Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Sunday, April 02, 2006

Mickey Mantle

Eligible in 1974.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 02, 2006 at 11:36 PM | 50 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 02, 2006 at 11:52 PM (#1931095)
My pick for the most non-analytical posts among 1974 candidates.
   2. OCF Posted: April 03, 2006 at 01:25 AM (#1931549)
Since I grew up in Oklahoma, I'll go first. The all-time Oklahoma team is pretty good, but Mick is clearly the MVP of that team.

I vaguely remember hearing my father say that he'd seen Mantle play in a minor league game. I think Bartlesville did briefly have a minor league team. There's a municpal stadium that could have been used for such purposes. But I don't know if it was in the right league - I sort of doubt it. Anyway, I think my father was talking about having seen Mantle while he was away from home, in some other town somewhere in Oklahoma, Kansas, or Missouri.

My father was a Yankee fan. I don't know where he picked that up. It might have been during the WWII years in which he was living in Kansas City, but then it could have been carried over from his South Dakota childhood. In any case, Mantle would have helped keep him attached to the team.
   3. Ardo Posted: April 03, 2006 at 01:57 AM (#1931629)
Mantle was only 29 when he and Maris chased Ruth's 60 single-season record during the summer of '61. Hard to believe. After that season, Mantle had:

-Hit 374 home runs.
-Scored 1245 runs. Only Mel Ott scored more runs through age 29 (1247). Alex Rodriguez, entering his age-30 season this week, has since tied Mantle.

Had Mantle benefited from modern medical procedures, or had he a less fatalistic and more sober character, he could have easily set career offensive records for runs, home runs, and total bases, far ahead of Rickey Henderson's and Hank Aaron's current records.

As great as they both were, Mantle and Ted Williams are the two greatest (white) "what-ifs" in MLB history.
   4. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 03, 2006 at 02:23 AM (#1931709)
Had Mantle benefited from modern medical procedures, or had he a less fatalistic and more sober character, he could have easily set career offensive records for runs, home runs, and total bases, far ahead of Rickey Henderson's and Hank Aaron's current records.

Maybe if he had realized that he was the best AL first baseman in '68, he might have hung on a little longer.
   5. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 03, 2006 at 02:24 AM (#1931712)
Mantle may actually be one of teh more underrated players ever, at least within the HOF. Many many people actually still think that Joe D was better. I think Mantle is the third best CFer of all-time, probably the white Oscar Charleston (who I have at 4th).
   6. DavidFoss Posted: April 03, 2006 at 02:34 AM (#1931727)
Maybe if he had realized that he was the best AL first baseman in '68, he might have hung on a little longer.

Last year, someone noted the number of pitchers than retired the year before the 1968 and how they missed out. Well, a number of hitters retired this year with a lower mound and expansion pitchers coming the next year.
   7. DavidFoss Posted: April 03, 2006 at 02:44 AM (#1931739)
As great as they both were, Mantle and Ted Williams are the two greatest (white) "what-ifs" in MLB history.

I dunno, both ended up taking home plenty of hardware, anyways. Mantle has *nine* Win Share MVP's (1954-58,60-62,64) and misses a tenth by an eyelash (1959-Fox, by 0.2WS). Seven rings and many World Series career records. Yeah, injuries caught up with him after 30, but that was true of Foxx, Ott, and this years other eligible, Eddie Mathews. The Mick packed a ton of career value into that medium-sized career of his.
   8. sunnyday2 Posted: April 03, 2006 at 10:37 AM (#1932427)
It's times like this that I am impatient with our voting process. I mean, Mantle and Mays should be on the same ballot and we should be forced to choose.

An easy choice you say? I agree. Mantle was clearly better.

(Signed)

Peak/Prime Voter
   9. kthejoker Posted: April 03, 2006 at 02:46 PM (#1932578)
Per an All-Oklahoma Team: Johnny Bench would be my MVP.

I'm just saying.
   10. sunnyday2 Posted: April 03, 2006 at 04:38 PM (#1932794)
>Per an All-Oklahoma Team: Johnny Bench would be my MVP.

With a catcher bonus, maybe, but he would not be the best player.
   11. OCF Posted: April 03, 2006 at 04:42 PM (#1932804)
kthejoker: I disagree, but maybe I'll wait until Bench comes up to go into it in detail.

