Options
See Ya, Mick: The Best Photo Ever Taken Of A Great Athlete in Decline
1985fan
Posts: 1,952 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
Link
"And yet … in Dominis’ riveting photo, there remains something defiant, something unbroken, in Mantle’s gesture — even as we know, and even as the fans then knew, that his days as a force on the diamond were gone forever. The almost balletic posture of the hand that tosses the helmet; the latent strength so evident in Mantle’s muscled forearm and, indeed, in his entire frame — these details remind us that even in the twilight of a career, the most memorable athlete retains something of the magnetism that made us stand and cheer in the first place."
"And yet … in Dominis’ riveting photo, there remains something defiant, something unbroken, in Mantle’s gesture — even as we know, and even as the fans then knew, that his days as a force on the diamond were gone forever. The almost balletic posture of the hand that tosses the helmet; the latent strength so evident in Mantle’s muscled forearm and, indeed, in his entire frame — these details remind us that even in the twilight of a career, the most memorable athlete retains something of the magnetism that made us stand and cheer in the first place."
0
Comments
<< <i>wow that dude had some hairy arms!! >>
Maybe he was taking a testosterone supplement...
Dave
<< <i>A popular misconception about Mantle is that he was not a good ballplayer his last few years. His OPS+ his last 4 seasons was 137, 170, 149, and 143. He was 9th in OPS his last year in the league, and third in OBP. Clearly he was in decline, but he was still a tremendous ballplayer. >>
A little deceptive, especially the last two years where his numbers were driven by a large number of walks, he was still able to hit a few home runs. His BA was below .250 and his slugging numbers were low, especially for him.
His legs were basically shot as well. Overall, despite the respectable OPS+ numbers, he didn't add much value to a team with an almost nonexistent supporting cast.
Look at his OPS/OPS+ numbers from 1954-1964 eight out of ten seasons with over 1.015 OPS seven of THOSE were over 1.035. One of the most productive offensive players of all time!
<< <i>
<< <i>A popular misconception about Mantle is that he was not a good ballplayer his last few years. His OPS+ his last 4 seasons was 137, 170, 149, and 143. He was 9th in OPS his last year in the league, and third in OBP. Clearly he was in decline, but he was still a tremendous ballplayer. >>
A little deceptive, especially the last two years where his numbers were driven by a large number of walks, he was still able to hit a few home runs. His BA was below .250 and his slugging numbers were low, especially for him.
His legs were basically shot as well. Overall, despite the respectable OPS+ numbers, he didn't add much value to a team with an almost nonexistent supporting cast.
Look at his OPS/OPS+ numbers from 1954-1964 eight out of ten seasons with over 1.015 OPS seven of THOSE were over 1.035. One of the most productive offensive players of all time! >>
Joe, it isn't deceptive at all. A walk has a certain value and it is expressed just fine in OPS+. A walk has the value appx 2/3 of a single. He is getting the proper credit for his value as a hitter. Whether or not his teammates were good enough to take advantage of that has nothing to do with the judgement of Mantle.
If you are saying that he got a lot of walks because pitchers overvalued their 'fear' of him, then that isn't correct either. In 1967 he was 7th in the league in HR per at bat, and in 1968 he was 8th. Pretty darn good.
Sure, a lot of his value came because of his high walk total, and he is credited properly for that. However, had he been pitched to more, as evident by his excellent HR/AB ratio, then he simply would have had more value come from his HR's as opposed to his walks. Either way you slice it, his OPS+ totals reflect his ability as a hitter.
His ability as a baserunner was lessened.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>A popular misconception about Mantle is that he was not a good ballplayer his last few years. His OPS+ his last 4 seasons was 137, 170, 149, and 143. He was 9th in OPS his last year in the league, and third in OBP. Clearly he was in decline, but he was still a tremendous ballplayer. >>
A little deceptive, especially the last two years where his numbers were driven by a large number of walks, he was still able to hit a few home runs. His BA was below .250 and his slugging numbers were low, especially for him.
