Mickey Mantle vs Joe DiMaggio

[Capt2712]

Whos the better one

[Appling]

I voted for the Mick, but perhaps too quickly.
I knew that Mantle had a longer career (18 years vs 13 for Joe), that Mick had more career homeruns and higher OBP, but that Joe had a higher career batting average.

What I forgot about is RBI. Despite only 6821 career AB Joe had 1537 RBI -- ranking him #37 of all time. Mantle had 8102 career AB but only 1509 RBI. That RBI total should earn Joe more respect.

[torez77]

Another good poll.

I choose the Mick. He was the better offensive player due to better power, OBP and speed, was more dominant, and was the better all-around player.

[64Cards]

I'll go with Mickey. I think he was a lot better guy in the clubhouse, from everything I read he was always ready to cut up and have fun with everyone, even the rookies. Joe D acted like he was a god and expected his teammates and media to treat him as such. Read a story some where that Rizzuto, when he was a rookie, ran into Joe outside the hotel on a road trip and Joe asked to borrow $20 to go out to dinner with one of the other players, had left his wallet in the clubhouse. Phil gave him the 20 and assumed he would be joining Joe for dinner, but Joe got into a cab and ditched Rizzuto. Phil said he never got the 20 back either. It was said Mantle was always generous with his teammates.

[CoasttoCoast]

I will stick with No.7!

[Myankee4life]

i choose Dimaggio because he was considered the greatest all around player by many of his peers , also a .325 avg, 3 mvp's and 9 ws rings

as part of 9 men, Dimaggio is the greatest player that ever lived

[RuthMayBond]

17 points of OPS+
AND 2200+ PA
AND 123 SB is a lot to make up

[Blackout]

I did this poll at NYYfans.com and right now Dimaggio is ahead 26 votes to 21

by the way, 64cards, thats an interesting story, although it was one-sided.

you remember exactly where it was from? a book or interview or somethin?

[64Cards]

by the way, 64cards, thats an interesting story, although it was one-sided.

you remember exactly where it was from? a book or interview or somethin?

It may have been from Peter Golenbock's "Dynasty" seems that I've read it a couple of places.

[pjf]

No one can question DiMaggio's accomplishments as a ballplayer but as an individual??? Rumor is that he resented Mantle's talent and practically ignored him. Also, at the end of his great playing career several books have suggested that he was so proud of his fielding stats that he often did not take chances that great outfielders often do. Another example of his pettiness, aside from the Rizzuto incident posted above , was Oltimers Day at Yankee Stadium in the '70s. Mantle was always the last to be introduced and his cheers always the loudest. This upset DiMaggio to the point that he requested that he should be introduced last. Didn't matter, Mantle still got the biggest ovation. Rating Mantle on the all-time list is always difficult because when healthy not only his potential but production matched anyone who ever played the game.

[SABR Matt]

Mick...by a comfortable margin.

[flash143817]

I would say Mickey easily. Joe D was always overrated IMO. He was called the Greatest Living Ballplayer while both Mays and Williams were also alive. Both of those guys were better than Joe D.

Mantle was a far superior hitter besides average. Basically he is better than Joe in every category besides average. And Mantle was a great teammate. Read "My Favorite Summer" by Phil Pepe. In it, Mantle spends most of the book talking about the great times he had with teammates and other people. Of course this lifestyle caught up to him but it certainly endeared him to teammates.

On pure ability, I would venture to say that the Mick had more of it than anyone else who ever played the game. I shudder to think what he would have done without that sprinkler head (which was partly Joe's fault to begin with).

[zman]

Just curious. Is there anyone on this board who actually saw DiMaggio play? If so, I'd love to read their impression of him. Was he as graceful in the field as they say? etc.

[wamby]

by the way, 64cards, thats an interesting story, although it was one-sided.

you remember exactly where it was from? a book or interview or somethin?

Rizzuto said that it happened the night the DiMaggios hitting streak ended, but he also said that DiMaggio just wanted to go to a bar and be by himself. I' m not sure how true it is, because the streak ended in Cleveland and I don't klnow if Dimaggio could have gone to a Cleveland bar and expected any privacy, like he could have in New York.

[Appling]

Rating Mantle on the all-time list is always difficult because when healthy not only his potential but production matched anyone who ever played the game.
I think that Mickey Mantle, Ted Williams and Vern Stephens were all three given little credit in late-career MVP ballots because all three started so strong. Their later achievements were compared not with other players in the same season as with their own achievements early in the career.

Seems to me you get more respect if you start slow and then improve when you get older -- like LHP Warren Spahn and Sandy Koufax. (Barry Bonds is a very special case.)

[SABR Matt]

DiMaggio was a very nice player...Mickey Mantle was one of the six or seven greatest players or all time.

[538280]

DiMaggio was a very nice player...Mickey Mantle was one of the six or seven greatest players or all time.

Agreed...Mantle is just a MUCH better offensive player than DiMaggio.

[Murderer's Row]

Agreed...Mantle is just a MUCH better offensive player than DiMaggio.
Let's keep in mind park effects.

Hello 538280:waving

[SABR Matt]

Even with a huge left/right assist going to DiMag...Mantle is the better hitter...by a good margin.

[538280]

Let's keep in mind park effects.

Hello 538280:waving

The problem is that lefty righty park effects have nothing to do with value. But even if we're taking that into consideration, it would take a HUGE adjustment to put Joe D up there with Mickey. Mantle lasted longer, and walked a ton more and thus got on base a ton more. Not to mention that the RH HR factors show YS to be favorable for RH HRs in Joe's years.

Hello right back at you.

[torez77]

DiMaggio was a very nice player...Mickey Mantle was one of the six or seven greatest players or all time.

I think he may even be top 5.

DiMaggio's borderline top 10 IMO.

Mick's ahead 9-0 in the poll right now. I wanna see Joe's supporters stick up for him.

[KCGHOST]

Joe losing three years to WWII hurts his career stats as well as being strictly a RHed hitter in Yankee Stadium. I'd still go with Mantle.

[538280]

DiMaggio's borderline top 10 IMO.


I just don't get that-yet I hear it all the time. I want to hear the argument. How is Joe DiMaggio anywhere close to borderline top 10? Everything I've came up with, and it does give war credit, has him more like borderline top 20 or borderline top 25.

I realize Joe D has a lot of hype around him, but it's best to leave all that out. Strictly speaking how was he anywhere near that good? Here are my top 15 major leaguers:

1.Willie Mays
2.Babe Ruth
3.Barry Bonds
4.Honus Wagner
5.Mickey Mantle
6.Ty Cobb
7.Hank Aaron
8.Ted Williams
9.Joe Morgan
10.Mike Schmidt
11.Rickey Henderson
12.Stan Musial
13.Tris Speaker
14.Lou Gehrig
15.Rogers Hornsby

Now I just think every one of those guys completely annihilates Joe DiMaggio. Give me an argument for how Joe D rates ahead of any one of those guys, leaving Morgan out because I just really don't want to talk about him on yet another thread.

[SABR Matt]

Agreed with the overall message of your post Chris even if I don't agree with your list of the top 15. :) DiMaggio was a great player, don't get me wrong, but I have a hard time seeing how he was a better player than:

Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Barry Bonds, Ted Williams, Honus Wagner, Tris Speaker, Stan Musial, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Mickey Mantle, Rickey Henderson, Rogers Hornsby, Eddie Collins, Joe Morgan, Lou Gehrig, or Frank Robinson...I can't see putting him any higher than 17th TOPS (I actually have him 25th right now, but reasonable men can differ to a point).

[Murderers Row]

Let's keep in mind park effects.

Hello 538280:waving


You bit off my name!!!


Oh yeah, Mantle was better. Way better.

[MantleFan911]

i believe mantle was one of the top 5 greatest of all-time so my choice was easy.......(maybe i am slightly biased)

[torez77]

I just don't get that-yet I hear it all the time. I want to hear the argument. How is Joe DiMaggio anywhere close to borderline top 10? Everything I've came up with, and it does give war credit, has him more like borderline top 20 or borderline top 25.

I realize Joe D has a lot of hype around him, but it's best to leave all that out. Strictly speaking how was he anywhere near that good? Here are my top 15 major leaguers:

1.Willie Mays
2.Babe Ruth
3.Barry Bonds
4.Honus Wagner
5.Mickey Mantle
6.Ty Cobb
7.Hank Aaron
8.Ted Williams
9.Joe Morgan
10.Mike Schmidt
11.Rickey Henderson
12.Stan Musial
13.Tris Speaker
14.Lou Gehrig
15.Rogers Hornsby

Now I just think every one of those guys completely annihilates Joe DiMaggio. Give me an argument for how Joe D rates ahead of any one of those guys, leaving Morgan out because I just really don't want to talk about him on yet another thread.

Will respond later. Gotta get to work right now. ;)

[ChrisLDuncan]

i choose Dimaggio because he was considered the greatest all around player by many of his peers , also a .325 avg, 3 mvp's and 9 ws rings

as part of 9 men, Dimaggio is the greatest player that ever lived

I agree totally Mick even said that in monmuent park hang his lower than Joe's because he even said that Joe D is the better player (lot of class comming from the Mick).

"Joe DiMaggio was the greatest all-around player I ever saw. His career cannot be summed up in numbers and awards. It might sound corny, but he had a profound and lasting impact on the country."
— Ted Williams

That's pretty high praise for Williams admiting that Joe D was a better player than he is, Joe Dimaggio and Mickey Mantle are two of the most underrated players in baseball history. Many people aren't giving these guys their due. Dimaggio was as graceful as a player there ever was, he ran down balls in the OF that other players would never get or have to slide to catch, he never lost his cap like Willie Mays did, so he wasn't as exciting as those other guys were but just as good. His rookie year was sensational,. he hit 44 doubles, 15 triples, 29 Jacks and he drove in 125 runs while missing 16 games to injury, also struck out only 39 times. He also did this playing in Yankee Stadium which is hell for right handed hitters. His sophmore season he did something that other great power hitters have never done he collected 400 TBs Teddy Ballgame never did it, Bonds never did it, Mantle never did it, Big Mac never did it. Joe D also finished his career with 361 home runs and only 369 strike outs, if he had retired a year earlier he would have had more home runs than strike outs. Who else has done that? Before Dimaggio's rookie year the Yankees ahd been out of the WS for quite some time, in his rookier year they won, and they won three times after that too (4 WS victories 16-3) For his career his teams were 9-1 in the WS, and he was the best player on that team. Also you guys are not giving the streak enough credit durring that period he had 91 hits (56 singles, 16 doubles, 4 triples, and 15 bombs), he scored 55 runs and walked 21 times but struck out 7 times in 223 ABs. After the streak he hit safely for another 16 games. Dimaggio also struggled with injuries, the Greek god had an Achilles heel, the Italian god had a DiMaggio heel, in 1947 (keep the year in mind) he had a bone spur removed from his left heel. Before the 48 season the doctors removed bone chips from hi ss throwing arm, in 1949 he was hospitalized from pain, he played another two seasons...but he elected to retire at 36 because according to him "he wasn't Joe DiMaggio anymore".

Another thing that I keep onforgeting when having this discussion. Mickey was a drunk, to do what he did while boozing all that time takes some talent. Also to be the best switch hitter of all time takes skill aswell. I think that people forget that.

Take a look at this aswell:

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/legendary/lited20.shtml

My only major disagreement is having Mays over Mantle.


DiMaggio was a very nice player...Mickey Mantle was one of the six or seven greatest players or all time.

A very nice player??? seems a little condecending towards the best player of a generation.

[538280]

Yankee Stadium played favorable to RH HRs in DiMaggio's days there. What it was really bad for was Joe D's own singular approach. But then that approach is part of what defines his value, and it didn't work in his surroundings. I don't get why DiMaggio should get credit for that.

[SABR Matt]

A very nice player??? seems a little condecending towards the best player of a generation.

I would not call Joe DiMaggio the best player of his generation...that honor falls squarely on Ted Williams.

[538280]

I would not call Joe DiMaggio the best player of his generation...that honor falls squarely on Ted Williams.

...with Musial being second. DiMaggio has to settle for third.

[Murderers Row]

Chris posted his top 10, mine has changed since I've been doing a lot of research lately. I'm bored as hell, so I'll post it.


1. Ruth
2. Williams<---- I'm expecting grief from this.
3.Cobb
4. Wagner
5. Hornsby<---- this too.
6. Bonds
7. Mantle
8. Mays
9. Musial
10. Aaron.

It's more balance through out the era's. ( not as much as some would probably like) Something Chris and many others should like.

[538280]

4 of the top five playing in the 20s or earlier is not something I like, but it's actually a lot more balanced than many other lists around here.

[torez77]

I just don't get that-yet I hear it all the time. I want to hear the argument. How is Joe DiMaggio anywhere close to borderline top 10? Everything I've came up with, and it does give war credit, has him more like borderline top 20 or borderline top 25.
Contrary to what you said, I believe Joe to certainly be close to top 10, and not everyone on your list "completely annihilates" DiMaggio. When I said borderline top 10, that could mean in the top 10, like around 8th, 9th or 10th, or just below top 10, like 11th thru 15th. I think he has a valid case. Of the above guys you mentioned, I'd take him over Morgan, Henderson and Schmidt. I rank him just below Aaron.

Joe had a short career relative to his HOF peers, but in his prime he was the 3rd or 4th best player in the league overall, behind Williams, Gehrig and Musial, who also happen to be top 10 all-time players themselves. I believe Joe to be very close to Musial. His statistics are similar. I've always thought of DiMaggio as the right-handed Stan Musial.

Another strong case for Joe's top 10 status is the fact that he was the greatest winner in baseball history. Now yes, winning is team-oriented, and he was with the Yanks, but he was the leader of that Yankee dynasty of the late '30s and throughout the '40s. Can't take it away from him.

DiMaggio may not be top 10, but at worst he's top 15.

I'll take Mantle over DiMaggio, but I see Joe has his supporters and for good reason. Always been an interesting debate.

BTW Chris, you have Cobb, Williams, Gehrig and Hornsby ranked way too low IMO. And Bonds well....pffft. I'd have to take away 2001-2006 and decide what to do with him.

[torez77]

2. Williams<---- I'm expecting grief from this.


Why? A good argument can be made IMO, as he is the 2nd or 3rd most dominant player ever. I rank him 3rd all-time behind Ruth and Cobb. I like your rankings. Would look somewhat similar to mine. I'm not sure where to stick Bonds at this moment, though.

And how could I forget that Joe had almost as many homeruns as strikeouts? I had to read ChrisLDuncan's post to remember that. Duh!

Thanks, ChrisLDuncan. Actually, your whole post (post #40) is a strong case for Joe's top 10 status. Doncha think, 538280?

[GiambiJuice]

If Joe had not retired early and missed a few prime years to WWII, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

538230, just out of curiosity, where do you rank Dimaggio?

[SABR Matt]

...with Musial being second. DiMaggio has to settle for third.

Agreed on that, Chris.

[538280]

Contrary to what you said, I believe Joe to certainly be close to top 10, and not everyone on your list "completely annihilates" DiMaggio. When I said borderline top 10, that could mean in the top 10, like around 8th, 9th or 10th, or just below top 10, like 11th thru 15th. I think he has a valid case. Of the above guys you mentioned, I'd take him over Morgan, Henderson and Schmidt. I rank him just below Aaron.

Okay, but why? My system shows DiMaggio behind those guys by just about 100 points. His career was shorter than all of them (MUCH shorter than Henderson's). He did not have a run where he was the unquestioned best in baseball like Morgan and Schmidt, and even if you want to say that the top level talent at those times were weak, it's still hard for me to see, in relative terms, why he was better than those guys.

If we go just by OPS+, which I've already said is not really fair to Morgan and is entirely fair to DiMaggio, then DiMaggio was a bit better hitter at his peak. Even if you include everything else Morgan did, he probably was still a very small hair better offensively. But then Morgan was playing 2B, and while Joe D was a very good CFer, I think Morgan was more valuable defensively.

With Schmidt if we go with OPS+ their hitting was about the same, and Schmidt played against much stronger competition. Schmidt also did it for a bit longer and missed almost no time to injuries (DiMaggio missed quite a bit). I don't see that being close.

Henderson has a huge career value edge on DiMaggio and I don't see DiMaggio making it up anywhere else. Yes, Henderson's OPS+ was only 127 but in his case that is a very unfair way to look at him. He was a much better offensive player than that, 1406 SBs really do mean a lot. DiMaggio was a CF and is better defensively because of that, but Rickey was one of the best fielding LFers ever IMO. He did not have a particularly strong arm but because of his speed he got to the balls so fast that it didn't always matter that much. I don't see how any season of DiMaggio's career trumps Henderson's 1990.


Joe had a short career relative to his HOF peers, but in his prime he was the 3rd or 4th best player in the league overall, behind Williams, Gehrig and Musial, who also happen to be top 10 all-time players themselves. I believe Joe to be very close to Musial. His statistics are similar. I've always thought of DiMaggio as the right-handed Stan Musial.

Being the 3rd or 4th best player in your league overall is not an endorsement for the top 10 all time.

How is he even close to Musial? Musial basically kept up doing what Joe was doing for another ONE THOUSAND games.


Another strong case for Joe's top 10 status is the fact that he was the greatest winner in baseball history. Now yes, winning is team-oriented, and he was with the Yanks, but he was the leader of that Yankee dynasty of the late '30s and throughout the '40s. Can't take it away from him.

Actually Mantle was an even bigger winner. I don't think that should count for much at all-where's Charlie Silvera on your list? Winning is nice, but it has little role in evaluating how good individuals are.


DiMaggio may not be top 10, but at worst he's top 15.

I'll take Mantle over DiMaggio, but I see Joe has his supporters and for good reason. Always been an interesting debate.

The ONLY reason to rate DiMaggio ahead of Mantle IMO is if you rely far too heavily on what this guy and that guy said.


BTW Chris, you have Cobb, Williams, Gehrig and Hornsby ranked way too low IMO. And Bonds well....pffft. I'd have to take away 2001-2006 and decide what to do with him.

So you're urging me to make my list almost all preintegration players and strip off all the modern guys (Bonds, Henderson, Schmidt, Morgan). Not happening.

[538280]

If Joe had not retired early and missed a few prime years to WWII, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

538230, just out of curiosity, where do you rank Dimaggio?

#27 all time.

[538280]

I don't think Gehrig or Schmidt had more career value than Morgan.

Where I rank these players is only indirectly influenced from Bill James. I do not have Morgan there because Bill James says so-I have him there because my rating system says so.

[Myankee4life]

Actually Mantle was an even bigger winner.

Dont want to nitpick but

Dimaggio- 9 WS in 13 years = 69%

Mantle- 7 WS in 18 years= 39%

Also Dimaggio's team went 9-1 during WS.....Mantle's teams went 7-5

Something to look at...

Before Joe arrived in 1936, the Yankees hadn't won the WS in 3 years. Gehrig was the lone man. When Dimaggio arrived in '36 the Yankees would go on to win 4 straight titles. Moreover 5 in a span of 7 years. Joe D then goes off to war....and the Yanks go another 3 years without winning. Now wouldn't you know it, Joe comes back in '46 and the Yankees suddenly win the next 4 out of 5 WS. Is that really a coincidence? Or is it testament to the fact that Joe was the key to all those title. As much as you Dimaggio haters wont admit, he was an IMPACT player. I would even go as far as saying he was one of the 5 greatest IMPACT players in history.

Unlike Mantle (early years go to Berra), Joe was THE best player on those teams.

Here's a guy that if you give him 3 years war credit, plays 16 years and puts up .325/451/1927......(If you think from 43-45 he'd put up .325/30/130 which actually is an underestimate) Now, im convinced no matter what phony stat says that YS WAS actually beneficial to RH hitters; that YS hurt Joe D. A quick look at YS and another peek at Joe's home/road split would make that conclusion quite easy.

With proper ballpark adjustments...say instead of averaging 34 HR's a year he averages 38...he'd be well into 500 HR's!

So you now have a player that along with a .325 avg, has 500+ HR, and 2000+ RBI's......was a great fielding CF.

Also cotemporary opinions BOOST Dimag even more. When you have Yogi, who played with both Mantle and Dimaggio say without hesitating that Dimag was the greatest player he ever saw....countless others spoke of Dimaggio as the best player they ever saw.

IMO, (I'll recieve a lot of heat) Dimaggio was the closest thing to a perfect player that ever was.

[The Toy Cannon]

I just don't get that-yet I hear it all the time. I want to hear the argument. How is Joe DiMaggio anywhere close to borderline top 10? Everything I've came up with, and it does give war credit, has him more like borderline top 20 or borderline top 25.

Yeah, I don't think he's top 10, either, although I would put him towards the back end of the top 20. He played almost all of his career in the era before integration and expansion, and in some of the best lineups ever. That's why I don't put quite as much stock in his OPS+ and other adjusted rates(which are already slightly skewed by the fact that he retired right as he was entering the decline phase of his career). This is true of Gehrig, as well.

Of course, both are still tremendous players and certainly Hall of Famers.


1.Willie Mays
2.Babe Ruth
3.Barry Bonds
4.Honus Wagner
5.Mickey Mantle
6.Ty Cobb
7.Hank Aaron
8.Ted Williams
9.Joe Morgan
10.Mike Schmidt
11.Rickey Henderson
12.Stan Musial
13.Tris Speaker
14.Lou Gehrig
15.Rogers Hornsby

Not to sidetrack, but I thought you had Eddie Collins ahead of Hornsby?

[SABR Matt]

OK...I don't know what stat Chris is looking at to claim that YS favored righties in the 40s...I don't believe that is really the case...

And I'm not a DiMaggio "hater"...but I still don't believe there is really a case beyond team-oriented things like world series wins, which depend a lot more on the other 16-20 players...not on just one great player...(if you look at the other roster changes that occured the year DiMaggio arrived and the year he left for war and the year he came back, you'll find the Yankees changed fairly substrantially...in ways beyond the magical powers of DiMaggio...

Perhaps I'm wrong...I just at the moment don't see the case.

[The Toy Cannon]

If you think from 43-45 he'd put up .325/30/130 which actually is an underestimate

Is it? He hit .305/21/114 the year before he left and .290/25/95 the year after he came back.

[Myankee4life]

Is it? He hit .305/21/114 the year before he left and .290/25/95 the year after he came back.

Well, I see him as a .340 -.350 hitter and a 35-40 HR guy...but you do have a point.

[JRB]

Dimaggio- 9 WS in 13 years = 69%

Mantle- 7 WS in 18 years= 39%

Also Dimaggio's team went 9-1 during WS.....Mantle's teams went 7-5

Something to look at...

Before Joe arrived in 1936, the Yankees hadn't won the WS in 3 years. Gehrig was the lone man. When Dimaggio arrived in '36 the Yankees would go on to win 4 straight titles. Moreover 5 in a span of 7 years. Joe D then goes off to war....and the Yanks go another 3 years without winning. Now wouldn't you know it, Joe comes back in '46 and the Yankees suddenly win the next 4 out of 5 WS. Is that really a coincidence? Or is it testament to the fact that Joe was the key to all those title. As much as you Dimaggio haters wont admit, he was an IMPACT player. I would even go as far as saying he was one of the 5 greatest IMPACT players in history.

Unlike Mantle (early years go to Berra), Joe was THE best player on those teams.



Myankee4life: Great post. You brought up a lot of outstanding points. I agree with you that DiMaggio was one of the greatest impact players ever. He was all about winning.

One minor point I would disagree with is that I believe that as early as his second year, 1952, Mantle was the best player on his team. Mantle finished 3rd in the MVP voting in 1952 (the two above him were pitchers), and Yogi finished fourth, quite a few points behind. I've watched tapes of the 1952 World Series several times and Mantle was clearly a dominating force even then.

Getting back to DiMaggio, from some of the comments I've read on this and other threads I believe DiMaggio is being seriously undervalued by some members, especially by Chris and some in his ardent Morganite crowd. DiMaggio was not only hitting for high average, he was also making his hits count by driving in a ton of runs. I'm also amazed that he was able to hit for so much power while at the same time having only a 5.4% strikeout ratio. Off the top of my head, I can't think of another genuine power hitter who had such a low strikeout ratio. In addition to his legendary 56 game hitting streak, as I recall DiMaggio had a 61 game hitting streak in the minors, so the guy could just flat out hit.

I also admire Mantle a great deal. I think one of the greatest tributes to him is reflected in the fact that the year Maris set his homerun record Maris didn't receive one intentional walk, as Mantle was hitting behind him. I also think that if Mantle hadn't been walked so much, his homerun, RBI, and Slugging Average numbers would have been even higher.

Before joining this forum, for my position players I had Mantle ranked 9th and DiMaggio ranked 10th, so in my mind it has always been close. I haven't voted yet in this poll.

c JRB

[538280]

Thanks, ChrisLDuncan. Actually, your whole post (post #40) is a strong case for Joe's top 10 status. Doncha think, 538280?

No, I don't. That's only convincing if you buy into the myths and legends created when players were active. By myths and legends I don't necessarily mean falsehoods, just like hype that surrounds certain players. DiMaggio was a darling-he was a player who could field and run very well, which made him more aesthetically impressive than guys like Williams who were just hitters, and of course he had huge media backing from all of the the NYC media machine.

It's nice that guys wow the fans while they are active, but it doesn't truly have a lot to do with what they do for their teams. DiMaggio was a great player, he did everything well and he was a great fielder and hitter. But you really have to tone down the press clippings a little bit. DiMaggio was widely hailed until he died as the "greatest living ballplayer". Do you really think he was better than Mays? That's just a lot of NYC hype.

I am not a Yankee hater at all, the Yankees have many players who I really like. My favorite player of all time is Reggie Jackson. The greatest players of all time can have a little to do with perceptions, but it should not be the area of uneared reputations.

I watch baseball today and can safely say that half of what players and sportswriters say is ridculous, and for sportswriters often just written to get a reaction. I see players constantly cite guys like Nolan Ryan, Cal Ripken (who I like and think is very underrated here, but still overrated by sportswriters and fans), and Sammy Sosa as the best players they've ever seen. When I was younger I saw guys like Joe Carter get reps as great players. I see Derek Jeter constantly get labled as the best SS of all time (when it's not Cal Ripken), and now win the Hank Aaron award as the best hitter in the AL. I see David Ortiz get hailed as the best hitter in Red Sox history every day here in MA. You can place some stock in what people say at the time, but my experience with what people say today is that a lot of it is just hype and is completely ridiculous.

Mickey Mantle took Joe DiMaggio's spot-it's inevitable that he'll be the one getting the PR and sportswriter support. The writers will always like the guy who was from "their day", and will always favor the previous great CFer. In Cleveland Larry Doby never was appreciated because of Earl Averill (and that was compounded a bit because of race, of course), though he was actually quite a bit better than Averill. People latch on to the guy who did it "in their day". That's what fuels DiMaggio winning popularity contests and such. There's no doubt Mickey (as well as Ted Williams) also suffered from widespread ignorance about the base on balls as well.

[538280]

Off the top of my head, I can't think of another genuine power hitter who had such a low strikeout ratio.

Ted Kluszewski would be one. His SO/HR rate was worse than DiMaggio's but still remarkably good.

DiMaggio's HR/K ratio is impressive, but unfortunately it doesn't make much of a difference in what he did for his teams.

[538280]

Dont want to nitpick but

Dimaggio- 9 WS in 13 years = 69%

Mantle- 7 WS in 18 years= 39%

Also Dimaggio's team went 9-1 during WS.....Mantle's teams went 7-5

Something to look at...

Before Joe arrived in 1936, the Yankees hadn't won the WS in 3 years. Gehrig was the lone man. When Dimaggio arrived in '36 the Yankees would go on to win 4 straight titles. Moreover 5 in a span of 7 years. Joe D then goes off to war....and the Yanks go another 3 years without winning. Now wouldn't you know it, Joe comes back in '46 and the Yankees suddenly win the next 4 out of 5 WS. Is that really a coincidence? Or is it testament to the fact that Joe was the key to all those title. As much as you Dimaggio haters wont admit, he was an IMPACT player. I would even go as far as saying he was one of the 5 greatest IMPACT players in history.

He was an impact player. Impact is how much you help your teams win games. He was not one of the best of all time at that. Sorry. His time being "impact" was also very short. His record of improving team play is good, but it's not really THAT impressive, Myankee. The Yankees were a winning team before DiMaggio (with only a very short 3 year hiatus), and they continued to win for years after he left. Reggie Jackson has a much stronger record of team success wherever he went.


