Bonds vs. Griffey: 1990s only

[AstrosFan]

This is not your average Bonds vs. Griffey thread. Our polls show that Bonds is convincingly considered the superior player, even if we assumed he retired after the 1998 season. But I was talking with a friend who insists that Griffey was the superior player in the 1990s. Now, he's a die-hard Mariners fan, so there is a chance for bias there. But I wondered if I could get Griffey as a better player than Bonds. I decided I would have to make several assumptions, or work the statistics in such a way that it advantaged Griffey without being totally ridiculous. I believe it is possible for Griffey to be considered the superior player in the 1990s if you make the following concessions:

A) Griffey deserved all his gold gloves and is possibly the greatest defensive center fielder ever.

B) I remove intentional walks for both players (obviously this will hurt Bonds a lot more).

C) I assume that a lot more of Bonds's non-intentional walks (NIBB) were more or less intentional than Griffey's, because Griffey had Edgar Martinez batting behind him for the second half of the 1990s, who regularly put up great batting numbers, and I remove a pretty high portion of Bonds's NIBB.

Giving Griffey the benefit of the doubt on all these, then I could possibly see it. So my question is, for those who have Bonds ahead in the 1990s, and that should be most of us, can you see a way to put Griffey in front?

[cardsfanatic]

My easiest post ever: No.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

My easiest post ever: No.

What he said.

[west coast orange and black]

i just did not want to be the first one to say "no".

[Minstrel]

Well, with unreasonable concessions, sure. If you assume Griffey Jr. was arguably the greatest defensive center fielder ever and if you assume his numbers weren't helped by the Kingdome, I would say it can be argued that Griffey Jr. was better.

But in the real world, Bonds was significantly better.

[AstrosFan]

I want you to look at it through concessions that could be considered reasonable. A lot of people think Griffey is the greatest defensive center fielder ever. Maybe the stats don't say so, but are we really that confident in defensive statistics?

[leecemark]

--I am not so confident in defensive stats that I'd discount Griffey from Gold Glove CF to the average defensive player some metrics make him out to be. It a big leap from "pretty good, maybe a deserving Gold Glover at his peak" to "maybe the best ever" though. Just from personal ovservation I'd have to rank him behind the man who replaced him in CF for the Mariners - Mike Cameron. So I'm definately not down with best ever.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I want you to look at it through concessions that could be considered reasonable. A lot of people think Griffey is the greatest defensive center fielder ever. Maybe the stats don't say so, but are we really that confident in defensive statistics?

I are confident in saying that Griffey was not the greatest defensive center fielder in history. Was he even the greatest defensive center fielder of his era? Andruw Jones, Mike Cameron, and Tori Hunter were/are great center fielders.

If the stats don't say Griffey is the greatest defensive center fielder and you don't necessarily put much weight on the stats then by what means can you assert that Griffey was the greatest defensive center fielder?

[AstrosFan]

10 gold gloves in a decade where players were extremely athletic, and the competition for the award was very tough. I know, I'm making a lot of assumptions here, and I don't expect BBF to think the same way as the average baseball fan, but there is a way to argue it. Personally, I could name 25 center fielders better defensively than Griffey off the top of my head, assuming I don't time-machine the older players. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we're all wrong, and Griffey really was as good as all his Gold Gloves suggest. I don't see it, but I'm willing to concede that it's a possibility.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

10 gold gloves in a decade where players were extremely athletic, and the competition for the award was very tough. I know, I'm making a lot of assumptions here, and I don't expect BBF to think the same way as the average baseball fan, but there is a way to argue it. Personally, I could name 25 center fielders better defensively than Griffey off the top of my head, assuming I don't time-machine the older players. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we're all wrong, and Griffey really was as good as all his Gold Gloves suggest. I don't see it, but I'm willing to concede that it's a possibility.

Gold Glove awards are a poor way to measure a player's defensive skill. Once a player get a reputation as a good glove he just wins year after year. Is a 41 year old Greg Maddux still the best defensive pitcher in the National League? Maddux has 17 Gold Gloves. This idea that Maddux has been the best defensive pitcher every year for 17 years doesn't make any sense. That's kind of how I see Griffey's 10 Gold Gloves.

[west coast orange and black]

wags: This idea that Maddux has been he best defensive pitcher every year for 17 years doesn't make any sense.

kirk reuter would agree with you.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

wags: This idea that Maddux has been he best defensive pitcher every year for 17 years doesn't make any sense.

kirk reuter would agree with you.

And many other pitchers over the past 17 seasons I'm sure.

[AstrosFan]

I think there is a problem with the responses in this thread, which seem to be following the question: Do you think Griffey was better than Bonds in the 1990s, rather than: Is it possible to argue that Griffey was better than Bonds in the 1990s? The latter is the one you should be thinking about. Maybe it won't change the votes any, but the content of some of the responses suggests that people are misinterpreting the point of this thread.

[AstrosFan]

And many other pitchers over the past 17 seasons I'm sure.

Maddux is amazing defensively. I have never seen a pitcher I thought was better. He was fantastic even last year, when he won his 17th. I can't say if he deserved all of them, but he deserved a lot.

[Minstrel]

I think there is a problem with the responses in this thread, which seem to be following the question: Do you think Griffey was better than Bonds in the 1990s, rather than: Is it possible to argue that Griffey was better than Bonds in the 1990s?

The point is, Bonds has a big advantage, after taking into account just about everything we can.

So, really, no, it's not possible. Just like it really isn't possible to argue that maybe Tom Glavine was better than Greg Maddux. Every useful way of measuring tells us that one was significantly better than the other. You have to invent things that aren't very reasonable to reverse that.