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

[Paul S]

With all the talk about Joe D and Williams, Mantle and Mays...

[hammer]

62 World Series tells all.

[auggiedoggy]

Originally Posted by hammer

62 World Series tells all.

A career isn't defined by one series.

[EvilKing00]

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

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by hammer

62 World Series tells all.

Should be known, Mays doubled with 2 outs in the 9th of game 7. It should've scored Alou with the tying run but Maris made a great play cutting it off and getting it back to the infield. Mays would've been the winning run had McCovey's liner made through the infield.

[nolemmings]

62 World Series tells all.

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.

[sycks22]

Mays hands down.

[ElCabron]

Mays, no question. Not close. Name a single aspect of the game that Mantle was better at.

The one area Mantle dominated in would be postseason hitting. But what would that comparison be with Mays on the Yankees and Mantle on the Giants? Would anyone say Mantle is a better hitter than Williams? Of course not. But Mantle crushes Williams based on postseason alone.

-Ryan

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by NoizeBringer

Mays, no question. Not close. Name a single aspect of the game that Mantle was better at.

The one area Mantle dominated in would be postseason hitting. But what would that comparison be with Mays on the Yankees and Mantle on the Giants? Would anyone say Mantle is a better hitter than Williams? Of course not. But Mantle crushes Williams based on postseason alone.

-Ryan

Hitting homeruns that went over 500 feet

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by NoizeBringer

Mays, no question. Not close. Name a single aspect of the game that Mantle was better at.

-Ryan

Getting on base, the Mick has a much higher OBP.

[itjclarke]

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? .

I think he was using the '62 series as argument for Mantle.

[nolemmings]

Ryan,

I argued this with you and Al two Cleveland Nationals ago (when Don Larsen got in a fight at the hotel bar) and you were just as wrong then as you are now. Hopefully Al has seen the light.

Mantle could hit the ball farther (BOTH WAYS) and could run faster. He had a stronger arm. Most importantly and by a wide margin, he was more CLUTCH.

[ElCabron]

Todd,

I agree that Mantle was more clutch. By a wide margin. And I do believe clutch hitting is real. I'm not so sure he was faster than Mays. Maybe pre-injury. I'm also not sure he had a better arm. But you couldn't really be trying to say that Mantle was better than Mays defensively, could you?

Trivia: Who had the fewest 100-RBI seasons in their career out of the following players:

* Mickey Mantle
* Bob Meusel
* Dolph Camilli
* Vic Wertz
* Rudy York
* Del Ennis
* Steve Garvey
* Danny Tartabull
* Moises Alou
* Magglio Ordonez

-Ryan

[brian1961]

We all have our favorites.

We all have aspects in baseball that are more important to us than others.

We all are much affected by what we've seen , read, and heard from those we trusted and respected. That includes whether we have actually met the given athlete, which can have a profound affect upon us, if the encounter goes "I'll never wash my hand again or forget this day for the rest of my life" or "I made him into a monument in my heart and he just took a sledgehammer and shattered it to pieces. I don't like him anymore. I'll give away or sell any baseball cards I have of him."

There is no answer, per se. We could argue this, heatedly, until we are all blue in the face.

I watched Willie Mays on TV play my Cubs from 67-on. I liked him, respected him, and he was a great player. But in the clutch he fell apart like a Dollar General toy. A few years after he came to Frisco, he had yet to produce any of the New York numbers the fans thought they were going to see. The Frisco boo-birds let loose with tremendous booing. It got under Willie's skin. It got to the point where he asked and then demanded that owner Horace Stoneham move IN the outfield fence at the key areas where his long balls were hit. Mr. Stoneham complied. Can you imagine? The whining crybaby!

I believe the renovations were erected beginning with the 1961 season. Mr. Mays began to hit more home runs--it was very apparent the friendlier Candlestick Park right field porch was having a major effect upon the sensitive slugger. That year Willie hit 40 home runs; he would do so for several years after that. To be sure, Say Hey hit lottsa HRS at other ballparks, but I believe he began hitting more at home, and it was a confidence boost that helped him do better at the other parks.

Still, when the pressure was on during the '62 Series, Willie was a pricked balloon. Mick had an awful Series too, agreed. However, Mr. Mantle had so many other Series appearances where he came through this clutch time remarkably well--great Series performances! Even though they lost '60 and '64, Mickey helped make them so memorable, thrilling, and close by his spectacular play.

This will not count for some. I began collecting in 1961. I lived in a neutral area, the suburbs of Chicago. All the kids would be excited to get a Willie Mays baseball card, but they absolutely HAD to get Mickey Mantle's card in any given year. No one card, certainly not Willie Mays, was worth even up to Mickey Mantle in the hearts of all the kids I was around, and that was a lot of kids.

Most of you talk about Mantle as if he had lousy career hampered by booze, broads, and not taking care of himself. As teammate Hank Bauer retorted in frustration to someone expressing the same thing, look what he did anyway. The numbers are there. The many World Series rings were well-earned and his to wear.

Honestly, I believe if the Giants had remained in New York Willie would have produced much more impressive numbers. More so if Leo Durocher had remained his manager. The vast, and yet cozy Polo Grounds was tailor-made for Willie's extremely wide range. He could make impossible fielding plays, and make them look so exciting to watch. Sure, he did that at Frisco, but his hitting just didn't measure up or look as awe-inspiring as at Polo, where with his speed and its far reaches he turned many hits into doubles and triples. That kind of stuff made Mays a legend.

Guess I never came out and answered the question. I want Mickey Mantle!!!!

[sycks22]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Ryan,

I argued this with you and Al two Cleveland Nationals ago (when Don Larsen got in a fight at the hotel bar) and you were just as wrong then as you are now. Hopefully Al has seen the light.

Mantle could hit the ball farther (BOTH WAYS) and could run faster. He had a stronger arm. Most importantly and by a wide margin, he was more CLUTCH.

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.

[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).