RATS posts explains why Aaron's cards aren't valued higher... there are people that still believe Mantle is better than he was.
Mantle was good. Top 25... Top 20... maybe Top 15.
Look at the four major comparative tools for position players: Blank Ink (how often they led a category), Gray Ink (How often they were in top 10), HOF Career Standards, and HOF Monitor. Mantle is never in the top 10. Actually I think if you use Mantle as the barometer (Though I agree that Mantle is overvalued, not the other's being undervalued) a more undervalued player than Aaron may be Musial.
Standard...Black Ink...Gray Ink... HOF Stan... HOF Mon
Aaron.......(8) 76........(2) 408......(9) 74.........(3) 421
Mays........(22) 57......(8) 337.......(5) 76........(6) 376
Mantle......(15) 62......(17) 272.....(24) 65.......(15) 300
Musial......(5) 116.......(3) 390.......(6) 76........(1) 452
Williams...(4) 122.......(11) 326......(15) 72.......(7) 354
Even with the walls moved in Aaron hit the ball. Mantle struck out a lot, he led this category 5 times, and was in the top five 10 times. Aaron was never in the top 10. His SO average is 68 in a 162 game season, compared to Mantle's at 115.
Also I haven't looked up exact stats but Aaron hit just above 50% of his homeruns at home. So lets just remove 55% of his home runs (I am sure it was less than 55% that were hit at home) he would still be in the top 100 in home runs while still having 3355 hits (removing the 416 home runs, again I don't know the exact number).
Mantle was in the top 10 WAR only 7 times compared below to the other players I mentioned:
Aaron: 15
Mays: 13
Musial: 10
Williams: 12
This does not mean mantle was a horrible player or didn't have peak seasons, but he gets elevated higher than he should. His peak seasons are what people remember and certainly bolster his numbers, and this is what Stache was pointing out when he brought up Mantle's peak seasons.
Just looking at single season stats only focuses on a few great seasons and not the consistency of a player.
|