The Yankee Rushmore

[SWC75]

Mantle was a great player, and would have been greater if he avoided injuries and the night life.

But the dominate center fielder of his era was Willie Mays. Mays was a better baseball player.

Not that this has anything to do with the Yankee's Rushmore. Just felt that people, when they talk about Mantle, somehow forget about Mays.

Nobody's about to forget Willie Mays but it's far from unanimous that he was a better player than Mickey Mantle:
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/05/willie_mays_tur.php

By the stats I prefer, (see "Bases and Runs"), here are their totals in the 1954-64 period when both were in their primes:

MANTLE

1954 146 games 392 bases produced, (2.68 per game) 204 runs produced (1.40per game)
1955 147 games 437 bases produced, (2.97 per game) 183 runs produced (1.24 per game)
1956 150 games 498 bases produced, (3.32 per game) 210 runs produced (1.40 per game)
1957 144 games 477 bases produced, (3.31 per game) 181 runs produced (1.26 per game)
1958 150 games 454 bases produced, (3.03 per game) 182 runs produced (1.21 per game)
1959 144 games 392 bases produced, (2.72 per game) 148 runs produced (1.03 per game)
1960 153 games 419 bases produced, (2.74 per game) 173 runs produced (1.13 per game)
1961 153 games 491 bases produced, (3.21 per game) 205 runs produced (1.34 per game)
1962 123 games 359 bases produced, (2.92 per game) 155 runs produced (1.26 per game)
1963 65 games 149 bases produced, (2.29 per game) 60 runs produced (0.93 per game)
1964 143 games 380 bases produced, (2.66 per game) 168 runs produced (1.17 per game)
Total: 1,518 games 4,448 bases produced (2.93 per game) 1,869 runs produced (1.23 per game)
Mantle led the American league in bases every year from 1955- 1961, (7 times in a row) and in runs in 1956 and 1958.

MAYS

1954 151 games 451 bases produced, (2.99 per game) 188 runs produced (1.25 per game)
1955 152 games 485 bases produced, (3.19 per game) 199 runs produced (1.31 per game)
1956 152 games 430 bases produced, (2.83 per game) 149 runs produced (0.98 per game)
1957 152 games 480 bases produced, (3.16 per game) 174 runs produced (1.14 per game)
1958 152 games 459 bases produced, (3.02 per game) 188 runs produced (1.24 per game)
1959 151 games 427 bases produced, (2.83 per game) 195 runs produced (1.29 per game)
1960 153 games 416 bases produced, (2.72 per game) 181 runs produced (1.18 per game)
1961 154 games 433 bases produced, (2.81 per game) 212 runs produced (1.38 per game)
1962 162 games 478 bases produced, (2.95 per game) 222 runs produced (1.37 per game)
1963 157 games 421 bases produced, (2.68 per game) 180 runs produced (1.15 per game)
1964 157 games 452 bases produced, (2.88 per game) 185 runs produced (1.18 per game)
Total: 1,693 games 4,932 bases produced (2.91 per game) 2,073 runs produced (1.22 per game)
Mays led the National League in bases from 1955-1958 and 1962 and 1964, (6 times: he eld a 7th time in 1965). He led in runs only in 1961.

Based on the above nubmers I'd grade Mantle as being superior in 1956-57 and 1961, Mays as better in 1954-55, 1959, and 1962-64. They were about even in 1958 and 1960. Of course, those are offensive numbers. Mantle was a fine defensive outfielder. He and Aaron, (both Gold Glove Winners), sufferred only in comparison to Mays, who was the best ever. Mantle had the disadvantage of batting in Yankee Stadium which was cosy for pull hitters but like all truely great power hitters, Mantle was a spray hitter. But the difference was slight: he hit 266 home runs at home, 270 on the road. Mays had to adjust to the left to right cross wind that carried balls to right field in Candlestick Park after years of hitting in the Polo Grounds, which was deep to center field and in the power alleys but absurdly short down the lines. He hit 335 at home and 325 on the road, so he made the adjustment well. Willie had greater competion in his elague for statitical titles and awards: Musial, Aaron, Banks, Robinson, Clemente, etc. Mantle had an aging Williams, who didn't play as many games, Kaline, Maris and Yastremski, whose prime came later. That was about it.

