Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Monday, May 02, 2005

Josh Gibson

Josh Gibson

Eligible in 1952.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 02, 2005 at 08:42 PM | 131 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. karlmagnus Posted: May 18, 2005 at 07:17 PM (#1346152)
I was referring simply to the arithmetic; I agree absolutely that Gibson is the #1 catcher all time, with a gap between him and #2.
   102. blackout805 Posted: May 24, 2005 at 12:47 AM (#1356796)
he gets my vote easily
   103. Gadfly Posted: May 24, 2005 at 10:17 PM (#1358757)
Some comments on the Josh Gibson Evaluation:

It was very interesting to see Josh Gibson credited with a 180 or 177 career OPS and 468 career WS from 1931 to 1946.

My only two comments on the calculations would be:

1) in my opinion, Gibson is being given too much credit on-base wise before 1936-1937.

There is evidence that Gibson, in the beginning of his career did not draw anywhere near as many walks as he did from mid-career to it's end (In fact, he seems to have really blossomed as a hitter at 24-25 when he began taking walks). So, given this fact, the calculated career OPS may be a little high.

2) Gibson is not getting enough credit for his durability. Gibson loved to play and evidently thought he was invincible. It's what defined him and destroyed him.

However, as everyone here probably knows, I think the Negro League conversion rate is too low and the Negro League players are being undervalued badly.

I find it interesting that Gibson is credited with an OPS of 175-180, but no other Negro League players are breaking 140. As the list in post 86 (Doc) points out, there are a bunch of Major League guys with career OPS of over 155.

The obvious question would be: is it logical that Gibson is the only Negro League member of this group? I don't think so.

There is literally a ton of contemporary observors who stated that Gibson was the greatest hitter they ever saw. I believe that Gibson was exactly that, one of the greatest hitters that ever lived with Bonds, Williams, and Ruth.

The career OPS+ of Ruth was 207.
The career OPS+ of Williams was 190.
The career OPS+ of Bonds is 184.

However, Ruth and Williams had full careers. In other words, their career OPS+ includes their decline phase. Bonds, until he got into his medicine cabinet, was not in either man's league and his career OPS+ is weighed down by his steroid free years.

[It should be noted that, if Williams had not served two stints in the military, his career OPS+ would probably be higher. Also, if Ruth had began his career as a full-time player rather than a pitcher, his career OPS+ would probably be lower.]

Gibson, on the other hand, died after his year 34 season. His OPS+ includes no decline phase. If all these men were about the same as hitters, it would actually be logical for Gibson to have the highest OPS+.

By my adjustments, I calculate Gibson's actual career OPS+ was probably between 205 and 225.

My adjustments to his career WS put him at 599 from 1931 to 1946 with a five year peak of 52-51-46-44-43. By comparison, Babe Ruth had 630 WS in his first 16 full years (1915-1930) and Lou Gehrig had 486 WS in his 14 full years (1925-1938).

In my opinion, that's exactly where Gibson should rank. Right between Ruth and Genrig.

Ruth
16 years, 39.3 WS per year
Gibson
16 years, 37.4 WS per year
Gehrig
14 years, 34.7 WS per year

In my opinion, Ruth was the greatest hitter who ever lived. But Gibson was number 2, basically Lou Gehrig with more power playing catcher.
   104. DavidFoss Posted: May 24, 2005 at 11:24 PM (#1358952)
Gibson, on the other hand, died after his year 34 season. His OPS+ includes no decline phase. If all these men were about the same as hitters, it would actually be logical for Gibson to have the highest OPS+.

Except its really hard to get your career OPS+ to get up that high and stay there. For years, Bonds was weighed down by his merely good first 1986-89 -- (he was at 165 following 2000). If Gibson really was "only" great instead of amazing before he was 24, then that would weigh him down as well.

For this reason, I like looking at the full seasonal list of OPS+'s more than just the raw number at the end. And not just for NeL players, either. (I don't think "132" really tells you how good Al Simmons could hit). One thing that might be weighing down the career OPS+'s of many NeL-ers is that most tended to play past their primes... and often before their primes as well. Beckwith's "137" doesn't tell you how great he was from 1921-33, it also includes the very weak 900 PA's outside that range. (Though this could be the peak-leaning voter inside me talking right now).

In other words, Gibson long list of 200+ seasons is more impressive to me than his career "180".

OPS of over 155.
The obvious question would be: is it logical that Gibson is the only Negro League member of this group? I don't think so.


We never fully translated Charleston, Torriente, PHill, HRJohnson, Lloyd and Santop. Because they have already been inducted, it might not be worth the effort to go back and redo the translations, but in the interest of completeness and examining the validity of the conversions it would be helpful.
   105. The definitely immoral Eric Enders Posted: May 25, 2005 at 12:31 AM (#1359293)
We also have Buck Leonard yet to come.
   106. Chris Cobb Posted: May 25, 2005 at 02:56 AM (#1359786)
Various responses:

1) in my opinion, Gibson is being given too much credit on-base wise before 1936-1937.

There is evidence that Gibson, in the beginning of his career did not draw anywhere near as many walks as he did from mid-career to it's end (In fact, he seems to have really blossomed as a hitter at 24-25 when he began taking walks).


Is this anecdotal, or statistical evidence? If it's something, in either form, that could be posted, I'd appreciate seeing it!

2) Gibson is not getting enough credit for his durability. Gibson loved to play and evidently thought he was invincible. It's what defined him and destroyed him.

Here there's a question of what would probably have happened in the majors, which the MLEs are designed to show. Would Gibson have done what no other catcher of his time did and played 150 games every year at catcher? Would he have played 25-30 games in the outfield on his "off" days? It's conceivable that Gibson would have played 150 games a year at catcher or rested by playing outfield. Cal Ripken broke Gehrig's consecutive games record at shortstop, a position at which starters typically miss 15 games a season or more. Would anybody have thought that was possible? No. Could that be predicted from a fragmentary statistical record in another league? No, but it happened. I projected Gibson within the limits otherwise observable for the time, but he might have exceeded those limits: he was clearly a force of nature in his prime.

The obvious question would be: is it logical that Gibson is the only Negro League member of this group [of players above 150 OPS+]? I don't think so.

There are a couple of factors that need to be considered with respect to this issue.

1) As others have mentioned, full projections using the MLE system have not been done for a number of top hitters. Players with most of their careers before 1920 can't be projeced by this system because the data on their play is insufficient, but later players whose OPS+ totals haven't yet been calculated but could be include Charleston, Turkey Stearnes (unquestionably in the 150+ group), Buck Leonard, Chino Smith, Heavy Johnson, and Buck Leonard.

I'll be doing MLEs for Leonard (and Ray Dandridge and Willard Brown) soon; I hope to get complete MLEs for Moore, Charleston, and Stearnes done soon. Once we have that data, we'll have a better sense of whether Gibson looks like an extreme outlier or not.

2) Gibson is the first great NeL hitter we've studied who peaked after 1937. While I don't see any evidence yet that the MLE projections after two-league play resumed that year are too high, it seems quite likely that the MLE projections at least for 1932-36 and maybe as early as 1926 are too low. Players like Suttles and Stearnes and Wells and Bell who were in their prime earlier than Gibson may be having their peaks suppressed in ways that he isn't.

I hope to get complete MLEs for all the league-leading hitters from the late 1920s and early 1930s before the end of the summer. With that seasonal data, it should be possible to see more clearly the extent, if any, by which the fixed conversion factor undervalues NeL play from the era of its highest level of competition.

However, Ruth and Williams had full careers. In other words, their career OPS+ includes their decline phase.

In comparing Gibson to Ruth and Williams, I think this is a misinterpretation of the influence of career shape. Neither Ruth nor Williams had a long decline, and both maintained their level of quality until their late 30s. Gibson's last season was at age 34, with no batting decline in evidence, so he missed 3-4 years of _raising_ his OPS+. The MLEs also have his playing time decreasing after 1942, which lowers the overall impact of his 1943-46 MLEs on his career total. If you look at peak performances, here's how Gibson compares to Ruth and Williams:

Babe -- Ted -- Josh
255 -- 235 -- 224
239 -- 233 -- 221
239 -- 217 -- 215
227 -- 215 -- 209
226 -- 209 -- 204
220 -- 205 -- 200
219 -- 201 --198
219 -- 192 -- 188
211 -- 189 -- 180
208 -- 189 -- 174
201 -- 178 -- 166
194 -- 172 -- 160
194 -- 168 -- 156

These suggest that Gibson is very close to Williams as a hitter. If he had his 35-38 seasons to put up more totals in the 180-230 range (Williams had a 238 OPS+ at 38 and a 178 OPS+ at 39; Ruth had seasons of 211, 219, 201, 176 in his 35-38 seasons), I think he'd be closer to both.
   107. Gadfly Posted: May 25, 2005 at 12:00 PM (#1360180)
David Foss-

Beckwith, who is being credited with a 137 OPS+, is case number one that the conversion rate is too low. Beckwith, from 1921 to 1932, was the best or second best hitter in the Negro Leagues after Oscar Charleston. He really has very little growth or decline phase in his career.

