There is something about my post that I realize is a bit shortsighted.
Not all outs are utterly useless. Leading off an inning striking out on 3 straight is pretty much pointless. But if you have the bases loaded and hit a deep fly ball that scores a run, that’s a lot more productive than just striking out or hitting a pop fly to first base. Ergo, while somone might have more outs recorded, they might also have recorded some RBI in those outs.
Scenario:
Player A goes up to bat with a runner on 3rd and 1 out. He is walked, and the next batter hits into an inning-ending douple play.
Player B goes up to bat with one out and a runner on third. He is able to eke out a fly ball to right field, which scores the runner from third.
Now, it is certainly possible (and often happens) that the batter after Player A hits a home run or a triple or a bases-clearing double. But it is also possible that the team on defense gets out of the situation by walking Player A and facing the two (or 1) batter(s) after him.
Mind you, I don’t think either Bonds or Thome should get MVP honors. Thome plays an offense-intensive position that requires, most of the time, little defensive skill, and while he had a very good year he was not the MVP of the league. After yesterday’s Twins-Yankees game, I think we all understand a little more just how important good defense is. Bonds, IMO, is a victim of his own success; rare is the team that will pitch to him with any spine with a runner or more on-base. And a walk, while useful, is a lot worse than Bonds could do if actually pitched to.
I disagree with this entirely. Like Gary Sheffield, who has a better perspective on it than I do, I think Bonds could afford to swing at way more close pitches (some of the ‘unintentional’ walks he gets are unintentional in name only). If he did so, he’d drive in more runs and quite possibly help his team more. But by not doing so and taking what he’s given, he pads his walk totals, his average, and a number of other stats. If he took the risk more often, his numbers might be slightly less (still outstanding) and he could so more for the club. If Bonds is up late in a close game with a runner in scoring position, he’s almost surely going to be walked - who wouldn’t rather pitch to Edgardo Alfonso? If he took some more cuts, he could drive in some big runs himself and not leave it to considerably less capable teammates.
All that said, I won’t argue if Bonds wins the MVP.
Oh, and I meant to add: David Ortiz? Please. There’s a term for him: role player. A very successful one. Not Most Valuable Player.
Last year, Boston went 93-69, finished second in the AL East to the Yankees, and won the wildcard. This year, they went 95-67, finished second in the AL East to the Yankees, and won the wildcard. Last year, they lost the division by 10.5 games, this year, they lost by 6. I know, their offense was way better this year (though every player had an excellent year, which can’t possibly be attributed to Ortiz alone). Have you heard anything about his defense? Of course not. He’s listed as a first baseman, and did OK in 45 games in the field, but he DH’ed almost twice as often (83 games), meaning he contributed essentially nothing in that category. If the MVP is the player who helps his team the most, well- if A-Rod’s helping his team win 9 more games isn’t enough, how can Ortiz win for helping his Sox win TWO more games?
In the AL… I share the popular prejudice against players on last-place teams winningnthe MVP award. I share it passionately. So, if there were anyone on a contender or playoff team with numbers comparable to A Rod’s, I’d happily pick him.
But there isn’t. So, since Alex Rodriguez is definitely the best player in the AL, and there’s no obviously better candidate on playoff teams (if The Blue Jays had managed a wild card, I’d have voted for Delgado, and if Nomar hadn’t done a disappearing act down the stretch, I’d have voted for him)… I have to overcome my prejudice, and go with the best player: A Rod.
I have already said exactly that. If someone else had numbers as good as Bonds, but played more games, he would be more valuable. But Thome’s numbers AREN’T as good. They’re inferior. As has already been very well explained, the difference in playing time basically amounts to Thome going 0-for-148. Even if Bonds was replaced for those games by the worst hitter in baseball, Bonds + Replacement is still more valuable than Thome. The only person who has a real argument there is Albert Pujols, who was certainly way better than Thome.
A lot of other points have been addressed by other posters.
Which is why I have never said that. I have said, very clearly, several times, that Bonds was more valuable in 129 games than Thome was in 161 (or however many he played, I think it was 161.)
Well, that’s terrific. So what? The fact remains that every analysis of offensive worth that has been done in the last twenty years says Bonds created more offense than Thome did. Singles may be more valuable than walks, but drawing 148 walks is still a huge contribution (and how this helps Thome, who draws a lot of walks and doesn’t hit a lot of singles, isn’t clear to me.)
This isn’t something I’m pulling out of my ass; the relationship between singles, walks, homers, stolen bases and everything else to the number of runs a team will score is quite predictable. If you do a runs created equation for all the team in the majors you will find that it uses their stats to predict their runs scored with remarkable accuracy. In the Giants’ case they “created” 772 runs while scoring 755, a small difference but not that much. Bonds’s portion of the Giants’ statistics, if you look at what he did, represents 164 runs of that - a huge total.
