the greatest catcher ever [Archive]

View Full Version : the greatest catcher ever

wlh99raiders

07-25-2004, 03:22 PM

once and for all , lets decide who the greatest catcher of all time is. its been disputed here before but noone ever really has an answer.

CrewChief

07-25-2004, 03:24 PM

Mike Matheny :D

leecemark

07-25-2004, 10:01 PM

--I voted for Bench. For me, he and Berra are the only real contenders and the more I look at the two of them the more convinced I've become that Bench was better.
--Gabby Hartnett ought to be in the poll though. He is clearly better than at least 2 of the choices and you could make a reasonable arguement for ranking him as high as 3rd.

ElHalo

07-25-2004, 10:20 PM

I voted for Gibson.

Berra and Bench are head and shoulders above the rest of the major league competition. I give a slight advantage to Berra over Bench... largely because of Bench's batting average. I just can't get my brain around imagining that a guy with a sub .270 career BA is the best ever at his position... same reason I refuse to believe Mike Schmidt is the greatest 3B ever. Catcher is the position for which defense is most important, and Bench was supposed to be the best ever, defensively... though I have to take popular opinion's word for it, because, statistically speaking, Berra seems to be a much better defender than Bench (not saying he is, nobody claims that Berra's in Bench's league defensively, and I of course would admit that Bench is far superior to Berra on defense... but just looking at raw defensive stats, Berra appears clearly better).

However, Gibson's... Gibson. It's gotta be him.

csh19792001

07-25-2004, 10:57 PM

I agree.

Which begs the age old question about integration, domination, and the greatest players of all time.

When you consider the number of alltime players that came out of the Negro Leagues in just a 10 year span, and you consider that many of the greatest players in the world weren't allowed to play, you have to consider that maybe Charleston or Gibson was (or would have been) the greatest ever. It's certainly possible. The problem, of course, seems to be two fold: "How much weight can we put into the statistics available for the Negro Leagues" (I say very little, it was much like one continuous barnstorming tour) and, if nay to the first question, then: "How much do we go on reputation?" I go back and forth about how (and if I should even) rate Negro Leaguers against Major Leaguers.

Josh Gibson might have been a talent commensurate with a Berra or Bench, or vastly better. My guess, from all that I've read, is that he was almost certainly far better, so I voted for him. Not a solid epistemological foundation to go on, I know, but I see that others who know a ton about baseball here agree with me.

julusnc

07-25-2004, 11:19 PM

I voted for Josh Gibson.

I wish I could have seen him play.

prof93

07-26-2004, 01:37 PM

KHenry14

07-26-2004, 03:18 PM

Well, while this is a close one, put me down on Bench's side. :)

Johnny was one of those players that changed the way the game was played. He invented a style of catching that everyone uses now, and he had an unrivaled arm. While Yogi did have some good backstop skills, Bench changed the way teams played their game when they played the Reds. And sure, Johnny didn't have all the 20 game winner's that Yogi did, that's more of a product of having to call games for the likes of Billingham, Nolan, Gullett and Grimsley rather than Raschi, Reynolds, Ford and Lopat! And also a function of the difference in the two managers, Sparky and Casey.

And while they were completely different kind's of hitters, you couldn't really go wrong either way. Bench's low average, High HR and RBI totals, or Berra high ave, decent HR and good RBI #'s.

But if you call their offense even, to me, Bench is clearly the better defensive player.

KH14

tearforamariner

07-26-2004, 03:19 PM

The defensive numbers are close between Berra and Bench, but Berra, I think did a better job handling his pitchers. The case for Bench is one of, is really the best or does every just think he is. It really isn't that close for me personally. Berra caught more 20 game winners, was the better hitter and Bench never did match Berra's 148 games and 950 chances without a error. Berra's TPR is far superior at 36.2 to Bench's 24.3, and Berra out performed Bench on the HOF Monitor 220.5 to 214.0. bench was great and still lives off his reputation, thats fine, but he wasn't, isn't, and never has been better than Berra!!

Just wanted to ask if it were AT ALL possible that the reason Berra caught more 20 game winners than Bench is because Berra played on a much much MUCH better team in his career?

I voted for Gibson, based on everthing everyone else has already said. Gibson was the greatest catcher to ever play the game of baseball, and, in my mind, would have most definitely been the greatest Major League catcher in history.

Bill Burgess

07-28-2004, 08:16 AM

My slate of candidates for Top 20 Catchers:

I put a high premium on defense and arm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Buck Ewing - 1880-96 - Had whole package; best handler of P., best arm-suppress running game; good bat, good runner, hit leadoff, good, popular manager.

2. Biz Mackay - 1920-47, '50 - Negro Leagues - Defense deluxe; hit well. Negro Leagues.

3. Johnny Bench - 1967-83 - Fully-loaded package; Defense, hit, power, arm. 14 all star teams, led in HRs twice.

4. Mickey Cochrane - 1925-37 - Did it all. Defense, hit, ran, arm, manager, fire.

5. Josh Gibson - (1929-46) Negro L., defense good, Bombs Away.

6. Yogi Berra - 1947-63 Good defense, hit well, power, managed. Yankee bounce.

7. Mike Piazza - Thunder club/glass arm, light glove.

8. Bill Dickey - 1928-43 - Superb defense, backbone of 30's Yanks, w/Gehrig, of course.

9. Louis "Santop" Loftin - (1909-26) Negro L. Nice defense, Gibson light at plate.

10. Roy Campanella - (1937-45, 47-57) Negro L. - ML), good D., but not up to the others.

11. Ivan 'Pudge' Rodriguez - 1991-present - Superb defense. 10 all star teams.

12. Gary Carter (1974-92) - superb D, not bad bat. Led L. in RBIs once, 4 times over 100 RBIs. Twice over 30 HRs. 11 All-Star games, 3 GGs, 324 career HRs, 3 Top 10's in SLG., 7 Top 10's in HRs, 6 Top 10's in RBIs, 6 Top 10's in EBHs.

13. Carlton Fisk (1971-93) - excellent D., OK bat. 11 All-Star games, 1 GG, 2 Top 10 BA., 3 Top 10 onbase, 4 Top 10 SLG., 3 Top 10 in HRs, 2 Top 10 in RBIs, 1 Top 10 in BB.

14. Gabby Hartnett - (1922-41) Hefty bat/superb glove made him a great favorite. Cubs receiver was strong rival to Cochrane/Dickey.

15. Thurman Munson (1969-79) - good glove, OK bat. 7 All-Stars, 3 GGs, 5 Top 10's BA, 1 Top 10 onbase, 1 Top 10 SLG. Career aborted by death at age 32, hurt his legacy.

16. Charlie Bennett - (1878-93) Cutting-edge defense, superb arm. Arm rivaled that of Ewing.

17. Johnny Kling; - (1902-08, '10-13) Master technician behind plate, bat had hole in it.

18. Jimmie Archer - (1907, '09-18) Didn't last long enough, bat too light, but D. was superb, and arm of iron. Threw from crouch, like Ewing.

19. Bruce Petway - (1906-25) - Negro Leagues; Superb receiver, great arm.

20. Michael "King" Kelly - (1878-93) great catcher, played OF, hit/ran well.

21. Marty Bergen - (1896-1899) superb receiver, with arm of steel. Best catcher of his short career. Overcame his mental illness for 4 seasons, before it caught up with him.

Honorable Mentions:

22. Johnny Bassler (1914, 21-27) Voted into Top 7 in MVP in '22-'24; Hit .346 in 1924, 5th in league, league ave. .290. Perhaps best defensively in L.
23. Ray Schalk (1912-29)
24. Frank Duncan (1920-48) - Negro Leagues defensive star.
25. Larry Brown (1919-49) - Negro Leagues defensive star.
Other Honorable Mentions: Roger Bresnahan, Bill Freehan, Benito Santiago, Charles Johnson, Bob Boone.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final tally For Top 10 Catchers all-time; By Leecemark on Fever.

--Voting is closed and here are the top 10 (first place votes in paras). Josh Gibson got the most first place votes, but was left off many ballots and finished 4th. He was the only catcher not on my top 10 list to make it and I surely can't argue that he wasn't top 10 even though I don't know where to rank him myself. Buck Ewing was the only player to get a first place vote and not make the top 10.

1. Johnny Bench 158 (5)
2. Yogi Berra 151 (3)
3. Mickey Cochrane 135 (1)
4. Josh Gibson 93 (7)
5. Roy Campanella 73
6. Gabby Hartnett 71
7. Bill Dickey 67
8. Ivan Rodriguez 63
9. Mike Piazza 56
10. Carlton Fisk 35
Honorable Mention: Gary Carter 22, Buck Ewing 18 (1), Biz Mackey 17, Nine other catchers received votes but didn't crack double figures in points.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of the catchers, I must give top honors for Defense to Ewing, Biz Mackay, Bennett, Kling, Bench, Schalk, Rodriguez.

Top throwing arm honors go to Ewing, Bennett, Archer, Mackay, Bench.

Top Bats go to Gibson, Piazza, Bench, Santop Loftin. Most could hit well. The only light hitters were Bennett, Kling and Archer, Schalk, both Bergens.

Quote: Ted "Double Duty" Radcliffe:
"I played with both Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson on the Crawfords. They say Josh Gibson was the greatest catcher. Josh was not the greatest catcher; he was the greatest hitter. We had 5 or 6 men who could outcatch him. Josh couldn't receive with Larry Brown or Frank Duncan or Biz Mackey or Roy Campanella or any of those fellows. Of course I wouldn't include myself because that wouldn't be right, but they thought a lot of me, because I caught more East-West games than anybody." (Voices From The Great Black Baseball Leagues, by John Holway, 1975, pp. 171-172)

(One may include Bruce Petway & Louis "Santop" Loftin in the group of those Negro L. catchers who could outcatch Josh Gibson.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-1910: Jack Clements, Deacon Jim McGuire, Red Charlie Dooin, Buck Ewing, Mike Kelly, Charlie Bennett, Billy Sullivan, Charles Pop Snyder, Marty Bergen, Bill Bergen, Johnny Kling, Roger Bresnahan, Chief Zimmer, Duke Farrell, John Warner.

1910-60: Ray Schalk, Wally Schang, Johnny Bassler, Walker Cooper, Billy Sullivan, Sherman Lollar, Jim Hegan, Jimmy Archer, Muddy Ruel, Steve O'Neil, Mickey Cochrane, Bill Dickey, Gabby Hartnett, Al Lopez, Rick Ferrell, Ernie Lombardi, Walker Cooper, Yogi Berra, Roy Campanella, Del Crandall, Smokey Burgess.

1960-present: Ted Simmons, Lance Parrish, Jim Sundberg, Jerry Grote, Johnny Bench, Gary Carter, Carlton Fisk, Thurman Munson, Mike Piazza, Ivan "Pudge" Rodriguez, Bill Freehan, Benito Santiago, Charles Johnson, Bob Boone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 12, 1894, at the age of 39, while still active as a ballplayer, Charlie Bennett was run over by a train at Wellsville, KS, and had to have both his legs amputated. Detroit's ballpark was subsequently named after Charlie.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 19, 1900, at the age of 28, Martin Bergen, due to mental illness, killed his wife, daughter, son and himself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 25, 1937, at the age of 34, Mickey Cochrane was hit in the head by a fastball, and that ended his career abruptly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 3:34 AM, January 28, 1958, at the age of 36, Roy Campanella was driving home to Long Island, NY, from his store in Harlem, when his car hit a slick spot, and he hit a telephone pole. Pinned upside down for 30 minutes, his 5th & 6th cervical vertebrae were fractured and dislocated. Paralyzed from the chest down.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 2, 1979, at the age of 31, Thurman Munson, was killed in a plane crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 20, 1947, Josh Gibson died in Pittsburgh, PA, at the age of 35, of a stroke.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buck Ewing-----------------Mickey Cochrane------------Bill Dickey-------
supporters - 18-------------supporters - 50-------------supporters - 34

Billy Sunday,Jan.24,09-------Ban Johnson,29------------W.Johnson 34
Cap Anson,-Jun.17----------William Hanna,30-----------Fred Logan =38
Sam Crane,Apr.18-----------George Sisler,Ap.31---------Bill Coughlin 41
Monty Ward, BE,25----------George Moriarty,33---------Joe Dugan 42
Francis C. Richter,Fe,26------Hugh Fullerton=35----------Ed Rumill 42
William B. Hanna=26----------Jim Nasium,35--------------Waite Hoyt =42
John B. Sheridan=28---------E.A. Batchelor,Apr.39-------Grant Rice 43
John McGraw,31-------------Jimmy Isaminger,41---------Duffy Lewis 45
Joe Vila,34------------------Zach Wheat,41-------------Ford Frick =45
John B. Foster,BE38---------Hal Chase,41---------------Tom Yawkey =45
Fred Logan,=38-------------Bill Coughlin,------41--------Dan Daniel 45
John Drebinger,38-----------Muddy Ruel,42--------------Steve O'Neil 50
Mickey Welch,BE,39---------Del Baker,42----------------Connie Mack,50
Amos Rusie,39--------------Dolly Stark,42---------------John Kieran, 50
Nick Altrock,42-------------Joe Dugan,42----------------Ken Smith, 52
Arlie Latham,52-------------Ed Rumill,42-----------------Arlie Latham,52
Clark Griffith,52-------------Ward Morehouse,42----------Clark Griffith = 52
John McCarthy,94-----------Waite Hoyt,=42--------------Bill McGowan,54
----------------------------Tris Speaker,44--------------Ed Burkholder,55
----------------------------Ford Frick,=45--------------Ed Walsh, 57
----------------------------Joe Williams,46--------------Dazzy Vance, 61
----------------------------Conie Mack,50--------------Casey Stengel,61
----------------------------Eddie Collins,50-------------Ty Cobb, 61
----------------------------John Kieran,50--------------Rogers Hornsby,62
----------------------------Clark Griffith,= 52-----------John Ogden, 63
----------------------------Bill McGowan,----54--------Tommy Holmes,64
----------------------------Frank Baker,55-------------Fred Lieb, 77
----------------------------Ed Burkholder,55------------Paul Richards, 77
----------------------------Nap Lajoie,56---------------Doc Cramer, 85
-----------------------------Ed Walsh,57---------------Whitey Witt, 85
-----------------------------Ty Cobb,61----------------Joe Sewell, 87
-----------------------------Casey Stengel,61-----------Ken Keltner, 87
-----------------------------Rogers Hornsby,62----------George Selkirk, 87
-----------------------------John Ogden,63--------------Whitlow Wyatt,87
-----------------------------Branch Rickey,65
-----------------------------Jimmy Dykes,67
-----------------------------Lefty Grove,74
-----------------------------Fred Lieb,=77
-----------------------------George Kelly,84
-----------------------------Mark Koenig,85
-----------------------------Frank Ellerbe,85
-----------------------------Jocko Conlon,85
-----------------------------Billy Rogell,85
-----------------------------Doc Cramer,85
-----------------------------Rip Sewell,87
-----------------------------Buck Leonard,87
-----------------------------Buck Jordan,87
-----------------------------Charles Gehringer,87
-----------------------------Steve Wulf,92
-----------------------------Shirley Povich,97
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freakshow contributed this nice addition.

The top 16 in games at catcher, through 1892, with year retired:
894 C. Bennett '93
877 P. Snyder '91
743 S. Flint '89
668 D. Bushong '90
646 J. Clements '00
635 B. Ewing '97
566 K. Kelly '93
542 J. Milligan '93
538 B. Holbert '88
534 W. Robinson '02
516 C. Zimmer '03
486 C. Mack '96
472 J. Clapp '83
461 D. Miller '96
459 B. Gilligan '88
458 D. White '90

By 1900, four catchers had reached the 1000 mark.
The top 18 in games at catcher, through 1900, with year retired:
1171 D. McGuire '08
1162 W. Robinson '02
1095 C. Zimmer '03
1073 J. Clements '00
954 C. Bennett '93
877 P. Snyder '91
815 D. Farrell '05
743 S. Flint '89
739 M. Kittridge '06
668 D. Bushong '90
636 B. Ewing '97
636 D. Miller '96
630 P. Schriver '01
609 C. Mack '96
605 J. O'Connor '07
595 H. Peitz '06
585 J. Milligan '93
583 K. Kelly '93
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Harris (Chancellor) contributed this gem in the historical section, to the thread, "The Greatest Catcher Ever", post #47, on July 30, 2004, 01:43PM

And it still sparkles with insight. An Impacted Life Join Date: Sep 2002, Posts: 2,493

I'll stick with Johnny Bench.

Bench is still considered, by a majority of people, to have most likely been the greatest defensive catcher in history. His offensive contributions are extremely underrated because of the era in which he played. Bench was the leader of his teams (not Rose, not Morgan, not Perez). Bench played in baseball's most balanced competitive climate ever and was twice named the Most Valuable Player in the league. Bench played against integrated competition whereas most catchers on these lists did not.

The only knock against Bench is his problems with his knees which forced him to move to first base for a few years, prolonging his career, but dropping his rate stats where he is compared to an average player (like TPR). Personally, I think in discussing who the "greatest" is, we are primarily discussing how great someone was at their peak. Bench's peak is certainly the most impressive of anyone on this list, in my opinion. At least when you consider all the surrounding factors (like environment and quality of competition).

The only two catchers I might rank as high are Buck Ewing and Josh Gibson and I'll tell you why I continue to select Bench over either of them.

Buck Ewing was certainly the greatest catcher in baseball history from the time he played until the Age of Messers. Cochrane, Hartnett and Dickey. Ewing was certainly one of the best players (regardless of position) of his era. However, Ewing was born before the Civil War and died at the age of 47, shortly after his retirement from the game. He certainly wasn't as physically gifted as Bench (or any great athlete born more than a hundred years later.) The competition Ewing faced wasn't necessarily the best in the country at that time as the many of the top "minor" league teams and players were of "major league" caliber. Ewing never had to face the top black or latino athletes in the hemisphere, either. In terms of dominating their respective eras, I can see where Ewing might be considered better than Bench, but in terms of the quality of baseball being played in those eras and doing cross-era comparisons of the all-time greats, I don't see how Ewing could be considered better than Bench at all. Bench excelled against a much higher level of competition, making his dominance more impressive (in my opinion.) Finally, on a defensive note, the catcher's position wasn't quite the same as living fans are prone to think of today and I believe that great defense behind the plate in the 1880s and 1890s is less impressive than great defense behind the plate in the modern era.

Josh Gibson, on the other hand, is less well-documented by meaningful and accurate statistics than the major leaguers we're comparing. Though the anecdotal (and available statistical) evidence is useful to an extent and, no doubt, very impressive, Gibson played primarily in an era that was hitter-friendly in the major leagues and didn't play in the organized "white" leagues. No doubt the competition he faced was top-notch, but Gibson's absence from the major leagues (through no fault of his own) makes comparing him to Bench an extremely difficult exercise if one is to be fair to all sides. Personally, I have Gibson rated as the #2 catcher of all-time, right behind Bench (with almost no room to spare) and I'm sure that if Gibson had played in an integrated major leagues that he would have been considered the greatest catcher in history at least until the time Bench played (if not still). However, I can't accurately project Gibson as the #1 catcher without feeling as though I'm stretching the analysis and giving extra credit because I want to believe the results.

Putting Ewing or Gibson over Bench requires adopting a line of reasoning that I'm uncomfortable with and feel would be wrong-headed in such a comparison. I have to stick with Bench. Gibson #2. Ewing is #5 in my book (after Berra and Cochrane).

1. Bench 2. Gibson 3. Berra 4. Cochrane 5. Ewing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chancellor on Catchers:

Brad Harris (Chancellor) contributed this scintillating analysis in the Hall of Fame Talk section, on the thread, "Best Players not in the Hall of Fame", page 5, post# 101, on February 9, 2004, 1:53PM:

Munson had a 116 OPS+ in 5,900 plate appearances. Bennett had a slightly higher OPS+ in roughly 1,500 fewer PAs. The difference, however, in playing time has everything to do with the eras in which they played.

Munson played regularly from 1970-78 and was the "starting" catcher in 1979, when injuries made him miss 65 games. For Munson, he was a starter at the age of 23 and died (in the second-half of his career) at the age of 32.

Bennett was the starting catcher on his teams from 1881-91, through eleven seasons (as opposed to Munson's 10). Quite simply, if the season had been 162 games in the 1880s, Bennett would very likely have at least as many PAs as did Munson.

So I think, in the context of their times, it is reasonable to say that their offense is a wash. Munson was a horrible baserunner. He stole 48 bases in 11 seasons, but was caught stealing 50 times! Bennett, on the other hand, stole 42 bases from the age of 31 on; there's no verifiable data on CS for those years or for SB totals prior to 1886. It isn't difficult to imagine that Bennett's career steals would look a little bit better if all the data were available. For now, let's call that a wash too.

So how about their defense? Well...Munson won 3 gold gloves. Bennett, playing many generations before the award was invented, won none of course.

According to defensive win shares, however, Bennett should have won 4 - in 1881-82, 1886 and 1890. And Munson? Defensive win shares point to a pair of undeserved awards; Munson shouldn't have received the prize in 1974-75. For their careers? Bennett receives an "A" while Munson is graded at a "B minus".

Of course, Munson received important hardware in 1976 when he was part of the first Yankee team to win a pennant in twelve years. The AL MVP that year, however, should have gone to someone else. Graig Nettles, Mickey Rivers and Roy White all had better seasons than Munson in 1976 -- and those were just his teammates. The best player in the AL in 1976 was among George Brett, Rod Carew and Bobby Grich. Brett led the league with 33 win shares - 9 more than Munson and there were a total of 21 players who had as much or more value than Munson did to their respective teams.

