Which Outfield would you rather and why?
 

Simple (or not so simple) question for the board here. You have a choice between either one of these outfields to build a team around. We assume that the players are at the peak of their playing ability, and in perfect health. Which do you choose and why?

Outfield A
Mickey Mantle
Ted Williams
Babe Ruth

Outfield B
Willie Mays
Hank Aaron
Barry Bonds

Outfield B

Generally a more durable bunch and more tools in the overall toolbox even though Outfield A has 3 of the purest hitters the game has ever seen.

Won't be offended at anybody who disagrees.

As someone whose baseball consciousness stems from the late 60s and early 70s, I'd have to go with Mays and Aaron. But you could mix and match these 6 in any way you want and I don't think you'd get much difference baseball-wise.

I would pick A because it has Ted Williams in it.

If I could pick 3 from those 6 it would be Ted, Hank, and Barry.

Tough choice but I have to go with B. Roided up Bonds along with Mays and Aaron would be an unstoppable top of the lineup.

Mickey Mantle in perfect health clinches it for me ,
Switch hitter, perhaps cedes defensively to Mays but still really fast .
And the other two guys are 1 and 2 all time on base % and 1-2 all time OPS ,
(Nice to see Bonds couldn’t cheat himself to the top of those lists)

CF: Mantle over Mays, because it is stipulated perfect healthy and at peak performance. I'll take Willie 10 times out of 10 for a career, but with the boundaries set here, Mantle probably comes out just slightly better.

RF: Ruth over Aaron and it is not even close. Their peak performance is really not that close. Biggest gap is this one.

LF: Prime roid Bonds is better than Williams at peak value and arguably the greatest peak performance of all time. Probably by not as big a gap as Ruth over Aaron though.

So I think A very slightly edges it, but these are constructed very well to be very very close.

Interesting discussion so far, gentlemen. I certainly think you can't go wrong, either way but I'm a little more partial to A. Was thinking about throwing in a curveball and having one of the outfields have a player like Oscar Charleston, but I decided to limit it to just players from the MLB

Though I suppose somewhere there's an Outfield C floating around consisting of Speaker, Cobb and Shoeless Joe. Would probably make the choice even more difficult!

Not sure Shoeless Joe goes ahead of Musial, DiMaggio, Griffey.

Outfield B going away.

(And I'd take Hank Aaron over the Babe. Aaron played in a much more competitive, post-integration era.)

I am more partial to
why in Left field
Because in Centerfield
Nobody in Right Field

Brought to you by Abbott and Costello

B

I love Williams as a hitter, but defensively I prefer the B trio. Also, the Bs average 725 career home runs and steal 1092 bases.

Power, speed, defense favor B.

Hard to include Bonds in any lists because the numbers are skewed. However, group A has alot more titles. That should say something.

It says they have 2 Yankees. If titles correlated to a single player's greatness, what would that say about Ted?

I agree with this. It is A by a lot. Bonds wasn't that good without steroids. Replace Bonds with a better player, say Stan Musial, then this is a debate.

Bonds was a 3 time MVP before steroids


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also, OP stated that the players were "at the peak of their playing ability." That means the unstoppable steroid version of Bonds, not what he was before steroids.

I'd theorize that Bonds without steroids would have still been a level above Griffey Jr., and in the neighborhood of Aaron and Mays. Just not the absolute monster he became.

I think it's fair to say, like most questions thrown out on chat forums, we all have our own interpretation of what the question was really asking, and the reasons given for our answers. ;)

OK, OK, fair. :)

Through 1998, before steroids, Bonds had a 164 OPS+, 3 MVP's, 7 WAR crowns, had over 400 homers in 6600 at bats, well over 400 steals, and slashed .290/.411/.556. He was the best player in the National League. To say he "wasn't that good" is completely disconnected from observable reality lol.

I think it's interesting that Barry Bonds cards would likely be worth much more then they are if he had appreciably worse stats throughout the 2nd half of his career (assuming there was no hint of PED use in the process).

I don't think the same could be said for Mark McGwire. I think McGwire would have struggled to get to 500 HR's and would have essentially been Jim Thome, with a shorter career.

Perhaps a HOF'er. Perhaps not...but certainly a lot less interesting and polarizing then he is now.

I'd take A over B. The peaks of Ruth, Mantle, and Williams are better overall. Between the three we have a triple crown, a .400 hitter, and a guy who hit more homers than most teams.

Having Bonds as an option seems very odd because of the steroids. Who knows how good Bonds was without knowing how long he took steroids and what effect they truly had.

How about outfield C: Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, and Stan Musial? I'd take that one over your choice B.

"We assume that the players are at the peak of their playing ability"

So, their best season (by OPS+):
Outfield A
Mickey Mantle - 1957 - 11.3 WAR / .365 BA / 1.177 OPS / 221 OPS+
Ted Williams - 1941 - 10.4 WAR / .406 BA / 1.287 OPS / 235 OPS+
Babe Ruth - 1920 - 11.9 WAR / .376 BA / 1.379 OPS / 255 OPS+

Outfield B
Willie Mays - 1965 - 11.2 WAR / .317 BA / 1.043 OPS / 185 OPS+
Hank Aaron - 1971 - 7.2 WAR / .327 BA / 1.079 OPS / 194 OPS+
Barry Bonds - 2002 - 11.8 WAR / .370 BA / 1.381 OPS / 268 OPS+

Outfield A appears to have a slight edge for "peak" ability.