Carlton Fisk...best catcher ever?

[przero]

Piazza may be the best hitting catcher of all time, but that does not make him the best catcher of all time.

 

Piazza.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"That's the main difference in our two 'opinions' - mine is applied without any possible bias while yours very well could be severely biased."


The only person you are fooling is yourself. When you decide that a particular set of statistics are what matters, that decision is your opinion, it isn't a fact.


The objective is to win games. RBIs win games. Does OPS win games ?

Sure, RBIs partly win games - but that's a function of your team and yourself. Why are you wanting to reward an individual for what his team did?

As I said before, you only look at half of the story..

It's true that Bench played for a great team, that meant he frequently came to the plate with runnners on base. AT THAT POINT IT WAS HIS JOB TO HIT THE BALL DEEP, which he did with great success. Hitters in that position necessarly suffer in their batting average, which of course makes their OPS suffer.

Piazza on the other hand is more often in a position where it's his job to get on base, not drive someone in, so naturally he has a higher onbase percentage, and lower RBIs.

Therefore there is not such a cut and dried answer as to who is better offensively, as you insist there is. Evaluate Bench for what he was at his peak, he was an exceptional clean-up hitter, one of the best of his time, and on a couple of occasions the best in the league.

Piazza is well above average as an offensive player, and has been very consistent over a number of years. But compared to the best offensive players of his day, he isn't at the top, even at his peak.


So it's a perfectly rational position that Bench's offensive production was more significant than Piazza's, Bench was better at his offensive role at his peak, than Piazza has been at his role at his peak. I don't have a problem with you or others thinking that something else is more important, in your opinion. I have a problem when you think your opinion is more than an opinion.


You put ALL of your evaluation on one seriously misleading stat. You refuse to look at ALL of the relevant stats. Bench's OPS is low at least partly because his RBI and home run totals are so good.

As far as your other comments, like career vs peak, I'm not going to keep repeating my previous comments, if you think career is more important, fine. But it would be nice if you would stop insisting that things that are just opinions, are actually facts.

 

[RabidMongoose]

As I said before, you only look at half of the story..

If I'm only looking at half of the story, then you're only looking at 10% of the story. No offense, but you are barely even looking at half of what a batter does.

It's true that Bench played for a great team, that meant he frequently came to the plate with runnners on base. AT THAT POINT IT WAS HIS JOB TO HIT THE BALL DEEP, which he did with great success. Hitters in that position necessarly suffer in their batting average, which of course makes their OPS suffer.

This doesn't make sense. Why are you REWARDING Bench for a FAILURE? Piazza does hit the ball deep, too...in fact his SLG (which is strongly correlated to your RBIs - along with the OBP of the players in front of you) is much higher than Bench's. It's higher if you compare it to his peers. What you are saying has no basis at all. It makes no sense to reward Bench for something that should be a negative.

Piazza on the other hand is more often in a position where it's his job to get on base, not drive someone in, so naturally he has a higher onbase percentage, and lower RBIs

Are you kidding? Piazza did drive people in and got on base. Bench drove people in, but didn't get on base as much. Every batter has the same position - and that is to be the most productive batter that they can be. You're trying to excuse Bench for his inferiority in many areas - but they both had the same position. You can't even back up this ridiculous comment that you have stated with any facts.

Therefore there is not such a cut and dried answer as to who is better offensively, as you insist there is. Evaluate Bench for what he was at his peak, he was an exceptional clean-up hitter, one of the best of his time, and on a couple of occasions the best in the league.

Yes it is clear cut...simply compare them against their own leagues and it's obvious. Why evaluate Bench at only three seasons? Bench was a great hitter - he hit for good power. However, Piazza hit for good power and had a good OBP. Again, you're rewarding Bench for being inferior in almost half of what a batter does.

Piazza is well above average as an offensive player, and has been very consistent over a number of years. But compared to the best offensive players of his day, he isn't at the top, even at his peak.

Then Bench wasn't even near the top either. If you compare Bench and Piazza against their peers, then Bench is far inferior. Again, this is a guy that was 19th in slugging percentage during his career. Piazza has the 6th highest active slugging percentage and this while playing half of his games in pitcher's parks.

So it's a perfectly rational position that Bench's offensive production was more significant than Piazza's, Bench was better at his offensive role at his peak, than Piazza has been at his role at his peak. I don't have a problem with you or others thinking that something else is more important, in your opinion. I have a problem when you think your opinion is more than an opinion.

No, it's completely irrational. It makes no statistical sense either. And that's why you can't provide any evidence to support your claim. Bench did not have a better peak than Piazza anyways.

Yes, my 'opinion' is better than yours. I base mine on non-biased comprehensive facts and statistics. You have based yours on strange comments that make no sense at all or only look at one dimension or just one year out of a whole career.

This is like me saying that Piazza is a better defensive catcher than Bench and just spouting off random crap about how Piazza was a better blocker at the plate....that would be a ridiculous statement, just like your statements so far.

If I said Piazza is better because he has less strikeouts than Bench, then that would be a stupid opinion. It has no basis at all. It doesn't even make sense. Strikeouts have almost no correlation to run production. And if you said that 'no, comparing only strikeouts is dumb', then that would be a better opinion.

Your 'opinion' has no basis at all. You only support it with ridiculous comments that try to excuse Bench for being inferior. I could just use your same style of argument and say that Bench is only the 100th best offensive catcher ever and just state ridiculous excuse after ridiculous excuse.

 

[RabidMongoose]

You put ALL of your evaluation on one seriously misleading stat. You refuse to look at ALL of the relevant stats. Bench's OPS is low at least partly because his RBI and home run totals are so good.

