This week, RealClearSports revived the Willie Mays/Mickey Mantle debate, one of the longest-running debates in American sports, by running a piece making the case for Mays and then, the next day, one for Mantle.
The pro-Mays piece was written in 1995. This is telling. The pro-Mantle piece – seemingly a response to the republication of the pro-Mays piece – was written in 2014.
As the author of the pro-Mantle piece, Scheldon Hirsch, argues, statistical measures that have become popular in recent decades favour Mantle more than Mays.
Mays, who was less injury-prone and had a longer career, outdoes Mantle in most of the traditional measures: total base hits, runs, RBI (runs batted in), and home runs.
But Mantle outdoes Mays in on-base percentage and the ability to draw walks, both closely watched by managers and fans since the ‘moneyball’ revolution.
What’s really interesting about this is that the case for Mays has always been based on apparently ‘hard’ statistics, while the case for Mantle has been based on aesthetics and sentiment.
Mantle, countless people who watched him play say, had ‘magic’ about him. There was something about the way he made his way to the plate, swung the bat, threw the ball, that distinguishes him from all other players in baseball history.
And then there’s the fact he was injured – he played on a torn and never repaired ACL from 1951 – for most of his career, and so he remains a great might-have-been.
The emphasis baseball commentators and fans put on total as opposed to peak numbers means few people have argued for Mantle on the grounds that his best years were statistically better than Mays’.
So, why should people with no interest in baseball or the Mays/Mantle debate – i.e. most Australians – be interested in this? Because it has some lessons for other sports, in particular cricket.
Cricket and baseball are similar in the emphasis both put on measures like career batting average, total number of runs etc. In debates about who was the better player, these measures are often thought to be decisive.
But are they? In light of the new statistical measures that have been introduced into baseball, the traditional measures used in cricket seem, not outdated, but limited.
‘Raw’ average, for instance, certainly tells you something, but it doesn’t tell you everything. I’ve long thought that cricket could do with an equivalent of baseball’s BA/RISP (batting average with runners in scoring position), a measure of a batsman’s ‘clutch’ ability.
As everyone knows, it’s much easier to make runs when the pressure is off. Batting in the last innings, trying to win or save a Test match, is much harder than batting in the first innings when the pitch is good.
Coming in at 1 or 2 for 200 when the bowlers have been belted all over the park is very different to coming in with few runs on the board, the ball still new, and the bowlers with their tails up.
And yet in cricket statistics, “a run is a run is a run.”
I’m not sure exactly what statistical measures of things like ‘clutch’ ability in cricket would look like. Someone better at maths than me would have to develop them! But I think they would change, if not completely transform, some long-running debates.
For example, take the Brian Lara/Sachin Tendulkar debate.
I’ve always favoured Lara on the grounds that his best was better than Tendulkar’s best – he had more ‘magic’, made bigger and more destructive centuries and he played with a greater degree of difficulty.
Playing for the West Indies in a period of decline, Lara often had to build innings from scratch with the other side knowing they only had to get him out to win the match, whereas Tendulkar played for most of his career in a strong Indian side.
The case for Tendulkar is based on his greater consistency in the traditional measures of a batsman’s ability: he made more centuries and more runs at a better average.
Now, if there was a measure of ‘clutch’ ability, this may favour Lara over Tendulkar, since I think – but can’t prove, since no one’s done the numbers! – he made more scores from tough positions than Tendulkar did.
This would change the debate, as the case for Lara, like the case for Mantle, has always been based on ‘magic’ and some statistics (don’t forget the multiple world records!) whereas the case for Tendulkar, like the case for Mays, has been based on supposedly more solid measures.
Of course, ‘magic’ should still count, and perhaps should count for more than it currently does. After all, sport is ultimately, even in the professional era, just that: something played for the pleasure of the players and spectators, and for nothing else.
And new statistical measures would not change things so radically that, say, Bradman would be toppled as the greatest batsman of all time.
Indeed, there is already a measure of a batsman’s contribution to the team that should get more attention – the percentage of team runs scored over the course of a career.
On this measure, Bradman still comes in first, George Headly – with 22 matches, barely over the 20 match threshold for consideration – comes in second, and Lara comes in third.
And Tendulkar? He doesn’t even make the top 50.
