There's no doubt about it. If Babe Ruth was born in 2001 he'd be destroying the league. Same with Williamsy. Athletes are products of the styles and science of their times. What matters is how they competed against the other great athletes of their time. Jesse Owens would be just as good because he'd have the benefit of everything the modern athlete has.
People were dismissing Ted Williams? The guy was a phenomenal hitter. He hit a home run off an eephus pitch. He hit .388 when he was 38. He hit a HR in his final at-bat. And you’ve mentioned the war years already.
Anyone who derides the accomplishments of Ted Williams is a fool. They don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. I once read that Ted would ask a teammate who batted before him what the pitcher was throwing. If the previous batter didn’t know, Ted would chew them out.
Wanna know what the tell of Teddy Ballgames greatness was?…. The All-Star game…. I forget which year…. When Williams was the honored player, drove out in the middle of the diamond before the first pitch… and every. Single. Player. On both teams. Came out to meet him, have a picture taken with him. Ask him a question about hitting. Held up the start of the game for like 15 minutes.I got chills watching that. Game knows game. Any “writer” who disavows that Ted’s talent would dominate in any era should never be believed about anything else he writes. Ever again.
I've not seen the analysis of the stats Williams would have had if not for military service, but that has only increased my respect for him! He's been one of my all-time faves, and this only cements that!
I think in just about any sport the elites from the old school would be fine. But given how scientific Teddy Ballgame was about hitting, how he understood launch angle, and how he was able to return after long absences and still dominate, it beggars belief that anyone would argue that Ted Williams, of all people, wouldn't be great today.
So well said man I hate that argument. I feel like baseball is the only sport where the fans respect past players more than any other sport. Basketball fans constantly hate on players from different eras but baseball fans are different. This makes me so mad when I see disrespect from the baseball community towards past player. Nice article.
Maybe the guy who said Williams wouldn’t survive in today’s game (for just a day even!) is a pleasant enough fellow for you to genuinely like him, but to make that totally unsupportable statement, he’s declared himself an idiot and attention whore who shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near an American ballpark. Jesus.
"Until I saw some of the comments. Immediately, the gremlins like Will Mossa from Overdue Sports jumped into the comment section about how Ted Williams wouldn’t survive a day in today's baseball. To me, it is one of the most frustrating arguments out there, and for the exception of Will, because I love him, if you die on a hill saying one player couldn’t play in the next, then you should go watch football or some other boring sport."
Your "what if" projection regarding how Ted Williams would have placed among the all-time leaders in the stats you listed is based on the premise that he would have matched his career averages over each of the "lost" seasons.. However, given his age at the time of his deployment, and his trajectory at the time, it's more than likely that the years he missed would have been his best years. Given this incalculable, but presumptive reality, Ted Williams, had he not served in WWII and Korea, would have finished his career as the all-time leader in every MLB hitting statistic. While this can't be proven, I would contend that it could certainly be assumed. With that said, the trouble with such "what if" scenarios in baseball is that one can easily go down a rabbit hole asking what would this guy have done if this thing hadn't happened. A couple examples from a Twins fan... How many games would Bert Blyleven have won in his career if he'd had just average run support? How would Justin Morneau's career stat line look if he hadn't endured a season ending and career altering concussion midway through the 2007 season. And most notable, where would Kirby Puckett have landed among MLB career hitting leaders had he not been forced to retire after just 12 seasons upon the loss of his vision in one eye?
My projection is based on the bell shaped MLB hitter aging curve. Ted Williams' military career spanned ages 23-26, and the first three years of his return spanned ages 27-29. The bell curve suggests that during the '42, '43, and '44 seasons, his hitting performance would still be on the ascent, peaking in the '45 season, and remain at his peak performance level through the '48 season. While it's impossible to know if Williams' trajectory would follow this average aging bell curve, it's scary to imagine what kind of numbers he might have put up in the '42 through '48 seasons if it had.
I just finished reading your MVP Snubs blog and while I do agree that Ted Williams was a full a full cut above Joe Gordon and Joe DiMaggio in terms of performance in those two seasons, I think you miss a couple of important points... The MVP award is bestowed upon the player deemed by voters to be "most valuable", not "best", or "highest performing". While it's true that a bias exists in MVP voting, the bias gives additional weight to pennant winners, with far too many examples to list. If the Bosox had won the American League championship in 1942 and 1947, Ted Williams would surely have won the MVP award.
Though I'm not disputing that playing a role, I stand firm in my belief that it was mostly the extra weight given to players on pennant winning teams. The historical examples of this are many, and the 1947 snub of Ted Williams is not the most glaring of them. I don't personally see this as wrong. I think it's fair to make a distinction between "best" and "most valuable".
