Hornsby vs Mantle

[willshad]

I'm not certain, but I am fairly sure that on this site, and in general, Mickey Mantle is ranked higher than Hornsby on all time lists. I know that Bill James ranks Mantle MUCH higher. I just would like to get a general consensus. To me, Hornsby is clearly ahead, and I don't see a case for Mantle, except if you assume he had a much higher league quality and count that for a lot. To me , Rogers has the positional advantage, was a better hitter, and has better peak seasons (though Mantle's few best weren't that far off). he was probably a better fielder for his position as well, or at least equal. Mantle has a slight advantage in games played and n the bases.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The Commerce Comet all the way!

[BigRon]

Since you referenced James: James has Mantle 6th alltime among ALL players (including pitchers and Negro Leaguers) and 6th among position players. He ranks Hornsby 22nd alltime among all, and 18th among position players. A couple of observations: James has always had a bit of a love affair with Mantle. Most of his evaluation of Mantle (in my opinion) is quite good, but he has always given him more credit as a fielder than he probably deserves, and perhaps also some emotional/inspirational extra credit. On the other hand, it's also clear that James doesn't like Hornsby. He's written numerous times about Hornsby's personality, and how he was a negative influence on his teams. Analytically, James has them pretty close. Mantle has a small but real advantage in career Win Shares (WS), top 3 year WS, top 5 WS, and WS/162 games. Based on James' analytical ratings Mantle would still come out ahead, but not by as much as he finally ranks them. He has used a "personal" adjustment to downgrade Hornsby further than his data shows. Even though he doesn't mention it specifically with reference to Hornsby, James admits that he also uses anecdotal information and historical observation as factors in his rankings. I don't think there's anything terribly wrong with that, but it seems to me that Mantle/Hornsby is a case where he has applied it to the real advantage of one (Mantle) and disadvantage to the other (Hornsby).

I see them as very close. Both were awesome hitters, Hornsby probably even moreso. That advantage is largely offset by Mantle's extremely high walk rates. Both were very good baserunners, but Mantle had more speed, particularly during the first half of his career. Hornsby was a much better fielder than some purport, but he wasn't anything special. Mantle was a so-so fielder the first few years, then became a good CFer for 5 or 6 years. Injuries then began to drag him down and he became quite average. Both had early ends to the really productive parts of their careers- Mantle, due to myriad injuries and genreal dissipation, and Hornsby due to a broken leg, I believe.

I give Mantle a small edge, but it's very close in my book. I rate Mantle 9th alltime among ML position players, and Hornsby 11th or 12th.

[willshad]

The Commerce Comet all the way!

would you care to explain why?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

would you care to explain why?

For me it's simple. The players of the 1920's-30's are grossly overrated IMO. Oh they were certainly great ballplayers for their time but their helium-inflated stats greatly overrate them. Yes. Hornsby hit almost .400 over a five year period and that is certainly impressive to a point. But that doesn't mean Hornsby is a greater hitter than another hitter who hit for a lower BA in a more recent and tougher era. Along with my love of baseball history I am also a runner and read lots of distance running history. There have been legendary runners over that past 130 years or so. But over time runners have progressively gotten better and faster and the level of competition has increased dramatically over the decades especially with the domination of the East African runners in the past 20 years or so. This is how I view baseball history. The baseball of the 1920's in not remotely comparable in terms of quality and difficulty as the more modern eras. No one would argue that the athletes of the 1920's could compete with more modern athletes yet baseball gets a pass on this fact? I simply do not understand that. As for Hornsby vs Mantle, I'd take Mantle because he has greater baseball tools IMO and given identical playing conditions I believe he would be a more dominant player than Hornsby. I can't prove any of this course but it is my general feeling on the matter.

[westsidegrounds]

baseball is not a purely athletic game. it depends primarily on hand-eye coordination and reaction speed - genetically determined abilities that, in humans, will change (if at all) over the course of millennia, not decades. and it's not a one-dimensional activity. the skills involved in, for example, running from point A to point B can be isolated and developed, in a handful of athletes, and even so it takes years of training to do that one thing a few hundredths of a second faster than the next person. but the ability to hit a curve ball on the outside corner - there's no way to create the ability to do that.

as far as the poll goes, I rate them too even to call. Hornsby was blazing fast at his peak - you don't hit .424 without great footspeed.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

baseball is not a purely athletic game. it depends primarily on hand-eye coordination and reaction speed - genetically determined abilities that, in humans, will change (if at all) over the course of millennia, not decades.

It is true baseball is not entirely an athletic game but having great athleticism is an advantage in baseball when combined with great baseball skills. And Mantle is one of the greatest athletic ballplayers ever who also had great baseball skills.

and it's not a one-dimensional activity. the skills involved in, for example, running from point A to point B can be isolated and developed, in a handful of athletes, and even so it takes years of training to do that one thing a few hundredths of a second faster than the next person. but the ability to hit a curve ball on the outside corner - there's no way to create the ability to do that.

