@dallasactuary said:
Google "best OPS career in World Series" and you get (from the AI): "Minimum 100 Plate Appearances: Hall of Famer Reggie Jackson holds the highest career OPS for players with extensive World Series experience at .755 (with a minimum of 116 plate appearances). Jackson slugged 10 home runs over his World Series career."
This tells us two things: first, don't ever trust AI. the .755 the AI refers to as Jackson's OPS is just his slugging average. His actual OPS is 1.212. The AI is also wrong about this being the highest career World Series OPS; both Ruth and Gehrig had an OPS of 1.214. Second, it tells us that Reggie has an outstanding claim to the title of "Mr. October".
My question to anyone who disagrees is, if not Reggie, then who? If you want to give the title to Ruth or Gehrig, OK, I won't object strongly. But if they had a way to calculate OPS+ for World Series play, Jackson would win, easily, and he was a better fielder and baserunner than Ruth or Gehrig. So the answer to the question "Who was the best player in World Series history?" is probably Reggie. It would be my answer if St. Peter asked me at the Pearly Gates and I needed to be right to get in.
I'm ignoring playoffs because they have nothing at all to do with why he was named "Mr. October", and because Ruth and Gehrig, his only serious competition for the title, didn't have playoffs so it's apples and oranges. Billy Hatcher, who was nominated to be intentionally funny, and George Brett, whose nomination I fear was not intentionally funny, are not serious answers. Does anyone have an answer, other than Reggie, that they would give to St. Peter, with eternity on the line?
Pretty much correct on all counts(and in regard to Hatcher and the sarcastic Brett post).
If we are just going by the World Series numbers and not applying some magical ability, then I would sincerely nominate Lenny Dykstra.
100 Plate Appearances is an arbitrary number and a small sample itself, so I won't fret that Dykstra only has 61 plate appearances...heck, there are people on here who have drawn conclusions based on 14 plate appearances, so 61 must seem like a mountain to them.
Dykstra has a 1.124 World Series OPS with 6 HR in 50 at bats. Not as good as Reggie, but Dykstra has has 4 stolen bases to zero CS. Dykstra played CF too. Still prolly not as good as Reggie.
In terms of the semantic argument, I would count playoffs as "Mr. October," contributions. I can't presume what anyone meant when that name was created as per if it meant ALCS or WS only. I do presume that talking to sports fans about these topics forever, and knowing the opinions of the people reading these boards, that they indeed hold the ALCS or ALDS as career defining important moments even if a player never did anything in the World Series, so in my book, and on the evidence of fans' thoughts for decades, the entire post season counts.
In the end, lifetime post season OPS:
Dykstra 1.094 lifetime post season OPS
Reggie .885 lifetime post season OPS
And Dykstra played a more important defensive position.
But really, if we are only talking about the WS, then the ONLY answer is Kirk Gibson. Without question Gibson has the biggest World Series home run in history. Biggest, most dramatic, most life altering moment for a sports fan. Nothing tops it.
Gibson was also a much bigger reason for the Tiger winning the World Series in 1984, yet somehow Jack Morris gets the credit.
In the end, Gibson has a lifetime 1.324 World Series OPS with the biggest WS home run ever...the only HR that still can give anyone with a puls, goose bumps watching it now, even tho they saw it a hundred times. He won that World Series in game one on one swing of the bat. No stat can say otherwise. His persona got them there to begin with that year and that one bat in the WS was the persona of that team in the World Series.
1.324 OPS. Sample size is out the window in this thread. 100 plate appearance line drawn means nothing. Nothing at all.
And really, it should be the borderline Kirk GiBson in the HOF for the virtues that have been applied and given incorrectly to Jack Morris. It was Gibson's personality and performance as to why the Tigers won...and Gibson carried that to LA.
Kirk Gibson is Mr. World Series. He willed his way to that performance and willed those teams to victory. I got rid of the semantic element and took the liberty to change the nickname.
The real Mr. October, Kirk Gibson. I changed the name back because he deserves both titles.
Reggie was a polarizing figure amongst all sports during the glory years of his career. He couldn't help but get a nickname which defined his most memorable achievements. It's not supposed to make perfect sense nor does anyone really care much about it being his nickname. It just fits. No one else deserves the nickname besides him. The others have their own history and personal achievements that make them stand out to countless generations who follow the game. To defer from what Reggie is all about is just a silly argument from some people who can't help but drag out statistics and negative news.
