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

[Swangin]

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).

Personally I just put less stock into extended careers when talking about "best hitter." To me that shows more talent or better at a certain skill. Extended careers shows me more value, or ranking as an over all career. If someone shows me Player A, that had 12 years of dominant hitting, that is enough of a sample size to show me what kind of hitter that player was. If another player (B) was productive for 22 years and had some great seasons, but never really had the numbers in any of his years as I saw from the playerA that played 12 years, I might say Player B had the better career, but Player A was the "better hitter" If that makes sense.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Even though i think the OP is going at this the wrong way... The OP does bring up 2 interesting debates

1. What are the affects of the era played in?? how do you compare a player from the 1960's to a player of the 2000's?? is one generation harder to play in??

2. Longevity vs quality(compiler stats vs on pace stats).

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Personally I just put less stock into extended careers when talking about "best hitter." To me that shows more talent or better at a certain skill. Extended careers shows me more value, or ranking as an over all career. If someone shows me Player A, that had 12 years of dominant hitting, that is enough of a sample size to show me what kind of hitter that player was. If another player (B) was productive for 22 years and had some great seasons, but never really had the numbers in any of his years as I saw from the playerA that played 12 years, I might say Player B had the better career, but Player A was the "better hitter" If that makes sense.

I think there's a balance. There's a point where the "longevity guy" can pass the "peak guy". However, guys like Ruth, Williams, Bonds, Cobb, Hornsby, Mantle, Mays, etc. etc. are both longevity guys *and* peak guys. Aaron is both too, IMO, but his overall numbers just aren't as impressive as the guys mentioned above and he didn't really have a "peak". He had a collection of 5-7 seasons which would constitute a peak, but they were not clustered together, but rather spread out over the entire length of his career.

 

[Broncosballer32]

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?

I never said Williams could not hit as well as Hank in the 60s, however we will never know. What I did say, and what I am confident about is his numbers would not be as dominating as they were in the 40s. I am confident with that. I cannot prove that, just like you cannot prove they would have been as good. Being that the numbers in the 60s were so far down across the board and the dynamics of the pitching in the 60s due to rule changes etc, my stance is perfectly reasonable.

In that time from 1954 to 1960....

Ted Williams had 184 HRs.
Ted Williams had 461 RBI
Ted Williams had 850 hits
Ted Williams had 153 doubles.

In that same time Hank Aaron had....

Hank Aaron had 219 HRs
Hank Aaron had 743 RBI
Hank Aaron had 1,309 hits
Hank Aaron had 220 doubles.

I know these are rather old school numbers that does not fit very well with Bill James. Also do not get me wrong, Ted Williams was injured A LOT over his last 7 seasons. The Red Sox basically sucked. Of course, they were the last team to integrate. Boston was a very racist town. So much so they passed on Willie Mays when they could have had him.

It is just that when people say Ted Williams had such superior numbers in his last 7 seasons than Hank Aaron are really cherry picking stats.

Stats are like bikinis remember......

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Even though i think the OP is going at this the wrong way... The OP does bring up 2 interesting debates

1. What are the affects of the era played in?? how do you compare a player from the 1960's to a player of the 2000's?? is one generation harder to play in??

2. Longevity vs quality(compiler stats vs on pace stats).

1. By looking at league-adjusted stats, and comparing the player by his domination over his immediate peers. I would never suggest you compare Ty Cobb to Babe Ruth to Ted Williams to Hank Aaron to Barry Bonds on the strength of their raw numbers. That doesn't account for the differing environment each of the guys played in. But you *CAN* evaluate them against their peers, and then compare each man's dominance over his peers to the other. Ruth dominated his peers to the greatest degree of any hitter in history, and he had the longevity as well to amass incredible career totals.

2. I look for both. I've never suggested that Aaron at his best wasn't an incredible hitter, and his durability and longevity are a credit to his resume, not a detriment.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

I never said Williams could not hit as well as Hank in the 60s, however we will never know. What I did say, and what I am confident about is his numbers would not be as dominating as they were in the 40s. I am confident with that. I cannot prove that, just like you cannot prove they would have been as good. Being that the numbers in the 60s were so far down across the board and the dynamics if the pitching in the 60s due to rule changes etc, my stance is perfectly reasonable.

In that time from 1954 to 1960....

Ted Williams had 184 HRs.
Ted Williams had 461 RBI
Ted Williams had 850 hits
Ted Williams had 153 doubles.

In that same time Hank Aaron had....

Hank Aaron had 219 HRs
Hank Aaron had 743 RBI
Hank Aaron had 1,309 hits
Hank Aaron had 220 doubles.

I know these are rather old school numbers that does not fit very well with Bill James. Also do not get me wrong, Ted Williams was injured A LOT over his last 7 seasons. The Red Sox basically sucked. Of course, they were the last team to integrate. Boston was a very racist town. So much so they passed on Willie Mays when they could have had him.

It is just that when people say Ted Williams had such superior numbers in his last 7 seasons than Hank Aaron are really cherry picking stats.

Stats are like bikinis remember......

Do you have a bikini analogy that refers to ignored parts of the bikini?

I don't care about the "old school numbers". I care about the numbers that have been around forever that you're completely ignoring, like on-base percentage and slugging percentage. All you're looking at is counting stats. Rate stats are much more valuable in evaluating players because they let you compare against league average and take sample size into account.

Also, Williams wasn't injured a lot. He simply didn't play a full slate of games in order to keep him rested and prepared for important games. For instance, they sat him in the 2nd game of a lot of double headers, and wouldn't play him more than "x" number of games in a row to keep him fresh. He also missed time due to a messy divorce on year. He really was only injured in one of the seasons, and only missed 6 weeks with said injury.

I also don't see the relevance of Boston's integration timeline and Boston's history of racism. How is it relevant to this?

 

[Broncosballer32]

Personally I just put less stock into extended careers when talking about "best hitter." To me that shows more talent or better at a certain skill. Extended careers shows me more value, or ranking as an over all career. If someone shows me Player A, that had 12 years of dominant hitting, that is enough of a sample size to show me what kind of hitter that player was. If another player (B) was productive for 22 years and had some great seasons, but never really had the numbers in any of his years as I saw from the playerA that played 12 years, I might say Player B had the better career, but Player A was the "better hitter" If that makes sense.

Lets talk about this "extended play" thing you are talking about. Most players with the exception of very few extend their time beyond what their prime was. We are seeing it now with Ichiro etc. Is Giambi still playing? Yeah.

Anyway, when we look at Aarons extended play, the year before he broke the Ruth record with 715, he actually hit 40 HRs. In 1973, he batted over .300 and 40 HRs in 120 games played.

I say that to say that he did not just hang on to merely break the record. He was actually very productive the year before, and of course he was going to hang on to break the record. You could almost see the amount of pressure that was put on him. Death threats, racist people. It certainly affected him.

Anyway, in 1974 (record breaking year) he played in 112 games and hit 20 HRs. I mean if he played 160, would he have hit 30? No? Yeah. So his production was not so bad. However he was breaking down. Basically he hung on for TWO more years. Nothing outlandish about that.

Virtually every player goes beyond and extends their play.

I say ALL OF THAT because it certainly seems there is a perception that he merely hung on to accumulate numbers like Emmitt Smith in football. No, that is not really the case.

 

[Broncosballer32]

Do you have a bikini analogy that refers to ignored parts of the bikini?

I don't care about the "old school numbers". I care about the numbers that have been around forever that you're completely ignoring, like on-base percentage and slugging percentage. All you're looking at is counting stats. Rate stats are much more valuable in evaluating players because they let you compare against league average and take sample size into account.

Also, Williams wasn't injured a lot. He simply didn't play a full slate of games in order to keep him rested and prepared for important games. For instance, they sat him in the 2nd game of a lot of double headers, and wouldn't play him more than "x" number of games in a row to keep him fresh. He also missed time due to a messy divorce on year. He really was only injured in one of the seasons, and only missed 6 weeks with said injury.

I also don't see the relevance of Boston's integration timeline and Boston's history of racism. How is it relevant to this?

You think OBP are old school numbers?

Sabermatrics which OBP and OPS are all a part of, are all relatively new. Certainly not old school.

Granted, Ted Williams percentages were all greater than Aaron in his last 7 years, but Aaron (durable and young) had more production. Period.

Does that mean he was a better hitter than Ted Williams in that time? Not really. Then again over all numbers from Hank during that time were greater. Should durability be a part of the equation? I think so. Why not?

You say I ignore the OPS or OBP. Fine. Again, you have your stats, and I have mine. BTW, in that time the Braves were a lot more successful than the Red Sox. Now, how does that relate? I do not know. Would the Braves have won it all in 1957 if Hank was not there?

I do not think so.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

You think OBP are old school numbers?

Sabermatrics which OBP and OPS are all a part of, are all relatively new. Certainly not old school.

Granted, Ted Williams percentages were all greater than Aaron in his last 7 years, but Aaron (durable and young) had more production. Period.

Does that mean he was a better hitter than Ted Williams in that time? Not really. Then again over all numbers from Hank during that time were greater. Should durability be a part of the equation? I think so. Why not?

You say I ignore the OPS or OBP. Fine. Again, you have your stats, and I have mine. BTW, in that time the Braves were a lot more successful than the Red Sox. Now, how does that relate? I do not know. Would the Braves have won it all in 1957 if Hank was not there?

I do not think so.

