Top 32 tournament LF Bonds vs Williams

[molsaniceman]

Fine, back to 1927 Yankees vs 2015 KC Royals. 27 Yankees in a sweep. End thread

pretty hard for a bunch of dead guys to win a ball game

 

[Omar 382]

1927 Yankees > 2015 Royals

therefore...

Ted Williams > Barry Bonds


I dont follow...

Don't even try to...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Maybe in previous rounds he was clearly better with or without the juice and against Williams people needed to pick at it a bit more? Just a thought...

But again, if you look deep into one player then you should be looking deep into the other... You can clearly see, that Ted Williams played in an offensively dominating era too... And it could easily be seen as a better offensive era than the one Bonds played in as EVERYTHING but HRs was better...

 

[calsnowskier]

Don't even try to...

My internet must be broken. When I look up Ted Williams, I am unable to find him on the roster ofthe '27 Yankees.

Same for when I try to find Bonds' slash line for the '15 Royals.

I hate the internet. It is always broken.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

pretty hard for a bunch of dead guys to win a ball game

Not in Iowa

 

[UK Cowboy]

1927 Yankees > 2015 Royals

therefore...

Ted Williams > Barry Bonds


I dont follow...

Try reading through the thread, you're pretty sharp, I'm betting you'll see where we left Bonds-Williams for players in general

 

[blstoker]

Bonds had a career 175 FRAA and was posting a double digit FRAA as late as age 33....so I'd say he was quite a good defensive LFer for much of his career.

And I certainly don't think Griffey's in the conversation for best ever...before 2000 (around the time it's believed Bonds started roiding), I'd argue that Griffey wasn't even better career-wise than Bonds.

No you misinterpreted the quote. I said that before steroid Bonds was a HoFer, but not a GOAT, just like Griffey is. So, Griffey is a HoFer, but not GOAT.

 

[obxyankeefan]

My internet must be broken. When I look up Ted Williams, I am unable to find him on the roster ofthe '27 Yankees.

Same for when I try to find Bonds' slash line for the '15 Royals.

I hate the internet. It is always broken.

Little known facts about baseball history. In the Babe Ruth trade of December 26, 1919, the Red Sox got the scout who would later find Ted Williams.

During the 2003 season the Royals pitching shut down Barry Bonds on route to taking two out of three. That series was the start of the Royals gaining the confidence that allowed them to win last year's WS.


I also have some oceanfront property in Arizona if anybody is interested.

 

[Clayton]

You have to remember the best atheletes played Baseball in the past, not the NFL, not the NBA. There were only 16 teams so the best of the best were on those 16 teams.

Thats sketchy logic, though, because the ***** leagues existed and had some of the best potential players and athletes in sports riding on cramped buses and getting little sleep.

The population of America has tripled since that time period, too. Odds are, today's MLB players would stack up very well against the older players. At worst, it would be 50/50

 

[obxyankeefan]

Thats sketchy logic, though, because the ***** leagues existed and had some of the best potential players and athletes in sports riding on cramped buses and getting little sleep.

The population of America has tripled since that time period, too. Odds are, today's MLB players would stack up very well against the older players. At worst, it would be 50/50

The thing about the ***** Leagues is everyone wants to talk about how great the players were. Without accurate stats there is no real way to determine how good the players really were. IMO I believe it was the same talent level as the MLB. The top level players would have been superstars anywhere, the next level would have still been starters, but after those two groups the players in both leagues would have been lucky to be playing if the leagues were combined.

 

[Clayton]

The thing about the ***** Leagues is everyone wants to talk about how great the players were. Without accurate stats there is no real way to determine how good the players really were. IMO I believe it was the same talent level as the MLB. The top level players would have been superstars anywhere, the next level would have still been starters, but after those two groups the players in both leagues would have been lucky to be playing if the leagues were combined.

I think it was roughly the same as MLB but thats purely opinion and speculation.

They had some tall tales and ***** leagues had to play in more difficult conditions but if there is an argument that the NBA is stealing athletic talent, one would have to assume that the ***** leagues would've dominated with the proper support. I'm not sure thats the case but certainly the best ***** league players would've stacked up with some of the best MLB players. If African American players had been given a chance in life from the start back in those days then yes, they probably would've had the better league.


The game has evolved so much in the department of pitching. Walter Johnson was 'the man' by all standards and was considered to be a badass with a 91mph fastball. How does that translate to an era where everyone is used to hitting 91mph fastballs? Would he be pitching 100mph now?

I have a hard time comparing his era to that era and that era to now. I just know that there were great players from all eras

 

[molsaniceman]

I think it was roughly the same as MLB but thats purely opinion and speculation.

They had some tall tales and ***** leagues had to play in more difficult conditions but if there is an argument that the NBA is stealing athletic talent, one would have to assume that the ***** leagues would've dominated with the proper support. I'm not sure thats the case but certainly the best ***** league players would've stacked up with some of the best MLB players. If African American players had been given a chance in life from the start back in those days then yes, they probably would've had the better league.


The game has evolved so much in the department of pitching. Walter Johnson was 'the man' by all standards and was considered to be a badass with a 91mph fastball. How does that translate to an era where everyone is used to hitting 91mph fastballs? Would he be pitching 100mph now?

I have a hard time comparing his era to that era and that era to now. I just know that there were great players from all eras

Nobody knows how hard he threw but heres a write up

. Walter Johnson

"He throws so fast you can't see 'em," said the scout who discovered Walter Johnson in 1907, "and he knows where he is throwing, because if he didn't there would be dead bodies strewn all over Idaho." Pitching in a time before lighted ballparks and the routine introduction of fresh baseballs, Johnson had more working to his advantage than just a blazing fastball delivered with deceptive ease from a sidearm angle. In a 21-year career spent entirely with the Washington Senators from 1907-1927, he won 417 games, pitched to a 2.17 ERA and struck out 3,509 hitters, a mark which stood as the record until it was broken by Nolan Ryan in 1983. Even after adjusting for era, his overall numbers give him a reasonable case as the best pitcher ever. Exactly how fast Johnson threw is unknowable, but in 1914, his fastball was measured against a speeding motorcycle and estimated at 97 mph. -- Jay Jaffe

I agree u cant compare eras players are in better shape and have way more technology now then back then

 

[Nosferatu]

Thats sketchy logic, though, because the ***** leagues existed and had some of the best potential players and athletes in sports riding on cramped buses and getting little sleep.

The population of America has tripled since that time period, too. Odds are, today's MLB players would stack up very well against the older players. At worst, it would be 50/50

I can only use what i'm given, fact is the best white kids were playing baseball, thats not the case today the best white kids are "trying" to play basketball and football and soccer that wasn't the case 70 - 80 years ago.

Of course there were black players that would have been superstars in the white Majors, Cool Papa Bell, Josh, Satch and others but i'm not playing what if. Point is baseball got the best of what was available back then it doesn't now.

 

[blstoker]

League averages for:
(Williams,Bonds)

BA-(.277,.263)
OBP-(.356,.333)
SLG-(.409,.410)-
AIR-(108,102)
BB%-(9.2,8.7)
SO%-(10.4,16.1)
HR%-(5.3,6.0)

The only stat that was better in Bonds days was HR... Everything else was considerably better during Williams days...

Of course with more HRs that also creates more runs scored...

AIR is a great stat to show whether a season(for that player- since it has a built in stadium factor) was offensively strong or pitching strong..

It's always nice to know the planets align and we still disagree on just about everything - but I have to ask - Where did you get those numbers? Here, I'll put you some numbers for Williams (1939-1942; 1946-1960) and Bonds (1986-2007) for league totals averaged to 162 games (numbers come out as whole team averages for the time frames):

--------------------TW------------BB
PA----------------6245.1-------5971.9
AB----------------5532.3--------5547.7
R-------------------719.7---------755.9
H------------------1441.2--------1464.1
2B------------------234.8---------279.4
3B-------------------49.4----------32.0
HR------------------118.7---------160.7
RBI-----------------671.9---------715.0
SB------------------52.7-----------109.6
BB------------------579.9----------498.6
SO------------------627.6----------990.6
GDP-----------------128.5----------124.6
HBP------------------27.5------------48.7
TB------------------2130.9---------2289.6
BA----------------- .261 ----------- .264
OBP--------------- .328 ----------- .322
SLG--------------- .385 ----------- .413
OPS--------------- .713 ----------- .735

There is no way you can look at that an think - "Hey, Ted Williams benefited from playing in a more hitter friendly era!" About the only real thing you can say about the Ted Williams era is that they were more patient at the plate.

 

[blstoker]

is there a case, Bonds was better defensively(not even close), better on the bases(not even close), better in the playoffs(not even close)... The only debatable question is who was better offensively... Now of course that is the biggest piece of a player, but if we take away the steroid talk, then it is clearly very close... Some may give the edge to Williams for his BA, while others may give it to Bonds for his power... But when offense is so close and everything else is so NOT CLOSE, how can you give it to Williams??

So back to my conclusion, that the ONLY reason to vote against Bonds is steroid related...

You base this claim on one statistic - base stealing. That doesn't even start to say how good a base runner a player is - just how good a base stealer. I can do this too - Ted Williams was caught stealing only 17 times in his career - Bonds 141 - so obviously Williams is the better base runner! It just doesn't work this way. Does it mean that Williams was a bad base runner just because he only attempted 41 stolen bases in his career (and who knows how many of those were failed hit-and-runs), or that he just didn't steal bases?

71% of Williams' career runs were scored when he didn't hit a home run (Bonds is 65%). Ted Williams also scored a run on 30.4 % of the time when he reached base without a home run - Bonds was slightly lower at 30% - and that's with the added benefit on being able to count on advancing a base 500 times in his career through a stolen base. In the end - there's no way to definitively say who was a better base runner without actually have seen all of Williams' base path experience, but there are numbers that show that the competitiion isn't as cut and dry as you would like to make it appear.

As for playoffs - yes, Bonds had a better World Series in his one appearance than Williams had in his - everything else is irrelevant as there was no WC or LCS during Williams' career (though had there been those, the Red Sox could've made the playoffs up to 10 more times during Williams' career, and we'll never know if he struggles in all of them). So, yes I can agree that Bonds had a better playoff career, but I'm not gonna put too much stock in comparing 7 games for each player.

 

[Clayton]

I can only use what i'm given, fact is the best white kids were playing baseball, thats not the case today the best white kids are "trying" to play basketball and football and soccer that wasn't the case 70 - 80 years ago.

Don't you think that is offset by the fact that there are more kids, though?

 

[Clayton]

Nobody knows how hard he threw but heres a write up

. Walter Johnson

"He throws so fast you can't see 'em," said the scout who discovered Walter Johnson in 1907, "and he knows where he is throwing, because if he didn't there would be dead bodies strewn all over Idaho." Pitching in a time before lighted ballparks and the routine introduction of fresh baseballs, Johnson had more working to his advantage than just a blazing fastball delivered with deceptive ease from a sidearm angle. In a 21-year career spent entirely with the Washington Senators from 1907-1927, he won 417 games, pitched to a 2.17 ERA and struck out 3,509 hitters, a mark which stood as the record until it was broken by Nolan Ryan in 1983. Even after adjusting for era, his overall numbers give him a reasonable case as the best pitcher ever. Exactly how fast Johnson threw is unknowable, but in 1914, his fastball was measured against a speeding motorcycle and estimated at 97 mph. -- Jay Jaffe

I agree u cant compare eras players are in better shape and have way more technology now then back then

I was using this reference from wikipedia:


"Although a lack of precision instruments prevented accurate measurement of his fastball, in 1917, a Bridgeport, Connecticut munitions laboratory recorded Johnson's fastball at 134 feet per second, which is equal to 91.36 miles per hour (147.03 km/h), a velocity which was virtually unique in Johnson's day, with the possible exception of Smoky Joe Wood."

Obviously if it was 97mph then thats just even more incredible considering the time period.

 

[Nosferatu]

Don't you think that is offset by the fact that there are more kids, though?

Yes I guess it could be but I wonder since we are basically talking white kids I wonder how many more there really are, sure seems like more white families are having 1 - 3 kids and back then it seemed more like 3 - 6, but i'm too lazy to look it up. But I see your point and can't argue it.

 

[Omar 382]

Yes I guess it could be but I wonder since we are basically talking white kids I wonder how many more there really are, sure seems like more white families are having 1 - 3 kids and back then it seemed more like 3 - 6, but i'm too lazy to look it up. But I see your point and can't argue it.

Fucking finally

 

[MilkSpiller22]

It's always nice to know the planets align and we still disagree on just about everything - but I have to ask - Where did you get those numbers? Here, I'll put you some numbers for Williams (1939-1942; 1946-1960) and Bonds (1986-2007) for league totals averaged to 162 games (numbers come out as whole team averages for the time frames):

--------------------TW------------BB
PA----------------6245.1-------5971.9
AB----------------5532.3--------5547.7
R-------------------719.7---------755.9
H------------------1441.2--------1464.1
2B------------------234.8---------279.4
3B-------------------49.4----------32.0
HR------------------118.7---------160.7
RBI-----------------671.9---------715.0
SB------------------52.7-----------109.6
BB------------------579.9----------498.6
SO------------------627.6----------990.6
GDP-----------------128.5----------124.6
HBP------------------27.5------------48.7
TB------------------2130.9---------2289.6
BA----------------- .261 ----------- .264
OBP--------------- .328 ----------- .322
SLG--------------- .385 ----------- .413
OPS--------------- .713 ----------- .735

There is no way you can look at that an think - "Hey, Ted Williams benefited from playing in a more hitter friendly era!" About the only real thing you can say about the Ted Williams era is that they were more patient at the plate.

All the numbers were taken from Baseball references... you go to a players profile page and click on MORE STATS... there is an advanced stats list that shows all of what i posted... then i took some ratio stats which is from the same page... what is given are LEAGUE averages, not MLB averages...

as to your SB analysis... since when have we not called the better baserunners the ones that steal the bases and have good percentage doing so... Bonds is a career 78% base stealer with 514 SBs... Ted williams had 24 career stolen bases with a 59%...

If you want to go further into base running, how about extra base taken(if you are on first and a single was hit, you make it to 3rd or home).. Bonds had a career 43% compared to Williams 37%... I think it is pretty clear that Bonds was significantly the better base runner... Not sure why you are trying to argue this and assuming i use ONLY one stat...