No shame in being wrong, Mr. Flagpole. Just accept that you are wrong, admit it here, and then move on. It is not that big of a deal.
There are many people who would choose Aaron over Mays, not a majority but many. This thread has 100s of posts with different combination of players to start a team with. Flagpole values offense and longevity (consistent with the thread about shortstops) others value pitching or defensive players.
CORRECT!
The majority in this case is wrong. Hank Aaron was kind of boring. He was stoic. He loped around the bases after a home run like he had arthritis. None of those things helped his image. He is truly underrated. I've seen him listed as low as the 10th best player in MLB history with old timers ahead of him who never faced black players in the field or any international players or ever had to hit any number of pitches that developed later on.
Willie Mays was a great centerfielder. Big deal. He had 7,284 career chances in centerfield. He played in 3,005 games, meaning he had 2.42 defensive chances per game. How many of THOSE were lazy fly balls or singles hit right at him? Most of them for sure.
How many balls did he get to in his career that Hank Aaron couldn't have gotten to? 10? 12? Maybe as many as one per season so 23 MAYBE?
The drooling over centerfield play is silly. Nice to have a good one out there. Better to have a better player in the batter's box.
Think of some great centerfielders. I'll give you three:
Willie Mays
Jim Edmonds
Ken Griffey Jr.
Now, ESPECIALLY with Edmonds and Griffey where all games are recorded, but for Mays too, think of a great play they made in the outfield. Ok, you got it right? You got ONE great play that we all know about for each one of them. Over the shoulder for Mays, over the shoulder and splayed out for Edmonds, and the one where Griffey jumps into the wall, catches it and breaks his wrist. Can you find a few others if you search for them? Probably. But you only know those three (and only if you are a baseball fan). Spectacular ability in the outfield just isn't needed on the overwhelming majority of plays.
Better batting average, more HRs, more hits, more RBIs, and even more doubles. AND, he was great for longer. 28 HRs for Mays at age 39, but 40 HRs for Aaron at age 39.
Ok, I've made my case. I value offense WAY more than defense (well, way more than OUTFIELD defense; shortstop is a different animal), and it is my view that Aaron was just a TAD better offensively than Mays (and for longer) and that he wasn't all that bad in the outfield either (he did win 3 Gold Gloves after all; lots of players don't win any).
I have no interest in defending the greatness of Henry Aaron any further, so for now, on this topic, I say adieu.
There are many people who would choose Aaron over Mays, not a majority but many. This thread has 100s of posts with different combination of players to start a team with. Flagpole values offense and longevity (consistent with the thread about shortstops) others value pitching or defensive players.
CORRECT!
The majority in this case is wrong. Hank Aaron was kind of boring. He was stoic. He loped around the bases after a home run like he had arthritis. None of those things helped his image. He is truly underrated. I've seen him listed as low as the 10th best player in MLB history with old timers ahead of him who never faced black players in the field or any international players or ever had to hit any number of pitches that developed later on.
Willie Mays was a great centerfielder. Big deal. He had 7,284 career chances in centerfield. He played in 3,005 games, meaning he had 2.42 defensive chances per game. How many of THOSE were lazy fly balls or singles hit right at him? Most of them for sure.
How many balls did he get to in his career that Hank Aaron couldn't have gotten to? 10? 12? Maybe as many as one per season so 23 MAYBE?
The drooling over centerfield play is silly. Nice to have a good one out there. Better to have a better player in the batter's box.
Think of some great centerfielders. I'll give you three:
Willie Mays
Jim Edmonds
Ken Griffey Jr.
Now, ESPECIALLY with Edmonds and Griffey where all games are recorded, but for Mays too, think of a great play they made in the outfield. Ok, you got it right? You got ONE great play that we all know about for each one of them. Over the shoulder for Mays, over the shoulder and splayed out for Edmonds, and the one where Griffey jumps into the wall, catches it and breaks his wrist. Can you find a few others if you search for them? Probably. But you only know those three (and only if you are a baseball fan). Spectacular ability in the outfield just isn't needed on the overwhelming majority of plays.
