Carlton Fisk...best catcher ever?

[pyonir]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
I'll keep Johnny Bench. NOBODY could steal on him.

Johnny "Hands" Bench ended his career with 389 home runs, a .476 slugging percentage, and a .987 fielding percentage. He was the NL Rookie of the Year in 1968, earned two NL MVP awards, won 10 Gold Gloves, pioneered the one-handed style of catching, and was the first catcher to wear a protective helmet behind the plate.

Before i clicked on the thread, that is who had my vote.

 

[schizoid]

FISK!

 

[NutBucket]

Originally posted by: MazerRackham
We all know it's Benji Molina of the Angels!!!

No no no, as an Angels' fan you should know the answer is Mike Scioscia

 

[zod]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: AU Tiger
I was thinking Piazza. I don't really like the guy, but he is the greatest offensive catcher ever.

I'd definitely agree with you on that point, but he is a horrible defensive catcher.

if you had the choice of Pudge or Piazza at the beginning of their respective careers, who would you take??

for me, it's Pudge without even a question.

piazza has better HR numbers but Pudge is better at almost everything else.

Not exactly. Higher Batting Average, considerably higher On Base Percentage, much higher slugging percentage. Also, Pudge needs to stop running, he hurts his team on the basepaths in that respect. Pudge also hasn't driven in more than 85 runs since the 90s. Also, remember where Piazza has hit his whole life - Dodger and Shea stadium, some pretty wretched places to hit.

Piazza isn't terrible defensively, he IS terrible at throwing runners out. He can do most other things well enough defensively, and handles pitchers well (if that means anything). And is, by far, the best offensive catcher of all time.

I'd say Piazza is #1. Mickey Cochrane and Johnny Bench are pretty dam amazing, too. I wouldn't put Fisk in their class.

 

[hg321]

Originally posted by: ProfessorFate
Johnny Bench.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: AU Tiger
I was thinking Piazza. I don't really like the guy, but he is the greatest offensive catcher ever.

I'd definitely agree with you on that point, but he is a horrible defensive catcher.

if you had the choice of Pudge or Piazza at the beginning of their respective careers, who would you take??

for me, it's Pudge without even a question.

piazza has better HR numbers but Pudge is better at almost everything else.

Are you kidding? I would take Piazza without even thinking about it. He's much more than just HR over Pudge when considering offense. Piazza is a historically great hitter...even if he was a 1B. Pudge would be nothing great if his numbers were translated as a 1B.

Look at Piazza's OPS+ since his first full season:
150
141
172
167
186!!!
167
152
137
159
150
140
124

Pudge:
88
98
117
102
104
114
120
125
152 (didn't even play the entire season)
130
123
124

Piazza destorys Pudge in offense. You have to remember that Piazza has played in pitcher's parks his entire career with the Dodgers & Mets.

Look at all of the current catchers playing today. Have there been any other catchers that were durable enough and offensively good enough for a long period of time? No, not really.

Piazza is by far the best offensive catcher EVER. Nobody else comes close to him in offense...now throwing out runners is whole other story.

Career OPS+:
Piazza: 153 - That's tied for 27th for all-time!
IROD: 114
Fisk: 117
Bench: 126
Berra: 125
Cochrane: 128

The question should be: Is Piazza's inability to throw out runners enough to negate his sizable offensive advantage over guys like Cochrane, Berra, and Bench?

 

[Drekce]

Ummmmm Pete Rose???

 

[techfuzz]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
The question should be: Is Piazza's inability to throw out runners enough to negate his sizable offensive advantage over guys like Cochrane, Berra, and Bench?

No it is not. IMHO, the question asked who was the best ever and fielding/throwing out baserunners is a big factor in deciding who is the best overall.

How come nobody is even considering Bob Uecker as the best ever? Come on guys!!!

techfuzz

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: techfuzz

IMHO, the question asked who was the best ever and fielding/throwing out baserunners is a big factor in deciding who is the best overall.

All the question was was an excuse for the idiot to say fisk. Not the catcher, just the word "fisk." He's an utter moron. Search for his other posts.

 

[techfuzz]

Originally posted by: werk
All the question was was an excuse for the idiot to say fisk. Not the catcher, just the word "fisk." He's an utter moron. Search for his other posts.

Intelligent discussion can still come out even if the thread was started as a farce.

techfuzz

 

[FFactory0x]

Pete Rose or Johnney Bench

 

[tarheelmm]

How could this discussion go on for so long without the names of two of the greatest catchers:

Thurman Munson

and

Gary Carter

 

[techfuzz]

Originally posted by: tarheelmm
How could this discussion go on for so long without the names of two of the greatest catchers:

Thurman Munson

and

Gary Carter

Munson has already been mentioned and Gary Carter had a lifetime .262 batting average. Ok average for a catcher, but not steller.

techfuzz

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: AU Tiger
I was thinking Piazza. I don't really like the guy, but he is the greatest offensive catcher ever.

