Options
Who was better? Mickey Mantle or Frank Robinson?
coolstanley
Posts: 2,463 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Debate
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
0
coolstanley
Posts: 2,463 ✭✭✭✭✭
coolstanley
Posts: 2,463 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
I’d take the Mick.
Mantle played on the Yankees and won all those championships, but Frank Robinson had great careers in both leagues, even after he was traded and thought to be washed up. Triple Crown winner. I'd go with Robinson.
You got two more years worth of at bats out of Robinson. 1,900 more at bats.
If you just compare them as players using the 162 game average Mantle wins with a better OPS.
Mostly because of walks. Robinson is right there as far as hitting goes.
You can't dismiss two extra years of service at practically the same level of hitting.
Depends on how you look at it, pretty even.
When someone describes one player as "better" than another, it is usually based on a combination of three things:
1. How good each player was at their very best
2. How good each player was at their "peak" (their best 3-5 years)
3. How good each player was over the course of their career
There is no right or wrong way to combine those three, it is entirely a matter of opinion. Before I look anything up, my pick in this case is Mantle, and I suspect that the answer will be Mantle no matter how you weight the three factors; but we'll see.
My go-to stat is Win Shares, a combination of hitting and fielding contributions that by its nature already includes park adjustments. Win Shares for each player's Top 1, Top 3, Top 5, and career:
Mantle: 51, 148, 228, 565
Robinson: 41, 116, 181, 519
Mantle wins across the board, and it's not particularly close at any point. For me, Mantle wins it right here.
But there are other measures. Using the same 1, 3, 5, career breakdowns:
OPS+
Mantle: 221, 212, 204, 172
Robinson: 198, 185, 178, 154
Mantle wins, easily, no matter the breakdown.
Win Probability Added:
Mantle: 9.3, 26.7, 41.2, 94
Robinson: 7.3, 19.9, 30.6, 73
Again, Mantle wins easily no matter the breakdown.
And just in case there's a "but the postseason is all that counts" zealot among us, I'll compare those:
Rate stats (BA, OBP, SLG, OPS, WPA/game):
Mantle: .257, .374, .535, .908, .023
Robinson: .238, .356, .532, .887, .015
They're all close, but Mantle wins them all.
Mickey Mantle was better than Frank Robinson.
Pretty good stats by Dallas that gives Mantle the edge. One thing that really impresses me the most about Robinson is he won just about every award you can think of. WS MVP, AS MVP, Gold glove, batting title, triple crown, ROY, etc. Robinson put up some great career totals. Close to 600 home runs, and 12th on the all-time extra base hits list. Finished in top 10 MVP voting 10 times(Mantle 9).
Its very close for me.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Mickey Mantle. I'm going with dallas on anything baseball related. The guy's a human baseball encyclopedia. Yes, I read those long baseball debate threads.
Thats a great point. With those two milestones his legendary status would've probably been right up there with Mays and Aaron. The only other two players to achieve them along with Pujols and AROD..
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Dallas(or anyone else who wants to chime in..
Who was better? Mantle or Joe Dimaggio?
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
100% agree on what do you mean by "better"!
Frank Robinson gives you;
19 seasons playing in 143 games. 31HR, 28 DBL, .294 BA, 278 Total Bases, 82 BB 537 SLG
Mickey Mantle;
18 seasons playing in 133 games 30 HR, 19 DBL, .298 BA, 251 Total Bases, 117 BB .557 SLG
Joe DiMaggio;
13 seasons playing in 134 games, 28 HR, 30 DBL, .325 BA 303 Total Bases 74 BB, .579 SLG
I don't use a lot of the stats dallas does, some reward guys (in my opinion) for having a great month or three and then getting hurt, inflating their OPS number, making it look like they had a monster year. I also think for sluggers the base on balls is over rated.
My numbers aren't based on a 162 game season. Unless your name is Lou Gehrig or Cal Ripken, you're not playing 162 games.
As we all know, DiMaggio missed three prime years because of WWII. He was also BY FAR the best fielder of the three. Giving Joe the 3 years he missed still brings him up short in longevity, but his numbers might be even better if he had played.
Only 4 hitters in MLB history have been able to SLG as high as Dimaggio while maintaining a .325 BA; Ruth, Williams, Gehrig and Foxx, with Hornsby right there. Pretty good company! NONE of those guys were known as stellar fielders (although Babe could pitch).
I ignored Robinson's last two years when he was a player manager.
Mantle's big advantage was he walked a lot more than Frank. Would you rather have the extra HR and 9 more doubles than the 35 walks? Depends, do I get Yogi Berra hitting next?
I say if Dimaggio gets those three years, he's going to get a lot more credit than he does, but he didn't.
If Mantle could have stayed healthy it would be NO CONTEST, but he couldn't.
I would pick Robinson, he played in more games and was as good or better than Mantle in some areas.
The difference is pretty slim.
