Howard hit a monstrous HR off Ford in the Series in LA, and a monstrous double to the monuments in left-center at YS off him.

That homer would've gone farther than the double (because it was hit far higher) had it not crashed into the upper deck of Dodger Stadium. Might've even been longer than the one Mantle hit off Koufax a couple innings later - both were mammoth drives. Trivia note: Ford gave up just 2 hits in G4 of that series, both to Howard.

Williams was well-liked by his teammates

Many teammates. By no means all of them. Particularly as a young man.

I wrote Frank a fan letter in 1969 and he responded with not just a picture but a letter. Good man.

I don't think that's quite right for Bonds. He was already an extremely selective power hitter before 2001

Yes but ... he changed the swing a bit for an even larger uppercut. His already low GB/FB of around .55 went down to about .4 from 2000 to 2005 (the change probably started in 98). HR/FB also took a big jump obviously.

And I think he was able to be more selective. In those days, a standard pitcher's approach was basically to try to throw a perfect pitch on the first two pitches. If he was now behind 2-0, he just walked Bonds. In those years, Bonds essentially was playing in a league where 2 or 3 balls was a walk. He could zero in as much as he wanted. Of course there wasn't much of the strike zone that he couldn't hammer so I'm not sure how much zeroing in he had to do.

IN 2002, after 2-0: 433/815/881 with 136 BB in 205 PA. 61 are coded as IBB but that's still 75 "unintentional" BB in 144 PA. In 612 PA, he got a first pitch strike only 276 times (assuming all he put in play were strikes). After 1-0, it looks like he was thrown a second pitch strike just 127 out of 334 PA. The poor man couldn't get nothing to hit.

And time to pull out my favorite career split.

Bonds, men on 2nd and 3rd

271 PA, 288/675/567 with 153 BB, 139 of them intentional

On the RFK picture above: One of the things to keep in mind is that the markings for the fence were widely assumed to be about 10' off. So it's 390 or so to the fence there, and then probably another 15 or so to the back wall. From there, the wall goes up something like 30 feet before the outfield seats start. And that thing is probably 20 rows back.

I think there were only a handful of upper-deckers hit while the Nats played there. My memory is that all but one or two of them were ones pulled down the much-shorter lines. Nothing came close to Howard's shot.

A few years before that, the Expos played an exhibition game at RFK. I'm not sure if Mark McGwire was with the Cardinals then, or still the A's, but he fouled a ball up and over the roof of the stadium, which had to just be an absolutely massive shot -- on par with the ball Strawberry hit out of Olympic Stadium.

I have no idea whether Mantle was a jerk or not, but time and cognitive dissonance have a way of changing one's feeling about the past regardless of how they felt at the time. Besides, isn't what people mostly say about Mantle isn't so much that he was a jerk but that he was a famous guy with a massive drinking problem?

Mantle also was not well educated and was thrust into the world's biggest media market at a young age, when he was not equipped to deal with this attention. Having to replace DiMaggio in CF for Yankees made it just that more difficult for him. I don't know if Mantle was a jerk or not either but it is small wonder that he often came across as surly in his dealings with the media.

Mantle had four sons, all of whom ended up alcoholics and/or drug addicts. This could be misleading, I suppose, but Mantle drank with his kids when they were 13, 14 years old. He also chased women with them. At least one of his kids has described going to bars with Mantle when he was underage and getting the women that Mantle did not want or getting them when Mantle was finished.

Yes, I understand that famous people are graded on a curve when it comes to parenting, but I think even with the adjustment this is a bit much. I mentioned this to a Yankee fan a couple of years ago, and he answered, "where was their mother?" This is sort of a good point, in that so many kids with famous jock fathers are heroically raised by their mother. Mantle's wife was also often drunk (by her own admission), and perhaps not the best mother herself.

Mantle remaned married, though he did not live with his wife the last 30 years or so, and had numerous public girlfriends.

