Best CENTER FIELDER of all time???

[OG Hack Wilson]

so many quality options

[Chamillitary Click]

Willie Mays.

[OG Hack Wilson]

Im waiting to vote but TY COBB is my vote so far - the best mix of offensive + defnese CF

["THE" MoSav]

Willie Mays, i dont think this can be debated

[Your favorite posters favorite poster]

Willie Mays, i dont think this can be debated

Actually it's incredibly debatable.  Mantle had a higher career OPS and OPS+ and that is probably the worst way to gauge a players offensive value  And Willie's best seasons offensive seasons don't match up to Mantle's.  Mays best OPS+ during his career was a 184, Mantle posted higher than that in 5 different seasons, including three seasons over 200.  Now defensively Mantle was no slouch in field but Mays was arguably the best ever.  I won't hold Mays lack of playoff success against him because it's a very small sample size and if he had as many AB's in the playoffs as Mantle, his stats would most likely come closer to his career lines.  IMO Mantle was the better offensive player but Mays was a much better defensive player.  With that said, if I were to choose I would still probably go with Mays but it is much closer then most people think.  

[Your favorite posters favorite poster]

Im waiting to vote but TY COBB is my vote so far - the best mix of offensive + defnese CF

If I were to choose three players from MLB history, Ty Cobb would be one of those three but history really overrates his defensive value.

[Shallow]

The problem with Cobb is we can judge him as a batter based on his numbers, but there really isn't any footage of him playing in te field to warrant saying you'd rather have him back there than Willie. Now if we're in the bottom of the 9th, down by 1, 2 outs, bases loaded, and I can only pick 1 batter to go up and give me the best chance of winning this game then yeah I pick Cobb, but I don't know anything about his athletic ability to run down the ball or his arm.

["THE" MoSav]

mays also took a few years off to fight in the war, if that didnt happen this couldnt be debated

[.:DaYg0sTyLz:.]

Willie Mays



Without the injuries, Griffey would have made a push for best ever.

Even now he is one the greatest ever.

5th on all time HR's list (630)
10x Golden Glove
13x All Star

He would have have broken Hank Aarons HR record had it not been for all the injuries

[Your favorite posters favorite poster]

mays also took a few years off to fight in the war, if that didnt happen this couldnt be debated

If and Mantle never blew his knee out in his early 20's who knows how good he would of been.  The injuries early on his career left him in constant pain.  So instead of going with what ifs how about we just examine the things that actually happened in there careers.  And granted Mays missed three years because of the war, his five best seasons aren't as good as Mantles best five years and we have statistical proof to back that up.

[OG Hack Wilson]

Willie Mays, i dont think this can be debated

Actually it's incredibly debatable.  Mantle had a higher career OPS and OPS+ and that is probably the worst way to gauge a players offensive value  And Willie's best seasons offensive seasons don't match up to Mantle's.  Mays best OPS+ during his career was a 184, Mantle posted higher than that in 5 different seasons, including three seasons over 200.  Now defensively Mantle was no slouch in field but Mays was arguably the best ever.  I won't hold Mays lack of playoff success against him because it's a very small sample size and if he had as many AB's in the playoffs as Mantle, his stats would most likely come closer to his career lines.  IMO Mantle was the better offensive player but Mays was a much better defensive player.  With that said, if I were to choose I would still probably go with Mays but it is much closer then most people think.  

OPS+ is a great stat for sluggers, and a horrible stat for "small ball" guys


and Mantle > Mays for sure.  May's defense doesn't make up for Manlte'e offense

[Javier]

Willie Mays, i dont think this can be debated

Actually it's incredibly debatable.  Mantle had a higher career OPS and OPS+ and that is probably the worst way to gauge a players offensive value  And Willie's best seasons offensive seasons don't match up to Mantle's.  Mays best OPS+ during his career was a 184, Mantle posted higher than that in 5 different seasons, including three seasons over 200.  Now defensively Mantle was no slouch in field but Mays was arguably the best ever.  I won't hold Mays lack of playoff success against him because it's a very small sample size and if he had as many AB's in the playoffs as Mantle, his stats would most likely come closer to his career lines.  IMO Mantle was the better offensive player but Mays was a much better defensive player.  With that said, if I were to choose I would still probably go with Mays but it is much closer then most people think.  

OPS+ is a great stat for sluggers, and a horrible stat for "small ball" guys


and Mantle > Mays for sure.  May's defense doesn't make up for Manlte'e offense

OPS+ is also a great stat for "small ball" guys. 

[OG Hack Wilson]

not really



OPS+ would have to believe that Adam Dunn is a better player than Ichiro Suzuki

,
that is simply not the case, but OPS+ does nothing to take into account stolen bases, singles-stretched-into-doubles, doubles-extended-into-triples etc




now i suppose if you were JUST to focus on the hitting aspect alone (and not the complete offensive package) then yes.

[Javier]

I didn't say it's the only way to look at a baseball player though.  I just said that it's also good for these small ball guys.  Why?  Well, because OBP is taking into consideration as well in OPS. 

[OG Hack Wilson]

I didn't say it's the only way to look at a baseball player though.  I just said that it's also good for these small ball guys.  Why?  Well, because OBP is taking into consideration as well in OPS. 

OPS is worthless.


OPS+takes into account how other guys are doing that year.

in 1911 and 1930 for example, MLB offense was at an all time high.   having a .900 OPS didn't mean NEARLY as much as it did the years prior.