Both Mays and Musial are still alive? I guess they can’t be zombies then.
Another vote for Musial!
Zombie this may be but it never hurts to once again point out that the greatest hitter of that era might well have been playing in St Louis and not New York City. Someone upthread said that Mays was the better power hitter and that may be true for Home Runs (it certainly is) but note that overall SLG up there. Musial is every bit the statistical power hitter that Mays was. What he lacked in HR he more than made up in 2B and 3B.
Mays had more speed, yes, when you measure stolen bases. His success rate was about 75% which is above the theoretical 66% for break even, run wise. However, I always hate SB stats for player comparisons due to the outside influence. Does a player get the green light? Does he go on his own? And so forth.
Note: I am NOT bringing down Mays at all, here. Great player. Great. I just want to reinforce that there’s a real argument to be made that Musial was every bit as good and possibly a hair better. But media bias (and HoF bias) towards the major markets is a real thing.
Hell, the two of them even GDP about the same number of times. 243 for Musial and 251 for Mays. Both missed time to military service! Musial in 1945 and Mays for part of 1952 and all of 1953.
It is clear, however, that Mays hung on too long. Those last few years were painful. He could still get on base but that was sort of it. Musial’s last three years were OK (except the last one, 1963. That was harsh.)
Eh; you pop one over the head of the centerfielder in Sportsman’s Park and you could stop, drop, and roll to 3rd base.
Musial had stated that he wanted to play in one more World Series thus his staying around for 1963. Of course the great irony was that the Cardinal’s kinda backed into the World Series in 1964 and ended up winning. The fact was that they had a great team throughout the 60’s after the infamous trade with the Cubs for Brock.
Huh, and the same couldn’t be said about the Polo Grounds? Aside from the righty-lefty difference it probably indicates that Mays hit more to the power alleys and the foul lines than Musial who may have hit more from left-center to right-center.
Why is everyone acting like Mays played his entire career in New York? He was only there for 6 years. He played in San Francisco for 14 years.
These are two of the top 10 of all-time, so it’s no great shame to call it either way, but I think we’re overstating Musial’s case. It isn’t media bias that puts Mays on the short short list for greatest ever.
First, regarding who was the “best player of the era,” Musial started his career in 1941, when Mays was 10. Mays ended his career in 1973, when Musial was 53. They only overlapped for about 10 years. That’s worth remembering for a couple reasons, the first being that if we’re talking about the greatest players of the era, we’re talking Ted Williams & Dimaggio on one end and Morgan & Yaz on the other. The second reason is the big swing toward low-scoring games at the end of this period. Mays played in '68 and had an OPS+ of 156, which is fantastic and right in line with the career numbers for both of these guys, only in 1968 being that good of a hitter meant you slugged .488. That tends to look pretty lousy when you evaluate Mays career overall against somebody like Musial, who was performing at about the same level relative to his peers but was slugging closer to .600 while doing it. When they did overlap, Mays was in his prime and by far the better hitter, but Musial was still very good even though he was aging and increasingly affected by injury.
There’s also the park issue. It’s not just that one park might have been a triples park, it’s that Musial played his entire career in a home park that was (statistically speaking) favorable to hitters, especially later in his career, and Mays played his entire career in a home park that was unfavorable to hitters. It’s not a wash - if you played in Sportsman’s Park, you hit better than if you played in the Polo Grounds, Seals or Candlestick. I think you should be able to go right to this spreadsheet, if you’re into park factors. As maybe mild evidence of that influence, Musial’s career OPS away from home is 65 points lower than at home, while Mays’ is 22 lower.
And then, once all the hitting stuff is in context, there’s the defense to be accounted for: an OK defensive player against the guy who is famous for being better at it than anybody else. I think that makes it an easy Mays victory. Offensively, they were extremely similar, but played through different eras, and defensively, Mays was light-years ahead.
I aw Williams play a lot. He was the best hitter I ever saw.
I did not see Musial and Mays. That is why I am for interleague play. I surely would have gone to see Mays and Musial if i could have. I am sure the NL fans would have appreciated seeing Williams.
I’m all for saluting Stan Musial, who WAS an amazingly good ballplayer… but what’s all this nonsense about how he never got enough credit because he didn’t play in New York???
Musial was selected as a starter in 24 All-Star Games.
He received 3 MVP awards, as many as any player in baseball history. As many as Mickey Mantle, MORE than Willie Mays or Henry Aaron.
He was a first ballot Hall of Famer- even Joe Dimaggio wasn’t.
He was even given the Medal of Freedom, for Pete’s sake!
How can anyone argue that Musial has been somehow slighted or overlooked? He got all the praise and all the awards he was entitled to!
I think the feeling that Musial has been overlooked stemmed from that “Team of the Century” thing where Musial was voted 10th amongst outfielders (behind Pete Rose and Ken Griffey Jr.) and had to be added by a special panel later.
Since then there has been a very strong increase in public support (including the push for him to get the Medal of Freedom). A few sportswriters (Joe Posnanski in particular) have written many times about his feats as a ballplayer and a man since then.
Also the question of how players who play in New York are honored out of all proportion to their quality brings up another trivia question: who has more MVP awards, the New York Mets in 50 years of play (including Tom Seaver, Mike Piazza, Daryl Strawberry, etc. in their greatest years) or Terry Pendleton?
Mike Piazza’s best years were in LA.
But even if that’s true, you’ll note that Pete Rose and Ken Griffey Jr. NEVER played for New York teams! Just as in the Fifties, it was (apparently) Cincinnati fans stuffing the ballot boxes!
Pete Rose got a lot of attention for catching up and passing Cobb. He got 100 hits a year for 40 years. But he kept at it long enough to get the record. I bet it is hard to ignore that accomplishment, even though it was done in Cinci.
When he was healthy, Griffey was a great ball player who could have passed Ruth and Aaron. It would be impossible to ignore that talent.
Musial’s Career SO: 696 - Career Grounded into Double Plays: 243.
Mays’ Career SO: 1526 - Career Grounded into Double Plays: 251
What does that tell you about SO and DP?
If I’m the manager choosing only one, I’d pick Musial over Mays in a heartbeat, and for lots of good reasons.
He’d out hit Mays, get on base more often, produce more runs, strike out a lot less, and win more games for my team.
But most of all, when it came time to make out the line-up card, I would be able to put the best combination of players on the field. That’s because I could interchange Musial at any one of 4 positions, secure in knowing that he is one of the most versatile and top fielding (.989 fielding %) sluggers in all of baseball.
I’m sorry, did you read this thread?
You only think Musial was a better hitter because he had a better park to play in, and a more favorable offensive era. Mays had the misfortune, such as it was, of playing in the 1960s, which was the lowest offensive era since the dead ball era.
They were comparable hitters, but Mays was undoubtedly the better baserunner and fielder. Musial may have been able to play 4 positions, but that’s not necessarily a compliment. Mays only had to play center field because he was one of the best center fielders of all time (if not the best). There was no reason to put him anywhere else, but rest assured he would have been the best LF or RF of all time had he played there.
I don’t think many tears should be shed over the “park issue” at Candlestick or the Polo Grounds. In the decade from 1961 thru 1970, Giant hitters were League Leaders in Slugging 5 of the 10 years, Home Runs in 6 of the 10 years, and OPS+ in 5 of the 10 years. As for the Polo Grounds, Mays was the League Leader in Slugging and OPS+ for 3 of the 5 full seasons he played there.
With regards to the 1968 OPS+ matter: If I understand this concept, using the OPS+ corrective factor (park issue), a .488 SLG by Mays in 1968 is brought more in line with the level where it should be - a 156 OPS+ - because Candlestick was a less than desirable hitter’s venue??? If that’s the case, just two years later the *OPS+ corrective factor *seems to react just the opposite.
Mays: OPS+ / OBP /SLG / OPS
1968: 156 / .372 / .488 / .860
1970: 139 / .390 / .506 / .897
The OPS+ declined but everything else improved. Can one therefore conclude that Candlestick’s “park conditions” greatly improved to the extent that by 1970 a .506 SLG was worth less in the baseball world and only deserved a 139 OPS+ ?
Offensive production in 1968 was so low that MLB changed the rules to increase hitting. They shrank the strike zone and lowered the mound from 15 inches to 10 inches (and started really enforcing the limit on mound height). In 1968 the National League OPS was .641, and by 1970 it had increased to .721. That’s the main reason Mays had a lower OPS+ in 1970 even though his raw numbers had increased.