There are no doubt people with many fewer plate appearances who were even better than Reggie, but Dykstra and Gibson weren't in the conversation when Reggie was crowned Mr. October. And obviously people are free to create their own titles that also reflect playoff performance, but it just a fact that when Reggie was crowned Mr. October it was because of his World Series performances only. And when he was given that title, he deserved it. The End.
Should the title now pass to Dykstra, or Gibson, or David Freese? I vote no, but a debate could be had.
And yes, Darin, Reggie was a better fielder than Ruth or Gehrig. I am surprised this was a controversial statement. Reggie was the A's backup CF. They gave several Gold Gloves to Joe Rudi for playing LF well, but that just shows how absurd it is to give a Gold Glove to a LF. When the A's needed someone in CF, they had to pick between Reggie and Rudi, and they chose Reggie.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Dallas… Ruth’s numbers actually look very good compared to Reggie. Ruth played about 140 more games in the outfield than Reggie, only had 13 more errors and a better fielding percentage than Reggie, .968 to .967 and this is the glove he wore. It doesn’t even have a pocket. Put this glove on Reggie and see how many more errors he would have made. But I don’t really care much about this argument because I know there’s no fair way to compare era’s that were so different.
I’m not an end of debate guy. I’m just saying there’s no proof Reggie was a better fielder than Ruth. Nobody here saw Ruth play. Reggie led AL right fielders in errors 7 times, Babe 0 times. Dallas is saying since the A’s put him in CF 183 games he’s better than Ruth. That’s hogwash.
@Darin said:
I’m not an end of debate guy. I’m just saying there’s no proof Reggie was a better fielder than Ruth. Nobody here saw Ruth play. Reggie led AL right fielders in errors 7 times, Babe 0 times. Dallas is saying since the A’s put him in CF 183 games he’s better than Ruth. That’s hogwash.
That's not a bad end of debate statement. You should have declared it at that point.
Reggie was almost certainly better... as you say he had a better glove... and he wasn't built like barrel man which no doubt would help with range. I'm not even positive Ruth's knees bend... Would he even be able to stand upright with modern gravity. Unanswerable questions!
You might be interested in these. this shows the coefficient of variation over time; spread of skill (based out outcomes) over time. It answers some questions and asks many more.
You might be interested in these. this shows the coefficient of variation over time; spread of skill (based out outcomes) over time. It answers some questions and asks many more.
Like I always said, it is not so much that the best two players in the league from 1920 compared 2026 are much different...its just that there are more players closer to them in 2026 compared to 1920 and the stats 'make' the 1920 guy nearly insurmountable statistically, even when being compared to their peers is the measurement being used.
Similar to the increase in pitching velocity. The league velocity hasn't risen so much because there are guys throwing 125 MPH, it has risen because there are simply MORE guys closer to the top guys.
Even way back when people were writing about the death of the .400 hitter. Hornsby hit .424 with elite power. Simply not possible now for many reasons(and Darin's glove pic above is one of them). Same with guys out homering entire teams...and it wasn't just Ruth, many guys did that. Again, not possible now for many reasons, none of which include Gavvy Cravath being a better HR hitter than Kyle Schwarber because Schwarber was not 'good enough' to out homer entire teams, while Cravath was 'that good' to achieve such a feat.
There are so many reasons for all that, and the common tirade is "well if guys back then had today's training, etc. they would be just as good." That may be true, but even if they had today's training, they would not be out homering entire teams and becoming the same legend like they did back then because they would no longer have the advantages that allowed them to do what they did back then, and their 'stats' (even compared to their peers) would simply not shine as bright.
Like even if Ozzie Smith is the best SS, Larry Bowa was 98-99% just as good. And think of all the ground balls that the elite SS like Larry Bowa gobbled up that simply couldn't in 1920 just merely because of the actual glove.
With fielding there is never "proof", there is only evidence.
Part of the comparison is that RF in Yankee Stadium was pretty small and RF (and CF) in Oakland Coliseum were enormous. Ruth wasn't slow, but he surely wasn't as fast as Reggie. In other words, by basic stats, they might look close, but Jackson's degree of difficulty in Oakland was a lot higher than Ruth's.
