Mantle and Bunting in the World Series

...and no, this is not about the red, white and blue frilly stuff they put up around the dugouts...

Someone has calculated that Mantle bunted 8 times in his World Series at-bats (273 plate appearances) and got 7 hits! Not too shabby....

http://radicalbaseball.blogspot.fr/2014/05/mickey-mantle-bunted-in-world-series-too.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+RadicalBaseball+%28Radical+Baseball%29

A video of the Mick explaining, in his paunchier later years, how to drag bunt:

http://youtu.be/5q2Qx6gVXq0

Wow, I would have never guessed that, thanks for posting. Interestingly I have noticed Mickey Mantle was not drafted or picked up in my first three ATG8 leagues (100,80,100 million cap leagues), I think that is strange because I know how popular Mickey Mantle was/is. Mantle baseball cards are always worth so much more than similar players from the same era like Hank Aaron, Willie Mays,Stan Musial , Duke Snider and even Ted Williams probably due to Mantle's popularity.

It is my opinion the Mantle and Mays were the two best players ever to play the game. Had Mantle not tore up his leg early in his career, I think he probably would have been the best ever. I think Ted was the best hitter ever, but he gives up way too much on defense and baserunning to M & M. I know a lot of folks say Babe Ruth, but he didn't do it in the modern era.
Now, I know there is a lot of confusion as to what defines the modern era. Some say 1900 or 1903 (rules stabalized, first world series). Some say 1920 (end of gamblers influence and dead ball era). Others say post war. Others say 1969 (expansion, divisional play). For me, it's somewhere around 1937, when night baseball became prevalent. At this point we also have the screwball and the slider. This is why I marvel at Ted's hitting records and why I think they carry a lot more weight than Ruth's or any of the heavy hitters of the 20's .

I also can see the point about 1969, as that was when the mound was lowered. This was a HUGE deal, and I don't think a lot of people realize just how huge. I read somewhere that they are thinking about raising the mound again to help reduce pitcher injuries. If they do, I'll be in heaven but the results of this will probably upset most fans

The funny thing is if Mantle were playing today and pulled off a drag bunt all the media would skewer him for it. I can hear them even now.....

How can he bunt when he has the ability to score a run with one swing?

If he wants to bunt go ahead. I will settle for a single by Mantle over a HR any time.

He is being selfish putting his BA stats over his team.

I remember one game this year where Rizzo bunted twice taking free gift singles they gave him by over shifting. The people on baseball tonight went off on him. And they criticized Milwaukee for taking the shift off his third time to the plate.

I remember one game this year where Rizzo bunted twice taking free gift singles they gave him by over shifting. The people on baseball tonight went off on him. And they criticized Milwaukee for taking the shift off his third time to the plate.

ESPN has become a reality drama show, revolving around the Yankees and the Red Sox. MLB network is much better.

I remember one game this year where Rizzo bunted twice taking free gift singles they gave him by over shifting. The people on baseball tonight went off on him. And they criticized Milwaukee for taking the shift off his third time to the plate.

ESPN has become a reality drama show, revolving around the Yankees and the Red Sox. MLB network is much better.

I'll second that whole-heartedly!!!!

It is my opinion the Mantle and Mays were the two best players ever to play the game. Had Mantle not tore up his leg early in his career, I think he probably would have been the best ever. I think Ted was the best hitter ever, but he gives up way too much on defense and baserunning to M & M. I know a lot of folks say Babe Ruth, but he didn't do it in the modern era.
Now, I know there is a lot of confusion as to what defines the modern era. Some say 1900 or 1903 (rules stabalized, first world series). Some say 1920 (end of gamblers influence and dead ball era). Others say post war. Others say 1969 (expansion, divisional play). For me, it's somewhere around 1937, when night baseball became prevalent. At this point we also have the screwball and the slider. This is why I marvel at Ted's hitting records and why I think they carry a lot more weight than Ruth's or any of the heavy hitters of the 20's .

I also can see the point about 1969, as that was when the mound was lowered. This was a HUGE deal, and I don't think a lot of people realize just how huge. I read somewhere that they are thinking about raising the mound again to help reduce pitcher injuries. If they do, I'll be in heaven but the results of this will probably upset most fans

I'll defend Ruth. 1) His excellent pitching record cannot be ignored. 2) He out-homered teams

The pool of players was tiny in Babe Ruth's day. I think any record set before baseball's color barrier was broken should come with a huge asterisk.

When it comes to milestone divisions of the card set instead of pre and post WWII I would prefer ....
deadball verses live ball.
pre-integration verses post integration.

Other than splitting the pool roughly in half not sure WWII has much meaning as to the type or quality of baseball played.

Ruth is impossible to evaluate.

1. He was a phenomenal pitcher.
2. His hitting stats are unreal.

BUT

A. In and around 1920 when he became a full-time hitter, "scientific baseball" ruled, where pitchers tried to hit spots and hitters above all tried for contact and tried to "hit it where they ain't." Many batters did not take full swings at pitches, and I suspect that the Tony Gwynn style of hitting off his front foot was prevalent. Pitchers also "paced themselves" - i.e. did not use their best stuff very often.

B. Ruth's 1920 and 1921 seasons were as much a function of opposing teams being unable to adjust to his unusual strategy of trying to hit everything hard as they were of his undeniable talent. I suspect that it took months for teams to even consider pitching him differently that they did other hitters. And even then, they had to decide which "different" was most likely to succeed.

C. He never had to hit under the lights, or face a slider, or fly 40,000 miles a year. Opposing teams probably used two or fewer pitchers in at least 90% of his games. They thought that a LOOGY was spitting on the sidewalk. Most likely, the normal pitcher of the day had Greg Maddux velocity, reasonably good command, and an inconsistent curve ball. Ruth struck out in about 1/8 of his PA's. The average AL hitter struck out in 1/12 in 1919, 1/15 in 1925, and 1/12 again in 1931. So Ruth was striking out at least 1.5 times the league average, against pitchers who mostly did not have the "stuff" to strike people out or the mindset to try to do so. His strikeout rate in modern baseball would be mind-boggling.

D. Saying that Ruth was 6 standard deviations over average in runs created, or slugging percentage, or whatever isn't really meaningful when he was the only guy following an outlying philosophy of hitting that emphasized power over contact. There's really no way to attempt to translate what he did to other contexts.

My guess is that, if Ruth were active in 21st century baseball, he would put up batting lines like.240-.360-.520 with 180 or more K's per year. That's still a very valuable player, but certainly not the best player alive. And there's also the issue of his lack of conditioning. But I think we can give him a pass on that one - peer pressure today would have him in good shape for a much greater portion of his career.