|
Post by allenreed on Feb 20, 2013 22:49:28 GMT -5
Rog -- Where did you get the idea Mantle is more famous? Every single rating I have seen has had Willie above Mickey. Allen- Though it pains me, I have to agree with Boag here. Mays was always my favorite, but Mantle was looked upon as a God when he played, especially in New York, and more especially once the Giants moved West. Mantle is still talked about like a deity by people like Costas, Billy Crystal, and others. I would agree that Mays was the better player. In my opinion, there's never been anyone better, but mantle was more famous.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Feb 21, 2013 1:43:12 GMT -5
Mays was the big cheeze when the Giants were in New York....It took the fans a while to like Mantle probably because he replaced DiMaggio...but 1956 turned on the "lights"...
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 21, 2013 12:16:20 GMT -5
Rog -- Where did you get the idea Mantle is more famous? Every single rating I have seen has had Willie above Mickey. Allen- Though it pains me, I have to agree with Boag here. Mays was always my favorite, but Mantle was looked upon as a God when he played, especially in New York, and more especially once the Giants moved West. Mantle is still talked about like a deity by people like Costas, Billy Crystal, and others. I would agree that Mays was the better player. In my opinion, there's never been anyone better, but mantle was more famous. Rog -- It was likely that Ruth was better than Willie, but on what do you base your opinion that Mickey was more famous? You do realize that they speak of Willie, Mickey and Duke, right? They don't talk about Mickey, Willie and the Duke, which would work out just as well syllabically. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1447&page=2#ixzz2LYQIrt00
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 21, 2013 13:21:03 GMT -5
Boagie -- I am fully aware that fans on the east coast don't think west coast baseball lives up to east coast baseball. Rog -- Really? Why would they feel that way? When the Giants and Dodgers moved to San Francisco and LA, they both put up very good teams almost immediately. Most of the other West Coast teams have had success at one time or another. Boagie- I'm not talking about how good the west coast teams were after they moved. I'm talking about where the focus of the east coast media is. I believe there are writers, and fans of the Yankees and Redsox that believe baseball starts in Yankee stadium and ends in Fenway..I don't think I'm off base by saying this. There are plenty of Yankee fans who seriously believe that Derek Jeter is still the best shortstop in baseball. I've talked to a number of Yankee and Redsox fans and the only thing they know about baseball lies within the confines of their home ballpark. Chicago, Philly, and St. Louis (among others) are also guilty of this. I'm not saying everyone, just some. Now I'm not fully against this mindset, but bias in the media does exist or the fans of these teams would likely have a better broad knowlege of baseball. Ask Steve Bartman if the Chicago Sun Times is an extention of the fan base in Chicago, they gave out his home address in the paper for god's sake. The Chicago media was actually willing to be an accessory to harrasment, or worse. No bias there, right? www.webcitation.org/5wtan3JWC <interesting article
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 21, 2013 15:07:21 GMT -5
Boagie -- There are plenty of Yankee fans who seriously believe that Derek Jeter is still the best shortstop in baseball. Rog -- This one depends on how one views the situation. If we're talking about the best shortstop who IS playing baseball now, I think it would be hard at this point to argue against Jeter. If we're talking about who IS the best shortstop in baseball, that would clearly be Troy Tulowitzki ... except ... That Troy was injured most of last season. The guy who actually WAS the best shortstop last season probably was Reyes -- although Jeter himself (.315 BA, .791 OPS) was pretty darn good. Bill James recently stated that Jeter ranks among the top five shortstops ever. Reyes won't ever get to that lofty a perch. Tulo could become THE best shortstop ever -- if he could simply stay healthy. When healthy, the guy is probably the most valuable player in baseball. By the way, Tulo is still only 28, still easily in his prime. Jeter is 38 -- and has 3304 hits. I'll be honest. Until recently I haven't given Derek his due. There are a huge variety of opinions on his defense, and I just never gave him enough credit. Even though he takes hits for his defense, his 69.3 WAR is 54th-highest of anyone who has ever played the game -- and he's still playing. I was just wondering the other day if he could reach 4000 hits before his career is over. Probably not, and his broken ankle certainly doesn't help his chances. But he already ranks #11 in career hits, and probably will jump up to #6 this season. Highly unlikely that he'll catch Pete Rose, but he does have about as many hits as Pete had at the same age. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1447&page=2#9052#ixzz2LZ64lR28
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 21, 2013 15:08:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 21, 2013 17:14:34 GMT -5
Rog -- It was likely that Ruth was better than Willie, but on what do you base your opinion that Mickey was more famous?