Does this mean he wasn’t a great player? Absolutely not, but it’s food for thought, and an example of how things can look very different depending on what statistical lens one’s looking through.
JGK
Roar Guru
What about bad spelling?
Sexton1
Guest
I didn't mean to suggest all the pitches on the subcontinent are roads, nor that subcontinent batsman are overrated - just that their averages "may" be somewhat inflated. And, as you say, the opposition often struggle on these supposedly flat decks. But this is more, I think, because players from England, South Africa etc. often struggle against spin. The well-document struggles of subcontinent batsman overseas I think bears out the claim that the pitches are different. As for Johnson, he's certainly a much better bowler on the bouncier pitches of Australia and South Africa than he is anywhere else. Does this mean we should discount his record slightly? I'm not sure - it's like in tennis, where some players are better on grass and others better on clay - it's one fact to consider.
Sexton1
Guest
Fielding and batting are certainly much better; bowling, I think, has advanced a little less. And of course modern players are fitter, stronger etc. But then, if Bradman played today, he would have access to all the modern techniques as well. And if he did have advantages - weaker and fewer opponents - he had disadvantages too - bad pitches, light bats, no rules against body line, tough travel conditions (several months on a boat to England!) etc. Too often, when comparing the old-timers to modern players, people just transfer the pre-modern player into modern conditions, assuming that the premodern player would compete as a premodern player and not, what he would be, a modern player! I don't subscribe to the view that you can't compare players from different eras, but one does have to recognise that the comparison will always be limited. Bradman (like Ruth in baseball) was so much better than anyone else in his era - "an Everest in Kansas" - that it's hard to deny him the title of greatest: no-one else came close to averaging nearly 100, despite the weaker fielding etc., whereas if his record was wildly inflated by those things, then one would think that other players would have averaged higher too. For me, Bradman did everything it was possible for him to do: averaged nearly 100, scored more of his team's runs than any other player in history, broke every record there was (test, world etc) when he came into the game. What more could you ask?
Zubes
Guest
JGK might be referring to the stats gurus on CricInfo. They are from India i think and have done some very detailed analysis on the numbers for both batsmen and bowlers. Also a few Tendulkar vs everyone else comparisions. Just remember that there are "lies, damm lies and statistics"!
Zubes
Guest
I think fielding and bowling is much better today than in the Don's time. In many way's the fact that he played the game so long ago with different rules (eg. LBWs) means Bradman never got the through examination that a modern great would get. He is protected by history...
Zubes
Guest
Funnny how on those same "roads" the opposition often struggled. Of course Mitchell Johnson is getting all his wickets on familar homemade surfaces so we should discount his record slightly?
Sexton1
Guest
The highest praise I can think of for the Marsh/Smith knocks is that they were AB-like. As for Kallis, he's always an interesting and difficult case. Many, especially in South Africa, claim he's underrated, and his average and sheer number of runs would suggest they're right (plus there's his bowling - no doubt one of the top 5 all-round cricketers of all time). But people still don't like him; if pressed, I think most of them would say he lacked the "magic" that the other great batsman of the era had in varying degrees. But this may be, in part, because of what you say: he was under pressure in many innings, and so he had to grind (this makes the case for Lara even stronger I think - he was under pressure and he still didn't have to grind!). I remember Ian Healy once saying that, when they first played against a young Kallis, his range of shots was extraordinary; if he reigned this in as his career developed, it may have been because the team needed him as an anchor. There's no doubt Tendulkar often played on pitches made to suit him, and sub-continent batsmans'' averages may in general be inflated from playing so many matches on roads in their home countries. And, as I've said, Tendulkar could often come in after Sehwag, Dravid etc. had done damage to the attack. But a figure that really drives home Tendulkar's greatness is his average overseas, particularly in Australia. The latter is higher than his average overall, suggesting that he really delivered against tough opposition and on bouncy pitches unlike the ones at home.
