Ted Williams or Barry Bonds

4for4

Who was a better all around player ?

I forgot to add “unfair to compare” as an option.

4for4

Ted Williams

dallasactuary

Ted Williams

If you ignore cheating, it's close. But if you ignore cheating then you're not a baseball fan and I couldn't care less what your opinion might be.

BillJones

Ted Williams

If you could give Ted Williams the five prime years he lost to military service, the total stats, like hits, home runs and RBIs would be in his favor.

perkdog

Ted Williams

Teddy Ballgame

I'm a homer but even if I wasn't I'd still take Ted

Bonds was great before and after roids but taking away his steroid use I don't know that he would have matched Ted's Numbers

4for4

Ted Williams

@BillJones said:
If you could give Ted Williams the five prime years he lost to military service, the total stats, like hits, home runs and RBIs would be in his favor.

Wow. Good point.

700-800 games lost ?

That’s a lot of hits and HRs.

Basebal21

Barry Bonds

Williams will win the poll for a variety of reasons but its Bonds.

Williams did lose some years to WW2 but it was 3 years not 5. He played the full 1942 season and played the full 1946 season.

perkdog

Ted Williams

@Basebal21 said:
Williams will win the poll for a variety of reasons but its Bonds.

Williams did lose some years to WW2 but it was 3 years not 5. He played the full 1942 season and played the full 1946 season.

What are you talking about?

He missed 43, 44 and 45

In 1952 he played 10 games and 1953 he played 91 games

So let's call it
4 and 1/4 years lost, not 3

Basebal21

Barry Bonds

@perkdog said:

@Basebal21 said:
Williams will win the poll for a variety of reasons but its Bonds.

Williams did lose some years to WW2 but it was 3 years not 5. He played the full 1942 season and played the full 1946 season.

What are you talking about?

He missed 43, 44 and 45

In 1952 he played 10 games and 1953 he played 91 games

So let's call it
4 and 1/4 years lost, not 3

Age 33 and 34 are not prime years. I'm fine with calling it that though. The Korea years were kind of his own fault though, he didnt get the agreement in writing to never be called back into service while letting them use him as a recruitment tool

JoeBanzai

Ridiculous

streeter

@Basebal21 said:

@perkdog said:

@Basebal21 said:
Williams will win the poll for a variety of reasons but its Bonds.

Williams did lose some years to WW2 but it was 3 years not 5. He played the full 1942 season and played the full 1946 season.

What are you talking about?

He missed 43, 44 and 45

In 1952 he played 10 games and 1953 he played 91 games

So let's call it
4 and 1/4 years lost, not 3

Age 33 and 34 are not prime years. I'm fine with calling it that though. The Korea years were kind of his own fault though, he didnt get the agreement in writing to never be called back into service while letting them use him as a recruitment tool

I have always liked Bonds and he did have to deal with stronger pitching.
However, to say that Williams at 33/34 we're not prime years is simply not true. First of all just go look at Mays in 64/65. I personally went to approx ten games to see Mays in 64/65. Those were some of the best years he ever had.
Furthermore in 1951, Williams was kicking it. Also those war years 43/44/45 were exactly in Williams prime. If you just look at stats without other knowledge then statistics can be very misleading.
Ever wonder why Mays didn't have more stolen bases or doubles because he was an awesome machine on the base paths. It's because he wasn't allowed to run because they would just walk McCovey.

dallasactuary

Ted Williams

@Basebal21 said:

Age 33 and 34 are not prime years. I'm fine with calling it that though. The Korea years were kind of his own fault though, he didnt get the agreement in writing to never be called back into service while letting them use him as a recruitment tool

I'm sorry, but this made me laugh really hard. You are saying 33 and 34 aren't prime years, while at the same time voting for Barry Bonds whose best three seasons, and five of his top seven, all came after age 34.

The funniest part is that 33 and 34 are prime years for lots and lots of hitters, but after that production drops really, really fast. Unless you cheat. So you think cheating is fine and dandy, but Williams goes off to defend truth, justice and the American way and you shrug those years off as "not prime" and "his own fault". OK, I'm not laughing anymore. Your post is disgusting.

coolstanley

Barry Bonds

BB is the greatest player in history. He holds all the important records.

Tabe

Question was player not hitter. Bonds destroys Williams as a runner and defensively.

4for4

Ted Williams

@Tabe said:
Question was player not hitter. Bonds destroys Williams as a runner and defensively.

