Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Joe DiMaggio

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by thaa View Post
    Sure it does.
    That's one of the better arguments I've read in my two years here!
    :applaud:

    Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
    Never understood why the Yanks did nothing about those monster distances on the left side when Joe came to the Yanks.
    ...
    When you look at some of these distances, Yankee Stadium was more difficult to reach than all the others and there were no changes.
    Maybe the Yankees ballclub considered itself to be above those shenanigans, or Yankee Stadium to be above that.
    Last edited by Paul Wendt; 11-27-2009, 11:32 AM.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Paul Wendt View Post
      That's one of the better arguments I've read in my two years here!
      :applaud:

      Perhaps it really is one of the better arguments you've read, if only by virtue of its succinctness. Moreover, it doesn't commit the non sequitur that the earlier post, to which it responded, was guilty of. Namesly, that Joe D. was a more complete ballplayer than Williams but that this did not make him "better."

      To be a "more complete" ballplayer is, by definition, to be a better player. This was self-evident, requiring nothing further from me than "Sure it does."

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Paul Wendt View Post
        That's one of the better arguments I've read in my two years here!
        :applaud:


        Maybe the Yankees ballclub considered itself to be above those shenanigans, or Yankee Stadium to be above that.
        I don't think they ever considered it would be viewed as a shenanigan.
        Possible they never even thought to do it, I have no idea.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by thaa View Post


          Perhaps it really is one of the better arguments you've read, if only by virtue of its succinctness. Moreover, it doesn't commit the non sequitur that the earlier post, to which it responded, was guilty of. Namesly, that Joe D. was a more complete ballplayer than Williams but that this did not make him "better."

          To be a "more complete" ballplayer is, by definition, to be a better player. This was self-evident, requiring nothing further from me than "Sure it does."
          If I had to choose, I'd go with the man who had a career OBP of .482, the highest in history. 12 seasons over .490 OBP. Sure Dimaggio was a more complete ballplayer, but a hitter like Williams comes along once in a lifetime. He beats Dimaggio in OPS+ 191-155! When you hit like Ted Williams, you can get away with average defense.
          They call me Mr. Baseball. Not because of my love for the game; because of all the stitches in my head.

          Comment


          • #95
            The DiMaggio portion of Jenkinson's new book will be especially interesting.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by thaa View Post


              Perhaps it really is one of the better arguments you've read, if only by virtue of its succinctness. Moreover, it doesn't commit the non sequitur that the earlier post, to which it responded, was guilty of. Namesly, that Joe D. was a more complete ballplayer than Williams but that this did not make him "better."

              To be a "more complete" ballplayer is, by definition, to be a better player. This was self-evident, requiring nothing further from me than "Sure it does."
              Self evident to who besides yourself?

              There is no doubt that JoeD was a more complete ball player than Ted because his D was better and he ran better. Probably threw better too.

              But Ted's hitting overrides his lack of 'completeness' for want of a better word. JoeD's fielding, running, and throwing advantage are not enough to overtake Ted's hitting, Therfore Ted is the 'better' of the two.

              In BBF polls over the yers Ted is always ahead of JoeD in the opinion of the BBF posters.

              Yankees Fan Since 1957

              Comment


              • #97
                Been said that when Joe returned from the service in 1946, he was not the same Joe as we knew him before the service.

                I think it was more a case of eroding health and his physical being, not his skill level.

                1946, right from the start problems with both knees swelling in spring training and into the start of the season. One knee heavily taped.
                July 7 torn knee ligaments, returns August 17. Plays 132 games.

                1947 Bone spur removed left heel January 6. Heel does not heal properly, surgery left heel March 12, skin graft. Hobbled in spring training and early season. First game April 21. In pain much of season, does play 141 games.

                1948 some pain, same old story, the heel. Mild pain, one of his heathier and better years gets in a good number of games, 153.

                1949 Bone spur spring training right heel, removed in April. sits out 65 games comes back June 28, big series with Bosox. Yanks sweep 3 games, Joe.... 11 at bats -4 home runs- 9 RBI.
                September 18, hospitalized for a few days then remains out for a few games. Described as viral infection.

                Did a good deal of research on Joe, right from the start and I can tell you, this guy had bad legs, even when young, played with lots of pain. I guess he was big and strong but that does not guarantee durability.

                1939 age 24 he played 120 games, injures knee chasing down fly ball, out April 29 return June 7.

                1940 AGE 25 plays 132 games.
                Injures knee in pre-season game against Dodgers.
                Pain in Knee out April 27- May 9.
                There would be more gaps of a couple or a few games he would sit out as the result of that spring training injury
                Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 12-18-2009, 08:34 PM.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Deleted post.
                  Last edited by Honus Wagner Rules; 10-07-2013, 03:10 PM.
                  Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Along with his amazing talent, DiMaggio played hard every play of his career. He was extremely prideful and intense. His teammates were sucked in to his determination. By contrast Williams was indifferent about his fielding and his teammates. He set no such example of determination. All the walking and OBP in the world can't change that.

                    It's not a coincidence that DiMaggio has 9 rings and Williams 0.
                    This week's Giant

                    #5 in games played as a Giant with 1721 , Bill Terry

                    Comment


                    • I don't think any serious person doubts DiMaggio was an inner-circle HOFer. He was certainly a great player, one of the greatest of the great.

                      That being said, DiMaggio was overrated for much of his life. In 1969, Joe DiMaggio was voted The Greatest Living Ballplayer for MLB's centennial. It is hard to see this while Mantle and Mays were still living (not to mention Musial and Williams). DiMaggio was graceful, a great center fielder, etc., but Mays and Mantle had longer careers, and were, arguably, greater players who were penalized for playing through the 1963-68 pitcher's era. Williams and Musial both had far longer careers than DiMaggio, who limped into retirement in 1951. (Musial and Williams both had exceptional seasons in their 40s.) I don't feel sorry for DiMaggio and I don't view him as slighted because he received greater accolades while living than any other ballplayer I can think of.
                      "I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do it will encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended and I don't care if it wrecks the National League for five years. This is the United States of America and one citizen has as much right to play as another. The National League will go down the line with Robinson whatever the consequences. You will find if you go through with your intention that you have been guilty of complete madness."

                      NL President Ford Frick, 1947

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear View Post
                        I don't think any serious person doubts DiMaggio was an inner-circle HOFer. He was certainly a great player, one of the greatest of the great.

                        That being said, DiMaggio was overrated for much of his life. In 1969, Joe DiMaggio was voted The Greatest Living Ballplayer for MLB's centennial. It is hard to see this while Mantle and Mays were still living (not to mention Musial and Williams). DiMaggio was graceful, a great center fielder, etc., but Mays and Mantle had longer careers, and were, arguably, greater players who were penalized for playing through the 1963-68 pitcher's era. Williams and Musial both had far longer careers than DiMaggio, who limped into retirement in 1951. (Musial and Williams both had exceptional seasons in their 40s.) I don't feel sorry for DiMaggio and I don't view him as slighted because he received greater accolades while living than any other ballplayer I can think of.
                        1. It's very, very rare for someone in a team sport to be widely considered the greatest while they're still playing. In recent memory only Wayne Gretzky, and perhaps Michael Jordan were considered the greatest while still playing. Maybe Bonds, maybe Jerry Rice, and that's about it. So Mays not being voted #1 in 1969 kinda makes sense.

                        2. When Ted Williams said at the time of the poll that “Joe was simply the greatest player I ever saw” he almost assuredly was referring to DiMaggio as being the best player at his prime/peak that Williams ever saw. Williams obviously was not using career value and counting stats as his gauge of greatness. That seems to be the gauge the voters were using as well.
                        The fact that Yankee Stadium penalized DiMaggio's slugging ability may also have played a small factor.
                        Last edited by layson27; 10-08-2013, 08:59 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by layson27 View Post
                          1. It's very, very rare for someone in a team sport to be widely considered the greatest while they're still playing. In recent memory only Wayne Gretzky, and perhaps Michael Jordan were considered the greatest while still playing. Maybe Bonds, maybe Jerry Rice, and that's about it. So Mays not being voted #1 in 1969 kinda makes sense.

                          2. When Ted Williams said at the time of the poll that “Joe was simply the greatest player I ever saw” he almost assuredly was referring to DiMaggio as being the best player at his prime/peak that Williams ever saw. Williams obviously was not using career value and counting stats as his gauge of greatness. That seems to be the gauge the voters were using as well.
                          The fact that Yankee Stadium penalized DiMaggio's slugging ability may have played a small factor too.
                          The caveat here is that Williams saw DiMaggio play in person probably in about 170-180 full games while Williams was active. This kind of extensive first hand observation tends to stand out in a person's mind for a long time. How many times did Williams see Stan Musial, Willie Mays ,and Hank Aaron play in person? I suspect probably not that many times. So it's likely Williams didn't get the kind of first hand exposure to these great players that he did of DiMaggio.
                          Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                          Comment


                          • Why hasn't this thread and the "Joe DiMaggio" thread been merged?
                            "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