You've wandered into the Twilight Zone, apparently.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Dude you are in the Sports Forum. You want the second door on the left. But by all means grab a beer and start talking some nonsense and surly someone here will agree with you
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I guess I look past all the nonsense and look at Rose's actual on field stats. No matter how one looks at it Rose has the most hits of anyone in MLB. If you start keeping players out on personal actions......there should be a lot kicked out of the Hall.
I just think Rose should be in, but I won't belabor the point any further. I loved him as a player and always will.
@grote15 said:
Dowd has also uncovered evidence that not only did Rose bet on baseball, both as a player and as a manager, but that he was also betting AGAINST the Reds, as well, while managing them. It was also well known that Rose would never bet on the Reds if Soto or Gullickson were pitching, sending a clear signal to the bookies that he did not believe the Reds would win those games. These revelations are primarily why Rose agreed to a lifetime ban so Dowd would stop invesitgating him.
but a few guys here on the forum have assured us that Pete never bet on baseball. Case closed
Ted Williams - It was Ted Williams who once said, "All I want out of life is that when I walk down the street, folks will say, 'There goes the greatest hitter that ever lived.'"
Ty Cobb - The Georgia Peach, Tyrus Raymond Cobb boasts the highest lifetime batting average of any player, at .366. He is second all-time in hits, with 4,191, trailing only Pete Rose (4,256).
Roger Hornsby - Generally considered the greatest right-hand hitter in baseball history, Rogers Hornsby (below) won seven National League batting titles—six in a row, between 1920 and 1925—while playing second base for the St. Louis Cardinals.
Stan Musial - Stan the Man wore the uniform of the St. Louis Cardinals for his entire career. The model of consistency, Musial stands fourth all-time with 3,630 hits—1,815 at home, 1,815 on the road.
Tony Gwynn - Since Stan Musial retired in 1963, nearly 50 years ago, there hasn't been a better hitter than Tony Gwynn.
Rod Carew - Rod Carew (below) won seven AL batting titles while playing for the Minnesota Twins, including four straight starting in 1972.
Joe Jackson - Joe Jackson never won a batting title, yet finished with the third-highest lifetime batting average in baseball history, at .356.
Honus Wagner - Johannes Peter "Honus" Wagner, The Flying Dutchman, played nearly his entire career with the Pittsburgh Pirates before retiring, in 1917. He won eight NL batting titles, tied for the most in NL history with Tony Gwynn.
Harry Heilmann - A .342 lifetime hitter, outfielder/first baseman Harry Heilmann of the Detroit Tigers hit .394, .403, .393 and .398 every other year, starting in 1921.
Wade Boggs - One of several left-handed batting champs to wear Red Sox uniforms, Wade Boggs (below) won five AL batting titles and four in a row, from 1985 to 1988, during which stretch he hit .368, .357, .363 and .366.
Babe Ruth cracks the line up as the 13th best hitter. So when discussing Ruth vs. Williams it isn't even close.
Enthusiastic collector of British pre-decimal and Canadian decimal circulation coins.
@bigmarty58 said:
Ted Williams - It was Ted Williams who once said, "All I want out of life is that when I walk down the street, folks will say, 'There goes the greatest hitter that ever lived.'"
Ty Cobb - The Georgia Peach, Tyrus Raymond Cobb boasts the highest lifetime batting average of any player, at .366. He is second all-time in hits, with 4,191, trailing only Pete Rose (4,256).
Roger Hornsby - Generally considered the greatest right-hand hitter in baseball history, Rogers Hornsby (below) won seven National League batting titles—six in a row, between 1920 and 1925—while playing second base for the St. Louis Cardinals.
Stan Musial - Stan the Man wore the uniform of the St. Louis Cardinals for his entire career. The model of consistency, Musial stands fourth all-time with 3,630 hits—1,815 at home, 1,815 on the road.
Tony Gwynn - Since Stan Musial retired in 1963, nearly 50 years ago, there hasn't been a better hitter than Tony Gwynn.
Rod Carew - Rod Carew (below) won seven AL batting titles while playing for the Minnesota Twins, including four straight starting in 1972.
Joe Jackson - Joe Jackson never won a batting title, yet finished with the third-highest lifetime batting average in baseball history, at .356.
Honus Wagner - Johannes Peter "Honus" Wagner, The Flying Dutchman, played nearly his entire career with the Pittsburgh Pirates before retiring, in 1917. He won eight NL batting titles, tied for the most in NL history with Tony Gwynn.
Harry Heilmann - A .342 lifetime hitter, outfielder/first baseman Harry Heilmann of the Detroit Tigers hit .394, .403, .393 and .398 every other year, starting in 1921.
Wade Boggs - One of several left-handed batting champs to wear Red Sox uniforms, Wade Boggs (below) won five AL batting titles and four in a row, from 1985 to 1988, during which stretch he hit .368, .357, .363 and .366.
Babe Ruth cracks the line up as the 13th best hitter. So when discussing Ruth vs. Williams it isn't even close.