No I don't. Look at OBP or SLG separately. Look at EQA. Look at RC. Look at any comprehensive statistic and they will ALL say the same exacty thing.
And how is OPS so misleading that you have to look at HR and RBIs ONLY? Please explain this as OPS at least contains far more variables than just HR and RBIs.

You are acting as if OPS is a number derived from a complex equation. It isn't. It's just the addition of two common and readily accepted numbers - OBP+SLG. And this HELPS Bench since OBP needs to be weighted more than SLG.

How is Bench's OPS low because of his RBI and home run totals are so good? That makes no sense at all. If his RBI and Homeruns numbers are so good, then that should mean that it it helped his SLG, which is HALF of his OPS! What kind of nonsense statement is that? Is this another hilarious ridiculous statement that you are making up to excuse Bench?

And again, Piazza has a hell of a lot more HR/AB and RBI/AB than Bench...and again, because of that, he would probably have a higher OPS - not lower. You make no sense at all. What next? Bench had a lower OBP and SLG because his name started with the letter J?

As far as your other comments, like career vs peak, I'm not going to keep repeating my previous comments, if you think career is more important, fine. But it would be nice if you would stop insisting that things that are just opinions, are actually facts.

Career is more important. However, you should also look at peak. Is Roger Maris one of the best players of all time? No. He isn't even in the HOF.

Any logical and sane person would tell you that looking at 100% of something INSTEAD of ONLY 17.6% of something would be better. It makes no sense to ONLY look at 17.6% of a person's career. That's a small fraction of what he did. I can only assume that this is another attempt at excusing Bench - since his career outside of his three peak yers (which aren't even consecutive years) was not as nearly as stellar.

I'm sorry, but half of your statements are just hilarious attempts at trying to make Bench look better. You argue that we should only look at 17.6% of a player's career. That makes no sense at all. You argue that because of Bench's RBI and HR numbers, he has a lower OPS. That makes no sense and anyways, Piazza has a much higher HR/AB and HR/AB than Bench.

I'm sorry if my posts sound as if they're attacking you in any way, but your excuses are just getting ridiculous, IMO. Your profile says that you're from Ohio - are you a Reds fan?

 

[ctcsoft]

I got a Carlton Fisk topps rookie.

wanna buy it?

hehe

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Oh, and yes, OPS wins games. I'm pretty sure that OPS has a pretty good correlation to runs scored, better than say, BA or even HRs.

You're right - that's why OPS is used.

RBI are very, very team dependent. Why does Rickey Henderson not have a ton of RBI? Simple, because the players hitting in front of him did not get on base at a good clip.
Why doesn't Bonds lead the majors in RBI every single year, even though he is one of the best players of all time (top 5? top 10?)? Because RBI, by themselves, don't tell you a whole lot about a player. Unfortunately, not everyone realizes this.

Stop making sense!

Soon, this will all likely be moot. After a few more years (unless he gets really hurt), Piazza will amass enough rate stats (HR, RBI, etc) that all discussions will seem silly.

I agree. In 20 years, everyone will just look at the statistics and see such a huge difference. By then Piazza wouldn't have to go through nostalgia or the aura of Bench.

Um, Piazza SHOULD amass more stats in a HITTER'S ERA. Are you that blinded in your fanboy Mets' status to realize this? Remember, it's hard to concentrate on HITTING when you're CATCHING, something that Piazza fails to do effectively. Bench is the only catcher to lead his era in hitting and catching, u will probably never see such a well rounded player again...

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Oh, and yes, OPS wins games. I'm pretty sure that OPS has a pretty good correlation to runs scored, better than say, BA or even HRs.

You're right - that's why OPS is used.

RBI are very, very team dependent. Why does Rickey Henderson not have a ton of RBI? Simple, because the players hitting in front of him did not get on base at a good clip.
Why doesn't Bonds lead the majors in RBI every single year, even though he is one of the best players of all time (top 5? top 10?)? Because RBI, by themselves, don't tell you a whole lot about a player. Unfortunately, not everyone realizes this.

Stop making sense!

Soon, this will all likely be moot. After a few more years (unless he gets really hurt), Piazza will amass enough rate stats (HR, RBI, etc) that all discussions will seem silly.

I agree. In 20 years, everyone will just look at the statistics and see such a huge difference. By then Piazza wouldn't have to go through nostalgia or the aura of Bench.

Um, Piazza SHOULD amass more stats in a HITTER'S ERA. Are you that blinded in your fanboy Mets' status to realize this? Remember, it's hard to concentrate on HITTING when you're CATCHING, something that Piazza fails to do effectively. Bench is the only catcher to lead his era in hitting and catching, u will probably never see such a well rounded player again...

First, why are you calling me a 'Mets fanboy' - I'm not. I've already stated that today's game is more geared towards hitting than Bench's seasons. I'm arguing based on statistical and factual evidence - not based on a fanboy opinion. More comprehensive statistics cannot be reshaped into telling a different story based on your team preference. BTW, when is Varitek getting into the hall of fame?

Anyone that catches will probably have lower hitting statistics. That's pretty obvious. Although Piazza is pretty bad at throwing out runners like Varitek, that doesn't mean that he doesn't concentrate on catching. I would believe that he does concentrate on catching since he has spent 99% or so of his time at the catcher position.

Yes, Piazza will have raw more statistics in a hitter's era. I believe that the more casual fan would just look at that and say that Piazza was better. The more statistical minded fans would look at the more meaningful statistics and rate statistis and see that Piazza was far better than Bench, too.

Bench probably is the most well rounded catcher of all time. He was a great hitter and a great defender. However, he wasn't a better hitter than Piazza. Any fan with an ounce of statistical thought would see the same.

 

[SP33Demon]

Rabid, I still don't see where u get off saying that Piazza peaked better? Look at best 3 years (AGAIN): Bench, 45 HR's/148RBI/.293, 40/125/.270, 33/129/.280. Piazza, 40/124/.362, 40/124/.303, 38/113/.324... I am failing to see where or how Piazza is significantly better offensively in the "peaks" of their careers?? Especially when Piazza is in a hitter's era? Bench had more HR's/RBI's, Piazza higher avg.

Until Piazza leads MLB in HR's Twice and RBI's Twice and Nat League at least once, I will never consider him on the level of Bench for his era, bottom line. That is the best indicator of power hitting against your peers for an era. You might say average, but has Piazza even ever led just the NL, let alone the MLB in average? Hell no. He has never led in ANY statistical category is the point. He fails against his peers in hitting, whereas Bench stood out.

Bench also batted in an era where OPS+ wasn't tainted by roids (name 2 players from that era who have admitted to using roids: I can name Canseco and Ken Caminiti for Piazza's), and it's well accepted that roids are more dominant today than the 70's. The fact that Bench's 45 HR's has beaten Piazza's 40 from 1972 is downright embarrassing, it proves that Piazza can only hit for avg, another reason why his OPS+ is so high year after year. Piazza was more consistent in hitting for avg, HR's, and RBI's than Bench, but he definitely didn't peak "significantly better" (your words). You would even have a tough time arguing that Piazza even peaked BETTER, let alone "SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER", especially considering Bench won 2 parts (HR's and RBI) of the Triple crown in 1972 and 1974. When has Piazza even won ONE PART EVER?

In the grand scheme of things, it is asinine to argue who was better offensively. Yes, Piazza was more consistent and hit for better avg overall, but he fails when compared to his peers today in Triple Crown stats whereas Bench didn't. We all know who the better catcher was, and who's in the HOF with World Series victories. Anything else is just crying over spilled milk.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Rabid, I still don't see where u get off saying that Piazza peaked better? Look at best 3 years (AGAIN): Bench, 45 HR's/148RBI/.293, 40/125/.270, 33/129/.280. Piazza, 40/124/.362, 40/124/.303, 38/113/.324... I am failing to see where or how Piazza is significantly better offensively in the "peaks" of their careers?? Especially when Piazza is in a hitter's era? Bench had more HR's/RBI's, Piazza higher avg.

It's simple. I look at mor ethan three dimensions. There is far more than batting average, homeruns, and RBIs. I'm looking at statistics that bring together batting average, walks, doubles, homeruns, triples, singles, and total number of at bats. I look at the OBP and SLG of each player and compare it to their league in their own time. From that, I see that Piazza was more dominant than Bench. You are not looking at what I see as the best three seasons of these player's career. Why do you only look at homeruns? Why do you not look at walks, doubles, triples, singles, etc.?

Piazza's three highest OPS+ seasons are: 1995-1997: 172 167 186
However, Piazza only had 112 games in 1995. I guess you could replace it with 2000 and that would make it: 159 167 186
Bench's three highest OPS+ seasons are: 166, 145, 143

That's a pretty big difference. OPS+ has its flaws (again, like not measuring OBP enough - but this flaw helps Bench) but that is a sizable difference. One that would make me believe that Piazza's peak three seasons were better than Bench's. This is also confirmed when looking at statistics like runs created or any other comprehensive statistic. You could also just look at their SLG and OBP and compare it to their own peers and see the same. Bench's peak three years were damn damn good. However, Piazza's peak three years were insane.

Again, don't look at only RBIs, HRs, and batting average. You're ignoring so many dimensions.

Until Piazza leads MLB in HR's Twice and RBI's Twice and Nat League at least once, I will never consider him on the level of Bench for his era, bottom line. That is the best indicator of power hitting against your peers for an era. You might say average, but has Piazza even ever led just the NL, let alone the MLB in average? Hell no. He has never led in ANY statistical category is the point. He fails against his peers in hitting, whereas Bench stood out.

That's fine if you don't want to believe it. However, Bench was far inferiori against his peers than Piazza was against his. You're looking at only two seasons and saying that because of those two seasons, Bench is the best. That makes no sense. Why are you looking at less than 15% of the career. Why not look at the entire career? Piazza has the 6th highest slugging out of active players and the 21st best OBP out of active players. Bench had the 19th best SLG(as you stated) during his time and wasn't even ranked in the top 100 for OBP.

Bench also batted in an era where OPS+ wasn't tainted by roids (name 2 players from that era who have admitted to using roids: I can name Canseco and Ken Caminiti for Piazza's), and it's well accepted that roids are more dominant today than the 70's.

Again, there is no proof that Piazza uses steroids. I don't believe that he does. Again, OPS+ compares Bench's OPS to Bench's leagues and Piazza's OPS to Piazza's leagues. Therefore if people ARE using steroids today, then that would HURT Piazza in his OPS+. Again, OPS+ isn't a calculation that is the same for every year. It takes the league average OPS for each year and then compares the OPS against that single year's average.

The fact that Bench's 45 HR's has beaten Piazza's 40 from 1972 is downright embarrassing, it proves that Piazza can only hit for avg, another reason why his OPS+ is so high year after year.

Bench's 45 homeruns were good. However, he also had about 10% more at bats than Piazza. He didn't walk as much and he didn't have as high of a slugging when compared to their own respective leagues. So, yes, Bench had more total homeruns. However, he didn't provide as much total offensive production.

The most homeruns that Ted Williams ever hit was 43 (in a time when runs scoring was just as prolific as today). Does that mean that he is pathetic when compared to Bench? Of course not. Overall he was far more productive than either Piazza or Bench. There is far more than just homeruns.

