F Barry Bonds
David L. Pollacci
In article <333071...@clam.rutgers.edu>, Eagleton Institute
<dav...@clam.rutgers.edu> wrote:
I'd rather lose 100 games with a bunch of
>kids who play their heart out rather than watch a piece-of-feces
>primadonna like Bonds play all summer.
Amen, brother!
--
**************************************
David L. Pollacci
poll...@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~pollacci/davesworld.html/
"When the student is ready...the teacher appears!"
**************************************
Eagleton Institute
I was recently reminded of how big a douche Mr. April-through-September,
Barry Bonds, was when he was here in Pittsburgh.
One of these sports-bloopers tapes was showing Mickey Morandini's
unassisted triple play against the Bucs, a couple years back.
If you recall, Leyland put on a hit-and run with Bonds on first, Bell on
second and Jeff King at the plate. King hit a line-drive to Morandini,
who caught the ball, stepped on second base (thus retiring Bell) but then
low and behold, Barry Bonds was doing his best George Hendricks
imitation, just frigging standing there waiting to be tagged by
Morandini.
I ask you, would Jason Kendall do such a thing? Mark Johnson? Jermaine
Allensworh? My point is that I'd rather lose 100 games with a bunch of
kids who play their heart out rather than watch a piece-of-feces
primadonna like Bonds play all summer.
Boy, I feel better now.
Brian D. Bigelow
Eagleton Institute wrote:
> If you recall, Leyland put on a hit-and run with Bonds on first, Bell on
> second and Jeff King at the plate. King hit a line-drive to Morandini,
> who caught the ball, stepped on second base (thus retiring Bell) but then
> low and behold, Barry Bonds was doing his best George Hendricks
> imitation, just frigging standing there waiting to be tagged by
> Morandini.
>
> I ask you, would Jason Kendall do such a thing? Mark Johnson? Jermaine
> Allensworh?
Perhaps not. They're also unlikely to get on base 45 percent of
the time, as Bonds does, or slug in the mid-.600s for entire
seasons, as Bonds does. But hey...getting tagged out on a fluke
triple play outweighs this any day of the week, right? Never mind
that Bonds is probably one of the dozen or so best players in the
game's history...
My point is that I'd rather lose 100 games with a bunch of
> kids who play their heart out
Glad you're so easily satisfied. I'll take the people who can
actually play baseball, thanks.
> rather than watch a piece-of-feces
> primadonna like Bonds play all summer.
If you think Bonds is a prima donna, you're just not paying attention.
In any event, you're placing an unnecessary amount of weight on a
few boneheaded plays, and ignoring Bonds' (phenomenal) total production.
> Boy, I feel better now.
Unsurprising, since ignorance is bliss.
--BDB
CptLoomis
I've been a Pirates fan all my life... just like many of these people.
All hail ignorance! I'm going to like this team this year.
Bonds is an idiot... a talented idiot, but an idiot nonetheless.
LET'S GO BUCS!
Jackie in Greensburg.
Albert Yang
Donna B Badger (db...@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:
: Excerpts from netnews.alt.sports.baseball.pitt-pirates: 20-Mar-97 Re: F
: Barry Bonds by "Brian D. Bigelow"@pitt.
: > Perhaps not. They're also unlikely to get on base 45 percent of
: > the time, as Bonds does, or slug in the mid-.600s for entire
: > seasons, as Bonds does. But hey...getting tagged out on a fluke
: > triple play outweighs this any day of the week, right? Never mind
: > that Bonds is probably one of the dozen or so best players in the
: > game's history...
:
: Bonds had a .191 average, with one home run and three RBIs in 68 at-bats
: in the playoffs. So how could he be one of the best players with his
: playoff performances such as that.
:
Bonds didn't hit well in the playoffs, but that has nothing to do with
how great a player he is; 68 AB out of approximately 5500 AB in his
career mean absolutely nothing.
--
Albert Yang | "I'm not just a DH. I'm headed to the
apy...@ucdavis.edu | Hall of Fame." -- Ruben Sierra, 3/97
http://dcn.davis.ca.us/~albert/ | "I'm not an idiot." -- Brian Sabean
Gregory D. May
Albert Yang wrote:
> 68 AB out of approximately 5500 AB in his career mean absolutely >nothing.
They don't? I guess the tickets to all the 92 World Series games that
didn't happen in Pittsburgh that I had in my hand as Carbrera got his
hit didn't mean anything either. I always thought that winning
championships meant something. I always thought that championship teams
had champions on them.
Bonds may have tore it up in the regular season and made a lot of bad
pitchers look real bad. But when games started to really mean
something, i.e. championship games, which by the way usually have good
pitchers pitching in them, he simply did not produce.
Then he left town.
And he still hasn't produced.
He may have been an MVP (which is given to the regular season's best
player), but he has never been a champion. I'll take the latter
anytime.
Donna B Badger
Excerpts from netnews.alt.sports.baseball.pitt-pirates: 20-Mar-97 Re: F
Barry Bonds by "Brian D. Bigelow"@pitt.
> Perhaps not. They're also unlikely to get on base 45 percent of
> the time, as Bonds does, or slug in the mid-.600s for entire
> seasons, as Bonds does. But hey...getting tagged out on a fluke
> triple play outweighs this any day of the week, right? Never mind
> that Bonds is probably one of the dozen or so best players in the
> game's history...
>
Bonds had a .191 average, with one home run and three RBIs in 68 at-bats
in the playoffs. So how could he be one of the best players with his
playoff performances such as that.
Sean Lynch
Albert Yang
Gregory D. May (g....@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Albert Yang wrote:
:
:
: > 68 AB out of approximately 5500 AB in his career mean absolutely >nothing.
:
: They don't? I guess the tickets to all the 92 World Series games that
: didn't happen in Pittsburgh that I had in my hand as Carbrera got his
: hit didn't mean anything either. I always thought that winning
: championships meant something. I always thought that championship teams
: had champions on them.
Many great players have had dismal postseasons. For example, Ted Williams
hit .200 in his only WS appearance. Does that take anything away from
his reputation? NO!
:
: Bonds may have tore it up in the regular season and made a lot of bad
: pitchers look real bad. But when games started to really mean
: something, i.e. championship games, which by the way usually have good
: pitchers pitching in them, he simply did not produce.
Bonds made good pitchers look bad, as well. As I said before, while
it is true that Bonds didn't hit too well in the postseason, it does
nothing to detract from his career.
And as for the games that "Really mean something", the Pirates may
very well not have even gotten to the playoffs.
:
: Then he left town.
So what?
:
: And he still hasn't produced.
Oh yes he has. It's not his fault the Giants have sucked (except for
'93).
:
: He may have been an MVP (which is given to the regular season's best
: player), but he has never been a champion. I'll take the latter
: anytime.
Then fortunately you aren't the GM of any baseball team.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Yang | "I'm not just a DH. I'm headed to the
apy...@ucdavis.edu | Hall of Fame." -- Ruben Sierra, 3/97
http://dcn.davis.ca.us/~albert/ | "I'm not an idiot." -- Brian Sabean
| "There has never been a valid way to
| evaluate range statistically."
| --Peter Gammons, 3/23/97
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory D. May
Albert Yang wrote:
>
> Many great players have had dismal postseasons. For example, Ted Williams
> hit .200 in his only WS appearance. Does that take anything away from
> his reputation? NO!
At least he made it to the World Series. Not only that, but if Bonds
would have hit at least .200 in a couple of those series we probably
wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Barry Bonds isn't worthy of holding Ted Williams jock strap. At least
not yet.
> Bonds made good pitchers look bad, as well. As I said before, while
> it is true that Bonds didn't hit too well in the postseason, it does
> nothing to detract from his career.
>
He sure made the Reds and Braves pitchers look good though. And that's
what people are going to remember the most. Maybe you love the guy and
so it doesn't detract from his career in your opinion, but you are
clearly in the minority.
> And as for the games that "Really mean something", the Pirates may
> very well not have even gotten to the playoffs.
>
I don't know about that. They had the best record in the majors by a
wide margin. The Pirates were not a one man team. They very well may
have still made the playoffs without him.
> : Then he left town.
>
> So what?
>
So he is an ungrateful bum.
> : And he still hasn't produced.
>
> Oh yes he has. It's not his fault the Giants have sucked (except for
> '93).
