Carlton Fisk...best catcher ever?

[RabidMongoose]

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.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I see stats as fact and unbiased (especially if there's a huge difference in statistics between two players). Opinions are obviously biased, IMO. I use facts and apply them to everyone in the same way. You, for all I know, take opinion and apply them differently to all types of players. Statistics can't say that Mike Piazza was better than Babe Ruth. However, opinions can. That's the main difference in our two 'opinions' - mine is applied without any possible bias while yours very well could be severely biased.

Piazza wasn't only super in AVG. He was FAR superior in OBP and SLG.

I don't think that OPS = overall offense. However, it's the best quick and easy judge of a player's overall individual offense.

You seem to want to reward people because of their team, thereby looking at WS championships and RBIs. Ted Williams never won a WS championship, but he was one of the top players of all time. RBIs are also a team stat - they correlate closely to your SLG and the OBP of the people in front of you. If you look at who Bench's teammates were at the time and their OBP - .401, .454, .384, .385 (for 1972) - he HAD to have racked up a bunch of RBIs. Anyone could have.

I'm not sure how you're getting that Bench, at his peak, was better than his contemporaries - he never was. He had a fantastic 1972 season, but all of his other seasons are statistically worse than Piazza's average.

I guess we are just different type of fans.

 

[Homerboy]

can I get a vote for Thurman Munson?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: 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.

I'm not sure if I should even reply to you after your Varitek post

How do you know that Piazza is on steroids? How do you know that Bench wasn't? You can't. You can try to prove whatever with your opinions or false accusations, but that doesnt' mean anything. At least statistics aren't biased.

Again, OPS+ normalizes the player's OPS against his OWN league. It adjusts for era, league, and park. Therefore if there is better conditioning today and 'diluted pitching', then OPS+ would STILL show how dominant a player was against his own peers. If one person faces diluted pitching - then, on average, most people do, too.

Piazza hit 40 HRs in two extreme pitcher's parks. That's damn good. Nobody seems to remember that LA and NYM play in these nice pitcher's parks.

Again, RBIs are a team dependent statistic, too. Bench had 4 players on his team with amazing OBP. He should have had high rbi numbers. You only look at HR/RBI/AVg - I like to look at OBP and SLG more than those. I don't like rewarding people for their teammates' abilities (RBIs), and I don't know why people don't like to look at AVG+Walks (OBP) and HR+2B+etc. (SLG). That's where Piazza is significantly better....OBP and SLG....OPS (OBP+SLG) is a more complete picture than HR/AVG/RBI. OPS+ is even better to compare people across different eras.

You seem to only want to look at Bench's peak vs. Piazza's peak. Bottom line is that career value is more important..and that's where Piazza far outweighs Bench in offensive production - if you look at the statistics.

I have to reiterate: We're talking about someone who is 27th of all time in OPS+ (which is adjusted for league, era, and park) vs. someone who isn't even in the top 100. If Piazza was 30th and Bench 50th, then I wouldn't be so adamant about it...but the separation between these two players is absolutely gigantic.

Bench was a great player and damn good offensive player. However, IMO, Piazza is better. Any comprehensive statistic that measures total offensive production would say the same.

 

[RabidMongoose]

And since you like looking at AVG RBI's and HRs so much:

Bench has 389 career HR and 1376 career RBIs
Piazza has 358 career HR and 1107 career RBIs.
Piazza has a .319 career AVG vs. Bench's .267 career AVG.

Sounds like Bench is better...until you realize that Piazza only took 5350 ABs versus Bench's 7658 at bats. That's a separation of almost 2300 at bats. I'm not sure how you can justify this.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I'm not sure if I should even reply to you after your Varitek post

How do you know that Piazza is on steroids? How do you know that Bench wasn't? You can't. You can try to prove whatever with your opinions or false accusations, but that doesnt' mean anything. At least statistics aren't biased.

Again, OPS+ normalizes the player's OPS against his OWN league. It adjusts for era, league, and park. Therefore if there is better conditioning today and 'diluted pitching', then OPS+ would STILL show how dominant a player was against his own peers. If one person faces diluted pitching - then, on average, most people do, too.

Piazza hit 40 HRs in two extreme pitcher's parks. That's damn good. Nobody seems to remember that LA and NYM play in these nice pitcher's parks.

Again, RBIs are a team dependent statistic, too. Bench had 4 players on his team with amazing OBP. He should have had high OBP numbers.

You seem to only want to look at Bench's peak vs. Piazza's peak. Bottom line is that career value is more important..and that's where Piazza far outweighs Bench in offensive production - if you look at the statistics.

I have to reiterate: We're talking about someone who is 27th of all time in OPS+ (which is adjusted for league, era, and park) vs. someone who isn't even in the top 100. If Piazza was 30th and Bench 50th, then I wouldn't be so adamant about it...but the separation between these two players is absolutely gigantic.

Bench was a great player and damn good offensive player. However, IMO, Piazza is better. Any comprehensive statistic that measures total offensive production would say the same.

We do know that designer steroids are hundreds of times more potent and advanced than anything in the 70's. Did you even read what HOFer Reggie Jackson said??? Take it from him, players were not on the juice back then, b/c a)designer steroids weren't around in that era and b)amphetamines were the dominant drug of choice of that era, which do not increase muscle mass or bat speed (and this was more prolific of late 70's/early 80's, ever heard of the term bennie?).

Bah, Varitek is an All Star and his graph is going up, talk to me in 10 years.

So you're saying Piazza hit all 40 HR's in LA or NY? Careful there, b/c I can prove otherwise (hint: road games)

You say that Bench's teammates had high OBP, so what? Bench still had to knock em in. Why don't you look up his avg with runners in scoring position? To discount RBI's is ludicrous, and you can't make up excuses for Piazza's lack of HR's and RBI's after saying he was "significantly better" offensively in his peak years.

Post the exact definition of OPS+ and guaranteed I could punch more holes through it than an Iraqi tank vs USA.

I was looking at Piazza's "peak" vs Bench's "peak" b/c you claimed (scroll up): But all this shows is that Piazza has had a better PEAK than Bench, which seems obvious. No, it's not obvious. Piazza's peak had a higher avg, and Bench RBI's, and they're even in HR's. If it was so obvious, shouldn't Piazza have more significantly(your word again) more HR's and RBI's? Especially in a hitter's era???

You say that career value wise, Piazza is better. We didn't even bring defense into the equation, which is a catcher's job. Piazza fails miserably in that dept, and as a leader. I can understand that your a NY Mets' fanboy, but can you honestly tell me that you couldn't put Piazza at first and any avg catcher and notice the difference?

To sum it up, Piazza is not a true catcher b/c he sucks defensively and isn't a leader. Why don't you compare Piazza's numbers to Giambi or Mark McGwire, true 1st basemen (where Piazza should have played)? B/c calling Piazza a catcher is an insult to catchers everywhere IMO, he should have been a 1st baseman, the Mets would have been better off.

 

[RabidMongoose]

We do know that designer steroids are hundreds of times more potent and advanced than anything in the 70's. Did you even read what HOFer Reggie Jackson said??? Take it from him, players were not on the juice back then, b/c a)designer steroids weren't around in that era and b)amphetamines were the dominant drug of choice of that era, which do not increase muscle mass or bat speed (and this was more prolific of late 70's/early 80's, ever heard of the term bennie?).

And how do you know that Piazza is on steroids? You don't. How do we know that Bench was never on any type of enhancement? We don't. This is ridiculous. Is Reggie Jackson the official spokesman of all players of his era? No. Please use facts, not opinions.

Bah, Varitek is an All Star and his graph is going up, talk to me in 10 years.

Sorry to break it to you, but Varitek is a nice catcher, but he's no hall of famer...and since he's already 32, chances are that he'll be in decline, not going up...especially since he's a catcher. However, I guess opinion matters more than an entire century of statistical trends. I'm not sure how you got 'his graph is going up' if he alternates between a solid year and a poor year all of the time.

So you're saying Piazza hit all 40 HR's in LA or NY? Careful there, b/c I can prove otherwise (hint: road games)

No, but he did play half of the time in his home parks of LA and NY, both extreme pitcher's parks. There's no denying that.

