Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mike Piazza vs Josh Gibson

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

  • GoslinFan
    replied
    Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post

    I believe there is a misunderstanding here. The documented games that Seamheads has listed are the documented games they have found so far. That doesn't mean those are the only games they played. For example Seamheads shows Gibson with 52 official games played in 1935. That doesn't mean he only play 52 games in 1935. He played many more games that either have not been documented yet or are not fully documented. Seamheads uses very stringent standards when sorting the stats for Negro leaguers. They only could official Negro League games and only if there is either a complete boxscore or detailed play-by-play accounts. If they have a boxscore with even one AB missing none of the stats for all the players in that game are counted. And Gibson barnstormed quite a bit as well. Even though barnstorming games are not part of Gibson's official record Gibson still felt the real grind and the real wear and tear of those games on his body.
    Thank you for that information.

    Leave a comment:


  • Honus Wagner Rules
    replied
    Originally posted by GoslinFan View Post

    Arlett seems like a stud. I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison, given that Gibson's numbers were accumulated in much shorter spans. We could all list many players' 40 game stretches and add them up to be very impressive. The grind of a season is not something you can replicate, duplicate, or fabricate.

    If I have to bet I'd say there's probably a 40% chance that Gibson lasts as a catcher with career numbers better than Piazza. Nobody is waving him off as some cartoonish fraud. I do believe he was great and am genuine in saying that I truly wish he had the chance to prove himself in MLB games. As I mentioned before though...so many factors have to fall in his favor for this to happen, health not being the least of them.
    I believe there is a misunderstanding here. The documented games that Seamheads has listed are the documented games they have found so far. That doesn't mean those are the only games they played. For example Seamheads shows Gibson with 52 official games played in 1935. That doesn't mean he only play 52 games in 1935. He played many more games that either have not been documented yet or are not fully documented. Seamheads uses very stringent standards when sorting the stats for Negro leaguers. They only could official Negro League games and only if there is either a complete boxscore or detailed play-by-play accounts. If they have a boxscore with even one AB missing none of the stats for all the players in that game are counted. And Gibson barnstormed quite a bit as well. Even though barnstorming games are not part of Gibson's official record Gibson still felt the real grind and the real wear and tear of those games on his body.
    Last edited by Honus Wagner Rules; 03-21-2022, 11:33 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bamay22
    replied
    Originally posted by willshad View Post

    I never said he would not hit as well as Piazza. I said that IF he hit like Piazza it would almost certainly have to be at another position besides catcher. Whether he COULD do it as a catcher or not is besides the point..he wouldn't get the chance to.

    There are reasons why only one career catcher has an OPS+ of 140, and very few are over 120. For one, the rigors of the position and small injuries, soreness etc of playing the position. But, more importantly, the guys who can hit that well are not kept at the catcher spot.

    So, Gibson would have two huge factors working against him: 1) The fact that the catcher position generally deflates offensive numbers, and 2) The fact that guys who can hit at the top level are not kept at the position very long. Even if he overcomes these factors, he has to stay healthy and have a long enough career, which is definitely not a certainty given the rigors of the position. So there is more to it than people saying; 'he is the best hitter I've ever seen'. His hitting talent is not even really part of the equation here. Even if he had the hitting ability of Babe Ruth, then the odds are very slim that he would have a full career at the catcher's spot putting up Piazza-like numbers.
    Let’s say Gibson does move away from the catcher position. Couldn’t one make the argument that Gibson off of his bat alone could top Piazza? I don’t think that’s that far off of a claim. Would you argue purely raw that Piazza is a better hitter than Gibson? I just want to see what angle you’re looking at this from.

    And before you say it, yes I know, even if Gibson is a better hitter than Piazza it doesn’t necessarily mean that he is better(even if I am giving you the advantage for Gibson not staying a catcher his entire career) but I just want to see what you think.

    Leave a comment:


  • Honus Wagner Rules
    replied
    Originally posted by willshad View Post

    I never said he would not hit as well as Piazza. I said that IF he hit like Piazza it would almost certainly have to be at another position besides catcher. Whether he COULD do it as a catcher or not is besides the point..he wouldn't get the chance to.