Better batting average, more HRs, more hits, more RBIs, and even more doubles. AND, he was great for longer. 28 HRs for Mays at age 39, but 40 HRs for Aaron at age 39.
Ok, I've made my case. I value offense WAY more than defense (well, way more than OUTFIELD defense; shortstop is a different animal), and it is my view that Aaron was just a TAD better offensively than Mays (and for longer) and that he wasn't all that bad in the outfield either (he did win 3 Gold Gloves after all; lots of players don't win any).
I have no interest in defending the greatness of Henry Aaron any further, so for now, on this topic, I say adieu.
There are many people who would choose Aaron over Mays, not a majority but many. This thread has 100s of posts with different combination of players to start a team with. Flagpole values offense and longevity (consistent with the thread about shortstops) others value pitching or defensive players.
CORRECT!
The majority in this case is wrong. Hank Aaron was kind of boring. He was stoic. He loped around the bases after a home run like he had arthritis. None of those things helped his image. He is truly underrated. I've seen him listed as low as the 10th best player in MLB history with old timers ahead of him who never faced black players in the field or any international players or ever had to hit any number of pitches that developed later on.
Willie Mays was a great centerfielder. Big deal. He had 7,284 career chances in centerfield. He played in 3,005 games, meaning he had 2.42 defensive chances per game. How many of THOSE were lazy fly balls or singles hit right at him? Most of them for sure.
How many balls did he get to in his career that Hank Aaron couldn't have gotten to? 10? 12? Maybe as many as one per season so 23 MAYBE?
The drooling over centerfield play is silly. Nice to have a good one out there. Better to have a better player in the batter's box.
Think of some great centerfielders. I'll give you three:
Willie Mays
Jim Edmonds
Ken Griffey Jr.
Now, ESPECIALLY with Edmonds and Griffey where all games are recorded, but for Mays too, think of a great play they made in the outfield. Ok, you got it right? You got ONE great play that we all know about for each one of them. Over the shoulder for Mays, over the shoulder and splayed out for Edmonds, and the one where Griffey jumps into the wall, catches it and breaks his wrist. Can you find a few others if you search for them? Probably. But you only know those three (and only if you are a baseball fan). Spectacular ability in the outfield just isn't needed on the overwhelming majority of plays.
Better batting average, more HRs, more hits, more RBIs, and even more doubles. AND, he was great for longer. 28 HRs for Mays at age 39, but 40 HRs for Aaron at age 39.
Ok, I've made my case. I value offense WAY more than defense (well, way more than OUTFIELD defense; shortstop is a different animal), and it is my view that Aaron was just a TAD better offensively than Mays (and for longer) and that he wasn't all that bad in the outfield either (he did win 3 Gold Gloves after all; lots of players don't win any).
I have no interest in defending the greatness of Henry Aaron any further, so for now, on this topic, I say adieu.
You are a very unsophisticated fan of baseball. Please leave this discussion to those of us who understand the nuances of baseball. You are way over your head in this discussion.
Can we please keep this thread going and talk about something other than Mays vs Aaron? Both are consensus top-10 all time players and are defensible picks.
Maybe a better debate can be framed around Flagpole’s second pick of Bench. His total WAR is much lower than others, but he’s the best ever at a very important position of scarcity.
Can we please keep this thread going and talk about something other than Mays vs Aaron? Both are consensus top-10 all time players and are defensible picks.
Maybe a better debate can be framed around Flagpole’s second pick of Bench. His total WAR is much lower than others, but he’s the best ever at a very important position of scarcity.
Ok, it depends on what position you value as one of your first picks. Bench is a great choice but personally I chose 3 pitchers (2 lefties and a righty).
There are about 30 players that could be considered as your top 3 franchise players.
Can we please keep this thread going and talk about something other than Mays vs Aaron? Both are consensus top-10 all time players and are defensible picks.
Maybe a better debate can be framed around Flagpole’s second pick of Bench. His total WAR is much lower than others, but he’s the best ever at a very important position of scarcity.
I'll discuss THIS topic as I've made my opinion clear on the other topic.
