Hank Aaron card values
 

Always wondered why his card values arent up there with mays, mantle or williams. Hank was such a great player it just seems like his cards after 1954 are fairly cheap compared to the other mentioned players. What factors do u think play into that?

I think Hank cards have room for improvement, as his '54 Topps card has only just exploded in value (in the past year or two). I think his other early cards will grow in value very soon, and his other cards will follow.

~Owen :)

I am an Aaron collector so I am glad his card values are a little lower [emoji3], but I agree with Owen that this will change. Playing in smaller markets (60's & 70's Milwaukee/Atlanta) definitely contributed to this. I believe many are just now beginning to appreciate the totality of his records. Due to his HR record, many of his other feats have been largely ignored. He was an all-around excellent hitter that also hit for a consistent average.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't think he was as good as Mays, Mantle, Williams, Clemente, etc. I don't see his cards ever equalling those players' values.

I strongly disagree with that.

Actually he had more home runs and base hits then any of those. Looking at Career stats Aaron's overall numbers arguably could be the best ever (Bonds and Ruth are right up there as well) Mind you he was a different type of hitter than Ty Cobb etc.

If Henry had played in NY, his cards would no doubt be priced above Willie's, but not Mantle's, though, for obvious, if deplorable, reasons.

I have to strongly disagree with this also! Really! Let's compare stats with Mantle and Mays, not EVEN close with the Mantle, a little closer with Mays. In my opinion Hank Aaron was the greatest offensive player to ever live. I know people will say, "He has so many more at bats!" I think that further justifies his place as an all time great, durability. I personally am glad his values are down so I can obtain his cards reasonably. I doubt it stays that way down the road. Fairly sure if Hank Aaron played in New York he would be the best ever.

...........Aaron........Mantle..........Mays
Avg.....305...........298................302
Hits.....3,771........2,415.............3,283
HR.......755..........536................660
RBI......2,297.......1,509.............1,903

Agreed! The numbers don't lie, the 3771 Career Hits and the 755 Home Runs are HUGE!

lol

I know right, not to mention that he is the all time RBI Leader. I really think anyone who thinks he was not as good or better than any MLB player is being ignorant.

Exactly...well said!

Total bases: 6,856 #1 all-time.
RBI: 2,297 #1 all-time.
30 home run seasons: 15 (t) #1 all-time.
300 total bases in a season: 15 times #1 all-time.

If you take away his 755 home runs, he'd still have 3,000 hits.

That total bases number is astronomical, especially for that era. I would love to see his numbers if he played today!

But does not answer your original question :)

Lol....true...the debate goes on

The reason his cards are undervalued, comparatively, is market. Mays and Mantle played in New York, and that's where their legends were born. The Giants did move, but Mays was already a star. Clemente played in a smaller market, obviously, but he was the first real Latin superstar.

Aaron played in Milwaukee, and then Atlanta, which is not a great sports town, comparatively. If Aaron had played in New York, his cards would be worth a lot more. I think his cards will go up in value. I know I'm going to grab a really nice '54 Topps Aaron asap.

Led league in WAR
Willie Mays 10 times
Mickey Mantle 6 times
Ted Williams 6 times
Hank Aaron 1 time

Aaron was good at accumulating stats, but he was never looked at as the best player in the game. He never had a peak like other superstars. Greatest offensive players of all time are Babe Ruth, Ted Williams and Ty Cobb. Aaron lol. If Aaron was so great, why did the Braves need to move the fences in for him?

If youre really questioning Hank Aaron's ability and accomplishments then maybe you and google need to hang out..lol. Hank Aaron is one of the best hands down

hank aaron is not the cards you are looking for.

move along. move along.

What year did they do that? I was curious about ball park dimensions for Ruth, Aaron, Williams, Mays, and Clemente so I looked them up. I know they fluctuated year to year. So what year exactly did the Braves move in the fences for Aaron?

Yankee Stadium Right Field 314 Right Center 385
Atlanta Fulton County Stadium Left field – 330, Left-Center – 385
Milwaukee County Stadium Left Field – 315, left Center 392
Fenway Park Right Field: 302, Right Center 380
Candlestick Park Left Field 335, Left Center 365
Polo Grounds dimensions Left Field 279 Ft, Left-Center 450
Forbes Field Left Field 365, Left Center 406
Three Rivers Stadium dimensions Left Field — 335, Left-Center — 375

Jesus, seriously?

You know the Red Sox did the same thing, moving the right field wall in 23 feet so Ted Williams could hit more home runs...right?

Welp, I guess Williams couldn't have been that great if the Red Sox had to bring the right field wall in for him. :rolleyes: Never mind that Hank Aaron hit nearly as many home runs on the road (370) as he did at home (385), or that he actually had a higher average on the road (.306) than he did at home (.303), or that he drove in more runs on the road (1,180) than he did at home (1,117). Yup, Hank Aaron was a product of where he played his home games. Oh wait, no he wasn't.

"He was a compiler". Huh, I thought being an elite hitter for twenty plus years was an accomplishment in and of itself. "Sorry, Hank. Didn't you know? You were supposed to hit 100 home runs in two years like Maris, and then disappear from the game a few years later, instead of being an All Star 24 times, while having eight 40 home run seasons, and fifteen thirty home run seasons." Sorry, Hank, somebody isn't impressed that you averaged 100 RBI a season for nearly a quarter century. Sorry, Hank. You're a compiler. That's why you're the all-time leader in RBIs. It has nothing to do with the fact that you were a career .323 hitter with runners in scoring position (3,564 plate appearances with RISP), or that you had a career .992 OPS with RISP.

