Carlton Fisk...best catcher ever?

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"OBP is made up of all of these.
SLG is made up of all of these (but walks)."


I don't know why you can't understand what I'm saying.. OPS adds these two things together. By doing that it overemphasizes batting average(by a factor of 2) and therefore deemphasizes extra base hits and walks. This doesn't make it a more complete offensive stat, to my mind it makes it less complete. To really b meaningful SLG and OBP need to be considered seperately, that's the whole point of there being two different stats in the first place, they measure different things.

And while there is a relationship between any hitting stat and RBIs, it isn't a direct correlation, since there are useful ways to create RBIs that do not result from getting a base hit. So the best way to measure RBIs is to look at RBIs.

I understand what you're saying - but it makes no sense. OBP and SLG are made up of the most common occurnces that a batter can do. Homeruns are counted twice in OPS then. Doubles are counted twice. Triples are counted twice. Singles are counted twice. Extra base hits are counted twice. OBP takes all of these and walks into account. SLG takes all of these (with a scale) into account. Look at them separately if you so wish. Again, what you are saying makes absolutely no sense. If it did, then nobody would have ever created OPS and it wouldn't have become as mainstream as it is today. If it didn't have a high correlation to team run scoring, then nobody would use it.

So look at OBP and SLG separately. I've used them separately in this thread. And again, Piazza is absolutely far better than Bench. Again, Piazza had a vastly superior slugging and vastly superior OBP when compared against their own separate eras. There's simply no denying the gigantic gap between the two in BOTH of these statistics.

Yes, there are useful ways to create RBIs without getting a hit - but those are rare occurnces - not enough to skew data from 162 games and 600 plate appearances in a single season severely.

The best way to look at RBIs is to look at RBIs. Sure. However, having more runners on base in front of you will also result in more RBIs. You simply cannot ignore the presence of the OBP of the players that batted in front of the player in question.

 

[Tom]

But the problem with OPS is it counts batting average twice, but it only includes the other components of the two stats once.

So the bonus for extra base hits that exists in SLG are diminished by half ,and the consideration that OBP gives to other ways of getting on base besides BA are likewise cut in half.

Illustration-

BA= apples
walks and the other parts of OBP besides BA= oranges
bonus for extra base hits that is part of SLG=pears


So-

OBP = apples+oranges

SLG = apples+pears

Therefore-

OPS= apples+apples+oranges+pears.

See how apples are overemphasized ?

 

[RabidMongoose]

What the heck are you talking about?

Batting Average consists of HRs, 3B, 2B, and 1B. What you are saying makes no sense. Why aren't you breaking it down to the core components? Batting average consists of extra base hits and singles.

OBP consists of HRs, 3B, 2B, 1B, and BB.
SLG consists of HRs, 3B, 2B, 1B - but with a scale.
AVG itself is a separate 'formula' that uses HRs, 3B, 1B, and 2B.

I don't see how batting average itself is being overemphasized at all. What I see is two formulas composed of relatively the same factors.

How can the 'bonus' for extra base hits be cut in half when the bonus is HUGE? We're talking about 2*2B, 3*3B, 4*HR. Your analogy is horrendous.

 

[Tom]

Compare SLG to just plain BA and you'll find that SLG is just BA plus a bonus for extra base hits.

Compare OBP to BA and you'll find OBP is just BA plus the other ways to get on base.


So when you add them together, you are adding BA twice, but the extra parts of each stat only once. This makes BA more important than the other components of those stats.

Additionally OBP and SLG were created to measure different aspects of the game, adding them together implies you can combine those different aspects into one measurement, which doesn't make sense.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Compare SLG to just plain BA and you'll find that SLG is just BA plus a bonus for extra base hits.

Compare OBP to BA and you'll find OBP is just BA plus the other ways to get on base.

Obviously. That's because average is composed of the only things (except for walks) that a batter can do. It's composed of the same things that SLG and OBP are derived from! Again, what you are saying is ridiculous. Batting average, On Base Percentage, and Slugging Percentage are all essentially derived from basically the SAME elements!

So when you add them together, you are adding BA twice, but the extra parts of each stat only once. This makes BA more important than the other components of those stats.

HELLO! They're all derived from homeruns, doubles, triples, singles, outs, and walks (for OBP). Why aren't you looking at the basics? It's not making batting average itself more important - it's making the very factors that make average, OBP, and SLG important - which is pretty damn obvious.

Additionally OBP and SLG were created to measure different aspects of the game, adding them together implies you can combine those different aspects into one measurement, which doesn't make sense.

Obviously OBP and SLG measure different aspects of the game....they're basically the two aspects of a player - how often he gets on base and how 'far' he drives the ball when he does. You can combine different aspects to find a player's true worth and it makes perfect sense. If you're trying to say that it won't be a completely accurate measurement - then I've already stated that numerous times. OBP is not emphasized enough in OPS (but it is in more advanced statistics)...but again, this is something that hurts Bench.

You really lack any statistical knowledge. I mean it was pretty evident when you didn't even know what SLG was...but wow, you have really opened my eyes. You seem to be arguing about things that you don't even fully understand.

 

[Tom]

Consider OPS as a mathmatical equation made up of 3 elements.

element one is batting average
element two is the part of slugging percnetage that isn't BA, the bonus for extra bases.
element three is the part of OBP that isn't BA.


The equation that makes up OPS is made up of two parts of element one, and one part of element two and element three. So it emphasizes element one and diminishes elements two and three.

So it doesn't give a more complete picture, it gives a distorted picture.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Please tell me that you're not serious.

OPS as a mathematical equation is made up of 2 elements. OPS = OBP + SLG.

OBP = (Homeruns + Triples + Doubles + Singles + BB)/PA
SLG = (Homeruns*4 + Triples*3 + Doubles*2 + Singles)/AB

AVG is the total number of homeruns, doubles, triples ,and singles that you have in relation to your total chances. What you're saying is that you don't like it that people that have more homeruns, triples, doubles, and singles are said to be more productive. So in other words, for you a player has to be crappy to be considered good. Interesting.

element one is batting average
element two is the part of slugging percnetage that isn't BA, the bonus for extra bases.
element three is the part of OBP that isn't BA.

No it isn't. One element (OBP) is directly AVG+'the part of OBP that isn't BA'. The other is all hits put to a scale. It's not 'batting average' + 'whatever isn't BA'. What you're saying is that you can say anything is composed of ANYTHING + 'some other stuff'. I could say that SLG is (singles where the batter tried to stretch it out to a double but got out at second) + the part that isn't (singles where the batter tried to stretch it out to a double but got out at second). Of course I wouldn't say that because it's ridiculous and means nothing. However, I guess it's a very meaningful explanation for one such as yourself.

If SLG is 'batting average + what isn't in batting average', then please break this magical idea that you have down. If you have a .330 batting average in 500 at bats, what is your SLG? What's the part that 'isn't in the batting average'? I'm waiting for a great explanation. Maybe you can involve vegetables instead of fruits this time.

I guess that in order to try to show that Bench is a better player, you have to show that he is inferior. Good job. Has anyone ever told you that you're the next Bill James?

So it doesn't give a more complete picture, it gives a distorted picture.

It gives a hell of a lot more complete picture. But then again, I expect you to be confused by it.

You're beginning to show that you're just an idiot that has no idea what you're talking about...and that was pretty obvious when you got confused over what SLG was.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

You're NOT pimping avg now? LMAO, yet you're pimping OPS? What % of OPS consists of BA?

Batting average consists of singles, doubles, triples, and homeruns. However, a high batting average does not necessarily mean a high OPS. Definitely not.

Read my previous post about OPS.

Since Piazza had significantly more singles than Bench, BA is factored into SLG heavily.

Yeah, just like if you had significantly more doubles or homeruns.

Wah wah wah, let's penalize someone for being MORE successful!

You can whine about the extra at bats Bench had, but Piazza, if that much better in his peak, should have easily made up the difference in a hitter's era (Bench only played 6 games more and had 50 more AB's). Also, you can't prove that Piazza would have even hit in those 50 AB's, it's pure speculation. He could have just as easily gone into a slump as gotten the hits.

Yeah, that's why I look at rate stats. Of course Bench would have more at bats in only 6 more games played. Since you aren't very statistically inclined, I'll help you out: his team had a higher OBP, therefore creating more plate appearances.

I'll stick to my system where judges players more correctly. You can stick to your system that puts a player like Dave Kingman's best season as better than Barry Bonds' best season ever.

Last but not least, you whine that Piazza hit in a pitcher's park in a hitter's era, please spare me the excuses! I've seen Piazza hit over 400 ft blasts, that is no excuse... why hasn't Piazza hit as many 2B's or 3B's as Bench? Maybe it's because he's a slow baserunner?? He gets the hits, but not as many are extra basehits in comparison to Bench, why is that? With all offensive stats up on avg in this era, Piazza should have destroyed Bench regardless of what park he plays in. To prove this, look up extra base hits hit at Shea Stadium from 1975 to present. Guaranteed the graph has an upward slope.

Yes, Piazza has played in pitcher's parks? Do you deny this?

Of course it'll have an upward trend, but that's also b/c of the era. Again, you make an obvious statement. However, that doesn't negate the pack factors, which is extreme.

Again, if Bench is so great, why doesn't he rank as good against his own peers in SLG or OBP? Why doesn't ANY comprehensive offensive statistic measure Bench as better than Piazza?

How are you determining that Bench is better than Piazza now? I have stuck to one general system that involves any comprehensive offensive statistic. I'm not sure what the hell you're using now as it seems to have changed all of the time.

Are you still using only HR/RBI? If so, please refer to my Kingman vs. Bonds statements and explain why you are completely ignoring OBP. Please also state and explain the fact that Bench's teammates had a vastly better OBP, thereby creating more RBI chances. Please also refer to plate appearances/at bats for each player. If you bring up era, then please also bring up the park factors.

Of course Piazza hits in a pitcher's park, you're not stating anything that's not obvious. Piazza also has higher career BA and OPS totals, so what? You ask why Bench doesn't have a higher disparity against his peers in SLG or OBP, does it really matter by how much you bat over the league in SLG or OBP? No, as long as it's dominant enough to be MVP! You state that Piazza was soooooooooo much better when matched against his peers, yet other players were better. Better enough that he never, ever finished MVP! And yet, you still claim: Why doesn't ANY comprehensive offensive statistic measure Bench as better than Piazza? when Bench batted as the 1976 World Series MVP: .533BA, .533OBP, and had a SLG% of 1.333. Piazza: .273BA, .273OBP, and a .636SLG.

But let's not stop here!! Let's look at their cumulative postseason performances. Bench, in 10 Postseason performances: 45 Games, 169AB's: .266 BA, .335 OBP, and .527 SLG. Piazza, in 7 Postseason performances: 28 Games, 110 AB's: .255 BA, .317 OBP, and .482 SLG. To reiterate, you claim: Why doesn't ANY comprehensive offensive statistic measure Bench as better than Piazza?. Piazza had 110 times to come through for his team, but what happened when he faced good pitching? Bench had higher averages in EVERY STATISTICAL CATEGORY (that you care about) in 169AB's when it counted... Now do you still think that Piazza "peaked" better than Bench? The postseason is when Bench shined, hence he, without a doubt, peaked better than Piazza. We don't even have to get into facts such as Piazza never leading his league in HR's, RBI's, or AVG. It's painfully apparent in that Piazza doesn't have a single, solitary MVP to his name. Bench has THREE, 2 regular season and 1 World Series. I will say that Piazza has been more consistent over his career (offensively), but you can't clearly say that Piazza peaked better. No way in hell!

 

[RabidMongoose]

You ask why Bench doesn't have a higher disparity against his peers in SLG or OBP, does it really matter by how much you bat over the league in SLG or OBP?

Yes it does matter. How else are you going to compare them with using simple yet comprehensive statistics that are rate based?

No, as long as it's dominant enough to be MVP!

I never said that Bench wasn't a good player. Ichiro won an MVP...I guess he's one of the best players of all time, huh? So did Ken Caminiti.

And yet, you still claim: Why doesn't ANY comprehensive offensive statistic measure Bench as better than Piazza? when Bench batted as the 1976 World Series MVP: .533BA, .533OBP, and had a SLG% of 1.333. Piazza: .273BA, .273OBP, and a .636SLG.

I don't have to claim that any comprehensive offensive statistic measures Piazza as better than Bench...it's a fact that you cannot deny. It's pretty obvious if you look at their regular season totals. If you want to say that Bench was better in the postseason then go ahead.

I'm going to ignore you if you're going to use a sample size of less than 200 at bats to declare who is the best hitter when both hitters have over 5500 plate appearances each.

If you want to say that Bench was better in the postseason, then go ahead. But that doesn't mean that much. I mean even Ted Williams in 25 measly at bats did poorly in the postseason. I guess you would say that Scott Brosius is better than Ted Williams then. You could toss Roger Hornsby and Willie Mays in that group that is inferior to Brosius, too....since you seem to now believe that less than 200 at bats makes a career.

Again, over their entire careers, Piazza was better. Piazza also had a better peak if you use any comprehensive statistic. You cannot find any comprehsnive statistic that measures a full season or their whole careers that says Bench was better. I think that clearly says that Piazza was better offensively.

I'm curious to see what your next argument will be like. So far we have Dave Kingman having a better peak season than Barry Bonds and Scott Brosius being better than Ted Williams, Roger Hornsby, and Willie Mays. Thank god Brosius and Kingman are in the hall of fame! What a tragedy it would be to have people that did nothing like Bonds, Williams, Hornsby, or Mays in the HOF!

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

You ask why Bench doesn't have a higher disparity against his peers in SLG or OBP, does it really matter by how much you bat over the league in SLG or OBP?

Yes it does matter. How else are you going to compare them with using simple yet comprehensive statistics that are rate based?

No, as long as it's dominant enough to be MVP!

I never said that Bench wasn't a good player. Ichiro won an MVP...I guess he's one of the best players of all time, huh? So did Ken Caminiti.

And yet, you still claim: Why doesn't ANY comprehensive offensive statistic measure Bench as better than Piazza? when Bench batted as the 1976 World Series MVP: .533BA, .533OBP, and had a SLG% of 1.333. Piazza: .273BA, .273OBP, and a .636SLG.

I don't have to claim that any comprehensive offensive statistic measures Piazza as better than Bench...it's a fact that you cannot deny. It's pretty obvious if you look at their regular season totals. If you want to say that Bench was better in the postseason then go ahead.

I'm going to ignore you if you're going to use a sample size of less than 200 at bats to declare who is the best hitter when both hitters have over 5500 plate appearances each.

If you want to say that Bench was better in the postseason, then go ahead. But that doesn't mean that much. I mean even Ted Williams in 25 measly at bats did poorly in the postseason. I guess you would say that Scott Brosius is better than Ted Williams then. You could toss Roger Hornsby and Willie Mays in that group that is inferior to Brosius, too....since you seem to now believe that less than 200 at bats makes a career.

Again, over their entire careers, Piazza was better. Piazza also had a better peak if you use any comprehensive statistic. You cannot find any comprehsnive statistic that measures a full season or their whole careers that says Bench was better. I think that clearly says that Piazza was better offensively.

I'm curious to see what your next argument will be like. So far we have Dave Kingman having a better peak season than Barry Bonds and Scott Brosius being better than Ted Williams, Roger Hornsby, and Willie Mays. Thank god Brosius and Kingman are in the hall of fame! What a tragedy it would be to have people that did nothing like Bonds, Williams, Hornsby, or Mays in the HOF!

Ah, so you eat your words that: Why doesn't ANY comprehensive offensive statistic measure Bench as better than Piazza? b/c of Bench's better postseason performance? Yes, the truth hurts, but I've got some more statistics to back up my opinion that Bench peaked better than Piazza.