Unlike Mantle (early years go to Berra), Joe was THE best player on those teams.

That has nothing to do with anything. If Berra was on those teams in those years he would trump Joe too. And Berra was against the early Mantle, if Mantle was in his prime he would be better than Berra.


Here's a guy that if you give him 3 years war credit, plays 16 years and puts up .325/451/1927......(If you think from 43-45 he'd put up .325/30/130 which actually is an underestimate) Now, im convinced no matter what phony stat says that YS WAS actually beneficial to RH hitters; that YS hurt Joe D. A quick look at YS and another peek at Joe's home/road split would make that conclusion quite easy.

With proper ballpark adjustments...say instead of averaging 34 HR's a year he averages 38...he'd be well into 500 HR's!

So you now have a player that along with a .325 avg, has 500+ HR, and 2000+ RBI's......was a great fielding CF.

How is the stat "phony". I would like you to explain that to me. This is not a contrived formula, it simply compares the HRs hit by RH hitters at YS versus how they did on the road. Joe D himself actually does have something to do with it, which makes it about neutral. But there is no HUGE hardship for HRs for RH batters at YS.

Another thing is that you keep on using raw numbers to boost DiMaggio's rep. DiMaggio's numbers would be great in any era but you really have to tone those down because he was playing in one of the highest offensive eras ever (and his RBI are further inflated by his team, of course).


Also cotemporary opinions BOOST Dimag even more. When you have Yogi, who played with both Mantle and Dimaggio say without hesitating that Dimag was the greatest player he ever saw....countless others spoke of Dimaggio as the best player they ever saw.

That's okay, but I wouldn't put a ton of stock in it. Mantle also was always brought down in others' eyes because of his great talent, they thought he was so talented he should have done more. That was not the case with Joe D. That doesn't really have much to do with what they ACTUALLY did to help their teams. Even if Mantle could have done more, he still did more than DiMaggio.


IMO, (I'll recieve a lot of heat) Dimaggio was the closest thing to a perfect player that ever was.

How is he more perfect than Mays? Really.

[Mariano_Rivera]

How is he more perfect than Mays? Really.
You could argue that Wagner was more perfect than both of them.

Neither could play every position on the diamond, even pitcher for a brief time.

[538280]

You could argue that Wagner was more perfect than both of them.

Neither could play every position on the diamond, even pitcher for a brief time.

Wagner is another one. Speaker is a lot more "perfect" than DiMaggio too.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Johnny Mize was also impressive, if memory serves.

Also, although not power hitters, Frisch, Sam Rice, Edd Roush, Pie Traynor, Arky Vaughan, Cochrane, Gehringer, Manush, Bill Dickey, Boudreau, Bob Fothergill & Jackie Robinson were also among those EXTREMELY hard to strike out.

Yeah. Not exactly impressive to not strike out if you're not hitting for power.

HR - K - diff.

29 - 58 = 29
54 - 80 = 26
59 - 81 = 22
46 - 81 = 35
47 - 76 = 29
60 - 89 = 29
54 - 87 = 33
46 - 60 = 14
49 - 61 = 12
46 - 51 = 5
41 - 62 = 21

[JRB]

Ted Kluszewski would be one. His SO/HR rate was worse than DiMaggio's but still remarkably good.

DiMaggio's HR/K ratio is impressive, but unfortunately it doesn't make much of a difference in what he did for his teams.

Klu's strikeout rate was 6.2%. Good, but still not as good as DiMaggio's 5.4% rate. Is Klu the only genuine power hitter within hailing distance of DiMaggio's low strike out rate? If so, it makes it all the more impressive.

How do you know what made a difference for DiMaggio's teams? You're just making a self serving gratuitous comment. His teams won 10 pennants and 9 world championships, and it is even more reasonable to assume that all of DiMaggio's skills came to bear in helping achieve those results.

c JRB

[Myankee4life]

He was an impact player. Impact is how much you help your teams win games. He was not one of the best of all time at that. Sorry. His time being "impact" was also very short. His record of improving team play is good, but it's not really THAT impressive, Myankee. The Yankees were a winning team before DiMaggio (with only a very short 3 year hiatus), and they continued to win for years after he left. Reggie Jackson has a much stronger record of team success wherever he went.

Not really....off the top of my head the Yankees won the pennant the year before Reggie came to NY....also much of the Yankees success has to go to Ron Guidry. Those teams were more team oriented. Therefore, Reggie was one of many good players on those teams. Dimaggio was usually "the star" on his teams.


That has nothing to do with anything. If Berra was on those teams in those years he would trump Joe too. And Berra was against the early Mantle, if Mantle was in his prime he would be better than Berra.

No he would'nt. If Berra was on the Yankees from 1936-1942 he'd be behind Gehrig in '36-'38 and Dimag from 1936-1942. From the years they played with each other '46-'51 the only year you could say that Berra was "better" was in 1951. Anyway Mantle had already 5 years under his belt, during Dimag's first 5 he was arguably the best player in the game.


How is the stat "phony". I would like you to explain that to me. This is not a contrived formula, it simply compares the HRs hit by RH hitters at YS versus how they did on the road. Joe D himself actually does have something to do with it, which makes it about neutral. But there is no HUGE hardship for HRs for RH batters at YS.

This goes against Schell's findings. So when undecided between the two, go with the more logical choice. Look at YS during Dimag's time and you tell me which seems more reasonable.

Another thing is that you keep on using raw numbers to boost DiMaggio's rep. DiMaggio's numbers would be great in any era but you really have to tone those down because he was playing in one of the highest offensive eras ever (and his RBI are further inflated by his team, of course).

Well, you could say that 1936-1941....but then what about 1946-1951, certainly not a hitter's era. During the second half of his career he still put up the numbers so that point is mute. Mantle played on great teams, yet he could hardly muster 100 RBI's :rolleyes:


That's okay, but I wouldn't put a ton of stock in it. Mantle also was always brought down in others' eyes because of his great talent, they thought he was so talented he should have done more. That was not the case with Joe D. That doesn't really have much to do with what they ACTUALLY did to help their teams. Even if Mantle could have done more, he still did more than DiMaggio.

I dont really think that Berra, Stengel or Teddy really looked at Mantle's potential and decided to "downgrade" his achievements cause of it. If he had done more, why didn't they recognize it? Also you have many players praise Mantle without the slightest bit of "loss potential"....plain and simple, up against Dimag; people viewed him as the lesser.

How is he more perfect than Mays? Really

Well, they're close but Dimag won year in and year out. That's what you want in a ballplayer.




Answers in bold.

[JRB]

Johnny Mize was also impressive, if memory serves.



Mize's strikeout rate per at bat was 8.1%.

Here's a partial list of the strikeout rates of some of the pre-steroid sluggers of the live ball era.

Joe DiMaggio-----------5.4%
Yogi Berra--------------5.5%
Ted Kluszeski-----------6.2%
Stan Musial-------------6.3%
Bill Terry---------------7.0%
Johnny Mize------------8.1%
Rogers Hornsby---------8.3%
George Brett----------- 8.8%
Ted Williams------------9.2%
Mel Ott-----------------9.5%
Lou Gehrig------------- 9.9%
Al Kaline----------------10.0%
Cy Williams-------------10.6%
Hank Aaron-------------11.1%
Cal Ripken--------------11.2%
Billy Williams------------11.2%
Carl Yastrzemski--------11.6%
Roy Campanella---------11.9%
Roberto Clemente-------13.0%
Ernie Banks-------------13.1%
Eddie Murray------------13.4%
Rocky Colavito----------13.5%
Willie Mays-------------14.2%
Ralph Kiner-------------14.4%
Roger Maris------------ 14.4%
Hank Sauer-------------14.9%
Hack Wilson------------ 15.0%
Andre Dawson----------15.2%
Frank Robinson---------15.3%
Dave Winfield---------- 15.3%
Darrell Evans----------- 15.7%
Babe Ruth--------------15.8%
Jimmie Foxx-------------16.1%
Gil Hodges--------------16.2%
Norm Cash--------------16.3%
Hank Greenberg---------16.3%
Dave Parker------------ 16.4%
Johnny Bench-----------16.7%
Jim Rice-----------------17.3%
Duke Snider-------------17.3%
Eddie Mathews----------17.4%
Boog Powell-------------18.4%
Willie McCovey----------18.9%
George Foster-----------20.2%
Harmon Killebrew--------20.9%
Mickey Mantle-----------21.1%
Dale Murphy-------------22.0%
Frank Howard----------- 22.5%
Mike Schmidt------------22.5%
Willie Stargell------------24.4%
Dick Allen--------------- 24.6%
Reggie Jackson----------26.3%
Dave Kingman-----------27.2%

[ChrisLDuncan]

I would not call Joe DiMaggio the best player of his generation...that honor falls squarely on Ted Williams.

Well Ted disagreed with you but what ever.

[ChrisLDuncan]

For the life of me I don't see how you can just put someone's stats into a formula and determine how good they are, that's a video game...not actuall baseball. THe HR-K thing is importnat because he always gave his team a chance by putting the ball in play often. Yes Dimaggio had a very short career relative to Aaron, Mays, Williams, and Musial...but that wasn't due to lack of ability but more due to the fact that he was injured all the time and didn't want people to see him at less than his best. I don't give too much creedence to longevity value (execpt in the extreme cases like Aaron's), with me it's not a set formula or anything...but more of an impact, and a gut, due to the lack of a better word (I'll find you a better one later), and how they changed the game. Now Ted Williams was in my views is the second best hitter (next to Babe) he knows a lot about baseball, and has Joe Dimaggio as a better player than he is. Now really all ted could really do is hit...Joe could play solid flawless graceful D, and run pretty well too. He was an impact player if there ever was one, he just felt that after his career he had accomplished enough (which he did) and left. Reminds me a lot of Jim Brown and Sandy Koufax.

But here's my current top ten:

Ruth
Bonds
Gehrig
Aaron
A-Rod (assuming he continues on his pace, if he wins a WS MVP he could be #1)
Dimaggio
Cobb
Mantle
Mays
Ted Williams

[ChrisLDuncan]

Also cotemporary opinions BOOST Dimag even more. When you have Yogi, who played with both Mantle and Dimaggio say without hesitating that Dimag was the greatest player he ever saw....countless others spoke of Dimaggio as the best player they ever saw.

IMO, (I'll recieve a lot of heat) Dimaggio was the closest thing to a perfect player that ever was.

Actually I have to agree with you. I mean Ted Williams was a better hitter than he was but other than that Dimaggio beats him easily in every other aspect of the game, he had eight good WS. He was hurt greatly by hitting in Yankee Stadium (also who has a career OPS of over 1000 on the road?). People say Willie Mays (even though in their prime Mantle was the superior player), but Willie Mays frequently struck out more than he walked, Dimaggio never did that, and he only won 2 MVPs, compared to Dimaggio's 3 in less time. I mean sure he had a long and exciting career but none of that excitment came close to Joe D at the plate. He retired early sure, but so did Jim Brown and most football fans seem to have him pretty high...

[ChrisLDuncan]

Mickey Mantle also never really realized his full potential as a player either, when he was hitting right handed there's never been a sweeter swing than Mick from the right side of the plate, he was a drunk...but he also had a lot of pressure on him. When he came into the league Casey Stengel said "This kid's Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, and Joe Dimaggio all rooled into one"...I'd say that's pretty high praise from someone who obviously knows baseball. Although he had a good reason to not fufill his potential his dad, and life long mentor, died before he was 20, and he had enormous expectations in the toughest place to play in all of sports. That's something that has always hurt Mickey.

[torez77]

Being the 3rd or 4th best player in your league overall is not an endorsement for the top 10 all time.

How is he even close to Musial? Musial basically kept up doing what Joe was doing for another ONE THOUSAND games.

Being 3rd or 4th best in the league is impressive when considering the 3 ahead of you are Williams, Gehrig and Musial.

At his peak, I believe Joe was every bit as good as Stan. Joe's career was shortened due to the war and injury, but he accomplished so much in the 13 seasons he played. He was hyped up just a bit too much by NYC and the rest of the country who made him out to be the American Hero, but all that aside, he was a great baseball player. I rank him below Stan, but I just don't see how Musial was THAT MUCH better than DiMaggio.




Actually Mantle was an even bigger winner. I don't think that should count for much at all-where's Charlie Silvera on your list? Winning is nice, but it has little role in evaluating how good individuals are.

Myankee covered the response to this pretty well.

Charlie Silvera wasn't even a starter, and had very little to do with the Yanks' success. You exaggerated what I was trying to say. I certainly don't rank players on championships alone. I'm just saying DiMaggio's 9 titles and the fact that the Yanks probably wouldn't have gotten as many without him has to be considered to an extent.




So you're urging me to make my list almost all preintegration players and strip off all the modern guys (Bonds, Henderson, Schmidt, Morgan). Not happening.

I've read some debates here on BBF about all kinds of relative stats that make Henderson, Schmidt, and Morgan, especially Morgan, out to be top 10 material. Now I believe Henderson and Schmidt to be great, but Morgan I think is only very good. I'm not qualified to spar with you about this because I'm not an advanced stathead like others here. I'll leave it to you, SABR Matt, and others to deal with this, which it seems you already have in many other threads.

I believe the way a player performs in his particular era and how much he separates himself from the pack in his era determines how great he was. Players such as Ruth, Cobb, Williams and Wagner did this better than anyone. Thus, I tend to lean towards mostly pre-1970 players in my top 25. Henderson and Schmidt are certainly in my top 25, and may end up being top 15 once I revise my list again, but Morgan....I'm not so sure. I have him as the 5th or 6th best 2Bman of all time.

[538280]

To many people here-it is much harder to reply to you when you put your answers in bold within the quote, you can't quote your response, instead you have to cut and paste it. I would be pleased if you made your replies separate instead, like I will do here.


Not really....off the top of my head the Yankees won the pennant the year before Reggie came to NY....also much of the Yankees success has to go to Ron Guidry. Those teams were more team oriented. Therefore, Reggie was one of many good players on those teams. Dimaggio was usually "the star" on his teams.

What I meant was whereever Reggie went his teams immediately won. This is true. Let's document it.

-Reggie had his first full season with the Oakland A's in 1968. The A's went 82-80 that year, which was a HUGE improvement over what they had been doing. They were just coming off their Kansas City period, where they had had a losing season every year.

-The A's just about improved gradually through Reggie's years there and they would win five straight division titles 1971-1975 and three World Series titles 1972-1974.

-Reggie was cast off due to owner Charlie Finley's lack of funds in 1976, he arrived in Baltimore in May after a long holdout for money (Finley wouldn't pay him anywhere near big star money). The O's went 88-74 that season, which was just another year for them. This would be the only time when Reggie's teams did not see immediate improvement.

-When Reggie joined the Yankees in 1977 they had just won the pennant, but with the help of Reggie they got over the hump and won two World Series 1977-1978.

-Reggie joined the Angels in 1982 and brought them to immediate success as they won the division title.

DiMaggio did have a good effect on making his teams win when he came, but his effect was not historically revolutionary. That was all I was saying.

Reggie's best years were actually not with the Yankees. I certainly could see a case that he was not "the star" on those teams (though he was the star position player-only Guidry makes it tough). However his best years were actually with Oakland and he WAS unquestionably the star on that more successful team.


No he would'nt. If Berra was on the Yankees from 1936-1942 he'd be behind Gehrig in '36-'38 and Dimag from 1936-1942. From the years they played with each other '46-'51 the only year you could say that Berra was "better" was in 1951. Anyway Mantle had already 5 years under his belt, during Dimag's first 5 he was arguably the best player in the game

I'd say Mantle was the best in the league starting in 1955 and was the best after that all the way through 1964, except 1963. He also was the best IMO in 1952. I'd say during Mantle's first five years he was also arguably the best in the game, and after that he was almost indisputably the best for almost a decade. You can't say DiMaggio's performance was better.

Even if you're going to argue that the top level talent was better in DiMaggio's time, just relatively speaking do you really think any season of DiMaggio's comes even CLOSE to Mantle's 1956, 1957, and 1961?


This goes against Schell's findings. So when undecided between the two, go with the more logical choice. Look at YS during Dimag's time and you tell me which seems more reasonable.

What do Schell's findings say?

Even if YS really was horrible for RH power hitters, that still doesn't make DiMaggio the equal of Mantle as a hitter, it doesn't make him even close in getting on base, which is a big edge for Mickey.


Well, you could say that 1936-1941....but then what about 1946-1951, certainly not a hitter's era. During the second half of his career he still put up the numbers so that point is mute. Mantle played on great teams, yet he could hardly muster 100 RBI's

The pont is not moot. DiMaggio played in a VERY high run context, and it was MUCH higher than Mantle's. The league runs per game when DiMaggio played was 4.83. That's 782 runs a season. The historical norm is around 710-720. About Mantle not being able to muster 100 RBI, that had a ton to do with the run context he played in as well. Bill James transfers Mantle's numbers to a 750 run context (which is STILL lower than DiMaggio's), and he ends up with 10 100 RBI seasons (1952-1958, 1960, 1961, 1964).

Mantle also was not afraid to take a walk with runners on base. Some people think this is a bad thing but it really is not. Research in Baseball Between the Numbers showed that unless you are in the 8th or 9th of a game when your team is behind by 2 or less runs, the run potential of getting an extra runner on base with a walk is almost always more favorable than driving a guy in while making an out. (but go tell that to Joe Carter-he's a guy whose "job" for most of his career really was not very benificial to his teams)


I dont really think that Berra, Stengel or Teddy really looked at Mantle's potential and decided to "downgrade" his achievements cause of it. If he had done more, why didn't they recognize it? Also you have many players praise Mantle without the slightest bit of "loss potential"....plain and simple, up against Dimag; people viewed him as the lesser.

They were wrong to look at him as the lesser. It's easy to stand back and say "we have to bow down to what they said", but I trust actual comprehensive analysyes of everything the player did more than what someone said. I watch baseball today and hear players and managers say things everyday which make me shake my head. While I respect Berra and Stengel, I don't really trust their quotes that much.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Exactly how do people have Musial over Dimaggio or Mantle? Bill James calculated that Joe D lost more HRs than anyone to Yankee Stadium, so take that that obviously gives him a higher slugging percentage and batting average, and give him war credit...that puts him way ahead of Musial. Also take into account that they played in different leagues, and Dimaggio had Teddy Ball Game to compete with (Ted was the better hitter Dimaggio was the better player), who did Musial compete with? Musial lost three MVPs (by this I mean finshed second too) Jackie Robinson, Roy Campanella, and Jim Konstansky. After 1957 it was Hank Aaron who was the best NL player. So I guess that Joe D lost a lot of his thunder, as a hitter not as an overall player, to Ted Williams (if you're going to loose it to someone he's probably the guy to loose it too). Musial wasn't that good in the post season, where as Dimaggio only really laid an egg two out of ten times, and he wasn't hurt by his park as much as Dimaggio was. The only way that I see Musial being better than Dimaggio is if you rank longevity alot more than peak value

[538280]

Being 3rd or 4th best in the league is impressive when considering the 3 ahead of you are Williams, Gehrig and Musial.

At his peak, I believe Joe was every bit as good as Stan. Joe's career was shortened due to the war and injury, but he accomplished so much in the 13 seasons he played. He was hyped up just a bit too much by NYC and the rest of the country who made him out to be the American Hero, but all that aside, he was a great baseball player. I rank him below Stan, but I just don't see how Musial was THAT MUCH better than DiMaggio.

I don't see DiMaggio being with Musial at his peak. DiMaggio was better defensively, but Musial was absolutely the better hitter at his best, especially in 1948. In DiMaggio's best hitting seasons he was missing quite a few games, Stan was always pumping out about 10 more games in his best seasons. This almost makes up for a defensive edge, and leaves the offense.

At most I see their peaks being equal. And Musial did it for about a thousand more games. Not even close IMO. You say DiMaggio accomplsihed "so much" in his 13 seasons, how much is that though, really? If you look at it in a systematic way there is just NO WAY you can say it's top 10 all time.


Charlie Silvera wasn't even a starter, and had very little to do with the Yanks' success. You exaggerated what I was trying to say. I certainly don't rank players on championships alone. I'm just saying DiMaggio's 9 titles and the fact that the Yanks probably wouldn't have gotten as many without him has to be considered to an extent.

Okay, fair point. As long as you're not giving EXTRA credit for just being on a great team.


I've read some debates here on BBF about all kinds of relative stats that make Henderson, Schmidt, and Morgan, especially Morgan, out to be top 10 material. Now I believe Henderson and Schmidt to be great, but Morgan I think is only very good. I'm not qualified to spar with you about this because I'm not an advanced stathead like others here. I'll leave it to you, SABR Matt, and others to deal with this, which it seems you already have in many other threads.

I've already been over Morgan a million times. If you think he was only very good 1972-1976 then I don't know what to say-many people just don't see it because they don't really think walks are impressive, they still unconsciously don't take context into account, they don't properly value offenisive events, don't take into account that he played 2B when it was very important. Whatever. Every statistical system out there supports it as one of the top 10 stretches ever.


I believe the way a player performs in his particular era and how much he separates himself from the pack in his era determines how great he was. Players such as Ruth, Cobb, Williams and Wagner did this better than anyone. Thus, I tend to lean towards mostly pre-1970 players in my top 25. Henderson and Schmidt are certainly in my top 25, and may end up being top 15 once I revise my list again, but Morgan....I'm not so sure. I have him as the 5th or 6th best 2Bman of all time.

So you think it's possible for the white population over 50 years to produce about three times as many great players as the white and black and hispanic population over 50 years? I sure don't.

I think how much a player separates from the pack in his time is not really a good way to look at it, you have to realize that stronger leagues make it harder to dominate. Basically what you're saying is that it doesn't matter how horrible the competition Honus Wagner played against was-just how high he rose above it. Why are there no Little Leaguers on your list then? The league strength is something you have to take into account.

I shudder to think who you have above Morgan...Charlie Gehringer...well, whatever, I know that every statistical system ever made has them not even remotely close.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Well if you don't know how to give Joe D war credit just take out the two seasons of Musial's career when Joe was gone and the season after he came back (I do this because you aren't the same after not having played in the major leagues for a while). Stan's career average is at .325 right at Joe D's average. His career hits are at 2985, his career HRs are at 434, his career OBP goes down to .408, his slugging percentage goes down to .557. Than how does Stan compare to Joe, keeping in account how much YS hurt him? Also than take a look at RC/27 if you take away those season's from Musial his RC/27 goes to 8.84 below Dimaggio's. Now Bill James has said that Joe D lost more HRs to his park more than anyother player in history. So take these things into account when comparing the two players

[ChrisLDuncan]

Championship rings don't mean anything. 3 distinct generations of Yankee bench warmers got more rings than many superstars, like Cobb, Hornsby, Williams, Musial, Aaron, Mays, Bonds, etc.

Does that mean that all those bench warmers were better players, since they went to the Big Party, and their teams won it, more than the other superstars? Please, retire that tired rhetoric.



Well I think they do mean something, I just think that being key in a WS or any Championship win gives a player a huge advantage, for an example in another sport, in this case football, Joe Montana never really was the best regular seson QB (Dan Marino had that title) but he's regarded as one of the top two or three due to his role in winning the 49ers four rings. Now I do agree with you that Yankee bench warmers are not better than other super stars like the ones you mentioned amongst other players, however being key in a championship win gives you points in my book. However if you are unable to do that, it doesn't nessecairly take away from you, u nless you are just THAT much worse in the post season, tha you become a choker ;)

[JRB]

I believe I included all the 500+ homerun hitters of the pre-steroid era, since the pre-steroid guys seemed more relevant to a Mantle-DiMaggio discussion, plus I personally don't give a hoot about the post 1990 hitters. I also included all the 400+ homerun hitters, except for Ripken, Andre Dawson, and Darrell Evans. I am going to go back and edit the post to include them as well.

I used at bats in order to do it quicker, however I agree that using plate appearances would refine it even more. If you use plate appearances, including all walks, hit by pitch, sacrifices, and sac flies, then Mantle's strikeout ratio goes down to 17.3% per plate appearance, and DiMaggio's strike out ratio goes down to 4.8% per plate appearance. Mantle's rate went down even more using plate appearances since he was walked so often.

[hellborn]

Well Ted disagreed with you but what ever.
I believe that Ted would always say that Joe was the best player he ever SAW...but never compared himself to Joe directly. Ted obviously didn't watch himself play, so he's leaving the comparison to Joe open.
If I'm wrong here, somebody please correct me.

[538280]

Championship rings don't mean anything. 3 distinct generations of Yankee bench warmers got more rings than many superstars, like Cobb, Hornsby, Williams, Musial, Aaron, Mays, Bonds, etc.

Does that mean that all those bench warmers were better players, since they went to the Big Party, and their teams won it, more than the other superstars? Please, retire that tired rhetoric.

I agree. If you were meaning this to reply to me it was not me who said that.


I am so sick of seeing this argument. If it is harder to dominate today, that DOES MEAN THAT THOSE PLAYERS ARE LESS GREAT. PERIOD. END OF STORY.
Dozens of track runners today who never win races yet run so much faster than the world record setters of yesterday are in a similar position. If they can not raise themselves to the top of the pack, they ARE LESS GREAT!

If I were to rate track runners, I would compare the earlier players to the league average time back then, because I also don't like "time machining" them into a more modern era. BUT, even if I was ranking runners I still would take into account that the modern game is more integrated, there are more players from all over the world, etc, and thus it is easier to dominate. The talent poll is larger (I don't know if that's the case with track, because I know nothing about track, but it is like that in baseball, and as long as it is I will make an LQ adjustment and I think one is necessary).


I now throw up all over my keyboard every time I read this flawed reasoning. Yesterday's heroes were able to out-prepare, out-train their peers. That's it.

So, please stop asking this question. It never made a difference how much harder it is to dominate today. Just doesn't matter. So many 2nd place finishers can you name in Olympic 100m races from all of history? I bet few can name a sinlge name. And that is the most high profile event. So, if the second best in the world that year isn't getting recognition, how great historically can we say they were?

Again, that is a bad analogy. Yes, track runners' times have gone down over the years, that is what relative stats are for. That is like adjusting for offensive levels in different eras. That is NOT like making an LQ adjustment.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Mize's strikeout rate per at bat was 8.1%.

Here's a partial list of the strikeout rates of some of the pre-steroid sluggers of the live ball era.



Nice list JRB....I added some other info to put things in better perspective.



--Player----------K%-----AB/HR----HR----30+HR---40+HR---50+HR---60+HR

Joe DiMaggio 5.4% 18.89 361 7 1
Yogi Berra 5.5% 21.10 358 2
Ted Kluszewski 6.2% 21.25 279 4 3
Stan Musial 6.3% 23.09 475 6
Bill Terry 7.0% 41.74 154
Johnny Mize 8.1% 17.94 359 3 3 1
Rogers Hornsby 8.3% 27.15 301 3 1
George Brett 8.8% 32.64 317 1
Ted Williams 9.2% 14.79 521 8 1
Mel Ott 9.5% 18.50 511 8 1
Lou Gehrig 9.9% 16.22 493 10 5
Al Kaline 10.0% 25.35 399
Cy Williams 10.6% 27.01 251 2 1
Hank Aaron 11.1% 16.37 755 15 8
Billy Williams 11.2% 21.94 426 5 1
C. Yastrzemski 11.6% 26.52 452 3 3
Roy Campanella 11.9% 17.37 242 4 1
R. Clemente 13.0% 39.39 240
Ernie Banks 13.1% 18.40 512 7 5
Eddie Murray 13.4% 22.49 504 5
Rocky Colavito 13.5% 17.38 374 7 3
Willie Mays 14.2% 16.48 660 11 6 2
Ralph Kiner 14.4% 14.10 369 7 5 2
Roger Maris 14.4% 18.54 275 3 1 1 1
Hank Sauer 14.9% 16.65 288 6 1
Hack Wilson 15.0% 19.50 244 4 1 1
Frank Robinson 15.3% 17.07 586 11 1
Dave Winfield 15.3% 23.66 465 3
Babe Ruth 15.8% 11.76 714 13 11 4 1
Jimmie Foxx 16.1% 15.23 534 12 5 2
Gil Hodges 16.2% 19.00 370 6 2
Norm Cash 16.3% 17.78 377 5 1
Hank Greenberg 16.3% 15.68 331 6 4 1
Dave Parker 16.4% 27.60 339 3
Johnny Bench 16.7% 19.68 389 4 2
Jim Rice 17.3% 21.53 382 4 1
Duke Snider 17.3% 17.59 407 6 5
Eddie Mathews 17.4% 16.67 512 10 4
Boog Powell 18.4% 19.70 339 4
Willie McCovey 18.9% 15.73 521 7 2
George Foster 20.2% 20.18 348 3 2 1
H. Killebrew 20.9% 14.21 573 10 8
Mickey Mantle 21.1% 15.11 536 9 4 2
Dale Murphy 22.0% 20.00 398 6 1
Frank Howard 22.5% 16.98 382 5 3
Mike Schmidt 22.5% 15.24 548 13 3
Willie Stargell 24.4% 16.68 475 6 2
Dick Allen 24.6% 18.03 351 6 1
Reggie Jackson 26.3% 17.52 563 7 2
Dave Kingman 27.2% 15.10 442 7 1

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Thanks. Might be better to switch to using PA for the K% though. If someone presents those numbers I'll update it.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I believe that Ted would always say that Joe was the best player he ever SAW...but never compared himself to Joe directly. Ted obviously didn't watch himself play, so he's leaving the comparison to Joe open.
If I'm wrong here, somebody please correct me.


