Mays/Mantle/Aaron

[CMIZ5290]

Who would you take? All 3 were fairly close together in age when they came up to Majors. My vote is the Mick....

[bnorth]

If it was picking up women and partying I would pick Mantle by a mile. Playing baseball I would pick Hank Aaron with Willie Mays being a very close second if you are going for a career.

[39special]

I'll take Mays

[Econteachert205]

Mantle for me.

[1963Topps Set]

Mays for me. He could do it all.

[jason.1969]

What a tough call! Best for one season is Mantle, best over 10 years might be Mays, and best over 20 is Aaron.

[KCRfan1]

Great question! While Aaron clearly had the longer, and more consistent career, if we look at 1954 or '55 thru 1962, each player made a case as the best in the game. Knowing what i know now, Aaron is my choice. Hindsight. Back in the day though, Mantle was the heir to Dimaggio, and with the NY publicity and Yankee tradition, Mantle may have been the easy choice of the three. Interestingly, i never think of Mays as a home run hitter. Mantle and Aaron always come to mind though. IMO, Mantle was clearly the best of the three for the first 10 years, and Aaron was the best for the next 10. I don't believe Mays was ever the best of the three, even over a five year stretch.

[clydepepper]

Using OPS+ as the determining stat, I'll go with the Mick.

Of the 15 years all three played, 1954-1968, Aaron let twice (1959 & 1967); Mays three times (1954, 1965, & 1968), and Mickey led in the other 10 seasons.

Additionally, Mantle had 6 seasons higher than any by the other two during the 15 year period.

[kailes2872]

No arguments with what has been said. 54-65 Mays was pretty spectacular but his falloff was quick and precipitous.

The awesomeness of Aaron's career was put into perspective last year. They compared Miguel Cabrerra's career through (if I recall correctly) his 31st birthday. He and Hanks numbers were nearly identical. Hank then had a back half of his career that matched his production through the magnificent first half. So, if Cabrera puts up 10 more seasons like the ones he just had, he can live in Bad Henry's neighborhood.

What I believe hurts Aaron is the one MVP and one WS. If they hold on and win 58 vs giving up the 3-1 lead. If the don't lose out to the 59 Dodgers at the End of the season, they beat the Go-Go Sox and win 3 in a row. Aaron should have been the 59 MVP and maybe 55 as well. With 3 MVPs and 3 WS champs in the 50s, his legend doesn't sneak up on folks at the end of his career and he is better appreciated in the moment like the other two were.

[Tabe]

For me, I place a much higher priority on peak value vs longevity. Gimme Sandy Koufax over, say, Don Sutton any day.

Thus, for me, the pick is Mickey Mantle. His peak was a lot higher than the other two. And it wasn't a short peak either. I mean, we're talking a guy who put up OPS+ numbers of 137 or higher every single season of his career outside of his rookie year. In the 10 year stretch from 1955 to 1964, he led the league in OPS+ eight times. And the two years he didn't? He put up OPS+ of 221 (winning an MVP) and 196 (partial season).

So, yeah, gimme Mickey Mantle.

[packs]

I'm taking Hank. Mickey fell off a cliff and Mays was an aging/average slugger after 1965.

Hank was really only a liability the final 3 seasons of a 23 year career. That's 20 straight seasons as a dominating power hitter with no injuries. You can't say that about Mantle or Mays.

[clydepepper]

Hey guys! Guess what? There is NO wrong answer here!

The problem with comparing these three Elite Super Stars is that by picking one you almost have to demean the others...and that's not fair to them. My argument was for Mickey but I concur with the Aaron comments, but Mays shouldn't be slighted in the least - in any comparison - In addition to his hitting and base-running, he played a premium defensive position at Gold Glove level for most of his career. He was clearly a better defender than the other two and was arguably the best base-runner, though Mickey was faster early on.

In separating these three from the rest of the greats, however, we are excluding, from the same time frame - Frank Robinson, Ernie Banks, and Roberto Clemente. Now, I wouldn't vote any of these three over the previous three, but they are but a step or so away.

