Quote Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg View Post
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.
Gun Bully13 said greatest hitter not greatest all around player so defense and stolen bases don?t come into play.