Mays/Mantle/Aaron

[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).