RBI seasons

[jtur88]

Of the following list of 1950's sluggers, who had the most 100-RBI seasons in his career?

Berra, Campanella, Doby, Doerr, Elliott, Ennis, Kaline, Kiner, Kluszewski, Mantle, Rosen, Slaughter, Snider.

Which ones would be tied for second, one season behind the leader?

[jtur88]

The answer (which is easy to look up) is that the top two on the list were Del Ennis and Bob Elliott. Both played for also-ran teams. Yet, Ennis had as many 100-RBI seasons as Mantle and Kaline combined. Elliott had as many as Doerr, Kiner and Snider, and more than the rest. One would think that 6 or 7 100-RBI seasons with a perennial non-contender would be something that would attract a bit of attention for HoF voting. But I guess not. Kluszewski had 5 (which is more than Mantle), and only those three are jot in the Hall.

In the case of Kluszewski, how can a guy bat .300 seven times, bat in 100 runs more times than Mantle, start three all-star games, drive in ten runs in one World Series, and never be seriously considered for the Hall of Fame?

[jtur88]

I just looked at HoF voting Neither Elliott nor Ennis ever got as many as 5 votes in HoF voting. Kluszewski once got as many as 14.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by jtur88

The answer (which is easy to look up) is that the top two on the list were Del Ennis and Bob Elliott. Both played for also-ran teams. Yet, Ennis had as many 100-RBI seasons as Mantle and Kaline combined. Elliott had as many as Doerr, Kiner and Snider, and more than the rest. One would think that 6 or 7 100-RBI seasons with a perennial non-contender would be something that would attract a bit of attention for HoF voting. But I guess not. Kluszewski had 5 (which is more than Mantle), and only those three are jot in the Hall.

In the case of Kluszewski, how can a guy bat .300 seven times, bat in 100 runs more times than Mantle, start three all-star games, drive in ten runs in one World Series, and never be seriously considered for the Hall of Fame?

Kluszewski isn't far away. Oddly enough, he wasn't very durable. He had only four seasons with at least 140 games played. He did have six excellent seasons, although some were only the 130-game variety. Someone who did more than that and did it in full seasons, and did it from a more difficult position (CF) was Dale Murphy. But his apparent crime was playing for also-ran Brave teams and not sticking around a couple seasons to be a DH in the American League.

Players on the best teams tend to get more exposure, and are often overrated. In addition, a player on a good offensive team will be helped in his statistics by having more runners on base and having better batters behind him to drive him in. No stat is exempt from this, because all parts of OPS are improved when a pitcher is throwing from a stretch. Players on worse teams will come up to bat with the bases empty more often. Mantle was a great player, and I'd put him third among all center fielders, behind only Mays and Cobb. However, he was helped by the great Yankee lineups. People often say that Mantle was a better offensive player than Mays, but only Mays' fielding made Mays better overall. However, Mays had accounted for a greater percentage of his teams' runs than Mantle did. And when you measure balls in play, Mays had superior HR/AB, 2B/AB, 3B/AB.

[kflo]

mantle has a decided peak edge over mays in ops+ and rc/g.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by kflo

mantle has a decided peak edge over mays in ops+ and rc/g.

A few difficulties using that criteria:

--How long is a peak? It's undefined. Don Mattingly had what would be termed a great peak, but that wouldn't matter all that much when discussing the merits of Hall of Fame 1st basemen. Essentially, Mantle had three great OPS and RC seasons... '56, '57, and '61, which people call a peak. If you limit a peak to three years, then it could be argued that Mantle's top three were slightly better than Mays'. If you put a peak at five or six years, then the pendulum swings over to Mays' side convincingly.
--Mays had six seasons of 140 RC or more, while Mantle had five such seasons. Mays had ten seasons of 130 RC or more, while Mantle still had five.
--OPS doesn't measure baserunning after getting on base at all, and Mays was the superior baserunner, and one of the best of his era.
--Mantle's teams scored many more runs than Mays' did, putting Mantle in a richer environment for offensive production.
--Their 162 G averages for runs and RBI were Mays 112/103 and Mantle 113/102 -- this despite Mantle's built-in advantage playing for a high-scoring Yankee team most every year. And Mays sustained that rate for another 591 games beyond Mantle's career. If Mantle supposedly had a better peak, it's not borne out in the raw stats, which should actually favor him anyway, being on the Yankees.
--There weren't as many superstar-level batters in the American League during their primes as their was in the National League. This can be documented quite easily. Mantle's rate stats comparitive to the league would have been tempered a bit with more quality players such as the NL had.
--Mantle had five seasons from age 20-30 where he missed at least ten games. Mays didn't have any seasons where he missed ten games from age 23-35.
--Mantle had just four 100-RBI seasons, while Mays had ten 100-RBI seasons, even though Mantle's Yankees during this time far outscored the Giants.

