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

[Broncosballer32]

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.

Yeah, seems to me you still not get it. I know, the fact the top 15 OBP of all time, all but ONE were from a time when it was not uncommon to see a hitter bat over .400.

Hey, what is your best explanation as to why no one has hit over .400 since 1941? Give me your best explanation.

Also, as I said the OBP is not the end all and be all of all statistical analysis. There are factors that you yourself choose to ignore.

Out of the top 15 all time for OBP, how many would be in the top 15 if they played the majority of their career in the second dead ball era? BTW, during the first dead ball era, it was fairly common for a hitter to hit over.400.

Being that during the "second dead ball era" all numbers were down across the board for virtually a decade, from HRs to RBI to batting average, it was more than just the pitchers being great. Even though they were, they certainly had help on behalf of baseball. Most experts believe the actual SECOND DEAD BALL ERA ended in 1977.

You honestly do not take that into account? Considering that most every hitter in the top 15 (including Bonds) hit during periods of time that were the most hitter friendly condition in baseball history. You do not consider any of those things in the equation?

I consider the eras, and I believe that factor is that crucial. There is no way to ever know how those hitters that are in the top 15 for OBP would have done during this period. You don't. I don't. Period.

Plus there are other factors that statistics cannot show.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Yeah, seems to me you still not get it. I know, the fact the top 15 OBP of all time, all but ONE were from a time when it was not uncommon to see a hitter bat over .400.

Hey, what is your best explanation as to why no one has hit over .400 since 1941? Give me your best explanation.

Also, as I said the OBP is not the end all and be all of all statistical analysis. There are factors that you yourself choose to ignore.

Out of the top 15 all time for OBP, how many would be in the top 15 if they played the majority of their career in the second dead ball era? BTW, during the first dead ball era, it was fairly common for a hitter to hit over.400.

Being that during the "second dead ball era" all numbers were down across the board for virtually a decade, from HRs to RBI to batting average, it was more than just the pitchers being great. Even though they were, they certainly had help on behalf of baseball. Most experts believe the actual SECOND DEAD BALL ERA ended in 1977.

You honestly do not take that into account? Considering that most every hitter in the top 15 (including Bonds) hit during periods of time that were the most hitter friendly condition in baseball history. You do not consider any of those things in the equation?

I consider the eras, and I believe that factor is that crucial. There is no way to ever know how those hitters that are in the top 15 for OBP would have done during this period. You don't. I don't. Period.

Plus there are other factors that statistics cannot show.

How do we keep going in this circle. I (and others) have said REPEATEDLY that there are statistics that adjust for era, and also gave you the example of how you can compare a player's OBP/SLG/whatever side-by-side with the league average and see how much better they were than the average player. That is how you account for the fact that some players played in inflated offensive eras and others played in depressed offensive eras.

Do you only read a few select sentences in a post and then just go off on a rant in response, without reading the entire post? How can you keep neglecting the fact that adjusted stats have been brought up to you MANY TIMES throughout this thread and you keep hammering on the "BUT HE PLAYED IN THE SECOND DEAD BALL ERA" point? Are you dense, illiterate, or too stubborn to acknowledge you're wrong?

Seriously, this isn't worth my time. I'm arguing with a guy who thinks Mickey Mantle "hung on" with his 147 OPS+ in his final two seasons.

 

[Wazmankg]

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.

Williams lost 3 full years serving in WW2. He lost most of 52 & 53 as well, serving in Korea.

 

[Wazmankg]

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.

Barry Bonds was an all-time great before he started juicing but hitters have the advantage from a statistical standpoint when it comes to juicing. It extends pitchers careers and inflates their stats to the extent that it allows them to play at a high level longer. But there's really no evidence that it actually improves the ability of a normal able-bodied pitcher to get batters out, like it turns loud flies into HRs for those hitters who juices. Obviously none of this is quantifiable to a certaintly but the evidence is pretty persuasive.

 

[Broncosballer32]

How do we keep going in this circle. I (and others) have said REPEATEDLY that there are statistics that adjust for era, and also gave you the example of how you can compare a player's OBP/SLG/whatever side-by-side with the league average and see how much better they were than the average player. That is how you account for the fact that some players played in inflated offensive eras and others played in depressed offensive eras.

Do you only read a few select sentences in a post and then just go off on a rant in response, without reading the entire post? How can you keep neglecting the fact that adjusted stats have been brought up to you MANY TIMES throughout this thread and you keep hammering on the "BUT HE PLAYED IN THE SECOND DEAD BALL ERA" point? Are you dense, illiterate, or too stubborn to acknowledge you're wrong?

Seriously, this isn't worth my time. I'm arguing with a guy who thinks Mickey Mantle "hung on" with his 147 OPS+ in his final two seasons.

Ok, look. You can tell me how "they can adjust" the statistics based on era and side by side. I am trying to tell you.....AGAIN, that there all sorts of factors that makes that as inaccurate as you can get. It is all speculative and based on preconceived notions, presumptions and pure inexact conclusions.

There is no way any mathematician can factor in things that are impossible to measure. Like confidence. That is just one thing, and often times when a players CONFIDENCE goes, they never get it back. In fact that is quite common. So, you can repeat yourself and conclude that the side by side comparisons that are adjusted for this, that and the other thing all you want. Those speculative numbers are facts, regardless of how much you think they are.

As far as Mickey Mantle goes. Fine his ops was fairly high and he did draw a lot of walks his last two seasons. Which obviously accounts for that high OPS. His batting average in each of his last two seasons, and 3 of his last 4 seasons did not reach .260. Now, when we look at those Yankees teams of 65, 66, 67 were horrible. They had no one and yes, it is rather obvious teams pitched around Mantle.

Were teams truly pitching around Mantle cause he was truly the threat he had always been, or were teams pitching around him based on his reputation of years past? I do not know really. Neither do you. What I do know is he was a physical shell of what he had been, and his body was breaking down.

The bottom line for me is I put more value than others over a life long career that is able to average 38 HRs and 188 hits for 19 or 20 years. That is something that has never been duplicated in baseball.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

As for why it was common to see .400 hitters in the early eras of baseball and hasn't happened in nearly a century... an interesting topic of discussion, though it has nothing to do with this thread...

Needless to say, the game has changed dramatically since that time in the way that both hitters and pitchers approach their roles. In the early days, batting average was the only stat that mattered. Walks and strikeouts were rare. The ball was usually put in play. Home runs were rare. Players took tremendous pride in their batting averages, and the notoriety that came with being the batting champion. So there were whole generations of players whose primary motivation was to get base hits. They took their base hits any way they could get them. Combined with the fact that pitchers of that time weren't trying to blow hitters away, the environment was there for extremely skilled hitters to get lots and lots of singles (though doubles and triples were also very common still). That's why you had your best power hitters, like Cobb and Speaker, bunting and "hitting them where they ain't" in an effort to get as many hits as possible to have high batting averages.

So instead of loading up trying to hit a bunch of homers, and taking walks when pitchers wouldn't give in, these hitters made the conscious effort to gather as many base hits as possible to drive up their batting average.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Ok, look. You can tell me how "they can adjust" the statistics based on era and side by side. I am trying to tell you.....AGAIN, that there all sorts of factors that makes that as inaccurate as you can get. It is all speculative and based on preconceived notions, presumptions and pure inexact conclusions.

There is no way any mathematician can factor in things that are impossible to measure. Like confidence. That is just one thing, and often times when a players CONFIDENCE goes, they never get it back. In fact that is quite common. So, you can repeat yourself and conclude that the side by side comparisons that are adjusted for this, that and the other thing all you want. Those speculative numbers are facts, regardless of how much you think they are.

As far as Mickey Mantle goes. Fine his ops was fairly high and he did draw a lot of walks his last two seasons. Which obviously accounts for that high OPS. His batting average in each of his last two seasons, and 3 of his last 4 seasons did not reach .260. Now, when we look at those Yankees teams of 65, 66, 67 were horrible. They had no one and yes, it is rather obvious teams pitched around Mantle.

Were teams truly pitching around Mantle cause he was truly the threat he had always been, or were teams pitching around him based on his reputation of years past? I do not know really. Neither do you. What I do know is he was a physical shell of what he had been, and his body was breaking down.

The bottom line for me is I put more value than others over a life long career that is able to average 38 HRs and 188 hits for 19 or 20 years. That is something that has never been duplicated in baseball.

You obviously have no understanding how adjusted stats are calculated. There is very little subjectivity to it. It's based on league averages, which isn't subjective at all, and park factors which are correlated directly with run scoring and home run frequency. Also not particularly subjective. No presumption at all. I suggest you go learn how league-adjusted statistics are formulated.

Confidence? This is just a fucking joke now. Confidence? You're discrediting league-adjusted stats because they don't account for a hitter's confidence?

Again, no one is trying to take anything away from Hank Aaron. He was the model of consistency and his durability and longevity are a credit to his legacy. But just because he was extremely durable and consistent doesn't mean he was better than hitters who had more dominant peaks, but were not quite as durable (but still very durable in their own right).

I've never met someone so grossly misinformed who insisted on continuing to argue. Bravo to you!

 

[Wazmankg]

Yeah, seems to me you still not get it. I know, the fact the top 15 OBP of all time, all but ONE were from a time when it was not uncommon to see a hitter bat over .400.

Hey, what is your best explanation as to why no one has hit over .400 since 1941? Give me your best explanation.

Also, as I said the OBP is not the end all and be all of all statistical analysis. There are factors that you yourself choose to ignore.

Out of the top 15 all time for OBP, how many would be in the top 15 if they played the majority of their career in the second dead ball era? BTW, during the first dead ball era, it was fairly common for a hitter to hit over.400.

Being that during the "second dead ball era" all numbers were down across the board for virtually a decade, from HRs to RBI to batting average, it was more than just the pitchers being great. Even though they were, they certainly had help on behalf of baseball. Most experts believe the actual SECOND DEAD BALL ERA ended in 1977.

You honestly do not take that into account? Considering that most every hitter in the top 15 (including Bonds) hit during periods of time that were the most hitter friendly condition in baseball history. You do not consider any of those things in the equation?

I consider the eras, and I believe that factor is that crucial. There is no way to ever know how those hitters that are in the top 15 for OBP would have done during this period. You don't. I don't. Period.

Plus there are other factors that statistics cannot show.

There is nothing speculative about comparing how Aaron fared against his peers in his era against how Williams fared against his peers in his era. Those eras intersected by 7 years by the way. Williams was overwhelmingly dominant against his peers in virtually every rate stat....average, slugging, on base%, OPS... and I know you're scared of this stat but all it is is slugging % plus on base %. Aaron was not, though he had some great years. Williams led the league in most of these hitting stats, nearly every year he played enough games to be eligible from the the time he was 22 years old until he was 38 years old. That's excellence, dominance and longevity. He hit 29 HRs and hit .316 at 41 years old. He lost nearly 5 seasons in the prime of his career due to military service. How can you use that against him to detract that from his longevity stats when his numbers were far better than Aaron's at age 41 ? Williams did not play most of his career pre-integration either. 2/3 of it was post-integration.... not that it mattered with respect to the numbers he put up. Aaron was also the beneficiary of 2 eras of expansion when baseball added 4 teams in 61 & 62 and another 4 teams in 69.... which watered down the pitching he had to face considerably.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Honestly, even the statistics that adjust for era are just not accurate... the problem with it is, when you compare eras you tend to talk about the intangibles of that era... The adjustments are purely mathematical... The adjusted stats just dont adjust enough to truly be accurate...

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Honestly, even the statistics that adjust for era are just not accurate... the problem with it is, when you compare eras you tend to talk about the intangibles of that era... The adjustments are purely mathematical... The adjusted stats just dont adjust enough to truly be accurate...

What's intangible about comparing a players SLG against the league average? I'd like to hear you explain how they're not accurate more. Please extrapolate.

And aren't HR and RBI also subject to the changes of era? Aren't there intangible elements to them as well? Over the course of a 22 year career, the league is going to change quite a bit, as was the case during Aaron's career (and Ruth's career and Bonds' career). Aren't those changes going to be reflected in his career totals in HR and RBI, just like they would be in OBP and SLG? The one stat that remains fairly consistent is a league-adjusted stat like OPS+.

 

[Broncosballer32]

There is nothing speculative about comparing how Aaron fared against his peers in his era against how Williams fared against his peers in his era. Those eras intersected by 7 years by the way. Williams was overwhelmingly dominant against his peers in virtually every rate stat....average, slugging, on base%, OPS... and I know you're scared of this stat but all it is is slugging % plus on base %. Aaron was not, though he had some great years. Williams led the league in most of these hitting stats, nearly every year he played enough games to be eligible from the the time he was 22 years old until he was 38 years old. That's excellence, dominance and longevity. He hit 29 HRs and hit .316 at 41 years old. He lost nearly 5 seasons in the prime of his career due to military service. How can you use that against him to detract that from his longevity stats when his numbers were far better than Aaron's at age 41 ? Williams did not play most of his career pre-integration either. 2/3 of it was post-integration.... not that it mattered with respect to the numbers he put up. Aaron was also the beneficiary of 2 eras of expansion when baseball added 4 teams in 61 & 62 and another 4 teams in 69.... which watered down the pitching he had to face considerably.

Yes, there was baseball expansion, and that certainly contributed to the offensive explosion of 1961. However, baseball made a concerted effort to give advantages to pitchers. First of all, you need to understand the paradigm that was happening. Unlike the McGuire Sosa year of 1998, the 1961 year was not celebrated with the media, and Frick certainly hated it.

He made the cardinal sin of protecting his idol (Babe Ruth) rather than promoting the game he was in charge of. He, like many, never thought there would be a day where baseball would lose fans. The NY press and fans hated that Maris was threatening Ruth's record. The embraced Mantle, but really hated Maris.

So, in order to alleviate the controversy of 1961, baseball made every effort to give pichers all the advantages. Expanding the strike zone for one. Raising the mounds number two. There was a reason why many sports writers labeled the time period between 63 to 68 as the second dead ball era. In fact, many historians believe it actually did not end until the 1976 season.

You mentioned that Williams greatly out produced Aaron during that time when they over lapped. Yes, in certain aspects, but not in the cumulative aspect. Cumulatively, Aaron had many more hits, HRs, doubles, and RBIs. Now, Ted Williams did not have as many ABs. Hank had the advantage of having Eddie Mathews in front of him. Ted Williams had no one. The Sox pretty much sucked and were dominated by the Yankees in the 50s.

I pretty much assume that most teams walked Williams on purpose since they really had no one else, hence the massive accumulation of walks.

BTW, when Aaron was 39 years old (since you brought up what Williams did when he was 41) Aaron hit 40 HRs and hit .303 in 120 games. Now, if Aaron played in 160 games, would he have hit 50? Not possible? At 37 Aaron hit 47 HRs and batted .327. Plus, Aaron had far better world series or play offs numbers. Neither of them played in many, but the ONE Williams played in, he really shit the bed.

Oh well. That damn Bambino curse.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Yes, there was baseball expansion, and that certainly contributed to the offensive explosion of 1961. However, baseball made a concerted effort to give advantages to pitchers. First of all, you need to understand the paradigm that was happening. Unlike the McGuire Sosa year of 1998, the 1961 year was not celebrated with the media, and Frick certainly hated it.

He made the cardinal sin of protecting his idol (Babe Ruth) rather than promoting the game he was in charge of. He, like many, never thought there would be a day where baseball would lose fans. The NY press and fans hated that Maris was threatening Ruth's record. The embraced Mantle, but really hated Maris.

So, in order to alleviate the controversy of 1961, baseball made every effort to give pichers all the advantages. Expanding the strike zone for one. Raising the mounds number two. There was a reason why many sports writers labeled the time period between 63 to 68 as the second dead ball era. In fact, many historians believe it actually did not end until the 1976 season.

You mentioned that Williams greatly out produced Aaron during that time when they over lapped. Yes, in certain aspects, but not in the cumulative aspect. Cumulatively, Aaron had many more hits, HRs, doubles, and RBIs. Now, Ted Williams did not have as many ABs. Hank had the advantage of having Eddie Mathews in front of him. Ted Williams had no one. The Sox pretty much sucked and were dominated by the Yankees in the 50s.

I pretty much assume that most teams walked Williams on purpose since they really had no one else, hence the massive accumulation of walks.

BTW, when Aaron was 39 years old (since you brought up what Williams did when he was 41) Aaron hit 40 HRs and hit .303 in 120 games. Now, if Aaron played in 160 games, would he have hit 50? Not possible? At 37 Aaron hit 47 HRs and batted .327. Plus, Aaron had far better world series or play offs numbers. Neither of them played in many, but the ONE Williams played in, he really shit the bed.

Oh well. That damn Bambino curse.

Obviously, we all know the mound was lowered from 15 to 10 inches in 1969. But when was it raised? I'm not sure it was when you seem convinced it was. I believe it had been 15 inches for some time before the 1960s, but can't find anything to verify. Can you provide some links on this?

 

[Broncosballer32]

Obviously, we all know the mound was lowered from 15 to 10 inches in 1969. But when was it raised? I'm not sure it was when you seem convinced it was. I believe it had been 15 inches for some time before the 1960s, but can't find anything to verify. Can you provide some links on this?

Read this:

The Business of Baseball - Albert Theodore Powers - Google Books

The Book

The Business of Baseball

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Thanks, though it doesn't define what the change was. Maybe it was 14 to 15 inches or 12 to 15 inches.

 

[DragonfromTO]

Honestly, even the statistics that adjust for era are just not accurate... the problem with it is, when you compare eras you tend to talk about the intangibles of that era... The adjustments are purely mathematical... The adjusted stats just dont adjust enough to truly be accurate...

This argument isn't entirely untrue, but I think it carries infinitely more weight when you're talking about comparing a guy with an OPS+ of 155 to a guy at 160, rather than guys up around (and over) 200.

 

[GenJac]

It's a shame that Mays lost 2 years in the Army and spent most of his career playing home games in the Giants' enormous park. He could have hit 800 home runs otherwise.

 

[obxyankeefan]

That was a fun read.