Top 3 Baseball Players Of The Modern Era

[AmishPope]

Here's a question..... how can you compare players form different eras. The rules are different. The stadiums are different. The coaching should get better with time. I don't think it's fair. Plus Ruth & Cobb had the benefit of playing in a colour barrier league. Just to give a few examples.

 

[Marxist]

Here's a question..... how can you compare players form different eras. The rules are different. The stadiums are different. The coaching should get better with time. I don't think it's fair. Plus Ruth & Cobb had the benefit of playing in a colour barrier league. Just to give a few examples.

How true.

I obviously never saw Mantle play but I've seen Big Mac as minor leaguer and major leaguer in person. His power was characterized by his "pop". Many of his homers were hit so hard that they were line drives into the front rows of the outfield. So to compare projected distances is a little bit much. If you're going to pull the yard stick, you might want to go back and look at Killebrew or Canseco or Puckett.

 

[Weevil]

Your crack is powerful and your eyesight poor.

They debuted the same year and played productively for the same number of years (May's last 4 years were a carnival act for the kiddies). Rarely did Mantle out hit, out homerun, out RBI, or out steal Mays in 18 years. Mays ended his career with more total runs, more homeruns and a lot fewer strikeouts.

All that offensive firepower plus an incredible arm from CENTER field proves Mantle's superiority over Mays is completely in your head.

I don't get your argument. On the one hand you admit that he hung on for four extra years but on the other you base your judgement on total numbers.

I'm not arguing total numbers. If you think that Willie hanging around, playing the string out and hitting .260 with twenty dingers at the end of his career is applicable to who was a better ballplayer when they both could do it then that's up to you.

Your argument only has merit if you're so hung up on career numbers that everything else matters little. Which is great but then you have to argue that Dave Kingman was a better power hitter than Ralph Kiner or Don Sutton ten times the pitcher that Sandy Koufax was. Mantle at his peak was a much better player than Mays.

Mays' best year was probably 1954, Mantle's was probably 56. A quick journey into the statistical comparisons of those years

Mays had a great year. He hit .345, scored 119 runs, knocked in 110. His OBP plus slugging was an impressive 1.078. He hit 41 homers with 31 doubles and 13 triples. He walked 67 times and stole 8 of 13 bases. That's a great year.

Now Mantle in 56

Mantle hit .356. He scored 130 runs and knocked in 132. HIs OBP plus Slugging was a ridiculous 1.169. He hit 52 homers with 22 doubles and 5 triples. Mantle walked 112 times and stole ten of eleven bases. That's a better year.

Obviously Mantle had a better year. He did this while using fewer outs than Mays(391 vs 355) I could do this for their next two or three best years but it's the same. Mays was good, no doubt about it. Probably one of the ten best players in history. But Mantle at his peak is one of the top three. If you want to use the fact that after Mantle's injuries drove him out of the game and that Mays hung around for a few years compiling total numbers to prove that he was better than Mick then that's insane.

In the World Series Mays hit .239 with a slugging percentage of .282. His team lost three of the four world series they played in.

Mantle in the world series hit just .257 but slugged .535. His team won eight of the twelve world series they played in.

The only real advantage Mays has is in the field. But it's not a Keith Hernandez vs. Bill Buckner argument. Mantle was a very good center fielder. Mays was probably the greatest ever. BUt what's the difference between the best ever center fielder and a very good one? Five, maybe ten runs a year. Compared to Mantles advantage at the plate it's nothing.

Listen I'm not knocking Willie Mays. He was great. So was Mick They're very similar players. Both were Center Fielders in New York who came up at the same time. Both were all stars who were unlike any player who came before them.

But in the final analysis Mantle was simply that much better at the plate. Their batting average is within four points of each other(The fact that those four points establish Mays as a career .300 hitter and Mantle slightly below that is a pointless distinction), their slugging percentage is exactly the same. So you have two .300 hitters with .557 power. Both are fast. Both can steal bases.