You say that Bench's teammates had high OBP, so what? Bench still had to knock em in. Why don't you look up his avg with runners in scoring position? To discount RBI's is ludicrous, and you can't make up excuses for Piazza's lack of HR's and RBI's after saying he was "significantly better" offensively in his peak years.

If you have four guys with .380+ OBP (which is insanely good! 4 .380+ on one team and two of them are .400+..) then that would give you a hell of a lot more RBI opportunitites. Are you denying the simple fact that if you have players with a higher OBP in front of you, then you will have more RBI opportunities? I'm not discounting lack of HRs - I'm saying let's look at the bigger picture. And again, Piazza is far better than Bench at an RBI/AB or HR/AB rate for his career...far better.

Post the exact definition of OPS+ and guaranteed I could punch more holes through it than an Iraqi tank vs USA.

Sure.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/bat_glossary.shtml
However, if you didn't know what OPS+ is in the first place, then you might not understand what they're doing or why. You can also look up RC (runs created), created by Bill James, who is now employed by your Boston Red Sox.

I was looking at Piazza's "peak" vs Bench's "peak" b/c you claimed (scroll up): But all this shows is that Piazza has had a better PEAK than Bench, which seems obvious. No, it's not obvious. Piazza's peak had a higher avg, and Bench RBI's, and they're even in HR's. If it was so obvious, shouldn't Piazza have more significantly(your word again) more HR's and RBI's? Especially in a hitter's era???

Piazza's peak had a higher AVG, OBP, SLG. The only thing that Bench 'beats' him in his a statistic that is largely dependent on the teammates OBP in front of you - RBIs. There is no denying this.

You say that career value wise, Piazza is better. We didn't even bring defense into the equation, which is a catcher's job. Piazza fails miserably in that dept, and as a leader. I can understand that your a NY Mets' fanboy, but can you honestly tell me that you couldn't put Piazza at first and any avg catcher and notice the difference?

No I didn't. I'm not sure if Piazza would be better than Bench overall...in fact, I'd say it the other way. However, this argument was about who was a better offensive hitter. Piazza clearly is. As I said multiple times, if you factored in defense, then it would be completely different story. Please understand what I'm arguing about.

Piazza is horrible at throwing out runners - just like Varitek.
I may be a Mets fan, but I'm not a homer..I'm not sure if I can say the same thing about you and Varitek
If the statistics were saying that Bench is better than Piazza in an offensive manner, then I would be saying so. I don't believe that I have ever made a 'homeristic' comment on this forum. I welcome you to try to find one. I may be a Mets fan, but I'm a baseball fan first.

To sum it up, Piazza is not a true catcher b/c he sucks defensively and isn't a leader. Why don't you compare Piazza's numbers to Giambi or Mark McGwire, true 1st basemen (where Piazza should have played)? B/c calling Piazza a catcher is an insult to catchers everywhere IMO, he should have been a 1st baseman, the Mets would have been better off.

Piazza does suck at stealing out runners, like Varitek. How do you know he isn't a leader? A catcher is someone that players the catcher position, IMO. If a player has spend 5000 at bats at that position, then he's a catcher in the record books.

As I said previously, if you put Piazza at 1B, he would still be a historically great 1B. Anyone that put up the 27th best OPS+ of all time would be great, no matter what position he played in.

I personally think that people don't want to say that Piazza is better in offense than Bench because he's a newer player....people don't want to go against nostalgia, a similar hurdle faced by Barry Bonds and Pedro Martinez.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
And since you like looking at AVG RBI's and HRs so much:

Bench has 389 career HR and 1376 career RBIs
Piazza has 358 career HR and 1107 career RBIs.
Piazza has a .319 career AVG vs. Bench's .267 career AVG.

Sounds like Bench is better...until you realize that Piazza only took 5350 ABs versus Bench's 7658 at bats. That's a separation of almost 2300 at bats. I'm not sure how you can justify this.

Ok let's settle this once and for all.

A) Did Piazza ever lead MLB in HR's ever? No, but look at 1970 and 1972, Bench has twice.
B) Did Piazza win 2 MLB RBI crowns, and one National league RBI crown? No, but look at 1970, 72, and 74.
C) Did Piazza win 2 MVP's? No.
D) Did Piazza win 10 straight Gold Gloves, or won one at age 20? No, he will never win one, and should have played 1st instead.
E) Did Piazza get voted to 14 All Star Teams? No, he has played in 9 but it's questionable whether he'll make 5 more.
F) Did Piazza ever bat better than .533 (8-15), with 4 extra basehits including 2HR's, and 6 RBI's in a World Series; and/or has Piazza won 2 or more World Series? No, he went 6-22 against the Yanks in 2000.
G) Did Piazza ever hit 3 or more game tying or game winning HR's in the postseason? No, b/c Piazza isn't clutch.
H) Did Piazza ever catch 100 or more games 13 straight years? No, Bench set the record.
I) Has Piazza ever, or will he ever, be named as greatest catcher in baseball history by a major publication? No. Bench was named by the Sporting News in 1998.

Statistical Leaders in the span of 1967 - 1983, the years that Bench played:

Avg - 94th

Slg % - 19th

Home Runs: 3rd
1) Reggie Jackson - 478
2) Mike Schmidt - 389
3) Johnny Bench - 389
4) Stargell - 383
5) Yaz - 357

RBI: 4th
1) Tony Perez - 1488
2) Reggie Jackson - 1435
3) Yaz - 1383
4) Johnny Bench - 1376
5) Al Oliver - 1247

Extra Base Hits: 5th
1) R. Jackson - 915
2) T. Perez - 876
3) Pete Rose - 823
4) Yaz - 806
5) Johnny Bench - 794

To Quote: Best Strength as a Player: Defense, though his power is hard to ignore. He was an amazing player. Imagine Mike Piazza and Charles Johnson combined.

The list below shows the top 100 catchers in baseball history, according to The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract.
Johnny Bench is ranked 2nd only to Yogi, and Piazza is 5th.

You can rant all you want about ONE flawed stat (OPS+), but it's clear who is the greater player.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Did you even bother to read my post? Please respond to some of the points that I made instead of going off on a tangent that nobody is arguing about. Maybe I should just say 'Varitek is the #1 catcher of all time! Rah Rah Rah'.

I'm not saying that Piazza is the #1 catcher of all time. I'm saying that he's the best offensive catcher of all time. If you factor in defense, then Bench will probably be better.

If you want to use Bill James as a source, then please use his Runs Created statistic - which still shows that Piazza was better than Bench in OFFENSE.

I'm not talking about only OPS+. I'm talking about OPS, OPS+, OBP, SLG, HR/AB, RBI/AB, RC (by your Bill James), etc. You can even look at EQA somehow, RARP, etc. I am talking about any statistic that measures overall offensive value. They will all say the same thing.

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.

Again, I'm not talking about overall abilities here. Please read my previous posts. I'm saying that Piazza is clearly better than Bench in OFFENSE. You seem to repeatedly fail to recognize this.

Again, Piazza was more dominant than Bench when compared against his contemporaries. The statistics clearly show this. Piazza has more of your precious HR/AB and RBI/AB (and by a significant margin) and will ultimately have higher raw totals than Bench, too. He'll have much better rate stats and better totalled stats than Bench.

I also find it hilarious that you linked to some meaningless website and another website that is not related to this discussion.

This is in regards to offense only. If you want to whine and cry about overall catching (which would include defense), then please don't respond to me about it since that would be a completely different argument.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Ok let's settle this once and for all.

I don't think that will be possible. I rely more on statistical evidence, not crack pot theories like everyone is on steroids (except for my Red Sox) and other biased opinions.

A) Did Piazza ever lead MLB in HR's ever? No, but look at 1970 and 1972, Bench has twice.

Did Bench ever hit 30+ homeruns 9 times? Nope, but Piazza has.

B) Did Piazza win 2 MLB RBI crowns, and one National league RBI crown? No, but look at 1970, 72, and 74.

No, but Piazza also didn't have 4 .380+ OBP guys on his team. Did Bench have 10 90+ RBI seasons in a row? No, but Piazza has.
Has Bench finished in the top 100 in OPS or OPS+? Not even close.

