Mays was an all round player. great defense, base stealer and a power hitter. He had everything. AAron was a decent homerun hitter with a zillion at bats. He accumulated 755 through attrition. He did not strike terror in pitchers like Mays and Musial. …and Williams.
As has been said, he terrorized pitchers nearly *exactly *as much as Mays did. Same hit rate, same on-base rate, same extra-base hit rate - but with 50 more homers. He had 100 fewer steals and wasn’t the force Mays was in the outfield - but that’s not what you’d been arguing.
I’m just going to put this here. I’ve combined all extra base hits into one category, because HR totals are too easy to use to identify - feel free to throw it out. I also didn’t put SBs in there, because we know what those are (since we know that Mays had 100 more than Aaron, and Musial didn’t run). It’s Aaron, Aaron minus his final season (which puts the three all at 22 seasons), Mays and Musial (not in that order):
Games 3026 2992 3298 3213
PA 12712 12493 13940 13632
AB 10972 10881 12364 12093
R 1949 2062 2174 2152
H 3630 3283 3771 3709
XBH 1377 1323 1477 1459
RBI 1951 1903 2297 2262
BB 1599 1464 1402 1367
SO 696 1526 1383 1345
BA 0.331 0.302 0.305 0.306
OBP 0.417 0.384 0.374 0.375
SLG 0.559 0.557 0.555 0.559
OPS+ 159 155 155 155
Great stuff Munch! Thanks for posting that. 
No problem. It’s just really interesting to see how, as hitters, they were so similar. There are certainly things that stand out: Musial’s batting average especially. One thing that always jumps out at me from some of the old greats is their low strikeout totals. Musial hadn’t accumulated 700 strikeouts. In 22 seasons. Think about that! Mark Reynolds got to 700 in the middle of his* 4th* season. Then you look at Tris Speaker, who in 22 seasons, 12,000 plate appearances, didn’t get 300 strikeouts. Different time, different era, different *ball * (and missing data) - but that’s amazing.
xxxxx
Is that a response? What is that?
Charlie Noble, please do not add posts that consist entirely of quotes of other posts.
I know you added five blue x’s. That isn’t content.
Thanks,
RickJay
Moderator
RickJay–did you erase Charlie Noble’s “contribution”? Accidentally? On purpose? Either way, it makes **Munch **look like he’s talking to himself.
Well, hence my post. 
It should have a marker there stating the post was deleted.
REPLY TO JIMMY CHITWOOD - POST #47
And now I’m dismissing your carefully cherry-picked claims about how great hitters had it in the 60s. Home runs per team doesn’t matter much to this conversation, I don’t think, considering that Mays hit more home runs in the 50s than Musial did. Why not look at some of the things that Musial actually did better than Mays, on the face of it?
[COLOR=“Blue”]HR and HR per team do matter to this discussion because that’s where Mays made his bones. In a head-to-head for MLB 13 hitting categories, Mays only leads Musial in HR and RUNS, the 11 remaining categories belong to Musial. To the point: The only thing left to talk about regarding Mays the hitter is whether his HR were short-changed by a less favorable era and/or ballpark, or if Musial the hitter benefited from a more favorable era/ball park. Make no mistake, Mays had the athletic ability and same opportunity as Musial to hit singles, doubles, triples, get on base, knock in runs, be selective at the plate, create runs, produce runs, etc. Any player that ranks 4th in HR and 123rd in BA is a home run hitter. - Charlie [/COLOR]
As you probably found in researching your last post, when you look at basically every other indicator of overall offensive performance, which is to say, the ones that you could at least argue Musial was better at - BA, runs, OBP, SLG, doubles, triples - the 50s were a more favorable environment, and more specifically, the years Mays played in were less favorable than the ones Musial did:
[COLOR=“blue”]During the 1950’s and while in his prime, Willie Mays had 4074 AB with 250 HR and SLG .590. In the 1960 era, thru 1966 and into his 36th year, Mays had an almost identical AB of 4072 with 292 HR and a SLG of .592. It does not seem that the 1960 era was any less favorable to great sluggers like Mays than were the 1950’s. Matter-of-fact, of the 25 members of the 500 HR Club, 7 members played the heart of their careers in the 1960 era; 3 played in the 1920-30 era; 2 played in the 1940-50 era; 3 from the 1970-80 era; and 10 from the 'roid era.
Could Musial in his prime performed as well in the 1960’s as in earlier decades? Absolutely! As with other elite players like Mays, he would have transitioned into the era of expanded teams and home run emphasis without any problem. But wait! He actually did. In the 1962 season, and playing in his 42 year, Musial finished 3rd in the batting title race and registered an astonishing BA .330 / OBP .416 / SLG .508. It was the 14th time in his career that Musial recorded the 3-4-5 percentage trifecta and he became the oldest player in modern baseball history to accomplish this feat. Musial also became the oldest player to hit 4 consecutive HR and after age 40 he even hit more HR than either Mays or Aaron did after age 40. I think a young Musial starting out in 1961 instead of 1941 would have re-written just as many records as he did during his actual career. - Charlie [/COLOR]
Year R H 2B 3B HR RBI BA OBP SLG
1950 4.85 9.11 1.5 0.32 0.84 4.55 0.266 0.346 0.402
1951 4.55 8.96 1.45 0.29 0.75 4.25 0.261 0.336 0.386
1952 4.18 8.58 1.37 0.27 0.69 3.9 0.253 0.327 0.37
1953 4.61 9.06 1.45 0.3 0.84 4.32 0.264 0.336 0.397
1954 4.38 8.86 1.4 0.32 0.78 4.11 0.261 0.333 0.39
1955 4.48 8.76 1.32 0.28 0.9 4.21 0.259 0.332 0.394
1956 4.45 8.74 1.35 0.29 0.93 4.17 0.258 0.331 0.397
1957 4.31 8.85 1.37 0.27 0.89 4.06 0.258 0.324 0.391
1958 4.28 8.75 1.37 0.27 0.91 4.03 0.258 0.325 0.394
1959 4.38 8.74 1.4 0.24 0.91 4.11 0.257 0.324 0.392
1960 4.31 8.67 1.39 0.27 0.86 4.03 0.255 0.324 0.388
1961 4.53 8.76 1.39 0.26 0.95 4.22 0.258 0.328 0.399
1962 4.46 8.8 1.33 0.26 0.93 4.18 0.258 0.326 0.393
1963 3.95 8.35 1.27 0.24 0.84 3.68 0.246 0.309 0.372
1964 4.04 8.51 1.31 0.23 0.85 3.76 0.25 0.313 0.378
1965 3.99 8.3 1.29 0.24 0.83 3.7 0.246 0.311 0.372
1966 3.99 8.42 1.28 0.25 0.85 3.71 0.249 0.31 0.376
1967 3.77 8.17 1.26 0.24 0.71 3.48 0.242 0.306 0.357
1968 3.42 7.91 1.19 0.21 0.61 3.17 0.237 0.299 0.34
1969 4.07 8.37 1.24 0.22 0.8 3.77 0.248 0.32 0.369
1970 4.34 8.63 1.35 0.24 0.88 4.05 0.254 0.326 0.385
[COLOR=“blue”]If you look closely at these stats you’ll notice that the decline of hitting ratios coincides with the first expansion of teams (1962) and the accompanying dilution of talent in the NL. This, coupled with more HR hitting wannabes during the same time period, makes the 1950 and 1960 eras kind of an orange and apple affair when it comes to making comparisons or drawing arbitrary conclusions. - Charlie [/COLOR]
And that is the point that you haven’t addressed. Do you dispute that Stan Musial’s career took place in a more favorable era, and a more favorable home ballpark, than Willie Mays’, for the purpose of his career statistics? If not, I don’t know why you’re arguing about things like Cepeda and McCovey.
[/QUOTE]
Yes I dispute your over simplification of favorable and unfavorable eras and ballparks. With the expansion of teams and thinned-out player talent, plus the emphasis on the long ball, I think it is difficult to make conclusions as to one time period against the other. See above comments.
Additionally, the elite hitters didn’t seem to experience much distinction between the decade proceeding the NL expansion (1952-61) and the decade following (1962-71). The League Leaders’ average stats for the two decades were as follows (1952-61 first): BA .342 / .345; HR 45 / 45; OPS 1.024 / 1.022. Overall, the NL experienced a 13% decline in avg. HR/team from the earlier decade but registered a 27% increase in avg. SO/team.
I doubt Musial had an unfair advantage in homepark when compared to Mays.
Sportsman Park - Fair territory: 109,000 sq ft; LF to LCF 368’ to 379’; CF 430’; RF to RCF 335’ to 354’; Fences 12’ cement, except RF to RCF pavilion 33’ to 37’ cement and screen.
Candlestick Park - Fair territory: 105,000 sq ft; LF to LCF 330’ to 397’; CF 410’; RF to RCF 330’ to 397’; Fences 8’-10’ all fields.
Home and away HR splits durings Mays’ 12 year career at Candlestick: Mays: Home 202 / Road 194; McCovey: H 183 / R 175; Remainder of Giants: H 583 - R 572. Musial had a 53-47% home/road split for HR and a 50/50 split for HITS.
Giants and League yearly averages during the 1960 decade: BA: Giants .253 / League .252; RUNS: 718 / 601; HR: 164 / 116; SLG .392 / .376.
Candlestick Park seemly lead the charge during the 1960 era. - Charlie
Statistics source: MLB; Baseball Reference; Baseball Almanac; ESPN
Utility Player - Regularly plays several positions compentently.
Power Hitter / Slugger - Generally, career SLG .500+, with some exceptions. (MLB criteria of 5000 AB).
So how would you define?
You characterize Musial as an “average fielder” but he has a higher career FPC than Mays…Musial has the highest in all of baseball playing in 2500 games or more. Put another way, Musial was able to play 4 positions and make fewer errors than his contemporaries. (Games played: LF 30%; CF 10.8%; RF 25.6%; 1B 33.2%)
Baseball is a right-handed-favored game so you broadly condem left-throwing fielders to the 4 “worst fielding positions”…as if the HOF is packed full of left handed throwers at 3B, 2B, SS and C.
Ernie Banks made a career postion switch from SS to 1B at age 30. Not a utility player in my opinion. But go ahead and make your case for Ernie.
A case could be made for Yaz (RF 67.4% / 1B 26.8% / CF 5.8% / but maybe a little short as a power-hitter. Basically played two positions.
Ruth was the greatest power-hitting-pitcher, ever.
I just checked out Gary Sheffield’s strikeout totals; 1100 in 22 seasons (some of them partial); Tony Gwynn, though, had 434 in 20 seasons.
Great as he was, I don’t agree with the many people who think Stan Musial was underrated or underappreciated. I think he’s gotten EVERY honor a baseball player could possibly hope to get, and then some.
Almost nobody has been slected as a starter in more All-Star games. NOBODY has ever won more MVP awards (a handul of peole have won as many). He’s even gotten the Medal of Freedom, for crying out loud.
The ONLY justification for the “Stan is underappreciated” chant is that:
-
He didn’t quite make the top ten outfielders in a fan vote, some years back
-
In discussions of “the greatest players ever,” people always think of Ruth, Mays, Mantle and a few others before they get around to Stan.
I have a hard time getting outraged over either of those things. It all boils down to this: most fans and writers think of Stan Musial as an all-time great who was, maybe, just a notch below Ruth, Mays, Mantle and a few others. That, it seems to me, is exactly as it should be!
Juicers don’t count?
Charlie, we’d appreciate it if you used the SDMB’s quote function, rather than blaring coloured text at us.