Mantle was better than Robinson. But Eddie Gaedel had them both beat with a career 1.000 on base percentage. That truly is remarkable.
Just so there's no confusion, of the three stats I summarized only OPS+ is a rate stat; if you don't like that one, ignore it. The other two, Win Shares and WPA, are cumulative, and what they show is that despite playing fewer games than Robinson per year, he was still winning more games for his team than Robinson. Per game, Mantle was so much better than Robinson that he remains better even after you give him 10 0's for the extra games he missed each year.
What you're missing here is the outs they each made. With Mantle you get 10 walks while Robinson gets a HR and 9 doubles. But then you also get Mantle walking 25 more times while Robinson makes 25 outs. Actually, it's Mantle walking 25 more times while Robinson makes 26-27 outs because Robinson grounded into twice as many DPs as Robinson.
The other thing that you're missing is the park adjustment. There is a pervasive myth that Yankee Stadium was an easy HR park, particularly for lefties, but it wasn't. Mantle hit 4 more HR on the road than he did at home. Robinson, on the other hand, did play in a very HR friendly park in Cincinnati and ended his career with 56 more HR at home than on the road.
If it were closer I'd be less equivocal, but it's not particularly close: Mantle was better than Robinson.
The comparison to DiMaggio is less clear, mostly because of the three years Joe D. lost to the war. But DiMaggio's Win Shares look just like Robinson's at 1, 3, and 5 years (41, 114, 180) but of course are a lot lower for his career (387). His peak WPA (8.8, 21.7, 31.8) are better than Robinson's, but still below Mantle. There was also a statement made that DiMaggio's defense was better BY FAR than Mantle's or Robinson's. No argument with respect to Robinson, but I think "BY FAR" greatly overstates DiMaggio's defensive advantage over Mantle. Mantle's knees gave out before his career was over, but before that he was about DiMaggio's equal. Yes, DiMaggio was better, but his advantage isn't all that big.
I'm willing to give DiMaggio credit for 1943-1945. I think it makes the most sense to give him credit at the level he performed in 1942, and if you do that he still falls far behind Mantle everywhere you look, and far enough behind Robinson that it's still clear that Robinson was better. But, if you give him credit for 1943-1945 at a level closer to his 1937-1941 peak, AND you give him a little extra credit for 1946-1947 (on the theory that he needed some time to get back into his playing shape), then you can get him past Robinson. If you give him credit for 1943-1947 at a level equal to his very best season (1941), then you can even get him past Mantle.
The case for giving him the credit that gets him past Robinson is defensible; not right and not wrong, but defensible. I wouldn't do it, but it can be done. But the case for giving him the credit he needs to get him past Mantle isn't defensible; it's theoretically possible that he would have been that good in those years, but there's no reason at all to think that he would have been. Getting DiMaggio past Mantle requires flat out making up numbers, and numbers that are ridiculously unlikely to have been achieved by DiMaggio.
I'd rank them Mantle, Robinson, DiMaggio. I can accept Mantle, DiMaggio, Robinson. I think any other ordering of those three is more fantasy than analysis.
We'll just have to disagree.
Good night!
I remember seeing something on TV, maybe ESPN?? in the early 90's that said Dimaggio was the greatest living Yankee. I remember thinking 'hmmm over Mickey Mantle?'
Hard to say who was better. But is there any player in history that has more WS rings than Joe Dimaggio? 9 championships out of 13 seasons aint too bad lol.
Banzai makes some great points. I like the OPS stats, but they may be a little overrated.
The only home run ball ever hit completely out of Memorial Stadium was slugged by Frank Robinson on Mother's Day, May 8, 1966, off Cleveland Indians pitcher Luis Tiant. It cleared the left field single-deck portion of the grandstand. A flag was later erected near the spot the ball cleared the back wall, with simply the word "HERE" upon it.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Nice that we can agree, or sort of agree, on something.
Yogi Berra had 9 championships with the Yankees as well, but he was on more WS losing teams, 4.
I have a problem with giving as much credit for a base on balls to a #3 or especially #4 hitter as a Leadoff or #2 guy (actually a #8/9 batter is the one who should get the most "value" from a free pass as they kind of suck at hitting the ball).
I hate to see the Cleanup guy get pitched around. To me it's more of a victory for the pitcher to walk him than let him crush the ball.
Mantle was a spectacular player. Probably had as much, or more talent as anyone, but he was hurt a lot.
Not too many know it but Jimmie Foxx had similar athletic abilities; tremendous power and blazing speed. His lifetime numbers are similar to Micky's. Foxx doesn't get much mention here.
BTW, Foxx did not have the drinking problem that many assume he did.
Jimmie Foxx was a beast...per his nickname.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Foxx was a beast, but his stats reflect playing at a time when hitting only .300 was a sign of mediocrity, and in a park where he hit 64 more HR than he did on the road. His stats are better than anyone else's we've talked about in this thread, but I'd rank him behind Mantle, Robinson and DiMaggio.