Greatest hitter doesn’t equate to best batting average. There are a lot of singles hitters on that list. Of course if you think singles are as valuable as homeruns you might. I can live with Williams but I’ll take Ruth over the rest for best hitter
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
It doesn't make any sense to have Harry Heilmann ahead of Ruth, when they both had a career
average of .342
And Ruth is way better than Carew and Boggs, and even Gwynn and his .338 career average.
And Brett was a better hitter then Boggs IMO. I’m leaving the other guy out of this
And yes the Babe hit for both mega power and mega average
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Hitting for average AND power is hard to do. Cobb, Jackson and Wagner didn't hit many home runs, but they weren't expected to hit them given the way the game was played. Heilmann hit for average, but not much power.
There are those who that the batting average is an overrated statistic. The real important stat is run production. If you put points on the board, you are great. If you only hit for average and little else you are good, but not great. Pete Runnels was Ted Williams team mate and rival for the batting title in the 1950s, but few people remember him.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
I genuinely feel bad for anyone with a gambling habit UNTIL they steal to fund their habit. That being said, I have zero problem with Rose betting on baseball WITH EXCEPTION to him betting on his team that he either played on or managed, that is crossing the line because your not only capable of effectively changing the outcome of the game your hurting your fellow teammates. If Rose never bet on his team while he was managing it or playing on it then so would vote him in, unfortunately for Rose he crossed a red line so that in itself should end the debate as far as I’m concerned.
@perkdog said:
I genuinely feel bad for anyone with a gambling habit UNTIL they steal to fund their habit. That being said, I have zero problem with Rose betting on baseball WITH EXCEPTION to him betting on his team that he either played on or managed, that is crossing the line because your not only capable of effectively changing the outcome of the game your hurting your fellow teammates. If Rose never bet on his team while he was managing it or playing on it then so would vote him in, unfortunately for Rose he crossed a red line so that in itself should end the debate as far as I’m concerned.
Rose was a tremendous player and I doubt that he ever threw a game to win a bet. Why he started gambling I have no idea. Winning was so important to him. He was the perfect player always giving 200%. I just think he should be in on his playing alone.
Well, if he never gets in...….I will never see the Hall!
One could make a better case for putting Buck Weaver, one of the banned Black Sox, in the Hall of Fame than Pete Rose. Weaver didn't take any money, played well and totally on the up and up during the series and got banned anyway only because he knew what was going on.
He was stuck because there was really no one he could turn to tell his story. Charles Comiskey, whom I think should be booted from the Hall of Fame, was out to save his investment in his players. He was partially responsible for scandal because he underpaid his player and didn’t keep his word with respect what he had promised to pay them.
Pete Rose helped the Phillies win their first World Series. I can never forget him for that, but his gambling destroyed his reputation. And it was so stupid. The man became one of the first players to be paid $1 million for season, yet he was out blowing his reputation for no good reason.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
The best hitter of all time is Mickey Mantle. Hit for average, hit for power and hit from both sides of the plate. Clutch as it gets. Excellent bunter, too.
And if you don't think that counts - and what value it provides - get you eyes off the spreadsheet and back on the diamond.
I mean no disrespect to any other guys mentioned, either. But even Ted Williams marveled at his natural hitting ability.
Whether you like no stats or advanced stats, how could it be anyone else?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@BillJones said:
The real important stat is run production. If you put points on the board, you are great. If you only hit for average and little else you are good, but not great.
This is absolutely correct, but don't stop there. Using extreme hypotheticals just to make a point, if you play in a ballpark and in a time where the average number of runs scored by a team in a game is 3, and you produce 100 runs you are twice as valuable to your team as a player who produces 100 runs in a park and time where the average number of runs scored per game is 6. In the real world, there aren't examples where one player is twice as valuable relative to another player as the basic stats imply, but there are plenty of examples where the required adjustment is 15% - 20%, and some more than that. When Roy White drove in 94 runs and scored 109 in 1970, that was, by FAR, a better season than Gil Hodges ever had. The next year, when Bobby Murcer drove in and scored 94 runs, that was a better season, though not by a lot, than Jim Rice ever had. I understand - believe me, I understand - that people struggle to accept these things, but they are facts.
Focusing on run production is an order of magnitude more worthwhile than focusing on batting average, but no matter what stat you focus on, if it isn't adjusted for park/era then, in the end, you are just wasting your time.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@perkdog said:
I genuinely feel bad for anyone with a gambling habit UNTIL they steal to fund their habit. That being said, I have zero problem with Rose betting on baseball WITH EXCEPTION to him betting on his team that he either played on or managed, that is crossing the line because your not only capable of effectively changing the outcome of the game your hurting your fellow teammates. If Rose never bet on his team while he was managing it or playing on it then so would vote him in, unfortunately for Rose he crossed a red line so that in itself should end the debate as far as I’m concerned.
Rose has stated that he attended, I think it was one, may have been a few, Gamblers Anonymous meetings. However Rose said (paraphrase) I stopped going because I felt those people weren't like me.
Yea Pete, they weren't like you in the aspect that you basically have a license to print money in various ways. Lose 50k to the bookies, no problem, just do an autograph show and pick up an easy 50k there. Most addicted gamblers don't have a luxury such as that.
