I think Ted Williams might object to that statement...
Kind of depends on how you feel about pitchers and MVPs. In addition to the years he won, Bonds was the probably best NL position player in 1991, 1995, 1996, and 1998. Glavine had a case over him in 91 (Pendleton won), Maddux could have won in 1992 and 1995 (Bonds won in 92, Larkin won in 95), and Kevin Brown had a great 1998 (Sosa won). Bonds should have won in 96. Bonds finished first in NL position player WAR 11 times in 16 years, plus 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, and 4th place finishes (the one year he didn't place highly was 1999, when he missed 50 games with an injury). That's amazing.
Williams won in 46 and 49, and probably should have won in 41, 42, 47, and maybe 51. OTOH, Ted's WAR is probably a little inflated by the lack of good defensive stats from that era. BREF dWAR has him only slightly below average for LF, and Dimaggio only slightly above average in CF, when most accounts of the time suggest the gap was considerably bigger than that. If Ted was posting Manny-like numbers in LF while Dimaggio was the first coming of Andruw Jones in CF, that could be enough to make up the difference in 1941, maybe 1951 (when Berra won and Ted finished slightly ahead of Doby in WAR).
Where the writers' animus against Bonds really shows up is in how low he finished in MVP votes. At least Ted finished second in three of the years he got screwed (he was 13th in 51). Bonds was 2nd in 91 but 12th in 95, 5th in 96, and 8th in 98. Then his decidedly inferior teammate won over him in 2000.
What's interesting about Bonds' mid-90s run is that the rest of the league had already started roiding, while by most accounts Bonds didn't start really bulking up until 1999. Even using PEDs no one could catch a non-PED Barry. No wonder he got pissed off and decided to teach the league a lesson.