Rocky Colavito: Stick it up their ***

[irv]

Originally Posted by MCoxon

Off-topic I guess, but two cards I'd love to see:
- 1949 Bowman Minnie Minoso in an Indians uniform, given his call-up
- 1951 Bowman Minnie Minoso in an Indians uniform, when he finished 2nd in ROY voting.

I think Gil McDougald got the 1951 AL ROY because he played in NY and not Cleveland:

From Baseball-Reference.com
1. Gil McDougald 14 HR, 63 RBI, .306 BA, .884 OPS, 14 SB
2. Minnie Minoso 10 HR, 76 RBI, .326 BA, .922 OPS, 31 SB

A Better Season Than Gil McDougald?

From 1951 to 1961, Minoso hit .305 with a .395 on base average and a .471 slugging percentage. He averaged 16 home runs, 89 RBIs and 18 stolen bases a season.

If the 1922 birth year is correct, then Minoso lost many seasons to racism. He was the Sporting News 1951 Rookie of the Year, out-hitting the Baseball Writers Association of America winner Gil McDougald, .326 to .306, out slugging Gil .500 to .488 and topping Gil in on base average, .422 to .396.

Pretty clear to see he didn't win the ROY due to racism. What a shame!

Only Williams and Musial Were Better

While there is doubt with respect to Minoso being a Hall of Famer, there is no doubt that he was a great player.

He was the third best left fielder in baseball, behind Ted Williams and Stan Musial during the 1950s—and he was to Hispanic players almost what Jackie Robinson was to American players.

Minnie Minoso belongs in the Hall of Fame.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Minoso had the same number of 100 RBI seasons as Mantle -- 4. It's still shocking to me that that's all Mantle had. Part of it of course is that he walked so much.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Minoso had the same number of 100 RBI seasons as Mantle -- 4. It's still shocking to me that that's all Mantle had. Part of it of course is that he walked so much.

The latter half of his career he missed a lot of games to injury too.

Not to mention that RBI's are pretty contingent on how good the people are on getting on in front of you, and if there is another power guy hitting in front of you taking a lot of of the RBI's with homers and not being on the basepaths for you.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

The latter half of his career he missed a lot of games to injury too.

Not to mention that RBI's are pretty contingent on how good the people are on getting on in front of you, and if there is another power guy hitting in front of you taking a lot of of the RBI's with homers and not being on the basepaths for you.

I have a feeling that the Yankees of the 50s and first half of the 60s were pretty good at getting on base. As for the latter point, Gehrig still managed to have a few RBIs despite hitting behind Ruth, so I am not buying it. Even when Maris hit 61, he was still probably on base another 140 times.

[clydepepper]

It's great to see how many folks agree with me about Minnie Minoso...bet he was fun to watch!

Speaking of fun to watch, I wish I had witnessed some of Colavito's legendary outfield throws.

Through the magic of television, I have seen a few Clemente throws...just wonder how Colavito compared.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I have a feeling that the Yankees of the 50s and first half of the 60s were pretty good at getting on base. As for the latter point, Gehrig still managed to have a few RBIs despite hitting behind Ruth, so I am not buying it. Even when Maris hit 61, he was still probably on base another 140 times.

Buy it or not it's a fact that RBI's are team contingent and extremely volatile. They are next to worthless for judging individual production because the batter has no control over who is or isn't on base when he comes to bat. Plenty of great seasons have come without 100 RBI's just because they played on a bad team who sucked at getting on base.

Oh, and Ruth is like #2 or 3 in walks and BB% all time, of course Gehrig got a ton of RBI chances!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

Buy it or not it's a fact that RBI's are team contingent and extremely volatile. They are next to worthless for judging individual production because the batter has no control over who is or isn't on base when he comes to bat. Plenty of great seasons have come without 100 RBI's just because they played on a bad team who sucked at getting on base.

Oh, and Ruth is like #2 or 3 in walks and BB% all time, of course Gehrig got a ton of RBI chances!

At .342 lifetime I think Ruth probably had a ton of hits where he ended up on base too. Is there an advanced stat for runs driven in/runners on base or something like that, that would be informative?

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

At .342 lifetime I think Ruth probably had a ton of hits where he ended up on base too. Is there an advanced stat for runs driven in/runners on base or something like that, that would be informative?

you could look at situational hitting, but it tends to be all over the place from one year to the next (and over a career tends to be similar to their hitting in ALL situations)

But, it tends to be true that good middle of the order hitters will get more RBI's if the guys in front of them are better at getting on base than an equally good hitter on a lesser team.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I have a feeling that the Yankees of the 50s and first half of the 60s were pretty good at getting on base. As for the latter point, Gehrig still managed to have a few RBIs despite hitting behind Ruth, so I am not buying it. Even when Maris hit 61, he was still probably on base another 140 times.

Maris got on base a decent amount but from the late 50s through the early 60s the Yankees had out machines Bobby Richardson and Tony Kubek batting first and second.