Bryce Harper or Mike Trout

[UN-Owen]

Bryce Harper is the much superior hitter right now, which is no knock on Trout, so much so that it could be argued he's the better player this year. His WAR is higher than Trout's this year.

Trout has done more earlier in his career but if Harper can maintain this kind of hitting advantage and stay healthy he could be the better player.

As to the Bonds/Griffey thing, I think Bonds was considerably better than Griffey. He had considerably superior hitting numbers and stole over twice as many bases in the 90s as Griffey did. Bonds was also a good defender in left, I don't think Griffey's defensive advantage playing an up the middle position was enough to surpass all of that.

Doesn't seem like you're giving Griffey enough credit for what he was able to accomplish at such a young age

Bonds' 162 game average from age 22 - 29 = 114 runs, 35 2B, 34 HR, 99 RBI, 38 SB, .291 AVG, .400 OBP, .969 OPS

Griffey's 162 game average from age 20 - 29 = 116 runs, 35 2B, 44 HR, 126 RBI, 18 SB, .302 AVG, .384 OBP, .965 OPS


For the sake of the comparison, I've removed each player's pedestrian-like rookie season, but Bonds is given an advantage since I included Griffey's age 20 and 21 seasons, whereas with Bonds his stats begin during his age 22 season

And looking at the numbers it was certainly reasonable to argue during the early to mid 90's that Griffey was/or was going to be the superior player


Griffey, like Trout, was a world class player pretty much from the time he entered the league and the betting money had him being the one to break Aaron's all-time HR record

Harper, like Bonds, took a few seasons before breaking out at an MVP level (although Harper is doing it at a younger age than Bonds did)


It's interesting to me that 20 - 25 years ago the discussion for "best player in the league" was between 2 African-Americans whose fathers were MLB all-stars and now the comparison is between 2 white kids (Trout's dad was drafted in the 5th round, but never made the show)

According to this article, only 8.5% of the opening day rosters in 2013 were made up of African-American players, down from the high teens just 20 years ago:

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/44425610/study-decline-in-number-of-african-american-players-in-mlb-overstated

[Zeitgeister]

Bryce Harper is the much superior hitter right now, which is no knock on Trout, so much so that it could be argued he's the better player this year. His WAR is higher than Trout's this year.

Trout has done more earlier in his career but if Harper can maintain this kind of hitting advantage and stay healthy he could be the better player.

As to the Bonds/Griffey thing, I think Bonds was considerably better than Griffey. He had considerably superior hitting numbers and stole over twice as many bases in the 90s as Griffey did. Bonds was also a good defender in left, I don't think Griffey's defensive advantage playing an up the middle position was enough to surpass all of that.

Doesn't seem like you're giving Griffey enough credit for what he was able to accomplish at such a young age

Bonds' 162 game average from age 22 - 29 = 114 runs, 35 2B, 34 HR, 99 RBI, 38 SB, .291 AVG, .400 OBP, .969 OPS

Griffey's 162 game average from age 20 - 29 = 116 runs, 35 2B, 44 HR, 126 RBI, 18 SB, .302 AVG, .384 OBP, .965 OPS


For the sake of the comparison, I've removed each player's pedestrian-like rookie season, but Bonds is given an advantage since I included Griffey's age 20 and 21 seasons, whereas with Bonds his stats begin during his age 22 season

And looking at the numbers it was certainly reasonable to argue during the early to mid 90's that Griffey was/or was going to be the superior player


Griffey, like Trout, was a world class player pretty much from the time he entered the league and the betting money had him being the one to break Aaron's all-time HR record

Harper, like Bonds, took a few seasons before breaking out at an MVP level (although Harper is doing it at a younger age than Bonds did)


It's interesting to me that 20 - 25 years ago the discussion for "best player in the league" was between 2 African-Americans whose fathers were MLB all-stars and now the comparison is between 2 white kids (Trout's dad was drafted in the 5th round, but never made the show)

According to this article, only 8.5% of the opening day rosters in 2013 were made up of African-American players, down from the high teens just 20 years ago:

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/44425610/study-decline-in-number-of-african-american-players-in-mlb-overstated

I don't really see it that way since the 90s were undoubtedly his peak and it's an entire decade to work with. Sure, Griffey was better earlier in his career and Bonds had a couple more seasons in the 80s to work with but their age doesn't really matter at that point because they had both reached their peak at that point, sustained it and Barry's seemed to be higher.

Bonds had a 1.000+ OPS from 1992 through the rest of the decade with a peak OPS of 1.136. Griffey had a peak OPS of 1.076 and only surpassed 1.000, 4 times in his career and was actually trending down a bit in 98 and 99 before he was injured.

I have nothing but respect for Griffey but what separated Bonds was his base stealing and his near GOAT level pitch recognition and plate discipline. The only guy who was better at that was Ted Williams. Griffey definitely had the power advantage in the 90s but it wasn't quite enough to surpass Bonds offense.