Piazza was more consistent in hitting for avg, HR's, and RBI's than Bench, but he definitely didn't peak "significantly better" (your words). You would even have a tough time arguing that Piazza even peaked BETTER, let alone "SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER", especially considering Bench won 2 parts (HR's and RBI) of the Triple crown in 1972 and 1974. When has Piazza even won ONE PART EVER?

Again, you are ONLY looking at homeruns and RBIs. Why? One of these statistics you have already admitted to being highly dependent on the OBP of the players in front of you.

Piazza's peak was better than Bench's. If you want me to drop the 'significantly better' , then that's fine. You still haven't addressed the issue of their whole career.

In the grand scheme of things, it is asinine to argue who was better offensively. Yes, Piazza was more consistent and hit for better avg overall, but he fails when compared to his peers today in Triple Crown stats whereas Bench didn't. We all know who the better catcher was, and who's in the HOF with World Series victories. Anything else is just crying over spilled milk.

Why is it asinine? Piazza is clearly better as an offensive player. Every single comprehensive statistic shows the same thing. Piazza will also be in the HOF with no world series victories - just like Ted Williams. There's nothing bad about that. Piazza may be inferior to Bench in HRs and RBIs in relation to his peers, but Bench is far inferior in OBP, SLG, OPS or any other statistic that looks at more than one dimension. In the end, Bench didn't provide as much offensive production as Piazza did.

Again:

Through his career, Bench hit .267 (the league average throughout his career was ..263), his OBP was .342 (where the league average was .331) and his SLG was .476 where the league average was .387. Now that's damn good, especially teh SLG. However, his OBP is about average.

Piazza through his career hit .319 (league average of .263), had an OBP of .388 (league average of .333), and had a SLG of .572 (league average of .417). He did this all in pitcher's parks half of the time. Even if you don't factor in the park (which is significant), he is still more dominant in offense than Bench.

What do you have to say to the above two paragraphs?

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Rabid, I still don't see where u get off saying that Piazza peaked better? Look at best 3 years (AGAIN): Bench, 45 HR's/148RBI/.293, 40/125/.270, 33/129/.280. Piazza, 40/124/.362, 40/124/.303, 38/113/.324... I am failing to see where or how Piazza is significantly better offensively in the "peaks" of their careers?? Especially when Piazza is in a hitter's era? Bench had more HR's/RBI's, Piazza higher avg.

It's simple. I look at mor ethan three dimensions. There is far more than batting average, homeruns, and RBIs. I'm looking at statistics that bring together batting average, walks, doubles, homeruns, triples, singles, and total number of at bats. I look at the OBP and SLG of each player and compare it to their league in their own time. From that, I see that Piazza was more dominant than Bench. You are not looking at what I see as the best three seasons of these player's career. Why do you only look at homeruns? Why do you not look at walks, doubles, triples, singles, etc.?

Piazza's three highest OPS+ seasons are: 1995-1997: 172 167 186
However, Piazza only had 112 games in 1995. I guess you could replace it with 2000 and that would make it: 159 167 186
Bench's three highest OPS+ seasons are: 166, 145, 143

That's a pretty big difference. OPS+ has its flaws (again, like not measuring OBP enough - but this flaw helps Bench) but that is a sizable difference. One that would make me believe that Piazza's peak three seasons were better than Bench's. This is also confirmed when looking at statistics like runs created or any other comprehensive statistic. You could also just look at their SLG and OBP and compare it to their own peers and see the same. Bench's peak three years were damn damn good. However, Piazza's peak three years were insane.

Again, don't look at only RBIs, HRs, and batting average. You're ignoring so many dimensions.

Until Piazza leads MLB in HR's Twice and RBI's Twice and Nat League at least once, I will never consider him on the level of Bench for his era, bottom line. That is the best indicator of power hitting against your peers for an era. You might say average, but has Piazza even ever led just the NL, let alone the MLB in average? Hell no. He has never led in ANY statistical category is the point. He fails against his peers in hitting, whereas Bench stood out.

That's fine if you don't want to believe it. However, Bench was far inferiori against his peers than Piazza was against his. You're looking at only two seasons and saying that because of those two seasons, Bench is the best. That makes no sense. Why are you looking at less than 15% of the career. Why not look at the entire career? Piazza has the 6th highest slugging out of active players and the 21st best OBP out of active players. Bench had the 19th best SLG(as you stated) during his time and wasn't even ranked in the top 100 for OBP.

Bench also batted in an era where OPS+ wasn't tainted by roids (name 2 players from that era who have admitted to using roids: I can name Canseco and Ken Caminiti for Piazza's), and it's well accepted that roids are more dominant today than the 70's.

Again, there is no proof that Piazza uses steroids. I don't believe that he does. Again, OPS+ compares Bench's OPS to Bench's leagues and Piazza's OPS to Piazza's leagues. Therefore if people ARE using steroids today, then that would HURT Piazza in his OPS+. Again, OPS+ isn't a calculation that is the same for every year. It takes the league average OPS for each year and then compares the OPS against that single year's average.

The fact that Bench's 45 HR's has beaten Piazza's 40 from 1972 is downright embarrassing, it proves that Piazza can only hit for avg, another reason why his OPS+ is so high year after year.

Bench's 45 homeruns were good. However, he also had about 10% more at bats than Piazza. He didn't walk as much and he didn't have as high of a slugging when compared to their own respective leagues. So, yes, Bench had more total homeruns. However, he didn't provide as much total offensive production.

The most homeruns that Ted Williams ever hit was 43 (in a time when runs scoring was just as prolific as today). Does that mean that he is pathetic when compared to Bench? Of course not. Overall he was far more productive than either Piazza or Bench. There is far more than just homeruns.