This isn't meant so much as a disaccreditation of hardware in modern baseball so much as it is to point out that the absence of hardware in an era before those awards were given regularly is no more/less telling than a few awards in modern baseball because, after all, even voters miss the mark from time to time.

Munson has a point in his column for his excellent post-season play. Bennett also won 2 post-season championships (and with two different teams) and had 13 hits and 10 RBIs in the 13 post-season games he appeared in.

So it looks like Munson and Bennett are basically a tie. And here's where we leave Munson behind.

Bennett was regarded as the best catcher (i.e. not player as Buck Ewing or Roger Bresnahan were, but catcher) of the 19th century (and on into the deadball era.)

Bennett meets 26.3 of the Hall of Fame's standards (where an "average" Hall of Famer meets 50.0), but Munson - playing in an era with over 50% more games per season - met only 29.5.

Of course, just as Munson's career was ended prematurely by the plane crash, so Bennett's career was abruptly interrupted by his losing both legs in an accident when he slipped crossing train tracks in 1894. Bennett was, in fact, so highly thought-of at the time that his former team, the Detroit Wolverines (later Tigers), named their ballpark after him; to this day Bennett remains the only player ever to receive that honor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Harris (Chancellor) contributed this scintillating analysis in the Hall of Fame Talk section, on the thread, "Best Players not in the Hall of Fame", page 5, post# 103, on February 9, 2004, 4:05PM:

Ewing played more games at catcher than at other positions in the following seasons: 1881, 1883-86, 1888-90. In total, Ewing was behind the plate for only 636 out of 1,345 games. Bennett, on the other hand, played 954 of 1,084 career games at catcher.

Ewing, interestingly enough, is also credited with 4 "gold gloves" (as determined by defensive win shares), the same number as Bennett.

I poured over Win Shares for a few minutes, gathering the following:

From 1881-83, Charlie Bennett was the best catcher in the National League each of those three seasons. (Buck Ewing was usually second-best.)

From 1884-86 and from 1888-89 Buck Ewing was the best catcher in the National League each of those five seasons. (Charlie Bennett was usually second-best.) Also, in 1890, Buck Ewing was the best catcher in the Players League.

From 1881-89 either Bennett or Ewing was the best catcher in the NL with the sole exception of 1887, when Jim O'Rourke played 40 games at catcher, more than at any other position. (O'Rourke also played 38 games at third and 28 games in the outfield.) If you wanted a minimum percent of games played to qualify, then, you could technically crown Ewing the best catcher in the NL that year, too.

In their declining years in the 1890s, both Bennett and Ewing were eclipsed by Chief Zimmer, Jack Clements and Duke Farrell as the best catchers in baseball.

For a little over a decade, however, Bennett and Ewing were neck-and-neck as the best catchers in the game.

Editors Note: After Bill's comments made me look I must concede that Ewing's value as a catcher is diminished somewhat less by his 636 games than I had first thought.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Harris (Chancellor) contributed this scintillating analysis in the Hall of Fame Talk section, on the thread, "Best Players not in the Hall of Fame", page 5, post# 109, on February 11, 2004, 8:47AM:

Of the three names you mentioned - Bennett, Ewing and Kelly - I would have to rate them as offensive players in the following order:

Mike "King" Kelly
Buck Ewing
Charlie Bennett

However, Kelly played more games in the outfield than at catcher and, in fact, is categorized in the Hall of Fame as a rightfielder, not as a catcher. Only 5 of Kelly's 16 seasons saw him play at catcher more games than at any other position. And those were 5 of his final 6 years. Kelly barely amassed 1,600 plate appearances in those seasons so it really would be fair to include him in this discussion of great hitting catchers of the nineteenth century.

Ewing, who is closer to Kelly than to Bennett offensively, played many more seasons primarily as a catcher and finished his career with more games at catcher than anywhere else (though he, too, was used at a number of other positions on a regular basis.)

Bennett was a full-time catcher, but his OPS+ of 118, while much better than most players, wasn't as good as Ewing - even if you just include Ewing's "catcher seasons".

So, I'd rate Ewing an edge over Bennett where I would tend to keep Kelly out of the ratings at all (though he was a better hitter than Ewing, if you're just talking about offensive ability.

Also...I would rate Deacon White in between Ewing and Bennett. White was the best catcher of the early years of professional baseball and was one of the game's first stars.

I also happen to think White belongs in the Hall of Fame.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill asked Chancellor this question.
I was wondering how you'd rate Jimmie Archer, Martin Bergen, and Billy Sullivan defensively? I think it would be a great service to make a small file on pre-1900 catchers. And throw in Johnny Kling into the mix just to mix it up with spice. All in all, how would you rate the top 10 19th century catchers, both defensively and offensively with Kling added in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Harris (Chancellor) contributed this scintillating analysis in the Hall of Fame Talk section, on the thread, "Best Players not in the Hall of Fame", page 5, post# 116, on February 16, 2004, 10:50PM:

Good questions all.

I'll get to some of them after a little more research. Suffice it to say at the moment that I've compiled a list of the best defensive catcher in each league/season from 1876-2003. This is, essentially, a list of the most "gold gloves", though in fact it ignores actual gold gloves won in favor of who win shares said was the best (as opposed to the subjectivity of the voters). This is a measurement of defense only.

Most win shares "gold gloves", catcher
9 Ray Schalk
8 Gary Carter
6 Gabby Hartnett
6 Ivan Rodriguez
5 Yogi Berra
5 Roy Campanella
5 Mickey Cochrane
5 Bill Dickey
5 Bill Freehan
5 Bill Killefer
5 Jim Sundberg

In the 19th century, only Charlie Bennett, Buck Ewing and Pop Snyder led catchers in their league in defensive excellence four times. No catcher in history did it for a fifth time until Ray Schalk, at the end of the deadball era.

A few things to note. Johnny Bench and Ivan Rodriguez have the most actual gold glove awards, I believe. Bench has 4 win shares gold gloves.

Also, Roy Campanella won 5 win shares gold gloves, but didn't reach the majors until he was 26 because of the ban on black players; it's possible he'd won one or two more if he'd debuted a few years earlier.

Lance Parrish, Ossie Schreckengost and Jim Hegan join the 19th century triumvirate (mentioned above) and Bench as the only players with 4 win shares gold gloves.

Johnny Kling garnered 3.

Jimmie Archer and Billy Sullivan won a single "gold glove" each while Marty Bergen never led his league in defensive wizardry behind the plate.

This isn't the final word on how good those players were defensively, but it's one way of examining things and I thought I'd pass the info along as I got it.
------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Win Shares Gold Gloves - Catchers

The Slaff: Aug. 22, 2005; 11:45 AM; Join Date: Jan., 2003; Posts: 269;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1876 J. Clapp / D. White
1877 Lew Brown
1878 Pop Snyder
1879 Pop Snyder
1880 Silver Flint
1881 Charlie Bennett
1882 Charlie Bennett … Pop Snyder (AA)
1883 Doc Bushong / Barney Gilligan … Bill Holbert (AA)
1884 Buck Ewing … Pop Snyder (AA) … George Baker (UA)
1885 Buck Ewing … Doc Bushong (AA)
1886 Charlie Bennett … Doc Bushong (AA)
1887 Tom Daly … Kid Baldwin (AA)
1888 Buck Ewing … Wilbert Robinson (AA)
1889 Buck Ewing … W. Robinson / Jack Boyle (AA)
1890 Charlie Bennett … Jack O'Connor (AA) … Duke Farrell (PL)
1891 Chief Zimmer … Morgan Murphy (AA)
1892 Chief Zimmer
1893 John Grim
1894 Duke Farrell
1895 Deacon McGuire
1896 Ed McFarland / C. Zimmer
1897 John Warner
1898 Lou Criger
1899 Ed McFarland
1900 Ed McFarland
1901 Malachi Kittridge … Billy Sullivan
1902 Johnny Kling … Ossee Schreckengost
1903 Pat Moran … Lou Criger
1904 Admiral Schlei / J. Kling … D. McGuire / L. Criger
1905 Red Dooin … Ossee Schreckengost
1906 Johnny Kling … Ossee Schreckengost
1907 Red Dooin … Ossee Schreckengost
1908 Red Dooin … Boss Schmidt
1909 George Gibson … Ira Thomas
1910 George Gibson … Jack Lapp
1911 Chief Meyers … Ira Thomas
1912 Jimmy Archer … John Henry
1913 Bill Killefer … Ray Schalk
1914 Bill Killefer … Ray Schalk … Walter Blair (FL)
1915 Frank Snyder … Ray Schalk … Bill Rariden (FL)
1916 Hank Gowdy … Ray Schalk
1917 Bill Killefer … Ray Schalk
1918 B. Killefer / Walter Schmidt … Steve O'Neill
1919 Bill Killefer … Ray Schalk
1920 Mickey O'Neill … Ray Schalk
1921 Walter Schmidt … Ray Schalk
1922 Bob O'Farrell … Ray Schalk
1923 Frank Snyder … Muddy Ruel
1924 Zack Taylor … Muddy Ruel
1925 Frank Snyder … Muddy Ruel
1926 Bob O'Farrell … Luke Sewell
1927 Gabby Hartnett … Mickey Cochrane
1928 Gabby Hartnett … Mickey Cochrane
1929 Jimmie Wilson … Mickey Cochrane
1930 Gabby Hartnett … Mickey Cochrane
1931 Jimmie Wilson … Bill Dickey
1932 Earl Grace … Mickey Cochrane
1933 Gabby Hartnett … Rick Ferrell
1934 Gabby Hartnett … Rick Ferrell
1935 Gabby Hartnett … Bill Dickey
1936 Gus Mancuso … Luke Sewell
1937 Al Lopez / G. Hartnett … Bill Dickey
1938 Al Todd … Rudy York
1939 Harry Danning … Bill Dickey
1940 Harry Danning … Rollie Hemsley
1941 Mickey Owen … Bill Dickey
1942 Mickey Owen … Birdie Tebbetts
1943 Ray Mueller … Paul Richards
1944 Ray Mueller … Frankie Hayes
1945 Ken O'Dea … Frankie Hayes
1946 Ray Mueller … Buddy Rosar
1947 Bruce Edwards … Buddy Rosar
1948 Del Rice … Jim Hegan
1949 Roy Campanella … Jim Hegan
1950 Wes Westrum … Jim Hegan
1951 Roy Campanella … Yogi Berra
1952 Del Rice … Yogi Berra
1953 Roy Campanella … Sammy White
1954 Del Crandall … Jim Hegan
1955 Roy Campanella … Sherm Lollar
1956 Ed Bailey … Yogi Berra
1957 Roy Campanella … Yogi Berra
1958 Del Crandall … Yogi Berra
1959 Del Crandall … Sherm Lollar
1960 Hal Smith … Sherm Lollar
1961 Johnny Roseboro … Earl Battey
1962 Johnny Edwards … Earl Battey
1963 Johnny Edwards … Earl Battey
1964 Johnny Edwards … Elston Howard
1965 Tom Haller … Bill Freehan
1966 Johnny Roseboro … Bill Freehan
1967 Tim McCarver … Buck Rodgers
1968 Johnny Bench … Bill Freehan
1969 Randy Hundley … Bill Freehan
1970 Johnny Bench … George Mitterwald
1971 Manny Sanguillen … Bill Freehan
1972 Duffy Dyer … Ed Herrmann
1973 J. Bench / Joe Ferguson … Thurman Munson
1974 Johnny Bench … Glenn Borgmann
1975 Steve Yeager … Brian Downing
1976 Johnny Bench … Jim Sundberg
1977 Gary Carter … Jim Sundberg
1978 Gary Carter … Jim Sundberg
1979 Gary Carter … Jim Sundberg
1980 Gary Carter … Rick Cerone
1981 Gary Carter … Jim Sundberg
1982 Gary Carter … Bob Boone
1983 Gary Carter … Lance Parrish
1984 Tony Pena … Lance Parrish
1985 Gary Carter … Bob Boone
1986 G. Carter / Jody Davis … Rich Gedman
1987 Mike Scioscia … Ernie Whitt
1988 Tony Pena … Andy Allenson
1989 Mike Scioscia … Bob Boone
1990 Darren Daulton … Lance Parrish
1991 Tom Pagnozzi … Lance Parrish
1992 Joe Oliver … Ivan Rodriguez
1993 Rick Wilkins … Ron Karkovice
1994 Benito Santiago … Terry Steinbach
1995 Joe Girardi … Ivan Rodriguez
1996 Charles Johnson … Ivan Rodriguez
1997 Charles Johnson … Ivan Rodriguez
1998 Javier Lopez … Ivan Rodriguez
1999 Mike Lieberthal … Ivan Rodriguez
2000 Mike Matheny … Brad Ausmus
2001 Brad Ausmus … Einar Diaz
2002 Brad Ausmus … Bengie Molina
2003 Brian Schneider … Ramon Hernandez
2004 Brian Schneider … Damian Miller
__________________
The Slaff Aug. 24, 2005, 11:47 AM Join Date: Jan 2003; Posts: 269

Win Shares Gold Gloves: Catchers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of times:

9x
Gary Carter, Ray Schalk

7x
Gabby Hartnett

6x
Ivan Rodriguez

5x
Johnny Bench, Yogi Berra, Roy Campanella, Mickey Cochrane, Bill Dickey, Bill Freehan, Bill Killefer, Jim Sundberg

4x
Charlie Bennett, Buck Ewing, Jim Hegan, Lance Parrish, Ossee Schreckengost, Pop Snyder

3x
Brad Ausmus, Earl Battey, Doc Bushong, Del Crandall, Lou Criger, Bob Boone, Red Dooin, Johnny Edwards, Johnny Kling, Sherm Lollar, Ed McFarland, Ray Mueller, Muddy Ruel, Frank Snyder, Chief Zimmer

2x
Harry Danning, Duke Farrell, Rick Ferrell, George Gibson, Frankie Hayes, Charles Johnson, Deacon McGuire, Bob O'Farrell, Mickey Owen, Tony Pena, Wilbert Robinson, Buddy Rosar, Johnny Roseboro, Walter Schmidt, Brian Schneider, Mike Scioscia,
Luke Sewell, Ira Thomas, Jimmie Wilson

1x
Andy Allenson, Jimmy Archer, Ed Bailey, George Baker, Kid Baldwin, Walter Blair, Glenn Borgmann, Jack Boyle, Lew Brown
Rick Cerone, John Clapp, Tom Daly, Darren Daulton, Jody Davis, Einar Diaz, Brian Downing, Duffy Dyer, Bruce Edwards,
Joe Ferguson, Silver Flint, Rich Gedman, Barney Gill, Joe Girardi, Hank Gowdy, Earl Grace, John Grim, Tom Haller, Rollie Hemsley, John Henry, Ramon Hernandez, Ed Herrmann, Bill Holbert, Elston Howard, Randy Hundley, Ron Karkovice, Malachi Kittridge, Jack Lapp, Mike Lieberthal, Al Lopez, Javier Lopez, Gus Mancuso, Mike Matheny, Tim McCarver, Chief Meyers, Damian Miller, George Mitterwald, Bengie Molina, Pat Moran, Thurman Munson, Morgan Murphy, Jack O'Connor, Ken O'Dea, Joe Oliver, Mickey O'Neill, Steve O'Neill, Tom Pagnozzi, Bill Rariden, Del Rice, Paul Richards, Buck Rodgers, Manny Sanguillen, Benito Santiago, Admiral Schlei, Boss Schmidt, Terry Steinbach, Hal Smith, Billy Sullivan, Zack Taylor, Birdie Tebbetts, Al Todd, John Warner, Wes Westrum, Deacon White, Sammy White, Ernie Whitt, Rick Wilkins, Steve Yeager, Rudy York
__________________
It took those informations in Bill James "Win Shares: Digital Update" available at stats-inc website.

Yearly win shares leaders are listed...
-Top 10 overall
-Top 5 pitching win shares
-Top 5 batting win shares
-Top 5 defensive win shares for every position .
...1876 through 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some Pre-1900 Catchers Caught Infrequently:

In the ancient times, pre-1900, many great catchers played very few games behind the plate. Many played other positions, due to the stress that crouching placed on their knees. A few of their records are:

"Deacon" James White: caught 226 g, out of 1299 total
Buck Ewing: caught 636 g, out of 1315 total, almost all in '80's. After that he lost his arm, and played 1B/OF in 90's.
Jim O'Rourke: caught 209 g, out of 1774
Mike "King" Kelly: caught 583 g, out of 1455. Mostly OF throughout career.
Roger Bresnahan: caught 974 g, out of 1446. Mostly OF otherwise.
Marty Bergen: caught 337 g, out of 344. Only played 4 seasons, 1896-99, before his mental illness caused him to take his own & his families lives.
Charlie Bennet: caught 954 g, out of 1062. OF otherwise.
----------------------------------------------------------------
League schedules in those days were not the 154 games that came in later.

1883 ------- 100 games
1884, 1885 - 115 games
1886, 1887 - 125 games
1887-1891 - 135 games
1892 ------ 154 games
1893-1897 - 135 games
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So that was my post back when. And then AG2004 rebutted me nicely with this following rejoiner.

And let's not forget (just among those playing sometime in 1887)
Pop Snyder: caught 877 g, out of 930 (including National Association games).
Jack Clements: caught 1073 g, out of 1157.
Chief Zimmer: caught 1239 g, out of 1280.
Wilbert Robinson: caught 1316 g, out of 1371.
Deacon McGuire: caught 1611 g, out of 1781.

However, I'm wondering what happened to Ewing himself in 1887. Here are the number of games in which the following people caught for the (NL) club that season:

Williard Brown - 46. 21-year-old rookie.
Jim O'Rourke - 40. 36-year-old; one of only three seasons where he caught more than 15 games, and the only one where he played more games at catcher than at any other single position.
Pat Deasley - 24.
Pat Murphy - 17. 30-year-old making his first major league appearances.
Buck Ewing - 8.

Ewing played 19 games at 2nd and 51 at 3rd. This is in the middle of Ewing's prime years as a catcher, remember. Jim O'Rourke appeared in 38 games at 3rd that year, so it seems that Ewing could have had more appearances at catcher and O'Rourke could have had more appearances at third that season.

The 1887 season doesn't seem consistent with Ewing's being the greatest catcher ever. Does anyone know why Ewing was playing 3rd so often that year instead of catching?
----------------------------------------
Mark Leece contributed this nice, brief post.
http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=713187&postcount=37
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Coop this one.
http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=713145&postcount=32

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=714181&postcount=45
----------------------------------------------------
:
Games Total
Player as C Games % as C Debut
================================================== =
Deacon McGuire 1611 1781 90.5 1884-06-21
Wilbert Robinson 1316 1371 96.0 1886-04-19
Chief Zimmer 1239 1280 96.8 1884-07-18
Jack Clements 1073 1157 92.7 1884-04-22
Duke Farrell 1003 1563 64.2 1888-04-21
Charlie Bennett 954 1062 89.8 1878-05-01
Jack O'Connor 860 1451 59.3 1887-04-20
Pop Schriver 654 800 81.8 1886-04-29
Buck Ewing 636 1315 48.4 1880-09-09
Doggie Miller 636 1317 48.3 1884-05-01
Connie Mack 609 723 84.2 1886-09-11
Jocko Milligan 585 772 75.8 1884-05-01
King Kelly 583 1455 40.1 1878-05-01
Charlie Ganzel 578 786 73.5 1884-09-27
John Grim 578 706 81.9 1888-09-29
Farmer Vaughn 553 915 60.4 1886-10-07
Con Daily 550 630 87.3 1884-06-09
Jack Boyle 544 1086 50.1 1886-10-08
Bill Holbert 538 623 86.4 1876-09-05
Jack Ryan 527 616 85.6 1889-09-02

DoubleX

07-28-2004, 12:10 PM

csh19792001

07-28-2004, 12:29 PM

I really want to vote for Gibson, but I just can't. I have very little doubt of how great he was and that he would have thrived like few others had he been given a chance in the Majors, but given that he never made it to the Majors, I have no solid way to judge his abilities. It's all hypothetical at this point - there is good reason to assume Gibson would do well in the Majors, but what if for some reason he couldn't? What if he couldn't deal with the pressure and attention of being a Major Leaguer; what if he couldn't adjust properly to the way Major Leaguers throw certain pitches (like Japanese players coming over and having to deal with the 2-seam and sinking fastball in abundance for the first time)?

Likewise, I refuse to annoit a Major Leaguer from before integration as the best since their statistics and accomplishments were compiled against filtered competition that obviously did not include as much of the best talent as possible (though when a player so clearly dominates the competition of the pre-integration period, such as Ruth or Cobb, I do consider them in my estimation of the best of all-time).

When it comes to figuring at the best catcher of all-time, after eliminating Gibson, it doesn't really matter to factor in the pre-intergration players since I believe Bench and Berra to be so clearly above the rest (though I'm not yet considering the unfinished careers of Rodriguez and Piazza). Though both players excelled in every facet a good catcher should excel in, I feel that Bench excelled more than Berra and thus he got my vote.

The consideration that Gibson might not have dominated is a very legitimate one- the Negro Leagues drew on (roughly, judging by the black population of America relative to the overall population from 1900-50) 1/10th the number of people that the major leagues did. Knowing this, it makes judgements even more difficult- but I still don't simply elminate him.

