Bonds vs. Williams

[Hammerin Hank]

Who was the better ballplayer between Teddy Ballgame and Battered Fried Barry?

Bonds: 18 yrs, 2579 hits, 653 HR, 1734 RBI, .297 BA, 1.034 OPS, 500 SB, .984 FP

Williams: 19 yrs, 2654 hits, 521 HR, 1839 RBI, .344 BA, 1.116 OPS, 24 SB, .974 FP

[tearforamariner]

Bonds because he is a more complete player.

[Hammerin Hank]

You have to admit that Bonds is the better fielder and baserunner. One could make an argument for Teddy's hitting over Bonds but does batting outweigh baserunning and fielding?

[tearforamariner]

I would also make the argument that Bonds scores more runs. Runs as we all know, win ball games.

[cubbieinexile]

Originally posted by Hammerin Hank
You have to admit that Bonds is the better fielder and baserunner. One could make an argument for Teddy's hitting over Bonds but does batting outweigh baserunning and fielding?

Yes

[2Chance]

Here's a dissenting vote. Not to say that Ted was hands down the better ballplayer, as Bonds' running and fielding stats show superiority here. Let me be the first to trot out Williams' war record. He missed five prime years, three in WWII and two in Korea. Sure, he wasn't playing ball then, but who can say what kind of numbers he would have put up in the HR and RBI departments without hurting his batting average? (Yes, there is a thread on that in here somewhere.)

Back on track: On defense, Barry has Ted in the glove department, but Ted had a stronger arm. Offensively, Ted was one of the first "scientific" hitters, who broke down pitches, at-bats, etc. to the point where he could write a book about it. Many other players did this kind of thing in their heads before, but Ted had to be different. Nowadays this scientific approach is popular, especially with the better hitters. But this was new in the 1940s, so I give Ted the nod there, and for always asking the more experienced guys questions and talking baseball with the veterans. That also made him a better player.

Average and OPS go to Williams, power numbers to Barry (barely. He put a lot of time in in the 1990s.) Base stealing to Barry, but with the game on the line, I would stick with Williams.

[bluezebra]

It's obvious that those who voted for Bonds are enamored by home runs. And never saw Williams bat.

No comparison. Ted was the purest hitter I ever saw. And he wasn't a Punch-and-Judy hitter, either. He hit home runs in an era where 140lb. infielders didn't hit 40 HRs a year.

Bonds, .295, 8 (complete) seasons under .300.
Williams, .344 (7th all-time), NO complete seasons under .300. Led AL six times in hitting. Led in OBP EVERY year after rookie season. Led 10 times in slugging, 9 consecutively. In runs 6 times, 5 in-a-row. Total bases 6 times. Home runs and RBIs 4 times each. Triple crown in 1947. Nine straight seasons with walks. In fact, the rule was changed for batting qualifying because of his walks.

Bob

[DaleC76]

Williams has an almost 50 point lead in OBP (.482 to .433) and a 30+ point lead in SLG (.634 to .601).

Barry has better numbers on the basepaths and with the glove, but there's no way fielding and running are equal in importance to hitting. Batting is at least 80% of the game for an outfielder, I'd say.

I'd have to take Ted Williams over Bonds, perhaps over anyone.

[Chadwick]

BA vs. league average
+32% Williams
+14% Bonds*

OBP vs. league average
+42% Williams
+31% Bonds

SLG vs. league average
+65% Williams
+50% Bonds

ISO vs. league average
+138% Williams
+116% Bonds

SEC vs. league average
+134% Williams
+130% Bonds



* Bonds' percentages are thru 2002 only.

None of the above numbers have been adjusted for park effects. Doing so would of course would decrease the margin of difference in most cases given that Fenway is a wonderful hitters' park while Bonds has played most of his career in pitcher-friendly stadiums.

[TrueDodgerFan]

IMO, I'd have to put Teddy in a list of the top 5 hitters of all time, and one could only imagine how the numbers would have looked had he not lost several of his prime years because of military service.

Not taking ANYTHING away from Barry and his accomplishments, I believe Ted's accomplishments are even more impressive when you consider that today's game gives Barry the following advantages (available to all current ballplayers):

* No fear of the inside pitch. In Ted's time, pitchers used the brush-back pitch as a strategic weapon, and batters wore no protective equipment. Today, umpires routinely warn pitchers for pitching inside and will eject them for inadvertantly hitting a batter, while batters come to the plate wearing protective helmets and padding on the arms and legs.

* Better instruction. In Ted's day, players and coaches had very crude methods for analyzing and correcting a players swing. Today's player has videotape and computer analysis available to dissect and perfect every part of his swing.

* Better physical training techniques. Regardless of whether or not Barry uses performance enhancing drugs, he has a year round training program that includes personal trainers and cutting edge training equipment and techniques. Obviously, players in Ted's time used fairly traditional training techniques.

Just my thoughts...

[Hammerin Hank]

I've always thought that Williams was the best hitter of all-time. I believe that Williams was a better hitter than that fat Babe guy. Of course, I receive a lot criticism for that.

[bluezebra]

Originally posted by Hammerin Hank
I've always thought that Williams was the best hitter of all-time. I believe that Williams was a better hitter than that fat Babe guy. Of course, I receive a lot criticism for that.

Calling Ruth, "that fat Babe guy" shows your ignorance. Ruth didn't put weight on until his last few years. 6'2", 215# is NOT fat.

From 1930-34, when he played in at least 125 games (the fewest in those five seasons), he hit .359, 49 HR, 153 RBI; .373, 46, 163; 341, 41, 137; .301, 34, 103; .288, 22, 84. He was 39 that final year.

Not too bad for a "Fat Guy".

Bob

[Appling]

Originally posted by tearforamariner
I would also make the argument that Bonds scores more runs. Runs as we all know, win ball games.

Ted scored 1798 runs in 2292 regular-season games.
Barry scored more runs (1830) but over 2439 games (thru 2002).

Ted not only missed five key seasons due to Military Service, but he also played in 154-game seasons, not 162. I give Ted the nod here, for his average of 0.784 runs per game (versus 0.750 runs per game for Barry).

Ted led his league in Runs Scored six times, with more than 130 runs in six seasons. Barry led the NL in runs ONCE, and his career best was 129 runs in 1993.

Runs are scored by getting on base. Despite Barry's record OBP year in 2002 Ted still holds the MLB record for highest career OBP with .482. Barry ranks #11 with a .428 career OBP thru 2002.

Anyway, Teddy was my boyhood idol. He has to win this vote!

[Hammerin Hank]

Originally posted by bluezebra
Calling Ruth, "that fat Babe guy" shows your ignorance. Ruth didn't put weight on until his last few years. 6'2", 215# is NOT fat.

From 1930-34, when he played in at least 125 games (the fewest in those five seasons), he hit .359, 49 HR, 153 RBI; .373, 46, 163; 341, 41, 137; .301, 34, 103; .288, 22, 84. He was 39 that final year.

Not too bad for a "Fat Guy".

Bob

Take a joke. Now you're making me refrain from making an uncivil post. Shame on you.

[J W]

Barry right now is having seasons on par or better than anyone in history, but we'll see how long that pace can be kept up. Ted Williams had an OBP above .450 for 15 straight seasons; 10 of those seasons yeilded a .490 or better.

Barry's Gold Glove ability and speed really sway me, but for right now I stick with Ted.