Piazza was more consistent in hitting for avg, HR's, and RBI's than Bench, but he definitely didn't peak "significantly better" (your words). You would even have a tough time arguing that Piazza even peaked BETTER, let alone "SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER", especially considering Bench won 2 parts (HR's and RBI) of the Triple crown in 1972 and 1974. When has Piazza even won ONE PART EVER?

Again, you are ONLY looking at homeruns and RBIs. Why? One of these statistics you have already admitted to being highly dependent on the OBP of the players in front of you.

Piazza's peak was better than Bench's. If you want me to drop the 'significantly better' , then that's fine. You still haven't addressed the issue of their whole career.

In the grand scheme of things, it is asinine to argue who was better offensively. Yes, Piazza was more consistent and hit for better avg overall, but he fails when compared to his peers today in Triple Crown stats whereas Bench didn't. We all know who the better catcher was, and who's in the HOF with World Series victories. Anything else is just crying over spilled milk.

Why is it asinine? Piazza is clearly better as an offensive player. Every single comprehensive statistic shows the same thing. Piazza will also be in the HOF with no world series victories - just like Ted Williams. There's nothing bad about that. Piazza may be inferior to Bench in HRs and RBIs in relation to his peers, but Bench is far inferior in OBP, SLG, OPS or any other statistic that looks at more than one dimension.

Again:

Through his career, Bench hit .267 (the league average throughout his career was ..263), his OBP was .342 (where the league average was .331) and his SLG was .476 where the league average was .387. Now that's damn good, especially teh SLG. However, his OBP is about average.

Piazza through his career hit .319 (league average of .263), had an OBP of .388 (league average of .333), and had a SLG of .572 (league average of .417). He did this all in pitcher's parks half of the time. Even if you don't factor in the park (which is significant), he is still more dominant in offense than Bench.

What do you have to say to the above two paragraphs?

I'd say that it's nothing I haven't already granted (avg which obviously correlates to a higher OBP). They both hit significantly higher in SLG, but you are forgetting that even this stat is tainted b/c there were less teams in the 70's. More teams today = more dilution of pitching, which = higher slug%.

The rest of the posts I generally agree with, except for Triple Crown stats. It really bothers me that Piazza can't compete with his peers in these stats, and Bench could. I guess you could call me more of a traditionalist.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I'd say that it's nothing I haven't already granted (avg which obviously correlates to a higher OBP). They both hit significantly higher in SLG, but you are forgetting that even this stat is tainted b/c there were less teams in the 70's. More teams today = more dilution of pitching, which = higher slug%.

Yes, if there is a dilution of pitching, then there would be a higher average SLG - which is already shown in my post. Again, I'm comparing their OBP and SLG to their OWN peers. Therefore if there is diluted pitching today, then everyone today is facing diluted pitching.

Through his career, Bench hit .267 (the league average throughout his career was ..263), his OBP was .342 (where the league average was .331) and his SLG was .476 where the league average was .387. Now that's damn good, especially the SLG. However, his OBP is about average.

Piazza through his career hit .319 (league average of .263), had an OBP of .388 (league average of .333), and had a SLG of .572 (league average of .417). He did this all in pitcher's parks half of the time. Even if you don't factor in the park (which is significant), he is still more dominant in offense than Bench.

Again, you see that today's game has a considerably higher SLG than Bench's days. However, Piazza's SLG (which isnt' even park adjusted since he plays in pitching parks as his home parks his whole career) still compares more favorably against today's game than Bench's SLG was against his day.

Your remarks about steroids use and diluted pitching over whatever doesn't make sense when we're comparing Piazza against today's average. If everyone is using steroids or if there is diluted pitching or anything else, then that is factored in. Again, we're looking at Piazza's numbers vs. an average of EVERYONE's numbers that played when Piazza played.

The rest of the posts I generally agree with, except for Triple Crown stats. It really bothers me that Piazza can't compete with his peers in these stats, and Bench could. I guess you could call me more of a traditionalist.

I guess you do have a more traditionalist view. However, Barry Bonds never won the triple crown. He never even came close. He only led his league in HR twice and led his league in RBIs once.

 

[Tom]

"Bench's 45 homeruns were good. However, he also had about 10% more at bats than Piazza. He didn't walk as much and he didn't have as high of a slugging when compared to their own respective leagues. So, yes, Bench had more total homeruns. However, he didn't provide as much total offensive production.

The most homeruns that Ted Williams ever hit was 43 (in a time when runs scoring was just as prolific as today). Does that mean that he is pathetic when compared to Bench? Of course not. Overall he was far more productive than either Piazza or Bench. There is far more than just homeruns."


Nobody has said Piazza is pathetic, in fact I've said repeatedly there is a good argument that he is better than Bench offensively, but it's an opinion, not a fact.

You say Bench didn't walk as much..DID YOU READ WHAT I SAID BEFORE ???? It wasn't Bench's job to walk, his job was to knock in runners. HAVE YOU HEARD THE TERM SACRIFICE FLY ???

On base percentage is an almost completely meaningless stat for a clean-up hitter that plays for a team that gets lots of base runners. Delivering RBIs is the job.

Slugging percentage is also flawed, it gives the same weight to the difference between a triple and a homerun as it does between a single and a double, right ? Well, in the real game a triple is only a little more valuable than a double, the value of a double depends on how good a base runner is; Joe Morgan hits a single it might as well be called a double; and a home run is a lot better than a triple, being as runs are how you win games.

That's just an example of what I mean by flawed, the same thing is true of all stats, it's easy to give them more significance than they deserve.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Nobody has said Piazza is pathetic, in fact I've said repeatedly there is a good argument that he is better than Bench offensively, but it's an opinion, not a fact.

