Mathewson and Dimaggio overrated? Koufax, Robinson [Archive]

View Full Version : Mathewson and Dimaggio overrated? Koufax, Robinson

Archive

09-02-2002, 11:13 AM

Posted By: Wade  I brought this up on the old board about two years ago, but I am still baffled by peoples responses, so maybe someone could shed some light on the situation. Joe Dimaggio was an unbelievable player in his day, but why does he get such a lofty status in baseball lovers minds? I don't take anything away from his talents or his numbers, but no sane baseball enthusiast could possibly rank him above Williams or Gehrig, and Gehrig played on the same team. Everybody knows Williams missed several prime years, and his numbers, as are Gehrig's, are better than Dimaggio's. While I'm at it I'll throw these out as well. Although I am a huge fan of Christy Mathewson, I wonder why he is so much more popular than Walter Johnson. They are very comparable by numbers, yet Christy always seems to get the nod by people/collectors. Sandy Koufax is another player I don't understand. From 1961-66 Koufax was unstoppable. But, he ended his career with only 165 wins? Is this enough to garner him the attention he receives? I don't think so. Finally, I also wonder if Jackie Robinson earns more respect in the minds of collectors as a revolutionary, or as a baseball player. I can't for a second even fathom the hell he must have went through in his playing career/life, and I am not a bigot, racist etc... But, I wonder with concerns to Robinson, are his numbers that good, or do we make them that good because of who he was and what he had to endure? I don't wish to offend any Koufax, Robinson, Dimaggio fans, but can someone describe the fascination with these players?

Archive

09-02-2002, 11:35 AM

Posted By: Jay MillerDimaggio---Great hitter but not as great as Williams. Great fielder, much better than Williams. Had the intangibles-much like Jeter today--ability to elevate his game when it meant most. I think Williams was a better player but it is not my that much. Koufax---In the second half of his career perhaps the greatest lefty ever. His career was cut short by arthritis or he certainly would have had more impressive career stats. I think he deserves all the credit he gets and then some. Robinson--His fame is not from his level of play but from what he did to transform the game. If Robinson was white and played exactly as he did we wouldn't even be talking about him now. However, to play as well as he did under the pressure he must have felt is a real accomplishment. Mathewson--Dan, defend your relative!

Archive

09-02-2002, 11:36 AM

Posted By: Dr.KoosThe Yankees couldn't win without him. When Williams was going into his yearly, typical September "snooze", Dimaggio was tearing up the baseball, making sure that his team retained any lead built up during the year. As Lazzeri said, "Your team was down by a run, it would be the bottom of the ninth, and then you'd see Dimagg standing in the on deck circle with 2 men on and you KNEW you had every chance in the world to win it right then and there". Throughout his career, Dimaggio's late inning, team down by a few runs batting average and production stats were enormous. He rose to the occassion. PLUS, keep in mind that Joe WAS somewhat of a power-hitter as well, 360+ Homeruns with only 360+ strikeouts in a short career (6500+ at bats), this accomplished with a 457 foot power-alley for a right hand hitter in HALF of his career games!!!!! Plus, Ted wasn't married to Marilyn Monroe!!!

Archive

09-02-2002, 12:27 PM

Posted By: Jeff ObermeyerLet us not forget, my friends, that DiMaggio and Mathewson both played in New York City. With respect to DiMaggio, consider all the factors... he was the best player on his team, playing for the best team in the league, in the most popular sport in the country, in the biggest city in the country. Williams was certainly a better hitter (although DiMaggio was truly great), but what did his teams accomplish? Nothing, frankly. DiMaggio played on 9 World Series champs in 13 seasons... Williams only played in 1 World Series in 19 seasons, and the Sox lost that one. Let's also not forget that DiMaggio also lost time to the service - three years. He was a far superior fielder and runner when compared to Williams. A final factor about DiMaggio - he was injured a lot and played in pain. The fans knew it, and it made him even more of a "tragic hero" much like Mantle. As for the Mathewson/Johnson debate... look who they played for. Mathewson spent his entire career in New York with the Giants, Johnson spent his entire career in Washington with the usually lowly Senators. Matty also gets the "tragic hero" treatment by history - becoming seriously injured by poison gas during World War I and dying at a fairly young age. Jeff Obermeyer

Archive

09-02-2002, 01:41 PM

Posted By: B HodesJeff's discussion of the benefits of having played for New York dynastys touches on something important. Because baseball is to a large degree an individual game played by teams that yields a vast array of meaningful statistics we often overlook the reason the players play (I know its probably money but indulge me here) --- Winning. Winning, playing on championships and delivering in post season play must also be weighed heavily in determining the best among the greats. Ruth and Wagner won World Series and performed well in them. Conversely, other greats like Ted Williams, Ty Cobb and Barry Bonds did not. Yes, a player generally cannot get to and win a world series by himself but it seems that at some point or another even greats condemed to the worst teams had opportunites to take their teams to the next level and many -- even past their primes -- have delivered Walter Johnson in the mid 1920's and Pete Alexander with the Cardinals come to mind. Along these lines it is important to remember in the face of all these neat stats that great players are on teams and must be good teammates -- this also distinguishes playrers who were generally not considered ideal teamates like Cobb, Hornsby and Williams from Wagner, Johnson and Ruth who most teamates regarded highly.

