Read the whole thread and in my opinion Brick said it best and in far less words than most of you.
Ruth dominated his contemporaries like nobody before or since.
Like Brick said, its Ruth number one and then whoever else you want to plug in after him.
@perkdog said:
Leave it to a New York guy to bring up Ted Williams and his selfishness, it rarely gets mentioned by anyone but sadly I will admit it’s true. Either way I personally would take Ted Willians over Ruth, Gehrig, Joe D and Mantle.
If it’s any consolation, the 2018 Red Sox may be best recent example I can think of a team that did a fantastic job of ‘doing whatever it takes to win’ as Alex Cora’s baseball intuition often flew directly in the face of sabermetrics and statistical analysis.
Worked out ok.
It feels good that’s for sure, it’s much better now that the Sox are right there with the Yankees as far as modern era winners go.
I think some of that depends on how ‘modern era’ is defined BUT I’m not one to be raining on your parade; the Red Sox have very much become quite a force in the last 15 years...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
I think some of that depends on how ‘modern era’ is defined BUT I’m not one to be raining on your parade; the Red Sox have very much become quite a force in the last 15 years...
Ofcourse it does, my “Modern Era” is since 2004 lol
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Their 162 games averages from baseball-reference.com:
Player (R-HR-RBI-K-AVG and OBP/SLG/OPS)
Ruth...........141-46-143-86-.342 and .474/.690/1.164
Gehrig.......141-40-149-59-.340 and .447/.632/1.080
Mantle.......113-36-102-115-.298 and .421/.557/.977
DiMaggio...130-34-143-34-.325 and .398/.579/.977
Just offering them. No conclusions to draw but your own.
Except offense was much higher in the 30's than it was in the 60's...hence the ease to achieve high batting averages, on base percentages, and slugging percentages. That is a very large factor. If you batted .280 in 1936, you were BELOW AVERAGE. In 1930, if you hit .295 you were BELOW AVERAGE. It was simply easier to get a hit then, compared to 20-40 years later.
For instance, Dimaggio had a higher slugging percentage than Mantle, but Mantle led the league four times compared to Dimaggio's two.
Mantle was in the top five in Slugging percentage 11 times. Dimaggio 10.
It is correct to say that walk is not as good as a hit. It is indefensible to say otherwise. However, it is just as indefensible to ignore the value of the walk...which is apporximately 2/3 the value of a single. When the value of the walk is included, and only ignorance or bias would not include it, then Mantle's value rises much higher than Dimaggio.
Mantle was in the top five in OB% 11 times. Dimaggio only 3.
Also, Mantle was the fastest player in the league, and when he was not the fastest, he would reside in the five or ten fastest...until the last few years of his career.
If you give the proper value of each walk, single, double, triple, home run, out made, etc...which is what batter runs does, then you get:
Mantle 859 adjusted batter runs for era and park.
Dimaggio 422 adjusted for era and park
Even if you add three years due to the war for dimaggio; he had 36 batter runs the season before the war and 27 the season after the war. That still would not bring him close.
DiMaggio was also one of the fastest and BEST baserunners of his time and a better fielder in Center.
Mantle led the league in SLG more times (using your argument) because it was easier then. Ted Williams, Jimmy Foxx and Hank Greenberg beat Dimaggio from 39-41 when Joe was second. Overall Joe was #2 in SLG 5 times.
You can't have both side of the debate, if offense was so much better in the 30's (DiMaggio's last year of leading the league was in 1950 btw) then it stands to reason that Mickey would have an easier time being a league leader in the 60's (even though he was at his best in the mid to late 50's). These guys careers overlapped, so we are not talking about a big difference of time.
AGAIN OB%, that Mantle dominates, is based on his walks, which has been conceded. in the first half of his career this had some good value for Mickey in the second half not so much. Clean-up hitters are not paid to walk.
Joe also quit right away when he lost his greatness, Mickey hung on for a couple of years, (I know he was still a STUD, I'm tired of arguing about 1967-68). But these were the individual players choices, who knows if Joe could have had a "bounce back" year or two. No one. No one knows if he would have had monster years while in the army either.
Your adjusted for park numbers are simply garbage. Mantle hit roughly 2/3rds of the time from the left side, DiMaggio 100% from the right. Yankee stadium was HUGE in left center and center field in those years, yet DiMaggio out-slugged him. If anything the park was MUCH harder for DiMaggio than for Mantle. Whoever is crunching those numbers is leaving something out!
Mantle was superior in walking, that's it. He was also better at striking out, a stat most of us like to quote a LOT better than you do.
Already disproved everything you ever said about walks in other threads and specifically in regard to Mantle and the players behind him etc... Maybe go back and read those threads. I already made every point you made look silly and ridiculous and backed it up. I'm not writing all that again.
Hitters are paid to create runs. Walks create a certain amount of runs, singles a certain amount, etc... You having a 'feeling' on what those are don't mean anything. What they actually are, do mean something.
Putting the ball in play has a value and each and every runner advanced on an out is recorded and accounted for. It is not as much you think.
I do agree on Dimaggio and being righty in Yankee stadium. That does have an effect, but not nearly as much to cover 400 runs in production. That is batter runs.
As for hitting environment, it was simply easier to get hits in the 1930's compared to the 60's. Just like it was easier for pitchers to prevent runs in the deadball era than it is now. Now unless you want to believe that every pitcher in the deadball era with a lower era than Seaver, Drysdale, Pedro are better than them because their ERA's are much lower, then you also understand what i am talking about. However, it is possible you do believe that, so maybe I shouldn't use that as an example, lol.
I'm not manipulating a single statistic. The only manipulation comes from people who assume what each event's value is. A guy who assumes that a single has four times the value of a walk is wrong. The millions of play by play data lays all that out clearly and hitting is a very linear event. There is no room for guess or implies.
A single has a value, a walk has a value, a double, an out made etc... There really isn't any room for opinion in those. Zero. So opinions are meaningless in regard to that.
There is room for opinion on what matters more, peak or career. As for knowing the value of a walk...opinions are useless.
Same for knowing the value of putting hte ball in play. We know exactly how many times Dimaggio advanced a runner with an out. That isn't some mystery. Same for Mantle. We know how many times he did.
In the end, 850 batter runs gives a value that is about 95% precise for Mantle's hitting value, compared to what Dimaggio's was.
And if you don't understand the context of league offense, then consider that scoring three runs in 1966 will produce more wins than scoring three runs in 1936...and that is what matters.
And finally, if you don't understand the value of walks and negate them to irrelevent, go out and coach a team and have your pitcher walk the leadoff hitter every inning since they are meaningless in your book....and see how well you do, lol.
PS. We know the situation of each and every Mantle walk too....so before you say something stupid about that, we already know and valued accordingly, lol
Finally, all this garbage about Dimaggio knowing how to win. If he played on the Washington Senators, then he never would have been to a World Series. He won becasue they had elite teams better than anyone else. Period. He was great and a big part of it...but lets not get carried away with that comp to Ted Williams...all that you said about Williams is just a guess. It has no factual bearing and most likely the opposite is true.
Williams was a far greater fighter/competitor/man than you ever were 1951premiums...and thats why you collect his cards and he never knew you existed...so I highly doubt your intuition is correct in your assessments on his 'approach'.
