Mile High Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 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. 118590[/snapback] We have a winner! How many walk off home runs did Bonds have? There were games this year he won single handedly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USMCBillsFan 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 only thing more surprising about BF's posts are that he's not crying that one of the Cardinals should have won it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Did I make that argument in 1998? Unless you can say I did, then STFU. 118593[/snapback] Way to avoid the question. You know what I'm talking about and you also know that it proves my point here about the MVP being a sham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 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. 118590[/snapback] The same can be said about Adrian Beltre who carried a terrible team into the playoffs himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 The only thing more surprising about BF's posts are that he's not crying that one of the Cardinals should have won it. 118598[/snapback] I'm just smart enough to understand that the 3 Cardinals in contention hurt each other. Barry can have his stinking award, I'm sure he would have rather played in the Series like the Cardinals did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 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. 118590[/snapback] Nah, not possible. Just because Bonds had over TWICE (120) as many INTENTIONAL WALKS as Beltre had walks (57), had a .221 point advantage in OBP, almost .200 point higher slugging percentage, and a .405 point advantage in OPS, Beltre must be the MVP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Way to avoid the question. You know what I'm talking about and you also know that it proves my point here about the MVP being a sham. 118599[/snapback] How exactly did I avoid the question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH 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] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Care to explain why? 118583[/snapback] The biggest reason is I don't know who else was in the running those two seasons, the situation of the teams they were on, or the numbers. Secondly however, with all the numbers being equal (and in this case they are pretty close) I would always give the nod to the guy that carried his team the furthest, and in this case that man is NOT Barry Bonds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USMCBillsFan Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 I'm just smart enough to understand that the 3 Cardinals in contention hurt each other. Barry can have his stinking award, I'm sure he would have rather played in the Series like the Cardinals did. 118610[/snapback] Did the Cardinals PLAY in the series?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mile High Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 The biggest reason is I don't know who else was in the running those two seasons, the situation of the teams they were on, or the numbers. Secondly however, with all the numbers being equal (and in this case they are pretty close) I would always give the nod to the guy that carried his team the furthest, and in this case that man is NOT Barry Bonds. 118626[/snapback] The question IS who carried their team more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 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. 118623[/snapback] EXACTLY. I heard this in 1998, and this is why Bonds shouldn't get it. I don't care if his team was in the race to the end. They blew it. His numbers are NOT far and away better then Beltres and all things being equal Beltre is your MVP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Did the Cardinals PLAY in the series?? 118628[/snapback] Yes they did (sort of). Glad I could clear this up for you as a Yankees fans since you and the Yankees turned the season off after game 3 of the ALCS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 How exactly did I avoid the question? 118618[/snapback] By refusing to acknowledge the following argument that was made for Sammy Sosa in 1998 when McGwire should have won the MVP. "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." If that's the case and we want to base it on that, then Adrian Beltre should be the MVP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mile High Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 And of all of Bonds' MVP seasons, this one might have been his greatest. Maybe he didn't hit 73 homers. But he did become the oldest batting champ in history -- and joined Ted Williams as the only men to win a batting title in the season they turned 40. Barry's .609 on-base percentage was the highest of all time. To put that in perspective, only one other current National Leaguer -- Todd Helton -- has ever had a season within 150 points of that. Bonds reached base 376 times. Only the Babe ever beat that. Barry had an .812 slugging percentage. Just Ruth -- and Bonds himself -- have topped that. He was the oldest man ever to hit 45 home runs. He was the third to drive in 100 runs in a season in which he didn't even get 400 at-bats. ... And then there were all those walks. This man walked 232 times. The American League leader, Eric Chavez, didn't even walk 100 times. Bonds was intentionally walked 120 times. No other team was within 50 of that. He walked so much that even if he'd gotten no hits all year, he still would have had a higher on-base percentage than the guy who led the league in hits, Juan Pierre. So while Adrian Beltre, Albert Pujols and Scott Rolen would all be sensational MVP candidates in a league without Barry in it, that's not the league they play in. Unfortunately for them, the league Barry Bonds plays in is a league all his own End of discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 The question IS who carried their team more? 118631[/snapback] I say Adrian Beltre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 EXACTLY. I heard this in 1998, and this is why Bonds shouldn't get it. I don't care if his team was in the race to the end. They blew it. His numbers are NOT far and away better then Beltres and all things being equal Beltre is your MVP. 118635[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 By refusing to acknowledge the following argument that was made for Sammy Sosa in 1998 when McGwire should have won the MVP. "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." If that's the case and we want to base it on that, then Adrian Beltre should be the MVP. 118645[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 I say Adrian Beltre. 118649[/snapback] Just in case we didn't hear you the first six times, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 That award means nothing anymore. Adrian Beltre should have been the MVP. 118531[/snapback] It would have only meant something if Puljos won the MVP...Im not totally buying this Beltre for MVP smokescreen by you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts