Lou Gehrig vs. Mickey Mantle

[willshad]

I fully understand that runs were more scarce in Mantle's era, but I think the difference is TOO MUCH to excuse just by saying Gehrig had better conditions to hit...especially in average, plate discipline(putting contact on the ball) , and RBIs. Both played on the best offenses of their eras. Also their QUALITY may have been similar, when they did play, but Gehrig was putting this quality into FULL SEASONS, he wasnt missing a lot of time each year, like Mantle. You must give him credit for being in there every day.
Lets put it this way, IF Mantle had stayed healthy and never gotten hurt, his career would be much like Gehrig's. Say if he had 8 or 9 seasons like 1956. Mantle is more a 'what if?' kinda guy, and Gehrig is someone who actually fully realized the full potential of just how good a hitter truly can be(until he got the disease). Give Mantle an edge in fielding and running, but if his running didnt actually do anything to help him get more stolen bases and extra base hits, then i dont see how it can count for that much. Maybe he could have gotten a lot more infield singles and hit .350, but if Gehrig could hit .350 without the infield singles then obviously that negates any speed advantage.
I think a much beter comparison is Mantle and Frank Thomas..their rate stats are nearly identical, mantle a bit more power, Thomas more of a run producer. They both had awesome peaks, but maybe Mantle a bit better. But Thomas had more great seaons where he stayed healthy and put it all together. Obviously Mantle gets the edge due to all around play, but just for pure hitting i see them as about equal.

[White Knight]

By having the evidence presented to you that he shouldn't be so far ahead.

If I say I have A-Rod ahead of Cobb, and my only support is that I have A-Rod so far ahead of Cobb that no one could ever convince me Cobb is better, no matter how much they could teach me about baseball, is that actually good suport for my case?

But I gave some good stats, you didn't tell me why you think A-Rod, who still has 5+ years left, is better.

There, see? That's having a closed mind. It's assuming that you've seen it all and know it all, nothing could change your mind.

Of course I haven't seen it all or know it all, but from what I have seen I know I'm not changing my mind.

I have Mantle around my top five and Gehrig usually just outside my top 10. I don't claim no one more intelligent than I could ever convince me otherwise, though. I'm always open to learn more.

For me it's the exact opposite. I have Gehrig around or just outside my top five, and Mantle around 11 or 12. I am open to move Mantle up, but find it unlikely I'll move Gehrig down.

Also, as Classic points out, Gehrig has about nothing to do with this thread, I'm not sure why you brought him him. I would like this split off, if possible, though, because I want to continue so I can find out how one person can know everything.

Ask and you shall receive.

[philkid3]

Knight, I'm sorry, but your mind is just too closed on this to be worth discussing. You've firmly said you could never be persuaded basically by all the facts in the world, so what's the point of any level of debate?

[White Knight]

Knight, I'm sorry, but your mind is just too closed on this to be worth discussing. You've firmly said you could never be persuaded basically by all the facts in the world, so what's the point of any level of debate?

I said from what I have seen I won't change my mind. Show me something to change it. Show me your top five. List who you have better than Mantle. At this time, from what I know, I just can't see how Mantle is anywhere near the top five.

I know I originally said nothing could change my mind. I shouldn't have used those words. I have changed my mind on things like this before and may do so again. I just meant I looked at both stats extensively, and put Lou quite a bit ahead, so I don't see how I can change my mind (but could if shown enough).

[philkid3]

But dude, we've had this discussion before. Is there anything that's actually going to happen? Just seems like you have your mind made up.

My top five, btw, is Ruth, Bonds, Williams, Mays, Wager. Then Cobb, if you wan't to pretend I didn't just say Bonds.

That's actually changed some from even just a year ago.

[csh19792001]

Also. Lou led the league in OPS+ 3 times, while Mantle led the league in OPS+ 8 times. In that regard Mantle was even more dominating in his era than Lou was in his era.

c JRB

In that regard, the comparison is moot. Gehrig finished second to Ruth in:

1927
1928
1929
1930
1931

Later, he barely lost several league leads while contending with Foxx (one of the best ever in this stat), and at the end of his career, Greenberg. Fact is, Gehrig had much stiffer competition at the top in terms of hitters than Mantle did. It's not even remotely close.

He had to contend with a fading- and oft injured- Ted Williams for a few seasons, but most years, the guys he was contending with were players like Kaline, Maris, Cash, Sievers, and Boog Powell.

[White Knight]

But dude, we've had this discussion before. Is there anything that's actually going to happen? Just seems like you have your mind made up.

My top five, btw, is Ruth, Bonds, Williams, Mays, Wager. Then Cobb, if you wan't to pretend I didn't just say Bonds.

That's actually changed some from even just a year ago.

Well, I think most discussions out here aren't really about changing anyone's mind, they're more abut getting your point across and stating your case. Kind of like on political forums. They can talk about gun-control and the death penalty all they want, but changing the other side's mind is nearly impossible. In all honestly, I don't see how I could ever change my mind about Lou being better. But I will say that I shouldn't have said I won't change it ever.

That's a great top five. Mine is Ruth, Bonds, Cobb, Williams, and, well, I go back and forth on my 5th. Sometimes I put Wagner, sometimes Mays, sometimes Gehrig. After those guys it's Hornsby, Aaron, and Mantle. I think it's very possible though that Pujols or A-Rod might crack in there, if they continue on their current rate.

[philkid3]

Well, I think most discussions out here aren't really about changing anyone's mind, they're more abut getting your point across and stating your case. Kind of like on political forums. They can talk about gun-control and the death penalty all they want, but changing the other side's mind is nearly impossible. In all honestly, I don't see how I could ever change my mind about Lou being better. But I will say that I shouldn't have said I won't change it ever.

And those aren't discussions I have much interest in having for very long. There's no point.

[Joltin' Joe]

As for the argument, I'll go with Gehrig. He stayed healthy and produced EVERY year. He was far more consistent that Mantle. And you can say what you want about the era he played in, but Gehrig was at least the second best player in the league most years, and when Ruth retired, was probably the best player in the league. He was a better hitter, and I don't think it's really debatable. Mantle was better defensively and on the base paths, but Gehrig more than made up for it with his durbaility edge.

Mantle vs Gehrig as a hitter is a highly debatable topic. I don't see how you can just say Gehrig was the better hitter and it's not debatable.

[mtortolero]

I'll give Mantle three advantages. He was faster, he did play a tougher position, and he had slightly more power. That's it, everything else I give to Gehrig. Much better hitting for average, greatest knact for getting RBI's in in the history of the game, was not a strikeout artist like mantle, and wasn't always getting hurt (and if he did, he played anyway). Mantle also was obsessed with hitting a ball out of Yankee Stadium. Sounds a bit selfish if you ask me.

As for the opinions here, I put people here as extremely smart, but far too computerized stat oriented. Stats that the average baseball fan never heard of. I prefer raw stats, not this ajustment stuff.

I am not sure about Gerigh being an slow runner because in a 10 years span, between 1925 and 1934, he had 130 triples, being leader in 1926 and three other times in the top three of the leaderboard. I trend to think that his awfull CS% was because he was really bad taking the time to pitchers.

[White Knight]

Mantle vs Gehrig as a hitter is a highly debatable topic. I don't see how you can just say Gehrig was the better hitter and it's not debatable.

I don't see how you can't, but disagreements are healthy.

[RyanExpress30]

Lou Gehrig

[LouGehrig]

Mantle vs Gehrig as a hitter is a highly debatable topic. I don't see how you can just say Gehrig was the better hitter and it's not debatable.

This is the funniest, saddest thread I have ever seen.

Gehrig hit .340
Mickey hit .298

Gehrig BABIP = .332
Mickey BABIP = .318 (yes, strikeouts make a difference)

Gehrig SLG = .632 LgSLG = .413
MickeySLG = .557 LgSLG = .386

Gehrig OBA = .447 LgOBA = .356
Mickey OBA = .421 LgOBA = ..329

Gehrig RBIs = 149 (unbelievable)
Mickey RBIs = 102

Gehrig HRs = 37
Mickey HRs = 36

My next thread will be to evaluate Joe DiMaggio and Carlos Beltran.

[Second Base Coach]

If Lou Gehrig was as good as Mickey Mantle, Gehrig would have played Center Field too.

