List the position players that were better than Mickey Mantle.
Coinstartled
Posts: 10,135 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
If still active...at least ten years in the league.
0
Comments
I think the candidates are Honus Wagner, Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, and Willie Mays.
There are some excellent stats to measure "better than", but there are three factors that must necessarily be subjective: the level of competition at the time the player played (the era adjustment), the relative value of peak and career performance, and how to assign value to years spent in military service. Also, fielding contributions aren't exactly subjective but there is a much lower level of precision involved in their measurement.
With Ruth and Cobb, and especially Wagner, any comparison to Mantle is going to begin and end with the era adjustment. Leaving aside the offensively stupid arguments that Babe Ruth couldn't even compete today, it is true that his level of competition was lower than Mantle's, and higher than Cobb's and Wagner's. Bill James has his own era adjustment, but I'm certain he'd admit it's just a guess. But, guess or not, it doesn't produce any results that just make you go "WTF?". And if you make an era adjustment that reduces Ruth to a level below Mantle, you'll get a whole lot of WTF results when you start comparing other players using those same adjustments. I'm comfortable that no matter how you weight peak and career performance, Ruth is the GOAT, and better than Mantle.
The era adjustment takes on even more importance when you get to Wagner, the player who dominated his competition to the greatest degree in baseball history (yes, moreso than Ruth). I am also comfortable that Wagner deserves to be on the "better than Mantle" list, but less so than I am with Ruth.
With Cobb, the era adjustment still dominates the comparison, but Cobb adds the factor of an incredibly long career. If you weight career higher than, or even equal to, peak performance, I think Cobb beats Mantle. Since I do weight career performance at that level, I also have Cobb on my "better than Mantle" list, but my weighting isn't better than anyone else's, and if you have Mantle over Cobb, I won't argue.
Williams and Mays careers overlapped with Mantle's significantly, and the era adjustment all but disappears as a significant factor. But with Williams you've got a huge chunk of his career lost to military service, and with Mays you've got a smaller chunk lost to military service, and you've also got a player who led the league in OBP at age 40.
In the end, I think Williams was a better hitter than Mantle but his contributions pretty much ended there, and overall Mantle squeaks by him. With Mays, I've gone back and forth on his place relative to Mantle (you can find threads in the Wayback Machine here where I've said Mantle was better, and other where I've said Mays was better). I should probably just state for the record that I don't know, and call it a tie.
The only current player even close is Trout, but he's at least half a dozen seasons away from serious consideration, and only if those seasons are better than the one's he's had so far.
Great evaluation, Dallas.
The tie with Mays is a good conclusion. I always had Mays ahead but that was probably because he was on a Bewitched episode.
What the hell
I’m shocked Dallas didn’t put his Hero Ron Santo ahead of Mantle!
Good evaluation dallas.
I don't get into the era argument, to me it's unproveable and pointless.
I'll say Ruth was better.
Then, I'm not sure what the OP means by "better". Most of the other guys didn't hit for much power, but made up for that in other ways. Williams certainly was a better hitter, but not as good in the field or on the bases. Mays being a tie sounds fair if you say that Mantle had the better peak and Willie had the longevity.
Speaking of longevity, if you factor that in, a case could certainly be made for Cobb and Wagner.
Pure baseball ability in every aspect of the game goes to Ruth because he was also a very good pitcher. Mantle would be next.
Remember what Casey Stengle said about Mickey; "More speed than any slugger, more slug than any speedster and more of both together than anybody ever", or words to that effect.
I would also like to add Jimmy Foxx to the discussion, he was the "first" Mickey Mantle. I don't think he was better, but very similar in a lot of ways.
Here is my list:
Foxx was indeed a stud, but he's clearly a level below the GOAT candidates. Mostly, his last good season was at age 33, and even Mantle, who loses longevity points to all the other candidates, was great right up to retiring at age 36. In a "peak only", "hitting only" analysis, though, he gets into the conversation.
The guys that I left out that do deserve at least a shout out are Speaker, Musial, and Aaron. They are maybe a quarter of a level below the GOAT candidates, but they all played at exactly the same time as one of the GOAT candidates I listed, and lose in those direct comparisons (Speaker to Cobb, Musial to Williams, and Aaron to Mays), if only by a hair.
Barry Bonds
I hate him. Dude could RAKE
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
DiMaggio also deserving of a mention. The Koufax of hitters in a way...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I recently finished reading a biography of Foxx; Jimmie Foxx: The Pride of Sudlersville by Mark R. Millikin.
I learned a lot about Mr. Foxx that I didn't know, he was obviously a great hitter, but also a great runner with a great arm. His career did end sooner than some, but his offensive numbers are ALL better than Mantles especially BA. I don't care about OPS+, never have, never will. Foxx's SLG at .609 going along with his lifetime BA of .325 id quite a bit better than Mantle's.
He was still pretty good at the age of 37 with Philadelphia hitting .268 and SLG .420 both numbers higher than Mickey's final season. Mickey did play more games and walked more at the same age.
Both were three time MVP's and triple crown winners and they had almost exactly the same number of AB.