Back to WAR for just a second. A WAR of 8 + in one season is considered an MVP-caliber season. Know how many seasons Mickey Mantle had a WAR of 8 or higher? Five. Know how many seasons Ted Williams had a WAR of 8 or higher? Seven.

Know how many seasons Hank Aaron had with a WAR of 8 or higher? Eight. Hank Aaron had one more MVP caliber season than Ted Williams, and three more MVP caliber seasons than Ted Williams. Babe Ruth only had four more MVP caliber seasons than Hank Aaron. WAR is an imperfect metric. Mickey Mantle won the American League MVP in 1962 with a WAR of 5.9. Meanwhile, Hank Aaron with a WAR of 9.4 in 1961 finished eighth in the MVP vote. When he had a 9.1 WAR in 1963, he finished third in the MVP. In 1962, his WAR was 8.5, a full two and a half points higher than Mickey Mantle's total in the AL, and Mantle won the MVP while Aaron finished sixth in the MVP.

Know what Aaron's average WAR was between ages 21 and 40? Between 1955 and 1973--19 seasons. Aaron had an annual average WAR of 7.3. Remember, an 8 WAR is MVP level. Aaron played at a near MVP level for two decades. In other words, cherry picking one metric isn't the best way to prove a spurious assertion.

Break it down comparatively:

Mantle's best four seasons: 11.3, 11.2, 10.5, 9.5.

All better than any individual season from Aaron. But then look at the best seasons from either player. A pattern emerges:

9.4, Hank Aaron, 1961
9.1, Hank Aaron, 1963
8.7, Mickey Mantle, 1958
8.5, Hank Aaron, 1962
8.5, Hank Aaron, 1967
8.0, Hank Aaron, 1957
8.0, Hank Aaron, 1960
8.0, Hank Aaron, 1969
7.8, Hank Aaron, 1965
7.8, Hank Aaron, 1966
7.3, Hank Aaron, 1958
7.2, Hank Aaron, 1971
7.1, Hank Aaron, 1956
6.9, Mickey Mantle, 1954

Though Mickey Mantle has the best four seasons, of the next thirteen best individual WAR seasons, Mickey Mantle only has one of them. One. By "WAR", with 8.0 + being an MVP season, Mickey Mantle had five truly great seasons, while Aaron had eight truly great seasons. After 1962, Mantle only had one season with so much as a 4.0 WAR. Aaron had seven seasons ahead of him with a 7.0 + WAR, including a 7.2 WAR in 1971 where Aaron hit .327 with 47 home runs and 118 RBI at age 37. Mantle was already out of the game by then. Aaron would hit 34 homers the next year at age 38, and 40 the next year at age 39.


How's this for a peak:

Between 1957 and 1963, Aaron's 162 game averages:

.323 AVG, 122 runs, 207 hits, 34 doubles, 8 triples, 42 home runs, 129 RBI, 15 stolen bases, 65 walks, 69 strike outs. Slash line of .383 OBP/.593 SLG/.975 OPS. A 167 OPS +.

Only Babe Ruth (11) has more 40 home run seasons than Aaron's eight.

Hank Aaron was in the top five in the league in runs created thirteen times. He averaged 100 RBI (actual, not on a 162 game basis) for twenty-three years!

How about the actual Hall of Fame ballots go? How many ballot-holders voted for these guys to be elected to the Hall of Fame?

Mickey Mantle: 322/365 88.2%
Ted Williams: 282/302 93.4%
Willie Mays: 409/432 94.7%
Babe Ruth: 215/226 95.1%

Hank Aaron: 406/415 97.8%

If you can't see that Hank Aaron is one of the greatest baseball players to ever play the game, then I'm not going to even waste any more of my time on you. But suffice to say, you are wrong.

By the way, in January, ESPN's baseball writers ranked their best baseball players of all-time.

They had Hank Aaron fifth, ahead of Cobb and Mantle, behind only Ruth, Mays, Bonds and Williams.

So, instead of answering my question, you set up a strawman arguement and then claim I'm wrong. However, I just edited out the garbage to show I'm right. If you want a guy that played at a high level for a long time, but was never truly great, Aaron's your guy. I never said he wasn't one of the best, he's just not on the level of Mays, Mantle and Williams. No triple crowns, no .400 seasons, no 50 HR seasons.

In fact his best HR season was because the fence was moved in. Of his 47 HRs, 31 were in Atlanta, but he never benefited from a friendly home park, with fences moved in and the highest altitude in baseball at the time. There's a reason it was called the launching pad. Lol.

Nice try on Ted, but his .344 lifetime ave. laughs at you. Also, did the Red Sox move the fences back after Ted retired like the Braves did when Aaron left? It's pretty obvious when your team moves the fences in right where you like to hit the ball so you can make a run at Mays and Ruth on the all time HR list and then when you leave, they move the fences back.

In Atlanta, Aaron hit 47 more HRs at home than on the road. Want to guess how Ted did at Fenway? 25 more HRs ON THE ROAD. Some great advantage, not. By the way, Ruth also hit more road HRs than home, 20. So now tell me again how Aaron didn't get an advantage playing in Atlanta?

