why do people say Barry Bonds is the greatest baseball player or hitter?
The greatest baseball player/all rounder was and is Ken Griffey Jr. If he didn't have that freak injury he would have more home runs than Bonds and Babe.
- Anonymous1 decade agoBest Answer
and if babe ruth had the training programs and facilities available to him that griffey and bonds had, his playing days would have been extended then he'd have another 100+ home runs. too many ifs and suppositions.
bonds was an amazing hitter the problem i have is that he probably was using steroids and that extended his playing days and allowed him to break records of players like babe ruth who hit more home runs than entire teams for much of his career and did it on cigars, hot dogs and booze.
- 1 decade ago
That's only said by people who don't care that Bonds turned his head into something the size of a medecine ball with steroids. But Bonds was a great player before he ever started juicing. And I don't know what the other guy is talking about, but Bonds was a fabulous outfielder before he got old and his knees gave out on him.
As for Griffey Jr., he was certainly a great player, but the fact is, that his body couldn't hold up, and that's part of the deal. Anyway, as for the greatest all-around player, my guess is that you're not old enough to have seen Willie Mays play baseball. If you had, you wouldn't be making that argument.
Over 1,900 RBI's, .302 career average, 338 stolen bases, 12 Gold Gloves, and 660 home runs while playing in 2 of the lousiest home run parks ever, The Polo Grounds, and Candlestick. Willie didn't play in the era of the ridiculous home run derby ballparks that are all over the place now.
The Catch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dK6zPbkFnE
- 1 decade ago
Barry Bonds, Ken Griffey, Jr., and Darryl Strawberry are my three greatest disappointments.
Bonds because he didn't have to become a "roid" monster. He was on track to be a great Hall of Famer without bulking up.The man in his first 12 or 13 seasons was phenomenal. But no, he let his ego ruin him.
Griffey also was on the same track and probably will make the Hall because of his tremendous early accomplishments. First 12 seasons were among the best anyone ever put up. I feel that all those years of playing on Astroturf contributed to his breaking down physically at so early an age. But then again, all ballplayers tend to taper off and begin a long, usually slow, decline after age 30, 31, or 32.
Strawberry's first nine years were also Hall of Fame material. But he threw it all away because of multiple drug abuse and eventually injuries
did him in.
- BoobLoverLv 51 decade ago
The people who say Barry Bonds was just as good before steroids have never done any simple research, his best years plainly were from 2000 on-the juice era, Players don't start getting career highs in every category at 36yrs old, in his previous 14 years he hit 40 hrs four times, then did it five times in a row, I guess if you're a giant fan it can't get in to your head that he's forever a cheater, but the regular fan knows, and apart from cheating he was one of the worst fan friendly players ever, his career was always good, but nothing like after 2000, so based on cheating and we don't know what he would have done without, How can those years be taken into consideration? We don't count NCAA teams records after they've been found to have violated rules.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- DonnaLv 44 years ago
well, technically he didnt break any rules because the substance that he took was not even considered a steroid by the FDA at the time. Its called "the clear" and people need to get their facts right. Mark Mcgwire roided straight up his *** and he couldnt even get close to as good as barry was. I believe he is the greatest ever. Its called the steroid era for a reason. If anything, bonds was at a disadvantage with probably half of the league on hard roids. when all he took was the cream and the clear.
- ConnorLv 61 decade ago
EDIT: I think Ruth is the best, but even though we can't assume about a player, I'd go with the Mick as the most talented ever. The guy could hit 500+ homeruns, some even 600+, and before his knee injury, he was without question the fastest Yankee, and probably the fastest in the league.
EDIT: I don't know what the other guy was talking about either. Bonds could feild as well as some of the best in history. You're probably just looking at him field in his forties. Look at him in his earlier years.
Statistically speaking, Bonds isn't the greatest hitter ever -- that belongs to either Ted Williams or Babe Ruth. However, he stole over five-hundred bases, and people seem to forget he won eight gold gloves. He was a great fielder in his earlier days and had amazing range. Statistics still don't rate him as the best ever, but he's pretty close to it. I wouldn't say Junior is the best. You can't "assume" what they would have done. Of course, I do think Ken Griffey is a great player -- one of the best in history, and I have tons of respect for him.
- 1 decade ago
Because people have opinions, and i share yours, Griffey Jr. had all the potential in the world, but the injury took it all away. Griffey will get his, HOF shoe in, first ballot, something Bonds and Aroid will never have the pleasure of being apart of.
- SeabiscuitLv 71 decade ago
When Barroid's head size peaked nobody in the history of baseball ever hit like that before, 72 homers. Honestly I doubt any one has been locked in better for a few year stretch like Barry was when he broke those records even though he was juiced, but this still don't make him the best because everyone says someone different.
- 1 decade ago
They do? Where are these people hiding, deepest Nepal? I thought Web access was everywhere....
Bonds' greatest skill, and one that didn't come from a bottle, was his plate discipline. He didn't just have control of his strike zone, he had MASTERY of it. Griffey could only dream of being that good around the plate. Hellfire, no one but Williams and Ruth were that good.
Bonds' plate discipline was simply incredible. And that fed into a lot of what else made him great, but it started there.
Bonds also, in his youth, was at least an equal if not superior defender in some ways. Whereas Junior would often run a half-mile and make a leap and sno-cone the ball -- which, yes, is quite exciting and makes for good television -- Bonds would get there and be camped under it. That's nowhere near as dramatic, but it IS better defense. Griffey was also weak at reading the ball flight and taking his first step quickly; his running speed allowed him to compensate.
The injuries were a series of unfortunate incidents, of course, but that's part of the game, and no credit for things not done. We could equally lament over Bonds' 1999 and 2005 seasons, such as they were.
I fully recognize that Griffey is the popular choice, and that's fine, but don't kid yourself that Bonds doesn't have a substantial argument in his favor. Just because people don't like him doesn't mean he was not a phenomenal ballplayer, because he was. Folks just don't wanna admit it.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Bonds was a joke! As far as junior is concerned, you could say that about several former ball players. I would put my money on Mickey Mantle. Think of all the terrible injuries he had to deal with. Mantle in his prime was twice the ball player junior was.
That's what's so great about baseball, we can argue about stuff like this all of the time. No one is right and no one is wrong!