Well you're right and you're wrong Ted never did see himself play that is true so saying that Joe was the best player he ever saw doesn't exactly compare himself to Joe. He did concede that Joe D was a better overall player than he was, but he said that he was the better hitter. Still pretty high praise though.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I think that K% is a good stat when measuring plate discipline, but also keep in mind the BB/K ratio. For example Mays has a lower K% than Mantle, but Mantle has a much higher BB/K ratio, Mays has more career Ks than BBs Mantle has more BBs than Ks for his career.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Guys like Ruth, Wagner, and Cobb obviously trained for the time in which they played in. They also had the hand eye coordination and the skill to make adjustments, so I still think that they can make the adjustment to today's game.

[JRB]

Nice list JRB....I added some other info to put things in better perspective.



--Player----------K%-----AB/HR----HR----30+HR---40+HR---50+HR---60+HR

Joe DiMaggio 5.4% 18.89 361 7 1
Yogi Berra 5.5% 21.10 358 2
Ted Kluszewski 6.2% 21.25 279 4 3
Stan Musial 6.3% 23.09 475 6
Bill Terry 7.0% 41.74 154
Johnny Mize 8.1% 17.94 359 3 3 1
Rogers Hornsby 8.3% 27.15 301 3 1
George Brett 8.8% 32.64 317 1
Ted Williams 9.2% 14.79 521 8 1
Mel Ott 9.5% 18.50 511 8 1
Lou Gehrig 9.9% 16.22 493 10 5
Al Kaline 10.0% 25.35 399
Cy Williams 10.6% 27.01 251 2 1
Hank Aaron 11.1% 16.37 755 15 8
Billy Williams 11.2% 21.94 426 5 1
C. Yastrzemski 11.6% 26.52 452 3 3
Roy Campanella 11.9% 17.37 242 4 1
R. Clemente 13.0% 39.39 240
Ernie Banks 13.1% 18.40 512 7 5
Eddie Murray 13.4% 22.49 504 5
Rocky Colavito 13.5% 17.38 374 7 3
Willie Mays 14.2% 16.48 660 11 6 2
Ralph Kiner 14.4% 14.10 369 7 5 2
Roger Maris 14.4% 18.54 275 3 1 1 1
Hank Sauer 14.9% 16.65 288 6 1
Hack Wilson 15.0% 19.50 244 4 1 1
Frank Robinson 15.3% 17.07 586 11 1
Dave Winfield 15.3% 23.66 465 3
Babe Ruth 15.8% 11.76 714 13 11 4 1
Jimmie Foxx 16.1% 15.23 534 12 5 2
Gil Hodges 16.2% 19.00 370 6 2
Norm Cash 16.3% 17.78 377 5 1
Hank Greenberg 16.3% 15.68 331 6 4 1
Dave Parker 16.4% 27.60 339 3
Johnny Bench 16.7% 19.68 389 4 2
Jim Rice 17.3% 21.53 382 4 1
Duke Snider 17.3% 17.59 407 6 5
Eddie Mathews 17.4% 16.67 512 10 4
Boog Powell 18.4% 19.70 339 4
Willie McCovey 18.9% 15.73 521 7 2
George Foster 20.2% 20.18 348 3 2 1
H. Killebrew 20.9% 14.21 573 10 8
Mickey Mantle 21.1% 15.11 536 9 4 2
Dale Murphy 22.0% 20.00 398 6 1
Frank Howard 22.5% 16.98 382 5 3
Mike Schmidt 22.5% 15.24 548 13 3
Willie Stargell 24.4% 16.68 475 6 2
Dick Allen 24.6% 18.03 351 6 1
Reggie Jackson 26.3% 17.52 563 7 2
Dave Kingman 27.2% 15.10 442 7 1


Sultan; Thanks. I like your refinement. Almost all the players on the list played exclusively in the live ball era except for Ruth, Cy Williams, and Hornsby.

I deducted Ruth's dead ball at bats, home runs, and strikeouts, and Ruth's AB/HR ratio in the live ball era was 10.96. It seems counterintuitive but Ruth's strikeout ratio in the live ball actually went down to 15.7% per at bat.
The same happened with Hornsby. Hornsby's strikeout ratio in the live ball era went down to 7.9%, while his AB/HR ratio in the live ball era was 21.06.

c JRB

[The Toy Cannon]

If they can not raise themselves to the top of the pack, they ARE LESS GREAT!

Even if there was less of a pack to rise above(not necessarily in quality, but in size)?

To me, this is the only fault of the grey ink-black ink support system that so many people use. It's easier to lead the league in something if your league is 20-30% smaller. That's just a fact.

How much of an impact that should have when comparing players of different eras is certainly up to debate, though. Perhaps not very much.

[JRB]

Thanks. Might be better to switch to using PA for the K% though. If someone presents those numbers I'll update it.

Per your request, I've made a list of pre-steroid era sluggers who played either totally or primarily in the liveball era with their strikeout rate per plate appearance.

Joe DiMaggio------------4.8%
Yogi Berra-------------- 4.9%
Ken Williams-------------5.1%
Stan Musial-------------5.5%
Ted Kluszewski----------5.6%
Don Mattingly-----------5.8%
Goose Goslin------------6.0%
Bill Terry----------------6.3%
Johnny Mize------------7.1%
Earl Averill--------------7.2%
Rogers Hornsby---------7.2% overall/6.7% in live ball era
Chuck Klein-------------7.3%
Ted Williams------------7.3%
Hal Trosky--------------7.7%
George Brett--------- --7.8%
Al Simmons-------------7.8%
Mel Ott-----------------7.9%
Lou Gehrig--------------8.2%
Brooks Robinson---------8.4%
Al Kaline----------------8.8%
Al Rosen----------------8.8%
Jackie Jensen-----------9.0%
Del Ennis---------------9.1%
Cy Williams-------------9.3%
Tony Oliva--------------9.4%
Vern Stephens----------9.5%
Billy Williams------------9.9%
Hank Aaron------------10.0%
Carl Yastrzemski-------10.0%
Cal Ripken Jr-----------10.1%
Roy Campanella--------10.4%
Steve Garvey----------10.6%
"Indian" Bob Johnson---10.6%
Charlie Keller-----------10.8%
Bobby Murcer----------10.9%
Gary Carter------------11.1%
Don Baylor-------------11.4%
Rocky Colavito---------11.6%
Eddie Murray-----------11.8%
Graig Nettles-----------11.8%
Ernie Banks------------11.9%
Roberto Clemente------12.0%
Ralph Kiner------------12.0%
Bob Horner------------12.2%
Willie Mays------------12.2%
Wally Berger-----------12.3%
Ken Boyer-------------12.3%
Joe Torre-------------12.4%
Roger Maris-----------12.5%
Babe Ruth------------12.5%-overall/12.3% in live ball era
Roy Sievers-----------12.5%
Reggie Smith----------12.8%
Hack Wilson----------12.8%
Harold Baines---------13.0%
Frank Robinson-------13.0%
Darrell Evans---------13.1%
Hank Sauer----------13.2%
Orlando Cepeda------13.4%
Jimmie Foxx----------13.6%
Dave Winfield--------13.6%
Norm Cash-----------13.8%
Hank Greenberg------13.8%
Andre Dawson-------14.0%
Gil Hodges-----------14.0%
Carlton Fisk----------14.1%
Fred Lynn-----------14.1%
Johnny Callison------14.3%
Ron Santo-----------14.3%
Joe Adcock----------14.5%
Johnny Bench-------14.7%
Eddie Mathews------14.7%
Dolph Camili---------15.1%
Dave Parker---------15.1%
Duke Snider---------15.1%
Joe Carter-----------15.2%
Kevin Mitchell--------15.3%
Boog Powell---------15.7%
Jim Rice-------------15.7%
Larry Doby----------16.0%
Willie McCovery------16.0%
Dwight Evans--------16.1%
Gary Gaetti----------16.3%
Willie Horton---------16.3%
Tony Perez----------17.2%
Harmon Killebrew-----17.3%
Mickey Mantle-------17.3%
Bob Allison----------17.4%
Jack Clark-----------17.5%
Jeff Burroughs-------17.6%
Jimmy Wynn---------17.8%
George Foster-------18.2%
Wally Post----------18.5%
Mike Schmidt--------18.7%
Jim Gentile----------19.1%
Lee May-------------19.1%
Dale Murphy---------19.3%
Lance Parrish--------19.6%
Frank Howard--------19.9%
Greg Luzinski---------19.9%
Dick Allen------------21.3%
Willie Stargell--------21.4%
Darryl Strawberry----21.4%
Bobby Bonds---------21.7%
Tony Armas----------21.8%
Dick Stuart----------21.9%
Don Clendenon-------22.3%
Reggie Jackson-------22.8%
Dave Kingman--------24.4%
Gorman Thomas------24.4%
Rob Deer------------31.2%

I just had to include poor Rob Deer on the list.

[538280]

In track there never were leagues. But if we were to take the top 50 times in every year, we can then calculate Relative times. That is my argument, and that is fair. So, to that extent, at least, we are in agreement.

Okay


But the integration argument is a poor one. Never was a color line in track. Blacks always competed if they wanted to. Colleges tried to recruit the best talent in sprints (Jesse Owens) and no black was ever discouraged.

The argument still applies though. I didn't know track never was not integrated, if it was (like baseball was), then I would have had to adjust for that.


Question: In recent decades, African blacks have dominated world distance running. Sometimes have the top 15 out of 20 times. Would you call the 12th best runner in 2005, who had great Relative times, better than someone like Paavo Nurmi, the great Flying Finn from the 20's, who couldn't run within 3 minutes of the 12th best runner from Kenya today?

The thing is that the guy today, if we compared him to the average runner today, wouldn't have as good relative times as Nurmi. What I would do is I would look at all the races Nurmi ran, look at the times of all the other runners, average them, and call that the "league average". Then I would do the same for the modern runner. Then we would have their relative times. I would also make a small LQ adjustment against Nurmi, but I'm sure he would still come out far ahead.


That 12th best runner from Africa today is perceived at home as mediocre, and will never receive any acclaim, will never even be appointed to a national team, and normally will never even be sent here by his country. The only way that black runner will come here is if he pays his own way, and will have a tough time getting promoters to let him run in their meets, even though he is the 12 best runner in the world. See the problem?

The problem is that what you're descibing has nothing to do with league quality adjustments-it has more to do with comparing a player to the league norms of his own era.

[Murderers Row]

Would you judge a football quarterback or halfback or fullback with a league adjustment? Would Jim Thorpe/Red Grange need to be adjusted to Jim Brown/Walter Payton? I don't know how one could make that kind of adjustment. But hey, that's just me. Don't know didley about football.

Comparing football players from yester year and today is pretty impossible. The size difference between players today and players from back then is huge. The average lineman today probably weight around 285-300. Back then they weighed like 225 tops. There's no way they could compete today.

[538280]

Would you judge a football quarterback or halfback or fullback with a league adjustment? Would Jim Thorpe/Red Grange need to be adjusted to Jim Brown/Walter Payton? I don't know how one could make that kind of adjustment. But hey, that's just me. Don't know didley about football.

I've tried before to do historical statistical comparisons with footbal and it is nearly impossible. The game has just changed SO much, and the basic football statistics are not complex and as directly related to team success as baseball stats are. It's MUCH harder to do. Who knows, perhaps if I wasn't so caught up in comparing baseball players I could really look more and get into the guts of football statistics.

Big problems with football statistics is that different situations need different gains and such. For example, what's better, a hard nosed 1 yard TD run, or a running back stuffed for one yard on a 2nd and 10? Rushing yards/yards per carry will count them as the same.

If I was able to come up with some sort of relative performance indicator I would absolutely have to incorporate an LQ adjustment, because the game of the 30s or 40s is obviously not even close to the NFL today. It would probably be even steeper than for baseball. But I don't know that much about the leagues in football or their progression to speak very intelligently about the stregth of the NFL through the years.

[JRB]

I've completed the list of live ball sluggers of the pre-steroid era giving their strikeout rates per plate appearance as you and Sultan requested. The list is on post #108. There are 110 players included in the list, and I think I got everybody, including, among others, all pre-steroid era players who had 300 or more homeruns, and also those who are the top ten homerun hitters of each era prior to the 1990's. I couldn't resist including Rob Deer, because his record of futility is so astonishing.

c JRB

[rugbyfreak]

I just don't get that-yet I hear it all the time. I want to hear the argument. How is Joe DiMaggio anywhere close to borderline top 10? Everything I've came up with, and it does give war credit, has him more like borderline top 20 or borderline top 25. I realize Joe D has a lot of hype around him, but it's best to leave all that out

You're right, 538, that just about any rational numbers crunching is going to leave Joe D. in the dust behind those guys you mentioned--and probably several more--who have the career accomplishments over a guy who, no matter how good, has a critical mass of only 13 years.

As you mentioned, though, the hype behind him as we grew up was more powerful than we realized. Imagine the effect on fans' minds when, everytime they see a guy make a public appearance, he is announced as the "Greatest Living Player." We took it as fact, without realizing that there was never any such poll or election that named him that: It was merely the arrogant condition of an old player who said he would not appear at their Old Timer's Game if he was not announced as such!

And certain players equally deserving of that designation--Mays, Williams, perhaps even Mantle--probably sat and seethed for years about it.

There are two other reasons the Clipper still gets mentioned in "all-time" discussions--and always will:

--Aesthetic: His peers (though they are dying out) and most historians continue to wax reverent about the "style" of his play. Talk about the "beauty"m of his game pushes numbers to the back of a conversation;

--An "efficiency" standard: That Joe did more with those 13 years than anyone else. There is something to that, especially those monster seasons he had before the war. It's also not his fault he lost those war years. Also, I admit I marvel at his bat control: That miniscule total of 369 K's in 7671 PAs is a wonder among power hitters.

In the end, I had to go with Mick. I had not seen Joe D. play, and I had to move on from the PR that defined my childhood. Thanks for listening!

freak

[538280]

You're right, 538, that just about any rational numbers crunching is going to leave Joe D. in the dust behind those guys you mentioned--and probably several more--who have the career accomplishments over a guy who, no matter how good, has a critical mass of only 13 years.

As you mentioned, though, the hype behind him as we grew up was more powerful than we realized. Imagine the effect on fans' minds when, everytime they see a guy make a public appearance, he is announced as the "Greatest Living Player." We took it as fact, without realizing that there was never any such poll or election that named him that: It was merely the arrogant condition of an old player who said he would not appear at their Old Timer's Game if he was not announced as such!

And certain players equally deserving of that designation--Mays, Williams, perhaps even Mantle--probably sat and seethed for years about it.

There are two other reasons the Clipper still gets mentioned in "all-time" discussions--and always will:

--Aesthetic: His peers (though they are dying out) and most historians continue to wax reverent about the "style" of his play. Talk about the "beauty"m of his game pushes numbers to the back of a conversation;

--An "efficiency" standard: That Joe did more with those 13 years than anyone else. There is something to that, especially those monster seasons he had before the war. It's also not his fault he lost those war years. Also, I admit I marvel at his bat control: That miniscule total of 369 K's in 7671 PAs is a wonder among power hitters.

In the end, I had to go with Mick. I had not seen Joe D. play, and I had to move on from the PR that defined my childhood. Thanks for listening!

freak

Good post and I agree-those are all the reaons why DiMaggio is an overrated player. He did a lot of things that are eye catching to people, like hitting almost as many HRs as he struck out. Unfortunately, those things, no matter how amazing, don't do much for his team on the field. Real on field performance is better than shiny records, catchy quotes, "Yankee Pride", and bogus titles like "Greatest Living Player", which he didn't even deserve.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Good post and I agree-those are all the reaons why DiMaggio is an overrated player. He did a lot of things that are eye catching to people, like hitting almost as many HRs as he struck out. Unfortunately, those things, no matter how amazing, don't do much for his team on the field. Real on field performance is better than shiny records, catchy quotes, "Yankee Pride", and bogus titles like "Greatest Living Player", which he didn't even deserve.


Well those who saw him play would have said that he was the greatest living player. He was a hero, there aren't any heroes anymore. When this one Russian Prime Minister came to the US he said the three people he wanted to meet were The President, Mickey Mouse, and Joe DiMaggio. He was a national hero, there aren't any heroes anymore. If you honestly think that he didn't do much for his team maybe you should find another hobby. I mean his teams were 9-1 in the WS, to me that's doing something for your team. He lost three years in his prime to the war, if you give him war credit and even with conservative estimates .330/35/120 (hell you could say that he could go .345/35-40/135 and still be within what he could give you) and he'd have a career line that would look like this .335/470/1900 maybe he would finish his career with more HRs than Ks. If you park adjust those HRs and BA he could have a career line like .335/550/2000. He'll go underrated within the current and next generations.

[rugbyfreak]

Well those who saw him play would have said that he was the greatest living player. He was a hero, there aren't any heroes anymore. When this one Russian Prime Minister came to the US he said the three people he wanted to meet were The President, Mickey Mouse, and Joe DiMaggio. He was a national hero, there aren't any heroes anymore. If you honestly think that he didn't do much for his team maybe you should find another hobby. I mean his teams were 9-1 in the WS, to me that's doing something for your team. He lost three years in his prime to the war, if you give him war credit and even with conservative estimates .330/35/120 (hell you could say that he could go .345/35-40/135 and still be within what he could give you) and he'd have a career line that would look like this .335/470/1900 maybe he would finish his career with more HRs than Ks. If you park adjust those HRs and BA he could have a career line like .335/550/2000. He'll go underrated within the current and next generations.


Chris, you won't get any argument from me as to the greatness of the Clipper. I don't think anyone here has the slightest reservation of him as a bona fide HOFer. The theme of this thread, though, was simply Mantle vs. DiMag, and many of us, as I mentioned, are now becoming aware that a slight shift in mindset from our childhood, when we were deluged with the Joe D. PR machine (driven by him, mainly, as we discover), was in order.

You're right, that niether Joe, nor anyone else, deserves to be penalized for missing baseball years while serving the country. Matter of fact, new baseball analysts, SABERs, etc., are forever devising formulas to "credit" certain players for missed war years.

But as you know, such stuff is strictly moot and intellectually based. It's food for interesting rap, but has no basis in reality. A player who did not play between 1942-45 simply did not play during those years, and nothing can change that.

I believe all the countless people who recount his ballplaying as nothing short of sublime. Too many people have said it to discount it. As for his being a "hero", however, much new material has surfaced to reset that notion, I believe. Rather, however, than absorb it all and come away believing he was a hump (as some now do), I now merely think of him as an average "Joe", if you will, with little of the heroic about him, as concerns his personal life.

But hey, anyone who can bag Marilyn (if only for nine months!) can't be all bad, right?!

Thanks for listening!

freak

[538280]

Well those who saw him play would have said that he was the greatest living player. He was a hero, there aren't any heroes anymore. When this one Russian Prime Minister came to the US he said the three people he wanted to meet were The President, Mickey Mouse, and Joe DiMaggio. He was a national hero, there aren't any heroes anymore. If you honestly think that he didn't do much for his team maybe you should find another hobby. I mean his teams were 9-1 in the WS, to me that's doing something for your team. He lost three years in his prime to the war, if you give him war credit and even with conservative estimates .330/35/120 (hell you could say that he could go .345/35-40/135 and still be within what he could give you) and he'd have a career line that would look like this .335/470/1900 maybe he would finish his career with more HRs than Ks. If you park adjust those HRs and BA he could have a career line like .335/550/2000. He'll go underrated within the current and next generations.

I think Joe D did a ton for his teams, just not a ton in comparison with the guys who are top 20 players of all time. I completely take into account the years he missed for the war. It gives him a boost but it is just not enough to lift him into top 10 status. He gets extra career value from that, to the point where he is certainly a legit top 20 guy (he wouldn't be without it), but it DOES NOT make him nearly as good as you have him.

Again, you can throw the whole "American hero" and "greatest living player" stuff out the window. That's a lot of hype that surrounded the man because he wanted it to, he played in NY and was latched on to by the people there, and was much more impressive aesthetically than he was in reality. This post shows exactly what I think about that:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=720955&postcount=72

[AlecBoy006]

Mantle- one number: 536

[SABR Matt]

I consider myself very intuitive and logical when it comes to trying to solve any problem. I have an ability (and this manifests itself in a number of areas of my educational life...meteorology and sabermetrics being the two I most commonly encounter) to look at a sea of numerical data and see patterns. It's a little bit like how it was depicted in the movie "A Beautiful Mind", not that I have even .000000000000000000001% of that man's mathematical genius...fortunately for me, because that genius came with a high price (insanity).

But when I look at numerical data things do pop out at me like they visually depicted in that film...I'll be looking at columns of data trying to figure out what small elements I should look at as a sign of a weak league and the weak leagues start popping out at me not because I'm reading the yearID column but because I'm noticing that weak leagues have a lot of playerIDs I don't recognize (which is a sign that they didn't last long because I know all of the lahmanID/playerID codes for common players that I would run into photographically now after years of staring at them) and blam...my theory on high turnover of players with short careers is born.

I haven't had time to test it fully yet, but I do think that was an important insight and that's the way I "see" things and try to approach them.

With pitchers for example, the DNRA/DNRA+ research I've recently done started by eyeballing PCA pitching data and noticing that a lot of left handed pitchers were getting underrated...left handed pitchers with long careers have an overwhelming bias toward high contact rates (low K rates)...Bill James documented this (that lefties struck out fewer men than righties as a group because of the platoon disadvantage and because the average velocity of a pitched ball by a lefty is about 5% lower than then average velocity for a right handed pitcher) and I went 'aha...PCA pitching analysis can only be missing information in three areas...extra base hits on balls in play (because the data didn't exist when I calculated PCA), pitcher assists (a pitcher success that is currently being documented by PCA as a fielding success...which is why so many lefties and control artist righties rate as great fielders by PCA), and double plays (again...data didn't exist even for modern games on a consistent basis when I made PCA ratings public). All of which would be helping crafty lefties a lot more than it would help crafty righties...DNRA analysis confirms this for me and I have adjusted my thinking accordingly.

The only other thing I do that I don't always see even from other sabermetricians is RIGOROUSLY insist that contexts all be accoutned for at the same moment in the analysis. Too many sabermetricians spoil their own efforts by doing something like:

a) Creating a metric concept
b) adjust player ratings for league averages
c) adjusting the rating for park
d) adjusting the rating for fielding
e) adjusting the rating for handedness
f) adjusting the rating for era
g) adjusting the rating for playing time
...
...
...
...
...
ad infinitum

I think this is a BANKRUPT strategy that will ultimately NEVER yield conclusions I would be happy with. You don't take Tom Glavine's runs/game and make a bunch of tweaks to it to account for league average, the effect of his park, the defense behind him, his own handedness and the handedness of his batters, the era in which he pitched, his usage patterns and a host of other things you could tweak for to find your answer about how good Glavine is. Your metric should make all of these adjustments TO THE BASELINE (all player rating begins with "this is what player X actually did...this is what we EXPECT player X to have done given his context").

Mathematically I insist on this because it is logically inconsistent in my mind to adjust the actual events...they are concrete and known...the theoretical construct that should be adjusted is the expectation...the average...the baseline.

That's what's slowing me down right now...I am trying to account for a dozen different things that could influence a player or team's baseline...trying to think of ways to handle each one so that I can add all of the adjustments together and add them to average and get an expectation that makes sense. It's a monumental task.

My apologies for rambling. I just wanted to give a bit of a window into the madness that is my sabermetric philosophy...and to disspell this myth that I am some kind of sabermetric savant...LOL There are many sabermetricians out there with the same or more skill than I have.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Matt, do you have data on which pitchers lead the league in getting ahead in the count 0-1? If you do, can you post that, along with each of those pitchers' HR rate?

[ChrisLDuncan]

I think Joe D did a ton for his teams, just not a ton in comparison with the guys who are top 20 players of all time. I completely take into account the years he missed for the war. It gives him a boost but it is just not enough to lift him into top 10 status. He gets extra career value from that, to the point where he is certainly a legit top 20 guy (he wouldn't be without it), but it DOES NOT make him nearly as good as you have him.

Again, you can throw the whole "American hero" and "greatest living player" stuff out the window. That's a lot of hype that surrounded the man because he wanted it to, he played in NY and was latched on to by the people there, and was much more impressive aesthetically than he was in reality. This post shows exactly what I think about that:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=720955&postcount=72


Well I read that post, and all things considered; I would say that Joe DiMaggio is a very underrated player, you forget his grace in the field. I know my "traditional" opinions of having all time greats (e.g. Ted Williams) tell you who was the best, I'll let another guy Bill James tell you how good Joe's D was.

He was twice selected on the all decade team in his Baseball Abstract gold glove team. So no matter which way you cut it he was an outstanding defender. He was also a very solid baserunner, not to mention an outstanding hitter, only eight more Ks than HRs, as a power hitter with that kind of contact ability that is one word INSANE. He lost a lot to WW2 and to Yankee Stadium if you give him war credit .335/35/120 which is a conservative estimate for three years, and assume that he would have an OBP around .415 another conservative estimate and a slugging around .620 also very conservative. That would put his averages around .330/405/590. He would have about 480 career HRs, and possibly more career HRs than Ks. Also Bill James has calculated that Joe DiMaggio lost more HRs to Yankee Stadium that any other player in baseball history has lost to his home park. So if you give him park adjusted numbers that can be in the neighboor hood of 550 HRs, .335 ave/.415 OBP/.615 slugging, pretty guady numbers.

Now compare his hitting numbers to Say Hey Willie Mays, a player who is in my mind overrated beacuse of his flashiness. He'd blow him out of the water in hitting, and he has comprable defense (not better), and slightly less baserunning skill. I would say that that would make him better than Mays. Also for all that Mays did the Giants, a pretty damn good team, only won one ring durring Mays' tenure, now I am not basing my ranking entirely on that at all. It just gets me thinking a team that good, with a player supposedly the best ever, how do they only win two rings? Especially when they had Juan Marichal, and Willie McCovey. Those are three top one hundred players of all time in my mind. So it doesn't appear that Mays was all that valuable to his team. Whereas DiMaggio's Yankees went 9-1 in the WS durring his 13 year career, and DiMaggio also had some good post seasons. KEEP IN MIND THIS HAS VERY LITTLE IMPACT IN MY RATINGS CONSIDERING WILLIE MAYS. Just needed to get that out of the way first.

I know DiMaggio's career was shortened by injury, so he doesn't have the longevity, even with war credit. If you give him war credit Mays still has him in career value. Which if you put more stock into that and get Mays over DiMaggio that's totally cool with me I'd just like to know that. But for me if you burned twice as bright but only half as long, that's still one hell of a flame. Joe DiMaggio gave me that feeling, he only wanted to play baseball if he could be at his best. So I understand why so many people have DiMaggio rather low, Bill James said that it was mainly his longevity that kept him at number 13, I just disagree with that argument, however I respect itc.

Now as to whether or not he is better than Mantle, Whitey Ford wrote a book about the Yankees called Few and Chosen they have one for every team, he had DiMaggio ahead of Mantle. Now as a Yankee fan, I am obligied to agree. Every ounce of Yankee fan in me tells me that DiMaggio was better than Mantle, and I love Mantle. The hitting numbers (also being right handed and doing it at Old Yankee Stadium), and the wins tell me that he was better than Mantle. That being said I hold Mantle in the highest of respects. I am even planning on making a case for him as best ever, not that I agree, here shortly.


I know that's a lot of ifs, but so be it.
Well that's what I have to say about that, there's my two cents; all 75 of them.

