Did Shohei Ohtani just have the greatest individual game in sports history?

[QUOTE=warriorfan;15038484]I’m not gonna waste my time debating [/QUOTE]

You are a bitch.

[QUOTE=AlternativeAcc.;15038487]Also bringing up Ruth's pitching is kinda meaningless because he played the majority of his career as a regular position player, in which he was an average fielder and horrible base runner.

Bonds played the majority of his career as one of the best fielding left fielders of all time and an excellent base runner... again, in a fully integrated league.[/QUOTE]

Lakers also was trying to talk shit on Bond’s arm which has been a hater talking point for 30+ years and it’s somewhat based in truth.He didn’t have a Raul Mondesi or Vlad Guerro right field cannon but at the same time there was no one else in baseball who had a quicker release from glove to throw plus he had amazing accuracy. The media had it against bonds big time he didn’t luck his way into all those gold gloves. He was the prototype 5 tool player.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15038489]You are a bitch.[/QUOTE]

You are a midget beaner who thinks the moon is a spaceship and declined when I said I would meet you anywhere in the greater Bay Area and slap the taste out of your mouth

Bonds’ weak arm failing to throw out one of the slowest runners in the league.

[video=youtube_share;FgjIVvEQo_o]https://youtu.be/FgjIVvEQo_o[/video]

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15038495]Bonds’ weak arm failing to throw out one of the slowest runners in the league.

[video=youtube_share;FgjIVvEQo_o]https://youtu.be/FgjIVvEQo_o[/video][/QUOTE]

Nice sample size

More YouTube nonsense from a guy who wasn’t there at the time lmao

You never played or never even watched. You are a baseball/basketball reference loser who has to watch YouTube’s from nerds like Ben Taylor to steal opinions off of

You ****ing suck

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15038488]If you put 1921 Ruth with no modern training into the 90's I have no doubt Bonds would be better. The best pitcher during Ruth's era and who many consider the GOAT pitcher could only throw around 94 mph. Ohtani can throw 100+.

We could only compare these guys vs what they did vs their competition and there was nobody who dominated his competition more than Ruth did, he was hitting more home runs than some teams, that would be equal to someone hitting over 100 home runs today and before that he was a top 5 pitcher in the league.

It's why you don't see someone like Hakeem being ranked ahead of guys like Russell & Wilt often. Hakeem played much better competition and was 100x more skilled than them, but Wilt & Russell were more transcendent during their era.[/QUOTE]

That's not even my point though. Yes, obviously Bonds would be better than 1921 Ruth. 1921 Ruth couldn't even make the league. He was swinging a ****ing 54oz bat. Were not even comparing apples to apples at that point.

The point is that Bonds dominating the modern era is far more impressive than Ruth dominating an early MLB with white-only players.

You don't find it a coincidence that like 10 of the 12 highest WAR seasons came before 1930? It's almost like the average replacement player in Ruth's era is drastically worse than when Bonds played.


Also im not really understanding the Hakeem analogy. When was he considered the best of his era and when did he dominate statistically the way Bonds did from 01-04? Bonds literally set the record for OPS in 2004 at 1.422

Thats like if Hakeem averaged 50/30 in 1994. I don't recall Hakeem ever putting up those types of numbers so not sure why he is your example here

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15038495]Bonds’ weak arm failing to throw out one of the slowest runners in the league.

[video=youtube_share;FgjIVvEQo_o]https://youtu.be/FgjIVvEQo_o[/video][/QUOTE]

Can't imagine the types of bloopers and errors Ruth made during his time, especially on the base paths. But all the metrics point towards Bonds being one of the best defensive out fielders of all time.

Its definitely up there among the very best.

In all of sports history is a tough call.

[QUOTE=AlternativeAcc.;15038497]The point is that Bonds dominating the modern era is far more impressive than Ruth dominating an early MLB with white-only players. [/QUOTE]

This is where I disagree, you could make that case with juiced up Bonds, but 90’s Bonds doesn’t hold up to what Ruth was doing vs his competition.

