Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Where do you have Bill Dickey?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by 1905 Giants View Post
    I did a similar thread about Mike Piazza's defense rated against HoFers, so I wanted to do so again but as an overall effort with someone that might be considered underrated: Bill Dickey.

    Again, here is the official list of those the HoF considers catchers:
    Johnny Bench
    Yogi Berra
    Roger Bresnahan
    Roy Campanella
    Gary Carter
    Mickey Cochrane
    Bill Dickey
    Buck Ewing
    Rick Ferrell
    Carlton Fisk
    Josh Gibson
    Gabby Hartnet
    Ernie Lombardi
    Biz Mackey
    Mike Piazza
    Ivan Rodriguez
    Louis Santop
    Ray Schalk
    Ted Simmons

    So where do you rank Dickey as an overall player?
    I think he's probably behind Gibson, Bench, Berra, Carter, Piazza, Rodriguez, Fisk, and probably tied with Cochrane and Harnett here. (Campanella is too hard to be put into consideration due to his short playing span and inconsistencies)

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by jerrylu42 View Post

      I think he's probably behind Gibson, Bench, Berra, Carter, Piazza, Rodriguez, Fisk, and probably tied with Cochrane and Harnett here. (Campanella is too hard to be put into consideration due to his short playing span and inconsistencies)
      Dickey vs. Berra is, by the accounts of others, quite close. Are they close with you?
      “There can be no higher law in journalism than to tell the truth and to shame the devil.” Walter Lippmann

      "How the #### are you supposed to hit that ####?" Mickey Mantle after striking out against Sandy Koufax in the 1963 World Series.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Chadwick View Post
        I have Dickey in the 6-10 range, above contemporaries Cochrane and Hartnett.
        That's about right. Closer to 6 than 10. Possibly behind Cochrane.

        3 6 10 21 29 31 35 41 42 44 47

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by 1905 Giants View Post

          Dickey vs. Berra is, by the accounts of others, quite close. Are they close with you?
          Actually , I have Berra No. 2 on my all time list just after Bench in part due to his iconic position as the true leader of the Yankees Dynasty under the great Casey Stengel. In my opinion, Berra leading a team to 10 rings with the amount of the talent the Yankees had during the 50s is much more difficult when compared to Dickey's 7 rings during an era where the Yankees had so much more talented players than the rest of the league. In terms of stats both traditional and advanced though, I agree they were close but Berra simply had better longevity. Dickey is probably around 7~9 all time in my catchers' rankings.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by 1905 Giants View Post

            I think Hartnett is quite underrated.
            I’m surprised how Cochrane has fallen in stature. I have him ahead of Dickey and Hartnett - who I agree is underrated.

            I looked and I have my pHoF ‘25-60 catchers in order:

            Gibson
            Berra
            Mackey
            Cochrane
            Campanella
            Hartnett
            Dickey
            Lombardi
            Trouppe
            Last edited by bluesky5; 01-13-2021, 09:05 PM.
            "No matter how great you were once upon a time — the years go by, and men forget,” - W. A. Phelon in Baseball Magazine in 1915. “Ross Barnes, forty years ago, was as great as Cobb or Wagner ever dared to be. Had scores been kept then as now, he would have seemed incomparably marvelous.”

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by willshad View Post

              Campanella is a tough one for me. A late start, combined with a somewhat early decline and year to year inconsistency makes for a career that ends up having three or four or maybe five great seasons and very little else ( HOF-wise). Combine that with HUGE home/road splits and I'm like nahhhhh. Then, you consider that he could have a bunch of NeL credit, had some of the greatest seasons ever at the position, and might have the best throwing arm of any catcher ever, and I'm like, well, maybe...

              It all depends how much you weigh peak, and if you give him credit for his time before the majors.
              Campanella played ten years in the Negro Leagues, I think. Too lazy to check BBR, yet again. As memory serves me, he's still the career leader in percentage of base runners caught stealing. He might have been the best all-around catcher ever. Assigning values to historical players isn't an exact science.

              As for Dickey, it'd be interesting to see how much his game calling impacted his pitchers. Red Ruffing famously moved from Fenway to Yankee Stadium, as a right handed pitcher, yet became more effective, just in terms of peripherals. I would guess other pitchers coming to the Yankees saw improvement? I wouldn't be surprised if calling games and framing pitches was a Bill Dickey strength.


              "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Mongoose View Post

                Campanella played ten years in the Negro Leagues, I think. Too lazy to check BBR, yet again. As memory serves me, he's still the career leader in percentage of base runners caught stealing. He might have been the best all-around catcher ever. Assigning values to historical players isn't an exact science.

                As for Dickey, it'd be interesting to see how much his game calling impacted his pitchers. Red Ruffing famously moved from Fenway to Yankee Stadium, as a right handed pitcher, yet became more effective, just in terms of peripherals. I would guess other pitchers coming to the Yankees saw improvement? I wouldn't be surprised if calling games and framing pitches was a Bill Dickey strength.
                I’d imagine that was the “experience” he was “learning” Yogi Berra. Thing about Dickey to me is that he wasn’t as important to his teams as Hartnett, Cochrane or Mackey - through no fault of his own of course. I take it into account. All four had similar skill sets and played in many World Series. There was more pressure on the former two (both player/managed teams to pennants) which moves them ahead of Dickey for me. For instance I also think Lombardi was more essential to the Reds but Dickey is an obviously superior player due to being a much better defender than Ernie. Biz Mackey had incredible longevity compared to the rest and trained young Roy Campanella.

                "No matter how great you were once upon a time — the years go by, and men forget,” - W. A. Phelon in Baseball Magazine in 1915. “Ross Barnes, forty years ago, was as great as Cobb or Wagner ever dared to be. Had scores been kept then as now, he would have seemed incomparably marvelous.”

                Comment


                • #23
                  Just a note on Hartnett's 4 World Series if we're using them here. He lost all 4.

                  I ind it explicably odd how people use World Series appearances as a barometor for greatness considering how much of a team game it is. Can a player by themself field all 9 positions, pitch, hit for power, OBP, and average and throw? Even Babe Ruth couldn't do that, or even come close. Without decent pitching there is no dynasty same without decent fielding or hitting. You don't have to nail down every aspect of the game but you do have to do them. Ruth without a supporting cast ends up like Ralph Kiner, of whom it was of course said "we can finish last without you".
                  Last edited by 1905 Giants; 01-14-2021, 06:30 AM.
                  “There can be no higher law in journalism than to tell the truth and to shame the devil.” Walter Lippmann

                  "How the #### are you supposed to hit that ####?" Mickey Mantle after striking out against Sandy Koufax in the 1963 World Series.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by bluesky5 View Post

                    I’d imagine that was the “experience” he was “learning” Yogi Berra. Thing about Dickey to me is that he wasn’t as important to his teams as Hartnett, Cochrane or Mackey - through no fault of his own of course. I take it into account. All four had similar skill sets and played in many World Series. There was more pressure on the former two (both player/managed teams to pennants) which moves them ahead of Dickey for me. For instance I also think Lombardi was more essential to the Reds but Dickey is an obviously superior player due to being a much better defender than Ernie. Biz Mackey had incredible longevity compared to the rest and trained young Roy Campanella.
                    I agree here. Dickey and Hartnett to me are extremely similar in their career values and skill sets. Dickey might have a slight edge on the offensive side while Hartnett might have a slight edge on the defensive side.

                    Dickey led an all time great talented team in the Yankees to multiple rings while playing the most important position on the field with great offensive production and also guiding their pitching staff to many successful seasons.

                    Hartnett is more significant in his own teams as he needs to shoulder the responsibilities of being one of the most important offensive players as his teams weren't as talented as Dickey's. He even needed to be more of a manager on his teams as there weren't as many leaders from his teams when compared to the great Yankees teams. I think him leading his teams to 4 WS is certainly a GREAT achievement already and there should be nothing to blame on his side for all those unfortunate losses.

                    I think the greatest offensive catcher of them all is Cochrane as he was one hell of a high average batter on his teams while also demonstrating strong leadership, taking his great A's teams to legendary levels guiding the pitching stuff led by Grove and then even bringing the Tigers into the postseason due to his superb managing abilities. His defensive abilities and longevity might be hits in his legacy, but I personally have him higher than the former two.

                    As for Campanella, he was the best all round catcher in history during his ONLY 3 wonderful years and suffered through years of inconsistency and short longevity. His stats may have been unfairly cut due to him playing in the Negro Leagues before, which therefore, makes him really hard to rank historically.

                    I can say for certain that Lombardi's achievements was just a tad bit under these legends even though he was also the key man for his two pennant-winning Reds team and guiding a pitching staff led by their ace Bucky Walter's to new heights. It was the inferior longevity, defensive skills and weaker advanced stats that led to this clear conclusion.
                    Last edited by jerrylu42; 01-14-2021, 08:19 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by jerrylu42 View Post
                      I think him leading his teams to 4 WS is certainly a GREAT achievement already and there should be nothing to blame on his side for all those unfortunate losses.
                      In one of those losses he hit .091 in 11 AB, so yes it was partly his fault.

                      He hit poorly in one world series, ok in another, and well in a third. In the 4th he had a total of 3 AB and went hitless. His WS career line reads .241/.255/.426. So yes, in part he is to blame.
                      “There can be no higher law in journalism than to tell the truth and to shame the devil.” Walter Lippmann

                      "How the #### are you supposed to hit that ####?" Mickey Mantle after striking out against Sandy Koufax in the 1963 World Series.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by 1905 Giants View Post

                        In one of those losses he hit .091 in 11 AB, so yes it was partly his fault.

                        He hit poorly in one world series, ok in another, and well in a third. In the 4th he had a total of 3 AB and went hitless. His WS career line reads .241/.255/.426. So yes, in part he is to blame.
                        The problem here is that we need to dig deeper into the specific circumstances we are discussing on. In both circumstances where Hartnett performed horribly in the WS were years when Harrnett wasn't even performing at his peak level.

                        In 1929, he was hampered all year with a mysterious arm injury and couldn't play up to his standards performance-wise behind the plate. He missed out most of the season and therefore, expectedly played terribly in the World Series. In fact, you can take the responsibility of leading this Cubs team to the WS off him as he had very little to do with it to even begin with. This Cubs team made it to the postseason mostly due to McCarthy's superb managerial abilities and Hornsby's great performances all year.

                        In the 2 World Series which he put up respectable numbers, he was the de facto team leader as the team captain and its single most important player, playing in the peak of his great career. Especially in 1935 when he won the MVP and had a fantastic offensive season. (Though I personally believe that the year's MVP probably should have been awarded to the even more impressive season shortstop Arky Vaughan had just produced from today's modern viewpoints)

                        In 1938, which was the last postseason he participated in his whole career, he had already turned into a player-manager with huge responsibility in managing the team rather than just playing, which may had an effect on his career total counting numbers, especially the 2000 hits record, if we look back nowadays. He simply played part time through the season with managing being his top priority and mainly played due to the catchers on his team hitting poorly or needing some rest. And he did his main job admirably, leading them to the World Series, so no blame should be put on him this time either.

                        To add another fact in is that, of the 4 teams Hartnett participated in which played in the WS, only the 1935 team seemed to have a chance of winning the titles if we compare the strengths of those teams to their rrspective opponents annually. The 1929 A's, 1932 Yankees, and 1938 Yankees were simply too talented teams to beat at all, and Hartnett's Cubs didn't seem capable of beating them at all with the amount of talent they had. So, not winning the only possible victory in 1935 might had been the regret in his great career, to be honest. Though that Tigers team which had Greenberg, Gehringer, and their great player-manager Cochrane in charge were no slouches either. I believe Hartnett already performed well enough in the postseason during the years in which he was playing in peak form, with the other 2 poor ones hampered by either injuries or managing duties.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by jerrylu42 View Post

                          The problem here is that we need to dig deeper into the specific circumstances we are discussing on. In both circumstances where Hartnett performed horribly in the WS were years when Harrnett wasn't even performing at his peak level.

                          In 1929, he was hampered all year with a mysterious arm injury and couldn't play up to his standards performance-wise behind the plate. He missed out most of the season and therefore, expectedly played terribly in the World Series. In fact, you can take the responsibility of leading this Cubs team to the WS off him as he had very little to do with it to even begin with. This Cubs team made it to the postseason mostly due to McCarthy's superb managerial abilities and Hornsby's great performances all year.

                          In the 2 World Series which he put up respectable numbers, he was the de facto team leader as the team captain and its single most important player, playing in the peak of his great career. Especially in 1935 when he won the MVP and had a fantastic offensive season. (Though I personally believe that the year's MVP probably should have been awarded to the even more impressive season shortstop Arky Vaughan had just produced from today's modern viewpoints)

                          In 1938, which was the last postseason he participated in his whole career, he had already turned into a player-manager with huge responsibility in managing the team rather than just playing, which may had an effect on his career total counting numbers, especially the 2000 hits record, if we look back nowadays. He simply played part time through the season with managing being his top priority and mainly played due to the catchers on his team hitting poorly or needing some rest. And he did his main job admirably, leading them to the World Series, so no blame should be put on him this time either.

                          To add another fact in is that, of the 4 teams Hartnett participated in which played in the WS, only the 1935 team seemed to have a chance of winning the titles if we compare the strengths of those teams to their rrspective opponents annually. The 1929 A's, 1932 Yankees, and 1938 Yankees were simply too talented teams to beat at all, and Hartnett's Cubs didn't seem capable of beating them at all with the amount of talent they had. So, not winning the only possible victory in 1935 might had been the regret in his great career, to be honest. Though that Tigers team which had Greenberg, Gehringer, and their great player-manager Cochrane in charge were no slouches either. I believe Hartnett already performed well enough in the postseason during the years in which he was playing in peak form, with the other 2 poor ones hampered by either injuries or managing duties.
                          Yes, but to be fair you are the one who said it wasn't his fault. Playing when he's not at peak level counts as his fault. His poor hitting cost his team runs and possible victories black and white. And I did note that he hit ok to well in two series.
                          “There can be no higher law in journalism than to tell the truth and to shame the devil.” Walter Lippmann

                          "How the #### are you supposed to hit that ####?" Mickey Mantle after striking out against Sandy Koufax in the 1963 World Series.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by 1905 Giants View Post

                            Yes, but to be fair you are the one who said it wasn't his fault. Playing when he's not at peak level counts as his fault. His poor hitting cost his team runs and possible victories black and white. And I did note that he hit ok to well in two series.
                            Well, that makes sense. He probably shouldn't have rushed back from injury at 1928 just to play in the WS again and maybe simply should've just keep to his managing job during 1938. But we still need to remember his world class defensive ability behind the plate and that might be even important for his teams no before we even start digging into his offensive values.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Great stuff Jerry. Hartnett replacing long time manager Charlie Grimm was a very tough managing situation. ‘The Homer in the Gloamin’ is probably the biggest play any of these guys made too. Of course Lombardi had the negative ‘snooze’ and didn’t Dickey punch a guy in the face at home and get suspended in a series? I agree Campanella is tough to judge but via reading about his pattern of development - he does things players that are great young usually do. I give him the benefit of the doubt, personally. Shame for Cochrane getting beaned in the face.
                              "No matter how great you were once upon a time — the years go by, and men forget,” - W. A. Phelon in Baseball Magazine in 1915. “Ross Barnes, forty years ago, was as great as Cobb or Wagner ever dared to be. Had scores been kept then as now, he would have seemed incomparably marvelous.”

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X