Top 32 tournament LF Bonds vs Williams

[dredinis21]

Not sure why its more difficult since both sides (hitters and pitchers) have the same technology plus for every flaw found it can be fixed earlier also Todays players have a big edge Imagine if Babe ruth had a personal trainer

Even if Babe Ruth HAD a personal trainer, is there any doubt that he would much rather chase syphilis and bacon then chase career longevity? As Cal pointed out, use Pablo as your modern day cautionary tale. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Even in the seasons where Pablo dropped weight prior to season, he gained it all back throughout the course of the season because he couldn't control his diet when he wasn't being babysat.

 

[Omar 382]

Bonds. They're incredibly close hitters, with the edge to Williams, but Bonds was the far better defender and baserunner. Bonds also had a far better JAWS, with 117.6 vs, Williams' 96.2

 

[blstoker]

It's been interesting to read this, this morning - as it's mostly Giants fans (and milk) defending Bonds. Here's my take on the two:

1) If you say that Ted losing nearly 5 whole seasons of his career to military service, including 3 in his prime, should not be taken into consideration when comparing their numbers, then you're being dishonest about the process. While it is true there is no way of knowing what is numbers would have actually been had he not been called upon to fight, it's pretty safe to say that the time away most likely cost him 700 hits, 150 HRs, 500 R, 500 RBI and 600 walks. Those aren't small numbers, and adding those to his numbers, Williams numbers surpass Bonds' in nearly every category.

2) At the same time, had Bonds been under the same constraints and had to miss his 5th - 7th seasons (as well as most of his 13th & 14th), the numbers on offense would very much favor Williams, by a wide margin. It truly is amazing how Williams was able to create one of the greatest careers of all time while missing so much of his prime.

3) Barry Bonds may have one of the greatest single season performances in MLB history with his 73 HR 2001 season, but it isn't like Williams lacked in historic seasons - including his 1941 campaign. and while Bonds' walked an astonishing amount during his later years, Williams was walked at a greater pace throughout his career.

4) Siting Bonds' Gold Glove awards to show fielding prowess is misleading in a couple of ways. First - Gold Gloves don't actually indicated fielding skill - as there've been awards given to players who've barely even manned the position for which they were awarded. It's just as likely (and probably more so) that Bonds received the award for his name recognition due to his offense than for what he was actually doing on defense. Second - since the award didn't come into being until Williams was 38 - which means that no matter how deserving he may have been - there is no way in telling how many he may have won because there just wasn't any such award earlier in his career. And saying that Williams should have won one at the age of 38 is too much to ask - as Bonds won his last one at age 33. The two players actual statistics for fielding are comparable to each other and only appear different due to era differences and equipment available.

5) With only a 154 game schedule - Bonds would gain a full season of numbers based on the fact that he had the opportunity to play in 176 more games over the course of his career than Williams would have had. So in essence - due to scheduling differences and WWII/Korean Wars - Bonds had the chance to play 903 more games than Williams - so the fact he played only 700 more games isn't that terrible.

6) Longevity - Williams didn't bat under 318 until he was 40 years old (.254 & .316), while Barry would only achieve an average that high once before his steroid shrouded later years. Similar milestone facts can be named about OBP (at least .435), SLG (at least .556), OPS (at least 1.036), HR (at least 20 in every 40+ game season) and many more categories where Williams' entire career is a picture of excellence that surpasses what Bonds is able to do until his miraculous later years.

7) About the only offensive category that Bonds is a clear cut favorite is stolen bases.

Personally, I go with Williams (I know the voting's closed) and Bonds isn't even seriously talked about in this conversation if not for his later years.

 

[molsaniceman]

Even if Babe Ruth HAD a personal trainer, is there any doubt that he would much rather chase syphilis and bacon then chase career longevity? As Cal pointed out, use Pablo as your modern day cautionary tale. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Even in the seasons where Pablo dropped weight prior to season, he gained it all back throughout the course of the season because he couldn't control his diet when he wasn't being babysat.

22 years is a short career who knew?comparing ruth to pablo is beyond funny

 

[Rex Racer]

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

Williams was facing guys who were staring down at him from a 15" high mound (sometimes more), not the 10" high mound that Bonds had to deal with.


Williams gets my homer vote.

 

[Rex Racer]

It's been interesting to read this, this morning - as it's mostly Giants fans (and milk) defending Bonds. Here's my take on the two:

1) If you say that Ted losing nearly 5 whole seasons of his career to military service, including 3 in his prime, should not be taken into consideration when comparing their numbers, then you're being dishonest about the process. While it is true there is no way of knowing what is numbers would have actually been had he not been called upon to fight, it's pretty safe to say that the time away most likely cost him 700 hits, 150 HRs, 500 R, 500 RBI and 600 walks. Those aren't small numbers, and adding those to his numbers, Williams numbers surpass Bonds' in nearly every category.

