This makes for great discussion

Hitter has to go to Manny because those are some really good numbers. Player I'm probably going to go with Mantle because of defense. Then again I never saw Mantle play and know he had bad knees which limited his ability to move. I have seen Manny play defense and well his record speaks for itself.

I think the talking heads just fall in love with older generation players and don't want to give credit to the modern player. In another 35 - 40 years Manny (and this generation) will probably get their recognition they have earned.

coach

I saw Mantle, Mays and Snider back in the 50's and 60's---Mantle was an unreal player

Manny is a much better fielder than people give him credit for mainly because he seems to not care at times

I agree with you that Mantle is/was the better player but the offensive numbers tip the scales to Manny as a hitter

Personally I take Mays over both of them as both a player and hitter

This discussion also has to include one more stat.

Mickey Manny
PEDs 0 yes (exact no. unknown)

Big advantage: Mickey

Mantle had to be one of the strongest men to ever play the game. Wonder how far he could hit baseballs in today's envirnment and on the roids. He was hitting 500-600ft shots while partying and killing his body. Before he ruined his knee, he could run like the wind. Mantle was a great player.

As for Manny, he could hit with anyone. I don't think he was the player Mantle was but I get the sense Manny could play the field better than he looks out there.

I think of that play where Manny makes a great catch, leaps oveer the fence to high-five fans and throws in to get the runner out at first to complete the DP. There's no way he can do that without some skills.

And Manny is kind of a goofball and don't know what pressure is. Kinda reminds me of a happy-idiot in his little world but he can come up big in the biggest spots and laugh while doing it. He's the one I'd want up with the season on the line.

catfish

where do you get your info?

Didn't Manny just serve a 50-game suspension?

I have a question, What would Billy Martin do with Manny??

EH

Catfish

was it steroids?

EH

Martin would have handled it well

quote:

Originally posted by theEH:
I have a question, What would Billy Martin do with Manny??

EH

He wouldn't put up with Manny's nonsense. He dealt with Reggie and embarrassed him on the field when they didn't quite see eye-to-eye one infamoous game in the Bronx Zoo days. If he did it with Reggie, who's one of the greatest cluch players of all-time, he'd have gone a few rounds with with Manny too when Billy felt he needed to stick his foot where the sun don't shine.

Billy had no problem dealing with big egos and superstars.

Don't be so sure Mantle didn't have a little help. Speed was king for a long time before 'roids and Mantle had a heck of a history of showing up after a late night out when he probably needed a little pick me up. Not saying it is true, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

But I would take Manny in a tight need an RBI spot. Mantle for a season if both are in their prime. How many stolen bases did Mantle have? The guy could fly.

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:

Catfish

was it steroids?

EH

Martin would have handled it well

I may be wrong, but if memory serves me right it was HCG that he tested positive for. A testorone booster I believe it is.

If you are FOUND cheating in this game one way or another, i.e. PED's, loaded bat, etc. you don't even deserve to be put up for a vote such as this against the greats of the game IMO.

Mantle like the other greats did it all naturale.

There IS no comparison. AT ALL.

TR: I never said the word steroids in my post, but I did bring up PEDs in a more general way. Here's the deal, which I'm sure you know: Manny took HGC, a female fertility drug that is popular among steroid users because it lessens the side effects. The drug was added to MLB's list of banned substances last year and is similar to Clomid, a drug Jason Giambi admitted he used along with steroids to a grand jury.

Now you can believe Manny hasn't cheated, but he was suspended for violating MLB's drug policy and he didn't contest it. I obviously have drawn a different conclusion than you. I hate that guys who cheated (McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, A-Rod, etc.) are blowing up the MLB record book and somehow being compared to the truly great (Aaron, Mays, Mantle, etc.) I don't think it's too much to ask players to compete fairly. This entire era is tainted by PEDs and the drugs used to mask them.

So for me Mickey is greater than Manny will ever be. The sad thing? Manny is a great, great hitter, someone who didn't need to look for ways to chemically enhance his performance. His legacy will be judged accordingly.

You're right TR, this does make for an interesting discussion. Rather than mention the 50 game suspension, think I will take the fielding angle. I really think he deserves his poor fielding reputation whether it's a lack of interest or not.

Manny is one of the worst outfielders of our time according to the fielding bible which is actually used by many MLB clubs.

