PDA

View Full Version : Sosa vs Griffey vs McGwire



marlinsfan24
08-23-2010, 09:52 PM
For this one thread, leave the steroids discussion out of this and think back to as a GM of a team back in the 90's. If you had a choice between one of these 3 powerful sluggers, who would you like to build your team around? Sammy Sosa, Ken Griffey Jr, or Mark McGwire? Explain why too please.

marlinsfan24
08-23-2010, 11:46 PM
I chose Griffey because I feel he was as good on offense as the other two, but he also played amazing defense.

WadeKobe
08-23-2010, 11:55 PM
It really comes down to how well Griffey could play some centerfield. He was incredible. For me this is easy. Plus, Griffey is just a class-act. He is, was, and has always been the kinda guy you would want as the face of your franchize.

todu82
08-24-2010, 09:33 AM
Griffey

Pinstripe pride
08-24-2010, 09:56 AM
i'll take the non-roider

ThisIsTheYear
08-24-2010, 10:47 AM
Griffey. Amazing all around player. One of the most talented to ever walk on the diamond.

bagwell368
08-24-2010, 11:55 AM
I chose Griffey because I feel he was as good on offense as the other two, but he also played amazing defense.

Sosa should be removed at once, he only got great at the end of the decade, too many meh and above average years earlier.

Jr and Mac were both in their prime. Mac plays a position of little defensive importance, and played it a hair below average. Mac also had a really crappy year in the mix, also was a terrible base runner compared to anyone, Griffey was good.

Griffey would become a poor fielder in this past decade was still at the top of defensive game in the 1990's.

The answer must be Griffey, and it's not that close.

Put Bonds in here, and Griffey is off the top of the list in a heart beat - since Sir Juice a Lot Bonds didn't get going with that junk until IMO after the 1999 season. Bonds was a far better hitter, far better base runner, and a better fielder (at a less key position) then Griffey. Not even close.

marlinsfan24
08-24-2010, 01:54 PM
Sosa should be removed at once, he only got great at the end of the decade, too many meh and above average years earlier.

Jr and Mac were both in their prime. Mac plays a position of little defensive importance, and played it a hair below average. Mac also had a really crappy year in the mix, also was a terrible base runner compared to anyone, Griffey was good.

Griffey would become a poor fielder in this past decade was still at the top of defensive game in the 1990's.

The answer must be Griffey, and it's not that close.

Put Bonds in here, and Griffey is off the top of the list in a heart beat - since Sir Juice a Lot Bonds didn't get going with that junk until IMO after the 1999 season. Bonds was a far better hitter, far better base runner, and a better fielder (at a less key position) then Griffey. Not even close.

Good post. Though I disagree at the end, I'd rather have Griffey than Bonds, but that's another debate.

Manatoo
08-24-2010, 02:18 PM
Good post. Though I disagree at the end, I'd rather have Griffey than Bonds, but that's another debate.

How? Steroids or no Bonds crushes Griffey in just about every offensive category and even before his HGH years he had already put up a 100+ War career, Griffey was just over 85.

WadeKobe
08-24-2010, 03:00 PM
How? Steroids or no Bonds crushes Griffey in just about every offensive category and even before his HGH years he had already put up a 100+ War career, Griffey was just over 85.

It's true. Bonds is simply the greatest ever. If you take away the roid years, it become debatable.... but he's still in a league of his own.

Pujolsfan91
08-24-2010, 03:38 PM
Griffey without a doubt in my mind.

BigLee53
08-24-2010, 05:24 PM
Steroid/Cork Bat User vs. Griffey Jr. vs. Even Bigger Steroid User.

bagwell368
08-24-2010, 06:33 PM
Good post. Though I disagree at the end, I'd rather have Griffey than Bonds, but that's another debate.

Then you are a homer, or have something against Bonds. Given a single 10 year span, Bonds 90's has to put him into the top 15 players ever. Griffey is not even in the top 40. The difference between 15 and 40 is about the same difference as between 40 and 175.

Bonds >> Griffey - and I don't like Bonds at all, and I don't care for the deification of Griffey either, he was Frank Robinson reborn - which is great, but he wasn't the best either.

Burkey3472
08-24-2010, 08:05 PM
Griffey easily over Sosa and Big Mac.

Bonds over Griffey.

