Well we know Trout + Ohtani still isn't good enough to win, without depth would any team suck?
They didn't peak at the same time.
And that's a big factor in this question. You need to pick three players who would peak in the same seasons if you want to maximize your chances of winning the championship.
Sorry, but that's BS. Aaron had a higher batting average and more HRs, RBIs, and hits per 162 games. The only reason he was a "compiler" is because he was still able to hit 40 HRs and bat .301 at age 39. That should not be a strike against him. It is in fact a PLUS in his favor. The premise of this thread is to pick someone at age 20. Well, if you knew ahead of time that you'd pick a guy at age 20 who would end up hitting 40 HRs at age 39, well, it'd be pretty hard to turn that down.
My friend, you are way off. Mays missed almost all of 52 (34 games played) and all of 53. When at the plate his BA, OPS, SLG and home run rate wash nearly identical to Aaron. In the two years after his return from the army he hit 92 home runs and 237 rbis. If he had similar productivity in his two missed years, his totals would be very similar to Hank. Also, I think your undervaluing probably the greatest fielder ever at a critical defensive position versus an excellent fielder in right field. I’m not going to argue defensive statistics, but Mays had a far greater impact on games played through defense than Aaron. This is a vast and meaningful difference. Honestly, I think the ONLY person ( other than you) who thinks Aaron is better than Mays is Mays himself, but he’s too much a gentleman to say otherwise.
In this ESPN ranking of the all-time players, it has Aaron at No. 3 and Mays at No. 2.
The stats are remarkably similar. Look at Avg./OBP/Slugging ...
Flagpole, in your selection of Aaron over Mays, you merely judge by statistics alone. While Aaron was great, he wasn’t the greater offensive player (HR’s, Hits, or RBI’s). Mays played in windy and cold Candlestick Park. Had he played in any other home stadium, he’d have hit over 800 HR’s, and these same conditions would’ve translated to hits and RBI’s. He was an absolute terror on the basepaths, stealing at will (including stealing home), and how often have you seen anyone score from first on a single? Mays in the OF had greater range and a superior arm. Finally, Say Hey yielded a season and a half of his early prime to serve in the Army.
My friend, you are way off. Mays missed almost all of 52 (34 games played) and all of 53. When at the plate his BA, OPS, SLG and home run rate wash nearly identical to Aaron. In the two years after his return from the army he hit 92 home runs and 237 rbis. If he had similar productivity in his two missed years, his totals would be very similar to Hank. Also, I think your undervaluing probably the greatest fielder ever at a critical defensive position versus an excellent fielder in right field. I’m not going to argue defensive statistics, but Mays had a far greater impact on games played through defense than Aaron. This is a vast and meaningful difference. Honestly, I think the ONLY person ( other than you) who thinks Aaron is better than Mays is Mays himself, but he’s too much a gentleman to say otherwise.
In this ESPN ranking of the all-time players, it has Aaron at No. 3 and Mays at No. 2.
The stats are remarkably similar. Look at Avg./OBP/Slugging ...
Yeah, ESPN is wrong. Mays gets the nod by too many people because he was flashy in the field and on the basepaths and Aaron was not...he was a bit boring even. Just not as valuable as what happens in the batter's box. In every measurable valuable offensive category, including career totals AND average per 162 games, Hank Aaron is better, AND he was better for longer.
Flagpole, in your selection of Aaron over Mays, you merely judge by statistics alone. While Aaron was great, he wasn’t the greater offensive player (HR’s, Hits, or RBI’s). Mays played in windy and cold Candlestick Park. Had he played in any other home stadium, he’d have hit over 800 HR’s, and these same conditions would’ve translated to hits and RBI’s. He was an absolute terror on the basepaths, stealing at will (including stealing home), and how often have you seen anyone score from first on a single? Mays in the OF had greater range and a superior arm. Finally, Say Hey yielded a season and a half of his early prime to serve in the Army.
My choices again: Mays, Koufax, Rose
Sounds like an excuse. I've been to MANY games at Candlestick Park, and they are not all windy there, and it's not always COLD there either...it's actually rather pleasant in the middle of the summer when it can be God awful hot in Atlanta.
Hank Aaron absolutely was the better offensive player.
.305 to .301
755 HRs to 660 HRs
3771 hits to 3293 hits
2297 RBIs to 1909 RBIs
More doubles
More runs scored
Fewer strikeouts - Did Candlestick Park cause Mays to strike out more?
Mays was a good base stealer, but he didn't "steal at will." 338 stolen bases for him. 240 for Mr. Aaron. Mays averaged 18 stolen bases per 162 games. Aaron averaged 12. Meh.
Yeah, ESPN is wrong. Mays gets the nod by too many people because he was flashy in the field and on the basepaths and Aaron was not...he was a bit boring even. Just not as valuable as what happens in the batter's box. In every measurable valuable offensive category, including career totals AND average per 162 games, Hank Aaron is better, AND he was better for longer.
Aaron had:
Better batting average
More hits (total and per 162 games)
More RBIs (total and per 162 games)
More HRs (total and per 162 games)
More runs scored (total)
More doubles (total and per 162 games)
Fewer strikeouts (total and per 162 games)
You are not very objective. You only list those stats where Aaron leads.
Some of the stats you listed Aaron leads because he played in more games
Yeah, ESPN is wrong. Mays gets the nod by too many people because he was flashy in the field and on the basepaths and Aaron was not...he was a bit boring even. Just not as valuable as what happens in the batter's box. In every measurable valuable offensive category, including career totals AND average per 162 games, Hank Aaron is better, AND he was better for longer.
Aaron had:
Better batting average
More hits (total and per 162 games)
More RBIs (total and per 162 games)
More HRs (total and per 162 games)
More runs scored (total)
More doubles (total and per 162 games)
Fewer strikeouts (total and per 162 games)
You are not very objective. You only list those stats where Aaron leads.
Some of the stats you listed Aaron leads because he played in more games
Mays had:
A better lifetime WAR - 156 to 143
More stolen bases
A better on-base percentage
A better slugging percentage
A better OPS
A better OPS+
Read again...he leads Mays in all of the stats I listed but one not only in total but in average per 162 games.
Aaron was better. Better in total. Better on average per season. Better in longevity greatness.
Yeah, ESPN is wrong. Mays gets the nod by too many people because he was flashy in the field and on the basepaths and Aaron was not...he was a bit boring even. Just not as valuable as what happens in the batter's box. In every measurable valuable offensive category, including career totals AND average per 162 games, Hank Aaron is better, AND he was better for longer.
Aaron had:
Better batting average
More hits (total and per 162 games)
More RBIs (total and per 162 games)
More HRs (total and per 162 games)
More runs scored (total)
More doubles (total and per 162 games)
Fewer strikeouts (total and per 162 games)
You are not very objective. You only list those stats where Aaron leads.
Some of the stats you listed Aaron leads because he played in more games
Mays had:
A better lifetime WAR - 156 to 143
More stolen bases
A better on-base percentage
A better slugging percentage
A better OPS
A better OPS+
More importantly, batting is only 1/2 the game, or maybe 2/3, but still, Mays was the greatest center fielder of all time. Aaron was an excellent right fielder. We are not talking about who would have been a better DH. As it is, Mays has a better offensive war. FP also is not addressing Mays two lost seasons just as he was beginning to peak as a player. Since most of the stats being offered in Aaron’s favor are just cumulative totals, these lost seasons are relevant. I usually agree with FP about baseball, but picking Aaron over Mays is a mistake. I also know he’s very stubborn and will not concede he is wrong regardless of the data presented.
You are not very objective. You only list those stats where Aaron leads.
Some of the stats you listed Aaron leads because he played in more games
Mays had:
A better lifetime WAR - 156 to 143
More stolen bases
A better on-base percentage
A better slugging percentage
A better OPS
A better OPS+
Read again...he leads Mays in all of the stats I listed but one not only in total but in average per 162 games.
Aaron was better. Better in total. Better on average per season. Better in longevity greatness.
The batting is pretty much a wash.
Defensively, it is not even close. Aaron had a negative dWAR of -4.6. Mays had a dWAR of 18.2 For defensive worth, Mays fWAR is the third highest of all time, and second all time for outfielders only behind Adruw Jones.
Mays has a higher WAR, higher dWar, higher fWAR, higher oWAR and higher oROR.
Most rankings has Mays ahead of Aaron who was a defensively liabilty.
Defensively, it is not even close. Aaron had a negative dWAR of -4.6. Mays had a dWAR of 18.2 For defensive worth, Mays fWAR is the third highest of all time, and second all time for outfielders only behind Adruw Jones.
Mays has a higher WAR, higher dWar, higher fWAR, higher oWAR and higher oROR.
Most rankings has Mays ahead of Aaron who was a defensively liabilty.
Face it. Mays was better.
One of Schoenfield’s reasons for calling Willie the best is “Because he was better than Aaron, and Aaron was pretty freakin’ awesome.” (Yes, he used the word “freakin.'”) Schoenfield relies on Bill James’ Runs Created stat, by which measurement Willie was indeed better in most seasons – again, not a great deal better but better. Another is “Because he won two MVP Awards – but should have won eight.” Actually, Schoenfield underrates Willie. In the Total Player Rating method developed by John Thorn and Pete Palmer of Total Baseball – which takes in all of a player’s contributions at-bat, in the field, and on the bases — Mays was, from 1954 though 1965, the best player in the National League for an incredible ten times (though tied with Henry Aaron in 1956).
(no Babe Ruth because I am assuming we're talking about playing now rather than in the era in which they played)
I would also take the same three. You probably want to avoid guys that had injury issues (Koufax, pitchers in general) or developed late (Randy Johnson, Joe Morgan) to maximize team control years. Production boosts from steroids are also something you probably can’t count on in this hypothetical second career (Bonds, ARod, Clemens). Pre-integration players also take a huge hit in my mind due to lack of competition. My top six picks might all be outfielders, but you probably also don’t want all outfielders in this hypothetical scenario.
Mays seems like the most obvious choice. I can see a credible argument for Ruth, Aaron, Musial, Trout, or Ted Williams over Bonds due to the late career steroid boost. The third choice is difficult. If looking for a non-outfielder Mike Schmidt or ARod come to mind. ARod was the total package for tools, but it’s not clear to me if he was ever not using steroids or how his career might have otherwise played out. Pitchers are volatile, but a big, right-handed power arm is about as safe a bet as you can have and Clemens also produced 80 WAR in 13 seasons in Boston before (I believe) there were steroid accusations.