At their peak who was the more dominant player

#1
PowerT83

PowerT83

Somewhat sober
Joined
Aug 27, 2007
Messages
7,034
Likes
689
#1
ESPN has a pole up about this so I figured I would see what the Nation thinks.

Griffey Jr or Barroid.


Griffey Jr. is my favorite baseball player ever, he has got the smoothest swing I have ever saw, and back in his prime he was a great CF.


Bonds has never been a great fielder IMO, but its kind of hard to argue against someone that had 72 HRs in a season so I got to say he was more dominant.
 
#2
#2
if Griffey had been able to stay healthy, we'd be talking about him approaching Barry instead of talking about him hitting number 600.
 
#3
#3
PowerT83 said:
ESPN has a pole up about this so I figured I would see what the Nation thinks.

Griffey Jr or Barroid.


Griffey Jr. is my favorite baseball player ever, he has got the smoothest swing I have ever saw, and back in his prime he was a great CF.


Bonds has never been a great fielder IMO, but its kind of hard to argue against someone that had 72 HRs in a season so I got to say he was more dominant.
Click to expand...

Bonds was a very good fielder in his prime.
 
#4
#4
PowerT83 said:
ESPN has a pole up about this so I figured I would see what the Nation thinks.

Griffey Jr or Barroid.


Griffey Jr. is my favorite baseball player ever, he has got the smoothest swing I have ever saw, and back in his prime he was a great CF.


Bonds has never been a great fielder IMO, but its kind of hard to argue against someone that had 72 HRs in a season so I got to say he was more dominant.
Click to expand...

72* He was roided up in 2001 no doubt!

You have never heard anything about Griffey doing anything like that, not even a peep I don't believe. I'll take the guy that did it naturally. You can have Barry and his size 23 dome...
 
#5
#5
I will go with Jr. If it wasn't for all those injuries he would be getting ready to break the HR record.
 
#8
#8
Bonds was a very good fielder in his prime, he was awesome before he got on the juice.

I'll take a 1990 roidless Barry over a 1990 Griffey
 
#9
#9
It all depends on your definition of "prime". The player Bonds was becoming as a Pirate before he beefed up (and I'm not going to speculate what he did) was a 5 tool player. He could hit, hit for power, run, had a good (I won't say great) arm, and was a very good fielder. After beefing up he lost a lot of speed and seemed to lose his touch in the OF.
 
#10
#10
I will also add that I agree Jr would be going for the HR record (or might already have it) if he not been injured so often. However, I hate "if" statements. If my aunt had ba***, she'd be my uncle. Personally I'd take Jr's Mariner days over Bonds.
 
#11
#11
'roids or no, Barries 3 year run at the plate was the best ever. You wanna talk about dominant, his OPS was like 1.4 at some points. That's obscene.

I can't stand Bonds, but he surpassed the Babe's marks for season slugging, all while being pitched around. That's hard to refute. Griffey was awesome, but not like that.
 
#12
#12
volfanbill said:
I will also add that I agree Jr would be going for the HR record (or might already have it) if he not been injured so often. However, I hate "if" statements. If my aunt had ba***, she'd be my uncle. Personally I'd take Jr's Mariner days over Bonds.
Click to expand...

i agree. based on what actually happened, you have to say Bonds. based on what could have happened, you can make a case for Griffey.

don't like to say balls?
 
#13
#13
BigPapaVol said:
'roids or no, Barries 3 year run at the plate was the best ever. You wanna talk about dominant, his OPS was like 1.4 at some points. That's obscene.

I can't stand Bonds, but he surpassed the Babe's marks for season slugging, all while being pitched around. That's hard to refute. Griffey was awesome, but not like that.
Click to expand...

I just like the all around player better. Offensively, you are correct. Bonds' run at the plate was miraculous.

doozer said:
i agree. based on what actually happened, you have to say Bonds. based on what could have happened, you can make a case for Griffey.

don't like to say balls?
Click to expand...

figured it wouldn't be PC enough.
 
#17
#17
This is actually a pretty interesting question. I think the edge might have to go to Bonds, even if you throw out the steroid years and pencil in the normal decline he had already begun instead. He won three MVPs years before he roided himself up into a superhuman cartoon character, after all. It's close.
 
#18
#18
Easily Barry Bonds. In my mind there is absolutley no question about it. Bonds is the best player of this era. Straight up no steroids in question he was the most dominant.
 
#19
#19
And FWIW, I have argued for years that Bonds's late-career renaissance wasn't just due to steroids; it was at leas as much that the league (and NL pitchers) let him get away with wearing armor over the entire right side of his body and standing right on top of the plate. Once he did that, the pitchers had literally nowhere to go with the ball anymore; what used to be the outside corner was suddenly right in Bonds's wheelhouse. It's no wonder he suddenly started walking 200 times a year.

I don't understand why NL pitchers let him get away with it. (Can you imagine what Bob Gibson would have done if Bonds had dug in with all that s--- on?) And once they did, I don't understand why every other hitter in the NL didn't follow suit.
 
#20
#20
Spot on Vercin, but as I recall, Mark Prior went after that part of the plate. I hate the Cubs, but I'll always like Mark Prior just for that encounter.
 
#21
#21
Vercingetorix said:
And FWIW, I have argued for years that Bonds's late-career renaissance wasn't just due to steroids; it was at leas as much that the league (and NL pitchers) let him get away with wearing armor over the entire right side of his body and standing right on top of the plate. Once he did that, the pitchers had literally nowhere to go with the ball anymore; what used to be the outside corner was suddenly right in Bonds's wheelhouse. It's no wonder he suddenly started walking 200 times a year.

I don't understand why NL pitchers let him get away with it. (Can you imagine what Bob Gibson would have done if Bonds had dug in with all that s--- on?) And once they did, I don't understand why every other hitter in the NL didn't follow suit.
Click to expand...


Which makes Alfonso Soriano's balls look even bigger. He is a replica of Bonds (as far as crowding the plate) from the right side and he gets away with it. Of course he doesn't wear a sheild on his arm.

He got away with it because he was the veteran on the block. You think some rookie's got the hair on his ass to throw at Barry Bonds? Nope.

The vets, like Smoltz, had respect enough not to hit him they wanted to get him out. That's why I think he was never head hunted.
 
#22
#22
Business said:
Easily Barry Bonds. In my mind there is absolutley no question about it. Bonds is the best player of this era. Straight up no steroids in question he was the most dominant.
Click to expand...

It's close IMO because a gold glove CF is always a lot better than any LF, no matter how good. No question that Bonds was the better hitter for his era during his (real) prime than Griffey was in his, but all that defense Griffey had back then closes the gap pretty fast.

(I know Bonds got around pretty good in LF back in the day, but still. He had to play LF because he had the throwing arm of a 14 year old.)
 
#23
#23
Vercingetorix said:
It's close IMO because a gold glove CF is always a lot better than any LF, no matter how good. No question that Bonds was the better hitter for his ERA during his (real) prime than Griffey was in his, but all that defense Griffey had back then closes the gap pretty fast.

(I know Bonds got around pretty good in LF back in the day, but still. He had to play LF because he had the throwing arm of a 14 year old.)
Click to expand...

exactly. You play to your defensive strengths up the middle. The best fielder goes to SS, second best if he's got speed goes to CF, and if not it's typically 2B. Griffey's defense and arm make me choose Griffey. Plus Jr was relentless and silky smooth.
 
#24
#24
Vercingetorix said:
It's close IMO because a gold glove CF is always a lot better than any LF, no matter how good. No question that Bonds was the better hitter for his ERA during his (real) prime than Griffey was in his, but all that defense Griffey had back then closes the gap pretty fast.

(I know Bonds got around pretty good in LF back in the day, but still. He had to play LF because he had the throwing arm of a 14 year old.)
Click to expand...

True. Griffey was a beast. I think he would be closing in on that Home Run record if he didn't play so hard on defense back in his younger days.

At first I saw it as Bonds way above Griffey but you have persuaded me. Yet, I still think Bonds as more dominant, the gap is just smaller.
 
#25
#25
volfanbill said:
exactly. You play to your defensive strengths up the middle. The best fielder goes to SS, second best if he's got speed goes to CF, and if not it's typically 2B. Griffey's defense and arm make me choose Griffey. Plus Jr was relentless and silky smooth.
Click to expand...

Did you watch the Zohan?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top