Griffey or Bonds

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Jerry Helper

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

Sure. But the comparison above was Ricky from 80-90. Probably not juicing then, but who knows?

[The Game]

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?

Griffey. I'm gonna leave it at that for now.

[magnet 2.0]

Originally Posted by thehef

Sure. But the comparison above was Ricky from 80-90. Probably not juicing then, but who knows?

Exactly. Who knows? It's 90% speculation. I'm about as sure Griffey was as I was Bonds. They both failed the same amount of tests, after all.

The fact that there is so much uncertainty with regard to PEDs makes it insane to me the moral stance some make against a small sample of the users.

[ThatSeventiesGuy]

Griffey, because he didn't need the juice to put up monster numbers.

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by ThatSeventiesGuy

Griffey, because he didn't need the juice to put up monster numbers.

1. How do we know Griffey didn't juice?
2. Bonds was a monster early in his career, more so than Griffey ever was.

Prior to 98, as was discussed here....Bonds had had 7 8-rWAR seasons (MVP caliber), Griffey had had 3

[ThatSeventiesGuy]

Well, for one thing, Griffey only got a grotesquely swollen head in that one episode of The Simpsons, whereas Bonds...

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by ThatSeventiesGuy

Well, for one thing, Griffey only got a grotesquely swollen head in that one episode of The Simpsons, whereas Bonds...

And Griffey clearly got bigger as he was older too.

The amount of circumstantial evidence that people will use to deflame others is comical.


I won't accuse Griffey. But some players are just given a pass, automatically, and others are held out because of some random beliefs that are not supported by any evidence (like Bagwell).

[canadiancreed]

I'm going to avoid the whole juicing thing because well, it's been played out.

If I was running a team I would have taken Griffey over Bonds. Better attitude doesn't hurt, but I'd value a decent defensive CF that can hit .300 over a LF that can do the same. If there's anything OOTP has taught me, trying to find a well hitting CF that can field is a bloody pain in the ass. LF? Not so much.

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

I'm going to avoid the whole juicing thing because well, it's been played out.

If I was running a team I would have taken Griffey over Bonds. Better attitude doesn't hurt, but I'd value a decent defensive CF that can hit .300 over a LF that can do the same. If there's anything OOTP has taught me, trying to find a well hitting CF that can field is a bloody pain in the ass. LF? Not so much.

What about the extra 30 points in OBP? That really adds up over a year. You don't need a great offensive CFer when you have Bonds. Griffey would need more offense in left next to him.

If Griffey does - .296/.380/.568 with +5 runs defensively in center - then you need a LFer of .275/.350/.450 at +5 defense
If Bonds does - .290/.411/.556 with +5 runs defensively in left - then you need a CFer of .245/.319/.462 at +5 defense

I feel like you can find that center fielder easier than you can find that left fielder.

Bernard Gilkey in left vs Devon White in center


btw, I feel like Bonds could have played center throughout the 90's, he was quick enough to beat out Van Slyke there.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

What about the extra 30 points in OBP? That really adds up over a year. You don't need a great offensive CFer when you have Bonds. Griffey would need more offense in left next to him.

If Griffey does - .296/.380/.568 with +5 runs defensively in center - then you need a LFer of .275/.350/.450 at +5 defense
If Bonds does - .290/.411/.556 with +5 runs defensively in left - then you need a CFer of .245/.319/.462 at +5 defense

I feel like you can find that center fielder easier than you can find that left fielder.

Bernard Gilkey in left vs Devon White in center


btw, I feel like Bonds could have played center throughout the 90's, he was quick enough to beat out Van Slyke there.

Well if we're comparing GIlkey vs White that's easy. White hands down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYA61SGGjbw

EDIT: Can we get this forum to join the 21st century and post videos inline? Yeesh.

Anyways I'm just going by my experiences in baseball games, although I'm hard pressed to remember any CF'ers that could deliver on both ends of the spectrum as Griffey during his heyday. At least during that era. There may have been since, I haven't followed the game outside of Toronto since the strike. That's what OOTP is for

Regarding Bonds playing centre, I was under that impression as well that he played centre at least during his Pirate days, but nope, left field for the vast majority of his career. I'm with you that I remembered him not being at LF but hooray for 30 years of dust

[Jerry Helper]

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

And Griffey clearly got bigger as he was older too.

The amount of circumstantial evidence that people will use to deflame others is comical.


I won't accuse Griffey. But some players are just given a pass, automatically, and others are held out because of some random beliefs that are not supported by any evidence (like Bagwell).

I agree with this. It's sort of stunning how the same people who won't let McGwire or Bonds in to the hall under any circumstances just let Piazza or Bagwell in without any hesitation. Seems a little like putting heads in the sand

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Jerry Helper

I agree with this. It's sort of stunning how the same people who won't let McGwire or Bonds in to the hall under any circumstances just let Piazza or Bagwell in without any hesitation. Seems a little like putting heads in the sand

Count me among those who don't think Bonds should necessarily be excluded from the HOF due to his juice use. However, because of the d-bag that he was, I rather enjoy seeing him excluded from the HOF, even if it is somewhat of an injustice.

While I can't say I have a definitive handle on it, I don't really have anything against the concept of guys (in the Canseco era?) who may have crossed the blurred line between nutritional supplements and legally-questionable PED's. I mean, for a mid-30's pitcher who's made a few bucks over the course of a journeyman career but whose career seems to be pretty much hanging by a thread, the guy may feel like he owes it to himself and his family to do what he can to play a couple more years. I can't say that I - in a similar situation - wouldn't push the limit of blurred lines to extend my career... I mean, I'm not sure why some cheating is condoned and some isn't (Does anyone out there fudge a little on resumes? Answer an interview question by making it seem he/she had a little more supervisory experience than in reality? Sugar-coat the real reason he/she left their last job?), although I can certainly understand the concept of crossing the line; it's just that the line isn't always clear, and we don't all agree on where that line is...