And regarding OPS+ and whether someone "likes" the stat or not; it would be helpful if someone would explain why they don't "like" it. It is a rate stat, so obviously short career guys and long-career guys look the same if that's the only stat you look at, but surely nobody ever even suggested that you should only look at one stat. Also, while it is only a rate stat, it is king of the rate stats; its usefulness towers over the far inferior stats of batting average, OBP, slugging, etc. since OPS+ not only includes all of the information contained in all of those stats combined, it is the only one that is park adjusted. To the degree that you want to ignore all rate stats, then by all means ignore OPS+, too. But if you are looking at any rate stat other than OPS+, you are wasting your time.
And I also want to point out that I included OPS+ as one of three outstanding measures of a player's contributions to winning games, and the other two weren't rate stats, they point to identically the same conclusion as OPS+, and nobody has said, let alone explained, that they don't "like" those stats. There are flaws in using OPS+ alone, WPA alone, and Win Shares alone in evaluating a "better than" comparison, but I am not aware of any case where all three stats tell the same story and all three stats are wrong, at least where the players involved played within a generation of each other. Foxx's productive career ended in 1941, and Robinson's started in 1956; any era adjustment needed to compare these players is too small to worry about.
Finally, Frankie Crosetti "won" as many World Series as Lou Gehrig, Hank Bauer "won" as many World Series as Mickey Mantle, and Ted Williams "won" as many World Series as Mario Mendoza. There is no worse way to compare baseball players than by counting World Series wins. Players don't win World Series, teams do.
DiMaggio v Mantle
Hear me out as I lay out a fair way to compare them.
First off, Joe DiMaggio was ready for the majors at 19. He was playing and excelling at the pro level in San Francisco. There’s plenty of stories about why Joe spent ‘35 there; none involve ‘improved batting’ and he wasted his 20 year old season in the PCL before hitting the ground running for the Yankees in ‘36, became a hero in ‘37 and a legend in ‘41.. .
Mickey Mantle is my favorite player to collect*. Setting that aside, his ‘51 season (19) was forgettable and ‘52 was quite solid. He became a hero in the ‘52 series and a legend in ‘56...
So it seems to me the fairest way to match up their careers is to dump Mickey’s first two seasons and then remove his age 28, 29 and 30 seasons from his statistical totals. For the hypothetical career comparison, this removes the need to ‘make up numbers’ for Joe. It is worth pointing out two things. First, these three seasons are often where peak performance resides. Arguably, Mickey Mantle’s second best season came in this window, as an example. Second, Mantle did not have to shake off three years of rust and learn three years of new pitchers like Joe did.
I won’t presume to know the outcome of this exercise. But it would be reflective of how they performed at the same points in their respective careers.
Lastly, Joe DiMaggio and Willie Mays have long been lauded as two of the best center fielders to play in their respective leagues. I don’t think Mickey was bad but he was not the best. So if it is close then perhaps it’s wise to take the better defender.
*
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 think Mantle had an advantage over Robinson, playing for the Yankees in Yankee Stadium, that can't really be measured. also, I think Mantle was better in the field and tips the scale his way because of that. really, it does neither player justice to compare either to anyone, they were special in their own way for a long time. I remember hearing more about Mickey Mantle(he WAS a Legend) and watching more of Frank Robinson, especially once he got to Cleveland where I could see him play more often.
in a NutShell for me I only have to look at the Teams each man played on and the World Series appearances to understand the advantage that Mickey Mantle had, 12 times from 1951-1964. Amazing!!! those were some good Teams.
here's an interesting comparison from the 1961 World Series:
--- Mickey Mantle/2 games, 6 at bats/1 hit and 2 K's.
--- Frank Robinson/5 games, 15 at bats/3 hits(2 doubles, HR), 4 RBI, 3 BB and 4 K's.
The Yankees beat the Reds in 5 games and despite having a decent Series and playing in every game, Robinson couldn't beat Mantle because, in the end, it's a Team game.
I wonder what would have happened if the two had played on the other's Team??
Me too, but I'd have rather sucked like the hundreds of pitchers better than he was, like Jerry Koosman, Milt Pappas, Dennis Martinez, Andy Messersmith, John Candelaria, Orel Hershiser, Dave Stieb, Bret Saberhagen, Jimmy Key, Kenny Rogers, Frank Tanana, Wilbur Wood, Mel Stottlemyre, Paul Derringer, Vida Blue, Curt Simmons, Allie Reynolds, Sam McDowell, David Wells, Frank Viola, Tommy John, Jim Kaat, Rick Reuschel, Mel Harder, Chuck Finley, Luis Tiant, and so on and so on.
Jack Morris didn't "suck" in a literal sense; he was good enough to have a long major league career, after all. And that's as a good a descriptor of Morris as any - "good enough". But he is a veritable streak on the toilet bowl of the HOF, membership in which used to connote greatness of some kind, in a time I'm old enough to remember.
