Greg Luzinski or George Foster?

Wolf Hopper · 12-30-2003, 08:18 PM

Who was better - and why?

qtlaw · 12-30-2003, 08:20 PM

Foster because he killed the ball for a couple of years when it took a near HOF to hit 30 and he hit 52. He was a better fielder also.

TimmyB · 12-30-2003, 08:23 PM

Luzinski may have had just a bit more staying power, but, on the basis of domination, I'll give the nod to Foster. When he was good he was scary good. (I didn't even bother looking at stats... I'm going off gut and memory.)

(Isn't that how most of the BBWAA do it, too?)

Skip · 12-30-2003, 09:19 PM

Foster ... and that's not even a

vote.

SmedIndy · 12-30-2003, 09:32 PM

Foster could actually play his position - and played CF too early in his career!

Wolf Hopper · 12-30-2003, 10:21 PM

What does the Bull need to do to get some love here?

Code:

1969-1986
OPS vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
HOMERUNS vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
OWP displayed only--not a sorting criteria
PLATE APPEARANCES displayed only--not a sorting criteria
BPA vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria

RCAA                           RCAA      OPS      HR       OWP      PA       BPA    
1    Mike Schmidt                592     .199      340     .701     8826     .166   
2    Joe Morgan                  568     .106       74     .695     9413     .135   
3    Reggie Jackson              550     .144      308     .677    10293     .126   
4    Rod Carew                   486     .122      -99     .671     9497     .062   
5    Pete Rose                   397     .066     -112     .617    11812     .026   
6    Ken Singleton               347     .105       82     .643     8558     .057   
7    Dave Winfield               330     .109      138     .635     8180     .080   
8    Bobby Bonds                 302     .110      169     .628     7741     .126   
9    Carl Yastrzemski            294     .112      120     .611     8720     .079   
10   Greg Luzinski               289     .120      164     .626     7514     .086   
11   Jim Rice                    288     .152      186     .614     7829     .087   
12   Jose Cruz                   287     .061       -4     .621     8438     .052   
13   Darrell Evans               271     .074      171     .599     9283     .072   
14   Bobby Murcer                259     .092      102     .617     7603     .070   
T15  Johnny Bench                255     .107      219     .607     7969     .082   
T15  Bobby Grich                 255     .080       61     .614     8220     .061   
T15  Dwight Evans                255     .115      133     .606     7786     .089   
18   Tony Perez                  254     .092      143     .597     8914     .059   
19   Al Oliver                   252     .075       24     .588     9770     .026   
20   Cesar Cedeno                251     .071       42     .606     8133     .082   
21   Rusty Staub                 249     .097       84     .607     7923     .054   
22   Cecil Cooper                236     .085       71     .605     7669     .049   
23   George Foster               230     .100      201     .598     7812     .068   
24   Hal McRae                   229     .089       27     .597     7965     .052   
25   Don Baylor                  221     .066      134     .590     8621     .067

sweaver · 12-31-2003, 12:13 AM

That's a difference of 59 runs....I think George more than made up the difference on defense.

manny tortolero · 12-31-2003, 06:22 AM

In four years, from 1975 to 1978, Luzinski was a terrific hitter putting 129 hr (42% of the total hrs of 15 years of carrer) and 446 rbi in that time lapse and being the perfect complement for Schmidt to help the Phillies to win three NL eastern champs. However as he always was defensive liability, once the injuries appears in 1979 and 1980 and his offensive dropped, he became in a burden for the Phillies. He never was the player he was in that period.
The best period of Foster (1976-1979) almost conicide with Luzinski's prime years, piling monsters numbers of 151 hrs. (43% of the total of hrs. of 18 years carrer) and 488 rbi. But as he was a fine defensive player, once injuries appears and dropped his production the same as Luzinski, he didn't lose value as player so fast mainly because the nice defensive player he was. He keeps putting good numbers by five or six years more (more than 90 rbi three times with an average of 25 hrs). If Foster had been putting the monsters numbers of his prime time by two or three years more, probably he would be considered a seriously HOF candidate.
I choose Foster because was more complete as player and had a longest carrer. Too, his prime period was better than Luzinski's prime time.

pwdennis · 12-31-2003, 07:46 AM

Offensively I remember them as being about equal. Defensively, it's no contest as Foster was pretty good while Luzinski was a born DH, a real butcher in the outfield (why he wasn't used at 1B is a mystery)

WiredTiger · 12-31-2003, 08:51 AM

Offensively Luzinski was a little bit better than Foster over the course of his career. But I think Foster's defense and Luzinski's defenive limitations swing the vote to Foster.

Wolf Hopper · 12-31-2003, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweaver

That's a difference of 59 runs....I think George more than made up the difference on defense.

Hey, I thought Moneyball told us that defense was overrated?

WiredTiger · 12-31-2003, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolf Hopper

Hey, I thought Moneyball told us that defense was overrated?

Overrated financially but important nonetheless.

sweaver · 12-31-2003, 10:15 AM

My best estimate is that over their careers, Foster has the Bull defensively by about 90 runs.

nyy26wc · 12-31-2003, 11:43 AM

I'm going with Luzinski.

289 to 230 in career RCAA

Luzinski has a 20 point edge in career OPS vs. the league average, including a +.033 to +.007 edge in career OBA vs. the league

Luzinski's best stretch was 4 years (1975-78) with 50, 28, 58, 40 RCAA. Foster's best was 4 years (1976-79) with 43, 63, 35, 39 RCAA.

gyb13 · 12-31-2003, 04:22 PM

wouldn't you say foster had a better peak, though? 63x58 RCAA?