Sexton1
Guest
Curiously, Border doesn't make the top 50 on this either. The three Australians who do, after Bradman, are Harvey, Gregg Chappell, and, right at the end, Simpson (quite a few openers make this list, not surprisingly if one thinks about it - maybe openers are underrated in general, or, alternatively, using this measure alone could lead one to overrate openers). So, on the one hand, this measure confirms the conventional view that Bradman, Harvey and Chappell are amongst the very best Australian batsman ever, but Border misses out, as does Ponting. Clearly, then, percentage of team runs is not definitive on its own. Where Border could come out really well is on my imagined equivalent of the BA/RISP - something that would measure run scoring from tough positions. I'm sure AB made any number of crucial 40s, 50s, 70s etc. when Australia was 2-4 wickets down for not much.
fredstone
Guest
Good article, to expand on this how do you rate the absolute brilliance of the AB knock vs Marsh or Smith, or for that matter a Kallis, who was seemingly under pressure in many innings vs Tendulkar who played on pitches made to suite him?
SteveOL
Roar Pro
Great stuff, Sexton. Fantastic. Alan Border's percentage of team runs scored would have to be through the roof.
ozinsa
Guest
Great article. Really interesting. Sheek, you raised the issue I was pondering using good examples (damn you). There are blokes (Miller as you say but I thought of Mark Waugh) who don't go on with innings because they seem to bore of doing something over and over or fail when their team is 2/300 because there is little or no challenge. For this type, stats are an unreliable measure of their worth. Mark's brother was the guy who played for the red ink and cared deeply about stats. He is more revered (I would suggest largely for his toughness) but I suspect no more talented than his younger twin. The bar-room discussions can't be replaced I'm afraid. There's simply no more reliable way to gauge "bests".
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Great piece Sexton. I always favoured Lara because of his greater ability to tear attacks apart and to make huge scores. Tendulkar never struck fear into the heart like Lara.
Sexton1
Guest
I presume you're thinking of Duke Snider: the third man in 1950s discussions about who was the best outfielder in baseball ("Willie, Mickey and the Duke…." in Terry Cashman's nostalgic 1981 song). Keith Miller - good example of a player everyone who saw him acknowledged was great, but this greatness doesn't necessarily show up in the traditional stats. But then, as you say, Miller didn't care for stats - he understood better than most (better than Bradman, he thought) that cricket is, after all, a game.
Sexton1
Guest
Interesting, JGK. I may have been wrong to say "no one's done the numbers." Could you give us a link to some of this Indian work? Or just a name?
Carroll
Guest
Stats are honestly the bain of any sporting discussion
JGK
Roar Guru
I think Viv would do very poorly in a alternative stats review actually. By the way - there is plenty of research done (by Indians as it turns out) on Tendulkar v Lara and the alternative stats.
Glenn Condell
Guest
Fascinating stuff. Mantle sounds like Mark Waugh to Mays's Steve. Re Lara v Tendulkar both were great but Viv is best after the Don.
sheek
Roar Guru
Hi Sexton, A deeply thought provoking article. Other people have also tried to select players according to the times they NEEDED to make the big play, & did so. A recurring wonderful example is the great Aussie all-rounder Keith Miller, who didn't care much for stats. A WW2 Mosquito fighter pilot, when once asked the meaning of pressure, Miller responded, "Pressure is when you have a Messerschmidt up your arse." The clear inference from Miller was that cricket was something to be enjoyed compared to aerial combat & to a large extent inconsequential, because at least you weren't going to lose your life playing cricket. At least in the vast majority of cases. There was a situation on the 1948 tour when the Australians ran up over 700 runs against a county side. To balance the carnage being inflicted by his team mates, Miller deliberately holed out for a duck. In a Sheffield Shield match in the mid-50s Miller ran through the opposition picking up seven cheap wickets. in the second innings, he didn't bowl himself at all, preferring to give other players an opportunity. That's the way Miller was. But if the game required a big innings or a mighty bowling effort, he was the go-to man. There is a saying, "anyone can take the tiller on a calm day." But when the wind roars & the swell is high, & the fate of the ship is in the balance, that's when you need your best & most experienced man at the helm. In truth, business & sporting teams require both types of people. Every company or team needs those guys who can take care of the mundane day-to-day stuff. And they also need the 'go-to' guys when the going gets tough. But it's the 'go-to' guys who will make the ultimate difference. And they are not easily defined by stats. BTW, Mays & Mantle were two of the first three baseball players I ever heard about as a kid growing up in PNG. I had several primary school mates who were American kids of missionaries & traders. They inducted me into the culture of baseball. There is a third guy whose name temporarily escapes me. I'll have to go & find his name.
Maryann
Guest
excellent article