This is probably an unanswerable question, but can you explain to me how many games Bonds helped his team win over Williams because of his base running and defense. Thanks

I think I read that pitching is 90% of what wins and loses baseball games.

The other 10% is defense, but defense rarely costs a team a game.

I read that and it can be wrong. I’m just not sure.

This is just a guess, but if baseball truly is 90% pitching and effective hitting, then isn’t Williams the all around better player because he excels over Bonds at the most important part of the game ?

Basebal21

Barry Bonds

@streeter said:

@Basebal21 said:

@perkdog said:

@Basebal21 said:
Williams will win the poll for a variety of reasons but its Bonds.

Williams did lose some years to WW2 but it was 3 years not 5. He played the full 1942 season and played the full 1946 season.

What are you talking about?

He missed 43, 44 and 45

In 1952 he played 10 games and 1953 he played 91 games

So let's call it
4 and 1/4 years lost, not 3

Age 33 and 34 are not prime years. I'm fine with calling it that though. The Korea years were kind of his own fault though, he didnt get the agreement in writing to never be called back into service while letting them use him as a recruitment tool

I have always liked Bonds and he did have to deal with stronger pitching.
However, to say that Williams at 33/34 we're not prime years is simply not true. First of all just go look at Mays in 64/65. I personally went to approx ten games to see Mays in 64/65. Those were some of the best years he ever had.
Furthermore in 1951, Williams was kicking it. Also those war years 43/44/45 were exactly in Williams prime. If you just look at stats without other knowledge then statistics can be very misleading.
Ever wonder why Mays didn't have more stolen bases or doubles because he was an awesome machine on the base paths. It's because he wasn't allowed to run because they would just walk McCovey.

25/26- 30/31 are considered prime years for baseball. People argue about where it should start or end but the range is pretty much the same and the vast majority of players are out of the league by the back end. Its the ages where its considered to have the most physical attributes and experience coming together at once. Its one of the reasons why even above average players are struggling to get contracts or just taking one year ones/cheap ones by that age. It doesnt mean a player cant have a great year or be very very good but if we are just talking what should be considered a prime year 33/34 is out of that range.

I have Williams as very likely the 3rd best hitter of all time. Its not a knock on him saying those are years that would be considered out of his prime. Ruth and Bonds are my 1 and 2. Ruth would be my one if you talk player given his pitching as well, but purely for hitting I could go either way. Ruth was out hitting entire teams and Bonds was so good he was even getting intentionally walked with the bases loaded in the NL West which are generally pitchers parks when he was with SF. I lean towards Bonds as a hitter because those SF really werent great offensives and Ruth has some other huge bats around him, but I dont have a strong opinion either way if we are just talking hitting

craig44

@BillJones said:
If you could give Ted Williams the five prime years he lost to military service, the total stats, like hits, home runs and RBIs would be in his favor.

I think we can only judge players by what actually happened though.

craig44

While it is unpopular, Bonds was a better player. This is coming from a Boston homer and Williams fan. Even if you call it a wash on hitting, bonds was significantly better on the bases and considered a better fielder.

It should be stated that Williams played many years pre-integration and in many of his other seasons, it was the early integration era where players of color were certainly far from common.

Ted also got a pretty good advantage playing in Fenway. Bonds had a slight plus home field factor, but just barely.

Brick

Ted Williams

Is this poll supposed to be some kind of joke?

dallasactuary

Ted Williams

@Brick said:
Is this poll supposed to be some kind of joke?

Sadly, no.

4for4

Ted Williams

@Brick said:
Is this poll supposed to be some kind of joke?

Not at all.

I firmly feel that Williams is much better, but I know some have yet to see it that way.

perkdog

Ted Williams

I don't care that Bonds used, the way I see it he was putting himself on the same level playing field as the majority of his peers and he was just better, but looking at it subjectively I absolutely do not believe he would have matched Williams numbers let alone hit over 700 HR's without the heavy PED use

dallasactuary

Ted Williams

I think the Splendid Splinter might have hit 1,000 HR had he cheated to the degree Punkinhead did. The comparison of a great baseball player to a great cheater is obscene. Speaking for all baseball fans everywhere, just stop.

1948_Swell_Robinson

@perkdog said:

@Basebal21 said:
Williams will win the poll for a variety of reasons but its Bonds.