Him being primarily a first baseman hurts, but he could also catch and that's a plus.
I would give Mickey the nod here, but not by much.
Foxx and Musial don't get mentioned here too much, especially Foxx.
He was great when he was taking steroids, that's for sure. Before that not so impressive. Check out his HR per AB totals, it will show you a LOT.
I’m going by what he did on the field in the major leagues.
Most HR all time
Most MVPs
Best single season - ever
I don’t need it explained why or how; he did it. For a career. Plenty of guys took steroids in his era. No one else was Barry Bonds.
He should be added to that list @dallasactuary made along with Musial and DiMaggio.
I’m not saying any was clearly better but certainly worthy of being on a list of names to be considered.
Asterisks are so last century. And qualifiers are for cards...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Barry and his stats...
Everyone just picks whatever year at this point for use for him. I see productivity at EVERY age.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Bonds was awesome regardless of what anyone wants to say negatively about him, And If Teddy Ballgame didn’t miss all those years ( 5? ) to the Military his numbers would be that much more impressive, he was near his prime during those years
We'll just have to disagree on Bonds.
We will agree on Joltin' Joe!
Williams might just be the best "pure hitter" of all time, but he wasn't as good in the field.
We don’t disagree on Bonds. You, like many, choose to ignore his existence. If you acknowledged his existence, he’s the best. Maybe ever. And Arod is up there, too. maybe 2nd. Again, maybe.
Point is, they played pro baseball. This isn’t ‘do they belong in the hall?’ or ‘Positional Players Bett than Mantle who didn’t take steroids’ so to leave out Bonds is ridiculous.
It’s not debatable. In any way. Unless you pretend he never existed. In which case, feel free.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Yeah, Barry is clearly better. All-time home run records, gold glove defender, and 500 steals.
I certainly don't ignore his existence, he was a wonderful player before he took steroids and became something else. I just don't know where he should rank.
Bodybuilders simply can't become as big as they get without steroids.
Bonds and A-Rod, both being two of the most gifted ballplayers of their time were similarly helped become better than they could have without the "juice". Since the "all-time greats" didn't use steroids, I rank them higher.
I took an extensive look into Bonds' numbers and he most likely would have hit 500+ homeruns and been a HOFer, but he bulked up illegally and hit 762.
I was never a cheater when I played sports, if I wasn't better than the other guy(s), so be it. I certainly cannot accept Bonds over Henry Aaron and don't understand how any sportsman or baseball fan can.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
@JoeBanzai
A bit of Devil’s Advocate?
‘Bonds and A-Rod, both being two of the most gifted ballplayers of their time were similarly helped become better than they could have without the "juice". Since the "all-time greats" didn't use steroids, I rank them higher.’
Just about every era of baseball has seen some form of scandal, cheating and rule bending among both minor and major stars. While the guys playing today clearly derive great benefit from their use of PEDs, I am not sure why we give the benefit of the doubt to the players from long ago, many of whom - Mantle, Ruth and Cobb - were clearly men of questionable character with many documented incidents of let’s just say questionable decisions.
Again, Ruth and Mantle are two of my favorite players and characters in baseball history.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
So many choose to diminish the cheating that happened pre PED as though it didn't happen or is not that bad. Does anyone really think that if PED were available that Cobb, Ruth and the like wouldn't have partaken? Bob Gibson has stated he would have taken it given the chance. Cheating has been happening since the beginning of the sport.
I have asked the question many times before: what percentage of bonds home runs should we subtract? What about Sosa? Mcgwire?
What percentage of whitey fords career should we erase? Don drysdale? Gaylord Perry?
What about Mays, Aaron and Williams?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
So he got off to a “”slow” Start? He was a 5 tool player and we don’t know exactly when he started the PEDS
Sober up gents.
Dave Kingman.
Andy
So we should discount a players stats because they might have abused substances if they were available.
If i owned a Lamborgini Countach I may well get a speeding ticket today. I don't though, but I guess I could. WTF.
This is pretty much right on. I would say Bonds was a very good player, but if you take the time to look at what virtually every HOF hitter did at the beginning of their careers, you will quickly see that the great ones were great pretty much from the start.
I had an old software program for baseball that showed a graph of how the greats did and within a year of becoming a major league full time player they were hitting about as well as they ever would. They maintained this level (not perfectly, but surprisingly level) until the numbers took a pretty big drop and their careers were soon over. The difference was that guys like Aaron and Mays kept their production at the high level for a longer period.
Looking at Bonds and Arod (especially Bonds) coupled with the steroid factor, it makes a very compelling piece of evidence that they were doing things that they otherwise could not have done.
Comparing steroids to the way players cheated in the past is ridiculous.
Not sure I see your point.
If you have the Lamborghini and I have a Ferrari, then you put on an illegal supercharger and beat me, your car wasn't actually better.
He bring this up every time and I just don't get it.
Steroids change your body and the other ways of cheating usually only worked some of the time.
This is another never agree thread.
Have a good Holiday guys!
Sorry...the quotes got messed up. I was countering the argument that players of a previous generation would have taken PEDS had they been available.