Mantle played in 65 World Series games. He missed quite a few games - the Yankees played in 77 games in those series. If we extrapolate Mantle's WS performance out to a 162-game season we get:

137 games played
484 AB
124 H; extra base hit line of 13-4-38
90 BB, 114 SO
88 runs, 84 RBI
6-8 as a base stealer
No sacrifices, no sac flies, no GDP
.257/.374/.535

To my eyes, that line looks just like Mickey Mantle, playing in low-offense circumstances (dictated by the superior pitching staffs and defenses of World Series teams).
   12. DavidFoss Posted: April 03, 2006 at 05:00 PM (#1932833)
With all the talk of the Mick's knee problems, I'd like to take this oppurtunity to point out his amazing SB %'s -- the best seen since the days of Max Carey. His career percentages are over 80% and he had a stretch between 1955-62 where he was at 88% (108-15).
   13. Daryn Posted: April 03, 2006 at 05:09 PM (#1932858)
To my eyes, that line looks just like Mickey Mantle, playing in low-offense circumstances (dictated by the superior pitching staffs and defenses of World Series teams).

I don't think those two situations are analogous -- playing against the best pitchers and defense in a high scoring era is not equivalent to playing against average pitching and defense in a low scoring era.
   14. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 03, 2006 at 05:56 PM (#1933074)
>Per an All-Oklahoma Team: Johnny Bench would be my MVP.

With a catcher bonus, maybe, but he would not be the best player.


I would have to go with Mickey, too.
   15. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 03, 2006 at 06:02 PM (#1933117)
IIRC, Paul Waner is on the All-Okies team. He'd be my MVP choice for it...because he's born on my birthday! Which is coming up in two weeks!
   16. DavidFoss Posted: April 03, 2006 at 06:14 PM (#1933188)
All Oklahoma Team:

C-Johnny Bench
1B-Willie Stargell
2B-Johnny Ray
SS-Al Dark
3B-Harlond Clift
LF-Bob Johnson
CF-Mickey Mantle
RF-Paul Waner

SP-Allie Reynolds
SP-Harry Brecheen
SP-Ralph Terry
RP-Lindy McDaniel

MGR-Bobby Cox

Honorable Mention: JCarter, Murcer, PMartin, PBlair

A little light on pitching and second base, but this is a surprisingly good team!
   17. OCF Posted: April 03, 2006 at 06:30 PM (#1933332)
A little light on pitching ...

Warren Spahn wasn't born in Oklahoma, but he lived there during off-seasons, played his last professional baseball for a Tulsa team, and lived in Oklahoma after he retired.
   18. ronw Posted: April 03, 2006 at 07:03 PM (#1933637)
It's times like this that I am impatient with our voting process. I mean, Mantle and Mays should be on the same ballot and we should be forced to choose.

An easy choice you say? I agree. Mantle was clearly better.

(Signed)

Peak/Prime Voter


Ah, but the real question is not necessarily hitting peak/prime, as I think everyone would agree with you that Mantle's was better.

The question is also complicated by fielding ability (where Mays was far superior) plus that problematic little thing of league/opposition quality (where Mays not only played in the superior league, he didn't play for the only dominant team in the league). Those factors do not make Mantle over Mays an easy choice.

FWIW, I would take Willie over Mickey, but it is awfully close.
   19. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 03, 2006 at 07:07 PM (#1933659)
FWIW, I would take Willie over Mickey, but it is awfully close.

I'd also take Willie over Mickey, but I don't think it's that close. Mantle was superior peak/prime, but not enough to make up for Mays's huge lead in career (and we're not even talking about militray credit for the Say Hey Kid yet).
   20. Chris Fluit Posted: April 03, 2006 at 08:42 PM (#1934663)
John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy: My pick for the most non-analytical posts among 1974 candidates.
It depends on what you mean by non-analytical posts. As for sheer number of posts, Mantle is leading the field.
   21. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 03, 2006 at 08:50 PM (#1934731)
It depends on what you mean by non-analytical posts. As for sheer number of posts, Mantle is leading the field.

I meant serious analysis of his HoM case, which nobody dares to challenge. ;-)
   22. KJOK Posted: April 03, 2006 at 10:45 PM (#1935190)
A little light on pitching ...

Warren Spahn wasn't born in Oklahoma, but he lived there during off-seasons, played his last professional baseball for a Tulsa team, and lived in Oklahoma after he retired.


Adding Carl Hubbell (from Meeker, OK) would rectify that problem too...
   23. Cblau Posted: April 05, 2006 at 02:00 AM (#1938259)
OCF.-
Mantle played in the KOM League in 1949; Bartlesville had a team in the league that year (1946-51, in fact.) It had teams in 3 other leagues at other times.
   24. jingoist Posted: April 05, 2006 at 02:46 AM (#1938400)
As a kid I remember Mickey held the record for the fastest time from home plate to first base. I understand that record held for 25 or 30 years; not sure who broke it (Ricky Henderson maybe) but it was just another item in the list of fantastic athletic feats performed by the Mick.
Does anyone know if that ball he hit off Chuck Stobbs in the old DC stadium back in the 50's truly did fly well over 500 feet?
   25. sunnyday2 Posted: April 05, 2006 at 03:35 AM (#1938557)
>Mantle was superior peak/prime,

And that's exactly what I said. I guess we'll just have to agree to agree.
   26. OCF Posted: April 05, 2006 at 03:39 AM (#1938559)
Cblau: Thanks! So it could have been in Bartlesville. The kid was just 17 years old at the time, but I bet he was already too good for that league.
   27. DavidFoss Posted: April 05, 2006 at 05:11 AM (#1938792)
Adding Carl Hubbell (from Meeker, OK) would rectify that problem too...

Thanks... I was using bb-ref, which misses him because although he grew up in OK, he was born in Missouri.
   28. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 05, 2006 at 03:08 PM (#1939149)
>Mantle was superior peak/prime,

And that's exactly what I said. I guess we'll just have to agree to agree.


But I was responding to Ron, Marc. I wasn't debating anything that you stated.
   29. ronw Posted: April 05, 2006 at 09:07 PM (#1940100)
And that's exactly what I said. I guess we'll just have to agree to agree.

I don't think there is agreement.

I said in #18 that Mantle's hitting was superior peak/prime. It seems that Marc is saying that Mantle is superior peak/prime taking into account all factors, including career length, military service, fielding, league quality, and quality of competition. To me, Mantle seems behind Mays on all of these intangibles, and Mantle's superior hitting does not vault him ahead of Willie on my All-Time list.

BTW, in my mind the difference between league quality and quality of competition is playing for a poor league (AL vs. NL 1950's-60's) and playing for the best team in a poor league (The Yankees 1950's-60's).
   30. ronw Posted: April 05, 2006 at 09:28 PM (#1940209)
John, I have taken a more careful look at Willie vs. Mickey and would now agree with you. Taking all the intangibles into consideration, it is not close, Mays is well over Mantle in my system.
   31. Michael Bass Posted: April 05, 2006 at 09:31 PM (#1940219)
For the record (peak/prime voter here)...

While Mantle's peak is higher than Mays, Mays spent so much more time at or near his peak that he has a ton more peak value to me than Mickey. Much less prime/career.

They are not even close in my book.
   32. DavidFoss Posted: April 05, 2006 at 09:35 PM (#1940242)
playing for the best team in a poor league

Any measures that use BPF & PPF already adjust for this. Mantle's Yankees perennially had BPF's three to five points higher than their PPF's.
   33. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 05, 2006 at 09:46 PM (#1940313)
John, I have taken a more careful look at Willie vs. Mickey and would now agree with you. Taking all the intangibles into consideration, it is not close, Mays is well over Mantle in my system.

I should also state now that the Mick will definitely be #1 on my ballot next week, after running the munbers through my system. Not a black mark against Mathews, since he was a great, great, great player.
   34. sunnyday2 Posted: April 05, 2006 at 10:53 PM (#1940467)
>Marc is saying that Mantle is superior peak/prime taking into account all factors, including career length,

Well, career length would have nothing to do with peak/prime.

I said Mantle was better (period) for his peak. To me, his advantage in OPS+ is not one that Mays' defense can overcome. From there it depends on how much better you think the NL is. I say a little better. I mean, 10 percent at most and that doesn't get Mays up to Mantle's level. I mean, we're talking an average of almost 30 OPS+ points here.

