Hank Aaron card values

[rats60]

Originally Posted by JoeyFarino

Always wondered why his card values arent up there with mays, mantle or williams. Hank was such a great player it just seems like his cards after 1954 are fairly cheap compared to the other mentioned players. What factors do u think play into that?

I don't think he was as good as Mays, Mantle, Williams, Clemente, etc. I don't see his cards ever equalling those players' values.

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by rats60

I don't think he was as good as Mays, Mantle, Williams, Clemente, etc. I don't see his cards ever equalling those players' values.

I strongly disagree with that.

[jasonc]

Originally Posted by rats60

I don't think he was as good as Mays, Mantle, Williams, Clemente, etc. I don't see his cards ever equalling those players' values.

Actually he had more home runs and base hits then any of those. Looking at Career stats Aaron's overall numbers arguably could be the best ever (Bonds and Ruth are right up there as well) Mind you he was a different type of hitter than Ty Cobb etc.

[Volod]

If Henry had played in NY, his cards would no doubt be priced above Willie's, but not Mantle's, though, for obvious, if deplorable, reasons.

[Gr8Beldini]

Originally Posted by Volod

If Henry had played in NY, his cards would no doubt be priced above Willie's, but not Mantle's, though, for obvious, if deplorable, reasons.

That one's favorite player is white isn't necessarily "deplorable." I think the issue of race when pricing a Baseball card is way overblown.

1. Mantle is one of the 2 or 3 most iconic Baseball players of all-time and his cards are priced accordingly (he's certainly the most iconic in our hobby).
2. Eddie Mathews' stats are much better than Jackie Robinson's. Jackie is in great demand because he is iconic while Eddie is boring.
3. There is greater demand for Bob Gibson cards than there is for guys like Jim Palmer, Juan Marichal, Gaylord Perry, even Tom Seaver. Gibson wasn't better than those guys. He is more iconic. Nobody cares that he is black.
4. Satchel Paige was a journeyman Major League pitcher who's cards sell for much more than Bob Feller (an upper-tier HoFer). Why?
5. If that black/white stuff was real, there would be a greater demand for Yogi cards than for Campanella cards. There isn't.
6. Roberto Clemente cards sell for much more money than a comparible player of his accomplishments (and Roberto has the double whammy, black and hispanic). Al Kaline is an exact (white) contemporary (same stats; same years; same fielding prowess; neither played in NY...). Which cards are in greater demand? If race was an issue, Kaline cards would be through the roof while Roberto's would be priced with the mid-tier guys.

It's not like the price guide guys subtract 20% for blackness. Cards are priced based on demand. Iconic players are in more demand than non iconic players. There are pleanty of iconic black players, many of them more iconic than comparable white players.

[campyfan39]

A thought I had is that Hank isn't as beloved for whatever reason as those other guys. His personality since retirement (talking about race so much and being unfriendly at card shows) may have something to do with it.
His accomplishments are amazing regardless.

[tjenkins]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

A thought I had is that Hank isn't as beloved for whatever reason as those other guys. His personality since retirement (talking about race so much and being unfriendly at card shows) may have something to do with it.
His accomplishments are amazing regardless.

Can anyone say Dick Allen, he is probably not in the Hall for very similar reasons.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

A thought I had is that Hank isn't as beloved for whatever reason as those other guys. His personality since retirement (talking about race so much and being unfriendly at card shows) may have something to do with it.
His accomplishments are amazing regardless.

You are confusing Mays and Aaron w/r/t card show behavior. I have had the pleasure of meeting Aaron at a couple of shows and he was always a perfect gentleman, cordial and pleasant. Mays acts like fans are something nasty he tracked in on his shoe.

I don't follow all the stats gobbledygook like I should, but one thing to consider is that Mantle's great seasons took place in a concentrated period; at the start of his career he was promising and for five of the last six years he played he was mediocre and injured; by the time he was 33 he was basically finished as an elite player. Aaron stayed on track as an elite player for 18 years, even through the greatest surge of pitching in history, and into his 40s. Some people piss all over consistency, but consistency is a good thing if I am building a team. Here's what I love about Aaron if I am building a team, over Mantle:

Total Bases:
1955 NL 325 (6th)
1956 NL 340 (1st)
1957 NL 369 (1st)
1958 NL 328 (3rd)
1959 NL 400 (1st)
1960 NL 334 (1st)
1961 NL 358 (1st)
1962 NL 366 (3rd)
1963 NL 370 (1st)
1965 NL 319 (4th)
1966 NL 325 (4th)
1967 NL 344 (1st)
1968 NL 302 (2nd)
1969 NL 332 (1st)

OPS
1955 NL .906 (9th)
1956 NL .923 (5th)
1957 NL .978 (3rd)
1958 NL .931 (4th)
1959 NL 1.037 (1st)
1960 NL .919 (5th)
1961 NL .974 (3rd)
1962 NL 1.008 (2nd)
1963 NL .977 (1st)
1964 NL .907 (6th)
1965 NL .938 (2nd)
1966 NL .895 (8th)
1967 NL .943 (3rd)
1968 NL .852 (5th)
1969 NL 1.003 (2nd)
1970 NL .958 (6th)
1971 NL 1.079 (1st)
1972 NL .904 (5th)
1973 NL 1.045 (2nd)**

He beat the...snot out of the ball during three decades and got on base a lot, and kept it up as compared to his peers for a very long time. The proof is in the cards. Really. As any Aaron collector can tell you, one of the most annoying things about collecting Aaron cards is that if you decide to go after leader cards you have to pick up so many of the damned things; it is just a good thing they didn't make them in the 1950s.

[campyfan39]

^ Adam, I am glad you have had good experiences with Hank. I have heard many stories to the contrary. In fact, I have met about 30-40 players from the era at shows through the years and Hank was by far the most unfriendly. May have been having a bad day but it is what it is.
Chris

[Volod]

Originally Posted by Gr8Beldini

That one's favorite player is white isn't necessarily "deplorable." I think the issue of race when pricing a Baseball card is way overblown.

1. Mantle is one of the 2 or 3 most iconic Baseball players of all-time and his cards are priced accordingly (he's certainly the most iconic in our hobby).
2. Eddie Mathews' stats are much better than Jackie Robinson's. Jackie is in great demand because he is iconic while Eddie is boring.
3. There is greater demand for Bob Gibson cards than there is for guys like Jim Palmer, Juan Marichal, Gaylord Perry, even Tom Seaver. Gibson wasn't better than those guys. He is more iconic. Nobody cares that he is black.
4. Satchel Paige was a journeyman Major League pitcher who's cards sell for much more than Bob Feller (an upper-tier HoFer). Why?
5. If that black/white stuff was real, there would be a greater demand for Yogi cards than for Campanella cards. There isn't.
6. Roberto Clemente cards sell for much more money than a comparible player of his accomplishments (and Roberto has the double whammy, black and hispanic). Al Kaline is an exact (white) contemporary (same stats; same years; same fielding prowess; neither played in NY...). Which cards are in greater demand? If race was an issue, Kaline cards would be through the roof while Roberto's would be priced with the mid-tier guys.

It's not like the price guide guys subtract 20% for blackness. Cards are priced based on demand. Iconic players are in more demand than non iconic players. There are pleanty of iconic black players, many of them more iconic than comparable white players.

Sorry for any confusion. My comment was strictly in reference to a comparison of Aaron's card values to those of Mantle. It was intended to be limited to that particular consideration and, of course, was not meant to be applied across sports generally, nor to any other players or their cards. What I meant was that the application of such factors as race in card value is deplorable. I think it takes more than a little twisting to suggest that I was deploring the skin color of someone's favorite player.

[tjenkins]

Originally Posted by rats60

I don't think he was as good as Mays, Mantle, Williams, Clemente, etc. I don't see his cards ever equalling those players' values.

I have to strongly disagree with this also! Really! Let's compare stats with Mantle and Mays, not EVEN close with the Mantle, a little closer with Mays. In my opinion Hank Aaron was the greatest offensive player to ever live. I know people will say, "He has so many more at bats!" I think that further justifies his place as an all time great, durability. I personally am glad his values are down so I can obtain his cards reasonably. I doubt it stays that way down the road. Fairly sure if Hank Aaron played in New York he would be the best ever.

...........Aaron........Mantle..........Mays
Avg.....305...........298................302
Hits.....3,771........2,415.............3,283
HR.......755..........536................660
RBI......2,297.......1,509.............1,903

[jasonc]

Originally Posted by tjenkins

I have to strongly disagree with this also! Really! Let's compare stats with Mantle and Mays, not EVEN close with the Mantle, a little closer with Mays. In my opinion Hank Aaron was the greatest offensive player to ever live. I know people will say, "He has so many more at bats!" I think that further justifies his place as an all time great, durability. I personally am glad his values are down so I can obtain his cards reasonably. I doubt it stays that way down the road. Fairly sure if Hank Aaron played in New York he would be the best ever.

...........Aaron........Mantle..........Mays
Avg.....305...........298................302
Hits.....3,771........2,415.............3,283
HR.......755..........536................660
RBI......2,297.......1,509.............1,903

Agreed! The numbers don't lie, the 3771 Career Hits and the 755 Home Runs are HUGE!

[tjenkins]

Originally Posted by jasonc

Agreed! The numbers don't lie, the 3771 Career Hits and the 755 Home Runs are HUGE!

I know right, not to mention that he is the all time RBI Leader. I really think anyone who thinks he was not as good or better than any MLB player is being ignorant.

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by tjenkins

I know right, not to mention that he is the all time RBI Leader. I really think anyone who thinks he was not as good or better than any MLB player is being ignorant.

Exactly...well said!

[the 'stache]

Total bases: 6,856 #1 all-time.
RBI: 2,297 #1 all-time.
30 home run seasons: 15 (t) #1 all-time.
300 total bases in a season: 15 times #1 all-time.

If you take away his 755 home runs, he'd still have 3,000 hits.

[tjenkins]

That total bases number is astronomical, especially for that era. I would love to see his numbers if he played today!

[ALR-bishop]

Originally Posted by JoeyFarino

Exactly...well said!

But does not answer your original question

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

But does not answer your original question

Lol....true...the debate goes on

[rats60]

Originally Posted by tjenkins

I have to strongly disagree with this also! Really! Let's compare stats with Mantle and Mays, not EVEN close with the Mantle, a little closer with Mays. In my opinion Hank Aaron was the greatest offensive player to ever live. I know people will say, "He has so many more at bats!" I think that further justifies his place as an all time great, durability. I personally am glad his values are down so I can obtain his cards reasonably. I doubt it stays that way down the road. Fairly sure if Hank Aaron played in New York he would be the best ever.

...........Aaron........Mantle..........Mays
Avg.....305...........298................302
Hits.....3,771........2,415.............3,283
HR.......755..........536................660
RBI......2,297.......1,509.............1,903

Led league in WAR
Willie Mays 10 times
Mickey Mantle 6 times
Ted Williams 6 times
Hank Aaron 1 time

Aaron was good at accumulating stats, but he was never looked at as the best player in the game. He never had a peak like other superstars. Greatest offensive players of all time are Babe Ruth, Ted Williams and Ty Cobb. Aaron lol. If Aaron was so great, why did the Braves need to move the fences in for him?

