Conference hbahba::cam_sports

    
    No comparison. Different leagues etc. etc. Mantle with a good pair of
    legs may have been able to match Mays abilites in the field. The thing
    many don't know or realize, Mantle spent a great deal of time injured
    limiting his ability and playing time. To have played 18 years with his
    physical condition is a tribute to his heart and love for the game.

    Here's the comparison between Mantle and Mays in their full seasons in
    the 50s.  Note that Mays, like Ted Williams, served in Korea in 1952
    and 1953.  An asterisk indicates that they led the league in that
    category.
    
    1954	G    AB   H    2B   3B   HR   RBI   BB   SO   SB   BA    SLG
    Mantle	146  543  163  17   12   27   102   102  107*  5  .300  .525
    Mays        151  565  195  33   13*  41   110   66   57    8  .345  .667*
    
    1955	G    AB   H    2B   3B   HR   RBI   BB   SO   SB   BA    SLG
    Mantle	147  517  158  25   11*  37*   99   113* 97    8  .306  .611*
    Mays	152  580  185  18   13*  51*  127   79   60   24  .319  .659*
    
    1956	G    AB   H    2B   3B   HR   RBI   BB   SO   SB   BA    SLG
    Mantle	150  533  188  22    5   52*  130*  112  99   10  .353* .705*
    Mays	152  578  171  27    8   36    84   68   65   40* .296  .557
    
    1957	G    AB   H    2B   3B   HR   RBI   BB   SO   SB   BA    SLG
    Mantle	144  474  173  26    6   34    94   146* 75   16  .365  .605
    Mays        152  585  195  26   20*  35    97   76   62   38* .333  .626*
    
    1958	G    AB   H    2B   3B   HR   RBI   BB   SO   SB   BA    SLG
    Mantle	150  519  158  21    1   42*   97   129* 120* 18  .304  .592
    Mays	152  600  208  33   11   29    96   78   56   31* .347  .583
    
    1959	G    AB   H    2B   3B   HR   RBI   BB   SO   SB   BA    SLG
    Mantle	144  541  154  23    4   31    75   94   126* 21  .285  .514
    Mays	151  575  180  43*   5   34   104   65   58   27* .313  .583
    
    1960	G    AB   H    2B   3B   HR   RBI   BB   SO   SB   BA    SLG
    Mantle	153  527  145  17    6   40*   94   111  125* 14  .275  .558
    Mays	153  595  190* 29   12   29   107   61   70   25  .319  .555
    
    It's clear from these numbers that Mays was more productive than Mantle
    in every season except for Mantle's incredible triple crown year - 1956.
    
    Mantle had only two more good seasons, 1961 and 1964, while Mays stayed
    productive throughout the decade of the 1960s.
    
    Here are their career numbers:
    
    	       G     AB   H    2B   3B  HR   RBI   BB   SO   SB   BA   SLG
    Mantle     2401 8102  2415 344  72  536  1509  1734 1710 153 .298 .557
    Mays       2992 10881 3283 523 140  660  1903  1463 1526 338 .302 .557
    
    Mays is in the top ten all-time in games, at bats, hits, home runs, and
    runs batted in, while Mantle is in the top ten only in home runs.
    
    NAZZ   	
    

    
    
       Got there Postseason Stats??

  The title of the note is Mays vs Mantle but it just as easily could be
  Mays vs Mantle vs Clemente. They all played at the same time. Mays and 
  Mantle hit more HRs than the Clemente but Clemente was better in every 
  other aspect of the game including the best outfield arm that baseball has 
  ever seen. Mays and Mantle both played in high profile cities while Clemente 
  played in a small market town. So he didn't get as much exposure. Before the
  60 series, casey Stengel had his scouts rank the Pirate players against
  all others in the NL. He was amazed when his scouts had Clemente ranked
  as the top player in almost every phase of the game. But after the 71 
  series, everyone knew why the people in Pittsburgh called Clemente 
  "The Great One".

	Keith

None of the Mantle vs. Mays controversy gets decided unless you decide to:

o  take the numbers as they are, or

o  project what Mantle would have done if he had been healthy, played longer,
     etc.  The only problem I have with this method is that if it's carried
     to an extreme, you see great numbers out of a lot of people

That's the first difference I see in the previous replies - different criteria.