@dallasactuary - My (simple) math for the theory I posited above, with respect to WAR.
DiMaggio career WAR - 79.1 - 13 seasons
Mantle career WAR - 110.2 - 18 seasons
REMOVE for Mantle
‘51 - 1.5
‘52 - 6.4
‘60 - 6.4
‘61 - 10.4
‘62 - 6.0
Adds up to 30.7
Mantle New WAR - 78.5 (110.2 - 30.7)
Looks like a dead heat, age for age, for the two stud center fielders to me...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Fat fingers and I can’t edit...
Mantle new WAR is 79.5, not 78.5.
Changes nothing. Still a dead heat by any measure.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Foxx also played against guys like Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig (more with Gehrig), so he was playing in an era where the players were better at hitting for power and average. Foxx also demolishes Mickey in Total Bases.
Mantle had two seasons 1956-57 where he hit for a great average. Foxx had 6 seasons where he hit above .345.
Maybe it was easier to hit for a high average or maybe the players were better or maybe it's a combination of the two.
I have explained it before and you apparently missed it ;-)
OPS+ is a combination of OPS with park factor brought in to try to equalize things. Mantle and Robinson played in the same era and (for a while) in the same league, so we don't need to worry about the era debate. Saying Robinson had it easier in the park factor department is ridiculous.
How about the pitchers they had to face from 1956-63 When Robinson was in the NL? The best pitcher in the AL was Whitey Ford, followed by some good pitchers Jim Bunning and Camilio Pascual being the best over the time period. Who did Robinson have to face? Warren Spahn, Don Drysdale, Lew Burdette, Sandy Koufax, Juan Marichal, even Jim Bunning (in 1964 and 1965).
Mantle's bases on balls are really the big advantage over Robinson. I firmly believe that walks should be weighted so they have more value to an end of the order and beginning of the order batter and less to a clean up guy. That just makes sense.
"Baseballic intelligence" as Ted Williams used to say, will tell you it's much worse to walk the lead off guy than the slugger, OPS says it's the same.......it's not the same.
Secondly Mantle gets help on the park factor side because of his ability to switch hit. Robinson had to hit right handed against the right handed pitchers and always hit to the deepest fields. Mantle batted left handed about 66% of the time. Nearly every ballpark had a shorter distance to Right field than Left. this is common knowledge.
Yes, it's a positive that Mickey was a switch hitter! But if you are going to use these systems of dumping everyone's stats into the equation and coming up with a number, Mickey is going to get a inflated park factor number.
It was harder for Robinson to hit at the same level and yet he HIT better than Mantle but walked worse.
He played one more year and had 500 more hits, 50 more HR and 184 more Doubles! and 862 more total bases, that's one helluva year!
Mantle had 313 more walks.
We agree on this one completely.
And Mantle accounted for 1,787 fewer outs (own outs + DP). That is a staggering difference (4-5 seasons worth of outs for just 1 extra season played), and I absolutely agree that if you ignore it then Robinson looks better. But why ignore something so important when doing so gives you the wrong answer?
Also, with DiMaggio having stopped the year Mantle started, most of Joe’s fans are dead, as is the man himself since he passed away in 1999. Sadly, had he taken better care of himself Mickey would be 85 right now - the age of Joe at the time of his passing. There are people in there late fifties who saw Mickey play; only a 90 year old born in 1930 would have any chance of seeing DiMaggio in his prime. Even that’s a stretch...
THAT can’t be understated.
Many people that I knew with no dog in the fight who saw BOTH play described DiMaggio as the better baseball player and almost all almost all of them would also concede that Mickey was the more talented one. Sadly, they’re all gone too - most for a long time.
Again, not downgrading my favorite player; just championing a great one who seems not to get the credit he deserves because he only played 13 seasons. Again, I think calling them “equals” isn’t an insult to either player and a statistical case can be made that this is so.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
You can't make outs sitting in the trainers room. ;-)
To be honest, you ignore what you don't like all the time.
I really like your take on DiMaggio, he gets very little credit here.
I believe that you honestly believe that, but that doesn't make it so. Recall that I posted the stats that prove, to me anyway, that Mantle was not just better but clearly better than Robinson. Now I don't honestly know whether you just ignored what I posted, but I do know you didn't acknowledge any of what I posted, and you certainly didn't refute any of it. When I post Win Shares, WPA, and OPS+ - all of which take into account HR, doubles, and total bases among so many other things - you can't (you did, but I mean you can't without looking silly) claim that I ignored those stats. In fact, that's the beauty of the stats that I posted - they don't ignore anything. To refute them, as you are sort of trying to do, absolutely requires that YOU ignore the information that you don't "like" that is contained in those stats, and instead pick and choose random subsets of those stats, like HR, doubles, and TB, to make your case.
