And if you really want to include Bonds - which I wouldn't - shouldn't you give Ruth and Williams the shitton of PEDs that transformed Bonds1 - a fast guy who was elite in the field and a good hitter - to Bonds2, who wasn't fast at all, needed a cap 2-3 sizes larger, but was a very scary hitter?
If you look at
Bonds' B-Ref page and take 1999 (MVP season) as a dividing line...
- 2 seasons under 28 steals before 99; no season with more than 15 (and 6 in a row with less than 10) afterwards
- 1 season with 45/more HRs before 99, 5 in a row (with a high of 73) afterwards
- No season above .458 OBP before 99, 4 in a row over 500 (one over 600) afterwards
- High of 43 IBB before 99, 4 seasons of 43/above (including one season at 120) after
- 8 gold gloves before 99, none after
Bonds1 hit 411 homers in 13 seasons , averaging 32/year; his batting average was .290, average OBP was .443, OPS 1.046, and OPS+, 177. These are excellent numbers - they would probably qualify Bonds1 for the HoF, and compare favorably to Ken Griffey Jr. over the first 13 years of his career. But Griffey isn't part of the GOAT discussion.
Bonds2 - the "better living through chemistry" upgrade from Bonds1 - hit 351 homers in 8+ season (all but 14 games of a ninth, 2005, was pretty well lost to injuries). Excluding 2005, Bonds2 had a batting average of .316; over the eight year period, his average OBP was .500, OPS, 1.205, and OPS+, 211.
FrankenBonds adds up to an incredibly well-rounded player, but Bonds1 isn't really a candidate for any kind of GOAT discussion, and Bonds2 had eight peak (chemically-enhanced) seasons that were excellent, but which don't by themselves produce a body of work that puts him in a league with Ruth, Williams, or any of the top RHH guys like Fox or Hornsby.