>
He has only produced meaningless stats in meaningless games, which
matter only to the few fans he has, of which you are apparently one.
>Then fortunately you aren't the GM of any baseball team.
>
The only fortunate thing is that there aren't many more Bonds groupies
like you lurking around. Are you the guy's agent or something? Why do
you feel the need to turn your paranoia/defensiveness into a personal
attack on me? I see you are from California. Why don't you go smoke
another joint and hang out with all the other Bonds groupies at the
Ginats newsgroup.
David Nieporent
In article <cnBirtK00...@andrew.cmu.edu>,
>> Perhaps not. They're also unlikely to get on base 45 percent of
>> the time, as Bonds does, or slug in the mid-.600s for entire
>> seasons, as Bonds does. But hey...getting tagged out on a fluke
>> triple play outweighs this any day of the week, right? Never mind
>> that Bonds is probably one of the dozen or so best players in the
>> game's history...
>Bonds had a .191 average, with one home run and three RBIs in 68 at-bats
>in the playoffs. So how could he be one of the best players with his
>playoff performances such as that.
Um, duh, because what a player does in 68 ABs isn't particularly relevant
to how good he is.
--
David M. Nieporent Deserves it? I daresay he does. Many who live
Niep...@pluto.njcc.com deserve death. And some who die deserve life. Can
Hampshire/Plainsboro, NJ you give it to them? Then be not so quick to give
FIRE PAT GILLICK!!!! the other. For not even the wise can see all ends.
Albert Yang
: >
: > Many great players have had dismal postseasons. For example, Ted Williams
: > hit .200 in his only WS appearance. Does that take anything away from
: > his reputation? NO!
:
: At least he made it to the World Series. Not only that, but if Bonds
: would have hit at least .200 in a couple of those series we probably
: wouldn't even be having this discussion.
:
: Barry Bonds isn't worthy of holding Ted Williams jock strap. At least
: not yet.
Wrong. Bonds has a chance (admittedly less than 50%, and largely due
to the fact that Williams missed lots of time due to the war and the
fact that Bonds is a much better base runner and much better on defense)
of passing Williams as the greates LF of all time.
:
:
: > Bonds made good pitchers look bad, as well. As I said before, while
: > it is true that Bonds didn't hit too well in the postseason, it does
: > nothing to detract from his career.
: >
:
: He sure made the Reds and Braves pitchers look good though. And that's
: what people are going to remember the most. Maybe you love the guy and
: so it doesn't detract from his career in your opinion, but you are
: clearly in the minority.
Yeah, right.
:
: > And as for the games that "Really mean something", the Pirates may
: > very well not have even gotten to the playoffs.
: >
:
: I don't know about that. They had the best record in the majors by a
: wide margin. The Pirates were not a one man team. They very well may
: have still made the playoffs without him.
Not true. In 1990, Pittsburgh won the division by 4 games. According
to Total Baseball, Bonds had a Total Player Rating of 7.2, which means
that replacing Bonds by an average left fielder would have cost the
Pirates 7.2 wins. In 1991, they won by 14 games. In 1992, they won
by 9 games but Bonds had a TPR of 9.2.
:
:
: > : Then he left town.
: >
: > So what?
: >
:
: So he is an ungrateful bum.
:
Yeah, right. Lots of people in jobs other than baseball quit their
jobs to take higher paying jobs. Are they ungrateful bums?
Gregory D. May
Albert Yang wrote:
>
>
> Yeah, right. Lots of people in jobs other than baseball quit their
> jobs to take higher paying jobs. Are they ungrateful bums?
>
What a great anaogy. Do those people break the hearts of their very
young, very impressionable, very loyal and adoring fans? No. Are those
people heroes to so many youngsters whose loyalty and adoration are the
reason a guy like Bonds can make so much money playing a game? No. I
get the very distinct impression that you are a latecomer to the game.
It doesn't sound like you ever laid in your bed as a 10 or 11 year old
on a balmy summer night with a transistor radio to your ear, listening
to Bob Prince or Lanny, and heard them make heroes. Because if you did,
you wouldn't be arguing with me. Maybe you never loved baseball the way
people like me did when we were real young, and so you can look at a guy
like Bonds and coldly calculate just how "great" of a player he is, and
then give me the stat to prove it. But you know what? There are a lot
of us who couldn't care less about "Total Baseball" or "Total Player
Rankings", whatever the hell those are, and more about character,
integrity and loyalty. Bonds has zero. He's not alone, he's just one
of the more visible bums because he likes the attention and the
publicity and is apparently too stupid to notice that most of it is
negative in his case. Players like him are ruining the game from the
bottom up. Youngsters today don't follow the game with the same
intensity and loyalty they did 20 years ago because they've been burned
by the Bonds, Belles, Goodens and Strawberrys of baseball so many
times. And the result is lifeless, moronic nonsense like yours. "Fans"
like you make me want to vomit.
You probably think Astroturf is "cool". You probably support the DH
because it might help your little butt-buddy Bonds extend his sorry
career and get one more hit than Ted Williams and become the "greatest
left fielder of all time!"
Are you one of those people that get to smoke weed in California legally
because your doctor says its o.k.?
Brian D. Bigelow
> Barry Bonds by "Brian D. Bigelow"@pitt.
> > that Bonds is probably one of the dozen or so best players in the
> > game's history...
> >
> Bonds had a .191 average, with one home run and three RBIs in 68 at-bats
> in the playoffs. So how could he be one of the best players with his
> playoff performances such as that.
Uhh...let's see, here...by combining power and the ability to get on
base (the two most important facets of the game) like no more than a
half-dozen people (Ruth, Williams, Thomas, Gehrig, Kiner, perhaps a
couple of others) have ever done, not to mention outstanding outfield
defense, excellent basestealing ability, and tremendous durability.
If you can name ten players in history who can equal Bonds' total
production over the past seven years, I'll be very surprised. 68
postseason ABs doesn't come close to offsetting the above.
Anyway...Bonds' postseason failures are overrated. He had poor
playoff series in '90 and '91, but in '92 he had very fine OBP
and SLG numbers for the series, as I remember it--not on a par with
his USUAL production, mind you, but quite respectable.
--BDB
Brian D. Bigelow
Gregory D. May wrote:
I guess the tickets to all the 92 World Series games that
> didn't happen in Pittsburgh that I had in my hand as Carbrera got his
> hit didn't mean anything either.
So blame Stan Belinda and the rest of the '92 Pirates' mediocre
bullpen. Don't blame Barry Bonds.
>
> Bonds may have tore it up in the regular season and made a lot of bad
> pitchers look real bad.
You have no evidence to support this. If I'm wrong, prove it.
You can't prove to me that Bonds fattened his stats against the
weak pitchers. Even so, it's irrelevant; ABs against poor pitchers
count just as much as ABs against great pitchers, and Bonds
apparently hit those "bad pitchers" better than anyone else did.
But when games started to really mean
> something, i.e. championship games, which by the way usually have good
> pitchers pitching in them, he simply did not produce.
> And he still hasn't produced.
You really ARE thoroughly clueless, aren't you? In '93, Bonds
won his third MVP award in leading a previously (and subsequently)
mediocre Giant team to 103 wins--a game behind a Braves team that
had an unbelievable second half (I suppose you think it's Bonds'
fault they didn't win 105?). His past 3 seasons, if anything, have
been even better, and in fact compare favorably with the greatest
seasons in history in terms of offensive production. That the Giants
haven't won during that stretch is irrelevant to Bonds' greatness; there
isn't a player in the history of baseball who could've turned the Giants
of recent years into pennant winners. The Giants have
been also-rans DESPITE Bonds' amazing contributions--not BECAUSE
of them.
>
> He may have been an MVP (which is given to the regular season's best
> player), but he has never been a champion. I'll take the latter
> anytime.
Fine. You take Rafael Belliard, Charlie O'Brien, Mookie Wilson,
and all the assorted other losers who were lucky enough to play
for championship teams (since that's all you look for, apparently),
and I'll take such "losers" as Bonds, Thomas, Sandberg, and others
who've never played in the World Series, and we'll see who wins.
--BDB
Raymond Diperna
: > 68 AB out of approximately 5500 AB in his career mean absolutely
: >nothing.
: They don't? I guess the tickets to all the 92 World Series games that
: didn't happen in Pittsburgh that I had in my hand as Carbrera got his
: hit didn't mean anything either. I always thought that winning
: championships meant something.
Well, what you have always failed to realize is that winning a short
series is essentially luck. It's too small of a sample size to be
meaningful.
: I always thought that championship teams had champions on them.
Unfortunately, the team that wins the championship isn't always the best
team.
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Raymond DiPerna <rad...@pitt.edu> |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brian D. Bigelow
Gregory D. May wrote:
> Youngsters today don't follow the game with the same
> intensity and loyalty they did 20 years ago because they've been burned
> by the Bonds, Belles, Goodens and Strawberrys of baseball so many
> times. And the result is lifeless, moronic nonsense like yours.
"Lifeless" is what your offense is when no one hits for power or
gets on base. (Pardon me if I'm being too technical here.)
"Fans"
> like you make me want to vomit.
I like players who produce, as opposed to those who get their
uniforms dirty or kiss up to the press and the fans. If that makes
me a "nauseating fan," so be it.
>
> You probably think Astroturf is "cool". You probably support the DH
> because it might help your little butt-buddy Bonds extend his sorry
> career and get one more hit than Ted Williams and become the "greatest
> left fielder of all time!"
You're obviously too clueless and too ignorant to conduct a serious
argument with, but the sheer entertainment value more than
compensates for the uselessness of it all...so here I go...
If Bonds surpasses Williams as the greatest LF of all time, it won't
be because he got "one more hit" than Williams. That you think
that's the criterion we'd use to make that judgment says a great
deal about your OWN narrow view of what constitutes "greatness."
Bonds hasn't exactly shown a need for the DH; he plays the field in
the NL and plays it brilliantly, as he has his entire career.
If your own career is so wildly successful as to justify calling
Bonds' career "sorry," I'd love to know what you do for a living.
I'm not sure what Astroturf has to do with this thread, so clue me
in, if you'd be so kind.
>
> Are you one of those people that get to smoke weed in California legally
> because your doctor says its o.k.?
Huh??
--BDB
Robert E Marsili
In article <5hbdl6$s...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
Dennis R Smith <dr...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>So What?
>
>I guess you think that Ernie Banks was a total loser for never playing in
>the world series?
>Dennis Smith
>
As unfair as it is, that's what most people remember about Ernie Banks.
Never mind he hit 500+ homers. Anytime that his name is mentioned people
say what a shame it was that he never won a series.
If Bonds never wins a series sadly it'll be that void in his career that
is remembered. Think about Reggie Jackson. He couldn't hold Bonds jock
in terms of baseball skills. Yet, he performed in October and thus
created his legacy. I hope that Bonds wins one which would put icing on
his career.
Dennis R Smith
In article <33375C...@worldnet.att.net>,
Gregory D. May <g....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
(referring to Ted Williams)
>
>At least he made it to the World Series.
>
So What?
Dennis R Smith
>wide margin. The Pirates were not a one man team. They very well may
>have still made the playoffs without him.
>
>
Pirates were not one man. The TEAM lost the playoffs. Particularly in 90
and 91, no one did much of anything. They performed better in 92, but many
players on the team were miserable or made key errors.
Dennis Smith
Dennis R Smith
In article <3337E7...@worldnet.att.net>,>>text deleted<<
>get the very distinct impression that you are a latecomer to the game.
>It doesn't sound like you ever laid in your bed as a 10 or 11 year old
>on a balmy summer night with a transistor radio to your ear, listening
>to Bob Prince or Lanny, and heard them make heroes. Because if you did,
>you wouldn't be arguing with me. Maybe you never loved baseball the way
>people like me did when we were real young, and so you can look at a guy
>like Bonds and coldly calculate just how "great" of a player he is, and
>then give me the stat to prove it.
I don't know if this describes Albert, to whom you were referring. I don't
even know what relevance it has to anything rational. But it does describe
me. I grew up listening to Bob Prince while lying in bed many a warm
summer night. I grew up living for baseball. I still absolutely love the
game. You know what? I think Barry Bonds is one of the greatest players of
all time. You may have developed a love for the game (I'm not convinced it
was more than puppy love), but your arguments show that you never
developed a true knowledge of the game.
Barry does have some personality flaws (although they are far from the
worst), but he is definitely one of the all time greats. I might not
choose to be personal friends with him, but that is probably also true of
Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, and many other greats of the past.
Dennis Smith
Gregory D. May
Dennis R Smith wrote:
>
> In article <33375C...@worldnet.att.net>,
> >wide margin. The Pirates were not a one man team. They very well may
> >have still made the playoffs without him.
> >
> >
> You make exactly the point that I was going to make against you. The
> Pirates were not one man. The TEAM lost the playoffs. Particularly in 90
> and 91, no one did much of anything. They performed better in 92, but many
> players on the team were miserable or made key errors.
>
> Dennis Smith
You are really taking my comments out of context. Albert's original
comment was that the Pirates would not have made the playoffs without
Bonds. I disagree with that. They had a very balanced attack. They
had the best defense up the middle (and in left) than anyone in both
leagues. And they had solid pitching. They could have won a division
title or two without Bonds. (That being said, my previous post to you
acknowledges that Bonds came up big in lots of regular season games.)
And I agree that other players didn't come up big in the playoffs
either. And I agree that the TEAM lost the playoffs. I never put the
sole blame on Bonds. What's your point? We're talking about whether
Barry's inability to perform in the NLCS and lead his team to the World
Series detracts from his "greatness". Does the fact others didn't come
up big change the fact that Bonds didn't?
Gregory D. May
Dennis R Smith wrote:
>
> You may have developed a love for the game (I'm not convinced it
> was more than puppy love), but your arguments show that you never
> developed a true knowledge of the game.
Please explain how my arguments show I have no knowledge of the game. I
am a student of the game and I have been for 25 years. Why does
everyone want to get personal with their attacks on this subject? Can't
we debate this topic without the derogatory remarks. Show some class.
>
> Barry does have some personality flaws (although they are far from the
> worst), but he is definitely one of the all time greats.
Check the thread. I never said Bonds wasn't one of the greatest of
all-time. I did say that he wasn't a champion, IMO, because he
consistently folded in the games that mattered most. Again, IMO, the
truly great players of all-time are the ones who lead their teams to
championships. Isn't that why they play? To win championships? That
doesn't mean that he has NEVER performed in the clutch, because he did
in many key regular season games and was instrumental in getting the
Bucs to the NLCS. But in the NLCS, he simply did not. I think that
detracts from his overall career. Maybe you and Albert don't.
Whatever.
Gregory D. May
Robert E Marsili wrote:
>
> In article <5hbdl6$s...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
> As unfair as it is, that's what most people remember about Ernie Banks.
> Never mind he hit 500+ homers. Anytime that his name is mentioned people
> say what a shame it was that he never won a series.
>
> If Bonds never wins a series sadly it'll be that void in his career that
> is remembered. Think about Reggie Jackson. He couldn't hold Bonds jock
> in terms of baseball skills. Yet, he performed in October and thus
> created his legacy. I hope that Bonds wins one which would put icing on
> his career.
Amen.
Albert Yang
: >
: > In article <33375C...@worldnet.att.net>,
: > Gregory D. May <g....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: > >
: > >I don't know about that. They had the best record in the majors by a
: > >wide margin. The Pirates were not a one man team. They very well may
: > >have still made the playoffs without him.
: > >
: > >
: > You make exactly the point that I was going to make against you. The
: > Pirates were not one man. The TEAM lost the playoffs. Particularly in 90
: > and 91, no one did much of anything. They performed better in 92, but many
: > players on the team were miserable or made key errors.
: >
: > Dennis Smith
:
:
: You are really taking my comments out of context. Albert's original
: comment was that the Pirates would not have made the playoffs without
: Bonds. I disagree with that. They had a very balanced attack. They
Whoa. If I said that then I apologize. The statement should read
"The Pirates *might* not have made the playoffs w/o Bonds"; that would
mainly depend on how good their LF was. If they had someone like,
say, Rickey Henderson, then they certainly would've made the playoffs
anyway.
: And I agree that other players didn't come up big in the playoffs
: either. And I agree that the TEAM lost the playoffs. I never put the
: sole blame on Bonds. What's your point? We're talking about whether
It certainly sounded like you put the major part of the team's losses
on Bonds.
