A-Rod has won two MVP awards on two different teams.
He was MLB's second 40/40 man in history.
He has put up top numbers across the board for a decade plus.
Does this answer your question?
2007-05-27 12:23:23
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
ARod, he plays third base and is a more active player, Pujols doesn't move as well and plays first. They are pretty close to even at the plate in my opinion.
2007-05-27 08:46:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by paia423 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Although pujols is a better hitter, I think that arod is a better all around player because he is more versatile.
2007-05-27 08:40:04
·
answer #3
·
answered by Shizzle 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
All around the answer is obviously A-Rod. Pujols is not an all around player but pretty much a hitting specialist. One of the best but pretty one dimensional.
2007-05-27 08:43:54
·
answer #4
·
answered by jeff 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
A-Rod
He steals more bases. Other than that, take your pick. I personally like A-Rod because he plays in the Yankee lineup, and the Cardinals are a average-to-bad team at best without Pujols.
2007-05-27 08:34:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by GOB BLUTH 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
A-rod steals bases and pujols hits for higher average, other than that they are the same. And so what if the yankees stink this year... SO DOES PUJOLS!!!
2007-05-27 08:40:38
·
answer #6
·
answered by god007md 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
they both are great all around players but i would have to say arod cause of his play on the field at 3B and Shortstop
2007-05-27 08:33:11
·
answer #7
·
answered by xxjetzfanxx7 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
YANKEES STINK THIS YEAR. so it is Pujols he is more average then A-ROD and we all know how well A-ROD plays fielding too he thinks so many errors
2007-05-27 08:37:54
·
answer #8
·
answered by bonds756 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Rodriguez. A third baseman is harder to find than a first baseman, and he probably could still play shortstop.
2007-05-27 08:39:01
·
answer #9
·
answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
pujols is better, always was better, and will always be better
2007-05-27 08:38:32
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