 4.93 0.293
1952 533 4.77 0.286
1948 321 2.55 0.280
1956 461 2.04 0.258
1957 380 1.49 0.255
1954 446 1.03 0.245

Now...I'm trying REALLY hard to see how Campanella's peak was better than Fisk's...

...

...

[Dodgerfan66]

what i see is that campy in his best years was worth more wins than fisk according to your metrics.

[538280]

Looking a bit beyond the OPS+, I think I do now see that Fisk very well might have had the better peak. Areas of offense not covered well in OPS+ are baserunning, obviouisly, and grounding into DPs. Campanella grounded into quite a few DPs, definitely much more per PA than Fisk did. Then baserunning, Fisk was not that fast but did have some years when he stole quite a few bases at a good percentage. Doing a more formal offensive analysis, I now see their best years are really, really close when you take everything into account. Then there's that Campanella was less durable (only two years of 140+ games played), and since his role in catching was not as important, and peak is at least a push.

[538280]

what i see is that campy in his best years was worth more wins than fisk according to your metrics.

PCA
Fisk-8.74, 8.54, 8.08
Campanella-9.01, 8.30, 7.26

Fisk would have a bit higher total on three year peak, and once you start to move beyond that Campy gets buried.

[Dodgerfan66]

PCA
Fisk-8.74, 8.54, 8.08
Campanella-9.01, 8.30, 7.26

Fisk would have a bit higher total on three year peak, and once you start to move beyond that Campy gets buried.

also remember to credit campy for his time in the negro leagues

i say their pretty close in peak but add in the mvp's and his negro league career you got the best catcher of all time.

[iPod]

Dodgerfan,

At how many positions do the Dodgers have the best ever? Starting pitcher (Koufax) and catcher (Campanella) at least, according to you. How many more are there?

[538280]

Dodgerfan,

At how many positions do the Dodgers have the best ever? Starting pitcher (Koufax) and catcher (Campanella) at least, according to you. How many more are there?

Gil Hodges at first base, he said on another thread.

[leecemark]

--Well he says Hodges was better than Gehrig so I assume he is going for 9 of 9. Which Dodger RFer beats out Ruth? Furillo? No wait, it has to be the Dodger's own Babe - the immortal Herman.

[538280]

--Well he says Hodges was better than Gehrig so I assume he is going for 9 of 9. Which Dodger RFer beats out Ruth? Furillo? No wait, it has to be the Dodger's own Babe - the immortal Herman.

He also said the 1992 Dodgers were better than the '27 Yankees. The sad part is that probably woudn't even make his top 10 worst opinions.

[Dodgerfan66]

best manager- lasorda

best closer- gagne

near the top in cf - snider

[sturg1dj]

i would say, though, that my persepective hurts in this case. I've seen Fisk's stats, but he was at his peak before I was born or before I was able to comprehend stuff. I always remembered Fisk as the fat old catcher who hit homeruns.

And Campy was, of course, pretty much sainted...so those two facts get in my way.

[SABR Matt]

Yes...Fisk lost a bit late in his career...but the dude played way more than any other catcher in major league history (talking about fielding appearances at C) and that's not an accident. He was a leader, a good game caller (especially later in his career), a productive hitter, and unusually healthy for a catcher of advanced age.

[flash143817]

i would say, though, that my persepective hurts in this case. I've seen Fisk's stats, but he was at his peak before I was born or before I was able to comprehend stuff. I always remembered Fisk as the fat old catcher who hit homeruns.

And Campy was, of course, pretty much sainted...so those two facts get in my way.

This is very similar to my perspective. Fisk was old, really old, when I remember the end of his career. Really my only memory of his peak career is from highlights obviously, and that was that foul pole HR in 1975. That probably clouds my opinion of this comparison heavily because I never saw the peak Fisk play.

Then of course there is the issue of being a Dodger fan and the aforementioned sainthood of Campy. But I like to think that I can be unbiased enough to look at the numbers and all and say Fisk appears to be better.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I don't see how.

Look at how they did in MVP voting, which Bill James correctly considers a key factor, since it reflects the opinioins of knowledgeable people who carefully watched the man play. Unlike other players, who knew of them mostly by reputation, and saw them not at all if they were in the other league, or 22 times per year if they were in the same league, sportswriters saw them frequently and talked regularly to those who covered them daily.

Campy was a much better defensive catcher, one of the very best, and like Bill James says, he, like Bench, had but one challenger for the greatest throwing arm of his generation. And his arm, like Bench's (and as opposed to Clemente's or Vladimir Guerrero's) was not a cannon which was as likely to misfire as not, resulting in hugely disproportionate numbers of errors. If you give Campy zero credit for all the games he caught from ages 15 thru 19, or 16 thru 19, which seems appropriate, but give him credit for his career from ages 20 through 25--he was born in LATE 1921, and thus was only 25 when robbed by racism of the 1947 season--his career grows to 16 years, all of them before the decline which his paralytic car crash "deprived" him of.

Yes, his offensive seasons ranged from outstanding to abysmal, and he won MVP Awards for the former seasons. But he was the great catcher on the team that won NL pennant in 1949, 1952, 1953, 1955 and 1956. They had other good players on those teams (Furillo, Hodges, Gilliam and Black, e.g.). They aslo had a briefly great pitcher (Newcombe), one of the Top 5 2Bmen of all time (Jackie Robinson), and a player who is arguably MLB's #6 CF (Snyder), though I prefer Griffey for that distinction, and in either event, there is no earthly way they or any other MLB CF can touch The Great 5 (Mays, Cobb, Mantle, Speaker and Joe D.), though a 3-year HGH-free rennaissance could put Griffey past 2 or 3 of those men. Fat chance.

I've made my point enough times on this thread, don't want to bore others, and I've been honest enough to say I have an emotional investiment in this because Campy is not only my all-time #1 MLB catcher, but also by far the most idiosyncratic of my All-Time #1 players at the various nine positions, where many, most or virtually all experts agree with my other picks, save possibly 2B. (P, Grove; 1B, Gehrig, (yawn); 2B, Morgan; SS, Wagner (ultrayawn); 3B, Schmidt (yawn); LF, Williams, if you only count Bonds thru 1999, as I do (yawn); CF, Mays (barely over Cobb, well over the other three legends); and RF, Ruth (ultrayawn).

So yeah, I have an emotional investment in this one. And I appreciate the fact so many of you agree with me about this, especially since it's obviously not for my sake. If 100 top historians were asked to rank Fisk on their top MLB catchers list, I would be dumbfounded if anyone put him #1 or #2, since he never finished higher than #4 in MVP, and only twice finished higher than #8. If longenvity made someone great, there are a LOT of players who would be way up on the top 10 at their respective positions; Brooks Robinson, whose SLG AVG and OBP are mediocre and atrocious, respectively, would be said to have decent offensive stats, to go with having been defensively maybe #1 at 3B, due to his great defensive value.

I pay a lot more attention to "stick around" value than James does, let alone Chris, Jr., and it's why I have Fisk as high as I do. His personal "peak" years certainly do little for him, and we're comparing him to Mr. Peak for catchers, plus a much stronger defender (and I neither know nor care what "defensive metrics" say).

HOWEVER, I easily see cases for ranking: (1) Bench (at least Campy's defensive equal, and remember, I'm old enough I saw him when young... and promptly told my dad the young rookie was the greatest defensive catcher of all time, an outrageous comment he reminded me of, and complimented me for, decades later; (2) Cochrane, the ONLY catcher with a case for being offensively superior to Piazza, and 1,000 times the defender of Fisk, in a career which was still soaring when suffered his nearly-life-ending broken skull on that HBP and forcible retirement at age 34; and (3) James' #1 man, Yogi Berra.

I have no problem with seeing any, or all, of thee guys rated ahead of Campy, I've had all three of them ahead of him at times, and it wasn't until I got here and learned Campy played in multiple Negro League All-Star games that I became solid in picking Campy over all others... except Josh Gibson, whom I comfortably pick as the #1 total backstop of all time.

BHN

[SABR Matt]

BHN...is MVP voting really your only major argument? I respect you a great deal and that is quite disappointing to me.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Carlton Fisk is the greatest catcher of all time. He didn't have the greatest peak (Piazza or Bench, or if you like to rank NgLers, Gibson). He didn't have the best defensive reputation (Pudge or if you really believe Pudge's game caling was a problem, Carter), and he wasn't the most valuable hitter among the catchers (Piazza or Bench), but he was the most perfect blend of longevity, skill in both offense and defense, and leadership qualities of any of the catchers. FAR...FAAARRR moreso than Roy Campanella.

[538280]

I don't see how.

Look at how they did in MVP voting, which Bill James correctly considers a key factor, since it reflects the opinioins of knowledgeable people who carefully watched the man play. Unlike other players, who knew of them mostly by reputation, and saw them not at all if they were in the other league, or 22 times per year if they were in the same league, sportswriters saw them frequently and talked regularly to those who covered them daily.

I don't trust the MVP vote at all. I see how those same people vote for the HOF, I see the choices they make quite regularly, looking at the things they've done I have a real hard time referring to them as "knowledgeable". I'm willing to put some stock in it, it is a good, formalized records of what the contemporary observers thought. But I'm not going to use it much at all.

And the MVP voting is all you have anyway. A careful statistical analysis will reveal that it's just not true.


Campy was a much better defensive catcher, one of the very best, and like Bill James says, he, like Bench, had but one challenger for the greatest throwing arm of his generation. And his arm, like Bench's (and as opposed to Clemente's or Vladimir Guerrero's) was not a cannon which was as likely to misfire as not, resulting in hugely disproportionate numbers of errors. If you give Campy zero credit for all the games he caught from ages 15 thru 19, or 16 thru 19, which seems appropriate, but give him credit for his career from ages 20 through 25--he was born in LATE 1921, and thus was only 25 when robbed by racism of the 1947 season--his career grows to 16 years, all of them before the decline which his paralytic car crash "deprived" him of.

16 years is still very short of what Fisk did, and this is giving him full credit for what would probably be partial years. Not to mention Campanella was only able to play in 130 or more games twice in his ML career. He was not a durable catcher in the majors. As for his arm, it was considered to be extremely strong, but what was that actually doing for his teams, when no one in the league was trying to steal? Fisk was a pretty awesome defensive catcher as well, you know, and he did it for SO much longer.


Yes, his offensive seasons ranged from outstanding to abysmal, and he won MVP Awards for the former seasons. But he was the great catcher on the team that won NL pennant in 1949, 1952, 1953, 1955 and 1956. They had other good players on those teams (Furillo, Hodges, Gilliam and Black, e.g.). They aslo had a briefly great pitcher (Newcombe), one of the Top 5 2Bmen of all time (Jackie Robinson), and a player who is arguably MLB's #6 CF (Snyder), though I prefer Griffey for that distinction, and in either event, there is no earthly way they or any other MLB CF can touch The Great 5 (Mays, Cobb, Mantle, Speaker and Joe D.), though a 3-year HGH-free rennaissance could put Griffey past 2 or 3 of those men. Fat chance.

What does this have to do with Campanella? He had great teammates, why is that a reason to put him over Fisk? If anything it's a reason why he probably won two undeserved MVPs.


I've made my point enough times on this thread, don't want to bore others, and I've been honest enough to say I have an emotional investiment in this because Campy is not only my all-time #1 MLB catcher, but also by far the most idiosyncratic of my All-Time #1 players at the various nine positions, where many, most or virtually all experts agree with my other picks, save possibly 2B. (P, Grove; 1B, Gehrig, (yawn); 2B, Morgan; SS, Wagner (ultrayawn); 3B, Schmidt (yawn); LF, Williams, if you only count Bonds thru 1999, as I do (yawn); CF, Mays (barely over Cobb, well over the other three legends); and RF, Ruth (ultrayawn).

No offense, but Roy Campanella for #1 catcher is ultra idiosyncratic. Even if you give him credit for time in the Negro Leagues, how exactly does that get him ahead of Bench, who probably had the same longevity if you give him the immense credit you seem to do, was much more consistent, won two MVP awards on his own, was at least as good defensively, and every careful statistical analysis has came out with him being better?


I pay a lot more attention to "stick around" value than James does, let alone Chris, Jr., and it's why I have Fisk as high as I do. His personal "peak" years certainly do little for him, and we're comparing him to Mr. Peak for catchers, plus a much stronger defender (and I neither know nor care what "defensive metrics" say).

First, Fisk's "decline" seasons were actually valuable seasons, when he was hitting with at least a 110 or so OPS+ and providing good catcher defense. That's a VERY good player. It's certainly a lot better than to just retire like most catchers do.

And I know we've already been over this a bit, but I don't see Campanella as "Mr.Peak" for catchers at all. I see Bench, Berra, Cochrane, Piazza, Carter, and Fisk ALL having better peaks than Campanella.

[baseballPAP]

Huh. I just checked my of ratings, and I do in fact have Fisk ahead, despite my voting for Campy. They're 5 and 6, behind Gibson, Bench, Berra and Piazza (and Cochrane #7). I can't agree with Matt and say Fisk is #1....longetivity is dfeinately important, and moreso from a catcher than anywhere I'd say, but it doesn't do it for me completely. Also, the same years that I rated Campy pretty good despite being off years for him....well, to be fair, Fisk had about 10 of those type years in a row at the end....so I have to give him credit there too. Actually, the more I think about it, Bench was the same type of catcher the last 4 or 5 years....when he wasn't playing 3B that is. His defense was about 2 steps above either IMO, enough to give him a clear #2 overall. I'm seriously considering dropping Berra down a slot or 2 though....maybe between Fisk and Campy ultimately.

Sorry Jim....hate to leave the team in the middle of a fight :) But then again, if I don't stand by my ratings, what good are they?

[SABR Matt]

I'm probably the only person who has done any kind of serious study who rates Fisk #1 all time, so I can understand the skepticism. I have doubts myself about him being better than Bench, but every method I use insists that he was.

I believe the differences between my rating method and everyone else's are twofold.

1) I don't use arbitrarily chosen numbers of years to measure peak performance. The half-life method recognizes that players with different career lengths must be looked at different when diagnosing peak performance. If you last only 10 years...you shouldn't look at the best 7 of those years because that's most of your career. If you last 20 years, you should look at MORE than 7 years because your peak should be required to last longer given the bulk of your playing time.

2) I don't use year "ranges"...such as the best consecutive 5 or 8 years. Fisk has a problem if you do that as do a LOT of catchers. Catching is so demanding because it causes a lot of injuries and can lead to missed playing time in the middle of a player's prime as it did with Fisk. If you start looking at year windows you're going to screw over perfectly good catchers who couldn't avoid the injury bug at age 30 who nonetheless had long and durable careers when comparing them to catchers who happened to bunch their productive years together.

[538280]

1) I don't use arbitrarily chosen numbers of years to measure peak performance. The half-life method recognizes that players with different career lengths must be looked at different when diagnosing peak performance. If you last only 10 years...you shouldn't look at the best 7 of those years because that's most of your career. If you last 20 years, you should look at MORE than 7 years because your peak should be required to last longer given the bulk of your playing time.


I understand that you do not want to be arbitrary in anything you do, but this is not what peak value is supposed to be. Peak value is supposed to be how much value a player has in his absolute best seasons, the highest level of seasons he has. It should not be any more than five years no mattter how long the player's career length is. Career length should have nothing to do with peak. The "peak" by definition is the highest point of a player's career.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I don't trust the MVP vote at all. I see how those same people vote for the HOF, I see the choices they make quite regularly, looking at the things they've done I have a real hard time referring to them as "knowledgeable". I'm willing to put some stock in it, it is a good, formalized records of what the contemporary observers thought. But I'm not going to use it much at all.

And the MVP voting is all you have anyway. A careful statistical analysis will reveal that it's just not true.

16 years is still very short of what Fisk did, and this is giving him full credit for what would probably be partial years. Not to mention Campanella was only able to play in 130 or more games twice in his ML career. He was not a durable catcher in the majors. As for his arm, it was considered to be extremely strong, but what was that actually doing for his teams, when no one in the league was trying to steal? Fisk was a pretty awesome defensive catcher as well, you know, and he did it for SO much longer.

What does this have to do with Campanella? He had great teammates, why is that a reason to put him over Fisk? If anything it's a reason why he probably won two undeserved MVPs.

No offense, but Roy Campanella for #1 catcher is ultra idiosyncratic. Even if you give him credit for time in the Negro Leagues, how exactly does that get him ahead of Bench, who probably had the same longevity if you give him the immense credit you seem to do, was much more consistent, won two MVP awards on his own, was at least as good defensively, and every careful statistical analysis has came out with him being better?

First, Fisk's "decline" seasons were actually valuable seasons, when he was hitting with at least a 110 or so OPS+ and providing good catcher defense. That's a VERY good player. It's certainly a lot better than to just retire like most catchers do.

And I know we've already been over this a bit, but I don't see Campanella as "Mr.Peak" for catchers at all. I see Bench, Berra, Cochrane, Piazza, Carter, and Fisk ALL having better peaks than Campanella.


I, like Bill James, trust the MVP vote a LOT--not for its determination of who's #1 in a given year (see, e.g., A.L. in 1979), a determination usually based on favoritism--but for its determination of whether a player's among the elites. Your boy never finished higher than fourth, and only twice finished higher than eighth. Campy won the award 3 times from old, veteran, white sportswriters of the early 50's, and I believe you have enough sense of American/baseball history not to require further explanation of that statement.

What you haven't done, but need to do, is realize that what Joe Morgan was to the Big Red Machine, Campy was to the great Brooklyn teams, whose run of winning in 1947, 1949, 1952, 1953, 1955 and 1956 abruptly ended with that car accident--two years before the move to L.A. proved Duke Snider to have been an "Ebbetts Field star."

And no offense to you, either, but you are being ultra-idiosyncratic on this topic--except, of course, in the perennial sense that you're picking the more modern player.

Since when do you go for a guy who ranged from mediocre to good, and played for an eternity? I thought you were the guy who felt such players, and especially their longevity, had little or no value. I've often defended such players to you, and would have expected I'd need to defend to you the fact Fisk is in my Top 10 catchers. Of course, I forgot he was 30 years younger. (By the way, did you know Willie Mays was closer in time to Babe Ruth [36 years] than to Ken Griffey, Jr. [38 years]?)

Catcher is a unique position in that, among many other things, there are real physical limitations on how many games a man can play there. Campy played a huge number of those games before he got to the majors, and was a multiple All-Star catcher in the Negro Leagues. Then, when he did get to MLB, he didn't "just" win 3 MVP Awards, he was the kind of defensive catcher Fisk could only dream of being.

Now, I've said all of this before and I'll stop repeating myself, I promise. The point of this post is, I'm not the one being idiosyncratic here, so much as you are. Fisk is EXACTLY the kind of player you're usually brutal on, and dismissive of, except of course that he's a lot more modern than the man you're comparing him to. I realize that's the Big One.

BHN

[538280]

I, like Bill James, trust the MVP vote a LOT--not for its determination of who's #1 in a given year (see, e.g., A.L. in 1979), a determination usually based on favoritism--but for its determination of whether a player's among the elites. Your boy never finished higher than fourth, and only twice finished higher than eighth. Campy won the award 3 times from old, veteran, white sportswriters of the early 50's, and I believe you have enough sense of American/baseball history not to require further explanation of that statement.

There is no evidence whatsoever the sportswriters of that time were racist, or if they are it doesn't show in the results. There were exactly two white NL MVPs in the 50s-Jim Konstanty in 1950 and Hank Sauer in 1952, and both of those were before the league was totally integrated, and before Mays/Aaron. I disagree with you the MVP vote is very useful, but I doubt I'll ever convince you there. Agree to disagree.


What you haven't done, but need to do, is realize that what Joe Morgan was to the Big Red Machine, Campy was to the great Brooklyn teams, whose run of winning in 1947, 1949, 1952, 1953, 1955 and 1956 abruptly ended with that car accident--two years before the move to L.A. proved Duke Snider to have been an "Ebbetts Field star."

The Dodgers actually won before they got Campanella, and won after he left. They won the pennant in 1947 and 1949, before they got Campanella, and after he got in the car wreck they still won the World Series without him in 1959. That is not the same with Joe Morgan, never mind the fact that Joe Morgan was a ridiculously better player at his peak.


And no offense to you, either, but you are being ultra-idiosyncratic on this topic--except, of course, in the perennial sense that you're picking the more modern player.

Since when do you go for a guy who ranged from mediocre to good, and played for an eternity? I thought you were the guy who felt such players, and especially their longevity, had little or no value. I've often defended such players to you, and would have expected I'd need to defend to you the fact Fisk is in my Top 10 catchers. Of course, I forgot he was 30 years younger. (By the way, did you know Willie Mays was closer in time to Babe Ruth [36 years] than to Ken Griffey, Jr. [38 years]?)

When have I ever said this? I am not a heavy peak voter at all, maybe at best a slightly lean towards peak. I certainly award longevity and hang around value-I think the longer a player lasts the better. And Fisk was still definitely contributing to his teams in his decline, even if he wasn't as good as he used to be.



Now, I've said all of this before and I'll stop repeating myself, I promise. The point of this post is, I'm not the one being idiosyncratic here, so much as you are. Fisk is EXACTLY the kind of player you're usually brutal on, and dismissive of, except of course that he's a lot more modern than the man you're comparing him to. I realize that's the Big One.

BHN

I don't really understand where you get the impression I'm usually brutal on players like Fisk.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

BHN...is MVP voting really your only major argument? I respect you a great deal and that is quite disappointing to me.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Carlton Fisk is the greatest catcher of all time. He didn't have the greatest peak (Piazza or Bench, or if you like to rank NgLers, Gibson). He didn't have the best defensive reputation (Pudge or if you really believe Pudge's game caling was a problem, Carter), and he wasn't the most valuable hitter among the catchers (Piazza or Bench), but he was the most perfect blend of longevity, skill in both offense and defense, and leadership qualities of any of the catchers. FAR...FAAARRR moreso than Roy Campanella.

No, it's not my only argument.

Campy spent his physical prime catching tons of games in the Negro Leagues, and was good enough to make multiple All-Star games there, at a time when the Negro Leagues included OTHER men who later could be argued as the greatest ever at their positions. I think he's entitled to 6 years of credit for those seasons.

And he was a terrific defensive catcher--a lot better than Fisk, IMO.

Also, it's not just that Campy won 3 MVP's from aging, white sportswriters who generally harbored the racial attitudes of their times.

It's also how Fisk did in the MVP voting in his long career: He was a non-factor.

That's a lot more than one thing. Fisk hit a very famous HR. We've all seen it a trillion times. I'll never forget that game, and that HR was beyond dramatic.

He was the kind of player I normally defend against all sorts of slings and arrows around here, mainly from Chris, Jr.--a guy who played forever, but had no real peak seasons, just a long and steady career of being good or fairly good. I like such players, and that's why I have Fisk clearly in my Top 10--and probably ahead of Dickey, e.g.

But I would not think of putting him on Campy's pedestal. And while I've admitted I have a sort of emotional investment in this one, it's not a big investment: I'm a Giants fan, hate the Dodgers and never saw Campy play, since I was 3 at the time of his accident.

Incidentally, in the interests of fairness and full disclosure, let me mention this:

Although Bill James rates Fisk 5th or 6th (6th, I think) in his 2001 super-abstract, he writes at great length that an argument can be made for rating Fisk much higher, and--coincidentally--that a particular argument can be made for rating Fisk well ahead of Campy, whom James rates #3. So he agrees with me, but he very much sees your case.

BHN

[LouGehrig]

you have got to be kididng me???

how do you compare campanella to fisk???

campanella's best seasons are better suited as a 1b season.

is julio franco better than juan gonzalez???

campanella led the dodgers to championships.and he won 3 mvp's!!!!!!!!!!!! during the decade he was a much better player than yogi berra (who btw is overated)

really why even compare, when its not even close.

i feel a anti-dodger campaign on these boards

:laugh fisk

I don't think there is an anti BROOKLYN campaign on these boards, and anyone who really is upset with the Los Angeles NL team pretty much ignores it.

To say that Campanella was a much better player than Yogi is ridiculous. I had many discussions at the time (1950s), and it was pretty much agreed that they were equal. Campanella had a small ball park and Yogi had a short porch.

I am biased so I take Yogi, but Campanella was one of the best of the best. Again, you had to see them to believe them. Campanella was as fast defensively as any catcher who ever played the game.

He was a great handler of pitchers, knew the game better than almost anyone, and the only reason, and this I know from seeing, reading, and talking to others, he had some bad offensive years was because he WAS HURT. When he was healthy, he was great. And he still won 3 MVPs.

You know why he won three MVPs? Because for those three seasons, he WAS the most valuable player in the league. That's why.

[LouGehrig]

But I like to think that I can be unbiased enough to look at the numbers and all and say Fisk appears to be better.

There was much more to Campanella than numbers.

[LouGehrig]

I think Campy was better at his peak, even though he had those .207 and .219 seasons in the middle of it. My dad saw him play a lot and to this day he thinks Campy and Bench were basically equals at their peak. I think Bench was better, but even he had a couple of off years in the early 70's.

Fisk was probably more valuable because of his career productivity. Campy is certainly the hardest C for me to rank - I've relied more on opinions for him because of the time spent in the Negro Leagues, and since most of the opinions are so glowing, I've always had him ahead of Fisk. I'll probably re-evaluate my rankings soon.

You can add the opinion of a Yankees fan who rooted vehemently against Brooklyn but a Yankees fan who respected and feared them just as vehemently.

I saw most of Campanella's Brooklyn career and much of Fisk's career. There is no comparison. Campanella was clearly better.

The statistics do not show intangibles. You wouldn't want to go against Campanella or Robinson when the game was on the line. It really is that simple.

[LouGehrig]

My gut was to vote Campy, but the arguments for Fisk have been good in his favor. I don't know if I can cast a vote here.

But 2 curious things came to mind reading this thread:

1. What caused Campy's terrible years in between his MVP seasons? He would go from awesome to terrible every other year? Any particular reason for this?

Campanella hurt his hand and that hindered him at bat.

[LouGehrig]

It boggles my mind how severely underrated Carlton Fisk is.

Period.

And it boggles my mind how severely overrated Carlton Fisk is. But I have a strange mind.

[LouGehrig]

Truthfully, I think that if Campy is in the HOF, Al Rosen should be there, too. Look at the stats, look at their peaks, then tell me if I'm nuts.

You are not nuts, but there is more than just comparing statistics. Campanella played a difficult position and there were few strong hitting catchers. Most were there because of their defense.

Rosen was great for a short period of time and never was a great defensive player. He learned to play third and became a pretty good defensive third baseman, but he was never near the best defensively.

Ironically, just as Campanella's hitting was affected by a bad hand, Rosen hurt his finger and that hurt him greatly (figuratively and literally).

Rosen is not a Hall of Famer.

[LouGehrig]

LOL

Yeah...um...might want to look beyond the three great seasons Campanella had and recognize that he pretty much SUCKED otherwise in the majors...well OK that's overstating it a bit, but he was not a very good players when not having one of his three great performances.


Matt, go read the NY Times daily articles about Brooklyn from about 1949-1956 to get a feeling of how great Campanella was and how much he contributed to the team when he sucked.

[LouGehrig]

I strongly believe Fisk was a better fielder.

Those who saw Campanella and those who saw them both would believe you believe wrong.

[538280]

You can add the opinion of a Yankees fan who rooted vehemently against Brooklyn but a Yankees fan who respected and feared them just as vehemently.

I saw most of Campanella's Brooklyn career and much of Fisk's career. There is no comparison. Campanella was clearly better.

The statistics do not show intangibles. You wouldn't want to go against Campanella or Robinson when the game was on the line. It really is that simple.

Well while we're playing the "I saw the guy so no one can dare refute what I say" game, my father has lived here in MA most of his life and has been watching baseball since 1965. He thinks Fisk was an awesome catcher, arguably the best he's even seen, with only Bench being comparable. He never saw Campanella, but he certainly was impressed by Fisk.

[leecemark]

You can add the opinion of a Yankees fan who rooted vehemently against Brooklyn but a Yankees fan who respected and feared them just as vehemently.

I saw most of Campanella's Brooklyn career and much of Fisk's career. There is no comparison. Campanella was clearly better.

The statistics do not show intangibles. You wouldn't want to go against Campanella or Robinson when the game was on the line. It really is that simple.

--Your team went up against them with the season on the line quite a few times and beat them. The Dodger's teams may well have had more talent than the Yankee teams they lost to every fall. That does not speak well to their intangibles.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Well while we're playing the "I saw the guy so no one can dare refute what I say" game, my father has lived here in MA most of his life and has been watching baseball since 1965. He thinks Fisk was an awesome catcher, arguably the best he's even seen, with only Bench being comparable. He never saw Campanella, but he certainly was impressed by Fisk.

I saw all of Carlton Fisk's career. I saw him on TV I-don't-know-how-many times, and not just in his long fade-out in Chicago. It is preposterous to suggest he was of the same caliber defensively as Johnny Bench. Just preposterous. Johnny Bench is one of the very few (as in, count them on one hand and have digits left over) MLB catchers with a case for having been defensively greater than Campanella. Jim Sundberg is another. Carlton Fisk is not.

Carlton Fisk is in the middle part of my Top 10 catchers (#6 or #7) because I respect players who are good for a long time--a lot more than you normally do, Chris. But please, PLEASE can it with the suggestions he was the defensive equal of Roy Campanella or, for god's sake, Johnny Bench.

Having had time to think some more after making this post, I now have a couple of points to add to it:

FIRST, while "fielding percentage compared to period norm" and "range factor" are not the end-all-and-be-all for any defensive position, Campy blows Fisk away in both--despite the fact Fisk is very impressive in both categories. For his career, Fisk made 14.3% fewer errors than his average contemporary catcher, and that counts for a lot with me. With just an average pitching rotation, I'd win some pennants with that kind of fielding. But for HIS career, Campy made 25% fewer errors than his average contemporary catcher, which is awesome.

Likewise, I show Fisk with a career "range factor" that is about 9% better than his average contemporary catcher... again, a very impressive figure which adds up to a huge number of plays he made that others didn't, and which is all the more impressive when you remember how big a catcher he was. But Campy's career range factor was a whopping 28.3% better than his average contemporary catcher, which is so good it's ridiculous.

SECOND, re his proneness to injuries, and thus to lengthy hitting slumps, I would point out that this SHOULD be something we perceive as having occurred in the twilight of his career, and it WOULD be such a thing, were it not for segregation. Had he come up when he should have been allowed to come up--at about age 20, like all great players back then did--those MVP seasons might have been his unprecedented 2nd, 3rd and 4th, or even his 3rd, 4th and 5th, and those injuries would rightly be viewed today as those of an aging, but still defensively great, veteran.

Do they reduce his offensive career value all the same? Of course they do. But keep those six stolen seasons in mind--rightly giving him zero credit on the back end, for seasons missed after the accident--and you won't feel they reduce his value as much as you presently do.

Finally, if I'm coming off as though I'm positive I'm right about the bottom line here, I've said repeatedly I'm not. I DO rate Campy as the #1 catcher ever, and anyone who thinks that's an insane position is just wrong. But for sure, at least Bench, Berra, Cochrane (who may have been as fast as Campy, and had a .419-and-rising career OBP when that pitch almost killed him and ended his career) and Piazza also have claims to greatest MLB catcher ever. And Bill James, after rating Campy three slots ahead of Fisk, proceeded to write a long essay about how easily one could go the other way and put Fisk ahead of Campy. (See Fisk rating in James huge 2001 Abstract.)

I don't think anyone who's picked Fisk as the better total player is perforce wrong, much less shallow or easily misled. But I DO think anyone who says Fisk was defensively better is just plain wrong. And not by a little bit.

[leecemark]

--I also saw Fisk play alot and agree he was good, rather than great, defensively. Campanella was before my time so I know him only by reputation. That is enough for me to be fairly confident that he was a superior defender to Pudge. Fisk's advantage is all in the weight of his career, which is pretty massive.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Well, at least it's good to see people credit a player whose value lies in a long, steady career, rather than a brief period of brilliance, for a change. I am mightily tired of seeing such players brushed aside around here.

[Ubiquitous]

Originally Posted by LouGehrig
You can add the opinion of a Yankees fan who rooted vehemently against Brooklyn but a Yankees fan who respected and feared them just as vehemently.

I saw most of Campanella's Brooklyn career and much of Fisk's career. There is no comparison. Campanella was clearly better.

The statistics do not show intangibles. You wouldn't want to go against Campanella or Robinson when the game was on the line. It really is that simple

Odd I never thought I would see Carlton Fisk lose an intangibles battle. Isn't that half his value?

[SABR Matt]

Fisk doesn't need intangibles to be the "greatest" catcher of all time. Notice I didn't say best. There are catchers who were better when they were good than Fisk when he was...greatness is about more than just how you are in your prime.

I need to add that to my most commited opinions in the MOO post.

[Sockeye]

Fisk is better for his longevity.

[RuthMayBond]

Matt, go read the NY Times daily articles about Brooklyn from about 1949-1956 to get a feeling of how great Campanella was and how much he contributed to the team when he sucked.Where do you have Campy ranked defensively?

[LouGehrig]

Based only what I have seen and read, most sportswriters rated Campanella ahead of Yogi by a slight margin, but Yogi made two fantastic plays on sacrifice bunt attempts with runners on first and second and none outs in either the 1952 or 1953 WS, getting the runner at third each time, and after that it was pick 'em.

I am not really sure where Campanella ranks defensively since it is so much more subjective than ranking players on offense and there have been so many great defensive catchers who couldn't hit much.

I guess I would place Campanella in the top 10-15, but that is taking into account catchers such as Sundberg, Girardi, Westrum, Lopez, and Grote, who are never mentioned when one ranks all around, all time great catchers.

How about your rankings?

[RuthMayBond]

Based only what I have seen and read, most sportswriters rated Campanella ahead of Yogi by a slight margin, but Yogi made two fantastic plays on sacrifice bunt attempts with runners on first and second and none outs in either the 1952 or 1953 WS, getting the runner at third each time, and after that it was pick 'em.

I am not really sure where Campanella ranks defensively since it is so much more subjective than ranking players on offense and there have been so many great defensive catchers who couldn't hit much.

I guess I would place Campanella in the top 10-15, but that is taking into account catchers such as Sundberg, Girardi, Westrum, Lopez, and Grote, who are never mentioned when one ranks all around, all time great catchers.

How about your rankings?Well, I don't have Westrum very high up. I've been going by career so probably IRod, Bench, Carter, CZimmer, Berra, Pena, Bob Boone, Hartnett, PSnyder and LCriger. If we're going more by peak then possibly IRod, Bench, CZimmer, Berra, Hartnett, PSnyder, LCriger, Dickey, Ausmus & Schalk

[THE OX]

I voted for Campanella, but I'd be delirious with joy to have EITHER of them on my team!

Campy's bad seasons with a bat in his hands were attributed at the time to various hand injuries.

[Dodgerfan66]

why is this still a disscussion????

!mods!??

[RuthMayBond]

why is this still a disscussion????

!mods!??Why are they letting you stay on the board?

[Dodgerfan66]

Why are they letting you stay on the board?


because im on a misson to delete the yankee biases on this board!

[RuthMayBond]

because im on a misson to delete the yankee biases on this board!You'd actually have some credibility if you'd delete the Dodger biases first

[Dodgerfan66]

You'd actually have some credibility if you'd delete the Dodger biases first

im not biased, i just look i am while trying to put yankees in their place.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Why are they letting you stay on the board?

This is a good question. There is a point beyond which the right to have an opinion and express it turns into the non-right to be ridiculous and simply repeat the same patent nonsense over and over and over again, not because one really believes it, but because one wants to annoy other people.

I only ask that people not condemn my viewpoint by association with this jokester when I say that I believe Campanella, when given credit for six years lost to institutionalized racism, was a greater player than Yogi Berra.

Obviously the idea of rating Duke "Ebbetts Field Special" Snider over DiMaggio is insupportable, and the idea of rating Hodges over Gehrig can only be a joke, as no fan could be that insane.

[AlecBoy006]

Extremely tough- But Campanella had the crew around him. I vote him.

[Dodgerfan66]

why is this a disscussion!

campenalla is the greatest catcher of all time....look at that peak!

[Sliding Billy]

im not biased, i just look i am while trying to put yankees in their place.
You are embarrassing other Dodger fans. Save it for talk radio.

[AlecBoy006]

I would put Bench ahead of Campanella

[RuthMayBond]

Extremely tough- But Campanella had the crew around him. I vote him.Doesn't that make it EASIER to look better, and maybe overrated?

[RuthMayBond]

why is this a disscussion!

campenalla is the greatest catcher of all time....look at that peak!All four years :D and pay no attention to the decline behind the curtain