This is no different that training to be a great runner. Both are developed skills. To run a marathon averaging 4:40 per mile for 26 miles is a developed skill. As is hitting a curveball on the outside corner. To be a great runner one must do different kinds of running; long runs, tempo runs, interval work, hill work, plus weight training, etc.

as far as the poll goes, I rate them too even to call. Hornsby was blazing fast at his peak - you don't hit .424 without great footspeed.

I not so sure about that. Hornsby wasn't a slappy singles hitter legging them out. I'm sure hornsby was fast for his time but I don't know if he'd be fast in other eras.

[westsidegrounds]

I not so sure about that. Hornsby wasn't a slappy singles hitter legging them out. I'm sure hornsby was fast for his time but I don't know if he'd be fast in other eras.

it's not just beating out a few bloopers though (although he must have done that) but just making it in to 2B or even 3B, where another guy would have found himself sliding into the tag. remember, Hornsby is 25th in career triples (seven appearances among the top 6 in the NL). I think he would be considered fast today.

I still feel that baseball is better compared to maybe golf than to track & field or football. sure training has improved, but give Bobby Jones a modern set of clubs and he'd be winning tournaments today.

[pheasant]

Mantle wins, but this is close. Mantle's 172 OPS+ in a more competitive era is more impressive to me than Hornsby's 175 OPS+ during the wave of homeruns. Hornsby's OPS+ is a bit inflated because too many people were still slapping singles during this hitters' era. Similarly, Ruth's OPS+ is a bit inflated, although I still have him as the best ever. The reason I think this would be close is if you bring Hornsby to Mantle's era, then he'd raise his game. This guy was so dedicated, that he refused to even go to the movies to protect his vision. Hornsby would have flown to warmer climates during the 1950s and 1960s to improve his game. Hornsby was an absolute fanatic about hitting. But Mantle's better God-given talent still squeaks out this victory. A healthy Mantle and sober Mantle would have arguably been the best ever.

[willshad]

For me it's simple. The players of the 1920's-30's are grossly overrated IMO. Oh they were certainly great ballplayers for their time but their helium-inflated stats greatly overrate them. Yes. Hornsby hit almost .400 over a five year period and that is certainly impressive to a point. But that doesn't mean Hornsby is a greater hitter than another hitter who hit for a lower BA in a more recent and tougher era. Along with my love of baseball history I am also a runner and read lots of distance running history. There have been legendary runners over that past 130 years or so. But over time runners have progressively gotten better and faster and the level of competition has increased dramatically over the decades especially with the domination of the East African runners in the past 20 years or so. This is how I view baseball history. The baseball of the 1920's in not remotely comparable in terms of quality and difficulty as the more modern eras. No one would argue that the athletes of the 1920's could compete with more modern athletes yet baseball gets a pass on this fact? I simply do not understand that. As for Hornsby vs Mantle, I'd take Mantle because he has greater baseball tools IMO and given identical playing conditions I believe he would be a more dominant player than Hornsby. I can't prove any of this course but it is my general feeling on the matter.

Then you must also believe that many of the players that play now are better than Mantle, since athletes are getting better as time goes on?

[willshad]

Mantle wins, but this is close. Mantle's 172 OPS+ in a more competitive era is more impressive to me than Hornsby's 175 OPS+ during the wave of homeruns. Hornsby's OPS+ is a bit inflated because too many people were still slapping singles during this hitters' era. Similarly, Ruth's OPS+ is a bit inflated, although I still have him as the best ever. The reason I think this would be close is if you bring Hornsby to Mantle's era, then he'd raise his game. This guy was so dedicated, that he refused to even go to the movies to protect his vision. Hornsby would have flown to warmer climates during the 1950s and 1960s to improve his game. Hornsby was an absolute fanatic about hitting. But Mantle's better God-given talent still squeaks out this victory. A healthy Mantle and sober Mantle would have arguably been the best ever.

You need to look how they hit, relative to their positions. Not only does Hornsby have a higher OPS+, but no other second baseman is anywhere near his level. There are at least 3 centerfielders that are as good as Mantle. You can argue that Cobb, Mays and Speaker were all better hitters.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

it's not just beating out a few bloopers though (although he must have done that) but just making it in to 2B or even 3B, where another guy would have found himself sliding into the tag. remember, Hornsby is 25th in career triples (seven appearances among the top 6 in the NL). I think he would be considered fast today.

I still feel that baseball is better compared to maybe golf than to track & field or football. sure training has improved, but give Bobby Jones a modern set of clubs and he'd be winning tournaments today.