: Barry's inability to perform in the NLCS and lead his team to the World
: Series detracts from his "greatness". Does the fact others didn't come
: up big change the fact that Bonds didn't?
Maybe it does detract. That still doesn't change the fact that he is
one of the best LF to ever play the game.
Jim
In article <5h756r$gvu$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>, sza...@rocky.ucdavis.edu
says...
>:
>:
>: > 68 AB out of approximately 5500 AB in his career mean absolutely
>nothing.
>:
>: They don't? I guess the tickets to all the 92 World Series games that
>: didn't happen in Pittsburgh that I had in my hand as Carbrera got his
>: hit didn't mean anything either. I always thought that winning
>: had champions on them.
>
>hit .200 in his only WS appearance. Does that take anything away from
>his reputation? NO!
his dismal post season.
>
>:
>: Bonds may have tore it up in the regular season and made a lot of bad
>: pitchers look real bad. But when games started to really mean
>: something, i.e. championship games, which by the way usually have good
>: pitchers pitching in them, he simply did not produce.
>
>it is true that Bonds didn't hit too well in the postseason, it does
>nothing to detract from his career.
>
>very well not have even gotten to the playoffs.
>
>
>:
>
>So what?
>
>:
>
>Oh yes he has. It's not his fault the Giants have sucked (except for
>'93).
>
>: He may have been an MVP (which is given to the regular season's best
>: player), but he has never been a champion. I'll take the latter
>: anytime.
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim
this is a pirate newsgroup, not a greedy self servicing arrogant no mister
october barry bonds of the giants newsgroup, screw bonds. and his father
who in the lobby of a hotel in virgina would not give my cousin an
autograph because she could buy one the next day a card show.
Gregory D. May
Brian D. Bigelow wrote:
>
>
>68 postseason ABs doesn't come close to offsetting the above.
By chance do you play Rotisserie of fantasy baseball where stats mean
everything? I'm guessing you do. There is no question that the guy has
put up some of the biggest numbers in the history of the game. He is
clearly one of the greatest to play the game. But since when do we
judge athletes simply by numbers. The fact that he choked BIG when his
team needed him the most -- THREE YEARS IN A ROW -- certainly is a
relevant factor in assessing his historical status in the game.
Gregory D. May
David Nieporent wrote:
>
> I don't. Not that it's a good thing, of course. But it detracts mostly > from the Pirates, not from his career.
It doesn't detract from his career? Come on. You can't honestly
believe that. Either that or its against the by-laws in the Barry Bonds
fan club to say anything derogatory about him.
George Trifanoff
Bonds may have compiled some impressive regular season statistics but let's
face it ... when it came to crunch time (in the playoffs) his sub .200 average with
1 HR and 3 RBI speaks for itself ... 20 playoff games is a *significant* amount to
put the post season "chump" label on him ... I remember Roberto Clemente in
the 71 series and I remember Stargell in the 71/79 series ... those guys came to
play ...
A lot of people will offer up excuses ... oh, he tried to do too much, he tried to
carry the club ... but those excuses don't fly ...
I was a big Bonds fan from his first year ('86) on ... but he IS NOT A TEAM
PLAYER ... but now I'm glad to see him starring in SF for lower division club ...
Gregory D. May
Brian D. Bigelow wrote:
>
>
> The point is, they wouldn't necessarily have won the NLCS even if
> Bonds HAD hit, because baseball's a team game. Would you feel the
> same way about Bonds if he'd hit .500 in the NLCS, and the Bucs
> lost anyway?
>
> --BDB
No I wouldn't feel the same way about him. But do you honestly beleive
the Bucs would have lost if he had batted .500? The games were close.
A pretty flimsy point if you ask me.
Erik Simpson
: >
: >
: > Fine. You take Rafael Belliard, Charlie O'Brien, Mookie Wilson,
: > and all the assorted other losers who were lucky enough to play
: > for championship teams (since that's all you look for, apparently),
: > and I'll take such "losers" as Bonds, Thomas, Sandberg, and others
: > who've never played in the World Series, and we'll see who wins.
: As long as we call the game the NLCS I like my chances. Have fun wiping
: the vomit off of Bonds' uniform after every game.
I suggest you check out Yogi Berra's postseason stats through the same
number of games Bonds has played in the postseason. Do you know that
Reggie Jackson overall wasn't particularly good in the postseason (as he
had some truly putrid series)? And those guys weren't facing the
unbelievably dominant staff Bonds faced in the worst of his postseason
performances.
Not that you seem to want to take this seriously, of course.
Erik
David Nieporent
In article <3339AA...@worldnet.att.net>,
>> Barry does have some personality flaws (although they are far from the
>> worst), but he is definitely one of the all time greats.
>Check the thread. I never said Bonds wasn't one of the greatest of
>all-time. I did say that he wasn't a champion, IMO, because he
>consistently folded in the games that mattered most. Again, IMO, the
>truly great players of all-time are the ones who lead their teams to
>championships.
Well, he did. The Pirates were 3 time NL East Champs.
>Isn't that why they play? To win championships?
No, they play because they love the game -- and the money doesn't hurt,
either. Of course they WANT to win championships -- who wouldn't? -- but
it's certainly not the sole, or even necessarily the main, reason they
play.
So it certainly doesn't mean that their careers are failures if they
don't.
Why do you watch the game? To see WS wins? Yes, of course, but do you
consider it a waste of time to have attended games/followed the team all
season if the team doesn't win the WS?
>That doesn't mean that he has NEVER performed in the clutch, because he did
>in many key regular season games and was instrumental in getting the
>Bucs to the NLCS. But in the NLCS, he simply did not. I think that
>detracts from his overall career. Maybe you and Albert don't. Whatever.
I don't. Not that it's a good thing, of course. But it detracts mostly
from the Pirates, not from his career.
--
Brian D. Bigelow
> > >Dennis Smith wrote:
> > You make exactly the point that I was going to make against you. The
> > Pirates were not one man. The TEAM lost the playoffs. Particularly in 90
> > and 91, no one did much of anything. They performed better in 92, but many
> > players on the team were miserable or made key errors.
Gregory D. May wrote:
> And I agree that other players didn't come up big in the playoffs
> either. And I agree that the TEAM lost the playoffs. I never put the
> sole blame on Bonds. What's your point?
The point is, they wouldn't necessarily have won the NLCS even if
Gregory D. May
Amen brother.
Gregory D. May
Erik Simpson
: >
: > I don't. Not that it's a good thing, of course. But it detracts mostly > from the Pirates, not from his career.
: It doesn't detract from his career? Come on. You can't honestly
: believe that. Either that or its against the by-laws in the Barry Bonds
: fan club to say anything derogatory about him.
You do know what the word "mostly" means, right?
Not that you seem interested in accuracy, of course.
Erik
Dennis R Smith
In article <5heatp$9...@niner.apsc.com>,
George Trifanoff <ZA9...@apsc.com> wrote:
>Bonds may have compiled some impressive regular season statistics but let's
>face it ... when it came to crunch time (in the playoffs) his sub .200 average with
>1 HR and 3 RBI speaks for itself ... 20 playoff games is a *significant* amount to
>put the post season "chump" label on him ... I remember Roberto Clemente in
>the 71 series and I remember Stargell in the 71/79 series ... those guys came to
>play ...
>
I remember Stargell in the 71 series. <begin sarcasm> PATHETIC! TOTAL
CHOKER! WHAT A CHUMP! HOW COULD ANYONE CONSIDER THIS GUY A CHAMPION? <end
sarcasm> He hit .208, had only one extra base hit (a double), drove in
only one run! As bad as this was, it was much better than his playoff
performance that year - hitless in 14 at bats. Of course he made up for it
the following year, right? WRONG! One hit in sixteen at bats with one RBI
in the playoffs.
Fortunately Stargell was with a team that gave him enough chances to
showcase his talent, and he did, particularly in 79. It would be totally
unfair to place any sort of label on him or judge his career based upon a
selected 16 games in 71 and 72 post season. It is also unfair to Bonds.
Dennis
paul rodi
Just my 2 cents on Bonds.
Bonds wasn't the only "choker" in the NLCS. Bonilla and King didn't do
much better. Also remember that Lind's error caused the nightmare of
Francisco Cabrera. Do we classify them all as "losers"? Not in my book.
I don't care much for his personality, but that doesn't take away what
he can do on the field.
