<< <i>Any list that has DiMaggio and Clemente tier 2 is a joke. How many players had 56 game hitting streaks and 12 gold gloves? Dimaggio was better than Mantle >>
Stick to college football and the Big 10..
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.
<< <i>Any list that has DiMaggio and Clemente tier 2 is a joke. How many players had 56 game hitting streaks and 12 gold gloves? Dimaggio was better than Mantle >>
I know nothing about college football and the Big 10.. >>
I quite agree. Weren't you one of those haters that said no Big Ten team had a chance?
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
<< <i>Brock had a lifetime BA of .391 in 21 World Series games and there is no way the Cards even make it to any of the three series without him as their leadoff hitter. >>
Brock had some pretty good years in that time, and there is a good chance the Cardinals don't make it to the World Series without him, just as there is a good chance the Cards don't make it to the World Series without a number of players on their team.
None of that changes how good he was, and none of that changes the value of BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR, Out made. If he has less a value in those than another player, then he just isn't as good.
A mere 87 World Series at bats.. Actually, all that really is, is luck. He just happened to have a few better than normal games.
It isn't any special ability that he had to hit .391 in the World Series, it is just random chance over a small sample size.
If you believe it is something else, then Brock is either dumb, psychic, or lazy....because if he truly had that ability, why only hit .391 when the World Series came around? Why not hit that ALL year, and then they would get to MORE World Series???? Does he not realize that? Is he stupid?
Or maybe he knew he could just hit .301 in the regular season, because they would make it there anyway, then when they got there he could really show what he was made of. Psychic?
Or maybe he felt he didn't want to try as hard because the regular seasons games 'don't mean as much'. Lazy?
That post seasons stuff has been debunked so many times, it is laughable people still bring it up.
And if he was soo good that HE is the reason the team's he played on went to three World Series? What happened from 1969-1979? They didn't even make the playoffs when the playoffs expanded, lol.
So in your language, his 118 SB season meant absolutelyy nothing, because they didn't even make the playoffs that year.
Also in your language, that means Hank Aaron's career basically ended in 1958, because from 1958-1976, they didn't win a World Series. That would make most of his 754 HR's a moot point or non factor. In your language, that must mean he wasn't that good if they couldn't even win a WS in 18 years...since you hail Brock so much because they won two. Can't have it both ways buddy
Of course, with your sig line right below that post, why would anyone think you'd feel any different, LOL.. >>
True he was my favorite player. That does mean I (blindly?) admire his abilities, also means that I have followed his career closely and know how good he was. This is another example of not looking close enough.
Top right handed home run hitter in American League of all time. I don't count A-Roid.
Missed two or possibly three prime years due to silly "bonus baby" rule. Clemente was a "bonus baby" the same year. Pittsburgh drafted him away from the Dodgers, was put in the lineup right away, take away 1955-58 and his career numbers get WAY worse, of course no way of knowing how he would have done had he played longer, but early years are usually better than late ones. Harmon's last three were pretty bad.
Only marquee player of his time to shuffle between 1st base 3rd base and left field to help his team get stronger lineup. Had to hurt his defensive ratings, which weren't that good to begin with. Had he stuck to 1st or 3rd, would have helped his weakest area.
Also probably most consistent Home Run hitter; look at 1959-1970. Hit a minimum of 39 home runs (and 96 RBI) every single time he had 500+ at bats............no down years. Hit the most per at bat and the most overall in all of baseball during those years.
Third all time in HR frequency (over 500 hrs) if you ignore steroid guys. First among right handed batters. Easier to hit HRs as a lefty, most pitchers are right handed and ballparks generally bigger to left field than right.
With 8147 At Bats #130 all time he is #7 in HRs #15 in RBIs.
Played most of his career with no other real offensive threats in lineup until Oliva and Carew came along. Allison did have a couple of nice years.
6 times in top 5 MVP voting with one MVP award. Top 50 all time Offensive WAR. Top 20 all time WPA.
I assume this ranking system ignores things like good sportsmanship, so I won't say too much about what a great ambassador to the game he was.
In my mind if he's not in the top tier (only because of his defensive issues) he is a SOLID 2nd tier guy.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
skin nailed it, again, and that is the reason why I refuse to consider post-season play in determining who ranks ahead of whom. I concede the possibility, as would skin, I'm sure, that if you were comparing two players with 10,000 plate appearances and they came out exactly tied, that looking to their 100 or so plate appearances in the postseason is a valid way to break that tie. But that's the magnitude of what we're talking about here - maybe 1%. And for the vast majority of players, their performance in the postseason - especially if they played a lot - is virtually the same as their performance in the regular season, so even as a tie-breaker postseason play would be useless more often than not.
Jack Morris is one often-cited example of a player who "dominated" in the postseason. His ERA throughout his career was 3.94 and in the postseason it was 3.80; it improved by about 4%. And the regular season winning percentage of the teams he was on that made the postseason was .606, so in 11 postseason decisions, you'd expect Morris to win 6.67 games; and he won 7. How anyone can look at numbers like that and not recognize random variation at play is beyond me. Jack Morris, being neither psychic, lazy, nor stupid, was exactly the same player in the postseason that he was during the regular season. So was Brock, his variation was just more extreme.
BTW - completely updated Tiers coming later this weekend. I have listened to the voices of the people and reallocated the Tiers so that Tier I is smaller, so those in it are not "too far" from Ruth. Some big names are going to drop out (bigger than Yaz).
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Realistically speaking, Killebrew did miss two potentially good years at age 21 and 22. Doubtful they would be anything near his prime caliber years, as at age 23 and 24 he posted OPS+ of 137 and 142. Not unreasonable to expect a couple 120/125 OPS+ for him at age 21/22. Anything more would be held only for the exteme optimists.
Anything before age 21 though would become wild speculation.
Killebrew's peak best peak years were:
177 173 162 159 157 153
His best consecutive four year peak he had an OPS+ of 163................Rice at 146..........Yaz 169..........Ichiro 122 His best consecutive six year peak he had an OPS+ of 160..................RIce at 140.........Yaz 158..........Ichiro 118 His best consecutive ten year peak he had an OPS+ of 156.................Rice at 133..........Yaz 147..........Ichiro 117 his best consecutive twelve year peak he had an OPS+ of 153.............Rice at 130..........Yaz 145..........Ichiro 113
I figured I would just throw Rice in there to highlight how his peak wasn't nearly as good as people imagine(and since he didn't really have a meaningful career outside his 12 year peak, one can see how little he truly offered compared to the truly elite hitters).
Offensively, Killer had better peaks than Yaz(outside the four year peak).
By doing it this way, it sort of eliminate the need to worry too much about how much the longevity, or the bonus baby factors affected him. When his star was shining at his brightest, it shone very bright...and that really is the way most people look at players.
PS, I threw Ichiro in there too because I needed a laugh this Saturday morning when I think of all the people that call him one of the greatest hitters of all-time. He too also illustrates the longevity factor being eliminated by looking at players in this way. Even if Ichiro replicated his peak years for his age 23-26 seasons had he played in the states, he still would have a best four year peak of 122 OPS+.....waaaaaay off the mark of the best hitters. His six year peak would still be 122...waaaaay off the mark of the best hitters. Of course, had he played in the states from the start, he may have just been a platoon player, or not even made it to MLB, so he could go the opposite way too. BUT, by looking at it like this, we don't have to worry about that, because we see his peak laid out clear as day above(In comparison to two elite hitters).
The Morris postseason topic is an interesting one and effectively highlights the selective memoryt most people have when remembering players they admired or rooted for. Morris had two terrific postseasons in 1984 and 1991, going 7-0 with an ERA just a shade over 2.00. But he also had two equally putrid postseasons in 1987 and 1992, going 0-4 with an ERA of about 7.25.
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.
<< <i>The Morris postseason topic is an interesting one and effectively highlights the selective memoryt most people have when remembering players they admired or rooted for. Morris had two terrific postseasons in 1984 and 1991, going 7-0 with an ERA just a shade over 2.00. But he also had two equally putrid postseasons in 1987 and 1992, going 0-4 with an ERA of about 7.25. >>
Well, that's basically Jack Morris in a nutshell. Sometimes he was good and sometimes he was bad; add it all up - whether in the regular season or in the postseason - and he was a very slightly above average pitcher. Jack Morris wasn't even a "good" pitcher, unless your definition of "good" is a lot different than mine and Webster's, and the folks who argue that he should be in the HOF make me cry.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
The post season is the reason why players play the game, a World Series ring is what every player covets but only a handful succeed in getting one. Ignoring the postseason is like serving a BLT sandwich without the bacon.
<< <i>The post season is the reason why players play the game, a World Series ring is what every plaster covers, but only a handful succeed in getting one. Ignoring the postseason is like serving a BLT sandwich without the bacon. >>
By your standard of measurement, then, Ted Williams wasn't very good after all, was he?
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.
<< <i>Oh yeah, that's exactly what I meant. Ever thought of a career writing headlines for the National Enquirer? >>
LOL, no, your posts are entertaining enough..
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.
Hank Aaron Ty Cobb Lou Gehrig Lefty Grove Randy Johnson Walter Johnson Willie Mays Stan Musial Kid Nichols Babe Ruth Mike Schmidt Honus Wagner Ted Williams Cy Young
Tier II
Grover Alexander Johnny Bench Wade Boggs George Brett Gary Carter Eddie Collins Bob Feller Jimmie Foxx Rickey Henderson Rogers Hornsby Al Kaline Greg Maddux Mickey Mantle Pedro Martinez Eddie Mathews Christy Mathewson Johnny Mize Joe Morgan Phil Niekro Mel Ott Gaylord Perry Cal Ripken, Jr. Frank Robinson Tom Seaver Tris Speaker Carl Yastrzemski
Tier III
Luke Appling Ernie Banks Yogi Berra Bert Blyleven Lou Boudreau Dan Brouthers Roy Campanella Rod Carew Steve Carlton John Clarkson Roberto Clemente Mickey Cochrane Ed Delahanty Joe DiMaggio Carlton Fisk Pud Galvin Bob Gibson Hank Greenberg Harry Heilmann Reggie Jackson Ferguson Jenkins Tim Keefe Ralph Kiner Nap Lajoie Barry Larkin Willie McCovey Eddie Murray Eddie Plank Robin Roberts Brooks Robinson Jackie Robinson Amos Rusie Ron Santo Ozzie Smith Duke Snider Warren Spahn Arky Vaughan Ed Walsh Robin Yount
Tier IV
Roberto Alomar Cap Anson Richie Ashburn Frank Baker Craig Biggio Mordecai Brown Jim Bunning Jesse Burkett Orlando Cepeda Roger Connor Stan Coveleski Sam Crawford Joe Cronin George Davis Dizzy Dean Bill Dickey Bobby Doerr Don Drysdale Dennis Eckersley Red Faber Frankie Frisch Charlie Gehringer Tom Glavine Joe Gordon Tony Gwynn Billy Hamilton Carl Hubbell Hugh Jennings Harmon Killebrew Chuck Klein Sandy Koufax Ted Lyons Juan Marichal Joe McGinnity Joe Medwick Paul Molitor Hal Newhouser Jim Palmer Kirby Puckett Charles Radbourn Jim Rice Nolan Ryan Ryne Sandberg Al Simmons George Sisler John Smoltz Willie Stargell Bill Terry Frank Thomas Dazzy Vance Rube Waddell Bobby Wallace Paul Waner Pee Wee Reese Mickey Welch Deacon White Billy Williams Vic Willis Dave Winfield
Tier V
Luis Aparicio Earl Averill Dave Bancroft Jake Beckley Chief Bender Roger Bresnahan Lou Brock Max Carey Frank Chance Jack Chesbro Fred Clarke Jimmy Collins Earle Combs Kiki Cuyler Andre Dawson Larry Doby Hugh Duffy Johnny Evers Buck Ewing Elmer Flick Whitey Ford Nellie Fox Lefty Gomez Goose Goslin Rich Gossage Burleigh Grimes Gabby Hartnett Billy Herman Harry Hooper Waite Hoyt Catfish Hunter Travis Jackson Addie Joss Willie Keeler Joe Kelley King Kelly Tony Lazzeri Freddie Lindstrom Ernie Lombardi Heinie Manush Rabbit Maranville Rube Marquard Bid McPhee Jim O'Rourke Herb Pennock Tony Perez Eppa Rixey Phil Rizzuto Edd Roush Red Ruffing Red Schoendienst Joe Sewell Enos Slaughter Don Sutton Sam Thompson Joe Tinker Zack Wheat Hack Wilson Early Wynn Ross Youngs
Tier VI
Jim Bottomley Rick Ferrell Rollie Fingers Chick Hafey Jesse Haines George Kell George Kelly Bob Lemon Bill Mazeroski Tommy McCarthy Sam Rice Ray Schalk Bruce Sutter Pie Traynor Lloyd Waner John Ward Hoyt Wilhelm
Some of the players that drop to Tier II just kill me, but setting the bar as high as I heard it should be this is what it looks like. No catchers and no second basemen and no Mantle. And no Yaz (who was not very near the bottom of Tier I as it was).
But overall, I do think that this looks fine overall once we accept that some really great players have to end up in Tier III. Descriptively, Tier I is now nothing but "the best of the best" and if anyone sees a name they don't think belongs at this point - get over yourself, you're just wrong. There is still some fair variability in Tier II form top to bottom, but there is not a single name in there that should prompt anyone to say they don't belong in the HOF. In other words, there may be a quibble at the margins that a player belongs in Tier II, but there is no reasonable argument to be made that any player in Tier II doesn't belong in the HOF at all. Tier III represents a clear drop from Tier II (although at the margins there may be some quibbling about moving up or down between them), but I personally don't see anyone in there that I would say doesn't belong in the HOF. But there are a lot more players in Tier III than in Tier II who were more one-dimensional; HOF fielding and so-so hitting; HOF power, so-so otherwise; HOF peak, not much else. Another clear drop to Tier IV, but still, I don't see anyone in Tier IV that I would say doesn't belong in a HOF defined primarily by peak performance. But for many, many players in Tier IV, I think reasonable arguments can now be made that the player doesn't belong in the HOF, depending on one's own perception of what the HOF should be. Big drop to the average Tier V player, and (with the frustrating exception of Whitey Ford) there's a very reasonable case to be made that NONE of them belong in the HOF. I see a handful (Ford, of course, and Brock, Fox, Collins) that I think are solid HOFers, but the argument that a Tier V player belongs in the HOF is going to be different than the arguments for players in the higher Tiers (in the rare instances when an argument for a player in a higher Tier is necessary). And Tier VI rounds it out with players who have no business in the HOF by anything remotely similar to the same standards applied to everyone else. As I've said, I think Maz and Wilhelm being in the HOF is a good thing, but I acknowledge there are fine arguments to the contrary. Beyond those two, I don't think anything close to a reasonable argument can be made for any of the others.
