Two Griffey Questions: Was his career a disappointment and do you thin (2 Viewers)

[Smack Tripper]

Griffey is a very interesting character to me. As a Yankee fan, seeing an hornery, motivated Griffey in the 90's, I've simply never seen a ballplayer better at taking over a game, and I put his 1995 ALDS up there with the finest performances I've ever seen. The guy was a virtuoso and probably second only to A-Rod in five tool ability this generation(Griff never did max out his batting average potential). It cut my heart out, but I've never seen a guy fly faster home to first than Griff did in that ALDS clincher, he found a new gear in speed that night and beat two great relays. First ballot guy and I do believe he played clean, the whole bit, so hats off to him.

But now that its all said and done, I look back and I think he was a bit of a letdown. He seemed to turn his performance on and off a bit, and I'm thinking of the 1992 All Star Game off the top of my head when made it on reputation and in the middle of a down year, took that game over. He could dial it up for the Yankees, but overall, I don't know if he got the most out of what he had for whatever reason. Injuries, sure, valid excuse, but at some point, I think the will is a valid question. To look him over and see a .284 hitter that won a single MVP and no World Series appearances seems crazy to me. But I may be grading him too harshly, and he made that All-Century team for a reason.

Which brings me to point two, the inevitable Bonds comparison. Bonds, pre drugs, did win 3 MVPs in 4 years, and pre drugs was a HOFer. Maybe not an immortal, as evidenced by there being no outcry or real debate that Junior was an All Century guy and he wasn't. We know statisically that Bonds skyrockets past him, but looking at them both in totality and retirement now, where do you rank them? The fact that Junior played the best CF I've seen in my life watching baseball and had a real strong arm for a long time versus a guy who was relegated to LF for his career makes the defense a no brainer. Bonds, at his best, a better average and SB guy, Griff was a better power and clutch hitter. I'm still inclined to give Griff the duke in this debate, Bonds immortality is wrapped in a needle, but they are interesting pair.

What do you think? What are your thoughts on Junior now that its all said and done?

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Griffey was otherworldly; but as much as I hate to admit it Bonds might have been the best of all time. Do I think Griff was legit and Bonds was enhanced? There lies the difference.

I hate Bonds because of the implication that he used enhancers - but he simply dwarfed all other stars around him.

I sure hope Pujols lasts long enough to surpass Bonds so it is moot.

 

[RnR]

I love Griffey as much as just about anyone, but even I have a hard time saying he was "better" than Bonds. So hard to compare them knowing what we know now. Both are first ballot HOF talents without any enhancements.

 

[Michael Brown]

I'm the lone vote for his career being a disappointment? I mean ok he hit 630 HRs so he was an all-time legend. But how can you NOT be disappointed at the fact that he was on pace to (CLEANLY) shatter every HR record there was and he limped to the finish line 150 short. Keep him healthy in his Cincinnati years in that ballpark, 800 HR would've been very much in reach. So the fact that he lost nearly entire seasons and was never close to full health in many others, to me, is a disappointment. I'm glad we got the great years we did though.

As for the Griffey/Bonds debate, that's a no-brainer to me. Bonds did what he did statistically because of steroids. Pre-roids, Griffey was better. If it ever turns out that Griffey was on something, I'll stand corrected.

 

[jfranco77]

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.

 

[Deranged Hermit]

Best player I ever saw play the game. As a Mets fan, I wonder how things might have changed for him had he not nixed that trade and went to Cincy instead.

 

[cheese]

Big Griffey fan, but I don't understand the votes over Bonds. Sure, maybe Bonds was better BECAUSE of steroids, but he was still better. It really isn't as close as I'd like it to be.

IMO, steroids don't make Bonds a worse player. Even if he cheated to get there, his numbers and dominance are more in the Babe Ruth class than the Ken Griffey class.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

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.

 

[Limp Ditka]

I'm the lone vote for his career being a disappointment? I mean ok he hit 630 HRs so he was an all-time legend. But how can you NOT be disappointed at the fact that he was on pace to (CLEANLY) shatter every HR record there was and he limped to the finish line 150 short. Keep him healthy in his Cincinnati years in that ballpark, 800 HR would've been very much in reach. So the fact that he lost nearly entire seasons and was never close to full health in many others, to me, is a disappointment. I'm glad we got the great years we did though.As for the Griffey/Bonds debate, that's a no-brainer to me. Bonds did what he did statistically because of steroids. Pre-roids, Griffey was better. If it ever turns out that Griffey was on something, I'll stand corrected.