And we haven't even said anything about fielding yet, where Mays has a clear advantage. If you limit the discussion to three seasons and count only batting and not baserunning or fielding, then Mantle wins by that criteria. But does it tell us anything useful other than Mantle was a better batter for his best three or four years? It doesn't speak of his overall value during that time, and it seems to shorten the notion of a peak.

[kflo]

Originally Posted by Triad

A few difficulties using that criteria:

--How long is a peak? It's undefined. Don Mattingly had what would be termed a great peak, but that wouldn't matter all that much when discussing the merits of Hall of Fame 1st basemen. Essentially, Mantle had three great OPS and RC seasons... '56, '57, and '61, which people call a peak. If you limit a peak to three years, then it could be argued that Mantle's top three were slightly better than Mays'. If you put a peak at five or six years, then the pendulum swings over to Mays' side convincingly.

mays had one season with rc/g over 10.0. mantle had 6. 500+ pa's in each (600+ in 5 of the 6). 6 seasons over 180 ops+, to 1 for mays. 5 of those 6 higher than mays' career high. we're not just talking 3 years.

--Mays had six seasons of 140 RC or more, while Mantle had five such seasons. Mays had ten seasons of 130 RC or more, while Mantle still had five.
--OPS doesn't measure baserunning after getting on base at all, and Mays was the superior baserunner, and one of the best of his era.

mays played more games/season, and was the better baserunner. no argument there.

--Mantle's teams scored many more runs than Mays' did, putting Mantle in a richer environment for offensive production.

not sure what that means in the context of ops+ or rc/9.

--Their 162 G averages for runs and RBI were Mays 112/103 and Mantle 113/102 -- this despite Mantle's built-in advantage playing for a high-scoring Yankee team most every year. And Mays sustained that rate for another 591 games beyond Mantle's career. If Mantle supposedly had a better peak, it's not borne out in the raw stats, which should actually favor him anyway, being on the Yankees.

and you deduce what from this?

--There weren't as many superstar-level batters in the American League during their primes as their was in the National League. This can be documented quite easily. Mantle's rate stats comparitive to the league would have been tempered a bit with more quality players such as the NL had.

not sure what this means. mantles rate stats would have greater relative value actually.

--Mantle had five seasons from age 20-30 where he missed at least ten games. Mays didn't have any seasons where he missed ten games from age 23-35.
--Mantle had just four 100-RBI seasons, while Mays had ten 100-RBI seasons, even though Mantle's Yankees during this time far outscored the Giants.

And we haven't even said anything about fielding yet, where Mays has a clear advantage. If you limit the discussion to three seasons and count only batting and not baserunning or fielding, then Mantle wins by that criteria. But does it tell us anything useful other than Mantle was a better batter for his best three or four years? It doesn't speak of his overall value during that time, and it seems to shorten the notion of a peak.

i really was responding to this point by you originally:

People often say that Mantle was a better offensive player than Mays, but only Mays' fielding made Mays better overall. However, Mays had accounted for a greater percentage of his teams' runs than Mantle did. And when you measure balls in play, Mays had superior HR/AB, 2B/AB, 3B/AB.

i was providing context as to why people would legitimately think mantle the superior offensive player. not who had the better career.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by kflo

mays had one season with rc/g over 10.0. mantle had 6. 500+ pa's in each (600+ in 5 of the 6). 6 seasons over 180 ops+, to 1 for mays. 5 of those 6 higher than mays' career high. we're not just talking 3 years.

I'll show below why the RC and OPS values here are misleading. Remember also that OPS assumes that all players have the same baserunning ability.

not sure what that means in the context of ops+ or rc/9.

Mantle would have come up to bat much more often with runners on base, and the opponent's primary pitchers worn down more or removed due to the Yankees' high scoring. Production increases in general in situations with runners on base, probably partly due to having to pitch from the stretch, and partly due to the distraction of being concerned about the runners.

and you deduce what from this?

If Mays' career R + RBI per 162 games is identical to Mantle's, and yet Mantle's teams from 1954 to 1964 averaged 771 runs per season, while Mays' teams averaged 702 runs, then this tells us that Mantle's comparative output in run production was less. Mantle was in an environment which produced 10% more runs, yet Mays equalled Mantle's run production.