Although...Leonard Tose, former owner of the Philadelphia Eagles, one would think he had the same luxury of printing money being an NFL owner of a highly successful and profitable franchise. However Tose still wound up going broke from casino gambling and was forced to sell the team.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
The best hitter of all time is Mickey Mantle. Hit for average, hit for power and hit from both sides of the plate. Clutch as it gets. Excellent bunter, too.
And if you don't think that counts - and what value it provides - get you eyes off the spreadsheet and back on the diamond.
I mean no disrespect to any other guys mentioned, either. But even Ted Williams marveled at his natural hitting ability.
Whether you like no stats or advanced stats, how could it be anyone else?
With all due respect, Mickey Mantle once said, "I just go up there and hack, If you want to see
a real hitter go watch Ted Williams."
Mantle and Williams both homered with about the same frequency based on Plate appearances,
and if you just count at bats Williams homered at a higher frequency than Mantle.
When you throw in Williams' .344 BA against Mantles' .298, how do you derive that Mantle was a better hitter.
And dont say because Mantle was a switch hitter, that doesn't matter.
You can't say Mantle walked more, helping his OBP, because nobody walked more than Williams.
Just curious, why do you say Mantle was a better hitter? I don't even think Dallas would say that.
Dallas would say Mantle was a better player, but you say Mantle was the best hitter of all time?
Please explain?
There's 1,001 good reasons why Ted was a better hitter than Mickey.
The Mick struck out that many MORE times than Ted did.
BB
Ted 2021
Mick 1733
OBP
Ted .482
MIck .421
SLG
Ted .634
Mick .557
OPS
Ted 1.116
Mick .977
OPS+
Ted 190
MIck 172
In conclusion, I know I have a preference for batting average, but in this case the player
with the higher batting average, .344 to .298, is still the undisputed better hitter.
@Darin said:
Just curious, why do you say Mantle was a better hitter? I don't even think Dallas would say that.
Dallas would say Mantle was a better player, but you say Mantle was the best hitter of all time?
Please explain?
Just for the record, this is exactly what Dallas would say. Just when I think you aren't paying attention.....
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
When I go to baseball reference and look at the body of work, I soak it all in and then make a decision. I also don't need a conversion chart to know that even in the 'low average' years from age 33-36, he was still arguably one of the games best and at least most feared hitters. Most of his peers faced an appreciable BA dip in those years. Not an excuse but let's not pretend he wasn't a .350 hitter in his prime who could jack 50 homers.
Switch hitting doesn't matter? Do you watch baseball or play baseball simulations?
Finally (and not to go all Herm Edwards, here), but you play to win the game. When you click on Mickey's postseason numbers, if you like big crooked ones in rows and columns you'd be hard pressed to find better or more. Click Ted, you get one line of utter garbage. I'm a big believer in judging guys on what they've done and not what a spreadsheet says they would have done. The mighty Ted Williams had a .200 average in his lone World Series at age 27 in his prime. Now, we're not comparing TYPICAL players here - these are the best of the best. When Mickey Mantle was in the World Series? He often changed the course of it or won it outright. With his bat. That's what hitting is, right?
To paraphrase the great Sean Connery in The Rock, 'Losers talk about their best and small sample size...'
...and I think we all know what Mickey did with the (many) prom queens.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I'm not saying you have to agree but you asked me to explain. That's my explanation. I have tremendous appreciation for Ted Williams, his love of hitting and baseball and the fact that many - maybe even the majority - would say he was the best hitter of all time. Just please take a minute and think how often in your life the majority has been wrong...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
The best hitter of all time is Mickey Mantle. Hit for average, hit for power and hit from both sides of the plate. Clutch as it gets. Excellent bunter, too.
And if you don't think that counts - and what value it provides - get you eyes off the spreadsheet and back on the diamond.
I mean no disrespect to any other guys mentioned, either. But even Ted Williams marveled at his natural hitting ability.
Whether you like no stats or advanced stats, how could it be anyone else?
With all due respect, Mickey Mantle once said, "I just go up there and hack, If you want to see
a real hitter go watch Ted Williams."
That is easily explained: he drank too much and had a low opinion of himself. They were probably related.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@Justacommeman said:
Mantles post season stats were far from great.
m
Further proof that stats should not be the be all end all in any argument.
In some respects, you're correct.
In others, and I don't mean this personally AT ALL, that's up there for most incorrect sentence ever written.
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@Justacommeman said:
Mantles post season stats were far from great.
m
Further proof that stats should not be the be all end all in any argument.
In some respects, you're correct.
In others, and I don't mean this personally AT ALL, that's up there for most incorrect sentence ever written.
Well when you say 'Mantle's post season stats were far from great' I guess from a certain perspective that is true. However, no one in baseball history has more hits, home runs, runs scored, runs batted in, walks and total bases in the World Series than Mickey Mantle. So there's that little nugget to deal with.
So he's either far from great or the definition of great - tomayto, tomahto.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@perkdog said:
I genuinely feel bad for anyone with a gambling habit UNTIL they steal to fund their habit. That being said, I have zero problem with Rose betting on baseball WITH EXCEPTION to him betting on his team that he either played on or managed, that is crossing the line because your not only capable of effectively changing the outcome of the game your hurting your fellow teammates. If Rose never bet on his team while he was managing it or playing on it then so would vote him in, unfortunately for Rose he crossed a red line so that in itself should end the debate as far as I’m concerned.
