BF_in_Indiana 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. 118647[/snapback] I've always been of the belief that if people would just pitch to this guy he would make a lot more outs. As it is, when they DO pitch to him they try to make a perfect pitch every time. I would venture to say that if he were pitched to 500 times in a year instead of 300 times, his numbers would go DOWN. Yes, you heard me, DOWN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mile High Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Another point I'd love to bring up is that Bonds walks more than anyone else in baseball. What if he didn't? what would his numbers be like then? 232 walks and his numbers still outshine every one. And when they do pitch to him he only gets one good pitch to hit usually cause most pitchers are scared ato throw to him. 26 of 32 votes to get this award speaks for itself. You know all these guys don't like Barry but he won the award anyway. Why? Because he was the MVP in the national league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mile High Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 I've always been of the belief that if people would just pitch to this guy he would make a lot more outs. As it is, when they DO pitch to him they try to make a perfect pitch every time. I would venture to say that if he were pitched to 500 times in a year instead of 300 times, his numbers would go DOWN. Yes, you heard me, DOWN. 118657[/snapback] have you EVER watched the guy play man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 It would have only meant something if Puljos won the MVP...Im not totally buying this Beltre for MVP smokescreen by you 118656[/snapback] So now I'm saying Beltre but mean Pujols? I honestly think that Beltre had a better year then Pujols. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin 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] They aren't? Really? He hit 3 less home runs in 230 fewer at bats. THREE. 36% higher on base percentage. 33% better slugging. 29% higher OPS. 20% more runs scored - which pretty much equals out Beltre's advantage in RBIs. Less than half as many strikeouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 I've always been of the belief that if people would just pitch to this guy he would make a lot more outs. As it is, when they DO pitch to him they try to make a perfect pitch every time. I would venture to say that if he were pitched to 500 times in a year instead of 300 times, his numbers would go DOWN. Yes, you heard me, DOWN. 118657[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin 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] Let me explain this again. I never made that argument. Ergo, it has no validity here. I know that's going to be difficult for your protozoan brain to wrap around, but try really hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mile High Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 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. 118675[/snapback] .340 with at least 60 home runs is more like it and at least 180 ribbys is more like it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 have you EVER watched the guy play man? 118664[/snapback] Well considering the Giants beat St. Louis in the 2002 NLCS and that my brother is a Giants fan and huge Bonds fan and we argue about it all the time, I would venture to say I've seen him play PLENTY of times. Major league teams take the wrong approach with him. You want to know how Bonds hurts teams the most? By being walked. Let's say Bonds walks to start an inning. Walking the first guy in an inning leads to more multi run innings then ANYTHING. If you pitch to him and he makes the out you are looking much better. I would rather give up a homer to him then walk him to be honest with you. His walks hurt the Cardinals more in the 2002 NLCS then his homers did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gantrules Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 I posted this last week. If Barry had as many at bats as both Beltre and Pujols (200 more) and we extrapolated his number he would have had 72 HR's and 162 RBI's. And don't tell me he couldn't have done it BF b/c he already has done it. Bonds is the MVP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 So now I'm saying Beltre but mean Pujols? I honestly think that Beltre had a better year then Pujols. 118667[/snapback] Funny thing is Id consider picking Gagne as the MVP over Beltre. There is noone on the Cards more valuable then Puljos IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Let me explain this again. I never made that argument. Ergo, it has no validity here. I know that's going to be difficult for your protozoan brain to wrap around, but try really hard. 118676[/snapback] I don't recall saying you did. You do however KNOW that a vast majority of the country made that argument, and if you say they didn't you are just flat out lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Well considering the Giants beat St. Louis in the 2002 NLCS and that my brother is a Giants fan and huge Bonds fan and we argue about it all the time, I would venture to say I've seen him play PLENTY of times. Major league teams take the wrong approach with him. You want to know how Bonds hurts teams the most? By being walked. Let's say Bonds walks to start an inning. Walking the first guy in an inning leads to more multi run innings then ANYTHING. If you pitch to him and he makes the out you are looking much better. I would rather give up a homer to him then walk him to be honest with you. His walks hurt the Cardinals more in the 2002 NLCS then his homers did. 118681[/snapback] That has to be true - since you said it. The only reason you'd rather give up a homer is because the rest of the team is so pathetic. The likelihood that he'd be hitting a solo shot is exponential given the next best hitter in the lineup is the archaic Marquis Grissom. If Bonds had Rolen/Edmunds hitting behind him with the top of the Cards lineup leading off, his numbers would be ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mile High Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 I would rather give up a homer to him then walk him to be honest with you. Explain.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gantrules Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 You sound like Tim McCarver........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Major league teams take the wrong approach with him. You want to know how Bonds hurts teams the most? By being walked. Let's say Bonds walks to start an inning. Walking the first guy in an inning leads to more multi run innings then ANYTHING. 118681[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 I don't recall saying you did. You do however KNOW that a vast majority of the country made that argument, and if you say they didn't you are just flat out lying. 118690[/snapback] So? I'm discussing MY opinion, not that of the populous. The vast majority of the world is made up by people who simply pile on to other people's opinions instead of thinking for themselves. Kind of like you're doing right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mile High Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 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. 118701[/snapback] Ya know you're soooooo right ! And on that note I'm outta this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 So far Im surprised Clements22 is the only one who has brought up ERIC Fuggin GAGNE!! Beltre led them to the playoffs by himself did he? And Bonds had much more help?? I think the benefit of the best closer in the NL (maybe MLB) might have helped the Dodgers pull out a few games. So if MVP means best player: Bonds' numbers were superior to Beltres IF MVP means most valuable player to your team: BF if you are saying Beltre single-handedly pulled LA into the playoffs without the help of a future hall of fame closer AND that Bonds had a better team and more help......you are lying to yourself and everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts