DiMaggio Was Better Than Mickey

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

You are an embarrassment. [And to give you a hint: I am not the embarrassed party].

And in another upset, nan resorts to substituting a reasonable response with name calling.

And as usuaul, I will assume your absense of response is indicative of your being unable to answer.

In fact, my original thesis remains intact. "I saw them play" is a worthless, anecdotal argument when comparing DiMaggio and Mantle.

[WilsonC]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

When I tallied DiMaggio's negative outs [K+HIDP] I factored in the years the DP stat was not recorded at a higher than average rate for J.D., so the 11.36% figure contains that padded input.

The difference between 30.9% and 11.36% of total outs is significant.

Agreed, by statistical regression it can be illustrated that a K > regular out on a scale of @ 1%. However, this is due to circumstances in which the K may be agreed by all parties to be just an out. The hurtful artithmetic factor of a K is a matter of circumstance. I do not attempt to make more of it than this:

.........A K, except for rare occurrences can reasonably be presumed to be unprductive. I does not hold promise for advancing a runner. A ground out, a fly out, a sacrifice, may move a runner[s] up, perhaps even drive in a run.

The way I counted the two was: K = 1 unproductive out; HIDP = 1 unproductive out [NOT 2, it is simply 1 added out . normal routine out].

This context gives more credibility to the 31% - 11% out differential point I tried to make.

To expand on the difference in K rates, I took a look at some bases occupied stats for an arbitrary middle-of-the-order hitter with an RBI reputation (Joe Carter, in this example - I checked around to a handful of other middle-of-the-order hitters, and the numbers seem pretty typical based on the eyeballing test).

Carter had runners on in roughly 50% of his plate appearances. Of those, the splits were:
1-- ..... 38%
-2- ..... 20%
--3 ..... 9%
12- ..... 14%
1-2 ..... 8%
-23 ..... 5%
123 ..... 5%

There is also very little difference in the distribution of at bats with 0, 1, or 2 outs. I don't have the specific permutations, but let's keep it simple and keep an even distribution of outs to base-situations, shall we?

Per 162 games, Joe had only 34 K to Mickey's 115 K, a big difference of 81 K. With no runners on base, or with two outs, there is no difference between th K and the batted-ball out. Assuming the same base-out situations, we can expect that means there we can expect a difference of about 40 extra times per 162 games that Joe put the ball in play on an out, as compared to Mickey, and if we take a third of those to be with 2 outs, we have a difference of 27. Let's divide those up:

1-- ..... 11
-2- ..... 6
--3 ..... 3
12- ..... 4
1-2 ..... 3
-23 ..... 2
123 ..... 2

Note that all fractions have been rounded up, hence the imbalance in the numbers.

Now, with only a runner on first, it's quite a bit less common to see a runner advance on an out-in-play - unless it's a bunt or a hit & run ground ball out, the lead runner will usually be out, or fail to advance on a flyball. That makes 33 runners with a reasonable chance to move up a base. Not all of them will advance, but lets assume that every one of these runners does advance on Joe's contact. This is an extreme assumption, but I'll use it anyway, just to see what happens. The advancement could be abstracted as adding 33 total bases to Joe's seasonal averages (as compared to Mickey).

If we compare that to a double play, the DP has two effects: it adds an out, and it subtracts a baserunner. That can be shown by turning one walk into an out. Per 162 games (using Joe's known career numbers to fill in the mising three years) Joe hit into an average of 17 DP's to Mickey's 8. That's a difference of 9 DP's in Mickey's favor. If we apply these comparative modifications to Dimaggio's numbers, we end up with the following:

Dimaggio: .320/.381/.620 (1.001) (actual .325/.398/.579 (.977) )
Mantle: .298/.421/.557 (.978) (no change)

As we can see from this, the impact of these "negative outs" (using a fairly liberal assumption for advancing runners) Joe does, in fact, gain ground, upping his slugging and OPS, but decreasing his OBP (relative to Mantle). Running these modified numbers through the RC/27 formula, I arrived at 9.0 for Dimaggio, compared to an unmodified total for Mickey. That is a definite difference, and it does close the gap a little, but Mantle's offense still comes out ahead, even before adjusting for era.

That's the difference between relative extremes in terms of K rates. It's not a trivial difference, but it's also not all that big a difference. The thing to remember about K rates is that even guys who K a lot usually put the ball in play. There are bases to be gained for outs on balls in play, but all players put the ball in play with regularity. There are two problems with perception here:
- Failures in these situations tend to stick in our mind, creating a more negative perception of the K than is reality.
- Most of the tangible benefit to avoiding K's tends to manifest itself in a player's batting average.

Dimaggio probably did help his team quite a bit by putting the ball in play and advancing runners, but the difference between him and other hitters in that regard is also probably overstated.

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

And in another upset, nan resorts to substituting a reasonable response with name calling.

And as usuaul, I will assume your absense of response is indicative of your being unable to answer.

In fact, my original thesis remains intact. "I saw them play" is a worthless, anecdotal argument when comparing DiMaggio and Mantle.

