Serves Junior right for not signing with the Red Sox! (And Cincinnati is flyover country that doesn't watch PBS.)

ironic. apparently the storyline as to how bonds got started with steroids revolved around him not getting enough notice from his great '98 season that was in the shadow of the mcgwire/sosa HR race. he wanted the clips, so over the following winter, he started his regimen.


that's quite possibly completely wrong, but that's the storyline i'm aware of.

Mike Schmidt feels Griffey's pain.

Who else thought of a sequel to Ken Griffey Jr. Baseball?

Not to knock a very great ballplayer, but if you're making a dramatic documentary about the baseball of the last 20 years, Junior never played in a World Series or got involved in big feats or controversies. His most colorful achievements were the home run streak and having a candy bar named after him. It's odd to look back on that whole career and see it so devoid of highlights, but it is what it is.

It's odd to look back on that whole career and see it so devoid of highlights, but it is what it is.

"Clean" Griffey's averaging 52 HR's over a 4-year span (96-99) should be a classic example of Live Ball Era II, but is never mentioned.

I really hate to bring this up, but. . . Didn't the PSAs that MLB ran ran tell us that you would have soft tissue injuries if you took steroids? Didn't Griffey have lots of soft tissue injuries? Perhaps Burns just didn't want to go in that direction and look foolish if some midwestern McNamee shows up next year.

I really hate to bring this up, but. . . Didn't the PSAs that MLB ran ran tell us that you would have soft tissue injuries if you took steroids? Didn't Griffey have lots of soft tissue injuries? Perhaps Burns just didn't want to go in that direction and look foolish if some midwestern McNamee shows up next year.

Heh. Griffey's, uh...lack of attention to pre-game drills and warmups helps him quite a bit in this regard.

Not to mention his fondness for crashing into walls.

I'd like to say "thanks" to #2 only because it caused me to go to BlB's B-R page where I spent a few moments in awe once again. Even as a diehard Giants fan since 1988, it's still hard to remember just how ridiculous Barry was. And not just post-1998.

And Cincinnati is flyover country that doesn't watch PBS

Terp, not that it doesn't seem intuitively right, but are there any published figures to back that statement? I googled around and couldn't find anything.

Cincinnati has the first PBS TV channel ever licensed, the solidly supported WCET-48. The relatively small media mkt also actively supports three (3) NPR stations, more than many erudite coastal cities.

Even as a diehard Giants fan since 1988, it's still hard to remember just how ridiculous Barry was. And not just post-1998.

Seriously - as great as Pujols is, for example - Bonds 1989-1998 run was clearly better than Pujols first ten years.

Say what you will about how Bonds got there, but I doubt Pujols is going to hit .316/.505/.712 over the rest of his career either. He was - and I don't mean this as slang - awesome.

And Cincinnati is flyover country that doesn't watch PBS.

I still think of Griffey as a Mariner - my two images of him are sliding home to win the 1995 ALDS against the Yankees, and a young Griffey seemingly effortlessly tracking down a 400 foot fly ball that two seconds ago you were sure was well over his head. Neither of those things happened in a Reds jersey.

Greatest players (from the WS era, naturally) never to play in a World Series, by B-Ref's WAR:



Edit: Since only 70 of Lajoie's career WAR came in 1903 or after, Carew and Griffey are the position players in the WS era who played the longest, accumulated the most WAR, and never played in a Series

it always amazes me how barry lamar got almost no recognition for his amazingness even before the 98 homer thingy. still doesn't.

the cult of personality

and junior griffey the STAH!!!! got left behind in seattle. the guy who played the next 8 years in cincy - wasn't anything like the seattle griffey. not with bat, not with glove, not with nothin. i had expected him to turn into the personality that sean casey had - the guy who everyone loved who would be Da Mayah, who would "own" the town, who would be to cincy what roger clemens was to houston (at least in 04) but no. not even his first year there - seemed that absolutely NOTHING would ever be good enough unless he (and the team) won the WS. but people really DO think that one great STAH!!! is what "leads" the team to greatness. and griffey is not any more a "leadah" than barry lamar

and i am surprised that griffey has been declared clean. jim thome got the aw shuks, ahm a good ol boy thingy goin on, but griffey wasn't anything like that. although i would bet that if griffey had hit 60+ homers in one year he most positively would be on the same accused without proof list as sammy sosa

and griffey, even his 1st 10 years wasn't anything NEAR as great as barry lamar 89-98

Wasn't as good, Lisa, but I'd not go to "anything near." Lower OPS+, fewer steals, more HR. If you compare age 21-30 seasons, it's still closer.

I believe BB won 3 MVP awards in 4 years in the early '90s and came in second the year he didn't win. You could consider that recognition for his achievements.

It's funny but if you buy the story Jeff Pearlman tried to sell in his Barry Bonds book, Bonds did exactly what he set out to do.

People will still be talking about BB in 50 years. Griffey fell off the face of the earth even as an active player.

I believe BB won 3 MVP awards in 4 years in the early '90s and came in second the year he didn't win. You could consider that recognition for his achievements.

Griffey was a huge star in his prime. Bonds got the recognition from the people who actually understood the game, but Griffey was like Peyton Manning.

Griffey was a huge star in his prime. Bonds got the recognition from the people who actually understood the game, but Griffey was like Peyton Manning.

I'm fuzzy on what this means, since I don't really follow the NFL. Is Griffey like Peyton Manning in that fans who don't understand the game think Peyton Manning is better than he is. Or that Griffey was treated as if he were as good as Peyton Manning when he wasn't?

Why? Because Griffey is tainted by juicers of his era, she says.

I thought it was common knowledge Griffey's swollen head was caused by nerve tonic, not steroids or HGH.

Oh great, sounds like they're going to reprise the infamous Junkie Roll Call from Jazz.

Griffey was voted BY THE PLAYERS as the player of the 90s, over Bonds and Maddux.

But why would people in Cincy be upset? Griffey's line in Cincy was approximately 269/361/510 (still nice) with 213 HR and a 121 OPS+. He never played more than 145 games in a season and never topped 40 HR (which he hit in his first Cincy season). Griffey's time in Cincy is more a sad tale of injuries and age bringing down one of the more talented players in the game's history. If anybody should be upset about Griffey's near absence, it would be Seattle.

And I bet Burns' editing staff was wired on greenies! :-)

If they planned to pretty much ignore him, why is Griffey on the cover?

Actually, it bothers me more that they cut out the Mariners' 116-win season in 2001.

You must be kidding about that. No mention of the best season record in almost a hundred years?

I thought it was common knowledge Griffey's swollen head was caused by nerve tonic, not steroids or HGH.

Okay, so what caused Peyton Manning's swollen head?

You must be kidding about that. No mention of the best season record in almost a hundred years?

Actually, I'm wrong. I read the article incorrectly. Looking at it again, it says the documentary doesn't mention "manager Lou Piniella's great 1990s Seattle Mariners teams with Alex Rodriquez and Griffey", not the 2001 team. My mistake.

I heard Burns on the lecture circuit a couple of nights ago, and he gave a preview of the Tenth Inning: it's about multicultural players, collusion and strike, balanced by labor peace since '95; homers and happiness balanced by steroids, and in the center of it all, the greatest thing that has happened since the formation of the Solar System, the 2004 ALCS.

I exaggerate a little, but that's pretty much how he presented it. And to give him his due, he does a good job picking stories out of a mess of data. A roll call of significant statistical feats would be lousy TV. He's got four hours, and I don't know if the 2001 Mariners would be a very satisfying story (unless the point were either the irony of them not even making the Series, or alternatively the cocked-up playoff system that allows a 116-win team to miss the Series).

There does seem (WRT multiculturalism) to be some Ichiro in the mix, and I think it would be hard to talk about Ichiro without mentioning the 2001 Mariners and his MVP role for them. So they may get some mention.

Actually, I'm wrong. I read the article incorrectly. Looking at it again, it says the documentary doesn't mention "manager Lou Piniella's great 1990s Seattle Mariners teams with Alex Rodriquez and Griffey", not the 2001 team. My mistake.

Seems like it would be kind of weird to mention the 2001 team without mentioning the 90s teams. Is it just on a list of things?

...and then Seattle won a lot of games...let's see, what else...

Griffey was voted BY THE PLAYERS as the player of the 90s, over Bonds and Maddux.

There's that, and then there's a famous (or infamous) fan vote, the 1999 "Team of the Century". An open fan vote selected two players at each non-outfield position, 9 outfielders, and 6 pitchers. A "panel of experts" fixed some of the most egregious errors of omission, adding Wagner, Musial, Spahn, Grove, and Mathewson (and I'll argue that the "panel of experts" itself erred in going for Mathewson instead of Alexander). The fans did some egregiously silly things, including leaving off Wagner, including Brooks Robinson as one of two third basemen, and including Nolan Ryan as one of 6 pitchers, and one "thumb the nose at the powers that be" thing in electing Pete Rose as one of the 9 outfielders.

Exactly three active players with 1990's-heavy resumes made this team: Mark McGwire (as one of two 1B, ahead of Foxx, Mize, Greenberg, et al), Roger Clemens as one of 6 pitchers, and Ken Griffey Jr. as the only active outfielder.

I'm fuzzy on what this means, since I don't really follow the NFL. Is Griffey like Peyton Manning in that fans who don't understand the game think Peyton Manning is better than he is. Or that Griffey was treated as if he were as good as Peyton Manning when he wasn't?

I meant in the Peyton Manning, America's pitchman, SNL host, media superstar sense. Griffey never did SNL, but he did big-time Nike ads and he was on the cover of every magazine in America. Bonds just didn't get that kind of exposure and I think he wanted it, especially if you remember those execrable KFC ads he did with Jason Alexander.

I was a big fan of pre-steroids Bonds, but he had a few knocks that Griffey didn't:
1) He was a jerk
2) Unlike Griffey, he was not viewed as a complete player because he had a bad throwing arm
3) He choked in playoffs during the '90s--with the bat and in the field

So he was viewed as a jerk who put up big numbers in the regular season, but would come up short when it counted. That's not an image that's going to get you voted on the "Team of the Century".

Peyton Manning might actually be the best player ever at his position though, so while the star power thing is a good analogy I'm not sure I like the comparison as a whole.

As a big time Randy Moss fan I'll say that's a better analogy. Moss has throughout his career been overshadowed by other guys or played down for supposedly having a bad attitude. The media lionized Terrell Owens as the superior receiver even when he was at his jackassed worst and even though Owens has never had a QB as bad as Jeff George throwing him balls. They worshiped Marvin Harrison as the quiet, team-oriented guy Moss could never hope to be (oops, he killed someone!). Moss gets hurt and the narrative becomes "Daunte Culpepper is great even without Moss." Never mind that Moss had 24 catches and 7 Touchdowns in the 4 games before his injury, and that Daunte's numbers fell way off from the better-than-Manning pace he had been on.

Angry rant being over, it's clear that Randy Moss<->Barry Bonds is a foolproof analogy.

The main problem with Ken Burns doing Griffey is that if you do a mournful super-slo-mo pan across a guy taking a clubhouse nap, you would literally halt time.

Comparing Bonds to Griffey in 1999 bears some resemblance to comparing Mantle to Mays in about 1963, with Bonds as Mantle and Griffey as Mays.

Griffey/Mays were better defensive players than Bonds/Mantle. Superficially their offensive accomplishments look similar, with Griffey/Mays having better seasonal counting stats in things like HR. But that's if you pay no attention to BB or OBP. If you do pay attention to walks, you start noticing how amazing Mantle/Bonds were.

Except:

For Griffey versus Bonds, you don't have the same league strength argument you have for Mays versus Mantle. My sense is that in the 90's, the leagues were pretty close to equal; that was certainly not true in the late 50's/early 60's.

Griffey was a CF with a pretty good reputation, who stole some HR. But Mays was possibly one of the greatest defensive CF ever - they're not really on the same level.

Mays was both a better base stealer and better base runner than Mantle, but that reverses in the later generation, with Bonds a better base runner and base stealer than Griffey.

GEB4000 mentions that Bonds didn't have an arm. Agreed - but that folds into the whole question of his defensive value. He was "only" a LF, but he was about as good defensively as a LF is likely to be, even with that arm.

GEB4000 also mentions that Bonds was bad in the postseason. Through 1999, he had 20 games, 96 PA, and batted .200/.323/.288. Yes, he was bad. You know who else was bad in the postseason? Willie Mays. Through 1962, Mays had 17 games, 71 PA of .234/.310/.281. And Bonds was 7-0 as a base stealer. (Mays 3-0.)

I found a note I wrote to some friends in 1999, in response to the All-Century Team vote. I don't now stand behind some of the things I said then, but this remark seems pertinent: "But this is the all-time outfield, and the standards are strict. Griffey is essentially a Mays/Aaron type player. For a Mays/Aaron type, I have a simple gateway question - before you compare him to the top two, can you first convince me that he’s a better player than Frank Robinson? For me, the answer is no. I’m not yet convinced that Griffey is better than F. Robby."

I also talked about comparing Bonds 1990-1997 to Mantle 1955-1962. By the WAR now listed in bb-ref, that particular span tilts towards Mantle, 78.0 to 71.9 - but in framing those as the years, I was guilty of selling short Bonds' 9.3 WAR 1998 season. And there still is the issue of league strength.

Exactly three active players with 1990's-heavy resumes made this team: Mark McGwire (as one of two 1B, ahead of Foxx, Mize, Greenberg, et al), Roger Clemens as one of 6 pitchers, and Ken Griffey Jr. as the only active outfielder.

Bonds was voted 18th among the outfielders, which is simply ridiculous. He has good company in the third, finishing right behind Rickey Henerson.

Mike Schmidt feels Griffey's pain.

If I recall correctly, Stan Musial didn't get much airtime in Burns' documentary either.

I guess that's the price you pay for not playing for one of Doris Kearns Goodwin's favorite teams.

DB

An interesting contrast to the snark about Burns's choices for who to focus on (and snark about Goodwin) is looking for a pattern in Bill James's choices for who to give long-form stories to. Examples include Mike Donlin, Hal Chase, Ernie Lombardi, ...

If I recall correctly, Stan Musial didn't get much airtime in Burns' documentary either.

He did, he was just awkwardly placed.

He did, he was just awkwardly placed.

Yeah Musial's section was put in at his retirement, which I guess fit in with the narrative they were giving him of "Hall of Fame player that just quietly did his job and didn't get noticed" A narrative that works better told at the end of a career than the beginning of one. Then you had George Will do his 1815 hits at home 1815 hits on the road bit, and Curt Flood tell some stories about him.

I'd say among the face-time complaints Musial would rank fairly low