So what makes it clearly Mantle for me is three things. First speed numbers. Yes, Mays stole more than twice the number of bases than Mantle. 338 vs. 153. That's significant. But not as much as the fact that Mantle was caught stealing less than half the amount that Mays was. 103 vs. 38. Mantle was a better percentage base stealer. Mantle also grounded into fewer than half as many double plays.

Mantle was the greatest leader of all time. His Yankees were the most successful team of all time. He played great ball in the world series. He was clutch. Mays did not play great ball in the post season. His team did not do very well in the World Series. The two times their teams met in the World Series, Mantle walked away with rings both times.

The third thing directly relates to a big misconception in one of Mays' seemingly statistical advantages over Mantle. Mays drove in more runs. There's a good reason for this, Mays hit fourth and Mantle hit third. Why'd Mantle hit third? Because he was so much better at getting on base. Mays' career obp was .384. Mantles was .421. Mickey Mantle was the best player of the fifties, hands down.

 

[alltherage]

Can a girl play too?

Ok here goes. I think Ruth has to be included in any list. The reasoning for this is simple. At the time he played he was head and shoulders better than most of those playing the game at that time.

I would not put Dimaggio on my list though he is close, nor Williams and again he is close. Mantle may well have had the best raw talent of any but he was injured way too much and much too early.

I would put Barry Bonds on my list. My reasons are simple. He has had an extraordinarily consistent career, he is a defensive star, he can run and steal bases, and his slugging percentage and on base percentage are both extraordinary.

My third pick would be Hank Aaron. I think he never gets credit for what he accomplished. I often wonder how hard it must have been for him to play a large part of his career in a southern city at a time where the civil rights movement was reaching its pinacle.

Those are my picks. Isn't baseball wonderful. I love that there is so much focus on the history of the game.

 

[Marxist]

I don't get your argument. On the one hand you admit that he hung on for four extra years but on the other you base your judgement on total numbers.

I'm not arguing total numbers. If you think that Willie hanging around, playing the string out and hitting .260 with twenty dingers at the end of his career is applicable to who was a better ballplayer when they both could do it then that's up to you.

Your argument only has merit if you're so hung up on career numbers that everything else matters little. Which is great but then you have to argue that Dave Kingman was a better power hitter than Ralph Kiner or Don Sutton ten times the pitcher that Sandy Koufax was. Mantle at his peak was a much better player than Mays.

Mays' best year was probably 1954, Mantle's was probably 56. A quick journey into the statistical comparisons of those years

Mays had a great year. He hit .345, scored 119 runs, knocked in 110. His OBP plus slugging was an impressive 1.078. He hit 41 homers with 31 doubles and 13 triples. He walked 67 times and stole 8 of 13 bases. That's a great year.

Now Mantle in 56

Mantle hit .356. He scored 130 runs and knocked in 132. HIs OBP plus Slugging was a ridiculous 1.169. He hit 52 homers with 22 doubles and 5 triples. Mantle walked 112 times and stole ten of eleven bases. That's a better year.

Obviously Mantle had a better year. He did this while using fewer outs than Mays(391 vs 355) I could do this for their next two or three best years but it's the same. Mays was good, no doubt about it. Probably one of the ten best players in history. But Mantle at his peak is one of the top three. If you want to use the fact that after Mantle's injuries drove him out of the game and that Mays hung around for a few years compiling total numbers to prove that he was better than Mick then that's insane.

In the World Series Mays hit .239 with a slugging percentage of .282. His team lost three of the four world series they played in.

Mantle in the world series hit just .257 but slugged .535. His team won eight of the twelve world series they played in.

The only real advantage Mays has is in the field. But it's not a Keith Hernandez vs. Bill Buckner argument. Mantle was a very good center fielder. Mays was probably the greatest ever. BUt what's the difference between the best ever center fielder and a very good one? Five, maybe ten runs a year. Compared to Mantles advantage at the plate it's nothing.

