Griffey or Bonds

[Jerry Helper]

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?

[ihatenames]

Bonds by a slim margin. If Griffey was healthy in 1995 that may have nudged him over bonds.

[swoboda]

Bonds was the better offensive player but Griffey was the better defensive player. Pre or post any year Bonds had a poor throwing arm

[thehef]

Not sure if this counts but Griffey was most-likely the better guy to have in the clubhouse.

[Orcin]

Bonds, and it’s not close.

[magnet 2.0]

Originally Posted by Jerry Helper

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?

What year did Griffey start using? I would bet he stopped in 2001; his injury record may corroborate that.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Bonds, and it’s not close.

If you take each player's season 2 thru 11 (Bonds '87-97, Griffey Jr '90-00 - so Bonds' pre-steroid years vs Griffey's pre-injury heyday - which I believe is the goal in the OP - and it's actually quite close. Each player has a few edges over the other, and many stats are pretty even.

[Orcin]

Bonds 87-97 = 88 WAR
Griffey 90-00 = 73 WAR

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Bonds 87-97 = 88 WAR
Griffey 90-00 = 73 WAR

Seems close to me. And if you throw out KG Jr's injury-filled 1995 season (there is no comp season for BB) where he missed more than half of the year, WAR is closer.

So yeah, if you're giving BB the edge based upon WAR, no argument. But I'll stand by it's "quite close." In fact, bbref says that a WAR of 8+ is MVP quality. That's BB. And a WAR of 5+ is All-Star Quality, which KG Jr exceeds by quite a bit. So, IMO, if one guy is a perennial MVP candidate and another perennially exceeds All-Star quality by quite a bit, I'm comfortable saying that it's close!

[jockischp]

Originally Posted by thehef

Seems close to me. And if you throw out KG Jr's injury-filled 1995 season (there is no comp season for BB) where he missed more than half of the year, WAR is closer.

So yeah, if you're giving BB the edge based upon WAR, no argument. But I'll stand by it's "quite close." In fact, bbref says that a WAR of 8+ is MVP quality. That's BB. And a WAR of 5+ is All-Star Quality, which KG Jr exceeds by quite a bit. So, IMO, if one guy is a perennial MVP candidate and another perennially exceeds All-Star quality by quite a bit, I'm comfortable saying that it's close!

Hmmm, 25 guys are All-Stars every year but only ONE is MVP.

I loved watching Griffey, I had his video game and became a switch hitter so I could mimic his swing, but Bonds was better.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Jeffy25]

If we stop their careers prior to 1998, it's still easily Bonds

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.asp...ayers=1109,327

Bonds actually took his walks, hit for similar power, and played more than Griffey. While Griffey played center, the defensive metrics also like Bonds a lot more.

Bonds punishes Griffey everywhere.....his swing wasn't as pretty, and his personality wasn't infectious. But he was clearly, always the superior player.

As far as selected years:

Bonds until 98 - .290/.411/.556 - 410 wOBA - 159 wRC+ - 99.2 fWAR
Griffey until 00 - .296/.380/.568 - .400 wOBA - 142 wRC+ - 73.9 fWAR

[thehef]

Originally Posted by jockischp

Hmmm, 25 guys are All-Stars every year but only ONE is MVP.

No, that's not only an oversimplification but a distortion. Sure, BB's WAR averages out to MVP quality every year (per bbref's definition) - no disagreement there. But for KG Jr. we're not talking about a guy who was merely 1-of-25-All-Star quality every year. We're talking well-above All-Star quality and very-nearly MVP quality every year. Which, by my definition, makes it close.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

As far as selected years:

Bonds until 98 - .290/.411/.556 - 410 wOBA - 159 wRC+ - 99.2 fWAR
Griffey until 00 - .296/.380/.568 - .400 wOBA - 142 wRC+ - 73.9 fWAR

I won't pretend to understand wRC+ or fWAR, but the rest of the numbers look close to me... (I guess it all depends on one's definition of "close.")

[msupoke]

Bonds was better. If I were a GM, I would want Griffey every time, though.

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by thehef

I won't pretend to understand wRC+ or fWAR, but the rest of the numbers look close to me... (I guess it all depends on one's definition of "close.")

Well Bonds also did it longer.

Bonds has 8100 PA in this sample, Griffey 7300, so he did produce more overall.

But there are .31 points in OBP there.

To put this another way.

In these samples
Bonds had 1040 1B, 403 2B, 63 3B, 411 HR, 1357 BB

Griffey had 30 more singles, 61 less doubles, 30 less triples, 28 more home runs, and drew 516 less walks

It's the massive separation in walks, while still hitting for the same power and other parts offensively.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

Well Bonds also did it longer.

Bonds has 8100 PA in this sample, Griffey 7300, so he did produce more overall.

But there are .31 points in OBP there.

To put this another way.

In these samples
Bonds had 1040 1B, 403 2B, 63 3B, 411 HR, 1357 BB

Griffey had 30 more singles, 61 less doubles, 30 less triples, 28 more home runs, and drew 516 less walks

It's the massive separation in walks, while still hitting for the same power and other parts offensively.

I think the more apt comparison is each player's first 11 years minus their first year, which - as noted above - captures both players in their prime, before BB hit the 'riods and before KG became so injury-prone. (This actually favors Bonds because we're not counting his rookie year that is slightly inferior to Griffey's, and it includes one injury-plagued year for Griffey, 1995.)

So those numbers then become:

Bonds with 914 1B, 333 2B, 53 3B, 358 HR, 1162 BB

Griffey had 75 more singles, 14 less doubles, 20 less triples, 64 more home runs, (243 more total bases), and drew 365 less walks

Divide each of these numbers by 11 and you have, per year...

Griffey averaging 6.8 more singles, 1.3 less doubles, 1.8 less triples, 5.8 more home runs, (22.1 more total bases), and drawing 33.2 less walks. And that's with BB averaging 42.8 more plate appearances per year.

So I'm still convinced that... it's CLOSE If you, Orcin, and others disagree? Fair enough.

[Jerry Helper]

They're both two of probably the 15 best players to ever play the game. But I'm stunned at how many people will say Griffey. I think it is unquestionably Bonds. I think Griffey is the answer people give because they like him better. He was more fun to watch, he seemed like he liked playing and he wasn't the biggest asshole on the planet like Barry.

Offensively though, I don't know how you can look at those number side by side from those years and come up with Griffey.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Jerry Helper

They're both two of probably the 15 best players to ever play the game. But I'm stunned at how many people will say Griffey. I think it is unquestionably Bonds. I think Griffey is the answer people give because they like him better. He was more fun to watch, he seemed like he liked playing and he wasn't the biggest asshole on the planet like Barry.

Offensively though, I don't know how you can look at those number side by side from those years and come up with Griffey.

In this thread I don't think anybody said they think Griffey was the better player. In your other thread one guy did. Most seemed to indicate Bonds, and a few - including you and I - brought up the personality aspect. My my only argument was to counter the opinion that "it's not close."

In fact, I think it's close enough that - *if* Griffey was the better defensive player pre-injury days (I don't know if this is true; I know that Bonds was a defensive liability once he hit the juice) - then that could make it even closer, to where once you factor in that Griffey was also clearly the better clubhouse guy, one could make a good argument for choose Griffey.

A lot could depend upon what years are being compared, though.

[thehef]

Might be interesting to throw Ricky Henderson into the conversation... Compared to Griffey Jr...

Originally Posted by thehef

Bonds with 914 1B, 333 2B, 53 3B, 358 HR, 1162 BB

Griffey had 75 more singles, 14 less doubles, 20 less triples, 64 more home runs, (243 more total bases), and drew 365 less walks

... as for Rickey vs BB:

259 more singles, 52 less doubles, 6 less triples, 193 less HR's, 103 less walks...

And then of course you have to factor in steals: Ricky had 522 more SB's than BB and 746 more SB's than KG Jr.

Originally Posted by Orcin

Bonds 87-97 = 88 WAR
Griffey 90-00 = 73 WAR

Ricky 80-90 = 81 WAR

[Jerry Helper]

Originally Posted by thehef

Might be interesting to throw Ricky Henderson into the conversation... Compared to Griffey Jr...



... as for Rickey vs BB:

259 more singles, 52 less doubles, 6 less triples, 193 less HR's, 103 less walks...

And then of course you have to factor in steals: Ricky had 522 more SB's than BB and 746 more SB's than KG Jr.



Ricky 80-90 = 81 WAR

That is interesting.

Of course, if were being honest with ourselves, we shouldn't get to penalize everything Bonds did post 98 and keep Ricky's whole career without asking questions.

No one wants to hear this, but lets just say I wouldn't exactly be shocked if it ever came out that RH was juicing