Williams did lose some years to WW2 but it was 3 years not 5. He played the full 1942 season and played the full 1946 season.

What are you talking about?

He missed 43, 44 and 45

In 1952 he played 10 games and 1953 he played 91 games

So let's call it
4 and 1/4 years lost, not 3

I would up it to 4 and 4/5 missing years. 10 at bats and 91 at bats those Korean war years.

@Basebal21 To say it is "William's fault" for going to Korean war is almost as laughable as the Chicago Mayor for saying "It is the auto makers fault for making their cars easy to steal" instead of faulting the criminals who stole them.

I will stay out of the right/wrong/cheating/keeping up with the Jones's part of the roids too, and agree that they certainly helped Bonds do better than he would have without them. They also helped him stay good for longer.

Bonds was also chasing the HR record so he had incentive to play longer.

William's still had a lot left in his bat at age 41 but injuries and doing it natural limited his games played. He also wasn't chasing anything so he didn't have that incentive to keep going.

I will go with Williams as well.

BillJones

Ted Williams

@craig44 said:
While it is unpopular, Bonds was a better player. This is coming from a Boston homer and Williams fan. Even if you call it a wash on hitting, bonds was significantly better on the bases and considered a better fielder.

It should be stated that Williams played many years pre-integration and in many of his other seasons, it was the early integration era where players of color were certainly far from common.

Ted also got a pretty good advantage playing in Fenway. Bonds had a slight plus home field factor, but just barely.

I disagree with you respect to Fenway Park. Williams was a left handed hitter, and right field at Fenway was quite deep. Tom Yawkey added the “Williams home run porch” (bullpen) to shorten it. If he had been playing in Yankee Stadium, he may have hit more homers.

The Wall didn’t do Williams much good. When other teams put “the Williams shift” on him, he was too stubborn to hit the ball to left field.

1948_Swell_Robinson

In the end

Williams had a 191 OPS+
Bonds had a 182 OPS+

Even without considering the steroids, Williams beats him. Williams won't have the career counting totals due to the factors above.

Run Expectancy with Men on Base hitting:
Williams 1,210
Bonds 1,357

Run Expectancy already includes Bonds's base running, but again, the missing war years. Williams' run expectancy the two years prior to the war were 92.6 and 92.9.

So really WIliams was just a year and a half away from being ahead of Bonds in creating Runs, which includes the baserunning. Williams missed five years.

So yeah, it is Williams, even if ignoring the roids.

Bonds LF defense, meh. Left Field. Not enough regardless when accounting for missing war years.

craig44

@dallasactuary said:
I think the Splendid Splinter might have hit 1,000 HR had he cheated to the degree Punkinhead did. The comparison of a great baseball player to a great cheater is obscene. Speaking for all baseball fans everywhere, just stop.

I noticed your choice of words here. "had he cheated TO THE DEGREE" you and I both know Williams used amphetamines, and quite heavily. in fact, most believe he was the original supplier of "greenies" to the league after the war.

lets call a spade a spade here. Teddy Ballgame was a great player, and also a "PED user"

craig44

@BillJones said:

@craig44 said:
While it is unpopular, Bonds was a better player. This is coming from a Boston homer and Williams fan. Even if you call it a wash on hitting, bonds was significantly better on the bases and considered a better fielder.

It should be stated that Williams played many years pre-integration and in many of his other seasons, it was the early integration era where players of color were certainly far from common.

Ted also got a pretty good advantage playing in Fenway. Bonds had a slight plus home field factor, but just barely.

I disagree with you respect to Fenway Park. Williams was a left handed hitter, and right field at Fenway was quite deep. Tom Yawkey added the “Williams home run porch” (bullpen) to shorten it. If he had been playing in Yankee Stadium, he may have hit more homers.

The Wall didn’t do Williams much good. When other teams put “the Williams shift” on him, he was too stubborn to hit the ball to left field.

Check out the splits. they dont lie. Williams was better at Fenway. Period.

JoeBanzai

@craig44 said:

@BillJones said:

@craig44 said:
While it is unpopular, Bonds was a better player. This is coming from a Boston homer and Williams fan. Even if you call it a wash on hitting, bonds was significantly better on the bases and considered a better fielder.

It should be stated that Williams played many years pre-integration and in many of his other seasons, it was the early integration era where players of color were certainly far from common.

Ted also got a pretty good advantage playing in Fenway. Bonds had a slight plus home field factor, but just barely.

I disagree with you respect to Fenway Park. Williams was a left handed hitter, and right field at Fenway was quite deep. Tom Yawkey added the “Williams home run porch” (bullpen) to shorten it. If he had been playing in Yankee Stadium, he may have hit more homers.

The Wall didn’t do Williams much good. When other teams put “the Williams shift” on him, he was too stubborn to hit the ball to left field.

Check out the splits. they dont lie. Williams was better at Fenway. Period.

>
Ted was better at Fenway, but it was NOT an easy park for left-handers.
In fact, when they shortened right field, Ted hit less homeruns the next year.

coinkat

I would rather not vote for many reasons.

craig44

@JoeBanzai said:

@craig44 said:

@BillJones said:

@craig44 said:
While it is unpopular, Bonds was a better player. This is coming from a Boston homer and Williams fan. Even if you call it a wash on hitting, bonds was significantly better on the bases and considered a better fielder.

It should be stated that Williams played many years pre-integration and in many of his other seasons, it was the early integration era where players of color were certainly far from common.

Ted also got a pretty good advantage playing in Fenway. Bonds had a slight plus home field factor, but just barely.

I disagree with you respect to Fenway Park. Williams was a left handed hitter, and right field at Fenway was quite deep. Tom Yawkey added the “Williams home run porch” (bullpen) to shorten it. If he had been playing in Yankee Stadium, he may have hit more homers.

The Wall didn’t do Williams much good. When other teams put “the Williams shift” on him, he was too stubborn to hit the ball to left field.

Check out the splits. they dont lie. Williams was better at Fenway. Period.

>
Ted was better at Fenway, but it was NOT an easy park for left-handers.
In fact, when they shortened right field, Ted hit less homeruns the next year.

you have to admit, joe, that it was an easier ballpark for Williams to hit in. He was a lot better there. He had a much higher BA, SA and OBP at home in almost exactly the same PA.

some mentioned yankee stadium and its short porch, he actually hit well worse at yankee stadium than at fenway.

1948_Swell_Robinson

Even if we don't even consider William's missing war years(as many point out that even though it is obvious he missed for a unique reason compared to other times in baseball history, we still can't assume).

Even if we don't even consider Bonds steroid use, we get the following:

Run Expectancy including men on hitting and baserunning:

Ted Williams 1,210 in 9,792 career plate appearances
Barry Bonds 1,347 in 12,606 career plate appearances

It took Bonds FIVE SEASONS worth of plate appearances to better Ted Williams by 137 runs.

They both played to age 42 so no old man considerations to factor in.

Five seasons worth of playing to amass what Ted would typically do in less than a season and a half.

Right there Williams is already better.

Also keep in mind that Williams was playing with 8 less games per year due to the schedule. That is an extra 136 games Bonds gets an advantage on just for that. Williams played 17 full-ish years. We can ignore that to off set any difference in league playing ability/segregation.

I said "If we don't consider William's missing war years." As a reasonable objective sports fan and citizen, I just don't see how that is possible to just dismiss that as if missing five years to fight in wars IN HIS PRIME(yes Korean war was his prime too) wasn't a huge detriment to Williams putting up five more years of incredibleness to the point where this would not even be a discussion.

Ted Williams.

1948_Swell_Robinson

Here are the all time leaders in Run Expectancy per plate appearance. This accounts for men on hitting and baserunning.

Ruth 7.7
Williams 8.0
Gehrig 8.7
Bonds 9.3
Mantle 10.1
Foxx 11.0
Hornsby 11.3
Dimaggio 11.5
Ott 12.3
Mays 12.7

Career length can wreck havoc on any 'per at bat' stat since playing a long time will hurt that(like Aaron), whereas Mel Ott only had 84 plate appearances past age 36, so his 'per plate appearance' doesn't include the glut of old man years to drag his 'per' down.

Williams, however, lost his prime years, so in his case it most likely hurt his 'per plate appearance' number. We do not know what he would have done in those missing years. Logic says it would be darn similar to his surrounding years.

There is an equal chance he would have had a career year or two at age 24,25,26 as well, so who knows there.

Side note, I have to give a shoutout to Dimaggio as well who was hampered by his park that was death to RH hitters even though the park adjustments make it a neutral park. His numbers are artificially suppressed as a result. What is lesser known is that parks overall in the league were harder for RH at his time as well.

Dimaggio as well missed war years at age 28, 29, and 30. Though he retired after age 36.

