There are 70 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

What is more difficult for a major league baseball hitter??

What is more difficult for a major league baseball hitter??

Originally posted by Niners99:
Originally posted by DertyDonahue:
Originally posted by crzy:
Originally posted by DertyDonahue:
This debate is like the "who was a better player, Mantle or Mays?" question.

Easily Mays.

:ahem:

I respectfully disagree.

But, this should be a thread (Mantle vs. Mays), if it isn't already.

Willie Mays was HOF caliber in all 5 tools.

whats your argument for Mantle being better anyways?

Mantle was HOF caliber in all 5 tools as well. He was actually a faster runner than Mays. Mantle had amazing natural ability and there may be no hitter ever that had the power and speed that Mantle did. HOWEVER, Mays was clearly the better all around baseball player and got more out of his natural ability than Mantle did over an entire career.
Originally posted by crzy:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Dimaggios streak overrated?

The hitting streak itself was still overrated.

Plenty of players have had a 56 game stretch where they put up comparable numbers to Dimaggio's numbers above.

They just didn't happen to get lucky enough to string together 56 consecutive games with a hit.


A "hitting streak" is an overrated accomplishment because it requires that

a) pitchers actually pitch to you. Any team could have stopped Dimaggio's streak by simply getting him out during his first plate appearance and then intentionally walking him every single plate appearance therafter. But this was not considered gentlemanly. Pitcher's were expected to continue to challenge Dimaggio to give him a chance to prolong his streak. In fact, after Pete Rose's hitting streak was snapped, he complained that the pitcher's pitched around him.

b) it requires luck. "Hitting them where they ain't". There are plenty of well-hit balls that simply happen to be hit to well-positioned fielders. A hitting streak requires an abnormally high BABIP.

Once again you are so incredibly wrong its funny. Dimaggio's streak is not overrated in any way. NO ONE has come within 12 games of achieving the feat. Is there some luck? Sure. There is luck involved with many accomplishments in sports. What you dont give Dimaggio credit for is he hardly EVER stuck out. So, by putting the ball in play he gave himself many more chances for hits. I doubt this streak will ever be achieved again and to diminish its greatness is crazy.
Originally posted by Niners99:
Originally posted by DertyDonahue:
Originally posted by crzy:
Originally posted by DertyDonahue:
This debate is like the "who was a better player, Mantle or Mays?" question.

Easily Mays.

:ahem:

I respectfully disagree.

But, this should be a thread (Mantle vs. Mays), if it isn't already.

Willie Mays was HOF caliber in all 5 tools.

whats your argument for Mantle being better anyways?

Happy Birthday, Willie Mays!
Let me say this before I go on about why I think Mantle was a better player than Mays. I think Willie was the second-best position player in Giants history, and as a lifelong rabid SF Giants fan I don't want to post anything hasty.

Mantle won more championships.

He was a little guy who once hit a baseball 763 feet.

He had speed, he could drag bunt.

Mickey did everything well in baseball, including switch hitting.

He could have played any position and been amongst the greatest all-time at said position.

He manned CF for the NY Yankees, had a great arm.

He hit 18 career World Series home runs.

He filled the shoes of Joe Dimaggio.

Mays lost almost two years to the war, but Mantle lost the last five and a half years of his career to a different war. After his season ending injury on his "good" leg in 1963, an already ever-pained Mantle continued to put up respectable numbers.

Although he played in 17 seasons of MLB, Mantle suffered (what many believe to be) a torn right ACL chasing a flyball hit by none other than Willie Mays in the World Series. Surgery to repair this injury was not available at the time, so in theory, Mantle played (nearly) his entire career with a torn ACL.
In 1963 he tore the cartilage in his left knee and broke his foot running into the outfield fence attempting to run down a flyball. Towards the end of his career he could barely swing a bat without pain and regularly fell to one knee in pain, which undoubtedly caused him only more pain, yet continued to be an everyday player, unlike the Say Hey.
Despite playing at less than 100% for nearly his entire career, he managed to put up amazing numbers.

