I'm reading a book about Roger Maris (called "Roger Maris", naturally), and I was struck by how unfair the media coverage is towards Roger. The best player on the team is always the subject of local media scorn, for some reason, but it seems like people were just transfixed with what Maris couldn't do well, rather than what he could do well.

And I'm wondering whether fifty years from now, someone will be reading a book about A-Rod and be struck by the exact same thing I'm struck by.

The best player on the team is always the subject of local media scorn, for some reason, but it seems like people were just transfixed with what Maris couldn't do well, rather than what he could do well.

Of course Maris was never the best player on the Yankees, in perception or reality. Mantle was better every single year Maris was there.

Sorry for the implication. Snapper is correct (though 1960 is very, very close). But Maris won two MVPs in his first two Yankee years. It won't ever make sense to me that sportswriters of the age seemed to dismiss his accomplishments because of a low BA. Some were actually quoted (I don't have the book here, so I have to paraphrase) asking him how a bad hitter like him could be lucky enough to break the Babe's record.

Snapper is correct (though 1960 is very, very close). But Maris won two MVPs in his first two Yankee years.

No apologies needed. But Mantle should have won both.

1960 is close in OPS+ 164 Mantle, 161 Maris, but Mantle played in 153 G's vs. 136 for Maris. You have to believe the extreme defensive value WAR gives Maris (+20) to put him ahead, and even then it's only 8.1 WAR to 7.9.

1961 is not close, 206 vs. 167 OPS+, despite the 61 HRs. 11.1 WAR to 7.9.

Congratulations Professor Hawking, you just tied Dustin Pedroia for HR's.

One of the interesting things in the book (I'm going to full-on hijack this A-Rod thread to a Maris one) is that Mantle, who heard "you're no DiMaggio" for much of his career, got a significant amount of love and affection from the local crowd/writers when they had Maris to pick on.

Ted Williams was #### upon so much by the Knights of the Keyboards that the latter were able to maintain the myth that Williams problem was with with Boston so that later generations of the guardians of all that is sacred about Boston baseball could tell later generations of fans how poorly Ted Williams was treated. All a part of how Red Sox fans mistreat the heroes. Unless the writers think the heroes are bums. Then the fans are idiots for rooting for them.

One of the interesting things in the book (I'm going to full-on hijack this A-Rod thread to a Maris one) is that Mantle, who heard "you're no DiMaggio" for much of his career, got a significant amount of love and affection from the local crowd/writers when they had Maris to pick on.

Although when Maris started 1960 like a house on fire, he was actually getting a better reception than Mantle, who was still (believe it or not) in the last stages of his "you're no Dimaggio" phase. It wasn't until 1961, when Maris with his low BA was threatening to overtake Ruth, that the writers and fans began to treat Mantle with unqualified affection, deeming him as a more "suitable" successor to the Babe.

But it's also true about Maris that (some) writers turned on him well before the fans did. Many writers began carping on Maris during his record chase, but the fans didn't really get on him until 1962, when he had the audacity to hit only 33 home runs---but what could you expect from such a bum!

EDIT: The more that I think about it, the more I realize that the true comparison is between Mantle (at least up through 1960) and A-Rod. They both had the problem that they couldn't duplicate their best years every year. As long as they were (are) hitting like Ruth, they were (are) wildly cheered, but let them have a two or three week slump and it reverted (reverts) to "What have you done for us lately?"

I wonder if Dimaggio got this sort of treatment. "You're no Ruth"

And the Babe, too.

DiMaggio got "You're a greedy bum for demanding more money than Gehrig" in 1938. After that, he learned how to manipulate the press.

#9 As a young player DiMaggio was roundly reviled. In no small part because the Yankees played the "you're no Lou Gehrig" card on him in contract negotiations.

And for some reason DiMaggio's response of "Gehrig was under-paid" was found offensive by the sportswriters and fans of the day.

One of the interesting things in the book (I'm going to full-on hijack this A-Rod thread to a Maris one) is that Mantle, who heard "you're no DiMaggio" for much of his career, got a significant amount of love and affection from the local crowd/writers when they had Maris to pick on.

Yes, Mantle suffered badly from the lack of appreciation of BB based OBP in his era.

I think advanced stats give us a much more favorable look at Mantle looking back on him 60 years later. But just looking at the stats available at the time that he was playing makes you think "all-time great".

I wonder if Dimaggio got this sort of treatment. "You're no Ruth"

And the Babe, too.

DiMaggio got "You're a greedy bum for demanding more money than Gehrig" in 1938. After that, he learned how to manipulate the press.

And if you look at the reaction of many writers to the sale of Ruth to the Yanks, you'll find that the Babe got more than his share of carping over his "greed" and "selfishness." The editor of the Reach Guide used up more than a full page of small type denouncing the sale's wisdom from the POV of the Yankees, and he was hardly the only one.

Of course Maris was never the best player on the Yankees, in perception or reality. Mantle was better every single year Maris was there.

Not according to author Danny Peary...we had a FB back and forth on this. Here is this amazing excerpt from the book. (pg. 286)

If he were one to compare his and Mantle's statistics over those five years, he would have discovered that his production was remarkably similar to that of the man considered the best player in the AL. From 1960 to 1964, Mantle appeared in 637 games, scored 479 runs, drove in 457 runs, and slugged 174 homers. In 685 games, Maris scored 461 runs, drove in 478 runs, and had 182 homers. Mantle's average was much higher for the five years; Maris was the superior fielder.

Maris OPS+

1960-161
1961-167
1962-127
1963-145
1964-128

Mantle OPS+

1960-164
1961-206
1962-196
1963-195
1964-178

IIRC from the Jonathan Eig biograpny "Luckiest Man Alive", the Yankees in the mid 30s felt that Gehrig was not the gate-draw that Ruth was. An Italian-American star like DiMaggio was a relatively new thing and the Yankees felt he would attract the paisans. There were also writers who felt Gehrig was too quick to hide in the off-limits trainer's room after a loss, in contrast to Ruth who was more willing to answer questions in such circumstances.

I sometimes wonder what Gehrig's reputation would be if he hadn't died young and had lived to about 1975 with the same stats. Hall of Famer? Yes. Yankee number retired? Probably. Legend still worshiped decades after his death?

The amazing thing about Maris and Mantle was they lived in the same house in 1961. That address has to produced a record for single season HRs, right?

I sometimes wonder what Gehrig's reputation would be if he hadn't died young and had lived to about 1975 with the same stats. Hall of Famer? Yes. Yankee number retired? Probably. Legend still worshiped decades after his death?

Considering that his conventional stats make him out to be the greatest first basemen of all time and then throw in the streak I can't see how he wouldn't have been a legend. He had the rings, played on great teams, and had the numbers.

#17 Bob Cerv lived there as well. The three of them totaled 123 home runs that year (Hot Rod Hundley had a joke about how he and Elgin Baylor once combined for 73 points in a game. Baylor had 71, Hundley 2).

The amazing thing about Maris and Mantle was they lived in the same house in 1961. That address has to produced a record for single season HRs, right?

Well, what about the apartment in St. Louis that in 1944 produced both pennant winners? That was the year that the managers of the Cardinals (Billy Southworth) and the Browns (Luke Sewell) shared a room,** and they wound up facing each other in the World Series. You know that that's one record that will never be broken.

**conveniently arranging with the schedule makers to be needing it on different dates throughout the entire regular season

John McGraw and Christy Mathewson used to live together.

I've read that the press believed Maris and Mantle to be feuding throughout most of 1961. The two of them would snarl at each other in the locker room, then leave at different times to mask that they were living in the same place.

conveniently arranging with the schedule makers to be needing it on different dates throughout the entire regular season

I'm sure you know this, but both the Cards and Browns used Sportsman's Park, so it would be logical that when one was in town, the other would be on the road.

The amazing thing about Maris and Mantle was they lived in the same house in 1961. That address has to produced a record for single season HRs, right?

Actually, one of the most under-reported aspects of the 1998 HR chase is that McGwire and Sosa were not only in a tense race to break the record, but they were also roommates. Unbelievable, but true!

conveniently arranging with the schedule makers to be needing it on different dates throughout the entire regular season

I'm sure you know this, but both the Cards and Browns used Sportsman's Park, so it would be logical that when one was in town, the other would be on the road.

Of course I knew this, and the "conveniently" was just tongue in cheek. Schedule makers had it a lot easier when each of the leagues had four distinct "Eastern" and "Western"** teams, and whenever the Eastern teams headed West in one league, the Western teams would venture East in the other.

And with five cities having two teams each, that was a fortunate set of circumstances, since the only thought required was to make sure that when the "intra-divisonal" part of the schedule came along, they didn't have the Cubs and the White Sox, the A's and the Phillies, etc., playing at home on the same day.

**Which led to geographical oddities such as Pittsburgh (for 52 years) and Baltimore (for one year) being placed in the "West."

Considering that his conventional stats make him out to be the greatest first basemen of all time and then throw in the streak I can't see how he wouldn't have been a legend. He had the rings, played on great teams, and had the numbers.

When you throw in that his last great year before he got sick was when he was only 34, then he had one year when his performance was off, and then he was done. If he doesn't get sick, given the shape he was in, and the streak, and all the rest his numbers presumably would have been more impressive. 600 home runs would have been within reach, as would 2500 RBI, and he'd probably still be the all time RBI leader.

He may or may not have had the St. Gehrig reputation that he's had since his death and Pride of the Yankees, but he'd still be quite the legend, and maybe even more remembered as a great player.

The one I've always wondered about is that the Yankees in '39 won 106 games (while somehow underperforming their pythag by 5 games) with Babe Dahlgren and his 76 OPS+ at first. How many games could that team have won if the 36 year old Gehrig was still healthy and performing at a level anywhere near where he had been in '36/'37.
...
Answering my own question by looking at their respective WAR numbers at BBRF, and factoring in a little bit of decline for Lou over the two years, there's about a 7-8 win difference between the two. That would have put the '39 Yankees at 113 wins with a pythagorean record of 118-36.

Does any team have as good a pythagorean record as the 1939 yankees? And discussions of league quality aside, are the 39 yanks clearly the best team ever? I've been looking over the usual suspects, and I can't find anyone who combines that level of hitting with pitching. Even their world series performance backs it up (No seattle 2001 type postseason flaws).

Does any team have as good a pythagorean record as the 1939 yankees? And discussions of league quality aside, are the 39 yanks clearly the best team ever? I've been looking over the usual suspects, and I can't find anyone who combines that level of hitting with pitching. Even their world series performance backs it up (No seattle 2001 type postseason flaws).

I seriously doubt that the 39 Yanks would have been able to hop in a time machine and win any championships in recent years, but there's little question that if you go strictly by the numbers in comparison with the rest of their league, only the 1906 Cubs (115-37 Pythag) would be in the mix along with them.

seriously doubt that the 39 Yanks would have been able to hop in a time machine and win any championships

Yeah, I'm certainly not pretending that old Charlie keller is going to put up a 140 ops+ in today's American League. I'm not even sure he'd be in AAA.

#28 The 1939 team doesn't tend to do as well as you'd think in tournaments. They scored an awful lot more runs than you'd expect given their counter stats (while the 1927 team for instance actually scored a bit less than you'd expect)

Basically if you use the individual stats put up by the players you'd expect the 1939 team to win ~ .680 while the 1927 team comes in at ~.710 (and the 1906 Cubs about the same)