millbank Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Barry Bonds long ago staked his claim as one of the greatest ballplayers in history, and at times the Giants slugger seemingly can only top himself for Major League honors. He did it again on Monday, capturing his unprecedented fourth consecutive National League Most Valuable Player Award and seventh overall, records only the 40-year-old veteran can boast. Bonds received 24 of 32 first-place votes,MVP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thailog80 Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Congrats Balco....err Barry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 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.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mile High Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Ah number 7 how sweet it is, how sweet it is.. Congrats Barry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorCal Aaron Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 A years supply of the cream and clear comes with the new the Cadillac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 That award means nothing anymore. Adrian Beltre should have been the MVP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 That award means nothing anymore. Adrian Beltre should have been the MVP. 118531[/snapback] Yeah, because Beltre would have had the Giants sniffing the playoffs and Bonds wouldn't have helped the Dodgers nearly as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 That award means nothing anymore. Adrian Beltre should have been the MVP. 118531[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Yeah, because Beltre would have had the Giants sniffing the playoffs and Bonds wouldn't have helped the Dodgers nearly as much. 118533[/snapback] You act like the Giants are Barry Bonds and a bunch of minor leaguers. I've got news for you, there are other quality players there. An MVP is the player most valuable to his team. I think one of the criteria for the award should be that you get your team into the playoffs. Who cares if Bonds had them "sniffing" the playoffs. They didn't make it, so their season wasn't any better then some loser team that finished 50 games below .500. Like I said, it's a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 An MVP is the player most valuable to his team. I think one of the criteria for the award should be that you get your team into the playoffs. Who cares if Bonds had them "sniffing" the playoffs. They didn't make it, so their season wasn't any better then some loser team that finished 50 games below .500. 118541[/snapback] 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 You act like the Giants are Barry Bonds and a bunch of minor leaguers. I've got news for you, there are other quality players there. An MVP is the player most valuable to his team. I think one of the criteria for the award should be that you get your team into the playoffs. Who cares if Bonds had them "sniffing" the playoffs. They didn't make it, so their season wasn't any better then some loser team that finished 50 games below .500. Like I said, it's a joke. 118541[/snapback] The idiocy of that post is actually beyond the word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 The idiocy of that post is actually beyond the word. 118564[/snapback] What the hell was the argument for Sammy Sosa in 1998? I'm waiting......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mile High Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Look up his numbers obp, av, slgp, wlk, rbi, hts and hrs and then try to make the case that he doesn't deserve this award. No one else even compares. Didn't Arod win an MVP with Texas 2 years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 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? 118561[/snapback] Nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Look up his numbers obp, av, slgp, wlk, rbi, hts and hrs and then try to make the case that he doesn't deserve this award. No one else even compares. Didn't Arod win an MVP with Texas 2 years ago? 118571[/snapback] Yeah and when he did there was a large uproar for the same reason I have a problem today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain America Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 This board is a trip. The Bills are so bad everyone is talking about other sports Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Nope. 118574[/snapback] Care to explain why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mile High Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Why? It's the Most Valuble Player award. Not the Most Valuble Player Award in the Playoffs Award. There ARE a different awards for the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Yeah and when he did there was a large uproar for the same reason I have a problem today. 118577[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 What the hell was the argument for Sammy Sosa in 1998? I'm waiting......... 118570[/snapback] Did I make that argument in 1998? Unless you can say I did, then STFU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts