Bill Dickey or Yogi Berra?

[bigbadwolf]

I will not say that what you say is not true. But imagine that Dickey would have been on the teams that Berra won the titles with and Berra would have been on Dickey's teams, I wonder what you would have said then.

I just think that one should not look at a couple (OK, five in this case) of WS rings to decide who was the greatest player.

What if a Berra type player would play on a team like last year's Royals for his career. The guy would be good or maybe awesome, but no WS rings. Would that make him a lesser catcher then?

You make way to many assumptions. Players must compete with whoever is on their team and whatever team they are on. Ifs, ands, and buts don't cut it. I deal with was has actually happened. The players playing as a group, and not playing as individuals is what determines the best.

[Yankeebiscuitfan]

You make way to many assumptions. Players must compete with whoever is on their team and whatever team they are on. Ifs, ands, and buts don't cut it. I deal with was has actually happened. The players playing as a group, and not playing as individuals is what determines the best.

I only make assumptions to make clear that a player is depending on his team mates. If a good catcher plays on a lousy team, he will not win any WS rings.

Berra apparently played on more better teams than Dickey, otherwise Berra would not have won 10 WS rings.

Again: I am not saying that one of both was better than the other. I only try to make clear that looking to WS rings, when trying to find out who was better, is too easy.

[bigbadwolf]

I only make assumptions to make clear that a player is depending on his team mates. If a good catcher plays on a lousy team, he will not win any WS rings.

Berra apparently played on more better teams than Dickey, otherwise Berra would not have won 10 WS rings.

Again: I am not saying that one of both was better than the other. I only try to make clear that looking to WS rings, when trying to find out who was better, is too easy.

I understand your view point. But the game is not as complicated as many would like to believe. Winning WS rings for a team is why the game is played. When one says one player only won because of who he played with, can be said singly about each one of the players on a WS team. Did ford win because of Larsen or Turley or Raschi or Reynolds. Did Berra win because of Mantle, Bauer, Skowran, Howard. They all won as a team and earned their rightful recognition as anyone who helps thier team win. the players who over their career help their team win the most are the greatest in the game. It does not have to be complicated or convoluted as many seem to wish it to be.

[Yankeebiscuitfan]

I understand your view point. But the game is not as complicated as many would like to believe. Winning WS rings for a team is why the game is played. When one says one player only won because of who he played with, can be said singly about each one of the players on a WS team. Did ford win because of Larsen or Turley or Raschi or Reynolds. Did Berra win because of Mantle, Bauer, Skowran, Howard. They all won as a team and earned their rightful recognition as anyone who helps thier team win. the players who over their career help their team win the most are the greatest in the game. It does not have to be complicated or convoluted as many seem to wish it to be.

In some way you are right. But I simply do not agree with you completely.

But since I will keep repeating myself, I don't think it makes sense to go on. You understand what I mean and that is fine with me.

[whoisonit]

The greatest of the great are defined by winning. Always has, is now, and always will be.

But what about players who end up collecting rings even though they're terrible at their position ? They just happened to be in the right place at the right time ?
Being lucky doesn't make you "great".

[Captain Cold Nose]

But what about players who end up collecting rings even though they're terrible at their position ? They just happened to be in the right place at the right time ?
Being lucky doesn't make you "great".

It makes you Charley Silvera.

[bigbadwolf]

But what about players who end up collecting rings even though they're terrible at their position ? They just happened to be in the right place at the right time ?
Being lucky doesn't make you "great".

Like who. What do you mean 'terrible at their position?" A spare infielder or spare outfielder should be judged for just what role he played on the team, and should be compared to like players on other teams. He should not be compared to starters on other teams. compare apples to apples and you will always come out with the best when they prove their ability on the field by helping their team win the WS. Being in the right place at the right time is earned by what one does with the chance to be in the right place at the right time.

[mikeymussina35]

Yogi no doubts

[johnnypapa]

It makes you Charley Silvera.

lol....wonder how Silvera would have been full time. From what I have read...he was perfectly happy in his role and picking up those WS checks....

[bigbadwolf]

lol....wonder how Silvera would have been full time. From what I have read...he was perfectly happy in his role and picking up those WS checks....

You have just described the perfect role player. Happy with what he is doing and contributing to the teams succes in the manner the team needs him.