Overall, I'd say they were pretty comperable in their primes. Willie had better luck with injuries and the longer career. I think the image of Mickey has faded a bit due to his health problems and the idea that if he'd tkaen better care of himself, he'd had had a better career. But in his prime he was as good as anybody.

 

[Noexcuse]

First, the word is "dominant". "Dominate" is a verb. I wouldn't ordinarily correct someone's post for grammar, but I've seen this mis-used a number of times lately, so I've got to say something.

As for Mantle vs. Mays, Mantle at his peak was better and put up better numbers. Mays was more consistent over his career, but he was more of a 40 / 40 guy. Mantle was the guy who would hit 50 homers and bat for a higher average. Mays beats out Mantle mostly on stolen bases. Mantle was never a big runner. Those Yankee teams didn't play small ball, remember.

But why don't we see for ourselves.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/166981/home-run-derby-mickey-mantle-vs-willie-mays

Mays never put together a .340 batting average and 45 HR’s in the same season. Mantle’s best effort was a hitter’s delight - .353 AVG, 132 R, 130 RBI, 52 HR.

Mantle was also a more prolific post season player, although to be fair to Mays, he didn't have as many opportunities as Mantle. When I was a kid, one of my friends was a Dodgers fan and another was a Giants fan. The beauty of that was I got all the Mantle cards by trading my Snider and Mays cards to them.

 

[br801]

Nobody's about to forget Willie Mays but it's far from unanimous that he was a better player than Mickey Mantle:
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/05/willie_mays_tur.php

By all accounts, Mantle at his peak was electrifying. And as I think back now, he was still electrifying at the end.

When I was a kid just getting into baseball, my father took me the see the Yankees play the Twins on Old Timers Day in 1968. I had heard the stories of course, but was too young to have seen Mantle in his prime. He was in his final year and was playing first base by then, a very old 36. The Yankees lost the game 3-2, but Mantle accounted for both runs with a pair of solo home runs off lefthander Jim Merritt. Both homers were towering blasts into the left field seats. I had never seen a baseball hit so high and so far (perhaps I still haven't), and I can still see Mantle limping slowly around the bases, head down as always. I'm sure my father knew Mantle was nearing the end and that what we witnessed that afternoon was pretty remarkable, but in my mind this was just what Mickey Mantle was supposed to do. Little did I know.

 

[kirbivore]

Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle.

Jeter and Rivera just miss the cut.

 

[Knicks411]

Nobody's about to forget Willie Mays but it's far from unanimous that he was a better player than Mickey Mantle:
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/05/willie_mays_tur.php

By the stats I prefer, (see "Bases and Runs"), here are their totals in the 1954-64 period when both were in their primes:

MANTLE

1954 146 games 392 bases produced, (2.68 per game) 204 runs produced (1.40per game)
1955 147 games 437 bases produced, (2.97 per game) 183 runs produced (1.24 per game)
1956 150 games 498 bases produced, (3.32 per game) 210 runs produced (1.40 per game)
1957 144 games 477 bases produced, (3.31 per game) 181 runs produced (1.26 per game)
1958 150 games 454 bases produced, (3.03 per game) 182 runs produced (1.21 per game)
1959 144 games 392 bases produced, (2.72 per game) 148 runs produced (1.03 per game)
1960 153 games 419 bases produced, (2.74 per game) 173 runs produced (1.13 per game)
1961 153 games 491 bases produced, (3.21 per game) 205 runs produced (1.34 per game)
1962 123 games 359 bases produced, (2.92 per game) 155 runs produced (1.26 per game)
1963 65 games 149 bases produced, (2.29 per game) 60 runs produced (0.93 per game)
1964 143 games 380 bases produced, (2.66 per game) 168 runs produced (1.17 per game)
Total: 1,518 games 4,448 bases produced (2.93 per game) 1,869 runs produced (1.23 per game)
Mantle led the American league in bases every year from 1955- 1961, (7 times in a row) and in runs in 1956 and 1958.

