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

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15038463]You are a crackhead who is going through with withdraws this morning.[/QUOTE]

You are a midget beaner who thinks the moon is a spaceship and gonna waste his entire day watching retarded YouTube videos :lol

Nice life

[QUOTE=GOBB;15038448]You’re not here to debate cocaine. So why did you reply?

“In the 70’s Kareem was best player in the nba. In the 80’s it was magic and bird. In the 90’s it was Shaq”.

Me “no in the 90’s it was MJ. Nice try”

Warriormeathead “Kareem was considered the best in the 70’s plus it was wildly recognized magic and bird was in the 80’s. I’m not here to debate what he said about the 90’s.”


You’re not bright at all here. Go find a way to get banned and feel accomplished in life[/QUOTE]

Ouch. Destroyed.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15038467]Ouch. Destroyed.[/QUOTE]

Go cuddle up to Gobb because your midget low iq ass is getting mopped up :lol

That shit is super weak and cringe. You guys should exchange contact info, you two dudes both operate at the same wavelength. You guys will get along well.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15038461]I recently made fun of a list for having Hakeem ahead of Wilt & Russell, yet you choose to ignore that. Wonder why.[/QUOTE]

???

Keep ignoring it.

Your whole point about me was just destroyed and now you have nothing to say.

lmao.

Actually had some decent baseball talk for a minute. Fun while that lasted :lol

The main problem I have with Ruth is that we don't actually know if he was the best baseball player during his time, because there were probably a couple of black guys who could've put up similar numbers had they had the opportunity. Even a white guy on his own team, Gerhig, was putting up comparable numbers during his prime.

I mean, the two other main GOAT candidates are black in Bonds and Mays... and then you have Hank Aaron so arguably 3 black players in the top 5 alone. It's not that I don't think Ruth would've had similar numbers with a fully integrated league, it's that there's a good chance there was a black guy who would've made him look a lot less God-like. To me, this is a bigger red flag than Bonds taking steroids


And if you use steroids against Bonds, how can you not give him credit for dominating the 90s when he was presumably clean while many of his peers were already juicing?

And how can you explain Bonds far and away dominating an incredibly deep talent pool with a ton of guys juicing to the point he had a 300 point OPS advantage over the next best guy from 2001-2004?

We're cool with Ruth dominating against only whites, but not cool with Bonds dominating everybody? The logic doesn't make sense.

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;15038472]Actually had some decent baseball talk for a minute. Fun while that lasted :lol[/QUOTE]

:lol

This is why we can’t have nice things

[QUOTE=AlternativeAcc.;15038473]The main problem I have with Ruth is that we don't actually know if he was the best baseball player during his time, because there were probably a couple of black guys who could've put up similar numbers had they had the opportunity. Even a white guy on his own team, Gerhig, was putting up comparable numbers during his prime.

I mean, the two other main GOAT candidates are black in Bonds and Mays... and then you have Hank Aaron so arguably 3 black players in the top 5 alone. It's not that I don't think Ruth would've had similar numbers with a fully integrated league, it's that there's a good chance there was a black guy who would've made him look a lot less God-like. To me, this is a bigger red flag than Bonds taking steroids


[B]And if you use steroids against Bonds, how can you not give him credit for dominating the 90s when he was presumably clean while many of his peers were already juicing?

And how can you explain Bonds far and away dominating an incredibly deep talent pool with a ton of guys juicing to the point he had a 300 point OPS advantage over the next best guy from 2001-2004?

We're cool with Ruth dominating against only whites, but not cool with Bonds dominating everybody? The logic doesn't make sense[/B].[/QUOTE]

It’s because lakers87 and logic don’t go hand in hand. I’ve pointed this out countless times. He legit makes shit up. What you said tracks though.

Ruth did not cheat, unlike Bonds. Ruth was also a world class pitcher at one point. Imagine if Bonds was one of the best pitchers in the league at one point during the mid-late 80's and won a Cy Young award before he took over the game with his bat in the 90's. That was basically Babe Ruth. He was a mystical player that still gets talked about 100 years later.

1. Ruth
2. Mays

Nuff said.

[QUOTE=warriorfan;15038475]It’s because lakers87 and logic don’t go hand in hand. I’ve pointed this out countless times. He legit makes shit up. What you said tracks though.[/QUOTE]

So you agree with that post, but shit on LeBron for playing in a deeper talent pool league than MJ and played when the NBA expanded internationally while 90's NBA was mostly American.

You have no logic.

[QUOTE=warriorfan;15038474]:lol

This is why we can’t have nice things[/QUOTE]

It's because of you. You come in threads and start throwing personal insults instead of debating.

Have some self awareness dipshit.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15038477]Ruth did not cheat, unlike Bonds. Ruth was also a world class pitcher at one point. Imagine if Bonds was one of the best pitchers in the league at one point during the mid-late 80's and won a Cy Young award before he took over the game with his bat in the 90's. That was basically Babe Ruth. He was a mystical player that still gets talked about 100 years later.

1. Ruth
2. Mays

Nuff said.[/QUOTE]

Imagine if Ruth played in a fully integrated league and dominated it with 5 surefire MVP seasons while many of his peers were juicing, and then went on to juice in his late 30s and put together the greatest run in sports history. That'd be crazy right?

Bonds in the 90s was basically him playing with a 50 pound weight vest, and him juicing just allowed him to take the weight vest off and even the playing field.

It's the only explanation for a guy dominating the way he did in his lage 30s. It means he was playing the game on hard mode before.


Ruth playing with and against only whites is a way bigger asterisk than what Bonds did. We know Bonds was the best clean and unclean vs. a deep, fully integrated talent pool.

There are way too many all-time great non-whites for it not to be a massive deal that Ruth played in a white only league. There's a reason nobody gives a **** about George Mikan.



And Ruth tried to cheat by injecting himself with sheep testicle extract but it backfired by making him incredibly I'll lol. He would've 100% juiced had given the opportunity.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15038479]It's because of you. You come in threads and start throwing personal insults instead of debating.

Have some self awareness dipshit.[/QUOTE]

I’m not gonna waste my time debating with a low iq monkey who never saw pre steroids bonds and try to talk about him. BTW you think the Moon is a spaceship.

You are a clueless dipshit. It is what it is.

[QUOTE=AlternativeAcc.;15038480]Imagine if Ruth played in a fully integrated league and dominated it with 5 surefire MVP seasons while many of his peers were juicing, and then went on to juice in his late 30s and put together the greatest run in sports history. That'd be crazy right?

Bonds in the 90s was basically him playing with a 50 pound weight vest, and him juicing just allowed him to take the weight vest off and even the playing field.

It's the only explanation for a guy dominating the way he did in his lage 30s. It means he was playing the game on hard mode before.


Ruth playing with and against only whites is a way bigger asterisk than what Bonds did. We know Bonds was the best clean and unclean vs. a deep, fully integrated talent pool.

There are way too many all-time great non-whites for it not to be a massive deal that Ruth played in a white only league. There's a reason nobody gives a **** about George Mikan.



And Ruth tried to cheat by injecting himself with sheep testicle extract but it backfired by making him incredibly I'll lol. He would've 100% juiced had given the opportunity.[/QUOTE]

Ether. Thank you for having more patience than me. I can’t even deal with these dudes like Lakers87

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=AlternativeAcc.;15038480]Imagine if Ruth played in a fully integrated league and dominated it with 5 surefire MVP seasons while many of his peers were juicing, and then went on to juice in his late 30s and put together the greatest run in sports history. That'd be crazy right?

Bonds in the 90s was basically him playing with a 50 pound weight vest, and him juicing just allowed him to take the weight vest off and even the playing field.

It's the only explanation for a guy dominating the way he did in his lage 30s. It means he was playing the game on hard mode before.


Ruth playing with and against only whites is a way bigger asterisk than what Bonds did. We know Bonds was the best clean and unclean vs. a deep, fully integrated talent pool.

There are way too many all-time great non-whites for it not to be a massive deal that Ruth played in a white only league. There's a reason nobody gives a **** about George Mikan.



And Ruth tried to cheat by injecting himself with sheep testicle extract but it backfired by making him incredibly I'll lol. He would've 100% juiced had given the opportunity.[/QUOTE]

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=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.

[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