50 Responses to “Card of the Week: 1989 Upper Deck #1 Ken Griffey Jr.”

1. BSK Says:
   June 5th, 2010 at 8:15 am

   http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2010/6/3/1498996/ken-griffey-jr-the-best-player-in

   Interesting take on Griffey's status as "Best Player".

2. Time Out » This guy Griffey was pretty good, too Says:
   June 5th, 2010 at 8:38 am

   [...] While that may not seem surprising, the story of why it is so rare is an interesting one. You can read about the unique baseball card here (and good luck hunting one down at a tag [...]

3. Johnny Twisto Says:
   June 5th, 2010 at 9:17 am

   Griffey is one of three players with three straight 140-RBI seasons (Ruth, Gehrig).

4. BSK Says:
   June 5th, 2010 at 9:24 am

   Not to be the curmudgeonly young guy, but are we REALLY using RsBI to evaluate?

5. Andy Says:
   June 5th, 2010 at 9:26 am

   I have to admit I found it odd that JT would mention RBI as well. What was it that Theo Epstein called that stat? simplistic?

6. JeffW Says:
   June 5th, 2010 at 9:26 am

   Best player untouched by the steroid controversy.

   Some people may still like Bonds. Talentwise, he was as good a rival as you could hope for, but the choices Barry (do we have to say "allegedly"?) made remove him from the picture, because we can't accurately track where his career would have ended up.

   I still give Junior a slight edge, mostly because he played a tougher defensive position, and had a much better arm. Bonds stole many more bases, but they were both outstanding base runners.

   Obviously, for those of us who also like to factor in such things, Junior was a much better teammate and representative of the game. You may not feel it's fair to deduct for surly behavior, but you can still give "extra credit" for being a largely positive role model.

   Minus the injuries (I can hear the groaning already...) and Bonds' (alleged) cheating, Junior could have easily been the one challenging Hank Aaron's home run record. The 700 plateau seems a certainty, for sure.

   My favorite Junior moment was when he scored from first on the Edgar Martinez double, made doubly more so by the fact that I was in the crowd. You just can't beat being there! It was complete pandemonium.

   It may (sadly) say something, when your team's finest moment ever was in a first round playoff game. But it also speaks volumes that that moment is also indelibly etched in the minds of baseball fans across the country.

   The whole sweep of the Mariners' first-ever postseason run -- from last place, 13 games back, to the one-game playoff, to the finale of the first round series with the Yankees -- made for an incredible storyline for everyone. And, at the bottom of the pile at home plate after an electrifying dash around the bases, there was the greatest smile of his generation.

   I was saddened, like many, at the circumstances surrounding Griffey's retirement. But that last two months may still provide a huge positive, in a pass-it-on way.

   For years an extremely troubled but talented player, Milton Bradley was ecstatic at getting the chance to play with his baseball idol. After many years of unexplained disruptive behavior, Milton may have finally found a home, and means to finally learning to deal with his inner demons.

   He so treasured his time spent with Junior and the rest of this year's club (also Mike Sweeney, in particular), that when he ran into more problems, his teammates had his back and he was able to take the first step toward what looks to be a promising happy ending.

   During a video presentation at Safeco Field honoring Junior's career, Bradley could be seen on the bench, wiping the tears from his eyes. During a postgame interview, he was very subdued and sniffling profusely.

   If Junior has helped Bradley to turn his life around, what more do you need to claim success?

7. Andy Says:
   June 5th, 2010 at 9:48 am

   I have been to lots of Mariners games at both Kingdome and Safeco and was always bemused by the footage of Griffey scoring that run as the franchise-defining moment. Such a contrast to the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, and many other teams.
   Remember who gave up that hit to Edgar? Jack McDowell.

8. Johnny Twisto Says:
   June 5th, 2010 at 9:50 am

   I wasn't evaluating, I was sharing an interesting fact.

9. TheGoof Says:
   June 5th, 2010 at 9:56 am

   I still like RBI. You just have to be aware of the limitations, like any other stat. I never would have thought there were only three players to do that. Not Foxx or Manny or Ted Williams or Sosa or Juan Gone? It's impressive.

10. BSK Says:
    June 5th, 2010 at 9:56 am

    "If Junior has helped Bradley to turn his life around, what more do you need to claim success?"

    Who claimed anything but success for Junior? I feel like that is one of the biggest problems with how we handle discourse nowadays. If I say Junior was the second best player of his generation, second only to a guy who very may well have been the best player of all time, people act as if I'm insulting Junior. There is absolutely room to debate, but to act as if saying Junior is "only" the 2nd best player of a generation is somehow belittling his success or insulting simply ceases debate.

11. BSK Says:
    June 5th, 2010 at 10:01 am

    TheGoof-

    I'd argue the opposite, actually. What does the fact that just those three guys had the 140+ 3 times in a row tell us? All it tells us is they had fine seasons coupled with highly fortuitous situations. Williams easily had 3-year-runs on par or better than Griffey, but simply didn't luck into 140 RsBI during each season. What of consequence can we take from that fact?

12. JeffW Says:
    June 5th, 2010 at 10:41 am

    BSK, I was not saying anyone said Junior was not a success. I'm just stating my belief in the importance of helping a person reclaim his life and getting him back on track.

    It is by no means my sole measure of Junior's success, though it may add much to what many will feel was a lost final season.

    It is largely that context, in measuring what impact he may have had in his final two months, that may add to his list of accomplishments. It's not a home run, or a game-saving catch. But it's important.

    He didn't need that to be the best player of his generation. But, in a "pass-it-on" sense, it potentially makes for a nice way to go.

13. Innuendo Says:
    June 5th, 2010 at 10:52 am

    FYI, I just wanted to add that Griffey was 2nd at cumulative WAR for the 90s. Bonds had 85.2 and Junior, 65.9. (The best pitcher was Clemens with 63.2). If you use the Bill James' Win Shares data, he was no 5 : Barry Bonds had 351, Craig Biggio 287, Frank Thomas 273, Jeff Bagwell 263, and Griffey 261.

14. JeffW Says:
    June 5th, 2010 at 10:57 am

    Andy, how many people forget that Randy Johnson actually gave the Yankees the go-ahead run in the top half of the inning, and it took two runs (let's not forget Joey Cora) on the double to win it?

15. Johnny Twisto Says:
    June 5th, 2010 at 11:14 am

    BSK, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Every statistic is the result of performance and circumstance. What of consequence are you supposed to take from it? I have no idea. Most Cameroonians wouldn't understand it or care, so they take nothing from it. I would assume most baseball fans would implicitly find it interesting. What does a 56-game hitting streak tell you? What does a cycle tell you? It is what it is.

    If you're backhandedly trying to argue that RBI aren't the Most Important Stat Ever, I think by this point everyone either knows that, or won't accept it.

16. John Q Says:
    June 5th, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    Bonds was the best player of the 90's and it's not even remotely close. Here's the top ten (War) from 1990-1999:

    Bonds-85.2
    Griffey-65.9
    Clemens-63.2
    Maddox-61
    Bagwell-59.6
    Thomas-54.3
    Biggio-51.7
    Larkin-51.7
    Edgar-49.9
    R. Johnson-49.5

    Here's just position players:

    Bonds-85.2
    Griffey-65.9
    Bagwell-59.6
    Thomas-54.3
    Biggio-51.7
    Larkin-51.7
    Edgar-49.9
    Palmeiro-48.1
    Mcgwire-47.0
    Lofton-45.9

    The difference between Bonds and Griffey in the 90's is like the difference between Lou Gehrig and George Brett for their careers. And the difference between Bonds and Griffey for their careers is like the difference between Ty Cobb-Willie Mays vs. Rod Carew-Robin Yount.

17. Andy Says:
    June 5th, 2010 at 12:47 pm

    Fair comparisons John Q, but notable that they are all still HOFers.

    On a separate note it bugs me how there seem to be no metrics that show Bonds as anything but sumpremely better than all other players on his era. I know that is true but I guess I wish it has translated into more wins for his teams and didn't feel so hollow.

18. DavidJ Says:
    June 5th, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    "This omission was keeping with Topps' tradition up to that point, when they usually did not issue cards for players who had not yet appeared in the major leagues."

