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
I dont think honestly it would have made that big of a difference. he would still have MONSTER years. plus with the 5 man rotations and now 162 game schedules... he would be a BEAST
There's no way to know it, or even estimate it really. For all we know, 162 game schedules would've hurt him. And like ohms said, much increased level of talent is really the main reason he'd likely do worse...though of course, we don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
Well, no one can ever exactly be "correct" on this sort of question. Still, even with 5 man rotations and 162 game schedules, pitching talent and strategy is simply better now then it's ever been in the past. He would certainly increase his counting numbers with a 162 game schedule, but all of his rate stats would more then likely decrease. At best, anyone from the past could probably equal their historic performance.
What about the increased specialization of pitchers? how do we know that that in and of itself would not have affected sluggers from the past? for example because pitchers pitched way more complete games in a single game a hiter might get to see the same pitcher 3,4 or 5 times, and each time he faces him the pitcher may be increasingly not at his peak form. Now a days you might only face a starter 2 or 3 times, then it is a different pitcher altogether, ideally for the pitcher, comng into a game fresh and at optimal performance. What toll might such a scenario take on a hitter? Might a pitcher today be less inclined to think about trying to leave something in the tank so to speak and pitch every inning "lights out" as in throwing his fast ball as hard as he can, challening hitters more etc. because he knows he only has to last just 6 inning? vs. a pitcher that has to complete a 9 inning game? I am just throwing he idea out there...Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Tom Tango actually showed statistically in The Book that the more a hitter faces a pitcher during a game, the better he'll do. So yes, that is one very important aspect (which is part of what I was alluding to in my posts above when I mentioned pitcher useage strategies).
all very valid points
Williams was better, as a hitter, and it isnt as close as some like to make it seem. I assume that, if we attempt to determine how Williams would have fared in todays game, he also gets the advantages of advances in training and sports medicine, like all of todays athletes do.
As someone noted, Ted lost nearly 5 full seasons to two wars. Particularly noteworthy are the three years, in his very prime, lost to WWII. At age 24, 25, and 26, Williams was at war. How good could he have been in 1943, 1944, and 1945? Well, he won the Triple Crown in 1942, and then again in 1947. In 1946, he finished second in all three categories, but was basically the same hitter as he was in '42 and '47. Bonds became a great player at age 25. Willaims was a great fighter pilot at that age.
Despite missing what could of been his greatest seasons, Williams still beats Bonds in BA, OBP, SLG, etc. Bonds was a better outfielder, and faster on the bases, but Williams was still a greater player.
In a league who's talent was devastated by the same thing that caused him to miss three full seasons. The 1943-1947 time period is the period with the largest disparity in talent between teams in the history of the game, including the early 1800's era of play.Quote:
Despite missing what could of been his greatest seasons, Williams still beats Bonds in BA, OBP, SLG, etc.
I don't disput that Williams was extremely talented, and one of the best players ever. Drawing the conclusion that he is the equal of or better then his "best of" classmates based on play during the WWII era is a huge mistake, however.
I won't disagree that Williams was the better hitter (although Bonds, at his ridiculous peak, was better). Overall, yes, Williams was the better hitter, but I think the difference in baserunning and fielding is enough to put Bonds over Ted in terms of overall value.Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampdog
I'm not sure what the alleged "talent disparity" has to do with anthing. I disagree with that assessment, but I will leave that debate for another day. The point, again, is...
Williams missed three prime seasons. He would certainly have added to his "counting" stats, as some like to call them, but he would also have increased his other numbers as well. Take Bonds, subtract three prime seasons, and then calculate his career numbers (BA, SLG, OBP, along with everything else). Thats the point.
Also, I wasnt going to get into the "other" issue, but Bonds had a very normal career curve...for a while. He peaked at age 27-28, and then began a slow decline. Much like the vast majority of players. Oddly, around age 35, something else happened to him. He exploded (in more ways than one) statistically. He became a far, far greater hitter at ages 36-40 than he had ever been before. This is pretty much unprecedented in baseball history (at least until the past 15 years or so). Hmmm..... wonder what might have transpired to make Bonds SO much better...
Even with Bonds and his inflated late career stats, Williams was better. I see nothing that would change my mind on this.
The point is simple. The league that he returned to after serving had very little pitching talent. It's blatently clear that he was able to "feast on" bad pitching for much of his career.Quote:
I'm not sure what the alleged "talent disparity" has to do with anthing.
That doesn't take away a whole lot from his accomplishments in my mind, but it certainly puts the assertion that "Williams still beats Bonds in BA, OBP, SLG, etc." into doubt. If you could place Barry Bonds in Japan during his peak, he would blow away the competition even more so then he did. That is effectively what happened with Williams.
Statistically, this is very doubtful. As sample sizes increase, rate stats tend to regress towards their mean. It's extremely unusual to see rate stats increase given larger sample sizes.Quote:
as some like to call them, but he would also have increased his other numbers as well.
I thought so but just wanted to elaborate a couple of ways that might be true. As to your other point about the drop off of pitching talent post WWII are there not ways to adjust for that much like one can adust for various parks?Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
HGM do we know how well the spanish league and negro league talent levels corrolate to the MLB talent levels for that time frame?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Let's go ahead and talk about Bonds for a minute, as well. I don't honestly know whether or not he used Steroids, but I don't really doubt it. I also don't know what, if any, real effect use of steroids would have on a baseball player (especially considering the fact that more pitchers seem to be or have been users then hitters).
However, the statistical record is certainly something that we can all look at and discuss. Here's a simple graph of Bond's year to year rate stats:
Attachment 21046
Where is this unusual bump at, exactly? I'd like to define exactly what we're talking about, is all.
OHMS didn't williams and Aaron both have late career peaks similiar to bonds? I remember reading an article comparing Hanks late career surge that allowed him to over take ruth and comparing it to bonds....Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
...not really, no. There isn't any simple methods, and there are certainly no generally accepted methods.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wassit3
However, the difference in pitching is blatantly obvious to anyone who is willing to look. Simply looking at team run production should make it obvious that pitching in the mid to late 40's was seriously deficient. That is the primary reason that the mound was raised, as well.
Yes. Especially in Slugging. Increases in slugging late in a players career is very common for players.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wassit3
ah so that is what you meant in an earlier thread by "old guy skills":)Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
yup
:)
Notes regarding some posts.....
"The point is simple. The league that he returned to after serving had very little pitching talent. It's blatently clear that he was able to "feast on" bad pitching for much of his career."
Very little pitching talent? Who says? See next quote...
"However, the difference in pitching is blatantly obvious to anyone who is willing to look. Simply looking at team run production should make it obvious that pitching in the mid to late 40's was seriously deficient."
Really? I'm willing to look. So lets take a look at the team run production for the years in question. By actually looking at these numbers one determines that run production makes it obvious that pitching in the mid 40's was anything but seriously deficient. From 1929 through 1939 the American League averaged at least 5 runs scored per game. The figure dropped (barely) to 4.97 in 1940, then to 4.74 in 1941. Looks like a trend here. Appears that the pitchers are catching up, since run production is dropping. Now, runs per game for the next few years:
1942 4.26
1943 3.89
1944 4.09
1945 3.90
1946 4.06
1947 4.14
So, Williams was able to "feast" on bad pitching? Thats just ludicrous. The mid-forties produced the lowest run totals in 25 years....since the end of the deadball era around 1920. Then, run production increased in 1948 (to 4.73) and, although it always fluctuated some, it did not drop to the mid-40's levels again until the "second" deadball era in the mid-60's. The notion that Williams somehow excelled in the 40's against subpar pitching is nonsense.
Williams entered the league at a point when offense was in a decline...a very obvious decline. After two good seasons, he became the absolute BEST hitter in the world in 1941, at the age of 22. He remained the best hitter in the game in 1942, 1946, and 1947, and no one else was really close. Right in the middle of these 4 years of excellence, he lost 3 years to the war. Offense didn't pick up again until 1948. So, clearly, the years 1943-1947 were dominated by pitching. Quite the opposite to what has been alleged.
More...
"In a league who's talent was devastated by the same thing that caused him to miss three full seasons. The 1943-1947 time period is the period with the largest disparity in talent between teams in the history of the game, including the early 1800's era of play."
There is a general acceptance that the overall talent was diluted from 1943-1945. The extent of the dilution is still debated, but many players went into the service, including some of the biggest stars in the game (Williams, Dimaggio, Greenberg, Feller, etc.). There were, however, still many good players in MLB during that period. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the point on Williams, however. Again, the simple point is, is that he very likely would have remained the greatest hitter in the game, and he was robbed of 3 peak years. I also disagree with the argument that losing these years actually helped his lifetime percentages. There is no logical reason to assume that, as good as Williams was before and immediately after the war, he would not have produced additional great stats from '43-'45.
And...
"I don't disput that Williams was extremely talented, and one of the best players ever. Drawing the conclusion that he is the equal of or better then his "best of" classmates based on play during the WWII era is a huge mistake, however."
This sentence really makes no sense to me at all.
Back to the percentages and sample sizes...
"Statistically, this is very doubtful. As sample sizes increase, rate stats tend to regress towards their mean. It's extremely unusual to see rate stats increase given larger sample sizes."
Ok then, lets take Bonds incredible (in more ways than one) years from 2001-2004 and drop them from his career records. Now that we have a smaller sample size, is it likely that his career stats will improve? Does his OBP and OPS increase? Of course not. Those were his absolute greatest years. Similarly, I maintain that Williams would have quite likely produced his greatest years (or close to it) from 1943 through 1945. Had he been able to play, and it isnt at all unlikely that he would have continued his excellence, his career stats would be better. Thats really not difficult to grasp, I wouldn't think.
Williams had some great years in his mid to late 30's. Despite that, a careful review of his career indicates that, like most players, he was still a better hitter in his 20's than he was in his 30's. Losing the WWII years could have only hurt him, in my view.
