Barry Bonds or Ken Griffey Jr.?

[lonewolf371]

Re: Barry Bonds or Ken Griffey Jr.?

Even before the steroids Bonds was a HOF player. After the steroids, he put up RIDICULOUS numbers. He walked 232 times in one season, OBP of .609. That isn't slugging, that is his OBP. His last season, he only played in 126 games but led the league in walks with 132, only hit .276 and still posted an OBP of .480.

As for defense, both I feel are similar there. Both were good to great.

Hitting, Bonds was the better hitter.

Now, in terms of building a team around, do you build around the likeable guy or, the guy who seems to be a sort of *** around others at times?

Well if you look at advanced stats Bonds was an all-time defender as well. You're really selling Bonds short if you think Griffey was on his level as a defender.

[Blzer]

Re: Barry Bonds or Ken Griffey Jr.?

Now, in terms of building a team around, do you build around the likeable guy or, the guy who seems to be a sort of *** around others at times?

"Chemistry" gets too much credit these days. What you really want is a guarantee that, if you're batting Bonds 4th, your #3 and #5 hitters will be getting excellent pitches to hit. Not only that, but your #5 hitter will probably be batting with Bonds on base as well.

You want to build your team around somebody? Choose somebody who will automatically instill fear into the opponents' heads. Both players did that for their respective lineups, but we only got to see that when the intentional walk became popularized from Showalter's bases loaded salute. It was also around the same time wishbone defensive shifts became popular, too.

I would personally pick Bonds, but Griffey in his prime was nothing to sneeze about either. You can't go wrong either way, but I would leave emotion at the door for this decision.

Bonds was great, but Griffey had one of the nicest, productive swings in baseball history.

I simply don't understand this statement, as if it implies Bonds' swing wasn't productive (or nice, if that even really is a factor in anything).

[Buckeyes_Doc]

Re: Barry Bonds or Ken Griffey Jr.?

I'm biased so I'm going with my all-time favorite athlete, Ken Griffey Jr.

[55]

Re: Barry Bonds or Ken Griffey Jr.?

I'll take the guy whose career OPS was nearly 150 points higher.

[Coug00]

Pre-Bobblehead Bonds > Healthy Jr

Both ridiculous in their primes.

[ImTellinTim]

Re: Barry Bonds or Ken Griffey Jr.?

Pre-Bobblehead Bonds > Healthy Jr

Both ridiculous in their primes.

That was my thought. Even if you lop off the end of Barry's career, he was still putting up better overall batting numbers than Junior. Then regardless of your feelings on how much steroids helped you actually hit a baseball, those years are what make it clearly Bonds. I don't like the "what-ifs" being brought up in support of Griffey.

So far, the arguments for Griffey have been:

- I like him more as a person
- His swing was so pretty
- If only he could have stayed healthy...blah.

Not very compelling if you ask me - but like other have said, it's not that Griffey at his best was anything to scoff at. It's just that Barry at his best is simply better than Griffey at his best.

[55]

Re: Barry Bonds or Ken Griffey Jr.?

That was my thought. Even if you lop off the end of Barry's career, he was still putting up better overall batting numbers than Junior. Then regardless of your feelings on how much steroids helped you actually hit a baseball, those years are what make it clearly Bonds. I don't like the "what-ifs" being brought up in support of Griffey.

So far, the arguments for Griffey have been:

- I like him more as a person
- His swing was so pretty
- If only he could have stayed healthy...blah.

Not very compelling if you ask me - but like other have said, it's not that Griffey at his best was anything to scoff at. It's just that Barry at his best is simply better than Griffey at his best.

The poll would be completely one sided if you just posted the numbers and people didn't know who was who.

Player A:

.284/.370/.538 - 11304 PA, 630 HR, 1836 RBI, 1662 R, 2781 H, 524 2B, 38 3B, 184 SB, .907 OPS, 136 OPS+

83.9 WAR, .385 wOBA, -39.1 FLD (yes that is negative)

Player B:

.298/.444/.607 - 12606 PA, 762 HR, 1996 RBI, 2227 R, 2935 H, 601 2B, 77 3B, 514 SB, 1.051 OPS, 182 OPS+

168.2 WAR, .439 wOBA, 188.3 FLD

As you can see, Bonds was literally better at EVERYTHING than Griffey was and for a longer period of time. You cannot make a compelling argument otherwise without playing the "PED" card.

And this is coming from a guy who doesn't like Bonds at all.

[ewingandoakley]

Re: Barry Bonds or Ken Griffey Jr.?

George Kenneth Griffey, Jr is my favorite player of all time. I would never choose Bonds over Griffey, even though Griffey absolutely hated and killed the yankees.

[TheNumber35]

Re: Barry Bonds or Ken Griffey Jr.?