If it were up to me, there would be a "best overall position player" award which would be based on a player's all-around performance and ignore team success completely. I would call it "The Ted William's award" and present the trophy it in a ceremony along with the Cy Young award.
The snub by that writer played more than a role. It robbed Ted of the award. A 10th place vote would have given him the one point necessary to tie DiMaggio. It was beyond ridiculous.
As I said, I don't dispute the role that one stubborn writer played. My question for you is, do you dispute my contention that if performance alone was the criteria, and no weight was given to team success, Ted Williams would have won the award in a landslide.
In 1947, Joe DiMaggio had 3 stolen bases and Ted Williams had none. Williams outperformed DiMaggio in each and every offensive statistic with that lone exception, many by large margins.
The Red Sox won 83 games in 1947, a respectable season. How many would they have won without Ted? The Yankees won the pennant by 12 games and, by his standards, Joe had a mediocre season. Who was more valuable?
The 1942 Red Sox finished second, nine games back of the Yankees and Joe Gordon won the MVP. Gordon had an excellent season but Ted won the triple crown with a strong 93 win second place team.
I agree that Williams clearly should have won the award by a landslide in both seasons but he lost because he was unpopular with a number of voters.
Team success should be a factor in deciding a close MVP race but these two decisions weren’t based on the Yankees winning the pennants.
There's no doubt about it. If Babe Ruth was born in 2001 he'd be destroying the league. Same with Williamsy. Athletes are products of the styles and science of their times. What matters is how they competed against the other great athletes of their time. Jesse Owens would be just as good because he'd have the benefit of everything the modern athlete has.
Amen
People were dismissing Ted Williams? The guy was a phenomenal hitter. He hit a home run off an eephus pitch. He hit .388 when he was 38. He hit a HR in his final at-bat. And you’ve mentioned the war years already.
People are dumb.
Anyone who derides the accomplishments of Ted Williams is a fool. They don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. I once read that Ted would ask a teammate who batted before him what the pitcher was throwing. If the previous batter didn’t know, Ted would chew them out.
Until the day he died, my dad lamented “Williams never should have gone back (into military service) the second time.”
He’d always say it with the tone of someone whose house had been robbed of his most prized possession.
Wanna know what the tell of Teddy Ballgames greatness was?…. The All-Star game…. I forget which year…. When Williams was the honored player, drove out in the middle of the diamond before the first pitch… and every. Single. Player. On both teams. Came out to meet him, have a picture taken with him. Ask him a question about hitting. Held up the start of the game for like 15 minutes.I got chills watching that. Game knows game. Any “writer” who disavows that Ted’s talent would dominate in any era should never be believed about anything else he writes. Ever again.
1999 all-star game at Fenway.
Thanks, I was thinking 1998, but wasn’t sure. I knew someone in the ‘stackerati would know the right year.
I remember my 4yo son sitting in front of the TV asking a million Ted Williams questions. He still has the hat and poster.
I've not seen the analysis of the stats Williams would have had if not for military service, but that has only increased my respect for him! He's been one of my all-time faves, and this only cements that!
Not to over-focus on 1941 … still … love this stat line … Williams vs DiMaggio during the 56 game streak …
May 15 - July 16, 1941:
DiMaggio - .408 / .463 / .717
Williams - .412 / .540 / .684
(SOURCE: Brian Kenny's Ahead of the Curve, pg 271)
I think in just about any sport the elites from the old school would be fine. But given how scientific Teddy Ballgame was about hitting, how he understood launch angle, and how he was able to return after long absences and still dominate, it beggars belief that anyone would argue that Ted Williams, of all people, wouldn't be great today.
So well said man I hate that argument. I feel like baseball is the only sport where the fans respect past players more than any other sport. Basketball fans constantly hate on players from different eras but baseball fans are different. This makes me so mad when I see disrespect from the baseball community towards past player. Nice article.
Greatest hitter of all time. Passan must have had a bad day.
Maybe the guy who said Williams wouldn’t survive in today’s game (for just a day even!) is a pleasant enough fellow for you to genuinely like him, but to make that totally unsupportable statement, he’s declared himself an idiot and attention whore who shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near an American ballpark. Jesus.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Did you not write this?
"Until I saw some of the comments. Immediately, the gremlins like Will Mossa from Overdue Sports jumped into the comment section about how Ted Williams wouldn’t survive a day in today's baseball. To me, it is one of the most frustrating arguments out there, and for the exception of Will, because I love him, if you die on a hill saying one player couldn’t play in the next, then you should go watch football or some other boring sport."
