Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mickey Mantle V. Willie Mays

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Well Mantle was obcessed with power for a while, if he tried he could have hit more doubles but batting left handed he was more of an uppercut swinger. Still looking at the numbers Mantle's prime leaves Mays' in the dust.
    "he probably used some performance enhancing drugs so he could do a better job on his report...i hear they make you gain weight" - Dr. Zizmor

    "I thought it was interesting and yes a conversation piece. Next time I post a similar story I will close with the question "So, do you think either of them have used steroids?" so that I can make the topic truly relevant to discussions about today's game." - Eric Davis

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqul1GyK7-g

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Edgartohof
      You know what, I was just thinking, if Mays hadn't missed those years (1952-1953), he could have made up those 55 HR's over those two seasons, and passed Ruth before Aaron did, assuming the rest of his career was the same. Because he would have passed Ruth in 1973, whereas Aaron didn't pass Ruth until 1974. Now Aaron would still eventually have become the HR king, but that definitely puts a change on things.
      Well what if Ted and Joe didn't loose time to WWII? Where would their numbers be? Joe D could have 500+ HRs a BA around .330 and an OPS around .980 I don't even want to think where Ted's numbers would be.
      "he probably used some performance enhancing drugs so he could do a better job on his report...i hear they make you gain weight" - Dr. Zizmor

      "I thought it was interesting and yes a conversation piece. Next time I post a similar story I will close with the question "So, do you think either of them have used steroids?" so that I can make the topic truly relevant to discussions about today's game." - Eric Davis

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqul1GyK7-g

      Comment


      • #48
        Ted probably wouldn't have hit over 714, unless there was to be a big spike in his HR totals.

        Comment


        • #49
          I went looking at some old boxes of baseball magazines that I kept from the 70's and 80's and found an article on this very same topic from a magazine called "Baseball Immortals" from 1979. The article has a nice picture of them posing together before an All Star Games.

          They show a chart comparing their stats after each player completed the 1965 season. As chance would have it, each of them played exactly 2,005 games at the end of the 1965 season. So this gave a good snapshot of each player at that point of their respective careers.

          Here are the stats per the magazine afer the 1965 season (this didn't line up the way I hoped but I have yet to learn how to input a table correctly):

          Category Mays Mantle
          Games 2,005 2,005
          At Bats 7,594 6,894
          Walks 949 1,464
          hit by Pitch 27 11
          Sac Flies 63 36
          Sac Bunts 4 13
          Plate Appearances 8,637 8,417
          Reached Base 3,357 3,583
          OBA .389 .426
          Runs 1,497 1,517
          RBI 1,402 1,344
          Hits 2,381 2,108
          BA .314 .306
          Singles 1,381 1,264
          Doubles 375 301
          Triples 118 70
          Home Runs 505 473
          Total Bases 4,507 3,968
          SA .593 .576
          Stolen Bases 276 145
          Caught Stealing 86 34
          SB % .762 .810
          Strikeouts 893 1,424
          GIDP 174 86
          IBB 140 107
          Games Outfield 1,987 1,922
          Putouts 5,246 4,266
          Assists 160 115
          Errors 98 82
          Double Plays 51 27
          Fielding Average .982 .982
          "Batting slumps? I never had one. When a guy hits .358, he doesn't have slumps."