You do realize that they speak of Willie, Mickey and Duke, right? They don't talk about Mickey, Willie and the Duke, which would work out just as well syllabically.
Allen- Though certainly not rythmically. Willie, Mickey and the Duke just has a better lilt to it. I base my opinion on what I've read and seen on NY baseball during that time. Again, Mays (and to a lesser extent, Snider) were seen as very good players. Mickey was looked upon as a God. Maybe because the Yankees won almost every year, maybe because he was white and good looking, maybe because he was following in the tradition of Ruth and DiMaggio. You watch specials on baseball during that time, you just don't hear people talk about Mays the way they do Mantle. Mickey was just a cultural icon.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Feb 21, 2013 17:54:35 GMT -5
I think Mantle was known more for his drinking than Mays for his playing.....I have never heard anyone say that Mantle was the best player they ever saw play ball...most say Mays.....I have heard people say that Mantle might have been the best if he wasn't playing hurt through most of his career...I also heard people say that Pete Reiser was the best they ever saw until he started to run into the concrete walls....I think that if Willie Mays played his whole career in Ebbets Field as his home field, he would have finished 200 homers ahead of Bonds....and if he used steroids, tack on another 150, minimum...and if Clint Hartung could hit the curve...wow....
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 21, 2013 18:01:29 GMT -5
Rog -- It was likely that Ruth was better than Willie, but on what do you base your opinion that Mickey was more famous? You do realize that they speak of Willie, Mickey and Duke, right? They don't talk about Mickey, Willie and the Duke, which would work out just as well syllabically. Allen- Though certainly not rythmically. Willie, Mickey and the Duke just has a better lilt to it. Rog -- They rhythm of Willie, Mickey and the Duke is identical to Mickey, Willie and the Duke. Allen -- I base my opinion on what I've read and seen on NY baseball during that time. Again, Mays (and to a lesser extent, Snider) were seen as very good players. Mickey was looked upon as a God. Rog -- I have almost never seen Mickey described as the better player. It is Willie who is sometimes looked at as a god as far as his amazing mental aptitude for the game. Allen -- Maybe because the Yankees won almost every year, maybe because he was white and good looking, maybe because he was following in the tradition of Ruth and DiMaggio. You watch specials on baseball during that time, you just don't hear people talk about Mays the way they do Mantle. Mickey was just a cultural icon. Rog -- I read a lot about the top players of all time. Willie is almost always ranked above Mickey even though, statistically, a strong argument can be made for The Mick. A nickname does not a god make, but while The Mick and the Commerce Comet are darn good nicknames, they just don't compare with the Say Hey Kid. I usually read about Mays as the #2 player ever, occasionally #1. Occasionally 3 or lower (but never out of the top 8 or 10 that I can recall). Mickey just isn't usually rated as high as Willie is. Where are you seeing that he is? Here is an except about Mantle from Wikipedia: Mantle is regarded by many to be the greatest switch hitter of all time,[1] and one of the greatest players in baseball history. And from the same source on Willie: the more recent acknowledgement of Mays as perhaps the finest five-tool player ever, and the overwhelming consensus of many surveys and other expert analyses carefully examining Mays' relative performance, have led to a growing opinion that Mays was possibly the greatest all-around baseball player of all-time.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] In 1999, Mays placed second on The Sporting News's "List of the 100 Greatest Baseball Players" Which sounds like the higher praise to you? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1447&page=2#9068#ixzz2LZpFcsO3
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 21, 2013 21:08:47 GMT -5
Rog -- It was likely that Ruth was better than Willie, but on what do you base your opinion that Mickey was more famous? You do realize that they speak of Willie, Mickey and Duke, right? They don't talk about Mickey, Willie and the Duke, which would work out just as well syllabically. Allen- Though certainly not rythmically. Willie, Mickey and the Duke just has a better lilt to it. Rog -- They rhythm of Willie, Mickey and the Duke is identical to Mickey, Willie and the Duke. Allen- No not really. Willie, Mickey, and the Duke just sounds better. Cleaner. Allen -- I base my opinion on what I've read and seen on NY baseball during that time. Again, Mays (and to a lesser extent, Snider) were seen as very good players. Mickey was looked upon as a God. Rog -- I have almost never seen Mickey described as the better player. It is Willie who is sometimes looked at as a god as far as his amazing mental aptitude for the game. Allen- I didn't say better player. I don't think anyone who knows