Sway me one way or another

[Omar 382]

I have most other positions figured out, but I have had a tough time figuring out who the greatest left fielder of all time is. I go back and forth every other day. Technically, Musial played more games at first base, so he is not in the debate.

Ted Williams: .344/.482/.634 190 OPS+ 521 HR 1,839 RBI 188 wRC+

Barry Bonds: .298/.444/.607 182 OPS+ 762 HR 1,996 RBI 173 wRC+

And don't give me some stupid shit about how Bonds is disqualified from this discussion because of his PED use. You can factor that into the equation, but don't be ridiculous.

 

[geneh_33]

Didn't Ted hit .400 once or twice? Nobody's done it since.

 

[Omar 382]

Didn't Ted hit .400 once or twice? Nobody's done it since.

thrice, but that one stat is not nearly definitive enough for me

 

[obxyankeefan]

Ted is ahead in all 3 of the percentage stats. If you add in the fact that Ted missed a lot of his prime do to WWII you could figure that he would be close to if not ahead in the cumulative stats.



1 Ted Williams

2 Stan Musial I know you said you consider him a 1b but IMO still a LF

3 Barry Bonds

4 Rickey Henderson

5 Dave Winfield

 

[Omar 382]

Ted is ahead in all 3 of the percentage stats. If you add in the fact that Ted missed a lot of his prime do to WWII you could figure that he would be close to if not ahead in the cumulative stats.



1 Ted Williams

2 Stan Musial I know you said you consider him a 1b but IMO still a LF

3 Barry Bonds

4 Rickey Henderson

5 Dave Winfield

williams averaged 37 home runs a year. if you had 3 extra years with 37 home runs, he would still have considerably less than bonds, with only 632. and i know that he was entering the prime of his career, but in the four years before the war, he hit 31, 23, 37, and 36 home runs, and in the next three years after he hit 38, 43, and 25 home runs. so 37 is a pretty fair number. and by the way, i think you're a little high on winfield. i'd take al simmons, manny ramirez, or yastrzemski over winfield.

 

[StanMarsh51]

williams averaged 37 home runs a year. if you had 3 extra years with 37 home runs, he would still have considerably less than bonds, with only 632. and i know that he was entering the prime of his career, but in the four years before the war, he hit 31, 23, 37, and 36 home runs, and in the next three years after he hit 38, 43, and 25 home runs. so 37 is a pretty fair number. and by the way, i think you're a little high on winfield. i'd take al simmons, manny ramirez, or yastrzemski over winfield.

Williams missed more than 3 years to wartime...he played just 6 and 37 games in 1952 and 1953 due to serving in the Korean war.

 

[Omar 382]

Williams missed more than 3 years to wartime...he played just 6 and 37 games in 1952 and 1953 due to serving in the Korean war.

wow, i forgot about that. but applying the same logic, he still only finishes with around 720 home runs, about 60 less than bonds. not saying that that is the end-all, be-all, but it is important to note

 

[StanMarsh51]

wow, i forgot about that. but applying the same logic, he still only finishes with around 720 home runs, about 60 less than bonds. not saying that that is the end-all, be-all, but it is important to note

And in all fairness, we'd also need to look at home run rates being lower in Williams' day. Williams' played in an era where the majority of teams didn't hit the 150 HR mark, whereas Bonds played a large portion of his career (post 1993ish) where most teams did crack that mark. There's a reason Williams was able to finish top 3 in HR in multiple seasons where he had less than 30, and that's because HRs were hit less frequently in his time.

In a season like 1942 for example, the AL league average was 67 HR/team...by comparison, in a season like 1998, the average NL team hit 82 in the 1st half alone.

 

[Lord Scalious]

wow, i forgot about that. but applying the same logic, he still only finishes with around 720 home runs, about 60 less than bonds. not saying that that is the end-all, be-all, but it is important to note

Also important to note. They did not have the set 162 game schedule in Williams Career.

 

[Wazmankg]

If fielding counts and we ignore PEDs with Bonds it's close, otherwise... no.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

I have most other positions figured out, but I have had a tough time figuring out who the greatest left fielder of all time is. I go back and forth every other day. Technically, Musial played more games at first base, so he is not in the debate.

Ted Williams: .344/.482/.634 190 OPS+ 521 HR 1,839 RBI 188 wRC+

Barry Bonds: .298/.444/.607 182 OPS+ 762 HR 1,996 RBI 173 wRC+

And don't give me some stupid shit about how Bonds is disqualified from this discussion because of his PED use. You can factor that into the equation, but don't be ridiculous.

The problem is he is disqualified because his records wasn't based on hard honest work. It's like going to Las Vegas and using loaded dice to shoot craps at the table. The truth is that we will really never know what his actual record would have been without the drugs because like it or not the drugs gave him a edge that came at the expense of pitchers that would have otherwise pitched fantastic games and the Giants would never have won nearly as many games. So truthfully there is no discussion at all

 

[SteelersPride]

Al Martin Pirates 92-2000

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

williams averaged 37 home runs a year. if you had 3 extra years with 37 home runs, he would still have considerably less than bonds, with only 632. and i know that he was entering the prime of his career, but in the four years before the war, he hit 31, 23, 37, and 36 home runs, and in the next three years after he hit 38, 43, and 25 home runs. so 37 is a pretty fair number. and by the way, i think you're a little high on winfield. i'd take al simmons, manny ramirez, or yastrzemski over winfield.

Williams played in a less homer-friendly environment, for what it's worth. It was a hitter-friendly era, but not as homer-friendly as the 90s & 00s.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Ted is ahead in all 3 of the percentage stats. If you add in the fact that Ted missed a lot of his prime do to WWII you could figure that he would be close to if not ahead in the cumulative stats.



1 Ted Williams

2 Stan Musial I know you said you consider him a 1b but IMO still a LF

3 Barry Bonds

4 Rickey Henderson

5 Dave Winfield

Dave Winfield??? Of the 2500 games he played in the outfield, less than 500 of them were in LF.

 

[$500 Million]

Every account I've read or heard about Ted Williams says he was disinterested at best in fielding, he would daydream about hitting in the outfield during games, taking fake swings and shit like that.

I'll take Bonds.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

The problem is he is disqualified because his records wasn't based on hard honest work. It's like going to Las Vegas and using loaded dice to shoot craps at the table. The truth is that we will really never know what his actual record would have been without the drugs because like it or not the drugs gave him a edge that came at the expense of pitchers that would have otherwise pitched fantastic games and the Giants would never have won nearly as many games. So truthfully there is no discussion at all

You say he's disqualified as if it's established fact. Nope. He's disqualified in your childish opinion. Others are free to interpret the events as they'd like.

 

[steveringo]

Williams 162 G ave: 37 HR, 130 RBI
Bonds 162 G ave: 41 HR, 108 RBI

Bonds SB = 514
Willimas SB = 24

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

As for trying to sway you, it depends on how you're approaching the argument. Are you looking at this from an all-around perspective? Because if you are, there's no way you can go with anyone but Bonds. His combination of hitting, defense and baserunning is unrivaled at the position.

But I also think that if you gave Williams some kind of credit for the 5 years he missed to military service, he'd edge Bonds ever so slightly because he was just that great of a hitter.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

You say he's disqualified as if it's established fact. Nope. He's disqualified in your childish opinion. Others are free to interpret the events as they'd like.

It is a fact with normal fans of the sport. Only a dumb ass would think he would have broken records without the benefit of drugs. Others are free to interpre the events as they like, but common sense and logic state that his record is not legitimate.

 

[Omar 382]

It is a fact with normal fans of the sport. Only a dumb ass would think he would have broken records without the benefit of drugs. Others are free to interpre the events as they like, but common sense and logic state that his record is not legitimate.

what a dumb ass