Archive

09-02-2002, 01:53 PM

Posted By: Julie VognarMy husband used to say, in the early 80s, that Jackie Robinson was like two Ricky hendersons--he would drive pichers CRAZY--how were you supposed ot know when he WASn'T going to steal a base? We all know the story of Rickey and Robinson's agreement, and when it ended. How can you separate the man from his career? ("How may we know the dancer from the dance?") From being a pacifist, he turning into a guy who "didn't just come to win; he came to cram the damned bat up your ass!" And I'm sure most of you have heard it said that if Jackie had failed, baseball would have gone 20 more years without integrating....no Mays, no Aaron, no Clemente, etc. I think he deserves all the credit he gets.

Archive

09-02-2002, 03:30 PM

Posted By: jay berhensEvery time someone makes an argument that a player was a great late inning hitter, they never provide the stats to back this. Mostly becuase they don't exist for most players or it's becuase it is a favorite player of their's and they tend to romanticize the ability of a given player. Please provide the stats that back this statement. Jay

Archive

09-02-2002, 03:52 PM

Posted By: Dr.KoosYou know Jay, they have these little things called BOXscores of baseball games which show what a player did with every at bat in every inning he made a trip to the plate, and what the score happened to be. It's why Reggie is known as Mr.October, and why Williams was known to go into Sept. hibernation, and why Dimaggio was one of the best MONEY players ever. You have only to study BOXscores. Box scores don't lie. ANY major online library with a large selection of Sports material has records of boxscores going back well into the 1800s. PS: I need your address so I can mail you the Geronimo I won for you! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> (no kidding!)

Archive

09-02-2002, 04:28 PM

Posted By: jay behrensWell, you best get to reading your box scores and totaling up the numbers. People tend to remember what they want to remember. I remember back in teh 80s Eddie Murray was considered one of the great clutch hitters in the game, but someone actually ran the numbers and his numbers from the 7th inning on weren't any better than the average player in the league. If someone makes a claim, it's up to that person to back it up. Jay

Archive

09-02-2002, 04:54 PM

Posted By: TBobMatty came in the league at a time when most of the players were farmhands, oil riggers, coal miners, roughnecks, city slickers, etc. and gave the league instant credibility and class. He was a college graduate at a time when you could count the numbers of college educated players on one hand. Before Matty the game was perceived as roughnecked and brawling and definitely not a game you would take the wife/girl friend and family to on an afternoon. matty changed all that. He was THE hero to thousands of kids, the real life Frank Merriwell. He was a great pitcher who suffered quietly and inwardly when some of the greatest freaks in the history of the game happened while he was on the mound: Merkle's Boner, Snodgrass' Muff, Chief Meyer's dropped pop foul. His tragic and senseless accident which hastened his death adds to the mystique. Who was the greatest pitcher of all time: Matty or Johnson? Johnson threw harder, pitched for the miserable Senators and endured his own hell in Washington. But for sheer pitching ability, intelligence of hitters, guile, control and mastery on the mound, there was only Matty.

Archive

09-02-2002, 05:00 PM

Posted By: TBobKoufax may be overrated but Joe D., despite his complex and enigmatic personality is NOT overrated. Williams was a better hitter. Joe D. was a better PLAYER. For those who like to deal in "what ifs"- Had he not played his entire career in pain, Mantle would have been the greatest player ever to play the game, bar none. Better than Mays, Clemente, Joe D., Williams, etc. THE best. He had more God given talent than any one to ever don a uniform. Faster than Mays (before the 52 injury), more power than Aaron, a better hitter than Clemente, better defensively than Williams. The best.

Archive

09-02-2002, 07:18 PM

Posted By: scott brockelmanin my last post on this board, i will have to disagree that mantle, or williams or dimaggio were the greatest player, or even ruth or cobb, perhaps all great and charismatic,. but matter of factly, the greatest player was willie mays, he could run, throw, field, steal & hit better than any of the above when all is factored in. his downfall was attitude, not toward the game but towards the fans and management and later, people not willing to accept his position in baseball history. ted williams is second only because he DID lose so much war time, otherwise he would have blown away the others. mantle was great but like so many modern celebs, he could not handle the lime light. except in his day the press and management disguised it as "injury, sickness, illness, etc" he destroyed himself! in todays world he would have been chewed up and spit out by the press in a few seasons. no excuses! as so many of the short term superstars are today. oh, by the way, the ONLY person to have a shot at immortality in this decade is sammy sosa, not a great overall player, but sure to surpass the home run records and just a great guy for baseball, you can count his naysayer's on your thumb. goodbye scott