I can't say his career was a disappointment. The guy got hurt playing the game hard and that took away from his overall stats. If he thew it all away by being lazy / not caring, then I'd consider it a disappointment.Did he hang on too long, sure. But many, many others have too. I won't allow that to skew my perception of his career.Him and Rickey are 1 and 1A for the best players I've seen in my lifetime.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

the guy got to play MLB with his dad. That alone is a enough to not have a disappointing career. Sure he didnt win a WS but alot of greats never did.

personally I think Bonds is better, and as far as I am concerned this whole era was on the juice. Did Kenny take roids? I bet you he took something as far as I am concerned this whole generation is guilty by association. We will never know

 

[dparker713]

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

 

[David Yudkin]

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

IMO, the question should be if Griffey was better or worse than pre-roid Bonds.If we assume that Bonds started juicing at 35 (when he hit 49 home runs) and compared both players through age 34:Bonds:.288 average, 2010 hits, 445 home runs, 1299 RBI, 460 SB, 1430 BB, 8 Gold GlovesGriffey:.292 average, 2156 hits, 501 home runs, 1444 RBI, 178 SN, 984 BB, 10 Gold GlovesWe all know that Bonds career then took off with (alleged) juiced inflated numbers while Griffey struggled with injuries and only having a couple other decent seasons (vs. several historic seasons for Bonds).I would suggest that Griffey was as good Bonds overall before the steroids talk entered into the mix. Bonds obviously had a better eye and took more walks (in addition to having more speed). But we can't pretend that they didn't play baseball once they turned 35.

 

[Eephus]

the guy got to play MLB with his dad. That alone is a enough to not have a disappointing career. Sure he didnt win a WS but alot of greats never did.

Tim Raines Jr. and his .213 lifetime AVG disagree

 

[Smack Tripper]

the guy got to play MLB with his dad. That alone is a enough to not have a disappointing career. Sure he didnt win a WS but alot of greats never did.

Tim Raines Jr. and his .213 lifetime AVG disagree

Well, considering he probably doesn't see the bigs if he's named Jim Raines, maybe not.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I hate Barry but he was better.

 

[cobalt_27]

Barry was better when aided by steroids.

Griffey was better, otherwise.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I'm the lone vote for his career being a disappointment? I mean ok he hit 630 HRs so he was an all-time legend. But how can you NOT be disappointed at the fact that he was on pace to (CLEANLY) shatter every HR record there was and he limped to the finish line 150 short. Keep him healthy in his Cincinnati years in that ballpark, 800 HR would've been very much in reach. So the fact that he lost nearly entire seasons and was never close to full health in many others, to me, is a disappointment. I'm glad we got the great years we did though.

His career was a disappointment. There are reasons for that and he's still a clear HoF caliber talent. But injuries robbed us all of what could have been.

 

[Eephus]

Todd von Poppel's career was a disappointment. Griffey Jr. had a 20+ year career with over 600 HRs and 2700 Hs.

 

[dparker713]

Barry was better when aided by steroids.Griffey was better, otherwise.

Even before the steroids Barry was better. Griffey was never an elite OBP guy and his SLG was about on par with Bonds. Then add in Bonds significant baserunning edge. Yes Griffey played a more important position, but Bonds was an elite defender in LF.

 

[Bojang0301]

Perhaps Bonds was better than Griffey but much like Bonds indignity to never admit to using steroids I'll never admit he was a better player or as someone stated the best ever. I'm sorry but neither one of them fits that bill, Babe still holds that crown. Teddy Ballgame's career was interupted by war, Mantle's by injuries and booze, and Clemente tragically died before he got to finish. None of their careers are considered disappointments. The guy hit 630 bombs and defined the game in the 90's the same way Jordan and Gretzky did. It's unfortunate he battled injuries but these things happen in sports. In no way is his career disappointing outside of not having a ring on his finger.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Perhaps Bonds was better than Griffey but much like Bonds indignity to never admit to using steroids I'll never admit he was a better player or as someone stated the best ever. I'm sorry but neither one of them fits that bill, Babe still holds that crown. Teddy Ballgame's career was interupted by war, Mantle's by injuries and booze, and Clemente tragically died before he got to finish. None of their careers are considered disappointments. The guy hit 630 bombs and defined the game in the 90's the same way Jordan and Gretzky did. It's unfortunate he battled injuries but these things happen in sports. In no way is his career disappointing outside of not having a ring on his finger.

