Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
Hank Aaron was an amazing player, one of the best ever. He played at a very high level for a very long time. Consistency over time at such a quality level is to be greatly respected.
Sadly these debates always seem to degenerate, and it all comes down to what someone values more-- peak performance versus career total statistics. Such terms really need to be agreed upon or defined specifically upfront, so that folks are speaking to the same discussion target.
For example, when people talk about things like who'd they choose among two past players, are we discussing picking both men at their very beginnings, in a hypothetical reality where they play it all over again with their God-given talent and tools? Or are we talking about the careers that they had, injuries and all? Many things to agree upon upfront, to have a healthy and cogent discussion.
I lean toward peak performance. That's what I like and value. If two baseball players are healthy and performing at the absolute peak of their abilities, and one of the two is named Mickey Mantle, I am taking Mickey Mantle. If I could draft one baseball player for a team today, of all the men who've ever played, based on their natural ceilings, again I am taking Mickey Mantle over all of them.
|
I guess it depends on the number of consecutive years ( even going head to head ) you consider to be " peak performance ". For Mantle, is that 5 years, 7 years, 10 years? It certainly will not be more than 10 years. Mantle may hold a slight edge at 5 years, but after that, I'll take Aaron. What makes this so fun is it's all personal preference.