Top 32 tournament LF Bonds vs Williams

[obxyankeefan]

Top 32 players ranked by BRWAR(as of 6/18/15).

Leftfield Bracket is:

1 B Bonds 5
32 L Brock 1

16 Z Wheat 3
17 S Magee 6

8 M Ramirez 11
25 M Minoso 0

9 T Raines 11
24 J Kelley 0

4 R Henderson 14
29 J Rice 0

13 B Williams 5
20 J Medwick 2

5 C Yastrzemski 7
28 B Veach 0

12 G Goslin 8
21 J Cruz 0

3 T Williams 10
30 R White 0

14 J Burkett 3
19 B Johnson 6

6 P Rose 3
27 R Kiner 5

11 F Clarke 6
22 L Gonzalez 4

2 S Musial 10
31 H Manush 0

15 J Jackson 5
18 W Stargell 7

7 E Delahanty 4
26 J Sheckard 1

10 A Simmons 7
23 B Downing 0

1 B Bonds 9
17 S Magee 2

8 M Ramirez 4
9 T Raines 7

4 R Henderson 10
13 B Williams 0

5 C Yastrzemski 13
12 G Goslin 0

3 T Williams 10
19 B Johnson 0

27 R Kiner 8
11 F Clarke 3

2 S Musial 11
18 W Stargell 1

7 E Delahanty 4 advances on seed
10 Al Simmons 4

1 B Bonds 8
9 T Raines 1

4 R Henderson 10
5 C Yastrzemski 4

3 T Williams 16
27 R Kiner 0

2 S Musial 7
7 E Delahanty 0

1 B Bonds 10
4 R Henderson 0

3 T Williams 8
2 S Musial 0

1 B Bonds
3 T Williams

 

[obxyankeefan]

Barry Bonds Statistics and History | Baseball-Reference.com
Beat Lou Brock, Sherry Magee, Tim Raines, Rickey Henderson 32-4

Ted Williams Statistics and History | Baseball-Reference.com
Beat Roy White, B Johnson, R Kiner, and Stan Musial 44-0

 

[MilkSpiller22]

BA-Williams wins(not close)
Bonds-Career=.298,Best=.370, 499+PA better=10, MLB average=.263(.035)
Williams-Career=.344, Best=.406, 499+PA better=7, MLB average=.277(.067)

Power-Bonds wins(Relatively close)
ISO
Bonds- Career=.309, Best=.536, 499+PA better=7, MLB average=.147(.162)
Williams- Career=.289, Best=.347, 499+PA better=7, MLB average=.132(.157)

BB-Bonds wins(VERY CLOSE)
BB%
Bonds-Career=20.3, Best=37.6,499+PA better=7, MLB average=8.7(11.6)
Williams-Career=20.7, Best=25.9, 499+PA better=8, MLB average=9.2(11.5)

SO-Williams wins(very close)
SO%
Bonds- Career=12.2, Best=6.7, 499+PA better=7, MLB average=16.1(3.9)
Williams- Career=7.2, Best=4.5, 499+PA better=7, MLB average=10.4(3.2)

Defense-Bonds wins(NOT CLOSE)
dWAR
Bonds- Career=6.7, Best=3.5, seasons 1 or better=5, seasons over 0=12
Williams-Career=-13.3, Best=.4, seasons over 0=1

Speed- Bonds wins(NOT CLOSE)

Post season- Bonds Wins(NOT CLOSE)

Career longevity- Bonds wins(nearly 3000 more PA)
defensive longevity-Bonds wins(nearly 800 more games)

conclusion- this is not close, Bonds has Longevity, defense, power, BBs and base stealing over Williams... No doubt that this would be a different race if there was no steroid usage, as Bonds best seasons are so different from his career numbers...

So the only way to vote against bonds is a vote against the ERA... But i have trouble voting against an era when i am biased against the pre integration era as well....

Bonds wins...

 

[da55bums]

Williams time missed for service and Bonds extra help...

Post season - neither got a ring

Williams

 

[Howie115]

Williams time missed for service and Bonds extra help...

Yes, not gonna penalize Williams for fighting for the U.S. in two wars.

I do think Bonds would have had an outstanding, Hall of Fame career without the "help", albeit with much fewer home runs. Problem is, he didn't give us the chance to find that out.

 

[Cedrique]

Yeah, this is a tough one. I still haven't decided. I didn't have any problem taking Bonds over guys from other eras but this particular match up is difficult. I can't give Williams any extra credit for fighting in a war, but if you look at Williams' stats it is apparent that those 3 years he missed would have been the prime of his career. So when you put him and Bonds side to side and consider that he still had 9000 plate appearances without three prime years and Bonds had his "second prime" in his late thirties there's no way I would give Bonds any kind of benefit for "longevity" over Williams. If Williams only had 5000 PAs, maybe, but that is not the case.

