If you were starting a team today......

[CMIZ5290]

All players being the exact same age......Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Griffey Jr., or Mike Trout?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Mays

[rats60]

Clemente

[tedzan]

Hi Kevin

Absolutely.....Mickey Mantle....."Mister Clutch" in the Big games.

These other guys cannot compare with Mickey's 18 - HR's in World Series play (1952 - 1964).

Mickey being a major force for his team being in that many W.S. during those years.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[iwantitiwinit]

Mantle, especially with the advancement in repairing knee injuries over the past 60 years the guy would be unstoppable.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Mays

[commishbob]

Mays

[Pilot172000]

Mays- Best pure baseball player ever

[boysblue]

Trout

[TexasDan]

Aaron

[frankbmd]

Interesting question with several slam dunk answers

If the age was 58, I would take Satchel Paige.

If the age was 54. I would take Minnie Minoso.

And if the age was 15, it would have to be Joe Nuxhall.

For many of the ages in between I would take Willie Mays.

In film I would take Willie Mays Hayes of course.:D

[A2000]

Babe Ruth!

[bbcard1]

From that list, I would go Griffey or Mantle but would be happy with any on that list...also one not on that list...Bonds.

[AGuinness]

Hi Kevin

Absolutely.....Mickey Mantle....."Mister Clutch" in the Big games.

These other guys cannot compare with Mickey's 18 - HR's in World Series play (1952 - 1964).

Mickey being a major force for his team being in that many W.S. during those years.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

Babe Ruth!

It is an interesting question, and I would assume that it includes the caveat that what a player accomplished in his career is not necessarily included for the team we are starting today. Mantle certainly proved he could hit 18 HR in the World Series, although I would hazard a guess that every one player on the list has the talent to possibly hit 18 home runs if given 273 PA in WS play.
My gut reaction is to say Trout, because he's the only player who has proven he can do it at the elite level under the current conditions.
Ruth is a good alternative to the answers given, and I think there could be others who would be fun to drop into 2019 and see what they could do if starting their young careers now... Bonds, Bo, Josh Gibson, Cobb... I guess I'd really love to see what Bo would have done if he committed to baseball and had the modern training methods, etc!

[ValKehl]

Aaron.

[Bigdaddy]

Say Hey!

[Santo10Fan]

Hank Aaron, mainly because I never got to see him play (in person) even though he came through Wrigley every year

[Rookiemonster]

Willie Mays first 5 tool player and the best that ever did it .

[JohnnyFinance7]

I vote for Mike Trout

[Neal]

All players being the exact same age......Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Griffey Jr., or Mike Trout?from this list, Mays

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Neal]

Mantle would be on TMZ every night lol

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[yanksfan09]

Mantle, especially with the advancement in repairing knee injuries over the past 60 years the guy would be unstoppable.

Agree with this out of the players stated.

Also assuming players would restart their careers now I’m assuming everyone’s at full health so I’d choose Mantle. I’d also be more hopeful that he maybe wouldn’t be able to get away with quite as much night life and hopefully fewer hangovers at the ballpark.

[egri]

I’m surprised Ted Williams hasn’t been mentioned yet. At any rate, he’s who I’d pick, though if I had to stick to the list, Trout.

[yanksfan09]

Mantle would be on TMZ every night lol

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Yea , hopefully he wouldn’t go the “Johnny football” route.

[yanksfan09]

I’m surprised Ted Williams hasn’t been mentioned yet. At any rate, he’s who I’d pick, though if I had to stick to the list, Trout.

Yea Williams , Cobb and Ruth May make my top 3 (not in that order) and none are mentioned.

[sycks22]

Kent Hrbek

[cardsfan73]

Going to be a homer and go with Stan Musial! Mays would be my second choice.

[Huysmans]

Mantle hands down, its not even a contest
I'm surprised others were mentioned :)

[Mark17]

Of those mentioned, Mays. Otherwise, Williams. Imagine Ted playing in the days of the 162 game schedule, with all the expansion (watering down the league's pitching talent), and not missing 5 years to military service.

Mantle didn't take care of himself; that self-destructive behavior puts him below a Mays or Williams in my book.

[71buc]

My position player would be Mays
My pitcher would be Gibson or Feller

[oldjudge]

In the post season only one of the big three performed better than he did during the regular season—Aaron. Mays stunk during the post season and Mantle had a lower batting average, SLG, and OBP than he had during the regular season. He did hit 18 HRs, but he was in the WS virtually every year from his rookie season until 1964. My choice would be Aaron.

[Mark17]

In the post season only one of the big three performed better than he did during the regular season—Aaron. Mays stunk during the post season and Mantle had a lower batting average, SLG, and OBP than he had during the regular season. He did hit 18 HRs, but he was in the WS virtually every year from his rookie season until 1964. My choice would be Aaron.

There's more than one way to help win a World Series...

[darwinbulldog]

Mays

[obcbobd]

From the list - Mays

[JohnP0621]

Joe D
His stats compare or are better than all listed.

[robkas68]

Going with Ted Williams

[Huysmans]

There's more than one way to help win a World Series...

Yes, Mays' ONE way....
As opposed to Mantle's World Series-record 18 home runs, 40 RBIs, 26 extra-base hits and 42 runs.

[Huysmans]

In the post season only one of the big three performed better than he did during the regular season—Aaron. Mays stunk during the post season and Mantle had a lower batting average, SLG, and OBP than he had during the regular season. He did hit 18 HRs, but he was in the WS virtually every year from his rookie season until 1964. My choice would be Aaron.

The problem with this is that Aaron was only able to deliver ONE postseason championship...
And for people mentioning Williams, he never brought home a single World Series win.
What's more important in the end... stats? Or championships?
Considering this, Mantle is king.

[KCRfan1]

The Yankee teams, back in the day, were loaded with talent. Aaron and Williams didn't have the luxury that Mantle had in that respect if we're looking only at championships. Put Aaron or Williams on those same Yankee teams that Mantle played on, and both players bring home the hardware too.

[Huysmans]

The Yankee teams, back in the day, were loaded with talent. Aaron and Williams didn't have the luxury that Mantle had in that respect if we're looking only at championships. Put Aaron or Williams on those same Yankee teams that Mantle played on, and both players bring home the hardware too.

Extremely doubtful.
The Yankees were a powerhouse first and foremost BECAUSE of Mantle.
And are you honestly going to say Aaron or Williams were as clutch??

[egri]

The Yankees had pitching depth that far exceeded the Red Sox, and Yankee management integrated the team before Tom Yawkey did. He had the first shot at Willie Mays and Ernie Banks, and passed on both.

[Touch'EmAll]

Making the assumption the careers are what they are - cannot change, just that they are all rookies at same time.

In post-season play, Hank Aaron easily tops them all: Mays BA .247, SLG .337, OPS .660 (really poor) - Mantle BA .257, SLG .535, OPS .908 - Hank Aaron BA .362, SLG .710, OPS 1.116 (now you're talkin'!)

From year #1 to year #last = Hank Aaron, bingo!

[tedzan]

Making the assumption the careers are what they are - cannot change, just that they are all rookies at same time.