His legs were basically shot as well. Overall, despite the respectable OPS+ numbers, he didn't add much value to a team with an almost nonexistent supporting cast.
Look at his OPS/OPS+ numbers from 1954-1964 eight out of ten seasons with over 1.015 OPS seven of THOSE were over 1.035. One of the most productive offensive players of all time! >>
Joe, it isn't deceptive at all. A walk has a certain value and it is expressed just fine in OPS+. A walk has the value appx 2/3 of a single. He is getting the proper credit for his value as a hitter. Whether or not his teammates were good enough to take advantage of that has nothing to do with the judgement of Mantle.
If you are saying that he got a lot of walks because pitchers overvalued their 'fear' of him, then that isn't correct either. In 1967 he was 7th in the league in HR per at bat, and in 1968 he was 8th. Pretty darn good.
Sure, a lot of his value came because of his high walk total, and he is credited properly for that. However, had he been pitched to more, as evident by his excellent HR/AB ratio, then he simply would have had more value come from his HR's as opposed to his walks. Either way you slice it, his OPS+ totals reflect his ability as a hitter.
His ability as a baserunner was lessened. >>
I am not arguing the OPS/OPS+ numbers. Mickey still had some power. He couldn't run, he couldn't throw and he couldn't play the outfield.
Pitchers walked him because they did, I never said anything about "fear" although I DID say he still could hit home runs. I assume he walked because he swung at less bad pitches at the end of his career. Part of what determines a walk being 2/3 as good as a hit is based on teammates ability to drive you home. I tried to point out that having Mantle standing at first with the pathetic players coming to bat after him was not much VALUE to the team, especially if on the rare occasion they did get a hit, he couldn't get around the bases.
I have at least five books here on Mantle, some written by him, they all say, and even he says he was not able to play very well after about 1964. His batting skills eroded LESS than his other abilities, but his body was "shot". I believe his quote was "I can't go from first to third or score from second on a hit and can't throw the ball to the cut-off man anymore".
If you look closely at one of those photos his right leg had wasted away from all the injuries and surgeries, it appears to be about 1/2 the size of his left leg. But the guy could play with pain and still hit homeruns. He HATED the fact that his lifetime BA dropped below .300 because of his last years.
As I pointed out (well tried to) he was so much better than the rest of the league from 54-64 that yes, when you just look at his last four years you are apt to say "hey, he was still pretty good" but only in one facet of the game. Mickey was a DYNAMIC 5 tool player, but not in his last 4 years.
The "popular misconception" is correct, he was no longer a "good ballplayer", but he could still hit with above average power and get on base.
<< <i>
<< <i>A popular misconception about Mantle is that he was not a good ballplayer his last few years. His OPS+ his last 4 seasons was 137, 170, 149, and 143. He was 9th in OPS his last year in the league, and third in OBP. Clearly he was in decline, but he was still a tremendous ballplayer. >>
A little deceptive, especially the last two years where his numbers were driven by a large number of walks, he was still able to hit a few home runs. His BA was below .250 and his slugging numbers were low, especially for him.
His legs were basically shot as well. Overall, despite the respectable OPS+ numbers, he didn't add much value to a team with an almost nonexistent supporting cast.
Look at his OPS/OPS+ numbers from 1954-1964 eight out of ten seasons with over 1.015 OPS seven of THOSE were over 1.035. One of the most productive offensive players of all time! >>
How was his OPS+ deceptive? It is what it is. Walks by a player are a good thing. Sure his power was down. He could not play the outfield, but he head great range as a 1st baseman. He was not the old Mick, but he was a productive hitter. BTW his BA was above the league average.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>A popular misconception about Mantle is that he was not a good ballplayer his last few years. His OPS+ his last 4 seasons was 137, 170, 149, and 143. He was 9th in OPS his last year in the league, and third in OBP. Clearly he was in decline, but he was still a tremendous ballplayer. >>
A little deceptive, especially the last two years where his numbers were driven by a large number of walks, he was still able to hit a few home runs. His BA was below .250 and his slugging numbers were low, especially for him.
