The Best of the Best?

Sometimes in baseball, the numbers drive the arguments. Who’s better than whom, who’s a better hitter, who’s more clutch, etc. But if there ever were a debate where the numbers were to be almost thrown out the window, it would be the debate of the ages. Who was the better player, Barry Bonds or Ken Griffey, Jr.? If you ask me, it’s no debate at all.

Let’s just hide our heads in the sand for a second and pretend that Barry Bonds didn’t cheat. If he was an honest talent, then his numbers would speak for themselves. .298 lifetime average, 1,995 RBI, 762 home runs, 2935 hits. That’s a Hall of Fame career. First ballot. Compared to Griffey, Bonds would be far superior. Griffey’s obviously no hack, but trails in each of these categories. Griffey’s got a .287 lifetime average, 617 home runs, 1,787 RBI and 2,711 hits. Now, in fairness, Bonds came up 3 years earlier than Junior did, but Junior played 2 years (including 2009) after Bonds…”retired”. So we’ll just call them even.

Neither one of them were the Rookie of the Year in their respective seasons, and Bonds was a 3 time NL MVP before he went to the Giants and started cheating. Griffey won his MVP in 1997, and never won a batting title (but the Court of Public Opinion rules Bonds’ 2 batting titles invalid since he cheated to get them). But my biggest factor in this discussion is this. Bonds led the league in home runs only once before he started cheating. His …cough… “magical”… season in 2001 of 73 home runs doesn’t count. He hit 46 legitimate home runs in 1993 which was good for the league lead. Griffey hit 45, just for the record. Griffey led the league in home runs 4 times. In 1994, and then 3 times in a row from 1997-99. So, score one for the Kid. I also find it a bit odd that the career Home Run King (I feel like I need to wash my mouth out with soap) only hit 50 home runs after he started juicing. That was the 2001 season. Never before had he done it. He hit 49 in 2000, which was also a cheating year since Bonds said he started using PEDs (that he didn’t know were bad. Nice try) after the 1998 season. So, in reality the closest he ever came was the 46 in 1993. Griffey hit 50 homers twice in a row. 56 in both the ’97 and ’98 seasons. Bonds became an automatic IBB, which in my opinion (and this is very open to debate) makes it easier to hit home runs, because when they decide to pitch to you it’s more likely to get a pitch to hit. It’s tougher to hit home runs when they’re trying to strike you out, not trying to pitch around you. Score another for Griffey.

Also, there’s one giant contributing factor to why Griffey is not atop the all-time home run list. He was hurt a lot. He got hurt playing hard, playing like Ken Griffey, Jr. could. He would make the highlight reels every night, scaling walls, laying out to catch fly balls, throwing guys out from deep center. Bonds was nothing but a warm body in left field, just occupying the space. Granted, he made some good plays as a Pirate, but he left his defensive skills in left field in Pittsburgh. But, if Griffey stayed healthy, it would be he who we would praise as the new Home Run King. He missed 90 games in 1997 when he broke his wrist running into the wall. After signing with Cincinnati in 2000, it was clear he wasn’t Ken Griffey, Jr. anymore, even when he should have been. He was supposed to be in his prime, at 31. His next 3 years should have been his best, but they weren't. He missed 50 games in 2001, 92 games in 2002, 109 in 2003, and 80 in 2004. That’s combined total of 421 games. That’s 2 and a half seasons of baseball. That’s good for at least approximately 75 home runs (30 in a full year, 15 in a half. It's probably more, but let's just be realistically generous.) which means Griffey would be closing in on 700 homers. Given this number, he’d stick around long enough to break Aaron’s record. Also, conventional logic dictates that if he wasn’t so broken down from being hurt, he’d have been much better and would have more than 700 by now.

I’m not even going to say that Bonds’ is a great player because he cheated to be great. Griffey is great because he’s the best player I’ve ever seen and he didn’t need a needle. Maybe Bonds didn’t either, but that’s the way he went. Bonds may have bigger numbers, but they don’t count. Once you’re in the Hall of Fame, everyone is as good as everyone else. If Bonds is indicted of perjury, my guess is he doesn’t get in. If the BWAA hides behind the idea that he was a Hall of Famer before he started cheating and would have been one anyway, he’ll get in, as will Griffey, both on their first ballot. Griffey gets in on his first ballot (my best guess to break Seaver’s record of 98.8% of the vote) and he did it with sheer talent. In this debate, there is no debate. Griffey is the better player of the two without question, and the best player of his era. Bonds’ numbers may trump Griffey’s in weight, but not in legitimacy. In the end, Ken Griffey, Jr.’s legacy will be that of greatness, Barry Bonds’ will be that of cheating and controversy.