And just in case this isn't clear to everyone, I'm talking about Reggie when he was young, playing in Oakland. He wasn't very good by the time he got to the Yankees, but then Ruth wasn't good when he got older, either. And just in case this also wasn't clear, neither Jackson nor Ruth were ever very good outfielders. Claiming that any outfielder is better than Babe Ruth is not exactly a high bar.
My evidence for Jackson, sufficient to convince me that it is far more likely than not that he was a better fielder than Ruth is, then:
They had similar fielding stats, but Jackson compiled his in a much more challenging context.
When the A's needed a CFer (Bill North, BTW, was a great CFer), they could pick Reggie or Gold Glove Winner Joe Rudi - they always picked Reggie. (No, Joe Rudi never deserved a Gold Glove; if he was even a good fielder he would not have been in left field, and he would have played center instead of Reggie when needed).
Reggie was faster than Ruth and could cover more ground.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Comments
Pretty much correct on all counts(and in regard to Hatcher and the sarcastic Brett post).
If we are just going by the World Series numbers and not applying some magical ability, then I would sincerely nominate Lenny Dykstra.
100 Plate Appearances is an arbitrary number and a small sample itself, so I won't fret that Dykstra only has 61 plate appearances...heck, there are people on here who have drawn conclusions based on 14 plate appearances, so 61 must seem like a mountain to them.
Dykstra has a 1.124 World Series OPS with 6 HR in 50 at bats. Not as good as Reggie, but Dykstra has has 4 stolen bases to zero CS. Dykstra played CF too. Still prolly not as good as Reggie.
In terms of the semantic argument, I would count playoffs as "Mr. October," contributions. I can't presume what anyone meant when that name was created as per if it meant ALCS or WS only. I do presume that talking to sports fans about these topics forever, and knowing the opinions of the people reading these boards, that they indeed hold the ALCS or ALDS as career defining important moments even if a player never did anything in the World Series, so in my book, and on the evidence of fans' thoughts for decades, the entire post season counts.
In the end, lifetime post season OPS:
Dykstra 1.094 lifetime post season OPS
Reggie .885 lifetime post season OPS
And Dykstra played a more important defensive position.
@dallasactuary
But really, if we are only talking about the WS, then the ONLY answer is Kirk Gibson. Without question Gibson has the biggest World Series home run in history. Biggest, most dramatic, most life altering moment for a sports fan. Nothing tops it.
Gibson was also a much bigger reason for the Tiger winning the World Series in 1984, yet somehow Jack Morris gets the credit.
In the end, Gibson has a lifetime 1.324 World Series OPS with the biggest WS home run ever...the only HR that still can give anyone with a puls, goose bumps watching it now, even tho they saw it a hundred times. He won that World Series in game one on one swing of the bat. No stat can say otherwise. His persona got them there to begin with that year and that one bat in the WS was the persona of that team in the World Series.
1.324 OPS. Sample size is out the window in this thread. 100 plate appearance line drawn means nothing. Nothing at all.
And really, it should be the borderline Kirk GiBson in the HOF for the virtues that have been applied and given incorrectly to Jack Morris. It was Gibson's personality and performance as to why the Tigers won...and Gibson carried that to LA.
Kirk Gibson is Mr. World Series. He willed his way to that performance and willed those teams to victory. I got rid of the semantic element and took the liberty to change the nickname.
The real Mr. October, Kirk Gibson. I changed the name back because he deserves both titles.
Reggie was divisive.
Gibby was inspirational...end of debate.
I agree that Gibson is Mr. October for pitchers. Bob that is.
Bob isn't bad either.
Bob isn't bad either, but for pitchers there really is only once choice.
Madison Bumgarner. For World Series only. I guess that makes me a double standard. lol....because hs playoff numbers aren't as good.
Reggie was a better fielder than Ruth and Gehrig? First compliment Reggie has ever gotten on his fielding. 😂
Delirious in Dallas.
Reggie was a polarizing figure amongst all sports during the glory years of his career. He couldn't help but get a nickname which defined his most memorable achievements. It's not supposed to make perfect sense nor does anyone really care much about it being his nickname. It just fits. No one else deserves the nickname besides him. The others have their own history and personal achievements that make them stand out to countless generations who follow the game. To defer from what Reggie is all about is just a silly argument from some people who can't help but drag out statistics and negative news.
I don’t give best too much serious consideration. Bumgarner was fantastic but I said only players who wore stirrups counted!
There are no doubt people with many fewer plate appearances who were even better than Reggie, but Dykstra and Gibson weren't in the conversation when Reggie was crowned Mr. October. And obviously people are free to create their own titles that also reflect playoff performance, but it just a fact that when Reggie was crowned Mr. October it was because of his World Series performances only. And when he was given that title, he deserved it. The End.
Should the title now pass to Dykstra, or Gibson, or David Freese? I vote no, but a debate could be had.
And yes, Darin, Reggie was a better fielder than Ruth or Gehrig. I am surprised this was a controversial statement. Reggie was the A's backup CF. They gave several Gold Gloves to Joe Rudi for playing LF well, but that just shows how absurd it is to give a Gold Glove to a LF. When the A's needed someone in CF, they had to pick between Reggie and Rudi, and they chose Reggie.
Dallas… Ruth’s numbers actually look very good compared to Reggie. Ruth played about 140 more games in the outfield than Reggie, only had 13 more errors and a better fielding percentage than Reggie, .968 to .967 and this is the glove he wore. It doesn’t even have a pocket. Put this glove on Reggie and see how many more errors he would have made. But I don’t really care much about this argument because I know there’s no fair way to compare era’s that were so different.
Let’s see, now there are two official “end of debate guys”.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
🙂
Maywood started taking a supplement or something.
I’m not an end of debate guy. I’m just saying there’s no proof Reggie was a better fielder than Ruth. Nobody here saw Ruth play. Reggie led AL right fielders in errors 7 times, Babe 0 times. Dallas is saying since the A’s put him in CF 183 games he’s better than Ruth. That’s hogwash.
I have no problem calling Reggie Mr. October. That’s not what I’m debating.
That's not a bad end of debate statement. You should have declared it at that point.
Reggie was almost certainly better... as you say he had a better glove... and he wasn't built like barrel man which no doubt would help with range. I'm not even positive Ruth's knees bend... Would he even be able to stand upright with modern gravity. Unanswerable questions!
@1948_Swell_Robinson
You might be interested in these. this shows the coefficient of variation over time; spread of skill (based out outcomes) over time. It answers some questions and asks many more.
Like I always said, it is not so much that the best two players in the league from 1920 compared 2026 are much different...its just that there are more players closer to them in 2026 compared to 1920 and the stats 'make' the 1920 guy nearly insurmountable statistically, even when being compared to their peers is the measurement being used.
Similar to the increase in pitching velocity. The league velocity hasn't risen so much because there are guys throwing 125 MPH, it has risen because there are simply MORE guys closer to the top guys.
Even way back when people were writing about the death of the .400 hitter. Hornsby hit .424 with elite power. Simply not possible now for many reasons(and Darin's glove pic above is one of them). Same with guys out homering entire teams...and it wasn't just Ruth, many guys did that. Again, not possible now for many reasons, none of which include Gavvy Cravath being a better HR hitter than Kyle Schwarber because Schwarber was not 'good enough' to out homer entire teams, while Cravath was 'that good' to achieve such a feat.
There are so many reasons for all that, and the common tirade is "well if guys back then had today's training, etc. they would be just as good." That may be true, but even if they had today's training, they would not be out homering entire teams and becoming the same legend like they did back then because they would no longer have the advantages that allowed them to do what they did back then, and their 'stats' (even compared to their peers) would simply not shine as bright.
Like even if Ozzie Smith is the best SS, Larry Bowa was 98-99% just as good. And think of all the ground balls that the elite SS like Larry Bowa gobbled up that simply couldn't in 1920 just merely because of the actual glove.
With fielding there is never "proof", there is only evidence.
Part of the comparison is that RF in Yankee Stadium was pretty small and RF (and CF) in Oakland Coliseum were enormous. Ruth wasn't slow, but he surely wasn't as fast as Reggie. In other words, by basic stats, they might look close, but Jackson's degree of difficulty in Oakland was a lot higher than Ruth's.
And just in case this isn't clear to everyone, I'm talking about Reggie when he was young, playing in Oakland. He wasn't very good by the time he got to the Yankees, but then Ruth wasn't good when he got older, either. And just in case this also wasn't clear, neither Jackson nor Ruth were ever very good outfielders. Claiming that any outfielder is better than Babe Ruth is not exactly a high bar.
My evidence for Jackson, sufficient to convince me that it is far more likely than not that he was a better fielder than Ruth is, then: