Very Interesting How Certain Stars are valued

[oldeboo]

Somehow bias ends up getting built into the hobby. I just did a quick glance at Ted Williams vs. Mickey Mantle. Williams was a 93% first ballot Hall of Famer, while Mantle was at 88%. Williams was a 19x All Star(who missed WWII years) vs. Mantle at 20x. Williams 2x AL MVP vs. Mantle's 3x. Williams had a .344 BA vs. Mantle's .298. Mantle clearly had the edge on World Series Championships. You can compare the stats all you want, but yeah, they aren't THAT much different.

You can look at one snapshot of 1957 Topps that have a similar availability and the prices aren't similar at all. This was a time when both players were still popular, although at slightly different stages of their careers. As a baseline I looked at PSA 5 sold examples and Williams cards sell for around $200 give or take and the Mantle examples go in the $700 range. The Yankees factor? The World Series titles? I guess those factor in among other things, but the prices are interesting.

[packs]

I think you're discounting personality when it comes to Mantle. He was widely regarded as a carefree American icon who got into plenty of trouble with the boys. What are the perceptions of Ted Williams, though? I remember hearing stories of a cold man who didn't keep very many people close and alienated his players as a manager. Fondness matters too.

[oldeboo]

Originally Posted by packs

I think you're discounting personality when it comes to Mantle. He was widely regarded as a carefree American icon who got into plenty of trouble with the boys. What are the perceptions of Ted Williams, though? I remember hearing stories of a cold man who didn't keep very many people close and alienated his players as a manager. Fondness matters too.

That's a good point for some of these players that are still relatable to people who watched them and have a first hand remembrance. To have watched Williams play you would probably be in your late 60s or older and Mantle in your late 50s or older. There are more people willing to unload a stack of cash for a childhood memory in the Mantle range as another factor. Is there a tiny Mantle bubble for that? In 40 years do the prices close on each other some? Interesting to think about.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by oldeboo

That's a good point for some of these players that are still relatable to people who watched them and have a first hand remembrance. To have watched Williams play you would probably be in your late 60s or older and Mantle in your late 50s or older. There are more people willing to unload a stack of cash for a childhood memory in the Mantle range as another factor. Is there a tiny Mantle bubble for that? In 40 years do the prices close on each other some? Interesting to think about.

I've actually had conversations about this with other collectors. Basically what it boils down to with Mantle, was that he was an American Icon, and a good portion of the people in the Hobby now were kids and grew up idolizing Mantle. In most cases, if they could have, they passed their love for the Mick down to their kids. Mickey is my primary collecting interest, his cards are really my collections centerpiece, and I was just over a year old, when he passed on.

I think a guy like Mantle maintains his value. I don't see his prices coming down anytime soon, the one thing I think we will see in the case of The Mick, is a lot more of his cards hitting the Market over the next decade or two. I think Mantle transcends the Hobby. It's a reason why his 52 Topps is so valuable, it's an iconic part of Americana. And sure his other cards are valuable, but nothing close to that card. For the price of a 52 in a PSA 1, you could pick up lower graded copies of his 51 Bowman, 52 Berk Ross, 52 Bowman, and probably still have money left over.

Eddie Collins really surprised me. I picked up one of his t206's earlier in the year, probably a little bit of an overpay too because I bought it in Cooperstown, but $200 for a man with over 3000 career hits and 700 steals is pure insanity to me. And to the Williams point, I'm going to try to tackle a complete run of his career, after a couple of my collecting goals are complete. I better start saving.

[jchcollins]

Mantle, at least since the early 1980's - and a hobby where there was a card shop starting to appear on every corner and not just mail trading and underground hotel shows - is a guy the rules don't apply to. He was the favorite collective player of the boomers that took the hobby public, in large part because he was perhaps the perfect player in terms of time and place fit that ever lived in baseball - New York City in the 1950's. Due respect, but those who don't get that about Mantle at this point likely aren't going to. It's not about what he did or didn't do in comparison to Ted Williams or Willie Mays on the field. It's a mystique. Mantle in the card hobby is more popular than anyone, and I'd include Ruth and Wagner on that list. It has as much to do with how the hobby developed as it does Mantle himself.