The moment that the legitimacy of the outcome of any major sport is in question, it is doomed. That is why MLB players are not permitted to wager on games. Pro sports sanctioning wagering will be a disaster. Trust me on this.
As far as Rose being included into the HOF, sure...the game has already lost it's luster from a generation of PED users. In a way, Rose fits right in.
For the resident stat heads, there's a great opportunity for an 'apples to apples' comparison of the two men, is there not? Same league at the same time for a number of years. I know not who comes out on top - and it wouldn't decide the matter for me - but it would be interesting to see.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
My favorite player when I was a youngster was Ted Williams. (I have no idea why) Looking back his one glaring weakness, if you want to call it that, is he never led his team to a World Championship.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
For the resident stat heads, there's a great opportunity for an 'apples to apples' comparison of the two men, is there not? Same league at the same time for a number of years. I know not who comes out on top - and it wouldn't decide the matter for me - but it would be interesting to see.
If you only compare when they played at the same time, it would be Mantle's early years compared to
Ted's middle to late years. Williams would probably still win, however, and should be clear proof that
he was a better hitter. Regardless, clear proof has already been established that Ted was the better
hitter but you're ignoring it.
I read a quote from Mantle saying he was disappointed he never really had a "great" WS in leading the Yankees to a victory.
At first I thought he was being modest, but then I then looked closely at the game by game records and (especially 1960) saw that Mick was right. Except for '52 (if I remember correctly) he should be known more for hitting exceptionally well in losing efforts and not really so good in winning ones.
Especially 1960 where he did nothing (or very little) in the games the Yanks lost and he clobbered the ball in blow out victories. Yankees were the better team but lost.
As far as overall hitting ability; Williams over Mantle by a mile. Overall, as an all-around player, I might take Mickey. Remember (if you don't already know) he hurt his shoulder in the 1956 or 1957 WS in a play at 2B and his arm was never the same, that also effected his left handed BA. Williams was a BIG distraction on his teams while Micky was a fantastic teammate.
I have said many times in the past that a slugger (35 or so HR per season) that can hit for high average (around or above .320 lifetime) is the true threshold for hitting greatness. Very few could do it. Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Dimaggio and Williams come to mind for me with honorable mention to Musial, who managed 25 HR a year.
Aaron, Mays and Mantle all ended up around .300 even though they had some years hitting .350 or so, they were not able to maintain a higher average and continue to hit for power.
Ted only played in 1 WS and did very poorly this has no effect on him being BY FAR the best hitter of the modern (1940's to present) era. Put Ted on those 1950's Yankees teams and there would be some data to compare.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I don't think I've ignored it. You prefer Ted Williams and I prefer Mickey.
Also, statements that rely on 'if' or 'probably' are hardly 'clear and convincing' - to me, anyway. What you did was breakdown statistics and present ones that cast Ted Williams in a flattering light. This can be done for all great players. Especially Ted who was one the greatest hitters of all time and certainly in the discussion for best ever. I have never believed saying someone isn't the greatest of all time is an insult either.
I still come back to what guys actually did. At the end of the day, bad elbows and small sample size are excuses - plain and simple. Excuses are like armpits; everyone has them and they all stink. Again, we're not comparing just anyone here - we've got the best of the best and we are armed with reason. To not count or not emphasize the postseason is your choice to make.
To me, it matters quite a bit.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
How am I supposed to read the rest of that with a straight face?
(I did read it and I do get what you're driving at and while you made some nice points, I do think it's a bit like looking for the flaws on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.)
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1970s said:
I'd venture to guess that 1951wheatiespremium is perhaps a Yankee fan.
Trying to persuade a Yankee fan that Ted Williams was better then Mickey Mantle is
like trying to persuade your wife that the remaining $5,000 in your account should go towards
those 1965 topps wax packs instead of fixing the air conditioning in the middle of August.
You are correct - at least about my Yankee fandom. I truly don't mind someone saying Ted Williams was the better hitter - everyone is entitled to their opinion.
However, people who go - here's a bunch of statistics I picked out, I win - to me sometimes fail to recognize that greatness is not just about statistics. They're a part of the whole, not the whole. However, we are clearly living in an age where micro has consumed macro. It is pervasive throughout society - look around.
Anyone else notice that the real impact the 'sabremetrics revolution' has had is that it is ruining the game of baseball? But the numbers never lie, right? We know how to interpret and use all the stats and data (especially the 'best ones') and the result of that data usage has lead to what, exactly? Better hitters? No. Better pitchers? No. Well surely the games much be better to watch? No there, too. But keep believing that basing everything you know about baseball all on stats has been great for the game and the players and that the game is better, that we're all much more knowledgeable and better informed now than we ever have been because Bill James wanted to combine his love of baseball with his love of Excel...
Funny thing? On October 25, 1929, there was a whole group of people who believed that numbers never lie but began to question that belief somewhat as they plummeted to their death out windows in New York City. Be careful where you put your certitude.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1970s said:
Well said, but I don't have the time to refute some of it. My only thing is the way they defend today. I know it's within the current rules, but I wonder if baseball will ever write up an illegal defense rule. I personally hope they do. They've made the strike zone bigger to help the pitcher. Now help the hitters by putting all the position players back to where they were before the shifts were implemented.
Hitters could swing for the ball instead of the fence and teams would stop shifting because leaving half the diamond undefended would be idiotic.
But you're probably right, let's keep changing the rules of the sport to hide the shortcomings, inadequacies and downright incompetancies of the modern ball player. While we're at, it seems the games are running too long and most starters only go five innings. I know, let's make the games 5 innings! More complete games AND quicker run times? Where do I sign?!?!?
Eureka!
(Quick, someone label me a genius so I can get on ESPN! With an idea like this great, they're going to hand me Grantland, for sure!)
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@perkdog said:
My interest in the MLB HOF is probably less than that, too many players are in it to be “Hall Worthy”. In my opinion
<<< too many players are in it to be “Hall Worthy” >>>
Couldn't agree more with that.
My opinion is the Hall of Fame should only be for super stars, not including just stars.
It's been watered down, and of course we all know why, because it's about the money.
The HOF is still a very enjoyable place to visit. I've been there twice, the last time around 15 years ago.
However seeing Bill Mazeroski in there with Babe Ruth? A little bit silly in my view.
If Ruth is the standard, he’s the nosy one in. The NFL puts in a boatload every year. Way more than MLB.
Only one in.
I'd say the standard should be superstars. You shouldn't have to think about whether a player is a Hall of Famer, or use stats to justify a player being a Hall of Famer. You should automatically know. When you're a qualified Hall of Fame voter, then this shouldn't be any problem.
It should be less than a one second decision per player when marking the ballot.
Maybe I'll start the stevek baseball Hall of Fame located in Philadelphia. Give the other one in Cooperstown NY some competition.
How am I supposed to read the rest of that with a straight face?
(I did read it and I do get what you're driving at and while you made some nice points, I do think it's a bit like looking for the flaws on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.)
I'm a little confused at your "REALLY's".
Mickey stated that he felt he never "led his team to victory by having a great WS". I didn't believe it, but upon closer examination, even though his overall numbers were superb, I see what he was getting at. He was great in 5 WS; his best two statistical years, the Yankees lost, overall they were 3-2. In 7 other WS he hit poorly his team was 4-3. To be fair he was pretty good in victories in '56 and '58 despite a .250 BA. Both series' he was over 1.0 in OPS, both were Yankee wins.
The reason I bring it up is because of your feelings that Mickey can somehow overcome a staggering lead by Ted in hitting because he did "better" in WS play is shown to be incorrect. It's a team that wins the championship, and in this case Mantle didn't "win" or lose the WS.
The Yankees were in the WS virtually EVERY year of Ted's career, kind of makes it tough for him to compete against Joe D. or Mickey.
I did read an interesting quote in a book on Mantle. One chapter compared the two players as hitters. EVERY player picked Ted as the better hitter, but, Bobby Richardson ( I think it was Richardson, but I am sure it was a Yankee) said that if Mantle would have hit only from the right side he would have been as good as Williams. I thought that was interesting.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Comments
Pete often bet two or three dimes per game.
You've wandered into the Twilight Zone, apparently.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
HMMM..........I'm always in the twilight zone, so maybe I left it for a second.
Pete
Dude you are in the Sports Forum. You want the second door on the left. But by all means grab a beer and start talking some nonsense and surly someone here will agree with you
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I guess I look past all the nonsense and look at Rose's actual on field stats. No matter how one looks at it Rose has the most hits of anyone in MLB. If you start keeping players out on personal actions......there should be a lot kicked out of the Hall.
I just think Rose should be in, but I won't belabor the point any further. I loved him as a player and always will.
but a few guys here on the forum have assured us that Pete never bet on baseball. Case closed
Ted Williams - It was Ted Williams who once said, "All I want out of life is that when I walk down the street, folks will say, 'There goes the greatest hitter that ever lived.'"
Ty Cobb - The Georgia Peach, Tyrus Raymond Cobb boasts the highest lifetime batting average of any player, at .366. He is second all-time in hits, with 4,191, trailing only Pete Rose (4,256).
Roger Hornsby - Generally considered the greatest right-hand hitter in baseball history, Rogers Hornsby (below) won seven National League batting titles—six in a row, between 1920 and 1925—while playing second base for the St. Louis Cardinals.
Stan Musial - Stan the Man wore the uniform of the St. Louis Cardinals for his entire career. The model of consistency, Musial stands fourth all-time with 3,630 hits—1,815 at home, 1,815 on the road.
Tony Gwynn - Since Stan Musial retired in 1963, nearly 50 years ago, there hasn't been a better hitter than Tony Gwynn.
Rod Carew - Rod Carew (below) won seven AL batting titles while playing for the Minnesota Twins, including four straight starting in 1972.
Joe Jackson - Joe Jackson never won a batting title, yet finished with the third-highest lifetime batting average in baseball history, at .356.
Honus Wagner - Johannes Peter "Honus" Wagner, The Flying Dutchman, played nearly his entire career with the Pittsburgh Pirates before retiring, in 1917. He won eight NL batting titles, tied for the most in NL history with Tony Gwynn.