[SABR Matt]

Matt, do you have data on which pitchers lead the league in getting ahead in the count 0-1? If you do, can you post that, along with each of those pitchers' HR rate?

That data exists in the event files for at least some of the most recent seasons...but I didn't store it because pitch sequence information comes in the form of a character string like SFBBFFBFFFX (X means you made contact and put it in play) and I didn't know how to parse that in a way it could be useful to me.

[Sliding Billy]

He lost a lot to WW2 and to Yankee Stadium if you give him war credit .335/35/120 which is a conservative estimate for three years, and assume that he would have an OBP around .415 another conservative estimate and a slugging around .620 also very conservative. That would put his averages around .330/405/590. He would have about 480 career HRs, and possibly more career HRs than Ks. Also Bill James has calculated that Joe DiMaggio lost more HRs to Yankee Stadium that any other player in baseball history has lost to his home park. So if you give him park adjusted numbers that can be in the neighboor hood of 550 HRs, .335 ave/.415 OBP/.615 slugging, pretty guady numbers.

Why does The Yankee Cliipper get extra credit for playing in a park which doesn't match his playing abilities (as if he needed a PR break, anyway)? How many of those hypothetical RBI's did anything to help his team?

[ChrisLDuncan]

Why does The Yankee Cliipper get extra credit for playing in a park which doesn't match his playing abilities (as if he needed a PR break, anyway)? How many of those hypothetical RBI's did anything to help his team?

Doesn't really not "match his playing abilities" he played fantastic D in center at Yankee, however when you pull a ball 380 feet and it doesn't go out that obviously hurts you

[Sliding Billy]

Doesn't really not "match his playing abilities" he played fantastic D in center at Yankee, however when you pull a ball 380 feet and it doesn't go out that obviously hurts you
Good point. Has anyone ever suggesting lowering his range factor because of his unfair park advantage?

[ChrisLDuncan]

Good point. Has anyone ever suggesting lowering his range factor because of his unfair park advantage?

Well he had to have some range and skill to cover that ground in center at Yankee. I mean that park was pretty damn huge aside from LF. What about Ted's defense? I mean Manny plays there, so you have to demerit him.

[Dodgerfan66]

both yankees....so both overrated.......but joe d was/is undeserving for the hof........mantle is borderline but deserving

[ChrisLDuncan]

both yankees....so both overrated.......but joe d was/is undeserving for the hof........mantle is borderline but deserving

Another educated opinion of Yankee CFs, see when Bill James AND Ted Williams disagree with you as well as anyother reasonable baseball mind you might just be wrong. So if these two guys are undeserving/borderline than Mays must be like one of the worst players ever.

[Dodgerfan66]

i hate him...but at least he was good enough to last.

[Sliding Billy]

Well he had to have some range and skill to cover that ground in center at Yankee. I mean that park was pretty damn huge aside from LF. What about Ted's defense? I mean Manny plays there, so you have to demerit him.
I have no idea how Ted and Manny got in here. My point was that having a huge center field gave Joltin' Joe an opportunity to exploit his range and skill that he wouldn't have had in, say, Wrigley or Ebbets Field, but it would be an absurdity to ding him for that. Just as it's an absurdity to boost him because of his 380-foot flies to left in Yankee Stadium.

[ChrisLDuncan]

i hate him...but at least he was good enough to last.

You do know that when both of these players were in their primes they blew Mays out of the water, right?

[Dodgerfan66]

snider makes joe and mick quiver like little girls.

joe didnt even have 400 hr's...and mickey couldn't drive in 100 runs

[ChrisLDuncan]

snider makes joe and mick quiver like little girls.

joe didnt even have 400 hr's...and mickey couldn't drive in 100 runs

Seeing has how Joe D went to war, I can see how he didn't have the career value, also all the HRs that he lost to Old YS. Yeah you are right on about the Mick, they must have gotten it wrong when he won the Triple Crown.

[westfield]

I voted for Mickey Mantle. Offensively, he had considerably more value to his team than Joe DiMaggio. DiMaggio’s high BA/RBIs don’t compare to Mickey Mantle’s high HR/walks. DiMaggio was the better fielder and was a terrific baserunner who could take the extra base. Mantle was the better basestealer. Both players contributed a lot to baseball and baseball history and I admire both players. However, I don’t rank either as high as Willie Mays (#1) or Ty Cobb (#3).

Here is a quote by Joe DiMaggio about Willie Mays (from a 1974 New York Times article by Dave Anderson, recounting a conversation between DiMaggio and a teenage Puerto Rican hopeful): “Always try for perfection… There’s never been a perfect ball player. Willie Mays came closest to perfection. But always try.”

And another DiMaggio quote: “Too much emphasis is placed on home-run hitting… [Mays] is a hitter all right, and one of the best that ever lived. But this man does it all. He fields, he runs, he studies, he hardly ever makes mistakes. He is a very special person.”

[538280]

Well I read that post, and all things considered; I would say that Joe DiMaggio is a very underrated player, you forget his grace in the field. I know my "traditional" opinions of having all time greats (e.g. Ted Williams) tell you who was the best, I'll let another guy Bill James tell you how good Joe's D was.

I think Bill James is a great baseball analyst and I enjoy his writing, but I don't accept everything he says for fact and I don't always agree with him.


He was twice selected on the all decade team in his Baseball Abstract gold glove team. So no matter which way you cut it he was an outstanding defender.

Never have I said DiMaggio was not an outstanding defender. However, I DO think his reputation today is rather overblown. He was great, but NOT one of the absolute best of all time with Speaker/Mays/Flood, etc. Even James' DWS, which is more favorable to DiMaggio than any other statistical analysis, does not have him in that company. BP's metrics for example has Joe D 21 runs above average over his career. His Rate2 is 101 which means he is 1 run above average per 100 games. That is good but not great. I am inclined to think he was better than that but NOT one of the top 10 or perhaps even 20 defensive CFers of all time.


He was also a very solid baserunner, not to mention an outstanding hitter, only eight more Ks than HRs, as a power hitter with that kind of contact ability that is one word INSANE.

Sure, it's impressive on the surface but it's also the kind of thing which makes a guy overrated. It did NOT contribute a ton his teams. His HRs did but his ability to not strike out along with that did not.


He lost a lot to WW2 and to Yankee Stadium if you give him war credit .335/35/120 which is a conservative estimate for three years, and assume that he would have an OBP around .415 another conservative estimate and a slugging around .620 also very conservative. That would put his averages around .330/405/590. He would have about 480 career HRs, and possibly more career HRs than Ks.

That is not a conservative estimate at all. In the three years before and the three years after he averaged .323/28/119 for triple crown statistics. Anyway the way how I think is fair to give war credit is just to increase the player's longevity-and that's exactly what I do in my system. It is not fair to assume he would have had his best season in those years. He would have increased his counting stats, but that is not really something I'm concerned about. Just an increase in career value. I give that to him and it still doesn't elevate him into the status you want to put him in.


Also Bill James has calculated that Joe DiMaggio lost more HRs to Yankee Stadium that any other player in baseball history has lost to his home park. So if you give him park adjusted numbers that can be in the neighboor hood of 550 HRs, .335 ave/.415 OBP/.615 slugging, pretty guady numbers.

Bill James has calculated nothing like that. The fact is that YS in DiMaggio's years was actually a FAVORABLE HR park for RH hitters. DiMaggio's own approach made YS hard for him in particular, but it is completely unfair to give Dimaggio credit because he had an approach which was just god awful for the park he played in. Players taking advantage of their park with a special approach is something which they do on their own and should deserve credit for to a certain extent. You cannot adjust those wins out of existance. Similarly players who have bad approaches for their parks should not be compensated.


Now compare his hitting numbers to Say Hey Willie Mays, a player who is in my mind overrated beacuse of his flashiness. He'd blow him out of the water in hitting, and he has comprable defense (not better), and slightly less baserunning skill. I would say that that would make him better than Mays.

That is totally tortured logic. DiMaggio does not blow away Mays in hitting by any stretch of the imagination. You fail to mention from the outset that Mays played about 900 more games than DiMaggio even when you give Joe D war credit. Dimaggio's OPS+ in the time he played was about the same as Mays', despite that lost time. Even if you argue that Dimaggio's really should be higher because of the lost time and the park effects, Mays then played in a much stronger integrated league than DiMaggio. They are not even close as players.


Also for all that Mays did the Giants, a pretty damn good team, only won one ring durring Mays' tenure, now I am not basing my ranking entirely on that at all. It just gets me thinking a team that good, with a player supposedly the best ever, how do they only win two rings? Especially when they had Juan Marichal, and Willie McCovey. Those are three top one hundred players of all time in my mind. So it doesn't appear that Mays was all that valuable to his team. Whereas DiMaggio's Yankees went 9-1 in the WS durring his 13 year career, and DiMaggio also had some good post seasons. KEEP IN MIND THIS HAS VERY LITTLE IMPACT IN MY RATINGS CONSIDERING WILLIE MAYS. Just needed to get that out of the way first.

That means almost nothing to me. DiMaggio played for one of the greatest teams of all time. He was their best player for much of the time and they would not have been as good without him, but the team probably would have been very successful with or without DiMaggio and indeed they won consistently before they got him and after he left. Mays had a few good teammates but in total just did NOT have as good a team around him.


I know DiMaggio's career was shortened by injury, so he doesn't have the longevity, even with war credit. If you give him war credit Mays still has him in career value. Which if you put more stock into that and get Mays over DiMaggio that's totally cool with me I'd just like to know that. But for me if you burned twice as bright but only half as long, that's still one hell of a flame. Joe DiMaggio gave me that feeling, he only wanted to play baseball if he could be at his best. So I understand why so many people have DiMaggio rather low, Bill James said that it was mainly his longevity that kept him at number 13, I just disagree with that argument, however I respect itc.

I don't think DiMaggio burned twice as bright as Mays by any reasonable explanation. I think Mays was the much better player at his peak as well as career. If you look at just their peak OPS+ they're about the same, but Mays was normally playing more games and he was a better fielder than DiMaggio. If you go by WS Mays is 43, 41, 40, DiMaggio is 41, 39, 34. It's a blowout IMO.


Now as to whether or not he is better than Mantle, Whitey Ford wrote a book about the Yankees called Few and Chosen they have one for every team, he had DiMaggio ahead of Mantle. Now as a Yankee fan, I am obligied to agree. Every ounce of Yankee fan in me tells me that DiMaggio was better than Mantle, and I love Mantle. The hitting numbers (also being right handed and doing it at Old Yankee Stadium), and the wins tell me that he was better than Mantle. That being said I hold Mantle in the highest of respects. I am even planning on making a case for him as best ever, not that I agree, here shortly.

The hitting stats really shouldn't tell you he is better than Mantle. Flat out Mantle was MUCH better as a hitter in the context of his time. If you take Mantle's statistics through his first 13 years, and DiMaggio's career these are their lines (from the New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract):

Mantle: .311/.435/.590
DiMaggio: .325/.398/.579

That's without offensive context and Mantle is way ahead in OBP and a little ahead in SLG. DiMaggio is slightly ahead in BA but that is almost insignificant with Mantle's power and OBP advantages. With offensive context the league averages are .260/.334/.391 for Mantle and .276/.354/.405 for DiMaggio. If you adjust for that it's not close at all-Mantle was BY FAR the better offensive player. There is no way you can interpret their statistics, especially their hitting stats, and say that DiMaggio is the better player. After that he's still got longevity to worry about, and he's still ridiculously behind for peak as well. The only way you can choose DiMaggio over Mantle is if you go by a lot of ridiculous hype and old quotes.

[SABR Matt]

Chris...where on earth are you getting this FACT that YS was favorable to right handers in DiMaggio's time? That defies all common sense so I'd like to know what foolish sabermetrician has declared that to be a fact and not an error in his park evaluation methods.

[538280]

Chris...where on earth are you getting this FACT that YS was favorable to right handers in DiMaggio's time? That defies all common sense so I'd like to know what foolish sabermetrician has declared that to be a fact and not an error in his park evaluation methods.

The KJOK parks database that BBPAP made available.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I think Bill James is a great baseball analyst and I enjoy his writing, but I don't accept everything he says for fact and I don't always agree with him.

Well Ted Williams also said that he was THE best that he'd ever seen, and a top five hitter all time


Never have I said DiMaggio was not an outstanding defender. However, I DO think his reputation today is rather overblown. He was great, but NOT one of the absolute best of all time with Speaker/Mays/Flood, etc. Even James' DWS, which is more favorable to DiMaggio than any other statistical analysis, does not have him in that company. BP's metrics for example has Joe D 21 runs above average over his career. His Rate2 is 101 which means he is 1 run above average per 100 games. That is good but not great. I am inclined to think he was better than that but NOT one of the top 10 or perhaps even 20 defensive CFers of all time.

Better than but not one of the?, don't really get that. But still he made gold glove OF team, I didn't say that he was better than Speaker.

Sure, it's impressive on the surface but it's also the kind of thing which makes a guy overrated. It did NOT contribute a ton his teams. His HRs did but his ability to not strike out along with that did not.

Hmm, well not striking out means your putting the ball in play. WHich m eans you're always giving men on base chances to advance/score, that's one of those things where you have to have actually played the game or listen to people who have. Ask any manager about Ks, they'll tell you. I really don't think that people who haven't played should be telling a guy that not striking out doesn't do much for his team.

That is not a conservative estimate at all. In the three years before and the three years after he averaged .323/28/119 for triple crown statistics. Anyway the way how I think is fair to give war credit is just to increase the player's longevity-and that's exactly what I do in my system. It is not fair to assume he would have had his best season in those years. He would have increased his counting stats, but that is not really something I'm concerned about. Just an increase in career value. I give that to him and it still doesn't elevate him into the status you want to put him in.

Umm, yeah it actually is fair/somewhat conservative. That is whaty you can expect from Joe D. An OPS around .950-.975 and 475 HRs, but about 450-460Ks that would put him about in the top echelon players along with a .330-.335 ave. yeah that puts him in the tops.

Bill James has calculated nothing like that. The fact is that YS in DiMaggio's years was actually a FAVORABLE HR park for RH hitters. DiMaggio's own approach made YS hard for him in particular, but it is completely unfair to give Dimaggio credit because he had an approach which was just god awful for the park he played in. Players taking advantage of their park with a special approach is something which they do on their own and should deserve credit for to a certain extent. You cannot adjust those wins out of existance. Similarly players who have bad approaches for their parks should not be compensated.

Well no it is not favorable, you're a fool if you believe that. And yes Bill James did calculate that he did loose the most HRs to his home park over his career than any other player. Ask any expert on the subject, you're done with this argument. Name any other right handed power hitter in old Yankee Stadium


That is totally tortured logic. DiMaggio does not blow away Mays in hitting by any stretch of the imagination. You fail to mention from the outset that Mays played about 900 more games than DiMaggio even when you give Joe D war credit. Dimaggio's OPS+ in the time he played was about the same as Mays', despite that lost time. Even if you argue that Dimaggio's really should be higher because of the lost time and the park effects, Mays then played in a much stronger integrated league than DiMaggio. They are not even close as players.

Well Mays' numbers following 1965 are as follows .314/.389.593 okay if you give Joe D war credit he does blow Mays out of the water. Joe was more patient, he struck out less, he hit in a park which killed him. By and large it is Mays' flashiness that gets him where he is. Those flashy catches, the flair with which he played with I'm not saying he wasn't good, he was great. When Bary Sanders retired I found my self thinking of Willie Mays. Another player who was flashy and did a lot, but most people never said it was because of what he did more or less how he went about doing it which made him great. I don't really have a problem with that but it's discounting other players who were just as good but not as flashy i.e. Mickey Mantle and Emmitt Smith

That means almost nothing to me. DiMaggio played for one of the greatest teams of all time. He was their best player for much of the time and they would not have been as good without him, but the team probably would have been very successful with or without DiMaggio and indeed they won consistently before they got him and after he left. Mays had a few good teammates but in total just did NOT have as good a team around him.

Say what you will, Joe got the job done, Mays did not. Juan Maricchal, McCovey, that's a pretty good company to be in, also Bobby Bonds wasn'ttoo shaby either

I don't think DiMaggio burned twice as bright as Mays by any reasonable explanation. I think Mays was the much better player at his peak as well as career. If you look at just their peak OPS+ they're about the same, but Mays was normally playing more games and he was a better fielder than DiMaggio. If you go by WS Mays is 43, 41, 40, DiMaggio is 41, 39, 34. It's a blowout IMO.

The awards, the praise for Joe, the rings. Yeah Joe had a pretty amazing prime, so did Willie; however Joe did alot durring his prime. 56 game hit streak, 3 MVPs against amazing competition. Very good out fielder. You don't get how easy he made everything look. Playing less games through out the season also helps Willie's counting stats.

The hitting stats really shouldn't tell you he is better than Mantle. Flat out Mantle was MUCH better as a hitter in the context of his time. If you take Mantle's statistics through his first 13 years, and DiMaggio's career these are their lines (from the New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract):

Mantle: .311/.435/.590
DiMaggio: .325/.398/.579

That's without offensive context and Mantle is way ahead in OBP and a little ahead in SLG. DiMaggio is slightly ahead in BA but that is almost insignificant with Mantle's power and OBP advantages. With offensive context the league averages are .260/.334/.391 for Mantle and .276/.354/.405 for DiMaggio. If you adjust for that it's not close at all-Mantle was BY FAR the better offensive player. There is no way you can interpret their statistics, especially their hitting stats, and say that DiMaggio is the better player. After that he's still got longevity to worry about, and he's still ridiculously behind for peak as well. The only way you can choose DiMaggio over Mantle is if you go by a lot of ridiculous hype and old quotes.

As to whether or not he is better than Mantle, I go back and forth on. Most Yankee experts will tell you that Joe was the better player. When Mickey retired he was horribly depressed that he wasn't as good as Joe or Babe, even though he could have been better than both. I say DiMaggio though, because of the afore mentioned reasons. Most of the evidence for Joe is anecdotel, I will give you that. But man when that guy dawned the cleates, there wasn't many players who were better than he was.

[SABR Matt]

DiMaggio was a pitcher? This is news to me. :)

[ChrisLDuncan]

DiMaggio was a pitcher? This is news to me. :)

If I said that I apologize, I did not mean too. My bad. When I said toed the rubber I was refering to the toes into the cleates, most shoes are rubber to my knowledge...dunno that much about shoes.

[538280]

Better than but not one of the?, don't really get that. But still he made gold glove OF team, I didn't say that he was better than Speaker.

How could you not get that? He could be the best defensive OF in a decade yet not be one of the top 20 or so defensive CFers of all time.


Hmm, well not striking out means your putting the ball in play. WHich m eans you're always giving men on base chances to advance/score, that's one of those things where you have to have actually played the game or listen to people who have. Ask any manager about Ks, they'll tell you. I really don't think that people who haven't played should be telling a guy that not striking out doesn't do much for his team.

That's a lot of BS. Yeah, it's true that putting the ball in play helps runners to advance. It's also true that NOT putting the ball in play to make an out makes there be no chance of a DP. The question of whether a K is significantly worse than a regular out is a DATA question, not a question that you ask managers, coaches, etc. about. No matter what all the cliches and such may say it is just NOT true that a K is significantly worse than a regular out. It continues to defy me that people would rather look to anecdotes of selected incidents rather than real statistical studies on this issue.


Umm, yeah it actually is fair/somewhat conservative. That is whaty you can expect from Joe D. An OPS around .950-.975 and 475 HRs, but about 450-460Ks that would put him about in the top echelon players along with a .330-.335 ave. yeah that puts him in the tops.

Your numbers were anything but conservative! You said you though he would post triple crown numbers over his war years of .335/35/120 when his average of the six years outside of that was .323/28/119. And RAW counting numbers like you are quoting here are something that mean nothing to me, especially with a player like DiMaggio who played in one of the highest offensive eras of all time. Put his numbers in a real context adjusted offensive analysis, they're nowhere near Mantle's and not up there with the best hitters ever.


Well no it is not favorable, you're a fool if you believe that. And yes Bill James did calculate that he did loose the most HRs to his home park over his career than any other player. Ask any expert on the subject, you're done with this argument. Name any other right handed power hitter in old Yankee Stadium

Where did James calculate that and how did he calculate that? If he did it just looking at home/road breakdowns then I don't care about it. Again, it defies me that you'd rather go by schematics of the field and anecdotes rather than a real look at how many RH HRs were actually hit there.


Well Mays' numbers following 1965 are as follows .314/.389.593 okay if you give Joe D war credit he does blow Mays out of the water. Joe was more patient, he struck out less, he hit in a park which killed him.

The "stuck out less" means close to nothing. The park killing him is a lot of myth and legend and doens't truly matter anyway if we're looking at his value. .314/.389/.593 through 1965 is actually a better line in the context of his time than DiMaggio had. Mays' OPS+ through then was 163, DiMaggio's on his career was 155. Then Mays has got a lot of extra longevity in his career, DiMaggio's got nothing there. Mays was better defensively. Mays was a better player in his best seasons (he KILLS him in peak WS). Mays played against tougher competition. Mays was MUCH better than DiMaggio.


By and large it is Mays' flashiness that gets him where he is. Those flashy catches, the flair with which he played with I'm not saying he wasn't good, he was great. When Bary Sanders retired I found my self thinking of Willie Mays. Another player who was flashy and did a lot, but most people never said it was because of what he did more or less how he went about doing it which made him great. I don't really have a problem with that but it's discounting other players who were just as good but not as flashy i.e. Mickey Mantle and Emmitt Smith

Believe me the myths around Willie Mays and his flashiness has nothing to do with how he comes out where he does on my list. My list is made with my system which is almost entirely statistical, and I certainly give no extra credit to anyone because of something like flashiness. Personally I think DiMaggio is mainly the one overrated because of periphiral factors, most namely hype from the media, which made him out as an American Hero and the symbol of "Yankee Pride", and a lot of quotes from players which focused on the aesthetic qualities of a player rather than a real analysis of what he did to help his team win.


Say what you will, Joe got the job done, Mays did not. Juan Maricchal, McCovey, that's a pretty good company to be in, also Bobby Bonds wasn'ttoo shaby either

I will say what I will-championships are a TEAM thing and the number of rings a player has has just about nothing to do with their own ability as a player.


The awards, the praise for Joe, the rings. Yeah Joe had a pretty amazing prime, so did Willie; however Joe did alot durring his prime. 56 game hit streak, 3 MVPs against amazing competition. Very good out fielder. You don't get how easy he made everything look. Playing less games through out the season also helps Willie's counting stats.

Count in the hit streak as another reason for DiMaggio being overrated. I don't get how playing less games should help Willie's counting stats. It should help them-and it does. Again though counting stats are not really something I care about much.


As to whether or not he is better than Mantle, I go back and forth on. Most Yankee experts will tell you that Joe was the better player. When Mickey retired he was horribly depressed that he wasn't as good as Joe or Babe, even though he could have been better than both. I say DiMaggio though, because of the afore mentioned reasons. Most of the evidence for Joe is anecdotel, I will give you that. But man when that guy dawned the cleates, there wasn't many players who were better than he was.

I think it's all a lot of hype and anecdotal evidence. There is NO statistical argument for DiMaggio over Mays or Mantle. The ONLY argument you can use is things like quotes from players, "American heroism", and stuff like that which I think is a lot of poppycock.

[ChrisLDuncan]

That's a lot of BS. Yeah, it's true that putting the ball in play helps runners to advance. It's also true that NOT putting the ball in play to make an out makes there be no chance of a DP. The question of whether a K is significantly worse than a regular out is a DATA question, not a question that you ask managers, coaches, etc. about. No matter what all the cliches and such may say it is just NOT true that a K is significantly worse than a regular out. It continues to defy me that people would rather look to anecdotes of selected incidents rather than real statistical studies on this issue.

Because you, with all due respect, a fourteen year old boy, know more about baseball than people who have actually played and have success beyond success at a major league level. As far as GIDPs go maybe before you say something you should look at Mays' GIDP stats. Durring his prime he always had double digit GIDPs and rarely walked more than he Ked. Which is a measure to how good of a contact hitter a player is.

Your numbers were anything but conservative! You said you though he would post triple crown numbers over his war years of .335/35/120 when his average of the six years outside of that was .323/28/119. And RAW counting numbers like you are quoting here are something that mean nothing to me, especially with a player like DiMaggio who played in one of the highest offensive eras of all time. Put his numbers in a real context adjusted offensive analysis, they're nowhere near Mantle's and not up there with the best hitters ever.

Hmm, well they actually are up there with the greatest hitters ever. And yeah from seeing what other major leaguers and some of the best of all time have to say about DiMaggio I'd say that they are up there. Try telling Ted Williams a guy who studied hitting like none other that Joe DiMaggio isn't one of the best hitters ever

Where did James calculate that and how did he calculate that? If he did it just looking at home/road breakdowns then I don't care about it. Again, it defies me that you'd rather go by schematics of the field and anecdotes rather than a real look at how many RH HRs were actually hit there.

I forgot where he calculated it. However if you would look at the park. Left-center field went as far back as 457ft, compared to ballparks today where left-center rarely reaches 380ft. You would see that he could pull the ball 450 feet and have it get ran down. That to me would signify that it would hurt him.


The "stuck out less" means close to nothing. The park killing him is a lot of myth and legend and doens't truly matter anyway if we're looking at his value. .314/.389/.593 through 1965 is actually a better line in the context of his time than DiMaggio had. Mays' OPS+ through then was 163, DiMaggio's on his career was 155. Then Mays has got a lot of extra longevity in his career, DiMaggio's got nothing there. Mays was better defensively. Mays was a better player in his best seasons (he KILLS him in peak WS). Mays played against tougher competition. Mays was MUCH better than DiMaggio.

If you want to look at value maybe you might look to something like MVPs, which DiMaggio edges out Mays, or the ultimate value WS wins, because that is after all why they play the game. Okay you look at Mays' peak OPS+ value and compare that to Joe D's career, seems a bit unfair to me. Willie Mays had six seasons where he slugged over .600, Joe D had four durring a much shorter career aswell as an extra two where he was less than five points away. Now if you say that he'd slug .600 each of his seasons he missed to War that would give him seven. Also that the park clearly killed him, look at the home/road splits, that to me seems that Joe D is the better power hitter, as well as the contact due to the afore mentioned evidence. As to defense Mays was better than Joe, but it isn't as much as one might think. However Mays has the overwhelming career longevity value, that doesn't make him the better player nessecarly, but just that he had the better career. Now if that's how you judge players fine it's cool by me. I see why alot of people have Mays as the best CF as all time

Believe me the myths around Willie Mays and his flashiness has nothing to do with how he comes out where he does on my list. My list is made with my system which is almost entirely statistical, and I certainly give no extra credit to anyone because of something like flashiness.

I know this, you are one of those who would prefer not to watch a player rather than just look at his stats.

I will say what I will-championships are a TEAM thing and the number of rings a player has has just about nothing to do with their own ability as a player.

Well when you're the best player on those teams, and a huge part as to why they were able to get there, it DOES have something to do with your ability as a player.

Count in the hit streak as another reason for DiMaggio being overrated. I don't get how playing less games should help Willie's counting stats. It should help them-and it does. Again though counting stats are not really something I care about much.

[B]Okay so being consistent makes you overrated, maybe it's a good thing for players if you think they're overrated. Playing less games helps Willie get the edge in counting stats[B]

I think it's all a lot of hype and anecdotal evidence. There is NO statistical argument for DiMaggio over Mays or Mantle. The ONLY argument you can use is things like quotes from players, "American heroism", and stuff like that which I think is a lot of poppycock.

Well seeing as how players probably know more about baseball than people who like to keep their heads in the stat books, I dunno if they are "poppycock", now to me if you just look at stats to rate a player and never take into account just how highly regarded they were that's beyond "poppycock" it's bull**** Now as far as the statistical evidence, many people claim that Ted Williams is the best hitter ever. Now even though that Ruth has a higher OPS, and more HRs and is only two points behind him in BA that to me would suggest that there is no statistical evidence that Ted is better than Babe. Now you have to give Ted war credit, and realize that he played in a less favorable park, than it's a different scenario. However, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, and if you disagree Chris that's fine.

[EvanAparra]

Ted may have called DiMaggio all these things, but he said the same thing about Stan Musial as well. And DiMaggio won 2 undeserved MVPs.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Ted may have called DiMaggio all these things, but he said the same thing about Stan Musial as well. And DiMaggio won 2 undeserved MVPs.

