About the Author
Retired Naval Off, Special Operations. Married 4 children and 4 grandchildren. UCLA grad History & Political Science. Love to fish and read historical fiction or fact.More By Cmdrporter
Other recent contributors
Other recent voters
Mantle Ruth DiMaggio what was the difference.
| 17
|
I am sure a lot of people, particularly Yankee fans, have debated that question for years now. Mantle was better than DiMaggio and Ruth, or DiMaggio was better than Ruth and Mantle. Well, since I can only give an opinion on 2/3's of it, I have had to rely on my father's opinion and experiences for his take on Ruth as bias, as he is the only one around the family who has seen all three of them play at their peaks.
Mickey Mantle was a far better athlete than DiMaggio ever was, but they were two different types of body styles and playing styles. If Mickey came close to anyone it would be Ruth, when Ruth was only 185 lbs and 6'3" (and could run like a deer.) Pop use to talk about seeing him later as he got heavier, but remembers him the first time he saw him in the 1924 World Series at 6 years old as being overweight, but not as huge as some of the movies have pictured him. My grandfather was the one who used to tell all us kids that when the Babe was younger and just starting to pitch and play in the outfield, you couldn't see a better player anywhere. This included Ty Cobb, Rogers Hornsby, Mel Ott, and (according to him) even Shoeless Joe Jackson, whom my grandfather was great friends with.
There are a lot of DiMaggio fans everywhere in their late 70's and 80's, who remember him running in the outfield at Yankee Stadium. I just barely remember seeing him in the 1950's before he retired and compared to Mantle well, not even close. Mantle covered twice the ground that DiMaggio did. My Pop and grandfather both said many times that DiMaggio was smooth and one of the better hitters of his day, but wasn't a switch hitter and didn't have near the power of Ruth or Mantle, and for that reason placed him last of the three. Not having seen Ruth, but hearing about him from people that did, I think he must have been as good or better than Mantle, with the one exception that he didn't switch hit. On the other hand, Mantle didn't pitch, so maybe it is a push here. Mickey Mantle did some wonderful things in the outfield and on the bases, and so did Ruth and DiMaggio. All stole bases throughout their careers and their lifetimes averages are extraordinary at the least.
So, one positive thing I can truly say about the three is that all of them are Hall Of Famers and deserve to be there. But if I had to make a final pick on the question of who was a better ballplayer, it would have to go with my father's and grandfather's ideas. Mantle was hurt a great deal in his career and played hurt, but doing this hurt his numbers and later resulted in shortening his life, his lifestyle, much like Ruth, caused both of them to die earlier than they should have. DiMaggio was like them unbelievable on and off the field players, and lived a long and friutful life until his late 80's, and there is nothing that can be said about him that isn't positive with the only exception being that he was very hard to get to know personally because he wanted his private life separate from his playing life. It worked for him, but he wasn't the personality that either Mickey or Babe was both bigger than life and lived it the same bigger than life. But I can't think of any three players I wouldn't want to have in my outfield on any given day in any given situation. How would you pitch to DiMaggio then Mantle and then the worst case scenio, the Babe?
Joe DiMaggio's career numbers compare favorably to Larry Walker's... except Larry stole 200 more bases, hit 22 less HR and played on MUCH crappier teams.
And don't try that "DiMaggio miss years during the war" stuff - he only played 250 less games than Walker - who missed a ton of games himself, playing only more than 143 games in a season ONCE.
Detractors and blind lovers of "Joltin' Joe" will state that Joe struck out less times. But he also walked 130 less times than Walker...