[LouGehrig]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

nan:


These sorts of comments have almost no value at all. It requires hundreds and hundreds of games and the compiling of stats to detect superiority among players. "Having seen them both"...big wow.

Know what the difference is between a .300 hitter and a .275 hitter over 600 at bats is? The .300 hitter had 180 hits, the .275 hitter had 165 hits.

Fifteen hits spread out over six months, that is less than one more hit a week for the .300 hitter. If you watched every game all year, but did not keep track of the stats, you would not be able to distinguish the .300 hitter from the .275 hitter. I'm going to guess that you didn't watch every game.

Consequently, while you may believe that having seen them play now and again qualifies you as a judge, you are badly fooling yourself. The proper way to go about this evaluation is to do what WilsonC did, examine the numbers in a clinical way, accounting for the differing standards of the era. Employing this methodology, Mantle emerges as the superior player. This methodology has some actual merit. "I saw both of them play" does not.

Right. Variables that statistics cannot control should merely be ignored. I agree.