His wife and sons have told all these stories, while also professing their undying love for the heroic husband/father. Which says more about them, I suppose.

On Williams' coaching: nothing much really but I wouldn't put much stock in the "then they reverted to form afterwards". This is probably about what we should expect. In Bradbury's study on the Mazzone effect that was partly why he was able to detect a defect -- pitchers were worse before and after they left Mazzone. (If I recall right, they did retain some.) It's easy to fall back into bad habits without reminders and motivation and I would assume that's especially true if your current hitting coach isn't saying "maybe you should have laid off that one" and might even be pushing you to be more aggressive. Of course Williams was the manager not the hitting coach but a coach should really only be give credit/blame for what hitters/pitchers did under his direct watch. God only knows what happens to them later.

Something else I just thought of - I believe (per the "Home Run Encyclopedia")that 286 of Ted's 521 career HRs came with runners on base (about 55%). I think that is the highest % of anyone who ever had at least 400 career HRs. Can anyone verify this relatively easily?

B-R base situation splits seem to go back only to 1946 and still have a lot of incomplete data for those years. So it covers only 334 of his HR but 174 of those came with men on. However Williams ISO, all his slash stats really, are nearly the same with men on as not. I'd have thought his walk rate with men on would jump but not really -- it's higher, largely intentional but it's nothing at all like what happened to Bonds. They don't track IBB until the end of his career and he did lead the league 3 times but the totals were not generally extreme (less than 20 with one 33). The 50s -- what a strange era, happy to walk damn near everybody but not intentionally walk Ted Williams with men on base.

Only 312 of Bonds' HRs came with men on base ... but then 1500 of his 2500 walks came with men on base, 650 of them intentional. His HR/AB and his ISO were slightly lower with men on but mainly they just took the bat out of his hand.

McGwire had 277 of 583 with a slightly higher HR/AB rate with men on. A bit more than half his walks came with men on as well. A Bonds-Mac gap -- 688 IBB vs 150 IBB career. That's insane.

A big advantage for Williams, at least for those games where b-r has the men on splits, is that the majority of his PA came with men on (not true for Bonds or Mac). Obviously we'd need to adjust for that. But his HR/AB was significantly higher with men on.

Mantle married at young age (I'm thinking after his rookie season) when he didn't really want to, under pressure from his father. I think a lot of Mantle's problems stemmed from unaddressed father problems. A father who pushed him relentlessly, a father he idolized, that did him wrong in ways, that Mickey was not able to come to terms with because the father died when Mickey was so young and acknowledging some of his resentments would have seemed like betrayal. That's not a recipe for good mental health. Add to that drinking, which at one time must of have given him some surcease, but in the long-run just added fuel to the fire.

I haven't seen Stanton much, but I think the AL Paul Bunyon type might be Mark Trumbo. Who, when he's on, can hit the most atrocious low line drives out to straightaway center. Now if only Ted Williams could work with him a bit!

His wife and sons have told all these stories, while also professing their undying love for the heroic husband/father. Which says more about them, I suppose.

It's not uncommon for drunks to be wonderful people sober, and complete ***holes when liquored up.

My grandmother used to say that about her father. He was tender and adoring, unless he had a load on.

Mark,

I had some time on my hands and did a fact-checking review of your Howard bio (using BB-Ref for all stats). Here are the thing I came across:

1. I would mention that the 1959 Texas League was AA (to contrast to Green Bay B and Spokane AAA)

2. 1959 home run off of Lindy McDaniel was on September 22 (not 23)

3. The 1962 Dodgers and Giants tied at 101-61 before a 3-game playoff, yet you say that the Dodgers won 102 games "before" the playoff series (these playoff games are recorded as being regular season games)

4. Howard did not lead the Senators in games played in 1965(your sentence can be read as saying he did)

5. BB-Ref shows 1966 AL OPS was .674 (not .670)

6. Howard's .849 OPS in 1967 was 6th in AL (not 8th)

7. Jim Lemon had as many as 38 HR in a season (you say 30)

8. Need ")" after Carl Yastrzemski in sentence about Howard's possible 1968 Triple Crown

9. In 1969 Howard led AL with 340 total bases (not 330)

10. "might had" should be "might have had" (in story about effect Ted Williams teaching Howard)

11. 1969 Senators finished in 4th place in AL East (not 3rd)

12. His 3-for-4 game for Tigers was on September 13, 1972 (not September 21)

13. "to look at back" should be "to look back" (next to last paragraph)

14. Howard made four All Star games (not 3)

I loved the article and Frank Howard is one of my all time favorite people (he is still quite popular in Milwaukee).

Treder was a big believer of Williams as the improvement to Washington's hitters. I can't find the old debates but he would bristle at the suggestion that Williams wasn't the main reason for the increase in production.

:-)

Two words: Ed Brinkman.

Howard PWNED Sudden Sam--couldn't get him out to save his life. That's why Dark would make the aforementioned move of McDowell to an infield position to let Dean Chance try his luck with Howard. Either that or Sam would just IBB him. Gave him 3 IBB's in this game, including two with no one on base and no outs

from the Frank Howard HOM thread in 2006; I have a Howard encounter of my own when I get a chance, but for now, this also is a good reflection of who he is as a person:

5. jingoist Posted: June 12, 2006 at 01:57 AM (#2060619)
I ran into Frank Howard last year and thought the readership might enjoy catching up on Hondo's life these days.
Last summer a buddy and I were on our way to RFK to catch a Nats vs Pirates game.
We took the Metro from Vienna, VA, a suburb west of DC, down to RFK.
We no sooner sat down in our seats than Frank Howard walks onto the train.
I say to none/everyone "It's Frank Howard"; Frank says, "whats left of him"

We spend the 45 minute ride reminiscing about old Senators/Dodgers teams; Franks prodigious home runs; Bob Short (boooooo); Franks health (he was about to turn 69 and he looked GREAT).
FYI; for those of you who remember Hondo near the end, he'd gotten a bit portly from pounding all that Budwiser every night. Frank's dropped 50+ lbs now, he's trim and looks healty as a horse.

Frank now works for George Steinbrenner as a scout.
He had extremely kind words to say about George Steinbrenner; called him Mr. Steinbrenner; said he was a peach of a guy to work for and said he was a happy camper working as a Yankee scout.

Frank's a very quiet, unassuming man who tries to blend into the crowd.
At 6'7" he isn't able to do that very easily.

Note: not many other people on that train, which was filled with baseball fans going to the game, knew who Frank Howard was.
My buddy and I gave them a reasonable education by regaling Frank with our eye-witness accounts of a number of his many hitting feats.
Frank's a definate borderline HoM'er; I always felt Frank was two really good years away from Cooperstown. He of course pooh-poohed that idea, but had he hit another 60 or so HRs maybe.

Brooks Robinson remembers one of Howard's hits off Bender well. "He almost got me killed one time. Frank Howard was the one guy I really, I wouldn't say feared, but had extra respect for as a third baseman. He was so strong and hit the ball so hard. Gene dropped down from the side, Frank hit one over my head, and I jumped. But it was a day game -- people were wearing white shirts and I couldn't pick up the ball very well. The ball hit the left field wall. I said to Gene, 'If I'd jumped at the wrong time, I might have gotten killed!"

From the SABR Gene Brabender entry. Alludes back to what some of said about Frank scaring you when he didn't hit a homer.

A big advantage for Williams, at least for those games where b-r has the men on splits, is that the majority of his PA came with men on (not true for Bonds or Mac). Obviously we'd need to adjust for that. But his HR/AB was significantly higher with men on.