Robert E Marsili
In article <5hgm25$n...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
>showcase his talent, and he did, particularly in 79. It would be totally
>unfair to place any sort of label on him or judge his career based upon a
>selected 16 games in 71 and 72 post season. It is also unfair to Bonds.
>
>Dennis
It may be unfair to place that label on Bonds but that is the cold hard
reality of it. You cite Stargell's poor performances in 71 and 72. O.K.
but think about the 71 series. It's been widely reported throughout the
years that the 71 series finally placed Clemente in baseball's elite.
In 1979 Stargell came through for his team against the Orioles and
solidified his place in baseball history. In may not be fair but it's
life. Again, I hope that Bonds gets another chance at post-season and hits
.500 with 3 homers in game 7 of the series. If that happens Bonds would
then take his place with the likes of Clemente, Stargell, and Jackson.
Gregory D. May
Erik Simpson wrote:
>
> I suggest you check out Yogi Berra's postseason stats through the same
> number of games Bonds has played in the postseason. Do you know that
> Reggie Jackson overall wasn't particularly good in the postseason (as he
> had some truly putrid series)? And those guys weren't facing the
> unbelievably dominant staff Bonds faced in the worst of his postseason
> performances.
>
> Not that you seem to want to take this seriously, of course.
Why do you Bonds groupies keep citing how bad other great players have
done in the postseason? Is that relevant? Does it make you feel
better? If so that's great. But it doesn't change the fact that Bonds
choked. Say that three times and maybe you will be able to go on with
your life.
Albert Yang
So you're saying Reggie Jackson choked many times in the ALCS? Here are
his bad ALCS's:
BA/OBP/SLG
1973: .143/.143/.143 (*much* worse than any of Bonds' NLCS)
1974: .167/.412/.250 (actually not bad because of his walks)
1977: .125/.222/.313
1980: .273/.333/.364 (not that bad)
1981: .000/.200/.000
1982: .111/.200/.278
1986: .192/.250/.269
CAREER (11 series): .227/.300/.380
Bonds:
1990: .167/.333/.167
1991: .148/.207/.185
1992: .261/.414/.435
CAREER (3): .191/.329/.265
If you consider an OPS (OBP+SLG) less than .600 to be "choke", then
Jackson had an OPS less than .600 5 out of his 11 ALCS series, which,
while "better" than Bonds, hardly qualifies him as Mr. Postseason.
Geez, if Jackson hadn't "choked" in all those series, he could've gone
to even more World Series.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Simpson
Robert E Marsili (rems...@pitt.edu) wrote:
: It may be unfair to place that label on Bonds but that is the cold hard
: reality of it.
I don't understand this position. Sure, it's "reality" that many people
see it that way. But it's also demonstrably silly. If one disagrees, why
should one give that opinion any weight at all?
Erik
Brian D. Bigelow
> Brian D. Bigelow wrote:
> > The point is, they wouldn't necessarily have won the NLCS even if
> > Bonds HAD hit, because baseball's a team game. Would you feel the
> > same way about Bonds if he'd hit .500 in the NLCS, and the Bucs
> > lost anyway?
Gregory D. May wrote:
> No I wouldn't feel the same way about him. But do you honestly beleive
> the Bucs would have lost if he had batted .500? The games were close.
> A pretty flimsy point if you ask me.
I don't, but anyway...the fact that the team as a whole hit
poorly only strengthens my argument. By the same rationale, the
Bucs might have won if ANY ONE PLAYER who *didn't* have an outstanding
series were to have had one. You're placing a disproportionate share of
the blame for a team-wide failure on Bonds' shoulders.
More to the point, even if the games WEREN'T close, and Bonds
had hit WELL, he *still* wouldn't have led the team into the Series
(through no fault of his own)--by which rationale, you'd still
be babbling about Bonds "not being a champion," or something. The
Pirates losing the LCS had a lot more to do with the rest of the team's
failure to COLLECTIVELY muster any offense than with Bonds' failure
to do so as an INDIVIDUAL.
--BDB
Brian D. Bigelow
Gregory D. May wrote:
>
> Brian D. Bigelow wrote:
> >
> >
>
> By chance do you play Rotisserie of fantasy baseball where stats mean
> everything? I'm guessing you do.
No, I don't--and so what if I DO?
(A major reason I don't play Rotisserie, FWIW, is that most leagues
base their standings on relatively meaningless stats (RBI, e.g.),
while ignoring those that accurately measure a player's value (OBP,
for instance). Relying on stats isn't a liability if you're relying on
the RIGHT stats.)
> There is no question that the guy has
> put up some of the biggest numbers in the history of the game. He is
> clearly one of the greatest to play the game.
Which seems to run counter to your earlier reference to Bonds' "sorry
little career," but moving right along...
> But since when do we
> judge athletes simply by numbers. The fact that he choked BIG when his
> team needed him the most -- THREE YEARS IN A ROW -- certainly is a
> relevant factor in assessing his historical status in the game.
Go back and read my post again. Then, cite the passage where I argue
that Bonds' performance in the postseason is "irrelevant." It ain't
there. It's not "irrelevant," but it comes nowhere close to offsetting
everything else he's done. BTW...the statement that he "choked BIG...
THREE YEARS IN A ROW" is inaccurate. Bonds' numbers in the '92 NLCS
were quite respectable.
--BDB
David Brainard
To San Diego for Of. Mark Smith and some punk P. Named Hal Garrett
wat are they going to do with smith, aaa? that would be stupid
David Brainard
In <5hk00e$j...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> car...@ix.netcom.com(David
Brainard ) writes:
>
>To San Diego for Of. Mark Smith and some punk P. Named Hal Garrett
>
>wat are they going to do with smith, aaa? that would be stupid
all these players are headed to the minors
i knew that emil brown would get in the way ! don't go by what he is
doing now he is a phony
ANonymous
In article <5hh0ha$o...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
rems...@pitt.edu (Robert E Marsili) wrote:
>
>It may be unfair to place that label on Bonds but that is
the cold hard
>reality of it. You cite Stargell's poor performances in
71 and 72. O.K.
>but think about the 71 series. It's been widely reported
throughout the
>years that the 71 series finally placed Clemente in
baseball's elite.
>
>In 1979 Stargell came through for his team against the
Orioles and
>solidified his place in baseball history. In may not be
fair but it's
>life. Again, I hope that Bonds gets another chance at
post-season and hits
>..500 with 3 homers in game 7 of the series. If that
happens Bonds would
>then take his place with the likes of Clemente, Stargell,
and Jackson.
Why? Why would any Pirates fan wish Bonds post-season
success? Personally, I hope he doesn't so much as sniff a
wild card spot the rest of his career.
Gregory D. May
Robert E Marsili wrote:
>
> In article <5hkm72$dv3$2...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
> Albert Yang <sza...@rocky.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> >I think you already know why I think it isn't reasonable. Now, I'd like
> >to hear your reasoning as to why it is reasonable.
>
> Look put down your scientific calculator for just one minute. I
> understand that you believe that Bonds should be placed on the high throne
> as a baseball God. That's cool. That's your opinion.
>
> Now there are others that believe that while Bonds has been a tremendous
> player he's lacking that one small thing that places him in baseball's
> elite. That one thing being producing in post season play.
>
> Now please explain to me why this opinion is less valid than yours? No
> one, to my knowledge has stated that Bonds is an inferior player. On the
> contrary, they have stated that while he's been great during the regular
> season he has been less than the great during his three playoff
> performances. Do those people have the right to feel this way. Did the
> people who actually followed the Pirates and Bonds in Pittsburgh have the
> right to expect their superstar perform as a superstar when the money was
> on the table?
>
> I have said it before and I'll say it again. Unless Bonds wins a series
> and/or performs well in post season he may well be thought of in the same
> sentence as Ernie Banks. You know when people say "Poor Ernie, what a
> great ball player. Too bad he never won a World Series". It happens in
> all sports. Right now they're saying the same thing about Dan Marino in
> football. They said it about Fran Tarkenton and Jim Kelly. All great
> players during the regular season. They're legacy sadly enough will be
> that they failed to win the big game. Now if you think that that's being
> unreasonable. Oh well. You're young. You'll adapt.
Right on. But you are wasting your time talking to these
stat-worshipping Bonds groupies. They see the man only for what he has
done on paper and nothing else. They can't accept his failures in the
NLCS and when push comes to shove, they throw out meaningless stats of
his teammates and other players who have also performed poorly in the
post season, as if this somehow makes Barry look like less of a choker.
