The passing of Willie Mays, who is widely and correctly viewed as the best post-integration player in major league history, is being marked across the baseball world. And, as Abraham Lincoln said in the Gettysburg Address, it is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
I of course knew about the military years but have never given a thought to the earlier years he could have had if times had been different, thanks for bringing that to our attention. When he was mentioned as the Greatest Living Player in my mind I always said greatest living or dead. One of the advantages of my advanced age is that I got to see some of Willie’s prime years and accomplishments.
Everything laid out in your what-if makes sense. Of course if we're opening up that door for him then logically we would do the same for some others and then things get real twisty. But, still.
I've also always thought that Mays, and not Ted Williams or anyone else, is the player who over the course of his career was most mistreated by MVP Award voters. Several different seasons you look at the NL voting and then at the numbers -- whether modern numbers or the ones that the actual MVP voters at that time were looking at -- and go, how the f*** did anybody conclude that Mays wasn't most valuable player this season?? Three different seasons he led the NL in WAR but didn't even make the top _five_ in the MVP vote! He won 2; should have won several, could arguably have totaled 6 or 7.
All that said, I also share Bill James' perspective that you cannot rank player careers unless you are specifying whether it's for peak value or career value. Those two things are simply different, the way that calling someone a "big guy" could mean he's 6'9" or could mean he's 350 pounds. Mays had an awesome and lengthy peak of course, but it is career value for which he can be called the greatest post-integration player. The insane peak reached by his contemporary Mickey Mantle was even higher than Mays', and I now view Mike Trout the same, and have read decent arguments for a couple of others as well.
While I agree with your premise that players typically have to be divided between those with the best peak value and those with the best career value, I think Mays is a clear exception to that. I also don't agree with the assertion that Mantle's peak was higher than Mays'.
Mantle from '55 to '58 totaled 40.8 bWAR. He was a better hitter than Mays, posting a 200 OPS+ in those years, but Mays' peak of '62 to '65 was b43.8 WAR because he was a better defender than Mantle while still having a great 174 OPS+. The only player post integration who can approach a four-year peak that high is steroid era Barry Bonds from '01 to '04, and then he only tied Mays at b43.4 WAR.
There have only been 6 four-year stretches since 1947 in which a player totaled at least 40.0 bWAR. One of them is Mantle's '55-'58 stretch. Two of them are Bonds, '00-'03 and '01-'04. The other three were all done by Mays: '61-'64, '62-'65, and '63-'66.
Since integration, there's simply no one in the same ballpark, peak or career, as Willie Mays.
I guess I'm skeptical that a difference in fielding results between two Gold Glove caliber players at the same position, could be significant enough to overcome an offensive difference as large as 26 OPS+.
One of the best things I've read on Mays, chiefly because it made me consider him in a new light. I was miffed in 2020 that Posnanski didn't name Ruth the best player of all time but I understand it now, and I believe Mays should be the GOAT. I never considered the loss of playing time between the Negro Leagues and military service. He's never thought of as a military service player, like Ted Williams or Feller or DiMaggio, but losing seasons in your early 20s is a big deal. And since he did debut young, people forget he lost real MLB time. Monte Irvin, of the old Giants, was always in my head as the player who got most screwed by MLB's racism, and he was - but the idea that Mays, with a bit better luck, would've hit 714+ homeruns and put to bed baseball's GOAT debate made me think twice. It's a bit dumb baseball lacks a Gretzky or Jordan, someone who played in modern enough times and is considered, widely, the best. I love the Babe, but the Babe retired before the onset of WW2.
I do not think there is any point in going down these what if rabbit holes. This was also a time where an ACL tear was career ending or at least severely altering. Maybe if he played with the Giants at age 18 we never would have remembered him.
In terms of what ifs with Mays I prefer to think about the impact of Candlestick and the pitching environment of the 60’s. His career is all the more remarkable in that context. I wish I could have seen him play.
A worthy debate. Mays is definitely a better all-around player than Ruth (don’t know that the Babe was considered a great outfielder), but Ruth dominated baseball during his career far more than Mays and transformed the game. Ruth was also a very good pitcher during the early stages of his career. I think it’s a tossup and won’t disagree either way, other than a ranking of someone else as one of the top two players. I know cases can be made for Josh Gibson or Oscar Charleston, but I’m not knowledgeable enough to make an informed distinction.
I of course knew about the military years but have never given a thought to the earlier years he could have had if times had been different, thanks for bringing that to our attention. When he was mentioned as the Greatest Living Player in my mind I always said greatest living or dead. One of the advantages of my advanced age is that I got to see some of Willie’s prime years and accomplishments.
Everything laid out in your what-if makes sense. Of course if we're opening up that door for him then logically we would do the same for some others and then things get real twisty. But, still.
I've also always thought that Mays, and not Ted Williams or anyone else, is the player who over the course of his career was most mistreated by MVP Award voters. Several different seasons you look at the NL voting and then at the numbers -- whether modern numbers or the ones that the actual MVP voters at that time were looking at -- and go, how the f*** did anybody conclude that Mays wasn't most valuable player this season?? Three different seasons he led the NL in WAR but didn't even make the top _five_ in the MVP vote! He won 2; should have won several, could arguably have totaled 6 or 7.
All that said, I also share Bill James' perspective that you cannot rank player careers unless you are specifying whether it's for peak value or career value. Those two things are simply different, the way that calling someone a "big guy" could mean he's 6'9" or could mean he's 350 pounds. Mays had an awesome and lengthy peak of course, but it is career value for which he can be called the greatest post-integration player. The insane peak reached by his contemporary Mickey Mantle was even higher than Mays', and I now view Mike Trout the same, and have read decent arguments for a couple of others as well.
While I agree with your premise that players typically have to be divided between those with the best peak value and those with the best career value, I think Mays is a clear exception to that. I also don't agree with the assertion that Mantle's peak was higher than Mays'.
Mantle from '55 to '58 totaled 40.8 bWAR. He was a better hitter than Mays, posting a 200 OPS+ in those years, but Mays' peak of '62 to '65 was b43.8 WAR because he was a better defender than Mantle while still having a great 174 OPS+. The only player post integration who can approach a four-year peak that high is steroid era Barry Bonds from '01 to '04, and then he only tied Mays at b43.4 WAR.
There have only been 6 four-year stretches since 1947 in which a player totaled at least 40.0 bWAR. One of them is Mantle's '55-'58 stretch. Two of them are Bonds, '00-'03 and '01-'04. The other three were all done by Mays: '61-'64, '62-'65, and '63-'66.
Since integration, there's simply no one in the same ballpark, peak or career, as Willie Mays.
I guess I'm skeptical that a difference in fielding results between two Gold Glove caliber players at the same position, could be significant enough to overcome an offensive difference as large as 26 OPS+.
One of the best things I've read on Mays, chiefly because it made me consider him in a new light. I was miffed in 2020 that Posnanski didn't name Ruth the best player of all time but I understand it now, and I believe Mays should be the GOAT. I never considered the loss of playing time between the Negro Leagues and military service. He's never thought of as a military service player, like Ted Williams or Feller or DiMaggio, but losing seasons in your early 20s is a big deal. And since he did debut young, people forget he lost real MLB time. Monte Irvin, of the old Giants, was always in my head as the player who got most screwed by MLB's racism, and he was - but the idea that Mays, with a bit better luck, would've hit 714+ homeruns and put to bed baseball's GOAT debate made me think twice. It's a bit dumb baseball lacks a Gretzky or Jordan, someone who played in modern enough times and is considered, widely, the best. I love the Babe, but the Babe retired before the onset of WW2.
Excellent remembrance. I like that additional context with this guy only serves to increase his greatness.
I do not think there is any point in going down these what if rabbit holes. This was also a time where an ACL tear was career ending or at least severely altering. Maybe if he played with the Giants at age 18 we never would have remembered him.
In terms of what ifs with Mays I prefer to think about the impact of Candlestick and the pitching environment of the 60’s. His career is all the more remarkable in that context. I wish I could have seen him play.
A worthy debate. Mays is definitely a better all-around player than Ruth (don’t know that the Babe was considered a great outfielder), but Ruth dominated baseball during his career far more than Mays and transformed the game. Ruth was also a very good pitcher during the early stages of his career. I think it’s a tossup and won’t disagree either way, other than a ranking of someone else as one of the top two players. I know cases can be made for Josh Gibson or Oscar Charleston, but I’m not knowledgeable enough to make an informed distinction.