From what I've read over the years, Ted made a definite effort to try to increase HR productivity with runners on. From a variety of viewpoints:

1)If you've got the 2-0 or 3-1 count you're looking for, and there are runners on 1st and 2nd, for example - if you think the pitcher's going to try to throw a fastball over the plate past you because he doesn't want to walk you - that's the pitch to try to pull and go ahead and swing for the fences. Obviously the best result is you time it just right and crush a 3-run HR (to right field, of course, if you are a lefty hitter).

2)Even if you don't smack that pitch exactly right for a HR, you may still drive a double off the wall or something like that. Runs come home.

3)Here's the real advantage of being a lefty hitter over a righty - say you get a little under the pitch so you just hit a fly ball to the warning track in right field - that can still advance that runner on 2nd base to 3rd if there are less than 2 outs. You get the added benefit of "hitting behind the runner just trying to advance him" while in reality you are swinging for the fences.

4)Particularly if there's a runner on 1st and no one on second, the first baseman may be holding the runner on, which can open up a huge hole between first and second. If you're a lefty pull hitter, this gives you a lot more opportunities for hits. If you're trying to crush that 3-1 fastball and somehow you really mis-hit it so that you hit a hard grounder instead of launching one in the air to RF, you may still get a single to RF on the play. Another advantage for a lefty hitter there. Of course, in Ted's case the opposition frequently had the shift on, so he may not have had that huge hole between first and second that other hitters may see.

5)Finally, if you totally screw up and don't connect on the pitch, then you still have a 2-1 count or a 3-2 count, and you can still try to salvage the PA with a hit or a walk.

Walt, that's a good point about PA with runners on. I went back and was looking at the 1949 Red Sox, and there's just some absurd numbers there. I thought Vern Stephens must have had some hellacious numbers with runners on to drive in 159 runs that year (still the record for a SS, isn't it?). Turns out that although Retrosheet doesn't have all PA logged yet for that year, from what they do have it is telling - it looks like Stephens had almost 2/3 of his PA that year with runners on, which is just a ridiculously high %. But I guess if you bat cleanup for a team where the #3 hitter gets on base 50% of the time (Williams) and the top 2 guys in the lineup also had on-base % over .400 - you're going to have a ton of opportunities to drive in runs. So I guess it also makes sense that if Williams had 55% of his PA with runners on, then hitting 55% of his HRs with runners on isn't that unusual.

I have a Howard encounter of my own when I get a chance

Looking forward to reading this when you get the chance.

By the way, I finally RTFA and found that the article was written by Primate Mark Armour, and it's much, much longer than this excerpt -- and the rest is every bit as entertaining as what's here. Great job, Mark.

Mark,

I double-dipped and fact checked the Willie McCovey bio linked above (using BB-Ref as source):

1. McCovey played in Dallas in 1957 (not 1956)

2. slow afoot.. should be slow afoot. (delete extra period)

3. Giants were in 2nd place (by a half-game) on morning of July 30, 1959 (McCovey's first game) [not first place]

4. 22-game hitting streak began on August 17, 1959 (not August 10)

5. 1959 Giants finished 3 games behind Dodgers (and Braves) [not 4]

6. McCovey had 1 hit in Game 5 of 1962 World Series (not hitless)

7. at- bat should be at-bat (in two places)

8. he had 145 starts in 1963 (not 144) [I know this is really nitpicking and you may have used a different source]

9. he had 627 PA in 1963 (not 624)

10. "When he showed up at camp in 1965 ..." I would say when Cepeda showed up at camp to eliminate any chance of confusion with McCovey

11. I would say that his .453 OPS and .656 SLG were league-leading in 1969

12. When McCovey hit his 521st (and final) HR in 1980, I think that tied him with Ted Williams for 8th all-time (not 10th)

I loved these bios, and McCovey is an all-time favorite player of mine since the Giants of the 1960's were the first team I rooted for.

I have no idea whether Mantle was a jerk or not, but time and cognitive dissonance have a way of changing one's feeling about the past regardless of how they felt at the time. Besides, isn't what people mostly say about Mantle isn't so much that he was a jerk but that he was a famous guy with a massive drinking problem?

Mantle also was not well educated and was thrust into the world's biggest media market at a young age, when he was not equipped to deal with this attention. Having to replace DiMaggio in CF for Yankees made it just that more difficult for him. I don't know if Mantle was a jerk or not either but it is small wonder that he often came across as surly in his dealings with the media.

Mantle was always loved by his teammates and not so loved by anyone else who ever came into contact with him. He was famous for refusing autograph requests outside the stadium, and at book signings and card shows he was as bad or worse than Willie Mays, which is saying a lot. How much of this was due to alcohol is anyone's guess, and in his defense there's the point that Just Plain Joe made about the media spotlight he was thrust into at an early age. He was treated like a God by the New York press up through his first full season after being the de facto MVP of the 1952 World Series, and then with that "565 ft." home run in the opening weeks of 1953 when he was still 21. Trouble was, by that point writers were pretty much electing him to the HoF at the ripe old age of 21, and when his home runs leveled off and his strikeouts increased, just being one of the best half dozen players in baseball wasn't good enough if he wasn't Babe Ruth or Joe Dimaggio. He was forever being psychoanalyzed by the tabloids, was mercilessly booed at Yankee Stadium whenever he slumped for more than a week, and before 1961 he probably suffered the most hot-and-cold fan base of any player in memory. The more you read about Mantle, the more you get the feeling that beings at the ballpark among his teammates was the only place he could ever find any real sense of comfort and joy.

In case folks didn't know what I alluded to earlier, the 50s were a strange time where there were a lot of walks without a lot of Ks. It's a real spike in league walk rates some of those years. Just grabbing the 1954 AL, they had 3.7 BB/9 and a K/BB of just 1.1. In the 2000 AL, they managed to match the 3.7 BB/9 but at least K'd 6.3. Meanwhile, in say 1976, walks were at 3.2/9 although K rates were about the same as 1954.

A few more years:

52: 3.7
53: 3.6
54: 3.7
55: 3.9
56: 4.1
57: 3.5
58: 3.3

It just made no sense, it's like a wave of "walks clog the bases" was going around. In 1956, they have 491 of Williams' 503 PA and 270 of them came with men on. Boston had a 362 team OBP. 3 starters had an OBP over 400 and the top bench player was at 399. They had bench players walking 14 times in 99 PA and 12 times in 75 PA. Their team line of 275/362/419 was only good for a 97 OPS+ (a bit above average given pitcher hitting) while the 2000 AL put up an average line of 276/349/443 .. so that would have been a 98 OPS+. It was the original sillyball ... Branch Rickey should have never written that book.

In case folks didn't know what I alluded to earlier, the 50s were a strange time where there were a lot of walks without a lot of Ks.

It was extraordinarily league-specific:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/eddie-eddie-eddie-and-the-american-league-walkathon/

Thanks, Rob, for the corrections and suggestions. I appreciate your reading of TFA.

He was forever being psychoanalyzed by the tabloids, was mercilessly booed at Yankee Stadium whenever he slumped for more than a week, and before 1961 he probably suffered the most hot-and-cold fan base of any player in memory. The more you read about Mantle, the more you get the feeling that beings at the ballpark among his teammates was the only place he could ever find any real sense of comfort and joy.

Andy-- you mention 61 because that was the turning point of the Mantle-Yankee fan relationship--when they had someone else to root against (poor Roger). Mick became the object of affection BECAUSE he got hurt in early September and didn't break the record. And that continued until the end of his career

McCovey, on the other hand, was more famous for hitting laser beam line drives.

Why couldn't McCovey have hit the ball just three feet higher?

Thanks, Rob, for the corrections and suggestions. I appreciate your reading of TFA.

One of the many things I love about BBTF - people don't take it personally when you offer constructive criticism.

One of the many things I love about BBTF - people don't take it personally when you offer constructive criticism.

You're wrong.

Kidding :)