much about baseball would say that Mantle was better than Willie. I'm talking about the way each player was looked upon by the fans and the media. Mays was looked upon as a very good player, but not embraced by the fans in anywhere near the way Mantle was, especially when the Giants first moved west. Mantle was like America's favorite son. Handsome, strong, blond, blue-eyed, perhaps tragically doomed due to his family's history of Hodgkin's, and terribly flawed. He stirred up a passion that Willie, despite his talent, just never did. I usually read about Mays as the #2 player ever, occasionally #1. Occasionally 3 or lower (but never out of the top 8 or 10 that I can recall). Mickey just isn't usually rated as high as Willie is. Where are you seeing that he is? Allen- I think you're choosing to misunderstand here, Rog. I've often said here that IMO, Mays is the greatest of all time. It's not their ability or career achievments I'm talking about here. We were talking about who was/is more famous, and while Willie was definitely held in high esteem, his fame did not compare with Mantle's when both were in their prime. It's hard to think of an apt comparison from another sport, perhaps Johnny Unitas and Joe Namath. In their prime, Johnny U was probably the superior player by more than a good bit, but his fame, while substantial, never approached Namath's.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 22, 2013 11:41:41 GMT -5
Allen- No not really. Willie, Mickey, and the Duke just sounds better. Cleaner. Rog -- I've thought about that one, and I kinda agree. What I'm wondering though is whether that is because we are used to hearing it the way it is. I kind of doubt this one, but it is also possible that the lyricist thought putting Mickey's name in the middle of Willie's and Dukes' made Mickey in a sense more of the center of attention. And maybe if I lived in NY instead of SF, I would have heard what you have described. But based on where I have been, I just haven't seen it to be the case. If it does exist, and I'm still not sold that it does, one reason could be that the Yankees have remained continuous in New York, while the Giants have been replaced there by the Mets. I'm sure there are far more Yankees fans in NY now than Giants fans. But in all the reading I've done and anything I have watched, Willie has pretty much been the man. Certainly Bob Costas speaks of Mays more reverently. He speaks of going to a Giants game and his dad pointing to center field and saying "There's Willie Mays," as if his dad were pointing to the Grand Canyon or the Washington Monument. Now here's another possible explanation, Allen. You're a Yankees fan, so perhaps much of your exposure to the two comes from watching, listening to or reading about the Yankees. I can see how the Mick could be held in higher regard in that context. Could you refer us to any link that supports your point, much as I did with Wikipedia? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1447&page=2#9080#ixzz2Le7rUqX8
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 22, 2013 11:44:03 GMT -5
Allen -- while Willie was definitely held in high esteem, his fame did not compare with Mantle's when both were in their prime. It's hard to think of an apt comparison from another sport, perhaps Johnny Unitas and Joe Namath. In their prime, Johnny U was probably the superior player by more than a good bit, but his fame, while substantial, never approached Namath's. Rog -- That is an excellent analogy, but I just didn't see it with regard to Willie and Mickey. Maybe it's simply been too long, or because of my own bias I just didn't want to see or hear it. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1447&page=2#ixzz2LeB4t6MK
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 22, 2013 11:51:47 GMT -5
Allen -- Mays was looked upon as a very good player, but not embraced by the fans in anywhere near the way Mantle was, especially when the Giants first moved west. Mantle was like America's favorite son. Handsome, strong, blond, blue-eyed, perhaps tragically doomed due to his family's history of Hodgkin's, and terribly flawed. He stirred up a passion that Willie, despite his talent, just never did. Rog -- Certainly Mickey had an intriguing story and look, while Willie was black, something that wasn't held in high esteem by everyone back then. So if Mickey was indeed The Golden Boy -- and whether through blindness or reality, I just didn't see that -- I don't think the East Coast Bias had a lot to do with it. Speaking of football's Golden Boy, Paul Horning was born in Louisville, Kentucky, played collegiately at Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana, and played professionally in Green Bay Wisconsin. Not much East Coast involved there. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1447&page=2#ixzz2LeBfR0dG
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 22, 2013 12:56:10 GMT -5
Something I just read about Mickey Mantle that is amazing. In 1961, Mantle hit 54 homers (Roger Maris hit 61) and grounded into only two double plays. In 1956,he hit 52 homers while grounding into only four double plays.
