http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/200...-vs-barry-bond
Printable View
I think there's a problem in the link.
EDIT: NM, I must've done something wrong. Seems to work right after I posted that.
there was, I fixed it:)Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
Very interesting
Id take Bonds tho
On pure offense, Williams, slightly. On overall game, Bonds.
what did you think of the analysis? Fair? unfair?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
williams
Ted Williams
Didn't read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wassit3
Ted Williams!
Bonds had more monster numbers...but a few things do it for me:
1) possible use of PEDs, plus enhancements, surgeries, better medical help (and financial resources available to players) in Bonds' time
2) Williams went off to war, twice, came back and still dominated (as some commentors observed).
3) Bonds benefited from more advanced scouting, videotape, simulations, etc available
Williams had the hitter's park, and Bonds the pitchers'...and Bonds continued playing defense (in a DH-less league)...not sure how to apply those two factors, but I'd pull for Williams based on offense and pure talent.
Bonds
immagine what williams could do nowadays... wow... would have been incredable
I image that he wouldn't be as good, actually. Increased competition, if nothing else.
I doubt that any historical figure would be as good today as they were in their own time.
Yep, true. Williams played mostly in a segregated league. Half of his career, yes, was after the color line was broken, but the AL in particular took a lot longer to really integrate than the NL.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law