In post-season play, Hank Aaron easily tops them all: Mays BA .247, SLG .337, OPS .660 (really poor) - Mantle BA .257, SLG .535, OPS .908 - Hank Aaron BA .362, SLG .710, OPS 1.116 (now you're talkin'!)

From year #1 to year #last = Hank Aaron, bingo!


Who are you kidding ! ?

How about making a fair comparison ? ?

Aaron was only in two World Series (1957 & 1958)
Totals.... BA= .362, HR= 3, RBI = 9, SLG = .786 (1957) and .407 (1958)

Compare that with the 1952 and 1960 World Series totals...…
Mantle BA = .355, HR = 5, RBI = 13, SLG = .655 (1952) and .800 (1960)

Hey guy
I am fortunate (and old enough) to having seen all these stars play since 1947.
Unless you have, too, there is no way you can actually appreciate any of them.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Touch'EmAll]

Not kidding anyone, simply looked at the stats. Aaron had 3 post season appearances - in 1969 NLCS played 3 games, had 14 At Bats and posted really good numbers. Sorry the overall sample size is small compared to Mantle, but what can you do about that? Mantle probably had better overall teams to help get to more post season appearances.

[Mark17]

Extremely doubtful.
The Yankees were a powerhouse first and foremost BECAUSE of Mantle.
And are you honestly going to say Aaron or Williams were as clutch??

If Mantle was THE reason the Yankees won so many pennants, then why did he only win 1/3 of the Yankee MVP awards during the 1951-1964 period?

Yankee MVPs:

1951 AL Yogi Berra
1954 AL Yogi Berra
1955 AL Yogi Berra
1956 AL Mickey Mantle
1957 AL Mickey Mantle
1960 AL Roger Maris
1961 AL Roger Maris
1962 AL Mickey Mantle
1963 AL Elston Howard

[Huysmans]

If Mantle was THE reason the Yankees won so many pennants, then why did he only win 1/3 of the Yankee MVP awards during the 1951-1964 period?

Yankee MVPs:

1951 AL Yogi Berra
1954 AL Yogi Berra
1955 AL Yogi Berra
1956 AL Mickey Mantle
1957 AL Mickey Mantle
1960 AL Roger Maris
1961 AL Roger Maris
1962 AL Mickey Mantle
1963 AL Elston Howard

If this had any realistic bearing.... why aren't Maris, Berra or Howard considered better players than Mantle??? NO ONE being honest would even consider that, so this is meaningless. There have been discussions on here whether Maris is even HOF material, with the majority feeling he isn't (I think he is), so what relevance are MVP awards in the big picture?
When the things that are most important are considered, his World Series records and total Fall Classic victories... Mantle is tops.

[oldjudge]

I was an avid Yankee fan growing up in the Bronx. The guys I thought of as clutch players were Berra and Skowron, not Mantle. Williams or Aaron could have absolutely won as many championships or more if they were on the Yankees instead of Mantle.

[oldjudge]

Who are you kidding ! ?

How about making a fair comparison ? ?

Aaron was only in two World Series (1957 & 1958)
Totals.... BA= .362, HR= 3, RBI = 9, SLG = .786 (1957) and .407 (1958)

Compare that with the 1952 and 1960 World Series totals...…
Mantle BA = .355, HR = 5, RBI = 13, SLG = .655 (1952) and .800 (1960)

Hey guy
I am fortunate (and old enough) to having seen all these stars play since 1947.
Unless you have, too, there is no way you can actually appreciate any of them.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

Ted-Take the rose colored glasses off. If you want to cherry pick years I'll focus on 1961-63.

[Huysmans]

I was an avid Yankee fan growing up in the Bronx. The guys I thought of as clutch players were Berra and Skowron, not Mantle. Williams or Aaron could have absolutely won as many championships or more if they were on the Yankees instead of Mantle.

Its funny that Aaron and Williams are based on "what ifs" as opposed to actual facts. If they could take teams to World Series championships like Mantle did... they would have. There would be no need for conjecture and postulation.
Could've, should've, would've....

If Ted's opinions are through rose coloured glasses, with all due respect, yours are based on pure assumption.

[Mark17]

If this had any realistic bearing.... why aren't Maris, Berra or Howard considered better players than Mantle??? NO ONE being honest would even consider that, so this is meaningless. There have been discussions on here whether Maris is even HOF material, with the majority feeling he isn't (I think he is), so what relevance are MVP awards in the big picture?
When the things that are most important are considered, his World Series records and total Fall Classic victories... Mantle is tops.

I am not saying Mantle wasn't the overall best player on his team. Just like Mays was the best on the Giants, Aaron on the Braves, Clemente on the Pirates, and Williams on the Red Sox.

What I AM saying is that 6 times out of 9, when the sportswriters voted on who was the single Yankee most responsible for them winning the pennant during that given year, they named one of Mickey's teammates instead of him.

Point is, he was on a great team surrounded by all sorts of talent, so you can't give him all the credit for his many post-season opportunities. In 1962, Mantle played only 123 games, and in 1963 he played in only 65 games, but both years the Yankees won the pennant. In other words, they could win even with Mantle not in the lineup on a regular basis.

[Touch'EmAll]

My dad grew up in Upstate New York, said many times Billy Martin was clutch and stepped it up in postseason.

Regular season: BA .257, SLG. .369, OPS .669
Post Season: BA .333, SLG. .566, OPS .937

[Huysmans]

I am not saying Mantle wasn't the overall best player on his team. Just like Mays was the best on the Giants, Aaron on the Braves, Clemente on the Pirates, and Williams on the Red Sox.

What I AM saying is that 6 times out of 9, when the sportswriters voted on who was the single Yankee most responsible for them winning the pennant during that given year, they named one of Mickey's teammates instead of him.

Point is, he was on a great team surrounded by all sorts of talent, so you can't give him all the credit for his many post-season opportunities. In 1962, Mantle played only 123 games, and in 1963 he played in only 65 games, but both years the Yankees won the pennant. In other words, they could win even with Mantle not in the lineup on a regular basis.

Yeah, and the Red Sox, Braves and Giants couldn't win with Williams, Aaron or Mays.

[tedzan]

Not kidding anyone, simply looked at the stats. Aaron had 3 post season appearances - in 1969 NLCS played 3 games, had 14 At Bats and posted really good numbers. Sorry the overall sample size is small compared to Mantle, but what can you do about that? Mantle probably had better overall teams to help get to more post season appearances.

With all due respect.....all I am saying is, if you are going to compare stats you must compare World Series performances. And, Aaron played in only two W.S.
As we all know, there were no League Play-off series in Mantle's timeframe.

So, I will reprise the numbers which show only World Series stats for comparison of Aaron and Mantle. Mantle wins this contest in every category except forBA.



Aaron was only in two World Series (1957 & 1958)
Totals.... BA= .362, HR= 3, RBI = 9, SLG = .786 (1957) and .407 (1958)

Compare that with the 1952 and 1960 World Series totals...…
Mantle BA = .355, HR = 5, RBI = 13, SLG = .655 (1952) and .800 (1960)



You favor Aaron, I favor Mantle, and that's fine with me. But, my question to you is if Aaron was so great, why wasn't he more of a force in having the Braves
win more Championships ? They certainly had some great players back then (Mathews, Adcock, Crandall, Spahn, Burdette, Buhl, etc., etc.).