Well SP33Demon said that 40 HRs was pathetic.

You say Bench didn't walk as much..DID YOU READ WHAT I SAID BEFORE ???? It wasn't Bench's job to walk, his job was to knock in runners. HAVE YOU HEARD THE TERM SACRIFICE FLY ???

That's just a poor excuse to try to make up for a huge deficiency in Bench. The only job is to be productive. How come most of the greatest sluggers in baseball history have a high OBP? Piazza was just as much of a 'slugger' as Bench - but he was also good at getting on base. The job of any player is generally to get on base AND drive in runners. That's OBP (getting on base) and driving in runners (SLG).

On base percentage is an almost completely meaningless stat for a clean-up hitter that plays for a team that gets lots of base runners. Delivering RBIs is the job.

Ummm...yeah...not making an out is meaningless? I thought if your team was hitting, then you don't want outs. The ideal job of any player - clean up or lead off - is to get on base and drive runners in. Is Dave Kingman a great player? Of course not, even though he has 442 career homeruns. He finished in the top ten in RBIs 5 times. Maybe it has to do with the fact that he had about a .300 career OBP. There is absolutely no excuse to not 'try' to have a good OBP. There's no reason or situation where they can't have a good OBP. Sacrifice flies are a fairly rare occurence for a single player to even talk about. Bench had only 90 in his whole career.

Slugging percentage is also flawed, it gives the same weight to the difference between a triple and a homerun as it does between a single and a double, right ? Well, in the real game a triple is only a little more valuable than a double, the value of a double depends on how good a base runner is; Joe Morgan hits a single it might as well be called a double; and a home run is a lot better than a triple, being as runs are how you win games.

Please tell me that you're kidding! If statistics were that flawed, nobody would use them. It does NOT give the same weight to a triple, double, single, or homerun! If it did, then I wouldnt' even use it. Nobody would have ever used it. It's such a basic and fundamental 'formula' that I thought that everyone knew what it was.

Slugging Percentage = (1B + 2*2B + 3*3B + 4*HR)/PA
Where HR = total number of homeruns, etc. and PA = Plate Appearances. Walks aren't counted in SLG.

That's just an example of what I mean by flawed, the same thing is true of all stats, it's easy to give them more significance than they deserve.

Of course you would think that it's severely flawed - you have no idea how the most simplest of them are figured out! Everything is flawed - however the degrees of it differ. Comprehensive and meaningful statistics are not nearly as flawed as a single counting statistic that looks at only one dimension or opinion with no factual basis.

I suggest that you read up on some statistical analysis in baseball. It's probably the most researched and reported statistical side of any sport out there. It's so important now that many clubs have statistical advisors (Mets, Red Sox, etc.) or are run by a statistical brain (Dodgers).

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I guess you do have a more traditionalist view. However, Barry Bonds never won the triple crown. He never even came close. He only led his league in HR twice and led his league in RBIs once.

Please, let's not get into Bonds... the years he did lead in HR's are most likely tainted, granted he did receive steroids from BALCO...

On a sidenote, I think the reason why it might be even harder to win the Triple Crown, or even 2 aspects of the triple crown, is the increase of players in the league. There is more of a specialization of players to do certain aspects of the game. For instance, ARod/Bonds can hit HR's like there's no tomorrow, but they do not specialize in hitting for avg. Players such as Ichiro specialize in things like this. Statistically, it's probably harder to hit for avg and still lead in HR's and RBI's today than yesteryear because more players in MLB = higher % of any player randomly having a breakout year. Take Bill Mueller for instance. Nobody would have expected him to win the batting title last year... I think more players and the increase of specialization in the game make it virtually impossible for any player to even win 2 categories of the triple crown today. But there's always this year for Piazza (good luck!). The fact that Bench did it in his era is spectacular, if someone did it today it would be astronomical.

 

[Tom]

"Of course you would think that it's severely flawed "

severely.. did I say severely ?


If you are correct about the slugging formula, and I'll accept you are, then my previous point still stands that it's flawed, particlularly in the way you try to say that it takes the place of RBIs, except for the HR component, there isn't that much difference in potential RBIs between a single and a triple. A better stat would be RBIs delivered compared to RBI opportunities, that would negate to some extent the issue of RBIs being related to team strength.

And I never said stats aren't significant. We aren't talking about something that is all that significant, we are expressing opinions about a higlhy regarded player from a different era compared to a highly regarded player from the present day.

Such discussions are just for fun, there is no signifiance to it. It is more fun to discuss such things with people who aren't so wrapped up in themselves that they believe their opinions are tantamount to facts that can't be challenged.

 

[RabidMongoose]

severely.. did I say severely ?

OK, then flawed to whatever extent that you have to look primarily at only HRs and RBIs. I would say that only looking at HRs and RBIs is ridiculous & severely flawed.

If you are correct about the slugging formula, and I'll accept you are, then my previous point still stands that it's flawed, particlularly in the way you try to say that it takes the place of RBIs, except for the HR component, there isn't that much difference in potential RBIs between a single and a triple.

The SLG 'formula' is extremely basic. This isn't something complex...I mean it was on the back of baseball cards!

I don't say that it TAKES place of RBIs. I'm saying that RBIs are naturally derived from SLG (and the OBP of the players in front of you). There is an extremely strong correlation with SLG and RBIs. It makes sense - SLG = hitting and advancing runners = RBIs in some instances (depending on your teammates). Of course it's flawed (the weights shouldn't be 1 2 3 4 only), but the flaws are not so severe to throw this entire BASIC statistic out.

A better stat would be RBIs delivered compared to RBI opportunities, that would negate to some extent the issue of RBIs being related to team strength.