    There are reasons why only one career catcher has an OPS+ of 140, and very few are over 120. For one, the rigors of the position and small injuries, soreness etc of playing the position. But, more importantly, the guys who can hit that well are not kept at the catcher spot.
    This is how tough it is for career catchers to put up a 140 OPS+. Buster Posey had a career 140 OPS+ through his first seven seasons (3,078 PA's). Posey ended up at 129 OPS+ and that's with one final hurrah in 2021 where he put up a 140 OPS+. In Posey's 6th through 9th seasons he put up a 110 OPS+. His body was just beat. His hips were gone. it got so bad he literally could barely hit the ball past the infield for a long time. In the first half of the 2017 season Posey hit 10 home runs in 318 PA's (1 HR ever 32 PA's). In his next 1,143 PA's Posey hit just 14 home runs (1 HR every 82 PA's). Posey bounced back in 2021 with 18 home runs in 113 games then called it a career at age 34.
    Last edited by Honus Wagner Rules; 03-21-2022, 11:17 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • willshad
    replied
    Originally posted by Bamay22 View Post

    Dude you’re literally tackling an assumption with an assumption of your own. You’re not ok with the assumption that Gibson would have been better than Piazza based on the ASSUMPTION that he would have moved away from the catcher position.
    I never said he would not hit as well as Piazza. I said that IF he hit like Piazza it would almost certainly have to be at another position besides catcher. Whether he COULD do it as a catcher or not is besides the point..he wouldn't get the chance to.

    There are reasons why only one career catcher has an OPS+ of 140, and very few are over 120. For one, the rigors of the position and small injuries, soreness etc of playing the position. But, more importantly, the guys who can hit that well are not kept at the catcher spot.

    So, Gibson would have two huge factors working against him: 1) The fact that the catcher position generally deflates offensive numbers, and 2) The fact that guys who can hit at the top level are not kept at the position very long. Even if he overcomes these factors, he has to stay healthy and have a long enough career, which is definitely not a certainty given the rigors of the position. So there is more to it than people saying; 'he is the best hitter I've ever seen'. His hitting talent is not even really part of the equation here. Even if he had the hitting ability of Babe Ruth, then the odds are very slim that he would have a full career at the catcher's spot putting up Piazza-like numbers.
    Last edited by willshad; 03-21-2022, 11:16 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bamay22
    replied
    Originally posted by GoslinFan View Post

    LOL Don't assume I'm assuming your assuming type of thing?

    Seriously though...

    There is a higher likelihood given what we know about the grind of the position, the better competition, and length of the season, that the assumption Gibson doesn't stay at the catcher position is more probable than that he would remain at catcher and be a better hitter than Piazza.

    Could have been like this for all we know

    https://youtu.be/QJNwjjaoZzU
    No I’m not mad about the assumption of Gibson being moved away from behind the plate, I’m mad that this guy is trying to justify his assumption with another assumption and then front like he just stated a clear fact as to why Piazza is better than Gibson.

    Do we assume that Gibson is moved away from the position to protect his offensive output or do we assume Gibson doesn’t match Piazza’s offensive production given he stays at the position for the majority of his career?

    Leave a comment:


  • Los Bravos
    replied
    Originally posted by GoslinFan View Post

    So I'm mistaken that you have Gibson ahead of Piazza? If so I apologize for assuming that.
    Originally posted by Los Bravos
    I chose Gibson in the Gibson vs. Piazza thread we had on here a while ago but that had at least as much to do with my relatively low opinion of All Things Piazza as it did anything else. It's entirely possible ( I would even venture to say likely) that he'd have been moved somewhere else in that theoretical league.
    https://www.baseball-fever.com/forum...79#post3642579

    Piazza is (in my own personal opinion) a complete PED case. Without them, I doubt anyone ever hears his name.

    Gibson, as bluesky and several others have pointed out time and again, is not someone who has only recently been discovered and is largely unknown. Due to circumstances beyond his control, his career wasn't as meticulously documented as his white contemporaries. Even with that, there is enough clear evidence of his greatness as a hitter to draw solid conclusions about his place in the game's firmament. My estimation of his talent level has precisely zero to do with whether or not he would have maintained that level of performance at the plate as a full time catcher because I don't care. I am someone who thinks that sort of thing is often overplayed in modern analytics, so it doesn't factor at all in my ranking of him as a hitter.