He had DiMaggio as the better all around player than him and Musial

[SABR Matt]

If I said that I apologize, I did not mean too. My bad. When I said toed the rubber I was refering to the toes into the cleates, most shoes are rubber to my knowledge...dunno that much about shoes.

I was teasing dude. :) Hence the smiley face. Toed the rubber is the expression used when a pitcher steps onto the pitching rubber in preparation of making his next pitch. Baseball players don't commonly call their shoes the rubber...that's the specific name given to that rubber stripe on the pitching mound.

[EvanAparra]

He had DiMaggio as the better all around player than him and Musial
Well, thats what he said. Doesn't make it true, cant take their word on everything. Do you actually have Joe over Ted? I hope not.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Well, thats what he said. Doesn't make it true, cant take their word on everything. Do you actually have Joe over Ted? I hope not.

As a player I think I do, LF in Fenway takes his value down a notch. But I go back and forth on that one. Depends really on how I'm feeling, I tend to compare the value of different baseball players in my head when I'm bored. So my opinions change quite frequently. However you are right it doesn't make it true, and you can't take their word on EVERYTHING. However admitting defeat is something that's hard to do and most people usually don't do it unless they are defeated, and who am I do disagree with Ted Williams :laugh

On a more serious note, sometimes players are wrong, but it's usually about their teammates. Like with Joe Morgan and Dave Conception.

[W_Marone]

Mickey Mantle, and for me, it's not particularly close.

Ted Williams over Joe too, not close either.

[SABR Matt]

Yo Chris...

I'm still waiting for you to show me what idiot sabermetrician claimed it was "fact" that YS benefitted RH hitters in the 30s and 40s.

[RuthMayBond]

Yo Chris...

I'm still waiting for you to show me what idiot sabermetrician claimed it was "fact" that YS benefitted RH hitters in the 30s and 40s.Yo Matt, I'm waiting for you to explain why a person who thinks YS benefitted rights is automatically an "idiot sabermetrician" :( :ughh

[mwiggins]

He had DiMaggio as the better all around player than him and Musial

I don't think many people would disagree that Joe was a better 'all-around' player than Ted or Stan. But that doesn't mean he was better. It just means his game was more well-rounded. But since hitting is by far the most important facet of a player, Musial and Williams' edge in that area more than make up for Joe's better all-around game. Williams was clearly the better hitter, and while Musial and DiMaggio were pretty close, Musial was a great hitter longer than Joe was. I have Musial two spots ahead of DiMaggio, but they're very close. And I have Williiams and Mantle quite a bit ahead of either of those guys.

[538280]

Yo Chris...

I'm still waiting for you to show me what idiot sabermetrician claimed it was "fact" that YS benefitted RH hitters in the 30s and 40s.

I already told you. That info was from the KJOK parks database.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I was teasing dude. :) Hence the smiley face. Toed the rubber is the expression used when a pitcher steps onto the pitching rubber in preparation of making his next pitch. Baseball players don't commonly call their shoes the rubber...that's the specific name given to that rubber stripe on the pitching mound.

I remember that now, I was playing a baseball video game on sunday, halftime, and they announcer was talking about how good the players the quote was like "This guy's a stud he expects to perform every AB" than the next quote was "Everytime he toes the rubber he expects to be in there to the 9th" so I think I was a bit confused.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Yo Matt, I'm waiting for you to explain why a person who thinks YS benefitted rights is automatically an "idiot sabermetrician" :( :ughh

BEcause anyone who looks at it realizes that you can still pull a ball over 410 feet and have it get ran down.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I don't think many people would disagree that Joe was a better 'all-around' player than Ted or Stan. But that doesn't mean he was better. It just means his game was more well-rounded. But since hitting is by far the most important facet of a player, Musial and Williams' edge in that area more than make up for Joe's better all-around game. Williams was clearly the better hitter, and while Musial and DiMaggio were pretty close, Musial was a great hitter longer than Joe was. I have Musial two spots ahead of DiMaggio, but they're very close. And I have Williiams and Mantle quite a bit ahead of either of those guys.

Yeah for me, that's probably a more fair opinion of Joe that some people here have, Chris, because Stan V. Joe is a very very close debte. When they were both in their primes you could make a damn solid argument that Joe was the better hitter...not to mention how much better he was in every other aspect of the game. But Stan lasted a lot longer, and Joe went to war for three years, so you have to take the counting stats with a grain assualt, also the old YS damage that Joe D suffered. However as to the better all around player, I am supprised that some people that make PAs to the point that they have Honus Wagner demonstrably better than Ty Cobb do not think that perhaps the best defensive CF (more of a key position than what people give it credit for) of his generation is more valuable than a poor defensive LF in Fenway (for christ's sake Manny plays that position) ;)

[538280]

BEcause anyone who looks at it realizes that you can still pull a ball over 410 feet and have it get ran down.

Not if the data doesn't support it, Chris. Visual impressions are not always correct, there are MANY other factors at work in park effects (humidity, wind, hitting backgroud, etc.) That is why dimensions and schematics are normally horrible ways to judge park effects. Park factors are always better. Coors Field for example is actually big based on its dimensions.

[538280]

Well seeing as how players probably know more about baseball than people who like to keep their heads in the stat books, I dunno if they are "poppycock", now to me if you just look at stats to rate a player and never take into account just how highly regarded they were that's beyond "poppycock" it's bull**** Now as far as the statistical evidence, many people claim that Ted Williams is the best hitter ever. Now even though that Ruth has a higher OPS, and more HRs and is only two points behind him in BA that to me would suggest that there is no statistical evidence that Ted is better than Babe. Now you have to give Ted war credit, and realize that he played in a less favorable park, than it's a different scenario. However, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, and if you disagree Chris that's fine.

Williams actually has a good case as best hitter ever with war credit arguments, longevity (as a hitter), and LQ as well. I've made the case before though I'm not totally sure if I believe it. Anyway we'll just have to agree to disagree on Joe DiMaggio and the use of peer accounts as a big part of an evaluation system. We could go on and on with replies, but we wouldn't get anywhere. Agree to disagree.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Not if the data doesn't support it, Chris. Visual impressions are not always correct, there are MANY other factors at work in park effects (humidity, wind, hitting backgroud, etc.) That is why dimensions and schematics are normally horrible ways to judge park effects. Park factors are always better. Coors Field for example is actually big based on its dimensions.

So name another power RH hitter in old YS, also many would say that Mickey batting right handed was a better hitter than Ted Williams (I've never researched this just heard a few guys who have seen both say that Mick was better right handed than Ted so don't bitch at me for saying it, I am not saying tha it is true nor do i necessiarly agree with it, if someone has the data please show me), and from what I remember most of his huge stats are from the right side of the plate. Also you're comparing a place a mile high, literaly, where the air is thinker so the ball can travel further to a place that's pretty much at sea level. I really you're lost on this issue, unless you have developed a system that you can put ball parks into aswell.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Williams actually has a good case as best hitter ever with war credit arguments, longevity (as a hitter), and LQ as well. I've made the case before though I'm not totally sure if I believe it. Anyway we'll just have to agree to disagree on Joe DiMaggio and the use of peer accounts as a big part of an evaluation system. We could go on and on with replies, but we wouldn't get anywhere. Agree to disagree.

Hey I'm not saying, here atleast, that he was better than Ted...just that he's better than what alot of people think he is.

[538280]

So name another power RH hitter in old YS, also many would say that Mickey batting right handed was a better hitter than Ted Williams (I've never researched this just heard a few guys who have seen both say that Mick was better right handed than Ted so don't bitch at me for saying it, I am not saying tha it is true nor do i necessiarly agree with it, if someone has the data please show me), and from what I remember most of his huge stats are from the right side of the plate. Also you're comparing a place a mile high, literaly, where the air is thinker so the ball can travel further to a place that's pretty much at sea level. I really you're lost on this issue, unless you have developed a system that you can put ball parks into aswell.

What I am referecing is a database of park factors for every park in the history of baseball based on RH and LH factors. It calculates HR factors for the parks in the same way regular park factors are calculated, and finds YS in those years was actually favorable to RH HRs, meaning more were hit at home by RH hitters than the same hitters hit on the road. That is a full data sample and that is what it finds. Pointing out isolated players and isolated incidents after that has been done is pointless.

If there is a flaw in the data, like Matt somehow seems to think there is, then I'd like to know what it is.

[AlecBoy006]

Sorry. Wrong thread.

[Mattingly]

--Berra had ALOT more power than Dickey, he was a better defender, he played against better competition and he didn't sit against LHP for half his career. Most importantly, Berra was the best player on the Yankees 49-53 run and 2nd best (to Mantle) in their 55-58 run. Berra was league MVP 3 times, while Dickey was never more than the third best player on his team.
Dickey sat against LHPs? That part I'd never heard about. Not that I was looking. Anyway, where'd you hear that one from?

[RuthMayBond]

Dickey sat against LHPs? That part I'd never heard about. Not that I was looking. Anyway, where'd you hear that one from?He only once got > 480 AB (and for a guy who hardly walked), only once caught > 127 G

[Sultan_1895-1948]

If there is a flaw in the data

From: The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs, by Bill Jenkinson... Published by Carroll and Graf

For example, Joe DiMaggio was acutely handicapped by playing at Yankee Stadium. Every time he batted in his home field during his entire career, he did so knowing that it was physically impossible for him to hit a home run to the half of the field directly in front of him. That's right! If you look at a baseball field from foul line to foul line, it has a 90-degree radius. From the power alley in left center field (430 in Joe's time) to the fence in deep right center field (407 feet), it is 45-degrees. And Joe DiMaggio never hit a single home run over the fences at Yankee Stadium in that 45-degree graveyard. It was just too far. Joe was plenty strong; he routinely hit balls in the 425-foot range. But that just wasn't good enough in cavernous Yankee Stadium. Like Ruth, he benefited from a few easy homers each season due to the short foul line distances. But he lost many more than he gained by constantly hitting long fly outs toward center field. Whereas most sluggers perform better on their home fields, Joe D hit only 41 percent of his career home runs in the Bronx. In his day, DiMaggio recorded 148 homers at Yankee Stadium. If he had hit the same exact pattern of batted balls with a typical modern stadium as his home, he would have belted about 225 homers during his home field career.

[csh19792001]

If he had hit the same exact pattern of batted balls with a typical modern stadium as his home, he would have belted about 225 homers during his home field career.

Great excerpt. That brings him to roughly 440 career homeruns. What would all those flyouts turned into HR's have done to his SLG (and all the related production stats by which people judge greatness today?) Moreoever, what would his career totals have been had he not missed three full years at ages 28-30??

Someday people will start to re-discover how awesome that guy was.

[iPod]

Great excerpt. That brings him to roughly 440 career homeruns. What would all those flyouts turned into HR's have done to his SLG (and all the related production stats by which people judge greatness today?) Moreoever, what would his career totals have been had he not missed three full years at ages 28-30??

Someday people will start to re-discover how awesome that guy was.

To take it a step further, that also explicitly assumes Joe D's balls went to all the same places, meaning it implicitly assumes he would have had the same plate approach if the dimensions of the park were different. I don't see why that's such a reasonable assumption; if he played in a park where it was more feasible to pull home runs into left field, he would have swung for them more.

[dl4060]

Well you're right and you're wrong Ted never did see himself play that is true so saying that Joe was the best player he ever saw doesn't exactly compare himself to Joe. He did concede that Joe D was a better overall player than he was, but he said that he was the better hitter. Still pretty high praise though.

Bernie Williams was also a better all around player than Ted. Ted and Joe both had a compromise where Williams called Joe the best all-around player he ever saw and Joe called Ted the best hitter he ever saw. I wouldn't call any of that particularly good evidence of anything. We know they were both great. Joe was a better all-around player than Ted. So was Bernie Williams. Ted was a better player though, because his hitting advantages far outweigh all of the other stuff. Just because Ted said something in public like that does not make it true. It is pretty inconsequential in a logical argument over who was better. Ted really didn't care about who was the better fielder or who was the better baserunner, so calling Joe the best all-around player was not a big deal. There are not many Rickey Henderson's out there, most people will exercise some humility in the public eye.

In the actual question at hand I'll take Mantle. Whether Mantle said Dimaggio was a better player or not has very little to do with whether Dimaggio actually was a better player. I hear far too much from Dimaggio supporters about his grace and his impact and all these qualities that cannot be measured. Those things do absolutely nothing to convince me.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

To take it a step further, that also explicitly assumes Joe D's balls went to all the same places, meaning it implicitly assumes he would have had the same plate approach if the dimensions of the park were different. I don't see why that's such a reasonable assumption; if he played in a park where it was more feasible to pull home runs into left field, he would have swung for them more.

That's a fair but the point still remains, that Joe D was murdered by his home park. Would his approach have changed, probably. Simalarly, Jenkinson points out that Bonds has never hit a home run that would have cleared left center or center at old Yankee Stadium in his entire career and to take one season, his 2004 campaign would see 22 homers wiped away had he played there...although he would have gained four cheapies to bring him back up to 27. To your point, Bonds more than likely would have changed his approach with this park as his home park but pitchers would certainly do everything in their power to keep him from pulling the ball. Much like they did with Ruth, they would throw it outside all day long. Think of the advantage, as a pitcher, if you know that Bonds is incapable of taking you deep to left center and center. And that advantage gets much larger if you're talking about a righty in that park.

[hellborn]

Bernie Williams was also a better all around player than Ted. Ted and Joe both had a compromise where Williams called Joe the best all-around player he ever saw and Joe called Ted the best hitter he ever saw. I wouldn't call any of that particularly good evidence of anything. We know they were both great. Joe was a better all-around player than Ted. So was Bernie Williams. Ted was a better player though, because his hitting advantages far outweigh all of the other stuff. Just because Ted said something in public like that does not make it true. It is pretty inconsequential in a logical argument over who was better. Ted really didn't care about who was the better fielder or who was the better baserunner, so calling Joe the best all-around player was not a big deal. There are not many Rickey Henderson's out there, most people will exercise some humility in the public eye.
...
I thought that Joe would only say that TW was the best lefty hitter he'd ever seen...still saying that Ted was better than Gehrig, which is high praise, but I wonder if Clipper was trying to imply that he wasn't conceding that TW was better than he was.
I've seen recent quotes from Stengel that said that Cobb was the best player, Joe D was the best player...I thought that I had read years ago that he said Berra was the best player he's ever managed...relying on quotes from people long dead as the sole means of evaluating players is a fool's game. The information has value if you're careful about it, but it's like writing an evaluation of a book based on somebody else's review. You've gotta read the damn thing yourself, too.

[csh19792001]

The information has value if you're careful about it, but it's like writing an evaluation of a book based on somebody else's review. You've gotta read the damn thing yourself, too.

Very true. Good points. One has to sift through historical quotes and anecdotal information with caution.

Enjoy. :waving

Deposing the Witnesses What They Actually Said: The Historical Testimony (http://baseballguru.com/bburgess/analysisbburgess10.html)

[ChrisLDuncan]

Someday people will start to re-discover how awesome that guy was.


As much as I would like to believe you, I am a pessamist, and I have my doubts. The guy was an absolute beast, but there is a new wave of fans that will soon forget how good he was. I can see many people having him out of their top 25 in several years...I am not looking forwards to that day.

[hellborn]

As much as I would like to believe you, I am a pessamist, and I have my doubts. The guy was an absolute beast, but there is a new wave of fans that will soon forget how good he was. I can see many people having him out of their top 25 in several years...I am not looking forwards to that day.

Clipper will live on as long as people read Hemingway and listen to Simon & Garfunkel. He's an icon of our general culture now, not just sports culture. I think that he'll be associated with the Platonic ideal of a great baseball player when the only cultural memory of TW is of his head in the freezer.
I would guess that a lot of people who aren't really familiar with baseball history would be surprised to find that Clipper never hit 50-60HR, never batted .400, never hit 3 HR in a WS game. The idea that he is so revered because he did everything on a ballfield well and with great style and class, and had a certain presence, might be hard for them to digest. Of course, he does have the Streak, too. (hitting .380 with huge power as a righty in YS is what blows me away the most...)
The three who I see as shadows in our world of the Great Baseball Player on the Platonic Plane are Ruth, DiMaggio, and Mays...most people are going to know these names, unless I'm totally out of touch with US culture. Those three were spaced about 20 years apart, roughly 1920-40-60...will a player from a later time join them? Maybe it would have been Griffey, if he had played in NYC and/or not had so many injuries. Seems like ARod isn't going to be the one. Maybe Jeter? Maybe if he had won a few MVPs...I don't know, guess it could happen. Maybe baseball just isn't dominant enough in our national psyche anymore for any player to reach that level.

[TRfromBR]

Ted and Joe both had a compromise where Williams called Joe the best all-around player he ever saw and Joe called Ted the best hitter he ever saw.



Where did you get this alleged fact from? It seems entirely inconsistent with both Williams' and DiMaggio's principles and personalities.

I hope you didn't just make it up, because, if you did, you've managed to recklessly insult the character and caliber of both Williams and DiMaggio, in one fell swoop. Why not also include Musial in your argument, because, he, too, thought Williams was the greatest hitter and DiMaggio the greatest player, he ever saw. Perhaps he, too, was in on this vast left-handed conspiracy, too - along with practically every other baseball authority who saw all of them play.

Please send me a cite for your source for this revolutionary disclosure. Then I can tell my kids how DiMaggio colluded with all those guys to lay down for that phony batting streak, paid some Tin Pan Alley guy to write Jolt'n' Joe, tricked everyone into idolizing his mediocre play, hyped his way into wedlock with Marilyn, and paid off Paul Simon.

[hellborn]

Where did you get this alleged fact from? It seems entirely inconsistent with both Williams' and DiMaggio's principles and personalities.

I hope you didn't just make it up, because, if you did, you've managed to recklessly insult the character and caliber of both Williams and DiMaggio, in one fell swoop. Why not also include Musial in your argument, because, he, too, thought Williams was the greatest hitter and DiMaggio the greatest player, he ever saw. Perhaps he, too, was in on this vast left-handed conspiracy, too - along with practically every other baseball authority who saw all of them play.

...
I'm not on the warpath here, but...how many times could Musial have seen TW and Clipper play? Did he attend Browns games in StL, or drop in on games in Fenway and YS during series with the Braves, Giants, and Dodgers?

[ChrisLDuncan]

(hitting .380 with huge power as a righty in YS is what blows me away the most...)



He actually said that he should have hit .400 that year, but there his eye got infected, and McCarthy wouldn't take him out until he had slumped way too far. He said had he been taken out and let his eye heal he could have hit .400.

[csh19792001]

I'm not on the warpath here, but...how many times could Musial have seen TW and Clipper play? Did he attend Browns games in StL, or drop in on games in Fenway and YS during series with the Braves, Giants, and Dodgers?

The Cards and Browns played in the same park for the entire span in which Stan and Joe's careers overlapped. I saw an interview with Musial and Bob Costas a few years back in which he talked about seeing Dimaggio play in St. Louis in person, and how incredibly impressed he was. Musial said of all the players he ever saw (this is from the 1930's to the present day) he said Dimaggio and Mays were the only perfect players- and the two best ever- in his opinion.

I'm not sure how much Ted Williams saw Stan Musial play, and vice versa. I do know that Williams, who also watched the careers of 6 decades of Major Leaguers, never retracted his opinion that Joe Dimaggio was the greatest player he ever saw.

[csh19792001]

He actually said that he should have hit .400 that year, but there his eye got infected, and McCarthy wouldn't take him out until he had slumped way too far. He said had he been taken out and let his eye heal he could have hit .400.

Dimaggio was a perfect baseball player his first 6 years. Despite playing in a pitchers' park, and one of the worst for right handed power hitters, his line was .345/.408/.626 with 198 homeruns and ONLY 160 career strikeouts. In 37' he had 418 total bases and produced the 7th most runs of any American Leaguer in any single season- and all of this as the best centerfielder in the game.

Nonetheless (and despite being right handed, a huge disadvantage in and of itself), and playing in Yankee Stadium, Dimaggio should have hit .400 in 1939.

This is excerpted from Fay Vincent's book.

"May I ask you a fan's questions?"

"You are the commissioner of baseball. You can ask me anything you want, Mr. Commissioner. I'll answer."

I warmed him up with some innocent questions. But then:

"How come you never hit 400?" I asked.

"Now that is a question almost nobody asks me," he said.

"They're afraid. I know you won't yell at me."

"It's a good question," DiMaggio said. This was a pleasing thing, to be able to ask DiMaggio — the great DiMaggio, as Ernest Hemingway called him in The Old Man and the Sea — a good question. "In 1939, I was going to hit .400. Right around the first of September, we clinched the pennant. We always clinched around the first of September. Right about then, I was hitting .408.

"I was going to hit over .400 that year. Then I got an eye infection. Couldn't see out of the infected eye. Our manager was Joe McCarthy. Every day, McCarthy puts me in the lineup. Commissioner, that guy made out a lineup card in April and he never changed it. Every day I'd go to the ballpark, every day my eye is getting worse and worse, and every day I'm in the lineup. I couldn't hit. My average starts falling. Finally, the eye gets so bad they have to give me an injection in the eye. And McCarthy still has me in the lineup. I wouldn't say anything to him. Now I did not have a bad year, Commissioner. I batted .381. But with my eye amost closed I had to open my stance. The infection was in my left eye, the lead eye. So I had to swing my left foot around to try to see the ball, but I couldn't. I had trouble and my average fell. That was my year to bat .400 and I didn't do it."

My little interview was going all right, so I asked the follow-up question: "Joe, did McCarthy ever tell you why he kept you in the lineup every day with the eye infection?"

"Yes, one time," Joe said. "We were in Buffalo, speaking together. He says, 'Joe, did you ever wonder why the hell I kept you in the lineup that year, when you had the bad eye?'

"I said, 'Yes, I did.'

"He says, 'Because I didn't want you to be a cheese champion.'"

"Cheese champion?" I asked. "What does that mean?"

"I don't know, Commissioner," Joe said. "I never asked."

(A cheese champion is a player who sits on the bench and inherits records or accolades largely by virtue of his not playing, I presume.) Anyone on the cusp of hitting .400 at the end of the year is going to regress to the mean (i.e., is very likely to drop under .400 the more that player comes to the plate). Especially given that players tend to wear down physically by the end of the year and drop off statistically.

[dl4060]

Where did you get this alleged fact from? It seems entirely inconsistent with both Williams' and DiMaggio's principles and personalities.

I hope you didn't just make it up, because, if you did, you've managed to recklessly insult the character and caliber of both Williams and DiMaggio, in one fell swoop. Why not also include Musial in your argument, because, he, too, thought Williams was the greatest hitter and DiMaggio the greatest player, he ever saw. Perhaps he, too, was in on this vast left-handed conspiracy, too - along with practically every other baseball authority who saw all of them play.

Please send me a cite for your source for this revolutionary disclosure. Then I can tell my kids how DiMaggio colluded with all those guys to lay down for that phony batting streak, paid some Tin Pan Alley guy to write Jolt'n' Joe, tricked everyone into idolizing his mediocre play, hyped his way into wedlock with Marilyn, and paid off Paul Simon.

What on earth are you on. It was pretty well known that Joe always called Ted the best hitter he ever saw and Ted called Joe the greatest all-around player. That has been posted several times in this thread. How one guy calling another guy the greatest insults the character of either man is beyond me. I'm not sure why you are so irrationally upset. As for the second part of your post I don't know where that comes from either. Joe and Ted pretty much always stuck to that, Joe calling Ted the best hitter and Ted calling Joe the best all-around player. If you can calm down enough to be rational you might be able to use the internet to find instances where they said this stuff about each other. How this stuff insults the character of either man is beyond me. Relax, this is not that big of a deal. Is there something else you are upset about?

Williams did not really care about being the best all-around player, he cared about being the best hitter. DiMaggio cared about being the best player to the point that he was always introduced that way.

I don't know how anyone can rationally assume that this stuff would lead to the fixing of a 56 game hitting streak or a wedding. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

[dl4060]

I thought that Joe would only say that TW was the best lefty hitter he'd ever seen...still saying that Ted was better than Gehrig, which is high praise, but I wonder if Clipper was trying to imply that he wasn't conceding that TW was better than he was.
I've seen recent quotes from Stengel that said that Cobb was the best player, Joe D was the best player...I thought that I had read years ago that he said Berra was the best player he's ever managed...relying on quotes from people long dead as the sole means of evaluating players is a fool's game. The information has value if you're careful about it, but it's like writing an evaluation of a book based on somebody else's review. You've gotta read the damn thing yourself, too.

The only interview I've seen on TV with both Ted and Joe, obviously in the 90's since both were still alive, ended with the interviewer(Costas or someone like that) asking Ted who the greatest all-around player he ever saw was and Joe who the greatest hitter he ever saw was. Each said the other, although I wish they had deviated from that, as that would have been fun to watch. I've seen a number of sources which claim DiMaggio said that frequently, but I don't really know for certain. It's been written so much that it has become part of baseball lore. DiMaggio may have added the best left-handed clause, but in all the sources I've seen he only called him the best.

[dl4060]

I think that Mickey Mantle, Ted Williams and Vern Stephens were all three given little credit in late-career MVP ballots because all three started so strong. Their later achievements were compared not with other players in the same season as with their own achievements early in the career.


I think Williams also had a problem in that he played far less as he got older. In the 54' and 55' seasons he was probably the best player in the AL, but he only played 98 and 117 games. He never played more than 140 games in a season after 1951. He was still great, but when he was young he was playing full seasons, as he got older, for whatever reason, he was not. The sporting news did name Williams player of the decade for the 1950's.

[TRfromBR]

Ted and Joe both had a compromise where Williams called Joe the best all-around player he ever saw and Joe called Ted the best hitter he ever saw.




As I suspected, your claim of Williams' and DiMaggio's "compromise" was completely made up. Next time someone asks the source of such a questionable and even assinine claim, don't falsely accuse them of irrational anger and drug abuse, as you just did. Admit you misstated what you intended to say, or that you made it up, and move on. And, in the future, stick to factual facts. Don't be mad at someone for truthfully exposing that your statement was entirely bogus. And placed in such a way to fraudulently support your patent dislike of DiMaggio and his fans.

Below is a color enhanced photo of Al Lang Field in St. Pete, from the era when both DiMaggio and Musial both played spring ball there.

[hellborn]

Dimaggio was a perfect baseball player his first 6 years. Despite playing in a pitchers' park, and one of the worst for right handed power hitters, his line was .345/.408/.626 with 198 homeruns and ONLY 160 career strikeouts. In 37' he had 418 total bases and produced the 7th most runs of any American Leaguer in any single season- and all of this as the best centerfielder in the game.

Nonetheless (and despite being right handed, a huge disadvantage in and of itself), and playing in Yankee Stadium, Dimaggio should have hit .400 in 1939.

...

Anyone on the cusp of hitting .400 at the end of the year is going to regress to the mean (i.e., is very likely to drop under .400 the more that player comes to the plate). Especially given that players tend to wear down physically by the end of the year and drop off statistically.

Clipper's numbers through '41 are mind boggling. I have a massive 2 volume collection of news clippings from DiMaggio's career that I will consult later for evidence, but I wonder if anybody here knows of any injury or problem that he may have had in '42 that related to his dropoff from divine to merely heroic production. It is interesting that his '42, '46, and '47 seasons are all basically quite similar at about .380 OBP and .500 slugging...was he already having the heel problems at this point of his career? He certainly resurged strongly in '48 and '50. I had always thought that '46-7 was just him finding his game again after the war, but '42 was so similar...but, I also wonder if many players had a hard time concentrating fully on baseball with the nation at war. I also have some memory that the ball may have already been changed in '42 to the dead balata ball, but I'd have to check on that.

Just noticed that Clipper only played 120 games in '39! Of course, TW missed a lot of games in '41, too, as did Brett in '80. And, actually, Hornsby in '24...hey, I've proven that players hit better when they're hurt!!
:laugh

[iPod]

That's a fair but the point still remains, that Joe D was murdered by his home park.

I'm not sure if you think I'm disagreeing with you. I am agreeing with you, in case you thought differently. I think just looking at the distance of the balls he hit and adding HRs to his total by superimposing the current dimensions of Yankee Stadium onto those distances would understate the amount Joe D's value would appreciate had he played in a neutral park.

[TheRider79]

I'll take the bubble gum card 50's Stud Mickey Mantle all the way. He has the MOST World Series Home Runs in baseball history on top of everything else. I'm a huge Yankee fan and Mickey Mantle is/was a Hero and a slice of Americana that I hope never dies.