I've been waiting to update the non-HOFers until I'd settled on a final HOF system, and I think this is it. Not that it's perfect now, but I don't see it getting any better without adding tremendously more complexity, and I'll leave that to someone else if they care enough. But I'll offer my opinion that "had a 56 game hitting streak" or such things have no place in anything that can be called a "system". If you think DiMaggio belongs in Tier I because of that hitting streak, then that's your right and more power to you. But recognize that what you have is an opinion, and as far as winning games or producing runs for a player's team, getting hits in 56 games consecutively has no more value than getting hits in 56 non-consecutive games. It's a unique accomplishment, but in any objective measurement of "great", it doesn't mean anything. In general, if you find yourself making a case that so-and-so was great, or belongs in the HOF, because of some accomplishment that comprises less than 2% of that player's career (his hitting streak, his no-hitters, his postseason, his great September in 2008, etc.) you are not making an objective argument, and you are opening the door to "great" or to the HOF to thousands of other players who have their own unique accomplishments. If Manny Sanguillen happened to have gotten singles in 57 straight games, I hope we'd have had the sense to keep him out of the HOF anyway. DiMaggio was a great player, who also happened to have a 56-game hitting streak; he'd have been just as great without it.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>The post season is the reason why players play the game, a World Series ring is what every plaster covers, but only a handful succeed in getting one. Ignoring the postseason is like serving a BLT sandwich without the bacon. >>
By your standard of measurement, then, Ted Williams wasn't very good after all, was he? >>
Do not forget Silvera when discussing your all time greats. He has five WS rings-must have been a terrific player.
There is a threshold that players must meet to be considered "Hall of Fame worthy", and that threshold is usually defined by the attainment of a milestone statistic (e.g. 3000 hits, 500 hrs, 300 wins). Once that threshold has been crossed, a way to distinguish one great player from another is performance in the postseason. Does that make sense to you?
<< <i>The post season is the reason why players play the game, a World Series ring is what every plaster covers, but only a handful succeed in getting one. Ignoring the postseason is like serving a BLT sandwich without the bacon. >>
Actually, to answer your other question, pretty much everything you say doesn't make any sense at all. You are good comic relief, and way for me to cure boredom, like a cat just playing with a ball of yarn.
First, World Series rings are a team accomplishment. They have a place when it comes to measuring teams. We aren't measuring teams.
When measuring individuals, that is a completely different 'ball game'.
We are measuring players, and since you understand that the goal IS to win a World Series, then you should understand that the players who create the most runs, create the most wins. The teams that win the most games, have the best chance of winning a World Series.
The way to understand how a player creates runs, is by simply looking at the Play by Play data. There is no mystery there...everything is accounted for, and the value of each event...BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR, and out made all have very concrete value... and yes, those can all be looked at in game situation.
Again, based on YOUR criteria PSASAP, Hank Aaron was useless from 1958-1976 because they did not win a World Series. So by your very definition, there will be hundred of ballplayers in the history of the game who would be viewed as better than Aaron.
Your criteria puts Ted Williams below Bill Mazeroski. Your criteria puts Willie Mays below Lou Brock, as Mays hit .239 in the WS with ZERO HR. Based on your criteria, Ray Knight would be better than Rod Carew.
You see, guys get hot and cold all the time. When it comes to a short amount of games in the post season, that doesn't change. If you believe it does, then you still need to answer the problem if Lou Brock was stupid, psychic, or lazy. Which one was he? Because if he is measured by his high BA in the World Series, why on earth did he not do that in the regular season so they could get to MORE WS????
Oh, and your guy ICHIRO never even played in a WS!!! So by your very own definition, you just devalued your hero. So whenever it comes time to talk about him in the pantheon of hitters, I better hear you say that he can't be ranked too high, because he never got to a WS.
PS, Dallas, yes, I agree. If after 10,000 plate appearances two guys are tied, I could see the 200 odd post season at bats being used to break the tie.
<< <i>There is a threshold that players must meet to be considered "Hall of Fame worthy", and that threshold is usually defined by the attainment of a milestone statistic (e.g. 3000 hits, 500 hrs, 300 wins). Once that threshold has been crossed, a way to distinguish one great player from another is performance in the postseason. Does that make sense to you? >>
While it may be true in many cases that reaching such "milestone" statistics will often coincide with a HOF resume (after all, most truly great players will reach those milestones because they are that good to begin with), attempting to measure the overall greatness of a player by simply reducing your analysis of how great a player is by being able to reach these milstones is a rather superficial method of evaluation. If Jamie Moyer had stuck around to win 31 more games and reach 300, is he a HOFer then? If Dave Kingman stuck around a couple more seasons to reach 500 home runs (pre-steroid era no less!), is he a HOFer then?
Postseason performance may be significant to the individual player and his team trying to win a championship, but as a factor to be used in determining where a player lands in the pantheon of baseball greatness, it is overall too small a sample size to be used in the context of an entire playing career and it also unfairly penalizes truly great players like Ted Williams or Ernie Banks whose teams weren't good enough to routinely qualify for postseason play. And as the Morris postseason myth also illustrates, give a player a large enough sample size in postaseason play, and he will almost always or invariably revert to his career mean statistics.
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.
Skin, the only thing comical in this thread is your slavish adherence to the play by play data that you keep pinning your arguments on. You're like some zealot who quotes the Bible as though it's some kind of last word on everything. Try thinking for yourself sometime, it's a very healthy thing to do, and will help your intellectual growth.
Non-HOFers (the one's I thought of, and no cheaters)
Tier III
Dick Allen Bobby Grich Keith Hernandez Mike Mussina
Tier IV
Sal Bando Albert Belle Bobby Bonds Ken Boyer Bert Campaneris Norm Cash Cesar Cedeno Ron Cey Will Clark Rocky Colavito Darrell Evans Dwight Evans Jim Fregosi Pedro Guerrero Ron Guidry Stan Hack Don Mattingly Sam McDowell Minnie Minoso Dale Murphy Graig Nettles Tony Oliva Dave Parker Rico Petrocelli Vada Pinson Tim Raines Al Rosen Ted Simmons Ken Singleton Reggie Smith Darryl Strawberry Gene Tenace Luis Tiant Alan Trammell Lou Whitaker Wilbur Wood Jimmy Wynn
Tier V
Jack Clark Jose Cruz Bill Freehan Kirk Gibson Gil Hodges Frank Howard Tommy John Jim Kaat Fred Lynn Jack Morris Bobby Murcer Boog Powell Mariano Rivera Roy White
Tier VI
Matty Alou Ron Fairly Steve Garvey
The interesting group, I think, is Tier IV. An argument probably exists that this or that player in this Tier doesn't belong in the HOF, but as a group, these guys belong in the same conversation as most of the players in the HOF Tier IV.
And Bobby Grich is probably the most underrated player of all time. He got 2.6% of the vote in his single appearance on a HOF ballot, but the man is 83rd all time in offensive WAR and 84th all time in defensive WAR, and did that without "accumulating" since he's 234th in games played. Easily one of the 100 greatest non-pitchers of all time, and all but forgotten today. Never got to play in a WS, and suffers as much as any player from the impenetrable ignorance of fans and sportswriters regarding the value of a walk.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I've always thought that Keith Hernandez doesn't get as much support as he deserves~he may not be a HOFer, but he should at least be in the conversation. I'm sure that lack of power and playing a corner infield position hurts him in the eyes of the voters, but he was an above average hitter (.296/.384/.821, with career OPS+ of 128 and WAR of 60.0), with an MVP and two other finishes at #2 and #4, and he was outstanding defensively~one of the very best I've ever seen, with 12 Gold Gloves. Good to see him land in Tier III.
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.
<< <i>Skin, the only thing comical in this thread is your slavish adherence to the play by play data that you keep pinning your arguments on. You're like some zealot who quotes the Bible as though it's some kind of last word on everything. Try thinking for yourself sometime, it's a very healthy thing to do, and will help your intellectual growth. >>
That is all I do is think for myself, and only a fool would not 'think' to look at the play by play data, because it solves any and all mystery that fans have been arguing about for the last 60 years.
You still have a lot of questions to asnwer to show us how you 'think':
1) Was Lou Brock Stupid, psychic, or lazy? Which one of those explains why he chose not to use the 'ability' he had to hit .390 in the WS, and not use it in the regular season, where if he hit .390(or anywhere close), his teams would have went to MORE WS!?
Lets hear you 'think' think that through.
2)Why on earth do you keep claiming(with your criteria) that Bill Mazeroski was better than Ted Williams? Or Brock better than Mays? Lets hear you 'think' that through.
3)WHy do you call Ichiro an all-time great hitter, when you yourself said that it is what a player does in the World Series, and that Winning a World Series, is what separates the greats??? How on one hand can you call him a great, and then on the other hand say the stuff you said about Brock, when Ichiro doesn't even have a single hit in the WS, nor a WS ring??? Hmmmm?
Shall I call you Sherwin Williams, since you have painted yourself into a corner??
I have never mentioned Ichiro (except for just now) in any of my posts, I'll just chalk that up to another one of your inaccuracies. I'm still waiting for you to predict the two teams who will face each other in the 2015 World Series, based, of course, on your knowledge and understanding of the play by play data. Hell, you can pick four if you like.
1) Was Lou Brock Stupid, psychic, or lazy? Which one of those explains why he chose not to use the 'ability' he had to hit .390 in the WS, and not use it in the regular season, where if he hit .390(or anywhere close), his teams would have went to MORE WS!?
Lets hear you 'think' think that through.
2)Why on earth do you keep claiming(with your criteria) that Bill Mazeroski was better than Ted Williams? Or Brock better than Mays? Lets hear you 'think' that through.
3)WHy do you call Ichiro an all-time great hitter, when you yourself said that it is what a player does in the World Series, and that Winning a World Series, is what separates the greats??? How on one hand can you call him a great, and then on the other hand say the stuff you said about Brock, when Ichiro doesn't even have a single hit in the WS, nor a WS ring??? Hmmmm?
Shall I call you Sherwin Williams, since you have painted yourself into a corner??
Yes, you have lauded Ichiro a great hitter when you disagreed his OPS+ failings. You are welcome now to clarify that Ichiro cannot be a very good hitter since he has ZERO WS hits, and ZERO WS rings. Please clarify. Was Ichiro a better hitter than Eddie Murray, Schmidt, or Reggie Jackson? I can throw a few more scenarios/players to see how well you 'think'.
You still have questions to answer. You 'claim' to think for yourself, lets hear some of it. You made some statements, now back them up with some sort of though process. Seems you really aren't the 'thinker' you claim to be.
I've cleaned up on futures in baseball(especially on breakout pitchers . I am no longer involved in that area, and if I was, I certainly wouldn't share any of my predictions with you. I would never even bother betting on teams winning a WS, because that is way too much of a crapshoot, because once in there, luck, chance, and circumstance play too large a role. Best team doesn't always win the championship
I've heard Clemente's name frequently on that elite level with Ruth, Gehrig, etc. I've always thought that Clemente was outstanding, but not to that level. I think a fair comparison would be Clemente to Al Kaline. Clemente was a great outfielder, but so was Kaline. Kaline might have been better. Kaline had more power. Hard to say for sure, but I'd go with Kaline, which means I go with Clemente being on Tier 2 with him, and not higher.
<< <i>Ted Williams was a great hitter and certainly the greatest Mexican-American player ever. >>
Like I thought...just not a whole lot of substance or thinking behind your words.
I enjoy these boards for the opportunity to get my thought process out there. I enjoy hearing other people's thoughts, but not when they make claims and have absolutely no semblance of thought behind it, or have any evidence(not rooted in bias or contradictions like yours) to support it.
I'll check back tomorrow on the topic at hand...but PSASAP, you seem to have disqualified yourself as one worthy of response(on this topic). If I'm bored, I still may partake though. Till then.
<< <i>Ted Williams was Mexican-American, look it up. >>
Actually, to be technically correct, Williams was Welsh-Irish-Mexican American.
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.
I appreciate the work, analysis and the attempt to make some sense of the HOF-just having trouble with it. I am not arguing... just uncertain whether there really is a level playing field for the comparison to be calculated.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>I've heard Clemente's name frequently on that elite level with Ruth, Gehrig, etc. I've always thought that Clemente was outstanding, but not to that level. I think a fair comparison would be Clemente to Al Kaline. Clemente was a great outfielder, but so was Kaline. Kaline might have been better. Kaline had more power. Hard to say for sure, but I'd go with Kaline, which means I go with Clemente being on Tier 2 with him, and not higher. >>
If you heard Clemente in the same breath as Ruth or Gehrig, then what you heard was kooky talk, and I agree that Kaline is a much better comparison. But Kaline was better. Clemente was a better fielder, but Kaline was good. The difference between a great and a good right fielder is very small in the scheme of things, and Kaline was better at virtually everything else, although not by a mile. Kaline's OBP was higher, his slugging average was higher, he ran the bases better, and he ground into fewer DPs. They were both Tier II before the realignment, but there's a clear gap between the two, and the line between Tier II and Tier III falls in the gap now.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I'll check back tomorrow on the topic at hand...but PSASAP, you seem to have disqualified yourself as one worthy of response(on this topic). If I'm bored, I still may partake though. Till then.
Does this mean I'm not coming to your house for the Super Bowl? Some friend you are.
Ignoring OBP is ignoring about half a player's contribution to hitting. Makes zero sense to do that. >>
I never meant to imply that we should completely ignore OBP. But it also shouldn't be taken as the be-all end-all gospel for rating a player. Having an OBP of .375 is wonderful. Combining it with a .391 slugging %? Not so much.
Again, we're talking a guy who had seven full seasons where he hit 15 or fewer homers. That's fine if you're a 2B but a corner outfielder? Playing in Fenway? No.
You'll get no argument from me saying he wasn't spectacular from 1967-70. The question is: what the heck happened the rest of those years?
And, really, what argument is there for having Yaz and Mantle in the same tier? Mantle had a significantly higher peak, had a longer peak, and was still an OPS+ of 143 his final season. His career OPS+ of 172 is higher than all but two individual seasons for Yaz. He was better defensively than Yaz.
So we've got: longer peak, better peak, better defense. How was Yaz ever a tier above Mantle to begin with?
As for Kid Nichols, I'm not understanding him as a top 20 guy either. The only thing he's got going for him is an ERA+ of 140 and his 361 wins. Those are both awesome, no doubt. But he never led the league in ERA or Ks whereas Christy Mathewson led in ERA five times, Ks five times, ERA+ five times, FIP EIGHT times, and led in WHIP four times. You look at their numbers and there's a smattering of black ink on Nichols's record - Mathewson's record is covered in black ink.
<< <i>I've always thought that Keith Hernandez doesn't get as much support as he deserves~he may not be a HOFer, but he should at least be in the conversation. I'm sure that lack of power and playing a corner infield position hurts him in the eyes of the voters, but he was an above average hitter (.296/.384/.821, with career OPS+ of 128 and WAR of 60.0), with an MVP and two other finishes at #2 and #4, and he was outstanding defensively~one of the very best I've ever seen, with 12 Gold Gloves. Good to see him land in Tier III. >>
<< <i>I've always thought that Keith Hernandez doesn't get as much support as he deserves~he may not be a HOFer, but he should at least be in the conversation. I'm sure that lack of power and playing a corner infield position hurts him in the eyes of the voters, but he was an above average hitter (.296/.384/.821, with career OPS+ of 128 and WAR of 60.0), with an MVP and two other finishes at #2 and #4, and he was outstanding defensively~one of the very best I've ever seen, with 12 Gold Gloves. Good to see him land in Tier III. >>
Compare him to John Olerud... >>
Olerud deserves consideration as well, and their career batting numbers are pretty similar (Hernandez has a slight edge in OPS+ and grounded in fewer DPs, while Olerud has the edge in OBP%, slugging % and OPS), though Hernandez was the better fielder, but I would also say that Olerud played the bulk of his career in an era during which offensive production on the whole was higher than when Hernandez played (who also played his home games in tougher hitting parks, Olerud's three years in NY notwithstanding), so I would still give the nod to Hernandez over Olerud for a hypothetic HOF vote...though certainly not considered a basestealing thread, Hernandez also has a clear edge in stolen bases, too.