(Note: I'm using only the standout full seasons of Mantle, so not including '63)

Monitoring those seasons, the Yankees outscored the Giants eight times, and the Giants outscored the Yankees twice. Mays had the greater percentage of his teams' R + RBI all ten times! Even in '59 and '62 when the Giants scored more than the Yankees did, Mays' percentage of his teams' R + RBI was significantly better.

% of (R+RBI)/2) / Team Runs
________Mays___Mantle
1954. . .15.6%. .14.3%
1955. . .17.8%. .14.4%
1956. . .17.1%. .15.3%
1957. . .16.3%. .14.9%
1958. . .14.9%. .14.8%
1959. . .16.2%. .13.0%
1960. . .15.6%. .14.3%
1961. . .16.3%. .15.7%
1962. . .15.4%. .11.3%
1964. . .17.7%. .13.9%
Total. . .16.3%. .14.2%

(green indicates which team scored more runs that year)

Mays consistently contributed to more of his teams' run, and it didn't matter if they were scoring a little or scoring a lot. What we can derive from this is that Mantle's rate stats are hiding the fact that he was a worse run producer than Mays was in every single season during both of their primes.

Breaking it down further...

• In Mantle's 10-year period, only once did the Yankees score under 700 runs (1959). Mantle could only muster 75 RBI that year.
• In Mays' 13-year period, the Giants scored less than 700 runs six times ('56, '57, '60, '64, '65, '66). Mays' RBI totals in those years were 84, 97, 103, 111, 112, and 103.

• Mantle only topped 100 RBI once when the Yankees scored under 800 runs (1964), and was aided by four 800+ run seasons, where he totaled 102, 130, 128, and 89 RBI.
• Mays was aided by only one 800+ run season, in which he totaled 141 RBI.

• Mantle's three highest run totals were when the Yankees scored 800+ runs ('54, '56, '61), and he scored 96 runs another time ('62) when they had over 800.
• Mays scored at least 115 runs every time the Giants had 700+ runs (7 times). Mays also scored 121 and 118 runs when the Giants had less than 700 runs.

• Mantle scored as much as 17% of the Yankees' runs only two times.
• Mays scored 19% of the Giants' runs once, 18% three times, and 17% four times.

• Mantle drove in as much as 15% of the Yankees' runs three times, and was otherwise not over 13%.
• Mays drove in 18% of the Giants' runs once, 17% once, 16% four times, and 15% five times.

(Mays' 13-year period referenced is 1954-1966)

Mantle's increase of production is directly related to the offensive success of the Yankee teams from year-to-year. Mays' production is more consistent, regardless of the Giants' offensive success.

There's a real pattern here of Mays outperforming Mantle on offense. When we include baserunning, remove the misleading rates, and take the numbers in the context of the teams they played on, Mantle has no offensive peak period that is superior to Mays'.

not sure what this means. mantles rate stats would have greater relative value actually.

I'll demonstrate later how Mantle's rate stats would have looked worse against the backdrop of more quality batters that were in the NL.

[kflo]

mantle got on base at a higher rate, with at least equal power, and comparable speed (albeit not near the base stealer). that he didn't score runs at a higher rate would seem to be at least in part a function of his teammates, no? why are we looking at total team performance instead of the performance of these 2 guys?

[Triad]

Originally Posted by kflo

mantle got on base at a higher rate, with at least equal power, and comparable speed (albeit not near the base stealer).

Speed to first base does not a baserunner make. Baserunning incorporates more than speed. Timing, hustle, and good instincts are just as important. Mays' SB and R totals are suggestive of a better baserunner.

Originally Posted by kflo

that he didn't score runs at a higher rate would seem to be at least in part a function of his teammates, no?

Why would you say that? I'm not sure what you mean. Mantle's teams scored 10% more runs than Mays' did over the 13-year period indicated. Mantle had 10% more opportunity, or very near that.

Originally Posted by kflo

why are we looking at total team performance instead of the performance of these 2 guys?

I mentioned this earlier, but if you're up to bat more often with runners on base, you get to face pitchers pitching from a stretch more often, and they can become somewhat occupied with the baserunners. The comparative OPS's are often different by about 3-5%.

Also, the environment should come into play. If they're producing almost identical run and RBI totals, yet Mantle has more teammates on base and more driving him in, then that gives us context, and tells us that Mays was doing more offensively.