Mays/Mantle/Aaron

[packs]

I know this is Mantle so you're prone to give him a pass, but come on. The reason was because Mantle was simply finished after age 33.

Let's also not forget that Hank was a 30-30 player in 1963. He was just as much the complete package, but for a much longer period of time, though with a lower peak.

[howard38]

I'm just going by the numbers. Obviously he was in decline and limited defensively but he was still a good hitter. Chris already pointed out his high OPS+ numbers which combined probably put him in the top five or ten in the AL for those seasons.

[Tabe]

Context matters. In 1968, Mickey hit 18 HRs. Sounds terrible - was actually 13th in the league. He had 54 RBI. Sounds terrible - was actually 25th in the league. . 385 OBP. Sounds not great - was actually 3rd in the league. . 398 SLG. Sounds terrible - was actually 19th in the league.

So he "fell off the cliff" - but he was still a top 20 player in the AL that year.

[packs]

Please see Mantle's twilight years for what they were and not because Mantle had those years is all I'm saying.

[MattyC]

Fun hypothetical. No wrong answers here, that's for sure!

I personally value peak performance most of all-- and also am assuming we are making this choice in a hypothetical parallel reality, in which each man is starting from their rookie season over with of course the same talent and potential. As if they were alive today and all three were there for the drafting.

Given Mantle's freak injury in that early stage of career, and given how teams today can better "life coach" their players (Josh Hamilton notwithstanding), I would choose The Mick. When all three were performing at their peak level, he had the edge. He also had that "je ne sais quoi," that x-factor, that star quality, which put butts in seats like no other (though the other two had it as well, just to lesser degrees).

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Fun hypothetical. No wrong answers here, that's for sure!

I personally value peak performance most of all-- and also am assuming we are making this choice in a hypothetical parallel reality, in which each man is starting from their rookie season over with of course the same talent and potential. As if they were alive today and all three were there for the drafting.

Given Mantle's freak injury in that early stage of career, and given how teams today can better "life coach" their players (Josh Hamilton notwithstanding), I would choose The Mick. When all three were performing at their peak level, he had the edge. He also had that "je ne sais quoi," that x-factor, that star quality, which put butts in seats like no other (though the other two had it as well, just to lesser degrees).

Maybe. But I'm thinking Mays and Aaron might have been even better had they been able to sleep on comfortable beds, eat real meals, not heard "nigger" yelled at them while they played, and been supported and accepted by all their teammates. It's obviously hypothetical, but I think these things would have impacted their stat lines and star power were they playing today vs during Jim Crow.

[majordanby]

looks like baseball prospectus (nate silver) appears to select mays, at least on a season by season basis and using one metric (he discusses mantle vs mays and states that peak performance mays was better than peak performance mantle)

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=6734

[brian1961]

All three were players that could, and did, beat you time after time after time.

At the end of the day, I guess it comes down to, for me, what player has left me with an impact that is simply mammoth, and which will not change---Mickey Mantle.

Collectors and/or fans of Hank or Willie are convinced about them, and they are most correct. Both of them were awe-inspiring and the man you had to stop on their respective teams if you were going to beat them, though Willie benefited greatly by the emergence of Willie McCovey. Hank just kept going, and going, and going---amazing.

So, it becomes an endless argument in the Hot Stove League. I get so tired of hearing all the "Mantle should have taken better care of himself" and "Mantle was always partying and drunk". I'm rather certain in his darkest private thoughts, Don Mattingly wishes hard and viciously condemns himself for throwing away a Hall-of-Fame career with that stupid clubhouse wrestling match he had with pitcher Mike Witt (?/?) that resulted in Don injuring his back, and affected him for the rest of his then curtailed career. We will never know how good Mick would have been had he not had that terrible injury in the 1951 World Series. The only thing I will say about the other matters is that the man was absolutely convinced he would be dead by age 40, just as his dad and other men in his family.

There is a great deal of "the underdog" in the personna of Mickey Mantle. As Hank Bauer very vehemently put it, and I am paraphrasing, for someone who was injured as much as Mickey and partied so hard, I think he did awful good. If that makes you gnash your teeth, I would encourage you to stop lest you chip or fracture those choppers. Just ask Yosemite Sam after what Bugs Bunny did to him in "Buccaneer Bunny". I think we could all do with a laugh right now.

We're all correct, and happy in what we collect. Cheers. --Brian Powell