View Poll Results: Who was better Greg Luzinski or George Foster?
Greg Luzinski	3	17.65%
George Foster	14	82.35%
Not Sure	0	0%
It's a tie	0	0%
Voters: 17. You may not vote on this poll

12-30-2003, 08:18 PM	#1
Wolf Hopper NetShrine Creator & Curator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: NetShrine WHQ Posts: 6,191	Greg Luzinski or George Foster? Who was better - and why? __________________ Steve, Forum Administrator POSTING TIP FOR THE DAY: When composing a post, think about what you would say if the intended recipient was an individual who was actually sitting just two feet in front of you, in person, rather than just some far away and anonymous audience who only can identify you as text on a PC screen - - and then write your post in that manner. It makes for remarkable and sincere discourse.

12-31-2003, 07:46 AM	#9
pwdennis NetShrine All-Century Team Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Winter Springs, FL Posts: 2,503	Offensively I remember them as being about equal. Defensively, it's no contest as Foster was pretty good while Luzinski was a born DH, a real butcher in the outfield (why he wasn't used at 1B is a mystery) __________________ "I would submit that if the world survives for a million years, perhaps its finest hour may be that in the last half of the 20th century, when the power to blow up the world rested in the hands of a few men in two very unsophisticated and suspicious countries, we didn't do it, and one American, Richard Nixon, moved the cold war away from permanent confrontation toward victory. How could any wrong that he did compare with that?" - John Sears

12-31-2003, 11:43 AM	#14
nyy26wc NetShrine All-Century Team Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: NJ Posts: 14,584	I'm going with Luzinski. 289 to 230 in career RCAA Luzinski has a 20 point edge in career OPS vs. the league average, including a +.033 to +.007 edge in career OBA vs. the league Luzinski's best stretch was 4 years (1975-78) with 50, 28, 58, 40 RCAA. Foster's best was 4 years (1976-79) with 43, 63, 35, 39 RCAA. __________________ Lee Creator, Complete Baseball Encyclopedia. It's powerful, yet extremely easy to use. Features extensive sorting and stat display options. The CBE has many features that are not available in online and printed sources. Has 2006 stats and daily update service for 2007.

12-31-2003, 04:22 PM	#15
gyb13 NS Omnipresent Brasilian Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Crazy George's playground Posts: 10,903	wouldn't you say foster had a better peak, though? 63x58 RCAA? __________________ Gustavo NDF Moderator Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

12-30-2003, 08:20 PM	#2
qtlaw Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: El Cerrito, CA Posts: 668	Foster because he killed the ball for a couple of years when it took a near HOF to hit 30 and he hit 52. He was a better fielder also.

12-30-2003, 08:23 PM	#3
TimmyB NetShrine's Magic 8-Ball Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Where the cops speak slow and the air is nice Posts: 2,591	Luzinski may have had just a bit more staying power, but, on the basis of domination, I'll give the nod to Foster. When he was good he was scary good. (I didn't even bother looking at stats... I'm going off gut and memory.) (Isn't that how most of the BBWAA do it, too?)

12-30-2003, 09:19 PM	#4
Skip NetShrine Vagabond Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Louisville Posts: 7,866	Foster ... and that's not even a vote.

12-30-2003, 09:32 PM	#5
SmedIndy NetShrine's Historian Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Zionsville, IN Posts: 10,569	Foster could actually play his position - and played CF too early in his career!

12-31-2003, 12:13 AM	#7
sweaver Netshrine Cleanup Hitter Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Mountain State Posts: 8,883	That's a difference of 59 runs....I think George more than made up the difference on defense.

12-31-2003, 06:22 AM	#8
manny tortolero NetShrine MVP Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Caracas, Venezuela Posts: 298	In four years, from 1975 to 1978, Luzinski was a terrific hitter putting 129 hr (42% of the total hrs of 15 years of carrer) and 446 rbi in that time lapse and being the perfect complement for Schmidt to help the Phillies to win three NL eastern champs. However as he always was defensive liability, once the injuries appears in 1979 and 1980 and his offensive dropped, he became in a burden for the Phillies. He never was the player he was in that period. The best period of Foster (1976-1979) almost conicide with Luzinski's prime years, piling monsters numbers of 151 hrs. (43% of the total of hrs. of 18 years carrer) and 488 rbi. But as he was a fine defensive player, once injuries appears and dropped his production the same as Luzinski, he didn't lose value as player so fast mainly because the nice defensive player he was. He keeps putting good numbers by five or six years more (more than 90 rbi three times with an average of 25 hrs). If Foster had been putting the monsters numbers of his prime time by two or three years more, probably he would be considered a seriously HOF candidate. I choose Foster because was more complete as player and had a longest carrer. Too, his prime period was better than Luzinski's prime time.

12-31-2003, 08:51 AM	#10
WiredTiger Guest Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: The city of Kaline, Cobb and Greenberg Posts: 3,395	Offensively Luzinski was a little bit better than Foster over the course of his career. But I think Foster's defense and Luzinski's defenive limitations swing the vote to Foster.

12-31-2003, 10:15 AM	#13
sweaver Netshrine Cleanup Hitter Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Mountain State Posts: 8,883	My best estimate is that over their careers, Foster has the Bull defensively by about 90 runs.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Who's on first?	gyb13	2003 Seventh Inning Stretch Archives	3	10-27-2003 11:01 AM
George Foster or Jim Rice?	sweaver	2003 Baseball History Archives	21	09-20-2003 08:30 AM
Call It The Greg Maddux Award?	Wolf Hopper	2003 Active Player News, Analysis, & Commentary Archives	7	08-04-2003 05:40 PM
Top 10 things overheard in George Steinbrenner's office....	Fleet N. Ema	2003 Seventh Inning Stretch Archives	7	04-11-2003 06:56 PM
George Brett, Detroit Tiger.	Ytown Tribe fan	2002 Baseball History Archives	6	08-19-2002 06:18 PM