Well, to complete this quote, which either you or the AP chose not to do:
Barry, being interviewed after the Giants’ last game, said:
“This was a great, great way to end it with a victory and a home run. You can’t ask for anything better at this point”. The “at this point” is a rather important addition, there. Otherwise, I dunno, one might get the mistaken impression that Barry cared about personal achievement over winning…
Thanks for that, DynoSaur. Jack, I guess I can sum up by asking you one question: given that 1) baseball lineups are comprised of nine batters, 2) the prevention of runs (via pitching and fielding) plays a pretty darn important role in determining whether a team wins or loses, and 3) the unbalanced schedule increases the likelihood of a less-talented team making the postseason (the Giants had the fourth-best record in the NL, and the NL West–in which the Giants played the bulk of their games–was pretty clearly the strongest division in the league[sup]*[/sup]), what more do you think Barry Bonds should have done so that his team reached the postseason? Or are you really willing, at bottom, to evaluate the value of a player’s numbers based on factors out of their control?
[sub][sup]*[/sup]As a whole, teams from the NL West went 85-75 against teams from the NL East, and 114-84 against teams from the NL Central. That’s a .531 and .575 winning percentage, respectively. The NL East and NL Central played each other to a near stand-still, the Central going 91-89. It’s hardly a stretch to say that had the Giants been placed in the East or Central divisions, they would have easily advanced to the postseason.[/sub]
Here’s the quote.. Judge for yourself.
And one more quote, for those who worship statistics: “I was raised to be a team guy, and I am, but Barry’s Barry. it took me two years to learn to live with it, but I learned.”
Jeff Kent, quoted earlier in this thread.
Think being a team player might be one of those intangibles that puts a club in position to win when it most counts?
Think a team player in a postseason news conference might have stressed his disappointment at not making the playoffs and emphasized his determination to return next year and win it all? Not our guy - that might have put his agent in a bad bargaining position.
You have to feel sorry for the Giant baseball fans. If the team does break the bank to sign an aging slugger to a huge 5-year deal, what are they going to use to build the rest of the club? I think the Texas Rangers have already made that discovery. But hey, if your main goal is filling the park with “fans” who’ll shriek with delight when Barry jacks another one, who don’t care overmuch about winning, and who’ll buy lots of trinkets and beer, then it may be worthwhile. It seems to work for the Cubs.
Way to go, Barry! Woo-hoo!!
Jack, there’s a .wav file of the interview on the page you linked to. You can listen to it for yourself.
Of course, I don’t think it’ll matter at all, as you appear to have a Rick Reilly-sized grudge against Bonds.
It’s actually a fairly simple thing: nobody has ever done more to help his team win than Barry Bonds did this year. Bonds, by rough measures of offensive production is almost three times as productive as Kent. I really don’t know what Jeff Kent’s problem is, but he should be thanking whatever god he believes in nightly for getting to bat behind Bonds, instead of bitching about Barry’s recliner. Hell, it already got him one MVP award he didn’t deserve.
Also, I don’t seem to recall anyone on the Giants outside of Kent complaining. Hmm…perhaps Kent’s the problem…
You didn’t answer my question, Jack. What a shock. :rolleyes:
It’s answered, babe. Be a team player. Run hard to first on grounders. Be in a position to demand the same standards of your teammates. Intangibles. Capisce?
But I hold no grudges against Barry. He’s the all-time season home run leader, for at least a few more years. Even as we speak, I am updating the tasteful shrine erected to him in my living room. And memories of his great season are slowly erasing the memory of him dogging it in the outfield, blowing a routine play and being booed by the faithful.
It’s just taking awhile.
Not to mention the Sally League. :rolleyes:
So are you criticizing Bonds’s season because the Giants didn’t make the playoff, or because he doesn’t run out ground balls and isn’t, in your opinion, an all-round super nice guy? I’ll remind you that you started this thread by doing the former, and seem to have reverted to the latter as the foundation of your “Bonds didn’t have a good enough year to advance his team” argument has been kicked out from under you.