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.
<< <i>I've heard Clemente's name frequently on that elite level with Ruth, Gehrig, etc. I've always thought that Clemente was outstanding, but not to that level. I think a fair comparison would be Clemente to Al Kaline. Clemente was a great outfielder, but so was Kaline. Kaline might have been better. Kaline had more power. Hard to say for sure, but I'd go with Kaline, which means I go with Clemente being on Tier 2 with him, and not higher. >>
If you heard Clemente in the same breath as Ruth or Gehrig, then what you heard was kooky talk, and I agree that Kaline is a much better comparison. But Kaline was better. Clemente was a better fielder, but Kaline was good. The difference between a great and a good right fielder is very small in the scheme of things, and Kaline was better at virtually everything else, although not by a mile. Kaline's OBP was higher, his slugging average was higher, he ran the bases better, and he ground into fewer DPs. They were both Tier II before the realignment, but there's a clear gap between the two, and the line between Tier II and Tier III falls in the gap now. >>
Kaline never won a MVP award and you think he was better than Clemente? Clemente had a better career and its not even close. Kaline did win an award in Clemente's name lol.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
<< <i>I never meant to imply that we should completely ignore OBP. But it also shouldn't be taken as the be-all end-all gospel for rating a player. Having an OBP of .375 is wonderful. Combining it with a .391 slugging %? Not so much.
Again, we're talking a guy who had seven full seasons where he hit 15 or fewer homers. That's fine if you're a 2B but a corner outfielder? Playing in Fenway? No.
You'll get no argument from me saying he wasn't spectacular from 1967-70. The question is: what the heck happened the rest of those years?
And, really, what argument is there for having Yaz and Mantle in the same tier? Mantle had a significantly higher peak, had a longer peak, and was still an OPS+ of 143 his final season. His career OPS+ of 172 is higher than all but two individual seasons for Yaz. He was better defensively than Yaz.
So we've got: longer peak, better peak, better defense. How was Yaz ever a tier above Mantle to begin with?
As for Kid Nichols, I'm not understanding him as a top 20 guy either. The only thing he's got going for him is an ERA+ of 140 and his 361 wins. Those are both awesome, no doubt. But he never led the league in ERA or Ks whereas Christy Mathewson led in ERA five times, Ks five times, ERA+ five times, FIP EIGHT times, and led in WHIP four times. You look at their numbers and there's a smattering of black ink on Nichols's record - Mathewson's record is covered in black ink.
What's the argument in favor of Nichols? >>
Whether or not to ignore OBP isn't really the issue - I think everyone with sense knows it can't be ignored. But "not ignoring" it isn't nearly enough - that leaves open weighting slugging by 90% and OBP by 10%, or other such foolishness. It counts more or less the same as slugging, and I think hardly anyone does that once they get fixated on home runs and RBIs. And I know hardly anyone appreciates how much more important OBP is than batting average, which is why singles hitters who don't take many walks occupy 80% of the Most Overrated list.
And yes, it's true that Mantle had an OPS+ of 143 in his final season. At age 36. What you are doing - what most everyone does - is look at the years Yaz was able to play past age 36 - all seven of them with an OPS+ of 112 - and not only refuse to give it any value, but actually use them to reduce his value up to that point by referring to his career averages and comparing them to Mantle's (or anyone else's who wasn't good enough to play past age 36.
All that said, sure, Mantle was better. But your question confuses me since Yaz never was in a higher Tier than Mantle.
As for Nichols and Mathewson, that's a hard comparison to make and I could probably be convinced either way as to which was better. But there are two factors that you didn't mention so I will to make sure everyone is aware of them. Nichols, at his peak, pitched a lot more innings per year than did Mathewson. I realize that this is in part due to the different decades in which they pitched, but it's there, and it gives Nichols a little bump. Second, and more importantly, Nichols peak occurred with a home park that was so much a hitter's paradise that it would make Fenway look tough by comparison. Mathewson, on the other hand, pitched most of his career in a park it which it was next to impossible to hit a home run. "Black Ink" and such things, simply don't work in an apples and oranges comparison like these two represent. Mathewson should lead the league in stuff a lot more often than Nichols, and did, but the same is true of most any pitcher on the Giants; the advantage of pitching there was enormous, especially compared to the poor Beaneater pitchers.
I'm comfortable enough that Nichols was better than Mathewson, but the margin between them is really pretty small. If you think Mathewson was the better of the two, that's fine and you may be right. But if you think that there's a large gap between them, then I think you're wrong.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>Any list that has DiMaggio and Clemente tier 2 is a joke. How many players had 56 game hitting streaks and 12 gold gloves? Dimaggio was better than Mantle >>
I know nothing about college football and the Big 10.. >>
I quite agree. Weren't you one of those haters that said no Big Ten team had a chance?
>>
I don't follow or care for college football and wouldn't make such a statement about an area I'm not well versed or knowledgeable about. You ought to take the same advice here.
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.
<< <i> I'll check back tomorrow on the topic at hand...but PSASAP, you seem to have disqualified yourself as one worthy of response(on this topic). If I'm bored, I still may partake though. Till then.
Does this mean I'm not coming to your house for the Super Bowl? Some friend you are. >>
Make no mistake, I'd have beers with you anytime. I have these debates with my buddies over beers all the time...great times.
Tabe, OB% isn't being taken as the be all end all. It simply is part of the equation, just as SLG% is. Actually, they each comprise about half the hitters hitting value.
Enough on Yaz for now...I broke down his prime and outside prime years above earlier. He wasn't average for 19 years. I deleted the repost of that here, because I see a more interesting topic below in my post
I personally would put Mantle ahead of Yaz due to Mantle's extreme peak of greatness with a 188 OPS+ over a ten year span, and a 15 year peak with a 177 OPS+...coming from the CF position, and while also recognizing it was injury that cost Mantle a longer career, rather than ability. People got fooled into thinking Mantle had a bad year in his last year, because they didn't account for the league wide decline in offense. It was too bad Mantle didn't stick around for the next few years when league offense came back up.
I could make a good case for Mantle being the best baseball player ever while in his prime....even better than Ruth, because I will certainly take into account league wide competition, the fact that Ruth had a much easier job to separate from his peers because his league was filled with dead ball style hitters, as well as the population of viable baseball players to draw from that furthered that gap even more. Also, the tools such as Mantle's blazing speed that was not properly utilized due to the league and team style at the time.
Defensively speaking, any lack of Putouts by Mantle is more likely to be a result of their pitching staff, and/or deferring to LF/RF on the easy put outs, as opposed to it being his ability. A man of Mantle's speed and baseball ability, I have extreme doubts any lack of putouts are due to his ability(compared to that of other CF's in his time in different scenarios). That is part of the reason why defensive measurements should not be put on par with offensive. Defense does make a difference, but the measurements used brings the validity scale down.
Mantle had a consecutive ten year peak where he AVERAGED a 188 OPS+. To put that into perspective, Willie Mays' singled best season was 185, and his next best 175. I used 'consecutive' years, because that brings reliability to a player(and team), rather than their best scattered years.
Mantle's best consecutive four year peak was a 200 OPS+. He stole 52 bases and was caught only 8 times in that peak. He was blazing fast, and had great baseball sense. Those SB totals are held down due to his team's philosophy and league philosophy. He was so fast, and there is no way his lack of putouts in the OF are due to ability. When looking at a lack of putouts compared to Mays, it is stemming mainly from two things 1)The sheer number of flyball opportunities, most likely stemming from their pitching staff, and 2)The deferring to RF/LF taking the routine fly balls. Some guys take ALL of those, while others defer. That will severely skew a defensive measurement when you have two guys on the opposite side of that spectrum. As such, there is no defensive measurement that could close that offensive gap between Mantle and Mays in their primes.
Mantle was hands down the best player of his era during his peak, both the four year, and ten year.
Comparing to Ruth takes further steps, and more challenging defensive steps since Ruth was not capable of being a viable centerfielder. The era adjustments(as mentioned above), when done in painstaking detail, could certainly put Mantle ahead of Ruth when measuring them at their peaks.
Here is a quick Ruth/Mantle comparison below, using their four year consecutive peak, the time where their stars shone brightest:
Mantle 200 OPS+....or 309 batter runs Ruth..226 OPS+.....or 361 batter runs. He missed a few extra games one year, so I bumped up his batter runs by 5 more. Note that would be higher than any other four year run Ruth had.
Lets look at the things that will close that gap 1)Baserunning, 2)Defense, 3)The era they played in.
The first concrete thing to look at is baserunning. Mantle stole 52 bases and was caught 8 times. Ruth stole 40 and was caught 39 times(one of those CS years is estimated). In terms of run value, that would give Mantle about 12 runs above average, and Ruth losing about -12. Just in the actual stolen bases, Mantle gains 24 runs above average.
Batter runs w/ stolen base value added: Mantle 321 Ruth 349
But baserunning just doesn't involve stolen bases, it also involves baserunning by advancing bases on extra hits. Typically, stolen bases are a good indicator of a players overall baserunning ability, and usually the runs saved/created will fall somewhere a little lower than the runs createdby the SB. If we only take half of the run value of the stolen bases we have:
Batter runs w/ stolen bases and baserunning value added. This is not philosophical adjustments, but rather concrete run value they produced, and Mantle is almost already at Ruth's level:
Mantle 327 Ruth 343
I have not taken into account the league or team philosophy for Mantle yet, because he was more than capable of getting more stolen bases, only to be held down by his manager/team/league. So in terms of judging a players baseball value/ability, this has to be taken into account, because an astute manager/league could utilize this. I'm not going to go bananas with this, but it is certainly within the realm to imagine Mantle increasing his SB value by about 25%...so that would be an extra 3 more SB runs.
New total:
Mantle 331 Ruth 343.
So without even looking at Defense, Mantle in his four year peak is only 12 runs behind Ruth. Being able to play CF alone is worth a few runs year, compared to a guy being only capable of playing a corner outfield. I'm not going to go crazy on this adjustment, so I will lessen that to only TWO runs per year. For four years, that is eight runs.
Runs with baserunning/SB/and the value of playing CF vs RF
Mantle 339 Ruth 343.
Now this does not take into account their actual defensive ability. As mentioned above with the defensive flaws, Mantle gets punished a bit despite his blazing speed...but I don't see Ruth doing anything nearly as good as defensively as Mantle, as compared to peers, so I'm not even going to touch this part yet.
Mantle 339 Ruth 343.
Now we are down to the era adjustment. Considering that Ruth played in an era with a league that was filled with dead ball style hitters, it was very easy to outdistance himself from them, as evidenced by him outhomering every single team in the league. That simply was not possible to do in Mantle's time, as it may take hitting 175 HR's to do it. This is about as obvious as it gets in terms of this advantage Ruth has. This alone would be worth about 5-10 runs per year. Going on the low side of 5 runs per year, we have the following:
Mantle 359 Ruth 343
Next is the overall talent level of the league period, including pitchers they faced. The population of viable players in the US was much smaller in Ruth's time, compared to that of Mantle's. This adjustment could fluctuate wildly....and im not even going to add the adjustment, because Mantle is ahead of Ruth already.
So given all that, with still more things in Mantle's favor over Ruth(such like his ability to get more SB, and his actual defensive ability that may not have been judged properly due to the problems with defensive measurements), and a more stringent era adjustment in favor of Mantle, that I didn't bother to convert in terms of runs, Mantle really has a strong case to be viewed as better than Ruth in their absolute four year prime peaks.
PS. The crazy thing about Mantle is that he had ANOTHER separate consecutive four year peak that doesn't include any of the above years where he hit: 194 OPS+, with 29SB, and 5CS. Then the leg injuries started taking its toll on him.
Mantle's ten year peak where he had a 188 OPS+, he had 116 SB, and was caught only 19 times for a remarkable 86%(which is a better rate than Willie Mays in his ten year prime 237/72 for 76%).
Realistically speaking, Killebrew did miss two potentially good years at age 21 and 22. Doubtful they would be anything near his prime caliber years, as at age 23 and 24 he posted OPS+ of 137 and 142. Not unreasonable to expect a couple 120/125 OPS+ for him at age 21/22. Anything more would be held only for the exteme optimists.
Anything before age 21 though would become wild speculation.
Killebrew's peak best peak years were:
177 173 162 159 157 153
His best consecutive four year peak he had an OPS+ of 163................Rice at 146..........Yaz 169..........Ichiro 122 His best consecutive six year peak he had an OPS+ of 160..................RIce at 140.........Yaz 158..........Ichiro 118 His best consecutive ten year peak he had an OPS+ of 156.................Rice at 133..........Yaz 147..........Ichiro 117 his best consecutive twelve year peak he had an OPS+ of 153.............Rice at 130..........Yaz 145..........Ichiro 113
I figured I would just throw Rice in there to highlight how his peak wasn't nearly as good as people imagine(and since he didn't really have a meaningful career outside his 12 year peak, one can see how little he truly offered compared to the truly elite hitters).
Offensively, Killer had better peaks than Yaz(outside the four year peak).
By doing it this way, it sort of eliminate the need to worry too much about how much the longevity, or the bonus baby factors affected him. When his star was shining at his brightest, it shone very bright...and that really is the way most people look at players.
PS, I threw Ichiro in there too because I needed a laugh this Saturday morning when I think of all the people that call him one of the greatest hitters of all-time. He too also illustrates the longevity factor being eliminated by looking at players in this way. Even if Ichiro replicated his peak years for his age 23-26 seasons had he played in the states, he still would have a best four year peak of 122 OPS+.....waaaaaay off the mark of the best hitters. His six year peak would still be 122...waaaaay off the mark of the best hitters. Of course, had he played in the states from the start, he may have just been a platoon player, or not even made it to MLB, so he could go the opposite way too. BUT, by looking at it like this, we don't have to worry about that, because we see his peak laid out clear as day above(In comparison to two elite hitters). >>
Killebrew's claim to fame is home runs per at bat. I don't see anyone who ever led the American League more than 6 times except Ruth and Williams who were both left handed and possibly the two best hitters of all time.
NOWHERE in my post did I refer to OPS+ when making a case for Killer. Bringing in a leadoff guy to compare with Yaz and Killebrew is of course laughable. To make a fair comparison you need to bring in similar players, Rice is not a bad example, Jim was not the player either one of these guys were.
Let's go with YOUR favorite stat OPS+. Taking out the cheaters, current players and anyone with 15 years or less, Killebrew ranks 28th all time in OPS+.