The Plus/Minus system

Every time a player makes a play that other outfielders did not make he scores a plus 1.

Every time a player fails to make a play that other outfielders made it is scored a minus 1.

This is not based on fielding percentage as much as making or not making plays.

From 2005 to 2007 one of the top left fielders was Carl Crawford and the worst, by far, was Manny Ramirez.

Crawford scored a + 32
Manny scored a – 109
That is a whopping 141 play difference.

The next two “worst” were Adam Dunn – 63 and Pat Burrell – 50. Manny’s -109 was by far the worst among all positions.

More interesting stuff according to the fielding plus/minus system.

The best/worst at each position 2005-2007

First basemen
Best: Pujols +72 – Worst: Fielder –33

Second Basemen
Best: Utley +64 – Worst: Weeks –41

Third Basemen
Best: Feliz +64 – Worst: Cabrera –37

Shortstops
Best: Everett +92 – Worst: Jeter –90

Left Fielders
Best: Byrnes +34 – Worst: Ramirez –109

Center Fielders
Best: A Jones +63 - Worst: Griffey –53

Right Fielders
Best: Kearns +36 – Worst: Dye –57

Pitchers
Best: Maddux +25 – Worst: Cabrera -14

Not sure what this all means but it is kind of interesting. Here is a link… Fielding Bible

I like that stat PG and it does tell quite a bit. Still think it's a little arbitrary because Judge A thinks a player can get to a ball while Judge B thinks he couldn't (at least the way I interpret what you put). But overall still seems to be a pretty good indicator of good / bad defense.

Ran across this article on PED's and history of baseball.


http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2009/0...have-always-cheated/
By no means do I intend for it to be gospel but gets you to thinking. We put guys like Mantle, Ruth, Gherig, Cobb and so on on these pedastals while we look for anything on today's players.

The media has changed and in all honesty not for the good. Back in the "good old days" the media protected celebrities / athletes. How many times do you read / hear / see stories of how the media wouldn't print all the stuff the they did. Today they will do anything to "report" (create) a story even if it means the facts get skewed a little.

I don't believe you can compare raw numbers from two separate eras. You would have to look at the pitchers of each era statistically and mean hitting stats of each era. How would you compare the wear and tear of travel in each era? That would be completely subjective. The ball parks of each era would have to be compared. I believe Bill James does that. Otherwise all you have is opinion and debate.

catfish--you have it exactly right--Ramirez is a cheater who used a female fertility drug to mask his use of PEDs, most likely steroids. This means that no number he has put up, at any point in his career, can be trusted. A thousand players who did not make it into the record books may have done so had they used PEDs. A thousand other players may have competed for MLB roster spots and playing time had they used PEDs. A thousand other players may have made the leap from HS ball to Div I ball had they used PEDs. All of these honest players can enjoy their integrity and their reputations as honest people are well-deserved. Ramirez, like Bonds, Sosa, and so many others of that generation, are tainted forever. Did anything they accomplished on the field reflect talent, hard work, skill, sacrifice, dedication? Or were their numbers and accomplishments simply PED driven facades? We will never know BECAUSE THEY CHEATED, and in doing so they cheated fans, teammates, and baseball itself.

Manny Ramirez should not even be mentioned in the same breath as Mickey Mantle. Sure, the Mick may have had his terrible troubles with alcohol, but the alcohol was legal and certainly never enhanced his performance. The same with the Babe. Maybe we should be asking how much better Mantle's and Ruth's numbers would have been had they been off the sauce.

Now, the debate about Mantle and Mays is a great one. Compare Williams and Dimaggio. Compare Gehrig and Pujols. But don't bring known CHEATERS into the mix. It's like comparing a horse to a Maserati--one is natural and the other is manufactured. The one that is manufactured is manufactured for the purpose of being better than the one that is natural. It is engineered to run faster, and it will do so. It just "ain't" right to compare great natural talents like the Mick to manufactured talents like Ramirez.

coach 2709 your link is enlightening. I can believe that guys from the 50's - 70's took some sort of PEDs.

First of all with a 150-162 game schedule and playing just about every day a body gets worn down and needs a little help to keep going.

Second, it would not be a stretch to think that a guy like Mantle, who drank every day, would not take a pill or a shot to make him feel better the day after drinking all night. It's not like he treated his body like a temple.