And yet he converts out to a 137+ OPS and that rate is the highest found other than the Gibson? That makes no sense to me.

[I, of course, would love to see translations of the other guys you mentioned, especially Oscar Charleston and Turkey Stearnes; but, since I wouldn't be doing the work, it's not my place to make demands.]

As for Gibson being less of a hitter before 25, I think it's true. Using the accepted conversion rate and accepting that as true, Gibson probably really had about a 165 to 170 OPS+. However, I think the conversion rate is wrong and Gibson was a much greater hitter throughout his career.

Gibson truly had absolutely phenomenal power. His power was so great that he was able to hit like a modern power hitter. In other words, he often hit homers to the opposite field (when asked his favorite park, he stated the Polo Grounds because of the short left and RIGHT field lines). The old style power hitters (Ruth to Aaron) were pull hitters.

Contemporary observers, both white and black, went out of their way to say that Gibson was the greatest hitter they had ever seen. If his career OPS+ really is just 165, that observation would not be true or that close to being true.

Of course, this would once again lead to the disconnect between the conversion rate being used and what contemporary observers stated. Basically, in my opinion, almost every Negro Leaguer being rated is not matching up with his reputation. I think this is evidence that the conversion rate is too low.

[Some players like Jud Wilson, of course, are coming out looking surprisingly good. But this is always the result of a high walks drawn rate boosting their OBP. The BAs and SAs being calculated are not matching the reps at all.]

Chris Cobb-

1) My comments on Gibson's early walk rate have a specific source. The Pittsburgh Courier published the Crawford's seasonal batting stats in 1932. Of course, these stats including games against all different types of competition but they also included walks drawn by the hitters.

If I remember correctly, Gibson drew about 30 BBs in 450 at bats. Ah hell, I'll go look it up. He drew 31 BBs in 490 AB.

For comparison:
75 BBs in 430 AB Oscar Charleston
19 BBS in 253 AB Judy Johnson

Gibson's early plate discipline seems to be more like Foxx than Gehrig. Just from my own feel from compiling box scores, Gibson's plate discipline was steadily improving from 1930 to 1937. Or perhaps a different way of putting it would be that pitcher's fear of Gibson was steadily increasing from 1931 to 1937.

In 1936 and 1937, you really begin to see evidence that Gibson was simply being pitched around and walked constantly and also, from his interviews, that he accepted it, good naturedly, as a sign of respect (Gibson had the perfect attitude for a hitter. He loved to hit but would simply take what they would give him).

2) As for Gibson's durability, this is also something that can be picked up from studying box scores. He pratically always played. I think he was like Ripken, a bizarre exception to the rule.

3) While your season to season OPS+ comparison to Ruth and Williams is interesting, it also shows Gibson as obviously inferior to both.

I believe that's wrong. I believe Gibson did not walk as much as either Ruth or Williams, but I also believe that Gibson had much more power than Teddy Ballgame and possibly, actually probably, even more than Ruth.

At this late date, I don't believe that I'll convert anyone to my point of view here; but, as always, hope that some will study the issue on their own with an open mind.
   108. Chris Cobb Posted: May 25, 2005 at 02:33 PM (#1360270)
gadfly,

Thanks for the walks data! I'll try to integrate it into revised projections for Gibson's early career (which will be important for finding the proper conversion factors for 1931-36). It'l also be helpful for Charleston when I get a chance to do his MLEs.

3) While your season to season OPS+ comparison to Ruth and Williams is interesting, it also shows Gibson as obviously inferior to both.

Well, it shows him as inferior to Ruth and as being great for a shorter period of time than Williams, the latter of which is explained by his dying young and by his developing Ruthian/Williamsesque plate discipline six years into his professional career. I'd say the current analysis suggests that from 1937 to 1946, he was as about as good as Williams was from 1941 to 1958. The difference between Gibson's peak seasons and Williams' peak seasons is about 2%; that difference is certainly within the acknowledged margin of error for these projections, due to the lack of seasonal walks data (the projections have less variation season-to-season than real totals would), the lack of reliable park factors, and the effects of regression. Gibson's unregressed OPS+ for 1946, for example, shows as 250. Some regression is needed, but the 224 figure assigned shows only the most probable result, not an actual one.
   109. Gadfly Posted: May 25, 2005 at 03:37 PM (#1360393)
I, of course, agree with your comments about the effects of regression. Because of this type of analysis, considering single seasons is pretty much useless. But multiple season analysis is, in my opinion, valid.

However, by your best 13 seasons of OPS+ above, Gibson is 14.3 percent, or 29.8 percent if you use 100 as the baseline, worse than Ruth. He is 4.3 percent, or 9.0 percent if you use 100 as the baseline, worse than Williams.

OPS-(YRS)-AVG-PLAYER
2822-(13)-219.3-Ruth
2603-(13)-200.2-Williams
2495-(13)-191.9-Gibson

A couple of notes here:

Williams, because of the way his career is cut up, almost surely never reached his true peak as a player.

In other words, Williams, without the two stints in the Military, would have been able to combine some seasons where his power and ability to get on base peaked together. One of the really odd things about Williams career is that his ability to hit for power was at its peak when he retired.

[Of course, I know all about Bonds' late peak, but that is very obviuosly steroid induced.]

Williams was also conspicously slower than either Gibson or Ruth, although both Gibson and Ruth lost much of their speed in their 30s.

Gibson, like Ruth, has a more classic career path. His career peaks exactly where it should (1937-1943, ages 25-31). Gibson, in his prime, hit in a similar style to Lou Gehrig (he actually based his swing on Gehrig's swing). The extent statistics show Gibson in his prime walking at about the same rate as Gehrig did in his prime.

[Both Gehrig and Gibson were line-drine power hitters. Ruth was a fly-ball power hitter.]

In my opinion, Gibson did not draw walks at the same rate as Ruth and probably was somewhat less of a home run hitter. But I believe he would have matched or exceeded Ruth for average and hit many more 2Bs and 3Bs than Ruth. Basically, Gibson is a stronger faster Gehrig.

I think he was pretty much as great as Ruth.

Of course, the conversion rate being used does not show that. I'm happy to hear that you will be doing an MLE for Charleston. Hopefully, when you find the time, you can do MLEs for some of the other guys mentioned above too.

Of course, I know how hard it is to fit fun into having to work for a living. It took me two weeks to catch back up in my job after wasting one whole week working on Gavy Cravath.
   110. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 28, 2005 at 03:12 PM (#1367961)
Unless I missed it here, what about Gibson as the greatest right-handed hitter of all-time?
   111. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: May 28, 2005 at 06:17 PM (#1368275)
Interesting thought, I think a guy like Hornsby may be his toughest competition. It is odd that two guys who can hold the mantle of 'best RH hitter ever' come from defense first positions, or at lesat non-corner positions.
   112. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 28, 2005 at 08:59 PM (#1368473)
Interesting thought, I think a guy like Hornsby may be his toughest competition.

His only real competition. Foxx, McGwire, etc. appear to be a notch below those two.

It is odd that two guys who can hold the mantle of 'best RH hitter ever' come from defense first positions, or at lesat non-corner positions.

Interesting point, jschmeagol.
   113. Howie Menckel Posted: June 11, 2005 at 08:44 PM (#1397917)
A little late, but:

I'm probably going with this:

1930 Greys parttime
1931 Greys fulltime
1932-36 Crawfords fulltime
1937-39 Greys fulltime
1940 Greys parttime
1942-46 Greys fulltime

And of course C in all those years (finally an easy one; Dihigo was the ultimate mess).

Always problematic when to list playing time and when not to. I'm trying to reflect a sense of what players did in the main leagues of the time; I know why Gibson went to Mexico, but if you're an American fan in 1941, he's not in the mix.
Point is, I'm trying to reflect what ballplayers were 'around' in any given year.

Suggestions always welcomed.
   114. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 14, 2007 at 04:46 AM (#2614173)
Just for fun, I ran Josh Gibson's MLE's through my WARP system (including standard wartime deductions). Here are the results:

Glossary

The following numbers are all standard deviation-adjusted. SFrac is the percentage of the season played (compared to a player with league average PA/G in 162 games). BWAA is batting wins above average and FWAA is fielding wins above average (I am not including BRWAA since data on Gibson's baserunning was not made available). Replc is wins above average a replacement player at the same position would have accumulated in the same playing time, and WARP is the first three minus the fourth (wins above replacement).