Now, it’s possible this method sucks ass, but the reason I like it is that it’s based on a system that is verified by the number of runs the team actually scored. I’d even go so far as to say we should knock Bonds’s total down to 160, to represent the fact that his team scored fewer runs than the formula says. As a matter of fact I’d insist on it. Players’ RC should, IMHO, always be adjusted to reflect the exact number of runs the team scored.
“Runs produced” is just an arbitrary mix of numbers that doesn’t work if you apply it to a team, and in fact rates a lot of teams as having more “runs produced” than teams that actually scored more runs. For instance, Cincinnati “produced” 1181 runs, which has nothing to do with the number of runs they actually scored (694) and is less than some teams that actually scored fewer runs.
So unless you can explain why a system of real analysis of the actual values of walks, singles, outs and all that stuff works really well when we examine teams and how many runs they actually score, but wouldn’t work for examining the contributions of each member of the team, I will assume it works pretty well, and that my estimate of Bonds creating 160 runs is a good one.
Thome, by the same system, “created” 132 runs - one hell of a year, but far from Bonds. Philadelphia as a team actually scored 791 runs and “created” 801, so again knocking him a little for his team scoring fewer than the formula predicts, I give him 130 runs created. Now, the Runs Created method works, and it works really well - it’s really accurate for estimating team runs scored. So why would we not assume it’s measuring individual accomplishments with reasonable accuracy? You might be able to convince me it’s overvaluing Bonds because the walks Bonds takes are uniquely unproductive, but even if we give him the entire 17-run penalty for the Giants not scoring 772 runs, he’s STILL above Thome. (The formula, by the way, does count intentional walks as being less valuable.) If it’s nailing the TOTAL that accurately, what about Bonds and his teammates makes his contribution less worthy than this formula says and makes their contribution better than the formula suggests it is?
And just for the hell of it, I asked myself, “What if he walked less or walked more?” Answer: Fewer walks means fewer runs. If I take away 50 walks and replace them with what he typically does when he does not walk - I took away 50 hits but gave him 17 more hits, including 6 homers and two doubles, a triple, a few more strikeouts, fewer IBB, one more GIDP, all that stuff - his runs created drops to 147. Those homers are a lot better than walks, but those 33 outs are a lot worse, too. There is absolutely no question that Bonds is more valuable if he walks than if he swings away. Again, if he wasn’t more valuable walking, they would never pitch to him. He would be IBB’d every time he went up.
Well, I was assuming that when we talked about the MVP Award we were talking about their entire offensive contribution, which includes scoring runs and stuff. When we discussing “Batters,” we’re generally talking about the whole package.
A batter’s “ultimate goal” is not just to drive in whoever’s on base. Look, I watched Joe Carter for years, and that’s all he ever tried to do, and the last few years he was in Toronto he drove in runs and he was the worst player in the American League because he killed so many rallies. He’d drive in runs, but most of the time he’d strike out or hit a weak grounder to the left side because he absolutely refused to just get on base and let the rest of the lineup hit. The 90-100 runs he drove in didn’t make up for the scores of runs he was costing his teammates by killing one rally after another. God, it was frustrating to watch the man hit. A player has to do what he can to help his team score runs - either by moving runners along or by making himself a runner, or by wearing out the pitcher or whatever.
I have already said exactly that. If someone else had numbers as good as Bonds, but played more games, he would be more valuable. But Thome’s numbers AREN’T as good. They’re inferior. As has already been very well explained, the difference in playing time basically amounts to Thome going 0-for-148. Even if Bonds was replaced for those games by the worst hitter in baseball, Bonds + Replacement is still more valuable than Thome. The only person who has a real argument there is Albert Pujols, who was certainly way better than Thome.
A lot of other points have been addressed by other posters.
Which is why I have never said that. I have said, very clearly, several times, that Bonds was more valuable in 129 games than Thome was in 159.
Well, that’s terrific. So what? The fact remains that every analysis of offensive worth that has been done in the last twenty years says Bonds created more offense than Thome did. Singles may be more valuable than walks, but drawing 148 walks is still a huge contribution (and how this helps Thome, who draws a lot of walks and doesn’t hit a lot of singles, isn’t clear to me.)
This isn’t something I’m pulling out of my ass; the relationship between singles, walks, homers, stolen bases and everything else to the number of runs a team will score is quite predictable. If you do a runs created equation for all the team in the majors you will find that it uses their stats to predict their runs scored with remarkable accuracy. In the Giants’ case they “created” 772 runs while scoring 755, a small difference but not that much. Bonds’s portion of the Giants’ statistics, if you look at what he did, represents 164 runs of that - a huge total.