The above [ludicrously] is a bit like condemning the Old Testament contributor, who expressed: [Genesis I: 3]:

"God said, 'Let there be light," and there was light. God saw the light was good.'" ...

on the grounds that the game is over because God is portrayed as being foolish in not knowing light was good until He had created it.

By way of context [always a reasonably good thing to consider] the article made passing reference to the fact that there are diminishing numbers of those around today who had had the opportunity to see both men play - live.

In that context, I framed my remark, equally as offhanded, to allow that we may be diminishing in number but not all gone.

At NO point did I introduce that as a particular credential or cachet for instant infallibility; only your warped and self-centered sensibility perceived otherwise, and in typical fashion, attempted to hijack the thread making me the topic and you the ultimate evaluator.

My own posts have been well supported with various statistics; and when I've stated an opinion, I've introduced that as such. You contribute nothing but your own dyspeptic, bilious conceit.

Which is reason enough to ignore you from here on out.

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

When I tallied DiMaggio's negative outs [K+HIDP] I factored in the years the DP stat was not recorded at a higher than average rate for J.D., so the 11.36% figure contains that padded input.

The difference between 30.9% and 11.36% of total outs is significant.

Agreed, by statistical regression it can be illustrated that a K > regular out on a scale of @ 1%. However, this is due to circumstances in which the K may be agreed by all parties to be just an out. The hurtful artithmetic factor of a K is a matter of circumstance. I do not attempt to make more of it ...

...The way I counted the two was: K = 1 unproductive out; HIDP = 1 unproductive out [NOT 2, it is simply 1 added out . normal routine out].

This context gives more credibility to the 31% - 11% out differential point I tried to make.

Wilson C:

I believe the above fairly well comports with your detailed study of K out distributions, in that the K as harmless out is more a matter of small volume situations offensive threat situations against a larger volume of aggregated two out situations, the threat of potential DP and other counterbalances.

A guy at the plate who K's 30 times in a 600 AB season, with a runner on 3b and less than 2 out is a safer bet to bring in the run than his slugging teammate who fans 120 times in the same number of ABs.

Similarly, any situation where contact can move a runner or runners along [or not], at least he has the added, if slight chance, that the defense may make an error.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Which is reason enough to ignore you from here on out.

I have requested this status from you several times in the past and have been met by your refusal. Have you at last made my dream come true?

[WilsonC]

On a conceptual level, the K lacks aethetics from the hitter's standpoint, which can make it seem more negative. I like to look at the K as being the "neutral" out, in that it's an out and nothing more. (all outs have a negative factor to them - the K starts from this baseline)

From that standpoint, the DP then becomes the clear "negative" out - it always results in two outs, and always either ends an inning or wipes a runner off base. Other ball-in-play outs become "situationally positive" - giving a chance to add some value.

Using the K as a baseline for the out seems makes more conceptual sense to me. In that sense, Mantle had 71% "potentially positive" outs (outs minus K), and about 1.9% "negative". In comparisson Dimaggio had 92% "potentially positive" outs and about 3.7% "negative". It's a different way of framing the same data, but it seems a truer conceptual image.

[nanwynnfan]

I have no essential argument with that approach, since I'm not trying to inflate the negative impact of the K, merely to acknowledge that, as a gap between hitters rises significantly, all other things beings comparable, the contact guy gets an edge.

[bedir than average]

but things aren't equal one of them managed to get many more total bases per year, even when adjusted for context than the other.

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by bedir than average

but things aren't equal one of them managed to get many more total bases per year, even when adjusted for context than the other.

Not very clear to whom that was addressed, bedir; but I never said things were "equal" [I deliberately selected the word "comparable" which connotes degrees of dissimilarity open to comparison].

My point is that, at levels of elite and near elite batting stardom, the production of total bases at a level approaching or surpassing 300 in a season, will outweigh fewer offset by many walks.

Williams, Ruth, Gehrig, and more recently Bonds, would support that contention ... walking a ton and still putting up multi >300 TB years.

[bedir than average]

Ok, still in this case the lower strike out guy gets fewer total bases than the higher k guy, so I'm unwilling to delve into the snake oil of productive outs.

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by bedir than average

Ok, still in this case the lower strike out guy gets fewer total bases than the higher k guy, so I'm unwilling to delve into the snake oil of productive outs.

Except that this is not true. Mickey Mantle gathered 4,511 TB in 8,102 charged AB's to equal .555 bases per charged AB. DiMaggio totaled 3.948 TB in 6,821 charged AB for a rate of .579.

The production of TB by a contact hitter not given to drawing walks will always have the added edge simply because the more batted balls one puts in play, the higher the chances he has of creating additional total bases. A K creates no such opportunity.

For a hitter like DiMaggio, the comparatively low BB rate in a season [70-80] vs a Mantle [100-120] similarly suggests more batted ball in play AB with a higher yield of TB.

However, the truly great ones do both: Ruth, Gehrig, Bonds, Williams, Foxx, a young, sound Griffey.

Modern players at this level, including Griffey, tend NOT to meet this hig BB; high TB model because they [A-Rod; Griffey; Vlad] tend to walk less, falling between a DiMaggio level and a Mantle level and make contact less consistently than JD.

[kflo]

rc/27 edge goes to mantle by small margin for career, material margin at peak. mantle had 4 seasons 12.9 or greater, with a high of 15.5. joe's career high was 12.1.

eqa, ops+ and btRuns goes to mantle by a material margin for both career and peak.

i don't think it's really possible to argue balls in play make up that difference. not offensively.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by WilsonC

From that standpoint, the DP then becomes the clear "negative" out - it always results in two outs, and always either ends an inning or wipes a runner off base. Other ball-in-play outs become "situationally positive" - giving a chance to add some value.

Using the K as a baseline for the out seems makes more conceptual sense to me. In that sense, Mantle had 71% "potentially positive" outs (outs minus K), and about 1.9% "negative". In comparisson Dimaggio had 92% "potentially positive" outs and about 3.7% "negative". It's a different way of framing the same data, but it seems a truer conceptual image.

I guess the only thing that keeps the strikeout as being almost identical to groundouts would be its avoidance of the DP. So this would mean that fly outs are worth more offensively than G and K. But then, SF are recorded, as are RBI, so utilizing these factors it should properly reward those with more F, particularly of the deeper variety.

This raises another question about DP's, but I'll put that in a new thread.

[LouGehrig]

Originally Posted by WilsonC

Joe was certainly a better fielder, but as a hitter, Mickey was better. Dimaggio struck out less, but Mantle made outs less frequently, which is far more important. It is a fair call to give Dimaggio credit for the time he missed due to the war, which would put him somewhere around 450 HR and largely close the gap in terms of raw numbers - but raw numbers don't tell the story very well here.

Throughout Dimaggio's career, the average hitter hit .276/.354/.405, compared to Joe's .325/.398/.579. His OPS was .977, compared to the league .752. Those are excellent numbers, but how do they compare to Mickey? Mantle hit .298/.421/.557 in a league that hit .256/.329/.386. His OPS was almost identical to Joe's at .978, but the league he played in hit substancially lower at .715. Joe's BA was about 18% higher than the league's, his OBP 12% higher, and his SLG 43% higher. Mickey's BA was 16% higher than the leagues, his OBP was 28% higher, and his SLG 44% higher. As we can see, the differences in batting average and slugging percentage are almost entirely due to the fact that Mickey played much of his career when pitching dominated - relative to the league, the differences in these areas are marginal. Relative to the league, however, Mantle's on-base percentage was more than twice as far above average as Joe's. That's a pretty big advantage for Mantle. Any argument for Dimaggio needs to be based around his defensive advantages.

All excellent points, but the level of the competition must be taken into account, and that presents problems. Did DiMaggio or Mantle compete against better hitters? Against better pitchers?

[LouGehrig]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Having seen them both [Joe both pre-War and post-War], I'd give the overall edge to Joe DiMaggio.

The comparisons to "hitting climate" may have some satisfying leveling of comps mathematically; but there are other considerations that counterbalance the simple math.

If we take a .276 BA "career climate" vs. .258, we're talking 18 hits over 1,000 AB or 9 hits per season over 2 500 AB seasons. Then we enter the debate: was the hitting better; or were the hitters facing lame pitchers compared to polished pros?

Joe was a fine defensive CF; but he was not among the elite defenders of his era, generally ranking in the top 2-3 in League, 0r #4-5 counting both leagues. He got a great jump, his speed disguised by gazelle-like smooth strides that helped gain him the name "Yankee Clipper" after the beautifully designed flying boats that glided in the water as easily as they did on air.
He had a strong, accurate arm.

Mickey got a slower jump on the batted ball; did not always run thebes angles to the ball; and he had a very strong arm, often tending to be far less accurate than Joe's.

At the plate, while renowned for his power, Mickey Mantle had fewer >300 total bases seasons [5] than did Joe D. [9]. In runs created per plate appearance Mickey [.2057] edges Joe [.2045] so that over 600 PA Mickey might create 123.42 runs vs. Joe's 122.70.

Here the defense runs saved by Joe > Mickey wipes out that small offensive edge into Joe's favor. Overall, defensively, MM was marginally below average, year by year, while Joe was a few DR above average per year.

Now, which for me makes a great deal of difference on the offensive side, is the nature of the outs made, in which DiMaggio's K+HIDP = .1136, while MM K+HIDP outs = .3090 of total plate appearances.

You may marginalize and dilute those numbers all you like; but a K or hit into DP generally move nobaody anywhere but back to the bench and have little chance for positive offensive outcome.

You have one player, not known as "slugger,: who has 11.36% unproductive outs; vs. a slugger with 30.9% such outs, that's large [especially when the former puts up a career SLG% @ .579, to the latter's .557].

You make excellent points, especially with respect to the nature of outs.