[TheRider79]

Did I see someone comparing The Mick with Emmitt Smith??? You must be smoking alot of crack pal. Mickey Mantle was the best player period. Joe D was just keeping CF warm for Mickey. Mickey was the Greatest when he came up and up to his retirement. R.I.P. MICKEY MANTLE

[yanks0714]

I am so sick and tired of hearing that his home park killed JoeD. Okay, the old Yankee Stadium had enormous dimensions for a RH pull hitter to shoot at. He had all these 'shots' he hit to LF that ended up being caught for outs.

So, knowing the Stadium was hurting him, why didn't JoeD adjust???? I again repeat my frequestly stated opinion that thre is very few, if any, anecdotes about JoeD hitting to the opposite field.

Yes, the Stadium hurt him, but he didn't adjust to it either. Ted gets blasted for being stubborn for being a pull hitter in Fenway and hitting against the Williams Shift, but JoeD is given a free pass. Willie Mays admits he adjusted his batting stroke to Candlestick by hitting more to right field. I think Mel Ott adjusted to be a hard pull hitter to take advantage of the Polo Grounds.

But JoeD just kept hammering away to LF for those long outs.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I am so sick and tired of hearing that his home park killed JoeD. Okay, the old Yankee Stadium had enormous dimensions for a RH pull hitter to shoot at. He had all these 'shots' he hit to LF that ended up being caught for outs.

So, knowing the Stadium was hurting him, why didn't JoeD adjust???? I again repeat my frequestly stated opinion that thre is very few, if any, anecdotes about JoeD hitting to the opposite field.



Name a right handed hitter that handled the park better? It is my contention that he did adjust, but he adjusted as well as anyone could have. So I say that he was still killed by his park even with the adjustments.

[yanks0714]

Yanks wrote:
I am so sick and tired of hearing that his home park killed JoeD. Okay, the old Yankee Stadium had enormous dimensions for a RH pull hitter to shoot at. He had all these 'shots' he hit to LF that ended up being caught for outs.

So, knowing the Stadium was hurting him, why didn't JoeD adjust???? I again repeat my frequemtly stated opinion that there are very few, if any, anecdotes about JoeD hitting to the opposite field.

Yes, the Stadium hurt him, but he didn't adjust to it either. Ted gets blasted for being stubborn for being a pull hitter in Fenway and hitting against the Williams Shift, but JoeD is given a free pass. Willie Mays admits he adjusted his batting stroke to Candlestick by hitting more to right field. I think Mel Ott adjusted to be a hard pull hitter to take advantage of the Polo Grounds.

But JoeD just kept hammering away to LF for those long outs.


Name a right handed hitter that handled the park better? It is my contention that he did adjust, but he adjusted as well as anyone could have. So I say that he was still killed by his park even with the adjustments.

But we're not talking about any other RH'ed hitter. We're talking JoeD. I keep hearing what an incredible player JoeD was. I agree he was an incredible player. But....

Tell me what adjustments he made? I have read very little or next to nothing that indicates JoeD went the other way very often at all in the Stadium. And, yes, I have read about JoeD extensively.

Instead he was killed by his park because he insisted via stubborness or maybe, his inability to adjust. Why was he constantly trying to batter the ball out of the ball park when he had to know that LF was a killer???? What was it that kept him hitting his head against the wall???? If someone could find a legitimate chart of JoeD's ABs I would wager my golf clubs that the majority were to LF, with very few toward RF.

Now, considering the expanse of LF to CF in old Yankee Stadium I would assume that it helped his BA. Yes, helped his BA in much the same way old Forbes Field helped Roberto Clemente. It was a huge area to cover. Plus, most LF'ers are not exactly your garden variety gold glove type defensive players. So, JoeD was helped BA-wise. But he was killed HR wise because the guy insisted on pulling those shots to LF.

[hellborn]

"The DiMaggio Albums" entries for 1942 give no hint of any injury that was troubling Clipper that year...just said he had a long slump for most of the first half of the year, shared by Keller. The heel spurs aren't mentioned until '46. He also had severe ulcer troubles starting during his service years.

A couple of interesting quotes...
(1943 Joe Williams column)
"For all his greatness DiMaggio wasn't altogether popular around here. This was probably due to his repeated holdouts and the manner in which he went about them. He listened to persons who had nothing to do with baseball, and the advice he received was not always the wisest...He was nowhere near the turnstile draw that Babe was...and, of course, who was? There was only one season in which he left a definite imprint on the commercial side, and that was in '41 when he hit safely in 56 consecutive games, or before Pitchers Smith and Bagby stopped him at night in Cleveland. There appeared to be as much national interest in that streak as there ever had been in one of the Slambino's home-run streaks. It was the first time the addicts dropped their reserve and gave out all the way for the Walloping Wop."
(WALLOPING WOP?!!?!?! OMG...harsh all around, huh?)
(Joe Cronin, also 1943)
"...I do believe he [Clipper] is the greatest all-around ballplayer of all time. [TW is a] great hitter who needs a kick in the pants because of his doggone moods."
(Clipper's own commentary between chapters)
"The three best hitters I played against had to be Jimmie Foxx, Hand Greenberg, and Ted Williams. They could all hit the long ball, and Williams was the last player to hit above .400...Ted Williams, however, was the best natural hitter I've ever seen. And he had the best eye I ever saw."
OK, he dropped the lefty tag here, but why "natural"?

These are fascinating primary source books that I picked up on clearance for $10 years ago...great additions to my library.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I am so sick and tired of hearing that his home park killed JoeD. Okay, the old Yankee Stadium had enormous dimensions for a RH pull hitter to shoot at. He had all these 'shots' he hit to LF that ended up being caught for outs.

So, knowing the Stadium was hurting him, why didn't JoeD adjust???? I again repeat my frequestly stated opinion that thre is very few, if any, anecdotes about JoeD hitting to the opposite field.

Yes, the Stadium hurt him, but he didn't adjust to it either. Ted gets blasted for being stubborn for being a pull hitter in Fenway and hitting against the Williams Shift, but JoeD is given a free pass. Willie Mays admits he adjusted his batting stroke to Candlestick by hitting more to right field. I think Mel Ott adjusted to be a hard pull hitter to take advantage of the Polo Grounds.

But JoeD just kept hammering away to LF for those long outs.

What should he adjust to? Should he take an extreme pull approach when he has a sliver to aim at before it jets out? He never hit an over the fence homer from left center to right center. He constantly hit long drives, some for outs and I'm sure some for extra bases. The point is that there is a pitcher involved in this equation. If you're a pitcher, and you know that gap to gap is unreachable for a righty, even one with power, what would you do? My opinion is that Joe D did adjust. He had tremendous plate coverage and was an aggressive hitter who did hit to all fields. Expecting him to be a Mel Ott though....YS was hardly the Polo Grounds and who knows what adjustments Ott made at home. Maybe he crowded the plate or went to a longer bat. Who knows. I think he was smart for doing what he did, because his margin for error on dingers was huge...but YS is a completely different story imo.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

It was the first time the addicts dropped their reserve and gave out all the way for the Walloping Wop."
(WALLOPING WOP?!!?!?! OMG...harsh all around, huh?)


Refreshing to see when PC didn't rule the world and they were all considered mature enough to deal with it.

I think Lazzeri was once dubbed the "Dangerous Dago" or somethin'.

[hellborn]

Refreshing to see when PC didn't rule the world and they were all considered mature enough to deal with it.

I think Lazzeri was once dubbed the "Dangerous Dago" or somethin'.

I wonder if maybe those terms for Italians weren't quite as insulting back then?
I did see a quote in which Clipper jokingly referred to himself as a Dago.

[hellborn]

What should he adjust to? Should he take an extreme pull approach when he has a sliver to aim at before it jets out? He never hit an over the fence homer from left center to right center. He constantly hit long drives, some for outs and I'm sure some for extra bases. The point is that there is a pitcher involved in this equation. If you're a pitcher, and you know that gap to gap is unreachable for a righty, even one with power, what would you do? My opinion is that Joe D did adjust. He had tremendous plate coverage and was an aggressive hitter who did hit to all fields. Expecting him to be a Mel Ott though....YS was hardly the Polo Grounds and who knows what adjustments Ott made at home. Maybe he crowded the plate or went to a longer bat. Who knows. I think he was smart for doing what he did, because his margin for error on dingers was huge...but YS is a completely different story imo.

I found some diagrams of YS through the years, and there really was no area for Clipper to shoot at. The area that was really in reach in LF was pretty narrow, and he also would have had to hit the other way in very extreme fashion to benefit from RF. You see righties hit to RC with good power, but right down the RF line, or close to it? That's pretty rare, and not reasonable to expect consistently.
I was interested to see that the 490' to deep LC was reduced to 460' in 1937, but that's not much of a practical difference.
This made me realize that ARod's HR record for Yankee righties is kind of meaningless, as he's hitting in a totally different park compared to the oldtimers.
Doesn't the fact that LC in YS at 490' was considered practically unreachable put those stories of 700' HRs to rest?!?!!? Please???

(edit - I would love to see footage of a smokin liner going over the CFer's head and rolling out to the 490' mark...would the LF take the throw from the CF and relay into SS?)

[TRfromBR]

I was interested to see that the 490' to deep LC was reduced to 460' in 1937, but that's not much of a practical difference.
This made me realize that ARod's HR record for Yankee righties is kind of meaningless, as he's hitting in a totally different park compared to the oldtimers.
Doesn't the fact that LC in YS at 490' was considered practically unreachable put those stories of 700' HRs to rest?!?!!? Please???



Rodriguez in Old Yankee Stadium does not out-hit either DiMaggio or Mantle. Mantle and DiMaggio in the New Yankee Stadium both dramatically out-hit ARod, as they do for the next twenty years in Next Year's Yankee Stadium, too.

Even as it is, ARod walks away from the game without the songs, accolades, or legendary status of "The Dago" or "The Mick." Not because he isn't an extremely talented ballplayer - he is - but, rather, because he doesn't bring his team the heart, spirit or winning ways that Mantle and DiMaggio did. ARod is second teir. Jeter is closer to the rarefied greatness of Joltin' Joe and Mutt's Kid.

Of course, it's all within ARod's power to rise to that level. He's perfectly positioned to do so, with the Yankee juggernaut he's riding. And in a hitters' era like this. This could be his year. It's all right there for him.

And, luckily for him and Derek, they don't have to endure those old nicknames.

P.S. Below are ARod's Yankee spray charts, provided in reply to your implicit question/point concerning how he would have fared in OYS.

[hellborn]

[COLOR="Blue"]....
P.S. Below are ARod's Yankee spray charts, provided in reply to your implicit question/point concerning how he would have fared in OYS.

Fascinating plots...I was very surprised to find that ARod has hit much better in YS than on the road the past two seasons, somewhat better OBP and about 100 points higher slugging at home both years. Maybe the booing gets him fired up?
I did notice in the charts that I found about 25 HR for 2005, and he had 26 HRs at YS that year (close enough), but I only see 11HRs in the 2006 chart, and he had 20 HRs at home that year. I wonder if that chart is not for a full season?
Also, there seems to be a 2006 2B well into the stands in RC...guess it could be a ground rule 2B, but thought the mark for it would be at the first bounce.
Thanks for sharing the info!

[TRfromBR]

Fascinating plots...I was very surprised to find that ARod has hit much better in YS than on the road the past two seasons, somewhat better OBP and about 100 points higher slugging at home both years. Maybe the booing gets him fired up?
I did notice in the charts that I found about 25 HR for 2005, and he had 26 HRs at YS that year (close enough), but I only see 11HRs in the 2006 chart, and he had 20 HRs at home that year. I wonder if that chart is not for a full season?
Also, there seems to be a 2006 2B well into the stands in RC...guess it could be a ground rule 2B, but thought the mark for it would be at the first bounce.
Thanks for sharing the info!

Highly perceptive observations, as always, Hellborn. I hadn't noticed these discrepancies. Prompted by your post, I found that the 2006 chart was constructed on August 10.

I highly recommend to you the source online article of that chart, which addresses ARod YS and on-road hitting as a Yankee. It contains excellent analysis of his swing mechanics, along with video. It's in the August 10 & 11 edition of "Baseball Analysts" - entitled "The Shifting Swings of ARod and Andruw." Below is a spray chart of ARod's two years at Arlington just prior to signing with the Yanks.

Thanks, Hellborn.

[Appling]

""...I do believe he [Clipper] is the greatest all-around ballplayer of all time. [TW is a] great hitter who needs a kick in the pants because of his doggone moods."
(Clipper's own commentary between chapters)
"The three best hitters I played against had to be Jimmie Foxx, Hank Greenberg, and Ted Williams. They could all hit the long ball, and Williams was the last player to hit above .400...Ted Williams, however, was the best natural hitter I've ever seen. And he had the best eye I ever saw."
OK, he dropped the lefty tag here, but why "natural"?


From all I've read about Williams, I wouldn't call him the "best natural hitter" -- it suggests he didn't really work at it (or perhaps that someone with less "natural" talent, was still a better overall hitter than Ted?) Also, by specifying "best hitters I played against" Joe excluded himself and Lou Gehrig. Did he intend to? Was he that devious?

I know that both Ted and Joe were very proud and sensitive guys. After Ruth had died (and Joe had retired) someone annointed Joe as the "World's Greatest Living Ballplayer" -- a title which Joe jealously clung to until he died.

[yanks0714]

What should he adjust to? Should he take an extreme pull approach when he has a sliver to aim at before it jets out? He never hit an over the fence homer from left center to right center. He constantly hit long drives, some for outs and I'm sure some for extra bases. The point is that there is a pitcher involved in this equation. If you're a pitcher, and you know that gap to gap is unreachable for a righty, even one with power, what would you do? My opinion is that Joe D did adjust. He had tremendous plate coverage and was an aggressive hitter who did hit to all fields. Expecting him to be a Mel Ott though....YS was hardly the Polo Grounds and who knows what adjustments Ott made at home. Maybe he crowded the plate or went to a longer bat. Who knows. I think he was smart for doing what he did, because his margin for error on dingers was huge...but YS is a completely different story imo.

JoeD had an upper cut swing and was primarily a pull hitter (no, I don't mean he was a severe down the line pull hitter). Those two combined were death in the old Yankee Stadium.
No, I am not advocating that he become and extreme pull hitter. I am thinking that perhaps he could have tailored his swing to something like Lou Gehrig's....level swing...hit to all fields. JoeD had to know that upper cut swing to LF was going to cost him outs.
You misconstrue what I was referring to about Mel Ott. I was not comparing the PG to YA at all. Simply stating that Ott was able to adjust his swing to take advantage of his home park.
As for the pitching aspect you brought up, sure, I'd pitch him inside at YS knowing that LF was quite a distance. But also knowing that JoeD couldn't keep from pulling the ball. I'd assume that the pitcher wouldn't throw outside and risk him going to the 296 ft fence in RF.
We do know that JoeD, the man, was very stubborn. Perhaps he just didn't want to adjust.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

JoeD had an upper cut swing and was primarily a pull hitter (no, I don't mean he was a severe down the line pull hitter). Those two combined were death in the old Yankee Stadium.
We do know that JoeD, the man, was very stubborn. Perhaps he just didn't want to adjust.


Joe had a moderate upper cut swing. Nothing extreme, no more than the usual. Have you seen some of his home runs, very seldom towering drives.

I've seen dozens of his swings and I would assume you did and I'm sure we will never agree. Again of all the many home runs that I've seen hardly any high ones. Often his EBH's were called "typical Joe Dimaggio type" hard hit liners.

Nothing stubborn about Joe. Why should he tamper with his hitting style, go the other way.

Maybe the stubborn one was the Yankee organization. They latched on to one of the best RH power hitters in the game and kept the dimensions on the left side extremely long.

The white Sox moved home plate out in 1934 to give Luke Appling a better shot at the long ball.
Foul lines shorter from 362 to 342 feet.
Center field from 450 to 336 feet.
When they thought it was helping the visiting teams more they did away with the shorter distance.

Fenway Park here comes Ted Williams in 1939 a power hitting LH hitter.
1939 the distance down the RF line shortened from 332 to 302 feet.
1940 the bull pens are moved from the foul lines and to the RCF bleacher area, shortening the distance by 23 feet.

Forbes Field. 1947 RH Hank Greenberg comes to the Pirates to join another RH power hitter Ralph Kiner.
Left field foul line shortened from 365 to 335 feet.
LCf shortened from 406 to 355.

Other organizations made some changes in distances to suit what they had, why not the Yanks.

Of all the other park distances none of them were in the same neighborhood of those monster distances on on the left side of Yankee Stadium, yet they remained for Joe Dimaggio.

Don't lay it all one Joe and his what you call being stubbborn, the Yanks could have helped, other teams did.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Just a sample of RH Yankee hitters who played at Yankee Stadium when the dimensions were the same that Joe played under.

Took a quick look and will check or stand corrected if any posters find any errors in my numbers.

Home Runs------------------------Home------------Away
Hank Bauer------------------------68----------------90
Bobby Brown----------------------17------------------5
Clete Boyer-----------------------37-----------------58
Hector Lopez----------------------17----------------52
Snuffy Stirweiss-------------------15----------------12
Elston Howard---------------------53---------------108
Johnny Lindell---------------------27----------------36
Billy Martin-------------------------9----------------26
Joe Gordon------------------------69---------------84
Jackie Jenson-----------------------1----------------9
Gil Mcdougald----------------------29---------------83

Thats 342 home runs at N.Y and 563 on the road.

Add in Joe's 148 home and 213 road and it's 490 home and 776 away.
I did not hand pick RH Yankees to reinforce my point, found what I could. Anyone can feel free to research other RH Yanks and I'm sure you will get the near the same difference, home and away home runs.



Were all these RH Yankees stubborn, why did they not all change. Face it, Yankee Stadium was not picnic for RH hitters and the long ball.

Why are all the numbers even neccessary. Look at the park, look at the left side, a power alley longer than most parks in dead center.

Is it that hard to believe that in 13 seasons Joe didn't lose at least 50 home runs on drives that would be home runs in almost every other park.

[hellborn]

Highly perceptive observations, as always, Hellborn. I hadn't noticed these discrepancies. Prompted by your post, I found that the 2006 chart was constructed on August 10.

I highly recommend to you the source online article of that chart, which addresses ARod YS and on-road hitting as a Yankee. It contains excellent analysis of his swing mechanics, along with video. It's in the August 10 & 11 edition of "Baseball Analysts" - entitled "The Shifting Swings of ARod and Andruw." Below is a spray chart of ARod's two years at Arlington just prior to signing with the Yanks.

Thanks, Hellborn.

TR, I finally got a chance to look at that article (been distracted by a huge storm here lately). Very interesting stuff...I will take time to read it more carefully later, but I have noticed in the past that ARod seemed to murder low pitches and was not quite as effective on high stuff. I wonder if he was trying to get a little quicker and more "upright" to turn on the high stuff better with his swing change, but lost something in the transition? I don't know, just a thought.
Thanks very much for sharing the source of the charts. It's interesting, I clearly remember reading about how Rudy Jaramillo (sp?), the hitting coach of the Rangers, told ARod upon his joining the Rangers that he had a "flaw" in his swing in that his head moved forward too much. I suppose that's why he was such a poor hitter with the Mariners...;) Anyway, the shift that is shown in the article seems somewhat along the lines of the adjustments that Rudy was trying to get ARod to think about. At the time, I thought that it was presumptuous and, frankly, kind of crazy for Rudy to be messing with the basic mechanics of a very successful performer like ARod, and wondered if Tom Hicks was having a heart attack over it. I guess it was probably up to ARod to decide whether to listen or not.

[hellborn]

Just a sample of RH Yankee hitters who played at Yankee Stadium when the dimensions were the same that Joe played under.

Took a quick look and will check or stand corrected if any posters find any errors in my numbers.

Home Runs------------------------Home------------Away
Hank Bauer------------------------68----------------90
Bobby Brown----------------------17------------------5
Clete Boyer-----------------------37-----------------58
Hector Lopez----------------------17----------------52
Snuffy Stirweiss-------------------15----------------12
Elston Howard---------------------53---------------108
Johnny Lindell---------------------27----------------36
Billy Martin-------------------------9----------------26
Joe Gordon------------------------69---------------84
Jackie Jenson-----------------------1----------------9
Gil Mcdougald----------------------29---------------83

Thats 342 home runs at N.Y and 563 on the road.

Add in Joe's 148 home and 213 road and it's 490 home and 776 away.
I did not hand pick RH Yankees to reinforce my point, found what I could. Anyone can feel free to research other RH Yanks and I'm sure you will get the near the same difference, home and away home runs.



Were all these RH Yankees stubborn, why did they not all change. Face it, Yankee Stadium was not picnic for RH hitters and the long ball.

Why are all the numbers even neccessary. Look at the park, look at the left side, a power alley longer than most parks in dead center.

Is it that hard to believe that in 13 seasons Joe didn't lose at least 50 home runs on drives that would be home runs in almost every other park.


Didn't Charlie Finley try to claim that one thing that helped the Yanks dominate was that their home park made it "easy" for LH power hitters and tough on RH power hitters and the team tried to "corner the market" on LH power to capitalize?
I don't have an analysis to present that tests Charlie's claims, but maybe the Yanks brass liked the overall effect the park configuration had on their hitters as a whole compared to the rest of the league.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Didn't Charlie Finley try to claim that one thing that helped the Yanks dominate was that their home park made it "easy" for LH power hitters and tough on RH power hitters and the team tried to "corner the market" on LH power to capitalize?
I don't have an analysis to present that tests Charlie's claims, but maybe the Yanks brass liked the overall effect the park configuration had on their hitters as a whole compared to the rest of the league.

Maybe they liked it, maybe they didn't, how will we ever know if that was the reason for not cutting down the distances on the left side. I have never heard the Yankee brass or management address Finley's claim. Can't say they did not I really don't know and would it change anything even if they did comment.

We only know they did nothing with the left side, those long distances. I mentioned 3 teams, White Sox, Red Sox and Pirates who tailored there parks to accomodate hitters. In two cases the Bosox in 1939-1940 and the Pirates in 1947 moved quickly with changes when Williams came to the Bosox and Kiner and Greenberg came to the Pirates.

My point in my two previous posts, to counter the notion that Joe was plain stubborn an not willing to go the other way, to right field. Ridiculous, why tamper with the swing of one of the best hitter in the game. Who can say how this might have effected his hitting.

I gave another list of RH Yankees home and away. Look at the lists, were these all stubborn RH's who refused to change, to go to right.

Numbers and an overhead view of Yankee Stadium make it plain, difficult to hit them out at N.Y on the left side.

[BlueBlood]

Both well rounded, but Joe more so. If we extrapolate Joe's stats to the same amount of ABs or seasons as Mantle, it's not contest.

[csh19792001]

Just a sample of RH Yankee hitters who played at Yankee Stadium when the dimensions were the same that Joe played under.

Took a quick look and will check or stand corrected if any posters find any errors in my numbers.

Home Runs------------------------Home------------Away
Hank Bauer------------------------68----------------90
Bobby Brown----------------------17------------------5
Clete Boyer-----------------------37-----------------58
Hector Lopez----------------------17----------------52
Snuffy Stirweiss-------------------15----------------12
Elston Howard---------------------53---------------108
Johnny Lindell---------------------27----------------36
Billy Martin-------------------------9----------------26
Joe Gordon------------------------69---------------84
Jackie Jenson-----------------------1----------------9
Gil Mcdougald----------------------29---------------83

Thats 342 home runs at N.Y and 563 on the road.

Add in Joe's 148 home and 213 road and it's 490 home and 776 away.
I did not hand pick RH Yankees to reinforce my point, found what I could. Anyone can feel free to research other RH Yanks and I'm sure you will get the near the same difference, home and away home runs.

Were all these RH Yankees stubborn, why did they not all change. Face it, Yankee Stadium was not picnic for RH hitters and the long ball.

Why are all the numbers even neccessary. Look at the park, look at the left side, a power alley longer than most parks in dead center.

Is it that hard to believe that in 13 seasons Joe didn't lose at least 50 home runs on drives that would be home runs in almost every other park.



Great post as usual, Joe. The park's dimensions changed little between 1937 and 1976, so we can look at players from that timeframe to assess Dimaggio's right handed effects. Look at guys with a decent enough sample size of homeruns. A few more (with a significant time playing on the Yankees) just in the interest of getting as much information as possible.

(Home--Away)
Skowron: 60--105
Meusel: 44--51
McDougald: 29--83

So now that's 623 at home and 1015 on the road...38%, which is incredibly low for a home team. Very similar to Fobes Field from 1909-46 (35% of homeruns at Forbes were hit by right handed hitters). Forbes was 360 down the LF line, 460 to left center, and 440 to CF.


Why are all the numbers even neccessary. Look at the park, look at the left side, a power alley longer than most parks in dead center.

The numbers are necessary on top of the obvious (to anyone who has looked at the dimensions and seen photos of the place) because it seem clear that some people just want to discredit Dimaggio. This is usually because they either don't care for him personally, or feel he's been overrated, and thus want to make lame attempts to discredit his greatness even in the face of obvious facts, such as the effect of YS on right handed power hitters.

And for the record, it took nearly 70 years- including 43 years with the 162 game schedule and drastically reduced left field dimensions in 1976- for another right handed Yankee hitter to hit 40 homeruns (Dimaggio hit 46 in 1937, Rodriguez hit 48 in 2005). I guess that was just 70 years of Yankee right handed hitters "being stubborn" and "failing to adapt", though. :rolleyes:

In his 2005 book Baseball's All-Time Best Sluggers, Michael Schell calculated (based on the right handed park effects for Yankee Stadium) that ceteris paribus, Dimaggio would have had 429 career homeruns. Obviously it's a projection, but clearly a very well substantiated one based on all of the information available on Yankee Stadium and right handed hitters in the old Yankee Stadium. Not coincidentally, according to Schell (p. 289), from 1946-73 Yankee right handed hitters hit only 37% of their homeruns at home. So the sample we have from individual players so far (15 players total) appears to be very representative of the whole.

Dimaggio hit 41% of his homeruns at home, so in actuality he may have done better than the average right hander in YS.

His numbers are awesome enough, still I have to wonder what his SLG%, OPS+, etc. would have been playing at a normal, fair park. Undoubtedly they would have been significantly better than they are today, which only makes him all that much more impressive. Just consider that among all players in history whose careers are finished, even despite Yankee Stadium, Dimaggio's career .579 slugging is 6th alltime. And that's with only 369 career strikeouts, to boot.

[yanks0714]

Great post as usual, Joe. The park's dimensions changed little between 1937 and 1976, so we can look at players from that timeframe to assess Dimaggio's right handed effects. Look at guys with a decent enough sample size of homeruns. A few more (with a significant time playing on the Yankees) just in the interest of getting as much information as possible.

(Home--Away)
Skowron: 60--105
Meusel: 44--51
McDougald: 29--83

So now that's 623 at home and 1015 on the road...38%, which is incredibly low for a home team. Very similar to Fobes Field from 1909-46 (35% of homeruns at Forbes were hit by right handed hitters). Forbes was 360 down the LF line, 460 to left center, and 440 to CF.



The numbers are necessary on top of the obvious (to anyone who has looked at the dimensions and seen photos of the place) because it seem clear that some people just want to discredit Dimaggio. This is usually because they either don't care for him personally, or feel he's been overrated, and thus want to make lame attempts to discredit his greatness even in the face of obvious facts, such as the effect of YS on right handed power hitters.

And for the record, it took nearly 70 years- including 43 years with the 162 game schedule and drastically reduced left field dimensions in 1976- for another right handed Yankee hitter to hit 40 homeruns (Dimaggio hit 46 in 1937, Rodriguez hit 48 in 2005). I guess that was just 70 years of Yankee right handed hitters "being stubborn" and "failing to adapt", though. :rolleyes:

In his 2005 book Baseball's All-Time Best Sluggers, Michael Schell calculated (based on the right handed park effects for Yankee Stadium) that ceteris paribus, Dimaggio would have had 429 career homeruns. Obviously it's a projection, but clearly a very well substantiated one based on all of the information available on Yankee Stadium and right handed hitters in the old Yankee Stadium. Not coincidentally, according to Schell (p. 289), from 1946-73 Yankee right handed hitters hit only 37% of their homeruns at home. So the sample we have from individual players so far (15 players total) appears to be very representative of the whole.

Dimaggio hit 41% of his homeruns at home, so in actuality he may have done better than the average right hander in YS.

