Two Griffey Questions: Was his career a disappointment and do you thin (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

I was always bothered by the rumors that he didn't work out as hard as he could and that he coasted a bit on his natural talent. On one hand, that attitude probably kept him away from steroids when Bonds was trying to tempt him (hey man, I'm good enough without them) but on the other hand, could he have been even better? Maybe if he'd kept himself in better shape, he would have hit 800 HRs. The flip side of that argument is that it's possible he was so good that it just appeared he was coasting, even when he wasn't. Or maybe he would have broken down even if he had worked out harder. There have certainly been other players who legitimately faded in their early-mid 30s, even in this era of 24-hour trainers and million dollar workout rooms.I don't think I've seen a prettier swing in my lifetime.

I think if he was roided up like Bonds he could have stayed healthier and added stats to rival Bonds.

The reason I feel he did not do HGH/roids is the fact that he limped to the finish. Guys don't naturally get better well into their 30s; they decline. As Yankee fan, I look at Don Mattingly. Six otherwordly years and six years of decline. Pre-roids era, that is what it was like. Sure, guys like Yount and Molitor played well in their mid-30s, but they weren't breaking single season records. I think the next few years will be telling as guys like Puljos and Howard get older. We may already be viewing the slow decline of Howard...give him roids and he can keep up the pace. As someone above mentioned, "roids did not make Bonds better"...and I believe that, but they also did not make him worse and that is what happens after years of a 162 game grind.

I don't know for sure what guys did or didn't do . . .But as you said, most players are either done or way on the decline by the time they hit 35.As far as Bonds goes, he holds the top 3 OPS+ seasons of all time and one more in the top 10. At ages 36, 37, 38, and 39. We're not talking slightly better, we are talking epicly better.

 

[igbomb]

Ridiculous to even put Griffey in the same class as Bonds. Bonds was better throughout his entire career.

Wrong. Griffey had the better career through their age 30 seasons. Most of his advantage came from his two year headstart, but even without that they were remarkably similar through age 30. After that Bonds is clearly better.

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphsw.aspx?play...&playerid5=

Look at the second and third graphs to see their similarities by age. Of course Bonds late career ridiculousness destroys the total career comparison.

Remarkably similar? By age 25 Bonds starts to pull away and never really looks back. Griffey couldnt stay healthy and his batting eye wasnt in the same class. And the bulk of the early edge Griffey enjoys is from defensive and positional value. UZR has enough uncertainty and variability to call into question how much of any additional value Griffey posted in their early years.

But defensive and positional value is real value. Griffey was the better defender and played a more important position. And the variability in UZR is somewhat muted over a decent length of time, not to mention any variability applies just as much to Bonds as it does Griffey. UZR is every bit as likely to over-call Bonds skills as it is Griffey.I agree that Bonds was a better hitter, but he was NOT in a different class as a player. There is a case to be made for each.

I forget how exactly they compile the historic WAR numbers, but they didn't start UZR before 2002 or so, so no idea what defensive metric they're using. My point about the defensive value is that even the best metrics right now are no where near as accurate or reliable as the offensive metrics, and prior iterations were even less accurate. They're light years better than fielding percentage and assists, but still highly imperfect. Even ignoring the issues with evaluating defensive value, per historic WAR Bonds was significantly better at age 25 and every year 28 and older. They were roughly equal at ages 22, 24 and 27. Griffey was better ages 21, 23 and 26. Age 21, Bonds was a rookie and only played in 116 games. Its pretty simple, by age 24 Bonds was the better player, though Griffey would go on to have a career year at age 26.

I've agreed that Bonds was the better player all along. Where I disagree is with the statement that Griffey isn't even in Bonds class.

 

[Hooper31]

Arguing "better" when there's no set metric is just a waste of time. Totally subjective. Making matters worse was Bonds steroid usage.

My lasting memory of Griffey is the final game in the Kingdome for the Mariners before they moved to Safeco across the street (The house that Griffey built). Griffey hit a 3-run bomb in the first for the early lead. In the fourth with a 4-2 lead he pulled one back from over the fence with two runners on base.

Griffey was special. But can't they both be special and leave it at that?

 

[guru_007]

Arguing "better" when there's no set metric is just a waste of time. Totally subjective. Making matters worse was Bonds steroid usage.

spoken like a true homer.No metric....hmmm, ba/obp/ops/hr/rbis/runs/sbs/runs created/war/there are dozens upon dozens of metrics out there.I'll stand behind my Mo Vaughn was just as good as Frank Thomas and Ellis Burks was as good as Bernie Williams.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Arguing "better" when there's no set metric is just a waste of time. Totally subjective. Making matters worse was Bonds steroid usage.

spoken like a true homer.No metric....hmmm, ba/obp/ops/hr/rbis/runs/sbs/runs created/war/there are dozens upon dozens of metrics out there.I'll stand behind my Mo Vaughn was just as good as Frank Thomas and Ellis Burks was as good as Bernie Williams.

You're talking about guys that played across broad eras here. 90-94 Frank Thomas is better than any Mo Vaughn era. And for a Yankee fan, I actually enjoyed Mo as I recalled him from his days at Seton Hall. He and Dewey Evans are among my most tolerable Red Sox players. That era of Frank Thomas belongs in the Pujols/Ted Williams level of consideration.I also think Ellis Burks was a hell of a talent, I enjoyed watching him play. Ellis dipped in his prime though and rediscovered himself in Colorado. I know he battled injuries, and so did Bernie to a certain extent, but actually, looking up and looking back at Bernie, I'm suprised by how impressive he was. 5 100 RBI seasons in a 7 year stretch, with 94 and 97 RBI in the off years, with a .400 oba. He didn't have the gun that Ellis did, but he did cover a bigger centerfield. Interesting comparison those two, I give Bernie the duke in it, but they're both tremendous talents.

 

[Hooper31]

Arguing "better" when there's no set metric is just a waste of time. Totally subjective. Making matters worse was Bonds steroid usage.

spoken like a true homer.No metric....hmmm, ba/obp/ops/hr/rbis/runs/sbs/runs created/war/there are dozens upon dozens of metrics out there.I'll stand behind my Mo Vaughn was just as good as Frank Thomas and Ellis Burks was as good as Bernie Williams.

I agree there are tons of metrics. Which is the metric established as the basis for this analysis? I don't believe that one was set at the onset of the discussion. Further, choosing a metric is completely subjective. Also, how does one objectively analyze the steroid issue? From my understanding Bonds is loathed by the entire baseball community. Griffey? Not so much. Bonds is generally regarded as a piece of ####. Griffey? Not so much. If I'm off base here please let me know.Really now, what's the point of something like this? To compare two numbers and smugly point at the larger number? What does it mean to be "best"? How many ways can this question be framed? And is one of those ways better than all the others?

 

[oso diablo]

I agree there are tons of metrics. Which is the metric established as the basis for this analysis? I don't believe that one was set at the onset of the discussion. Further, choosing a metric is completely subjective. Also, how does one objectively analyze the steroid issue? From my understanding Bonds is loathed by the entire baseball community. Griffey? Not so much. Bonds is generally regarded as a piece of ####. Griffey? Not so much. If I'm off base here please let me know.Really now, what's the point of something like this? To compare two numbers and smugly point at the larger number? What does it mean to be "best"? How many ways can this question be framed? And is one of those ways better than all the others?

Choosing metrics isn't purely subjective. We can analyze metrics to determine which are most correlated to winning baseball games. That seems pretty important. For example, OBP is more highly correlated to run scoring than is batting average. And the best advanced metrics are very nicely correlated to run differential (ie, winning the game). At the end of the day, though, the point is that this is an internet message board, and we are guys who argue over stuff like this. It's what we do.