ESPN top 100 players of all time 1-25

[tycobb420]

You must've been hanging around some ignorant folks.

Bonds was a far better hitter, not even close.

Griffeys best offensive season, 1993, wasn't even as good as Bonds average offensive season from 1990-1998.

Bonds was much better on the base paths as well.

The positional advantage wasn't close to making up for the fact that Bonds blew him away in all other facets of the game.

The fact is, steroids or no, it's ignorant to suggest Griffey was even close to Bonds as a player.

These were your baseball pundits on TV and in print. They were definitely in the same ballpark before Bonds took roids and Jr. got old. Bonds was never in any top 10 of all time conversations before he cheated.

 

[tycobb420]

Bonds was on pace to be top 10 player all time without roids.

Pre-roid Bonds is in the argument for most underrated player of all time.

Bonds was not tracking to be a top 10 player. He began taking at the point in his career in which he would have otherwise begun his natural decline.

 

[mjsb2]

These were your baseball pundits on TV and in print. They were definitely in the same ballpark before Bonds took roids and Jr. got old. Bonds was never in any top 10 of all time conversations before he cheated.

He was a top 10 player without roids.

I'm sorry that you let the media influence your opinion, and let how you feel about Bonds cloud your judgement.

The guy had an OPS+ of 164 from 86-98 while being an elite defensive player and terrific baserunner.

Find me 10 players who had a span that compares to that.

Bonds first peak, from 1990-1998 is one of the 5 greatest peaks in MLB history, and that's without roids.

 

[mjsb2]

In his peak from 91-98 Griffey had a 157 OPS+, not even remotely close to Bonds peak.

And OPS+ is actually a stat that helps Griffey in this argument, as it overvalues his HR power and undervalues Bonds OBP.

If we look at wOBA, a much better stat, there's an even farther distance between the two.

 

[Thumb]

Since people keep mentioning it, do we have an accurate timeline for when he was and was not on 'roids?

 

[spockmaster]

most sources say he started taking them in '99.

 

[tycobb420]

He was a top 10 player without roids.

I'm sorry that you let the media influence your opinion, and let how you feel about Bonds cloud your judgement.

The guy had an OPS+ of 164 from 86-98 while being an elite defensive player and terrific baserunner.

Find me 10 players who had a span that compares to that.

Bonds first peak, from 1990-1998 is one of the 5 greatest peaks in MLB history, and that's without roids.

Media does not influence my opinion. I usually go in the opposite direction of the media. I am merely pointing out that the so-called experts, including players and people in the game itself, did not consider Bonds top 10 caliber during his peak. He got into the GOAT conversation after he began taking roids and putting up cartoon numbers. I also put little faith in OPS+. I realize it is an attempt to quantify ballpark, league, etc, but there is no way one can really do that with any reliability.

 

[mjsb2]

Media does not influence my opinion. I usually go in the opposite direction of the media. I am merely pointing out that the so-called experts, including players and people in the game itself, did not consider Bonds top 10 caliber during his peak. He got into the GOAT conversation after he began taking roids and putting up cartoon numbers. I also put little faith in OPS+. I realize it is an attempt to quantify ballpark, league, etc, but there is no way one can really do that with any reliability.

Doesn't matter what they said.

They were wrong.

Back in the 40's people thought Joe Dimaggio was the better player than Williams, but that is a laughable opinion.

Ty Cobb received more HOF votes than Ruth, because people thought he was better, but they were wrong too.

And I normally don't use OPS+, only reason I did so was because that was the stat actually favors Griffey.

wOBA, a much better stat, shows a great difference between Bonds and Griffey than OPS+.

The media hates Bonds, so the fact that they underrated him isn't remotely surprising.

 

[tycobb420]

Doesn't matter what they said.

They were wrong.

Back in the 40's people thought Joe Dimaggio was the better player than Williams, but that is a laughable opinion.

Ty Cobb received more HOF votes than Ruth, because people thought he was better, but they were wrong too.

And I normally don't use OPS+, only reason I did so was because that was the stat actually favors Griffey.

wOBA, a much better stat, shows a great difference between Bonds and Griffey than OPS+.

The media hates Bonds, so the fact that they underrated him isn't remotely surprising.

I often wonder with the Williams thing how much of that had to do with fielding and baserunning. DiMaggio was light years ahead of Williams in those areas.