Let's start with the fact that I'm going with Pete Rose's suggestion that to have a winning team (and that's what we're going for here), you need to have a great 2nd baseman and catcher. I don't pretend that Bench and Carew are among the three best players ever. I chose them to fill the catcher and 2nd base positions (knowing that I don't go with old timers before Jackie Robinson, or drug cheats). Aaron was picked also because he's the best player in the history of baseball.
It is FAR more important to have a great fielding catcher than a great fielding outfielder, because he's in on every play. The best offensive catcher ever was Mike Piazza, but Bench is overall better because being great behind the plate is WAAAAAAAY more important than being the best among outfielders.
I'll submit this too...you know I'm not the only one to pick three players here. I realize you people are drawn to me, but give some others their time in the sun!
Can we please keep this thread going and talk about something other than Mays vs Aaron? Both are consensus top-10 all time players and are defensible picks.
Maybe a better debate can be framed around Flagpole’s second pick of Bench. His total WAR is much lower than others, but he’s the best ever at a very important position of scarcity.
Ok, it depends on what position you value as one of your first picks. Bench is a great choice but personally I chose 3 pitchers (2 lefties and a righty).
There are about 30 players that could be considered as your top 3 franchise players.
Bench's lifetime WAR is 82nd all time. Would you really pick him over Ruth, Walter J or Ty Cobb?
Can we please keep this thread going and talk about something other than Mays vs Aaron? Both are consensus top-10 all time players and are defensible picks.
Maybe a better debate can be framed around Flagpole’s second pick of Bench. His total WAR is much lower than others, but he’s the best ever at a very important position of scarcity.
I'll discuss THIS topic as I've made my opinion clear on the other topic.
Let's start with the fact that I'm going with Pete Rose's suggestion that to have a winning team (and that's what we're going for here), you need to have a great 2nd baseman and catcher. I don't pretend that Bench and Carew are among the three best players ever. I chose them to fill the catcher and 2nd base positions (knowing that I don't go with old timers before Jackie Robinson, or drug cheats). Aaron was picked also because he's the best player in the history of baseball.
It is FAR more important to have a great fielding catcher than a great fielding outfielder, because he's in on every play. The best offensive catcher ever was Mike Piazza, but Bench is overall better because being great behind the plate is WAAAAAAAY more important than being the best among outfielders.
I'll submit this too...you know I'm not the only one to pick three players here. I realize you people are drawn to me, but give some others their time in the sun!
You only picked Bench because he played in Ohio. No one else would pick him not in a million years given the other options.
I'll discuss THIS topic as I've made my opinion clear on the other topic.
Let's start with the fact that I'm going with Pete Rose's suggestion that to have a winning team (and that's what we're going for here), you need to have a great 2nd baseman and catcher. I don't pretend that Bench and Carew are among the three best players ever. I chose them to fill the catcher and 2nd base positions (knowing that I don't go with old timers before Jackie Robinson, or drug cheats). Aaron was picked also because he's the best player in the history of baseball.
It is FAR more important to have a great fielding catcher than a great fielding outfielder, because he's in on every play. The best offensive catcher ever was Mike Piazza, but Bench is overall better because being great behind the plate is WAAAAAAAY more important than being the best among outfielders.
I'll submit this too...you know I'm not the only one to pick three players here. I realize you people are drawn to me, but give some others their time in the sun!
You only picked Bench because he played in Ohio. No one else would pick him not in a million years given the other options.
What a weird person you are to get upset about a baseball discussion.
Johnny Bench is the best catcher in baseball history (no old timers in my view and no cheaters). I picked him due to that and Pete Rose's comment that a winning team happens if you have great offensive players at catcher and second base. Bench even has the all-important (sarcasm) best WAR of at least one all-time best catchers list I looked at.
Ok, it depends on what position you value as one of your first picks. Bench is a great choice but personally I chose 3 pitchers (2 lefties and a righty).
There are about 30 players that could be considered as your top 3 franchise players.
Bench's lifetime WAR is 82nd all time. Would you really pick him over Ruth, Walter J or Ty Cobb?
Yes, due to being a catcher. I made this clear before. Also, I don't consider old timers, and I know that you are Sally.
