What player has come closest to being the next Mickey Mantle?
Darin
Posts: 7,104 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
I remember when Daryl Strawberry was being talked about as the next Mickey Mantle. The Royals were
supposed to have a phenom in Clint Hurdle, and I believe he was mentioned as being the next Mantle.
Since Mantle retired many players were hyped as having his abilities, but not many have even come close to his accomplishments. Bo Jackson was a superior athlete to Mantle, but didn't have the baseball skills.
I think for players who have completed their baseball career, Ken Griffey Jr. has come the closest, and
Mike Trout for players who are still active.
0
Comments
I thought Griffey Jr was the best all-around player in recent years; it's a shame his body started to break down in his later years. Mike Trout is the best player in today's game with all the skills similar to Mantle....maybe Mookie Betts also.
Pujols and Trout are the only two names that belong in the same sentence as Mantle, but neither one is/was as good. Pujols was nearly as good a hitter for a decade or so, but lacked the fielding and running skills Mantle had; then he declined rapidly and made the question moot. Trout is also nearly as good a hitter and does have the fielding and running skills to stay in the conversation. He's still only 27 years old, though, so there's a long conversation still ahead.
Not even a mention of Griffey Jr??? A great defensive player, hit for average and power and could run as well. Pujols doesn't belong because he was nowhere near as athletic. Trout has the tools and is still a work in progress. So far so good.
No one commented on the possibility of Betts being in the conversation.
My vote would go to Griffey. Better defensively, nearly as good offensively, Mantle the much better walker and hitter for average. Griffey had the longer career with a LOT more plate appearances.
Griffey wasn't really even close to Mantle offensively. Mantle's CAREER OPS+ of 172 is higher than Griffey's single-season best. There is a gigantic gap between a guy with a 172 vs a guy with a 136.
Griffey had 1400 more PAs, to be sure. But those 1400 PAs at the end of his career were not good ones. He was pretty terrible in 2008 and then REALLY terrible in 2009 and 2010.
Griffey was better defensively but Mantle was miles and miles ahead offensively.
JRR300- Mookie Betts has just had 1 great year, true it was an MVP year, but he still needs many more
years like last year. Is the potential there, maybe but we'll have to wait and see how the next few years go.
Can he keep up the greatness or will he regress?
I think Mike Trout has proven he can have MVP caliber seasons year after year, for him I think its just
a matter of staying injury free. And hopefully he stays motivated because he's always playing for a lousy
Angels' team. Wish he could go to a winner because I would like to watch him play in the postseason.
In most cases (certainly this is a perfect example) OPS+ not only is at best misleading or incorrect, but a joke. OPS+ is just a bad number to use, and worst of all where Mickey is concerned, and when comparing these two eras, worser.
I am not sure if Griffey "juiced" or not, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, he had to compare his numbers with the steroid users of his time, another factor which is going to hurt his OPS+.
I doubt that OPS+ takes into account Mantle's switch hitting advantages, so you get a horribly inflated number for him. As I said, Mantle hit for a higher BA and walked a LOT more, however their SLG% was pretty similar.
Looking at their 162 game averages shows Griffey had some advantages; more doubles, more total bases, more home runs and more RBI.
Certainly there was no "gigantic gap" or "miles and miles" here. If you look at "Similarity Scores" Griffey actually has a significant (?) edge 900-854.
Griffeys final two seasons were (not his final 1400 but rather his last 550 or so PA) were very bad, however like Mickey he was (in 2009) still able to go deep, he just didn't get walked nearly as much.
I would say Mantle was a better hitter but the two were pretty equal as overall players. You could even say that Griffey was "miles and miles" better defensively, but I won't, If you want to give it to Mantle, I won't argue, but I think it's close, and in some areas offensively, Griffey was more valuable.
Too early to say on Mr. Trout, but he looks VERY interesting!
There is no aspect of offense in which Griffey was within several miles of Mantle. You are comparing a player who played in a hitter's park in the most offensively inflated era ever to a player who played in a pitcher's park in the most offensively depressed era since 1919 and not factoring that into your comparison in any way. That's why you've reached the wrong conclusion.
A quick and easy way to see it is to compare the number of times they each led the league in the offensive stats that matter - OBP, SLG, and OPS. I'll even leave out OPS+ since you don't understand what it is. Griffey has a grand total of 1. I will bet my life that if you had been asked what Griffey's total was before you knew the answer you would have guessed somewhere north of 10, maybe as high as Mantle's 13, maybe even higher.
The best hitter from Griffey's era was Frank Thomas, who was a mile and half better hitter than Griffey. Thomas belongs in the Mantle conversation, because he was that good a hitter for awhile. The conversation ends there because he couldn't run or play defense and he didn't last as long at that high level of offense, but if names like Griffey and Betts are being tossed out there then Thomas needs a shout out, too.
Bonds
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Larry Hagman
Both of them are equally deserving of being compared to Mickey Mantle, or indeed any baseball player.
Agree Griffey was faster and better defensive player than Pujols, but Pujols was a much better hitter.
"There is no aspect of offense in which Griffey was within several miles of Mantle."
Well, yes SLG%. Also looking at 162 game averages, and oh yes, looking at the "similar scores".........Griffey wins that one pretty clearly.
Hard to lead the league with the juicers setting all kinds of new MLB records. If you ignore that, and I am sure you will, I have already conceded Mantle had a better/higher peak. Better to look at years in the top 10, and Mantle does certainly win, but NOT by several miles.
You bring up the hitters park factor, but ignore the fact that EVERY park Mantle played in he was hitting in a hitters park about 66% of the time, plus having the benefit of the "lefty/righty" matchup 100% of the time.
Griffey's OPS was almost .100 worse against lefties, Mantle had the luxury (and yes, ability) to bat from the right side and become even BETTER.
Then you bring up the eras, in the mid to late 1950's players BA were astronomical and then expansion gave us 1961, so that takes care of much of Mantle's era being bad for the hitters. By the time the pitchers caught up Mantle retired.
One of the main reasons Griffey's era was so much more offensive (in more ways than one) was because of the juicers, they had a HUGE effect on the numbers. When a few guys are destroying the records it is going to effect your precious OPS+ to a great degree. Just another reason it doesn't do what it is supposed to do in this comparison.
If you look at ALL the factors, Griffey closes the gap, AND we're not just talking about hitting here, so let's leave Thomas out of the comparison, as a 1st baseman he shouldn't be in the discussion that the OP intended (as I see it). The OP was quite correct in saying since Mantle retired, Griffey was the closest to Mantle and Trout for active players looks promising.
Finally, you are the one who doesn't understand OPS+, it's a BAD stat. Sooner or later a new, better stat will come out and show that. Quick and easy is never the way to be accurate.
Can't begin to imagine having Barbara Eden jumping all over me, my head wouldn't be the only thing exploding!!!!!!! ;-)
I honestly don't know where to go from here. You seem to be leaning towards adjusting Mantle DOWN because he could switch hit. Otherwise, I have no idea why you'd even bring it up. Needless to say, that would be so absurdly wrong that I'd rather argue about Santa Claus, global warming, or the Easter Bunny.
And then you wrote something about "astronomical" batting averages in the the mid/late 50's and how they "surged" in 1961. Since every word of what you wrote is false - look it up if you don't believe me - how do I respond intelligently to it? Note, when you do look it up, that the league BA in 1961 was lower than in any year of Griffey's career. Also, as BAs plummeted from 1961 through the end of Mantle's career, Mantle was still having seasons as good as Griffey ever had, but they are getting masked by the difficulty of scoring in that era.
And you're just ignoring ballpark differences, as you must to get Griffey into a Mantle comparison. That's the "+" part of OPS+ that you don't understand.