Year SFrac BWAA FWAA Replc  WARP
1931  0.82  3.0 
-0.5  -1.7  +4.2
1932  0.73  2.0 
-0.5  -1.4  +3.0
1933  0.83  5.3 
-0.2  -1.7  +6.7
1934  0.76  2.4 
-0.2  -1.4  +3.7
1935  0.81  4.4  0.0  
-1.5  +5.9
1936  0.82  5.6  0.1  
-1.6  +7.2
1937  0.81  8.6  0.0  
-1.6 +10.2
1938  0.69  4.7  0.0  
-1.3  +6.1
1939  0.80  7.3  0.2  
-1.5  +9.0
1940  0.72  7.0  0.1  
-1.4  +8.4
1941  0.85  7.3  0.3  
-1.6  +9.2
1942  0.73  6.1  0.0  
-1.3  +7.4
1943  0.57  5.6 
-0.4  -1.0  +6.2
1944  0.77  4.4 
-0.7  -1.3  +5.1
1945  0.78  4.6 
-0.9  -1.3  +5.0
1946  0.60  6.4 
-0.6  -1.0  +6.8
TOTL 12.08 84.6 
-3.1 -22.5 104.1 


Where does this stack up? With no catcher bonus, according to my consensus estimator, it's in Frank Robinson/Rickey Henderson territory, but that's not really fair since Chris calculated his playing time estimates using typical catcher norms. Using my standard 58% catcher bonus, it's an exact tie with Willie Mays for #6 all-time, behind Ruth, Williams, Bonds, Wagner, and Cobb. That sounds just about right to me. The only things holding him back from an even higher ranking are that his career wasn't super-long by non-catcher standards and that he didn't appear to have fielded his position particularly well.
   115. DL from MN Posted: November 14, 2007 at 02:42 PM (#2614357)
Thanks for those numbers so I can plug and chug. Using my standard catcher bonus and assuming he's no worse than -7 BRWAA he's the best player ever. It is very close between Gibson, Ruth and Wagner with Walter Johnson and Ted Williams right behind. Bonds isn't ranked yet. Mays is my best player whose career is entirely post-integration followed by Aaron and Schmidt.
   116. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 14, 2007 at 03:52 PM (#2614435)
I don't think anyone has ever been -7 BRWAA, so there's not much cause for concern there.
   117. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 15, 2007 at 03:04 PM (#2615657)
The one thing I wonder about is whether NgL catchers deserve the same size bonus that major league catchers do--were the demands of the position really the same? (I don't know the answer to that). Would Gibson have caught in the bigs?
   118. DL from MN Posted: November 15, 2007 at 03:20 PM (#2615679)
Would the greatest catcher of all-time have played catcher in MLB? Almost certainly.

Would Babe Ruth have pitched longer in the Negro Leagues?
   119. Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine Posted: November 15, 2007 at 03:21 PM (#2615683)
The one thing I wonder about is whether NgL catchers deserve the same size bonus that major league catchers do--were the demands of the position really the same? (I don't know the answer to that). Would Gibson have caught in the bigs?

Why wouldn't the demands be the same? I think, actually, the demands might have been more acute as the travel was brutal and Gibson played a ton of exhibition games on the side. That said, I don't think he would have caught in the bigs. I think most managers would have plugged him in left field--he ran well--to save wear and tear and keep his bat fresh.
   120. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 15, 2007 at 03:24 PM (#2615686)
Yeah, obviously there's no right answer. It's just that the gap between Gibson and the all-time #2 catcher (Piazza in my book) is SO much bigger than the gap at ANY other position that I wonder whether it's really the same position. Maybe it was. Anyways, I have no problem with Gibson at #6 all time.
   121. DavidFoss Posted: November 15, 2007 at 03:30 PM (#2615691)
FWIW, Gibson's NeL career overlapped with Campanella's and Campy was a fine MLB catcher.
   122. Gary A Posted: November 15, 2007 at 03:38 PM (#2615702)
Well, the Negro Leagues always ran more than the majors (certainly in the 30s and 40s), so in terms of controlling the running game, the catcher's position was if anything more important. There's no way somebody could have caught for 17 years for the Homestead Grays and Pittsburgh Crawfords without being able to throw pretty well. As far as stamina goes, Gibson seems to have played virtually every game--but, based on what little work I've done on the 1930s, he probably spent about 15-20% of his games in the outfield. And of course, they played very packed schedules at this time, plus Gibson frequently played winter ball.
   123. Gary A Posted: November 15, 2007 at 03:44 PM (#2615710)
It's just that the gap between Gibson and the all-time #2 catcher (Piazza in my book) is SO much bigger than the gap at ANY other position that I wonder whether it's really the same position.

