Bonds or Griffey
 

Who was the better player when they were both playing against each other at their peaks? Lets throw out anything Bonds did after 98 for the sake of this argument, since he started using in 99 and his numbers become incomparable to anyone else. And Griffey fell off hard because of injuries after 2000, so this is basically a question about the late 80s - late 90s.

Bonds from 86-98 and Griffey from 89-00. Who was the better player?

Griffey but you may want to have this moved to the "Talk sports" forum instead of here.

Griffey all day. Definition of a 5 tool guy

Not sure how to respond to this. Bonds was the literal definition of a 5 tool guy. Maybe not quite the fielder Griffey was, but he did win 8 gold gloves. And he was a far more productive baserunner than Griffey ever was. Add all that to Bonds superior offensive numbers, and I feel like the answer should be Bonds.

We just don't want to admit it because Bonds was the biggest douche on the planet

I'd go with Bonds any time

Even before he started using PED's he was one of the best all around players ever and I still don't understand why he starting using that stuff at all

correct in my book.

Is this a duplicate thread?

I’ll say Bonds but it’s close.

It’s my own fault. I started it here, realized this probably was the wrong forum, but it was too late. I’m ashamed

Exactly

Bonds was the complete player before the juice. He was the best in the game, but I would rather have Griffey on my team. He made his teammates better.

You know, with all of these "Bonds" responses, I had to go back and look at the statistics. I will admit that I had remembered incorrectly. Because all of the steroids stuff, I made Bonds's 20 HR, .270 hitting season that he had his first couple of years into the entire 1990s. I forgot that he had gotten two MVP awards in the 90s (I was always more of an American League guy). Looking at the statistics, I'd have to say Bonds.

....but in my heart, I still say Griffey...

Ego. He saw guys like Sosa and McGwire put up the big HR numbers and he wanted in on it.

I agree with was one of the best all around players before the PEDs and would have been a first ballot HOFer had he just been the player he was born to be.

Where does Ricky Henderson fit into this discussion? (Some stats in the other thread: http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...d.php?t=284462.)

I always thought that pre-juiced Bonds could have contended for "greatest leadoff hitter of all-time" had he been given that role (not that he should have been). Bonds coulda been Ricky, and I suspect that had Ricky been put in the #3 spot, he could've jacked more homers... not that he'd necessarily reach BB or KG Jr levels...

He actually won the MVP three years(1990,1992, and 1993) and was 2nd place in 1991.:ohmy:

What really places Bonds ahead of Griffey is he consistently has a +.050 to his OBP.

he has been supposedly quoted as giving the reasons... he didn't like no-name talent hitting 50hr and being stars. it was somethign to that extent -- bitter / angry / insecure

typical pro athlete. what they have isn't confidnece.. .it's over-confidence. not the same thing at all.. closer to the opposite of confidence. it's inevitable when you are sorrounded by what they are likely to be sorrounded by from teends and into adulthood. (you are what your stresses make you, or in this case all the things that add up to grossly inflated sense of entitlement)

bonds could run a bit, but he is not ricky henderson. no one is ricky henderson when it comes to stealing. he's 100's higher than 2nd on that list... multiple hundreds.

heck, with ricky's power he shouldn't have been leadoff either.

griffey, in hindsight, clearly didn't have the work ethic. i think that's the biggest difference between the two, and why i'd go with bonds > griffey too.

initial years of career? griffey all day... but anything upto ~30ish i'd switch back to bonds.

griffey slept between innings. he was as slothful as the atlanta braves guy -- andruw jones. lol, his mother couldn't spell. both should have had better careers if they cared to. extreme talent kept them around, not work.

Bonds could have been Ricky only if God had blessed him with poorer genes and less talent. Ricky is comparable in personality only.

Griffey was a crybaby until he ran into Sparky Anderson then he grew up and became a HOFer. Bonds on the other hand admitted his steroid usage in grand jury testimony and is one of the greatest cry babies around and would bearly try hard in the outfield.


My pick is Griffey hands down

I don't have the exact numbers, but i once did the math to see how many home runs Griffey would have hit if he didn't get hurt so much (assuming he hit home runs af the same rate as his career totals), and he easily bypassed Bonds's home run total. So, in my opinion Griffey had the higher ceiling, but as the saying goes "the best ability is availability".

are you thinking of griffey sr?

anyway, it'd be hard to take griffey sr. over bonds. griffey sr. hit his stride by 24/25. jr. was clubbing at age 19.

any semblance of health after 30 and he's easily clearing 700hr. he likely used steroids. went from 20's/30's to 50's+ and health issues correlated with steroids (bones, tendons, ligaments etc). i bet mark mcguire can barely walk and he played 1b!

bonds was a few years later but similar success (pre-2000). griffey had a better first half of career, and bonds put griffey to shame second half. they both likely used roids, so even playing field on that front.

Was referring to Jr