I never saw Mantle play, and only saw Mays at the very end of his career, so
I have nothing to go by but numbers.  And the numbers to me show Mantle better
at his peak, and Mays more valuable to have over a career.

Didn't Bill James do something like this in the Baseball Abstract somewhere
around 1987?

    
    	IMO they were both great players and are both in the HOF. My only
    regret is that I'm to young and never saw them play. Its nice watching
    highlights or old games though.

And somehow I feel that when you start projecting, and analyzing, and 
dissecting, you're about as accurate as they are when the predict the track
of a hurricane....

Two days ago, they thought Felix might hit New England...

For me, and I guess I'm just a simple man, the grace and beauty and power
displayed by Mays and Mantle are unique, and cannot be compared, any more than
you could say "who was better, DiMaggio, or Williams?".  Both are icons of
baseball greatness....


JMHO,
'Saw

    Well said, but Aaron was better than both of them.
    
    Chris

    
    
       Again Well Said but The Babe was the best EVER!!!
    
    
        I too am sorry I was not old enough to see Mays or Mantle play. I
    grew up watching Pete Rose, Reggie Jackson, Thurman Munson, Roger
    Clemens. All great players but probably nowhere near the Aaron   
     Gehrig, Ruth,Mantle and Mays of the past.
    
         One of the reasons I am so glad I became a Yankee fan when I was 8
    years old was because of all the great players in the history of that
    proud franchise. I've read so much about most of them, it's like I
    actually was there.
    
    
    Chap

    I saw Mantle play in person many times.  I saw Mays a few times on TV,
    but not nearly as much.
    
    Mantle was the key player on a great team that during the 50s had very
    little opposition.  The Yankees ruled the American, and a few owners
    cared little about winning and regularly sold their better players to
    the wealthy Yankees for cash.  Kansas City specialized in this
    practice.  Bob Turley, Art Ditmar, and several others came to New York
    this way.  Plus, they always had the best farm system, bringing up guys
    like Moose Skowron, Gil McDougald, Andy Carey, to supplement the
    Mantle, Maris, Berra, Kubek heart of the lineup.
    
    The Yankees of that era were as dominent as any baseball team that ever
    played.  Look at their win totals in a 154 game season from 1949 to
    1964.  Simply incredible.
    
    	YEAR	WINS	FINISH	
    	1949	 97	first   
    	1950     98	first   
    	1951	 98	first   
    	1952     95	first  
    	1953     99	first
    	1954    103	second  (Cleveland as first with 111 wins)
    	1955     96	first
    	1956     97     first
    	1957     98     first
    	1958     92     first
    	1959     79     third   (Chicago won, Cleveland was second)
    	1960     97     first
    	1961    109     first   (Detroit won 101, finished 8 out)
    	1962     96     first
    	1963    104     first
    	1964     99     first
    
    They had a few close races in the early 50s, but by the time I was
    seriously into baseball in the mid to late 50s, the Yankees rolled to
    thge pennant every season.  I remember 1959 as a wonderful year, even
    though the wrong Sox won, but those damn Yankees were back in my face
    for five more years!
    
    NAZZ

         It's interesting that although Mays was the better base
    runner/stealer, the Mick had much better flat out speed.  I recently
    read an old interview given by Mantle where he stated that Vada Pinson
    of the Reds was his only contemporary player who might have been faster
    than he was.  Mantle's elapsed time to first from the right side of the
    plate has been tied, but not broken, if I remember correctly.
    
    Russ
                                                                           

  ... but Mays had more stolen bases, probably because he could read the
pitchers better. 

  Mantle always had great players hitting behind him like Maris, Bower,
Peppitone and others. Mays had McCovy, Cepeda, and the Alou's but they were not
in the same league as the guys following Mantle. 

  In general back then the N.L. was stronger than the A.L. Remember the string
of all-star wins? Mays had to deal with some of the best pitchers that ever
played the game but the only time Mantle ever had to face the best pitchers in
the A.L. was when he was drinking beer with them after the game. 

