61 Homers ...IS STILL the Legit HOME RUN Record .....according to Stanton and many MLB pundits.
Odessafile
Posts: 440 ✭✭✭
I agree wholeheartedly......anyone who hit more was loaded with roids..... I think Stanton and/or Judge can do it. Incredibly, the year Maris hit 61 he didn't get 1 intentional walk.
0
Comments
The Dude Abides:
@BGS_Buyer When is the sequel?
I live it every day
Interesting take. I hope both your guys combine to get the over on the 105 home runs...you seem excited about the prospect. I heard the Yanks are opening batting practice an hour early in Spring Training so that fans could watch those two hit. I think that is pretty cool.
PS, Maris didn't get an intentional walk because he had the GREATEST PLAYER EVER(in his prime) batting behind him. Just think, Mantle could hit them as far and often as Judge and Stanton, and with better OB% too...and run as fast as Dyson and Gordon. Imagine that.
I want Judge to take steroids then start hitting 200 homers
Without stirring up trouble, how does one know that Judge does not us PED's? Shortly after Bonds set the career HR record*, Arod was purported to be the squeaky clean guy that would claim the title.
I'd love for somebody to pulverize Bonds' records....
I visited the Hall around 15 years ago and of course they had the Maris 61 home run bat there. I was surprised how small it was. I used a bigger bat than that in high school...course I couldn't hit much with it, maybe I should have used a smaller bat - LOL
Don't know if you've ever seen this. A guaranteed genuine Mickey Mantle autograph.
Click to 17:30
Steve, I'm glad I am not the only one who thinks that Mantle was the greatest over Ruth. I would also put Willie Mays over Ruth.
Whoa...Skin2 said that not me.
Mickey Mantle was terrific as we all know, I like him a lot...but on my list, Mantle is in the lower part of the top 10 not in the upper part.
I've got Ruth as #1 hitter. In my view, Ruth is not only the top hitter, but by far the best baseball player of all time, and it's not even remotely debatable. Remember that Ruth was one helluva pitcher before he decided to focus just on hitting.
Frankly, I think it could be argued if just analyzing hitting...Mays over Ruth, or even better Ted Williams over Ruth, but not Mantle. There's been times, I've contemplated putting Williams over Ruth for top hitter, especially considering Williams' lost time because of WW2 - it's very close on my list...but sorry to say, on my list, Mantle is not close.
@DimeMan ....take a look at Babe Ruth Stats Please! ...Mantle is behind all of them....Ruth, Aaron, Mays ...Mantle in 4th......Stats speak the truth.....Mantle had 4 -100 rbi seasons ....everyone close to him felt he underachieved big time....he was splendid but not Babe Ruth. Maybe more likable and identifiable than Ruth......Casey Stengel, who was like Mantles father after Mick's dad passed away in '51, didn't even put Mickey in his All time all star team.... Casey felt Mickey pissed a lot away with his bad habits aside from his knee injury.
All around I would take Mays over Ruth any day. Mays was just as good a hitter and was a better fielder and runner that Ruth....by far.
When putting fielding and base running into the equation as to who someone "would take", and even though it's the outfield, that still must be considered on that particular type of list. Then whether I take Ruth or Mays certainly gets very interesting. Ahhh, i still gotta go with Ruth, but it's a tough call.
BTW, I've got Mays third on my all time hitters list behind Ruth and Ted Williams...so I do have great respect for Willie Mays.
Nobody is going to like that I've got Barry Bonds 4th on my all time hitters list, so i'm not going to say it.
I will say it. Mays and Ruth shouldn’t be spoken in the same breath when it comes down to best ever. Ruth is far ahead. Mays was great. Ruth was the greatest.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Here is a line up that I think would do very well:
2B - Pete Rose
LF - Tony Gwynn
CF - Willie Mays
RF - Micky Mantle
DH - Ted Williams
SS - Ernie Banks
1B - Stan Musual(sp)
3b - Mike Smidt(sp)
C - Johnny Bench
Of course hitters 3-9 could be arranged in any order.
This would be the true Murder's Row!
Already had a lengthy debate with Dallasactuary on Mantle and Ruth. In their primes, Mantle was superior. No need to go over all the reasons, as they are in that thread.
RBI question was answered too, and that was destroyed several times. It isn't even of consequence in the discussion.
THANK YOU...for having Mike Schmidt at 3rd base.
One of my closest friends, fraternity roommate in college, always argues George Brett was better than Schmidt when he is in a mood to tick me off. LOL
You gotta go with Mike Schmidt. How do you like the rest of the line up??
BTW...Mantle cards sell better than all of them but Ruth perhaps...... Mantle captured the imagination of a generation like no one ever has. In that light nobody touches the Mick.
(stats from Baseball Reference)
Ruth had 2214 RBI in 8399 AB...while Mantle had 1509 RBI in 8102 AB.
Ruth had 297 more AB but 705 more RBI. What is the "RBI question" here? No need to regurgitate the other "lengthy debate", just a quick answer is fine if you wish.
I know you stated "in their primes". Mantle's top RBI year was 130. Ruth had, unless I miscounted, 10 seasons equal or better than 130 RBI.
And Mantle didn't play on teams that didn't have ample RBI opportunities, right?
I'm not trying to denigrate Mickey Mantle, of course not, I'm a big Mickey Mantle fan...but Mickey Mantle was no Babe Ruth.
Haven't we all seen the interviews where Mickey is moved to tears over the regrets he has about how he approached the game? He knows he underachieved and he was still fantastic. He is "everyman".
Mantle is a terrific storyteller. Many other athletes, they tell their "stories" and they bore ya to tears. Mickey just had that natural gift of making his stories about the Yankees seem alive and interesting. And i don't recall him ever badmouthing anybody, except in a fun, obviously humorous way.
Frankly, i think Mantle's interesting, vibrant personality helps, perhaps greatly, in the value of his baseball cards. I think we all generally prefer to collect cards, especially high value cards of players we like.
BTW - Babe Ruth was a very likable, personable guy as well. Some say he saved MLB after the Black Sox scandal, and they have a point. Ruth was a great ambassador for baseball, as was Mickey Mantle.
Here's my opposing team. Should be a good series.
2B Morgan
CF Griffey Jr.
1B Thome
RF Ruth
C Gibson
LF Aaron
3B Brett
SS Ripken
SP Young
RP Rivera
Games in your ballpark where DH is used I put Clemente in RF and move Ruth to DH.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
i love you dimeman. not like, love.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
I would be instructing my hitters to hit to RF where the defense is really really really weak.
Lot more that goes into it than that. RBI aren't even part of the equation period. NO need to dissect their season totals. Moot point.
One of the main things is the competitiveness of their era's. Ruth was a men among boys...because a lot of the talent around him wasn't that good. The pitching wasn't that hard to hit, and the league was filled with dead ball style hittters making Ruth look better than he was. The fact that he out homered every team in league is not a show of how great he was, but rather how poor the league hitters were. It was a feat of circumstance, not ability. Ruth would NEVER be able to out homer every team in the league in subsequent eras, as he would be needing to hit 200+ home runs a season to do so. NOT POSSIBLE.
Only white players were allowed to play. Plus available population to choose from was less overall as well. Less talent pool makes it easier for the elite to stand out.
The fielders and gloves were not as good....hence more baserunners, more hits, etc... There is a reason why players don't hit .420 anymore, and it isn't talent.
Just the fact that Ruth was able to swing such a big heavy bat to such success is an indictment on the quality of pitching, not because of his ability!
Another thing is the actual physical tools. Mantle hit the ball further than anyone and ran faster than anyone in his league. Nobody in the history of the game combined Mantles combination of speed and power, while also translating that into production(AVG, OB%, SLG%). For example, Bo Jackson may have had similar raw power and raw speed, but it didn't translate to nearly the same level of production. That rare combination Mantle had could play in ANY era. Cannot say the same for Ruth. If someone said Ruth in his prime playing in 1991 would hit .270 with 26 Home Runs, that would be entirely plausible.
Defense. Defensive metrics for Manlte are off, just like most defensive metrics. I examined that in the thread. His ability to play centerfield dwarfs Ruth's. Stats like WAR are waaay off on that.
Mantle's baserunning also dwarfed Ruth's. Don't look at Mantle's stolen base totals, because his suuppressed stolen base totals were a decision by the team to not run, not by Mantle's ability to steal bases. The right decision maker, Mantle is an easy 40-50 stolen base a year guy in his prime, with high success rate.
DO look at Mantle's ability to take the extra bases while already on the base...he was elite in the league at that in his prime.
Switch hitting ability. Again, the right opposing team decision maker could not exploit Mantle. The correct left hander specialists could exploit Ruth. Forget Ruth's lefty/righty splits becasue his at bats are against the same pitcher the entire game, so those aren't exactly reliable for that situation. Lefty sidearmers and slider specialist would most definitely put a dent in Ruth's late inning at bats.
All those things added to an already close race between the two, puts it to Mantle.
We can end this debate right now:
2B Hornsby
CF Mays
1B Gehrig
RF Ruth
C Bench
LF Ted Williams
3B Schmidt
SS Ripken
LH Pitcher: Koufax
RH Pitcher: Johnson...no, not Walter...Randy!
Yea, I know all about Walter Johnson...but I'm taking Randy.
So Randy Johnson is going to pitch right handed? You do hold him in high regard
I like your team otherwise
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Ruth absolutely was light years ahead of his contemporaries. Mantle had peers. Love Mantle but Ruth was on another planet. No one during Ruth’s era measured up to him playing in the exact same conditions
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I like
1b Gehrig
2b Hornsby
SS Ripken
3B Schmidt
RF Ruth
CF Mantle
LF Williams
C Bench
P Walter Johnson
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Pretty good team, but weak in RF. And I'll take Stan over lou at 1B.
I like the post, very interesting, even though I have to disagree with a number of points.
The bottom line is that MLB in Ruth's era, isn't comparable to say the NBA in the 1950's when likely most of the players in the NBA back then would certainly have trouble starting for even a major college basketball team today.
Baseball was extremely popular in Ruth's era, attracted most if not virtually all of the top athletes, and was of course the national pastime. You stated "Ruth was a men among boys" - read about how Ty Cobb described the game of baseball...there were no boys playing MLB in Ruth's era. Most if not all of the players back then, would no doubt have also have done about equally well in Mantle's era.
You mentioned "white players". Jackie Robinson as we all know broke the color barrier which of course was well deserved and long overdue. But the fact is there weren't that many notable black pitchers during most of Mantle's career. And Don Newcombe, Sam Jones, Bob Gibson and others i can think of off the cuff, weren't even in the AL, so that didn't affect Mantle's stats. Mantle was facing mostly white pitchers.
You make some valid points about the different eras, but Ruth was so superior in his era, with basically a similar class of ballplayers as in Mantle's era, that in my view it's crystal clear that Ruth was just one of those once a century type of athletes. Sorry, but as great as Mickey Mantle was, he's not a once a century type of athlete.
Good catch - blooper on my part.
Change that to Satchel Paige.
Without a doubt, Stan the man Musial is a candidate for the top beloved player of all time...and perhaps in the overall scheme of things, that's the most important stat of all.
I agree with skin2. I have stated before and firmly believe that Ruth would be average at best today. And he would have to DH because you could not afford him in the field. Ans his hitting wouldn't be NEAR as good now as then because of the reasons stated by skin2.
Well that's no surprise considering your list only had two pre-WW2 era players on there, and that was Williams and Musial who only played a few years prior to WW2.
Ruth was legendary for his time and rightfully so but not a chance he would be as dominant in today’s game. Willy Mays was the better option after Mantle got hurt in my opinion but either way Ruth gets the same hype as Jim Brown does in football. Both were larger than life for their time but would not be as dominant in today’s day and age and that’s not even remotely debatable regardless of what SteveK and the rest of the older guys who had sports “Hero’s” back in the day say.
Here is a link comparing Stan to Lou....actually pretty even with the WAR going to Stan 128 to 112.
https://www.fueledbysports.com/stan-musial-vs-lou-gehrig-comparison/
I would take Ruth, Gerhig and Dimaggio over Mantle ....
Yes, human beings are evolving and players are bigger than they were around 100 years ago, and THAT does affect the game of football and basketball...but has a lot less impact on the game of baseball because of the nature of the game.
Bigger can often be detrimental in baseball because it requires such lightening quick reflexes in hitting, fielding, etc. A smaller guy's body with less distance for the nerve impulses to travel back and forth from the brain to require a physical action, have an advantage in baseball. Of course you can't be too small, otherwise Eddie Gaedel might be in the Hall of Fame right now - LOL.
The baseball players of the past 100 years would have still done just fine in today's game.
DiMaggio was another one who lost valuable time due to WW2.
Ruth and Gehrig are easy calls over Mantle. I think Mickey himself would agree with that.
DiMaggio is a tougher call, but I agree, I would take him over Mantle. Mickey did strike out a lot. Joe usually put the ball into play which of course is a lot better than striking out.
Let's be honest. Stan Musial is not a household name...but if he had played for the Yankees he would be.
Stan Musial should be on everyone's vintage card collecting list if they knew just how great the man was inside and outside of baseball.
.325 lifetime BA for Dimaggio vs. .298 for Mick....Dimaggio drove in more runs in 13 years vs. Mick's 18 years......
Jim came in at 230 ...Pete was a pudgy 5'-11" 208
I base my views on a player based on his on field abilities not how they are liked or not liked. And I have to respectively disagree with you on Baseball not being affected as players are bigger, stronger and faster than players from the 20's era. There were some players back then that would do OK today, but not as good as then. And I really believe that Ruth could not play in todays game.
Don't forget "hero's" works both ways. Some here may be overstating Mick's ability because he may be their "hero".
Again, i like Mantle, like him a lot, but he could be a surly SOB at times in public. True story - a friend of mind once paid good money for a live Mantle autograph and was standing in line. He noticed that the sharpie that Mantle was using was running out of ink with the few autographs before him being very light. When he came up for his turn to get an autograph, again, having paid good money for it, he said to Mantle, (paraphrase) "Mr Mantle could you please use a new sharpie for my autograph." My friend said this because he noticed that Mantle had one of those pencil desk top holders nearby on the desk, filled with a number of sharpies, so my friend figured it wouldn't be any big deal. Well...Mantle grabbed the desk top holder full of sharpies, threw it at my friend, and the sharpies spilled all over the desk and floor. But funny thing...my friend picked one sharpie out and Mantle used it and signed.
Now for the Babe - a friend of mine's father who was a big Philadelphia baseball fan. As a kid, when Ruth used to come into Philadelphia to play the A's...told me that Ruth would sign an autograph with pleasure for every kid that he could. I know it's true because I've seen his autograph collection...museum quality, dozens of genuine Ruth autographs as well as many other Hall of Famers. Most incredible autograph collection I've ever seen which is now kept in a safety deposit box.
So as far as sports heroes, i'm not saying that it's wrong for Mickey Mantle to be one of them, but it's certainly not wrong for one of them to be Babe Ruth either.
All pasted from Baseball Reference:
Babe Ruth
6-2, 215lb (188cm, 97kg)
- - - - - - -
The cm and kg were included in case anyone is interested.