WadeKobe
08-25-2010, 01:39 AM
Then you are a homer, or have something against Bonds. Given a single 10 year span, Bonds 90's has to put him into the top 15 players ever. Griffey is not even in the top 40. The difference between 15 and 40 is about the same difference as between 40 and 175.

Bonds >> Griffey - and I don't like Bonds at all, and I don't care for the deification of Griffey either, he was Frank Robinson reborn - which is great, but he wasn't the best either.

Top 15? Top 5-10 easily.

If Bonds had never done steroids (and we still don't know without a doubt that he did) he would have been in the conversation for greatest MLB player of all time. With the stats he has now, regardless of steroids or not... he is the single greatest player to ever play the game.

Sadly, steroids most likely tarnish that. It's sad, because he would have probably been the best ever. He wasn't comfortable with "probably." He had to make sure by taking steroids. Such a shame.

Boozerguy47
08-25-2010, 03:30 AM
Ah, I like it. 100% for Ken.

Ron!n
08-25-2010, 10:45 AM
Its amazing how the OP says leave steroids out of the discussion, yet thats the first point anyone brings up.

bagwell368
08-25-2010, 10:52 AM
Top 15? Top 5-10 easily.

If Bonds had never done steroids (and we still don't know without a doubt that he did) he would have been in the conversation for greatest MLB player of all time. With the stats he has now, regardless of steroids or not... he is the single greatest player to ever play the game.

Sadly, steroids most likely tarnish that. It's sad, because he would have probably been the best ever. He wasn't comfortable with "probably." He had to make sure by taking steroids. Such a shame.

We do know that he did steroids. It is an accepted fact that even premier athletes in their mid 30's cannot add more then 5 lbs of muscle in a year, yet he added 25 in 4 months, and his hat size jumped as well. HGH city.

His hitting stats are not better then Ruths (his peak is higher but not as long) even w/ the juice. Of course unless Bonds pitched under another name, Ruth was working on a fine perhaps HOF pitching career when he got switched. W/O the juice and given a normal decline phase he's no match for say Honus Wagner either due to the positional scarcity value Wagner has, not to mention he was either the best or second best defensive SS of all time - which is a lot more important then Bonds being maybe the best defensive LF his first 8 years or so. Cobb, Gehrig, Ted have him. Musial is also slightly better - and as a team mate of course there is no comparison. Bonds was a jerk of major proportions. Not as bad as Cobb, or probably Belle, he was still a contagion in the clubhouse. Musial has been cited as perhaps one of the great teammates of all time. Go take a look at my post some time back comparing them through the age BB went nuclear on the junk. Go look at the OBP difference. Musial axes him.

All you have to do is look at Bonds OPS+ by year to see that he had a normal peak at the normal time (200+ two years in a row), and then declined into a more normal super star bracket. Then his head grows, he becomes a monster, and has a late career power surge like nobody in the history of baseball, and you want to count that as is? Phheeewww - homer stink alert.

marlinsfan24
08-25-2010, 11:18 AM
Its amazing how the OP says leave steroids out of the discussion, yet thats the first point anyone brings up.
PSD at it's finest!


Then you are a homer, or have something against Bonds. Given a single 10 year span, Bonds 90's has to put him into the top 15 players ever. Griffey is not even in the top 40. The difference between 15 and 40 is about the same difference as between 40 and 175.

Bonds >> Griffey - and I don't like Bonds at all, and I don't care for the deification of Griffey either, he was Frank Robinson reborn - which is great, but he wasn't the best either.

You're right. Bonds is better than Griffey. I took a closer look at the stats, my bad. Bonds was an amazing player without the roids, I'll never understand what pushed him to take them.

ritz
08-25-2010, 03:19 PM
Griffey so I could pop a boner everytime he swung.

bagwell368
08-25-2010, 09:02 PM
You're right. Bonds is better than Griffey. I took a closer look at the stats, my bad. Bonds was an amazing player without the roids, I'll never understand what pushed him to take them.

Cool. Not many are able to change their minds here - nice hand from me on that.

I think it's the McGwire/Sosa HR chase. Inside baseball everyone knew he was better then those guys, and Griffey, but, it's hard to ignore the crowds and the cheers. He gave in to the call of destiny but found eternal shame.

SF25
08-26-2010, 12:08 AM
McGwire was my favorite when I was a kid but I gotta go with Griffey easily.

Johann
08-26-2010, 12:53 AM
SOSA - 0
Griffey Jr - 26
McGuire - 0

Surprising. Id think at least one person would take the steroids.