Why doesn't anyone EVER mention Mickey Cochrane? He should at least be mentioned, even though he played in the premier offensive era and only 1400 games (but this only because he got hit in the head with a fastball, ruining his playing career, and, eventually, precipitating his demise as a human being, also).

http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/cochrmi01.shtml

857 walks and 217 strikeouts career is ridiculous. Can't put a number on just how valuable a guy is who walks 4 times as much as he K's.

DoubleX

07-28-2004, 02:40 PM

The consideration that Gibson might not have dominated is a very legitimate one- the Negro Leagues drew on (roughly, judging by the black population of America relative to the overall population from 1900-50) 1/10th the number of people that the major leagues did. Knowing this, it makes judgements even more difficult- but I still don't simply elminate him.

Why doesn't anyone EVER mention Mickey Cochrane? He should at least be mentioned, even though he played in the premier offensive era and only 1400 games (but this only because he got hit in the head with a fastball, ruining his playing career, and, eventually, precipitating his demise as a human being, also).

http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/cochrmi01.shtml

857 walks and 217 strikeouts career is ridiculous. Can't put a number on just how valuable a guy is who walks 4 times as much as he K's.

You make a great case for Cochrane. That walk to k ratio is astounding, he'd definitely fit into the Billy Beane Money Ball mantra of current baseball. I'd probably rank Cochrane the best Major League catcher of the first half of the 20th century (again, not factoring Gibson into this).

trosmok

07-28-2004, 02:44 PM

Fascinating thread, and excellent posts, so far. I'm impressed with the number of people who have voiced their vote for Josh the Great. My vote, though, goes to Biz Mackey. Without him, we might not have ever heard of the exploits of Josh, Campy, Bench or Berra. He had as much to do with modernizing the position, (no slight to Ewing, who was the best of his era at any position), as anyone. In John Holloways book, Black Ball Stars he wrote: Mackey would strike down runners trying to take second like a cobra protecting his den. Offensively, Mackey was always a threat. He was a lifetime better than.300 hitter who could hit from both sides of the plate. Mackey was voted to the East-West All-Star game four times. In 1944, Cumberland Posey, who had managed HOF catcher Josh Gibson, selected Mackey as his number one catcher of all time. He was the first player to hit a ball out of Tokyo's new Meiji Shrine Stadium. On Roy Campanella Day in 1959 at the Los Angeles Coloseum, before a throng of 90,000, Campanella introduced Mackey to the crowd as his "greatest teacher."

For more, go to
http://www.nlbpa.com
and scroll down to the M's, lots of stuff on other stars, too!

DaleC76

07-28-2004, 03:25 PM

Iron Jaw

07-28-2004, 08:01 PM

Just wanted to ask if it were AT ALL possible that the reason Berra caught more 20 game winners than Bench is because Berra played on a much much MUCH better team in his career?
.

Actually, Johnny Bench would have no excuse in that area. The Cincinnati Reds during Bench's career were awfully good, most of the time. They won the pennant in 1970, 1972, 1975-76, and the division title in 1973 and 1979.
In Berra's day, there were no playoffs - the team with the best record went straight to the World Series. Given the Reds won 99 in 1973 to the Mets' 82, that would have been five pennants for Cincy in the 1970's.

However, the style of pitching for Cincy did not really allow for many 20 game winners, especially as the decade wore on. While many teams still used the 1960's pitching styles, getting as many completes as possible out of the starters, the Reds were basically a prototype of modern teams. Sparky used his relievers to the extreme. He did it, mainly because his prime starters like Gary Nolan were oft-injured.

I would never rate a catcher on the amount of 20 game winners the team had. If that was the case, Andy Etchebarren and Elrod Hendricks would fit in the "all-time" catcher arena. Etch and Ellie caught 13 twenty game winners during their combined stays in Baltimore.

Iron Jaw

07-28-2004, 08:07 PM

I voted for Yogi, simply because he was a great hitter, great catcher, terrific clutch hitter and one of baseball's greatest personalities.

My favorite catcher was Tim McCarver, but Timmy wouldn't be on any all time list. His successor in St. Louis, Ted Simmons, might make quite a few. Ted was a good, solid catcher and had a great bat. A bit of a flake off the field, but on the field he was all baseball. I would have no problem placing Ted Simmons with the others on that list.

baclightning

07-28-2004, 09:05 PM

I personally voted for Bench, although Berra, Gibson, Cochrane, and Ewing are all equally worthy choices.

May I throw another name out there - that of Katsuya Nomura?

Now I know it's hard to compare Japanese baseball with the majors, especially in the era Nomura played (1954-1980), but I have to think that a guy who played 26 seasons, won five league MVP awards, and hit 657 home runs (admittedly with the aid of a bandbox home park) deserves at least a bit of respect.

You gotta admit 657 homers is a lot for a catcher!

http://japanesebaseball.com/players/player.jsp?PlayerID=410&Year=1996

Imapotato

07-28-2004, 10:32 PM

games PO A E DP F% lg% RF LRF aboveLRF

1793 7292 1254 139 163 .984 .978 4.77 4.03 .74

1742 9249 850 97 127 .990 .987 5.80 5.59 .21

Tell me which one is considered the best catcher of all time...and which one didn't get the respect to even BE on this poll...being bumped for the massively overrated Josh Gibson...he might I remind you...not having a MLB AB. Oh and before you say it wasn't his fault...there is more proof that he would have NOT been great then to speculate if he would.

for example....1890 baseball...Burkett, Hamilton, Keeler all went downhill after more talent hit the league. Jose Contreras is NOT the God of baseball despite how accoladed he was in the Cuban Leagues...no Cuban pitcher has been.

Now, I just stated defensive stats to show how much better a ceratin C is to what many consider the "best" of all time...but having the career lead in PO...is not anything special for a C. Assists and DPs are.

Add in offensive stats and My vote for greatest C leads in hits per 162 games...DESPITE only playing 154 games

ABS hits XBS bbs Ks BA OBP SLG% SH GDP
575 154 58 67 96 .267 .342 .476 1 15
524 156 54 57 57 .297 .370 .489 10 8

big difference in defense and a great eye....plus more diverse, my guy could hit a sac bunt for a hit...my guy grounded into an average of only 8 DPs per 162!

Now please tell me how player A is the best catcher of all time and Player B NEVER EVER gets mentioned...

The best catcher is plain to see, he had everything, he was called the "perfect catcher" he could do everything ANY other catcher could do...except steal bases like Billy Sullivan.

He led the league in errors his first 5 seasons, then dominated the rest of his career. He had one year his arm went dead then came back and won the MVP award. He caught while at the age of 40...while "the so called best catcher" couldn't catch anymore after age 34

There is one best CATCHER in MLB...and Gabby Hartnett is his name...Player A...Johnny Bench

BTW Gabby Hartnett led the league in Assists 6 times (the primary defensive stat for catchers...throwing out basestealers) and DPs 7 times...the secondary defensive stat for catchers...(usually K and gun down on failed hit and run)

Bench, Berra, Fisk, Cochrane didn't do that...

RuthMayBond

07-29-2004, 09:56 AM

being bumped for the massively overrated Josh Gibson. Oh and before you say it wasn't his fault...there is more proof that he would have NOT been great then to speculate if he would.

big difference in defense and a great eye....plus more diverse, my guy could hit a sac bunt for a hit...my guy grounded into an average of only 8 DPs per 162!

BTW Gabby Hartnett led the league in Assists 6 times (the primary defensive stat for catchers...throwing out basestealers) and DPs 7 times...the secondary defensive stat for catchers...(usually K and gun down on failed hit and run).Yeah, Gibson wouldn't have been great, just like Jackie Robinson, considered NOT the best talent in the Negro Leagues.
How many DPs were being turned in Hartnett's day?
Not sure assists is the primary defensive stat for catchers, and I have him leading in DP 6x, but ... I have Hartnett right up there with Gibson, Berra & Bench

RuthMayBond

07-29-2004, 09:59 AM

And I knew this would turn into a Ewing rah-rah for a guy that caught 636 G (about the same that Boone caught AFTER he turned THIRTY-SEVEN!). Did the guys that rated him watch baseball much after the turn of the century?

Imapotato

07-29-2004, 06:30 PM

Yeah, Gibson wouldn't have been great, just like Jackie Robinson, considered NOT the best talent in the Negro Leagues.
How many DPs were being turned in Hartnett's day?
Not sure assists is the primary defensive stat for catchers, and I have him leading in DP 6x, but ... I have Hartnett right up there with Gibson, Berra & Bench

very speculative human element opinion from a numbers guy.

Do not disregard the fact that Gibson had a mental illness, and also that the reason Jackie Robinson succeeded was not because he was a great player, but a great MAN. It took more than skill to be the 1st black player in baseball....something I doubt any of the negro leaguers could have done as well as Jackie. Jackie was a 3 sport athlete, an Officer in the Army, fought discrimination with high integrity IN the Army...etc.

The only other man I could see breaking the color barrier other than Jackie was Rube Foster. It's a character issue, not a talent issue.

ElHalo

07-29-2004, 06:52 PM

Add in offensive stats and My vote for greatest C leads in hits per 162 games...DESPITE only playing 154 games...

Just wanted to point out... playing in 154 game seasons doesn't disadvantage a guy one bit when using stats/162 games. To get H/162, you take hits, divide by games played, and multiply by 162. It doesn't matter whether you play in 162 game seasons, 154 game seasons, or 35 game seasons... if you get the same number of hits per game, that number will be the same no matter how long your seasons were.

Oh, and Hartnett can't really be considered in the conversation for the best catcher ever. Even if you can get past the way his ink totals shrivel in comparison to Bench or, especially, Berra, and the way that he didn't have the defensive reputation of guys like Bresnahan, Schalk, or even the massively underrated Wally Schang (why, when talking about the great catchers, does his name never even come up?).... well, there's still one fact that you just can't overcome... Hartnett played for the Cubs. That's pretty much the end of the conversation right there.

Bill Burgess

07-29-2004, 09:12 PM

ElHalo,

"why, when talking about the great catchers, does his name never even come up?).... well, there's still one fact that you just can't overcome... Hartnett played for the Cubs. That's pretty much the end of the conversation right there."

(Bill - His name never came up? You gotta be kidding me. His name DID come up consistently in his own era, and for decades thereafter, up to 1960.
He was always rated the equal of Cochrane and Dickey.

Joe McCarthy managed Gabby before he managed Bill Dickey, and always rated Cochrane #1 and Hartnett #2. And Joe was so tempermentally even, that he had not reason 1 to undermine Dickey. Joe really thought that much of Gabby.

If there was one reason Gabby is a little neglected, is that he was a NL, in an era when the AL had all the PR, stars, glamour, glitz, Cobb, Ruth, etc. The AL won most all-star games, WS, and that went on until the NL stole a march on them in integrating their league. They skimmed all the early negro league creme, and things turned around real dramaticly.

To suggest Hartnett wasn't a AAA+ star is just to turn an ignorant eye on history.

Bill Burgess

Bill Burgess

07-29-2004, 09:29 PM

RMB,

To answer your ingraciatingly-warm inquiry about whether those who advocated Buck Ewing as the best catcher ever, YES, they did watch BB after 1900.

Clark Griffith was player, manager, owner until 1955.
William B. Hanna was a working NYC sports writer till his death in 1930.
Ned Hanlon managed until 1907.
Francis Richter was the editor-in-chief of Reach BB Guide until he died in 1926.
John B. Foster was his counterpart of Spalding BB Guide until he died in 1941.
Connie Mack managed from 1901-50.
John McGraw both played and managed from 1901-32.
Grantland Rice wrote sports until his death in 1954. America's greatest.
Sam Crane, a former ML 2B, was a much loved NYC spwr. till his death in '25.
Joe Vila was a NYC spwr. until his death in 1934.

And their credentials WERE listed, if you had READ the piece.

Bill James rated Ewing, Satchel Paige & Oscar Charleston in a theoretical top 10 all-time up until 1987.

Hall of Fame voters gave Ewing/Anson each 40 votes in '36.

Question for you. Seeing as Buck only caught 636 games, it would seem that for those brief times, he MUST HAVE BEEN SOME WHITE-HOT SUPER-NOVA.
Yes? Or do stat men throw logic like that out their window?

Bill Burgess

AG2004

07-29-2004, 10:52 PM

I guess I see Ewing more as a multi-positional player than as a catcher. Yes, catcher was his primary position, but he played in 1315 games during his career, and caught in only 636 of them. He also made 253 appearances at first, 193 in right field, 127 at third base, and some appearances at the remaining 5 positions. In 1887, during mid-career, he played more games at third base than at catcher, which is something that's a little hard to reconcile with the phrase "best catcher ever."

To be fair, most of the appearances at first and in right came in the 1890s, after he was no longer a catcher. We're left with just eight seasons in which he was a full-time player who was primarily a catcher: 1881, 1883, 1884, 1885, 1886, 1888, 1889, and 1890. (In 1882 Ewing also played more games at third than at catcher.)

Was Ewing one of the all-time greats at his peak? Yes. But taking into account a combination of peak and career performances, I'll have to go with Gibson.

nightal

07-29-2004, 11:53 PM

No intent to fight here, but: How can anyone rank Gibson ahead of Bench??
I just do not get it.

ElHalo

07-30-2004, 12:06 AM

Wally Schang is one of the most underrated players in the history of baseball.

As for Hartnett... his homer in the gloamin is probably the number one moment in Cubs history since 1908 (or maybe number 2, depending on how you feel about Steve Bartman), but he DID play for the Cubs... and if you play for the Cubs, you're going to get overlooked. Just going to happen that way.

But, basically... why does no one ever mention Schang as one of the great catchers? Because he most certainly was.

No intent to fight here, but: How can anyone rank Gibson ahead of Bench??
I just do not get it.

Because Bench had a career batting average below .270, and because Bench wasn't (arguably) the greatest power hitter in the history of baseball.

leecemark

07-30-2004, 12:27 AM

--We've got a great thread going here. 32 votes in already and a real horse race in progress. As of 30 seconds ago, Bench 10, Gibson 9 and Berra losing steam with 6. Piazza and Cochrane are tied for 4th with 2 votes each.

nightal

07-30-2004, 12:50 AM

Because Bench had a career batting average below .270, and because Bench wasn't (arguably) the greatest power hitter in the history of baseball.

I agree Bench wasn't the greatest power hitter, of course, but where do you get your, obviously, unaproachable evidence?
Again, just asking. no smart--- reply needed.

ElHalo

07-30-2004, 01:08 AM

I agree Bench wasn't the greatest power hitter, of course, but where do you get your, obviously, unaproachable evidence?
Again, just asking. no smart--- reply needed.

What do you mean by "unaproachable evidence"? Obviously it's an arguable point; Bench is considered the greatest defensive catcher in history, while Gibson was considered an above average, though unspectacular, defensive catcher.

However...

As a 17 year old rookie, Gibson hit .461 for the Homestead Grays... as a 17 year old, he hit a 500 foot home run into left field at Yankee Stadium. Moving to the Pittsburgh Crawfords, Gibson hit .467 with 55 home runs in 137 games in 1933, then followed it up with 69 home runs in 1934.

When the Crawfords played in parks that didn't have outfield fences, outfielders would play Gibson at greater than 400 feet, to catch his would-be homers. He used to routinely hit home runs out of Yankee Stadium and the Polo Grounds, and once hit a home run out of Farmer's Park in East Orange, NJ, that cleared the outfield fence, and then cleared a two story train station beyond the left field fence.

In 1937, after Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb and Oscar Charleston and Rogers Hornsby had come and gone, Cum Posey called Josh Gibson "the best ballplayer, white or colored, that we have seen in all our years of following baseball."

Jimmie Foxx once said that Josh Gibson was a better hitter than Foxx. If you can get a guy who's a better hitter than Jimmie Foxx, and make him an above average defensive catcher... that guy's the best catcher of all time.

Of course, some people don't put as much weight in negro league stats or players... and that's a point that can certainly be argued. The overall talent of the negro leagues wasn't anywhere near as high as the major leagues, and Gibson did suffer tremendously from mental breakdowns late in his life that probably would have kept him from being able to cope with the stresses of being a black player in major league baseball... but if even half of the information about Gibson's hitting is true, then he was as good of a hitter as, say, Mickey Mantle. And if Mickey Mantle played catcher and could still hit like Mickey Mantle... well, suffice it to say he'd be better than Johnny Bench.

leecemark

07-30-2004, 01:10 AM

ElHalo

07-30-2004, 01:11 AM

--ElHalo, I share your admiration for the underrated Schang. I could see the arguement for him as best catcher of the deadball era. I'd even be willing to make it. Enough guys have been better since though, that he is really outclassed in the "great catcher ever" debate.

Well... yeah, completely true. I'd probably have to fudge and hem and haw a lot to even get Schang into the top 10 catchers ever. But he's a lot better than he's given credit for... which is easy, since he's given no credit whatsoever.

pretorius

07-30-2004, 01:33 AM

I have seen lists that rates Ewing as a top 5 player all-time. As good as Cobb and Wagner according to some.

Just one great I havent seen mentioned is Roger Bresnahan. In fact I am shocked Schang and Johnny Kling were mentioned and he wasnt. Walter Johnson says Dickey and Kling. Ruth said Schalk. Cobb and Lajoie said Cochrane. Fred Lieb said Bresnahan.

I am not sure what that paragraph was about but I say that the nominees should probably be.....

Ewing
Bresnahan
Kling
Schalk
Cochrane
Hartnett
Lombardi
Dickey
Schang
Berra
Campanella
Elston Howard
Joe Torre
Bench
Gary Carter
Fisk
Benito Santiago
Ted Simmons
Piazza
Ivan Rod.*
Mackey
Gibson
New additions...Del Crandall and Bill Freehan.
and just for my drunk uncle Phil who swears Lance Parrish is the best catcher ever.

Rick Ferrell is usually listed amongst the greats...I just do not see why. He is generally regarded for his offenise ability....which sucked...his brother the famous hitting pitcher Wes Ferrell was a better hitter. Rick stinks.

I picked I-Rod.

four tool

07-30-2004, 04:41 AM

What do you mean by "unaproachable evidence"? Obviously it's an arguable point; Bench is considered the greatest defensive catcher in history, while Gibson was considered an above average, though unspectacular, defensive catcher.

However...

As a 17 year old rookie, Gibson hit .461 for the Homestead Grays... as a 17 year old, he hit a 500 foot home run into left field at Yankee Stadium. Moving to the Pittsburgh Crawfords, Gibson hit .467 with 55 home runs in 137 games in 1933, then followed it up with 69 home runs in 1934.

When the Crawfords played in parks that didn't have outfield fences, outfielders would play Gibson at greater than 400 feet, to catch his would-be homers. He used to routinely hit home runs out of Yankee Stadium and the Polo Grounds, and once hit a home run out of Farmer's Park in East Orange, NJ, that cleared the outfield fence, and then cleared a two story train station beyond the left field fence.

In 1937, after Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb and Oscar Charleston and Rogers Hornsby had come and gone, Cum Posey called Josh Gibson "the best ballplayer, white or colored, that we have seen in all our years of following baseball."

Jimmie Foxx once said that Josh Gibson was a better hitter than Foxx. If you can get a guy who's a better hitter than Jimmie Foxx, and make him an above average defensive catcher... that guy's the best catcher of all time.

Of course, some people don't put as much weight in negro league stats or players... and that's a point that can certainly be argued. The overall talent of the negro leagues wasn't anywhere near as high as the major leagues, and Gibson did suffer tremendously from mental breakdowns late in his life that probably would have kept him from being able to cope with the stresses of being a black player in major league baseball... but if even half of the information about Gibson's hitting is true, then he was as good of a hitter as, say, Mickey Mantle. And if Mickey Mantle played catcher and could still hit like Mickey Mantle... well, suffice it to say he'd be better than Johnny Bench.
Also, one major league scout was raving a bout a catcher after a trip to the south. he can do everything, any major league team would want him Bill Dickey isn't as good a catcher, too bad he's black.

The only defensive knock on Gibbie I ever saw was that he was soft on pop-ups behind the plate--otherwise he was considered great defensively.

I can't rate him #1 (mine is Berra) because he didn't play in the majors so it'as hard to compare him to those who did. I rate him #3 all time for that reason, Bench is #2

RuthMayBond

07-30-2004, 07:23 AM

very speculative human element opinion from a numbers guy.

Do not disregard the fact that Gibson had a mental illness.
Not very speculative from a guy who's read about LOTS of guys saying how great Gibson was. Probably Cobb & Waddell had mental illnesses too

RuthMayBond

07-30-2004, 07:25 AM

well, there's still one fact that you just can't overcome... Hartnett played for the Cubs. That's pretty much the end of the conversation right there.Yeah, not as good as the immortal Charlie Silvera :laugh

RuthMayBond

07-30-2004, 07:30 AM

RMB,

You just get back from vacation. I bid you a fond adeau, welcome back and graciously invite you to check this out, and you go nuts.

To answer your ingraciatingly-warm inquiry about whether those who advocated Buck Ewing as the best catcher ever, YES, they did watch BB after 1900.

Clark Griffith was player, manager, owner until 1955.
William B. Hanna was a working NYC sports writer till his death in 1930.
Ned Hanlon managed until 1907.
Francis Richter was the editor-in-chief of Reach BB Guide until he died in 1926.
John B. Foster was his counterpart of Spalding BB Guide until he died in 1941.
Connie Mack managed from 1901-50.
John McGraw both played and managed from 1901-32.
Grantland Rice wrote sports until his death in 1954. America's greatest.
Sam Crane, a former ML 2B, was a much loved NYC spwr. till his death in '25.
Joe Vila was a NYC spwr. until his death in 1934.

Question for you. Seeing as Buck only caught 636 games, it would seem that for those brief times, he MUST HAVE BEEN SOME WHITE-HOT SUPER-NOVA.
Yes? Or do stat men throw logic like that out their window?If I had "gone nuts", you would have known it. So SEVEN of the above-mentioned ten couldn't have possibly seen any baseball after 1941. Yes ,he was good while he played, but I'm not putting John Paciorek at the top of any list

RuthMayBond

07-30-2004, 07:32 AM

I just glanced over one of my files, all time all star teams, and counted up the catchers. 130 teams, starting from1915 and going through 2002.

1. Cochrane 50
2. Dickey 41
3. Ewing 19
4. Kling 14
5. Hartnett 13
6. Schalk 9
7. Kelly 6
8. Bergen 3So two guys are WAY ahead of Ewing and there are two other guys nipping at his heels

Brad Harris

07-30-2004, 07:43 AM

I'll stick with Johnny Bench.

Bench is still considered, by a majority of people, to have most likely been the greatest defensive catcher in history. His offensive contributions are extremely underrated because of the era in which he played. Bench was the leader of his teams (not Rose, not Morgan, not Perez). Bench played in baseball's most balanced competitive climate ever and was twice named the Most Valuable Player in the league. Bench played against integrated competition whereas most catchers on these lists did not.

The only knock against Bench is his problems with his knees which forced him to move to first base for a few years, prolonging his career, but dropping his rate stats where he is compared to an average player (like TPR). Personally, I think in discussing who the "greatest" is, we are primarily discussing how great someone was at their peak. Bench's peak is certainly the most impressive of anyone on this list, in my opinion. At least when you consider all the surrounding factors (like environment and quality of competition).

The only two catchers I might rank as high are Buck Ewing and Josh Gibson and I'll tell you why I continue to select Bench over either of them.

Buck Ewing was certainly the greatest catcher in baseball history from the time he played until the Age of Messers. Cochrane, Hartnett and Dickey. Ewing was certainly one of the best players (regardless of position) of his era. However, Ewing was born before the Civil War and died at the age of 47, shortly after his retirement from the game. He certainly wasn't as physically gifted as Bench (or any great athlete born more than a hundred years later.) The competition Ewing faced wasn't necessarily the best in the country at that time as the many of the top "minor" league teams and players were of "major league" caliber. Ewing never had to face the top black or latino athletes in the hemisphere, either. In terms of dominating their respective eras, I can see where Ewing might be considered better than Bench, but in terms of the quality of baseball being played in those eras and doing cross-era comparisons of the all-time greats, I don't see how Ewing could be considered better than Bench at all. Bench excelled against a much higher level of competition, making his dominance more impressive (in my opinion.) Finally, on a defensive note, the catcher's position wasn't quite the same as living fans are prone to think of today and I believe that great defense behind the plate in the 1880s and 1890s is less impressive than great defense behind the plate in the modern era.

Josh Gibson, on the other hand, is less well-documented by meaningful and accurate statistics than the major leaguers we're comparing. Though the anecdotal (and available statistical) evidence is useful to an extent and, no doubt, very impressive, Gibson played primarily in an era that was hitter-friendly in the major leagues and didn't play in the organized "white" leagues. No doubt the competition he faced was top-notch, but Gibson's absence from the major leagues (through no fault of his own) makes comparing him to Bench an extremely difficult exercise if one is to be fair to all sides. Personally, I have Gibson rated as the #2 catcher of all-time, right behind Bench (with almost no room to spare) and I'm sure that if Gibson had played in an integrated major leagues that he would have been considered the greatest catcher in history at least until the time Bench played (if not still). However, I can't accurately project Gibson as the #1 catcher without feeling as though I'm stretching the analysis and giving extra credit because I want to believe the results.

Putting Ewing or Gibson over Bench requires adopting a line of reasoning that I'm uncomfortable with and feel would be wrong-headed in such a comparison. I have to stick with Bench. Gibson #2. Ewing is #5 in my book (after Berra and Cochrane).

leecemark

07-30-2004, 07:50 AM

--Pretorius, thats pretty close to my my top 20. You can't get that deep without including Bill Freehan though. Tell Uncle Phil Lance was good, but not even the best modern Tiger catcher. Freehan was an 11 time All Star in the 60s and early 70s.

trosmok

07-30-2004, 10:08 AM

When you start comparing players from different eras, you inevitably run into difficulties bcause of how the game has evolved. Any time you want to compare players, particularly ones who were not allowed to play in the bigs, you must also analyze the quality of the league and era they did play in. I still rank Gibson, Mackey, and even Campanella ahead of Bench and Berra, because their competition and conditions were far more challenging. Furthermore, I believe there is overwhelming evidence the Negro Leagues were actually superior in several facets of our national pastime; pitching, basestealing, bunting, hit and run, and of course, long ball. Josh Gibson often guaranteed hitting at least one HR per game, and even made good on his boasts when he claimed he'd hit two. As a nineteen year old, he hit 75 dingers in 77 games, often without the benefit of fences, meaning he had to hit the ball a long long way, and motor around the bases as fast as he could. Satchel Paige was 22-7 v. MLB all-stars in exhibitions, two of those losses the 1-0 variety. (You can look that up, it's well documented.) Webster "Submarine" McDonald was 14-2 against MLB stars, and beat Dizzy Dean four straight, by scores of 7-1, 1-0, 7-1, and 11-1. That too, is well documented by the white press. Kyle McNary has writtten a tremendous website:
http://www.pitchblackbaseball.com

and while he seems to have overlooked Biz Mackey in his compilation of bests, it contains some very good historical facts about the negro leagues. One faq he answered, if I may give you his food for thought...
Q.) What were the differnces between Negro Leaguers and Major Leaguers?
A. In quality of play, not much....they not only were Major League calibre, but in exhibitions against Major League teams, they dominated, winning more than 60% of the time...

Please visit his site, as well as many others to get a better feel for how baseball was played until MLB was fully integrated, 1959, or two years after Jackie Robinson retired.

Bill Burgess

07-30-2004, 01:59 PM

Chancellor,

Thank you so much for contributing your erudition here. Always a pleasure! I'm going to stick with Ewing for a number of reasons, most of which are not obvious.

When Buck Ewing squatted down behind the plate from 1880-93, he defined what a superstar behind the plate was and should be. He was the living embodiment of such an elite athlete, thinking man's catcher, that his remote like hasn't been seen since. He was later called a Ty Cobb behind the plate, having catalogued all of the oppositions weaknesses & strengths. His encyclopedic comprehension of the hitters allowed his pitchers to relax and know the game would be called perfectly. Engendered confidence.

1. I believe that the first job of a catcher is to call a great game. To know the opposition batters and play to their weaknesses. To handle & steady your staff, coax winning efforts out of them. This I feel Ewing did better than anybody else, save possible Cochrane, who caught Grove, George Earnshaw, and Rube Walberg, Tommy Bridges, and Schoolboy Rowe.

Buck Ewing caught Mickey Welch, Tim Keefe, and Ed Crane. Crane was the fastest pitcher of his day, and they called him Hercules. Most of his catchers got their hands torn apart by his pitches, until he came to Buck.

2. I believe that the second job of a catcher is to prevent base runners from runnering on your team. This Ewing did better than any one else in history, until he threw out his shoulder in the spring of 1892. He caught 32 games in that year, then switched positions. And when he did that, I feel he went from being a superstar top 10 player all time, to merely a very good ballplayer.

The only other catchers who were reputed to rival the Ewing arm were Charlie Bennett of his day, and Jimmy Archer, from the '09-19 era. Archer was the only other guy I've heard of, who could use the technique of firing the ball with the wristsnap from his squatting position. Incidently, Charlie Bennet was Ewing's true catching rival, not Mike Kelly.

3. I believe that the other jobs of a catcher, hitting, base running, were good strong points of Buck, but not world class. Buck obviously was the greatest baserunning catcher in BB history, but I don't dwell on that. He hit very well indeed, but he wasn't the hitter that some of the other great catchers were.

The pre -1900 catchers lived in a very different world than those who played later. Catching in that era was brutal and gruelling. I doubt is anyone here can imagine just how tough a catcher had to be then. Let's have some fun.

Let's bring Bench, Yogi, Piazza, Cochrane, Dickey, Hartnett, Rodriguez, all back to 1800 with us, via time machine.

1. First, let's let them get the feel for the park, with all it's cow pasture charms. Now let's let the game begin. Bench is sqatting down, ready to take the first pitch, when the ump, stands up, and suddenly says to Johnny, "Not so fast, Mr. Bench. You didn't think it was going to be this easy, did you?"

So, now our ump waves his Magic Wand, and the park morphs and the pitchers mound is now suddenly uncomfortably closer to him!!! Bench gulps.
"Man, are you kiddin' me?, says Johnny. "Nope. No sir. We play this way every day." "OK", says Johnny. "I'm ready".

But just before the pitcher is ready to make his first pitch, the ump suddenly straightens up and says, "Time out!"

This time, he looks at poor Johnny and says, "I'll be having those things, sir." Pointing at Bench's shin guards. "Oh no you don't". "Then your out of here."

"And while we're at it, here, try these on instead." The ump hands Bench a catcher's mask with very thin metal face guard, and takes away his very thick metal mask.

In the game, the pitches do all kinds of weird dips, skids, and flutters. Johnny Bench's hands take an awful beating. He has a hard time catching with the huge "pillow" glove the ump made him use. He was used to the good webbing, hinge-closing, supple gloves modern catchers used. This old monstrosity makes you catch the ball in the pocket, it has no webbing, and is all but impossible to scoop up the balls in the dirt, prevent passed balls, and protect his exposed knees and shins. So physically Johnny takes a hell of a beating.

All during this game, it slowly begins to dawn on Mr. Bench, exactly why it is, that those old time catchers only caught part time each season, and played other postions like OF/1B.

It wasn't that they weren't tough, or ironmen, it wasn't possible back then. Not without shinguards, a closer mound, crazy damn pitches that were almost impossible to catch with those heinous gloves. Johnny allow himself to imagine only for a moment the prospect of catching Amos Rusie, at a closer distance, without shinguards. Good Lord, I hope they had jock strap cups back then!

These were just some of the factors which prevented the pre-1900 catchers from catching full seasons. Not that nobody did it, it just wasn't wise to have your #1 catcher take that much punishment. It was something like the way we protect our pitchers today, by limiting their pitchcount and saving their arms.

To those who criticize me for sticking with Buck Ewing with his 636 games caught, I hope this shows why many pre- 1900 catchers didn't catch full seasons, and then Buck threw out his forearm in the spring of 1892, at the early age of 32. But he continued to play out his career in the OF/1B. Didn't Bench and now Piazza playing other positions? How long would Bench and Yogi lasted without shin guards? Food for thought!

PS. In the ancient times, pre-1900, many great catchers played very few games behind the plate. Many played other positions, due to the stress that crouching placed on their knees. A few of their records are:

Deacon White: caught 226 g, out of 1299 total
Buck Ewing: caught 636 g, out of 1315 total, almost all in '80's. After that he lost his arm, and played 1B/OF in 90's.
Jim O'Rourke: caught 209 g, out of 1774
Mike "King" Kelly: caught 583 g, out of 1455. Mostly OF throughout career.
Roger Bresnahan: caught 974 g, out of 1446. Mostly OF otherwise.
Marty Bergen: caught 337 g, out of 344. Only played 4 seasons, 1896-99, before his mental illness caused him to take his own & families lives.
Charlie Bennet: caught 954 g, out of 1062. OF otherwise.

Note: Yogi Berra: caught 1699 g, out of 2120. Played OF late in career.

Bill Burgess

baclightning

07-30-2004, 02:58 PM

Chancellor,

2. I believe that the second job of a catcher is to prevent base runners from runnering on your team. This Ewing did better than any one else in history, until he threw out his shoulder in the spring of 1892.

Bill Burgess

Here's some information on how Johnny Bench cut off the running game. The first column is year (obviously). The second is games caught by Bench. Next is stolen bases against Bench, followed by runners caught stealing, then SB% against Bench.

Next comes the NL total for that year, and average number of steals for NL teams. ADJ is expected figure against an average NL catcher, adjusted for the number of games Bench actually caught. The % figure indicates how many bases were stolen gainst Bench as would have been expected to have been stolen against an average NL catcher.

Year GC SBA CS SB% League Lg AVG ADJ %
1969 147 30 40 .429 817 68 62 .486
1970 139 32 30 .516 1045 87 75 .428
1971 141 37 27 .578 900 75 65 .567
1972 129 24 32 .429 954 80 67 .360
1973 134 28 27 .509 976 81 67 .416
1974 137 37 35 .514 1254 105 88 .419
1975 121 32 27 .542 1176 98 73 .437
1976 128 57 42 .576 1364 114 90 .635
1977 135 64 42 .604 1555 130 108 .593
1978 107 49 35 .583 1533 128 84 .581
1979 126 70 45 .609 1486 124 96 .727

1444 460 382 .546 13060 1088 886 .519

The results are pretty eye-popping. For the entire period, Bench allowed .519 stolen bases compared to the average NL catcher - in other worlds, teams stole just about half as many bases against him as an average catcher.

In 1972, one of his two MVP years, and one in which he led the league in home runs and RBI, base stealers were successful against him 43% of the time - the league average was 63%. But teams weren't just unsuccessful gainst Bench - they also wouldn't try to run on him as often as an average catcher. Teams stole 36% as many bases against Bench that year as they would against an average NL catcher.

If that isn't cutting off the running game, I don't know what is...

AG2004

07-30-2004, 03:56 PM

Chancellor,

PS. In the ancient times, pre-1900, many great catchers played very few games behind the plate. Many played other positions, due to the stress that crouching placed on their knees. A few of their records are:

Deacon White: caught 226 g, out of 1299 total
Buck Ewing: caught 636 g, out of 1315 total, almost all in '80's. After that he lost his arm, and played 1B/OF in 90's.
Jim O'Rourke: caught 209 g, out of 1774
Mike "King" Kelly: caught 583 g, out of 1455. Mostly OF throughout career.
Roger Bresnahan: caught 974 g, out of 1446. Mostly OF otherwise.
Marty Bergen: caught 337 g, out of 344. Only played 4 seasons, 1896-99, before his mental illness caused him to take his own & families lives.
Charlie Bennet: caught 954 g, out of 1062. OF otherwise.

Note: Yogi Berra: caught 1699 g, out of 2120. Played OF late in career.

Bill Burgess

And let's not forget (just among those playing sometime in 1887)
Pop Snyder: caught 877 g, out of 930 (including National Association games).
Jack Clements: caught 1073 g, out of 1157.
Chief Zimmer: caught 1239 g, out of 1280.
Wilbert Robinson: caught 1316 g, out of 1371.
Deacon McGuire: caught 1611 g, out of 1781.

However, I'm wondering what happened to Ewing himself in 1887. Here are the number of games in which the following people caught for the New York (NL) club that season:

Williard Brown - 46. 21-year-old rookie.
Jim O'Rourke - 40. 36-year-old; one of only three seasons where he caught more than 15 games, and the only one where he played more games at catcher than at any other single position.
Pat Deasley - 24.
Pat Murphy - 17. 30-year-old making his first major league appearances.
Buck Ewing - 8.

Ewing played 19 games at 2nd and 51 at 3rd. This is in the middle of Ewing's prime years as a catcher, remember. Jim O'Rourke appeared in 38 games at 3rd that year, so it seems that Ewing could have had more appearances at catcher and O'Rourke could have had more appearances at third that season.

The 1887 season doesn't seem consistent with Ewing's being the greatest catcher ever. Does anyone know why Ewing was playing 3rd so often that year instead of catching?

Bill Burgess

07-30-2004, 04:22 PM

In my previous post, I offered the opinion that Buck Ewing was the all time master at calling a great game. But I offered no evidence to back up my opinion. I think that the quality of your pitchers might lend some credibility to my claim. Hence, I'd like to offer the following in support of my assertion.

Mickey Welch------- Tim Keefe------------- Ed Crane
Year W-L ERA+------Year W-L ERA+-------Year W-L ERA+
1880 34-30 99------ 1880 6~6 294-----
1881 21-18 111----- 1881 18-27 91-----
1882 14-16 82------ 1882 17-26 113-----
1883 25-23 114-----
1884 39-21 119-----
1885 41-11 160----- 1885 32-15 169-----
1886 33-22 108----- 1886 42-20 126-----
1887 22-15 112----- 1887 35-19 121-----
1888 26-19 142----- 1888 35-12 157----- 1888 5~6 113
1889 27-12 130----- 1889 28-13 119----- 1889 14-10 107-----
1890 17-11 134----- 1890 16-19 98-----

Here are other pitchers that Buck Ewing caught in his ML career.

Ed Begley
Year W-L ERA+
1884 12~18 72

Cannonball Titcomb
Year W-L ERA+
1887 4~3 97
1888 14-8 122
1889 1~2 69

Hank O'Day
Year W-L ERA+
1889 9~1 92
1890 22-13 108

John Ewing (no relation that I know of)
Year W-L ERA+
1890 18-12 107

So I hope the above "evidence" demonstrates my assertion, that Buck handled his pitching staffs with the required finesse/control to merit my title of Greatest Handler of Pitchers.

I don't have stats on how many basethieves he shot down, or the % of SB he gave up. And that's too bad. That would have been a very relevant stat indeed to keep. But they didn't. What were they NOT thinking.

Bill Burgess

Bill Burgess

07-30-2004, 05:08 PM

AG2004,

Nice posting. I know that there were many exceptions to my assertion that the pattern was for most of the good pre - 1900 catchers to not catch for full seasons, and hence they played OF a lot, and 1B, etc.

But I suspect that if the majority of the good ones were looked up, more would be found to be part time catchers most of the time. By part-time, I mean from 60-90 games/yr. Why? I really can't say.

I suspect that crouching was a big strain. If you notice, a lot of the older photos, some of the catchers didn't actually squat down on their haunches the way modern catchers do. Some kind of bent over, as if bowing, and that might have created a huge stress on their backs. And they didn't stand right in back of the plate either. They were back more, with the umps behind them.

I also suspect that they caught so few games per season because of injuries. With the doctored balls they were allowed to throw, a lot of errand ball hit their hands, split their nails, banged their shins, rickocheed off their knees, etc. It is known that a lot of the old catchers ended up with gnarled, grotesquely distorted fingers. Here is an excerpt from my Charlie Bennet post from my Ty Cobb Thread.

"When he was forced to give up baseball, Bennett came back to Detroit and became adept at painting chinaware. First he tried it as a pastime
and later as means of livelihood. It was with characteristic patience that Bennett trained his distorted fingers in the delicate art of china painting.
. . . it is certain that Bennett ranked with the greatest catchers of his period. Above all else, he was loyal to his job, frequently sticking behind
the plate when suffering intense pain from injuries sustained in the line of duty.
James Hart, manager of the old Boston club, has told how Bennett once insisted on catching though his hands were torn and bleeding.
In fact, Bennett had caught several innings before it was known he was jnjured. The knowledge did not come from Bennett but from John
Clarkson, his pitcher, who griped that when the ball was returned to him, it was stained with blood. Even when Clarkson reported it to Manage-
ment, Bennett protested against leaving the game and it was only after much insisting that he consented to leave."
(Thursday, Sporting News, March 3, 1927, pp. by Sam Greene)

Bill Burgess

PS. Looks like from the polling, that my discourse hasn't changed any minds. But I'm trying like heck. RMB must be busting up his furniture by now! Oh well.

Bill Burgess

07-30-2004, 05:27 PM

baclightning,

I didn't know they kept records of catcher's SB %, etc.

You wouldn't happen to know when they began keeping those records. I'd love to have those records for pre-1950 catchers. Where are those records kept/stored?

Bill Burgess

leecemark

07-30-2004, 05:28 PM

--Bill, I think there is a pretty good correlation between how good a hitter early catchers were and how much they played other positions relative to catcher. We all know that catching wears a player down and depresses offensive numbers. That was even more true under the grueling conditions faced by catchers in Ewing's day.
--You've downplayed Ewing's value as a hitter, but I don't understand why. He was one of the best hitting players ever to spend time behind the plate. His career OPS+ would be second all time amoung catchers had he caught enough to qualify (and maintained it while doing so). His teams wanted his bat in the line up and limited his time behind the plate to keep him fresh and hitting.
--Until about 1920 most catchers who could hit, such as Bresnahan and Schang, often played other positions to keep them in the lineup. Schang was the regular catcher for the A's 1913-14 champions, but played more 3B-OF than catcher in 1915-16 after Connie Mack sold off most of his big hitters and needed Wally's bat in there everyday. Schang returned to catching with Boston in 1917 and was an outstanding backstop for the remainder of his career. Roger Bresnahan had his best offensive seasons playing CF. It wasn't that they weren't very good catchers, just that it was more difficult to stay in the lineup ad hit to their ability when doing so. For some like Charlie Bennett or Ray Schalk whose primary value was defensive there wasn't much payoff in getting him some time elsewhere.
--I wouldn't infer too much about the catching abilities of men from that era based on the percentage of games played elsewhere. Generally it says more about their value to the team as hitters.

Bill Burgess

07-30-2004, 06:35 PM

leecemark,

Very excellent insights. I've always believed that after the pitcher, the catcher is the hardest working man on the field. And if a catcher is also a very good general ballplayer, I can see how a team might want to conserve him by playing him in the OF, which must seem like a vacation to him.

Honus Wagner once joked that OFs should have to pay to get into the ballpark.

I know that Buck Ewing and Roger Bresnahan were always called very great all around players. Because they could handle things apart from the tools of ignorance. But that's not what I'm talking about. When Ewing played other positions, he had his least value, compared to his catching.

