[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by 71buc

Satche,
Personally I believe all records established prior to 1947 should have an asterisk. I agree with everything you said regarding Hank Aaron and Willie Mays. Furthermore, Mays and Aaron were far more complete players than the oafish Ruth. Mays may have been flashier than Hank. However, Aaron retired with two thirds of the career triple crown. If you subtract his career home runs from his hit totals he still has over 3000 career hits.

I have grown weary from hearing about how IF Ruth had played as many games, or had as many at bats as Aaron how much more staggering his offensive production would have been. Well he did not have those opportunities, because he was not in the athlete that Aaron was. Nor did he care to take care of himself, or comport himself as a professional. He was an obese victim of his own self-indulgence.

I agree that Ruth dominated his era more than any player past, present, or future. However, he was protected by the press, played against whites only, played only day games, didn't fly coast to coast, faced an inferior level of diluted competition, nor did he face pitching specialists.

Hank Aaron critics use the very same virtues that defied Gehrig to minimize Aaron’s place in history. Aaron came to work every day, was quiet, professional, dignified, consistent, and humble. I don’t believe that you can compare players from different eras. Nonetheless, if you must compare Hank to a pre-war player do so with a man cut from the same cloth, perhaps a gentleman like Lou Gehrig.

I have never understood fans obsession with Babe Ruth. He was the most dominant player of his generation. But that generation was almost 100 years ago. As I said in an earlier post: a Chalmers could not compete with a Ferrari, Lindbergh does not compare to Neil Armstrong, Bobby Jones would not beat Tiger Woods, the film King Kong is not comparable to Jurassic Park, Eddie Cantor is not Robert Deniro, vacuum tube radios are not superior to LCD televisions, the slide rule is not better than the PC, the abacus is not as efficient as a calculator, and Babe Ruth is not as good Hank Aaron.

You make several good points, Mike. I never buy into the "well, if he played longer, his numbers would have been ____" line of discussion because, well, it; pure speculation, almost hyperbole in a sense. When it came to the Babe, or Mickey Mantle, I have to say their numbers are what they are. If they had taken better care of themselves, their numbers most certainly would have been better. At least in the case of Mickey, I can understand why he lived his life the way he did. The poor man watched his father die in the hospital next to him after he ruined his knee in the '51 World Series. The "Mantle family curse" took so many of the men in his life-dad, grandfather, and even his son Billy-they all succumbed to Hodgkin's disease. So, while I am absolutely sympathetic to the dark cloud that Mick thought followed him around, the truth remains that he did party it up, and beat himself up. If Hodgkins didn't get him, cirrhosis of the liver was going to.

I do make an exception of sorts in one regard only-military service. When a player misses time from the game because of war, well, there's really not a whole hell of a lot they could do about it. If they were called, they had to fight. I look at Ted Williams' numbers (and it is my belief that Ted was indeed the greatest pure hitter to ever play the game), and think about what they would have been had he not missed four complete seasons due to WW II and the Korean War. If you go by his career averages, he most certainly would have topped 3,000 hits (well exceeded that benchmark, actually), and he'd have gotten about another 140 home runs (giving him approximately 660, equal to Willie Mays). Of course, you never know if he'd have matched his averages. He could have been injured. But it's fun to discuss.

Oh, and by the way, the Pirates are my second favorite baseball team. I am a huge Roberto Clemente fan. So you know I love your user name and avatar! I plan on adding two of my favorite Clemente cards almost immediately-the 1956 Topps (second year), and the 1958 Topps. The '58 Topps may very well be my favorite card of all-time. Something about the pure yellow background, the type face, and Roberto in his stance. It's just a perfect combination of every element-color, typography (it appeals to the artist in me), and one of my two all-time favorite players (Robin Yount being the other). That one I'll look for a nice medium-high grade on.

If you think this discussion got active, wait until you see what happens when I start a thread claiming that Roberto Clemente, not Aaron, not Ruth, not Al Kaline, was the greatest right fielder to ever play the game. I might just do it. Watch the Ruth fans foam at the mouth! LOL