Ted Williams vs. Barry Bonds

[ohms_law]

As to your other point about the drop off of pitching talent post WWII are there not ways to adjust dor that much like one can adust for various parks?

...not really, no. There isn't any simple methods, and there are certainly no generally accepted methods.
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.

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.

[Wassit3]

...not really, no. There isn't any simple methods, and there are certainly no generally accepted methods.
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.

ah so that is what you meant in an earlier thread by "old guy skills"

[ohms_law]

yup

[Swampdog]

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.

[HoustonGM]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anyway, I'm done. Williams beats Bonds as a hitter, and it really isnt that close.

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.

[ohms_law]

I posted the bonds rate stats graph, above.

[HoustonGM]

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.

[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?)?

[HoustonGM]

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.

[ragecage]

Shouldnt steroids be considered into the argument about Bonds peaking in his late 30's?

[HoustonGM]

Shouldnt steroids be considered into the argument about Bonds peaking in his late 30's?

Huh? We're not discussing the reasons that he did. We're just saying that he did.