Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mike Piazza vs Josh Gibson

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

  • Originally posted by ol' aches and pains View Post
    But the thing is, with Piazza, we have absolute certainty, with Gibson we don't. So how can we make even a reasonably accurate comparison?
    Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
    For some reason, some just can't see the logic in that.
    For some reason, some just can’t see the flaw in that logic.

    We are just as certain of the stats of Brad Ausmus as we are of the stats of Mike Piazza. Does that mean that we must conclude that Ausmus was a better hitter than Gibson? We have virtual (not absolute, actually) certainty of the hitting stats of every MLB player going back decades, covering thousands of players. Does this mean all of those thousands of players were better than Gibson?

    It’s a matter of weighing evidence. Part of the evidence is the certainty of the stats, but another part of it how good the stats, whatever certainty they have, are. We weigh the fact that we know what Piazza’s stats are against the incomplete, not as certain evidence that Gibson’s stats were better.

    Everyone who agrees that Gibson was a better hitter than Ausmus—and I assume that would include many who voted for Piazza in this poll—is coming to that conclusion by a weighing process such as I just described. Those of us who conclude Gibson was a better hitter than Piazza are using the same process. We’re just weighing the evidence differently, because we believe the sample size we do have, along with the evidence of how good the NeL were, is enough to say that Gibson was better.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Stolensingle View Post
      For some reason, some just can’t see the flaw in that logic.

      We are just as certain of the stats of Brad Ausmus as we are of the stats of Mike Piazza. Does that mean that we must conclude that Ausmus was a better hitter than Gibson? We have virtual (not absolute, actually) certainty of the hitting stats of every MLB player going back decades, covering thousands of players. Does this mean all of those thousands of players were better than Gibson?

      It’s a matter of weighing evidence. Part of the evidence is the certainty of the stats, but another part of it how good the stats, whatever certainty they have, are. We weigh the fact that we know what Piazza’s stats are against the incomplete, not as certain evidence that Gibson’s stats were better.

      Everyone who agrees that Gibson was a better hitter than Ausmus—and I assume that would include many who voted for Piazza in this poll—is coming to that conclusion by a weighing process such as I just described. Those of us who conclude Gibson was a better hitter than Piazza are using the same process. We’re just weighing the evidence differently, because we believe the sample size we do have, along with the evidence of how good the NeL were, is enough to say that Gibson was better.
      Thats night and day, it's obvious were speaking of one player not thousands.
      I think I know enough about Gibson to rank him over some players, Piazza is the issue here.


      Not a problem there, some say there is enough some say not. I can see that.

      Comment


      • Are you guys aware that this was 70% in favor of Piazza, and now it's closer to 60%?
        "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


        • Originally posted by Stolensingle View Post
          For some reason, some just can’t see the flaw in that logic.

          We are just as certain of the stats of Brad Ausmus as we are of the stats of Mike Piazza. Does that mean that we must conclude that Ausmus was a better hitter than Gibson? We have virtual (not absolute, actually) certainty of the hitting stats of every MLB player going back decades, covering thousands of players. Does this mean all of those thousands of players were better than Gibson?

          It’s a matter of weighing evidence. Part of the evidence is the certainty of the stats, but another part of it how good the stats, whatever certainty they have, are. We weigh the fact that we know what Piazza’s stats are against the incomplete, not as certain evidence that Gibson’s stats were better.

          Everyone who agrees that Gibson was a better hitter than Ausmus—and I assume that would include many who voted for Piazza in this poll—is coming to that conclusion by a weighing process such as I just described. Those of us who conclude Gibson was a better hitter than Piazza are using the same process. We’re just weighing the evidence differently, because we believe the sample size we do have, along with the evidence of how good the NeL were, is enough to say that Gibson was better.
          Let me clarify: I in no way mean to diminish, minimize put aside or dismiss Josh Gibson, who I'm sure was one of the greatest hitters of all time. I'm pretty sure he was better than Brad Ausmus, but I'm not sure he was better than Piazza, and I don't really care. We don't have complete stats for Josh, and Piazza was probably juicing, so it's a wash as far as I'm concerned. I didn't vote in the poll.
          They call me Mr. Baseball. Not because of my love for the game; because of all the stitches in my head.

          Comment


          • I don't know guys, the sample size for each season is just so small.

            There's no chance to regress (or progress) towards a given mean.

            We really don't even know what a true mean is for Gibson.

            I don't believe the stats shown are completely accurate and from league only games, but assuming they are....

            1936 - Shows he has a .451 batting average over 95 PA. Anyone really think that stays close to that over the course of seven times more PA?

            At the same time, his .293 batting average in 163 PA probably isn't indicative of his true skill either. Perhaps he gets hot and raises that to .330 over a FULL season.

            No idea what the splits are or even what stadiums these games were played, or who they were played against.

            His final slash of .350/.401/.624 was totaled by using many short seasons, where like I said, there was no chance to truly find his real level.