And that’s all we could pretty much go by, what they did vs their opponents.

When it’s all set and done Ruth will be remembered more 50 years from now. Steroids basically gave Bonds a black eye to his legacy. Yes, you can debate Ruth played only white players but he only played what was in front of him to no fault of his own.

[QUOTE=warriorfan;15038490]Lakers also was trying to talk shit on Bond’s arm which has been a hater talking point for 30+ years and it’s somewhat based in truth.He didn’t have a Raul Mondesi or Vlad Guerro right field cannon but at the same time there was no one else in baseball who had a quicker release from glove to throw plus he had amazing accuracy. The media had it against bonds big time he didn’t luck his way into all those gold gloves. He was the prototype 5 tool player.[/QUOTE]

He was an incredible disciplined defender with elite positioning. He wasn't flashy with a bunch of diving catches because his positioning allowed him to make plays without the need for them.

[QUOTE=warriorfan;15038496]Nice sample size

More YouTube nonsense from a guy who wasn’t there at the time lmao

You never played or never even watched. You are a baseball/basketball reference loser who has to watch YouTube’s from nerds like Ben Taylor to steal opinions off of

You ****ing suck[/QUOTE]

Happened in one of the biggest games of his career. Game 7 of the NLCS. I would say it’s something you could use

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15038502]This is where I disagree, you could make that case with juiced up Bonds, but 90’s Bonds doesn’t hold up to what Ruth was doing vs his competition.

And that’s all we could pretty much go by, what they did vs their opponents.

When it’s all set and done Ruth will be remembered more 50 years from now. Steroids basically gave Bonds a black eye to his legacy. Yes, you can debate Ruth played only white players but he only played what was in front of him to no fault of his own.[/QUOTE]

Ruth's best 3-yeae stretch in OPS was from 1926-1928, at around 1.220 where he led the next best guy, his own teammate by 100 points.

Bonds from 01-04 averaged 1.370 and had a 300 point lead over the next best guy.


Bonds literally dominated the modern era more than Ruth did a white-only league. Take away the steroids and you have elite base running and defense that Ruth never touches in any era.

We know Bonds wasn't the only guy juicing, so him dominating in his late 30s in the modern era against modern pitching is simply more impressive than Ruth dominating a primitive white-only MLB.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15038506]Happened in one of the biggest games of his career. Game 7 of the NLCS. I would say it’s something you could use[/QUOTE]

How do you feel that compares to Babe Ruth getting caught stealing in the 9th inning of game 7 of a world series with 2 outs in a 1 run game? :lol


Unfortunately Bonds only made one world series. I wonder how his numbers look?

[QUOTE=warriorfan;15038490]Lakers also was trying to talk shit on Bond’s arm which has been a hater talking point for 30+ years and it’s somewhat based in truth.He didn’t have a Raul Mondesi or Vlad Guerro right field cannon but at the same time there was no one else in baseball who had a quicker release from glove to throw plus he had amazing accuracy. The media had it against bonds big time he didn’t luck his way into all those gold gloves. He was the prototype 5 tool player.[/QUOTE]

Ehh. Yea he was an excellent fielder but left field is still left field. If he had truly high-level outfield tools he would have been playing right or center.

I never thought about it like this before but best fielding LF of all time is kind of a strange thing, because most great outfielders who show promise at that position always transition to center or right. Interesting that he never did.

[QUOTE]These era-adjusted statistics are obtained from Full House Modeling. This model computes era-adjusted statistics through a principled balancing of how well a player performed "vs their peers" and the size of the MLB talent pool. Under this model, great all-time statistics requires that an MLB player is both better than their peers and played during a time in which the talent pool is large. In this way, the model constructs an even playing field that extends across eras.[/QUOTE]

[url]https://eckeraadjustment.web.illinois.edu/#rankings[/url]



A list like this actually makes sense because players are evenly distributed across different eras. If you use WAR alone, you have a disproportionate amount of pre-integration players because the talent pool was absolutely ****ing garbage.