Barry Bonds MVP??

In My Humble Opinion
1

I hope I am posting this to the right forum. . .
Barry Bonds named 2001 NL MVP? What a joke.

This is a double standard.

In 1998 Mark McGwire hit 70 home runs to break Roger Maris 37 year old record of 61 in a season.

Mark McGwire was deemed unworthy to be MVP in '98 because his team, the St Louis Cardinals, didn’t make the playoffs. Sammy Sosa, of the Cubs hit 66, the Cubs were the Wild Card entry. Sosa won the MVP.

2001 BB breaks a 3 year old record. The SF Giants did not make the playoffs, but BB is MVP. In 2001 it doesn’t matter where the team finishes, the MVP is judged on the player’s stats.

Luis Gonzalez of the D’Backs deserved the MVP, he lead his team to the NL West Championship. [The votes were cast before the playoffs.]

Absolutely ridiculous. What are these sportswriters smoking?

2

Sorry, wrong forum.

If you put this into IMHO, you will find out a lot of people disagree with you.

3

McGwire should have won in 1998 too.
But Bonds didn’t just break McGwire’s 3-year-old HR record. He also broke Ruth’s records for most walks (set in 1923) and slugging percentage (set in 1920). He also set the NL record for on-base percentage. He had probably the best season at the plate of anybody in history - how could he NOT be the MVP? It’s certainly not his fault that the Giants didn’t make the playoffs.

4

Yeah, this’ll be in IMHO, but here’s my 2 centavos:

Barry batted .328 and set several records, including walks in a season (breaking Babe Ruth’s record with 177), slugging average (.863, again eclipsing a Ruth record set in 1920), and drove in an insane number of RBIs (137). And then of course the HR record.

Regardless what you think of the guy personally (I think he’s a twit), it’s hard to dispute the overall strength of his season.

5

Off to IMHO.

bibliophage
moderator GQ

6

Actually, they were wrong in 1998; it should have gone to McGwire. They were right in 2001. It’s silly to say that Luis Gonzalez should win the MVP Award because his team had better pitchers - that being the major difference between Arizona and San Francisco.

Of course, one difference between McGwire/Sosa and Bonds/Gonzalez is that though Bonds’s team did not win, they WERE in the race, and were beaten only on the final weekend of the season. So Bonds did contribute, in spades, to a playoff run. McGwire’s team was never in contention.

7

I’ll see your twit and raise you a jerk. :wink:

8

[laughing]
Luis Gonzalez!
[/laughing]

The MVP is not “The Best Guy on a Team That Made the Playoffs.” It’s whatever the 32 (or 28 in the AL) think it is.

Barry Bonds’ 2001 season was so much better than Gonzalez’s or Sosa’s that it is hard to believe. And Gonzalez and Sosa had very good years. Bonds had a stratospheric year.

If it hadn’t been for McGwire’s year in 1998, we would all have been marvelling at Bonds’ efforts this year even more than we already are.

9

I am a huge Giants fan. HUGE. By proxy, I’m also a Barry fan. He’s not exactly in the running for World’s Nicest Guy, but he’s on my team, you know? Since I watch or listen to every game I can (I miss a few thanks to work and all that), I got to see or hear most of those 73 home runs live. The numbers themselves are amazing, but they cannot really express what an absolutely incredible season Barry had. It was a joy to watch unfold over six months. I am so happy and grateful that such a season belonged to one of my guys; I don’t even think I can express what it was like to watch him play day in and day out over the season to someone who just saw the highlights on Baseball Tonight.

I’m terribly jealous of my dad’s childhood baseball memories. I think it’s monumentally unfair that I never had a chance to see Henry Aaron or Willie Mays play. But I saw Barry Bonds’ 2001 season, so now I have something to make my kids jealous over.

10

MVP goes to the player who’s considered the best player in the league.

Re Sosa vs. McGwire, Sosa had more hits, more RBIs, a higher batting average, and more runs scored. McGwire topped him in home runs and slugging average. Still, Sosa had the better season overall – a fact McGwire admitted at the time.

11

Without Bonds, the Giants wouldn’t have even smelled the vapor trail of playoff contenders. With him, they were in it until the final week. He was the most feared hitter in the game last year.

The D’Backs could have contended without Gonzo. They proved that by contending without any real contributions from him during the Series.

12

I think the MVP voters were more impressed with Sosa and Bonds breaking Ruth’s records than with Mac. Sammy and Barry didn’t need enhancers to do it.

13

And neither did Mac. It’s a pretty well established fact that the controversial ‘enhancer’ Mac took does absolutely nothing for performance.

14

And since I used the phrase ‘well-established’, I’m obligated to post the link. http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/men/9906/01/andro.letdown/

15

Well, except that Sosa was roundly criticized at the same time for using creatine. And I really wonder how many people gave a hoot about McGwire’s use of roids; there’s no rule against it, it’s common knowledge that he was using them to recover from injuries, and lots of players use them.

Sosa was given the MVP Award for three reasons:

  1. His team made the playoffs,
  2. He led the league in RBI, and
  3. He was a sentimental favourite, having lost the home run chase.

IMHO, McGwire was robbed. Sosa, meanwhile, has probably been a BETTER player since 1998 than he was that year.

16

So the fact that his numbers were generally inferior to McGwire’s had nothing to do with it?

