Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
You can tell the young guys from the rest of us. This was posted: "To some extent, this is like arguing centerfielders in New York in the 1950s. Who was better: the Dodgers' Duke Snider, the Giants' Willie Mays, or the Yankees' Mickey Mantle? Can you really go wrong no matter which one you pick in those days?"
From a fielding perspective this was really not a contest. Snider was never known for his glove. Mantle had such bad wheels that he was really never a factor in the outfield. Mays wins, hands down. The greatest fielder perhaps of all time. At the plate, Mantle gets the edge, at least in drama and speed before his legs went bad.
Hmm, more obvious looking back than arguing it in the 1950s. Snider had 5 straight years of 40 or more homers (1953-57) and averaged 42 HRs, 124 RBIs, .320 for 1953-56. He's still the only player to hit 4 HRs in two different World Series, AFAIK. You are right he wasn't a fielder to match Mays -- but who was?
Mantle played right in 1951 and moved to center in 1952. While relatively healthy, he was a very good centerfielder defensively; before the injuries he was one of the fastest players ever seen, particularly for a big man. He was a heck of a hitter, but his first year over 40 HRs was the marvelous 1956 season. From 1953-56, Mantle averaged 34 HRs, 106 RBIs, .306.
Mays was great, no doubt. No one was better defensively, and he stayed healthier longer, so his overall numbers were better. But for 1954-56 (he did not play in 1953), Mays averaged 42 HRs, 107 RBIs, .323.
Snider was in his first World Series in 1949, Mays and Mantle both in 1951. One of the three is in every World series from 1951 to 1964, and often two of them. While looking back after their careers are over makes it seem obvious how to rank them, it was nowhere near as clear in the 1950s, when constant debate over the ranking raged in New York. (and just for fun, imagine what the world would have been like if either the Yankees or the Red Sox had chosen to sign the young Willie Mays as their first black player.)
If you look at the "rankings" in early 1864, Lee is the top of the heap. But looking back from decades and decades later, it is possible to argue that Grant was better. As for Sherman, I don't rank him that high, and think either Grant or Lee -- or George Thomas -- would have beaten him in the Atlanta Campaign.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Exactly, Tim. It's quite easy enough to say who was better as a ________ (fill in the blank). I don't recall if we've ever defined a generalship in terms of particular offensive and defensive skills, or leadership. What, exactly, does make a good general? The devotion and obedience of his subortinate commanders? His tactics and strategies? His grit?
Hitting and fielding stats for the generals are what we need here. With, Opn, I'd have to agree that Grant has the edge.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Gen. Lee and Hannibal have other things in common too. They both fought wars with under resourced armies and with inferior numbers compared to their adversaries. They won remarkable battles repeatedly against adversaries with superior numbers.
Gen. Grant and Scipio fought wars with well resourced armies and usually superior numbers. They both have remarkable records but were over shadow by their contemporary adversaries even thou they defeated them.
Hmm, more obvious looking back than arguing it in the 1950s. Snider had 5 straight years of 40 or more homers (1953-57) and averaged 42 HRs, 124 RBIs, .320 for 1953-56. He's still the only player to hit 4 HRs in two different World Series, AFAIK. You are right he wasn't a fielder to match Mays -- but who was?
Mantle played right in 1951 and moved to center in 1952. While relatively healthy, he was a very good centerfielder defensively; before the injuries he was one of the fastest players ever seen, particularly for a big man. He was a heck of a hitter, but his first year over 40 HRs was the marvelous 1956 season. From 1953-56, Mantle averaged 34 HRs, 106 RBIs, .306.
Mays was great, no doubt. No one was better defensively, and he stayed healthier longer, so his overall numbers were better. But for 1954-56 (he did not play in 1953), Mays averaged 42 HRs, 107 RBIs, .323.
Snider was in his first World Series in 1949, Mays and Mantle both in 1951. One of the three is in every World series from 1951 to 1964, and often two of them. While looking back after their careers are over makes it seem obvious how to rank them, it was nowhere near as clear in the 1950s, when constant debate over the ranking raged in New York. (and just for fun, imagine what the world would have been like if either the Yankees or the Red Sox had chosen to sign the young Willie Mays as their first black player.)
If you look at the "rankings" in early 1864, Lee is the top of the heap. But looking back from decades and decades later, it is possible to argue that Grant was better. As for Sherman, I don't rank him that high, and think either Grant or Lee -- or George Thomas -- would have beaten him in the Atlanta Campaign.
Regards,
Tim
Tim, you seem to have studied a little baseball as well as the war. That was well-written and concise as best I can tell. All three Snider, Mantle and Mays, along with others were our imaginary heroes in the 1950s. My comment dealt only with the fielding perspective. No contest, Mays, and yes your comments concerning Mantle prior to his injury are quite accurate. As for whose signature bat was most often chosen, Snider did very well for himself, as certainly did the other two. I'd gladly swap batting stats and paychecks with any of the three! I'm thinking Mantle had the most fans, which is amazing since his deportment was often not the best example for kids to follow. Could he hit the ball and run? yes.
Generals, perhaps a different story. That one gets even more subjective. Grant won the 'world series' hands down. Lee had the fan appeal. Sherman and Thomas had the stats. Forrest has my heart. Who could want more than that?
__________________
Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
Who is the best pitcher:
.................................................. ........Team Record
..........................Won-Lost....ERA......Won-Lost....Runs Per Game
Bobby Lee...............15-15......3.35........62-100......3.00
Sammy Grant...........19-16......4.25.......100-62.......5.00
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
His forces were defeated in a previous attempt against Vicksburg (Chickasaw Bluffs, Dec. 1862).
A battle in which Grant himself had no stake in. His army had to turn backwith the steamers and he sent a message to Sherman aborting the maneuver. Sherman had already left and never recieved the message. He made the attacks on the bluffs expecting support from Grant who was by this time back in Ft. Donnelson. This particular defeat needs to go under Sherman's column.
__________________
"In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
Who is the best pitcher:
.................................................. ........Team Record
..........................Won-Lost....ERA......Won-Lost....Runs Per Game
Bobby Lee...............15-15......3.35........62-100......3.00
Sammy Grant...........19-16......4.25.......100-62.......5.00
As usual, your data is completely unreliable.
Campaigns: Grant - 5-0 [Fts Henry & Donelson, Vicksburg, Chattanooa, Overland, Appomattox]
Lee - 2-4 [Seven Days, 2nd Bull Run, Antietam, Gettysburg, Overland, Appomattox]
Casualty rate [killed and wounded] suffered:
Grant - 15%
Lee - 20.2%
Casualty rate [killed and wounded] inflicted on the enemy:
Grant - 20.7%
Lee - 15.4%
Note, Grant also captured three entire armies (14,000 at Fort Donelson, 29,500 at Vicksburg, and about 35,000 during the Appomattox Campaign) that aren't reflected in the casualties inflicted on the enemy.
From 1862 until 1865, the Confederacy lived three years. I credit those years to Lee. The Confederacy 'should' be overwhelemed as early as 1862, in my opinion. Even against a far superior enemy, Lee holds off Grant for a full year, against the best the Union has to offer and while I do respect Cash's 'casualty' rate analysis, in absolute numbers, the Army of Northern Virginia did not sell their lives 'cheap'
From 1862 until 1865, the Confederacy lived three years. I credit those years to Lee.
What did Lee do to stave off defeat in the west?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865
The Confederacy 'should' be overwhelemed as early as 1862, in my opinion.
Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865
Even against a far superior enemy, Lee holds off Grant for a full year, against the best the Union has to offer
He had a veteran army thoroughly entrenched in prepared defensive positions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865
and while I do respect Cash's 'casualty' rate analysis, in absolute numbers, the Army of Northern Virginia did not sell their lives 'cheap'
Nobody disputes Lee was a talented general, nor does anyone dispute that the ANV soldier was a hard fighter. But rifled weapons in the hands of veterans entrenched in prepared positions meant that a successful attack normally required the attacking force to have at least a 4:1 advantage in manpower regardless of the talent of the general directing those defending troops.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
(and just for fun, imagine what the world would have been like if either the Yankees or the Red Sox had chosen to sign the young Willie Mays as their first black player.)
Linear Mode
