Gehrig or Ted Williams?

[Coach Owens]

Who was better?

[HoustonGM]

Ted Williams, though both were absolutely phenomenal.

[CatKnight]

Agreed on both counts.

[Coach Owens]

See, I would have to say Gehrig.

[HoustonGM]

See, I would have to say Gehrig.

Why?

[Coach Owens]

Why?

Well, his RBI and possibly HR total would have been higher if he hadn't hit behind the Babe for about half his career. And I would say that if he never got sick, he could have played 7-10 more years and hit around his career homerun per year average every one of those years. That'd put him around 752-863 career HRs.

[Alloutwar]

Well see, there's a lot of would haves and "ifs" in that explanation. And your question was just "Who was better?"

If you throw "ifs" in, then you have to give Teddy the MVPs he so richly deserved (as pointed out by HGM) and also the stats he would have had if he didn't leave to, I dunno, go to war.

Gehrig might have been better if things had been a little different...but in history as we know it, gotta go with Teddy Ballgame.

[HoustonGM]

Yeah...We can't be going by "What if's?" And my pick of Williams is not one bit related to their respective RBI totals. And really, Gehrig could've had more RBI's if he hadn't been behind Ruth? His RBI totals were ridiculously high as is, precisely BECAUSE Ruth was batting ahead of him getting on base all the time...

If we're going by what if's, like Alloutwar said, Williams is still the obvious pick. In 1941 and 1942, he posted OPS+'s of 235 and 217. Then he missed 3 years to the war, came back, and posted two consecutive seasons with OPS's of 215 and 205. If he has those three seasons, it's entirely likely that he'd have 7 straight seasons of OPS+'s above 200. He'd have at least 100 more home runs, giving him roughly 620. Then, 1952 and 1953, he went back to war. He'd probably have hit 30 homers per season there, giving him at least 680 total home runs.

And also, I don't think Gehrig would've played 7-10 more years, averaigng 35 or so homers a year. He was 35 in his last season (not counting 8 games in 1939). Yes, he was an all-time great, but I'd say he'd probably have 4-5 seasons with 30-35 homers, and probably have a total career count in the high 690's.

We shouldn't be doing "What if's?" at all though, when we're simpyl discussing, which player was better. Williams is one of the three best hitters of all-time with Ruth and Bonds. Gehrig's probably 4th, but Williams is definitely ahead of him,.

[Coach Owens]

Yeah...We can't be going by "What if's?" And my pick of Williams is not one bit related to their respective RBI totals. And really, Gehrig could've had more RBI's if he hadn't been behind Ruth? His RBI totals were ridiculously high as is, precisely BECAUSE Ruth was batting ahead of him getting on base all the time...

If we're going by what if's, like Alloutwar said, Williams is still the obvious pick. In 1941 and 1942, he posted OPS+'s of 235 and 217. Then he missed 3 years to the war, came back, and posted two consecutive seasons with OPS's of 215 and 205. If he has those three seasons, it's entirely likely that he'd have 7 straight seasons of OPS+'s above 200. He'd have at least 100 more home runs, giving him roughly 620. Then, 1952 and 1953, he went back to war. He'd probably have hit 30 homers per season there, giving him at least 680 total home runs.

And also, I don't think Gehrig would've played 7-10 more years, averaigng 35 or so homers a year. He was 35 in his last season (not counting 8 games in 1939). Yes, he was an all-time great, but I'd say he'd probably have 4-5 seasons with 30-35 homers, and probably have a total career count in the high 690's.

We shouldn't be doing "What if's?" at all though, when we're simpyl discussing, which player was better. Williams is one of the three best hitters of all-time with Ruth and Bonds. Gehrig's probably 4th, but Williams is definitely ahead of him,.

Okay, but you have to take in account that Williams had a shorter fence at home.

[HoustonGM]

Okay, but you have to take in account that Williams had a shorter fence at home.

OPS+ takes that into account.

Adjusting for park and league for their careers, they both played in nearly identical offensive environments. Baseball-Reference's AIR statistic is a number on a scale where 100 is historically average. A high-offense league, like the 1920's and 30's will result in a higher number, and then the park environment if further added into the AIR number. Gehrig had an average AIR of 109, Williams 108. Williams played in a lower offensive league, while playing in a better offensive park. Overall, it comes out fairly even. The average park-adjusted OPS during William's career was .764. Gehrig, .769.

[Coach Owens]

OPS+ takes that into account.

Adjusting for park and league for their careers, they both played in nearly identical offensive environments. Baseball-Reference's AIR statistic is a number on a scale where 100 is historically average. A high-offense league, like the 1920's and 30's will result in a higher number, and then the park environment if further added into the AIR number. Gehrig had an average AIR of 109, Williams 108. Williams played in a lower offensive league, while playing in a better offensive park. Overall, it comes out fairly even. The average park-adjusted OPS during William's career was .764. Gehrig, .769.

I hate Williams.

[HoustonGM]

lol..

[Coach Owens]

lol..

Well, at least Gehrig was nice.

[Wassit3]

Well, his RBI and possibly HR total would have been higher if he hadn't hit behind the Babe for about half his career. And I would say that if he never got sick, he could have played 7-10 more years and hit around his career homerun per year average every one of those years. That'd put him around 752-863 career HRs.

he was 37 when his career ended, it is doudful he would have played 7 to 10 more years...

[Tannhauser]

He died at 37, he stopped playing at 35. His performance began to drop in 1938 (his second to last season). If he hadn't had ALS, he would've had at least decent seasons until in his last 30s, early 40s, so maybe 5-7 years at most.