MAYS

1954 151 games 451 bases produced, (2.99 per game) 188 runs produced (1.25 per game)
1955 152 games 485 bases produced, (3.19 per game) 199 runs produced (1.31 per game)
1956 152 games 430 bases produced, (2.83 per game) 149 runs produced (0.98 per game)
1957 152 games 480 bases produced, (3.16 per game) 174 runs produced (1.14 per game)
1958 152 games 459 bases produced, (3.02 per game) 188 runs produced (1.24 per game)
1959 151 games 427 bases produced, (2.83 per game) 195 runs produced (1.29 per game)
1960 153 games 416 bases produced, (2.72 per game) 181 runs produced (1.18 per game)
1961 154 games 433 bases produced, (2.81 per game) 212 runs produced (1.38 per game)
1962 162 games 478 bases produced, (2.95 per game) 222 runs produced (1.37 per game)
1963 157 games 421 bases produced, (2.68 per game) 180 runs produced (1.15 per game)
1964 157 games 452 bases produced, (2.88 per game) 185 runs produced (1.18 per game)
Total: 1,693 games 4,932 bases produced (2.91 per game) 2,073 runs produced (1.22 per game)
Mays led the National League in bases from 1955-1958 and 1962 and 1964, (6 times: he eld a 7th time in 1965). He led in runs only in 1961.

Based on the above nubmers I'd grade Mantle as being superior in 1956-57 and 1961, Mays as better in 1954-55, 1959, and 1962-64. They were about even in 1958 and 1960. Of course, those are offensive numbers. Mantle was a fine defensive outfielder. He and Aaron, (both Gold Glove Winners), sufferred only in comparison to Mays, who was the best ever. Mantle had the disadvantage of batting in Yankee Stadium which was cosy for pull hitters but like all truely great power hitters, Mantle was a spray hitter. But the difference was slight: he hit 266 home runs at home, 270 on the road. Mays had to adjust to the left to right cross wind that carried balls to right field in Candlestick Park after years of hitting in the Polo Grounds, which was deep to center field and in the power alleys but absurdly short down the lines. He hit 335 at home and 325 on the road, so he made the adjustment well. Willie had greater competion in his elague for statitical titles and awards: Musial, Aaron, Banks, Robinson, Clemente, etc. Mantle had an aging Williams, who didn't play as many games, Kaline, Maris and Yastremski, whose prime came later. That was about it.

Overall, I'd say they were pretty comperable in their primes. Willie had better luck with injuries and the longer career. I think the image of Mickey has faded a bit due to his health problems and the idea that if he'd tkaen better care of himself, he'd had had a better career. But in his prime he was as good as anybody.

One question on these stats; do they account for outs at all? Mantle used fewer outs than Mays, so I would think this would help him.

I think overall your conclusion is right. Some years Mickey was better, some years Willie. But Willie played for longer.

 

[SWC75]

One question on these stats; do they account for outs at all? Mantle used fewer outs than Mays, so I would think this would help him.

I think overall your conclusion is right. Some years Mickey was better, some years Willie. But Willie played for longer.

http://syracusefan.com/threads/bases-and-runs.25976/

You might want to explain the concept of "using fewer outs".

Mantle: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mantlmi01.shtml

Mays: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mayswi01.shtml

 

[Knicks411]

http://syracusefan.com/threads/bases-and-runs.25976/

You might want to explain the concept of "using fewer outs".