We know that Monte Monte & Tim Keefe called him the greatest all-around player who ever lived until they died. And Francis Richter and John B. Foster agreed with them. But Richter finally switched to Cobb in 1924. Foster never switched. What they really meant is that when Ewing caught, he had more value than any other position player, in their opinion. When he played elsewhere, he was merely very good, but not great. When I refer to him with such high regard, I am restricting my praise to him when he squatted behind the plate, and only then. I think this is a case when stats are limited. Catchers stats, in my opionion are the least relevant of all, since they can tell us so little of how a man handles his staff, or guns down enemy runners.

Oh how I'll relish having stats for all eras of catchers for SB% on enemy runners, etc. I think those would vindicate my high regard for Buck.

The reason I don't dwell on Ewing's bat is that he was a good but not league leading hitter. He could also run, but that doesn't help me prove how great I think he was. I consider him a top 10 all time player until he hurt his arm. After that I rate him a very good player, but not a top 100 player. A man in that era who could hit in the top 10 in his league, ran well, and played OF/1B, isn't special, and we wouldn't be talking about him.

But factor in the catcher's positional strategic importance, his encyclopedic catalogue of hitter's weaknesses, his wristsnap bullets to the bags, which nailed enemy runners from taking leads, his ability to coax winning efforts out of pitchers like Ed Crane, Ed Bagley, Hank O'Day, Titcomb, and John Ewing, AND THEN come in with his hitting & running, and you have something VERY SPECIAL, almost magical.

Bill Burgess

leecemark

07-30-2004, 07:41 PM

--I'm not sure people really had the same concept of positional value in the early days that we do now. Besides the catchers we've talked about some early great SS's spent considerable time at other positions. Most of us are aware Honus Wagner bounced around the diamond for several years before settling at SS. For the record, he was in his 7th season before moving there full time. He previously had seasons where his most played position was CF, RF, 3b and 1B. To me it seems inconcievable that someone reputed to be a great defensive shortstop could spend that much time elsewhere before finding his home. However, then I see George Davis who was in his 8th season before moving to short, having spent 2 years in CF and 5 at 3B prior to that. Its no surprise to see an Ernie Banks or Robin Yount moving to a less demanding position. It is hard for me to understand someone spending the early years elsewhere, then ending up at SS - and being considered amoung the best there. Almost impossible to imagine that happening today.

Bill Burgess

07-30-2004, 07:44 PM

leecemark,

Re: My all-time all star file of 137 teams

1910's - 6 teams
1920's - 7 teams
1930's - 20 teams
1940's - 30 teams
1950's - 24 teams
1960's - 17 teams
1970's - 3 teams
1980's - 19 teams
1990's - 8 teams
2000's - 3 teams

Revised tabulation of catchers selected:
Cochrane 50, Dickey 41, Ewing 20, Hartnett 19, Kling 15, Schalk 9, Kelly 7, Bresnahan 7, Berra 6, Bench 6, Campanella 3, Criger 3, Bergen 2, Steve O'Neil 2, Lombardi 2, Severeid 2, and one each for Tom Daley, Killifer, Billy O'Sullivan, Connie Mack!, Luke Sewell, Charlie Bennett, Jimmy Archer.

Those voters who voted after 1990 were: Steven Wulf (espn spwr.), John P. McCarthy, Shirly Povich, Pete Palmer, Bob Broeg, Donald Honig, Glenn Dickey, Furman Bisher, Leonard Koppet, Bill James, Herman L. Masin.

Baseball Digest's All-Time Top 10 by Position - 1994
C - Bench, Campanella, Berra, Josh Gibson, Dickey, Carter, Fisk, Harnett, Schalk

October, 1998, Sporting News, 100 Greatest Baseball Players:
16. Bench, 18. Josh Gibson, 40. Berra, 50. Campanella, 57. Dickey, 65. Cochrane.

If you email me at william_burgess@usa.net, I will email you my file. It's very entertaining. Not intended to prove anything. Will mail to anyone else on request. Need personal email address.

Bill Burgess

Bill Burgess

07-30-2004, 08:11 PM

ElHalo

07-30-2004, 08:19 PM

"Almost impossible to imagine that happening today."

Banks, Musial, Carew, Yount, A-Rod, Kent, Molitor, etc.

Quite a few have had 2 position careers. What started with the early careers, then Wagner, then Joe Wood, and then . . . the BABE.

And it is hard to believe.

Bill Burgess

Bill,

He wasn't saying that it's hard to imagine a two postion player today... he was saying it's hard to imagine a guy going from the outfield, or first base, to SS. Banks moved from SS to first, Musial moved from LF to first, Carew moved from 2B to first, ARod moved from SS to 3B, Molitor moved to DH... all moves from harder positions to easier positions, in an effort to prolong careers (or, in ARod's case, to keep him from getting lynched by NY fans for being "that guy who made Jeter have to move").

Wagner moved to SS. That's not something that would be easy to invision happening in today's world.

Bill Burgess

07-30-2004, 10:19 PM

ElHalo,

Sorry I misread your previous post on Schang instead of Hartnett. I guess I misread leecemark's post too. Alzeimer's is a baffling disease.

RMB:
Cobb didn't have mental illness, despite what Al Stump might have surmised. Ever hear of a mentally ill person maxing out on the stock market. Requires deft, delicate value judgements quite beyond the mentally ill. But if you cared to accuse him of being EMOTIONALLY ill, your point might be difficult to defend against.

Rube Waddell: In my opinion, he was a high-functioning adult autistic. That is a form of brain damage, so he was mentally retarded. I guess that qualifies for mental illness.

Bill Burgess

baclightning

07-31-2004, 01:31 AM

leecemark

07-31-2004, 07:31 AM

--There have been plenty of cases where someone shuffled around the infield for a few years before establishing themselves. None as long as Wagner or Davis and certainly none who spent significant time at much easier defensive positions like 1B or RF as Wagner did. Bill Russell is the only player I can think of in my lifetime who converted from OF to SS and he was more of an OF-IF utility guy. He was in his 4th season, but first as a regular when he took over at SS for the Dodgers. Wagner was an everyday player and the star of his team for 6 years before they decided it would be a good idea to put him at SS. George Davis for 7. Can you imagine the Mariners sticking A-Rod or the Bosox Garciaparra at 1B early in their careers?
--Generally (depending somewhat on the needs of the team) a player today will spend their peak at the most difficult defensive posiiton they are capapable of playing well (or even decently). Its not that hard to find a hitter to fill first or right. It is pretty rare to find a great hitting shortstop. The value of a hitter increases with a move to a more difficult position.
--Biggio's career path is interesting, but each of his moves have been to a less stressfull position (although the move to CF was made for Kent's benefit more than Biggio's). He was moved from catcher to second to save his legs and keep his bat fresh. If he had shuttled back and forth instead of moving permanently that would be more like the usage patterns for Ewing, Bresnahan and Schang which begat this discussion.

Bill Burgess

07-31-2004, 10:29 AM

leecemark,

Yes, I can see your points about the pattern going to less stressful positions. That does make a good deal of sense. Made tons of sense in the cases of past greats like The Babe, and to a much lesser extent for George Sisler to go from the mound to 1st base to cash in on his all-around ability.

The most unusual, weird case that few ever mention is the case of John Montgomery Ward, commonly known as "Monte" Ward. He began as a great college pitching prospect, and did indeed fullfill his promise. His ML pithcing career went thusly:

1878 - 22-13,
1879 - 47-19
1880 - 39-24
1881 - 18-18
1882 - 19-12
1883 - 16-13
1884 - 3-3

At that point he hurt his arm and never pitched again. Did he retire? I'll say not! All the while he had pitched, he had ALSO played the OF, and by 1885, he had mastered SS, which he played until he retired after 1894 season.

He had also been pretty bright, and had gone to college while he played ball, earned his law degree, from night courses, passed the bar with honors, all while a star pitcher.

He was so highly thought of, he was the major guy behind the Players League, which only existed for 1890. It folded through no fault of Ward's. He simply rejoined the NL and finished out his string in NYC from 1891-94.

All in all, quite an impressive career. He even won 2 SB titles, stealing 111 in '87, and 88 in '92. He was never a star SS, but was highly enough regarded for his BB smarts to be manager in 1880, '84, '90-94. In his final yr. he led his Giants to a 4 game sweep of the Baltimore Orioles to capture the coveted Temple Cup. He then announced his retirement to pursue his law practice.

Many of his cases regarded baseball. Giants' owner Andrew Freeman had dismissed John after '94, and John won a settelment for Fred Pfeffer, whom Freedman had improperly suspended. In 1909, the NL presidency was open, and John was considered. But fatass Ban Johnson, who remembered John's involvement in the ill-fated 1890 Player's League, proclaimed he could never tolerate being seated at the same table as such a man, whom he regarded as a dishonorable outlaw. John promptly sued his ass for slander, and won an award of $1,000.

He caught pneumonia while hunting in Georgia & died in an Augusta hospital on March 4, 1925, at the age of 65. His wife Catherine (Wass) Ward, was still alive when John was selected to the Hll of fame in 1964. He had also been a part owner of the Boston Braves for 1911-12. (Above information culled from Baseball's Best: The Hall of Fame Gallery, by Martin Appel (text) and Burt Goldblatt (photos), 1980, pp. 384-385.

Bill Burgess

leecemark

07-31-2004, 10:53 AM

--Ward was an exceptional man. One of the great figures of early baseball. I think he will probably get my vote soon as a non-player. He certainly deserves the Hall for his all around achievement, but probabably not as either a pitcher or a shortstop.
--I think the frequency of position switches and the success of players in what were basically entirely separate careers says something both about the mindset of the times and the quality of play. It seems extremely improbable that a pitchers arm could give out in mid-career today and he could make a successfull switch to shortstop (or any position for that matter). There just weren't as many highly skilled players then and they weren't trained to the same highly specialized level.
--Think back to when you were a kid. The best pitcher on your team or in your neighborhood was quite often also the best hitter. The best athletes tend to dominate at lower levels of play - in all aspects of the game. As you move to more sophisticated and higher levels it requires more focus on a specific area to continue to excell.
--The decline in pitchers batting and greatly reduced frequency of players moving from position player to pitcher is another example of the phenomenon. As recently as the 30s and 40s Bucky Walters and Bob Lemon made the majors as position players and went on to become great pitchers. It still happens at the minor league level, but I can't recall such a move by a major leaguer in 50 years (at least anybody who has experienced any significant success doing it). There have been a few experiments (I believe the Brewers have a pitcher/outfielder on their roster now), but I 'm stumped for a true successfull conversion. Anybody else got an example since 1950?

Imapotato

07-31-2004, 06:29 PM

Not very speculative from a guy who's read about LOTS of guys saying how great Gibson was. Probably Cobb & Waddell had mental illnesses too

Waddell most likely (99.9% IMHO) did...he was very good but never hit the greatness mark in my eyes, although he is my favorite player. Now what if Waddell had people egging him on EVERY game...the few times it happened, Rube went flippant and either ran after the guy or hit him.

Josh Gibson being one of the first blacksin baseball would get this on a regular basis...not a great recipe for success is it?

Both Waddell and Gibson had enormous talent...but ALOT of players had enormous talent and fell flat on their face because of attitude, lackadsial attitude...etc. Now raise the bar 200% because of mental illness. Rube Waddell would have never made it out of the minors, if born 40 years later. Baseball had many undesirables in the early 1900's because it was not a very respected profession...as Davy Jones LF for the Tigers during Cobb;s early days said "I dated this lovely young lady, her parents when realizing I was a professional baseball player, forbade her to see me anymore"

During Gibson's time it was becoming much more a business and a part of America.

As for Cobb he didn't have any mental illness, he was just a southerner one generation removed from slavery

Imapotato

07-31-2004, 06:48 PM

What do you mean by "unaproachable evidence"? Obviously it's an arguable point; Bench is considered the greatest defensive catcher in history, while Gibson was considered an above average, though unspectacular, defensive catcher.

However...

As a 17 year old rookie, Gibson hit .461 for the Homestead Grays... as a 17 year old, he hit a 500 foot home run into left field at Yankee Stadium. Moving to the Pittsburgh Crawfords, Gibson hit .467 with 55 home runs in 137 games in 1933, then followed it up with 69 home runs in 1934.

SNIP

Great post El Halo...one...that HR shot is more of a an Urban Legend that gets bigger and more majestic with each passing generation...and it's a 50/50 consensus it did or did not happen.

2nd, in regards to Wally Schang

One thing about Wally is his .967 F%...and his 15 PB per game...which are akin to early 1900 catchers...in the 20's alot of C's even mediocre ones, allowed less then 10 PB and had a F% in the .975-.980 sort of range, due to better equipment.
Then the fact that the put in LF an awful lot...which I consider the weakest OF position...in RF you need a strong arm...if Schang was a C, his arm should be powerful and thus why not RF? but he played only 5 games there.

Then there is just the games played aspect...seems he needed alot of days off, which considering his offensive power...that hurt his team. If there were a DH back then I could see him with Foxx, Simmons, Gehrig...but he just really couldn't play more than 100 games when used soley as a C

As for Bill and his overzealousness of Buck Ewing...I do not see it...
You all know how I feel about talent in today's game...that's how I feel with 19th century players...they were good, but not great. Baseball was something you had as a profession if you were a 'vagabond' back then...usually with an alcohol problem...violent tendencies, little intelligence...and couldn't provide you and your family with an 'honest' profession.

I think Keeler, Stovey, Hoy, Burkett et al... were very good players, but I don't start thinking GREAT until 1905...when baseball started becoming America's pasttime with President's attending, the AL out of its infancy, the NL back from the talent depletion when 75% of its good players jumped to the AL in 1901

Iron Jaw

08-01-2004, 12:14 AM

Cal Ripken spent half of his rookie season at third base before Earl Weaver moved him to shortstop. Ten years from now, we may be shaking our heads at Michael Young playing second base his first three years in the league...

My favorite position odessey of recent years has to be Craig Biggio - catcher to second base to center field. That's pretty unique!

Of course, if Joe Torre had remained at the catcher position, he may well be included in this list. Joe was always a great hitter, but many think he never really liked being behind the plate. During his catching heydey with the Milwaukee and Atlanta Braves, Joe still tended to play a lot of first base. In fact, with the Braves, he never caught over 114 games - he usually played 30-50 at first. The Braves had Gene Oliver as the backup catcher (he also played some first base), and the two flip-flopped quite a bit. When Joe came to St. Louis in 1969, he played first the entire season (oh, he had a few games at the C position, but McCarver was still the Cardinal catcher). When the Cards traded McCarver to the Phillies in 1970, they had Torre, Richie (Dick, Rich, Richard) Allen, and Joe Hague as first sackers. Joe was sent behind the plate again, until young Ted Simmons jelled and became the regular. After catching 90 games in 1970, Joe was switched to third, playing 73 games at the hot corner. A year later, he won the league MVP as a third baseman. Joe was an all star several times at catcher, and three times as a third sacker.

baclightning

08-01-2004, 12:53 AM

--The decline in pitchers batting and greatly reduced frequency of players moving from position player to pitcher is another example of the phenomenon. As recently as the 30s and 40s Bucky Walters and Bob Lemon made the majors as position players and went on to become great pitchers. It still happens at the minor league level, but I can't recall such a move by a major leaguer in 50 years (at least anybody who has experienced any significant success doing it). There have been a few experiments (I believe the Brewers have a pitcher/outfielder on their roster now), but I 'm stumped for a true successfull conversion. Anybody else got an example since 1950?

No-one would call him a great player, but Skip Lockwood came up as the third baseman with the Athletics in 1965, failed miserably, and turned to pitching with some success. He lasted 12 seasons in the majors as a pitcher, with a 57-97 record, but some halfway decent seasons as a reliever for the Mets.

Among current major league pitchers, Ron Mahay of Texas came up as an outfielder, and of course Brooks Kieschnick has been successful as a pitcher/outfielder/pinch hitter with the Brewers.

leecemark

08-01-2004, 07:30 AM

Bac, thanks for the examples. However, I think those are kind of the examples that prove the rule. Lockwood got a brief shot with a horrible A's team in 1965, hit like a pitcher and fielded like a welder. He spent the next 3 seasons in the minors learning to pitch. He was picked by the Seattle Pilots in the 1969 expansion draft and got a brief shot that season. He came up to stay in 1970 and, as you mentioned, had a decent career as a relief pitcher for several teams over the next decade.
--Mahay got into 5 games as an OF for Boston in 1995, then spent two years in the minors learning to pitch. With the advantage of throwing lefthanded he has gotten chances with 5 teams over the past 6 seasons without really establishing himself. Krieschnick has also been a quad A type player, playing 50 games in the field for 4 teams since 1996. He has achieved fame of sorts by getting some work as a long/mop out man for the Brewers the past 2 seasons. He is an interesting story I guess, but remains a fringe major leaguer.
--Bucky Walters had been in the majors for 4 years as a thirdbaseman and was the starter at that position for the Phillies when he started experimenting as a pitcher in 1934. He wasn't a very good hitter and by his 5th year was pitching more than he was playing the infield. He continued to do both (mostly pitching) until he was traded to the Reds in 1938. Stories like that where players came up as position players and got on the job training as pitchers (or vice versa) at the major league level were pretty common in the old days. They've become less common over time, to the point you've really got to dig for a player of recent vintage who has done anything even remotely like that.
--Players who had mid career switches and enjoyed great success include Monte Ward, Cy Seymour, Smokey Joe Wood, George Sisler, Babe Ruth, Walters and Lemon. Many other players did so successfully enough to have real careers at their transplanted position - often without returning to the minors to train for their second career.

Bill Burgess

08-01-2004, 10:25 AM

Imapotato,

"I think Keeler, Stovey, Hoy, Burkett et al... were very good players, but I don't start thinking GREAT until 1905...when baseball started becoming America's pasttime with President's attending, the AL out of its infancy, the NL back from the talent depletion when 75% of its good players jumped to the AL in 1901"

While I can see your point pretty clearly, I feel a generational obligation to make several exceptions to your assertion. Not to be argumentative, but to render justice to all eras, including theirs. I rate greatness by how far ahead of one's contemporaries one can soar. And I do agree that the general level of play improves with each decade, from the bottom up. And I also agree that it was easier to dominate one's peers in that era, and that the best players may not have all played in the MLs, we STILL need to honor their heroes in a credible, viable way.

So, with that in mind, I do not feel that it should bend any system out of shape, to confer the word greatness on:

Buck Ewing, Cap Anson, Bill Lange, Willie Keeler and Mike Kelly.

And: Amos Rusie, Cy Young, Kid Nichols, Hoss Radbourne.

And DEFENSIVE GREATNESS on such talents as Jimmy McAleer, Charlie Bennet and Bid McPhee.

I think that BB justice needs to find a way to honor them, because if we don't, we disenfranchise 2 entire generations of very good ballplayers, for no good reason that I can see, except that they were born too soon. And that doesn't strike me as historically fair or just.

I could be all wrong about that, but that's the way it hits me at the moment. I do try to stay open and fresh, if new data comes in.

But I do take note of your position. Thanks.

Bill Burgess

leecemark

08-01-2004, 01:26 PM

--I think we need to be conservative in assigning greatness to 19th century players. It wasn't quite the same game and the quality of play was not as high. Judging the stats of players from the early days of the major leagues is almost as speculative as making judgements without truely reliable records for Negro Leaguers. I both cases, however, I think we have to acknowlege that there were some great players. It is prudent to be conservative in ranking these players, but some definately shine bright enough be considered great under any circumstances.
--Virtually all of us agree Honus Wagner was the greatest shortstop who ever lived. Is it reasonable to believe that and dismiss the men whom he played against in the early years of his career as unworthy of consideration?
--I think Cap Anson and Dan Brouthers were probably as good of ballplayers as Hank Greenberg or Johnny Mize. I think Bid McPhee was quite possibily the best defensive secondbaseman ever. Buck Ewing wasn't able to catch enough for me to put him at the top of the catcher ranks, but he was a terrific all around ballplayer. There are perhaps half a dozen more that I am willing to consider amoung the top dozen or so at their respective positions. I'm not so interested in discussing the mid-tier stars of the 1800s, but the greats deserve to be remembered and honored.

Bill Burgess

08-01-2004, 04:39 PM

The more I think about dismissing pre 1905 players as great players, the less sense it makes to me. That kind of logic escapes me as being truly fair.

If greatness is measured by how ahead of your peers you are, why make exceptions in their case? Weren't Anson, Ewing, Lange, Keeler, Rusie, Nichols, Radbourne, and Young pretty far ahead of their peers?

And not only that but later stars began pre - 1905. Wagner, 1898; Lajoie, 1897; Waddell, 1899; Plank, 1901; Brown, 1903; Bender, 1903; Matty, 1901, McGinnity,1899.

So why suspend the measuring yardstick in their cases? Seems arbitrary to me. Are we then always giving the advantage to the future? Will not the players 100 yrs. hence put our guys to shame? And what if they say, they don't begin to consider guys great until 2004? Would that be fair to our players? I think not. So in that respect, I strongly feel we must continue to give all honor, respect, and appreciation to those who played in all generations. I just can't see how drawing an arbitrary line in time can lead us to goodness.

Bill Burgess

Imapotato

08-01-2004, 08:31 PM

I think you misunderstood my point Bill

In regards to greatness in the OVERALL history of baseball, I feel, those who had more competition to contend with should get more respect in our eyes.

