Mantle vs Mays....Runs Produced Index [Archive]

Archive

03-25-2006, 08:20 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisHoward38 I thought it would be better to "disconnect" from the Bonds Thread to continue your ongoing discussion with Gil. Gil is a great guy and he is also a diehard NY Giants fan. It sounds as you (like me) are a diehard Yankees fan. In my opinion Willie, Mickey & the Duke were all great players; and, we were very fortunate to see them play in our formative years. But Gil will not give Mantle any respect. He constantly says that Mickey was "not a clutch hitter when it counted". Well, Mantle's World Series record, alone, refutes Gil's argument. But, let's compare Mantle vs Mays career #s in a category that is most meaningful to a team....."Runs Produced Index" (RPI). All the years I was managing my softball team at work, the constant gripe I got from my team's players was...."why aren't you playing me ?". I always tried to field the best team and I would keep accurate Stats. So, I would tell a "griper" that the other guys had better RPI's. So, when you do the math....Mantle = 3.01 and Mays = 3.37....This indicates to us that Mantle produced a Run for his team every 3 At Bats. Mays' is just a little worst. The best standard for this Index, I believe is Ruth with 2.3

Archive

03-25-2006, 08:37 AM

Posted By: T206Collector...that I have to read about Barry Bonds on my pre-war baseball card thread. But now we have to have OT spinoffs of that OT thread? Leon's taken his lumps for coming down on these threads, so I figure I'd step in this time.

Archive

03-25-2006, 08:47 AM

Posted By: jay behrensThis thread won't be going anywhere since the long standing rule is that regular contributors can start the occasional OT thread and as I far as I can rememeber, this is Ted's first foray into the OT. If you don't like the topic of the thread, don't read it. Simple as that. Jay WOW upsidedown is MOM. Mom upsidedown is what dad wants to see.

Archive

03-25-2006, 08:58 AM

Posted By: leonNot sure what you are talking about but since Ted is a regular contributor I have no issue with this....thanks....

Archive

03-25-2006, 08:58 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisT206Collector According to Leon's "Edict" an occasional BB related O/T Thread is "tolerable" from members who regularly post vintage BB card material. And, I think you will agree that I have certainly posted more than my fair share of interesting subjects on vintage material from 19th Century material to 1949 BB cards. I chose not to read the Bonds Thread until this AM....I figured as things go on this Forum if there are over 200 posts, there must be something I am missing out on. And, all I did was extend an ongoing digression from that Thread.

Archive

03-25-2006, 09:00 AM

Posted By: jay behrensLeon, better read my post again <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14> I pointed out that the standing rule is that regular contributors can make an occasional off topic post and to my best recollection, Ted has never started one, so his starting one should not be an issue. Unless of course it's about Topps cards <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14> Forgat to add: Ted, almost all of Mantles WS records are counting stats. Counting stats are OK, but given few teams make regualr appearances and the dominance that his teams had during his day, most WS counting records are owned by Yankees players from that era. In general though, most WS records are fairly meaningless as their sample size is generally too small to make any real judgements from. Jay WOW upsidedown is MOM. Mom upsidedown is what dad wants to see.

Archive

03-25-2006, 09:03 AM

Posted By: leonHey Guys, Let's be cool here. We have 4 moderators which is plenty. I always appreciate the help but let's let this thread continue.....Ted seems like a nice enough crusty ole guy <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> ...... If we get too many more O/T's too soon I'll say something.....thanks to all concerned...

Archive

03-25-2006, 09:04 AM

Posted By: leonSorry about that...I did mis-read it.....carry on...

Archive

03-25-2006, 09:06 AM

Posted By: jay behrensno worries on my part, but I am sure you will getting an email from Mr 52 Topps about the fact that you are illiterate now <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14> Jay WOW upsidedown is MOM. Mom upsidedown is what dad wants to see.

Archive

03-25-2006, 09:06 AM

Posted By: ChadThe RPI looks right. I'd agree Mantle was a better hitter--he got on base much more than Mays. I guess the queston is whether you'd want to build a team around Mantle's bat and excellent glove, vs. Mays' bat, durability and other worldly glove. I think I'd take Mays, but reasonable people can disagree on this one. To state they obvious, they were both great. --Chad

Archive

03-25-2006, 09:23 AM

Posted By: T206Collector...any issues with the occasional OT thread -- key word "occasional". But it seems pretty remarkable and insensitive to me that a day after we (properly and happily) get a 1952 Topps Mantle thread locked for being off-topic, and our lead moderator Leon getting hate e-mail as a result, we then get an OT thread about Mantle spun off from an original OT thread about Bonds. I do not think it is as simple as "if you do not like it, don't read it." If that were the case then OT threads would know no bounds or limitations. As of the writing of this, the four most recent threads on this Board are all OT. In my opinion, if you want to chat with your friends on the Board, there's a chat feature and you can also use e-mail. There is really no reason to saturate the Board with Mantle, Bonds or anyone else who played baseball after WWII. The more it is allowed, the less relevant and useful this Board becomes -- regardless of whether you choose to click on the link and read it. And I appreciate that long-standing Board members are given more leeway -- and certainly the E90-1 thread is a very good thread -- but perhaps a little more self-policing would be appropriate. If you want to ask me a question about what I think about something other than pre-WWII baseball cards, there are 85 zillion ways to do that other than a forum that is specifically dedicated to that topic. This should not be particularly controversial, but in keeping with Board rules, my name is Paul. I'll leave the light on for ya.

Archive

03-25-2006, 09:32 AM

Posted By: jay behrensBoth great players, but sadly, absolutely miserable human beings once they got outside the ballpark. My experiences with Mantle were worse than those with Mays. Mays was actually pretty nice each time I met him. But then again, when I met him, I was with a person who knew Mays well and it was an arranged meeting. Jay WOW upsidedown is MOM. Mom upsidedown is what dad wants to see.

Archive

03-25-2006, 09:39 AM

Posted By: jay behrensPaul, as has been pointed many times before, if this board was purely talk about pre-war cards, this board would be pretty slow. It's the occasional OT thread that allows us to get to know each other beyond our love for cards. The reason things are probably slow, on-topic wise is because we are between major auctions. It's lulls like this that tend to lead towards more OT posts. It's just the nature of the board. Jay WOW upsidedown is MOM. Mom upsidedown is what dad wants to see.

Archive

03-25-2006, 10:09 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisJay Thanks for coming to my defense on this post. Paul (T206Collector) Allow me to remind you of one of your recent posts "Big Men, Girlie Names". Not exactly what one would call O/T. However, I (and others) found it quite interesting. It reminded me of Johnny Cash's great song...."A Boy Named Sue". Back in Dec '05 when I posted that I had "completed" a 2nd T206 set you were very responsive to my Thread. So, I don't understand your comments today. Incidently, the 1952 Topps post that Leon recently locked had no mention of Mantle. You got to lighten up guy. Also, you did not get a response to your recent Thread regarding Frank Nagy. If you are still interested, somewhere in my many stacks of BB stuff I have early '70s pubs that have some articles on Frank. It will take me sometime to find them, though.

Archive

03-25-2006, 10:26 AM

Posted By: T206Collector....I would have written what I wrote if anyone had started this thread in the context that I understand it was started in. And I recognize your contributions as bringing quite a lot of value to this Board. I'm not trying to be disrespectful. Again, I just don't see the need for anything post-WWII here. And if things are slow in the pre-WWII musings, then so be it. It certainly doesn't mean we should starting chatting up Beanie Babies. Yesterday there was a locked 1952 Topps thread. Ridiculous e-mails were sent to our moderator in response. I think it is incumbent upon the usual suspects that post on this Board to back-up what Leon did. To post Mantle and Mays stuff on the heels of that discussion to me is a bit insensitive and not particularly supportive of the Board's purpose, notwithstanding that casual OT conversation brings Board members together. Usually I just roll my eyes and click on something else, but I don't want it to seem to casual readers of this forum that are thinking about posting that (1) Leon's decision to lock down that thread was dictatorial; (2) postings about Mantle and Mays (or the sets they appear in) are okay if you are in with Leon, but not otherwise; or (3) that Leon is the only one who doesn't want to see modern stuff mentioned here. And, for what it's worth, "Big Men, Girlie Names" was a thread devoted to girlie names in the T206 set. But I'm glad you found it amusing. And, yes, anything about Frank Nagy that you come across would be great to read -- but please, do not trouble yourself locating it. If you come across it and can shoot me a scan/URL/etc., that would be excellent.

Archive

03-25-2006, 10:33 AM

Posted By: leonIt ain't no big deal. The rules are the rules. I agree that when I see 3-4 off topic posts in a row it's kind of a bummer but really ...not that big of a deal, especially if they are all frequent contributors. If I am not mistaking the '52 Topps thead was by a relative newbie. I give a lot of slack to folks that post all of the time. We have about 100 or so folks that post out of 850 on the board. I am sure we all agree that if you contribute, rather than just lurk, you get some leeway. Let's do get some good vintage cards threads going and we won't have to worry about it. Thanks to everyone for trying to help. Best regards....the ole meanie....

