Tyler O'Neill vs. Jim Presley — Career Comparison
When their careers are measured against the same standard, Tyler O'Neill comes out clearly ahead of Jim Presley across most offensive categories. Tyler O'Neill led in walk rate (BB%+ 111 vs 64), home run production (HR/PA+ 178 vs 151), and on-base percentage (OBP+ 105 vs 90). Tyler O'Neill was the more complete offensive player.
Hitting Stats for Tyler O'Neill and Jim Presley
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
644
166.7
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
959
150.71
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
2318
600
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
3818
600
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
2056
532.18
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
3546
557.26
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
0.242
0.242
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
0.247
0.247
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
0.803
0.803
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
0.72
0.72
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
118
30.54
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
135
21.22
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
213
55.13
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
330
51.86
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
0.428
0.428
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
0.377
0.377
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
0.057
0.057
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
0.038
0.038
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
0.237
0.237
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
0.154
0.154
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
320.27
82.9
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
426.69
67.05
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
951
246.16
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
1489
234
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
741
191.8
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
1104
173.49
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
0.32
0.32
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
0.29
0.29
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
0.463
0.463
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
0.42
0.42
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
0.22
0.22
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
0.173
0.173
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
0.26
0.26
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
0.236
0.236
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
0.771
0.771
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
0.619
0.619
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
0.303
0.303
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
0.287
0.287
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
521
134.86
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
773
121.48
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
308.32
79.81
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
415.13
65.24
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
6
1.55
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
18
2.83
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
701
181.45
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
859
134.99
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
3.31
3.31
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
4.44
4.44
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
0.3
0.3
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
0.24
0.24
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
19
4.92
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
31
4.87
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
43
11.13
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
104
16.34
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
9
2.33
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
14
2.2
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
57
14.75
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
23
3.61
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 600 PA
84.21
84.21
Jim Presley
Career
Per 600 PA
39.13
39.13
Fielding Stats for Tyler O'Neill and Jim Presley
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 9 Innings
588
1.19
Jim Presley
Career
Per 9 Innings
962
1.07
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 9 Innings
500
1.01
Jim Presley
Career
Per 9 Innings
926
1.03
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 9 Innings
13301
27
Jim Presley
Career
Per 9 Innings
24223
27
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 9 Innings
4433.2
9
Jim Presley
Career
Per 9 Innings
8074.1
9
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 9 Innings
896
1.82
Jim Presley
Career
Per 9 Innings
878
0.98
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 9 Innings
25
0.05
Jim Presley
Career
Per 9 Innings
1739
1.94
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 9 Innings
26
0.05
Jim Presley
Career
Per 9 Innings
129
0.14
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 9 Innings
947
1.92
Jim Presley
Career
Per 9 Innings
2746
3.06
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 9 Innings
921
1.87
Jim Presley
Career
Per 9 Innings
2617
2.92
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 9 Innings
97.25
97.25
Jim Presley
Career
Per 9 Innings
95.3
95.3
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 9 Innings
1.566
1.566
Jim Presley
Career
Per 9 Innings
2.72
2.72
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 9 Innings
85.03
85.03
Jim Presley
Career
Per 9 Innings
96.26
96.26
Tyler O'Neill
Career
Per 9 Innings
3
0.01
Jim Presley
Career
Per 9 Innings
179
0.2