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.
How many homers a year was Bonds hitting before he started to take the 'roids? 30 - 40 or so.