@perkdog said:
I genuinely feel bad for anyone with a gambling habit UNTIL they steal to fund their habit. That being said, I have zero problem with Rose betting on baseball WITH EXCEPTION to him betting on his team that he either played on or managed, that is crossing the line because your not only capable of effectively changing the outcome of the game your hurting your fellow teammates. If Rose never bet on his team while he was managing it or playing on it then so would vote him in, unfortunately for Rose he crossed a red line so that in itself should end the debate as far as I’m concerned.
The moment that the legitimacy of the outcome of any major sport is in question, it is doomed. That is why MLB players are not permitted to wager on games. Pro sports sanctioning wagering will be a disaster. Trust me on this.
As far as Rose being included into the HOF, sure...the game has already lost it's luster from a generation of PED users. In a way, Rose fits right in.
For the resident stat heads, there's a great opportunity for an 'apples to apples' comparison of the two men, is there not? Same league at the same time for a number of years. I know not who comes out on top - and it wouldn't decide the matter for me - but it would be interesting to see.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
My favorite player when I was a youngster was Ted Williams. (I have no idea why) Looking back his one glaring weakness, if you want to call it that, is he never led his team to a World Championship.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
For the resident stat heads, there's a great opportunity for an 'apples to apples' comparison of the two men, is there not? Same league at the same time for a number of years. I know not who comes out on top - and it wouldn't decide the matter for me - but it would be interesting to see.
If you only compare when they played at the same time, it would be Mantle's early years compared to
Ted's middle to late years. Williams would probably still win, however, and should be clear proof that
he was a better hitter. Regardless, clear proof has already been established that Ted was the better
hitter but you're ignoring it.
I read a quote from Mantle saying he was disappointed he never really had a "great" WS in leading the Yankees to a victory.
At first I thought he was being modest, but then I then looked closely at the game by game records and (especially 1960) saw that Mick was right. Except for '52 (if I remember correctly) he should be known more for hitting exceptionally well in losing efforts and not really so good in winning ones.
Especially 1960 where he did nothing (or very little) in the games the Yanks lost and he clobbered the ball in blow out victories. Yankees were the better team but lost.
As far as overall hitting ability; Williams over Mantle by a mile. Overall, as an all-around player, I might take Mickey. Remember (if you don't already know) he hurt his shoulder in the 1956 or 1957 WS in a play at 2B and his arm was never the same, that also effected his left handed BA. Williams was a BIG distraction on his teams while Micky was a fantastic teammate.
I have said many times in the past that a slugger (35 or so HR per season) that can hit for high average (around or above .320 lifetime) is the true threshold for hitting greatness. Very few could do it. Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Dimaggio and Williams come to mind for me with honorable mention to Musial, who managed 25 HR a year.
Aaron, Mays and Mantle all ended up around .300 even though they had some years hitting .350 or so, they were not able to maintain a higher average and continue to hit for power.
Ted only played in 1 WS and did very poorly this has no effect on him being BY FAR the best hitter of the modern (1940's to present) era. Put Ted on those 1950's Yankees teams and there would be some data to compare.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I don't think I've ignored it. You prefer Ted Williams and I prefer Mickey.
Also, statements that rely on 'if' or 'probably' are hardly 'clear and convincing' - to me, anyway. What you did was breakdown statistics and present ones that cast Ted Williams in a flattering light. This can be done for all great players. Especially Ted who was one the greatest hitters of all time and certainly in the discussion for best ever. I have never believed saying someone isn't the greatest of all time is an insult either.
I still come back to what guys actually did. At the end of the day, bad elbows and small sample size are excuses - plain and simple. Excuses are like armpits; everyone has them and they all stink. Again, we're not comparing just anyone here - we've got the best of the best and we are armed with reason. To not count or not emphasize the postseason is your choice to make.
To me, it matters quite a bit.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
How am I supposed to read the rest of that with a straight face?
(I did read it and I do get what you're driving at and while you made some nice points, I do think it's a bit like looking for the flaws on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.)
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1970s said:
I'd venture to guess that 1951wheatiespremium is perhaps a Yankee fan.
Trying to persuade a Yankee fan that Ted Williams was better then Mickey Mantle is
like trying to persuade your wife that the remaining $5,000 in your account should go towards
those 1965 topps wax packs instead of fixing the air conditioning in the middle of August.
You are correct - at least about my Yankee fandom. I truly don't mind someone saying Ted Williams was the better hitter - everyone is entitled to their opinion.
