DiMaggio or Musial?

[Appling]

I have seen numerous threads comparing Joe DiMaggio with Ted Williams -- or Stan Musial versus Williams -- but what about Musial versus DiMaggio?

Almost contemporary: DiMaggio played 13 seasons (1936-1942 and 1946-1951) while Stan played 22 seasons (1941-1944 and 1946-1963). Joe was an AL player (Yankees) all his life, while Stan played for the NL Cardinals.
Each had three MVP seasons: Joe 1939-1941-1947 and Stan: 1943-1946-1948.

In his short career of 13 seasons Joe played in 10 World Series. Stan played in four. The two teams faced each other in two WS: In 1942 the Cardinals beat the Yanks in 5 games; in 1943 the Yankees won in another 5 game series.

So over his entire career, who was the better overall ballplayer?

[runningshoes]

If I had to pick which one I want on my team, I'd go with Musial, whether he's better or not.

[KCGHOST]

As fine a hitter as DiMaggio was, Musial was better. In fact, quite a bit better. Even adjusting for the war years (Dimag missed 3 years and Musial 1 year) Musial stands well above Dimag as an offensive weapon. So how much more was Dimaggio worth with the glove?? Honestly, I don't know but I suspect not enough.

[csh19792001]

Obviously Stan buries Dimag in longevity/durability- The Man was an ironman, plain and simple, and I go with him as a result, but it's much closer than one would think. In terms sheer quality while they were playing, it's pretty close.

I can't reproduce the books I've read here on Joe Dimaggio, so I'll stick with statistics, which underestimate Joe's greatness.

I wrote this awhile back.

As to Joe Dimaggio:

In order to truly reconcile the egregious park disparity in an accurate fashion, you could double Dimaggio's career road homerun total (which would give you a total of 426). Then add in the three prime seasons lost to WWII (average of 33 homeruns/year).

Anyway,that brings us to an estimate of 525 career homerunsfor Dimaggio, given a reasonable park and his not missing the age 28-30 seasons.

And again, this is certainly NOT gratuitous; it would only assume a NEUTRAL park in terms of homeruns (equal homeruns at home vs. road)!! We're not putting him at Fenway or Shibe or the Baker Bowl. Most players actually hit slightly more homers at home, despite having more career at bats on the road.

Then you would have to adjust all of the rate stats and career totals in a commensurate fashion- the dramatic increase in home run percentage would bolster his Win Share totals vastly more than your projections, and his career totals in Runs, RBI, TB, etc, etc would go through the roof.

Joe Dimaggio's career OPS on the road was 1.015, which is top 10 alltime (a few of the players ahead of him are still active, and will likely drop off). And consider that this kind of incredible production is coming from a guy who was incredible in center field, never struck out, and was an outstanding baserunner. The top guys in OPS alltime are almost all exclusively "sluggish sluggers"- nobody in the top 10 was an outstanding fielder (in fact, most are/were pretty poor), most were slow, and most struck out a ton to go with their homeruns.

In any case, a proper and fair adjustment would only serve to demonstate how much Dimaggio got screwed by his park and missing what are often a player's best seasons to the military service.

No alltime great was ever routed more be their home park than Joe Dimaggio.

Yankee Stadium
.315/.391/.546 (148 hr)

On The Road
.333/.405/.610 (213 hr)

[Myankee4life]

Dimaggio played a more important position and was a better all around player. He's my choice.

[Appling]

As fine a hitter as DiMaggio was, Musial was better. In fact, quite a bit better. Even adjusting for the war years (Dimag missed 3 years and Musial 1 year) Musial stands well above Dimag as an offensive weapon. So how much more was Dimaggio worth with the glove?? Honestly, I don't know but I suspect not enough.

I voted for DiMaggio mostly for his defensive excellence. Overall career hitting percentages are pretty close, but I must admit that Musial did it over nine additional seasons. Joe was just 36 in his final season, while Musial was 42. For most players, their skills decline pretty rapidly after age 35.

I thought it interesting to compare the "best season" for each of these two stars. Musial's best year was certainly 1948, when his career-best HR total of 39 fell one short of the league leadership but he led the NL in almost every other hitting department: 230 hits, 135 runs, 131 RBI and .376 BA.

What was Joe's best season -- his MVP years of 1939 (.381 BA)? or 1941 (56-game hitting streak)?
I think Joe's best year was 1937 when he led the AL with 46 HR and 151 runs, had his career-best 215 hits and 167 RBI -- and hit for a BA of .346.

[torez77]

I'll take this question to mean "who was the better player?" I rank Stan the Man slightly ahead of Joltin' Joe, though it could be argued Joe had the "better career" due to all the WS titles he won. Being on the Yanks didn't hurt.

[baseballPAP]

I've got Musial in a land slide....
And please lets not get into the debate about "The Chosen One" and his HR totals being "hurt" by a park that FAVORED RH HR hitters durng his career by about 5%.
If defense is a determining factor, let us not forget Musial was way above average in his own right, and also not too proud to move around if the team asked him to....or, he could have retired so that kid from Oklahoma didn't get the chance to take his job...oh wait, that was Joe D.

[Erik Bedard]

I said equal, because I think that whatever skills DiMaggio was lacking with the bat, he made up with the glove.

[hellborn]

I think that DiMag had a better peak, but his lack of dedication to conditioning lead to a shorter career. I read that he'd always show up to spring training needing to get in shape, not fat but with a few extra pounds, and didn't exercise in the offseason. Musial was always in top shape, probably showed up in the spring ready for the season.
I would agree that DiMag was a better defender at his best, but people tend to rate him more on how he looked than how many balls he caught. Still, Musial was never really CF material.

[64Cards]

I think that DiMag had a better peak, but his lack of dedication to conditioning lead to a shorter career. I read that he'd always show up to spring training needing to get in shape, not fat but with a few extra pounds, and didn't exercise in the offseason. Musial was always in top shape, probably showed up in the spring ready for the season.
I would agree that DiMag was a better defender at his best, but people tend to rate him more on how he looked than how many balls he caught. Still, Musial was never really CF material.

I checked one time, I think Stan played about 350 games in CF. Played quite a bit of LF & RF, about split with 1B. Pretty good versatility, especially for a superstar. Could have told the manager "I'm playing LF" and that would be that.

I'd give Joe D. an edge for defense and power. Joe would have hit many more HR's playing anywhere but Yankee Stadium. Stan played in a very friendly HR park for a left handed hitter and posted some good HR numbers, but was really more of a line drive hitter. All in all, I'd take Stan...better all round hitter, much longer durability, plus a guy I'd much rather have as a teammate.

[Tigerfan1974]

Stan. Longevity, production. No Contest.

[538280]

I've got Musial in a land slide....
And please lets not get into the debate about "The Chosen One" and his HR totals being "hurt" by a park that FAVORED RH HR hitters durng his career by about 5%.
If defense is a determining factor, let us not forget Musial was way above average in his own right, and also not too proud to move around if the team asked him to....or, he could have retired so that kid from Oklahoma didn't get the chance to take his job...oh wait, that was Joe D.

Absolutely 100% agreed.

[Bill Burgess]

Within the narrow confines of how the question was asked, Musial had the better career, due to his MUCH greater longevity. But it is just as clear that Joe was the better player. Joe held Stan to a draw as a hitter, was much better in the gardens, and ran better, by rep.

But Joe does not 'bury' Stan by any stretch of the imagination. He is clearly better, by a slight, but decisive degree.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

also not too proud to move around if the team asked him to....or, he could have retired so that kid from Oklahoma didn't get the chance to take his job...oh wait, that was Joe D.

Well another that shows his colors, dislike for Joe. Thats not the theme here, we're discussing who your choice would be based on their ability, how they performed in between the foul lines.