Archive

03-25-2006, 10:35 AM

Posted By: identify7 Who was Mantle? Ted Z. says check his post season record to prove sumpthin' Ahhh ... here it is: .257 batting average. Wait, maybe Ted Z. is an ally! Oh, I know. He once hit a ball 565 feet (in the air). What did his peers do? Aaron = 755 HRs, Mays = 660. Mantle had to surrender his .300+ batting average to catch Foxx. He was a fast runner until he got hurt - which unfortunately was just about right away. But Mays led off each All Star game (for reasons other than his 660 HRs). And although it was never reported that he hit a ball 565', he did disappoint Vic Wertz in 1954. Like I say, if Mantle's legs were better .... but they were'nt. If Score didn't get hit, but he did. If Williams didn't have to serve .... but he did. "Ifs" are for long cold nights and deep bottles. The facts are the facts. It is all black and white. Oh yes, you can try to confuse the issue with statistical parlor tricks, but Who hit the HRS, who got the RBIs, who hit for the higher average, who stole the bases, fielded like he owned the outfield, and was dependable - Monte Irvin. Edited to add: Campanella and Berra.

Archive

03-25-2006, 11:07 AM

Posted By: ScottIngoldI know the Mantle May's debate goes on and on. BUT to us youngsters {36). Mantle was who our dads talked about being awed by. My father was a die hard NY Giants fan as well. But alway's told me if he could pick one to see it was the Mick. I know this is about stats. But i have to think there was something special about Mantle ! By the way i find this refreshing. I love to here from the oldsters among us regarding players they saw. But some of us only heard about and never had the pleasure to see.

Archive

03-25-2006, 11:23 AM

Posted By: jay behrensI never saw Mantle play and only caught Mays at the end of his career. Unlike Scott, the people I talked baseball with as a kid were more in awe of Mays and Clemente. I don't recall anyone ever mentioning Mantle. Maybe that is because he was gone from the game by then. Then again, if he was the greatest thing since sliced bread, I'd think at least one person I knew would have said something about Mantle. Growing up in the middle of BFE, away from the NY hype certainly seems to have made a difference on how the older people of my area viewed players. Jay WOW upsidedown is MOM. Mom upsidedown is what dad wants to see.

Archive

03-25-2006, 11:28 AM

Posted By: ScottIngoldArea might have made a difference. I grew up next to the GW bridge. Hop skip and jump to both the Polo grounds and Yankee stadium.

Archive

03-25-2006, 11:31 AM

Posted By: ScottIngoldAlso if i remember correctly my dad stopped going around 1956 or so as work started to intrude on baseball by than. So he certainly saw Mantle in his younger day's.

Archive

03-25-2006, 11:44 AM

Posted By: Todd SchultzI grew up a couple hundred miles from you, I think (Mankato), and everyone raved about Mantle. It was an American League state, pre-ESPN. Playing in the backyard league, most everyone wanted to be Mantle, Killebrew, Oliva or Carew, depending on your body build. As for me, I was Joe Pepitone, mostly to irritate my father, a lifelong Brooklyn Dodger fan and hater of all things remotely primadonna.

Archive

03-25-2006, 12:08 PM

Posted By: jay behrensI left out the Twins players since that is given for MN. I saw Oliva for most of his career and still consider him one of the best I ever saw. If not for the knee blow out, he would most likely have made the HOF. The only non-Twins players I remember people talking about in total awe of were Clemente and Mays. From the people I've talked to, before the Twins came to town, they were pretty much NL fans, either rooting for the Cards or Cubs. Jay WOW upsidedown is MOM. Mom upsidedown is what dad wants to see.

Archive

03-26-2006, 06:12 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisJAY I seldom disagree with you; but, when I was on business trips to Chicago and Denver in the late '60s and during the '70s when talking BB with many whom I worked with, Mantle was still popular with them. Chicago, certainly, but Denver really surprised me since they did not even have a Major Lge. team back then. GIL Thanx, for setting up my case for Mantle in World Series (WS). Even though he averaged only 1 hit out of 4 AB's in WS play....he made it count. Mantle was responsible for winning at least 12 WS games with his HR's or extra base hits at "clutch" moments. And, his WS BA average during 1952 - 1960 was 290, and his Slugging Avg = 600+. From 1952 - 1964 he was one of the major forces that led the Yankees to 11 WS. The "Say Hey" kid was only in 4 WS (3 with the Giants and 1 with the Mets). And, his BA was a paltry .239 and his Slug Avg = .282....these numbers speak louder than you.

