@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.
I mean you are the guy that proclaims Terry Bradshaw the best ever....and now touting Barry Bonds, and then have the gall to talk about bias? Truly funny.
@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.
I mean you are the guy that proclaims Terry Bradshaw the best ever....and now touting Barry Bonds, and then have the gall to talk about bias? Truly funny.
Careful about knocking QB’s from the 70’s.
1- it was a run game
Griese’s 8 for 11 in the Super Bowl was great. It just was what it was.
2- QB’s usually threw into double coverage as usually only 3 receivers
instead of 5 to throw to.
3- No five yard pass patterns back then mostly. All 10+ or more.
Lots of low percentage bombs.
Just can’t compare the 70’s QB to now. Bradshaw was great !
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
@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.
I mean you are the guy that proclaims Terry Bradshaw the best ever....and now touting Barry Bonds, and then have the gall to talk about bias? Truly funny.
Careful about knocking QB’s from the 70’s.
1- it was a run game
Griese’s 8 for 11 in the Super Bowl was great. It just was what it was.
2- QB’s usually threw into double coverage as usually only 3 receivers
instead of 5 to throw to.
3- No five yard pass patterns back then mostly. All 10+ or more.
Lots of low percentage bombs.
Just can’t compare the 70’s QB to now. Bradshaw was great !
I know all about that. Preaching to the choir. Was not comparing QB to today.
Just pointing out the bias of a Pittsburgh fan.
And Bradshaw wasn't the greatest even including all the reasons you listed above. He was certainly good, excellent, or whatever adjective you want to assign. It's just that others were more so.
@4for4 said:
In the 70’s the philosophy was defense and run the ball.
Stabler 12 for 19 in 1977 Super Bowl win.
Today he’d be 24 for 38 or less because of 5 receiving instead of 3.
BTW, @coolstanley 's entire premise for Bradshaw to be considered the best or near the best is based almost entirely on his amount of Super Bowl ring's his teammates gave him, and his post season performance. @coolstanley ignores Bonds's failures in that same criteria for his sport. Bias.
@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.
I mean you are the guy that proclaims Terry Bradshaw the best ever....and now touting Barry Bonds, and then have the gall to talk about bias? Truly funny.
Careful about knocking QB’s from the 70’s.
1- it was a run game
Griese’s 8 for 11 in the Super Bowl was great. It just was what it was.
2- QB’s usually threw into double coverage as usually only 3 receivers
instead of 5 to throw to.
3- No five yard pass patterns back then mostly. All 10+ or more.
Lots of low percentage bombs.
Just can’t compare the 70’s QB to now. Bradshaw was great !
I know all about that. Preaching to the choir. Was not comparing QB to today.
Just pointing out the bias of a Pittsburgh fan.
And Bradshaw wasn't the greatest even including all the reasons you listed above. He was certainly good, excellent, or whatever adjective you want to assign. It's just that others were more so.
Sounds good.
Lydell Mitchell was one of the first backs to really be used in the passing game. Late 70’s.
Most backs were big runners and blockers.
Dorsett was used in the 80’s.
We can’t really compare 70’s QB’s and it’s disingenuous to say none of them were the greatest, along with the QB’s from the 60’s.
But I know you weren’t saying that.
For anyone to say Bradshaw wasn’t great is sad. He did have great teams. Just good ??? Lol
How about 1st team QB of the 70’s.
Is that “just good” ?
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
@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.
I mean you are the guy that proclaims Terry Bradshaw the best ever....and now touting Barry Bonds, and then have the gall to talk about bias? Truly funny.
Careful about knocking QB’s from the 70’s.
1- it was a run game
Griese’s 8 for 11 in the Super Bowl was great. It just was what it was.
2- QB’s usually threw into double coverage as usually only 3 receivers
instead of 5 to throw to.
3- No five yard pass patterns back then mostly. All 10+ or more.
Lots of low percentage bombs.
Just can’t compare the 70’s QB to now. Bradshaw was great !
I know all about that. Preaching to the choir. Was not comparing QB to today.
Just pointing out the bias of a Pittsburgh fan.
And Bradshaw wasn't the greatest even including all the reasons you listed above. He was certainly good, excellent, or whatever adjective you want to assign. It's just that others were more so.
Sounds good.
Lydell Mitchell was one of the first backs to really be used in the passing game. Late 70’s.
Most backs were big runners and blockers.
Dorsett was used in the 80’s.
We can’t really compare 70’s QB’s and it’s disingenuous to say none of them were the greatest, along with the QB’s from the 60’s.
But I know you weren’t saying that.
For anyone to say Bradshaw wasn’t great is sad. He did have great teams. Just good ??? Lol
How about 1st team QB of the 70’s.
Is that “just good” ?
I agree Bradshaw gets knocked too much as a reaction from him getting elevated too much because his teammates were so great and they won four super bowls.
I was basically responding to the biased claim of bias.
As for Williams and Bonds, my observations are objective as per the statistics being used(contrary to the initial claim by coolstanly that was filled with severe bias on his part).
There is certainly some subjectivity in how to treat Williams's missing war years and I don't claim that my way means there is no need to debate it any further.
There is also subjectivity on how to treat Bonds's steroid use. Perkdog said it best when he stepped away from the right/wrong aspect and acknowledged that they certainly helped Bonds regardless, and without them, there most likely wouldn't even be a thread comparing Bonds to Williams.
There is also subjectivity on the talent level through the years, but considering that Bonds only got to that level because of PED, that aspect wasn't really even needed to dig deeper. It is also an aspect where it is impossible to pin a number on, but rather one that just needs to be known.
@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.
I mean you are the guy that proclaims Terry Bradshaw the best ever....and now touting Barry Bonds, and then have the gall to talk about bias? Truly funny.
Careful about knocking QB’s from the 70’s.
1- it was a run game
Griese’s 8 for 11 in the Super Bowl was great. It just was what it was.
2- QB’s usually threw into double coverage as usually only 3 receivers
instead of 5 to throw to.
3- No five yard pass patterns back then mostly. All 10+ or more.
Lots of low percentage bombs.
Just can’t compare the 70’s QB to now. Bradshaw was great !
I know all about that. Preaching to the choir. Was not comparing QB to today.
Just pointing out the bias of a Pittsburgh fan.
And Bradshaw wasn't the greatest even including all the reasons you listed above. He was certainly good, excellent, or whatever adjective you want to assign. It's just that others were more so.
Sounds good.
Lydell Mitchell was one of the first backs to really be used in the passing game. Late 70’s.
Most backs were big runners and blockers.
Dorsett was used in the 80’s.
We can’t really compare 70’s QB’s and it’s disingenuous to say none of them were the greatest, along with the QB’s from the 60’s.
But I know you weren’t saying that.
For anyone to say Bradshaw wasn’t great is sad. He did have great teams. Just good ??? Lol
How about 1st team QB of the 70’s.
Is that “just good” ?
I agree Bradshaw gets knocked too much as a reaction from him getting elevated too much because his teammates were so great and they won four super bowls.
I was basically responding to the biased claim of bias.
As for Williams and Bonds, my observations are objective as per the statistics being used(contrary to the initial claim by coolstanly that was filled with severe bias on his part).
There is certainly some subjectivity in how to treat Williams's missing war years and I don't claim that my way means there is no need to debate it any further.
There is also subjectivity on how to treat Bonds's steroid use. Perkdog said it best when he stepped away from the right/wrong aspect and acknowledged that they certainly helped Bonds regardless, and without them, there most likely wouldn't even be a thread comparing Bonds to Williams.
There is also subjectivity on the talent level through the years, but considering that Bonds only got to that level because of PED, that aspect wasn't really even needed to dig deeper. It is also an aspect where it is impossible to pin a number on, but rather one that just needs to be known.
Love this ! Great job .
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
@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.
I couldn't care less about MVP's but I am absolutely shocked he had 500/500, I didn't realize that
What's more shocking is I didn't realize nobody has 400/400
@coinkat said:
Barry Bonds deserves credit and respect but that credit and that respect is simply not within the credit and respect deserving of Ted Williams.
I made this as short and to the point as possible. Be Thankful that I did...
I would sooner swim in glass than pay respect to Barry Bonds. He is a man without honor, and men of honor should not debase themselves by respecting him.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Well... my response did not quite generate the anticipated response from the collective group. And while that is okay, let me take this opportunity to simply remind those that have participated in this thread that I chose NOT TO VOTE in this comparison from DAY ONE. And my position has not AND WILL NOT CHANGE. My reasoning for NOT VOTING is predicated in part for the decisions made by Williams and Bonds. And I simply do NOT SHARE THAT INSIGHT. I would simply rather not compare Williams to Bonds because he made significant sacrifices to participate in the defense of our country. It was a different time and a different threat that existed at a time when action mattered. Williams answered the call and delivered. I do not want to turn this into a political discussion because it simply goes to character and not athletic ability. But it becomes relevant in a way that is impossible to quantify.