Will has a tab on our websites home page. He is one of our close friends. I encourage you to subscribe so you will understand the inside jokes.
Your "what if" projection regarding how Ted Williams would have placed among the all-time leaders in the stats you listed is based on the premise that he would have matched his career averages over each of the "lost" seasons.. However, given his age at the time of his deployment, and his trajectory at the time, it's more than likely that the years he missed would have been his best years. Given this incalculable, but presumptive reality, Ted Williams, had he not served in WWII and Korea, would have finished his career as the all-time leader in every MLB hitting statistic. While this can't be proven, I would contend that it could certainly be assumed. With that said, the trouble with such "what if" scenarios in baseball is that one can easily go down a rabbit hole asking what would this guy have done if this thing hadn't happened. A couple examples from a Twins fan... How many games would Bert Blyleven have won in his career if he'd had just average run support? How would Justin Morneau's career stat line look if he hadn't endured a season ending and career altering concussion midway through the 2007 season. And most notable, where would Kirby Puckett have landed among MLB career hitting leaders had he not been forced to retire after just 12 seasons upon the loss of his vision in one eye?
I don't think he'd have caught Ruth. He certainly would have ended up close to Mays though and 600 hrs would have been an absolute lock.
My projection is based on the bell shaped MLB hitter aging curve. Ted Williams' military career spanned ages 23-26, and the first three years of his return spanned ages 27-29. The bell curve suggests that during the '42, '43, and '44 seasons, his hitting performance would still be on the ascent, peaking in the '45 season, and remain at his peak performance level through the '48 season. While it's impossible to know if Williams' trajectory would follow this average aging bell curve, it's scary to imagine what kind of numbers he might have put up in the '42 through '48 seasons if it had.
I just finished reading your MVP Snubs blog and while I do agree that Ted Williams was a full a full cut above Joe Gordon and Joe DiMaggio in terms of performance in those two seasons, I think you miss a couple of important points... The MVP award is bestowed upon the player deemed by voters to be "most valuable", not "best", or "highest performing". While it's true that a bias exists in MVP voting, the bias gives additional weight to pennant winners, with far too many examples to list. If the Bosox had won the American League championship in 1942 and 1947, Ted Williams would surely have won the MVP award.
I 100% agree. I would like the award to take team success more seriously again. This was more pointing out big stat differences.
Williams lost the 1947 MVP because one spiteful voter left Ted off of his ballot completely.
Though I'm not disputing that playing a role, I stand firm in my belief that it was mostly the extra weight given to players on pennant winning teams. The historical examples of this are many, and the 1947 snub of Ted Williams is not the most glaring of them. I don't personally see this as wrong. I think it's fair to make a distinction between "best" and "most valuable".
If it were up to me, there would be a "best overall position player" award which would be based on a player's all-around performance and ignore team success completely. I would call it "The Ted William's award" and present the trophy it in a ceremony along with the Cy Young award.
The snub by that writer played more than a role. It robbed Ted of the award. A 10th place vote would have given him the one point necessary to tie DiMaggio. It was beyond ridiculous.
As I said, I don't dispute the role that one stubborn writer played. My question for you is, do you dispute my contention that if performance alone was the criteria, and no weight was given to team success, Ted Williams would have won the award in a landslide.
In 1947, Joe DiMaggio had 3 stolen bases and Ted Williams had none. Williams outperformed DiMaggio in each and every offensive statistic with that lone exception, many by large margins.
The Red Sox won 83 games in 1947, a respectable season. How many would they have won without Ted? The Yankees won the pennant by 12 games and, by his standards, Joe had a mediocre season. Who was more valuable?
The 1942 Red Sox finished second, nine games back of the Yankees and Joe Gordon won the MVP. Gordon had an excellent season but Ted won the triple crown with a strong 93 win second place team.
I agree that Williams clearly should have won the award by a landslide in both seasons but he lost because he was unpopular with a number of voters.
Team success should be a factor in deciding a close MVP race but these two decisions weren’t based on the Yankees winning the pennants.
I think we can agree that more than one thing can be true.
The idea that the Splendid Splinter couldn’t play today is stupidity & assumes a man with his gifts would be unable to adapt.
He might not hit .400 but he’d be feared nonetheless.
Another important fact that's impossible to measure is the fact that he ignored the Williams Shift and refused to hit to all fields.
It is absurd that anyone has to defend William’s abilities. The next thing you know they will say that Wade Boggs couldn’t have hit today’s pitching.