Harry Heilmann - A .342 lifetime hitter, outfielder/first baseman Harry Heilmann of the Detroit Tigers hit .394, .403, .393 and .398 every other year, starting in 1921.
Wade Boggs - One of several left-handed batting champs to wear Red Sox uniforms, Wade Boggs (below) won five AL batting titles and four in a row, from 1985 to 1988, during which stretch he hit .368, .357, .363 and .366.
Babe Ruth cracks the line up as the 13th best hitter. So when discussing Ruth vs. Williams it isn't even close.
Greatest hitter doesn’t equate to best batting average. There are a lot of singles hitters on that list. Of course if you think singles are as valuable as homeruns you might. I can live with Williams but I’ll take Ruth over the rest for best hitter
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
It doesn't make any sense to have Harry Heilmann ahead of Ruth, when they both had a career
average of .342
And Ruth is way better than Carew and Boggs, and even Gwynn and his .338 career average.
And Brett was a better hitter then Boggs IMO. I’m leaving the other guy out of this
And yes the Babe hit for both mega power and mega average
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
Hitting for average AND power is hard to do. Cobb, Jackson and Wagner didn't hit many home runs, but they weren't expected to hit them given the way the game was played. Heilmann hit for average, but not much power.
There are those who that the batting average is an overrated statistic. The real important stat is run production. If you put points on the board, you are great. If you only hit for average and little else you are good, but not great. Pete Runnels was Ted Williams team mate and rival for the batting title in the 1950s, but few people remember him.
I genuinely feel bad for anyone with a gambling habit UNTIL they steal to fund their habit. That being said, I have zero problem with Rose betting on baseball WITH EXCEPTION to him betting on his team that he either played on or managed, that is crossing the line because your not only capable of effectively changing the outcome of the game your hurting your fellow teammates. If Rose never bet on his team while he was managing it or playing on it then so would vote him in, unfortunately for Rose he crossed a red line so that in itself should end the debate as far as I’m concerned.
Rose was a tremendous player and I doubt that he ever threw a game to win a bet. Why he started gambling I have no idea. Winning was so important to him. He was the perfect player always giving 200%. I just think he should be in on his playing alone.
Well, if he never gets in...….I will never see the Hall!
One could make a better case for putting Buck Weaver, one of the banned Black Sox, in the Hall of Fame than Pete Rose. Weaver didn't take any money, played well and totally on the up and up during the series and got banned anyway only because he knew what was going on.
He was stuck because there was really no one he could turn to tell his story. Charles Comiskey, whom I think should be booted from the Hall of Fame, was out to save his investment in his players. He was partially responsible for scandal because he underpaid his player and didn’t keep his word with respect what he had promised to pay them.
Pete Rose helped the Phillies win their first World Series. I can never forget him for that, but his gambling destroyed his reputation. And it was so stupid. The man became one of the first players to be paid $1 million for season, yet he was out blowing his reputation for no good reason.
Unless you really understand gambling you will never understand what it can do to a person.
I'm sure that is true. One of those "walk in my shoes" things.
I don’t doubt that a lot of athletes gamble, the difference is a lot of those athletes don’t have a “Gambling problem”. Trust me it’s a big difference
The best hitter of all time is Mickey Mantle. Hit for average, hit for power and hit from both sides of the plate. Clutch as it gets. Excellent bunter, too.
And if you don't think that counts - and what value it provides - get you eyes off the spreadsheet and back on the diamond.
I mean no disrespect to any other guys mentioned, either. But even Ted Williams marveled at his natural hitting ability.
Whether you like no stats or advanced stats, how could it be anyone else?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
This is absolutely correct, but don't stop there. Using extreme hypotheticals just to make a point, if you play in a ballpark and in a time where the average number of runs scored by a team in a game is 3, and you produce 100 runs you are twice as valuable to your team as a player who produces 100 runs in a park and time where the average number of runs scored per game is 6. In the real world, there aren't examples where one player is twice as valuable relative to another player as the basic stats imply, but there are plenty of examples where the required adjustment is 15% - 20%, and some more than that. When Roy White drove in 94 runs and scored 109 in 1970, that was, by FAR, a better season than Gil Hodges ever had. The next year, when Bobby Murcer drove in and scored 94 runs, that was a better season, though not by a lot, than Jim Rice ever had. I understand - believe me, I understand - that people struggle to accept these things, but they are facts.
Focusing on run production is an order of magnitude more worthwhile than focusing on batting average, but no matter what stat you focus on, if it isn't adjusted for park/era then, in the end, you are just wasting your time.
Rose has stated that he attended, I think it was one, may have been a few, Gamblers Anonymous meetings. However Rose said (paraphrase) I stopped going because I felt those people weren't like me.
Yea Pete, they weren't like you in the aspect that you basically have a license to print money in various ways. Lose 50k to the bookies, no problem, just do an autograph show and pick up an easy 50k there. Most addicted gamblers don't have a luxury such as that.
Although...Leonard Tose, former owner of the Philadelphia Eagles, one would think he had the same luxury of printing money being an NFL owner of a highly successful and profitable franchise. However Tose still wound up going broke from casino gambling and was forced to sell the team.
With all due respect, Mickey Mantle once said, "I just go up there and hack, If you want to see
a real hitter go watch Ted Williams."
Mantle and Williams both homered with about the same frequency based on Plate appearances,
and if you just count at bats Williams homered at a higher frequency than Mantle.
When you throw in Williams' .344 BA against Mantles' .298, how do you derive that Mantle was a better hitter.
And dont say because Mantle was a switch hitter, that doesn't matter.
You can't say Mantle walked more, helping his OBP, because nobody walked more than Williams.
Just curious, why do you say Mantle was a better hitter? I don't even think Dallas would say that.
Dallas would say Mantle was a better player, but you say Mantle was the best hitter of all time?
Please explain?
There's 1,001 good reasons why Ted was a better hitter than Mickey.
The Mick struck out that many MORE times than Ted did.
BB
Ted 2021
Mick 1733
OBP
Ted .482
MIck .421
SLG
Ted .634
Mick .557
OPS
Ted 1.116
Mick .977
OPS+
Ted 190
MIck 172
In conclusion, I know I have a preference for batting average, but in this case the player
with the higher batting average, .344 to .298, is still the undisputed better hitter.
Just for the record, this is exactly what Dallas would say. Just when I think you aren't paying attention.....
When I go to baseball reference and look at the body of work, I soak it all in and then make a decision. I also don't need a conversion chart to know that even in the 'low average' years from age 33-36, he was still arguably one of the games best and at least most feared hitters. Most of his peers faced an appreciable BA dip in those years. Not an excuse but let's not pretend he wasn't a .350 hitter in his prime who could jack 50 homers.
Switch hitting doesn't matter? Do you watch baseball or play baseball simulations?
Finally (and not to go all Herm Edwards, here), but you play to win the game. When you click on Mickey's postseason numbers, if you like big crooked ones in rows and columns you'd be hard pressed to find better or more. Click Ted, you get one line of utter garbage. I'm a big believer in judging guys on what they've done and not what a spreadsheet says they would have done. The mighty Ted Williams had a .200 average in his lone World Series at age 27 in his prime. Now, we're not comparing TYPICAL players here - these are the best of the best. When Mickey Mantle was in the World Series? He often changed the course of it or won it outright. With his bat. That's what hitting is, right?
To paraphrase the great Sean Connery in The Rock, 'Losers talk about their best and small sample size...'
...and I think we all know what Mickey did with the (many) prom queens.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Mantles post season stats were far from great.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@Darin
I'm not saying you have to agree but you asked me to explain. That's my explanation. I have tremendous appreciation for Ted Williams, his love of hitting and baseball and the fact that many - maybe even the majority - would say he was the best hitter of all time. Just please take a minute and think how often in your life the majority has been wrong...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Further proof that stats should not be the be all end all in any argument.
In some respects, you're correct.
In others, and I don't mean this personally AT ALL, that's up there for most incorrect sentence ever written.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
That is easily explained: he drank too much and had a low opinion of himself. They were probably related.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Well when you say 'Mantle's post season stats were far from great' I guess from a certain perspective that is true. However, no one in baseball history has more hits, home runs, runs scored, runs batted in, walks and total bases in the World Series than Mickey Mantle. So there's that little nugget to deal with.
So he's either far from great or the definition of great - tomayto, tomahto.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
We thought you was a toad.
The moment that the legitimacy of the outcome of any major sport is in question, it is doomed. That is why MLB players are not permitted to wager on games. Pro sports sanctioning wagering will be a disaster. Trust me on this.
As far as Rose being included into the HOF, sure...the game has already lost it's luster from a generation of PED users. In a way, Rose fits right in.
For the resident stat heads, there's a great opportunity for an 'apples to apples' comparison of the two men, is there not? Same league at the same time for a number of years. I know not who comes out on top - and it wouldn't decide the matter for me - but it would be interesting to see.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
My favorite player when I was a youngster was Ted Williams. (I have no idea why) Looking back his one glaring weakness, if you want to call it that, is he never led his team to a World Championship.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
In all fairness, Ted Williams did have an elbow injury in that lone world series appearance.
If you only compare when they played at the same time, it would be Mantle's early years compared to
Ted's middle to late years. Williams would probably still win, however, and should be clear proof that
he was a better hitter. Regardless, clear proof has already been established that Ted was the better
hitter but you're ignoring it.
more valuable is a different statistic, run production etc,
best hitter not necessarily means best player for the team.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
I read a quote from Mantle saying he was disappointed he never really had a "great" WS in leading the Yankees to a victory.
At first I thought he was being modest, but then I then looked closely at the game by game records and (especially 1960) saw that Mick was right. Except for '52 (if I remember correctly) he should be known more for hitting exceptionally well in losing efforts and not really so good in winning ones.
Especially 1960 where he did nothing (or very little) in the games the Yanks lost and he clobbered the ball in blow out victories. Yankees were the better team but lost.
As far as overall hitting ability; Williams over Mantle by a mile. Overall, as an all-around player, I might take Mickey. Remember (if you don't already know) he hurt his shoulder in the 1956 or 1957 WS in a play at 2B and his arm was never the same, that also effected his left handed BA. Williams was a BIG distraction on his teams while Micky was a fantastic teammate.
I have said many times in the past that a slugger (35 or so HR per season) that can hit for high average (around or above .320 lifetime) is the true threshold for hitting greatness. Very few could do it. Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Dimaggio and Williams come to mind for me with honorable mention to Musial, who managed 25 HR a year.
Aaron, Mays and Mantle all ended up around .300 even though they had some years hitting .350 or so, they were not able to maintain a higher average and continue to hit for power.
Ted only played in 1 WS and did very poorly this has no effect on him being BY FAR the best hitter of the modern (1940's to present) era. Put Ted on those 1950's Yankees teams and there would be some data to compare.
@Darin
I don't think I've ignored it. You prefer Ted Williams and I prefer Mickey.
Also, statements that rely on 'if' or 'probably' are hardly 'clear and convincing' - to me, anyway. What you did was breakdown statistics and present ones that cast Ted Williams in a flattering light. This can be done for all great players. Especially Ted who was one the greatest hitters of all time and certainly in the discussion for best ever. I have never believed saying someone isn't the greatest of all time is an insult either.
I still come back to what guys actually did. At the end of the day, bad elbows and small sample size are excuses - plain and simple. Excuses are like armpits; everyone has them and they all stink. Again, we're not comparing just anyone here - we've got the best of the best and we are armed with reason. To not count or not emphasize the postseason is your choice to make.
To me, it matters quite a bit.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
@JoeBanzai
'If you leave out the '52 World Series...'
Really?
REALLY?
How am I supposed to read the rest of that with a straight face?
(I did read it and I do get what you're driving at and while you made some nice points, I do think it's a bit like looking for the flaws on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.)
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
You are correct - at least about my Yankee fandom. I truly don't mind someone saying Ted Williams was the better hitter - everyone is entitled to their opinion.
However, people who go - here's a bunch of statistics I picked out, I win - to me sometimes fail to recognize that greatness is not just about statistics. They're a part of the whole, not the whole. However, we are clearly living in an age where micro has consumed macro. It is pervasive throughout society - look around.
Anyone else notice that the real impact the 'sabremetrics revolution' has had is that it is ruining the game of baseball? But the numbers never lie, right? We know how to interpret and use all the stats and data (especially the 'best ones') and the result of that data usage has lead to what, exactly? Better hitters? No. Better pitchers? No. Well surely the games much be better to watch? No there, too. But keep believing that basing everything you know about baseball all on stats has been great for the game and the players and that the game is better, that we're all much more knowledgeable and better informed now than we ever have been because Bill James wanted to combine his love of baseball with his love of Excel...
Funny thing? On October 25, 1929, there was a whole group of people who believed that numbers never lie but began to question that belief somewhat as they plummeted to their death out windows in New York City. Be careful where you put your certitude.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Hitters could swing for the ball instead of the fence and teams would stop shifting because leaving half the diamond undefended would be idiotic.
But you're probably right, let's keep changing the rules of the sport to hide the shortcomings, inadequacies and downright incompetancies of the modern ball player. While we're at, it seems the games are running too long and most starters only go five innings. I know, let's make the games 5 innings! More complete games AND quicker run times? Where do I sign?!?!?
Eureka!
(Quick, someone label me a genius so I can get on ESPN! With an idea like this great, they're going to hand me Grantland, for sure!)
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
If Ruth is the standard, he’s the nosy one in. The NFL puts in a boatload every year. Way more than MLB.
Only one in.
I'd say the standard should be superstars. You shouldn't have to think about whether a player is a Hall of Famer, or use stats to justify a player being a Hall of Famer. You should automatically know. When you're a qualified Hall of Fame voter, then this shouldn't be any problem.
It should be less than a one second decision per player when marking the ballot.
Maybe I'll start the stevek baseball Hall of Fame located in Philadelphia. Give the other one in Cooperstown NY some competition.
@stevek
@markj111
I agree on HOF criteria:
Hesitation is negation.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
The MLB HOF has been watered down for years, there is no saving it now
<<< Hesitation is negation. >>>
Well stated.
I'm a little confused at your "REALLY's".
Mickey stated that he felt he never "led his team to victory by having a great WS". I didn't believe it, but upon closer examination, even though his overall numbers were superb, I see what he was getting at. He was great in 5 WS; his best two statistical years, the Yankees lost, overall they were 3-2. In 7 other WS he hit poorly his team was 4-3. To be fair he was pretty good in victories in '56 and '58 despite a .250 BA. Both series' he was over 1.0 in OPS, both were Yankee wins.
The reason I bring it up is because of your feelings that Mickey can somehow overcome a staggering lead by Ted in hitting because he did "better" in WS play is shown to be incorrect. It's a team that wins the championship, and in this case Mantle didn't "win" or lose the WS.
The Yankees were in the WS virtually EVERY year of Ted's career, kind of makes it tough for him to compete against Joe D. or Mickey.
I did read an interesting quote in a book on Mantle. One chapter compared the two players as hitters. EVERY player picked Ted as the better hitter, but, Bobby Richardson ( I think it was Richardson, but I am sure it was a Yankee) said that if Mantle would have hit only from the right side he would have been as good as Williams. I thought that was interesting.