Who was better?

coolstanley

Hank Aaron or Stan Musial? Debate

stevek

Tough call.

I'd take Musial for the batting average, and he had power.

2dueces

Apples and oranges just like any other discussion about great players.

doubledragon

I'm no expert when it comes to baseball, but if I had to choose I would go with Hank Aaron. He hit 755 home runs, but he also had 3,771 hits.

perkdog

We will not know the correct answer until @dallasactuary posts

Justacommeman

Coin flip

m

Darin

Question- Since dallasactuary called Gene Tenace a superstar,
what does that make Hank Aaron and Stan Musial?
Superstar just isn't good enough if Tenace is in that category.

coolstanley

@stevek said:
Tough call.

I'd take Musial for the batting average, and he had power.

According to a few people on this forum, batting average don't mean much.

2dueces

Aaron had 3000 hits -home runs. That’s impressive. Don’t have the exact # of SO’s but I know it’s low for a home run hitter.

dallasactuary

@Justacommeman said:
Coin flip

m

This is the correct answer.

galaxy27

i don't really care to engage in one of those rehashes that larkin speaks of where a bunch of guys get together and weird things start happening, but this does give me another opportunity to uncork arguably my fav sports trivia nugget

stan musial played in 3,026 games and struck out 3 times in a game once

for those scoring at home, that's .03%

dick ellsworth should be allowed to kiss gene tenace on the lips for that feat

JoeBanzai

Musial

Tabe

Aaron never had a season as good as Musial's 1948 where Stan led the league in runs, hits, doubles, triples, RBI, average, slugging, OPS, OPS+, total bases, and was 1 behind the lead in home runs.

But Hank was a better defender and could steal bases, too (30/30 one year!).

I'd put Hank ever so slightly ahead but you can't go wrong picking Stan either.

coolstanley

@dallasactuary said:

@Justacommeman said:
Coin flip

m

This is the correct answer.

That's too easy Dallas. You need to choose one

coolstanley

@Tabe said:

But Hank was a better defender and could steal bases, too (30/30 one year!).

Stan had a higher fielding %.

stevek

Interesting tidbit about Aaron.

i didn't google it, but i recall in an interview many years ago that Aaron stated, paraphrase, that he never tried to hit a home run, that his objective every time he stepped up to the plate was simply to try and hit the ball hard.

Probably others have said that as well. But it's interesting that a player with so many home runs, never actually tried to hit one.

dallasactuary

@coolstanley said:

@dallasactuary said:

@Justacommeman said:
Coin flip

m

This is the correct answer.

That's too easy Dallas. You need to choose one

If forced to pick one I would pick Aaron and be 50.01% confident that I had picked correctly. Musial appears better as a hitter, but his competition was weaker than Aaron's, and their OPS+ is identical at the point their PA is equal; Aaron has more old man ABs, and those brought him down a few points. OTOH, Musial lost a year to the military and he'd probably move ahead if he had that year back. Aaron does have the advantage on baserunning, but he also ground into more DPs. Aaron won a few Gold Gloves, but I don't put too much weight on that; he appears to have been a pretty good fielder when he was younger, but Musial wasn't bad. Aaron had better range, but made more errors. Musial spent more time at 1B, but he was very good there. They are just too close to have any confidence in picking a winner.

JoeBanzai

@stevek said:
Interesting tidbit about Aaron.

i didn't google it, but i recall in an interview many years ago that Aaron stated, paraphrase, that he never tried to hit a home run, that his objective every time he stepped up to the plate was simply to try and hit the ball hard.

Probably others have said that as well. But it's interesting that a player with so many home runs, never actually tried to hit one.

I read the book "I Had a Hammer" by Henry himself. This may be true early in his career, but he certainly tried for home runs when he felt he had a shot to surpass Ruth.

stevek

@JoeBanzai said:

@stevek said:
Interesting tidbit about Aaron.

i didn't google it, but i recall in an interview many years ago that Aaron stated, paraphrase, that he never tried to hit a home run, that his objective every time he stepped up to the plate was simply to try and hit the ball hard.

Probably others have said that as well. But it's interesting that a player with so many home runs, never actually tried to hit one.

I read the book "I Had a Hammer" by Henry himself. This may be true early in his career, but he certainly tried for home runs when he felt he had a shot to surpass Ruth.

I did some Googling on it, and you're right about that.

That being said, i am 100% sure Aaron said it. I can't recall the precise year i saw the interview, but i know i was young and playing baseball in Little League so it had to be in the 1960's because it had a bit of an effect on how i approached the plate after that. Not trying to kill the ball, just trying to make good hard contact.

BillJones

I would take Aaron. Both of them continued to be very productive in their late 30s, but Aaron was the more complete player.

I remember watching a Phillies game in the late 1960s. Aaron was on first and Braves really need him to get in scoring position. Aaron wasn’t known as a base stealer, but when he made up his mind to grab one, he usually got it. Just about everyone on the field knew he’d try it, sure enough he stole it and turned the game for the Braves.

With all of his other talents, Musial was not a great base runner. His stolen base total was virtually nil.

JoeBanzai

@stevek said:

@JoeBanzai said:

@stevek said:
Interesting tidbit about Aaron.

i didn't google it, but i recall in an interview many years ago that Aaron stated, paraphrase, that he never tried to hit a home run, that his objective every time he stepped up to the plate was simply to try and hit the ball hard.

Probably others have said that as well. But it's interesting that a player with so many home runs, never actually tried to hit one.

I read the book "I Had a Hammer" by Henry himself. This may be true early in his career, but he certainly tried for home runs when he felt he had a shot to surpass Ruth.

I did some Googling on it, and you're right about that.

That being said, i am 100% sure Aaron said it. I can't recall the precise year i saw the interview, but i know i was young and playing baseball in Little League so it had to be in the 1960's because it had a bit of an effect on how i approached the plate after that. Not trying to kill the ball, just trying to make good hard contact.

I really enjoyed Mickey Mantle's comment; "I was tryin' for a home run every time, man I was up there whalin'!"

I doubt that was true, but he said it with that Mickey Mantle grin on his face, had to love that!

Darin

I remember hearing Mantle say he swung hard every time just in case he hit it. LOL.
Aaron adjusted his swing when the team moved from Milwaukee to Atlanta. He didn't hold the
bat as upright, trying to pull the ball more trying for more home runs because of the shorter distance to left field wall.

JoeBanzai

Took a closer look and I'm thinking it's a virtual tie but you get more games from Aaron.

They both played the same number of games per season A143/M144.

Henry scored .66 runs per game, Stan .64.

Henry had 1.14 hits per game, Stan 1.2.

Henry had .696 RBI per game, Stan 6.45.

Henry had 2.07 Total Bases per game, Stan 2.03.

Henry had 1.14 hits per game, Stan 1.2.

Henry walked .425 per game, Stan .528.

The only advantages I see (other than a few stolen bases) are Aaron drove in more runs, but Stan got on base at a higher rate.

Now look at the hitters they played with;

Musial had Enos Slaughter who had a 121 OPS+ for the 10 years they played together. Later he had Ken Boyer, about the same. That's it sports fans, unless you want to bring up Wally Moon and Wes Covington.

Aaron had Ed Mathews, 10 year stretch with a 153 OPS+, Joe Adcock 9 years at 134 OPS+, Rico Carty 7 years at 142 OPS+. Felipe Alou and Orlando Cepeda chipped in with a few nice years too.

It makes me wonder what kind of numbers Stan would have had with a HOF caliber, or two, hitter helping him out.

Hank played in 272 more games, but If you don't want to penalize Stan for WWll, add 151 games to Stan's total because of 1945.

You get an additional year or two out of Aaron, that's another 5-10%.

I disregarded Musial's AWESOME first year, even though he hit .426 and had an OPS+ of 179 ;-)

You certainly can't go wrong with either of these guys!

Justacommeman

Yep. Coin flip

m

dallasactuary

@Justacommeman said:
Yep. Coin flip

Yep. This is still the correct answer.

1948_Swell_Robinson

Hank Aaron, for these four reasons that break the tie.

1). Aaron was a better baserunner and base stealer. The fact that the philosophy of that time period was of not to steal bases that often, it does not negate that Aaron had that in his tool bag more so than Musial....so therefore a manger could take advantage of that for a full season, or in key spots that determine wins/losses to a greater degree.

As it stands statistically, Musial had 78 stolen bases and 71 caught stealing, which is negative value territory.
Aaron had 240 steals to 73 caught stealing. That advantage right there is probably enough to break the virtual tie in hitting. Keep in mind as Dallasactuary pointed out above, the extra plate appearances Aaron did it over Musial that already closes the small OPS+ gap Musial has on Aaron.

Base running ability is not just stolen bases, it is taking the extra base. Hank Aaron took the extra base in 51% of those opportunities. Musial did it in 49% of his opportunities.

Aaron was thrown out on the bases while trying to make a base running play(that does not include stolen base attempts) a total of 131 times. Stan Musial was thrown out 176 times. Considering the fact that Aaron had 1,200 more plate appearances, that is a pretty wide gap of thrown out trying to make a base running play.

In sum total, when you include all the baser running contribution to creating runs, Aaron over takes any hitting tie or slight hitting advantage Musial may possibly have had.

2)In the 1940's, the majority of parks favored left handed hitters due to their odd asymmetrical shapes. While Aaron did not play in the 40's to be disadvantaged by that, Musial did to be 'advantaged' by that, so when you compare Musial to the entire league, he gets a very slight boost over what the RH hitters had, and thus a slight boost in his OPS+. That facet did continue into the 1950's for a bit though. So Aaron did have a smidge disadvantage. Don't get angry about this, it is a small consideration, but it was there.

3. I just cannot discount the negative environment Aaron endured while he was a player. I have no idea how that translates into how they performed, but if I had to bet my life on it, I would bet that it hurt more than it helped.

4) Defensively. I'm not even going to look at the defensive metrics. Aaron ran faster and was athletic. He had baseball sense too. Unless the guy who runs faster is a spaz, of which Aaron wasn't, I'm going to believe he is going to help me just a little better in the OF than the slower player. Also, the fact that Aaron's manager had enough confidence to put him in CF for 2,6000 innings, I'm going to figure that Aaron is the player I would rather have behind me if I were pitching.

PS; I wish MLB had the balls to include ALL negro league stats into the record book, instead of stopping at 1948....because had they done that, then Aaron's Negro League home runs would have made Aaron the all-time home run leader in the record book again.

coolstanley

My pick would be Musial. I consider him a top 4 or 5 greatest player of all time. And I think his cards and collectibles are still undervalued.

BillJones

@coolstanley said:
My pick would be Musial. I consider him a top 4 or 5 greatest player of all time. And I think his cards and collectibles are still undervalued.

That applies if you are a St Louis Cardinals fan. If you look at American League players during the same era, he hit fewer home runs and was not as much of an offensive threat.

dallasactuary

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
In sum total, when you include all the baser running contribution to creating runs, Aaron over takes any hitting tie or slight hitting advantage Musial may possibly have had.

I agree, and I think if you look at all the available stats, Aaron wins by a nose. But Musial's stats are all zeroes for 1945, smack dab in the middle of his peak. There's no right way to adjust for that, and maybe no adjustment is necessary, but I am in the camp that says Musial was a great baseball player in 1945, he just wasn't available to play because he was busy saving the world. And the small lead Aaron has over Musial, mostly for the reasons you cited, either vanishes or almost vanishes depending on the adjustment you do make.

coolstanley

@BillJones said:

@coolstanley said:
My pick would be Musial. I consider him a top 4 or 5 greatest player of all time. And I think his cards and collectibles are still undervalued.

That applies if you are a St Louis Cardinals fan. If you look at American League players during the same era, he hit fewer home runs and was not as much of an offensive threat.

lol I'm not a Cardinals fan.

Musial won 3 MVP's, 7 batting titles and has 3 rings. So, I would say he was a huge threat.

Tabe

@coolstanley said:

@Tabe said:

But Hank was a better defender and could steal bases, too (30/30 one year!).

Stan had a higher fielding %.

Fielding % is about as useful as pitcher wins for judging players.

JoeBanzai

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Hank Aaron, for these four reasons that break the tie.

1). Aaron was a better baserunner and base stealer. The fact that the philosophy of that time period was of not to steal bases that often, it does not negate that Aaron had that in his tool bag more so than Musial....so therefore a manger could take advantage of that for a full season, or in key spots that determine wins/losses to a greater degree.

As it stands statistically, Musial had 78 stolen bases and 71 caught stealing, which is negative value territory.
Aaron had 240 steals to 73 caught stealing. That advantage right there is probably enough to break the virtual tie in hitting. Keep in mind as Dallasactuary pointed out above, the extra plate appearances Aaron did it over Musial that already closes the small OPS+ gap Musial has on Aaron.

Base running ability is not just stolen bases, it is taking the extra base. Hank Aaron took the extra base in 51% of those opportunities. Musial did it in 49% of his opportunities.

Aaron was thrown out on the bases while trying to make a base running play(that does not include stolen base attempts) a total of 131 times. Stan Musial was thrown out 176 times. Considering the fact that Aaron had 1,200 more plate appearances, that is a pretty wide gap of thrown out trying to make a base running play.

In sum total, when you include all the baser running contribution to creating runs, Aaron over takes any hitting tie or slight hitting advantage Musial may possibly have had.

Aaron was the better runner.

2)In the 1940's, the majority of parks favored left handed hitters due to their odd asymmetrical shapes. While Aaron did not play in the 40's to be disadvantaged by that, Musial did to be 'advantaged' by that, so when you compare Musial to the entire league, he gets a very slight boost over what the RH hitters had, and thus a slight boost in his OPS+. That facet did continue into the 1950's for a bit though. So Aaron did have a smidge disadvantage. Don't get angry about this, it is a small consideration, but it was there.

I have said many times that left handed hitters have an advantage in that the right field distances are smaller. This is still true today. They also get a favorable "lefty/righty" matchup with the pitcher as most hurlers are right handed. Aaron's ballpark in Atlanta was called "The Launching Pad" wasn't it? He was there for 9 years and about 350HR.

3. I just cannot discount the negative environment Aaron endured while he was a player. I have no idea how that translates into how they performed, but if I had to bet my life on it, I would bet that it hurt more than it helped.

>
Hard to say, I think it motivated him when he made the decision he could break the "White man's unbreakable record", but I am sure the negativity hurt as well. A lot of people were rooting for him, I know I was.

4) Defensively. I'm not even going to look at the defensive metrics. Aaron ran faster and was athletic. He had baseball sense too. Unless the guy who runs faster is a spaz, of which Aaron wasn't, I'm going to believe he is going to help me just a little better in the OF than the slower player. Also, the fact that Aaron's manager had enough confidence to put him in CF for 2,6000 innings, I'm going to figure that Aaron is the player I would rather have behind me if I were pitching.

Musial was a terrific athlete too, I read a book on him and if I remember correctly, he practiced some kind of gymnastic routine or "tumbling", so I wouldn't assume he was much, if any, slower or less athletic than Henry. Stan also played 251 games in Center. His OPS in those games was 1.024. Henry played 305 games in CF with an OPS of .904.

Overall, Musial was a Left fielder(?) and Aaron was a Right fielder, I think RF is a little tougher, and Musial actually played more games at 1B than any other single position.

PS; I wish MLB had the balls to include ALL negro league stats into the record book, instead of stopping at 1948....because had they done that, then Aaron's Negro League home runs would have made Aaron the all-time home run leader in the record book again.

No true fan of the game recognizes Bonds' record.

Please address my comment that Aaron had far superior hitters around him than Musial, Don't you think Ed Mathews was a BIG reason Henry got a lot of RBI? Adcock behind him was pretty nice too, with his .513 SLG (while playing with Hank). Later Carty had 7 years with him.

Musial certainly didn't get a lot of offensive help.

Hydrant

Recently I did some research of Stan Musial. I always thought of myself as very knowledgeable about all things baseball. Was I ever wrong. I had no idea what a tremendous hitter Musial was. His stats are truly amazing. Who was better? I don't know.

JoeBanzai

@Hydrant said:
Recently I did some research of Stan Musial. I always thought of myself as very knowledgeable about all things baseball. Was I ever wrong. I had no idea what a tremendous hitter Musial was. His stats are truly amazing. Who was better? I don't know.

Not many guys with a ,330 lifetime BA and 475 HR, Ruth, Foxx, Williams and Gehrig.

1948_Swell_Robinson

@JoeBanzai said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Hank Aaron, for these four reasons that break the tie.

1). Aaron was a better baserunner and base stealer. The fact that the philosophy of that time period was of not to steal bases that often, it does not negate that Aaron had that in his tool bag more so than Musial....so therefore a manger could take advantage of that for a full season, or in key spots that determine wins/losses to a greater degree.

As it stands statistically, Musial had 78 stolen bases and 71 caught stealing, which is negative value territory.
Aaron had 240 steals to 73 caught stealing. That advantage right there is probably enough to break the virtual tie in hitting. Keep in mind as Dallasactuary pointed out above, the extra plate appearances Aaron did it over Musial that already closes the small OPS+ gap Musial has on Aaron.

