Replies

“Falling an eyelash or two below .300 does not lessen Mantle’s achievements overall”

Didn’t say it did. But when you compare players of different position, I feel too much is determined by the opinion of the notoriety of the player and not the achievements. And you said it yourself, the “magic” .300. Another stat that is part of the show is stolen bases. Mantle was blessed by the media with having great speed. He did. Jones was not noticed. Mantle stole 153 career while Jones stole 158. Not much difference, but Mantle was the super star and Jones wasn’t.

Mantle’s job was not to steal bases. He was there to hit home runs in that short porch in both fields with a short fence. That helped a lot. But my point becomes obvious in that you can compare Jones as being comperable with Mantle. But you can’t say he isn’t better and more deserving than Trammell. So it tarnishes the award for me as it was given in my mind as a gift to him and not as deserved. And I like Trammel and thought he was a great player. But not as good as others.

rwood

We mainly agree, I would certainly place Chipper Jones above Morris and Trammell, although ofc it is not easy to make comparisons across different positions. I was only responding to your statement that seemed to place Chipper Jones as a hitter on a level above Mickey Mantle:

"[Jones] is recognized as the best switch hitter ever as he is only one of the three to hit over 400 home runs and have a lifetime average over .300. Mickey Mantle and Eddie Murray are the other two."

I was merely saying that I think Mantle has a number of points in his favor for this debate about "best switch-hitter ever" even though his lifetime average dipped slightly to .298 Mantle had 5-6 years of lesser productivity (due to injuries and not taking care of himself, perhaps) toward the end of his career, but his most prime 10+ years were rather extraordinary. Of course it was pumped by the NY and national media, but also by the fact that he achieved so much in the post-season (Chipper Jones did not have too much productivity in his World Series appearances).

Also, I would not leave Pete Rose entirely out of that "best switch-hitter" debate, simply for having 4,256 career hits and quite a few seasons of 200+ hits and/or .330+ batting average. I realize that Rose didn't have the power, and that his vast hits total was reached in part due to longevity, but he had many stellar batting seasons and I for one don't think it's easy to exclude Rose from a discussion of "best switch-hitter ever."