Now, it’s possible this method sucks ass, but the reason I like it is that it’s based on a system that is verified by the number of runs the team actually scored. I’d even go so far as to say we should knock Bonds’s total down to 160, to represent the fact that his team scored fewer runs than the formula says. As a matter of fact I’d insist on it. Players’ RC should, IMHO, always be adjusted to reflect the exact number of runs the team scored.
“Runs produced” is just an arbitrary mix of numbers that doesn’t work if you apply it to a team, and in fact rates a lot of teams as having more “runs produced” than teams that actually scored more runs. For instance, Cincinnati “produced” 1181 runs, which has nothing to do with the number of runs they actually scored (694) and is less than some teams that actually scored fewer runs. The implication of runs produced is that if Team A scored 750 runs while hitting 100 homers and Team B scored 750 runs while hitting 160 homers, Team A somehow has a better offense because they “produced” more runs. But they can’t have a better offense, because they scored the same number of runs; that they did it with singles or doubles instead of homers doesn’t make it a better offense. Runs created attempts to add up how a team actually scored the number of runs they really did score.
So unless you can explain why a system of real analysis of the actual values of walks, singles, outs and all that stuff works really well when we examine teams and how many runs they actually score, but wouldn’t work for examining the contributions of each member of the team, I will assume it works pretty well, and that my estimate of Bonds creating 160 runs is a good one.
Thome, by the same system, “created” 132 runs - one hell of a year to be sure, but far from Bonds. Philadelphia as a team actually scored 791 runs and “created” 801, so again knocking him a little for his team scoring fewer than the formula predicts, I give him 130 runs created. Now, the Runs Created method works, and it works really well - it’s really accurate for estimating team runs scored. So why would we not assume it’s measuring individual accomplishments with reasonable accuracy? You might be able to convince me it’s overvaluing Bonds because the walks Bonds takes are uniquely unproductive, but even if we give him the entire 17-run penalty for the Giants not scoring 772 runs, he’s STILL above Thome. (The formula, by the way, does count intentional walks as being less valuable.) If it’s nailing the TOTAL that accurately, what about Bonds and his teammates makes his contribution less worthy than this formula says and makes their contribution better than the formula suggests it is?
And just for the hell of it, I asked myself, “What if he walked less or walked more?” Answer: Fewer walks means fewer runs. If I take away 50 walks and replace them with what he typically does when he does not walk - I took away 50 hits but gave him 17 more hits, including 6 homers and two doubles, a triple, a few more strikeouts, fewer IBB, one more GIDP, all that stuff - his runs created drops to 147. Those homers are a lot better than walks, but those 33 outs are a lot worse, too. There is absolutely no question that Bonds is more valuable if he walks than if he swings away. Again, if he wasn’t more valuable walking, they would never pitch to him. He would be IBB’d every time he went up.
Well, I was assuming that when we talked about the MVP Award we were talking about their entire offensive contribution, which includes scoring runs and stuff. When we discussing “Batters,” we’re generally talking about the whole package.
A batter’s “ultimate goal” is not just to drive in whoever’s on base. Look, I watched Joe Carter for years, and that’s all he ever tried to do, and the last few years he was in Toronto he drove in runs and he was the worst player in the American League because he killed so many rallies. He’d drive in runs, but most of the time he’d strike out or hit a weak grounder to the left side because he absolutely refused to just get on base and let the rest of the lineup hit. The 90-100 runs he drove in didn’t make up for the scores of runs he was costing his teammates by killing one rally after another. God, it was frustrating to watch the man hit. A player has to do what he can to help his team score runs - either by moving runners along or by making himself a runner, or by wearing out the pitcher or whatever.
I’m sorry I didn’t have time to get back to everyone last night or this morning, but things just didn’t work out.
RickJay, I know you know your stuff, and I don’t want to quibble with you. Don’t forget, we’re in IMHO, not GD. Even so, if Bonds wins the MVP, I won’t feel like someone else has been robbed. It’s not as if I feel he played poorly or even so-so. He had a great season, and it wouldn’t be unquestionable if he won the award again.
That said, I think I’ll turn French and surrender right now. I don’t think I can substantiate my argument any further. If he wins, that’s fine with me; I’m sure he’d be relieved to know that. If he doesn’t win, then I hope it goes to someone like Pujols or Thome.
I understand your point - Bonds did more in less time than the others did. Fair enough. And we know what he can do over a full season. Again, fair enough.