Barry Bonds Ken Griffey the Tradition Continues

Quote Originally Posted by G2BOAT View Post

I went with Griffey, during his prime years, Griffey more home runs (249) Bonds (175) more RBI, Griffey (685) Bonds (537) more hits (844) Bonds (755). Plus, the 1 year Griffey made the playoffs, he was terrific. While Bonds was terrible in his three years, 1990, 1991,and 1992.

Note: As much as I hate Bonds, he was the most dominant hitter in the 90's, but during the prime years of Griffey and Bonds, I would take Griffey.

Wait, what?

What is your definition of Barry's "prime"? You can't just say "Well, his prime is 27-32, because that's all players prime". Barry was an unbelievable hitter up until his 2006 injury. The 15 year stretch ending in 2006 were all outstanding seasons. That was his prime, because he continued to be at his best.

I chose Barry Bonds and I am not being a homer by doing so. Barry Bonds was the best player to ever play the game of baseball. He set single season OBP, SLG, OPS, and HR records. He has the most home runs of all time. He also has numerous gold gloves to his name. If I had to build a franchise around either Barry Bonds or Ken Griffey Jr during their "peaks", it is an easy choice to pick Bonds.

The only leverage Griffey has in this argument is that he plays a more important position in CF. He had a better arm than Barry and was a better athlete. If Bonds was a CF this poll would be unanimous, however he is not, providing Griffey with little, if any, consideration.

Quote Originally Posted by nme View Post

^^true, but longevity should not factor into how they played in their prime.

Also, I have a bit of a problem using OPS+ here simply because OPS+ is referential to how a given played did in a given season (at his position) compared to the rest of the league. Well, 1990-1994 and 1996-2000 were COMPLETELY different era offensively, so it seems somewhat unfair to put KGJ at a disadvantage.

That said, this is somewhat of a toss-up to me, but I went with Griff, if for no other reason than that I have never enjoyed watching a single ballplayer as much as watching a healthy Griffey.

And cause your a dodgers fan.

...I wouldnt want it any other way though. The day dodger fans start liking Bonds is the day pigs fly out of a frozen over hell.

Btw, Barry's prime lasted almost his entire carrer. Barry could still knock the cover off the ball, blind folded.

Quote Originally Posted by CAIN=FUTURE View Post

And cause your a dodgers fan.

...I wouldnt want it any other way though. The day dodger fans start liking Bonds is the day pigs fly out of a frozen over hell.

Or because he enjoyed watching Griffey play...why do you always take offense from Dodger fans, or even fans in general when they don't agree with you??? I swear I've never seen somebody be so defensive about their team on an internet forum.

Anyways, Griffey in his prime was amazing...Bonds, well everybody knew he was on roids, and if they didn't then they were lying to themselves. That, for me, puts Griffey above him, because I really really loved watching him play the game. And I would take Griffey's sweet swing and his defense anyday over a steroid using player...even if he's putting up ridiculous numbers.

Quote Originally Posted by Tragedy View Post

Wait, what?

What is your definition of Barry's "prime"? You can't just say "Well, his prime is 27-32, because that's all players prime". Barry was an unbelievable hitter up until his 2006 injury. The 15 year stretch ending in 2006 were all outstanding seasons. That was his prime, because he continued to be at his best.

I thought we were comparing Bonds from 1990-1994 and Griffey from 1996-2000. That's why somebody put up those stats to compare the two players.

Quote Originally Posted by PhillyUD26 View Post

Or because he enjoyed watching Griffey play...why do you always take offense from Dodger fans, or even fans in general when they don't agree with you??? I swear I've never seen somebody be so defensive about their team on an internet forum.

Anyways, Griffey in his prime was amazing...Bonds, well everybody knew he was on roids, and if they didn't then they were lying to themselves. That, for me, puts Griffey above him, because I really really loved watching him play the game. And I would take Griffey's sweet swing and his defense anyday over a steroid using player...even if he's putting up ridiculous numbers.

I wasn't taking offense. Id take more offense if he liked Bonds, that would be weird. Its natural for a dodger fan to hat Barry.

I take more offense to you calling me out on something that wasn't any of your business in the first place.

Quote Originally Posted by G2BOAT View Post

I thought we were comparing Bonds from 1990-1994 and Griffey from 1996-2000. That's why somebody put up those stats to compare the two players.

Bonds' prime was from 1990-2004.

There is nothing that can prove that Bonds wasn't better in his prime than Griffey was during his. The only discussion that will ever surround him probably is the steroids issue.

Quote Originally Posted by Tragedy View Post

The position they played should not really matter in this. We're not comparing Griffey's production to other CFers production to Bonds production to other LFers production.

We're simply talking about the prime of Barry Bonds vs. Griffey Jr.

And as I said already (And sadly, since I hate the guy): The answer is so obviously Barry.

Quote Originally Posted by quiksilver2491 View Post

Can you give me one left fielder outside of Ted Williams that can come close to Barry Bonds in offensive production for an entire career? Bonds completely owns Griffey in terms of offensive production, homeruns have nothing to do with that. Im tired of these comparisons that include Bonds, your not going to beat him unless your name starts with George or Ted.

I was referring to something he said specifically, should of done a better job highlighting. Let me try this again

Quote Originally Posted by nme View Post

Also, I have a bit of a problem using OPS+ here simply because OPS+ is referential to how a given played did in a given season (at his position) compared to the rest of the league. Well, 1990-1994 and 1996-2000 were COMPLETELY different era offensively, so it seems somewhat unfair to put KGJ at a disadvantage.

But yea I agree, Bonds

Amazing...

A player puts on 26 lbs of muscle in his early/mid 30's (2 hat sizes) in less then six months. A feat BTW which not one single expert on building muscle mass thinks is possible at that age w/o drugs. In fact they think 6 lbs would be amazing from what I have read.

This player then jumps up to beyond historical seasons with the bat. Obviously he was going to be rated as one of the 15 best players that ever lived w/o the drugs, but that wasn't good enough.

So now, he'll be tainted forever, and you guys want to include these records?

I voted for Bonds on what he did before.

BTW whomever said that Griffey gets an edge on Bonds if Bonds was a CF has a strange point of view. Defensively a LF's defense is about 3% of his value - Bonds won 5 or maybe 6 GG. Griffey won what 8 or 9 and his defensive value was about 5.5% of his total value. Basically D value of OF is greatly overstated unless you were talking a 10 GG guy vs. the worst corner OF of his generation...

Quote Originally Posted by G2BOAT View Post

I thought we were comparing Bonds from 1990-1994 and Griffey from 1996-2000. That's why somebody put up those stats to compare the two players.

Well, the original question in the thread was "Who is the better player", so I think it was taking into account all the years they both played.

Quote Originally Posted by PhillyUD26 View Post

Or because he enjoyed watching Griffey play...why do you always take offense from Dodger fans, or even fans in general when they don't agree with you??? I swear I've never seen somebody be so defensive about their team on an internet forum.

Anyways, Griffey in his prime was amazing...Bonds, well everybody knew he was on roids, and if they didn't then they were lying to themselves. That, for me, puts Griffey above him, because I really really loved watching him play the game. And I would take Griffey's sweet swing and his defense anyday over a steroid using player...even if he's putting up ridiculous numbers.

Lets get this straight, we all can agree that the most logical time for Barry to start using steroids was after the 1999 season, that year he didn't hit quite as well as he did in some previous years but it was still impressive (obviously not enough for him though). Anyways Bonds was clearly better than Griffey up to that point, no roids involved.

I think if Griffey didn't get hurt he would've broke the homerun record cleanly..

Quote Originally Posted by Tragedy View Post

Well, the original question in the thread was "Who is the better player", so I think it was taking into account all the years they both played.

Actually the thread maker does say "Who is the better player" and then the poll is "Who is better in their prime." So it's vague what the thread maker is asking.