Thanks for the great video. I've been a Ted Williams fan since the late 60s after hearing about him and I've always told people I thought he was the best hitter ever.
His Military Service just makes him a greater hero - not just in baseball history but American History. Teddy Ballgame was as bad ass a human being to ever walk soil.
Growing up in southern Massachusetts in the 50s I became a lifetime Red Sox fan. My dad took me to a few games in the fifties and got to see Teddy Ballgame. A game that I vividly remember was in the summer of 1958. SRO at Fenway, Williams walks in the bottom of ninth with the bases loaded to beat the Yankees 1 to 0. He threw his bat straight up in the air and jogged to first base. What a memory.
As an amateur statistician... and sometimes a professional one (please don't tell my company)... why would Ted's career BA have dropped 6 points by getting back 3 of his best years (WW2)? If his total #s of hits, walks, Ks, HRs increased... what is the reason his avg would have fallen? That is to say, is it the remaining 2 yrs (Korea) that had the most impact in your model? By different regression, it would seem his 1943-45 years would be in the range of .339-.360 (sample=138-147 GP per year). In my own version, this would lead to a .340-344 career range, tending toward the higher range. Appreciate your modeling & video - thanks! Edit: I paused at the wrong time when posting my last; is there any statistical or athletic reason to determine "it's likely his BA would have dropped at some point in his career"? His actual other #s did not decrease in his career, for example (eg, 1954-60 Triple Crown aka peer comparison). Discounting for first & last year (bell curve), plus wartime years, plus his neck issue in 1959 (second-to-last year; apparently incurred 5 seasons earlier; hence the discount), I politely wonder how #s go up in everything but BA.
Thanks for the comment. I was using a basic linear regression so the projected years would have come from all existing data in Williams career. I'm still figuring out the technology for quadratic regression and think it would have been more appropriate in the this case. I really do believe Ted's war years would be higher using this idea dn more accurate (in particular batting average). In that case the missed later years likely would be lower. Overall, I think it is a close approximation, but certainly not without error. It's also so tough to project a .400 batting average which Williams was certainly capable of in the lost war years Thanks for the comment. I greatly appreciate it! This was my first ever video of this nature. I know it's an imperfect result, but definitely worth the conversation, so thanks!
I think those are low ball numbers. How his batting average dropped is ridiculous. 1941 was the year he hit .406. I think he would have been chasing another .400 season in that time and even if not achieved would have been hitting in the high .370s to .380s if not .390s. Younger players struggle his struggling rookie yr he hit .327, older he hit .388 in 1957. I also think he would have hit 700 plus homeruns. He defied all the rules.
I agree they are likely low, but .400 seasons even at that time just didn't happen every year. It's a challenge to project a player that has no other comparable. The results came out low from the analysis, but it gives us an idea of the possibilities. It's also possible he could have missed time with injury and then the results would be high. Just trying to find a middle ground. Thanks for the view and comment
Ted's lifetime BA when he entered the military was .356. And when he came out he won his 2nd Triple Crown in 1947. Easy to see Ted hitting .350-360 with 35 HR and 120-130 runs in 1943-45, which would have been his prime years.
I would think that his missing seasons would be more accurately determined by using the surrounding 2-3 seasons in each case. Of course, the WWII years would have been even greater if he had played against the depleted MLB rosters during that time, but that would involve two much speculation. In his Korean years, the 1950 and 1955 years were seasons that he missed considerable time and would have to be evaluated in that context. Did you include his actual 1952 and 1953 numbers in any way? Even in his later years, when he played fewer games, he produced great statistics per game and came up with one of his best seasons in 1957. He hit over .340 in 13 seasons. I appreciate your analysis and think it is a fair evaluation, but I do believe that his final numbers would have been better, especially batting average, than your figures showed. But, I am biased.
I originally played around with using the 2 or 3 seasons on either side of the missing seasons and those certainly produced much higher results. My concern was that Williams really wasn't missing any time in those seasons (especially around WWII) and I chose in the end to go with using all seasons as a way of suggesting there would likely be an injury or time missed at some time. It's really hard to project a season average of say .370 and feel confident that was a real possibility. Even though Williams was more than capable of a result like this. I took out all of his stats from 1952 and 53 during the projection process. I felt they were a small enough sample size they could be removed. That 1957 season is absolutely incredible. I appreciate your comment. This was the first time I did any data projections in a video and I'm glad you enjoyed it.
I have always said if Willie Mays had not lost almost 2 years to military service he would have been the home run king, at least for a short time. Would you be willing to do all of his projections as well including 2 more gold gloves and probably all star appearances? It would be easy enough to do but I would like you to do it because you have a better following than I do.
@@bryanjones4444 I hope to do more of these styled of videos. I will certainly add Willie Mays to that list. I'm curious as to what those numbers would look like. I typically do this style of video during the mlb off-season when less is going on. Thanks for the idea
I have heard that during the fifties, Willie was asked by his Manager for that year to get on base and drive in runs instead of hitting home runs. His playing in Candlestick also cost him home runs.
@@3up3down ...It's not possible to actually compare people who didn't face the same competition . That being said, I feel you may have low balled what Ted would have done in 43,44and 45, since I believe 42 is the year he hit .406, so it's possible he missed what would have been the best years of his carrier.
@@Tboy439 i agree that time period is likely low, but there is always the possibility of injuries or even a stretch of poor play. It's not a perfect approximation, but given it's my first attempt at something like this I was pleased
Cronin, Doerr, Foxx, Tabor, D. DiMaggio, Jensen, Stephens etc.just a few great hitters Williams played with over the years. One could also make the same case for Ruth and Gehrig. What if Gehrig had not contacted ALS and played for another 3-5 years ? Anyway I always thought Williams was one of the top 5 greatest offensive players who ever lived. Thanks
A word about Babe Ruth. He was a pitcher his first few years, only moving to an every-day position around 1919 and played there for the last 2 years of the dead-ball era. Imagine if he played his whole career not as a pitcher, and if the 1920 reforms of pitching had occurred in 1914. Purely hypothetical , but still- what if? OTOH, Ruth and his heavy bat never faced a major league slider…
@@martinjohnson5498 there are a lot of what is when it comes to Ruth. As you said he lost time as a hitter and also the dead ball Era. He also never played in MLB against Negro League players. I would love to do a video on this, but it's hard to put the what if into numbers for Ruth. Thanks for the view and comment
They dip because the regression I used included all complete seasons and not just the few seasons around the gaps. I would've needed quadratic regression for this, but with 2 gaps that was unlikely to work. In the end the resuls of the wwii years are likely low, but it's very difficult to predict career year or .400 batting average. Thanks for checking out the video
Here's something to consider. Your mathematical analysis basically assumes that World War II and Korea didn't happen. If we assume that World War II still happened, (Korea didn't have enough players going to have a huge impact), but Williams somehow got out of serving, he would have been facing generally depleted pitching, and his numbers would have been even more impressive. Of course, a big part of the aura that surrounded him was his war hero status, which would have been missing.
@@big8dog887 that is very true. I really wasn't sure how to adjust the analysis to a depleted MLB. In that situation his numbers would definitely be higher, but you are correct, the aura of a hero would be missing. Thanks for the comment
@3up3down I guess another angle on projections during these war years would take into consideration team averages during the war. All teams played during these wartime years. So, crunch the team's numbers using the same metrics as individual players. Remember the 1968 season where it is argued Bob Gibson's 1.12 ERA was put into better perspective in comparison to overall team ERA's during that season in comparison to years when the mound changed in height.
Well said and kudos to an American icon. Ted Williams, what a player and American! Now , as a Yankee fan I often ask the same question about the great Lou Gehrig,,,, what if ?????
@@edtoth4676 thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it. I think that's certainly a fair question to ask about Gehrig as well. I guess the difference is Gehrig lost years at the end of his career. Even at age 35 he was still incredible
What about Feller, losing most of 4 years to the service. Give him the averages of his two seasons before the war and the two seasons after and you have the definitive best right-hander in baseball history! But now modern idiots who compile lists of best pitchers don't even have him in Top Tens.
@@carseye1219 Feller is another I have on my list to hopefully do a video on this off-season. I feel he often gets missed when we talk about the greats. I'm not sure if he is top 10 all time, but I'm curious to see what the numbers would show.
Great video, I loves me some Teddy Ballgames. One point, you might have to shave off a season or two on the back end of his career. 5 extra seasons of wear and tear would have an effect.
@@christopherbrowne977 thank you so much! I'm glad you enjoyed it! I will have to consider that in future videos. I always worry about it when you have guys like Albert Pujols doing unreal in a final season
That was pretty well thought out. Ted volunteered for WWII but he didn't want to go to Korea and was pissed when he was called up for that one. I never could get my head around him losing the MVP vote in 1941 after hitting .406. Yeah, DiMaggio had that hitting streak but the last man to hit .400 + isn't the MVP? That always seemed like a rip-off to me. Ted had some quirks though that didn't endear him to the writers. And another thing I can't get my head around is Ted's head being frozen. Bit of a strange case. But I did like the response he gave to reporters when he was managing the old Washington Senators and they wanted to know what he was going to do about their lousy defense. "We're gonna hit." Typical Ted, hitting cures all ills. Anyway, cool vid. Nice to see a young man who doesn't suffer from recency bias when it comes to evaluating ballplayers. Good on ya.
@@itinerantpatriot1196 thank you so much! I'm glad you enjoyed it. I love all the old time baseball stories. I enjoy the advanced game, but can certainly appreciate the class and pure joy from older players in the way they played. Williams certainly deserved more awards and recognition even with how good he was.
Not arguing w your system, but if you look at the little bit Ted played in 1952 & 1953, he absolutely raked even by his standards. If you prorate his 1952-53 numbers to 154 game season, he'd be at 50 HR 130 RBI each. He put up a 1.400+ OPS in the 43 games he played in those 2 seasons.
@@haedyncavanagh thanks for the idea. It'll help with future videos. I was thinking that, but with a sample size someone could argue it was a hot streak and not sustainable. With Williams he probably could have sustained it though
This is always debatable. If he played without any injuries. I'd say he would've hit 700. Home Runs. At least 500 more walks. Definitely 3000 plus hits. it would been great to see. I salute Ted Williams for his Service. Always in my opinion. The Best Hitter.
@@billyshust4890 I love the debate. That's why i wanted to make the video. I agree with you on those numbers. He really was the best hitter. Thanks for the view and comment.
@@joeg5414 that's a possibility. He also could have lost some time to injury. I do feel the prediction is low for those years, but you never know what could have happened
@@3up3down that's true about injury. Just a guessing game. Just glancing at the numbers, it doeslooks like he picked up basically where he left off on return
@3up3down, what about the intangibles that crunching numbers can't tell us? What if Williams didn't have to deal with the psychological issues from being in combat missions over Korea? What if he hadn't had to crash land his plane and didn't have damage to his body from that? Maybe he stays in his prime another 1-2 seasons. Maybe his career last another 1-3 seasons. What would his numbers be then? I believe Ted Williams is the greatest hitter who ever lived.
@@smokedogg19821 I agree he is the greatest hitters ever. And no doubt those are some great what ifs. They are just extremely difficult to factor into numeric data
@@LouiseRamsay-hs4sz I understand that, but it's challenging to predict career years. Just the same as it's possible an injury could have happened. I fully believe the numbers are lower than they probably would have been, but still give a good idea.
Take away 5 years of top baseball player's stats like Ruth - Speaker - Hornsby - Sisler - Aaron - Musial - Robinson - Wagner - Mays - Cobb - Rose - Gwynn and more !
@@hollywoodjoe123 you take years from those careers and it would really change the outlook. I think Williams would be overlooked less as an all time great
What if all the men in Mickey Mantle's immediate family hadn't died from cancer in their 40's and he hadn't had to live his entire live feeling he was going to follow in their footsteps. And then their is the knee. Give him two legs and a family tree clean of health issues and "The Mick" would have been the greatest player of all time.
@@RCSTILE I don't disagree that Mantle is incredible. The difference is we know the knee was an issue. We don't know if Williams would have had issues. And Ted missed prime years
What makes no sense. His totals don't affect his merit as a hitter: he remained as potent a hitter right to the end. And anyway, who knows what effect the military service had? He came back as good as ever both times, but maybe without those breaks he would have lost his edge, gotten bored, or just burnt out. Regardless, he wasn't as good at Ruth at the plate, with or without the imaginary seasons. Ruth just overpowers him. But he's a clear second.
