Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mike Piazza vs Josh Gibson

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

  • Aliens is the best answer I have seen so far.
    "It ain't braggin' if you can do it." Dizzy Dean

    Comment


    • Let the best blacks into the game. Let us open the flood gates as should have been.

      That wouldn't impact the Ruths and Cobbs much. The cream be the cream yo. They were proven game in and game out, double header through double header, exhibition through exhibition...didn't matter.

      Black pitchers weren't going to stop the cream. Not sure how into the spitbal/trick pitches Blacks were, but it's possible those pitchers overall would have been more of a cake-walk. The elite aren't affected much at all.

      And remember. Those Negro Leaguers who were used to facing random dudes are now facing the BEST of the MLBs AND the best of their own leagues. That is a much larger factor than the MLB players facing the best they've already faced, and adding the best Negro Leaguers. One group has been more conditioned for such competition. And Blacks weren't gifted with some special throwing ability. A ball comes from a hand. Batter sees and hits. Again, the elites don't care if it comes even from an alien. They will rake.
      Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 02-10-2015, 08:38 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
        Here are the top 16 guys, when subtracting home from road. How much they benefited. Anyone see a pattern here. Were these guys just talented hitters able to take advantage...or were they handed an advantage and it's up to us, to put things into perspective?
        Great work as always, but I'm going to pick one part. Handedness just has to be getting messed up in some of the stats. Hopefully some one can answer my question on wRC+ as to Rice and handedness. You can see that Fenway was clearly advantageous for RH versus LH in the stats. The work we all do (you do a lot of) to use road stats clearly shows we aren't getting the best perspective.
        "It's better to look good, than be good."

        Comment


        • Yes, handedness. It's that one bugaboo we always run into.

          All we can do is our best.

          How bout this.

          The only four players to slug .600 or better on the road
          -
          Ruth -------.682
          Gehrig --- .644
          Williams - .615
          DiMaggio - .610
          Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 02-10-2015, 09:50 PM.

          Comment


          • I left out Greenberg at the bottom of post 164

            In between Walker and Helton, Mr. Hank Greenberg comes in at .2837

            Comment


            • I’m not sure if handedness is used at FG. In the example they show, they use a single park factor, but they actually have available not simply handedness factors, but factors for every type of offensive event, single, double, triple, etc. And keep in mind these can vary considerably in any given park.

              E.g., in 2014, the park factor for HR as a LH in Fenway was 90 vs. 102 for a RH. That indicates lefties were at a large disadvantage, while righties were at a slight advantage. But lefties had a huge advantage in 3B—117—while righties had a huge disadvantage—88 (I find that very interesting, as Rice, not very fast, led the majors in triples in 1978, indeed, was the first player in history I believe to lead the league in 3Bs, HR and RBI). Both lefties and righties had a large advantage in doubles, and a slight advantage in singles.

              I’m not sure, but I think those park factors are listed so someone can play around with them if s/he wants to, while the basic factor, which is an average of all players, all types of offensive events, is actually used to determine wRC+. The question is whether Rice, as a RH in Fenway, has a significantly higher wRC+ than he would if RH park factors were used, and factored into every kind of offensive event. If I have some time, I might look into this, but I don’t think it would change his SLG much. As of 2014, Fenway was middle of the pack in HR for RH. It was first in 2B and 3d in singles, so it might have helped Rice’s BA somewhat, but all the park factors for singles are bunched pretty close together.

              In any case, I don’t think Rice can be used as evidence that Gibson’s value might be overestimated. To the extent that people overestimated Rice as a hitter, part of it, as discussed before, is that he had a few good years, whereas Gibson had many, and part might be a home park factor. But did Gibson have a home park factor going for him? In fact, the great majority of his games were played on the road, at all kinds of venues.
              Last edited by Stolensingle; 02-10-2015, 10:45 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by 1905 Giants View Post
                There have been great minor-leaguers who couldn't take on MLB level.