  George

    George,
    	Please tell me about the O.J. trial happenings and try to just
    cheer on the sox.
    	First you say McCovey(HofF),Cepeda(deserves HoF but had drug
    incident), Felipe Alou(top echelon,better than Bauer and Pepitone) and
    an assortment of Harts,Kuenns, and a pretty good catcher I can't quite
    recall.  These were much stronger than Mantle's cast except when Maris
    was hot in '60-'62 - Mantle missed the early part of '60, '61 speaks
    for itself and by '62 Maris has slowed.  Yes there was always Berra and
    good hitters but no McCoveys or Cepedas (hell he was creaming the ball
    in '73 with the sox).
    
    	Second, A.L. was behind the N.L. because it was slow to recruit the
    latin and black athletes.  However, it had the money and bought the
    very best pitching and those pitchers like Billy Pierce went to the
    N.L. and were very effective.  And the Terrys and Larsens did pretty
    well in the series as did Dick Donovan in '59.  Mays did not face
    harder pitching, probably the opposite.
    
    	You mention all star games where the dominance of N.L. really came
    after Mantle's time and partly reflected an American league relaxed
    attitude and the pitching oddities of the game.  With very little inter-
    league movement it isn't easy to prove or disprove my pitching equality
    contention not vv.

RE                      <<< Note 233.13 by AKOCOA::BREEN >>>

>    	Second, A.L. was behind the N.L. because it was slow to recruit the
>    latin and black athletes.  However, it had the money and bought the
>    very best pitching and those pitchers like Billy Pierce went to the
>    N.L. and were very effective.  And the Terrys and Larsens did pretty
>    well in the series as did Dick Donovan in '59.  

  Your argument makes no sense. You are saying that A.L. pitching was strong
because of Yankee pitching, but Mantle never had to face Terry or Larsen. 

  As for hitting, the Yankees always had an all-star lineup where as the
Giants had some good hitters some years but not others.

  Until the early 60's Mantle always played on a team that was almost an
all-star team and was clearly the only decent team in the American League. Mays
played on a team that was a contender from time to time but only won the
Pennant twice in his career and even then in '62 it was pretty close. 

  And as I said before, there's no way that Mantle ever had to face guys
like Koufax, Drysdale, Spahn, or Gibson in regular season play.

  George

>  Your argument makes no sense. You are saying that A.L. pitching was strong
>because of Yankee pitching, but Mantle never had to face Terry or Larsen. 

    I said it's hard to compare because most of the A.L. pitching that
    faced the National League came from New York.  I took two mediocre
    yankee pitchers that were very effective against the N.L to emphasize
    that the Lemons, Brewers, Larys, Wynns etc were similar to the top of
    the N.L.  Koufax and Gibson excepted - two rare, all time HoFers. Spahn
    and Drysdale had their equivelents in the A.L. and I believe the merely
    good A.L. pitchers were the equal of their N.L. couterparts.
    
>  As for hitting, the Yankees always had an all-star lineup where as the
>Giants had some good hitters some years but not others.

>  Until the early 60's Mantle always played on a team that was almost an
>all-star team and was clearly the only decent team in the American League. Mays
>played on a team that was a contender from time to time but only won the
>Pennant twice in his career and even then in '62 it was pretty close. 

No, the Giants had an all-star lineup from '58 - '65 with McCovey and
    Cepeda unique hitting talents (Willie McCovey about '59) that no
    Yankees other than Mantle came close to.
    
    And yes with all that Talent Mays was unable to get a pennant other
    than '62.  '51 and '54 were different teams altogether and Mays btw
    would have certainly added 60-70 homers if he hadn't been in the
    service in '52,53.
    
    So in conclusion the stats comparison is difficult because of the
    difficulty of comparing pitching but is skewed because Mantle was
    walked where Mays wasn't and second Mantle's .310 was the equivelent of
    (I'm guessing) .325 in the N.L.
    
    I also theorize (and please shoot statisticians that post doubles and
    triples and leave out runs) that when you see high run totals alongside
    high Homer totals that pitchers are willing to borrow from Peter to pay
    Paul (eg, let anyone but Mantle beat them).
    
    That final assertion, that his league opposition singled him out far
    more than Mays (yes, difficult to prove) is why Mantle > Mays.

>  And as I said before, there's no way that Mantle ever had to face guys
>like Koufax, Drysdale, Spahn, or Gibson in regular season play.

Yeah, but given his pretty extensive WS play, and his great success in
the WS, it's safe to say he'd have done equally well had he faced these
guys in the regular season too.

re:  SBs

How often was Mantle required to steal ?