Mike Piazza vs Josh Gibson

[ol' aches and pains]

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?

Maybe it's what some people are saying, it's not what I'm saying. If you read my posts you would know I didn't choose #1 or #2.

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.

No one is forced to take either choice, and I haven't.

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.

I'm saying because I don't believe I have sufficient data on Gibson to make an informed choice, I will refrain from voting here. It's not an "excuse" to not vote for a Negro League player. This isn't on the same level of importance to my life as
1) investments
2) mates and spouses
3) jobs
4) houses
5) careers
6) health decisions
7) hobbies
8) vacations
9) friends.

As I already said, I'm not voting for either choice here, and I explained why. I don't have some anti-Negro league bias or agenda. I took the trouble of typing post#364 to clarify my position.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

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.

You have to get iff your BS line, about black players from the past being viewed differently.
The very same is said about some great white MLB players from long ago.

Some say they (past white players) can't be compared to todays players, can't be ranked over some of todays players. No integration, pitching is different, playing conditions, little relieving, the ball.......
You know what I say to the above, I won't debate that, they have a point.

What is your problem, the same argument is made about some great white players. open your mind.

[Dude Paskert]

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.

Nuh uh, Cool Papa was already out of the game because he hit a sharp grounder up the middle and it hit him in the head as he was sliding into second.

;^)

[Pere]

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 said something about that, but also that it is also substantially guesswork to rank major leaguers from very different eras. And it's not as if there is no such thing as good guesswork, where more rigorous approaches can't apply.

[Pere]

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.

Yes. The comparison/ranking threads are only useful to me on the occasions when poking at the question from different sides turns up something of broader implications. Unfortunately, one thing revealed here is the persistent impression that players and leagues are only eligible for discussion to the extent that they have meaningful MLB numbers.

[willshad]

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.

For me it's not about being 'certain' or not. For one thing, my rankings of 'greatest players' are for MAJOR LEAGUERS only, judged by what they did in MLB baseball. I will not give 'credit' to an Ichiro for what he did in Japan.
But even so, if I were to attempt to guesstimate how Gibson would have done in MLB, Piazza would be a BEST CASE SCENARIO. How could the best hitter BY FAR at the position in the history of the game NOT be the best case scenario? People who back Gibson are woefully ignorant of the fact that he was a CATCHER not an outfielder or first baseman...he would not have had a hitting career like Ruth or Foxx, because judging by ALL evidence, that is impossible to do. The MLB catchers of the time, even the HOFers and legends, had short careers, short injury plagued seasons, and had a few great years, mixed in with not so great ones. This is normal for the position, and to be expected, and has been true of catchers SINCE then as well.
But, somehow, Gibson is supposed to be except from all of this. He is supposed to play every game in MLB and hit like Foxx or Ruth each and every season, just because everyone said how great he was, for 15 or so seasons. He would never get injured, never have a bad year, hit 500+ foot home runs every other at bat. I don't buy it, and neither should anyone else.
One thing I AM certain of, is that NO catcher in MLB history has had the type of hitting career that some people suggest Gibson might have had. Piazza was the best by FAR, and thus this is the highest standard he should be judged against.

[bluesky5]

Thank you, I guess?

I meant it as a compliment.

[drstrangelove]

Maybe it's what some people are saying, it's not what I'm saying. If you read my posts you would know I didn't choose #1 or #2.

No one is forced to take either choice, and I haven't.

I'm saying because I don't believe I have sufficient data on Gibson to make an informed choice, I will refrain from voting here. It's not an "excuse" to not vote for a Negro League player. This isn't on the same level of importance to my life as
1) investments
2) mates and spouses
3) jobs
4) houses
5) careers
6) health decisions
7) hobbies
8) vacations
9) friends.

As I already said, I'm not voting for either choice here, and I explained why. I don't have some anti-Negro league bias or agenda. I took the trouble of typing post#364 to clarify my position.

My post wasn't directed at you. I wasn't accusing you of having a bias or agenda. In fact I haven't accused anyone of that. I referred to your post because you suggested that we have certainty for Piazza but not for Gibson.


However from what I'm gathering is that no one in this thread, at least the post 2012 people actually voted for anyone.

[drstrangelove]

You have to get iff your BS line, about black players from the past being viewed differently.
The very same is said about some great white MLB players from long ago.

Yes that's true for both. I didn't say it was different for white people in 1871-1890. Where did I say that only Black players are being ignored?

But your right. All sorts of people from all sorts of eras of all different colors going back dozens of centuries are viewed differently. We are talking 2 particular players in the 20th century baseball however.

