[Please tell me you are just joking. If not that, then you might want to dig a little deeper in to some facts.[/quote]
Yeah I am joking! I would love to have a teamate that plays when he wants to play ala Randy Moss.[/quote] lmao, what a pathetic argument.[/quote]
And being a Bond's supporter (I am assuming)...you would know alot about being pathetic.
Okay...that was tacky...and I apoligize. I have been trying very hard to not stoop too the level of Bond's and his dwindling number of supporters.
Your right....since Bond's is about to break the record..we should all make nice and and say he is the greatest human being/ballplayer that ever walked the face of the earth. And...his supporters deserve a badge of honor for sticking with this lowlife throughout his career.
4Pack wrote:Your right....since Bond's is about to break the record..we should all make nice and and say he is the greatest human being/ballplayer that ever walked the face of the earth.
No one has suggested you have to like, respect, or admire Bonds. What we have said is that your argument that Bonds is either some sort of Prima Donna or lazy or whatever because he sat out a day game after a night game is completely illogical and is nothing more than hatred.
You can hold off on the insults towards people who don't share your hate, they are neither original nor productive.
Very tough call because as somebody described earlier, do we consider the what if factor.
My heart says Williams, my head says Bonds.
Bonds, to date, has had approximately 26% more plate appearances than WIlliams. There are a number of factors. First, Williams missed three prime years (24-26) in the war. Second, the seasons back then were 154 games. Over the course of Williams' career he had the opportunity to play about 130 less games than Bonds did. Third, Williams missed more time in his mid-thirties to war.
It's unfair to Williams, but adding 26% to all of Williams career counting numbers (HR, RBI, runs, etc), would place Williams with the same number of plate appearances as Bonds. This is unfair to Williams because he missed three prime years, which, for the purposes of this argument have been replaced by his average year. Nonetheless, the information provides useful and accurate as Williams actually averaged more HR per PA in his later years than he did in his prime years. Only the RBI calculation would really change much (and only by 37 RBI) .
So what does the evidence reveal? Williams was a better contact hitter as evidenced by AVG; however, Bonds had a better eye and more power as evidenced by OBP-AVG and SLG-AVG.
Not so fast, right. We're comparing guys from two distinct eras (even assuming Bonds never used steroids). Williams WARP3 (which calculates wins above replacement across baseball eras) was 171.7, Bonds is at 242.9. For comparison, generally a WARP of 100.0 indicates a HOFer. Now, let's add in the fact that Bonds had 26% more PA than Williams, and let's recalculate the WARP3 to assume Williams would have produced according to his average in the additional appearances. Even with the additional 26%, Williams lands at 216.3, a lot lower than Bonds, by about 2.5 seasons worth.
joshheines wrote:Not so fast, right. We're comparing guys from two distinct eras (even assuming Bonds never used steroids). Williams WARP3 (which calculates wins above replacement across baseball eras) was 171.7, Bonds is at 242.9. For comparison, generally a WARP of 100.0 indicates a HOFer. Now, let's add in the fact that Bonds had 26% more PA than Williams, and let's recalculate the WARP3 to assume Williams would have produced according to his average in the additional appearances. Even with the additional 26%, Williams lands at 216.3, a lot lower than Bonds, by about 2.5 seasons worth.
Sorry folks, Bonds wins.
About the only thing I have to offer up for you is that if you want to compare the two players in the terms of how the question was phrased you are better off using the adjusted BRAA instead of WARP3. When you you remove the defense and make the 26% adjustment to Williams you get a virtual dead heat between the two (1468 BRAA for Bonds vs 1464 for Williams).
Personally when judging them simply as hitters I give a slight edge to Ted Williams. In their best seasons Bonds was better, the more years you include as the peak the more Williams gains ground. When you factor in all aspects of the game Bonds was better by a large margin.
Tavish wrote:Personally when judging them simply as hitters I give a slight edge to Ted Williams. In their best seasons Bonds was better, the more years you include as the peak the more Williams gains ground. When you factor in all aspects of the game Bonds was better by a large margin.
If you're talking history, I'll take Williams. If you're talikng today, I'll take Bonds. They've never played against the same players, during the same era or with the same game or team philosphy. Apples and Oranges.
The glass is neither half full nor half empty... It is simply a glass
Deuce wrote:If you're talking history, I'll take Williams. If you're talikng today, I'll take Bonds. They've never played against the same players, during the same era or with the same game or team philosphy. Apples and Oranges.
I'd take Bonds today too since Williams' head is frozen in a cryogenic chamber in Arizona
I actually dont really have anything to add either way on who's the better player. Personally I like teddy more. Although I obviously never saw him play, he seems like a really complete hitter and thats what I love. The guy could hit for average and power, hit to all fields, and had probably the best understanding of the strike zone of any player thats ever played the game. It is really really really hard to look past all the steroids issues today, but even if i could i still think I would take "the splendid splinter"...
That being said the all-star game in fenway where williams was brought onto the field was probably my most favorite memory of baseball right now. It brought everyone in the stadium to tears and personally I doubt bonds will do that many years down the road. He was a great man and represents all that is good in baseball..
After I told my dad I was reading this argument he told me that teddy was almost more famous for his fly fishing ability than his baseball skills. A quick google search turned up this article
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Fantasy Man 27 » Thu Jul 05, 2007 2:44 am 