No one’s asking you to like the guy. But you could try evaluating his accomplishments with an unjaundiced eye.
That’s unwarranted snidery, I think. (Not that I’ve come to expect any less from you, sweetcheeks.) The fact is that Bonds could not have possibly been expected to do any more to help his team win this year–it’s relevant, then, to combat your sniping about the Giants’ lack of a postseason with the observation that it was partly out of their control. Do you really not understand why it matters that the Giants had the fourth-best record in the league, despite playing the preponderance of their games within a division that was by far the NL’s toughest?
Oh, I forgot–you’re over there busy voting for Ron Swoboda.
I promised a reply, and by God here it is.
This is correct. That is, in fact, the justification that is often given to the bias toward winning teams in MVP consideration. Now, given your penchant to argue corrections for every factor not entirely under a player’s control, I am surprised to find you arguing this side.**
[/QUOTE]
You shouldn’t be. If we want to know a player’s value we have to adjust for context, but if we’re trying to understand a single player’s individual value, it’s pointless to PENALIZE him for having crappy teammates.
After all, we’re talking about MVP Awards here. The MVP Award is an individual award; the “Winning team” argument has never made sense to me because if we’re judging individuals we should be judging individuals. The reward for being on a winning team is winning a championship, not winning an award given for individual value. MVP Awards exist outside the success or failure of the team, so they should be evaluated that way. Since it’s entirely possible for an individual player on an inferior team to have produced more wins than a player on a superior team, that player can be said to have been “more valuable,” by himself, than the player on the winning team. It’s an individual award, a creation of sportswriters; there’s no point in conflicting it with team awards. If you don’t think players have value independent of team success, there’s some validity to that argument, but then you shouldn’t be handing out MVP Awards. You can take jackmanni’s silly “Swoboda Argument” and heave it in the trash; if all that matters is team success, why woul you bother discussing individual value? But if you want to discuss individual value, why penalize a player for playing on a team with crappy pitchers?
Is Luis Gonzalez a better player than Barry Bonds because Gonzalez happens to play in the same team as Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling? You can use the Swoboda Argument to say he had a “Better year” in the sense that his team won - and I’m sure Barry bonds would agree with you - but that’s not a meaningful way to figure out his individual value.
Indeed it is. However, to understand why it’s true, I must again return to something that’s been said several times; a player contributes to the scoring of runs in ways that do not appear in the player’s “Runs” and “RBI” columns. We’ve already established two categories of such contributions: base advancement (e.g. Aurilia walks, Bonds singles Aurlia to third, Kent hits a sacrifice fly; Bonds contributed to a run but got no RBI or run) and out avoidance (Bonds walks a lot and doesn’t get out much, thereby giving his teammates more outs to work with.)
Bill James - I didn’t want to cite the old bastard but here I am doing it - ran about fifty zillion computer models inserting different players into lineups and seeing how many runs their teams scored over hundreds of simulations. It was in one of the old Baseball Abstracts - 1986 I think, but I’'ll look it up. Anyway, what he found was very interesting; if you inserted Player X into a lineup in place of Player Y, the change in the number of runs the team scored was usually different from the difference between X’s and Y’s runs and RBI. This was especially strong when he inserted players with high on base percentages; they seemed to boost team offense more than their own RBIs and runs scored would have you believe. Their TEAMMATES got more runs and RBI. His explanation, which the runs created formulas (more or less) explain, what basically what’s been said in this thread - players help their teams score runs without getting credit for runs and RBI, through interim advancement and out avoidance.
If you judge a player solely by runs and RBI, you’re not only missing the boat on the player’s marginal value, but you’re missing the boat on the simple fact that a player’s job is to help his TEAM score runs, not to score runs and rack up RBI himself. If you help your team score a run you don’t get an RBI or a run for, there’s value in that. If you help your team score X runs while using fewer outs than a player who also helped score X runs, you’re more valuable than he is (unless you can say with a straight face that 2 homers in a game is as valuable as 2 homers in a year.) OPS is, generally speaking, much more closely aligned with the number of runs you actually help to produce because it’s more proportional to ALL offensive contributions.