Now after 5-6 years of significant advantage to Mantle, Mays catches up and they're a pretty equal for another 5-6 years.

Then, after that, I agree it is all Mays.

But for me as a peak/prime voter, the fact that Mantle was clearly better for 5-6 years (and therefore, still clearly better after another 5-6 years of parity), that's enough for me. I just don't elevate guys based on years 12-18. (See Sisler vs. Beckley.)

Obviously, for career voters who don't particularly respond to the shape of the career but rather to its total accumulated value, obviously Willie is better. But that's just not how I do my evaluation.
   35. DavidFoss Posted: April 05, 2006 at 11:23 PM (#1940552)
Thru Age 36:

MM:.298/.421/.557/172OPS+/9800PA
WM:.309/.384/.583/160OPS+/9700PA -- (before 1.75 years war credit)

After Age 36:

MM:retired
WM:.273/.382/.459/138OPS+/2650PA

Mays lost much of his power in his later years, but 138 OPS+ is pretty darn good for a 'decline phase'.
   36. Michael Bass Posted: April 06, 2006 at 12:15 AM (#1940827)
I have Mantle better for the best year and second best year of their careers, and Mays better every single year thereafter.
   37. sunnyday2 Posted: April 06, 2006 at 12:49 AM (#1940999)
OPS+

Mantle 223-213-210-198-89-81-77-66-66-60-52-50-45-43
Mays 184-76-76-76-74-71-67-67-64-62-62*-60-58-57-49-48*-46-41-26-25-20

*MiL MLE @ 166 and 156; 1952 (148) half-way between the 120 (1951) and the 176 (1954), then 1953 (162) half-way between the 148 and 176. This is generous enough since he was at 102 for 34 games in 1952.

Anyway, Mantle is better by 39, 37, 34, 22, 15, 10 and 10 for 7 years. I don't see defense or league strength getting Mays to parity at least until the OPS+ difference is down around about 15.

PAs first 5 years in the league including 100 percent credit to Mays for '52 and '53: Mantle 2813, Mays 2991. 5 best years by OPS+: Mantle 3052 (missed 39 games in 1962), Mays 3247. Still not enough to make up the difference:

WS (best 7)

Mantle 51-49-48-41-39-36-36-34-33-32-30-26
Mays 43-41-40-40-40-38-38-38-37-34-34-32

And OK, now you've reached the point where Mays has as many (not more) WS than Mick, this coming after 12 years. That, plus the fact that Mantle was 8 WS better for each of their 3 best years, puts Mick over the top.

After 12 years, Mick has a 25 and 24 left, Willie 30-27-27-24-21. Now that's pretty damn impressive for years 13-17. But does a 27-24-21 at the end of a career outweight a 51-49-48 at the peak? I guess it does for some, but not me.

I mean, the only OF ever to have a 51 year otherwise are Speaker and Ruth.

The guys who were as good as Willie's 43 include Williams, Musial, Bonds and Cobb, still damn impressive company.

And who ever had 100 in 2 years? Only Ruth, along with Mantle.

Who ever had 84, like Willie did? Cobb, Speaker, Williams, Musial, Bonds. That's it.

How about 5 years at 216 or better? Mantle, Williams and Ruth. Or, at 197 like Willie? That club has Cobb and Speaker in it, too.

Or Mick's 38.1 per? That would be Cobb, Williams and of course Ruth. Willie's 34.8? Now add in Joe Jackson, Speaker and DiMaggio.

Two guys who are in very very rarified company. But Mick's is just a heck of a lot more rarified.
   38. DavidFoss Posted: April 06, 2006 at 01:19 AM (#1941218)
After 12 years, Mick has a 25 and 24 left, Willie 30-27-27-24-21. Now that's pretty damn impressive for years 13-17. But does a 27-24-21 at the end of a career outweight a 51-49-48 at the peak? I guess it does for some, but not me.

You need the military years... just call it a draw in 52-53 and give Mays 26 and 32 for those years.

Then there is league quality. How many WS/year is that? It can't be more than 2 or so can it?

Then there is the 154/162 issue. I was also too lazy to do the math. Both have peak seasons in both season lengths, but rigorously doing the math, I don't know.