I myself would blow two heaters by you and your approach and then make you look silly on a slider, lol
I love the personal attacks. I’m sure in the simulations you run on your computers you are the strike out king!
But what’s your xFIP? LOL!
What I like most is how his opinions PROVE others opinions are wrong, a close second is ignoring when he is proven wrong and then changing the subject, I really don't care for the personal attacks, I used them in third grade when I was wrong and gave up on it after that year.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
The aversion to putting the team above ‘my’ strike zone is not exclusive to Ted Williams, either. And it doesn’t preclude him from being a fantastic ball player, which he most certainly was. There are plenty of fantastic and even Hall of Fame players who had or have that exact attitude and approach - it helped to make them great.
I prefer, however, the player who values winning above all else - even their own strike zone.
Recognize - Mark Texiera and many other sluggers have quipped ‘The Yankees don’t pay me to bunt’ as their defense for terrible situational hitting. Shame on this who accept the excuse or proliferate this belief.
No, Mark - the Yankees pay you to help the organization win games in any and every way possible.
Lastly, am I the only one who saw Bryce Harper go from one of the better all around hitters in baseball to a guy who almost exclusively swings for the fences? Seriously, I can’t be the only one seeing it.
Approach matters.
I think Ted probably did swing at a few pitches out of the strikezone, but if he did he would NEVER admit to it.
His teams needed more pitching to beat the Yankees, not more hitting.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Defensive metrics are useless but Mays and DiMaggio, respectively, are widely considered the best two fielders listed there.
Absolutely!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Darin said:
Read the whole thread and in my opinion Brick said it best and in far less words than most of you.
Ruth dominated his contemporaries like nobody before or since.
Like Brick said, its Ruth number one and then whoever else you want to plug in after him.
dimeman does not agree.
I do agree with Brick, but that is the easy way out. I think a good debate on who was better between Joe and Mickey is great. Gehrig being an infielder and 1st base at that is a bit harder to compare.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@DIMEMAN said: @dallasactuary - First off speed is not what determines triples. It is where the ball is hit and how good the defense is. Ruth could not have played at his level in Mantle and Mays' era and would even do worse in today's game. The game is so much better now and the players are so much better and there are so many players now that are so much better. And the pitching is soooooooo much better.
You're argument is so circular I'm getting dizzy. You could save us both a lot of trouble if you'd just answer my question - what is your basis for calling him slow? I realize that you won't answer because there is no answer, because Ruth was not slow. But I'm not sure if you realize the corner you've painted yourself into.
By the way, I've seen this theory before - that it is not possible for the greatest player of all time to have played in the 1920's and 1930's because the game is so much better now. It sounds almost defensible if you just repeat it and never try to defend it, but logically it's mush. Of course it's possible for the greatest player ever to have played in any decade, it's just a matter of trying to identify him that takes work. The opposite of work - chronic laziness - is to simply declare a player "slow" or some other such thing for which there is no evidence and then refuse to back up your arguments.
I am open to arguments that Ruth is not the greatest player ever, provided the player being offered as an alternative is named Wagner, Cobb, Williams, Mantle, or Mays. I don't agree with any argument that I've heard so far, but I respect the attempts and they make me think. What I am not open to is an argument that Ruth is not even one of the candidates for greatest player ever. I've heard you and a few others make that statement, I've just never heard anyone attempt to make an actual argument. I suspect the act of attempting to make such an argument would open the eyes of the person making it, and they'd finally see how silly they look. Or not, but everyone else sure would.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@DIMEMAN said: @dallasactuary - First off speed is not what determines triples. It is where the ball is hit and how good the defense is. Ruth could not have played at his level in Mantle and Mays' era and would even do worse in today's game. The game is so much better now and the players are so much better and there are so many players now that are so much better. And the pitching is soooooooo much better.
You're argument is so circular I'm getting dizzy. You could save us both a lot of trouble if you'd just answer my question - what is your basis for calling him slow? I realize that you won't answer because there is no answer, because Ruth was not slow. But I'm not sure if you realize the corner you've painted yourself into.
By the way, I've seen this theory before - that it is not possible for the greatest player of all time to have played in the 1920's and 1930's because the game is so much better now. It sounds almost defensible if you just repeat it and never try to defend it, but logically it's mush. Of course it's possible for the greatest player ever to have played in any decade, it's just a matter of trying to identify him that takes work. The opposite of work - chronic laziness - is to simply declare a player "slow" or some other such thing for which there is no evidence and then refuse to back up your arguments.
I am open to arguments that Ruth is not the greatest player ever, provided the player being offered as an alternative is named Wagner, Cobb, Williams, Mantle, or Mays. I don't agree with any argument that I've heard so far, but I respect the attempts and they make me think. What I am not open to is an argument that Ruth is not even one of the candidates for greatest player ever. I've heard you and a few others make that statement, I've just never heard anyone attempt to make an actual argument. I suspect the act of attempting to make such an argument would open the eyes of the person making it, and they'd finally see how silly they look. Or not, but everyone else sure would.
Do you actually think he could run with Mays or Mantle?? Do you think he could today's pitching like he did in his era??
In his era he didn't face relievers......he faced the started 4 times.....giving him a big advantage.
If you were building a team today you could not afford Ruth in the outfield. May's, Mantle, Joe D, Williams were all better. Heck there are outfielders playing today better than Ruth.
I don't see this obsession with Ruth when his stats are clearly because of the era he played in.
Mays or Mantle are both clearly overall better than Ruth.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
The aversion to putting the team above ‘my’ strike zone is not exclusive to Ted Williams, either. And it doesn’t preclude him from being a fantastic ball player, which he most certainly was. There are plenty of fantastic and even Hall of Fame players who had or have that exact attitude and approach - it helped to make them great.
I prefer, however, the player who values winning above all else - even their own strike zone.
Recognize - Mark Texiera and many other sluggers have quipped ‘The Yankees don’t pay me to bunt’ as their defense for terrible situational hitting. Shame on this who accept the excuse or proliferate this belief.
No, Mark - the Yankees pay you to help the organization win games in any and every way possible.
Lastly, am I the only one who saw Bryce Harper go from one of the better all around hitters in baseball to a guy who almost exclusively swings for the fences? Seriously, I can’t be the only one seeing it.
Approach matters.
I think Ted probably did swing at a few pitches out of the strikezone, but if he did he would NEVER admit to it.
His teams needed more pitching to beat the Yankees, not more hitting.
That was true in the 1940s. In the 1950s they needed more of everything. After spending a bundle of money on the team in the 1930s and '40s, owner Tom Yawkey let the team slide. It didn't help that he was the last owner in the American League to have an African-American on his team. I've read that he had a shot at both Mays and Aaron and rejected them both.
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 guess @1951WheatiesPremium would be the president of the Dave Egan fan club if he had been around in the 1940s.
Dave Egan was a Boston sports writer who was a constant critic of Ted Williams.
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 ... ?
@DIMEMAN said: @dallasactuary - First off speed is not what determines triples. It is where the ball is hit and how good the defense is. Ruth could not have played at his level in Mantle and Mays' era and would even do worse in today's game. The game is so much better now and the players are so much better and there are so many players now that are so much better. And the pitching is soooooooo much better.