2) At the same time, had Bonds been under the same constraints and had to miss his 5th - 7th seasons (as well as most of his 13th & 14th), the numbers on offense would very much favor Williams, by a wide margin. It truly is amazing how Williams was able to create one of the greatest careers of all time while missing so much of his prime.

3) Barry Bonds may have one of the greatest single season performances in MLB history with his 73 HR 2001 season, but it isn't like Williams lacked in historic seasons - including his 1941 campaign. and while Bonds' walked an astonishing amount during his later years, Williams was walked at a greater pace throughout his career.

4) Siting Bonds' Gold Glove awards to show fielding prowess is misleading in a couple of ways. First - Gold Gloves don't actually indicated fielding skill - as there've been awards given to players who've barely even manned the position for which they were awarded. It's just as likely (and probably more so) that Bonds received the award for his name recognition due to his offense than for what he was actually doing on defense. Second - since the award didn't come into being until Williams was 38 - which means that no matter how deserving he may have been - there is no way in telling how many he may have won because there just wasn't any such award earlier in his career. And saying that Williams should have won one at the age of 38 is too much to ask - as Bonds won his last one at age 33. The two players actual statistics for fielding are comparable to each other and only appear different due to era differences and equipment available.

5) With only a 154 game schedule - Bonds would gain a full season of numbers based on the fact that he had the opportunity to play in 176 more games over the course of his career than Williams would have had. So in essence - due to scheduling differences and WWII/Korean Wars - Bonds had the chance to play 903 more games than Williams - so the fact he played only 700 more games isn't that terrible.

6) Longevity - Williams didn't bat under 318 until he was 40 years old (.254 & .316), while Barry would only achieve an average that high once before his steroid shrouded later years. Similar milestone facts can be named about OBP (at least .435), SLG (at least .556), OPS (at least 1.036), HR (at least 20 in every 40+ game season) and many more categories where Williams' entire career is a picture of excellence that surpasses what Bonds is able to do until his miraculous later years.

7) About the only offensive category that Bonds is a clear cut favorite is stolen bases.

Personally, I go with Williams (I know the voting's closed) and Bonds isn't even seriously talked about in this conversation if not for his later years.

Good stuff.

 

[UK Cowboy]

It's been interesting to read this, this morning - as it's mostly Giants fans (and milk) defending Bonds. Here's my take on the two:

1) If you say that Ted losing nearly 5 whole seasons of his career to military service, including 3 in his prime, should not be taken into consideration when comparing their numbers, then you're being dishonest about the process. While it is true there is no way of knowing what is numbers would have actually been had he not been called upon to fight, it's pretty safe to say that the time away most likely cost him 700 hits, 150 HRs, 500 R, 500 RBI and 600 walks. Those aren't small numbers, and adding those to his numbers, Williams numbers surpass Bonds' in nearly every category.

2) At the same time, had Bonds been under the same constraints and had to miss his 5th - 7th seasons (as well as most of his 13th & 14th), the numbers on offense would very much favor Williams, by a wide margin. It truly is amazing how Williams was able to create one of the greatest careers of all time while missing so much of his prime.

3) Barry Bonds may have one of the greatest single season performances in MLB history with his 73 HR 2001 season, but it isn't like Williams lacked in historic seasons - including his 1941 campaign. and while Bonds' walked an astonishing amount during his later years, Williams was walked at a greater pace throughout his career.

4) Siting Bonds' Gold Glove awards to show fielding prowess is misleading in a couple of ways. First - Gold Gloves don't actually indicated fielding skill - as there've been awards given to players who've barely even manned the position for which they were awarded. It's just as likely (and probably more so) that Bonds received the award for his name recognition due to his offense than for what he was actually doing on defense. Second - since the award didn't come into being until Williams was 38 - which means that no matter how deserving he may have been - there is no way in telling how many he may have won because there just wasn't any such award earlier in his career. And saying that Williams should have won one at the age of 38 is too much to ask - as Bonds won his last one at age 33. The two players actual statistics for fielding are comparable to each other and only appear different due to era differences and equipment available.

5) With only a 154 game schedule - Bonds would gain a full season of numbers based on the fact that he had the opportunity to play in 176 more games over the course of his career than Williams would have had. So in essence - due to scheduling differences and WWII/Korean Wars - Bonds had the chance to play 903 more games than Williams - so the fact he played only 700 more games isn't that terrible.

6) Longevity - Williams didn't bat under 318 until he was 40 years old (.254 & .316), while Barry would only achieve an average that high once before his steroid shrouded later years. Similar milestone facts can be named about OBP (at least .435), SLG (at least .556), OPS (at least 1.036), HR (at least 20 in every 40+ game season) and many more categories where Williams' entire career is a picture of excellence that surpasses what Bonds is able to do until his miraculous later years.

7) About the only offensive category that Bonds is a clear cut favorite is stolen bases.

Personally, I go with Williams (I know the voting's closed) and Bonds isn't even seriously talked about in this conversation if not for his later years.

And Williams ass doesn't have more holes in it than Obamacare

 

[blstoker]

And Williams ass doesn't have more holes in it than Obamacare

1999----------------------------------------2001

 

[Omar 382]

It's been interesting to read this, this morning - as it's mostly Giants fans (and milk) defending Bonds. Here's my take on the two:

1) If you say that Ted losing nearly 5 whole seasons of his career to military service, including 3 in his prime, should not be taken into consideration when comparing their numbers, then you're being dishonest about the process. While it is true there is no way of knowing what is numbers would have actually been had he not been called upon to fight, it's pretty safe to say that the time away most likely cost him 700 hits, 150 HRs, 500 R, 500 RBI and 600 walks. Those aren't small numbers, and adding those to his numbers, Williams numbers surpass Bonds' in nearly every category.

2) At the same time, had Bonds been under the same constraints and had to miss his 5th - 7th seasons (as well as most of his 13th & 14th), the numbers on offense would very much favor Williams, by a wide margin. It truly is amazing how Williams was able to create one of the greatest careers of all time while missing so much of his prime.

3) Barry Bonds may have one of the greatest single season performances in MLB history with his 73 HR 2001 season, but it isn't like Williams lacked in historic seasons - including his 1941 campaign. and while Bonds' walked an astonishing amount during his later years, Williams was walked at a greater pace throughout his career.

4) Siting Bonds' Gold Glove awards to show fielding prowess is misleading in a couple of ways. First - Gold Gloves don't actually indicated fielding skill - as there've been awards given to players who've barely even manned the position for which they were awarded. It's just as likely (and probably more so) that Bonds received the award for his name recognition due to his offense than for what he was actually doing on defense. Second - since the award didn't come into being until Williams was 38 - which means that no matter how deserving he may have been - there is no way in telling how many he may have won because there just wasn't any such award earlier in his career. And saying that Williams should have won one at the age of 38 is too much to ask - as Bonds won his last one at age 33. The two players actual statistics for fielding are comparable to each other and only appear different due to era differences and equipment available.

5) With only a 154 game schedule - Bonds would gain a full season of numbers based on the fact that he had the opportunity to play in 176 more games over the course of his career than Williams would have had. So in essence - due to scheduling differences and WWII/Korean Wars - Bonds had the chance to play 903 more games than Williams - so the fact he played only 700 more games isn't that terrible.

6) Longevity - Williams didn't bat under 318 until he was 40 years old (.254 & .316), while Barry would only achieve an average that high once before his steroid shrouded later years. Similar milestone facts can be named about OBP (at least .435), SLG (at least .556), OPS (at least 1.036), HR (at least 20 in every 40+ game season) and many more categories where Williams' entire career is a picture of excellence that surpasses what Bonds is able to do until his miraculous later years.

7) About the only offensive category that Bonds is a clear cut favorite is stolen bases.

Personally, I go with Williams (I know the voting's closed) and Bonds isn't even seriously talked about in this conversation if not for his later years.

I agree with your point about the playing time lost. I don't know that that argument is enough to place Williams over Bonds. Even saying that he lost 44 WAR (10 WAR per season from '43-'45 and 6 WAR in '52 and '53), he would still be only 10 WAR ahead of Bonds, which I think considered the amount of time the two played, is not all that significant. I think a big key in these comparisons is looking at their peaks. Bonds had better a better JAWS and WAR7 than Williams, which I think is enough to compensate for the (theoretical) 10 WAR career gap. And Williams WAS a bad defensive left fielder when judged against modern (but very flawed) defensive statistics. It's close, but I'd probably put Ruth, Bonds, Mays, and Cobb all ahead of Williams.

 

[blstoker]

I agree with your point about the playing time lost. I don't know that that argument is enough to place Williams over Bonds. Even saying that he lost 44 WAR (10 WAR per season from '43-'45 and 6 WAR in '52 and '53), he would still be only 10 WAR ahead of Bonds, which I think considered the amount of time the two played, is not all that significant. I think a big key in these comparisons is looking at their peaks. Bonds had better a better JAWS and WAR7 than Williams, which I think is enough to compensate for the (theoretical) 10 WAR career gap. And Williams WAS a bad defensive left fielder when judged against modern (but very flawed) defensive statistics. It's close, but I'd probably put Ruth, Bonds, Mays, and Cobb all ahead of Williams.

1) Well, if taking into consideration the hypothetical WAR increases - then you have to remember that they would have also affected JAWS and WAR7. Bringing in an average of 10 from '43-'45 would have raised Williams' WAR7 to around 72 (just a smidge lower than Bonds) and as pointed out his career WAR would have been near 172 - so his JAWS would have been 122 (a little higher than Bonds).

As for how Williams looks as a fielder with modern fielding statistics, maybe he gets a better rep had his glove look like this: instead of this:
Besides - the discussion on Williams fielding, for me, is not so much about Williams as it is about the fact that I don't think that Bonds' fielding reputation is quite as deserved as his 8 gold gloves would indicate.

2) While true that Bonds' WAR7 is better than Williams, 4 of his top 7 WAR years are during the steroid section of his career. Excluding those 4 years and Bonds' WAR7 is 62.4, not 72.7. As such - Bonds' JAWS rating before his doping was just 86.7, not 117.5 like it ended up with.

Without steroids - even with Williams missing his prime - Barry Bonds isn't in this conversation.

 

[Omar 382]

1) Well, if taking into consideration the hypothetical WAR increases - then you have to remember that they would have also affected JAWS and WAR7. Bringing in an average of 10 from '43-'45 would have raised Williams' WAR7 to around 72 (just a smidge lower than Bonds) and as pointed out his career WAR would have been near 172 - so his JAWS would have been 122 (a little higher than Bonds).

As for how Williams looks as a fielder with modern fielding statistics, maybe he gets a better rep had his glove look like this: View attachment 95195 instead of this: View attachment 95196
Besides - the discussion on Williams fielding, for me, is not so much about Williams as it is about the fact that I don't think that Bonds' fielding reputation is quite as deserved as his 8 gold gloves would indicate.

2) While true that Bonds' WAR7 is better than Williams, 4 of his top 7 WAR years are during the steroid section of his career. Excluding those 4 years and Bonds' WAR7 is 62.4, not 72.7. As such - Bonds' JAWS rating before his doping was just 86.7, not 117.5 like it ended up with.

Without steroids - even with Williams missing his prime - Barry Bonds isn't in this conversation.

But then, Bonds had to face pitchers who 80% of the time were using PEDs too, while as Williams didn't. I'm not saying Bonds is far and away better than Williams, but if I had to pick one, I would go with Barry. Also, who gives a shit about Gold Gloves? Bonds' defensive metrics are good in and of themself.

 

[Omar 382]

Bonds also played in a very pitcher-friendly ballpark, whereas Williams got to hit at Fenway

 

[StanMarsh51]

As for how Williams looks as a fielder with modern fielding statistics, maybe he gets a better rep had his glove look like this: View attachment 95195 instead of this: View attachment 95196
Besides - the discussion on Williams fielding, for me, is not so much about Williams as it is about the fact that I don't think that Bonds' fielding reputation is quite as deserved as his 8 gold gloves would indicate.

Stats like FRAA/defensive WAR compare Williams to players of his time, so pointing out the size/quality of his glove doesn't make a whole lot of sense, since the other players in his time used similar equipment.

 

[blstoker]

But then, Bonds had to face pitchers who 80% of the time were using PEDs too, while as Williams didn't. I'm not saying Bonds is far and away better than Williams, but if I had to pick one, I would go with Barry. Also, who gives a shit about Gold Gloves? Bonds' defensive metrics are good in and of themself.

That number is way too high, even the highest estimations of how many players were doping falls far short of 80%. Besides, it isn't like Williams didn't have different pitching issues to deal with when he was playing - a higher percentage of pitchers doctoring balls, a mound that was 33% higher than it is today, etc. The only real argument that has much merit, IMO, is that Bonds (due to changes in pitching philosophy) had to face LHP much more often than Williams did, but overall Bonds' played in an era that was friendlier to hitters than when Williams played.

Stats like FRAA/defensive WAR compare Williams to players of his time, so pointing out the size/quality of his glove doesn't make a whole lot of sense, since the other players in his time used similar equipment.

