The Man vs. Teddy Ballgame

By Rob Neyer

ESPN.com

With apologies to Carl Yastrzemski, and also to Tim Raines (one of my all-time favorites), there are only four players who have legitimate claim to the title, Greatest Left Fielder: Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Rickey Henderson and Barry Bonds.

Hits Runs RBI OBP Slug OPS

Williams 2654 1798 1839 .482 .634 1.116

Musial 3630 1949 1951 .417 .559 .976

Henderson 2678 2014 978 .404 .426 .830

Bonds 1917 1364 1216 .411 .556 .967

Including Bonds is, I freely admit, idiosyncratic. No, not because he's not good enough, but rather because he hasn't played enough, only 13 seasons. If you look at the chart again, you'll see that in the percentage categories, Bonds trails Stan the Man by just a bit.

Interestingly, Bonds' slight disadvantage remains essentially the same even after you adjust for their respective eras.

In STATS, Inc.'s All-Time Major League Handbook, we have runs created per 27 outs for Musial and Bonds, along with the league figures.

Over his career, Musial created 8.42 runs per 27 outs. Over the same span, the National League average was 4.35 per 27 outs.

Bonds has created 8.33 runs per 27 outs, while the National League has created 4.33 runs per 27 outs.

See? Nearly even. Now, runs created incorporates most of the relevant statistics, but aside from stolen bases it doesn't take foot speed into account. And Bonds obviously gets a big edge there, though in the grand scheme of things that big edge doesn't lead to a lot of extra runs.

Defensively, there's no comparison. Musial was a decent outfielder, but he lacked range and spent five full seasons at first base. Bonds is a Gold Glover, and a deserving one.

I'm quite confident in stating that if Bonds continues playing for another five or six years at his established level, he will indeed rank above Musial ... but then, that's the rub, isn't it? Can we, right now, rate Bonds above Musial, who spent 21 full seasons in the National League?

No, we cannot. Essentially, Bonds is included because it's important for all of us to appreciate him now while he's still playing.

So that leaves us with three: Musial, Henderson and Williams. Yes, Rickey's still active, but he has 20 years of major-league service. Plus, he's unlikely to get better, and if he gets worse, he won't play. So give or take a hundred-odd runs, the numbers aren't likely to change a whole bunch.

Now, I know what you're saying ... How can Henderson, with a relatively measly .830 OPS, compete with The Man and Teddy Ballgame?

Well, OPS has its advantages, but it doesn't work for everybody. It can either overrate or underrate some players. Extreme players. And if there was ever an extreme player, it's Rickey Henderson.

RC/27 League RC/27

Musial 8.42 4.35

Henderson 6.98 4.57

Better, but still not close. Like Bonds, though, Henderson gets a big edge over Musial in the field. We know how fast Rickey was (and still is), and we should also remember that he played center field for three seasons.

But do Henderson's defensive contributions, plus his ability to distract pitchers, make up for the difference between the two in runs created?

No, they do not.

Which leaves us with Stan the Man and The Splendid Splinter.

If you don't mind, one more chart ...

OPS RC/27 League RC/27

Musial .976 8.42 4.35

Williams 1.116 11.48 4.54

Wow. As some of you know, RC/27 gets a little out of whack when a hitter draws a huge number of walks, as Williams did. So no, he wasn't 36 percent more productive than Musial. That difference in OPS is real, however.

There are three major "peripheral" issues which must be mentioned: ballparks, injuries ... and wars.

On those rare occasions when someone bothers trying to downgrade Ted Williams' batting stats, the first argument that comes up is Fenway Park. It was in his day, as it is now, a good place for hitters. That's a fact.

Over his long career, Williams batted .361 in Fenway, and .328 everywhere else. That .328 is particularly interesting, because it's virtually the same as Musial's road batting average, which was .326.

Some have concluded, therefore, that if Musial and Williams had played their home games in the same place, they would have been roughly the same hitters.

This analysis misses two things, however. One, all the walks. Two, aside from the batting average, Williams was not helped much by Fenway. His career slugging average at home was .652, compared to .638 in road games. He hit 273 road home runs, "only" 248 at home.

And Musial? His home slugging percentage was .582 ... and his road slugging percentage was .536.

Summing all that up ... If you take them out of their home parks, Williams was a hundred points better in slugging than Musial. And that's a lot of points. Now, the injuries. Williams was fairly durable for most of his career, but beginning in 1954 he suffered a variety of ailments which kept him from playing in more than 136 games in any succeeding season.

Musial was exceptionally durable, and played in at least 134 games in each of his first 16 campaigns.

Now, the wars.

Ted Williams led the American League in both on-base percentage and slugging percentage in 1941, 1942, 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949.

So what happened from 1943 through 1945? Williams was a Marine aviator.

There's little doubt in my mind that he would have led the league in OBP and slugging in two or three of those seasons, too.

In 1950, Williams broke his elbow in the All-Star Game, and missed the second half of the season.

In 1952, with the Korean War in full swing, Williams was recalled to the Marines and flew combat missions. He missed most of the '52 and '53 seasons, and I believe he was the only established baseball star who saw combat in that conflict.

So Williams spent the better part of five prime seasons in the service of his country. This cuts the other way, too. Musial, through no fault of his own, spent just one season (1945) in the military, which means he benefited from two full seasons of thin wartime pitching staffs.

Give Williams five more seasons, and I wonder if we'd even bother with Musial.

After all, Williams would have something like 700 home runs (vs. about 490 for Musial, giving him an extra season, too), 2,400 runs scored, 2,300 RBI, 3, 500 hits ... my mind reels when I think what Williams could have done if not for those damned wars.

He might not have caught Ruth in home runs, and he certainly wouldn't have caught Cobb in hits, but had Williams enjoyed a full, natural career, he would quite likely have finished his career as the all-time leader in both runs and RBI.

When comparing Williams and Musial, Bill James once wrote, [I]f I had to choose between the two of them, I'd take Musial in left field, Musial on the basepaths, Musial in the clubhouse, and Williams only with the wood in his hands.

And Stan Musial could hit a little, too.

I must respectfully disagree. Granted, Musial probably did enjoy all those edges Bill says he did. But to me, Williams' superiority as a hitter trumps all of that. It's close, but Ted Williams was the Greatest Left Fielder of them all.

Rob Neyer is already preparing himself for another Super Bowl loss by his beloved Vikings. If you can convince him that Minnesota will not lose, contact him at robn@starwave.com.

Return to articles.