Ken Griffey Jr.

Off Topic
61

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Yea I agree with that. I just feel like too many people use injuries as a cop out to crown atheletes with more than they deserve. Not saying that youve done that. Griffey deserves all the credit in the world. I think speculating about what if’s isnt fair to the players that actually stayed healthy and acoomplished stuff.

And to Jtrinsey. Your comment about Ruths swing is laughable. His swing is technically perfect. The only thing that matters is what the body looks like at the point of impact. All the best hitters look exactly the same. Back knee at a 90degree angle. Stiff front leg. All the weight on the front side. Back elbow at a 90 degree angle forming the “power L”. Front arm with a slight bend it. Hips open before the shoulders. A frame by frame video of Ruth would show all of that.

All hitters start in different positions but at the point of impact they all look the same. Ruth is no different. He was well ahead of his time. When everyone else was trying to slap at the ball with straight arms he was tacking the most powerful hack possible. And he didnt miss.

62

Geeze. Ruth was the greatest player ever. you can start to make an argument he wasn’t the best hitter ever (I still think he by and far was), but combine that with being one of the best pitchers.

Overall he was by and far the best player. People trying to make arguments otherwise are off their rockers.

63

Lol, I love looking at old stats. In 1917 Ruth pitched 35 complete games.

64

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.
[/quote]

lol I thought you were making a joke.

65

Bonez, I never thought about commenting on a players potential sans injury as a slight to those who remained healthy, but I can see what you’re saying. That’s definitely not what I was trying to do. You’re right though. What if’s are pointless. For all the what if’s about players being better, there should be an equal number of what if’s regading that player getting complacent, stopping to work/practice hard, etc… Nothing is guaranteed, even in pro athletics. Injuries are part of the game, and you gotta take 'em for what they are. Still wish Griff, Larry Johnson and Grant Hill never got injured though, haha.

66

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
The only thing that matters is what the body looks like at the point of impact.
[/quote]

I would argue that making sure you get to the point of impact is pretty important as well. Ruth looks nice at contact, but his bat takes an awful lot of time to get there. I think part of it could be a function of the bats used at the time, and part of it could be from never having seen a slider or splitter and from the fact that pitchers challenged hitters right down the middle of the plate a lot more back then.

I was hyperbolic in calling his swing “goofy”, but I believe you are either being equally hyperbolic in calling it technically perfect because it’s not.

67

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
The only thing that matters is what the body looks like at the point of impact.
[/quote]

I would argue that making sure you get to the point of impact is pretty important as well. Ruth looks nice at contact, but his bat takes an awful lot of time to get there. I think part of it could be a function of the bats used at the time, and part of it could be from never having seen a slider or splitter and from the fact that pitchers challenged hitters right down the middle of the plate a lot more back then.

I was hyperbolic in calling his swing “goofy”, but I believe you are either being equally hyperbolic in calling it technically perfect because it’s not.[/quote]

I have heard (obligatory FWIW) that video comparisons of ruth to pujols gives pujols inisgnificantly better bat speed with a lighter bat.

68

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
The only thing that matters is what the body looks like at the point of impact.
[/quote]

I would argue that making sure you get to the point of impact is pretty important as well. Ruth looks nice at contact, but his bat takes an awful lot of time to get there. I think part of it could be a function of the bats used at the time, and part of it could be from never having seen a slider or splitter and from the fact that pitchers challenged hitters right down the middle of the plate a lot more back then.

I was hyperbolic in calling his swing “goofy”, but I believe you are either being equally hyperbolic in calling it technically perfect because it’s not.[/quote]

Ill repeat. The ONLY thing that matters is the point of impact. Bat speed is a luxury. The velocity of the ball matters much more as well as the timing of the swing.

Pujols’s swing speed has been measured to be around 89 mph. Griffey was measured to be around 120mph in his prime. Bat speed just means you can wait longer, which of course is an advantage, but meeting the ball with as much energy transfer as possible is the only thing that matters.

I dont know where you get the “pitchers threw down the middle” thing. That doesnt make any sense. Why would any pitcher ever do that? Its so counter intuitive to the goal that I dont really know what to say lol. I know the strikeout wasnt coveted the way it is today but pitchers certainly didnt aim for the middle of the plate. Come on.

Again, the speed and movement of the pitches is insignificant. A person who hit SEVEN HUNDRED AND FOURTEEN homeruns (playing in a time when fields were 30% larger than they are now) would have no problem learning how to hit the nastiest breaking balls seen today. A good swing allows the hitter to adjust to pitches that arent fastballs. You just wait a bit longer and hit the curveball, it’s not that hard when you posses extraordinary skills.

69

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
The ONLY thing that matters is the point of impact. [/quote]

If that were the case, then Ryan Howard might be the best hitter of all time. Career HR/FB% of over 30% and line drive rate over 23%. Bonds was 25 and 20, Pujols is 20 and 20, ARod is 18 and 23.