I will say it again, anyone who thinks that Henry Aaron is not among the greatest players ever at any point, is being ignorant but that wasn't the question. His values are lower simply do to the market, Atlanta and Milwaukee vs. New York and Boston. How do you figure a WAR statistic out anyway? I am pretty stupid but does it really have any validity. I really don't think you can find a more consistent player ever. I would pay more for his cards but happy I don't have to. By the way I love the statistics "the 'stache" if you can't go by statistics than after that it is all subjective!

Darn
 

Don't you just hate it when batting averages start laughing at you

We do know without a doubt that Hank was a better hitter than his brother Tom.

I don't think Aaron cards are undervalued; Mantle cards are overvalued. He benefits from being white and a Yankee during the Stengel era.

Williams' cards are little tougher to evaluate against the others, for two reasons:

1. His rookie cards were prewar and cannot really be compared with Topps and Bowman RCs in terms of availability, quality, etc.; and

2. He had an inordinate number of #1 (and last card in the set in 1954T) cards in the postwar era: 1954T, 1957T, 1958T. Mays had one that I can think of (1966), I don't think Mantle had any, and Aaron had 1 (1974).

AH!! Tommy Aaron. I think he might have to be my next focus for a PC just because Henry was that good!

I don't think Mantle cards are overvalued. I think 12 pennants and 7 championships in his first 14 seasons is why they are as high as they are. Mantle was the best player on most of those teams. I think the triple crown, 18 World Series Home Runs and monster seasons in 56, 57 and 61 made him a hero to even non Yankee fans collecting cards at that time. Those kids coming back to baseball card collecting in the 80s, that is what drove his values from a little more than other superstars to where they are today.

Mantle
 

I am holding on to mine, just on the chance Rats is right

But Aaron too... in case everyone else is right

Why do prices change
 

Even statistics can be subjective depending on what you're optimizing for (strength during peak years, longevity, accumulated stats, WAR, championships, etc)

A different question is: what would cause Aaron's values to move now, when all his stats are known? What new information would move his card prices:

1) A new movie? e.g., 61* and Maris, the recent Jackie Robinson movie
2) An assault on a record (e.g., when McGwire passed Maris in 1998 for HR, Maris got a bump in publicity. Mike Payne's book, published in 1999, showed at least 6 Maris cards)?
2) Death? e.g., Banks died, but I don't think we saw a big difference yet in Banks card prices (though I'm hoarding)
3) Scandal? Rose cards, I think, went down after his 1990 ban but I am not sure. They are surprisingly strong still.


Some players have gone up and down over time - why? Yaz and Carlton cards have fallen relatively over the past 20 years or so. I was reading old 1987 Beckett Monthly's this weekend (not that I'm proud of it). And I noticed some trends, which relate to this post.

Back in 1987, the early 1960s Yastrzemski cards were more expensive than Clemente, Mays, etc. cards for those years, even though they had all retired. Today, those Yaz cards are worth far less than the Clementes/Mays'.

Beckett Monthly Dec, 1987 - Beckett High value
1962 Topps: Yaz = $100, Mays = $40, Clemente = $18
1963 Fleer: Yaz = $18, Mays = $18, Clemente = $16
1964 Topps: Yaz = $32, Mays = $27, Clemente = $18


PSA SMR, Oct, 2015 - all cards PSA 7
1962 Topps: Yaz = $125, Mays = $325, Clemente = $155
1963 Fleer: Yaz = $70, Mays = $145, Clemente = $140
1964 Topps: Yaz = $45, Mays = $115 , Clemente = $165

Carlton cards moved similarly relatively down. why?

Good stuff here!

Lies, damn lies and stats...as Sam remarked
 

Some tasty food for thought there, Mike, but, as a lit major, i have to admit that stats have always hit my palette as something like moldy pasteboard. Still, it's great fun to indulge in wild speculation about what drives wild speculation in pricing. My guess is that, in 1987, the Sox had just reached the finals for the first time in 12 years, so maybe Yaz was a bigger icon at that moment than Willie or Roberto, simply by his association with the Boston team. The Giants and Pirates at the time were perennial losers. As to Carlton, perhaps his values took a hit from the somewhat lackluster ending to his career, as he bounced from team to team in an attempt to hang on way past his prime. His overall reputation may have taken a hit with fans, contrasted with other greats, such as Gibson, or Koufax, who retired with more dignity. I imagine these theories can be shot down easily by statistical analyses, but i'm too lazy to do the dirty work.:o

I agree, that is very good stuff and a great read. Far from being an expert in anything, I believe the values all lie in perception of the player. The stats of Yaz, Mays, and Clemente have been known all along in 1987. Yaz was freshly retired, and headed to the Hall in 1989. Everyone rode the wave of speculation. So, it's reasonable that his cards had a " bump " in price. Let's face it, in 1987, Clemente was no where revered as he is today. As the greatest Latin ball player, Clemente is viewed in the same manner as Jackie Robinson, in the Latin community. Clemente has an award named after him and gets daily press from ESPN through commercials and their baseball studio which is the 21 Zone I believe.

Not sure where the tide turned for Mays. Perhaps it was the All Century Team in 2009, but I suspect it was Barry Bonds run on the home run record and his close ties to Willie Mays that brought the stats back to everyones minds. Willie Mays stats were relevant again. Mays stole bases and hit home runs, so did Barry. It would be natural to compare the two players as they were both great ball players.

Mantle? It was the 50's, played CF for the Yankees, the heir to Joe D. There was the tradition, the lore, the championships, and Mantle was white. He was in the media capital of the world, and baseballs Golden Boy. And he could play. MVP's, Triple Crown. Mantle was in the right place at the right time, the stuff Legends are born from, Legends that never die.

Aaron really didn't have anything to keep him in the public eye. He may do appearances from time to time, but he's not in public that often. Again, I believe it's our perception of the player that will drive the value of their cards. Aaron did not play in media markets, did not receive new publicity during Bonds home run assault ( Mays did due to his ties to Bond's family ), and isn't revered as Jackie Robinson or Clemente.

Aarons cards, imo, are tremendously undervalued. Until perception changes, cards of the GOAT can be had for a fraction of other stars from the same era. And yes, I said GOAT. The top 5 players of all time are interchangeable, and arguments can be made for either of them as the greatest.

Some here will disagree, but as an open forum, we can agree to disagree.

As Mantle cards have soared out to the stratosphere people are looking for alternatives to collect. Mays and Aaron would be next.

You just "edited out all the garbage" to show you're right. More like, completely glossed over all the points that repudiated your rather hard-to-fathom position. People that know a bit about baseball have a different, enlightened opinion. 97.8% of Hall of Fame voters thought Aaron was a first-ballot Hall of Famer. When he was elected in 1982, only Ty Cobb was ever elected by a higher percentage of voters at 98.23%. Aaron also beat Williams, and Mays, too. Sure, you could say that Cobb and Williams were disliked by the media, and therefore their percentages were lowered because of some kind of bias. Well, Aaron was black. Forget bias. As Aaron was approaching Ruth's previously unbreakable mark, he received death threats in the mail. Yet still, he managed to out-gain even Babe Ruth, the man he passed on the all-time home run list. You can't tell me that there weren't some sore Yankees fans in that list of some 400 voters. Yet only 15 people out of 421 thought Aaron wasn't worthy of Cooperstown on his first ballot. Maybe they thought he was an all-time great. Maybe all the lists that name the greatest baseball players to ever play the game know something. Hank Aaron is consistently ranked in the top 10, or top 5 all-time when lists are published of the 100 best to ever play the game. Not because he was some "compiler", but because he was a special talent that played at an elite level for almost two decades.

The arbitrary numbers you select as a sign of "greatness" are head-scratching. 50 home runs...all-time great. 44, 45 or 47...not an all-time great. Tell me, do you consider Prince Fielder an all-time great? Or his daddy Cecil? They hit 50 in a season. So did Brady Anderson, and Luis Gonzalez. Were they "truly great"? A Triple Crown makes one a true great? Mickey Mantle won the Triple Crown in 1956. If Al Kaline had driven in 3 more runs, he wouldn't have. But Mantle would have still been an all-time great, no? Frank Robinson had a Triple Crown. Is he better than Aaron? Aaron put up several Triple Crown worthy seasons. All it takes to cost somebody a Triple Crown is a flu bug, or a broken finger. You need to be great to win a Triple Crown, no doubt. But you also need a lot of luck. Over the course of a 154 game season (back then), missing a game or two, or even a few at bats, could be the difference between winning it, and not. Willie Mays, for all his greatness, never won a Triple Crown. In fact, he never led in any two of the three categories in the same season. Aaron led in home runs and RBIs three times. In 1957 he finished fourth in batting, and in 1963, he finished third. In his twenty-two years, Mays never once led the league in RBIs. Yet he has over 1,900 in his career. Talk about accumulating stats. And he won only one batting title. He did lead his league in home runs four times. But so did Aaron, twice in Milwaukee, and twice in Atlanta. Aaron led the league in RBIs four times (three of those in Milwaukee), and won two batting titles in Milwaukee.

But Mays hit 50 home runs in a season. Yeah, he did twice. He hit 51 in 1955, playing his home games at the Polo Grounds, where he hit 22 of his homers at home. Jesus, all you had to do at the Polo Grounds was hit a pop fly down the left field line to get a home run. The foul pole was 279 feet! And Candlestick? The dimensions in left-center and center were 397 and 420 feet. His first three years in San Francisco, Mays hit 29, 34 and 29 home runs (three years after hitting 51!). What happened? In 1961, they moved the fences in, left-center by 32 feet to 365, and center field from 420 to 410. Lo and behold, "Say Hey" was a 40 home run hitter again in 1961, and then hit 49 in 1962. In 1960, Mays hit 12 home runs at Candlestick. They moved the fences in a whopping 32 feet in left-center, and boom, he hits 21 at home in 1961, and 28 at home in 1962. So please...cut the crap about the Braves moving in the fences for Aaron. It turns out a lot of teams moved the fences for their great players.

Back to Aaron's home run totals. Did you look at any of his other seasons, or just his single season best? What about the twelve years he played in Milwaukee?

In 1957, he hit 44 home runs to lead the NL. He hit 26 of those on the road. 18 at home. Aaron led the NL in RBIs, too. He had a Triple Crown-caliber season. Only Stan Musial's .351 and Willie Mays' .331 bested him. But he hit nearly 60% of his home runs on the road.