The thing that I can't wrap my head around is that in spite of Williams missing 3 of his prime years and Bonds having his best statistical years between the ages of 36 and 39, when most players careers are winding down Teddy Ballgame somehow still beats him in career AVG OBP SLG OPS OPS+. How did he do that?

One thing that might sway me back to Bonds is defense but that seems kind of silly for leftfielders. According to the stats Williams was below average defensively and Bonds was definitely above average. Then again if an alpha male type like Bonds was that good at defense you'd think he'd be playing centerfield, especially with him growing up idolizing Willie Mays. Did he just make the sacrifice to keep Darren Lewis in the lineup?

I'm hoping Barry will do the right thing and have his head frozen so 50 years from now we can listen to him discuss these issues and more with Ted Williams.

 

[calsnowskier]

I have a clear bias here. I fully view Bonds as the GOAT. That said, I will do an analysis and see what happens. Williams is one of just a small handful of players who I feel have any chance at all of competing with Bonds...

OPS+ (Bonds/Williams)
120 - 19/16
130 - 18/16
140 - 18/16
150 - 17/16
160 - 15/16
170 - 13/12
180 - 9/10
190 - 6/9
200 - 6/7
210 - 4/4
220 - 4/2
230 - 4/2
240 - 3/2
250 - 3/0 (268, 263, 259)

I am not sure there is another player with a more impressive OPS+ breakdown than these two. While I give this analysis to Bonds, Williams is laughably God-like as well.

Accolades
Bonds - 7 MVP, 13 top 10 MVP (2 runner-up), 14 ASG, 8 GG, 12 SS
Williams - 2 MVP, 12 top 10 MVP (4 runner-up), 17 ASG, HOF

Seven MVPs. SEVEN!! He won 3 in 4 years in the early 90's (while finishing runner-up in the one year he did not win it), then 4 straight during the "stink" years (with a runner up to the year prior).

oWAR7
Bonds - 69.9
Williams - 68.6

Essentially a tie.

Defense
Bonds was generally considered one of, if not THE best LFers during much of his career. Later in his career, he "dogged" it in the field, but that was by direct order of the organization. They did not want him exerting himself and risking injury. They were willing to take the defensive hit in the field due to the production he was providing at the plate.

Wiliams played the field, but was not considered a plus defender.

Bonds wins this, but it IS LF, the second least important defensive position in the game (next to 1B).

Intangibles
Bonds' 2001 - 2004 is unmatched in baseball history. He had 284 IBBs in this time-frame. Hell, he was intentionally walked with the bases loaded at one point. That is a level of respect that I still cannot fathom.

Williams had 3 years in his prime where he did not play due to the war.

A lot is "given" to Williams because of his missed time. And that is deserved. But Bonds was, by most reports, clean before 2000 when the rest of the game was dripping in "stink". Couldnt he be given any extra credit for still being one of the greatest players of all time (maybe not THE best, granted) while most of the rest of the players in the game were "cheating"? Once he decided to "level the playing field", the competition was over.

If you are going to dock Bonds for his alleged stink, you cant give Williams extra credit for numbers he did not put up, IMHO.

Summary
Based on what was done on the field, I have to give this to Bonds. He has the GREATEST 4-year run of anyone in the game, hands down (2001 - 2004). He also has one of the next best 4-year runs in the history of the game (1990 - 1993). He also has the (slightly) better oWAR7, the better defense, and the better OPS+ breakdown.

IMHO, the only way you can go with Williams here is if you give Williams extra credit and take credit away from Bonds (both some-what valid argument, though). For what was actually accomplished, it is a clear decision.

 

[DHoey]

Didn't Bonds' hat and shoe size increase during his career?

 

[UK Cowboy]

I have a clear bias here. I fully view Bonds as the GOAT. That said, I will do an analysis and see what happens. Williams is one of just a small handful of players who I feel have any chance at all of competing with Bonds...

OPS+ (Bonds/Williams)
120 - 19/16
130 - 18/16
140 - 18/16
150 - 17/16
160 - 15/16
170 - 13/12
180 - 9/10
190 - 6/9
200 - 6/7
210 - 4/4
220 - 4/2
230 - 4/2
240 - 3/2
250 - 3/0 (268, 263, 259)

I am not sure there is another player with a more impressive OPS+ breakdown than these two. While I give this analysis to Bonds, Williams is laughably God-like as well.

Accolades
Bonds - 7 MVP, 13 top 10 MVP (2 runner-up), 14 ASG, 8 GG, 12 SS
Williams - 2 MVP, 12 top 10 MVP (4 runner-up), 17 ASG, HOF

Seven MVPs. SEVEN!! He won 3 in 4 years in the early 90's (while finishing runner-up in the one year he did not win it), then 4 straight during the "stink" years (with a runner up to the year prior).

oWAR7
Bonds - 69.9
Williams - 68.6

Essentially a tie.

