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

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;15038523]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]

LF is where you put your lefty outfield or weakest outfield. Center needs big range and right field you put the guy with the big arm. Bonds could have played center but it was a low key waste. Let him be a best in the league left and maximize his bat/baserunning

[QUOTE=warriorfan;15038526]LF is where you put your lefty outfield or weakest outfield. Center needs big range and right field you put the guy with the big arm. Bonds could have played center but it was a low key waste. Let him be a best in the league left and maximize his bat/baserunning[/QUOTE]

Yea that's why it's weird. He didn't have the arm for right, flat out. I also believe he could have played center at a relatively high level but maybe its like you said. Have him be a middle-of-the-pack CF and risk possible performance loss offensively or let him do a great job in left. Perhaps the center to left value gap was made up for offensively in this case.

It makes sense but you just almost never see it.

[QUOTE=AlternativeAcc.;15038511]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]

OPS+ is better than OPS when comparing players from different eras.

I don't put much value on Bonds hitting stats during the 01-04 years because of steroids, but even if I did, Ruth still had a whopping 11 seasons where he had an OPS+ of over 200 which is basically OPS that takes into account league average at the time. Bonds had 6 seasons of OPS+ of over 200, 4 of those seasons came when he was on steroids. 90's Bonds doesn't really compare to 1920's Ruth as a hitter, of course relative to their time.

No player in history has a higher career slugging%, OPS, OPS+, rOBA, Rbat+ than Ruth. He is the absolute gold standard as a hitter.

[QUOTE=AlternativeAcc.;15038515]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]

Like you said it was 2 outs, 9th inning with the Yankees down by 1 with Ruth stuck on 1st. Would make sense to try to steal 2nd with 2 outs, that way one hit brings you home. It was worth the risk.

Ruth as a pitcher alone had more iconic postseason moments than Bonds. Pitched 14 innings in a world series game while only surrendering 1 run.

[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]

[I]In the decisive Game 7 of the 1992 NLCS, Andy Van Slyke, playing center field, yelled at Barry Bonds to "Move in!" to play closer to the infield. Bonds, playing left field, allegedly responded by giving Van Slyke the middle finger instead of moving, and this refusal to change position was cited by Van Slyke as a key reason why the game-winning run scored. [/I]

:roll:

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15038547]OPS+ is better than OPS when comparing players from different eras.

I don't put much value on Bonds hitting stats during the 01-04 years because of steroids, but even if I did, Ruth still had a whopping 11 seasons where he had an OPS+ of over 200 [B]which is basically OPS that takes into account league average at the time. [/B]
[/QUOTE]
I'm aware of adjusted OPS, and yes, Bonds in the early 2000s had the highest marks in baseball history.


It is a stat still heavy skewed towards pre-integration players because the league average player was significantly worse than in Bonds' time.

I dont think you're grasping the point... you can't assign those stats to Ruth and act like they're actually as impressive as someone doing that in modern baseball. You don't penalize Ruth for playing in a significantly shallower, and artificially reduced talent pool, but you act like what Bonds did doesn't count because he took steroids which many of his contemporaries did themselves. Why?

[QUOTE=AlternativeAcc.;15038562]I'm aware of adjusted OPS, and yes, Bonds in the early 2000s had the highest marks in baseball history.


It is a stat still heavy skewed towards pre-integration players because the league average player was significantly worse than in Bonds' time.

I dont think you're grasping the point... you can't assign those stats to Ruth and act like they're actually as impressive as someone doing that in modern baseball. You don't penalize Ruth for playing in a significantly shallower, and artificially reduced talent pool, but you act like what Bonds did doesn't count because he took steroids which many of his contemporaries did themselves. Why?[/QUOTE]

Simple. He cheated the game. Just because other people were doing it doesn't justify it, pitchers who use steroids don't see the benefits hitters do when they take it. I personally think he should be in the hall, it's weird how David Ortiz got busted in 2003, but still made it. In the end, Bonds knew the possible consequences of taking steroids and his legacy got tarnished because of it.

[QUOTE=AlternativeAcc.;15038562]I'm aware of adjusted OPS, and yes, Bonds in the early 2000s had the highest marks in baseball history.


It is a stat still heavy skewed towards pre-integration players because the league average player was significantly worse than in Bonds' time.

I dont think you're grasping the point... you can't assign those stats to Ruth and act like they're actually as impressive as someone doing that in modern baseball. You don't penalize Ruth for playing in a significantly shallower, and artificially reduced talent pool, but you act like what Bonds did doesn't count because he took steroids which many of his contemporaries did themselves. Why?[/QUOTE]

Yep it's kind of like Wilt putting up 100 pionts on bunch of short white dudes.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15038563]Simple. He cheated the game. Just because other people were doing it doesn't justify it, pitchers who use steroids don't see the benefits hitters do when they take it. I personally think he should be in the hall, it's weird how David Ortiz got busted in 2003, but still made it. In the end, Bonds knew the possible consequences of taking steroids and his legacy got tarnished because of it.[/QUOTE]

But you mention that Bonds pre-steroids doesn't measure up to Ruth... which obviously if you use stats that are skewed to Ruth and other pre-integration players, that would seem to be the case.

In reality, what Bonds did pre-steroids is still more impressive than what Ruth did,. He become the only player in history with 400hr and 400sb and intentional walk record holder, all while many of his peers including pitchers were juicing. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you say what he did in the early 2000s doesn't count, then you also have to heavily discredit Ruth for playing in a white only league, and strongly credit Bonds for dominating modern baseball at a huge disadvantage to many of his peers. His numbers would be even better had everyone been clean.


Either way you wanna slice it, Bonds > Ruth

For argument sake, lets take away Ruth because he only played with whites and 00's Bonds because he used roids.

90's Bonds as hitter wasn't even better than prime Mantle or Ted Williams. Mantle you could debate, but Ted Williams in particular blows 90's Bonds away in OPS+, even had a season at age 38 where he hit 38 HRs and had an OPS+ of 233. Both also had higher WAR during their primes than 90's Bonds did.

Yet neither Mantle or Williams are rarely ranked ahead of Ruth on any all-time list you see.

That's how far ahead Ruth was ahead of his competition, even if you use the race thing against him.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15038574]For argument sake, lets take away Ruth because he only played with whites and 00's Bonds because he used roids.

90's Bonds as hitter wasn't even better than prime Mantle or Ted Williams. Mantle you could debate, but Ted Williams in particular blows 90's Bonds away in OPS+, even had a season at age 38 where he hit 38 HRs and had an OPS+ of 233. Both also had higher WAR during their primes than 90's Bonds did.

Yet neither Mantle or Williams are rarely ranked ahead of Ruth on any all-time list you see.

That's how far ahead Ruth was ahead of his competition, even if you use the race thing against him.[/QUOTE]

For arguments sake let’s take Wilts prime and stack it against LeBron’s

oh wait you won’t do that and bitch and moan about competition. :lol :lol

When it comes to baseball you are super down to go back to the 1950’s, 40’s, hell the early 20’s :roll:

You are cooked

[QUOTE=warriorfan;15038592]For arguments sake let’s take Wilts prime and stack it against LeBron’s

oh wait you won’t do that and bitch and moan about competition. :lol :lol

When it comes to baseball you are super down to go back to the 1950’s, 40’s, hell the early 20’s :roll:

You are cooked[/QUOTE]

Wilt's prime numbers are inflated due to the pace of the league at the time.

What's cool about baseball is you can compare numbers from different eras much easier compared to the NBA.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15038563]Simple. He cheated the game. Just because other people were doing it doesn't justify it, pitchers who use steroids don't see the benefits hitters do when they take it. I personally think he should be in the hall, it's weird how David Ortiz got busted in 2003, but still made it. In the end, Bonds knew the possible consequences of taking steroids and his legacy got tarnished because of it.[/QUOTE]

Pitchers don’t get benifits from doing steroids? Lmfao have you ever pitched? Have you ever done steroids? I’ve done both and it definitely helps. Eric Gagne was a nobody till he got on gear and was throwing 103 and won the Cy Young.

Stop talking out of your ass bro you don’t know shit about anything.

[QUOTE=warriorfan;15038595]Pitchers don’t get benifits from doing steroids? Lmfao have you ever pitched? Have you ever done steroids? [B]I’ve done both [/B]and it definitely helps. Eric Gagne was a nobody till he got on gear and was throwing 103 and won the Cy Young.

Stop talking out of your ass bro you don’t know shit about anything.[/QUOTE]

Why am I not surprised.

And no, it benefits hitters more.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15038602]Why am I not surprised.

And no, it benefits hitters more.[/QUOTE]

So Barry bonds was best in league before and after steroids

Eric Gagne was where before steroids? And when he did it he was cy young? Then after where was he?

Go watch some more YouTube videos about moon being a spaceship. You are a dipshit

[QUOTE=warriorfan;15038603]So Barry bonds was best in league before and after steroids

Eric Gagne was where before steroids? And when he did it he was cy young? Then after where was he?

Go watch some more YouTube videos about moon being a spaceship. You are a dipshit[/QUOTE]

I don't think anyone is debating your statement about Bonds, but here are some league numbers from the peak steroid era.

1998-2004. Close to 5 runs per game, about 76 OPS. Was around 70 during the late 80s and early 90s.

Home runs? Forget about it. 1998-2004 saw more home runs league wide compared to any era prior.

Batting numbers went down considerably across the board once the league cracked down on steroids.

The '99 and '00 season in particular was when batting numbers were insane.