He is the best switch hitter ever to play baseball.
--

I tried to keep reasons why I like him so much as a player out of the list, but this discussion has so many layers and each player was unique in their own regard. It's important to mention that from my early childhood every easter, thanksgiving and christmas this discussion was savagely debated and attacked from all angles by men at the dinner table, sipping whiskey and smoking cigars. The Baseball Encyclopedia was being used as evidence, for and against. Man, furious debates.
The wives and mothers of these men have forbidden the discussion at family functions for well over a decade.
I'm not trying to say any of this qualifies my opinion more than the next, but I am very familar with this debate.
IMHO, Mantle gets the nod, slightly, and most of that is slightly is in regard to the sexy "what if" forever linked to the name Mickey Mantle.

Plus, Mantle beat Mays in HR Derby, as well as winning one more round (total) than Willie.

edit: still hasty. i can post stats if that would help, but like krukow said recently (and historically) baseball is a game of talking. the evolution of baseball statistics passed me by in the late 90's. i hesitate to post statistic analysis and comparison because it has evolved beyond my level of expertise and comprehension.


[ Edited by DertyDonahue on May 6, 2011 at 01:22:52 ]
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Originally posted by Niners99:
Originally posted by DertyDonahue:
Originally posted by crzy:
Originally posted by DertyDonahue:
This debate is like the "who was a better player, Mantle or Mays?" question.

Easily Mays.

:ahem:

I respectfully disagree.

But, this should be a thread (Mantle vs. Mays), if it isn't already.

Willie Mays was HOF caliber in all 5 tools.

whats your argument for Mantle being better anyways?

Mantle was HOF caliber in all 5 tools as well. He was actually a faster runner than Mays. Mantle had amazing natural ability and there may be no hitter ever that had the power and speed that Mantle did. HOWEVER, Mays was clearly the better all around baseball player and got more out of his natural ability than Mantle did over an entire career.

Mays hit more HR, more RBIs, nearly 1000 more hits, more doubles, more triples, twice as many steals, struck out 200 less times, more runs scored, higher career batting avg, more assists, higher career offensive AND defensive WAR, and identical SLG% AND fielding % actually, which is really cool.

Mantle had him beat in OB%, but Mays was better. and power wise, Mantle hit the vast majority of his HR left handed at the short porched RF of Yankee stadium, whereas Mays played in some of the worst home conditions for power his whole career.

obviously both were legendary HOF players, its just that Mays was so great, i dont see that much of an argument from Mantle unless you just want to talk pure talent. clearly they both had all the natural ability in the world. power, speed, defensive play, throwing arm, batting eye, etc.

also, ill bring up something that may or may not mean anything. Mays played the first few years of his career in the big apple, but spent the bulk of his years out on the west coast, far away from the media circus. Mantle spent his entire career in the biggest spotlight in America, and played for a team known for producing legends. the fact that Mays is universally recognized today as the greatest all around baseball player who ever lived, from mostly an annex out West, instead of the New York Yankees golden boy of the 50's of very similar talent, tells you all you need to know about the greatness of Willie Mays.

btw John this was a general response to why the original poster thinks Mantle was better, not an argument against your post. i know you know how incredible Mays was.

[ Edited by Niners99 on May 6, 2011 at 03:23:17 ]
I think Mantle had more god given talent than Mays. I doubt there has anyone that had the combination of speed and power. However, alcohol and injuries did keep him from becoming one of the top 2 players in the history of the game - as most people consider Willie Mays to be. Mantle won more titles. Thats about the only thing he had over Mays when it was all said and done.

I truly believe that Willie Mays would have hit well over 800 homeruns if he had played in the easy hitters park that Hank Aaron played in and hadnt missed 2 full seasons for the military. Mays could NOT have played in a worse park to hit HRS yet he hit 660.

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/10260/ten-reasons-willie-mays-is-greatest-ever

[ Edited by Ninerjohn on May 6, 2011 at 11:28:15 ]
Raul is 8-12 with 5 RBI's and 2 HRs since his 0-35 streak
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
I think Mantle had more god given talent than Mays. I doubt there has anyone that had the combination of speed and power. However, alcohol and injuries did keep him from becoming one of the top 2 players in the history of the game - as most people consider Willie Mays to be. Mantle won more titles. Thats about the only thing he had over Mays when it was all said and done.

