[Gr8Beldini]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

All quite true, although Aaron was objectively and demonstrably the better player--just check JAWs and runs created per 27 outs to league average. Clemente was a better fielder, but not nearly enough better to close the considerable offensive performance gap, and Aaron was a very good right fielder. In JAWs (career wins above replacement plus 7-year peak wins above replacement divided by two, Aaron is the second best right fielder of all time, with 142.6 career WAR and 60.1 7-year peak WAR.. Clemente is the 6th best, with 94.5 and 54.3 respectively. In runs created per 27 outs taken against the league average, Aaron is over 180%, while Roberto is in the 140%-range. For the reasons Pete has stated, Clemente has the "mystique," which Aaron lacks, hence, with a similar supply, more demand, and more value (VALUE IS ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS in proportion to the demand for an item in relation to the available supply in a free market).

Larry

Aaron was a better player than Clemente; a better player than all but a fist full of players in MLB history. But nobody is debating "better player." Clemente is a God in the Hispanic community. Aaron doesn't have anywhere near that kind of following in any community. Clemente is revered in Pittsburgh... not-so-much Aaron in Milwaukee/Atlanta. Plus Clemente won 2 championships (owning 1971); died a heroic death; his rookie card is scarcer than Hank's... Hank was a great great player; Roberto was an iconic player that was great. There is more demand for "iconic" than for "great."