Add to that his bad knees and it makes some sense that he would take some sort of pick-me-up.

I would be willing to bet that many old timers took something less than legal to keep playing every day.

Coach--the writer of the article and, apparently, the author of the book, do not cite any authority whatsoever for the proposition that Mantle used steroids. What a load. If I write that Lou Gehrig used steroids does it mean that he did? Come on. And Mays denied the allegation made by a lesser player. And Aaron allegedly admits to using a single amphetamine once? And the Schmidt quote only shows that he WOULD NOT HAVE USED steroids if given the chance. That article actually establishes that players of the past likely DID NOT use such PEDs (steroids).

Now, did players in the past used "pick me ups" (amphetamines)? Many probably did. These were often made readily available by ball clubs in the locker room. They were used like caffiene or today's energy drinks. Because of their visibility and the fact that clubs provided them I would guess that they were legal substances and quite mild. But these are nothing like steroids in any case. Again, drink a Red Bull before a game and you have the same argument. Steroids and HGH are completely different issues.

So no one should be comparing CHEATERS like Bonds, Ramirez, and Sosa to guys like Mantle, Mays, and Aaron, even if the latter could be proved to have taken any of the "pick me ups."

A question--should we keep Pete Rose out of the Hall if we allow in guys like Bonds, Ramirez, McGwire, Sosa, etc.?

I think all players should be eligible for the HOF with an asterisk for those who are suspected of wrongdoing ( PEDS, GAMBLING etc )---we already have druggies in the HOF at the present time

Did any of you ever use diet pills before exams in college?

the better overall player was Mantle.. big time 5 tool; but the better hitter is Manny by a large amount. I recall an interview with Mantle.. his approach was simmple.. grip it and rip it.

Manny reminds me a lot of Williams in that he cares little for anything about the game other than the science of hitting. He may be happy go lucky or whatever way you wish to describe him but he takes hitting very seriously. Williams was the same way and in the same manner was not very well liked by the fans during his playing days.

I hated it when Manny was caught on his test.. I hated it for the histroy of the game because Manny will be one of the top rated hitters in history when he is done. Now it will be marked with an asterisk.

Its fashionable to hit hard on those who in the recent histroy of the game were caught using performance enhancers but does anyone who has read a good biography of the Babe think he really wouldnt have used them had they been available when he played? Is there an asterisk besides Gaylord Perry's name in the record book even though he cheated and continued to throw a spitter? Even the straightest arrow the game has ever known.. George Sisler used to put nails in his bat.. was there an asterisk beside his name for the single season hit record until Ichiro broke it recently?

I hate that it has sullied the history of the game but unless the rules were clearly in place and enforced concerning performance enhancing drugs we need to tip our hats to the great players of the past 2 decades and move on.

quote:

Did any of you ever use diet pills before exams in college?

No, I never did. Is this a confession for you?

dbg


Not at all---just a question--

As I recall, "Ball Four" pretty much laid it out with regard to Mantle and amphetamines.

i recall an interview Mantle did when he was terminal. It was all a mea culpa, I'm sorry for the things I did; dont play it like I did; learn from my mistakes kinda thing.

At the end of the interview the reporter asked him what was one thing he would still like to do. He got that loveable bad boy, sheepish grin, awe shucks thing going on and said: %$#@ Raquel Welch.

We are what we are and Mantle was a live hard and fast guy... he would have used steroids if he had played during the last 10-15 years.

If anyone thinks steroids and HGH are somehow equal to a handful of greenies in terms of performance, I'll point you to the record book. Look at the numbers in the mid-to-late 1990s and early 2000's. The power-hitting numbers were off the charts compared to any other era. And with all the documented evidence on steroid use in the game over that period, it's clear some players were cheating. It has robbed guys like Schmidt, Reggie, Killebrew, Robinson of their rightful place in history. If you don't believe these drugs didn't make a difference, then I'd ask why the sky-high power numbers have dropped since MLB finally implemented a drug policy that's now actually catching the cheaters.

I didn't mean to hijack the debate of Mickey-Manny, but I don't think you can compare them without mentioning Manny's suspension. Back on topic, let's look at other factors. I like what PG did with the fielding. Mickey played a great center in a big ballpark, Manny played a medicore left in a small ballpark. There's no comparison.

