Were they the best......

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

Don't know how it's a laughing matter. Yes, Pujols probably had one of the, if not the greatest first 10 years in Major League history, I'll admit that. But having 1,000 more AB's can change the overall average a decent amount, that's 1 1/2-2yrs worth...I just can't place him as high as other guys because of his defensive value.

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

Who cares about fielding percentage, first base is where they put the guys who aren't athletic enough to play elsewhere. And seriously, you just only talk about the big 3 offensive stats, your ignorance towards these two clearly show. 1B is so much easier to have a higher fielding percentage, because you have 3+x more chances, and you rarely have to move or scoop a ball most of the time. Currently, Pujols has 3x as many chances in half the career length.

Bonds, had it ALL. He ran wait for it...(do you want me to even bother showing you SB comparisons?), he could field with grace before he bulked up as well as throw. Pujols, slow, not a great arm, ever.

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.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

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.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

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.

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.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

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