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Mark17]

Yeah, and the Red Sox, Braves and Giants couldn't win with Williams, Aaron or Mays.

By your logic, Billy Martin was a better player than Ernie Banks.

[Touch'EmAll]

A team has many players, one of which may be a superstar. Sure, it helps a lot for the superstar to put up big numbers. But the rest of the big bunch counts for a whole lot more on a team trying to win rings. If I were to analyze it, I would start with the pitching, top to bottom, of Mantle's Yankees vs. Aaron, Mays, etc. teams. Pitching is a big factor if a team is going to go far. The Yankees "gelled" as a great team together, all components worked, Mantle was recognized as top dog, but the supporting cast was darn good and clutch overall.

[Huysmans]

By your logic, Billy Martin was a better player than Ernie Banks.

No, that's your logic.
Again, ad nauseam, IF Williams, Aaron and Mays could've taken teams to World Series championships like Mantle did... They would have. It's simple.

[Mark17]

No, that's your logic.
Again, ad nauseam, IF Williams, Aaron and Mays could've taken teams to World Series championships like Mantle did... They would have. It's simple.

Again, Mantle did not single-handedly take his team to all those championships. In fact, most of the time he was not even named most valuable on his own team.

[Huysmans]

Again, Mantle did not single-handedly take his team to all those championships. In fact, most of the time he was not even named most valuable on his own team.

Yet, look at the World Series records he holds.... They say you're wrong.
And of course he was the most integral component to the Yankees success, whether you want to admit it or not.

[JollyElm]

This thread feels like it's devolving into a cry to recognize yet another new and ridiculous stat. Let's call it MAR. :cool:

MVPs Above Replacement, commonly abbreviated to MAR, is a non-standardized sabermetric baseball statistic developed to sum up "a player's total contributions to his team." A player's MAR value is claimed to be the number of additional MVP awards his teammates have received above the number of expected MVP awards his teammates would have won if that player were substituted with a replacement-level player: a player who may be added to the team for minimal cost and effort.

[58pinson]

Mays. The best I've ever seen.

[egri]

Its funny that Aaron and Williams are based on "what ifs" as opposed to actual facts. If they could take teams to World Series championships like Mantle did... they would have. There would be no need for conjecture and postulation.
Could've, should've, would've....

If Ted's opinions are through rose coloured glasses, with all due respect, yours are based on pure assumption.

The Red Sox didn’t have any pitching, and I don’t see how that is the fault of their left fielder. The one year they did, they won 104 games and the pennant, as Williams won his first MVP. When Williams came up, their best pitcher was 39 year old Lefty Grove. After the war, once Ferriss and Hughson came up lame, they were carried by Mel Parnell (who himself was injured from 1952 onward) and Ellis Kinder, who didn’t break out until he was 35. Williams was a big part of the 1950 offense that scored 1,000 runs (he had 28 HRs in 89 games despite an elbow injury at the ASG that nagged him for the rest of his career). But that team finished in third, because they had one pitcher with an ERA below 4.00.

[jakebeckleyoldeagleeye]

Gehrig-RBI machine.

[Ricky]

No, that's your logic.
Again, ad nauseam, IF Williams, Aaron and Mays could've taken teams to World Series championships like Mantle did... They would have. It's simple.

Williams, Aaron and Mays simply did not have the talent around them the way that Mantle did, either in the lineup or on the mound. They did for short periods of time but not for the extended period of time during their careers as Mantle did.

Same holds true for Trout. Can anyone argue that he's not the best player in baseball right now? But can he get his team to the postseason, even with the extra wild card spots? He can't, because he doesn't have the talent around him.

[Mark17]

Yet, look at the World Series records he holds.... They say you're wrong.
And of course he was the most integral component to the Yankees success, whether you want to admit it or not.

He was in more World Series so of course he has bigger numbers.

As far as him being the most integral part of his teams, your argument is not with me, it is with the sportswriters, who, yet again, 6 times out of 9, named one of Mickey's teammates, NOT Mickey, as being the most integral player responsible for the success of that season.

I don't accept the premise that only World Series stats measure a player's value. If that was the case, then Billy Martin (5 WS home runs) was far better than Ted Williams, which is silly. For that matter, Mantle hit only .257 in the World Series with a .374 slugging average, while Martin hit .333 with .371 slugging average.

Back to the original question, if I could have one of these guys, I would want many years of production. That means Aaron or Mays. A good argument can be made either way but I would choose Mays over Aaron because I want the defense and speed.

Player Hits Runs RBI Homers SB Avg.
Aaron 3771 2174 2297 755 240 .305
Mays 3283 2062 1903 660 338 .302
Mantle 2415 1676 1509 536 153 .298

[tedzan]

A team has many players, one of which may be a superstar. Sure, it helps a lot for the superstar to put up big numbers. But the rest of the big bunch counts for a whole lot more on a team trying to win rings. If I were to analyze it, I would start with the pitching, top to bottom, of Mantle's Yankees vs. Aaron, Mays, etc. teams. Pitching is a big factor if a team is going to go far. The Yankees "gelled" as a great team together, all components worked, Mantle was recognized as top dog, but the supporting cast was darn good and clutch overall.


I agree with everything you are saying here. But, there is another significant factor which we haven't mentioned......Casey Stengel. Stengel was a "genius" on knowing how to manage
his players and the pitchers in order to get the best out of them.

I remember back in the Fall of 1949 when the Yankees were in a 3-game play-off series vs the Red Sox. His ace pitcher Allie Reynolds was off to a bad start. Stengel brings in Joe Page
(his closer) in the 6th inning. Page shuts out the Red Sox for 4 innings (allowing them only one hit) to win the game. Stuff like that in a crucial play-off game you just never forget.

In another situation.....the Yankee starter is having a bad day, Stengel thought nothing of bringing in his ace starter Allie Reynolds in relief to win the game. I could post on many more
such stories which would fill up numerous Net54 page of many exciting BB games (and events) which I recall from my youth.

I'll leave it for another day, though.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[brian1961]

Mickey Mantle----always! ----Brian Powell

[CMIZ5290]

I started the thread without giving my opinion, but my choice would be Mantle...

[oldjudge]

I agree with everything you are saying here. But, there is another significant factor which we haven't mentioned......Casey Stengel. Stengel was a "genius" on knowing how to manage
his players and the pitchers in order to get the best out of them.

I remember back in the Fall of 1949 when the Yankees were in a 3-game play-off series vs the Red Sox. His ace pitcher Allie Reynolds was off to a bad start. Stengel brings in Joe Page
(his closer) in the 6th inning. Page shuts out the Red Sox for 4 innings (allowing them only one hit) to win the game. Stuff like that in a crucial play-off game you just never forget.

In another situation.....the Yankee starter is having a bad day, Stengel thought nothing of bringing in his ace starter Allie Reynolds in relief to win the game. I could post on many more
such stories which would fill up numerous Net54 page of many exciting BB games (and events) which I recall from my youth.

I'll leave it for another day, though.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

Like when he picked Turley over Whitey Ford for game 7 against the Pirates, and then used every other starter in relief instead of Ford. I think Stengel won because he had a stacked team and a farm team in Kansas City, not because of his strategy.