    What's especially odd/ironic about not issuing a Griffey card is that Topps actually [i]did[/i] issue several cards in its 1989 set of players who had not yet appeared in MLB games. I believe that was the first year that Topps made cards for some of the previous year's draft picks, so there are cards of (among others) Robin Ventura and Steve Avery in that set. Ventura, like Griffey, made his debut during the '89 season, and Avery didn't make his debut until the following season.

    Incidentally, there are some other great rookie cards from 1989 that get overshadowed by Griffey's: Randy Johnson, John Smoltz, and Craig Biggio had cards in all the major sets, and I believe Curt Schilling had a Donruss card.

    By the way, has anyone done a card blog devoted to that '89 Upper Deck set? Seems like that would be a great one for somebody to do.

19. DavidJ Says:
    June 5th, 2010 at 2:51 pm

    "Incidentally, there are some other great rookie cards from 1989 that get overshadowed by Griffey's: Randy Johnson, John Smoltz, and Craig Biggio had cards in all the major sets, and I believe Curt Schilling had a Donruss card."

    I should have mentioned Gary Sheffield as well--his rookie cards are also part of the '89 crop.

20. Johnny Twisto Says:
    June 5th, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    Andy, what do you mean? Bonds's teams won at least 90 games ten times, six divisions, and were what, like one out or one inning from a title? Are you saying he should have won more pennants/WS?

21. Andy Says:
    June 5th, 2010 at 5:26 pm

    My angst over Bonds is irrational. He was so much better in terms of value that I feel like his teams should have set major scoring records and won multiple championships. I know that's dumb because both of those feats are team accomplishments, not individual. I just feel like the stats should have translated into more. It's probably a condemnation of his teammates more than anything. It's like having a superpower and using it to peform a cheap magic show.

22. DavidRF Says:
    June 5th, 2010 at 5:42 pm

    You could say the same thing about a lot of players. Ty Cobb and Ted Williams have more black ink than he does and neither of them have any rings, either.

    One thing, though, the Pittsburgh franchise had a mini-dynasty when he was there and has never recovered from his departure.

    Irrational Bonds-dislike is common, though. Its amazing he got the writers to vote him MVP seven times. Imagine how many he could have won if any of them actually liked him. One thing about the PED scandal is it gives people a convenient way of dismissing his career without having to resort to crazy statistical analysis.

23. Craig Says:
    June 5th, 2010 at 7:39 pm

    Excuse my ignorance but is an outfielders WAR general or position specific? In other words, is Barry Bonds WAR juiced up because he played left field?

24. Andy Says:
    June 5th, 2010 at 8:01 pm

    WAR has a defensive component that can be positive or negative based on the performance of the player at his defensive position. There is no "juicing" of numbers because it's ultimately based on performance. It's not as if all players from a particular position get a benefit. There is, however, some debate as to how the numbers are calculated and whether they are correct.

25. BSK Says:
    June 5th, 2010 at 10:01 pm

    JeffW-

    Great point, and I wrongly overshadowed what you meant there. In many ways, Griffey's impact on Bradley might be the single best thing he accomplishes in his life. He certainly deserves credit for it. I unfairly went off on you because of other frustrations I have, which is namely that by saying, "So-and-so was the Xth best at blah" with X being fairly high, people will get frustrated because you didn't say he was the best, instead of recognizing it as the great compliment that it was.

    JT-

    I guess my point was that a lot of these "clubs", such as the one indicated, often demonstrate the opposite of what they intend to. When I see something like, "Who are the only 3 players to accomplish blah-blah-blah?" and the answer is two studs and some nobody, my response is generally, "That's a pretty useless club, if that nobody made it and some of the all time greats didn't." It's why I don't really care about perfect games or no hitters. They are amazing personal achievements with regards to a single day performance. And most people recognize that. But some people wrongly try to attribute them to something more than that, in terms of a guy's career or ultimate skill level. Does Dallas Braden throwing a perfect game really mean anything outside of that one day? No. Not to me at least. He doesn't suddenly vault over other people who never threw one, or he'd currently be a top-20 all time pitcher. Does Griffey being in that 140+ 3x club mean anything? Not really. I just don't consider it that impressive. And if people trot it out as indicating something of value (which you pointed out you weren't doing, only that you were noticing the trivia piece of it), I generally respond that it's essentially valueless in the grand scheme of evaluating players.