In the end, your argument boils down to "Robinson played longer", and obviously I can't refute that. What you're ignoring is that despite not playing as long, Mantle still won more games for his team because he was that much better than Robinson in the games he did play.
I don't ignore your "facts" some of them are great and some are not. You are correct, "your" stats don't ignore anything, they have too much information, and they ignore other factors.
Like I have said (repeatedly) an OPS+ number of 196 is awesome, but how about if it's done for only 65 games?
In 1963 those were Mantle's numbers. In the same year, in one of his poorest seasons, Robinson had a + of 133 but he played in 140 games. Mantle was better when he played, but he played a LOT less. All the games he missed there was a huge loss of production. Being a superstar cuts both ways, when you play, you help your team more, when you don't you hurt the team even MORE.
So, if you are going to (correctly) say "Mantle still won more games for his team because he was that much better than Robinson in the games he did play. " then you MUST also concede that Mantle "lost" more games for his team because he was that much better than Robinson in the games he did not play. You can't have both sides of the coin.
The numbers you like that are figured by adding in every player in the league don't "prove" things, they are evidence, not proof. My numbers are a head to head comparison, I don't care how Mario Mendoza hit during the same years in the same parks.
I disproved the Park Factor in the comparison of the two players because it's flawed when comparing a RH to a LH to a switch hitter. Right handed batters almost always have a disadvantage because the fences in LF are farther than in RF.
With the majority of RH pitchers this also hurts a RH batter as he is facing a tougher matchup 66% (or so) of the time.
Hardest for a RH batter, then LH batter easiest for a Switch Hitter. This doesn't denigrate Mantle in any way, these are facts.
Add in the fact that there were 4-5 HOF pitchers in the NL and none in the AL has to effect the comparison, even if only a little.
How about the batters in the AL that Mantle was competing against after Ted Williams retired? Killebrew, Kaline, Yaz. Not quite as impressive as Mays, Aaron, Clemente, Banks, Mathews etc. Easier to stand out when the competition isn't as good.
Lastly I explained the difference in their values by stating the obvious that middle of the lineup guys are getting extra credit for the base on balls. I will agree that Mantle's walks early in his career had better than average value, but after 1961 they weren't worth nearly as much.
I don't "like" your numbers because they fail to take some obvious, irrefutable information into consideration.
Mantle certainly would have been better had he stayed healthy. His 1955-58 seasons show it, and his short return to greatness 1961-62 (before again being injured) show that he had more ability. Robinson makes up a lot of ground by staying healthy and playing more games.
You just don't need the information from every single player that played during the time frame 1951-1974 added in.
Their batting average was about equal and their slugging percentage was also about equal. They hit safely and for the same number of bases almost identically, but Robinson did it longer and more often.
Mantle's advantage in the numbers is because he walked more. A slugger's value should be tied more to his hitting than walking. He DESERVES more credit as long as you are using a flawed system, that's where you have to bring in some baseball common sense.
Both were outfielders. Mantle gets some extra credit for playing CF.
Simple answer to the question the OP asked is; Mantle was better.
More thoughtful and more accurate answer is; if he was, it was very, very close.
how much better would Robinson's stats be if he played half of his career games in Yankee Stadium?? how much worse would Mantle's stats have been without having played half his career games in Yankee Stadium??
some stats can't be measured, even when they have been distorted by the playing field.
As I understand it the geniuses have come up with this park factor, but it's too generic to really mean anything. Unless the park has the same dimensions to all fields (and some do) it's going to be harder for a right handed batter to hit home runs than a left handed batter.
That's exactly why I use the basic stats and common sense.
It is by all accounts a very difficult comparison. I do agree that having played additional games does count for a lot. One of the best abilities in your "availability".
As my personal preference goes, I'd rather have my best player swing the bat in cases where he has a chance to drive in runs; he gives his team the better chance to score runs that if other teammates were hitting in that spot. With a 3-1 count and men on base, I'd rather him be swinging at pitches just off the plate or a little high/low. Making those additional outs still gave my team a better chance; it doesn't always work out but the odds are better.
I agree. When you're out of the lineup the guy replacing you is a backup and if you are as good as a Mantle that is a HUGE difference.
Ted Williams was sometimes criticized for his failure to do that.
It still gets me fired up when I watch a clean up hitter take those close pitches with men on. Players look for the "big hit" all the time. In this era of shifts, you would thing hitters would learn to go with pitches and take the ball the other way for an automatic hit. Seems to me that they try to reinvent the game, but it's still the same.....Score more runs than the other team!!!!
"Too much information"? Um, OK. Neither one of us has any idea what you meant by that, and I won't embarrass you by asking. Let's just agree to pretend that you didn't say that.
You keep going back to OPS+ in short seasons. Nobody knows why. That short season of Mantle's wasn't included in his top 1, 3, or 5 seasons, and its weight in his career OPS+ is virtually nil, because it was such a short season. Please either stop worrying about this non-issue or ask me to explain to you what OPS+ is.
