Happy 81st Birthday Willie Mays

  • Start date
    • •
  • Replies 150 Comments
  • • Views 11,972 Views
sounds like you are making a point, why not?
 
Daft
Noticed something interesting when comparing Bonds and WIlliams by era.

League BA during careers
Williams: .277
Bonds: .263

Leagues OBP
Williams: .356
Bonds: .333

Leagues SLUG
Williams: .409
Bonds: .410

Almost identical slugging percentages for their leagues, with much lower OBP for Bonds'.

Not really making a point, just a discrepancy I thought was interesting.

League OBP was above .360 six times in Williams' career. Highest it ever was in Bonds' was .344.


When you compare them to the leagues they played in, the seemingly gigantic gap in William's OBP lead is much slimmer.

Williams' OBP was 1.35x higher than the league for his career.
Bonds' was 1.33x higher than the league for his career.

As for power:

Williams' ISO was 2.19x higher than the league average.
Bonds' ISO was 2.10x higher than the league average.

And then there's OPS+, which has Williams at 190 and Bonds at 182.

Really close between the two of them, across the board. Biggest gap is due to BA. But Bonds almost dominated his era as an offensive player to as great an extent as Williams.

Williams was almost certainly the best hitter of all time. But I'm not sure the gap is so huge between him and Bonds that I'm willing to overlook defense and baserunner, where Bonds is the clear winner.
Click to expand...


interesting

but yeah so tough to compare eras.

so many variables.

but there is no doubt in my mind, that if you took a guy like Pujols as a 21 year old and put him in a time machine and put him back in 1910 as a rookie, that he'd hit about 1100 HRS and hit close to .500 every year.

a fifth starter on the Pirates would be Walter Johnson and Christy Mathewson's rival.

just a complete different game
 
Daft
Noticed something interesting when comparing Bonds and WIlliams by era.

League BA during careers
Williams: .277
Bonds: .263

Leagues OBP
Williams: .356
Bonds: .333

Leagues SLUG
Williams: .409
Bonds: .410

Almost identical slugging percentages for their leagues, with much lower OBP for Bonds'.

Not really making a point, just a discrepancy I thought was interesting.

League OBP was above .360 six times in Williams' career. Highest it ever was in Bonds' was .344.


When you compare them to the leagues they played in, the seemingly gigantic gap in William's OBP lead is much slimmer.

Williams' OBP was 1.35x higher than the league for his career.
Bonds' was 1.33x higher than the league for his career.

As for power:

Williams' ISO was 2.19x higher than the league average.
Bonds' ISO was 2.10x higher than the league average.

And then there's OPS+, which has Williams at 190 and Bonds at 182.

Really close between the two of them, across the board. Biggest gap is due to BA. But Bonds almost dominated his era as an offensive player to as great an extent as Williams.

Williams was almost certainly the best hitter of all time. But I'm not sure the gap is so huge between him and Bonds that I'm willing to overlook defense and baserunner, where Bonds is the clear winner.
Click to expand...

And a lot of Bonds OPS came from intentional walks.

Williams had to earn his way onto base.
 
how many Intentional Bases on Balls did Williams get in 1947?
 
Oh My!!!

Babe Ruth NEVER got intentionally walked???? no wonder these guys raked... until 1955 no pitcher was ever smart enough to issue an intentional pass?

but that's not the funniest part.
 
Archie
Oh My!!!

Babe Ruth NEVER got intentionally walked???? no wonder these guys raked... until 1955 no pitcher was ever smart enough to issue an intentional pass?

but that's not the funniest part.
Click to expand...

So you're not going to tell me how many he had in 1947?
 
What? You want me to regress Intentional Bases on Balls for these guys pre 1955 too?

HINT: It's going to look almost identical to the number of Home runs Ted Williams hit as a DH, and HR's in National League parks in the regular season, and Hits that Ted Williams had in Coors Field, and Aluminum bats that Ted broke over his knees. GENIUS.
 
Good talk.

Worthwhile as always.

Last time I do any work to provide proof for something on here. You guys can simply stay ignorant.
 
taking his calculator and ball and goin home boys!!!!

our loss, I guess

but what WAS funny is not that they didn't track a statistic until 1955 that you cited as 688 vs 86 as FACT!

But that if you remove all of Bond's intentional Walks that year, his OPS would have still been better then Ted William's best

or do we think he would tap back to the pitcher on all 120 of those free passes?

do I need to do the math for you at a slugging % of .812 for 120 ab's (of which he'd get walked about 25 times anyways) leaving 95 official ab's to slug .812 in for 77 more total bases. and so on and so forth....punch the numbers, punch the numbers, carry the 1, hit = on the calculator

Bond's OPS Comes in around 1.300 in 2004.

Still better then Ted's best year, batting against only white devils
 
Archie
taking his calculator and ball and goin home boys!!!!

our loss, I guess

but what WAS funny is not that they didn't track a statistic until 1955 that you cited as 688 vs 86 as FACT!

But that if you remove all of Bond's intentional Walks that year, his OPS would have still been better then Ted William's best

or do we think he would tap back to the pitcher on all 120 of those free passes?

do I need to do the math for you at a slugging % of .812 for 120 ab's (of which he'd get walked about 25 times anyways) leaving 95 official ab's to slug .812 in for 77 more total bases. and so on and so forth....punch the numbers, punch the numbers, carry the 1, hit = on the calculator

Bond's OPS Comes in around 1.300 in 2004.

Still better then Ted's best year, batting against only white devils
Click to expand...


:cougar:
 
Archie
taking his calculator and ball and goin home boys!!!!

our loss, I guess

but what WAS funny is not that they didn't track a statistic until 1955 that you cited as 688 vs 86 as FACT!
Click to expand...

It is a fact. Prove otherwise. It is also a fact that Williams did not get nearly as many intentional walks as Bonds. Not even close.

But that if you remove all of Bond's intentional Walks that year, his OPS would have still been better then Ted William's best

or do we think he would tap back to the pitcher on all 120 of those free passes?

do I need to do the math for you at a slugging % of .812 for 120 ab's (of which he'd get walked about 25 times anyways) leaving 95 official ab's to slug .812 in for 77 more total bases. and so on and so forth....punch the numbers, punch the numbers, carry the 1, hit = on the calculator

Bond's OPS Comes in around 1.300 in 2004.

Still better then Ted's best year, batting against only white devils
Click to expand...

Versus 1.422. Yeah no difference at all. 65 points in OPS is staggering. Or not. Whatever. Depends if the argument suits you idiots.

It's ONLY an 8.5% difference.

You win.
 
And, yes, I'm taking "my calculator and ball and goin home."

I'm not doing anything ever again to help you.
 
Puppet Mastered him back after he quit, due to his own re-worded quote getting under his skin!!!!!

:yeahsure::boxcleanersdaddy:

maybe we can get some Balk stats/FACTS from Ruths 60 HR year next?

night y'all!!!

MonkeyF0cker
What? You want me to regress OPS for these guys too?

HINT: It's going to look almost identical. In fact, it will probably be a lot more pronounced.

Williams had a ridiculous OPS anyway. Bonds wasn't as good as Williams even with the help of steroids.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.