Wagner/Mays: Who Do You Rank Higher as Historical Players?

[Windy City Fan]

The thing that gets me Bill is I don't see where the PA crowd is on Rogers Hornsby. If a SS is able to make up a 17 point gap on a CF, where is the same logic when a 2B has a 19 point LEAD on a CF? I know Mays played longer, but the PA should go way into the Rajah's favor.

Hornsby has a few other knocks against him, real or percieved ....

1) Longevity. Hornsby never played over a 100 games after 1929, when he was a mere 33 years old. His lack of a significant decline phase helps his career rate stats considerably.

2) Defense. Hornsby played second, but he didn't play it particularly well. Also, second in Hornsby's day was not a key defensive position. Third was considered to be far more important defensively in the 1920's. In the modern game, there's no way Hornsby would be playing second base. He'd probably be at first or maybe third if his arm was strong enough.

3) Intangibles. Right or wrong, Hornsby has a reputation as a gigantic horse's ass. JRB has posted some interesting things that indicate that reputation might not be entirely deserved, but many do still ding Hornsby for being a difficult guy in the clubhouse.

Positional adjustments, if one uses them at all, are not the final word on things. One has to look at everything.

[Windy City Fan]

Yes! Bill, for once I've found something I can agree with you on. Yeah, maybe the league was weak, but so what? They all had the same chance as Honus did....and Honus outshone them all. Why blame or penalize him if he was so much better than everyone else? isn't that the idea behind ranking players, who was the best???

But Wanger had a rather unique situation in that he was in a thin league that was also devoid of top tier talent. Put Mays (or Cobb or Gerhig or Speaker or Aaron or any other superstar from the game's history) in that situation and they too would easily dominate as much if not more than Wagner. Take a look at my post about what kind of black ink Mays could've had if he played in a league with no other black players and all the top white stars in the AL.

As I said above, those figures are strictly hypothetical, but they are meant just to give an idea of how dominant Mays (or any great player) would seem when he has absolutely no competition.

[yanks0714]

Hmm. Wow. Whatever happened here? What happened to Honus' vaunted ability to make up 17 OPS+ points on a CFer? Poof? Gone With the Wind?

Oh my. Any explanations here, PA advocates? Sounds like some people have a lot of explaining to do. Didn't someone claim that he gave every SS a huge OPS+ boost. And in this particular case, all he needs is a meesly 6 point OPS+ bump. Hmm.

Appears all that SHORTSTOP rhetoric, about 'opening another hitting slot' got suddenly closed down. Oh well. You win some, you lose some. But the pattern is so obvious by now.

Can anybody explain to me how Honus could make up a 17 point OPS+ gap on someone who outhit, outran him, but can't make it up a 6 point OPS+ gap on someone who he outhit, outran and outfielded, and had a massive PA adjustment on???!!! That's an awful lot of PA to disappear on us!!! Is it me, or has all logic flown out the window, again. Brings out the Inner Freak in me!

Man, I agree with you on one post and the very next post of yours I read just blows me away in it's utter and absolute insidiousness.

Even you should be able to see that Wagner / Cobb was a comp of two deadball players which meant they were playing under the same circumstances.
OTOH, Mays gets a huge boost in LQ.
There, it's explained to you. Hopefully, you'll be able to understand this seemingly simple factor.

BTW, I see that Leecemark has already explained it to you. So, now you have two that have explained it to ya just in case you missed one of the posts.

[yanks0714]

Bill just to give you an idea of the edge Wagner had in facing such watered down competition I decided to figure out what black ink Mays could've accumulated under two hypothetical circumstances. I've only gone up to 1963, but I think it proves my point. (Also, I forgot to look at minor areas like games played and at bats, and I'm too lazy to back and see if it makes a difference)

Circumstance one: Mays is born white and plays in a segregated league. All players of color who finished ahead of him are removed from the leader boards as if it never happened. These are the extra league leads he would've won (only in ink catagories, so OBP/OPS/OPS+ ect are not listed):