Defense
Bonds was generally considered one of, if not THE best LFers during much of his career. Later in his career, he "dogged" it in the field, but that was by direct order of the organization. They did not want him exerting himself and risking injury. They were willing to take the defensive hit in the field due to the production he was providing at the plate.

Wiliams played the field, but was not considered a plus defender.

Bonds wins this, but it IS LF, the second least important defensive position in the game (next to 1B).

Intangibles
Bonds' 2001 - 2004 is unmatched in baseball history. He had 284 IBBs in this time-frame. Hell, he was intentionally walked with the bases loaded at one point. That is a level of respect that I still cannot fathom.

Williams had 3 years in his prime where he did not play due to the war.

A lot is "given" to Williams because of his missed time. And that is deserved. But Bonds was, by most reports, clean before 2000 when the rest of the game was dripping in "stink". Couldnt he be given any extra credit for still being one of the greatest players of all time (maybe not THE best, granted) while most of the rest of the players in the game were "cheating"? Once he decided to "level the playing field", the competition was over.

If you are going to dock Bonds for his alleged stink, you cant give Williams extra credit for numbers he did not put up, IMHO.

Summary
Based on what was done on the field, I have to give this to Bonds. He has the GREATEST 4-year run of anyone in the game, hands down (2001 - 2004). He also has one of the next best 4-year runs in the history of the game (1990 - 1993). He also has the (slightly) better oWAR7, the better defense, and the better OPS+ breakdown.

IMHO, the only way you can go with Williams here is if you give Williams extra credit and take credit away from Bonds (both some-what valid argument, though). For what was actually accomplished, it is a clear decision.

Nice work. If you add in the average year for Williams for 3 seasons, in his prime, he ends up with virtually the same numbers as Bonds, and he didn't stick a needle in his ass to do it. While you are right about Bonds playing better D before the drugs, it also can't be argued that a guy who was hitting 35 HR's/ year in his prime should have only been hitting 20-25 late in his career, not 70+ Williams was the better player without drugs, he gets my vote

 

[calsnowskier]

Nice work. If you add in the average year for Williams for 3 seasons, in his prime, he ends up with virtually the same numbers as Bonds, and he didn't stick a needle in his ass to do it. While you are right about Bonds playing better D before the drugs, it also can't be argued that a guy who was hitting 35 HR's/ year in his prime should have only been hitting 20-25 late in his career, not 70+ Williams was the better player without drugs, he gets my vote

Bonds, pre-2000, was facing pitchers who were juiced. Williams was not. He was also facing specialized pitching, which Williams never had to face.

I am personally not a fan of looking at the stink at all. I believe it basically evens out in the wash when you look at "+" stats and accolades. If everyone eats Mac and cheese for lunch, no one has an advantage over the next guy. Bonds' "+" stats and accolades are AT LEAST on par with the greatest to ever play.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

i am having a Cal(with Fisk) moment here... Only 4 votes have been against Bonds in previous votes... that means only 4 times did someone have a problem with the steroid era... The funny part is that Ted Williams played in an era that was seen to be better offensively... Baseball references has a Stat called AIR which measures whether a player played in a pitching or offensive season.... Bonds had a 102 vs Williams 108...

Basically the only reason to vote against Bonds is a vote against the steroid era, but you voted for Bonds against Rickey henderson and Tim Raines...

Don't be a Meg... Pick Bonds...

 

[Cedrique]

i am having a Cal(with Fisk) moment here... Only 4 votes have been against Bonds in previous votes... that means only 4 times did someone have a problem with the steroid era... The funny part is that Ted Williams played in an era that was seen to be better offensively... Baseball references has a Stat called AIR which measures whether a player played in a pitching or offensive season.... Bonds had a 102 vs Williams 108...

Basically the only reason to vote against Bonds is a vote against the steroid era, but you voted for Bonds against Rickey henderson and Tim Raines...

Don't be a Meg... Pick Bonds...

I think you are wrong in your assumption that a vote against Bonds is by definition against the steroid era. I'm looking at career averages and I don't see where Bonds is better. I don't know what "AIR" is but the difference between 102 and 108 is about 5.5% and all the stats I'm looking at show Williams about 5% higher except for AVG, which is way higher. In addition to those stats OPS+ is 190 for Williams, 182 for Bonds. What stats am I missing?

 

[UK Cowboy]

Bonds, pre-2000, was facing pitchers who were juiced. Williams was not. He was also facing specialized pitching, which Williams never had to face.

I am personally not a fan of looking at the stink at all. I believe it basically evens out in the wash when you look at "+" stats and accolades. If everyone eats Mac and cheese for lunch, no one has an advantage over the next guy. Bonds' "+" stats and accolades are AT LEAST on par with the greatest to ever play.