I truly believe that Willie Mays would have hit well over 800 homeruns if he had played in the easy hitters park that Hank Aaron played in and hadnt missed 2 full seasons for the military. Mays could NOT have played in a worse park to hit HRS yet he hit 660.

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/10260/ten-reasons-willie-mays-is-greatest-ever

God given talent isnt really something you can pinpoint though. there were probably several players throughout history that had the God given talent to be Willie Mays, but didnt have the work ethic, or wasnt able to harness it correctly. or maybe just didnt have the durability, like Ken Griffey Jr.

I think its a pretty unanimous choice for "best all-around baseball player ever" to go Mays. every time ive heard it brought up by baseball experts and writers, they always say Willie Mays. if youre talking best hitter ever, more people say Ruth or Ted Williams.

obviously Barry Bonds belongs in the discussion when you crunch the top 5-7 position players of all time, but his name is going to get left out alot more because of the steroids, unfortunately.

[ Edited by Niners99 on May 6, 2011 at 13:22:22 ]
Originally posted by DertyDonahue:
Originally posted by Niners99:
Originally posted by DertyDonahue:
Originally posted by crzy:
Originally posted by DertyDonahue:
This debate is like the "who was a better player, Mantle or Mays?" question.

Easily Mays.

:ahem:

I respectfully disagree.

But, this should be a thread (Mantle vs. Mays), if it isn't already.

Willie Mays was HOF caliber in all 5 tools.

whats your argument for Mantle being better anyways?

Happy Birthday, Willie Mays!
Let me say this before I go on about why I think Mantle was a better player than Mays. I think Willie was the second-best position player in Giants history, and as a lifelong rabid SF Giants fan I don't want to post anything hasty.

Mantle won more championships.

He was a little guy who once hit a baseball [b]763 feet. [/b]

He had speed, he could drag bunt.

Mickey did everything well in baseball, including switch hitting.

He could have played any position and been amongst the greatest all-time at said position.

He manned CF for the NY Yankees, had a great arm.

He hit 18 career World Series home runs.

He filled the shoes of Joe Dimaggio.

Mays lost almost two years to the war, but Mantle lost the last five and a half years of his career to a different war. After his season ending injury on his "good" leg in 1963, an already ever-pained Mantle continued to put up respectable numbers.

Although he played in 17 seasons of MLB, Mantle suffered (what many believe to be) a torn right ACL chasing a flyball hit by none other than Willie Mays in the World Series. Surgery to repair this injury was not available at the time, so in theory, Mantle played (nearly) his entire career with a torn ACL.
In 1963 he tore the cartilage in his left knee and broke his foot running into the outfield fence attempting to run down a flyball. Towards the end of his career he could barely swing a bat without pain and regularly fell to one knee in pain, which undoubtedly caused him only more pain, yet continued to be an everyday player, unlike the Say Hey.
Despite playing at less than 100% for nearly his entire career, he managed to put up amazing numbers.

He is the best switch hitter ever to play baseball.
--

I tried to keep reasons why I like him so much as a player out of the list, but this discussion has so many layers and each player was unique in their own regard. It's important to mention that from my early childhood every easter, thanksgiving and christmas this discussion was savagely debated and attacked from all angles by men at the dinner table, sipping whiskey and smoking cigars. The Baseball Encyclopedia was being used as evidence, for and against. Man, furious debates.
The wives and mothers of these men have forbidden the discussion at family functions for well over a decade.
I'm not trying to say any of this qualifies my opinion more than the next, but I am very familar with this debate.
IMHO, Mantle gets the nod, slightly, and most of that is slightly is in regard to the sexy "what if" forever linked to the name Mickey Mantle.

Plus, Mantle beat Mays in HR Derby, as well as winning one more round (total) than Willie.

edit: still hasty. i can post stats if that would help, but like krukow said recently (and historically) baseball is a game of talking. the evolution of baseball statistics passed me by in the late 90's. i hesitate to post statistic analysis and comparison because it has evolved beyond my level of expertise and comprehension.

Where in the world did you get that "fact" from? LOL
  • crzy
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 39,284
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
What you dont give Dimaggio credit for is he hardly EVER stuck out. So, by putting the ball in play he gave himself many more chances for hits.


