Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bonds vs. Griffey: 1990s only

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by digglahhh View Post
    Astros Fan,

    If one considers the assumptions reasonable, then a case can probably be made. Personally, I don't though - so it is what it is...

    One question though, what are you doing with those IBBs and non-intentional-intentional BBs? Are they just subtracted, or does Barry get his normal AVG/OBP/SLG added back to his totals for the balance of those PAs?

    He can't just lose them altogether...
    I removed them in doing a calculation for a friend who argued that the only reason Bonds's OBP was so much higher was due to Griffey having Edgar batting behind him.
    "Any pitcher who throws at a batter and deliberately tries to hit him is a communist."

    - Alvin Dark

    Comment


    • #32
      Minstrel,you are a perfect example of why I must visit this site in moderation. To you it's all about crunching numbers. Don't get me wrong stats are unbelievably important to look at and study but you have to have a balance.
      Why do I not know much about baseball? Is it because a don't subscribe to your precious sabremetrics? Well guess what? There are a lot of people that don't either. Which brings me to my next point and biggest problem with this site. Anyone who does not like to use the stats that are prevalent on this site is treated like an uneducated fool. Many on here are so full of themselves that any argument based on something other than OPS+ is quickly disgarded but not before being ridiculed by some of you. Of course any fan who uses stats like batting average or RBI(which is completely underrated on here)is not even worthy of your time or attention,since you are clearly superior. Now this is not intended to encompass everyone on here but quite a few here are like that. As I said I am not in complete disagreement with all metrics but there has to be a limit. So go ahead,scoff and mock about everything I have an opinion about as far as baseball goes. Since I clearly don't know anything about the sport. I have only been watching and playing the game for nearly 25 years now.
      "I would walk through hell in a gasoline suit just to play baseball."-Pete Rose

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by swingman24 View Post
        Why do I not know much about baseball?
        Because you think baseball can be "watched" when everyone knows it only happens on computers, in the form of simulations.

        There are no "humans" playing baseball. There are only numbers symbolizing athletes. If you know the numbers, you know everything there is to know about baseball.

        "Watching baseball." Hilarious. Next, you'll be telling us that music can be listened to, rather than just analyzed as waveforms.
        "In the end it all comes down to talent. You can talk all you want about intangibles, I just don't know what that means. Talent makes winners, not intangibles. Can nice guys win? Sure, nice guys can win - if they're nice guys with a lot of talent. Nice guys with a little talent finish fourth and nice guys with no talent finish last." --Sandy Koufax

        Comment


        • #34
          Simply stunning. Are you Icelandic or retarded? I can't discuss anything with people like you.
          "I would walk through hell in a gasoline suit just to play baseball."-Pete Rose

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by swingman24 View Post
            digglahhh,I do not recall claiming to watch more baseball than you. Since you brought it up,how do you possibly know with certainty that you watch more baseball than I do? No one leads me astray. I am an adult,I can think for myself. Why do I have to have some long drawn out "insight" as to why some metrics are ridiculous. Bonds was not in a class by himself before he used steroids. Yeah,I said used steroids because that's what happened,not just a controversy. Now after 2000 if you take his numbers at face value than the only offensive force that can compare would be Ruth and Williams. By the way,I said in my post that I would probably sound a little biased but I can also observe players and check stats as well.
            Why must one have a cursory understanding about a subject to have a valid opinion on it - are you really asking that question? Wherever you work, are you in the practice of delegating projects, hiring consultants, and soliciting input on the basis of nothing substantial?

            When you said, dismissively, that you can learn a lot by watching - the implicit deduction was that you watch and others do not - otherwise there would be no need to make such a statement. I watch a lot of baseball, perhaps you can prove my guarantee to be Ewing-esque, but the point is that I do watch a lot of baseball, and thus not the archetypal stats geek you were picturing when you felt it imperative to differentiate yourself from others on a baseball message board by noting that you watch baseball. I order the package, I have no children, and my girlfriend works nights, weeknights after work and weekends I'm usually watching baseball, unless of course I'm at my part time job - which basically consists of watching baseball.

            I'm an adult too; I can think for myself as well. I can read Bill James and I can listen to John Kruk and Dusty Baker, add my personal observations and decide in which basket to place my eggs.

