From: drw3l@delmarva.evsc.Virginia.EDU (David Robert Walker)
Subject: Re: NUMBER 24
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 03:50:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.221919.2956@holos0.uucp> lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed) writes:
>In article <20004@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> itlm013@george.ucdavis.edu (Captain Caveman) writes:
>
>>I think that Bonds is every bit
>>the player Mays was - both were top of the heap.  
>
>Well, I don't think Barry Bonds is every bit the player that Mays was.
>Willie Mays hit 660 home runs.  Some claim that Willie Mays was the
>greatest ever to play the game.  (I would dispute that.)
>
>Barry Bonds may be the best right now, but that doesn't necessarily
>put him in Mays' class.  This is not to say that baseball is worse now
>than in the "good ol' days."  It just says that some eras don't have
>a Willie Mays, or a Ted Williams, or a Babe Ruth.  You seem to be
>arguing that anyone who is the best player at a given time is at the
>pinnacle of the game.  I disagree.  The Mike Schmidt of the early
>1980s was not a Babe Ruth.
>
Well, why don't we see how the two compare. The following sets of
stats are for Mays and Bonds through age 28. Both have had their
career adjusted to the context of the 1991 American League. The listed
equivalent averages are park and league adjusted, and are the same as
what the player actually had in that season. The at bats, hits, etc,
are the values needed to produce that eqa in the 1991 AL, neutral park.

Willie Mays
  1951   482  126   26    4   23   58    9    4 .2712   82   .261 .341 .475
  1952   134   31    2    3    6   17    6    1 .2508   20   .231 .318 .425
  1954   596  195   40    9   45   66   13    6 .3451  150   .327 .394 .651
  1955   615  186   23   10   52   83   34    4 .3397  155   .302 .385 .626
  1956   614  176   35    6   38   75   58   12 .3115  135   .287 .364 .549
  1957   608  196   35   16   39   84   55   23 .3402  156   .322 .405 .625
  1958   630  204   40    8   29   84   43    7 .3315  147   .324 .403 .551
       3679  1114  201  56   232  467  218  57  .3224  845   .303 .381 .577
        577   175   32   9    36   73   34   9
Barry Bonds
  1986   418   94   20    4   18   65   31    7 .2566   68   .225 .329 .421
  1987   552  139   29    8   22   54   27   10 .2573   87   .252 .318 .453
  1988   550  160   30    6   30   79   13   11 .3015  113   .291 .380 .531
  1989   590  154   32    7   26   97   29   10 .2833  111   .261 .365 .471
  1990   526  161   26    5   36   97   45   14 .3371  134   .306 .414 .580
  1991   524  158   30    6   29  111   38   12 .3333  130   .302 .424 .548
  1992   484  155   26    6   40  133   37    8 .3818  152   .320 .467 .647
        3644 1021  193   42  201  636  220   72 .3083  794   .280 .387 .522
         553  155   29    6   31   97   33   11

Through age 28, they have approximately the same numbe of PA. Mays is
clearly ahead; his 55 point league in slugging overwhelms Bonds' 5
point lead in OBA. Note that Mays also has the better base-stealing
percentage.

However, this analysis assumes that the level of skill has remained
constant throughout time, which, according to several arguments, isn't
true. The only study I know that put numbers on the quality difference
is the one by Dick Cramer. Unfortunately, I have to extrapolate the
quality difference in the 1980s. Incorporating Cramer's ratings into
the adjustments results in:

Willie Mays
  1951   483  123   22    4   19   55    9    4 .2548   73   .255 .331 .435
  1952   135   29    3    3    4   16    5    1 .2226   16   .215 .298 .370
  1954   596  190   31    7   36   63   13    6 .3212  132   .319 .384 .576
  1955   616  183   20    8   40   78   35    4 .3171  136   .297 .376 .550
  1956   615  171   27    5   31   71   60   13 .2912  120   .278 .353 .489
  1957   609  191   27   13   32   80   57   23 .3199  140   .314 .393 .558
  1958   631  198   34    7   24   80   43    7 .3133  134   .314 .391 .504
        3685 1085  164   47  186  443  222   58 .3019  751   .294 .370 .516
         580  171   26    7   29   70   35    9
Barry Bonds
  1986   418   93   19    4   17   65   31    7 .2523   66   .222 .327 .409
  1987   552  138   27    8   22   53   26   10 .2541   85   .250 .316 .447
  1988   550  158   28    6   30   79   13   11 .2979  111   .287 .377 .524
  1989   590  153   33    7   25   96   29   10 .2808  109   .259 .363 .466
  1990   527  160   25    5   36   96   45   14 .3343  132   .304 .411 .575
  1991   524  157   27    6   30  111   38   12 .3319  129   .300 .422 .546
  1992   484  154   26    6   40  133   37    8 .3804  152   .318 .465 .645
        3645 1013  185   42  200  633  219   72 .3057  784   .278 .385 .516
         554  154   28    6   30   96   33   11

The reductions in Mays' stats comes mainly in power, so much so that
the two are dead even in slugging. Bonds' lead in OBA is now up to 15.
The edge, narrowly, now goes to Bonds. 

In either set, Mays never has a season to compare to Bonds' 1992.

And since Barry has decided to wear #25, it is sort of a moot point.
But I do beleive the two are very comparable players in their
abilities and in their achievements to date. A substantial part of
Mays' greatness is that he maintained his level of performance until
the mid-60s; in fact his best years were probably 61-65. I won't
consider Bonds to be Mays' equal unless and until he can sustain a
.300+ EQA for the remainder of the decade. But that is a very, very
weighty task.

Clay D.