First off, your comparison of Brosius to Ted Williams is invalid to Bench and Piazza. Brosius had 196 at bats to Ted Williams' 25 at bats in the postseason, this is invalid. It is not off base to compare 110 at bats to 169 , Bench only played in only 3 more postseason series than Piazza (the diffential between Splendid Splinter and Brosious is ELEVEN). Brosius's stats really weren't even that good in 196 at bats, Bench creams him in SLG% (.418 Brosius vs .527 Bench), just as Bench beats Piazza by .45 SLG% pts in the postseason (.482 Piazza to .587 Bench); and Brosius was considered to be a great postseason clutch hitter. I think 100 postseason at bats is enough of a sample size given the value of an AB due to better pitching, and 110 to 169 is hardly a stretch. IF Piazza was better, he should have had higher numbers than Bench b/c it's well accepted that the more at bats = lower avg and slg (Bench had 59 more AB's than Piazza). The postseason is the greatest measure of a baseball player, and comparing 110 at bats to 169 is not a stretch. Notice I didn't even include their peak WS performances (Bench had a 1.333 SLG% to Piazza's .636SLG%) b/c we would all hear Wah wah wah it's only 13 at bats vs 22, that's too small! When in reality, comparing a player's ability head to head in a WS is highly relevant b/c the player has to perform on a much higher level than the regular season and faces better pitching. Are you saying that Bench's SLG% of .527 in 169AB's, against the best pitchers in the league, is nothing less than phenomenal? Hell, even Piazza's .482% in 110AB's is pretty dam good.

You then state: I never said that Bench wasn't a good player. Ichiro won an MVP...I guess he's one of the best players of all time, huh? So did Ken Caminiti. yet you still miss the point. Bench didn't have a freak year and win just one, he won 2 Reg season MVPs in which he led MLB in HR's/RBI's, and one World Series MVP. Piazza has never done ANY OF THIS! Again, how can you claim that Piazza had a better peak when he hasn't even won one MVP (if he is in fact the greatest hitting catcher of all time this should have been easy), let alone leading in any category of the Triple Crown in any year he played! You show us that Piazza had a higher than league avg in SLG, but why hasn't he ever won a Triple Crown category for the NL when Bench has won FIVE?! Furthermore, Bench has led MLB in extra base hits, Piazza none. If comparing Bench to his peers is so important to you, then these facts are highly relevant.

Some more stats for you: Let's take SLG% for peak years in comparison to rest of MLB:

In 1970: .202 pts (.587 vs .385) over the MLB avg.
In 1972: .187 pts (.541 vs .354).
In 1974: .138 pts over league avg (.507 vs .369).
In 1977: .139 pts over (.540 vs .401).

Piazza:
In 1997: .219 pts over (.638 vs .419)
In 2000: .177 pts over (.614 vs .437)
In 1999: .141 pts over (.575 vs .434)
In 2001: .146 pts over (.573 vs .427)

Note: I didn't include 1995 b/c Piazza only played 112 games, which is not a full season.

This nullifies your ABSURD Kingman/Bonds comparison, b/c Bonds destroyed Kingman in SLG% pts over MLB avg, whereas it's pretty even between Bench/Piazza.

To reiterate: between Bench/Piazza, SLG is pretty much even, so all you can do is look at other stats that compare the 2 against their peers like:
-Bench's 2+1 MVP's (they all came in his peak offensive years so u can't use defense as an excuse), to Piazza's ZERO
-Leading in Triple Crown categories (RBI/HR's) five times to Piazza's ZERO in only the NL, Bench led MLB 4 times
-Only catcher ever to lead MLB in extra base hits in a season

Head to head:
-Superior postseason SLG% of .527 to .482, comparing 169AB's to 110AB's (100 AB's is enough of a sample size for postseason b/c of superior pitching than reg. season, i.e. each AB holds more value than the regular season).

It's blatantly obvious that Bench offensively peaked better (when in comparison against the peers of his era), aside from the fact that you already admit that Bench was the greatest catcher of all time.

 

[SP33Demon]

Correction to above statistic: Bench actually led MLB in extra basehits TWICE, not only in 1970, but 1974 as well.

One more thing to add to the above facts of:

-Bench's 2+1 MVP's (they all came in his peak offensive years so u can't use defense as an excuse), to Piazza's ZERO
-Leading in Triple Crown categories (RBI/HR's) five times to Piazza's ZERO in only the NL, Bench led MLB 4 times
-Only catcher ever to lead MLB in extra base hits in a season, and he led twice

Sit for a minute and think about how impressive and insane these accomplishments are! First off, the MVP's. Bench played on the Big Red Machine, one of the greatest teams of all time, with All Stars: Rose, Morgan, Perez, Foster and Concepcion. Perez, Morgan, and (eventually Rose) are Hall of Famers. Bench was not only MVP of this team twice, but MVP over all Hall of Famers in his era.

He led in HRs/RBI's over all Hall of Famers at that time: Willie McCovey, Hank Aaron, Willie Stargell. For example, in 1970, McCovey had a SLG% of .612, Aaron .574, Stargell .511, and yet Bench still won MVP on top of the HRs/RBIs/extra basehits. Other Hall of Famers that year: Killebrew (.546 SLG%), Yastrzemski (.592), Frank Robinson (.520), Reggie Jackson (.458). Hell, his teammate Tony Perez batted .317, .589 SLG%, had 40 HR's, and 129 RBI's. He beat ALL of these guys in HR's/RBI/extra basehits that year. That's like the equivalent of Piazza beating Bonds/ARod in HR's/RBI/extra basehits, that's how sick Bench was to win MVP and post a .587SLG, hit 45HR's, and 148 RBIs.

Bench also beat Hank Aaron in HR's, RBI's, and extrabase hits in 1972, when Aaron led the league in statistic HR%/AB! Not to mention Stargell, Killebrew, Yaz, Reggie Jackson, and Rod Carew... He also wins MVP again over all these guys (Aaron and Stargell since the other 4 are in the AL).

1974 he beat Mike Schmidt (.546 SLG%), Hank Aaron(.491), McCovey (.506), Steve Garvey(.469), Yaz (.445), Reggie Jackson (.514) in extra basehits and RBI's, not to mention his own Hall of Fame teammates!

Just the fact that Bench beat Hank Aaron and Reggie Jackson twice in HR's/RBI's, once in extra basehits, and won two MVP's over Hank Aaron is phenomenal. Relatively speaking, this would mean that Piazza would have had to beat Mark McGwire or Barry Bonds (or whoever the greatest hitters in the game were during Piazza's peak years) in HR's/RBI's/extra base hits TWICE. Maybe this puts things into perspective as to why I think Bench peaked better, he was a slugger in a pitcher's era, just as Pedro Martinez is an ace in a hitter's era...

 

[RabidMongoose]

Ah, so you eat your words that: Why doesn't ANY comprehensive offensive statistic measure Bench as better than Piazza? b/c of Bench's better postseason performance? Yes, the truth hurts, but I've got some more statistics to back up my opinion that Bench peaked better than Piazza.

Ah, so you prove that you have no statistical or common knowledge. You are using less than 200 at bats to show that these two playrs who each have more than 5500 plate appearances. This would be like me saying 'Bench was not good in 1982 when he was 34 years old. Piazza was better when he was 34 years. Therefore, because of this one single season, Piazza's career was better'...Yet I didn't look at the whole career, just like you didn't look at the whole career. And there's a reason for that - it's because you probably do recognize that Piazza was a better offensive hitter than Bench.

Again, you can say that Bench is better in the post season. However, you are basing an entire career on less than 200 at bats. Why? Because you know you have no argument? Probably.

What about Stan Musial? (86 at bats - 742 OPS in postseason), Willie Mays (89 at bats, 660 OPS), Roger Hornsby (49 at bats, 615 OPS). Are they worse than Ruben Sierra now? I mean Ruben Sierra, in 55 postseason at bats, has a .900+ OPS. According to your ridiculous argument, he is. Comparing 55 at bats to 49 isn't that much of a stretch. Even 55 to 89 isn't that much of a difference. And Ruben Sierra is SO much better in these 50 at bats, that he must therefore be a better overall player and have had a better career! Right? Well, according to you, you would agree. Congratulations on reaching another ridiculous conclusion. Why are you using a sample size of less than 200 at bats to determine who is better when each player has more than 5500 plate appearances?

Again, I enjoy how you are completely ignoring to look at their whole career. I wonder why...

In 1970: .202 pts (.587 vs .385) over the MLB avg.
In 1972: .187 pts (.541 vs .354).
In 1974: .138 pts over league avg (.507 vs .369).
In 1977: .139 pts over (.540 vs .401).

Piazza:
In 1997: .219 pts over (.638 vs .419)
In 2000: .177 pts over (.614 vs .437)
In 1999: .141 pts over (.575 vs .434)
In 2001: .146 pts over (.573 vs .427)

So let me get this right...you're saying that Piazza had a slightly higher slugging percentage against his peers than Bench AND a vastly superior OBP (which is obvious). Thanks for proving my point again!