However, people who go - here's a bunch of statistics I picked out, I win - to me sometimes fail to recognize that greatness is not just about statistics. They're a part of the whole, not the whole. However, we are clearly living in an age where micro has consumed macro. It is pervasive throughout society - look around.
Anyone else notice that the real impact the 'sabremetrics revolution' has had is that it is ruining the game of baseball? But the numbers never lie, right? We know how to interpret and use all the stats and data (especially the 'best ones') and the result of that data usage has lead to what, exactly? Better hitters? No. Better pitchers? No. Well surely the games much be better to watch? No there, too. But keep believing that basing everything you know about baseball all on stats has been great for the game and the players and that the game is better, that we're all much more knowledgeable and better informed now than we ever have been because Bill James wanted to combine his love of baseball with his love of Excel...
Funny thing? On October 25, 1929, there was a whole group of people who believed that numbers never lie but began to question that belief somewhat as they plummeted to their death out windows in New York City. Be careful where you put your certitude.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1970s said:
Well said, but I don't have the time to refute some of it. My only thing is the way they defend today. I know it's within the current rules, but I wonder if baseball will ever write up an illegal defense rule. I personally hope they do. They've made the strike zone bigger to help the pitcher. Now help the hitters by putting all the position players back to where they were before the shifts were implemented.
Hitters could swing for the ball instead of the fence and teams would stop shifting because leaving half the diamond undefended would be idiotic.
But you're probably right, let's keep changing the rules of the sport to hide the shortcomings, inadequacies and downright incompetancies of the modern ball player. While we're at, it seems the games are running too long and most starters only go five innings. I know, let's make the games 5 innings! More complete games AND quicker run times? Where do I sign?!?!?
Eureka!
(Quick, someone label me a genius so I can get on ESPN! With an idea like this great, they're going to hand me Grantland, for sure!)
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@perkdog said:
My interest in the MLB HOF is probably less than that, too many players are in it to be “Hall Worthy”. In my opinion
<<< too many players are in it to be “Hall Worthy” >>>
Couldn't agree more with that.
My opinion is the Hall of Fame should only be for super stars, not including just stars.
It's been watered down, and of course we all know why, because it's about the money.
The HOF is still a very enjoyable place to visit. I've been there twice, the last time around 15 years ago.
However seeing Bill Mazeroski in there with Babe Ruth? A little bit silly in my view.
If Ruth is the standard, he’s the nosy one in. The NFL puts in a boatload every year. Way more than MLB.
Only one in.
I'd say the standard should be superstars. You shouldn't have to think about whether a player is a Hall of Famer, or use stats to justify a player being a Hall of Famer. You should automatically know. When you're a qualified Hall of Fame voter, then this shouldn't be any problem.
It should be less than a one second decision per player when marking the ballot.
Maybe I'll start the stevek baseball Hall of Fame located in Philadelphia. Give the other one in Cooperstown NY some competition.
How am I supposed to read the rest of that with a straight face?
(I did read it and I do get what you're driving at and while you made some nice points, I do think it's a bit like looking for the flaws on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.)
I'm a little confused at your "REALLY's".
Mickey stated that he felt he never "led his team to victory by having a great WS". I didn't believe it, but upon closer examination, even though his overall numbers were superb, I see what he was getting at. He was great in 5 WS; his best two statistical years, the Yankees lost, overall they were 3-2. In 7 other WS he hit poorly his team was 4-3. To be fair he was pretty good in victories in '56 and '58 despite a .250 BA. Both series' he was over 1.0 in OPS, both were Yankee wins.
The reason I bring it up is because of your feelings that Mickey can somehow overcome a staggering lead by Ted in hitting because he did "better" in WS play is shown to be incorrect. It's a team that wins the championship, and in this case Mantle didn't "win" or lose the WS.
The Yankees were in the WS virtually EVERY year of Ted's career, kind of makes it tough for him to compete against Joe D. or Mickey.
I did read an interesting quote in a book on Mantle. One chapter compared the two players as hitters. EVERY player picked Ted as the better hitter, but, Bobby Richardson ( I think it was Richardson, but I am sure it was a Yankee) said that if Mantle would have hit only from the right side he would have been as good as Williams. I thought that was interesting.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@stevek said:
I'd say the standard should be superstars. You shouldn't have to think about whether a player is a Hall of Famer, or use stats to justify a player being a Hall of Famer. You should automatically know. When you're a qualified Hall of Fame voter, then this shouldn't be any problem.
It should be less than a one second decision per player when marking the ballot.
Maybe I'll start the stevek baseball Hall of Fame located in Philadelphia. Give the other one in Cooperstown NY some competition.