C) Did Piazza win 2 MVP's? No.

No, but did Bench ever make it in the top 5 of OPS three times? No, but Piazza did.

D) Did Piazza win 10 straight Gold Gloves, or won one at age 20? No, he will never win one, and should have played 1st instead.

Yeah, like Varitek...but Varitek wouldn't have even been a good 1B.

E) Did Piazza get voted to 14 All Star Teams? No, he has played in 9 but it's questionable whether he'll make 5 more.

Did Bench ever hit .300 in a season with more than 200 at bats? No, but Piazza has done that 10 times...in a row.

F) Did Piazza ever bat better than .533 (8-15), with 4 extra basehits including 2HR's, and 6 RBI's in a World Series; and/or has Piazza won 2 or more World Series? No, he went 6-22 against the Yanks in 2000.

Great sample size there. Has Bench ever hit more than .300 in a single full season? Nope, but Piazza has done that 10 times.

G) Did Piazza ever hit 3 or more game tying or game winning HR's in the postseason? No, b/c Piazza isn't clutch.

No, but Piazza has hit more of your HR/AB and RBI/AB than Bench...I guess it's because Bench lost his clutch ability later.

H) Did Piazza ever catch 100 or more games 13 straight years? No, Bench set the record.

No, but Piazza didn't even need as many at bats to have better overall numbers than Bench.

I) Has Piazza ever, or will he ever, be named as greatest catcher in baseball history by a major publication? No. Bench was named by the Sporting News in 1998.

He will be known as the best offensive catcher though.

You seem to want to pick out your own select statistics...why not look at the whole picture? Or would that make your argument weak? It seems that no matter what statistic you pick (HR, RBIs, whatever), then Piazza will still likely be better over his whole career.

 

[SludgeFactory]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I personally think that people don't want to say that Piazza is better in offense than Bench because he's a newer player....people don't want to go against nostalgia, a similar hurdle faced by Barry Bonds and Pedro Martinez.

Piazza's clearly the better offensive player. I also doubt that many people realize how mind-numbingly insane Barry Bonds' 2001-2003 really was.

Bench is superior defensively. But is Piazza's defense really that bad? History is going to remember him that way, but besides the throwing arm, what is so bad about his defense?

 

[ElFenix]

piazza isn't a good enough catcher to be the best catcher of all time. sure, he is great offensively, but he should probably have been moved to first years ago. or DH. (which is ruining baseball, along with interleague play, the all star game determining home field in the WS, and veritek)

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Did you even bother to read my post? Please respond to some of the points that I made instead of going off on a tangent that nobody is arguing about. Maybe I should just say 'Varitek is the #1 catcher of all time! Rah Rah Rah'.

I'm not saying that Piazza is the #1 catcher of all time. I'm saying that he's the best offensive catcher of all time. If you factor in defense, then Bench will probably be better.

If you want to use Bill James as a source, then please use his Runs Created statistic - which still shows that Piazza was better than Bench in OFFENSE.

I'm not talking about only OPS+. I'm talking about OPS, OPS+, OBP, SLG, HR/AB, RBI/AB, RC (by your Bill James), etc. You can even look at EQA somehow, RARP, etc. I am talking about any statistic that measures overall offensive value. They will all say the same thing.

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.

Again, I'm not talking about overall abilities here. Please read my previous posts. I'm saying that Piazza is clearly better than Bench in OFFENSE. You seem to repeatedly fail to recognize this.

Again, Piazza was more dominant than Bench when compared against his contemporaries. The statistics clearly show this. Piazza has more of your precious HR/AB and RBI/AB (and by a significant margin) and will ultimately have higher raw totals than Bench, too. He'll have much better rate stats and better totalled stats than Bench.

I also find it hilarious that you linked to some meaningless website and another website that is not related to this discussion.

This is in regards to offense only. If you want to whine and cry about overall catching (which would include defense), then please don't respond to me about it since that would be a completely different argument.

I started to reply to the other post, but I decided to gather my thoughts into this one instead. Yes, I didn't understand that you were only arguing Offense. It is clearly obvious that Bench is superior overall to Piazza, but in offense your OPS+ flawed statistic isn't really convincing me. Why? Because Piazza did not a) Ever lead MLB in RBI's or b) Ever lead MLB in HR's. Bench did, twice. How do you explain that? You have to surely agree that Bench even played in a pitcher's era, and Piazza in a hitter's! I concede that Piazza clearly hits better for avg, but I'm not so convinced that he hits better for power. After Piazza's career is over, will he rank 3rd in total HR's, 4th in total RBI's, and 5th in total extra base hits vs his peers like Bench? This is what bothers me, Piazza clearly does not rise above the players in his respective era. Bench did. You can moan about RBI's all you want, but Bench's cumulative totals in HR's and Extra base hits with regards to his peers explain the RBI's. Hell, we can even take out RBI's since you're so convinced about it. Will Piazza surpass Bench in offensive totals? Probably, b/c he hits in a hitter's era with overinflated stats. If Piazza finishes higher than 3rd in HR's, and 5th in extra base hits vs players over the span of his career then I would say he's significantly better than Bench in offense. Until then, I'm not buying it, all you can prove is average.

Now to OPS+ and why it's flawed:
The problem is that the baseline changes. In other words, the tools of the game change across time - especially things like the ball. Also it is impossible to empirically measure talent (even if it was possible, how do we measure the talent of those who played in 1910?). We can do things like measure reaction time, speed, strength, etc., but while those things may influence performance, they are by no means the only variables. I'm sure some statisticians will some day come up with a way (this is what SABR was set up to do), but it won't be me!

Steroids issue:
Now come on, use your head please, you're not Jeff Kent. Why would players such as Reggie Jackson or Jim Palmer call out players today? Do they have anything to gain from it? Of course not. They know alot more than you do, or ever will, about the game of baseball and drugs used in the game. If you honestly think that steroid use happened with the frequency of today's game back then, then you're wrong. You're also wrong about the potency of steroids, THG is a brand new drug based off of a steroid used to put meat on cattle in the beef industry. Think they used that back then? Nope. From here.:

"The use of anabolic steroids by athletes is relatively new. Testosterone was first synthesized in the 1930's and was introduced into the sporting arena in the 1940's and 1950's.
When the Russian weight lifting team thanks, in part, to synthetic testosterone-walked off with a pile of medals at the 1952 Olympics, an American physician determined that U. S. competitors should have the same advantage.
By 1958 a U.S. pharmaceutical firm had developed anabolic steroids. Although the physician soon realized the drug had unwanted side effects, it was too late to halt its spread into the sports world.
Early users were mainly bodybuilders, weight lifters, football players, and discus, shot put, or javelin throwers-competitors who relied heavily on bulk and strength.
During the 1970's demand grew as athletes in other sports sought the competitive edge that anabolic steroids seemed to provide.
By the 1980's, as non athletes also discovered the body-enhancing properties of steroids, a black market began to flourish for the illegal production and sale of the drugs for nonmedical purposes.

I highly doubt many, if any, baseball players were on anabolic steroids back then. Look at Reggie Jackson's pictures from back then, does it look like he was on them? Furthermore, the majority of steroid users were weightlifters in the 70's, or football players (as evidenced by the article). The main point is that steroids is another variable that OPS+ cannot measure, and players on steroids could ultimately skew OPS+ baselines for recent and current eras. I'm not suggesting that Piazza was on roids, nor Bench. I'm saying that the variable of roids can't be measured. For example, pitchers on roids are going to throw harder on avg, which could help skew the HR numbers b/c a ball thrown harder will travel farther. I bet if you took the top 3 throwers in mph this year vs 1970 there would be no comparison. Also, it's obvious that steroids increase bat speed. What if Piazza was on roids and that allowed him to get a higher BA and bat speed? You can't discount roids when talking about OPS+'s flaws, and the variables it fails to capture.

"Again, Piazza was more dominant than Bench when compared against his contemporaries. The statistics clearly show this. Piazza has more of your precious HR/AB and RBI/AB (and by a significant margin) and will ultimately have higher raw totals than Bench, too. He'll have much better rate stats and better totalled stats than Bench."

Well, of course Piazza will have higher over stats b/c he hits in a hitter's era. I think the only thing I can concede is that Piazza hits better for avg, and he was more consistent over the years offensively if you compare raw numbers. We can safely say that Bench peaked better than Piazza offensively in HR's and RBI's relative to his peers, and overall throughout his career in HR's/RBI's/extra base hits relative to his peers. Piazza will never be able to claim such things as the aforementioned, therefore I still can't say that he is significantly better offensively overall.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Bench WAS a great player. I'm not saying that he wasn't.

Because Piazza did not a) Ever lead MLB in RBI's

Are you denying that RBIs are also highly dependent on the OBP of the players in front of you? Bench had 4 players on his team that had a .380+ OBP. A higher OBP in front of you = more RBI chances = more RBIs. Anyways, over their entire careers, Piazza was more of a consistent RBI bat anyways. Again his RBI/AB is much higher...not that this means anything since RBIs are highly dependent on your own SLG and the OBP of the players in front of you. If you have a good SLG (which Bench and Piazza have - however Piazza is better in that category) and have guys with a .400 OBP in front of you, then you will naturally get tons of RBIs. Are you denying that the OBP in front of you has any effect on the total number of RBIs?

or b) Ever lead MLB in HR's. Bench did, twice. How do you explain that?

Because Bench is a good player. He just isn't as good as Piazza.

You have to surely agree that Bench even played in a pitcher's era, and Piazza in a hitter's!

Then you have to surely agree that having 4 batters with a .380+ OBP (and two over .400 OBP) gives you a hell of a lot more RBI chances. Anyways, I already provided you with statistics that measure Piazza against his own era and Bench against his and Piazza still comes out on top. I also specifically mentioned each player's AVG (which I don't even like to use, but since you're harping about RBI's, I'll harp about another less meaningful statistic), OBP, and SLG and stated what the league average was at the time of that player's career. Piazza is again seen to be much much higher than the league average in AVG, OBP, and SLG. Bench is only slightly above his own league's average, OBP, but had a much better SLG - but not on the same percentage better against his league than Piazza against his.

I concede that Piazza clearly hits better for avg, but I'm not so convinced that he hits better for power. After Piazza's career is over, will he rank 3rd in total HR's, 4th in total RBI's, and 5th in total extra base hits vs his peers like Bench? This is what bothers me, Piazza clearly does not rise above the players in his respective era. Bench did.

What about OBP? The ability to NOT generate an out at the plate is significant - in fact, it's probably the most significant basic stat. Power is measured in more than homeruns - it's commonly looked at in the slugging percentage - SLG. Piazza is obviously much better against his league in SLG than Bench was in his.

Bench hit homeruns, but he never led his league in slugging percentage. He only finished once in the top ten in OBP. Piazza had a top 10 slugging percentage 7 times - while playing half of his games in a pitcher's parks. Bench? 5 times. Piazza has the 14th best slugging percentage of all time. And, again, if you go by a rate basis, then Piazza destroys Bench in HR/AB, RBI/AB, or whatever else. It's not even a fair match.

You can moan about RBI's all you want, but Bench's cumulative totals in HR's and Extra base hits with regards to his peers explain the RBI's. Hell, we can even take out RBI's since you're so convinced about it. Will Piazza surpass Bench in offensive totals? Probably, b/c he hits in a hitter's era with overinflated stats. If Piazza finishes higher than 3rd in HR's, and 5th in extra base hits vs players over the span of his career then I would say he's significantly better than Bench in offense. Until then, I'm not buying it, all you can prove is average.

I already showed you that Piazza is better AGAINST his peers than Bench was. You can talk all about overinflated stats - but even with these overinflated stats, Piazza performs better AGAINST his peers than Bench performed against his. There's no denying this if you look at OBP and SLG.

Now to OPS+ and why it's flawed:
The problem is that the baseline changes. In other words, the tools of the game change across time - especially things like the ball. Also it is impossible to empirically measure talent (even if it was possible, how do we measure the talent of those who played in 1910?). We can do things like measure reaction time, speed, strength, etc., but while those things may influence performance, they are by no means the only variables. I'm sure some statisticians will some day come up with a way (this is what SABR was set up to do), but it won't be me!

I agree that you cannot compare raw numbers to players across different eras. Again: I'm comparing Piazza AGAINST his colleagues vs. Bench AGAINST his colleagues. I'm not comparing Bench vs. all of the baseball world. I'm comparing (Piazza vs. All Players that Played When Piazza Played) vs. (Bench vs. All Players that Played When Bench Played). If the ball changes in one era, then it changed for EVERYBODY in that one era. And we're comparing people in that one era vs. others in that one era. We're not comparing Bench vs. today's players in raw numbers...that would be ridiculous.

OPS+ = normalized for LEAGUE PARK and ERA. Or in other words, we get Bench's OPS and compare it to his own league and era. Then we get Piazza's OPS and compare it to his own league and era. What we get is how dominant this player was against his own peers. His own league. His own era. When we do this, we clearly see that Piazza was easily more dominant than Bench in offense. The main reason? Because Piazza had slightly more power than Bench (which shows in the SLG) and a better OBP. He hit for more power and has the ability to generate less outs.

Now come on, use your head please, you're not Jeff Kent. Why would players such as Reggie Jackson or Jim Palmer call out players today? Do they have anything to gain from it? Of course not. They know alot more than you do, or ever will, about the game of baseball and drugs used in the game. If you honestly think that steroid use happened with the frequency of today's game back then, then you're wrong. You're also wrong about the potency of steroids, THG is a brand new drug based off of a steroid used to put meat on cattle in the beef industry. Think they used that back then? Nope. From here.:

I am using my head. Are Jackson and Palmer steroid authorities? Would they ever say that their own era used enhancements? Of course they wouldn't. They are biased - why would they knock their own generation? Again, we don't know if Piazza uses steroids. We don't know if Bench used any enhancements either. Let's stick to the facts.

Well, of course Piazza will have higher over stats b/c he hits in a hitter's era. I think the only thing I can concede is that Piazza hits better for avg, and he was more consistent over the years offensively if you compare raw numbers. We can safely say that Bench peaked better than Piazza offensively in HR's and RBI's relative to his peers, and overall throughout his career in HR's/RBI's/extra base hits relative to his peers. Piazza will never be able to claim such things as the aforementioned, therefore I still can't say that he is significantly better offensively overall.

And of course Bench has a good RBI numbers partly because he had insanely good OBP players in front of him. You still haven't acknowledged this.

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.
---------------------------

Bench WAS a good power hitter. However, Piazza was a power hitter AND had the ability to get on base at a good rate.

We can safely say that Piazza has dominated far more against his peers than Bench has. Every statistic shows this. I've already showed statistics that show how much more dominant Piazza was against his peers than Bench was against his. You cannot find any statistic that measures overall offensive ability that says that Bench is better. There is a reason why.

Piazza, when compared to his peers, is about the 27th best player of all time. Bench, when compared to his peers, isn't even near Piazza.
You seem to only measure players in HRs and RBis. There a hell of a lot more than that.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Bench WAS a great player. I'm not saying that he wasn't.

Because Piazza did not a) Ever lead MLB in RBI's

Are you denying that RBIs are also highly dependent on the OBP of the players in front of you? Bench had 4 players on his team that had a .380+ OBP. A higher OBP in front of you = more RBI chances = more RBIs. Anyways, over their entire careers, Piazza was more of a consistent RBI bat anyways. Again his RBI/AB is much higher...not that this means anything since RBIs are highly dependent on your own SLG and the OBP of the players in front of you. If you have a good SLG (which Bench and Piazza have - however Piazza is better in that category) and have guys with a .400 OBP in front of you, then you will naturally get tons of RBIs. Are you denying that the OBP in front of you has any effect on the total number of RBIs?

or b) Ever lead MLB in HR's. Bench did, twice. How do you explain that?

Because Bench is a good player. He just isn't as good as Piazza.

You have to surely agree that Bench even played in a pitcher's era, and Piazza in a hitter's!

Then you have to surely agree that having 4 batters with a .380+ OBP (and two over .400 OBP) gives you a hell of a lot more RBI chances. Anyways, I already provided you with statistics that measure Piazza against his own era and Bench against his and Piazza still comes out on top. I also specifically mentioned each player's AVG (which I don't even like to use, but since you're harping about RBI's, I'll harp about another less meaningful statistic), OBP, and SLG and stated what the league average was at the time of that player's career. Piazza is again seen to be much much higher than the league average in AVG, OBP, and SLG. Bench is only slightly above his own league's average, OBP, but had a much better SLG - but not on the same percentage better against his league than Piazza against his.

I concede that Piazza clearly hits better for avg, but I'm not so convinced that he hits better for power. After Piazza's career is over, will he rank 3rd in total HR's, 4th in total RBI's, and 5th in total extra base hits vs his peers like Bench? This is what bothers me, Piazza clearly does not rise above the players in his respective era. Bench did.

What about OBP? The ability to NOT generate an out at the plate is significant - in fact, it's probably the most significant basic stat. Power is measured in more than homeruns - it's commonly looked at in the slugging percentage - SLG. Piazza is obviously much better against his league in SLG than Bench was in his.

Bench hit homeruns, but he never led his league in slugging percentage. He only finished once in the top ten in OBP. Piazza had a top 10 slugging percentage 7 times - while playing half of his games in a pitcher's parks. Bench? 5 times. Piazza has the 14th best slugging percentage of all time. And, again, if you go by a rate basis, then Piazza destroys Bench in HR/AB, RBI/AB, or whatever else. It's not even a fair match.

You can moan about RBI's all you want, but Bench's cumulative totals in HR's and Extra base hits with regards to his peers explain the RBI's. Hell, we can even take out RBI's since you're so convinced about it. Will Piazza surpass Bench in offensive totals? Probably, b/c he hits in a hitter's era with overinflated stats. If Piazza finishes higher than 3rd in HR's, and 5th in extra base hits vs players over the span of his career then I would say he's significantly better than Bench in offense. Until then, I'm not buying it, all you can prove is average.

I already showed you that Piazza is better AGAINST his peers than Bench was. You can talk all about overinflated stats - but even with these overinflated stats, Piazza performs better AGAINST his peers than Bench performed against his. There's no denying this if you look at OBP and SLG.

Now to OPS+ and why it's flawed:
The problem is that the baseline changes. In other words, the tools of the game change across time - especially things like the ball. Also it is impossible to empirically measure talent (even if it was possible, how do we measure the talent of those who played in 1910?). We can do things like measure reaction time, speed, strength, etc., but while those things may influence performance, they are by no means the only variables. I'm sure some statisticians will some day come up with a way (this is what SABR was set up to do), but it won't be me!

I agree that you cannot compare raw numbers to players across different eras. Again: I'm comparing Piazza AGAINST his colleagues vs. Bench AGAINST his colleagues. I'm not comparing Bench vs. all of the baseball world. I'm comparing (Piazza vs. All Players that Played When Piazza Played) vs. (Bench vs. All Players that Played When Bench Played). If the ball changes in one era, then it changed for EVERYBODY in that one era. And we're comparing people in that one era vs. others in that one era. We're not comparing Bench vs. today's players in raw numbers...that would be ridiculous.

OPS+ = normalized for LEAGUE PARK and ERA. Or in other words, we get Bench's OPS and compare it to his own league and era. Then we get Piazza's OPS and compare it to his own league and era. What we get is how dominant this player was against his own peers. His own league. His own era. When we do this, we clearly see that Piazza was easily more dominant than Bench in offense. The main reason? Because Piazza had slightly more power than Bench (which shows in the SLG) and a better OBP. He hit for more power and has the ability to generate less outs.

Now come on, use your head please, you're not Jeff Kent. Why would players such as Reggie Jackson or Jim Palmer call out players today? Do they have anything to gain from it? Of course not. They know alot more than you do, or ever will, about the game of baseball and drugs used in the game. If you honestly think that steroid use happened with the frequency of today's game back then, then you're wrong. You're also wrong about the potency of steroids, THG is a brand new drug based off of a steroid used to put meat on cattle in the beef industry. Think they used that back then? Nope. From here.:

I am using my head. Are Jackson and Palmer steroid authorities? Would they ever say that their own era used enhancements? Of course they wouldn't. They are biased - why would they knock their own generation? Again, we don't know if Piazza uses steroids. We don't know if Bench used any enhancements either. Let's stick to the facts.

Well, of course Piazza will have higher over stats b/c he hits in a hitter's era. I think the only thing I can concede is that Piazza hits better for avg, and he was more consistent over the years offensively if you compare raw numbers. We can safely say that Bench peaked better than Piazza offensively in HR's and RBI's relative to his peers, and overall throughout his career in HR's/RBI's/extra base hits relative to his peers. Piazza will never be able to claim such things as the aforementioned, therefore I still can't say that he is significantly better offensively overall.

And of course Bench has a good RBI numbers partly because he had insanely good OBP players in front of him. You still haven't acknowledged this.

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.
---------------------------

Bench WAS a good power hitter. However, Piazza was a power hitter AND had the ability to get on base at a good rate.

We can safely say that Piazza has dominated far more against his peers than Bench has. Every statistic shows this. I've already showed statistics that show how much more dominant Piazza was against his peers than Bench was against his. You cannot find any statistic that measures overall offensive ability that says that Bench is better. There is a reason why.

Piazza, when compared to his peers, is about the 27th best player of all time. Bench, when compared to his peers, isn't even near Piazza.
You seem to only measure players in HRs and RBis. There a hell of a lot more than that.

It's funny how you contradict yourself immediately, using OPS+ (27th best of all time) after admitting above that OPS+ is a garbage stat! IF Piazza's such a better power hitter, then answer WHY he hasn't hit more homeruns than his peers? WHY hasn't he hit more homeruns in his best year vs BENCH, who played in a non hitter's era? It's absolutely pathetic to state that Piazza was a better power hitter when, in their peak years, Piazza can't compare to his peers NOR BENCH in the most important power categories: RBI's and HR's. You can talk OBP till you're blue in the face, but answer the HR/RBI question first (oh and RBI's aren't a product of HR's and extra basehits, which he finished 3rd and 5th in his era- doh!)...

On the subject of Reggie Jackson for the last time, to reiterate, he knows alot more about baseball than you will EVER know. That's why he made frontpage news and why every sports pundit applauding his decision to speak out and recognize that baseball has a serious problem. Make his era look bad? It's already well documented that Pete Rose took bennies before games. If you honestly think that players are using steroids at the same rate today than back then, then you are in the Jeff Kent category: a fool.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Bench WAS a great player. I'm not saying that he wasn't.

Because Piazza did not a) Ever lead MLB in RBI's

Are you denying that RBIs are also highly dependent on the OBP of the players in front of you? Bench had 4 players on his team that had a .380+ OBP. A higher OBP in front of you = more RBI chances = more RBIs. Anyways, over their entire careers, Piazza was more of a consistent RBI bat anyways. Again his RBI/AB is much higher...not that this means anything since RBIs are highly dependent on your own SLG and the OBP of the players in front of you. If you have a good SLG (which Bench and Piazza have - however Piazza is better in that category) and have guys with a .400 OBP in front of you, then you will naturally get tons of RBIs. Are you denying that the OBP in front of you has any effect on the total number of RBIs?

or b) Ever lead MLB in HR's. Bench did, twice. How do you explain that?

Because Bench is a good player. He just isn't as good as Piazza.

You have to surely agree that Bench even played in a pitcher's era, and Piazza in a hitter's!

Then you have to surely agree that having 4 batters with a .380+ OBP (and two over .400 OBP) gives you a hell of a lot more RBI chances. Anyways, I already provided you with statistics that measure Piazza against his own era and Bench against his and Piazza still comes out on top. I also specifically mentioned each player's AVG (which I don't even like to use, but since you're harping about RBI's, I'll harp about another less meaningful statistic), OBP, and SLG and stated what the league average was at the time of that player's career. Piazza is again seen to be much much higher than the league average in AVG, OBP, and SLG. Bench is only slightly above his own league's average, OBP, but had a much better SLG - but not on the same percentage better against his league than Piazza against his.

