Top 32 tournament LF Bonds vs Williams

[MilkSpiller22]

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

is there a case, Bonds was better defensively(not even close), better on the bases(not even close), better in the playoffs(not even close)... The only debatable question is who was better offensively... Now of course that is the biggest piece of a player, but if we take away the steroid talk, then it is clearly very close... Some may give the edge to Williams for his BA, while others may give it to Bonds for his power... But when offense is so close and everything else is so NOT CLOSE, how can you give it to Williams??

So back to my conclusion, that the ONLY reason to vote against Bonds is steroid related...

 

[UK Cowboy]

man, where do people get this shit?

It's nearly as easy as going to Wal Mart.

 

[UK Cowboy]

is there a case, Bonds was better defensively(not even close), better on the bases(not even close), better in the playoffs(not even close)... The only debatable question is who was better offensively... Now of course that is the biggest piece of a player, but if we take away the steroid talk, then it is clearly very close... Some may give the edge to Williams for his BA, while others may give it to Bonds for his power... But when offense is so close and everything else is so NOT CLOSE, how can you give it to Williams??

So back to my conclusion, that the ONLY reason to vote against Bonds is steroid related...

It's a valid tie breaker IMO. I wouldn't vote for a lesser player, but when the numbers are debatable, I'm taking the clean guy as a tie breaker.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

It's a valid tie breaker IMO. I wouldn't vote for a lesser player, but when the numbers are debatable, I'm taking the clean guy as a tie breaker.

but only the offense is debatable... Defense, baserunning, and playoffs all matter too IMO...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

and again, you punish the steroid era for padded stats... Ted Williams played in an era that was even BETTER offensively...

 

[UK Cowboy]

but only the offense is debatable... Defense, baserunning, and playoffs all matter too IMO...

but only the offense is debatable... Defense, baserunning, and playoffs all matter too IMO...

So does Williams losing 3 years of his prime vs Bonds gaining 3 years of superman numbers due to juicing. If you add in three prime years for Williams, and give Bonds 90% of his PRIME numbers(which would still be good, just not the 150% BS numbers), then the offensive side is a blowout for Williams

 

[UK Cowboy]

and again, you punish the steroid era for padded stats... Ted Williams played in an era that was even BETTER offensively...

The players were better....

 

[MilkSpiller22]

So does Williams losing 3 years of his prime vs Bonds gaining 3 years of superman numbers due to juicing. If you add in three prime years for Williams, and give Bonds 90% of his PRIME numbers(which would still be good, just not the 150% BS numbers), then the offensive side is a blowout for Williams

when I do my analysis, I try to avoid counting stats... So losing those 3 seasons did not hurt him... Nor should it help him since we will never know what he would do, and those 3 more seasons are very likely to have shortened his career... you cant just add 3 PRIME years to his career... He is just as likely to have gotten hurt than to his career numbers... For all we know, he could have gotten hurt, and never played again... So how can we reward him for those seasons??

 

[MilkSpiller22]

The players were better....

Were they?? we had these arguments before, and I know you love yesteryear baseball... I just cant see the overall talent to be better back then even with 16 teams... You can claim 30 teams is diluted talent, but with Blacks, Whites, Latinos, and Asians all playing, with the increase of the importance of the bullpen, and specific specialists for specific situations, I just cant see that players were Better back then...

 

[UK Cowboy]

when I do my analysis, I try to avoid counting stats... So losing those 3 seasons did not hurt him... Nor should it help him since we will never know what he would do, and those 3 more seasons are very likely to have shortened his career... you cant just add 3 PRIME years to his career... He is just as likely to have gotten hurt than to his career numbers... For all we know, he could have gotten hurt, and never played again... So how can we reward him for those seasons??

Totally absurd

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Totally absurd

every time I get an alert from you I get excited, I think it is an OTC alert... Then I see that it is on this thread, and decide that due to my boredom I will just argue with you...

What is absurd?? your the one who is assuming just because He missed seasons, he would more likely have had a better career... I am just stating that we don't know what he would have done...

 

[Omar 382]

is there a case, Bonds was better defensively(not even close), better on the bases(not even close), better in the playoffs(not even close)... The only debatable question is who was better offensively... Now of course that is the biggest piece of a player, but if we take away the steroid talk, then it is clearly very close... Some may give the edge to Williams for his BA, while others may give it to Bonds for his power... But when offense is so close and everything else is so NOT CLOSE, how can you give it to Williams??

So back to my conclusion, that the ONLY reason to vote against Bonds is steroid related...

Williams had better power. The argument is contingent upon how you much you penalize Williams for losing 5 seasons in his prime, and whether or not you are comfortable saying you are confident he would have produced in those 5 full seasons the same production he produced in basically every other year of his career. I take Bonds, but it is incredibly close, and there's no way you can say definitively that one is better than the other like you could say Barry Bonds is a better player than Troy Tulowitzkki (at least our current understanding of the game and its stats don't allow us to say that yet).

 

[Omar 382]

when I do my analysis, I try to avoid counting stats... So losing those 3 seasons did not hurt him... Nor should it help him since we will never know what he would do, and those 3 more seasons are very likely to have shortened his career... you cant just add 3 PRIME years to his career... He is just as likely to have gotten hurt than to his career numbers... For all we know, he could have gotten hurt, and never played again... So how can we reward him for those seasons??

So you ignore WAR and basically all valuable defensive statistics?

 

[Omar 382]

The players were better....

Uh, no. Point me to a study or graph that concludes that baseball players were definitively better in the 1920's than they have been from 1995-present

 

[UK Cowboy]

Were they?? we had these arguments before, and I know you love yesteryear baseball... I just cant see the overall talent to be better back then even with 16 teams... You can claim 30 teams is diluted talent, but with Blacks, Whites, Latinos, and Asians all playing, with the increase of the importance of the bullpen, and specific specialists for specific situations, I just cant see that players were Better back then...

Look at today's power numbers, now that MLB has cracked down on steroids. Most younger guys think the current generation is the best at all sports, while that is only partially true. Football players are bigger and stronger today(and nearly all NFL players have juiced at some point, HS, college or NFL), but the rules have made the game far too easy on the offense. The NBA, there are more great athletes, but with all the straight from HS and one and done's the overall basketball IQ is in the gutter. Baseball, Boxing and Golf are SKILL sports, meaning once you take out the roids, the numbers are easier to compare era to era.

 

[Omar 382]

Look at today's power numbers, now that MLB has cracked down on steroids. Most younger guys think the current generation is the best at all sports, while that is only partially true. Football players are bigger and stronger today(and nearly all NFL players have juiced at some point, HS, college or NFL), but the rules have made the game far too easy on the offense. The NBA, there are more great athletes, but with all the straight from HS and one and done's the overall basketball IQ is in the gutter. Baseball, Boxing and Golf are SKILL sports, meaning once you take out the roids, the numbers are easier to compare era to era.

Baseball is a zero-sum game. When pitchers and hitters get better simultaneously, there appears to be no effect because they cancel each other out. But this is simply not the case at all. Better training, nutrition, extra practice, and a better understanding about the mechanics of hitting and pitching easily points to better players today compared to 95 years ago.

 

[molsaniceman]

and again, you punish the steroid era for padded stats... Ted Williams played in an era that was even BETTER offensively...

how do u figure?

 

[UK Cowboy]

Baseball is a zero-sum game. When pitchers and hitters get better simultaneously, there appears to be no effect because they cancel each other out. But this is simply not the case at all. Better training, nutrition, extra practice, and a better understanding about the mechanics of hitting and pitching easily points to better players today compared to 95 years ago.

In your opinion. Players today are great in their own right, but not BETTER. The best team in the NBA today is the GS Warriors, hands down. My choice for best team I have ever seen is the Showtime Lakers

Curry vs Magic
Thompson vs Byron Scott
Barnes vs James Worthy
Green vs AC Green
Bogut vs KAJ

Massacre....

90's Cowboys vs this years Carolina Panthers....Massacre

27 Yankees vs this years Royals....Massacre

Ali vs Tyson Fury...LMAO

Jack vs Tiger....case closed

 

[Omar 382]

The average WAR (which is league and park adjusted) for the best 30 hitters from 1919-1935 is 58.3. The average WAR for the best 30 hitters from 1995-2011 is 61.1. For 1919-1935 pitchers, the average WAR is 38.0, while average pitching WAR from 1995-2011 is 50.5. So, again; no

 

[Omar 382]

In your opinion. Players today are great in their own right, but not BETTER. The best team in the NBA today is the GS Warriors, hands down. My choice for best team I have ever seen is the Showtime Lakers

Curry vs Magic
Thompson vs Byron Scott
Barnes vs James Worthy
Green vs AC Green
Bogut vs KAJ

Massacre....

90's Cowboys vs this years Carolina Panthers....Massacre

27 Yankees vs this years Royals....Massacre

Ali vs Tyson Fury...LMAO

Jack vs Tiger....case closed

Wow. Using the greatest team in baseball history vs. an arbitrary team that just won the World Series. Wow.
Also, why the hell are you talking about basketball, boxing, and fucking golf in a baseball forum?