[Mark17]

I agree with everything you are saying here. But, there is another significant factor which we haven't mentioned......Casey Stengel. Stengel was a "genius" on knowing how to manage
his players and the pitchers in order to get the best out of them.


Exactly!

I have the audio recording of Larsen's perfect game in the 1956 World Series. The key play that saved it was Mantle's running catch of Hodges' shot to left-center. As Hodges comes to bat, the announcer mentions that Stengel climbs to the top of the dugout and waves Mickey over several steps. A couple pitches later, Mantle just barely saves the perfecto.

Stengel truly was a great, great manager.

[Huysmans]

The last thing I'll say on the topic is that my opinion is based on actual facts, history, and what Mantle did.
The differing opinions, with all due respect, are based on conjecture, what ifs and mere possibilities. If you gave Aaron, Mays and Williams Mantle's team, there is no way anyone can say that they would've done the same.... Its possible, but there are no guarantees... No one can argue that. So it's just wishful thinking, nothing more.
Mantle did it, those other players did not.

Bottom line, I'm basing this on facts, not what might have been.
The same can't be said for the differing opinions.

Hard facts always trump conjecture....

[Mark17]

The last thing I'll say on the topic is that my opinion is based on actual facts, history, and what Mantle did.
The differing opinions, with all due respect, are based on conjecture, what ifs and mere possibilities. If you gave Aaron, Mays and Williams Mantle's team, there is no way anyone can say that they would've done the same.... Its possible, but there are no guarantees... No one can argue that. So it's just wishful thinking, nothing more.
Mantle did it, those other players did not.

Bottom line, I'm basing this on facts, not what might have been.
The same can't be said for the differing opinions.

Hard facts always trump conjecture....

My final word is this: Take a typical Yankee championship year. Plug in the production of Mays (or Aaron) for that same year instead of Mantle's, and the Yankees still win. And since Mays and Aaron took better care of themselves, their careers lasted longer and their total production was far superior.

[todeen]

Since we are only starting a team, rather than looking at postseason success, I would take Tris Speaker. He had the tools and intelligence to play in different eras and be great. All time doubles leader, incredible speed, outstanding defense, and as he got older he became a mentor to players - so he was one of those personalities you want in the clubhouse... early day version of Mike Trout.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[frankbmd]

The Yankees in the 50s had a major league farm team in Kansas City (also in the AL) complete with a shuttle bus. Now that's depth.

[todeen]

But I am torn. Behind Tris Speaker, I might make take Frank Robinson. MVP in two leagues. Intelligence that transferred to managing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[tedzan]

Exactly!

I have the audio recording of Larsen's perfect game in the 1956 World Series. The key play that saved it was Mantle's running catch of Hodges' shot to left-center. As Hodges comes to bat, the announcer mentions that Stengel climbs to the top of the dugout and waves Mickey over several steps. A couple pitches later, Mantle just barely saves the perfecto.

Stengel truly was a great, great manager.

Hi Mark

Oct 8th 1956....believe it or not....I stayed home from school that day and watched the Perfect Game on our 12" TV .

Thanks for recalling that tremendous catch by Mickey of Gil Hodges 400+ foot drive to Yankee Stadium's left-centerfield ("death valley"). If Mickey was not as fast a runner as he was,
we wouldn't be talking about that unprecedented Perfect-No-Hit game that day.

Not only did he save the day for Don Larsen, Mickey hit a HR in the 4th inning that went on to be winning hit. For Sal Maglie pitched a pretty darn good game for the Dodgers.



TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Mark17]

Hi Mark

Oct 8th 1956....believe it or not....I stayed home from school that day and watched the Perfect Game on our 12" TV .

Thanks for recalling that tremendous catch by Mickey of Gil Hodges 400+ foot drive to Yankee Stadium's left-centerfield ("death valley"). If Mickey was not as fast a runner as he was,
we wouldn't be talking about that unprecedented Perfect-No-Hit game that day.

Not only did he save the day for Don Larsen, Mickey hit a HR in the 4th inning that went on to be winning hit. For Sal Maglie pitched a pretty darn good game for the Dodgers.

A lot of people don't realize that Maglie retired the first 11 Yankees before Mantle hit that home run. So it was a duel perfect game with 2 out in the bottom of the 4th inning.

[Bigdaddy]

The last thing I'll say on the topic is that my opinion is based on actual facts, history, and what Mantle did.
The differing opinions, with all due respect, are based on conjecture, what ifs and mere possibilities. If you gave Aaron, Mays and Williams Mantle's team, there is no way anyone can say that they would've done the same.... Its possible, but there are no guarantees... No one can argue that. So it's just wishful thinking, nothing more.
Mantle did it, those other players did not.

Bottom line, I'm basing this on facts, not what might have been.
The same can't be said for the differing opinions.

Hard facts always trump conjecture....

So with that logic, you'd pick Whitey or Yogi or even Scooter over any other players of their time, since they 'did it'.

Mickey was great, one of the greatest, but I'd still take Willie. But I couldn't blame anyone for taking any of the other choices.

[tedzan]

A lot of people don't realize that Maglie retired the first 11 Yankees before Mantle hit that home run. So it was a duel perfect game with 2 out in the bottom of the 4th inning.


Mark

Apparently, Stengel was quite impressed with Maglie's performance that day, that the Yankees signed him up in the Summer of 1957.

The final pitch....does a photograph of a significant moment in BaseBall get much better than this ?


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/donlarsenperfectphotoAutog.jpg



TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[jiw98]

I've had a similar discussion with the Pastor at the church I attend. The fact that he grew up not only watching the Yankees, he also grew up in the dugout and locker room. After going back and for about great players in the 50's and 60's he point blank said that Mantle was the best player he had ever seen. He pointed out that Mantle played most of his career injured, but talent wise he said that nobody was better that he saw. So after this discussion and going back and forth on several players I will have to agree with him.
I'll go with Mantle.

[Peter_Spaeth]

From Jane Leavy's biography of Mantle.
Q. Who was better, you or Mays?
A. Expletive Willie.

Great line about Willie from Leo Durocher, who immediately recognized his supreme talent -- "If he could cook, I'd marry him."

Another Durocher/Mays anecdote. Apparently when Willie got the call to the bigs from Minneapolis he was extremely nervous and Durocher phoned him. After Willie explained he was afraid he might not be able to hit big league pitching, Durocher asks him, what are you hitting now? Willie replies .488 LOL. Durocher says, well son, do you think you can hit two bleeping fifty for me?

[tedzan]

The decades old question.....who was a better Centerfielder ?

Willie, Mickey, or the Duke (Snider) ?

In my opinion, since in during my youth I saw all three of them play, they were all great.

Duke Snider was one of the most gracious ballplayers that I ever met. And, you have to check-out the story Pete Rozelle tells about the Duke (when
they were classmates at Compton High (California) in the 1940's.

Willie, unfortunately is not the nicest guy you want to meet, nowadays. And, this is a shame to his many fans who have idolized him for many years.

And, Mickey....GOD Bless his soul.


OK, here is the quiz.....what is remarkable about Mickey which sets him apart from Willie and the Duke in terms of achievement ? ?