Some people actually do that. You can do that right now and you'll definitely see that players with similar SLG but a disparate amount of RBIs had different opportunities with their teammates. Look at Hideki Matsui, for example. He's a great example and he didn't even have THAT great of a SLG. He had over 100 RBIs - how did he get that? He mainly batted #5 and the players that were in front of him: Giambi (.400+ OBP), Jeter (~.400 OBP) and whoever else.

And I never said stats aren't significant. We aren't talking about something that is all that significant, we are expressing opinions about a higlhy regarded player from a different era compared to a highly regarded player from the present day.

We are talking about two highly regarded players - but it seems like this discussion also got to the discussion of certain statistics.

Such discussions are just for fun, there is no signifiance to it. It is more fun to discuss such things with people who aren't so wrapped up in themselves that they believe their opinions are tantamount to facts that can't be challenged.

My statements can be challenged - however, you haven't really backed any of your statements with anything substantial.

If I said that Piazza was a better defensive catcher than Bench because he was better liked by his teammates and his pitchers had lower ERAs than Bench's pitchers' - then my statement is ridiculous. That's how I see your statements as...

You just seem to make ridiculous comments like 'It wasn't Bench's job to get on base' or 'OBP is meaningless for the best hitters in the game' (since clean up hitters are easily the best hitters in the game), didn't know what slugging percentage was and try to use your incorrect definition as a flaw, want to only look at about 17% of a player's entire career, say that Bench's OPS is low because he has lots of HRs and RBIs (which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever), and so on. It seems like you keep throwing random comments out there that make no sense.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Please, let's not get into Bonds... the years he did lead in HR's are most likely tainted, granted he did receive steroids from BALCO...

Well Bonds only led the league in HRs twice. I wasn't aware that people were accusing him of using steroids in 1993.

I was speaking of only of his stats - not of his possible steroid use. That would be a whole other thread and something that I don't really care about right now. Possible/Likely steroids use aside, his numbers so far are some of the best all time - up there with Ruth and Williams. However, he only led the league in HRs twice and in RBIs once. That was all I meant.

On a sidenote, I think the reason why it might be even harder to win the Triple Crown, or even 2 aspects of the triple crown, is the increase of players in the league. There is more of a specialization of players to do certain aspects of the game. For instance, ARod/Bonds can hit HR's like there's no tomorrow, but they do not specialize in hitting for avg. Players such as Ichiro specialize in things like this. Statistically, it's probably harder to hit for avg and still lead in HR's and RBI's today than yesteryear because more players in MLB = higher % of any player randomly having a breakout year. Take Bill Mueller for instance. Nobody would have expected him to win the batting title last year... I think more players and the increase of specialization in the game make it virtually impossible for any player to even win 2 categories of the triple crown today. But there's always this year for Piazza (good luck!). The fact that Bench did it in his era is spectacular, if someone did it today it would be astronomical.

Interesting theory...

Piazza is on the decline. He's never going to make near triple crown numbers again like he was in 1997 - #3 in AVG, #4 in HR, #4 in RBI.

 

[Tom]

You said-

"Slugging Percentage = (1B + 2*2B + 3*3B + 4*HR)/PA
Where HR = total number of homeruns, etc. and PA = Plate Appearances. Walks aren't counted in SLG."


This site says-

"Slugging Percentage (SLG)
The Slugging Percentage indicates the power and effectiveness of the hitter. Mathematically, it's the number of bases divided by the number of times the player was at bat.

Example: A player bats three times, and gets a triple, a double and a strike out. His slugging average would be: (3+2+0)/3 = 1.666."


If that site is correct, then it is you who doesn't understand what slugger percentage is, not me. Your equation says a single is worth 1 point, a double is worth 4, a triple is worth 9, and a HR is worth 16.


edit- my original feeling about slugger percentage was based on that site's description of it, so the part of my opinion you think was based on my misunderstanding isn't valid, since I didn't misunderstand it. (if that site is correct)

 

[Tom]

"say that Bench's OPS is low because he has lots of HRs and RBIs (which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever), "


I did not say that. I said that since he was in situations where it was his job to knock runners in, primarily by hitting the ball deep, that this emphasis would make his batting average lower than someone who is primarily trying to not make an out.

You can evalutate his success or failure by his RBI total, 145 in a season..


you don't think 145 RBIs in a season indicates someone is an exceptional power hitter, I do.

 

[Tom]

"want to only look at about 17% of a player's entire career"

I did not say that either. I said you don't want to do the opposite, you ONLY want to consider career.


In evaluating players I consider peak or career or both in deciding how good I think a player is.

 

[Tom]

"That's how I see your statements as..."

well, then we're even.

 

[SP33Demon]

You should also factor in offensive postseason performances. I spoke with many baseball pundits and they said yes, Bench was inconsistent during his career offensively, but all agreed on one thing: he was "clutch in the postseason".

Some examples: "In 1972, he was MVP again and hit a home run to lead off the bottom of the ninth inning in Game 5 of the NLCS. It tied the score with the Pirates and the Reds added another run that inning to win the game and the pennant. "
To get a better understanding of this:

The whole scene is too ridiculous even to comprehend: Bench, facing an 0-2 count and his team down 3-2. Bench, who in the second inning had told Rose, "I hope I come up in the ninth inning with one man on and us needing a hit, because I know I'll get one." ... Bench, who in the on-deck circle before his fateful at-bat, told Joe Morgan, "I'm taking him to right field," even though Bench hardly ever hit to right field; he knew in his gut that Pittsburgh Pirates closer Dave Giusti would try to get him out with his palm ball away. ... Bench, who nodded and smiled when his mother walked down to the railing to signal him to hit a home run ("I knew I was going to hit one out," Bench later said. "I had that feeling.").