            Are there people assuming that line stays the same in MLB?

            Are there people who think MLB player's stats wouldn't have dramatically increased in the same setting Gibson played in? I'm just curious. No bashing. No slamming. So hold those accusations please.

            My personal opinion has been stated. I think he would belong among the best hitters no matter what. But when comparing him against a proven MLB player in the modern era of specialized relief, I think a lot of assumptions are taking place.
            Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 02-15-2015, 08:27 PM.

            Comment


            • I don't think that anyone doubts the quality of the NeLs. I can't speak for others, but I'm a little offended that there is an implication from some posters that those of us who don't rank NeL players have some sort of ulterior motive or bias.

              I am just only going to rank major leaguers vs major leaguers. I'm not going to rank MLBers vs. Japanese , PCL, NeLers, Mexican, or Cuban leaguers. There is no more meaning to it than that. As a poster recently wrote, it just becomes guesswork.
              This week's Giant

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

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JR Hart View Post
                I am just only going to rank major leaguers vs major leaguers. I'm not going to rank MLBers vs. Japanese , PCL, NeLers, Mexican, or Cuban leaguers. There is no more meaning to it than that. As a poster recently wrote, it just becomes guesswork.
                I think I'll take this line from now on too.
                "The first draft of anything is crap." - Ernest Hemingway

                There's no such thing as an ultimate stat.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JR Hart View Post
                  I don't think that anyone doubts the quality of the NeLs. I can't speak for others, but I'm a little offended that there is an implication from some posters that those of us who don't rank NeL players have some sort of ulterior motive or bias.

                  I am just only going to rank major leaguers vs major leaguers. I'm not going to rank MLBers vs. Japanese , PCL, NeLers, Mexican, or Cuban leaguers. There is no more meaning to it than that. As a poster recently wrote, it just becomes guesswork.
                  Well said Sir.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JR Hart View Post
                    I don't think that anyone doubts the quality of the NeLs. I can't speak for others, but I'm a little offended that there is an implication from some posters that those of us who don't rank NeL players have some sort of ulterior motive or bias.

                    I am just only going to rank major leaguers vs major leaguers. I'm not going to rank MLBers vs. Japanese , PCL, NeLers, Mexican, or Cuban leaguers. There is no more meaning to it than that. As a poster recently wrote, it just becomes guesswork.
                    I've said the same, why some think if you don't see it their way, you have a bias.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
                      The answer of course, is that Cool Papa would be standing on third already, while Piazza's throw is still on it's way to second. Duh.
                      I know you're trying to be a wiseacre (you've already referenced Bell in a similar fashion in this thread) but considering Piazza's defensive, er...skills, you're probably right.

                      Originally posted by Herr28 View Post
                      I couldn't care less who is a "greater" hitter, as anyone can tell by the fact I won't vote here. However, I have all I can take with the attitude toward black baseball legends from the Negro Leagues, the laughing at the stats, the zingers against the level of competition, and the general negative attitude towards that exciting, rich and wonderful part of American baseball history.
                      Originally posted by Herr28 View Post
                      Opinions are opinions, and ranking games or "vs" threads like this one are not that important. Sometimes I play the games, sometimes I don't. This is a game that I am not playing. However, there have been discouraging remarks here about the Negro Leagues, the quality of payers, the stats and it is the same thing that keeps getting brought up. The tone in many of those posts is also quite obvious and unfortunate. This is a forum for discussing baseball history, and shouldn't be a place where we see such negativity.

                      To be honest, and I think most know this, I really don't care who wins these silly little games. My focus is on the history, and I find it hard to swallow some of the comments that have been made in this thread that cast the Negro Leagues and many of the players in such a bad light. That is why I took an hour or so to type out that introduction, hopefully to provide a resource or some motivation for some more people (our members here or those visitors interested in baseball history or the Negro Leagues) to expand their knowledge of baseball history. That can be done without all the negativity.
                      Co-sign every word of this. My bottom line position in all of this (one that opened me up to derision a couple of weeks ago in Matt's thread ranking the greatest players) is that one to one comparison of pre-integration players with postwar ones is virtually impossible (which lots of people agree with) but that fact cuts both ways, applying equally to NeLers and the white players of prewar MLB.

                      For that reason, I haven't voted in this poll and don't intend to but Herr's points are all exceptionally trenchant and dead on. I'm glad he took the time to make the case so eloquently.
                      3 6 10 21 29 31 35 41 42 44 47

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ol' aches and pains View Post
                        But the thing is, with Piazza, we have absolute certainty, with Gibson we don't. So how can we make even a reasonably accurate comparison? Not to mention Piazza was probably juicing for at least part of his career. How does that skew the numbers?

                        You can have a choice of inheriting tax free:

                        1) a 1 bedroom flat with a certified market value of $125,000 or
                        2) 25,000 acres in a western state, 75 miles from a city with a population of at least 250,000 but no more than 500,000 people.