His legs were basically shot as well. Overall, despite the respectable OPS+ numbers, he didn't add much value to a team with an almost nonexistent supporting cast.
Look at his OPS/OPS+ numbers from 1954-1964 eight out of ten seasons with over 1.015 OPS seven of THOSE were over 1.035. One of the most productive offensive players of all time! >>
How was his OPS+ deceptive? It is what it is. Walks by a player are a good thing. Sure his power was down. He could not play the outfield, but he head great range as a 1st baseman. He was not the old Mick, but he was a productive hitter. BTW his BA was above the league average. >>
I never said his OPS+ was deceptive. The OP's statement was that because he had a good OPS+ ranking in his last few years he was still a "tremendous ballplayer". He was not a "tremendous" ballplayer. He could still hit homeruns and walk, which translated to an above average OPS+ number. He could not run or throw the ball any longer because of injuries. Hitting is part of playing baseball not everything.
Mickey Mantle said it himself "I didn't have a good year after about 1964".
<< <i>Stupid sprinkler head!! Wonder if had been able to play 100% what we would have seen from him?? >>
Absolutely!
How about the chain link fence he ran into in Baltimore? No warning track either!!!!!
Especially since reading about some of Micky's injuries, I began wondering why MLB doesn't have better regulations regarding the safety of their players, especially outfielders.
A year or two ago, I was watching a game in a newer stadium (can't remember which) that had some kind of artificial turf, the warning track was a different color, but was made of the exact same material so a player wouldn't know it if he was looking up and ran onto the "track".
<< <i>
I have at least five books here on Mantle, some written by him, they all say, and even he says he was not able to play very well after about 1964. His batting skills eroded LESS than his other abilities, but his body was "shot". I believe his quote was "I can't go from first to third or score from second on a hit and can't throw the ball to the cut-off man anymore".
If you look closely at one of those photos his right leg had wasted away from all the injuries and surgeries, it appears to be about 1/2 the size of his left leg. But the guy could play with pain and still hit homeruns. He HATED the fact that his lifetime BA dropped below .300 because of his last years.
As I pointed out (well tried to) he was so much better than the rest of the league from 54-64 that yes, when you just look at his last four years you are apt to say "hey, he was still pretty good" but only in one facet of the game. Mickey was a DYNAMIC 5 tool player, but not in his last 4 years.
The "popular misconception" is correct, he was no longer a "good ballplayer", but he could still hit with above average power and get on base. >>
Joe, it would take a 'little league fielder' to reduce a 170 OPS+ player to a less than "good" player! His ops+ in 1965 was 170! His last four 'washed up' years his OPS+ was 149.
It really doesn't matter if Mantle said it wasn't good. He is either being humble, or measuring him against his prime. Because with his hitting ability, it would be nearly impossible to to have his fielding reduce him to below average. In fact, looking quickly at his defensive numbers, he was still able to play CF in his washed up years, and his PutOuts per inning are not that bad at all.
But it is the baserunning I want to look at for some simple facts.
In 1968, his very last year, Mantle was the runner on 2nd base a total of seven times when a single was hit. Of those seven instances that year, he went to third on one of them, and SCORED on five of them!
So right there we know Mantle is using selective memory, or is just being humble when he says he couldn't do that anymore.
In total(in his last four years), he advanced the extra base as a baserunner at 31%, 22%, 35%, and 28% of his chances . THe league average was 48%. THat means going from 1st to third on a single, 2nd to home on the single, and scoring from firs on a double. Yes, he was below average in that regard.
But remember, not scoring from second on a single doesn't mean it cost them a run, because he could still score anyway. It just reduces his value a little.
In totality, if you account for his 'slowness' on the bases in his end years, that 149 OPS+ value would probably be closer to a 146 value because of his slower running. The baserunning deduction would not be anywhere near close to relegating him to a league average offensive performer when his OPS+ is that high. That fact his lineup sucked has nothing to do with valuating his ability.
Then when you add the 12 stolen bases and 4 caught stealing in his last four years, that has a marginal run value in the positive.
Also, in his last four years he was only out a total of NINE times on base(meaning making a baserunning play/attempt). That is actually EXCELLENT baserunning! So his slower speed was also coupled with some 'wisdom' it seems, as in 1952 alone he was out TEN times on baserunning plays. The act of getting thrown out at third is far more detrimental than the act of taking the extra base is a positive!
That is kind of like the skill of a QB throwing it away instead of throwing the interception
The reality is that he was certainly more than a "good" player in his last years, which includes his running and fielder and hitting. I guess your definition of "good" will make the determination of how good.
I guess if you viewed him as a league average runner and fielder, and viewed his OPS+ at 138 that is probably where he would sit...which is pretty DARN good! Far cry from his early years, but well above league average overall
thanks
<< <i>
<< <i>
I have at least five books here on Mantle, some written by him, they all say, and even he says he was not able to play very well after about 1964. His batting skills eroded LESS than his other abilities, but his body was "shot". I believe his quote was "I can't go from first to third or score from second on a hit and can't throw the ball to the cut-off man anymore".
If you look closely at one of those photos his right leg had wasted away from all the injuries and surgeries, it appears to be about 1/2 the size of his left leg. But the guy could play with pain and still hit homeruns. He HATED the fact that his lifetime BA dropped below .300 because of his last years.
As I pointed out (well tried to) he was so much better than the rest of the league from 54-64 that yes, when you just look at his last four years you are apt to say "hey, he was still pretty good" but only in one facet of the game. Mickey was a DYNAMIC 5 tool player, but not in his last 4 years.
The "popular misconception" is correct, he was no longer a "good ballplayer", but he could still hit with above average power and get on base. >>
Joe, it would take a 'little league fielder' to reduce a 170 OPS+ player to a less than "good" player! His ops+ in 1965 was 170! His last four 'washed up' years his OPS+ was 149.
It really doesn't matter if Mantle said it wasn't good. He is either being humble, or measuring him against his prime. Because with his hitting ability, it would be nearly impossible to to have his fielding reduce him to below average. In fact, looking quickly at his defensive numbers, he was still able to play CF in his washed up years, and his PutOuts per inning are not that bad at all.
But it is the baserunning I want to look at for some simple facts.
In 1968, his very last year, Mantle was the runner on 2nd base a total of seven times when a single was hit. Of those seven instances that year, he went to third on one of them, and SCORED on five of them!
So right there we know Mantle is using selective memory, or is just being humble when he says he couldn't do that anymore.
In total(in his last four years), he advanced the extra base as a baserunner at 31%, 22%, 35%, and 28% of his chances . THe league average was 48%. THat means going from 1st to third on a single, 2nd to home on the single, and scoring from firs on a double. Yes, he was below average in that regard.
But remember, not scoring from second on a single doesn't mean it cost them a run, because he could still score anyway. It just reduces his value a little.
In totality, if you account for his 'slowness' on the bases in his end years, that 149 OPS+ value would probably be closer to a 146 value because of his slower running. The baserunning deduction would not be anywhere near close to relegating him to a league average offensive performer when his OPS+ is that high. That fact his lineup sucked has nothing to do with valuating his ability.
Then when you add the 12 stolen bases and 4 caught stealing in his last four years, that has a marginal run value in the positive.
Also, in his last four years he was only out a total of NINE times on base(meaning making a baserunning play/attempt). That is actually EXCELLENT baserunning! So his slower speed was also coupled with some 'wisdom' it seems, as in 1952 alone he was out TEN times on baserunning plays. The act of getting thrown out at third is far more detrimental than the act of taking the extra base is a positive!
That is kind of like the skill of a QB throwing it away instead of throwing the interception
The reality is that he was certainly more than a "good" player in his last years, which includes his running and fielder and hitting. I guess your definition of "good" will make the determination of how good.
I guess if you viewed him as a league average runner and fielder, and viewed his OPS+ at 138 that is probably where he would sit...which is pretty DARN good! Far cry from his early years, but well above league average overall >>
The statement was that he was still a "TREMENDOUS BALLPLAYER" he might have been better than average, but he was no longer tremendous.
Tremendous; huge, enormous, immense, colossal, massive, prodigious, stupendous, monumental, mammoth, vast, gigantic, giant, mighty, epic, titanic, towering, king-size(d), jumbo, gargantuan, Herculean.
I don't think any of these apply.
<< <i>
The "popular misconception" is correct, he was no longer a "good ballplayer", but he could still hit with above average power and get on base. >>
Joe,
To be fair, you did put the above quote down.
Since he was eighth in the league in OPS+ in his last year, 4th in Win Probability Added, and we see that his baserunning wasn't nearly the negative factor that it was believed, and he looked to be at least an average fielding first baseman that season, without digging deep, it seems he sits somewhere in the top 20 in the league.
Whatever adjective may be applied doesn't really matter, but top twenty player certainly says a lot, and is worthy of almost any adjective of praise except for "best."
However, the nmisconception that many people carry, that he was a washed up ballplayer upon retirement, is completely false.
Excellent, very good, outstanding are all comfortable adjectives for a top 20 player in the league.
<< <i>
<< <i>
The "popular misconception" is correct, he was no longer a "good ballplayer", but he could still hit with above average power and get on base. >>
Joe,
To be fair, you did put the above quote down.
Since he was eighth in the league in OPS+ in his last year, 4th in Win Probability Added, and we see that his baserunning wasn't nearly the negative factor that it was believed, and he looked to be at least an average fielding first baseman that season, without digging deep, it seems he sits somewhere in the top 20 in the league.
Whatever adjective may be applied doesn't really matter, but top twenty player certainly says a lot, and is worthy of almost any adjective of praise except for "best."
However, the nmisconception that many people carry, that he was a washed up ballplayer upon retirement, is completely false.
Excellent, very good, outstanding are all comfortable adjectives for a top 20 player in the league. >>
Yes I did not put the entire quote down, figured if people were reading the post it would be understood.
One thing for sure, I am glad I don't work for you! LOL
I'll give you 1966, but not 65,67 or 68 that's as much as I'll do. When the man retired his legs were so bad he couldn't get out of the dugout without using the bat as a cane. Through pure determination and an unbelievably high tolerance for pain, he was able to perform. Good, very good, above average, the man was physically shot. Even then the Yankees begged him to play another year.
What I would like to focus on is 1954-1964 possibly best ten year stretch of offensive greatness ever. How many have come close or exceeded that?
<< <i>
I'll give you 1966, but not 65,67 or 68 that's as much as I'll do. When the man retired his legs were so bad he couldn't get out of the dugout without using the bat as a cane. Through pure determination and an unbelievably high tolerance for pain, he was able to perform. Good, very good, above average, the man was physically shot. Even then the Yankees begged him to play another year.
What I would like to focus on is 1954-1964 possibly best ten year stretch of offensive greatness ever. How many have come close or exceeded that? >>
Joe,
It isn't a matter of giving me those years. Bad legs and all, he clearly was well above average in each of those years, 65-68...and probably a top 20 player still, despite the notion that he was no longer good(which is the notion I am fighting against).
Of course during his prime he has an argument for a best ever type prime stretch.
If you worked for me, you and I would be effective...and we would be enjoying drinks and ladies after work
I do love the ladies though.
I guess the difference might be when you read story after story describing some of his injuries and see how absolutely phenomenal he was in his prime, it gives you a different perspective than if you punch up his statistics and say "wow he was still a good/great player". When you look at how far he had fallen and the amount of pain he was in (he had to have people help him out of a cab, and went up stairs one at a time, like a little child) it colors your thoughts. Other ballplayers simply couldn't believe it when after seeing his troubles, he would go out on the field and still perform at a high level.
By the way, I was ALWAYS a top performer and also a pain in the ass! I always figured if I was making the company money they should leave me alone and let me do it. But NOOOOO.
Now about those ladies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!