The poll would be completely one sided if you just posted the numbers and people didn't know who was who.

Player A:

.284/.370/.538 - 11304 PA, 630 HR, 1836 RBI, 1662 R, 2781 H, 524 2B, 38 3B, 184 SB, .907 OPS, 136 OPS+

83.9 WAR, .385 wOBA, -39.1 FLD (yes that is negative)

Player B:

.298/.444/.607 - 12606 PA, 762 HR, 1996 RBI, 2227 R, 2935 H, 601 2B, 77 3B, 514 SB, 1.051 OPS, 182 OPS+

168.2 WAR, .439 wOBA, 188.3 FLD

As you can see, Bonds was literally better at EVERYTHING than Griffey was and for a longer period of time. You cannot make a compelling argument otherwise without playing the "PED" card.

And this is coming from a guy who doesn't like Bonds at all.

Pretty much this...I loved Griffey the guy, but Griffey wasn't as good as Bonds on the field. There's no disputing that, I mean those numbers you posted 55 are even more ridiculous than I thought they would be.

But, Bonds won't ever win out here, simply because Jr was such as lovable guy...and Bonds was a horrible person.

[PrettyT11]

Re: Barry Bonds or Ken Griffey Jr.?

Honestly it really does depend on what Barry you are talking about. I don't agree with those at all that say even Pirates Barry or early Giants Barry numbers beat Griffey at any time. That simply isn't true. The only true advantage Barry had on him during that time was speed and stolen bases. While he was a very great player with the Pirates Barry never hit more than .311, never hit more than 34 homers, and never drove in more than 116 runs. Also he wasn't posting those out of this world OBP% and SLG% either. Putting Barry's Pirates numbers next to Griffrey's Seattle numbers and Griffey wins that hands done.

Barry's season avg's was .275/.380/.503 with 25HR and 79RBI's
Griffey was .299/.380/.569 with 36HR and 105 RBI's

Now even if we was to put Griffey numbers next to Bonds pre steroid years with the Giants he stacks up damn well. Just look at both of them from 93 to 99 and you can't tell me Bonds was just on another level like some are trying to imply. During that time frame Griffrey lead the league in HR 4 times and hit 56 back to back years. The only year he was less than 40 was his injury year of 95. He also drove in over 130 four straight years with three of those being over 140. Those are numbers Barry couldn't match except the 46 HR's in 93. Griffrey was the biggest HR threat in the game while playing gold glove level defense. Also their SLG% was very similar with Griffey topping Bonds a few of those years. The only advantage Bonds had was again stolen bases and also OPB%.

Now if we are talking PED Bonds of 2000-04 then there is no question Bonds was without equal at the plate. He was quite possibly the best hitter ever. So he had the clear advantage there. But we also have to remember this Bonds was slow and wasn't stealing bases and also wasn't playing close to the gold glove level defense of his past. So you was basically getting a one sided player but an all time level hitter. So then you would have a decision to make.

Let me say this also. I'm not one of those who hold the PED thing against Bonds and hate him for it. I loved watching him swing the bat and like I said before he was quite possibly the greatest hitter I have ever seen during that time. On the other hand I like others here in the thread am a huge Griffey fan and he is far and away my favorite player. So if am picking I'm taking Griffey over Bonds pre 2000 but I will also take probably take Griffey on my team over the 2000 -04 Bonds cause of him being my favorite player but Bonds was clearly the better hitter then by a large margin.

[12]

Re: Barry Bonds or Ken Griffey Jr.?

I'm not much for what-ifs. Bonds and it isn't close.

As a huge Griffey fan, this is pretty close to the truth.

Bonds was an absolute monster. Junior was too, but as was mentioned before, Bonds' 1990 and 1993 seasons were historical and I believe he was clean then.

This argument has been brought up and rehashed a lot over the years and the sheer numbers typically make Bonds look like the better player. But they were close.

It might be a different story had Junior not been injured so much during his Cincinnati days, but Tim's right; you can't go on the what-if's.

[12]

Re: Barry Bonds or Ken Griffey Jr.?

The poll would be completely one sided if you just posted the numbers and people didn't know who was who.

Player A:

.284/.370/.538 - 11304 PA, 630 HR, 1836 RBI, 1662 R, 2781 H, 524 2B, 38 3B, 184 SB, .907 OPS, 136 OPS+

83.9 WAR, .385 wOBA, -39.1 FLD (yes that is negative)

Player B:

.298/.444/.607 - 12606 PA, 762 HR, 1996 RBI, 2227 R, 2935 H, 601 2B, 77 3B, 514 SB, 1.051 OPS, 182 OPS+

168.2 WAR, .439 wOBA, 188.3 FLD

As you can see, Bonds was literally better at EVERYTHING than Griffey was and for a longer period of time. You cannot make a compelling argument otherwise without playing the "PED" card.