And while I'm sure you'll state without any supporting reason that Win Probability Added is a bad stat, too, when the gap is as large as it is for Mantle and Griffey, there really is no need to look at anything else. Mantle's WPA is 93.5, sandwiched between Williams and Musial in 5th place all-time; Griffey stands at 46.6, sandwiched between Tim Raines and Will Clark in 50th place.
Who was more valuable on offense, Mickey Mantle or Stan Musial? Great debate to be had. Who was more valuable on offense, Ken Griffey, Jr. or Tim Raines? Equally great debate to be had. But trying to mix those two debates is just silliness.
I was thinking in terms of famous people that stole liver transplants actually
Oh. Whenever I hear about Hagman I immediately think of Barbara eden. My bad.
Let's completely forget that you said "There is no aspect of offense in which Griffey was within several miles of Mantle." Well Slugging percentage is a pretty good stat, and while Mantle's was better, it wasn't by miles, and using 162 game averages Griffey hit more doubles and home runs per 162. Not possible if Mantle is MILES ahead. Bill James (your guy?) came up with similarity scores and Griffey beats Mantle. Meaningless I'll bet.
Here's a new one for you to ignore Mantle hit a home run every 15.1 at bats Griffey every 15.5. Not miles ahead. If you use plate appearances Griffey was better.
Mantle won his only batting title in 1956 with .353 and batted .365 the next year and could only finish 2nd. The two years before that you had to hit better than .340 to win the title. When the new teams came in in 1961 Maris and Mantle both should have broken Babe Ruth's record with 3 more players with 45 HR or more. You switch between league leadership and league average when it suits you.
If it was so tough to hit in Mantle's era, why did so many guys hit 500 HR or more, who were rookies from 1950-1959? I count eight, (seven of those were rookies between 1950-56) about 1/3 of the guys who did it. About eight were juicers on the overall list, Bonds certainly wasn't on pace to hit 600-700+. If you understand numbers, what does it do to the percentages if two or three of those juicers don't make 500, makes the guys who did look better.
You have failed to address the steroids issue, something the + geniuses haven't been able to come up with a solution to. If they ever figure it out, Griffey is going to jump up in comparison to the cheaters who will get knocked down. Is it OK to knock Bonds, McGwire etc. down for their illegal "advantages"? I think so. The numbers DON'T!
I already figured that Bonds, McGwire and Sosa were averaging about 30-35 HR a year (I think Bonds was at 27) when suddenly, for a few years, they are doubling, or tripling, that total, and then dropping right back down where they "belonged". Kind of effects the numbers, I would say. Go ahead and use numbers we know are "bad" as long as they support your argument. Remember, NEVER concede a point EVER! That would make you look weak. Ignoring and deflecting are fine.
I thought that adjusting players down (or up) was what these stats did, especially the "+" numbers that are supposed to equalize things. When you equalize things, people get adjusted down as well as up. It seems quite basic to me that if you say a player wasn't as good as his numbers because he hit in an easier park or easier era, then why is it wrong for me to point out that it was easier for Mantle to hit because he was always facing a right handed pitcher batting left handed and hit 66% of the time to a shorter field? If you are going to take both sides of the debate, you will certainly be right all the time.
It's OK for you to bring up factors in your players favor and reduce my guy's numbers but it's sacrilege to do so to "The Mick"?
Now your bringing in WPA, if I remember correctly when I looked into this, one of the first things that it said was this was a bad stat to compare players, AND it only measures offense, doesn't it? Well sure, let's use that one when "your" guy is better on offense and worse on defense..........WOW man you are destroying me.
Musial could actually be in this comparison IF he had played after Mickey, but he retired before so now I am waiting for ...........Jimmy Foxx or the Tooth Fairy.
Who did Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny play for? And what does the weather have to do with baseball other than "sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains"?
