If you were starting a team today......

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by Mark17

If Mantle was THE reason the Yankees won so many pennants, then why did he only win 1/3 of the Yankee MVP awards during the 1951-1964 period?

Yankee MVPs:

1951 AL Yogi Berra
1954 AL Yogi Berra
1955 AL Yogi Berra
1956 AL Mickey Mantle
1957 AL Mickey Mantle
1960 AL Roger Maris
1961 AL Roger Maris
1962 AL Mickey Mantle
1963 AL Elston Howard

If this had any realistic bearing.... why aren't Maris, Berra or Howard considered better players than Mantle??? NO ONE being honest would even consider that, so this is meaningless. There have been discussions on here whether Maris is even HOF material, with the majority feeling he isn't (I think he is), so what relevance are MVP awards in the big picture?
When the things that are most important are considered, his World Series records and total Fall Classic victories... Mantle is tops.

[oldjudge]

I was an avid Yankee fan growing up in the Bronx. The guys I thought of as clutch players were Berra and Skowron, not Mantle. Williams or Aaron could have absolutely won as many championships or more if they were on the Yankees instead of Mantle.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I was an avid Yankee fan growing up in the Bronx. The guys I thought of as clutch players were Berra and Skowron, not Mantle. Williams or Aaron could have absolutely won as many championships or more if they were on the Yankees instead of Mantle.

Its funny that Aaron and Williams are based on "what ifs" as opposed to actual facts. If they could take teams to World Series championships like Mantle did... they would have. There would be no need for conjecture and postulation.
Could've, should've, would've....

If Ted's opinions are through rose coloured glasses, with all due respect, yours are based on pure assumption.

[egri]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

Its funny that Aaron and Williams are based on "what ifs" as opposed to actual facts. If they could take teams to World Series championships like Mantle did... they would have. There would be no need for conjecture and postulation.
Could've, should've, would've....

If Ted's opinions are through rose coloured glasses, with all due respect, yours are based on pure assumption.

The Red Sox didn’t have any pitching, and I don’t see how that is the fault of their left fielder. The one year they did, they won 104 games and the pennant, as Williams won his first MVP. When Williams came up, their best pitcher was 39 year old Lefty Grove. After the war, once Ferriss and Hughson came up lame, they were carried by Mel Parnell (who himself was injured from 1952 onward) and Ellis Kinder, who didn’t break out until he was 35. Williams was a big part of the 1950 offense that scored 1,000 runs (he had 28 HRs in 89 games despite an elbow injury at the ASG that nagged him for the rest of his career). But that team finished in third, because they had one pitcher with an ERA below 4.00.

[jakebeckleyoldeagleeye]

Gehrig-RBI machine.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

If this had any realistic bearing.... why aren't Maris, Berra or Howard considered better players than Mantle??? NO ONE being honest would even consider that, so this is meaningless. There have been discussions on here whether Maris is even HOF material, with the majority feeling he isn't (I think he is), so what relevance are MVP awards in the big picture?
When the things that are most important are considered, his World Series records and total Fall Classic victories... Mantle is tops.

I am not saying Mantle wasn't the overall best player on his team. Just like Mays was the best on the Giants, Aaron on the Braves, Clemente on the Pirates, and Williams on the Red Sox.

What I AM saying is that 6 times out of 9, when the sportswriters voted on who was the single Yankee most responsible for them winning the pennant during that given year, they named one of Mickey's teammates instead of him.

Point is, he was on a great team surrounded by all sorts of talent, so you can't give him all the credit for his many post-season opportunities. In 1962, Mantle played only 123 games, and in 1963 he played in only 65 games, but both years the Yankees won the pennant. In other words, they could win even with Mantle not in the lineup on a regular basis.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I am not saying Mantle wasn't the overall best player on his team. Just like Mays was the best on the Giants, Aaron on the Braves, Clemente on the Pirates, and Williams on the Red Sox.

What I AM saying is that 6 times out of 9, when the sportswriters voted on who was the single Yankee most responsible for them winning the pennant during that given year, they named one of Mickey's teammates instead of him.

Point is, he was on a great team surrounded by all sorts of talent, so you can't give him all the credit for his many post-season opportunities. In 1962, Mantle played only 123 games, and in 1963 he played in only 65 games, but both years the Yankees won the pennant. In other words, they could win even with Mantle not in the lineup on a regular basis.

Yeah, and the Red Sox, Braves and Giants couldn't win with Williams, Aaron or Mays.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

Yeah, and the Red Sox, Braves and Giants couldn't win with Williams, Aaron or Mays.

By your logic, Billy Martin was a better player than Ernie Banks.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by Mark17

By your logic, Billy Martin was a better player than Ernie Banks.

No, that's your logic.
Again, ad nauseam, IF Williams, Aaron and Mays could've taken teams to World Series championships like Mantle did... They would have. It's simple.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

No, that's your logic.
Again, ad nauseam, IF Williams, Aaron and Mays could've taken teams to World Series championships like Mantle did... They would have. It's simple.

Again, Mantle did not single-handedly take his team to all those championships. In fact, most of the time he was not even named most valuable on his own team.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Again, Mantle did not single-handedly take his team to all those championships. In fact, most of the time he was not even named most valuable on his own team.

Yet, look at the World Series records he holds.... They say you're wrong.
And of course he was the most integral component to the Yankees success, whether you want to admit it or not.

[JollyElm]

This thread feels like it's devolving into a cry to recognize yet another new and ridiculous stat. Let's call it MAR.

MVPs Above Replacement, commonly abbreviated to MAR, is a non-standardized sabermetric baseball statistic developed to sum up "a player's total contributions to his team." A player's MAR value is claimed to be the number of additional MVP awards his teammates have received above the number of expected MVP awards his teammates would have won if that player were substituted with a replacement-level player: a player who may be added to the team for minimal cost and effort.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

No, that's your logic.
Again, ad nauseam, IF Williams, Aaron and Mays could've taken teams to World Series championships like Mantle did... They would have. It's simple.

Williams, Aaron and Mays simply did not have the talent around them the way that Mantle did, either in the lineup or on the mound. They did for short periods of time but not for the extended period of time during their careers as Mantle did.

Same holds true for Trout. Can anyone argue that he's not the best player in baseball right now? But can he get his team to the postseason, even with the extra wild card spots? He can't, because he doesn't have the talent around him.

[brian1961]

Mickey Mantle----always! ----Brian Powell