You're argument is so circular I'm getting dizzy. You could save us both a lot of trouble if you'd just answer my question - what is your basis for calling him slow? I realize that you won't answer because there is no answer, because Ruth was not slow. But I'm not sure if you realize the corner you've painted yourself into.
By the way, I've seen this theory before - that it is not possible for the greatest player of all time to have played in the 1920's and 1930's because the game is so much better now. It sounds almost defensible if you just repeat it and never try to defend it, but logically it's mush. Of course it's possible for the greatest player ever to have played in any decade, it's just a matter of trying to identify him that takes work. The opposite of work - chronic laziness - is to simply declare a player "slow" or some other such thing for which there is no evidence and then refuse to back up your arguments.
I am open to arguments that Ruth is not the greatest player ever, provided the player being offered as an alternative is named Wagner, Cobb, Williams, Mantle, or Mays. I don't agree with any argument that I've heard so far, but I respect the attempts and they make me think. What I am not open to is an argument that Ruth is not even one of the candidates for greatest player ever. I've heard you and a few others make that statement, I've just never heard anyone attempt to make an actual argument. I suspect the act of attempting to make such an argument would open the eyes of the person making it, and they'd finally see how silly they look. Or not, but everyone else sure would.
Yes. What bugs me is when people cherry pick their examples. Example of starters being in there longer. This is possibly an advantage for the old timers. How about the spitball and the fact that the balls were used longer and got harder to see. The mound was higher too. Advantage new guys.
I think if you look at ALL the factors it sort of evens out.
All you are doing is guessing anyway. You can simply measure guys against who they played with and no more.
Other than the development of the slider, (and the elimination of the "spitter") what has really changed in how the ball is being thrown? WHY is today's pitcher better? The starters don't seem to be better to me. I don't see where it's PROOF that bringing in a "fresh" arm means the hitter is always at a disadvantage, sometimes that guy sucks.
Mays' hitting, running and defensive prowess along with his consistency and longevity elevate him above (and not "by far") his contemporaries.
Ruth's hitting was TOTALLY superior and his HR per AB, BA and SLG numbers have not been eclipsed other than Bonds who I believe does not deserve them. Not even taking into consideration his pitching ability who no other player has ever done.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
The aversion to putting the team above ‘my’ strike zone is not exclusive to Ted Williams, either. And it doesn’t preclude him from being a fantastic ball player, which he most certainly was. There are plenty of fantastic and even Hall of Fame players who had or have that exact attitude and approach - it helped to make them great.
I prefer, however, the player who values winning above all else - even their own strike zone.
Recognize - Mark Texiera and many other sluggers have quipped ‘The Yankees don’t pay me to bunt’ as their defense for terrible situational hitting. Shame on this who accept the excuse or proliferate this belief.
No, Mark - the Yankees pay you to help the organization win games in any and every way possible.
Lastly, am I the only one who saw Bryce Harper go from one of the better all around hitters in baseball to a guy who almost exclusively swings for the fences? Seriously, I can’t be the only one seeing it.
Approach matters.
I think Ted probably did swing at a few pitches out of the strikezone, but if he did he would NEVER admit to it.
His teams needed more pitching to beat the Yankees, not more hitting.
That was true in the 1940s. In the 1950s they needed more of everything. After spending a bundle of money on the team in the 1930s and '40s, owner Tom Yawkey let the team slide. It didn't help that he was the last owner in the American League to have an African-American on his team. I've read that he had a shot at both Mays and Aaron and rejected them both.
I see you know a bit more than most about this period. I remember reading that Boston could have had Ernie Banks as well and Lou Boudreau rejected him as he wanted to play shortstop for a couple of more years. I think Mays was more likely a Yankee reject, but am not positive.
The Yankees were in my opinion even stupider than the Sox, they could have had their pick of the Negro League stars, but they were winning without them, so they figured they didn't need them. What they could have done had they been looking ahead is mind boggling!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
What they could have done had they been looking ahead is mind boggling!
As a confirmed Yankee hater, I am very glad that they didn't. I think that Elston Howard was their first African-American player.
Yes, Williams could be his own worst enemy, but Egan went overboard.
Here's one that nobody has mentioned yet. In 1946 there were rumors that the Yankees and Red Sox were considering a blockbuster deal, Ted Williams for Joe DiMaggio. A interesting twist was the deal was never made because Boston owner Tom Yawkey asked for an additional player, rookie Yogi Berra.
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 ... ?
Want to add to the Mantle/DiMaggio debate before I head to work.
DiMaggio played (mostly) in the 40's not the 1930's. Mantle had his best decade in the 50's not the 1960's. They played in the same park and with (I think) the same distances. Yankee stadium had renovations in 1937 and 1976?
Saying they played in different eras is not as much of a factor as saying it was much easier in the 30's than the 60's. They actually played together for a year or two.
Let's look at the 5 "tools"
Power, Both hit exactly the same SLG. Slight edge to Joe as he was a right handed Left Left/Center hitter.
Hit for Average, definite advantage DiMaggio
Fielding, definite advantage Joe.
Throwing, both had great arms. Mantle injured his right shoulder in 1957 WS and was never the same. Edge Joe.
Speed, Mantle was the fastest player ever from home to first and used his speed well for the first 1/2 of his career, give him the edge here, but DiMaggio was a superb runner as well. I have read over and over again how Joe looked like he was "loafing" but always got to the ball as he was so graceful.
Not one of the 5 "tools" but Mantle had a better OBP because of his walks. As I have said before the sabermatricians think that a walk is a walk, but baseball "people" know guys like these two are not batting 3rd or 4th to walk. Their job is to drive in runs and DiMaggio was better at this as well.
Two EXTREMELY similar players. I'll take Joe, but had Mantle been hurt less (and maybe taken care of himself better) he should have been much better.
As far as the comment about DiMaggio being a jerk, he was, but he was never quoted as saying "I led the league in the "clap" and my wife was second" like Mickey did. As a husband and father he was miserable. His team mates liked him better than they did Joe though. No points for either guy here.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
What they could have done had they been looking ahead is mind boggling!
As a confirmed Yankee hater, I am very glad that they didn't. I think that Elston Howard was their first African-American player.
Yes, Williams could be his own worst enemy, but Egan went overboard.
Here's one that nobody has mentioned yet. In 1946 there were rumors that the Yankees and Red Sox were considering a blockbuster deal, Ted Williams for Joe DiMaggio. A interesting twist was the deal was never made because Boston owner Tom Yawkey asked for an additional player, rookie Yogi Berra.
I think the owners were drunk when that was discussed and when they sobered up realized that wasn't going to happen.
Would have been interesting though, even the straight up trade. Williams has said he would have never gotten a pitch to hit had he played for the Yankees and DiMaggio wasn't a "pull" hitter to take advantage of the monster, but it would have been VERY interesting!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Not at all. Ted Williams is one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) hitter to ever play baseball. No question about that. I don’t dislike Ted.
My statement was about approach at the plate. That’s all. Much of what I’ve offered (really, a question to be considered) was based on things Ted Williams actually said about hitting. His approach at the plate, his disdain for fielding, waiting for the right pitch, not straying from the zone, taking walks - these are all things HE said. Many jare the basis for hitting today. AND AGAIN, he is not the only baseball player that comes to mind (Joey Votto today) who will not intentionally swing at a pitch outside the zone. This is baseball and they’re human so it happens. Usually bad for things laying around the dugout, though.
But there are also guys like Berra and Vlad Guerrero who swung at balls above their head or balls that bounced before the plate and drove them to the outfield on a line drive anyway. More than one approach can be successful.
The simple fact is what you are trying to accomplish when you are up at the plate matters. This goes ignored by some and that’s ok. In real baseball, smart players do things like this to win ball games. Not ALL players. There are plenty of guys who will not change their approach - at all - and it’s a seemingly greater percentage every year. However, Nolan Arenado, current perennial RBI leader, chokes up with two strikes for greater bat control at the expense of power in an effort to put the ball in play rather than trying to hit a home run or drive the ball as hard as he can, regardless of count and score. Mind you, he is still trying to get a hit.
It is just a change in his approach.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
And for every guy like Yogi Berra who got away with going after bad pitches, there have been many hundreds of others who were not successful because they chased too many balls out of the strike zone. A walk is better than an out, and quite often walks, especially lead-off walks can lead to a score. Most of the time I'll take the hitter who is selective.
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 ... ?
@BillJones said:
And for every guy like Yogi Berra who got away with going after bad pitches, there have been many hundreds of others who were not successful because they chased too many balls out of the strike zone. A walk is better than an out, and quite walks, especially lead-off walks can lead to a score. Most of the time I'll take the hitter who is selective.
Perhaps I should be more clear - I am NOT anti-walk. To be clear, a walk (as pointed out often) is basically 2/3 of a hit. They’re a necessary part of a winning strategy in a game as is plate discipline. And Ted Williams is not just one of the great hitters (because of regular stats, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+, and every other metric that is park adjusted, era adjusted, and jock adjusted, etc) but he is one of the great RBI men in baseball history, too. Again, I need no convincing that Ted Williams was a great hitter (and perhaps the greatest).
My point (on this topic) was sometimes you don’t want your best hitter taking a walk. Sometimes you want him to put the ball in play. Not in every situation or even many but baseball is a game of strategy and situations where you can have opportunities to manufacture runs. This can require a player to deviate from the normal ‘I just have to get on base any way I can’ attitude that they SHOULD have most of the time. Today, as in the past, some players are unwilling to do so for various (and sometimes valid) reasons. I just wonder where Ted fell on that spectrum. I completely understand that ‘taking the bat out of his hands’ when the batter is Ted Williams will, to some, be an insult to their intelligence and simply unthinkable. Let him hit EVERY time, they’ll say, and play for the big inning. I say it depends on the game and the situation and I don’t really care who is in the box sometimes. And just because Ted is widely considered the greatest hitter of all time does not make him perfect. He batted .344, not 1.000
Anyway, this was never the point of the thread. The point was to get people to rank the Yankees four greatest players because I believe most people list DiMaggio 4th (including me) and I believe he gets a bit overlooked and that a case could be made that he is deserving of the secondary spot behind Babe Ruth. People often look at his career totals and neglect to factor in his only playing 13 seasons.
Invariably, a mention of Joe leads to a Ted comparison and off we go.
And, I’m enjoying it, just the same.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
I think the reason many today think Ruth was actually quite fast and hit for tremendous power is he played before the rules changes. When Ruth played the bases were only 60 feet apart and the pitchers were required to throw underhanded.
@BillJones said:
And for every guy like Yogi Berra who got away with going after bad pitches, there have been many hundreds of others who were not successful because they chased too many balls out of the strike zone. A walk is better than an out, and quite walks, especially lead-off walks can lead to a score. Most of the time I'll take the hitter who is selective.
Berra chased the bad high pitches not the bad low ones.
My point (on this topic) was sometimes you don’t want your best hitter taking a walk. Sometimes you want him to put the ball in play. Not in every situation or even many but baseball is a game of strategy and situations where you can have opportunities to manufacture runs. This can require a player to deviate from the normal ‘I just have to get on base any way I can’ attitude that they SHOULD have most of the time. Today, as in the past, some players are unwilling to do so for various (and sometimes valid) reasons. I just wonder where Ted fell on that spectrum. I completely understand that ‘taking the bat out of his hands’ when the batter is Ted Williams will, to some, be an insult to their intelligence and simply unthinkable. Let him hit EVERY time, they’ll say, and play for the big inning. I say it depends on the game and the situation and I don’t really care who is in the box sometimes. And just because Ted is widely considered the greatest hitter of all time does not make him perfect. He batted .344, not 1.000
My point on walks exactly. A walk to the number 9 guy or the leadoff batter (regardless of how many outs or men on base) is always good because the best hitters are coming up next. A walk to a clean up guy (especially a slow one) when there isn't any "good" batters behind him is good but not nearly so.
Williams was usually a #3 guy. Take a look at "Junior" Stevens stats, he drove in a lot of runs for a few years batting behind Ted.
Also Ted was completely insane..... er, totally focused on being the greatest hitter ever. A guy with his kind of mindset, and the ability to accomplish it, can't really go back and forth much.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@BillJones said:
And for every guy like Yogi Berra who got away with going after bad pitches, there have been many hundreds of others who were not successful because they chased too many balls out of the strike zone. A walk is better than an out, and quite walks, especially lead-off walks can lead to a score. Most of the time I'll take the hitter who is selective.
Berra chased the bad high pitches not the bad low ones.
...and Vlad Guerrero hit a few balls that bounced before the plate. Worth googling or YouTubing, as he either hit a HR or drove it off the wall. At his peak in his Montreal days, he was ‘anonymously’ a legitimate contender for best player in the game.
I imagine as an opposing pitcher, you have to be like ‘Where the hell do inpitch this guy?’
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
1951premiums, nothing personal, just pointing out some nonsense.
Speaking of nonsense, you are the same guy that relegated Dimaggio's contributions to mere peasant status when you claimed Rizzuto was responsible for 25-40 wins for the 1950 Yankees LMAO. So now all of a sudden Dimaggio is one of the best ever??
Also, since you guys prefer NON-sabermetric arguments and rely on RBI, batting average, and place more emphasis 'when it counts'...then riddle me this:
If Dimaggio was so good at all of that, then how come his World Series batting line is:
.271BA, .338OB% .422 SLG%.
Let that sink in as it demolishes everything you and banzi stand for LMAO.
Why was he so bad in the World Series when he came up with Runners in Scoring Position???? Why did he bat only .255 in those situations and slug only .291. Yes, .291 SLG%
Those performances are a slap in the face of everything you two clowns have espoused in this thread. Everything.
Doesn't Mantle still hold the World Series home run record?
Mantle Slugged .548 with runners in scoring position in the World Series....isn't that the exact definition of what you two clowns are claiming makes a hitter great???
So if you are going down the road of archaic measurement methods, above is all that matters.
It is classic @skin2. Cherry picking comments with a selective memory in an attempt to make people look foolish.
@Skin2 said:
1951premiums, nothing personal, just pointing out some nonsense.
Speaking of nonsense, you are the same guy that relegated Dimaggio's contributions to mere peasant status when you claimed Rizzuto was responsible for 25-40 wins for the 1950 Yankees LMAO. So now all of a sudden Dimaggio is one of the best ever??