In 1963, he led the NL again with 44 home runs. 25 on the road, 19 at home. 57% of his homers came away from County Stadium.

In 1962, he hit 45 home runs, second in the NL. Mays hit 49. Aaron hit 18 home runs at County Stadium, and 27 on the road. 60% of his home runs were on the road. See a pattern here?

In 1960, Aaron hit 40 home runs. 21 at home, 19 on the road. Pretty much even.

He had no advantage at home while a member of the Milwaukee Braves, where he played his prime years. In 1960, they actually moved the fence in left field back, one foot in straightaway left-center field, and seven feet in Aaron's power alley, between the left field line and left-center. In the next four years, he hit 163 home runs, averaging 43 homers per 162 games played. In fact, while a member of the Braves in Milwaukee, he hit 185 home runs in Milwaukee, and 213 on the road. So, he hit 28 more home runs away from County Stadium. And the air in Milwaukee is not thin. I know, having lived there for 19 years. So, while they were moving the fences back slightly in Milwaukee, they were bringing them way in at the 'stick.

You know what OPS + does. It measures on base and power, and an adjustment is made for the player's ballpark.

Willie Mays had a career OPS + of 156. Know what Hank Aaron's was? Aaron's OPS + is 155. Willie Mays has a career OPS + that is one whopping point higher than Aaron's. Funny thing, that metric takes into consideration where Hank played all his games, and where Willie played all his. And it finds that the two were almost identical as far as their offensive production is concerned.

And as far as your brief WAR comparison, yes, Mays led ten times. Aaron led once. Aaron was second in the NL in WAR three times, third four times, fourth twice, and fifth twice. Eight times he was one of the best three players in the entire league (by WAR), and twelve times he was one of the best five. If you don't lead the league in WAR, you're not an all-time great? Were both Ruth and Gehrig not all-time greats? Yet when they played, unless they tied, one of them had to be second (or lower). Remember, too, that a center fielder (Mays) gets a positive 7.5 run adjustment while calculating, and right fielders (Aaron) get a 2.5 run deduction while calculating WAR. I completely understand that center field is a more demanding position, and that Mays, in putting up the numbers he did in center field, created incredible value. But it makes, in my humble opinion, an erroneous assumption. Consider the comparison of Mays and Aaron. The assumption is made, by WAR, that Aaron is less valuable because he plays right field. If he is incapable of playing center field, than this would be true, as Mays would add value because he produces at the same level offensively that Aaron does, while playing a position that is more demanding, one that Aaron could not.

But Aaron was a three-time Gold Glove winner in right field. And his string of Gold Gloves only ended because of the emergence of arguably the greatest defensive right fielder to ever play the game, Roberto Clemente. Was Aaron a very good to outstanding fielder, at least early on in his career? Yes. I will state again that I have some issues with defensive metrics as they are calculated for historical players. Aaron would one season have a -1.1 dWAR (1959), then a + 0.8 (1960), and a + 2.0 (1961). Those were followed by a 0.3, and a -1.3. I don't see how one player, when healthy, and in their prime, would have such variance in their defensive performance across multiple years. However, Mays is clearly one of the greatest center fielders to ever play the game, in both the offensive and defensive realms. I do not believe that Aaron would play center field as well as Mays. But I feel he could play it at a high level. Just not at Mays' astronomical level. Adjustments to dWAR should be made based solely on performance. If you have to give individual plays a higher score by a center fielder because of the ground covered (uZR-type ratings), fine. But to automatically adjust before any performance is taken into consideration, in my opinion, skews WAR needlessly.

One final thing to consider, not looking directly at the numbers.

Top 3 in MVP vote:
Aaron 8 times in the top 3, won once.
Mays 7 times in the top 3, won twice.

The men that watched these players day in, day out, saw them in person, talked to other players and sports journalists--they voted in a manner that puts Aaron and Mays in the same upper echelon of players in the National League. Both were among the top three players in the entire league in MVP voting about the same number of times. Mays won one more, Aaron was in the top 3 one more time. That's pretty darned close. When you consider their career stats, their OPS +, their WAR, MVP finishes, Hall of Fame votes, I just don't know how a baseball fan could consider Mays an all-time great, but not Aaron. I respect that you know your baseball, rats60, but I vehemently disagree with your conclusion.

I think you could easily make the case that he was better than each of those guys, especially if you factor consistency and longevity. You don't realize how great he was until you flip over his baseball card. I read a Bill James article about Carl Yastrzemski recently. he was discussing Yaz' legendary 1967 season. His quote was something along the lines of, "Carl's numbers that year were the same numbers Hank put up every year for 15 years."

In 1998, the Sporting News created their top 100 baseball players of all-time list:

1. Babe Ruth
2. Willie Mays
3. Ty Cobb
4. Walter Johnson
5. Hank Aaron
8. Ted Williams
17. Mickey Mantle

ESPN's top 100, done in 2013:

1. Babe Ruth
2. Willie Mays
3. Barry Bonds
4. Ted Williams
5. Hank Aaron
7. Ty Cobb
9. Mickey Mantle

In 1999, SABR (the Society for American Baseball Research) did their top 100 list:

1. Babe Ruth
2. Lou Gehrig
3. Ted Williams
4. Hank Aaron
5. Stan Musial
7. Ty Cobb
8. Willie Mays
12. Mickey Mantle

Huh. Imagine that. Only two players are in the top 5 all-time on all three lists. Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron.