Honor is not debased by acknowledging what Bonds accomplished. I would rather be in the shoes of Williams even though I suspect I would disagree with him on several political questions. But my disagreements would not extend to the simple art and talent associated with hitting and Williams is the master. Ask anyone. Ask Barry Bonds if he read the book... The Science of Hitting... by Ted Williams. The answer as to who is better... on many levels... should not considered or decided by or should even be THE SUBJECT OF SOME GODDAM POLL ON THIS FORUM.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Well... my response did not quite generate the anticipated response from the collective group. And while that is okay, let me take this opportunity to simply remind those that have participated in this thread that I chose NOT TO VOTE in this comparison from DAY ONE. And my position has not AND WILL NOT CHANGE. My reasoning for NOT VOTING is predicated in part for the decisions made by Williams and Bonds. And I simply do NOT SHARE THAT INSIGHT. I would simply rather not compare Williams to Bonds because he made significant sacrifices to participate in the defense of our country. It was a different time and a different threat that existed at a time when action mattered. Williams answered the call and delivered. I do not want to turn this into a political discussion because it simply goes to character and not athletic ability. But it becomes relevant in a way that is impossible to quantify.
Honor is not debased by acknowledging what Bonds accomplished. I would rather be in the shoes of Williams even though I suspect I would disagree with him on several political questions. But my disagreements would not extend to the simple art and talent associated with hitting and Williams is the master. Ask anyone. Ask Barry Bonds if he read the book... The Science of Hitting... by Ted Williams. The answer as to who is better... on many levels... should not considered or decided by or should even be THE SUBJECT OF SOME GODDAM POLL ON THIS FORUM.
@coinkat said:
Barry Bonds deserves credit and respect but that credit and that respect is simply not within the credit and respect deserving of Ted Williams.
I made this as short and to the point as possible. Be Thankful that I did...
It’s humorous to see those so quick to dismiss Bonds as having “cheated” without recognizing (a) he was a great player before the suspected PED use and (b) PED use was widespread throughout MLB (Sosa and McGwire’s PED-fueled 1998 race saved baseball), so even by using he was simply leveling the playing field.
Also, this insistence of giving Williams credit for years not playing is just bad logic. You don’t get to assume what his production would have been for games not played, regardless of the reason. While admirable that Williams lost time played to serve in the war, that doesn’t automatically allow for additional stats to be moved into his column.
All we can do is look at the counting stats to compare the players, You may not like Bonds allegedly took PEDs (no positive test does not allow you to suggest more than allegation) and you may hate that Williams lost years to the war, but the numbers on the books remain.
Williams was an amazing hitter. There is no one suggesting otherwise. With that said - Bonds absolutely wallops Williams.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
@Mistlin said:
It’s humorous to see those so quick to dismiss Bonds as having “cheated” without recognizing (a) he was a great player before the suspected PED use and (b) PED use was widespread throughout MLB (Sosa and McGwire’s PED-fueled 1998 race saved baseball), so even by using he was simply leveling the playing field.
Also, this insistence of giving Williams credit for years not playing is just bad logic. You don’t get to assume what his production would have been for games not played, regardless of the reason. While admirable that Williams lost time played to serve in the war, that doesn’t automatically allow for additional stats to be moved into his column.
All we can do is look at the counting stats to compare the players, You may not like Bonds allegedly took PEDs (no positive test does not allow you to suggest more than allegation) and you may hate that Williams lost years to the war, but the numbers on the books remain.
Williams was an amazing hitter. There is no one suggesting otherwise. With that said - Bonds absolutely wallops Williams.
I've always said Bonds leveled the playing field when he took.the steroids, the question is would Bobds have put up.the same numbers had he just had amphetamines at his disposal?
The muscle that he put on was a major amount, the fact that he was able to.add that muscle and keep his bat speed was remarkable. I just don't believe he would have hit all those HR's without the PED use, he literally transformed his body into a mini hulk.
I don't blame Bonds for using but I just don't buy into him putting up.all the numbers without using regardless of how good he was previously
@Mistlin said:
It’s humorous to see those so quick to dismiss Bonds as having “cheated” without recognizing (a) he was a great player before the suspected PED use and (b) PED use was widespread throughout MLB (Sosa and McGwire’s PED-fueled 1998 race saved baseball), so even by using he was simply leveling the playing field.
Also, this insistence of giving Williams credit for years not playing is just bad logic. You don’t get to assume what his production would have been for games not played, regardless of the reason. While admirable that Williams lost time played to serve in the war, that doesn’t automatically allow for additional stats to be moved into his column.
All we can do is look at the counting stats to compare the players, You may not like Bonds allegedly took PEDs (no positive test does not allow you to suggest more than allegation) and you may hate that Williams lost years to the war, but the numbers on the books remain.
Williams was an amazing hitter. There is no one suggesting otherwise. With that said - Bonds absolutely wallops Williams.
Like I said earlier, I'm not looking through any lens of cheating/right/wrong/ etc.. with the PED use, but only that they allowed Bonds to do what he did at the end of his career.
I don't know if Williams took any amphetamines to play baseball, because you say he may have taken them fighting a war flying a plane(which if I were to step on the argument of right/wrong I would certainly use not fault him for that)...but I do know that amphetamines do not enhance muscles and performance like steroids do.
I know extra energy or focus could possibly help, but they simply do not match what steroids can do for someone in an athletic endeavor. Any argument otherwise is pure folly and filled with bias(as is usual with sports fans arguing their points).
In the end, Williams produced more runs per plate appearance than Bonds regardless if Bonds only came close because of steroid use at the end of his career.
For their careers(including Bonds steroid years)
Williams had a 191 OPS+
Bonds had a 182 OPS+
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. At what point does one consider that it took 3,000 more plate appearances to achieve just 137 more runs?
So yes, Bonds produced more total runs by 137, but it took him five more seasons to do so. That isn't better. Not at all.
By your rationale, using one of your methods of evaluation, career hits totals and batting average,
Omar Vizauel had more career hits than Babe Ruth...and therefore by your rationale he was better at getting hits than Babe Ruth was? At what point does that fact that it took Vizquel 2,500 more at bats to get more hits come into the equation?
Bonds was not close to that production before steroid use(where it is pointed out above that he was still great), and if you want to get cute, then look what Williams was before WWII(when he may have been supposedly introduced. to amphetamines).
We can use YOUR METHOD:
Bonds OPS+ before steroids was around 163
Williams OPS+ before WWII was 190
Also, this insistence of giving Williams credit for years not playing is just bad logic. You don’t get to assume what his production would have been for games not played, regardless of the reason. While admirable that Williams lost time played to serve in the war, that doesn’t automatically allow for additional stats to be moved into his column.
Williams was an amazing hitter. There is no one suggesting otherwise. With that said - Bonds absolutely wallops Williams.
Those are your words above...
I have to just flat out call BS... Whatever credibility you may have had has simply been squandered by foolishness that simply fails to pass the straight face test.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Mantel used roids too as did many other players from Dr Feel Good. Theyve all been using things for every decade which is why its so dumb that the media and some people make such a big deal out of the 90s and 2000s. The media wants clicks and got on some high moral soap box to take down people that werent nice to them. Ortiz literally was suspsended for a failed drug test but was a first ballot HOFer.
If the standard is to ignore stats from suspected or known PED use, well then baseball just has no stats other than the 1800s when it was basically a local beer league
Also, this insistence of giving Williams credit for years not playing is just bad logic. You don’t get to assume what his production would have been for games not played, regardless of the reason. While admirable that Williams lost time played to serve in the war, that doesn’t automatically allow for additional stats to be moved into his column.
Williams was an amazing hitter. There is no one suggesting otherwise. With that said - Bonds absolutely wallops Williams.
Those are your words above...
I have to just flat out call BS... Whatever credibility you may have had has simply been squandered by foolishness that simply fails to pass the straight face test.
You may not like how it was worded but he is right. You cant assume a player will accumulate stats unless they actually did so. Nothing says a player would be healthy for the full season unless they actually played the season. Injuries happen all the time and can happen at any point of the season. Guys will miss an entire year from a spring training injury. When deGrom is healthy hes one of the best maybe ever, but he cant stay healthy.
