Gehrig or Musial

[Myankee4life]

What the heck..... alot of VS threads on now so......

Musial has many cumulitive stat leads. He's in the top 5 on many all-time hitting list.I feel he generally gets shortchanged.

Gehrig was a MONSTER hitter. Whose behind only Ruth and Williams in many hitting categories. If it wasn't for his illness he'd have a comfortable margin in RBI's and RUNS. I think we'd all agree Gehrigs the better hitter. Is this enough to make him a better player. He placed behind Musial in our positional player polls.

Whose the better player?

[DoubleX]

I like Musial, but Gehrig was a beast at the plate. Everyone knows Gehrig was a great ballplayer, but I don't think people realize just how great he was. I think he's one of the rare exceptions in baseball history in that he gets a ton of praise and respect, but he's still underrated.

Considering that Gehrig was as productive as ever at age 34 in 1937, and given his great durability, it's very reasonable to believe that he would have gone on to have had 3-5 more very productive seasons if not for the fatal disease (that also stunted his numbers in 1938). He would likely still be the all-time leader in RBI and Runs, both by huge margins; have well over 600 homeruns and over 3500 hits, and still have finished with an average around .340. With those kind of numbers, there could be a decent argument made for him as the best hitter ever (I actually place him behind Ruth and Williams - if Williams hadn't missed 4+ seasons to military service, he too with have monstrous numbers across the board).

[leecemark]

--They were about the same quality, so Stan wins on longevity.

[DoubleX]

--They were about the same quality, so Stan wins on longevity.

Playing everyday at the highest levels imaginable for almost 14 years certainly must count for a lot. And it's not like those 14 years came to a dubious ending (Jackson) or an abrupt decline (Allen), it came to an end because of the most unfortunate and dire of circumstances that were completely beyond Gehrig's control. Gehrig did enough for long enough, and was still young enough to have done a lot more, that he'll lose to no one in my book, on account of longevity. If he loses, it's because the other player was simply better, and I don't think that holds true in this case.

Given that Gehrig did so much over a significant time, I actually think it's unfair to hold longevity against him in this instance. If you think Musial was flat out the better player, that's one thing, but to say Musial was better only on account of longevity (and I don't if that is what you're saying), isn't right. It's not Gehrig's fault he couldn't keep playing. He was fatally ill. And it wasn't like he just had a few years of dominance, he had nearly 15! That should certainly be a long enough run.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

--They were about the same quality, so Stan wins on longevity.
Is that like a tie going to the baserunner? ;)

[leecemark]

--He had 15, but Stan had 20. Lou's illness wasn't his fault, but neither are most illness or injuries. That Gehrig's was fatal and not just career ending/disrupting is not a factor in my rankings.

[jalbright]

I would agree it's harsh to hold longevity against Gehrig in one sense. However, Gehrig had natural abilities which enabled him to be great. He also had a disease which cut that career short. He has to be credited with the former, but are we obligated to ignore the latter simply because it's tragic? Ross Youngs was on or near a HOF trajectory before his life was cut short (6 of his 10 most similar at age 29 [his last season] are in the HOF), but he doesn't get much sympathy for it. It's harsh to hold the tragedies of Ross Youngs and Ray Chapman and Lou Gehrig and maybe even Dickie Thon and Tony Congiliaro and a bunch of other cases (maybe hundreds if you include pitchers who got hurt) as sad facts of life, but I happen to feel it's the only fair and reasonable way to do things without getting into a never-ending fantasy land of what-ifs.

Jim Albright

[Myankee4life]

Gehrig OPS+ 179 Musial OPS+ 159
Gehrig RC 11.14 Musial RC 9.00
Gehrig Eqa .344 Musial Eqa .330
Gehrig Rel.avg 1.193 Musial Rel.avg 1.217
Gehrig Rel.OB 1.256 Musial Rel.OB 1.216
Gehrig Rel.Slg 1.534 Musial Rel.Slg 1.370






Musial also added to his counting stats in the 40's while most major leaguers were out at war. After integration he wasn't as dominant as before. He had weak competion in the 40's while Gehrig was up against titans. Gehrig was clearly the better hitter and unless you think Musial was that much of a better fielder and baserunner then its not nearly that close.

Also Musial played 1st so not much of a positional adjustment is required.

[csh19792001]

Playing everyday at the highest levels imaginable for almost 14 years certainly must count for a lot.

True, but remember that Musial also played almost 900 games in a row (7th most alltime) at an extremely high level. The guy an true iron man himself. And the average guy he was playing against was undoubtedly better. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.

[DoubleX]

--He had 15, but Stan had 20. Lou's illness wasn't his fault, but neither are most illness or injuries. That Gehrig's was fatal and not just career ending/disrupting is not a factor in my rankings.

To me, that's essentially awarding points to Musial because he didn't get sick. I'm all for the longevity argument when there is a big difference in the number of years between the two players being compared, but 15 years of extremely high production is a lot, and I think had Gehrig not been ill, it could easily have been 18-20 years of great production. I think Gehrig did enough for long enough to give him the benefit of the doubt in this case and that the difference between 20 and 15 years isn't that great (in that both are a long time for a player to be dominant), especially when one of the players didn't get an opportunity to reach 20.

Let me ask you this then. For 15 years, who was the better player? If you were forming a team, who would you pick first?

[DoubleX]

True, but remember that Musial also played almost 900 games in a row (7th most alltime) at an extremely high level. The guy an true iron man himself. And the average guy he was playing against was undoubtedly better. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.

