Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mike Piazza vs Josh Gibson

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

  • Los Bravos
    replied
    I have to wonder which Mike Piazza some of you guys were watching. prc is exactly right. He was an utter oaf back there.

    Leave a comment:


  • bluesky5
    replied
    Originally posted by willshad View Post

    That's an incorrect and misinformed statement. Piazza was good at all aspects of catching besides throwing out base stealers. Overall he was probably above average defensively.
    Yea, he definitely gets a bad rap defensively.

    Leave a comment:


  • willshad
    replied
    Originally posted by pedrosrotatorcuff View Post
    My first reaction to the thread title, and then the "defense not considered" part of the OP, was that they're not really comparable because Piazza was a CINO (Catcher in Name Only), pretty much a first baseman with extra gear. That's a defensive argument, I know, but at least, according to what we know, Gibson fielded his position at an above-average level.
    That's an incorrect and misinformed statement. Piazza was good at all aspects of catching besides throwing out base stealers. Overall he was probably above average defensively.

    Leave a comment:


  • pedrosrotatorcuff
    replied
    My first reaction to the thread title, and then the "defense not considered" part of the OP, was that they're not really comparable because Piazza was a CINO (Catcher in Name Only), pretty much a first baseman with extra gear. That's a defensive argument, I know, but at least, according to what we know, Gibson fielded his position at an above-average level.

    Leave a comment:


  • SHOELESSJOE3
    replied
    Originally posted by Cowtipper View Post
    Can't really compare a guy who spent much of his career playing exhibition and amateur quality games, whose argument is based largely on anecdotal and apocryphal evidence, in leagues that might not have even touched the quality of our minor leagues, with a guy who spent his career in the established, well-known highest level of baseball in the entire world.
    To me, this is the bottom line. Not a put down of Gibson, impossible to compare the two.

    Leave a comment:


  • Honus Wagner Rules
    replied
    I'm not sure how I missed this 10 year old essay on the Bill James Online website. The poll was dead even.

    Mike Piazza vs Josh Gibson

    This quote stood out to me.

    "I’ll be honest with you. It doesn’t really matter to me. Because I’m not actually out to prove Gibson is better than Piazza, or vice versa. I’m here to see how we make our decisions. I’m here to see how we decide what we believe in."
    Last edited by Honus Wagner Rules; 10-16-2018, 09:53 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bucketfoot
    replied
    Yeah Al Simmons or someone. I think he's a consensus top 100 or Hof, but rarely gets cited now. I honestly have never seen anyone claim he didn't merit being in the Hall, but you never know.

    Leave a comment:


  • SHOELESSJOE3
    replied
    Originally posted by drstrangelove View Post
    I hear ya. My oldest son loves military history too and he surprises me with the level of knowledge he has on the subject (not from me mind you.) And I completely agree....ranking generals is subjective, but it's fun and no one seems too emotionally attached to any one general. Maybe that's the problem---some of us (me included) take this ranking a little too seriously.
    Include me also.
    It's all about the game of baseball, a big part is the numbers.
    This particular thread deals with players but the board is often dealing with numbers, records.
    The past and the present. Which record is more impressive, the old or the new, the game has changed.

    I have to bring this guy back because there has been so many debates, discussions dealing with him, Babe Ruth.
    At times I may be debating another poster who puts less value on him then I do.
    Then I have to stop and think, the other poster did put up some good points. Obvious I think I have it right but so does the other poster
    Then I conclude, maybe were both off the mark. I'm a bit too high on Ruth and he may be too low.
    So I'm satisfied with saying, with concluding maybe Ruth is some where in the middle.
    I only use Ruth as an example, it could be any other player, any record.

    Leave a comment:


  • JR Hart
    replied
    Originally posted by drstrangelove View Post
    I hear ya. My oldest son loves military history too and he surprises me with the level of knowledge he has on the subject (not from me mind you.) And I completely agree....ranking generals is subjective, but it's fun and no one seems too emotionally attached to any one general. Maybe that's the problem---some of us (me included) take this ranking a little too seriously.
    It's a problem and it's not. We all love baseball. There is a ton of disagreement, but mostly there is amazing discourse. I'm trying to take the edge off more, but it's hard because we love this stuff.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bucketfoot
    replied
    Taking Park f/x into account, Belisarius' WAR total was really impressive. Traded Rome a few times too much and was put on the dl by the Bubonic Plague, but you can't have everything. Plus having Theodora as an Owner--

    Leave a comment:


  • Honus Wagner Rules
    replied
    Originally posted by drstrangelove View Post
    I hear ya. My oldest son loves military history too and he surprises me with the level of knowledge he has on the subject (not from me mind you.) And I completely agree....ranking generals is subjective, but it's fun and no one seems too emotionally attached to any one general. Maybe that's the problem---some of us (me included) take this ranking a little too seriously.
    Post of the Day!!!!!!

    Also many of the legendary military leaders in history lived centuries ago. When have no film or photos of them to connect us to them in a personal way the way we connect with baseball players.

    As a kid I was really drawn to Spartacus mainly due the the 1960 film staring Kirk Douglas ("I am Spartacus!"). Then in college I discovered that the earliest historical documents referencing Spartacus was something like four centuries after his death.
    Last edited by Honus Wagner Rules; 02-19-2015, 05:09 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrangelove
    replied
    Originally posted by JR Hart View Post
    I have a History major and love reading military history to this day. Without question, any good War College studies tactics and strategy, from all phases of history. But, if they were going to rank generals, it would just as subjective as these threads, despite efforts to quantify it (just like here.) If we didn't like ranking and players here, there wouldn't be many threads in this or the HOF section. There are many different ways of doing it here and that's cool. I've just made a choice to only rank and compare MLB players.

    I hear ya. My oldest son loves military history too and he surprises me with the level of knowledge he has on the subject (not from me mind you.) And I completely agree....ranking generals is subjective, but it's fun and no one seems too emotionally attached to any one general. Maybe that's the problem---some of us (me included) take this ranking a little too seriously.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrangelove
    replied
    Originally posted by Dude Paskert View Post
    Hannibal had a great plan for Cannae and deserves acclaim for it and the execution, but you've also gotta say the Romans were pretty stupid to fall for it so badly. The Romans had a huge problem in that their military leaders in the field were also their elected civil leaders, the two consuls. It was common for these men to be poor at military command and maybe even more common for them to not act in a coordinated way due to political or personal factors. Also, the consular terms would often end at inconvenient times and result in sudden strategic shifts that may or may not have made sense. Not unusual for the Romans to lose an army or two in a truly major conflict and then either A) elect competent military men as consuls or B)name a dictator with extraordinary powers to see them through the crisis.
    (ignoring proconsular commands for simplicity)
    Not disagreeing with you. I think your comments on the consuls is spot on. Certainly not too bright in how they let themselves get suckered into that battle.

    One of the Roman's problems was also ingrained Roman strategy and independent of those leaders at the battle. Hannibal picked up on that in prior engagements. The Romans didn't divide their forces into small structural units the way they later did and in the way modern armies do. Their infantry was organized much like the Greek Phalanx---one large rectangular blob of infantry. Within the infantry there was no center, left or right: no units that could be ordered to hold, withdraw, rotate or attack, while other units did other operations. They had horse on the flanks but that was it.

    Hannibal maneuvered them so that although the Romans had more troops, they couldn't out flank the Carthaginians. The consuls, then went for depth instead of breath, enabling Hannibal to envelop them with smaller forces. Brilliant.

    As a result, when Hannibal drew them forward and then started his flanking maneuvers and destroyed the Roman horse, the Romans had no way to control their infantry forces: to order the flanks to rotate or to defend or even to order the center to halt the advance.
    Last edited by drstrangelove; 02-19-2015, 01:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dude Paskert
    replied
    Originally posted by drstrangelove View Post
    I assume this is rhetorical. But they of course look at everything they can and weigh all the evidence, even from 2,300 years ago. The battle of Cannae (Hannibal) is considered brilliant and forced the Romans to completely revamp their military tactics. Hannibal himself had other campaigns and battles that nearly brought Rome to it's knees.

    The point is that some historians examine all information as potentially useful as opposed to first arguing that everything was automatically false, worthless and to be censored if it didn't match modern day thoughts. One can always disregard things after one has good cause to do so. But some people start first with discarding, then when nothing is left, they use that as proof that it was right to discard in the first place.
    Hannibal had a great plan for Cannae and deserves acclaim for it and the execution, but you've also gotta say the Romans were pretty stupid to fall for it so badly. The Romans had a huge problem in that their military leaders in the field were also their elected civil leaders, the two consuls. It was common for these men to be poor at military command and maybe even more common for them to not act in a coordinated way due to political or personal factors. Also, the consular terms would often end at inconvenient times and result in sudden strategic shifts that may or may not have made sense. Not unusual for the Romans to lose an army or two in a truly major conflict and then either A) elect competent military men as consuls or B)name a dictator with extraordinary powers to see them through the crisis.
    (ignoring proconsular commands for simplicity)

    Leave a comment:


  • JR Hart
    replied
    Originally posted by drstrangelove View Post
    I assume this is rhetorical. But they of course look at everything they can and weigh all the evidence, even from 2,300 years ago. The battle of Cannae (Hannibal) is considered brilliant and forced the Romans to completely revamp their military tactics. Hannibal himself had other campaigns and battles that nearly brought Rome to it's knees.

    The point is that some historians examine all information as potentially useful as opposed to first arguing that everything was automatically false, worthless and to be censored if it didn't match modern day thoughts. One can always disregard things after one has good cause to do so. But some people start first with discarding, then when nothing is left, they use that as proof that it was right to discard in the first place.
    I have a History major and love reading military history to this day. Without question, any good War College studies tactics and strategy, from all phases of history. But, if they were going to rank generals, it would just as subjective as these threads, despite efforts to quantify it (just like here.) If we didn't like ranking and players here, there wouldn't be many threads in this or the HOF section. There are many different ways of doing it here and that's cool. I've just made a choice to only rank and compare MLB players.

    BTW, You are more than welcome to jump in our Relief Pitcher HOF voting. I'd love to read your thoughts on those guys. :balloon:

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X