There is a slight improvement in league playing ability and the integration factor over time that these numbers don't capture. This figure is unknown but often overblown. It is slight but is there.

Also, a big style of play difference in Ruth's time vs Williams is a factor. Williams did have to compete with more hitters who slugged like him and Ruth, whereas Ruth competed against more ground ball hitters in many of his years. This helps Ruth out-distance his peers a hair more. How much so is unknown at this time, but considering how close Williams and Ruth are without this regard in these numbers, it is not much of a leap to have Williams as the best offensive player ever when this is considered.

Another shout out to Mickey Mantle as he is the highest NON CORNER player on that list. Most likely the fastest runner of that group too(regardless if the Yankees or baseball at the time took advantage of his speed in terms of SB that would have helped his numbers more). He also dealt with LF at Yankee Stadium too when he batted RH. As a result, Mantle is right there in the conversation with Ruth and Williams as the best player(including defense), but only for peak years since he retired quicker.

Closest contemporaries to Bonds:
McGwire 13.2
Frank Thomas 13.5
Bagwell 13.5
Manny 13.9

JoeBanzai

@craig44 said:

@JoeBanzai said:

@craig44 said:

@BillJones said:

@craig44 said:
While it is unpopular, Bonds was a better player. This is coming from a Boston homer and Williams fan. Even if you call it a wash on hitting, bonds was significantly better on the bases and considered a better fielder.

It should be stated that Williams played many years pre-integration and in many of his other seasons, it was the early integration era where players of color were certainly far from common.

Ted also got a pretty good advantage playing in Fenway. Bonds had a slight plus home field factor, but just barely.

I disagree with you respect to Fenway Park. Williams was a left handed hitter, and right field at Fenway was quite deep. Tom Yawkey added the “Williams home run porch” (bullpen) to shorten it. If he had been playing in Yankee Stadium, he may have hit more homers.

The Wall didn’t do Williams much good. When other teams put “the Williams shift” on him, he was too stubborn to hit the ball to left field.

Check out the splits. they dont lie. Williams was better at Fenway. Period.

>
Ted was better at Fenway, but it was NOT an easy park for left-handers.
In fact, when they shortened right field, Ted hit less homeruns the next year.

you have to admit, joe, that it was an easier ballpark for Williams to hit in. He was a lot better there. He had a much higher BA, SA and OBP at home in almost exactly the same PA.

some mentioned yankee stadium and its short porch, he actually hit well worse at yankee stadium than at fenway.

No, Ted addressed this himself in one of his books, although I can't remember which one.
He would certainly know better than us, and he said Fenway was pretty tough park for left handed batters.
He hit more home runs on the road!
Getting back to the subject at hand, Ted was a great hitter from day one, whereas Potato head was MAYBE a little better "all around" player, he didn't become a great hitter until his head grew 6 sizes and he no longer had human DNA.
Ted didn't need "greenies" to be a great hitter, but Bonds certainly needed the roids.
There's no comparison here, I am not going to waste any more time with this post.

Basebal21

Barry Bonds

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@perkdog said:

@Basebal21 said:
Williams will win the poll for a variety of reasons but its Bonds.

Williams did lose some years to WW2 but it was 3 years not 5. He played the full 1942 season and played the full 1946 season.

What are you talking about?

He missed 43, 44 and 45

In 1952 he played 10 games and 1953 he played 91 games

So let's call it
4 and 1/4 years lost, not 3

I would up it to 4 and 4/5 missing years. 10 at bats and 91 at bats those Korean war years.

@Basebal21 To say it is "William's fault" for going to Korean war is almost as laughable as the Chicago Mayor for saying "It is the auto makers fault for making their cars easy to steal" instead of faulting the criminals who stole them.

I will stay out of the right/wrong/cheating/keeping up with the Jones's part of the roids too, and agree that they certainly helped Bonds do better than he would have without them. They also helped him stay good for longer.

Bonds was also chasing the HR record so he had incentive to play longer.

William's still had a lot left in his bat at age 41 but injuries and doing it natural limited his games played. He also wasn't chasing anything so he didn't have that incentive to keep going.

I will go with Williams as well.

Fault might have been the wrong word but he had an agreement to be on inactive reserve as a recruiting tool and didnt get it set in stone with the agreement to not get called up to active duty when that was a verbal agreement. He could have gotten out it if he wanted too. Kudos for him for being a good person and doing what he did but it wasnt the same situation as WW2

coolstanley

Barry Bonds

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
In the end

Williams had a 191 OPS+
Bonds had a 182 OPS+

Bonds - 162.8 WAR
Williams - 121.8 WAR

Which stat is more important? WAR or OPS?

Mistlin

Barry Bonds

It's Bonds and its not particularly close.

Mistlin

Barry Bonds

@coolstanley said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
In the end

Williams had a 191 OPS+
Bonds had a 182 OPS+

Bonds - 162.8 WAR
Williams - 121.8 WAR

Which stat is more important? WAR or OPS?

OPS+ is compared to the players of the era. WAR is an objective measure of how many wins that player was worth over a league average replacement player.

Bonds played in an era with much more talent than did Williams which makes his OPS+ even more impressive. The WAR shows just how more valuable Bonds was.

Tabe

@4for4 said:

This is just a guess, but if baseball truly is 90% pitching and effective hitting, then isn’t Williams the all around better player because he excels over Bonds at the most important part of the game ?

The margin at the plate is not exactly huge - 5% in OPS+. The margin elsewhere was gigantic.

Tabe

@JoeBanzai said:

Ted didn't need "greenies" to be a great hitter, but Bonds certainly needed the roids.

Bonds had a 204 OPS+ in 1992, his 2nd MVP year, and 3rd straight leading in OPS. He's was already great even if you believe, as I do, that the roid use started with the 93 season.

Estil

I know Ted wasn't much better with his relationship with the media than Barry but was Ted at least a better teammate? You know Barry would've easily made first ballot HOF if he hadn't turned to the dark side.

1948_Swell_Robinson

@coolstanley said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
In the end

Williams had a 191 OPS+
Bonds had a 182 OPS+

Bonds - 162.8 WAR
Williams - 121.8 WAR

Which stat is more important? WAR or OPS?

WAR defensive measurements are weighted as equally as its offensive measurements and that is one of the big reasons why there are so many head scratchers with WAR and one of the reasons why people dismiss all of the sabermetric stats. The defensive measurements really only have about a 25% validity to them, sot they do produce wild results.

WAR also does not count for players performance with men on base hitting.

Also, like in the Run Expectancy, Bonds played five more seasons worth of plate appearances so he is going to have more WAR and Run Expectancy than Williams.

Whereas OPS+ is purely a rate stat and amount of plate appearances doesn't matter, so much like RUn Expectancy per plate appearance, Williams was more effective when playing, whereas Bonds's extra five years of playing is going to give him higher counting stats than Williams. WAR is a combo counting/rate stat(as is Run Expectency)

Normally when a guy plays five extra years compared to player X it is because that guy was good enough to keep playing( as an old man(think Hank Aaron), wheras the other guy was not(think Jim Rice).

1948_Swell_Robinson

@coolstanley

@coolstanley said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
In the end

Williams had a 191 OPS+
Bonds had a 182 OPS+

Bonds - 162.8 WAR
Williams - 121.8 WAR

Which stat is more important? WAR or OPS?

WAR defensive measurements are weighted as equally as its offensive measurements and that is one of the big reasons why there are so many head scratchers with WAR and one of the reasons why people dismiss all of the sabermetric stats. The defensive measurements really only have about a 25% validity to them, sot they do produce wild results.

WAR also does not count for players performance with men on base hitting.

Also, like in the Run Expectancy, Bonds played five more seasons worth of plate appearances so he is going to have more WAR and Run Expectancy than Williams.

Whereas OPS+ is purely a rate stat and amount of plate appearances doesn't matter, so much like RUn Expectancy per plate appearance, Williams was more effective when playing, whereas Bonds's extra five years of playing is going to give him higher counting stats than Williams. WAR is a combo counting/rate stat(as is Run Expectency)

Normally when a guy plays five extra years compared to player X it is because that guy was good enough to keep playing( as an old man(think Hank Aaron), wheras the other guy was not(think Jim Rice). As pointed out above in Williams's case that is a far different story,

1948_Swell_Robinson

Also, with WAR and defense, keep in mind three things in regard to Williams:

1)Again, he missed five years, three of them when he was his most nimble age. As a result, he gets put into more negative years defensively weighing down his defensive 'value' because he is missing the years where he would have his most mobility in the field. So Williams actually has a negative 'range' factor partly because he missed his most nimble years, and partly from the next factor.