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by rats60

Led league in WAR
Willie Mays 10 times
Mickey Mantle 6 times
Ted Williams 6 times
Hank Aaron 1 time

Aaron was good at accumulating stats, but he was never looked at as the best player in the game. He never had a peak like other superstars. Greatest offensive players of all time are Babe Ruth, Ted Williams and Ty Cobb. Aaron lol. If Aaron was so great, why did the Braves need to move the fences in for him?

If youre really questioning Hank Aaron's ability and accomplishments then maybe you and google need to hang out..lol. Hank Aaron is one of the best hands down

[begsu1013]

hank aaron is not the cards you are looking for.

move along. move along.

[71buc]

Originally Posted by rats60

If Aaron was so great, why did the Braves need to move the fences in for him?

What year did they do that? I was curious about ball park dimensions for Ruth, Aaron, Williams, Mays, and Clemente so I looked them up. I know they fluctuated year to year. So what year exactly did the Braves move in the fences for Aaron?

Yankee Stadium Right Field 314 Right Center 385
Atlanta Fulton County Stadium Left field – 330, Left-Center – 385
Milwaukee County Stadium Left Field – 315, left Center 392
Fenway Park Right Field: 302, Right Center 380
Candlestick Park Left Field 335, Left Center 365
Polo Grounds dimensions Left Field 279 Ft, Left-Center 450
Forbes Field Left Field 365, Left Center 406
Three Rivers Stadium dimensions Left Field — 335, Left-Center — 375

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by rats60

Led league in WAR
Willie Mays 10 times
Mickey Mantle 6 times
Ted Williams 6 times
Hank Aaron 1 time

Aaron was good at accumulating stats, but he was never looked at as the best player in the game. He never had a peak like other superstars. Greatest offensive players of all time are Babe Ruth, Ted Williams and Ty Cobb. Aaron lol. If Aaron was so great, why did the Braves need to move the fences in for him?

Jesus, seriously?

You know the Red Sox did the same thing, moving the right field wall in 23 feet so Ted Williams could hit more home runs...right?

Three years later, sweet-swinging Ted Williams, a dead-pull left-handed hitter, came to Boston. The following year, 1940, bullpens were constructed in right field to bring the fence 23 feet closer to home plate for Williams. The new bullpens appropriately became known as Williamsburg.

Welp, I guess Williams couldn't have been that great if the Red Sox had to bring the right field wall in for him. Never mind that Hank Aaron hit nearly as many home runs on the road (370) as he did at home (385), or that he actually had a higher average on the road (.306) than he did at home (.303), or that he drove in more runs on the road (1,180) than he did at home (1,117). Yup, Hank Aaron was a product of where he played his home games. Oh wait, no he wasn't.

"He was a compiler". Huh, I thought being an elite hitter for twenty plus years was an accomplishment in and of itself. "Sorry, Hank. Didn't you know? You were supposed to hit 100 home runs in two years like Maris, and then disappear from the game a few years later, instead of being an All Star 24 times, while having eight 40 home run seasons, and fifteen thirty home run seasons." Sorry, Hank, somebody isn't impressed that you averaged 100 RBI a season for nearly a quarter century. Sorry, Hank. You're a compiler. That's why you're the all-time leader in RBIs. It has nothing to do with the fact that you were a career .323 hitter with runners in scoring position (3,564 plate appearances with RISP), or that you had a career .992 OPS with RISP.

Back to WAR for just a second. A WAR of 8 + in one season is considered an MVP-caliber season. Know how many seasons Mickey Mantle had a WAR of 8 or higher? Five. Know how many seasons Ted Williams had a WAR of 8 or higher? Seven.

Know how many seasons Hank Aaron had with a WAR of 8 or higher? Eight. Hank Aaron had one more MVP caliber season than Ted Williams, and three more MVP caliber seasons than Ted Williams. Babe Ruth only had four more MVP caliber seasons than Hank Aaron. WAR is an imperfect metric. Mickey Mantle won the American League MVP in 1962 with a WAR of 5.9. Meanwhile, Hank Aaron with a WAR of 9.4 in 1961 finished eighth in the MVP vote. When he had a 9.1 WAR in 1963, he finished third in the MVP. In 1962, his WAR was 8.5, a full two and a half points higher than Mickey Mantle's total in the AL, and Mantle won the MVP while Aaron finished sixth in the MVP.

Know what Aaron's average WAR was between ages 21 and 40? Between 1955 and 1973--19 seasons. Aaron had an annual average WAR of 7.3. Remember, an 8 WAR is MVP level. Aaron played at a near MVP level for two decades. In other words, cherry picking one metric isn't the best way to prove a spurious assertion.

Break it down comparatively:

Mantle's best four seasons: 11.3, 11.2, 10.5, 9.5.

All better than any individual season from Aaron. But then look at the best seasons from either player. A pattern emerges:

9.4, Hank Aaron, 1961
9.1, Hank Aaron, 1963
8.7, Mickey Mantle, 1958
8.5, Hank Aaron, 1962
8.5, Hank Aaron, 1967
8.0, Hank Aaron, 1957
8.0, Hank Aaron, 1960
8.0, Hank Aaron, 1969
7.8, Hank Aaron, 1965
7.8, Hank Aaron, 1966
7.3, Hank Aaron, 1958
7.2, Hank Aaron, 1971
7.1, Hank Aaron, 1956
6.9, Mickey Mantle, 1954

Though Mickey Mantle has the best four seasons, of the next thirteen best individual WAR seasons, Mickey Mantle only has one of them. One. By "WAR", with 8.0 + being an MVP season, Mickey Mantle had five truly great seasons, while Aaron had eight truly great seasons. After 1962, Mantle only had one season with so much as a 4.0 WAR. Aaron had seven seasons ahead of him with a 7.0 + WAR, including a 7.2 WAR in 1971 where Aaron hit .327 with 47 home runs and 118 RBI at age 37. Mantle was already out of the game by then. Aaron would hit 34 homers the next year at age 38, and 40 the next year at age 39.


How's this for a peak:

Between 1957 and 1963, Aaron's 162 game averages:

.323 AVG, 122 runs, 207 hits, 34 doubles, 8 triples, 42 home runs, 129 RBI, 15 stolen bases, 65 walks, 69 strike outs. Slash line of .383 OBP/.593 SLG/.975 OPS. A 167 OPS +.

Only Babe Ruth (11) has more 40 home run seasons than Aaron's eight.

Hank Aaron was in the top five in the league in runs created thirteen times. He averaged 100 RBI (actual, not on a 162 game basis) for twenty-three years!

How about the actual Hall of Fame ballots go? How many ballot-holders voted for these guys to be elected to the Hall of Fame?

Mickey Mantle: 322/365 88.2%
Ted Williams: 282/302 93.4%
Willie Mays: 409/432 94.7%
Babe Ruth: 215/226 95.1%

Hank Aaron: 406/415 97.8%

If you can't see that Hank Aaron is one of the greatest baseball players to ever play the game, then I'm not going to even waste any more of my time on you. But suffice to say, you are wrong.

[the 'stache]

By the way, in January, ESPN's baseball writers ranked their best baseball players of all-time.

They had Hank Aaron fifth, ahead of Cobb and Mantle, behind only Ruth, Mays, Bonds and Williams.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Break it down comparatively:

Mantle's best four seasons: 11.3, 11.2, 10.5, 9.5

All better than any individual season from Aaron.

If you can't see that Hank Aaron is one of the greatest baseball players to ever play the game, then I'm not going to even waste any more of my time on you. But suffice to say, you are wrong.

So, instead of answering my question, you set up a strawman arguement and then claim I'm wrong. However, I just edited out the garbage to show I'm right. If you want a guy that played at a high level for a long time, but was never truly great, Aaron's your guy. I never said he wasn't one of the best, he's just not on the level of Mays, Mantle and Williams. No triple crowns, no .400 seasons, no 50 HR seasons.

In fact his best HR season was because the fence was moved in. Of his 47 HRs, 31 were in Atlanta, but he never benefited from a friendly home park, with fences moved in and the highest altitude in baseball at the time. There's a reason it was called the launching pad. Lol.

Nice try on Ted, but his .344 lifetime ave. laughs at you. Also, did the Red Sox move the fences back after Ted retired like the Braves did when Aaron left? It's pretty obvious when your team moves the fences in right where you like to hit the ball so you can make a run at Mays and Ruth on the all time HR list and then when you leave, they move the fences back.

In Atlanta, Aaron hit 47 more HRs at home than on the road. Want to guess how Ted did at Fenway? 25 more HRs ON THE ROAD. Some great advantage, not. By the way, Ruth also hit more road HRs than home, 20. So now tell me again how Aaron didn't get an advantage playing in Atlanta?

[tjenkins]

I will say it again, anyone who thinks that Henry Aaron is not among the greatest players ever at any point, is being ignorant but that wasn't the question. His values are lower simply do to the market, Atlanta and Milwaukee vs. New York and Boston. How do you figure a WAR statistic out anyway? I am pretty stupid but does it really have any validity. I really don't think you can find a more consistent player ever. I would pay more for his cards but happy I don't have to. By the way I love the statistics "the 'stache" if you can't go by statistics than after that it is all subjective!

[ALR-bishop]

Don't you just hate it when batting averages start laughing at you

We do know without a doubt that Hank was a better hitter than his brother Tom.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by rats60

So, instead of answering my question, you set up a strawman arguement and then claim I'm wrong. However, I just edited out the garbage to show I'm right. If you want a guy that played at a high level for a long time, but was never truly great, Aaron's your guy. I never said he wasn't one of the best, he's just not on the level of Mays, Mantle and Williams. No triple crowns, no .400 seasons, no 50 HR seasons.

In fact his best HR season was because the fence was moved in. Of his 47 HRs, 31 were in Atlanta, but he never benefited from a friendly home park, with fences moved in and the highest altitude in baseball at the time. There's a reason it was called the launching pad. Lol.

Nice try on Ted, but his .344 lifetime ave. laughs at you. Also, did the Red Sox move the fences back after Ted retired like the Braves did when Aaron left? It's pretty obvious when your team moves the fences in right where you like to hit the ball so you can make a run at Mays and Ruth on the all time HR list and then when you leave, they move the fences back.

In Atlanta, Aaron hit 47 more HRs at home than on the road. Want to guess how Ted did at Fenway? 25 more HRs ON THE ROAD. Some great advantage, not. By the way, Ruth also hit more road HRs than home, 20. So now tell me again how Aaron didn't get an advantage playing in Atlanta?

You just "edited out all the garbage" to show you're right. More like, completely glossed over all the points that repudiated your rather hard-to-fathom position. People that know a bit about baseball have a different, enlightened opinion. 97.8% of Hall of Fame voters thought Aaron was a first-ballot Hall of Famer. When he was elected in 1982, only Ty Cobb was ever elected by a higher percentage of voters at 98.23%. Aaron also beat Williams, and Mays, too. Sure, you could say that Cobb and Williams were disliked by the media, and therefore their percentages were lowered because of some kind of bias. Well, Aaron was black. Forget bias. As Aaron was approaching Ruth's previously unbreakable mark, he received death threats in the mail. Yet still, he managed to out-gain even Babe Ruth, the man he passed on the all-time home run list. You can't tell me that there weren't some sore Yankees fans in that list of some 400 voters. Yet only 15 people out of 421 thought Aaron wasn't worthy of Cooperstown on his first ballot. Maybe they thought he was an all-time great. Maybe all the lists that name the greatest baseball players to ever play the game know something. Hank Aaron is consistently ranked in the top 10, or top 5 all-time when lists are published of the 100 best to ever play the game. Not because he was some "compiler", but because he was a special talent that played at an elite level for almost two decades.

The arbitrary numbers you select as a sign of "greatness" are head-scratching. 50 home runs...all-time great. 44, 45 or 47...not an all-time great. Tell me, do you consider Prince Fielder an all-time great? Or his daddy Cecil? They hit 50 in a season. So did Brady Anderson, and Luis Gonzalez. Were they "truly great"? A Triple Crown makes one a true great? Mickey Mantle won the Triple Crown in 1956. If Al Kaline had driven in 3 more runs, he wouldn't have. But Mantle would have still been an all-time great, no? Frank Robinson had a Triple Crown. Is he better than Aaron? Aaron put up several Triple Crown worthy seasons. All it takes to cost somebody a Triple Crown is a flu bug, or a broken finger. You need to be great to win a Triple Crown, no doubt. But you also need a lot of luck. Over the course of a 154 game season (back then), missing a game or two, or even a few at bats, could be the difference between winning it, and not. Willie Mays, for all his greatness, never won a Triple Crown. In fact, he never led in any two of the three categories in the same season. Aaron led in home runs and RBIs three times. In 1957 he finished fourth in batting, and in 1963, he finished third. In his twenty-two years, Mays never once led the league in RBIs. Yet he has over 1,900 in his career. Talk about accumulating stats. And he won only one batting title. He did lead his league in home runs four times. But so did Aaron, twice in Milwaukee, and twice in Atlanta. Aaron led the league in RBIs four times (three of those in Milwaukee), and won two batting titles in Milwaukee.

But Mays hit 50 home runs in a season. Yeah, he did twice. He hit 51 in 1955, playing his home games at the Polo Grounds, where he hit 22 of his homers at home. Jesus, all you had to do at the Polo Grounds was hit a pop fly down the left field line to get a home run. The foul pole was 279 feet! And Candlestick? The dimensions in left-center and center were 397 and 420 feet. His first three years in San Francisco, Mays hit 29, 34 and 29 home runs (three years after hitting 51!). What happened? In 1961, they moved the fences in, left-center by 32 feet to 365, and center field from 420 to 410. Lo and behold, "Say Hey" was a 40 home run hitter again in 1961, and then hit 49 in 1962. In 1960, Mays hit 12 home runs at Candlestick. They moved the fences in a whopping 32 feet in left-center, and boom, he hits 21 at home in 1961, and 28 at home in 1962. So please...cut the crap about the Braves moving in the fences for Aaron. It turns out a lot of teams moved the fences for their great players.

Back to Aaron's home run totals. Did you look at any of his other seasons, or just his single season best? What about the twelve years he played in Milwaukee?

In 1957, he hit 44 home runs to lead the NL. He hit 26 of those on the road. 18 at home. Aaron led the NL in RBIs, too. He had a Triple Crown-caliber season. Only Stan Musial's .351 and Willie Mays' .331 bested him. But he hit nearly 60% of his home runs on the road.

In 1963, he led the NL again with 44 home runs. 25 on the road, 19 at home. 57% of his homers came away from County Stadium.

In 1962, he hit 45 home runs, second in the NL. Mays hit 49. Aaron hit 18 home runs at County Stadium, and 27 on the road. 60% of his home runs were on the road. See a pattern here?

In 1960, Aaron hit 40 home runs. 21 at home, 19 on the road. Pretty much even.

He had no advantage at home while a member of the Milwaukee Braves, where he played his prime years. In 1960, they actually moved the fence in left field back, one foot in straightaway left-center field, and seven feet in Aaron's power alley, between the left field line and left-center. In the next four years, he hit 163 home runs, averaging 43 homers per 162 games played. In fact, while a member of the Braves in Milwaukee, he hit 185 home runs in Milwaukee, and 213 on the road. So, he hit 28 more home runs away from County Stadium. And the air in Milwaukee is not thin. I know, having lived there for 19 years. So, while they were moving the fences back slightly in Milwaukee, they were bringing them way in at the 'stick.

You know what OPS + does. It measures on base and power, and an adjustment is made for the player's ballpark.

Willie Mays had a career OPS + of 156. Know what Hank Aaron's was? Aaron's OPS + is 155. Willie Mays has a career OPS + that is one whopping point higher than Aaron's. Funny thing, that metric takes into consideration where Hank played all his games, and where Willie played all his. And it finds that the two were almost identical as far as their offensive production is concerned.

And as far as your brief WAR comparison, yes, Mays led ten times. Aaron led once. Aaron was second in the NL in WAR three times, third four times, fourth twice, and fifth twice. Eight times he was one of the best three players in the entire league (by WAR), and twelve times he was one of the best five. If you don't lead the league in WAR, you're not an all-time great? Were both Ruth and Gehrig not all-time greats? Yet when they played, unless they tied, one of them had to be second (or lower). Remember, too, that a center fielder (Mays) gets a positive 7.5 run adjustment while calculating, and right fielders (Aaron) get a 2.5 run deduction while calculating WAR. I completely understand that center field is a more demanding position, and that Mays, in putting up the numbers he did in center field, created incredible value. But it makes, in my humble opinion, an erroneous assumption. Consider the comparison of Mays and Aaron. The assumption is made, by WAR, that Aaron is less valuable because he plays right field. If he is incapable of playing center field, than this would be true, as Mays would add value because he produces at the same level offensively that Aaron does, while playing a position that is more demanding, one that Aaron could not.

But Aaron was a three-time Gold Glove winner in right field. And his string of Gold Gloves only ended because of the emergence of arguably the greatest defensive right fielder to ever play the game, Roberto Clemente. Was Aaron a very good to outstanding fielder, at least early on in his career? Yes. I will state again that I have some issues with defensive metrics as they are calculated for historical players. Aaron would one season have a -1.1 dWAR (1959), then a + 0.8 (1960), and a + 2.0 (1961). Those were followed by a 0.3, and a -1.3. I don't see how one player, when healthy, and in their prime, would have such variance in their defensive performance across multiple years. However, Mays is clearly one of the greatest center fielders to ever play the game, in both the offensive and defensive realms. I do not believe that Aaron would play center field as well as Mays. But I feel he could play it at a high level. Just not at Mays' astronomical level. Adjustments to dWAR should be made based solely on performance. If you have to give individual plays a higher score by a center fielder because of the ground covered (uZR-type ratings), fine. But to automatically adjust before any performance is taken into consideration, in my opinion, skews WAR needlessly.

One final thing to consider, not looking directly at the numbers.

Top 3 in MVP vote:
Aaron 8 times in the top 3, won once.
Mays 7 times in the top 3, won twice.

The men that watched these players day in, day out, saw them in person, talked to other players and sports journalists--they voted in a manner that puts Aaron and Mays in the same upper echelon of players in the National League. Both were among the top three players in the entire league in MVP voting about the same number of times. Mays won one more, Aaron was in the top 3 one more time. That's pretty darned close. When you consider their career stats, their OPS +, their WAR, MVP finishes, Hall of Fame votes, I just don't know how a baseball fan could consider Mays an all-time great, but not Aaron. I respect that you know your baseball, rats60, but I vehemently disagree with your conclusion.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

You just "edited out all the garbage" to show you're right. More like, completely glossed over all the points that repudiated your rather hard-to-fathom position. People that know a bit about baseball have a different, enlightened opinion. 97.8% of Hall of Fame voters thought Aaron was a first-ballot Hall of Famer. When he was elected in 1982, only Ty Cobb was ever elected by a higher percentage of voters at 98.23%. Aaron also beat Williams, and Mays, too. Sure, you could say that Cobb and Williams were disliked by the media, and therefore their percentages were lowered because of some kind of bias. Well, Aaron was black. Forget bias. As Aaron was approaching Ruth's previously unbreakable mark, he received death threats in the mail. Yet still, he managed to out-gain even Babe Ruth, the man he passed on the all-time home run list. You can't tell me that there weren't some sore Yankees fans in that list of some 400 voters. Yet only 15 people out of 421 thought Aaron wasn't worthy of Cooperstown on his first ballot. Maybe they thought he was an all-time great. Maybe all the lists that name the greatest baseball players to ever play the game know something. Hank Aaron is consistently ranked in the top 10, or top 5 all-time when lists are published of the 100 best to ever play the game. Not because he was some "compiler", but because he was a special talent that played at an elite level for almost two decades.

The arbitrary numbers you select as a sign of "greatness" are head-scratching. 50 home runs...all-time great. 44, 45 or 47...not an all-time great. Tell me, do you consider Prince Fielder an all-time great? Or his daddy Cecil? They hit 50 in a season. So did Brady Anderson, and Luis Gonzalez. Were they "truly great"? A Triple Crown makes one a true great? Mickey Mantle won the Triple Crown in 1956. If Al Kaline had driven in 3 more runs, he wouldn't have. But Mantle would have still been an all-time great, no? Frank Robinson had a Triple Crown. Is he better than Aaron? Aaron put up several Triple Crown worthy seasons. All it takes to cost somebody a Triple Crown is a flu bug, or a broken finger. You need to be great to win a Triple Crown, no doubt. But you also need a lot of luck. Over the course of a 154 game season (back then), missing a game or two, or even a few at bats, could be the difference between winning it, and not. Willie Mays, for all his greatness, never won a Triple Crown. In fact, he never led in any two of the three categories in the same season. Aaron led in home runs and RBIs three times. In 1957 he finished fourth in batting, and in 1963, he finished third. In his twenty-two years, Mays never once led the league in RBIs. Yet he has over 1,900 in his career. Talk about accumulating stats. And he won only one batting title. He did lead his league in home runs four times. But so did Aaron, twice in Milwaukee, and twice in Atlanta. Aaron led the league in RBIs four times (three of those in Milwaukee), and won two batting titles in Milwaukee.

But Mays hit 50 home runs in a season. Yeah, he did twice. He hit 51 in 1955, playing his home games at the Polo Grounds, where he hit 22 of his homers at home. Jesus, all you had to do at the Polo Grounds was hit a pop fly down the left field line to get a home run. The foul pole was 279 feet! And Candlestick? The dimensions in left-center and center were 397 and 420 feet. His first three years in San Francisco, Mays hit 29, 34 and 29 home runs (three years after hitting 51!). What happened? In 1961, they moved the fences in, left-center by 32 feet to 365, and center field from 420 to 410. Lo and behold, "Say Hey" was a 40 home run hitter again in 1961, and then hit 49 in 1962. In 1960, Mays hit 12 home runs at Candlestick. They moved the fences in a whopping 32 feet in left-center, and boom, he hits 21 at home in 1961, and 28 at home in 1962. So please...cut the crap about the Braves moving in the fences for Aaron. It turns out a lot of teams moved the fences for their great players.

Back to Aaron's home run totals. Did you look at any of his other seasons, or just his single season best? What about the twelve years he played in Milwaukee?

In 1957, he hit 44 home runs to lead the NL. He hit 26 of those on the road. 18 at home. Aaron led the NL in RBIs, too. He had a Triple Crown-caliber season. Only Stan Musial's .351 and Willie Mays' .331 bested him. But he hit nearly 60% of his home runs on the road.

In 1963, he led the NL again with 44 home runs. 25 on the road, 19 at home. 57% of his homers came away from County Stadium.

In 1962, he hit 45 home runs, second in the NL. Mays hit 49. Aaron hit 18 home runs at County Stadium, and 27 on the road. 60% of his home runs were on the road. See a pattern here?

In 1960, Aaron hit 40 home runs. 21 at home, 19 on the road. Pretty much even.

He had no advantage at home while a member of the Milwaukee Braves, where he played his prime years. In 1960, they actually moved the fence in left field back, one foot in straightaway left-center field, and seven feet in Aaron's power alley, between the left field line and left-center. In the next four years, he hit 163 home runs, averaging 43 homers per 162 games played. In fact, while a member of the Braves in Milwaukee, he hit 185 home runs in Milwaukee, and 213 on the road. So, he hit 28 more home runs away from County Stadium. And the air in Milwaukee is not thin. I know, having lived there for 19 years. So, while they were moving the fences back slightly in Milwaukee, they were bringing them way in at the 'stick.

You know what OPS + does. It measures on base and power, and an adjustment is made for the player's ballpark.

Willie Mays had a career OPS + of 156. Know what Hank Aaron's was? Aaron's OPS + is 155. Willie Mays has a career OPS + that is one whopping point higher than Aaron's. Funny thing, that metric takes into consideration where Hank played all his games, and where Willie played all his. And it finds that the two were almost identical as far as their offensive production is concerned.

And as far as your brief WAR comparison, yes, Mays led ten times. Aaron led once. Aaron was second in the NL in WAR three times, third four times, fourth twice, and fifth twice. Eight times he was one of the best three players in the entire league (by WAR), and twelve times he was one of the best five. If you don't lead the league in WAR, you're not an all-time great? Were both Ruth and Gehrig not all-time greats? Yet when they played, unless they tied, one of them had to be second (or lower). Remember, too, that a center fielder (Mays) gets a positive 7.5 run adjustment while calculating, and right fielders (Aaron) get a 2.5 run deduction while calculating WAR. I completely understand that center field is a more demanding position, and that Mays, in putting up the numbers he did in center field, created incredible value. But it makes, in my humble opinion, an erroneous assumption. Consider the comparison of Mays and Aaron. The assumption is made, by WAR, that Aaron is less valuable because he plays right field. If he is incapable of playing center field, than this would be true, as Mays would add value because he produces at the same level offensively that Aaron does, while playing a position that is more demanding, one that Aaron could not.

But Aaron was a three-time Gold Glove winner in right field. And his string of Gold Gloves only ended because of the emergence of arguably the greatest defensive right fielder to ever play the game, Roberto Clemente. Was Aaron a very good to outstanding fielder, at least early on in his career? Yes. I will state again that I have some issues with defensive metrics as they are calculated for historical players. Aaron would one season have a -1.1 dWAR (1959), then a + 0.8 (1960), and a + 2.0 (1961). Those were followed by a 0.3, and a -1.3. I don't see how one player, when healthy, and in their prime, would have such variance in their defensive performance across multiple years. However, Mays is clearly one of the greatest center fielders to ever play the game, in both the offensive and defensive realms. I do not believe that Aaron would play center field as well as Mays. But I feel he could play it at a high level. Just not at Mays' astronomical level. Adjustments to dWAR should be made based solely on performance. If you have to give individual plays a higher score by a center fielder because of the ground covered (uZR-type ratings), fine. But to automatically adjust before any performance is taken into consideration, in my opinion, skews WAR needlessly.

One final thing to consider, not looking directly at the numbers.

Top 3 in MVP vote:
Aaron 8 times in the top 3, won once.
Mays 7 times in the top 3, won twice.

The men that watched these players day in, day out, saw them in person, talked to other players and sports journalists--they voted in a manner that puts Aaron and Mays in the same upper echelon of players in the National League. Both were among the top three players in the entire league in MVP voting about the same number of times. Mays won one more, Aaron was in the top 3 one more time. That's pretty darned close. When you consider their career stats, their OPS +, their WAR, MVP finishes, Hall of Fame votes, I just don't know how a baseball fan could consider Mays an all-time great, but not Aaron. I respect that you know your baseball, rats60, but I vehemently disagree with your conclusion.

This post is so full of errors and half truths, but I'll take on a few of them. First, Cobb is not the only player to recieve a higher percentage of HOF votes. The top 4 vote getters are Nolan Ryan, Tom Seaver, Cal Ripken and George Brett. I guess you think Ryan and Seaver are the greatest pitchers of all time. Ripken and Brett are better than Cobb, Aaron , etc. See that is a pretty worthless metric to use.

You complain about Mays hitting 22 HRS in the Polo Grounds, well he hit 29 on the road. His best season in Candlestick, he hit 24 at home, 28 on the road. Nothing like Aaron's 31 at home.

You claim the Giants moved the fences in for Mays, but that is incorrect. The first two years in SF, the Giants played in Seals Stadium. Only the first year at Candlestick where the fences back, they were adjusted after one season to the place where they stayed until the Giants moved to a new stadium. Somehow you think that this is the equivalent on moving the fences in when Aaron is approaching Mays and Ruth and then moving them back when he passes. Sorry that just doesn't pass the laugh test.

You talk about the angry letters that Aaron recieved. I will always believe that it was because of the above, not because of skin color. I remember at the time this issue with the fence and "the launching pad" was very controversial as Aaron passed Mays and Ruth. It caused a lot of bitterness similar to Bonds PED use. There is no doubt in my mind that if Mays was getting ready to hit 715, it wouldn't have been an issue.

So, it take it by OPS+ you are saying Mays was the better hitter of the two. So much for Aaron being the best hitter ever, lol. Mays was way better in the field, on the base paths and in every other phase of the game. I guess that is why Mays led in WAR 10 times, Aaron once.

Mays is an all time great but Aaron is not. Who said that? Not me. This thread was asking about card values and I said it was because Aaron wasn't as good as Mays, Mantle or Williams, not that he wasn't any good. If you want to say Aaron is a top 10 player, I have no problem putting him 10th. However, I do have a problem with claims that he is better than Mays or Mantle, because he's not.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by rats60

i don't think he was as good as mays, mantle, williams, clemente, etc. I don't see his cards ever equalling those players' values.

lol

[Gr8Beldini]

Originally Posted by rats60

I don't think he was as good as Mays, Mantle, Williams, Clemente, etc. I don't see his cards ever equalling those players' values.

I think you could easily make the case that he was better than each of those guys, especially if you factor consistency and longevity. You don't realize how great he was until you flip over his baseball card. I read a Bill James article about Carl Yastrzemski recently. he was discussing Yaz' legendary 1967 season. His quote was something along the lines of, "Carl's numbers that year were the same numbers Hank put up every year for 15 years."

[the 'stache]

In 1998, the Sporting News created their top 100 baseball players of all-time list:

1. Babe Ruth
2. Willie Mays
3. Ty Cobb
4. Walter Johnson
5. Hank Aaron
8. Ted Williams
17. Mickey Mantle

ESPN's top 100, done in 2013:

1. Babe Ruth
2. Willie Mays
3. Barry Bonds
4. Ted Williams
5. Hank Aaron
7. Ty Cobb
9. Mickey Mantle

In 1999, SABR (the Society for American Baseball Research) did their top 100 list:

1. Babe Ruth
2. Lou Gehrig
3. Ted Williams
4. Hank Aaron
5. Stan Musial
7. Ty Cobb
8. Willie Mays
12. Mickey Mantle

Huh. Imagine that. Only two players are in the top 5 all-time on all three lists. Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron.

[tjenkins]

I started collecting baseball cards when I was four years old, back in 1967 and I never stopped. I was one of those kids who spent hours reading the back of baseball cards and never stopped doing that either. After reading and comparing all those stats I always wondered why Mickey Mantle was so highly regarded and Hank Aaron wasn't. His story has always been so amazing to me. He grew up poor, hitting cross handed and didn't get it straightened out until his early years in the minors and the grief he went through when he broke the Babe's record is well documented. I have always been impressed with what he has endured. I have really enjoyed this post because it confirms to me, why I have always liked Hammerin Hank. I will never forget jumping up in down in the living room when he hit the homer that beat the Babe off Al Downing. Hank Aaron is not my all time favorite player that would be Harmon Killebrew but he is probably my second favorite and he is in my opinion arguably the GOAT. Great post here and have enjoyed the info. I see his cards going up in the near future so pick them up why you can. His legend will continue to grow, no doubt in my mind!

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by rats60

I don't think he was as good as Mays, Mantle, Williams, Clemente, etc. I don't see his cards ever equalling those players' values.

Best yardstick for me for comparing players across different eras and conditions of play, at least from the standpoint of offensive production, is Bill James' runs created vs league runs created per 27 outs. It is much more detailed than OPS+. By that criterion, Williams was far and away the best, at 250% for his career (Ruth was at 240%, by the way), and Mantle is the only other one of those you have named over 200% (right around 215%, as I recall). Mays and Aaron were both in the 180% range, with a small advantage to Mays, with Clemente far, far, far behind at 142%. Overall, of course, Clemente would make up some of the difference with his glove and arm, but nowhere near enough to even begin to compete with the others. All of them except Williams were outstanding fielders, with Mays arguably the best CF of all time. Mays and Aaron fall significantly behind Mantle by this yardstick because they consistently made 60-70 more outs than he did to get pretty much the same production--never underestimate the value of a player who, like Williams and Mantle, draw an outstanding number of walks--plate discipline, coupled with dangerous power, makes for a lot of walks and hence runs scored. Check out Williams and Mantle's runs scored totals (with Williams, especially before he went off to Korea in 1952--120, 130, 140--and this from a guy who certainly no one would have called fast). See also Ralph Kiner--six seasons of more than 100 runs scored due to drawing tremendous amounts of walks from a guy who really had no speed to speak of--just plate discipline and tremendous power (led NL in HR's seven consecutive seasons, and major leagues in HR's 6 times, hitting over 50 HR's twice, and drawing as many as 137 walks).

Just my thoughts,

Larry