My point wasn't really about the streak, it was about Gehrig having a long period of high production himself, and not just having like 8-10 years of dominance (like Allen or Jackson or Kiner). This was a guy who was as dominant as any player ever for nearly 15 years, and would have gone on for longer if not for dying. When you get to that point of a career, and dying is what cut it off, I think comparing player's based on longevity isn't the appropriate thing to do. If Gehrig had been great for only 8-10 years, I'd definitely see the argument in favor of Stan, but 15 is nothing to sniff at. That proves something. And it's not as if it was 15, then decline for three then retire (because in that case, I could see an argument for Musial, such as comparing Musial to Frank Robinson). No it's 15, then decline for a year because of fatal illness, then retire and die. Remove illness from that equation, and consider what Gehrig did his last healthy year, and you got a guy that likely would have gone 18-20. Gehrig easily did enough in my book to overcome any longevity argument, and thus the only way to compare someone to Gehrig is if they were a better ballplayer, period. Not if they played longer. And Musial, though an extremely great ballplayer, was not better than Gehrig.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Playing that many straight games while battling so many injuries, and putting up those numbers, is more impressive than playing twice as long under normal conditions. Musial's numbers are phenominal though.

Had Kathryn and George Ruth not hooked up sometime around May of 1894, Gehrig very well could have ended up being an outfielder with more black ink than a Sharpie factory. Or he might have chosen football.

I gotta go with Gehrig although it's close.

[Blackout]

Gehrig definetely

[DoubleX]

I would agree it's harsh to hold longevity against Gehrig in one sense. However, Gehrig had natural abilities which enabled him to be great. He also had a disease which cut that career short. He has to be credited with the former, but are we obligated to ignore the latter simply because it's tragic? Ross Youngs was on or near a HOF trajectory before his life was cut short (6 of his 10 most similar at age 29 [his last season] are in the HOF), but he doesn't get much sympathy for it. It's harsh to hold the tragedies of Ross Youngs and Ray Chapman and Lou Gehrig and maybe even Dickie Thon and Tony Congiliaro and a bunch of other cases (maybe hundreds if you include pitchers who got hurt) as sad facts of life, but I happen to feel it's the only fair and reasonable way to do things without getting into a never-ending fantasy land of what-ifs.

Jim Albright

But that's the crux of my point. What separates Gehrig is the fact that he did what he did for 15 years before getting sick, and he was as good as ever in his last healthy year. He proved he could play at that level for a long time, and thus it's much easier to assume Gehrig could do it for a few more years than it is for Youngs or Chapman or Thon or Congiliaro, since they only did it all for a few years. We know Gehrig was more than just a player with a few years of dominance, and we know he was a player with more than a decade of dominance. We know that he had longevity in him. We don't know that about Youngs and the others. It's apples and oranges in my book.

Given what we know of Gehrig (15 years of dominance, great year his last healthy year, great durability), it's much easier to assume that he could be productive for a few more than it is to assume that say Youngs could even get to 10 years of high production (since so many players sparkle and fade, but we know Gehrig wasn't one of them).

[DoubleX]

I just want to apologize to everyone if I'm sounding belligerent. Gehrig is just one of the few players I feel very strongly about. I think it's pretty rare that I get this uppity on these boards about any one player.

[charlesblalack@yahoo.com]

1) Babe Ruth
2) Ted Williams
3) Barry Bonds
4) Willie Mays
5) Ty Cobb
6) Honus Wagner
7) Mickey Mantle
8) Stan Musial
9) Tris Speaker
10) Lou Gehrig

Musial by a thin margin. Their peak is avout equal. Stan has the longevity case and was a above-average fielder at the corner OF positions.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I just want to apologize to everyone if I'm sounding belligerent. Gehrig is just one of the few players I feel very strongly about. I think it's pretty rare that I get this uppity on these boards about any one player.


You're fine. Passion is a good thing. Just don't get caught in the pickle of a Foxx vs. Gehrig thread ;)

[pretorius]

I think this is a great poll. I will take Gehrig but this one os very close.

I would like to see say a Heilmann and Yaz better hitter poll.

[leecemark]

--I think most people would agree its a close call between these two. In the "Best Position Players of All Time" series of polls Musial came in 8th and Gehrig 9th. That probably is a fair representation of their consensus ranking by our membership.

[leecemark]

--Pretorius, I'd say Heilman was the better hitter, but Yaz the better player. Even just as hitters, Yaz was more valuable due to his much longer career.

[DoubleX]

Musial by a thin margin. Their peak is avout equal. Stan has the longevity case and was a above-average fielder at the corner OF positions.

Peak about equal? Musial had a fantastic peak, but equal? Here are there 10 best OPS+ seasons:

Gehrig: 221, 208, 203, 195, 194, 190, 181, 177, 177, 177
Musial: 200, 183*, 182, 180*, 176, 175*, 172, 169, 167, 166

* = Years when the league was depleted by WWII service.

That's not very equal, IMO, especially when you consider that Gehrig may have had a few more 170+ seasons left in him (in his last healthy season, he posted a 177), and that three of Musial's listed seasons came against a waterdowned league during WWII.

Musial was great, but 6 seasons of an OPS+ of over 190? 10 seasons over 175?! That's a ridiculously rarefied peak.

[csh19792001]

Let me ask you this then. For 15 years, who was the better player?

I love Gehrig, and the guy is one of my heroes. It's hard not to go with him here, and it is close.

Musial through age 36 was incredible at the plate, and he facing much better (and more varied) pitching. Most (if not all) of Gehrig's lead in counting stats through the same age was attributable to his era and lineup.

As far as defense, Musial gets an A- by defensive Win Shares and Gehrig a B-. The baseball prospectus stats agree- they show Musial was actually a very good fielder, and Gehrig as about average. Even Total Baseball's wacky "fielding runs" show Musial as having the edge in the field.

However, I don't have any anecdotal/biographical info about their fielding (the Ray Robinson book is at home). I'd be very interested to hear the qualitative side of things regarding their fielding, since I tend to be distrustful of fielding stats (and all stats on face value).

