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

[ImSmartherThanYou]

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.

I think you need to define the term "unproductive".

Yes, Willie Mays had an embarrassing end in his last season, but it was just one season. In 1971, he put up a .271/.425/.482 line for a 158 OPS+. He led the league in on-base percentage. In 1972, he put up a .250/.400/.402 line for a 131 OPS+. That's unproductive? Reduced from what fans had become accustomed to, but still very productive.

Mantle was similarly "less productive", but certainly far from "unproductive". In his last four seasons, Mantle averaged a .254/.386/.450 line for a 149 OPS+. That's unproductive????

Aaron unquestionably had a remarkable season at the age of 39 in 1973. He put up a .301/.402/.643 line for a 177 OPS+. This season was historic. And two years before that, he had an even better season at the age of 37. But from 74-76, Aaron put up a line of .243/.331/.401 for a 107 OPS+. So he had a pretty embarrassing end, as well. And he also had the advantage of DHing his last two seasons.

Again, I fail to see how Aaron was better than these two, and especially Ruth and Williams.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

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.

Aaron also ACCUMULATED the 3rd most plate appearances in the history of baseball. You seem to fail to recognize that. Rates are more important than totals.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

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.

Seriously???

 

[evolver115]

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?

Are you suggesting Ruth never faced a screwball?... Or fadeaway as Christy Mathewson dubbed it. The relevancy of arguing pitch repertoire is irrelevant as every era had something unique about it.

Take for example your guess on the appearance of the knuckleball. By 1908 Eddie "knuckles" Cicotte had perfected the pitch.

That doesn't even account for the spike balls, scuff balls, spitters, etc. that Ruth's era was rampant with.

 

[Wazmankg]

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.

I've never heard the 60s called the decade of the pitcher. 68 was "the year of the pitcher" but not the entire decade. Hitters did just fine in the 60s until 67 or 68. I could be wrong but I've never heard about this raising of the mound either. The height of the mound was set at 15" in the early 1900s. It wasn't changed until it was lowered to ~10" after the 68 season. Some teams tried to get away with messing with it but 15" from the early 1900-1968 is all I can find. Do you have a link for this "raising of the mound" ?

 

[Broncosballer32]

I've never heard the 60s called the decade of the pitcher. 68 was "the year of the pitcher" but not the entire decade. Hitters did just fine in the 60s until 67 or 68. I could be wrong but I've never heard about this raising of the mound either. The height of the mound was set at 15" in the early 1900s. It wasn't changed until it was lowered to ~10" after the 68 season. Some teams tried to get away with messing with it but 15" from the early 1900-1968 is all I can find. Do you have a link for this "raising of the mound" ?

It was a period known as the "second dead ball era" by baseball historians.

Second deadball era - BR Bullpen

The Second deadball era was a period of time, from roughly 1964 to 1972, when batting averages were unusually low in major league baseball. Some observers would extend the time period as far as 1963-76.

The first deadball era had lasted from roughly 1901 to 1919, and many fans were not quite able to understand why players in that era didn't hit as well as the ones from the 1890s. In the same way, fans were not quite clear as to why players in 1968 hit for batting averages much lower than players from previous decades. There were always many fans, and some ex-players, who maintained that the players from 1964 to 1972 just weren't as good as the previous ones, even though many of the players in the 1960s had also played in the 1950s.

The National League batting averages started at a somewhat higher level and did not drop as far. The NL had hit over .260 in 1961 and 1962, and so the drop was mainly into the .240s. Between 1962 and 1963 there was a sixteen point drop in the league batting average. It would be 1977 before the National League again hit over .260.

The worst year for the National League was also 1968, when .291 would get you on the list of the top ten batters in the league. That .291 average belonged to Roberto Clemente, one of the highest average hitters of the second deadball era, and it was the only year from 1960 to 1972 when he would hit under .312.

------------------------------------

Many other historians say this second dead ball era was more between 63 to 68. The mounds were lowered following the 1968 season.

 

[Lord Scalious]

Aaron also ACCUMULATED the 3rd most plate appearances in the history of baseball. You seem to fail to recognize that. Rates are more important than totals.

Value is thru accumulation though. Rates AND totals need to be looked at it...

There is Merit to staying healthier and productive for a longer period of time.

I offer you 2 deals

$30 an Hour over 10 hours
$35 an Hour over 8 Hours

Which one do you take?

Now this Ruth vs Aaron is an unfair comparison. Since our Knowledge of Health and Advances in Medical Tech were different in the 2 timelines..

 

[Wazmankg]

It was a period known as the "second dead ball era" by baseball historians.

Second deadball era - BR Bullpen

The Second deadball era was a period of time, from roughly 1964 to 1972, when batting averages were unusually low in major league baseball. Some observers would extend the time period as far as 1963-76.

The first deadball era had lasted from roughly 1901 to 1919, and many fans were not quite able to understand why players in that era didn't hit as well as the ones from the 1890s. In the same way, fans were not quite clear as to why players in 1968 hit for batting averages much lower than players from previous decades. There were always many fans, and some ex-players, who maintained that the players from 1964 to 1972 just weren't as good as the previous ones, even though many of the players in the 1960s had also played in the 1950s.

The National League batting averages started at a somewhat higher level and did not drop as far. The NL had hit over .260 in 1961 and 1962, and so the drop was mainly into the .240s. Between 1962 and 1963 there was a sixteen point drop in the league batting average. It would be 1977 before the National League again hit over .260.

The worst year for the National League was also 1968, when .291 would get you on the list of the top ten batters in the league. That .291 average belonged to Roberto Clemente, one of the highest average hitters of the second deadball era, and it was the only year from 1960 to 1972 when he would hit under .312.

------------------------------------

Many other historians say this second dead ball era was more between 63 to 68. The mounds were lowered following the 1968 season.

I missed the part about where they raised the mound as you claimed. I also haven't seen your reasoning for why you think Williams wouldn't have had better numbers than Aaron in his prime when he had better numbers than Aaron when he was in his late 30s.

 

[Broncosballer32]

Value is thru accumulation though. Rates AND totals need to be looked at it...

There is Merit to staying healthier and productive for a longer period of time.

I offer you 2 deals

$30 an Hour over 10 hours
$35 an Hour over 8 Hours

Which one do you take?

Now this Ruth vs Aaron is an unfair comparison. Since our Knowledge of Health and Advances in Medical Tech were different in the 2 timelines..

Yes. My point precisely. There is no way for me to argue that Aaron put up numbers in his best seasons compared to those great hitters like Williams or Ruth.

That would be ridiculous.

However, stats as I say are like bikinis......

What they reveal is suggestive. What they conceal is vital.

Now the reason I put this subject on here is reveal some vital factors that are not considered when we compare and contrast hitters statistics from era to era.

Cumulative stats are quite indicative of greatness. Especially when one would need to average about 200 hits and 38 HRs over a 20 year period over a 20 year span to accumulate those.


Like I said, you look at his stats, he really only hung on over his last 2 seasons. Most players hang on and accumulate stats at their end. Including Mantle and Mays.

 

[Broncosballer32]

I missed the part about where they raised the mound as you claimed. I also haven't seen your reasoning for why you think Williams wouldn't have had better numbers than Aaron in his prime when he had better numbers than Aaron when he was in his late 30s.

I did not say he would not have better numbers than Aaron. I said there is no way to know whether or not he would have had the great numbers he did have if he played in the 60s instead of when he did in the 40s and 50s.

You see the difference or not?

The Business of Baseball - Albert Theodore Powers - Google Books

It is not easy to find, but the mounds were clearly raised, and strike zones were clearly expanded in the early 60s.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Like I said, you look at his stats, he really only hung on over his last 2 seasons. Most players hang on and accumulate stats at their end. Including Mantle and Mays.

Mantle finished top 5 in OBP and top 10 in OPS each of his final two seasons...and in 1967 he was 8th in HR, and in 1968 he finished 3 HR shy of finishing top 10.

I don't think we're giving Mantle's final years enough credit here.

 

[Wazmankg]

I did not say he would not have better numbers than Aaron. I said there is no way to know whether or not he would have had the great numbers he did have if he played in the 60s instead of when he did in the 40s and 50s.

You see the difference or not?

The Business of Baseball - Albert Theodore Powers - Google Books

It is not easy to find, but the mounds were clearly raised, and strike zones were clearly expanded in the early 60s.

Obviously with players from different eras there's no way to definitively know how they would have done in each others era. But with Williams and Aaron we have 2 guys who played at the same time for 7 seasons. Those 7 seasons covered a time when Williams was 35-41 years old and he still had better rate stats than Aaron over those years. Williams also lost nearly 5 seasons during his prime due to military service which accounts for his overall longevity stats deficit. No serious observer of the game argues that Aaron was a better overall hitter than Williams. He wasn't and it really isn't all that close.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I did not say he would not have better numbers than Aaron. I said there is no way to know whether or not he would have had the great numbers he did have if he played in the 60s instead of when he did in the 40s and 50s.

You see the difference or not?

The Business of Baseball - Albert Theodore Powers - Google Books

It is not easy to find, but the mounds were clearly raised, and strike zones were clearly expanded in the early 60s.

Broncos, the problem with your argument is that you are comparing Aaron to better hitters... if you want to claim that the 60's was one of the hardest decades to be a hitter, nobody can argue that, if you want to claim accumulated(compiler) stats are a huge positive and not a negative, i would agree with you again about that... But when players like Ted williams, and Babe ruth are brought into the conversation about just hitting, you have to understand that not even Aaron is as good as them...

 

[StanMarsh51]

Obviously with players from different eras there's no way to definitively know how they would have done in each others era. But with Williams and Aaron we have 2 guys who played at the same time for 7 seasons. Those 7 seasons covered a time when Williams was 35-41 years old and he still had better rate stats than Aaron over those years. Williams also lost nearly 5 seasons during his prime due to military service which accounts for his overall longevity stats deficit. No serious observer of the game argues that Aaron was a better overall hitter than Williams. He wasn't and it really isn't all that close.

Good point...from 1954-1960 (when both Aaron and Williams played), Williams hit .337 with a 189 OPS+ over 3,200 plate appearances.....Aaron never had a stretch of 3,000+ PAs where his AVG or OPS+ were that high.

So if Aaron could never hit as good as Williams did at the end of his career when they both played (in addition to overall career #'s), how can we conclude that Aaron was the better hitter?

 

[Swangin]

Value is thru accumulation though. Rates AND totals need to be looked at it...

There is Merit to staying healthier and productive for a longer period of time.

I offer you 2 deals

$30 an Hour over 10 hours
$35 an Hour over 8 Hours

Which one do you take?

Now this Ruth vs Aaron is an unfair comparison. Since our Knowledge of Health and Advances in Medical Tech were different in the 2 timelines..

If I was a 100 meter runner and won 8 races and posted a 9.58 time in all of those races and then stopped running. You raced for longer and won 15 races but never ran below 9.7 would consider yourself faster?

 

[DragonfromTO]

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.

Assuming that this is true, wouldn't these differences affect every one of Aaron's batting contemporaries as well? And if so, why aren't Aaron's era adjusted numbers even close to those of Ruth and Williams?

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

You seem to really be hung up on that "12 miles of total bases" thing as if that cancels out the fact that there are several hitters (even from his own era) who were plain and simply more productive and effective hitters. He just got a bazillion more plate appearances. His longevity is very much to his credit, but it doesn't make up that much ground on guys who have up to .200 points of OPS on him.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Was he greatest HR hitter of all time? No.

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

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

I'm not the biggest MLB fan (especially after they cancelled a WS b/c they couldn't figure out way to agree on money)...but on this topic I do agree with you. Largely because of the mound being raised and the HOF pitchers he faced during his era. Ruth imo is great home run hitter, and Williams the great avg hitter, but when you take it all into account...Aaron does come out on top.

 

[Swangin]

You seem to really be hung up on that "12 miles of total bases" thing as if that cancels out the fact that there are several hitters (even from his own era) who were plain and simply more productive and effective hitters. He just got a bazillion more plate appearances. His longevity is very much to his credit, but it doesn't make up that much ground on guys who have up to .200 points of OPS on him.

But that is more of a case to me as to talking about someone's career. when asking, who is the most dominant pitcher, better hitter, best base stealer, to me that is separate than talking about over all careers. So when discussing "best all around hitter" longevity doesn't come into play as much as long as there is enough of a sample size from someone to compare that player to. So I really feel in this situation longevity shouldn't really come into play as a huge factor unless you wanted to compare to a guy that only played a handful of seasons.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

But that is more of a case to me as to talking about someone's career. when asking, who is the most dominant pitcher, better hitter, best base stealer, to me that is separate than talking about over all careers. So when discussing "best all around hitter" longevity doesn't come into play as much as long as there is enough of a sample size from someone to compare that player to. So I really feel in this situation longevity shouldn't really come into play as a huge factor unless you wanted to compare to a guy that only played a handful of seasons.

To me, best "all-around hitter of all-time" would be a combination of someone who was both extremely dominant at their peak *and* had great longevity.

Something that seems to be eluding the OP is that Williams, Ruth, Mantle and Mays all were very durable and played a long time. Williams lost time due to the wars, but still played a ton despite that fact. Aaron was more durable than all of them, and yes, stayed most consistent throughout his career, but it's not like you're talking about guys who were here today and gone tomorrow. We're not talking about guys who dramatically fell of a cliff at an early age. These are all guys who had long, productive careers, just like Aaron did. Except they were better at their best to go along with it.

Hell, I'm not sure if Aaron is one of the top 10 hitters of all-time. He may just be in the Top 10, but I haven't really sat and examined the subject in a while. But he's not the best, and certainly not Top 5. Again, that's not to take anything away from him. He was a legend. He's incredible. He was a great all-around player and a fine, fine man. But facts are facts. There were guys who were better hitters when taking all factors into account (average, OBP, power, era, peak, longevity, etc, etc, etc).