Some say they (past white players) can't be compared to todays players, can't be ranked over some of todays players. No integration, pitching is different, playing conditions, little relieving, the ball.......
You know what I say to the above, I won't debate that, they have a point.

What is your problem, the same argument is made about some great white players. open your mind.

Open you mind.

We weren't, I wasn't, we aren't comparing Cap Anson or Dan Brouthers to Mike Piazza. And I never said this was a race issue. And I've already said it's not an issue for people who refuse to vote.

So. Are there more things that I didn't say that you'd like to reply when you quote me?

[Dude Paskert]

For me it's not about being 'certain' or not. For one thing, my rankings of 'greatest players' are for MAJOR LEAGUERS only, judged by what they did in MLB baseball. I will not give 'credit' to an Ichiro for what he did in Japan.
But even so, if I were to attempt to guesstimate how Gibson would have done in MLB, Piazza would be a BEST CASE SCENARIO. How could the best hitter BY FAR at the position in the history of the game NOT be the best case scenario? People who back Gibson are woefully ignorant of the fact that he was a CATCHER not an outfielder or first baseman...he would not have had a hitting career like Ruth or Foxx, because judging by ALL evidence, that is impossible to do. The MLB catchers of the time, even the HOFers and legends, had short careers, short injury plagued seasons, and had a few great years, mixed in with not so great ones. This is normal for the position, and to be expected, and has been true of catchers SINCE then as well.
But, somehow, Gibson is supposed to be except from all of this. He is supposed to play every game in MLB and hit like Foxx or Ruth each and every season, just because everyone said how great he was, for 15 or so seasons. He would never get injured, never have a bad year, hit 500+ foot home runs every other at bat. I don't buy it, and neither should anyone else.
One thing I AM certain of, is that NO catcher in MLB history has had the type of hitting career that some people suggest Gibson might have had. Piazza was the best by FAR, and thus this is the highest standard he should be judged against.

You know, if Ruth had been blackballed from the majors and forced to play in, say, the big nosed guy league, nobody would believe the stories about him, either.
A great pitcher AND a great hitter? Yeah, that's because he was only playing against other big nosed guys.
500+ foot home runs on a regular basis? Well, we all know they played with golf balls instead of baseballs in the big nosed league.

Thing is, quite a few people from Gibson's time felt he was a Ruthian talent. Not everybody agreed and maybe there were reasons why those people would be prone to exaggerate, but it wasn't just one person.

[willshad]

Are people really penalizing Piazza for Andro? Are we also penalizing guys who took greenies and vitamins now as well? How about drinking a Red Bull? Does that count as a PED?

[willshad]

You know, if Ruth had been blackballed from the majors and forced to play in, say, the big nosed guy league, nobody would believe the stories about him, either.
A great pitcher AND a great hitter? Yeah, that's because he was only playing against other big nosed guys.
500+ foot home runs on a regular basis? Well, we all know they played with golf balls instead of baseballs in the big nosed league.

Thing is, quite a few people from Gibson's time felt he was a Ruthian talent. Not everybody agreed and maybe there were reasons why those people would be prone to exaggerate, but it wasn't just one person.

It's one thing to hit like Ruth as an outfielder...to hit like Ruth as a catcher is a whole different story. Ruth didn't hit like Ruth when he was a pitcher..how would he have done as a full time catcher?
There seems to be a general understanding that catchers have shorter careers, decreased performance, more injuries, and inconsistency. Why does all that go out the window when talking about Gibson?

[Herr28]

Are people really penalizing Piazza for Andro? Are we also penalizing guys who took greenies and vitamins now as well?

Are greenies and vitamins also metabolized by the body as testosterone to grow muscle and increase performance?

[drstrangelove]

For me it's not about being 'certain' or not. For one thing, my rankings of 'greatest players' are for MAJOR LEAGUERS only, judged by what they did in MLB baseball.

By definition, all the Black players before 1947 don't even qualify as bat boys, ball girls or hot dog vendors.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...adjeed01.shtml

This guy for example, with a line of .241/.274/.320 and OPS+ of 54 at catcher, who started for no one, would be ranked higher than Gibson. And well he should...!


And this guy...

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...affeto01.shtml

with a career 6 homers would be ranked over Willie Mays had MLB not integrated until 1974. And again, that's an easy call. He actually played MLB.


Got it.

[willshad]

Are greenies and vitamins also metabolized by the body as testosterone to grow muscle and increase performance?

They certainly can increase your performance. Where does one draw the line?