Piazza gets my vote for best LOOKING catcher ever.

 

[GasX]

Johnny Bench - no question

Dutch Daulton is my vote for second best...

 

[UNCjigga]

Fo' Fiszzle my nizzle

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: pyonir

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
I'll keep Johnny Bench. NOBODY could steal on him.

Johnny "Hands" Bench ended his career with 389 home runs, a .476 slugging percentage, and a .987 fielding percentage. He was the NL Rookie of the Year in 1968, earned two NL MVP awards, won 10 Gold Gloves, pioneered the one-handed style of catching, and was the first catcher to wear a protective helmet behind the plate.

Before i clicked on the thread, that is who had my vote.

Ditto, I thought Pete Rose played 1st or 3rd

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: AU Tiger
I was thinking Piazza. I don't really like the guy, but he is the greatest offensive catcher ever.

I'd definitely agree with you on that point, but he is a horrible defensive catcher.

if you had the choice of Pudge or Piazza at the beginning of their respective careers, who would you take??

for me, it's Pudge without even a question.

piazza has better HR numbers but Pudge is better at almost everything else.

Are you kidding? I would take Piazza without even thinking about it. He's much more than just HR over Pudge when considering offense. Piazza is a historically great hitter...even if he was a 1B. Pudge would be nothing great if his numbers were translated as a 1B.

Look at Piazza's OPS+ since his first full season:
150
141
172
167
186!!!
167
152
137
159
150
140
124

Pudge:
88
98
117
102
104
114
120
125
152 (didn't even play the entire season)
130
123
124

Piazza destorys Pudge in offense. You have to remember that Piazza has played in pitcher's parks his entire career with the Dodgers & Mets.

Look at all of the current catchers playing today. Have there been any other catchers that were durable enough and offensively good enough for a long period of time? No, not really.

Piazza is by far the best offensive catcher EVER. Nobody else comes close to him in offense...now throwing out runners is whole other story.

Career OPS+:
Piazza: 153 - That's tied for 27th for all-time!
IROD: 114
Fisk: 117
Bench: 126
Berra: 125
Cochrane: 128

The question should be: Is Piazza's inability to throw out runners enough to negate his sizable offensive advantage over guys like Cochrane, Berra, and Bench?

No, the question is, how many championships has Piazza led his team to? Is Piazza a leader or a cancer in the clubhouse? I think we all know that Bench and Berra are SUPERIOR to Piazza all around, hitting isn't everything... hell - traditionally, a catcher is NOT supposed to be a good hitter, his JOB is to study pitchers and prevent runners from stealing. He is supposed to be a leader in the clubhouse, someone who makes the right call for a pitch, no matter how many times the pitcher shakes it off. A modern day version of this description would be Jason Varitek: "Varitek hit a career-high 25 home runs last season, drove in 85 runs and made his first American League All-Star team, but the consensus is that he could be even better if he devoted more time to improving his own skills rather than focusing on his pitchers." He could be better at hitting IF he didn't study pitchers so much which is a catcher's JOB...

Mike Piazza is nothing but a modern day version of a good hitting first baseman: He can hit for power like most first baseman, but that's about it. He is FAR from durable like the greats Bench, Berra, and Fisk; and he is nothing but a cancer IMO who complains when he doesn't get his way and is NOT a team player. He will never lead his team to a championship like the greats. I'll take Jorge Posada, Varitek, or Pudge any day for their leadership and stingy D before taking someone like Piazza.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: AU Tiger
I was thinking Piazza. I don't really like the guy, but he is the greatest offensive catcher ever.

I'd definitely agree with you on that point, but he is a horrible defensive catcher.

if you had the choice of Pudge or Piazza at the beginning of their respective careers, who would you take??

for me, it's Pudge without even a question.

piazza has better HR numbers but Pudge is better at almost everything else.

Are you kidding? I would take Piazza without even thinking about it. He's much more than just HR over Pudge when considering offense. Piazza is a historically great hitter...even if he was a 1B. Pudge would be nothing great if his numbers were translated as a 1B.

Look at Piazza's OPS+ since his first full season:
150
141
172
167
186!!!
167
152
137
159
150
140
124

Pudge:
88
98
117
102
104
114
120
125
152 (didn't even play the entire season)
130
123
124

Piazza destorys Pudge in offense. You have to remember that Piazza has played in pitcher's parks his entire career with the Dodgers & Mets.