[csh19792001]

Musial was great, but 6 seasons of an OPS+ of over 190? 10 seasons over 175?! That's a ridiculously rarefied peak.

That's a mean-adjusted stat, though. Dan Brouthers is equal to Joe Jackson vis-a vis OPS+.

You have to make some kind of adjustment for league quality. Yes, he played 2 years during the war, but he had his best years later, and he also played the twilight of his career in what might have been the most competitive league in baseball history.

[SABR Matt]

Musial...

Gehrig was a great hitter but he had a l ot in his favor when he did what he did...until he got ill of course.

Of course So did Musial...playing throughout the war...but he continued to dominate a much more integrated and competitive league right into the 50s...I just think he was a better all around player.

[DoubleX]

You have to make some kind of adjustment for league quality. Yes, he played 2 years during the war, but he had his best years later, and he also played the twilight of his career in what might have been the most competitive league in baseball history.

It's not as if these two players played generations apart. Their careers and peaks were separated by just a decade. So now let's take a look at when Musial put up those 10 OPS+ seasons I listed earlier, as you'll see, most of them came either during WWII, or before intergration, or just after intergration, and thus arguing league quality differences is not enough for Musial to overcome the significant lead Gehrig has in most years:

200: 1948 - Intergration just barely begun, league quality is hardly better than it was during Gehrig's career. The difference in league quality certainly does not make the gap between Gehrig's highest of 221.

183: 1946 - No intergration, quality of league argument is certainly enough to make up the difference between this and Gehrig's 208.

182: 1951 - Quality of league argument has some weight here, but again, it's not enough to overcomes Gehrig's 203.

180: 1943 - The league's talent-level is very diluted by WWII, and thus league quality argument is not nearly enough to overcome Gehrig's 195.

176: 1949 - Again, intergration has just barely begun, and the difference in league quality is not enough to matach Gehrig's 194.

175: 1944 - The league's talent-level is even more diluted by WWII, and thus league quality argument is not nearly enough to overcome Gehrig's 190.

172: 1957 - Finally, the league quality argument has some weight and might just be enough to be on equal footing with Gehrig's 181.

169: 1953 - Again, league quality argument is probably good enough here to be on equal fotting with Gehrig's 177.

167: 1952 - If Musial's 169 in 1953 can match a Gehrig 177, then a Musual 167 in 1952 is probably a little behind a Gehrig 177 (which is what he has here).

166: 1954 - Again, league quality here is probably enough for Musial to be on equal footing with Gehrig's 3rd 177.


So most of Musial's best years came before the league quality argument was in his favor and in years that the argument is not enough to overcome the distance that he trails Gehrig by.

As for lineup's, let's not forget that Musial also played on some good teams early in his career when he put up most of these numbers, four times winning the pennant, so he too was surrounded by a good team when putting up a lot of these numbers.

[Blackout]

Peak about equal? Musial had a fantastic peak, but equal? Here are there 10 best OPS+ seasons:

Gehrig: 221, 208, 203, 195, 194, 190, 181, 177, 177, 177
Musial: 200, 183*, 182, 180*, 176, 175*, 172, 169, 167, 166

* = Years when the league was depleted by WWII service.

That's not very equal, IMO, especially when you consider that Gehrig may have had a few more 170+ seasons left in him (in his last healthy season, he posted a 177), and that three of Musial's listed seasons came against a waterdowned league during WWII.

Musial was great, but 6 seasons of an OPS+ of over 190? 10 seasons over 175?! That's a ridiculously rarefied peak.

hahaha OWNED

[DoubleX]

You have to make some kind of adjustment for league quality. Yes, he played 2 years during the war, but he had his best years later, and he also played the twilight of his career in what might have been the most competitive league in baseball history.

It's not as if these two players played generations apart. Their careers and peaks were separated by just a decade. So now let's take a look at when Musial put up those 10 OPS+ seasons I listed earlier, as you'll see, most of them came either during WWII, or before intergration, or just after intergration, and thus arguing league quality differences is not enough for Musial to overcome the significant lead Gehrig has in most years:

200: 1948 - Intergration just barely begun, league quality is hardly better than it was during Gehrig's career. The difference in league quality certainly does not make the gap between Gehrig's highest of 221.

183: 1946 - No intergration, quality of league argument is certainly not enough to make up the difference between this and Gehrig's 208. It's also a down year in terms of league quality since much of the league's talent is reassimilating and readjusting following the timeoff during the war.

182: 1951 - Quality of league argument has some weight here, but again, it's not enough to overcomes Gehrig's 203.

180: 1943 - The league's talent-level is very diluted by WWII, and thus league quality argument is not nearly enough to overcome Gehrig's 195.

176: 1949 - Again, intergration has just barely begun, and the difference in league quality is not enough to matach Gehrig's 194.

175: 1944 - The league's talent-level is even more diluted by WWII, and thus league quality argument is not nearly enough to overcome Gehrig's 190.

172: 1957 - Finally, the league quality argument has some weight and might just be enough to be on equal footing with Gehrig's 181.

169: 1953 - Again, league quality argument is probably good enough here to be on equal fotting with Gehrig's 177.

167: 1952 - If Musial's 169 in 1953 can match a Gehrig 177, then a Musual 167 in 1952 is probably a little behind a Gehrig 177 (which is what he has here).

166: 1954 - Again, league quality here is probably enough for Musial to be on equal footing with Gehrig's 3rd 177.


So most of Musial's best years came before the league quality argument was in his favor and in years that the argument is not enough to overcome the distance that he trails Gehrig by. There are really only 3 or 4 years here where league quality could make a difference in this comparison and put Musial in the same range as Gehrig, if not past Gehrig. But even then, it's for years 7-10. Meaning, league quality doesn't really help Musial catch up to Gehrig in years 1-6.