You officially have no clue what you're talking about whatsoever. On-base percentage has existed since the 1950s and has been used by scouts and front offices since. On-base percentage existed long before sabermetrics.

I don't have "my stats". I look at everything, as any intelligent person would as they try to form an educated opinion. You apparently have no interest in forming an educated opinion.

I can't continue to discuss a topic with someone who is so willfully ignorant of basic information.

 

[Broncosballer32]

You officially have no clue what you're talking about whatsoever. On-base percentage has existed since the 1950s and has been used by scouts and front offices since. On-base percentage existed long before sabermetrics.

I don't have "my stats". I look at everything, as any intelligent person would as they try to form an educated opinion. You apparently have no interest in forming an educated opinion.

I can't continue to discuss a topic with someone who is so willfully ignorant of basic information.

Yeah, you are lost on the over all point. There is no way to calculate eras, and my contention that the 60s was referred to as the second dead ball era is still valid whether or not you want to include the fact that the scouts used OBP since the 50s or not.

There is no way to no how a hitter like WIlliams would have done in those condition.

The fact is the longevity and durability is also a factor. People insist Ted Williams had far better numbers in his last 7 years. Well, cumulatively he didn't.

I have also shown how Hank Aaron really did not hang on to cumulate numbers any more than most ball players that play well past their prime.

The simple fact is no player in baseball history cumulated the numbers over a career like Aaron. Most people only consider the HRs and 755. I showed how it was not only HRs. He was a far more effective hitter than just a power hitter.

You can say I am ignorant about the game all you want. Feel comfortable in that insult.

 

[Swangin]

Yeah, you are lost on the over all point. There is no way to calculate eras, and my contention that the 60s was referred to as the second dead ball era is still valid whether or not you want to include the fact that the scouts used OBP since the 50s or not.

There is no way to no how a hitter like WIlliams would have done in those condition.

The fact is the longevity and durability is also a factor. People insist Ted Williams had far better numbers in his last 7 years. Well, cumulatively he didn't.

I have also shown how Hank Aaron really did not hang on to cumulate numbers any more than most ball players that play well past their prime.

The simple fact is no player in baseball history cumulated the numbers over a career like Aaron. Most people only consider the HRs and 755. I showed how it was not only HRs. He was a far more effective hitter than just a power hitter.

You can say I am ignorant about the game all you want. Feel comfortable in that insult.

But yet you choose to ignore a lot of stats to prove other wise, but confident in using "TEAM" Wins?

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Yeah, you are lost on the over all point. There is no way to calculate eras, and my contention that the 60s was referred to as the second dead ball era is still valid whether or not you want to include the fact that the scouts used OBP since the 50s or not.

There is no way to no how a hitter like WIlliams would have done in those condition.

The fact is the longevity and durability is also a factor. People insist Ted Williams had far better numbers in his last 7 years. Well, cumulatively he didn't.

I have also shown how Hank Aaron really did not hang on to cumulate numbers any more than most ball players that play well past their prime.

The simple fact is no player in baseball history cumulated the numbers over a career like Aaron. Most people only consider the HRs and 755. I showed how it was not only HRs. He was a far more effective hitter than just a power hitter.

You can say I am ignorant about the game all you want. Feel comfortable in that insult.

I'm not lost. You are completely ignoring any and all numbers that indicate hitters that were better, and the fact that statistics exist which *DO* account for different eras, because it doesn't suit your little "12 miles of total bases" speech. You're ignoring facts. You're ignoring that I showed that guys like Williams, Mantle and Mays didn't hang on at the ends of their careers to "cumulate" (I think the word you're looking for is "accumulate"), which you've continually suggested they did.

You started this thread. You obviously wanted to introduce your opinion and how you arrived at it. Prepare to have your analysis scrutinized and have counter arguments made. You've constructed an opinion on a bullshit premise. That's fine. You can hold that opinion- which would be silly- or you can adapt and learn something from people who are perfectly willing to share their opinions of the game and its history. No one here is saying anything negative about Aaron. Not once. Everyone is well aware that he was great and great for a LONG time. But there were guys better, and perfectly valid reasons have been given as to why.

 

[Broncosballer32]

I'm not lost. You are completely ignoring any and all numbers that indicate hitters that were better, and the fact that statistics exist which *DO* account for different eras, because it doesn't suit your little "12 miles of total bases" speech. You're ignoring facts. You're ignoring that I showed that guys like Williams, Mantle and Mays didn't hang on at the ends of their careers to "cumulate" (I think the word you're looking for is "accumulate"), which you've continually suggested they did.

You started this thread. You obviously wanted to introduce your opinion and how you arrived at it. Prepare to have your analysis scrutinized and have counter arguments made. You've constructed an opinion on a bullshit premise. That's fine. You can hold that opinion- which would be silly- or you can adapt and learn something from people who are perfectly willing to share their opinions of the game and its history. No one here is saying anything negative about Aaron. Not once. Everyone is well aware that he was great and great for a LONG time. But there were guys better, and perfectly valid reasons have been given as to why.

A fucking bullshit premise. What fucking bullshit premise? You want to throw around fucking curse words? I am fucking game mother fucker.

You want to fucking ignore eras, and how that is a fucking factor. You want to fucking insist Ted WIlliams or fucking Babe Ruth would have put the same fucking numbers in a fucking decade where all fucking offensive numbers were down and all fucking pitching numbers flourished? Fine, you fucking feel fucking free to do just that.

Me? I fucking consider those as rather crucial and something goes ignored by mother fuckers like you.

You think that is all bullshit? I think you are fucking idiot who never fucking even considered eras. Anyone that fucking suggests eras make no difference are the ones that are fucking clueless.

Trust that mother fucker.

 

[Broncosballer32]

I'm not lost. You are completely ignoring any and all numbers that indicate hitters that were better, and the fact that statistics exist which *DO* account for different eras, because it doesn't suit your little "12 miles of total bases" speech. You're ignoring facts. You're ignoring that I showed that guys like Williams, Mantle and Mays didn't hang on at the ends of their careers to "cumulate" (I think the word you're looking for is "accumulate"), which you've continually suggested they did.

You started this thread. You obviously wanted to introduce your opinion and how you arrived at it. Prepare to have your analysis scrutinized and have counter arguments made. You've constructed an opinion on a bullshit premise. That's fine. You can hold that opinion- which would be silly- or you can adapt and learn something from people who are perfectly willing to share their opinions of the game and its history. No one here is saying anything negative about Aaron. Not once. Everyone is well aware that he was great and great for a LONG time. But there were guys better, and perfectly valid reasons have been given as to why.

Also, show me mother fucker where I ever suggested Ted Williams ever fucking hung on? I never did that. I said Mickey Mantle did.

Mantle in 3 of his last 4 years did not bat .260. His last two seasons he batted .245 and .237.

Yet you dont fucking think he fucking hung on?

What the fuck are you looking at?

I also said most fucking players hang on, and many hang on a lot longer past their prime than Hank Aaron did.

Show me where I fucking said Ted Williams fucking hung on? We cannot fucking edit here after 5 fucking minutes.

I showed Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle. They both hung on past their primes. Fuckball.

 

[Broncosballer32]

But yet you choose to ignore a lot of stats to prove other wise, but confident in using "TEAM" Wins?

Well, team wins are often attributed to star players. That is nothing new. I did not ignore any of the stats you showed. Where did I ignore them? I presented cumulative stats in that era. I know that Hank Aaron had a lot more HRs, RBIs, hits, doubles, runs, than Ted Williams did in the time you insisted that he was far more productive.

I acknowledged that Ted Williams was actually quite injury prone and missed a lot of games in his last 7 years.

The fact is though while Ted Williams had a higher OBP and OPS, Hank was more productive cumulatively. Is that untrue or something. Is that me ignoring what you said. No, actually it isn't.

Again, is durability a factor that should be used. I asked why shouldn't it? Is the fact that Hank was durable and there on a daily basis a factor in them winning a WS in 1957?

I know Sox fans think there was a curse. Well, I would say their racism caused more of that so called curse in the 50s for the Sox than some stupid curse. Wouldnt you?

Anyway, I digress.

I did not ignore a thing you said. I acknowledged those things.

 

[SEC Official]

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

I am saying having people heckle you while you are at the plate negatively impacts your stats.

Do you disagree?

 

[Broncosballer32]

I am saying having people heckle you while you are at the plate negatively impacts your stats.

Do you disagree?

Yes, this would be a big factor that is not considered in the little OPS stats. Plus, the sheer weight of the world on his shoulders.

Meaning, even if there was no heckling, how far back would that have pushed integration if he was a failure?

Do not think that was lost on him. It is not enough to have the normal pressure as a ball player with needing to succeed. Could you imagine all of that laid on top of him?

 

[SEC Official]

Also, he lead the league in hit by pitch.. so some pitchers were trying to take him out.. that had to be nerve racking as well.

 

[Broncosballer32]

I am saying having people heckle you while you are at the plate negatively impacts your stats.

Do you disagree?

Yeah, I certainly agree. Not for nothing but Aaron faced real similar pressure over the last 4 or 5 years of his career, when it was clear he had a real shot at Ruth's record.

714 was a very sacred record in baseball.

 

[Bamabino]

Ty Cobb was the greatest player ever. He's in the top 5 alltime for years played, games played, AB's,hits,doubles,triples,runs scored,stolen bases,1st in average, 7th in RBI's. No other player in the history of the game is top 5 in as many categories as he is.