So hard to select only one!

How very lucky we were to see them play!

[packs]

Who would you guys say is today's Mantle / Aaron / Mays? Maybe Griffey Jr. / Pujols / Miguel Cabrera?

[clydepepper]

I'll make a bold statement and say that Miguel Cabrera is today's Ted Williams!
The best 'pure' hitter of his time, but a less than average defender.


Griffey, Jr. & Mays were similar, but I'm not sure if anyone compares to Mantle or Aaron or Clemente or Banks.

[GoldenAge50s]

"The Mick" is my pick!

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by packs

I'm taking Hank. Mickey fell off a cliff and Mays was an aging/average slugger after 1965.

Hank was really only a liability the final 3 seasons of a 23 year career. That's 20 straight seasons as a dominating power hitter with no injuries. You can't say that about Mantle or Mays.

Mickey's OPS+ his last three years: 170, 149, 143 - right around or exceeding Hank's career OPS+. So when he "fell off a cliff", Mickey dropped way down and... landed at Hank's average. Not bad.

[packs]

I agree wholeheartedly that if Mantle was healthy his whole career, he's the best player since Babe Ruth. But he wasn't and I'd rather have Hank for 23 years than Mantle's injury laden career. In Mick's final 4 seasons his RBI high was 56. That's pretty bad. And he was only 33 years old when he went into his decline. Hank would hit 40 homers or more 3 times after his 33rd birthday.

As a complete player over an entire career, if I'm starting my team and I want to have a cornerstone for the next 20 years I'm picking Hank first.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by packs

I agree wholeheartedly that if Mantle was healthy his whole career, he's the best player since Babe Ruth. But he wasn't and I'd rather have Hank for 23 years than Mantle's injury laden career. In Mick's final 4 seasons his RBI high was 56. That's pretty bad. And he was only 33 years old when he went into his decline. Hank would hit 40 homers or more 3 times after his 33rd birthday.

As a complete player over an entire career, if I'm starting my team and I want to have a cornerstone for the next 20 years I'm picking Hank first.

Considering that Mantle averaged fewer than 400 official ABs over those four seasons and that his leadoff men were the OBP-challenged Bobby Richardson and Horace Clarke his RBI #s are not bad. In fact, in those seasons the highest single year OBP for a Yankee regular other than Mantle was .350 (Roy White). You can't knock in people who are not on base, particularly when you are constantly pitched around.

[packs]

I know this is Mantle so you're prone to give him a pass, but come on. The reason was because Mantle was simply finished after age 33.

Let's also not forget that Hank was a 30-30 player in 1963. He was just as much the complete package, but for a much longer period of time, though with a lower peak.

[howard38]

I'm just going by the numbers. Obviously he was in decline and limited defensively but he was still a good hitter. Chris already pointed out his high OPS+ numbers which combined probably put him in the top five or ten in the AL for those seasons.

[Tabe]

Context matters. In 1968, Mickey hit 18 HRs. Sounds terrible - was actually 13th in the league. He had 54 RBI. Sounds terrible - was actually 25th in the league. . 385 OBP. Sounds not great - was actually 3rd in the league. . 398 SLG. Sounds terrible - was actually 19th in the league.

So he "fell off the cliff" - but he was still a top 20 player in the AL that year.

[packs]

Please see Mantle's twilight years for what they were and not because Mantle had those years is all I'm saying.

[MattyC]

Fun hypothetical. No wrong answers here, that's for sure!

I personally value peak performance most of all-- and also am assuming we are making this choice in a hypothetical parallel reality, in which each man is starting from their rookie season over with of course the same talent and potential. As if they were alive today and all three were there for the drafting.

Given Mantle's freak injury in that early stage of career, and given how teams today can better "life coach" their players (Josh Hamilton notwithstanding), I would choose The Mick. When all three were performing at their peak level, he had the edge. He also had that "je ne sais quoi," that x-factor, that star quality, which put butts in seats like no other (though the other two had it as well, just to lesser degrees).