There is a case to make for Williams being better than Ruth. The game had improved and Ruth never played against Negro league players. I'm not saying you aren't right, but there is a case
@@3up3down Case, yes. Across the board, techniques in all facets of the game HAD improved (that argument applies to each successive generation in baseball and all sports), and Ruth did not play with or against any of the excluded black players. But there really were only a handful in Williams day, a few big stars: dominant guys like Williams and Musial remained every bit as good in the 50s as they were in the 40s. It wasn't until the 60s that a really significant number of black and Caribbean players entered the game, both as hitters and pitchers. And on the other hand, while Ruth probably faced inferior pitching, he also probably faced more dirty pitching with old and doctored balls. The conditions weren't necessarily easier. Could a Josh Gibson been as good? Possibly. We can never really know. Undoubtedly, Ruth did not have to compete with some major black talent, but I do doubt he would have been any less of a talent himself. The population and talent pool was smaller in Ruth's day, but on the other hand, baseball was the country's number one game then and drew the biggest athletic talent--it wasn't competing with football and basketball to nearly the extent it would later. In the end what sways me for Ruth is how dominant he was as a power hitter (without sacrificing average) in the supreme hitters' decade. Year after year he led in homers and slugging while being near the top on average. No one adapted to and dominated his time more than Ruth: he was unique. And since this video is a what if one--what if Williams hadn't lost prime years to military service--I'd counter with what if Ruth hadn't spent his first years pitching? He had power from the get-go, even when they were using the dead ball. Had he been a hitter out of the gate, he surely would have amassed 800 or even 900 HRs. All of it is speculation, but it's fun, nontheless. Let's just leave it that they were both extraordinarily great hitters. We see these same arguments in golf-- Woods, Nicklaus, Hogan--and basketball--Jordan, Jabbar, James, Russell, Chamberlain--and there really is no correct answer to who's the GOAT. Different times, conditions, standards. It comes down really to favorites. They were all just super great. That's the only for sure.
@@3up3down Hmm, some of what I wrote got cut out. Anyway, my main case for Ruth is the extent to which he dominated the power categories without sacrificing average. Year after year number one in HR AND SLUGGING while always near the top in average. There's just never been such a dominant hitter. And since we're doing the what ifs, what if Ruth hadn't pitched his first years? He was potent at the plate from the outset; surely he would have amassed 800 or even 900 HRs.
@@nicholasschroeder3678 there is so much what if in a sports. It's always fun to discuss. The next generation being better than the previous I typically believe in. It's what makes baseball, and really all sports wonderful
Thanks for the great video. I've been a Ted Williams fan since the late 60s after hearing about him and I've always told people I thought he was the best hitter ever.
Thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed it. He certainly is one of the best and deserves some more recognition
For some reason I never heard about his hitting book until a few years ago, wish I would have known that when I was playing😮
@@ALBundy62. certainly a swing you would like to copy
His Military Service just makes him a greater hero - not just in baseball history but American History. Teddy Ballgame was as bad ass a human being to ever walk soil.
Completely agree!!!
It would not be the same cheap batting average& homeruns best baseball player was in tthe war
@@Loydstardeli2017 who?
Growing up in southern Massachusetts in the 50s I became a lifetime Red Sox fan. My dad took me to a few games in the fifties and got to see Teddy Ballgame. A game that I vividly remember was in the summer of 1958. SRO at Fenway, Williams walks in the bottom of ninth with the bases loaded to beat the Yankees 1 to 0. He threw his bat straight up in the air and jogged to first base. What a memory.
@@joemello7888 that is an awesome memory! Thanks for sharing!
As an amateur statistician... and sometimes a professional one (please don't tell my company)... why would Ted's career BA have dropped 6 points by getting back 3 of his best years (WW2)? If his total #s of hits, walks, Ks, HRs increased... what is the reason his avg would have fallen? That is to say, is it the remaining 2 yrs (Korea) that had the most impact in your model? By different regression, it would seem his 1943-45 years would be in the range of .339-.360 (sample=138-147 GP per year). In my own version, this would lead to a .340-344 career range, tending toward the higher range. Appreciate your modeling & video - thanks!
Edit: I paused at the wrong time when posting my last; is there any statistical or athletic reason to determine "it's likely his BA would have dropped at some point in his career"? His actual other #s did not decrease in his career, for example (eg, 1954-60 Triple Crown aka peer comparison).
Discounting for first & last year (bell curve), plus wartime years, plus his neck issue in 1959 (second-to-last year; apparently incurred 5 seasons earlier; hence the discount), I politely wonder how #s go up in everything but BA.
Thanks for the comment. I was using a basic linear regression so the projected years would have come from all existing data in Williams career. I'm still figuring out the technology for quadratic regression and think it would have been more appropriate in the this case.
