2010 MLB Thread

[Race4LastPlace 31]

Didn't say this decade. He won the award in 1999, as voted on by MLB players...

[mack 44]

That's because Barry Bonds is slightly more popular than AIDS.

[Juice_Slowjamz 0]

Didn't say this decade. He won the award in 1999, as voted on by MLB players...

Then you probably should have typed "The player of the 90s" then. As is, your statement refers to this recently passed decade.

[Race4LastPlace 31]

Thats why i put it in quotes. I probably should have been more specific though. I wont deny Barry Bonds was better. There's no question. I was just posting what Jr was awarded, and my personal experience watching him play. I just can't call one of the best players for the game (for, not in, the game) overrated. But this is all my opinion...

[Juice_Slowjamz 0]

Thats why i put it in quotes. I probably should have been more specific though. I wont deny Barry Bonds was better. There's no question. I was just posting what Jr was awarded, and my personal experience watching him play. I just can't call one of the best players for the game (for, not in, the game) overrated. But this is all my opinion...

I agree, Griffey was in no way overrated.

However, the way he flung his body around the field, it was inevitable that injuries would sidetrack his career. But, you have to give it to him, he knew the risks and still played CF aggressively.

I remember him saying something to the fact that if he saved a HR by diving into the fence, it was just as good as hitting a HR.

[TBLfan 25]

Stats from 1990-1999

Bonds = 1434 games played

Griffey = 1408 games played

Bonds = 1478 hits

Griffey = 1622 hits

Bonds = 361 homeruns

Griffey = 382 homeruns

Bonds = 1076 RBI

Griffey = 1091 RBI

Bonds = .302 BA

Griffey = .302 BA

Bonds = Consecutive gold gloves from 1990-1994 and 1996-1998

Griffey = Consecutive gold gloves from 1990-1999

Bonds = 102 Errors

Griffey = 52 Errors

Bonds = 1990 was Bonds' 5th season as a pro(25 years old)

Griffey = 1990 was Griffey's 2nd season as a pro(20 years old)

[BenderHockey 127]

That's because Barry Bonds is slightly more popular than AIDS.

At least AIDS is still around....

[TheGasman 0]

Last night was the 36 year anniversary of the 10 cent beer night disaster in Cleveland. One of the greatest marketing blunders ever in all of sports.

One of my favorite pictures of all time.

Cleveland rocks.

[mik3 1]

Stats from 1990-1999

Bonds = 1434 games played

Griffey = 1408 games played

Bonds = 1478 hits

Griffey = 1622 hits

Bonds = 361 homeruns

Griffey = 382 homeruns

Bonds = 1076 RBI

Griffey = 1091 RBI

Bonds = .302 BA

Griffey = .302 BA

Bonds = Consecutive gold gloves from 1990-1994 and 1996-1998

Griffey = Consecutive gold gloves from 1990-1999

Bonds = 102 Errors

Griffey = 52 Errors

Bonds = 1990 was Bonds' 5th season as a pro(25 years old)

Griffey = 1990 was Griffey's 2nd season as a pro(20 years old)

Bonds - .302/.434/.602/1.036 179+ 821RAR 85.2WAR

Griffey - .302/.384/.581/.965/152+ 668RAR 65.9WAR

Barry wins bigtime.

[mack 44]

Still no Maddux or Johnson.

[mik3 1]

Maddux's 90s WAR - 61.1

Randy 49.5

Clemens 63.2

[dsjunior1388 81]

Maddux's 90s WAR - 61.1

Randy 49.5

Clemens 63.2

Can you explain that stat? I've never heard of it.

Maddux's 90s WAR - 61.1

Randy 49.5

Clemens 63.2

Can you explain that stat? I've never heard of it.

[mik3 1]

Wins above replacement. Pretty much how many wins you'd lose if you put the average AAA player at that position into the lineup for them.

[mack 44]

It's weird how there's no sabermetric stat to determine how overrated it is.

[mik3 1]

Well pretty much any way you look at it Barry was the most valuable player of the 90s. A position player should pretty much always be more valuable than a pitcher based on appearing in about 125 more games a year.

[mack 44]

Shame the postseason doesn't factor in. That .200 he hit during those years would have taken him down some.

[TBLfan 25]

Bonds - .302/.434/.602/1.036 179+ 821RAR 85.2WAR

Griffey - .302/.384/.581/.965/152+ 668RAR 65.9WAR

Barry wins bigtime.

More Hits, more HRs, more RBIs in less games and nearly half as many errors(this in itself is a big weight in favor of Griffey). The numbers I provided show that he was actively more productive and beneficial to the team. Aaand, this includes the season that Griffey broke his wrist and had rather poor numbers(in comparison) because of he was willing to give his body up to make an out.

Griffey had 26 less games but still managed 144 more hits than Bonds, 21 more homeruns, and 50 less errors. That's 50 more times that Bonds screwed up and gave the opposing team an extra out.

Bonds was walked 1146 times, Griffey only 703. That doesn't make Bonds "win bigtime."

[mik3 1]

It makes him immensely more valuable. 144 more hits is nice and all, but Bonds was on base more than two hundred more times. Errors are also a very very very bad way to rate a fielder.

[TBLfan 25]

It makes him immensely more valuable. 144 more hits is nice and all, but Bonds was on base more than two hundred more times. Errors are also a very very very bad way to rate a fielder.

Based on the stats you seem to deem most important, Edgar Martinez is the second best player of the 90s... that must have been why they didn't pitch around Griffey, you don't want to face the 2nd most dangerous player in the league at the time with a runner on.

[mik3 1]

Not really, based on value stats Griffey was much better than Martinez. It doesn't change the fact that the purpose of baseball is to not make outs, and not only was Bonds much better at doing that but he was also doing more damage the times that he put the ball in play.

[TBLfan 25]

Obviously he had a better impact on the scoreboard with less HRs and less RBIs, both of which directly affect the scoreboard. The number of walks has more to do with the batting order, not soo much with actual ability.

[IniNew 53]

Not really, based on value stats Griffey was much better than Martinez. It doesn't change the fact that the purpose of baseball is to not make outs, and not only was Bonds much better at doing that but he was also doing more damage the times that he put the ball in play.

From a completely unbiased opinion, how can this be true? According to the stats posted by TBL, Griffey clearly accomplished more with the ball in play...

[LegoDoom 0]

Bonds - .302/.434/.602/1.036 179+ 821RAR 85.2WAR

Griffey - .302/.384/.581/.965/152+ 668RAR 65.9WAR

Barry wins bigtime.

I'm pretty sure the big disparity between the two was that Griffey didn't walk as much because the lineup he was in had much better hitters. When they had to swing, they were fairly even hitters. And Griffey was a better fielder playing a tougher defensive position.

[TBLfan 25]

I'm pretty sure the big disparity between the two was that Griffey didn't walk as much because the lineup he was in had much better hitters. When they had to swing, they were fairly even hitters. And Griffey was a better fielder playing a tougher defensive position.

Exactly, 95 more intentional walks for Bonds. That in itself tells you that Bonds wasn't "protected" as well as Griffey in the lineup, who had one of the better DHs(Edgar Martinez) and a low rent Gary Sheffield(Jay Buhner) batting behind him.

[mik3 1]

So pretty much the difference is HRs, which Barry's higher slugging percentage kinda difuses, since RBIs are a team-reliant stat. Barry also stole 193 more bases over the same period.

And if you bring fielding values into account then Barry's got an even bigger lead, even though Griffey has the higher position value in CF.