I concede that Piazza clearly hits better for avg, but I'm not so convinced that he hits better for power. After Piazza's career is over, will he rank 3rd in total HR's, 4th in total RBI's, and 5th in total extra base hits vs his peers like Bench? This is what bothers me, Piazza clearly does not rise above the players in his respective era. Bench did.

What about OBP? The ability to NOT generate an out at the plate is significant - in fact, it's probably the most significant basic stat. Power is measured in more than homeruns - it's commonly looked at in the slugging percentage - SLG. Piazza is obviously much better against his league in SLG than Bench was in his.

Bench hit homeruns, but he never led his league in slugging percentage. He only finished once in the top ten in OBP. Piazza had a top 10 slugging percentage 7 times - while playing half of his games in a pitcher's parks. Bench? 5 times. Piazza has the 14th best slugging percentage of all time. And, again, if you go by a rate basis, then Piazza destroys Bench in HR/AB, RBI/AB, or whatever else. It's not even a fair match.

You can moan about RBI's all you want, but Bench's cumulative totals in HR's and Extra base hits with regards to his peers explain the RBI's. Hell, we can even take out RBI's since you're so convinced about it. Will Piazza surpass Bench in offensive totals? Probably, b/c he hits in a hitter's era with overinflated stats. If Piazza finishes higher than 3rd in HR's, and 5th in extra base hits vs players over the span of his career then I would say he's significantly better than Bench in offense. Until then, I'm not buying it, all you can prove is average.

I already showed you that Piazza is better AGAINST his peers than Bench was. You can talk all about overinflated stats - but even with these overinflated stats, Piazza performs better AGAINST his peers than Bench performed against his. There's no denying this if you look at OBP and SLG.

Now to OPS+ and why it's flawed:
The problem is that the baseline changes. In other words, the tools of the game change across time - especially things like the ball. Also it is impossible to empirically measure talent (even if it was possible, how do we measure the talent of those who played in 1910?). We can do things like measure reaction time, speed, strength, etc., but while those things may influence performance, they are by no means the only variables. I'm sure some statisticians will some day come up with a way (this is what SABR was set up to do), but it won't be me!

I agree that you cannot compare raw numbers to players across different eras. Again: I'm comparing Piazza AGAINST his colleagues vs. Bench AGAINST his colleagues. I'm not comparing Bench vs. all of the baseball world. I'm comparing (Piazza vs. All Players that Played When Piazza Played) vs. (Bench vs. All Players that Played When Bench Played). If the ball changes in one era, then it changed for EVERYBODY in that one era. And we're comparing people in that one era vs. others in that one era. We're not comparing Bench vs. today's players in raw numbers...that would be ridiculous.

OPS+ = normalized for LEAGUE PARK and ERA. Or in other words, we get Bench's OPS and compare it to his own league and era. Then we get Piazza's OPS and compare it to his own league and era. What we get is how dominant this player was against his own peers. His own league. His own era. When we do this, we clearly see that Piazza was easily more dominant than Bench in offense. The main reason? Because Piazza had slightly more power than Bench (which shows in the SLG) and a better OBP. He hit for more power and has the ability to generate less outs.

Now come on, use your head please, you're not Jeff Kent. Why would players such as Reggie Jackson or Jim Palmer call out players today? Do they have anything to gain from it? Of course not. They know alot more than you do, or ever will, about the game of baseball and drugs used in the game. If you honestly think that steroid use happened with the frequency of today's game back then, then you're wrong. You're also wrong about the potency of steroids, THG is a brand new drug based off of a steroid used to put meat on cattle in the beef industry. Think they used that back then? Nope. From here.:

I am using my head. Are Jackson and Palmer steroid authorities? Would they ever say that their own era used enhancements? Of course they wouldn't. They are biased - why would they knock their own generation? Again, we don't know if Piazza uses steroids. We don't know if Bench used any enhancements either. Let's stick to the facts.

Well, of course Piazza will have higher over stats b/c he hits in a hitter's era. I think the only thing I can concede is that Piazza hits better for avg, and he was more consistent over the years offensively if you compare raw numbers. We can safely say that Bench peaked better than Piazza offensively in HR's and RBI's relative to his peers, and overall throughout his career in HR's/RBI's/extra base hits relative to his peers. Piazza will never be able to claim such things as the aforementioned, therefore I still can't say that he is significantly better offensively overall.

And of course Bench has a good RBI numbers partly because he had insanely good OBP players in front of him. You still haven't acknowledged this.

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.
---------------------------

Bench WAS a good power hitter. However, Piazza was a power hitter AND had the ability to get on base at a good rate.

We can safely say that Piazza has dominated far more against his peers than Bench has. Every statistic shows this. I've already showed statistics that show how much more dominant Piazza was against his peers than Bench was against his. You cannot find any statistic that measures overall offensive ability that says that Bench is better. There is a reason why.

Piazza, when compared to his peers, is about the 27th best player of all time. Bench, when compared to his peers, isn't even near Piazza.
You seem to only measure players in HRs and RBis. There a hell of a lot more than that.

It's funny how you contradict yourself immediately, using OPS+ (27th best of all time) after admitting above that OPS+ is a garbage stat! IF Piazza's such a better power hitter, then answer WHY he hasn't hit more homeruns than his peers? WHY hasn't he hit more homeruns in his best year vs BENCH, who played in a non hitter's era? It's absolutely pathetic to state that Piazza was a better power hitter when, in their peak years, Piazza can't compare to his peers NOR BENCH in the most important power categories: RBI's and HR's.

On the subject of Reggie Jackson for the last time, to reiterate, he knows alot more about baseball than you will EVER know. That's why he made frontpage news and why every sports pundit applauding his decision to speak out and recognize that baseball has a serious problem. Make his era look bad? It's already well documented that Pete Rose took bennies before games. If you honestly think that players are using steroids at the same rate today than back then, then you are in the Jeff Kent category: a fool.

Where did I say that OPS+ is a garbage stat? It isn't. It's a quick good and easy method to quickly look at players across different eras. I like how you completely ignored almost every point that I made. I guess it's because you just can't refute what I said.

It's pathetic to say that Piazza is a better power hitter? You have Bench has having the 19th highest SLUGGING PERCENTAGE in his time. Piazza has the 6th highest slugging percentage out of all active players. Not to mention that Piazza, of course, plays in a hitter's park. Your comment is ridiculous.

Power is more often measured in SLG, not RBIs and HR...and even if you do want to make it HR and RBIs, Piazza still has more HR/AB and RBI/AB while playing in pitcher's parks as his home parks for his whole career. The difference is so large that it can't even be described solely because of a difference in era.

Again, why are you not looking at Bench's whole career? Why are you not looking at EVERYTHING he did in offense? Why are you only looking at two variables: HR (which is NOT all that power is) and RBIs - which are largely team dependent, too.

Again, Reggie Jackson doesn't know if Piazza uses steroids, just like he doesn't know if Bench used anything. Let's stick to the facts, even though that won't help your case at all.

This argument is pointless anyways. You refuse to look at the whole career. You refuse to look at all of a player's offensive numbers. You refuse to even answer or confront half of my points....I can only suppose it's because you basically have no argument at all, which is what every statistic basically says.

I'm sure that if Piazza was a Red Sox player, then you would be saying that he is better than Babe Ruth because he has hit 20 homeruns off of pitchers named John.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Where did I say that OPS+ is a garbage stat? It isn't. It's a quick good and easy method to quickly look at players across different eras. I like how you completely ignored almost every point that I made. I guess it's because you just can't refute what I said.

It's pathetic to say that Piazza is a better power hitter? You have Bench has having the 19th highest SLUGGING PERCENTAGE in his time. Piazza has the 6th highest slugging percentage out of all active players. Not to mention that Piazza, of course, plays in a hitter's park. Your comment is ridiculous.

Power is more often measured in SLG, not RBIs and HR...and even if you do want to make it HR and RBIs, Piazza still has more HR/AB and RBI/AB while playing in pitcher's parks as his home parks for his whole career. The difference is so large that it can't even be described because of a difference in era.

Again, why are you not looking at Bench's whole career? Why are you not looking at EVERYTHING he did in offense? Why are you only looking at two variables: HR (which is NOT all that power is) and RBIs - which are largely team dependent, too.

Again, Reggie Jackson doesn't know if Piazza uses steroids, just like he doesn't know if Bench used anything. Let's stick to the facts, even though that won't help your case at all.

This argument is pointless anyways. You refuse to look at the whole career. You refuse to look at all of a player's offensive numbers. You refuse to even answer or confront half of my points....I can only suppose it's because you basically have no argument at all, which is what every statistic basically says.

I'm sure that if Piazza was a Red Sox player, then you would be saying that he is better than Babe Ruth because he has hit 20 homeruns off of pitchers named John.

OPS+ is a garbage stat. The only argument I'm making for roids is that they void out OPS+, they are just ONE variable in the impossible task of measuring talent. It's impossible to measure talent unless you measured variables such as steroids ingested, material for ball used, training techniques, bat speed (inherently affected by roids), strength (roids), arm speed (pitchers on roids) and hand/eye coordination. These are just examples of the many variables that encompass talent, which is why OPS+ is flawed. You even stated above, that you cannot compare hitters from different eras (I agree). Things such as Bench hitting 45 HRs in 1972, and Piazza never breaking 40 in his career would be pretty embarrassing considering Piazza plays in a stronger, quicker, hitting era. It's not embarrassing, it's just plain pathetic.

You claim that Piazza possesses comparable stats in RBI, HR's, and extra base hits, prove it!!! Find the top 5 in those categories from the years that Piazza played to present day and I'll believe you (if Piazza ranks higher than Bench did against his peers). A statistician such as yourself should be able to complete this task quickly. This spans over the course of his career, so I don't want to hear bs that I'm not granting you career numbers. I've already told u that yes, Piazza has a better OBP and avg (the 2 are tied together), and obviously slugging/OPS b/c he hits in a hitting era. BUT Piazza is deficient in peak year RBI's and HR's vs his peers, 2 important stats of power.

 

[RabidMongoose]

OPS+ is a garbage stat. The only argument I'm making for roids is that they void out OPS+, they are just ONE variable in the impossible task of measuring talent. It's impossible to measure talent unless you measured variables such as steroids ingested, material for ball used, training techniques, bat speed (inherently affected by roids), strength (roids), arm speed (pitchers on roids) and hand/eye coordination. These are just examples of the many variables that encompass talent, which is why OPS+ is flawed. You even stated above, that you cannot compare hitters from different eras (I agree). Things such as Bench hitting 45 HRs in 1972, and Piazza never breaking 40 in his career would be pretty embarrassing considering Piazza plays in a stronger, quicker, hitting era. It's not embarrassing, it's just plain pathetic.

OPS+ isn't a garbage stat. I stated that you can't compare raw numbers across eras - however OPS+ compares each player's OPS against his own peers. Sure, it's impossible to measure talent. But it is completely possible and done to measure past production. There are these magical things called statistics that do it.

You go off on steroids again. Does Piazza use steroids? I would say no. There is no proof that he does. If other people use steroids, then that's bad - but then that would punish Piazza in his OPS+ if those players are performing better because of those steroids. If everyone today was using steroids, then the OPS+ today would take that extra production into account.

I think it's pretty pathetic and sad that Bench only had the 19th highest slugging percentage in his time. I mean Mike Piazza has the 6th highest active slugging percentage....Bench probably wasn't even in the top 90 for OBP during his time. Piazza is 21st out of all active players. Bench is far inferior against his own peers when compared to Piazza. Can you please explain why Bench only had the 19th best slugging percentage and an OBP that probably isn't even in the top 90? Is it a conspiracy against him? Please explain.

You claim that Piazza possesses comparable stats in RBI, HR's, and extra base hits, prove it!!! Find the top 5 in those categories from the years that Piazza played to present day and I'll believe you (if Piazza ranks higher than Bench did against his peers). A statistician such as yourself should be able to complete this task quickly. This spans over the course of his career, so I don't want to hear bs that I'm not granting you career numbers. I've already told u that yes, Piazza has a better OBP and avg (the 2 are tied together), and obviously slugging/OPS b/c he hits in a hitting era. BUT Piazza is deficient in peak year RBI's and HR's vs his peers, 2 important stats of power.

I did? No I didn't. I said that Piazza has provided far more overall offensive production relative to his league than Bench has relative to his league. I've provided that evidence all throughout this thread - yet you have decided to skip over it every single time. Why would I care about HR/RBIs/Extra base hits ONLY? That makes no sense. It's as if you have no concept of common statistical knowledge. Again, why are you so fixated on these statistics that don't even show the whole picture? Why are you ignoring half of what a batter tries to do - not create an out - OBP? I can only guess it's because Bench was average at OBP relative to his league and that hurts your argument.

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.

And also:
Do you deny that RBIs are also highly dependent on the OBP of the players in front of you?

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

OPS+ is a garbage stat. The only argument I'm making for roids is that they void out OPS+, they are just ONE variable in the impossible task of measuring talent. It's impossible to measure talent unless you measured variables such as steroids ingested, material for ball used, training techniques, bat speed (inherently affected by roids), strength (roids), arm speed (pitchers on roids) and hand/eye coordination. These are just examples of the many variables that encompass talent, which is why OPS+ is flawed. You even stated above, that you cannot compare hitters from different eras (I agree). Things such as Bench hitting 45 HRs in 1972, and Piazza never breaking 40 in his career would be pretty embarrassing considering Piazza plays in a stronger, quicker, hitting era. It's not embarrassing, it's just plain pathetic.

OPS+ isn't a garbage stat. I stated that you can't compare raw numbers across eras - however OPS+ compares each player's OPS against his own peers. Sure, it's impossible to measure talent. But it is completely possible and done to measure past production. There are these magical things called statistics that do it.

You go off on steroids again. Does Piazza use steroids? I would say no. There is no proof that he does. If other people use steroids, then that's bad - but then that would punish Piazza in his OPS+ if those players are performing better because of those steroids. If everyone today was using steroids, then the OPS+ today would take that extra production into account.

I think it's pretty pathetic and sad that Bench only had the 19th highest slugging percentage in his time. I mean Mike Piazza has the 6th highest active slugging percentage....Bench probably wasn't even in the top 90 for OBP during his time. Piazza is 21st out of all active players. Bench is far inferior against his own peers when compared to Piazza. Can you please explain why Bench only had the 19th best slugging percentage and an OBP that probably isn't even in the top 90? Is it a conspiracy against him? Please explain.

You claim that Piazza possesses comparable stats in RBI, HR's, and extra base hits, prove it!!! Find the top 5 in those categories from the years that Piazza played to present day and I'll believe you (if Piazza ranks higher than Bench did against his peers). A statistician such as yourself should be able to complete this task quickly. This spans over the course of his career, so I don't want to hear bs that I'm not granting you career numbers. I've already told u that yes, Piazza has a better OBP and avg (the 2 are tied together), and obviously slugging/OPS b/c he hits in a hitting era. BUT Piazza is deficient in peak year RBI's and HR's vs his peers, 2 important stats of power.

I did? No I didn't. I said that Piazza has provided far more overall offensive production relative to his league than Bench has relative to his league. I've provided that evidence all throughout this thread - yet you have decided to skip over it every single time. Why would I care about HR/RBIs/Extra base hits ONLY? That makes no sense. It's as if you have no concept of common statistical knowledge. Again, why are you so fixated on these statistics that don't even show the whole picture? Why are you ignoring half of what a batter tries to do - not create an out - OBP? I can only guess it's because Bench was average at OBP relative to his league and that hurts your argument.

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.

And also:
Do you deny that RBIs are also highly dependent on the OBP of the players in front of you?

Yes RBI's are highly dependent on OBP of players ahead of you, but Bench was 3rd in his era in HR's and 5th in extra basehits... HR's are the greatest generator of RBI's, are they not? You seem to just dismiss RBI's as a garbage stat, when in reality it shows that when men were on base, Bench came through. Look up Bench's avg with RISP for his peak years, guaranteed it's higher than Piazza's. Avg with RISP is alot more important than overall average IMO, don't you agree? Also link to where you're getting the league averages, you're telling me that the league avg was the same for both era's? Hard to believe.

