Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Josh Gibson vs Sadaharu Oh

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

  • Josh Gibson vs Sadaharu Oh

    Gibson is sometimes credited with some 900+ HRs in his career, depending on the sources. Sadaharu Oh hit 868 HRs in his career. Whose career total is more impressive (or more legit) to you?
    80
    Sadaharu Oh (868 HRs)
    56.25%
    45
    Josh Gibson (900+ HRs)
    43.75%
    35
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

  • #2
    Oh's is more legit (i think?) because we dont know Gibson's total against professional competition

    But I'd say Gibson was a better home run hitter

    Comment


    • #3
      gibson was great - no denying that - but 900 home runs is just some number pulled out of the air - i've heard a more realistic 250 against league competition and who knows how many barnstorming

      this is no shot against gibson - but oh's league was much more organized and stats were enthusiastically kept - the the level of talent was consistently funnelled to the top - and their is a firm grasp on the talent level of his teammates and competition - i hope we get those revised negro league stats soon
      Last edited by Brian McKenna; 01-02-2006, 05:53 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        As a career number, Oh's performance came against more consistently high quality competition. Had both men played in the majors, I think Gibson would have been the greatest home run hitting catcher ever, but still short of 500. However, his peak would have likely been in the 40s. Oh would have hit 520 or more, but would have taken more seasons and at bats to do it. His peak would have been 35 or so, but it's questionable if he'd have gotten 40 in any one season. I really can't answer the question of the poll because there are two answers--Oh for the career, Gibson for the peak.

        Jim Albright
        Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
        Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
        A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

        Comment


        • #5
          --Which was the better HR hitter depended on how you look at it. I think Jim's analysis is dead on. Oh's mark is more "impressive and legit" though. Gibson has less than 1/3 of those 900 HR recorded in league action. He might have hit 900 in various exhibitions, winter league games, etc, but that isn't quite the same thing. That is basically a wild guess at how many he hit in who knows how many games against some wildly varying quality of competition.

          Comment


          • #6
            Oh's is certainly more legit, but I don't think there's any question Gibson's is more impressive. I have no doubts that Oh was a tremendous hitter who would have been fantastic in MLB as well as Japan, but Gibson was a catcher. Even though most of his supposed 900+ HRs probably came in a pickup game like environment, 900 HRs is still almost three times as many HRs as any other catcher has hit. A catcher with Gibson's power is more impressive than a 1B with Oh's power.

            But, I can't really vote because I am split down the middle. The poll gives two criteria (which is more legit and which is more impressive). I think Oh's was more legit, Gibson's more impressive.

            Comment


            • #7
              Discounting Oh to 520-550 homers is a discount of 40% despite the fact his seasons were often 20% shorter. If you look at the major leaguers who went to Japan in Oh's day, that is the difference in power output between the two leagues, as I have detailed. Gibson, had he played first, would likely have done better--but it is at best uncertain if he in fact would have been more valuable that way. However, as a catcher, it's very hard to see him as a 500+ homer guy for his career. I have no problem with the idea he'd have had more homers than any catcher ever--but I pause to say he would have outhit them by that much. OTOH, as I said before, Gibson would have had some years with homers in the 40s while Oh might well have never reached that level.

              Jim Albright
              Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
              Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
              A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

              Comment


              • #8
                Hard to say which is more impressive because we don't know the actual number or day to day level of competition in Gibson's case.

                Some home run numbers came from exhibition games and there were times lean pitching staffs in black baseball made necessary the use of position players, infielders, outfielders used as starting pitchers.

                Do I believe that under equal circumstances Gibson would hit more than Oh, yes I do but thats not the question asked here.

                Impressive a tough one as far as legit, not to diminish Josh but Oh is 100 percent legit, Josh is not. Tough stance but thats a fact.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Sadaharu Oh gets props for legitimacy. Actual count, league standings, etc.

                  Josh Gibson was probably the most impressive, ever, regardless of the careless record keeping.

                  These hitters, like Babe Ruth, were men playing among boys. While their teammates changed in a locker room, hotel room or the team bus, they changed in a phone booth.

                  Players like this don't come along very often. You could make a case for Barry Bonds playing in their elite status; you could try to make a case for Mays or Mantle or somebody else. But if you bring up any of the first three, there will never be an argument among knowledgeable baseball fans.
                  "Someone asked me if I took steroids. I said, 'No. I had a contract with Wheaties.'"
                  --Bob Feller

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Oh's is more legitimate.
                    Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      One of the things I wanted to explore is Sadaharu's place amongst the greatest first basemen in baseball history. Oh is easily one of the 10 greatest first basemen. A lot of peple have no problem ranking Sathel Paige, Josh Gibson, and Oscar Charleston amongst the greatest players at their positions so why not Oh?
                      Last edited by Honus Wagner Rules; 01-12-2006, 02:32 PM.
                      Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        There are only three major league or Negro League guys from 1900 on that I'd put in front of Oh: Gehrig, Foxx and Mize. There are three guys from the 19th century who might slip in front of Oh: Anson, Roger Connor, and Dan Brouthers.

                        Jim Albright
                        Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
                        Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
                        A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by jalbright
                          As a career number, Oh's performance came against more consistently high quality competition. Had both men played in the majors, I think Gibson would have been the greatest home run hitting catcher ever, but still short of 500. However, his peak would have likely been in the 40s. Oh would have hit 520 or more, but would have taken more seasons and at bats to do it. His peak would have been 35 or so, but it's questionable if he'd have gotten 40 in any one season. I really can't answer the question of the poll because there are two answers--Oh for the career, Gibson for the peak.

                          Jim Albright
                          I have to argue that the talent is suspect in Japan. Yet Oh's record is legit-in Japan. Gibson's HR's is great for baseball lore. Rich history and the indulged stories from the Negro Leaguers makes Josh a real folk tale hero.....

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Let Shoeless In
                            I have to argue that the talent is suspect in Japan. Yet Oh's record is legit-in Japan. Gibson's HR's is great for baseball lore. Rich history and the indulged stories from the Negro Leaguers makes Josh a real folk tale hero.....
                            you make josh gibson sound like some sort of cartoon paul bunyun - the term "Rich history and the indulged stories" can be applied to the majors as well - and could be said of babe ruth but i've never heard ruth referred to as a "a real folk tale hero" - i don't think you meant anything by it but it sounds demeaning to gibson

                            i don't think mr. albright has ever said that the talent in the NPB, at least after the league was fully established by the mid-1950s, - was "suspect" - in fact he is saying it is indeed legitimate - though - the u.s. majors is and have always been the top tier as far as quality goes

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules
                              One of the things I wanted to explore is Sadagaru's place amongst the greatest first basemen in baseball history. Oh is easily one of the 10 greatest first basemen. A lot of peple have no problem ranking Sathel Paige, Josh Gibson, and Oscar Charleston amongst the greatest players at their positions so why not Oh?
                              this is a good point and many have simply ignored NPB players but will tout latin ballplayers who played most of their career abroad because - i don't know - they played in the states at some point and they lived in this hemisphere

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X