DiMaggio Was Better Than Mickey

[LouGehrig]

They are among the greatest of all players, but Joe DiMaggio was a better hitter and a clearly superior fielder compared to Mickey. The facts support that contention.

DiMaggio Was Better Than Mantle: Both Are Among the Greats, But Joe Was Clearly Superior to Mickey

[kflo]

i'm not sure where he gets the idea that the majority think mickey was better than willie or joe.

and the article references baseball-reference, yet doesn't reference ops+, rc/g or btRns, which all give a lifetime and peak advantage to mickey.

[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.

[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].

[Grandstander]

nan:

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

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.

[nanwynnfan]

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.

"Big wow!" was an expression my kids used in the 4th-6th grades ober 35 years ago, alternating with "Big whoop," and "cut me a break."

Thus we start with a maturity level to be addressed. First, I did see Joe D. and MM sufficient times to form an opinion. Second, I lived through at least 1939 through 1970 as a fan with varying degrees of dedication. Third, I had the added advantage of seeing and hearing coverage by experts in the print, radio and tv media, expounding on the highlights and shortcoming of the two. There is something to be said of those old enough to have seen at first hand, stars conjectured about today in a world of spreadsheets and statistical regressions, if only to reintroduce the humani element of the eye witness.

: 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.

Here we encounter a poster so preoccupied with his own response that he displays how little he read [or comprehended] that to which he is responding. My own .276 vs. .258 comments for generation batting climates and relativity per 1000 AB just had to be ignored completely in the rush to clarify.

: 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.

You have no clue as to how often I watched them play. Wilson C can very well speak for himself; and he did offer comps from a particular perspective. However, since there are other viable perspectives, and any combination of serveral MAY arrive at a consensus of era standards [a question which I also raised].

Moreover, from the standpoint of player evaluation via direct observation, it's not how many times you saw players performs, but the personal savvy and perspective the spectator brings to each viweing. Scouts like "Bots" Nekola did not have to see every game a promising HS player or Astoria Silk Sox, or Queens Club, or Bushwick's player played, but several games with an informed eye as to what mattered.

I may not be "Bots" Nekola, but I learned stuff from him through my father and those who played with and against him. Still, the number of games I did see might surprise you.

Some would also agree that baseball is reluctant to yield to "clinical" analysis.

However, rather than fall into the ancient stereotype of "Hey, ther young'un - I seed 'em all; an' ya can take it to the bank- Joe Deee was a fur piece better'n the Mick," I offered some supporting data to my observations, which the responder did not.

Surprising the one priding himself so on being a student of history would display such a knee-jerk rejection of old-timers who are eye witnesses to events/people of interest, especially when they use the age a mere introduction to far more statistical analyses.

So, yes, I saw them both play; and, in the spirit of a forum, I again offer the informed opinion that Joe D edges MM overall, with the added modifiers:

-overall heads-up baserunning savvy;

-contact with much evidence of adjusting stroke and timing to present OB and out situations;

-leadership in the field by example;

[kflo]

the most important offensive measure you presented, imo (rc/27), nan, gives a slight advantage to mantle. era adjusted measures increase the differential fairly significantly.

the mick did also steal more bases, and particularly in his prime, at a very high rate.

they both have some significant advantages.

[Grandstander]

Bluster, sputter, outrage.....typical.

You aren't being reasonable here. Your data approach was okay, your defense of "I saw them play" is preposterous. And I notice you chided me for not knowing how often you saw them play, but failed to provide the particulars of how often you did see them play. Enough so tht you could detect the difference between 165 hits and 180 hits over the course of a season without keeping stats? And you were doing this for two different players who played in different eras? Get real.

[Triad]

Let's look at the arguments in the article:

When He Returned From the Army, DiMaggio Wasn't the Same Player

Joe DiMaggio joined the Yankees in 1936 and remained with them until he enlisted in the United States Army Air Forces following the 1942 season. DiMaggio missed three seasons when he was at the peak of his career and when he returned, he wasn’t the same. The following are data from his first seven seasons followed by data from his final six seasons.
Hello! He wasn't the same because he was 31 instead of 27! It's called getting older. It happens to everyone. And yet, DiMaggio did have three more excellent seasons after returning (he had four such excellent seasons before going into the military). The fact that he retired at age 36 has no suggested correlation to his military stint. Many who went into the war had long careers.

It is true that DiMaggio missed seasons that he would have played as a 28, 29, and 30-year old. This can be projected conservatively to extend in an area somewhere below his season before and his season after returning. I did a study on this, regarding what a missed season can be estimated at when you look at the season before and the season after. For the basic star player, the actual production from season to season comes out to around half of the value above league average as the average of the two sandwich seasons, regardless of age. In DiMaggio's case, he had three missed seasons, so we can multiply that by three. Let's keep in mind in all of this that DiMaggio's age 27 season was not as good as his 32, 33 and 35 seasons. It's not as if he was peaking at age 27.

For example, a player who has a 170 OPS in 1958 and a 150 OPS in 1960 will average out to having a 130 OPS in between the two, regardless of age. Half the amount above average, so half of (170+150)/2 above average is 160, or 100+(60/2), coming out to 130. This is the most that we can realistically expect for missed seasons.

First Seven Seasons

Batting Average: .337
Doubles: 206
Triples: 82
Home Runs: 219
RBIs: 930
OBA: .406
SA: .610

Final Six Seasons After Army

Batting Average : .304
Doubles: 146
Triples: 49
Home Runs: 142
RBIs: 607
OBA: .395
SA: .539
This is a silly comparison between a player's years in his 20s vs. his years in his 30s, not to mention DiMaggio missed half a season to injury at age 34.

No one can be certain about how many home runs he lost, but many of his deep drives, which would have been home runs in other parks, were caught, while others were not and resulted in either a triple or a double.
If it's true that DiMaggio was still trying to regularly hit long fly balls in Yankee Stadium to left-center field, then that would make him an unintelligent player, not an unlucky player. You can't pretend that the pitcher would have responded the same way in another stadium. Knowing the dimensions of Yankee Stadium, the pitcher probably wanted him to try to hit fly balls to left-center, so doing so would only play into the hands of the defensive team.

With the passage of time, there is a tendency to rate players from the recent past higher than those from the distant pass, possibly because fewer and fewer individuals who saw them play are around to corroborate their greatness.
Is that why Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, and W. Johnson are widely considered as the best or second best at their positions all-time?

Also, his theory just doesn't wash, because Ted Williams came from the same era, and he's regarded much more highly than DiMaggio.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

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.

I don't think it's quite that simple. A .300 hitter will, on average, have about two more 3-hit games and five more 2-hit games, and four fewer no-hit games, than a .275 hitter. That's eleven more games that had a great potential for a memorable impact.

The figures I used are assuming a standard 4 AB per game (not including walks), over 162 games. I ran 50 iterations of seasons. The .300 hitter had about twice as many instances of seasons with 3 or more 4-hit games as well.

If hits came in decimals and always occurred at regular distribution rates, then a .300 hitter would get 1.2 hits each game, and the .275 hitter would get 1.1. That would be very difficult to tell the difference of by a casual viewer on a game-by-game basis. But instead, hits often come in bunches, and multi-hit games can be quite memorable. Likewise, oh-fers can be memorable too. In short, the best hitters have more big games, so that would tend to be more noticeable from game-to-game than a flat distribution.

[Grandstander]

Triad

I don't think it's quite that simple. A .300 hitter will, on average, have about two more 3-hit games and five more 2-hit games, and four fewer no-hit games, than a .275 hitter. That's eleven more games that had a great potential for a memorable impact.

Okay, but those are also things which would not be detectable to someone who watched all 162 games without keeping stats. You are simply providing more examples which make my point, but mistakenly using them as though they refute it.

[WilsonC]

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?

The reasons for era adjustments are often difficult to determine, but what is certainly true is that strikeouts were up league-wide throughout Mantle's career, to the point where the league eventually made the decision to lower the mound due to the dominance that pitching had achieved. There's probably a large number of factors involved - balance of talent level, differences in hitting/pitching philosophies, stadium lights and more night games, etc. Is there a chance Dimaggio just happened to play in an era with an abberation in the quality of hitters? Sure. But given that the trends were league-wide, and consistent from NL to AL, it seems much more plausible to recognize a change in conditions.

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

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.

Total bases really don't do justice with comparing these two, as Mantle walked a lot more. While a walk is a productive at bat, it doesn't count toward total bases, so it will always undervalue a guy with, say, 285 TB and 100 BB, versus one with 310 TB and 50 BB.

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

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].

While I'll grant the possibility that there are elements that most metrics don't pick up on with regards to a K versus a batted-ball out, a K is not equal to a DP - a DP has far more negative value. In that regard, Mantle was actually more successful than Dimaggio. He hit into fewer DP's in more playing time, and DP's weren't even recorded for all of Joe's career. Mantle excellent speed to first, as well as the fact he did strike out more would have contributed to this. It's fine to recognize different types of outs, but in doing so these two elements shouldn't be grouped together with equal weight - a K is much closer in value to an ordinary out than to a DP.

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by WilsonC

The reasons for era adjustments are often difficult to determine, but what is certainly true is that strikeouts were up league-wide throughout Mantle's career, to the point where the league eventually made the decision to lower the mound due to the dominance that pitching had achieved. There's probably a large number of factors involved - balance of talent level, differences in hitting/pitching philosophies, stadium lights and more night games, etc. Is there a chance Dimaggio just happened to play in an era with an abberation in the quality of hitters? Sure. But given that the trends were league-wide, and consistent from NL to AL, it seems much more plausible to recognize a change in conditions.

