I'm very surprised they didn't give the World Series MVP award to BARRY BONDS, instead of the preternaturally gorgeous TROY GLAUS.

I can't stand Bonds, but it's hard to argue against the fact that he had the best INDIVIDUAL World Series. Much as I want to. I don't think his outfield bobbles, costly in Game Six, less so in Game Seven, were the reasons for denying him.

There's no rule that the MVP has to come from the winning team. They've given it to players from the losing team before, on very rare occasions: Bobby Richardson for the 1960 Yankees (losers to the Pirates on the famous Bill Mazeroski home run: one of the legitimately great baseball moments). And Fred Lynn won an ALCS MVP (1982, I think) for the California Angels when one of those Gene Mauch Angels teams did in the ALCS what Gene Mauch teams always did in the most critical moments.

By the way, I'm thinking that if you could read the thought bubble above Bonds's head after Game Seven, it would've read something like this:
"Damn shame we lost the Series. On the other hand, I'm never having to take the field with Jeff Kent again. So it's not a total loss."

Joe Buck was campaigning shamelessly for Bonds to get the MVP. After it was given to Glaus, he did say Glaus deserved it, although he didn't sound thrilled.

The award is called the "Most VALUABLE Player" award. There is no value in losing. If the award was called "Player of the Series" (POTS, kinda has a nice ring to it...), then Bonds would be a lock. But it's not, so let's stop rewarding losers, please.

Thank you.

The two best offensive performances in WS history, via Jayson Stark's column at espn.com:


Bonds, 2002, seven games: 8 for 17 (.471), 4 HR, 6 RBIs, 8 runs, 13 BB, .700 OBP, 1.294 SLUG, 1.924 OPS

Gehrig, 1928, four games: 6 for 11, 4 HR (.545), 9 RBIs, 5 runs, 6 BB, .706 OBP, 1.727 SLUG, 2.427 OPS.

Yeah, that Bonds... what a loser...

I don't really like awarding MVP's to losing teams during the regular season, but I think it's even more of a mistake to award it in a 7 game series. Seems like the MVP of the world championship series should play for the world champions.

My vote was for Bonds. Without him, the Giants get swept. Glaus was awesome but the Angels had a lot of bats working and may have won the Series without him. Bonds was not only consistent, he was the catalyst for virtually every win by his walks and hitting. He hit the solo shot in Game 2 in the 9th to get them within one. He drove in the first run in the Game 5 blowout. He hit a homer in Game 6 to help put them up 5-0 in Game 6. He drew first blood in the series with a solo shot in Game 1. He was clearly the MVP of a very exciting Series.

The idea that Bonds should have been given the WS MVP playing for the losing squad is ridiculous. Would you give him the Cy Young award even if he's not a pitcher? To me, those two statements are in the same vein.

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:
The two best offensive performances in WS history, via Jayson Stark's column at espn.com:


Bonds, 2002, seven games: 8 for 17 (.471), 4 HR, 6 RBIs, 8 runs, 13 BB, .700 OBP, 1.294 SLUG, 1.924 OPS

Gehrig, 1928, four games: 6 for 11, 4 HR (.545), 9 RBIs, 5 runs, 6 BB, .706 OBP, 1.727 SLUG, 2.427 OPS.

Yeah, that Bonds... what a loser...

---

There's one big difference being overlooked here. Gehrig and his Yankees won. Bonds and his Giants did not. Though Bonds' offensive performance in the Series was dominating, I don't think that the Series MVP should be given to someone who only helped his team stave off defeat a couple more games in a futile cause. Glaus was in the middle of the Angels' most important rallies of the season, and richly deserves the Series MVP for helping his team win. Allow me to propose a Most Outstanding Player award for the Series, maybe for the regular season, too. This way, a player for the losing team who had a great series or season is not overlooked come award time.

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: cubsfan1982 ]

Who wins award for most Chew shoved in lower cheek: Glaus or Erstad ??

I think cubsfan has the right idea. To me, this pretty much comes down to semantics. Most Outstanding Player -- would probably have to be Bonds. Amazing hitter who can't be bothered to run the bases since he knows every pitch he hits is going over the wall. If I were him, I'd be frustrated that nobody was pitching to me too, since it seems that's all he can do any longer. The man is an outstanding talent. Most VALUABLE Player -- hmmmm, ain't Bonds as far as I can see. Can't be bothered to hang with the team, spends the hours before the game in seclusion with his private staff, doesn't even show up at the post-season rally as a matter of simple courtesy to the fans. Valuable to no one but himself. I do theatre & have seen plenty of productions where the star is out there doing everything technically perfectly, but is just out there struttin' his stuff & obviously doesn't really give a big rat's ass about the show as a whole. And it leaves everybody else who's onstage busting their butts out to dry, destroying the "ensemble" feel that truly exciting theatre elicits. And while it can be a thrill seeing somebody who really knows what they're doing hit all the marks, give me the full package any day. Best thing that could happen to the Giants right now? Bonds gets shipped off to someplace in the middle of nowhere to continue putting on his little one-man show & the Giants get back to the business of building a TEAM rather than coddling a diva. Most VALUABLE? Bah, humbug.

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: patterson ]

I guarantee you that Barryless Giants TEAM you'd love so much wouldn't sniff the playoffs for years. When the "one-man show" is the greatest player since Babe Ruth, he wins you games.

[quote]Originally posted by patterson:
Bonds... Amazing hitter who can't be bothered to run the bases... Can't be bothered to hang with the team...

---

The first point is something I didn't witness during the postseason (and neither did you) unless the ball was *clearly* outta the yard. The second point is, of course, utterly irrelevant to competitive success. (And Hero to MasterCard Users Cal "Alone in My Suite" Ripken didn't "hang" either...)

Try to think independently of pandering tabloid sportswriters.

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Bill W ]

Gee, Bill, exactly how many playoffs have they been sniffing with him?

BillW, while you're reminding Patterson not to be sucked in by "pandering tabloid writers", how about not repeating the lie promulgated by same that Bonds is the greatest player since Babe Ruth? That person is someone that Bonds looks up to: Willie Mays. Everything Bonds can do, Willie did better AND he did it in the hitters graveyard known as the Pre-Enclosure Candlestick for a good portion of his career. If he'd stayed at the Polo Grounds or played in a place like Wrigley, he'd have obliterated Ruth's HR record.

All IMHO, natch.

[quote] the lie promulgated by same that Bonds is the greatest player since Babe Ruth?

---

Uh, Jim...this can't really be called a lie. You can disagree (personally I'd pick Ted Williams and--over his whole career--Willie Mays), but it's not a claim you can really falsify. It is quite feasible to argue that his past two seasons are superior to any season of Mays. Saying that Bonds didn't bother to run the bases is just not true. He hit a TRIPLE earlier in the series for God's sake.

Jim A, Pac Bell plays like a pitchers' park too, if you check the stats. And while I revere Willie Mays, he was just a good aging player at 37 and 38, not having historically great years like B.B.

[quote]Originally posted by patterson:
exactly how many playoffs have they been sniffing with him?

---

You mean '97, 2000 and a flag this year? More than many other teams have, like the Cubs with Sosa for starters.

[quote]Uh, Jim...this can't really be called a lie. You can disagree (personally I'd pick Ted Williams and--over his whole career--Willie Mays), but it's not a claim you can really falsify

---

You're correct. "Lie" was a very poor choice of words. Mea culpa! But I stick by my basic thesis: Mays could play circles around Bonds. Players last longer now because of diet, working out and so on so it's not really fair to compare Mays' late years with Bonds'. Remember that by the time Mays retired, lifting weights was still frowned up in the game because "it reduces flexibility", for example. IMO, Mays did everything Bonds did (hit for power, hit for average and steal bases) but he has the added bonus of being one of the great center fielders of all time, a far tougher position to play than left field (which is a position that traditionally goes to the poorest fielding outfielder, see: Chuck Knoblauch). We can bat stats back and forth and while that might be the ultimate arbiter, I'm doing this based on just general impressions. That's really scientific, isn't it?

And I've seen it twice with my own eyes: Bonds not running out a hit. Twice I've seen him hit shots where he stood there and posed like an idiot, only to have the ball land at the base of the wall. D'oh! He actually had to break a sweat to even get doubles out of them. If he was more worried about playing hard rather than looking good on SportsCenter, it wouldn't have been a problem.

BillW, you're probably right about Pac Bell being a pitchers park (that canyon in right center is deadly) but for a dead pull hitter like Bonds, that 307 ft. right field line must look pretty inviting. And, of course, there's nothing like the winds blowing like they did at The Stick before it was enclosed.

Ah, yeah, '97 & 2000, in which they got shut down both times in the first round of the playoffs.

Changing your point after it's refuted ... there's a strategy.

The original point is that if you were the GM, jettisoning an all-time great at his peak, the Giants would lose 120 games and Pac Bell would sink into China Basin.

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Bill W ]

Hmmmm....I don't think that Pac Bell is doing so well solely because of the Barry Factor. The fans don't freeze their asses off like they did at The Stick in June, so that alone makes attendance go up. A good team will always draw fans there; whether Bonds is integral to that good team is debateable. He may be a major run producer for their team, but if they really ARE so reliant on him, that says to me that the rest of the team isn't that good and they need to rebuild, with or without Dusty.

I mean, their LF, CF and C aren't long for their careers, the 2B is leaving, the 1B, SS and 3B are good mid-level players at best and the RF slot has been a revolving door. They have some good pitching but they need more. It might be in the Giant's best interests to unload Bonds and his salary and start rebuilding. Do they have any farm system prospects that are ready to play every day? The Angels, for example, have a core group of players that are in the 27-31 year old range and are signed to long-term deals (most through 2004, at least); they need to plug a few holes (middle relief, another 12-8 type starter) but they have another 2-4 years left with this group of players. I sense the Giants are in a rebulding phase with their core group of players, so the Giant's management--whoever the GM is going to be next year--have some tough decisions to make.

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

Jim, I checked the numbers on Barry's HRs. He hit only 21 of his 52 home runs at Pac-Bell stadium. Of those 21, only 10 were to right field, so he is NOT taking advantage of the short porch on the right field line to a significant degree. Actually, going by the yearly ballpark factors at www.baseballreference.com , Pac-Bell is a worse hitters park than Candlestick ever was. Of course, that is comparing it to other NL parks, which now include Coors Stadium and Enron. Still, Pac-Bell is rated as bad a hitters park as Dodger Stadium, whereas the stick in Mays' day was not. Bad home run parks are not always bad hitters parks overall and vice-versa--sometimes these big parks can produce a lot of doubles and triples.

Mays did have greater defensive value, of course, and you can certainly make the argument that it was more difficult to hit well during his time (higher mound, bigger parks in the league as a whole, no Coors field). But to be fair, Barry was an excellent defensive outfielder in his youth (actually coming up as a center fielder). He was almost certainly better defensively than Babe Ruth. Do modern players last longer? I haven't done an analysis, but Ted Williams had a phenomenal season at 38. Ruth had a great season at 36.

On the other hand, Bill W's estimate of the Giants losing 120 games without him is silly. Even if he were replaced by a player who struck out every at bat, there's no way the Giants would lose 53 more games without him--he ain't worth 500 runs. My guess is minus Barry and with a mediocre replacement, they'd be a .500 team still. I don't think a .500 team would draw as many fans. And yep, the Giants are old and may need to clean house, but with Bonds still so extraordinary, he may still be around in five years...my guess is he'll still be useful as a DH at 45 if not beyond. It's hard to know how much he would draw as trade bait. Maybe as a pennant emergency trade you might get something good, but otherwise, I'm not convinced they'd get good value.

Naw, no point change. I asked how many playoffs, you replied two (of which I was well aware). Two in which they were eliminated almost before they'd had a chance to inhale. I thought having the greatest player since Babe Ruth was supposed to WIN you games.

And I still stand by MY original point that the Giants would be far better off takin' Bonds salary and using it to purchase a little more depth and balance on their TEAM rather than depending on a one-trick pony to do all their heavy lifting for them. Either that or they could use his salary to outfit PacBell with pontoons to help keep it afloat once he's departed.

more fuel for the fire - there's an interesting article by murray chass in today's ny times about bonds' domination of the series. unfortunately, i'm technology challenged and can't figure out how to link it.

No prob... This one? It Turned Out Starters Were Real Wild Cards

The 120-loss forecast was not based on removing Bonds alone, but on patterson using "up is down logic" to remake a team...

[quote]Originally posted by patterson:
I asked how many playoffs, you replied two (of which I was well aware). Two in which they were eliminated almost before they'd had a chance to inhale. I thought having the greatest player since Babe Ruth was supposed to WIN you games.
.

---

The question was "sniffing playoffs." Qualifying is better than sniffing. Shall we keep Greg Maddux out of the HOF because of Atlanta's rapid playoff exits?

A great player like Ruth, Bonds or Jeff Bagwell wins you games OVER A FULL SEASON. Whether his contributions win them in a short series (ie, a smaller sample size, to get sabermetric) depends on a greater variety of factors, including the increased role of luck.