1957 Runs (Banks and Aaron removed)
1958 SLG (Banks removed)
1959 Runs (Pinson removed)
1959 Doubles (Aaron and Pinson removed)
1961 SLG (Aaron, Cepeda, Robinson removed)
1961 Doubles (Aaron and Pinson removed)
1961 HR (Cepeda removed)
1961 RBI (Cepeda, Robinson removed)
1961 Steals (Wills, Pinson, Robinson, Aaron removed)
1962 SLG (Aaron Robinson removed)
1962 Runs (Robinson removed)
1962 Doubles (Robinson removed)
1962 RBI (Davis removed)
1963 SLG (Aaron removed)
1963 Runs (Aaron removed)
1963 HR (Aaron and McCovey removed)
39 Extra Black Ink Points (That's better than the career black ink totals of Tris Speaker, Joe DiMaggio, and Frank Robinson)

Circumstance Two: Mays is born white and plays in a segregated league that has been raided of all its top talent, ala the NL of the 1900's. All players of color are removed and all white players in my top 75 of all-time are removed. Here's the extra ink titles Mays would've won:

1954 Runs (Snider/Musial removed)
1955 AVG (Ashburn removed)
1955 RBI (Snider removed)
1957 AVG (Musial removed)
1957 Runs (Banks and Aaron removed)
1957 HR (Aaron, Banks, Snider removed)
1958 AVG (Ashburn removed)
1958 SLG (Banks removed)
1958 Hits (Ashburn removed)
1958 Triples (Ashburn and Banks removed)
1959 SLG (Aaron, Banks, Mathews removed)
1959 Runs (Pinson removed)
1959 Doubles (Pinson and Aaron removed)
1959 HR (Mathews, Banks, Aaron, Robinson removed)
1960 RBI (Aaron, Mathews, Banks removed)
1961 SLG (Aaron, Cepeda, Robinson removed)
1961 Doubles (Aaron and Pinson removed)
1961 HR (Cepeda removed)
1961 RBI (Cepeda, Robinson removed)
1961 Steals (Wills, Pinson, Robinson, Aaron removed)
1962 SLG (Aaron Robinson removed)
1962 Runs (Robinson removed)
1962 Doubles (Robinson removed)
1962 RBI (Davis removed)
1963 SLG (Aaron removed)
1963 Runs (Aaron removed)
1963 HR (Aaron and McCovey removed)
103 Extra Black Ink Points (By way of comparison, Wagner had 109 Black Inks points for his entire career)

Now remember that's only going up to 1963 too!

Excellent point and post!

[yanks0714]

But what I need to know is why is PA suddenly not decisive? If Wagner can hold Willie to a draw in hitting/running, why is PA not proving decisive? Can you see why others are stunned at your sudden de-emphasizing of that which you insisted was decisive earlier? And now, suddenly, LQ is resurrected as the new 'magic bullet'.

Always have that magic bullet in the chamber, for all occasions. Some consistency would be refreshing.

Bill, others aren't stunned. We just understand much better than you do.

[yanks0714]

The thing that gets me Bill is I don't see where the PA crowd is on Rogers Hornsby. If a SS is able to make up a 17 point gap on a CF, where is the same logic when a 2B has a 19 point LEAD on a CF? I know Mays played longer, but the PA should go way into the Rajah's favor.

Chris, don't be so obtuse. You're starting to sound like Bill.

Hornsby was no where near the fielder that Wagner was at SS. You're talking about an all-time great fielder at SS as opposed to a average defensive player at a less demanding position.

Plus, Mays was also an all-time great defensive player while Rogers was, at best, average.

Another point is that 2B was evolving during Rogers day, much as 3B was with the advent of the live ball meaning less bunting.

Personally, I think it's pretty clear.

[yanks0714]

But Wanger had a rather unique situation in that he was in a thin league that was also devoid of top tier talent. Put Mays (or Cobb or Gerhig or Speaker or Aaron or any other superstar from the game's history) in that situation and they too would easily dominate as much if not more than Wagner. Take a look at my post about what kind of black ink Mays could've had if he played in a league with no other black players and all the top white stars in the AL.

As I said above, those figures are strictly hypothetical, but they are meant just to give an idea of how dominant Mays (or any great player) would seem when he has absolutely no competition.

I did and I thought it was an excellent post and point.

I know Wagner's league was weak after the AL raids. But I don not penalize him for something he had no control over. In addition, each of those players had the same opportunity that Honus had. He rose over them all. Why? Because he had that much more talent and preformed better! why should he be penalized for that?

[538280]

The thing that gets me Bill is I don't see where the PA crowd is on Rogers Hornsby. If a SS is able to make up a 17 point gap on a CF, where is the same logic when a 2B has a 19 point LEAD on a CF? I know Mays played longer, but the PA should go way into the Rajah's favor.

Hornsby was playing a different second base than the second base that is played today. Second base, before the double play was a key part of baseball, was not as demanding or important a defensive position as it is today. You need to be able to field groundballs, have a little bit of quickness, but you had a short throw which made all the plays a lot easier than they were for SSs and not nealry as much emphasis was placed on what is now the defining characteristic of a 2Bman's defensive responsibility, turning the double play.

Meanwhile, at thrid base, fielding bunts has become a much less important part of the game. That used to be the main defensive responsibility of a 3Bman which is now negated to not that much importance. The result is that you have a shift in the defensive spectrum, which second base prior the mid 30s or 40s being much like 3B today and 3B prior to the mid 30s/40s being much like 2B today in terms of importance. To provide some more justiication for this you can look at runs created per game for 2Bmen and 3Bmen for the decades from the 1900s to the 1960s:

1900s
2B: 4.54
3B: 4.30

1910s
2B: 4.68
3B: 4.40

1920s
2B: 5.78
3B: 4.75

1930s
2B: 5.31
3B: 5.38

1940s
2B: 4.34
3B: 5.25

1950s
2B: 4.77
3B; 5.52

1960s
2B: 3.87
3B: 4.57

[538280]

Hmm. Wow. Whatever happened here? What happened to Honus' vaunted ability to make up 17 OPS+ points on a CFer? Poof? Gone With the Wind?

Oh my. Any explanations here, PA advocates? Sounds like some people have a lot of explaining to do. Didn't someone claim that he gave every SS a huge OPS+ boost. And in this particular case, all he needs is a meesly 6 point OPS+ bump. Hmm.

Appears all that SHORTSTOP rhetoric, about 'opening another hitting slot' got suddenly closed down. Oh well. You win some, you lose some. But the pattern is so obvious by now.

Can anybody explain to me how Honus could make up a 17 point OPS+ gap on someone who outhit, outran him, but can't make it up a 6 point OPS+ gap on someone who he outhit, outran and outfielded, and had a massive PA adjustment on???!!! That's an awful lot of PA to disappear on us!!! Is it me, or has all logic flown out the window, again. Brings out the Inner Freak in me!

The answer is that every differnt comparison is different. It's not as cut and dried as you can just say he gets a positional adjustment over him that helps him get over the top, so it has to get him over the top as well here. It's a lot easier for you to scream out "contradiction!" in my process when you 1. Don't understand it, and 2. It doesn't favor you man Cobb. If you understood it you'd know that both Mays and Cobb get the EXACT same positional adjustment from my system because they both were CFers. You're trying to make it sound as if PA doens't apply in this case to me, but if you understood the process of my system you would realize that it does. The difference is that in the total sum of everything taken into account, because 1. Mays played in a stronger league than Cobb, and 2. Mays was a better fielder at CF than Cobb, he rises above Cobb and Wagner as well.

[Bill Burgess]

Yes! Bill, for once I've found something I can agree with you on. Bound to happen sooner or later. Yeah, maybe the league was weak, but so what? They all had the same chance as Honus did....and Honus outshone them all. Why blame or penalize him if he was so much better than everyone else? isn't that the idea behind ranking players, who was the best???

Yea, Yanks. Good to be in sync.

[ChrisLDuncan]

The answer is that every differnt comparison is different. It's not as cut and dried as you can just say he gets a positional adjustment over him that helps him get over the top, so it has to get him over the top as well here. It's a lot easier for you to scream out "contradiction!" in my process when you 1. Don't understand it, and 2. It doesn't favor you man Cobb. If you understood it you'd know that both Mays and Cobb get the EXACT same positional adjustment from my system because they both were CFers. You're trying to make it sound as if PA doens't apply in this case to me, but if you understood the process of my system you would realize that it does. The difference is that in the total sum of everything taken into account, because 1. Mays played in a stronger league than Cobb, and 2. Mays was a better fielder at CF than Cobb, he rises above Cobb and Wagner as well.

How does Mays' defense make up for Cobb's bat? It's unamous that Cobb was the better hitter and the better baserunner, so how does Mays' league and his glove make up for that? Look if you would rather have Mays' D over Cobb's O that's fine you take it. I just don't see how the same PA that somehow brings Wagner over Cobb fails to bring Wagner over Mays.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Hornsby has a few other knocks against him, real or percieved ....