Had Killebrew been put into the minors in 1954 and 1955 he certainly COULD have had three more full major league seasons of productivity. A conservative estimate gives him 20-25-35 home runs in the three years giving him an "adjusted" home run total total of 653. He certainly produced great home run numbers as soon as he was allowed to play in 1959, being a league leader (tie with Colavito), with a league leading home run per at bat number as well. Looking at his consistent career numbers, he may have hit 30-40-45 in those "missing" years as well, giving him an optimistic total of 688. We'll never know.
As you point out, his OPS+ would probably not have changed much. Harmon struck out more and walked less in his early years. He was able to dramatically improve his strikeout to walk ratio in the 2nd half of his career. Griffith Stadium also would have had an effect, if you take a look, you will see that it was a very big ballpark to left field and left center, so that might have helped the number.
Looking only at OPS+ Killebrew was a much better ballplayer than Yaz outside of the four year peak. Interesting though, I assumed Yaz's numbers would be higher than Killers by more than they were during those 4 years! Longevity and defensive ability are in Carl's favor, but do not mean enough to make Yaz a tier 1 and Harmon a tier 3.
Reenforcing my feelings that Harm was a "Tier 1" player!!!!!!!
Chiming in on another topic.
No way on earth that Yaz is better than Mantle. Mickey should have won at least 2 more MVP's and was just so superior to EVERYBODY from 1954-1964 he could have won the award almost every year.
It's really a superb accomplishment that Carl was able to play at a high level for so many years, but to say his great 4 out of 6 year peak can remotely compare to one of the best 10 year peaks in offensive production boggles my mind!
Weather we agree or not, nice work and a good debate!!!!!!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I was agreeing with you in regard to Killebrew. Ichiro was brought into that mix to show a guy whom some claim to be an all-time great hitter, and that chart illustrated how badly he fares against the likes of Killer or Yaz.
But I'm finding more steam in the Mantle as the best all-time in his prime...so I'm onto another topic
Back when I was doing more into the population studies, I was finding how drastic the player pool difference was between Ruth and Mantle's time, and that was based on the overall population. When you include the race barrier factor(which I didn't dwell too much on above), that elite talent pool gap widens even more between the two.
Looking at Mantle compared to his peers, it can be as simple in one full swoop as removing Mays, Aaron, Clemente, Banks, F. Robby, from the leader boards when comparing Mantle to his peers, to get an idea how much easier Ruth had to distance from his peers because those type of guys weren't allowed to play...as you can't find 165 OPS+ guys on the bench to replace Mays, as guys of that caliber would already be employed.
Funny, for your guy Killebrew, that same exercise puts him as #2 all-time HR leader(when the roids guys are also removed). Considering that the population advance puts Killer at facing tougher pitchers as well, a claim can be made for him to be as good a HR hitter as Ruth.
In regards to Mantle, as pointed out above, if given his proper due defensively(considering he was the fastest man in MLB), and his baserunning, we may not even have to go into the population area to see Mantle as better than Ruth when in their primes.
The reason for mentioning Yaz and Mantle together is that Mantle was such a vastly superior player - as in they are not even close. Not. Even. Close. - that any rating system putting them in the same grouping is seriously flawed. Yaz played 23 seasons, Mantle 18. So, yeah, Yaz gets some credit for those extra seasons, even if he averaged just 118 games over them. Those 5 extra "eh" seasons don't come anywhere near offsetting the huge advantage Mantle has for his 18 years. Mantle was faster (a LOT faster), hit for a higher average, hit for more power, walked more, slugged more, played a much tougher defensive position at a higher level, had a longer peak, had a higher peak, you name it.
Like the above poster said, Mantle is a lot closer to greatest ever than he is to being in the same realm as Yaz.
More on Mantle. Statistically speaking, as pointed out above, Mantle has a very strong case to be the best baseball player ever during his prime years.
When viewing lists such as these, I look at them in two ways:
1)Measuring players purely against their peers that they played with/against in a statistical analysis. Baseball lends itself well to this kind of analysis, unlike other sports. This is fairly accurate, but as pointed out above, there are some flaws since not all peers were created equal(i.e the Ruth/Mantle example where Ruth had far less elite peers to compete against). That has to be accounted for(and Dallas did), but the level of which to adjust is a difficult one. That being said, this is still the meat of any baseball player analysis.
2)Measuring players vs their peers that played throughout MLB history. This sounds like the first one, but what I am talking about here is literally making observations how one may fare if they actually played in a different era against another set of peers, and different league environment. This is basically a wild guessing game no doubt, but there are some concrete things to look at, and that is a players physical tools(and their ability to utilize such tools).
Mantle possessed two tools that separated him from virtually every other player on the planet. He had the ability to hit the ball as far as any human in recorded history, and he was the fastest runner in his time. Basically, Power and Speed. But he didn't just have power, he had prodigious power. He couldn't just run fast, he had the fastest recorded time to first base, and he turned heads with his running speed. He was the best at both. Those abilities would give him an advantage over almost every other HOF player, as those essential baseball skills translate to any era, park, or league. I'm not talking about a power/speed guy who could just do both, he could do both better than anyone. That is the rarest of the rare.
Note I also said, "the ability to utilize such tools." Glenallen Hill could probably hit balls as far as Mantle, but he simply wasn't a good enough hitter to utilize that talent enough in games. Bo Jackson may have been as fast a runner, but he too simply was not a good enough hitter to get on base frequently enough and utilize that tool. I don't want anyone to mistake that I am saying someone like Ray Lankford should be viewed as greater because he had some power/speed combo. Mantle was at the top all-time for measurable power, as well as measurable speed...and he had the baseball ability to utilize such talents.
There is no other elite HOF player that had both of those important measurable baseball commodities as good as Mantle did, and backed it up with performances to match.
Interesting stuff on Mantle; no doubt one of the game's greatest. But I do want to clear one thing up, because it seems to have had at least some bearing on this thread's current concentration on Mantle - I never said, and I don't think anyone ever said, that Yaz was better than Mantle. I'll add a few more qualitative comments on how I developed my Tiers:
"Peak" value is, as the name implies, a measure of the highest point attained by the player. Most of the value attributed under "peak" accrues in that player's best three seasons; additional value accrues if the player's next best seasons are close to that peak but at a much lower rate. For a player like Mantle, where the drop-off from peak to 12th best season is relatively low, much of the value of seasons 4 through 12 folds over into "meat" and is weighted much less. Thus, the way I've done this strongly favors players like Yaz and works against players like Mantle. That's not a defense of my method, it's an explanation. My method works that way because I tried to avoid my own biases and match my method, to any degree that was at least plausible, to the players actually in the HOF. If I had done it any other way, players like George Sisler, Jim Rice or Orlando Cepeda and dozens more in that same mold, would have congregated in a large lump at the bottom, barely distinguishable from the Tommy McCarthy's and High Pockets Kelly's that end up at the bottom no matter how you approach it. Under this method, players like Mantle and Yaz - who have similar peaks - end up close to each other; Mantle gets credit for a better "meat" career, and Yaz gets credit for a longer productive career. Is that right? In my opinion, and obviously most people's here, no, it isn't. But to the degree that you are adamant that Mantle ought to be towering over Yaz in a HOF-merit system, you also ought to be adamant that Jim Rice has no business poking his head out of Tier VI. Are you? In the actual event, where players like Jim Rice and Orlando Cepeda make the HOF, I don't think the HOF voters feel that way, and I was attempting to take the way they think into account at least as much as what I think is "right"
By the same token, the actual HOF obviously allows for positional "adjustments", although I don't know if, or how many, voters actually think of it that way. Even though we, and probably HOF voters, can all agree that a given outfielder was "better" than a given infielder or catcher, infielders and catchers make the HOF, and make it about as quickly and easily, as outfielders despite their much lower numbers. For that reason, and not because I think it is logical or statistically necessary, I gave shortstops a small boost and catchers a huge boost in my system. You put on all that equipment, do deep knee bends in it a few hundred times every day all summer long while catching 100 mph pitches over and over with the same hand, and then come back and tell me that catchers ought to be able to play as many games and hit as well as the guy who was standing in the outfield and catching a fly ball every third inning. The gap between Mickey Mantle and Johnny Bench in their hitting abilities was astronomically huge, but the gap between what was expected of them on defense was even larger. To say that Mantle won more games for his teams than Bench did for his is statistically very accurate, but I think misses the larger point. Every team needs a catcher, and whoever plays that position is going to have a shorter career, and play with aches and pains constantly, as a result. Without that context, pretty much every catcher ends up down in Tier VI, and only the two or three greatest can make it as high as Tier IV. I think that's nonsense, and I'm certain HOF voters agree with me. So if you're looking at Mantle and seeing names at or above his Tier that played in the infield that you think don't belong, that's probably why. (I talked about catchers here, but there is a separate, and equally valid, argument for 6-5-4 players.)
Bottom line, I was surprised to see Mantle fall to Tier II, and if I was personally assigning people to Tiers based on my own preferences, he wouldn't have. But I also don't see any name in Tier I that is any less obviously worthy of the HOF than Mantle, once Tier I was reduced by about half (I liked it better before I shrunk it). I'm actually more bothered by Joe Morgan dropping out than I am by Mantle; I think the greatest second baseman in history has a better claim to the HOF than the fifth or sixth best outfielder. I appreciate your arguments, skin, but no way I'm ranking Mantle higher than Ruth, Cobb, Williams, or Mays. Ruth, BTW, gets full credit in my system for being one of the best pitchers for a few years; I wasn't sure if you were taking those years into account.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Mantle possessed two tools that separated him from virtually every other player on the planet. He had the ability to hit the ball as far as any human in recorded history, and he was the fastest runner in his time. Basically, Power and Speed. But he didn't just have power, he had prodigious power.
Hah, Mantle wasn't even the best player in his city, Willie Mays was. Mays stole as many bases in one season as Mantle did in four seasons. Plus, Mantle didn't miss two prime years of his career due to military service. Mays was the superior defensive player, had better speed and baserunning instincts, and hit the ball far enough for the ball to go out. No need to embellish Mantle's feats to Bunyonesque proportions, which is what you're doing.
<< <i>Mantle possessed two tools that separated him from virtually every other player on the planet. He had the ability to hit the ball as far as any human in recorded history, and he was the fastest runner in his time. Basically, Power and Speed. But he didn't just have power, he had prodigious power.
Hah, Mantle wasn't even the best player in his city, Willie Mays was. Mays stole as many bases in one season as Mantle did in four seasons. Plus, Mantle didn't miss two prime years of his career due to military service. Mays was the superior defensive player, had better speed and baserunning instincts, and hit the ball far enough for the ball to go out. No need to embellish Mantle's feats to Bunyonesque proportions, which is what you're doing. I >>
Wrong on several accounts. First, this is at their peak, not career length. Specifically, their four year peak, but 8 or 10 works the same in Mantle's favor.
Second, Mantle had a ten year offensive average, that was better than Mays's single BEST offensive season. There isn't even a contest between the two offensively...already spelled out as simple as ABC.
THird, Mays was not faster. This is fact. Mantle had the fastest recorded running speed time in baseball during that time. Eyewitness accounts also back it up.
Fourth, in their peak, Mantle was the better stolen base player. As pointed out above in the ten year peak, Mantle stole at an 86% clip, compared to Mays's 76%. It was only after Mantle's knees were gone where that changed...but that isn't part of the discussion as this is dealing with peak years only. As for the Military, Mays did NOT miss two years due to that, and it wasn't in his peak. Even if he replicated his best two years from the missing two years, his peak still doesn't change. Since it was very early in his career, not quite peak years anyway Nice try though.
Fifth, defensively, Mantle was faster than Mays, and his glove right there with him. Any difference in the number of putouts stems solely from the pitching staff giving them more opportunities, rather than ability. I actually ran a Mays vs replacement, and his replacements on his team averaged the same number of putouts per inning as Mays did during Mays's peak. Mantle's lead offensively was so large over Mays in their peaks, that allowing for margin of error int he defensive measurements, there simply is not enough defensive ground to cover to make up for the vast offensive shortcomings.
Finally, PSASAP, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED to claim Mays as better than Mantle, because in your own words, you said it is what the player did in the World Series, and the number of World Series rings that separates them. Mays hit .239 in the WS, with zero HR, and with one ring. Mantle has the record for HR's lifetime in the WS and has rings that nearly fill up two hands. Again, as a result of your continued unsubstantiated and contradicting statements, YOU ARE DISMISSED
Dallas, I measured Mantle vs RUth in only in their peaks. Since Ruth did not pitch during his peak, that was a non factor. I don't doubt Ruth had the better career, especially taking the pitching aspect into account(though he wasn't quite the best pitcher in the league)...but as I laid out above step by step, at their top peaks, Mantle was the better baseball player than Ruth...and that breakdown didn't really dig deep into the vast advantage Ruth had in outdistancing his weaker peers, especially the lack of minorities, and the overall population dearth to draw from. Mantle had basically already eclipsed Ruth before we even have to take all those necessary steps.
Ruth's pitching while great, may also be an indictment on the quality of the league at the time. Also, when you look at his alarming decline in his SO/BB ratio in his pitching line in his last couple years, the end was very near had he chosen to continue that path on the hill. Looks like he made the right choice.
<< <i>Ruth's pitching while great, may also be an indictment on the quality of the league at the time. Also, when you look at his alarming decline in his SO/BB ratio in his pitching line in his last couple years, the end was very near had he chosen to continue that path on the hill. Looks like he made the right choice. >>
Ruth was arguably the best pitcher in the AL in 1916 (at age 21) and was at least a damn fine pitcher in 1917. His stats start slipping in 1918, and slip more in 1919, but in 1918 he played 59 games in the OF and in 1919 he played 111! That's not exactly the same rest that all the other pitchers were getting. And even so, he was 22-12, his ERA+ was 112, and he completed 30 of the 34 games he started. We'll never know what would have happened had the Red Sox kept Ruth as a full-time pitcher, but I don't think what actually happened to his pitching in 1918-1919 is a fair basis for a guess. Ruth was the best player in the major leagues in 1919 and close to it in 1918; that he did that through a combination of hitting and pitching shouldn't be a mark against him. Those two years ARE part of his peak.
Ruth once said, and I believe him, that he could have hit .400 every year but the people paid to see him hit home runs. Every point you're making with regard to Mantle is perfectly valid, but I will never be convinced that Ruth wasn't the greatest player ever, and by a pretty fair margin.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>Ruth's pitching while great, may also be an indictment on the quality of the league at the time. Also, when you look at his alarming decline in his SO/BB ratio in his pitching line in his last couple years, the end was very near had he chosen to continue that path on the hill. Looks like he made the right choice. >>
Ruth was arguably the best pitcher in the AL in 1916 (at age 21) and was at least a damn fine pitcher in 1917. His stats start slipping in 1918, and slip more in 1919, but in 1918 he played 59 games in the OF and in 1919 he played 111! That's not exactly the same rest that all the other pitchers were getting. And even so, he was 22-12, his ERA+ was 112, and he completed 30 of the 34 games he started. We'll never know what would have happened had the Red Sox kept Ruth as a full-time pitcher, but I don't think what actually happened to his pitching in 1918-1919 is a fair basis for a guess. Ruth was the best player in the major leagues in 1919 and close to it in 1918; that he did that through a combination of hitting and pitching shouldn't be a mark against him. Those two years ARE part of his peak.
Ruth once said, and I believe him, that he could have hit .400 every year but the people paid to see him hit home runs. Every point you're making with regard to Mantle is perfectly valid, but I will never be convinced that Ruth wasn't the greatest player ever, and by a pretty fair margin. >>
I agree, but those are more in terms of career views/values. I really am only looking at their peak, and what I laid out above in their peak, paints very strongly toward Mantle. Your study has a hard job of balancing both peak and career...I'm taking the 'easy way' by narrowing it down
While true we can't accurately predict how Ruth would have done had he continued pitching when he was in his hitting prime, there are good indicators that are pretty accurate, mainly his SO/BB ratio. He slipped at an alarming rate his last two years on the hill, and that is a very strong indication that he was no longer a mystery to batters(and most likely he lost some velocity, and that is often enough to do the trick).
The level of competition between the two era's could be enough to make a wild swing in judging their abilities. The elimination of minority players in Ruth's time plays just one huge role, the dearth of population to draw from another huge role, and then the fact that the league was filled with dead ball style hitters in Ruth's prime that made it easier for him to dominate to a higher degree not even possible in any other era. In order for Mantle to replicate Ruth's outhomering every team, he would usually have to hit 190 HR's in a season. That isn't something that makes Ruth look better, on the contrary, because based on the competition factors stated in this paragraph, it shows how unfair any current statistical measurement is going to favor, and be biased toward Ruth.
Even taking the competition factor out of the equation, when looking at hitting, position, baserunning, and defense, Mantle is neck and neck with Ruth as it is in their peaks. Add the potentially large swing in the competition factors, Mantle could walk away with a comfortable 'win' vs Ruth in their peaks.
PSASAP, you have already been dismissed due to your continued contradictions(apply the same Post Season comments to Mays/Mantle as you did to Brock, lol). You have not offered a single rational thought, nor a single tid-bit of valid evidence to substantiate any or your claims, therefore, you just stating something means absolutely nothing. Nice try though. I'll just pat you on the head, and say, good job, keep trying.
Mays had more home runs, triples, doubles, singles, RBI, stolen bases, had a higher lifetime ba, and had more putouts and assists than Mantle, class dismissed.
Comments
<< <i>Any list that has DiMaggio and Clemente tier 2 is a joke. How many players had 56 game hitting streaks and 12 gold gloves? Dimaggio was better than Mantle >>
Stick to college football and the Big 10..
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.
<< <i>
<< <i>Any list that has DiMaggio and Clemente tier 2 is a joke. How many players had 56 game hitting streaks and 12 gold gloves? Dimaggio was better than Mantle >>
I know nothing about college football and the Big 10.. >>
I quite agree. Weren't you one of those haters that said no Big Ten team had a chance?
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
<< <i>Brock had a lifetime BA of .391 in 21 World Series games and there is no way the Cards even make it to any of the three series without him as their leadoff hitter. >>
Brock had some pretty good years in that time, and there is a good chance the Cardinals don't make it to the World Series without him, just as there is a good chance the Cards don't make it to the World Series without a number of players on their team.
None of that changes how good he was, and none of that changes the value of BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR, Out made. If he has less a value in those than another player, then he just isn't as good.
A mere 87 World Series at bats.. Actually, all that really is, is luck. He just happened to have a few better than normal games.
It isn't any special ability that he had to hit .391 in the World Series, it is just random chance over a small sample size.
If you believe it is something else, then Brock is either dumb, psychic, or lazy....because if he truly had that ability, why only hit .391 when the World Series came around? Why not hit that ALL year, and then they would get to MORE World Series???? Does he not realize that? Is he stupid?
Or maybe he knew he could just hit .301 in the regular season, because they would make it there anyway, then when they got there he could really show what he was made of. Psychic?
Or maybe he felt he didn't want to try as hard because the regular seasons games 'don't mean as much'. Lazy?
That post seasons stuff has been debunked so many times, it is laughable people still bring it up.
And if he was soo good that HE is the reason the team's he played on went to three World Series? What happened from 1969-1979? They didn't even make the playoffs when the playoffs expanded, lol.
So in your language, his 118 SB season meant absolutelyy nothing, because they didn't even make the playoffs that year.
Also in your language, that means Hank Aaron's career basically ended in 1958, because from 1958-1976, they didn't win a World Series. That would make most of his 754 HR's a moot point or non factor. In your language, that must mean he wasn't that good if they couldn't even win a WS in 18 years...since you hail Brock so much because they won two. Can't have it both ways buddy
<< <i>
<< <i>Killebrew still too low. >>
Of course, with your sig line right below that post, why would anyone think you'd feel any different, LOL.. >>
True he was my favorite player. That does mean I (blindly?) admire his abilities, also means that I have followed his career closely and know how good he was. This is another example of not looking close enough.
Top right handed home run hitter in American League of all time. I don't count A-Roid.
Missed two or possibly three prime years due to silly "bonus baby" rule. Clemente was a "bonus baby" the same year. Pittsburgh drafted him away from the Dodgers, was put in the lineup right away, take away 1955-58 and his career numbers get WAY worse, of course no way of knowing how he would have done had he played longer, but early years are usually better than late ones. Harmon's last three were pretty bad.
Only marquee player of his time to shuffle between 1st base 3rd base and left field to help his team get stronger lineup. Had to hurt his defensive ratings, which weren't that good to begin with. Had he stuck to 1st or 3rd, would have helped his weakest area.
Also probably most consistent Home Run hitter; look at 1959-1970. Hit a minimum of 39 home runs (and 96 RBI) every single time he had 500+ at bats............no down years. Hit the most per at bat and the most overall in all of baseball during those years.
Third all time in HR frequency (over 500 hrs) if you ignore steroid guys. First among right handed batters. Easier to hit HRs as a lefty, most pitchers are right handed and ballparks generally bigger to left field than right.
With 8147 At Bats #130 all time he is #7 in HRs #15 in RBIs.
Played most of his career with no other real offensive threats in lineup until Oliva and Carew came along. Allison did have a couple of nice years.
6 times in top 5 MVP voting with one MVP award. Top 50 all time Offensive WAR. Top 20 all time WPA.
I assume this ranking system ignores things like good sportsmanship, so I won't say too much about what a great ambassador to the game he was.
In my mind if he's not in the top tier (only because of his defensive issues) he is a SOLID 2nd tier guy.
Jack Morris is one often-cited example of a player who "dominated" in the postseason. His ERA throughout his career was 3.94 and in the postseason it was 3.80; it improved by about 4%. And the regular season winning percentage of the teams he was on that made the postseason was .606, so in 11 postseason decisions, you'd expect Morris to win 6.67 games; and he won 7. How anyone can look at numbers like that and not recognize random variation at play is beyond me. Jack Morris, being neither psychic, lazy, nor stupid, was exactly the same player in the postseason that he was during the regular season. So was Brock, his variation was just more extreme.
BTW - completely updated Tiers coming later this weekend. I have listened to the voices of the people and reallocated the Tiers so that Tier I is smaller, so those in it are not "too far" from Ruth. Some big names are going to drop out (bigger than Yaz).
Realistically speaking, Killebrew did miss two potentially good years at age 21 and 22. Doubtful they would be anything near his prime caliber years, as at age 23 and 24 he posted OPS+ of 137 and 142. Not unreasonable to expect a couple 120/125 OPS+ for him at age 21/22. Anything more would be held only for the exteme optimists.
Anything before age 21 though would become wild speculation.
Killebrew's peak best peak years were:
177
173
162
159
157
153
His best consecutive four year peak he had an OPS+ of 163................Rice at 146..........Yaz 169..........Ichiro 122
His best consecutive six year peak he had an OPS+ of 160..................RIce at 140.........Yaz 158..........Ichiro 118
His best consecutive ten year peak he had an OPS+ of 156.................Rice at 133..........Yaz 147..........Ichiro 117
his best consecutive twelve year peak he had an OPS+ of 153.............Rice at 130..........Yaz 145..........Ichiro 113
I figured I would just throw Rice in there to highlight how his peak wasn't nearly as good as people imagine(and since he didn't really have a meaningful career outside his 12 year peak, one can see how little he truly offered compared to the truly elite hitters).
Offensively, Killer had better peaks than Yaz(outside the four year peak).
By doing it this way, it sort of eliminate the need to worry too much about how much the longevity, or the bonus baby factors affected him. When his star was shining at his brightest, it shone very bright...and that really is the way most people look at players.
PS, I threw Ichiro in there too because I needed a laugh this Saturday morning when I think of all the people that call him one of the greatest hitters of all-time. He too also illustrates the longevity factor being eliminated by looking at players in this way. Even if Ichiro replicated his peak years for his age 23-26 seasons had he played in the states, he still would have a best four year peak of 122 OPS+.....waaaaaay off the mark of the best hitters. His six year peak would still be 122...waaaaay off the mark of the best hitters. Of course, had he played in the states from the start, he may have just been a platoon player, or not even made it to MLB, so he could go the opposite way too. BUT, by looking at it like this, we don't have to worry about that, because we see his peak laid out clear as day above(In comparison to two elite hitters).
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.
<< <i>The Morris postseason topic is an interesting one and effectively highlights the selective memoryt most people have when remembering players they admired or rooted for. Morris had two terrific postseasons in 1984 and 1991, going 7-0 with an ERA just a shade over 2.00. But he also had two equally putrid postseasons in 1987 and 1992, going 0-4 with an ERA of about 7.25. >>
Well, that's basically Jack Morris in a nutshell. Sometimes he was good and sometimes he was bad; add it all up - whether in the regular season or in the postseason - and he was a very slightly above average pitcher. Jack Morris wasn't even a "good" pitcher, unless your definition of "good" is a lot different than mine and Webster's, and the folks who argue that he should be in the HOF make me cry.
<< <i>The post season is the reason why players play the game, a World Series ring is what every plaster covers, but only a handful succeed in getting one. Ignoring the postseason is like serving a BLT sandwich without the bacon. >>
By your standard of measurement, then, Ted Williams wasn't very good after all, was he?
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.
<< <i>Oh yeah, that's exactly what I meant. Ever thought of a career writing headlines for the National Enquirer? >>
LOL, no, your posts are entertaining enough..
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.
Tier I
Hank Aaron
Ty Cobb
Lou Gehrig
Lefty Grove
Randy Johnson
Walter Johnson
Willie Mays
Stan Musial
Kid Nichols
Babe Ruth
Mike Schmidt
Honus Wagner
Ted Williams
Cy Young
Tier II
Grover Alexander
Johnny Bench
Wade Boggs
George Brett
Gary Carter
Eddie Collins
Bob Feller
Jimmie Foxx
Rickey Henderson
Rogers Hornsby
Al Kaline
Greg Maddux
Mickey Mantle
Pedro Martinez
Eddie Mathews
Christy Mathewson
Johnny Mize
Joe Morgan
Phil Niekro
Mel Ott
Gaylord Perry
Cal Ripken, Jr.
Frank Robinson
Tom Seaver
Tris Speaker
Carl Yastrzemski
Tier III
Luke Appling
Ernie Banks
Yogi Berra
Bert Blyleven
Lou Boudreau
Dan Brouthers
Roy Campanella
Rod Carew
Steve Carlton
John Clarkson
Roberto Clemente
Mickey Cochrane
Ed Delahanty
Joe DiMaggio
Carlton Fisk
Pud Galvin
Bob Gibson
Hank Greenberg
Harry Heilmann
Reggie Jackson
Ferguson Jenkins
Tim Keefe
Ralph Kiner
Nap Lajoie
Barry Larkin
Willie McCovey
Eddie Murray
Eddie Plank
Robin Roberts
Brooks Robinson
Jackie Robinson
Amos Rusie
Ron Santo
Ozzie Smith
Duke Snider
Warren Spahn
Arky Vaughan
Ed Walsh
Robin Yount
Tier IV
Roberto Alomar
Cap Anson
Richie Ashburn
Frank Baker
Craig Biggio
Mordecai Brown
Jim Bunning
Jesse Burkett
Orlando Cepeda
Roger Connor
Stan Coveleski
Sam Crawford
Joe Cronin
George Davis
Dizzy Dean
Bill Dickey
Bobby Doerr
Don Drysdale
Dennis Eckersley
Red Faber
Frankie Frisch
Charlie Gehringer
Tom Glavine
Joe Gordon
Tony Gwynn
Billy Hamilton
Carl Hubbell
Hugh Jennings
Harmon Killebrew
Chuck Klein
Sandy Koufax
Ted Lyons
Juan Marichal
Joe McGinnity
Joe Medwick
Paul Molitor
Hal Newhouser
Jim Palmer
Kirby Puckett
Charles Radbourn
Jim Rice
Nolan Ryan
Ryne Sandberg
Al Simmons
George Sisler
John Smoltz
Willie Stargell
Bill Terry
Frank Thomas
Dazzy Vance
Rube Waddell
Bobby Wallace
Paul Waner
Pee Wee Reese
Mickey Welch
Deacon White
Billy Williams
Vic Willis
Dave Winfield
Tier V
Luis Aparicio
Earl Averill
Dave Bancroft
Jake Beckley
Chief Bender
Roger Bresnahan
Lou Brock
Max Carey
Frank Chance
Jack Chesbro
Fred Clarke
Jimmy Collins
Earle Combs
Kiki Cuyler
Andre Dawson
Larry Doby
Hugh Duffy
Johnny Evers
Buck Ewing
Elmer Flick
Whitey Ford
Nellie Fox
Lefty Gomez
Goose Goslin
Rich Gossage
Burleigh Grimes
Gabby Hartnett
Billy Herman
Harry Hooper
Waite Hoyt
Catfish Hunter
Travis Jackson
Addie Joss
Willie Keeler
Joe Kelley
King Kelly
Tony Lazzeri
Freddie Lindstrom
Ernie Lombardi
Heinie Manush
Rabbit Maranville
Rube Marquard
Bid McPhee
Jim O'Rourke
Herb Pennock
Tony Perez
Eppa Rixey
Phil Rizzuto
Edd Roush
Red Ruffing
Red Schoendienst
Joe Sewell
Enos Slaughter
Don Sutton
Sam Thompson
Joe Tinker
Zack Wheat
Hack Wilson
Early Wynn
Ross Youngs
Tier VI
Jim Bottomley
Rick Ferrell
Rollie Fingers
Chick Hafey
Jesse Haines
George Kell
George Kelly
Bob Lemon
Bill Mazeroski
Tommy McCarthy
Sam Rice
Ray Schalk
Bruce Sutter
Pie Traynor
Lloyd Waner
John Ward
Hoyt Wilhelm
Some of the players that drop to Tier II just kill me, but setting the bar as high as I heard it should be this is what it looks like. No catchers and no second basemen and no Mantle. And no Yaz (who was not very near the bottom of Tier I as it was).