My response here is largely opinion, but it is based on observation, conversations with contemporaries, players, coaches and others, including one prolonged, spirited and data filled thread on the old boards regarding the possible negative impact of Little League on players who first learned the game there.

The observation and the argument are based on the fact that LL introduced players to shrunken dimensions that would have favored pitchers vs. kids with wooden bats early on; the insipid bringing in of overaged 'ringers" on the mound which would exaggerate that advantage [as LL became more adult-run and competition oriented].

This exposure would have applied more to players born circa 1936-39 more than Mantle, who was born in 1931 and got his LL exposure circa 1942-44 before the big growth burst of 1949-51.

However, it can be argued [and debated] that by 1963 and 1964, LL effects on batting approaches and effectiveness would be reflected in pitching dominance and hitter weakness at the MLB level, for player who participated in LL between say, 1952-56. The adoption of the aluminum bat circa 1970, suggesting to kids that they had better bat speed + control than was real, converts to a fading contact, all-or-nothing hitting approach with lots of K's.

The fact is that during the 1920s through 1940s, the pitching strategy was "make 'em a hitter," where piched ball movement and control were tantamount. While sandlot kids revelled in their K's, knowing coaches mentored them in "pitching" rather than "throwing."

On the offensive side, contact ruled and a K to a good hitter was a personal failure and disgrace. Some guys laced grass-cutter and low liners good for one or two bases, maybe three in an open park. The old saw to batters was, "Swing for the singles, and the homers will take care of themselves."

So we have a significant change in initial exposure to the game, pitching philosophy and batting strategy.

Originally Posted by WilsonC

: Total bases really don't do justice with comparing these two, as Mantle walked a lot more. While a walk is a productive at bat, it doesn't count toward total bases, so it will always undervalue a guy with, say, 285 TB and 100 BB, versus one with 310 TB and 50 BB.

I largely agree with the value of the walk and have always held a great deal of fan respect for the likes of Max Bishop, Eddie Yost, Harlond Clift. Ferris Fain and others who could work pitchers to death and draw walks. With guys like Bonds, Gehrig, Ruth and Mantle, control of the strike zone and unwillinglness to swing at a pitch not to one's liking, adds a notch to the awesomeness of their overall plate discipline. Joe DiMaggio was not such a hitter, preferring contact [if it was close enough to the zone].

However, guys like Williams, Ruth, Gehrig and Bonds did both. They drew walks and tallied >300 TB over and again.

One can make a converse argument that with power hitters, the walk, to some degree, takes the bat out of their hands.

Originally Posted by WilsonC

While I'll grant the possibility that there are elements that most metrics don't pick up on with regards to a K versus a batted-ball out, a K is not equal to a DP - a DP has far more negative value. In that regard, Mantle was actually more successful than Dimaggio. He hit into fewer DP's in more playing time, and DP's weren't even recorded for all of Joe's career. Mantle excellent speed to first, as well as the fact he did strike out more would have contributed to this. It's fine to recognize different types of outs, but in doing so these two elements shouldn't be grouped together with equal weight - a K is much closer in value to an ordinary out than to a DP.

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.

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Bluster, sputter, outrage.....typical.

You aren't being reasonable here. Your data approach was okay, your defense of "I saw them play" is preposterous. And I notice you chided me for not knowing how often you saw them play, but failed to provide the particulars of how often you did see them play. Enough so tht you could detect the difference between 165 hits and 180 hits over the course of a season without keeping stats? And you were doing this for two different players who played in different eras? Get real.

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

[nanwynnfan]

Checking out the BB and TB records, here are how some of the great BB~OB% guys fared:

Ruth: 11 seasons > 300 TB, despite 5 years a pitcher;

Williams: 9 seasons > 300 TB, despite 6 years lost to military service;

Gehrig: 9 season > 300 TB, including 5 seasons > 400 TB

Barry Bonds: 8 > 300 TB seasons

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by kflo

the most important offensive measure you presented, imo (rc/27), nan, gives a slight advantage to mantle. era adjusted measures increase the differential fairly significantly.

the mick did also steal more bases, and particularly in his prime, at a very high rate.

they both have some significant advantages.

kflo: Yes, th RC/27 outs gives MM 9.3 to J.D.'s 8.8.

MM was indeed fast, especially given his skills as a drag-bunter from the left side of the plate, and so fast that conversations inevitacle arose as to whether he was faster than [whatever fleet-footed player came to mind, like Jim Busby].

Between ages 24 through 30, MM stole 100 bases in 113 attempts = 88.5%

Joe D., ages 21 through 27 stole 26 in 32 attempts = 81.3%. That's a 14 -4 per year StB edge to MM. Neither was noted for StB: Both were opportunistic stealers who did not specialize in steals. In fact, with MM's leg woes, it's amazing they let him go as often as he did; but raw speed may have prompted that.

It was well known in the '30s and '40s that guys like DiMaggio and Williams were not encouraged to steal, or try to ... the risk of possible injury was just too high.