If you were starting a team today......

[Touch'EmAll]

Not kidding anyone, simply looked at the stats. Aaron had 3 post season appearances - in 1969 NLCS played 3 games, had 14 At Bats and posted really good numbers. Sorry the overall sample size is small compared to Mantle, but what can you do about that? Mantle probably had better overall teams to help get to more post season appearances.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

Not kidding anyone, simply looked at the stats. Aaron had 3 post season appearances - in 1969 NLCS played 3 games, had 14 At Bats and posted really good numbers. Sorry the overall sample size is small compared to Mantle, but what can you do about that? Mantle probably had better overall teams to help get to more post season appearances.

With all due respect.....all I am saying is, if you are going to compare stats you must compare World Series performances. And, Aaron played in only two W.S.
As we all know, there were no League Play-off series in Mantle's timeframe.

So, I will reprise the numbers which show only World Series stats for comparison of Aaron and Mantle. Mantle wins this contest in every category except forBA.

Originally Posted by tedzan

Aaron was only in two World Series (1957 & 1958)
Totals.... BA= .362, HR= 3, RBI = 9, SLG = .786 (1957) and .407 (1958)

Compare that with the 1952 and 1960 World Series totals...…
Mantle BA = .355, HR = 5, RBI = 13, SLG = .655 (1952) and .800 (1960)

You favor Aaron, I favor Mantle, and that's fine with me. But, my question to you is if Aaron was so great, why wasn't he more of a force in having the Braves
win more Championships ? They certainly had some great players back then (Mathews, Adcock, Crandall, Spahn, Burdette, Buhl, etc., etc.).


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Touch'EmAll]

A team has many players, one of which may be a superstar. Sure, it helps a lot for the superstar to put up big numbers. But the rest of the big bunch counts for a whole lot more on a team trying to win rings. If I were to analyze it, I would start with the pitching, top to bottom, of Mantle's Yankees vs. Aaron, Mays, etc. teams. Pitching is a big factor if a team is going to go far. The Yankees "gelled" as a great team together, all components worked, Mantle was recognized as top dog, but the supporting cast was darn good and clutch overall.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

A team has many players, one of which may be a superstar. Sure, it helps a lot for the superstar to put up big numbers. But the rest of the big bunch counts for a whole lot more on a team trying to win rings. If I were to analyze it, I would start with the pitching, top to bottom, of Mantle's Yankees vs. Aaron, Mays, etc. teams. Pitching is a big factor if a team is going to go far. The Yankees "gelled" as a great team together, all components worked, Mantle was recognized as top dog, but the supporting cast was darn good and clutch overall.

I agree with everything you are saying here. But, there is another significant factor which we haven't mentioned......Casey Stengel. Stengel was a "genius" on knowing how to manage
his players and the pitchers in order to get the best out of them.

I remember back in the Fall of 1949 when the Yankees were in a 3-game play-off series vs the Red Sox. His ace pitcher Allie Reynolds was off to a bad start. Stengel brings in Joe Page
(his closer) in the 6th inning. Page shuts out the Red Sox for 4 innings (allowing them only one hit) to win the game. Stuff like that in a crucial play-off game you just never forget.

In another situation.....the Yankee starter is having a bad day, Stengel thought nothing of bringing in his ace starter Allie Reynolds in relief to win the game. I could post on many more
such stories which would fill up numerous Net54 page of many exciting BB games (and events) which I recall from my youth.

I'll leave it for another day, though.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[CMIZ5290]

I started the thread without giving my opinion, but my choice would be Mantle...

[Huysmans]

The last thing I'll say on the topic is that my opinion is based on actual facts, history, and what Mantle did.
The differing opinions, with all due respect, are based on conjecture, what ifs and mere possibilities. If you gave Aaron, Mays and Williams Mantle's team, there is no way anyone can say that they would've done the same.... Its possible, but there are no guarantees... No one can argue that. So it's just wishful thinking, nothing more.
Mantle did it, those other players did not.

Bottom line, I'm basing this on facts, not what might have been.
The same can't be said for the differing opinions.

Hard facts always trump conjecture....

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

The last thing I'll say on the topic is that my opinion is based on actual facts, history, and what Mantle did.
The differing opinions, with all due respect, are based on conjecture, what ifs and mere possibilities. If you gave Aaron, Mays and Williams Mantle's team, there is no way anyone can say that they would've done the same.... Its possible, but there are no guarantees... No one can argue that. So it's just wishful thinking, nothing more.
Mantle did it, those other players did not.

Bottom line, I'm basing this on facts, not what might have been.
The same can't be said for the differing opinions.

Hard facts always trump conjecture....

My final word is this: Take a typical Yankee championship year. Plug in the production of Mays (or Aaron) for that same year instead of Mantle's, and the Yankees still win. And since Mays and Aaron took better care of themselves, their careers lasted longer and their total production was far superior.

[frankbmd]

The Yankees in the 50s had a major league farm team in Kansas City (also in the AL) complete with a shuttle bus. Now that's depth.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

The last thing I'll say on the topic is that my opinion is based on actual facts, history, and what Mantle did.
The differing opinions, with all due respect, are based on conjecture, what ifs and mere possibilities. If you gave Aaron, Mays and Williams Mantle's team, there is no way anyone can say that they would've done the same.... Its possible, but there are no guarantees... No one can argue that. So it's just wishful thinking, nothing more.
Mantle did it, those other players did not.

Bottom line, I'm basing this on facts, not what might have been.
The same can't be said for the differing opinions.

Hard facts always trump conjecture....

So with that logic, you'd pick Whitey or Yogi or even Scooter over any other players of their time, since they 'did it'.

Mickey was great, one of the greatest, but I'd still take Willie. But I couldn't blame anyone for taking any of the other choices.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

The last thing I'll say on the topic is that my opinion is based on actual facts, history, and what Mantle did.
The differing opinions, with all due respect, are based on conjecture, what ifs and mere possibilities. If you gave Aaron, Mays and Williams Mantle's team, there is no way anyone can say that they would've done the same.... Its possible, but there are no guarantees... No one can argue that. So it's just wishful thinking, nothing more.
Mantle did it, those other players did not.

Bottom line, I'm basing this on facts, not what might have been.
The same can't be said for the differing opinions.

Hard facts always trump conjecture....

Ok then, in 6 of his 12 World Series Mantle batted under .250. In two others he batted .250.

Those are the facts.

I would say that in those 8 series his performance wasn't helping the team.

in 1962,3 and 4 Tom Tresh outperformed him in the series.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by tedzan

I agree with everything you are saying here. But, there is another significant factor which we haven't mentioned......Casey Stengel. Stengel was a "genius" on knowing how to manage
his players and the pitchers in order to get the best out of them.

I remember back in the Fall of 1949 when the Yankees were in a 3-game play-off series vs the Red Sox. His ace pitcher Allie Reynolds was off to a bad start. Stengel brings in Joe Page
(his closer) in the 6th inning. Page shuts out the Red Sox for 4 innings (allowing them only one hit) to win the game. Stuff like that in a crucial play-off game you just never forget.

In another situation.....the Yankee starter is having a bad day, Stengel thought nothing of bringing in his ace starter Allie Reynolds in relief to win the game. I could post on many more
such stories which would fill up numerous Net54 page of many exciting BB games (and events) which I recall from my youth.

I'll leave it for another day, though.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Like when he picked Turley over Whitey Ford for game 7 against the Pirates, and then used every other starter in relief instead of Ford. I think Stengel won because he had a stacked team and a farm team in Kansas City, not because of his strategy.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Like when he picked Turley over Whitey Ford for game 7 against the Pirates, and then used every other starter in relief instead of Ford. I think Stengel won because he had a stacked team and a farm team in Kansas City, not because of his strategy.

I agree with your point but Ford could not have started game seven because he pitched a complete game in a must win the day before. Stengel's mistakes re: Ford, IMO were:
1) Not starting him until game three in favor of Ditmar & Turley.
2) Keeping him in the entire sixth game which should have been handed over to the bullpen as it was a blowout.
3) As you noted not using Ford in game seven even with the game six CG under his belt.

Other debatable pitching moves in game seven were not using Ryne Duren, who had a poor season but an excellent WS up to that point, at all & leaving Bobby Shantz in for five innings after an entire season in short relief.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I've seen sources give Stengel a lot of credit for the way he used platooning which he apparently learned under McGraw.

[nat]

"why not just do one or the other?"


Pure ex post is boring. Just get a list of players, order it by your favorite measure of value, and then give Trout a bonus of however much your favorite projection system puts him at. (With some tweaks for possible ranges of outcome, but whatever tweaks you put on it, Trout + projection-for-the-rest-of-his-career isn't going to be a contender here.)

Pure ex ante is hard to do (since we don't, that I know of, have scouting reports for a young Hank Aaron), but also unnecessarily restrictive. We know that Hank Aaron is capable of having the career that he, in fact, had. Why discard that information?

But perhaps more to the point: it's just a game, and you can play it however you want. If you want to project players just based on their amateur scouting reports, fine, that's one way to play the game. The OP didn't give us much guidance on how this game was to be played, so I picked one way to play it that sounded like fun to me. There are lots of other ways to do it too.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by tedzan

I agree with everything you are saying here. But, there is another significant factor which we haven't mentioned......Casey Stengel. Stengel was a "genius" on knowing how to manage
his players and the pitchers in order to get the best out of them.

Exactly!

I have the audio recording of Larsen's perfect game in the 1956 World Series. The key play that saved it was Mantle's running catch of Hodges' shot to left-center. As Hodges comes to bat, the announcer mentions that Stengel climbs to the top of the dugout and waves Mickey over several steps. A couple pitches later, Mantle just barely saves the perfecto.

Stengel truly was a great, great manager.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Exactly!

I have the audio recording of Larsen's perfect game in the 1956 World Series. The key play that saved it was Mantle's running catch of Hodges' shot to left-center. As Hodges comes to bat, the announcer mentions that Stengel climbs to the top of the dugout and waves Mickey over several steps. A couple pitches later, Mantle just barely saves the perfecto.

Stengel truly was a great, great manager.

Hi Mark

Oct 8th 1956....believe it or not....I stayed home from school that day and watched the Perfect Game on our 12" TV .

Thanks for recalling that tremendous catch by Mickey of Gil Hodges 400+ foot drive to Yankee Stadium's left-centerfield ("death valley"). If Mickey was not as fast a runner as he was,
we wouldn't be talking about that unprecedented Perfect-No-Hit game that day.

Not only did he save the day for Don Larsen, Mickey hit a HR in the 4th inning that went on to be winning hit. For Sal Maglie pitched a pretty darn good game for the Dodgers.



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Hi Mark

Oct 8th 1956....believe it or not....I stayed home from school that day and watched the Perfect Game on our 12" TV .

Thanks for recalling that tremendous catch by Mickey of Gil Hodges 400+ foot drive to Yankee Stadium's left-centerfield ("death valley"). If Mickey was not as fast a runner as he was,
we wouldn't be talking about that unprecedented Perfect-No-Hit game that day.

Not only did he save the day for Don Larsen, Mickey hit a HR in the 4th inning that went on to be winning hit. For Sal Maglie pitched a pretty darn good game for the Dodgers.

A lot of people don't realize that Maglie retired the first 11 Yankees before Mantle hit that home run. So it was a duel perfect game with 2 out in the bottom of the 4th inning.

[jiw98]

I've had a similar discussion with the Pastor at the church I attend. The fact that he grew up not only watching the Yankees, he also grew up in the dugout and locker room. After going back and for about great players in the 50's and 60's he point blank said that Mantle was the best player he had ever seen. He pointed out that Mantle played most of his career injured, but talent wise he said that nobody was better that he saw. So after this discussion and going back and forth on several players I will have to agree with him.
I'll go with Mantle.