Mantle: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mantlmi01.shtml

Mays: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mayswi01.shtml

Basically I mean Mantle ended his career with a much higher OBP than Mays, and outs are the currency of baseball. If Mantle creates, say 100 runs per season, and Mays creates 100, but Mantle made 50 fewer outs than Mays, then Mantle was more productive. He essentially gave his team an extra 50 outs to work with. To compare it to basketball, a guy who scored 20 points on 10 shots did a better job than a guy who scored 20 points using 15 shots.

The runs produced thing; I have to say I never understood the subtracting out the home runs. I know people say they "double count", but I am not sure what the problem is. A run that is scored without a homer will have 2 runs produced; the guy who got the RBI and the guy who scored the run. So why should a HR be treated differently; there should be 2 runs produced for it. Also, HR are the best thing you can do, so they definitely shouldn't be punished.

 

[SWC75]

Basically I mean Mantle ended his career with a much higher OBP than Mays, and outs are the currency of baseball. If Mantle creates, say 100 runs per season, and Mays creates 100, but Mantle made 50 fewer outs than Mays, then Mantle was more productive. He essentially gave his team an extra 50 outs to work with. To compare it to basketball, a guy who scored 20 points on 10 shots did a better job than a guy who scored 20 points using 15 shots.

The runs produced thing; I have to say I never understood the subtracting out the home runs. I know people say they "double count", but I am not sure what the problem is. A run that is scored without a homer will have 2 runs produced; the guy who got the RBI and the guy who scored the run. So why should a HR be treated differently; there should be 2 runs produced for it. Also, HR are the best thing you can do, so they definitely shouldn't be punished.

A home run is a run scored and batted in but it's the same run. It shouldn't count twice. If the same player singles home a run and comes aorund to score on a double, that's two different runs.

As to outs being "the currency of baseball", it seems to me that's games and at bats, (or plate appearances). Games are won by runs and runs are produced by bases. I like the gross figures because games are won by runs you scored, njot runs you should have scored. But is you want an average a per game average makes the most sense since games are what you are trying to win.

 

[bevosu]

I Matt..

"First, the word is "dominant". "Dominate" is a verb. I wouldn't ordinarily correct someone's post for grammar, but I've seen this mis-used a number of times lately, so I've got to say something."

I know the difference between dominant and dominate..just made a stupid typo. If you hadn't pointed that out, I never would have noticed the mistake. Good catch.

Mays was the better base runner..fielder..had a slightly higher lifetime batting average..had as good or better throwing arm. It's a tough call, but I would have taken Mays if I had to choose a center fielder.

Mantles' 2 great years, 1956 and 1957, were hard to top...and 1961 wasn't chopped liver.

Probably the only reason I'd pick Mays is because I think he was the greatest all around baseball player that I ever saw.

Not being a Yankee fan might have some bearing?

 

[Knicks411]

A home run is a run scored and batted in but it's the same run. It shouldn't count twice. If the same player singles home a run and comes aorund to score on a double, that's two different runs.

Understood. but not what I am saying. But what I am saying is, consider a run scored without a home run. Maris doubles, Mantle singles him in. One run is scored, Maris gets a run scored, Mantle gets an RBI= 1 run + 1 RBI- 0 HR= 2 runs produced. (Not for the individual, I mean on the team level. Now Mantle hits a HR. 1 RBI+1 R-1HR=1 run produced. Why should the HR result in 1 run produced for the team when a run scored without a HR gives you 2? Every other run that is scored is resulting in 2 runs produced for the team, so why shouldn't the HR? (I guess you can look at it like well only one run is being scored, so why is one guy getting credit for 2 runs produced, but the same formula has no problem giving 2 different people a run produced when a single run is scored.)

If you take 2 teams who scored the same number of runs in a game (let's assume every run was scored via an RBI) but one team hit a HR and the other didn't, the runs produced formula will say the team that didn't hit the HR had more runs produced. How does that make sense? They should be the same, because they scored the same number of runs.

As to outs being "the currency of baseball", it seems to me that's games and at bats, (or plate appearances). Games are won by runs and runs are produced by bases.

