Ken Griffey Jr.

Off Topic
41

[quote]Anonymity wrote:

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Without the injuries we’d be talking about the best ball player of all-time. His stats during his mid 90’s baseball domination period were mind blowing. And, people who know what was going on won’t lump Griffey in with Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, etc… 'cause he was doing it before the roid reign started creeping in. Even with the injuries he’s gotta be a first ballot HOF’er.[/quote]

Sure, he was juiced out of his mind, but 2001-2004 Bonds may never be topped. And not to mention the fact that from 90-95 he led the league in OPS 5 out of 6 years while averaging 30+ SB and playing a nasty left field. Griffey was great, but Bonds is the GOAT.

/hijack, because Griffey was a beast too. I never got why the backwards hat didn’t catch on more.[/quote]

I have to agree with this. Bonds had a better eye at the plate and would have been able to reach the 500-500 mark without cheating(Willie Mays is the only player even remotley close to this mark). I think the only thing Griffey really had on bonds was a bit more natural power and the fact he most likely did not cheat(but you never know).[/quote]

As someone who appreciates base running & defense I have always thought Bonds ruined himself as a player with the drugs. Specifically too much Growth Hormone. Thickened his joints.

42

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Anonymity wrote:

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Without the injuries we’d be talking about the best ball player of all-time. His stats during his mid 90’s baseball domination period were mind blowing. And, people who know what was going on won’t lump Griffey in with Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, etc… 'cause he was doing it before the roid reign started creeping in. Even with the injuries he’s gotta be a first ballot HOF’er.[/quote]

Sure, he was juiced out of his mind, but 2001-2004 Bonds may never be topped. And not to mention the fact that from 90-95 he led the league in OPS 5 out of 6 years while averaging 30+ SB and playing a nasty left field. Griffey was great, but Bonds is the GOAT.

/hijack, because Griffey was a beast too. I never got why the backwards hat didn’t catch on more.[/quote]

I have to agree with this. Bonds had a better eye at the plate and would have been able to reach the 500-500 mark without cheating(Willie Mays is the only player even remotley close to this mark). I think the only thing Griffey really had on bonds was a bit more natural power and the fact he most likely did not cheat(but you never know).[/quote]

You can’t compare two players, one of which has used steroids and the other of which has not. What if Griffey had used steroids? You don’t think he would have had a few years with 70+ home runs?

It’s too speculative.

Besides, GOAT is still Babe Ruth.
[/quote]

He may have and maybe not. My point was really that bonds was a probably a better all around player even if he only hit 500 home runs and griffey hit 800. His combination of speed and power was more rare than a power hitter.

43

I remember playing pickup ball as a kid, and I always got to be Griffey because I was the only left handed kid around(yay statistical anomalies). Far and beyond my favorite player as a kid. That swing, that smile, and my favorite: that defense. I grew up wanting to be a center fielder so bad; I could probably attest a great deal of my athletic beginnings to ‘The Kid’ because of the way he would cover that field and run down those fly balls.

44

As a side note: neither MLB 2K10 nor The Show 2010 video games have bonds in their record books as the single season leader. I believe The Show has Mantle listed which seems consistent while 2K10 i believe has Mcgwire listed which seems inconsistent.

IMO Bonds should be respected as the all time HR leader and single season leader. When guys like Ryan Franklin and Juan Rincon are juicing we should call it even when the guys on the other side of the ball juice too, retrospectively of course.

45

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Without the injuries we’d be talking about the best ball player of all-time. His stats during his mid 90’s baseball domination period were mind blowing. And, people who know what was going on won’t lump Griffey in with Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, etc… 'cause he was doing it before the roid reign started creeping in. Even with the injuries he’s gotta be a first ballot HOF’er.[/quote]

Sure, he was juiced out of his mind, but 2001-2004 Bonds may never be topped. And not to mention the fact that from 90-95 he led the league in OPS 5 out of 6 years while averaging 30+ SB and playing a nasty left field. Griffey was great, but Bonds is the GOAT.

/hijack, because Griffey was a beast too. I never got why the backwards hat didn’t catch on more.[/quote]

I get what you’re saying J, but I just feel with Griff’s natural tools without injuries he’d be at the top of the mountain. He was entering his prime when injuries took him down, and he still put up the numbers he did. Some people are born to do certain things. Jordan was born to play basketball, Jimi Hendrix was born to play the guitar, Mozart was born to compose and Griff was born to play baseball. It really sucks that injuries denied him of his best years.

46

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Anonymity wrote:

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Without the injuries we’d be talking about the best ball player of all-time. His stats during his mid 90’s baseball domination period were mind blowing. And, people who know what was going on won’t lump Griffey in with Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, etc… 'cause he was doing it before the roid reign started creeping in. Even with the injuries he’s gotta be a first ballot HOF’er.[/quote]

Sure, he was juiced out of his mind, but 2001-2004 Bonds may never be topped. And not to mention the fact that from 90-95 he led the league in OPS 5 out of 6 years while averaging 30+ SB and playing a nasty left field. Griffey was great, but Bonds is the GOAT.

/hijack, because Griffey was a beast too. I never got why the backwards hat didn’t catch on more.[/quote]

I have to agree with this. Bonds had a better eye at the plate and would have been able to reach the 500-500 mark without cheating(Willie Mays is the only player even remotley close to this mark). I think the only thing Griffey really had on bonds was a bit more natural power and the fact he most likely did not cheat(but you never know).[/quote]

You can’t compare two players, one of which has used steroids and the other of which has not. What if Griffey had used steroids? You don’t think he would have had a few years with 70+ home runs?

It’s too speculative.

Besides, GOAT is still Babe Ruth.
[/quote]

This is the truth.

Looking at Ruth’s stats alone is somewhat devceiving. But compare his numbers to others in his era and you have the most dominant player in any sport, EVER.

He had more home runs in a single season than a few other TEAMS did combined.

47

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Without the injuries we’d be talking about the best ball player of all-time. His stats during his mid 90’s baseball domination period were mind blowing. And, people who know what was going on won’t lump Griffey in with Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, etc… 'cause he was doing it before the roid reign started creeping in. Even with the injuries he’s gotta be a first ballot HOF’er.[/quote]

Sure, he was juiced out of his mind, but 2001-2004 Bonds may never be topped. And not to mention the fact that from 90-95 he led the league in OPS 5 out of 6 years while averaging 30+ SB and playing a nasty left field. Griffey was great, but Bonds is the GOAT.

/hijack, because Griffey was a beast too. I never got why the backwards hat didn’t catch on more.[/quote]

I get what you’re saying J, but I just feel with Griff’s natural tools without injuries he’d be at the top of the mountain. He was entering his prime when injuries took him down, and he still put up the numbers he did. Some people are born to do certain things. Jordan was born to play basketball, Jimi Hendrix was born to play the guitar, Mozart was born to compose and Griff was born to play baseball. It really sucks that injuries denied him of his best years.[/quote]

Bonds had a bad leg for a long time and still played the outfield and hit more homers than he struck out in a couple of seasons.

You cant just talk about this stuff like injuries are an act of god. Some people are injury prone, like nick johnson. Griffey was NOT injury prone. Mickey Mantle was NOT injury prone. THeyre two guys that couldve taken better care of themselves but chose not to. “What if” speculation is some of the stupidest shit to hit sports dialogue. It’s stupid because it’s never done objectively, there’s always favoritism involved.

48

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Anonymity wrote:

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Without the injuries we’d be talking about the best ball player of all-time. His stats during his mid 90’s baseball domination period were mind blowing. And, people who know what was going on won’t lump Griffey in with Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, etc… 'cause he was doing it before the roid reign started creeping in. Even with the injuries he’s gotta be a first ballot HOF’er.[/quote]

Sure, he was juiced out of his mind, but 2001-2004 Bonds may never be topped. And not to mention the fact that from 90-95 he led the league in OPS 5 out of 6 years while averaging 30+ SB and playing a nasty left field. Griffey was great, but Bonds is the GOAT.

/hijack, because Griffey was a beast too. I never got why the backwards hat didn’t catch on more.[/quote]

I have to agree with this. Bonds had a better eye at the plate and would have been able to reach the 500-500 mark without cheating(Willie Mays is the only player even remotley close to this mark). I think the only thing Griffey really had on bonds was a bit more natural power and the fact he most likely did not cheat(but you never know).[/quote]

You can’t compare two players, one of which has used steroids and the other of which has not. What if Griffey had used steroids? You don’t think he would have had a few years with 70+ home runs?

It’s too speculative.

Besides, GOAT is still Babe Ruth.
[/quote]

This is the truth.

Looking at Ruth’s stats alone is somewhat devceiving. But compare his numbers to others in his era and you have the most dominant player in any sport, EVER.

He had more home runs in a single season than a few other TEAMS did combined. [/quote]

You also agree he should have went in the hall as a Red Sock, right?

I mean if it wasnt for them he never would have amounted to more than and other whiskey swilling, cigar smoking, hot dog devouring gentleman of his time.

49

[quote]ADvanced TS wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Anonymity wrote:

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Without the injuries we’d be talking about the best ball player of all-time. His stats during his mid 90’s baseball domination period were mind blowing. And, people who know what was going on won’t lump Griffey in with Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, etc… 'cause he was doing it before the roid reign started creeping in. Even with the injuries he’s gotta be a first ballot HOF’er.[/quote]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/onbase_plus_slugging_season.shtml

Sure, he was juiced out of his mind, but 2001-2004 Bonds may never be topped. And not to mention the fact that from 90-95 he led the league in OPS 5 out of 6 years while averaging 30+ SB and playing a nasty left field. Griffey was great, but Bonds is the GOAT.

/hijack, because Griffey was a beast too. I never got why the backwards hat didn’t catch on more.[/quote]

I have to agree with this. Bonds had a better eye at the plate and would have been able to reach the 500-500 mark without cheating(Willie Mays is the only player even remotley close to this mark). I think the only thing Griffey really had on bonds was a bit more natural power and the fact he most likely did not cheat(but you never know).[/quote]

You can’t compare two players, one of which has used steroids and the other of which has not. What if Griffey had used steroids? You don’t think he would have had a few years with 70+ home runs?

It’s too speculative.

Besides, GOAT is still Babe Ruth.
[/quote]

This is the truth.

Looking at Ruth’s stats alone is somewhat devceiving. But compare his numbers to others in his era and you have the most dominant player in any sport, EVER.

He had more home runs in a single season than a few other TEAMS did combined. [/quote]

You also agree he should have went in the hall as a Red Sock, right?

I mean if it wasnt for them he never would have amounted to more than and other whiskey swilling, cigar smoking, hot dog devouring gentleman of his time.
[/quote]

I honestly couldnt care less about stuff like that. I dont even care about HOF inductions in general. I dont care what a bunch of biased sports writers think about players. I enjoy the on-field accomplishments.

50

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Anonymity wrote:

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Without the injuries we’d be talking about the best ball player of all-time. His stats during his mid 90’s baseball domination period were mind blowing. And, people who know what was going on won’t lump Griffey in with Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, etc… 'cause he was doing it before the roid reign started creeping in. Even with the injuries he’s gotta be a first ballot HOF’er.[/quote]

Sure, he was juiced out of his mind, but 2001-2004 Bonds may never be topped. And not to mention the fact that from 90-95 he led the league in OPS 5 out of 6 years while averaging 30+ SB and playing a nasty left field. Griffey was great, but Bonds is the GOAT.