There is so much wrong with what you said here that it's not even a matter of correcting the errors, it's a matter of explaining to you what baseball stats are, what they mean, and how they are used. I honestly don't see the point in trying.
Park factor? Era adjustment? No? Meaningless, then.
I have no idea why this is supposed to be relevant. None.
Ditto.
If you send the + geniuses a list of every player who was juicing and every player who wasn't, I'm sure they'll be able to come up with something. What's even more frustrating about the steroid era, though, is there's no way to know which list Griffey would be on.
Jesus, Mary and Joseph, you really do want to "adjust" Mantle so he doesn't look as good to account for the fact that he was good enough to switch hit. The distance between this thought and an understanding of baseball is the widest that I have ever witnessed.
I listed three things that don't exist, to add to the list you started by bringing up Griffey's similarity to Mantle.
I'm done with this silly topic; have a lovely day.
Banzi, you are the same guy who uses WHIP to defend Catfish Hunter, and then blast OB% for a hitter. You do realize that those measure the same things(hits+walks vs outs made), but simply expressed differently?
I see now that you are 'downgrading' Mantle for being a switch hitter. That is so laughable and shows true ignorance and lack of evaluative abilities.
Then again, your measurement methods make Dave Kingman as good as Harmon killebrew...so it is not surprising.
The only 'point' you brought up that comes close to questioning OPS+ is the steroid effect. Yes, that is a problem, because if 90% of the league juiced, then the ten percent who didn't should be viewed higher than what their OPS+ says. However, even if Griffey didn't juice, he took a blind eye to it while everyone else did. He could have demanded his union give blood tests for it, but he didn't. So if his penalty for condoning it is being judged more harshly in OPS+, then so be it. That is on him.
That being said, do you have proof that Griffey didn't do any PED's?? Did Griffey offer his blood to be tested every way possible? Maybe he had something to hide too. Without that, then he is held to this OPS+ prison, lol.
FOr the record, OPS+ can be a a tad misleading for people with vastly different career lengths/plate apperances, most understand this. However, that is easily rectified....Batter Runs of Linear Weights takes care of a lot of that problem.
Mantle has 859 runs above average.
Griffey has 510 runs above average.
Frank Thomas 756 runs above average...I included him to show that Griffey was nowhere near best hitter in the league AND because Thomas is also 'viewed' as 'clean' of PED's. So it isn't just alleged PED make Griffey inferior to so many contemporary hitters.
MORE 'CLEAN' HITTERS as good or better than Griffey
Edgar Martinez 569
Vlad 476
Pujols 748
Cabrera 649
Thome 636
Chipper 591
Trout 433...at age 27 only, is the correct answer to the original question. He may pass Mantle overall.
That is a tremendous gap that measures each walk, single, double, triple, home run, and OUT MADE to proper run context. You have already demonstrated that you don't understand the value of a walk or the negative impact of making an out...despite the millions of play by play data that shows you otherwise.
Oh wait, you do understand the value of a walk and negative impact of an out made, because you bring up WHIP all the time in regard to Catfish Hunter. Laughable. It is simply an agenda you have, or just plain ignorance.
Mantle dwarfs Griffey...and no, it isn't even close. Maybe it isn't miles, just one mile.
There is an episode of Andy Griffith where Barbra is the new manicurist in Mayberry and all the men in town want to get their nails did suddenly. I think it predates Jeannie by a few years.
That is a point I am talking about. Tenace only had 5,500 plate appearances. Brett had double that....11,600.
Tenace had 267 Batter RUns above average. Brett had 507.
An astute observer would point out that Tenace had some Ken Phelps platoon factor that favored him keeping higher rate stats like OPS. That kept his OPS high, but his actual run value low...as pointed out with the Batter Runs.
Also that Teance retired early due to performance and never played in his 'old man' years to bring his percentages down. That is a point against Mantle too, because he didn't play old man years either. That is why I only view Mantle as being the best during his prime and not for career value.
