WARNING: BASEBALL POST. Neither read nor comment if you don't care.
buy flexeril online nouvita.co.uk/wp-content/languages/new/uk/flexeril.html no prescription
I had a bar debate last evening about whether Ken Griffey Jr. or Frank Thomas was the best AL player of the 1990s. Griffey, ever the choice of the uninformed, led the league in media darlingship and gee-whiz outfield catches, but offensively the picture isn't quite as flattering. Note the year-by-year comparison ("Bwin" is batting win shares, i.e. how many additional games a team wins on account of the player's hitting).
Some comments. First of all, holy shit look at Thomas in 1994. Second, Griffey was injured in 1995 and Thomas in 1999, so discount those years.
buy lasix online nouvita.co.uk/wp-content/languages/new/uk/lasix.html no prescription
In 1990, Thomas played a mere 60 games – yet still almost equaled Junior (155 games) in Batting Wins (!!!). Thomas also had one truly lousy season (1998) in which Griffey was far superior.
Other than that…Griffey hit more homers and had more RBI. Homers and RBI are exactly the kind of statistics for stupids which lead people to make stupid arguments about who was the better ballplayer. RBI is a measure of how good the batter in front of you is at getting on base. And HR are a poor measure of anything other than home runs. Note the many years in which Griffey hit more HR but actually slugged lower than Thomas.
So, essentially Junior was a better home run hitter. That was never in dispute. Big Hurt was a better…oh, I don't know…everything else. Excepting the players' injured seasons (95, 99) and Thomas's terrible 1998, Griffey posted fewer Batting Wins, a lower OBP/batting average, and a lower OPS in every season throughout the decade.
This is where the Griffey fans start whining about his defense. I'll quote a Bill James colleague here:
As for fielding, Griffey was always overrated. He was a very good fielder in his prime, but was not deserving of 10 Gold Gloves. According to Bill James' Win Shares formula, Griffey ranked among the top three fielders in the AL in only two seasons.
My theory is that, in his prime, Griffey became enamored with making homer-robbing catches and landing on SportsCenter. Because of that, he played very deep and didn't cover as much ground as other elite center fielders. But those highlights landed him plenty of Gold Gloves.
And if you want things to get really ugly, we can take a look at what happened to Junior after 2000.
So, are we done here? Good.
SamInMpls says:
AL VORP leaders by year:
90: Rickey
91: Ripken
92: Thomas
93: Olerud
94: Thomas
95: Edgar
96: A-Rod
97: Griffey
98: A-Rod
99: Jeter
And then:
00: A-Rod
01: Giambi
02: A-Rod
03: A-Rod
04: Vlad
05: A-Rod
06: Jeter
07: A-Rod
08: A-Rod
Two things:
1) Those who state a preference for Griffey may be doing so because of his skill set. Thomas' skill set would have been relatively easier to replace than Griffey's — actual production being a different matter entirely.
Thomas has an 874 career similarity score to Jeff Bagwell.
Griffey has an 869 similarity score to Willie Mays through age 38.
2) The stat wizards seem to have determined that clutch is a thing but not necessarily that valuable of a thing. That said, the stupids and the hired geeks of the sporting press tend to monstrously overvalue specific clutch performances. It took both guys a few years to make their playoff debuts so when they did they had everyone's undivided attention.
Thomas in Game 5 & 6 of the 93 ALCS: 1-7 1RBI 4K 1BB (no XBH)
Griffey in Game 4 & 5 of 95 ALDS: 4-9 5R 2RBI 2HR 2K 1IBB 1HBP
That, IMO, is the psychology of it.
DrewS says:
Ed:
No doubt that Thomas was a better hitter than Griffey. In fact, Thomas is probably among the top ten hitters in the history of baseball. But recent analysis is beginning to show that defensive value has been vastly underrated over the years. The quote you include says of Griffey: "He was a very good fielder in his prime". And I think most baseball analysts agree that a "very good" center fielder has more defensive value than even the best first basemen. Even in his prime, Thomas was not a very good defensive first baseman. Whether Griffey's greater defensive value is enough to overcome Thomas better offensive value is a difficult question, but one I think analysts will soon be able to answer, if they cannot already do so. In summary: Thomas was the better hitter, Griffey was the better fielder, hard to say which was the better (more valuable) player.
Daniel says:
As a White Sox fan I am torn between two of my favorite former Pale Hose. The Big Hurt and Griffey(Don't laugh). Frank's 1994 season was absolutely incomprehensible at the time. Keep in mind that there were about 50 games he was cheated out of in that Strike year. Let me just say that Hack Wilson's RBI record would have still probably stayed intact, but by a thread if the season wasn't ended in such a shameful way for baseball. Also the Sox might have received their first World Series title sine 1917 against the Expos, but that is obviously never to be known. I also find it amusing that whenever national media members talk about the "Steroids Era" they almost always absolve Griffey without doing the same for the Auburn Obliterator. Griffey was probably clean but so was Frank. The Hurt was the same basic size for most of his career. No muscular ballooning like Sosa, Big Mac, Bonds, etc. Frank was for drug testing in 94 when it was unpopular to do so, but hardly gets credit for it. For a span of about 7 years, he was the best overall hitter in baseball. He walked all of the time. he drove in big runs, hit mammoth shots and hit .300 every damn year. He probably had the best eye in baseball for a good while. Was he a great defensive first basemen? No. He wasn't Mark Teixeira, Derrek Lee, or Paul Konerko, but holy shit there was no one like him in terms of physical presence or overall hitting ability from my childhood to my mid-teens. Griffey's career has been fantastic, and arguably his defense made up for his overall offensive inferiority to Frank, but the Hurt wins the "Who would you pick to start a franchise?" hypothetical.
Daniel says:
Nevermind my Hack Wilson comment. Frank had 140 hits instead of RBIs. He only had a measly 101 RBIs. He would't have gotten 191 RBIs. Probably only about 140+ for that mark.
daphne says:
Thanks for the warning. Oops. I commented. But I swear I didn't read it, and I defend your right to talk about anything you please on your turf.
J. Dryden says:
But was Thomas ever on THE SIMPSONS? No? Well then, I see no need to continue this conversation.
Jon Grayson says:
As a lifelong Houstonian, I am compelled to mention the great Bill James essay about how/why Craig Biggio is also superior to Griffey Jr. Unlike some of the counterarguments presented here against Thomas, he was superior defensively at two difficult positions (2b, c), besides being an OBP and SB machine.
Alan C says:
I am a Mariner fan and am glad to see Griffey back here this year, mostly for sentimental reasons and because he seems a good clubhouse presence. I will not dispute any of the reasoning in this post. I might add, though, that more than any player Griffey saved baseball in Seattle. If it hadn't been for the team's 1995 playoff run, of which Griffey was a big part, they'd be the Tampa Bay Mariners now.
tommytimp says:
I live in Chicago and love both the Cubs and the Sox, and fuck you if you say I have to choose one or the other. It was great watching Ryne Sandberg carry the Cubs through the 80s and Lord, watching Thomas hit in the 90s, when he was on, was like watching a grown man playing with little kids.
Anyone ever throw Albert Belle in the mix? Loathsome, but pretty good.
Daniel says:
Albert Belle wasn't as good as either Frank or Griff. He was definitely one of the best hitters of the 90s though.
Sam says:
Just sent this post to a friend. He sent me the following response:
There is just so much I disagree with in this post. But first an interesting anecdote: my father being from Gary, Indiana, growing up I always was caught up on Chicago sports. One day I was at the O's game and Frank Thomas struck out with two outs and the bases loaded (he was never known for being clutch). I turned to my father and said, "He's just not having his best year". In fact, he was having his best year (at the time at least). It was 1993.
As for the analysis:
For one, he doesn't account for position value at all. To have a power hitting center fielder is a significantly more rare commodity than first basemen. Yes, Thomas was great but he was a one of many power hitting first basement in the steroid era. The same isn't quite as true for, say Albert Pujols, because power hitters are more of a rare commodity then they were then. He is definitely right to warn against overrating Griffey's defense (gold gloves are meaningless See: Derek Jeter, and to a lesser extent Michael Young). But it doesn't change the fact that to compare their value over a replacement player at that position would show that Griffey is by far superior statistically. The biggest argument, which he doesn't bring up, is FT's favor is durability. Griffey spent a lot of time on the DL which one can argue hurts his value but, at the same time, makes his numbers seem that much more ridiculous.
All that aside, the debate just seems silly to assume that either of the two are the best of their era. To warn against overrating Griffey due to the media darling-hood, but to then not even mention maybe the most underrated player ever (due to media bastard-hood) is contradictory. I think without a doubt Barry Bonds is the best player of the 1990s, if not the best player ever. Before the 90's even began. He had amassed over 100 steals and almost 100 home runs. He hadn't even taken off yet. If you want to get in the steroid debate, you have to include every player in that era. (For the record, athletes were using Monkey steroids in the 1930s… the steroid debate is pretty stupid–it is the nature of the athlete to get any edge possible) Overall, the media–and probably history– is far too unkind to unsympathetic players who used steroids, and far too kind to sympathetic players who used steroids. If you're just looking at who the most valuable player was in the 90's, it is without a doubt Barry Bonds.
Ed says:
Oh, I took his status as a tremendously overrated CF into account.
The question, specifically, was whether Thomas or Griffey was the best AL player (read the opening sentence, which excludes Bonds) of the decade. Not which one was best relative to the other players at his position.
I see some value in your comment but it seems to miss the point of the post.
Jon Grayson says:
Daniel, I hate to burst your bubble, but rbi's are an absolutely meaningless stat. I'm exaggerating a tad to be sure, but there are so many better individual stats (OBP, VORP, EQAVG, etc). It's like looking at the stock price of the company you work for as a barometer of your personal performance.
Daniel says:
Yeah, Frank Thomas being on pace for that many RBIs was completely meaningless. Give me a fucking break. He was a great overall hitter, one of the best ever. RBIs are heavily influenced by who's on base and how many, but look how many he had. He hit for average, he hit homers, he got walks, and he knocked guy in. He was a great overall hitter in every conceivable facet of hitting. I also believe some guys are better hitters when there is somebody is scoring position than others. I realize there has been a recent notion of everybody downplaying "clutchness" in baseball, but I believe there is some semblance in the sport. Some guys have historically better numbers in later innings than others. Who's to say the reasons why besides random chance.
bpasinko says:
The Big Hurt is rarely mentioned in best of conversations so I'm glad to see him in this one. However, even as someone who loves arguing that Griffey isn't as good as often said, I don't think I agree Thomas was a better player than Griffey in the 90s AL. Also, anytime you are comparing players I think it's fair to compare relative to their position, otherwise it's simply a who's a better hitter. This isn't a matter of Griffey being the best fielding CF ever because he is far from it, but if you are starting a team you'll take the CF every time even if he produces less with the bat.
Just look at their historical WAR from baseballprojection.com. From 1990-1999 Griffey's was 65.9, Thomas' 54.3. I'm a little biased because I'm a big fan of positional adjustments but I think Griffey is the clear favorite. I really want to agree with you because Frank Thomas seems to be eternally underrated, but I just can't.