Who was the best center fielder of all time?

[Zone91]

Was it Cobb, Mantle, Dimaggio or Ken Griffey jr?

Post # 2

[seablaster]

I think your poll should include Willie Mays and Tris Speaker, Adrian.

[Zone91]

seablaster

Can I change my poll to add them?

Post # 4

[39special]

I would pick Mays

[texmrsport]

Mays

[glynparson]

The answer is Willie Mays in my mind.

[wolf441]

I'd have to go with Mays as well.

[EvilKing00]

My answer would of been Mays if we are including fielding

[almostdone]

Out of the four listed I would probably pick Griffey Jr. but Mays would be best overall if listed.
Drew

[barrysloate]

Willie Mays.

[RCMcKenzie]

Mike Trout or Tris Speaker.

[EvilKing00]

Originally Posted by rcmckenzie

mike trout or tris speaker.

rofl!

[oldjudge]

Ty Cobb, and I don't think it's close. Offensively, the only advantage Mays has is in HRs. Mays was probably a better fielder, but it would have been interesting to see Mays play with the glove Cobb had to use.

[Seiklis]

Mays

[Cardboard Junkie]

Wasn't it Durocher who said of Mays, "If he could cook I'd marry him!".

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Ty Cobb, and I don't think it's close. Offensively, the only advantage Mays has is in HRs. Mays was probably a better fielder, but it would have been interesting to see Mays play with the glove Cobb had to use.

Better power hitter and better fielder, that's a pretty good start for a center fielder, no? I would give the advantage, by a slight margin, to Mays, although it's always somewhat artificial to compare players across eras. Had Grifffey's career continued at the same trajectory through his 30s, he certainly would be in the discussion, but of course it didn't.

[EGreenwood]

That would be Willie Mays

[milkit1]

Tris speaker without a doubt. Everyone says willie mays cause of one great catch caught on film. Speaker was so good he'd play as shallow as possible thus having more unassisted double plays by any outfielder ever. Willie mays? Give me a break.

[Pinstriper780]

Ty Cobb (obviously great hitter, but VERY average fielder)

I'm going with Mick or Mays. Power and both were above excellent defensively.

[oldjudge]

It wasn't so much that Mantle didn't take care of himself; the problem was he tore up his knee early in his career on a sprinkler head (I believe) in the outfield at Yankee Stadium and he was never the same player again. He used to have his knee taped for every game thereafter and many times the bandage were bloody when the game was over. I saw most of Mantle's and Mays' careers so I can answer Ted's question. I was a rabid Yankee fan, but I never thought that Mantle was a clutch player. The guys you could rely on in a close game were Berra, Skowron and Richardson. Mantle was a good, not a great fielder. In fact, later in his career he was taken out in later innings for defensive purposes and replaced by Jack Reed. Mays was a terror to play against. When he got on the bases he was a big distraction to pitchers. However, when I watched him play, I never thought of him as an all time great. He was a very good hitter who played a long time and put up some big numbers.Getting back to Mantle, I can tell you that throughout his career in NY there was never any question in fan's minds who was a better centerfielder, Mantle or DiMaggio. Everyone I knew who had seen both play thought DiMaggio was better. Every all time all star team I ever saw put together through the 1970s always had the outfield of Ruth, Cobb and DiMaggio. Somehow, people who have never seen these players play have decided to somehow downgrade DiMaggio. I think this is a mistake.

[auggiedoggy]

Willie Mays!

You're welcome!

[Steve D]

Garry Maddox!

He was after all, nicknamed the Secretary of Defense. Someone also remarked about him:

"Two thirds of the Earth is covered by water, the other third is covered by Garry Maddox."


OK, maybe not; if you include hitting, it's definitely Willie Mays.


Steve

[obcbobd]

Mays of course

[TheBig6]

Cesar Cedeno
Get me another Dome Foam

[Danny Smith]

"Your mother, trebek" - Sean Connery

[Zone91]

Why so little love for Joe Dimaggio when he won 9 titles!!!

Post # 7

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Zone91

Why so little love for Joe Dimaggio when he won 9 titles!!!

Post # 7

Why so hung up on titles?

For titles someone just has to be on a great team. And there have been plenty of marginal players on great teams with titles (Bucky %&%$ Dent) and some great players on lousy teams without titles.

Teds point about Mantle is an important one, there are some players who make the team better, some even to the point of making the team great by making everyone around them better. And that's a very hard thing to put to numbers. It's a bit more obvious in other sports, Jordan, Bird, Magic. All of them made the rest of the team much better.

I never saw Mantle play, except maybe a time or two on television before I really got sports. (Until I was 10 it was more science, especially space for me) But there are so many people who talk about how he was such a force on the team I have to think there's something to it.

Another player in Baseball who seemed to make his teams that much better was Don Baylor. At the end of his career, 3 straight trips to the World series with 3 different teams. I'm not so sure that has been done before or since. He didn't really get much credit for that, but it is a hard things to put to numbers.

The opposite is Arod. Huge numbers, for years. But Seattle only won their division his second year when he didn't play much. The next few they were 3rd or 2nd. They won the division the year after he left. Texas wasn't good, but when he arived they were only a bad year removed from a division title. With him they finished last all 3 years. In NY, he went to a great team. One that had won a string of division titles and wasn't that far off from having won 3 straight world series.
With him, they still won, but had possibly the worst playoff collapse ever. And except for 2009 haven't done much in the postseason. In 09 I think they won despite Arod, how much better would they have been without him from 04 till now?

Steve B

[sccoe]

Mantle may have had the most talent but Mays was the best.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by sccoe

Mantle may have had the most talent but Mays was the best.

I can agree with that.

Man, imagine if the Mick had taken care of himself, though. What kind of numbers could he have put up?

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by steve B

Teds point about Mantle is an important one, there are some players who make the team better, some even to the point of making the team great by making everyone around them better.

And that's a very hard thing to put to numbers. It's a bit more obvious in other sports, Jordan, Bird, Magic. All of them made the rest of the team much better.



Another player in Baseball who seemed to make his teams that much better was Don Baylor. At the end of his career, 3 straight trips to the World series with 3 different teams. I'm not so sure that has been done before or since. He didn't really get much credit for that, but it is a hard things to put to numbers.
Steve B

Thanks for making that point regarding Mantle. It's exactly my feeling about The Mick. This factor is something that has eluded many on this forum that favor Mays.

But, I understand and respect their opinions on this subject. However, I have the advantage over most of them in that I grew up with Mantle and Mays. I was a very
avid BB fan as a kid, I closely followed Mantle's performance from 1951 to 1964. And, also Mays playing days from 1951 to early 1970's.

Let's hear some opinions from guys here that were also lucky enough to have seen these two great HOFer's play ?


.. Type 2 .................................................. .................................................. Type 1



T-Rex TED

[Sean]

Originally Posted by steve B

Why so hung up on titles?

For titles someone just has to be on a great team. And there have been plenty of marginal players on great teams with titles (Bucky %&%$ Dent) and some great players on lousy teams without titles.

Teds point about Mantle is an important one, there are some players who make the team better, some even to the point of making the team great by making everyone around them better. And that's a very hard thing to put to numbers. It's a bit more obvious in other sports, Jordan, Bird, Magic. All of them made the rest of the team much better.

I never saw Mantle play, except maybe a time or two on television before I really got sports. (Until I was 10 it was more science, especially space for me) But there are so many people who talk about how he was such a force on the team I have to think there's something to it.

Another player in Baseball who seemed to make his teams that much better was Don Baylor. At the end of his career, 3 straight trips to the World series with 3 different teams. I'm not so sure that has been done before or since. He didn't really get much credit for that, but it is a hard things to put to numbers.

The opposite is Arod. Huge numbers, for years. But Seattle only won their division his second year when he didn't play much. The next few they were 3rd or 2nd. They won the division the year after he left. Texas wasn't good, but when he arived they were only a bad year removed from a division title. With him they finished last all 3 years. In NY, he went to a great team. One that had won a string of division titles and wasn't that far off from having won 3 straight world series.
With him, they still won, but had possibly the worst playoff collapse ever. And except for 2009 haven't done much in the postseason. In 09 I think they won despite Arod, how much better would they have been without him from 04 till now?

Steve B

Since you referenced Don Baylor, I want to point out Joe Morgan's record of success.
In '72 he joined a Reds team that had tied for 4th the previous year.He helped them to 4 division titles in 5 years,with 3 World Series appearances and 2 Championships. He was NL MVP those two years.
In 1980 he joins the Astros,who had never won the division. Ever. They won it that year with Morgan.
In 1981 he goes to the Giants, a 5th place team the year before he joined them. It took two years, but he had them in the race all the way until the final weekend in '82. They finished 2 games behind Atlanta.
In 1983 he went to the Phillies, who finished a strong second the previous year. They made it to the WS with him that year.
Every team he went to got better, usually very quickly. I've never understood why he doesn't get more credit.

[T206Collector]

Mays or Griffey, but probably Mays...

[bigtrain]

The answer is Mays, of those players listed Mantle.

[travrosty]

I can see griffey junior crushing a homerun to win a game, but i cannot see ruth rounding third and sliding across home al la griffey junior in '95 game 5 playoffs. i see ruth lumbering home and is he gonna have the speed adn athleticism of griff jr to make it.?

[SteveMitchell]

People who know me know I'm no fan of the Yankees, but... I gotta go with my own (admittedly convoluted) scoring system I devised 15 years ago.

Assigning one point for first place, 2 for second, 3 for third, etc. in 11 offensive* (and no defensive) categories, the center fielder with the lowest total wins.

Final results:

1. Joe DiMaggio, 30 points
2. Ty Cobb, 52
3. Ken Griffey, Jr., 54
4. Earl Averill, 55
5. Al Simmons, 56
6. Mickey Mantle & Willie Mays, 61 each
8. Tris Speaker, 63
9. Duke Snider, 73
10. Edd Roush, 91

*The categories are: Runs, Hits, 2B, 3B, HR, RBI, Batting Average, Slugging Average, Total Bases, Long Hits and Net Runs. This was a statistical analysis of career records based upon 575 at bats representing a hypothetical season with seasons divided into career totals to produce an expected yearly average.

Convoluted scoring systems aside, Griffey's stats only go through 1998 and there is no accounting for defense.

Taking into account defense and the quirks of the baseball eras represented by these players, I think it would be close, and go something like: Mays, Cobb, Griffey and DiMaggio.

[Zone91]

Why then is Mantle SO MUCH more popular and has millions of people who collect his cards? I do not get it if Mays was so much better??? Same with Hank Aaron (I know he has no place here) he had way better stats than Mantle...but almost nobody collects his stuff compared to the Mick!!!

What am I missing here is it just because he played for the Yankees and was a above average player? Why is his name legendary along with the likes of Babe Ruth?

Post # 8

[Eric72]

I say Mays; however, this guy was pretty good, too...

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Zone91

Why then is Mantle SO MUCH more popular and has millions of people who collect his cards? I do not get it if Mays was so much better??? Same with Hank Aaron (I know he has no place here) he had way better stats than Mantle...but almost nobody collects his stuff compared to the Mick!!!

What am I missing here is it just because he played for the Yankees and was a above average player? Why is his name legendary along with the likes of Babe Ruth?

Post # 8

It's easy....you don't have to be a "Rocket Scientist" to realize why Mantle is beloved more than Mays.

I'm old enough to have seen Mantle and Mays play from 1951 to their career's end. Mantle was a tremendous force on the Yankees
that got them into 12 World Series from 1951 - 1964. He "wowed" us with clutch hitting and 18 HR's in those World Series.

While Mays with the Giants during those years was only in 3 World Series. Incidently, he hit NO HR's in those Series.

Now, my daughters know more about Mickey Mantle than any other ballplayer, because like most Dad's, I passed on to them the legacy
of the mighty Mantle performances. My point that I'm making here is that there is a generational multiplying factor in play.

I could spend pages of story-telling why Mantle is more popular than Mays.

But, I'll leave you with this......Mantle was always a great person to get his autograph from....he was always very friendly.

Contrast that with Mays, who most of the time is an old grouch and not too friendly (this has really turned off many of his fans).


TED Z

[E93]

No brainer, Cobb was the best player ever to walk onto a ball field. He single-handedly transformed the game in which he was playing.
JimB

[oldjudge]

Steve--I'm confused by your last statement. You clearly rank DiMaggio as the best hitting centerfielder ever. He was not just a good fielder, he was a great fielder. If he beat Mays by a decent margin on offense there is no way that Mays catches him based on defense. Mays MAY have been slightly better on defense, but DiMaggio was one of the greatest fielding centerfielders of his era.

