Top 32 tournament C Fisk vs Berra

[calsnowskier]

PEDs dont affect your hand-eye.

It CAN add muscle and it keeps you on the field. That's all.

PED use should not affect your BA unless it is changing the week liner to SS into a base hit to left field or turnng your exhausted AB in late August into a fresh AB.

 

[da55bums]

1989 and 1990- Mark McGuire at 25 and 26...hit .231 and .235...yes, many PED users just swung for the fences.

Fisk's numbers just look extremely messed up after age 34, they don't look at all normal.

 

[UK Cowboy]

1989 and 1990- Mark McGuire at 25 and 26...hit .231 and .235...yes, many PED users just swung for the fences.

Fisk's numbers just look extremely messed up after age 34, they don't look at all normal.

There's little doubt. Take out the juice years, how does it compare?

 

[calsnowskier]

For argument's sake, let's assume he WAS on juice from 87 to the end.

So what? That even pre-dated Giamatti's memo. It was not against the rules of the game in any way.

By definition, if it is not illegal, it is legal.

 

[da55bums]

oh, it is what it is, no doubt....the 80's were the 80's

Yogi wins this still...better batter, average, rbi, 3 MVPs in years with Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle around, 10 ws championships out of 14 seasons - sure a bit teamy but without Yogi do they see 10.

Yogi was the absolute 1st catcher to truly make a major impact other than a guy to get the ball after it hit the backstop. For years Yogi was the best catcher ever in the game, Fisk never held that title with Bench in his era.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

oh, it is what it is, no doubt....the 80's were the 80's

Yogi wins this still...better batter, average, rbi, 3 MVPs in years with Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle around, 10 ws championships out of 14 seasons - sure a bit teamy but without Yogi do they see 10.

Yogi was the absolute 1st catcher to truly make a major impact other than a guy to get the ball after it hit the backstop. For years Yogi was the best catcher ever in the game, Fisk never held that title with Bench in his era.

I feel like we give too much credit to players for playing in a different era... So what if Yogi "revolutionized" the position... do you think that Fisk would have had worse numbers that he did if he played in Yogi's era?? Why should bench hurt Fisk??

I hear people say Ruth is the BEST because he had seasons of more HRs than the rest of baseball... why should that matter?? shouldn't it just be about the player and not about the players peers...

 

[UK Cowboy]

I feel like we give too much credit to players for playing in a different era... So what if Yogi "revolutionized" the position... do you think that Fisk would have had worse numbers that he did if he played in Yogi's era?? Why should bench hurt Fisk??

I hear people say Ruth is the BEST because he had seasons of more HRs than the rest of baseball... why should that matter?? shouldn't it just be about the player and not about the players peers...

I'd argue that you're devaluing players from another era

 

[obxyankeefan]

I feel like we give too much credit to players for playing in a different era... So what if Yogi "revolutionized" the position... do you think that Fisk would have had worse numbers that he did if he played in Yogi's era?? Why should bench hurt Fisk??

I hear people say Ruth is the BEST because he had seasons of more HRs than the rest of baseball... why should that matter?? shouldn't it just be about the player and not about the players peers...

Then you are just using counting stats. You have to compare them to their peers because the game has changed many times over the years.

 

[calsnowskier]

Then you are just using counting stats. You have to compare them to their peers because the game has changed many times over the years.

Yup. This is why I value OPS+ over any other single stat.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Then you are just using counting stats. You have to compare them to their peers because the game has changed many times over the years.

Your missing the point I am trying to make... My fault for not making my point clear enough... What I am trying to say that we look too much into era... Do you think any modern day player(1960-present) would have had different numbers if they played earlier??

Or do you think any olden time player would have been better in modern baseball?? Honestly we will never know... The problem with comparing with peers is that we have no clue how good the rest of the peers were...

I think it is very weird and very fishy that MOST of our baseball legends who we see to be the best ever were pre expansion and even pre integration... I am not going to make my analysis based on peers, I will take it into account as I try to take everything into account... But a player should not be boosted that much because he "revolutionized" the position, or brought down because he wasn't the best of his generation...

 

[Howie115]

Fisk is considered one of better defensive catchers of all time.

And Yogi wasn't? Career CS percentage of 49% for Yogi, which is above the league average for his career (45%). Fisk's CS rate is 34%, below the league average of 35% over his career.

Yeah, Fisk looks better in OPS+, but how much did he benefit from homers over the green monster, or doubles off of it?

 

[UK Cowboy]

And Yogi wasn't? Career CS percentage of 49% for Yogi, which is above the league average for his career (45%). Fisk's CS rate is 34%, below the league average of 35% over his career.

Yeah, Fisk looks better in OPS+, but how much did he benefit from homers over the green monster, or doubles off of it?

How can a catcher with a 34% CS be considered anywhere near a guy with a 49%?

 

[Howie115]

Okay, Fisk did have some strong home run years in Chicago as well. And Berra batted left handed in Yankee Stadium. Still, Berra's career OPS+ is higher (125 to 117).

 

[UK Cowboy]

PEDs dont affect your hand-eye.

It CAN add muscle and it keeps you on the field. That's all.

PED use should not affect your BA unless it is changing the week liner to SS into a base hit to left field or turnng your exhausted AB in late August into a fresh AB.

It absolutely effects your average. You hit the ball HARDER.

 

[da55bums]

[QOTE="MilkSpiller22, post: 7769260, member: 4197"]Your missing the point I am trying to make... My fault for not making my point clear enough... What I am trying to say that we look too much into era... Do you think any modern day player(1960-present) would have had different numbers if they played earlier??

Or do you think any olden time player would have been better in modern baseball?? Honestly we will never know... The problem with comparing with peers is that we have no clue how good the rest of the peers were...

I think it is very weird and very fishy that MOST of our baseball legends who we see to be the best ever were pre expansion and even pre integration... I am not going to make my analysis based on peers, I will take it into account as I try to take everything into account... But a player should not be boosted that much because he "revolutionized" the position, or brought down because he wasn't the best of his generation...[/QUOTE]


The same argument I had in basketball, we do know what their peers were like. Its more fair to judge a player against their peers than of different generations, because too many factors change, Size, speed, time spent on mastering their craft, PED's (which could even mean the evolution of asprin). Against peers, they are all playing within the same general set of factors.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

[QOTE="MilkSpiller22, post: 7769260, member: 4197"]Your missing the point I am trying to make... My fault for not making my point clear enough... What I am trying to say that we look too much into era... Do you think any modern day player(1960-present) would have had different numbers if they played earlier??

Or do you think any olden time player would have been better in modern baseball?? Honestly we will never know... The problem with comparing with peers is that we have no clue how good the rest of the peers were...

I think it is very weird and very fishy that MOST of our baseball legends who we see to be the best ever were pre expansion and even pre integration... I am not going to make my analysis based on peers, I will take it into account as I try to take everything into account... But a player should not be boosted that much because he "revolutionized" the position, or brought down because he wasn't the best of his generation...

The same argument I had in basketball, we do know what their peers were like. Its more fair to judge a player against their peers than of different generations, because too many factors change, Size, speed, time spent on mastering their craft, PED's (which could even mean the evolution of asprin). Against peers, they are all playing within the same general set of factors.[/QUOTE]

Agreed... Again, I find it interesting that most of the players we see to be Legends and best ever are pre expansion and most are even pre integration...

There has not been one .400 BA since 1960... I cant see these stats and not question the overall talent in those eras... I have no doubt that the best would have still been great... But I feel like the average player was much worse back then...

 

[calsnowskier]

I think the greats of yesteryear are considered the shiznit because they have legend attached to them. Back in those days, the press were just knob-polishers for these guys, often on the payroll of the owners.

If Puckett played in those days (obvious issues aside), the press NEVER would have uncovered the stories about his private life the way those details were uncovered "today". If Cobb played today, the Tigers would have cut ties with him and no other team would have touched him with a 10 foot pole.

Players today go through a much tougher gauntlet, and thus their warts are more visible. Players yesterday had an air of godliness.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I think the greats of yesteryear are considered the shiznit because they have legend attached to them. Back in those days, the press were just knob-polishers for these guys, often on the payroll of the owners.

If Puckett played in those days (obvious issues aside), the press NEVER would have uncovered the stories about his private life the way those details were uncovered "today". If Cobb played today, the Tigers would have cut ties with him and no other team would have touched him with a 10 foot pole.

Players today go through a much tougher gauntlet, and thus their warts are more visible. Players yesterday had an air of godliness.

I agree with you here that media sucks... But here is the biggest problem... We have never seen the yester year legends... So we base it on word of mouth... and like you said the word of mouth just strengthens these players...

 

[UK Cowboy]

Here's the thing about old time players, and I'll use hoops as an example, because the game is more advanced today as a whole. Kobe is an all time great player, but not better than MJ. MJ was the greatest ever, but the same caliber player as Magic. Magic came along towards the end of KAJ's career, and Magic said KAJ was the best ever on numerous occasions. Of course, KAJ came along towards the end for Wilt and many folks believe Wilt was better. Tells me that Wilt would be the same caliber player now as a Shaq or Duncan, which means he'd be 25-12 instead of 50-20, but the fact is, great is great

 

[calsnowskier]

IMHO, this was the second biggest travesty result of this whole tourney, following only Yount over Stephens in the first round of the SS bracket.