An ignorant oberver would simply point out the lifetime OPS+ between Brett and Tenace and assume Tenace was better, or assume that OPS+ is not a good measurement.
It would also be similar to a fan saying that Roberto Hernandez is the best hitter ever because his lifetime batting average is .500....or then say, "batting average is a farce because it says Roberto Hernandez is the best hitter ever with a lifetime .500 batting average.
So if you understand that batting average factor for Roberto Hernandez, then you understand the same factor for OPS+. That is the same for ALL rate stats.
I remember that episode well. The boys were out of their minds.
My response to dallas and 4skin;
True, I can not prove that Griffey was clean, nor can I prove any player was ever clean of anything, so he could have possibly done steroids and gotten away with it. I believe I said this already. If not, there it is. IF proof does come out that Griffey was a steroid user, my opinion on him would automatically change, as I said, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. Is that good enough to close out that part of the discussion?
What I have done is shown well enough, to most people, that Bonds, McGwire, Sosa and A-Rod all were caught or admitted to taking them, and all four players also had some pretty clear evidence that it drastically increased their HR numbers which then (especially for Bonds) increased their walk totals, as a result their OPS numbers jumped dramatically. This factor has got to skew the OPS+ and give a distorted picture of scoring for the years they cheated and the entire decade. This doesn't even address the guys who were close, equal to or better than Griffey that used, (Ramierez, Sheffield etc.) that would make Griffey's numbers look even better.
Secondly you guys (constantly) use your stats to incorrectly show what did happen. Mantle's productive/peak career was 1955-1964 not 1940-1970 when the scoring may have been down overall (for the garbage players, but the good ones did just fine) and there were some scoring peaks in there as there ALWAYS IS.
Reasons enough not to trust the + in comparing eras. OPS+ is a BAD number in this comparison.
I also did state that Mantle had the ability to switch hit while Griffey didn't. Makes him more valuable. That doesn't change the fact that it made things easier for him. Time after time on these boards examples of players that had it "easier" get brought up to downgrade their accomplishments, as does the reverse.
I also stated that I felt that Mantle was a better hitter than Griffey. Where we disagree on is by how much. I have shown areas of comparison where Griffey is close to being as good, and areas where he was better than Mantle, this has got to mean that Mantle might have been better, but not to the extent that you guys are saying.
What is NOT surprising to me is that neither of you can/will address the Similarity Scores that your god Bill James came up with. Griffey wins fairly convincingly (if 50 points is convincingly). Here's where you say you don't really like Bill or that he's wrong.
So I guess IF Mantle was "miles and miles" better than Griffey offensively then Griffey was "miles and miles and miles " ahead of Mantle defensively?
What I try to do is point out the flaws in your arguments but neither of you respond with a counterpoint, usually it's ignore, deflect or insult. THAT proves to me that you are unsure of your position and/or unable to reply in an intelligent manner.
Bringing up Thomas was another perfect example of your tactics, no reason to discuss a 1st base man here. By the way, Frank looked like he was taking steroids from day one. Can you prove he wasn't?
Do (most) people here not argue with you two because they agree with you, or they don't like playing childish games where when all else fails, call someone stupid. You two sure seem to take it personally when ever anyone doesn't bow down to your opinions.
Unfortunately, I fell into your childish garbage one time and am ashamed that I did.
I apologize to the group (but not to 4skin) for my comments late last year. 4skin, you CONSTANTLY LIE about the other person's opinions, so debating with you is a waste of time.
Example is in your post above you say I "blast OB% for a hitter"
I don't do that, I never did that. What I did say (for the 10th time or so) is that Walks are more valuable to a lead-off batter than a cleanup batter (especially if that cleanup guy can no longer run) simply because of who is coming up next in the lineup.
I can't believe one single person with an ounce of common sense doesn't agree with that, especially people who also look at numbers.