26. Johnny Twisto Says:
    June 6th, 2010 at 12:52 am

    OK, I see where you're coming from. I agree, I find it annoying when people try to claim Player X belongs in the HOF, because he's the only player with 258 HR, 112 triples, 390 steals, and a .295 BA, besides four All-Time Greats. It is fun to know, but it doesn't prove his greatness.

    Still, I do find these things interesting. I think the RBI stat I mentioned makes a great trivia question. No-hitters and perfect games are cool to experience and know about, even if they mean little more than one more victory. We don't have to be measuring players' true value every time we cite stats. There are numbers that are just unique or memorable for different reasons, which is part of why I love looking at them and reading about them.

27. Johnny Twisto Says:
    June 6th, 2010 at 1:00 am

    By the way, there are apparently no players who meet the combination of stats I listed (which I pulled out of my ass). Barry Bonds is 35 3B shy, Paul Molitor is 24 HR shy, Willie Mays is 52 SB shy. Vada Pinson is 85 SB, 2 HR, and .009 BA shy.

28. JeffW Says:
    June 6th, 2010 at 2:56 am

    BSK,

    Not a problem. I admit to being as emotionally attached to the game, as I am the statistical side. When I see something like that, or read more about how Jamie Moyer continues to hold off Father Time, I get just as geeked because of the human side.

    I am so impressed by the Galarraga/Joyce thing, because of how they handled it. Joyce is getting rave reviews for being so candid and apologetic, and Galarraga got a Corvette.

    I don't recall Halladay or Braden getting Corvettes.

    It's also why I will say I don't think Andy's angst is all that unusual. Maybe it is irrational, but it's human nature.

    Just look at Bonds and Griffey, and how they have presented themselves over the years. I will agree that Bonds is who he is, and that shouldn't have anything to do with hard numbers.

    But perception comes into play in strange ways. Bonds, for years, carried the rep (however fair, it's there, in the numbers) of being unable to come through in the postseason.

    Junior, when he finally got the chance, lit up the Yankees in grand style. He hit six home runs in the '95 postseason, while Bonds managed just five total in five different postseasons, prior to 2002. Junior may have been perceived as being the better Prime Time player.

    Any chink in the armor is magnified, especially when you don't care much for the guy, anyway. Bonds never tried (or cared) enough to soften his image, to get people to sympathize with him. And that will color your perceptions. That is human nature.

    What Junior did for the Mariners' clubhouse last year, and for Milton Bradley this year, is something Bonds could only dream of doing.

    It's simply easier to like Junior, and to give him the benefit of any doubt.

    Then again, I've been known to have an irrational take on some things...;)

29. rootbeersoup Says:
    June 6th, 2010 at 3:27 am

    It's not as if Bonds didn't help his teammates. In 2007, Kevin Frandsen credited a HR he hit to Atlanta to Bonds after a quick talk on the bench. Fred Lewis also credited Bonds with his ascent to the majors. Sure, Bonds was a media monster, but what makes you believe he was like that in the clubhouse as well. Heck, even Jeff Kent said he was a good teammate recently. I have heard more positive Bonds stories from teammates over the years than negative ones.

    You have to admit it's hard to put on a smiling face for the media when ESPN hires someone to just follow you around all day. Bonds had a terrible media relationship and the flack he takes for the PEDs is ridiculous. Especially when we're still learning of players who did them around his time

30. JeffW Says:
    June 6th, 2010 at 3:51 am

    You may be right, but we didn't hear those stories when he was still playing.

    We heard about the private couch/tv set-up, that he was surly. That he was thinking of suing Major League Baseball for blackballing him, when no one offered him a contract at the end. Maybe they just didn't want to deal with the baggage he was carrying.

    As far as his relationships with his teammates, maybe he just believed what he did to help them was no one else's business. Fine.

    But it didn't help public perception any.

    The media follows anyone of note. There is no sense of privacy anymore. Did Bonds get it any worse than most bigwig Hollywood types?

    Bonds has no one to blame but himself for his relationship with the media and his subsequent portrayal.

    Any PED problem is his to own, if he did it. Simply saying everyone else did is no excuse. I'd like to see more of a sense of personal responsibility here. Not just Bonds, but everyone.

