Originally Posted by
ShotgunDawg
You can go either way but I take Bonds.
Here is why:
- Bonds has FAR more defensive value. Bonds had a life time defensive WAR of 67.6 & Ruth was -18.6
- Bonds had 500+ more lifetime walks than Ruth. Give him those 500 more BBs & his lifetime WAR is higher.
- Bonds stole 514 bases compared to Ruth's 123. Barry simply caused more headaches for other team.
- Ruth had far more protection in the lineup than Bonds.
- Bonds played in an era of bullpens & free agency, where he had to face numerous more pitchers once a game or once in a career.
- Bonds is the only player in history to completely change his game. Was an batting average/stolen base guy & then transformed into a home run guy. How he did that is irrelevent in this conversation.
We don't know if Chipper used PEDS, Vlad, Hoffman, etc. We simply don't KNOW, but I truthfully believe that if you were building a baseball team from scratch with any one person to ever grace planet Earth, you would choose Barry Lamar Bonds.