Mickey Mantle V. Willie Mays

[538280]

The general opinion of fans is not something I would place much stock in, but in that case I do think they got it right.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Now this has been an opinion I've held for a while now, that Mickey Mantle was better than Willie Mays, now I know it won't be too popular around here...but that doesn't matter too much to me. The backbone of my argument is that Mantle's peak value was higher than Mays' career value.

I.) Mantle's second best season 1956 he acheived heights that Mays couldn't achieve in his whole career.

Mays' Career Highs Mantle's 56
BA: 347 BA: .353
HR: 52 HR: 52
RBI: 141 RBI: 130
OBP: 425 OBP: 464
SLG: 667 SLG: 705

Also keep in mind that was Mickey's second best season, his following season was even better where he featured an OPS+ of 223.

II.) Prime AND Career value Mantle was a demonstrably better hitter than Mays

Career OPS+
Mays: 156
Mantle: 172

Career OBP
Mays: .389
Mantle: .421

Career SLG
Mays: .557
Mantle: .557

Career BA:

Mays: .302
Mantle: .298

Career K/BB ratio
Mays: .96
Mantle: 1.01

After the 1965 Season (pretty much the end of Mickey's prime) when each had played in exactly 2005 games

BA
Mays: .314
Mantle: .306

OBP
Mays: .389
Mantle: .426 (one point higher than Mays' career high)

SLG
Mays: .593
Mantle: .576

HR
Mays: 505
Mantle: 473

RBI:
Mays: 1402
Mantle: 1344

ABs:
Mays: 7594
Mantle: 6894

HR% between 1954-1963
Mays: 6.51
Mantle: 7.67

A lot of people like to talk about Willie's base running and talk about how he was the better baserunner, well that isn't exactly as cut and dry as people make it out to be. Mantle was the fastest player in baseball throughout the fifties, and part of the early sixties. He also grounded into far fewer double plays than Willie.

Mickey's career HIGH GIDPs: 11,11,11,9,9
Willie's career LOW in full seasons: 8,7,8,11,11

People don't really notice that Willie's career high OBP is .426 where Mantle's career OBP is .421 ONLY FIVE POINTS LOWER!!!!!!!!

Mantle's five highest OPS+ seasons: 223, 210, 206, 196, 196
Career average: 172

Mays' career high OPS+: 185, 176, 175, 175, 173

So Mays' fifth best season was only SLIGHTLY better than Mickey's average season;

Mantle's 7th best OPB+ season was 181 which is only four points lower than Mays' BEST

All of these things put together leads me to believe that Mantle's career value far outweighs Mays' career value. Plus I know this argument won't have too much pull around here but Mays' Giants were always playing bridesmaid where as the Yankees were consistently in the WS and went 7-5 in them. So all of these things put together lead me to believe that Mantle was the better player and to me it isn't even close.

Not too many people realize exactly how talented Mickey was, in his prime, a switch hitter who could hit from either side, a five tool player, and the fastest player in baseball.

Casey Stengel said of Mickey Mantle: "The boy hits balls over buildings, and runs faster than Ty Cobb"

Also the quote in my signature, is somewhat of a realization as to how good Mickey was.

[mwiggins]

Mays by a little bit. I've got Mays 3rd overall and Mantle 5th.

Mantle did have the better peak, but Mays had a lot more career value. Mantle's career rates that you listed above were accomplished in 2,584 less plate appearances than Mays had.

Career win shares:
Mays - 642 (with almost 2 seasons missed due to war service)
Mantle - 565

Career Runs Created:
Mays - 2344
Mantle - 1919

Plus Mays has a substantial edge on defense.

And even in the stats you showed through 1965, Mays seemed to have a slight edge on Mantle. And Mays was able to accomplish quite a bit after that.

It's very close, though. It all pretty much depends on how much weight you give to Mantle's amazing peak.

[Bench 5]

I agree with you that Mantle was a little better. I wrote down why on another thread but I am re-posting much of my reasoning here.


OBA to league - Mantle 130.0 vs. Mays 116.7
Slg to league - Mantle 143.9 vs. Mays 139.3
OPS + Adj - Mantle 172 vs Mays 156
Runs scored per out - Mantle .284 vs Mays .256
RBI per out - .256 vs Mays .236


Even some of the little things favor Mantle:

GIDP only 113 for Mantle vs. 251 Mays
SB% 80% Mantle vs 76% Mays.


Mays has better counting stats and was a better fielder so that helps the case for Mays. Mays for instance won 12 GG vs 1 for Mantle. However, Mantle had almost 10,000 PA and played 18 years so he had a long career.

Also here's a few stats that tips the scales for me:

World Series Played - Mantle 11 vs. Mays 4
World Series Won - Mantle 7 vs. Mays 1
Post-season stats - Mantle 18 HR/230 AB, Mays 1 HR/89 AB
MVP Awards - Mantle 3 vs. Mays 2


**The best player on the best team in baseball. I find it hard to argue against that.

[538280]

I think Mantle in his best seasons was probably as good a player as has ever played the game. However, he blew out a lot sooner than Mays and thus has less career value. Also, I strongly believe that during Mays' and Mantle's time the gap bewteen the leagues was rather large. That is not enough to close the peak gap between them, but enough to make it a lot smalller. WARP3 for example has their peaks being virtually the same.

Basically I think Mays has more career value than what Mantle can make up for peak. I certainly think Mantle has a case though-it largely depends on how much you favor peak vs. career. Mantle was a better hitter than Mays in his best seasons, and over their career based on rates, but given Mays' longevity there is a good argument to be made that Mays was not far behind as a hitter because of that added career value (would Mantle's OPS+ have stayed higher than Mays' if he had the same number of PAs as Mays?) Mantle was better at his best, but Mays has a much more sustained and consistent level of performance.

[Wade8813]

I have Mantle higher than Mays, although I should mention that any LQ adjustments I make is based on very casual observation, rather than detailed analysis. Also, I place a higher value on peak compared to career than many people do.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Mantle was better at his best, but Mays has a much more sustained and consistent level of performance.

Well Mantle's lack of career value is a bit his fault and a bit out of his control. His alcholism and the fact that he chased women left and right, however he also had a bone diease that he didn't know about untill he hit his decline. He also blew out his knee in 1951 when Joe D called him off on a fly ball in the OF, he stoped dead in his tracks as he stepped on a sprinkler head at YS killed his knee. After that he had knee problems through out his career and it was always something that was ailing him. Somewhat similar to Grifey Jr.execpt he played through the pain. I wonder how good he could have been if he had not had a bone diease and healthy legs.

[Bench 5]

Also, I strongly believe that during Mays' and Mantle's time the gap bewteen the leagues was rather large.

Which league was better in your opinion? Do you have any statistical evidence to back up your claim or is this entirely subjective. Looking at World Series inter-league play, the leagues appear fairly even. All Star games favored the NL but I don't consider that the definitive source for making a determination. I don't think that there was a perceptible difference. Certainly not enough to discount Mantle's performance.

[KCGHOST]

Mays defense and added career value are hard to overlook. Mantle was capable of great plays in CF, but had problems staying focused on it. These are two of the finest players to every slip on a uniform, so I am not dogmatic about who was better. My feeling is that Mays' career value, including defense, offsets Mantle's peak value.

And, to me, it doesn't matter why Mantle's career was shorter. All that matters is that it was.

[Skin & Bones]

The same arguement your using could be used against Cobb too Chris, who I believe you rank number 1 ( I may be wrong here). Mantle's peak was clearly better, without even adjusting for league quality - Toss in a subjective league quality adjustment, and their peaks aren't even close. But like Mays, Cobb has the edge career-wise due to longevity.

[AstrosFan]

Which league was better in your opinion? Do you have any statistical evidence to back up your claim or is this entirely subjective. Looking at World Series inter-league play, the leagues appear fairly even. All Star games favored the NL but I don't consider that the definitive source for making a determination. I don't think that there was a perceptible difference. Certainly not enough to discount Mantle's performance.

The basis for giving the NL the edge is that it integrated sooner and faster than the AL. That seems reasonable to me.

[The Kid]

I think Mays is just a bit better hitter. On my all time hitters list, I have Mays 5th and Mantle 7th.

[Edgartohof]

I have Mays on top, though at their respective bests, Mantle was the better of the two.

But Mays lasted longer (~500 Games), and that's not even including the 2 seasons he missed at the beginning of his career, which I do give credit for.

[Zanthe]

Have to put my money on the Say Hey Kid. That guy was just baseball to me.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I think Mays is just a bit better hitter. On my all time hitters list, I have Mays 5th and Mantle 7th.

What exactly makes you say that?

[Seth1000]

Mickey Mantle was the Micheal Jordan of baseball imo. He was immortal, and he did this while drunk most of the time! Imagine a healthy Mantle?????? Sorry Sayhey, Mantle is the best player ever!

[538280]

Which league was better in your opinion? Do you have any statistical evidence to back up your claim or is this entirely subjective. Looking at World Series inter-league play, the leagues appear fairly even. All Star games favored the NL but I don't consider that the definitive source for making a determination. I don't think that there was a perceptible difference. Certainly not enough to discount Mantle's performance.

I think looking at the WS is very misleading, because the Yankees were a real dynasty in that time. But a dynasty doens't always have a good effect on league quality, the Yankees often dominated the talent market and the rest of the league was not so strong.

The main argument for the NL being much stronger is that they were much quicker to integrate and had many more black players and black stars. The AL was basicaly half integrated in the 50s, with many teams like the Red Sox, Tigers, and Yankees not getting black players until the late 50s or even the 60s. The 60s the leagues started to get closer, but there was still that hangover effect and blacks still often preferred to sign with the NL teams. By the 70s the effect had probably worn off. This is what Craig Wright says in The Diamond Appraised:

"A key factor during the first half of this era (the 60s) was that the NL still had a clear edge in the depth of star talent. This was the residue of the National League's edge in signing the best black talent before the draft was instituted in 1965. Even when the American League was pushing hard to be competitive in scouting and signing black players, those with a real choice-the ones with the kind of star potential that guaranteed serious suitors in both leaugues, tended to sign with the NL.

Look at the distribution of black All-Stars coming into baseball before the draft. Joining Robinson, Campanella, Irvin, Aaron, Banks, and Mays as a new generation of black NL superstars: Fergie Jenkins, Willie McCovey, Bob Gibson, Billy Williams, Lou Brock, Willie Stargell, and Dick Allen. The AL had to settle for the lesser stars like Willie Horton, Mudcat Grant, Reggie Smith, Tommie Agee, Carlos May, Rod Carew, Blue Moon Odom, Roy White, George Scott, Al Downing, and Paul Blair. That group had trouble competing with just the second level of the NL's black stars, players like Bobby Bonds, Jimmy Wynn, Curt Flood, Alex Johnson, Vada Pinson, Tommy Davis, Willie Davis, Dock Ellis, Don Wilson, and Al Oliver."

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Also, I strongly believe that during Mays' and Mantle's time the gap bewteen the leagues was rather large.

And Mays was born closer to Ruth than he was to Griffey Jr ;)

Anyway, I take Mays. Mantle's speed was amazing when healthy, but his baserunning and instincts aren't all they're cracked up to be imo, given his poor extra base hit numbers in a great park for them. However, that makes his SA even that much more impressive, considering it was put up without gaudy double and triple numbers. I also don't think his defense lives up to the legend.

Mays 3rd
Mantle 12th

[538280]

And Mays was born closer to Ruth than he was to Griffey Jr ;)
[/QUOTE]

I would take Mays' leagues over Griffey's as well. It's not all based on timeline, you know.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Anyway, I take Mays. Mantle's speed was amazing when healthy, but his baserunning and instincts aren't all they're cracked up to be imo, given his poor extra base hit numbers in a great park for them. However, that makes his SA even that much more impressive, considering it was put up without gaudy double and triple numbers. I also don't think his defense lives up to the legend.

Mays 3rd
Mantle 12th

I dunno for the reasons I listed above I'll take Mantle, Mays' peak wasn't all that great...I think he's really overrated. To me it isn't even close, Mays is my 5th best CF.

[Bench 5]

I think looking at the WS is very misleading, because the Yankees were a real dynasty in that time. But a dynasty doens't always have a good effect on league quality, the Yankees often dominated the talent market and the rest of the league was not so strong. The main argument for the NL being much stronger is that they were much quicker to integrate and had many more black players and black stars.

Dynasties also can have the impact of making other teams stronger due to the fact that they have to face tougher competition during the regular season. I think the anecdotal evidence that you can derive from looking at head to head in the WS is stronger evidence than basing league quality soley on racial composition. Your line of thinking was popular in the 70's to answer why the NL won the AS game so many times. I don't see any evidence that there was a noticeable difference in league quality between the leagues during the time that they played.

[ElHalo]

And, to me, it doesn't matter why Mantle's career was shorter. All that matters is that it was.

This, to me, doesn't make sense. People remember a lot about Mickey, but one thing they don't remember is that he wasn't forced to retire because of injuries.

Mick didn't retire until spring training in '69. He was still eminently capable of playing baseball (don't forget; he finished in the top 10 in the AL in OPS his final season, and Roy White has consistently maintained that he was still BY FAR the best player on the Yankees at that point, although in fairness that might not have been saying much).

The point is this: Mantle had spent his entire career a winner. Going into 1969, he was playing in tremendous pain (had been for years) for a team that had finished outside the top four in the AL for four straight years. They had no prospect of turning things around any time soon.

He could have kept playing through pain, as an extremely productive hitter... but for what? Winning, the only thing he'd ever known, was beyond him. He had accomplished everything he'd ever could have dreamed of accomplishing and more. It hurt him to play, and when he did play, all his team did was lose. His legacy was cemented, and wasn't going to be improved any more by trudging on.

I think of an analogy to my single favorite athlete as a teenager (well, in the pre-Derek Jeter years), Barry Sanders. Barry Sanders was, without question, the single most entertaining athlete I have ever bared witness to (and this is taking into account the fact that I can't stand football). The things he could do on a playing field could make you cry. He was easily the best runner in the game when he retired, and could have gone on playing another four or five years or more, putting everybody in his taillights on the career rushing list. But he didn't. Why?

The Lions were losers. They were always going to be losers. Nothing he could ever do was going to change that. His legacy was complete: one of the, if not the single, greatest running backs in the history of football. He could go on and rack up the individual numbers while he team stayed mired in mediocrity, but why? What was he to gain from that? The team wasn't going to progress as long as they stayed with the mentality of building around Barry. He wasn't going to win any championships there. There was just no point in him continuing to play the game of football.

Likewise for Mantle. Yes, you can say that the booze and hard life hit him hard (and they did). But they didn't hit him so hard that he wasn't a productive player. They didn't hit him so hard that he couldn't have gone on playing as a productive player. But what was to be gained? The Yankees wouldn't start rebuilding while Mickey was there. The Yankees wouldn't win championships, the only thing Mick had ever known, while he was there. The only Mickey could do was show up on the field and maybe help them finish in fifth place instead of seventh, and add to his own personal numbers. Mickey had too much pride, too much integrity, for that.

How can you fault him? What was to be gained by him doing anything else?

[JRB]

I think looking at the WS is very misleading, because the Yankees were a real dynasty in that time. But a dynasty doens't always have a good effect on league quality, the Yankees often dominated the talent market and the rest of the league was not so strong.

The main argument for the NL being much stronger is that they were much quicker to integrate and had many more black players and black stars. The AL was basicaly half integrated in the 50s, with many teams like the Red Sox, Tigers, and Yankees not getting black players until the late 50s or even the 60s. The 60s the leagues started to get closer, but there was still that hangover effect and blacks still often preferred to sign with the NL teams. By the 70s the effect had probably worn off. This is what Craig Wright says in The Diamond Appraised:

Chris. You seem to be relying a great deal on this book by Craig Wright in forming your views. However, the passage you cited seems partially inaccurate. If you've quoted him correctly, he seems to be making the claim that a second wave of Feguson Jenkins, Willie McCovey, Dick Allen, Willie Stargell, Billy Williams, Bob Gibson etc. joined Jackie Robinson, Roy Campanella, Monte Irvin, Willie Mays, and Hank Aaron, etc, in the National League However, Jackie Robinson, Campanella and Irvin were long out of baseball before those other players came into the National league, and the players he is referring to came into the league in a staggered fashion, and not really a wave. Jackie's last year was 1956. Roy was paralyzed in an auto accident and didn't play after 1957. Monte Irvin's last year was 1956. Ferguson Jenkins made his first minimal appearance in 1965, appearing in just a few games, and the next year was just 6-8, and it wasn't until 1967 that he started making any impact, which is more than a decade after these other players stopped playing. Richie Allen's rookie year was 1964. Willie Stargell made his first appearance in 1962, however he wasn't making any impact until the 64-65 time frame. McCovey was rookie of the year as a part time player in 1959, however he did not become a full time player until 1963, and then he again slipped in 1964 and did not become a full time player for good until 1965. Although, Billy Willliams made some appearances as early as 1959, he was essentially a rookie in 1961. Bob Gibson made his first appearance in 1959 but didn't become a regular pitcher until 1961, and didn't really become a star pitcher until 1963. I hope you weren't trying to create the impression that Mays had to compete against all these players at the same time, because that would be misleading. Mays had been in the league 10 years before Billy Willliams made any impact. Mays had been in the league 13 years before Allen's rookie year, and 13 years before Stargell started making any impact. Mays had been in the league 16 years before Ferguson Jenkins made any impact, etc. Most of these players didn't become impact players until Mays' late prime and twighlight years.

[ChrisLDuncan]

This, to me, doesn't make sense. People remember a lot about Mickey, but one thing they don't remember is that he wasn't forced to retire because of injuries.

Mick didn't retire until spring training in '69. He was still eminently capable of playing baseball (don't forget; he finished in the top 10 in the AL in OPS his final season, and Roy White has consistently maintained that he was still BY FAR the best player on the Yankees at that point, although in fairness that might not have been saying much).

The point is this: Mantle had spent his entire career a winner. Going into 1969, he was playing in tremendous pain (had been for years) for a team that had finished outside the top four in the AL for four straight years. They had no prospect of turning things around any time soon.

He could have kept playing through pain, as an extremely productive hitter... but for what? Winning, the only thing he'd ever known, was beyond him. He had accomplished everything he'd ever could have dreamed of accomplishing and more. It hurt him to play, and when he did play, all his team did was lose. His legacy was cemented, and wasn't going to be improved any more by trudging on.

I think of an analogy to my single favorite athlete as a teenager (well, in the pre-Derek Jeter years), Barry Sanders. Barry Sanders was, without question, the single most entertaining athlete I have ever bared witness to (and this is taking into account the fact that I can't stand football). The things he could do on a playing field could make you cry. He was easily the best runner in the game when he retired, and could have gone on playing another four or five years or more, putting everybody in his taillights on the career rushing list. But he didn't. Why?

The Lions were losers. They were always going to be losers. Nothing he could ever do was going to change that. His legacy was complete: one of the, if not the single, greatest running backs in the history of football. He could go on and rack up the individual numbers while he team stayed mired in mediocrity, but why? What was he to gain from that? The team wasn't going to progress as long as they stayed with the mentality of building around Barry. He wasn't going to win any championships there. There was just no point in him continuing to play the game of football.

Likewise for Mantle. Yes, you can say that the booze and hard life hit him hard (and they did). But they didn't hit him so hard that he wasn't a productive player. They didn't hit him so hard that he couldn't have gone on playing as a productive player. But what was to be gained? The Yankees wouldn't start rebuilding while Mickey was there. The Yankees wouldn't win championships, the only thing Mick had ever known, while he was there. The only Mickey could do was show up on the field and maybe help them finish in fifth place instead of seventh, and add to his own personal numbers. Mickey had too much pride, too much integrity, for that.

How can you fault him? What was to be gained by him doing anything else?

I totally agree this is why I don't like career value, why can't people just appreciate what a player did when he was playing? I mean when Mickey was playing he left the rest of baseball in the dust. I agree with you totally on this execpt for Sanders, Emmitt was better he was tough a true man's running back didn't need any flashy moves just beat you head on and got the tough yards even won Dallas Home Field Advantage in the playoffs with a separated shoulder at Giants Stadium. But that's off topic.

[Edgartohof]

I dunno for the reasons I listed above I'll take Mantle, Mays' peak wasn't all that great...I think he's really overrated. To me it isn't even close, Mays is my 5th best CF.


Just wondering, who are the 4 ahead of Mays?

1. Mantle
2.

....

[EvanAparra]

Cobb, Ruth, Wagner --- I think thats who he has

I have those 3 plus Hornsby

[Edgartohof]

You know what, I was just thinking, if Mays hadn't missed those years (1952-1953), he could have made up those 55 HR's over those two seasons, and passed Ruth before Aaron did, assuming the rest of his career was the same. Because he would have passed Ruth in 1973, whereas Aaron didn't pass Ruth until 1974. Now Aaron would still eventually have become the HR king, but that definitely puts a change on things.

[mwiggins]

Just wondering, who are the 4 ahead of Mays?

1. Mantle
2.

....

His list on the Members Official Opinions thread has Cobb, DiMaggio, Mantle, and Speaker ahead of Mays...in that order.

[stevebogus]

I've read a few thing above that I feel deserve a closer look.

About Mantle's fielding:
Mays was one of the greatest fielders ever. Mantle's range factors were near average, and sometimes below average. The impression some people have is that Mantle was an indifferent fielder. But the Stengel-era Yankees were a consistently great defensive team season after season. And they often led the league in doubleplays, suggesting that Stengel favored groundball pitchers. Mantle's low range factors despite his terrific speed can be interpreted as there simply being fewer plays for him to make. Mantle probably had better corner outfielders alongside him compared to Mays, and didn't need to cover as much ground.

Baserunning:
Mantle's success rate when attempting a steal was 80%, higher than Mays at 77%. But the Yankees didn't steal much. The steal had gone out of favor as HRs increased through the 1920s and beyond. The steal returned as an offensive threat in the NL when Negro League players came in. The NeL style of play featured aggressive baserunning. In the AL the steal didn't make a comeback until Luis Aparicio came up in the late 1950s. As for extra base hits, one comment suggested that Yankee Stadium was a good park for XBH, and that Mantle wasn't a good baserunner. This is absolutely false. Yankee Stadium was a good park for triples, but poor for doubles. But the primary reason Mantle hit relatively few doubles is probably the same reason he hit into so few doubleplays. He was a flyball hitter. Most doubles don't come from deep flys, they are usually shots down the line or liners in the gaps. And, from about 1963 to the end of his career, Mantle essentially stopped trying to take the extra base.

