Ted Williams vs. Barry Bonds

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 2, 2008 4:00 AM EST Comment 33 comments

Disclaimer: I had no intention of taking this angle, but after about 400 words noticed it was a worthwhile one.

I was toying around in SQL, looking at single season high in certain statistics and threw in the formula for OPS. I set the at-bats criteria a little lower than I usually do because I wanted to include the seasons where Bonds walked 170+ times. It wasn't until after the fact that I realized I could've just ordered by plate appearances, but it makes little difference for this post. The number of ABs ended up being 350 or more, and I must say, even I didn't realize how good Ted Williams 1957 stacked up.

Player	Year	Team	HR	BB	PA	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS
Bonds	2004	SFN	45	232	617	0.3619	0.6094	0.8123	1.4217
Bonds	2002	SFN	46	198	612	0.3697	0.5817	0.799	1.3807
Bonds	2001	SFN	73	177	664	0.3277	0.5151	0.8634	1.3785
Bonds	2003	SFN	45	148	550	0.341	0.5291	0.7487	1.2778
Williams	1957	BOS	38	119	546	0.3881	0.5256	0.731	1.2566
McGwire	1998	SLN	70	162	681	0.2986	0.4699	0.7525	1.2224
Thomas	1994	CHA	38	109	517	0.3534	0.4874	0.7293	1.2168
Bagwell	1994	HOU	39	65	479	0.3675	0.4509	0.75	1.2009
McGwire	1996	OAK	52	116	548	0.3121	0.4672	0.7305	1.1976
Mantle	1957	NYA	34	146	623	0.365	0.512	0.6646	1.1766

If that wasn't enough, I wanted to compared run environments by league, like so:

Player	Year	Team	LG R/G
Bonds	2004	SFN	4.64
Bonds	2002	SFN	4.45
Bonds	2001	SFN	4.7
Bonds	2003	SFN	4.61
Williams	1957	BOS	4.23
McGwire	1998	SLN	4.6
Thomas	1994	CHA	5.23
Bagwell	1994	HOU	4.62
McGwire	1996	OAK	5.39
Mantle	1957	NYA	4.23

In case you can't "order by lg r/g desc" in your mind, I've done it for you:

Player	Year	Team	LG R/G	OPS
McGwire	1996	OAK	5.39	1.1976
Thomas	1994	CHA	5.23	1.2168
Bonds	2001	SFN	4.7	1.3785
Bonds	2004	SFN	4.64	1.4217
Bagwell	1994	HOU	4.62	1.2009
Bonds	2003	SFN	4.61	1.2778
McGwire	1998	SLN	4.6	1.2224
Bonds	2002	SFN	4.45	1.3807
Williams	1957	BOS	4.23	1.2566
Mantle	1957	NYA	4.23	1.1766

Bonds beats him in quantity, but goodness sakes , the average AL OPS in 1957 was .708! Williams had a .525 wOBA and that was as a 38-year-old. I did some quick data crunching and the ML average was .319. That means that over 600 plate appearances, Williams was 107 runs better than average.When old age and epic performances are brought to mind most of us will think about Bonds, and rightfully so. If anyone could top Williams 38-year-old season versus the league, it would have to be Bonds. Right? Well, of course. As a 39-year-old in 2004 Bonds had a wOBA of .538. League average was .330, meaning Bonds was 109 runs better. That's, um, amazing.

Rather than go through the processes of "anything Williams could do Bonds could do better" I gathered their career wOBA versus league average numbers for a concise analysis. Note that I did use real PA numbers.