> This is nonsense of your own creation. What I actually wrote - and anyone can look it up - is the remembrance of someone who actually saw the guy and the team play live and in person. In HIS estimation, in 1950-51, Joe DiMaggio was no longer the same baseball player he had been. Injuries had taken their toll. His skills at the plate had not totally eroded but he was slower, had less range in center and his arm was starting to go. When we discussed this, it was about the fact that in the year of 1950 people often look at it and say Joe Dimaggio or Ted Williams or someone else got robbed. From someone who watched them play that year - as opposed to looked at the stats - he very much deserved the award.
If you read that article, you'll see that it ends with: Casey Stengel called it the greatest play he ever saw.
Lastly on this paragraph, no, Skin2, Joe DiMaggio is not suddenly one of the greatest of all time. He has been one of the greatest of all time since before you or I were born. This sentence is the dumbest thing YOU have ever written - I have come to expect better from you.
Also, since you guys prefer NON-sabermetric arguments and rely on RBI, batting average, and place more emphasis 'when it counts'...then riddle me this:
If Dimaggio was so good at all of that, then how come his World Series batting line is:
.271BA, .338OB% .422 SLG%.
Let that sink in as it demolishes everything you and banzi stand for LMAO.
Why was he so bad in the World Series when he came up with Runners in Scoring Position???? Why did he bat only .255 in those situations and slug only .291. Yes, .291 SLG%
Those performances are a slap in the face of everything you two clowns have espoused in this thread. Everything.
Not really everything. Or really, anything. At all. Much of my "argument" for Joe DiMaggio was predicated on him being a complete player with virtually mistake free play; not just a great hitter, which he also was. And by the way, his hitting in the World Series as presented by you does look terrible. No one would guess that he homered in SEVEN of the ten World Series he played in and got 22 at bats or less in seven of the 10, as well. My next post will have the full, un-cherry picked postseason statistics screen grabbed from baseball reference. But, you do not need to be a sabremetrics fan to understand the impact of small sample size.
Doesn't Mantle still hold the World Series home run record?
Mantle Slugged .548 with runners in scoring position in the World Series....isn't that the exact definition of what you two clowns are claiming makes a hitter great???
So if you are going down the road of archaic measurement methods, above is all that matters.
If you bothered to read my posts, you'll find I am remarkably consistent and stand behind what I say. So, I'll add here two things. I fully get that you will ignore them, too.
I believe that a case could be made for Joe DiMaggio as the 2nd or 3rd greatest Yankee, not the 4th that he traditionally gets. I say that meaning that if a guy like, say, you who was smart and good with numbers wanted to twist his numbers around in a positive light (as I did crudely with the 162 game averages) he could be made to look very good.
AND, I'm a guy who has argued on these very boards that Mickey Mantle is THE greatest hitter of all time. As in, none above. To me, with the four Yankees, my rankings are Ruth, then Mantle, then Gehrig, then DiMaggio. Specifically, here.
Take a little more time to respond next time as it looks like 6 days was not enough. I'm starting to feel like I am in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
Just kidding, you're very smart, bud. Happy Holidays!
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Tim, seriously no offense to you bud. I don’t have the Baseball knowledge to step into the arena with you guys so I don’t have much to say other than Skin is my all time favorite CU poster, nothing negative towards you.
A clown still stands. How many wins was it you said Rizzuto responsible for that year? 25? 30? You missed the point of course. If Rizzuto was responsible for that many wins...that leaves just a small amount of wins that other players would be responsible for...as I pointed out in that thread before...which makes you look foolish.
It doesn't really have anything to do with what Dimaggio had left in the tank(and he had enough to have a great year regardless). The end result is that your math and thoughts simply don't add up. So Dimaggio, Berra, the league leading team in ERA...were just small parts according to you since Rizzuto was responsible for so many of the team wins.
Those post season numbers are pedestrian...not sure why you think a screen shot makes them look better, lol. Heck, a league average MLB hitter in the late 30's were good enough to hit .270.
Where was his 'approach'? You claimed he had an 'approach' and he was a winner. Where was his post season approach with Runners in Scoring position? Isn't that the time to utilize the 'approach' instead of only hitting .255 in that key situation? Slug .291?
I apologize to keep you waiting six days...that must have been frustrating, lol. I got busy man...and kind of forgot about it.
I do appreciate you recognizing my sarcasm with presenting a small sample size as if it was meaningful...maybe not too far apart after all.
No, the point was that sometimes basing awards on hitting stats alone can sometimes not offer a complete picture. And for a guy who loves stats, the stats show a guy in decline in in 1950 and 1951. How could you say otherwise?
Pedestrian, huh? Here’s the list for World Series records. Note the number of times Joe DiMaggio appears. Break them down as you need to in order to regain some credibility, though. (The time may be better spent on a leg, so you’ll have at least that one for future standing.)
Just as with Ted Williams, I do wonder what his approach was since I can’t get in his head either. Whatever his approach was, we know they won nine of the ten World Series he played in.
For you, so you’ll get it, that’s a .900 winPct.
Anything else?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
No, the point was that sometimes basing awards on hitting stats alone can sometimes not offer a complete picture. And for a guy who loves stats, the stats show a guy in decline in in 1950 and 1951. How could you say otherwise?
Pedestrian, huh? Here’s the list for World Series records. Note the number of times Joe DiMaggio appears. Break them down as you need to in order to regain some credibility, though. (The time may be better spent on a leg, so you’ll have at least that one for future standing.)
Just as with Ted Williams, I do wonder what his approach was since I can’t get in his head either. Whatever his approach was, we know they won nine of the ten World Series he played in.
For you, so you’ll get it, that’s a .900 winPct.
Anything else?
He won because he had a great team, and only a great team can withstand their best hitter hitting .255 with RISP and slg .291 with runners in scoring position. Dimaggio got on those WS records lists because he played in more WS games than most...and here I thought you were learning ,lol,lol,lol. He didn't play very well in them. Thanks for trying. His teams played great and furnished him with lots of baserunners...Dimaggio just didn't deliver as much as he should have.
I don't need any legs to knock you down...just a finger, lol.
So Rizzuto was responsible for 30 wins...that leaves what, maybe a win or two for Dimaggio in 1950? Doesn't seem too great to me, lol. Your junk doesn't add up. Sorry man.
PS you fool. I clicked on that World Series record link and all I noticed was Mickey Mantle being at the top of so many, LMAO LMAO. Idiot.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
No, the point was that sometimes basing awards on hitting stats alone can sometimes not offer a complete picture. And for a guy who loves stats, the stats show a guy in decline in in 1950 and 1951. How could you say otherwise?
Pedestrian, huh? Here’s the list for World Series records. Note the number of times Joe DiMaggio appears. Break them down as you need to in order to regain some credibility, though. (The time may be better spent on a leg, so you’ll have at least that one for future standing.)
Just as with Ted Williams, I do wonder what his approach was since I can’t get in his head either. Whatever his approach was, we know they won nine of the ten World Series he played in.
For you, so you’ll get it, that’s a .900 winPct.
Anything else?
He won because he had a great team, and only a great team can withstand their best hitter hitting .255 with RISP and slg .291 with runners in scoring position. Dimaggio got those WS records because he played in more WS games than most...and here I thought you were learning ,lol,lol,lol.
I don't need any legs to knock you down...just a finger, lol.
