BRH

I think it was Jon Stewart who termed the "Holy Trinity of Comics" as being Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor and George Carlin. I couldn't agree more. Every comic owes much of his material (and most of his paycheck) to at least one, if not more, of these three guys.

Jeez first they can't bail on their teams to promote stevestojanty rap records in the middle of the season and now they can't wear IPods in warmups? The Man is really keeping them down.

Dead on.

You know, the sad part is, everything Fezmid said is true. Not just about the trend, but about the truth of the matters contained therein.

96%, 4 miles, 254 seconds. Damn they made me put Kansas on a clean map and I missed by 92 miles to the west. I also missed Idaho on a clean map by about 75 miles to the east. Played it again and this time got Kentucky in the right place to start, damn it's like playing pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey. 100%, 0 miles, 201 seconds.

Oh I don't know. You all know the story of Booth Lusteg, the Bills kicker who missed a crucial FG at the Rockpile. After the game he was walking home and some Bills fans jumped him in an alleyway and beat the stevestojan out of him. When asked why he didn't press charges, Lusteg said "because I deserved it."

If anybody ever got cheated out of an MVP by a steroid user, it was Bonds himself. That's right. In 1996 he hit 42 home runs and stole 40 bases to become the first (and if I'm right, still the only) National Leaguer to have a 40-40 season. Yet the MVP went to Ken Caminiti. And if anyone ever was the poster child for steroid use, it was Caminiti. Add in the '91 season when Terry Pendleton won the award despite Bonds having much better numbers (both teams finished first, btw) and the '00 season when the writers gave it to Jeff Kent (who was never as good before or after he hit next to Bonds), and we're talking about at least 10 years in which you could have made a solid argument for Bonds as the MVP. Steroids don't help you hit .370 or walk unintentionally 114 times. That kind of patience doesn't square with being a steroid user. By the way, BF, have you seen Mark McGwire lately? He weighs about 100 pounds less than when he played. That line about people who live in glass houses comes to mind...

Please cite the exact offseason in which Bonds "gained 40 lbs of muscle in a few months." I believe you are thinking of Len Dykstra or Ken Caminiti. Or... Jason Giambi. Everyone likes to point at pictures of Bonds as a rookie and now, but I'd like to see 19 pictures, one for every year since he got to the majors. I bet you'll see a much more gradual change than you think. It's like Sam Kinison's "old five-to-ten pounds a year trick."

The only thing Sullivan ever brings up is my breakfast when I read his columns.

My wife went to several games with me before we were married, including a couple of freezing December games. She even once sat patiently and (I thought) raptly across a diner table from me one morning when (at HER request) I explained the intricacies of the K-Gun to her using silverware and various other table accoutrements. We were married in 1998. She has not been to a game, or even evinced an interest in attending one, since 1997.

That clears it all up. If only everybody would just pitch to the guy all the time, he'd be just another player. I think you have it backward. If he was just another player, everybody WOULD pitch to him all the time. The fact is, he's not just another player. He's the best player you've ever seen, by a long, long margin. We are talking Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Barry Bonds. And not necessarily in that order either.

Which numbers? Maybe his batting average, but hey, when you're hitting .370 without a single leg hit to your credit you can stand to lose a few points there. Do you REALLY think he'd have fewer than 45 home runs with 200 more at-bats? Bonds with 200 more at-bats? Call it .340, 60 home runs, and 150 RBI. Looks like an MVP year to me anyway.

Incidentally, I'll be interested to see what kind of numbers Beltre puts up when he's not in a contract year. Oh wait... we already know the answer to that, don't we?

Just in case we didn't hear you the first six times, right?

Don't twist my meaning, BF. You know very well that the critical point was that the Cardinals WERE NEVER IN THE RACE in 1998, unlike the Giants in 2004.

Care to guess what Bonds' numbers would have looked like if he hadn't been walked intentionally (most of the time with men on base) 120 times and "intentionally unintentionally" probably at least another 50 times? Even still, a .362 AVG, a .609 OBP and an .812 SLG all blow Beltre out of the water.

The Cubs won 90 games and the wildcard that year by one game over the Giants and two games over the Mets. St. Louis was barely over .500 and was really never in the race. Most people recognize that the MVP should be from a CONTENDING team -- not necessarily one that MAKES the playoffs. Every so often you have an Andre Dawson (1987) or an A-Rod (2002) who puts up silly numbers that dwarf any from a contender. I see the argument for not giving them the MVP. But when you're on a team that's in it down to the last weekend and your numbers are clearly the best in the league by far, there's no reason not to give you the MVP.

Madre de Dios, BF. The Rangers finished dead fuggin last and A-Rod didn't play in a meaningful game all year. THAT'S why people were pissed that he won the MVP. Bonds played in meaningful games right up through the last weekend of the season, and a large part of the reason the team was playing in meaningful games was Bonds himself. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Care to explain why?

OK, then. Let's strip Stan Musial of the 1948 NL MVP even though he had one of the best seasons in baseball history, because the Cardinals didn't make the postseason and therefore who cares what Musial did that year? Let's strip Keith Hernandez of his share of the 1979 NL MVP even though he hit .344 and fielded his position better than anyone in baseball ever has, because the Cardinals didn't make the postseason and therefore who cares what Hernandez did that year? Changing your tune yet, BF?

The Dodgers might not have been a contender without Beltre, but the Giants wouldn't have beaten some Triple A teams without Bonds. Anyone who thinks Beltre could have taken the Giants where Bonds did this year needs to have his head examined.

Congrats to the best baseball player I've ever seen, bar none. If he wasn't such an ass to the writers, he'd have nine MVPs right now. (Terry Pendleton in 1991 and Jeff Kent in 2000 were flat-out jokes. Bonds deserved both of those by a wide margin.)

Yes, but by punting and not going for the first down he also showed he had no faith in his defense. As it turned out, such faith would have been misplaced.

You're right. Maybe it just felt like seven sacks. I do remember Thomas treating Wolford like a traffic pylon the whole game. Can't find the exact number online but maybe someone has a copy of Relentless handy?

Not trolling. Just pissed. Feel free to add your own. I left out the SNF game against the Niners with the Plummer hit on Holmes, and at least two other debacles at Arrowhead and Three Rivers. Oh yeah... and all of these happened away from home.