1) Longevity. Hornsby never played over a 100 games after 1929, when he was a mere 33 years old. His lack of a significant decline phase helps his career rate stats considerably.

Agreed, but I tend to favor peak, and that for me gets Hornsby ahead of Mays

2) Defense. Hornsby played second, but he didn't play it particularly well. Also, second in Hornsby's day was not a key defensive position. Third was considered to be far more important defensively in the 1920's. In the modern game, there's no way Hornsby would be playing second base. He'd probably be at first or maybe third if his arm was strong enough.

WRONG, just some of the advanced metrics screw over Hornsby...ask any coach or other player from his day. They'll all tell you that he was above average, if you would read the Hornbsy thread you would realize that he was bettter than what you are giving him credit for.

3) Intangibles. Right or wrong, Hornsby has a reputation as a gigantic horse's ass. JRB has posted some interesting things that indicate that reputation might not be entirely deserved, but many do still ding Hornsby for being a difficult guy in the clubhouse.

Positional adjustments, if one uses them at all, are not the final word on things. One has to look at everything.

Well he was a gigantic horse's ass, but he was a gigantic horse's ass who was the best right handed hitter of all time. Hell if Roy Williams says that he likes TO in the club house, I'm pretty sure the Rajah's teammates got used to him, and his production, in their club house.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Hornsby was playing a different second base than the second base that is played today. Second base, before the double play was a key part of baseball, was not as demanding or important a defensive position as it is today. You need to be able to field groundballs, have a little bit of quickness, but you had a short throw which made all the plays a lot easier than they were for SSs and not nealry as much emphasis was placed on what is now the defining characteristic of a 2Bman's defensive responsibility, turning the double play.

Meanwhile, at thrid base, fielding bunts has become a much less important part of the game. That used to be the main defensive responsibility of a 3Bman which is now negated to not that much importance. The result is that you have a shift in the defensive spectrum, which second base prior the mid 30s or 40s being much like 3B today and 3B prior to the mid 30s/40s being much like 2B today in terms of importance. To provide some more justiication for this you can look at runs created per game for 2Bmen and 3Bmen for the decades from the 1900s to the 1960s:

1900s
2B: 4.54
3B: 4.30

1910s
2B: 4.68
3B: 4.40

1920s
2B: 5.78
3B: 4.75

1930s
2B: 5.31
3B: 5.38

1940s
2B: 4.34
3B: 5.25

1950s
2B: 4.77
3B; 5.52

1960s
2B: 3.87
3B: 4.57

The RC chart IMO does not really speak to the difficulty of second base but more to the great second basemen that played in yesteryear. Charlie Gehringer, Eddie Collins, Nap Lajoie, and Rogers Hornsby. Yes second base was different then, but I'd still say that it was more of a 'value' position as you like than CF was in Mays' game. So the PA should favor the Rajah in this case...also the huge lead that he has on Mays offensively should give him some points too.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Chris, don't be so obtuse. You're starting to sound like Bill.

Why that's the nicest thing anyone's ever said to me.

[Windy City Fan]

Duncan: I've read the thread, and I'm convinced Hornsby wasn't horrible like some people make him out to be, but on a historical level his glove is pretty weak.

Oh, and I forgot to mention LQ which is another factor going against Hornsby in comparison to Mays. Many consider the NL of the 50's and 60's to be the deepest league in the history of the game. Hornsby's NL of the 20's is generally considered to be much thinner.

In Cobb vs Mays, for those that back Mays (I don't), LQ is the deciding factor.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Duncan: I've read the thread, and I'm convinced Hornsby wasn't horrible like some people make him out to be, but on a historical level his glove is pretty weak.

Fair enough I thought you were one of those who said his glove was on a Jeff Kent level...my appoligies

Oh, and I forgot to mention LQ which is another factor going against Hornsby in comparison to Mays. Many consider the NL of the 50's and 60's to be the deepest league in the history of the game. Hornsby's NL of the 20's is generally considered to be much thinner.

In Cobb vs Mays, for those that back Mays (I don't), LQ is the deciding factor.

I know the LQ arguments that for me still doesn't make Mays the better offensive force.

[538280]

How does Mays' defense make up for Cobb's bat? It's unamous that Cobb was the better hitter and the better baserunner, so how does Mays' league and his glove make up for that? Look if you would rather have Mays' D over Cobb's O that's fine you take it. I just don't see how the same PA that somehow brings Wagner over Cobb fails to bring Wagner over Mays.

If you want to check how you can look at the page that describes my system and run through the math yourself (not that I'm trying to say my system is right about everything, but just because you continue to state that I'm somehow not applying the same adjustments in each case-this is not true). Both Mays and Cobb and Wagner go through the same thing. In the case of Cobb vs. Wagner the PA is enough to put Wagner ahead, as well as his great glovework. When Cobb is up against Mays however, he doesn't have much of an offensive edge at all. On relative numbers Cobb definitely has an offensive edge against Mays, but Mays played against a much deeper talent pool-being 20% better than the NL in 1960 IMO is not the same thing as being 20% than the AL in 1910. The average was just higher in Mays' day, enough that I don't think there's a big difference between being 67% better for Cobb and 56% better for Mays.

[Bill Burgess]

If you want to check how you can look at the page that describes my system and run through the math yourself (not that I'm trying to say my system is right about everything, but just because you continue to state that I'm somehow not applying the same adjustments in each case-this is not true).

I have a suggestion for you, Sir Christopher. Instead of inviting us to peruse your system (which few to any of us will do), why not simply show the numbers of your system for us. You could do that infinitely better than we could.

If you claim that each of them were processed in the same identical way, why not show your numbers, and assuage our fears.

LQ: Here is why I reject LQ. The league might be much improved, but so were the players who played in them. Each individual player was fully prepared to compete in Willie's leagues on an equal basis. Each was much better trained than were their 1905 counter-parts. The 1960 player was infinitely more prepared to both reach the MLs, compete in them, and stay there. No one had an undue advantage over the other player.

So, everyone who had to play against tougher competition, was fully fortified to make himself compete against them. And in reverse, all the players in the 1910's were infinitely worse prepared to succeed against their competition.

So, why adjust? Willie Mays had advantages over Honus Wagner in succeeding against anyone that Honus couldn't even dream of.

Willie had better training facilities, training equipment, accumulated playing knowledge, better coaching, better vitamins, much better medical care. He had everything he needed to succeed against a tougher class of competition.

He played in front of much huger crowds (to juice his adrenaline), had better media to showcase his talents, was on TV, so the whole world could see him, and hence further his fame, made tons more money, and probably had many more creature comforts to help him relax, and have a better life.

Yet despite all of this, you give him a huge LQ adjustment. I believe that LQ is unjust.

[Minstrel]

Look if you would rather have Mays' D over Cobb's O that's fine you take it.

Nobody's taking "Mays' D over Cobb's O." Defense is never more valuable than elite offense, by itself. Many people would take Mays' combination of offense and defense (plus baserunning) over Cobb's combination of offense and defense and baserunning.

It's not like Cobb has great offense and zero defense, while Mays has zero offense and great defense, so it's a defense versus offense comparison. This isn't Manny Ramirez versus Ozzie Smith.

Mays had exceptional offense himself. Just a bit below Cobb at most...they had similar peaks (Cobb slightly higher) and similar career EQA over similarly long careers.

So the question is not whether Mays' defense is more valuable than Cobb's offense. It's whether Mays' great defense is more valuable than a slight difference in offense.

[ChrisLDuncan]

If you want to check how you can look at the page that describes my system and run through the math yourself (not that I'm trying to say my system is right about everything, but just because you continue to state that I'm somehow not applying the same adjustments in each case-this is not true). Both Mays and Cobb and Wagner go through the same thing. In the case of Cobb vs. Wagner the PA is enough to put Wagner ahead, as well as his great glovework. When Cobb is up against Mays however, he doesn't have much of an offensive edge at all. On relative numbers Cobb definitely has an offensive edge against Mays, but Mays played against a much deeper talent pool-being 20% better than the NL in 1960 IMO is not the same thing as being 20% than the AL in 1910. The average was just higher in Mays' day, enough that I don't think there's a big difference between being 67% better for Cobb and 56% better for Mays.

Well then I guess my problem will be with your system in general. I have expierence in advanced math, but not much in the way of statistics...so I'm not exactly sure what value to place on which things if I were to make a statistical system. I'm not all that high on stastistical systems in these types of arguments, I feel that they do a good job for drafting a player...but occasionally they will produce odd results.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Nobody's taking "Mays' D over Cobb's O." Defense is never more valuable than elite offense, by itself. Many people would take Mays' combination of offense and defense (plus baserunning) over Cobb's combination of offense and defense and baserunning.

It's not like Cobb has great offense and zero defense, while Mays has zero offense and great defense, so it's a defense versus offense comparison. This isn't Manny Ramirez versus Ozzie Smith.

Mays had exceptional offense himself. Just a bit below Cobb at most...they had similar peaks (Cobb slightly higher) and similar career EQA over similarly long careers.

So the question is not whether Mays' defense is more valuable than Cobb's offense. It's whether Mays' great defense is more valuable than a slight difference in offense.

Cobb was a fine CF himself, he wasn't Richie Ashburn, Tris Speaker, or Andruw Jones...but he wasn't exactly 2005 Bernie Williams (sorry bro )...Mays on the other hand was a top ten defensive CF of all time. However Mays at the dish I wouldn't say was a top ten hitter of all time, Cobb I think an argument can be made that he was a top five hitter. Mays on the basepaths was good but highly overrated, GIDPed a ton of times, stole at a good rate but not a great rate, oddly enough most metric guys will tell you that Mantle was the better baserunner. Cobb on the otherhand was no worse than the second best baserunner of all time; Bill thinks that he was the best of all time, I say Henderson has a case...but that's another story, like I said you can take what Mays brought to the table (sirloin in this case) and I'll take what Cobb brought to the table (prime rib in this case)

[Bill Burgess]

Nobody's taking "Mays' D over Cobb's O." Defense is never more valuable than elite offense, by itself. Many people would take Mays' combination of offense and defense (plus baserunning) over Cobb's combination of offense and defense and baserunning.

It's not like Cobb has great offense and zero defense, while Mays has zero offense and great defense, so it's a defense versus offense comparison. This isn't Manny Ramirez versus Ozzie Smith.

Mays had exceptional offense himself. Just a bit below Cobb at most...they had similar peaks (Cobb slightly higher) and similar career EQA over similarly long careers.

So the question is not whether Mays' defense is more valuable than Cobb's offense. It's whether Mays' great defense is more valuable than a slight difference in offense.

Nice breakdown. And necessary too. Very deftly nuanced. I like it a lot. Keep it up, good friend.

[Bill Burgess]

Cobb was a fine CF himself, he wasn't Richie Ashburn, Tris Speaker, or Andruw Jones...but he wasn't exactly 2005 Bernie Williams (sorry bro )...Mays on the other hand was a top ten defensive CF of all time. I'd put him in the top 4, after McAleer, Lange, Ashburn. However Mays at the dish I wouldn't say was a top ten hitter of all time, We elected Willie our 10th best hitter ever. Cobb I think an argument can be made that he was a top five hitter. We elected Ty our 3rd best hitter ever, after Babe/Teddy, ahead of Hornsby. Mays on the basepaths was good but highly overrated, GIDPed a ton of times, stole at a good rate but not a great rate, oddly enough most metric guys will tell you that Mantle was the better baserunner. Cobb on the other hand was no worse than the second best baserunner of all time; Bill thinks that he was the best of all time, I say Henderson has a case...but that's another story, like I said you can take what Mays brought to the table (sirloin in this case) and I'll take what Cobb brought to the table (prime rib in this case)

Nice posting, Chris. I also enjoy your food analogies! hmm hmm good!

[ChrisLDuncan]

Nice posting, Chris. I also enjoy your food analogies! hmm hmm good!

Thanks

Few questions, I assume that Speaker is your best defenisve CF? Also 10th for Mays is way too high IMO. I'd also say that Speaker was along the lines of Rib Eye, and Mantle was Filet Migon.

[Bill Burgess]

Thanks

Few questions, I assume that Speaker is your best defenisve CF? Also 10th for Mays is way too high IMO. I'd also say that Speaker was along the lines of Rib Eye, and Mantle was Filet Migon.

Here's how I rank my defensive CFers:

1. Jimmie McAleer (If you've never met Jimmy, please allow me to introduce you to him. http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.p...3&postcount=75
2. Tris Speaker
3. Richie Ashburn
4. Willie Mays
5. Bill Lange (Have you met the amazing Mr. Bill yet? If not, please allow me to introduce him to you! http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.p...2&postcount=73
6. Max Carey

Today's defensive CFers:

1. Andrew Jones
2. Tori Hunter
3. Mike Cameron
4. Jim Edmonds
5. Mark Kotsay