Example #2 "Then again, your measurement methods make Dave Kingman as good as Harmon killebrew...so it is not surprising."
Another lie, or at least a different way of deflection. I already stated that in some areas Kingman was as good as Killebrew, but overall Killebrew winds up much better, they were SIMILAR players. Obviosly you think that using the player I like is a good way to irritate me. As I have said before, you don't have the slightest clue of how I measure players, so you will come up with the wrong answer most of the time if you try.
You lies are simply another way to make it more annoying to have a productive debate with you. Having to constantly try to correct your lies makes it a waste of time. It's just another tactic to "win" that makes you seem very very immature to me.
That's laughable. It is simply an agenda you have, or just plain ignorance.
Now, we can discuss how Larry Walker is another good example of a modern day player who "comes close" to Mantle.
If you have moved on ok, but I want to point out that this is a PERFECT example of your debating style.
What is wrong with saying that their lifetime SLG% are similar so this is an indicator of "one aspect of offense"?
Not saying that using the 162 game average is conclusive but it actually shows areas where Griffey is better. Wrong?
Finally there are some good points in James' similarity scores, players start out with 1000 and points are deducted.
Batters
Griffey comes out better when using these factors.
Don't try to explain it to me, just admit that there are "aspects of offense in which Griffey was within several miles of Mantle."
You simply do not have the ability to admit when wrong, or at least made a huge exaggeration, so you say I'm dumb and quit.
I had moved on, but since you impugned my integrity I'll post once more.
To accuse me of quitting a debate is absurd. Ask anyone here who knows how to read and I am the absolute champion of beating a subject into the ground and replying to each and every question or point directed at me. The only time I will ever "quit" - and often not even then - is when the person I am debating makes it crystal clear that he either doesn't understand what I'm saying or isn't reading my posts. That's where I have arrived with you. For proof, I refer you to your question above - "what is wrong with saying that their lifetime SLG% are similar so this is an indicator of "one aspect of offense?" I have answered that question several times already, and I don't consider it "quitting" when I refuse to answer it ten more times.
This is like deja vu - skin will remember this clearly - when we went round and round years ago with someone who kept saying that Jim Rice "compared favorably" to Eddie Murray in several respects and kept throwing out unadjusted stats that ignored Fenway. These were christened "the Kingman Methods" because they could be used to show that Dave Kingman compared favorably to Honus Wagner in several respects.
You have now adopted the Kingman Methods, although I know you have no idea that you've done so, and still won't understand it after it's pointed out to you. Ol' Honus led the league in slugging 6 times and was in the top 3 a total of 11 times. He was, obviously and without qualification of any kind, one of the greatest sluggers the game has ever known. But now here comes Joe Banzai to point out that Vic Wertz had a higher career slugging average, so he compares favorably to Wagner in at least one aspect of offense. No, Vic Wertz does not compare favorably to Honus Wagner in slugging average, nor does Ken Griffey compare favorably to Mickey Mantle.
I will admit when I am wrong; in this thread, I am not wrong. Have I made any "huge exaggerations"? That's hardly a precise standard when phrases like "miles and miles" are being used. My point was that if you are looking at Mantle and Griffey and seeing similar hitters then you are very, very wrong. If the correct measure of distance to be used as an analogy for the statistical chasm between Griffey and Mantle should have been 3,112.7 yards, then bravo to you for your keen ability to measure hypothetical analogous distance. In some way, perhaps, it makes up for your inability to understand baseball.
Oh yeah, similarity scores aren't era adjusted in any way. They make statistical comparisons, not comparisons of value. Bill James would laugh at the idea that they are useful in any way in an analysis of which of two players was better than the other.
And the + in OPS+ has nothing to do with era, it is a ballpark adjustment only. It's small wonder that you think it's a bad stat since you clearly have no idea at all what it measures.
And now, you can call my sainted mother a whore and I still won't respond. I have had my say, and my fun.
Wow, that was strange.
Best deflection ever!
I never speak ill of anyone's mother.
"There is no aspect of offense in which Griffey was within several miles of Mantle."..........wrong.
Griffey finished at least a quarter mile ahead of Mantle in career home runs.
I am utterly baffled at the idea that Mantle having it "easier" because he was a switch hitter - a factor 100% in his control - is somehow the same thing as a hitter, for example, having it easier because they played in Coors, something not in their control (free agency aside). Why on earth would we downgrade or punish Mantle for learning a additional skill over someone else? Do we downgrade pitchers for learning more pitches?
This line of logic is so utterly bizarre that I simply can't fathom it.
Idiot.
PS. Yes, a walk is a hair more valuable to a lead off hitter than a clean up hitter. Just a hair though. Though Mantle did bat third most of the time. The problem is that you try to use that one hairline slice to try and make up a mountain of a difference. Mantle is over 400 more runs(a mile or two) above average than Griffey. There is no amount of hairline variance that can make up that vast difference....AND THAT IS WHY WE IGNORE THOSE POINTS YOU TRY AND MAKE. THEY ARE ABOUT AS USEFUL AS TITS ON A BULL.
FURTHERMORE, you are one of the mopes that couldn't understand why Joe Morgan was a vastly better hitter than Ichiro...and I laid that out with the value of walks...and both Morgan and Ichiro were top third of the order hitters.
Also, you do realize that Mantle's walks in front of some pretty darn good hitters are better than Willie Mays not getting on base as often in front of Willie McCovey etc... I laid all that out in another thread.
For instance, in 1956, when Mantle was MVP with an insane .440 OB%, the lineup spot behind him had a .317 average and .581 SLG%. THe spot after that hit .295 and .483. So then would that make Mantle's walks even MORE valuable with such elite hitters behind him?????
So if you want to devalue Mantle's walks in 1967 and 1968 because he had trash batting behind him, then go ahead...but then don't forget to add the extra value to the walks in the years he had elite hitters batting behind him. Get it now??
Oh, and Darin, you have used championships as a barometer for players' ability. So in your own words or methods, Griffey has ZERO and Mantle is miles and miles ahead of him. LOL, it is bedtime for you and the other kiddos.
Agree. Thats why Dallas and I both said something along the lines, 'when someone says something as dumb as that, there really is no need to continue." I do continue though because it is entertainment.
Mickey Mantle was a really great player and I don't think anyone has really come close to him since he played. ironically, one of his peers had numbers better/equal/close to what Mantle posted that it is really weird --- Willie Mays. they were both unequaled and stand above everyone else when viewed as complete players.
as good as we think Mike Trout is --- he was my first thought as the page loaded --- he really isn't that close to either Mantle or Mays.
what strikes me about trying to look at players like this, guys from such different eras, is how the changes in Baseball have affected it negatively, things like the DH, inter-league play, pitch count on starters and the reliance on a BullPen.t hose changes make it hard to compare players.
Only one player even comes close: George Kenneth Griffey JR
Dave
How in hell did I get a mention? I stated one fact. I don't want to get drawn into this.
Sometimes I think skin likes to argue so much he doesn't even know who he's arguing with.
An elite doubles hitter like George Brett averaged 40 doubles per 162 games played.
Mickey Mantle averaged 23 doubles over 162 games. So there is something he wasn't good at.
Now if skin or dallas responds they'll say I'm trying to say Brett is better than Mantle.
All I'm saying is Brett was miles and miles ahead of Mantle at hitting doubles, which is an
important stat because you're in scoring position.
An elite doubles hitter like George Brett averaged 40 doubles per 162 games played.
Mickey Mantle averaged 23 doubles over 162 games. So there is something he wasn't good at
that depends on what kind of doubles they are. if they are down the lines or in the alleys it may be noteworthy, if they are off the fences it only means the guy almost hit another HR. my hunch is that George Brett hit a lot of his doubles off the top of fences and most of Mantles hit the same way carried out.
