Blog Entry

Bonds or Griffey?

Posted on: June 12, 2008 10:41 am
 

The last response to the Manny Ramirez vs. Ken Griffey Jr. was interesting, and got me to thinking of another comparable player in the same era. Eras are difficult to cross and compare although people love doing that with numbers. So lets take a look at a couple of the best players of the last 20 or so years.

Case for Bonds:

The guy was a beast of a player prior to 1999. He was not only a power threat, but hit for a a high average and was still stealing bases with some regularity. Later in his career Bonds had a power surge which is questioned by many who watched him. Some people forget that Barry Bonds was a pretty good defensive outfielder winning 8 GG in LF. Many remember Bonds as older and one of the wrost defensive outfielders, or in his prime many remember him NOT throwing the guy out at the plate in the NLCS in 1991 (maybe 1992). Bonds was named MVP of the NL 7 times, which is more than two times more MVPs than anyone in the history of the game Mantle, DiMaggio and several others are tied for second with 3 MVP. Lou Gehrig only has 2 MVPs.

The numbers for Bonds are just ridiculious, but some of the questions about how he achieved some of those numbers hurt Bonds case slightly.

Case for Griffey:

Griffey was probably the best player of the 1990's and some of his career numbers are right up there in the top in the history of the game. Griffey has missed a lot of time due to injuries, but doesn't take away from the great career of Griffey. Griffey was without a doubt the better player in the field. Griffey played the much mroe demanding position of CF rather than LF. Griffey had the sweet swing, but hit for a lower average than Bonds. Griffey had more HR than Bonds when looking at career totals until Bonds took off in 2001 and Griffey began his string of injuries.

Career Numbers:

Barry Bonds: 2986 G, 9847 AB, 2227 R, 2935 H, 601 2B, 77 3B, 762 HR, 1996 RBI, 514 SB, 2558 BB, 1539 SO, .298 BA, .444 OBP, .607 SLG, 182 OPS+, 7 MVPs, .984 Fielding %, 14 Time All-Star, 8 Gold Gloves 

Bonds 162 Game Avg: 534 AB, 121 R, 159 H, 33 2B, 41 HR, 108 RBI, 28 SB, .298 BA, .444 OBP, .607 SLG 

Ken Griffey Jr: 2441 G, 9051 AB, 1575 R, 2616 H, 487 2B, 37 3B, 600 HR, 1730 RBI, 184 SB, 1200 BB, 1629 SO, .289 BA, .373 OBP, .550 SLG, 139 OPS+, 1 MVP, .985 Fielding %, 13 Time All-Star, 10 Gold Gloves

Griffey 162 Game Avg: 601 AB, 105 R, 174 H, 32 2B, 40 HR, 115 RBI, 12 SB, .289 BA, .373 OBP, .550 SLG

So with all that....who ya got?

Category: MLB
Comments

Since: Jan 9, 2008
Posted on: June 14, 2008 11:11 am
 

Bonds or Griffey?

I'm done with this argument, since Baller here is stuck on Barroid Bonds' c*ck. Griffey > Bonds, I know I'm right and I know you're wrong. That's all I care about. I don't need to defend a future first ballow H.O.F.'er against a guy who just went up against 15 felonies in a federal court.



Since: Oct 3, 2006
Posted on: June 14, 2008 10:36 am
 

Bonds or Griffey?

Some interesting arguments on here, and this has gotten a pretty big response.

The averages and career totals for Bonds are inflated due to his "unkowingly taking PEDs" making the argument with just straight numbers a little more difficult. Some of those years when Bonds was 36+ he had great OBP and SLG percentage which would have been drastically lower without the help of something. This messes up his entire averages.

I also find it interesting that someone said Griffey didn't deserve his last 5 GG. That is interesting....he was obviously the best CF in the era and ranks amongst the best fielding CFs in the history of game. You can use stats all you want to try to "prove" that Griffey isn't one of the top fielders in the history of the game but when a guy like Willie Mays vouches for ya that means more to me than a fielding percentage that went down .0001 or whatever stat that was attempted to be used here.

If they both played CF then it would be a different argument. CF is amongst the most demanding defensive positions on the field. Look at the guys who play CF whose careers were derailed with injuries (Mickey Mantle?). The difficulty of playing CF compared to LF is like comparing apples to turnips. Bonds attempted to play CF....and couldn't he wasn't a good enough defender. Playing CF is like playing SS, remember Griffey was asked to lead the defense in CF and the offense by hitting in the 3 hole.

Even with Bonds ballooned averages and numbers of Bonds look at the 162 game averages....they are interesting.

Of course I am biased for Griffey, but the numbers, defense, and ability to be a good guy and teammate makes me take Griffey here. Ignoring Bonds numbers being inflated with PEDs at least slightly (as he got BETTER after he was 36) is just crazy.




Since: Sep 19, 2006
Posted on: June 14, 2008 5:24 am
 

Bonds or Griffey?

Bonds is an ass



Since: Jan 29, 2008
Posted on: June 14, 2008 1:34 am
 

Bonds or Griffey?

BP&M,

This is how RedSoxBaller is. He can be smart at times, and others.... Well, he can be like this. Which is not a good thing.

RedSoxBaller,

I saw your thread on the message board. You used 162 game averages as your sole evidence. The only reason I bring it up is you can apply what I'm about to say directly to that thread.

Bonds used PED's. Ya with me so far?

The steriods caused Bond's to, in essence, ignore the natrual career arc and get better in many, and inexplicable, ways at an age where everyone declines. You follow?

So, when Bonds ignored the career arc, his stats, at a time when they should've gotten worse, got better. This applys to all numbers, but mainly percentages, like OBP. So, we can hypothosive(and it is played out by the stats) that his OBP, for example, rose, when it should've fallen.  When you account for PED enchanced numbers, you can't just adjust them to where they were beforehand, but actually try to think about where they would've been had he experienced the arc in skills that just about everyone(AKA, everyone except those on PED's) experiences. So his stats are scewed BIG time. When his homers should've be going down dramaticly, he hit 73 jacks. That went on for a while. He probably would be behind Griffey in homeruns and many other important stats.

And for another thing, how exactly would BP&M be a "homer"? He's not a Reds fan. He's not a Mariners fan. He's a Red Sox/Mets fan, for crying out load.




Since: Aug 24, 2006
Posted on: June 14, 2008 1:14 am
 

Bonds or Griffey?

Baller, I'm not even going to acknowledge you or your posts from now on, since YOU are the one who thinks they know everything, and just a condescending tool. You go around the boards questioning people's knowledge, and you call them out for being bad baseball fans when they don't have George Sisler's sophmore season's OPS+ memorized. You're nothing more than a condescending jerk with a computer who thinks he knows everything. You don't know anything more than what could be looked up on baseball-reference.com. Good for you though, since you love to make your point by putting others down.

Bonds WAS a great player, then was a great cheater. Without a natural regression, his numbers are all ballooned. He would've went down as one of the all-time greats, but his ego and racism because he was jealous of a white man took control of him and he cheated. HE CHEATED, HE ADMITTED HE CHEATED. He's a scumbag, a lowlife, a racist, and was a heck of a ballplayer, but with the other knowledge at hand, I would take a class-act like Ken Griffey jr. who is one of the best hitters of all-time AS WELL AS one of the best fielders of all-time, over a jerk like Bonds any day of the week, whose numbers are tainted. And, once again, for I don't know how many times I've said this because you seem to ignore it each and every time, probably because it's a valid point against your argument, if Bonds was such a fantastic fielder with such great range, why the hell wasn't he playing centerfield?

Gee, could it be that maybe he's overrated as a fielder? I'd take Griffey in center over Bonds in left each and every time.

CONSIDER YOURSELF IGNORED FROM THIS POINT ON!



RedSoxBaller
Since: Mar 20, 2008
Posted on: June 13, 2008 11:28 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator



RedSoxBaller
Since: Mar 20, 2008
Posted on: June 13, 2008 11:12 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator



RedSoxBaller
Since: Mar 20, 2008
Posted on: June 13, 2008 10:45 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator




Since: Jan 9, 2008
Posted on: June 13, 2008 10:29 pm
 

Bonds or Griffey?

No Baller, you're the wrong one here.
What makes you sure Griffey didn't take roids?
Um, because he hasn't been linked to ANYTHING, and his figure has stayed the same his WHOLE CAREER. Whereas Barroid Bonds head and foot size grew DRAMATICALLY. Griffey > Bonds. End of story. Ask anybody you come across on the street (NOT in San Fransisco) and they will say Jr is the better player and teammate. And how do you know when Barroid's "juicing" started? You don't. For all you know he's been on PED's his whole career.


RedSoxBaller
Since: Mar 20, 2008
Posted on: June 13, 2008 10:15 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator



The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com