Anyhow, Mantle clearly has him beat in three year peak. Year four is probably a slight edge to Mays (with lg quality considered). Going down the line for each year the edge to Mays gets a little bigger from then on.

I know this is a copout, but I'm glad I don't have to choose! I want to pick Mick, but years 4 through 22 is an awful lot of years.
   39. Cblau Posted: April 06, 2006 at 01:32 AM (#1941274)
Does anyone know if that ball he hit off Chuck Stobbs in the old DC stadium back in the 50's truly did fly well over 500 feet?

It didn't. The NY Times the next day reported it flew some 460 feet; the next 105 feet was all bounce/roll.
   40. Howie Menckel Posted: April 06, 2006 at 01:58 AM (#1941449)
I would adjust sunnyday, for readability purposes, to:

Mantle 223-213-210-198-89-81-77-66-66-60-52-50-45-43
WiMays 184-176-176-176-74-71-67-67-64-62-62*-60-58-57-49-48*-46-41-26-25-20
   41. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 06, 2006 at 03:56 AM (#1942027)
Its weird how Mays has the lower peak and he still FOUR 40+ WS seasons! I must say that I have Manlte closer to Mays than some but still, it isn't like Mays wasn't an MVP caliber player for a dozen year or more. I think I speak for all of us when I say that damn these guys are good. Not even in the same ballpark as most of the gusy wer argue about.

Also, Bonds has a 51+ WS year I believe. Of course that could be discounted in any number of ways...
   42. ronw Posted: April 06, 2006 at 06:47 PM (#1943132)
jschmeagol - Of course, Mays actually had FIVE 40+ WS seasons, plus three more 38's and a 37. If he played in 52-53, he may have even had two more.

sunnyday2 - I never really thought about it, but you are definitely rigid in your peak/prime voting. If I understand you You say you don't count years 12-18 for someone like Mays.

Is your prime consecutive? Because if it is, then you are not counting one of Willie's MVP years, since they came 12 baseball seasons apart.

If it isn't consecutive, then according to your numbers, you are not counting OPS+ of

160, 158, 157, 149, 148*, 146, 141, as well as a few seasons below 130.

If we look at WS, then you are not counting seasons of 32, 30, 27, 27, 24, 21, 19, 17 WS, as well as either 2 war credit years or two years of 34 WS.

Is that really the case? As a peak/prime voter you just don't count seasons past their prime? Perhaps your definition of Willie's prime needs to be extended to at least 17 years to encompass his 25+ WS seasons.

If that is the case, then Willie's prime is 17 seasons, while Mantle's goes to 13 seasons. Each of them has a 24, so you could even increase the prime by 1. Mantle wins the during the first 3 years. Depending on war credit, Willie likely wins during years 4-17 or 18.

I guess you are firm that 3 years of 24 additional win shares beats 29 additional win shares in 10 head-to-head years and additional win shares years of 27, 27 and two war credit years. That system seems flawed to me.
   43. sunnyday2 Posted: April 07, 2006 at 01:00 AM (#1944312)
>If that is the case, then Willie's prime is 17 seasons, while Mantle's goes to 13 seasons.

As I said.

I don't follow you.
   44. ronw Posted: April 07, 2006 at 05:37 PM (#1945697)
sunnyday2

Maybe this will help. In #34 above, you said:

I just don't elevate guys based on years 12-18. (See Sisler vs. Beckley.)

If I am reading this statement correctly, then you are not counting several MVP-type years (30+ WS) and some very good years (25+ WS) from Mays. In the case of Beckley vs. Sisler, where years 12-18 were not near 25+ WS, I can understand that. In the case of Mays, I think a different approach is warranted.
   45. sunnyday2 Posted: April 07, 2006 at 10:19 PM (#1946559)
Well, on one extreme, you could say they were both all-stars, MVP candidates, all-world, all-time greats, etc., and the difference between then is 17-14 or 23-18 or whatever. But to me there is variable content within those 14 or 17 or 18 or 23 cells. i.e.

