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

[Lord Scalious]

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?

Excellent retort

However, Baseball is sport of attrition. Its more liken to that of a Marathon, than a spint. So in baseball, yes part of greatness is longevity and consistency..

 

[Broncosballer32]

Excellent retort

However, Baseball is sport of attrition. Its more liken to that of a Marathon, than a spint. So in baseball, yes part of greatness is longevity and consistency..

Actually it really is not a great retort.

It is more like two Kentucky Derby races. One is on a sloppy wet track, while the other one is on very fast track. Both won the race in different years. The one horse that won on the very fast track won 3 seconds faster than the other horse that won.

Now is the horse that won on the faster track actually a faster horse than the one that won on the slower sloppy track?

We will never know. Those that insist that a certain horse is simply faster cause he dominated on a fast track and he ran faster than the one that won on a sloppy track are the ones that are not considering all of the factors as to why the horse was 3 seconds faster. Which btw is significantly faster. We could argue till we puke coat hangers, but we will never know. The arguments need to consider all factors.

That is the better analogy. You can see what the sloppy conditions represent in my contention regarding Hank Aaron playing most of his career in the second dead ball era, and still managed to accumulate 755 HRs, most RBIs, 3rd most hits, and twelve miles total bases.

I know, the twelve miles more total bases than the second place person.....means little to some.

How funny.

 

[Swangin]

Actually it really is not a great retort.

It is more like two Kentucky Derby races. One is on a sloppy wet track, while the other one is on very fast track. Both won the race in different years. The one horse that won on the very fast track won 3 seconds faster than the other horse that won.

Now is the horse that won on the faster track actually a faster horse than the one that won on the slower sloppy track?

We will never know. Those that insist that a certain horse is simply faster cause he dominated on a fast track and he ran faster than the one that won on a sloppy track are the ones that are not considering all of the factors as to why the horse was 3 seconds faster. Which btw is significantly faster. We could argue till we puke coat hangers, but we will never know. The arguments need to consider all factors.

That is the better analogy. You can see what the sloppy conditions represent in my contention regarding Hank Aaron playing most of his career in the second dead ball era, and still managed to accumulate 755 HRs, most RBIs, 3rd most hits, and twelve miles total bases.

I know, the twelve miles more total bases than the second place person.....means little to some.

How funny.

Actually what you are talking about had nothing to do with quote you are responding to. And me using the track runners had absolutely zero to do with anything about the eras or most anything you have talked bout in this thread.

 

[Broncosballer32]

Actually what you are talking about had nothing to do with quote you are responding to. And me using the track runners had absolutely zero to do with anything about the eras or most anything you have talked bout in this thread.

Then I am confused. Please explain the analogy you were making about you only running 8 races and running a 9.58. While the one that won 15 races never ran faster than a 9.8.

Were you not saying the one that won more races was not faster just because he ACCUMULATED more wins? In other words like Hank Aaron ACCUMULATING all of his stats cause he played longer and had a lot more ABs and just because he ACCUMULATED more stats does not make him better than Ted cause he never duplicated or surpassed any of Teds best years?

If that is not your analogy, then what is the analogy?

 

[StanMarsh51]

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.

.

OBP's been used since the 1950s and became an official stat in 1984...don't try to feed us this nonsense as if it was first used 10 years ago or something of that nature

On Base Percentage All Time Leaders on Baseball Almanac

 

[Broncosballer32]

OBP's been used since the 1950s and became an official stat in 1984...don't try to feed us this nonsense as if it was first used 10 years ago or something of that nature

On Base Percentage All Time Leaders on Baseball Almanac

Yeah, I made a fucking mistake. I get it.

Still trying to figure out what all of that has to do with different eras, and why OBP and OPS has become the end all and be all of statistical comparisons.

 

[Wazmankg]

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.

Actually there is not a single aspect of hitting where Aaron was better than Williams. His overall totals were better because he played more games due to the fact that Williams lost nearly 5 prime seasons due to military service.

 

[Wazmankg]

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......

There's no cherry picking. Things like batting average, on base %, slugging % and OPS are not Bill James numbers. They're simply rate stats and Williams' were all better than Aaron's over those years. In fact Williams hit even hit HRs with greater frequency during those years. Aaron simply played more games during that time.

 

[Wazmankg]

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.

We've compared their rate stats, not sabr stats, simple rate stats, like average, on base % and slugging % during the period when both played the game at he same time. William's were ALL better than Aaron's. To speculate that Williams in his prime would have magically been inferior to Aaron even though he was superior to him on the downside of his career simply ignores all evidence to the contrary... and ALL of the evidence points to the contrary conclusion.

 

[navamind]

Yeah, I made a fucking mistake. I get it.

Still trying to figure out what all of that has to do with different eras, and why OBP and OPS has become the end all and be all of statistical comparisons.

They aren't. But OBP is the most important stat offensively.

 

[Wazmankg]

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

Do you disagree?

No. I have the greatest respect for Robinson who was well before even this old guys time. I just don't know what his play has to do with this discussion.

 

[mrwallace2ku]

Williams IS the best that ever was in the MLB...hitting. Hank, best HR hitter ever minus the juice.

 

[Lord Scalious]

Yeah, I made a fucking mistake. I get it.

Still trying to figure out what all of that has to do with different eras, and why OBP and OPS has become the end all and be all of statistical comparisons.

Ted Williams>>>Hank Aaron

He missed 3 years for serving his country. I'm sorry, but I'm not gonna compare totals in this case. Its just not fair. Williams hit 29 Home Runs at age 41.

His Batting Eye was superior. His Talent could play well in just about any era.

I don't need OPS, OBP or OPS+ to know he was better. But it helps the argument.

 

[Swangin]

They aren't. But OBP is the most important stat offensively.

that's debatable

 

[Liberal Icon]

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 am always amused by posters who bring in steroids in order to downplay the natural abilities and hitting power of Barry Bonds. As if Barry Bonds faced pitchers who were also not taking steroids (assuming steroids are the mono-causal factor in hitting) or Babe Ruth et al in that era took on pitchers of equal abilities to the modern times. We get romantically married to the past to the extent that we do not put their performance in perspective and elevate them to demi-gods status.

 

[Broncosballer32]

There's no cherry picking. Things like batting average, on base %, slugging % and OPS are not Bill James numbers. They're simply rate stats and Williams' were all better than Aaron's over those years. In fact Williams hit even hit HRs with greater frequency during those years. Aaron simply played more games during that time.

Again. I am not saying it is not an indicative stat.

Here are the top 15 in OBP all time in MLB. With the exception of Bonds, all of them are from a different era.

Is that really a coincidence? How many on the list played a majority of their career in the 60s? None of the top 15.

1. Ted Williams
2. Babe Ruth
3. John McGraw
4. Billy Hamilton
5. Lou Gehrig
6. Barry Bonds
7. Ty Cobb
8. Rogers Hornsby
9. Jimmy Foxx
10. Tris Speaker
11. Eddie Collins
12. Ferris Fain
13. Don Brouthers
14. Joe Jackson
15. Max Bishop


Those are the top 15 all time for OBP. As I said, it is an indicator, but it is not the end all and be all of statistical analysis. The ONE GLARING THING that we see about most of those on that list are most of them played most of their careers prior to integration. Most of them played in an era when it was not uncommon for a batter to hit over .400.

My contention of Aaron and most important factor is while he was compiling those numbers, he played a majority of his career that was considered to be the SECOND DEAD BALL ERA.

I have not brought up playoff stats. If we are going to keep the comparisons with Ted and Hank, then should we bring that up? Aaron nor Ted Williams played in many post season games.

Aaron, in his first world series, went 7 games and Aaron hit 3 HRs, batted .393 OBP .414 slugging .786
Ted in his ONLY world series, in a 7 game series hit 0 HRs. batted .200, OBP.333

Aaron in his post season (only three times) had an over all average of .362 6 HRs OBP.405
I know I digress. The simple fact is there are other things other than OBP that determine proficiency.

Yes, I am obsessed with the fact that Aaron compiled his numbers in an era where Frick deliberately gave a bigger advantage to the pitcher in order to protect the HR record of Ruth. Reportedly and pretty commin knowledge, 1961 was a basic nightmare for him and baseball did not celebrate Maris's 61. In fact it was pretty much condemned by baseball writers, many fans, and Frick did not want that again. Hence the infamous asterisk and Maris never knowing he held the official single season record since they removed the asterisk after Maris died.

Of course that is all speculation on my part, but I do believe there was a concerted effort on the part of baseball, after the 1961 season, to widen strike zones, and raise mounds.

I have read and heard by many....that Aaron only held on well past his prime to get Ruth's record. Well, when he hit 40 HRs and batted .300 in 120 games played the year before he broke that record, I would say any person making that claim does not really know shit.

Also, in 1971, Aaron actually had the most HRs in his career in a single season while batting .327 and striking out only 58 times. Combine all of that with the pressure he received from Ruth lovers and racists.

A lot of factors in there that statistics cannot reveal and in my estimation many of those factors are rather vital.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

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

Do you disagree?

Of course I don't disagree. But I don't see the relevance to this conversation since he was clearly nowhere near being close to the greatest hitter who ever lived.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

I am always amused by posters who bring in steroids in order to downplay the natural abilities and hitting power of Barry Bonds. As if Barry Bonds faced pitchers who were also not taking steroids (assuming steroids are the mono-causal factor in hitting) or Babe Ruth et al in that era took on pitchers of equal abilities to the modern times. We get romantically married to the past to the extent that we do not put their performance in perspective and elevate them to demi-gods status.

I brought up Bonds later in the thread. He was better than Aaron too. I just figured I shouldn't go there since the OP would immediately disqualify him and it wasn't worth fighting that fight.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Williams IS the best that ever was in the MLB...hitting. Hank, best HR hitter ever minus the juice.

Just because someone has the most of something doesn't mean they're the best. Pete Rose is not the best hitter of all-time, or even close to it. Hank Aaron is not the greatest HR hitter of all time.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Again. I am not saying it is not an indicative stat.

Here are the top 15 in OBP all time in MLB. With the exception of Bonds, all of them are from a different era.

Is that really a coincidence? How many on the list played a majority of their career in the 60s? None of the top 15.

1. Ted Williams
2. Babe Ruth
3. John McGraw
4. Billy Hamilton
5. Lou Gehrig
6. Barry Bonds
7. Ty Cobb
8. Rogers Hornsby
9. Jimmy Foxx
10. Tris Speaker
11. Eddie Collins
12. Ferris Fain
13. Don Brouthers
14. Joe Jackson
15. Max Bishop


Those are the top 15 all time for OBP. As I said, it is an indicator, but it is not the end all and be all of statistical analysis. The ONE GLARING THING that we see about most of those on that list are most of them played most of their careers prior to integration. Most of them played in an era when it was not uncommon for a batter to hit over .400.

My contention of Aaron and most important factor is while he was compiling those numbers, he played a majority of his career that was considered to be the SECOND DEAD BALL ERA.

I have not brought up playoff stats. If we are going to keep the comparisons with Ted and Hank, then should we bring that up? Aaron nor Ted Williams played in many post season games.

Aaron, in his first world series, went 7 games and Aaron hit 3 HRs, batted .393 OBP .414 slugging .786
Ted in his ONLY world series, in a 7 game series hit 0 HRs. batted .200, OBP.333

Aaron in his post season (only three times) had an over all average of .362 6 HRs OBP.405
I know I digress. The simple fact is there are other things other than OBP that determine proficiency.

Yes, I am obsessed with the fact that Aaron compiled his numbers in an era where Frick deliberately gave a bigger advantage to the pitcher in order to protect the HR record of Ruth. Reportedly and pretty commin knowledge, 1961 was a basic nightmare for him and baseball did not celebrate Maris's 61. In fact it was pretty much condemned by baseball writers, many fans, and Frick did not want that again. Hence the infamous asterisk and Maris never knowing he held the official single season record since they removed the asterisk after Maris died.

Of course that is all speculation on my part, but I do believe there was a concerted effort on the part of baseball, after the 1961 season, to widen strike zones, and raise mounds.

I have read and heard by many....that Aaron only held on well past his prime to get Ruth's record. Well, when he hit 40 HRs and batted .300 in 120 games played the year before he broke that record, I would say any person making that claim does not really know shit.

Also, in 1971, Aaron actually had the most HRs in his career in a single season while batting .327 and striking out only 58 times. Combine all of that with the pressure he received from Ruth lovers and racists.

A lot of factors in there that statistics cannot reveal and in my estimation many of those factors are rather vital.

You continue to put your head in the sand and ignore that there are stats that do in fact adjust for era. Even if you didn't have the adjusted stats, what you do is do a side-by-side comparison of the player's OBP (or SLG or OPS or AVG) and compare it to the league average. The player who exceeds the league average to the greater degree is the better player as it relates to that statistic.

This all seems pretty basic to me, yet it clearly eludes you. So you're either willfully ignoring it to suit your argument, or you're dumber than a sack of hammers.