I started collecting baseball cards when I was four years old, back in 1967 and I never stopped. I was one of those kids who spent hours reading the back of baseball cards and never stopped doing that either. After reading and comparing all those stats I always wondered why Mickey Mantle was so highly regarded and Hank Aaron wasn't. His story has always been so amazing to me. He grew up poor, hitting cross handed and didn't get it straightened out until his early years in the minors and the grief he went through when he broke the Babe's record is well documented. I have always been impressed with what he has endured. I have really enjoyed this post because it confirms to me, why I have always liked Hammerin Hank. I will never forget jumping up in down in the living room when he hit the homer that beat the Babe off Al Downing. Hank Aaron is not my all time favorite player that would be Harmon Killebrew but he is probably my second favorite and he is in my opinion arguably the GOAT. Great post here and have enjoyed the info. I see his cards going up in the near future so pick them up why you can. His legend will continue to grow, no doubt in my mind!

That one's favorite player is white isn't necessarily "deplorable." I think the issue of race when pricing a Baseball card is way overblown.

1. Mantle is one of the 2 or 3 most iconic Baseball players of all-time and his cards are priced accordingly (he's certainly the most iconic in our hobby).
2. Eddie Mathews' stats are much better than Jackie Robinson's. Jackie is in great demand because he is iconic while Eddie is boring.
3. There is greater demand for Bob Gibson cards than there is for guys like Jim Palmer, Juan Marichal, Gaylord Perry, even Tom Seaver. Gibson wasn't better than those guys. He is more iconic. Nobody cares that he is black.
4. Satchel Paige was a journeyman Major League pitcher who's cards sell for much more than Bob Feller (an upper-tier HoFer). Why?
5. If that black/white stuff was real, there would be a greater demand for Yogi cards than for Campanella cards. There isn't.
6. Roberto Clemente cards sell for much more money than a comparible player of his accomplishments (and Roberto has the double whammy, black and hispanic). Al Kaline is an exact (white) contemporary (same stats; same years; same fielding prowess; neither played in NY...). Which cards are in greater demand? If race was an issue, Kaline cards would be through the roof while Roberto's would be priced with the mid-tier guys.

It's not like the price guide guys subtract 20% for blackness. Cards are priced based on demand. Iconic players are in more demand than non iconic players. There are pleanty of iconic black players, many of them more iconic than comparable white players.

A thought I had is that Hank isn't as beloved for whatever reason as those other guys. His personality since retirement (talking about race so much and being unfriendly at card shows) may have something to do with it.
His accomplishments are amazing regardless.

Can anyone say Dick Allen, he is probably not in the Hall for very similar reasons.

This post is so full of errors and half truths, but I'll take on a few of them. First, Cobb is not the only player to recieve a higher percentage of HOF votes. The top 4 vote getters are Nolan Ryan, Tom Seaver, Cal Ripken and George Brett. I guess you think Ryan and Seaver are the greatest pitchers of all time. Ripken and Brett are better than Cobb, Aaron , etc. See that is a pretty worthless metric to use.

You complain about Mays hitting 22 HRS in the Polo Grounds, well he hit 29 on the road. His best season in Candlestick, he hit 24 at home, 28 on the road. Nothing like Aaron's 31 at home.

You claim the Giants moved the fences in for Mays, but that is incorrect. The first two years in SF, the Giants played in Seals Stadium. Only the first year at Candlestick where the fences back, they were adjusted after one season to the place where they stayed until the Giants moved to a new stadium. Somehow you think that this is the equivalent on moving the fences in when Aaron is approaching Mays and Ruth and then moving them back when he passes. Sorry that just doesn't pass the laugh test.

You talk about the angry letters that Aaron recieved. I will always believe that it was because of the above, not because of skin color. I remember at the time this issue with the fence and "the launching pad" was very controversial as Aaron passed Mays and Ruth. It caused a lot of bitterness similar to Bonds PED use. There is no doubt in my mind that if Mays was getting ready to hit 715, it wouldn't have been an issue.

So, it take it by OPS+ you are saying Mays was the better hitter of the two. So much for Aaron being the best hitter ever, lol. Mays was way better in the field, on the base paths and in every other phase of the game. I guess that is why Mays led in WAR 10 times, Aaron once.

Mays is an all time great but Aaron is not. Who said that? Not me. This thread was asking about card values and I said it was because Aaron wasn't as good as Mays, Mantle or Williams, not that he wasn't any good. If you want to say Aaron is a top 10 player, I have no problem putting him 10th. However, I do have a problem with claims that he is better than Mays or Mantle, because he's not.

RATS posts explains why Aaron's cards aren't valued higher... there are people that still believe Mantle is better than he was.

Mantle was good. Top 25... Top 20... maybe Top 15.

Look at the four major comparative tools for position players: Blank Ink (how often they led a category), Gray Ink (How often they were in top 10), HOF Career Standards, and HOF Monitor. Mantle is never in the top 10. Actually I think if you use Mantle as the barometer (Though I agree that Mantle is overvalued, not the other's being undervalued) a more undervalued player than Aaron may be Musial.


