Gehrig or Musial

[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.

[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.