            Oh, and the requisite rhetorical philosophical caveat applies, if you aren't considering minority or dissenting opinion, and your thoughts about statistical evaluation basically mirror that of the established luddite hegemony of mainstream baseball, is it even accurate to claim you are engaging in any sort of independent thinking?

            When I said controversy, I wasn't engaging in euphemism. I was simply stating that it is difficult to assess Bonds's performance, statistically, post-steroids. Obviously, underneath the chemically enhanced Ruthian was a great ballplayer - where the man ends and the chemical begins is impossible to pin down though. From 1990-98, Griffey did not post a single season OBP higher than Barry's lowest over the same period. Bonds's lowest OPS+ (OPS relative to the league) of the period was only bested by Griffey three times over that span. Griffey topped out at 171, Bonds topped that five times in that span.

            Bonds's level of play was singular.
            Last edited by digglahhh; 04-04-2008, 05:02 PM.
            THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD

            In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by swingman24 View Post
              Simply stunning.
              Hey, you're the one who thought baseball is actually a game played by people, that can be "seen" with eyes.

              Are you Icelandic or retarded?
              Less racism, please. I can be Icelandic AND retarded.
              Last edited by Minstrel; 04-04-2008, 05:12 PM.
              "In the end it all comes down to talent. You can talk all you want about intangibles, I just don't know what that means. Talent makes winners, not intangibles. Can nice guys win? Sure, nice guys can win - if they're nice guys with a lot of talent. Nice guys with a little talent finish fourth and nice guys with no talent finish last." --Sandy Koufax

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by swingman24 View Post
                Simply stunning. Are you Icelandic or retarded? I can't discuss anything with people like you.
                Are you having trouble detecting sarcasm?
                THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD

                In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by swingman24 View Post

                  Are you Icelandic ... ?
                  That's a pretty cold remark, Swingman. Or, is that Greenland? ... Anyhow, next time maybe you should pick on someone our own size - someone with an army, at least.

                  As self-punishment for inelegantly offending so many of us to whom your comment applied, you may want to stay home this weekend and watch all of Bjork's video's - the Icelandic versions, of course.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Proctor, CF View Post
                    That's a pretty cold remark, Swingman. Or, is that Greenland? ... Anyhow, next time maybe you should pick on someone our own size - someone with an army, at least.

                    As self-punishment for inelegantly offending so many of us to whom your comment applied, you may want to stay home this weekend and watch all of Bjork's video's - the Icelandic versions, of course.
                    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by swingman24 View Post
                      Simply stunning. Are you Icelandic or retarded? I can't discuss anything with people like you.
                      --Swingman, this type of personal attack is not permitted at BBF. Please don't let it happen again.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Minstrel View Post
                        Because you think baseball can be "watched" when everyone knows it only happens on computers, in the form of simulations.

                        There are no "humans" playing baseball. There are only numbers symbolizing athletes. If you know the numbers, you know everything there is to know about baseball.

                        "Watching baseball." Hilarious. Next, you'll be telling us that music can be listened to, rather than just analyzed as waveforms.
                        I mean, duh. Who doesn't know this. Whenever they are hungry they chow down on some megabytes, not food. Tired? all they do is plug an ethernet cord [in], wait for their eyes to go from red to green, and they're good to go!
                        Last edited by west coast orange and black; 04-05-2008, 10:38 AM. Reason: crude language
                        Ball game over. World Series over! Yankees win thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Yankees win!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by digglahhh View Post
                          Why must one have a cursory understanding about a subject to have a valid opinion on it - are you really asking that question? Wherever you work, are you in the practice of delegating projects, hiring consultants, and soliciting input on the basis of nothing substantial?

                          When you said, dismissively, that you can learn a lot by watching - the implicit deduction was that you watch and others do not - otherwise there would be no need to make such a statement. I watch a lot of baseball, perhaps you can prove my guarantee to be Ewing-esque, but the point is that I do watch a lot of baseball, and thus not the archetypal stats geek you were picturing when you felt it imperative to differentiate yourself from others on a baseball message board by noting that you watch baseball. I order the package, I have no children, and my girlfriend works nights, weeknights after work and weekends I'm usually watching baseball, unless of course I'm at my part time job - which basically consists of watching baseball.