 

[Tom]

"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 ?

 

[Tom]

"Again, RBIs are a team dependent statistic, too. Bench had 4 players on his team with amazing OBP. He should have had high rbi numbers. You only look at HR/RBI/AVg -[/b] I like to look at OBP and SLG more than those.[/b] I don't like rewarding people for their teammates' abilities (RBIs), and I don't know why people don't like to look at AVG+Walks (OBP) and HR+2B+etc. (SLG). That's where Piazza is significantly better....OBP and SLG....OPS (OBP+SLG) is a more complete picture than HR/AVG/RBI. OPS+ is even better to compare people across different eras.

You seem to only want to look at Bench's peak vs. Piazza's peak. Bottom line is that career value is more important..and that's where Piazza far outweighs Bench in offensive production - if you look at the statistics. "


I'd like to point out to you that the above are both opinions, not facts.


You point out that Bench frequently came to bat with runners on base, more so than Piazza. I agree that is true.. but you ignore the result.. Bench's job at that point was to drive in runs, not conducive to a high on base average, while Piazza has more at bats where his job was to get something going, since his teammates had failed.

And you should consider the FACT that OPS+ was created because OPS is seriously FLAWED ! The problem is OPS+ is just as flawed, but in a different way.


And why are career stats more important than peak stats ? That's just an opinion. If the goal of the game is to win a championship, then what good do career stats do ?

Who is the better race driver, the guy who wins the 500 once, or the guy who finished 10th 5 times ? Whichever you choose, it isn't a fact, it's an opinion.

 

[zod]

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 ?

I just read the entire thread and am surprised about the lack of statistical knowledge on a forum of geeks. C'mon people

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.

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.

More than that, although I realize this discussion has moved past it is this - Piazza's defense? Not. That. Bad. Maybe not good. Maybe not even average. But not historically bad by any stretch.
He handles pitchers well, pitchers don't mind throwing to him. He blocks wild pitches fairly well. He blocks the plate fairly well. He has a very weak throwing arm.

Bill James in his rankings also doesn't rank current players too high usually, just to be safe.

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.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

OPS+ is a garbage stat. The only argument I'm making for roids is that they void out OPS+, they are just ONE variable in the impossible task of measuring talent. It's impossible to measure talent unless you measured variables such as steroids ingested, material for ball used, training techniques, bat speed (inherently affected by roids), strength (roids), arm speed (pitchers on roids) and hand/eye coordination. These are just examples of the many variables that encompass talent, which is why OPS+ is flawed. You even stated above, that you cannot compare hitters from different eras (I agree). Things such as Bench hitting 45 HRs in 1972, and Piazza never breaking 40 in his career would be pretty embarrassing considering Piazza plays in a stronger, quicker, hitting era. It's not embarrassing, it's just plain pathetic.

OPS+ isn't a garbage stat. I stated that you can't compare raw numbers across eras - however OPS+ compares each player's OPS against his own peers. Sure, it's impossible to measure talent. But it is completely possible and done to measure past production. There are these magical things called statistics that do it.

You go off on steroids again. Does Piazza use steroids? I would say no. There is no proof that he does. If other people use steroids, then that's bad - but then that would punish Piazza in his OPS+ if those players are performing better because of those steroids. If everyone today was using steroids, then the OPS+ today would take that extra production into account.

I think it's pretty pathetic and sad that Bench only had the 19th highest slugging percentage in his time. I mean Mike Piazza has the 6th highest active slugging percentage....Bench probably wasn't even in the top 90 for OBP during his time. Piazza is 21st out of all active players. Bench is far inferior against his own peers when compared to Piazza. Can you please explain why Bench only had the 19th best slugging percentage and an OBP that probably isn't even in the top 90? Is it a conspiracy against him? Please explain.

You claim that Piazza possesses comparable stats in RBI, HR's, and extra base hits, prove it!!! Find the top 5 in those categories from the years that Piazza played to present day and I'll believe you (if Piazza ranks higher than Bench did against his peers). A statistician such as yourself should be able to complete this task quickly. This spans over the course of his career, so I don't want to hear bs that I'm not granting you career numbers. I've already told u that yes, Piazza has a better OBP and avg (the 2 are tied together), and obviously slugging/OPS b/c he hits in a hitting era. BUT Piazza is deficient in peak year RBI's and HR's vs his peers, 2 important stats of power.

I did? No I didn't. I said that Piazza has provided far more overall offensive production relative to his league than Bench has relative to his league. I've provided that evidence all throughout this thread - yet you have decided to skip over it every single time. Why would I care about HR/RBIs/Extra base hits ONLY? That makes no sense. It's as if you have no concept of common statistical knowledge. Again, why are you so fixated on these statistics that don't even show the whole picture? Why are you ignoring half of what a batter tries to do - not create an out - OBP? I can only guess it's because Bench was average at OBP relative to his league and that hurts your argument.

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.

And also:
Do you deny that RBIs are also highly dependent on the OBP of the players in front of you?

Yes RBI's are highly dependent on OBP of players ahead of you, but Bench was 3rd in his era in HR's and 5th in extra basehits... HR's are the greatest generator of RBI's, are they not? You seem to just dismiss RBI's as a garbage stat, when in reality it shows that when men were on base, Bench came through. Look up Bench's avg with RISP for his peak years, guaranteed it's higher than Piazza's. Avg with RISP is alot more important than overall average IMO, don't you agree? Also link to where you're getting the league averages, you're telling me that the league avg was the same for both era's? Hard to believe.

AVG for RISP isn't as important as OPS with RISP - why? Because SLG (not only one component of SLG - HRs) generally drives in runs. And a hit/walk still gives your team a chance with a better situation. Please look it up if you are going to use it as a 'fact'.

Baseballreference.com - look up the averages. Again, why is it a surprise? There's a reason why Piazza destroys Bench in OPS+.

 

[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?

 

[RabidMongoose]

I'd like to point out to you that the above are both opinions, not facts.

OPS being better than AVG/RBI is not an opinion - it's a fact.

And career value vs. peak value - are you telling me that looking at only three seasons of a career is better than looking at an entire career? No, it isn't. Peak value is important, but so is career value (which is more important). What a ridiculous comment.

Idiotic opinions are not fact or even rational.

You point out that Bench frequently came to bat with runners on base, more so than Piazza. I agree that is true.. but you ignore the result.. Bench's job at that point was to drive in runs, not conducive to a high on base average, while Piazza has more at bats where his job was to get something going, since his teammates had failed.

No, they had the same role. That is to be the most productive player that they could be. In the end, Piazza was better. And Piazza has more RBI/AB than Bench.

And yu should consider the FACT that OPS+ was created because OPS is seriously FLAWED ! The problem is OPS+ is just as flawed, but in a different way.

How is it flawed? OPS+ wasn't created because OPS is severely flawed. It was created to compare people across different eras - where the league average OPS fluctuated. Please explain how it is so flawed that you now only look at two variables: HR and RBIs. At least OPS is consisted of multiple variables.

Does OPS have any flaws? Of course it does, but not nearly as many as just looking at RBIs and HRs. One of the main flaws with OPS is that it doesn't weigh OBP enough...and if you corrected this flaw, then the difference between Piazza and Bench would be even more extreme.

And why are career stats more important than peak stats ? That's just an opinion. If the goal of the game is to win a championship, then what good do career stats do ?

Career stats speak of individual accomplishment. Why is it better to look at two years of playing time instead of one month of playing time? Because looking at the bigger picture is logical. Peak years is important, but that is all you're grasping at. And again, Piazza's peak is statistically better than Bench's peak.

Your (and SP33Demon) arguments for Bench has consisted of looking at a very limited scope of his career or looking at only one or two factors of his offense - and then proclaiming him as the best. Why are you not looking at everything and then making a decision?

Bench WAS good at what you guys are trying to say...however, Piazza was good in those manners, too, and better in the other hitting areas that you are ignoring.

 

[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.