I really do believe Ted's war years would be higher using this idea dn more accurate (in particular batting average). In that case the missed later years likely would be lower. Overall, I think it is a close approximation, but certainly not without error.
It's also so tough to project a .400 batting average which Williams was certainly capable of in the lost war years
Thanks for the comment. I greatly appreciate it! This was my first ever video of this nature. I know it's an imperfect result, but definitely worth the conversation, so thanks!
I think those are low ball numbers. How his batting average dropped is ridiculous. 1941 was the year he hit .406. I think he would have been chasing another .400 season in that time and even if not achieved would have been hitting in the high .370s to .380s if not .390s.
Younger players struggle his struggling rookie yr he hit .327, older he hit .388 in 1957. I also think he would have hit 700 plus homeruns.
He defied all the rules.
I agree they are likely low, but .400 seasons even at that time just didn't happen every year. It's a challenge to project a player that has no other comparable. The results came out low from the analysis, but it gives us an idea of the possibilities. It's also possible he could have missed time with injury and then the results would be high. Just trying to find a middle ground. Thanks for the view and comment
Ted's lifetime BA when he entered the military was .356. And when he came out he won his 2nd Triple Crown in 1947. Easy to see Ted hitting .350-360 with 35 HR and 120-130 runs in 1943-45, which would have been his prime years.
@@TheBatugan77 I completely agree. The issue of course is the potential for injury which can never be predicted
I would think that his missing seasons would be more accurately determined by using the surrounding 2-3 seasons in each case. Of course, the WWII years would have been even greater if he had played against the depleted MLB rosters during that time, but that would involve two much speculation. In his Korean years, the 1950 and 1955 years were seasons that he missed considerable time and would have to be evaluated in that context. Did you include his actual 1952 and 1953 numbers in any way? Even in his later years, when he played fewer games, he produced great statistics per game and came up with one of his best seasons in 1957. He hit over .340 in 13 seasons. I appreciate your analysis and think it is a fair evaluation, but I do believe that his final numbers would have been better, especially batting average, than your figures showed. But, I am biased.
I originally played around with using the 2 or 3 seasons on either side of the missing seasons and those certainly produced much higher results. My concern was that Williams really wasn't missing any time in those seasons (especially around WWII) and I chose in the end to go with using all seasons as a way of suggesting there would likely be an injury or time missed at some time. It's really hard to project a season average of say .370 and feel confident that was a real possibility. Even though Williams was more than capable of a result like this. I took out all of his stats from 1952 and 53 during the projection process. I felt they were a small enough sample size they could be removed. That 1957 season is absolutely incredible. I appreciate your comment. This was the first time I did any data projections in a video and I'm glad you enjoyed it.
If you're going to speculate on Ted's war years, you'd have to assume no one else served either. Otherwise it's kind of disingenuous.
@@TheBatugan77 I believe doing it the way I did takes that into consideration. If he was one of few to not go the numbers would be even higher.
Wow! Great point. @@TheBatugan77
I have always said if Willie Mays had not lost almost 2 years to military service he would have been the home run king, at least for a short time. Would you be willing to do all of his projections as well including 2 more gold gloves and probably all star appearances? It would be easy enough to do but I would like you to do it because you have a better following than I do.
@@bryanjones4444 I hope to do more of these styled of videos. I will certainly add Willie Mays to that list. I'm curious as to what those numbers would look like. I typically do this style of video during the mlb off-season when less is going on. Thanks for the idea
I'd say that Mays was the greatest all-around player, given his fielding and base-stealing ability as well. R.I.P. Willie.
@@jonolsen418 I tend to agree. I think without question he is top 3.
I have heard that during the fifties, Willie was asked by his Manager for that year to get on base and drive in runs instead of hitting home runs. His playing in Candlestick also cost him home runs.
@@derekdaniel3566 very interesting. I had not heard that before
Williams is the greatest hitter who ever lived. If he didn't serve in the military, he would have been greater!
I completely agree!
Josh Gibson is better in those categories
@@harwn999 as amazing as Gibson was it's a tough comparison to make
@@3up3down ...It's not possible to actually compare people who didn't face the same competition . That being said, I feel you may have low balled what Ted would have done in 43,44and 45, since I believe 42 is the year he hit .406, so it's possible he missed what would have been the best years of his carrier.