Archive

03-26-2006, 06:59 AM

Posted By: SteveAny discussion of Mantle and Mays should always include the Duke. I saw all three play and If I had my dithers <sp> I'd take the Mick. He was as mentioned clutch, could run, hit with power and average and could also field his posisition. Mays could do it all too. and, as for the Duke, no one hit more homers between 1950 and 59 then he (326) Steve

Archive

03-26-2006, 10:27 AM

Posted By: jay behrensTed, all I speak for is the small little world I grew up in, which was over a 2 hour drive north of Minneapolis. Not counting trips for school or atheletic competitions, we did good to get to the Cities once a year. So my view, and Lee's, of sports growing up was pretty much limited to local people in the area and what we read in the Strib, TSN and SI. Jay WOW upsidedown is MOM. Mom upsidedown is what dad wants to see.

Archive

03-26-2006, 06:01 PM

Posted By: identify7Ted: Im glad that I could help, I knew that we went down that road before, and you didn’t have a good answer the first time, It’s nice that you care about this frivolity, ‘cause I sometimes find it a bit compelling too. Ted, sometimes you have to sit down when faced with greatness, so as to not steal any of the thunder due to the other party. Perhaps Mays did a little of this in deference to Rhodes performance in the ’54 Series. After all his catch (and throw) had already insured him of a historical position in World Series annals. And oh, the Yankees have done a bit of this “respect for greatness” stuff themselves also. For example, following Ruth’s conversion to an outfielder, the Yanks went on a tear, winning three Pennants in a row. Although they continued to get better throughout the ‘20s, in 1924 they ran headlong into Walter Johnson, who was finishing up his career, and needed World Series exposure. Actually, it is not so much in this case that the Yanks took it easy on the Senators (Ruth batted .378, Slugged .739; Pipp had 19 triples, Dugan scored >100 runs and Meusel hit .325 with 120 RBIs), as it was Johnson and his team playing beyond their capabilities. This observation is borne out by each player’s stats for ’24 compared to his lifetime accomplishments. The same happened in ’25, but then the Yanks returned to the top of the AL and stayed there until they encountered the next immovable force: Mack was Back. So after winning in ’26, ’27 and ’28; the Phila. Athletics dethroned them in ’29, ’30 & ’31. It is a bit hard to accept that Connie Mack was able to apparently easily dispense with a team which was the 1927 Yankees, but he did. The Yankees really did not get going again until Ruth was gone (1936) The following year Gehrig was gone too and DiMaggio was the big man. Unlike the preceding era, the DiMaggio years were quite successful. The AL pennant flew in the Stadium in ’36, ’37, ’38, ’39, ’41, ’42, &’43 then again in ’49, 50 and ’51 , when the Yankee Big Man scepter was passed to Mantle. Then things really got out of control; the Mantle years in NY are the performance against which all baseball dynastys will always be compared. They won the Pennant in fourteen of sixteen consecutive years which included the WS crown for the first five years in a row. Ted: you like to position me in a situation in which I have to argue against that performance? My only argument is that the Mantle Yankees, independent of their performance, do not compare favorably with the DiMaggio Yankees, nor the Ruth/Gehrig Yankees. But even if the ’50s Yankees were as good as their predecessors, the big guy was a disappointment. You see Ted, it is so easy to be a Yankee fan – try rooting for the Giants, when you have a ‘50s team like the Dodgers not only in your own league, but in your own city. Not only did the Duke lead everyone else in HRs in the ‘50s, but so did Hodges.

Archive

03-26-2006, 06:43 PM

Posted By: Andrew ParksBill James ranks all-time centerfielders based on runs produced and adjusted for home parks, eras in which they played and the rest of the team's production (among other variables) this way: 1. Mays 2. Cobb 3. Mantle Because Mays and Mantle cross careers so closely, he compared their seasons for each year they were in the league. He gives Mays the nod 15 to 7 with respect to Mays having the better year 15 times to 7 for Mantle. Mantle may have hit .298 for his career, but in a normal era, he would have hit .313 according to James. The 50's and 60's were pitchers' eras. Furthermore, batting average is poor statistic to use to show the value of an offense player. It says that a 1b = 2b = 3b = HR and a BB = 0. How good is a stat that says that? Slugging and OBP are much more valuable. For fun lets compare tools: 1) Raw power: Mantle slightly 2) Defense: Mays by a bunch 3) Arm strength: Mays 4) Speed: Mantle slightly 5) Hitting: Mays slightly These guys are so close. One other point I would like to make...Many of you guys have said that you heard your relatives all raved about Mantle. I do not mean to accuse anyone of having racist relatives, but I can't help but wonder how much of that was based on the sentiment of the day towards blacks? Just a thought...