Honestly, we don't know that. That's assuming that since Jones was a great champion in his time he would be a great champion today. We simply don't know. Besides baseball requires far greater athleticism than golf. That's why scouts are always looking for the athletic ballplayers.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Then you must also believe that many of the players that play now are better than Mantle, since athletes are getting better as time goes on?

Sure, some are no doubt but not that many. The increase in athletic performance has become stagnant IMO in the past 20 years or so. With modern science athletes are pushing on the upper limits of athletic performance. This was not happening say from the 1920's to the 1950's. This is where PED's come into play. If one looks at the women's track and field world records the vast majority go back to the 1980's. The current women today cannot touch these world records because of far more stringent drug testing.

What made Mantle special was his insane athletic ability combined with his incredible baseball skills. This is an extremely rare combination. Baseball America rated Bo Jackson as the player with the greatest baseball tools ever in their publication history. But he lacked great baseball skills. He was an undisciplined hitter with no feel for the game. Can you imagine Bo Jackson having the feel for the game of a Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle or Ty Cobb? That would be down right scary.

[pheasant]

You raise a good point about a second baseman posting those huge numbers. I don't want to knock Mantle because there were better center fielders, however. I don't believe that's fair for the comparison. But an infielder with good range does close the gap considerably. Hornsby today with modern training and medicine along with his dedication would still be great, IMHO.

[Nimrod]

As far as hitting goes,Ted Williams ranked Hornsby as the 4th greatest hitter ever.Mantle came in 12th on his "hit list".Pie Traynor who played against Hornsby for years and saw quite a bit of Mantle in exhibition games as well as WS games later when he(Traynor) was in broadcasting,claimed that Hornsby(right-handed)could get down faster to first than even a left-handed Mantle could.Hard to believe,but, at the very least,Hornsby could flat run.He had a standing $2,000.00(in the 20`s) bet that he could beat anyone in the league.No one ever took him up on said bet.Christy Mathewson considered him the fastest man in the NL.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

As far as hitting goes,Ted Williams ranked Hornsby as the 4th greatest hitter ever.Mantle came in 12th on his "hit list".Pie Traynor who played against Hornsby for years and saw quite a bit of Mantle in exhibition games as well as WS games later when he(Traynor) was in broadcasting,claimed that Hornsby(right-handed)could get down faster to first than even a left-handed Mantle could.Hard to believe,but, at the very least,Hornsby could flat run.He had a standing $2,000.00(in the 20`s) bet that he could beat anyone in the league.No one ever took him up on said bet.Christy Mathewson considered him the fastest man in the NL.

I'm not buying that at all. How can a person tell with any accuracy the difference in speed between two players 20-30 years apart? That is not even remotely possible.

[Nimrod]

I'm not buying that at all. How can a person tell with any accuracy the difference in speed between two players 20-30 years apart? That is not even remotely possible.

The point I was making is that Hornsby was very fast,not that Traynor was able to absolutely tell the difference between two base runners separated by decades.Casey Stengel,Mantle`s own manager,also considered Hornsby to be a greater hitter than Mantle.That`s the more important aspect-the hitting.Dimaggio,Cobb, and Feller are some more of the legion of baseball men who considered Hornsby Mantle`s superior in regards to hitting.

[Joltin' Joe]

Dimaggio,Cobb, and Feller are some more of the legion of baseball men who considered Hornsby Mantle`s superior in regards to hitting.

Really?? Cobb absolutely despised Hornsby so that's saying a lot. Well...not really.... Most bitter old men always thinks things were better in their days. Also the environment that Hornsby played in favored hitters so much that it would be easy to imagine that Hornsby hit better than Mantle.

[willshad]

I don't think there is any argument against the fact that Hornsby was a better hitter than Mantle. Just the batting average difference alone shows this. I know that people here don't look at batting average, but what it really shows is the ability to make contact, and make good, consistent contact. Isn't that really what makes a hitter great? Power is also a factor, and, though Mantle may have had more home run power, Hornsby has him beat easily in doubles and triples power. Overall. Hornsby had more power. Mantle's OPS+ is close to Hornsby's, mostly because he walked a ton. To me, this makes little difference, as Hornsby has Mantle beat rather easily in on base percentage, too.

Hornsby is a top 5 all time hitter. Mantle is Jim Thome with speed. Big difference.

As far as Hornsby being super fast...his stolen base success does not reflect this. For the years I see the data, it looks like he was caught stealing as often as he was successful. I'm not saying this fact alone means he wasn't fast. But surely if he was the fastest man in the league his rate of success would be better.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Hornsby is a top 5 all time hitter. Mantle is Jim Thome with speed. Big difference.

Mantle is top 5-7 player. Hornsby is Jeff Kent with a better batting average. willshad, my man, you are one of my favorite BBF posters especially make posts like this!

[willshad]

Mantle is top 5-7 player. Hornsby is Jeff Kent with a better batting average. willshad, my man, you are one of my favorite BBF posters especially make posts like this!