Standard...Black Ink...Gray Ink... HOF Stan... HOF Mon
Aaron.......(8) 76........(2) 408......(9) 74.........(3) 421
Mays........(22) 57......(8) 337.......(5) 76........(6) 376
Mantle......(15) 62......(17) 272.....(24) 65.......(15) 300
Musial......(5) 116.......(3) 390.......(6) 76........(1) 452
Williams...(4) 122.......(11) 326......(15) 72.......(7) 354

Even with the walls moved in Aaron hit the ball. Mantle struck out a lot, he led this category 5 times, and was in the top five 10 times. Aaron was never in the top 10. His SO average is 68 in a 162 game season, compared to Mantle's at 115.

Also I haven't looked up exact stats but Aaron hit just above 50% of his homeruns at home. So lets just remove 55% of his home runs (I am sure it was less than 55% that were hit at home) he would still be in the top 100 in home runs while still having 3355 hits (removing the 416 home runs, again I don't know the exact number).

Mantle was in the top 10 WAR only 7 times compared below to the other players I mentioned:
Aaron: 15
Mays: 13
Musial: 10
Williams: 12

This does not mean mantle was a horrible player or didn't have peak seasons, but he gets elevated higher than he should. His peak seasons are what people remember and certainly bolster his numbers, and this is what Stache was pointing out when he brought up Mantle's peak seasons.

Just looking at single season stats only focuses on a few great seasons and not the consistency of a player.

You are confusing Mays and Aaron w/r/t card show behavior. I have had the pleasure of meeting Aaron at a couple of shows and he was always a perfect gentleman, cordial and pleasant. Mays acts like fans are something nasty he tracked in on his shoe.

I don't follow all the stats gobbledygook like I should, but one thing to consider is that Mantle's great seasons took place in a concentrated period; at the start of his career he was promising and for five of the last six years he played he was mediocre and injured; by the time he was 33 he was basically finished as an elite player. Aaron stayed on track as an elite player for 18 years, even through the greatest surge of pitching in history, and into his 40s. Some people piss all over consistency, but consistency is a good thing if I am building a team. Here's what I love about Aaron if I am building a team, over Mantle:

Total Bases:
1955 NL 325 (6th)
1956 NL 340 (1st)
1957 NL 369 (1st)
1958 NL 328 (3rd)
1959 NL 400 (1st)
1960 NL 334 (1st)
1961 NL 358 (1st)
1962 NL 366 (3rd)
1963 NL 370 (1st)
1965 NL 319 (4th)
1966 NL 325 (4th)
1967 NL 344 (1st)
1968 NL 302 (2nd)
1969 NL 332 (1st)

OPS
1955 NL .906 (9th)
1956 NL .923 (5th)
1957 NL .978 (3rd)
1958 NL .931 (4th)
1959 NL 1.037 (1st)
1960 NL .919 (5th)
1961 NL .974 (3rd)
1962 NL 1.008 (2nd)
1963 NL .977 (1st)
1964 NL .907 (6th)
1965 NL .938 (2nd)
1966 NL .895 (8th)
1967 NL .943 (3rd)
1968 NL .852 (5th)
1969 NL 1.003 (2nd)
1970 NL .958 (6th)
1971 NL 1.079 (1st)
1972 NL .904 (5th)
1973 NL 1.045 (2nd)**

He beat the...snot out of the ball during three decades and got on base a lot, and kept it up as compared to his peers for a very long time. The proof is in the cards. Really. As any Aaron collector can tell you, one of the most annoying things about collecting Aaron cards is that if you decide to go after leader cards you have to pick up so many of the damned things; it is just a good thing they didn't make them in the 1950s.

^ Adam, I am glad you have had good experiences with Hank. I have heard many stories to the contrary. In fact, I have met about 30-40 players from the era at shows through the years and Hank was by far the most unfriendly. May have been having a bad day but it is what it is.
Chris

Sorry for any confusion. My comment was strictly in reference to a comparison of Aaron's card values to those of Mantle. It was intended to be limited to that particular consideration and, of course, was not meant to be applied across sports generally, nor to any other players or their cards. What I meant was that the application of such factors as race in card value is deplorable. I think it takes more than a little twisting to suggest that I was deploring the skin color of someone's favorite player.

I'm going to reply to the individual elements of your post, so I can get more laughs out of it.

There are no errors, or half-truths. Perhaps you just misread what I said?

Here is what I said, verbatim:

I should have said "only Ty Cobb had been elected by a higher percentage of voters." That was poorly edited on my part. But it should be clear that I was referring to the players who had already been elected when Aaron went in. Cal Ripken Jr, George Brett, Nolan Ryan and Tom Seaver were all still playing in 1982. They would get a higher percentage than Aaron when elected, absolutely, but the first from that group to do so wouldn't get in for ten more years. Aaron got what was at the time the second highest vote percentage in the game's history, and it took a decade until another player bumped him down to third place. I referenced this list on baseball reference when making that post. I knew that the above named players surpassed him. I wouldn't have known Ty Cobb was elected with a higher percentage without that list. Aaron currently has the sixth-highest vote percentage of all the men enshrined in Cooperstown. And it's still now, and will always be higher a higher percentage than Mays, Mantle or Williams received. It's not a worthless metric at all. You think it's worthless because it's a fly in the ointment where your argument is concerned. The BBWAA tend to know something about the game, and more of them thought Aaron was deserving of induction on the first ballot than Mays, Williams or Mantle. Now, to be clear, I'm not arguing the merits of their voting, only stating the facts. I happen to think that Aaron, Mays, Mantle and Williams were all superstars, and can't think of a logical explanation as to why any of them would get less than 100%. But they did. Nonetheless, their voting record supports my assertion that Aaron is one of the all-time greats to ever play the game.