[Throttlesteer]

Player fame can definitely be tied to an iconic card as much a famous event or even a poem. I believe Mantle's 52 Topps has a fair amount to do with the values of his other cards. Sure, Teddy's 1939 Play ball is iconic to hard-core collectors. But it doesn't have the same recognition to casual fans and collectors. Outside of the T206 Wags, its the most famous baseball card.....for a number or reasons.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Throttlesteer

Player fame can definitely be tied to an iconic card as much a famous event or even a poem. I believe Mantle's 52 Topps has a fair amount to do with the values of his other cards. Sure, Teddy's 1939 Play ball is iconic to hard-core collectors. But it doesn't have the same recognition to casual fans and collectors. Outside of the T206 Wags, its the most famous baseball card.....for a number or reasons.

I would partially disagree with this. From the early 70s to the mid 80s the 1952 Topps Mantle was the most valuable Topps card and one of the top 5-10 cards in the hobby. Yet Mantle's other cards had similar values to Williams and Mays.

Mantle cards took off in value due to a group of east coast dealers buying up his cards. At a time when the hobby exploded, they marketed them to new collectors, many Yankee fans. This created demand from other collectors due to FOMO as they saw all up arrows in monthly Beckett price guides.

Now for new collectors today, I would agree that the 1952 Topps Mantle is a factor drawing collectors to his cards. It is the face of Postwar modern cards, a card that collectors desire. It is natural for collectors to be drawn to his other cards because of that.

[rats60]

Stan Musial is another guy that is really under valued compared to ability. Collecting in the 60s, Williams and Musial were the most sought after cards. Next was Mays and Koufax then Mantle. I think Mantle's value comes down to one thing. He played for the Yankees. Areas without local teams produced a lot of Yankee fans because they won. They also had a tradition of great players before Mantle - Ruth, Gehrig and DiMaggio.

[jchcollins]

To me of all the all time greats who somewhat fell of the radar in terms of the hobby since the 80's, it's Musial whose treatment is almost criminal. Guy was easily a top 3 player of his era. 3 MVP's, 7 batting titles? And for his later cards in midgrade, some aren't much more than pocket change. I don't mind that I can afford them, but it does seem harsh in looking at their values compared to Clemente or Aaron.

[puckpaul]

Originally Posted by packs

I think you're discounting personality when it comes to Mantle. He was widely regarded as a carefree American icon who got into plenty of trouble with the boys. What are the perceptions of Ted Williams, though? I remember hearing stories of a cold man who didn't keep very many people close and alienated his players as a manager. Fondness matters too.

Yes, it’s this. Williams was cold and widely disliked. Mantle was the all-American hero.

[Casey2296]

Whats that thing Leon always says? Every thread needs a...

[Jgrace]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

Yes, it’s this. Williams was cold and widely disliked. Mantle was the all-American hero.

I read his biography. Interesting person, for sure. Like many others (see: Cobb), his reputation paints only a small part of the picture of his actual persona. Everyone is multi-dimensional, and the narrative too often boils it down to something simple. After all, Mantle was a surly drunk, but that is overlooked due to the aura surrounding his career in the 1950s.

Fascinating topic.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

Yes, it’s this. Williams was cold and widely disliked. Mantle was the all-American hero.

Mostly a difference in how their local press handled them.

Boston sports press has always been very harsh with the players. A reflection perhaps of the fans. When Ted came to the majors, he wasn't a great fielder. And despite being an incredible hitter, got reamed in the press for his fielding.
As if he was the only one who had problems with left field at Fenway.
(He was just the beginning of a list of good players who had problems there early in their careers but eventually did alright. Yaz, Rice, Greenwell, Manny... all took the same knock from the press. )

He was also I think someone who didn't have much tolerance for nonsense like that and simply stopped being all that available to the press.

The NY press has always seemed more focused on the positive, preferring to write about hits and homers over misplayed balls that cost the game.

Mantle himself doesn't actually seem like all that swell of a guy. If I had a change to hang out with either for a few hours, I'd pick Williams.

[skelly423]

Just my two cents, but I think part of the reason for the pricing gaps goes beyond on-field performance. People love a great story. Cobb was the mean, nasty fight-the-world terror. Babe Ruth was larger than life in every way. Jackie Robinson transcended baseball and became a symbol of America's racial divide. Mickey Mantle was the good looking golden boy living everyone else's dream of being the biggest star on the biggest team, all while battling his demons. Clemente met an untimely end serving a noble cause. In addition to being great players, there's a certain extra appeal that comes from the peel behind the curtain to see what these players were like off the field.

With all due respect to the players, nobody has any stories about Eddie Collins or Lajoie. Lou Gehrig was as vanilla as they come off the field. Stan Musial was by all accounts a wonderful man, but there's no character arc to his life story.

In my opinion, if a player didn't overwhelm statistically (a la Cy Young), and doesn't have something interesting in their life story, they fade into the ether with everybody else.

[Snapolit1]

Very good points. And I wouldn't discount the tendency for people to idolize people who seem more familiar to them. Mantle was the guy who was the American wholesome boy need door. Basically Neil Armstrong. Or course he was not that at all. And Willie Mays, like so many black players before and after him, was a natural athlete but always considered standoffish and maybe even a little too arrogant.

Jackie and Clemente are revered primarily for historical reasons. Both excellent players of course. Many other players of color like Frank Robinson were studs but have low collectability. Hell, Joe Morgan was the first or second best second basement of all time and when was the last time you saw someone discussing one of his cards.

I think physical looks play into it too, like they do for everything in like. Collins and Yogi were hardly considered matinee idols. I always figured that why Matthewson seems to have the leg up on Walter Johnson. Matty looked like a freakin' movie star. Johnson not so much.

Complicated but interesting issue.

Originally Posted by skelly423

Just my two cents, but I think part of the reason for the pricing gaps goes beyond on-field performance. People love a great story. Cobb was the mean, nasty fight-the-world terror. Babe Ruth was larger than life in every way. Jackie Robinson transcended baseball and became a symbol of America's racial divide. Mickey Mantle was the good looking golden boy living everyone else's dream of being the biggest star on the biggest team, all while battling his demons. Clemente met an untimely end serving a noble cause. In addition to being great players, there's a certain extra appeal that comes from the peel behind the curtain to see what these players were like off the field.

With all due respect to the players, nobody has any stories about Eddie Collins or Lajoie. Lou Gehrig was as vanilla as they come off the field. Stan Musial was by all accounts a wonderful man, but there's no character arc to his life story.

In my opinion, if a player didn't overwhelm statistically (a la Cy Young), and doesn't have something interesting in their life story, they fade into the ether with everybody else.

[packs]

I would argue that Frank Robinson and Willie Mays suffer from Ted Williams disease. Not too many fans had much to get excited about in their interactions with Robinson or Mays.

As much as these guys grouse about their due they are usually at least partially responsible for being ignored. How many Mays or Robinson or Bench fan stories have we heard on the board where they actively try to ignore, upset or ruin an item.

I remember being at Nationals spring training while Robinson was the manager. The team was awful and predictably there were maybe a dozen fans there for practice. I'd say 11 out of 12 were there for Robinson alone, who was more than happy to blow us all off at the end of practice. How can I ever seek out his cards when that's the impression I have of him as someone who never saw him play?

[oldeboo]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I think physical looks play into it too, like they do for everything in like. Collins and Yogi were hardly considered matinee idols. I always figured that why Matthewson seems to have the leg up on Walter Johnson. Matty looked like a freakin' movie star. Johnson not so much.

Ha! I always think this when I see Cy Young cards. I mean he was Cy Young, with all due respect, but he didn't exactly have the body of a Greek god. Maybe that's relatable to most of us here with our fanny packs and all.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Very good points. And I wouldn't discount the tendency for people to idolize people who seem more familiar to them. Mantle was the guy who was the American wholesome boy need door. Basically Neil Armstrong. Or course he was not that at all. And Willie Mays, like so many black players before and after him, was a natural athlete but always considered standoffish and maybe even a little too arrogant.

Jackie and Clemente are revered primarily for historical reasons. Both excellent players of course. Many other players of color like Frank Robinson were studs but have low collectability. Hell, Joe Morgan was the first or second best second basement of all time and when was the last time you saw someone discussing one of his cards.

I think physical looks play into it too, like they do for everything in like. Collins and Yogi were hardly considered matinee idols. I always figured that why Matthewson seems to have the leg up on Walter Johnson. Matty looked like a freakin' movie star. Johnson not so much.

Complicated but interesting issue.

Great, great post. I have often wondered how Ted Williams would have been viewed had he worn Yankee pinstripes and escaped the Boston media? Also, would Mantle have been Mantle had he played in Boston? I enjoy collecting both players and have no axe to grind either way. More questions than answers I guess.

[luciobar1980]

Originally Posted by skelly423

Just my two cents, but I think part of the reason for the pricing gaps goes beyond on-field performance. People love a great story. Cobb was the mean, nasty fight-the-world terror. Babe Ruth was larger than life in every way. Jackie Robinson transcended baseball and became a symbol of America's racial divide. Mickey Mantle was the good looking golden boy living everyone else's dream of being the biggest star on the biggest team, all while battling his demons. Clemente met an untimely end serving a noble cause. In addition to being great players, there's a certain extra appeal that comes from the peel behind the curtain to see what these players were like off the field.

With all due respect to the players, nobody has any stories about Eddie Collins or Lajoie. Lou Gehrig was as vanilla as they come off the field. Stan Musial was by all accounts a wonderful man, but there's no character arc to his life story.

In my opinion, if a player didn't overwhelm statistically (a la Cy Young), and doesn't have something interesting in their life story, they fade into the ether with everybody else.

Yup, this pretty much sums it up in a nutshell.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

Yes, it’s this. Williams was cold and widely disliked. Mantle was the all-American hero.

I am not saying I disagree with this public perception, I just finding striking considering, off the field, Williams WAS a hero. Not only did he serve his country, but he had a drive to succeed that is quite admirable. Mantle, off the field, tried to drink himself to death. Yet I would bet many, including me, would love to have fun-guy Mantle as their next door neighbor.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by packs

I think you're discounting personality when it comes to Mantle. He was widely regarded as a carefree American icon who got into plenty of trouble with the boys. What are the perceptions of Ted Williams, though? I remember hearing stories of a cold man who didn't keep very many people close and alienated his players as a manager. Fondness matters too.

And which of those two categories would you put Cobb in? Methinks it would be the second, but his cards demand prices like the first.

And I'd put Yogi and Whitey in the first category, but their prices are second tier. Yogi, for one, is at least as high in the conversation of greatest catchers as Mick is in greatest CFs.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

And which of those two categories would you put Cobb in? Methinks it would be the second, but his cards demand prices like the first.

And I'd put Yogi and Whitey in the first category, but their prices are second tier. Yogi, for one, is at least as high in the conversation of greatest catchers as Mick is in greatest CFs.

I don't think that at all. Cobb is seen as king and his green portrait is as good as currency. Cobb lived and played at a time when baseball became baseball. He was the star of all stars when the game cemented itself as a true past time. No one was larger in his prime and he was the standard until Ruth started hitting homers.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by oldeboo

Somehow bias ends up getting built into the hobby. I just did a quick glance at Ted Williams vs. Mickey Mantle. Williams was a 93% first ballot Hall of Famer, while Mantle was at 88%. Williams was a 19x All Star(who missed WWII years) vs. Mantle at 20x. Williams 2x AL MVP vs. Mantle's 3x. Williams had a .344 BA vs. Mantle's .298. Mantle clearly had the edge on World Series Championships. You can compare the stats all you want, but yeah, they aren't THAT much different.

You can look at one snapshot of 1957 Topps that have a similar availability and the prices aren't similar at all. This was a time when both players were still popular, although at slightly different stages of their careers. As a baseline I looked at PSA 5 sold examples and Williams cards sell for around $200 give or take and the Mantle examples go in the $700 range. The Yankees factor? The World Series titles? I guess those factor in among other things, but the prices are interesting.

Trey, he was the Mick. Toast of the town, very popular with fans. Williams (IMHO - was hands down much better than Mantle with a bat) was stand-offish. I guess that really shouldn't matter - the prices seem to reflect on the popularity of the players. If given a choice to have a Mantle rookie or Williams rookie, I'd take the Mantle because I could sell it and buy every frigging Williams card made.

Just curious, why do you think the Micks cards are valued higher?

[oldeboo]

Originally Posted by Fred

Trey, he was the Mick. Toast of the town, very popular with fans. Williams (IMHO - was hands down much better than Mantle with a bat) was stand-offish. I guess that really shouldn't matter - the prices seem to reflect on the popularity of the players. If given a choice to have a Mantle rookie or Williams rookie, I'd take the Mantle because I could sell it and buy every frigging Williams card made.

Just curious, why do you think the Micks cards are valued higher?

Well, I wasn't exactly trying to say Mantle cards are overvalued as much as agreeing with the OP that there are many great players that sell at much lower prices than the 1% of 1%(Cobb, Wagner, Jackson, Ruth, Mantle, Trout and maybe a couple others). I just think it's interesting from a baseball perspective that there's not a huge difference between Mantle and Williams, so it certainly is a combination of factors.

-As many alluded to, it seems Mantle was widely regarded as just a good ole' American boy that was highly liked.

-The importance of his 1952 Topps card and to a much lesser degree I'd say 51B, 52B, and even 53T. They are all great looking cards. This was a time when the modern baseball card industry was just starting and Mantle was becoming the face of baseball during that time. If Mantle's first year was in, say 1968, would his cards sell for silly money if there were tons of them? They would still have really strong prices, but not short print, beginning of an industry prices in my opinion. The mystique of the 1952 Topps card naturally drives all of his prices up because people want a little piece of the action that can't afford the big ticket cards. I know it seems silly, but there are people out there that go nuts for pulling a 2020 base card of Trout from a pack, why?

-Playing for the Yankees and winning a bunch of rings

-What became a major influence to public opinion in the 1950s? The television. As time goes on I think we forget things like this. Mantle was one of the first sports figures to ever get the spotlight on television in the large media market of NY. Think of landing on the moon in the 60s. Does it become such an iconic moment in human history without the television? It had great global implications regardless, but moments like that defined culture and life in similar ways to baseball. The TV made that happen.

Those are just a few off the top of my head. Again, not taking anything away from him at all, but there are many factors that help contribute to the mystique beyond stats or being a great guy.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Fred

Just curious, why do you think the Micks cards are valued higher?

Mantle represents everything: Speed, defense, power and average from both sides of the plate, and throughout his career, his Yankees were winners. Mantle was Superman in pinstripes.

Ted couldn't play defense and wasn't much interested in it, or other aspects of the game. He was a smart baserunner but had no real speed. His team only won a single pennant and in that WS he hit poorly. Unlike Mantle, Ted was not a winner. He was a one-dimensional player. A hitting machine.

So if you're a kid, or even an adult, do you dream of being Mickey Mantle in yet another World Series, smashing home runs from both sides of the plate, stealing bases, making a great catch in center field to save Larsen's perfect game, and being on the cover of all the magazines with another championship?

Or do you dream of being Ted Williams, a great hitter on a third place team, finishing 12 games out of first place, again.

[Fred]

Trey and Mark,

Great perspectives. One thing to consider Mark is that a lot of people aren't looking at what you indicated (overall well rounded Mantle vs offensively obscene Williams. William was more one dimensional in that respect, but it was one helluva dimension.

Fun thread - love reading the posts on the topic.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Mantle represents everything: Speed, defense, power and average from both sides of the plate, and throughout his career, his Yankees were winners. Mantle was Superman in pinstripes.

Mays was better in every phase of the game and his cards suffer the same fate as Williams. It is much simpler than all that. It is just being the star of the Yankees during the adolescence of baby boomers. Put Willie or Ted on the Yankees and we are talking about them being the face of Postwar Vintage.

[Snapolit1]

I think Sandy Koufax should be a much bigger deal collecting wise than he is. Not that he’s ignored or anything, but what a special career. One of a kind. Again, you hear he’s aloof, kind of standoffish, etc.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I think Sandy Koufax should be a much bigger deal collecting wise than he is. Not that he’s ignored or anything, but what a special career. One of a kind. Again, you hear he’s aloof, kind of standoffish, etc.

doesn't help that he's jewish either?

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

doesn't help that he's jewish either?

Do you really think that Koufax’ cards are somewhat undervalued for as good as he was because he’s Jewish??

[Jason19th]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

doesn't help that he's jewish either?

I actually think Kofax is more valuable because he was a member of the tribe. The high holidays story is one of baseball’s great legends

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by rats60

Mays was better in every phase of the game and his cards suffer the same fate as Williams. It is much simpler than all that. It is just being the star of the Yankees during the adolescence of baby boomers. Put Willie or Ted on the Yankees and we are talking about them being the face of Postwar Vintage.

I've always thought that if I was a GM I'd rather have Mays than Mantle. Either way you get the power, speed, average, great defense, and with Mays you get a longer career with more total production, and no injury issues to work around.

People love winning. The Yankees did a lot of winning. Had Ted or Willie been with the Yankees I think you're right - then they would've been perennial winners and at the center of the baseball world instead of MM.

[Wanaselja]

Originally Posted by rats60

Mays was better in every phase of the game and his cards suffer the same fate as Williams. It is much simpler than all that. It is just being the star of the Yankees during the adolescence of baby boomers. Put Willie or Ted on the Yankees and we are talking about them being the face of Postwar Vintage.

Agreed. Put Derek Jeter on the Royals and he’s a first ballot HOFer collectors don’t care about.
I think the pendulum swings back as newer, more analytically inclined collectors, look at the numbers Mays, Musial, Williams etc. put up. They’ll engage in the same thought exercise and conclude that the talent gap does not equal the value gap regardless of mythology.

Note: I am a Met fan.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by rats60

Mays was better in every phase of the game and his cards suffer the same fate as Williams. It is much simpler than all that. It is just being the star of the Yankees during the adolescence of baby boomers. Put Willie or Ted on the Yankees and we are talking about them being the face of Postwar Vintage.

I disagree. Mantle was objectively the better hitter, out of the two, especially in their respective primes. More Homers, Higher OBP, Higher WRC+, More Walks. Mantle did it on one healthy knee too. I think based off potential, and had he not caught his spikes in that drain, The Mick would've probably had an even more prolific career. Mays had the longevity. Looking at their peaks I'd take Mantle in his peak over just about anyone.

But that aside, I think a lot of it is also attributed to Mantle being a Yankee as well. Hell they could've played in the same outfield, if it wasn't for the Yankees Owner at the time being a Huge Racist. What a sight that would have been! Mays and Mantle patrolling the outfield together.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Seven

I disagree. Mantle was objectively the better hitter, out of the two, especially in their respective primes. More Homers, Higher OBP, Higher WRC+, More Walks. Mantle did it on one healthy knee too. I think based off potential, and had he not caught his spikes in that drain, The Mick would've probably had an even more prolific career. Mays had the longevity. Looking at their peaks I'd take Mantle in his peak over just about anyone.

But that aside, I think a lot of it is also attributed to Mantle being a Yankee as well. Hell they could've played in the same outfield, if it wasn't for the Yankees Owner at the time being a Huge Racist. What a sight that would have been! Mays and Mantle patrolling the outfield together.

Mays had a higher BA and equal SLG despite playing in a more difficult hitters park, Candlestick. Mantle walked more and struck out more. Their per 162 game stats are remarkably similar, but Mays had a longer peak. As far as speed and defense, it is not close, Mays was far superior.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by rats60

Mays had a higher BA and equal SLG despite playing in a more difficult hitters park, Candlestick. Mantle walked more and struck out more. Their per 162 game stats are remarkably similar, but Mays had a longer peak. As far as speed and defense, it is not close, Mays was far superior.

Career road OPS:

Mantle .958

Mays .931

And Mays hit more of his HRs at his home park(s), despite more than 400 fewer plate appearances than on the road

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by rats60

As far as speed and defense, it is not close, Mays was far superior.

Defense? Sure. Speed? If Mays was faster, it wasn't by such a margin that it's "not close". Mickey was really, really fast. AFTER his knee injury, he was timed home to 1st in 3.1 seconds as a lefty. That's basically an average of 15mph starting from a dead stop.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Seven

Mays and Mantle patrolling the outfield together.

Those two might have been able to cover enough ground to play without a third outfielder.