Greg Luzinski or George Foster?

[nyy26wc]

Originally Posted by gyb13

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

Foster had the better best season. But, I'd see a peak of more than just 1 year.

[gyb13]

ah, then it depends on one's definition of peak

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally Posted by pwdennis

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)

The Phillies put Luzinski in LF because they had Willie Montanez at 1B, who hit 30 HRs in 1971. He promptly lost all of his power, although he did hit .304 once (while rarely walking) before being traded to SF in the Garry Maddox trade.

Next came the aging, divisive Dick Allen, who occupied the position from 1975-76.

After Allen was dumped, the Phils could have moved Luzinski to 1B, his natural position. However, they chose to put RICHIE HEBNER???????? at 1B. (Why they didn't put Hebner in LF and Luzinski at 1B is one of the mysteries of life.)

Luzinski was only 33 when his career ended. He had a bad year in 1984, but guys have come back from worse. Maybe Greg knew how bad he was getting, but maybe not. Maybe there was a chronic injury and Luzinski didn't want to play through pain.

Both of the guys in this thread were mishandled by their managers, riding the bench or playing at an ill-suited position while an inferior player occupied the slot they should have taken. Had Foster been a continuous regular from 1971, on, he would have hit 450-500 HRs, and we would be talking HOF. Had Luzinski settled in at 1B, I believe he would have stayed around long enough for 500. I also believe that the Phillies would have been better off.

[Golden Bear]

I'm going with Luzinski, not really off numbers (just don't feel like looking them up today), but I'd just rather have him up with the game on the line. Pure gut feel here.

Luzinski quit playing, as I recall, because he just got tired of the travel and had made plenty of money. I know a few years back he was coaching high school football and baseball for a NJ prep school. (He coached my cousin.)

I'm probably just biased here, but what the hell.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally Posted by Golden Bear

I'm going with Luzinski, not really off numbers (just don't feel like looking them up today), but I'd just rather have him up with the game on the line. Pure gut feel here.

Luzinski quit playing, as I recall, because he just got tired of the travel and had made plenty of money. I know a few years back he was coaching high school football and baseball for a NJ prep school. (He coached my cousin.)

I'm probably just biased here, but what the hell.

Had Luzinski stayed a few more years, and had he hit 400 HRs, probably everyone here would be saying that.