Mickey won three AL MVP awards and finished second three times, which means he was considered one of the two best players in the league six seasons. Manny has never finished higher than third in MVP voting, and only then, a couple of times.

Mickey stole 153 bases in his career (on bad kneees!) and could fly. Manny has stolen 37. Who would you rather have going first to third?

Mickey had over 100 walks 10 times (leading the league five times), which tells you teams did not want to pitch to him. Manny has had 100 walks in only one season.

Mickey had to retire at age 36 because his body wore out. A chemically-enhanced Manny is still playing at 37. Mickey, it should be noted, put up his numbers in one of the greatest pitching eras of all-time while hitting in far more pitcher-friendly ballparks. Manny has benefitted by playing in the greatest hitting era of all-time (in part due to the use of steroids) in an overwhelming number of shiny new hitter-friendly ballparks.

And let's not even talk about the number of World Series championships won by each of them.

Again, I'll take Mickey any day of the week.

No comparison at all, Mickey Mantle was a switch hitter.
Can Manny bat left handed?

EH

quote:

Originally posted by rhobbs:
Coach--the writer of the article and, apparently, the author of the book, do not cite any authority whatsoever for the proposition that Mantle used steroids. What a load. If I write that Lou Gehrig used steroids does it mean that he did? Come on. And Mays denied the allegation made by a lesser player. And Aaron allegedly admits to using a single amphetamine once? And the Schmidt quote only shows that he WOULD NOT HAVE USED steroids if given the chance. That article actually establishes that players of the past likely DID NOT use such PEDs (steroids).

Now, did players in the past used "pick me ups" (amphetamines)? Many probably did. These were often made readily available by ball clubs in the locker room. They were used like caffiene or today's energy drinks. Because of their visibility and the fact that clubs provided them I would guess that they were legal substances and quite mild. But these are nothing like steroids in any case. Again, drink a Red Bull before a game and you have the same argument. Steroids and HGH are completely different issues.

So no one should be comparing CHEATERS like Bonds, Ramirez, and Sosa to guys like Mantle, Mays, and Aaron, even if the latter could be proved to have taken any of the "pick me ups."

A question--should we keep Pete Rose out of the Hall if we allow in guys like Bonds, Ramirez, McGwire, Sosa, etc.?

The older generations might have only taken amphetamines and not PED's but it's very naieve to think they wouldn't. Society hasn't really changed any but science has. Steroids have been around for a long time but science has made them better and easier to hide.

When it comes to drugs and things that need to be tested to be detected society will always be behind in the race. You can't develop a test to look for something until it's there. So some players will be looking for that edge and will push the envelope. Then science will develop a test for it and society will banish it. Then the whole cycle starts over.

I don't doubt one bit that Manny took something. I think he should be punished. I just think we need to move on from this "holier than thou" attitude we have taken with this generation of players. MLB players are humans and they reflect the types of people you find in normal everyday society - drunks, druggies, wife beaters, deadbeat dads,cheat on wife, church goers, wonderful husbands, wonderful dads, generous with money etc... It's not like MLB players from older generations were from the small percentage of "great" people and today's players are from all groups.

I have no doubt that some (not all) players from ANY generation would have taken PEDs if given the chance. It's nice to look back at the good old days with fondness because they go back to a simpler time but really think back. When you went through that time period there were bad things going on with you and society also. Sentimentality creates positive memories and skews reality just a little bit.

quote:

And Mays denied the allegation made by a lesser player. And Aaron allegedly admits to using a single amphetamine once? And the Schmidt quote only shows that he WOULD NOT HAVE USED steroids if given the chance. That article actually establishes that players of the past likely DID NOT use such PEDs (steroids).

No offense but this is wishful thinking. Are you saying that since Mays was a great player and he denies something that a lesser talented player says we should take it as gospel? People lie - in this case we don't know who did. Sort of like today's problem in that we don't know who lied about taking PEDs who has not. So today we go with the thinking "he did it and he cheated because most of them were doing it" but we never make that assumption about the older generations.

Your argument that Aaron used an amphetamine once could be the same thing with Manny and PEDs - he could have only taken them once. I know amphetamines and steroids are not the same but they both are banned now but they were both legal at one point (only in baseball).

