Hank Aaron card values

[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.

[Gr8Beldini]

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.

Me too.

[KCRfan1]

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.

[MattyC]

Agreed on all subjective personal preference, and how one synthesizes and parses the numbers.

I like to look at league leading performance, and I gravitate to how The Mick led his league in OPS+ a whopping eight times. Aaron stood atop his peers in OPS+ three times.

In terms of MVP of their respective leagues, The Mick had three MVPs, with another three 2nd place finishes. Aaron won one MVP award, and never finished 2nd in another year, his best finishes coming 3rd after that one win.

Mantle also had 50 HR power, whereas despite playing healthy for many years, Aaron never did touch that rarefied benchmark.

I'm also a big on-base guy, and in terms of peak OBP performance, Aaron reached the lofty .400 mark three times, whereas Mantle hit the .400 OBP mark an incredible nine times, with a peak of a mind-boggling .512. And that's not counting a .399 year. Of Aaron's three years where he reached base at a 40% clip, his peak was .410. Mantle had years of .512, .486, .464, and .448. Basically Mantle's 10th best year of getting on base would have been Aaron's 4th best year.

One thing I have always admired about Mantle's game was that even at the very end, with a lowly .245 batting average, the man was getting on base at a .391 clip.

Somehow The Mick slugged .705 in '56, whereas Aaron's peak slugging year clocked in at .669. The Mick had two additional years at .687 and .665. So those four thousandths notwithstanding between .669 and .665, The Mick's 3rd best slugging year was roughly equal to the best Aaron ever put up.

End of the day, though,winding up with either player for a hypothetical team is an amazing thing to contemplate. One of the reasons I am in awe of Hank Aaron is his durability. And also the way he stood up to the very harsh spotlight of his run at Ruth's record. To do anything at such a great level for so long is no doubt as impressive as doing something better than anyone else for a shorter time period. As was said, it comes down to personal preference, and what entertains, what endears a player to each fan. It's always fascinating and enlightening to hear why a fan loves his favorite player.

[MCoxon]

I agree with Matty C's point that we need to agree on what we're solving for when we say "best." I also think we may sometimes overly focus on stats and that we should take into account non-statistical evidence as well (and I'm an economist and businessman). For instance:

1) Number of championships. Even this can be hard to use because great teammates can make one player look great (e.g., Mantle).

Did Ted Williams never win a WS because he didn't have "it"? Or because his teammates weren't good enough? Or because Mantle and the Yanks were too good and kept the Red Sox out of the WS altogether for 12 of Williams' seasons?

Mays and Aaron each only won 1 WS. They had HOFers all over the place as teammates. Spahn, Mathews, McCovey, Cepeda, Marichal. These aren't nobodies. 1 WS each, both when they were in their early- to mid-20s. Why?

2) Club house leadership. I always see someone traded 5-6 times and wonder, was that random, or was he a club house cancer? If someone gets traded every few years, you have to wonder if he just can't get along with teammates, coaches, GMs. That should be considered, as it also influences the ability to get the best out of teammates and ultimately the team. Rico Carty got in fights with Aaron and Santo and had to get traded from the Braves and Cubs because of it, in spite of being a great player on the field (e.g., 1970 Batting Championship with a .360+ avg.)

Point #1 and 2 can be summed up by Barry Bonds - I lived in SF for a lot of his time there. His stats (forget PEDs for the moment) say, at his peak, he was a top 2-3 best hitters ever. On dimensions #1 and 2 - not so great.

3) Play under pressure. Sabrematricians laugh at ERA, but I always feel like advanced stats (especially pitching stats) can mislead on whether a pitcher performs in the clutch. There's a difference between winning a 2-1 game against the other team's #1 on the road in a September pennant race game vs. putting up WHIP numbers in the 5th inning of a meaningless game, when you know you're going to get pulled after 100 pitches, against Tampa in August.

I cringe when I see "greatest game ever pitched" -- as happened sometime earlier this year -- and it was some Tuesday game in April when a guy gave up 2 hits but had the best index of god knows what. No - "the greatest game ever pitched" is throwing 10 innings of shut out ball in a 7th game of a WS (Jack Morris), or throwing perfect game in a pivotal 5th (or 6th, can't remember) game of a WS (Larsen), etc.

So this is a great discussion on statistics (and I love, love, love statistics), but I think there are many non-stats ways to gauge performance, too.

Using the above criteria, it's still a toss up to me. Mantle won tons of championships, was universally beloved by teammates, and played amazing under pressure (18 WS home runs). Aaron also played under pressure - maybe better than anyone in baseball history. I think for that alone, he deserves a lot of credit

[KCRfan1]

I'm pretty old school guys. Regarding the number of championships, Aaron can't help the fact he played on the Braves and Mantle played on the Yankees. MVP Awards are very subjective, even now.

I'm all about the basics: Hits, Runs, Home Runs, Batting Average, Stolen Bases, OBP, Slugging

If I look at these numbers, I still want Aaron.

It's all a matter of perspective, and we can't really go wrong with either guy! The numbers Mick could have put up if he would have remained healthy..........now that's a discussion!