So Rizzuto was responsible for 30 wins...that leaves what, maybe a win or two for Dimaggio in 1950? Doesn't seem too great to me, lol. Your junk doesn't add up. Sorry man.
PS you fool. I clicked on that link and all I noticed was Mantle being at the top of so many, LMAO LMAO. Idiot.
I see all you have left now is name calling, LMAOs, and changing the argument once I refuted your post point by point.
That’s the end of your moves.
Have a wonderful rest of the day.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Oh, did you read further down on that link you provided? It said Dimaggio once held the record for grounding into seven double plays in the World Series. This chit just gets better and better.
I can't even make this stuff up. That was a good list to help your point if you were talking about Mantle...thanks for helping me make that point...even though I already did earlier. lol lol.
How many double plays??? lol.
How many wins for Rizzuto?
The only point you proved is that you aren't very sharp, lol.
I will have a good day. Thank you for the entertainment and making me laugh.
Comments
And I highly doubt all that ‘far greater’ stuff.
After all, this is the internet and (so)...
...I’m Chuck Norris.
You should watch what you say...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
@Skin2
By the way, why don’t you give us another post where bring up things people aren’t talking about, refute them and then declare yourself the winner!
This is your move. Patent this.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Lastly, I own no Ted Williams cards because I collect champions.
I would consider bidding on his frozen head.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Read the whole thread and in my opinion Brick said it best and in far less words than most of you.
Ruth dominated his contemporaries like nobody before or since.
Like Brick said, its Ruth number one and then whoever else you want to plug in after him.
It feels good that’s for sure, it’s much better now that the Sox are right there with the Yankees as far as modern era winners go.
I think some of that depends on how ‘modern era’ is defined BUT I’m not one to be raining on your parade; the Red Sox have very much become quite a force in the last 15 years...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Ofcourse it does, my “Modern Era” is since 2004 lol
What I like most is how his opinions PROVE others opinions are wrong, a close second is ignoring when he is proven wrong and then changing the subject, I really don't care for the personal attacks, I used them in third grade when I was wrong and gave up on it after that year.
I think Ted probably did swing at a few pitches out of the strikezone, but if he did he would NEVER admit to it.
His teams needed more pitching to beat the Yankees, not more hitting.
Absolutely!
dimeman does not agree.
I do agree with Brick, but that is the easy way out. I think a good debate on who was better between Joe and Mickey is great. Gehrig being an infielder and 1st base at that is a bit harder to compare.
You're argument is so circular I'm getting dizzy. You could save us both a lot of trouble if you'd just answer my question - what is your basis for calling him slow? I realize that you won't answer because there is no answer, because Ruth was not slow. But I'm not sure if you realize the corner you've painted yourself into.
By the way, I've seen this theory before - that it is not possible for the greatest player of all time to have played in the 1920's and 1930's because the game is so much better now. It sounds almost defensible if you just repeat it and never try to defend it, but logically it's mush. Of course it's possible for the greatest player ever to have played in any decade, it's just a matter of trying to identify him that takes work. The opposite of work - chronic laziness - is to simply declare a player "slow" or some other such thing for which there is no evidence and then refuse to back up your arguments.
I am open to arguments that Ruth is not the greatest player ever, provided the player being offered as an alternative is named Wagner, Cobb, Williams, Mantle, or Mays. I don't agree with any argument that I've heard so far, but I respect the attempts and they make me think. What I am not open to is an argument that Ruth is not even one of the candidates for greatest player ever. I've heard you and a few others make that statement, I've just never heard anyone attempt to make an actual argument. I suspect the act of attempting to make such an argument would open the eyes of the person making it, and they'd finally see how silly they look. Or not, but everyone else sure would.
Do you actually think he could run with Mays or Mantle?? Do you think he could today's pitching like he did in his era??
In his era he didn't face relievers......he faced the started 4 times.....giving him a big advantage.
If you were building a team today you could not afford Ruth in the outfield. May's, Mantle, Joe D, Williams were all better. Heck there are outfielders playing today better than Ruth.
I don't see this obsession with Ruth when his stats are clearly because of the era he played in.
Mays or Mantle are both clearly overall better than Ruth.
Nobody's saying Ruth could run with Mays or Mantle. But Ruth was not slow.
That was true in the 1940s. In the 1950s they needed more of everything. After spending a bundle of money on the team in the 1930s and '40s, owner Tom Yawkey let the team slide. It didn't help that he was the last owner in the American League to have an African-American on his team. I've read that he had a shot at both Mays and Aaron and rejected them both.
I guess @1951WheatiesPremium would be the president of the Dave Egan fan club if he had been around in the 1940s.
Dave Egan was a Boston sports writer who was a constant critic of Ted Williams.
Yes. What bugs me is when people cherry pick their examples. Example of starters being in there longer. This is possibly an advantage for the old timers. How about the spitball and the fact that the balls were used longer and got harder to see. The mound was higher too. Advantage new guys.
I think if you look at ALL the factors it sort of evens out.
All you are doing is guessing anyway. You can simply measure guys against who they played with and no more.
Other than the development of the slider, (and the elimination of the "spitter") what has really changed in how the ball is being thrown? WHY is today's pitcher better? The starters don't seem to be better to me. I don't see where it's PROOF that bringing in a "fresh" arm means the hitter is always at a disadvantage, sometimes that guy sucks.
Mays' hitting, running and defensive prowess along with his consistency and longevity elevate him above (and not "by far") his contemporaries.
Ruth's hitting was TOTALLY superior and his HR per AB, BA and SLG numbers have not been eclipsed other than Bonds who I believe does not deserve them. Not even taking into consideration his pitching ability who no other player has ever done.
Sure there are........................NOT
Williams HATED Egen, who was a very talented drunk. Egen also from time to time defended Williams btw.
Ted could also be his own worst enemy at times, and deserved being called on some of his behavior.
I see you know a bit more than most about this period. I remember reading that Boston could have had Ernie Banks as well and Lou Boudreau rejected him as he wanted to play shortstop for a couple of more years. I think Mays was more likely a Yankee reject, but am not positive.
The Yankees were in my opinion even stupider than the Sox, they could have had their pick of the Negro League stars, but they were winning without them, so they figured they didn't need them. What they could have done had they been looking ahead is mind boggling!
As a confirmed Yankee hater, I am very glad that they didn't. I think that Elston Howard was their first African-American player.
Yes, Williams could be his own worst enemy, but Egan went overboard.
Here's one that nobody has mentioned yet. In 1946 there were rumors that the Yankees and Red Sox were considering a blockbuster deal, Ted Williams for Joe DiMaggio. A interesting twist was the deal was never made because Boston owner Tom Yawkey asked for an additional player, rookie Yogi Berra.
Want to add to the Mantle/DiMaggio debate before I head to work.
DiMaggio played (mostly) in the 40's not the 1930's. Mantle had his best decade in the 50's not the 1960's. They played in the same park and with (I think) the same distances. Yankee stadium had renovations in 1937 and 1976?
Saying they played in different eras is not as much of a factor as saying it was much easier in the 30's than the 60's. They actually played together for a year or two.
Let's look at the 5 "tools"
Power, Both hit exactly the same SLG. Slight edge to Joe as he was a right handed Left Left/Center hitter.
Hit for Average, definite advantage DiMaggio
Fielding, definite advantage Joe.
Throwing, both had great arms. Mantle injured his right shoulder in 1957 WS and was never the same. Edge Joe.
Speed, Mantle was the fastest player ever from home to first and used his speed well for the first 1/2 of his career, give him the edge here, but DiMaggio was a superb runner as well. I have read over and over again how Joe looked like he was "loafing" but always got to the ball as he was so graceful.
Not one of the 5 "tools" but Mantle had a better OBP because of his walks. As I have said before the sabermatricians think that a walk is a walk, but baseball "people" know guys like these two are not batting 3rd or 4th to walk. Their job is to drive in runs and DiMaggio was better at this as well.
Two EXTREMELY similar players. I'll take Joe, but had Mantle been hurt less (and maybe taken care of himself better) he should have been much better.
As far as the comment about DiMaggio being a jerk, he was, but he was never quoted as saying "I led the league in the "clap" and my wife was second" like Mickey did. As a husband and father he was miserable. His team mates liked him better than they did Joe though. No points for either guy here.
I think the owners were drunk when that was discussed and when they sobered up realized that wasn't going to happen.
Would have been interesting though, even the straight up trade. Williams has said he would have never gotten a pitch to hit had he played for the Yankees and DiMaggio wasn't a "pull" hitter to take advantage of the monster, but it would have been VERY interesting!
@BillJones
Not at all. Ted Williams is one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) hitter to ever play baseball. No question about that. I don’t dislike Ted.
My statement was about approach at the plate. That’s all. Much of what I’ve offered (really, a question to be considered) was based on things Ted Williams actually said about hitting. His approach at the plate, his disdain for fielding, waiting for the right pitch, not straying from the zone, taking walks - these are all things HE said. Many jare the basis for hitting today. AND AGAIN, he is not the only baseball player that comes to mind (Joey Votto today) who will not intentionally swing at a pitch outside the zone. This is baseball and they’re human so it happens. Usually bad for things laying around the dugout, though.
But there are also guys like Berra and Vlad Guerrero who swung at balls above their head or balls that bounced before the plate and drove them to the outfield on a line drive anyway. More than one approach can be successful.
The simple fact is what you are trying to accomplish when you are up at the plate matters. This goes ignored by some and that’s ok. In real baseball, smart players do things like this to win ball games. Not ALL players. There are plenty of guys who will not change their approach - at all - and it’s a seemingly greater percentage every year. However, Nolan Arenado, current perennial RBI leader, chokes up with two strikes for greater bat control at the expense of power in an effort to put the ball in play rather than trying to hit a home run or drive the ball as hard as he can, regardless of count and score. Mind you, he is still trying to get a hit.
It is just a change in his approach.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
And for every guy like Yogi Berra who got away with going after bad pitches, there have been many hundreds of others who were not successful because they chased too many balls out of the strike zone. A walk is better than an out, and quite often walks, especially lead-off walks can lead to a score. Most of the time I'll take the hitter who is selective.
Perhaps I should be more clear - I am NOT anti-walk. To be clear, a walk (as pointed out often) is basically 2/3 of a hit. They’re a necessary part of a winning strategy in a game as is plate discipline. And Ted Williams is not just one of the great hitters (because of regular stats, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+, and every other metric that is park adjusted, era adjusted, and jock adjusted, etc) but he is one of the great RBI men in baseball history, too. Again, I need no convincing that Ted Williams was a great hitter (and perhaps the greatest).
My point (on this topic) was sometimes you don’t want your best hitter taking a walk. Sometimes you want him to put the ball in play. Not in every situation or even many but baseball is a game of strategy and situations where you can have opportunities to manufacture runs. This can require a player to deviate from the normal ‘I just have to get on base any way I can’ attitude that they SHOULD have most of the time. Today, as in the past, some players are unwilling to do so for various (and sometimes valid) reasons. I just wonder where Ted fell on that spectrum. I completely understand that ‘taking the bat out of his hands’ when the batter is Ted Williams will, to some, be an insult to their intelligence and simply unthinkable. Let him hit EVERY time, they’ll say, and play for the big inning. I say it depends on the game and the situation and I don’t really care who is in the box sometimes. And just because Ted is widely considered the greatest hitter of all time does not make him perfect. He batted .344, not 1.000
Anyway, this was never the point of the thread. The point was to get people to rank the Yankees four greatest players because I believe most people list DiMaggio 4th (including me) and I believe he gets a bit overlooked and that a case could be made that he is deserving of the secondary spot behind Babe Ruth. People often look at his career totals and neglect to factor in his only playing 13 seasons.
Invariably, a mention of Joe leads to a Ted comparison and off we go.
And, I’m enjoying it, just the same.
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 you don't think today's pitching is better than the 20's and 30's you are blind!
Ruth never faced a Nolan Ryan or Randy Johnson or Tom Seaver or Don drysdale or Sandy Koufax......etc etc...!!!
Ruth was better than anyone in his era, but that is it.
Jr. Griffey is just one!
I think the reason many today think Ruth was actually quite fast and hit for tremendous power is he played before the rules changes. When Ruth played the bases were only 60 feet apart and the pitchers were required to throw underhanded.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Ruth
Gehrig
DiMaggio
Mantle
The debate is now officially over.
Ha ha, if you saw the pitchers in the 20's and 30's you're DEAD!
Hello.................Griffey is no longer playing. Do you drink a lot? Just sayin' ;-)
I know Griffey is retired, but he is of the modern era.......don't ya think!! Just sayin'
Griffey was damn good! Not quite Ruthian but close! ;-)
Berra chased the bad high pitches not the bad low ones.
My point on walks exactly. A walk to the number 9 guy or the leadoff batter (regardless of how many outs or men on base) is always good because the best hitters are coming up next. A walk to a clean up guy (especially a slow one) when there isn't any "good" batters behind him is good but not nearly so.
Williams was usually a #3 guy. Take a look at "Junior" Stevens stats, he drove in a lot of runs for a few years batting behind Ted.
Also Ted was completely insane..... er, totally focused on being the greatest hitter ever. A guy with his kind of mindset, and the ability to accomplish it, can't really go back and forth much.
...and Vlad Guerrero hit a few balls that bounced before the plate. Worth googling or YouTubing, as he either hit a HR or drove it off the wall. At his peak in his Montreal days, he was ‘anonymously’ a legitimate contender for best player in the game.
I imagine as an opposing pitcher, you have to be like ‘Where the hell do inpitch this guy?’
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
1951premiums, nothing personal, just pointing out some nonsense.
Speaking of nonsense, you are the same guy that relegated Dimaggio's contributions to mere peasant status when you claimed Rizzuto was responsible for 25-40 wins for the 1950 Yankees LMAO. So now all of a sudden Dimaggio is one of the best ever??
Also, since you guys prefer NON-sabermetric arguments and rely on RBI, batting average, and place more emphasis 'when it counts'...then riddle me this:
If Dimaggio was so good at all of that, then how come his World Series batting line is:
.271BA, .338OB% .422 SLG%.
Let that sink in as it demolishes everything you and banzi stand for LMAO.
Why was he so bad in the World Series when he came up with Runners in Scoring Position???? Why did he bat only .255 in those situations and slug only .291. Yes, .291 SLG%
Those performances are a slap in the face of everything you two clowns have espoused in this thread. Everything.
Doesn't Mantle still hold the World Series home run record?