Thank you, kind sir.

I did not mean it as an insult to call Mantle Jim Thome with speed. A guy with that kind of raw power and patience at the plate, combined with elite speed is a great combination. I just happen to think that a top 5 all time bat at the second base position is even better.

You have the right to think Mantle is a top 5 player all time. I don't agree, but I certainly think he could have been, if he had stayed healthier. I also think that Jeff Kent, with 70-80 points added to his batting average, and accompanying raising of his OBP and slugging% is indeed a top 5 or 10 all time player.

[dominik]

To me hornsby is better:

-higher OPS+
-tougher position

WAR has it close however. Hornsby has only 7 more WAR then mantle. (127 vs 120). I would have thought the difference was bigger but mantles speed might have gained him some points.

I'm not certain, but I am fairly sure that on this site, and in general, Mickey Mantle is ranked higher than Hornsby on all time lists. I know that Bill James ranks Mantle MUCH higher. I just would like to get a general consensus. To me, Hornsby is clearly ahead, and I don't see a case for Mantle, except if you assume he had a much higher league quality and count that for a lot. To me , Rogers has the positional advantage, was a better hitter, and has better peak seasons (though Mantle's few best weren't that far off). he was probably a better fielder for his position as well, or at least equal. Mantle has a slight advantage in games played and n the bases.

I agree with that. both were great players though. hitting was quite close. hornby 175 OPS+ and mantle 172. that is not much of a difference.

[Nimrod]

I don't think there is any argument against the fact that Hornsby was a better hitter than Mantle. Just the batting average difference alone shows this. I know that people here don't look at batting average, but what it really shows is the ability to make contact, and make good, consistent contact. Isn't that really what makes a hitter great? Power is also a factor, and, though Mantle may have had more home run power, Hornsby has him beat easily in doubles and triples power. Overall. Hornsby had more power. Mantle's OPS+ is close to Hornsby's, mostly because he walked a ton. To me, this makes little difference, as Hornsby has Mantle beat rather easily in on base percentage, too.

Hornsby is a top 5 all time hitter. Mantle is Jim Thome with speed. Big difference.

As far as Hornsby being super fast...his stolen base success does not reflect this. For the years I see the data, it looks like he was caught stealing as often as he was successful. I'm not saying this fact alone means he wasn't fast. But surely if he was the fastest man in the league his rate of success would be better.

Keep in mind that Christy Mathewson also observed Max Carey`s speed at the time he saw Hornsby as a newcomer.Carey had a great base stealing percentage-the best of his time and impressive even by today`s standards.Yet Mathewson, among others thought Hornsby faster.For that matter,check out Tris Speaker`s base stealing percentage.It is only 57%.Yet I am very confident that Spoke had outstanding speed judging by his reputation and his performance in center field.Ty Cobb only had a 64% success rate(in the seasons that we have a record of)and there were quite a few people who thought he was fast!

[Nimrod]

Really?? Cobb absolutely despised Hornsby so that's saying a lot. Well...not really.... Most bitter old men always thinks things were better in their days. Also the environment that Hornsby played in favored hitters so much that it would be easy to imagine that Hornsby hit better than Mantle.

Dimaggio hated Hornsby with a passion and also rated Hornsby as one of the five greatest hitters ever along with Ruth,Cobb,Gehrig,and Williams.Ted used to playfully get Dimaggio`s goat by mentioning Hornsby.When Dimaggio held out for more money in 1937,Hornsby was quoted as saying "Who the hell is Joe Dimaggio"?!Joe never forgot that quip by Hornsby.Cobb played against Hornsby in winter ball out in California circa 1920 and proclaimed him the greatest hitter he ever saw.The story about Cobb hating Hornsby stemmed from the very dubious yarn spun by Al Stump(that Ted Williams denied)that Cobb threw a glass at Williams in the spring of 1960 after Williams stated that Hornsby even managed to out hit Cobb for a few seasons.Cobb left Hornsby off of his all-time team list and Hornsby was irritated by that fact and in retaliation left Cobb off of HIS all-time team(he replaced him with Joe Jackson).They apparently made up.Cobb always considered Eddie Collins as, pound for pound, the greatest player he ever saw and he was of course a fellow AL player,so it wasn`t because of hate that Cobb chose Collins over Hornsby.Cobb even praises Hornsby as a hitter in his autobiography.Hornsby later put Cobb back on his all-time team.

[Joltin' Joe]

I agree with that. both were great players though. hitting was quite close. hornby 175 OPS+ and mantle 172. that is not much of a difference.

With OPS+ that close, I personally have to factor in league quality and the timeline theory to break the "tie". I cannot imagine Hornsby having an OPS+ that high playing in the league that Mantle played in. Clearly when a player can hit .400 for a five year period, the competition is not coming from the best talent pool on the planet.