This nullifies your ABSURD Kingman/Bonds comparison, b/c Bonds destroyed Kingman in SLG% pts over MLB avg, whereas it's pretty even between Bench/Piazza.

Yes it does because now you have backed off of your ridiculous RBI/HR only comparison. I've shown you at least part of the truth! I consider this a minor victory.

To reiterate: between Bench/Piazza, SLG is pretty much even, so all you can do is look at other stats that compare the 2 against their peers like:

Yeah, let's ignore OBP because it hurts your argument! I mean it's only one of the most important statistics out there! I mean the ability to NOT generate an out is useless! You want outs, am I right?

It's blatantly obvious that Bench offensively peaked better (when in comparison against the peers of his era), aside from the fact that you already admit that Bench was the greatest catcher of all time.

It's blatantly obvious that Piazza offensively peaked better (when in comparison against the peers of his era), especially considering that you have basically shown it yourself...and aside from the fact that you seem to agree that over their whole careers, Piazza was far better offensively.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Ah, so you prove that you have no statistical or common knowledge. You are using less than 200 at bats to show that these two playrs who each have more than 5500 plate appearances. This would be like me saying 'Bench was not good in 1982 when he was 34 years old. Piazza was better when he was 34 years. Therefore, because of this one single season, Piazza's career was better'...Yet I didn't look at the whole career, just like you didn't look at the whole career. And there's a reason for that - it's because you probably do recognize that Piazza was a better offensive hitter than Bench.

100 AB's is sufficient for postseason comparison, due to the fact that every AB holds more value, did u even read the above? To repeat, every AB holds more value, b/c all of the AB's are against great pitching.

Again, you can say that Bench is better in the post season. However, you are basing an entire career on less than 200 at bats. Why? Because you know you have no argument? Probably.

Read the above again, I'm not just basing better peak on postseason. I'm basing it on the Triple Crown category totals vs peers, extra basehits vs peers, and best 4 years of SLG%.

Why are you using a sample size of less than 200 at bats to determine who is better when each player has more than 5500 plate appearances?

It's painfully obvious by this bolded statement you don't know what we're comparing. I'm arguing peak, not career. If you did understand that we're arguing peak, then it seems that you're grasping at straws by bringing career back into the discussion.

Again, I enjoy how you are completely ignoring to look at their whole career. I wonder why...

Refer to above again.

In 1970: .202 pts (.587 vs .385) over the MLB avg.
In 1972: .187 pts (.541 vs .354).
In 1974: .138 pts over league avg (.507 vs .369).
In 1977: .139 pts over (.540 vs .401).

Piazza:
In 1997: .219 pts over (.638 vs .419)
In 2000: .177 pts over (.614 vs .437)
In 1999: .141 pts over (.575 vs .434)
In 2001: .146 pts over (.573 vs .427)

So let me get this right...you're saying that Piazza had a slightly higher slugging percentage against his peers than Bench AND a vastly superior OBP (which is obvious). Thanks for proving my point again!

Um, the SLG%'s above are close to even. You would have no grounds to say that Piazza is the clear cut winner b/c they're so close.

This nullifies your ABSURD Kingman/Bonds comparison, b/c Bonds destroyed Kingman in SLG% pts over MLB avg, whereas it's pretty even between Bench/Piazza.

Yes it does because now you have backed off of your ridiculous RBI/HR only comparison. I've shown you at least part of the truth! I consider this a minor victory.

No, I haven't backed off my HR/RBI/Extra Basehit statement (see 2 posts above for explanation on how Bench had better numbers in these years than Hank Aaron and Reggie Jackson, 2 of the greatest hitters of all time), I just proved that your analogy between Bonds/Kingman is now invalid b/c of the vast disparity in SLG% between them, unlike Bench/Piazza who are very close in their peak years. Yes, you have shown me the truth in how bad an analogy of players you used to try and prove your point. Take it as a victory, lol.

To reiterate: between Bench/Piazza, SLG is pretty much even, so all you can do is look at other stats that compare the 2 against their peers like:

Yeah, let's ignore OBP because it hurts your argument! I mean it's only one of the most important statistics out there! I mean the ability to NOT generate an out is useless! You want outs, am I right?

We don't need to look at OBP because it's already well known that Piazza hit for better avg, and Bench for power. Hence we will compare power stats, aka SLG%. If Piazza was so great offensively, OBP is irrelevant b/c Piazza would destroy Bench in SLG.

It's blatantly obvious that Bench offensively peaked better (when in comparison against the peers of his era), aside from the fact that you already admit that Bench was the greatest catcher of all time.

It's blatantly obvious that Piazza offensively peaked better (when in comparison against the peers of his era), especially considering that you have basically shown it yourself...and aside from the fact that you seem to agree that over their whole careers, Piazza was far better offensively.

Yes, I have shown that Piazza and Bench are nearly equal on SLG% in peak years, so you can't say that he's a better power hitter. I've shown that Bench was above hitters like Hank Aaron and Reggie Jackson in his peak years, whereas Piazza doesn't compare to Bonds or McGwire in his peak years. I've shown that Bench's better SLG% in the postseason proves he was better when it counted, and better against the premier pitching at the time.

 

[Red Dawn]

LOL at SP33Demon and RabidMongoose. Too bad that we can't make out the Southie and Brooklyn accents in their posts that would only add to the spice of their argument/debate!

 

[RabidMongoose]

Yes, I have shown that Piazza and Bench are nearly equal on SLG% in peak years, so you can't say that he's a better power hitter.

Oh, I forgot about one very crucial element: park factor. Therefore Piazza's SLG against his league is even more impressive. Considering that Bench played in a neutral park and Piazza played in a pitcher's parks, Piazza's SLG is much more impressive then. Thanks for agreeing with me now since you have also agreed and acknowledged that Piazza does play in pitcher's parks at home. I wonder how you're going to spin this one...remember, we were already comparing them against their leagues.

And you still can't say that Bench was a better offensive player in his peak season or his career. I enjoy how you're still refusing to look at OBP since no matter how you spin it, Bench would still be inferior...I guess you could say that Bench had a higher OBP on night games when a pitcher with the last name of Johnson pitched, therefore his OBP is better.

I've shown that Bench was above hitters like Hank Aaron and Reggie Jackson in his peak years, whereas Piazza doesn't compare to Bonds or McGwire in his peak years.

But he wasn't above Willie McCovey or his own teammate - Perez in his best SLG season. I like how you're comparing a young and in his peak Johnny Bench to a 36 year old Hank Aaron. You didn't even really show anything in comparing Bench against these other players. Bench wasn't even the best player during his peak years.

I've shown that Bench's better SLG% in the postseason proves he was better when it counted, and better against the premier pitching at the time.

Yeah, and you also therefore think that Ruben Sierra is better than Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Stan Musial, and Roger Hornsby. Congratulations!

Do you acknowledge the existence of OBP? Please also address the new issue regarding the SLG - a statistic that you have started to actively use for your own argument.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
LOL at SP33Demon and RabidMongoose. Too bad that we can't make out the Southie and Brooklyn accents in their posts that would only add to the spice of their argument/debate!

I already live in Boston - don't need to hear that accent some more! Ugh...

 

[classy]

Johnny Bench

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Oh, I forgot about one very crucial element: park factor. Therefore Piazza's SLG against his league is even more impressive. Considering that Bench played in a neutral park and Piazza played in a pitcher's parks, Piazza's SLG is much more impressive then. Thanks for agreeing with me now since you have also agreed and acknowledged that Piazza does play in pitcher's parks at home. I wonder how you're going to spin this one...remember, we were already comparing them against their leagues.

Cinergy Field: Left field: 330, Left Center 375, 404, 375, and 330. Wall height: 8ft.
Shea Stadium: 338, 371, 410, 371, 338. Wall height: 8ft.
If you're going to call Shea a pitcher's park, then you may as well call Cinergy one too. I don't think the 5 ft walls to left mattered anyway, b/c:
1. Left/Right Center were longer at Cinergy
2. Piazza didn't hit as many doubles or triples as Bench, meaning he either put the ball out of the park or hit a single. If the ball didn't go the extra 5 ft, then Piazza most likely would have had a double (it would have went off the wall). Since he didn't have that many doubles, we can hypothesize that this probably didn't play a huge factor in HR totals.
I would need to see some raw stats on the parks before making a final decision though... but let's face it, if you're a great power hitter, do you really need the excuse of park factor? Should we factor this into Barry Bonds, McCovey, Stargell, or Hank Aaron's stats? The great ones will always perform, this seems like a pretty weak excuse, pitcher's park or not.

