Top 32 tournament LF Bonds vs Williams

[Omar 382]

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.

1. Williams scored more runs when he didn't homer due to being surrounded by Pesky, Doerr, Dom DiMaggio, Joe Cronin, Jimmie Foxx, Vern Stephens, etc.; while Bonds basically just had Kent
2. You're really citing a 0.4% difference in scoring when reaching base without a home run as an advantage to Williams?
3. If there is no way to "definitively" say that Williams was a worse baserunner than Bonds without actually seeing all his "base path experiences," then I guess there's no way to justify any statistic. What if Bonds had 5 hits stolen from a great defensive play from a second baseman, while Williams had 5 pop ups drop in no-man land for a base hit? We should just stop analyzing players' performances entirely.

 

[UK Cowboy]

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.

There is simply no way to know for sure

 

[blstoker]

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...

If those are the numbers you took from baseball reference, then baseball reference is wrong - which is why I encourage everyone to do their own numbers whenever possible. The AL batting average from 1939-1960 (excluding 43-45) was .261, not .277. It is still higher than the NL average from 1986-1997, but by only .0004, not .016. Even just going with the AL (1939-1942; 1946-1960) vs. NL (1986-1997) comparisions - the NL still has more runs, 2B, HR, RBI, SB a higher SLG & OPS. At worst - the eras were similar, though the number give a slight edge to the steroid NL.

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...

You only sited 1 stat (or someone did) - so that's what I had to go on. If you'd like to use more - site more. As for the stats you've posted - you just proved that Barry Bonds was faster (which I do not contest) - not that he was better, or at least he was so much better that it "isn't even close".

As for the EBT stat - that can be explained as the difference of having RHB hitting behind Williams or much of his career and not having the opportunity to go to third on singles hit to left field. Bonds had many more opportunities to have switch hitters (like Bobby Bonilla) and LHH (like Keff Kent) hitting when he was on first - which could have resulted in more singles to right field - which are much easier to convert into 1st and third situations (and 1st and third situations appear to be the difference in this stat). In situations where hit location has less of a factor (2nd to home on single), Williams has a career 67% rate, while Bonds is at 65%. I'm actually not arguing that Williams is better - just that Bonds was "easily" better than Williams.

 

[Clayton]

There is simply no way to know for sure

There isn't.

Its super difficult to compare eras because most of the men playing back then would have to adapt their game in certain ways to play in this era and players from yesterday would have to adapt their game in certain ways to play in that era. Certainly we are working with a lot more knowledge these days but older players with that same knowledge may or may not be better.

Take Joe Medwick as an example since Im using him as an avatar. He won the triple crown with the strategy of swinging at almost literally everything. Or at least thats what they say. That obviously wouldn't fly in today's game but I don't think that would make him a bad hitter. Just a bad strategy. (Or is it? Cardinals and Royals and Giants seem to use this strategy in the playoffs so who the heck knows?)

All I know is that Barry Bonds was awesome but there is a 99.999999999% chance he cheated.

 

[UK Cowboy]

There isn't.

Its super difficult to compare eras because most of the men playing back then would have to adapt their game in certain ways to play in this era and players from yesterday would have to adapt their game in certain ways to play in that era. Certainly we are working with a lot more knowledge these days but older players with that same knowledge may or may not be better.

Take Joe Medwick as an example since Im using him as an avatar. He won the triple crown with the strategy of swinging at almost literally everything. Or at least thats what they say. That obviously wouldn't fly in today's game but I don't think that would make him a bad hitter. Just a bad strategy. (Or is it? Cardinals and Royals and Giants seem to use this strategy in the playoffs so who the heck knows?)

All I know is that Barry Bonds was awesome but there is a 99.999999999% chance he cheated.

Vlad Guerrero would swing tip of cap to shoelaces...but it is definitely rare

 

[Clayton]

Vlad Guerrero would swing tip of cap to shoelaces...but it is definitely rare

Matt Holliday still thinks the middle of the strike zone is where his feet are and he has had a good career

 

[blstoker]

1. Williams scored more runs when he didn't homer due to being surrounded by Pesky, Doerr, Dom DiMaggio, Joe Cronin, Jimmie Foxx, Vern Stephens, etc.; while Bonds basically just had Kent

Don't sell Matt Williams, Bobby Bonilla, Will Clark, Ellis Burks as well as others, short. There may not have been a Foxx among them - but there were not so bad that Bonds was a one man show his entire career.

2. You're really citing a 0.4% difference in scoring when reaching base without a home run as an advantage to Williams?

Only in that the .4 difference was despite Bonds getting 500 more opportunites to take a base on his own than Williams. The point was, and is, that despite being faster and more likely to steal - it doesn't mean that Williams wasn't even close to him in terms of skill when running the paths.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

If those are the numbers you took from baseball reference, then baseball reference is wrong - which is why I encourage everyone to do their own numbers whenever possible. The AL batting average from 1939-1960 (excluding 43-45) was .261, not .277. It is still higher than the NL average from 1986-1997, but by only .0004, not .016. Even just going with the AL (1939-1942; 1946-1960) vs. NL (1986-1997) comparisions - the NL still has more runs, 2B, HR, RBI, SB a higher SLG & OPS. At worst - the eras were similar, though the number give a slight edge to the steroid NL.



You only sited 1 stat (or someone did) - so that's what I had to go on. If you'd like to use more - site more. As for the stats you've posted - you just proved that Barry Bonds was faster (which I do not contest) - not that he was better, or at least he was so much better that it "isn't even close".

As for the EBT stat - that can be explained as the difference of having RHB hitting behind Williams or much of his career and not having the opportunity to go to third on singles hit to left field. Bonds had many more opportunities to have switch hitters (like Bobby Bonilla) and LHH (like Keff Kent) hitting when he was on first - which could have resulted in more singles to right field - which are much easier to convert into 1st and third situations (and 1st and third situations appear to be the difference in this stat). In situations where hit location has less of a factor (2nd to home on single), Williams has a career 67% rate, while Bonds is at 65%. I'm actually not arguing that Williams is better - just that Bonds was "easily" better than Williams.

apparently, the lg statistics Baseball references gives is taking away all pitcher stats...

 

[Omar 382]

Don't sell Matt Williams, Bobby Bonilla, Will Clark, Ellis Burks as well as others, short. There may not have been a Foxx among them - but there were not so bad that Bonds was a one man show his entire career.



Only in that the .4 difference was despite Bonds getting 500 more opportunites to take a base on his own than Williams. The point was, and is, that despite being faster and more likely to steal - it doesn't mean that Williams wasn't even close to him in terms of skill when running the paths.

Wait what? The 0.4 number is a percentage right? So it's immune to getting more or less opportunities to take an extra base

 

[MilkSpiller22]

and why should i site any stats in a simple statement that Bonds was better on the bases... If you questioned how i came to that conclusion sure, i will give you stats... But in a quick statement, i am not going to state all the stats that help my claim...

and sure maybe i should differentiate better on the bases and more valuable on the bases... speed is not necessarily make a good baserunner, but speed and consistency sure does make the base running more valuable...

 

[Omar 382]

and why should i site any stats in a simple statement that Bonds was better on the bases... If you questioned how i came to that conclusion sure, i will give you stats... But in a quick statement, i am not going to state all the stats that help my claim...

and sure maybe i should differentiate better on the bases and more valuable on the bases... speed is not necessarily make a good baserunner, but speed and consistency sure does make the base running more valuable...

Don't worry dude. Anybody with two brain cells knows that Bonds was a far better baserunner and base stealer than Ted freaking Williams

 

[dredinis21]

Don't sell Matt Williams, Bobby Bonilla, Will Clark, Ellis Burks as well as others, short. There may not have been a Foxx among them - but there were not so bad that Bonds was a one man show his entire career.

You just named a bunch of guys that didn't matter to Bonds' lineup protection very much at all. Bonds hit 1st and 5th quite a bit while with the Pirates. If anything, Bonds was helping and protecting Bonilla. Will Clark batted 3rd while Bonds batted 5th the one season they were together in SF. Matt Williams was his protection for 2 seasons while Bonds protected him in 1993 and Burks was two hitters behind Bonds for two years...and the Ellis Burks in SF was a warrior with a ton of heart but extremely fragile.

What you missed was that for some of those years, I think Ray Durham was protecting him.

My point is that Bonds was entirely the straw that stirs the drink and anyone that watched Bonds play as frequently as most Giants fans do can tell you that he didn't have much support in the lineup from a talent perspective outside of his first season in SF, 1993. The best lineup we had was with Bonds/Kent/Burks but again, Burks' knees were so shot, he was a shell of a shell of his former self. Even Kent's MVP season came in a year that Bonds' impact on the game was literally the reason Kent won MVP. Take Bonds out of the equation and Kent pulls his Mets/Cleveland season averages.

 

[Omar 382]

There isn't.

Its super difficult to compare eras because most of the men playing back then would have to adapt their game in certain ways to play in this era and players from yesterday would have to adapt their game in certain ways to play in that era. Certainly we are working with a lot more knowledge these days but older players with that same knowledge may or may not be better.

Take Joe Medwick as an example since Im using him as an avatar. He won the triple crown with the strategy of swinging at almost literally everything. Or at least thats what they say. That obviously wouldn't fly in today's game but I don't think that would make him a bad hitter. Just a bad strategy. (Or is it? Cardinals and Royals and Giants seem to use this strategy in the playoffs so who the heck knows?)

All I know is that Barry Bonds was awesome but there is a 99.999999999% chance he cheated.

The Royals, Cardinals, and Giants were 6th, 13th, and 22nd in 2015 O-Swing %. I wouldn't consider the Cardinals or Giants free swinging teams.

As a general rule, free swinging may work in very specific cases, but as a whole plate discipline is undoubtedly a desirable trait. Even for those who are free swinging; might they be even better if they swung less? I do believe that some hitters can be "bad ball hitters" but I find it very rare.

 

[Omar 382]

lol at stoker disliking my post and then not even offering any form of rebuttal

 

[blstoker]

lol at stoker disliking my post and then not even offering any form of rebuttal

Why, haven't I rebutted for 2 pages? The dislike wasn't for disagreeing with me - it was for being uncivil, which isn't something you can say about me. You can say you don't agree with my opinion - but I haven't called you stupid - or the equivalent thereof. We'll just have to agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Omar 382]

Translation: '"I realize I am wrong"

 

[blstoker]

Translation: '"I realize I am wrong"

I'm not even sure you can read well enough to even know what my stance is - so I wouldn't put too much stock in whatever translation you would like to apply to any of my comments.

 

[Omar 382]

I'm not even sure you can read well enough to even know what my stance is - so I wouldn't put too much stock in whatever translation you would like to apply to any of my comments.

How about the translation that we can't know for sure whether Bonds was a better baserunner than Ted Williams? Did I get that right?

 

[blstoker]

How about the translation that we can't know for sure whether Bonds was a better baserunner than Ted Williams? Did I get that right?

Not even close - but try again - I spelled it out is one of my posts, it shouldn't be too hard to find and see exactly what my stance really is.

 

[Omar 382]

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.

Yeah you did.