Base running ability is not just stolen bases, it is taking the extra base. Hank Aaron took the extra base in 51% of those opportunities. Musial did it in 49% of his opportunities.

Aaron was thrown out on the bases while trying to make a base running play(that does not include stolen base attempts) a total of 131 times. Stan Musial was thrown out 176 times. Considering the fact that Aaron had 1,200 more plate appearances, that is a pretty wide gap of thrown out trying to make a base running play.

In sum total, when you include all the baser running contribution to creating runs, Aaron over takes any hitting tie or slight hitting advantage Musial may possibly have had.

Aaron was the better runner.

2)In the 1940's, the majority of parks favored left handed hitters due to their odd asymmetrical shapes. While Aaron did not play in the 40's to be disadvantaged by that, Musial did to be 'advantaged' by that, so when you compare Musial to the entire league, he gets a very slight boost over what the RH hitters had, and thus a slight boost in his OPS+. That facet did continue into the 1950's for a bit though. So Aaron did have a smidge disadvantage. Don't get angry about this, it is a small consideration, but it was there.

I have said many times that left handed hitters have an advantage in that the right field distances are smaller. This is still true today. They also get a favorable "lefty/righty" matchup with the pitcher as most hurlers are right handed. Aaron's ballpark in Atlanta was called "The Launching Pad" wasn't it? He was there for 9 years and about 350HR.

3. I just cannot discount the negative environment Aaron endured while he was a player. I have no idea how that translates into how they performed, but if I had to bet my life on it, I would bet that it hurt more than it helped.

>
Hard to say, I think it motivated him when he made the decision he could break the "White man's unbreakable record", but I am sure the negativity hurt as well. A lot of people were rooting for him, I know I was.

4) Defensively. I'm not even going to look at the defensive metrics. Aaron ran faster and was athletic. He had baseball sense too. Unless the guy who runs faster is a spaz, of which Aaron wasn't, I'm going to believe he is going to help me just a little better in the OF than the slower player. Also, the fact that Aaron's manager had enough confidence to put him in CF for 2,6000 innings, I'm going to figure that Aaron is the player I would rather have behind me if I were pitching.

Musial was a terrific athlete too, I read a book on him and if I remember correctly, he practiced some kind of gymnastic routine or "tumbling", so I wouldn't assume he was much, if any, slower or less athletic than Henry. Stan also played 251 games in Center. His OPS in those games was 1.024. Henry played 305 games in CF with an OPS of .904.

Overall, Musial was a Left fielder(?) and Aaron was a Right fielder, I think RF is a little tougher, and Musial actually played more games at 1B than any other single position.

PS; I wish MLB had the balls to include ALL negro league stats into the record book, instead of stopping at 1948....because had they done that, then Aaron's Negro League home runs would have made Aaron the all-time home run leader in the record book again.

No true fan of the game recognizes Bonds' record.

Please address my comment that Aaron had far superior hitters around him than Musial, Don't you think Ed Mathews was a BIG reason Henry got a lot of RBI? Adcock behind him was pretty nice too, with his .513 SLG (while playing with Hank). Later Carty had 7 years with him.

Musial certainly didn't get a lot of offensive help.

Joe, in regard to the lineup and RBI, are you referring to the actual numbers of players on base, or the 'un-measureable' effect a lineup may have on someone.

If it is the actual numbers of players on base, there wasn't a huge difference. Aaron had more opportunities but he also has 1,200 more plate appearances. Just by eyeballing those numbers and adjusting on a per PA basis, you will probably be correct that Aaron had a super slight advantage there. They were both pitched around via IBB on a pretty equal basis.

Yes, glad someone else recognizes the ballparks that favored LH hitters in that time. It does not favor LH as much anymore because parks became more uniform. Back then, it really hamstrung the Right Handed hitters in the league. I was really looking into that in regard to Dimaggio. Dimaggio got hurt more than anyone in history because his home park was the worst park EVER for a RH batter AND the league overall was tougher for RH hitters.

I broke it down into percentages as to how much of an effect it was. I am not finished with that work yet though, so we will have to wait for that one .

JoeBanzai

I took a quick look and didn't have time to complete it, but Mathews might have hurt him as much as he helped Henry.