Being in the playoffs doesn’t mean all that much. Andre Dawson won in '87 for a last place team. Cal Ripkin won it in '91 for a sixth place team. Larry Walker won it in '97 for a team that didn’t make the playoffs.

Once again, McGwire in '98 agreed that Sosa deserved the award more than he did. Why are you arguing with him?

17

Having inferior numbers should’ve work against Sosa.

Another lousy pick.

Because he’s wrong.

18

Your point about Sosa having inferior stats is… well, interesting, since it would seem to support my assertion that McGwire should have won.

The most common demonominator for MVP Awards is leading the league in RBI, and the second most common denominator is being on a winning team. Those are not perfect predictors, but RBI leaders and players on winning teams are disproportionately represented. If you look at a list of really questionable MVP choices, you’ll see a lot of sluggers who led the league in RBI - George Bell, Andrew Dawson, Don Baylor, Jeff Burroughs, Juan Gonzalez.

The winning team predictor has been especially strong since the expansion of the playoff system to four teams per league. Prior to 1995 MVPs on non-winning teams were quite common in the previous 2-3 decades; since then they’ve become rarer, with only two MVPs from also-ran teams (Walker and Bonds) both of whom at least played for teams with winning records. I think it’s crazy to say the winning team thing “Doesn’t mean all that much.” Since players from winning teams usually win the MVP, often winning over players from lesser teams who appear, individually, to have been better players, it apparently means a lot.

I appreciate that Mark McGwire says Sosa was MVP, but Mark McGwire is by all accounts a gentleman, and a gentleman would not be so vulgar as to publicly whine about an award choice. The fact is that he was a better player than Sosa, and would have been the most appropriate choice for MVP.

19

Barry Bonds had arguably the best season ever. He drew intentional lead off walks. As for the playoff issue, the Giants missed by two games, which is pretty close. Two long, extra inning one-run games were the difference. Luis Gonzalez had a lot less to do with how the D’backs finished. It’s nice to have two pitchers who finished 1-2 in the Cy Young voting.

The Cubs without Sosa wouldn’t have done much, either, but the Giants with out Bonds are a huge pile of crap.

20

Let’s take a look at the number for Sosa and Big Mac in 1998:

'98 McGwire:
509 AB; 130 runs; 152 hits; 70 HR; 147 RBI; .299 BA

'98 Sosa:
643 AB; 134 runs; 198 hits; 66 HR; 158 RBI; .308 BA

The only catagory Sosa trailed McGwire in is homeruns, and then he is only 4 behind him. You have to admit 4 homeruns is not a lot. Plus, McGwire hit those 4 in the last two games of the season that year - two games when the Cards were out of contention, but the Cubs were fighting for a playoff berth. The only thing McGwire did better than Sosa (who also stole 18 bases) in '98 was hit 4 more long balls during two meaningless games at the end of the year.

And keep in mind, I’m a Cardinals fan and saying this.

Now let’s look at the numbers for Bonds, Sosa, and Gonzalez for 2001:

'01 Bonds:
476 AB; 129 runs; 156 hits; 73 HR; 137 RBI; .328 BA

'01 Sosa:
577 AB; 146 runs; 189 hits; 64 HR; 160 RBI; .328 BA

'01 Gonzalez:
609 AB; 128 runs; 198 hits; 57 HR; 142 RBI; .325 BA

A good argument can be put up for any of these three. (An argument can also be made for NL ROY Albert Pujols, but in the end his numbers don’t stand up to these three guys.) The numbers are strong for all three. The batting averages are almost identical. Sosa beats Gonzalez in nearly every catagory though and Bonds and Gonzo are neck-and-neck in nearly every thing. (The difference in hits can also be attributed to the difference in at bats.) So the edge goes to Bonds there for the 177 walks and .872 slugging percentage.

So it comes down to Sosa vs Bonds. That’s a tough call. Sosa bested Bonds at hits, runs, and RBI. Bonds was better than Sosa in HR, walks, and slugging percentage. They tied in batting average. It’s very close and if I were making the choice in a race as close as this, I’d have given it to Bonds as well. In part, Sosa’s runs and RBIs count as much on other teammates as on the batter: The other teammates have to be on base for you to drive him home for the RBI and the teammates also have to get a hit to drive you home for the run scored. So this, and the broken records (to me at least) give Bonds the MVP award.

Now what I can’t understand is Clemens getting another frickin’ Cy Young award. Sure he went 20-1 at one point and ended 20-3, but the Yanks gave him 6.6 runs of supports per game!

Look at Mike Mussina’s numbers (who IIRC, got 4.3 runs of support from the Yankees) compared to Clemens:

Clemens:
20-3; 33 starts; 0 complete games; 0 shutouts; 220 1/3 IP; 213 K; 72 BB; 19 HR; 3.51 ERA

Mussina:
17-11; 34 starts; 4 complete games; 3 shutouts; 228 2/3 IP;
214 K; 42 BB; 20 HR; 3.15 ERA

They’re numbers are nearly identical, but Clemens got the Cy Young I guess due to his 20-3 record. Let’s just disregard the team giving him all that run support and say it’s all him shall we? Let’s disregard the fact he couldn’t complete one game all season. Meanwhile his teammate Mussina got 4 complete games (3 of them shutouts), was only 3 losses behind Clemens in the win column, got less run support, walk fewer batters, and had a significantly lower ERA.

I don’t think Clemens deserved the Cy Young that year. Mussina seemed to be the better Yankee pitcher to me.