The statement that Bonds "wallops" Williams, even if we ignore PEDs and wars, makes no sense to me, and just makes me question if the people saying it can read/understand the statistical evidence. Bonds played longer (entirely because of PEDs and wars, but we're ignoring that), but that's it. Does Adrian Beltre "wallop" Joe DiMaggio? If not, why not?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
The statement Bonds wallops Williams fails to pass the straight face test- plain and simple.
I suppose I am part of an older generation now but objectivity should be constant in any analysis and comparison between Williams and Bonds. And that is part of the problem as the so-called "leveling the playing field" has played out as an excuse for Bonds while Williams put Country first and lost over 4 seasons to his commitment. So lets stop for a moment and put the Williams military service in perspective from WW II to Korea. And in the process, lets take a look at those that put country first and did not fair as well as Williams. Lets start with Nile Kinnick- Iowa's Heisman Trophy winner- who was killed in a tragic training flight accident in 1943. Regrettably he did not live to see his 25th birthday. "Buddy" Lewis was a great talent with Washington that had achieved so much before he went to war. He likely would have arrived at Cooperstown had he not served in WWII. He really should be remembered as an iconic talent but he is one of many that has fallen through the cracks in MLB history. And this happens largely because most are simply either too lazy or just captured by the headlines to understand and appreciate what really happened. So Ted Williams in so many ways was blessed... he returned and did quite well. And that is mainly because hitting was his life- it was his calling. There has been no other that has made hitting what it is. Bonds benefitted from everything that happened as MLB progressed. Williams was the man- the architect- that developed the science behind hitting. Williams gets zero credit in the question that has been asked here and in this poll for what he did in connection with advancing what is required to be a greater hitter. As an example to illustrate my point, ask Frank Howard what Ted Williams did for him in the 1969 season that made a difference. The Williams legacy extends well beyond the last at bat in Fenway when he hit a home run as a finale that will remain a tough act to follow.
You may not like how it was worded but he is right. You cant assume a player will accumulate stats unless they actually did so. Nothing says a player would be healthy for the full season unless they actually played the season. Injuries happen all the time and can happen at any point of the season. Guys will miss an entire year from a spring training injury. When deGrom is healthy hes one of the best maybe ever, but he cant stay healthy.
You just cant assume health
So... Williams looses the best years of his career to WWII and Korea- basically a solid 4 seasons to be on the conservative side
You tell me that Bonds leveled the playing field based on what was happening in MLB at that time... And what he accomplished simply cannot be measured in terms of numbers that are meaningful to even compare to Williams but yet you are using them meaninglessly to infer that I am wrong...
Your commentary reminds me of the look of a dead herring in the moonlight... it may shine but it stinks.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
The statement Bonds wallops Williams fails to pass the straight face test- plain and simple.
I suppose I am part of an older generation now but objectivity should be constant in any analysis and comparison between Williams and Bonds. And that is part of the problem as the so-called "leveling the playing field" has played out as an excuse for Bonds while Williams put Country first and lost over 4 seasons to his commitment. So lets stop for a moment and put the Williams military service in perspective from WW II to Korea. And in the process, lets take a look at those that put country first and did not fair as well as Williams. Lets start with Nile Kinnick- Iowa's Heisman Trophy winner- who was killed in a tragic training flight accident in 1943. Regrettably he did not live to see his 25th birthday. "Buddy" Lewis was a great talent with Washington that had achieved so much before he went to war. He likely would have arrived at Cooperstown had he not served in WWII. He really should be remembered as an iconic talent but he is one of many that has fallen through the cracks in MLB history. And this happens largely because most are simply either too lazy or just captured by the headlines to understand and appreciate what really happened. So Ted Williams in so many ways was blessed... he returned and did quite well. And that is mainly because hitting was his life- it was his calling. There has been no other that has made hitting what it is. Bonds benefitted from everything that happened as MLB progressed. Williams was the man- the architect- that developed the science behind hitting. Williams gets zero credit in the question that has been asked here and in this poll for what he did in connection with advancing what is required to be a greater hitter. As an example to illustrate my point, ask Frank Howard what Ted Williams did for him in the 1969 season that made a difference. The Williams legacy extends well beyond the last at bat in Fenway when he hit a home run as a finale that will remain a tough act to follow.
You may not like how it was worded but he is right. You cant assume a player will accumulate stats unless they actually did so. Nothing says a player would be healthy for the full season unless they actually played the season. Injuries happen all the time and can happen at any point of the season. Guys will miss an entire year from a spring training injury. When deGrom is healthy hes one of the best maybe ever, but he cant stay healthy.
You just cant assume health
So... Williams looses the best years of his career to WWII and Korea- basically a solid 4 seasons to be on the conservative side
You tell me that you that Bonds leveled the playing field based on what was happening in MLB at that time... and what he accomplished simply cannot be measured in terms of numbers that are meaningful to even compare to Williams but yet you are using them meaninglessly to infer that I am wrong...
Your commentary reminds me of the look of a dead herring in the moonlight... it may shine but it stinks.
Very well stated sir.
I do want to add that my comment about James Joyce to your post earlier was a sneak of Step Brothers quote into the thread. No disrespect intended there.
There are those moments when something was directed in a way that could easily be unintended or simply misunderstood. While I do my best to write clearly... I make mistakes and it may only be clear to me and not the audience. And regrettably, the poll is something that creates controversy that goes full circle back to a generational experience. Ted Williams may never obtain the praise that he deserves when compared to Barry Bonds. I really have zero interest in somehow making Bonds something that is not consistent with who he was as a person or as a professional . But leveling the playing field is not a viable excuse for engaging in activity that tips the scale unfavorable to those that chose differently.. . Especially those players from a different era when they seem to be on the short end of the stick of what matters. And what matters seems to be statistics instead of character. I like character as it speaks volumes beyond numbers that translate into statistics that produce what more often than not... fails to capture MLB for how it should be remembered.
And in going full circle back to part of the real problem I have with this poll is that Williams, as great as he was, survived whereby his greatness and legacy was intact until the comparisons start from 50 -60 years into the future whereby the inappropriate comparisons start. And in this so-called comparison, sadly, we overlook and continue to ignore those that deserve more and did not survive military service as well as Williams.
I think I have done everything within reason to be reasonable here.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
There are those moments when something was directed in a way that could easily be unintended or simply misunderstood. While I do my best to write clearly... I make mistakes and it may only be clear to me and not the audience. And regrettably, the poll is something that creates controversy that goes full circle back to a generational experience. Ted Williams may never obtain the praise that he deserves when compared to Barry Bonds. I really have zero interest in somehow making Bonds something that is not consistent with who he was as a person or as a professional . But leveling the playing field is not a viable excuse for engaging in activity that tips the scale unfavorable to those that chose differently.. . Especially those players from a different era when they seem to be on the short end of the stick of what matters. And what matters seems to be statistics instead of character. I like character as it speaks volumes beyond numbers that translate into statistics that produce what more often than not... fails to capture MLB for how it should be remembered.
And in going full circle back to part of the real problem I have with this poll is that Williams, as great as he was, survived whereby his greatness and legacy was intact until the comparisons start from 50 -60 years into the future whereby the inappropriate comparisons start. And in this so-called comparison, sadly, we overlook and continue to ignore those that deserve more and did not survive military service as well as Williams.
I think I have done everything within reason to be reasonable here.
Absolutely...and you have been very reasonable, mostly much more reasonable than everyone in the thread, including myself..
@coinkat said:
So... Williams looses the best years of his career to WWII and Korea- basically a solid 4 seasons to be on the conservative side
You tell me that Bonds leveled the playing field based on what was happening in MLB at that time... And what he accomplished simply cannot be measured in terms of numbers that are meaningful to even compare to Williams but yet you are using them meaninglessly to infer that I am wrong...
Your commentary reminds me of the look of a dead herring in the moonlight... it may shine but it stinks.
Again you cant assume health. You cant assume a player wouldnt have gotten injured in any season they didnt play no matter what age they would have been. Williams could have torn an oblique in spring training or something as simple as breaking his wrist getting hit by a pitch as just a couple examples.
Numerous HOF players and players with HOF level talent have had lost seasons or careers ended from injuries. Bo Jackson likely would have been a HOFer, Griffey JR is probably the HR leader if he stayed healthy, deGrom would be a HOFer if he could have stayed healthy, Brady would have been a backup if Beldsoe never got hurt etc.
PEDs were being used in Williams era as well and before. Mickey Mantle used steroids as did numerous others. PEDs are still being used today and are made to beat the tests, the test changes if its even tested for then they redo the PED. Rinse and repeat. This isnt just unique to baseball either, its happening and has happened in all sports.
My point though was that you cannot assume that a player would have a fully healthy season in a season that they did not play. To many things could happen that could cause an injury where you cant assume the would play a full season and what their stats would be. Even playing hurt would lower stats.
@coinkat said:
So... Williams looses the best years of his career to WWII and Korea- basically a solid 4 seasons to be on the conservative side
You tell me that Bonds leveled the playing field based on what was happening in MLB at that time... And what he accomplished simply cannot be measured in terms of numbers that are meaningful to even compare to Williams but yet you are using them meaninglessly to infer that I am wrong...
Your commentary reminds me of the look of a dead herring in the moonlight... it may shine but it stinks.
Again you cant assume health. You cant assume a player wouldnt have gotten injured in any season they didnt play no matter what age they would have been. Williams could have torn an oblique in spring training or something as simple as breaking his wrist getting hit by a pitch as just a couple examples.
Numerous HOF players and players with HOF level talent have had lost seasons or careers ended from injuries. Bo Jackson likely would have been a HOFer, Griffey JR is probably the HR leader if he stayed healthy, deGrom would be a HOFer if he could have stayed healthy, Brady would have been a backup if Beldsoe never got hurt etc.
PEDs were being used in Williams era as well and before. Mickey Mantle used steroids as did numerous others. PEDs are still being used today and are made to beat the tests, the test changes if its even tested for then they redo the PED. Rinse and repeat. This isnt just unique to baseball either, its happening and has happened in all sports.
My point though was that you cannot assume that a player would have a fully healthy season in a season that they did not play. To many things could happen that could cause an injury where you cant assume the would play a full season and what their stats would be. Even playing hurt would lower stats.
Sorry, but just not as reasonable as @coinkat post
In your post of not assuming health for Williams during missing war years, you assume Williams did PED because they were 'around'(even though nothing remotely as effective as the junk Bonds used was there for him).
You also assume Bonds would have stayed healthy without steroids. He certainly would not have been as good without them. How do we know? We saw him without them, lol. Nice try though.
So even though you repeated the post, it still wasn't reasonable the second time. And we already know you don't respect Williams fighting in wars instead of playing baseball since that was your first reaction. Nice try though.
@Basebal21 You are also not considering that not playing baseball for three years and then two years were detrimental to honing his craft, the physical training affect on Williams body, and the mental affect.
Williams may have even been better in his missing years and subsequent years. He may have even played longer than he did too.
In the end, Williams still had a higher OPS+ than Bonds and better Runs produced per plate appearances without regard to the missing years, so the point is already moot on who was better....he already did better than a juiced up Bonds, and that is ignoring the juice and missing years.
Any reasonable person is going to look at the PED and body transformation of Bonds and take that into considering and the gap Williams has over Bonds will widen even more.
The great news is that Williams survived his military service and returned... otherwise we would not be having this discussion. Williams played exceptionally well after his service but his lasting impact in the progression of MLB cannot be measured in statistics nor can it really be measured against any other player. There is more to MLB and the progression of the game. Williams as a player, manager and as a good will ambassador for MLB has done more than anyone for advancing the science of hitting. I doubt that is even in dispute- if so, I suspect we will hear from a differing perspective soon enough.
You really seem obsessed with statistics even though we clearly know that in this instance- statistics do not capture the complete picture by which a valid comparison can and should be made. Others who have posted to this thread have successfully made that argument- I see no reason to repeat what has already been stated,
You seem to go back to this concept that you cannot assume health- your words not mine- So if you choose to ignore Williams for his years in military service and then essentially blame him for being called to active duty in Korea- again your words not mine- but in contrast Barry Bonds sustains ZERO negative inference in your statistical review. There simply is no level playing field in your statistical analysis. Williams deserves the level playing field that you have unconditional granted to Bonds. Williams is the creator of modern thought behind the science of hitting. He is the master. Barry Bonds will always be Barry Bonds and that is in a different realm than that of Ted Williams.
In this instance, this whole "you cannot assume health" argument which has been vastly overplayed is the equivalent of a dog that just don't hunt. Better luck next time.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said: @Basebal21 You are also not considering that not playing baseball for three years and then two years were detrimental to honing his craft, the physical training affect on Williams body, and the mental affect.
Williams may have even been better in his missing years and subsequent years. He may have even played longer than he did too.
In the end, Williams still had a higher OPS+ than Bonds and better Runs produced per plate appearances without regard to the missing years, so the point is already moot on who was better....he already did better than a juiced up Bonds, and that is ignoring the juice and missing years.
Any reasonable person is going to look at the PED and body transformation of Bonds and take that into considering and the gap Williams has over Bonds will widen even more.
I'm not ignoring anything, its just not relevant for missed years no matter the age. Could he have had the greatest season of all time sure, could he have also had a career ending injury or injuries that cost him a lot of time thats also possible as well. Its happened to countless players. Even if you just look in the last few seasons, Stras had HOF stuff his career is over, deGrom cant stay on the field, David Wright had his career ended early, Harper missed time for surgery, Othani has as well, and the list goes on and on.
Any of the sports and regardless of the player you cant assume stats would have been accumulated because there is no way to know whether or not they would have stayed healthy.
Assuming stats is assuming that the player would have been healthy and played a full season which we just do not know if it would have happened or not.
@coinkat said:
The great news is that Williams survived his military service and returned... otherwise we would not be having this discussion. Williams played exceptionally well after his service but his lasting impact in the progression of MLB cannot be measured in statistics nor can it really be measured against any other player. There is more to MLB and the progression of the game. Williams as a player, manager and as a good will ambassador for MLB has done more than anyone for advancing the science of hitting. I doubt that is even in dispute- if so, I suspect we will hear from a differing perspective soon enough.
You really seem obsessed with statistics even though we clearly know that in this instance- statistics do not capture the complete picture by which a valid comparison can and should be made. Others who have posted to this thread have successfully made that argument- I see no reason to repeat what has already been stated,
You seem to go back to this concept that you cannot assume health- your words not mine- So if you choose to ignore Williams for his years in military service and then essentially blame him for being called to active duty in Korea- again your words not mine- but in contrast Barry Bonds sustains ZERO negative inference in your statistical review. There simply is no level playing field in your statistical analysis. Williams deserves the level playing field that you have unconditional granted to Bonds. Williams is the creator of modern thought behind the science of hitting. He is the master. Barry Bonds will always be Barry Bonds and that is in a different realm than that of Ted Williams.
In this instance, this whole "you cannot assume health" argument which has been vastly overplayed is the equivalent of a dog that just don't hunt. Better luck next time.
Williams isnt the creator of modern hitting, that was around. He contributed to a book and I dont like having to talk negatively about him. Its not a discussion about who served their country better, its a discussion about who did more on the field.
Its fair to assume that if he was healthy even a down year would be a good year, its not fair to assume he would have never been subject to an injury though
@1948_Swell_Robinson said: @Basebal21 You are also not considering that not playing baseball for three years and then two years were detrimental to honing his craft, the physical training affect on Williams body, and the mental affect.
Williams may have even been better in his missing years and subsequent years. He may have even played longer than he did too.
In the end, Williams still had a higher OPS+ than Bonds and better Runs produced per plate appearances without regard to the missing years, so the point is already moot on who was better....he already did better than a juiced up Bonds, and that is ignoring the juice and missing years.
Any reasonable person is going to look at the PED and body transformation of Bonds and take that into considering and the gap Williams has over Bonds will widen even more.
I'm not ignoring anything, its just not relevant for missed years no matter the age. Could he have had the greatest season of all time sure, could he have also had a career ending injury or injuries that cost him a lot of time thats also possible as well. Its happened to countless players. Even if you just look in the last few seasons, Stras had HOF stuff his career is over, deGrom cant stay on the field, David Wright had his career ended early, Harper missed time for surgery, Othani has as well, and the list goes on and on.
Any of the sports and regardless of the player you cant assume stats would have been accumulated because there is no way to know whether or not that would have stayed healthy.
Assuming stats is assuming that the player would have been healthy and played a full season which we just do not know if it would have happened or not.
Bonds was a season and a half of production ahead of Williams and it took him five seasons worth of plate appearances to do that. That isn't better and that isn't assuming stats...it is showing Williams was better regardless of his service. The fact that he DID serve in the military, instead of playing MLB, only makes Williams still being better even MORE impressive.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said: @Basebal21 You are also not considering that not playing baseball for three years and then two years were detrimental to honing his craft, the physical training affect on Williams body, and the mental affect.
Williams may have even been better in his missing years and subsequent years. He may have even played longer than he did too.