I think Mickey himself admitted his career was a disappointment. Injuries or the nightlife or the Oklahoma kid adjust to being in the NY spotlight of Joe d, kept Micks digits in check, comparitvely. I actually believe Mantle is underrated baseball history. His numbers don't match aaron and mays, but you look at their ceilings and talk to old baseball people, Mick at his best trumped them all but Ruth.

 

[Tom Servo]

Perhaps Bonds was better than Griffey but much like Bonds indignity to never admit to using steroids I'll never admit he was a better player or as someone stated the best ever. I'm sorry but neither one of them fits that bill, Babe still holds that crown. Teddy Ballgame's career was interupted by war, Mantle's by injuries and booze, and Clemente tragically died before he got to finish. None of their careers are considered disappointments. The guy hit 630 bombs and defined the game in the 90's the same way Jordan and Gretzky did. It's unfortunate he battled injuries but these things happen in sports. In no way is his career disappointing outside of not having a ring on his finger.

I think Mickey himself admitted his career was a disappointment. Injuries or the nightlife or the Oklahoma kid adjust to being in the NY spotlight of Joe d, kept Micks digits in check, comparitvely. I actually believe Mantle is underrated baseball history. His numbers don't match aaron and mays, but you look at their ceilings and talk to old baseball people, Mick at his best trumped them all but Ruth.

Really? If anything, he probably gets slightly more than his fair share of history love. On topic, Griffey's career is a disappointment in that we were deprived of what could have been. Stats wise, not a disappointment at all. Fan wise, big disappointment.

 

[oso diablo]

IMO, the question should be if Griffey was better or worse than pre-roid Bonds.If we assume that Bonds started juicing at 35 (when he hit 49 home runs) and compared both players through age 34:Bonds:.288 average, 2010 hits, 445 home runs, 1299 RBI, 460 SB, 1430 BB, 8 Gold GlovesGriffey:.292 average, 2156 hits, 501 home runs, 1444 RBI, 178 SN, 984 BB, 10 Gold Gloves

not a fair comparison, as one of these players went to college. i also think Bonds' age 35 season (in 2000) was well within normal bounds of a superstar's career profile. So, what do we get if we compare the age 22-35 seasons for each? Bonds from 87-2000, and Griffey from 92-05 (note: this gives Griffey a slight advantage as he had 2 extra years under his belt by age 22)Bonds: 293 / 416 / 576 (992), 2065 hits, 478 homers, 168 OPS+Griffey: 291 / 379 / 582 (961), 1826 hits, 476 homers, 146 OPS+

 

[Smack Tripper]

Perhaps Bonds was better than Griffey but much like Bonds indignity to never admit to using steroids I'll never admit he was a better player or as someone stated the best ever. I'm sorry but neither one of them fits that bill, Babe still holds that crown. Teddy Ballgame's career was interupted by war, Mantle's by injuries and booze, and Clemente tragically died before he got to finish. None of their careers are considered disappointments. The guy hit 630 bombs and defined the game in the 90's the same way Jordan and Gretzky did. It's unfortunate he battled injuries but these things happen in sports. In no way is his career disappointing outside of not having a ring on his finger.

I think Mickey himself admitted his career was a disappointment. Injuries or the nightlife or the Oklahoma kid adjust to being in the NY spotlight of Joe d, kept Micks digits in check, comparitvely. I actually believe Mantle is underrated baseball history. His numbers don't match aaron and mays, but you look at their ceilings and talk to old baseball people, Mick at his best trumped them all but Ruth.

Really? If anything, he probably gets slightly more than his fair share of history love. On topic, Griffey's career is a disappointment in that we were deprived of what could have been. Stats wise, not a disappointment at all. Fan wise, big disappointment.