/hijack, because Griffey was a beast too. I never got why the backwards hat didn’t catch on more.[/quote]

I have to agree with this. Bonds had a better eye at the plate and would have been able to reach the 500-500 mark without cheating(Willie Mays is the only player even remotley close to this mark). I think the only thing Griffey really had on bonds was a bit more natural power and the fact he most likely did not cheat(but you never know).[/quote]

You can’t compare two players, one of which has used steroids and the other of which has not. What if Griffey had used steroids? You don’t think he would have had a few years with 70+ home runs?

It’s too speculative.

Besides, GOAT is still Babe Ruth.
[/quote]

This is the truth.

Looking at Ruth’s stats alone is somewhat devceiving. But compare his numbers to others in his era and you have the most dominant player in any sport, EVER.

He had more home runs in a single season than a few other TEAMS did combined. [/quote]

  1. Also a dominant pitcher. How in dee hell?

2.Have you ever seen him swing. Sometimes he took a running start. I guess it worked for ruth.

at about 55 seconds I beleive.

51

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Anonymity wrote:

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Without the injuries we’d be talking about the best ball player of all-time. His stats during his mid 90’s baseball domination period were mind blowing. And, people who know what was going on won’t lump Griffey in with Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, etc… 'cause he was doing it before the roid reign started creeping in. Even with the injuries he’s gotta be a first ballot HOF’er.[/quote]

Sure, he was juiced out of his mind, but 2001-2004 Bonds may never be topped. And not to mention the fact that from 90-95 he led the league in OPS 5 out of 6 years while averaging 30+ SB and playing a nasty left field. Griffey was great, but Bonds is the GOAT.

/hijack, because Griffey was a beast too. I never got why the backwards hat didn’t catch on more.[/quote]

I have to agree with this. Bonds had a better eye at the plate and would have been able to reach the 500-500 mark without cheating(Willie Mays is the only player even remotley close to this mark). I think the only thing Griffey really had on bonds was a bit more natural power and the fact he most likely did not cheat(but you never know).[/quote]

You can’t compare two players, one of which has used steroids and the other of which has not. What if Griffey had used steroids? You don’t think he would have had a few years with 70+ home runs?

It’s too speculative.

Besides, GOAT is still Babe Ruth.
[/quote]

This is the truth.

Looking at Ruth’s stats alone is somewhat devceiving. But compare his numbers to others in his era and you have the most dominant player in any sport, EVER.

He had more home runs in a single season than a few other TEAMS did combined. [/quote]

  1. Also a dominant pitcher. How in dee hell?

2.Have you ever seen him swing. Sometimes he took a running start. I guess it worked for ruth.

at about 55 seconds I beleive.[/quote]

That ‘running start’ is the source of the power. He was doing what is known today as “rotational hitting”. All the weight is on the front side and point of impact. The hips open before the shoulders do. Every power hitter in the history of baseball swung that way until the late 60’s early 70’s when “linear hitting” became popular. That finally went away in the mid 80s. Tons of good stuff on this if you google “the hitting mechanic”

52

I think you have to take somebody like Ruth a bit separate. There’s no way he could face the pitchers of today with that goofy-ass swing of his. Yes, he did dominate his time period and, in a way, that’s all you can ask a player to do. But even if you adjust for dominance above the average player

Bonds’s peak was still better than Ruth’s. And in terms of actual baseball ability, Ruth nowhere near Bonds. Bonds was the best player in the league over a 6-year period… then actually got even better. His 2001-2004 stretch was just… stupid. Nobody has come close to combining such an incredible batting eye with the ability to punish every single ball.

I think it’s possible that nobody will ever break the 1.422 OPS Bonds put up in 2004. He had a batting average of .362, an OBP of .609 (he got on base 61% of the time! wtf!) and a slugging of .812. To put that in perspective, Dimaggio went .408/.448/.717 during his 56-game hit streak. In 2004, Bonds had more home runs than strikeouts. Bonds had 13 straight years of 1.000+ OPS and 10 straight years of 28+ stolen bases. Griffey was a great player and a good athlete, but Bonds stole almost 400 more bases then him in his career. Bonds led the league 7 straight years in intentional walks… and those 7 years were from 1992-1998… and then again from 2002-2004 he had 68, 61, and a staggering 120 intentional walks in 2004. Feared slugger Ryan Howard has been intentionally walked 110 times in his whole career.

More like old age stole his legs. He stole 28 base when he was 33, and even in his monster 73 home-run season, he stole 13 bases while only being caught 3 times at the age of 36. People remember him as a lumbering monster, but he was 42 in his last pro season. And still put up a 1.046 OPS!

53

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
I think you have to take somebody like Ruth a bit separate. There’s no way he could face the pitchers of today with that goofy-ass swing of his. Yes, he did dominate his time period and, in a way, that’s all you can ask a player to do. But even if you adjust for dominance above the average player

Bonds’s peak was still better than Ruth’s. And in terms of actual baseball ability, Ruth nowhere near Bonds. Bonds was the best player in the league over a 6-year period… then actually got even better. His 2001-2004 stretch was just… stupid. Nobody has come close to combining such an incredible batting eye with the ability to punish every single ball.

I think it’s possible that nobody will ever break the 1.422 OPS Bonds put up in 2004. He had a batting average of .362, an OBP of .609 (he got on base 61% of the time! wtf!) and a slugging of .812. To put that in perspective, Dimaggio went .408/.448/.717 during his 56-game hit streak. In 2004, Bonds had more home runs than strikeouts. Bonds had 13 straight years of 1.000+ OPS and 10 straight years of 28+ stolen bases. Griffey was a great player and a good athlete, but Bonds stole almost 400 more bases then him in his career. Bonds led the league 7 straight years in intentional walks… and those 7 years were from 1992-1998… and then again from 2002-2004 he had 68, 61, and a staggering 120 intentional walks in 2004. Feared slugger Ryan Howard has been intentionally walked 110 times in his whole career.

More like old age stole his legs. He stole 28 base when he was 33, and even in his monster 73 home-run season, he stole 13 bases while only being caught 3 times at the age of 36. People remember him as a lumbering monster, but he was 42 in his last pro season. And still put up a 1.046 OPS!

[/quote]

Baroid Bonds even with all records and on field talent he showed will never be respected as one of the best baseball players of all-time (the all-time greats). It doesn’t even matter what your view on the fucken drugs side is, the fact is that the media slug fest that happened after the whole steroid inquiry ruined any integrity he could have and threw him out of the ‘serious’ discussion. Even when Barry Bonds speaks now no one takes him seriously, exactly the same with Jose Conseco. The whole steroid thing can opened the plug into the bathtub of his great career and drained all the numbers, accolades and mile-stones as water down the drain. Its sad but the dude is really going to have the asterisks attached to him forever. Its like what he did before doesn’t and isn’t going to matter. Not that I really care…

Ken Griffey Jr draws really strong parallels to Mike Tyson for me. A young athlete regarded at one point as time as the most dominant in his sport and as in the case of these two guys; getting pooled into the all-time great discussion (whether it be in one facet of his skills or entirely). Then just when they get into their prime, something bad fucken happened like their athletic greatness was somehow a curse in disguise, as if they were doomed to be brought down to being mortal.

Griffey will always be synonyms to baseball with me because he was the biggest name and therefore brand in baseball in the 90s, the era I consider the greatest for any of the American sports leagues (sad I wasn’t able to witness it as it happened). Like honestly, somehow I knew the dude’s name when I first started paying a little attention to baseball a while back. Remember I live in a country where baseball is only ever shown on one channel.

: All this coming from a guy who doesn’t really like watching baseball and finds it boring. Although I do manage to watch the championships. Go Sox.

54

[quote]ADvanced TS wrote:

[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
His video games were awesome.[/quote]

Fucking this.