As for lineup's, let's not forget that Musial also played on some good teams (in water-downed leagues) early in his career when he put up most of these numbers, four times winning the pennant, so he too was surrounded by a good team when putting up a lot of these numbers.

As for defensive prowess, I have read things to the effect of the opposite to which you say statistics suggest. I have read that Gehrig was a very good defender who improved with age, while Musial was above average at best. I'll try to find some of my source material on that and post it, but chances are, it's coming from books and articles that I've passed by during the years, though the material has been enough for me to think of Gehrig as a better defensive player.

[csh19792001]

As for lineup's, let's not forget that Musial also played on some good teams (in water-downed leagues) early in his career when he put up most of these numbers, four times winning the pennant, so he too was surrounded by a good team when putting up a lot of these numbers.

This one is obvious. Look at the runs/game in Gehrig's era (the highest by far in modern baseball history) and compare that to Stan's (somewhat neutral overall). Also, you could look at the runs scored by the yankees per season and take off Lou's production (and do the same for Stan) in an attempt to disentangle team value and individual value. That would take awhile, but I'm certain you would see that Lou was simply on vastly better offensive teams; he had Babe Ruth hitting ahead of him for 10 years, and Joe Dimaggio ahead of him his final 3 years.

As to all of the other stuff....
OPS+ is a crude thumbnail stat which only examines what happens in the batter's box, and at that, doesn't do a great job of even doing that.

What you're really looking for with your estimations is something like WARP3- it factors in league strength as measured by standard deviations, and it ALSO figures fielding and baserunning into the equation. Although it's far from perfrect, for those reasons, it's light years more useful and valid than OPS+ in isolation.

The scaling is much different than with OPS+, though- 1 win is significant in terms of value.

Stan's best season (1948) was about equal in value to Gehrig's best (1934) after attempting to adjust for league strength.

Musial comes out ahead in top 3 and top 5 seasonal value, and probably top 10 value as well.

Career WARP3
Musial: 187.6
Gehrig: 142.8

In terms of just sheer quality (not even considering longevity/cumulative value), though, I'd say when taking everything into account it's somewhat close, with Musial slightly ahead. Certainly a far more accurate picture than we would obtain using OPS+ alone, especially given that we're not just talking about offense.


As for defensive prowess, I have read things to the effect of the opposite to which you say statistics suggest. I have read that Gehrig was a very good defender who improved with age, while Musial was above average at best. I'll try to find some of my source material on that and post it, but chances are, it's coming from books and articles that I've passed by during the years, though the material has been enough for me to think of Gehrig as a better defensive player.

If all of the statistical evidence available says directly the opposite, then I'd say that's a tough claim to make (Gehrig actually being more valuable on defense than Musial. You might be right, but I see no reason (as yet) to agree. I'd be very interested to see what you'd find, however.


Message in text above.

[jalbright]

But that's the crux of my point. What separates Gehrig is the fact that he did what he did for 15 years before getting sick, and he was as good as ever in his last healthy year. He proved he could play at that level for a long time, and thus it's much easier to assume Gehrig could do it for a few more years than it is for Youngs or Chapman or Thon or Congiliaro, since they only did it all for a few years. We know Gehrig was more than just a player with a few years of dominance, and we know he was a player with more than a decade of dominance. We know that he had longevity in him. We don't know that about Youngs and the others. It's apples and oranges in my book.

Given what we know of Gehrig (15 years of dominance, great year his last healthy year, great durability), it's much easier to assume that he could be productive for a few more than it is to assume that say Youngs could even get to 10 years of high production (since so many players sparkle and fade, but we know Gehrig wasn't one of them).

The crux of your argument is assuming things--which is what if fantasy in my book. Youngs did it up to age 29--why is that too short? Your dividing line is arbitrary, and that's what I object to. My position is it's hard enough to figure this stuff out in terms of what actually happened without introducing the what-ifs. The only what-ifs I am willing to indulge in are for guys who due to color lines, military service, or interleague agreements (Japan, mainly) were prevented from competing. Health is just a part of the player--Gehrig had it until his last season, and then, suddenly and tragically, he no longer did.

Jim Albright

[DoubleX]

The crux of your argument is assuming things--which is what if fantasy in my book. Youngs did it up to age 29--why is that too short? Your dividing line is arbitrary, and that's what I object to. My position is it's hard enough to figure this stuff out in terms of what actually happened without introducing the what-ifs. The only what-ifs I am willing to indulge in are for guys who due to color lines, military service, or interleague agreements (Japan, mainly) were prevented from competing. Health is just a part of the player--Gehrig had it until his last season, and then, suddenly and tragically, he no longer did.

Jim Albright

The crux of your argument is assuming things--which is what if fantasy in my book. Youngs did it up to age 29--why is that too short? Your dividing line is arbitrary, and that's what I object to. My position is it's hard enough to figure this stuff out in terms of what actually happened without introducing the what-ifs. The only what-ifs I am willing to indulge in are for guys who due to color lines, military service, or interleague agreements (Japan, mainly) were prevented from competing. Health is just a part of the player--Gehrig had it until his last season, and then, suddenly and tragically, he no longer did.

Jim Albright

There is a world of difference between Youngs and Gehrig. Youngs did what he did for just 7 seasons, and only twice had an OPS+ as high as 160. Whereas Gehrig did it for 14 years and 13 times had an OPS+ higher than 160. That is a world of difference when it comes to making an educated guess about what the players were capable of and how long they can sustain it. Moreover, Youngs wasn't nearly as consistent as Gehrig during his 7 year run. Whereas Gehrig, year after year for 14 years, did virtually the same thing. We know so much more about Gehrig and what he was capable of at that point of his career, then we do about Youngs and what he was capable of at an earlier stage of his career, especially considering that we couldn't predict Youngs from one year to the next anyway.