In 1973, the Reds squared off against the New York Mets in the NL Playoffs. In the opening game, Tom Seaver took a 1-1 tie into the bottom of the ninth in Cincinnati. Bench blasted a home run off the future Hall of Famer and the Reds won 2-1.

The 1975 World Series is regarded by many as the greatest ever played. In Game Two, in the bottom of the ninth inning with his team trailing the Red Sox 2-1, Bench doubled off Bill Lee and scored the tying run. The Reds went on to win the game 3-2, and ultimately the series. Even though Bench batted just .207 in the series, three of his six hits were for extra bases, and he drove in four runs.

The 1976 post-season truly belonged to Johnny Bench. In the playoffs against the Philadelphia Phillies he batted .333 in the three-game sweep. In the final game, with the Phils clinging to a 6-5 lead, Bench homered off Ron Reed to tie the score, paving the way to victory. In the World Series, Bench performed as well as any batter in history, collecting eight hits (four for extra-bases) in the four-game sweep of the New York Yankees. He batted .533 and hit two homers with six RBI. In Game Four, he hit a three-run blast in the top of the ninth to clinch the game and the series.

Coming through under pressure is something that I don't think Mike Piazza has done... yes it's a small sample size (Piazza only has 22 at bats), but when it was all on the line, what did he do? Did he do or die? Some players never even get to see a World Series, yet Piazza played in one in his prime. Bench was 1976 World Series MVP, mainly for his offense, and batted .533 in 13 at bats in a sweep of the New York Yankees and the late great Thurman Munson. Said Munson after the WS about Bench: "The man deserves all the credit in the world".

Some other stats: Bench joined the Reds late in the 1967 season and became a starter in 1968, when he set records for a catcher by playing in 154 games and hitting 40 doubles. (He was named the league's rookie of the year.) Did Piazza ever set the rookie record for 2B in his first year? Did he ever hit 40 doubles EVER? No, his high was 33 in 1997; Bench has hit 34, 35, 38, and 39 in comparison he was clearly a better doubles hitter. What about triples? Bench has 24 career, and Piazza 6, with Bench having 4,3,3 in triples and Piazza having 2,2,1 (I highly doubt Piazza will surpass him overall in this category cumulatively). On the other hand, Piazza has a season of over 200 hits and Bench doesn't.

In summary, I think your statement that Piazza "peaked" better than Bench is total BS. Bench has higher doubles, triples, HR's, and RBI totals amassed in his best years. Bench set the rookie record for 40 2B's as a catcher, a total that Piazza never reached in his whole CAREER (33 was his high). Bench led the league in HR's twice, RBI's 3X, led in Total Bases once (the ONLY time a catcher has EVER led the league in Total Bases!), things Piazza has never even done once. Bench has hit 45 HR's as a season high, something Piazza has never done (his high was 40). Piazza has only beaten Bench's high SLG% of .587 twice in his career with .638 (Piazza batted .362 this year) and .614 (he batted .324 this year), and this is only because SLG% is highly dependent upon BA which he does better than Bench (I didn't count the years Piazza played 109 and 112 games b/c that is not a FULL SEASON). Bench batted .533 as the World Series MVP, had 2HR's in game 4. Piazza batted .273 in the WS when it counted IN HIS PRIME, PEAK YEAR.

Given Piazza's average offensive stats in doubles, triples, and HR's it's absurd to say that he peaked better than Bench. He only beat Bench's best SLG% twice, which is hardly anything to brag about. Whine about at bats all you want, but shouldn't Piazza have beaten Bench in all offensive categories since he plays in a hitter's era? And what about Piazza's postseason performance when it counted (offensively). When it was his time to shine, he choked. Bench won it all with his bat, and was deemed WS MVP b/c of it, the highest offensive honor a player could receive. Bench also has proved many other times that he is clutch: when his team needed a hit, he responded. Bench clearly "peaked" better than Piazza offensively, although Piazza was more consistent throughout his career (avg/slg wise).

 

[przero]

Boys, I hate to keep bringing this up, but don't sell Yogi short. He's got TEN rings. 15 time All-Star and 3 time AL MVP. Plus when he turned 18 he did 3 years in WWII. Kinda' hard to keep up the practice on Omaha Beach. Trust me, he had game!

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
You said-

"Slugging Percentage = (1B + 2*2B + 3*3B + 4*HR)/PA
Where HR = total number of homeruns, etc. and PA = Plate Appearances. Walks aren't counted in SLG."


This site says-

"Slugging Percentage (SLG)
The Slugging Percentage indicates the power and effectiveness of the hitter. Mathematically, it's the number of bases divided by the number of times the player was at bat.

Example: A player bats three times, and gets a triple, a double and a strike out. His slugging average would be: (3+2+0)/3 = 1.666."


If that site is correct, then it is you who doesn't understand what slugger percentage is, not me. Your equation says a single is worth 1 point, a double is worth 4, a triple is worth 9, and a HR is worth 16.


edit- my original feeling about slugger percentage was based on that site's description of it, so the part of my opinion you think was based on my misunderstanding isn't valid, since I didn't misunderstand it. (if that site is correct)

No, SLG is [1*(number of singles) + 2*(number of doubles) + 3*(number of triples) + 4*(number of homeruns)]/(At Bats)

Your site is saying EXACTLY what I said. Perhaps you didn't understand the way I stated it (even though I don't know how you couldn't understand it). I never stated anywhere that a double (a 2B) is worth 4 points. And maybe instead of 'plate appearances' I should have said 'at bats' but I did state that walks aren't counted.

Read the site again. It again says what SLG is (exactly what I said). You didn't even understand SLG when it was RIGHT in front of you on another website.