Which Outfield would you rather and why?

[sports-cards-forever]

Hard to include Bonds in any lists because the numbers are skewed. However, group A has alot more titles. That should say something.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by sports-cards-forever

Hard to include Bonds in any lists because the numbers are skewed. However, group A has alot more titles. That should say something.

It says they have 2 Yankees. If titles correlated to a single player's greatness, what would that say about Ted?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by sports-cards-forever

Hard to include Bonds in any lists because the numbers are skewed. However, group A has alot more titles. That should say something.

I agree with this. It is A by a lot. Bonds wasn't that good without steroids. Replace Bonds with a better player, say Stan Musial, then this is a debate.

[maniac_73]

Originally Posted by rats60

I agree with this. It is A by a lot. Bonds wasn't that good without steroids. Replace Bonds with a better player, say Stan Musial, then this is a debate.

Bonds was a 3 time MVP before steroids


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BobbyStrawberry]

Also, OP stated that the players were "at the peak of their playing ability." That means the unstoppable steroid version of Bonds, not what he was before steroids.

[D. Bergin]

I'd theorize that Bonds without steroids would have still been a level above Griffey Jr., and in the neighborhood of Aaron and Mays. Just not the absolute monster he became.

I think it's fair to say, like most questions thrown out on chat forums, we all have our own interpretation of what the question was really asking, and the reasons given for our answers.

[BobbyStrawberry]

OK, OK, fair.

[G1911]

Through 1998, before steroids, Bonds had a 164 OPS+, 3 MVP's, 7 WAR crowns, had over 400 homers in 6600 at bats, well over 400 steals, and slashed .290/.411/.556. He was the best player in the National League. To say he "wasn't that good" is completely disconnected from observable reality lol.