And you still can't say that Bench was a better offensive player in his peak season or his career. I enjoy how you're still refusing to look at OBP since no matter how you spin it, Bench would still be inferior...I guess you could say that Bench had a higher OBP on night games when a pitcher with the last name of Johnson pitched, therefore his OBP is better.

Bench was still above the league average for OBP, and well enough above his league average to be considered great for his era. Great enough to win 2 MVP's for his hitting. Remember, he didn't have to get on base, the people before him did. His job was to swing for the fences... it was a different brand of baseball back then, teams didn't have the mindset that OBP was that important as today. You cannot overlook the player's role within the microcasm of his team... that's another reason why I left OBP, it proves nothing about power hitting, but hitting for avg.

I've shown that Bench was above hitters like Hank Aaron and Reggie Jackson in his peak years, whereas Piazza doesn't compare to Bonds or McGwire in his peak years.

But he wasn't above Willie McCovey or his own teammate - Perez in his best SLG season. I like how you're comparing a young and in his peak Johnny Bench to a 36 year old Hank Aaron. You didn't even really show anything in comparing Bench against these other players. Bench wasn't even the best player during his peak years.

In 2000, Barry Bonds was 36. Do you want to look at his numbers vs Piazza (Hint: Bonds hit ALOT of HR's that year)?? Please, the great ones don't need the "I'm old and in decline" excuse. Hank Aaron was still great in 1970 at age 36, he hit 38HR's then. He then hit 47, 34, and 40 HR's in the next 3 years, so your age excuse is not valid. Yes, Bench didn't have a higher SLG% than Perez and McCovey that year, but still outslugged them in RBI, HR's, and extrabase hits. That's why he was named MVP... and what about all of the other HOFers he outhit in 1970: Aaron .574, Stargell .511, Killebrew (.546 SLG%), Yastrzemski (.592), Frank Robinson (.520), Reggie Jackson (.458). To reiterate: That's like the equivalent of Piazza beating Bonds/ARod in HR's/RBI/extra basehits, that's how sick Bench was to win MVP and post a .587SLG, hit 45HR's, and 148 RBIs.

I've shown that Bench's better SLG% in the postseason proves he was better when it counted, and better against the premier pitching at the time.

Yeah, and you also therefore think that Ruben Sierra is better than Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Stan Musial, and Roger Hornsby. Congratulations!

Um, for the third time in case you have cateracts: 100 AB's is enough of a sample size for postseason AB's since more value is added to each AB. Nobody you listed above has this many, and if they did, I would consider them against Bench as well. And for the last time, we're arguing peak performance, not who is "better than" someone overall (as you listed for Sierra vs Williams). Postseason play is extremely important when factored into peak offensive performance.

Do you acknowledge the existence of OBP? Please also address the new issue regarding the SLG - a statistic that you have started to actively use for your own argument.

I do acknowlege the existence of it, but SLG% is better suited for our argument since we're discussing power hitting, not hitting for avg (such as leadoff hitters). What is the problem with SLG%?

 

[Tom]

"It gives a hell of a lot more complete picture. But then again, I expect you to be confused by it.

You're beginning to show that you're just an idiot that has no idea what you're talking about..."


Let me try one more time to explain what my point is about OPS.

Compare two batters with very simple stats.

Mikey has one hit, a single, in three at bats. Johnny has one hit, a double, in three at bats.

On base percentage(identical to BA in this case)-
Mikey=.333
Johnny-.333

analysis=no difference

Slugging percentage-
Mikey=.333
Johnny=.666

analysis using SLG = Johnny's SLG is 100% better than Mikey's.

OPS-
Mikey=.666
Johnny=.999

analysis using OPS = Johnny's OPS is 50% better than Mikey's.


Now can you see the issue with OPS ?? It does not give you a "better" overall picture, it just diminishes the importance of SLG because it doubles the importance of batting average.

This happens because SLG already includes BA, adding another stat to it that also includes BA, like OBP, diminishes the important difference between SLG and BA.

And it does the same thing with more stats, I used a simple example in the hopes you would be able to grasp what I'm trying to say about OPS's shortcoming as compared to looking at SLG and OBP seperately.


Another quick example. Automobile engines are rated by horsepower and torque.

If I add together those two numbers and tell you for a particular engine the sum is 400, do you know more than you would know if I told you how much horsepower and how much torque it had ?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Cinergy Field: Left field: 330, Left Center 375, 404, 375, and 330. Wall height: 8ft.
Shea Stadium: 338, 371, 410, 371, 338. Wall height: 8ft.
If you're going to call Shea a pitcher's park, then you may as well call Cinergy one too. park or not.

Why would we call Cinergy/Riverfront a pitcher's park? It's a neutral park. Shea/Dodger Stadium is undoubtedly a pitcher's park and this is confirmed by any statistical park factor and is common sense. Are you denying that they are?

Coors field has larger dimensions than that both of these parks. I enjoy how you only take the park dimensions as the park factors. Therefore, according to you, Coors field is a massive pitcher's park. Interesting. I love your reasoning. So now we can add that Coors Field is a pitcher's dream to your collection of Kingman > Bonds and Ruben Sierra > Ted Williams, Hornsby, Mays, etc.

2. Piazza didn't hit as many doubles or triples as Bench, meaning he either put the ball out of the park or hit a single. If the ball didn't go the extra 5 ft, then Piazza most likely would have had a double (it would have went off the wall). Since he didn't have that many doubles, we can hypothesize that this probably didn't play a huge factor in HR totals.

Piazza didn't hit as many triples is because he's slow. Perhaps he didn't hit as many doubles (in their peak year) as Bench (Piazza had 3 less in peak years) because he had about 50 (or 10%) less at bats and played in a pitcher's park. But no, that would make far too much sense for you. I mean instead you have to come up with some reason that would in some way also say that Luis Sojo is better than Gehrig. Bench had about 10% more at bats.

Bench was still above the league average for OBP, and well enough above his league average to be considered great for his era. Great enough to win 2 MVP's for his hitting. Remember, he didn't have to get on base, the people before him did. His job was to swing for the fences... it was a different brand of baseball back then, teams didn't have the mindset that OBP was that important as today. You cannot overlook the player's role within the microcasm of his team... that's another reason why I left OBP, it proves nothing about power hitting, but hitting for avg.

Bench doesn't even have a top 50 OBP for his own era. According to you, he had the 19th highest SLG in his own era. That's not fantastic. Is he great for his era? Of course, especially since he was a catcher.

He didn't have to get on base? Yes he did. What kind of excuse is that? 'Oh, it's OK if Mr. Bench got out! Mr. Rose in front of him already got on base!' Sorry, but that's not going to cut it.

OBP proves nothing about SLG. That's true. But it's incredibly important for any player. I think that any team, regardless of the era, would have enjoyed it if their players didn't get outs. Nice try though. In addition, you can have a high OBP with a low average. OBP just shows your ability to get on base and not generate outs and Bench was about average at that.

So now you have backed down from Bench is a better overall hitter, to Bench had a better peak, to Bench was a better slugger? What's going to be next? Bench was a better hitter named Bench than Piazza was?

Um, for the third time in case you have cateracts: 100 AB's is enough of a sample size for postseason AB's since more value is added to each AB. Nobody you listed above has this many, and if they did, I would consider them against Bench as well. And for the last time, we're arguing peak performance, not who is "better than" someone overall (as you listed for Sierra vs Williams). Postseason play is extremely important when factored into peak offensive performance.

So let me get this right..100 at bats isn't enough, but 160 is? Great reasoning. Maybe 160 isn't enough eiter.

In case you're mildy retarded: A sample size of less than 200 at bats is meaningless and means nothing. Especially when that sample size for Piazza doesn't even include his peak season!

I do acknowlege the existence of it, but SLG% is better suited for our argument since we're discussing power hitting, not hitting for avg (such as leadoff hitters). What is the problem with SLG%?