(Shrug) Whatever terminology floats your boat.
By all means.
I used the traditionally accepted runs created formula to figure out how many runs they’d created. That formula can be found here. This isn’t just an arbitrary mess of numbers; a thousand guys have worked over and over with these formulas to ensure they’re as close to reality as possible by comparing “runs created” for teams with actual runs scored. I’d get into the history of the formula and an explanation but it’s long and boring and I won’t do it unless you ask.
Normally I would then have adjusted these figures for defensive position and park effect, but right and left fielders and Pac Bell and Wrigley aren’t sufficiently different to bother. If Sosa was a shortstop in Shea you’d have to account for that, I guess.
I guesstimated - I admitted it was rough - how many runs another player would have created given the same number of outs, subtracted that from their runs created, and voila. A quickie estimate of their value.
Runs created tends to slightly overrate extremely good hitters (e.g. Bonds and Sosa) and slightly underrate extremely bad ones (e.g. Rey Ordonez) but it’s pretty bang on. If you wanted some really statheadish stats you could get into VORP and stuff but I don’t understand them so the hell with it; VORP rates Bonds as 154 runs better than a replacement level player, which is pretty much in line with my guess. (As a side note, VORP rated Randy Johnson as the best pitcher in baseball, with Curt Schilling a close second. On the same team. Yipes!)
“This is the time of year when you make a name for yourself in sports.” “We haven’t gotten anywhere yet.”
Curt Schilling, Arizona Diamondbacks
Curt Schilling is well aware of what some of you are unable/unwilling to grasp - achievements in the postseason are more significant for both real fans and players than inflated regular season statistics. A great catch or a key hit (gasp, maybe even a single) by even a marginal player may ultimately mean more than all of Sammy Sosa’s hops, skips and jumps.
Bagwell and Biggio have been great for Houston and helped their team to Central Division success, but until they perform in the playoffs, they’ve been a disappointment on a key level.
The lack of response to my bringing up Yaz’s '67 season is surprising. It’s something I would expect from Gadarene, who habitually seizes only on the point in an opposing post with which he feels he can cope, while ignoring the rest (and then whining about his own scintillating arguments supposedly being short-changed). But there’s got to be someone who recognizes the value of winning the Triple Crown and taking your team to a higher level.
This may well be true[sup]*[/sup]…but nobody’s arguing the point, and it’s got squat to do with the topic of this thread. Unless you can make the case that the Giants’ inability to reach the postseason reflects a diminished value of Bonds’s contribution–which, to repeat, is measurably greater than any other player in the history of the game, “inflated” statistics or not–then kindly shove off and take your mealy-mouthed pablum about the true meaning of baseball elsewhere. Thanks ever so.
And remind me again what Carl Yastrzemski’s triple crown in 1967–a tremendous achievement, by the way–has to do with the price of beer in Fenway? If it’s his postseason achievement you’re trumpeting, I direct you again to Banks comma Ernie. Wanna tell me he’s not a Hall of Famer cos he never made the playoffs? Or, better yet, you can actually answer the question I posed before: baseball’s a team game; what the hell else could Bonds have done this year to help his team win? Are you sure you want to stake out an argument resting on Yaz’s preference for a pennant over a triple crown? 'Cause I tell ya, I distinctly remember Bonds saying he’d rather make the playoffs this year than win the home run title…
It’s called context. Learn it. Live it. Love it.
[sub][sup]*[/sup]sans the condescension, that is. “Real” fans? Puh-leeze.[/sub]
I’m sorry, Jackmanni, but perhaps you have accidentally replied to the wrong thread. Nobody here is suggesting that postseasons achievement is unimportant, or is not more or less implortant than anything else.