What pitchers got from roids was longevity, not super enhancement. Rocket didn't go from throwing 96 to 105. He got his velocity back to where it was. Look at his body, he wasn't jacked up. Bonds doubled his HR output. Williams could hit .400 and 50 bombs without the juice. Go back and make his last 5 seasons .450 with 100 bombs per year. You'll call that absurd, but it's exactly what Bonds did, doubling his prime power numbers late in his career. Any Apple's to Apple's goes Williams way

 

[UK Cowboy]

Pretty comical that Musial was two seed over Williams. Love Stan the Man, but Bonds/Williams are 1/1A no matter who you pull for

 

[calsnowskier]

i am having a Cal(with Fisk) moment here... Only 4 votes have been against Bonds in previous votes... that means only 4 times did someone have a problem with the steroid era... The funny part is that Ted Williams played in an era that was seen to be better offensively... Baseball references has a Stat called AIR which measures whether a player played in a pitching or offensive season.... Bonds had a 102 vs Williams 108...

Basically the only reason to vote against Bonds is a vote against the steroid era, but you voted for Bonds against Rickey henderson and Tim Raines...

Don't be a Meg... Pick Bonds...

I feel strong about Bonds over Williams, but I cant really argue against Williams here the way I could argue against Berra (or Yount). As UK stated, Bonds and Williams are pretty clearly 1 and 1A, and even I, with an admitted biased eye, acknowledge that the difference between the two is quite small.

That said, I agree that a vote against Bonds has to be somewhat biased because of the stink and his reaction to the media (he hated them, they hated him).

 

[calsnowskier]

What pitchers got from roids was longevity, not super enhancement. Rocket didn't go from throwing 96 to 105. He got his velocity back to where it was. Look at his body, he wasn't jacked up. Bonds doubled his HR output. Williams could hit .400 and 50 bombs without the juice. Go back and make his last 5 seasons .450 with 100 bombs per year. You'll call that absurd, but it's exactly what Bonds did, doubling his prime power numbers late in his career. Any Apple's to Apple's goes Williams way

Longevity for a pitcher means that that pitcher stays on the active roster longer, meaning his replacement (worse than the current worst player on the team) would not be on the mound instead. That is pretty massive. Roger was still on the mound at his elite level instead of Joe Schmoe getting his career cup-a-joe.

Also, in the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th innings, Bonds was either facing a SP who was dealing or a fresh arm (or was simply given a free pass). Williams was still facing the same SP.

 

[obxyankeefan]

Before doing this I would have put Musial ahead of Bonds, but looking at the numbers I would have been wrong.

As far as Williams vs Bonds, to me it came down to OPS+ and Williams had the edge.

The stink I could care less about, every team had a high number of players using. Bonds was still head and shoulders better than the rest of the field.

Bonds is in my top 3 all time, but one of the two I would consider his better is also a LF.

 

[calsnowskier]

Before doing this I would have put Musial ahead of Bonds, but looking at the numbers I would have been wrong.

As far as Williams vs Bonds, to me it came down to OPS+ and Williams had the edge.

The stink I could care less about, every team had a high number of players using. Bonds was still head and shoulders better than the rest of the field.

Bonds is in my top 3 all time, but one of the two I would consider his better is also a LF.

I disagree with your conclusion, but I respect your method. I do not put a lot of stock in career numbers, so the fact that Williams has a higher career OPS+ carries little weight with me. I MUCH prefer the "bucket" analysis that I do (my preference). But even THAT analysis makes the two VERY close.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I feel strong about Bonds over Williams, but I cant really argue against Williams here the way I could argue against Berra (or Yount). As UK stated, Bonds and Williams are pretty clearly 1 and 1A, and even I, with an admitted biased eye, acknowledge that the difference between the two is quite small.

That said, I agree that a vote against Bonds has to be somewhat biased because of the stink and his reaction to the media (he hated them, they hated him).

But thats the thing, even if you want to call them equal with the bat(which i disagree with), Bonds also has Longevity, better on bases, and better defense... He was also Much better in the playoffs... so although i do agree Williams is a top 5 player of all time, i just don't see how anyone can not pick Bonds in this matchup unless they bring in steroids... But that didn't bother them in the previous picks...

 

[calsnowskier]

But thats the thing, even if you want to call them equal with the bat(which i disagree with), Bonds also has Longevity, better on bases, and better defense... He was also Much better in the playoffs... so although i do agree Williams is a top 5 player of all time, i just don't see how anyone can not pick Bonds in this matchup unless they bring in steroids... But that didn't bother them in the previous picks...

If they are voting against him because he was dirty, why did they vote for him earlier?

Gotcha.

Be consistent.