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Fun hypothetical. No wrong answers here, that's for sure!

I personally value peak performance most of all-- and also am assuming we are making this choice in a hypothetical parallel reality, in which each man is starting from their rookie season over with of course the same talent and potential. As if they were alive today and all three were there for the drafting.

Given Mantle's freak injury in that early stage of career, and given how teams today can better "life coach" their players (Josh Hamilton notwithstanding), I would choose The Mick. When all three were performing at their peak level, he had the edge. He also had that "je ne sais quoi," that x-factor, that star quality, which put butts in seats like no other (though the other two had it as well, just to lesser degrees).

Maybe. But I'm thinking Mays and Aaron might have been even better had they been able to sleep on comfortable beds, eat real meals, not heard "nigger" yelled at them while they played, and been supported and accepted by all their teammates. It's obviously hypothetical, but I think these things would have impacted their stat lines and star power were they playing today vs during Jim Crow.

[majordanby]

looks like baseball prospectus (nate silver) appears to select mays, at least on a season by season basis and using one metric (he discusses mantle vs mays and states that peak performance mays was better than peak performance mantle)

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=6734

[majordanby]

and Bill James compares mantle and mays and chooses mantle in his Historical Baseball Abstract.

[brian1961]

All three were players that could, and did, beat you time after time after time.

At the end of the day, I guess it comes down to, for me, what player has left me with an impact that is simply mammoth, and which will not change---Mickey Mantle.

Collectors and/or fans of Hank or Willie are convinced about them, and they are most correct. Both of them were awe-inspiring and the man you had to stop on their respective teams if you were going to beat them, though Willie benefited greatly by the emergence of Willie McCovey. Hank just kept going, and going, and going---amazing.

So, it becomes an endless argument in the Hot Stove League. I get so tired of hearing all the "Mantle should have taken better care of himself" and "Mantle was always partying and drunk". I'm rather certain in his darkest private thoughts, Don Mattingly wishes hard and viciously condemns himself for throwing away a Hall-of-Fame career with that stupid clubhouse wrestling match he had with pitcher Mike Witt (?/?) that resulted in Don injuring his back, and affected him for the rest of his then curtailed career. We will never know how good Mick would have been had he not had that terrible injury in the 1951 World Series. The only thing I will say about the other matters is that the man was absolutely convinced he would be dead by age 40, just as his dad and other men in his family.

There is a great deal of "the underdog" in the personna of Mickey Mantle. As Hank Bauer very vehemently put it, and I am paraphrasing, for someone who was injured as much as Mickey and partied so hard, I think he did awful good. If that makes you gnash your teeth, I would encourage you to stop lest you chip or fracture those choppers. Just ask Yosemite Sam after what Bugs Bunny did to him in "Buccaneer Bunny". I think we could all do with a laugh right now.

We're all correct, and happy in what we collect. Cheers. --Brian Powell

[egri]

For peak--Mantle

For career--Aaron

For all-around--Mays

[D. Bergin]

Let's not forget about Mays, who led the league in OBP in 1971, after he was supposedly washed up. Throw in 23 steals against only 3 caught.

4th in the league in OPS, 5th in the league in Offensive WAR.

Not bad for a 40 year-old.

Those years he was in "decline" were also years most everybody else in baseball not named Aaron or Yaz, were in "decline".

As to the question, I'd have to flip a coin it's so hard to choose. I'd probably have to go with the durability of Aaron, who led the league in Total Bases 8 times, as opposed to 3 for the other two.

Mickey was probably the most electric of the bunch, but when you factor in that the Yankees had to play their 4th outfielder every time he was out, he's gotta take a slight hit for that.

[refz]

Im in favor of the mick.. all three players were spectacular. Aaron was never hurt and I wonder if the braves fences were pushed back how much that would affect his career

[RTK]

Originally Posted by egri

For peak--Mantle

For career--Aaron

For all-around--Mays

Sounds good to me, I second that.