Archive

03-27-2006, 01:42 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisAndrew In my initial Paragraph in this Thread I state....."In my opinion Willie, Mickey & the Duke were all great players". And, any interpretation of their Stats will reinforce this stated opinion. However, the one fact that stands out is Mantle was "lucky" enough to have a larger "stage" in his career (i.e., from 1951-1964 he was in 12 World Series) It doesn't get much better than this. How much of a force he was in leading the Yankees to this unprecendented run of victories is debatable. When, you have a Manager the likes of Stengel, a pitching staff with Reynolds, Raschi, Lopat, and Ford, a Johnny Sain for a pitching Coach, a Yogi Berra and an Elston Howard behind the plate, a Rizzuto at SS, a Maris in RF, and many, many other teammates who contributed; too numerous, to list here. I ask....how can anyone attribute this success to a particular ballplayer ? But, one thing I can tell you, since I was a kid growing up in New Jersey during those years, I lived and breathed BB and my memories are still very clear. I did see Mantle hit several 500+ ft HRs. I especiall remember the one that hit the upper deck facade at Yankee Stadium. I still have the New York News front page photo of it. Mantle indeed had more power from the right side, as I recall his typical 450 ft HRs into the Yankees Bullpen deep in RF. Andrew....Your last point I cannot accept. I went to school in Elizabeth, NJ and then entered College during the 1950's. My schools were very racially mixed. Due to sports, due to better times, or whatever, there were no color barriers between us. Satchell Paige and Jackie Robinson, Jessie Owens, and Joe Louis were our heroes as well as Joe DiMaggio and Duke Snider; and, all those other "white guys". I ask you....did you grow up in those times ? I was in the US Air Force (1960-64) and I saw very little evidence of racial strife amongst us. When I returned to civilian life in the mid-60's, its then when I started seeing problems, many of which were being instigated by politicians.

Archive

03-27-2006, 05:01 AM

Posted By: Andrew ParksTed, The last part of your post is great to hear. I was born in 1972 so I didn't see it. I only know what I read about and see in pictures. I merely raise it as a conversational piece and possibility.

Archive

03-27-2006, 11:15 AM

Posted By: identify7Andrew, the subject regarding any preference for Mantle attributable to race is a reasonable inquiry, however, as much as I hate agreeing with Ted Z. the race of an athlete was not as noticable (to the fans) as his performance in the '50s. However, I remain curious how you have determined that old No.6 was faster than Mays.

Archive

03-27-2006, 12:34 PM

Posted By: ScottIngoldDoes Mantle own the fastest time down the first base line ? I remember being told this at some point. Also my dad said even in todays game he thought Mantle was quicker/ faster than today's players in his early years.

Archive

03-27-2006, 01:14 PM

Posted By: Andrew ParksMy estimations that Mantle was faster is based on watching a taped copy of Game 7 of the 1952 World Series. Mantle hit a sharp grounder to first base. It was one of the routine grounders to first base where the first baseman picks it up and jogs three or four steps and touches first base while the batter-runner barely makes it into the frame of your TV in the lower part coming down the line. HOWEVER, as I watching, out of nowhere comes Mantle. I swear he was two steps from beating out the grounder. I have been watching baseball for years and you see that play quite often: grounder to first, first unassisted, runner barely gets into the view of frame as the fielder retires him. NEVER - NEVER have I EVER seen any runner get down to the line that fast and get to the point where Mantle was when Hodges touched the bag to retire him. I was watching this in my living room and rewound it five or six times. It was absoultely jaw-dropping. I knew at that point that the 3.12 time home to first and the stories that Mantle was the fastest ever were true. It was absolutely unreal! I simply can not envision another man being that fast playing at the same time.

Archive

03-27-2006, 01:42 PM

Posted By: ddToo bad Mantle's super human speed was so short lived, with all his injuries and all.

Archive

03-27-2006, 01:46 PM

Posted By: jay behrensPeople that saw Mantle and Cool Papa Bell say that Bell is the only player that was or might hav been faster than Mantle. Jay WOW upsidedown is MOM. Mom upsidedown is what dad wants to see.