Mantle, in his prime, was a greater player than Mays. But Mays was able to stay healthy and aged better.

[honestiago]

Mantle posted prodigious numbers DESPITE playing in constant pain. He basically played his entire career handicapped, and STILL had numbers equal to, if not better than, Mays. Given the choice between the two at the peak of their careers, I'd take Mantle for the simple reason that he can bat from both sides of the plate.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Mantle posted prodigious numbers DESPITE playing in constant pain. He basically played his entire career handicapped, and STILL had numbers equal to, if not better than, Mays. Given the choice between the two at the peak of their careers, I'd take Mantle for the simple reason that he can bat from both sides of the plate.

This seems to fit here.....

[Sultan_1895-1948]

You know what, I was just thinking, if Mays hadn't missed those years (1952-1953), he could have made up those 55 HR's over those two seasons, and passed Ruth before Aaron did, assuming the rest of his career was the same. Because he would have passed Ruth in 1973, whereas Aaron didn't pass Ruth until 1974. Now Aaron would still eventually have become the HR king, but that definitely puts a change on things.

And he would have had about 12,000 AB.

Anyone have Mays' Polo Grounds splits?

[EvanAparra]

And he would have had about 12,000 AB.

Anyone have Mays' Polo Grounds splits?
He would have added 4,000 ABs in 2 years?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

As for extra base hits, one comment suggested that Yankee Stadium was a good park for XBH, and that Mantle wasn't a good baserunner. This is absolutely false. Yankee Stadium was a good park for triples, but poor for doubles. But the primary reason Mantle hit relatively few doubles is probably the same reason he hit into so few doubleplays. He was a flyball hitter. Most doubles don't come from deep flys, they are usually shots down the line or liners in the gaps. And, from about 1963 to the end of his career, Mantle essentially stopped trying to take the extra base.


Always interested in hearing from someone who watched a lot of Mantle. Is this the case? If so, can you elaborate a bit more?

I have no trouble believing Mantle was a fly ball hitter. That can be said for many hitters though, who put up much better double and triple numbers in Yankee Stadium. His numbers are absurdly low and cannot imo, be explained by simply saying "he was a fly ball hitter." Check out the numbers. No matter how much of a "fly ball" hitter you are, there are always opportunities for extra base hits. Get a bit out in front and turn on one down the line, get some top-spin on a hard hit gapper. The opportunities are always there. My guess is that he just didn't tear out of the box the way Ruth, Gehrig and others did. Took the expected doubles and if an outfielder happened to bobble or misplay it, he took the extra base...but rarely did he force the issue, otherwise his extra base hit numbers would be higher. Again though, I was born in '77 so I'm basing this on the numbers I'm presented with, knowledge of YS and its impact on various hitters, and over 20 years of ballplaying experience. If you saw a lot of Mantle your word carries a lot of weight.

[ChrisLDuncan]

His list on the Members Official Opinions thread has Cobb, DiMaggio, Mantle, and Speaker ahead of Mays...in that order.

Yeah my basis for having DiMaggio over Mantle is purely subjective and I have little to no statistical evidence to back it up. Cobb over Mays because of reasons listed by Bill Burgess and other Cobb supporters. Mantle over Mays because of reasons listed in my first post. Speaker over Mays due to Speaker's D, and career stats.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

He would have added 4,000 ABs in 2 years?

Quick math lesson :D

10,881 AB as is.

Give him 570 AB for '53 and about 450 more for '52.

Total = 11,901 and the 570 is pretty conservative...he had over that (sometimes well over that) TEN times before '65.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Chris. You seem to be relying a great deal on this book by Craig Wright in forming your views. However, the passage you cited seems partially inaccurate. If you've quoted him correctly, he seems to be making the claim that a second wave of Feguson Jenkins, Willie McCovey, Dick Allen, Willie Stargell, Billy Williams, Bob Gibson etc. joined Jackie Robinson, Roy Campanella, Monte Irvin, Willie Mays, and Hank Aaron, etc, in the National League However, Jackie Robinson, Campanella and Irvin were long out of baseball before those other players came into the National league, and the players he is referring to came into the league in a staggered fashion, and not really a wave. Jackie's last year was 1956. Roy was paralyzed in an auto accident and didn't play after 1957. Monte Irvin's last year was 1956. Ferguson Jenkins made his first minimal appearance in 1965, appearing in just a few games, and the next year was just 6-8, and it wasn't until 1967 that he started making any impact, which is more than a decade after these other players stopped playing. Richie Allen's rookie year was 1964. Willie Stargell made his first appearance in 1962, however he wasn't making any impact until the 64-65 time frame. McCovey was rookie of the year as a part time player in 1959, however he did not become a full time player until 1963, and then he again slipped in 1964 and did not become a full time player for good until 1965. Although, Billy Willliams made some appearances as early as 1959, he was essentially a rookie in 1961. Bob Gibson made his first appearance in 1959 but didn't become a regular pitcher until 1961, and didn't really become a star pitcher until 1963. I hope you weren't trying to create the impression that Mays had to compete against all these players at the same time, because that would be misleading. Mays had been in the league 10 years before Billy Willliams made any impact. Mays had been in the league 13 years before Allen's rookie year, and 13 years before Stargell started making any impact. Mays had been in the league 16 years before Ferguson Jenkins made any impact, etc. Most of these players didn't become impact players until Mays' late prime and twighlight years.

Great post.

Waiting for Chris' response. Exactly who were these titans of color that Mays was battling with his entire career?

[EvanAparra]

I was on Mantle's bbref page, and thought I was on Mays'. My bad. Thanks for the lesson though. :)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I was on Mantle's bbref page, and thought I was on Mays'. My bad. Thanks for the lesson though. :)

It happens :dance

[torez77]

I agree with you totally on this execpt for Sanders, Emmitt was better he was tough a true man's running back didn't need any flashy moves just beat you head on and got the tough yards even won Dallas Home Field Advantage in the playoffs with a separated shoulder at Giants Stadium. But that's off topic.

Emmitt also had one of the greatest offensive lines ever blocking for him, but you're right that's off topic.....

[EvanAparra]

Emmitt also had one of the greatest offensive lines ever blocking for him, but you're right that's off topic.....
LOL. Hear it all the time, never saw it

[torez77]

LOL. Hear it all the time, never saw it

Then you and I were watching different games. All I can say is, give Barry Sanders Dallas' offensive lines in those years, and we would've seen 2,500 yards easily. But did you hear me?! This is OFF TOPIC! ;)

[EvanAparra]

---deleted post---

[stevebogus]

Always interested in hearing from someone who watched a lot of Mantle. Is this the case? If so, can you elaborate a bit more?

I wish I could say that I saw Mantle play. I'm from Chicago, and if my Dad ever took me to see the Yankees play when I was a kid I can't remember it.

You are correct in saying that it isn't as simple as Mantle's being a flyball hitter. I don't believe he was an extreme flyball hitter, because players like that (Killebrew, Kingman, etc.) almost never manage to bat .300 for a season, never mind a decade at a stretch. I was a Frank Thomas watcher for years, and when he stopped hitting .300 it was due to more flyballs. Too many easy flyouts and popouts. I do believe it was a factor, but Mantle probably didn't hit more than 55%-60% in the air. The major difference was balls in play. Mantle walked more than Mays, struck out more than Mays, and missed more games than Mays. Mays would put 100 more balls in play per season. Even if he wasn't a more aggressive baserunner Mays was going to easily get more doubles and triples. If you compare percentages of XBH on balls in play (not counting HRs) Mays was at 7.55% while Mantle was 7.05%. If Mantle could match Mays' rate he would gain perhaps 2 XBH per season. But if Mickey could put ~480 balls in play per season instead of 380 he would gain 7 XBH on average.

Incidentally, Frank Robinson was an aggressive baserunner like Mays, and by this measure he was at 7.51%, similar to Willie. Henry Aaron, a more cautious player, was at 6.98%. Aaron usually got more XBH because he was regularly hitting 500+ balls in play per season.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Mantle walked more than Mays, struck out more than Mays, and missed more games than Mays. Mays would put 100 more balls in play per season. Even if he wasn't a more aggressive baserunner Mays was going to easily get more doubles and triples. If you compare percentages of XBH on balls in play (not counting HRs) Mays was at 7.55% while Mantle was 7.05%. If Mantle could match Mays' rate he would gain perhaps 2 XBH per season. But if Mickey could put ~480 balls in play per season instead of 380 he would gain 7 XBH on average.


Understood.

Looking at Mantle compared with other Yankees...even the Meusels and the Lazzeris, his extra base hit numbers just seem odd, especially for such a spacious ballpark in the gaps.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Well Mantle was obcessed with power for a while, if he tried he could have hit more doubles but batting left handed he was more of an uppercut swinger. Still looking at the numbers Mantle's prime leaves Mays' in the dust.

[ChrisLDuncan]

You know what, I was just thinking, if Mays hadn't missed those years (1952-1953), he could have made up those 55 HR's over those two seasons, and passed Ruth before Aaron did, assuming the rest of his career was the same. Because he would have passed Ruth in 1973, whereas Aaron didn't pass Ruth until 1974. Now Aaron would still eventually have become the HR king, but that definitely puts a change on things.

Well what if Ted and Joe didn't loose time to WWII? Where would their numbers be? Joe D could have 500+ HRs a BA around .330 and an OPS around .980 I don't even want to think where Ted's numbers would be.

[EvanAparra]

Ted probably wouldn't have hit over 714, unless there was to be a big spike in his HR totals.

[Bench 5]

I went looking at some old boxes of baseball magazines that I kept from the 70's and 80's and found an article on this very same topic from a magazine called "Baseball Immortals" from 1979. The article has a nice picture of them posing together before an All Star Games.

They show a chart comparing their stats after each player completed the 1965 season. As chance would have it, each of them played exactly 2,005 games at the end of the 1965 season. So this gave a good snapshot of each player at that point of their respective careers.

Here are the stats per the magazine afer the 1965 season (this didn't line up the way I hoped but I have yet to learn how to input a table correctly):

Category Mays Mantle
Games 2,005 2,005
At Bats 7,594 6,894
Walks 949 1,464
hit by Pitch 27 11
Sac Flies 63 36
Sac Bunts 4 13
Plate Appearances 8,637 8,417
Reached Base 3,357 3,583
OBA .389 .426
Runs 1,497 1,517
RBI 1,402 1,344
Hits 2,381 2,108
BA .314 .306
Singles 1,381 1,264
Doubles 375 301
Triples 118 70
Home Runs 505 473
Total Bases 4,507 3,968
SA .593 .576
Stolen Bases 276 145
Caught Stealing 86 34
SB % .762 .810
Strikeouts 893 1,424
GIDP 174 86
IBB 140 107
Games Outfield 1,987 1,922
Putouts 5,246 4,266
Assists 160 115
Errors 98 82
Double Plays 51 27
Fielding Average .982 .982

[538280]

Chris. You seem to be relying a great deal on this book by Craig Wright in forming your views. However, the passage you cited seems partially inaccurate. If you've quoted him correctly, he seems to be making the claim that a second wave of Feguson Jenkins, Willie McCovey, Dick Allen, Willie Stargell, Billy Williams, Bob Gibson etc. joined Jackie Robinson, Roy Campanella, Monte Irvin, Willie Mays, and Hank Aaron, etc, in the National League However, Jackie Robinson, Campanella and Irvin were long out of baseball before those other players came into the National league, and the players he is referring to came into the league in a staggered fashion, and not really a wave. Jackie's last year was 1956. Roy was paralyzed in an auto accident and didn't play after 1957. Monte Irvin's last year was 1956. Ferguson Jenkins made his first minimal appearance in 1965, appearing in just a few games, and the next year was just 6-8, and it wasn't until 1967 that he started making any impact, which is more than a decade after these other players stopped playing. Richie Allen's rookie year was 1964. Willie Stargell made his first appearance in 1962, however he wasn't making any impact until the 64-65 time frame. McCovey was rookie of the year as a part time player in 1959, however he did not become a full time player until 1963, and then he again slipped in 1964 and did not become a full time player for good until 1965. Although, Billy Willliams made some appearances as early as 1959, he was essentially a rookie in 1961. Bob Gibson made his first appearance in 1959 but didn't become a regular pitcher until 1961, and didn't really become a star pitcher until 1963. I hope you weren't trying to create the impression that Mays had to compete against all these players at the same time, because that would be misleading. Mays had been in the league 10 years before Billy Willliams made any impact. Mays had been in the league 13 years before Allen's rookie year, and 13 years before Stargell started making any impact. Mays had been in the league 16 years before Ferguson Jenkins made any impact, etc. Most of these players didn't become impact players until Mays' late prime and twighlight years.

JRB, you are totally misunderstanding the point that I was making. The point was not really that there was a huge wave of black players than came in at a specific time, but rather that there were a number more black stars that came into the NL at that time rather than the AL, and thus that is a major reason for the NL of that period being a stronger league. If you don't think that's valid, then tell me what black stars were coming into the in the late 40s to 60s period (the integration era)?

[ChrisLDuncan]

JRB, you are totally misunderstanding the point that I was making. The point was not really that there was a huge wave of black players than came in at a specific time, but rather that there were a number more black stars that came into the NL at that time rather than the AL, and thus that is a major reason for the NL of that period being a stronger league. If you don't think that's valid, then tell me what black stars were coming into the in the late 40s to 60s period (the integration era)?

See saying that the NL was a stronger league is a lie, didn't Mantle go 7-5 against a "stronger" league throughout his career in the WS? Also more blacks does not equal a stronger league, however players like Jackie Robinson, Willie Mays, Henry Aaron, Roberto Clemente, amongst others do make it a good league. (NOTE: I said good not stronger)

[538280]

Dynasties also can have the impact of making other teams stronger due to the fact that they have to face tougher competition during the regular season.

There is one team that is taking most of the great players in the league (the Yankees). The other teams are facing better competition only when they are playing the Yankees and otherwise they are facing weaker competition. I don't see how that equates to the other teams getting better.

I think the anecdotal evidence that you can derive from looking at head to head in the WS is stronger evidence than basing league quality soley on racial composition.

If you want to go the head to head route then I could bring up the ASG, which is probably a lot better than the WS anyway because it is all the stars in the league rather than just one team. Again, the WS is very misleading because the AL had one dynasty team, the Yankees, who totally beat up on the rest of the league. The NL had no dominant force, which may even be indicative that it was indeed stronger.

Your line of thinking was popular in the 70's to answer why the NL won the AS game so many times. I don't see any evidence that there was a noticeable difference in league quality between the leagues during the time that they played.

So is your entire argument based on the WS?

[ChrisLDuncan]

If you want to go the head to head route then I could bring up the ASG, which is probably a lot better than the WS anyway because it is all the stars in the league rather than just one team. Again, the WS is very misleading because the AL had one dynasty team, the Yankees, who totally beat up on the rest of the league. The NL had no dominant force, which may even be indicative that it was indeed stronger.