Player	Age	Year	PA	PwOBA	LgwOBA	Runs
Bonds	21	1986	484	0.345	0.32	10.52
Bonds	22	1987	611	0.355	0.326	15.41
Bonds	23	1988	614	0.373	0.312	32.57
Bonds	24	1989	679	0.346	0.313	19.48
Bonds	25	1990	621	0.43	0.319	59.94
Bonds	26	1991	634	0.404	0.318	47.41
Bonds	27	1992	612	0.469	0.317	80.89
Bonds	28	1993	674	0.469	0.327	83.22
Bonds	29	1994	474	0.447	0.333	46.99
Bonds	30	1995	635	0.429	0.333	51.9
Bonds	31	1996	675	0.454	0.335	69.85
Bonds	32	1997	690	0.437	0.332	63
Bonds	33	1998	697	0.435	0.331	63.03
Bonds	34	1999	434	0.421	0.341	30.19
Bonds	35	2000	607	0.458	0.341	61.76
Bonds	36	2001	664	0.539	0.327	122.41
Bonds	37	2002	612	0.546	0.326	177.08
Bonds	38	2003	550	0.506	0.328	85.13
Bonds	39	2004	617	0.538	0.33	111.6
Bonds	40	2005	52	0.426	0.326	4.52
Bonds	41	2006	493	0.41	0.332	33.44
Bonds	42	2007	477	0.429	0.331	40.65

Career RV/PA: .104
2008 comparison: Chipper Jones (.104)

And Williams:

Player	Age	Year	PA	PwOBA	LgwOBA	Runs
Williams	20	1939	677	0.464	0.344	70.64
Williams	21	1940	661	0.458	0.333	71.27
Williams	22	1941	606	0.565	0.334	121.73
Williams	23	1942	671	0.522	0.323	116.11
Williams	27	1946	672	0.524	0.328	144.53
Williams	28	1947	693	0.507	0.336	103.05
Williams	29	1948	638	0.505	0.341	90.98
Williams	30	1949	730	0.51	0.344	105.37
Williams	31	1950	616	0.483	0.346	73.38
Williams	32	1951	674	0.464	0.337	74.43
Williams	33	1952	12	0.603	0.327	2.88
Williams	34	1953	110	0.59	0.336	24.3
Williams	35	1954	526	0.509	0.333	80.5
Williams	36	1955	417	0.508	0.327	65.63
Williams	37	1956	503	0.471	0.326	63.42
Williams	38	1957	546	0.525	0.319	97.81
Williams	39	1958	517	0.451	0.32	58.89
Williams	40	1959	331	0.351	0.319	9.21
Williams	41	1960	390	0.47	0.319	51.21

Career RV/PA: .143
2008 comparison: Albert Pujols (.117)

Bonds	Williams
1310.99	1425.34

So without adjusting for park it appears Williams wins. Here's some other interesting comparisons:

Bonds five best average out to be 115.89, Williams to 118.16 runs.
Bonds seven best average out to be 104.31, Williams to be 111.37 runs.
Bonds ten best average out to be 91.80, Williams to 100.79 runs.

	Bonds	Williams
Pre-30	396.43	718.31
Post-30	914.56	707.03

There are still a few issues worth discussing and analyzing:

1) Park adjustments: Williams played in a hitters park his entire career, Bonds played in a pitchers park for most of his.

2) Talent adjustments: Williams played in an era with a ton of whites, some blacks, and not much else. Bonds played in the most diversified talent pool to date.

3) Enhancement adjustments: medical, technological, ect., clearly Bonds takes the advantage here.

4) Fielding: I didn't take it into account whatsoever. Was Bonds a better fielder than Williams? Can we prove so with a reliable metric?

I do want to ask something, and no it's not the predictable poll asking you to judge overall superiority. Instead, who had the more incredible oddities?

Reference

Fangraphs

1 recs | Comment 33 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Don't forget the wars

Williams missed his 24-26 seasons and the majority of his age 33 season to WWII and Korea respectively.

Not only would those 3.9 seasons increase his counting stat lead, but Williams had his best year relative to league his first season back in 1946. It’s not hard to imagine 2 or 3 other amazing seasons in there, and that’s if we assume no players were missing.

Now consider Williams compared to the war-time talent and let your imagination run wild.

by Dan Turkenkopf on Dec 2, 2008 8:08 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

How unbelievable is his 1946 season?

Not sure many guys could take a few seasons off to go fight in a war, return, and still dominate.

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 2, 2008 10:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

heh

“3) Enhancement adjustments: medical, technological, ect., clearly Bonds takes the advantage here.”

no shit :P (and this comes from a Bonds supporter)

by RollingWave on Dec 2, 2008 9:03 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I still don't get why owners aren't willing to sign Bonds

'That's something we do...thirteen hits and not score'-Terrence Long

by DyeLongJustice on Dec 2, 2008 9:52 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

duh

collusionnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

by RollingWave on Dec 2, 2008 10:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

last year, easily can argue some sort of collusion.

this year, bonds has a criminal trial starting during ST. i doubt there are (m)any teams that want their name attached daily in the press to a criminal trial, largely about steroids, at the start of the baseball season (or any time, for that matter). now if he’s found not guilty, we’re back to collusion.

JERRY OWENS

by larry on Dec 2, 2008 10:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He should've retired

He should’ve turned around and said ‘I don’t need this s@#$‘. He’s too good to be unsigned because of a collusion.

Mother---- him and John Wayne!

by MerryGoByeBye on Dec 2, 2008 11:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I have a hard time comparing hitters from such different times

Bonds played in a time where it seems like everyone was a roided up monster bombing 60+ HRs, but Williams played against less ‘advanced’ pitchers. I don’t know who gets the non-numbers edge here.

Mother---- him and John Wayne!

by MerryGoByeBye on Dec 2, 2008 10:56 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

I think technology available to players was sparse back then. Now, players can watch game film of themselves, opposing pitchers, themselves vs. opposing pitchers, etc. I’m pretty sure this wasn’t widespread (if it was used at all) in the 40s.

by jwiscarson on Dec 2, 2008 10:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, but this is a weapon to opposing pitchers/catchers too

And all the advancement in technology and sports medicine also help the pitchers.

Mother---- him and John Wayne!

by MerryGoByeBye on Dec 2, 2008 11:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I was thinking the same

thing as MerryGo. That’s why I like how RJ did league comparisons. One of the main things that does not come into play is stolen bases and base running. I believe Bonds has to have gained some RV/PA with his speed but it doesn’t seem accounted for. I cuold be wrong and it may somehow be in wOBA since I am no expert.

by jcmitchell on Dec 2, 2008 11:23 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Is Fenway a hitter's park for LH batters too?

I’ve always been under the impression it was a hitters park for RH batters only, but I could be wrong.

"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." Ben Franklin

by Jed MC on Dec 2, 2008 12:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Also, Barry never had a tunnel named after him.

"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." Ben Franklin

by Jed MC on Dec 2, 2008 12:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't have the splits available from Williams days, but LH hitters see an increase in doubles nowadays.

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 2, 2008 1:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He was pre-monster, I think

Not sure about that.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 2, 2008 2:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

as far as i know, that wall has always been at fenway.

JERRY OWENS

by larry on Dec 2, 2008 2:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wade Boggs and Yaz

sure loved hitting in Fenway.

by jcmitchell on Dec 2, 2008 12:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Excellent.

Furcal

by JI on Dec 2, 2008 1:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

There's a difference between these statements:

Williams was more valuable than Bonds.

vs.

Williams was a better player than Bonds.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Dec 2, 2008 5:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

is this another proper grammar lesson...?

JERRY OWENS

by larry on Dec 2, 2008 6:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

How

Please, do explain, because I fail to see how a player can be better at everything and less valuable.

Mother---- him and John Wayne!

by MerryGoByeBye on Dec 2, 2008 7:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

As one example, the player pool was much weaker/shallower back in the 40s and 50s.

So let’s say both Bonds and Williams rate 10/10 as compared against all players past and future in the history of the galaxy. Williams played against major leagues that averaged 8/10. Bonds played against major leaguers that averaged 9/10. So both were equally valuable, but Williams was more valuable, in his day, because he was “more better” than everyone else than Bonds was.

So when you do the math, Williams comes out as having more runs above average, meaning his contributions did more to help his team win games than Bonds’ contributions did, but Bonds could have been just as good of a player.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Dec 2, 2008 7:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

are you implying that ted williams is actually from the future, where baseball players are better, and he travelled through time to the past so he could dominate the lesser players of that era?

if so, i’m with you.

JERRY OWENS

by larry on Dec 2, 2008 8:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That should read...

both were equally TALENTED, but Williams was more valuable, because he was more better than his peers than Bonds was better than his peers (because of a weaker player pool in the 40s).

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Dec 2, 2008 8:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Fair point, but when you put their contributions together with the averages of their peers

It shows one of them was better, no? If, say, Till Lindemann go back in time to hit 73 HRs in 1905, when the most powerful dude mashed 9 bombs, he had a better season on this respect alone than Barry did in 2001. Because you have to consider the league averages when comparing players from different times. And when you do, the 1905 guy was more valuable and better than Barry.

I would only agree with you if you can point me a player being worse than another and still being more valuable.

Mother---- him and John Wayne!

by MerryGoByeBye on Dec 2, 2008 10:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My point is that Lindemann was more valuable than Barry, but Barry was better.

Why? Because Lindemann, given his skills, would have hit, say, 15 HRs in 2001. Barry has more talent. Put him in the same league as Lindemann, and he’ll be more valuable. But because Barry’s actual seasons are compared to better players, those seasons are less valuable.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Dec 3, 2008 10:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ok, now I get what you mean

You’re right.

Mother---- him and John Wayne!

by MerryGoByeBye on Dec 3, 2008 12:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's hard to have this discussion

Because we really have two possibilities for “better”:

1. A subjective feeling.
2. Performance relative to peers.

Definition 1 makes it pretty difficult to come up with an example that everyone agrees with because it’s subjective.

Definition 2 makes your question impossible to answer. If we define better as being more valuable relative to peers, then we can’t find a counter-example by definition.

I can think of possible examples but most either artificially restrict population size to make the point, or involve players being less valuable because of circumstances beyond their control (i.e. Josh Gibson). I don’t think either of those cases are what you’re looking for.

One area of exploration that might be more fruitful is if we define “better” as wins above average, while we define “value” as wins above replacement. Then it might be possible to find two players from different eras where one had more wins above average while the other had more wins above replacement. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone like Dan Rosenheck or another person over at the Hall of Merit could identify some players who fit that criteria.

by Dan Turkenkopf on Dec 3, 2008 8:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Ugh

I’m really bad at making sure I reply to the threaded discussion instead of starting a new comment.

Sorry.

by Dan Turkenkopf on Dec 3, 2008 8:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not sure I agree here (or else I'm missing your point).

You can define more VALUABLE as relative to peers (average or replacement or whatever), but define BETTER as more talent, taking the value metric (or other stats) and doing lots of appropriate adjustments to account for league strength. It’s not easy, but there have been some pretty good attempts.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Dec 3, 2008 10:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

basically

if every starting pitcher in baseball except for derek lowe were, shall we say, eliminated and all of his peers were now basically minor leaguers, lowe’s value would skyrocket because the gap in value between him and everyone else is massive. but lowe isn’t better than a lot of other past pitchers even though his value is probably now higher than any starting pitcher ever. extreme example but i think it helps clarify.

JERRY OWENS

by larry on Dec 3, 2008 12:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure you're really measuring better

To me, better is a direct comparison between two people. I think you’re saying that it might be possible to get to a direct comparison by:

Comparing player 1 to his peers.
Comparing player 2 to his peers.
Comparing player 1’s peers to player 2’s peers and figuring out the proper adjustments.

In theory I think that would work, but as you mention, it’s a whole lot harder to do in practice.

And I think league strength and era adjustments might break down at the extremes. So the approach might work for comparing Davy Concepcion to Omar Vizquel, but might not work for comparing Ted Williams to Barry Bonds. No real scientific reason why, just feel like it might be the case.

by Dan Turkenkopf on Dec 3, 2008 5:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

About Bonds and Williams

I feel they were just too good in the time they played, it’s hard to compare in this case because it’s hard to say if they could ever be better. Don’t know if that’s what you mean, but I see it that way.

Mother---- him and John Wayne!

by MerryGoByeBye on Dec 3, 2008 9:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs