Greenberg vs. Mize?

[DoubleX]

I expect this poll to favor Greenberg, and until lately, I had Greenberg a good margin ahead of Mize in my rankings, but I've lately reconsidered and moved Mize ahead of Greenberg. I think Mize is one of the most underrated greats, so I wanted to take the pulse here.

- Both players had very impressive peaks and both players lost prime years to service during WWII. Greenberg had a better peak, though Mize's numbers were somewhat surpressed by the NL going back to a less lively ball in the 30's.
- Both players were also perennial Triple Crown candidates, though Greenberg had the stiffer competition (Gehrig, Foxx, DiMaggio, Williams).
- Both players finished with a career 158 OPS+, Mize, however, has longevity on his side and did it in 1300 more ABs.

[DoubleX]

So far this has gone as expected - in Greenberg's favor.

Since we're talking about two slugging firstbasemen here, I OPS+ is a good stat to use in comparing the players. So here are there 10 best seasons (well Greenberg actually only had 9 complete seasons, so I included a season in which he had 274 ABs as his 10th season):

Greenberg...172, 170, 170, 169, 167, 163, 156, 155, 132, 118
Mize............185, 178, 176, 175, 172, 161, 161, 160, 156, 156

Mize wins on each year (except one where he loses by just 2 points), and wins some years by great margins. Throw in the fact that the Greenberg's seasons encapsulate his entire career, while Mize has a few more that could be added on to the end of this list, and I really don't see an argument for Greenberg.

So essentially, Mize tops Greenberg in both peak and longevity.

[KCGHOST]

This is one where each man should have plenty of supporters. I'll give the edge to Mize due to the slightly longer career.

[Brian McKenna]

indeed mize is often severely underrated

[DoubleX]

indeed mize is often severely underrated

It took the Veterans Committee to put him in the Hall of Fame, nearly 30 years after he retired. It's ridiculous that it came to that.

[jalbright]

One thing which makes this a tough call for me is how much credit to give each man for the time he lost to military service. I think I lean toward Mize on the basis of a longer career--but you would love to have either man in your lineup.

Jim Albright

[leecemark]

--Their numbers are very similar, but the AL was clearly the better league during their prime years and that gives Greenberg the edge for me. It isn't a huge factor, but Greenberg also gets some bonus points from me for being the key man on 4 championship teams (he was the best hitter on the Tiger's pennant winners in 34,35, 40 and 45 and probably their best overall player on 3 of them). Mize never played for a winner until the end of his career when he was a role player for the Yankees.

[shlevine42]

I saw them both -- Greenberg at the end of his career, and Mize all through his Giant and Yankee days.

Greenberg was a formidable presence with a bat in his hands, but he played all but one season in "the other league." Mize, on the other hand, tormented my Dodgers 22 times a year, and I shuddered each time he came to the plate.

It didn't get any better when he went over to the Yankees; he almost singlehandedly wrecked us in the '52 Series, hitting home runs in three consecutive games.

Mize also holds one of the most impressive marks for a slugger: The year he hit 51 HR, he struck out only 42 times. On another occasion, he hit 40 HR with only 37 Ks. Remarkable.

In a very close contest, Big John gets my vote.

[538280]

Mize is the man for me. Hank Greenberg's peak is way overrated by almost everyone. The 58 home runs draw a real lot of attention, but you have to temper that because of the era he was playing in. Greenberg was a hitter, no doubt about it, but he was close to a zero both on the basepaths and in the field. You can still be a great player as just a hitter, but you had better be one of the greatest of all time there to post huge value seasons. Thomas did it, Gehrig did, but Greenberg couldn't quite. Win Shares only gives Hank 34. 33, and 31 Win Shares for his three best years. That's well behind most other top 1B. Mize doesn't do the best there either though with only a 2 WS advantage over Hank.

But, Mize had a longer career. He had about 1300 more PA. Hank did miss one more year to the service than Mize, so we can get him closer but his career is still short. I think it is appropriate to give Mize better seasons during the war too. Mize was going real strong beforehand and still went strong afterward. Hank was very good before but kind of lost it afterward.

The NL was weaker than the AL in that era though, so I can see how you can favor Greenberg here. Still, though, you can only give Hank a slightly better peak and any LQ adjustment should still give Mize quite a bit more career value.

Another interesting thing about Mize that shlevine hinted at already is how little he struck out. Most players like him (big slugging first basemen) tend to have really high totals of walks and strikeouts. Mize did walk a lot but did it without the strikeouts. I'm not one of those people who penalizes strikeouts much (I actually think they're sometimes better than regular outs), but it is somewhat of an indicator of Mize's hitting prowess that he was tough to strike out.

[leecemark]

--Where do you get the idea Greenberg was a zero in the field and on the base paths? He wasn't great at those things, but he wasn't bad either. I don't see any reason to give the edge in either department. Greenberg was enough of an athlete to move to LF (not a huge challenge, but even still..) in 1940 to allow Rudy York to get into the lineup at 1B. The move resulted in an MVP for Greenberg and a pennant for the Tigers.

[538280]

--Where do you get the idea Greenberg was a zero in the field and on the base paths? He wasn't great at those things, but he wasn't bad either. I don't see any reason to give the edge in either department. Greenberg was enough of an athlete to move to LF (not a huge challenge, but even still..) in 1940 to allow Rudy York to get into the lineup at 1B. The move resulted in an MVP for Greenberg and a pennant for the Tigers.

From what I've read Greenberg was slow and uncoordinated. Perhaps not an absolute zero but not too far above it. Checking things up a bit more I guess he was an okay fielder.

[johnny]

In Greenberg's bio he mentions that given his prominance he ran into issues with some players/fans due to his being Jewish. He mentions it a few times. I recall reading about how it gave him a little more empathy to the plight of Jackie Robinson/Larry Doby.
In regards to Mize or Greenberg, the latter had 2 MVP's and finished in the top 3 twice. That is fairly dominant in a relatively short career of about 13 years. Mize also finished up on top a number of times but he never won the MVP. So in terms of perception amongst the MVP voters, Greenberg was highly valued in relation to his peers. Does anyone know who was doing the MVP voting during the 30's-40's?

[SABR Matt]

Greenberg had a better peak...Mize was a better all around player (he could field...Greenberg could not) and played for much much longer...I'll take Mize.

[johnny]

Here is something interesting about Mr. Greenberg. He was drafted into the army before Pearl Harbor as part of the peace time draft. Served his peacetime stint effectively losing all of 1941, and then got out three days prior to Dec 7th, 1941. Greenberg reenlisted immediately after war was declared against Japan and emerged as an Air Force captain four years later after serving with distinction in the China-Burma-India Theater.

Mr. Mize also served his country during WW2. Looking at his stats the year after he hit 40 homers he went over to the NY Yankees and for the next five years was a platoon player (a favorite Stengal tactic) and highly effective pinch hitter for the last part of his career. Very valuable player. Years later when asked to name the best DH or what he would consider to be the proto-type DH, no less than former Yankee team-mate Ralph Houk called him the ideal DH.

If the argument is that Mize was a more complete player because he was a better fielder I would have to agree that it makes sense.
But I doubt your gonna lose too much sleep over having to 'settle' for Greenberg during the 30's as opposed to Mize.

[Cowtipper]

My first instinct was to go with Greenberg, but upon looking at their statistics Mize was a little bit better. I think one gauge of a player's greatness is his ability to lead the league in various categories, and Mize has higher black ink than Greenberg.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

My first instinct was to go with Greenberg, but upon looking at their statistics Mize was a little bit better. I think one gauge of a player's greatness is his ability to lead the league in various categories, and Mize has higher black ink than Greenberg.

On the the other hand Greenberg had to compete against Lou Gehrig and Jimmie Foxx for black ink. Greenberg had one season where he had 100 RBI at the All Star break and he didn't make the American League All Star team.

[GiambiJuice]

On the the other hand Greenberg had to compete against Lou Gehrig and Jimmie Foxx for black ink. Greenberg had one season where he had 100 RBI at the All Star break and he didn't make the American League All Star team.

Not to mention Dimaggio...

[PVNICK]

Back in the stone ages I might have had Greenberg third among 1B behind Gehrig and Foxx based on the available data which was HR/RBI and the monstrous peak seasons. Over time career length has factored in among what I will loosely called comparison to the league at the time measures. Currently Mize might be anywhere from 4-7 whereas Greenberg falls back to 8-13 or so.

[GiambiJuice]

WAR (Baseball-Reference) has Mize pretty comfortably ahead.

1 Gehrig
2 Foxx
3 Anson
4 Pujols
5 Connor
6 Brouthers
7 Bagwell
8 Mize
9 Palmeiro
10 Murray
11 McCovey
12 McGwire
13 Helton
14 Hernandez
15 Beckley
16 Greenberg
17 Olerud
18 Clark
19 Terry
20 Sisler
21 Perez
22 McGriff
23 Cash
24 Giambi
25 Cepeda
26 Teixeira
27 Chance
28 Konetchy
29 Grace
30 Judge

[Jackaroo Dave]

WAR (Baseball-Reference) has Mize pretty comfortably ahead.67.8 to 55.1, but if you break it down by PA, it's closer, and when you consider that Mize got 5 replacement WAR more than Greenberg, what it seems to be saying is, "They were about equal, but Mize played 15% longer." Prorated WAA gives Greenberg about 42 to Mize's 44.

I don't see anything in the fielding or baserunning runs to suggest that either was below average.

There was allegedly a sign in the Polo Grounds saying "Anyone interfering with the progress of a batted ball will be ejected from the stadium," with the addendum, "This does not apply to John Mize."

Although Greenberg has been described as clumsy, that doesn't mean he was a bad fielder (or that he was clumsy, either). Honus Wagner is described as scooping up grounders and dirt like coal with a shovel. Gracefulness and effectiveness are different. Frankly, the notion that Hank was a big galoot who accomplished what he did by dint of effort and strength alone seems risible to me.

I get the impression currently that Mize is more highly rated than Greenberg BECAUSE "Greenberg is overrated" and "Mize is underrated." As others have said, I don't see much to choose between them, except Mize played longer, due to circumstances that redown to Greenberg's credit.

[willshad]

I went with Greenberg, because I feel that he had a lot more 'potential'. Mize probably had the better career, due to Greenberg's injuries and the war, but Greenberg had potential to be downright Ruthain. he really only had 7 full seasons, and in 5 of them he set a career high in an offensive category. if we take his BEST stats in each category, it looks like this:

R: 144 H: 203 2B: 63 3B : 16 HR: 58 RBI: 183 BA: 340 OBP: 455 SLG: .670

Mize was great, but a notch below. Greenberg had a lifetime 1.017 OPS, compared to .959 for Mize.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Recently, I've been reading quite a bit about Johnny Mize. I still don't understand why he was so underrated during his career? He was elected to the HoF by the VC after guys like George Kelly, Jim Bottomley, Chuck Klein, and Hack Wilson. Seriously? Traditionally, Mize is the type of player the HoF voters absolutely love: a big slugging first baseman with a high BA with lots of home runs and RBI. It's a puzzling historical question. I wonder how much not playing on a "winner" hurt him? He joined the Cardinals right after the Gas House Gang years of the early 1930's and he was traded right before the Cardinals had their great run in the mid 1940's (1942-1946). The 1940's NY Giants didn't do anything. And by the time Mize joined the Yankee juggernaut he was part-time player, albeit a valuable part-time player.

[pheasant]

I have Johnny Mize squeaking this one out. The kicker is the H/A split. Although Mize took advantage of his home nicely with a 109 tOPS+, Greenberg's 119 tOPS+ is ridiculous. That's almost a Baker Bowl type of split. Due to that, I have Mize winning this, despite Greenberg's slightly more difficult league.