Again, what are now amending your initial argument? First it was Bench was an overall hitter over the career. Then it was Bench had a better peak. Now it's Bench is a better power hitter in his peak seasons? If it's just 'Bench is a power hitter' in his peak season, then you can go ahead and say that. I have no problem with that at all (although I wouldn't state it myself).

 

[RabidMongoose]

Let me try one more time to explain what my point is about OPS.

Compare two batters with very simple stats.

Mikey has one hit, a single, in three at bats. Johnny has one hit, a double, in three at bats.

On base percentage(identical to BA in this case)-
Mikey=.333
Johnny-.333

analysis=no difference

Slugging percentage-
Mikey=.333
Johnny=.666

analysis using SLG = Johnny's SLG is 100% better than Mikey's.

OPS-
Mikey=.666
Johnny=.999

analysis using OPS = Johnny's OPS is 50% better than Mikey's.


Now can you see the issue with OPS ?? It does not give you a "better" overall picture, it just diminishes the importance of SLG because it doubles the importance of batting average.

What's the problem with that? I cannot believe that you are serious. You really have no idea about statistics at all!

You're looking at the advancement of one base and you see a difference of .333 in their OPS. That's gigantic. How does it diminish the important of SLG, when the double increased his SLG 2x more than 'Piazza's'? If anything, OPS diminishes OBP since a .400 OBP is much much harder to achieve than a .400 SLG.

I don't see where batting average itself is overemphasized.

Your argument is so ridiculous that's it's not even worth replying to you after this. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. At least sp33ddemon is mildly entertaining. It's rather painful to know that there are people as clueless as you that pretend to know what they're talking about.

This happens because SLG already includes BA, adding another stat to it that also includes BA, like OBP, diminishes the important difference between SLG and BA.

No it doesn't. Again, batting average is just an addition of all of your homeruns, doubles, triples, and singles divided by your at bats. Everything will include these basic factors - but doesn't necessarily include AVG in its calculation.

However, since you insist...if you have a .350 AVG in 500 at bats, what is your SLG?

SLG doesn't include AVG. It's nowhere in its calculation. Do you have a magical formula that somehow takes a person's AVG to get their SLG? I would like to see that as it would be phenomenal. However, my hopes aren't high since you STILL don't seem to understand what SLG is.

And it does the same thing with more stats, I used a simple example in the hopes you would be able to grasp what I'm trying to say about OPS's shortcoming as compared to looking at SLG and OBP seperately.

Please tell me that you're kidding. Then look at the components separately. OPS just adds them up. I've already used them separately in this argument. I suggest you look at them separately, too, and see that Piazza has a better hitting career so far than Bench.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Why would we call Cinergy/Riverfront a pitcher's park? It's a neutral park. Shea/Dodger Stadium is undoubtedly a pitcher's park and this is confirmed by any statistical park factor and is common sense. Are you denying that they are?
Coors field has larger dimensions than that both of these parks. I enjoy how you only take the park dimensions as the park factors. Therefore, according to you, Coors field is a massive pitcher's park. Interesting. I love your reasoning. So now we can add that Coors Field is a pitcher's dream to your collection of Kingman > Bonds and Ruben Sierra > Ted Williams, Hornsby, Mays, etc.

Anyone with half a brain can tell you that Coors field has the thinnest air. Last I heard, the altitude of Cincinatti and New York aren't that much different. Try again! Name another park with greater dimensions than Cinergy and you'll give me a good laugh. Seriously.

Your Kingman/Bonds and Sierra/Williams are getting old. Must you keep interjecting your lame examples that I've already smashed bits as having no relevance to Piazza/Bench? What is your age again? Aren't you in college? Nuff said.

2. Piazza didn't hit as many doubles or triples as Bench, meaning he either put the ball out of the park or hit a single. If the ball didn't go the extra 5 ft, then Piazza most likely would have had a double (it would have went off the wall). Since he didn't have that many doubles, we can hypothesize that this probably didn't play a huge factor in HR totals.

Piazza didn't hit as many triples is because he's slow. Perhaps he didn't hit as many doubles (in their peak year) as Bench (Piazza had 3 less in peak years) because he had about 50 (or 10%) less at bats and played in a pitcher's park. But no, that would make far too much sense for you. I mean instead you have to come up with some reason that would in some way also say that Luis Sojo is better than Gehrig. Bench had about 10% more at bats.[/quote]
Maybe, and I'm going out on a limb here, just maybe Piazza didn't hit as many doubles b/c "he was slow"(your words) and not whining about the 10% more AB's Bench had b/c Piazza is so frail he can never get 600 AB's in a season?

Luis Sojo/Gehrig? Where do u come up with this? Please debate in a mature manner with relevant information.

Bench was still above the league average for OBP, and well enough above his league average to be considered great for his era. Great enough to win 2 MVP's for his hitting. Remember, he didn't have to get on base, the people before him did. His job was to swing for the fences... it was a different brand of baseball back then, teams didn't have the mindset that OBP was that important as today. You cannot overlook the player's role within the microcasm of his team... that's another reason why I left OBP, it proves nothing about power hitting, but hitting for avg.

Bench doesn't even have a top 50 OBP for his own era. According to you, he had the 19th highest SLG in his own era. That's not fantastic. Is he great for his era? Of course, especially since he was a catcher.[/quote]
Not once have I ever researched what Bench's SLG% was, ranked in his era. Those are your words, not mine. And please stick to the subject. We're not talking about avg SLG or OBP over an era, we are discussing peak years. Peak years. Twice just so you remember

He didn't have to get on base? Yes he did. What kind of excuse is that? 'Oh, it's OK if Mr. Bench got out! Mr. Rose in front of him already got on base!' Sorry, but that's not going to cut it.
OBP proves nothing about SLG. That's true. But it's incredibly important for any player. I think that any team, regardless of the era, would have enjoyed it if their players didn't get outs. Nice try though. In addition, you can have a high OBP with a low average. OBP just shows your ability to get on base and not generate outs and Bench was about average at that.

I bolded what you said, seems you answered your own question. You're right, we're discussing SLG% over peak years, this discussion has nothing to do with OBP. You just feel the need to keep going back to something, when it's blatantly obvious that Piazza had a higher avg in peak years, but Bench had a higher amount of stats b/c he didn't get hurt and they both had around the same SLG. I'll use your words, ok now let's penalize Bench for not getting hurt and having more AB's! lol

So now you have backed down from Bench is a better overall hitter, to Bench had a better peak, to Bench was a better slugger? What's going to be next? Bench was a better hitter named Bench than Piazza was?

We are discussing peak hitting, which encompasses Slugging. Peak hitting in relation to the greatest hitters of your era (Bonds, ARod, Aaron, McCovey, Stargell, Yaz, just to name a few).

Um, for the third time in case you have cateracts: 100 AB's is enough of a sample size for postseason AB's since more value is added to each AB. Nobody you listed above has this many, and if they did, I would consider them against Bench as well. And for the last time, we're arguing peak performance, not who is "better than" someone overall (as you listed for Sierra vs Williams). Postseason play is extremely important when factored into peak offensive performance.

So let me get this right..100 at bats isn't enough, but 160 is? Great reasoning. Maybe 160 isn't enough eiter.
In case you're mildy retarded: A sample size of less than 200 at bats is meaningless and means nothing. Especially when that sample size for Piazza doesn't even include his peak season!

You have proven to be illiterate once again! Where did I ever say that 100 at bats isn't enough? Do you even read before posting? It clearly says above: "100 AB's is enough of a sample size for postseason AB's since more value is added to each AB." Translation: 100 AB's is acceptable to compare stats for in the postseason. And you're calling me retarded? Riiiiight, a)grow up with the personal attacks, or b)get some glasses, or c)all of the above.

I do acknowlege the existence of it, but SLG% is better suited for our argument since we're discussing power hitting, not hitting for avg (such as leadoff hitters). What is the problem with SLG%?

Again, what are now amending your initial argument? First it was Bench was an overall hitter over the career. Then it was Bench had a better peak. Now it's Bench is a better power hitter in his peak seasons? If it's just 'Bench is a power hitter' in his peak season, then you can go ahead and say that. I have no problem with that at all (although I wouldn't state it myself).

