Which Player Do You Want?
 

Player A. Player B

R. 130. 113
H. 207. 163
HR. 34. 36
RBI. 143. 102
BA. .325. .298
OBP. .398. .421



All stats based on a 162 game season. Oh, player A was a better fielder.

A of course though I think by name recognition it would be B once revealed!

If they play the same position, it appears obvious that Player A is more valuable. If Player A is 1B, and Player B is a CF, SS, or C, it may depend on how poor their fielding is. All we know is that it is not (at least not quite) as good as that of Player A, presumably measured by fielding percentage, which may not adjust adequately for range, arm strength, etc. I suppose it could also turn on how good their teams are at offense (as part of a strong offense, RBI opportunity and run scoring is enhanced) and where they play (offense could be easier or more difficult based on park effects and pitcher quality in their division).

So, I will take A if they play the same position and B if the defensive importance of the positions played favors B sufficiently.

player
 

A

Not enough info there to make a fair judgement.

Need more info, the runs and RBIs certainly favor player A but that could be a product of the players around him. Are players from the same era? Do they play different positions? Did they play in similar or different ballparks? Player B walked more, was that because he was often pitched around?

Player B
 

because of the OBP

Give me player B and his 2 extra HRs, higher Obp, and presumably, superstar recognition.

A, was obviously playing on a much better team so I choose them.:)

Player A, unless Player B was a pitcher.

+1 Agree

It is an interesting and a good exercise but I agree need more information to truly say
If I had to pick om the limited info I would pick player A

They both played the same position in the outfield.

More info:

Player A. B.
SLG. .579 .557
OPS .977 .977
OPS+ 155 172

Wild that they have same exact OPS. Peak will favor B, but that is a different exercise.

I know who they are and this is a very fun exercise!

The answer is player A and I would not have expected that, but I also don't know as much about that era as I do the 19th century.

I would take B with the higher OPS+.

Neither one, I cannot afford their salaries. ;-)

How can anybody make a decision on this if the WAR rating is not provided? :p


Player A = 74.5
Player B = 110.2

I like A, but B was pretty darned good.

I know who they are too. Player A obviously played in an era where runs were a lot easier to come by. Nobody in the last 60 years averaged 143 RBIs.

And regards to defense, both players' DWAR is +0.3 per year.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Oh shoot, I was wrong about who Player B is. Duh! How about adding in Player C then:

A 34 HR, .325/.398/.579 155 OPS+, +0.3 DWAR
B 36 HR, .298/.421/.577 172 O+, -0.6 DWAR
C 40 HR, .303/.415/.587 176 O+, +0.3 DWAR

Other random info:

A R/RBI 130/143, SB 3, MVPs 3, Top5 6
B R/RBI 113/102, SB 10, MVPs 3, Top5 9
C R/RBI 121/103, SB 23, MVPs 3, Top5 9



Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Second Baseman
 

Or how about these two?:

Player A/Player B

R. 93. 101.
H. 173. 154.
HR. 27. 16.
RBI. 107. 69.
BA. 290. 271.
OPS. 855. 819.

You can do a lot of funny things with numbers...

Yep, point taken. Especially if you leave important stuff out.

A SB 7, GG 0, OPS+ 123, MVP 1, Top5 1
B SB 42, GG 5, OPS+ 132, MVP 2, Top5 4

Both great players, but it's easy to see why only one is in the HOF.

And just coincidentally, Player A stats are almost a doppelganger for this recently retired player C:

A 27 HR, .290/.356/.500/.855, 123 OPS+, 7 SB, 1 MVP, 1 Top5, 0 GG

C 28 HR, .290/.361/.495/.856, 118 OPS+, 7 SB, 0 MVP, 2 Top5, 2 GG

I would want to know about how he is in the clubhouse and if he is a total s#*t show of a personality- numbers are great but there is more to being a great player than that.

Gimme gimme gimme
 

I’ll take one of each.

This!!

It should be noted that you get player B for 25%+ more games, and played in a period where the .977 OPS is significantly better in context to time and place.

I pick B, because of the context.

Interesting that they have the same career bWAR per 162 games of 7.4

B had a slightly higher Offensive bWAR, and a slightly lower defensive bWAR

If you use FanGraphs WAR, player A is 7.96 WAR per 162 games, and player B is 7.58 WAR per 162 games.

So that's the tiebreaker for you two, then? Interesting. 3 MVPs but not a good clubhouse guy. Forget about him.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Didn't they both win 3 MVPs?

Maybe the tie breaker should be postseason play?

Player A had more World Series, but Player B was the better hitter.

Player A in the postseason: .271/.338/.422 with an OPS of .760
Player B in the postseason: .257/.374/.535 with an OPS of .908

Player A had 8 postseason HRs in 199 at bats
Player B had 18 postseason HRs in 230 at bats

Very unamerican of you to downgrade "Player A" due to him missing a few seasons so he could serve his country. LOL

I'm voting for the war hero who married the most iconic actress/celebrity of his generation.

Yeah, but look at the third MVP for player A. He shouldn't have gotten the award. How does that work? The runner up had with twice the WAR (which I don't use as a measuring stick) and won a triple crown that year. Runner up also had an OPS 200 points higher.

If you go by rookie card price, it looks like player B will win the popularity contest.

No question that Player B deserved more MVPs. Player B lead the League in WAR 5x. Player A led the League in WAR 0 times. Although Player A did lead the League in WAR for position players 3x.

Even if you don't go by WAR, it is very hard to justify Player A winning as many MVPs as player B. But who knows what would have happened in the years Player A couldn't play because of military service.

Yes. I hate America because a question about which is statistically better spurred me to use statistics, and not war service or comparing which actresses they got with. What an excellent and insightful point.

This exercise shows the importance of eras. If player B played in the national league in the 1960’s he would have been a top level star. If player A was an outfielder in the 1930’s he would have been one bad week away from riding the pine as a forth outfielder.

DiMaggio wasn't actually in combat, was he? Didn't he essentially play baseball to entertain? The other thing is, if you take away Mantle's long decline, his per 162s look a lot better.

As if entertainment wasn't heroism of the highest order....

Obviously, by this time everyone knows that Player A is Joe DiMaggio and player B is Mickey Mantle. After Mantle retired in 1969 baseball selected its’ all time team. the outfield: Ruth, Cobb and DiMaggio. In 1994, Ted Williams was asked to rank the greatest hitters ever. On his list DiMaggio was number 5, Mantle was number 12. I just think that after both have been long retired Mantle continues to get better relative to DiMaggio. This is just hitting. As a fielder DiMaggio was clearly better. Mantle was routinely replaced in late innings for defensive purposes. DiMaggio was the premier center fielder of his day.

Did Williams rate himself? If so, where did he rank himself?

It's hard to rank players from different eras, but there was that one year overlap for both of them. From a purely entertainment value I'd pick the Mick because he gave some great interviews! Both were great.

Seems you didn't catch the sarcasm. Thought the "LOL" would do the trick...oh well can't win them all.

He did not

I would take Mantle since he played against tougher competition... Mantle's career coincided with the all-too-gradual integration of the "major leagues" and population growth that increased the potential pool of major league players....also more foreign born players especially Latin Americans were drawn into americas premier leagues -- the NL and the AL. The `spread of the majors from the northeast and the midwest across the entire US in the late 1950's also meant that the best players were no longer content to stay in the PCL or other regional leagues.
None of that's part of the statistical comparison exercise though.

I think that one of the reasons Mantle is increasingly regarded as being "greater" than DiMaggio is simply the declining number of living people who saw DiMaggio play or experienced him as something other than a handsome legend who doubled as "Mr. Coffee." DiMaggio's grace on the field and his persona as the the Yankee Clipper were integral to his greatness. This not really captured by the stats..His statistical legacy is mainly the 56-game streak.

I agree with your analysis, this was a thoughtful exercise.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

..His statistical legacy is mainly the 56-game streak.

Brian--if in your mind this is DiMaggio's statistical legacy what is Mantle's?

Jay -
Mantle has nothing comparable as his legacy (who does?).. He doesn't hold any major records that I'm aware of and no numbers belong to him like 56 does for DiMaggio or 714 and 60 do for Ruth.

If I had to pick one its the Home Runs :
372 homers left-handed and 164 right-handed. He's probably the greatest switch hitter of all-time,

I would take DiMaggio's bat over Mantle's. That is without DiMaggio being a much better defensive fielder. He is everything you want in a middle of the lineup hitter, a guy who hits for a high average, .325, with power, a top 10 slugging percentage. This playing in Yankee Stadium which hurt righties power numbers. You also can add only 34 strikeouts to Mantle's 115.

This is the perfect example that exposes the flaws of OPS+ and WAR. These are only one person's opinion, they are not real stats, which I often disagree with.

I think it's hard to make the case that DiMaggio was a better hitter than Mantle. Mantle was just much more dominant.
His black ink score is 62 to DiMaggio's 34.

Mantle led the League in Runs 5x, HRs 4x, OBP 3x, Slugging 4x, OPS 6x.
DiMaggio led the AL in Runs 1x, HRs 2x, OBP 0x, Slugging 1x, OPS 0x.

Mantle won the triple crown.

DiMaggio had 30 Stolen Bases in his career. Mantle had 23 in one season and 5x as many in his career.

Pretty much the only things DiMaggio had on Mantle was Batting Average (led the League 2x vs. Mantle's 1x), he never struck out, and he stayed healthier.

The exercise of comparing their career stats per 162 games is misleading because Mantle's body broke down and his career stats were watered down by his final years. It is almost as misleading as comparing their counting stats, which Mantle dominates.

Now if DiMaggio played at Fenway or some other place that was friendlier to Right Handers, maybe things would be different. Or if DiMaggio didn't serve in the military. But those are IFs.

In that same ranking, Pie Traynor was selected as the greatest third baseman of all time, and Mickey Cochrane was the greatest catcher. DiMaggio, meanwhile, refused to go to events for the rest of his life unless he was introduced as "the greatest living ballplayer," which was probably never true for a single day of his life.

It's more than batting average, DiMaggio also dominated in RBI's and runs scored, two pretty important categories. DiMaggio lost three years in his prime because of the war and was not the same player when he returned that he was when he left. Although it is a moot point since they are close on HRs, I think HRs is a very overrated stat. A batters job is to create runs either by driving them in or scoring them. How he accomplishes this is secondary to how well he does this. DiMaggio was superior in both RBIs and runs scored.
As for their off field personalities after they retired neither was close to being a model citizen.

I listed Runs. DiMaggio led the League in Runs all of one time. Mantle led the League in Runs 5x. Why did this happen? One main reason is that Mantle led the League in OBP 5x and DiMaggio never did. Mantle also stole bases (7 top 10 finishes), and stole them at a high percentage (top 3 in the Leage in stolen base percentage each year from 1957 thru 1960).

Are you seriously saying that Home Runs are overrated but RBI's are not?

As far as Ted Williams' ranking of the 20 greatest hitters go, here is the list:
1) Babe Ruth 2) Lou Gehrig 3) Jimmie Foxx 4) Rogers Hornsby 5) Joe DiMaggio 6) Ty Cobb 7) Stan Musial 8) Joe Jackson 9) Hank Aaron 10) Willie Mays 11) Hank Greenberg 12) Mickey Mantle 13) Tris Speaker 14) Al Simmons 15) Johnny Mize 16) Mel Ott 17) Harry Heilmann 18) Frank Robinson 19) Mike Schmidt 20) Ralph Kiner

So he's got DiMaggio ahead of Cobb, and Al Simmons 4 places ahead of Frank Robinson.

"In 1994, Ted Williams opened his Hitters Hall of Fame in Hernando, Florida. He celebrated the event by inviting hundreds of former ballplayers and one current player — Tony Gwynn.

Williams enshrined the top twenty all-time hitters using his own "secret formula" which he stated was a combination of on base percentage and slugging average."

His "secret formula" is just OPS. OPS+ would come later.

Mantle and DiMaggio have the same OPS for their careers (.944) thanks to Mantle's drop off in his final four seasons. Mantle led the League in OPS 6x, DiMaggio led the League in OPS zero times.

Mantle's career OPS+ was 172 despite the drop off in his last four seasons to DiMaggio's 155.

Do you think Joe D was better at scoring and driving in runs, or do you think he just had more opportunities?

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Some might say the opposite, that WAR and OPS+ expose the flaws in people's subjective opinions.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk