The 10 commandments of card collecting

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by david_l

Thy shall remember the great players of color who were not fortunate to have cards. Thy shall not deceive oneself into believing that Mantle was actually a better player than Mays.

But it has been conclusively, objectively and mathematically proven that Mantle was indeed better than Mays offensively (though certainly not in the field--Mantle was good as a centerfielder, but Mays has a legitimate claim to being the best of all time with the glove). Better check out their respective runs created to league average over their careers (Mantle, by recollection, is right around 215%, Mays about 185%; OPS+ [171 for Mantle to 156 for Mays], and OBP [.421 for Mantle; .384 for Mays). Mantle also had a higher runs scored per game average. Respectfully suggest you read some recent biographies, such as Jane Leavy's "The Last Boy," and the fairly recent one about both Mickey and Willie, which include a relatively thorough SABR analysis. The Mantle advantage offensively is largely due to far more walks, less GIDP's, and better homerun frequency. Though their historically traditional stats appear to be somewhat similar, Mantle made far fewer outs to get approximately the same production. Career wise, Mays might be said to have the edge due to sheer greater longevity, but certainly not when they were both playing. There is no evidence to support any case that Mays was better offensively than Mantle while both were playing other than anecdotal. The latter is a little like Roger Kahn, author of "The Boys of Summer," stating that Stan Musial was the greatest hitter he had ever seen. Well, in a word, no. Kahn saw Mantle and Williams, as well as Musial. Musial created 193% of league average runs created; Mantle, as stated, was around 215%, and Ted Williams tops them all (yes, including the Babe, at 240%) at 250% OVER HIS ENTIRE CAREER (a figure which was even better than Gehrig's best single season in 1927). Musial was certainly great, but claiming he was better is nothing more than saying he liked Musial better than the other two, since it is an argument that cannot be factually supported.

Case closed,

Larry

[tschock]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

The latter is a little like Roger Kahn, author of "The Boys of Summer," stating that Stan Musial was the greatest hitter he had ever seen. Well, in a word, no. Kahn saw Mantle and Williams, as well as Musial. Musial created 193% of league average runs created; Mantle, as stated, was around 215%, and Ted Williams tops them all (yes, including the Babe, at 240%) at 250% OVER HIS ENTIRE CAREER (a figure which was even better than Gehrig's best single season in 1927). Musial was certainly great, but claiming he was better is nothing more than saying he liked Musial better than the other two, since it is an argument that cannot be factually supported.

Case closed,

Larry

To be a noodge, you are using specific qualifying stats for a 'type' of hitting (as it relates to run production) to prove somewhat of a generalization. Taken to the extreme, would you continue to use those same stats to 'prove' someone as a worse hitter if that someone came to bat 5000 time, had 5000 hits, but drove in no runs? I would argue that someone batting 1.000 over their entire career (assuming that career lasted more that a handful of plate appearances) would be the better 'hitter'.

I get what you are driving at, but I don't think one came claim to determine the best 'hitter' in the game without providing the qualifications as to what they mean by 'best hitter'. With that in mind, Kahn may still have been correct without understanding the qualifying characteristics of his claim.

Sort of like your dismissal of Mays defensive skills and merely focusing on 'hitting' as the qualifications of an overall 'player'. I'm not claiming you are right or wrong in who was the better player. Just that it isn't enough for proof in order to claim "cased closed".

[tschock]

A flip is what you do to a card when trying to win cards from your friends after opening a few packs. Thou shalt flip the card. Thou shalt not flip the 'flip'.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by tschock

To be a noodge, you are using specific qualifying stats for a 'type' of hitting (as it relates to run production) to prove somewhat of a generalization. Taken to the extreme, would you continue to use those same stats to 'prove' someone as a worse hitter if that someone came to bat 5000 time, had 5000 hits, but drove in no runs? I would argue that someone batting 1.000 over their entire career (assuming that career lasted more that a handful of plate appearances) would be the better 'hitter'.

I get what you are driving at, but I don't think one came claim to determine the best 'hitter' in the game without providing the qualifications as to what they mean by 'best hitter'. With that in mind, Kahn may still have been correct without understanding the qualifying characteristics of his claim.

Sort of like your dismissal of Mays defensive skills and merely focusing on 'hitting' as the qualifications of an overall 'player'. I'm not claiming you are right or wrong in who was the better player. Just that it isn't enough for proof in order to claim "cased closed".

Incorporating my entire previous post herein as though fully set forth, I can only truthfully and accurately say once more, "case closed." Games are won by determining who scored the most runs--hence, run production irrefutably, indisputably rises to the forefront--the "best" hitter has nothing whatsoever to do with any "hitting type". He who is the best is the one who produces the most runs relative to the league average under the conditions of his era (OPS+ is really shorthand for that, while Bill James formula for runs created, which led to offensive win shares, takes into account other factors and thus carries a higher degree of accuracy). You are free to believe whatever you choose. However, until they start counting up hits or some other figure instead of runs, the actual fact remains that the best hitter is the one producing the most runs. My comment on Mays vs. Mantle was limited to offensive value during the period they both played, without taking into account Mays' undisputed superior fielding ability. As to what I was alluding to, however, there is no room for any factually supportable dispute. If you say Mays was a better hitter when they were both playing, all you are really saying is that you like Mays better, because all of the factual evidence is to the contrary. I am speaking with reference to quality, of course, rather than quantity. Did Mays produce more runs in the course of a significantly longer career? Of course, and that was simply due to better longevity. At the risk of redundancy, once more, case closed.

Regards,

Larry

[JTysver]

Incorporating my entire previous post herein as though fully set forth, I can only truthfully and accurately say once more, "case closed." Games are won by determining who scored the most runs--hence, run production irrefutably, indisputably rises to the forefront.

Regards,

Larry

On the surface that is correct. But stats alone do not quantify that. Tony Lazzeri hitting in front of the Babe scores a lot more runs than he would if he were hitting in front of John Milner who was cleanup often on the '73 Mets. He also drives in more runs because people pitch to him instead of Ruth whereas they could pitch to Milner if they chose.

Also, the object of productive outs is not really quantified. A guy getting 25 of his RBIs on sacrifice flies matters. A guy hitting a groundball to second with less than two outs and a guy on third matters. A guy pushing a runner up from first to second or from second to third matters as well. A guy moving a runner over by a base on ball matters.
Setting the table for scoring all matters. Likewise so does defense.

When Mays played, guys were not prone to start running on a gapper. They would take a few steps and freeze to make sure the ball wasn't caught. Pretty much the same way a guy freezes on a line drive. Hence, on a double in the gap and a man on first, the guy on first just might not have scored as often if Mays were manning centerfield. All of those things are not quantified.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by JTysver

On the surface that is correct. But stats alone do not quantify that. Tony Lazzeri hitting in front of the Babe scores a lot more runs than he would if he were hitting in front of John Milner who was cleanup often on the '73 Mets. He also drives in more runs because people pitch to him instead of Ruth whereas they could pitch to Milner if they chose.

Also, the object of productive outs is not really quantified. A guy getting 25 of his RBIs on sacrifice flies matters. A guy hitting a groundball to second with less than two outs and a guy on third matters. A guy pushing a runner up from first to second or from second to third matters as well. A guy moving a runner over by a base on ball matters.
Setting the table for scoring all matters. Likewise so does defense.

When Mays played, guys were not prone to start running on a gapper. They would take a few steps and freeze to make sure the ball wasn't caught. Pretty much the same way a guy freezes on a line drive. Hence, on a double in the gap and a man on first, the guy on first just might not have scored as often if Mays were manning centerfield. All of those things are not quantified.

The sabermetric formulas referred to above have beyond a shadow of a doubt been proven to be highly accurate run production indicators. James' formulas, when placing various factors into a rather intuitive (or minimally, a very reasonable) equation, have proven astonishingly accurate in predicting the number of runs teams scored. Hence, the application of the same factors/formulas to individual players. The events you mention, in contrast to the mathematical factors taking into account many thousands of at bats, usually vary from season to season, and are not significant in any rational discussion of players regarding their relative run-producing abilities. As well as having played in two different summer leagues every year, high school, more recently in over 30 fast pitch hardball in my early '40's, and studiously and devotedly watched literally thousands of games (much to the wife's chagrin), I watched Mays and Mantle play in their primes, and the significant differences in the game that have taken place since then are these: greater emphasis on pitch counts and accordingly, relief specialists; five man starting rotations rather than four; pitchers figuring out that one grip (two seam) produces a sinking fastball, while another (four seam) a fastball that does not sink; emphasis on the "circle change," which produces a screwball type of movement but without the stress on the elbow; development of the split-finger fastball; various changes in the strike zone (with the biggest coming into effect in 1969); and the number of pitchers versus bench players carried on the roster.

As I said, if you like Mays better, that's fine--just don't claim he was a better hitter during the time both he and Mantle were each playing because ALL of the evidence is to the contrary. You wouldn't think that this would take three times, but once more,

Case closed,

Larry

[bravos4evr]

On the surface that is correct. But stats alone do not quantify that. Tony Lazzeri hitting in front of the Babe scores a lot more runs than he would if he were hitting in front of John Milner who was cleanup often on the '73 Mets. He also drives in more runs because people pitch to him instead of Ruth whereas they could pitch to Milner if they chose.

true, which is why stats like weighted runs created and weighted on base avg (wRC+ and wOBA) don't concern themselves with those things. They only focus on the things that the batter can control directly. Mantle has an edge in hitting. But as a total player Mays was better because base running and defense matter, But with the bat? Mantle was a fair bit better.

[Billy5858]

Thou shalt not hijack fun threads to use for long winded discussions about the abilities of two Major League Baseball stars.