Just so we're clear, this has nothing at all to do with OPS+, but rather to WPA. WPA measures the contribution of each plate appearance a player had during his career; how much did that appearance improve or reduce his team's probability of winning? Whenever Mantle, or anyone else, doesn't play they have no effect on the outcome of the game. I had that filed away under "Duh", but I dug it out for this post. Over the course of his career, Mantle "won" 94 games, or rather he improved his team's chances of winning to a degree equal to winning 94 games all by himself. Robinson "won" 73 games. Yes, Robinson played longer, but there is no such thing as a major league baseball player who could play instead of Mantle for those extra years Robinson played who could have "lost" enough games in that short a period to bring the Mantle/other guy combination all the way down to Robinson's level.
Obviously no baseball stats can "prove" anything, which is why I said they proved this particular case "to me". But, the three stats I referenced do provide a mountain of evidence so high that I can't conceive of a way to get over it. On the same note, the prosecution didn't "prove" OJ was a murderer, but I'd feel really, really stupid if I couldn't see where all that evidence pointed.
No, you didn't "disprove" anything, although I appreciate the irony of you posting this immediately after your preceding paragraph (I LOL'ed). But yes, park factors - which play no role in WPA, by the way - are determined for all players and there can be a difference between the theoretical factors that would apply to lefties and righties. The thing is, since park factors are determined based on everyone who hits in the park, lefties and righties, they are exactly correct for switch hitters, and incorrect (by a generally very small amount) for lefties and righties. I had never thought about this before, and even though you helped me see that the opposite of what you said is actually true, I do thank you for getting me to see it.
Here, you are reverting to the so-painful-my-eyes-bleed argument that players good enough to switch hit don't deserve credit for being good enough to switch hit. I had hoped you had abandoned this one and, again, I'm going to pretend you didn't say it.
The difference in hitters could affect OPS+, although not nearly as much as you appear to be implying. But you forgot Bob Lemon, Early Wynn, Jim Bunning (until 1964), Hoyt Wilhelm, and Catfish Hunter. Throw in pitchers who could easily be in the HOF but don't happen to be like Billy Pierce, Tommy John and Jim Kaat, and pitchers who were easily HOF caliber but broke down too soon like Dean Chance and Sam McDowell, and the difference in pitching between the AL and NL wasn't worth worrying about.
Again, they are getting that "extra" credit - to the degree that it is extra; you keep stating it but not providing any evidence to support it - in OPS+ only. I think that given your unhealthy obsession with OPS+ you should stop talking about it, and just skip over it if you see me mention it.
I'll bite; what "irrefutable" information?
Yes, Robinson played longer. You have convinced me of that.
You left out "and made fewer outs". I don't want to make the uncharitable assumption that you don't understand how important that is, so I'll assume you just forgot to say it.
I LOL'ed again. I am using a "flawed system", whereas your system includes measuring players by how well they match up to JoeBanzai's personal preferences. C'mon, man, you're killing me.
I have no idea what this means.
You left off "really well, while Robinson played RF and LF so-so". Oh, and you meant to say "a lot of extra credit". You're welcome.
Agreed - that answer is really, really simple to see.
OK, fine. I can agree to define the difference as "very, very close" as long as that's not confused with "so close I can't drive a truck between them". Because I can.
Which one had the better supporting cast of team mates? This may have aided in better stat compilations. Setting the table for the power HR hitters by getting on base, which increase RBI production, which increases win probability.
I agree. When you're out of the lineup the guy replacing you is a backup and if you are as good as a Mantle that is a HUGE difference.
this didn't seem to matter in the 1961 World Series when both men played against each other(see my post above). Mantle played in only two games and was wholly ineffective, Robinson played in five games and made a difference.
the Yankees won the series in five games, Mickey Mantle doesn't seem to have been missed and Robinson doesn't seem to have mattered much. that goes directly to a point I also made above, echoed by BLUEJAYWAY --- Which one had the better supporting cast of team mates?? ignore these things if you like in defense of Mickey Mantle, but they do matter and should cause anyone to think.
the Yankees were stacked!!
You are correct. It's a team game. One individual can sometimes be a deciding factor, but teams win championships.
Good teammates also help your numbers. That's why I stay away from Runs scored and RBI when comparing players.
LOL all you want, mocking the other guy is a sure sign you can't (and you still haven't) refuted ANY of my points.......because you can't.
Your modern age stats are interesting but not as useful as you claim them to be in comparing two players.
You keep saying Robinson made more outs which is true. I addressed that. Same BA and SLG (almost exactly, extremely slight edge to Mickey), but Mantle walked more so he gets the better OBP and OPS.
Park factor is a part of OPS+ and it doesn't account for the difficulty of a RH over LH or Switch Hitter. Walks are over valued for a slugger, so that should be taken into account as well. Mantle gets two factors in his favor here. Either his OPS+ is too high or Robinson's is too low.
Neither guy was a great outfielder. Mantle gets a slight edge for CF.
During his career Mantle missed 427 games. In his first 18 years Robinson missed 278. You get almost an entire year of games from Frank when Mickey was unavailable to play. 149 games. Then you get another 129 games from Frank, because he played an additional year.
278 games. I guess he's going to make more outs. Also hit 50 more HR and almost 200 more 2B and 778 TB.
Mantle might have been a "better" player, but Robinson did more for his team. I'll take his (almost) 2 extra years of performance at a slightly lower level over Mantle's slightly higher numbers.
I'll let most of it go now, but Imma try one more time to get you to see some points that you are flat out missing.
Exactly. For a huge percentage of their plate appearances, Mantle and Robinson were effectively equals. Beyond that, Mantle was drawing walks while Robinson was making outs. I know they're "just walks", but you seem to be trying to compare them to Robinson's HR or something else, but you've already acknowledged that their SLG were about equal. It's Robinson's outs that Mantle's walks should be compared to, and once you do that the "who is better" question simply answers itself.
The "difficulty of a RH over a LH or a Switch Hitter" is irrelevant. You want to downgrade Mantle for having a skill Robinson didn't have, and that makes no sense. That Mantle could switch hit made him a better hitter, and more valuable to his team. Period. That skill made it possible for Mantle to create more runs in Yankee Stadium (and every other stadium) than less skilled hitters. Period. You keep repeating this "point" as if makes an iota of sense. It doesn't. Period.
No, Mantle was a great outfielder, for half a career or so. After that, he was still good enough to play CF, he just wasn't a great CF anymore. But, at no point in their careers was Robinson as good an OF as Mantle; he was much, much worse for a decade or so, and then became only marginally worse as Mantle slowed down.
I don't know how to refute your "point" that Robinson did more for his team other than to provide you with the stats that clearly say otherwise. Robinson would have had to play another six or seven years beyond the extra two he did play to catch up to Mantle in terms of contributions to winning games. That's what the stats say, and that's what every single person who has ever published a ranking of players has said. Your 100% unsupported opinion that everyone but you is wrong is your right to proclaim as a proud American, but it's not an opinion that will be taken seriously.
@dallasactuary
Any thoughts on DiMaggio v Mantle?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
You mean besides what I already posted, I assume.
The theory you posted is similar to others I've seen in arguments that DiMaggio was better than Mantle. And I'll say right up front that there's no way to say your theory is wrong. What I don't like about your theory, and all of the others I've seen, is that it depends as much or more on assumptions as it does on data.
If DiMaggio had made the majors at 19, and
if DiMaggio was in fact ready at 19, and
if DiMaggio had been as good at 19 and 20 as Mantle, and
if DiMaggio hadn't lost 3 years to the war, and
if DiMaggio had played in those three years as well as Mantle did at the same ages, and
if DiMaggio's play after the war was worse than it otherwise would have been, and
if DiMaggio had played in the three years after the war as well as Mantle did at those same ages, and
if DiMaggio had avoided injury in all eight of the seasons we're giving him extra credit for,
then, and only then, does DiMaggio appear roughly equal to Mantle.
The thing is, I can construct an argument with fewer "ifs" that puts Dickie Thon in the Hall of Fame.
By the Win Shares method, the Holy Grail of baseball stats, DiMaggio's best actual season, 1941, was equal in value to Mantle's 4th best season (1955; with 1957, 1956, and 1961 being his top 3). Your theory requires us to give DiMaggio credit for having several seasons that were better than any actual season he ever had. You can do that, and there exists the possibility that you're right, but I don't see any reason to assume that far less likely scenarios would have played out than the more likely scenarios. And the more likely scenarios don't get DiMaggio up to Mantle.
Maybe you should re-read what I wrote?
I’m not trying to give credit to Joe for things he didn’t accomplish and move him up to 18 seasons but rather find a way to convert Mantle to a ‘Joe D like’ 13 seasons.
When I did it with WAR, they were dead even and I am curious if the other two metrics you prefer for player evaluation produce a similar finding.
There’s almost no ‘if’s’ at all to the argument as a matter of fact. You’re just taking 5 years off of Mickey at the same ages Joe didn’t get to play. As such, 1961 is out for Mickey in this scenario so he’ll lose one of his top 3 seasons...
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's 56 game hit streak is pretty impressive. Do you agree, Dallas?
1941 was not Dimaggio's best year. It was 1939 when he hit 381 and had a slightly higher OPS.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
@dallasactuary
I am not trying to antagonize you; I am actually just looking for more information by which to compare them. You’re a smart guy and a good writer and while I don’t always agree with the delivery, you put many worthy points to consider in your posts.