In the end, Williams still had a higher OPS+ than Bonds and better Runs produced per plate appearances without regard to the missing years, so the point is already moot on who was better....he already did better than a juiced up Bonds, and that is ignoring the juice and missing years.
Any reasonable person is going to look at the PED and body transformation of Bonds and take that into considering and the gap Williams has over Bonds will widen even more.
I'm not ignoring anything, its just not relevant for missed years no matter the age. Could he have had the greatest season of all time sure, could he have also had a career ending injury or injuries that cost him a lot of time thats also possible as well. Its happened to countless players. Even if you just look in the last few seasons, Stras had HOF stuff his career is over, deGrom cant stay on the field, David Wright had his career ended early, Harper missed time for surgery, Othani has as well, and the list goes on and on.
Any of the sports and regardless of the player you cant assume stats would have been accumulated because there is no way to know whether or not that would have stayed healthy.
Assuming stats is assuming that the player would have been healthy and played a full season which we just do not know if it would have happened or not.
Nobody is assuming stats. We are stating the obvious reason, and putting into context, why Bonds just edges Williams in the runs created totals. Only an imbecile would not be able to see that obvious and key factor of the war time service.
Bonds was a season and a half of production ahead of Williams and it took him five seasons worth of plate appearances to do that. That isn't better and that isn't assuming stats...it is showing Williams was better regardless of his service. The fact that he DID serve in the military, instead of playing MLB, only makes Williams still being better even MORE impressive.
As such, one does not have to assume stats.
As an aside to the obvious, your reasoning is that Williams could have had an injury and missed three consecutive years instead of being in WWII, and then two more in Korean? Are you serious? Is that something you consider a realistic plausible scenario? That's a long time to miss for a pulled muscle.
If Williams was able to handle the rigors of active duty in the military and not break down, I am pretty certain he would have been able to continue to play MLB and not miss five full seasons because of an oblique injury like you thing is plausible, which it is not.
Furthermore, if any of his body parts were weak and destined to break down due to playing MLB then they would have in all his other years he played, and they didn't...yet you assume they would have if Williams was playing MLB instead of being on active military duty.
Bonds was ONLY barely ahead of WIlliams in the runs created for two reason, neither of which were ability:
1)Williams missed five years due to armed service
2)Bonds used steroids
Other than those two reasons, the comparison is way apart.
Even with those two reasons Williams is STILL ahead.
Maybe Bonds should have gone to the Iraq war in 1991 and he could have been respected for putting something above him and hurting his stats. Instead, he made his career by injecting things into him.
Im not sure why its so complicated that you are assuming stats and health if you believe that the stats in seasons not played would have been the difference
Bonds was a season and a half of production ahead of Williams and it took him five seasons worth of plate appearances to do that. That isn't better and that isn't assuming stats...it is showing Williams was better regardless of his service. The fact that he DID serve in the military, instead of playing MLB, only makes Williams still being better even MORE impressive.
Did the athlete play the season yes or no. If the answer is no any talk of what they would have done in a season not played is an assumption of stats and assuming they had a healthy year
@Basebal21 said:
To simplify it down to its basic level
Did the athlete play the season yes or no. If the answer is no any talk of what they would have done in a season not played is an assumption of stats and assuming they had a healthy year
Bonds was a season and a half of production ahead of Williams and it took him five seasons worth of plate appearances to do that. That isn't better and that isn't assuming stats...it is showing Williams was better regardless of his service. The fact that he DID serve in the military, instead of playing MLB, only makes Williams still being better even MORE impressive.
@Basebal21 said:
To simplify it down to its basic level
Did the athlete play the season yes or no. If the answer is no any talk of what they would have done in a season not played is an assumption of stats and assuming they had a healthy year
Bonds was a season and a half of production ahead of Williams and it took him five seasons worth of plate appearances to do that. That isn't better and that isn't assuming stats...it is showing Williams was better regardless of his service. The fact that he DID serve in the military, instead of playing MLB, only makes Williams still being better even MORE impressive.
You could cure cancer and it doesnt make you a better player. Player vs player is about what they do on the field not about who is a better person or more likeable. Bonds also has literally a full season worth of at bats that were intentional walks
@Basebal21 said:
To simplify it down to its basic level
Did the athlete play the season yes or no. If the answer is no any talk of what they would have done in a season not played is an assumption of stats and assuming they had a healthy year
Bonds was a season and a half of production ahead of Williams and it took him five seasons worth of plate appearances to do that. That isn't better and that isn't assuming stats...it is showing Williams was better regardless of his service. The fact that he DID serve in the military, instead of playing MLB, only makes Williams still being better even MORE impressive.
You could cure cancer and it doesnt make you a better player. Player vs player is about what they do on the field not about who is a better person or more likeable. Bonds also has literally a full season worth of at bats that were intentional walks
Yes and Williams performed better on the field:
Run Expectancy per plate appearance. This accounts for men on hitting and baserunning.
Bonds OPS+ before steroids was around 163
Williams OPS+ before WWII was 190
Sorry, nice try. Play again some other time.
You keep using the OPS+ stat to determine which player was better. By this logic Mark Mcgwire was better than Stan Musial, Joe Dimaggio, Willie Mays, and Hank Aaron.
I look at the entire body of work and there is no question to me that Bonds was better.
Bonds OPS+ before steroids was around 163
Williams OPS+ before WWII was 190
Sorry, nice try. Play again some other time.
You keep using the OPS+ stat to determine which player was better. By this logic Mark Mcgwire was better than Stan Musial, Joe Dimaggio, Willie Mays, and Hank Aaron.
I look at the entire body of work and there is no question to me that Bonds was better.
I think several times you see the main criteria being used:
Run Expectancy per plate appearance. This accounts for men on hitting and baserunning.
Top two all time
Ruth 7.7
Williams 8.0
Big gap
Bonds 9.3
OPS+ is the rate stat as one piece of evidence, but with stat and people who play as an old man (like Aaron, Mays, etcc...even Williams and BOnds), have that stat go down due to their old man years since it is a pure percentage stat, while McGwire didn't play many of those old man years. Well, Bonds wasn't hurt as an old man, he turned into Ruth for some reason there.
McGwire's OPS+ through age 30 was 143(lower than all those guys you mentioned, but still good as he was excellent hitter), but then something magical happened in the back end of his career to surpass those greats, again partly because they played longer and partly because of the magic.
@Mistlin said:
It’s humorous to see those so quick to dismiss Bonds as having “cheated” without recognizing (a) he was a great player before the suspected PED use and (b) PED use was widespread throughout MLB (Sosa and McGwire’s PED-fueled 1998 race saved baseball), so even by using he was simply leveling the playing field.
Also, this insistence of giving Williams credit for years not playing is just bad logic. You don’t get to assume what his production would have been for games not played, regardless of the reason. While admirable that Williams lost time played to serve in the war, that doesn’t automatically allow for additional stats to be moved into his column.
All we can do is look at the counting stats to compare the players, You may not like Bonds allegedly took PEDs (no positive test does not allow you to suggest more than allegation) and you may hate that Williams lost years to the war, but the numbers on the books remain.
Williams was an amazing hitter. There is no one suggesting otherwise. With that said - Bonds absolutely wallops Williams.
I'll end with this: WAR (wins above replacement player for those who don't know) and takes into account the relative performance of players into account for the calculation of WAR for an individual player.
It's indisputable the average player skills and performance have increased over time in any sport. Training, nutrition, increased pool of available players are all factors in this inevitable upward increase in overall talent in every sport.
Bonds played decades after Williams and played in a league with specialized relievers, pitchers throwing harder than ever, and the most difficult time (to that point) to be a hitter.
Despite all that, Bonds established a lifetime WAR of 162.8. Williams? 121.8
Now, I know you Williams apologists will say he lost years to the war. Sure. Obviously he did. But let's give him 10 WAR per year he missed, that still leaves him 10 short.
Bonds is the obvious (and correct) answer.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
If you make the assumptions that you are making, you are correct. If you make the assumptions that everyone else is making, then we are correct.
BTW, defensive WAR is crap; if you want to persuade anyone, don't use it. If you use offensive WAR, Bonds lead is 18.5 and if you credit Williams with even half his annual average for his missing years, he passes Bonds.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Mistlin said:
I'll end with this: WAR (wins above replacement player for those who don't know) and takes into account the relative performance of players into account for the calculation of WAR for an individual player.
It's indisputable the average player skills and performance have increased over time in any sport. Training, nutrition, increased pool of available players are all factors in this inevitable upward increase in overall talent in every sport.
Bonds played decades after Williams and played in a league with specialized relievers, pitchers throwing harder than ever, and the most difficult time (to that point) to be a hitter.
Despite all that, Bonds established a lifetime WAR of 162.8. Williams? 121.8
Now, I know you Williams apologists will say he lost years to the war. Sure. Obviously he did. But let's give him 10 WAR per year he missed, that still leaves him 10 short.
Bonds is the obvious (and correct) answer.
The WAR defensive measurements are too wonky to validate, which throws a huge wrench into that comparison.
The talent level aspect has merit and I have stood away from that aspect for now. The degree of which it matters is way too much up in the air.
If Bonds didn't have a magical transformation from age 35-42 it would be a great discussion, otherwise those two obvious factors(yes the missing war years are an obvious factor even if one doesn't know what would have happened).
@coolstanley I am curious why you used Mark McGwire having a higher OPS+ than some greats as some sort of discredit? Were you on a different planet when he was hitting 70 Home Runs in 509 at bats while maintaining a .470 OB%?
From 1995-2001 Mark McGwire had 1.113 OPS. That is Babe Ruth territory. So why are you surprised his career OPS+ is so high? Shouldn't you be more surprised and curious how his OPS got so high in his 30's?
If you make the assumptions that you are making, you are correct. If you make the assumptions that everyone else is making, then we are correct.
BTW, defensive WAR is crap; if you want to persuade anyone, don't use it. If you use offensive WAR, Bonds lead is 18.5 and if you credit Williams with even half his annual average for his missing years, he passes Bonds.
But...you don't get to credit Williams for those missing years. They are missing. So even taking out defensive WAR (which, sure) Bonds is 20.1 WAR ahead.
Even if you want to grant Ted the lead in WAR (even though you cannot), the marked difference in MVPs (7-2) is a more talent-rich environment should be all you need to know about what player was better.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
But...you don't get to credit Williams for those missing years.
Actually, yes. Yes I do. I understand that you don't like it, but this is America and I can do what I want. I am also free to completely ignore what Bonds did when he was violating the rules of Major League Baseball. As I said - and it really isn't up for debate - you have your assumptions and I have mine, and they lead to different conclusions. My conclusion is that Ted Williams was MUCH better than Barry Bonds and I am entirely comfortable with that conclusion.
Even if you want to grant Ted the lead in WAR (even though you cannot), the marked difference in MVPs (7-2) is a more talent-rich environment should be all you need to know about what player was better.
I have said this before, although it was years ago and you surely missed it, and I will say it again: if I ever base my position on what other people (sportswriters, managers, other players, etc.) thought, just shoot me, for I have clearly lost the ability to think for myself.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Comments
I mean you are the guy that proclaims Terry Bradshaw the best ever....and now touting Barry Bonds, and then have the gall to talk about bias? Truly funny.
Careful about knocking QB’s from the 70’s.
1- it was a run game
Griese’s 8 for 11 in the Super Bowl was great. It just was what it was.
2- QB’s usually threw into double coverage as usually only 3 receivers
instead of 5 to throw to.
3- No five yard pass patterns back then mostly. All 10+ or more.
Lots of low percentage bombs.
Just can’t compare the 70’s QB to now. Bradshaw was great !
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
In the 70’s the philosophy was defense and run the ball.
Stabler 12 for 19 in 1977 Super Bowl win.
Today he’d be 24 for 38 or less because of 5 receiving instead of 3.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
I know all about that. Preaching to the choir. Was not comparing QB to today.
Just pointing out the bias of a Pittsburgh fan.
And Bradshaw wasn't the greatest even including all the reasons you listed above. He was certainly good, excellent, or whatever adjective you want to assign. It's just that others were more so.
BTW, @coolstanley 's entire premise for Bradshaw to be considered the best or near the best is based almost entirely on his amount of Super Bowl ring's his teammates gave him, and his post season performance. @coolstanley ignores Bonds's failures in that same criteria for his sport. Bias.
Sounds good.
Lydell Mitchell was one of the first backs to really be used in the passing game. Late 70’s.
Most backs were big runners and blockers.
Dorsett was used in the 80’s.
We can’t really compare 70’s QB’s and it’s disingenuous to say none of them were the greatest, along with the QB’s from the 60’s.
But I know you weren’t saying that.
For anyone to say Bradshaw wasn’t great is sad. He did have great teams. Just good ??? Lol
How about 1st team QB of the 70’s.
Is that “just good” ?
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
For Swell and anyone else.
Bradshaw- 1st team NFL all decade team in the 1970’s.
Link below.
The greatest QB in the 70’s.
Not “just good”,
It was a different time and he was the greatest.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_1970s_All-Decade_Team
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
I agree Bradshaw gets knocked too much as a reaction from him getting elevated too much because his teammates were so great and they won four super bowls.
I was basically responding to the biased claim of bias.
As for Williams and Bonds, my observations are objective as per the statistics being used(contrary to the initial claim by coolstanly that was filled with severe bias on his part).
There is certainly some subjectivity in how to treat Williams's missing war years and I don't claim that my way means there is no need to debate it any further.
There is also subjectivity on how to treat Bonds's steroid use. Perkdog said it best when he stepped away from the right/wrong aspect and acknowledged that they certainly helped Bonds regardless, and without them, there most likely wouldn't even be a thread comparing Bonds to Williams.
There is also subjectivity on the talent level through the years, but considering that Bonds only got to that level because of PED, that aspect wasn't really even needed to dig deeper. It is also an aspect where it is impossible to pin a number on, but rather one that just needs to be known.
1974 Steelers Bills postseason game link. Steelers win comfortably.
Steelers
51 run attempts
21 pass attempts
Bradshaw 12-19 for 203 1 TD
Does that compare to today’s QB ?
Heck no !!!!
It was just the game in the 70’s.
Bradshaw was #1. None other during that time.
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/197412220pit.htm#all_player_offense
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
Love this ! Great job .
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
I couldn't care less about MVP's but I am absolutely shocked he had 500/500, I didn't realize that
What's more shocking is I didn't realize nobody has 400/400
Barry Bonds deserves credit and respect but that credit and that respect is simply not within the credit and respect deserving of Ted Williams.
I made this as short and to the point as possible. Be Thankful that I did...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I would sooner swim in glass than pay respect to Barry Bonds. He is a man without honor, and men of honor should not debase themselves by respecting him.
@dallasactuary
Well... my response did not quite generate the anticipated response from the collective group. And while that is okay, let me take this opportunity to simply remind those that have participated in this thread that I chose NOT TO VOTE in this comparison from DAY ONE. And my position has not AND WILL NOT CHANGE. My reasoning for NOT VOTING is predicated in part for the decisions made by Williams and Bonds. And I simply do NOT SHARE THAT INSIGHT. I would simply rather not compare Williams to Bonds because he made significant sacrifices to participate in the defense of our country. It was a different time and a different threat that existed at a time when action mattered. Williams answered the call and delivered. I do not want to turn this into a political discussion because it simply goes to character and not athletic ability. But it becomes relevant in a way that is impossible to quantify.
Honor is not debased by acknowledging what Bonds accomplished. I would rather be in the shoes of Williams even though I suspect I would disagree with him on several political questions. But my disagreements would not extend to the simple art and talent associated with hitting and Williams is the master. Ask anyone. Ask Barry Bonds if he read the book... The Science of Hitting... by Ted Williams. The answer as to who is better... on many levels... should not considered or decided by or should even be THE SUBJECT OF SOME GODDAM POLL ON THIS FORUM.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
What poem is that from? Is that James Joyce?
Very well stated
It’s humorous to see those so quick to dismiss Bonds as having “cheated” without recognizing (a) he was a great player before the suspected PED use and (b) PED use was widespread throughout MLB (Sosa and McGwire’s PED-fueled 1998 race saved baseball), so even by using he was simply leveling the playing field.
Also, this insistence of giving Williams credit for years not playing is just bad logic. You don’t get to assume what his production would have been for games not played, regardless of the reason. While admirable that Williams lost time played to serve in the war, that doesn’t automatically allow for additional stats to be moved into his column.
All we can do is look at the counting stats to compare the players, You may not like Bonds allegedly took PEDs (no positive test does not allow you to suggest more than allegation) and you may hate that Williams lost years to the war, but the numbers on the books remain.
Williams was an amazing hitter. There is no one suggesting otherwise. With that said - Bonds absolutely wallops Williams.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
So Williams cheated too? He's no better than Bonds.
http://mcz.com/blog/the-hall-of-fame-hypocrisy/
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
I've always said Bonds leveled the playing field when he took.the steroids, the question is would Bobds have put up.the same numbers had he just had amphetamines at his disposal?
The muscle that he put on was a major amount, the fact that he was able to.add that muscle and keep his bat speed was remarkable. I just don't believe he would have hit all those HR's without the PED use, he literally transformed his body into a mini hulk.
I don't blame Bonds for using but I just don't buy into him putting up.all the numbers without using regardless of how good he was previously
Like I said earlier, I'm not looking through any lens of cheating/right/wrong/ etc.. with the PED use, but only that they allowed Bonds to do what he did at the end of his career.
I don't know if Williams took any amphetamines to play baseball, because you say he may have taken them fighting a war flying a plane(which if I were to step on the argument of right/wrong I would certainly use not fault him for that)...but I do know that amphetamines do not enhance muscles and performance like steroids do.
I know extra energy or focus could possibly help, but they simply do not match what steroids can do for someone in an athletic endeavor. Any argument otherwise is pure folly and filled with bias(as is usual with sports fans arguing their points).
In the end, Williams produced more runs per plate appearance than Bonds regardless if Bonds only came close because of steroid use at the end of his career.
For their careers(including Bonds steroid years)
Williams had a 191 OPS+
Bonds had a 182 OPS+
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. At what point does one consider that it took 3,000 more plate appearances to achieve just 137 more runs?
So yes, Bonds produced more total runs by 137, but it took him five more seasons to do so. That isn't better. Not at all.
By your rationale, using one of your methods of evaluation, career hits totals and batting average,
Omar Vizauel had more career hits than Babe Ruth...and therefore by your rationale he was better at getting hits than Babe Ruth was? At what point does that fact that it took Vizquel 2,500 more at bats to get more hits come into the equation?
Bonds was not close to that production before steroid use(where it is pointed out above that he was still great), and if you want to get cute, then look what Williams was before WWII(when he may have been supposedly introduced. to amphetamines).
We can use YOUR METHOD:
Bonds OPS+ before steroids was around 163
Williams OPS+ before WWII was 190
Sorry, nice try. Play again some other time.
@Mistlin
Also, this insistence of giving Williams credit for years not playing is just bad logic. You don’t get to assume what his production would have been for games not played, regardless of the reason. While admirable that Williams lost time played to serve in the war, that doesn’t automatically allow for additional stats to be moved into his column.
Williams was an amazing hitter. There is no one suggesting otherwise. With that said - Bonds absolutely wallops Williams.
Those are your words above...
I have to just flat out call BS... Whatever credibility you may have had has simply been squandered by foolishness that simply fails to pass the straight face test.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Mantel used roids too as did many other players from Dr Feel Good. Theyve all been using things for every decade which is why its so dumb that the media and some people make such a big deal out of the 90s and 2000s. The media wants clicks and got on some high moral soap box to take down people that werent nice to them. Ortiz literally was suspsended for a failed drug test but was a first ballot HOFer.
If the standard is to ignore stats from suspected or known PED use, well then baseball just has no stats other than the 1800s when it was basically a local beer league
Missouri 14 OSU 3
You may not like how it was worded but he is right. You cant assume a player will accumulate stats unless they actually did so. Nothing says a player would be healthy for the full season unless they actually played the season. Injuries happen all the time and can happen at any point of the season. Guys will miss an entire year from a spring training injury. When deGrom is healthy hes one of the best maybe ever, but he cant stay healthy.
You just cant assume health
Missouri 14 OSU 3
The statement that Bonds "wallops" Williams, even if we ignore PEDs and wars, makes no sense to me, and just makes me question if the people saying it can read/understand the statistical evidence. Bonds played longer (entirely because of PEDs and wars, but we're ignoring that), but that's it. Does Adrian Beltre "wallop" Joe DiMaggio? If not, why not?
The statement Bonds wallops Williams fails to pass the straight face test- plain and simple.
I suppose I am part of an older generation now but objectivity should be constant in any analysis and comparison between Williams and Bonds. And that is part of the problem as the so-called "leveling the playing field" has played out as an excuse for Bonds while Williams put Country first and lost over 4 seasons to his commitment. So lets stop for a moment and put the Williams military service in perspective from WW II to Korea. And in the process, lets take a look at those that put country first and did not fair as well as Williams. Lets start with Nile Kinnick- Iowa's Heisman Trophy winner- who was killed in a tragic training flight accident in 1943. Regrettably he did not live to see his 25th birthday. "Buddy" Lewis was a great talent with Washington that had achieved so much before he went to war. He likely would have arrived at Cooperstown had he not served in WWII. He really should be remembered as an iconic talent but he is one of many that has fallen through the cracks in MLB history. And this happens largely because most are simply either too lazy or just captured by the headlines to understand and appreciate what really happened. So Ted Williams in so many ways was blessed... he returned and did quite well. And that is mainly because hitting was his life- it was his calling. There has been no other that has made hitting what it is. Bonds benefitted from everything that happened as MLB progressed. Williams was the man- the architect- that developed the science behind hitting. Williams gets zero credit in the question that has been asked here and in this poll for what he did in connection with advancing what is required to be a greater hitter. As an example to illustrate my point, ask Frank Howard what Ted Williams did for him in the 1969 season that made a difference. The Williams legacy extends well beyond the last at bat in Fenway when he hit a home run as a finale that will remain a tough act to follow.
@Basebal21 your words not mine...
You may not like how it was worded but he is right. You cant assume a player will accumulate stats unless they actually did so. Nothing says a player would be healthy for the full season unless they actually played the season. Injuries happen all the time and can happen at any point of the season. Guys will miss an entire year from a spring training injury. When deGrom is healthy hes one of the best maybe ever, but he cant stay healthy.
You just cant assume health
So... Williams looses the best years of his career to WWII and Korea- basically a solid 4 seasons to be on the conservative side
You tell me that Bonds leveled the playing field based on what was happening in MLB at that time... And what he accomplished simply cannot be measured in terms of numbers that are meaningful to even compare to Williams but yet you are using them meaninglessly to infer that I am wrong...
Your commentary reminds me of the look of a dead herring in the moonlight... it may shine but it stinks.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Very well stated sir.
I do want to add that my comment about James Joyce to your post earlier was a sneak of Step Brothers quote into the thread. No disrespect intended there.
@1948_Swell_Robinson
There are those moments when something was directed in a way that could easily be unintended or simply misunderstood. While I do my best to write clearly... I make mistakes and it may only be clear to me and not the audience. And regrettably, the poll is something that creates controversy that goes full circle back to a generational experience. Ted Williams may never obtain the praise that he deserves when compared to Barry Bonds. I really have zero interest in somehow making Bonds something that is not consistent with who he was as a person or as a professional . But leveling the playing field is not a viable excuse for engaging in activity that tips the scale unfavorable to those that chose differently.. . Especially those players from a different era when they seem to be on the short end of the stick of what matters. And what matters seems to be statistics instead of character. I like character as it speaks volumes beyond numbers that translate into statistics that produce what more often than not... fails to capture MLB for how it should be remembered.
And in going full circle back to part of the real problem I have with this poll is that Williams, as great as he was, survived whereby his greatness and legacy was intact until the comparisons start from 50 -60 years into the future whereby the inappropriate comparisons start. And in this so-called comparison, sadly, we overlook and continue to ignore those that deserve more and did not survive military service as well as Williams.
I think I have done everything within reason to be reasonable here.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Absolutely...and you have been very reasonable, mostly much more reasonable than everyone in the thread, including myself..
Again you cant assume health. You cant assume a player wouldnt have gotten injured in any season they didnt play no matter what age they would have been. Williams could have torn an oblique in spring training or something as simple as breaking his wrist getting hit by a pitch as just a couple examples.
Numerous HOF players and players with HOF level talent have had lost seasons or careers ended from injuries. Bo Jackson likely would have been a HOFer, Griffey JR is probably the HR leader if he stayed healthy, deGrom would be a HOFer if he could have stayed healthy, Brady would have been a backup if Beldsoe never got hurt etc.
PEDs were being used in Williams era as well and before. Mickey Mantle used steroids as did numerous others. PEDs are still being used today and are made to beat the tests, the test changes if its even tested for then they redo the PED. Rinse and repeat. This isnt just unique to baseball either, its happening and has happened in all sports.
My point though was that you cannot assume that a player would have a fully healthy season in a season that they did not play. To many things could happen that could cause an injury where you cant assume the would play a full season and what their stats would be. Even playing hurt would lower stats.
Missouri 14 OSU 3
Sorry, but just not as reasonable as @coinkat post
In your post of not assuming health for Williams during missing war years, you assume Williams did PED because they were 'around'(even though nothing remotely as effective as the junk Bonds used was there for him).
You also assume Bonds would have stayed healthy without steroids. He certainly would not have been as good without them. How do we know? We saw him without them, lol. Nice try though.