@@Tboy439 i agree that time period is likely low, but there is always the possibility of injuries or even a stretch of poor play. It's not a perfect approximation, but given it's my first attempt at something like this I was pleased
Cronin, Doerr, Foxx, Tabor, D. DiMaggio, Jensen, Stephens etc.just a few great hitters Williams played with over the years.
One could also make the same case for Ruth and Gehrig. What if Gehrig had not contacted ALS and played for another 3-5 years ?
Anyway I always thought Williams was one of the top 5 greatest offensive players who ever lived. Thanks
I really wish we knew what Williams did in that missing prime
@@3up3down I think the numbers you came up with are reasonable estimates.
@@Steve-cn3nj thank you
A word about Babe Ruth. He was a pitcher his first few years, only moving to an every-day position around 1919 and played there for the last 2 years of the dead-ball era. Imagine if he played his whole career not as a pitcher, and if the 1920 reforms of pitching had occurred in 1914. Purely hypothetical , but still- what if?
OTOH, Ruth and his heavy bat never faced a major league slider…
@@martinjohnson5498 there are a lot of what is when it comes to Ruth. As you said he lost time as a hitter and also the dead ball Era. He also never played in MLB against Negro League players. I would love to do a video on this, but it's hard to put the what if into numbers for Ruth. Thanks for the view and comment
No, but Ruth faced a spit ball, shine ball, grease ball,
@@rlkinnard true. I wonder how much Williams saw of that
Your replacement stats seem to have a tendency to dip as compared to numbers before and after in a number of categories.
They dip because the regression I used included all complete seasons and not just the few seasons around the gaps. I would've needed quadratic regression for this, but with 2 gaps that was unlikely to work. In the end the resuls of the wwii years are likely low, but it's very difficult to predict career year or .400 batting average. Thanks for checking out the video
Here's something to consider. Your mathematical analysis basically assumes that World War II and Korea didn't happen. If we assume that World War II still happened, (Korea didn't have enough players going to have a huge impact), but Williams somehow got out of serving, he would have been facing generally depleted pitching, and his numbers would have been even more impressive. Of course, a big part of the aura that surrounded him was his war hero status, which would have been missing.
@@big8dog887 that is very true. I really wasn't sure how to adjust the analysis to a depleted MLB. In that situation his numbers would definitely be higher, but you are correct, the aura of a hero would be missing. Thanks for the comment
@3up3down I guess another angle on projections during these war years would take into consideration team averages during the war. All teams played during these wartime years. So, crunch the team's numbers using the same metrics as individual players. Remember the 1968 season where it is argued Bob Gibson's 1.12 ERA was put into better perspective in comparison to overall team ERA's during that season in comparison to years when the mound changed in height.
@@BBaby57 that would certainly be worth a comparison. Thanks for the idea.
He served his country that's that no what ifs
@@jeffteyrosado9966 I'm just talking in terms of baseball. He has my all time respect for serving his country
Well said and kudos to an American icon. Ted Williams, what a player and American!
Now , as a Yankee fan I often ask the same question about the great Lou Gehrig,,,, what if ?????
@@edtoth4676 thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it. I think that's certainly a fair question to ask about Gehrig as well. I guess the difference is Gehrig lost years at the end of his career. Even at age 35 he was still incredible
The years he lost might have been careeryears. You never know.
@@jameshudson169 that is very possible. It's a challenge to predict a career year
@@3up3down yep.
❤
What about Feller, losing most of 4 years to the service. Give him the averages of his two seasons before the war and the two seasons after and you have the definitive best right-hander in baseball history! But now modern idiots who compile lists of best pitchers don't even have him in Top Tens.
@@carseye1219 Feller is another I have on my list to hopefully do a video on this off-season. I feel he often gets missed when we talk about the greats. I'm not sure if he is top 10 all time, but I'm curious to see what the numbers would show.
Great video, I loves me some Teddy Ballgames. One point, you might have to shave off a season or two on the back end of his career. 5 extra seasons of wear and tear would have an effect.
