Cobb vs. Wagner

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>Most of the sets that I collect are top-heavy with Tyrus and Hans being the most expensive cards. I have found Wagner cards, in many instance, to be almost as expensive as Cobb cards. The priceguides, however, do not reflect this. Here are SMR prices for PSA 5 cards from a few vintage sets:<br /><br />E94 Cobb $5500<br />E94 Wagner $2200<br /><br />E95 Cobb $2000<br />E95 Wagner $1200<br /><br />E106 Cobb $2500<br />E106 Wagner $1250<br /><br />M116 Blue Cobb $1750<br />M116 Blue Wagner $1100<br /><br />It seems that the SMR have prices for Cobb cards dwarfing the prices for Wagner cards. In some cases more than double. The Lemke Standard Catalog shows almost the same disparity. In real life, however, I don't think this is the case.<br /><br />Recently a E95 Wagner PSA 4 sold in Mastro for $3042.90. Can a PSA 4 Cobb be almost double that? I doubt it. The SMR has Cobb more than double Wagner for the E94. I doubt that too. In both cases, I would imagine the prices for these two players to be much closer. The question is how much closer.<br /><br />Is Cobb that much more popular and his cards that much more expensive than Wagner? What does everyone think the price differentials should be for similar cards for these two players?<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>The Cobb in this set is one of the nicest Cobb images available in a T or E set, and pulls interest from collectors who don't normally want E cards, like me.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bob Rousseau</b><p>I agree- Cobb's E95 is one of his best images (I also like the bat off shoulder T206). On the other hand, Wagner's E95 is a beaut, as well.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>I am finding that in comparable condition, wagner is about 65-80% of cobb, not the 50% as found in the guides. <br /><br />When comparing cobb and wagner vs. everyone else, think that it is more that cobb sells for less rather than wagner selling for more, if that makes sense.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Darren J. Duet</b><p>The prestige of Wagner goes beyond the ballpark. His T206, the scarcity of his other issues, etc. drives his vintage cards. Across all makes, there are probably 100 Cobbs to every one vintage card of Wagner.(Vintage in this text refers to cards issued while a player is active)<br /><br />Cobb was a better player, but Wagner was also GREAT. The price disparity is and IMO should be narrow for vintage cards of these two legends.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p><br />But Richard!,no cards even from your in laws on your birthday last week???<br />what kind if loving family is that!<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Richard<br />(Login rman444)<br />Cobb vs. WagnerJune 29 2005, 1:55 PM <br /><br />I am finding that in comparable condition, wagner is about 65-80% of cobb, not the 50% as found in the guides.<br /><br />When comparing cobb and wagner vs. everyone else, think that it is more that cobb sells for less rather than wagner selling for more, if that makes sense.<br /><br /> <br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>Uncle Brian,<br /><br />Perhaps if you would adopt me into your loving and caring family, you can lead by example.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>I do not think that Cobb and Wagner are equivalent players, and I do not think that their card prices should be close, based on field performance alone.<br /><br />Heck - going out on a limb here - I think Sisler was a closer a performer to Wagner, and Speaker was better than him.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mark McCleary</b><p>Speaker definitely had better numbers than Wagner. Higher lifetime batting avergage, slugging percentage, (slightly) higher lifetime home runs. In Wagner's best year, he hit .354 with 10 home runs. Speaker averaged about .354 either (8) different seasons. <br /><br />But they played at different times and I wonder if the National League pitching was perhaps more difficult in Wagner's era than was American League pitching during Speaker's playing years. Wagner does have 8 batting crowns as compared to just one by Speaker. Then again, Speaker lost the AL crown to guys like Cobb, Sisler and Heilmann.<br /><br />I guess when viewing Wagner's numbers, it should also be taken into consideration that he is the greatest player ever at his position.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Ty Cobb had 200 more RBI in his career than Wagner (which surprised me)...<br /><br />and had a career batting average that was FORTY points higher than Wagner's!!!<br /><br />.366 vs. .327<br /><br />Ty Cobb was clearly one of the BEST players to EVER play the game. Wagner was a great player, but NOT one of the Best 5 of ALL TIME like Cobb was.<br /><br />Cobb<br />Ruth<br />Mays<br />Aaron<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Josh K.</b><p>Hal, that is only four.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Adam J. Moraine</b><p>Cobb IS "The Greatest ballplayer of All-time".<br /><br />Best Regards,<br /><br />Adam J. Moraine

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>We Giants fans could have had two players in the Top 5 if it wasn't for the loose lips about Balco.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Josh K.</b><p>adam,<br /><br />I think your forgetting about a little guy named babe

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Max Weder</b><p>Josh,<br /><br />No doubt Adam forgot about Babe, because Babe was a 3 <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anson</b><p>A little later on, there was a guy name Hornsby who wasn't half bad either.<br /><br />I agree with the previous post about the stories and prestige surrounding Wagner and the T206. In reality, there are many scarcer issues out there but they don't get the hype.<br /><br />How many Breisch Williams Lajoies do you think are out there?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Andy Baran</b><p>I can verify the existance of at least 5 Type 1 E107 Lajoie's, but I would guess that the actual number is closer to 10, since there are a few other large holdings that probably include a Lajoie. There are 2 Type 2 E107 Lajoie's known.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Andy Baran</b><p>There was also a pretty good player in Boston by the name of Ted Williams who deserves serious consideration for any Top 5 list. How has he not been mentioned?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>You guys are finding out why I only named FOUR of the TOP FIVE!! <br /><br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />I wanted to leave the last spot open for debate.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Josh K.</b><p>and lets not forget pitchers - do any of the greats (Johnson, matty, young, alexander, etc.) break into the top five?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anson</b><p>It's a bit hard to compare pitchers to position players. But, yes those guys were pretty amazing. Also, pitchers like Roger Clemens and Greg Maddux have to be considered as the live-ball era puts a different slant on things.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bob Rousseau</b><p>but a great pitcher when he did it, before he was stuck out in the outfield. And that does notch him pretty high up. No doubt, Cobb was a master- I don't know that I'd call him THE master.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Adam J. Moraine</b><p>Greatest pitcher??? Hard as heck to call, but here it goes, my list. <br /><br />1.Mathewson <br />2.Johnson<br />3.Young<br />4.Ryan<br />5.Koufax<br /><br />Best Regards,<br /><br />Adam J. Moraine

