Barry Bonds 90's only vs. Albert Pujols

This is about 90's-only Bonds only (not his 2000+ years), vs. Albert Pujols. So who's better?

Here are some numbers.

Bonds 1990-1999 vs Pujols 2001-2010, per 162 games

Bonds: 1434 G, .302/.434/.602, 179 OPS+. 41 HR, 122 RBI, 124 R, 34 doubles, 130 BB, 85 K, 39 SB, 11 CS
Pujols: 1500 G, .331/.425/.622, 171 OPS+, 42 HR, 128 RBI, 122 R, 44 doubles, 95 BB, 67 K, 8 SB, 4 CS

 

Pujols, as you failed to include the crucial "clubhouse cancer" statistic:

Bonds = 100%
Pujols = 0%

 

No comparison. Bonds was a better player. A true 5-tooler. Pujols is a 3 tooler. He can't run or throw.

 

I think you're under rating his base running abilities. He might not steal a lot of bases, but he's very smart on the bases.

 

Well, Bonds' clubhouse issues didn't stop him from taking 5 of those teams to the playoffs with one miss being the 105 win 1993 Giants team. His teams still won (and he was usually on unremarkable teams otherwise) - so there is no way to prove his clubhouse presence had any negative effect on standings.

 

In the Bonds-Kent war, most Giants sided with Bonds. That just could mean that Kent was a worse asshole, but just sayin'. My answer is that I would take the Bonds of the first 6-7 years of the 1990s

 

In the regular season, I think Bonds was the better player. He could hit, sometimes for power, steal bases and was fast. He was a beast in the outfield, winning eight gold gloves; Pujols has one at first base. Pujols is slower, though he can hit for power and average. I've just seen him hot dog it down to first too many times. In the playoffs, however, is where Pujols has proved the be the more valuable asset and has produced consistently. Pujols is batting .281 in the playoffs in 56 games, went to the World Series twice, winning one. Bonds in the 90s hit .200 in 23 games, never going to the World Series (if you include the 2000s it goes up to .245 with one World Series appearance where he actually did very well, the Giants just choked). To get me to the playoffs, I'd want Pittsburgh/early Giants Bonds. In the playoffs, I'd want Pujols.

 

Drip, if you are going to say Pujols can't run, then you have to say Bonds couldn't throw. Though neither assertion is completely fair.

Bonds had a relatively weak throwing arm, though he was accurate and had a quick release. Pujols obviously never had the speed to steal 50 bases like Bonds did, but he runs the bases very well and he is at least an occasional threat to steal.

Pujols overall is a better hitter, though Bonds still had the higher on-base percentage. Give both credit for very strong defense. The question is if Bonds' skills as a base-stealer count enough to overcome slightly inferior hitting skills and the fact that he occasionally caused trouble by being an asshole.

Tough call, one that I'm sure is made more difficult by how much people despise Bonds. In the end, I go with Spartan Squad's point and take Pujols because he has been better in the playoffs.

 

Bonds' playoff struggles were nothing but a statistical anomaly.

 

As somebody who watched almost every playoff at-bat Bonds had as a Pirate, I strongly disagree with you on that one, Dick. He wasn't the same hitter in the playoffs. I honestly don't know why because in the pressure of a regular-season pennant race, nobody was better.

And even if you were correct, the point remainds that Pujols produced more when it mattered most.

 

I covered Barry during his Pittsburgh playoff years. I can't say that he choked but there's no question he struggled. I think he had some good ABs but nothing happened well for him.

 

The reason I say that is because of how lights out he was in 2002.