Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mays vs Aaron

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Los Bravos
    replied
    Pete Hamill writes about them?

    Leave a comment:


  • Cowtipper
    replied
    Originally posted by Los Bravos View Post
    The perception of the general public is always a great indicator of a ballplayer's relative worth.
    There's a reason why certain individuals are remembered in certain ways.

    Leave a comment:


  • Honus Wagner Rules
    replied
    I forgot I started this thread seven years ago!

    Leave a comment:


  • Los Bravos
    replied
    Originally posted by Cowtipper View Post
    Willie Mays, hands down. People know Aaron for his bat...people know Mays for his bat, his fielding, his speed....
    The perception of the general public is always a great indicator of a ballplayer's relative worth.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cowtipper
    replied
    Willie Mays, hands down. People know Aaron for his bat...people know Mays for his bat, his fielding, his speed....

    Leave a comment:


  • TRfromBR
    replied
    Originally posted by fenrir View Post
    mays is the best player ever with ruth. aaron was fantastic, but no willie.
    Mays was a somewhat better, and far more exiting, ballplayer than Aaron. But, as tremendous as they both were, neither are legitimately comparable to Babe Ruth. If any ballplayer, in any sport, performed at superhuman levels, it was Babe Ruth. His greatness dwarfs both the all-round splendor of Mays, and the solid longevity of Aaron. And, that is not New York hype. That is well-documented fact.

    My vote goes to Willie - slightly, ignoring Korea; significantly, considering Korea.* But, Aaron is not far behind.

    * (This time Willie gets the asterisk.) There is also a worthy counter-argument that Mays actually benefitted from his time in the service, because it allowed him to put on substantial muscular weight and develop a more powerful swing.
    Attached Files
    Last edited by TRfromBR; 06-27-2007, 10:06 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Kid
    replied
    I'd have to say that Mays was the better player because:

    1. Mays baserunning was far superior to Aaron's.
    2. Mays played a harder outfield position and was better defensivley.
    3. Considering that both are close as hitters, and Willie's defense is superior, Willie is the better player.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blackout
    replied
    I don't know the Hammer was a better offensive force and didn't suck in the playoffs

    Leave a comment:


  • Lin_Kuei_Fighter
    replied
    I vote Aaron- yeah, Mays was a centerfielder with good defense, but Aaron had defense too. His FRAA is 76, and lasted longer than Mays, with an OPS+ just one point lower. I also don't believe in war credit, because you don't know what could have happened. I choose Aaron. I have him #4, and Mays #5

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Cold Nose
    replied
    Fonzie got to meet Aaron, but he said Mays was the greatest of all-time.

    Leave a comment:


  • fenrir
    replied
    mays is the best player ever with ruth. aaron was fantastic, but no willie.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blackout
    replied
    Hank Aaron vs Willie Mays

    who was the better player?

    Leave a comment:


  • four tool
    replied
    Willie won the PR battle because people kept talking about him.

    The Lip: If someone came along and hit .350 every year with 100SB and 50 (or 60?) HR and made a miraculous play in the field every day, I'd still say Willie was better.

    Dodgers manager after Willie fielded a ball and nailed a runner at the plate from 325 ft. away with a perfect throw. "I won't beleive that play until I see him do it again."

    Giants coaches from at least 1954 on: If the ball goes to center--COVER A BASE!

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Burgess
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    You are low rating him because you don't prefer his type. It's fine with me if you don't like Reggie as much as myself or Mark. It's not fine with you leaving him out of your top 100 and rating guys like Sammy Sosa (who ironically has like the same skill set) and Willie Keeler.

    First, try to find one player from the 1970s with a road rel. OBP of 119 and a road rel. SLG of 130. Second, Reggie had a long decline phase which really brought down his rate stats. You don't even attempt to adjust for this.
    I disagree. I recently went back and reworked my Top 100, in order to bring more consistency to my order of sequence. I dropped Collins, Sisler down due to they were too high. I had unconsciously used all time team considerations in putting them so high. And I put Reggie Jackson into my Top 100. I put him at #90, beneath others who were similar, like Sosa, McCovey, Mize, Thomas, Kiner, Killebrew and McGwire. And I ranked Reggie above Keeler, Gwynn, Boggs, Rose and Carew.

    So, I think you do my order wrong, Chris.

    I'll tell you what. Since you think Reggie compares well with the great sluggers of the game, try this little experiment. Try taking his away games slugging ave., index it to L average, and then transpose those series of figures, starting in 1920, to see how Reggie stacks up against the AL guys of the 20's & 30's.

    Then, and only then will you see how really poorly Reggie stands up as a slugger. He will be shown to have a BA of .300, when the others had .350, etc. Below is my bottom 30 of my Top 100.

    71. Mel Ott 23
    72. Paul Waner 69
    73. Johnny Mize 48
    74. Craig Biggio 30
    75. Ernie Banks 63
    76. Jeff Bagwell 37
    77. Mike Piazza 65
    78. Brooks Robinson 76
    79. Ron Santo 72
    80. Ernie Banks 63
    81. Bobby Grich
    82. Sammie Sosa - RF45
    83. Willie McCovey - 55
    84. Mark McGuire - 26
    85. Harmon Killebrew - 49
    86. Ken Boyer - 3B12
    87. Joe Cronin - SS8
    88. Ralph Kiner - LF18
    89. Frank Thomas 61
    90. Reggie Jackson 43
    91. Tony Gwynn 41
    92. Wade Boggs 46
    93. Pete Rose - 28
    94. Luke Appling - SS11
    95. Rod Carew 50
    96. Willie Keeler - RF35
    97. Spot Poles, NL -
    98 Bobby Wallace - SS36
    99. Ned Williamson - SS45
    100. Bill Lange - CF64
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 01-14-2006, 10:29 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by [email protected]
    But just because he isn't the kind of player I prefer, I do not hold that against him in any way. I feel I do give him his due credit, but realize, that he had his shortcomings as a player, as do all others. I can see the good in him, but some can't see his limitations. And that is not my fault.
    You are low rating him because you don't prefer his type. Reggie did have one limitation-lots of strikeouts. Willie Keeler (who you rate like 10 spots ahead of Reggie) had limitation-power. Which limitation is more important? I'm sure you can pick that out. Keeler was a much better contact hitter than Reggie, but Reggie was a better fielder and his power was like 10 times better..

    It's fine with me if you don't like Reggie as much as myself or Mark. It's not fine with you leaving him out of your top 100 and rating guys like Sammy Sosa (who ironically has like the same skill set) and Willie Keeler.

    And I know you know better than this Bill:

    Relative stats:

    ------------BA--------onbase------SLG
    home------.99----------1.09-------1.25
    away-----1.04---------1.19--------1.30

    All in all, I'd say good numbers, but not great numbers. And I think that is a fair estimation of Reggie.
    First, try to find one player from the 1970s with a road rel. OBP of 119 and a road rel. SLG of 130. Second, Reggie had a long decline phase which really brought down his rate stats. You don't even attempt to adjust for this.
    Last edited by 538280; 01-13-2006, 08:02 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X