[/quote]
No, we've established that Piazza was better throughout his career b/c he was more consistent SLG wise. We've established that Bench is better in postseason. And I have established that Bench has peaked better because you did not respond to this comment:

In 2000, Barry Bonds was 36. Do you want to look at his numbers vs Piazza (Hint: Bonds hit ALOT of HR's that year)?? Please, the great ones don't need the "I'm old and in decline" excuse. Hank Aaron was still great in 1970 at age 36, he hit 38HR's then. He then hit 47, 34, and 40 HR's in the next 3 years, so your age excuse is not valid. Yes, Bench didn't have a higher SLG% than Perez and McCovey that year, but still outslugged them in RBI, HR's, and extrabase hits. That's why he was named MVP... and what about all of the other HOFers he outhit in 1970: Aaron .574, Stargell .511, Killebrew (.546 SLG%), Yastrzemski (.592), Frank Robinson (.520), Reggie Jackson (.458). To reiterate: That's like the equivalent of Piazza beating Bonds/ARod in HR's/RBI/extra basehits, that's how sick Bench was to win MVP and post a .587SLG, hit 45HR's, and 148 RBIs.

Or this one:

Bench also beat Hank Aaron in HR's, RBI's, and extrabase hits in 1972, when Aaron led the league in statistic HR%/AB! Not to mention Stargell, Killebrew, Yaz, Reggie Jackson, and Rod Carew... He also wins MVP again over all these guys (Aaron and Stargell since the other 4 are in the AL).

1974 he beat everyone in the league: Mike Schmidt (.546 SLG%), Hank Aaron(.491), McCovey (.506), Steve Garvey(.469), Yaz (.445), and Reggie Jackson (.514) in: extra basehits and RBI's, not to mention his own Hall of Fame teammates! To reiterate: When has Piazza even led once in any of these categories?

Just the fact that Bench beat Hank Aaron and Reggie Jackson twice in HR's/RBI's, once in extra basehits, and won two MVP's over Hank Aaron is phenomenal. Relatively speaking, this would mean that Piazza would have had to beat Mark McGwire or Barry Bonds (or whoever the greatest hitters in the game were during Piazza's peak years) in HR's/RBI's/extra base hits TWICE. Maybe this puts things into perspective as to why I think Bench peaked better, he was a slugger in a pitcher's era, just as Pedro Martinez is an ace in a hitter's era...

 

[RabidMongoose]

Anyone with half a brain can tell you that Coors field has the thinnest air. Last I heard, the altitude of Cincinatti and New York aren't that much different. Try again! Name another park with greater dimensions than Cinergy and you'll give me a good laugh. Seriously.

Your Kingman/Bonds and Sierra/Williams are getting old. Must you keep interjecting your lame examples that I've already smashed bits as having no relevance to Piazza/Bench? What is your age again? Aren't you in college? Nuff said.

And anyone with half a brain can tell you that it also has to do with more factors. Such as the turf, the field, etc. Dodger Stadium and Shea Stadium are undeniably pitcher's parks. Nice try though.

I didn't make the Kingman/Bonds Sierra/Williams arguments. They were/are arguments constructed from your own arguments to show you ridiculous your own arguments are.

What is your age? I've already graduated college, but nice try again.

Maybe, and I'm going out on a limb here, just maybe Piazza didn't hit as many doubles b/c "he was slow"(your words) and not whining about the 10% more AB's Bench had b/c Piazza is so frail he can never get 600 AB's in a season?

How is Piazza frail? He doesn't seem to have been frail in his peak seasons.

Triples are more of a statistic based on speed. Slower players can get doubles, but usually do not get many triples. Perhaps it's a combination of 'he's slower' and not having the opportunity to not have 10% more at bats. Extrapolate his doubles to Bench's total number of at bats, and they have the same amount. If Piazza was slower, then he would have been at exactly the same speed over those next 10%. Of course you want to ignore the 10% less at bats since it hurts your argument. Again, Piazza had 10% less at bats.

Luis Sojo/Gehrig? Where do u come up with this? Please debate in a mature manner with relevant information.

Then so should you. Deciding who had a better peak/career based on playoff performance is hilarious, especially since Piazza's peak season doesn't include any playoff performance.

Not once have I ever researched what Bench's SLG% was, ranked in his era. Those are your words, not mine. And please stick to the subject. We're not talking about avg SLG or OBP over an era, we are discussing peak years. Peak years. Twice just so you remember

You stated Bench's SLG in the first page. Nice try though. You stated:

Avg - 94th

Slg % - 19th

for Bench. It's pretty hard to 'stick to the subject' when you decide to change the subject all of the time.

No, we've established that Piazza was better throughout his career b/c he was more consistent SLG wise. We've established that Bench is better in postseason. And I have established that Bench has peaked better because you did not respond to this comment:

So now you say that Piazza was better throughout his career. Glad to have that cleared up. And you should note that it's not only because of the consistent SLG - it's also because of the huge gap in OBP between the two.

Obviously Bench was better in the postseason. You haven't established that Bench has peaked better. If you state that Piazza was better over his whole career because of his better SLG, then what about his SLG in his best seasons? It's slightly better and he played in pitcher's parks as his home games. Combine that with his much higher OBP, then he's much better. You still haven't acknowledged OBP - Are you now only arguing that Bench was a better power hitter at his peak?

In 2000, Barry Bonds was 36. Do you want to look at his numbers vs Piazza (Hint: Bonds hit ALOT of HR's that year)?? Please, the great ones don't need the "I'm old and in decline" excuse. Hank Aaron was still great in 1970 at age 36, he hit 38HR's then. He then hit 47, 34, and 40 HR's in the next 3 years, so your age excuse is not valid. Yes, Bench didn't have a higher SLG% than Perez and McCovey that year, but still outslugged them in RBI, HR's, and extrabase hits. That's why he was named MVP... and what about all of the other HOFers he outhit in 1970: Aaron .574, Stargell .511, Killebrew (.546 SLG%), Yastrzemski (.592), Frank Robinson (.520), Reggie Jackson (.458). To reiterate: That's like the equivalent of Piazza beating Bonds/ARod in HR's/RBI/extra basehits, that's how sick Bench was to win MVP and post a .587SLG, hit 45HR's, and 148 RBIs.

Blah blah blah, RBIs, etc. All you're showing is that Bench WAS a good player - which is obvious. He played on a team with insanely high OBP players in front of him and got a ton of RBIs - which he should have. You haven't stated anything here and refuse to look at OBP again. And anyways, in 1997 Piazza had the same number of homeruns than Barry Bonds (and statistically he's better than these other players mentioned), more RBIs, a higher SLG (he was #2 behind Larry Walker in Coors). So what's your point? When you're talking about two great players, you can always mention this type of stuff.

When has Bench ever been in the top 2 in SLG? Never. When has Bench ever been in the top 9 in OBP? Never.

Again - what is your argument THIS TIME? Are you saying that Bench's peak was better than Piazza's or that he was a better power hitter in his peak than Piazza?

If you're saying that he's a better overall hitter in his peak, then please tell me why you haven't looked at a comparison of OBP.

 

[SludgeFactory]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Some more stats for you: Let's take SLG% for peak years in comparison to rest of MLB:

In 1970: .202 pts (.587 vs .385) over the MLB avg.
In 1972: .187 pts (.541 vs .354).
In 1974: .138 pts over league avg (.507 vs .369).
In 1977: .139 pts over (.540 vs .401).

Piazza:
In 1997: .219 pts over (.638 vs .419)
In 2000: .177 pts over (.614 vs .437)
In 1999: .141 pts over (.575 vs .434)
In 2001: .146 pts over (.573 vs .427)

Note: I didn't include 1995 b/c Piazza only played 112 games, which is not a full season.

This nullifies your ABSURD Kingman/Bonds comparison, b/c Bonds destroyed Kingman in SLG% pts over MLB avg, whereas it's pretty even between Bench/Piazza.

LOL

You're playing fast and loose with MLB vs. league slugging averages to suit your purpose. You pick the lower baseline values to compare to Bench to enhance his difference, you pick the higher values for Piazza's comparisons. You compare Bench to MLB average in the pre-DH era, because at that time, early in Bench's career, the NL had a much higher SLG than the AL, and consequently higher than MLB average. Which is part of the reason the AL instituted the DH. (BTW, that was a lame move, AL ) In 1973, after the DH was established, you switch over and compare Bench to the NL average, because it's slightly lower than MLB average. Still, in '74 and '77 (and for almost all of Bench's prime), the AL was not hugely better than the NL at SLG.

