I'm sorry, but I gotta jump in here. With all due respect there's no F'in way Lofton's even close to the "centerfielder" Griffey was (notice I used the word "was"). I appreciate you stickin' up for the home team player but the idea of Lofton being better in anyway(except for SB) is laughable.
2007 MLB Thread
- Thread starter Iamforever
- Start date
and your misknowledge of what lofton "was" makes me laugh.
I'm sorry, but I gotta jump in here. With all due respect there's no F'in way Lofton's even close to the "centerfielder" Griffey was
sure you were.:1orglaugh
Actually I was. As evidenced by the word "was" directly next to Griffey's name.
I'm sorry, but I gotta jump in here. With all due respect there's no F'in way Lofton's even close to the "centerfielder" Griffey was
im okay if you think that griffey is better. makes good arguement material. but to disrespect lofton like this really makes me think that you know nothing.:2 cents:I never said a bad word about your boy Lofton. Saying Griffey was a LOT better than Lofton is in no way "disrespecting" Lofton. Griffey was better than a lot of players. Doesn't mean I'm disrepecting those players. And it certainly doesn't mean I "know nothing". I would be almost willing to wager my knowledge about baseball is at least as good as your's. Especially, since you seem to think that Lofton's is in the argument of best centerfielder of his generation. Griffey clearly was (and arguablly the greatest player of his generation). The #'s (even the defensive stats) don't lie. 
I never said a bad word about your boy Lofton. Saying Griffey was a LOT better than Lofton is in no way "disrespecting" Lofton. Griffey was better than a lot of players. Doesn't mean I'm disrepecting those players. And it certainly doesn't mean I "know nothing". I would be almost willing to wager my knowledge about baseball is at least as good as your's. Especially, since you seem to think that Lofton's is in the argument of best centerfielder of his generation. Griffey clearly was (and arguablly the greatest player of his generation). The #'s (even the defensive stats) don't lie.
how in depth have you watched lofton? just curious. and before you ask me the reverse, everybody knows how awesome griffey was. like i said, only bonds can touch griffey all around.
As a matter of fact the Indians were probably my favorite AL team back in the 90's (the Cardinals are my team btw). I have also watched every single playoff game since I can remember (mid 80's), so I actually saw quite a bit of him. Also saw a lot when was with the Braves in '97 on TBS. Again I never said anything bad about him.
you mean all teams right?
:laugh: No. I like to root for a team that actually wins a championship every once in a while. :1orglaugh :ban: As I said the Cardinals are my 1st love. I ***** Cardinal red.
i dont. i root for one team and i dont care if they lose 100 games. i am not fox. i dont root for winners, nor do i root for for 7 teams. i know thats not what you meant. i just felt like saying that. LMAO.
i dont dislike the cards. in fact, if an nl team wins, i hope it is the cards. even though they like angel players.:1orglaugh
I do think Griffy got more gold gloves than he deserved. There was a period, and we are still kind of in it, where the standard for giving out gold gloves was ridiculous. It was basically the above average defender that had a lot of offensive production and was one of the most famous in baseball got the gold glove that year. Thus Griffy got his share of them. On the other hand with him it wasn't like Griffy didn't deserve a good number of them either. He really was one of the best defenders in center field.
For their career in center field I still say Griffy was better, not counting offensive production. If Griffy wouldn't have fizzled out as fast as fast he did it would be an easier thing to answer, but I do give Loften credit for longevity even though it's overrated and you have to be careful of people padding stats.
Offensively Griffy has an enormous advantage, especially considering his peek years and up the age of 30. It's not just home runs; it's the shear numbers of runs that he created. You can't totally separate out offense and defense into two parts when considering a players total worth either (example: Derek Jeter). Keep in mind that center field is a position where the average person at that position is weaker offensively because it's an important defensive position so teams are willing to sacrifice offensive production because of that. For that reason somebody that can be a powerhouse on offense and great at defense at the position gives that team an advantage greater than the sum of their parts over other teams. That is something that has to be taken into account when considering the two.
In a way I'm sort of sad that Griffy dropped off so soon after leaving Seattle in the same way it was bad Frank Thomas dropped off so fast. I remember when people used to argue who was the better player, and who was going to be the better player when it was all said and done, Griffy or Bonds. Now there is no question, it's Bonds(minus the steroid controversy).
The biggest thing Lofton has going for him is the fact we was a good/borderline great player for a good number of years and a good player for a long time. If there were such a thing as the Hall of Very Good he would belong in it. I don't think I would ever put him up in the elite category at any time in his career however.
For their career in center field I still say Griffy was better, not counting offensive production. If Griffy wouldn't have fizzled out as fast as fast he did it would be an easier thing to answer, but I do give Loften credit for longevity even though it's overrated and you have to be careful of people padding stats.
Offensively Griffy has an enormous advantage, especially considering his peek years and up the age of 30. It's not just home runs; it's the shear numbers of runs that he created. You can't totally separate out offense and defense into two parts when considering a players total worth either (example: Derek Jeter). Keep in mind that center field is a position where the average person at that position is weaker offensively because it's an important defensive position so teams are willing to sacrifice offensive production because of that. For that reason somebody that can be a powerhouse on offense and great at defense at the position gives that team an advantage greater than the sum of their parts over other teams. That is something that has to be taken into account when considering the two.
In a way I'm sort of sad that Griffy dropped off so soon after leaving Seattle in the same way it was bad Frank Thomas dropped off so fast. I remember when people used to argue who was the better player, and who was going to be the better player when it was all said and done, Griffy or Bonds. Now there is no question, it's Bonds(minus the steroid controversy).
The biggest thing Lofton has going for him is the fact we was a good/borderline great player for a good number of years and a good player for a long time. If there were such a thing as the Hall of Very Good he would belong in it. I don't think I would ever put him up in the elite category at any time in his career however.
i do agree about bonds, but i cant believe you said this.:eek:
lofton, by far, created more runs.
Just teasing a bit about the championship part. Still a little hard to believe they won the World Series last year after the way the played most of the regular season. Even when they had their rough patch in the late 80's thru mid 90's I followed them just as closely as ever.
You mean like the second greatest centerfielder of his generation- Jim Edmonds. :tongue: Just kidding.
You mean like the second greatest centerfielder of his generation- Jim Edmonds. :tongue: Just kidding.
again, i am talking about centerfielder. not offense.
but, runs created will go to lofton because he set up so many as a leadoff hitter.
Um....no.
That fact is indisputable. It's apparant that you're not going to let facts get in the way of your beliefs though, no matter what any of the rest of us say.
Saying Lofton was even close to Griffey as an centerfielder would be like me saying Chris Carpenter is as good a pitcher as Johann Santana. Carpenter's great but even though I'm a diehard Cardinal fan, I know that statement's absurd.
Repeating the same thing over and over is not going to make it any more true. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree and move on. :hatsoff:
why did you have to mention a twin?:1orglaugh