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[steve B]

Extremely doubtful.
The Yankees were a powerhouse first and foremost BECAUSE of Mantle.
And are you honestly going to say Aaron or Williams were as clutch??


Williams did poorly in his one World Series. I think he was an amazing player, but Id have to accept that he wasn't exactly "clutch" at times.


Mantle had a few good series, and a number of really poor ones. 1961, 62, 63 he batted under .200 and a few of the earlier ones weren't great either. Overall, he batted 40 points under his career average in the series.

That's not exacly "clutch" either.


Aaron in the WS batted 59 points above his lifetime average, and to eliminate the complaint that the lifetime average is reduced by the later part of his career, in 57 he was .393, 71 points above his average that year. in 58, .333 was only 7 points above that years average.


So yes Aaron was more clutch than Mantle.

[egri]

Williams did poorly in his one World Series. I think he was an amazing player, but Id have to accept that he wasn't exactly "clutch" at times.


He was playing injured; the week before the series started, he was hit in the elbow during an exhibition game. Besides, he crash landed a jet that the North Koreans put 250 holes in and walked away from it. I’d say that is far more “clutch” than anything that has ever happened on a ball field.

[steve B]

The last thing I'll say on the topic is that my opinion is based on actual facts, history, and what Mantle did.
The differing opinions, with all due respect, are based on conjecture, what ifs and mere possibilities. If you gave Aaron, Mays and Williams Mantle's team, there is no way anyone can say that they would've done the same.... Its possible, but there are no guarantees... No one can argue that. So it's just wishful thinking, nothing more.
Mantle did it, those other players did not.

Bottom line, I'm basing this on facts, not what might have been.
The same can't be said for the differing opinions.

Hard facts always trump conjecture....

Ok then, in 6 of his 12 World Series Mantle batted under .250. In two others he batted .250.

Those are the facts.

I would say that in those 8 series his performance wasn't helping the team.

in 1962,3 and 4 Tom Tresh outperformed him in the series.

[Mark17]

Williams did poorly in his one World Series. I think he was an amazing player, but Id have to accept that he wasn't exactly "clutch" at times.


1941 All Star Game. Two out, two on, down by a run, bottom of the ninth. Not only does Williams end the game with a home run, he absolutely crushes it off the facing of the upper deck in Detroit.

1941 September 28. With a chance to sit out the double-header and finish with a .400 average (which hasn't been done in the 77 years since,) Ted earns it, going 4-5 in the first game and 2-3 in the second game to finish at .406.

1960, also September 28, in his final at-bat, Ted does what he so very much wanted to do - he ends his career with a home run.

Williams was injured in the 1946 Series, but too much of a man to alibi about it. It isn't fair to say that because he had one poor Series he wasn't "clutch."

[steve B]

He was playing injured; the week before the series started, he was hit in the elbow during an exhibition game. Besides, he crash landed a jet that the North Koreans put 250 holes in and walked away from it. I’d say that is far more “clutch” than anything that has ever happened on a ball field.


I knew about the plane, not about the injury.


Williams was certainly among the greatest. And did have a number of clutch moments. Batting for the title instead of sitting, Hr in his last AB....

[clydepepper]

Well, if there was ever a player (and there was!) that could get from home plate to first base in 3.1 seconds and also hit a homer 565 feet, that would be the guy.


If not him, I'd go with the greatest athlete ever to play MLB, a healthy Bo Jackson.

Those two, when healthy, were the most exciting players ever IMO.

=

[steve B]

Since the original question was about who we'd pick starting a team today.

I'd go with Trout.

I have doubts about Willie and Mickey standing up to the sort of access and scrutiny the players today have to deal with. Aaron was maybe just a bit too reserved, but would be in the running. Griffey maybe just a tiny bit behind.


A big piece of todays game like it or not is PR and image, and so far Trout has got it just about right.

[brian1961]

We can splice and crunch numbers on and on about how a player did in a season, and especially a World Series. It's important, but it will not likely change anyone's mind about how they feel about how great or crummy their hero was at a given time.

You bring up Ted Williams getting hit by a pitch in a stupid exhibition game to keep the Sox sharp, while an NL playoff was being fought. That was most unfortunate, since it would be his only World Series. Then again, in '48-'49 Ted had terrific years, but failed at the crucial last game / games, respectively.

Stan Musial did not tear up the pea patch in the Series; neither did Ty Cobb or Jackie Robinson.

Mickey, as you said, had some sour World Series performances. He was injured in '55 and '61 going into the World Series. He injured himself playing golf with Tom Sturdevant in '57, when he was at his baseball peak. Mick hurt his shin badly during that golf match; I won't go into a lot of details, but Sturdevant's high-pitched laugh afterwards made Mick lose his temper on a branch in his way. The branch was actually dead, and swinging his putter at it with all his might and anger, the putter went clean through the branch and into his shin. OUCH times ten to the third power! Then, a month and a half later in World Series game 1 I believe, Red Schoendienst fell on Mickey's shoulder in a close play at second. The pain from that hit was horrible, and Mickey said as a result, he was in pain until the beginning of 1961.

Yep, Mickey had a lot of great-to-good players around him during his hey day, as did Babe and Lou. Isn't that just too bad, for you who dislike him. Or you, who constantly shame him for not taking better care of himself, even though the man literally thought he'd only live to be as old as his dad that died at 39.

I go back to what former teammate Hank Bauer said, that the man did awfully good even with all the injuries he had. He was the man. He was the big guy. He was the warrior to be feared. Almost all eyes were on Mickey Mantle at the ball game.

You're right about Tom Tresh--he was the only Yank who got to Sandy Koufax in game 1 of the '63 Series. He got to Gibby in '64, and he was the hero of '62 indeed! 'Course, none of the Yanks did well at the bat in '63, though Mr. Koufax threw one that Mickey liked in game 4 that he crushed into Chavez Ravine.

In the end, Mickey won a whole lot of bling, and he earned them all, whether carrying the Bombers to get to the big show, or coming up with the big play, or a crucial hit to break the opposing teams' backs. Which, he did so again, and again, and again, and again, and .....

Furthermore, HE MADE HIMSELF PLAY HURT MANY GAMES IN WHICH HE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN THE LINE-UP.

Why would he do that? I read about this. I teared up good. 'Cause he knew there'd be a bunch of kids in the stands that were attending what might be their only game of the season to see the Yanks. And, they wanted to see one player more than any other----Mickey Mantle. Mickey did not want to disappoint a kid, and let him down. Regardless, he played. He had the trainer wrap him up like a mummy as he had to do for a decade or more, and played anyway, and gave it his best anyway. Then, when number 7 walked out of the dugout with a bat to go to the on-deck circle, everybody got excited. The excitement and anticipation grew and grew, and then, when he stepped in the batter's box, just about everybody's eyes were glued on Mickey Mantle. What was he going to do?

In a few days, another anniversary will go by of a significant event that occurred April 17, 1953 at Griffith Stadium in Washington, DC. Up in the stands were a father and his 20-year-old-son, plus just a few thousand other fans. Guess the home-town Washington Senator fans figured the Yanks would beat their team, and they guessed right.

But they missed it. Boy, did they ever miss it---Mickey slugging a Chuck Stobbs fastball 565 feet!!!! Made a huge impression on every player, fan, and pressman who was there, including the young man and his dad. That young guy thought an awful lot of Mickey, and one day became famous himself, as a country and western singer and guitar player---Roy Clark. The two later connected, and Mickey had asked Roy to play his signature song at his funeral, "Yesterday When I Was Young".

Mickey Mantle must be special to me. I put a 3-card spread of him on the cover of my E-book on a CD, Never Cheaper By the Dozen.

Yep, I'll take Mickey Mantle----EVERY TIME!!! ---- Brian Powell

[TUM301]

Out of all the players I`ve ever seen, let`s say 1966 and on, would start my team with Johnny Bench. From the original list toss up.

[Bigdaddy]

OK, here is the quiz.....what is remarkable about Mickey which sets him apart from Willie and the Duke in terms of achievement ? ?


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

Ummm...he drank more beer than Willie and Duke put together??

[Mark17]

OK, here is the quiz.....what is remarkable about Mickey which sets him apart from Willie and the Duke in terms of achievement ? ?


TED Z

.

1. He was a switch-hitter. Besides Eddie Murray, the best switch-hitting power hitter in baseball history.
2. He was the best bunter, and could drop one down for an infield hit almost whenever he wanted.
3. As good as he was on the field, his best work was done after he retired, with his honesty about his bad habits, addictions, and poor choices. He really turned the negatives in his life into teachable moments for millions of people.
4. His quick thinking while at first base, avoiding being doubled-up in the ninth inning of Game 7 of the 1960 World Series was the single best instantaneous reaction to an unusual situation ever seen on a ball field.
5. His baseball card prices almost single-handedly lifted the value of all baseball cards, and gave birth to the idea that a players' "rookie" card should have inordinate value.

[tedzan]

Hi Mark17

Thanks for all your answers.

However, the answer I'm looking for is much "deeper" than the usual stats, BB card factors, etc.

I'll continue this subject tomorrow evening.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[NiceDocter]

Watching a rerun of The Rifleman the other day and The Duke was one of the bad guys! Even had a few lines..... but like all the others who come up against Lucas McCain he bit the dust by the end of the half hour.

[mantlefan]

Well, Mickey of course. He did it all.

[packs]

If I'm starting a team today to play today, I'm picking Trout every time. We discuss the modern game and who would be a star in it all the time. Why would you pick anyone other than the best player in the modern game, if not the best player of all time. Nobody pitching to Mickey had anything to go on other than anecdotes. Hard to say what effect modern analytics would have had one him or Ted or anyone else. But we know what Trout can do.

[ullmandds]

1. He was a switch-hitter. Besides Eddie Murray, the best switch-hitting power hitter in baseball history.
2. He was the best bunter, and could drop one down for an infield hit almost whenever he wanted.
3. As good as he was on the field, his best work was done after he retired, with his honesty about his bad habits, addictions, and poor choices. He really turned the negatives in his life into teachable moments for millions of people.
4. His quick thinking while at first base, avoiding being doubled-up in the ninth inning of Game 7 of the 1960 World Series was the single best instantaneous reaction to an unusual situation ever seen on a ball field.
5. His baseball card prices almost single-handedly lifted the value of all baseball cards, and gave birth to the idea that a players' "rookie" card should have inordinate value.

There are all those world serieses!!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Out of all the players I`ve ever seen, let`s say 1966 and on, would start my team with Johnny Bench. From the original list toss up.

He has gone largely unappreciated but IMO the best catcher of all time. I once saw him throw three straight times to first and on the third picked off the baserunner. Remarkable arm.

[TanksAndSpartans]

As an outsider on the baseball side, its interesting to me that I haven't noticed a single argument that used sabermetrics. My understanding is that field devalues most traditional statistical measures like RBI in favor of new ones like WAR. Philosophically, I've even heard it argued that there is no such thing as clutch. I would have thought there would be some crossover between collecting and sabermetrics especially among those posting in this thread on a non-collecting topic.

[darwinbulldog]

As an outsider on the baseball side, its interesting to me that I haven't noticed a single argument that used sabermetrics. My understanding is that field devalues most traditional statistical measures like RBI in favor of new ones like WAR. Philosophically, I've even heard it argued that there is no such thing as clutch. I would have thought there would be some crossover between collecting and sabermetrics especially among those posting in this thread on a non-collecting topic.

I try it from time to time, but it never seems to change anyone's mind. The paper that debunked the hot-hand phenomenon in basketball applies to baseball as well. The other interesting thing that becomes clear from the data is that baseball is only a team sport in the trivial sense. The game within the game is almost all there is to the game in terms of predicting victories. And I have written a bit about the "clutch" phenomenon, more as a theory paper than with sabermetrics. Most people here didn't like what I had to say on the matter, but maybe you would, and I stick by it. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sexual-positions/201310/the-seasonality-getting-second-base-and-more?amp

[TanksAndSpartans]

Thanks Glenn - good article - so which player would you take? A quick Google search told me Ruth had the highest WAR. Wouldn't he be the player I want assuming the goal of the team would be to win as many games as possible i.e. the sabermetric approach rather than citing "clutch performance" and "best I ever saw" type arguments to chose a player?

[darwinbulldog]

Thanks Glenn - good article - so which player would you take? A quick Google search told me Ruth had the highest WAR. Wouldn't he be the player I want assuming the goal of the team would be to win as many games as possible i.e. the sabermetric approach rather than citing "clutch performance" and "best I ever saw" type arguments to chose a player?

The OP didn't offer Ruth as a choice, so I went with Mays, but if I could take any player from the history of the game, yes, Ruth is the one.

[nat]

It really depends how this counterfactual is spelled out. Let me make it a bit more specific and then offer an answer.

I'm going to assume:

(1) We've got the player starting their rookie year.
(2) We don't know what their career is going to be like in our imaginary world, but:
(3) we do know what their career was like in the real world.

Without (3) you're really asking about which player had the best tools - you're looking for scouting reports on these guys as 20 year olds. But given that we do know what their careers were like in the real world, I think my first cuts to the list will be Griffey and Mantle. Both were injury prone, and Mantle had problems with alcohol. In real life, both were great players. But the probability that if Mantle played his career out again his knees would give out before they did, or his alcoholism would get severe enough that he couldn't play at a top level, are too high for me to be comfortable picking him. (Ditto for Griffey wrt to the injuries. He also just wasn't as great of a player as the others.)

That leaves Aaron, Mays, and Trout. Now, let's assume (as seems reasonable) that a player's possible performances form a normal distribution, with the mean determined by their talent level. That is: if they each replayed their career a zillion times, of the outcomes they generate, 66% of them will fall within one standard deviation of the average outcome, a further 33% will fall within an additional standard deviation of the average, and then there are a few outliers. We are, in effect, being asked to take a chance on one of those zillion possible careers, it's just that we don't know which one.

