Productivity Index [On-base % + Slugging Ave] is an Elias metric that's quite powerful. Anything sum over 1.00 indicates superstardom, whether for a season or career.
Sorry for the formatting. I can't seem to get it to square up for good reading. For their careers,
Williams is .482 + .634 = 1.116
Gwynn is .388 + .459 = .847
Williams is nearly a third better in productivity, which is an astounding gap between the two hitters, and neatly indentifies the tier into which each player rightfully belongs.
Don't forget, Williams also had to serve in the Army in his prime.
But, how many other players in the last 30 years would we even be willing to compare to Williams?
To factor out the changes over the years how does Williams and Gwynn compare to their peers?
sorry but you are right about the formatting. You have listed 16 categories but 19 stats and I don't have the time to do the research. I think in summary though that Gwynn compares ok to one of the greatest hitters in history and if he loses to Williams then oh well. I would add that the standard you are using to compare them is largely irrelevant to the arguement. On base percentage and slugging. Slugging has little to do with my point that they had pure swings. On base percentage is more relevant but again I'd look at their averages and walks before anything else. Remember that Gwynn stuck with a franchise that never came close until they picked up Garvey and his stats reflect a losing team. Their swings and their hits set them apart from the pack.