See, now you're bringing up something completely different.

Joe Dimaggio is one of the greatest baseball players to every play the game. He is a legend and his stats speak for themselves. At no point did I question Joe Dimaggio's talent or ability.

I just think that hitting in 56 consecutive games is an overrated accomplishment, given how much that "record" is romanticized by everyone.

All a hitting streak requires is that you obtain ONE HIT in every game. You could be a .250 hitter and still put together a prolonged hitting streak. Benito Santiago had a 34 game hitting streak lol. No one would consider him a guy who hits for average.

A hitting streak is a record of consistency. Like Cal Ripken's streak, it should be applauded to some extent, but placed in proper context.

[ Edited by crzy on May 6, 2011 at 14:20:42 ]
Originally posted by DaManRathman:
Originally posted by DertyDonahue:
Originally posted by Niners99:
Originally posted by DertyDonahue:
Originally posted by crzy:
Originally posted by DertyDonahue:
This debate is like the "who was a better player, Mantle or Mays?" question.

Easily Mays.

:ahem:

I respectfully disagree.

But, this should be a thread (Mantle vs. Mays), if it isn't already.

Willie Mays was HOF caliber in all 5 tools.

whats your argument for Mantle being better anyways?

Happy Birthday, Willie Mays!
Let me say this before I go on about why I think Mantle was a better player than Mays. I think Willie was the second-best position player in Giants history, and as a lifelong rabid SF Giants fan I don't want to post anything hasty.

Mantle won more championships.

He was a little guy who once hit a baseball [b]763 feet. [/b]

He had speed, he could drag bunt.

Mickey did everything well in baseball, including switch hitting.

He could have played any position and been amongst the greatest all-time at said position.

He manned CF for the NY Yankees, had a great arm.

He hit 18 career World Series home runs.

He filled the shoes of Joe Dimaggio.

Mays lost almost two years to the war, but Mantle lost the last five and a half years of his career to a different war. After his season ending injury on his "good" leg in 1963, an already ever-pained Mantle continued to put up respectable numbers.

Although he played in 17 seasons of MLB, Mantle suffered (what many believe to be) a torn right ACL chasing a flyball hit by none other than Willie Mays in the World Series. Surgery to repair this injury was not available at the time, so in theory, Mantle played (nearly) his entire career with a torn ACL.
In 1963 he tore the cartilage in his left knee and broke his foot running into the outfield fence attempting to run down a flyball. Towards the end of his career he could barely swing a bat without pain and regularly fell to one knee in pain, which undoubtedly caused him only more pain, yet continued to be an everyday player, unlike the Say Hey.
Despite playing at less than 100% for nearly his entire career, he managed to put up amazing numbers.

He is the best switch hitter ever to play baseball.
--

I tried to keep reasons why I like him so much as a player out of the list, but this discussion has so many layers and each player was unique in their own regard. It's important to mention that from my early childhood every easter, thanksgiving and christmas this discussion was savagely debated and attacked from all angles by men at the dinner table, sipping whiskey and smoking cigars. The Baseball Encyclopedia was being used as evidence, for and against. Man, furious debates.
The wives and mothers of these men have forbidden the discussion at family functions for well over a decade.
I'm not trying to say any of this qualifies my opinion more than the next, but I am very familar with this debate.
IMHO, Mantle gets the nod, slightly, and most of that is slightly is in regard to the sexy "what if" forever linked to the name Mickey Mantle.

Plus, Mantle beat Mays in HR Derby, as well as winning one more round (total) than Willie.

edit: still hasty. i can post stats if that would help, but like krukow said recently (and historically) baseball is a game of talking. the evolution of baseball statistics passed me by in the late 90's. i hesitate to post statistic analysis and comparison because it has evolved beyond my level of expertise and comprehension.

Where in the world did you get that "fact" from? LOL

Its actually 565 - not 763 LOL
Originally posted by crzy:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
What you dont give Dimaggio credit for is he hardly EVER stuck out. So, by putting the ball in play he gave himself many more chances for hits.


See, now you're bringing up something completely different.

Joe Dimaggio is one of the greatest baseball players to every play the game. He is a legend and his stats speak for themselves. At no point did I question Joe Dimaggio's talent or ability.