Now, we do know that in the actual world Aaron and Mays put together superlative careers. That is, we've already picked one possible outcome out of the bag, and it turned out to be a good one. Given that these outcomes form a normal distribution, it is extremely likely that their actual career was relatively close to the expected outcome. (99% probable that it's within two standard deviations, 66% within one.) It's possible, but not terrifically likely, that their actual career was one of the extreme outliers. So we can be reasonably confident that if we picked Aaron or Mays, we'll again get something reasonably close to the career that they actually produced. Now, this still involves quite a bit of uncertainty - that 99% confidence interval covers four standard deviations after all - but it's pretty good.*

Trout, despite being both my favorite Angel and my favorite fish, doesn't allow this kind of confidence because we haven't seen the rest of his career yet. He certainly could end up beating Mays or Aaron, but he hasn't done it yet. Which means that, given our information, the range of possible outcomes on Trout's career is greater than it is for the other two. One way to think about this is that the bell curve of possible careers for Trout is flatter than it is for Mays or Aaron. So, given the additional risk involved in picking him, my second cut would be to eliminate Trout.

It then comes down to which player you think had the better career: Mays or Aaron. I'll pick Mays, but if you want to go with Aaron I'm not going to argue too much.



* Can we be 99% confident that their actual careers are within two standard deviations of their mean career, given that we know that they had great careers? Maybe not. If not, let me given an additional argument. Given that they actually had great careers, their mean performance, whatever it is, has got to be pretty high. And so even if their actual careers were unlikely outliers, their expected career is still going to be good. And, more to the point for this exercise, if we have grounds to think that Aaron's or Mays' career was actually an outlier, we have the same grounds for thinking that Trout's career (so far) is as well. And, given that we know more about Aaron's career than about Trout's, we can still infer that the distribution of possible careers for Trout is flatter than it is for Aaron and Mays.

[darwinbulldog]

It really depends how this counterfactual is spelled out. Let me make it a bit more specific and then offer an answer.

I'm going to assume:

(1) We've got the player starting their rookie year.
(2) We don't know what their career is going to be like in our imaginary world, but:
(3) we do know what their career was like in the real world.

Without (3) you're really asking about which player had the best tools - you're looking for scouting reports on these guys as 20 year olds. But given that we do know what their careers were like in the real world, I think my first cuts to the list will be Griffey and Mantle. Both were injury prone, and Mantle had problems with alcohol. In real life, both were great players. But the probability that if Mantle played his career out again his knees would give out before they did, or his alcoholism would get severe enough that he couldn't play at a top level, are too high for me to be comfortable picking him. (Ditto for Griffey wrt to the injuries. He also just wasn't as great of a player as the others.)

That leaves Aaron, Mays, and Trout. Now, let's assume (as seems reasonable) that a player's possible performances form a normal distribution, with the mean determined by their talent level. That is: if they each replayed their career a zillion times, of the outcomes they generate, 66% of them will fall within one standard deviation of the average outcome, a further 33% will fall within an additional standard deviation of the average, and then there are a few outliers. We are, in effect, being asked to take a chance on one of those zillion possible careers, it's just that we don't know which one.

Now, we do know that in the actual world Aaron and Mays put together superlative careers. That is, we've already picked one possible outcome out of the bag, and it turned out to be a good one. Given that these outcomes form a normal distribution, it is extremely likely that their actual career was relatively close to the expected outcome. (99% probable that it's within two standard deviations, 66% within one.) It's possible, but not terrifically likely, that their actual career was one of the extreme outliers. So we can be reasonably confident that if we picked Aaron or Mays, we'll again get something reasonably close to the career that they actually produced. Now, this still involves quite a bit of uncertainty - that 99% confidence interval covers four standard deviations after all - but it's pretty good.*

Trout, despite being both my favorite Angel and my favorite fish, doesn't allow this kind of confidence because we haven't seen the rest of his career yet. He certainly could end up beating Mays or Aaron, but he hasn't done it yet. Which means that, given our information, the range of possible outcomes on Trout's career is greater than it is for the other two. One way to think about this is that the bell curve of possible careers for Trout is flatter than it is for Mays or Aaron. So, given the additional risk involved in picking him, my second cut would be to eliminate Trout.

It then comes down to which player you think had the better career: Mays or Aaron. I'll pick Mays, but if you want to go with Aaron I'm not going to argue too much.



* Can we be 99% confident that their actual careers are within two standard deviations of their mean career, given that we know that they had great careers? Maybe not. If not, let me given an additional argument. Given that they actually had great careers, their mean performance, whatever it is, has got to be pretty high. And so even if their actual careers were unlikely outliers, their expected career is still going to be good. And, more to the point for this exercise, if we have grounds to think that Aaron's or Mays' career was actually an outlier, we have the same grounds for thinking that Trout's career (so far) is as well. And, given that we know more about Aaron's career than about Trout's, we can still infer that the distribution of possible careers for Trout is flatter than it is for Aaron and Mays.

Good stuff, but in a normal distribution over 4% (not just 1%) of outcomes deviate from the mean by more than two standard deviations. What I would focus on though are the standard errors of the means, which become tiny with all of the data in a 20-25 year career.

Naturally there's going to be some regression toward the mean, as you allude to in your footnote, but that doesn't have any impact on the rank ordering of where you expect the players' careers to end up if you replayed them under slightly different circumstances. Sure, it's possible that Don Mattingly would end up having the best career in MLB history, but it's more likely that Griffey would, more likely still that it would be Mantle, and even more likely that it's Mays.

[CurtisFlood]

Mays.

[packs]

Good stuff, but in a normal distribution over 4% (not just 1%) of outcomes deviate from the mean by more than two standard deviations. What I would focus on though are the standard errors of the means, which become tiny with all of the data in a 20-25 year career.

Naturally there's going to be some regression toward the mean, as you allude to in your footnote, but that doesn't have any impact on the rank ordering of where you expect the players' careers to end up if you replayed them under slightly different circumstances. Sure, it's possible that Don Mattingly would end up having the best career in MLB history, but it's more likely that Griffey would, more likely still that it would be Mantle, and even more likely that it's Mays.


I would say it's equally possible that Griffey never becomes Griffey because he sustains an injury earlier in his career.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It really depends how this counterfactual is spelled out. Let me make it a bit more specific and then offer an answer.

I'm going to assume:

(1) We've got the player starting their rookie year.
(2) We don't know what their career is going to be like in our imaginary world, but:
(3) we do know what their career was like in the real world.

Without (3) you're really asking about which player had the best tools - you're looking for scouting reports on these guys as 20 year olds. But given that we do know what their careers were like in the real world, I think my first cuts to the list will be Griffey and Mantle. Both were injury prone, and Mantle had problems with alcohol. In real life, both were great players. But the probability that if Mantle played his career out again his knees would give out before they did, or his alcoholism would get severe enough that he couldn't play at a top level, are too high for me to be comfortable picking him. (Ditto for Griffey wrt to the injuries. He also just wasn't as great of a player as the others.)

That leaves Aaron, Mays, and Trout. Now, let's assume (as seems reasonable) that a player's possible performances form a normal distribution, with the mean determined by their talent level. That is: if they each replayed their career a zillion times, of the outcomes they generate, 66% of them will fall within one standard deviation of the average outcome, a further 33% will fall within an additional standard deviation of the average, and then there are a few outliers. We are, in effect, being asked to take a chance on one of those zillion possible careers, it's just that we don't know which one.