2)Left field at Fenway penalizes outfielders from accumulating putouts. Putouts are the way most Outfielders accumulate high defensive ratings. The easy fly ball out opportunities that every other outfielder gets to pad their totals with, are less in Fenway due to the short distance to LF that is still very short to deep left center. Many would be fly outs turn into doubles off the monster. Compare that to Bonds and the big LF in SF and it is the opposite.

3)No fielding measure can still accurately determine if the 'record' putout totals of a fielder are a result of the ball simply getting hit their way more often or because they indeed get to that many more balls. I have pointed out in the past that it is more of the latter, the fortune of simply getting more balls hit their way. Of course, they have to field them, but in the OF the vast majority of fly ball outs are of the routine variety(where even 12 yr old kids were catching them in the HF derby back in the day).

The difference in defensive runs in WAR for Bonds and Williams is 21 runs in Bonds favor. Forgot to add that there is no foul territory in LF in Fenway for those easy putouts.

1948_Swell_Robinson

@coolstanley said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
In the end

Williams had a 191 OPS+
Bonds had a 182 OPS+

Bonds - 162.8 WAR
Williams - 121.8 WAR

Which stat is more important? WAR or OPS?

War defensive measurements are weighted as equally as its offensive measurements and that is one of the big reasons why there are so many head scratchers with WAR and one of the reasons why people dismiss all of the sabermetric stats. The defensive measurements really only have about a 25% validity to them, sot they do produce wild results.

WAR also does not count for players performance with men on base hitting.

Also, like in the Run Expectancy, Bonds played five more seasons worth of plate appearances so he is going to have more WAR and Run Expectancy than Williams.

Whereas OPS+ is purely a rate stat and amount of plate appearances doesn't matter, so much like RUn Expectancy per plate appearance, Williams was more effective when playing, whereas Bonds's extra five years of playing is going to give him higher counting stats than Williams. WAR is a combo counting/rate stat(as is Run Expectency)

Normally when a guy plays five extra years compared to player X it is because that guy was good enough to keep playing( as an old man(think Hank Aaron), wheras the other guy was not(think Jim Rice).

dallasactuary

Ted Williams

@coolstanley said:
Bonds - 162.8 WAR
Williams - 121.8 WAR

Which stat is more important? WAR or OPS?

For all the reasons 1948_Swell mentioned, and others, defensive WAR is utterly useless. If you want to compare them using offensive WAR, that would be better since they are both getting essentially the same defensive adjustment.

Bonds - 143.6
Williams - 125.1

But Bonds played a lot longer than Williams.

Per 600 plate appearances, that works out to:

Bonds - 6.83
Williams - 7.67

Bearing in mind that in the years Williams missed his WAR rate would probably have been higher than his career average, it's a pretty substantial gap in Williams' favor. And it is impossible to make up that gap with defense playing left field, no matter how well Bonds may have played it or how poorly Williams may have played it. Even cheating, Bonds was no Ted Williams.

4for4

Ted Williams

@dallasactuary said:

@coolstanley said:
Bonds - 162.8 WAR
Williams - 121.8 WAR

Which stat is more important? WAR or OPS?

For all the reasons 1948_Swell mentioned, and others, defensive WAR is utterly useless. If you want to compare them using offensive WAR, that would be better since they are both getting essentially the same defensive adjustment.

Bonds - 143.6
Williams - 125.1

But Bonds played a lot longer than Williams.

Per 600 plate appearances, that works out to:

Bonds - 6.83
Williams - 7.67

Bearing in mind that in the years Williams missed his WAR rate would probably have been higher than his career average, it's a pretty substantial gap in Williams' favor. And it is impossible to make up that gap with defense playing left field, no matter how well Bonds may have played it or how poorly Williams may have played it. Even cheating, Bonds was no Ted Williams.

And this masterful piece of brilliance should end the debate.

We shall see
😂

Mistlin

Barry Bonds

@dallasactuary said:

@coolstanley said:
Bonds - 162.8 WAR
Williams - 121.8 WAR

Which stat is more important? WAR or OPS?

For all the reasons 1948_Swell mentioned, and others, defensive WAR is utterly useless. If you want to compare them using offensive WAR, that would be better since they are both getting essentially the same defensive adjustment.

Bonds - 143.6
Williams - 125.1

But Bonds played a lot longer than Williams.