Listen I'm not knocking Willie Mays. He was great. So was Mick They're very similar players. Both were Center Fielders in New York who came up at the same time. Both were all stars who were unlike any player who came before them.

But in the final analysis Mantle was simply that much better at the plate. Their batting average is within four points of each other(The fact that those four points establish Mays as a career .300 hitter and Mantle slightly below that is a pointless distinction), their slugging percentage is exactly the same. So you have two .300 hitters with .557 power. Both are fast. Both can steal bases.

So what makes it clearly Mantle for me is three things. First speed numbers. Yes, Mays stole more than twice the number of bases than Mantle. 338 vs. 153. That's significant. But not as much as the fact that Mantle was caught stealing less than half the amount that Mays was. 103 vs. 38. Mantle was a better percentage base stealer. Mantle also grounded into fewer than half as many double plays.

Mantle was the greatest leader of all time. His Yankees were the most successful team of all time. He played great ball in the world series. He was clutch. Mays did not play great ball in the post season. His team did not do very well in the World Series. The two times their teams met in the World Series, Mantle walked away with rings both times.

The third thing directly relates to a big misconception in one of Mays' seemingly statistical advantages over Mantle. Mays drove in more runs. There's a good reason for this, Mays hit fourth and Mantle hit third. Why'd Mantle hit third? Because he was so much better at getting on base. Mays' career obp was .384. Mantles was .421. Mickey Mantle was the best player of the fifties, hands down.

This is my argument: Mantle was a great player weighed down by personal problems and injuries. His performance had soaring highs followed by a lot of drunken crap. I prefer Mays' consistency versus Mantle's excellent but intermittent play.

Defense is only a marginal difference? Au contraire, how does one explain THE CATCH (and shotgun relay) that prevented an extra base hit and helped win the Giant's their last World Series? Could Mantle have made that catch? Doubtful.

 

[Weevil]

I would not put Dimaggio on my list though he is close, nor Williams and again he is close. Mantle may well have had the best raw talent of any but he was injured way too much and much too early.

Sure, Mantle was hurt often but that didn't stop him from accomplishing what he did. He won 8 world series. You can judge him fairly on what he did.

 

[Weevil]

This is my argument: Mantle was a great player weighed down by personal problems and injuries. His performance had soaring highs followed by a lot of drunken crap. I prefer Mays' consistency versus Mantle's excellent but intermittent play.

Defense is only a marginal difference? Au contraire, how does one explain THE CATCH (and shotgun relay) that prevented an extra base hit and helped win the Giant's their last World Series? Could Mantle have made that catch? Doubtful.

You want to base something on a single play? Jeez, I don't know if Mickey could have made that play. Again, I think(and the numbers show) that Mantle at that point in their careers was faster, so he has a good chance of making that play I suppose.

Defense is not a marginal difference. The marginal difference is between a great defensive centerfielder and a very, very good defensive centerfielder. It won't amount to a huge difference.

Again, Mantle drank a lot. Mantle was hurt a lot. That's very nice and good. And I'll agree that in terms of good citizens medals awarded that Mays is ahead.

But Mantle was a better baseball player. He did more for his team. His team won 8 world series.

 

[Marxist]

But Mantle was a better baseball player. He did more for his team. His team won 8 world series.

That's an easy claim to dispute. Mantle was on much better teams that featured the best (paid) players of his day. Think about the synergy of the modern Yankees when you start to count rings and use that as a determinant. Bonds has cost his team games in the post-season and that one play in particular has got him on my banned list.

The idea that Mantle was superior to Mays comes out of a racist New York attitude that Mays' ability was somehow "natural."

Sure Mays is way ahead in most statistcal cat. but just imagine what they'd be if he hadn't been drafted into the Army at the beginning of his career. By most conservative estimates he would have out homered even Hank and crushed Mantle without a doubt.

 

[Weevil]

That's an easy claim to dispute. Mantle was on much better teams that featured the best (paid) players of his day. Think about the synergy of the modern Yankees when you start to count rings and use that as a determinant. Bonds has cost his team games in the post-season and that one play in particular has got him on my banned list.

