RealGM

Who is the the better player at their respective sport?

Ignoring the obvious variable here and just answering the question, it’s Bonds. He peaked higher than any athlete in their respective sport. Teams eventually just stopped pitching to him. I’m not sure what the equivalent level of surrender would be in a different sport.

I remember a few occasions where bases were loaded and the opposing team still walked Bonds to force in a run. It doesn't get more dominating than that.

Meanwhile, the Spurs routinely left James open and dared him to shoot from the perimeter in the finals, and he didn't make them pay.

DirtyDez wrote:Ignoring the obvious variable here and just answering the question, it’s Bonds. He peaked higher than any athlete in their respective sport. Teams eventually just stopped pitching to him. I’m not sure what the equivalent level of surrender would be in a different sport.

I'm inclined to agree with your assessment, as you say ignoring the clear caveat, I think Bonds was more of an outlier within his sport than LeBron is in his.

But to the implied question of the equivalent of stopping pitching to a guy, which I think is a great one, I'd say it's putting enough defensive pressure on a player that he can't get/keep/shoot the ball. So we could think of walks in baseball as essentially analogous to gravity in basketball. The nature of the impact is very different because of the structure of the game, which is the sort of thing I find fascinating.

The Explorer wrote:I remember a few occasions where bases were loaded and the opposing team still walked Bonds to force in a run. It doesn't get more dominating than that.

Meanwhile, the Spurs routinely left James open and dared him to shoot from the perimeter in the finals, and he didn't make them pay.

Not to quibble with how impressive the Bonds fact is, but it's worth noting in terms of actual impact on the game, baseball players just can't have anywhere near the value, and thus effective dominance, over team performance as basketball players.

The Explorer wrote:I remember a few occasions where bases were loaded and the opposing team still walked Bonds to force in a run. It doesn't get more dominating than that.

Meanwhile, the Spurs routinely left James open and dared him to shoot from the perimeter in the finals, and he didn't make them pay.

Except for when he did in 2013...

Or are we basing this entirely on a 22 year old version.

I think its very close. I think generally speaking LeBron would be ranked slightly higher on all time lists for his sport than Bonds is for his but Bonds prob has a case for greatest baseball player of all time and its a sport with roughly 50 years more of history behind it than the nba has. Of course LeBron has way more impact but that's not really about who was better so much as it is that they are different sports where being the best has far lesser impact in one compared to the other.

The Explorer wrote:I remember a few occasions where bases were loaded and the opposing team still walked Bonds to force in a run. It doesn't get more dominating than that.

Meanwhile, the Spurs routinely left James open and dared him to shoot from the perimeter in the finals, and he didn't make them pay.

Erm...you know another way of saying that is they essentially sold out the paint entirely and gave up shots from the outside to James and his teammates. That would infer a high degree of dominance (and exploiting the Cavs weakness).

James also was not in his prime, Barry Bonds wasn't getting walked with bases loaded at 22. Bonds was not a freakish outlier player for a lot of his career.

This is clearly Barry Bonds, if we ignore the whole steroid thing. In his best years, Barry Bonds was just in a completely different stratosphere from his peers in a way that LeBron James (or any other basketball player) simply has never been. Of course, the flip side of this is that an individual baseball player matters a lot less than an individual basketball player, so if we’re talking less about how good a player was at their sport and more about how impactful they are to their team winning in that sport, then I think LeBron would be ahead of Bonds, as would a whole bunch of other basketball players.

Just in terms of how good a player was at their sport, the only real comparators to peak Bonds in team sports that I can think of would be Babe Ruth and Sir Donald Bradman. Bradman was probably even better at his sport (cricket) than Bonds was at baseball. It does all suggest that perhaps the basic skill of sports where you hit a fast-moving ball may be something with a wider standard deviation and/or more enormous outliers at the top end than other types of sports.

HeartBreakKid wrote:

The Explorer wrote:I remember a few occasions where bases were loaded and the opposing team still walked Bonds to force in a run. It doesn't get more dominating than that.

Meanwhile, the Spurs routinely left James open and dared him to shoot from the perimeter in the finals, and he didn't make them pay.

Erm...you know another way of saying that is they essentially sold out the paint entirely and gave up shots from the outside to James and his teammates. That would infer a high degree of dominance (and exploiting the Cavs weakness).

James also was not in his prime, Barry Bonds wasn't getting walked with bases loaded at 22. Bonds was not a freakish outlier player for a lot of his career.

Just to make it clear I voted for Bonds, but I think the example of "the spurs leaving James open" isn't a great way to discredit James in this comparison.

Leaving the outside open to protect the inside is somewhat analogous to walking someone in basketball. Even if James could hit outside shots that year they would still crowd the paint.

The equivalent of Bonds in basketball (if there even is one) is basically if you had a player who hit 3s at such an unprecedented clip that opponents would rather intentionally foul him just to limit him to 2 points rather than allow him to shoot a 3.

Steroid Bonds from 01-04 led the entire MLB in on base percentage without swinging a baseball bat.

https://youtu.be/JwMfT2cZGHg?si=CsLzVmKcJtj3Q_V9

It’s Bonds.

Also thank you to OP for seeing my suggestion and making this thread.

Also unclear if we are meant to be comparing peaks or primes in this thread.

EmpireFalls wrote:
Steroid Bonds from 01-04 led the entire MLB in on base percentage without swinging a baseball bat.

https://youtu.be/JwMfT2cZGHg?si=CsLzVmKcJtj3Q_V9

i've always loved that video. bonds OBP only changing by 0.001 without swinging was too perfect.

EmpireFalls wrote:The equivalent of Bonds in basketball (if there even is one) is basically if you had a player who hit 3s at such an unprecedented clip that opponents would rather intentionally foul him just to limit him to 2 points rather than allow him to shoot a 3.

Steroid Bonds from 01-04 led the entire MLB in on base percentage without swinging a baseball bat.

Let's just keep in mind that giving up 2 free throws in basketball is drastically more costly than giving up a walk in almost all circumstances, as well as that earning 2 points for a player is seen as a much bigger accomplishment than getting a base on balls.

Now, the fact that Bonds got walked with bases loaded is insane and I don't want to sound like I'm dismissing that, but we have to take with our analogies here not to equate analogous responses with equally costly responses.

The difference between Bonds and the second best player is bigger than LeBron and the second best player. Especially peak.

However due to steroids I voted LeBron

In basketball 1 player can have a much bigger impact, so it's Lebron. Bonds wouldn't even have the impact a top 10 NBA player does most years.

One_and_Done wrote:In basketball 1 player can have a much bigger impact, so it's Lebron. Bonds wouldn't even have the impact a top 10 NBA player does most years.

That doesn't mean someone is better at their sport. Does that mean that Chris Bosh is better at basketball than the best baseball player?

HeartBreakKid wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:In basketball 1 player can have a much bigger impact, so it's Lebron. Bonds wouldn't even have the impact a top 10 NBA player does most years.

That doesn't mean someone is better at their sport. Does that mean that Chris Bosh is better at basketball than the best baseball player?

He's probably more impactful, so yes. Who is "better" is meaningless. Bonds racking up HRs on a loser team for many years tells you that, never mind the steroid issue.

One_and_Done wrote:

HeartBreakKid wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:In basketball 1 player can have a much bigger impact, so it's Lebron. Bonds wouldn't even have the impact a top 10 NBA player does most years.

That doesn't mean someone is better at their sport. Does that mean that Chris Bosh is better at basketball than the best baseball player?

He's probably more impactful, so yes. Who is "better" is meaningless. Bonds racking up HRs on a loser team for many years tells you that, never mind the steroid issue.

What does him having homeruns on bad teams have to do with anything? Homeruns are homeruns, it is not basketball where you can just take bad shots to boost your PPG.


If you do not understand baseball then why even post in a thread comparing a baseball player with a basketball player?

If you think Chris Bosh is a better basketball player than Barry Bonds is then you pretty much have no credibility at all. If the topic is "meaningless" then why participate? Barry Bonds was arguably the best player before he did steroids, so I don't get what steroids has to do with anything.


It doesn't make any sense to say that the BEST baseball player is worse at his sport than the 99th best basketball player. (or whatever you want to put Chris Bosh at).


That is like saying the 500th best boxer is better at his sport than Lebron James is at basketball because a boxer has more agency over his sport. I guess they should have done Lebron James vs Andy Ruddock instead.