- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: In their prime.. I need some answers
Posted on 1/20/17 at 11:39 pm to Jack Ruby
Posted on 1/20/17 at 11:39 pm to Jack Ruby
quote:fwiw the numbers say otherwise. Never had a chance to watch pre roid bonds or griffey in Seattle but just looking at the numbers, bonds was the better player
Griffey was easily the better player of the two.
This post was edited on 1/20/17 at 11:40 pm
1
Posted on 1/20/17 at 11:57 pm to WestCoastAg
Griffey made the all century team, Bonds didn't. That's when its been reported Bonds made the decision to start juicing.
FYI- The All-Century Team included Roger Clemens, Pete Rose, Joe Jackson, and Mark McGwire none of which is in Cooperstown.
FYI- The All-Century Team included Roger Clemens, Pete Rose, Joe Jackson, and Mark McGwire none of which is in Cooperstown.
This post was edited on 1/21/17 at 9:13 am
Posted on 1/21/17 at 12:21 am to Jack Ruby
quote:
Griffey was a superior player to pre juiced Bonds. Although its close and Griffey personality got him points....as one poster already said Bonds Pittsburgh and pre 99-00 SF career was HOF caliber...but if my 10 yr old self remembers correctly, Griffey was easily the better player of the two.
Griffey was more liked but I don't know that he was better. Certainly not by a wide margin if at all.
Posted on 1/21/17 at 3:08 am to tigerforever7
why are we forced to use pre-roids as an example?
gimme trout
gimme trout
Posted on 1/21/17 at 3:47 am to TigerintheNO
quote:
Griffey made the all century team,
quote:
Bonds didnt
quote:
All century team included Barry Bonds
Posted on 1/21/17 at 4:02 am to 0
quote:
Bonds was the best player I've ever seen. Not only was he hitting homeruns at a record clip but he got on base a ton and stole a shitload of bases. Juiced or not he was incredible.
Agreed. His 1990-1998 stretch is one of the most impressive I've seen in any sport; nearly every year was a gold glove, silver slugger, and MVP/POY.
And to the Griffey fan later in this thread, lol.
Posted on 1/21/17 at 8:08 am to tigerforever7
Barry Bonds has a WAR7 (Peak 7-year WAR) of 72.7. Mike Trout has accumulated 48.5 WAR in just over five seasons. That means Trout will have to average 12.1 WAR over the next two seasons just to match Bonds. Mike Trout has never had a 12 WAR or even a 11 WAR season. In fact, there hasn't been a position player with a 12 WAR season since Carl Yastrzemski in 1967. So the answer clearly is Bonds any way you look at it.
Posted on 1/21/17 at 8:25 am to tigerforever7
The first baseball games I can remember are from 1979. that's a period of 37 seasons. Bonds is the best player, steroids or not, that I've seen play. Period..
Posted on 1/21/17 at 8:35 am to Bench McElroy
quote:
Barry Bonds has a WAR7 (Peak 7-year WAR) of 72.7. Mike Trout has accumulated 48.5 WAR in just over five seasons. That means Trout will have to average 12.1 WAR over the next two seasons just to match Bonds. Mike Trout has never had a 12 WAR or even a 11 WAR season. In fact, there hasn't been a position player with a 12 WAR season since Carl Yastrzemski in 1967. So the answer clearly is Bonds any way you look at it.
Did Barry Bonds accomplish those numbers in his first 7 seasons? No? So then why does Trout have to do it to prove he's better?
Posted on 1/21/17 at 8:41 am to tigerforever7
Bonds in Pittsburgh prior to PEDs was the shite.
Posted on 1/21/17 at 8:45 am to BigPerm30
quote:He wasn't close to Trout in those years though. It is a shame how undervalued Trout is. He has had the best first 5 seasons of all time. And he is only 25......
Bonds in Pittsburgh prior to PEDs was the shite.
This post was edited on 1/21/17 at 8:46 am
Posted on 1/21/17 at 8:48 am to lsupride87
Yeah but he isn't as good as bonds yet.
Posted on 1/21/17 at 9:00 am to CelticDog
Posted on 1/21/17 at 9:30 am to Dale Murphy
As others have said, Trout through age 25 crushes Bonds through age 25. It's really impossible to judge beyond that, since Trout is still at age 25. I doubt he ever matches Bonds' peak because that peak is so insane, but he has an outside chance at having a better career when it is all said and done. I wouldn't put anything past Mike Trout at this point.
Posted on 1/21/17 at 10:18 am to Dale Murphy
quote:
Dale Murphy
Hey, have you seen that MLB show counting down the greatest games? Hosted by Costas and some other dude, and they feature guys from the game. '92 NLCS game 7 had Lemke and Bream and Van Slyke. Two hours long. Great stuff .
I also saw Game 7 of the '91 Series. Had Smoltz and Morris. Great show, but made me
. Damn Charlie Leibrant. Anyway, that game was ranked #2. Not sure what #1 is. 
Posted on 1/21/17 at 10:19 am to AmosMosesAndTwins
quote:
And to the Griffey fan later in this thread, lol.
from age 23 to age 30:
Griffey hit an AVERAGE of 45 homers a season.
Bonds hit 40 once with a max of 46.
Griffey had 3 seasons of 140+ RBI and another over 130.
Bonds maxed out at 129 with only one other 120 season.
Batting Averages were similar with Bonds having a slight edge.
Bonds was better at stealing bases, but i'll take Griffey's glove and arm over Bonds.
Posted on 1/21/17 at 10:23 am to Nutriaitch
then in their early 30s Griffey started getting hurt and skills began a slow steady decline like every other human being on the planet.
Bonds hit a growth spurt that normally only happens in early teens and was suddenly super man.
Clean Griffey over Clean Bonds.
all day every day.
Bonds hit a growth spurt that normally only happens in early teens and was suddenly super man.
Clean Griffey over Clean Bonds.
all day every day.
Posted on 1/21/17 at 10:32 am to Nutriaitch
Bonds was a better hitter than Griffey even before he turned into the Hulk. 50 point OBP advantage through the 90s is huge. Here are their hitting stats in the 90s (PAs are pretty much identical):
Bonds- .302/.434/.602 172 wRC+
Griffey- .302/.384/.581 147 wRC+
I'll take Griffey's glove, but hitting and baserunning go to Bonds. Hence, his 15 WAR lead over Griffey in the 90s alone.
Bonds- .302/.434/.602 172 wRC+
Griffey- .302/.384/.581 147 wRC+
I'll take Griffey's glove, but hitting and baserunning go to Bonds. Hence, his 15 WAR lead over Griffey in the 90s alone.
This post was edited on 1/21/17 at 10:40 am
Posted on 1/21/17 at 10:34 am to Nutriaitch
quote:
Clean Griffey
Link? You tards that think you know who didn't juice are naive. You don't know these people. No one is absolved.
Also, you left out OBP in your comparison. Getting on base is pretty important, no?
Posted on 1/21/17 at 11:08 am to Hot Carl
quote:
Link? You tards that think you know who didn't juice are naive. You don't know these people. No one is absolved.
an educated guess on his cleanliness.
i obviously don't know one way or the other.
but his body filled out gradually as you would expect for his age before slowly gaining weight in the belly.
and his stat line went up through typical age for prime years and declined at what would be considered normal ages to decline.
and OBP is absolutely an important stat.
but i don't hold it as high as most.
my personal opinion that i know i'm in the minority on.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News