Ranking HoF Catchers (Part 2)

[Brad Harris]

Here's our composite ranking of the Hall of Fame catchers (with MLB credentials):

Johnny Bench
Yogi Berra
Mickey Cochrane
Roy Campanella
Bill Dickey
Gabby Hartnett
Carlton Fisk
Gary Carter
Ernie Lombardi
Buck Ewing
Ray Schalk
Roger Bresnahan
Rick Ferrell

Where does Josh Gibson (who's in the Hall for his negro league career) fit in?

Now is the time to vote. Polls open until midnight of Sunday, August 10.

[four tool player]

I cannot honestly rate Gibson #1 because he never played in the majors, #3, right after Bench and Yogi seems good.

[The Commissioner]

I would rank Gibson ahead of everyone.

Chancellor, I still don't quite understand why you chose to conduct this as a separate poll, though? What happens now if someone doesn't necessarily agree with the rankings and doesn't think Gibson should be #1 or #11? For example what about people that may think Campanella was the greatest, but that Gibson falls somewhere between Campy and Bench? I'm honestly not trying to give you a headache here, but rather honestly don't understand the voting system. Being from Florida, I'm naturally suspicious about such things.

[Steffo]

That's a great point commish.
Whatif they rank the top four as Berra, Fisk, Campy, Bench, how would they vote on this poll?

It would have been easier to just indert him w/ the other catchers in the first poll.

[tearforamariner]

It's a little obvious that I would vote for Gibson being ahead of everyone (I've stood on my soap box on several occasions).

[cubbieinexile]

Here is the question you have to ask yourself. Was the negro league at the same, above, or below in terms of quality as compared to the MLB? It might be possible that the very best negro leaguer was just as good as the very best major leaguer. In all probability they were, but I think that in terms of overall quality the negro leagues were much much lower than the Majors. The Negro league teams in many cases were poorly funded and run a shoe string budget, nor did they always get the best talent that was available. The latin leagues down in Central America and on the islands prospered at the same time as the negro leagues. I am thinking that in terms of competition Gibson faced a level of competition that was much lower thus artificially inflating his numbers to some degree. Should we totally disregard his numbers and not rank him? Of course not (Aramis just hit a homer! WOo-Hoo!). For me at least I know that Johnny Bench was the best catcher of an integrated MLB.

[Etheridge2]

Originally posted by cubbieinexile
Here is the question you have to ask yourself. Was the negro league at the same, above, or below in terms of quality as compared to the MLB? It might be possible that the very best negro leaguer was just as good as the very best major leaguer. In all probability they were, but I think that in terms of overall quality the negro leagues were much much lower than the Majors. .

You are ranking the player not the league so if you feel that in all probability the best negro leaguer was as good as the best major leaguer I fail tos ee the issue... I rank Gibson #1 all-time but I think that is obvious from my other posts... also I agree that doing it this way can complicate things because everyone had their own individual rankings and their placement of Gibson may not be accurately gauged by this poll...but so be it...this is the way it's run then that's fine

[Brad Harris]

Originally posted by The Commissioner
I would rank Gibson ahead of everyone.

Chancellor, I still don't quite understand why you chose to conduct this as a separate poll, though? What happens now if someone doesn't necessarily agree with the rankings and doesn't think Gibson should be #1 or #11? For example what about people that may think Campanella was the greatest, but that Gibson falls somewhere between Campy and Bench? I'm honestly not trying to give you a headache here, but rather honestly don't understand the voting system. Being from Florida, I'm naturally suspicious about such things.

I see your point. I've altered the choices in the poll to more accurately reflect what should be under consideration. This should circumvent the obstacle you mention.

[cubbieinexile]

If two players have identical abilty but one plays in the double A and the other in majors, which one is going to have better stats? Which one is going to look like the better player if we ignore the league? What if one player is slightly to just plain better than the other player but plays in the majors while the lesser plays in Double A? Again which one would have the better numbers, which one would look better if we ignored the league?

[Etheridge2]

Originally posted by cubbieinexile
If two players have identical abilty but one plays in the double A and the other in majors, which one is going to have better stats? Which one is going to look like the better player if we ignore the league? What if one player is slightly to just plain better than the other player but plays in the majors while the lesser plays in Double A? Again which one would have the better numbers, which one would look better if we ignored the league?

yes be you have already conceded that the best negro league players were as good as the best major leaguers ("It might be possible that the very best negro leaguer was just as good as the very best major leaguer. In all probability they were") so the league is irrelevant and plenty of people have attested to the abilities of Gibson and Paige and Charleston, and others from teh Negro leagues.. plus we saw after integration how dominant the black ballplayers were.. Mays, Aaron, Robinson, Banks...it is clear to me that gibson would have been the best in any league he played in.

[cubbieinexile]

Again though if you have Babe Ruth and he is playing against double A pitchers and then you have Babe Ruth playing against major league pitchers which version do you think is going to look better?

When we are talking about the best of the best we are talking about players in which the difference between two them might be very small. We look at Josh and say he might very well be the greatest player of all time based on his exploits in the negro leagues. A league that was probably inferior to the major leagues. Would Josh Gibson have hit 800 home runs in the majors? Probably not. Even less likely if the majors were fully integrated. Was every pitcher Josh Gibson faced on the same level as Paige or how about major league level? It is more likely that he played against a large group of inferior pitchers.

Basically what I am saying is that Josh faces the same problem as does Babe Ruth. That is that they both played in segregated leagues that caused them to face inferior competition.

[Brad Harris]

Here's our final composite rankings of the Hall of Fame catchers!

1. Josh Gibson
2. Johnny Bench
3. Yogi Berra
4. Mickey Cochrane
5. Roy Campanella
6. Bill Dickey
7. Gabby Hartnett
8. Carlton Fisk
9. Gary Carter
10. Ernie Lombardi
11. Buck Ewing
12. Ray Schalk
13. Roger Bresnahan
14. Rick Ferrell

Thanks again, for your time and thoughtfulness!

[NOMAR22]

Originally Posted by Etheridge2

yes be you have already conceded that the best negro league players were as good as the best major leaguers ("It might be possible that the very best negro leaguer was just as good as the very best major leaguer. In all probability they were") so the league is irrelevant and plenty of people have attested to the abilities of Gibson and Paige and Charleston, and others from teh Negro leagues.. plus we saw after integration how dominant the black ballplayers were.. Mays, Aaron, Robinson, Banks...it is clear to me that gibson would have been the best in any league he played in.

You are correct.