His numbers are awesome enough, still I have to wonder what his SLG%, OPS+, etc. would have been playing at a normal, fair park. Undoubtedly they would have been significantly better than they are today, which only makes him all that much more impressive. Just consider that among all players in history whose careers are finished, even despite Yankee Stadium, Dimaggio's career .579 slugging is 6th alltime. And that's with only 369 career strikeouts, to boot.

As I stated in an earlier post, we weren't talking about other RH'ed hitters at YS, we were talking about JoeD. The JoeD that many on this board single out as this incredibly gifted player. He was. But there appears to be plateau that he is being placed on that is above all else. That is what I object to.

I have never ever disputed that YS LF hurt JoeD, or any other RH'ed hitter, with it's incredible dimensions. It seems as if JoeD is off-limits for criticism.

As someone pointed out in another thread, JoeD had 'only' about 5 years where he could be termed an 'elite' historical hitter.

No, I'm not a huge JoeD fan although I rank him 5th all-time at CF and in the 21 to 25 range all-time (minus pitchers) so it's not like I totally diss him.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

As I stated in an earlier post, we weren't talking about other RH'ed hitters at YS, we were talking about JoeD. The JoeD that many on this board single out as this incredibly gifted player. He was. But there appears to be plateau that he is being placed on that is above all else. That is what I object to.

I have never ever disputed that YS LF hurt JoeD, or any other RH'ed hitter, with it's incredible dimensions. It seems as if JoeD is off-limits for criticism.

As someone pointed out in another thread, JoeD had 'only' about 5 years where he could be termed an 'elite' historical hitter.

No, I'm not a huge JoeD fan although I rank him 5th all-time at CF and in the 21 to 25 range all-time (minus pitchers) so it's not like I totally diss him.

I posted some numbers of other RH Yankees to show what a tough home park it was for home runs for those RH hitters. Joe was not the only hitter that was not that willing to go to right field to negate that terrible condition for hitting the long ball to that left side. He was not the only RH Yankee that lost some home runs on that left side.

You have more than once suggested that some of this it was his own doing, that he had a choice, his refusal to go the other way more often. Again why would a great hitter tamper, alter his style. Who can say how it may have effected his all around hitting.

I don't look at 5 years I look at his total over 13 years and at the least consider his 3 years lost to the military. A short career I agree but when he was playing, suited up in most of those years one of the best all around in the game, hitting, in the field and on the bases as an excellent base runner and in a park that was murder for RH hitters, the long ball.

We've been beating around the bush getting side tracked here, including myself, but the big issue, the bottom line there are two sides here. Some who think that Yankee Stadium hurt Joe regarding the long ball and others who think not that much and than lay that at Joe's feet, stubborn unwilling to change his style.

[ChrisLDuncan]

As I stated in an earlier post, we weren't talking about other RH'ed hitters at YS, we were talking about JoeD. The JoeD that many on this board single out as this incredibly gifted player. He was. But there appears to be plateau that he is being placed on that is above all else. That is what I object to.

I have never ever disputed that YS LF hurt JoeD, or any other RH'ed hitter, with it's incredible dimensions. It seems as if JoeD is off-limits for criticism.

As someone pointed out in another thread, JoeD had 'only' about 5 years where he could be termed an 'elite' historical hitter.

No, I'm not a huge JoeD fan although I rank him 5th all-time at CF and in the 21 to 25 range all-time (minus pitchers) so it's not like I totally diss him.

Well we are talking about Joe D, and were comparing him to other RH hitters at YS, and it looks like he adjusted better than anyone else. So that's a strength for the great DiMaggio.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Well we are talking about Joe D, and were comparing him to other RH hitters at YS, and it looks like he adjusted better than anyone else. So that's a strength for the great DiMaggio.

As for Joe or most RH hitters at Yankee Stadium I doubt the thought in their mind was that RF is much shorter so I'll go that way.

It would seem to me that a RH hitter's reason for going to right would be to advance a runner in the case of a ground out or if there was an extreme shift to the left side.

Can't imagine a hitter thinking, I'm going for the long ball so I'll take the shorter distance.

[hellborn]

As for Joe or most RH hitters at Yankee Stadium I doubt the thought in their mind was that RF is much shorter so I'll go that way.

It would seem to me that a RH hitter's reason for going to right would be to advance a runner in the case of a ground out or if there was an extreme shift to the left side.

Can't imagine a hitter thinking, I'm going for the long ball so I'll take the shorter distance.
I could see a righty being able to target RC, like Hornsby used to do at Sportsman's Park, but that wouldn't help much at old YS. You'd have to hit it from about straight RF over to the line to get an advantage, and that is just plain difficult for a righty to do with consistency. Probably end up hitting a lot of harmless pops to the RF, even an alltime great hitter like Joe.
It would probably make a lot more sense to try to extreme pull hit and jerk the ball down the LF line, even though the area in LF with a shorter fence was very small.

[Colorado Express]

I find this to be tough, but Mantle was just too amazing to not vote for him.

[dl4060]

As I suspected, your claim of Williams' and DiMaggio's "compromise" was completely made up. Next time someone asks the source of such a questionable and even assinine claim, don't falsely accuse them of irrational anger and drug abuse, as you just did. Admit you misstated what you intended to say, or that you made it up, and move on. And, in the future, stick to factual facts. Don't be mad at someone for truthfully exposing that your statement was entirely bogus. And placed in such a way to fraudulently support your patent dislike of DiMaggio and his fans.

Below is a color enhanced photo of Al Lang Field in St. Pete, from the era when both DiMaggio and Musial both played spring ball there.





I've heard several people call it a compromise, I don't think they were saying that Dimaggio and Williams met and agreed to do something, and I certainly did not mean that either. I'm sorry if that made you upset. Your anger was most certainly irrational, if you had taken the time to ask me "do you mean that they went out and explicitly made an agreement" I would have told you that I did not mean that at all. You could have handled this a whole lot better. I have heard Bob Costas refer to the Joe D and Ted situation as a compromise back in which both backed the other. I don't think he meant that they ever made an explicit agreement, if you would like to know you can try to email him. It was a comment from the early 1990's. Given how upset you are I'm sure you have something to say to him. He was the one who used the word compromise. Williams would almost definitely be the best hitter Joe ever watched and Joe would probably be the best player Ted ever watched. I'm not sure what would have happened if either had publicly strayed from that stated opinion.

There was a Sports Illustrated article in the 1986 baseball issue where a writer recounts meeting Ted Williams in the late 1950's(maybe early 60's) in a train station. The writer was a young baseball fan at the time. He spoke to Williams about a slump Mantle had been in and why he had come out of it. The young man then asked Williams whether he thought Mantle was better than DiMaggio. Ted responded that Mickey might well be better now than Joe had ever been. I don't remember his exact words, you can go to a library and find that article if you wish, but he certainly did not state that Mantle was beneath DiMaggio. If anything, he gave Mickey the nod. He always stood by his position publicly that DiMaggio was the best player he ever saw, but I don't know how he really felt. I don't know if the writer was telling the truth, but it does make me question whether the official position Williams put out was how he truly felt. If he did not see compelling evidence that Mantle was significantly better he probably would not have changed his opinion. The only interview I saw with both Joe and Ted had it end with the interviewer asking both the "who was the best --- you ever watched" question. It was staged and kind of annoying, I would have been curious as to what would have happened if one had not given the expected answer. Both men had enormous egos, Williams supposedly left the position of left field blank whenever he filled out a greatest of all-time team, and DiMaggio insisted on being introduced as the "greatest living ballplayer" so to insult the other and go against what seemed to be the party line might have caused a ruckus. That would have been fun to see.

Your level of anger was still way to high. If you had asked some thoughtful questions you might have gotten a response which helped clear things up for you. There are plenty of Joe D fans here, and no one else seemed to get as bent out of shape as you did. Comments on message boards regarding things that are not of critical importance should not lead to this type of reaction. I apologize for the "what are you on" comment, I should not have reacted in such a way. I hope you have some happier days in the future.

[TRfromBR]

I hope you have some happier days in the future.

The plain and unmistakeable intent of your commentary on William's and DiMaggio's [obviously non-existent] "compromise" - as you termed it - was to devalue Williams' true opinion of DiMaggio as the best ballplayer he had ever seen. You clearly think DiMaggio was and is overrated, so you decided to misstate and misimply that Williams didn't truly feel that way either. You are wrong on all counts.

Williams, and just about everyone else who saw DiMaggio, unequivocally regarded him the greatest ballplayer they ever saw. And that is why he was officially crowned 'the world's greatest living ballplayer." Your disagreement with that assessment is clearly based on dislike of DiMaggio's perceived post-retirement personality, and/or some other fallacious reasoning, more than it is on any true evaluation of his stellar performance as a ballplayer. As a result, it's thoroughly inaccurate, insulting and entirely disingenuous - exactly like your phony quote and insincere wishes above.

I've included a photo below, so that you can begin a DiMaggio collection - something you'll want to do once you finally realize how great a ballplayer he truly was.

[Ubiquitous]

According to pretty much every single Ted Williams biography that I have come across it is always pretty clear that Ted's public opinion and Joe's public opinion did not always reflect their true opinions.

That is not to say that they flat out lied but that both were guarded when it came to giving their opinions about each other in public.

One of the anecdotes that is often told is that Ted would be in the Fenway locker room throwing a hissy fit about something and doing the whole whole is me, everybody is picking on me thing. And through the thin walls of Fenway would come a banging on the walls followed by a retort of "Because you are a big cry baby!" Which was voiced by none other then Joe Dimaggio. But you would never hear JoeD say that to a reporter.

[yanks0714]

According to pretty much every single Ted Williams biography that I have come across it is always pretty clear that Ted's public opinion and Joe's public opinion did not always reflect their true opinions.

That is not to say that they flat out lied but that both were guarded when it came to giving their opinions about each other in public.

One of the anecdotes that is often told is that Ted would be in the Fenway locker room throwing a hissy fit about something and doing the whole whole is me, everybody is picking on me thing. And through the thin walls of Fenway would come a banging on the walls followed by a retort of "Because you are a big cry baby!" Which was voiced by none other then Joe Dimaggio. But you would never hear JoeD say that to a reporter.

I've heard that story too. Another I've heard is that in JoeD's last year, 1951, he hit .251 (?). Ted Williams, when hearing that JoeD was going to retire supposedly said, "If I hit .250, I'd retire too".

I think their public personna was to give each other plaudits. I'm not so sure that, in private, they felt the same way.

[yanks0714]

[QUOTE=TRfromBR][COLOR="Blue"]
The plain and unmistakeable intent of your commentary on William's and DiMaggio's [obviously non-existent] "compromise" - as you termed it - was to devalue Williams' true opinion of DiMaggio as the best ballplayer he had ever seen. You clearly think DiMaggio was and is overrated, so you decided to misstate and misimply that Williams didn't truly feel that way either. You are wrong on all counts.

Williams, and just about everyone else who saw DiMaggio, unequivocally regarded him the greatest ballplayer they ever saw. And that is why he was officially crowned 'the world's greatest living ballplayer." Your disagreement with that assessment is clearly based on dislike of DiMaggio's perceived post-retirement personality, and/or some other fallacious reasoning, more than it is on any true evaluation of his stellar performance as a ballplayer. As a result, it's thoroughly inaccurate, insulting and entirely disingenuous - exactly like your phony quote and insincere wishes above.

I've heard or read some of what dl4060 has stated about Williams/DiMaggio as well.

You really have a tendancy to rail against someone who doubts you or has a different opinion than yours. Not just on this thread but others. Kinda scares me a bit.
Is there an Ignore button on BBF? Honestly.
And some want to censure Chris for his strong, but not vehement, opinions???

[TRfromBR]

According to pretty much every single Ted Williams biography that I have come across it is always pretty clear that Ted's public opinion and Joe's public opinion did not always reflect their true opinions.

That is not to say that they flat out lied but that both were guarded when it came to giving their opinions about each other in public.

One of the anecdotes that is often told is that Ted would be in the Fenway locker room throwing a hissy fit about something and doing the whole whole is me, everybody is picking on me thing. And through the thin walls of Fenway would come a banging on the walls followed by a retort of "Because you are a big cry baby!" Which was voiced by none other then Joe Dimaggio. But you would never hear JoeD say that to a reporter.

I'm not claiming they were entirely open about their opinions of each other, only that Williams' opinion of DiMaggio as the greatest ballplayer he ever saw was legitimate. Not only does the evidence support his opinion, but it would also be very much unlike Williams to offer a phony opinion on such an important assessment - particularly for so long, and without deviation.

In actuality, I do believe DiMaggio was a bit less decisive in his assessment of Williams. And, I believe, DiMaggio, early on, did in fact publicly state that Williams was "too moody." But I could be wrong in my recollection of that.

In any case, the overwhelming evidence supports both their opinions. Only Gehrig, Foxx, Mays, Aaron and Mantle offer contrary possibilities, unless I'm forgetting someone.

[TRfromBR]

[QUOTE=TRfromBR][COLOR="Blue"]
The plain and unmistakeable intent of your commentary on William's and DiMaggio's [obviously non-existent] "compromise" - as you termed it - was to devalue Williams' true opinion of DiMaggio as the best ballplayer he had ever seen. You clearly think DiMaggio was and is overrated, so you decided to misstate and misimply that Williams didn't truly feel that way either. You are wrong on all counts.

Williams, and just about everyone else who saw DiMaggio, unequivocally regarded him the greatest ballplayer they ever saw. And that is why he was officially crowned 'the world's greatest living ballplayer." Your disagreement with that assessment is clearly based on dislike of DiMaggio's perceived post-retirement personality, and/or some other fallacious reasoning, more than it is on any true evaluation of his stellar performance as a ballplayer. As a result, it's thoroughly inaccurate, insulting and entirely disingenuous - exactly like your phony quote and insincere wishes above.

I've heard or read some of what dl4060 has stated about Williams/DiMaggio as well.

You really have a tendancy to rail against someone who doubts you or has a different opinion than yours. Not just on this thread but others. Kinda scares me a bit.
Is there an Ignore button on BBF? Honestly.
And some want to censure Chris for his strong, but not vehement, opinions???

Boy, you get scared easy. How do you feel about the underlying issue - as to Williams' and DiMaggio's assessments of each other, as the best hitter and best ballplayer each other ever saw, respectively? And, if you don't believe those well-documented opinions, why not? Who do you think was better in each category, and why? And, if these guys don't rate the best, who does in your opinion, and why?

Finally, based on all the excellent evidence and analyses presented by others above, do you now rescind your argument concerning DiMaggio being "too stubborn" to hit to right field? If not, how would you have coached him to change his hitting?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

According to pretty much every single Ted Williams biography that I have come across it is always pretty clear that Ted's public opinion and Joe's public opinion did not always reflect their true opinions.

That is not to say that they flat out lied but that both were guarded when it came to giving their opinions about each other in public.

One of the anecdotes that is often told is that Ted would be in the Fenway locker room throwing a hissy fit about something and doing the whole whole is me, everybody is picking on me thing. And through the thin walls of Fenway would come a banging on the walls followed by a retort of "Because you are a big cry baby!" Which was voiced by none other then Joe Dimaggio. But you would never hear JoeD say that to a reporter.

That doesn't mean he thought any less of Ted as a great or the greatest hitter he ever saw in his time. If said under those conditions so others could hear it how serious could it be taken by Ted. Sounds like the locker room at the end of the work day where I was employed, who took any of the knocking one another to heart.

Add to that he would have to be insane to say that to a reporter or as a public statement, pazzo.
Don't know what their feeling was about the other 100 percent but it wouldn't be much of a stretch to believe that they thought the same of each other as most of the public did at that time, one as the greatest hitter in the game at that time and the other as the greatest all around at that time.>SHOELESSJOE3


Triggered something in my memory. I thought I did read some years ago where Joe did make the "cry baby" statement. I think it had something to do with Ted hitting one off the green monster and casually strolling into second with a double. The left fielder bobbled the ball and the relay was messed up and Ted may have possibly made third base.
When this was brought up to Ted he mentioned the fact that Joe banged one off the wall and stuck to first base, nobody said anything to Joe about that.

If I recall when it was brought up to Joe, Ted's comment about that single off the wall, Joe tossed in the cry baby bit but than paid Ted a compliment. Nobody plays the wall like Ted does.

Nothing came of the whole deal.

They praised each other but I would think that Joe thought his all around ability made up for Ted's superior hitting and Ted probably thought his hitting made up for what Joe did all around.Nothing wrong with that.

Never saw the young Joe, never saw the very young Ted. What I did see of Ted left no doubt in my mind, he was clearly the greatest hitter in my time. A thing of beauty, Ted swinging that bat.

[csh19792001]

I'm not so sure that, in private, they felt the same way.

You dislike Dimaggio and want to downplay what he did and the obstacles he faced (you've failed with trying to minimize the effect Yankee Stadium had on right handed power hitters, because we showed it clearly killed them). You are now moving on to try to discredit or discount the incredibly high acclaim Dimaggio was held in by the people who played with and against him.

Rivalry or enmity does not preclude admiration for talent. Nobody in baseball history had more support than Ty Cobb as the greatest ever, and he was certainly no Ernie Banks or Tony Gwynn....but everyone knew you had to give the devil his due. People didn't care how much they liked Ty Cobb; he was the best, plain and simple. He was a virtuoso and singular in what he could pull off. It's likely that the people inside baseball felt (and perhaps still feel) the same kind of admiration about Bonds, who always has been anything but beloved. Same held for Dimaggio, who was aloof, cold, sometimes even downright nasty.

Speaking of what they said/felt about each other, Dimaggio called Williams "Teddy Tantrum" when he came up, because of his behavior in general, and the specifics (have you read the story about Williams and the glass water cooler?). That doesn't have anything to do with Joe consistent assessment of Ted as the greatest hitter he ever saw. I'm sure most people in the league disliked Williams personally, but by the same token I'm sure almost all believed he was the greatest hitter. And as TRfromBR said, the acclaim Dimaggio received as the best was nearly universal in his time. And Williams said for many decades- in fact, for the last 50 plus years of his life- that Joe was the greatest he ever saw.

What I heard Williams say was that he believed that Mantle had more talent for playing baseball than anyone who ever played. I also heard Williams say something to the effect of... If Mantle had been healthy, he could've been the greatest player that ever lived. I think if Mantle had been healthy or had possessed a mentality like Cobb or Jackie Robinson, that would've been the case.

[yanks0714]

You dislike Dimaggio and want to downplay what he did and the obstacles he faced (you've failed with trying to minimize the effect Yankee Stadium had on right handed power hitters, because we showed it clearly killed them). You are now moving on to try to discredit or discount the incredibly high acclaim Dimaggio was held in by the people who played with and against him.

If you are going to quote me, quote me correctly. I never ever said what you claim I stated above. My posts on the subject say in plain fact that LF was a killer on RH'ed hitters. You took that as me saying that the huge TS LF did not hurt JoeD (or other RH'ed hitters for that matter). That is plain and simply untrue. I would hope you did not do that intentionally and that it was simply a misunderstanding.

My point, that you missed, was that YS LF did hurt JoeD...but if he was so gifted as a hitter why did he not adjust by being more of spray hitter, hitting to all fields, as opposed to pulling to LF so much (perhaps like Gehrig was) than constantly batting his head against that huge outfield in LF.

As for attempting to discredit JoeD, you are dead wrong yet again. I merely replied to another poster, citing something that I had heard before. If anything it was more detrimental to Red Williams that it was to JoeD.

Do I like JoeD the man? Not at all. Do I think he was a great player. Absolutely. I just do not agree with how great he was. I've read way too much criticism of him. I've come to the conflusion that he was a great player but not at the level he is held at.

[yanks0714]

Rivalry or enmity does not preclude admiration for talent. Nobody in baseball history had more support than Ty Cobb as the greatest ever, and he was certainly no Ernie Banks or Tony Gwynn....but everyone knew you had to give the devil his due. People didn't care how much they liked Ty Cobb; he was the best, plain and simple. He was a virtuoso and singular in what he could pull off. It's likely that the people inside baseball felt (and perhaps still feel) the same kind of admiration about Bonds, who always has been anything but beloved. Same held for Dimaggio, who was aloof, cold, sometimes even downright nasty. .

You are right on this. It is one of the reason I do not like JoeD. I do not like his personality, the aura he built around himself, and the ego he had.

Now, answer me this: If I attempt to knock JoeD down but I've posted numerous times that I have his as the 5th best CF'er of all-time and have him in the 20 - 25 range of all=time great players...how am I knocking him?
I've posted those rankings are several threads.

[yanks0714]

Speaking of what they said/felt about each other, Dimaggio called Williams "Teddy Tantrum" when he came up, because of his behavior in general, and the specifics (have you read the story about Williams and the glass water cooler?). That doesn't have anything to do with Joe consistent assessment of Ted as the greatest hitter he ever saw. I'm sure most people in the league disliked Williams personally, but by the same token I'm sure almost all believed he was the greatest hitter. And as TRfromBR said, the acclaim Dimaggio received as the best was nearly universal in his time. And Williams said for many decades- in fact, for the last 50 plus years of his life- that Joe was the greatest he ever saw.

I've read many stories about Ted's legendary temper. I feel that JoeD probably did consider Ted the greatest hitter he ever saw. I also feel that JoeD probably felt himself the better all around player.

I've read where Ted called JoeD the greatest he ever saw. I've also read where Ted has given other players kudo's as well.

Reading about both extensively, JoeD was an egotist. Ted had an ego as well but I think he was more of a 'I don't give a damn' type.

I don't think it farfetched to think there could have been more of a competitive animosity there than the public was aware of. Both were highly competitive.

[yanks0714]

What I heard Williams say was that he believed that Mantle had more talent for playing baseball than anyone who ever played. I also heard Williams say something to the effect of... If Mantle had been healthy, he could've been the greatest player that ever lived. I think if Mantle had been healthy or had possessed a mentality like Cobb or Jackie Robinson, that would've been the case.

I don't doubt that either. That may well be what he said. I don't care that Ted felt or just said for posterity that JoeD was the best.

All I ask from you is that you quote me on what I actually said...not what you think or interpret I said.

Plus, I do want to see your response to how I hae JoeD ranked....and tell me that you think that ramking is because I try to discredit JoeD.

[Appling]

All this sympathy for RH pull hitters in Yankee Stadium! Not from me!

What about Comiskey Park in the same era? As I recall, the world's most symetical ball park was 352 down both the LF and the RF lines, and something like 440 feet in center field (later shortened slightly when the bull pen was put there). We often wondered why other ball parks were not symetical -- in fact, why didn't baseball REQUIRE it?

For many years, the White Sox record for homerun in a season was 29 (Gus Zernial 1950 and Eddie Robinson 1951).

[SHOELESSJOE3]

All this sympathy for RH pull hitters in Yankee Stadium! Not from me!

What about Comiskey Park in the same era? As I recall, the world's most symetical ball park was 352 down both the LF and the RF lines, and something like 440 feet in center field (later shortened slightly when the bull pen was put there). We often wondered why other ball parks were not symetical -- in fact, why didn't baseball REQUIRE it?

For many years, the White Sox record for homerun in a season was 29 (Gus Zernial 1950 and Eddie Robinson 1951).

For sure one of the tougher parks for the long ball. maybe not that much was made of the line distances for that very reason, it favored neither RH or LH hitters.

That high of 29 home runs that stood for so long tells the story.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

All this sympathy for RH pull hitters in Yankee Stadium! Not from me!

What about Comiskey Park in the same era? As I recall, the world's most symetical ball park was 352 down both the LF and the RF lines, and something like 440 feet in center field (later shortened slightly when the bull pen was put there). We often wondered why other ball parks were not symetical -- in fact, why didn't baseball REQUIRE it?

For many years, the White Sox record for homerun in a season was 29 (Gus Zernial 1950 and Eddie Robinson 1951).

Don't think those line distances really played much of a factor but Comiskey was the the only road park where Ted failed to hit .300, hit .298 there.

Cleveland and Baltimore, he hit .301. To be considered his average in Baltimore was compiled in his last 7 years 1954 t0 1960.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

We often wondered why other ball parks were not symetical -- in fact, why didn't baseball REQUIRE it?


No kidding. Somewhere along the way, they should have at least made an attempt to achieve competitive balance for homers imo. I don't think they should all have made every park symmetrical, but they could have still added rare features/angles with keeping some sort of dimension consistency. Then you have the hitters backdrop, which is one of the least talked of, but most important factors. Hard to put a finger on just how much this hindered old-time players, but it would take anyone who has ever played the game, about .1 seconds to choose between....A)Seats covered in dark color for a hitters eye. B) Fans sitting in the centerfield section, often wearing white shirts which greatly slowed pitch recognition/reaction. A no brainer. I wonder how much money are the owners losing every year by closing off those sections. Apparently they realize how important it is.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

No kidding. Somewhere along the way, they should have at least made an attempt to achieve competitive balance for homers imo. I don't think they should all have made every park symmetrical, but they could have still added rare features/angles with keeping some sort of dimension consistency. Then you have the hitters backdrop, which is one of the least talked of, but most important factors. Hard to put a finger on just how much this hindered old-time players, but it would take anyone who has ever played the game, about .1 seconds to choose between....A)Seats covered in dark color for a hitters eye. B) Fans sitting in the centerfield section, often wearing white shirts which greatly slowed pitch recognition/reaction. A no brainer. I wonder how much money are the owners losing every year by closing off those sections. Apparently they realize how important it is.

I'm sure this was a problem in other parks but Yankee Stadium was notorious in that regard. Jimmie Foxx struck out 6 times in one double header there. Don't remember his exact words but he did say in all those at bats he could pick up only a few pitches leaving the pitchers hand.

[hellborn]

All this sympathy for RH pull hitters in Yankee Stadium! Not from me!

What about Comiskey Park in the same era? As I recall, the world's most symetical ball park was 352 down both the LF and the RF lines, and something like 440 feet in center field (later shortened slightly when the bull pen was put there). We often wondered why other ball parks were not symetical -- in fact, why didn't baseball REQUIRE it?

For many years, the White Sox record for homerun in a season was 29 (Gus Zernial 1950 and Eddie Robinson 1951).

The old parks in the hearts of cities were built to fit into the space that the owners could procure...which was usually something on the order of a rectangular city block, not a square. If you see a photo of a place like the Polo Grounds or Fenway from the air in the old days, it becomes immediately obvious why they were shaped the way they were. For whatever reason, Chicago was able to stay pretty symmetrical with Wrigley and Comiskey I.
Those symmetrical parks that were built in more exurban areas in the '60s and '70s were so boring...gimme the fun asymmetrical ones any day!

[Blackout]

uppppppppppppppp

[Bigfoot 88]

Well Ted disagreed with you but what ever.

Well he also didn't rank himself among the 20 greatest hitters ever. I think its safe to say he was humble when making comments.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/legendary/lited20.shtml

[Bigfoot 88]

They had identical career OPS numbers-.977
League average when DiMaggio played-.760
League average when Mantle played-.716
Both could have had better careers if not for the war(Joe) and drinking problems(Mickey).
I'll take Mantle, both rate as top 5 center fielders.

[Bigfoot 88]

Joe and Mickey Together
http://captnsblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/alg_mantle.jpg
http://vvhiteleo.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/mickey.jpg
http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2010/10/12/alg_mantle_dimaggio.jpg

[nerfan]

I'll take the Mick ANY day.

[Sirmudgeon]

Great pix! Thanks for those.

I have Mantle ahead, and my impression of him has improved throughout the years. In my reckoning, he is top-15, maybe top-10. DiMaggio is more top-20 or -25. As far as CFs go, I'd slot them in behind Cobb and Mays and in front of Speaker and Snider. I reckon Charleston is probably in with a chance as well; I have such a difficult time with Negro League players (yeah, I guess Torriente deserves mention as well), and with pre-1900 players. It's just so hard to compare stats due to rules differentials, non-integration, and the like. I'm forced to rely largely on my beloved contemporary accounts, almost to the point of discounting pure statistical comparisons. My opinions are based on that hard-to-control analytical troika of the contemporary (semi-subjective), the statistical (quasi-objective), and the sheer bloody-minded (my own personal gut feelings- just remember, everyone pays a price for free association).

These are two of the guys whom I would pay a premium to see in their primes. Ruth, Foxx, Gehrig, Williams, Hornsby, Pujols, for hitting. Ozzie, Clemente, Speaker, Bench for fielding. All-around game impact- Cobb, Mays, Bonds, Henderson, Mantle, DiMaggio, Griffey, A-Rod, Wagner. I know I'm skipping a bunch and shortchanging any number, like Gibson and Charleston and Torriente and Eddie Collins and LaJoie and so many others, but I'd always include Mantle and DiMaggio.