As to the issue I’m going to have to strenuously disagree with your entire line of approach.
The question of which played is greater is not a question of who led in “more categories,” but a question of which player added more wins to his team. It is entirely possible - heck, it happens all the time - that Player A could be better than Player B in a number of categories but still be an inferior hitter.
Who would you rather have; a player who bats .280 with 30 doubles, 5 triples, 50 homers and 10 steals, or a player who bats .300 with 35 doubles, 7 triples, 10 homers and 12 steals? Surely the first player is likely better?
If one looks at the overall analytical stats, which have already accounted for park factors, league averages and the relative value of doubles versus steals versus homers and such, as well as defense, the consensus is that Willie Mays was a greater player but Musial was certainly amazingly great. According to fangraphs, Mays added 945 runs to his teams above the average, Musial 1002, giving Musial an edge, but a very small one, with the bat; however, Mays’s advantage on defense was enormous, a margin of about 130 runs.
Baseball Reference, meanwhile, believes Mays to have been the more valuable hitter, though again not by a lot; I’d presume they put more stock into league differences.
I don’t see how either conclusion could be construed as being at all surprising. I think it’s rather obvious Musial was an awesome hitter, but Mays’s defensive brilliance is well known and is supported by all the evidence. No matter what methodology you use,
-
Their offensive contributions, expressed in terms of how much they helped their teams actually win games, are close, and
-
Mays was the greatest defensive center fielder of all time. Musial was not.
You’re making the (very common, I should point out) error of assuming that the effect on an individual player of an environemtnal difference - be it the league, the park, whatever - is indicative of value. But it’s not. What matters in terms of determining a player’s performance is how well that player’s performance helped his team win.
It is absolutely, unquestionably true, beyond any rational argument, that the NL in the 1950s scored more runs than the NL in the 1960s. In the years 1950-1959 the average NL team scored 4.46 runs per game. In the years 1960-1969, the average NL team scored 4.05 runs per game. Since the league’s overall offense was down 10% (which is a very big difference) offensive contributions in the 1960s have to be adjusted upwards by about ten percent, if you’re looking at the whole decade, to compare to those in the 1950s. You don’t adjust every statistic up ten percent, it doesn’t work that way; you adjust the value of the overall contribution up ten percent.
How Willie Mays, personally, did during the 1960s does not change how you account for the value of offensive production. Fewer runs were scored in the 1960s; that is a fact beyond any dispute. Consequently, hitting success in the 1960s is proprtionately more valuable. If Mays’s personal stats were better in the 1960s then that just means he did even better than the raw stats would suggest.
Comparing ballparks by fence distances is, um, a bit in denial of an understanding of baseball-related physics. How large were the foul territories? What elevation was Sportsman’s Park at (we know where Candelstick is)? What are the wind and temperature patterns? Which park hosted more night games? What was the lighting like?
Again, if instead of cherry-picking numbers, why don’t we look at the actual facts of which park better helped offense?
The fact is that Sportsman Park, for most of Stan Musial’s career, rates as a hitter’s park. You need only look at the park factors for every year he was in the league; in some season it dips to neutral or just a point below, but during most of Musial’s career it was a very good hitter’s park.
By contrast, Candlestick, and SEals Stadium before it, was usually bad to neutral for hitters; for some reason it bumped up a bit for a few years, but in most seasons it was bad for hitters. Forget where the fences were, this is actual fact; Candlestick Park usually depressed offensive production, and Sportsman’s Park increased it.
And again I have to point out that what Willie Mays personally did at home is not relevant. If Candlestick depressed offense, then by hitting more homers at home Mays was simply helping his team more during home games. Perhaps Candlestick helped home runs, but depressed offense in other ways, like having a lot of foul ground and lowering batting averages. Perhaps Mays was a better hitter at Candlestick than was normal, and was able to take advantage of it in some way, or he responded particularly well to being able to sleep in his own home; it really doesn’t matter. If Mays was able to hit at Candlestick better than other players, that is a genuine increase in Mays’s value.
[QUOTE=Charlie Noble]
You characterize Musial as an “average fielder” but he has a higher career FPC than Mays…Musial has the highest in all of baseball playing in 2500 games or more. Put another way, Musial was able to play 4 positions and make fewer errors than his contemporaries. (Games played: LF 30%; CF 10.8%; RF 25.6%; 1B 33.2%)
[/QUOTE]
Musial’s fielding percentage hardly proves he was a greater fielder than Mays.
Musial was certainly very sure handed but I think most people understand that the number of errors a player makes, especially at the major league level, is a miniscule part of his fielding ability. What really matters is RANGE.
The difference between Mays and Musial in fielding - and let’s just compare them as outfielders, to use an example - amounts to about two to three errors per season. I’d rather have those two to three errors back, but still we’re talking about just 2 or 3 errors. But the difference in range is HUGE; Mays averaged about 40-50 more plays per season than the average NL center fielder. Making 3 more errors is fine when you’re making dozens more catches that for other outfielders are falling in as singles and doubles.
The Blue Jays have a player, Adam Lind, who to date has played 224 games in the outfield and has made a grand total of one error, which is amazing. But he’s been moved to first base because he simply wasn’t good enough in the outfield. Why? Not enough range.
Mays was a better fielder than Musial; there is no rational analysis of the facts that claims otherwise. Every advanced measure of fielding ability calls out Mays as one of the greatest defensive players of all time. Musial was a very good defensive player, but he’s in a group with guys like Doug Glanville. Mays is up there with Brooks and Ozzie.
Surely you’re not suggesting I could have forgotten Barry Bonds?
(Okay, okay,I forgot Barry Bonds… I have no idea how.)
[quote=“RickJay, post:76, topic:503103”]
Charlie, we’d appreciate it if you used the SDMB’s quote function, rather than blaring coloured text at us.
Sorry about that...I'm not very good with the computer, especially when trying to respond to multiple statements on a given post. - Charlie
As to the issue I’m going to have to strenuously disagree with your entire line of approach.
The question of which played is greater is not a question of who led in “more categories,” but a question of which player added more wins to his team. It is entirely possible - heck, it happens all the time - that Player A could be better than Player B in a number of categories but still be an inferior hitter.
You’re on the right track but just dealing from a short deck. Musial in fact produced more team wins, produced more runs, created more runs, knocked in more runs, had more offensive wins than Mays. And there is more…look it up and talk to me. - Charlie
Who would you rather have; a player who bats .280 with 30 doubles, 5 triples, 50 homers and 10 steals, or a player who bats .300 with 35 doubles, 7 triples, 10 homers and 12 steals? Surely the first player is likely better?
If one looks at the overall analytical stats, which have already accounted for park factors, league averages and the relative value of doubles versus steals versus homers and such, as well as defense, the consensus is that Willie Mays was a greater player but Musial was certainly amazingly great. According to fangraphs, Mays added 945 runs to his teams above the average, Musial 1002, giving Musial an edge, but a very small one, with the bat; however, Mays’s advantage on defense was enormous, a margin of about 130 runs.
Baseball Reference, meanwhile, believes Mays to have been the more valuable hitter, though again not by a lot; I’d presume they put more stock into league differences.
I don’t see how either conclusion could be construed as being at all surprising. I think it’s rather obvious Musial was an awesome hitter, but Mays’s defensive brilliance is well known and is supported by all the evidence. No matter what methodology you use,
-
Their offensive contributions, expressed in terms of how much they helped their teams actually win games, are close, and
-
Mays was the greatest defensive center fielder of all time. Musial was not.
Or to put it another way, Musial won the the minds of fans and the sports media, but some won the hearts and minds.
The biggest snub to Musial was probably not being elected to the All 20th Century Team.
I can’t wait until this issue is resolved and then we can move on to the matter of whether yellow Peeps taste better than pink Peeps. I say yellow, but only very slightly.