Bonds never even cracked 50 pre-steroids. Griffey was not barely a better power hitter. He was a much better power hitter. He hit 19 more home runs than Bonds in 26 fewer games (1,408 games in the 1990's for Griffey. 1,434 for Bonds). Bonds only hit 45+ home runs once in his entire career before he started juicing. Griffey's hit 45+ 5 times. 45, 48, 49, 56, and 56. Excepting his shattered wrist recovery season in 1995 when he only hit 17 home runs, Griffey hit at least 40 home runs every season from 1993-2000. Compare that to Bonds, who only cracked 40 or more home runs 3 times in a long career before steroids.

Griffey won 10/10 Gold Gloves in the 1990's, and that doesn't even begin to tell the story of how good he was. Bonds won 8 of 10.

The point is, you can argue it either way. Griffey was a better home run hitter, and a better fielder. Bonds was better in a number of categories. You can argue it either way. Bonds was great before he started cheating. But he was not separated from the pack. Maddux, as another poster has pointed out, could easily be argued as the best player of the 1990's. Tony Gwynn is in there as well. Solid fielder, although not as good as Griffey, or even Bonds. But his BA was crazy in the 80's and 90's. Not a power hitter at all, but that guy could hit. From 1993 to 1997 Gwynn batted .358, .394, .368, .353, and .372. That's insane. Bonds best BA of the 1990's by a wide margin was .336. His next best was .312. Gwynn's BA for the 90's was .345. Bonds' was .301.

Bottom line: Bonds was one of many great players in the 1990's. He was in no way separated from the pack.