There are stats that show performance with men on base. Edwin Encarnacion led the league in RBI with 127 and Joe had 49, so I'll compare them. As an aside, nobody in either league got to 100 RBI without hitting 25 HR or more - Joe had 11 - so I'm not heavily cherry picking by looking at the AL RBI leader. Here is one breakdown of "opportunity", from b-r.com: Encarnacion (160 games and 702 PA total): Bases empty: 356 PA, 22 RBI (homers, obviously) Any runners on: 346 PA, 105 RBI (these two lines add up to the season total) RISP: 198 PA, 80 RBI (a subset of the second line) Runner on first: 148 PA, 25 RBI (subtract the two above lines) Mauer (134 games and 576 PA total): Bases empty: 346 PA, 10 RBI Any runners on: 230 PA, 39 RBI RISP: 140 PA, 34 RBI Runner on first: 90 PA, 5 RBI There are further breakdowns, to exact bases occupied and numbers of outs, but that gets you further into the weeds of Small Sample Size, which already is in play with samples like 90 PA above. Notice that Mauer had almost as many appearances at the plate with nobody on, as Encarnacion did, despite the disparity in games played. Joe's teammates weren't getting the ducks on the pond. If you pro-rate Encarnacion's opportunities with men on base to Mauer's number, while still keeping his good production, he doesn't reach 100 RBI either. Mauer's OPS was actually better with runners on than with bases empty, while Encarnacion was slightly the opposite. However, Mauer's OPS with men on is bumped up greatly by the walk rate, while Encarnacion's walks stay about the same. My summary: there is something to both sides of the discussion. Mauer had many fewer opportunities with men on, and did far less with them. I think Joe's paucity of homers, and walks with men on base, are both key. But even Babe Ruth might have had trouble distinguishing himself with so many fewer choice opportunities in reduced playing time.