The idea that Mantle was superior to Mays comes out of a racist New York attitude that Mays' ability was somehow "natural."

Sure Mays is way ahead in most statistcal cat. but just imagine what they'd be if he hadn't been drafted into the Army at the beginning of his career. By most conservative estimates he would have out homered even Hank and crushed Mantle without a doubt.

I agree that mantle was on better teams. A lot of that comes from the fact that Mantle was better than Mays. But you can't discount the fact that Mantle was a fantastic world series player and the leader of those teams. Mays was not a very good world series player.

Secondly, the Yankees weren't all that well paid. The Cardinals were paid more. Even if they were the highest paid team that doesn't apply to how good the team was.

Mays is "way ahead" in most categories? What, you mean his four point advantage in batting average? Is that an advantage of two hits a year? Or are you talking about their even slugging percentage? Or maybe Mantle's huge advantage in getting on base.

Raw numbers can only take you so far. Mantles seasons were much better. His "soaring highs" put world series banners up.

Mays played longer, yes. Mantle played better. I thought that's what this thread was about.

 

[Marxist]

I agree that mantle was on better teams. A lot of that comes from the fact that Mantle was better than Mays. But you can't discount the fact that Mantle was a fantastic world series player and the leader of those teams. Mays was not a very good world series player.

Secondly, the Yankees weren't all that well paid. The Cardinals were paid more. Even if they were the highest paid team that doesn't apply to how good the team was.

Mays is "way ahead" in most categories? What, you mean his four point advantage in batting average? Is that an advantage of two hits a year? Or are you talking about their even slugging percentage? Or maybe Mantle's huge advantage in getting on base.

Raw numbers can only take you so far. Mantles seasons were much better. His "soaring highs" put world series banners up.

Mays played longer, yes. Mantle played better. I thought that's what this thread was about.

Mantle's cohorts included Berra, Maris, Ford, Johnny Kucks, Billy Martin, Enos Slaughter, and on and on and on....so to attribute the rings directly to Mantle or his leadership is erroneous. Mantle is much like today's Jeter: An astounding player on a team of great players.

But this doesn't make him better than Mays in the least.

The fact that they both have the same career slugging percentage when Mays played 4 years past his prime ought to be a clue that Mays is the superior crusher and there's little doubt he's the better fielder.

 

[Weevil]

Mantle's cohorts included Berra, Maris, Ford, Johnny Kucks, Billy Martin, Enos Slaughter, and on and on and on....so to attribute the rings directly to Mantle or his leadership is erroneous. Mantle is much like today's Jeter: An astounding player on a team of great players.

But this doesn't make him better than Mays in the least.

The fact that they both have the same career slugging percentage when Mays played 4 years past his prime ought to be a clue that Mays is the superior crusher and there's little doubt he's the better fielder.

Mays' cohorts included Cepeda, McCovey, Marichal, Jim Hart, Bobby Thomson, Hoyt Wilhelm, Sal Maglie, The Alous, Bill White . The talent level of Mays' giants is at least equal to that of the Yankees. Mantle was the unquestioned team leader on the most successful team in history. Mays played on a team often with three or four other hall of famers in their prime and won one world series. That's a huge difference.

Mantle played past his prime too. His prime just came shorter. In their peak years Mantle slugged higher than Mays.

But even to concede your tiny point(Because that would make his slugging average 5 or six points higher which is changing 2 doubles a year into homeruns. Not a huge deal) Doesn't Mantle's huge, huge, huge advantage in getting on base more than make up for that?

Mantle was easily a better hitter. It's a ridiculous argument. Anyone who studies the issue will find that. Want to use Bill James' runs created method? Ranks Mantle higher. how about Pete Palmer's run average? Again Mantle is significantly higher. Boswell's Total Average has Mantle much much higher. Every possible statistical comparison has Mickey way ahead.