    In addition to the effect it had on his hitting, I also think Piazza's PED-aided physique allowed him to keep catching long after the normal wear and tear from that much time behind the plate would've sapped the strength of a clean player in the same circumstances. (That's also a factor in much of Ivan Rodriguez's longevity. I think IRod had tremendous natural talent and skill but he extended his career and stayed at such a high level, via artificial means.) So all of the praise singing about Piazza and his longevity as a catcher really falls on deaf ears with me. It only calls more attention to the artificiality of his numbers.

    I don't normally get too involved in these ranking type list making threads, for a number of reasons. As I've noted elsewhere, I have Bench on top of my career catcher list, with a lot of the usual suspects (Campanella, Berra, Fisk, Carter, Dickey) close by. I'm not sure I've ever included Gibson in any of these lists. If I have, it's not firm, because it's really hard to know how good his overall game was.

    Where the real issue comes in is when people (in this thread and elsewhere on this board) try to trot out all of the old stereotypes and ignorant conclusions, that all NeL ball was just a big joke, unworthy of attention or respect and that all of it's players should be treated more like Paul Bunyan than Lou Gehrig. No amount of perfunctory disclaimers about what a shame it all was that they never played in MLB or patronizing spiels about "characters" or "lore" can soften that blow.

    Leave a comment:


  • GoslinFan
    replied
    Originally posted by Bamay22 View Post

    Dude you’re literally tackling an assumption with an assumption of your own. You’re not ok with the assumption that Gibson would have been better than Piazza based on the ASSUMPTION that he would have moved away from the catcher position.
    LOL Don't assume I'm assuming your assuming type of thing?

    Seriously though...

    There is a higher likelihood given what we know about the grind of the position, the better competition, and length of the season, that the assumption Gibson doesn't stay at the catcher position is more probable than that he would remain at catcher and be a better hitter than Piazza.

    Could have been like this for all we know

    https://youtu.be/QJNwjjaoZzU
    Last edited by GoslinFan; 03-21-2022, 08:24 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bamay22
    replied
    Originally posted by willshad View Post
    The main reason why Gibson, or anyone else, would not hit as well as Piazza from the catcher's spot is simply because in all likelihood they wouldn't stay at the catcher's spot for very long. Guys like Foxx and Delgado were moved from the position basically before they hit the majors. Guys like York and Murphy only played a couple of seasons before switching over. I don't really find it feasible that Gibson would be putting up Foxx type of rate stats each season, and the team still playing him at a position where he would not only be limited in his games per season, but also drastically shortening his career. Catchers back then usually played 110-130 or so games per season, never 2000 in their career, and they never really played other positions: Dickey, Hartnett, and Cochrane put together played a total of 34 games at other positions besides catcher. Looking back, it was probably a bit foolish of The Dodgers and Mets to keep Piazza as a catcher for so long. It would have been even more foolish in the 1930s.
    Dude you’re literally tackling an assumption with an assumption of your own. You’re not ok with the assumption that Gibson would have been better than Piazza based on the ASSUMPTION that he would have moved away from the catcher position.

    Leave a comment:


  • GoslinFan
    replied
    Originally posted by Los Bravos View Post

    And where exactly is that? Provide proof (in the form of a quote from me) of any answer you provide.
    So I'm mistaken that you have Gibson ahead of Piazza? If so I apologize for assuming that.

    Leave a comment:


  • GoslinFan
    replied
    Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post

    Wow, I can't believe I started this thread over 11 years ago. We have 32 pages of debate, and discussion, and going back and forth. My own views on this discussion have changed over the years. As most of you know I don't really "rate" players anymore. I have no idea if Piazza was a better hitter than Gibson or vice versa. I believe that is completely unknowable. The more interesting question to consider is how good Gibson actually was. We have a good understanding how good Piazza was as he was a a modern player and we have his complete major league stats and lots of video of him hitting. And Piazza was an incredible hitter, especially doing it from the catcher's position.

    Getting back to Gibson obviously, we can never know how exactly he would hit in the majors. But we can look at acknowledged tools and skills and we can make some direct comparisons to contemporary players and looking at various statistics. I will compare Gibson to three players.

