MLB Ken Griffey Jr. or Barry Bonds - Who would you start your baseball franchise with?

[Takes Two To Tango]

Two of the best baseball players to ever play.

Who would you start your franchise with if you had the 1st overall pick and both were the top 2 prospects?

 

[ferrisjso]

Griffey because Barry Bonds is apparently super mean and would destroy your culture.

Barry Bonds actually won a pennant though and his teams might have been marginally more successful.

Generally its close enough where the non baseball stuff decide it for me.

 

[Corona]

If bonds comes with Balco then him fasho

 

[My Spot]

I'd compare Griffey's stats from 1989-2000 (before he started getting hurt) to Bonds' stats from 1986-1998 (before he loaded up on Pride vitamins). Although I do believe pre-1999 Bonds was still the only player ever with 400 HRs and 400 SBs.

Edit: Of course you could always get both on the same team like George Costanza did.

 

[My Spot]

Griffey because Barry Bonds is apparently super mean and would destroy your culture.

Barry Bonds actually won a pennant though and his teams might have been marginally more successful.

But his lack of hustle lost another pennant and basically killed a franchise for the next 33 seasons.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

Griffey. Bonds is a problem in the club house from what I've heard.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Kind of tough. I’d go Griffey but Bonds is hard to pass up.

 

[Two Crows]

Bonds was a serious candidate for Top 5 All-Time BEFORE he started juicing.

I like The Kid, but this isn't close.

 

[ferrisjso]

But his lack of hustle lost another pennant and basically killed a franchise for the next 33 seasons.

I said I picked Griffey. Just saying Bonds got more team results. Thats not saying much either way.

 

[Madmick]

C'mon. This is easy.

Barry Bonds vs. Ken Griffey Jr.: Head-to-Head Stats Comparison | Stathead.com

Compare Players: Check out the head-to-head stats of Barry Bonds and Ken Griffey Jr. including their awards, honors, championships, playoff and regular season stats, and much more on Stathead.com

stathead.com

Griffey Jr.'s top seasonal OPS+ performance would rank 12th on Bonds's career chart.

 

[mjmj]

Yeah, this isn’t really that close if just talking overall baseball skill. But “starting a team with” implies more than just skill, like locker room culture. Interesting question.

 

[Poon Goon]

Yeah, this isn’t really that close if just talking overall baseball skill. But “starting a team with” implies more than just skill, like locker room culture. Interesting question.

Griffey was more sponsorship friendly so a new team owner might save money by not having to buy him clothes and equipment.

 

[My Spot]

C'mon. This is easy.

Barry Bonds vs. Ken Griffey Jr.: Head-to-Head Stats Comparison | Stathead.com

Compare Players: Check out the head-to-head stats of Barry Bonds and Ken Griffey Jr. including their awards, honors, championships, playoff and regular season stats, and much more on Stathead.com

stathead.com

Griffey Jr.'s top seasonal OPS+ performance would rank 12th on Bonds's career chart.

Before or after Bonds started saying his prayers and taking his vitamins?

 

[Madmick]

Before or after Bonds started saying his prayers and taking his vitamins?

Does it matter? Is that a term of the hypothetical? Are we running a USADA league or something? There was no official drug testing policy at all up until 2001. All the bigheads at the league knew it was dirty, but they didn't care, they didn't do anything. Griffey Jr. might not have been taking roids, but nearly everybody else was, and Bonds was still Bonds.

But...92, 93, 94, and 96 were all 183+ for Bonds (93 is the high point= 206). 95 and 97 at 170 come in just under Griffey's best mark ever of 171. Those were all pre-BALCO years.

*Edit* Here's 1992-1997 which is a fair prime for Griffey Jr., but not for Bonds:

Barry Bonds (1992-1997) vs. Ken Griffey Jr. (1992-1997): Head-to-Head Stats Comparison | Stathead.com

Compare Players: Check out the head-to-head stats of Barry Bonds (1992-1997) and Ken Griffey Jr. (1992-1997) including their awards, honors, championships, playoff and regular season stats, and much more on Stathead.com

stathead.com

 

[My Spot]

Does it matter? Is that a term of the hypothetical? Are we running a USADA league or something? There was no official drug testing policy at all up until 2001. All the bigheads at the league knew it was dirty, but they didn't care, they didn't do anything. Griffey Jr. might not have been taking roids, but nearly everybody else was, and Bonds was still Bonds.

But...92, 93, 94, and 96 were all 183+ for Bonds (93 is the high point= 206). 95 and 97 match Griffey's best year ever at mark 170. Those were all pre-BALCO years.

We don't actually know when Bonds started his horse meat diet though.

 

[Natural Order]

Bonds by a mile in terms of performance and results. Griffey no doubt a better addition for culture and less ego!

 

[Madmick]

We don't actually know when Bonds started his horse meat diet though.

I think everyone accepts it began with BALCO.

 

[My Spot]

I think everyone accepts it began with BALCO.

We don't know though, and Bonds lied for almost a decade before finally fessing up to the "flax seed oil" shots.

 

[Madmick]

We don't know though, and Bonds lied for almost a decade before finally fessing up to the "flax seed oil" shots.

Every visible change to his body, and every significant leap in his performance at the plate coincides with the BALCO timeline.

Again, though, what does it matter? Is the hypothetical premise of the question not enough? Now we need to introduce another hypothetical where we speculate how each would have played even if Bonds wasn't on steroids? And we'd have to extend that to the whole league because he wasn't playing against clean pitchers. The scores on the scoreboards that influenced decisions on a play-by-play basis weren't being tallied by clean batters. Almost everyone was dirty. That's what investigations like the Mitchell Report revealed. It would also take for granted that starting one's franchise in this hypothetical one would be embarking in a league that is capable of preventing players like Bonds. Is it really that competent? Is the league really that clean today? I have my doubts.

 

[My Spot]

Every visible change to his body, and every significant leap in his performance at the plate coincides with the BALCO timeline.

Again, though, what does it matter? Is the hypothetical premise of the question not enough? Now we need to introduce another hypothetical where we speculate how each would have played even if Bonds wasn't on steroids? And we'd have to extend that to the whole league because he wasn't playing against clean pitchers. The scores on the scoreboards that influenced decisions on a play-by-play basis weren't being tallied by clean batters. Almost everyone was dirty. That's what investigations like the Mitchell Report revealed. It would also take for granted that starting one's franchise in this hypothetical one would be embarking in a league that is capable of preventing players like Bonds. Is it really that competent? Is the league really that clean today? I have my doubts.

I don't recall Griffey ever admitting to PED use nor testing positive.