Actually Schmidt first made the comment that he would have taken steroids but then retracted the statement.

quote:

Let's not forget what Hall of Famer Mike Schmidt told Bob Costas in 2005:
"Let me go out on a limb and say that if I had played during that era I would have taken steroids. ... We all have these things we deal with in life, and I'm surely not going to sit here and say to you guys, 'I wouldn't have done that.'
(Schmidt wrote later in his autobiography that he thinks he wouldn't have taken steroids, but he understood why players did.)

I think we just need to move past this movement of tearing down todays players and putting past players up on pedestals. We need to move on to the point where we play the game again. If someone is caught punish them and move on. That is what football does and they have more reasons to use PEDs but it's not that big of a deal over there.

As for the original topic - Manny better hitter; Mick the better player.

Let's quit bringing up Pete Rose. He AGREED to a lifetime ban in order to cover up how messy it really was.
He goes into the Hall... the day after he dies.

If you put Rose in, you sure as hell better put Shoeless Joe in.

Coach2709: I think you make some very good points. Sometimes people do fixate on the good old days that weren't always so good. My point is that the guys who chose to cheat to further their careers and statistics didn't just do it to past generations. They did it to their peers as well. You know, the guys who made a conscious choice to do things the right way. Many players turned their backs on PEDs because they knew it was wrong. The decision likely cost them years off their careers and money off their contracts, not to mention artificially-inflated statistics. Unfortunately, we'll never know for sure who all the clean guys were and all the cheaters were. I'd love to applaud the guys who did it right. And I'm not so willing to forgive the cheaters like Manny. He was good enough that he didn't have to do it, yet he still did. In the court of public opinion and in the eyes of Hall of Fame voters, McGwire is the first to suffer the repercussions. I hope the others meet the same fate.

Oh, and EH, I love your point. Let's see Manny take a few swings from the left side. Mickey remains the game's greatest switch-hitter.

Betting on baseball must be worst of all. Check this clip of Gehrig's farewell speech and read the notice in the backgroun on the wall beyond the bleachers.
Lou Gehrig's Farewell Speech

quote:

Originally posted by theEH:
No comparison at all, Mickey Mantle was a switch hitter.
Can Manny bat left handed?

EH

It must be safe to say that Mantle was twice the hitter Manny was

If you are a switch hitter does that automatically make you the better hitter?----I think not

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
If you are a switch hitter does that automatically make you the better hitter?----I think not

Some guys hit three ways .... right, left and seldom.

Coach--What I wrote about Mays and Aaron and Schmidt IS STRAIGHT FROM THE ARTICLE that you quoted as proving that those guys benefited from PEDs. In quoting it all back to me, you only reinforce the points:

(1) Mays denied use of even amphetamines. That is what the article says. Why doubt him? Are we really so jaded that we cannot take him at his word? What has Willie Mays ever said or done that leads us to believe he is a liar?

(2) Aaron apparently told someone once that he used amphetamines once. That is what the article says. Again, do we not take him at his word, assuming he actually admitted even this? One such use could have helped, if at all, in one game--even if a three homer game, it does not detract much from his overall numbers.

(3) Schmidt told Costas he WOULD have used if playing in the steroid era. Then in his book wrote that he would not have. In any case, HE DID NOT. Who knows, really, if he would have? And if he had, would he now have more homeruns than Ruth? Aaron? Bonds?

We have no idea what any of these men actually did or would have done had they played in a different era. We know what Mays tells us--and we have to either believe him or not. I see no reason not to take him at his word. Same with Aaron, Schmidt, and, I am sure, Williams, Gehrig, Ruth, DiMaggio, Cobb and all the other greats of the past.

Now, would Ruth have used steroids if playing in the 1990s? Lord knows. If he had, he would have probably topped 90 HRs per season for as long as he used them. Think about how little care he took of his health. Given today's training, PEDs, conditioning and so forth, he may have hit 100 or more per year. Williams? Wow. What would his numbers be? .400 may have been routine for him, along with 800 career HRs (and that assumes loss of critical years to USMC service). All of that is speculation, in any case.

What we know is that Bonds, Sosa, Ramirez and others all used steroids and/or HGH and, therefore, their numbers are suspect and they are CHEATERS.

Which one of those guys found to be on steroids didn't deny it on their mothers graves ?
The more you look into player back grounds the more you realize there arn't any heros in sports. They are just people with all the problems of regular people.

What about the number of world series Mantle played in and contributed to, from the 50s up to the early 60s--performing under pressure on the big stage.

The one time the Brook. Dodgers won the series was in 55, I believe, and Mantle was out of the lineup for the deciding game! Would the Bums have won otherwise?

Also, take into account the weight of living up to the reputations of Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, etc. as a rookie, and succeeding brilliantly! How often does that happen with the so-called hot prospects these days?

I think it's kind of hard to generalize about Mantle's World Series appearances, that was back in a time when the Yankees dominated baseball, and the game was different than played today. Sorry you can not compare the prospects or players of today because of that difference, would these guys have been superstars today, or just regular everyday players?

As time moves forward each generation will view certain time periods and the players involved within those periods differently.

Some of the stories son has repeated from some of his managers and coaches are unbeleivable. These guys in that era were into everything they could get their hands on to make the pain go away, then whatever could help them perform in a game, mainly amphetimines, which is a performance enhancer (yes I remember those uppers way back in college). A large portion of those players from that era were serious alcoholics and showed up drunk before games. They would then await for their hookups to deliver greenies so they could "be up" for the daily game. Many of these guys probably couldn't play the game today with the way they did NOT take care of themselves. I don't think there was even anything called off season training back then.

Was Mantle better than Manny, I don't know, I don't know how you can even compare.

Uh, its not generalizing to say that Mickey Mantle did not play in the deciding game of the ONLY series that the Dodgers EVER won against them, and that his absence was probably a big factor in the outcome. That doesn't fall into the "regular everyday player" category.

From a true scouting perspective Mantle was better than Manny.

If we take the 5 tools...

Run - Mantle was "much" faster than Manny.
Field - Mantle was "much" better and played CF.
Throw - Mantle had a "much" stronger arm.
Power - Mantle had "much" more power.
Hit - That is the only tool worth debating.

Also, Mantle looked 100 times better in a uniform!

Of course, there comes a time when "results" become more important than tools.

rhobbs I think your complete infatuation with the older generations and almost hatered of today's players will not allow you to understand my points. Regarding Schmidt and your first post and then in your second you totally contradicted yourself just to make your point. I don't see any point in continuing this because I just don't think you have an open mind to the fact that it's possible the "heroes" of yesteryear might not be that clean.

Besides I'm tired and don't feel like going back and forth.

Have a good one.

In the argument of whose a better hitter between Mantle and Manny (since it's ridiculous to even compare them as overall players) It cannot be stressed enough that the 50's and 60's were much less of hitting era's with the 60's being the poorest hitting conditions since the deadball era of the teens. Mantle played his home games in a huge old Yankee stadium that was death on righthanded power hitters. Manny played his whole career up to the last year and a half in home ballparks very favorable for hitters in the greatest power hitting era of all time and the best overall hitting conditions since the 1930's. The decline phase of Manny's career has not been factored in statistically and the BA and slugging averages will decline some more toward Mantle's numbers. Mantle already has a better on base percentage before Manny's decline phase. Until R. Maris joined the Yankees, Mantle only had Berra batting behind him who was an excellent hitter but only had a career high of thirty HRs. Manny has had some greater hitters around him throughout his career. The Yankees of the 50's won with a bunch of winning unselfish players like Bauer, Woodling, McDougald, Richardson, Skowron, E. Howard, who were solid but not great. I think Mantle was actually the better hitter too, just not by a large margin.

There's no doubt Mannys a great batter.
But when does playing below average defense, trump your
Hitting ability?
So you hit a homer, but let a run score because you could not get to a playable fly ball.

quote:

Originally posted by theEH:
There's no doubt Mannys a great batter.
But when does playing below average defense, trump your
Hitting ability?
So you hit a homer, but let a run score because you could not get to a playable fly ball.

Apparently never, because he has never lost his position on the field. He epotmizes the oldest cliche in baseball. "If you can hit....."

Coach--I hope you are now well rested. I don't contradict myself wrt Schmidt. I am merely paraphrasing the article that quotes Schmidt--and in neither quote does he say he used any PED. The contradiction is when HE says in the first instance that, if he played today, he would have used PEDs, only to then write, later, that, if he played today, he would not have used PEDs. SCHMIDT provides the contradiction, but it is only as to the speculative. As to whether he ever actually did, in his day, he flat out says no.

