Carlton Fisk. Munson. Yogi Berra ,roy Campinella, JohnnyBench many fantastic Catchers played what I think is the most demanding posistion in Baseball .ANY IDEAS , A FEW MORE MONTHS,they will be reporting to Spring training.
-
-
Alot of quality catchers in the 70's and Bench was the best. He gets my vote for all time best catcher.Comment -
I dont think so. Why?Comment -
benito santiago!blog '09-'10: 37-16: +$31,900
mlb 2010; 16-12: +$4,540
gellyhoops 2010: 10-6 +$3,150
overall: 63-34 +$40,290Comment -
Ivan RodriguezComment -
Piazza was pretty good in his prime. Over 400 homers if I'm remembering correctly.
I think that when all is said and done, Mr. Joe Mauer might have a legitimate shot at being the all-time greatest catcher...let's just see how many rings he ends up with.Comment -
Ivan rodriguez, Bill DickeyComment -
Originally posted by mebaran
How will rings determine if he's the greatest catcher ever?Comment -
It's just another means of measuring...Dan Marino was a great QB, but was he a champion? I think it's relevant..just as much as hits and homers.Originally posted by TheLockComment -
Johnny Bench gets my vote.Comment -
Originally posted by mebaran
What is a shortstop has a career OPS of 1.135 but plays on a shitty team his whole career?
He can't be the best ever?
Comment -
I'll never understand the ring justification. All the major sports are team games. I hate when people measure greatness by the rings they have. That measure should only be left with golf. Dan Marino wasn't in the draft room. He wasn't playing cornerback who gave up 40 yard TD's. He made the team so much better, but one man can only do so much. And since I'm talking about great players to never win a ring and shouldn't be judged by it, Pistol Pete and Elgin Baylor.Comment -
Well if one player has performed well in the playoffs and championship level and the other hasn't had the chance, although its unfair, the one player has that as a leg up on the other.Comment -
Hands down offensively.....Mike Piazza.Comment -
Originally posted by smitch124
Yeah but I don't think when discussing the best ever it's a discussion about post season play. Post season play makes up such a small amount of the actual total playing time that it should be almost a non factor.
There is a chance that Hanley Ramirez could have a career OPS over .900 (ridiculous for a SS) and never win a ring.
Does that mean he can't be the best ever?
Comment -
If there was another shortstop with similar stats and performance in the regular season with an outstanding post season record and a couple of rings, the yes that player would get the nod.Originally posted by TheLockYeah but I don't think when discussing the best ever it's a discussion about post season play. Post season play makes up such a small amount of the actual total playing time that it should be almost a non factor.
There is a chance that Hanley Ramirez could have a career OPS over .900 (ridiculous for a SS) and never win a ring.
Does that mean he can't be the best ever?Comment -
Rod Barajas
Comment -
therman imoComment -
Tony Pena.Comment -
Shouldn't championships figure into the equation at all? Isn't the objective of assembling a team to win a ring and a catcher with several rings can be said to be contributing to that achieved objective?Comment -
Gabby HartnettComment -
Didn't expect Gabby Hartnett to be a thread killer?
Comment -
I agree it can be an additional factor or criteria when putting together an argument. But it should never be the over-riding determination just the same as no single column of stats should be the end-all criteria.Originally posted by mebaran
Case in point, Phil Rizzuto. I never got to see Scooter play, wish I had. But several friends and family from the generation before me that grew up in the NYC area did and I feel pretty good about the 'scouting report' they gave me. He was a good player and solid defender in his era of shortstops. Almost to a person, everyone I've spoken to that did see him play made the same comment about Rizzuto being the epitome of a 'team player.'
If rings are THE factor, then his seven WS rings would have one thinking he deserves to be listed among the game's VERY BEST shortstops. As much as I like the guy from what I've read and heard, I don't even think he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame as a player. Perhaps for his overall contribution to the game and the fact he really was an excellent ambassador for the game, but he's not a Hallf of Fame shortstop in my book.
Originally posted by Carseller4Didn't expect Gabby Hartnett to be a thread killer?
I love Gabby.
The best catcher I've seen during his prime is Johnny Bench, hands down. I'd probably put Pudge Rodriguez behind him.
A very underrated catcher of the past 50 years is Lance Parrish who I have always felt was every bit as good as Gary Carter.Comment -
It's not even close here if you are including offense...Mike Piazza hands down.....I hate him and think he's probably sucked more schlongs than jenna jameson......But he was the most dominant player ever at his position.Comment -
Benji needs to added to the listComment -
I vote Johnny Bench alsoComment -
Pudge, Munson, some others (Lance Parrish was a great honorable mention) were great all-around catchers.
But I think any real fan of baseball cannot argue with Mr. Red, Johnny Bench.Comment -
Bench or Fisk for #1 with Pudge as an honorable mention.Comment -
Manny Sanguillen.....j/k, I vote for Bench.Comment -
Nothing for Gary Carter?Comment -
I made passing mention of Carter, horseshoe. Definitely rank him among the best of his era, just think that Parrish gets pushed aside in a lot of the talk and always felt he was as good as Carter.Comment -
Carter was my favorite. He was so text book with his form. Carter didn't have a great arm, but I've never seen anyone get rid of the ball quicker with no wasted motion whatsoever.Originally posted by Willie BeeComment -
I gotta go with Yogi.Comment -
J BenchComment -
piazza!!!!!!!Comment