True, but each team gets 27 outs in a game. Every out you make brings you one closer to running out of them, if I create 3 runs in a game and use say, 3 outs, then my team has 24 other outs to score more runs. If I create 3 runs in a game and make 0 outs, then my team has 27 more outs to create more runs. Which situation is better? Runs are produced by bases, and the fewer outs you make, the more chances you have to get those bases.

I like the gross figures because games are won by runs you scored, njot runs you should have scored. But is you want an average a per game average makes the most sense since games are what you are trying to win.

I still think it is outs made. It's a team game, if 2 guys each produce the same number of runs, but one creates fewer outs, then he is giving the other guys on his team that many more chances to create runs for the team.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Freaking Home Run Derby. Great fun but even watching it as a kid I knew the production values were shall we say - lacking.

I think Mickey was wasted for that show, too. He couldn't even talk between innings. Very funny stuff. Random observation: Mays had a remarkable look - he could have been a fashion model, or somebody could have made a statue of him. I guess that sounds kinda gay, but I mean that in a purely hetero way.

 

[IthacaMatt]

I Matt..

"First, the word is "dominant". "Dominate" is a verb. I wouldn't ordinarily correct someone's post for grammar, but I've seen this mis-used a number of times lately, so I've got to say something."

I know the difference between dominant and dominate..just made a stupid typo. If you hadn't pointed that out, I never would have noticed the mistake. Good catch.

Mays was the better base runner..fielder..had a slightly higher lifetime batting average..had as good or better throwing arm. It's a tough call, but I would have taken Mays if I had to choose a center fielder.

Mantles' 2 great years, 1956 and 1957, were hard to top...and 1961 wasn't chopped liver.

Probably the only reason I'd pick Mays is because I think he was the greatest all around baseball player that I ever saw.

Not being a Yankee fan might have some bearing?

Bevo, as for grammar police, you might not have been the one, but I swear I saw the word misued about 5 times in the past week, or I would have kept my yap shut. No offense intended.

Like I said in another post, personally, I think Mantle's peak years beat Mays peak years, but Mays lasted a lot longer, was more consistent, and he did probably have the intangibles over the Mick, although part of that, IMO, can be attributed to the Yanks' long ball style of play over the years, whereas the Giants and the NL in general were more, small ball, move the runner over. Hence, Mays was called on to do those things on a day to day basis more than Mantle, and therefore was better at it.

 

[SWC75]

Understood. but not what I am saying. But what I am saying is, consider a run scored without a home run. Maris doubles, Mantle singles him in. One run is scored, Maris gets a run scored, Mantle gets an RBI= 1 run + 1 RBI- 0 HR= 2 runs produced. (Not for the individual, I mean on the team level. Now Mantle hits a HR. 1 RBI+1 R-1HR=1 run produced. Why should the HR result in 1 run produced for the team when a run scored without a HR gives you 2? Every other run that is scored is resulting in 2 runs produced for the team, so why shouldn't the HR? (I guess you can look at it like well only one run is being scored, so why is one guy getting credit for 2 runs produced, but the same formula has no problem giving 2 different people a run produced when a single run is scored.)

If you take 2 teams who scored the same number of runs in a game (let's assume every run was scored via an RBI) but one team hit a HR and the other didn't, the runs produced formula will say the team that didn't hit the HR had more runs produced. How does that make sense? They should be the same, because they scored the same number of runs.




True, but each team gets 27 outs in a game. Every out you make brings you one closer to running out of them, if I create 3 runs in a game and use say, 3 outs, then my team has 24 other outs to score more runs. If I create 3 runs in a game and make 0 outs, then my team has 27 more outs to create more runs. Which situation is better? Runs are produced by bases, and the fewer outs you make, the more chances you have to get those bases.



I still think it is outs made. It's a team game, if 2 guys each produce the same number of runs, but one creates fewer outs, then he is giving the other guys on his team that many more chances to create runs for the team.

