As I see it, playing first would be equivalent to playing third… if the only plays were line drives. But obviously there is more to baseball than catching liners.
The proximity to first base means the first baseman can play deeper (shorter throw to the bag) and can take longer recovering from making the play. A third baseman does not have the luxury of someone covering a nearby bag, he has to not only spear the fast grounder, but also get up quickly to make a strong throw to the bag.
In fact, the only time a first baseman has to make a strong throw are on 3-6-x double plays or on force plays at the plate. It wouldn’t surprise me if first basemen went games at a time making only “flip” throws.
This, really, is what distinguishes first basemen from all other positions; first basemen don’t need to have good arms. Very few first basemen have good arms - as a matter of fact I can think of only one I ever saw, John Olerud, who’d been a pitcher in college.
Of course, lefthanders can’t play the other infield positions anyway.
This is getting even sillier. Mays didn’t get regular time at 1B until his second-to-last season, when he was 41. Stargell and Yaz were getting regular time there starting when they were about 35. Even in his final two seasons, Mays played the outfield more than he played first. Seems to me he just didn’t have much left at that point - it’s not that he was a one trick pony who couldn’t handle the rigors of playing first base. That’s ridiculous. And while he doesn’t seem to have been any great shakes at 1B, he wasn’t horrible. None of this indicates he couldn’t handle the position or that such a failure shortened his career.
To be specific, Mays played one game each at 1B in 1964, 1968, and 1969. He played 5 games at 1B in 1970 (compared to 128 in CF) before the two seasons I mentioned above. Mantle and Aaron are not good comparisons. Mantle played a bunch of 1B in his last two seasons, when he was 35 and 36. Most of Aaron’s games at 1B came when he was 37 and 38. He continued to play the outfield after that, and of course he later moved to the AL and played DH.
Double-check the records. Mays started 39 games at 1B in his 3rd to last season…1971. That was the year he turned 40 on May 6th. I agree that these other guys started playing 1B at a younger age…but they were not Willie Mays. Need I remind you what most say about Willie being the “greatest” playing the hardest postion and 1B being the arm pit (my term) of defensive positions. Mays made 11 errors at first in 39 games, and that is not good…especially at the pud position in all of baseball. I would venture to guess that he didn’t go back to 1B very much after that because he was a liability. But his being the age at which he started “trying” to play 1B of shouldn’t have been a problem…not for the greatest outfielder.
I’ve concurred with others on this post that Willie Mays was the best at his positon and that CF demands the highest of skills, especially when played as well by Mays. I saw Mays play in person on 6 or 7 occasions and he was teriffic…the best I ever saw.
The problem I have is when 1B and those that play it are held in such low esteem. It’s as if anyone or anything that challenges Mays’ status has to be dissed and devalued to keep Mays elevated. I don’t get it. Mays career at CF and in the batter’s box can stand on its on. I think first base is a very demanding postion. As I stated before, while outfielder stand around and scratch themselves between pitches, the 1B player is often in constant motion holding a runner on and having to repositions himself on defense. Most skill would be CF, most demand would be pitcher, catcher and 1B
It’s pure speculation on my part that Mays missed playing time because 1B wasn’t his cup of tea and that had he been able to handle it his career would have been extended. That seems to be the case with a lot of bats that ended their career playing lots of 1B.
We’re talking about the same season, but you’re right - it was his third to last, not second. He started 77 games in center that year to 39 at first. The next year he started 57 games in center and nine at first (all for the Mets), and in his last year it was 41 starts in center and 14 at 1B.
Again, irrelevant. I’m not surprised if he didn’t do that well at a new position the season he turned 40.
Last I checked, first base is not in the outfield. You’re making up a strawman argument in any case. He wasn’t much of a first baseman, but he didn’t even start playing there until he was about 40 and even then he played more outfield than first. First is a much less challenging position than CF. That doesn’t mean an outfielder who tries to switch to 1B at age 40 is going to be good at it.
I know it’s pure speculation. I’m saying it’s bad speculation because he was already and 40 nothing would have extended his career very much. And if 1B is that demanding, shouldn’t you be arguing that it wasn’t possible he could get the hang of it? The fact that guys who can’t play the outfield any more get moved to 1B to keep their bats in the lineup and hide their defensive shortcomings contradicts your argument about 1B being more challenging than it gets credit for.
Nobody is “dissing” or “devaluing” you. All that has been presented is logic and evidence. You haven’t been insulted in any way, nor has Stan Musial.
The idea that first base is not as challenging a position as center field is not something that was made up for this thread or to hurt you or Stan Musial.
Hold on. I expressed that poorly. If a player is mentioned that might challenge Mays or a defensive position that might challenge CF (whether real or imagined) the response for the most part is dismissive or devaluing. My comment was not intended to have anything to do about me and I have in no way been personally offended by anything said…actually more amused than anything else.
As for 1B, it appears to have been much more challenging for Mays than CF was for Musial.
You want to make it irrelevant, but its not. He wasn’t as versatile as most. Musial left 1st base and went back to the OF for the next 3 years. Aaron and Yaz played on because they could adapt.
No excuses. Mays was great, that’s all I’ve heard…and I agree. But maybe he wasn’t as great as we all think once he got out of his comfort zone. He should have been able to adapt. He had to go back to CF because it was the only position he could play…but he should have been able to play a lesser position that is much easier to play. Lots and lots of players switched, be they 36 or 40.
Well, fact is he didn’t get the hang of it, but you’re not going to concede that 1B is more difficult the CF…and I don’t believe it either. But it’s been your assertion that 1B is not challenging and I’m trying to use your own argument against you in the case of Mays. I’ve never said 1B was more demanding that CF. I’ve just tried to make the point that it is not the piece of cake that some on the thread want to regelate it to. It’s hard work and it requires a skill set that apparently Mays didn’t have but most others did. Don’t you get the irony of it all? CF the best, 1B the worst…yet Mays couldn’t handle it.
Okay, I tried it and it was easy. But can’t figure out why CF Mays couldn’t adapt to it like all other OF and DH have managed to do. Maybe he wasn’t intelligent either.
It doesn’t affect an overall examination of Mays’s value as a fielder. (For that matter, you haven’t really explained how Mays couldn’t “Handle it” - where’s the evidence of that? He only played 85 games there; did he play there out of necessity, or a long term plan to move him there that didn’t work out?)
I mean, the argument that’s been presented here is fairly straightforward: Willie Mays was a more valuable fielder than Stan Musial because Mays was an exceptional fielder at a reasonably difficult position, while Stan Musial was a good fielder at less difficult positions. You’re now adding on stuff like “Mays couldn’t adapt to first in the few games he played there” and stuff, but I don’t see how that has anything to do with the basic facts.
Nor is “Hey, first isn’t easy either” an argument, either. I think we all understand that playing first bae in the major leagues is not easy. Nobody in this thread could do it. The difference between a good defensive first baseman and a bad one at the MLB level is an obvious one. Nobody is suggesting that any shmoe could slip on a trapper and play Major League calibre first base. But at this level we’re discussing relative merits, not absolute ones, and at the major league level the defensive positions have a definite heirarchy of value and difficulty;
Catcher
Shortstop
Second Base
Center Field
Third Base
Right Field
Left Field
First Base
This isn’t something I made up, it’s something practically every analyst in the world agrees on.
And my argument is just as straight forward…
-Mays was an exceptional fielder, maybe the best ever. He was better than Musial at CF (but not so good at 1B).
-Musial played four positions very well. According to Baseball Reference, Musial’s FPC at the 4 positions was above the League Fielding Position at every position he played…so Musial has to fit in somewhere above “good” but I’ll concede not “exceptional” or as good as Mays in CF.
-Musial’s defensive value to the team and team success was his ability to be interchangable at ever position that LEFT throwing fielders usually play, and still carry a big bat. I think that gives value to the team, especially when he could do all things so effectively.
-My intentions are not to down-grade Mays in any way but to elevate Musial to a more equal level to Mays in the field because of Musial’s defense value to team success.
-Mays had the best skills, Musial’s was diverse…and carried the better bat.
P.S.
I could no longer resist the opportunity to point out Mays’ shortcomings at 1B in light of the coronation of Mays and marginalization of Musial on this thread. Had
Musial performed as poorly at CF as Mays did at 1B, I would have had no standing on my Musial argument and others would have been all to quick to point out that he failed at CF…irrefutable evidence that Musial was inferior. Such is not the case.
I do not disagree with your list of postion value and difficulty. It is important to point out that the three lowest positions, plus CF are the most realistic postions for left-throwing players. There are only a couple of CF in the HOF that were left-throwing, but many lefties from the lower 3 positions on your list. When a left-throwing prospect shows up in the major league system, he is most likely going to be made a pitcher or placed in one of the last 3 positions on your list. He might have played 3rd base as an amateur but he is going to be converted. Had Musial been made a CF exclusively he would not have measured up to Mays, but he’d made the HOF.
Now, here is what is important: When a team can find a L or R throwing player that can play 4 or more positions on your list, and play the defensive positions above league average…and carry a bat that is one of the best in baseball history… you have a remarkable player and one that has the highest of value to your team. At that’s what important in any team sport, correct?
If I’ve ignored your point I apologize. I though I’d addressed this issue on Musial and Mays several times on this thread. Check out my most recent post at #157. If that doesn’t explain matters and my position, I’ll be glad to give it another shot. Let me know what you wish for me to address.
I don’t know how many times on this post I’ve conceded Mays’ superiority as a CF. (See my most recent post #157) Yes, I’m an advocate for Musial because I feel, like many have stated, that he has been under-rated over the years. But please read my #171 post for further clarification.
Just read my #171 post.
Defensive value to the team, not necessarily his defensive ability per se.
You do understand that left-throwing fielders are limited to certain positions? That is very pertinent to the discussion of defensive players’ value in baseball.
If you compare Musial’s FPC to the League Fielding Percentage for each of the 4 positions he was above league average at all four positions. You don’t have to accept that but it one of the few defensive measurements available and the main qualifier or disqualifier for a Gold Glove Award.
Platoon or platooning is defined as using alternate players at the same position. When I earlier used that term I stated that the only difference in Musial’s case is that he stayed in the game when he alternated positions on the Cards. In one of the books on Musial he stated something to the efeect that he often went to the ballpark not knowing which position he would be playing that day. One year, at the start of the season, he got a committment from his manager that he would be allowed to play LF the entire season…Musial felt it was hurting his offensive abilities to be constantly rotating positions. Three or four weeks into the season, the manager broke his promise and had to start alternating (platooning) Musial for the needs of the team. (I don’t know why you want to get hung up on the term “platooning”? You’re welcome to reject it.)
I think there are minds already made up on both sides of the issue, and persuasive evidence is abundent, but you can claim the high ground if you wish. That’s all part of the debate process.
Obviously, Stan Musial was an immensely valuable player. But we all agree on that.
Your claim that Musial was the greater player seems now to lie on the argument that it’s more inherently valuable to have a guy who plays both first base and the corner outfield spots than it is to have a guy who just plays center field - and that that value is REALLY high, greater than the difference in fielding value between a guy who’s above average and a guy who is one of the greatest defensive outfielders who ever lived.
Well, I’m sorry, Charlie, but I don’t buy it. As others have pointed out, shuffling between left, right and first just isn’t that impressive a thing to me; Musial is trading off time with guys who are probably not very good fielders, but no matter where he’s playing, he’s only playing one position at a time.
I believe there is SOME value to a guy who can play first and left and right, but gosh, it isn’t that much. If it was a really valuable skill, why don’t major league teams carry light-hitting players who can switch between first base and the corner outfield? Teams carry light-hitting utility players all the time, but not to play first and left. The Blue Jays have John McDonald, who can’t hit water falling from a boat, but he plays second, short and third. I’m sure I could find similar players on most teams. But when was the last time you heard about a team carrying a glove man who specialized in first and the corner outfield? If that skill was THAT valuable it would - as in the case of John McDonald - mean some players would be kept for that skill alone. But they never are; all light hitting utility players are either middle infielders, catchers, or in rare cases really, really exceptional outfielders.
So is the value in Musial’s shuffling around worth the difference in defenswive skill? No, I really don’t believe so; major league teams don’t behave as if it does, truly elite glove men aren’t shuffled around, and it just doesn’t seem likely to me. It’s not worth nothing, but it’s not that much.
PRR’s point is that “platooning” has a specific meaning. It means to have two players share one position and either start games or not start based on the handedness of the opposing pitcher. Rance Mulliniks was a platoon player. Stan Musial was not.
This has now gotten beyond silly. We have two players who had outstanding offensive statistics over very long careers, and who were able to keep those stats high almost to the very end of their careers.
Player A played almost his entire career in one position, and played it so well that he’s considered one of the best who ever played it.
Player B played the equivalent of an entire major leage career at four different positions, and was considered above average defensively at each one of them.
If player A had been shuffled around in different positions, or Player B stayed in the same spot for his entire career, would either of their defensive reputations be different? Would the stress of playing different positions reduced A’s offensive skills? Would the stability of playing a single position helped B improve his offensive skills?
Babe Ruth was known as a hell of a pitcher before he was switched to the outfield. Should we be arguing over whether Ruth as a pitcher would have dominated the game as completely as Ruth the home run hitter?
Or maybe we should argue whether Mantle would have been better than Musial, Mays OR Ruth had he been given the knees that any of the other three had.
Resolved: Musial and Mays were both not just great, but among the best. Stellar in different ways, but both stellar.
But most of the people in this thread aren’t arguing anything remotely analogous to that.
Hypotheticals are interesting questions but ultimately unanswerable and pointless. If Mickey Mantle had good knees AND had gotten help for his alcoholism he might have hit 750 homers. And if he’d played in the 1990s and 2000s he might have hit 900, who knows. But he did have bad knees and he was a gin monkey, so that’s that. He hit 536 homers and did all the other things he did and that has a given value.
I suppose you could hypothesize that Musial would have been an even better fielder had he been left at one position. But he wasn’t. You could hypothesize that Mays would have been a lesser fielder had he been asked to move around, but he wasn’t.
They did exactly what they did and the question at hand is whether Musial was a greater player than Mays. I find the question very interesting; if you don’t, fair enough, but why stop us from discussing it?
Serious answer. Because when a player reaches a certain level of achievement, simple stats become less and less meaningful and people start arguing stats that are less and less indicative of the players’ real contributions.
In the 1954 World Series, Mays made The Catch. In the '73 Series, he lost several fly balls in the sun, falling down while trying to catch one of them. Which stat is more important?
Mays batted into 251 double plays, Musial into 243. Mays had 338 stolen bases to Musial’s 78. Mays had more home runs, Musial more doubles, triples, RBI’s and total bases. Musial was credited with 35 sacrifice hits (not flies) while Mays was given 13. Which one was a bigger all around offensive threat?
When you get to those levels of greatness, the question ultimately boils down to “who would you rather have on your team?”, which puts you right into hypothetical territory.