Per 600 plate appearances, that works out to:

Bonds - 6.83
Williams - 7.67

Bearing in mind that in the years Williams missed his WAR rate would probably have been higher than his career average, it's a pretty substantial gap in Williams' favor. And it is impossible to make up that gap with defense playing left field, no matter how well Bonds may have played it or how poorly Williams may have played it. Even cheating, Bonds was no Ted Williams.

The missed seasons are missed seasons, regardless of the reason. Bonds played longer, in more games, and at a higher level. Bonds also played with an overall much higher level of talent than Williams did.

MLB did not institute strict PED suspensions until the 2006 season, long after Bonds' run was over. The casual dismissal of Bonds' accomplishments as a direct result of his supplement use ignores his incredible performance before the cloud of PED use began. With the same assumptions you make regarding Williams' performance had he not missed years to the war, you could make the same assumption regarding Bonds' performance had he not taken PEDs.

All that being said, removing assumptions from both players, Bonds thumps Williams.

dallasactuary

Ted Williams

@Mistlin said:

@dallasactuary said:

@coolstanley said:

The missed seasons are missed seasons, regardless of the reason. Bonds played longer, in more games, and at a higher level. Bonds also played with an overall much higher level of talent than Williams did.

First, I disagree that all missed seasons should be treated the same in evaluating a player. Jackie Robinson was a great player before he was allowed to join MLB, and those "missed seasons" should not be used to penalize him (again). Likewise. Ted Williams was a great baseball player during WWII and Korea, he just wasn't allowed to play. Miss a season because you're too old or too hurt to play, those seasons don't count towards a player's greatness. Miss a season because you aren't allowed to play by forces outside your control, those seasons still count (although it's certainly subjective how to count them).

Second, Bonds did play longer, in more games, but NOT at a higher level. That's what my post (and others) have shown. Bonds beats Williams in the counting stats because he didn't miss all or most of five seasons, and because he cheated, not because he played at a higher level.

MLB did not institute strict PED suspensions until the 2006 season, long after Bonds' run was over. The casual dismissal of Bonds' accomplishments as a direct result of his supplement use ignores his incredible performance before the cloud of PED use began. With the same assumptions you make regarding Williams' performance had he not missed years to the war, you could make the same assumption regarding Bonds' performance had he not taken PEDs.

No, you're wrong. If I were dismissing seasons in the middle of Bonds' prime, then your analogy would make a lick of sense. But I'm dismissing seasons where every baseball player in the history of time saw their production decline due to advancing age. Bonds' production not only didn't decline, it elevated to levels he had never reached as a 20-something superstar. One player in the history of baseball had his best three seasons after the age of 35, and every sentient organism on the planet knows to a metaphysical certainty why that happened. To say that Bonds was "leveling the field" is utter nonsense; leveling the field would mean declining with age at the same rate as others were declining with age, not rocketing past the 20-somethings who were, presumably, also cheating.

All that being said, removing assumptions from both players, Bonds thumps Williams.

You are making the assumption that playing longer trumps performance level in determining who was better, and you are assuming that using steroids is of no consequence. Remove your assumptions, and Williams thumps Bonds.

coolstanley

Barry Bonds

I know people like to use the stats that favor their favorites, so to speak. So here's a couple of mine.

Bonds - 7 MVP's. No other player has 4.
Bonds - Only player in the 500/500 club. Home runs/stolen bases.
He is also the only player in the 400/400 club.

1948_Swell_Robinson

@coolstanley said:
I know people like to use the stats that favor their favorites, so to speak. So here's a couple of mine.

Bonds - 7 MVP's. No other player has 4.
Bonds - Only player in the 500/500 club. Home runs/stolen bases.
He is also the only player in the 400/400 club.

The stats aren't used to favor anyone but the objective evidence. Ted Williams isn't a favorite of mine and neither are the other X amount of players I have shown support to. Ted Wiliams IS what I laid out above though, and other than a few variables that can move that needle a hair either way, the only thing that would debunk it are bias and favored(faulty & low valdity) stats like the ones you just used.

There are dozens and dozens of players in SB/HR 'clubs' that exceed Ted Williams and Babe Ruth by a lot, and while cute for memes, those measurements are basically worthless.

PS and no SB mention of any sort should be used without also calculating the CS in the mix as well(not that Bonds was bad at that, but even he has CS), and in the end the better measurements already include the SB AND CS as laid out a few posts above.