BTW, I don't think championships mean much when ranking players. Baseball is a team game, one guy can't carry the team. Mantle on Mays' Giants don't win any more pennants than the Giants did; they may win less. Similarly, Mays replacing Mantle on the Yankees (which would have made him the first Black Yankee--they didn't rush out to sign Black ball players) would have not cost them any pennants. Might have won them an extra World Series too.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Mays

[robw1959]

I would be tempted to go with Willie Mays since I've never seen Tris Speaker. But Mays did not have over 400 outfield assists, nor a lifetime batting average of .345. In my mind the overall greatest CF was Speaker.

[ptr002]

Willie Mays; Mickey Mantle of the players listed

[AndrewJerome]

Cobb should be #1. In all time great rankings, Mays is helped by a long career, and DiMaggio is hurt by a short career.

My top 6 (two through four are very close):

1) Cobb
2) Mays
3) Mantle
4) Charleston
5) DiMaggio
6) Speaker

[the 'stache]

DiMaggio 5th? Ah, no.

[Jlighter]

I'm just going to put this out there.

Cobb is highly overrated.

Come at me.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by robw1959

... But Mays did not have over 400 outfield assists... In my mind the overall greatest CF was Speaker.

Speaker's assist numbers are ridiculous, but I think they're really tough to compare with current OF stats. Playing much of his careeer in the dead ball era (and in some small ballparks as mentioned earlier) allowed him to play a much shallower CF than modern day outfielders. I think it was probably not that uncommon for a CF to get an assist on a standard force out a 2nd on an otherwise clean line drive to center. I think runners were also more aggressive in stretching singles into doubles and doubles into triples, allowing for more assist opportunities. Mays by all reports had an absolutely cannon of an arm, and playing in the modern era has very respectable even high assist total for a center fielder.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

Speaker's assist numbers are ridiculous, but I think they're really tough to compare with current OF stats. Playing much of his careeer in the dead ball era (and in some small ballparks as mentioned earlier) allowed him to play a much shallower CF than modern day outfielders. I think it was probably not that uncommon for a CF to get an assist on a standard force out a 2nd on an otherwise clean line drive to center. I think runners were also more aggressive in stretching singles into doubles and doubles into triples, allowing for more assist opportunities. Mays by all reports had an absolutely cannon of an arm, and playing in the modern era has very respectable even high assist total for a center fielder.

Small parks everywhere isn't exactly what I meant. Fenway was small and playing there let Speaker play a different sort of centerfield. Most other parks of the time were enormous. Huntingdon avenue grounds were 350 down the LF line, and between 530 and 635 to center. Distances down the lines of around 350-360 weren't unusual even in parks built in the same era as Fenway. And center was often 440+ with some places still being in the 500 foot range. With spectators allowed on the field at times, a line drive that got past a fielder was bad news, often a home run. In Fenway Speaker could play shallow, and with the leftfielder also playing shallow, backup was close enough to matter.

League park was also on the small side especially to right. That might have let him play more towards left, maybe cutting off some angle for righthanded batters.

But he still had to be fast enough for the typical large parks.

It would be interesting to see how many of his OF assists were at home after 1912.
What's also interesting is that looking at the stats there wasn't a big jump in assists between the years before 1912 and 1912 and after. So maybe what I've always heard is wrong?

Steve B

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by steve B

... But he still had to be fast enough for the typical large parks.

It would be interesting to see how many of his OF assists were at home after 1912.
What's also interesting is that looking at the stats there wasn't a big jump in assists between the years before 1912 and 1912 and after. So maybe what I've always heard is wrong?

Steve B

I'd love to see those types of home/away defensive splits. I'd also have loved to see that style of baseball, since I think the outfield assist is one of the most exciting and underrated plays in baseball.. and I think so much better in person than on TV, in that you're able to see the whole play as it develops. I do still have to think many of those assists were force outs at 2nd on what would have otherwise been hits, as well throwing behind runners after catching short line drives (splits on that would be great too)... both assist types that are pretty rare today. I also do think runners were much more aggressive and took more chances (just look how many attempted steals there were back then)... though have definitely done less reading/research on the topic as you have.

These types of ridiculous statistical disparities (outfield assists, batters' low strike out rates, frequency of running and bunting, more triples, inside the park home runs, stealing home, etc) between then and today's game make me wish so much that I could see one game from that era.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

In regards to the Mantle legen(wait for it)dary! status, it seems almost inhuman some of the stuff he did. Bo Jackson is a modern day Mantle, that guy was an absolute beast! He may not have been the best at what he did, but some of the stuff he did made you wonder, 'how the hell can someone do that'. The stories are incredible.