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: Aug 24, 2006
Posted on: June 13, 2008 5:00 pm
 

Bonds or Griffey?

Baller, I don't know how many times I've pointed it out, because you never seem to acknowledge it. Bonds ADMITTED to taking steroids, just said he unknowingly did so. And, don't use the "it was legal at the time" argument, because steroids have been banned since June 5th, 1991, when Fay Vincent sent out an affidavit to ALL major league owners banning PEDs of any sort, and speaking of future punishment and testing.

And why would we take away 200 homeruns from Griffey? That makes no sense.  You say that Bonds was the better player in the 1990s and would be in the 2000, WRONG. Bonds is 5 years older than Griffey. If Bonds had gone through a natural regression rather than roiding up, his numbers, all of them, would be a lot lower, especially his OPS+. And Griffey, even with the injuries, would be the better player going through his 30s while Bonds was regressing in his 40s in the 2000s.

And I would STILL take one of the best defensive centerfielders over the BEST defensive left fielder any day of the week. Like I said, would you want one of the best defensive shortstops of all-time, or the best defensive first baseman of all-time. You take the shortstop, or you're on crack.

Would Bonds be the better hitter without steroids, probably, although some of his ballooned numbers wouldn't be close to Griffey's, especially in homeruns. Is Bonds the better defender. Not an ice cubes chance in hell.

So, that being said, I would take Griffey over Bonds easily.



RedSoxBaller
Since: Mar 20, 2008
Posted on: June 13, 2008 2:54 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator



RedSoxBaller
Since: Mar 20, 2008
Posted on: June 13, 2008 2:10 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator



RedSoxBaller
Since: Mar 20, 2008
Posted on: June 13, 2008 2:04 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator



RedSoxBaller
Since: Mar 20, 2008
Posted on: June 13, 2008 1:53 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator




Since: Jan 9, 2008
Posted on: June 13, 2008 12:09 pm
 

Bonds or Griffey?

How would Bonds' numbers look if he didn't (allegedly) juice? I doubt they'd be even close to Jr's numbers.



Since: Aug 17, 2006
Posted on: June 12, 2008 8:12 pm
 

Bonds or Griffey?

I think it's a great comparison. In Seattle, Griffey had better hitters surrounding him in his best years in Seattle. Both were superior defensive outfielders. Bonds was a better base stealer. Griffey had injuries slow him down. To say this is a slam dunk on either side is not right. At their peak, I'd take Junior by a nose, over a career Bonds by a nose.



Since: Aug 24, 2006
Posted on: June 12, 2008 7:45 pm
 

Bonds or Griffey?

Thank you bigten! I'm glad I'm not the only person that feels that being the greatest defensive left fielder or all-time can't compare with being one of the greatest defensive centerfielders of all-time. Like I said, if Bonds was so great a defender, he would have stayed in centerfield rather than being moved to left in his 2nd full season.




Since: Oct 3, 2006
Posted on: June 12, 2008 5:04 pm
 

Bonds or Griffey?

I figured this would be interesting.

Lets see where to start.... "Griffey probably isnt in the top 10 of defensive centerfielders"

Excuse me...this is completely false. Griffey is on the VERY short list of greatest CFs in the history of the game. Defensively Griffey was ranked up there with Willie Mays....Mays said so himself!

Being the "best fielding leftfielder ever" is not all that impressive if you ask me. Look at the guys who play LF in the Majors. It is usually guys who can really hit, but can't play anywhere else. Left field is where you stick one of the worst fielders on the team.....see Adam Dunn, and many other LF's.

I am one of those guys who thinks that Griffey was slightly better offensively in the 1990's and Bonds was Big Heads and shoulders above Griffey in the 2000's. The argument of "he was better before steroids" is one that has always interested me. Bonds and Griffey were the top players in the 1990's and one made the choice to break the rules, and the other did not. Don't ya think it is a little interesting that one player hadn't hit more than 46 HR in a year...then hit 49 (at age 35) and then hit 73 (at age 36). So how would I know that an older Bonds would outperform a younger Griffey.

Yes Bonds won 3 MVPs before he roided up (allegedly) which is why a debate is able to occur.

The question also has to take into account the personality and ability to be a good teammate (as you don't just take a players numbers...you take the player as well).

One last point "He could also stay healthy a lot better than Griffey, which is a great trait".

This is an interesting point because we don't know how much the steroids helped an aging Bonds go out and play everyday (and overcome the smaller injuries). Because in the end they appeared to have seriously injured Bonds. This also brings up the point of defense. CF is a MUCH more demanding position than LF, and Bonds was known to "take it easy" in the field while Griffey was never known to do that, and was the result of several of his injuries.

Interesting comments thus far.




Since: Jan 9, 2008
Posted on: June 12, 2008 4:48 pm
 

Bonds or Griffey?

Griffey probably isnt in the top 10 of defensive centerfielders
Wow. Are you serious? He's easily one of the top 10 defensive CF, probably in the top 5. He's slowed a step or 2 with the Reds but did you even watch him when he was with the Mariners? This is easy, I take Griffey. He's the superior player AND teammate, and his head size and shoe size are the same as when he started. Can Bonds say that? No. He deserves to get banned from MLB forever.


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