There's a much wider gap between Gibson and the next best NgL catcher, who'd probably be Mackey (and Mackey wasn't a bad hitter in his prime). It definitely wasn't a position where you'd park sluggers to hide their gloves, or else you'd have a bunch of guys like Suttles among the catchers.
   124. Gary A Posted: November 15, 2007 at 03:47 PM (#2615716)
I'm forgetting Santop, of course, another slugger. But also not (by reputation) a poor catcher, though he did spend a good deal of time at other positions.
   125. Paul Wendt Posted: November 17, 2007 at 08:40 PM (#2618610)
119. Shooty's rap name is Rhymenocerous Posted: November 15, 2007 at 10:21 AM (#2615683)
quoting DanR:
> The one thing I wonder about is whether NgL catchers deserve the same size bonus that
> major league catchers do--were the demands of the position really the same?
> (I don't know the answer to that). Would Gibson have caught in the bigs?

Why wouldn't the demands be the same? I think, actually, the demands might have been more acute as the travel was brutal and Gibson played a ton of exhibition games on the side. </i>

There is no reason to suppose that the physical demands and the social norms match. Suppose that the demands (per game) were the same but the norms (games played when able) were greater in the Negro Leagues. Then there would be some greater outliers in the Negro Leagues, the lucky and the hippo. But there would also be more Negro Leagues catchers who broke down, some unknown to everyone but GaryA and other data-gatherers.

All that is on general principles or by common sense, or maybe not general or common. CBlau and GaryA probably know about this based on roster limits and roster sizes, which are primarily the game off the field.

Given complete information, DanR's system would focus on the norms rather than the demands, if I understand correctly. If Negro Leagues "overused" their catchers by following greater norms (overused by mlb norms), then the value of a lucky or a hippo catcher would show up more in his superior rate statistics (as others played hurt and below their healthy rates) and would show up less in his catcher bonus. That is, DanR's catcher bonus would properly be smaller in the Negro Leagues.
The norms rather than the demands
   126. Paul Wendt Posted: November 17, 2007 at 08:48 PM (#2618619)
(There I messed up italics for quotation.)

Suppose that the demands (per game) were the same but the norms (games played when able) were greater in the Negro Leagues.

continuing to explain the part about rate statistics, playing less well, in contrast to the part about short careers, not playing after true break down:

"norms (games played when able)"
- rest would be a factor, playing less well when "playing tired"
- hurt would be another, playing less well when "playing hurt" (able), contrast "playing injured" (not able, when representative Negro Leagues and major league catchers are both on the bench or in the hospital)
   127. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 17, 2007 at 09:34 PM (#2618660)
Yes, Paul Wendt, that's a much more articulate explanation of what I was trying to get at.
   128. stax Posted: November 25, 2008 at 04:58 PM (#3015528)
Can someone post Gibson's MLEs to the Yahoo Group? He's not under the Neg Lg players folder and I'd really be interested in knowing. The numbers here are cool, but some are old enough posts I just would love a nice official altogether file on Gibson.
   129. Chris Cobb Posted: November 25, 2008 at 05:30 PM (#3015557)
The MLEs in post 61 on this thread are the only ones that I have done for Gibson: I have not re-run his numbers since the HoF data for him was released.

Dan R's WAR numbers for him in post 114 are, I believe, based on those MLEs and the fielding win shares a few posts later.
   130. Howie Menckel Posted: October 14, 2009 at 04:17 AM (#3351476)
this just in on Josh Gibson......

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/sports/baseball/14gibson.html?hp
   131. Howie Menckel Posted: October 20, 2009 at 01:17 AM (#3358864)
Huh, is ol' Josh making a fame comeback?

play is called, "Safe at Third (or Josh Gibson Don't Bunt)," Opens Oct. 23 at the Castillo Theatre in NYC

from the press release:

"Safe At Third (Or Josh Gibson Don’t Bunt), is an absurd little comedy full of big ideas. Four historical figures — Albert Einstein; the great Negro League slugger Josh Gibson; Otto René Castillo, the martyred Guatemalan poet and revolutionary; and the legendary aviator Amelia Earhart — find themselves stranded at third base with no way home. In fact, it seems there is no longer a home to return to. Challenging the comforting notions of home, of knowing and of resolution, these four unlikely friends launch a comic journey across the universe. With echoes of The Little Prince and The Wizard of Oz, Safe At Third, is whimsical, thoughtful and totally out of the ballpark."
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Kiko Sakata
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.4652 seconds
61 querie(s) executed