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anson</b><p>I would certainly include the top three. Koufax is certainly right there. However, people tend to discount today's pitchers for some reason. It's a very different game today than it was back before 1965. Clemens, Pedro Martinez, and Greg Maddux have all been amazing considering the way baseball is played today. When Matty, Johnson, and Young were pitching, the HR leaders were hitting 8-10 out per season. These guys also didn't have the travel, long schedules, and international talent that the current guys do. On the other hand, the guys of the past didn't have the relievers and 5-man rotations either. <br /><br />Cases can be made either way but You have to at least look at some of the players of today.<br /><br />BTW Adam, Don't forget Feller! He missed some valuable time with the war but he was awfully good.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Top 5 pitchers:<br /><br />Matty, Johnson, Alexander, Grove and Clemens<br /><br />Jay<br><br>My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>He should be right there ABOVE Matty on Adam's list of the all-time greatest pitchers! Adam was correct in that Cobb is the greatest player of all time however.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>There is no debate as to the greatest player, it's Ruth, who was a great pitcher and hitter. Who the greatest hitter of all-time is, well that is debatable. <br /><br />I'll take Cobb, Ruth, Hornsby, Williams and Bonds.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Glenn</b><p>I believe this is only through 2003. Clemens has since surpassed Young; and Bonds has since surpassed Mays. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/hof_monitor.shtml" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/hof_monitor.shtml</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>This guy's website is pretty interesting - he put a lot of time into ranking the top 140 all-time players, adjusting the rankings for the 2004 season, and writing detailed bios. I have seen other rankings that I feel are more correct, but I find this website more interesting:<br /><br /><a href="http://baseballsgreatest.blogspot.com/2004_10_03_baseballsgreatest_archive.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://baseballsgreatest.blogspot.com/2004_10_03_baseballsgreatest_archive.html</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>How can Ryan (career .526 winner, +20 only twice) and Koufax (6 great years, out of 12, 165 wins total) make a vintage board top 5?<br />JMHO - Will

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anson</b><p>One of them most likely WASN'T juiced. The juice of that era was in distilled form

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Glenn</b><p>Some of these guys may have an unfair advantage because of the way I've broken the years down, but I'd say:<br /><br />1880-1904: Jesse Burkett, Tim Keefe<br />1905-1929: Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson<br />1930-1954: Ted Williams, Bob Feller<br />1955-1980: Hank Aaron, Bob Gibson<br />1981-2004: Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens<br /><br />Best hitter ever: Ted Williams <br />Best pitcher ever: Roger Clemens<br />Best player ever: Babe Ruth

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Darren J Duet</b><p><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1120090517.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1120090531.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bob Rousseau</b><p>yep, those two are beauts, alright.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Darren J Duet</b><p><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1120092279.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1120092309.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Darren J Duet</b><p><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1120092574.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1120092596.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>tbob</b><p>Buck O'Neil who saw Josh Gibson, Satchell Page, all the stars of the Negro Leagues plus Ruth, Gehrig, etc. said that had he not been hurt throughout his career that Mickey Mantle would have been the greatest player who ever lived.<br />I concur. Since he WAS hurt so often and paid through so much pain, he was merely a helluva ballplayer.<br />Ruth remains the greatest player of all time. If you think Cobb was better, consider this: The Babe hit more homeruns in one year than almost every single TEAM in the major leagues; he set a record for most consecutive scoreless innings in the World Series that lasted until around 1960-61; he was regarded by many as the best left handed pitcher in the league; he, not Judge Landis, saved baseball after the 1919 scandal. It isn't even close. He was the greatest.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Darren J Duet</b><p><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1120095683.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1120095810.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anson</b><p>You can consider a lot of "ifs" and it changes the whole picture. What if Teddy didn't go to war twice? What if Tony Gwynn wasn't hurt so much......or Griffey? Regardless, you can only go off of what was not what might have been.<br /><br />Mantle isn't even in my top 10 list. Sorry, I think he's overrated if anything.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>pete</b><p>tell Buck that mickey wasn't so great to his face!!! I dare ya!<br /><br />pete in mn

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Colt McClelland</b><p><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/cmcclelland/e93standardcaramel/websize/E93_zoom-Cobb-PSA4.jpg"> <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/cmcclelland/e93standardcaramel/websize/zoom-E93Wagner-GAI4.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Adam J. Moraine</b><p>This is an AWESOME thread, guys. Dr.Duet, thank-you, for sharing your cards. I am a HUGE fan of Cobb and Wagner, and I much appreciated seeing your cards. Feller did lose four years to the war, but I did not want to mention him due to fact, I would have been accused of showing biased favortism towards Feller. However, feller is a hell of a player, and an individual, as well. All around class, he IS the primary reason why baseball has a players union.(interesting tidbit) <br /><br />Best regards,<br /><br />Adam J. Moraine