Well, like I said, I think he's probably, at his best, the second best player in baseball history, but the numbers don't bear that out necessarily. Usually you see Mays, Aaron, Ted Williams definitively ahead of him, and often DiMaggio, Foxx and Gehrig. I think when you look at the totality of Mick, at his best, he could field with Willie Mays and hit with Ted Williams, while doing most of his damage in the golden age of baseball. But its just a foregone conclusion that Willie Mays is the second best player ever, with Hank right close behind. Don't get me wrong, these guys we're talking are all amazing, but I think Mick was a cut above.

 

[Giantseasonticketholder]

I always believed Bonds was an HOFer before the juice, but that he paled in comparison to Griffey Jr. It's too bad Junior had so many games taken away by injury because he could have been the All-Time Legit HR leader. I talk to my kids about Griffey the way my dad talks to me about Mantle.

 

[dparker713]

I always believed Bonds was an HOFer before the juice, but that he paled in comparison to Griffey Jr. It's too bad Junior had so many games taken away by injury because he could have been the All-Time Legit HR leader. I talk to my kids about Griffey the way my dad talks to me about Mantle.

You always believed wrong.

 

[Darth Cheney]

I think disappointed is a strong word in these regards. Through no major fault of his own....he never achieved a sustained career level of greatness that his early years gave us.

As far as Bonds/Griffey go.....Bond is better.

 

[guru_007]

I think disappointed is a strong word in these regards. Through no major fault of his own....he never achieved a sustained career level of greatness that his early years gave us. As far as Bonds/Griffey go.....Bond is better.

exactly my thoughts.From ages 19-30, Griffey put up staggering numbers, 438 homers, 1270 rbis, 173 sb, 10 gg's, and well on his pace to a level that no one else ever could touch. And while production may be expected to drop after 30, his fell off a cliff, in that from 30-40 years old he hit 210 hr's, 637 rbi's, 11 sb's, and 0 gg's. I mean that's not quite Mo Vaughnish, but certainly disappointing.And although I always enjoyed Griffey more as a player and person, Bonds was the better player.

 

[Giantseasonticketholder]

I always believed Bonds was an HOFer before the juice, but that he paled in comparison to Griffey Jr. It's too bad Junior had so many games taken away by injury because he could have been the All-Time Legit HR leader. I talk to my kids about Griffey the way my dad talks to me about Mantle.

You always believed wrong.

Pirates fan, right?

 

[Giantseasonticketholder]

I think disappointed is a strong word in these regards. Through no major fault of his own....he never achieved a sustained career level of greatness that his early years gave us. As far as Bonds/Griffey go.....Bond is better.

exactly my thoughts.From ages 19-30, Griffey put up staggering numbers, 438 homers, 1270 rbis, 173 sb, 10 gg's, and well on his pace to a level that no one else ever could touch. And while production may be expected to drop after 30, his fell off a cliff, in that from 30-40 years old he hit 210 hr's, 637 rbi's, 11 sb's, and 0 gg's. I mean that's not quite Mo Vaughnish, but certainly disappointing.And although I always enjoyed Griffey more as a player and person, Bonds was the better player.

I think Fantasy Baseball is playing a large part in people's decisions. Guru, you just basically said that Griffey was better until Bonds started juicing. To me, and a lot of others, this makes Griffey better because he didn't have to cheat to do it.

 

[guru_007]

I think disappointed is a strong word in these regards. Through no major fault of his own....he never achieved a sustained career level of greatness that his early years gave us. As far as Bonds/Griffey go.....Bond is better.

exactly my thoughts.From ages 19-30, Griffey put up staggering numbers, 438 homers, 1270 rbis, 173 sb, 10 gg's, and well on his pace to a level that no one else ever could touch. And while production may be expected to drop after 30, his fell off a cliff, in that from 30-40 years old he hit 210 hr's, 637 rbi's, 11 sb's, and 0 gg's. I mean that's not quite Mo Vaughnish, but certainly disappointing.And although I always enjoyed Griffey more as a player and person, Bonds was the better player.

I think Fantasy Baseball is playing a large part in people's decisions. Guru, you just basically said that Griffey was better until Bonds started juicing. To me, and a lot of others, this makes Griffey better because he didn't have to cheat to do it.