Still disagree. When you are evalutating players, you can't give them two runs produced for a play that produced only one run. The play where Mantle drove in Maris didn't produce two runs for the team and you don't "fix it" by counting a home run as two runs. As to outs, the fact that both teams get the same number of outs, (save for when the home team doesn't have to bat in the final inning), means that outs don't win you the game. producing bases and thus runs do. You could count outs as a separate stat, (if every time a player was picked off or thrown out on the bases could be counted- but they don't appear in the box score), but it's the postive things you do that win the game.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Happy 87th Birthday Yogi.

 

[br801]

Happy 87th Birthday Yogi.

I'll second that.

It seems sometimes Yogi fails to get his due as a Yankee (and baseball) great. He was a tremendous catcher and one of the 4 or 5 best hitting catchers of all time. One could make a legitimate "Yankee Rushmore" case for Yogi. And let's not forget the accomplishments of Bill Dickey either.

 

[Knicks411]

Still disagree. When you are evalutating players, you can't give them two runs produced for a play that produced only one run. The play where Mantle drove in Maris didn't produce two runs for the team and you don't "fix it" by counting a home run as two runs.

But that is exactly what you are doing. When Mantle drives in Maris, there are 2 runs produced using your stat. Mantle gets an RBI, and Maris gets the run, but only one actual run scored. (1+1-0=2) I'm just asking for the same logic to be applied to HR. On a team basis, like I said before, assuming all runs get an RBI (which isn't true, errors, double plays, etc, but for the sake of the argument we will assume that) every run scored results in 2 runs produced, except for a run scored off a HR.
If one team scores 5 runs in a game, with no HR, it's going to end the game with 10 runs produced. If another team scores 7 runs in a game but hits 5 HR, it's going to end the game with 9 runs produced. Using runs produced, you're going to say the team that scored 5 runs is a better offense than the team that scores 7. How does that make any sense?

A stat for an individual player should work on the team level as well. (that's the best way we have to evaluate these stats; do they actually correlate to runs scored on a team level?) The Bill james original runs created formula, as well as the tweaks since then, correlates very well to runs scored. Last year, the Red Sox lead the league in runs created (using Fangraphs) with 900. They scored 875 actual runs. But they produced 1,514 runs. I'm not even sure what to do with that info; should they have scored 1,500 runs instead of the 875 they actually did? (the answer is no, because it double counts most runs that are scored, except of course those that are scored via a HR or those scored without an RBI).

As to outs, the fact that both teams get the same number of outs, (save for when the home team doesn't have to bat in the final inning), means that outs don't win you the game. producing bases and thus runs do

So if one team scored 3 runs in 5 innings and other team scored 3 runs in 9 innings you would consider them to be equivalent offensively? Or, alternatively, if one pitcher allowed 3 runs in 5 innings you would consider him to be the equal of a pitcher who allowed 3 runs over 9 innings?

It seems sometimes Yogi fails to get his due as a Yankee (and baseball) great. He was a tremendous catcher and one of the 4 or 5 best hitting catchers of all time. One could make a legitimate "Yankee Rushmore" case for Yogi. And let's not forget the accomplishments of Bill Dickey either.

Yogi has got to be the best catcher in MLB history, right? It's a testament to the Yankees (who I hate) that they have had 4 players in their history who are all better than Yogi.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

I'll second that.

It seems sometimes Yogi fails to get his due as a Yankee (and baseball) great. He was a tremendous catcher and one of the 4 or 5 best hitting catchers of all time. One could make a legitimate "Yankee Rushmore" case for Yogi. And let's not forget the accomplishments of Bill Dickey either.

Yogi is one of only 4 catchers with multiple MVP awards (Roy Campanella, Johnny Bench, and Mickey Cochrane.)

 

[br801]

Yogi has got to be the best catcher in MLB history, right? It's a testament to the Yankees (who I hate) that they have had 4 players in their history who are all better than Yogi.