                        #1 is an absolute certainty
                        #2 is not


                        This is what some people are saying: It's IMPOSSIBLE to decide. Since, it's impossible, I MUST take #1. Can you see the issue?

                        a) it's not impossible to decide. There are many ways to decide if one wants to decide.
                        b) no one is forced to take #1.

                        The saying goes: a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. What some people want the saying to be is: a bird in the hand is worth anything in the bush. The first saying is a rational comparison of 2 choices where one is not completely known. The second is an irrational choice to take absolute certainty in all cases.

                        It's a choice. People make choices all the time with insufficient data.

                        1) investments
                        2) mates and spouses
                        3) jobs
                        4) houses
                        5) careers
                        6) health decisions
                        7) hobbies
                        8) vacations
                        9) friends

                        No one ever has absolute certainty. Every decision has risks and missing information. The idea that one needs absolute certainty is a red herring. No one uses it, needs it, waits for it, or refuses to decide without it. Using it for Black NeL players is an excuse not to rank or vote for them.
                        Last edited by drstrangelove; 02-16-2015, 03:20 AM.
                        "It's better to look good, than be good."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
                          For some reason, some just can't see the logic in that.
                          So often we have seen on this board "some" claiming we can't really compare a great white MLB players from the early years to todays stars.
                          Who says that? I'm pretty certain it's no one voting. I don't think that relates to these issues we are discussing---anyone who is voting by definition believes we can make comparisons.
                          Last edited by drstrangelove; 02-16-2015, 03:33 AM.
                          "It's better to look good, than be good."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
                            My personal opinion has been stated. I think he would belong among the best hitters no matter what.
                            Okay. That's on the same page with me. Our thoughts are in sync. Seriously, not sarcastically speaking.

                            Let's say, for discussion purposes: "I think he would belong among the best hitters no matter what" places him in the same group as these 6: Foxx, Hornsby, Pujols, Mays, Aaron, DiMaggio. I just used some of the top righties, so obviously the whole list is bigger. Pujols is the only "modern" guy.


                            Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
                            But when comparing him against a proven MLB player in the modern era of specialized relief, I think a lot of assumptions are taking place.
                            How does this statement not apply to Foxx, Hornsby, Mays, Aaron, DiMaggio as well?

                            If he's in the first list, why is he not in the second list?


                            Foxx, Hornsby, DiMaggio did not play:

                            1) in night games
                            2) in an integrated league
                            3) with air travel
                            4) in the modern era of specialized relief
                            5) with modern equipment
                            6) with the current strike zone
                            7) with synthetic grass
                            8) with cutters, 4-seams, split fingers, etc.

                            Do Foxx, Hornsby and DiMaggio drop off your list too? Do 5 guys drop off your list? What takes ONLY Gibson off the list after he was on the list?
                            Last edited by drstrangelove; 02-16-2015, 03:50 AM.
                            "It's better to look good, than be good."

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by drstrangelove View Post
                              Who says that? I'm pretty certain it's no one voting. I don't think that relates to these issues we are discussing---anyone who is voting by definition believes we can make comparisons.
                              Not speakling about this thread.
                              I'm certainly not going to go back, find and repost over the years, but it's there how many dozens of times it's been said, on BBF.
                              Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 02-16-2015, 05:27 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by drstrangelove View Post
                                Okay. That's on the same page with me. Our thoughts are in sync. Seriously, not sarcastically speaking.

                                Let's say, for discussion purposes: "I think he would belong among the best hitters no matter what" places him in the same group as these 6: Foxx, Hornsby, Pujols, Mays, Aaron, DiMaggio. I just used some of the top righties, so obviously the whole list is bigger. Pujols is the only "modern" guy.




                                How does this statement not apply to Foxx, Hornsby, Mays, Aaron, DiMaggio as well?

                                If he's in the first list, why is he not in the second list?


                                Foxx, Hornsby, DiMaggio did not play:

                                1) in night games
                                2) in an integrated league
                                3) with air travel
                                4) in the modern era of specialized relief
                                5) with modern equipment
                                6) with the current strike zone
                                7) with synthetic grass
                                8) with cutters, 4-seams, split fingers, etc.

                                Do Foxx, Hornsby and DiMaggio drop off your list too? Do 5 guys drop off your list? What takes ONLY Gibson off the list after he was on the list?
                                I thought we buried the night game issue. I know I did on this board and gave numbers to prove it.
                                Intead of repeating the old line, "they didn't play night games", I did some research.

                                Picked at random, MLB stats. Obviously with todays schedules many more games, at bats at night but the day sample is big enough to be significant.

                                -----------Ba.----OBA---Slugging.
                                2000
                                Day-----.271-----.345----.438
                                Night----.270-----.345---.436

                                For that matter, Dimaggio did play night games, not as many as todays players. Also, stadium lighting back then, I would think not as good as today 60 years later.

                                2014
                                Day----.250------.314----.387
                                Night--.252------.313----.387
                                Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 02-16-2015, 05:43 AM.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X