Double Standard. Griffey JR. gets a pass for not being a "winner" despite having 3 HOF teammates
1948_Swell_Robinson
Posts: 2,045 ✭✭✭✭✭
Lets face it, sports fans are biased. They rip some players for not being 'winners' and give a pass to others and spare them from the same rabid and wild theories.
Griffey JR never played in a WS game despite having three HOF teammates(in their primes) while he himself was in his prime. That fact alone would earn any other player scorn.
If people didn't like Griffey he would be labeled...
"He isn't a winner."
"His WAR is not realistic and is only high because he played CF and they didn't win with him there."
"630 empty home runs that amounted to nothing."
"They got rid of him and got a real defensive CF(Mike Cameron) and they played in more playoff games the two years after he left than they did during Griffey's entire time in Seattle."
They would just wipe away Griffey's accomplishments like they do to others.
Yup, in 1998 and 1999 the Mariners won 76 and 79 games with Griffey. Then they got rid of him and won 91 and 116 games while playing in the more post season games in those two years than all of Griffey's years combined. That fact would normally send the rabid sports fans on the trek of saying they were better without Griffey.
But Griffey gets a pass.
They might excuse Griffey for having a 1995 hot streak in one post season...which they lost...but where was that in his other 20 years of play. One lucky hot streak didn't do anything for them and where was that in 1997 and 2008 when he sh!t the bed in the post season?
Then his Cincinnati years. If he were a player someone didn't like, he would have been vilified since Cincinnati viewed him as a savior for the franchise. He came home. He did bad and the team did bad.
A double standard exists and Griffey gets a pass from the same nonsense you hear directed at other players who don't deserve that nonsense either.
Maybe Griffey needed the cozy confines of the Kingdome. He had a lifetime .998 OPS in the Kingdom which is appx 120 points higher than everywhere else.
Road/Home OPS by year in his Seattle Kingdome years...
.707/.793
.880/.816
.796/1.049
.843/.951
.954/1.101
.990/1.212
.653/1.058 injury year
1.029/1.011
.990/1.071
.956/.997
.920/1.002
I did a very simple addition of those home roads and didn't adjsut for the injured year...but those totals are
.883 OPS on the road during his Seattle years
1.005 OPS at home during his Seattle years.
.883 is still good, but his OPS is definitely bloated with the friendly RF confines in Seattle and maybe that is why they didn't win as much as his stats suggest. He did have three HOF teammates those years(counting Arod as HOF level of play).
I guess having a good smile has its advantages.
Comments
Your point about post-season stuff is obviously correct, which is why my respect for the people who place any significant weight on the postseason is as low as it is.
The more controversial point you make, with which I also agree, may be rephrased as "Ken Griffey, Jr. was great, but he was not as great as most people seem to think he was." And a big part of that is that he played CF which does bloat his WAR, and more importantly that he won Gold Gloves year after year despite being a perfectly ordinary center fielder. And yes, his hitting stats get a big home park boost, too.
Great? Absolutely.
Top-half Hall of Famer? Certainly.
Better baseball player than Craig Biggio? No. {yes, I said it, and derailed your thread}
Getting Jeff Fassero out of the pitching rotation is the main reason they got better after Griffey left.
Most of your post is "winner" fooloshness.
Teams that win championships don't win because 1,or 2 or even 3 HOF players. They win because of the quality of the supporting cast.
This garbage gets brought up WAY TOO OFTEN.
I guess Ted Williams was a loser too.
Not sure I am reading your thoughts correctly. My post agrees with your overall sentiment. I don't pin the not winning a World Series on Griffey(other than him being overrated defensively and helped by his home park which does translate into less wins than what his numbers and accolades might say on the surface).
Exactly.
Biggio might be a stretch tho. I would be curious to see your explanation.
Top half HOFer? I don't know Dallas, based on all the negativity we have heard on these boards about strikeouts, and only five HOFers have more strikeouts than Griffey, how can he be a top half HOFer?
For the Ks he never really struck out that much he just played so long they accumulated. He always had a significant amount of walks and until the end of his career had a good BA and slug to go along with it.
"My" explanation for Biggio being better than Griffey wouldn't be worth your time. Biggio is one of my all-time favorites, and I tend towards cherry-picking. But my comment wasn't based on my fan-boy status, I was just repeating what Bill James found with his Win Shares. Since they each started the same year, a head-to head is pretty easy:
Year / WS for Biggio / WS for Griffey
Rearranging that from best to worst (over that period):
From best season to 13th best season, Griffey beats Biggio in precisely zero seasons.
Now, they both kept playing for years after 2001, with Griffey playing another 880 games with a WAR of 5.7 and Biggio playing another 895 games with a WAR of 4.6. In a conversation about which one was better than the other, I'm willing to ignore those old man years completely and I'm willing to give Griffey credit for one more game won than Biggio, but Biggio is still going to be ahead, and by a fair margin.
Griffey was a better hitter than Biggio, no doubt. But take away the park effects and the gap isn't as big as it looks at first glance. But beyond that, Biggio was better at everything. He played catcher and 2B a whole lot better than Griffey, and as an old man he played CF as well as Griffey did as a younger man. And he ran the bases much better, and was as hard to double up as anyone since Willie Wilson.
Bill James says Biggio was better than Griffey. I can't be sure if I believe him because I like Biggio or because I believe his arguments on their own merits, but I do believe him. I will say that if Griffey was, in fact, better than Biggio, he was barely better.
Note: the 13th best season for both Biggio and Griffey was an injury-shortened one. And Griffey won the Gold Glove that year! LOL!
I had a feeling WinShares would have been at the heart of the matter. Good analysis.
Griffey really did benefit from that RF in the Kingdome.
Here are Biggio and Griffey in WPA and Run Expectancy:
Griffey WPA 46 and Run Expectancy 544
Biggio WPA 31 and Run Expectancy 372
That doesn't account for defense or position. That gap would close when defense is added. I don't think it would close enough at this point though.
But what would happen if the Kingdome was removed from the equation and you only computed the road Griffey X2 instead of using the park adjustments that doesn't account for that easy RF target in the Kingdome?
Griffey's home road splits:
.296/.385/.573....958 OPS
.277/.355/.505.....860 OPS
That WPA and Run Expectancy lead, with the inclusion of defense, could lean toward a similar conclusion that James's analysis did.
Without really having followed Jr. I would just speculate that more wins after he left translates into a better pitching staff in those years.
That's the point. That's the double standard. With Griffey stuff like that is recognized, whereas with other players the level of teammates is ignored and the scorn goes solely on the star player...even when they have even worse teammates...while Griffey had three HOF teammates and several other really good ones and not a peep.
I think it’s more that you just don’t like Ken Griffey Jr. the same as other guys don’t like Mike Trout, etc. and view them as overrated. I feel the same way about certain players and along with $2 it’ll get me coffee.
So if we dissect and nitpick in the same methods we read on these boards, but direct them at Griffey in his most important post season series(his only ALCS). Again, if he knew how to win why did he only get to one ALCS?
His OPS that series was 1.011. Looks good.
Game One: 2 for 3. Two empty hits no runs no RBI. Did get a double. Hooray. They won that game because Wolcott pitched good.
Game Two: 2 for 4 with a HR. However, using the method we see on these boards he hit that Home Run down 4-0 in the sixth inning so it doesn't really count. They lost too.
Game Three: 2 for 5 with a Run Scored. Not bad, but no RBI? What gives? They won on the back of a gem by Randy Johnson and the Seattle staff overall.
So they are up two games to one in the ALCS and while Griffey's stats are really good combined in three games he really wasn't much of a factor especially in his best game with a HR when already losing. They have the vaunted Inians on the ropes.
Game Four: 0 for 3. Lost. Whitewash so doesn't really matter but he did nothing. Could not carry them.
Game Five: 1 for 3 with an RBI. Not too bad. However, trailing by one run in the 7th inning Griffey came up with a man on third and only one out. Griffey struck out. In other words, "he choked." All he had to do is make contact and we could be looking at Seattle up 3-2 and on their way to the World Series. Nope. Struck out. Choked(according to these boards) because it only matters in the late innings
.
Game Six: 0 for 3. Bottom of the sixth trailing by one run Griffey comes up with a man on 2nd and one out and Griffey flys out. Chokes again when it matters. Bottom of the 9th trailing 4-0 Griffey leads off with an out. Chokes again.
So despite having some good series totals in the ALCS, Griffey's team was up 2-1 with very little consequence from Griffey, then while up 2-1 with a chance to go to the World Series Griffey goes 1 for 9 with a major late inning choke job and another lateish inning choke job with a man in scoring position.
When I say "choke job" that is according to the philosophies of many sports fans...not my philosophy. I don't think he choked.
Just poingint out the Double Standard.
Who said I don't like Griffey? That is news to me.
Simply pointing out the double standard.
If you say so.
Last I checked you have to have a TEAM to win a championship and as for 2001 (yes I know this was after Griffey left but it had to be the worst moment/example of MLB's always a bridesmaid but never a bride team)...it was either Seattle's 116 win team or a team that had won four out of the last five World Series...something had to give.
D's: 50P,49S,45D+S,43D,41S,40D,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 241,435,610,654 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
Does anyone here think Griffey used PEDs?
I would bet he did at some point but can't say for certain if I am 100% or not
Not much new here. As in real life people with shortcomings are given passes all the time if they are well liked.
I think a WHOLE lot of players did. Lots of them, including those who would surprise some folks. I think they still do. remember, the PED's are always out in front of the tests. there are certainly PED's out there that the sports leagues either do not know exist or are unable to test for.
My entire viewpoint on the topic changed probably 6-8 years ago. I used to be ardently opposed to it. after reading a ton and thinking about it, it really does not matter to me. players have been trying to get an advantage since the beginning. it started in baseball in the 19th century with Pud Galvin using monkey testosterone.
I bet cavemen were trying to hollow out rocks for the rock throwing competitions back then!
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.