joshheines wrote: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 This is unfair to Williams because he missed three prime years, which, for the purposes of this argument have been replaced by his average year.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) .
Williams (with appx 26% added): 3338 hits, 660 doubles, 89 triples, 655 HR, 2261 runs, 2313 RBI, 892K, 2539 walks, .344 AVG, .482 OBP, .634 SLG
Bonds: 2901 hits, 597 doubles, 77 triples, 751 HR, 2196 runs, 1972 RBI, 514 SB (vs. 141 CS for a 78.5% rate), 1517K, 2512 walks, .299 AVG, .445 OBP, .609 SLG.
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.
Sorry folks, Bonds wins.
Well WARP uses that god awful stat FRAR, while EQA doesn't. No doubt Bonds was a better fielder in his prime, but i still don't like using that stat. If we could go back and make zone ratings for Williams then that would be a different story.
However EQA doesn't. Bonds career EQA (adjusted for all time) is .357, while Williams is .364. So Williams was the better offensive player. BTW Ruth has a career EQA of .368, so using that measure Williams is a closer in offensive impact to Ruth then Bonds is to Williams.