Where did I say that Aaron was the best hitter ever? Please don't put words in my mouth. I think Ted Williams is the best hitter to ever play the game, and I have said so for a long time:

You made the argument that Mays was an all-time great, and Aaron was not. OPS + shows that after nearly a quarter century of baseball, their offensive production was nearly identical. Was Mays a better player than Aaron? When their whole game is considered, I think he was marginally better because of his defensive prowess. On the base paths, Mays was not better. He had more steal attempts, but their stolen base percentages are nearly identical, Mays stealing 338 bases in 441 attempts (a 76.64% success rate), while Aaron stole 240 bases in 313 attempts (a 76.68% success rate). The only place where I'd give Mays the edge was in the field. Aaron was no slouch in right field, but Mays played at a high level defensively for a longer period of time, and did it at a more demanding position. I'm happy to acknowledge that Mays had a little bit higher WAR than Aaron. But then again, the argument has never been that Aaron was better than Mays, only that Aaron was an all-time great like Mays. If Mays was a 10 talent on a 1 to 10 scale, Aaron was a 9.50. It's like saying "Babe Ruth is the greatest player of all-time". Fine. But Lou Gehrig was an all-time great, too. Ruth might have had a better WAR than Gehrig (I haven't looked). But does that exclude Gehrig from the pantheon of baseball immortals? Not at all.

http://williamgregory.net/images/derp.gif

You're really going back to this? The Giants moved the fences in, and Willie Mays was the primary beneficiary. It doesn't matter if they did it in the first year, the second, or the third. They moved them in, and Mays home run totals at home jumped dramatically once that happened. So what if, after the Giants moved, he played his first two season's home games at Seals Stadium? His last four years in New York, Mays hit 41, 51, 36 and 35 home runs, including 20, 22, 20 and 17 at home. An average of 20 homers a season at his home ballpark. Then, the Giants moved. He hit 16 home runs at Seals in both 1958 and 1959. Then, in 1960, now at the 'stick, he hit 12 home runs. His first three seasons after the move, he hit 44 home runs at home, an average of 15 per year, down an average of 5 home runs at home a season, or a 25% drop. Then, the fences got moved. In 1961, the first with the left-center field fence moved in by more than 30 feet, Mays hit 21 of his 40 homers at home. In 1962, he hit 28 of his 49 bombs at home. In 1963, 1964 and 1965, he hit 137 home runs in total (38, 47 and 52), of which 20, 25 and 24 were at Candlestick. While his home-road splits normalized, it is clear that he gained home runs by the move in. He went from 20 home runs at home his last four seasons at the Polo Grounds to 15 at Seals (two years) and one at the new 'stick, up to 23 home runs a season at home. That's a better than 50% increase in homers at home Mays gained by moving the walls in. The point? This whole sub-discussion is pointless. And the whole "the Braves moved the fences in for Aaron as he approached Mays and Ruth." Um, didn't the Giants move the fences in, and help Mays get closer to Ruth?

The Braves and Giants both had all-time great home run hitters on their rosters. Both moved the fences in, primarily to benefit those all-time home run hitters. Guess what? Doing so helps them both sell more tickets.

Well, I will always believe Jennifer Lawrence might one day knock on my door, and ask me to fly to Paris with her for the weekend. But believing something doesn't make it true. Not in the slightest.

You seem oblivious to the fact that Mays played in San Francisco. Hank Aaron, as he approached Ruth, played in Atlanta. He was a black man in the deep south, about to break the most hallowed record in sports, held by the most popular athlete in American professional sports history. That Aaron benefited from some "launching pad" to do so may have generated some bitterness. But that was hardly the basis for the despicable hate mail he received. The color of his skin....was. People threatened his life, they said "we're going to shoot him as he rounds the bases" because he was a black man. And no, there really is no similarity between Bonds taking PEDs and the Braves moving the fences in. In one case, a Major League franchise moved the fences in, with the tacit approval of Major League Baseball, and not only Hank Aaron benefited. In the other, a player took performance enhancing drugs (which he alone benefited from), which, as of 2003, was a rules violation in Major League Baseball. That distinction is reflected in the Hall of Fame voting record for the two players: Aaron got inducted into the Hall by nearly 98% of the voters on his first try. Bonds has had three cracks at Cooperstown, and hasn't surpassed 37% of the vote.

Baseball scholars place Aaron in the top five all-time greats to play the game. This is not me saying it. These are men that have studied the game. And when one considers the thousands of men that have played Major League Baseball, when you are listed as one of the ten best to ever play the game, you are, indisputably, an all-time great.

You said Aaron was "never truly great." He clearly was.

Now, I'm done discussing this.

RATS, I been enjoying the post made by you and others, but your are naive if you do not believe the " angry " letters Aaron received were not based on race and skin color. You believe what you wish, but it is well documented that is exactly what the letters were.

I think Rats is enjoying all this immensely, and I do not think he is naive. A little devious maybe, but not naive :)