While I'm sure ff does play a part, I am a baseball fan, and you cannot convince me that Griffey was a better player than Bonds, period. It's difficult to compare them defensively as they played different positions, but Bonds was no slouch in the outfield early in his career. Sure, Griffey may have made more spectacular plays and probably played a more demanding position, but it's not as if Bonds was Miguel Cabrera out there. He had a strong arm, very good speed and was adept as a fielder. He won 8 gg's too. And while steroids will always taint Bonds image, the guy won 7 mvp awards. Griffey only won 1. I'd like to see an argument, backed by stats and not steroid allegations, which put Griffey ahead of Bonds as a player. I'm all aboard the Junior bandwagon, I loved watching the guy play, but the last 10 years of his career were poor to mediocre at best. He never broke 40 homers, only broke 30 homers 1 time, only hit .300 once, only twice had an ops above .900, and hell 11 steals in 10 years (6 of those coming in 2007). Come on. He was replacement level for quite a few of those years.

 

[Smack Tripper]

I think disappointed is a strong word in these regards. Through no major fault of his own....he never achieved a sustained career level of greatness that his early years gave us.

As far as Bonds/Griffey go.....Bond is better.

exactly my thoughts.From ages 19-30, Griffey put up staggering numbers, 438 homers, 1270 rbis, 173 sb, 10 gg's, and well on his pace to a level that no one else ever could touch. And while production may be expected to drop after 30, his fell off a cliff, in that from 30-40 years old he hit 210 hr's, 637 rbi's, 11 sb's, and 0 gg's. I mean that's not quite Mo Vaughnish, but certainly disappointing.

And although I always enjoyed Griffey more as a player and person, Bonds was the better player.

I think Fantasy Baseball is playing a large part in people's decisions. Guru, you just basically said that Griffey was better until Bonds started juicing. To me, and a lot of others, this makes Griffey better because he didn't have to cheat to do it.

While I'm sure ff does play a part, I am a baseball fan, and you cannot convince me that Griffey was a better player than Bonds, period. It's difficult to compare them defensively as they played different positions, but Bonds was no slouch in the outfield early in his career. Sure, Griffey may have made more spectacular plays and probably played a more demanding position, but it's not as if Bonds was Miguel Cabrera out there. He had a strong arm, very good speed and was adept as a fielder. He won 8 gg's too. And while steroids will always taint Bonds image, the guy won 7 mvp awards. Griffey only won 1.

I'd like to see an argument, backed by stats and not steroid allegations, which put Griffey ahead of Bonds as a player. I'm all aboard the Junior bandwagon, I loved watching the guy play, but the last 10 years of his career were poor to mediocre at best. He never broke 40 homers, only broke 30 homers 1 time, only hit .300 once, only twice had an ops above .900, and hell 11 steals in 10 years (6 of those coming in 2007). Come on. He was replacement level for quite a few of those years.

Sid Bream disagrees

 

[guru_007]

Sid Bream disagrees

that dude had some wheels though...

 

[dparker713]

I always believed Bonds was an HOFer before the juice, but that he paled in comparison to Griffey Jr. It's too bad Junior had so many games taken away by injury because he could have been the All-Time Legit HR leader. I talk to my kids about Griffey the way my dad talks to me about Mantle.

You always believed wrong.

Pirates fan, right?

Not at all. And entirely irrelevant anyway. You can *maybe* make a claim that Griffey was better for a brief period, mainly due to positional value, but it would be an oh so brief period. Its not like Griffey was a model of health even before he went to the Reds and it can be demonstrably shown that Bonds was a significantly better hitter with pretty much any reasonable sample.I get it, you enjoyed watching Griffey more. So did I. But it can be proven Bonds was a better player throughout their careers.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Top 3 similar players (according to Baseball-Reference) from start of career to Bonds steroid spike age (34)

Call me crazy, but I think I like the company Griffey is keeping as opposed to the likes of Jack Clark and Shaun Green

*=HOFer

Bonds

22 Tom Brunansky Jay Bruce Curt Blefary

23 Jack Clark Tom Brunansky Curt Blefary

24 Tom Brunansky Johnny Callison Jeff Buroughs

25 Jack Clark Grady Sizemore Johnny Callison

26 Grady Sizemore Jack Clark Johnny Callison

27 Bobby Bonds Jack Clark Carlos Beltran

28 Greg Luzinski Shaun Green Duke Snider*

29 Shaun Green Carlos Beltran Duke Snider*

30 Shaun Green Carlos Beltran **** Allen

31 Duke Snider* Carlos Beltran Jim Thome

32 Duke Snider* Jim Thome Frank Robinson*

33 Frank Robinson* Ken Griffey Jr Duke Snider*

34 Griffey Jr Frank Robinson* Mickey Mantle*

Griffey Jr

20 Al Kaline* Cesar Cedeno Mickey Mantle*

21 Vada Pinson Al Kaline* Cesar Cedeno

22 Cesar Cedeno Al Kaline* Mickey Mantle*

23 Mickey Mantle* Al Kaline* Frank Robinson*

24 Mickey Mantle* Miguel Cabrera Hank Aaron*

25 Miguel Cabrera Frank Robinson* Orlando Cepeda*

26 Frank Robinson* Miguel Cabrera Hank Aaron*

27 Frank Robinson* Mickey Mantle* Hank Aaron*

28 Frank Robinson* Mickey Mantle* Hank Aaron*

29 Frank Robinson* Mickey Mantle* Hank Aaron*

30 Frank Robinson* Hank Aaron* Mickey Mantle*

31 Frank Robinson* Hank Aaron* Mickey Mantle*

32 Frank Robinson* Mickey Mantle* Sammy Sosa

33 Sammy Sosa Frank Robinson* Mickey Mantle*

34 Sammy Sosa Mickey Mantle* Frank Robinson*

 

[Vladislav Tretiak]

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

IMO, the question should be if Griffey was better or worse than pre-roid Bonds.If we assume that Bonds started juicing at 35 (when he hit 49 home runs) and compared both players through age 34:Bonds:.288 average, 2010 hits, 445 home runs, 1299 RBI, 460 SB, 1430 BB, 8 Gold GlovesGriffey:.292 average, 2156 hits, 501 home runs, 1444 RBI, 178 SN, 984 BB, 10 Gold GlovesWe all know that Bonds career then took off with (alleged) juiced inflated numbers while Griffey struggled with injuries and only having a couple other decent seasons (vs. several historic seasons for Bonds).I would suggest that Griffey was as good Bonds overall before the steroids talk entered into the mix. Bonds obviously had a better eye and took more walks (in addition to having more speed). But we can't pretend that they didn't play baseball once they turned 35.

First of all...get rid of Gold Glove talk. One of the worst awards in sportsNumber of MVP awards wasn't tossed in there. Do you have those totals? How many were before the juice? 1990,1992,1993 ring a bell? And you really want to say his career took off after the 'roids? So he didn't do much before that huh?

 

[Vladislav Tretiak]

I always believed Bonds was an HOFer before the juice, but that he paled in comparison to Griffey Jr. It's too bad Junior had so many games taken away by injury because he could have been the All-Time Legit HR leader. I talk to my kids about Griffey the way my dad talks to me about Mantle.

You always believed wrong.

If you want to dismiss the 'roids okay but please explain how that 3 time MVP player named Bonds (before the 'roids) isn't a HoFer

 

[dparker713]

I always believed Bonds was an HOFer before the juice, but that he paled in comparison to Griffey Jr. It's too bad Junior had so many games taken away by injury because he could have been the All-Time Legit HR leader. I talk to my kids about Griffey the way my dad talks to me about Mantle.

You always believed wrong.

If you want to dismiss the 'roids okay but please explain how that 3 time MVP player named Bonds (before the 'roids) isn't a HoFer

He also said that Bonds paled in comparison to Griffey. That is the wrong part.

 

[Limp Ditka]

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

IMO, the question should be if Griffey was better or worse than pre-roid Bonds.If we assume that Bonds started juicing at 35 (when he hit 49 home runs) and compared both players through age 34:Bonds:.288 average, 2010 hits, 445 home runs, 1299 RBI, 460 SB, 1430 BB, 8 Gold GlovesGriffey:.292 average, 2156 hits, 501 home runs, 1444 RBI, 178 SN, 984 BB, 10 Gold GlovesWe all know that Bonds career then took off with (alleged) juiced inflated numbers while Griffey struggled with injuries and only having a couple other decent seasons (vs. several historic seasons for Bonds).I would suggest that Griffey was as good Bonds overall before the steroids talk entered into the mix. Bonds obviously had a better eye and took more walks (in addition to having more speed). But we can't pretend that they didn't play baseball once they turned 35.

First of all...get rid of Go,ld Glove talk. One of the worst awards in sportsNumber of MVP awards wasn't tossed in there. Do you have those totals? How many were before the juice? 1990,1992,1993 ring a bell? And you really want to say his career took off after the 'roids? So he didn't do much before that huh?

Bonds wasn't exactly competing against Hall of Fame talent, in it's prime, when he was winning those NL MVPstop 5s each year from 90-93 is below. Meanwhile, Griffey was battling the likes of Frank Thomas, Kirby Puckett, Eck, McGwire for MVP awards during that stretch1990BondsBonillaStrawberrySandberg (30 years old, probably his last great year)Eddie Murray (34 years old)1991PendeltonBondsBonillaWill ClarkHoward Johnson1992BondsPendletonSheffieldVan SlykeLarry Walker1993BondsDykstraJusticeMcGriffGant

 

[Daywalker]

His career was a slight dissappointment. He'll always be "The Kid" but the guy didn't seem to take care of his body. He's had a gut for like the past 6 seasons. No excuse for that.

I'd take pre-roids Bonds over Griffey. It's close but still a no-brainer in my book. Bonds put up his 90's #'s at Candelstick not the Kingdome.

 

[Master of Past and Present]

His career was a slight dissappointment. He'll always be "The Kid" but the guy didn't seem to take care of his body. He's had a gut for like the past 6 seasons. No excuse for that.I'd take pre-roids Bonds over Griffey. It's close but still a no-brainer in my book. Bonds put up his 90's #'s at Candelstick not the Kingdome.

From what I have found, Candlestick was (L-C-R) 335-420-330 and the Kingdome was 330-410-330 and a 23 foot wall in right field. What exactly is so much more impressive about Bonds playing at Candlestick?

 

[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.

 

[dparker713]

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.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Bonds won three MVPs (and was stone cold robbed for his fourth because he was unpopular) and something like four or five gold gloves plus a slew of slugging championships before he was on the juice. I like Griffey better, but I don't think his career was 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.

 

[dparker713]

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.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I think "disappointment" and "career" when we are talking about Griffey Jr should not be used in the same paragraph. What his numbers could have been without injuries is worthy of discussion but Griffey played at an elite level, even when hurt, for almost his entire career.

I don't think he was better than Bonds though. Bonds was the greatest player of his generation, I've argued the finer points of this many times. Griffey Jr did play a tougher position though, so for that I'd say Jr is in the same area code. But what Bonds did at the plate separates him from everyone but Ruth and Williams, Griffey is not in that area code.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

His career was a slight dissappointment. He'll always be "The Kid" but the guy didn't seem to take care of his body. He's had a gut for like the past 6 seasons. No excuse for that.I'd take pre-roids Bonds over Griffey. It's close but still a no-brainer in my book. Bonds put up his 90's #'s at Candelstick not the Kingdome.

From what I have found, Candlestick was (L-C-R) 335-420-330 and the Kingdome was 330-410-330 and a 23 foot wall in right field. What exactly is so much more impressive about Bonds playing at Candlestick?

I know nothing of Kingdome so this might not be a big deal. But Candlestick often had to deal with a lot of wind issues.

 

[GreatLakesMike]

His career was a slight dissappointment. He'll always be "The Kid" but the guy didn't seem to take care of his body. He's had a gut for like the past 6 seasons. No excuse for that.I'd take pre-roids Bonds over Griffey. It's close but still a no-brainer in my book. Bonds put up his 90's #'s at Candelstick not the Kingdome.

From what I have found, Candlestick was (L-C-R) 335-420-330 and the Kingdome was 330-410-330 and a 23 foot wall in right field. What exactly is so much more impressive about Bonds playing at Candlestick?

I know nothing of Kingdome so this might not be a big deal. But Candlestick often had to deal with a lot of wind issues.

You're correct. I remember quite a few pop flies turning into home runs. The winds at Candlestick worked both ways.

 

[Sweet Love]

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.