          Rogers Hornsby, 1961

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by JRB
            Chris. You seem to be relying a great deal on this book by Craig Wright in forming your views. However, the passage you cited seems partially inaccurate. If you've quoted him correctly, he seems to be making the claim that a second wave of Feguson Jenkins, Willie McCovey, Dick Allen, Willie Stargell, Billy Williams, Bob Gibson etc. joined Jackie Robinson, Roy Campanella, Monte Irvin, Willie Mays, and Hank Aaron, etc, in the National League However, Jackie Robinson, Campanella and Irvin were long out of baseball before those other players came into the National league, and the players he is referring to came into the league in a staggered fashion, and not really a wave. Jackie's last year was 1956. Roy was paralyzed in an auto accident and didn't play after 1957. Monte Irvin's last year was 1956. Ferguson Jenkins made his first minimal appearance in 1965, appearing in just a few games, and the next year was just 6-8, and it wasn't until 1967 that he started making any impact, which is more than a decade after these other players stopped playing. Richie Allen's rookie year was 1964. Willie Stargell made his first appearance in 1962, however he wasn't making any impact until the 64-65 time frame. McCovey was rookie of the year as a part time player in 1959, however he did not become a full time player until 1963, and then he again slipped in 1964 and did not become a full time player for good until 1965. Although, Billy Willliams made some appearances as early as 1959, he was essentially a rookie in 1961. Bob Gibson made his first appearance in 1959 but didn't become a regular pitcher until 1961, and didn't really become a star pitcher until 1963. I hope you weren't trying to create the impression that Mays had to compete against all these players at the same time, because that would be misleading. Mays had been in the league 10 years before Billy Willliams made any impact. Mays had been in the league 13 years before Allen's rookie year, and 13 years before Stargell started making any impact. Mays had been in the league 16 years before Ferguson Jenkins made any impact, etc. Most of these players didn't become impact players until Mays' late prime and twighlight years.
            JRB, you are totally misunderstanding the point that I was making. The point was not really that there was a huge wave of black players than came in at a specific time, but rather that there were a number more black stars that came into the NL at that time rather than the AL, and thus that is a major reason for the NL of that period being a stronger league. If you don't think that's valid, then tell me what black stars were coming into the in the late 40s to 60s period (the integration era)?

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by 538280
              JRB, you are totally misunderstanding the point that I was making. The point was not really that there was a huge wave of black players than came in at a specific time, but rather that there were a number more black stars that came into the NL at that time rather than the AL, and thus that is a major reason for the NL of that period being a stronger league. If you don't think that's valid, then tell me what black stars were coming into the in the late 40s to 60s period (the integration era)?
              See saying that the NL was a stronger league is a lie, didn't Mantle go 7-5 against a "stronger" league throughout his career in the WS? Also more blacks does not equal a stronger league, however players like Jackie Robinson, Willie Mays, Henry Aaron, Roberto Clemente, amongst others do make it a good league. (NOTE: I said good not stronger)
              "he probably used some performance enhancing drugs so he could do a better job on his report...i hear they make you gain weight" - Dr. Zizmor

              "I thought it was interesting and yes a conversation piece. Next time I post a similar story I will close with the question "So, do you think either of them have used steroids?" so that I can make the topic truly relevant to discussions about today's game." - Eric Davis

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqul1GyK7-g

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Bench 5
                Dynasties also can have the impact of making other teams stronger due to the fact that they have to face tougher competition during the regular season.
                There is one team that is taking most of the great players in the league (the Yankees). The other teams are facing better competition only when they are playing the Yankees and otherwise they are facing weaker competition. I don't see how that equates to the other teams getting better.

                I think the anecdotal evidence that you can derive from looking at head to head in the WS is stronger evidence than basing league quality soley on racial composition.
                If you want to go the head to head route then I could bring up the ASG, which is probably a lot better than the WS anyway because it is all the stars in the league rather than just one team. Again, the WS is very misleading because the AL had one dynasty team, the Yankees, who totally beat up on the rest of the league. The NL had no dominant force, which may even be indicative that it was indeed stronger.

                Your line of thinking was popular in the 70's to answer why the NL won the AS game so many times. I don't see any evidence that there was a noticeable difference in league quality between the leagues during the time that they played.
                So is your entire argument based on the WS?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by 538280

                  If you want to go the head to head route then I could bring up the ASG, which is probably a lot better than the WS anyway because it is all the stars in the league rather than just one team. Again, the WS is very misleading because the AL had one dynasty team, the Yankees, who totally beat up on the rest of the league. The NL had no dominant force, which may even be indicative that it was indeed stronger.
                  Well I'm not saying that the NL wasn't the better league, but you can't say it was THAT much better when the Yankees mopped the floor with the NL in the WS. For exampe someone brought up that the despairity between the NL and the AL was greater than it is now. I find that hard to believe because the AL has still done alot better in the WS than the NL has, and they've won the ASGs too. Speaking of the ASG I really don't think you can say that that's a good metric to decide how good the league was, I bet players play exponetially harder in the WS than they would in the ASG. The ASG is an exhibithion that was fairly inconsequential back than.

                  Also the Yankees didn't just beat up on the rest of the AL, they beat up on the rest of baseball.
                  "he probably used some performance enhancing drugs so he could do a better job on his report...i hear they make you gain weight" - Dr. Zizmor

                  "I thought it was interesting and yes a conversation piece. Next time I post a similar story I will close with the question "So, do you think either of them have used steroids?" so that I can make the topic truly relevant to discussions about today's game." - Eric Davis

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqul1GyK7-g

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Chris - The only inter-league games that we can look at are the WS and AS games. The AS game is an exhibition game. I wouldn't place too much stock in which league is better based upon the results of an exhibition. Of the two, I place more stock in the outcomes of the WS since the games are not an exhibition. True the Yankess were dominant in the 50's and early 60's but then again the Dodgers were also a mini-dynasty in the NL.

                    One way to analyze your position is to do a study based upon how well players from one league did as compared to the other league before and after they switched leagues. If you are open to doing that then I think you have a better chance at proving your point. But to imply that one league is stronger based upon racial composition is a weak argument. I've seen you make this same argument before and I've disagreed. I just think that it's an uninformed argument unless you can back it up with some non-anecdotal evidence. My position is that the difference in league quality between the NL and AL during the times that Mays and Mantle played are negligible. And any difference is certainly not worth introducing into the argument to rate one player over the other.
                    "Batting slumps? I never had one. When a guy hits .358, he doesn't have slumps."

                    Rogers Hornsby, 1961

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by ChrisLDuncan
                      See saying that the NL was a stronger league is a lie, didn't Mantle go 7-5 against a "stronger" league throughout his career in the WS? Also more blacks does not equal a stronger league, however players like Jackie Robinson, Willie Mays, Henry Aaron, Roberto Clemente, amongst others do make it a good league. (NOTE: I said good not stronger)
                      --The Yankees did win the Series a little more than half the time when Mantle was with them, but one great team does not make a great league. The Yankees won the AL pennant 12 of Mantle's first 14 season. That doesn't say much for the rest of the league. Most of those seasons half or more of the other teams in the AL were no more than punching bags for the Yankees. The Browns (before they moved to Baltimore and decided to try and actually compete) and A's were little more than Yankee farm teams.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by leecemark
                        --The Yankees did win the Series a little more than half the time when Mantle was with them, but one great team does not make a great league. The Yankees won the AL pennant 12 of Mantle's first 14 season. That doesn't say much for the rest of the league. Most of those seasons half or more of the other teams in the AL were no more than punching bags for the Yankees. The Browns (before they moved to Baltimore and decided to try and actually compete) and A's were little more than Yankee farm teams.
                        As far as the early 1960's is concerned I strongly disagree with your assertion. I think the National League, not the American League, clearly had more punching bag type teams.

                        In 1960 the two worse teams in the NL were the 7th place Cubs with a 60-94 record and the last place Phillies with a 59-95 record, while in the AL the worse teams were Ted Williams' Red Sox with a 65-89 record and Kansas City with a 58-96 record, with the NL teams being worse by a 4 game edge in futility. 1961 was an expansion year in the AL, however it was the horrible National League team, the Phillies that had the worse record in baseball 47-107 in a shorter schedule, and the Cubs were in 7th with a 64-90 record. Over in the AL, the expansion Washington team was 61-100, while the K.C. team was also 61-100, both playing in a longer schedule. In relative terms, the two bottom NL teams were worse. In 1962 the expansion Mets in the National League were the worst team in the history of baseball with a 40-120 record. The Cubs were also horrible with a 59-103 record, as was Houston with a 64-96 record. The NL in 1962 had one of the worse combined records ever for the 3 bottom teams in a league. In contrast the last place Senators in the AL had a record of 60-101, which made them better than the two worse teams in the NL. The ninth place team in the AL, Kansas City with a 72-90 record, was better than the 3 bottom teams in the NL. In 1963 the horrible Mets team was 51-111, and Houston was 66-96, while the last place Senators in the AL 56-106, were 5 games better than the Mets, and the ninth place Angels were 70-91, which was 4 1/2 games better than the Colt 45's. In 1964 in the NL the last place Mets were 53-109, and the 9th place Houston team was 66-96, while in the AL, the last place Senators team was 62-100, 9 games better than the Mets, while the 9th place Boston team was 72-90, which was 6 games better than the Houston team. In 1965 in the NL the last place Mets were 50-112, and Houston was 63-97, while in the AL the last place Kansas City team was 59-103, which was 9 games better than the Mets, and the ninth place Boston team was 62-100, which was 2 games worse than Houston. In 1966 the last place Cubs were 59-103, and the ninth place Mets were 66-95, while in the AL the last place Yanks were 70-89, a 12 1/2 game edge over the Cubs, and the 9th place team, Boston was 72-90, a 5 1/2 game edge over the Mets.

                        The above clearly demonstrates that from 1960 to 1966, seven straight years during Mays' prime, the National League by an overwhelming margin had much weaker teams at the bottom of the league than the American League. Mays took great advantage of this disparity and oftentimes feasted on these awful National League bottom feeders, and as a result was able to raise his numbers during these years.

                        c JRB

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by leecemark
                          --The Yankees did win the Series a little more than half the time when Mantle was with them, but one great team does not make a great league. The Yankees won the AL pennant 12 of Mantle's first 14 season. That doesn't say much for the rest of the league. Most of those seasons half or more of the other teams in the AL were no more than punching bags for the Yankees. The Browns (before they moved to Baltimore and decided to try and actually compete) and A's were little more than Yankee farm teams.
                          I wasn't nessesiarly saying that the AL was better, I'm just saying that it's closer than what most people think. I think the desparity between the AL and NL now is greater than it was durring Mantle's and Mays' day
                          "he probably used some performance enhancing drugs so he could do a better job on his report...i hear they make you gain weight" - Dr. Zizmor

                          "I thought it was interesting and yes a conversation piece. Next time I post a similar story I will close with the question "So, do you think either of them have used steroids?" so that I can make the topic truly relevant to discussions about today's game." - Eric Davis

                          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqul1GyK7-g

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by ChrisLDuncan
                            I wasn't nessesiarly saying that the AL was better, I'm just saying that it's closer than what most people think. I think the desparity between the AL and NL now is greater than it was durring Mantle's and Mays' day
                            Chris. As has been discussed, during Mantle's 18 year career the AL teams won the World Series 9 times and the NL teams won the World Series 9 times. 6 of the 9 times the NL teams won the series during that period it took the NL team 7 games to do it, while 5 of the 9 times the AL team won the series it took the AL team 7 games to do it. The leagues were very close in strength, which is contrary to the revisionist history that is being presented by some. Integration probably helped the NL gain parity with the AL not superiority.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by JRB
                              Chris. As has been discussed, during Mantle's 18 year career the AL teams won the World Series 9 times and the NL teams won the World Series 9 times. 6 of the 9 times the NL teams won the series during that period it took the NL team 7 games to do it, while 5 of the 9 times the AL team won the series it took the AL team 7 games to do it. The leagues were very close in strength, which is contrary to the revisionist history that is being presented by some. Integration probably helped the NL gain parity with the AL not superiority.
                              That's fair, but the difference couldn't have been that big IMO since the WS were so close...I don't think it was as big of a difference as it is today with the AL and NL.
                              "he probably used some performance enhancing drugs so he could do a better job on his report...i hear they make you gain weight" - Dr. Zizmor

                              "I thought it was interesting and yes a conversation piece. Next time I post a similar story I will close with the question "So, do you think either of them have used steroids?" so that I can make the topic truly relevant to discussions about today's game." - Eric Davis

                              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqul1GyK7-g

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                --The WS results mean very little to league strength in this case. That was almost all the Yankees. When the Indians went in 1954 they got swept (by Mays' Giants). When the White Sox went in 1959 they lost 4-2. Every other year from 1949-64 the Yankees won the pennant. The same team does not win a strong league 14 times in 16 years.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X