Look at all of the current catchers playing today. Have there been any other catchers that were durable enough and offensively good enough for a long period of time? No, not really.

Piazza is by far the best offensive catcher EVER. Nobody else comes close to him in offense...now throwing out runners is whole other story.

Career OPS+:
Piazza: 153 - That's tied for 27th for all-time!
IROD: 114
Fisk: 117
Bench: 126
Berra: 125
Cochrane: 128

The question should be: Is Piazza's inability to throw out runners enough to negate his sizable offensive advantage over guys like Cochrane, Berra, and Bench?

No, the question is, how many championships has Piazza led his team to? Is Piazza a leader or a cancer in the clubhouse? I think we all know that Bench and Berra are SUPERIOR to Piazza all around, hitting isn't everything... hell - traditionally, a catcher is NOT supposed to be a good hitter, his JOB is to study pitchers and prevent runners from stealing. He is supposed to be a leader in the clubhouse, someone who makes the right call for a pitch, no matter how many times the pitcher shakes it off. A modern day version of this description would be Jason Varitek: "Varitek hit a career-high 25 home runs last season, drove in 85 runs and made his first American League All-Star team, but the consensus is that he could be even better if he devoted more time to improving his own skills rather than focusing on his pitchers." He could be better at hitting IF he didn't study pitchers so much which is a catcher's JOB...

Mike Piazza is nothing but a modern day version of a good hitting first baseman: He can hit for power like most first baseman, but that's about it. He is FAR from durable like the greats Bench, Berra, and Fisk; and he is nothing but a cancer IMO who complains when he doesn't get his way and is NOT a team player. He will never lead his team to a championship like the greats. I'll take Jorge Posada, Varitek, or Pudge any day for their leadership and stingy D before taking someone like Piazza.

OK, then I don't want you saying that Ted Williams is any good because he never led his teams to any championships.

I'm not even sure why you mentioned Varitek...he's been exactly average over his entire career hitting wise. Hell, he's been about as mediocre as Piazza has been in CS%. (Piazza for his career 24.7%, Varitek: 26.7%). It's nice and cozy that some Boston website says nice things about Varitek, but the same could be said of any other player. Every catcher could be better at hitting if he didn't focus on catching or whatever.

I'm not saying that Piazza is the best catcher ever with my original post...just that he's by far the greatest offensive catcher ever.

 

[Tom]

"I'm not saying that Piazza is the best catcher ever with my original post...just that he's by far the greatest offensive catcher ever."


He isn't "by far" the best catcher offensively, I think Bench was better, but even if you think Piazza is better it isn't "by far", that is a ludicrous thing to say. Both Bench and Berra were outstanding offensive players.

I didn't see Berra play myself, but I saw Bench and everyone since.

Bench DOMINATED games as a catcher, both by shutting down a big part of the game, stealing, hardly anyone would even attempt to steal, and with great power hitting. He also was great with pitchers and all the other things a catcher has to do, he had no weakness.

These made up statistics, like OPS, are useless. If you want to compare players you got to do more research than just relying on one statistic that doesn't mean anything by itself.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"I'm not saying that Piazza is the best catcher ever with my original post...just that he's by far the greatest offensive catcher ever."


He isn't "by far" the best catcher offensively, I think Bench was better, but even if you think Piazza is better it isn't "by far", that is a ludicrous thing to say. Both Bench and Berra were outstanding offensive players.

I didn't see Berra play myself, but I saw Bench and everyone since.

Bench DOMINATED games as a catcher, both by shutting down a big part of the game, stealing, hardly anyone would even attempt to steal, and with great power hitting. He also was great with pitchers and all the other things a catcher has to do, he had no weakness.

These made up statistics, like OPS, are useless. If you want to compare players you got to do more research than just relying on one statistic that doesn't mean anything by itself.

Yeah, OPS is such a made up statistic.

I mean OBP and SLG are complete and utter fake statistics, right?

Piazza was by far the most dominant offensive catcher when you look at his overall offensive production. He's tied for the 22nd (.959) highest OPS ever. That's insane coming from catcher. Bench (.817) isn't even in the top 100.

OPS+ takes in account the league and park and neutrally adjusts it and measures it so that a 125 would be 25% better than league average. Piazza is tied with Jeff Bagwell for 27th of all time with a 153 OPS+. Bench (126 OPS+) isn't even in the top 100 again.

The difference in Piazza and Bench in offense is so gigantic that it shouldn't even be an argument.