But overall, I do think that this looks fine overall once we accept that some really great players have to end up in Tier III. Descriptively, Tier I is now nothing but "the best of the best" and if anyone sees a name they don't think belongs at this point - get over yourself, you're just wrong. There is still some fair variability in Tier II form top to bottom, but there is not a single name in there that should prompt anyone to say they don't belong in the HOF. In other words, there may be a quibble at the margins that a player belongs in Tier II, but there is no reasonable argument to be made that any player in Tier II doesn't belong in the HOF at all. Tier III represents a clear drop from Tier II (although at the margins there may be some quibbling about moving up or down between them), but I personally don't see anyone in there that I would say doesn't belong in the HOF. But there are a lot more players in Tier III than in Tier II who were more one-dimensional; HOF fielding and so-so hitting; HOF power, so-so otherwise; HOF peak, not much else. Another clear drop to Tier IV, but still, I don't see anyone in Tier IV that I would say doesn't belong in a HOF defined primarily by peak performance. But for many, many players in Tier IV, I think reasonable arguments can now be made that the player doesn't belong in the HOF, depending on one's own perception of what the HOF should be. Big drop to the average Tier V player, and (with the frustrating exception of Whitey Ford) there's a very reasonable case to be made that NONE of them belong in the HOF. I see a handful (Ford, of course, and Brock, Fox, Collins) that I think are solid HOFers, but the argument that a Tier V player belongs in the HOF is going to be different than the arguments for players in the higher Tiers (in the rare instances when an argument for a player in a higher Tier is necessary). And Tier VI rounds it out with players who have no business in the HOF by anything remotely similar to the same standards applied to everyone else. As I've said, I think Maz and Wilhelm being in the HOF is a good thing, but I acknowledge there are fine arguments to the contrary. Beyond those two, I don't think anything close to a reasonable argument can be made for any of the others.
I've been waiting to update the non-HOFers until I'd settled on a final HOF system, and I think this is it. Not that it's perfect now, but I don't see it getting any better without adding tremendously more complexity, and I'll leave that to someone else if they care enough. But I'll offer my opinion that "had a 56 game hitting streak" or such things have no place in anything that can be called a "system". If you think DiMaggio belongs in Tier I because of that hitting streak, then that's your right and more power to you. But recognize that what you have is an opinion, and as far as winning games or producing runs for a player's team, getting hits in 56 games consecutively has no more value than getting hits in 56 non-consecutive games. It's a unique accomplishment, but in any objective measurement of "great", it doesn't mean anything. In general, if you find yourself making a case that so-and-so was great, or belongs in the HOF, because of some accomplishment that comprises less than 2% of that player's career (his hitting streak, his no-hitters, his postseason, his great September in 2008, etc.) you are not making an objective argument, and you are opening the door to "great" or to the HOF to thousands of other players who have their own unique accomplishments. If Manny Sanguillen happened to have gotten singles in 57 straight games, I hope we'd have had the sense to keep him out of the HOF anyway. DiMaggio was a great player, who also happened to have a 56-game hitting streak; he'd have been just as great without it.
<< <i>
<< <i>The post season is the reason why players play the game, a World Series ring is what every plaster covers, but only a handful succeed in getting one. Ignoring the postseason is like serving a BLT sandwich without the bacon. >>
By your standard of measurement, then, Ted Williams wasn't very good after all, was he? >>
Do not forget Silvera when discussing your all time greats. He has five WS rings-must have been a terrific player.
<< <i>The post season is the reason why players play the game, a World Series ring is what every plaster covers, but only a handful succeed in getting one. Ignoring the postseason is like serving a BLT sandwich without the bacon. >>
Actually, to answer your other question, pretty much everything you say doesn't make any sense at all. You are good comic relief, and way for me to cure boredom, like a cat just playing with a ball of yarn.
First, World Series rings are a team accomplishment. They have a place when it comes to measuring teams. We aren't measuring teams.
When measuring individuals, that is a completely different 'ball game'.
We are measuring players, and since you understand that the goal IS to win a World Series, then you should understand that the players who create the most runs, create the most wins. The teams that win the most games, have the best chance of winning a World Series.
The way to understand how a player creates runs, is by simply looking at the Play by Play data. There is no mystery there...everything is accounted for, and the value of each event...BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR, and out made all have very concrete value... and yes, those can all be looked at in game situation.
Again, based on YOUR criteria PSASAP, Hank Aaron was useless from 1958-1976 because they did not win a World Series. So by your very definition, there will be hundred of ballplayers in the history of the game who would be viewed as better than Aaron.
Your criteria puts Ted Williams below Bill Mazeroski. Your criteria puts Willie Mays below Lou Brock, as Mays hit .239 in the WS with ZERO HR. Based on your criteria, Ray Knight would be better than Rod Carew.
You see, guys get hot and cold all the time. When it comes to a short amount of games in the post season, that doesn't change. If you believe it does, then you still need to answer the problem if Lou Brock was stupid, psychic, or lazy. Which one was he? Because if he is measured by his high BA in the World Series, why on earth did he not do that in the regular season so they could get to MORE WS????
Oh, and your guy ICHIRO never even played in a WS!!! So by your very own definition, you just devalued your hero. So whenever it comes time to talk about him in the pantheon of hitters, I better hear you say that he can't be ranked too high, because he never got to a WS.
PS, Dallas, yes, I agree. If after 10,000 plate appearances two guys are tied, I could see the 200 odd post season at bats being used to break the tie.
<< <i>There is a threshold that players must meet to be considered "Hall of Fame worthy", and that threshold is usually defined by the attainment of a milestone statistic (e.g. 3000 hits, 500 hrs, 300 wins). Once that threshold has been crossed, a way to distinguish one great player from another is performance in the postseason. Does that make sense to you? >>
While it may be true in many cases that reaching such "milestone" statistics will often coincide with a HOF resume (after all, most truly great players will reach those milestones because they are that good to begin with), attempting to measure the overall greatness of a player by simply reducing your analysis of how great a player is by being able to reach these milstones is a rather superficial method of evaluation. If Jamie Moyer had stuck around to win 31 more games and reach 300, is he a HOFer then? If Dave Kingman stuck around a couple more seasons to reach 500 home runs (pre-steroid era no less!), is he a HOFer then?
Postseason performance may be significant to the individual player and his team trying to win a championship, but as a factor to be used in determining where a player lands in the pantheon of baseball greatness, it is overall too small a sample size to be used in the context of an entire playing career and it also unfairly penalizes truly great players like Ted Williams or Ernie Banks whose teams weren't good enough to routinely qualify for postseason play. And as the Morris postseason myth also illustrates, give a player a large enough sample size in postaseason play, and he will almost always or invariably revert to his career mean statistics.
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.
Tier III
Dick Allen
Bobby Grich
Keith Hernandez
Mike Mussina
Tier IV
Sal Bando
Albert Belle
Bobby Bonds
Ken Boyer
Bert Campaneris
Norm Cash
Cesar Cedeno
Ron Cey
Will Clark
Rocky Colavito
Darrell Evans
Dwight Evans
Jim Fregosi
Pedro Guerrero
Ron Guidry
Stan Hack
Don Mattingly
Sam McDowell
Minnie Minoso
Dale Murphy
Graig Nettles
Tony Oliva
Dave Parker
Rico Petrocelli
Vada Pinson
Tim Raines
Al Rosen
Ted Simmons
Ken Singleton
Reggie Smith
Darryl Strawberry
Gene Tenace
Luis Tiant
Alan Trammell
Lou Whitaker
Wilbur Wood
Jimmy Wynn
Tier V
Jack Clark
Jose Cruz
Bill Freehan
Kirk Gibson
Gil Hodges
Frank Howard
Tommy John
Jim Kaat
Fred Lynn
Jack Morris
Bobby Murcer
Boog Powell
Mariano Rivera
Roy White
Tier VI
Matty Alou
Ron Fairly
Steve Garvey
The interesting group, I think, is Tier IV. An argument probably exists that this or that player in this Tier doesn't belong in the HOF, but as a group, these guys belong in the same conversation as most of the players in the HOF Tier IV.
And Bobby Grich is probably the most underrated player of all time. He got 2.6% of the vote in his single appearance on a HOF ballot, but the man is 83rd all time in offensive WAR and 84th all time in defensive WAR, and did that without "accumulating" since he's 234th in games played. Easily one of the 100 greatest non-pitchers of all time, and all but forgotten today. Never got to play in a WS, and suffers as much as any player from the impenetrable ignorance of fans and sportswriters regarding the value of a walk.
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.
<< <i>Skin, the only thing comical in this thread is your slavish adherence to the play by play data that you keep pinning your arguments on. You're like some zealot who quotes the Bible as though it's some kind of last word on everything. Try thinking for yourself sometime, it's a very healthy thing to do, and will help your intellectual growth. >>
That is all I do is think for myself, and only a fool would not 'think' to look at the play by play data, because it solves any and all mystery that fans have been arguing about for the last 60 years.
You still have a lot of questions to asnwer to show us how you 'think':
1) Was Lou Brock Stupid, psychic, or lazy? Which one of those explains why he chose not to use the 'ability' he had to hit .390 in the WS, and not use it in the regular season, where if he hit .390(or anywhere close), his teams would have went to MORE WS!?
Lets hear you 'think' think that through.
2)Why on earth do you keep claiming(with your criteria) that Bill Mazeroski was better than Ted Williams? Or Brock better than Mays? Lets hear you 'think' that through.
3)WHy do you call Ichiro an all-time great hitter, when you yourself said that it is what a player does in the World Series, and that Winning a World Series, is what separates the greats??? How on one hand can you call him a great, and then on the other hand say the stuff you said about Brock, when Ichiro doesn't even have a single hit in the WS, nor a WS ring??? Hmmmm?
Shall I call you Sherwin Williams, since you have painted yourself into a corner??
Lets hear you 'think' think that through.
2)Why on earth do you keep claiming(with your criteria) that Bill Mazeroski was better than Ted Williams? Or Brock better than Mays? Lets hear you 'think' that through.
3)WHy do you call Ichiro an all-time great hitter, when you yourself said that it is what a player does in the World Series, and that Winning a World Series, is what separates the greats??? How on one hand can you call him a great, and then on the other hand say the stuff you said about Brock, when Ichiro doesn't even have a single hit in the WS, nor a WS ring??? Hmmmm?
Shall I call you Sherwin Williams, since you have painted yourself into a corner??
Yes, you have lauded Ichiro a great hitter when you disagreed his OPS+ failings. You are welcome now to clarify that Ichiro cannot be a very good hitter since he has ZERO WS hits, and ZERO WS rings. Please clarify. Was Ichiro a better hitter than Eddie Murray, Schmidt, or Reggie Jackson? I can throw a few more scenarios/players to see how well you 'think'.
You still have questions to answer. You 'claim' to think for yourself, lets hear some of it. You made some statements, now back them up with some sort of though process. Seems you really aren't the 'thinker' you claim to be.
I've cleaned up on futures in baseball(especially on breakout pitchers
<< <i>Ted Williams was a great hitter and certainly the greatest Mexican-American player ever. >>
Like I thought...just not a whole lot of substance or thinking behind your words.
I enjoy these boards for the opportunity to get my thought process out there. I enjoy hearing other people's thoughts, but not when they make claims and have absolutely no semblance of thought behind it, or have any evidence(not rooted in bias or contradictions like yours) to support it.
I'll check back tomorrow on the topic at hand...but PSASAP, you seem to have disqualified yourself as one worthy of response(on this topic). If I'm bored, I still may partake though. Till then.
<< <i>Ted Williams was Mexican-American, look it up. >>
Actually, to be technically correct, Williams was Welsh-Irish-Mexican American.
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.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>I've heard Clemente's name frequently on that elite level with Ruth, Gehrig, etc. I've always thought that Clemente was outstanding, but not to that level. I think a fair comparison would be Clemente to Al Kaline. Clemente was a great outfielder, but so was Kaline. Kaline might have been better. Kaline had more power. Hard to say for sure, but I'd go with Kaline, which means I go with Clemente being on Tier 2 with him, and not higher. >>
If you heard Clemente in the same breath as Ruth or Gehrig, then what you heard was kooky talk, and I agree that Kaline is a much better comparison. But Kaline was better. Clemente was a better fielder, but Kaline was good. The difference between a great and a good right fielder is very small in the scheme of things, and Kaline was better at virtually everything else, although not by a mile. Kaline's OBP was higher, his slugging average was higher, he ran the bases better, and he ground into fewer DPs. They were both Tier II before the realignment, but there's a clear gap between the two, and the line between Tier II and Tier III falls in the gap now.
Does this mean I'm not coming to your house for the Super Bowl? Some friend you are.
<< <i>
<< <i>
As I said, ignoring OBP,
>>
Ignoring OBP is ignoring about half a player's contribution to hitting. Makes zero sense to do that. >>
I never meant to imply that we should completely ignore OBP. But it also shouldn't be taken as the be-all end-all gospel for rating a player. Having an OBP of .375 is wonderful. Combining it with a .391 slugging %? Not so much.
Again, we're talking a guy who had seven full seasons where he hit 15 or fewer homers. That's fine if you're a 2B but a corner outfielder? Playing in Fenway? No.
You'll get no argument from me saying he wasn't spectacular from 1967-70. The question is: what the heck happened the rest of those years?
And, really, what argument is there for having Yaz and Mantle in the same tier? Mantle had a significantly higher peak, had a longer peak, and was still an OPS+ of 143 his final season. His career OPS+ of 172 is higher than all but two individual seasons for Yaz. He was better defensively than Yaz.
So we've got: longer peak, better peak, better defense. How was Yaz ever a tier above Mantle to begin with?
As for Kid Nichols, I'm not understanding him as a top 20 guy either. The only thing he's got going for him is an ERA+ of 140 and his 361 wins. Those are both awesome, no doubt. But he never led the league in ERA or Ks whereas Christy Mathewson led in ERA five times, Ks five times, ERA+ five times, FIP EIGHT times, and led in WHIP four times. You look at their numbers and there's a smattering of black ink on Nichols's record - Mathewson's record is covered in black ink.
What's the argument in favor of Nichols?
<< <i>I've always thought that Keith Hernandez doesn't get as much support as he deserves~he may not be a HOFer, but he should at least be in the conversation. I'm sure that lack of power and playing a corner infield position hurts him in the eyes of the voters, but he was an above average hitter (.296/.384/.821, with career OPS+ of 128 and WAR of 60.0), with an MVP and two other finishes at #2 and #4, and he was outstanding defensively~one of the very best I've ever seen, with 12 Gold Gloves. Good to see him land in Tier III. >>
Compare him to John Olerud...
<< <i>
<< <i>I've always thought that Keith Hernandez doesn't get as much support as he deserves~he may not be a HOFer, but he should at least be in the conversation. I'm sure that lack of power and playing a corner infield position hurts him in the eyes of the voters, but he was an above average hitter (.296/.384/.821, with career OPS+ of 128 and WAR of 60.0), with an MVP and two other finishes at #2 and #4, and he was outstanding defensively~one of the very best I've ever seen, with 12 Gold Gloves. Good to see him land in Tier III. >>
Compare him to John Olerud... >>
Olerud deserves consideration as well, and their career batting numbers are pretty similar (Hernandez has a slight edge in OPS+ and grounded in fewer DPs, while Olerud has the edge in OBP%, slugging % and OPS), though Hernandez was the better fielder, but I would also say that Olerud played the bulk of his career in an era during which offensive production on the whole was higher than when Hernandez played (who also played his home games in tougher hitting parks, Olerud's three years in NY notwithstanding), so I would still give the nod to Hernandez over Olerud for a hypothetic HOF vote...though certainly not considered a basestealing thread, Hernandez also has a clear edge in stolen bases, too.