Ok, it depends on what position you value as one of your first picks. Bench is a great choice but personally I chose 3 pitchers (2 lefties and a righty).
There are about 30 players that could be considered as your top 3 franchise players.
Bench's lifetime WAR is 82nd all time. Would you really pick him over Ruth, Walter J or Ty Cobb?
I have a problem picking players from before 1940 so I wouldn't pick Walter Johnson or Ty Cobb. However Babe Ruth was an exception. He was so far ahead of his competition I think he'd be good in any era. Players today don't hit the ball any farther even in batting practice.
Still I posted that I'd go with 3 pitchers- 2 lefties and a righty. I didn't choose Bench but if you're going with a catcher he's a great choice.
I too would not pick steroid positive players on principle even though Bonds was great.
Barbie, these are 30 players I'd consider to start a franchise, no doubt I'm missing a few, again I'm not taking players who played before 1940 except for Babe Ruth
would you select? Each player is like 20. You get to pick the first 3 players. Who are your picks?
4 days late what has become a 9 pg thread so prob repeating others thoughts, but those of you picking guys from 50+ years ago must be assuming they'd be up to today's training standards?
otherwise they'd get absolutely demolished by the current players. same goes for every major sport. the best high schoolers of today would likely beat the old 1920s yankees teams if they were limited to the talent they displayed 100 years ago.
Barbie, these are 30 players I'd consider to start a franchise, no doubt I'm missing a few, again I'm not taking players who played before 1940 except for Babe Ruth
Damn. That's pretty solid. Off the top of my head, since you are including some old timers like Ruth, I might have to do Gehrig and Musial at first, and that's really tough to drop Pujols. I could be persuaded to keep Pujols, but Cabrera is out, so either Gehrig and Musial or Gehrig and Pujols.
For Shortstop, Ozzie Smith was great with the glove, and that is VERY important at that position, but Jeter was serviceable enough in the field, and his offensive numbers are too great, so I'd take Jeter over Smith.
Really kind of nitpicking though at this point. Also, it's tough to know where to put Pete Rose. If he's at third, I would take him over Brett.
Barbie, these are 30 players I'd consider to start a franchise, no doubt I'm missing a few, again I'm not taking players who played before 1940 except for Babe Ruth
Damn. That's pretty solid. Off the top of my head, since you are including some old timers like Ruth, I might have to do Gehrig and Musial at first, and that's really tough to drop Pujols. I could be persuaded to keep Pujols, but Cabrera is out, so either Gehrig and Musial or Gehrig and Pujols.
For Shortstop, Ozzie Smith was great with the glove, and that is VERY important at that position, but Jeter was serviceable enough in the field, and his offensive numbers are too great, so I'd take Jeter over Smith.
Really kind of nitpicking though at this point. Also, it's tough to know where to put Pete Rose. If he's at third, I would take him over Brett.
I don’t get the obsession over this comment from the charlatan Pete Rose about needing a good second baseman to build a team. Here is a list of infielders taken first overall in the 50+ year history of the MLB draft:
SS: 12
Catcher: 8
3B: 5
1B: 2
2B: 0
It's not a perfect example but gives you a sense for what actual baseball evaluators value. It’s also why I think my picks (Mays, Bonds, Clemens) which mostly looked at career WAR might be undervaluing SS and catcher somewhat.
Barbie, these are 30 players I'd consider to start a franchise, no doubt I'm missing a few, again I'm not taking players who played before 1940 except for Babe Ruth
Damn. That's pretty solid. Off the top of my head, since you are including some old timers like Ruth, I might have to do Gehrig and Musial at first, and that's really tough to drop Pujols. I could be persuaded to keep Pujols, but Cabrera is out, so either Gehrig and Musial or Gehrig and Pujols.
For Shortstop, Ozzie Smith was great with the glove, and that is VERY important at that position, but Jeter was serviceable enough in the field, and his offensive numbers are too great, so I'd take Jeter over Smith.
Really kind of nitpicking though at this point. Also, it's tough to know where to put Pete Rose. If he's at third, I would take him over Brett.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.