I do believe Bonds was heading towards a HOF career (he did win 3 MVPs before most people believe he began using PEDs), but he is not among the all time greats without the systematic use of PEDs and as such his stats need to be discounted.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Please just take the name away for a minute and look at his numbers. They are a sight to behold. I consider myself an objective historian - I always try to have no agenda and interpret facts logically. You’d be surprised how hard it can be.
The two best players on the potential list - Mays and Bonds - were black, had superior numbers to my favorite player Mickey> @JoeBanzai said:
Sure but it did win the race.
To stick with the analogy, stop looking under the hood for a minute.
People often resort to theses tactics when they don’t want to admit the truth. I was never a Barry Bonds fan. He was arrogant, he took PEDs, lied about it and broke many meaningful records.
I am not happy about it but you still have to go out there and do it. So many guys did it but they don’t all have the records.
I’m not declaring him on the list, either, but pointing out that the reasons people leave him out have nothing to do with what he did as a positional player for the Pirates and Giants.
And I think that was the original question - positional players better than the Mick.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Just to clarify, I never said Bonds was better than Mays or Williams. My #1 is Mays followed by Williams. Given the overall production career wise I’d take Bonds over Mantle or Aaron regardless if he was t good his first 4 years or not.
Nope.
The question wasn't who held the records, but who was better. Bonds better than Mantle? Laughable.
I'm out.
This is where we disagree. There is a rule in baseball that steroids are not allowed. Bonds took steroids. Therefore, Bonds was not playing baseball. You can argue the point if you wish - it's a free country - but if you do you'll be wrong.
As for the pre-cheating Bonds, he was great. He wasn't anywhere near Mantle/Ruth great, but he was great. His closest comparison would probably have been Frank Robinson if he'd finished out his career with a shred of dignity. But, since he chose to make a mockery of the game and fools of the people who rooted for him, where his baseball career actually ended leaves him with a closest comparison of Dick Allen.
I think it is absolutely insane to believe that the only possible candidates better than Mantle all played with Mantle or before.
Seems something is grossly wrong when any player beginning his career after 1960 will never be better than the best of the players that began their careers between 1895-1950.
Like I said before, the fact that Babe Ruth out homered every team in the league is more of an indictment on his competition, than it is a testament to his greatness.
If not fully accounting that the competition is mostly responsible for the statistical giants that are impossible to supplant, then why do we stop at 1900? Lets continue that trend, and then Jim Creighton beats them all.
Here is one fact for Jim Creighton:
"But the best was to be saved for last. After another championship campaign in 1861, Creighton went through the 1862 season as not only the game's peerless pitcher but also its top batsman, being retired only four times, either in plate appearances or on the basepaths."
Read that again, Jim Creighton was retired only four times during the season. There we have the biggest statistical giant of all.
If Babe Ruth's out-homering entire teams is to be taken at face value(face value including the so-called era adjustments already)....then Jim Creighton being the best pitcher, AND only being retired four times in a season puts him far ahead of Ruth. Far ahead.
Obviously I don't believe Creighton is the best, but if the analysts are going to continue as they have been, and as they are in this thread, then Creighton is indeed better than Ruth.
Until someone unearths a league that was played in the 1700's...and some other giant emerges, impossible to supplant.
Skin, I follow your analysis to the degree that anyone here is arguing that Ruth out-homering entire teams for a year or two early in his career is important to his status as the GOAT. But nobody is making that argument, and in fact you're the only one who ever mentions it.
Leaving aside that bit of trivia, your argument appears to be that Ruth's level of competition was so low that it is not possible for him to have been the GOAT. Logically, that argument doesn't work, so I assume there's more to it than that. It would help a lot if you would list, in order, who you believe to be the 5 or 10 greatest baseball players of all time. From that, I can figure out what kind of era adjustment you're making. If Ruth comes out lower than 2nd, then it will simply not be possible for anyone else from pre-WWII to overcome your era adjustment to make the top 10, and you will then have created the same "insane" result - but in reverse - that you're criticizing.
As for post-Mays players who can be considered GOAT candidates, who do you have in mind (please, for the love of God, don't say Barry Bonds)? Morgan and Schmidt were certainly great, but I don't see how they can be considered as good as Mantle. Who is it that you think compares favorably to Mantle in the past 50 years?
Dallas hate to break it to you but Bonds was actually playing baseball when he was on steroids , just like 95% of his peers were at that time. You can keep repeating that same stupid “He wasn’t playing baseball “ over and over again but it simply don’t make you right regardless of how smart you think you are.
Paul - ever notice there’s ALWAYS A REASON why the black guy with the better numbers isn’t actually better?
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, the race card just got played...
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I never can understand how someone so intelligent can say something so silly. I hate so break it to you, but bonds was in fact playing baseball.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
It all boils down to the fact that we will never know exactly how many did or did not use PED. We will never know how many players used illegal substances or equipment. Baseball has never had a level plAying field. I cannot account for what percentage of any players stats should be deducted for breaking rules. I will not make moral judgements about what some players did or didn't do. I just let the stats speak for themselves
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.