Originally Posted by thekidgriffey24
Originally Posted by Essential1
It's hard to even objectively compare the two at all.
Bonds was great. No arguments from me, but how do I compare stats when 36-42 year old Bonds increased his career batting average by 36 points compared to 21-35. Homeruns, walks, OBP, SLG all massively skyrocketed to obscene levels. OBP was helped by millions of intentional walks, but it wasn't necessary to do so if he wasn't hitting the ball out of the ordinary because talent + well you know the other ingridient.
I think most people think Bonds started juicing after 99 so I usually just count his stats until 99. Griffey started his decline in 99
Pretty much shows Bonds had a much better eye and walked significantly more which brings the disparity in OBP, and a better baserunner.
Bonds 86 -99
.288 / .409 / .559 / .968 1455 R, 2010 H, 423 2B, 65 3B, 445 HR, 1299 RBI, 1430 BB, 460 SB, 1112 Ks, 8534 PA in 2000 games
to get close to 2000 games for Griffey 89-04 gives you 1997 games
.292 / .377 / .560 / .937 1320 R , 2156 H , 400 2B, 36 3B , 501 HR, 1444 RBI, 984 BB, 178 SB, 1323 Ks, 8517 PA