Now, we do know that in the actual world Aaron and Mays put together superlative careers. That is, we've already picked one possible outcome out of the bag, and it turned out to be a good one. Given that these outcomes form a normal distribution, it is extremely likely that their actual career was relatively close to the expected outcome. (99% probable that it's within two standard deviations, 66% within one.) It's possible, but not terrifically likely, that their actual career was one of the extreme outliers. So we can be reasonably confident that if we picked Aaron or Mays, we'll again get something reasonably close to the career that they actually produced. Now, this still involves quite a bit of uncertainty - that 99% confidence interval covers four standard deviations after all - but it's pretty good.*

Trout, despite being both my favorite Angel and my favorite fish, doesn't allow this kind of confidence because we haven't seen the rest of his career yet. He certainly could end up beating Mays or Aaron, but he hasn't done it yet. Which means that, given our information, the range of possible outcomes on Trout's career is greater than it is for the other two. One way to think about this is that the bell curve of possible careers for Trout is flatter than it is for Mays or Aaron. So, given the additional risk involved in picking him, my second cut would be to eliminate Trout.

It then comes down to which player you think had the better career: Mays or Aaron. I'll pick Mays, but if you want to go with Aaron I'm not going to argue too much.



* Can we be 99% confident that their actual careers are within two standard deviations of their mean career, given that we know that they had great careers? Maybe not. If not, let me given an additional argument. Given that they actually had great careers, their mean performance, whatever it is, has got to be pretty high. And so even if their actual careers were unlikely outliers, their expected career is still going to be good. And, more to the point for this exercise, if we have grounds to think that Aaron's or Mays' career was actually an outlier, we have the same grounds for thinking that Trout's career (so far) is as well. And, given that we know more about Aaron's career than about Trout's, we can still infer that the distribution of possible careers for Trout is flatter than it is for Aaron and Mays.

I am probably just not well-versed enough in statistics etc. to understand this fully, but it seems like a somewhat inconsistent mix of ex ante and ex post. If you were analyzing it purely ex ante you would have absolutely no idea beyond speculation about how any of their talents would ultimately translate into a career, no? History is full of guys with enormous talent who go bust.

[nat]

There are lots of ways the counterfactual situation of picking a young player to start a team could be spelled out. You could go just from scouting reports of the guys when they were 20 (this is the first possibility that I mentioned).

But the assumption that I made for the exercise was that we know how their careers actually turned out. Since it's all counterfactual anyway, we can give ourselves that knowledge if we want. And why not? We do, in fact, know how they turned out. Now, given that their careers turned out one way, it doesn't guarantee that they will turn out that way again - which is why this question isn't just "which player in fact had the greatest career". But it does give us some indication of how we should expect them to turn out if they played their careers again, and what my post was doing was trying to figure out what we should expect from them if they went back in time and played their career out again.

Think about it this way: imagine that we have exact replicas of Mays, Mantle, Trout, etc. as young men. Up until the age of 20 (or whatever) both nature and nurture have, for these clones, been exactly the same as they were for the real Mays, Mantle, etc. We don't know what they're going to do with their respective careers. But we do know what their exact duplicates did with their careers, and that should tell us something about what to expect from the young ball players that we have to choose between.

[Peter_Spaeth]

There are lots of ways the counterfactual situation of picking a young player to start a team could be spelled out. You could go just from scouting reports of the guys when they were 20 (this is the first possibility that I mentioned).

But the assumption that I made for the exercise was that we know how their careers actually turned out. Since it's all counterfactual anyway, we can give ourselves that knowledge if we want. And why not? We do, in fact, know how they turned out. Now, given that their careers turned out one way, it doesn't guarantee that they will turn out that way again - which is why this question isn't just "which player in fact had the greatest career". But it does give us some indication of how we should expect them to turn out if they played their careers again, and what my post was doing was trying to figure out what we should expect from them if they went back in time and played their career out again.

Think about it this way: imagine that we have exact replicas of Mays, Mantle, Trout, etc. as young men. Up until the age of 20 (or whatever) both nature and nurture have, for these clones, been exactly the same as they were for the real Mays, Mantle, etc. We don't know what they're going to do with their respective careers. But we do know what their exact duplicates did with their careers, and that should tell us something about what to expect from the young ball players that we have to choose between.

It's beyond me why, if we know how they turned out, we would even ask how would they turn out if they started again. As I said, this seems an odd mix of ex ante and ex post, why not just do one or the other?

[howard38]

Like when he picked Turley over Whitey Ford for game 7 against the Pirates, and then used every other starter in relief instead of Ford. I think Stengel won because he had a stacked team and a farm team in Kansas City, not because of his strategy.
I agree with your point but Ford could not have started game seven because he pitched a complete game in a must win the day before. Stengel's mistakes re: Ford, IMO were:
1) Not starting him until game three in favor of Ditmar & Turley.
2) Keeping him in the entire sixth game which should have been handed over to the bullpen as it was a blowout.
3) As you noted not using Ford in game seven even with the game six CG under his belt.

Other debatable pitching moves in game seven were not using Ryne Duren, who had a poor season but an excellent WS up to that point, at all & leaving Bobby Shantz in for five innings after an entire season in short relief.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I've seen sources give Stengel a lot of credit for the way he used platooning which he apparently learned under McGraw.

[nat]

"why not just do one or the other?"


Pure ex post is boring. Just get a list of players, order it by your favorite measure of value, and then give Trout a bonus of however much your favorite projection system puts him at. (With some tweaks for possible ranges of outcome, but whatever tweaks you put on it, Trout + projection-for-the-rest-of-his-career isn't going to be a contender here.)

Pure ex ante is hard to do (since we don't, that I know of, have scouting reports for a young Hank Aaron), but also unnecessarily restrictive. We know that Hank Aaron is capable of having the career that he, in fact, had. Why discard that information?

But perhaps more to the point: it's just a game, and you can play it however you want. If you want to project players just based on their amateur scouting reports, fine, that's one way to play the game. The OP didn't give us much guidance on how this game was to be played, so I picked one way to play it that sounded like fun to me. There are lots of other ways to do it too.

[Peter_Spaeth]

"why not just do one or the other?"


Pure ex post is boring. Just get a list of players, order it by your favorite measure of value, and then give Trout a bonus of however much your favorite projection system puts him at. (With some tweaks for possible ranges of outcome, but whatever tweaks you put on it, Trout + projection-for-the-rest-of-his-career isn't going to be a contender here.)

Pure ex ante is hard to do (since we don't, that I know of, have scouting reports for a young Hank Aaron), but also unnecessarily restrictive. We know that Hank Aaron is capable of having the career that he, in fact, had. Why discard that information?

But perhaps more to the point: it's just a game, and you can play it however you want. If you want to project players just based on their amateur scouting reports, fine, that's one way to play the game. The OP didn't give us much guidance on how this game was to be played, so I picked one way to play it that sounded like fun to me. There are lots of other ways to do it too.

OK fair enough I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. I am guessing the OP was just asking who do you think the best player was in so many words, which sounds ex post. Thanks for clarifying.

[JollyElm]

I'm just waiting for someone to start regurgitating Gordon Wood, talking about ya know, the Pre-Revolutionary utopia and the capital forming effects of military mobilization.