If you were to divide this argument into two sections, career value and peak performance then I'd see what you're saying. Mays, over the course of his career had more value to his team. He stayed healthier and was more consistent

But, When the two of them were at their peak, Mickey was a much better baseball player who helped his team a lot more. He was a great world series performer(Mays wasn't) was the leader in his clubhouse(You don't hear as much of that about Mays. From what I've read Cepeda was the leader in the clubhouse) and was very good defensively. His speed helped his team more. Mickey Mantle was the best baseball player of his time and there isn't a shred of evidence that says otherwise.

 

[Samuari]

I wonder how much of Mantle's and May's performance could be atributed to thier home parks. "The Catch" would never have been made in Yankee Stadium because he would have run out of real estate. Niether the Polo Grounds nor Candelstick Park were known for giving up easy home runs, but the close porch in right field in the Bronx was taylor made for Mantel's left handed swing.

But when it is said and done, it is very hard to argue with eight world chapionships.

 

[Weevil]

I wonder how much of Mantle's and May's performance could be atributed to thier home parks. "The Catch" would never have been made in Yankee Stadium because he would have run out of real estate. Niether the Polo Grounds nor Candelstick Park were known for giving up easy home runs, but the close porch in right field in the Bronx was taylor made for Mantel's left handed swing.

But when it is said and done, it is very hard to argue with eight world chapionships.

I don't know about that. The Polo Grounds were a great homerun park. Look at Mel Ott's homerun totals at home vs. on the road. It's the highest differential for anyone who hit 500+ shots. Plus, before they renovated Yankee stadium it was a long way to center field.

 

[Marxist]

Weevil, if it makes you feel better that the White guy was better have at it. The debate has raged forever and will continue.

If you're in love with silly stat analysis to get your groove on, you might be interested to know that Schmidt is the king of the sport. He's top 10 for me, but nowhere near the top 3.

 

[Weevil]

Weevil, if it makes you feel better that the White guy was better have at it. The debate has raged forever and will continue.

If you're in love with silly stat analysis to get your groove on, you might be interested to know that Schmidt is the king of the sport. He's top 10 for me, but nowhere near the top 3.

Sure, the debate has raged on forever. Usually because there are idiots like yourself who have decided that there's no such thing as objective fact about baseball.

Sure, people still argue that Roger Hornsby was better than Joe Morgan or that Pie Traynor had it in spades over Mike Schmidt. That's because these people have decided that whatever the evidence may show, their opinion is the reigning factor.

Round earth, you say? Photographs from space? To hell with that, I believe it's flat so it's flat.

Mickey Mantle was white?

 

[Weevil]

Weevil, if it makes you feel better that the White guy was better have at it. The debate has raged forever and will continue.

By the way, this is just the saddest thing ever. Once you fall short of any real opinions decide to play race?

That's pathetic.

 

[Marxist]

By the way, this is just the saddest thing ever. Once you fall short of any real opinions decide to play race?

That's pathetic.

It's the truth. Not that I know you have a racial bias against anyone in your personal life but the whole reason the debate even came about during the '50's and '60's were the parrallels that drove it.

Both played in a race divided New York, both debuted in 51, both were quick, both played center field, and both ended their career with the exact same slugging percentage. The one big difference however was that Mays was Black and Mantle was White. You couldn't have constructed a racial scientific study any better.

Out of this one small difference the great debate was born and continues on. Mays is easily better to an objective mind. He out-homered and out-defended Mantle on a lesser team. He stole more bases by a landslide (and got caught more because he was allowed free reign).

Besides, don't you find it strange that no one fails to talk about Ted Williams' lost years during WW2 but rarely are Mays' lost Army years (at the beginning of his great career) taken into account.

Hall of Fame manager Leo Durocher said about Mays:

"Willie Mays was never sick, he was never hurt, he never had a bellyache, he never had a toothache; never had a headache. He came to the park every day to put on the uniform and play."

Could the same be said of Mantle by anyone?

 

[Weevil]

It's the truth. Not that I know you have a racial bias against anyone in your personal life but the whole reason the debate even came about during the '50's and '60's were the parrallels that drove it.

Both played in a race divided New York, both debuted in 51, both were quick, both played center field, and both ended their career with the exact same slugging percentage. The one big difference however was that Mays was Black and Mantle was White. You couldn't have constructed a racial scientific study any better.

Out of this one small difference the great debate was born and continues on. Mays is easily better to an objective mind. He out-homered and out-defended Mantle on a lesser team. He stole more bases by a landslide (and got caught more because he was allowed free reign).

Out homered? Ooh, piddly piddly I guess thats why Ralph Kiner was so much better than Ty Cobb. After all, he hit twice as many homeruns then Cobb did. Listen, your major problem seems to be three things, let me outline them for you:

1) A misconception about what makes a team good. The Giants of the 50's had as much talent as any team in that era. Despite that they managed to win one world series. Disagree with me? Who was better Berra or McCovey? Ford or Marichal? Cepeda or Maris? Mickey took his team to greater heights. As far as the resluts section of the field go Mantle is way ahead. All a baseball players abilities are good for is how much he helps his team win. Mantle, through his skills and leadership, took a team that had a few hall of famers, a bunch of key role players and some castoffs to the most remarkable run in baseball history. Mays didn't. He failed to lead his team to the heights more than once. The results are with me.

2) A remarkable lack of understanding as to how baseball statistics paint a portrait of what a player contributed to his team. Mays' defense level of defense(at least, in the sense that it was more than Mantles) maybe gave his teams five runs a year. That's it. Nothing more. You put so much weight on his defense that you entirely miss that the difference in defense between a great centerfielder and a very, very good centerfielder is nothing, absolutely nothing compared to Mantle's advantage at the plate. Even if Mantle had been the worst defensive centerfielder ever then would Mays' defensive advantage hold up.

Also, you seem to hold in ridiculously high regard two things that are obviously faulty. Mays' power and Mays' speed. Mantles speed numbers are better. Mantle, through his speed, helped his team more than Mays. You can't deny that because all evidence proves it to be so. Listen, I'm not saying Mickey was a better basestealer because he was caught less, I'm saying he was a better basestealer because he was caught less often. He was a percentage stealer on a level unheard of. He also grounded into half as many double plays, that doesn't count for you?

Second Mays' power. Mays hit about 100 more homeruns than Mantle in his career. Mantle hit for more homeruns at his peak. I don't think that mays' playing out the string with the Mets proves he had more pop than Mantle. I doubt it. Listen, if you're trying to argue that Mays was more consistent than Mantle than you win. I won't try that. But Mick, at his height was a much, much better player than Mays. Did Mays ever have a year like Mantles in 56? Not even close.

3) Fundamentals of offense. Listen, there are two basic unmistakable, undeniable tenets of a players offense. Slugging percentage and On Base Percentage. That's all that being a hitter is about. Setting the table and clearing the table. You can do it with Doubles, Singles, Homeruns, whatever but if your SP + OBP are the same as another guy, you're creating the same number of runs. It's true. It's how Ty Cobb was recognized as the best slugger of his day. Mantle and Mays slugged evenly, we can see that. They were both equally as good at clearing the table. But Mays On Base percantage was 40 POINTS LOWER than Mantles. That is a huge, huge margin. That more than makes up for any advantage you wnat to give Mays, the one he deserves(Defense) and the ones that are clearly Mickeys(Leadership, Speed), you give Willie all of those breaks and Mantles 40 point advantage in setting the table for Yogi more than makes up for that. A 40 point advantage in OBP is only slightly, slightly less valuable than a 40 point difference in batting average.

Listen, you're confronting all the evidence here. All the men who make it their living to study the game, James, Palmer, Boswell agree that Mickey was the player of his time. What are your arguments? A couple extra homers and a little better jump on the ball? That's ridiculous.

Find a clue.

 

[Weevil]

Let me show you what I mean about speed in a more concise manner.

Look at Mantle and Mays' 57 seasons.

Mays had 38 stolen bases, with 19 caught stealing
Mantle had 16 stolen bases, with 3 caught stealing

I didn't find GIDP info but if Mays is superior to Mantle in this one year despite having so many more in his career then I'd be shocked.

Anyway, Pete Palmer figured that a stolen base is worth a third of a run(That is, for every 3 stolen bases a team accumulates they can be expected to score one more run) whereas for every caught stealing they'll be hurt two thirds of a run.

So, a player has to be a 66% base stealer just for his base running antics to have a value of zero runs. That's what Mays added to his team in 57 with stealing bases, zero runs. They would have scored the same number of runs if Mays had hugged first base like he owned it.

Mantle added a little bit more than 4 runs.

This wasn't a good year for Mays on the Paths and he had much higher percentage years, but it's an illustration of how, over the course of their careers Mantles speed was more valuable to his team.

 

[Irishdragon]

Very good debate here Mantle or Mays? When you break these guys down you have to look at so many different variables that it almost becomes a distraction. Mays was the better fielder...The injuries to Mantle just limited his range after a while. Mantle was the better hiter...I know with stats mays has the better average, more HR and probabbly more RBI, but Mays did not evoke the same kind of fear in pitchers that Mantle did. People would sit in the stands at Yankee stadium while they were getting blown out just to see mantle come up to bat one last time. His batting practice was a Religion to some, and the 8 World series and the fact that he played in NYC also helped. If the giants had stayed in NYC would this debate even happen? Probably not.

So the best would be a guy who plays the field like Willie, but hits like Mickey ( all aspects of base running as well)

 

[Samuari]

If the question were who would you rather have as your next door nieghbor,? the answer would be Mayes, of course. He was a much better person.

When you ask who was the better ballplayer, I think that you have to imagine yourself on a plkayground and picking who is tgoing to be on your team. Every time , for me it is Mantel. the boy from Comerse couyld flatr play ball, and if he had not been hurt in High School footbqall, who knows what he may have achieved?

Mayes was a magical player esp. in the field, but he never struck fear in a mgrs hgeart the way Mantel did. The real questio for me is if you had them both on the same team, who would bat first??

 

[Svedish_Chef]

Mantle.

I dont give a fuck whos black or whose white.

 

[Goldfrapp er]

George, Barry, Willie

Top 3 Baseball Players Of The Modern Era

Let me preface this by saying i'm not 100 years old so it's very hard to rate players i've never seen play not to mention the fact that todays game is much different from that of 1900.

George Herman Ruth, the BABE
(great pitcher, greater hitter, greater personality yet.) makes a beer drinking, partying, womanizing guy proud. Simply an amazing talent. I am not certain on it, but I think I read or heard the year he hit 60, that it was more than every other TEAM hit that year.

Barry Bonds
(he certainly deserves to be in this category. he truly is an all around player. he will soon become the first ever 500 HR 500 SB player in major league history...his season last year is one of the best offensively of all time...on the same level of ruth when he hit 60. He had over a .500 on base average! Hit more homers per at bat than anyone in history and had 170 some walks. WOW. One year does not make a top three of all time though. Barry Bonds has consistently become a better player year in and year out. He was good to begin with, graduated to great, and now has gotten his masters in spectacular.) (As far as his post season misfortunes...i just don' t think that can take away from a guy the way most people make it seem. If he were on the Yankees or Braves and had made 10 postseason trips in a row do you think he would have not performed on a grand level? Who knows. If he had been on either of those teams and made that many trips and not stepped up to the occassion i'd certainly take him out of the top 3)

Willie Mays would round out my top 3. (all around player)

Lots of great players out there. Lots of reasons why my top three might be 100% different from others.

Bonds is amazing and his regular season stats are awesome BUT baseball is a team sport and he has no hardware and an arm like a third grade girl. Sid Bream anyone?

Bonds is a very solid defender. He has an average to above average throwing arm which is very accurate. Sid Bream anyone? See where that throw was? It was not a weak throw. Only the FLEET OF FOOT Sid Bream could have beaten that out!!!



By the way, you said non pitchers. So how could Babe Ruth be on anyone's list? Lest we forget good old babe was not such a bad pitcher as well. This is said in gest folks so please don't write back and explain why. pretty good numbers eh?


W-L PCT ERA G GS CG SHO SV IP H ER HR BB SO

1914 Red Sox 2 1 .667 3.91 4 3 1 0 0 23 21 10 1 7 3
1915 Red Sox 18 8 .692 2.44 32 28 16 1 0 217.2 166 59 3 85 112
1916 Red Sox 23 12 .657 1.75 44 41 23 9 1 323.2 230 63 0 118 170
1917 Red Sox 24 13 .649 2.01 41 38 35 6 2 326.1 244 73 2 108 128
1918 Red Sox 13 7 .650 2.22 20 19 18 1 0 166.1 125 41 1 49 40
1919 Red Sox 9 5 .643 2.97 17 15 12 0 1 133.1 148 44 2 58 30

Here's a great link to look at all time stats and compare them against everyone else. They are sortable statistics so you can sort them by hr, rbi, avg, etc.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/alltime/leaders

 

[Weevil]

Re: George, Barry, Willie

i just don' t think that can take away from a guy the way most people make it seem. If he were on the Yankees or Braves and had made 10 postseason trips in a row do you think he would have not performed on a grand level? Who knows. If he had been on either of those teams and made that many trips and not stepped up to the occassion i'd certainly take him out of the top 3)

Willie Mays would round out my top 3. (all around player)

\

Fist off, your point about Bonds is ridiculous. He's been to the post season and hasn't performed. I do believe if he was there more often there isn't any possible reason to suggets he'd pick it up.

Second, Willie? ARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!

 

[Goldfrapp er]

BARRY BONDS

Seasonal Averages (per 162 games played)

Years G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS
14.26 162 559 121 163 34 5 40 109 122 90 34 10 .292 .420 .587 1.007

i'm not a big fan of Bonds but he certainly merits consideration of one of the best all time.


The '93 near-miss helped solidify the long-held theory that Bonds was a choker in the playoffs. In the 1990 LCS he batted just .167, in '91 it was an anemic .148. In '92 he hit his first post-season home run and batted .261 - well below fan expectations.

The Giants got another chance in 1997, when they went from last place in '96, to first place. Bonds helped with his 40 homers, 101 RBI, 123 runs, 37 steals, and league-leading 145 walks. In the playoffs against the wild-card Marlins, the Giants were upset in three straight games. Bonds managed just three hits in the series, but two of them were doubles in game two when he also drove in two runs. The real blame belonged to the bullpen, but Bonds reputation as a post-season flop was cemented.

i had forgotten how many times he'd been in the post season.
I would like to see if the Barry Bonds of today is the same Barry Bonds of the early nineties.

Joe Morgan: A lot of people are fooled by his statistics. For the first half of his career he played in the worst ballpark a hitter could play in and at a point in time when the rules were so stacked against hitters that leagues were hitting .230. When he gets to the Reds we see the kind of ball player he is. If he had hit leadoff, he'd be a better leadoff man then Henderson. If he'd hit cleanup, I'd have no complaints. Plus, let's not forget that being a great defensive second baseman is a little more valuable than being a great defensive outfielder.

He certainly is overlooked.

Would he have been a better leadoff hitter than Henderson? Perhaps. If Barry Bonds hit leadoff he too might have been a greater leadoff hitter than Henderson. Both guys have/had the tools but were utilized in different ways that better suited them perhaps. That's why it's always hard for me to rate someone like Henderson above some of these other guys. Best leadoff history in history? I agree. Top ten player of all time? That's tougher to swallow.

Does anyone know where to look up post season batting and pitching statistics for players? I'd be interested to see how some of the all time greats did in the post season. Thanks.