If you were awarded a MLB franchise & had the 1st 3 picks in the draft (every player in history is available) who do you take?

They didn't peak at the same time.

And that's a big factor in this question. You need to pick three players who would peak in the same seasons if you want to maximize your chances of winning the championship.

In this ESPN ranking of the all-time players, it has Aaron at No. 3 and Mays at No. 2.

The stats are remarkably similar. Look at Avg./OBP/Slugging ...

Mays - .301/.384/.557

Aaron - .305/.374/.555

espn.com

Top 100 MLB players of all time: Is Ruth still No. 1? Where do Trout, Bonds rank?

Inner-circle Hall of Famers, today's greatest player and a couple of PED-tainted stars round out the top 25.

Open link

Willie Mays

Sandy Koufax

Pete Rose

Flagpole, in your selection of Aaron over Mays, you merely judge by statistics alone. While Aaron was great, he wasn’t the greater offensive player (HR’s, Hits, or RBI’s). Mays played in windy and cold Candlestick Park. Had he played in any other home stadium, he’d have hit over 800 HR’s, and these same conditions would’ve translated to hits and RBI’s. He was an absolute terror on the basepaths, stealing at will (including stealing home), and how often have you seen anyone score from first on a single? Mays in the OF had greater range and a superior arm. Finally, Say Hey yielded a season and a half of his early prime to serve in the Army.

My choices again: Mays, Koufax, Rose

Every day players:

Gehrig (if healthy longer than he was, possibly the GOAT)

Hammerin' Hank

ARod

Pitchers:

Young

Gibson

Ryan

Yeah, ESPN is wrong. Mays gets the nod by too many people because he was flashy in the field and on the basepaths and Aaron was not...he was a bit boring even. Just not as valuable as what happens in the batter's box. In every measurable valuable offensive category, including career totals AND average per 162 games, Hank Aaron is better, AND he was better for longer.

Aaron had:

Better batting average

More hits (total and per 162 games)

More RBIs (total and per 162 games)

More HRs (total and per 162 games)

More runs scored (total)

More doubles (total and per 162 games)

Fewer strikeouts (total and per 162 games)

Sounds like an excuse. I've been to MANY games at Candlestick Park, and they are not all windy there, and it's not always COLD there either...it's actually rather pleasant in the middle of the summer when it can be God awful hot in Atlanta.

Hank Aaron absolutely was the better offensive player.

.305 to .301

755 HRs to 660 HRs

3771 hits to 3293 hits

2297 RBIs to 1909 RBIs

More doubles

More runs scored

Fewer strikeouts - Did Candlestick Park cause Mays to strike out more?

Mays was a good base stealer, but he didn't "steal at will." 338 stolen bases for him. 240 for Mr. Aaron. Mays averaged 18 stolen bases per 162 games. Aaron averaged 12. Meh.

You are not very objective. You only list those stats where Aaron leads.

Some of the stats you listed Aaron leads because he played in more games

Mays had:

A better lifetime WAR - 156 to 143

More stolen bases

A better on-base percentage

A better slugging percentage

A better OPS

A better OPS+

He missed one full season. He did not miss 2 seasons. I will spin it anyway I want, and even with that spin, I was not wrong.

1 plus more that is less than 2 is not 2.

Read again...he leads Mays in all of the stats I listed but one not only in total but in average per 162 games.

Aaron was better. Better in total. Better on average per season. Better in longevity greatness.

He missed 270 out of 308 games, ok 1 season, right.

More importantly, batting is only 1/2 the game, or maybe 2/3, but still, Mays was the greatest center fielder of all time. Aaron was an excellent right fielder. We are not talking about who would have been a better DH. As it is, Mays has a better offensive war. FP also is not addressing Mays two lost seasons just as he was beginning to peak as a player. Since most of the stats being offered in Aaron’s favor are just cumulative totals, these lost seasons are relevant. I usually agree with FP about baseball, but picking Aaron over Mays is a mistake. I also know he’s very stubborn and will not concede he is wrong regardless of the data presented.

Babe Ruth and 2 others

This is typical FP pedantry.

The batting is pretty much a wash.

Defensively, it is not even close. Aaron had a negative dWAR of -4.6. Mays had a dWAR of 18.2 For defensive worth, Mays fWAR is the third highest of all time, and second all time for outfielders only behind Adruw Jones.

Mays has a higher WAR, higher dWar, higher fWAR, higher oWAR and higher oROR.

Most rankings has Mays ahead of Aaron who was a defensively liabilty.

Face it. Mays was better.

MLB is BLM backwards

One of Schoenfield’s reasons for calling Willie the best is “Because he was better than Aaron, and Aaron was pretty freakin’ awesome.” (Yes, he used the word “freakin.'”) Schoenfield relies on Bill James’ Runs Created stat, by which measurement Willie was indeed better in most seasons – again, not a great deal better but better.
Another is “Because he won two MVP Awards – but should have won eight.” Actually, Schoenfield underrates Willie. In the Total Player Rating method developed by John Thorn and Pete Palmer of Total Baseball – which takes in all of a player’s contributions at-bat, in the field, and on the bases — Mays was, from 1954 though 1965, the best player in the National League for an incredible ten times (though tied with Henry Aaron in 1956).

Ok but does he get on base?

I would also take the same three. You probably want to avoid guys that had injury issues (Koufax, pitchers in general) or developed late (Randy Johnson, Joe Morgan) to maximize team control years. Production boosts from steroids are also something you probably can’t count on in this hypothetical second career (Bonds, ARod, Clemens). Pre-integration players also take a huge hit in my mind due to lack of competition. My top six picks might all be outfielders, but you probably also don’t want all outfielders in this hypothetical scenario.

Mays seems like the most obvious choice. I can see a credible argument for Ruth, Aaron, Musial, Trout, or Ted Williams over Bonds due to the late career steroid boost. The third choice is difficult. If looking for a non-outfielder Mike Schmidt or ARod come to mind. ARod was the total package for tools, but it’s not clear to me if he was ever not using steroids or how his career might have otherwise played out. Pitchers are volatile, but a big, right-handed power arm is about as safe a bet as you can have and Clemens also produced 80 WAR in 13 seasons in Boston before (I believe) there were steroid accusations.