Who was better, who would you take, Mickey Mantle or Willie Mays?

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by bbsports

If your looking at stats, it's Willie Mays. With the help of Joe DiMaggio in 1951, started a series of injuries for Mantle that carried him through his entire career. There's no telling what Mantle could have done if healthy.

Well said, totally agree....

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by sycks22

Could run faster? Maybe before he blew his knee out early in his career. 153 to 338 in favor of Mays for stolen bases too doesn't help your cause.

I believe he did have the fastest home to first, home to 3rd, etc times ever recorded up to that point. That said, those were all hand times, which are pretty unreliable.
(I even ran a hand timed 4.6 40 yarder once, but I know damn well I was never truly 4.6 fast)

I still vote Mays by a long shot.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Mickey Mantle once admitted that Mays was the better of the two - or was Mickey just being overly modest?

[bfrench00]

11.2 1965 mays best season
11.3 1956 and 57, mantles best seasons

Mays a better career. mantle had more talent, just out partying too much and injury prone. mays didnt have the same off the field issues. if mantle used his head like mays, this wouldnt have been a conversation. mantle would be the BEST ATHLETE OF ALL TIME. when the mick was healthy and sober there was no one better, ever.

[sbfinley]

While you were busy assembling the case for Mays, Mantle homered twice and tore up Broadway.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bfrench00

...mays didnt have the same off the field issues. if mantle used his head like mays, this wouldnt have been a conversation. mantle would be the BEST ATHLETE OF ALL TIME. when the mick was healthy and sober there was no one better, ever.

??? You mean if Mantle had drank less and gambled more? That would have been using his head.

[itjclarke]

Drinking/partying/injuries have to be fully taken into account when reviewing players' careers (unless the question were to specify, "who would you take at the beginning of their careers based on potential?", or "during their peak years". Mantle/Ruth and others were able to overcome their vices and have amazing HOF careers... But guys like Bobby Bonds (alcoholism), pegged as Willie Mays' heir, and countless others were not able to realize their full potential due to lifestyle/fluke injuries/death. I mean Brien Taylor might have been the next Sandy Koufax if he hadn't torn his rotator cuff in a bar brawl.

Adding- Still vote Mays.

[mr2686]

Mays had 2 mvp's and 12 gold gloves, while Mantle had 3 mvps 1 gold glove and a major league triple crown. Mays made the WS catch that took the wind out of Cleveland before they could even get going. Mantle made the WS catch to save Larson's perfect game.
I think either one would be a nice addition to your team as a centerfielder...until Paul Blair came along

[packs]

I would rather have Mickey. Besides being a great player and folk hero, he seems like he would have been fun to hang out with. Plus Willie played for the Mets rather than retire, so he doesn't have good judgement.

Edited to add I would definitely take Ken Griffey Jr. over both of them and we'd probably have a good time talking about that Simpsons episode.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by packs

I would rather have Mickey. Besides being a great player and folk hero, he seems like he would have been fun to hang out with. Plus Willie played for the Mets rather than retire, so he doesn't have good judgement.

Do doubt he would have been more fun to hang out with, but so would Billy Martin. That last sentence above, is hilarious. I remember getting the Sports Illustrated in the mail that had a photo of Mays in a Mets uniform - it was surreal.

Originally Posted by packs

Edited to add I would definitely take Ken Griffey Jr. over both of them and we'd probably have a good time talking about that Simpsons episode.

Griffey provided two memorable 'I was at the game' moments for me: I saw his last HR, which was a Jeteresque quick whip over the right-field wall, and I was also at a game that he didn't start, where I turned to my girlfriend and said, "Hey, now you get to see Griffey!", knowing he was the appropriate PH in that situation. But alas, he was sleeping.

[Rickyy]

Can't go wrong with either guy.... I'm still amazed Willie racked up a lot of impressive numbers stat wise and also played pretty good defense and catching a lot of tough balls playing in crappy, blustery Candlestick Park for all those years...

Ricky Y

[quinnsryche]

7 over 24

[EvilKing00]

Mays IMO was the better player, but thats no knock on mick.

[Exhibitman]

The question is context-dependent. If you are asking me to evaluate the Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays as prospects, I would take Mantle every time. He was rocket-fast and could hit with power from both sides. As a prospect he was a once in a lifetime player. After he tore up his knee, became an alcoholic, and started the cycle of abuse and injuries, his value sank quickly. Mays was not as great a prospect as Mantle but by the late 1950s had eclipsed Mantle in terms of value. Mantle's WAR numbers fell off dramatically after 1957. Mantle had 5 seasons with WAR > 8. Mays had 11 seasons with WAR > 8. By the time Mantle was 30 he was basically a good starting player. Mays was an exceptional player until he was 35 and a good starting player until he reached 40. As peak players, Mantle was measurably better. Mays's line for his greatest year [1954]:

1954 151 641 565 119 195 33 13 41 110 8 5 66 57 .345 .411 .667 1.078

WAR: 10.6

Mays had a higher WAR in 1965 [11.2] and his line there wasn't too shabby either:

1965 157 638 558 118 177 21 3 52 112 9 4 76 71 .317 .398 .645 1.043

Mantle's line for his [1956]:

1956 150 652 533 132 188 22 5 52 130 10 1 112 99 .353 .464 .705 1.169

WAR: 11.3

Of course, until either of them can go 18-8, 23-12 and 24-13 and pitch 31 innings with a 0.87 ERA in the World Series, and hit .342 with 714 HRs, neither of them is fit to carry Babe Ruth's bag.

[HRBAKER]

I'd rather have Mays on my team and rather go drinking with Mickey.

[Tao_Moko]

Man, this is tough. I'm going with Mantle because his triple crown year was amazing. I have to keep it that simple or I'll change my mind.

[CW]

Originally Posted by 39special

I have never seen either one play,but on what I have read Mays would be my pick.
I do alot of TTM's,and always ask questions.I wrote to J.W.Porter not to long ago.
He played from '52-'59 and asked him who the best all around player he ever saw was.

Damn, what a cool letter on many levels. He was kind enough to fill up the entire space with his answers, he named both players in this thread as #1 and #2, he loved Tiger Stadium (the coolest ballpark ever ), and he finishes the letter off with a poignant note.... "Thanks for remembering"

Thanks for posting.

[pepis]

One was a champion and the other wasn't

i saw them both play a lot however i did see Willie more often!

that's right i saw the Dodgers consistently take out Willie
and go out to loose to Mickey.

[Exhibitman]

C'mon Jose, it is a team sport. Dimaggio's Yankees won 10 pennants in his 13 active years. Is he better than Mays?

By that logic, Ernie Banks and Ted Willams stank on ice.

[ElCabron]

The Yankees won 3 championships in the 4 years immediately PRIOR to Mantle's arrival. So they were kinda good without him.

Still, Mantle's World Series hitting should absolutely be considered. And being the best player on the best team does mean something. But none of that, or having been a great prospect at one point, adds up to him being better than Mays. And for the record, I am not a Mays guy.

Career WAR:

Mays 156.1
Mantle 109.7

-Ryan

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by NoizeBringer

Career WAR:

Mays 156.1
Mantle 109.7

-Ryan

Career WAR isn't a good statistic to throw out there. It highly favors players who have longer careers. A much better one is avg. WAR per season.

Cy Young has the second highest career WAR, not many would argue he is the second best player ever.

[ElCabron]

I wouldn't even argue that Cy Young is one of the top 10 pitchers of all-time. The first part of his career was spent in a statistically different era. The second part in the dead ball era. His numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. One of the greats, without question. Doesn't even belong in the discussion of "greatest," in my opinion. I know that will be an unpopular view on this board.

I get the point about looking at average yearly performance vs. aggregate numbers, but there is also something to be said for sustained excellence. I'm not talking about mere longevity. No one is trying to say Jim Kaat was better than Sandy Koufax. But Mantle would have to have been MUCH better than Mays on the average to make up for how far behind his career numbers are. And he just wasn't.

I'm assuming you consider Mark McGwire to be the all-time home run king, right? He's the all-time career leader in HR per AB.

-Ryan

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by Jlighter

Career WAR isn't a good statistic to throw out there. It highly favors players who have longer careers. A much better one is avg. WAR per season.

Cy Young has the second highest career WAR, not many would argue he is the second best player ever.

I think WAR is a pretty shaky, overvalued, over calculated stat that attempts to yield an oversimplified number.. This is just my opinion of course, but it reminds me of those annoying BCS formulas. I'd rather just make my own determination, while looking at 5-10 key stats.. and of course ideally see the guy play.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Rickyy

Can't go wrong with either guy.... I'm still amazed Willie racked up a lot of impressive numbers stat wise and also played pretty good defense and catching a lot of tough balls playing in crappy, blustery Candlestick Park for all those years...

Ricky Y

This is on the money. Mays played in a park with swirling winds that killed home runs---but he was still Willie Mays. Best player of his era.

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by NoizeBringer

I wouldn't even argue that Cy Young is one of the top 10 pitchers of all-time. The first part of his career was spent in a statistically different era. The second part in the dead ball era. His numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. One of the greats, without question. Doesn't even belong in the discussion of "greatest," in my opinion. I know that will be an unpopular view on this board.

I get the point about looking at average yearly performance vs. aggregate numbers, but there is also something to be said for sustained excellence. I'm not talking about mere longevity. No one is trying to say Jim Kaat was better than Sandy Koufax. But Mantle would have to have been MUCH better than Mays on the average to make up for how far behind his career numbers are. And he just wasn't.

I'm assuming you consider Mark McGwire to be the all-time home run king, right? He's the all-time career leader in HR per AB.

-Ryan

You're right in the point of sustained excellence being a factor.

I guess the question might need some refinement.

Does Better=Talent?

If so the answer is Mantle.

Or is it more total numbers/career based?

If we were to give Mays a polygraph test and ask him if he would rather have 600+ HRs 3000+ hits and one championship or Mantle's numbers and seven championships what do you think his answer would be?

[dabigyankeeman]

In the 1950's i lived across the street from a scout for the Phillies, and this was before Mantle's leg got really bad, and he said the word in baseball was that Mickey was better than Mays, but it was damn close.

Obviously once Mantle's legs got almost crippled, Mays was better. I feel a healthy Mantle was a little bit better than Mays. But as a Yankee fan i admit that i am prejudiced.

[Sean]

I just want to add some pictures to what is a great thread:

scan0032.jpg

[midwaylandscaping]

Even as a Yankee fan, I still say Mays

[obcbobd]

Mays

Mantle MIGHT have had more talent and MIGHT have accomplished more if he'd taken better care of himself.

But he didn't

[CW]

Nice cards, Sean! You've inspired me, too.

[ullmandds]

I agree with much that has been said...mickey was more dominant when healthy...and did have how many world series rings? 7 or 8?...but Mays had a longer...more fruitful career numberswise!

[Delray Vintage]

Both great players, but Mays did it much longer, Mantle was and is more of a legend based on yankee status. Had I had to choose one in their prime I would take Mantle. Of course Mays stayed great into his late 30's, Mantle lost his skills at 34 or so.

[Theo_450]

I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but I recently learned of Mantle's medical condition that was discovered in high school. He was playing football when he got kicked in the shin. If it weren't for the newly available antibiotic penicillin, his leg would have been amputated. Osteomyelitis is a bone disease that he struggled with his entire career. In those days, he self medicated with booze (it was that, or morphine). Not trying to glorify him over Mays (and definitely not his drinking), but they were both truly great. I feel this is important information about the Mick that I have not seen anyone else bring up.

I hit a triple once. I felt pretty good about that.

[Theo_450]

Originally Posted by Theo_450

I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but I recently learned of Mantle's medical condition that was discovered in high school. He was playing football when he got kicked in the shin. If it weren't for the newly available antibiotic penicillin, his leg would have been amputated. Osteomyelitis is a bone disease that he struggled with his entire career. In those days, he self medicated with booze (it was that, or morphine). Not trying to glorify him over Mays (and definitely not his drinking), but they were both truly great. I feel this is important information about the Mick that I have not seen anyone else bring up.

I hit a triple once. I felt pretty good about that.

Tried to edit and add this. Couldn't do it, so I had to quote myself.

[GoldenAge50s]

Sports are full of the "what if" arguments, but because of WHAT Mickey accomplished w/ the bad health he had from Day One to the end of his career, it just doesn't apply here.

It's a "given" that he would have overshadowed Mays in just about every category had he had the health that Aaron, Mays, Musial, Banks, Kaline, et al. were blessed with because of what he DID do for 18 yrs.

(Another example where the "what if" doesn't apply is the career of Ted Williams and the 5 yrs lost while in service. Because of what he DID do from beginning to end, you can safely add figures for those 5 yrs and know it would have happened.)

Mickey over Mays and maybe the most electrifying player ever!

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

That's hilarious. You mean the series where Mays hit .250 with no HR and 1 RBI? Wow, epic.

True Mantle stunk in that series. But whose team won? Mays played in 4 World Series and hit zero home runs with 6 RBI, batting under .240. Mantle played in 3 World Series with no home runs; of course he also played in 9 others with 18 Home Runs and 40 RBI . Seven World's Championships to 1, and 12 World Series to 4. We're supposed to focus on what actually happened and not what could have, right? Scoreboard.

A previous poster correctly noted that Mantle's peak years--12 seasons-were notably better than Mays. That sample size is large enough for me, and other than possibly Dimaggio's 1937 season, I do not believe any CF could match Mickey's 1956 campaign. I would like to hear from those who played against both, especially pitchers. I doubt it would be close. Mantle was pitched very carefully, and walked more than 100 times in 10 seasons, including his broken down final two. Mays walked 100 times or more exactly once in 22 years.

I'm with this guy. Mays has better career totals, yes-- but his peak wasn't on Mantle's level. I'd take peak and postseason performance over longevity, because you can win titles with peaks as high as Mantle's were, and with WS performances like that. And winning titles is what you play for.

How about looking at their 162 game averages? They are virtually deadlocked in this regard, with numbers so similar it is almost eerie-- except Mantle has a pretty substantial lead in OBP, BB, OPS(+).

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I'm with this guy. Mays has better career totals, yes-- but his peak wasn't on Mantle's level. I'd take peak and postseason performance over longevity, because you can win titles with peaks as high as Mantle's were, and with WS performances like that. And winning titles is what you play for.

How about looking at their 162 game averages? They are virtually deadlocked in this regard, with numbers so similar it is almost eerie-- except Mantle has a pretty substantial lead in OBP, BB, OPS(+).

I went onto Baseball Reference and averaged out what I thought to be each players' peak years, a relatively short 8 season window (1955-1962) for Mantle and a longer 12 season (1954-1965) window for Mays. Their numbers are nearly dead on.

HR R RBI AVE. SB OBP SLUG
40 118 109 .318 22 .392 .605 -- Mays
40 119 101 .314 14 .445 .616 -- Mantle


You can say Mantle had a slight edge because he got on base more often, but his peak is not "notably better" (responding to quote that's quoted in above post)... and Mays did more once he got on base, averaging 8 more steals per year. Just for fun, if you count an SB as a total base (a steal is just as valuable as a double), it would raise his OPS by more than 10 points. Then shift to defense and take a look at outfield assists during their respective peak years. Mantle had highs of 11 and 10 assists, which is respectable, but Mays had highs of 23, 17, 15, 14, 13, 12 and 11 during his peak seasons. His 5th tool definitely came in handy... and I'm guessing saved several runs.

I think had Mays played in 12 WS, he might have compiled more respectable postseason numbers. However, during his peak years the NL was absolutely LOADED. The Giants were always good, but had to content yearly with the Dodgers, Cards, Braves among others, while the Yankees were unparallelled in the AL during Mantle's prime. As is, Mays played in 4 series and batted .247... as compared to Mantle's .257 (give me Ruth or Reggie over both of them).

Regardless it is a very very close call.

[SteveMitchell]

Excellence and longevity wins for me! If I were a club owner or general manager, I'd take the guy who was outstanding for the longest period. In this debate, it would clearly be Willie Mays. In another posting, Ted Williams (over Joe DiMaggio).

[Edward]

Mick put more fans in the seats, I think. I'll go with Mick.

[Tanman7baseball]

Originally Posted by AMBST95

You can have all of the talent in the world, but if you can't harness it and actually use it, it's pointless. Willie Mays wins this one. The question you pose isn't who had the most talent, but who was better. Mays was better than Mantle as his career numbers clearly show.

Beautifully said. I know too many ballplayers in college and pro ball that had all the talent in the world but threw it away because of drugs, alcohol, and/or lack of determination... But I have to say if the Commerce Comet stayed healthy and had an extra an extra 3,000 plate appearances he would of done some unbelievable things. Mantle had a lot of freak accidents that hindered his career dramatically. Mickey Mantle wins my vote because I'm bias

[Tanman7baseball]

WILLIE MAYS
Hall Of Fame StatisticsPlayer rank in (·)
Black Ink Batting - 57 (21), Average HOFer ≈ 27
Gray Ink Batting - 337 (8), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 376 (5), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 76 (3), Average HOFer ≈ 50
JAWS Center Field (1st), 156.1 career WAR/73.6 7yr-peak WAR/114.8 JAWS
Average HOF CF (out of 18) = 70.5 career WAR/44.1 7yr-peak WAR/57.3 JAWS

VS.

MICKEY MANTLE
Hall Of Fame StatisticsPlayer rank in (·)
Black Ink Batting - 62 (15), Average HOFer ≈ 27
Gray Ink Batting - 272 (17), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 300 (15), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 65 (22), Average HOFer ≈ 50
JAWS Center Field (4th), 109.7 career WAR/64.8 7yr-peak WAR/87.2 JAWS
Average HOF CF (out of 18) = 70.5 career WAR/44.1 7yr-peak WAR/57.3 JAWS

(JAWS is what I go off of)

[travrosty]

Mickey mantle was one of the fastest players to ever play major league baseball.

[Mark]

Mays and it's not all that close. His WARP # is so high because he was hitting like a demon against National League pitching during the 1960's.

[travrosty]

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runnin...e_mays_tur.php

some comparisons to chew on.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by travrosty

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runnin...e_mays_tur.php

some comparisons to chew on.

I think the point that Willie's stature grows in part because of people's disgust of Barry Bonds is ridiculous. Mays has been revered and accepted as one of the greatest ever for decades. If anyone has gotten a public boost due to Bonds negative press, its Aaron, though Aaron absolutely deserves all (and much more) credit that he gets.

I think it is also silly that the author conveniently choses the 9 seasons Mantle was at his "physical peak" for comparison with Mays. Unfortunately those 9 seasons happen to exclude Mays' 1965 MVP season. This was possibly his best year ever, one in which he hit 52 HRs in a very tough HR ballpark, against guys like Drysdale/Koufax/Gibson/Bunning/etc. Seems like a pretty skewed comparison when you exclude a players' best year.

It also starts in 1954, basically Mays' 2nd season (following nearly 2 years military service). Mays did win the MVP and a WS in his 2nd full season, so it clearly didn't take him long to acclimate to the ML and become a top 3-5 player. I suspect however that the author chose these years not simply because both players were at their "physical peak", but mostly because they are clearly the years when Mantle was at peak production. If "physical peak" is the key, then why not start right in 1951 before Mantle's first major knee injury in that year's WS? Why exclude Mantle's healthy 1951/1952/1953 seasons? They were respectable seasons and he got better each year, eventually progressing into player he'd become. Probably because Mantle didn't begin producing at an MVP caliber until 1955. Per my earlier post, if you want to compare their peak production, just take Mantle's 1955-1962 and Mays' 1954-1965 average seasons. They're nearly dead on, Mantle beats him in OPS.. Mays steals more bases and does a whole lot more in CF.

Don't get me wrong, I love Mantle. My dad grew up in Oklahoma, watched him play minor league ball and from the time I was about 6, told me stories about about how amazing an athlete he was before his knees went on him. I also think at peak production, he compares well with Mays... but this article uses very one sided tactics to make its point.

[Fred]

Mays.

[mr2686]

If the question is who had the better stats at the end of the day, then yes Mays wins hands down. If, however, you're looking for the player you'd want on your team, then it's Mantle all the way. Johnny Blanchard once said, and I'll paraphrase, "you knew you could never be as good as him, but brother, he made you want to go out and try". I've never heard anyone say that of Mays.

[hammer]

I wanna see Mays bat lefthanded.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by hammer

I wanna see Mays bat lefthanded.

How Babe Ruth and Ted Williams right handed while we're at it

[GiantsDude24]

Hands down Mays was a better player and excelled for a much longer time then Mantle. He had 5 tool skills and hit for power and average. Mantle was a stud in his own right and could hit the ball a ton. Mays was quicker, the better fielder and had greater career longevity. Mantle had the health and drinking problems the latter of which was his own doing. So many "what-ifs" unfortunately for his career.
In terms of who I would rather have on my team it would have to be the Mick, great character, very personable and was just an all around great dude. New York fans loved him like a god.