While true - other than Bonds' first few years, his own DWAR numbers aren't much better than Williams and he's little more than average in the field, where Williams was slightly below average. So, for the vast majority of their careers, Bonds is only a slightly better fielder.

I reiterate, without his steroid use - Bonds is a Hall of Famer, but isn't in the conversation of GOAT - just like Ken Griffey, Jr. is today.

 

[UK Cowboy]

View attachment 95039 View attachment 95040
1999----------------------------------------2001

LMAO. Bonds is one of the greatest ever. Williams was just as good without cheating. That was the tiebreaker for me. I wouldn't vote Raines over Bonds, Bonds was far and away better. But

But then, Bonds had to face pitchers who 80% of the time were using PEDs too, while as Williams didn't. I'm not saying Bonds is far and away better than Williams, but if I had to pick one, I would go with Barry. Also, who gives a shit about Gold Gloves? Bonds' defensive metrics are good in and of themself.

About the pitchers on PED's....Rocket didn't go from 98 mph to 106 mph....he took HGH and went from the 92 he was throwing after injuries to the 96-98 he was throwing before. Pitchers don't swell up the size of football players, because that thickness would actually take away from their velocity. The pictures of Rocket on the sauce confirm this. Totally different for hitters, as instead of seeing his numbers decline with age and getting them back to where they were(still cheating), Bonds actually began to nearly DOUBLE the power numbers he had in his PRIME. Without the sauce, it's a joke to compare them

 

[StanMarsh51]

That number is way too high, even the highest estimations of how many players were doping falls far short of 80%. Besides, it isn't like Williams didn't have different pitching issues to deal with when he was playing - a higher percentage of pitchers doctoring balls, a mound that was 33% higher than it is today, etc. The only real argument that has much merit, IMO, is that Bonds (due to changes in pitching philosophy) had to face LHP much more often than Williams did, but overall Bonds' played in an era that was friendlier to hitters than when Williams played.



While true - other than Bonds' first few years, his own DWAR numbers aren't much better than Williams and he's little more than average in the field, where Williams was slightly below average. So, for the vast majority of their careers, Bonds is only a slightly better fielder.

I reiterate, without his steroid use - Bonds is a Hall of Famer, but isn't in the conversation of GOAT - just like Ken Griffey, Jr. is today.

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.

 

[Omar 382]

LMAO. Bonds is one of the greatest ever. Williams was just as good without cheating. That was the tiebreaker for me. I wouldn't vote Raines over Bonds, Bonds was far and away better. But

About the pitchers on PED's....Rocket didn't go from 98 mph to 106 mph....he took HGH and went from the 92 he was throwing after injuries to the 96-98 he was throwing before. Pitchers don't swell up the size of football players, because that thickness would actually take away from their velocity. The pictures of Rocket on the sauce confirm this. Totally different for hitters, as instead of seeing his numbers decline with age and getting them back to where they were(still cheating), Bonds actually began to nearly DOUBLE the power numbers he had in his PRIME. Without the sauce, it's a joke to compare them

man, where do people get this shit?

 

[Omar 382]

That number is way too high, even the highest estimations of how many players were doping falls far short of 80%. Besides, it isn't like Williams didn't have different pitching issues to deal with when he was playing - a higher percentage of pitchers doctoring balls, a mound that was 33% higher than it is today, etc. The only real argument that has much merit, IMO, is that Bonds (due to changes in pitching philosophy) had to face LHP much more often than Williams did, but overall Bonds' played in an era that was friendlier to hitters than when Williams played.



While true - other than Bonds' first few years, his own DWAR numbers aren't much better than Williams and he's little more than average in the field, where Williams was slightly below average. So, for the vast majority of their careers, Bonds is only a slightly better fielder.

I reiterate, without his steroid use - Bonds is a Hall of Famer, but isn't in the conversation of GOAT - just like Ken Griffey, Jr. is today.

Wait, are you saying KGJ is considered one of the greatest players of all time?

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Maybe I am just biased against pre integration players... But when statistics even show that Williams played in an offensively better time than Bonds did, how can we reward Williams and punish Bonds for his era... Like I said in the beginning , the only reason to vote against Bonds is because of steroids... And if that is the case then you should have voted against him in previous rounds...

 

[Omar 382]

Maybe I am just biased against pre integration players... But when statistics even show that Williams played in an offensively better time than Bonds did, how can we reward Williams and punish Bonds for his era... Like I said in the beginning , the only reason to vote against Bonds is because of steroids... And if that is the case then you should have voted against him in previous rounds...

Wrong on two counts. There is definitely a case for Ted Williams, and voting for Albert Belle over Bonds is certainly distinguishable from voting for Williams over Bonds