[KCGHOST]

I hate this, because one of my all-time favorite players is Musial, but I went with Gehrig. Both are giants of the game.

[Ubiquitous]

Two part problem for me.

One I think a very strong argument for Gehrig is that AL of his career overall was a higher league then Musials NL league. The AL of Gehrigs career was simply better able to gather the better players of that era. But part of the problem is that a lot of those guys did end up as teammates of Gehrigs. So while Gehrig played in a tougher league a good chunk of the reason it was a tougher league was on his team.

Stan for much of his first half of his career played in a inferior league compared to the AL. WWII years, pre-integration, and small amounts of integration. It wasn't really into well into his 30's that integration would have a widespread effect on league quality

[85cards]

I will only point out that Gehrig had players named Ruth, DiMaggio, Dickey, Meusel, Lazzeri and Combs in the same lineup as him.

Musial had Slaughter, Walker Cooper, Joe Cunningham, Ray Sanders, Terry Moore, Don Blasingame, Ray Jablonski and Red Schoendienst. Hardly the same level of talent surrounding the 2 players.

I call it even. Like choosing between a Rolls and a Bentley.

[csh19792001]

One I think a very strong argument for Gehrig is that AL of his career overall was a higher league then Musials NL league.

Why do you feel this is the case?



Stan for much of his first half of his career played in a inferior league compared to the AL.

I'm still not sure why you say this either. The NL was still far, FAR faster to integrate than the AL. I saw a team picture not long ago of one of the early 60's Yankees squads, I believe there were two non caucasians on the entire roster. The Red Sox didn't have a single black player until mid 1959.

Does anyone remember the post someone made awhile back on the relative integration of the NL vs. AL? It had exact figures by year, and the disparity, if I recall correctly, was pretty vast.

Regardless, even slowly progressive integration (Musial) is better than none at all (Gehrig), isn't it?

Also, awhile back I posted what Ed Lynn had to say in his Williams bio about the proliferation of the slider and other advancements in pitching which (concomitant with other factors) conspired to cause overall offensive levels to become dramatically lower in Stan's time vs. Gehrig's pre-war reign (the greatest offensive period in modern baseball history). I don't have the book in front of me, but he raises some very good points.

By the end of Stan's career, the game had already shifted back over in favor of pitching in a very big way; Lou never had to play in that kind of environment (with modern basket gloves, 16-18 inch mounds, and immaculate fields producing perfect hops, thereby taking away lots of hits). The NL of the late 50's-early 60's was a damned good league- replacement players and stars both.

[Blackout]

I'm still not sure why you say this either. The NL was still far, FAR faster to integrate than the AL. I saw a team picture not long ago of one of the early 60's Yankees squads, I believe there were two non caucasians on the entire roster. The Red Sox didn't have a single black player until mid 1959.

when you had guys like Mantle, Maris, Berra, Ford etc. why do you expect them to load up on blacks just to be politically correct?

Elston Howard won MVP in 1963, didn't he? its not like they just signed 2 blacks from the street or something

[Captain Cold Nose]

when you had guys like Mantle, Maris, Berra, Ford etc. why do you expect them to load up on blacks just to be politically correct?

Elston Howard won MVP in 1963, didn't he? its not like they just signed 2 blacks from the street or something
And when Mantle, maris, Ford and Berra tailed off or left, what happened? The rest of the league caught up and in a few cases surpassed them for awhile.

[SABR Matt]

Fo all the talk of the NL being faster to integrate...there's a reason they were faster to integrate...they were desperate for players. :) The NL in the early 50s was utterly bereft of anything resembling talent other than the negro leaguers and Musial. the AL was by far the better league from around 1904 all the way through 1960 when the NL began to take over thanks to better integration and smarter owners.

[DoubleX]

Regardless, even slowly progressive integration (Musial) is better than none at all (Gehrig), isn't it?

I certainly agree with that point, but is the very minor intergration of the late 40s and early 50s, enough to improve league quality to point that Stan makes up the 15 and 20 point lag behind Gehrig's best OPS+ seasons from 10-20 years earlier? I don't think so in most years.

[DoubleX]

By the end of Stan's career, the game had already shifted back over in favor of pitching in a very big way; Lou never had to play in that kind of environment (with modern basket gloves, 16-18 inch mounds, and immaculate fields producing perfect hops, thereby taking away lots of hits). The NL of the late 50's-early 60's was a damned good league- replacement players and stars both.

I also agree with that, but again and as I pointed out earlier, from strictly an OPS+ perspective (which admittedly has its flaws), Stan's best years came in the 40's and early 50's. During periods that were one or more of the following:

- Not that different from Gehrig's prime (given that it was less than a decade before)
- League was depleted by WWII
- After WWII, but before intergration, and thus not that different from the 30's
- The early years of intergration

In all, league quality during Musial's peak years, the mid 40s - earlys 50s, had not advanced far enough to make up the 15-20 point OPS+ advantage Gehrig has in most years over Musial.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

And when Mantle, maris, Ford and Berra tailed off or left, what happened? The rest of the league caught up and in a few cases surpassed them for awhile.


I don't think it was only the fact that the Yanks lagged behind in integrating. The fact that CBS bought them in 1964 also played a part. Unlike those before CBS and after CBS, they (CBS) were content to stand pat, not go out and get some of the big players in the game. The intro of the amateur draft in 1965 also made it more difficult for the Yanks to aquire some of the better players in the game.

For that matter the Yanks were integrated in 1977 and it took them almost 20 years to get back on top, to take it all. So it was not all a case of black and white that caused the Yanks to fall for a period in the mid 1960s, there were other reasons.