[/quote]

There is no way his lips are that big in real life. Nintendo = Racist. They take up half his face…

But yes, those games were awesome.

55

jtrinsey - Ruth was the best player in the league over his entire career, without steroids. Sure, the talent back then was thinner but that’s why you have to compare the players within their respective eras. You can’t even compare many of those Bonds stats you posted because they weren’t even recorded during Ruth’s time. Intentional walks were basically non existant, the style of play between the two periods were completely different. It’s silly to compare Bonds stats vs Ruths stats for this reason.

To compare the GOAT contenders you have to look at who was more dominant in comparison to the league they played in at that time. I think Ruth was more dominant - AND he did it without cheating!

56

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
jtrinsey - Ruth was the best player in the league over his entire career, without steroids. Sure, the talent back then was thinner but that’s why you have to compare the players within their respective eras. You can’t even compare many of those Bonds stats you posted because they weren’t even recorded during Ruth’s time. Intentional walks were basically non existant, the style of play between the two periods were completely different. It’s silly to compare Bonds stats vs Ruths stats for this reason.

To compare the GOAT contenders you have to look at who was more dominant in comparison to the league they played in at that time. I think Ruth was more dominant - AND he did it without cheating![/quote]

Were AAS even a banned substance in baseball when Bonds was setting records? If something isn’t banned in your sport, then how is taking it considered cheating?

57

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
jtrinsey - Ruth was the best player in the league over his entire career, without steroids. Sure, the talent back then was thinner but that’s why you have to compare the players within their respective eras. You can’t even compare many of those Bonds stats you posted because they weren’t even recorded during Ruth’s time. Intentional walks were basically non existant, the style of play between the two periods were completely different. It’s silly to compare Bonds stats vs Ruths stats for this reason.

To compare the GOAT contenders you have to look at who was more dominant in comparison to the league they played in at that time. I think Ruth was more dominant - AND he did it without cheating![/quote]

Were AAS even a banned substance in baseball when Bonds was setting records? If something isn’t banned in your sport, then how is taking it considered cheating?[/quote]

There was a rule that any substance illegal under federal law was also banned in baseball. Steroids have been illegal under federal law since Bush the 1st.

58

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
jtrinsey - Ruth was the best player in the league over his entire career, without steroids. Sure, the talent back then was thinner but that’s why you have to compare the players within their respective eras. You can’t even compare many of those Bonds stats you posted because they weren’t even recorded during Ruth’s time. Intentional walks were basically non existant, the style of play between the two periods were completely different. It’s silly to compare Bonds stats vs Ruths stats for this reason.

To compare the GOAT contenders you have to look at who was more dominant in comparison to the league they played in at that time. I think Ruth was more dominant - AND he did it without cheating![/quote]

I do agree with you to some extent. You do have to look at the era they played in. However, I really just don’t think you can put somebody as the greatest of all time when they never played against a black or spanish player.

Saying Ruth is the greatest baseball player of all time is like saying Wilt is the best basketball player of all time. It’s not a terrible argument, but just like baseball didn’t start to resemble what it does now until the 50s, basketball didn’t come into the modern era until the 70s. Wilt and Ruth dominated their era (although Bonds has top-3 OPS+, which compares to the average player in the league), but it was a completely different era.

If you want to put Ted Williams or Willie Mays into the argument, I think you can do that. But I can’t call somebody the GOAT if they were only playing 50-60% of the baseball population. I think you have to separate the pre-WW2 guys from the post-WW2 guys and just discuss them in their own context.

But speaking of Griffey, I forget which Baseball Prospectus it was, but I think I read that they have his 1996 season ranked as the best ever by a centerfielder when you put batting, fielding and baserunning all together. He definitely was a beast.

59

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Without the injuries we’d be talking about the best ball player of all-time. His stats during his mid 90’s baseball domination period were mind blowing. And, people who know what was going on won’t lump Griffey in with Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, etc… 'cause he was doing it before the roid reign started creeping in. Even with the injuries he’s gotta be a first ballot HOF’er.[/quote]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/onbase_plus_slugging_season.shtml

Sure, he was juiced out of his mind, but 2001-2004 Bonds may never be topped. And not to mention the fact that from 90-95 he led the league in OPS 5 out of 6 years while averaging 30+ SB and playing a nasty left field. Griffey was great, but Bonds is the GOAT.

/hijack, because Griffey was a beast too. I never got why the backwards hat didn’t catch on more.[/quote]

I get what you’re saying J, but I just feel with Griff’s natural tools without injuries he’d be at the top of the mountain. He was entering his prime when injuries took him down, and he still put up the numbers he did. Some people are born to do certain things. Jordan was born to play basketball, Jimi Hendrix was born to play the guitar, Mozart was born to compose and Griff was born to play baseball. It really sucks that injuries denied him of his best years.[/quote]

Bonds had a bad leg for a long time and still played the outfield and hit more homers than he struck out in a couple of seasons.

You cant just talk about this stuff like injuries are an act of god. Some people are injury prone, like nick johnson. Griffey was NOT injury prone. Mickey Mantle was NOT injury prone. THeyre two guys that couldve taken better care of themselves but chose not to. “What if” speculation is some of the stupidest shit to hit sports dialogue. It’s stupid because it’s never done objectively, there’s always favoritism involved.[/quote]

Not saying injuries are an act of God, saying they’re a fact of life. We can play what if’s all day. That wasn’t my point. My point was before the injuries he was dominant, and arguably the best player in the game. And, if not for the injuries there’s no reason to think he wouldn’t have gotten better. Either way, he’s still a first ballot HOF’er and his injuries did not and cannot diminish what he did in the game and for the game.

60

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]ADvanced TS wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Anonymity wrote:

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Without the injuries we’d be talking about the best ball player of all-time. His stats during his mid 90’s baseball domination period were mind blowing. And, people who know what was going on won’t lump Griffey in with Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, etc… 'cause he was doing it before the roid reign started creeping in. Even with the injuries he’s gotta be a first ballot HOF’er.[/quote]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/onbase_plus_slugging_season.shtml

Sure, he was juiced out of his mind, but 2001-2004 Bonds may never be topped. And not to mention the fact that from 90-95 he led the league in OPS 5 out of 6 years while averaging 30+ SB and playing a nasty left field. Griffey was great, but Bonds is the GOAT.

/hijack, because Griffey was a beast too. I never got why the backwards hat didn’t catch on more.[/quote]

I have to agree with this. Bonds had a better eye at the plate and would have been able to reach the 500-500 mark without cheating(Willie Mays is the only player even remotley close to this mark). I think the only thing Griffey really had on bonds was a bit more natural power and the fact he most likely did not cheat(but you never know).[/quote]

You can’t compare two players, one of which has used steroids and the other of which has not. What if Griffey had used steroids? You don’t think he would have had a few years with 70+ home runs?

It’s too speculative.

Besides, GOAT is still Babe Ruth.
[/quote]

This is the truth.

Looking at Ruth’s stats alone is somewhat devceiving. But compare his numbers to others in his era and you have the most dominant player in any sport, EVER.

He had more home runs in a single season than a few other TEAMS did combined. [/quote]

You also agree he should have went in the hall as a Red Sock, right?

I mean if it wasnt for them he never would have amounted to more than and other whiskey swilling, cigar smoking, hot dog devouring gentleman of his time.
[/quote]

I honestly couldnt care less about stuff like that. I dont even care about HOF inductions in general. I dont care what a bunch of biased sports writers think about players. I enjoy the on-field accomplishments. [/quote]

You didn’t take the bait.

I hate the Yankees furiously, but he should be in as a Yankee. The sox had him for 5 years out of 20 and he was used mainly as a pitcher. FAIL.

GOAT, I don’t know. Its tough to comment on the quality of the competition 80 years ago.