    Jimmie Foxx
    IMHO Gibson and Foxx were basically twins as hitters. Their backgrounds have several similarities. Both were big, muscular, athletic, powerful right handed hitters. Both were legendary for their tape measure home runs. Both were catchers as Foxx was a catcher as an amateur and began his major league career as a catcher. Both were known to be heavy drinkers. Foxx had his last great season at age 34. Gibson played his last season at age 34. Foxx was known for his speed. Gibson, from what I read in newspaper accounts, had speed at least early in his career before the rigors of full time catching took his speed away later in his career. IMHO if Gibson had entered the majors at a relative young age and moved to another position he would have put up similar numbers as Foxx. Gibson' was born in December 1911 so his hypothetical major league prime would have been the 1930's when offense was very high. If Gibson stayed at catcher his offense would in likelihood dropped a fair amount at least.

    Russell "Buzz" Arlett
    As some of you know Arlett is one of my all time favorite "forgotten" players. One of the issues brought up is the LQ of the leagues that Gibson played in. Let's assume for a moment that the overall quality of the leagues that Gibson played in was that of the high minor leagues, say the PCL. Arlett, who was known as "The Babe Ruth of the Minor Leagues" played most of his career in the PCL and a bit in the International League. Arlett was an absolute legend, considered the greatest minor league player ever. Here is how Arlett and Gibson compare.

    Gibson: 3,873 PA .366./451/.692
    B.Arlett: 8,006 AB, .341 BA with .602 SLG

    Unfortunately we do not have walk totals and complete plate appearance totals for Arlett. He probably had well over 9,000 plate appearances in his minor league career. For decades Arlett's 432 minor league home runs was the all time record. He also had 1,786 RBI and 1,610 runs scored.

    The reason I make this comparison is because Arlett finally got to play in the majors with the Phillies at age 32 in 1931. And for the first half of the season he simply destroyed NL pitching. Arlett was a marvel, among the NL leaders in BA, HR, RBI, and runs scored through June. He then suffered several injures that ruined the second half for the him. If we believe that Gibson played in leagues with similar LQ as Arlett and Gibson hit better than Arlett then it's no huge leap to believe Gibson would have been a great hitter in the majors just like Arlett was before the injuries. What did people say about Arlett? Casey Stengel, who played against Arlett in the PCL, when asked if Mickey Mantle was the greatest switch hitter, said that the only switch hitter he ever saw in the same league as Mantle was Arlett. Lefty O'Doul, when asked about Arlett after the 1931 season said if Arlett had come up 10 years earlier he would have been "The Babe Ruth of the National League".

    Roy Campanella
    Campy is generally considered the second or third greatest Negro League catcher ever. He is considered one of the greatest catchers in major league history winning three MVP's. Yet, by all accounts Gibson was better than Campy. Even Campy himself said Gibson was better than him.

    It seems to me that the totality of the historical evidence, comparison to contemporary players, and available statistics clearly show a very strong indication that Gibson had all time great hitting ability and absurd home run power. And it's highly likely Gibson had All Star/Hall of Fame caliber major league skills.
    Arlett seems like a stud. I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison, given that Gibson's numbers were accumulated in much shorter spans. We could all list many players' 40 game stretches and add them up to be very impressive. The grind of a season is not something you can replicate, duplicate, or fabricate.

    If I have to bet I'd say there's probably a 40% chance that Gibson lasts as a catcher with career numbers better than Piazza. Nobody is waving him off as some cartoonish fraud. I do believe he was great and am genuine in saying that I truly wish he had the chance to prove himself in MLB games. As I mentioned before though...so many factors have to fall in his favor for this to happen, health not being the least of them.

    Leave a comment:


  • SHOELESSJOE3
    replied
    Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post

    Wow, I can't believe I started this thread over 11 years ago. We have 32 pages of debate, and discussion, and going back and forth. My own views on this discussion have changed over the years. As most of you know I don't really "rate" players anymore. I have no idea if Piazza was a better hitter than Gibson or vice versa. I believe that is completely unknowable. The more interesting question to consider is how good Gibson actually was. We have a good understanding how good Piazza was as he was a a modern player and we have his complete major league stats and lots of video of him hitting. And Piazza was an incredible hitter, especially doing it from the catcher's position.

    Getting back to Gibson obviously, we can never know how exactly he would hit in the majors. But we can look at acknowledged tools and skills and we can make some direct comparisons to contemporary players and looking at various statistics. I will compare Gibson to three players.

    Jimmie Foxx
    IMHO Gibson and Foxx were basically twins as hitters. Their backgrounds have several similarities. Both were big, muscular, athletic, powerful right handed hitters. Both were legendary for their tape measure home runs. Both were catchers as Foxx was a catcher as an amateur and began his major league career as a catcher. Both were known to be heavy drinkers. Foxx had his last great season at age 34. Gibson played his last season at age 34. Foxx was known for his speed. Gibson, from what I read in newspaper accounts, had speed at least early in his career before the rigors of full time catching took his speed away later in his career. IMHO if Gibson had entered the majors at a relative young age and moved to another position he would have put up similar numbers as Foxx. Gibson' was born in December 1911 so his hypothetical major league prime would have been the 1930's when offense was very high. If Gibson stayed at catcher his offense would in likelihood dropped a fair amount at least.

    Russell "Buzz" Arlett
    As some of you know Arlett is one of my all time favorite "forgotten" players. One of the issues brought up is the LQ of the leagues that Gibson played in. Let's assume for a moment that the overall quality of the leagues that Gibson played in was that of the high minor leagues, say the PCL. Arlett, who was known as "The Babe Ruth of the Minor Leagues" played most of his career in the PCL and a bit in the International League. Arlett was an absolute legend, considered the greatest minor league player ever. Here is how Arlett and Gibson compare.

    Gibson: 3,873 PA .366./451/.692
    B.Arlett: 8,006 AB, .341 BA with .602 SLG

    Unfortunately we do not have walk totals and complete plate appearance totals for Arlett. He probably had well over 9,000 plate appearances in his minor league career. For decades Arlett's 432 minor league home runs were the all time record. He also had 1,786 RBI and 1,610 runs scored.

    The reason I make this comparison is because Arlett finally got to play in the majors with the Phillies at age 32 in 1931. And for the first half of the season he simply destroyed NL pitching. Arlett was a marvel, among the NL leaders in BA, HR, RBI, and runs scored through June. He then suffered several injures that ruined the second half for the him. If we believe that Gibson played in leagues with similar LQ as Arlett and Gibson hit better than Arlett then it's no huge leap to believe Gibson would have been a great hitter in the majors just like Arlett was before the injuries. What did people say about Arlett? Casey Stengel, who played against Arlett in the PCL, when asked if Mickey Mantle was the greatest switch hitter, said that the only switch hitter he ever saw in the same league as Mantle was Arlett. Lefty O'Doul, when asked about Arlett after the 1931 season said if Arlett had come up 10 years earlier he would have been "The Babe Ruth of the National League".

    Roy Campanella
    Campy is generally considered the second or third greatest Negro League catcher ever. He is considered one of the greatest catchers in major league history winning three MVP's. Yet, by all accounts Gibson was better than Campy. Even Campy himself said Gibson was better than him.

    It seems to me that the totality of the historical evidence, comparison to contemporary players, and available statistics clearly show a very strong indication that Gibson had all great hitting ability and absurd home run power. And it's highly likely Gibson had All Star/Hall of Fame caliber major league skills.
    I won't debate that and add to that maybe HOF.
    I for one believe that a case could be made for Gibson over Piazza.
    But in the end he never played MLB and all of the above may be true but still, the test in MLB never happened.
    A terrible shame that Josh and other good and great black player never got there chance in MLB because of skin color.
    A history buff here and the game and it's history would have been greatly enhanced if they had their chance.
    A 1933 article in a black newspaper with Babe Ruth not only praising black players but said white attendance at games would increase. Of course most owners thought the opposite, whites had no interest in black players.
    When Babe Ruth talked he made the news. That article only appeared in the black Pittsburgh newspaper. It did not appear in any of the bigger newspapers.

    Leave a comment:


  • Los Bravos
    replied
    Originally posted by GoslinFan View Post

    ​​​​The point is, it is a matter of FACT that you are required to incredible assumptions in order to rank Gibson the way you do.
    And where exactly is that? Provide proof (in the form of a quote from me) of any answer you provide.

    Leave a comment:


  • Honus Wagner Rules
    replied
    Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post

    How is it possible, spare the nonsense there are enough accurate stats
    Over the years there have been more than a few differing numbers of Josh, home run totals, career batting average and other stats.
    Pitching black leagues not on par with MLB "overall", thats Buck O'Neils words. Not because black pitchers were inferior to MLB players because of little scouting and because they were used so much. Pitching staffs were lean, that was the problem, not lack of talent.