Back when Brett played him and Hal McRae stretched many singles into doubles, they would force the outfielder to make a crisp, accurate throw to the infield, if not, they dig for second and more often than not made it. In my opinion this is
more noteworthy than banging one off the wall and coasting into second.
Brett also hit a lot of gaps which accounted for many of his doubles.
BTW- I suspect a power hitter like Mantle had many chances to stretch singles into doubles, probably didn't because
he wasn't really known for going all out. Bad knees or not, 23 doubles a year is paltry for a power hitter.
Or do you think every ball he hit to the outfield went out of the park?
4skin says;
"FURTHERMORE, you are one of the mopes that couldn't understand why Joe Morgan was a vastly better hitter than Ichiro...and I laid that out with the value of walks...and both Morgan and Ichiro were top third of the order hitters."
Complete total LIE. I NEVER said that, Morgan far superior to Ichiro.
4skin says;
"Oh, and Darin, you have used championships as a barometer for players' ability. So in your own words or methods, Griffey has ZERO and Mantle is miles and miles ahead of him. LOL, it is bedtime for you and the other kiddos."
See above, second total complete incorrect fabrication. I spent quite some time debating that post season statistics are the least important factor in comparing players.
I won't call you an idiot though, that would be an insult to idiots everywhere.
Get some help, you have a problem.
Heck, even Joe didn't get Marilyn Monroe.
No but a different Joe did! ;-)
We have a “member” named 4skin?
Welcome to the forum!
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......
4skin says;
"So if you want to devalue Mantle's walks in 1967 and 1968 because he had trash batting behind him, then go ahead...but then don't forget to add the extra value to the walks in the years he had elite hitters batting behind him. Get it now??"
Yawn, already said that. Mantle was a run scoring machine in his early years with Berra hitting behind him. I am not going to look it up, but I believe he led the league in runs scored more times than any other category.
Seriously, get some help. Drink less, do yourself a favor.
I thought I was being clever. Case of whats good for the goose is good for the dbag.
By all means, welcome!>
@Tabe said:
I'll try one more time in a different way.
Rod Carew was a GREAT bunter, practiced it every day in BP. Would he have been as good a bunter if he was right handed?
Better way to ask is; was he better/more successful getting on base because he batted lefty and was closer to first base?
I don't think of that as "downgrading or punishing" him or his abilities. Just a fact.
How about the pitcher with long arms that can throw upper 90's sidearm and isn't afraid to come inside? Drysdale comes to mind.
Very, very few players are able to switch hit effectively from both sides, that makes them very special, it also reduces the pitchers/ballparks advantages. ANY switch hitter that can hit close to as well from either side has an advantage, good for them. I never said it was an unfair advantage.
I don't know if I have been clear, but I like Mantle over Griffey as a batter. I disagree with the statement that in "no offensive area was he nearly as good as Mantle".
Mantle was CLEARLY better. But if you look at Home Runs for example, they are very close and one COULD argue that Griffey was even better if you look at Plate Appearances instead of At Bats.
For instance, in 1956, when Mantle was MVP with an insane .440 OB%, the lineup spot behind him had a .317 average and .581 SLG%. THe spot after that hit .295 and .483. So then would that make Mantle's walks even MORE valuable with such elite hitters behind him?????
So if you want to devalue Mantle's walks in 1967 and 1968 because he had trash batting behind him, then go ahead...but then don't forget to add the extra value to the walks in the years he had elite hitters batting behind him. Get it now??
Guilty
Yeah, this doesn't help you any.
Hitting left or right-handed isn't really a choice. Switch hitting is.
Again, your point was that Mantle should be downgraded for being a switch hitter because it helped him against pitchers and in certain ballparks. You wanted him punished for developing a skill that would eliminate disadvantages he might have otherwise had. That makes no sense.