ken griffey jr disproves the championship winners = best players argument?
- Thread starter cranrab
- Start date
Concurring Opinion:
I not only agree with your comments, I would also add (without even doing the research) that the numbers of 70 to 80% of those who have played in baseball's big show are lesser than the numbers of KGJr. And this could be a gross understatement.
QueEx
I not only agree with your comments, I would also add (without even doing the research) that the numbers of 70 to 80% of those who have played in baseball's big show are lesser than the numbers of KGJr. And this could be a gross understatement.
QueEx
no doubt that Griffey is one of the best all around players to ever do it. There were better hitters, there were better CFers, but NO ONE had the complete package like he did. He did come close to playing in the WS earlier in his career before injuries and free agency took it's toll
Probably would've won eventually IF he hadn't sold out his swing just to hit HRS. That led to a few injuries. Same thing happened to Don Mattingly. But you can't blame them, HR hitters always get higher salaries than .350 hitters.
Probably would've won eventually IF he hadn't sold out his swing just to hit HRS. That led to a few injuries. Same thing happened to Don Mattingly. But you can't blame them, HR hitters always get higher salaries than .350 hitters.
coming from someone who doesn't know much about baseball (myself), it would appeaer summarily that ken griffey jr has all the "sexy" numbers:
longevity - 22 seasons
all star - 13 times (2 positions)
POY
AL MVP
10 gold gloves
lead the league at different times in categories like runs scored, total bases, home runs, RBIs, and intentional base on balls.
but yet you'd have some claim that he would need to have been on a winning series team to be considered a great.
or are baseball fans more lenient than say, football fans, who don't give jim kelly or dan marino a pass?
longevity - 22 seasons
all star - 13 times (2 positions)
POY
AL MVP
10 gold gloves
lead the league at different times in categories like runs scored, total bases, home runs, RBIs, and intentional base on balls.
but yet you'd have some claim that he would need to have been on a winning series team to be considered a great.
or are baseball fans more lenient than say, football fans, who don't give jim kelly or dan marino a pass?
Yeah, you're right. I don't want to hijack this thread, but what about George Brett and that baked/broiled chicken eating sombtch whose name I can't recall right away. Those line drivers didn't do too bad in $$$ department, did they?
QueEx
Above all, I'm a baseball fan CR. I won't pretend to speak for anyone else, but in my book, baseball greatness stands out, is honored and is recognized for what it is, whether or not the player ever got to the big dance, or scored when he got there. LOL
QueEx
I always thought basing the # of rings won to whos the best was a somewhat flawed argument. Maybe in some sports it'll hold more weight (like the NBA where basically 1 person can do it all for a team) but no in MLB. One person can get you over the hump but still you'll needed pieces in to make it happen...rotation, decent bullpen, ppl who can get on base and drive in runs.
Run what do you mean but sold out his swing and it leading the injuries? Griffey was and still is my favorite player and I say it was the way he played in the field that started the dominoes of injuries. The man was running into walls left and right during those Seattle days. From there I just say it was bad luck, tweaking and pulling things just from rounding 1st on a base hit and stuff like that.
Not sure if this is really the end b/c he wasn't getting much playing time this yr, and yes his avg was in the .180s but as infrequent as he was getting at bats it's hard to develop you swing and timing. Was hoping he'd play long enough to get 31 more HRs and pass Willie but who knows.
But I will say this, the man played hard on both ends of the field and played the game w/ class. If you ask me, he's #4 on the HR list. Not 5.
Run what do you mean but sold out his swing and it leading the injuries? Griffey was and still is my favorite player and I say it was the way he played in the field that started the dominoes of injuries. The man was running into walls left and right during those Seattle days. From there I just say it was bad luck, tweaking and pulling things just from rounding 1st on a base hit and stuff like that.
Not sure if this is really the end b/c he wasn't getting much playing time this yr, and yes his avg was in the .180s but as infrequent as he was getting at bats it's hard to develop you swing and timing. Was hoping he'd play long enough to get 31 more HRs and pass Willie but who knows.
But I will say this, the man played hard on both ends of the field and played the game w/ class. If you ask me, he's #4 on the HR list. Not 5.
Selling out his swing means not going with the pitch. If the ball is on the outside corner of the plate, you hit it to the opposite field. If it's low, you level your swing to try to go up the middle. If the pitch is middle of the plate to inside, then you might try to jack it out the park IF the count is in your favor (unless your name is Derek Jeter). This is key to the art of hitting and at the beginning of his career Griffey was well aware of it. But once signing that free agent contract with Cincinnati, he completely sold out and only started trying to pull everything. Have seen many players do this, including Griffey Sr (when he signed that big contract with the Yankees). I believe when a player signs a big contract, they feel the need to justify it by hitting a thousand HRs. Jason Giambi comes to mind. Jose Reyes and David Wright are in the midst of selling out their swings right now. That's why each of their numbers are declining every season.
There are lots of players with sold out swings. Too many if you ask me. Usually these are the guys who get shifted on. Because the other team knows the player will never go with the pitch and hit it the opposite way. Even though there is NOBODY on one side of the field. Problem is, once you sell out your swing, there is no going back. Giambi went from being a pernnial .310 hitter (they used to call him "The Natural) to barely hitting .240.... Griffey's .300 average is a distant memory now, but early in his career, he was a perennial .300 hitter and one of the best hitters in the game. You could not shift on him, he used the entire field. incidentally, that was also when his teams were the most successful.
There are lots of players with sold out swings. Too many if you ask me. Usually these are the guys who get shifted on. Because the other team knows the player will never go with the pitch and hit it the opposite way. Even though there is NOBODY on one side of the field. Problem is, once you sell out your swing, there is no going back. Giambi went from being a pernnial .310 hitter (they used to call him "The Natural) to barely hitting .240.... Griffey's .300 average is a distant memory now, but early in his career, he was a perennial .300 hitter and one of the best hitters in the game. You could not shift on him, he used the entire field. incidentally, that was also when his teams were the most successful.
Last edited:
I'll tell you right now baseball is the lone sport where someone can not win a WS and still be in the upper echelon of all-time greats. Griffey is an all-time great though. I wouldn't consider him the greatest CF ever, but definitely top 10 all-time (and maybe even top 5 all time after I did some research on it).
Ok I see what you're saying, just wasn't familiar w/ the phrase. Yea a lot of players aren't going with the pitches. I agree w/ you on Wright, eh to Reyes b/c I can't say I see it as much as I do w/ Wright (then again he tends to think too much regarding his at bats) but thats for another topic.
But now that you mentioned it, I feel like most of the players that sell out their swings try to go down the line. Like you said most of them get shifted on and usually those are the power guys and the easiest HRs to hit are down the line. But I'm just thinking out loud on it. But I can see and agree with what you said. And I'm sure all the injuries he suffered after signing didn't help since he may have felt he had to prove he was worth it.
And maybe you can head over the Queens and take HoJo's spot on the Mets, see if you can get them to hit on the road.
But now that you mentioned it, I feel like most of the players that sell out their swings try to go down the line. Like you said most of them get shifted on and usually those are the power guys and the easiest HRs to hit are down the line. But I'm just thinking out loud on it. But I can see and agree with what you said. And I'm sure all the injuries he suffered after signing didn't help since he may have felt he had to prove he was worth it.
And maybe you can head over the Queens and take HoJo's spot on the Mets, see if you can get them to hit on the road.
I hate that dude. Choker extrodinaire
Yes, far too many hitters fall into this category these days. But you can hardly blame them. HR hitters get the big bucks....remember Alphonso Soriano's contract? 300 Hitters only get paid that much if their name starts with Ichiro or Jeter. Cat get hit .235, if he hits 35-40 HRs, he get can 7-10 mil a season. But if he hits .300 he damn sure better score 100 runs and steal 50 bases. It's the world we live in. It's destroying the game I loved as a child
but they have MORE control over "each individual play or aspect of a game" than football players.
for example, most positions in baseball play both O and D. in football, not so (with rare 2 way exceptions).
also, there are 9 players on the field per team in baseball, in football there are eleven players on the field per team.
why do you feel that is?
are baseball fans able to gauge/measure talent better empiracally than fans of other sports?
or are baseball players held to a lesser standard where winning/championships are concerned?
or both? or something altogether different?
and for the record, i believe that in basketball there are all-time greats who never won championships or played in NBA finals.
I was having a similar discussion about this earlier and I find it ironic than one or two individual players receive all the glory in a team sport, whether it is merited or not.
Take a look at earvin 'tragic' johnson apologizing last night saying that LeBron was no longer the best player in the NBA because his team wasn't in the finals.
Ken Griffey Jr and Barry Bonds were two of the best baseball players I've ever seen and although both are ringless, I don't think it hurts their standing of being all time greats (except for Bonds and the PED scandal)
I think that playing on a championship winning team would be something to enhance Griffey's resume but not make or break it, which is something that seems to be the case too often in basketball.
Take a look at earvin 'tragic' johnson apologizing last night saying that LeBron was no longer the best player in the NBA because his team wasn't in the finals.
Ken Griffey Jr and Barry Bonds were two of the best baseball players I've ever seen and although both are ringless, I don't think it hurts their standing of being all time greats (except for Bonds and the PED scandal)
I think that playing on a championship winning team would be something to enhance Griffey's resume but not make or break it, which is something that seems to be the case too often in basketball.
Maybe winning titles doesn't equate as much to being great in baseball as it does in football or basketball, but winning multiple championships will most certainly enhance how the baseball viewing public views a player of lesser talent. For example, Reggie Jackson is considered one of the all time greats even though the only real thing he contributed on a consistent basis was HRs. Whereas a cat like Dave Winfield was a mutli-faceted player who could do practically anything on a baseball diamond, yet wasn't talked about with as much reverence as Jackson. And if he hadn't won a title in Toronto a few years later would've forever been labeled as a choke artist. This despite the fact that his teams ALWAYS did better with him there. Even the sorry ass Padre teams he played on.
Not saying Jackson didn't deserve praise, but Dave was a far superior player, along the lines of a Griffey, whereas Jackson was more of a slugger who had some great moments
Not saying Jackson didn't deserve praise, but Dave was a far superior player, along the lines of a Griffey, whereas Jackson was more of a slugger who had some great moments
real shit! idc what anybody says JR if not the greatest of all time definetly top 3
No. I think the biggest difference is that baseball has always been a sport about numbers and many of the numbers that were put up by all-time greats etc. during their era are very similar to stats you will see by comparable players of this era.
No one is averaging 20+ rebounds per game like we saw during the Russell/Chamberlain era, but to see a line like what Albert Pujols put up last year .327/47/135 you will see near identical lines from other great sluggers in history.
In regards to championships, one thing that must be made clear is that unlike basketball, one dominate player can not overcome all the obstacles a team faces in leading their team to a championship. Otherwise, both Barry Bonds and Ken Griffey Jr. would have had multiple championships as no one else is even in the discussion for best player of the 1990's.
C/S
C/S
Agreed. Baseball players don't have control over games, unless you're a starting pitcher. Even then, they really don't contribute to the offense and they need a certain amount of rest before they're effective again.
A-Rod getting rewarded with an MVP is a perfect example, because his numbers were crazy even though his teams record was shit.