Think about it...Henry Aaron, Willie Mays, Joe Dimaggio et al...not only had great stats, but have these non stat issues to contend with

1) Baseball was #1
2) Population was high...most young males wanted to be Babe Ruth if they were athletic...or Joe Louis if baseball didn't appeal to them...football and basketball and all other sports were low on the totem pole
3) They had to compete against a HUGE number of players to even gte a shot at the majors..in the 19th century how many minor leagues were there?

As for 19th century guys...were the greats GREAT compared to their peers....yes. Did they have to face the competition to get to the majors as Ted Williams did...or even Babe Ruth? No...

for today's players...is baseball even the #4 sport in America? probably not...and more kids would rather play Madden football games then pick up a bat and ball. Do I consider Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens great compared to their peers? Yes...Are talented hard working ball players playing in the PCL, making 60 a month to just get a look? no...

It's all about the competition factor...there may have been players who never saw the majors from 1920-1980 that would be All Stars in the 19th century
and today.

That's like me hitting .430 in my semi pro amateur league...am I great compared to my fellow players? YES
Should my .430 be held in high regard because I am .60 points higher than anyone else in a small NY/VT/MA talent pool? NO

That's why I shake my head at Josh Gibson almost beating Johnny Bench or Buck Ewing being mentioned with Harnett, Berra, Dickey, Fisk, Carter and Bench.

Because if numbers are the case...I want to change my vote...if I 'in theory' hit .450 for 10 years...I am the best catcher in baseball's history

daskiwarer

08-01-2004, 08:55 PM

def tony pena

Bill Burgess

08-01-2004, 09:35 PM

leecemark

08-01-2004, 09:52 PM

--I think the answer to that question is fairly obvious. Although the average player in the Negro Leagues was not as good as the average major leaguer, the best players were as good or better than the best players in the majors. The best Negro League player put up amazing numbers because; a) they were great players and b) they were competing against players of lesser skill. The same thing is true of 19th century players. The best could have been stars in any era, but lots of 19th century major leaguers were vastly inferior to those of later generations. We can see and recognize the great players, the difficulty is determining how great they would have been against a higher level of competition.
--With regards to the Negro Leagues, the success of Robinson, Doby, Campanella, Mays, etc prove to my satisfaction that earlier Negro League stars could would have been major league stars given the opportunity. I see no reason to doubt that would also have been true of 19th century players.

Bill Burgess

08-02-2004, 03:24 AM

leecemarks,

My sentiments also. That was all I was trying to bring out. Thanks.

Bill Burgess

RuthMayBond

08-02-2004, 07:54 AM

Honus Wagner once joked that OFs should have to pay to get into the ballpark.Again, what is the difference between a CF's range factor and a 3B's range factor?

RuthMayBond

08-02-2004, 07:58 AM

Bill,

He wasn't saying that it's hard to imagine a two postion player today... he was saying it's hard to imagine a guy going from the outfield, or first base, to SS. Banks moved from SS to first, Musial moved from LF to first, Carew moved from 2B to first, ARod moved from SS to 3B, Molitor moved to DH... all moves from harder positions to easier positions, in an effort to prolong careers (or, in ARod's case, to keep him from getting lynched by NY fans for being "that guy who made Jeter have to move").

Wagner moved to SS. That's not something that would be easy to invision happening in today's world.It depends. If the guy can't hit at a more "offense-expecting" position, maybe they would keep him if he was a good-fielding SS

RuthMayBond

08-02-2004, 08:03 AM

As recently as the 30s and 40s Bucky Walters and Bob Lemon made the majors as position players and went on to become great pitchers. It still happens at the minor league level, but I can't recall such a move by a major leaguer in 50 years (at least anybody who has experienced any significant success doing it). There have been a few experiments (I believe the Brewers have a pitcher/outfielder on their roster now), but I 'm stumped for a true successfull conversion. Anybody else got an example since 1950?I don't think there have been any TRUE SUCCESSFUL conversions since then & probably never will be, but Willie Smith in 1964 was intriguing

leecemark

08-02-2004, 08:12 AM

--If he was a good fielding SS - and Honus has the reputation of being a great one - why would they be wasting his talents at 1B anyway. Player development is far enough along now that decisions about what position a players value can be maximized at are made fairly early. Any mid-career move to a more demanding defensive position is unusual in modern baseball (and moving a good glove, weak bat 1B to SS is extremely unlikely). The idea that a manager today would take a superstar OF/1B and decide he was a good enough athlete to handle SS is nearly inconceivable - even assuming that the superstar would be willing to take on that challenge is quite a reach. The game was simply less structured in Wagner's day. Compared to today, it was more like a pickup game. Okay who wants to pitch today? Joey, you want to try SS? That exaggerates, of course, but player development was pretty crude.?

RuthMayBond

08-02-2004, 08:17 AM

Player development is far enough along now that decisions about what position a players value can be maximized at are made fairly early. Any mid-career move to a more demanding defensive position is unusual in modern baseball (and moving a good glove, weak bat 1B to SS is extremely unlikely). The idea that a manager today would take a superstar OF/1B and decide he was a good enough athlete to handle SS is nearly inconceivable - even assuming that the superstar would be willing to take on that challenge is quite a reach.I guess it depends upon how you define "today" and "superstar" but Rose moved from OF to 3B

leecemark

08-02-2004, 07:31 PM

--Rose is current enough and star enough to qualify. I give him alot of credit for being willing to move to fill a hole in the lineup. 3b isn't SS though and Rose wasn't particularly good there anyway (although it did work out pretty well as the Reds won the Series his first 2 years there). Rose did have an unusual career path for a modern star. Breaking in a 2B, but not really getting the job done defensively there. Moving from 2nd to OF was fairly normal and he did a pretty good job out there. His return to the infiield was unusual, but hardly the same as a reputedly great fielder serving as a utility man for 6 seasons before assuming the SS job. His final move to 1B was pretty standard fare.

Imapotato

08-02-2004, 08:09 PM

Imapotato,

Great post. Clear, logical, clean reasoning. And I happen to agree with you on what you said.

But here's my problem. If, as both of us agree, the Negro Leagues represented an inferior class of competition, how is it that they produced so many black rookie of the year, and MVPs from '49-59?

I do not believe that the white minor leagues from 1946-59 were very integrated. So I do not believe that those black rookie of the year award winners, got accepted into the white minor leagues and got to hone their skills against white competition.

So, if that is true, we are left with inferior black competition in the negro leagues, furnishing all the training/honing for later great players.

Now I just don't know how to account for that, except to surmise that those deadball-style ragtags, had amazing stars, like diamonds among the stones, who could somehow rise above the general level of play. What other theory can account for such poor competition producing such good players? I'm open to suggestions.

Bill Burgess

Simple.

Overall Black population.
In the teens and 20's black population was quite low...one generation removed from slavery (I had the numbers but have no idea where the link is...census.gov had it one time) IIRC its was 9.8 Mil total

One explosion was the late 20's...then of course the 40's (The baby boom was more drastic for black population then white) and ever since then the black population has also overtaken the white.

Now with ballplayers coming from such a smaller pool then say Hank Aaron coming from almost double a talent pool, maybe even triple.

The consesus is that it was easier for the better Negro Leaguers to shine in the 20's the the 50's

More competition, much more overall black male population. Baseball being the biggest athletic venue to showcase your talents.

Could Gibson and Charleston been great...maybe...but the stats show they had very little competition when compared to Willie Mays and Hank Aaron. So to make a very plain, simplistic answer such as..."Well look at the 50's and how many ex negro leaguers became MLB stars" is NOT an argument I will embrace. It was much harder for Hank Aaron, Doby, Campy and Mays to get into the majors than it would have for Charleston and Gibson...and thus they more than likely would have been overwealmed by the greater pool of talent then the previous players. Much like Keeler having a .375 BA in 1901 to what he ended with...or Kid Nichols becoming the youngest 300 wins P ever..and then fading quick with a larger talent pool...and being gone within a couple of years.

leecemark

08-02-2004, 10:49 PM

--Kid Nichols won 21 games with a 134 ERA+ over 317 IP in 1904 at age 35. Keeler was still hitting .300 at age 34 in 1906. They each fell apart the following year (which was 2 years apart), but that isn't exactly unusual for mid-30s ballplayers. The idea that the quality of competition jumped up so quickly that they couldn't play anymore is ridiculous. What about the players they were better than in previous years, but who continued to play well after Nichols and Keeler got old?
--I agree the quality of play has increased steadily over time. There have been a few occasions where it leapt forward more quickly than others; when the American Association folded in 1892 the better players from that league forced out marginal players from the NL, same when the NL contracted from 12 to 8 teams in 1900 (although that advance was quickly erased when the AL was launched the following season) and in the early 50s when integration was really taking off. Increases in quality of play have been very gradual at other times and has occasional stepped backward (expansion always temporarily decreases the overall talent level).
--Charleston, Gibson and every other great Negro League star (and many 2nd tier stars) would have been stars in the majors. How great is open to question. The idea they couldn't play has no credibility whatsoever.

Brad Harris

08-03-2004, 07:51 AM

Charelston and Gibson? Sure. But what about earlier stars?

Was Bill Monroe as good as Collins and Lajoie? What about Doyle or Evers?

Would Rube Foster have dominated as Joss and Waddell did? Or would he have been more like Sam Leever or Orval Overall had he played in the bigs?

Did Bruce Petway have Johnny Kling's skills? Or Larry McLean's?

Was Frank Grant really "the black Fred Dunlap"? Or was his talent really just a little less impressive?

The early negro stars, before the organization of the negro leagues, are more susceptible to these questions, I think, and fairly so to an extent.

I'm sure the stars of that era (19th century and deadball era) would have been capable major leaguers and, perhaps, stars in the big leagues, too. But not with the same degree of certainty that I believe Gibson, Paige, Leonard, etc. would have stood out in the major leagues of their day.

RuthMayBond

08-03-2004, 08:19 AM

leecemark

08-03-2004, 02:14 PM

baclightning

08-03-2004, 06:28 PM

--Whatever the stats may say, good defensive secondbasemen don't get moved to the OF in their mid-20s. Rose was sure handed and worked his ass off every game. He was reasonably capable wherever he played and I don't mean to knock his defensive skills. Thirdbase isn't SS though and lots of bats get stuck there by teams trying to get some more punch in the lineup.

Rose's situation is totally understandable. He was moved to the outfield so that Tommy Helms could play second base. Helms was NL rookie of the year in 1966, playing out of position at third base, even though second was his natural position. When moved to second, Helms won two gold gloves. Moving Rose to the outfield also reduced the chance of Rose's bat being taken out of the lineup due to injury. Rose was an adequate (but certainly not great) defensive second baseman, but moving him for a future Gold Glover seems perfectly logical.

leecemark

08-03-2004, 07:11 PM

--I just took a look at the Reds overall team picture in the years in question, 1966-67. Nothing that took place makes much sense to me. In 1966, Rose was the Reds primary 2B and Helms the primary 3b. They did flipflop some with Rose playing 16 games at third and Helms 20 at second. Tony Perez was the primary 1B and played no other position. Deron Johnson was a starting LF who also played some at 1B/3B. Johnson was 27 years old and led the team in HR and slugging.
--All four of the above players shifted positions for 1967. Helms moved to second where he was an improvement over Rose. Rose moved to LF where he could concentrate on hitting. Perez moved to third and Johnson to 1st. The moves improved the team at 2B and LF, but hurt the team at 1B and 3B (Johnson was a horrible defender anywhere and Perez was above average at 1st, but below at 3rd). The moves weren't exactly set in stone and there was even more position shifting in 67 than there had been in 1966. SS Leo Cardenas got hurt and Helms, who was the Reds best defensive infielder, moved to SS for 46 games. Chico Ruiz also played some short, but more often filled at 2B while Helms was at short. Rose also returned to 2B for 35 games (which was third most at the position after Helms and Ruiz). Johnson slumped and lost his job to Lee May (he also played some 3rd and Perez went back to first occasionally).
--I think the main conclusion that can be drawn from all this position shifting is that the Reds really didn't know what they were doing in this period. You could infer that Rose was their third best option at 2B and worse than Perez or Johnson at 3B, but only if you were really trying to make a case against Pete's defensive play. Which was never my point at all.
--My point was that modern player are seldom to never moved to more demanding defensive positions in mid-career. Rose's move to third in 1975 was brought up as an example to the contary. I'm more inclined to believe that Rose was simply a super utility guy who could do a pretty good job at any of the corner spots - and perhaps an adequete 2B in his youth. If the Reds had really been sold on him as an infielder though, it would have made more sense just to flip him and Helms in 1967 and not relocate half their lineup. That he returned to the infield 8 years later and did a solid job is all the more reason to think the Reds were terribly mismanaged when he originally went to the outfield. On the other hand, they mismanaged their way to 10 more wins than the year before so maybe it made more sense on the field than it appears to on paper.

RuthMayBond

08-04-2004, 08:19 AM

There have also been outfielders who started at the corners but were just too good to keep there and became center fielders.

RuthMayBond

08-04-2004, 09:43 AM

--Whatever the stats may say, good defensive secondbasemen don't get moved to the OF in their mid-20s.Spezio got moved from 2B where he deserved a Gold Glove in '97 and Spezio was 25. Why he was playing FIRST BASE! three years later is a mystery

leecemark

08-04-2004, 06:51 PM

--My guess would be he didn't look as good on the field as he does in the record books for that season. He would be a good hitting secondbaseman. Not so much at first.

Bushrod

08-07-2004, 10:12 AM

Crew Chief, that kind of information is fascinating to me. Please send more as you can.

the white-only leagues didn't have to / get to play against/with black players,
and
the black-only leagues didn't have to / get to play against/with white players,
so
it sort of evens out. did any white players play in the Negro Leagues?

I don't see how players can be accurately rated when we never saw them play. even if we did see them play, we only see what we're able to see.

all posts are guesses, including mine. i guess it's just fun to debate.

that sudden storm between Burgess and RMB was funny as hell.

All you guys together on this thread are a baseball encyclopedia. I've been reading for 2 hours, I think. Tremendous amount of info among you.

mes compliments au chef.

No more posts will be necessary at this time. Return to your homes, or retire under escort.

RuthMayBond

08-09-2004, 08:07 AM

that sudden storm between Burgess and RMB was funny as hell.Bill does say he likes to "entertain" readers :laugh

Bushrod

08-09-2004, 09:51 AM

You guys made my night. I laughed and laughed. Read the exchange several times. thought about it 10 times since and laughed. Oh man. reminded me of a time I was in an elevator full of German and american guys and a fight broke out. reckless eyeballing, I think.

Bill's 'entertainment' is indeed a conundrum. I didn't say it was a problem!
Just a condition. Doesn't have an answer per se.

I think God also loves us baseball cranks.

Bucarooni

08-12-2004, 08:43 AM

I'll go with Yogi over Bench, with a slight edge. While Bench is probably the best defensive catcher of all-time, Berra was no slouch. Offensively, Berra gets the nod because of consistency and durability.

IMO, the Top Ten catchers of all-time are...

1. Berra
2. Bench
3. Campanella
4. Carter
5. Fisk
6. Cochrane
7. Rodriguez
8. Hartnett
9. Piazza
10. Dickey

ElHalo

08-12-2004, 08:59 AM

Bucarooni

08-12-2004, 09:07 AM

The concept of somebody putting Fisk and Carter five and six slots ahead of Bill Dickey is probably going to be giving me seizures in a few moments...

I give them an advantage because of the times they played in, and the fact that it took Dickey about eight years to become the caliber of hitter that turned him into a Hall of Famer. Plus, I'm more familiar with Fisk and Carter, so I'm logically a little biased toward them.

Bushrod

08-12-2004, 10:14 AM

I give them an advantage because of the times they played in, and the fact that it took Dickey about eight years to become the caliber of hitter that turned him into a Hall of Famer. Plus, I'm more familiar with Fisk and Carter, so I'm logically a little biased toward them.

Word: bias is by definition illogical.
always keep tongue-depressors handy when reading from the forum. (El Halo's seizures) keeps you from swallowing the tongue meat whole. always chew your tongue thoroughly before swallowing it.

then, always wait a few hours before responding, as you will be chemically insane for at least that long.

I don't think I've voted. I vote Bench. I saw him play and his gift was weird. threw a major league fastball from squatting position, moving nothing but his arm, no windup, no shifting feet, sometimes didn't even turn his head. reminded me of watching Koufax pitch. Berra and Campanella both said Bench was the best they'd ever seen. I don't believe they were being polite, because by saying so, they'd have been disappointing all the other catchers they'd seen, including each other.

as for Bench's batting average, it went way up, as did his slugging %, with the game on the line, season on the line. seemed to, I should say.

neither Rickey Henderson nor Bert Campaneris could do anything against him.
he only allowed something like a 15% SB success rate in the postseason, and stole about 90% himself.

Do not die without appreciating this prophet!!! He was a gift to our times. ours to enjoy and marvel at. staring into the invisible past and the deep past is futile. that was theirs. and there is no judge. all their judges are dead.
we are in weightlessness. the only orientation is the opinion of their peers.

It's a 50% shot the great ones were previous to the Ice Age.

leecemark

08-12-2004, 10:20 AM

--I go back and forth on what to do with Dickey myself. He had some great years in the late 30s, but prior to that was pretty much a platoon player. A very good platon player, but still. Defensively there are mixed reviews. I'm inclined to think he was maybe a little above average in his prime, but no more than that.
--Fisk and Carter both were good players longer than Dickey, played against better competition and were better defensive players. All three are in my top 10, but exactly where depends on what factors you put a higher priority on.
--Assuming Dickey was somewhere around average defensively, its hard for me put him ahead of Mike Piazza. Piazza is at least below average defensively, if not worse. He is, however, without question the best hitting catcher in major league history - by a wide margin. An all time great defensive catcher like Bench can make up the difference for sure. I've got no problem picking Berra and Gabby Harnett (another all time great defender) ahead of him as well. It gets alot harder for me to overlook his offensive prowess when I get further down the line than that.

leecemark

09-14-2004, 11:19 PM

--Now that I'm trying to get Johnny Bench's campaign going in the 25 best players poll, it seemed like a good idea to move the best catcher poll back near the top of the history forum. With about twice as many voters as we've been getting in the player polls Bench recorded a comfortable win over Berra and Gibson, with nobody else really in the running.

nightal

09-14-2004, 11:22 PM

four tool

09-15-2004, 04:55 AM

Berra not Bench is number #1--IMHO

HDH

10-25-2004, 06:18 PM

1 Ivan Rodriguez 1999 I saw both Pudge and Bench when they first came up and I have to give the nod to Rodriguez.
2 Johnny Bench 1970
3 Mickey Cochrane 1930
4 Bill Dickey 1936
5 Mike Piazza 1997
6 Roy Campinella 1953

WJackman

11-05-2004, 05:12 PM

Excerpt from the new book on the Ferrell's,; due out next spring from McFarland.

The Red Sox were not inactive despite a rain-out of their scheduled game with the Indians on May 5. Tom Yawkey and Eddie Collins were in Cleveland for the American league spring meeting. There they traded catcher Merv Shea and a large amount of cash - usually given between $50,000 and $100,000 - to St. Louis for Rick Ferrell and pitcher Lloyd Brown. The reconstruction of the Red Sox - the acquisitions of Bill Werber and George Pipgras quickly followed - had begun.
Reaction from the Boston press was positive. "Ferrell is a great catcher," wrote Mel Webb in the Boston Globe. "A hard hitting one. A fellow right in his prime and possessing a true throwing arm...They say Rickey's a bit temperamental, like brother Wesley of the Indians, but there's plenty of argument that he's one of the outstanding catchers in baseball today. Eddie Collins considers him so - even on a par with Mickey Cochrane - when Mickey's going as his best."
Phil Ball made the trade without consulting his manager and Bill Killefer was not happy about it. "Fine job you did on me," the St. Louis skipper laughingly said to Collins when he heard of the trade. "As for Ferrell," he continues, "You may tell the world for me, I regard him as one of the best I have ever seen, and surely, with Bill Dickey of the Yankees, outstanding in out league. He will catch great ball for you, Eddie; and he will hit for you, and he will get all there to get out of your pitchers."
While Rick did not hit with Cochrane's authority, few questioned his prowess behind the plate. "Ferrell's catching form in near perfection," wrote The Sporting News in April. "There isn't a better thrower in either big league, and at bat, he's a line drive batter of the most dangerous type." Yankees' outfielder Ben Chapman, the American League's leading base stealer from 1931-1933, considered Ferrell the toughest catcher in the league to run on. "Well, everybody knows that you don't steal on the catchers, as a rule," said Chapman. "But the fellow I find the hardest to steal against is Rick Ferrell of the Browns. He gets the ball down there when the second baseman wants it."
"Certainly," wrote Gene Mack, "it has been a long time since the Red Sox had had such a stylish throwing catcher as Ferrell. His pegs travel like lightening, dead to the mark and with little effort."

WJackman

11-05-2004, 05:29 PM

Excert from new book on the Ferrells.

When Connie Mack passed through Greensboro early in 1931 and was asked by a local sportswriter if he thought Rick Ferrell was a good catcher, Mack replied, "Rick Ferrell is not a good catcher - he's far better than good. Good does not explain him."

Rick had watched quietly for two seasons as Wes soaked up all the attention. When Baseball Magazine ran an article on the catcher in its August 1931 issue, it was titled, "Rick Ferrell, Brother of Wes."

"Wes is the individual star of the family. He displayed extraordinarly talent at the outset of his career and he has lived up to that early promise of a 'Future Great.' As times goes on it becomes apparent that he belongs among the super-stars of all time.