In these thought experiments I agree that it’s hard to add fairly to Joe D to get to Mickey but I thought taking away time at common points from Mickey might create a more level ground by which the evaluate them.
I think for many of the best players, ages 27-30 tends to produce some of the best seasons of a career and Mickey is no exception. Hard to think Joe puts up three clunkers with the seasons that bookended it, you know?
I don’t think it’s a stretch to concede that Joseph Paul DiMaggio would have been a credible major league baseball player in 1934-35. The league was a step below the bigs BUT was comprised of many future and former major leaguers, founded only two years after the AL and at the time Joe played only two clubs had any affiliation with Major League teams. Since there was no MLB team west of St. Louis until the Dodgers moved to California in 1959, this was where the best players on the left coast began their careers. In his first full season he had a 61 game hitting steak and the next season batted . 398 with 154 runs batted in and 34 home runs. His team won the 1935 PCL title, and DiMaggio was named the league's Most Valuable Player.
Any guy like that can contribute to a major league team in some way and with the benefit of hindsight, I feel like it’s a mistake to call this an ‘if’...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
True.
Partially True.
False.
You continue to accuse me of "downgrading" Mantle, I'm not. It's simply a fact that it's harder for a right handed batter to hit home runs (therefore making more outs) than a left hander or a switch hitter. ALL players that hit left, or in Mickey's case, both, had it a little easier. This does not "denigrate" them, it's just a fact. Park factor "denigrates" players who played in easier parks most of the time, it just needs to also adjust for the fact that lefties have it easier in (almost) every park.
False.
Mantle was not a great outfielder. Even he said so. Just because he was fast doesn't mean he was a great fielder. He was also never the same in throwing ability after hurting his shoulder in the 1956 WS, he also said that himself. You really should expand the areas you get your information from beyond the stat sheet. I have 5 or 6 books that discuss Mantle, with contributions from players he played with or against. None of them claim he was a great fielder, because he wasn't.
Time after time I have showed you that the stats you are using are skewed in Mantle's favor and therefore need to be adjusted in Robinson'e favor. That might not quite be enough to make them equal as ballplayers but an (almost) extra four years of play (1,900 AB) certainly does.
It's really quite similar to how Dimaggio is hurt by missing time because of WWII, except Mantle was hurt. DiMaggio was quite possibly better than either of the other two, certainly as a fielder, and generally gets dismissed as a GOAT candidate because of a shorter career.
Yet Mantle only had 1281 more at bats than DiMaggio, while having 1,900 at bats less than Robinson.
You can't help the club when you're in the tub.
I think you make a GREAT case for DiMaggio. It sure seems to be that he "deserves" some credit for those three years.
I think it's more fair to give him credit for something he did rather than reduce Micky's career, but they both retired at the same age (Mickey did get an earlier start) so that was equal.
WWII is really a one time event as an effect on baseball records. It doesn't seem fair to me that guys get "hurt" because they served their country.
One would assume he would produce at a level that he had been before going in, especially when you see he did well as late as 1950.
I still like Mantle, but as with Robinson, there are reasons to like the other guy.
1937 was a better year for him too.
I'm not "accusing" you of anything except for being flat out wrong. The park factor is a measure of how much a run is "worth" in a given park. If it takes (I'm going to make numbers up) 5 runs to win an average game in an average park, and it takes only 4 runs to win a game in one specific park, then a run in that specific park is worth 1.25 as much as a run is worth elsewhere. Now, there is only one park factor per park and I agree that there can be some distortion in some cases (like Fenway) where batting right makes mediocrities like Jim Rice look good, but batting left isn't nearly as easy, yet lefties get the same park adjustment. So, if Fenway's park factor is 1.10, then maybe righties should be getting 1.15 and lefties 1.05, or something like that. But, and if you don't see this I can't help you, for a switch hitter the park factor of 1.10 is necessarily, by definition, correct. When you say Mantle had it "easier", well, first I laugh, but then I think "sure, players with greater skills always have it easier than players with lesser skills". I guarantee you that Mantle's park factor is correct and requires no adjustment whatsoever, because he was a switch hitter. If there is a case to be made that Robinson has the wrong park factor because his parks favored lefties more than righties, then try to make that case (best of luck to you). But leave Mantle out of the park adjustment conversation.
We can leave the word "great" out of it since it isn't defined anyway. Mantle was, for many years, a much better than average center fielder, and an average center fielder after that. Robinson was an average to below average OFer for most of his career until he was no longer good enough to play in the OF at all. The gap in value between Mantle and Robinson isn't nearly as large as the gap in their offensive value, but it is clear. Added to the offensive gap, it creates a large enough gap that the only way to miss it is to not know where to look.
No, you keep stating it, and then backing it up with nothing but provably incorrect assertions. I'm looking at stats that take everything into account except your feels. You have demonstrated that your feels are impenetrable by facts, which is why we're just going in circles. I'm done talking about Robinson, so you may have the last word if you want it.