Jump to content

Griffey passes Mantle with 537th homer


MrAndMrsFish
 Share

Recommended Posts

CINCINNATI ? (AP) ? Ken Griffey Jr. passed Mickey Mantle with his 537th career homer Wednesday, taking over sole possession of 12th place on the career list.

 

The Cincinnati Reds star led off the fifth inning with his first homer of the season. His drive off Jerome Williams was the third of the day off the Chicago Cubs' staff ? Bronson Arroyo and Rich Aurilia already had homered.

 

The homer also gave Griffey 1,538 career RBIs, breaking his tie with Joe DiMaggio for 31st on the career list.

 

Last year, Griffey was still recovering from reconstructive hamstring surgery at the start of the season

and didn't get his first homer until his 22nd game of the season, the longest such drought of his career.

 

 

 

Congrats to Junior...I think he is going to have a monster year this coming season

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's weird; I don't think of Griffey as better than Mantle

 

If he were healthy his whole career, he'd be better than Bonds.

If he were healthy his entire career, he may have been the greatest ever.

 

 

Even when he was healthy, Bonds was better. It's a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 'fact'? How?

 

From '90-'99

 

Griffey:

 

Hits: 1,622

RBIs: 1,091

HRs: 382

AVG: .301

 

1 MVP, 10 All-Star Games, 10 Gold Gloves

 

Bonds:

 

Hits: 1,478

RBIs: 1,076

HRs: 361

AVG: .302

 

3 MVPs, 8 All-Star Games, 8 Gold Gloves

 

An opinion? Maybe. But a fact? Hardly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 'fact'? How?

 

From '90-'99

 

Griffey:

Hits: 1,622

RBIs: 1,091

HRs: 382

AVG: .301

1 MVP, 10 All-Star Games, 10 Gold Gloves

 

Bonds:

Hits: 1,478

RBIs: 1,076

HRs: 361

AVG: .302

3 MVPs, 8 All-Star Games, 8 Gold Gloves

 

An opinion? Maybe. But a fact? Hardly.

 

 

Actually, it's a fact. Any regular idiot could tell you that you posted skewed stats that did not take into account the crazy amount of walks Barry had which affect the OBP and OPS. Here are some more facts to, just to make sure you have no argument:

 

1) BB from 90-99: Bonds (1,146) vs Griffey (703) or 443 less than Barry.

 

2) Runs: Barry (1,091) vs Griffey (1,002)

 

3) SB: Bonds (343) vs Griffey (151) or 192 less than Barry.

 

4) Bonds posted a 1.000+ OPS eight times during the decade, compared to four for Griffey, while there was only one season in which Bonds's single season OPS didn't exceed Griffey's mark for the decade.

 

5) A .389 OBP in 1999 was the only thing that prevented Bonds from combining a .400+ OBP with a .500+ SLG in every year of the decade. By comparison, Griffey only did it twice. Meanwhile, Bonds had five seasons with a .400+ OBA and .600+ SLG.

 

6) Mark McGwire's 162 in 1998. No player in NL history walked more times in a decade than Bonds's 1146 walks during the '90's. During the decade, he also set NL records for most walks during every time span between 3-10 years.

 

7) Bill James's runs created/game formula projects how many runs a team would score if that player got every one of the team's plate appearances. Griffey created 8.18 runs per game. While that's an outstanding total, it pales in comparison to Bonds's 10.23. Bonds beat Griffey's decade mark every single year of the '90's, except when he missed by a slim margin in 1991.

 

8) In an average season, Bonds created 139 runs, a figure which was 70 runs above what an average NLer would have produced, given the same number of plate appearances. Griffey never had a single season in which his runs created above average was as high as Bonds's average season.

 

9) During the 1990's, Bonds joined a select group of players who had 1000+ RBI, runs and walks, along with a 1.000+ OPS during a decade. The only others to acheive this: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig and Jimmie Foxx.

 

10) Want more? How about PRO+ stats; namely, the components of OPS divided by the league averages and then normalized to a league average or baseline of100):

 

It might be noted that Griffey's *highest* career PRO+ was 170,in 1993. That is a level that Bonds has reached or exceeded *seven times* in his career. Bonds' *average* PRO+ over the course of the

entire decade was around 180; by contrast, Griffey has only 3 seasons above 160 (in '93, '94, and '97). Bonds' career PRO+ now stands at approx. 165 (good enough for top 10 of the century), to Griffey's 148 (top 35 or so).

 

11) And some further info.: not once since '91 has Bonds' OPS dipped below 1.000 for a season, and his streak of 7 straight full seasons of 1.000 OPS or better between '92 and '98 is matched or surpassed only by Ruth, Gehrig, and Williams. (No other hitter, BTW, has a streak greater than 5.) Additionally, TPS numbers show that Barry deserved at least his 3 MVPs and probably 2 more from 90-99 while Griffey really only deserved the one he received.

 

There you have it. The facts have been shown and it isn't even close. Even in Griffey's prime, Barry was considerably better and maybe the most underapreciated superstar in the history of sports.

 

passiowned

 

 

Stick your foot in your mouth much? :thumbup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He had 90 more runs over 10 years, basically 9 a year. That isn't exactly a large defecit. Not to mention Jr. missed almost an enitre season with a broken foot.

 

Griffey was twice the fielder Barry Bonds ever was. Also he played twice as difficult of a position.

 

Nobody gives a sh*t about pro+ that was a reach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7) Bill James's runs created/game formula projects how many runs a team would score if that player got every one of the team's plate appearances. Griffey created 8.18 runs per game. While that's an outstanding total, it pales in comparison to Bonds's 10.23. Bonds beat Griffey's decade mark every single year of the '90's, except when he missed by a slim margin in 1991.

 

 

ok? guess what nobody gets everyone of the teams plate apperance. Another meaningless stat. You can make stats what you want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Survey Says...

 

The Fan!

 

 

 

Good to see someone is rational!

 

**cough** Felo **cough**

 

He had 90 more runs over 10 years, basically 9 a year. That isn't exactly a large defecit. Not to mention Jr. missed almost an enitre season with a broken foot.

 

Griffey was twice the fielder Barry Bonds ever was. Also he played twice as difficult of a position.

 

Nobody gives a sh*t about pro+ that was a reach.

 

 

Oh give it up already. For all Griffey missed, Barry only played in 26 more games over that span, or a little under 3 more a year. As far as fielding, they both won a ton of GG and statistically, they were basically dead even as far as fielders. Barry was better than Griffey and it wasn't even close. Give it a rest. You have no decent comeback to dispute the claims, mainly because there isn't any. Unless you can make a decent argument and stop grasping at straws, I am done with you on this one. You are acting pathetic already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The story of Griffey is sad. He's a legitimate slugger in every sense of the word--AND he was a 5 tool player. I mean, he should have been the greatest there ever was.

 

Once he left Seattle it was all down hill. Jesus, they had Arod and Griffey and Unit at the same time. How could they not have won a couple WS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The story of Griffey is sad. He's a legitimate slugger in every sense of the word--AND he was a 5 tool player. I mean, he should have been the greatest there ever was.

 

Once he left Seattle it was all down hill. Jesus, they had Arod and Griffey and Unit at the same time. How could they not have won a couple WS?

 

 

 

You are right, very sad story and Seattle had unreal talent. However, it is laughable to say he should have been the greatest of all time when he was not even the best player of the 1990s when he was at his peak. While Griffey is a great, great player and an all-time great, his legacy has been built through a TON of media hype. Call Barry a cheater because he hit 73, but even when he was not 'juiced', he was still the best player in baseball. If any player from Griffey's era should be considered for GOAT, it is Barry, not Ken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't know if you are comparing Apples to apples when it comes to the Griffey/ Bonds comparison. In 1990 Griffey was what 19?

 

Here you go in the 90s Griffey hit 56 homers twice, Bonds never hit over 46. Griffey had 140 RBIs 3 times, Bonds never had 140 once.

 

Girffey was actually in his prime in 96-98, when he was in his late 20s. Compare each guys in their prime and you will come up with different answers.

 

Barry was a better play in the 90s, but in 1990 Girffey was a teenager while Bonds was already a MLB vet.

 

he was not even the best player of the 1990s when he was at his peak

 

He wasn't at his peak in the 1990s, he was at his peak in the late 90s. His peak was cut short due to injurys. Compare Bonds first 10 years in MLB, to Griffey's first 10 years and see waht you come up with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The story of Griffey is sad. He's a legitimate slugger in every sense of the word--AND he was a 5 tool player. I mean, he should have been the greatest there ever was.

 

Once he left Seattle it was all down hill. Jesus, they had Arod and Griffey and Unit at the same time. How could they not have won a couple WS?

 

 

 

You are right, very sad story and Seattle had unreal talent. However, it is laughable to say he should have been the greatest of all time when he was not even the best player of the 1990s when he was at his peak. While Griffey is a great, great player and an all-time great, his legacy has been built through a TON of media hype. Call Barry a cheater because he hit 73, but even when he was not 'juiced', he was still the best player in baseball. If any player from Griffey's era should be considered for GOAT, it is Barry, not Ken.

Yes, laughable to say what I said. :lol :lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't know if you are comparing Apples to apples when it comes to the Griffey/ Bonds comparison. In 1990 Griffey was what 19?

 

Here you go in the 90s Griffey hit 56 homers twice, Bonds never hit over 46. Griffey had 140 RBIs 3 times, Bonds never had 140 once.

 

 

 

I was waiting for you to write something about age, to grasp for straws again. So let's compare peak ages of about 26-29 each (Griffey's best years statistically in his career, not Bonds).

 

Bonds

From '90 through '93, in terms of OPS, and where that ranked in the major leagues:

 

1990 - .974 (2, best in NL)

1991 - .932 (4T, best in NL)

1992 - 1.085 (1)

1993 - 1.140 (1)

 

His Total Player Rating (estimated wins generated above league average player), according to Total Baseball, was as follows:

 

1990 - 7.2 (2, best in NL)

1991 - 6.4 (2, best in NL)

1992 - 9.2 (1)

1993 - 8.8 (1)

 

Griffey OPS:

 

1996 - 1.025 (lower than 5 best in AL)

1997 - 1.035 (4, 2nd best in AL)

1998 - .978 (same as '96)

1999 - .961 (ditto)

 

Griffey's Total Player Rating for ages 26-29:

 

1996 - 5.4 (tied for best in AL, lower than 5 best in NL)

1997 - 6.4 (best in AL, lower than 3 best in NL)

1998 - 5.3 (2nd in AL, lower than 5 best in NL)

1999 - n/a, approx. 5

 

So over his 4 "peak" years, Bonds had a total TPR of 31.6, while for Griffey it was appoximately 22.1, a difference of 9.5, or approximately 2.4 wins per season.

 

One thing that masks how big the difference between them is league effects, i.e., the average league-wide levels of offense during their respective peak years. Bonds' average OPS over his four "peak" years was around 1.030, while for Griffey it was around 1.000. That doesn't seem like a huge difference, but adjusted for league effects, the difference is huge. Only in '93 did a noticeable league-wide offensive inflation begin, to the more or less stable plateau reached in '94. This should seem evident from the fact that Griffey's OPS of 1.025 didn't even make the top 5 in his own league in '96, whereas Bonds' .932 was good enough for 4th best in the majors in '91. This is where PRO comes in to adjust the differences. Once again to remind you what PRO is: basically the components of OPS divided by the league averages and then normalized to a league average or baseline of 100), we get the following from their peak years:

 

Bonds

1990 - 172 (2, best in NL)

1991 - 163 (4, best in NL)

1992 - 207 (1)

1993 - 207 (1)

 

Griffey

1996 - 153 (lower than 5 best in AL)

1997 - 165 (5, 2nd best in AL)

1998 - 148 (same as '96)

1999 - ~147 (ditto)

 

Basically to sum it up. You have no argument, never did and never will. You keep trying to act witty and come up with any argument to grasp for straws but just keep getting owned. Therefore you should: GIVE. IT. UP.

 

P.S. Thanks to Lee Sinins from Baseball Immortals for providing the stats on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok what about stats like runs, and homers, and rbis? Not pro+?

 

 

Give it a rest. I explained why they are by products of other stats and not really indicators of ones superiority. Your initial decision to give up when you were defeated after bringing up the peak years before you edited your post was the smartest comment you have made in your thread. I suggest you go back to that thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok what about stats like runs, and homers, and rbis? Not pro+?

 

 

Give it a rest. I explained why they are by products of other stats and not really indicators of ones superiority.

No, give me stats that play out on the field like home runs, rbis, batting average, runs etc. Not stats that computers come up with about players gettign all their teams at bats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok what about stats like runs, and homers, and rbis? Not pro+?

 

 

Give it a rest. I explained why they are by products of other stats and not really indicators of ones superiority.

No, give me stats that play out on the field like home runs, rbis, batting average, runs etc. Not stats that computers come up with about players gettign all their teams at bats.

 

 

I gave you OBP, OPS, BB, SB among many others. All you have proven tonight is how dumb you are. You are the epitome of stupidity. Go bang you head against a wall a few more times, champ.

 

Bonds>Griffey. Fact. Sorry. Game over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...