@@christopherbrowne977 thank you so much! I'm glad you enjoyed it! I will have to consider that in future videos. I always worry about it when you have guys like Albert Pujols doing unreal in a final season
Military service out shines any of his baseball accolades... Semper Fi
@@warhawk4580 no disagreement here
That was pretty well thought out. Ted volunteered for WWII but he didn't want to go to Korea and was pissed when he was called up for that one. I never could get my head around him losing the MVP vote in 1941 after hitting .406. Yeah, DiMaggio had that hitting streak but the last man to hit .400 + isn't the MVP? That always seemed like a rip-off to me. Ted had some quirks though that didn't endear him to the writers. And another thing I can't get my head around is Ted's head being frozen. Bit of a strange case. But I did like the response he gave to reporters when he was managing the old Washington Senators and they wanted to know what he was going to do about their lousy defense. "We're gonna hit." Typical Ted, hitting cures all ills. Anyway, cool vid. Nice to see a young man who doesn't suffer from recency bias when it comes to evaluating ballplayers. Good on ya.
@@itinerantpatriot1196 thank you so much! I'm glad you enjoyed it. I love all the old time baseball stories. I enjoy the advanced game, but can certainly appreciate the class and pure joy from older players in the way they played. Williams certainly deserved more awards and recognition even with how good he was.
What about Hank Greenberg? He lost four and a half years
@@JosephLevy-kv6dl absolutely a tremendous player and someone you could also do this with.
Also Bob Feller, Cecil Travis, Joe & Dom DiMag, and many others.
@@TheBatugan77 I hope to do some videos for others in the off-season
Not arguing w your system, but if you look at the little bit Ted played in 1952 & 1953, he absolutely raked even by his standards. If you prorate his 1952-53 numbers to 154 game season, he'd be at 50 HR 130 RBI each. He put up a 1.400+ OPS in the 43 games he played in those 2 seasons.
@@haedyncavanagh thanks for the idea. It'll help with future videos. I was thinking that, but with a sample size someone could argue it was a hot streak and not sustainable. With Williams he probably could have sustained it though
His most important time was helping save USA’s future from the Italian, German and Japanese axis. Baseball is a mere afterthought.
@@rawleypoint I will never argue that. Every person that served needs to be recognized
This is always debatable. If he played without any injuries. I'd say he would've hit 700. Home Runs. At least 500 more walks. Definitely 3000 plus hits. it would been great to see. I salute Ted Williams for his Service. Always in my opinion. The Best Hitter.
@@billyshust4890 I love the debate. That's why i wanted to make the video. I agree with you on those numbers. He really was the best hitter. Thanks for the view and comment.
You are probably correct and I am Yankee fan
@@nickycha8428 thanks for checking out the video
Wouldn't missing 3 years for ww2 mean he lost a lot of practice and his numbers likely would have been higher in the following years had he played?
@@joeg5414 that's a possibility. He also could have lost some time to injury. I do feel the prediction is low for those years, but you never know what could have happened
@@3up3down that's true about injury. Just a guessing game. Just glancing at the numbers, it doeslooks like he picked up basically where he left off on return
@@joeg5414 it really does, which is incredible given he missed 3 years.
If not for his war time service ted williams would have every single record in baseball. He was actually the best ever to play the game
@@JefferyMiller-u5l I don't know about all the records. But I'm guessing a lot more of them
@3up3down, what about the intangibles that crunching numbers can't tell us? What if Williams didn't have to deal with the psychological issues from being in combat missions over Korea? What if he hadn't had to crash land his plane and didn't have damage to his body from that? Maybe he stays in his prime another 1-2 seasons. Maybe his career last another 1-3 seasons. What would his numbers be then?
I believe Ted Williams is the greatest hitter who ever lived.
@@smokedogg19821 I agree he is the greatest hitters ever. And no doubt those are some great what ifs. They are just extremely difficult to factor into numeric data
You are not taking into account that his war service was at the height of his career. So I think his stats would have been higher.
@@LouiseRamsay-hs4sz I understand that, but it's challenging to predict career years. Just the same as it's possible an injury could have happened. I fully believe the numbers are lower than they probably would have been, but still give a good idea.
If he would have played during the war years, his stats would be questioned and dismissed just like they were for guys like Hal Newhauser.
@@gordonzill173 all depends on if it was just him that stayed or all ballplayers.
All who served did their part to free the world of tyranny. They knew that was more important.
@@mariocisneros911 and all should be appreciated
Take away 5 years of top baseball player's stats like Ruth - Speaker - Hornsby - Sisler - Aaron - Musial - Robinson - Wagner - Mays - Cobb - Rose - Gwynn and more !
@@hollywoodjoe123 you take years from those careers and it would really change the outlook. I think Williams would be overlooked less as an all time great
Josh Gibson
I would put Gibson up there with the best
lows number for his prime
@@juncruz6266 probably, but not if there were some injuries.
What if Josh Gibson were able to play in the MLB or Satchel Page?
@@jpavlvs I wish we knew the answer to those
You have no idea how they would have done in the Majors, only speculation.
@@johnharris8191 I never said I knew. I would like to know though
@@3up3down We never will know, so there is no truth in people claiming he was the best player ever.
@@johnharris8191 the same argument could be made about Babe Ruth
He was built like Joe Jackson
@@mariocisneros911 another big what if for baseball
What if all the men in Mickey Mantle's immediate family hadn't died from cancer in their 40's and he hadn't had to live his entire live feeling he was going to follow in their footsteps. And then their is the knee. Give him two legs and a family tree clean of health issues and "The Mick" would have been the greatest player of all time.
@@RCSTILE I don't disagree that Mantle is incredible. The difference is we know the knee was an issue. We don't know if Williams would have had issues. And Ted missed prime years
What about Zack Hample?
What about him?
What if Babe Ruth hadn't spent 5 years as a starting pitcher?
@@harrylyme3969 fair, although closer to 4 seasons as he had over 500at bats in 1919
What makes no sense. His totals don't affect his merit as a hitter: he remained as potent a hitter right to the end. And anyway, who knows what effect the military service had? He came back as good as ever both times, but maybe without those breaks he would have lost his edge, gotten bored, or just burnt out. Regardless, he wasn't as good at Ruth at the plate, with or without the imaginary seasons. Ruth just overpowers him. But he's a clear second.
There is a case to make for Williams being better than Ruth. The game had improved and Ruth never played against Negro league players. I'm not saying you aren't right, but there is a case
@@3up3down Case, yes. Across the board, techniques in all facets of the game HAD improved (that argument applies to each successive generation in baseball and all sports), and Ruth did not play with or against any of the excluded black players. But there really were only a handful in Williams day, a few big stars: dominant guys like Williams and Musial remained every bit as good in the 50s as they were in the 40s. It wasn't until the 60s that a really significant number of black and Caribbean players entered the game, both as hitters and pitchers. And on the other hand, while Ruth probably faced inferior pitching, he also probably faced more dirty pitching with old and doctored balls. The conditions weren't necessarily easier. Could a Josh Gibson been as good? Possibly. We can never really know. Undoubtedly, Ruth did not have to compete with some major black talent, but I do doubt he would have been any less of a talent himself. The population and talent pool was smaller in Ruth's day, but on the other hand, baseball was the country's number one game then and drew the biggest athletic talent--it wasn't competing with football and basketball to nearly the extent it would later. In the end what sways me for Ruth is how dominant he was as a power hitter (without sacrificing average) in the supreme hitters' decade. Year after year he led in homers and slugging while being near the top on average. No one adapted to and dominated his time more than Ruth: he was unique. And since this video is a what if one--what if Williams hadn't lost prime years to military service--I'd counter with what if Ruth hadn't spent his first years pitching? He had power from the get-go, even when they were using the dead ball. Had he been a hitter out of the gate, he surely would have amassed 800 or even 900 HRs. All of it is speculation, but it's fun, nontheless. Let's just leave it that they were both extraordinarily great hitters. We see these same arguments in golf-- Woods, Nicklaus, Hogan--and basketball--Jordan, Jabbar, James, Russell, Chamberlain--and there really is no correct answer to who's the GOAT. Different times, conditions, standards. It comes down really to favorites. They were all just super great. That's the only for sure.
@@3up3down Hmm, some of what I wrote got cut out. Anyway, my main case for Ruth is the extent to which he dominated the power categories without sacrificing average. Year after year number one in HR AND SLUGGING while always near the top in average. There's just never been such a dominant hitter. And since we're doing the what ifs, what if Ruth hadn't pitched his first years? He was potent at the plate from the outset; surely he would have amassed 800 or even 900 HRs.
@@nicholasschroeder3678 there is so much what if in a sports. It's always fun to discuss. The next generation being better than the previous I typically believe in. It's what makes baseball, and really all sports wonderful
Shut up and show us the numbers.
@@FredGrosso it's all there
The same could said of many...Feller.? Mays?. What if is bullshit
It's part of the joy of sports. Just my opinion.