Ted Williams vs. Barry Bonds

[TheNamelessPoet]

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

[HoustonGM]

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.

[ohms_law]

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.

[Wassit3]

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.

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...

[ohms_law]

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).

[TheNamelessPoet]

all very valid points

[Swampdog]

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.

[ohms_law]

Despite missing what could of been his greatest seasons, Williams still beats Bonds in BA, OBP, SLG, etc.

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.

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.

[HoustonGM]

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.

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.

[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.

[ohms_law]

I'm not sure what the alleged "talent disparity" has to do with anthing.

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.

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.

as some like to call them, but he would also have increased his other numbers as well.

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.

[Wassit3]

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).

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?

[Wassit3]

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.

HGM do we know how well the spanish league and negro league talent levels corrolate to the MLB talent levels for that time frame?

[ohms_law]

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:


Where is this unusual bump at, exactly? I'd like to define exactly what we're talking about, is all.

[Wassit3]

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:
(I'll post it later)

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....