Top 32 tournament LF Bonds vs Williams

[blstoker]

Yeah you did.

That is a quote based on Williams' experience on the basepaths and the fact no one in the debate actually saw him play - not the official stance of my opinion. Try again.

 

[Omar 382]

That is a quote based on Williams' experience on the basepaths and the fact no one in the debate actually saw him play - not the official stance of my opinion. Try again.

The "official stance of your opinion" is that we can't know who was a better baserunner because we never saw Williams play. You said it in the post right above^ so don't try to deny it lest you want to look stupid.

 

[blstoker]

The "official stance of your opinion" is that we can't know who was a better baserunner because we never saw Williams play. You said it in the post right above^ so don't try to deny it lest you want to look stupid.

No - my official statement is that Bonds isn't so much better at baserunning that it "isn't even close". Which I stated on 3 different occasions including the very sentence from the quote you posted. It isn't really what I said that is important to you - but what you want me to have said.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

@blstoker

My only problem with your defense is that it seems like you are going out of your way to defend Williams and take any stat For bonds and give an excuse for it...

Bonds has a much better steal percentage, WELL steals are not the only part of base running,
Bonds has more HRs, WELL Bonds played in the steroid Era AND Williams lost seasons due to military...
etc...

I gave you stats to show that Williams played in an ERA with better BA,OBP, SO, BBs, nearly the same slugging... Only HRs was better in Bonds day... You dismissed it, saying it was wrong?? That is pretty funny...


I will admit, when I originally gave you those stats I did not realize that Baseball-reference omitted offensive stats from pitchers... So for that, I should have known before using the stats...

 

[Omar 382]

Yeah you said that you couldn't be sure that he was so much better that "it isn't even close" but you also said:

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".

 

[UK Cowboy]

Yeah you did.

Heck of a comeback. What are you, 12?

 

[Omar 382]

Heck of a comeback. What are you, 12?

You ridicule a comeback, and then try to put someone down by calling him 12? You can't make this shit up

 

[blstoker]

@blstoker

My only problem with your defense is that it seems like you are going out of your way to defend Williams and take any stat For bonds and give an excuse for it...

Yes, I know - we don't agree. You cherry pick stats that make it appear that something is one way - I refute the interpretation of those stats. It's just how most debates are done.

Bonds has a much better steal percentage, WELL steals are not the only part of base running,

Yes he does - which I do not contend in the slightest.

[/QUOTE]Bonds has more HRs, WELL Bonds played in the steroid Era AND Williams lost seasons due to military...
etc...[/QUOTE]

It isn't that Bonds played in the steroid era - It's that he juiced up. Had Bonds not juiced - he still most likely has more home runs than Williams, and it could even be possible that it's still close to 100 more (or even more). I mean, before he's even speculated to have used, Bonds was at 494 HRs. He's still easily in the 500 club - and quite possibly in the 600, but very unlikely he is the HR champ.

But, it isn't HRs I am contesting - since I think Williams is a better hitter - not a better HR hitter.

I gave you stats to show that Williams played in an ERA with better BA,OBP, SO, BBs, nearly the same slugging... Only HRs was better in Bonds day... You dismissed it, saying it was wrong?? That is pretty funny...


I will admit, when I originally gave you those stats I did not realize that Baseball-reference omitted offensive stats from pitchers... So for that, I should have known before using the stats...

So, you admit that the stats used were incorrect - but complain that I say they were incorrect?

Bonds' era scored more runs, had more hits, 2B, HR, RBI, SB, HBP as well as a higher SLG and OPS, all by a wide margin, and Williams' era had more 3Bs (wide margin), and were slightly better at BA and OBP. And that's comparing them just at the league level and not the entire MLB (otherwise Bonds' era really widens the gap).

Yeah you said that you couldn't be sure that he was so much better that "it isn't even close" but you also said:

Read the whole sentence. I know you can do it - I have faith that you can read an entire sentence. It's just a few more words!!!!!

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Heck of a comeback. What are you, 12?

I like to cut in half and then double it...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Actually, I try very hard NOT to cherry pick... Of course it happens, it happens to all of us... But I dont think baseball references is wrong... They are trying to compare the lg average for hitters, so they omit pitcher offensive numbers... I dont see why this makes them WRONG...

and it shows that BA,BB%,OBP,SO% were all better Williams era...

SLG was so close it was pretty much a tie, and only HRs was significantly an advantage for Bonds era... And with HRs clearly Runs will come...

But you cant compare counting stats when Williams era played less games per season than Bonds era...

 

[Omar 382]

Read the whole sentence. I know you can do it - I have faith that you can read an entire sentence. It's just a few more words!!!!!

So ignore the first part of the sentence?

 

[UK Cowboy]

So ignore the first part of the sentence?

Says the man who posts numbers, gets called for his bullshit, then says he wasn't being literal

 

[Cedrique]

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.

Baseball Reference is wrong???? Say it ain't so, blstoker!!!

 

[blstoker]

So ignore the first part of the sentence?

No - take the sentence as a whole and then incorporate what I have re-iterated on several other occasions. They are called compound sentences - which means the statement doesn't end at the comma.

Post #195 - 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 competition isn't as cut and dry as you would like to make it appear.

Post # 203 - 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".

Post #207 - 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.

Post #223 - No - my official statement is that Bonds isn't so much better at base running that it "isn't even close".

 

[Omar 382]

No - take the sentence as a whole and then incorporate what I have re-iterated on several other occasions. They are called compound sentences - which means the statement doesn't end at the comma.

Post #195 - 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 competition isn't as cut and dry as you would like to make it appear.

Post # 203 - 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".

Post #207 - 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.

Post #223 - No - my official statement is that Bonds isn't so much better at base running that it "isn't even close".

But he is so much better, it isn't even close. Williams has a base running runs above average of -1.5, while Bonds is at 30.4

 

[Omar 382]

Says the man who posts numbers, gets called for his bullshit, then says he wasn't being literal

Wrong again

 

[UK Cowboy]

Wrong again

No it isn't LOL. Not surprising, you can't admit when you are wrong

 

[UK Cowboy]

Ugh. I'm not being literal. I don't know that 100 players today have an OBP over .350. I'm just trying to point out how ludicrous it is to say that a certain era had better talent because there were fewer players without looking at any other facts or stats.

Oh Omar.......

 

[Omar 382]

No it isn't LOL. Not surprising, you can't admit when you are wrong

Tell me where I explicitly said that 100 hitters had a .350 OBP in 2015.

I don't see how it's confusing at all. Would you rather have 10 players with a .330 OBP or 100 players with a .350 OBP? (These are arbitrary numbers to prove my overall point)

Can you read? Are you mentally challenged?

 

[Omar 382]

And I originally said this:

So if 300 players play at 40% level vs. 600 who play at 70% level, you would take the league with fewer players and less production? Ok.

But Nos couldn't comprehend what I saw saying so I had to dumb it down and use concrete (figurative) numbers