[pheasant]

This comparison is about as one-sided as it gets. Mantle's league quality in the 1950s was much tougher than Dimaggio's war-raided 1940s. Even then, Mantle absolutely crushes Joltin' Joe in OPS+. Also, Mantle played longer. Mantle averaged a 188 OPS+ from 1955-1964. Dimaggio never had a single season of 188.

[RuthMayBond]

This comparison is about as one-sided as it gets. Mantle's league quality in the 1950s was much tougher than Dimaggio's war-raided 1940s. Mantle averaged a 188 OPS+ from 1955-1964. Dimaggio never had a single season of 188.

Mantle's league quality in the 50s wasn't that good compared with the NL.

DiMaggio's home park was VERY unfavorable to his hitting handedness.

[willshad]

This comparison is about as one-sided as it gets. Mantle's league quality in the 1950s was much tougher than Dimaggio's war-raided 1940s. Even then, Mantle absolutely crushes Joltin' Joe in OPS+. Also, Mantle played longer. Mantle averaged a 188 OPS+ from 1955-1964. Dimaggio never had a single season of 188.

That isn't being fair to Dimaggio. Mantle's OPS+ was very walk-heavy, and he was one of the first 'three outcome' guys. He struck out a lot, and Dimaggio never struck out. Walks might be valuable sabermetrically, but in reality, Dimaggio, drove in more runs for his career than Mantle did, in almost 700 less games.

[torez77]

When this thread started 7 years ago, I said it was Mantle over Joe D easily, but really it is very close. Joe really had no weaknesses in his game, and his off-the-field lifestyle didn't interfere with his play, whereas it did with Mantle occasionally.

[dominik]

JoeD was a much better defender (although young Mantle was supposed to be a good defender) but I can't really see it as enough to compensate mantles advantage in hitting.

mantle had a 17 point OPS+ lead in a probably better league and he also had a much longer career. JoeDs career was war shortened but even if you give him credit for those years he had a relatively short career.

this also shows in mantles 30 point WAR lead.

[Ubiquitous]

That isn't being fair to Dimaggio. Mantle's OPS+ was very walk-heavy, and he was one of the first 'three outcome' guys. He struck out a lot, and Dimaggio never struck out. Walks might be valuable sabermetrically, but in reality, Dimaggio, drove in more runs for his career than Mantle did, in almost 700 less games.

And it is all because of these two players and has nothing to do with their teammates at all.

DiMaggio played in an era in which the offensive levels were about 15% higher than the era Mantle played in. You put Mantle in DiMaggio's era and DiMaggio in Mantle's era and Mickey would have more RBI and Joe would have less.

[White Knight]

I like Joe D. better. I'm a huge fan of players that don't strike out. Much more of a pure hitter, and a lot better defense.

[JR Hart]

DiMaggio was a very nice player...Mickey Mantle was one of the six or seven greatest players or all time.

I don't think that I've ever anything on a baseball forum, that caused me to have to restrain myself more than this post. "Joe DiMaggio was a nice player" ???
You mean the same Joe DiMaggio that was voted the Greatest Living Player in baseball's centennial in 1969, over Mantle, Mays, and Williams?? That Joe DiMaggio?? yes, he was a nice player.

I know on this board, we rate every player with just one stat, OPS+, but IMO, DiMaggio beats Mantle in so many ways

Because they were both oft injured let's look at per season stats. hmm their games played is about even > DiMaggio 134, Mantle 133 (Mantle played about half his career with a 162 game season, so durability> DiMaggio

With this very similar amount of games DiMaggio tops Mantle in hits (170-134), runs (107-93), doubles (30-19), triples (10-40), RBI (118-84) yes 84, batting(.325-.298), slugging( .579-.557) strikeouts(28-96), Total bases (304-251)

Mantle tops DiMaggio in home runs (30-28), walks (96-61), SB (8-2), OBP (.421-398), and the aforementioned board deity OPS+ (172-155)

Now again the number of games played per season is virtually even, looking at this comparison, how is Mantle better? I just don’t see it.

And Casey Stengel, who saw both in their prime and managed both, rated DiMaggio over Mantle.

And both were outstanding all around players.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

^ Mantle played in the offensive deprived 60s. Joe D did not

[9RoyHobbsRF]

When this thread started 7 years ago, I said it was Mantle over Joe D easily, but really it is very close. Joe really had no weaknesses in his game, and his off-the-field lifestyle didn't interfere with his play, whereas it did with Mantle occasionally.

what is your proof of this?

what games? what months? what seasons?

how did Mantle's injuries affect his game?

I think you are making a deduction without laying and foundation and therefore until you do it should be dismissed

[9RoyHobbsRF]

This comparison is about as one-sided as it gets. Mantle's league quality in the 1950s was much tougher than Dimaggio's war-raided 1940s. Even then, Mantle absolutely crushes Joltin' Joe in OPS+. Also, Mantle played longer. Mantle averaged a 188 OPS+ from 1955-1964. Dimaggio never had a single season of 188.

really?

you mean 1943 and 1944 and 1945 when DiMaggio did not play?

how can he be part of war depleted years when he himself was not playing then?? :lookitup

OPS+ is just inflated with Mantles walking, DiMaggio was a hitter not a walker

what do you mean Mantle played longer? they both retired at age 36?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I don't think that I've ever anything on a baseball forum, that caused me to have to restrain myself more than this post. "Joe DiMaggio was a nice player" ???
You mean the same Joe DiMaggio that was voted the Greatest Living Player in baseball's centennial in 1969, over Mantle, Mays, and Williams?? That Joe DiMaggio?? yes, he was a nice player.

I know on this board, we rate every player with just one stat, OPS+, but IMO, DiMaggio beats Mantle in so many ways

Because they were both oft injured let's look at per season stats. hmm their games played is about even > DiMaggio 134, Mantle 133 (Mantle played about half his career with a 162 game season, so durability> DiMaggio

With this very similar amount of games DiMaggio tops Mantle in hits (170-134), runs (107-93), doubles (30-19), triples (10-40), RBI (118-84) yes 84, batting(.325-.298), slugging( .579-.557) strikeouts(28-96), Total bases (304-251)

Mantle tops DiMaggio in home runs (30-28), walks (96-61), SB (8-2), OBP (.421-398), and the aforementioned board deity OPS+ (172-155)

Now again the number of games played per season is virtually even, looking at this comparison, how is Mantle better? I just don’t see it.

And Casey Stengel, who saw both in their prime and managed both, rated DiMaggio over Mantle.

And both were outstanding all around players.
You do realize you quoted a post from almost 6 years ago from a poster that doesn't really post here at BBF anymore? :happy:

[willshad]

And it is all because of these two players and has nothing to do with their teammates at all.

DiMaggio played in an era in which the offensive levels were about 15% higher than the era Mantle played in. You put Mantle in DiMaggio's era and DiMaggio in Mantle's era and Mickey would have more RBI and Joe would have less.

As much as I admire your psychic ability, I do not believe that Mantle's walks would drive in more runs than Dimaggio's base hits, in any era.

And I hardly think that Mantle was hurt much by playing on some of the best teams ever, alongside a bunch of other stars. It;s not like he was stuck on last place teams with a bunch of scrubs in the lineup his whole career.

Also, I'm tired of people saying that RBI is helped by era, but OPS+ is not. If Dimaggio's high RBI totals were a result of playing in a high scoring era, then Mantle's superior OPS+ was due to playing in a low scoring era. It is obviously easier to be a great hitter, relative to the league, when the league overall is weak at hitting.

[PVNICK]

As much as I admire your psychic ability, I do not believe that Mantle's walks would drive in more runs than Dimaggio's base hits, in any era.

And I hardly think that Mantle was hurt much by playing on some of the best teams ever, alongside a bunch of other stars. It;s not like he was stuck on last place teams with a bunch of scrubs in the lineup his whole career.

Also, I'm tired of people saying that RBI is helped by era, but OPS+ is not. If Dimaggio's high RBI totals were a result of playing in a high scoring era, then Mantle's superior OPS+ was due to playing in a low scoring era. It is obviously easier to be a great hitter, relative to the league, when the league overall is weak at hitting.

You're correct if a weak hitting league is caused by an unusual abundance of weak hitters playing during a period of time or conversely an abundance of strong hitters just due to random happenstance or something. But when its caused by things like ball parks size or the baseball or rule changes (ie: moving the mound in the 1890s) then it effects everyone sort of like docked boats in relation to the dock during high and low tide.

[Ubiquitous]

As much as I admire your psychic ability, I do not believe that Mantle's walks would drive in more runs than Dimaggio's base hits, in any era.

My psychic abilities were not predicting that walks would drive in more runs but that Mantle's hits would drive in more runs in an environment in which more runners got on base.




And I hardly think that Mantle was hurt much by playing on some of the best teams ever, alongside a bunch of other stars. It;s not like he was stuck on last place teams with a bunch of scrubs in the lineup his whole career.

We're not comparing Mantle to a bunch of scrubs but to Joe DiMaggio. A player that also got a lot of advantages and in terms of runs scoring got more advantages than Mantle.



Also, I'm tired of people saying that RBI is helped by era, but OPS+ is not. If Dimaggio's high RBI totals were a result of playing in a high scoring era, then Mantle's superior OPS+ was due to playing in a low scoring era. It is obviously easier to be a great hitter, relative to the league, when the league overall is weak at hitting.

Well, stop thinking RBI are somehow all about the lone player and you won't have to hear things you're tired of hearing. OPS+ is measured against the league while RBI are not measured against the league. One is a relative stat while the other is a counting stat.

A run in a low scoring environment is more valuable than a run in a high scoring environment because it is rarer and it means more thus putting up large numbers in a low run scoring environment is extremely valuable and rare.

[White Knight]

RBI, while certainly based on who's on base in front of you, also takes a unique knack of skill. Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, and even Manny had that knack. Mantle never did.

[GiambiJuice]

RBI, while certainly based on who's on base in front of you, also takes a unique knack of skill. Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, and even Manny had that knack. Mantle never did.

Mantle didn't have a "knack" for batting baserunners in? Come on. I am a huge Dimaggio fan. Huge. I even started a thread a few weeks ago about how great he was, but let's be honest. Dimaggio had more runners on base to knock in. Period.

Mantle's career OPS with RISP is higher than Dimaggio's - 1.005 to .990 - and Mantle outperformed his total OPS in those situations more than Dimaggio did (8% better for Mantle compared to 4% better for Dimaggio). In "late and close" situations, Mantle stepped up his game even more, hitting .322/.458/.643 for 1.101 OPS in those situations. That is 25% better than his total OPS. Dimaggio was only 8 percent better than his total OPS in these situations. I love Dimaggio but I'm not buying the "he was more clutch" argument. They were both tremendous players in their own right, and I'm still undecided on who was better.

[Ben Grimm]

I'd have to think most of us - more likely all of us - are too young to have seen either one play (maybe some saw Mantle later on). Much of what I get from both is either from personal experiences from my granfather (RIP) or a bartender I once knew who actually saw both play fairly often. Much is myth/legend and/or distorted stories handed down. I think both players were tailor-made to be Yankee greats. Had Joe's last name been Dimagowicz and Mickey had the attitude of Maris, I don't think either player would be held in such regard by not just Yankee fans, but baseball fans all around.

I tossed a vote to Mantle simply based on the "what could have been", but that in itself my not be fair to Joe and his accomplishments. I will say this. If they were both playing today, there's no team in MLB that wouldn't spend to the limit to have their services.

[JR Hart]

You do realize you quoted a post from almost 6 years ago from a poster that doesn't really post here at BBF anymore? :happy:

Whatever? Discussion is discussion. If someone bumps the thread, I will respond.



This comparison is about as one-sided as it gets. Mantle's league quality in the 1950s was much tougher than Dimaggio's war-raided 1940s. Even then, Mantle absolutely crushes Joltin' Joe in OPS+. Also, Mantle played longer. Mantle averaged a 188 OPS+ from 1955-1964. Dimaggio never had a single season of 188.

That’s great. You’re following the baseball fever trend of basing everything on one stat. A faulty stat at that. See post 212 for some perspective.



This comparison is about as one-sided as it gets. Mantle's league quality in the 1950s was much tougher than Dimaggio's war-raided 1940s. Even then, Mantle absolutely crushes Joltin' Joe in OPS+. Also, Mantle played longer. Mantle averaged a 188 OPS+ from 1955-1964. Dimaggio never had a single season of 188.

Again one stat only See post 212 for some perspective.



That isn't being fair to Dimaggio. Mantle's OPS+ was very walk-heavy, and he was one of the first 'three outcome' guys. He struck out a lot, and Dimaggio never struck out. Walks might be valuable sabermetrically, but in reality, Dimaggio, drove in more runs for his career than Mantle did, in almost 700 less games.

Ding ding ding a poster with perspective. You mean we just don’t base everything on the fact that Mantle walked more????


DiMaggio played in an era in which the offensive levels were about 15% higher than the era Mantle played in. You put Mantle in DiMaggio's era and DiMaggio in Mantle's era and Mickey would have more RBI and Joe would have less.

There is absolutely no way that you can prove that. None!!! That is the total fallacy of proportionality stats like OPS+ .
DiMaggio was a hitter. Mantle was a walker. Mantle did not drive in runs or accumulate total bases period


really
OPS+ is just inflated with Mantles walking, DiMaggio was a hitter not a walker
what do you mean Mantle played longer? they both retired at age 36?

more enlightenment
Look while both were great outfielders and base runners. We are basically comparing Hank Aaron to Jim Thome at the plate. How is it close? It’s easily DiMaggio. He hit. Mantle walked


.
Also, I'm tired of people saying that RBI is helped by era, but OPS+ is not. If Dimaggio's high RBI totals were a result of playing in a high scoring era, then Mantle's superior OPS+ was due to playing in a low scoring era. It is obviously easier to be a great hitter, relative to the league, when the league overall is weak at hitting.

More perspective about the fallacy of OPS+




A run in a low scoring environment is more valuable than a run in a high scoring environment because it is rarer and it means more thus putting up large numbers in a low run scoring environment is extremely valuable and rare.
But you are still making assumptions that can’t be proven. Because better hitters played in DiMaggio’s era, you are saying that DiMaggio would be worse in Mantles era?? Really?? You can’t prove that. Also, we can’t say that Mantle would drive in more runs in DiMaggio’s era. Math is a great thing, but let’s remember it’s llimitations.
We do know that Mantle did not drive in runs, or accumulate total bases like DiMaggio. Probably because Mantle just didn’t put the ball in play enough. I’ll take the hitter.


RBI, while certainly based on who's on base in front of you, also takes a unique knack of skill. Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, and even Manny had that knack. Mantle never did.

Bingo! smart poster



Mantle didn't have a "knack" for batting baserunners in? Come on. I am a huge Dimaggio fan. Huge. I even started a thread a few weeks ago about how great he was, but let's be honest. Dimaggio had more runners on base to knock in. Period.

Mantle's career OPS with RISP is higher than Dimaggio's - 1.005 to .990 - and Mantle outperformed his total OPS in those situations more than Dimaggio did (8% better for Mantle compared to 4% better for Dimaggio). In "late and close" situations, Mantle stepped up his game even more, hitting .322/.458/.643 for 1.101 OPS in those situations. That is 25% better than his total OPS. Dimaggio was only 8 percent better than his total OPS in these situations. I love Dimaggio but I'm not buying the "he was more clutch" argument. They were both tremendous players in their own right, and I'm still undecided on who was better.

Hmm you started a post about batting in runs and switched to OPS, with men on base. So if Mantle walked more with a runner and 2nd and 3rd, that’s somehow better? hmm
Please explain your correlation between RBI and Ops with men on base? I’m not following it.

[yankillaz]

Nice sarcasm JR Hart. And it's encouraging to see someone take a swing at the less flawed stat that we have at our disposal nowadays, OPS+.

Whether you like it or not, the advantage in OPS+ that Mantle has cannot be denied. If a league has an increase in run scoring, RUNS Batted In will increase, that's MATH-101 I think, correct me if I'm wrong. Your RBI-skilled people...don't count Ruth in it. Since #3 hitters aren't made for RBI's, i also think this is logical due to the definition of the position you bat in. #4 hitters are run producers.

As for the topic of this thread, Dimaggio is one of the most overrated players ever, it goes with the territory. As for Mick, he compares favorabily in peak habilities with Mays, sans the lengthy career. Something Dimaggio can't.

[EdTarbusz]

Look while both were great outfielders and base runners. We are basically comparing Hank Aaron to Jim Thome at the plate. How is it close? It’s easily DiMaggio. He hit. Mantle walked



.

Devaluing a walk? You have just committed Baseball Fever heresy. Critical of advanced metrics to rank historical players from the past? Beyond heresy!

[Ubiquitous]

Apparently Mantle walked around the bases when he hit 536 homers (good for 3rd place when he retired) and 344 doubles. Just think what he could have accomplished if he actually ran!

[JR Hart]

Nice sarcasm JR Hart. And it's encouraging to see someone take a swing at the less flawed stat that we have at our disposal nowadays, OPS+.

Whether you like it or not, the advantage in OPS+ that Mantle has cannot be denied.

I can't deny a mathemtical equation. Nor can you deny the number of equations where DiMaggio beats Mantle such as batting ave, slugging pct, runs/162, rbi/162, TB/162... It's the value that one puts on such an equation, like OPS+, that I can disagree with. That value is subjective. IMO, OPS+ is a heavily flawed stat. It also seems to be the only stat ever cited here. I call that laziness.



If a league has an increase in run scoring, RUNS Batted In will increase, that's MATH-101 I think, correct me if I'm wrong. Your RBI-skilled people...don't count Ruth in it. Since #3 hitters aren't made for RBI's, i also think this is logical due to the definition of the position you bat in. #4 hitters are run producers.

Really, show me the math that proves that if DiMaggio and Mantle switched time periods that DiMaggio would bat in less runs and Mantle more? Dimaggio wasn't just a player who benefitted from his era, he was a leading slugger and rbi man from that era. And Mantle wasn't an rbi guy, even for his era. And they both batted 4th, mostly.



As for the topic of this thread, Dimaggio is one of the most overrated players ever, it goes with the territory. As for Mick, he compares favorabily in peak habilities with Mays, sans the lengthy career. Something Dimaggio can't.

well my opinion is the exact opposite. DiMaggio is hugely underrated (at least here is sabrgeekland) and Mantle is probably the most overrated player ever, along with Joe Morgan

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I can't deny a mathemtical equation. Nor can you deny the number of equations where DiMaggio beats Mantle such as batting ave, slugging pct, runs/162, rbi/162, TB/162... It's the value that one puts on such an equation, like OPS+, that I can disagree with. That value is subjective. IMO, OPS+ is a heavily flawed stat. It also seems to be the only stat ever cited here. I call that laziness.

No, it's not! You're forgetting WAR!!! :tongue2:

[JR Hart]

Devaluing a walk? You have just committed Baseball Fever heresy. Critical of advanced metrics to rank historical players from the past? Beyond heresy!

It's all "The Emperors New Clothes"

[JR Hart]

No, it's not! You're forgetting WAR!!! :tongue2:

my bad There's only TWO stats ever cited here

[GiambiJuice]

Devaluing a walk? You have just committed Baseball Fever heresy. Critical of advanced metrics to rank historical players from the past? Beyond heresy!

Walks aren't counted in SLG%.

Mantle had a lower career SLG% than Dimaggio, but he outperformed Dimaggio with men on base. Dimaggio actually slugged significantly lower with men on base than he slugged with the bases empty. Mickey Mantle slugged higher with men on base than with the bases empty. The argument that Dimaggio had a better "knack" to drive runners in is complete hogwash.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

The argument that Dimaggio had a better "knack" to drive runners in is complete hogwash


Here are the top RBI seasons by both players

DiMaggio 167
DiMaggio 155
DiMaggio 140
DiMaggio 133
Mantle 130
Mantle 128
DiMaggio 126
DiMaggio 125
DiMaggio 125
DiMaggio 122
DiMaggio 114

note Mantle played in a 162 game season 8 if his 18 seasons, DiMaggio never played in a season over 154 games

just for reference when DiMaggio drove in 155 runs, the AL averaged 4.72 runs per game, when mantle drove in 130 runs, the AL avergaed 4.66 runs per game

In 1948, DiMaggio drove in 85 runs in road games

DiMaggio as a RH hitter, was clearly hurt by Yankee Stadium
his road splits were .333/.405/.610

Mantle's road splits were .291/.413/.545

you decide if Mantle's walking and DiMaggio's hitting led to who was better at driving in runs

[Dude Paskert]

Here are the top RBI seasons by both players

DiMaggio 167
DiMaggio 155
DiMaggio 140
DiMaggio 133
Mantle 130
Mantle 128
DiMaggio 126
DiMaggio 125
DiMaggio 125
DiMaggio 122
DiMaggio 114

note Mantle played in a 162 game season 8 if his 18 seasons, DiMaggio never played in a season over 154 games

just for reference when DiMaggio drove in 155 runs, the AL averaged 4.72 runs per game, when mantle drove in 130 runs, the AL avergaed 4.66 runs per game

you decide if Mantle's walking and DiMaggio's hitting led to who was better at driving in runs

Man, I hate to see how Mantle does against Hack Wilson...or even Earl Averill.

[EdTarbusz]

It's all "The Emperors New Clothes"

You're preaching to the choir.

[GiambiJuice]

Man, I hate to see how Mantle does against Hack Wilson...or even Earl Averill.

Not to mention Joe Carter.

[EdTarbusz]

Here are the top RBI seasons by both players

DiMaggio 167
DiMaggio 155
DiMaggio 140
DiMaggio 133
Mantle 130
Mantle 128
DiMaggio 126
DiMaggio 125
DiMaggio 125
DiMaggio 122
DiMaggio 114

you decide if Mantle's walking and DiMaggio's hitting led to who was better at driving in runs

It's a good thing the Yankees had Yogi Berra batting behind Mickey Mantle.

[GiambiJuice]

Let's blame Mantle for being a more feared hitter than Dimaggio.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Walks aren't counted in SLG%.

Mantle had a lower career SLG% than Dimaggio, but he outperformed Dimaggio with men on base. Dimaggio actually slugged significantly lower with men on base than he slugged with the bases empty. Mickey Mantle slugged higher with men on base than with the bases empty. The argument that Dimaggio had a better "knack" to drive runners in is complete hogwash.

Is this an accurate picture, fair comparison.
Do you have full career stats for Joe in that category. Your taking Mick's whole career but the only career stats that I found for Joe slugging men on and bases empty was for his last 4 or 5 years.

They may be out there, maybe some one on the board may have them.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

Mantle averaged 115 K's per 162 games and 21% of his AB

DiMaggio averaged 34 K's per 162 games and 5% of his AB

Perhaps putting the ball in play 603 out of 637 AB on average helped drive in more runs than putting the ball in play 432 out of 547 official ABs

[GiambiJuice]

Mantle averaged 115 K's per 162 games and 21% of his AB

DiMaggio averaged 34 K's per 162 games and 5% of his AB

Perhaps putting the ball in play 603 out of 637 AB on average helped drive in more runs than putting the ball in play 432 out of 547 official ABs

I'm not arguing who was better. A great case can be made for either. I'm arguing the bogus claim that Dimaggio had a better knack for driving in runners. It's like saying Joe Carter had a better knack than Ted Williams because he had more 100-RBI seasons.

I get that some here get a kick out of knocking the stats that actually correlate more to run-scoring (and thus winning games) than BA and RBI do, I just think it's silly.

[Joltin' Joe]

It's like saying Joe Carter had a better knack than Ted Williams because he had more 100-RBI seasons.

My favorite one is "Tony Batista had a better year in 2004 than Barry Bonds because he drove in more runs." :headbeat:

[Ubiquitous]

How good were Joe's teammates?

Well here is what the #1, #2, and #3 hitters for the Yankees did during Joe's career*.

#1: .346/.365
#2: .362/.419
#3: .375/.467

The hitters in front of Joe were extremely adept at getting on base thus helping to give Joe lots and lots of RBI.

Mantle primarily batted 3rd with a good helping of batting 4th.

Here is what the #1 and #2 hitters did without Mantle's performance included for his entire career:

#1: .323/.381
#2: .318/.369

And when he was batting 4th here is what the #3 hitter did:

#3: .349/.451

Every position in front of Joe did a much much better job of getting on base than Mickey's teammates did.


*The #3 hitters' line does not include Joe's time there in 1936 and 1937.

[yankillaz]

Not to mention Joe Carter.

Now THAT's funny!!!

[yankillaz]

I can't deny a mathemtical equation. Nor can you deny the number of equations where DiMaggio beats Mantle such as batting ave, slugging pct, runs/162, rbi/162, TB/162... It's the value that one puts on such an equation, like OPS+, that I can disagree with. That value is subjective. IMO, OPS+ is a heavily flawed stat. It also seems to be the only stat ever cited here. I call that laziness.



Really, show me the math that proves that if DiMaggio and Mantle switched time periods that DiMaggio would bat in less runs and Mantle more? Dimaggio wasn't just a player who benefitted from his era, he was a leading slugger and rbi man from that era. And Mantle wasn't an rbi guy, even for his era. And they both batted 4th, mostly.



well my opinion is the exact opposite. DiMaggio is hugely underrated (at least here is sabrgeekland) and Mantle is probably the most overrated player ever, along with Joe Morgan

I thought RBI's were a lazy stat.

As for the RBI-Guy thing, they already answered that one.

And finally, Dimaggio is one of the most overrated players ever, but here in BBF we kinda "underrate?" him. So he'll eventually wind up overrated again. The comprehension of the game now is wider than it was back in the days. I agree that while you can know a lot about baseball just by watching the stat and advanced metrics, the actual game has to be seen. The small things make the game, and Dimaggio was a master of this. Those are game smarts. People like Jeter have them, but that doesn't makes them better than the most talented players, like A-Rod. That's what I think sets them apart. Mantle was way more talented than Joe D, but Dimaggio was the smarter player.

The tally has to go for career milestones, and Mantle outweighs Dimaggio whether you like it or not.

Oh, and I agree on the Joe Morgan thing.

[Ubiquitous]

Next I used Cyril Morong's Lineup Analysis tool to see how many runs would the average Yankee lineup score with Mantle and DiMaggio each batting 3rd and 4th in each other's career lineups.

With Mantle batting 4th and using his career line the tool estimates that the 1936-1951 Yanks would score 5.212 runs per game. With DiMaggio batting 4th it estimated that the Yankees would score 5.196 runs per game. Pretty close.

With Mantle batting 3rd and using his career line the tool estimates that the 1951-1968 Yanks would score 4.48 runs per game. With DiMaggio batting 4th it estimated that the Yankees would score 4.468 runs per game. Pretty close again with Mantle getting the slight edge each time.

Regardless of who I am using, JoeD or Mickey Mantle, the Yankees saw a 16% increase in runs scored when using JoeD's teammates as compared to Mickey's teammates. Which matches quite well the stated 13% difference in runs as viewed by era and park on BRef for the two players.

How accurate is the Lineup Anaysis Tool? Well, when I plug in the 1960 Yanks into it it predicts that they would score 4.742 runs per game. They actually scored 4.81 runs per game. Pretty close. The tool was only off by less than 1.5%.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

How good were Joe's teammates?

Well here is what the #1, #2, and #3 hitters for the Yankees did during Joe's career*.

#1: .346/.365
#2: .362/.419
#3: .375/.467

The hitters in front of Joe were extremely adept at getting on base thus helping to give Joe lots and lots of RBI.

Mantle primarily batted 3rd with a good helping of batting 4th.

Here is what the #1 and #2 hitters did without Mantle's performance included for his entire career:

#1: .323/.381
#2: .318/.369

And when he was batting 4th here is what the #3 hitter did:

#3: .349/.451

Every position in front of Joe did a much much better job of getting on base than Mickey's teammates did.


*The #3 hitters' line does not include Joe's time there in 1936 and 1937.

DiMaggio hit other than 4th appx 25% of his career

[Ubiquitous]

Yep, he batted 3rd in his first two seasons thus my asterisk.

Your post doesn't actually dispute anything I said.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

^ not everything is a challenge or a dispute or a come-uppance, sometimes just an added piece of information

that explains a lot of things and a lot of your responses

[Ubiquitous]

post 247 is just adding a piece of information.

[White Knight]

I'll take the pure hitter over the strike out artist any day. Joe D. all the way.