And this is coming from a guy who doesn't like Bonds at all.

You and I both, but you nailed it.

If you're unbiased... It's not a debate at all.

Hell, I'm as biased as they come when it comes to Junior, but I can't get that stupid about it. The numbers are the numbers.

[JBH3]

Re: Barry Bonds or Ken Griffey Jr.?

Voted Bonds and outside of Griffey being your hero I can't see taking Jr over Bonds in any other circumstance. Bonds posted 10 20/20 seasons, 5 30/30 seasons, and one 40/40 season...which has been done only 3 other times; however list filled w/ juiceheads (Arod/Canseco).

[lonewolf371]

Re: Barry Bonds or Ken Griffey Jr.?

Honestly it really does depend on what Barry you are talking about. I don't agree with those at all that say even Pirates Barry or early Giants Barry numbers beat Griffey at any time. That simply isn't true. The only true advantage Barry had on him during that time was speed and stolen bases. While he was a very great player with the Pirates Barry never hit more than .311, never hit more than 34 homers, and never drove in more than 116 runs. Also he wasn't posting those out of this world OBP% and SLG% either. Putting Barry's Pirates numbers next to Griffrey's Seattle numbers and Griffey wins that hands done.

Barry's season avg's was .275/.380/.503 with 25HR and 79RBI's
Griffey was .299/.380/.569 with 36HR and 105 RBI's

Now even if we was to put Griffey numbers next to Bonds pre steroid years with the Giants he stacks up damn well. Just look at both of them from 93 to 99 and you can't tell me Bonds was just on another level like some are trying to imply. During that time frame Griffrey lead the league in HR 4 times and hit 56 back to back years. The only year he was less than 40 was his injury year of 95. He also drove in over 130 four straight years with three of those being over 140. Those are numbers Barry couldn't match except the 46 HR's in 93. Griffrey was the biggest HR threat in the game while playing gold glove level defense. Also their SLG% was very similar with Griffey topping Bonds a few of those years. The only advantage Bonds had was again stolen bases and also OPB%.

Now if we are talking PED Bonds of 2000-04 then there is no question Bonds was without equal at the plate. He was quite possibly the best hitter ever. So he had the clear advantage there. But we also have to remember this Bonds was slow and wasn't stealing bases and also wasn't playing close to the gold glove level defense of his past. So you was basically getting a one sided player but an all time level hitter. So then you would have a decision to make.

Let me say this also. I'm not one of those who hold the PED thing against Bonds and hate him for it. I loved watching him swing the bat and like I said before he was quite possibly the greatest hitter I have ever seen during that time. On the other hand I like others here in the thread am a huge Griffey fan and he is far and away my favorite player. So if am picking I'm taking Griffey over Bonds pre 2000 but I will also take probably take Griffey on my team over the 2000 -04 Bonds cause of him being my favorite player but Bonds was clearly the better hitter then by a large margin.

You're only looking at hitting, and on top of that you're looking at it with old-school statistics.

Bonds average WAR with the Pirates: 7.1
Griffey average WAR over first seven years: 5.9

WAR includes defense, and during his time with the Pirates Bonds wasn't just playing gold glove caliber defense; he was playing all-time great defense.

Of course, by the time we get to the 1993-1999 Giant years Bonds starts beating Griffey on offense as well (he smashes Griffey in OBP) and it stops being a discussion.

[PrettyT11]

Re: Barry Bonds or Ken Griffey Jr.?

You're only looking at hitting, and on top of that you're looking at it with old-school statistics.

Bonds average WAR with the Pirates: 7.1
Griffey average WAR over first seven years: 5.9

WAR includes defense, and during his time with the Pirates Bonds wasn't just playing gold glove caliber defense; he was playing all-time great defense.

Of course, by the time we get to the 1993-1999 Giant years Bonds starts beating Griffey on offense as well (he smashes Griffey in OBP) and it stops being a discussion.

But see you are only using one stat for that Pirates time and one that is extremely flawed IMO. It might be better suited for another topic but I'm sorry any stat that tries to tell me that Darwin Barney is worth more wins and is more valueable this year than Josh Hamilton and on the same level as Ryan Braun I don't want to see it. This same stat says that Bez Zobrist was the most valuable player in all of baseball last year. I'm sorry but any stat that trys to tells me Ben Zobrist was worth more wins last year than Verlander and Kemp is extremely flawed in my book.

Aside from that my post wasn't to try and make a case that Griffey was better or anything like that. Trying to compare their career numbers would be foolish. It was in response to some of the post in here saying that Bonds at any point in time of his career was better than anytime Griffey was like it was just a landslide from day one and that simply wasn't the case.