                Maybe not the same, just felt it needed to be said.
                There has yet to be a catcher who could play for a long time and perform at a high offensive level consistently at the major league level... Piazza comes the closest, and he was only a force for about ten years. It's more than just declining, its the injuries, both major ones and minor ones, that can and inevitably do affect performance. In Gibson's time, catchers played even less; the greats like Dickey and Cochrane and Hartnett and Lombardi played under 2000 games, and seldom more than 130 or so in a season. As is to be expected, their great offensive seasons were rare and spread out, or concentrated into a short peak.

                Gibson COULD have been better than those guys if given a chance..he COULD have had ten or fifteen great offensive seasons in a row..but to just assume that he would have is ridiculous and completely ignores the fact that he played a demanding physical position. He would have had to be superhuman to have numbers like Foxx from the catcher's spot for an entire career. He much, much more likely would have been like those other great catchers, or like Campanella...a short career with a few outstanding offensive years mixed in with subpar ones. And guess what? He still would have been an all time great. He might have been in the conversation for best catcher ever...but to assume Foxx-like production for 2500 or even 2000 or even 1500 games is insane.
                Last edited by willshad; 02-10-2015, 10:59 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Stolensingle View Post
                  But again, Gibson was not amazing for one or two or five years, he was a beast for his entire career. If guys like Mauer and Posey (or Rice) don't live up to their best seasons, it's not because they couldn't make it at the MLB level, it's because of a decline that would have happened at any level. Do you have any stats to back up your implied claim that a player can live up to his potential for an extended period of time at one level, but for only a short period of time at another level? Are there any players who tore up the bigs for a year or two, then slumped badly, but continued to play very well in the minors for a long period when they were occasionally called back up and still couldn't perform at their original level?
                  Are there any catchers who have ever had a career of 15-20 seasons and been amazing offensive forces every season? What exactly makes Gibson so special? Like any other normal human catcher, he would have suffered injuries and bumps and bruises, had a short career, with between 110 and 130 games played per season, and would have been likely inconsistent from one season to the next. I think this is a safe assumption, since this is exactly the case with the other great catchers of the time.
                  Oh wait I forgot, the Negro League guys were superhuman. Gibson would have had a career like Aaron and hit 800 home runs. Duh.
                  Last edited by willshad; 02-10-2015, 11:27 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by drstrangelove View Post
                    So, well said and explained.


                    Code:
                    All Park Factors have already been halved for use on full season stats.
                    Export Data
                    Season	  Team	 1B as L  1B as R    2B as L   2B as R	 3B as L   3B as R   HR as L	HR as R
                    2014	Red Sox	    102	    104	      117	 113	  112	      88	90	 102
                    2013	Red Sox	    102	    104	      117	 113	  112	      88	90	 102
                    2012	Red Sox	    102	    104	      117	 113	  112	      88	90	 102
                    2011	Red Sox	    102	    103	      116	 112	  112	      94	92	 103
                    2010	Red Sox	    102	    102	      119	 116	  103	      98	93	 102
                    2009	Red Sox	    102	    103	      119	 114	  101	      95	93	  99
                    2008	Red Sox	    100	    102	      121	 113	  100	      94	93	  96
                    2007	Red Sox	    101	     99	      122	 114	  108	      91	92	  97
                    2006	Red Sox	    102	    100	      122	 112	  105	      85	92	  97
                    2005	Red Sox	    104	    100	      116	 111	  110	      86	91	  99
                    2004	Red Sox	    102	     99	      113	 111	  108	      84	89	  99
                    2003	Red Sox	    102	     99	      113	 111	  108	      84	89	  99
                    2002	Red Sox	    102	     99	      113	 111	  108	      84	89	  99
                    Question (and no, I don't know the answer): Was handedness adjusted for in Rice's calculations or is handedness only something used since 2002? I think this chart from FG suggests that RH benefited more from Fenway than LH. Is that how you see it? If so, does the wRC+ calculation they used for 1977-1979 reflect this difference (between RH and LH) or does it only "deflate" RH's stats as if they are a composite of the RH/LH batters at Fenway.

                    I don't know, so if you tell me it's all adjusted for all the way back to the 70's, that's how I'll read it. But we've had many back and forth's over the seasons on this topic and I never knew (no one mentioned or I missed it when they did) that there was a handedness adjustment. I don't want to presume it's only for 2002-2014, but that's all that came up when I did the query.

                    This really isn't a "Rice" question. Rice was a top hitter for exactly and only those 3 years. Once you look at his best 4-year period he drops below Mattingly, Murray, Brett, Morgan, Jackson and Schmidt.

                    In fact Schmidt has 3 completely separate 4 year periods that beat Rice's best.

                    Once you extend out to 6 years he drops below Winfield. Rice is the answer to the trick question who was the best hitter in 1977-1979. He's not the answer to who's the best hitter of the 70's or the 80's or any span over 3 years, except those 3 years.
                    Give the guy a little more credit than that. His 1983 season was just about on par with his 1977-1979 seasons. In 1986 he was a top MVP candidate. I think his top five seasons beat Schmidt's top five.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by drstrangelove View Post
                      Tbh, that's what some people are looking at exclusively, so it's not "we."

                      Cobb and Ruth played in leagues where 10 of the best 20 baseball players in the America were excluded. That makes all their rate stats (OPS+, wRC+, WAR, WAA, etc.) a guess work as to what they would be in an integrated league. Their overall counting stats would have been depressed in some fashion as well with better pitchers.


                      So some of us are asking and answering a questions like:
                      1) how good is a hitter who was widely regarded as the best hitter in a league that had 10 of the best 20 players in baseball?
                      2) how does that compare to MLB where they also only had 10 of best 20 players in baseball?

                      While others are asking and answering questions like:
                      1) how reliable are stats from the NeL?
                      2) how reliable are judgments of top players and managers in MLB of players in the NeL?


                      An attack on reliability and documentation is an interesting approach. It ignores completely the question of who's best by presuming that without a document produced to MLB standards no one can be great, therefore they aren't. Babe Ruth did not become a great player once he played in MLB. He was already a great player. Documentation isn't what made him great. Playing in a MLB ball park facing white pitchers isn't what made him great. It's like saying that without an SAT score or an IQ test we don't know how smart Einstein was. My guess is about 6 billion people would not just disagree but would bust a stitch over that opinion.

                      It's obvious that people are talking past each other, so while it's humorous, it's also counter productive.

                      We know how good Black players were in the 1940's. We have them entering baseball and dominating. It's obvious preferable to some to dismiss that and discuss the "reliability of NeL game documentation"------as if-----game documentation is what makes a player great.


                      Bottom line is this:
                      1) Black players were great players in the 30's and 40's (and before.)
                      2) Gibson was considered hands down the best hitter
                      3) Gibson did that for a long time.

                      The argument goes back again to aliens. Why was the best hitter in the 30's and 40's NeL not as good as MLB hitters, when the same NeL players dominated baseball in 1947-2012? Aliens. There just needs to be another answer. Using "documentation" or saying opinions about Black players are "worthless" is begging the question: Why? Aliens seems to be the answer.



                      And I found it really humorous when someone posted that "People watching him play and giving their opinion means next to nothing..." and there was no peep at all. All the quotes and opinions about Ruth, Wagner, Mathewson, Johnson, Cobb, Speaker are worthless. No argument at all with that.

                      You can't have your cake and eat it too.
                      Thats your take, thats not the way I see it.
                      Some on this board have a problem comparing players from way back to todays players because the game was so different and not integrated, both good points.
                      So how do we take a great hitter no doubt like Josh Gibson who also played in a league not integrated, through no fault of his own still a fact,
                      different than todays game and say he is better than Mike Piazza.

                      Bottom line, problem comparing, ranking MLB players from long ago, to todays players, but some how Josh from long ago, different game, no problem better than Piazza.
                      Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 02-11-2015, 05:03 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by drstrangelove View Post
                        So, well said and explained.


