Reasons why I think Hank Aaron is the best all around hitter of all time.

[Broncosballer32]

Was he greatest HR hitter of all time? No.

Was he the greatest hitter for average of all time? No.

When I say ALL AROUND hitter, I include everything. The most important factor for me in regards to my stance is the era that Aaron put up most of his numbers. The 60s. Historians often call the 60s (post livened ball era) as the decade of the pitcher. After the 1961 season, Frick made a decision (or at least baseball did) to raise the mounds across baseball. I believe baseball raised the mounds across the board 6 inches. Which, put 6 inches on breaking balls. Which, if you are a pitcher like Sandy Koufax, will make you dominant as hell.

If we look it up, we would see 1961 (unlike the 1998 celebrated HR race) was very controversial and not celebrated. In fact it was utterly condemned, and Maris was turned into an utter villain. You know it is pathetic when Yankee fans were hating Maris for hitting 61 HRs. Something those fans should never live down for the disgraces they were. Never live down. Anyway, in order to alleviate that problem from ever happening again, baseball made the league decision to give a greater advantage to the pitcher.

When you look across the board at the numbers of the 60s compared to every other decade it is that far off. I believe it was 1968 when baseball shaved the mounds down. I am not sure of the year. Anyway, lets consider all of the factors that Aaron had to deal with.

Many are going to say Cobb, or Ruth, or Williams. Well, those hitters played their careers pre-integration. Therefore, they may not have been facing the very best pitchers available, unlike post integration. Plus, the variety of pitches being thrown pre-1941 was rather scarce compared to what pitches were being thrown by the 60s.

Aaron not only hit 755 HRs, he is also number ONE in RBI, he is third behind Rose and Cobb for total hits. Also, he has nearly TWELVE MILES more TOTAL BASES than the second place person that list Stan Musial.

People mock cumulative numbers, and I was once one of those people. However, getting older I see there is more to appreciate about longevity and quality production over a long period of time than I had really known before.

So based on all of the factors like era etc etc, I think Aaron is the greatest ALL AROUND hitter.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

No. Lots and lots of no. Copious amounts of no. All you did was look at counting totals, when rates are more telling, and say "oh, it was the 60s" instead of looking at stats that adjust for the environment.

The best all-around hitter was either:
Babe Ruth: .342/.474/.690, 206 OPS+, 155.2 oWAR, 2718 RC in 10,622 plate appearances
Ted Williams: .344/.482/.634, 190 OPS+, 126.3 oWAR, 2382 RC in 9,788 plate appearances

It's one of these two. I'm sure someone will bring up Barry Bonds, but I'm not willing to do that as steroids helped him avoid the decline phase most players enter in their late 30s (as opposed to putting up Nintendo numbers).

For comparison:
Hank Aaron: .305/.374/.555, 155 OPS+, 131.6 oWAR, 2552 RC in 13,941 plate appearances

Aaron was an incredible player and had an illustrious career. Not trying to take anything away from him. But playing for an absurdly long time- while impressive and valuable- doesn't make him better than players who performed at a much higher rate but for a shorter period of time. Aaron wasn't even the best hitter of his generation. That distinction belongs to Mickey Mantle. Willie Mays was better too.

 

[Wazmankg]

You would have to give a lot of weight to longevity to put him at #1. Williams last 7 years actually coincided with Aaron's frist 7. Williams was in his mid-late 30s and played a reduced scheduled most of those seasons but nearly all of his rate stats were better than Hank's every one of those years. The integration thing gets overplayed when comparing hitters from Hank's era to those who played before Jackie Robinson. When Hank was playing there just weren't that many great black pitchers he had to face where it would have made much of a difference. Now if you're comparing pre vs post integration pitchers, you'd have a much better argument that the lack of black hitters the old timers had to face boosted their numbers. Even of his peers Mantle and Mays were both at least his equal, though Mantle would lose points due to lack of longevity.

 

[SEC Official]

I wouldn't downplay Jackie Robinson....forget stats... you have to remember he had people yelling racial slurs and pretty much treating him like shit for most of his career... that had to be tough.

 

[Wazmankg]

I wouldn't downplay Jackie Robinson....forget stats... you have to remember he had people yelling racial slurs and pretty much treating him like shit for most of his career... that had to be tough.

I'm not sure what your point is as it relates to the thread. You're not saying that Jackie Robinson was the best hitter ever are you ? The only reason I brought up his name was to make a point about pre vs post integration competition in MLB.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

I wouldn't downplay Jackie Robinson....forget stats... you have to remember he had people yelling racial slurs and pretty much treating him like shit for most of his career... that had to be tough.

You're suggesting Jackie Robinson is arguably the greatest hitter who ever lived because people mistreated him?

 

[Broncosballer32]

No. Lots and lots of no. Copious amounts of no. All you did was look at counting totals, when rates are more telling, and say "oh, it was the 60s" instead of looking at stats that adjust for the environment.

The best all-around hitter was either:
Babe Ruth: .342/.474/.690, 206 OPS+, 155.2 oWAR, 2718 RC in 10,622 plate appearances
Ted Williams: .344/.482/.634, 190 OPS+, 126.3 oWAR, 2382 RC in 9,788 plate appearances

It's one of these two. I'm sure someone will bring up Barry Bonds, but I'm not willing to do that as steroids helped him avoid the decline phase most players enter in their late 30s (as opposed to putting up Nintendo numbers).

For comparison:
Hank Aaron: .305/.374/.555, 155 OPS+, 131.6 oWAR, 2552 RC in 13,941 plate appearances

Aaron was an incredible player and had an illustrious career. Not trying to take anything away from him. But playing for an absurdly long time- while impressive and valuable- doesn't make him better than players who performed at a much higher rate but for a shorter period of time. Aaron wasn't even the best hitter of his generation. That distinction belongs to Mickey Mantle. Willie Mays was better too.

I will state it again. If Ruth or Williams played in the 60s, those numbers would be worse. Not much worse, I guess, but worse.

A lot of players held on for longer than they perhaps should have. Mickey probably held on longer than Aaron. Mantle's last 4 years were pretty unproductive. Willie Mays did not hit over .300 in any of his last 10 seasons. Mays certainly held on longer than Aaron.

I mean Aaron retired in 1976. In 1973, he hit over .300 and 40HRs. 1974 he hit 20 HRs. He was really pretty unproductive over his last two seasons.

Aaron
Hank Aaron Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

Mantle
Mickey Mantle Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

Mays
Willie Mays Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

Now, both of those players and many others had great seasons that overshadow Aaron's best years. Aaron never had that crazy 50 HR season. Averaging close to 200 hits and 38 HRs for 20 years is as impressive or more impressive than those big years though that he never had.

Again, considering that most of his numbers were in the 60s, is something that is overlooked.

 

[Broncosballer32]

You would have to give a lot of weight to longevity to put him at #1. Williams last 7 years actually coincided with Aaron's frist 7. Williams was in his mid-late 30s and played a reduced scheduled most of those seasons but nearly all of his rate stats were better than Hank's every one of those years. The integration thing gets overplayed when comparing hitters from Hank's era to those who played before Jackie Robinson. When Hank was playing there just weren't that many great black pitchers he had to face where it would have made much of a difference. Now if you're comparing pre vs post integration pitchers, you'd have a much better argument that the lack of black hitters the old timers had to face boosted their numbers. Even of his peers Mantle and Mays were both at least his equal, though Mantle would lose points due to lack of longevity.

You sure there were not that many great black pitchers in the 60s?

Maybe not. However, the fact that the 60s was the decade of the pitcher and it was called that for a reason.

I mean could list Bob Gibson or Juan Marichal alone. The fact is Williams nor those great hitters of the 30s or 20s faced the variety of pitchers or PITCHES. Hence, the outlandishly high averages.

Yes, Williams probably would have been great in the 60s. However, we really do not know for a fact, since he did not accumulate his numbers during that time. He hit during an era where many hitters put up great numbers. We just do not know how he would have done against a steady diet of Gibson, Koufax, Marichal, Spahn, Bunning, with the extra 6 inches of break due to the higher mounds.

 

[Wazmankg]

Again because maybe you missed it, but Ted Williams played at the same time as Hank Aaron for his last 7 years. His career was winding down and he played a reduced schedule due to injuries. But, with the exception of 1 season, he was a better hitter than Hank Aaron during those last 7 years. He hit for a higher average. He hit for a better slugging percentage. He hit for a higher OPS. He was a better hitter when he was in the downside of his career and Aaron was in his 20s. How in the world do you figure he would have been worse than Aaron if he was in his prime ?

 

[evolver115]

I will state it again. If Ruth or Williams played in the 60s, those numbers would be worse. Not much worse, I guess, but worse.

A lot of players held on for longer than they perhaps should have. Mickey probably held on longer than Aaron. Mantle's last 4 years were pretty unproductive. Willie Mays did not hit over .300 in any of his last 10 seasons. Mays certainly held on longer than Aaron.

I mean Aaron retired in 1976. In 1973, he hit over .300 and 40HRs. 1974 he hit 20 HRs. He was really pretty unproductive over his last two seasons.

Again, considering that most of his numbers were in the 60s, is something that is overlooked.

Ruth played in a much harder era for the hitter than what Aaron faced in the sixties. It really isn't even close. It's called the dead ball era. One ball would be used for an entire game, the spitter was legal, ball park dimensions regularly exceeded 550' and the the ball itself was not wound near as tight.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

I will state it again. If Ruth or Williams played in the 60s, those numbers would be worse. Not much worse, I guess, but worse.

A lot of players held on for longer than they perhaps should have. Mickey probably held on longer than Aaron. Mantle's last 4 years were pretty unproductive. Willie Mays did not hit over .300 in any of his last 10 seasons. Mays certainly held on longer than Aaron.

I mean Aaron retired in 1976. In 1973, he hit over .300 and 40HRs. 1974 he hit 20 HRs. He was really pretty unproductive over his last two seasons.

Aaron
Hank Aaron Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

Mantle
Mickey Mantle Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

Mays
Willie Mays Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

Now, both of those players and many others had great seasons that overshadow Aaron's best years. Aaron never had that crazy 50 HR season. Averaging close to 200 hits and 38 HRs for 20 years is as impressive or more impressive than those big years though that he never had.

Again, considering that most of his numbers were in the 60s, is something that is overlooked.

THERE ARE STATISTICS THAT ADJUST FOR ERA! How hard is this to understand? Ruth and Williams didn't play in the 60s. Great. There are statistics (I provided them) which adjust everyone to be approximately on a level playing field. Ruth and Williams were still much better.

You just provided links which show that Mantle and Mays were both better hitters. Maybe you should look closer.

Also, you seem enamored with hits, home runs, and batting average. There are statistics that tell you a lot more about a hitter's ability. I suggest you review them.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

You sure there were not that many great black pitchers in the 60s?

Maybe not. However, the fact that the 60s was the decade of the pitcher and it was called that for a reason.

I mean could list Bob Gibson or Juan Marichal alone. The fact is Williams nor those great hitters of the 30s or 20s faced the variety of pitchers or PITCHES. Hence, the outlandishly high averages.

Yes, Williams probably would have been great in the 60s. However, we really do not know for a fact, since he did not accumulate his numbers during that time. He hit during an era where many hitters put up great numbers. We just do not know how he would have done against a steady diet of Gibson, Koufax, Marichal, Spahn, Bunning, with the extra 6 inches of break due to the higher mounds.

This is just... just... I can't even put into words...

 

[Broncosballer32]

Ruth played in a much harder era for the hitter than what Aaron faced in the sixties. It really isn't even close. It's called the dead ball era. One ball would be used for an entire game, the spitter was legal, ball park dimensions regularly exceeded 550' and the the ball itself was not wound near as tight.

The dead ball era? You mean when he was a pitcher in Boston. The dead ball era made it harder to hit HOMERUNS. However, many hitters consistently hit over .400.

Ty Cobb did it during the dead ball era several times. Many others as well.

Then after the ball was livened after the 1920 season, Babe Ruth played in an era where it was far easier for hitters than the 60s. Far easier.

The "slurve" did not even exist until after the 1941 season, and really did not get effectively utilized until after the 1950s.

Again, the mounds were raised in the 60s 6 inches, which put 6 inches of break on a breaking ball.

 

[Wazmankg]

Also the pitchers mound was not raised in the 60s. It was lowered to help the batters after the 1968 season "the year of the pitcher". You don't account for the expansion of 4 teams in 1961 either. William retired after the 1960 season. In 61 4 teams were added, with 4 pitching staffs of guys who otherwise would not have been pitching in the majors. That actually made it easier to put up big numbers ... especially in the early-mid 60s which was evidenced by Maris & Mantle's duel chasing Ruth in 61.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Also, you specifically used the term "all-around hitter". This, to me, would indicate that you are also accounting for elements like plate discipline. Yet, you completely ignore on-base percentage, where Ruth, Williams, and Mantle dwarf Aaron. Care to explain what you mean by "all-around hitter"?

 

[Broncosballer32]

THERE ARE STATISTICS THAT ADJUST FOR ERA! How hard is this to understand? Ruth and Williams didn't play in the 60s. Great. There are statistics (I provided them) which adjust everyone to be approximately on a level playing field. Ruth and Williams were still much better.

You just provided links which show that Mantle and Mays were both better hitters. Maybe you should look closer.

Also, you seem enamored with hits, home runs, and batting average. There are statistics that tell you a lot more about a hitter's ability. I suggest you review them.

I did review them. I said their best seasons were better than any of Aaron's best seasons. However, the simple fact is they both held on for a longer period than Aaron. Aaron was only truly unproductive over his last 2 seasons.

Mantle and Mays were unproductive for longer periods of time, and held on a bit longer.

That was why I provided the stats.

 

[Broncosballer32]

Also the pitchers mound was not raised in the 60s. It was lowered to help the batters after the 1968 season "the year of the pitcher". You don't account for the expansion of 4 teams in 1961 either. William retired after the 1960 season. In 61 4 teams were added, with 4 pitching staff of guys who otherwise would not have been pitching in the majors. That actually made it easier to put up big numbers ... especially in the early-mid 60s which was evidenced by Maris & Mantle's duel chasing Ruth in 61.

The mounds were raised in the 1962 by baseball. The numbers in the 60s after this were far off. Baseball historians all know the decade of the pitcher was the 60s.

Look it up. The numbers were way off.

Frick did not want anyone to chase Ruth's record. Again, Frick put that infamour asterisk on *61 for Maris cause he did not break the record in 154 games. However, the fact is Maris faced many more variety of pitches than Ruth.

 

[evolver115]

The dead ball era? You mean when he was a pitcher in Boston. The dead ball era made it harder to hit HOMERUNS. However, many hitters consistently hit over .400.

Ty Cobb did it during the dead ball era several times. Many others as well.

Then after the ball was livened after the 1920 season, Babe Ruth played in an era where it was far easier for hitters than the 60s. Far easier.

Ruth had already pounded out 500 hits and 100 home runs by the time of the 1921 ball change. He was still playing in an era when the spitter and a myriad of other ways of doctoring the baseball to support the pitcher was commonplace, even if it wasn't legal.

 

[Broncosballer32]

Also, you specifically used the term "all-around hitter". This, to me, would indicate that you are also accounting for elements like plate discipline. Yet, you completely ignore on-base percentage, where Ruth, Williams, and Mantle dwarf Aaron. Care to explain what you mean by "all-around hitter"?

Sure. Aaron ACCUMULATED the 3rd most hits all time. He was not really a strike out hitter either. I mean for a power hitter that ACCUMULATED over 700 HRs, you would think he would be.

He never struck out 100 times in any season. Most seasons struck out under 65 times.

Now, he did not draw many walks, which means he put a lot of balls in play.

His best seasons are not going to compare to many of the greatest years of Williams or Ruth. However, I explained that. We can sepculate all we want how WIlliams would have done in the 60s. Since there is no way to prove it, my claim that they would not have done as well is equally as valid as anyone's claim that say they would thrived.

However, to not consider the raising of mounds, the 6 inches of break added to breaking balls, and the overall depth of quality of pitches due to higher integration is foolish imo.

Again, Aaron's numbers, if you take them at simple face value do not really compare to those of Williams best years. There is more to consider however in regards to those numbers.

Also, the fact that Aaron has nearly 12 miles more total bases than the second place batter in Stan Musial.

Read that again. 12 miles more total bases. No one will ever break that.

 

[Broncosballer32]

Ruth had already pounded out 500 hits and 100 home runs by the time of the 1921 ball change. He was still playing in an era when the spitter and a myriad of other ways of doctoring the baseball to support the pitcher was commonplace, even if it wasn't legal.

You suggesting Aaron never faced spitters? When did Gaylord Perry pitch?

Did Ruth ever face a slider? A standard slider? No. The "slurve" was not put into a pitches repertoire until at least after the 1940s. Was not really a regular pitch until the late 50s.

Knuckler? Who pitched a knuckle ball in the 20s?

Not saying Ruth was not great, but the batting average numbers clearly indicate that there were far fewer pitches the hitters were looking for.