All in all, Mickey grounded into just 113 double plays over his career compared to Willie's 251. Mantle also had 1733 walks compared to Willie's 1464.
Mantle was a great drag bunter and had the speed to beat them out.
I still think Willie was better, but a strong argument can be made for Mantle -- especially when it came to getting on base.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 22, 2013 13:33:39 GMT -5
Allen- No not really. Willie, Mickey, and the Duke just sounds better. Cleaner. Rog -- I've thought about that one, and I kinda agree. What I'm wondering though is whether that is because we are used to hearing it the way it is. Allen- Quite possibly, though I haven't heard the song in years. I kind of doubt this one, but it is also possible that the lyricist thought putting Mickey's name in the middle of Willie's and Dukes' made Mickey in a sense more of the center of attention. Allen- Also quite possible. And maybe if I lived in NY instead of SF, I would have heard what you have described. But based on where I have been, I just haven't seen it to be the case. If it does exist, and I'm still not sold that it does, one reason could be that the Yankees have remained continuous in New York, while the Giants have been replaced there by the Mets. I'm sure there are far more Yankees fans in NY now than Giants fans. But in all the reading I've done and anything I have watched, Willie has pretty much been the man. Certainly Bob Costas speaks of Mays more reverently. He speaks of going to a Giants game and his dad pointing to center field and saying "There's Willie Mays," as if his dad were pointing to the Grand Canyon or the Washington Monument. Allen- Costas carries a Mantle baseball card in his wallet and has for his entire adult life. He spoke at Mickey's funeral. Now here's another possible explanation, Allen. You're a Yankees fan, so perhaps much of your exposure to the two comes from watching, listening to or reading about the Yankees. I can see how the Mick could be held in higher regard in that context. Could you refer us to any link that supports your point, much as I did with Wikipedia? Allen- I could refer you to movies such as 61, and A Bronx Tale, or to Ken Burns' miniseries on Baseball, or the HBO series When It Was A Game. All give a sense of how NY and the country felt about Mantle. There was also an HBO special called Mantle. That might help you as well.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 22, 2013 13:37:26 GMT -5
Allen -- while Willie was definitely held in high esteem, his fame did not compare with Mantle's when both were in their prime. It's hard to think of an apt comparison from another sport, perhaps Johnny Unitas and Joe Namath. In their prime, Johnny U was probably the superior player by more than a good bit, but his fame, while substantial, never approached Namath's. Rog -- That is an excellent analogy, but I just didn't see it with regard to Willie and Mickey. Maybe it's simply been too long, or because of my own bias I just didn't want to see or hear it. Allen- Could be. Willie has always been my favorite. I think he's the best player ever and he was my idol growing up. When he was traded I vowed never to root for the Giants again. A vow I later went back on. When the A's traded Reggie Jackson, I vowed never to root for the A's again. A vow I kept.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 22, 2013 13:45:56 GMT -5
Something I just read about Mickey Mantle that is amazing. In 1961, Mantle hit 54 homers (Roger Maris hit 61) and grounded into only two double plays. In 1956,he hit 52 homers while grounding into only four double plays. All in all, Mickey grounded into just 113 double plays over his career compared to Willie's 251. Mantle also had 1733 walks compared to Willie's 1464. Mantle was a great drag bunter and had the speed to beat them out. I still think Willie was better, but a strong argument can be made for Mantle -- especially when it came to getting on base. Allen- Really a shame about Mick. How great could he have been without injuries and a self-destructive lifestyle? If he had taken better care of himself...what might have been. I know Mickey had many regrets after he retired. Kind of reminds me of our discussion about Pablo. Hope he's not having those same regrets at the end of his career.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 22, 2013 14:09:17 GMT -5
Speaking of football's Golden Boy, Paul Horning was born in Louisville, Kentucky, played collegiately at Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana, and played professionally in Green Bay Wisconsin. Not much East Coast involved there.
Allen- Hornung was a good player, certainly not great, and look at all the publicity he got. Notre Dame had alot of fans in NY, so many that they were known as the "Subway Alumni". Hornung, even in his prime, wouldn't make a professional team today. In his time backs such s Jim Brown, Gale Sayers, and even teammate Jim Taylor were far better, yet he had that certain something (looks, charisma?) that endeared him to the public.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 22, 2013 15:06:28 GMT -5
The one thing about Hornung was that he could run, pass, catch and kick.
|
|