Rageys All Decades Teams

[ragecage]

1930's Team

C - Josh Gibson GREYS/PIT

HM - Gabby Hartnett CHC, Bill Dickey NYY, Ernie Lombardi BRO/CIN

1B - Lou Gehrig NYY

HM - Jimmie Foxx PHA/BOS, Hank Greenberg DET, Buck Leonard GREYS

2B - Charlie Gehringer DET

HM - Billy Herman CHC, Tony Lazzeri NYY/CHC/BRO/NYG,

3B - Stan Hack CHC

HM - Pie Traynor PIT, Harlond Clift SLB

SS - Arky Vaughan PIT

HM - Joe Cronin WAS/BOS, Luke Appling CHW

LF - Joe Medwick STL

HM - Bob Johnson PHA, Goose Goslin SLB/WAS/DET

CF - Earl Averill CLE/DET

HM - Cool Papa Bell STL/KC/PIT/MEX

RF - Mel Ott NYG, Paul Waner PIT

HM - Babe Ruth NYY, heck he deserves it though he didnt play most of the decade, he still was a feared hitter from 30-34.

SP - Lefty Grove PHA/BOS, Satchel Paige (he switched so many teams it is hard to keep track), Carl Hubbell NYG, Dizzy Dean STL/CHC

[Swampdog]

Since Rage doesn't seem to mind, the best of the 1950's, by Win Shares:

C: Berra in a landslide. Campanella a very distant second with Sherm Lollar third (WS 276-171-163).

1B: Musial. He played more games here than in LF, and he has to be someplace. Gil Hodges, Ted Kluzewski and Mickey Vernon. Musial was the second most valuable player of the 1950's.

2B: Nellie Fox easily, then Red Schoendist, Jackie Robinson, Bobby Avila.

3B: Eddie Mathews in a walk. Followed by Eddie Yost, Al Rosen, Willie Jones and Bret Boone. I mean Aaron Boone. No, thats Bob Boone. Maybe it was Daniel Boone.

SS: Alvin Dark beats Ernie Banks in overall value by 187-163. Then Johnny Logan and Harold Reese.

LF: If you put Musial here, which is plausible, he wins here too. If you dont, it isn't Ted Williams though. The #1 left fielder on the 1950's is Saturnino Orestes Armas Minoso. Aka, Minnie. Willaims is #2, then Gene Woodling.

CF: Mickey Mantle was the MVP of the 1950's, edging Musial by 317-285. In Cf Duke Snider is #2, then Richie Ashburn, Willie Mays and Larry Doby. (See rant below)

RF: Hank Aaron edges out Jackie Jensen. Hank Bauer, Carl Furillo and Vic Wertz follow.

Utility Guy: Gil McDougald. McDougald played 2B, 3B, and some SS. He played slightly more games at second than at third. If ranked as a second baseman, he would be #2 behind Fox. At third he would be #4.

SP: Warren Spahn over Robin Roberts by 239-236. Then Early Wynn, Billy Pierce and Bob Lemon. Newcombe, Garcia, Ford, Rush and Antonelli round out the top 10.

RP: Hoyt Wilhelm again. He pitched one year primarily as a starter (and did quite well). Other relievers of note were Ellis Kinder and Gerry Staley (Staley had 3 great years as a relief pitcher).

Differences: Well, the biggest thing is that you have to put Musial someplace. LF, 1b, even as a utility guy. He was the second most productive player of the decade.


Fox was a lot better than Schoendist at 2B. Dark and Banks better than Reese, and Rizzuto had 1 great year and 3 pretty good ones in the decade, pretty much out of the discussion, I would think.

Ted Williams just missed too much time to wars and injuries to rank ahead of Minoso for value. Kaline wasnt even close to being in the top RF of the 1950's. And in center field.......



***Warning. Rant Ahead***

[Swampdog]

Ok. Let me say again that this is Rage's list, and he can put anyone that he wants on it. That being said, anyone who thinks that Willie Mays was better than Mickey Mantle is just plain crazy. Or related to Mays. Or something.

I remember reading a lot about Mays and Mantle when I was a kid. There was always a general assumption that Mays was the better player. Mantle was great, but Mays was greater, if you will. Now that we have better ways to evaluate players it has become clear that this simply isnt true. Especially in the 1950's.

It is true that Mays has a longer career, so his career has more value, in that respect. Mays played in 600 more games, had 3000 more at bats, 4 more seasons, etc. But is that what we really mean when we say "better" or "best"?

If you ask 100 baseball fans (with some knowledge of history) "Who was better, Sandy Koufax or Don Sutton?" probably 95 of them will respond, without hesitation "Koufax". Maybe 99 will say that. Its probable that somebody will say something like "Well, Koufax had greater peak value, but Sutton had more career value". This guy would be correct, of course. Koufax was "better", per se, but Sutton had a much longer, and therefore, a more valuable career.

To a large extent, when I look at a "who was better" debate, I think of which player was better at his best. One guys best versus another guys best. I don't just mean 1 best season either. Maybe his top 3 years, or his 5 best consecutive years...something like that. Nobody cares that Greg Maddux hung around for 6 years in which he was a very ordinary pitcher, going 82-75 with a 103 ERA+. We look at his best, two years when he was a combined 35-8, 266 ERA+, or a 9 year stretch when he was 165-71.....that type of stuff.

In the Mantle-Mays comparison we can easily conclude that Mays had more career value. But who was actually the better player? Look at hitting first. Mantle and mays had the exact same slugging percentage, .557. Mays had a 4 point edge in batting average, .302 to .298. Mantle had a HUGE advantage in on base percentage, .421 to .384. Now I could throw a lot of numbers around here...anyone can...but lets pretend that OPS+ is a perfect stat (it is a very good stat, not perfect, but a good measure of overall hitting ability, and has been proven to be same), so I will limit the "hitting" comparison to that.

Mantle had a lifetime OPS+ of 172, to Mays 156. Big advantage for Mantle. Mays best year for OPS+ was 184, in 1965. Do you know that Mantle had SIX better years than Mays best? Thats right....223,210,206,196,195,188. In fact, if you line up each players best-to-worst years by OPS+, Mantle beats Mays in every year, 1-12, although it gets closer as you move along (year 12, Mantle 158, Mays 156).

Getting back to the decade of the 50's, here is the year by year comparison:

1951 Mays 120, Mantle 117. Basically a wash.
1952 Mantle 162, Mays 102(in only 34 games). Huge edge for Mantle
1953 Mantle 143, Mays 0. Mays missed the entire year. Huge edge for Mantle.
1954 Mays 175, Mantle 158. Advantage Mays.
1955 Mantle 180, Mays 174. A wash again.
1956 Mantle 210, Mays 146. Gigantic advantage to Mantle.
1957 Mantle 223, Mays 174. Huge advantage, Mantle.
1958 Mantle 188, Mays 165. Advantage, Mantle.
1959 Mays 155, Mantle 151. Dead heat again.

So, in the 1950's, Mays misses virtually 2 full seasons. In the other 8 years, Mantle is a vastly superior hitter in 3, and clearly better in one. Mays has a clear edge in one year, and 3 seasons the two are about equal. How could anyone possibly conclude that Mays has more value in the decade? Lets finish their careers:

1960 Mantle 164, Mays 159. Even.
1961 Mantle 206, Mays 159. Mantle in a rout.
1962 Mantle 196, Mays 165. Mantle, going away...again.
1963 Mantle 195, Mays 175. Mantle, and its getting monotonous.
1964 Mantle 178, Mays 172. Call it even, give Mays a break.
1965 Mays 184, Mantle 137. Mays, finally, has a big edge, in his best year.
1966 Mantle 170, Mays 149. Mantle by a solid margin.
1967 Mantle 150, Mays 124. Mantle.
1968 Mays 156, Mantle 142. Mays wins in Mantles last year.

Anyone still believe that Mays was a better hitter than Mantle was?

Ok, then we have defense and base running. Mays certainly, by all accounts, has a defensive edge. Mays was a superb center fielder. But Mickey Mantle was a very good center fielder. Mantle did spend 3 of his last 4 years in LF and at 1B, so Mays gets a little extra credit for that too. Mantle won a gold glove, and Mays won 163 GG's. Or a million, whatever. He probably deserved most of them too, not all. Mays played more games, and, on a percentage basis, made more plays, with more assists, and also more errors. Advantage, Mays.

Mays, by all accounts was a great base runner. So was Mantle. Mays is always given credit for his speed, and rightly so. But, by all accounts, the Mantle of the 1950's could run like a spotted ape. Mantle was generally considered as being the fastest man in the American league, into the 60's. He began slowing down in the 60's, mainly due to knee problems(1963 was the year he suffered a career changing injury). Mays ran more than Mantle did, for whatever reason. Mays attempted 441 stolen bases in his career, Mantle 191. Mantle had a higher success rate, 80% to 76%. Mantle, from 1955-1962 stole 108 bases and was caught just 15 times, 88%. Mays, at age 40, stole 23 bases in 26 attempts. Mantles highest stolen base totals were 21-18-16, Mays 40-38-31.

Here's another aspect of speed. For 15 consecutive seasons, Mays grounded into at least 11 double plays (19 being his highest). Mantle had a career high of 11 GiDP's (3 times). In his career, Mays hit into 251 DP's, Mantle just 113. Thats an incredible difference. I conclude that Mantle was just as fast as Mays, and probably as good a base runner, until 1963. To me, this is very close, but...Advantage Mays.

It boils down to Mantles greater hitting vs Mays superior fielding and base running. The one single stat that maintains the strongest correlation with offense is "runs created", specifically, runs created per game (last time I checked, RCG was the most accurate, with OPS+ a close second, and nothing else really close). Mantle, for his career created 2038 runs in 18 years. Mays created 2368 runs in 22 years. Mantle created 113 per year, Mays 107. Now, runs created per game is a different story. Based on a 27 out context, Mickey Mantle created 9.3 runs per game, to 7.9 for Willie Mays. Thats right, Mantle created about 1½ runs per game MORE than Willie Mays did. I mean, Mays figure is absolutely great, and Mantle's is that much greater.

Mays played his career under circumstances (park, leagues, etc.) that very slightly favored pitchers. Mantle, slightly more in favor of pitching and defense. So Mantle's environment was marginally more difficult than that of Willie Mays.

In a 150 game context, Mickey Mantle created about 215 more runs in a season than Willie Mays did. That is a huge figure. A team of hitting Mantles would produce 1395 runs in 150 games, and the Mayses would have 1185.

Mantle produced over 200 more runs per full season than did Willie Mays. Does any perceived edge in running and defense narrow that gap at all? Sure. The defense is worth what, 10, maybe 15 runs a year. The running another 5, maybe. In fact, being extremely generous to Mays, lets say that his superior defense and base running was worth a savings of 50 runs a year, over Mantle, we still have Mantle with an advantage of 150 plus runs a year better than Willie Mays. That advantage is much more pronounced through 1962, of course.

For the record, those that rank Dimaggio higher than Mantle are really missing the boat. Dimaggio was a wonderful player, but Mantle is far ahead in both peak and career value.

To me, the debate for the best CF ever boils down to Ty Cobb or Mickey Mantle. The stats would likely give Cobb a solid edge, but I am still suspicious of deadball era players. I personally rank Mantle as the best center fielder ever. And I hate the Yankees.

[metsguy234]

Willie Mays was better then Mickey Mantle. Even Mickey Mantle said that.

[ragecage]

Since Rage doesn't seem to mind, the best of the 1950's, by Win Shares:

Nah I dont mind, your lists are pretty good reads actually.

[HoustonGM]

Willie Mays was better then Mickey Mantle. Even Mickey Mantle said that.

When questioned, I bet you'd find that most players would take the modest approach.

That being said, if I was ranking the center fielders (as I will be eventually), I'd rank Mays above Mantle. I think Mantle had 2 or 3 seasons better than the best season Mays ever had (1956, 1957, and 1961), but Mays had a much longer career, and it isn't like he was just padding his stats. I have him as the best center fielder in the NL in 1954 and 1955, then every season from 1957 to 1966 and then again in 1968 and 1971 - 14 times. I have Mantle as the best AL center fielder every year from 1954 to 1962 and again 1964, 10 times, and then the best first basemen in 1968. Mays was always on the field. He played 150 or more games 13 times, compared to Mantle who did it 4 times. Mantle played 140+ games 12 times, and Mays 15 times. That type of consistency (and remember, Mays was always doing it at an all-time great level) has to be valued.

Mantle at his very best was better than Mays at his very best, but for an "all-time ranking", I think Mays is clearly ahead, because he crushes Mantle on career value and isn't all that far behind on peak value.

[Swampdog]

I wouldn't say that he "crushes" Mantle, exactly. There is no doubt that his career value is higher, as noted previously. The reality is that Mickey Mantle, at his best, was a better player than Mays was, at his best. Again, one great, and the other greater.

[ragecage]

1920's Team

C - Wally Schang BOS/NYY/SLB

HM - Bob O' Farrell CHC/STL/NYG, Ray Schalk CHW/NYG

1B - Jim Bottomley STL

HM - George Sisler SLB/WAS

2B - Rogers Hornsby STL/NYG/BSN/CHC

HM - Frankie Frisch NYG/STL, Eddie Collins CHW/PHA

3B - Pie Traynor PIT

HM - None

SS - Joe Sewell CLE

HM - Dave Bancroft PHI/NYG/BSN/BRO, Rabbit Maranville BSN/PIT/CHC/BRO/STL

LF - Goose Goslin WAS

HM - Bob Meusel NYY, Heine Manush DET/SLB, Charlie Jamieson CLE

CF - Ty Cobb DET/PHA, Tris Speaker CLE/WAS/PHA

HM - Edd Roush CIN/NYG, Max Carey PIT/BRO

RF - Babe Ruth NYY

HM - Harry Heilmann DET

SP - Dazzy Vance BRO, Burleigh Grimes BRO/NYG/PIT, Pete Alexander CHC/STL, Dolf Luque CIN

**Note**: There was 3 players left off of here because they didnt play most of the decade though they put up great numbers:

Lou Gehrig
Al Simmons
Hack Wilson

[Swampdog]

TS, you can stop sending the email now. Let me clarify some, and make a different type of example.

Say that performer "Z" is the best singer, or chef, or actor, or whatever, in the whole world, by all acclaim. Performer "X" is great, but clearly not as good as Z, by all accounts. Performer Z dies very young, or retires, or ceases to perform in whatever endeavor we're talking about, after maybe 5 years of being the absolute best. Performer X continues doing whatever it is he does for another 30 years, and is universally recognized as the best there is in those years. But X never, ever, is as good as Z was.

When people ask, "Who was the best ever?", the near unanimous response will be "Z". Nobody is going to say, "Well, Z was the best for peak value as a singer (or chef, or CEO, or whatever), but X had more career value." It would probably be true that X was more prolific than Z (had more career value, in other words), but he will never be considered as being "better".

The most applicable definition of "better" is "of superior quality or excellence". This, to me, means just that. Speaking of athletes, when we ask "Who was better", we're not asking about who had a longer career. We're talking about who was better when said athletes reached a recognizable peak.

Koufax vs Sutton provides just this type of comparison. If you take each players best year, then Koufax was better. Better in every way. Best 2 years, again Koufax was better. Best 3,4,5 years, Koufax was better. Better peak, better career (through 5 best years). Koufax at his best, was clearly better than Don Sutton was at his best. Thats why most people would say that Koufax was a greater pitcher.

When you keep adding years to the comparison though, Sutton eventually edges ahead of Koufax for career value. In the end Sutton has much more career value, but thats because Koukax played 12 seasons and Sutton played 55 years. And that doesnt change the answer to "Who was better?". It was Koufax.

Another non-baseball example. I knew a guy who used to hunt rabbits. He always had a pack of beagles for this purpose. The best dog he ever had was Zeke, who only hunted for 3 years before he lost a confrontation on the highway with a truck. This guy, who hunted for over 30 years, always gave Zeke credit for being the best rabbit dog he had ever seen. He had several other dogs who were good, and they often hunted for 8-10 years, or more. But Zeke was the best. True story.

So, back to the Mickey Mantle-Willie Mays comparison. You can see where I'm going with this by now, I'm sure. You take each players best year only, Mantle is WAY better. You take their best 2 or 3 years and compare, and Mantle was still WAY better. Take the top 5 or 10 years, and Mantle was better. The picture does get a little muddled after that, I admit. Mays pulls closer and closer in terms of overall value as you add the years up, and eventually passes Mantle. If you are pro-Mantle, there are measurements which show that Mantle's 18 years were better than Mays first 18 years. There are pro-Willie measurements that show Mays inching ahead of Mantle (just barely) around their 13'th or 14'th best years. There are no measurements that indicate that Mays was better in his best year, best 3, best 5, or even best 10.

Mays ends up with more career value than Mantle only because he played longer. That doesn't make him a better player. Mays was not a superior, or more excellent player. He was an almost as good player, who played a lot longer.

[Swampdog]

When questioned, I bet you'd find that most players would take the modest approach.

Metsguy is used to todays athletes who constantly boast and expound on their own virtues. In the distant past, athletes had a tendency to be a lot more humble and self-effacing. From what I have read, Mantle was never one to brag about himself. Being gracious used to be considered a virtue.

That being said, if I was ranking the center fielders (as I will be eventually), I'd rank Mays above Mantle.

I already have, and Mantle was better, and ranks higher.

I think Mantle had 2 or 3 seasons better than the best season Mays ever had (1956, 1957, and 1961), but Mays had a much longer career, and it isn't like he was just padding his stats. I have him as the best center fielder in the NL in 1954 and 1955, then every season from 1957 to 1966 and then again in 1968 and 1971 - 14 times. I have Mantle as the best AL center fielder every year from 1954 to 1962 and again 1964, 10 times, and then the best first basemen in 1968.

The important part is not how each player ranked in his own league. It can be considered as a factor, of course. I might suggest that Mantle was the AL MVP in 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, maybe 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, and 1964. Nine times, arguably 10 times. I would submit that Mays was the NL MVP in 1954, 1955, 1958, maybe 1960, maybe 1962, 1965, and 1966. Five wins, and arguably as many as 7. Once again, advantage Mantle.

Of course, this method is no more conclusive than many others, including your own.

Mantle at his very best was better than Mays at his very best,

Agreed, and he was MUCH better. Thats my whole point, I suppose.

but for an "all-time ranking", I think Mays is clearly ahead, because he crushes Mantle on career value and isn't all that far behind on peak value.

Already addressed. I have learned to place more emphasis on peak value when "the best" or "who was better" discussions are held. Its mantle, hands down.

[HoustonGM]

I already have, and Mantle was better, and ranks higher.

One's individual rankings depend a lot on how much emphasis one places on peak as compared to career. Judging from your comments, you place more emphasis on peak. Personally, I don't have much of a tendency either way, and for me it depends on the respective players and their peaks and careers. In the Koufax vs. Sutton example, I'd rank Koufax higher.

Take WARP1 as an example. Mantle's best scores were 15.3, 16.1 and 15.3, in 1956, 1957, and 1961. Mays has 2 15.2's, in 1963 and 1964. Mantle had 9 seasons at 10+. Mays has 14 (with 9 at 13+, compared to Mantle's 4).

In Dan Rosenheck's (of Baseball Think Factory/The New York Times) WARP system, here's how they score out:

Mays	Mantle
10.3	12.8
10.3	12
10.1	10.8
9.7	10.3
8.9	9.9
8.6	8
8.5	7.8
8.4	7.5
8.3	7.1
7.8	7.1
7.2	6.4
7.1	5.1
7	4.3
6.6	4
5.7	3.9
4.4	3.1
4.3	2.6
3.7	1
2.7	
1.6	
1.3	
0

In this system, Mantle beats him for their best 5 years, but then Mays is better every step of the way. An "All-Star starter" level in this system is 6 wins, 14 times for Mays, 11 times for Mantle.

That much time at such a high level leads me, personally, to rank Mays higher, even though Mantle's very top was better than Mays's very top. Of course, it's perfectly reasonable to disagree on this. I wouldn't say it's a clear cut issue. There's always going to be differing opinions in this sort of thing, and these two, along with Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker, make up a very closely knit top 4 all-time.

The important part is not how each player ranked in his own league. It can be considered as a factor, of course. I might suggest that Mantle was the AL MVP in 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, maybe 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, and 1964. Nine times, arguably 10 times. I would submit that Mays was the NL MVP in 1954, 1955, 1958, maybe 1960, maybe 1962, 1965, and 1966. Five wins, and arguably as many as 7. Once again, advantage Mantle.

I've got them tied with 8 MVP's each. Mantle every year from 1955 to 1962. Mays in 1954, 1955, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1962, 1964 and 1965.

Of course, this method is no more conclusive than many others, including your own.

Agreed. I don't see either of us as "wrong" here. As I said above, different weightings of peak vs. career. Just different opinions.