By the time we get to Piazza, the AL does have a consistently big advantage over the NL in SLG, and thus the MLB average is naturally higher than the NL. I suspect by the 90's, the AL had the speciality of DH'ing down to a science and got the appropriate players in the position. Or maybe they built a lot more "retro" bandboxes than the NL in the prime of Piazza's career. Whatever the case, the disparity between leagues is sizable throughout Piazza's best years. Yet you compare Piazza against the MLB average anyway -- because it makes him look worse.

How about consistently comparing their SLG to their respective league averages, park adjusted -- a truer peer comparison. 5 best SLG seasons for each from baseball-reference.com:

Bench
1970 +.179 (.587 vs .408 NL, park adjusted)
1972 +.172 (.541 vs .369 NL, p.a.)
1974 +.130 (.507 vs .377 NL, p.a.)
1975 +.132 (.519 vs .387 NL, p.a.)
1977 +.126 (.540 vs .414 NL, p.a.)

Piazza
1993 +.155 (.561 vs .406 NL, p.a.)
1995 +.202 (.606 vs .404 NL, p.a.)
1996 +.156 (.563 vs .407 NL, p.a.)
1997 +.229 (.638 vs .409 NL, p.a.)
2000 +.182 (.614 vs .432 NL, p.a.)

I'm not inclined to throw away the 1995 season. It was strike-shortened but they still managed to play 144 games. Piazza played 112 of those games, enough to qualify for inclusion in top 10 lists of rate statistics that year. But fine, you can throw 1995 out and take 1998, and Piazza still beats Bench. Extend this out for 6 years, 7 years, 8 years, cut it to 3 years, 2 years, Piazza BEATS Bench in SLG no matter how you want to dissect it.

Career SLG difference (player vs. NL, p.a.)
Piazza +.155 (.572 vs. .417)
Bench +.089 (.476 vs. .387)

Bench's 2+1 MVP's (they all came in his peak offensive years so u can't use defense as an excuse), to Piazza's ZERO

I'm looking at this now. Bench was not definitively the best offensive player in his MVP years. In fact, in 1970 he was certainly *not* the best offensive player in the NL (hint, Willie McCovey). OTOH, Piazza was more clearly the best offensive player in his league in both 1995 and 1997, and has nothing to show for it, in part because of traditional biases toward HR/RBI. I can go into more depth on this later.

-Leading in Triple Crown categories (RBI/HR's) five times to Piazza's ZERO in only the NL, Bench led MLB 4 times

I think this has been beaten to death, ad naseum. Bench played in a better hitter's parks over the duration of his career. That's defined by the yearly park adjustment, as defined by Total Baseball, which rates parks based on runs and wins and indirectly compares them to every other park in the league in that year. If you want to simply look at outfield dimensions and ignore what the stats bear out about how a park affects offense, then don't use stats in any of your other arguments. Bench also played in the middle of one of the all-time great offenses and had tremendous RBI opportunities. Piazza played in home parks that for most of his career have rated as unfriendly to hitters relative to the other parks, and he did not play for any team resembling the Big Red Machine.

-Only catcher ever to lead MLB in extra base hits in a season

Good for him. Yet he's still worse than Piazza at SLG compared to his peers. I would list this as yet another random catcher fact.

Here's my random catcher fact: Mike Piazza has hit over 30 HR in 9 of his 11 full seasons. In only 2 seasons has he failed to produce 30+ HR, in '94 due to the strike (and he was on pace to easily get 30+) and in 2003 because of the major groin injury. No excuses for injuries in these comparisons (as that is part of the challenge of being great), but the strike year was completely out of his control.

How many times did Johnny Bench exceed 30 HR in his 17 seasons? 4 times. Different eras, yes. That different?

Head to head:
-Superior postseason SLG% of .527 to .482, comparing 169AB's to 110AB's (100 AB's is enough of a sample size for postseason b/c of superior pitching than reg. season, i.e. each AB holds more value than the regular season).

Postseason sample size is tiny, and the statistical significance you can attach to these numbers is very low compared to mountains of career data. You cannot argue differences in rate statistics convincingly on these puny little samples, Bench's and Piazza's playoff AB's are about 2% of their total lifetime AB's. You're basically reduced to talking about warm & fuzzy memories when you talk about playoff stats. Stuff like individual HR's in specific situations. I don't deny for a second that this contributes to a player's legacy -- but it is ridiculous to consider it statistically when the discussion is about better offensive player, and one man's (Piazza's) career and peak single season offensive stats are obviously superior to the other.

Here, let's look at those little postseason samples anyway:

-------------AB-AVG/HR/RBI--OPS
J. Bench 169 .266/10/20 .862
M. Piazza 110 .255/06/15 .799

Piazza's stats aren't that far off though. Give Piazza another 59 AB (Bench has 154% more AB's), and extrapolate his HR/RBI up by 154% also. They're literally right there with Bench, based on past rates in Piazza's limited postseason history. In Piazza's one World Series, the one with 22 AB and .273 BA, he also hit 2 HR in 5 games. We've seen worse playoff performances by greater players than Piazza or Bench.

It's blatantly obvious that Bench offensively peaked better (when in comparison against the peers of his era), aside from the fact that you already admit that Bench was the greatest catcher of all time.

No, it's obvious that Piazza is better.

Here's the prime of both careers. Piazza's best years are likely going to end up being '95-'00, and Bench's are '70-'75. I'm not cherry-picking years, I'm going with the meat of their careers, their best 6-year stretches. You can extend or reduce the number of seasons in this little comparison if you want, it doesn't matter -- Piazza still looks superior. Both were catching full-time at that point, putting up their best offensive numbers, and hadn't yet broke down and been put out to pasture.

Piazza
YR OPS+ NL Rank
1995 172 1
1996 167 5
1997 186 1
1998 152
1999 137
2000 159 6
Career 153 27th in MLB

Bench
YR OPS+ NL Rank
1970 145 9
1971 105
1972 166 2
1973 119
1974 143 7
1975 140 9
Career 126 >100th in MLB

Piazza's career 153 will likely decrease as he continues to play in his declining years, but not that much. He's already got 11 yrs worth of historically-great production behind him. You could put a generic, average major-league player (100 OPS+) in his place in the lineup for the remainder of Piazza's career and still have a career OPS+ exceeding Bench.

 

[SP33Demon]

For Grins and Giggles, let's compare Piazza/Bench with the best hitters in MLB in their peak years:

1997: Ken Griffey Jr. - Mike Piazza
HR's: 56 - 40
RBI: 147 - 124
SLG: .646 - .638
Extra basehits: 93 - 73
ABs: 608 - 556

2000: Sammy Sosa - Mike Piazza
HR's: 50 - 38
RBI: 138 - 113
SLG: .688 - .556
Extra basehits: 89 - 64
Abs: 604 - 482

1999: Mark McGwire - Mike Piazza
HR's: 65 - 40
RBI: 147 - 124
SLG: .697 - .575
Extra basehits: 87 - 65
ABs: 521 - 534

2001: Barry Bonds - Mike Piazza
HR's: 73 - 36
RBI: 137 - 94
SLG: .863 - .573
Extra basehits: 107 - 65
ABs: 476 - 503
-------------------------------------------------
Now Bench:
1970: Johnny Bench - Willie McCovey
HR's: 45 - 39
RBI: 148 - 126
SLG: .587 - .612
Extra basehits: 84 - 80
ABs: 605 - 495

1972: Johnny Bench - Billy Williams
HR's: 40 - 34
RBI: 125 - 122
SLG: .541 - .606
Extra basehits: 64 - 77
ABs: 538 - 574

1974: Johnny Bench - Mike Schmidt
HR's: 33 - 36
RBI: 129 - 116
SLG: .507 - .546
Extra basehits: 73 - 71
ABs: 621 - 568

1977: Johnny Bench - George Foster
HR's: 31 - 52
RBI: 109 - 149
SLG: .540 - .631
Extra basehits: 67 - 85
ABs: 494 - 615

Head to head, Bench/Piazza in the postseason:

SLG: Bench - .529, 169 ABs, Piazza - .482, 110 ABs. Both hit against the best pitching in the league in these atbats.

In conclusion, why not let AT decide who the better slugger was, in his peak years? It's pretty obvious just by SLG% alone who got creamed in his era, without even looking at HR's/RBI's! You can even park adjust, it won't matter.