However, if we are discussing the REGULAR season and MVP Awards, which are handed out for regular season achievement, then we’re discussing the regular season. If you want to discuss great postseason performances, why don’t you start a thread? I thought it was pretty obvious that we were discussing whta player had put up the most impressive regular season, but maybe you were not clear on that. Start a thread on postseason performances. I’d love to talk about World Series heroics.
Having said that, your claim that “real fans” (BTW: I’m as real a fan as anyone who has ever lived, so you can drop that silliness right now) value postseason achievements more than regular season achievements is demonstrably false:
Every baseball fan knows whose record Barry Bonds broke, and most know whose record Mark McGwire broke. Now, what is the record for home runs in a World Series, LCS, and division series, and who holds them?
Every baseball fan knows that the record for career home runs - all regular season - is 755, by Henry Aaron. How many baseball fans know who holds the record for career World Series homers, or career postseason homers? I bet it’s less than a third of those who know about Hank’s 755.
Most baseball fans know that Rickey Henderson holds the record for stolen bases in a season; he stole 130 in 1982. Who holds the record for stolen bases in a World Series, and how many fans know that?
How many baseball fans know than Ivan Rodriguez won an MVP Award, and how many know that Pat Borders won a World Series MVP Award?
I think you’ll find that regular season accomplishments are, for individuals, far more celebrated by ALL fans than individual postseason accomplishments. How many people think Devon White is a better player than Ted Williams? White played better in the postseason. How many people think Mickey Hatcher was a better player than Willie Mays? How many people think Bucky Dent was a better player than Ty Cobb? Come on; even you don’t believe “real fans” value postseason achievements more, when they’re comparing individuals. Postseason achievements are largely ccelebrated for their TEAM meaning - as a Blue Jays fan, I treasure the 1992 and 1993 championship more than anything, more than Pat Hentgen’s Cy Young Award or George Bell’s MVP. But I sure as hell don’t think Pat Borders was a better player than Mike Piazza.
Carl Yastrzemski is one of the most celebrated players of his time and his 1967 season is widely regarded as being a brilliant campaign, at least in my eyes. Of course, Carl Yastrzemski never won the World Series, did he? His season certainly does not compare, by your standards, with Frank Robinson, who just the year before won the Triple Crown AND won the World Series, or Mickey Mantle in 1956 who also did both, or many other stars who had huge seasons and won the Series, like Mike Schmidt, Willie Stargell, Ron Guidry, Joe Morgan, etc. Funny that you’d cite a guy who never won it all, and in fact didn’t even win many consolation prizes.
Setting the number-crunching aside, isn’t the way to answer the OP really to look at how dominant Bonds has been this year, vs. how dominant other performances have been? Yes, comparisons between eras are dubious, but not comparisons within eras.
Yes, 73 HR’s is a big number, but it’s come in an era of big HR numbers. There are a number of other batters in the 50’s and 60’s, including several who will be lucky to ever get a single Hall of Fame vote, and 73 isn’t that much bigger a number than theirs. His slugging percentage and OPS are high, but they’re in an era of high numbers, too. And how can one compare dead-ball-era hitters fairly?
So has Bonds been a better offensive weapon than the rest of MLB this year by a greater margin than anyone else ever has? Look at Babe Ruth in 1927 for one possible answer.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by RickJay *
**
Thanks for bringing up some other great players whose achievements are certainly deserving of recognition.
But I think that by posing all those questions about cumulative Series records, you’re again focusing on raw statistical numbers to the detriment of great and meaningful individual moments. Here’s a question for you: which of Barry Bonds’ home runs this season were as electrifying and memorable as Carlton Fisk’s game 6-winning home run in 1975?
Even as an inveterate Sox-hater, you know the answer to that one.
I originally responded in this discussion because the cloying obsession with home runs in this era of bloated offense gets to be nauseating. Now the playoffs have started and there’s real baseball to see. Feel free to resume dueling statistics and home run hero-worship, with your emcee Gadarene madly clutching his Big Golden Book of Baseball Facts and his autographed Barry Bonds Bobble-Head Doll.
And to show there’s no hard feelings - if the Giants empty their vaults to resign Bonds and the team makes the playoffs next year, I’ll treat him to some barbecue (don’t nevermind if it turns a little green in the mail, that’s just the sauce developing character). 
Better yet, look at Ruth in 1920 and 1921; those were by far his best seasons compared to the rest of the league. And the answer to your question, by the way, is yes–Bonds has probably been a better offensive weapon by a greater margin than anyone else in one season. Let me quote from Baseball Prospectus:
Yes, equivalent average and value over replacement player (which RickJay alluded to earlier) are stathead terms. This is because you can’t answer the question you asked, Elvis, without crunching some numbers.
Jackmanii, please point out where the OP or any of my subsequent posts evinces a “cloying obsession with home runs,” wouldja? I’m far more impressed with Bonds’s slugging percentage, walks, and OPS achievements than I am with the 73 homers. But then, you wouldn’t care about those things–you’re a real fan. And Francisco Cabrera is three times the player Bonds will ever be, anyway.
Since it’s a shame to waste a perfectly good unused sig…
None. But what does that have to do with who has the greatest regular season performance? Geez, is it that hard to stay on topic? If you want to start a Memorable Home Runs and Baseball Moments thread, fod God’s sake START IT. I’ll contribute.
I don’t understand this bizarre reflexive “You’re Not A Real Fan Because You Like Talking About Statistics” crap. Is it necessary to throw a hissy fit EVERY TIME a couple of baseball fans want to yak sabermetrics? Now, I thought it was really, really clear that we were discussing who had the best regular season. That was certainly my understanding. Going back over the thread, I don’t know how anyone could possibly think otherwise. The postseason is not part of the regular season. That’s why it’s called the POSTseason. If we’re discussing the regular season, POSTseason achievements lie outside the discussion. Start a thread on “Who had the best World Series ever?” if you want to discuss that.
(It’d be a really interesting discussion, actually. I’d pick Christy Mathewson in 1905; three shutouts in a five-game series, plus 2-for-8 with a walk.)
Elvis:
You’re right in that Bonds’s 73 HR isn’t as impressive, in context, as Ruth’s incredible home run totals. When a guy likes Luis Gonzalez hits 57 home runs and he finishes THIRD in the league in homers, it’s impossible to dismiss the fact that they’re flying out of the park like never before. Sammy sosa has now hit more than 60 homers three times… and he didn’t lead the league any of those years.
But if you look at Bonds’s overall numbers, yes, he is right there with Ruth for the best season ever. It’s not just the homers, it’s the astonishing ability to reach base and the batting average, doubles and triples, etc.
As to comparing him to the dead ball hitters, I think it’s pretty simple; you should compare them, in any era, by how they compared to their contemporaries. Even with very few homers, guys like Cobb, Wagner and Speaker had eye-popping numbers. Just compare them to everyone else and they stand out like sore thumbs.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by RickJay *
**
The stated topic was “Is Barry Bonds Having The Greatest Offensive Season Ever?”
It shouldn’t have been that controversial to point out that the season doesn’t end October 1st (or in this case, Oct. 7th).
And I don’t recall saying that you were not a real fan (or an unreal fan for that matter). You have refrained from gloating here about the late season Red Sox collapse, which I’ll choose to view as a classy upturn from your bizarre early season anti-Sox rant.
Sabermetrics? Is that the study of the distance a Bret Saberhagen fastball travels before it clears the left field wall at Fenway?
Actually, the season does end October 7[sup]th[/sup]. As RickJay pointed out, that why they call it the postseason.
…See, post- means “after” in Latin. Hope that helps.
Here is an interesting tidbit
http://msn.espn.go.com/mlb/news/2001/1009/1261736.html
Apparently the man who caught Bonds 73rd homerun had it taken from him in the scrum that followed. I don’t know how the man who now has the ball ended up with it (did he snatch it or did he end up with it after some other folks knocked it away). My opinoion, however, is that the ball rightfully belongs to the guy who caught it. He had it and then he was basically mugged by a mob for the ball. When is that ok?