                        Code:
                        All Park Factors have already been halved for use on full season stats.
                        Export Data
                        Season	  Team	 1B as L  1B as R    2B as L   2B as R	 3B as L   3B as R   HR as L	HR as R
                        2014	Red Sox	    102	    104	      117	 113	  112	      88	90	 102
                        2013	Red Sox	    102	    104	      117	 113	  112	      88	90	 102
                        2012	Red Sox	    102	    104	      117	 113	  112	      88	90	 102
                        2011	Red Sox	    102	    103	      116	 112	  112	      94	92	 103
                        2010	Red Sox	    102	    102	      119	 116	  103	      98	93	 102
                        2009	Red Sox	    102	    103	      119	 114	  101	      95	93	  99
                        2008	Red Sox	    100	    102	      121	 113	  100	      94	93	  96
                        2007	Red Sox	    101	     99	      122	 114	  108	      91	92	  97
                        2006	Red Sox	    102	    100	      122	 112	  105	      85	92	  97
                        2005	Red Sox	    104	    100	      116	 111	  110	      86	91	  99
                        2004	Red Sox	    102	     99	      113	 111	  108	      84	89	  99
                        2003	Red Sox	    102	     99	      113	 111	  108	      84	89	  99
                        2002	Red Sox	    102	     99	      113	 111	  108	      84	89	  99
                        Question (and no, I don't know the answer): Was handedness adjusted for in Rice's calculations or is handedness only something used since 2002? I think this chart from FG suggests that RH benefited more from Fenway than LH. Is that how you see it? If so, does the wRC+ calculation they used for 1977-1979 reflect this difference (between RH and LH) or does it only "deflate" RH's stats as if they are a composite of the RH/LH batters at Fenway.

                        I don't know, so if you tell me it's all adjusted for all the way back to the 70's, that's how I'll read it. But we've had many back and forth's over the seasons on this topic and I never knew (no one mentioned or I missed it when they did) that there was a handedness adjustment. I don't want to presume it's only for 2002-2014, but that's all that came up when I did the query.

                        This really isn't a "Rice" question. Rice was a top hitter for exactly and only those 3 years. Once you look at his best 4-year period he drops below Mattingly, Murray, Brett, Morgan, Jackson and Schmidt.

                        In fact Schmidt has 3 completely separate 4 year periods that beat Rice's best.

                        Once you extend out to 6 years he drops below Winfield. Rice is the answer to the trick question who was the best hitter in 1977-1979. He's not the answer to who's the best hitter of the 70's or the 80's or any span over 3 years, except those 3 years.
                        The park factors for Fenway have become less extreme in recent years, and the last time they were over 110 corresponds roughly to Rice's peak in the late '70s.
                        http://www.baseball-reference.com/te...S/attend.shtml
                        Many fans at Fenway say that the construction of the 600 Club/.406 Club/EMC Club behind home plate dramatically changed the wind currents in the park and reduced the number of balls being carried out, but that event in the late '80s does not quite correspond to a dip in park factor. It certainly might be a factor in the overall trend. Unfortunately, this overall park factor does not account for handedness, which is a huge consideration at Fenway.
                        Of course, the introduction of new parks into the AL can also result in park factor changing in a park that did not change at all itself...(screams and pulls hair out).
                        "If I drink whiskey, I'll never get worms!" - Hack Wilson

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by willshad View Post
                          Are there any catchers who have ever had a career of 15-20 seasons and been amazing offensive forces every season? What exactly makes Gibson so special? Like any other normal human catcher, he would have suffered injuries and bumps and bruises, had a short career, with between 110 and 130 games played per season, and would have been likely inconsistent from one season to the next. I think this is a safe assumption, since this is exactly the case with the other great catchers of the time.
                          Oh wait I forgot, the Negro League guys were superhuman. Gibson would have had a career like Aaron and hit 800 home runs. Duh.
                          We’re not comparing him to Aaron here, we’re comparing him to Piazza. Quite a difference. He didn’t play that many Negro League games in his career, maybe a little over 500. It’s possible that in some of the non-league exhibition games he didn’t catch, especially as time wore on. When you’re only playing 30-50 games per season in the official league, it’s easy enough to play all those games at catcher, while resting at another position in the less important games. If injuries and bruises are such a certainty at catcher, I assume that his team would take advantage of their short schedule in this manner.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JR Hart View Post
                            I don't rank NeL players in rankings or even try to compare them to players who played in more organized leagues. I sympathize with their plight. But the info that we have on them is just a cut above oral history. I've looked on Seamhaeds. Those stats are woefully incomplete. And with the league games, barnstorming, Mexican leagues, what is an official game that even merits a stat. To compare these guys to players who played strict, consistent schedules, with accurate stats, in the same parks, and in repeating years; is senseless. They don't use the stats of the Yankees as they barnstormed their way north after spring training. I don't know how many homers The Babe hit the day before his bellyache. Ruth probably has 1200 Hrs counting his barnstorming games.

                            I'm sure that many NeLers were very good and could compete on a high level in MLB back then. But we really don't know who would compete to what degree. I's OK to have a guess as to how good Josh Gibson will be , if he played MLB and where he ranks, but you are still guessing. IMO. if someone doesn't want to go down that guessing game road, it doesn't make them unsympathetic, it makes them realistic.
                            Wow JR, I've never agreed with you more than this. In my all time rankings you cannot see NeLers, or players like Saddaru Oh for what it's worth. Not that they aren't good. Is just that they're not on the same playing field.

                            NOW, if someone can dig up information on all these leagues and put it under the same consideration on MLB, whether is higher or lower, then we can have some way to make comparisons. There are tons of players that had MLB talent, but we're arguing here is who's best. On actual facts and stats, not commentaries from knowledgeable people.

                            I like the mL comment that 1905 made. I recall Ron Kittle hit 50 homeruns in the minors. The next season he hit 35 in the majors with a .250 ba. Years later he was exposed as a hitter. There are so many variables one could take into account, that I rather not rank them. But that's just me.

                            And again, is not like I'm a sinner here, since many people here don't rank Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, etc... (shoot!!!, I just wrote "etc...")
                            "I am not too serious about anything. I believe you have to enjoy yourself to get the most out of your ability."-
                            George Brett

                            Comment


                            • Reading some of the posts in this thread reminds me of a game my wife and a friend of ours used to play. The game was called "costume or outfit." They would say that out loud when they saw some woman walk by wearing some kind of crazy stuff, and the key was to figure out if she wore it for real as an everyday outfit, or if it was being worn to a costume party. Here, I read some posts and play a game I guess I can call "ignorant or insulting?" I wonder if some people are just ignorant about the Negro Leagues and the players, or if they are purposefully trying to be insulting -- or even a little of both it seems. It is a pretty tough game sometimes.
                              "It ain't braggin' if you can do it." Dizzy Dean

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herr28 View Post
                                Reading some of the posts in this thread reminds me of a game my wife and a friend of ours used to play. The game was called "costume or outfit." They would say that out loud when they saw some woman walk by wearing some kind of crazy stuff, and the key was to figure out if she wore it for real as an everyday outfit, or if it was being worn to a costume party. Here, I read some posts and play a game I guess I can call "ignorant or insulting?" I wonder if some people are just ignorant about the Negro Leagues and the players, or if they are purposefully trying to be insulting -- or even a little of both it seems. It is a pretty tough game sometimes.
                                Outfit!!!

                                I don't think it's insulting to NeLers. I think it's adequate. It's insulting to players from other leagues to include NeLers and not include them. If I can't include the Cuban Professional League's best players, sans the ones that excelled or played in the NeLs, because we don't have data from stars like Carlos Moran, Julian Castillo, Alejandro Oms, Julio Moreno, etc.... Take Minnie Minoso. He's older than what he claims. He didn't began playing in the MLBs in his mid 20s, he must have been in the late 20s, early 30s at best. Do we credit him for those seasons he didn't play in the MLB? We don't, if not we would be talking about a top 5, worse case scenario top 10 LF, which he isn't here in BBF.

                                It's difficult. I'm ok with many of you guys having the smarts and the knowledge to properly rank these players with MLB players. I don't have the strength of mind to compare apples with oranges. So I have them there. Talent wise? Apparently Gibson towers over any catcher in the history of the game. But his talent couldn't be translated to the MLB level, because he never played in the MLBs. It's an injustice.
                                "I am not too serious about anything. I believe you have to enjoy yourself to get the most out of your ability."-
                                George Brett

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X