Mantle 51-49-48-41-39-36-36-34-33-32-30-26-25-24 (plus 18-16-14-13)
Mays 43-41-40-40-40-38-38-38-37-34-34-32-30-27-27-24-21 (plus 18-17-12-5-5)

or

Mantle 51-49-48-41-39-36-36-34-33-32-30-26-25-24 (plus 18-16-14-13)
Mays 43-41-40-40-40-38-38-38-37-34-34-32-30-30*-27-27-24-21-20* (plus 18-17-12-5)

* added in military years, delete one of the 5s, and don't get too carried away in 1952 as he was not playing like "Willie Mays" during the time when he did play.

Anyway, I'm not ignoring anything. But I am saying that Mantle's 51-49-48 ought not to be ignored either. There is no equivalent in Mays' career for that, and you can't call that a draw and then give Mays the back side, too. It takes Willie 12 years to catch up to Mantle's career WS totals. That takes you up to 1963. Yes, Willie was MVP in 1965. But in 1967 Mantle earned 25 WS and Willie 21 (in '67 and '68 it was Mays 51 Mantle 49). So you can rhapsodize about the fact that Willie had the longer career but the last 2 years before Mantle retired, he was still essentially equivalent.

So the choice comes down to:

Mantle 51-49-48....
Mays 43-41-40....17-24-27-12-5

I understand that some may prefer Mays line (after all, it has 61 more WS on it [just the seasons shown in this final line]), but to me Mantle's peak (+24 WS in 3 years) is too historically incredible not to prefer it.
   46. DavidFoss Posted: April 07, 2006 at 10:58 PM (#1946609)
These guys's careers are so good and so long that I think the traditional horizontal comparison needs to be done vertically!

Year number on the left.
Mays in the middle
Mantle on the right

The 3-significant digit WS values taken from the book, multiplied by 162/154 where relevant. For Mays-1952-53, I gave him Mantle's numbers (32.4 & 25.8 before season length adjustment (34.1 & 27.1 after)).

01---43.1---53.8
02
---42.3---51.1
03
---41.9---47.9
04
---41.6---43.1
05
---40.8---41.6
06
---39.8---38.0
07
---38.2---37.8
08
---37.9---34.1
09
---36.7---33.5
10
---35.7---32.7
11
---35.5---31.2
12
---34.1---27.1
13
---34.0---25.3
14
---30.4---24.3
15
---28.6---18.1
16
---27.4---15.9
17
---27.1---14.4
18
---24.1---13.7
19
---20.9
20
---20.3
21
---16.7
22
---12.1
23
---04.8 


-----
   47. DavidFoss Posted: April 07, 2006 at 11:08 PM (#1946626)
So, I see where sunny is getting at, Mantle's edge in the top five years (especially the top three) is undeniable.

Another thing you get from this is that Mantle's career is not exactly short. 11 seasons of 30+ WS is quite a long peak.

What I understand that Ron is trying to say is that years 12-18 for Mays are not the typical "12-18 years" that we see when making these comparisons. Typically "12-18 years" are filler years in a career and if a guy like Charlie Career is beating a guy like Pete Peak 16-10 in each of these years then perhaps who cares (except the strong career voter). But in these seven years, Mays is as good as most people are in their peaks! Mays essentially has a 17 year *peak*!
   48. DavidFoss Posted: April 07, 2006 at 11:13 PM (#1946638)
Wow, those top three seasons of Mantles look even more obscene when two of them are adjusted to 162 games.

Its a tough call balancing Mantles huge edge in years 1-3 versus Mays huge edge in years 12-17 (while still playing ata high 27+ WS) -- in the tougher league.

Who said there would be no analysis in this thread. :-)
   49. sunnyday2 Posted: April 08, 2006 at 12:58 AM (#1947051)
Like I said, who else ever had a 51-49-48 peak?

Babe Ruth.
   50. ronw Posted: April 09, 2006 at 03:53 PM (#1950470)
Posted this in the wrong thread.

OK, now I understand.

sunnyday2 is counting Willie's 12-18 years, but in his opinion they are not enough to overcome Mickey's 3 (or 5) best year advantage. In my opinion, Willie's longer peak/prime does overcome even that historical peak by Mantle.

I think we can definitely agree that what's most scary about Ruth is that he essentially combined Mickey's great peak with Willie's career.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Martin Hemner
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.4670 seconds
49 querie(s) executed