What magical statistics do you have to back you up? OPS is by no means the best statistic, but it provides a quick and easy to understand way to look at the players...and if the difference in OPS and OPS+ is tremendous like the difference between Piazza and Bench, then I would say that Piazza is absolutely better than Bench in offense.

Now if you're talking about the whole overall picture, then that's completely different. However, with only taking offensive capabilities in mind, Piazza is by far better than Bench.

And if you're saying that OPS is a fake and made up statistic and then telling me to do more research into statistics...what's the point? You wouldn't even understand whatever other statistics I bring up if you think that something simple like OPS is fake. I have a strong feeling that you only base your ranking on opinion instead of facts or statistics.

 

[Tom]

I didn't say OPS was fake, I said it was made up. Just adding two relatively meaningful statistics together doesn't give you some all powerful statistic with greater meaning than the two statistics considered by themselves mean.

And if you read what I said, my issue with you is mostly the degree by which you think Piazza is better, I think there are way too many variables to make that statement. They played in different eras, and had differing roles, for example. I don't question that you or others might think Piazza is better, I don't agree, but I think you got too far when you say he was much better.

"The righthanded-hitting slugger(Bench) topped the National League in homers twice, with a career-high 45 in 1970 and 40 in 1972, winning the MVP award both years. He led the league in runs batted in three times (with 148 in 1970, 125 in 1972 and 129 in 1974).

..He is the only catcher to ever lead his league in total bases, when he accumulated 315 in 1974."

source


As far as comparing different eras in the game, using your statistic, OPS, Bench finished in the top ten 5 times in his career, Piazza finished in the top ten 6 times.

Seems pretty similar for somebody who is supposed to be vastly better ?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
I didn't say OPS was fake, I said it was made up. Just adding two relatively meaningful statistics together doesn't give you some all powerful statistic with greater meaning than the two statistics considered by themselves mean.

And if you read what I said, my issue with you is mostly the degree by which you think Piazza is better, I think there are way too many variables to make that statement. They played in different eras, and had differing roles, for example. I don't question that you or others might think Piazza is better, I don't agree, but I think you got too far when you say he was much better.

"The righthanded-hitting slugger(Bench) topped the National League in homers twice, with a career-high 45 in 1970 and 40 in 1972, winning the MVP award both years. He led the league in runs batted in three times (with 148 in 1970, 125 in 1972 and 129 in 1974).

..He is the only catcher to ever lead his league in total bases, when he accumulated 315 in 1974."

source


As far as comparing different eras in the game, using your statistic, OPS, Bench finished in the top ten 5 times in his career, Piazza finished in the top ten 6 times.

Seems pretty similar for somebody who is supposed to be vastly better ?

I stand by my statement that Piazza is far better than Bench offensively. The statistics clearly show it.

Do you have any idea what OPS+? It normalizes a player's OPS relative to his league/era and park. Piazza is 27th ALL TIME while Bench isn't even in the top 100 of all time. To me that means that Piazza is BY FAR better as an offensive player than Bench. We're talking about 27th of all time (and 22nd of all time if you don't normalize it to league/era/park) compared to someone that isn't even in the top 100. This is a ridiculous argument. OPS isn't perfect, but such a huge difference certainly means that Piazza is most likely better than Bench offensively. And if you adjust it to era/league/park and compare their OPS to their contemporary players, then Piazza has been more dominant than Bench.

Yes, Bench finished in the top ten 5 times...yet look at where he finished:

1970-.932-9
1972-.920-4
1974-.870-7
1975-.878-9
1977-.889-8

Adjusted OPS+
1970-145-9
1972-166-2
1974-143-7
1975-140-9

That's good, but not nearly as good as Piazza. Bench was almost never in the top 5...just once.

Piazza:
OPS
1993-.932-4
1995-1.006-2
1996-.985-6
1997-1.070-2
1998-.960-9

Adjusted OPS+
1993-150-2
1994-141-10
1995-172-1
1996-167-5
1997-186-1
2000-159-6

But all this shows is that Piazza has had a better PEAK than Bench, which seems obvious. However, you seem to refuse to look at Bench's entire career...a career with a good 126 OPS+, but not dominating like Piazza's 153 OPS+. Granted Piazza's OPS+ may drop down over the next couple of years, but it will still be significantly better than Bench's.

You will probably not find any offensive statistic that measures overall offensive value that says that Bench is anywhere near Piazza in offense. Simply because that would be a ridiculous statement...You're comparing someone that is ranked 27/22 (OPS+/OPS) to someone that isn't even in the top 100. That speaks enough for itself.

 

[Tom]

We just have a disagreement about the whole importance of statistics. I think they are fun to look at, you think they have real meaning.

Your argument is full of all kinds of opinions, as is mine, but ypu want me to accept your opinions as some sort of undeniable fact.

Example, you talk about "overall offense", what the heck is that ? You think OPS = overall offense, I think that's BS.

I feel that discussing who is the better player, offensively, defensively, or combination of both, is a purely subjective opinion, and no amount of statistics is going to change my opinion about that. There are way way way too many variables for any statistic to tell the whole story.

I prefer to consider statistics as part of an analysis, not as the whole analysis. Even more important IMO are things like MVP awards and World Series victories, after all that is the goal of the game.


Also, when considering statistics, I wouldn't say OPS is the most important. The two things that matter the most, offensively, are RBIs and on base percentage. OPS includes other stuff that isn't as important, so I wouldn't use it as a basis for who is the better player.

The only area where I see Piazza being superior is batting average, but that isn't a very important statistic for a clean-up hitter, RBIs is what a clean up hitter is supposed to produce; at least in the team game that existed in the era when Bench played.

And compare Piazza with his contemporaries and Bench with his.. when Bench hit 45 HR he led the league, when Piazza hit 40 it was good for a catcher, but it was not even close to leading the league.

3 times Bench led the league in RBIs, the most important offensive stat of all, and particularly for a slugger, has Piazza done it ever ?

When Bench was at his peak, he was arguably the best offensive player in the game, Piazza has never reached that point when compared to his contemporaries.

Piazza has better career stats in some areas, mostly BA, but career stats aren't necessarily more important than performance at one's peak. Both should be considered, particularly when peak performance leads to the ultimate stat, World Series Championships.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
We just have a disagreement about the whole importance of statistics. I think they are fun to look at, you think they have real meaning.

Your argument is full of all kinds of opinions, as is mine, but ypu want me to accept your opinions as some sort of undeniable fact.

Example, you talk about "overall offense", what the heck is that ? You think OPS = overall offense, I think that's BS.

I feel that discussing who is the better player, offensively, defensively, or combination of both, is a purely subjective opinion, and no amount of statistics is going to change my opinion about that. There are way way way too many variables for any statistic to tell the whole story.

I prefer to consider statistics as part of an analysis, not as the whole analysis. Even more important IMO are things like MVP awards and World Series victories, after all that is the goal of the game.


Also, when considering statistics, I wouldn't say OPS is the most important. The two things that matter the most, offensively, are RBIs and on base percentage. OPS includes other stuff that isn't as important, so I wouldn't use it as a basis for who is the better player.

The only area where I see Piazza being superior is batting average, but that isn't a very important statistic for a clean-up hitter, RBIs is what a clean up hitter is supposed to produce; at least in the team game that existed in the era when Bench played.

And compare Piazza with his contemporaries and Bench with his.. when Bench hit 45 HR he led the league, when Piazza hit 40 it was good for a catcher, but it was not even close to leading the league.

3 times Bench led the league in RBIs, the most important offensive stat of all, and particularly for a slugger, has Piazza done it ever ?

When Bench was at his peak, he was arguably the best offensive player in the game, Piazza has never reached that point when compared to his contemporaries.

Piazza has better career stats in some areas, mostly BA, but career stats aren't necessarily more important than performance at one's peak. Both should be considered, particularly when peak performance leads to the ultimate stat, World Series Championships.

Rabid, I have to agree with Dead Parrot here. Bench was THE dominant catcher of his era, nobody even ran a close second... You can tout OPS+ all you want, but I also think there are way too many variables for one mathematical equation to take into account. What about designer steroids (which Mr.October, someone of Bench's era, has accused Brady Anderson of juicing), better conditioning, that Bench hit in a dominant pitching era? You could argue that Piazza's numbers are just a product of overinflated numbers on the whole due to any of these variables. What about diluted pitching due to expansion teams? Does OPS+ take all of these into account? Does it take into account whether a player had protection in the lineup? Where do you get off saying that Piazza "peaked higher" than Bench? Take their 3 best years: 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??

Piazza had an identical amount of HR's hit in these years (118) as Bench, Bench had 41 more total RBI's, and Piazza avg'd .48 points higher in BA. The RBI's and BA cancel each other out, it wasn't Bench's job to hit for avg, but to knock Charlie Hustle/rest of Big Red Machine in = More RBI's.

I also agree with Dead Parrot when he says that 45HR's led the league back then, Piazza's 40 are hardly anything to brag about in today's batting era, especially considering the diluted pitching and better conditioning of today's era. Piazza ,in his prime, should have knocked in at least 50 according to your standards that he's "significantly better offensively". Give credit where credit is due, and that's to Hall of Famer Bench.