So even though you repeated the post, it still wasn't reasonable the second time. And we already know you don't respect Williams fighting in wars instead of playing baseball since that was your first reaction. Nice try though.
@coinkat made more sense.
@Basebal21 You are also not considering that not playing baseball for three years and then two years were detrimental to honing his craft, the physical training affect on Williams body, and the mental affect.
Williams may have even been better in his missing years and subsequent years. He may have even played longer than he did too.
In the end, Williams still had a higher OPS+ than Bonds and better Runs produced per plate appearances without regard to the missing years, so the point is already moot on who was better....he already did better than a juiced up Bonds, and that is ignoring the juice and missing years.
Any reasonable person is going to look at the PED and body transformation of Bonds and take that into considering and the gap Williams has over Bonds will widen even more.
The great news is that Williams survived his military service and returned... otherwise we would not be having this discussion. Williams played exceptionally well after his service but his lasting impact in the progression of MLB cannot be measured in statistics nor can it really be measured against any other player. There is more to MLB and the progression of the game. Williams as a player, manager and as a good will ambassador for MLB has done more than anyone for advancing the science of hitting. I doubt that is even in dispute- if so, I suspect we will hear from a differing perspective soon enough.
@Basebal21
You really seem obsessed with statistics even though we clearly know that in this instance- statistics do not capture the complete picture by which a valid comparison can and should be made. Others who have posted to this thread have successfully made that argument- I see no reason to repeat what has already been stated,
You seem to go back to this concept that you cannot assume health- your words not mine- So if you choose to ignore Williams for his years in military service and then essentially blame him for being called to active duty in Korea- again your words not mine- but in contrast Barry Bonds sustains ZERO negative inference in your statistical review. There simply is no level playing field in your statistical analysis. Williams deserves the level playing field that you have unconditional granted to Bonds. Williams is the creator of modern thought behind the science of hitting. He is the master. Barry Bonds will always be Barry Bonds and that is in a different realm than that of Ted Williams.
In this instance, this whole "you cannot assume health" argument which has been vastly overplayed is the equivalent of a dog that just don't hunt. Better luck next time.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I'm not ignoring anything, its just not relevant for missed years no matter the age. Could he have had the greatest season of all time sure, could he have also had a career ending injury or injuries that cost him a lot of time thats also possible as well. Its happened to countless players. Even if you just look in the last few seasons, Stras had HOF stuff his career is over, deGrom cant stay on the field, David Wright had his career ended early, Harper missed time for surgery, Othani has as well, and the list goes on and on.
Any of the sports and regardless of the player you cant assume stats would have been accumulated because there is no way to know whether or not they would have stayed healthy.
Assuming stats is assuming that the player would have been healthy and played a full season which we just do not know if it would have happened or not.
Missouri 14 OSU 3
Williams isnt the creator of modern hitting, that was around. He contributed to a book and I dont like having to talk negatively about him. Its not a discussion about who served their country better, its a discussion about who did more on the field.
Its fair to assume that if he was healthy even a down year would be a good year, its not fair to assume he would have never been subject to an injury though
Missouri 14 OSU 3
Bonds was a season and a half of production ahead of Williams and it took him five seasons worth of plate appearances to do that. That isn't better and that isn't assuming stats...it is showing Williams was better regardless of his service. The fact that he DID serve in the military, instead of playing MLB, only makes Williams still being better even MORE impressive.
Just shorten it to that so it isn't lost.
Im not sure why its so complicated that you are assuming stats and health if you believe that the stats in seasons not played would have been the difference
Missouri 14 OSU 3
@Basebal21
Bonds was a season and a half of production ahead of Williams and it took him five seasons worth of plate appearances to do that. That isn't better and that isn't assuming stats...it is showing Williams was better regardless of his service. The fact that he DID serve in the military, instead of playing MLB, only makes Williams still being better even MORE impressive.
Just shorten it to that so it isn't lost.
To simplify it down to its basic level
Did the athlete play the season yes or no. If the answer is no any talk of what they would have done in a season not played is an assumption of stats and assuming they had a healthy year
Missouri 14 OSU 3
Bonds was a season and a half of production ahead of Williams and it took him five seasons worth of plate appearances to do that. That isn't better and that isn't assuming stats...it is showing Williams was better regardless of his service. The fact that he DID serve in the military, instead of playing MLB, only makes Williams still being better even MORE impressive.
You could cure cancer and it doesnt make you a better player. Player vs player is about what they do on the field not about who is a better person or more likeable. Bonds also has literally a full season worth of at bats that were intentional walks
Missouri 14 OSU 3
Yes and Williams performed better on the field:
Run Expectancy per plate appearance. This accounts for men on hitting and baserunning.
Top two all time
Ruth 7.7
Williams 8.0
Big gap
Bonds 9.3
That includes the IBB
You keep using the OPS+ stat to determine which player was better. By this logic Mark Mcgwire was better than Stan Musial, Joe Dimaggio, Willie Mays, and Hank Aaron.
I look at the entire body of work and there is no question to me that Bonds was better.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
I think several times you see the main criteria being used:
Run Expectancy per plate appearance. This accounts for men on hitting and baserunning.
Top two all time
Ruth 7.7
Williams 8.0
Big gap
Bonds 9.3
OPS+ is the rate stat as one piece of evidence, but with stat and people who play as an old man (like Aaron, Mays, etcc...even Williams and BOnds), have that stat go down due to their old man years since it is a pure percentage stat, while McGwire didn't play many of those old man years. Well, Bonds wasn't hurt as an old man, he turned into Ruth for some reason there.
McGwire's OPS+ through age 30 was 143(lower than all those guys you mentioned, but still good as he was excellent hitter), but then something magical happened in the back end of his career to surpass those greats, again partly because they played longer and partly because of the magic.
..
Hey @Mistlin welcome to Sports Talk
What made you join in 2007 but not comment for 16 years?
~asking for a friend...🤷
I'll end with this: WAR (wins above replacement player for those who don't know) and takes into account the relative performance of players into account for the calculation of WAR for an individual player.
It's indisputable the average player skills and performance have increased over time in any sport. Training, nutrition, increased pool of available players are all factors in this inevitable upward increase in overall talent in every sport.
Bonds played decades after Williams and played in a league with specialized relievers, pitchers throwing harder than ever, and the most difficult time (to that point) to be a hitter.
Despite all that, Bonds established a lifetime WAR of 162.8. Williams? 121.8
Now, I know you Williams apologists will say he lost years to the war. Sure. Obviously he did. But let's give him 10 WAR per year he missed, that still leaves him 10 short.
Bonds is the obvious (and correct) answer.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
If you make the assumptions that you are making, you are correct. If you make the assumptions that everyone else is making, then we are correct.
BTW, defensive WAR is crap; if you want to persuade anyone, don't use it. If you use offensive WAR, Bonds lead is 18.5 and if you credit Williams with even half his annual average for his missing years, he passes Bonds.
The WAR defensive measurements are too wonky to validate, which throws a huge wrench into that comparison.
The talent level aspect has merit and I have stood away from that aspect for now. The degree of which it matters is way too much up in the air.
If Bonds didn't have a magical transformation from age 35-42 it would be a great discussion, otherwise those two obvious factors(yes the missing war years are an obvious factor even if one doesn't know what would have happened).
@coolstanley I am curious why you used Mark McGwire having a higher OPS+ than some greats as some sort of discredit? Were you on a different planet when he was hitting 70 Home Runs in 509 at bats while maintaining a .470 OB%?
From 1995-2001 Mark McGwire had 1.113 OPS. That is Babe Ruth territory. So why are you surprised his career OPS+ is so high? Shouldn't you be more surprised and curious how his OPS got so high in his 30's?
But...you don't get to credit Williams for those missing years. They are missing. So even taking out defensive WAR (which, sure) Bonds is 20.1 WAR ahead.
Even if you want to grant Ted the lead in WAR (even though you cannot), the marked difference in MVPs (7-2) is a more talent-rich environment should be all you need to know about what player was better.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
Actually, yes. Yes I do. I understand that you don't like it, but this is America and I can do what I want. I am also free to completely ignore what Bonds did when he was violating the rules of Major League Baseball. As I said - and it really isn't up for debate - you have your assumptions and I have mine, and they lead to different conclusions. My conclusion is that Ted Williams was MUCH better than Barry Bonds and I am entirely comfortable with that conclusion.
I have said this before, although it was years ago and you surely missed it, and I will say it again: if I ever base my position on what other people (sportswriters, managers, other players, etc.) thought, just shoot me, for I have clearly lost the ability to think for myself.