It took 4 or 5 "tries" before Joe DiMaggio and Harmon Killebrew (I am sure there are other examples) got in. That's a lot longer than 1 second.
DiMaggio certainly should have been a first time guy!!!!!!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1970s said:
Well said, but I don't have the time to refute some of it. My only thing is the way they defend today. I know it's within the current rules, but I wonder if baseball will ever write up an illegal defense rule. I personally hope they do. They've made the strike zone bigger to help the pitcher. Now help the hitters by putting all the position players back to where they were before the shifts were implemented.
They were shifting against Ted Williams too. Now they do it more often.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Anyone else notice that the real impact the 'sabremetrics revolution' has had is that it is ruining the game of baseball? But the numbers never lie, right? We know how to interpret and use all the stats and data (especially the 'best ones') and the result of that data usage has lead to what, exactly? Better hitters? No. Better pitchers? No. Well surely the games much be better to watch? No there, too. But keep believing that basing everything you know about baseball all on stats has been great for the game and the players and that the game is better, that we're all much more knowledgeable and better informed now than we ever have been because Bill James wanted to combine his love of baseball with his love of Excel...
Sabermatics are simply one more tool to use in evaluating players. Personally I don't like a lot of them, especially OPS+.
BA, OB% and SLG% were around before Bill James. If comparing two "like" players, one has a good lead in every one of these, I am going to prefer that player as a hitter.
Getting back to OP it's a universally accepted opinion that The Babe and Teddy Ballgame were the best two hitters in MLB history. As a Yankees fan, I would think you would be arguing for Ruth before Mantle.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
BA, OB% and SLG% were around before Bill James. If comparing two "like" players, one has a good lead in every one of these, I am going to prefer that player as a hitter.
The key word here is "like", and I agree that if you are comparing two players on the same team in the same year then those three stats (two actually, there's no need to throw in BA if you have the other two) will do just fine. But if you try to compare a player from the 30's with a player from the 60's using those stats, you'll fail miserably. If you try to compare a player on the Red Sox to a player on the A's using those stats, even if they played at the same time, you'll fail miserably. It isn't the "likeness" of the players that matters, it's the likeness of their circumstances.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
How am I supposed to read the rest of that with a straight face?
(I did read it and I do get what you're driving at and while you made some nice points, I do think it's a bit like looking for the flaws on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.)
I'm a little confused at your "REALLY's".
Mickey stated that he felt he never "led his team to victory by having a great WS". I didn't believe it, but upon closer examination, even though his overall numbers were superb, I see what he was getting at. He was great in 5 WS; his best two statistical years, the Yankees lost, overall they were 3-2. In 7 other WS he hit poorly his team was 4-3. To be fair he was pretty good in victories in '56 and '58 despite a .250 BA. Both series' he was over 1.0 in OPS, both were Yankee wins.
The reason I bring it up is because of your feelings that Mickey can somehow overcome a staggering lead by Ted in hitting because he did "better" in WS play is shown to be incorrect. It's a team that wins the championship, and in this case Mantle didn't "win" or lose the WS.
The Yankees were in the WS virtually EVERY year of Ted's career, kind of makes it tough for him to compete against Joe D. or Mickey.
I did read an interesting quote in a book on Mantle. One chapter compared the two players as hitters. EVERY player picked Ted as the better hitter, but, Bobby Richardson ( I think it was Richardson, but I am sure it was a Yankee) said that if Mantle would have hit only from the right side he would have been as good as Williams. I thought that was interesting.
Just to explain the Really's?
When it comes to Mantle, the 1952 World Series is one of the MAJOR defining moments of his career. It's not the exact same as but is similar to saying 'If you left out the called shot...' or 'If you leave out the fact that he broke the color barrier...'
As I mentioned earlier, you are entitled to form your opinion as you see fit. I don't impugn it nor do I endorse it but I always welcome it.
Ted Williams was a great hitter and is most certainly worthy of the title. Ruth is as well.
To me?
Mantle
Ruth
Williams
Bonds
Gehrig
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1970s said:
I know I am horsing a dead beat, but trying to convince a Yankee fan that Williams was better then Mantle is like trying to convince a Yankee fan that this years Red Sox team is better then New York.
OR convincing a Royals fan that GB was not the finest 3B ever!!!!!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1970s said:
I know I am horsing a dead beat, but trying to convince a Yankee fan that Williams was better then Mantle is like trying to convince a Yankee fan that this years Red Sox team is better then New York.