Mantle Slugged .548 with runners in scoring position in the World Series....isn't that the exact definition of what you two clowns are claiming makes a hitter great???
So if you are going down the road of archaic measurement methods, above is all that matters.
Nothing personal against you, its just idiotic.
Absolutely CLASSIC Skin! 😂😂😂
It is classic @skin2. Cherry picking comments with a selective memory in an attempt to make people look foolish.
>
This is nonsense of your own creation. What I actually wrote - and anyone can look it up - is the remembrance of someone who actually saw the guy and the team play live and in person. In HIS estimation, in 1950-51, Joe DiMaggio was no longer the same baseball player he had been. Injuries had taken their toll. His skills at the plate had not totally eroded but he was slower, had less range in center and his arm was starting to go. When we discussed this, it was about the fact that in the year of 1950 people often look at it and say Joe Dimaggio or Ted Williams or someone else got robbed. From someone who watched them play that year - as opposed to looked at the stats - he very much deserved the award.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/206385-phil-rizzutos-two-defining-plays
If you read that article, you'll see that it ends with: Casey Stengel called it the greatest play he ever saw.
Lastly on this paragraph, no, Skin2, Joe DiMaggio is not suddenly one of the greatest of all time. He has been one of the greatest of all time since before you or I were born. This sentence is the dumbest thing YOU have ever written - I have come to expect better from you.
Not really everything. Or really, anything. At all. Much of my "argument" for Joe DiMaggio was predicated on him being a complete player with virtually mistake free play; not just a great hitter, which he also was. And by the way, his hitting in the World Series as presented by you does look terrible. No one would guess that he homered in SEVEN of the ten World Series he played in and got 22 at bats or less in seven of the 10, as well. My next post will have the full, un-cherry picked postseason statistics screen grabbed from baseball reference. But, you do not need to be a sabremetrics fan to understand the impact of small sample size.
If you bothered to read my posts, you'll find I am remarkably consistent and stand behind what I say. So, I'll add here two things. I fully get that you will ignore them, too.
I believe that a case could be made for Joe DiMaggio as the 2nd or 3rd greatest Yankee, not the 4th that he traditionally gets. I say that meaning that if a guy like, say, you who was smart and good with numbers wanted to twist his numbers around in a positive light (as I did crudely with the 162 game averages) he could be made to look very good.
AND, I'm a guy who has argued on these very boards that Mickey Mantle is THE greatest hitter of all time. As in, none above. To me, with the four Yankees, my rankings are Ruth, then Mantle, then Gehrig, then DiMaggio. Specifically, here.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1002712/ted-williams-or-babe-ruth-question/p3
In every sense of you're saying it, DITTO!
Take a little more time to respond next time as it looks like 6 days was not enough. I'm starting to feel like I am in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
Just kidding, you're very smart, bud. Happy Holidays!
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Tim, seriously no offense to you bud. I don’t have the Baseball knowledge to step into the arena with you guys so I don’t have much to say other than Skin is my all time favorite CU poster, nothing negative towards you.
Paul, don’t give it a thought bud.
It is I who should apologize to you for making your all time favorite poster look like the only beardless dwarf from Snow White.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Here’s the stats in full
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
A clown still stands. How many wins was it you said Rizzuto responsible for that year? 25? 30? You missed the point of course. If Rizzuto was responsible for that many wins...that leaves just a small amount of wins that other players would be responsible for...as I pointed out in that thread before...which makes you look foolish.
It doesn't really have anything to do with what Dimaggio had left in the tank(and he had enough to have a great year regardless). The end result is that your math and thoughts simply don't add up. So Dimaggio, Berra, the league leading team in ERA...were just small parts according to you since Rizzuto was responsible for so many of the team wins.
Those post season numbers are pedestrian...not sure why you think a screen shot makes them look better, lol. Heck, a league average MLB hitter in the late 30's were good enough to hit .270.
Where was his 'approach'? You claimed he had an 'approach' and he was a winner. Where was his post season approach with Runners in Scoring position? Isn't that the time to utilize the 'approach' instead of only hitting .255 in that key situation? Slug .291?
I apologize to keep you waiting six days...that must have been frustrating, lol. I got busy man...and kind of forgot about it.
I do appreciate you recognizing my sarcasm with presenting a small sample size as if it was meaningful...maybe not too far apart after all.
No, the point was that sometimes basing awards on hitting stats alone can sometimes not offer a complete picture. And for a guy who loves stats, the stats show a guy in decline in in 1950 and 1951. How could you say otherwise?
Pedestrian, huh? Here’s the list for World Series records. Note the number of times Joe DiMaggio appears. Break them down as you need to in order to regain some credibility, though. (The time may be better spent on a leg, so you’ll have at least that one for future standing.)
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/rb_ws1.shtml
Just as with Ted Williams, I do wonder what his approach was since I can’t get in his head either. Whatever his approach was, we know they won nine of the ten World Series he played in.
For you, so you’ll get it, that’s a .900 winPct.
Anything 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
He won because he had a great team, and only a great team can withstand their best hitter hitting .255 with RISP and slg .291 with runners in scoring position. Dimaggio got on those WS records lists because he played in more WS games than most...and here I thought you were learning ,lol,lol,lol. He didn't play very well in them. Thanks for trying. His teams played great and furnished him with lots of baserunners...Dimaggio just didn't deliver as much as he should have.
I don't need any legs to knock you down...just a finger, lol.
So Rizzuto was responsible for 30 wins...that leaves what, maybe a win or two for Dimaggio in 1950? Doesn't seem too great to me, lol. Your junk doesn't add up. Sorry man.
PS you fool. I clicked on that World Series record link and all I noticed was Mickey Mantle being at the top of so many, LMAO LMAO. Idiot.
I see all you have left now is name calling, LMAOs, and changing the argument once I refuted your post point by point.
That’s the end of your moves.
Have a wonderful rest of the day.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Oh, did you read further down on that link you provided? It said Dimaggio once held the record for grounding into seven double plays in the World Series. This chit just gets better and better.
I can't even make this stuff up. That was a good list to help your point if you were talking about Mantle...thanks for helping me make that point...even though I already did earlier. lol lol.
How many double plays??? lol.
How many wins for Rizzuto?
The only point you proved is that you aren't very sharp, lol.
I will have a good day. Thank you for the entertainment and making me laugh.
Sorry, everyone. I can admit when I am wrong.
My mistake.
The exact order for a @skin2 post is:
Be previously wrong.
Deflect.
Change Argument.
LOL.
Insult.
LOL.
Insult.
My sicerest apologies to the forum and I'll be more accurate in the future.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Nice of you to add this edit:
I apologize to keep you waiting six days...that must have been frustrating, lol. I got busy man...and kind of forgot about it.
I do appreciate you recognizing my sarcasm with presenting a small sample size as if it was meaningful...maybe not too far apart after all.
Trying to save face, bro?
You’re a smart guy. Calling me out, however, was dumb.
You want to look classy?
Apologize. Not for your point of view but your rudeness.
Well?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
@perkdog
Well, I recommend you pick a new favorite poster. I think I just broke your old one. Though, maybe I should give it 6 days.
May I recommend @dallasactuary ?
There is a guy who is not only smart, funny and great with sabermetrics and statistics but also has class.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest