Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Check which of the Following Players, you feel were great.

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

  • #16
    Has everyone finished voting here?

    Bill Burgess

    Comment


    • #17
      I am done

      I know Schalk would get little love, but if you look at the defensive leaders on C's encylopedia, it's hard NOT to say he was great.

      Edd Roush is not getting enough love, and I must admit, I have often left him off my CF list JUST because he played in the 20's

      Comment


      • #18
        This has been an interesting poll. My only question is how could 7 people not have thought that Jackie Robinson was a great player. I can understand why not everyone would vote for Yaz or Morgan, who are top tier HOF'ers, and I can understand the lower vote totals for everyone else, but how anyone could not vote for Jackie Robinson is beyond me.

        Comment


        • #19
          Cy,

          Imagine my chagrin at the lack of support of Charleston, Mackey, Ewing and Lloyd! I'm beyond bewildered.

          Bill Burgess

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by [email protected]
            Cy,

            Imagine my chagrin at the lack of support of Charleston, Mackey, Ewing and Lloyd! I'm beyond bewildered.

            Bill Burgess
            Imagine my chagrin at you ranking Mackey and Ewing ahead of Gibson on your all-time greatest catchers!
            Red, it took me 16 years to get here. Play me, and you'll get the best I got.

            Comment


            • #21
              I was ranking them as catchers, not hitters, as I was bound to do. Josh couldn't receive with them. Josh wasn't a great catcher. He was a great hitter!

              Bill

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by [email protected]
                Josh wasn't a great catcher.
                Bill
                That's not what Walter Johnson said.
                Red, it took me 16 years to get here. Play me, and you'll get the best I got.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by CyNotSoYoung
                  This has been an interesting poll. My only question is how could 7 people not have thought that Jackie Robinson was a great player. I can understand why not everyone would vote for Yaz or Morgan, who are top tier HOF'ers, and I can understand the lower vote totals for everyone else, but how anyone could not vote for Jackie Robinson is beyond me.
                  Cy:

                  To most of the world -- especially the young -- Jackie Robinson's legacy is as a PIONEER, not one of the greats of the game.

                  His stat line doesn't blow you away... he holds no single-season or career records...he played only 10 years. All factors that militate against his being considered as one of the all-time greats.

                  But stats don't begin to tell his story.

                  What's going on here, I think, is that Jackie is one player who had to be seen to be appreciated...which is why those of us who lived through his era in Brooklyn are certain of his greatness, and those too young to have seen him simply can't appreciate his amazing baseball talents.

                  With his bat, his glove, his speed, and most of all his incomparable competitive fire and unquenchable desire to win, Jackie could -- and DID -- single-handedly change the course of a game and propel his team to victory.

                  It was no accident that the Dodgers won 6 pennants in his 10 seasons -- and barely lost two others.

                  You shoulda seen him.

                  And I'll bet if you analyze the poll results by age, you'll find that, for the most part, it was the members who DID see him who voted for him.
                  Last edited by shlevine42; 04-07-2005, 07:34 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    --Bill, silly me I always assumed hitting was part of a catchers job - just like everybody else in the lineup. Piazza is one of the all time great catchers because he is a great hitter who happens to catch. Same with Gibson.
                    -- Pretty much the same principal as Hornsby as a great secondbaseman. Even if you play a premium defensive position what you contribute with the bat will ultimately be what separtates the greats from the goods and the goods from the journeymen.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by shlevine42
                      Cy:

                      To most of the world -- especially the young -- Jackie Robinson's legacy is as a PIONEER, not one of the greats of the game.

                      His stat line doesn't blow you away... he holds no single-season or career records...he played only 10 years. All factors that militate against his being considered as one of the all-time greats.

                      But stats don't begin to tell his story.

                      What's going on here, I think, is that Jackie is one player who had to be seen to be appreciated...which is why those of us who lived through his era in Brooklyn are certain of his greatness, and those too young to have seen him simply can't appreciate his amazing baseball talents.

                      With his bat, his glove, his speed, and most of all his incomparable competitive fire and unquenchable desire to win, Jackie could -- and DID -- single-handedly change the course of a game and propel his team to victory.

                      It was no accident that the Dodgers won 6 pennants in his 10 seasons -- and barely lost two others.

                      You shoulda seen him.

                      And I'll bet if you analyze the poll results by age, you'll find that, for the most part, it was the members who DID see him who voted for him.
                      Thanks sh - it's always good to hear from someone who can personally affirm my convictions about Jackie Robinson. He played his last game a few months before I turned 3 years old, so I never saw him play either. But everything I have read, the film clips I have seen, and what little I remember of him as a distinguished gentleman after his baseball career have convinced me of his unquestionable greatness - as a player and as a man.

                      While for some players it is easy, and even necessary, to separate the ability of the man from the character of the man in evaluating them, I find it impossible to do this with Jackie Robinson. For me, what he accomplished as the first black player in the (modern) Major Leagues is so intertwined with his baseball skills, that I cannot separate them in my mind. I can excuse the character of Babe Ruth or Rogers Hornsby or Barry Bonds and evaluate them in my own mind strictly on their considerable baseball skills. But not Jackie Robinson. To accomplish what he did on the field required him to be not just an excellent ballplayer, but a man of exceptional strength and character. Without his great inner strength, even the considerable skills he possessed would not have carried him through what he experienced.

                      Branch Rickey knew this - he knew he needed a great man for his great experiment and a man of greater skills but lesser character would not have suceeded. So, in Jackie's case, it is impossible to separate the two things.

                      And there is no doubt that, as you imply, he was the key to the success of his Dodger teams. When a team wins, it is because all the players contribute, but those contributions don't all show up in the stat line. How many times did Jackie exploit some subtle weakness of a pitcher or of a position player to steal a base, score a run, or take a little pressure off a teammate. How much did his play affect the opposition enough to give his teammates a better shot at getting on base or driving in a run. Those things don't show up as stats, but everyone who saw him agrees that he was a master at doing those things - the countless little things - that add up to winning.

                      For what it's worth - it's always been a source of pride around here that it was a Maine man, Clyde Sukeforth, who scouted Jackie and who worked with Rickey to help bring Jackie to the Dodgers.

                      Well, what do I know? It's just hearsay and opinion and personal bias - but he'll always be the greatest in my book.

                      I wish I coulda seen him.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I only went w/4 players, Sisler, J. Robinson, Morgan and Rose. My personal definition is a guy you could make a legitimate case for being the best at his position. Jackie didn't have the big career numbers and I guess only played 2B for about 5 years, but started his career in MLB late, was 2nd best player [behind Musial] in NL till about 54. Rose is a multi-position player, at his best I wouldn't consider him one of the 5 best players in NL, but hey,4000K hits can't be ignored.
                        It Might Be? It Could Be?? It Is!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by 64Cards
                          4000K hits can't be ignored.
                          Neither can 3562 games and 14053 at-bats.

                          I did check Rose though, cuz he must be given points for his great durability, longevity, and versatility in the field, not to mention his all-out effort on every play.
                          Last edited by torez77; 04-07-2005, 01:51 PM.
                          Red, it took me 16 years to get here. Play me, and you'll get the best I got.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Cy - Your post warmed my heart!

                            To know that a younger fan (and trust me -- you ARE much younger than I) who didn't see Jackie play has still made it a point to learn about him and therefore to appreciate his place in baseball history is, well, encouraging to say the least...especially when I find that the memory of many young people is limited to events that happened only in their own lifetime.

                            I've said more than once on this site that for me, the story of Robinson's courage and success is not only the most thrilling event in all of baseball, but a glorious moment for America and, not to be too dramatic, the defining moment of my own life.

                            The bigotry aimed at Robinson was one of the most disgraceful chapters in baseball history; Jackie's courage, nobility and eventual success is one of the most thrilling.

                            He was then, and continues to be, my American Hero.

                            It's always nice to have company!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Silly you. If you're not sure, ask, and one of us will bring you up to speed. And that's a promise.

                              Frankly, I agree with you at every position except catcher. A catcher's primary job is to call a flawless game, handle his staff, cut off the running game, keep the troops in a fighting mood, and hit.

                              Of course hitting is part of his job. But it's not his primary responsibility. It's one of his responsibilities. The difference between a Ewing/Mackey and a Piazza/Gibson isn't what you think. It isn't ONLY the runs they score for their teams, but the runs they SAVE their teams by not calling the wrong pitch. A master like Ewing, had every single nuance of an enemy cataloged, so his pitchers didn't have to. He'd never call the wrong pitch. He was a Cobb behind the plate, and saved endless games by not being lazy. That, Gibson could not aspire to. Mackey could, as could Bench, Bennett, Schalk, and not very many others. Receiving is an art you have never given its due, and I'm surprised as to why that is. Defensive receiving is baseball art at it's most dynamic and intense, and I don't see anyone else on Fever except, Chancellor and Imapotato giving it full credit.

                              Bill Burgess
                              Last edited by Bill Burgess; 05-19-2006, 09:21 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by [email protected]
                                Silly you. If you're not sure, ask, and one of us will bring you up to speed. And that's a promise.

                                Frankly, I agree with you at every position except catcher. A catcher's primary job is to call a flawless game, handle his staff, cut off the running game, keep the troops in a fighting mood, and hit.

                                Of course hitting is part of his job. But it's not his primary responsibility. It's one of his responsibilities. The difference between a Ewing/Mackey and a Piazza/Gibson isn't what you think. It isn't ONLY the runs they score for their teams, but the runs they SAVE their teams by not calling the wrong pitch. A master like Ewing, had every single nuance of an enemy catalogued, so his pitchers didn't have to. He'd never call the wrong pitch. He was a Cobb behind the plate, and saved endless games by not being lazy. That, Gibson could not aspire to. Mackey could, as could Bench, Bennett, Schalk, and not very many others. Receiving is an art you have never given its due, and I'm surprised as to why that is. Defensive receiving is baseball art at it's most dynamic and intense, and I don't see anyone else on Fever except, Chancellor and Imapotato giving it full credit.

                                Bill Burgess
                                I don't know where you get the idea that Josh Gibson was not good defender or couldn't call good pitches. In his biography, the author states that Campanella said that he learned catching from Gibson, and that the only flaw in Gibsons defense was his ability to catch pop ups behind the plate. As for his game calling, I think that the fact that the Homestead Grays and Pittsburgh Crawfords are the most known Negro league team of that particular era reflects their abilty to win games, and without a good game being called by a catcher (unless all the pitchers are Satchel Paiges) a team cannot be successfull. Just think of the names of the catchers on last years playoff contending teams (Varitek, Matheny, Ausmus, Posada, Estrada and the two other teams without big name catchers).

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X