[Ubiquitous]

Regardless, even slowly progressive integration (Musial) is better than none at all (Gehrig), isn't it?
.
The NL of the late 50's-early 60's was a damned good league- replacement players and stars both.

For the first question, the answer is not necessarily. The NL was a weaker league almost from the get go and by the time the 30's rolled around I think that fact was pretty well entrenched. Economically and in terms of popularity the AL was the senior league not the NL. The AL from the beginning had the financial muscle to obtain the best players and they did so.

I've looked at the 30's in a variety of ways and so have others and from all of that I come to the conclusion that the 30's was about the highest in quality for baseball in pre-integration history, and that with a closer look that is because almost all of the best talent is in one league while the other league has the lesser talent which allows it achieve parity. Integration improved the NL to the point where it was on even footing and perhaps even surpass the AL but that did not happen right away. Like I said above NL in terms of quality didn't really come close to Gehrigs level until the latter half of Musial's career.

[64Cards]

Where is this fantasy coming from that the NL was so supposedly "inferior" to the AL in the 40's and first half of the 50's? Granted, year in, year out, the Yankees were the best team in baseball. But the Cardinals in the 40's and the Dodgers in the 40's and 50's were right behind, each team loaded with deep and talented farm systems. Who else in the Al was that good? Granted, the Red Sox had Williams and some other very good hitters, but could only win one pennant. Cleveland was loaded with very good pitching during that period, but their starting lineups weren't really that special. The rest of the AL rarely came close to contending for much of that period. Wasn't that much balance in the NL either, beyond the Dodgers,Cardinals and Giants by the 50's, although the Braves slipped in 48 or the Phils in 50.

I'll just make an argument though, that MLB may have been as strong in talent in this period as any, because farm systems were so deep with talent in the post WW2 era. I would just guess that a lot of players, once they were getting a bit older and making big salaries, would get dumped and replaced by a younger player, making about a fourth of what the vet was.

[wamby]

I recently read a pretty good biography of Gehrig. Reading this book has convinced me that Lou Gehrig's 1939 season was the most amazing season ever for a player in the history of the game.

[Ubiquitous]

There is no fantasy but I think a misinterpretation of what I said. I said that Gehrig's AL years league quality was higher then Musials NL league quality of the 40's and first half of the 50's. And that wasn't really until the end of his career that league quality becomes close or eclipses Gehrigs.

After WWII and integration I think the NL in terms of overall quality was higher then the AL's of that era.

[dglts]

Look at the stats.

Without Lou Gehrigs disease, is he the best EVER?????

[leecemark]

--He might have cracked the top 5 had he not gotten sick. He wasn't going to pass the Babe (amoung others) though.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I recently read a pretty good biography of Gehrig. Reading this book has convinced me that Lou Gehrig's 1939 season was the most amazing season ever for a player in the history of the game.

I think you mean '38, when symptoms had already shown and he still put up respectable numbers.

That book; was it "Luckiest Man" ?

[wamby]

I think you mean '38, when symptoms had already shown and he still put up respectable numbers.

That book; was it "Luckiest Man" ?

I mean 1939 when Gehrig, while suffering from an advanced case of ALS, was able to suit up for eight games and with his neural network breaking down in profound ways, he was still able to get four hits off of major League pitching.

It was the Jonathan Eig book.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Yeah, that's Luckiest Man; great book.

Suiting up in '39 is very impressive. '38 though, while dealing with the early signs and battling through, to put up numbers that anyone would be proud of; that's remarkable.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

As for both of them playing so many games consecutive, they were both very durable.

A bit off the subject here of Gehrig.. Musial. In some earlier threads it was often brought up that there were some instances where Gehrig's streak was kept alive by some games where he played only a few innings, in one game only one inning, where Ripken played many more innings.

Let me say I have no desire, no intention of starting a Gehrig versus Ripken debate. I respect both and in their time they played as steady, steadier than anyone in their time. Different conditions in the times they played in.

My point here is that even with some incomplete games what Gehrig did do was incredible. Some where I have some figures (I'll look for them) for some periods of time that took place during Gehrig's streak. It was not uncommon during that period of the game for teams to play two, and in some cases three double headers in one week. Some scheduled DHs and some to make up for rain outs. I found a fair number of weeks where Lou played two or three double headers over a 6 day period with some single games played in between those double headers and he played every inning of every game over those 6 days. I found one period where he played two double headers over three days and in the week before that he played three double headers over a five day period.

Those games where he did not play every inning certainly do not diminish what took place over the whole streak.

[csh19792001]

Ubi,


There is no fantasy but I think a misinterpretation of what I said. I said that Gehrig's AL years league quality was higher then Musials NL league quality of the 40's and first half of the 50's. And that wasn't really until the end of his career that league quality becomes close or eclipses Gehrigs.

Doesn't the statement above ^



After WWII and integration I think the NL in terms of overall quality was higher then the AL's of that era.

Contradict this one above? ^ WWII ended in 45, integration started in the late 40's.

As to the relative integration, I still haven't found that article with the exact figures yet, but I did find this: Musial played 18 more seasons after WWII, and was an ironman in the 50's. He played well past age 40, and by that time his league was very much integrated with the best black players in America.

By the mid Fifties all NL teams except the Cardinals and the hapless Phillies featured at least one black headed for the Hall of Fame. Between 1949 and 1962, blacks won 11 of the 14 NL MVP awards, while no black was the AL MVP until Yankee catcher Elston Howard in 1963. And the AL lacked an African-American superstar until Frank Robinson arrived via a 1966 trade and promptly showed the league what it had been missing by capturing the Triple Crown.

More on this when I have time.

[Ubiquitous]

no.

This isn't complicated.

Gehrig years of 1925 to 1938 took place in league of higher quality then Musials years of 1942 to 1963 overall. With Musials first half 1942 to somewhere in the mid-50's definitely being lower then Gehrigs years. AFter it is equal or better.