Now for Bonds, and this....
(Originally Posted by Wassit3)
["OHMS didn't williams and Aaron both have late career peaks similiar to bonds? I remember reading an article comparing Hanks late career surge that allowed him to over take ruth and comparing it to bonds...."]
"Yes. Especially in Slugging. Increases in slugging late in a players career is very common for players."
Ummm.....no. As far as I know, there is no player that is comparable to Barry Bonds in this regard. It is true that some players improve their hitting, especially plate discipline as they age (up to a point). No doubt. Hitters do have great years in their mid to late 30's. What they do not do is establish a much higher level of hitting ability after the age of 35....like Bonds did. Using OPS+ as a guide (since its a catch-all figure that is intended to measure hitting), Bonds had his best seasons at ages 36, 37, 38, and 39. Not only were these his best seasons, they were FAR and AWAY his best years.
It may or may not be all that "common" for players to increase slugging percentage "late" in their careers (I will maintain that it is still more uncommon than common), but what certainly is NOT common is for a player, at the age of 36, to suddenly produce results that are 25-30% better than his established peak. Not for just one year now, but for 4 consecutive years.
If this is so common, someone list 15 or 20 players who have produced these type of results. Please. List 5 players who have had this type of Bonds-like metamorphosis after the age of 35. I cant think of a single player in history who has done this. Except for Bonds, of course. There is quite possibly one or more players who have have experienced this type of career resurrection. If so, I would like to know who they are.
There have always been a few players who took longer to excel. Randy Johnson was a better pitcher in his 30's than he was in his 20's. Dwight Evans and Ozzie Smith became better hitters in their 30's. There are many others, I'm sure. But none of them became so MUCH better than they had ever been after 35 or 36, and then maintained that level for 4 years. Thats what is so.....strange (and thats being kind) about Bonds.
Even with their stats, as they stand, Williams was better than Bonds, and Bonds has every advantage (ok, most) in the book. Give Williams his missing war years, and subtract Bonds "strange" late career years, and there isnt even a comparison. It would be like comparing Babe Ruth to Babe Herman.
Hank Aaron had some wonderful years in his late 30's as well. He was still a better player in his 20's, overall, in my estimation. People forget that he was hurt by his home park during the Milwaukee years, and then helped a lot by his home park in Atlanta in his later years. What the hell, lets get these stats too.
In Milwaukee, Aaron hit 161 homers at home and 187 on the road. His OPS was about .050 better on the road, overall.
In Atlanta, Aaron hit 209 homers at home, and 158 on the road. His OPS was about .100 better in Atlanta, for his career. Rather convincing, isnt it? (Note- some games/splits in his first 2 years unavailable.)
Anyway, I'm done. Williams beats Bonds as a hitter, and it really isnt that close.
I agree. If we were discussing a player towards the end of his career whose career was cut short due to the war, it'd be fair to say that his rate stats would've been lower had he finished his career and not gone to war. For a player who lost 3 of his prime years to the war, and was a top player both immediately prior to and immediately after the war, it's perfectly valid to assume that his rate stats, overall, would've remained the same, or even better, had he played those years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampdog
Also agree with this. Players that establish a new, significantly higher level of performance in their late-30's are incredibly rare. This isn't similar to Hank Aaron. Aaron did have arguably his best season at the age of 37, but it wasn't that he reached a new level of performance AND sustained it. He just had one great year, which wasn't even really all that out of line with his overall career arch. Bonds reached and sustained a level of performance in his late-30s that he had never even come close to matching before.Quote:
Ummm.....no. As far as I know, there is no player that is comparable to Barry Bonds in this regard. It is true that some players improve their hitting, especially plate discipline as they age (up to a point). No doubt. Hitters do have great years in their mid to late 30's. What they do not do is establish a much higher level of hitting ability after the age of 35....like Bonds did. Using OPS+ as a guide (since its a catch-all figure that is intended to measure hitting), Bonds had his best seasons at ages 36, 37, 38, and 39. Not only were these his best seasons, they were FAR and AWAY his best years.
As I've said, I agree that Williams is greater than Bonds when it comes to hitting. I do think it's close, but that Williams is clearly ahead. In terms of overall value, though, I think it's Bonds, and not particularly close.Quote:
Anyway, I'm done. Williams beats Bonds as a hitter, and it really isnt that close.
I posted the bonds rate stats graph, above.
Yeah, it shows a player who, in his late 30's, reached new heights far above his previous peak.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Where exactly is his "previous peak", though? 1993, when he was 28 (and, not coincidentally, in a new park? A hitter's park?)?
Bonds didn't really have a specific "peak" up until that point. Most all-time greats like that don't...take a look at Hank Aaron's career, same level of "greatness" for the majority of his career. The point is, in his late 30's, he established a new level of performance far above anything he ever did before.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Shouldnt steroids be considered into the argument about Bonds peaking in his late 30's?