Who cares about fielding? You do. You brought it up. Also I didn't compare Fielding to Fielding I compared their overall rank to position. I know bonds Stole bases. So you are saying that because no other stat helps him you are going to look at the one stat that helps your case? I guess stealing bases makes up for the times he didn't get on base because he was fanning the pitcher. I am not saying Bonds wasn't good, but there is no way that he could be considered the greatest as was the claim.

;)

They are different positions, again look at the reasoning on fielding percentage, it's significantly easier to have a higher fielding percentage playing first. Let's see where your beloved Pujols ends up on the all-time charts. I could give two shits about first 10 years. If you looked at my prior post I said I admit Pujols probably had the greatest first 10 years in history, but that doesn't mean anything if he doesn't do it the next 10.

I don't need to dig stats when it's all said and done. Bonds will have the better numbers, across the board other than hits, most likely RBI's and obviously Doubles. Bonds got on base more than Pujols, so what if he k's, had he not k'ed as much, I can't even fathom what his stats would look like.

Look, I love Pujols, I'm so thankful I've gotten to see him play a few times, and he will go down as one of the best of all-time without a doubt (steroid implications or not). Two tremendous players, and Pujols' stretch seems done unfortunately. Yes, 10-11 amazing special seasons, but I want to see what he does over 20 years.

Not strange he was a juice head but if you look at Pujols body type when he came in then the next 5 years or so he was noticably thicker now if you look at him hes thinner again. Has he used? Your guess is as good as mine but you cant count anyone out from that era.

Please stop, you aren't paying attention and stopping for a second to really look at the stats. I said Position to Position their ranks for Fielding pct. I didn't compare Fielding pct. For their position I showed their ranks overall. Bonds for all OF (so I am only comparing him to others in the same position) he is 50th. Pujols among 1st basemen is at 47. So for their position they rank around the same.

Yet again you are just trying to find anything to help support the steroid user as being the better of the two. Ok so I have been told the first 12 weren't good years to compare Bonds and Pujols and I can't use Bonds last three years. So lets look at 93-04 for Bonds. Bonds still is the SO leader and and fails to have the higher BA. At this point Bonds does excel at the other stats, but that is also when we know he was juicing, so for him to only be slightly better in the best stretch of 12 years while on roids then the player I chose to compare him to off I don't know why there really is an argument on who was better.

I know Pujols looks to be going down hill but that is only based off just over 1 season of being off. I really don't know if it will be the end, but if he ends his career now I will still believe that he was the best player I had a chance to see.

Yet again, you are comparing players whom have played different positions, so it's tough to guage, but fielding percentage aside, Bonds was still the suprerior defensive player? Support for a steroid user, please. When did he EVER test positive...not once. It's ALL speculation. Bonds never failed one drug test, Bonds had never got caught using steroids. So please, enough with this steroid crap.

And with that comparison, Bonds destroys Pujols in all but two categories with 1,500 less AB's. In fact, it's pretty much downright embarassing by how much better he was in that span.

Cheers

Brent

I'm not so sure about this. In football and basketball, yes. Baseball, though, would be a bit different.

- The ball used in 1913 wasn't nearly as lively as the ones in use today. This would almost certainly be a factor that favors the old timers.

- The ball was also changed with much less frequency. Modern hitters are accustomed to a new, gleaming white ball to hit at. Not as significant; however, would still tilt things towards the 1913 players.

- Good pitching beats good hitting, and there were some pretty solid hurlers back in 1913. Hard to imagine WaJo and company getting "clobbered," especially playing under conditions they were used to.

- Most modern players would be on the 15-day DL after getting spiked by Cobb. OK, not a game changer...however...thought it was a valid point. The old timers were tough as leather. Today's athlete...maybe not so much.

Just my two cents. Personally, I think it it would be a close matchup.

Respectfully,

Eric

It is a very tough comparison to judge, that's for sure. Modern players are stronger, faster, better equipment, etc. Pre-War or Deadball players have bad baseballs and equipment like you stated, larger fields, but not necessarily as strong or fast. I can say one thing, it sure as hell would be a fun game to watch the best of the best in pre-war vs post-war in a Best of 7. Wow.

Support for a steroid user, please. When did he EVER test positive...not once. It's ALL speculation. Bonds never failed one drug test, Bonds had never got caught using steroids. So please, enough with this steroid crap.

This just in, "Earth Not Flat!"

Show me the proof, show me his positive test results, please. Humor me

I have none and you know it. However to deny that "that" is by far the most plausible explanation for what he was able to accomplish at an advanced age is in a word "myopic."

Look you can admire what he achieved if you like, it was phenomenal. However it like the accomplishments of many of his brethren will always have a stench associated with it.

Hey, I agree. But it's all speculaction, whether he's superhuman or got help, I will go with innocent until proven guilty

Guys,
Sorry, but you're not going to convince Brent about Bonds. He is his favorite player, I think.
We had a very similar debate early last year in a thread "players you refuse to collect." At that time, we were debating Bonds to Ruth. If he feels Barry is flat out better than Ruth, he is surely going to think he is better than Pujols.

If you are interested and want to read the exchange, here is the link.
He begins his debate with other around post 43 and I chimed in around post 69.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ht=ruth&page=5

BTW, I like Brent. We just disagree significantly on this topic.

Mark

Hmmm.

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...ictureid=11407

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...ictureid=11406

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...ictureid=11405

Thanks for the kind words Mark, I do appreciate it. I really enjoy our civil debates we have in this forum (for the most part), it's a great learning experience and I love reading others views on their favorite players, very fun, and I respect everyone's views, hard to say you can't respect someone's opinion.

Bonds is by far nowhere near close to my favorite player. I think he's an absolute dick, but I truly respect and love his abilities as a player. Mauer is by far my favorite, and no one is close to second, and may be Puckett. What MN kid didn't love Puck growing up :), gosh we miss him.

And as we speak, we are getting no hit :( but my boy Mauer will break it :)

And he did!!!

Everyone's entitled to their opinion. He obviously admires Barry (as a player). That's ok.

Well said, thank you. That's what great about baseball is we can have these debates. You necessarily can't with the other big 3 sports

Here's What I'm Groovin' On
 

The WAS runoff between Clemens and Jeter.

And the difference of WAS and was NOT for a single player. Ripken Jr, for instance.

Jeter was a first round selection, 6th pick, and expected to produce. The power numbers put up by Albert are legendary. You are comparing apples and oranges with the two. They are completely different hitters.

Interesting thread..out of curiosity, did you leave Greg Maddux and Ken Griffey Jr. off this list because everyone already knows they were some of the greatest of all time?
As per the list- Bonds and Clemens stand out- if they hadn't cheated, I would consider them two of the best ever but now i'm honestly too torn to even know what to think of them.

Roids or not, you still have to hit the ball. A lot of players may have juiced during that era, yet did not produce outrageous stats and numbers. Loved watching McGwire in the HR contest at Fenway, Bonds taking swings at the plate during games, Giambi as well. I just wish I could mute Chris Berman during McGwire's AB in Fenway and listen to the sound of the bat and the crowd.

Going off that, I would just love to be in am empty park and hear it thundering

Lou, not comparing them against their mutual attributes. But for every first round pick who is expected to produce there are so many other first round or early picks who we have never heard from. So much for expectations. One never knows how they will blossom. That was my point. Ya just can't really predict until they get to the big leagues.

Derek Jeter is a great one. Growing up, I hated the Yankees because my Royals would play them in the playoffs and lose. Looking back as I have gotten older, I have admiration for The Boss and those Yankee teams from the mid to late 70's. I wish the Royals owner had the drive and passion to win like George did. David Glass has deep pockets, there is no excuse.

Strange but a lot of players have their, better years later on. Almost like a light gets switched on, or the game slows down. Bonds was using, Just like almost everyone else of his time, but as he got older he also learned to hit better. Here are a few examples of players who got better as some years went bye. (off the top of my head)

RA dickey, Jose Bautista, Encarnacion, Randy Johnson, Roy Halladay, Carlos Gomez, AJ Pierzynski had his best season last year at age 35 and hes a catcher, blew away his notmal stat lines. Paul Konerko had his best 2 season at 34 and 35.

Im sure you guys could name ever more players.

Well this thread was about perception.

The votes came in for the roid guys to show most know they were top in their class.

The main point being, most voted against shefield BUT for Jeter.

Shefields numbers are awesome though perceived in a dab light and jeters numbers don't reflect a top player in any season but people think hes one of the best.

Funny a few months ago, people calling up mike francessa saying Jeter was better that Joe D and Mickey, what a joke, lol just funny how people view certain players.

Jeter and Molitor have the exact same numbers, very good players HOF players, but not in the conversation of the best of their time and certainly not the best of all time.

Yep Griffey and Maddux were also the best of their time, but The vote was more of an experiment in perception.