I just think that hitting in 56 consecutive games is an overrated accomplishment, given how much that "record" is romanticized by everyone.

All a hitting streak requires is that you obtain ONE HIT in every game. You could be a .250 hitter and still put together a prolonged hitting streak. Benito Santiago had a 34 game hitting streak lol. No one would consider him a guy who hits for average.

A hitting streak is a record of consistency. Like Cal Ripken's streak, it should be applauded to some extent, but placed in proper context.

Dimaggio didnt hit anywhere near .250 . He hit over .400 with 55 rbis in 56 games. His streak was magnificent. You keep saying that you could hit .250 and have a prolonged streak. Mathematically sure its possible but we all know that wont happen.

I love the way you just dream up in your mind what is overrated and what isnt. Again, no one has come WITHIN 12 GAMES of Dimaggio's streak. That speaks for itself. It was an incredible accomplishment and would be now if someone breaks it.
  • crzy
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 39,284
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Originally posted by crzy:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
What you dont give Dimaggio credit for is he hardly EVER stuck out. So, by putting the ball in play he gave himself many more chances for hits.


See, now you're bringing up something completely different.

Joe Dimaggio is one of the greatest baseball players to every play the game. He is a legend and his stats speak for themselves. At no point did I question Joe Dimaggio's talent or ability.

I just think that hitting in 56 consecutive games is an overrated accomplishment, given how much that "record" is romanticized by everyone.

All a hitting streak requires is that you obtain ONE HIT in every game. You could be a .250 hitter and still put together a prolonged hitting streak. Benito Santiago had a 34 game hitting streak lol. No one would consider him a guy who hits for average.

A hitting streak is a record of consistency. Like Cal Ripken's streak, it should be applauded to some extent, but placed in proper context.

Dimaggio didnt hit anywhere near .250 . He hit over .400 with 55 rbis in 56 games. His streak was magnificent. You keep saying that you could hit .250 and have a prolonged streak. Mathematically sure its possible but we all know that wont happen.

I love the way you just dream up in your mind what is overrated and what isnt. Again, no one has come WITHIN 12 GAMES of Dimaggio's streak. That speaks for itself. It was an incredible accomplishment and would be now if someone breaks it.


I don't think you're comprehending what I'm saying at all.

Joe Dimaggio’s Streak: 56 games (May 15-Jul 16 1941)
247 PA, 223 AB, 91 Hits .408/.463/.717

Let's take for instance a doubleheader on June 11, 1941. Joe Dimaggio went 1/4 in the first game, and went 1/4 in the second game. This was smack dab in the middle of his streak.

Imagine instead that Joe Dimaggio went 0/4 in the first game and 2/4 in the second game.

Guess WHAT. His performance in this 56 game stretch would have been EXACTLY EXACTLY as good as his performance during his hitting streak. He still, in that case, would have had an amazing 56 game stretch where he went .408/.463/.717. Except in this case, he wouldn’t have strung together 56 consecutive games with a hit.

No media coverage, no romanticizing the hitting streak, no making songs about Joe Dimaggio. His entire 56 game stretch in this instance would have been noticed by no one. Instead of winning the MVP in 1941, Dimaggio would have finished a distant second to Ted Williams.

And that’s funny to me, because in the scenario that I laid out, Joe Dimaggio would have had EXACTLY the same total production despite failing to hit safely in 56 consecutive games.

And that’s my contention. That hitting streaks are overrated. That STRINGING together consecutive games with a hit is an overrated accomplishment.
Originally posted by Niners99:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Originally posted by Niners99:
Originally posted by DertyDonahue:
Originally posted by crzy:
Originally posted by DertyDonahue:
This debate is like the "who was a better player, Mantle or Mays?" question.

Easily Mays.

:ahem:

I respectfully disagree.

But, this should be a thread (Mantle vs. Mays), if it isn't already.

Willie Mays was HOF caliber in all 5 tools.

whats your argument for Mantle being better anyways?

Mantle was HOF caliber in all 5 tools as well. He was actually a faster runner than Mays. Mantle had amazing natural ability and there may be no hitter ever that had the power and speed that Mantle did. HOWEVER, Mays was clearly the better all around baseball player and got more out of his natural ability than Mantle did over an entire career.

Mays hit more HR, more RBIs, nearly 1000 more hits, more doubles, more triples, twice as many steals, struck out 200 less times, more runs scored, higher career batting avg, more assists, higher career offensive AND defensive WAR, and identical SLG% AND fielding % actually, which is really cool.

Mantle had him beat in OB%, but Mays was better. and power wise, Mantle hit the vast majority of his HR left handed at the short porched RF of Yankee stadium, whereas Mays played in some of the worst home conditions for power his whole career.

obviously both were legendary HOF players, its just that Mays was so great, i dont see that much of an argument from Mantle unless you just want to talk pure talent. clearly they both had all the natural ability in the world. power, speed, defensive play, throwing arm, batting eye, etc.

also, ill bring up something that may or may not mean anything. Mays played the first few years of his career in the big apple, but spent the bulk of his years out on the west coast, far away from the media circus. Mantle spent his entire career in the biggest spotlight in America, and played for a team known for producing legends. the fact that Mays is universally recognized today as the greatest all around baseball player who ever lived, from mostly an annex out West, instead of the New York Yankees golden boy of the 50's of very similar talent, tells you all you need to know about the greatness of Willie Mays.

btw John this was a general response to why the original poster thinks Mantle was better, not an argument against your post. i know you know how incredible Mays was.

mays played in 500+ more games than mantle, 2700 more atbats, so of course the numbers will be skewed towards mays.
mays hit .302, mantle hit .298, that is nearly identical.
mantle played on one bum knee his whole career, on two the last five and a half. yet he was still fast, played through pain and managed to steal bases and play good defense.
i never said i didnt think mays was incredible. read what i've posted. they had the same strengths, i give the nod to mantle because i think despite his playing with major injuries he still put up numbers comparable to mays in most categories despite 2700 less at bats. thats a ton of AB's.
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Originally posted by DaManRathman:
Originally posted by DertyDonahue:
Originally posted by Niners99:
Originally posted by DertyDonahue:
Originally posted by crzy:
Originally posted by DertyDonahue:
This debate is like the "who was a better player, Mantle or Mays?" question.

Easily Mays.

:ahem:

I respectfully disagree.

But, this should be a thread (Mantle vs. Mays), if it isn't already.

Willie Mays was HOF caliber in all 5 tools.

whats your argument for Mantle being better anyways?

Happy Birthday, Willie Mays!
Let me say this before I go on about why I think Mantle was a better player than Mays. I think Willie was the second-best position player in Giants history, and as a lifelong rabid SF Giants fan I don't want to post anything hasty.

Mantle won more championships.

He was a little guy who once hit a baseball [b]763 feet. [/b]

He had speed, he could drag bunt.

Mickey did everything well in baseball, including switch hitting.

He could have played any position and been amongst the greatest all-time at said position.

He manned CF for the NY Yankees, had a great arm.

He hit 18 career World Series home runs.

He filled the shoes of Joe Dimaggio.

Mays lost almost two years to the war, but Mantle lost the last five and a half years of his career to a different war. After his season ending injury on his "good" leg in 1963, an already ever-pained Mantle continued to put up respectable numbers.

Although he played in 17 seasons of MLB, Mantle suffered (what many believe to be) a torn right ACL chasing a flyball hit by none other than Willie Mays in the World Series. Surgery to repair this injury was not available at the time, so in theory, Mantle played (nearly) his entire career with a torn ACL.
In 1963 he tore the cartilage in his left knee and broke his foot running into the outfield fence attempting to run down a flyball. Towards the end of his career he could barely swing a bat without pain and regularly fell to one knee in pain, which undoubtedly caused him only more pain, yet continued to be an everyday player, unlike the Say Hey.
Despite playing at less than 100% for nearly his entire career, he managed to put up amazing numbers.

He is the best switch hitter ever to play baseball.
--

I tried to keep reasons why I like him so much as a player out of the list, but this discussion has so many layers and each player was unique in their own regard. It's important to mention that from my early childhood every easter, thanksgiving and christmas this discussion was savagely debated and attacked from all angles by men at the dinner table, sipping whiskey and smoking cigars. The Baseball Encyclopedia was being used as evidence, for and against. Man, furious debates.
The wives and mothers of these men have forbidden the discussion at family functions for well over a decade.
I'm not trying to say any of this qualifies my opinion more than the next, but I am very familar with this debate.
IMHO, Mantle gets the nod, slightly, and most of that is slightly is in regard to the sexy "what if" forever linked to the name Mickey Mantle.

Plus, Mantle beat Mays in HR Derby, as well as winning one more round (total) than Willie.

edit: still hasty. i can post stats if that would help, but like krukow said recently (and historically) baseball is a game of talking. the evolution of baseball statistics passed me by in the late 90's. i hesitate to post statistic analysis and comparison because it has evolved beyond my level of expertise and comprehension.

Where in the world did you get that "fact" from? LOL

Its actually 565 - not 763 LOL

565 yeah, its still questionable if he hit it that far. you gotta take the word of the kid who found the baseball that he was telling the truth.
yeah i was way off. 734 is projected to be the distance of the one he hit off the roof in old yankee stadium.

[ Edited by DertyDonahue on May 6, 2011 at 17:33:08 ]
Originally posted by crzy:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Originally posted by crzy:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
What you dont give Dimaggio credit for is he hardly EVER stuck out. So, by putting the ball in play he gave himself many more chances for hits.


See, now you're bringing up something completely different.

Joe Dimaggio is one of the greatest baseball players to every play the game. He is a legend and his stats speak for themselves. At no point did I question Joe Dimaggio's talent or ability.

I just think that hitting in 56 consecutive games is an overrated accomplishment, given how much that "record" is romanticized by everyone.

All a hitting streak requires is that you obtain ONE HIT in every game. You could be a .250 hitter and still put together a prolonged hitting streak. Benito Santiago had a 34 game hitting streak lol. No one would consider him a guy who hits for average.

A hitting streak is a record of consistency. Like Cal Ripken's streak, it should be applauded to some extent, but placed in proper context.

Dimaggio didnt hit anywhere near .250 . He hit over .400 with 55 rbis in 56 games. His streak was magnificent. You keep saying that you could hit .250 and have a prolonged streak. Mathematically sure its possible but we all know that wont happen.

I love the way you just dream up in your mind what is overrated and what isnt. Again, no one has come WITHIN 12 GAMES of Dimaggio's streak. That speaks for itself. It was an incredible accomplishment and would be now if someone breaks it.


I don't think you're comprehending what I'm saying at all.

Joe Dimaggio’s Streak: 56 games (May 15-Jul 16 1941)
247 PA, 223 AB, 91 Hits .408/.463/.717

Let's take for instance a doubleheader on June 11, 1941. Joe Dimaggio went 1/4 in the first game, and went 1/4 in the second game. This was smack dab in the middle of his streak.

Imagine instead that Joe Dimaggio went 0/4 in the first game and 2/4 in the second game.

Guess WHAT. His performance in this 56 game stretch would have been EXACTLY EXACTLY as good as his performance during his hitting streak. He still, in that case, would have had an amazing 56 game stretch where he went .408/.463/.717. Except in this case, he wouldn’t have strung together 56 consecutive games with a hit.

No media coverage, no romanticizing the hitting streak, no making songs about Joe Dimaggio. His entire 56 game stretch in this instance would have been noticed by no one. Instead of winning the MVP in 1941, Dimaggio would have finished a distant second to Ted Williams.

And that’s funny to me, because in the scenario that I laid out, Joe Dimaggio would have had EXACTLY the same total production despite failing to hit safely in 56 consecutive games.

And that’s my contention. That hitting streaks are overrated. That STRINGING together consecutive games with a hit is an overrated accomplishment.

I totally understand what you are saying and you are wrong. AGAIN...no one has come within 12 games of this feat. PERIOD. All the great hitters, 162 games a year, and no one has come within 12 games. 56 in a row is a f**king amazing record. You obviously didnt play the game or you would know how hard it is to get hits in even 5 in a row.

Obviously the numbers would be the same in terms of total number of hits. However, that doesnt take anything away from the feat of 56 in a row. All you ever do is look at the numbers. Consider how difficult his achievement really was.