"Rick of the Browns is quite overshadowed by the spectacular triumphs of Wes. But who in authority would care to predict that Rick's future won't be equally bright?

"No small measure of Wes Ferrell's success is due to his mental qualities. He is fearless, even brazen, out there on the mound. He has unconquerable spirit and cocky self-confidence that defies defeat. Rick is not lacking in these essentials. He, too, is ambitious to excel, and after an hour's chat with him one is convinced that he will. His confidence in himself is supreme - but he is quiet. There is nothing obnoxious about it. Then, too, he has an unusal baseball sense, a keen alertness and good judgement. He handles pitchers well. Mentally or physically he had no defective kink in hi armor."

Rick came out of th game fast in 1931, doubling twice off of Waite Hoyt in the season's second game. On May 3, he went four for five with two doubles and two RBI in a 9-5 win over the White Sox. Two days later he went four for four against Cleveland.

"In his last five games previous to this week," noted The Sporting News on May 14, "Ferrell batted .706, with 12 hits in 17 times at bat, bringing his mark for the season up to .371. Up to the time of his third appearance at the plate in the game of May 9, he had reached first base 13 concecutive times."

Rick was hitting .347 at the end of May and .329 at the close of June. When he busted his right made making a tag play on Boston's Urban Pickering on July 14 he was at .327. Out of action for two weeks, he managed to raise hi average to .331 by August 9 before finishing the season at .306.

WJackman

11-05-2004, 05:39 PM

Excerpt from the upcoming book on the Ferrells.

Rick Ferrell plated the winning run of a 2-1 contest in Philadelphia on September 2 with a deep fly to center field in the ninth inning. When the Amercian League batting averages were published on September 3 they showed the three catchers - Dickey, Cochrane and Ferrell - running dead even. With all three having similar playing time, Dickey was hitting .324, Cochrane .323 and Ferrell .319. The Boston backstop had been the leading hitter of the three - based strictly on average - for most of the year, peaking at nearly .350 in late July only to tail off over the last two months of the season. In an era when teams played on hot summer days and 20-25 doubleheaders were not unusual, Ferrell had several seasons where his batting average tanked in the latter part of the year. Likely there was a fatigue factor involved.

Rick does appear to have been worked harder than Cochrane of Dickey in 1934, catching in 24 of Boston's 16 doubleheaders, starting both ends 12 times and catching every inning eight times. Cochrane caught in all 20 of Detroit's doubleheaders, but started both games just six times and caught every inning only thrice. Dickey - who missed significant time at the end of the season with a broken hand - appeared in both ends of 13 of New York's 21 doubleheaders. He started both games five times and caught every inning five times.

csh19792001

11-05-2004, 11:27 PM

Word: bias is by definition illogical.
always keep tongue-depressors handy when reading from the forum. (El Halo's seizures) keeps you from swallowing the tongue meat whole. always chew your tongue thoroughly before swallowing it.

then, always wait a few hours before responding, as you will be chemically insane for at least that long.

I don't think I've voted. I vote Bench. I saw him play and his gift was weird. threw a major league fastball from squatting position, moving nothing but his arm, no windup, no shifting feet, sometimes didn't even turn his head. reminded me of watching Koufax pitch. Berra and Campanella both said Bench was the best they'd ever seen. I don't believe they were being polite, because by saying so, they'd have been disappointing all the other catchers they'd seen, including each other.

as for Bench's batting average, it went way up, as did his slugging %, with the game on the line, season on the line. seemed to, I should say.

neither Rickey Henderson nor Bert Campaneris could do anything against him.
he only allowed something like a 15% SB success rate in the postseason, and stole about 90% himself.

Do not die without appreciating this prophet!!! He was a gift to our times. ours to enjoy and marvel at. staring into the invisible past and the deep past is futile. that was theirs. and there is no judge. all their judges are dead.
we are in weightlessness. the only orientation is the opinion of their peers.

It's a 50% shot the great ones were previous to the Ice Age.

Nice exorcist quote, dude. esoteric, but I picked it up. ;)

Bill Burgess

11-06-2004, 02:52 AM

Bushrod,

You are truly a weird, inter-dimentional presence. And I like that in a poster.

From memory.

Karras: You're not my Mother!

Merrin: Get out!

Mother: Will she die?

Karras: No.

One of my all time favorite movies. One of the technically best-made flicks ever.

Weirdness is divinely-inspired. May it ever reign.

Brian Wilson's new CD, "Smile", is as great as advertised. Must hear music.

Bill, troll king with surprisingly humanoid-like tendencies.

PS. Is tinfoil syndrome really a negative? After all, Lao Tsu once wondered: Am I a man dreaming he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming it was a man? What if he were both? Each in its dimension. Would it really matter?

538280

05-27-2005, 03:06 PM

Who is the best catcher ever?

My vote is for Josh Gibson.

Blackout

05-27-2005, 03:24 PM

you'll probably get some crap for not having Pudge Rodriguez on here (for some reason hes got alot of supporters)

no complaints from me though, Josh Gibson gets my vote easily

iPod

05-27-2005, 03:34 PM

Probably Gibson, though sadly we don't know.

julusnc

05-27-2005, 03:34 PM

I am a firm believer that if Josh Gibson would have had a Major League Baseball career that he would have been made to switch positions to first base to cut down on the wear and tear to his body.But then I think would a white owner of the day really care about the wear and tear to a black player?

Josh Gibson gets my vote as best catcher ever if you consider his legendary ability and the what might have been but Johnny Bench, Yogi Berra and within the next three years Ivan Rodriguez all claim a close second in my mind.

iPod

05-27-2005, 03:41 PM

Josh Gibson gets my vote as best catcher ever if you consider his legendary ability and the what might have been but Johnny Bench, Yogi Berra and within the next three years Ivan Rodriguez all claim a close second in my mind.

I think Pudge is kind of overrated, especially his defense.

torez77

05-27-2005, 03:50 PM

Funny - I was going to have a poll like this after our BBF All-Defensive Team polls. I don't think we've ever had polls to decide the BBF All-Time All-Star Team.

My vote is for Josh Gibson. If even half of the stories and myths are true, then he's the greatest catcher ever.

torez77

05-27-2005, 04:22 PM

I-Rod? Dickey? Hartnett?

BillyF29

05-27-2005, 04:35 PM

1. Bench
2. Gibson (just can't put him #1 since we'll never really know how great he was)
3. Yogi Berra
4. Bill Dickey
5. Pudge Rodriguez

ElHalo

05-27-2005, 04:50 PM

1. Gibson
2. Berra
3. Bench
4. Cochrane
5. I. Rodriguez
6. Hartnett
7. Dickey
8. Bresnahan
9. Fisk
10. Piazza

Imapotato

05-27-2005, 05:03 PM

Blackout

05-27-2005, 05:30 PM

I still don't understand why Gibson gets all this acclaim

What buffoon started praising him? I have to say Bill James, because before 1990 no one had him as a top 5 Catcher

Or was it Walter Johnson saying he was the best Catcher he ever saw? Sorry but Big Train played with some awful Catchers so Gibson actually hitting the ball must have blown his mind

Or the legendary 800 foot shot over Yankee Stadium thru the Holland Tunnel into Elysian Fields?

Gibson and Cool Papa Bell have Paige and his embellishments to thank and very few accounts of support afterwards, seems to me fire camp tales and urban legends in account to the so fast he hit himslef with his own line drive in the ass, and the 800 foot shots are the only thing that make this two legendary

With the Grays and Kansas City Monarchs playing a night game under a portable lighting system in Pittsburgh in 1930, the Grays catcher suffered an injury to his hand, according to the book "The Ballplayers." Homestead manager Judy Johnson, who knew of Gibson's reputation as a terrific semipro player, went into the stands looking for the 18-year-old.

"I asked him if he wanted to catch and he said 'yes, sir,' so we had to hold up the game while he went and put on Buck Ewing's uniform," Johnson said. "We signed him the next day."

Gibson played for the Grays the rest of that season and 1931, before jumping to the Crawfords and winning three home-run titles in five seasons. He caught Paige in 1936 to form the most popular battery in African-American history. After starting 1937 in the Dominican Republic, he returned in the summer to play for the Grays.

He won two more home-run titles, in 1938 and 1939, as well as a batting championship in 1938. There are stories that the Senators and Pittsburgh Pirates considered giving the powerful catcher a tryout in the late '30s, but because of the color of his skin he was never granted the opportunity.

In 1940 and 1941, he chose to play south of the border, undoubtedly because of greater financial rewards. After starring for Vera Cruz of the Mexican League, he played in the Puerto Rican Winter League, earning Most Valuable Player honors and a batting title. Gibson was forced to abandon the Mexican League and return to the Grays in 1942 after the team's owner, Cum Posey, hit him with a lawsuit. Gibson led the Negro League in hitting and home runs.

Early the next year, Gibson suffered a brain tumor that put him in a coma. When he awoke, doctors wanted to operate. But Gibson wouldn't let them, fearing that surgery would leave him a vegetable. Despite recurring headaches and a drinking problem, he continued to tear apart the Negro League, winning two more batting crowns and three more home-run titles in the next four seasons.

no career achievements other than legends? :laugh

Bill Burgess

05-27-2005, 06:34 PM

Introducing Charlie Bennett, (Nov. 21, 1854 - Feb. 24, 1927) (NL catcher, 1878 - 1893)

In the superb book, "The History of Baseball: Its great Players, Teams and Managers, ed. By Allison Danzig & Joe Reichler, 1959, pp. 255, we find this introduction to its CATCHERS section;

The GREAT CATCHERS of baseball have included Bill Dickey, Roger Bresnahan, Mickey Cochrane, Gabby Hartnett, Buck Ewing, Johnny Kling, Ray Schalk and Roy Campanella. Also, Jimmy Archer, Lou Criger, Martin Bergen, Wallie Schang, Steve O'Neil, Bob O'Farrell, Charlie Bennett, Rick Ferrell, Mike (King) Kelly, Gabby Street, Billy Sullivan, Jimmy Wilson, Hank Gowdy, Bill Killifer, Wilbert Robinson, Walker Cooper, Al Lopez, Yogi Berra and Ernie Lombardi.

William B. Hanna, Oct., 1956? - Nov. 20, 1930; NY sportswriter, 1888-1930
Bennett was great as a backstop. So were Johnny Kling, Lou Criger, Martin Bergen, Jimmy Archer, Billy Sullivan and Bill Killefer, and Doe Bushong. So are Schalk, O'Neill, Severeid, Bassler and O'Farrell, the last named one of the best of the day for all around excellence. None has made the intaglio-like impress of Ewing. (Baseball Magazine, June, 1924, pp. 300)

Francis C. Richter, Philadelphia sportswriter (1876-1926), AL Reach Baseball Guide Editor-In-Chief (1901-1926, death)
Charley Bennett was listed with Buck Ewing as the 2 best catchers from 1880-1890, by Francis Richter.

Robert Sensenderfer, (Dec. 31, 1883 - Jan. 3, 1957) (Philadelphia spwr. 50 yrs.)
In the Philadelphia Bulletin in 1936, listed Buck Ewing and Charlie Bennett among the great players of baseball prior to 1900.

3. Tim H. Murnane, June 4, 1851 - Feb 7, 1917; ML 1B, 1872-78; Boston spwr. 1888-1917 of the Boston Globe listed the game's great catchers. Listed Bennett on his All American team in 1900.

Kid Nichols, (Sept. 14, 1869 - April 11, 1953) (NL pitcher, 1890 - 1901, 04-06)
"Charley Bennett was the best catcher during my time. He worked with me in Boston until he lost his legs in a railroad accident. He went through several seasons without having a passed ball. He never had an equal as a throw to bases." Bennett was the catcher of the world champion Detroit Team of 1887. He went through several seasons without having a passed ball. He never had an equal as a throw to bases."

Bennett was the catcher of the world champion Detroit Team of 1887.

I also suspect that they caught so few games per season because of injuries. With the doctored balls they were allowed to throw, a lot of errand ball hit their hands, split their nails, banged their shins, rickocheed off their knees, etc. It is known that a lot of the old catchers ended up with gnarled, grotesquely distorted fingers. Here is an excerpt from my Charlie Bennet post from my Ty Cobb Thread.

"When he was forced to give up baseball, Bennett came back to Detroit and became adept at painting chinaware. First he tried it as a pastime and later as means of livelihood. It was with characteristic patience that Bennett trained his distorted fingers in the delicate art of china painting. . . . it is certain that Bennett ranked with the greatest catchers of his period. Above all else, he was loyal to his job, frequently sticking behind the plate when suffering intense pain from injuries sustained in the line of duty.

James Hart, manager of the old Boston club, has told how Bennett once insisted on catching though his hands were torn and bleeding. In fact, Bennett had caught several innings before it was known he was jnjured. The knowledge did not come from Bennett but from John Clarkson, his pitcher, who griped that when the ball was returned to him, it was stained with blood. Even when Clarkson reported it to Management, Bennett protested against leaving the game and it was only after much insisting that he consented to leave." (Thursday, Sporting News, March 3, 1927, pp. by Sam Greene)

It is the author's contention that Charlie Bennett was the 2nd greatest defensive catcher of the 1800's, after the immortal Buck Ewing, although not the equal as an all-around catcher of King Kelly, due to offense. I hold that Charlie Bennett deserves to rank among the very greatest defensive catchers of all time. I do not advocate Charlie Bennet for the Hall of Fame.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Bennett

1878 - 8 (Snyder)
1879 - NR
1880 - 2 (Clapp)
1881 - 1
1882 - 1
1883 - T3 (Bushong)
1884 - 7 (Gilligan)
1885 - 5 (Ewing)
1886 - 1
1887 - 4 (Daly)
1888 - 1
1889 - 4 (Zimmer)
1890 - 2 (Zimmer)
1891 - 3 (Zimmer)
1892 - 22 (Zimmer)
1893 - 14 (Farrell)
-------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Burgess

Imapotato

05-27-2005, 07:26 PM

no career achievements other than legends? :laugh

I've won MVP, ROY, All State, Batting titles in Amateur Leagues (former AA and AAA players) and High School

What's your point?

I see you don't have quotes from numerous sources on how wonderful Gibson was during his own time...where I could rip out 50 or more on Charleston, Lloyd and Paige from a variety of different perspectives, from Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner to Branch Rickey, Ed Barrow to umpires and contemporaries

Only embellishment Gibson and Bell have other then Walter Johnson and Paige are his teammates

I remember the Phillies saying Von Hayes was one of the best ballplayer sthey have ever seen, and his 7 HRs in 8 games was 'legendary' but we know better don't we?

Blackout

05-27-2005, 07:37 PM

I've won MVP, ROY, All State, Batting titles in Amateur Leagues (former AA and AAA players) and High School

What's your point?

I see you don't have quotes from numerous sources on how wonderful Gibson was during his own time...where I could rip out 50 or more on Charleston, Lloyd and Paige from a variety of different perspectives, from Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner to Branch Rickey, Ed Barrow to umpires and contemporaries

Only embellishment Gibson and Bell have other then Walter Johnson and Paige are his teammates

I remember the Phillies saying Von Hayes was one of the best ballplayer sthey have ever seen, and his 7 HRs in 8 games was 'legendary' but we know better don't we?

I'm not calling you an idiot, but are you actually trying to compare 8 games to 16 years??

Gibson won batting titles in different leagues and was the best hitter in the negro leagues for 1 and a half decades

and you still have doubts that he was a great? :ughh

538280

05-27-2005, 07:45 PM

Bill Burgess

05-27-2005, 08:02 PM

JT,

I was merely trying to show some of my guys profiles. To help introduce them to the new guys here. Guys like Archer, Bennett and Bergen are rather obscure, and all I was trying to do was keep their names from being forgotten.

That was really my only purpose. Sorry if my purpose pissed you off. Although I now only need to copy/paste them, originally it took time to dig that stuff up.

Bill Burgess

leecemark

05-27-2005, 08:22 PM

--For the record we did vote for the top 10 at each position over the past off season. We've got some new people and others may have changed their opinions, but the current BBF All Time All Stars would be:
First Team
C Johnny Bench
1B Lou Gehrig - one vote short of unamimous
2B Rogers Hornsby
3B Mike Schmidt
SS Honus Wagner - unamimous selection
LF Ted Williams
CF Ty Cob
RF Babe Ruth - one vote shor tof unanimous
Second Team
C Yogi Berra
1B Jimmie Foxx
2B Eddie Collins
3B Eddie Mathews
SS Alex Rodriguez
LF Barry Bonds
CF Willie Mays
RF Hank Aaron

--These were votes for top 10 by position and totals were counted MVP style. Josh Gibson got alot of first place votes, but also got left off alot of ballots and ended up 4th (behind Cochrane). I'm ashamed to admit I was one of those who left him off, but after doing some research would put him third now. He may well have been the best, but the data and quality of competition are shadowy enough I can't quite put him ahead of post-integration MLB greats Johnny Bench and Yogi Berra.

Bill Burgess

05-27-2005, 10:28 PM

JT,

Oops. Sorry. I read your post #19, as if it was written to me. I guess I assume all terse posts are to me personally. Force of habit I guess. Sorry.

Old buddy

chanceron

05-28-2005, 07:24 AM

I know the voting is over..but anyway...Bill Dickey

PopTop

05-28-2005, 07:40 AM

Blackout

05-28-2005, 01:31 PM

Bench and Pudge are the best I've ever seen as far as the total package, defense and offense.

It will never cease to amaze me how vehement these arguments get, especially with regards to players that most NEVER SAW PLAY. :noidea

so your saying we shouldn't talk about Cobb, Wagner, Lajoie, or anybody else pre-video camera because we've never seen them play?

okay, that means Bernie Williams and Johnny Damon must be better CFers than Ty Cobb :laugh

Bill Burgess

05-28-2005, 01:50 PM

so your saying we shouldn't talk about Cobb, Wagner, Lajoie, or anybody else pre-video camera because we've never seen them play?

No, no, no. Not at all. We can say whatever we like. But we should give priority to the opinions of their peers, and accept it. Leave it at that.

Bill Burgess

DoubleX

05-28-2005, 02:09 PM

I have my top 10 as:

1) Johnny Bench
2) Yogi Berra
3) Mike Piazza
4) Ivan Rodriguez
5) Roy Campanella
6) Gabby Hartnett
7) Mickey Cochrane
8) Bill Dickey
9) Carlton Fisk
10) Gary Carter

I sadly don't know where to rank Gibson. We can guess and assume, but we'll never know for sure and it's a great shame.

Brad Harris

06-21-2005, 11:42 AM

After some haggling with Microsoft Excel and way too much thumbing through my copies of Win Shares and the new Historical Baseball Abstract, I'd updated the list of 100-greatest catchers.

Mike Piazza
Johnny Bench - HOF
Yogi Berra - HOF
Mickey Cochrane - HOF
Gary Carter - HOF
Bill Dickey - HOF
Joe Torre
Roy Campanella - HOF
Carlton Fisk - HOF
Bill Freehan
Gabby Hartnett - HOF
Ted Simmons
Ivan Rodriguez
Gene Tenace
Roger Bresnahan - HOF
Buck Ewing - HOF
Elston Howard
Jorge Posada
Thurman Munson
Lance Parrish
Darren Daulton
Mickey Tettleton
Tom Haller
Darrell Porter
Jason Kendall
Javy Lopez
Sherm Lollar
Tim McCarver
Wally Schang
Earl Battey
Manny Sanguillen
Ernie Lombardi - HOF
Bob O'Farrell
Del Crandall
Jim Sundberg
John Romano
Chief Meyers
Mike Scioscia
Ray Schalk - HOF
Johnny Kling
John Roseboro
Charlie Bennett
Muddy Ruel
Walker Cooper
Duke Darrell
Terry Kennedy
Harry Danning
Rick Ferrell - HOF
Paul Lo Duca
Ed Bailey
Terry Steinbach
Jack Clements
Steve O'Neill
Charles Johnson
Bob Boone
Tony Pena
Bubbles Hargrave
Ernie Whitt
Johnny Edwards
Joe Ferguson
Andy Seminick
Stan Lopata
Johnny Bassler
Butch Wynegar
Chief Zimmer
Fred Carroll
Smoky Burgess
Deacon McGuire
Hank Gowdy
Todd Hundley
Spud Davis
Jocko Milligan
Benito Santiago
Gus Triandos
Shanty Hogan
Bob Brenly
Wes Westrum
Hank Severeid
Frank Snyder
Gus Mancuso
Frankie Hayes
A.J. Pierzynski
Jody Davis
Dan Wilson
Art Wilson
Rick Dempsey
George Gibson
Mike Lieberthal
Doggie Miller
Al Lopez
Jim Hegan
Randy Hundley
Mike LaValliere
Babe Phelps
Jerry Grote
Matt Nokes
Clay Dalrymple
Ossie Schreckengost
Bill Rariden
Ron Hassey

Credit for service time lost due to war, injury, illness, premature death, conflict with management, etc.
Credit for service time lost due to skin color, country of origin, etc.
Credit for clutch hitting, post-season heroics, championship rings, etc.
Credit for shorter seasons, for pre-1961/62 players (and especially for 19th century players).
Credit for awards, honors, accolades won or records set/broken.

What has happened is that I took James' original list of 100 players (plus #'s 101-125 whom he named, but didn't write about separately) and added every catcher of any importance the past 5-10 years I could think of.

What this list represents, therefore, is all those men, through 2004, ranked by the sum of the following elements:

The harmonic mean between 25 and 10% of the player's career win shares.
The average of the player's 3 best single seasons.
The average of the player's 5 best consecutive seasons.
The player's career win shares per 162 games played.

Those 4 elements are the sole composition upon which these rankings are based. I present them to you without bias. Give extra credit as you wish. What I present here is just the mathematical foundation upon which subjectivity may derive meaning.

Keep in mind, too, that as a player's career value increases, his value per 162 games played is likely to decrease. Players still not out of their prime (Kendall, Posada, Varitek) are still strong candidates to jump up quite a bit. Players late in their careers (Johnson, Lieberthal, Santiago) are likely treading water until they retire.

If I've missed a catcher, whether a noteable active one, or someone long retired, please let me know. I'll be more than happy to add them to my list.

RuthMayBond

06-21-2005, 12:14 PM

After some haggling with Microsoft Excel and way too much thumbing through my copies of Win Shares and the new Historical Baseball Abstract, I'd updated the list of 100-greatest catchers.

Bill Freehan
Gabby Hartnett - HOF
Ted Simmons
Ivan Rodriguez
Gene Tenace
Roger Bresnahan - HOF
Buck Ewing - HOF
Elston Howard
Jorge Posada
Thurman Munson
Lance Parrish
Darren Daulton
Mickey Tettleton
Tom Haller
Darrell Porter
Jason Kendall
Javy Lopez
Sherm Lollar
Tim McCarver
Wally Schang
Earl Battey
Manny Sanguillen
Ernie Lombardi - HOF
Bob O'Farrell
Del Crandall
Jim Sundberg
John Romano
Chief Meyers
Mike Scioscia
Ray Schalk - HOF
Johnny Kling
John Roseboro
Charlie Bennett
Muddy Ruel
Walker Cooper
Duke Darrell
Terry Kennedy
Harry Danning
Rick Ferrell - HOF
Paul Lo Duca
Ed Bailey
Terry Steinbach
Jack Clements
Steve O'Neill
Charles Johnson
Bob Boone
Tony Pena
Bubbles Hargrave
Ernie Whitt
Johnny Edwards
Joe Ferguson
Andy Seminick
Stan Lopata
Johnny Bassler
Butch Wynegar
Chief Zimmer
Fred Carroll
Smoky Burgess
Deacon McGuire
Hank Gowdy
Todd Hundley
Spud Davis
Jocko Milligan
Benito Santiago
Gus Triandos
Shanty Hogan
Bob Brenly
Wes Westrum
Hank Severeid
Frank Snyder
Gus Mancuso
Frankie Hayes
A.J. Pierzynski
Jody Davis
Dan Wilson
Art Wilson
Rick Dempsey
George Gibson
Mike Lieberthal
Doggie Miller
Al Lopez
Jim Hegan
Randy Hundley
Mike LaValliere
Babe Phelps
Jerry Grote
Matt Nokes
Clay Dalrymple
Ossie Schreckengost
Bill Rariden
Ron Hassey

Credit for service time lost due to war, injury, illness, premature death, conflict with management, etc.
Credit for service time lost due to skin color, country of origin, etc.
Credit for clutch hitting, post-season heroics, championship rings, etc.
Credit for shorter seasons, for pre-1961/62 players (and especially for 19th century players).
Credit for awards, honors, accolades won or records set/broken.

What has happened is that I took James' original list of 100 players (plus #'s 101-125 whom he named, but didn't write about separately) and added every catcher of any importance the past 5-10 years I could think of.

What this list represents, therefore, is all those men, through 2004, ranked by the sum of the following elements:

The harmonic mean between 25 and 10% of the player's career win shares.
The average of the player's 3 best single seasons.
The average of the player's 5 best consecutive seasons.
The player's career win shares per 162 games played.

Those 4 elements are the sole composition upon which these rankings are based. I present them to you without bias. Give extra credit as you wish. What I present here is just the mathematical foundation upon which subjectivity may derive meaning.

Keep in mind, too, that as a player's career value increases, his value per 162 games played is likely to decrease. Players still not out of their prime (Kendall, Posada, Varitek) are still strong candidates to jump up quite a bit. Players late in their careers (Johnson, Lieberthal, Santiago) are likely treading water until they retire.

If I've missed a catcher, whether a noteable active one, or someone long retired, please let me know. I'll be more than happy to add them to my list.Freehan over Hartnett and Ewing?
Does Deacon White count?
Was Haller that good?
Did Al Lopez go in the Hall as a manager/exec?

ElHalo

06-21-2005, 12:17 PM

Did Al Lopez go in the Hall as a manager/exec?

A manager, yes.

Brad Harris

06-21-2005, 12:38 PM

Freehan over Hartnett and Ewing?
Statistically, based on the formula used, sure. Additionally, Freehan's teams played a 162-game schedule, Hartnett's and Ewing's did not. That will show in their annual win shares totals. Subjectively speaking, Freehan's league was integrated and full of tougher competition. It was more difficult to stand out amongst your peers in the late 1960s and early 1970s than in the 1930s or 1880s.

Does Deacon White count?
Since I took James' original rankings, White was not listed as a catcher. (James ranked him as a third baseman.) As a catcher, I'd have him ranked 31st, between Earl Battey and Manny Sanguillen. That's still ahead of three Hall of Fame catchers.

Was Haller that good?
Apparently, but given a different set of statistical parameters, I'm sure we could get some other unexpected name to pop up in the 20-25 range. Was Tettleton really that good? Or Porter? As far as the numbers go, there's not a single integer of difference between the value of #22 and #24. They are separated by mere decimal places. Haller averaged 22-23 win shares per 162 games played and had a good number of all-star caliber seasons. I'd have to say that yes, he was that good.

Did Al Lopez go in the Hall as a manager/exec? Yes, but for obvious reasons I didn't denote anyone who made the Hall of Fame as something besides a catcher. (Wilbert Robinson is another catcher elected as a manager.)

538280

06-21-2005, 01:19 PM

RuthMayBond

06-21-2005, 01:23 PM

Does anyone have McCarver rated this highly?

ElHalo

06-21-2005, 01:24 PM

Does anyone have McCarver rated this highly?

He did lead the league in triples in 1966.

RuthMayBond

06-21-2005, 01:25 PM

He did lead the league in triples in 1966.so WHY wasn't he a unanimous HoF selection? :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

wilkerson_rulz-06

11-21-2005, 06:08 PM

For me, the Expos fan, it's Gary Carter.I also like Johnny Bench, Ivan Rodriguez and Brian Schneider.

charlesblalack@yahoo.com

11-21-2005, 06:09 PM

In my heart, it's Pudge Rodriguez
But in my brain, it's Johnny Bench

jalbright

11-21-2005, 06:56 PM

Josh Gibson. Take Mike Piazza and give him enough power and durability to reach 500 homers back in the 1930's and 40's and give him at least average defense. That's Josh Gibson--and no other catcher ever comes close to that combination.

Jim Albright

538280

11-21-2005, 07:11 PM

I have been running a series of positional polls, and we have come up with consensus top 10 lists at each position. This is how it turned out for the catchers:

1.Johnny Bench
2.Yogi Berra
3.Josh Gibson
4.Mike Piazza
5.Mickey Cochrane
6.Roy Campanella
7.Ivan Rodriguez
8.Bill Dickey
9.Gary Carter
10.Carlton Fisk

That isn't how I feel though. My top 10 catchers go like this:

1.Josh Gibson
2.Johnny Bench
3.Yogi Berra
4.Mike Piazza
5.Mickey Cochrane
6.Carlton Fisk
7.Biz Mackey
8.Gary Carter
9.Roy Campanella
10.Bill Dickey

Chisox

11-22-2005, 06:04 AM

Johnny Bench and no argument. There's a reason why he's called Johnny Bench, , he's the Benchmark. No flaws.

DoubleX

11-22-2005, 06:39 AM

Three possibles for me:

1) Bench - Could do it all.

2) Gibson - Incredible bat. However, I never rank him or any negro leaguer because it's unfortunately too subjective for me.

3) Piazza - I could steal a base on him, but the offense he provided from the catcher spot makes him one of the most valuable players ever. Imagine if played on teams that had some real power hitters at traditional positions like OF and 1B? It would have been a rare double-whammy. Unfortunately for him, Piazza was always the rare player that had to carry his team offensively as the catcher.

I almost always go with Bench because I don't rank Gibson and because Bench's all-around game as a catcher probably makes him a little more valuable than Piazza was on his bat alone.

RuthMayBond

11-22-2005, 07:10 AM

In my heart, it's Pudge Rodriguez
But in my brain, it's Johnny BenchMy head says Bench or Berra . . .
. . . but my heart screams Josh Gibson

KCGHOST

11-22-2005, 07:48 AM

To me it is Berra or Bench.

I have a lot of respect for Josh Gibson as a player, but, I just can't pull the trigger on a guy who never played a game of MLB being the best ever.

RuthMayBond

11-22-2005, 07:52 AM

To me it is Berra or Bench.

I have a lot of respect for Josh Gibson as a player, but, I just can't pull the trigger on a guy who never played a game of MLB being the best ever.I understand, although I thought it was documented that on June 3, 1937, Josh Gibson hit a ball five hundred eighty feet that missed clearing Yankee Stadium by two feet :eek: :clapping :eek: :clapping :eek: :clapping

sschirmer

11-22-2005, 09:42 AM

Johnny Bench and no argument. There's a reason why he's called Johnny Bench, , he's the Benchmark. No flaws.

Actually, he's called Johnny Bench because his parents named him Johnny, and his father's surname was Bench.

bluezebra

11-22-2005, 11:27 AM

Piazza. He's not even a legitimate catcher. He's a hitter who plays catcher because there's no other place for him. He should have spent his entire career in the American League as a DH.

Bob

Victory Faust

11-22-2005, 11:54 AM

I understand, although I thought it was documented that on June 3, 1937, Josh Gibson hit a ball five hundred eighty feet that missed clearing Yankee Stadium by two feet :eek: :clapping :eek: :clapping :eek: :clapping

Cecil Fielder was one of only three people to hit a fair ball over the left field roof at Tiger Stadium, but he's not the best first baseman of all time, is he?

Best catcher? I think it depends on what you want from a catcher. In my mind, leadership is an important part of the equation, which is why I choose Cochrane over Bench. Not that Bench wasn't a leader, but Mickey Cochrane was a firebrand out there. But you couldn't go wrong with Bench.

However, I don't think Gary Carter belongs anywhere near this conversation.

RuthMayBond

11-22-2005, 11:59 AM

Cecil Fielder was one of only three people to hit a fair ball over the left field roof at Tiger Stadium, but he's not the best first baseman of all time, is he?Nor was he a catcher. Nor did Gibson exactly spend a lot of time at Yankee Stadium

<Best catcher? I think it depends on what you want from a catcher. In my mind, leadership is an important part of the equation, which is why I choose Cochrane over Bench. Not that Bench wasn't a leader, but Mickey Cochrane was a firebrand out there.>

Not sure how you measure this

<However, I don't think Gary Carter belongs anywhere near this conversation.>

So you're neither a proponent of WARP3 nor Win Shares :laugh :laugh :laugh

julusnc

11-22-2005, 12:10 PM

Johnny Bench or Yogi Berra flip a coin.

runningshoes

11-22-2005, 12:19 PM

Johnny Bench or Yogi Berra flip a coin.

Coin just landed in Bench's favour. ;)

538280

11-22-2005, 02:47 PM

However, I don't think Gary Carter belongs anywhere near this conversation.

Why not? He's right there statistically. Are we going to blame him for not playing on great teams like Bench, Berra, and Cochrane? When he finally was on a great team (1986 Mets) he was a leader.

I don't think he should be the #1 catcher of all time, as wilkerson rulz said, but he certainly is a viable candidate.

El Nino Linares

11-22-2005, 02:52 PM

The best catcher of all time all around was Yogi Berra now the best defensive catcher of all time was Roy Campenella.... I think Johnny Bench was the man too but no one was Yogi..... The best arm as a catcher i have ever seen is Pudge..... There is no argument there....

Victory Faust

11-22-2005, 03:05 PM

I think Berra is actually hamstrung because of his personality. To many people, Yogi's folksy persona overshadows exactly how great he really was.

El Nino Linares

11-22-2005, 03:09 PM

I agree that Yogi's personality wasnt the best but that cant ever overshadowed his ability to playball...

Bill Burgess

11-22-2005, 03:10 PM

I prefer Buck Ewing. Never had a close second as a caller of games. Had all hitters strengths/weaknesses catalogued, so his pitchers could focus on their mechanics.

Also, never had a superior in cutting off the running game. Hit/ran well also.

Bill Burgess

BillyF29

11-22-2005, 05:18 PM

yanks0714

11-22-2005, 05:46 PM

I think you can toss it up between Bench and Yogi. They both played very well on both sides of the ball and they were both winners.

I have Piazza just below them, and I know that some will feel that is overrating him, but I honestly feel he was no worse a catcher than Rogers Hornsby was a second baseman. I also feel Piazza's staff handling abilities are vastly underrated and his throwing problems are overstated since his era wasn't exactly a runners era.

Piazzeas real defensive weakness is his throwing ability. He handles the pitching staff well; he blocks the plate; he's good at good back on foul pops; and blocks pitches well. The throwing is the most obvious of all those activities expected of a catcher and since Pizza doesn't do that well people pass him off a a bad defensive catcher. Unfair, I say, unfair!

That being said I have Bench #1 with Yogi right behind him. Campanella isn't far behind Yogi (I'm giving Campy a break on career length). Mickey Cochrane is one of my favorites. His leadership skills at being a catcher/manager have to be taken into account. Piazza gets my list as the 5th best.
After that comes Bill Dickey although I've been considering penalizing him for being pretty much a platoon player...not playing much against lefties.
Then comes Gabby Harnett, Carlton Fisk, Gary Carter, and Ted Simmons.

RuthMayBond

11-22-2005, 06:35 PM

now the best defensive catcher of all time was Roy Campenella....Based upon what? I can give you at least fifteen catchers who were better than Campy defensively

Chisox

11-23-2005, 06:26 AM

Actually, he's called Johnny Bench because his parents named him Johnny, and his father's surname was Bench.
So you didn't get the play on words?

wilkerson_rulz-06

11-23-2005, 11:14 AM

Gary Carter is the best! I've never seen anyone better than him. Not Fisk, Bench, Rodriguez or Piazza. NUMBER ONE BABY!

RuthMayBond

11-23-2005, 11:21 AM

Gary Carter is the best! I've never seen anyone better than him. Not Fisk, Bench, Rodriguez or Piazza. NUMBER ONE BABY!Bench was better both defensively AND offensively, Berra was better offensively and right there defensively

64Cards

11-24-2005, 07:57 AM

I think Berra is actually hamstrung because of his personality. To many people, Yogi's folksy persona overshadows exactly how great he really was.
Good point. I'll still go with Bench, because he was a terrific power hitter in the early part of his career and superb behind the plate. He was playing in an era in which there was a lot of basestealing and no catchers arm was more respected. I guess it's hard to measure how good of an arm that Yogi and Campy had, because there wasn't much basestealing when they played.

Back to Yogi, being something of a cartoon character...he's dumb like a fox, I guess. I can't think of any other athlete from his era who still gets endorsements.

wilkerson_rulz-06

11-24-2005, 08:05 AM

Bench was better both defensively AND offensively, Berra was better offensively and right there defensively

Not defensively. Gary Carter still delivered offensively though.

Dodger

11-24-2005, 08:45 AM

I feel that Gary Carter is vastly underrated by many. He was probably as good a Bench defensively and a very good offensive player. He was much better than Fisk, who only beats him on longevity, and Cochrane.

I have him ranked 5th...

Johnny Bench
Yogi Berra
Mike Piazza
Roy Campenella
Gary Carter

...but I can make a good case for him ahead of both Campy and Piazza and perhaps even Berra, but not Bench.

RuthMayBond

11-24-2005, 08:23 PM

Carter had a 107 adjusted production rate, 134 adjusted runs above average, had a 1498 SB allowed/810 CS, and took over 2000 games to get this.
Bench had a 112 adjusted production rate, 191 adjusted runs above average, had a 556 SB allowed/422 CS, in only 1742 games catching.

Sockeye

08-09-2006, 01:36 AM

Gotta go with Yogi Berra

AlecBoy006

11-10-2006, 10:18 PM

Bench, you could also argue Pudge, THE ORIGINAL one.

Colorado Express

12-08-2006, 02:11 PM

I'll take Bench closely followed by Yogi.

nightal

12-12-2006, 11:19 AM

IJoshKetisa

12-12-2006, 04:17 PM

i-rod with his 12 gold gloves and his .304 batting average.

SHOELESSJOE3

12-12-2006, 04:21 PM

And what exactly is (was) Gibson?? Who know's????, evidence is spotty, opinions vary. I have never got the Gibson argument, I could (but doubt it), be convinced against Bench.

That makes two of us, at least two of us. Not being insensitive to the great injustice dealt out to the black ballpayers of long ago, not given their chance in MLB because of skin color. Only using reason, leading with the brain not the heart, dealing with he facts like them or not.

That Gibson would have made his mark in MLB little doubt a great talent but to affix a specific number on where he should rank even though he never played MLB, even though it was no fault of his own seems impossible. Some of his numbers came from exhibition games, some from playing winter ball, some against black pitching ( even though some were great) that even black players said was not on the level of MLB, at least not day to day.

A great talent was shut out of MLB but we can't suppose what might have been at least not to the point where we tell some MLB catchers that some how we know Gibson was better than they, those who did play MLB.

He should be considered but not given a specific rank, how do we know it never happened, just the facts not emotion.

CTaka

12-12-2006, 09:56 PM

i-rod with his 12 gold gloves and his .304 batting average.

IRod definitely belongs in the argument. But his OPS+ is 113 compared to 126 for Bench and 125 for Berra. And IRod's will likely continue to decrease - he's been a below average offensive performer with an OPS+ less than 100 for the past two seasons (yes, DESPITE hitting .300 this year!).

four tool

12-13-2006, 04:41 AM

IRod may be #3 all time, but he doesn't quite match up to Berra and Bench, they are still well beyond the #3 catcher.

538280

12-13-2006, 12:20 PM

Sorry, I wouldn't put Pudge anywhere near the top 5. Pudge's defense has a good argument as the best of all time, but I personally would not put it up with Bench's, maybe top 5 but not the best of all time or as good as Bench. Not only did Bench have a cannon for an arm, threw out basestealers at (presumably) and awesome rate, and was very quick and mobile behind the plate, but he also was a master handler of pitchers, and always worked with them well and got praise for his great staff handling through his career.

Pudge is great at all the aesthetic qualities of catching, but is somewhat selfish IMO and lacking in the dealing with the pitchers. Many catchers have meetings before games which is something Pudge has refused to do through most of his career. He also has been known to ALWAYS call for fastballs with runners on first so that he can more easily throw out the runner. He is a great catcher with unbelieveable skills, but I wouldn't call him the best because of that.

Pudge is also overrated offensively IMO. He is a .300 hitter, but he is so impatient that his OBP is nearly below average, and his power in context of his time is only moderate. He is clearly not as good a hitter as Berra or Bench, and is literally miles behind Piazza as a hitter. I can't see Pudge ahead of Piazza at all either.

IJoshKetisa

12-13-2006, 02:49 PM

mwiggins

12-13-2006, 02:59 PM

bench: .267/.342/.476 10 GG .990 FP%
berra: .285/.348/.482 0 GG .989 FP%
piazza: .309/.379/.551 0 GG .989 FP%
rodriguez: .304/.342/.483 12 GG .991 FP%
ops > ops+ because ops overrates players in weak offensive eras and underrates players in strong offensive eras.

Correction, OPS overrates players in strong offensive eras and underrates players in weak offensive eras. It also overrates players in hitters parks and underrates them in pitchers parks.

OPS says that Todd Helton is a better hitter than Mickey Mantle and Frank Thomas and Stan Musial and Willie Mays and Hank Aaron. OPS says that Brian Giles is a better hitter than Hank Aaron and Frank Robinson and Mike Schmidt. OPS says that Lance Berkman is a better hitter than Willie Mays and Hank Aaron and Mickey Mantle.

Is that really what you believe?

The Kid

12-13-2006, 04:20 PM

Josh Gibson. 800 homers.

G.Costanza

12-14-2006, 07:01 AM

That makes two of us, at least two of us. Not being insensitive to the great injustice dealt out to the black ballpayers of long ago, not given their chance in MLB because of skin color. Only using reason, leading with the brain not the heart, dealing with he facts like them or not.

That Gibson would have made his mark in MLB little doubt a great talent but to affix a specific number on where he should rank even though he never played MLB, even though it was no fault of his own seems impossible. Some of his numbers came from exhibition games, some from playing winter ball, some against black pitching ( even though some were great) that even black players said was not on the level of MLB, at least not day to day.

A great talent was shut out of MLB but we can't suppose what might have been at least not to the point where we tell some MLB catchers that some how we know Gibson was better than they, those who did play MLB.

He should be considered but not given a specific rank, how do we know it never happened, just the facts not emotion.Understandable post ,no beef with you but how do we catogorize anything from that time.Even mlb as compared to now,you can only compare it to there peers numbers,so if the pitching was at that lower a level than mlb,certainly other guys would have put up comparable numbers to gibson,which nobody did to my understanding,Guys who saw Gibson and Mays in there primes say that gibson was easily better than mays.How acurate is that?I don't know,but i know one thing ,when players talk about players they played with,the guy they say was the best was usually the best.So my vote has to go to Gibson.As far as modern i would say Bench hands down this guy was an incredible two-way player.And the way i say that i get a feeling,no stats but just like man,he was the best i saw......Thats how players talk about josh gibson,stats can be misleading,but your eyes don't lie.