Now then after WWII and integration the NL of the late 40's and on was of higher quality then the AL of the late 40's. If it wasn't it was at the very least equal to it. But that doesn't mean the late 40's NL was equal to Gehrig's era league.

Yes Stan played until the 60's and the league was fully integrated and in all probability higher quality in the downside of his career. He still had some great years in him but the majority of his career he played in a league that was not fully integrated, and like I said by the time it was he was an old man.

[leecemark]

--I'd be inclined to agree (in fact I think its pretty clear cut) that the NL of the first part of Musial's career was not as good as the AL in the first part of Gehrigs. I think an argument can be made either way on the middle part of their careers, but I'd likely go with Musial's NL. The NL of the latter part of Musial's career was better than any of Gehrig's competition. Old man Musial held his own pretty well against that level of play.

[64Cards]

As for both of them playing so many games consecutive, they were both very durable.

A bit off the subject here of Gehrig.. Musial. In some earlier threads it was often brought up that there were some instances where Gehrig's streak was kept alive by some games where he played only a few innings, in one game only one inning, where Ripken played many more innings.

Let me say I have no desire, no intention of starting a Gehrig versus Ripken debate. I respect both and in their time they played as steady, steadier than anyone in their time. Different conditions in the times they played in.

My point here is that even with some incomplete games what Gehrig did do was incredible. Some where I have some figures (I'll look for them) for some periods of time that took place during Gehrig's streak. It was not uncommon during that period of the game for teams to play two, and in some cases three double headers in one week. Some scheduled DHs and some to make up for rain outs. I found a fair number of weeks where Lou played two or three double headers over a 6 day period with some single games played in between those double headers and he played every inning of every game over those 6 days. I found one period where he played two double headers over three days and in the week before that he played three double headers over a five day period.

Those games where he did not play every inning certainly do not diminish what took place over the whole streak.
All good points Shoeless, also Lou played all his games, except maybe for a handfull at the very end, in the heat of the afternoon. I was also wondering, that if the hotels they stayed in and the trains they rode had air conditioning back in the 30's? My guess would be that a lot of them didn't.

[wamby]

All good points Shoeless, also Lou played all his games, except maybe for a handfull at the very end, in the heat of the afternoon. I was also wondering, that if the hotels they stayed in and the trains they rode had air conditioning back in the 30's? My guess would be that a lot of them didn't.

Gehrig never played a night game.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

All good points Shoeless, also Lou played all his games, except maybe for a handfull at the very end, in the heat of the afternoon. I was also wondering, that if the hotels they stayed in and the trains they rode had air conditioning back in the 30's? My guess would be that a lot of them didn't.

No air conditioning on trains; and pretty sure none in hotels.

During spring training, on scorching hot days, they would wear rubber shirts in hopes of sweating off some of their extra offseason weight. They didn't drink water, just sweated.

[Iron Jaw]

Two of baseball's greatest and most respected players. Both also had the durability records at one time. Gehrig held the record for consecutive games until Cal broke it. And Musial once held the National League record for that category - though it was considerably less games than Lou (Billy Williams broke that NL record).

But, since both players were great, durable and lasted a long time, I'll give the vote to Stan simply because he was a Cardinal.;)

[four tool]

Great post about league quality.

Also, if Stan was such a great fielder, why the switch from left in mid career?

I picked Gehirg and the league quality in the pre integration and war years seals it for Lou IMHO.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

All good points Shoeless, also Lou played all his games, except maybe for a handfull at the very end, in the heat of the afternoon. I was also wondering, that if the hotels they stayed in and the trains they rode had air conditioning back in the 30's? My guess would be that a lot of them didn't.

From what I could find the first use of air conditioning on trains was in 1931, B&O Rail Lines. It was said to be not very efficiant but it was a start. Most other rail lines got on board ( pun intended) in the mid to late 1930s.

Hotels air conditioned, don't know much about that but I believe they also began the use of air conditioning wide spread in the mid 1930s. I did find that the first to use air conditioning was limited to some large department stores and theaters in the 1920s.

For us "older guys" I can remember as late as the late 1950s escaping the heat by going into a restaurant or a theater most homes were not air conditioned. The restaurants and theaters all had those big "cool inside" banners on display. As a kitd I can actually remember going to the theater just to cool off for a few hours.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

[QUOTE=wamby] When I touched on the streak a few posts ago I did say I did not intend to make the issue Lou versus Cal, they both did something in their times no one else did, not to mention two of the classier guys in thier respective times.

I only touched on the fact that although Lou did not play every inning he played in a good number of weeks with two and three double headers and some single games in between and played every inning of all games played in that week.

Just two examples.

September 17-18-19 1932 on those 3 dates the Yanks played a double header, 6 games in 3 days. Gehrig played every inning of every game.

September 8-9-10, 1932 the Yanks played a double header 3 consectutive games. Lou played every inning of every game.

September 8.
First game-------------14 innings
Second game-----------7 innings game called darkness

September 9.
First game-------------14 innings Lou had 8 RBI's in this game
Second game-----------5 innings game called, darkness

September 10
First game-------------9 innings
Second game----------10 innings

Keep in mind in both these years those double headers were late in the season.

[64Cards]

Also, if Stan was such a great fielder, why the switch from left in mid career?

Actually one of the interesting things about Musial was how much position switching he did. He started off in LF in 42, in one of the great OF's of all time, with Terry Moore in CF and Slaughter in RF. He mostly played RF the next 2 seasons. After the war, he was moved to 1B in 46, after Harry Walker had been picked up to play LF, where he stayed till 48. Stan wouldn't go back to only playing 1B till 57. When he had his incredible 48 season, he split up his time among all 3 OF postions. Stan spent most of his time in RF in 49, 54-56, played CF in 52, LF in 53 and his final 3 seasons [61-63] In the first part of the 50's he seems to have divided his time between the OF & 1B. For the record, he played LF in 943 games, CF in 325 and RF in 750, 1016 at 1B.