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.
<< <i>
<< <i>I've heard Clemente's name frequently on that elite level with Ruth, Gehrig, etc. I've always thought that Clemente was outstanding, but not to that level. I think a fair comparison would be Clemente to Al Kaline. Clemente was a great outfielder, but so was Kaline. Kaline might have been better. Kaline had more power. Hard to say for sure, but I'd go with Kaline, which means I go with Clemente being on Tier 2 with him, and not higher. >>
If you heard Clemente in the same breath as Ruth or Gehrig, then what you heard was kooky talk, and I agree that Kaline is a much better comparison. But Kaline was better. Clemente was a better fielder, but Kaline was good. The difference between a great and a good right fielder is very small in the scheme of things, and Kaline was better at virtually everything else, although not by a mile. Kaline's OBP was higher, his slugging average was higher, he ran the bases better, and he ground into fewer DPs. They were both Tier II before the realignment, but there's a clear gap between the two, and the line between Tier II and Tier III falls in the gap now. >>
Kaline never won a MVP award and you think he was better than Clemente? Clemente had a better career and its not even close. Kaline did win an award in Clemente's name lol.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
<< <i>I never meant to imply that we should completely ignore OBP. But it also shouldn't be taken as the be-all end-all gospel for rating a player. Having an OBP of .375 is wonderful. Combining it with a .391 slugging %? Not so much.
Again, we're talking a guy who had seven full seasons where he hit 15 or fewer homers. That's fine if you're a 2B but a corner outfielder? Playing in Fenway? No.
You'll get no argument from me saying he wasn't spectacular from 1967-70. The question is: what the heck happened the rest of those years?
And, really, what argument is there for having Yaz and Mantle in the same tier? Mantle had a significantly higher peak, had a longer peak, and was still an OPS+ of 143 his final season. His career OPS+ of 172 is higher than all but two individual seasons for Yaz. He was better defensively than Yaz.
So we've got: longer peak, better peak, better defense. How was Yaz ever a tier above Mantle to begin with?
As for Kid Nichols, I'm not understanding him as a top 20 guy either. The only thing he's got going for him is an ERA+ of 140 and his 361 wins. Those are both awesome, no doubt. But he never led the league in ERA or Ks whereas Christy Mathewson led in ERA five times, Ks five times, ERA+ five times, FIP EIGHT times, and led in WHIP four times. You look at their numbers and there's a smattering of black ink on Nichols's record - Mathewson's record is covered in black ink.
What's the argument in favor of Nichols? >>
Whether or not to ignore OBP isn't really the issue - I think everyone with sense knows it can't be ignored. But "not ignoring" it isn't nearly enough - that leaves open weighting slugging by 90% and OBP by 10%, or other such foolishness. It counts more or less the same as slugging, and I think hardly anyone does that once they get fixated on home runs and RBIs. And I know hardly anyone appreciates how much more important OBP is than batting average, which is why singles hitters who don't take many walks occupy 80% of the Most Overrated list.
And yes, it's true that Mantle had an OPS+ of 143 in his final season. At age 36. What you are doing - what most everyone does - is look at the years Yaz was able to play past age 36 - all seven of them with an OPS+ of 112 - and not only refuse to give it any value, but actually use them to reduce his value up to that point by referring to his career averages and comparing them to Mantle's (or anyone else's who wasn't good enough to play past age 36.
All that said, sure, Mantle was better. But your question confuses me since Yaz never was in a higher Tier than Mantle.
As for Nichols and Mathewson, that's a hard comparison to make and I could probably be convinced either way as to which was better. But there are two factors that you didn't mention so I will to make sure everyone is aware of them. Nichols, at his peak, pitched a lot more innings per year than did Mathewson. I realize that this is in part due to the different decades in which they pitched, but it's there, and it gives Nichols a little bump. Second, and more importantly, Nichols peak occurred with a home park that was so much a hitter's paradise that it would make Fenway look tough by comparison. Mathewson, on the other hand, pitched most of his career in a park it which it was next to impossible to hit a home run. "Black Ink" and such things, simply don't work in an apples and oranges comparison like these two represent. Mathewson should lead the league in stuff a lot more often than Nichols, and did, but the same is true of most any pitcher on the Giants; the advantage of pitching there was enormous, especially compared to the poor Beaneater pitchers.
I'm comfortable enough that Nichols was better than Mathewson, but the margin between them is really pretty small. If you think Mathewson was the better of the two, that's fine and you may be right. But if you think that there's a large gap between them, then I think you're wrong.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Any list that has DiMaggio and Clemente tier 2 is a joke. How many players had 56 game hitting streaks and 12 gold gloves? Dimaggio was better than Mantle >>
I know nothing about college football and the Big 10.. >>
I quite agree. Weren't you one of those haters that said no Big Ten team had a chance?
I don't follow or care for college football and wouldn't make such a statement about an area I'm not well versed or knowledgeable about. You ought to take the same advice here.
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.
<< <i> I'll check back tomorrow on the topic at hand...but PSASAP, you seem to have disqualified yourself as one worthy of response(on this topic). If I'm bored, I still may partake though. Till then.
Does this mean I'm not coming to your house for the Super Bowl? Some friend you are. >>
Make no mistake, I'd have beers with you anytime. I have these debates with my buddies over beers all the time...great times.
Enough on Yaz for now...I broke down his prime and outside prime years above earlier. He wasn't average for 19 years. I deleted the repost of that here, because I see a more interesting topic below in my post
I personally would put Mantle ahead of Yaz due to Mantle's extreme peak of greatness with a 188 OPS+ over a ten year span, and a 15 year peak with a 177 OPS+...coming from the CF position, and while also recognizing it was injury that cost Mantle a longer career, rather than ability. People got fooled into thinking Mantle had a bad year in his last year, because they didn't account for the league wide decline in offense. It was too bad Mantle didn't stick around for the next few years when league offense came back up.
I could make a good case for Mantle being the best baseball player ever while in his prime....even better than Ruth, because I will certainly take into account league wide competition, the fact that Ruth had a much easier job to separate from his peers because his league was filled with dead ball style hitters, as well as the population of viable baseball players to draw from that furthered that gap even more. Also, the tools such as Mantle's blazing speed that was not properly utilized due to the league and team style at the time.
Defensively speaking, any lack of Putouts by Mantle is more likely to be a result of their pitching staff, and/or deferring to LF/RF on the easy put outs, as opposed to it being his ability. A man of Mantle's speed and baseball ability, I have extreme doubts any lack of putouts are due to his ability(compared to that of other CF's in his time in different scenarios). That is part of the reason why defensive measurements should not be put on par with offensive. Defense does make a difference, but the measurements used brings the validity scale down.
Mantle had a consecutive ten year peak where he AVERAGED a 188 OPS+. To put that into perspective, Willie Mays' singled best season was 185, and his next best 175. I used 'consecutive' years, because that brings reliability to a player(and team), rather than their best scattered years.
Mantle's best consecutive four year peak was a 200 OPS+. He stole 52 bases and was caught only 8 times in that peak. He was blazing fast, and had great baseball sense. Those SB totals are held down due to his team's philosophy and league philosophy. He was so fast, and there is no way his lack of putouts in the OF are due to ability. When looking at a lack of putouts compared to Mays, it is stemming mainly from two things 1)The sheer number of flyball opportunities, most likely stemming from their pitching staff, and 2)The deferring to RF/LF taking the routine fly balls. Some guys take ALL of those, while others defer. That will severely skew a defensive measurement when you have two guys on the opposite side of that spectrum. As such, there is no defensive measurement that could close that offensive gap between Mantle and Mays in their primes.
Mantle was hands down the best player of his era during his peak, both the four year, and ten year.
Comparing to Ruth takes further steps, and more challenging defensive steps since Ruth was not capable of being a viable centerfielder. The era adjustments(as mentioned above), when done in painstaking detail, could certainly put Mantle ahead of Ruth when measuring them at their peaks.
Here is a quick Ruth/Mantle comparison below, using their four year consecutive peak, the time where their stars shone brightest:
Mantle 200 OPS+....or 309 batter runs
Ruth..226 OPS+.....or 361 batter runs. He missed a few extra games one year, so I bumped up his batter runs by 5 more. Note that would be higher than any other four year run Ruth had.
Lets look at the things that will close that gap 1)Baserunning, 2)Defense, 3)The era they played in.
The first concrete thing to look at is baserunning. Mantle stole 52 bases and was caught 8 times. Ruth stole 40 and was caught 39 times(one of those CS years is estimated). In terms of run value, that would give Mantle about 12 runs above average, and Ruth losing about -12. Just in the actual stolen bases, Mantle gains 24 runs above average.
Batter runs w/ stolen base value added:
Mantle 321
Ruth 349
But baserunning just doesn't involve stolen bases, it also involves baserunning by advancing bases on extra hits. Typically, stolen bases are a good indicator of a players overall baserunning ability, and usually the runs saved/created will fall somewhere a little lower than the runs createdby the SB. If we only take half of the run value of the stolen bases we have:
Batter runs w/ stolen bases and baserunning value added. This is not philosophical adjustments, but rather concrete run value they produced, and Mantle is almost already at Ruth's level:
Mantle 327
Ruth 343
I have not taken into account the league or team philosophy for Mantle yet, because he was more than capable of getting more stolen bases, only to be held down by his manager/team/league. So in terms of judging a players baseball value/ability, this has to be taken into account, because an astute manager/league could utilize this. I'm not going to go bananas with this, but it is certainly within the realm to imagine Mantle increasing his SB value by about 25%...so that would be an extra 3 more SB runs.
New total:
Mantle 331
Ruth 343.
So without even looking at Defense, Mantle in his four year peak is only 12 runs behind Ruth. Being able to play CF alone is worth a few runs year, compared to a guy being only capable of playing a corner outfield. I'm not going to go crazy on this adjustment, so I will lessen that to only TWO runs per year. For four years, that is eight runs.
Runs with baserunning/SB/and the value of playing CF vs RF
Mantle 339
Ruth 343.
Now this does not take into account their actual defensive ability. As mentioned above with the defensive flaws, Mantle gets punished a bit despite his blazing speed...but I don't see Ruth doing anything nearly as good as defensively as Mantle, as compared to peers, so I'm not even going to touch this part yet.
Mantle 339
Ruth 343.
Now we are down to the era adjustment. Considering that Ruth played in an era with a league that was filled with dead ball style hitters, it was very easy to outdistance himself from them, as evidenced by him outhomering every single team in the league. That simply was not possible to do in Mantle's time, as it may take hitting 175 HR's to do it. This is about as obvious as it gets in terms of this advantage Ruth has. This alone would be worth about 5-10 runs per year. Going on the low side of 5 runs per year, we have the following:
Mantle 359
Ruth 343
Next is the overall talent level of the league period, including pitchers they faced. The population of viable players in the US was much smaller in Ruth's time, compared to that of Mantle's. This adjustment could fluctuate wildly....and im not even going to add the adjustment, because Mantle is ahead of Ruth already.
So given all that, with still more things in Mantle's favor over Ruth(such like his ability to get more SB, and his actual defensive ability that may not have been judged properly due to the problems with defensive measurements), and a more stringent era adjustment in favor of Mantle, that I didn't bother to convert in terms of runs, Mantle really has a strong case to be viewed as better than Ruth in their absolute four year prime peaks.
PS. The crazy thing about Mantle is that he had ANOTHER separate consecutive four year peak that doesn't include any of the above years where he hit:
194 OPS+, with 29SB, and 5CS. Then the leg injuries started taking its toll on him.
Mantle's ten year peak where he had a 188 OPS+, he had 116 SB, and was caught only 19 times for a remarkable 86%(which is a better rate than Willie Mays in his ten year prime 237/72 for 76%).
<< <i>Banzi,
Realistically speaking, Killebrew did miss two potentially good years at age 21 and 22. Doubtful they would be anything near his prime caliber years, as at age 23 and 24 he posted OPS+ of 137 and 142. Not unreasonable to expect a couple 120/125 OPS+ for him at age 21/22. Anything more would be held only for the exteme optimists.
Anything before age 21 though would become wild speculation.
Killebrew's peak best peak years were:
177
173
162
159
157
153
His best consecutive four year peak he had an OPS+ of 163................Rice at 146..........Yaz 169..........Ichiro 122
His best consecutive six year peak he had an OPS+ of 160..................RIce at 140.........Yaz 158..........Ichiro 118
His best consecutive ten year peak he had an OPS+ of 156.................Rice at 133..........Yaz 147..........Ichiro 117
his best consecutive twelve year peak he had an OPS+ of 153.............Rice at 130..........Yaz 145..........Ichiro 113
I figured I would just throw Rice in there to highlight how his peak wasn't nearly as good as people imagine(and since he didn't really have a meaningful career outside his 12 year peak, one can see how little he truly offered compared to the truly elite hitters).
Offensively, Killer had better peaks than Yaz(outside the four year peak).
By doing it this way, it sort of eliminate the need to worry too much about how much the longevity, or the bonus baby factors affected him. When his star was shining at his brightest, it shone very bright...and that really is the way most people look at players.
PS, I threw Ichiro in there too because I needed a laugh this Saturday morning when I think of all the people that call him one of the greatest hitters of all-time. He too also illustrates the longevity factor being eliminated by looking at players in this way. Even if Ichiro replicated his peak years for his age 23-26 seasons had he played in the states, he still would have a best four year peak of 122 OPS+.....waaaaaay off the mark of the best hitters. His six year peak would still be 122...waaaaay off the mark of the best hitters. Of course, had he played in the states from the start, he may have just been a platoon player, or not even made it to MLB, so he could go the opposite way too. BUT, by looking at it like this, we don't have to worry about that, because we see his peak laid out clear as day above(In comparison to two elite hitters). >>
Killebrew's claim to fame is home runs per at bat. I don't see anyone who ever led the American League more than 6 times except Ruth and Williams who were both left handed and possibly the two best hitters of all time.
NOWHERE in my post did I refer to OPS+ when making a case for Killer. Bringing in a leadoff guy to compare with Yaz and Killebrew is of course laughable. To make a fair comparison you need to bring in similar players, Rice is not a bad example, Jim was not the player either one of these guys were.
Let's go with YOUR favorite stat OPS+. Taking out the cheaters, current players and anyone with 15 years or less, Killebrew ranks 28th all time in OPS+.
Had Killebrew been put into the minors in 1954 and 1955 he certainly COULD have had three more full major league seasons of productivity. A conservative estimate gives him 20-25-35 home runs in the three years giving him an "adjusted" home run total total of 653. He certainly produced great home run numbers as soon as he was allowed to play in 1959, being a league leader (tie with Colavito), with a league leading home run per at bat number as well. Looking at his consistent career numbers, he may have hit 30-40-45 in those "missing" years as well, giving him an optimistic total of 688. We'll never know.
As you point out, his OPS+ would probably not have changed much. Harmon struck out more and walked less in his early years. He was able to dramatically improve his strikeout to walk ratio in the 2nd half of his career. Griffith Stadium also would have had an effect, if you take a look, you will see that it was a very big ballpark to left field and left center, so that might have helped the number.