[LouGehrig]

How did Mickey compare to Lou when Mickey DID play first base?

Ever hear of Earle Combs or Joe DiMaggio? Interestingly, each had a .325 lifetime BA.

[White Knight]

If Lou Gehrig was as good as Mickey Mantle, Gehrig would have played Center Field too.

And if Mantle was as good as Gehrig, they would have made him captain, but they didn't.

[Second Base Coach]

I don't think ANYBODY was captain when Mickey played.

Wasn't Munson the first captain named in so many years....

Yankee fans, help us out.

[deadball-era-rules]

I don't know why anyone would pick Mantle over Gehrig. Both were very talented, but Mantle was the epitome of an undependable player, from what I've heard. He caroused and was always getting hurt. Dependability is a big deal. Gehrig's hitting ability alone makes it a tough choice, but his steadfastness and character makes him an obvious pick for me.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Mantle has played more games as a Yankee than anyone ever including Gehrig. Gehrig was a great player but IMO his stats are inflated by the era he played in. Mantle is the choice here.

[ol' aches and pains]

My very unscientific mind is not Sabremetrically inclined, so I made this decision using a very simple measurement. Runs win ball games. Gehrig drove in 149 runs per year on the average. I don't know if that's the best all-time, but it's more than Ruth, Foxx, Greenberg and anybody else I bothered to look up, and it sure beats Mantle's RBI production. I'll take Gehrig.

[mwiggins]

My very unscientific mind is not Sabremetrically inclined, so I made this decision using a very simple measurement. Runs win ball games. Gehrig drove in 149 runs per year on the average. I don't know if that's the best all-time, but it's more than Ruth, Foxx, Greenbrg and anybody else I bothered to look up, and it sure beats Mantle's RBI production. I'll take Gehrig.

I seem to remember that one of these guys had players like Babe Ruth (.474) & Joe DiMaggio (.398 OBP) hitting in front of him for his whole career; while the other guy had players like Gil McDougald (.356 OBP) and Tony Kubek (.303 OBP) and Bobby Richardson (.299 OBP) and Roger Maris (.345 OBP) hitting in front of him for most of his career.

And yes runs do win games, but it took more runs to win a game back in Gehrig's time (about 21% more) than it did when Mantle played.

[ol' aches and pains]

If it took more runs to win a game in Gehrig's time, it's a good thing the Yankees had Gehrig instead of Mantle at that time. Not only did he drive in considerably more runs than Mantle, he didn't miss a game for almost 14 years.

[mwiggins]

If it took more runs to win a game in Gehrig's time, it's a good thing the Yankees had Gehrig instead of Mantle at that time. Not only did he drive in considerably more runs than Mantle, he didn't miss a game for almost 14 years.

Gehrig wasn't driving in those "considerably more runs" while holding down a prime defensive position, despite playing hurt in all but about 100 games of his career, the way Mantle did. There's more to baseball than just hitting. If the poll question is just who was the better hitter, then of course it's Lou.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

If it took more runs to win a game in Gehrig's time, it's a good thing the Yankees had Gehrig instead of Mantle at that time. Not only did he drive in considerably more runs than Mantle, he didn't miss a game for almost 14 years.

Too bad Mantle didn't get to play in the 1920s-30s so he could have highly inflated RBI totals with Babe Ruth batting in front of him.

Of the top 20 single season RBI totals in history, 19 of of them came before 1938. I guess all the greatest "RBI guys" played before 1938.

[mwiggins]

Too bad Mantle didn't get to play in the 1920s-30s so he could have highly inflated RBI totals with Babe Ruth batting in front of him.

Of the top 20 single season RBI totals in history, 19 of of them came before 1938. I guess all the greatest "RBI guys" played before 1938.

Makes sense, they were just better hitters in Gehrig's era HWR. Guys like Simmons (134 RBI/162) and Wilson (128 RBI/162) and Trosky (122 RBI/162) were just flat out better hitters than guys like Cobb (103 RBI/162), Mantle (102 RBI/162), Mays (103 RBI/162), Lajoie (104 RBI/162), and Speaker (89 RBI/162). I bet the Indians were glad to have Trosky on their team rather than a guy like Mantle who didn't drive in nearly has many runs.