    The fact is and will always be Josh again not by his fault never played MLB.
    So tell me how you know he should be ranked over Piazza....................it never happened, never played MLB.
    Wow, I can't believe I started this thread over 11 years ago. We have 32 pages of debate, and discussion, and going back and forth. My own views on this discussion have changed over the years. As most of you know I don't really "rate" players anymore. I have no idea if Piazza was a better hitter than Gibson or vice versa. I believe that is completely unknowable. The more interesting question to consider is how good Gibson actually was. We have a good understanding how good Piazza was as he was a a modern player and we have his complete major league stats and lots of video of him hitting. And Piazza was an incredible hitter, especially doing it from the catcher's position.

    Getting back to Gibson obviously, we can never know how exactly he would hit in the majors. But we can look at acknowledged tools and skills and we can make some direct comparisons to contemporary players and looking at various statistics. I will compare Gibson to three players.

    Jimmie Foxx
    IMHO Gibson and Foxx were basically twins as hitters. Their backgrounds have several similarities. Both were big, muscular, athletic, powerful right handed hitters. Both were legendary for their tape measure home runs. Both were catchers as Foxx was a catcher as an amateur and began his major league career as a catcher. Both were known to be heavy drinkers. Foxx had his last great season at age 34. Gibson played his last season at age 34. Foxx was known for his speed. Gibson, from what I read in newspaper accounts, had speed at least early in his career before the rigors of full time catching took his speed away later in his career. IMHO if Gibson had entered the majors at a relative young age and moved to another position he would have put up similar numbers as Foxx. Gibson' was born in December 1911 so his hypothetical major league prime would have been the 1930's when offense was very high. If Gibson stayed at catcher his offense would in likelihood dropped a fair amount at least.

    Russell "Buzz" Arlett
    As some of you know Arlett is one of my all time favorite "forgotten" players. One of the issues brought up is the LQ of the leagues that Gibson played in. Let's assume for a moment that the overall quality of the leagues that Gibson played in was that of the high minor leagues, say the PCL. Arlett, who was known as "The Babe Ruth of the Minor Leagues" played most of his career in the PCL and a bit in the International League. Arlett was an absolute legend, considered the greatest minor league player ever. Here is how Arlett and Gibson compare.

    Gibson: 3,873 PA .366./451/.692
    B.Arlett: 8,006 AB, .341 BA with .602 SLG

    Unfortunately we do not have walk totals and complete plate appearance totals for Arlett. He probably had well over 9,000 plate appearances in his minor league career. For decades Arlett's 432 minor league home runs was the all time record. He also had 1,786 RBI and 1,610 runs scored.

    The reason I make this comparison is because Arlett finally got to play in the majors with the Phillies at age 32 in 1931. And for the first half of the season he simply destroyed NL pitching. Arlett was a marvel, among the NL leaders in BA, HR, RBI, and runs scored through June. He then suffered several injures that ruined the second half for the him. If we believe that Gibson played in leagues with similar LQ as Arlett and Gibson hit better than Arlett then it's no huge leap to believe Gibson would have been a great hitter in the majors just like Arlett was before the injuries. What did people say about Arlett? Casey Stengel, who played against Arlett in the PCL, when asked if Mickey Mantle was the greatest switch hitter, said that the only switch hitter he ever saw in the same league as Mantle was Arlett. Lefty O'Doul, when asked about Arlett after the 1931 season said if Arlett had come up 10 years earlier he would have been "The Babe Ruth of the National League".

    Roy Campanella
    Campy is generally considered the second or third greatest Negro League catcher ever. He is considered one of the greatest catchers in major league history winning three MVP's. Yet, by all accounts Gibson was better than Campy. Even Campy himself said Gibson was better than him.

    It seems to me that the totality of the historical evidence, comparison to contemporary players, and available statistics clearly show a very strong indication that Gibson had all time great hitting ability and absurd home run power. And it's highly likely Gibson had All Star/Hall of Fame caliber major league skills.
    Last edited by Honus Wagner Rules; 03-21-2022, 08:50 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • GoslinFan
    replied
    Originally posted by Los Bravos View Post

    When you assume that your position is the only "realistic" one, all of your previous disclaimers (about how the opposite position is wrong but plausible) are shown to be nothing more than empty rhetoric. That's the whole damn point here.
    ​​​​The point is, it is a matter of FACT that you are required to incredible assumptions in order to rank Gibson the way you do


    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X