                          I'm an adult too; I can think for myself as well. I can read Bill James and I can listen to John Kruk and Dusty Baker, add my personal observations and decide in which basket to place my eggs.

                          Oh, and the requisite rhetorical philosophical caveat applies, if you aren't considering minority or dissenting opinion, and your thoughts about statistical evaluation basically mirror that of the established luddite hegemony of mainstream baseball, is it even accurate to claim you are engaging in any sort of independent thinking?

                          When I said controversy, I wasn't engaging in euphemism. I was simply stating that it is difficult to assess Bonds's performance, statistically, post-steroids. Obviously, underneath the chemically enhanced Ruthian was a great ballplayer - where the man ends and the chemical begins is impossible to pin down though. From 1990-98, Griffey did not post a single season OBP higher than Barry's lowest over the same period. Bonds's lowest OPS+ (OPS relative to the league) of the period was only bested by Griffey three times over that span. Griffey topped out at 171, Bonds topped that five times in that span.

                          Bonds's level of play was singular.
                          But do we really have to?
                          Ball game over. World Series over! Yankees win thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Yankees win!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            And to be on-topic, if I can see that Bonds was better than Griffey in the 90's anyone can. And I'll tell you why. I'm 19, so I grew up (kind of) in the 90's. And I was a HUGE Griffey fan. I had his two games for Nintendo 64, and I always traded to get him on the Yankees. I once traded 10 cards just to get his rookie card in like 4th grade. I used to love watching SC and see all the amazing highlight catches he made. I was a Griffey fanatic. And to be honest, I probably couldn't have told you Bonds was (or maybe I could have, not sure) However, as I got older, I realized that SC is, for the most part, garbage. I realized the media loved his kid personallity and hated Bonds. So when I realized how important OBP and SLG really were, and how RBI are really, really, overblown, I found out Bonds was better, and it really isn't close. You don't even have to "crunch" numbers. Just look at BA/OBP/SLG, and you'll see Bonds was the superior offensive player, and thats not even counting his SB.


                            As for Defense, I think Griffey was good, but vastly overrated. He played an extremely deep CF which allowed him to make those plays at the wall, but also let a lot of balls drop in.
                            Ball game over. World Series over! Yankees win thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Yankees win!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              1990's Only...

                              Griffey's average season (1990-1999): 141 G, 618 PA, .302/.384/.581, 152 OPS+, 38 HR, 109 RBI, 15/20 SB (75%), 100 R, 6.1 oWAR, 0.9 dWAR, 6.7 WAR

                              Barry's average season (1990-1999): 143 G, 615 PA, .302/.434/.602, 179 OPS+, 36 HR, 108 RBI, 34/43 SB (79%), 109 R, 6.8 oWAR, 0.5 dWAR, 8.0 WAR


                              You really can't get much closer than these two. I'm leaning toward Bonds because of the superior on-base and baserunning skills, but Griffey was a centerfielder....it's a tough call.
                              Last edited by GiambiJuice; 04-16-2015, 04:49 AM.
                              My top 10 players:

                              1. Babe Ruth
                              2. Barry Bonds
                              3. Ty Cobb
                              4. Ted Williams
                              5. Willie Mays
                              6. Alex Rodriguez
                              7. Hank Aaron
                              8. Honus Wagner
                              9. Lou Gehrig
                              10. Mickey Mantle

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                90s only? To show I'm not being unfair:

                                1990: Bonds > Griffey Jr.
                                1991: Bonds > Griffey Jr.
                                1992: Bonds > Griffey Jr.
                                1993: Bonds > Griffey Jr.
                                1994: Bonds < Griffey Jr.
                                1995: Bonds > Griffey Jr.
                                1996: Bonds < Griffey Jr.
                                1997: Bonds < Griffey Jr.
                                1998: Bonds > Griffey Jr.
                                1999: Bonds < Griffey Jr.

                                Final Tally: Bonds - 6, Junior - 4. Bonds was better, but not by much.
                                "I am not too serious about anything. I believe you have to enjoy yourself to get the most out of your ability."-
                                George Brett

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X