That's incorrect. I believe I am maintaining objectivity. Mashing the ball when it counts matters. Ted Williams was an awesome hitter. Could he hit under pressure? We'll never know because it rarely happened and when it did he did not perform well but the sample size is small.
The question was 'Who was the best hitter all time?' not 'Who had the best statistics adjusted for park, era and competition?', right? Those are two different questions. I think, anyway.
This years Red Sox team is better than this years Yankees team. They play a better brand of baseball and are a more complete team. I'll root like crazy for the Yankees and I don't view the Red Sox as leaps and bounds better but they are a better team, yes. Again, I am a big Yankees fan and they're one of the best teams in baseball...but the Red Sox are doing something historic right now. I love baseball too much to pretend it's not happening. Greatness is greatness.
I just hope they are more 2001 Mariners than 1998 Yankees.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Larry Walkers 1997 Season was one of the best ever for a non triple crown winning season. Rogers Hornsby triple crown seasons were amazing too, there are a lot of guys that had really unbelievable seasons but are not in the discussion as the best ever
The question was 'Who was the best hitter all time?' not 'Who had the best statistics adjusted for park, era and competition?', right? Those are two different questions. I think, anyway.
I am not adjusting anything for park, era or competition both Mantle and William's careers overlapped for about 10 years.
As sluggers they were close to being equal, when it comes to OB% and BA it's not close. As a wise man recently said "Greatness is greatness". ;-)
@perkdog said:
Larry Walkers 1997 Season was one of the best ever for a non triple crown winning season. Rogers Hornsby triple crown seasons were amazing too, there are a lot of guys that had really unbelievable seasons but are not in the discussion as the best ever
I have mentioned Hornsby on several occasions (possibly in other threads), definite GOAT at 2B and only player other than The Splendid Splinter to win the Triple Crown more than once. 7th all-time in OPS, 5th in OPS+.
I tried to bring up Walker in the past and was obliterated because he played a little over half of his career in Coors field. He's 12th all time in SLG%, 15th in OPS and 18th in assists as a RF...........achieving it all because of Coors field.
OPS+ says he is the 73rd best hitter even with Coors field and yet he is not HOF worthy? His defense and baserunning were also only good at Coors. Sad he isn't getting the recognition he deserves.
@1970s said:
Speaking of best ever......Cheryl Ladd or Farrah ?
Cheryl Ladd wins it by a...........nose?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Like I said, I'm more than happy with my choice. Whether I need a bunt, a single, a double, a homer or anything else, there is not anyone I would feel more confident sending to the plate than Mickey Charles Mantle.
Serious question - Could Ted Williams bunt? I honestly don't know but it is a hitting skill and a valuable one at that. And I still think the value of a switch hitter is being underestimated here - at least in my eyes.
Talking about in a real game here; not a simulation.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@JoeBanzai said:
I have mentioned Hornsby on several occasions (possibly in other threads), definite GOAT at 2B and only player other than The Splendid Splinter to win the Triple Crown more than once. 7th all-time in OPS, 5th in OPS+.
I know I should just let this go, but Joe Morgan is the 2B GOAT. Neck-and-neck between Hornsby and Collins for next best. Hornsby is the GOAT at hitting for 2B, if that helps.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Like I said, I'm more than happy with my choice. Whether I need a bunt, a single, a double, a homer or anything else, there is not anyone I would feel more confident sending to the plate than Mickey Charles Mantle.
You can't go wrong with the Mick! Another thing not mentioned here is that before his knee injuries......Mickey had the fastest time of anyone from left batters box to first!
@JoeBanzai said:
I have mentioned Hornsby on several occasions (possibly in other threads), definite GOAT at 2B and only player other than The Splendid Splinter to win the Triple Crown more than once. 7th all-time in OPS, 5th in OPS+.
I know I should just let this go, but Joe Morgan is the 2B GOAT. Neck-and-neck between Hornsby and Collins for next best. Hornsby is the GOAT at hitting for 2B, if that helps.
Morgan was DAMN good, but I just can't see how his better baserunning and possibly better defense (Hornsby came up as a light hitting SS) can overcome the hitting edge. OPS+175 vs 132 is a LOT of stolen bases. .150 better SLG too, but I am sure you know all this.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
Morgan was DAMN good, but I just can't see how his better baserunning and possibly better defense (Hornsby came up as a light hitting SS) can overcome the hitting edge. OPS+175 vs 132 is a LOT of stolen bases. .150 better SLG too, but I am sure you know all this.
I love OPS+; it does a tremendous job measuring what it measures. But there's a lot that it doesn't measure, and Morgan trounces Hornsby in all of those things. Hornsby's last full season was at age 33, Morgan's at 39 (and almost a full season at 40). Morgan dragged down his OPS+ playing all those old man years, but he played well. Instead of giving him credit for playing those years, OPS+ penalizes him. And the baserunning difference was huge; Hornsby got caught stealing as often as not, and he tried a lot more than he should have; he cost his teams a lot of runs that way. Morgan, obviously, was worth a lot of runs on the bases to his teams. And Hornsby was fine at 2B, but Morgan was outstanding. And finally, the easiest decades for a great player to separate himself from the pack (i.e., get a high OPS+) were the 20's and 30's; the hardest decades were the 60's and 70's.
The gap isn't as large as, say, the gap from Schmidt down to Brett, but Morgan was responsible for winning more games than Hornsby, when you take everything into account.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
How many times would you have sent him up to do that? Seriously.
He was replaced by a pinch hitter once, however. The guy who had the honor was Carroll Hardy. At the end of Ted's career in 1960, he fouled a ball off his instep and could barely walk. Journeyman player, Carroll Hardy, finished Ted's at batt.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@JoeBanzai said:
Morgan was DAMN good, but I just can't see how his better baserunning and possibly better defense (Hornsby came up as a light hitting SS) can overcome the hitting edge. OPS+175 vs 132 is a LOT of stolen bases. .150 better SLG too, but I am sure you know all this.
I love OPS+; it does a tremendous job measuring what it measures. But there's a lot that it doesn't measure, and Morgan trounces Hornsby in all of those things. Hornsby's last full season was at age 33, Morgan's at 39 (and almost a full season at 40). Morgan dragged down his OPS+ playing all those old man years, but he played well. Instead of giving him credit for playing those years, OPS+ penalizes him. And the baserunning difference was huge; Hornsby got caught stealing as often as not, and he tried a lot more than he should have; he cost his teams a lot of runs that way. Morgan, obviously, was worth a lot of runs on the bases to his teams. And Hornsby was fine at 2B, but Morgan was outstanding. And finally, the easiest decades for a great player to separate himself from the pack (i.e., get a high OPS+) were the 20's and 30's; the hardest decades were the 60's and 70's.
The gap isn't as large as, say, the gap from Schmidt down to Brett, but Morgan was responsible for winning more games than Hornsby, when you take everything into account.
Well, despite Morgan's playing to 39 he only performed in about 400 more games. So he gave his team about three more years of service which is undeniable, but his last seven years (with 1982 excluded) he certainly wasn't much of a hitter, although he still walked a lot and could still steal bases. His OPS over those last seven years was 114, above average but if you are going to play when you are no longer a good hitter (.386 SLG over those years), it SHOULD effect your lifetime totals.
No doubt Joe was a better base runner, but Rogers' SB/CS stats look incomplete and thereby I can't decide if he was THAT bad on the bases. I always have liked hitters over base stealers unless the speed guy has some slug to his game. Hornsby CRUSHES Morgan in that respect. Guys like Morgan certainly help their teams, but still depend on other hitters to drive them in.
Hornsby is an oddity at 2B, as he wasn't a base stealer, but a clean-up type hitter. Certainly appears to me that Hornsby could have put up some good numbers if he had played more when he was player/manager 1932-37. Final full (100 games) season he was at 163.
In general, I'm not convinced that the era had that much to do with it. I thought your + was supposed to take care of that.
OPS+ and WAR seem to have a LOT of flaws. I don't think they work too well when trying to compare players. I'll wait for a better stat.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Comments
The moment that the legitimacy of the outcome of any major sport is in question, it is doomed. That is why MLB players are not permitted to wager on games. Pro sports sanctioning wagering will be a disaster. Trust me on this.
As far as Rose being included into the HOF, sure...the game has already lost it's luster from a generation of PED users. In a way, Rose fits right in.
For the resident stat heads, there's a great opportunity for an 'apples to apples' comparison of the two men, is there not? Same league at the same time for a number of years. I know not who comes out on top - and it wouldn't decide the matter for me - but it would be interesting to see.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
My favorite player when I was a youngster was Ted Williams. (I have no idea why) Looking back his one glaring weakness, if you want to call it that, is he never led his team to a World Championship.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
In all fairness, Ted Williams did have an elbow injury in that lone world series appearance.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
If you only compare when they played at the same time, it would be Mantle's early years compared to
Ted's middle to late years. Williams would probably still win, however, and should be clear proof that
he was a better hitter. Regardless, clear proof has already been established that Ted was the better
hitter but you're ignoring it.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
more valuable is a different statistic, run production etc,
best hitter not necessarily means best player for the team.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
I read a quote from Mantle saying he was disappointed he never really had a "great" WS in leading the Yankees to a victory.
At first I thought he was being modest, but then I then looked closely at the game by game records and (especially 1960) saw that Mick was right. Except for '52 (if I remember correctly) he should be known more for hitting exceptionally well in losing efforts and not really so good in winning ones.
Especially 1960 where he did nothing (or very little) in the games the Yanks lost and he clobbered the ball in blow out victories. Yankees were the better team but lost.
As far as overall hitting ability; Williams over Mantle by a mile. Overall, as an all-around player, I might take Mickey. Remember (if you don't already know) he hurt his shoulder in the 1956 or 1957 WS in a play at 2B and his arm was never the same, that also effected his left handed BA. Williams was a BIG distraction on his teams while Micky was a fantastic teammate.
I have said many times in the past that a slugger (35 or so HR per season) that can hit for high average (around or above .320 lifetime) is the true threshold for hitting greatness. Very few could do it. Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Dimaggio and Williams come to mind for me with honorable mention to Musial, who managed 25 HR a year.
Aaron, Mays and Mantle all ended up around .300 even though they had some years hitting .350 or so, they were not able to maintain a higher average and continue to hit for power.
Ted only played in 1 WS and did very poorly this has no effect on him being BY FAR the best hitter of the modern (1940's to present) era. Put Ted on those 1950's Yankees teams and there would be some data to compare.
@Darin
I don't think I've ignored it. You prefer Ted Williams and I prefer Mickey.
Also, statements that rely on 'if' or 'probably' are hardly 'clear and convincing' - to me, anyway. What you did was breakdown statistics and present ones that cast Ted Williams in a flattering light. This can be done for all great players. Especially Ted who was one the greatest hitters of all time and certainly in the discussion for best ever. I have never believed saying someone isn't the greatest of all time is an insult either.
I still come back to what guys actually did. At the end of the day, bad elbows and small sample size are excuses - plain and simple. Excuses are like armpits; everyone has them and they all stink. Again, we're not comparing just anyone here - we've got the best of the best and we are armed with reason. To not count or not emphasize the postseason is your choice to make.
To me, it matters quite a bit.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
@JoeBanzai
'If you leave out the '52 World Series...'
Really?
REALLY?
How am I supposed to read the rest of that with a straight face?
(I did read it and I do get what you're driving at and while you made some nice points, I do think it's a bit like looking for the flaws on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.)
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
You are correct - at least about my Yankee fandom. I truly don't mind someone saying Ted Williams was the better hitter - everyone is entitled to their opinion.
However, people who go - here's a bunch of statistics I picked out, I win - to me sometimes fail to recognize that greatness is not just about statistics. They're a part of the whole, not the whole. However, we are clearly living in an age where micro has consumed macro. It is pervasive throughout society - look around.
Anyone else notice that the real impact the 'sabremetrics revolution' has had is that it is ruining the game of baseball? But the numbers never lie, right? We know how to interpret and use all the stats and data (especially the 'best ones') and the result of that data usage has lead to what, exactly? Better hitters? No. Better pitchers? No. Well surely the games much be better to watch? No there, too. But keep believing that basing everything you know about baseball all on stats has been great for the game and the players and that the game is better, that we're all much more knowledgeable and better informed now than we ever have been because Bill James wanted to combine his love of baseball with his love of Excel...
Funny thing? On October 25, 1929, there was a whole group of people who believed that numbers never lie but began to question that belief somewhat as they plummeted to their death out windows in New York City. Be careful where you put your certitude.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Hitters could swing for the ball instead of the fence and teams would stop shifting because leaving half the diamond undefended would be idiotic.
But you're probably right, let's keep changing the rules of the sport to hide the shortcomings, inadequacies and downright incompetancies of the modern ball player. While we're at, it seems the games are running too long and most starters only go five innings. I know, let's make the games 5 innings! More complete games AND quicker run times? Where do I sign?!?!?
Eureka!
(Quick, someone label me a genius so I can get on ESPN! With an idea like this great, they're going to hand me Grantland, for sure!)
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
If Ruth is the standard, he’s the nosy one in. The NFL puts in a boatload every year. Way more than MLB.
Only one in.
I'd say the standard should be superstars. You shouldn't have to think about whether a player is a Hall of Famer, or use stats to justify a player being a Hall of Famer. You should automatically know. When you're a qualified Hall of Fame voter, then this shouldn't be any problem.
It should be less than a one second decision per player when marking the ballot.
Maybe I'll start the stevek baseball Hall of Fame located in Philadelphia. Give the other one in Cooperstown NY some competition.
@stevek
@markj111
I agree on HOF criteria:
Hesitation is negation.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
The MLB HOF has been watered down for years, there is no saving it now
<<< Hesitation is negation. >>>
Well stated.
I'm a little confused at your "REALLY's".
Mickey stated that he felt he never "led his team to victory by having a great WS". I didn't believe it, but upon closer examination, even though his overall numbers were superb, I see what he was getting at. He was great in 5 WS; his best two statistical years, the Yankees lost, overall they were 3-2. In 7 other WS he hit poorly his team was 4-3. To be fair he was pretty good in victories in '56 and '58 despite a .250 BA. Both series' he was over 1.0 in OPS, both were Yankee wins.
The reason I bring it up is because of your feelings that Mickey can somehow overcome a staggering lead by Ted in hitting because he did "better" in WS play is shown to be incorrect. It's a team that wins the championship, and in this case Mantle didn't "win" or lose the WS.
The Yankees were in the WS virtually EVERY year of Ted's career, kind of makes it tough for him to compete against Joe D. or Mickey.
I did read an interesting quote in a book on Mantle. One chapter compared the two players as hitters. EVERY player picked Ted as the better hitter, but, Bobby Richardson ( I think it was Richardson, but I am sure it was a Yankee) said that if Mantle would have hit only from the right side he would have been as good as Williams. I thought that was interesting.
It took 4 or 5 "tries" before Joe DiMaggio and Harmon Killebrew (I am sure there are other examples) got in. That's a lot longer than 1 second.
DiMaggio certainly should have been a first time guy!!!!!!
They were shifting against Ted Williams too. Now they do it more often.
Sabermatics are simply one more tool to use in evaluating players. Personally I don't like a lot of them, especially OPS+.
BA, OB% and SLG% were around before Bill James. If comparing two "like" players, one has a good lead in every one of these, I am going to prefer that player as a hitter.
Getting back to OP it's a universally accepted opinion that The Babe and Teddy Ballgame were the best two hitters in MLB history. As a Yankees fan, I would think you would be arguing for Ruth before Mantle.
The key word here is "like", and I agree that if you are comparing two players on the same team in the same year then those three stats (two actually, there's no need to throw in BA if you have the other two) will do just fine. But if you try to compare a player from the 30's with a player from the 60's using those stats, you'll fail miserably. If you try to compare a player on the Red Sox to a player on the A's using those stats, even if they played at the same time, you'll fail miserably. It isn't the "likeness" of the players that matters, it's the likeness of their circumstances.
Just to explain the Really's?
When it comes to Mantle, the 1952 World Series is one of the MAJOR defining moments of his career. It's not the exact same as but is similar to saying 'If you left out the called shot...' or 'If you leave out the fact that he broke the color barrier...'
As I mentioned earlier, you are entitled to form your opinion as you see fit. I don't impugn it nor do I endorse it but I always welcome it.
Ted Williams was a great hitter and is most certainly worthy of the title. Ruth is as well.
To me?
Mantle
Ruth
Williams
Bonds
Gehrig
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Those 1951 Wheaties premium photos are really affecting your baseball judgement.
I like the 75 topps set the best but you don't see me saying George Brett is the greatest hitter of all time.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
@Darin
I'm well aware you prefer a nice piece of Schmidt!
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Yankee's vs Red Sox........it doesn't get any better than that!
OR convincing a Royals fan that GB was not the finest 3B ever!!!!!
That's incorrect. I believe I am maintaining objectivity. Mashing the ball when it counts matters. Ted Williams was an awesome hitter. Could he hit under pressure? We'll never know because it rarely happened and when it did he did not perform well but the sample size is small.
The question was 'Who was the best hitter all time?' not 'Who had the best statistics adjusted for park, era and competition?', right? Those are two different questions. I think, anyway.
This years Red Sox team is better than this years Yankees team. They play a better brand of baseball and are a more complete team. I'll root like crazy for the Yankees and I don't view the Red Sox as leaps and bounds better but they are a better team, yes. Again, I am a big Yankees fan and they're one of the best teams in baseball...but the Red Sox are doing something historic right now. I love baseball too much to pretend it's not happening. Greatness is greatness.
I just hope they are more 2001 Mariners than 1998 Yankees.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Hector Lopez post season stats where better
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
Larry Walkers 1997 Season was one of the best ever for a non triple crown winning season. Rogers Hornsby triple crown seasons were amazing too, there are a lot of guys that had really unbelievable seasons but are not in the discussion as the best ever
I am not adjusting anything for park, era or competition both Mantle and William's careers overlapped for about 10 years.
As sluggers they were close to being equal, when it comes to OB% and BA it's not close. As a wise man recently said "Greatness is greatness". ;-)
I have mentioned Hornsby on several occasions (possibly in other threads), definite GOAT at 2B and only player other than The Splendid Splinter to win the Triple Crown more than once. 7th all-time in OPS, 5th in OPS+.
I tried to bring up Walker in the past and was obliterated because he played a little over half of his career in Coors field. He's 12th all time in SLG%, 15th in OPS and 18th in assists as a RF...........achieving it all because of Coors field.
OPS+ says he is the 73rd best hitter even with Coors field and yet he is not HOF worthy? His defense and baserunning were also only good at Coors. Sad he isn't getting the recognition he deserves.
Cheryl Ladd wins it by a...........nose?
It just might have been Ed Mathews,
Like I said, I'm more than happy with my choice. Whether I need a bunt, a single, a double, a homer or anything else, there is not anyone I would feel more confident sending to the plate than Mickey Charles Mantle.
Serious question - Could Ted Williams bunt? I honestly don't know but it is a hitting skill and a valuable one at that. And I still think the value of a switch hitter is being underestimated here - at least in my eyes.
Talking about in a real game here; not a simulation.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I know I should just let this go, but Joe Morgan is the 2B GOAT. Neck-and-neck between Hornsby and Collins for next best. Hornsby is the GOAT at hitting for 2B, if that helps.
You can't go wrong with the Mick! Another thing not mentioned here is that before his knee injuries......Mickey had the fastest time of anyone from left batters box to first!
Morgan was DAMN good, but I just can't see how his better baserunning and possibly better defense (Hornsby came up as a light hitting SS) can overcome the hitting edge. OPS+175 vs 132 is a LOT of stolen bases. .150 better SLG too, but I am sure you know all this.
I love OPS+; it does a tremendous job measuring what it measures. But there's a lot that it doesn't measure, and Morgan trounces Hornsby in all of those things. Hornsby's last full season was at age 33, Morgan's at 39 (and almost a full season at 40). Morgan dragged down his OPS+ playing all those old man years, but he played well. Instead of giving him credit for playing those years, OPS+ penalizes him. And the baserunning difference was huge; Hornsby got caught stealing as often as not, and he tried a lot more than he should have; he cost his teams a lot of runs that way. Morgan, obviously, was worth a lot of runs on the bases to his teams. And Hornsby was fine at 2B, but Morgan was outstanding. And finally, the easiest decades for a great player to separate himself from the pack (i.e., get a high OPS+) were the 20's and 30's; the hardest decades were the 60's and 70's.
The gap isn't as large as, say, the gap from Schmidt down to Brett, but Morgan was responsible for winning more games than Hornsby, when you take everything into account.
Well you cant argue with that
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
How many times would you have sent him up to do that? Seriously.
He was replaced by a pinch hitter once, however. The guy who had the honor was Carroll Hardy. At the end of Ted's career in 1960, he fouled a ball off his instep and could barely walk. Journeyman player, Carroll Hardy, finished Ted's at batt.
Well, despite Morgan's playing to 39 he only performed in about 400 more games. So he gave his team about three more years of service which is undeniable, but his last seven years (with 1982 excluded) he certainly wasn't much of a hitter, although he still walked a lot and could still steal bases. His OPS over those last seven years was 114, above average but if you are going to play when you are no longer a good hitter (.386 SLG over those years), it SHOULD effect your lifetime totals.
No doubt Joe was a better base runner, but Rogers' SB/CS stats look incomplete and thereby I can't decide if he was THAT bad on the bases. I always have liked hitters over base stealers unless the speed guy has some slug to his game. Hornsby CRUSHES Morgan in that respect. Guys like Morgan certainly help their teams, but still depend on other hitters to drive them in.
Hornsby is an oddity at 2B, as he wasn't a base stealer, but a clean-up type hitter. Certainly appears to me that Hornsby could have put up some good numbers if he had played more when he was player/manager 1932-37. Final full (100 games) season he was at 163.
In general, I'm not convinced that the era had that much to do with it. I thought your + was supposed to take care of that.
OPS+ and WAR seem to have a LOT of flaws. I don't think they work too well when trying to compare players. I'll wait for a better stat.