Is Pujols better than Bonds?If yes why?

Question

I have no clue who is better!

Answer 1

No Bonds uses steroids

Answer 2

At the current moment, it would be hard to argue that Bonds is better. Considering all aspects of the game, Pujols is far superior to Bonds. It might not be fair, but considering that Pujols is just getting to his prime, and Barry has obviously passed his (which legitamately was probably somewhere in the mid-90s; no telling what the alleged steriod use did to inflate the numbers and ruin his legacy), Pujols gets the nod.

As far as overall career, it remains to be seen. Albert has many, many good years left. Barry does not. For a career, Barry was the ideal five-tool guy (although weak with the arm; ask Sid Bream). A man who could hit for power, average, steal bases, and played a great outfield, Bonds was the primo guy until his head inflated to a size 39. The alleged steroid use will kill his career and his legacy, but I feel that he would have (and still should be) considered one of the greats of the past 20 years.

Answer 3

Pujols is a better player. If you look at their yearly averages, Pujols has averaged more runs, hits, doubles, home runs, RBI's, total bases, slugging %, batting average, and fewer strikeouts. He also has a higher fielding percentage (.989 v .984). And this is over the course of their whole career.

Bonds was only a .265 hitter for his first five seasons, Pujols has a .331 BA. Bonds hit 117 HR's, Pujols was at 201 at the end of last season. Bonds had 337 RBI's, Pujols - 621. Bonds had 468 runs, Pujols had 629. And, perhaps most importantly, Bonds did not have an MVP in his first five seasons, Pujols has.

Answer 4

Right now I'd take Pujols over a very much past his prime Bonds...

However I'd have to give the nod to Barry for being a better career player. In 20 years Pujols could prove me wrong but it takes a very good player (some juice) and a lot of luck to put up those kind of numbers for 20+ years.

If it was based on skill alone Ken Griffey Jr would be out of everyones reach right now.

-A Dodger fan who dislikes Bonds a great deal

Answer 5

Pujols is way better than Bonds.
pujols is a homerun hitter, so was
bonds but the difference was that
bonds used steroids. each year so
far in his career, Pujols averages 40
homers a season. He had an amazing
36 homers his rookie year. Bonds
on the other hand averaged
about 35 homers and he used steroids
in his rookie year he only hit 16 homers.
Pujols will break the 73 homerun
season set by Bonds.

Answer 6

It depends on who you ask, but at the moment Pujols is better without a doubt. Pujols's stats are dwarfing Bond's right now and that is indisputable. Bonds has obviously had the better career but when it's all said it done Pujols could surpass him.

Answer 7

Currently no Pujols is not better then Bonds, Pujols is injured while Bonds is just Day to Day

Answer 8

if ur talkin about this year pujols is definitly better. pujols has hit 20 something homers despite being injured. i dont think pujols has made many errors. bonds has made a few. im not sure how many homers bonds has hit but i know its under 8. but u must take in mind that bonds is way older then pujols. i think pujols is better.

Answer 9

Pujols is a better player now. Bonds was the best player then.

Answer 10

Pujols is a better player.

He doesn't take steroids (if he does, not very noticeable). People have more respect for Pujols than Bonds. Plus, he is an allaround better player.

Answer 11

Pujols is better than Bonds right now because he is far younger and just entering his prime. But from a career standpoint, Bonds is superior.