Looking only at OPS+ Killebrew was a much better ballplayer than Yaz outside of the four year peak. Interesting though, I assumed Yaz's numbers would be higher than Killers by more than they were during those 4 years! Longevity and defensive ability are in Carl's favor, but do not mean enough to make Yaz a tier 1 and Harmon a tier 3.
Reenforcing my feelings that Harm was a "Tier 1" player!!!!!!!
Chiming in on another topic.
No way on earth that Yaz is better than Mantle. Mickey should have won at least 2 more MVP's and was just so superior to EVERYBODY from 1954-1964 he could have won the award almost every year.
It's really a superb accomplishment that Carl was able to play at a high level for so many years, but to say his great 4 out of 6 year peak can remotely compare to one of the best 10 year peaks in offensive production boggles my mind!
Weather we agree or not, nice work and a good debate!!!!!!
I was agreeing with you in regard to Killebrew. Ichiro was brought into that mix to show a guy whom some claim to be an all-time great hitter, and that chart illustrated how badly he fares against the likes of Killer or Yaz.
But I'm finding more steam in the Mantle as the best all-time in his prime...so I'm onto another topic
Back when I was doing more into the population studies, I was finding how drastic the player pool difference was between Ruth and Mantle's time, and that was based on the overall population. When you include the race barrier factor(which I didn't dwell too much on above), that elite talent pool gap widens even more between the two.
Looking at Mantle compared to his peers, it can be as simple in one full swoop as removing Mays, Aaron, Clemente, Banks, F. Robby, from the leader boards when comparing Mantle to his peers, to get an idea how much easier Ruth had to distance from his peers because those type of guys weren't allowed to play...as you can't find 165 OPS+ guys on the bench to replace Mays, as guys of that caliber would already be employed.
Funny, for your guy Killebrew, that same exercise puts him as #2 all-time HR leader(when the roids guys are also removed). Considering that the population advance puts Killer at facing tougher pitchers as well, a claim can be made for him to be as good a HR hitter as Ruth.
In regards to Mantle, as pointed out above, if given his proper due defensively(considering he was the fastest man in MLB), and his baserunning, we may not even have to go into the population area to see Mantle as better than Ruth when in their primes.
Like the above poster said, Mantle is a lot closer to greatest ever than he is to being in the same realm as Yaz.
As for Nichols, thanks for the explanation.
When viewing lists such as these, I look at them in two ways:
1)Measuring players purely against their peers that they played with/against in a statistical analysis. Baseball lends itself well to this kind of analysis, unlike other sports. This is fairly accurate, but as pointed out above, there are some flaws since not all peers were created equal(i.e the Ruth/Mantle example where Ruth had far less elite peers to compete against). That has to be accounted for(and Dallas did), but the level of which to adjust is a difficult one. That being said, this is still the meat of any baseball player analysis.
2)Measuring players vs their peers that played throughout MLB history. This sounds like the first one, but what I am talking about here is literally making observations how one may fare if they actually played in a different era against another set of peers, and different league environment. This is basically a wild guessing game no doubt, but there are some concrete things to look at, and that is a players physical tools(and their ability to utilize such tools).
Mantle possessed two tools that separated him from virtually every other player on the planet. He had the ability to hit the ball as far as any human in recorded history, and he was the fastest runner in his time. Basically, Power and Speed. But he didn't just have power, he had prodigious power. He couldn't just run fast, he had the fastest recorded time to first base, and he turned heads with his running speed. He was the best at both. Those abilities would give him an advantage over almost every other HOF player, as those essential baseball skills translate to any era, park, or league. I'm not talking about a power/speed guy who could just do both, he could do both better than anyone. That is the rarest of the rare.
Note I also said, "the ability to utilize such tools." Glenallen Hill could probably hit balls as far as Mantle, but he simply wasn't a good enough hitter to utilize that talent enough in games. Bo Jackson may have been as fast a runner, but he too simply was not a good enough hitter to get on base frequently enough and utilize that tool. I don't want anyone to mistake that I am saying someone like Ray Lankford should be viewed as greater because he had some power/speed combo. Mantle was at the top all-time for measurable power, as well as measurable speed...and he had the baseball ability to utilize such talents.
There is no other elite HOF player that had both of those important measurable baseball commodities as good as Mantle did, and backed it up with performances to match.
"Peak" value is, as the name implies, a measure of the highest point attained by the player. Most of the value attributed under "peak" accrues in that player's best three seasons; additional value accrues if the player's next best seasons are close to that peak but at a much lower rate. For a player like Mantle, where the drop-off from peak to 12th best season is relatively low, much of the value of seasons 4 through 12 folds over into "meat" and is weighted much less. Thus, the way I've done this strongly favors players like Yaz and works against players like Mantle. That's not a defense of my method, it's an explanation. My method works that way because I tried to avoid my own biases and match my method, to any degree that was at least plausible, to the players actually in the HOF. If I had done it any other way, players like George Sisler, Jim Rice or Orlando Cepeda and dozens more in that same mold, would have congregated in a large lump at the bottom, barely distinguishable from the Tommy McCarthy's and High Pockets Kelly's that end up at the bottom no matter how you approach it. Under this method, players like Mantle and Yaz - who have similar peaks - end up close to each other; Mantle gets credit for a better "meat" career, and Yaz gets credit for a longer productive career. Is that right? In my opinion, and obviously most people's here, no, it isn't. But to the degree that you are adamant that Mantle ought to be towering over Yaz in a HOF-merit system, you also ought to be adamant that Jim Rice has no business poking his head out of Tier VI. Are you? In the actual event, where players like Jim Rice and Orlando Cepeda make the HOF, I don't think the HOF voters feel that way, and I was attempting to take the way they think into account at least as much as what I think is "right"
By the same token, the actual HOF obviously allows for positional "adjustments", although I don't know if, or how many, voters actually think of it that way. Even though we, and probably HOF voters, can all agree that a given outfielder was "better" than a given infielder or catcher, infielders and catchers make the HOF, and make it about as quickly and easily, as outfielders despite their much lower numbers. For that reason, and not because I think it is logical or statistically necessary, I gave shortstops a small boost and catchers a huge boost in my system. You put on all that equipment, do deep knee bends in it a few hundred times every day all summer long while catching 100 mph pitches over and over with the same hand, and then come back and tell me that catchers ought to be able to play as many games and hit as well as the guy who was standing in the outfield and catching a fly ball every third inning. The gap between Mickey Mantle and Johnny Bench in their hitting abilities was astronomically huge, but the gap between what was expected of them on defense was even larger. To say that Mantle won more games for his teams than Bench did for his is statistically very accurate, but I think misses the larger point. Every team needs a catcher, and whoever plays that position is going to have a shorter career, and play with aches and pains constantly, as a result. Without that context, pretty much every catcher ends up down in Tier VI, and only the two or three greatest can make it as high as Tier IV. I think that's nonsense, and I'm certain HOF voters agree with me. So if you're looking at Mantle and seeing names at or above his Tier that played in the infield that you think don't belong, that's probably why. (I talked about catchers here, but there is a separate, and equally valid, argument for 6-5-4 players.)
Bottom line, I was surprised to see Mantle fall to Tier II, and if I was personally assigning people to Tiers based on my own preferences, he wouldn't have. But I also don't see any name in Tier I that is any less obviously worthy of the HOF than Mantle, once Tier I was reduced by about half (I liked it better before I shrunk it). I'm actually more bothered by Joe Morgan dropping out than I am by Mantle; I think the greatest second baseman in history has a better claim to the HOF than the fifth or sixth best outfielder. I appreciate your arguments, skin, but no way I'm ranking Mantle higher than Ruth, Cobb, Williams, or Mays. Ruth, BTW, gets full credit in my system for being one of the best pitchers for a few years; I wasn't sure if you were taking those years into account.
Hah, Mantle wasn't even the best player in his city, Willie Mays was. Mays stole as many bases in one season as Mantle did in four seasons. Plus, Mantle didn't miss two prime years of his career due to military service. Mays was the superior defensive player, had better speed and baserunning instincts, and hit the ball far enough for the ball to go out. No need to embellish Mantle's feats to Bunyonesque proportions, which is what you're doing.
<< <i>Mantle possessed two tools that separated him from virtually every other player on the planet. He had the ability to hit the ball as far as any human in recorded history, and he was the fastest runner in his time. Basically, Power and Speed. But he didn't just have power, he had prodigious power.
Hah, Mantle wasn't even the best player in his city, Willie Mays was. Mays stole as many bases in one season as Mantle did in four seasons. Plus, Mantle didn't miss two prime years of his career due to military service. Mays was the superior defensive player, had better speed and baserunning instincts, and hit the ball far enough for the ball to go out. No need to embellish Mantle's feats to Bunyonesque proportions, which is what you're doing. I >>
Wrong on several accounts. First, this is at their peak, not career length. Specifically, their four year peak, but 8 or 10 works the same in Mantle's favor.
Second, Mantle had a ten year offensive average, that was better than Mays's single BEST offensive season. There isn't even a contest between the two offensively...already spelled out as simple as ABC.
THird, Mays was not faster. This is fact. Mantle had the fastest recorded running speed time in baseball during that time. Eyewitness accounts also back it up.
Fourth, in their peak, Mantle was the better stolen base player. As pointed out above in the ten year peak, Mantle stole at an 86% clip, compared to Mays's 76%. It was only after Mantle's knees were gone where that changed...but that isn't part of the discussion as this is dealing with peak years only. As for the Military, Mays did NOT miss two years due to that, and it wasn't in his peak. Even if he replicated his best two years from the missing two years, his peak still doesn't change. Since it was very early in his career, not quite peak years anyway
Fifth, defensively, Mantle was faster than Mays, and his glove right there with him. Any difference in the number of putouts stems solely from the pitching staff giving them more opportunities, rather than ability. I actually ran a Mays vs replacement, and his replacements on his team averaged the same number of putouts per inning as Mays did during Mays's peak. Mantle's lead offensively was so large over Mays in their peaks, that allowing for margin of error int he defensive measurements, there simply is not enough defensive ground to cover to make up for the vast offensive shortcomings.
Finally, PSASAP, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED to claim Mays as better than Mantle, because in your own words, you said it is what the player did in the World Series, and the number of World Series rings that separates them. Mays hit .239 in the WS, with zero HR, and with one ring. Mantle has the record for HR's lifetime in the WS and has rings that nearly fill up two hands. Again, as a result of your continued unsubstantiated and contradicting statements, YOU ARE DISMISSED
Dallas, I measured Mantle vs RUth in only in their peaks. Since Ruth did not pitch during his peak, that was a non factor. I don't doubt Ruth had the better career, especially taking the pitching aspect into account(though he wasn't quite the best pitcher in the league)...but as I laid out above step by step, at their top peaks, Mantle was the better baseball player than Ruth...and that breakdown didn't really dig deep into the vast advantage Ruth had in outdistancing his weaker peers, especially the lack of minorities, and the overall population dearth to draw from. Mantle had basically already eclipsed Ruth before we even have to take all those necessary steps.
Ruth's pitching while great, may also be an indictment on the quality of the league at the time. Also, when you look at his alarming decline in his SO/BB ratio in his pitching line in his last couple years, the end was very near had he chosen to continue that path on the hill. Looks like he made the right choice.
<< <i>Ruth's pitching while great, may also be an indictment on the quality of the league at the time. Also, when you look at his alarming decline in his SO/BB ratio in his pitching line in his last couple years, the end was very near had he chosen to continue that path on the hill. Looks like he made the right choice. >>
Ruth was arguably the best pitcher in the AL in 1916 (at age 21) and was at least a damn fine pitcher in 1917. His stats start slipping in 1918, and slip more in 1919, but in 1918 he played 59 games in the OF and in 1919 he played 111! That's not exactly the same rest that all the other pitchers were getting. And even so, he was 22-12, his ERA+ was 112, and he completed 30 of the 34 games he started. We'll never know what would have happened had the Red Sox kept Ruth as a full-time pitcher, but I don't think what actually happened to his pitching in 1918-1919 is a fair basis for a guess. Ruth was the best player in the major leagues in 1919 and close to it in 1918; that he did that through a combination of hitting and pitching shouldn't be a mark against him. Those two years ARE part of his peak.
Ruth once said, and I believe him, that he could have hit .400 every year but the people paid to see him hit home runs. Every point you're making with regard to Mantle is perfectly valid, but I will never be convinced that Ruth wasn't the greatest player ever, and by a pretty fair margin.
<< <i>
<< <i>Ruth's pitching while great, may also be an indictment on the quality of the league at the time. Also, when you look at his alarming decline in his SO/BB ratio in his pitching line in his last couple years, the end was very near had he chosen to continue that path on the hill. Looks like he made the right choice. >>
Ruth was arguably the best pitcher in the AL in 1916 (at age 21) and was at least a damn fine pitcher in 1917. His stats start slipping in 1918, and slip more in 1919, but in 1918 he played 59 games in the OF and in 1919 he played 111! That's not exactly the same rest that all the other pitchers were getting. And even so, he was 22-12, his ERA+ was 112, and he completed 30 of the 34 games he started. We'll never know what would have happened had the Red Sox kept Ruth as a full-time pitcher, but I don't think what actually happened to his pitching in 1918-1919 is a fair basis for a guess. Ruth was the best player in the major leagues in 1919 and close to it in 1918; that he did that through a combination of hitting and pitching shouldn't be a mark against him. Those two years ARE part of his peak.
Ruth once said, and I believe him, that he could have hit .400 every year but the people paid to see him hit home runs. Every point you're making with regard to Mantle is perfectly valid, but I will never be convinced that Ruth wasn't the greatest player ever, and by a pretty fair margin. >>
I agree, but those are more in terms of career views/values. I really am only looking at their peak, and what I laid out above in their peak, paints very strongly toward Mantle. Your study has a hard job of balancing both peak and career...I'm taking the 'easy way' by narrowing it down
While true we can't accurately predict how Ruth would have done had he continued pitching when he was in his hitting prime, there are good indicators that are pretty accurate, mainly his SO/BB ratio. He slipped at an alarming rate his last two years on the hill, and that is a very strong indication that he was no longer a mystery to batters(and most likely he lost some velocity, and that is often enough to do the trick).
The level of competition between the two era's could be enough to make a wild swing in judging their abilities. The elimination of minority players in Ruth's time plays just one huge role, the dearth of population to draw from another huge role, and then the fact that the league was filled with dead ball style hitters in Ruth's prime that made it easier for him to dominate to a higher degree not even possible in any other era. In order for Mantle to replicate Ruth's outhomering every team, he would usually have to hit 190 HR's in a season. That isn't something that makes Ruth look better, on the contrary, because based on the competition factors stated in this paragraph, it shows how unfair any current statistical measurement is going to favor, and be biased toward Ruth.
Even taking the competition factor out of the equation, when looking at hitting, position, baserunning, and defense, Mantle is neck and neck with Ruth as it is in their peaks. Add the potentially large swing in the competition factors, Mantle could walk away with a comfortable 'win' vs Ruth in their peaks.
PSASAP, you have already been dismissed due to your continued contradictions(apply the same Post Season comments to Mays/Mantle as you did to Brock, lol). You have not offered a single rational thought, nor a single tid-bit of valid evidence to substantiate any or your claims, therefore, you just stating something means absolutely nothing. Nice try though. I'll just pat you on the head, and say, good job, keep trying.