Sammy Sosa vs. Ken Griffey Jr.

[NeverGoingToWin]

Ken Griffey Jr. because he was a great fielder as well.

[NDaATL]

-= original quote snipped =-


WHAT?? Bonds was good, but nowhere NEAR the level Griffey was in the mid 90s. Bonds didn't hit his prime until the 73 HR season (steroids) in terms of batting. Prior to that season, Griffey had always been the better
player.

If it weren't for injuries, we wouldn't even have to worry about Bonds breaking the HR record, as Griffey would have shattered it.

Bonds' WARP3 during 1990-1999
14.6
13.7
13.1
13.0
12.7
12.2
12.2
12.1
11.2
6.7

Total-121.5

Griffey's WARP3 during 1990-1999
12.6
12.4
12.1
11.4
11.0
10.5
9.5
8.2
8.1
4.7

Total-100.5

As we can tell you clearly know what your talking about in this matter. To go along with Bonds having the better total clearly, Bonds has 5 seasons better than Griffey's best.

Also newsflash, Griffey's injuries didn't come in the 1990's, they were in the 2000's so what's that have to do with anything?

What's it matter when Bonds hit his "prime" according to you Bonds' non prime would still be better than Griffey's prime, pretty damn good, eh?

So WHAT?? the hell are you talking about? (It's gonna be nice when you respond and be like I don't need stats to tell me who was better I saw Griffey and he was teh doomzors.)

Well, first of all I said the mid-90s. I guess I should've said the mid to late 90s. I don't base my entire opinion on WARP, I was looking at the batting numbers..

Griffey (93-99)
.309 45 HR 109 RBI 17 SB
.323 40 HR 90 RBI 11 SB (ONLY played 111 games, still had 40 HR)
.303 49 HR 140 RBI 16 SB (missed 22 games)
.304 56 HR 147 RBI 15 SB
.284 56 HR 146 RBI 20 SB
.285 48 HR 134 RBI 24 SB
I won't count Griffey's 95 season since he played less than half the season.

Bonds (93-99)
.336 46 HR 123 RBI 29 SB
.312 37 HR 81 RBI 29 SB (only played 112 games)
.294 33 HR 104 RBI 31 SB (missed 18 games)
.308 42 HR 129 RBI 40 SB
.291 40 HR 101 RBI 37 SB
.303 37 HR 122 RBI 28 SB
.262 34 HR 83 RBI 15 SB (missed 60 games)

Griffey was a better HR hitter, hit more RBIs, and was a MUCH better defender. Their batting averages were similar, and they were about even in runs scored.

Bonds was better at stealing bases and drawing walks, and as a result of the walks had a better OBP.

I would take the 93-99 Griffey over Bonds quite easily.. It's ok if you disagree, but it's not as far away as you made it seem to be. WARP is not the know all/end all statistical argument..

[bigboy1234]

Well, first of all I said the mid-90s. I guess I should've said the mid to late 90s. I don't base my entire opinion on WARP, I was looking at the batting numbers..

Griffey (93-99)
.309 45 HR 109 RBI 17 SB
.323 40 HR 90 RBI 11 SB (ONLY played 111 games, still had 40 HR)
.303 49 HR 140 RBI 16 SB (missed 22 games)
.304 56 HR 147 RBI 15 SB
.284 56 HR 146 RBI 20 SB
.285 48 HR 134 RBI 24 SB
I won't count Griffey's 95 season since he played less than half the season.

Bonds (93-99)
.336 46 HR 123 RBI 29 SB
.312 37 HR 81 RBI 29 SB (only played 112 games)
.294 33 HR 104 RBI 31 SB (missed 18 games)
.308 42 HR 129 RBI 40 SB
.291 40 HR 101 RBI 37 SB
.303 37 HR 122 RBI 28 SB
.262 34 HR 83 RBI 15 SB (missed 60 games)

Griffey was a better HR hitter, hit more RBIs, and was a MUCH better defender. Their batting averages were similar, and they were about even in runs scored.

Bonds was better at stealing bases and drawing walks, and as a result of the walks had a better OBP.

I would take the 93-99 Griffey over Bonds quite easily.. It's ok if you disagree, but it's not as far away as you made it seem to be. WARP is not the know all/end all statistical argument..

Regarding them as hitters, it's not even close, and the stat EQA proves that. Using RBI and runs scored to judge how good a player was is crazy. Also I wouldn't say Griffey was a much better defender, he did play the harder OF position but remember Bonds is his own right was a great defender, a ton of people forget that, Bonds had 5 GG in the 93-99 time period not thats how I judge a player on defense but still pretty impressive. Bonds clear and easy advantage with the bat doesn't make up for Griffey's not so big advantage with the glove.

[NDaATL]

Regarding them as hitters, it's not even close, and the stat EQA proves that. Using RBI and runs scored to judge how good a player was is crazy. Also I wouldn't say Griffey was a much better defender, he did play the harder OF position but remember Bonds is his own right was a great defender, a ton of people forget that, Bonds had 5 GG in the 93-99 time period not thats how I judge a player on defense but still pretty impressive. Bonds clear and easy advantage with the bat doesn't make up for Griffey's not so big advantage with the glove.

I really don't see how Bonds had a "clear" advantage over Griffey in terms of hitting. If he has any "advantage," it's made up for with Griffey's defense in center. Griffey was arguably the best CF in baseball in the 90s.

[HCYanks]

-= original quote snipped =-


I really don't see how Bonds had a "clear" advantage over Griffey in terms of hitting.

That's because you're using stats like RBIs instead of metrics that are actually relevant. Bonds was more valuable as a hitter in the mid-90s because of the crazy on-base percentages he was putting up; the sabermetric stats WARP3 speak to that, as Bigboy already showed. Bonds did get even better after he allegedly started pumping things into his ass, but he was the best hitter in baseball well before that happened.

[NDaATL]

Bonds was more valuable as a hitter in the mid-90s because of the crazy on-base percentages he was putting up

Exactly, because it was easier for pitchers to pitch around Bonds than it was for Griffey. Bonds had decent hitters behind him, but Griffey had Edgar Martinez (Prime), Tino Martinez and Jay Buhner behind him.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'd still take Griffey for his defense.

[TSC25]

Griffey if healthy might have gone down as one of the greatest of all time,so u have to go Griffey.

[randomhero423]

griffey. not really close. it's really sad to see him get injuried like he did in cinci (altho he's a bit of a idiot). if he wasn't there would prob be a 2 way chase for first place on the HR chase w/ bonds. now that would be intresting.

[Monkeyfeng06]

LOL!!! only one guy voted sosa.

[Boston's Future]

In his prime, Griffey Jr. could hit as many home runs as Sosa, and Griffey played gold glove defense, could steal bases, and do everything else better than Sosa. During his prime Griffey Jr. was the best player in the MLB!

[34Celtic]

In his prime, Griffey Jr. could hit as many home runs as Sosa, and Griffey played gold glove defense, could steal bases, and do everything else better than Sosa. During his prime Griffey Jr. was the best player in the MLB!

Griffey never hit 60 HR's, let alone multipe times...

[Tom Chambers]

Using is batting average and RBI to tell you which player is better is...not good.

[tsherkin]

Bonds had 5 GG in the 93-99 time period not thats how I judge a player on defense but still pretty impressive. Bonds clear and easy advantage with the bat doesn't make up for Griffey's not so big advantage with the glove.

And he had three Gold Gloves before that, just FWIW. He also had 3 MVPs in roughly the same time frame (90, 92, 93) and was pretty much always above league-average in Fielding Percentage and Range Factor.

Of course, if we're talking Gold Gloves, Griffey won 10 of them. Consecutively. He was, however, less frequently at or above league average in FP, though his range factor was usually very good.

Griffey was an astonishing defensive center but Bonds definitely shouldn't be ignored because we last remember him as old, hopped up on 'roids and barely able to move.

[Harry Palmer]

People comparing the merits of a great defensive center fielder and a great defensive left fielder are, imo, almost getting into the realms of philosophy. The positions don't compare....it's like ranking the best catching wr's, and trying to argue that the best catching fb should be in the discussion with them.


If you rank the defensive positions for skill needed to play, and importance to the team, cf ranks behind only SS, and arguably c or maybe even 2b, depending on your perspective, though I would personally rank it second. (And the whole left-handed exclusion can sometimes mean it's first barring that.)

Left field, along with 1b, is where you usually put the guys who either can't do much, or have a serious weakness (range/speed for 1b, or arm with lf.)

They don't compare. Bonds WAS a great defensive left fielder...maybe the best I've seen, for a guy who did it full time. But he doesn't even compare with Griffey, and wouldn't even compare with a good center fielder.

[HCYanks]

FYI, Harry, the commonly-accepted defensive spectrum that Bill James and others pioneered goes (from easiest to hardest to play):

1. Designated hitter
2. First baseman
3. Left fielder
4. Right fielder
5. Third baseman
6. Center fielder
7. Second baseman
8. Shortstop
9. Catcher
10. Pitcher

A lot of it is debatable and it depends on the league makeup at any given time. But catcher's always been the weakest non-pitching position.

Anyway, I don't think anyone would argue pre-injury Griffey was a better fielder than pre-bulk Bonds, the point was that Bonds was no defensive scrub either. And the defensive position value gap between them isn't as big as, say, J.D. Drew (a good defensive corner outfielder) and Joe Mauer (a good defensive catcher).

[Bleeding Green]

I've seen newer stuff that suggests 3B is harder to play than 2B and CF as well. Which makes sense. Infield play is so much harder than outfield play.

[bigboy1234]

Let's assume both are great fielders for their position (which I have my doubts but nonetheless), here are their RARP and VORP since after Griffey's rookie season, which we can give him a pass for, until 2000 (injuries started in 2001 and Bonds became unreal in 2001):

Bonds: 895.9 RARP, 850.1 VORP
Griffey: 580.5 RARP, 697.6 VORP

There really should be no doubt who was better.

I've seen newer stuff that suggests 3B is harder to play than 2B and CF as well. Which makes sense. Infield play is so much harder than outfield play.

Where have you heard 3B>CF? I've heard 3B=2B though. And CF>2B.

[Bay_Areas_Finest]

Griffey is the greatest player I've ever seen.

My answer is obvious.

[Yangsing]

I'd take a roided up Sosa.

[Illyria-United]

Griffey no doubt