Mickey Mantle or Ted Williams?

Question

who was an overall better player?

Answer 1

Mickey Mantle in my opinion.

Answer 2

I'd have to go with Mantle. Although Williams was probably the greatest all around hitter ever, Mantle was a much more complete ballplayer. He was incredibly fast, and was a much better outfielder then Williams ever was. Proof in that is that Williams had the luxury of playing left field in the smallest park of his time. He barely had to cover any ground at all, while Mantle played center field at Yankee Stadium when it was the deepest center field in the AL.
And sorry, I have to respond to AA. Learn the definition of a precedent. You can not possibly think that Mickey Mantle is to blame for the fact that Mel Gibson is a drunken idiot or that Lindsay Lohan is a spoiled little brat. You act like Mantle was the first ballplayer to ever have a drink. And the idea that anyone other then Bonds and McGwire are responsible for their actions is even more ignorant. Yes it's a shame that Mantle was an alcoholic, but don't try to pin the responsibility for any other person's idiocy on him for that. All that was asked was who was the better overall player. Try representing your point with facts or at least some measure of intelligence about the game.

Answer 3

Mickey Mantle

Answer 4

Ted Williams

Answer 5

I'd give Williams the edge as a hitter. He might have been the greatest hitter of all time. He would have challenged Ruth's 714 if he hadn't given up 5 seasons fighting for his country (where he, of course, excelled as a fighter pilot).

But Mantle was definitely better overall. Williams was an indifferent fielder in a short left field at Fenway and Mantle, even though he was hobbled from a knee injury for most of his career played centerfield in the expanses of Yankee Stadium. And Mantle was a superb offensive player, too.

Not that it matters as playing goes, but Mantle gets the nod as a favorite with the fans and his teammates over the grouchy Williams. But Williams was definitely the better citizen with his tremendous charitible work for the Jimmy Fund for Childhood Leukemia and his devotion to inspiring and mentoring young players, such as Tony Gwynn, long after he left the game.

Answer 6

I think Mantle had more raw talent, but Ted Williams had the better baseball career (even without giving him credit for the 4and 1/2 years he missed to the wars).

Answer 7

Outfielders are there mostly for their bats, not their fielding.
Williams was far and away a better fielder.

Mantle created 9.3 runs per game and 2038 total in his career to Williams’ 12 per game and 2382 total.
Mantle is #13 in OPS (.977), Williams is #2 (1.115)
Mantle is #24 in slugging, Williams #2.
All of the numbers—and I do mean all of them—show that Mantle was a god among hitters, but that Williams was even better.
Yep, Mantle was a better fielder (although moving to first is not an argument in his favor), but it is simply not the case that he saved enough runs with his glove and arm to make up the differences in Williams’ favor.

And of course, as has been pointed out, Williams gave up almost five prime seasons to fight for his country.

Answer 8

Mickey Mantle. Ted Williams never aspired to be the best player, just the best hitter, which he was. Mantle could field in his day, could run, later played first base, and in his prime was one of the best pure hitters (undeniably the best switch-hitter) of all time. On an all-time team, I'd put Mantle in the field and DH Williams.

Answer 9

Wow. That's a tough one and it's always hard to compare. I will vote for Mantle on the basis that he won 3 MVP's to Ted Williams' 1 MVP.

Answer 10

Ted Williams was a better player.

Answer 11

Splendid Splitter Is the Better one the two Guessing I'm a red Sox Fan well Williams has been the Triple Crown Batting Champ twice, Last one who did was also with the Red Sox that was Carl Yaztermski who will be 69 Tomorrow.