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Glenn</b><p>I don't think it makes sense to estimate how a player (Mantle, Mattingly, McGwire, etc.) would have performed if not for injuries and to give him credit for these projected stats in figuring where he ranks among the greats of the game. The reason is that being in good physical condition is the sine qua non of being a decent athlete, and if you can't even get that part down, you have no claim to being a great athlete.<br /><br />I would treat differently Clemente or any other player whose failure to play at some point was not a function of his phenotypic quality. That Ted Williams, Bob Feller, Willie Mays and others lost time to military service does not reflect on their physical abilities, not negatively at least; and I think it is fair and conservative, particularly in the case of Williams, to assume that he would have had some good (.340, 30, 110) seasons in his mid-twenties and mid-thirties. Indeed, if one wants to compare him directly to Cobb, Ruth, or anyone else, I think it would be proper to delete the corresponding seasons' hits from the other for a more objective comparison of who was the better player.<br /><br />[edited to correct typographical error]

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>tbob</b><p>I disagree with the downing of The Mick. We aren't talking Herb Score here, that he WOULD have been great if not injured, we are talking about Mantle who carried the Yanks to all those world championships playing with injuries that today would have ended careers early. Mickey was a great player. Easy for some of you guys to watch a few film clips of Mantle and decide he wasn't a Top 10 player, but how about a player and coach who saw him play in person during his career and played with and who coached against the likes of Ruth, Gehrig, Gibson, Mays, Aaron, Clemente, Williams et al. I'll take Buck O'Neil's opinion over some twenty-something kid from this board who never saw a single one of these guys play in person. Comparing Mantle to Mattingly is just plain stupid. Sorry. Now if you compare him to Mays, I'd understand, but Don Frigging Mattingly, give me a break. <br /><img src="http://members.aol.com/trophybob/mantle.jpg"><br /><img src="http://members.aol.com/trophybob/mantle2.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Elliot</b><p>I agree with tbob 100%, you had to see Mantle play, and how he was pitched around. Yes, the Yankees had a lot of good players, but Mantle had something to do with all those World Series wins.<br /><br /><img src="http://ccc.1asphost.com/68Vette/52T%20Mantle.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Glenn</b><p>Whatever. I don't know how many here watched Cobb play, and I don't know how my comments were construed as equating Don Mattingly with Mantle, but I stand by my point that Mantle was just as good as is indicated by his statistics, whereas Ted Williams was better than indicated by his.<br /><br /><img src="http://img228.echo.cx/img228/4881/mantle522zx.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anson</b><p>There's no doubt that Mickey Mantle was a great player. But, I get the feeling that there's a lot of personal bias involved with your assessment. I've heard many respected managers quoted saying some pretty outrageous things. While the Mick had nothing to apologize for and most certainly had a lot to do with the Yankees success, I still believe that he benefits from being a part of the biggest market team in the game. Statistics can be manipulated but you would be hard pressed to make a case for Mantle being better than Ted Williams, or even Musial for that matter. I would take either in my lineup before Mantle. <br /><br />Although I'm not a twenty-something, I think that age really doesn't bring anything to help support your point. If you've seen Mantle play but haven't seen Cobb, Wagner, Ruth, etc...play, does that mean that you can't make a fair assessment? <br /><br />Mantle is a top-20 talent for sure but even the top-10 is a stretch. My opinion, of course.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Elliot</b><p>This was not written by me, but I agree with it.<br /><br />The Mick. Number 7. A country boy with a big smile and an easygoing manner, and a taste for the good life. He was also perhaps the most talented baseball player ever. His combination of speed and power was breathtaking, as he could hit a ball 500 feet, then outrun a fly in Yankee Stadium's spacious outfield for an incredible catch. But Mantle inherited bad knees, a problem made worse when he twisted his knee on an outfield drain during his rookie year.<br /><br />Given different circumstances, and a greater drive to play the game, he might have been the greatest of them all. As it was, injuries, and rumor has it too much alcohol, kept him a bit behind the greatest of them all. But, he was one of the great "peak" players and had a run of some 10 years when he could have been the AL MVP every year. To break up the monotony, the voters picked a number of others as well, but the Mick was the best in the league from 1954-63, year in and year out. He was an amazing World Series performer as well, in an era when the Yankees went to the Series almost every year.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Hmmmm...sounds like Will Clark without speed. Sweetest swing in the game since Ted Williams by all accounts. That still doesn't get you to be the greatest. You have to perform and perserver. This is a HUGE reason I will never consider Koufax among the all-time great pitchers.<br /><br />We can also start playing the what-if game with Barry Bonds now that it looks like this season is lost. Or how about Ellis Valintine. Possibly the greatest outfield arm ever in the game. When assessing the greatest, you cannot consider the what-if. You only what the actualities of their career to work with and this what leaves players like Koufax and other with abreviated careers out of the discussion for all-time greatest.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>I don't think there is a "what if" game for Bonds because of this lost year. If he never played a game again, he would still go down as one of the top 5 hitters ever. He has the stats, the MVP's, the gold gloves, the years.<br /><br />The only "what if" game for Bonds is related to Balco.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>So quickly we forget the pursuit of Aaron.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>The greatest hitters, pitchers and sluggers in baseball history are identified by their stats. <br /><br />The .600 club identifies the top sluggers:<br /><br />Ruth .690<br />Williams .634<br />Gehrig .632<br />Foxx .609<br />Greenberg .605<br /><br />The 350 club identifies the rest:<br /><br />Young 511<br />Johnson 417<br />Alexander 373<br />Mathewson 373<br />Cobb .366<br />Galvin 364<br />Spahn 363<br />Nichols 361<br />Hornsby .359<br />Jackson .356<br /><br />Edited to add: In the "what if" dept.<br /><br />If Keeler did not play after his seventh season, he would have retired with a .379 lifetime BA. Similarly, if Heilman did not play his first six seasons he would have retired with a higher lifetime batting average than Cobb.<br /><br />Edited again to neaten up some sloppiness. One must keep his posts tidy.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>He is right there. Big as life. But with a silent H, and a wicked scroogie.<br /><br />Edited to add: Spahn is particularly important in this grouping because he gives credibility to the possibility that modern pitchers can achieve the 350 club. I hope Clemens makes it too. I wonder if we will see a hitter achieve this level of batting. Gwynn and Suzuki make me think it is possible, but the next career .350 hitter is not yet apparent.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>Ruth was the greatest player of all time. He could beat you on the mound and at the plate with HOF-caliber play. No one else has ever been able to do that. 714. .342, an RBI record that held up even longer than the HR record, a consecutive scoreless innings streak in the World Series. The man was the most complete ballplayer in history.<br /><br />Anyone who leaves Lefty Grove off their top 5 list of pitchers...I dunno. He led the league in ERA 7 times, won 300 despite having a late start because Baltimore held him for a few years trying to run up his sale value, and has the highest winning % of all time. Also, where is Warren Spahn on a lot of these lists? 363 victories in the modern era. His 1965 Topps card is great because the lifetime stats on the back are eye-popping. <br /><br />Koufax makes a lot of lists because for 5-6 years he was virtually unhittable, as Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, etc. all say. Cumulative stats are sometimes misleading; was Fred McGriff a HOFer? I think many breathed a sigh of relief when he fell short of 500 HR. Would anyone prefer Don Sutton to Sandy Koufax on the mound? <br /><br />As far as Mantle goes, what ifs are fun but still hypotheticals. What if Mantle had been a teetotaler with good knees? He might have blown out a knee anyhow, been killed in combat in Korea, etc. Williams lost prime years to two wars? Maybe. For all we know he might have been hit by a taxi cab and crippled (hey, a Boston cab hit Casey Stengel while he was managing the Braves). Feller might have blown out his elbow in 1942.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>Since others are supplying their greatest of all time list here is mine:<br /><br />Hitters: Ruth, Hornsby, Cobb, Gehrig, Williams/DiMaggio (considerations BA and RBI's/year)<br /><br />Pitchers: Clemens, Johnson, Mathewson, Alexander, Grove (Clemens has highest win percentage ever for pitchers with MORE than 300 wins)

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Darren J. Duet</b><p>Mantle is a good what if story, Clemente another, IMO the greatest what if story is Lou Gehrig.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I Didn't See Cobb, Wagner Play, but Did See Mantle<br /><br />Buck O'Neill is a very astute observer of the game and has lived a long time<br />so he has seen a lot of BB players in his life. So, if he says Mantle could<br />have been the greatest, I definitely agree with Buck.<br /><br />Now, I am older than most on this Forum, and I was fortunate to see Mantle<br />play from 1951 to 1969. As, a die-hard Yankee fan I followed his career very<br />closely during my youth. So, I guess you could consider me biased. I also got<br />to see Joe DiMaggio & Ted Williams play. We went to Yankee Stadium a lot back<br />in the late '40s and throughout the '50s. Playing in the American League back<br />then and Yankee Stadium, was not an advantage for Mantle in those years. With<br />the likes of Bob Feller, Lemon, Garcia, Wynn, and Herb Score (and so many more<br />great pitchers in the League), Mantle faced some tough pitching. And its need-<br />less to bring up the huge dimensions of the old Yankee Stadium, as most are<br />aware of its size. Of course it did not matter to Mantle, since he would hit<br />them 500+ feet, anyhow.<br /><br />Yes, he became a "happy go lucky" guy as part of the Yankee "BRAT PACK" with<br />Whitey Ford and Billy Martin. And, we'll never know how this affected his BB<br />playing years. Nevertheless, in a clutch situation during regular season play<br />he raised the level of his game. And, especially effective during World Series<br />play as his numbers testify:<br />....18 HRs (a HR per 7.8 ABs)....Runs = 42....RBIs = 40....in 12 W.S. seasons<br /><br />I'll end this by answering the age old Trivia quiz...."Who was greater....<br />Mickey, Willie, or the Duke ?<br /><br />My answer actually comes back with a question....they were all equally great,<br />However, whose "SHOES" did Willie or the Duke step into ?<br /><br />Mantle stepped into DiMaggio's shoes and most people do not realize how really<br />tough that can be. I still recall how the fans used to boo Mantle his first<br />year with the Yankees. It wasn't till 1952, that the fans started liking him.<br /><br />Think about my answer to this Trivia Quiz....the only other BB player that<br />was able to step into a "legend's shoes" in recent times that I can recall is <br />Carl Yazstremski. <br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>Also being a NYer thru the 50s my recollection of the Mick differs on a few points. Now I was a Giants fan, so I really didn't much care for the Duke or Mick. Or Yogi and Campy for that matter.<br /><br />But the Mick was an infielder (I thought SS) at first, and although he was fast, his legs were injury prone.<br /><br />And the booing was unmerciful and lasted throughout the 50s. As I recall it, Mantle would repeatedly strike out in the clutch and hit (sometimes tremendous) home runs when it didn't count for much.<br /><br />I believe the Yankee fans would much rather have Berra in there when the chips were down. This guy was a bum, and da Bum, Duke, hit more HRs than anybody in the 50s, and so did Hodges.<br /><br />Between Willie, Mickey and the Duke: the Giants fans had the gem. The other two were good. And Mickey did play heroically with bad legs. But he still woulda choked in the clutch with good legs. With 500+ HRs how many 100 RBI seasons did he have?<br /><br />Edited to add: I also respect O'Neill's opinion. But there is no way that Mantle could fill Joltin' Joe's shoes, anymore than Joe could fill Lou's.<br /><br />Edited further to add: "not an advantage for Mantle in those years. With<br />the likes of Bob Feller, Lemon, Garcia, Wynn, and Herb Score" - weren't the Indians used as batting practise pitchers by the Giants in the '54 World Series?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>tbob</b><p>I read somewhere that it wasn't until Roger Maris arrived in 1960 that Yankee fans fully adopted Mickey as their guy. The resentment of many toward Maris that he would even dare break the Babe's record, being a guy with an aloof attitude and coming from the Gawdawful KC A's, spurred a feeling that Mantle was finally their own. I also agree with Adam and others that Mantle was heavily burdened by comparisons with Joe D. and others during his career, something Aaron and Mays and Clemente never had to deal with. <br />I'll reiterate one last time that I agree with Buck that Mantle, had he been healthy, would have been the greatest player who ever played the game. Since he wasn't, he was on the 10 greatest and The Babe stands far and away as the best. He just flat dominated. If you argue that Mays or Aaron or Cobb was the greatest, you have to remember that Ruth was almost unhittable on the mound during the World Series and during his pitching career was a star.<br />Speaking of wasted potential although a guy did do enough to be a star player and wind up in the Hall of Fame- how can you leave out Rube Waddell? We all know his story. He might have been the greatest pitcher ever in baseball if he hadn't been the strangest player ever to play the game.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Adam J. Moraine</b><p>Mantle will always be "class at its' purest form" in my book. As well as, an AWESOME ballplayer. <br /><br />Best Regards,<br /><br />Adam J Moraine

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Darren J. Duet</b><p>Mickey Mantle is great. Though his career numbers do not place him in the elite, he's the common man who dined with the Gods.<br /><br />His allure is greater than his stats. Everyone who works regular jobs, drinks with friends after work, & lives check to check has an attraction to the Mick. He was one of us doing what only Gods could do.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mark McCleary</b><p>Gil, you forgot two members of the .600 club: <br /><br />Barry Bonds .611<br />Todd Helton .604 (and dropping)<br /><br />Bonds also has 3 of the 5 all-time best single season slugging percentages (the toher two spots are held by Ruth).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Adam, you obviously never met Mantle in person. I had the displeasure of meeting him on numerous occassions. Even when he wasn't a drunken sot, he was a total ass. I can't recall a single pleasurable moment when I encounted Mantle. Mays may have a bad rep as being unsurly, but if you got him away from the autograph signings, he was a very pleasant person to sit and talk with.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Shannon</b><p>My top five in no particular order Cobb, Ruth, Williams, Gehrig and Bonds and when it comes to players who were hurt by injuries or wars Griffey jr hands down Ive never seen anyone play centerfield the way he did and he has such a sweet stroke.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Will</b><p>Yep - Mantle had so much class he lived to the ripe old age of 63 and kept himself off everyone's consensus top 3 players of all-time. As the good Dr. said - a common man (blessed with great baseball skills, which, IMHO, did not make him a great man).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>TBOB<br /><br />You apparently got my drift regarding Mantle's "STEPPING" into Joe D's shoes.<br /><br />GIL<br /><br />Read my post again, I did not say Mantle "filled" Joe DiMaggio's shoes. Again,<br />you have to realize that a 19 year old kid comes to New York from Oklahoma,<br />replaces a man who is considered "the greatest living BB player" at that time<br />and Mantle overcomes all this hype with his tremendous athletic talent. That's<br />what many would call character.<br /><br />I am not trying to be argumentative, in my post I gave due credit to Mays; and<br />to Snider. I have met all three of them back in the '80s. Mantle and Snider<br />were just great guys to talk with. Mays, for what ever reason, was not too<br />friendly with his fans who paid a lot to get his autograph and perhaps have a<br />few words with their hero.<br /><br />As far as statistics go, Mays played 4 more years than Mantle. And, the first<br />six years of Mays career were in that "cheap homer" park called the Polo Gnds.<br />The stands down the left field line were only 279 feet away; and, Mays did<br />pull many of his HRs down that short left field line.<br /><br />Pitching in the NL back in the '50s was weaker than the AL. Robin Roberts and<br />Warren Spahn were the only consistent 20+ game winners. However, you are right<br />Gil, your Giants beat the Indians easy in '54. But, your are mistaken about<br />Feller and Score, because they did not pitch in '54 (W.S.).<br /><br />Given identical conditions (ball parks, pitching, career years, etc.),I think<br />Mantle's numbers would be greater than Mays'. Mantle only had 4 - 100+ RBI<br />seasons, but he had many near 100; and, during the '50s Stengel was platooning<br />most of his players, even Mantle didn't play 154 games then.<br /><br />Comparing the RBI/AB statistics, Mantle comes out slightly ahead with an RBI<br />per 5.4 At Bats to Mays' one RBI per 5.7 At Bats. So Gil, I would advise you<br />to do the math next time before you claim that Mantle was not a clutch hitter.<br /><br />And, you are absolutely wrong about the fans booing Mantle during the '50s.<br />As I previously said, yes they did in 1951. In 1952 Mantle batted .311 (what<br />a coincidence....his 1952 Topps card #) and the fans started to appreciate him<br />and in 1956 when he won the TRIPLE CROWN, he really won over the fans.<br /> <br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Adam J. Moraine</b><p>UNFORTUNATELY, Jay I never had the opportunity to meet Mantle, DiMaggio or Williams. My being in our beloved hobby since 1988, THIS IS without a doubt the BIGGEST regret I have, thus far. (not being able to meet these stars) I do not even recall them EVER coming to Iowa. Ted did back in 1993, for the first annual Bob Feller Day, at Sec Taylor Stadium (now Principal Park) home of the Iowa Cubs. Although, Ted ABSOLUTELY DID NOT sign AT ALL, while he were there.<br /><br />Best Regards,<br /><br />Adam J. Moraine

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>If there is one thing I've learned from long tenure with SABr is that you never use the term "clutchh". No one has been able to define it mathematically and it always leads to a big brawl when people start making claims about clutch hitting. Lots of RBI does prove clutch hitting. 5 RBI at the end of 12-3 blowout are pretty much meaningless, yet that RBI that ties a game or puts you in the lead is much more valuable than those 5 RBI at the end of a blowout. Without going into game by game analysis, you have now way of know these details about a players career RBI.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Darren J. Duet</b><p>Will,<br /><br />To be certain, Mantle's greatness IMO was as a baseball player and icon; his tragedy was as a human.<br /><br />He who is without sin cast the first stone.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bob Rousseau</b><p>I'd like a packet of gravel, please!<br /><br />OK- I'll switch sports, but I'll give a great example of a clutch player: Robert Horry.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Glenn</b><p>Do you know who holds the career record for GW-RBI?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I have no clue. I think that stat may have expunged from the record book. It's not something I ever look at beucase the way it was determined was so silly. <br /><br />Jay<br><br>My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Will</b><p>Dr. D -<br />"class at its' purest form" was the comment that generated my response.<br />I agree with your latest statement 100%.<br />Not throwing stones (don't care enough nor have the energy)or even criticizing him. Everyone's personal choices are fine with me, as long as the do not affect mine. Just wondering why someone would think so highly of him as a person.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Lyle Jobe</b><p>he had the greatest impact on the game, but if I had to choose one player for my team in a game which I HAD TO WIN , I would choose Cobb because he brought his "A" game every game . His intensity bordered on psychosis but I wouldn't want to battle his ferocity and determination .I admire that he used his mind more than any other player and was the symbol of the deadball era .

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anson</b><p>Eddie Murray = clutch player<br /><br />I have to bring Cap Anson in to the list of folks. For consistency, he's hard to beat. And I'm completely biased!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anson</b><p>edited for double post

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>pete</b><p>glenn you need to shave and sell that crappy card...<br />pete-

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>I checked your math Ted, and I'll be darned; Mantle's RBI/AB are greater than those of Mays. But Ted, perhaps I am a bit of a thick head, I remember the boos and the repeated strikeouts in the clutch. And I remember Berra consistantly coming thru. Yogi always seemed to swing at anything, but infrequently struck out.<br /><br />As was pointed out in a seperate post, I also recall the fans embracing (figuratively) Mantle during Maris' run for the record. But that was after the fifties.<br /><br />And as far as trying to fill the shoes of Joe D.: I have no sympathy. Throughout that time we had the pressures for acceptance for players including Mays, Campy, Aaron, etc. who were able to be there because those including Doby and Robinson withstood the pressure only a few years earlier.<br /><br />At the conclusion of the fifties, with the Red Sox accepting Pumpsie Green, and the caliber of play demonstrated by these and other vanguards, negro players began to be accepted.<br /><br />So dramatizing Mantle's tribulations regarding being the new Bronx hero seems to me a bit egocentric. And if fact with his play in far less than optimum physical condition he is a hero. Mantle did well.<br /><br />He is not a .300 hitter, he is not a clutch hitter, and to offer another of your quotes "And, especially effective during World Series<br />play as his numbers testify:" - come on Ted - his WS batting average is .257.<br /><br />It is interesting to me that as a '50s Giants fan, "my" competition was from the Dodgers. But I never disliked them. I guess it was the Yankees pompous, no price too big, the KC A's are our farm team - because they are cash poor, etc. that turned me off. Well that and their relentless success. Throughout that interval and before and after they one 14 of 16 pennants, and the Series from when? '49-'53? Something like that. Whew, talk about dominance. And Mantle was their Star - him and that primadonna lefty Ford. I think I liked Ford less than Mantle (if you can imagine that).<br /><br />It is a little fascinating that we can view the same occurances Ted, and come up with entirely different takes on it.<br /><br />Oh yes Ted, I know which Indians pitchers were active in the '54 Series - it was the Giants only appearance - and they swept it. Any reference to Score and Feller are a part of your quote. But let me add: it was the throw after the catch on Wertz drive that was truly amazing to me. And Dusty Rhodes defining what a pinch hitter is. Ahhh 1954, the real Giants only day in the sun. And they did well.<br /><br />Mantle = But how do I explain his baseball card prices?<br /><br />And Herb Score, baseball lost something real good there.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Glenn</b><p>Pete,<br /><br />You're right, and I just have, on both counts. I appreciate your looking out for me though.<br /><br />[edited to add: Now if I could just wipe that stupid half-grin off my face]<br /><br /><img src="http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/3718/june050066qn.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakisc</b><p>GIL<br /><br />First, I will tell you that I followed your Giants very closely in the '50s.<br />I recall very well seeing Bobby Thomson's "Shot Heard Around the World" in<br />1951. One of the most exciting games I went as a kid was at Ebbetts Field,<br />Sept. 1951, to see the Giants comeback and beat the Dodgers 2 - 1.<br /><br />And, yes, I clearly recall Mays' fantastic catch off Wertz's bat in '54; and,<br />his throw which I believe doubled-up a Clev. baserunner. And, who can forget<br />Dusty Rhodes performance, a relatively unknown player.<br /><br />Unlike you, though, I try not to let my emotions get in the way of the facts.<br />You keep putting Mantle down by bringing up Berra. Well, their statistics show<br />that they had the same RBI/AB ratio of approximately 5.4; and, in my lifetime<br />Mantle & Berra produced one of the greatest 1 - 2 punches in the game.<br /><br />You talk about "pressure" experienced by certain ballplayers in the late '40s<br />an throughout the '50s. Well, lets go back to the '30s with Jessie Owens and<br />Mack Robinson (Jackie's older brother) competing in the 1936 Olympics. Let's<br />talk about Joe Louis fighting Max Schmelling and a field of contenders that<br />were mainly white.<br /><br />Just like Adam W. brought to your attention in another thread, Gil you have to<br />check the facts before you argue a given topic. You put Mantle down for having<br />a .257 BA in WS play (12 seasons), yet Mays had only .239 in only 4 WS. Mantle<br />from 1952 to 1960 batted .300 in WS play. And, speaking about .300 BA, Mays'<br />lifetime BA = .302 and Mantle's = .298. Most would say there's not much of a<br />difference there to argue over, unless you are some kind of "nit-picking" lawyer?<br /><br />And, I will close by asking you how many times you attended a game at Yankee<br />Stadium during the 1950's ?<br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>I want to say one thing about Mantle and I apologize if it's been said. But he was the fastest guy I have ever seen. I have been watching baseball games for 25 years live and on TV and I have only been able to watch Mantle in taped games.<br /><br />As you watch so many games you get used to that TV angle from behind homeplate. As you watch more games you see many guys ground out to first base...(stay with me here)...and you gradually become accustomed to where a batter-runner should be in relation to first base after the firstbaseman fields the grounder, jogs over and touches first base with his foot.<br /><br />Usually the guy is half to three-quarters down the line by the time all that happens. Faster guys get a bit closer and loafers like Belle and Bonds well - they hardly run.<br /><br />Anyway, I was watching a taped version of Game 7 of the 1952 World Series between Dodgers and Yankees about 6 months ago. Mantle gets up to bat from the left side and after a few pitches he hits a routine grounder to first. The "behind homeplate angle" shows Hodges field it cleanly and while jogging over to first base to touch it - suddenly from the bottom of the screen comes Mantle full force and barreling to first. Now Hodges had merely fielded the grounder and jogged over to first and by the time Hodges touches first, Mantle is like 10 feet from the bag!<br /><br />I absoultely couldn't believe it. I sat in my living room, jaw dropped, and watched it four more times. Quite frankly, I have no idea how it was possible for Mantle to get from home plate to that spot in that short amount of time. I have never seen anybody get to that point in the baseline on that play ever and I do not think I ever will again. It was unbelievable. Truly. I think it's impossible. But I saw it!<br /><br />That confirmed to me the legend of how fast this guy was when he first came up - 3.12 home to first is SICK.<br /><br />Now factor that in to the fact he hit 500 foot homers BEFORE the age of steroids and you have yourself one heckuva freak of nature.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>pete</b><p>glenn, its a start<br />pete-<br /><br />(that pix is pretty funny....)

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>Well Ted, I respect your opinion on Mantle, even if mine differs. I intend no slight on Mantle attributable to the competence of Berra. Similarly irrelevant are the pressures experienced by black athletes in other sports.<br /><br />That point was directed toward the pressures Mantle faced as the new Yankee hero following Joe D., and how that pressure, in baseball, compared to the pressures in baseball experienced by his black peers, at that time.<br /><br />Additionally irrelevant to my post in this thread are the observations I shared on a different subject in a different thread! These comments related to facts which I researched applicable to Babe Ruth and Lefty O'Doul. Specifically in that thread, I speculated about Ruth's issuance of more walks than strikeouts during the two years preceeding his trade to the Yankees, and his general continuance of this issuance of more walks than strikeouts after joining the Yanks. Ted, realistically you can not think that I did not research that obscure observation. I threw it out to evoke comment realizing that the speculation of a causative factor in Ruth's transition to a position player was extremely weak. And I got the comment which was deserved.<br /><br />And Ted, if I put Mantle down for having a WS .257 average, maybe he deserves it. It is not I who stated: "And, especially effective during World Series play as his numbers testify:" with regard to Mantle's performance.<br /><br />Whether there is a difference between a .300 hitter and one who does not make the grade, between a 500+ HR club member and one who falls short, or a pitcher who gets 300 wins or almost does, is as important as each fan makes it.<br /><br />I think the truth of the matter on this subject Ted, is you grew up as a Yankee fan and I did exactly the opposite. I believe that both of our views are a little clouded. I know that it amazes me that you can look at the statistics, recall the play and still think that Mantle is in the league with one of the all time greats.<br /><br />Look at the line ups that our fellow board members have selected for their all time teams, Ted. How many chose Mantle; how many chose Mays? Look at mine. I chose Williams.<br /><br />It has been an interesting debate Ted, thank you. You can have the last post if you want it. <br /><br />Comments regarding nit-picking, profession identification and how many ballgames I attended as a youth, will go unanswered unless you can justify their relevance.<br /><br />Edited to add: Yes AP13, Mantle certainly was fast. And I heard it said that Mays wore hats too big for him, simply to dramatize his running ability (by having the hat fly off). It is too bad that Mantle's legs did not stay healthy. But he certainly was still a heck of a ballplayer - and a man for enduring the daily treatments just so he could go out and play. This doesn't sound like someone who would choke in the clutch. Ya never know.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakisc</b><p>GIL<br /><br />I asked you a very simple (to answer) and very straight forward question,<br />and you refuse to answer it. That tells me all I want to know regarding any<br />continuing meaningful discussion with you on this subject.<br /><br />AP13<br /><br />I had a great conversation with Richie Ashburn about 10 years ago. I had him<br />sign a color picture of him laying down a drag bunt. And, I asked him if his<br />3.0 seconds time running to 1st Base was the fastest in the Majors. He very<br />graciously replied....NO....and said the following: "The Sporting News press<br />timed him and Mickey Mantle (batting lefty) over and over again throughout<br />the '50s; and, they consistently tied at 3.0 secs. getting to 1st base".<br /><br />Most have forgotten how versatile Mantle was; everyone remembers his 565 ft.<br />homers at Griffith Park, in Washington (a 1959 Topps card depicts this). But,<br />he was also a pretty darn good bunter when his team just needed a hit.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Just some observations from a outsider looking in on the ted-Gil debate. Ted, you obviously are a dyed in the wool Yankees fan. No amount of proof will ever change your mind when it comes to anything involving your beloved Yankees. Gil, anObviously ardent Giants fans, seems to be a more open minded, but not a whole lot more. Now combine that with an intercity rivalry and you get a debate that no one is going to win and simply degenerate into name calling, which Ted resorted to. Gil did the right and hopefully walked away from this without responding anymore. Neither of you is going to convince the other of anything when it comes to Giants and Yankees.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakisc</b><p>Give me one example where I resorted to name calling ?<br /><br />Yes,we are both biased, but I can back up my statements with real experiences<br />from many games I saw as a kid at Yankee Stadium during the '50s. And, I do<br />not care whether you believe me or not, but my BaseBall recollectios of those<br />years are very clear. Furthermore, I still have many game Programs which I<br />scored. <br /><br />You don't really know me; but, I guess you know Gil. So I can understand why<br />you side with him. However, he wants to debate with me, and I simply ask him<br />how many times he actually attended Yankee games during Mantle's career; and<br />he refuses to answer. Then, its obvious to me that he does not have the facts <br />to support many of his claims.<br /><br />I have always liked Mays, although I was at the old Polo Grounds once as a kid<br />I certainly would not claim to know as much about Mays as Gil thinks he knows<br />about Mantle.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Actually, I don't know either one of you outside of your names on the board. The name calling came in when with you lawayer reference. I have no idea if Gil is lawyers, none the less, an uncalled for remark. <br /><br />I don't dismiss your experiences, but I've learned one thing over the years, trying to debate a passionate and dyed in the wool fan is an impossibility becuase that person is absolutely set in their ways and no amount of evidence is going to convince them that they are wrong about their favorite player/team. And when you put 2 polar opposites like you two, no one is going to win the argument is it is most likely going to lead to animosity between the two parties. Just my view on the situtaiton.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Glenn</b><p>Indeed. Barring someone who was a fan of and saw all of the greats of the game in person, you'll only get true objectivity from someone who was a fan of and saw none of them.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I fully agree with your earlier comment that raw RBI stats.do not necessarily<br />indicate how "clutch" a player was. But since you are a SABR dude, check this<br />out. The actual facts tell the real story regarding Mantle's W.S. performance:<br /><br />1952.....AB = 29.....H = 10....BA = .345.....R = 5.....RBI = 3.....HR = 2<br />.....1st HR wins Game 6..........2nd HR wins game 7<br /><br />1953.....AB = 24.....H = 5.....BA = .208.....R = 2.....RBI = 7.....HR = 2<br />.....1st HR wins Game 2.........2nd HR (grand slam) wins Game 5<br /><br />1956.....AB = 24.....H = 6.....BA = .250.....R = 6.....RBI = 4.....HR = 3<br />.....3rd HR only score in Game 5 (perfect game, no-hitter)<br /><br />1960.....AB = 25.....H = 10....BA = .400.....R = 8.....RBI = 11....HR = 3<br />.....1st & 2nd HRs (5-RBIs) spark rally to win Game 2<br /><br />This information is accurate (from BB Encyc.) and my original scored programs.<br />I've just shown 4 World Series (for comparison), since Mays was in only four<br />and batted .239. Mantle, of course was in 12 W. S. and batted .259; so, numbers<br />sometimes do not tell the whole story.<br /><br />From your statement, I sense you seem to have a problem with me. Otherwise you<br />wouldn't have interpreted my "nit-picking lawyer" comment as a derogatory one.<br />It was just a simple expression, and I feel an appropriate one, to the ridiculous<br />hair-splitting comment regarding Mays' and Mantle's lifetime BA. Your accusation<br />was out of line. You have to lighten up....Jay.<br /><br />You obviously know Mark Macrae, talk with him. Mark and I have been best friends<br />since March 1983 when I first set up at the Willow Grove (Philly) Show.<br /><br />From a Vietnam era US Air Force guy to a US Navy guy, have a great July 4th. <br /> <br /> <br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Ted, I don't have a problem a with you. I don't really take anything personal here. The only problem I have is blind homerism (no, that's not a Simpsons things :-p) <br /><br />Cherry picking Mantle's performance in the WS doesn't prove his greatness. It shows his mortality. You cite 4 game from 12 series. This means he played a minimum of 48 games. He had a major impact on 4 games and and little or none in 44. This means he disaapeared 11 times out of 12. I know this isn't accurate, but you get my drift. It's the just the cynic in me. I do the same thing with ads. If they making some wild claim, I ask myself, what are they really hiding with this wild claim.<br /><br />Mantle was obviously a great talent, but if you swapped cities and circumstances, there would a legion of rabid MAntle fans instead of Mantle fans. Much of a players popularity and legend has to do with who they play for and how well that ream does. A single player, no matter how great, cannot carry a team. <br /><br />Jay<br /><br />My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.