I can't think of any other superstar who did that much position switching. It indicates the kind of team player Musial was. He could have easily said that he wanted to just play LF and that would have been that.

I read somewhere that Stan said RF was his favorite position.

[DoubleX]

I can't think of any other superstar who did that much position switching. It indicates the kind of team player Musial was. He could have easily said that he wanted to just play LF and that would have been that.

I suppose that argument could also be made for Pete Rose who constantly switched positions in his prime.

- 939 Games at 1B (Most of thesecame during the end of his career, as he hung on to get the hits record)
- 671 Games in LF
- 634 Games at 3B
- 628 Games at 2B
- 594 Games in RF
- 70 Games in CF

That's actually a lot more diversity than Musial who played the following:
- 1016 Games at 1B
- 943 Games at LF
- 750 Games at RF
- 325 Games at CF

Overall, Rose also had a better Range Factor compared to league than Musial, and a better overall fielding percentage than Musial. That's pretty impressive considering that Rose spent nearly 1300 games at the tricky defensive positions of 2B and 3B, whereas Musial was almost entirely a corner OFer and 1Bman.

[64Cards]

I suppose that argument could also be made for Pete Rose who constantly switched positions in his prime.

- 939 Games at 1B (Most of thesecame during the end of his career, as he hung on to get the hits record)
- 671 Games in LF
- 634 Games at 3B
- 628 Games at 2B
- 594 Games in RF
- 70 Games in CF

That's actually a lot more diversity than Musial who played the following:
- 1016 Games at 1B
- 943 Games at LF
- 750 Games at RF
- 325 Games at CF

Overall, Rose also had a better Range Factor compared to league than Musial, and a better overall fielding percentage than Musial. That's pretty impressive considering that Rose spent nearly 1300 games at the tricky defensive positions of 2B and 3B, whereas Musial was almost entirely a corner OFer and 1Bman.
Yeah, I had forgotten about Rose playing so many positions, but being left handed, Stan was limited to 4 positions.

I was a Rose fan, but I wouldn't classify him among the true elite superstars of the game. Pete didn't have much power.

[leecemark]

--Musial was a superstar from day one and had to agree to his position shifting for the good of the team. That was really only true of one of Rose's shifts. He did agree (in fact it was his idea) to move from OF to 3B in 1975 to plug a hole there and allow Ken Griffey and George Foter to play full time in the OF. That worked out pretty well for the Reds and is the single thing I admire most about Rose. The rest of his moves were shifts down the defensive spectrum. Rose was a hard working, but not especially gifted defensive player.

[64Cards]

Musial also added to his counting stats in the 40's while most major leaguers were out at war. After integration he wasn't as dominant as before. He had weak competion in the 40's while Gehrig was up against titans.


I saw a similar post in another thread, I'm not sure if it was posted by Myankee or not, but lets put the notion that Stan only dominated white meat and war depleted leagues to bed. For a 10 year span, 48-57 [in 58, a 37 year old Musial began slowing down] a year after Robinson intergrated the NL [I didn't include 47, squeezed in between 2 MVP seasons for Stan, he had an "off-year" .312, 19HR,95RBI,113 runs, due to a mid-season appendectomy] here's some of what Stan did:
5 batting titles, never finished lower than 4th in NL avg.
4 times was NL leader in OBP, 4 times finished 2nd
3 times was NL leader in slugging %, 3 times finished 2nd
lead NL in runs created, 48-53. From 54-57, finished 3rd 3 times, 1 4th
1 MVP, 4 2nd place finishes, top ten every year. If the Cards hadn't slipped from perennial contender in the 40's to an also-ran in the 50's, may have had a couple more MVP's.

Without doing much research, I can tell you that for this 10 year period, Stan, because he played virtually every day, lead MLB in hits, runs, rbi's, total bases. May have had more HR's than anyone although Kiner possibly could have surpassed him. I'm too lazy to run the numbers. Williams would have been the only guy with higher batting, slugging and on-base percentages. Until 54, when Mays became a superstar, Stan was the best player in the NL and all of baseball in the years Williams was in Korea or had his elbow injury.

As far as Stan or Gehrig, flip a coin. can't lose with either one.:clapping

[Ubiquitous]

I don't think anyone is saying that Musial only played against white players and war depleted rosters. People are saying that part of his career he played against war depleted rosters while most stars never got that bonus. Ted missed 3 years to WWII, JoeD three years, Spahn missed three years, and so on. Musial missed one year and played against the depleted rosters while the best were off serving in the armed forces.

[64Cards]

I don't think anyone is saying that Musial only played against white players and war depleted rosters. People are saying that part of his career he played against war depleted rosters while most stars never got that bonus. Ted missed 3 years to WWII, JoeD three years, Spahn missed three years, and so on. Musial missed one year and played against the depleted rosters while the best were off serving in the armed forces.
Well, I think the quotes were that Musial wasn't as dominant in post war with the NL now integrated. In the 2 war years, 43 & 44, that Musial was playing when many players were in the service, Musial was the dominant player in the league and after he came back after missing 1945, he resumed his spot as the NL's premier player for the next decade.

It is true that by only missing one year, instead of 3, his career numbers weren't as adversaly affected as many other players.

[Cowtipper]

I think Lou Gehrig was a great player, but based on what he actually did (not what he 'could have done' as in Lou Gehrig's case) and considering the team around him wasn't as power-packed (read: stocked with Babe Ruth), I think Musial was slightly better.

[JR Hart]

It's easily Gehrig. His numbers are flat out better. He was durable. Musial had war years to fatten up on.