Archive

03-27-2006, 05:17 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisOK guys, listen to some straight talk from Richie Ashburn Andrew, you especially will like this.....Back in 1997 Richie was signing at a Holiday Inn show in Cherry Hill, NJ. I knew he loved to engage in BB trivia; so, I waited to the very end of the signing session so I could spend some time talking with him. I had him sign a color photo of him executing a perfect drag bunt. He liked the photo as it depicted the ball on his bat at the split moment of contact. We started talking "trivia" and I asked him how fast did go down the line to 1st base. He said he was timed at 3.0 seconds. So then, I asked him if he was the fastest back in the '50s. He replied....No....that he and Mantle were timed by the sportswriters, and with Mantle batting left-handed, they both reached 1st base in exactly 3.0 secs. And then, he said that at the start of every season the sportswriters would repeat this test. And, again they would both reach 1st in 3.0 secs. after hitting the ball. Richie Asburn was a real gentleman. And, I have never forgotten how truly professional he was that day......soft-spoken, but very sincere and very enthusiastic about everything he told me.

Archive

03-27-2006, 06:34 PM

Posted By: Andrew ParksHmmmmm.....hard to believe. I can't imagine - 3.0 down to first.

Archive

03-27-2006, 07:05 PM

Posted By: howardEven after damaging his knees Mantle had extraordinary speed. In his career he stole over 150 bases and was caught fewer than forty times..a better sucess rate than even Mays.

Archive

03-28-2006, 12:07 AM

Posted By: jay behrensNo way they are running 3.0. Even batting left handed, this means that they would have been running sub 4.0 40s. I don't think anyone has been clocked doing a sub 4.0 second 40 yard dash. Jay WOW upsidedown is MOM. Mom upsidedown is what dad wants to see.

Archive

03-28-2006, 02:11 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisJay In that conversation with Ashburn, I took notes and "3.0 secs" is exactly what he told me. I never doubted his time, since I remember numbers like 3.3 to 3.6 for a many of the "speedy" major leaguers of that period. So, whose facts are you questioning....Richie Ashburn, the sportswriters, or me ? ? T-Rex Ted

Archive

03-28-2006, 02:41 AM

Posted By: howardI think Jay is correct on this one. Although the forty is not an officially timed track event Ben Johnson holds the unofficial record at 4.38 seconds. I think that figure was obtained by timing him in the first 4/5s of a fifty yard dash. The 4.2s and 4.3s you hear about at NFL tryouts are timed by coaches with stopwatches and are unreliable. I don't doubt that Mantle was timed at three seconds (which, if my math is correct, correlates to a 4.0 forty) but I do question the timing method used. Howard

Archive

03-28-2006, 11:07 AM

Posted By: jay behrensTed, I'm not questioning whether you are telling the truth or not. I used to run track and follow pretty closely. When sprinting, most top athlete reach their maximum speed about the 200m point and then start to slow down. They occassionally run a 50 yard and 50m sprint at indoor meets. Last I remember, the record for 50y still just under 5.0 seconds. If Mantle and Ashburn honestly could run to first in 3.0 seconds, then this would translate to about 9.0 or 9.1 second 100m dash, and record is 9.85. As was mentioned, sportwriters with stopwatches and handheld timing is very unreliable. Jay WOW upsidedown is MOM. Mom upsidedown is what dad wants to see.

Archive

03-28-2006, 08:34 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisJay I'll defer to you on the inaccuracy of hand-held stopwatches. But, how much off can this type of timing be.....10% ? That would change the time they ran 90 feet to 3.3 secs. That's still fast time. Also, in your comparisons you keep switching between yards and meters. And as you know, a 50 yard sprint vs 50 meters can be quite a difference in time. Now, the other factor to consider is that we are not talking about a standing start when they timed Richie or Mickey. My understanding is they are already in motion in the process of swinging at the BB when the clock starts.

Archive

03-28-2006, 10:06 PM

Posted By: jay behrensI have to switch betwee yards and meters because that is how all the records are now kept. A 10 second 100m translates to roughly 9.1 second 100 yards. The timing of player running to first is a somewhat subjective thing. When do you start the timer? When he starts swinging? When he starts making his movement towards first? If they are waiting until they make a move towards first, then I guess you might get a 3.0 time with thhe player already in motion. Jay WOW upsidedown is MOM. Mom upsidedown is what dad wants to see.