Well I'm not saying that the NL wasn't the better league, but you can't say it was THAT much better when the Yankees mopped the floor with the NL in the WS. For exampe someone brought up that the despairity between the NL and the AL was greater than it is now. I find that hard to believe because the AL has still done alot better in the WS than the NL has, and they've won the ASGs too. Speaking of the ASG I really don't think you can say that that's a good metric to decide how good the league was, I bet players play exponetially harder in the WS than they would in the ASG. The ASG is an exhibithion that was fairly inconsequential back than.

Also the Yankees didn't just beat up on the rest of the AL, they beat up on the rest of baseball.

[Bench 5]

Chris - The only inter-league games that we can look at are the WS and AS games. The AS game is an exhibition game. I wouldn't place too much stock in which league is better based upon the results of an exhibition. Of the two, I place more stock in the outcomes of the WS since the games are not an exhibition. True the Yankess were dominant in the 50's and early 60's but then again the Dodgers were also a mini-dynasty in the NL.

One way to analyze your position is to do a study based upon how well players from one league did as compared to the other league before and after they switched leagues. If you are open to doing that then I think you have a better chance at proving your point. But to imply that one league is stronger based upon racial composition is a weak argument. I've seen you make this same argument before and I've disagreed. I just think that it's an uninformed argument unless you can back it up with some non-anecdotal evidence. My position is that the difference in league quality between the NL and AL during the times that Mays and Mantle played are negligible. And any difference is certainly not worth introducing into the argument to rate one player over the other.

[leecemark]

See saying that the NL was a stronger league is a lie, didn't Mantle go 7-5 against a "stronger" league throughout his career in the WS? Also more blacks does not equal a stronger league, however players like Jackie Robinson, Willie Mays, Henry Aaron, Roberto Clemente, amongst others do make it a good league. (NOTE: I said good not stronger)

--The Yankees did win the Series a little more than half the time when Mantle was with them, but one great team does not make a great league. The Yankees won the AL pennant 12 of Mantle's first 14 season. That doesn't say much for the rest of the league. Most of those seasons half or more of the other teams in the AL were no more than punching bags for the Yankees. The Browns (before they moved to Baltimore and decided to try and actually compete) and A's were little more than Yankee farm teams.

[JRB]

--The Yankees did win the Series a little more than half the time when Mantle was with them, but one great team does not make a great league. The Yankees won the AL pennant 12 of Mantle's first 14 season. That doesn't say much for the rest of the league. Most of those seasons half or more of the other teams in the AL were no more than punching bags for the Yankees. The Browns (before they moved to Baltimore and decided to try and actually compete) and A's were little more than Yankee farm teams.

As far as the early 1960's is concerned I strongly disagree with your assertion. I think the National League, not the American League, clearly had more punching bag type teams.

In 1960 the two worse teams in the NL were the 7th place Cubs with a 60-94 record and the last place Phillies with a 59-95 record, while in the AL the worse teams were Ted Williams' Red Sox with a 65-89 record and Kansas City with a 58-96 record, with the NL teams being worse by a 4 game edge in futility. 1961 was an expansion year in the AL, however it was the horrible National League team, the Phillies that had the worse record in baseball 47-107 in a shorter schedule, and the Cubs were in 7th with a 64-90 record. Over in the AL, the expansion Washington team was 61-100, while the K.C. team was also 61-100, both playing in a longer schedule. In relative terms, the two bottom NL teams were worse. In 1962 the expansion Mets in the National League were the worst team in the history of baseball with a 40-120 record. The Cubs were also horrible with a 59-103 record, as was Houston with a 64-96 record. The NL in 1962 had one of the worse combined records ever for the 3 bottom teams in a league. In contrast the last place Senators in the AL had a record of 60-101, which made them better than the two worse teams in the NL. The ninth place team in the AL, Kansas City with a 72-90 record, was better than the 3 bottom teams in the NL. In 1963 the horrible Mets team was 51-111, and Houston was 66-96, while the last place Senators in the AL 56-106, were 5 games better than the Mets, and the ninth place Angels were 70-91, which was 4 1/2 games better than the Colt 45's. In 1964 in the NL the last place Mets were 53-109, and the 9th place Houston team was 66-96, while in the AL, the last place Senators team was 62-100, 9 games better than the Mets, while the 9th place Boston team was 72-90, which was 6 games better than the Houston team. In 1965 in the NL the last place Mets were 50-112, and Houston was 63-97, while in the AL the last place Kansas City team was 59-103, which was 9 games better than the Mets, and the ninth place Boston team was 62-100, which was 2 games worse than Houston. In 1966 the last place Cubs were 59-103, and the ninth place Mets were 66-95, while in the AL the last place Yanks were 70-89, a 12 1/2 game edge over the Cubs, and the 9th place team, Boston was 72-90, a 5 1/2 game edge over the Mets.

The above clearly demonstrates that from 1960 to 1966, seven straight years during Mays' prime, the National League by an overwhelming margin had much weaker teams at the bottom of the league than the American League. Mays took great advantage of this disparity and oftentimes feasted on these awful National League bottom feeders, and as a result was able to raise his numbers during these years.

c JRB

[ChrisLDuncan]

--The Yankees did win the Series a little more than half the time when Mantle was with them, but one great team does not make a great league. The Yankees won the AL pennant 12 of Mantle's first 14 season. That doesn't say much for the rest of the league. Most of those seasons half or more of the other teams in the AL were no more than punching bags for the Yankees. The Browns (before they moved to Baltimore and decided to try and actually compete) and A's were little more than Yankee farm teams.

I wasn't nessesiarly saying that the AL was better, I'm just saying that it's closer than what most people think. I think the desparity between the AL and NL now is greater than it was durring Mantle's and Mays' day

[JRB]

I wasn't nessesiarly saying that the AL was better, I'm just saying that it's closer than what most people think. I think the desparity between the AL and NL now is greater than it was durring Mantle's and Mays' day

Chris. As has been discussed, during Mantle's 18 year career the AL teams won the World Series 9 times and the NL teams won the World Series 9 times. 6 of the 9 times the NL teams won the series during that period it took the NL team 7 games to do it, while 5 of the 9 times the AL team won the series it took the AL team 7 games to do it. The leagues were very close in strength, which is contrary to the revisionist history that is being presented by some. Integration probably helped the NL gain parity with the AL not superiority.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Chris. As has been discussed, during Mantle's 18 year career the AL teams won the World Series 9 times and the NL teams won the World Series 9 times. 6 of the 9 times the NL teams won the series during that period it took the NL team 7 games to do it, while 5 of the 9 times the AL team won the series it took the AL team 7 games to do it. The leagues were very close in strength, which is contrary to the revisionist history that is being presented by some. Integration probably helped the NL gain parity with the AL not superiority.

That's fair, but the difference couldn't have been that big IMO since the WS were so close...I don't think it was as big of a difference as it is today with the AL and NL.

[leecemark]

--The WS results mean very little to league strength in this case. That was almost all the Yankees. When the Indians went in 1954 they got swept (by Mays' Giants). When the White Sox went in 1959 they lost 4-2. Every other year from 1949-64 the Yankees won the pennant. The same team does not win a strong league 14 times in 16 years.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I wasn't nessesiarly saying that the AL was better, I'm just saying that it's closer than what most people think. I think the desparity between the AL and NL now is greater than it was durring Mantle's and Mays' day

All I am saying is that the LQ adjustments aren't enough to put Willie's peak near Mickey's. He striaght up out did him, you can't add something subjective to take away from HUGE statistical evidence. The difference wasn't as big as it is now either.

[leecemark]

--Willie has 2 other advantages besides playing in the better league. He was a MUCH better defensive player and he was MUCH more durable. Willie was a guy you could count on to be in the lineup everyday, while Mickey was always going to miss some games. That reduces the value of Mantle's rate advantage. That said, I agree that Mantle's very best years (56-7 and 61) were better than Mays' best. Outside of those three years though I'd be inclined to go with Willie. For sure, if I got to go back to 1951 and grab one to play out their career as my centerfielder I wouldn't hesitate to choose Mays.

[538280]

Chris - The only inter-league games that we can look at are the WS and AS games. The AS game is an exhibition game. I wouldn't place too much stock in which league is better based upon the results of an exhibition. Of the two, I place more stock in the outcomes of the WS since the games are not an exhibition. True the Yankess were dominant in the 50's and early 60's but then again the Dodgers were also a mini-dynasty in the NL.

The Dodgers were not even close to a dynasty on the level of the Yankees, and they were not nearly as good as the Yankees. But one team being better than another does not make a whole league. I don't think much stock should be put in either the ASG or the WS, since they are just a few games and not many conclustions can be drawn from a few games. Babe Ruth could have very well batted .100 or something in a 10 game stretch in his career, that doesn't make him a bad hitter.

I would put very little weight on either but in this case I would put almost no weight on the WS. The Yankees were a great, great team at that time, and their performance in the WS shows how good they were, it has nothing to do with the rest of the league. The Yankees being so good could in fact be used as an argument for how the AL was actually weak.

One way to analyze your position is to do a study based upon how well players from one league did as compared to the other league before and after they switched leagues. If you are open to doing that then I think you have a better chance at proving your point. But to imply that one league is stronger based upon racial composition is a weak argument.

That's basically what BP does, as they explain in their new book Baseball Between the Numbers (I finally have a clue at how they arrive at their LQ adjustments! :clapping)

To go by that you just need to look at the difference between WARP1 (which has no LQ adjustments) and WARP2, which then factors in the LQ:

Mays WARP1: 215.8
Mays WARP2: 202.8

Mantle WARP1: 167.6
Mantle WARP2: 151.6

Mays' goes down by 5.4% while Mantle's goes down by 10.6%. That is based on how players translate from league to league and it finds the the NL was the better league by about 5% (which is the exact same difference I have in my system for the 60s).

Even with the LQ though I still would agree that Mantle was better at his best. Mays was a great hitter in his best years, but just not as good as Mantle. Mays was better defensively, but the hitting edge is larger. But overall for their careers, because Mays has so much more career value and durability, I'd have to say he's the better player. If you go by WS too, Mantle's entire advantage is basically in his three awesome seasons 1956, 1957, and 1961:

Mantle: 51, 49, 48, 41, 39, 36, 36, 34, 33, 32
Mays: 43, 41, 40, 40, 40, 38, 38, 38, 37, 34

Mantle has the edge in those top three, but after that Mays actually does better through out the rest of the top 10. The difference is really that Mays churned out great season after great season that were at basically the same level while Mantle posted a few seasons better than what Mays put up, but his other seasons were not as good, and he could not be relied upon to be in the lineup all the time. That was a very good point by Mark about Mays' durability reducing Mantle's rate advantage.

[ChrisLDuncan]

The Dodgers were not even close to a dynasty on the level of the Yankees, and they were not nearly as good as the Yankees. But one team being better than another does not make a whole league. I don't think much stock should be put in either the ASG or the WS, since they are just a few games and not many conclustions can be drawn from a few games. Babe Ruth could have very well batted .100 or something in a 10 game stretch in his career, that doesn't make him a bad hitter.

I would put very little weight on either but in this case I would put almost no weight on the WS. The Yankees were a great, great team at that time, and their performance in the WS shows how good they were, it has nothing to do with the rest of the league. The Yankees being so good could in fact be used as an argument for how the AL was actually weak.

And Mantle was the best player on the Yankees bar none, it's hard to stick out when you have greatness all around you, ask a Harvard Law/Business Student, or an engineer at MIT, sure they're all good students, but when they're in the same room with some of the best in the world it's hard to look as good

That's basically what BP does, as they explain in their new book Baseball Between the Numbers (I finally have a clue at how they arrive at their LQ adjustments! :clapping)

To go by that you just need to look at the difference between WARP1 (which has no LQ adjustments) and WARP2, which then factors in the LQ:

Mays WARP1: 215.8
Mays WARP2: 202.8

Mantle WARP1: 167.6
Mantle WARP2: 151.6

Mays' goes down by 5.4% while Mantle's goes down by 10.6%. That is based on how players translate from league to league and it finds the the NL was the better league by about 5% (which is the exact same difference I have in my system for the 60s).

Even with the LQ though I still would agree that Mantle was better at his best. Mays was a great hitter in his best years, but just not as good as Mantle. Mays was better defensively, but the hitting edge is larger. But overall for their careers, because Mays has so much more career value and durability, I'd have to say he's the better player. If you go by WS too, Mantle's entire advantage is basically in his three awesome seasons 1956, 1957, and 1961:

Mantle: 51, 49, 48, 41, 39, 36, 36, 34, 33, 32
Mays: 43, 41, 40, 40, 40, 38, 38, 38, 37, 34

Mantle has the edge in those top three, but after that Mays actually does better through out the rest of the top 10. The difference is really that Mays churned out great season after great season that were at basically the same level while Mantle posted a few seasons better than what Mays put up, but his other seasons were not as good, and he could not be relied upon to be in the lineup all the time. That was a very good point by Mark about Mays' durability reducing Mantle's rate advantage.

Are you trying to say that Mantle only had three awesome seasons? Maybe you need to reread my first post.

Mays' best hitting season doesn't even come close to Mantle's fifth best. Hell in Mickey's second best season he did things that Mays couldn't do in a career. Mays' career HIGH on base is only five points higher than Mantle's career AVERAGE on base percentage. If I misunderstood you, I'm sorry.

[538280]

And Mantle was the best player on the Yankees bar none, it's hard to stick out when you have greatness all around you, ask a Harvard Law/Business Student, or an engineer at MIT, sure they're all good students, but when they're in the same room with some of the best in the world it's hard to look as good

I agree with you-this sounds much like the argument I was trying to make above and much like the argument for LQ adjustments I've made for a long time. Players being compared to the average is not always fair because the average is not always the same. Let's say Willie Mays scored a 1500 on the SAT. He goes to Harvard, and there the average score is 1300. So he's 15% above average. Ty Cobb gets a 1400 on the SAT and goes to Boston College. The average for BC is 1100. Cobb is 27% above average while Mays is 15% better, but Mays is really better because the average is just stronger for him. That is exactly the rationale for why I think it is appropriate to LQ adjust.

Are you trying to say that Mantle only had three awesome seasons? Maybe you need to reread my first post.

No-I'm saying that Mantle's entire advantage is in those three seasons, because past that Mays pulls away in the WS comparison.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I agree with you-this sounds much like the argument I was trying to make above and much like the argument for LQ adjustments I've made for a long time. Players being compared to the average is not always fair because the average is not always the same. Let's say Willie Mays scored a 1500 on the SAT. He goes to Harvard, and there the average score is 1300. So he's 15% above average. Ty Cobb gets a 1400 on the SAT and goes to Boston College. The average for BC is 1100. Cobb is 27% above average while Mays is 15% better, but Mays is really better because the average is just stronger for him. That is exactly the rationale for why I think it is appropriate to LQ adjust.


Well true the NL did have some very good players, but so did the Yankees...an NL all-star team against the 1961 New York Yankees would have been interesting to see. Still though Mantle still looked great even with having greats around him.

[538280]

Well true the NL did have some very good players, but so did the Yankees...an NL all-star team against the 1961 New York Yankees would have been interesting to see. Still though Mantle still looked great even with having greats around him.

Mantle's teammates have nothing to do with how he performs in relative stats or stats like Win Shares. I have no idea how you pick up that Mantle wasn't looking as good because his teammates were so good.

[AlecBoy006]

Take speed, Chris. Without the speed of his team mates, how many RBI's would he have? And what about BA too?

[ChrisLDuncan]

Mantle's teammates have nothing to do with how he performs in relative stats or stats like Win Shares. I have no idea how you pick up that Mantle wasn't looking as good because his teammates were so good.

Never said that, just saying to outshine his teammates by far, and out shine the NL that's something.

[Wade8813]

1. The ASG is a horrible measure of league quality. Not only was it a more or less meaningless game, it's only one game. Anyone who knows anything about statistics can tell you that it's too small of a sample size.

2. The Yankees dominating doesn't necessarily mean the AL was worse. If we pitted one of our all-time teams against current teams, they would dominate in ways the Yanks can only dream of, but that doesn't mean the current teams are worse, just that the all-time team is better.

[538280]

1. The ASG is a horrible measure of league quality. Not only was it a more or less meaningless game, it's only one game. Anyone who knows anything about statistics can tell you that it's too small of a sample size.

I agree. The same is true of the WS, it's at most seven games, and it's only two selected teams.

2. The Yankees dominating doesn't necessarily mean the AL was worse. If we pitted one of our all-time teams against current teams, they would dominate in ways the Yanks can only dream of, but that doesn't mean the current teams are worse, just that the all-time team is better.

The Yankees dominating do not prove that the AL was worse, but many people were saying that they basically prove that the AL is better by using the WS.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I agree. The same is true of the WS, it's at most seven games, and it's only two selected teams.

However it is the seven most important games of the season

The Yankees dominating do not prove that the AL was worse, but many people were saying that they basically prove that the AL is better by using the WS.

Well I didn't say that the AL was better, just that the gap is smaller than what people think.

[westfield]

Mays took great advantage of this disparity and oftentimes feasted on these awful National League bottom feeders, and as a result was able to raise his numbers during these years.[/B]

c JRB[/QUOTE]

mays didnt really feast on the bottom feeders much more than he did the top tier teams in the league. mays was actually pretty agnostic throughout his career when it came to hitting against certain teams, ballparks and pitchers(although he couldnt hit Gibson for a dime)

here are some raw counting stats for hit / hr totals for mays vs national league teams from 1962-1965.
Milwaukee 71/21
CHC 86/27
CIN 73/15
HOU 81/20
LAD 79/18
NYM 89/25
PHI 71/11
PITT 84/25
STL 90/23

HOU (one of the bottom feeders) looks very close to the LAD.(one of the better teams)

NYM (one of the bottom feeders) looks very similar to STL(one of the stronger teams).

[538280]

However it is the seven most important games of the season

How is that relevant to determining whether or not WS results really are relevant when determining league quality?

I think they mean just about nothing, and same with the ASG. To begin with you can't draw conclusions from only a few games, and the WS is only between two teams when the leagues are made up from much more than those two teams.

[DoubleX]

This is what's most telling for me...

I wasn't alive to see either player play, but I grew up and live in the New York area, where Mantle is revered like no other by babyboomer baseball fans. However, most everyone I've asked who was alive and cognizant when both played says that Mays was the best ballplayer they ever saw. I know some of us like to do our best to discount firsthand impressions, but in an area where Mantle sits on a pedastal like no other, for people to time and time again tell me that Mays was the best, says a lot to me (not to mention the opinions of more objective people who did not live in the New York area back then).

[538280]

Just bringing these threads up-posts made earlier today are at the beginning of the thread.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Sorry to bring this old thread back but I have a quick question for you guys. Who do you think had the better peak?

[TRfromBR]

Sorry to bring this old thread back but I have a quick question for you guys. Who do you think had the better peak?


No question about it. At his peak, Mantle was the better hitter of the two. And he had the better peak.

If I have to make a choice between a healthy Mantle and a healthy Mays, both at their peaks, I take Mantle. (Oh, if life only offered such choices!)

[538280]

Sorry to bring this old thread back but I have a quick question for you guys. Who do you think had the better peak?

Mantle. Mantle was a better hitter than Mays while he was playing and at his peak. Mantle got on base more due to his insane walk totals. Other than that they were pretty much even as hitters, but it's a big edge for Mantle. Mantle had OPS+ above 200 three times, Mays' highest was 185. Even with Mays' superior defense and tougher competition, I think Mantle's three HUGE years (1956, 1957, 1961), are better than any Mays season and are perhaps the best three seasons any player has.

[The Toy Cannon]

I think that(depending on how one adjusts for the offensive-explosion Ruth played in during the early 20's) there's a pretty decent argument that Mantle's peak from '55-'58 is the greatest four year stretch for any individual player...or rather, the greatest stretch not mired in steroid suspicion.

It does seem clear, however, that the difference in quality of league during the 50's and early 60's was substantial, though. The Yanks made the world series 14 times in 16 years. That lack of parity is something that Mays didn't have in the NL.

[four tool]

Yet the yankee teams that accomplished that streak did not have many Afro-American players. They weren't quite the Red Sox, but they weren't looking for the Larry Dobys either .

[538280]

Why am I listed as starting this thread? I just realized there are a number of other threads as well that I'm listed as the starter but I didn't really start.

EDIT; I just realized why. It's because of that strange day we had where the clock was WAY off and thought it was January 2002.

[flash143817]

--Willie has 2 other advantages besides playing in the better league. He was a MUCH better defensive player and he was MUCH more durable. Willie was a guy you could count on to be in the lineup everyday, while Mickey was always going to miss some games. That reduces the value of Mantle's rate advantage. That said, I agree that Mantle's very best years (56-7 and 61) were better than Mays' best. Outside of those three years though I'd be inclined to go with Willie. For sure, if I got to go back to 1951 and grab one to play out their career as my centerfielder I wouldn't hesitate to choose Mays.

Wouldn't 1951 be pre-Mick sprinkler injury?

Just looking at them then I would think you would have to choose the Mick. He had the speed of a sprinter and the power of the Babe (allegedly). He also had tremendous defensive talent in his athletic prime (ie. 1951) and also was willing to take his walks. If he is this close, or better to some, to Mays already, I could only imagine how badly he would destroy Mays had he been healthy.

Going back to 1951 allows you to eliminate Mick's health issues and that crazy sprinkler drain. That being said, I would easily choose Mantle if I was a GM with a roster spot in 1951. I tend to believe he would have gone down as the greatest ever had he not had injuries.

As far as rating their peaks, I think it is Mantle fairly easily, for reasons already outlined by others in this thread. I go back and forth on which one should rate higher overall, but since I tend to favor peak more than most, I'd probably be rating Mantle higher if I were to make a list right now.

[538280]

Flash, I think Mark meant he would take Willie assuming that their careers would go the way they actually did. I think Mickey was better at his best, but Mays lasted longer, and while Mantle was a better hitter while he was playing, it was usually in less games than Mays, and Mays also the advantage of being a better defensive player to make the offensive edge probably even out (or perhaps not even). The point with the durability point is that the rate can be misleading because in a season Mays might play 160 and Mantle 145, Mantle might be better per game but with Mays playing 15 more games that might make it unclear or at least cut into the rate edge by quite a bit.

[Blackout]

I dunno for the reasons I listed above I'll take Mantle, Mays' peak wasn't all that great...I think he's really overrated. To me it isn't even close, Mays is my 5th best CF.

Mays never had an OPS+ above 185

Mantle from 1956-1963 had an OPS+ below 185 only twice

and Mantle walked alot more and was much better in the post season