Okay, let’s approach this from this angle, then.
Just for the heck of it, tell us, say, five players you feel were more valuable defensive players than Stan Musial.
Yup - I actually went by games started, which skews things to an imperceptible level, but yeah. Musial’s numbers are really impressive in CF considering - I have no doubt that he was incredibly versatile and could learn quickly, especially in a high leverage position like CF.
Maybe - but I’m not all that surprised. Experience at non-essential positions isn’t something that he had any incentive to learn, especially with highly equipped personnel who were already there most of his career.
For the very short time he was at 1B - sure. Beyond that - absolutely not. Being really good at 1B has zero value if you are stupendously awesome at CF. It’s like a player who has a 99% stolen base rate, but hits a home run 100% of the time he goes up to bat - his SB rate has zero value at that point. Your argument is that you should keep him on the bench every now and then so you can have him pinch run for a slow guy, instead of just plugging him into the lineup to bash a dinger every time he goes up to bat.
I don’t think Charlie’s arguing that Musial hit a HR 100% of the time–but maybe he is.
I respectfully disagree. Musial was really good enough to play 1st base full time but they didn’t keep him there. He was really good enough either to play left or right field full-time, but they didn’t keep him there. And, forgive me if I’m mistaken, but didn’t we all agree he was at least adequate when he played cneter.
You can’t overlook the questionable management of the Cardinals during that time. As I said, this was the same Cardinals management that played Ken Boyer at six different positions before Johnny Keane finally went to a set lineup with Boyer at 3rd. It was the same management who traded Red Schoendienst to play Don Blasingame (arguably justifiable) but weakened their defense up the middle by trading Schoendienst for Alvin Dark, who was nearing the end of his career.
The only consistency to the Cardinals during the 1950s was Musial, who played 895 consecutive games.
I repeat my earlier argument that “good” and “valuable” aren’t exactly the same.
So what are you saying? That Musial could have been perceived as better than he is, but for woeful management? And you don’t think every other ballplayer would have a similar case?
Well, don’t be so hard on yourself about it.
What I would like to know is where it says that only those players with similar lenght of careers should be compared against one another for OPS+ and those from other eras and/or shorter careers should be ignored? Just what is the purpose of the ranking in the first place?
Percentages and ratios as a baseball stat do, in part, serve as an equalizer. Aaron hit 755 HR compared to Ruth’s 714. But Ruth’s BA, OBP, SLG and OPS far exceeded that of Aaron putting the careers of the two in perspective. But not so with OPS+ which is a ratio that consists of other ratios plus a subjective feature that required someone to run around to all the baseball stadiums with a tape measure, a wind velocity detector and a strong sense of mission so a “park factor” could be included with other OPS+ components…just so things might be “fair”. However, it is not fair or appropriate to use the OPS+ ratio to compare players against one another unless they played in the same era, spent about the same lenght of time in the majors and possibly wore the same size suspenders.
But it really doesn’t matter when all is said and done as long as the OPS+ outcome is about where it was expected to be, that no other subjective factors are worthy of consideration and any comparison of ranking between the players be very carefully handled or not attempted at all.
(Gulp) Well you got me there with an excellent point.
But it really does matter because Mays couldn’t play 1B anyway. Mays made more errors (15) at 1B in just 84 games and 709 Chances than Musial made errors (10) in 331 games and 785 Chances playing CF. Aaron played 1B at 38 1/2 and Mantle, with the body of a 50 year old, played his last two years at 1B. They both performed quite well.
No you didn’t…otherwise you wouldn’t have gone to so much trouble to explain away (post #210) the examples I provided when you could have dismissed my comments by what you now say in this post.
Now you’re suggesting to only “talk about” Mays and Musial in this debate, yet your’re the biggest offender of bouncing comparisons off other players and stats…see your post #199.
If you’re the Moderator, start moderating.
Mays couldn’t pitch, either. That’s irrelevant, because what he did do, he did better than Musial did what he did, which as far as I can tell is still what we’re talking about. What are you talking about, if not that? Is Musial still under attack?
It seems like maybe you still do not have any idea what OPS+ does. As I said before, comparing players from era to era is sort of the point. But nobody but you has claimed OPS+ is supposed to end the conversation about who is a better player. It does what it does, and if you know what that is, it’s very useful. A player who plays 50 games has an OPS+, and it tells you what that player did for 50 games. A player who plays 4000 games also has an OPS+, which tells you what he did for those 4000 games. Knowing that the former played 50, and the latter 4000, is also informative. They are actually both worth knowing. This isn’t an abstruse concept. If I said Ted Williams’ .344 average was an indication that he was a good hitter, you’d have to be either completely nutty or very dishonest to respond by saying that I must necessarily think Lefty O’Doul was a better player than Williams, then.
Knowing that such a thing as OPS+ exists doesn’t require you to turn your brain off to every other factor, but realizing that OPS+ doesn’t tell you everything isn’t the same as acknowledging that it doesn’t tell you anything.
Give me a little time. I have a life and can only spend so much time posting around, I’m trying to field and respond to a number of people on this thread and it is a task for me to keep up. Right now I’m departing because I’m late for my next appointment.
Gotta go…
I’m sure Musial was a better first baseman than Mays. I don’t think the raw number of errors proves Mays was a terrible first baseman but I’ll take it as a given that he wasn’t that good there.
Aaron logged most of his time at 1B in the seasons where he was 37 and 38, so 38 1/2 was when he stopped playing the position. Mays started putting in a significant amount of time there when he was turning 40. And the argument that Aaron “performed quite well” at 1B is belief by the fact that in later seasons, he stopped playing first and went back to the outfield, and then became a DH when he moved to the AL. Mantle was different in that his injuries left him unable to play the outfield anymore. Evidently Aaron and Mays were still able to play the outfield, and it looks like they were better options there. Aaron’s replacement at 1B (for Atlanta in 1973) was Mike Lum. At a galnce, Lum wasn’t much of a hitter and he wasn’t much of a fielder either, because before he took over at first… he was the team’s right fielder.
Clearly Mays wouldn’t because management knew exactly what to do with him, and stayed with it. And a large number of the arguments against Musial here go along the line of “if he was so good, how come they moved him around so much?”
Maybe Mays could have played Gold Glove shortstop, but those dumbass managers didn’t know what to do with him.
The only argument “against Musial” is that Mays was a better player. This is like the fifteenth time somebody has said that nobody thinks Musial was anything other than a super great player. An argument in support of Musial compared to Mays said that playing multiple positions well is somehow better than playing one position and being the best ever at it. Calling that stupid isn’t the same as attacking Musial.
I’m not sure that’s fair. Charlie Noble, and I have to say that I admire his tenacity, was the one who proposed that Musial’s value as a defender was enhanced by his versatility. I do think there is some truth there, because of the way the Cardinals were managed. We need to reiterate that no one here is saying Musial wasn’t spectacular. To say he wasn’t the fielder that Willie Mays was is no insult.
And to say that he was probably just as good a hitter, and slightly (but clearly) less good a defensive player, as Mays isn’t to say anything other than the colossally obvious.
After a point, it’s not tenacity anymore. It’s stubborness, and it’s tedious.
There have been some personal comments from multiple posters. Watch it. This isn’t the Pit.
RickJay
Moderator
Which makes it a perfect baseball argument, doesn’t it?
So there’s only one resolution to this. The Baseball Hall of Fame lists Musial as a first baseman. Looking at defensive stats for both outfielders who also played first base and first basemen who also played outfield, I notice that in almost every case, they play one position substantially better than the other.
I have to conclude that the skill sets for outfielders and first basemen, though they may transfer in some areas, aren’t identical. So you really can’t compare the defensive skills of a first baseman and an outfielder much more reliably than you can compare those of a thrid baseman and an outfielder.
I suspect everyone would be perfectly happy with a team that included Mays in center and Musial at first. So let’s get to the real issue.
Who bats third, and where do you bat the other one?
Musial 3rd, Mays cleanup.
Musial third, Mays cleanup. You want the guy with the higher on base percentage up first, and Mays’s speed is more valuable with inferior hitters coming up than it would be with Musial coming up.
Actually if it was my team and I had some job security I’d bat them 1-2, assuming I didn’t have Ted Williams and Barry Bonds on my team, too.