I am not infatuated with players of any era. Players are like all other humans--we are all "all too human." What I object to is trying to make valid comparisons between known PED abusers and guys we are almost 100% certain did not use PEDs. MLB record books are not worth the paper they are written on, as rules changes, technological advances, materiel changes. . . all contribute to a constantly changing game. Raise the mound, lower the mound. Change the ball. Change the fences. Build players bigger, faster, stronger. Cheat with steroids or HGH. Hire personal trainers, publicists, nutrionists, personal chefs. . . Baseball is different among eras, and the experience of each player is different within eras. Comparison using numbers is a fool's errand, to be honest. Maybe it is still amusing (again Mays vs. Mantle vs. Williams vs. DiMaggio), but it is a fool's errand. What I know is that I (I cannot account for your views) will never trust the numbers of known PED abusers. As far as I now know, Bonds' Pirates numbers are as tainted as his Giants numbers. I trust no one who has cheated like these guys have cheated.

hobbs

Is it possible that we compare supposed PED users with players who may have been PED users but were not caught doing so.

Is not using greenies to offsst a massive hangover using PED's?

tr

i would say the term...performance enhancing drug. say's it all. but it does/will mean different things to different people. if it made you play better or at all, it was a ped. by definition anyway.

I feel that cortisone shots, painkillers et al are PED's by definition


I have had numerous arthritis situations along with gout but a trip to the doc , a steroid shot and various drugs I am walking without pain within 30 minutes---if this works that well for me and I am totally mobile it can certainly be termed a PED

I think we throw some of these terms around too loosely

TR are those banned substances ?
As was pointed out a couple years ago by a Doctor that used to post here, medical use steroids are not the same as performance enhancing steroids.
I had a steroid shot in my left eye and no it didn't pop out of its socket.

TR, I think I see the point you are making about PED's. But to take your hypothetical example one step further...

The arthritis treatments you mention are all legal for you to take. However, if you or I decided to seek out illegal drugs to treat our pain or illness, we would be breaking the law, and if caught we would have to face whatever penalties were attached.

On this topic in general, if players use pain relievers or supplements that are NOT banned by major league baseball, I don't see a problem. If current or former players used a substance BEFORE it was banned that later was banned, I don't see a problem. The spitball used to be legal in baseball; now it is not. I haven't heard anyone demanding they throw out the stats of pitchers who used a spitball before the rule change.

Julie

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
From a true scouting perspective Mantle was better than Manny.

If we take the 5 tools...

Run - Mantle was "much" faster than Manny.
Field - Mantle was "much" better and played CF.
Throw - Mantle had a "much" stronger arm.
Power - Mantle had "much" more power.
Hit - That is the only tool worth debating.

Also, Mantle looked 100 times better in a uniform!

Of course, there comes a time when "results" become more important than tools.

PG - respectfully disagree. Manny has a career slugging average of .595 compared to Mantle's .557. Manny has 538 homers in 7751 ab's compared to Mickey's 536 in 8102 ab's. I would say that is more than debatable.

Now, if your argument is that Mickey could hit them farther, then I don't know how to respond to that. Manny hits them far enough to go over the fence. I am not sure arguing anything else makes much sense? I have also seen Manny hit many that are way, way, way over the fence. Based on what esteemed people like you have told me about Mickey, I have no doubts he hit them a long ways and farther than Manny.

Manny was no slouch with the arm either. Again, no doubt he was no Mantle defensively but he was a decent right fielder when he came up with perhaps an above average arm.

Manny made a foolish mistake using steroids because he did not need them imho. He is one of the best hitters I have ever seen and most people probably do not realize how hard he works to be one of the all time greats.

CD,
I have a bit of a different view on the Mantle vs Manny issue, especially when it comes to stats.
If we look at MM's stats, one sees two different players/two different careers. From 1951 to about 1962, even with his terrible knee, there was no one in baseball who hit for average, hit for power and drove in runs like Mantle.
From about 1963/64, his skills declined rapidly. The last few years of his career were painful to watch. He stuck around far too long as a shell of his greatness as a player. For these years, it would be kind to suggest he was "average."
If we then compare the totality of their comparative careers, Manny's offensive stats speak for themselves.
If we examine Mantle during those peak years, especially the late 50's to 1961, very few played the game at that level, ever. Manny never has performed at such a high level, as a complete player.
In their age periods from 32 onward, Manny is, by far, the better player, even the better all around player.
From ages 20-30, Mantle is right there with Mays in being superlative in all 5 tools. From ages 20-30, I would take Mantle offensively. Defensively, I don't ever visualize Manny making the Vic Wertz catch, if you get my drift.

quote:

Defensively, I don't ever visualize Manny making the Vic Wertz catch, if you get my drift.

Indeed I do get your drift

Look, I never saw Mantle play. I didn't start following MLB until about 1969 when I was nine years old. I have no doubts what people say about him. HBO did a wonderful special on him and everyone that spoke of him commented on the "two" careers and lamented what might have been.

FWIW they don't give out cortisone shots that freely, if they did, most likely lots of guys wouldn't be sitting out on the DL.
Cortisone shots can build up scar tissue, which prevents mobility of the joints and muscles it is injected into which athletes need to perform their job, we don't. With that information, any shot given now has to be accompianied by rest from 5-10 days. Teams now treat their players with oral anti inflammatories and excercises, rather than injections.
They are not performance enhancers but rather therapy to reduce inflammation and not given just for pain so an athlete can perform better.

Taking a cortizone shot to cut down inflamation and easing the pain is a lot different than a healthy, injury-free player taking steroids and PEDS to get bigger and stronger to hit the ball further. Taking a cortisone shot with no pain or inflamation in a healthy joint or area isn't gonna inprove performance. Besides, you will be limited on how many shots a doc will administer in a given area.

CD,

Manny is obviously a great hitter, but I doubt if you could find one scout who saw them both that wouldn't say Mantle had "much" more power. Mantle might have had more power than anyone who has ever played.

The statistics are important, but two completly different eras. Manny played in the era that obliterated almost every home run record.

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
CD,

Manny is obviously a great hitter, but I doubt if you could find one scout who saw them both that wouldn't say Mantle had "much" more power. Mantle might have had more power than anyone who has ever played.

The statistics are important, but two completly different eras. Manny played in the era that obliterated almost every home run record.

I guess it is the "much" part that has me scratching my head. Obviously, I have not seen both play so I really don't know. Of course I trust your opinion on the matter.

These things are fun to argue sometimes however. Leaving the steroids issue out of it, the three guys who were up there for the all time season homerun record were Maris, Ruth, and Mantle. Do you think it was just a coincidence they all played in Yankee Stadium? That said, no one would disagree that they all had great power. Manny obviously has played in some favorable ballparks in Cleveland and Boston.

The ball park does make a difference, but the 27 and 61 Yankees are generally considered two of the best teams in baseball history. A big reason for that were Ruth, Mantle and Maris, along with many other great players.

I just think hitting 40 or more home runs in the last decade was “much” more common than it was in the 50s and 60s.

In the 50s there were only two players who hit 50 HRs or more in a season (Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle)

In the 60s there were only three players who hit 50 HR or more in a season (Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris)

In the 70s only one player hit 50 HRs or more (George Foster)

In the 80s not a single player hit 50 HRs in a season.

From 1990 to 1995 only one player hit 50 HRs or more (Cecil Fielder)

From 1995 to 2007 “24” players hit 50 or more HRs in a season. Manny has been very consistent, but his best year was 45 HRs in 1998.

In the entire history of baseball up until 1998, 2 players hit 60 or more HRS in a season. (60 in 1927 and 61 in 1961)

From 1998 to 2001 6 players hit at least 63 HRs in a season, two hit 70 or more.

That is why we can’t use just the numbers to compare “power” from different eras. Whether it is the equipment, the ball parks, maple bats, steroids or something else… Things change from one era to another.

I agree that this stuff is fun to debate.

PG,
That was great stuff. Interesting, even during those questionable years, not too many hit over 60, and the two with 70 have controversy. Just goes to show you how tough it is, just like a perfect game for a pitcher.
One thing I like is consistancy, year after year through a player's career. And I am with you,you can't compare eras in baseball, too many factors to consider.

I probably won't be around, but I think in years to come, Pujols will surpass most players as one of the best hitters in the history of the game. I really hope that his name remains free of all this steroid mess, brings hope and promise to the betterment of the game.

This site will let you look at the HR#'s from year to year.
Just click on the year you want to look at.
I have it on year 1995.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/history...r/1995/sort/homeRuns

EH