I did not see Yogi play, but I saw Johnny Bench. I would give a slight edge to Bench because he was perhaps the most dominant and durable defensive catcher ever. Bill Dickey was outstanding all around, as was Mickey Cochrane. Mike Piazza was perhaps the best hitting catcher ever. Ernie Lombardi was a great hitting catcher from an earlier era. Carlton Fisk and Gary Carter are somewhere in the top dozen all time. Roy Campanella was outstanding and at his peak was as good as any of these guys. Pudge Rodriguez deserves mention as well.

 

[Knicks411]

I did not see Yogi play, but I saw Johnny Bench. I would give a slight edge to Bench because he was perhaps the most dominant and durable defensive catcher ever. Bill Dickey was outstanding all around, as was Mickey Cochrane. Mike Piazza was perhaps the best hitting catcher ever. Ernie Lombardi was a great hitting catcher from an earlier era. Carlton Fisk and Gary Carter are somewhere in the top dozen all time. Pudge Rodriguez deserves mention as well.

Yeah Bench was a better defensive catcher. (And Yogi I guess kinda got lucky; he played during a time where there wasn't a lot of stolen bases attempted; Bench would've probably lost some value if he played in Yogi's era just cause one of his best skills would've been marginalized).

Bench and Berra are probably 1-2.

 

[SWC75]

But that is exactly what you are doing. When Mantle drives in Maris, there are 2 runs produced using your stat. Mantle gets an RBI, and Maris gets the run, but only one actual run scored. (1+1-0=2) I'm just asking for the same logic to be applied to HR. On a team basis, like I said before, assuming all runs get an RBI (which isn't true, errors, double plays, etc, but for the sake of the argument we will assume that) every run scored results in 2 runs produced, except for a run scored off a HR.
If one team scores 5 runs in a game, with no HR, it's going to end the game with 10 runs produced. If another team scores 7 runs in a game but hits 5 HR, it's going to end the game with 9 runs produced. Using runs produced, you're going to say the team that scored 5 runs is a better offense than the team that scores 7. How does that make any sense?

A stat for an individual player should work on the team level as well. (that's the best way we have to evaluate these stats; do they actually correlate to runs scored on a team level?) The Bill james original runs created formula, as well as the tweaks since then, correlates very well to runs scored. Last year, the Red Sox lead the league in runs created (using Fangraphs) with 900. They scored 875 actual runs. But they produced 1,514 runs. I'm not even sure what to do with that info; should they have scored 1,500 runs instead of the 875 they actually did? (the answer is no, because it double counts most runs that are scored, except of course those that are scored via a HR or those scored without an RBI).



So if one team scored 3 runs in 5 innings and other team scored 3 runs in 9 innings you would consider them to be equivalent offensively? Or, alternatively, if one pitcher allowed 3 runs in 5 innings you would consider him to be the equal of a pitcher who allowed 3 runs over 9 innings?



Yogi has got to be the best catcher in MLB history, right? It's a testament to the Yankees (who I hate) that they have had 4 players in their history who are all better than Yogi.

I watched the Mets beat the Marlins today. They did it with singles, doubles, (no triples), home runs, walks and steals. They had 16 hits in 41 at bats and made 27 outs. The Marlins made 13 hits in 38 at bats and made 27 outs. It's the hits, walks and steals that won the game. If you want to keep outs as a separate stat and use it to break ties, fine. But the guys who got the hits, walks and steals won the game, regardless of what they did in their other at bats.

Giving Mantle credit for two runs when he hits a home run with no one on doesn't resolve the problem of both Mantle and Maris getting credit for the same run when Mantle drives in Maris for a single. You don't fix two runs that appear to be three by turning them into four. Again, we are evaluating them as individuals. Mantle produced two runs and Maris also gets credit for one of them because he scored the run. I suppose you could split credit for a run driven in and scored by different players if you wanted to. It seems unduly complicated to me.

My system is simple, logical, produces a number that is easy to relate to actual events in a game and results in standings that very much pass the "look" test. I'll stick with it. Bill James can do what he wants.