31. rootbeersoup Says:
    June 6th, 2010 at 4:31 am

    Both the Kevin Frandsen story and Fred Lewis' admiration of Bonds (among many other positive stories) were talked about during Giants game telecasts around 2007. Obviously the national media wouldn't bring these stories to light because they have always had a vendetta against Bonds (and admittedly those stories are hardly national news material anyway).

    I find "public perception" a joke to be honest. I don't judge these baseball players by anything other than what they do on the field. No, I don't care if A-Rod cheated on his wife. I care what they do as a ballplayer. It all has to do with the question that can never be answered: "Who is the greatest of all time?" The issue is when people bring intangibles into the equation, and suddenly one player is favored over another because he was just a "good guy". I don't think any more or less of Barry Bonds than I do of Ken Griffey Jr, Ty Cobb, Shoeless Joe Jackson or Mother Theresa (if she had played baseball). The fact that Bonds gave the media the cold shoulder can not erase what he did as a player.

32. Mr. Dave Says:
    June 6th, 2010 at 9:32 am

    As far as I'm concerned, PED's or not, Bonds is the best player I've ever gotten to see in my lifetime. Granted, I'm 30, so I missed all the players from before the mid-80's, but you can't argue with the overal numbers. A member of the 500/500 club when no one else is beyond 300/300. Gold Glove defense. He could flat-out play.

    His relationship with the media shouldn't matter, yet it's amazing how many sportswriters take these things personally when it comes time to vote for the HOF. Look at what happened with Jim Rice - he hated the media and made no secrets about it. If bonds doesn't get in on the first ballot, it's a joke.

33. Douglas Heeren Says:
    June 6th, 2010 at 9:41 am

    I was living in Las Vegas when the 1989 Upper Deck set came out. The Griffey Rookie was indeed a nice addition to a rather average set of cards. Even though the paper stock of the set was much better in comparasion to the other sets released that year, I still liked the Topps set better for the picture quality even though the Topps design was kind of childish. Fast Forward to 2010, The new Topps release is full of little sub-sets and fun game cards AND Topps is the official card of MLB. While Upper Deck was sued by MLB for trademark infringement. Upper Deck has turned in a joke for a company while Topps is heading into the future giving collectors and fans what they want.

34. John Q Says:
    June 6th, 2010 at 10:11 am

    I don't think it's fair to judge Bonds by his post-season success. Remember that the Giants were up 5-0 in the top of the 7th in game 7 in '02 and Bonds would have been the MVP, also The Pirates were up 2-0 in the bottom of the 9th and cost Bonds a shot at the WS. Also the '90, '92 Pirates, and the '97, '02, '03 Giants don't even make it to the post-season without Bonds.

    Griffey never even made it to the WS and he kind of sucked in the 1997 ALDS against Baltimore which is left out of the equation for some reason. Bonds never had the supporting players of the caliber that Griffey had: A-Rod, Randy Johnson, and Edgar all in their prime. The closest Bonds had was 6 years of Jeff Kent in his prime, 1 year of Will Clark in his decline phase, Matt Williams, Bobby Bonilla, Andy Van Slyke, and Rich Auriella.

    Plus a lot of the all time greats didn't win that many championships. Williams, Cobb, Niekro, Yaz, Perry Gwynn, Jenkins, R. Roberts, Carew, Bagwell and Lajoie never did, Mays, Aaron, Wagner, Seaver, W. Johnson, Spahan, R. Johnson, Pete Alexander, Ott, Mathews, Schmidt, A-Rod, Brett, Ripken, Gehringer, Boggs, Yaz, Maddux, Mathewson, Pedro, Feller, and Ryan only won 1.

    I think what it came down to was that Griffey was the more affable person and the media liked him and tended to root for him and inflate his image over Bonds.

    I also think there was a subtle racial subtext going on in the Griffey-Bonds comparison. Remember that Bonds-Griffey were in the first generation of black players who had grown up in a post-segregation America. Bonds felt no need to be contrite, he was the best player in baseball by a large margin and felt he should be treated that way. About 95% of the baseball media was white and had become accustomed to black superstars being somewhat contrite in their personality, when Bonds wasn't there was a backlash.

    Griffey on the other hand came off about as threating as "Isaac the Bartender" from the LoveBoat so it was easy to see who the baseball media was going to champion.

35. JeffW Says:
    June 6th, 2010 at 11:23 am

    I would not even think twice about the postseason stuff, had it been once, or maybe twice. But it gets your attention when it happens every single time. At that point, you start to wonder.

    How much creedence should we give to postseason records, evaluating the all-time greats? There is the obvious argument that the best of the best should rise to the occasion.

    And we are quick to add (Allie Reynolds, for instance, in another recent thread here) it to the debate, when a player has a fine postseason performance record to add to the mix (or, one World Series-winning home run...). Does it add to, but not subtract?

    Perceptions aside, Bonds is a Hall of Famer on the strength of his Pittsburgh numbers (postseason warts and all) and his early San Francisco years alone, even without the later home run records. Even unaided, he's still in the upper echelon, all-time.

    I speak from my vantage point, in Seattle. I was right there to witness Griffey's first opportunity to show the world what he was all about on the big stage. Against those bad ol' Yankees.

    Obviously, local media in Pittsburgh and San Francisco have a different take on Bonds, based on their day-to-day interactions.

    I still don't know if I've heard the whole story, so I can only comment on what information I have. The raw career numbers obviously support Bonds. I'm not sure I have my head around all the WAR concepts, so I have one final question:

    As I understand it, WAR is cumulative, over the course of a career, and thus relies on a long body of work. Can/should WAR numbers be pro-rated, so differences in totals that are based on a difference in games played (or missed through injury, in Griffey's case) can be compared.

    I may have missed it somewhere, but is there an average WAR per 162-games, even neutralized, to make a deeper comparison.

    Okay, that was two questions. I'm a layman about this stuff.

    As far as the racial aspect that John Q brings up, I've heard of that, but I would like to think (hope, dearly) that this does not come into play. There are undoubtedly a few people who will never "give up", and think in those racially-charged terms, but I would sincerely hope they are an extremely small minority.

    Maybe it's as much that people simply want to support someone who brings joy to the heart when he's out there on the field. I do believe that fans want their heroes to be nice guys, too. It adds so much to the occasion, when you see Griffey's smile at the bottom of the pile. Especially at a time that baseball was desperate for joy.

    When you talk about "saving baseball" following the '94 lockout, that is a key moment, along with The Streak.

36. Johnny Twisto Says:
    June 6th, 2010 at 11:37 am

    JeffW, you can do whatever you want with WAR. If you want to evaluate players on WAR/game or /PA basis, you certainly can. I don't think those numbers are readily available here but you can obviously calculate them yourself. For instance, in evaluating players for the HOF, I consider myself a peak-oriented voter. Lots of seasons of average or below-average play don't matter to me. So if I were going to use WAR to make my HOF assessments, I would simply ignore any seasons of 2.0 WAR or less (2 WAR being an average season). I would only tally up WAR above 2.0 in a year. Essentially, I would redefine WAR to WAA: Wins Above Average. That's just my personal current thinking on things, but you can manipulate the numbers however you see fit for whatever question you are trying to answer.

    WAR is inherently neutralized (i.e., a season in 1930 Baker Bowl which added as much value as a season in 1968 Dodger Stadium should both be worth the same WAR), so it shouldn't need to be further neutralized.

37. JeffW Says:
    June 6th, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    Thanks, Johnny Twisto.

    I do wonder if, pro-rated to actual games played, Bonds and Griffey are significantly closer. The gap, as presented, seems to be unrealistic. As good as Griffey was, it says Bonds was that much better?

    I may take the time some day, when I dig out from under all the other clutter I have around me.

    I agree on peak-years evaluation. Why not judge players on a peak-years arc, as well as by the body of numbers?

    If 10 years is all it takes -- as a minimum reqirement for the Hall of Fame -- why not just judge a player's 10 best seasons? Give extra credit for everything else, as merited.

    Jack Morris won more games than any other pitcher in the 1980's, a ten-year arc that places him at the top of that entire decade. Add World Series titles with three different clubs. Toss in a dash of possibly the single finest big-game, all-on-the-line, performance in the history of baseball (1991, Game Seven).

    How big is that, compared to Maz's homer?

    Edgar Martinez's 1995-2001 seven-year arc was among the best of his era. Toss in his three consecutive .300+ seasons, culminating in a 1992 batting crown, and a fine 2003 season, after returning from a hamstring injury. There's the 10-year package.

    It gives you the chance to evaluate a player when he was really making his mark.

    In fact, the table above already shows Edgar being among the elite, even with his frequent injuries dragging him down.

38. DoubleDiamond Says:
    June 6th, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    Thanks for posting this. It is helping me to rethink my opinion, posted here the other day, that Griffey may not be a Hall-of-Fame caliber player.

39. Johnny Twisto Says:
    June 6th, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    JeffW, much of the difference in career value between Bonds and Griffey is that Griffey just contributed very little over the last half of his career. His first season in Cincy was very good. After that, WAR says he was worth just 3.9 wins over his last 10 seasons (including some seasons which were actually negative WAR, subtracting from his total). Meanwhile Bonds was a positive contributor from start to finish, usually worth at least 3.9 wins in every single season he was healthy.

    If you were just referring to the gap in their '90s value, listed above, Bonds only played a few more games than Griffey. He averaged 9.6 WAR/162 games during the 90s and Griffey averaged 7.6. Both excellent, but Bonds just amazing. Any surprise over that difference is probably because OBP continues to be underrated. Bonds had a .434 OBP, leading the league 4 times, while Griffey's was .384. That's just a lot more outs Griffey made (about 90 more outs per 162 games), giving his teammates fewer chances to score, even if his own HR/RBI numbers were very impressive.

40. Jacob Says:
    June 7th, 2010 at 8:31 am

    Was Bonds that bad in the postseason?

    G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG
    48 208 151 33 37 8 2 9 24 9 1 52 26 .245 .433 .503

    Sure, the BA is low. But, a .433 OBP & .503 SLG is pretty nice. Also, over 162, that would be a 30/30 season.

41. Andy Says:
    June 7th, 2010 at 8:33 am

    30/30 in the post season is excellent considering all the pitching is from playoff teams. However I think the criticism of Bonds is that he was pretty bad in the playoffs for a bunch of years and excelled only in his last couple of appearances. The composite numbers are good but the performance was uneven and two-phased.

42. Jacob Says:
    June 7th, 2010 at 8:46 am

    Yes, I noticed that, Andy.

    I remember hearing something about that Sid Bream play ("The Slide", Game 7 1992 NLCS). The bench coach was telling Bonds to move in the outfield, but he didn't want to. If he had moved, I heard he would've been in a better position. Sounds like Bonds to me, heh... For what it's worth, I'm a huge Bonds fan.

43. Baseball-Reference Blog » Blog Archive » POLL: Ken Griffey Jr. and the Hall of Fame Says:
    June 7th, 2010 at 10:57 am

    [...] recently that produced a lot of comments about Griffey Jr. and the Hall of Fame. Please read them here and here and then come back to this post to [...]

44. Joe Says:
    June 7th, 2010 at 8:09 pm

    JohnQ, there may be a racial subtext between the disparate images of Bonds and Griffey, but there's no denying that Bonds has generally appeared surly and standoffish in public, while Griffey has generally appeared jovial and polite. I think regardless of race, those attitudes affect the way people view their public figures.

    And Jacob, yes, other than 2002, Bonds WAS that bad in the postseason. A cumulative average of .198, with 1 HR and 8 RBI in 31 games over 6 series, during which his teams went 0 and 6. Admittedly, he was spectacular in 2002 for a Giants team that should've won the World Series, but that performance was an anomaly when you look at his postseason career.

45. Jacob Says:
    June 8th, 2010 at 1:49 am

    So, 2002 doesn't count? Okay, sorry.

46. Tomepp Says:
    June 8th, 2010 at 8:37 am

    In my opinion, this whole "recial subtext" stuff is hogwash. People disliked (some even hated) Ty Cobb, not because he was white, but because he was a surly cuss who thought he was better than everyone else - blacks in particular. On the other hand, people loved George Brett, not because he was a white who was properly subservient to blacks and latinos, but because he treated everyone with respect and dignity.

    It doesn't matter what race you are, if you treat people with respect and dignity, they - and the media - will generally like you. But if you come with a chip on your shoulder, thinking that you are a better person than everyone else and that the world owes you something (or at least, that you don't owe the world anything), you will generally not be liked as much.

    The same is true for Bonds and Griffey. The public, as reflected by the media, disliked Bonds even before the PED issues because he came to The Show with a chip on his shoulder; an attitude that said that he owed baseball nothing, and baseball (and the fans, media, etc.) should be grateful for his very existance. The Kid, on the other hand, had just as much confidence in his abilities, but came with an attitude that said, "let me share this with you, and we can enjoy this ride together." When giving interviews, Bonds would talk about what he did hand how it affected him. When Griffey gave interviews, he had that trademark smile and he'd talk about how his performance affected his team and the fans.

    Bonds may not have been a bad teammate as some would like to portray, but he never came off as a great teammate either. He was never "the guy" in the clubhouse, a friend to rookie and veteran alike. Few, if any would say "I want Bonds in my clubhouse" (though many would say "I want Bonds on my team on the field.") Griffey, on the other hand, was a great teammate. He would talk to everyone, and treated you the same whether you were the league MVP, a rookie up for a cup of coffee, or the caterer serving the coffee.
    As the Milton Bradley story attests to, Griffey has been percieved as an asset in the clubhouse. People do say "I want Griffy in my clubhouse, even if his on field performance is not up to his old standards." That, as I understand it, is one of the main reasons he retired as abruptly as he did - he felt his clubhouse presence was now a distraction rather than an asset. He was willing to play through the injuries and the sub-par performance, but not to the detriment of his team. But did you ever hear Bonds expressing concerns about how his presence - particularly when the steroids allegations came out - was adversely affecting his team? Rarely. Instead of bowing out gracefully when his presence was more of a detriment than an asset, he threatened to sue MLB for "blackballing" him; it was all about him, not about the team. The circumstances around their retirements says volumes about why they are perceived the way that they are.

47. Joe Says:
    June 8th, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    Jacob, I was just trying to point out that when you view Bonds' postseason career stats as a whole, they can be a bit misleading. He didn't perform generally OK in the postseason, he was consistently bad, with one terrific performance towards the end of his career (when he may or may not have been taking certain substances) that brought his overall numbers up.

    Put it in the context of regular season numbers. If I were to tell you, here's this guy who played for seven seasons. One of those seasons was fantastic. The other six were terrible. Understanding the overall numbers in that way, wouldn't that make you look at them a bit differently?

    Anyway, I'm the first one to admit that in the context of his overall body of work, Bonds' postseason numbers were a blip on the radar. Obviously, taking his career numbers at face value, he was one of the best hitters of all time. The only question is, do you take them at face value, or do you consider other, non statistical things when evaluating him?

48. Jacob Says:
    June 8th, 2010 at 9:52 pm

    3 of his Postseason performances (I can only see his offensive #'s) were good. He put up a .433OBP in 1992 & a .556OBP in 2003. These three season count for a majority of his PS PA's (122/308). Even in 1992, he put up a .375OBP. You could spin his PS #'s all you want. But, overall, his PS #'s are solid. The expectations were very high for him, since he was such a great player. However, if you're going to point to his PS #'s, I think that you should consider his entire PS perfomance.

49. Joe Says:
    June 9th, 2010 at 6:17 pm

    Jacob, you seem to be evaluating his postseason performances strictly on the basis of OBP. If that's your one and only criteria, then I concede the point. I think most people, though, would evaluate his postseason performances on broader terms than that.

50. Joe Says:
    June 9th, 2010 at 6:50 pm

    And this is going WAY back in the thread, but it's something I wanted to note ...

    BSK, you say that someone having 140+ RBI 3 years in a row doesn't really mean anything, and it's like trying to hold up a pitcher who threw a perfect game as meaning something as it relates to evaluating his career.

    I respectfully disagree. As has been demonstrated, throwing a perfect game is primarily a result of luck on a single day, and some less-than-notable players have thrown one. But getting 140+ RBI in 3 straight years? That most definitely tells us that this guy was an All-Star caliber hitter, and a premier run producer, for a number of seasons.

    As Johnny Twisto conceded, no, that doesn't make it 'the most important stat ever', but I believe it certainly tells us enough about a player's career performance to not be summarily dismissed.