Robert E Marsili
In article <5hiumm$g...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Erik Simpson <esim...@dept.english.upenn.edu> wrote:
>I don't understand this position. Sure, it's "reality" that many people
>see it that way. But it's also demonstrably silly. If one disagrees, why
>should one give that opinion any weight at all?
>
>Erik
You don't have to give it any weight at all. Bury your head in Bill James
stat book for all I care but facts are facts. Unless Bonds wins a series
in post season or comes up huge he will always have that void in some
peoples eyes. You don't have to like it but that simply is the way it is.
Albert Yang
That may be the way it is, but that doesn't make it reasonable.
Robert E Marsili
In article <5hkd69$96o$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
Albert Yang <sza...@rocky.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>That may be the way it is, but that doesn't make it reasonable.
And why isn't it reasonable? Because you say that it isn't reasonable?
Who died and made you the arbiter of what is or what isn't reasonble?
Again, I may not agree with that sentiment regarding Bonds. Yet there are
many others out there that feel that way. Simply because the national
association of statheads doesn't agree with this position doesn't make
it any less valid than those that do. You have your opinion. They have
theres.
Albert Yang
: Albert Yang <sza...@rocky.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
:
: >That may be the way it is, but that doesn't make it reasonable.
:
: And why isn't it reasonable? Because you say that it isn't reasonable?
I think you already know why I think it isn't reasonable. Now, I'd like
to hear your reasoning as to why it is reasonable.
Robert E Marsili
In article <5hkm72$dv3$2...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
Albert Yang <sza...@rocky.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>I think you already know why I think it isn't reasonable. Now, I'd like
>to hear your reasoning as to why it is reasonable.
Look put down your scientific calculator for just one minute. I
Robert E Marsili
In article <5hh6l9$4no$6...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
>Geez, if Jackson hadn't "choked" in all those series, he could've gone
>to even more World Series.
Yeah, and if Barry Bonds had hit three homers in the deciding game of a
championship series this thread wouldn't even had been started. You cite
Jackson's poor OPS (big whoop). The cat hit 5 homers in the 78 series and
therefore earned the title of Mr. October. Now cite OPS stats all you
want but the general consensus by most baseball fans (I'm not talking stat
heads now) is that Jackson was a clutch performer when it counted.
Whether you agree with it or not doesn't really matter. That's just the
way it is.
Albert Yang
:
: >Geez, if Jackson hadn't "choked" in all those series, he could've gone
: >to even more World Series.
:
: Yeah, and if Barry Bonds had hit three homers in the deciding game of a
: championship series this thread wouldn't even had been started. You cite
: Jackson's poor OPS (big whoop). The cat hit 5 homers in the 78 series and
: therefore earned the title of Mr. October. Now cite OPS stats all you
It was '77. And speaking about '77, Jackson had a BA/OBP/SLG of
.125/.222/.125 in the ALCS, which is about the same as Bonds' '91
NLCS. It's certainly a good thing that his teammates picked up the
slack so he could hit his 5 HRs in the WS that year, otherwise he
might not be known as Mr. October...
Erik Simpson
Gregory D. May (g....@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Erik Simpson wrote:
: >
: > I suggest you check out Yogi Berra's postseason stats through the same
: > number of games Bonds has played in the postseason. Do you know that
: > Reggie Jackson overall wasn't particularly good in the postseason (as he
: > had some truly putrid series)? And those guys weren't facing the
: > unbelievably dominant staff Bonds faced in the worst of his postseason
: > performances.
: >
: > Not that you seem to want to take this seriously, of course.
: Why do you Bonds groupies keep citing how bad other great players have
: done in the postseason?
Because anti-Bonds folks never seem to realize that they don't apply their
standards consistently. You do know enough about baseball to realize that
Berra and Jackson are legendary for their post-season play, as was
Stargell, cited in another post, right?
: Is that relevant?
Yes.
: Does it make you feel
: better?
It always makes me feel better when I've researched a situation to come to
an informed opinion rather than just buying the stupid, biased stuff that
most journalists spew out, so yes.
: If so that's great. But it doesn't change the fact that Bonds
: choked.
Well, yes it does. It doesn't change Bonds's performance, but it does
show that concluding he is a "choker" on the basis of that performance,
while ignoring all sorts of historical precedent and Bonds's astounding
play in the 1993 pennant crunch, among other thing, is unfounded.
: Say that three times and maybe you will be able to go on with
: your life.
You're flailing here. But I'm sure you knew that.
Erik
Erik Simpson
: >Geez, if Jackson hadn't "choked" in all those series, he could've gone
: >to even more World Series.
: Yeah, and if Barry Bonds had hit three homers in the deciding game of a
: championship series this thread wouldn't even had been started. You cite
: Jackson's poor OPS (big whoop). The cat hit 5 homers in the 78 series and
: therefore earned the title of Mr. October.
And when he sucked in other series, did he have to give it back?
: Now cite OPS stats all you
: want but the general consensus by most baseball fans (I'm not talking stat
: heads now) is that Jackson was a clutch performer when it counted.
Use any stats you want, but look at his whole postseason career. He did
what you would expect him to do, no more, no less.
: Whether you agree with it or not doesn't really matter. That's just the
: way it is.
Most baseball fans believe a lot of silly things. Nobody disagrees with
that. So what?
Erik
Erik Simpson
: Albert Yang <sza...@rocky.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
: >I think you already know why I think it isn't reasonable. Now, I'd like
: >to hear your reasoning as to why it is reasonable.
: Look put down your scientific calculator for just one minute. I
: understand that you believe that Bonds should be placed on the high throne
: as a baseball God. That's cool. That's your opinion.
: Now there are others that believe that while Bonds has been a tremendous
: player he's lacking that one small thing that places him in baseball's
: elite. That one thing being producing in post season play.
: Now please explain to me why this opinion is less valid than yours?
Because it takes a tiny, tiny part of his career and lets it determine his
ultimate ranking among players. There's nothing inherently wrong with
that: if we could find evidence that the playoff sample *does* really say
something about Bonds as a player, rather than just being a small-sample
variation against great, great pitching, it would be perfectly valid.
However, there is no evidence to support that. The problem lies in the
move from saying he *choked* (which I don't agree with, but it's mostly a
matter of semantics) to saying he's a *choker*, which assumes a predictive
value to his playoff performance and ignores, among other things, that he
was unbelievably good in the stretch of 1993, when there was certainly
playoff pressure.
: No
: one, to my knowledge has stated that Bonds is an inferior player.
Inferior to what we think he is? Sure they have.
: On the
: contrary, they have stated that while he's been great during the regular
: season he has been less than the great during his three playoff
: performances. Do those people have the right to feel this way.
People have the *right* to think whatever they want. The side with least
evidence is always the side that brings up the right to have an opinion.
: Did the
: people who actually followed the Pirates and Bonds in Pittsburgh have the
: right to expect their superstar perform as a superstar when the money was
: on the table?
And the money wasn't on the table during the regular season? Or in the
1993 race? Or in all the games he plays?
: I have said it before and I'll say it again. Unless Bonds wins a series
: and/or performs well in post season he may well be thought of in the same
: sentence as Ernie Banks. You know when people say "Poor Ernie, what a
: great ball player. Too bad he never won a World Series".
Sure, but this iis different: people don't say (unless they're totally
wacko) that Banks wasn't as good a *player* because of that. They use
that as a judgment about Banks's team.
And, by the way, Banks was nowhere near as good as Bonds.
: It happens in
: all sports. Right now they're saying the same thing about Dan Marino in
: football. They said it about Fran Tarkenton and Jim Kelly. All great
: players during the regular season.
I don't know Tarkenton well; Kelly was good, not great, in both the
regular season and the playoffs.
: They're legacy sadly enough will be
: that they failed to win the big game.
Only if you are writing the legacy. If I am, it won't be.
: Now if you think that that's being
: unreasonable. Oh well. You're young. You'll adapt.
Only if new evidence proves me wrong.
Erik
Robert E Marsili
In article <5hllp0$r...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Erik Simpson <esim...@dept.english.upenn.edu> wrote:
>However, there is no evidence to support that. The problem lies in the
>move from saying he *choked* (which I don't agree with, but it's mostly a
>matter of semantics) to saying he's a *choker*, which assumes a predictive
Well the people that think this saw Bonds *choke* in 1990. They watched
him *choke* again in 1991. They watched him *choke* again in 1992. Maybe
these people that feel this way see some predictive value in this pattern
that Bonds developed in the early 1990's.
>Inferior to what we think he is? Sure they have.
No you're making up stuff. Most people have been stating that Bonds was a
great player. They believe that he choked in the playoffs.
>People have the *right* to think whatever they want. The side with least
>evidence is always the side that brings up the right to have an opinion.
And what evidence have you brought to the party. The only thing I've seen
you bring up is that Yogi Berra had equally poor post seasons. The last
time I checked my baseball history books Yogi Berra wasn't the star of
that team. I think a guy named Mantle and Dimaggia played with Yogi.
What were their post season numbers. TO equate Yogi Berra with Barru
Bonds is ludicrous. A better comparison to Yogi might be Jay Bell.
>: Did the
>: people who actually followed the Pirates and Bonds in Pittsburgh have the
>: right to expect their superstar perform as a superstar when the money was
>: on the table?
>
>And the money wasn't on the table during the regular season? Or in the
>1993 race? Or in all the games he plays?
In the minds of the anti-Bonds people? No. Again David you're looking
for an argument that hasn't been made. The fans in Pittsburgh heard Bonds
yapping about what a great player he was. Watched him strut his stuff.
Then when the national media was upon him...well we know what happened.
It's funny talking about this because I remember the 1992 series against
Atlanta and prior to either game 5 or 6 Jim Gray from CBS sports asked
Bonds about his slump during the post season. I think at the time he was
hitting in the neighborhhod of .190-.210. Gray asked him something like
"Barry can you explain your post season problems?" Bonds looked the guy
right in the eye and said something like "Slump? I'm not in a slump."
Does anyone else out there recall this?
>Sure, but this iis different: people don't say (unless they're totally
>wacko) that Banks wasn't as good a *player* because of that. They use
>that as a judgment about Banks's team.
No one said he wasn't a great player. But you're kidding yourself if you
believe that people don't always bring this up when Banks is mentioned.
It's tremendously unfair but it's still a fact.
>And, by the way, Banks was nowhere near as good as Bonds.
He's still a HOF'er.
>I don't know Tarkenton well; Kelly was good, not great, in both the
>regular season and the playoffs.
It still doesn't change the fact that both played in 6 Super Bowls between
them and won zero. Kelly's career won't be remembered for taking his team
to 4 straight conferance titles. It'll be that he lost 4 super bowls.
>Only if you are writing the legacy. If I am, it won't be.
My aren't you so enlightened. We should all be of such breadth as you :).
>Only if new evidence proves me wrong.
I still haven't figured out yet why you feel the need to impose your
beliefes on others.
Albert Yang
: Albert Yang <sza...@rocky.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
: >It was '77. And speaking about '77, Jackson had a BA/OBP/SLG of
: >.125/.222/.125 in the ALCS, which is about the same as Bonds' '91
: >NLCS. It's certainly a good thing that his teammates picked up the
: >slack so he could hit his 5 HRs in the WS that year, otherwise he
: >might not be known as Mr. October...
: Albert, Albert, Albert....five home runs in one series. Has Barry Bonds
: doen that? Take your OPS and go back to R.S.BB with all the other OPS
: worshippers out there. OPS is nice and everything but Jackson still hit
: five dingers (three in one game) when it counted. Can Bonds say the same?
You missed the point. If Bonds "choked" in his NLCS, then Jackson
*certainly* choked in the 1977 ALCS. I guess Jackson must've had better
teammates than Bonds...
Robert E Marsili
In article <5hlluk$r...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Erik Simpson <esim...@dept.english.upenn.edu> wrote:
>And when he sucked in other series, did he have to give it back?
No he hasn't and even if he wanted to he couldn't take it back because the
nation perceives him to Mr. October. If you would stop being the arbiter
of proper baseball evaluations for everyone you could understand this.
Not everyone is as egotistical as you in that they attempt to shove their
opinions down your throat. For all your blather you have yet to show me
one single statistic that shows that Bonds didn't choke in the post
season. Your only argument has been to compare him to other players with
equally poor post season performances.
>Use any stats you want, but look at his whole postseason career. He did
>what you would expect him to do, no more, no less.
I don't have to look at his entire post season career. The man performed
at an optimum level one time and the baseball world took note. If Bonds
had performed just one time at an optimum level at post season the
baseball world would have taken note. Your ego's getting the best of you
Erik.
>Most baseball fans believe a lot of silly things. Nobody disagrees with
>that. So what?
>Erik
So what? Have the high baseball Gods come down from the heavens and
pronounced you as the self righteous arbiter of what is and what isn't
silly? You have a pretty high opinion of yourself :). If people believe
that Bonds is a choker in the post season.... well so what? He certainly
hasn't proven otherwise has he?
Robert E Marsili
In article <5hme3o$glm$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
>You missed the point. If Bonds "choked" in his NLCS, then Jackson
>*certainly* choked in the 1977 ALCS. I guess Jackson must've had better
>teammates than Bonds...
O.K. let's say that Jackson did choke in the ALCS. So what? He certainly
didn't CHOKE in the World Series did he? As for Bonds I'll ask you the
same thing that I asked Erik. Show me the stats that show Bonds didn't
choke in the post season?
steve
Erik Simpson <esim...@dept.english.upenn.edu> wrote in article
<5hlluk$r...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
<<snip>>
> Use any stats you want, but look at his whole postseason career. He did
> what you would expect him to do, no more, no less.
Are we talking about Bonds, here? (I didn't think so.) : )
The funny thing about this thread, to me, is that Barry, himself, is on
record as saying that HE is (very?) disappointed in his post-season
performances, is he not?
I have no doubt that Barry's post-season performances are "well within the
statistical probabilities, based on his regular season stats (including his
minor-league history, of course!!)" --- or whatever stathead line they use
to disclaim everything that doesn't seem to back up what they
pontificate.... (I kid, because I care.) : )
Relax guys. The season is almost here, and we have many things to be
thankful for. Some of which are: the *absence* of Mike Kingery, Charlie
Hayes, Doug Frobel, George Hendrick, Steve Kemp, Bob Kipper, Matt
Alexander, Gary Redus, Dale Berra, Bill Almon, Rey Quinones, Marvell Wynne,
Johnnie LeMaster, Sammy Khalifa, Kirk Gibson, etc, etc...
--
Go Bucs. (Now, more than ever.)
Steve Mizer
I do not speak for my employer (not even on a good day). Any similarities
between this post, and one that is thoughtful and concise, is purely
coincidental.
Robert E Marsili
Erik Simpson
steve (steve...@turner.com) wrote:
: Erik Simpson <esim...@dept.english.upenn.edu> wrote in article
: <5hlluk$r...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
: <<snip>>
: > Use any stats you want, but look at his whole postseason career. He did
: > what you would expect him to do, no more, no less.
: Are we talking about Bonds, here? (I didn't think so.) : )
No, actually, that was about Reggie Jackson.
: The funny thing about this thread, to me, is that Barry, himself, is on
: record as saying that HE is (very?) disappointed in his post-season
: performances, is he not?
I'm sure he is. And what he usually says is that he hopes he gets another
chance to make up for it. I don't think anyone disputes that he hasn't
played up to his par in the post-season; the dispute is over what that
*means*.
: I have no doubt that Barry's post-season performances are "well within the
: statistical probabilities, based on his regular season stats (including his
: minor-league history, of course!!)" --- or whatever stathead line they use
: to disclaim everything that doesn't seem to back up what they
: pontificate.... (I kid, because I care.) : )
C'mon, Steve, you've complained in the past that I as a stathead refuse to
make any predictions whatsoever about a short series because they're way,
way too flukey. This is entirely consistent. If you ever catch a
stathead making broad judgments about a player on the basis of less than
100 AB, no matter what the situation, *then* you can accuse us of changing
our standards.
: Relax guys. The season is almost here, and we have many things to be
: thankful for. Some of which are: the *absence* of Mike Kingery, Charlie
: Hayes, Doug Frobel, George Hendrick, Steve Kemp, Bob Kipper, Matt
: Alexander, Gary Redus, Dale Berra, Bill Almon, Rey Quinones, Marvell Wynne,
: Johnnie LeMaster, Sammy Khalifa, Kirk Gibson, etc, etc...
Hey, I liked Johnnie LeMaster! (He stunk, but he seemed cool.)
Erik
Albert Yang
There are no such stats. As you pointed out, this is a matter of opinion.
If you are willing to accept that Jackson's 1977 ALCS may have been a
"choke" and other great players may have "choked", (though I don't
think Jackson choked, either), then I can accept your assertion as an
honest opinion.
I think it's time to talk about something else now...
David Nieporent
In article <5hkqt7$b...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
>>Geez, if Jackson hadn't "choked" in all those series, he could've gone
>>to even more World Series.
>Yeah, and if Barry Bonds had hit three homers in the deciding game of a
>championship series this thread wouldn't even had been started. You cite
>Jackson's poor OPS (big whoop). The cat hit 5 homers in the 78 series and
>therefore earned the title of Mr. October. Now cite OPS stats all you
>want but the general consensus by most baseball fans (I'm not talking stat
>heads now) is that Jackson was a clutch performer when it counted.
>Whether you agree with it or not doesn't really matter. That's just the
>way it is.
The point, which you missed, was not that Barry Bonds performed well in
the postseason -- clearly, he didn't -- but rather that his stats in the
postseason do not show him to be some sort of "choker" who "can't handle
the pressure of producing when it counts most," or whatever cliches
people want to spew.
The point was that you can't draw conclusions about Barry Bonds's
abilities or character from a few postseason games.
Because if you did think that 3 series was enough to make a statement like
that about a player, you'd be saying the same things about Jackson, Berra,
Stargell, et al.
--
David M. Nieporent Deserves it? I daresay he does. Many who live
Niep...@pluto.njcc.com deserve death. And some who die deserve life. Can
Hampshire/Plainsboro, NJ you give it to them? Then be not so quick to give
FIRE PAT GILLICK!!!! the other. For not even the wise can see all ends.
Erik Simpson
: Erik Simpson <esim...@dept.english.upenn.edu> wrote:
: >And when he sucked in other series, did he have to give it back?
: No he hasn't and even if he wanted to he couldn't take it back because the
: nation perceives him to Mr. October. If you would stop being the arbiter
: of proper baseball evaluations for everyone you could understand this.
There are two sides in this argument. Why do you say that my side is
trying to tell other people what to do and yours isn't?
: Not everyone is as egotistical as you in that they attempt to shove their
: opinions down your throat. For all your blather you have yet to show me
: one single statistic that shows that Bonds didn't choke in the post
: season.
He has hit poorly in the post-season. Sure. The question, as I've said
before, is what that means. If it means that he's a "choker"--that he
can't play under pressure--then there should be evidence that
1. "chokers" exist--this would be demonstrable if great players of the
past who struggles in the post-season continued to do so; that would mean
that Bonds's performance might have predictive value rather than being a
small-sample variation against great pitching.
AND
2. Bonds is one of them, consistently playing less well when there's
obviously a great deal of pressure on him--among other things, the 1993
stretch drive, in which Bonds went NUTS, contradicts this.
: Your only argument has been to compare him to other players with
: equally poor post season performances.
False. One of my arguments has been that other players who had equally
poor performances and got more chances showed that their early struggles
didn't mean they were "chokers."
: >Use any stats you want, but look at his whole postseason career. He did
: >what you would expect him to do, no more, no less.
: I don't have to look at his entire post season career.
Why bother with the evidence?
: The man performed
: at an optimum level one time and the baseball world took note.
Bonds in the 1993 stretch drive was insanely great, and every game meant
as much as a playoff game. Why don't you look at that by this logic?
: If Bonds
: had performed just one time at an optimum level at post season the
: baseball world would have taken note. Your ego's getting the best of you
: Erik.
Hows about you stop insulting me and address the evidence?
: >Most baseball fans believe a lot of silly things. Nobody disagrees with
: >that. So what?
: >Erik
: So what? Have the high baseball Gods come down from the heavens and
: pronounced you as the self righteous arbiter of what is and what isn't
: silly?
All I'm saying is that a common belief isn't necessarily valid in any way;
that's why logicians call what you're doing here an example of the
"bandwagon fallacy."
: You have a pretty high opinion of yourself :). If people believe
: that Bonds is a choker in the post season.... well so what?
Exactly. It doesn't mean anything.
: He certainly
: hasn't proven otherwise has he?
He hasn't had a chance, has he? In the closest simulation he's gotten, he
did indeed prove otherwise.
Erik
Robert E Marsili
In article <5hndrj$7n8$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
Albert Yang <sza...@rocky.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>There are no such stats. As you pointed out, this is a matter of opinion.
If there are no stats to prove that Bonds didn't choke how then is it an
opinion?
>If you are willing to accept that Jackson's 1977 ALCS may have been a
>"choke" and other great players may have "choked", (though I don't
>think Jackson choked, either), then I can accept your assertion as an
>honest opinion.
Thank you for accepting the fact that my opinion is my opinion. It must
be a tough life to be so arrogant to believe you can arbitrate other
people's opinions. That is what I find soo annoying about statheads.
Robert E Marsili
In article <5hnpj3$969$1...@mars.njcc.com>,
David Nieporent <niep...@pluto.njcc.com> wrote:
>The point, which you missed, was not that Barry Bonds performed well in
>the postseason -- clearly, he didn't
No David I didn't miss the point. But thank you for being so arrogant to
believe that you had to point this out to me.
> -- but rather that his stats in the
>postseason do not show him to be some sort of "choker" who "can't handle
>the pressure of producing when it counts most," or whatever cliches
>people want to spew.
The people that believe that Bonds was/is a choker in the post season will
always go back to his performaces in 1990,91 & 92. It's is very clear
that Bonds failed to live up to his regular season performances. A
pattern clearly developed in the early 90's and until he gets another shot
at the post season, it'll be those series' that Bonds will be judged.
>The point was that you can't draw conclusions about Barry Bonds's
>abilities or character from a few postseason games.
I dunno. 20 post season games seems like alot to me.
>Because if you did think that 3 series was enough to make a statement like
>that about a player, you'd be saying the same things about Jackson, Berra,
>Stargell, et al.
Three points young David:
1) No one interjected the name of Berra until Erik did. I pointed out
that Berra was not the superstar of those Yankees teams. Guys like
Mantle and Maris were the leaders of those teams. Yogi Berra was not.
2) So Jackson had poor ALCS? Big deal. The man still produced in the
world series. If Jackson had failed to produce in those games then he
would be a fair comparison to Bonds.
3) Stargell is another player that produced for his team during the World
Series. In fact he won the MVP award. For all you're blather about these
players being comparable to Bonds doesn't wash since they produced during
some post season series. Something that Bonds has yet to do.
Robert E Marsili
In article <5hogqt$b...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Erik Simpson <esim...@dept.english.upenn.edu> wrote:
>There are two sides in this argument. Why do you say that my side is
>trying to tell other people what to do and yours isn't?
I am not trying to push anything down anyone's throat. You on the other
hand want to continue to pursue your statistical quest of forming opinion
to your beliefs. All I have ever said is that those that believe that
Bonds is a choker have every right to feel that way. The fans saw their
Superstar fail to achieve the success in the post season as he did in the
regular season.
>He has hit poorly in the post-season. Sure. The question, as I've said
>before, is what that means. If it means that he's a "choker"--that he
>can't play under pressure--then there should be evidence that
No again you're making stuff up in a hope of re-framing the debate. I
don't know if Bonds will choke again in the post season. I have stated
that I hope he succeeds in the post season if ever given another chance.
>1. "chokers" exist--this would be demonstrable if great players of the
>past who struggles in the post-season continued to do so; that would mean
>that Bonds's performance might have predictive value rather than being a
>small-sample variation against great pitching.
Again you're re-framing the argument. Erik isn't a bir of a pattern that
formed in 1990, 91 and 92. What would have convinced you? If he had
failed to perform well in the 1993 and 1994 post season?
>AND
>
>2. Bonds is one of them, consistently playing less well when there's
>obviously a great deal of pressure on him--among other things, the 1993
>stretch drive, in which Bonds went NUTS, contradicts this.
I haven't differentiated pressure with the post season. Even if I had I
don't think that there was all that much pressure on Bonds down the
stretch run in 1993. It's my recollection that the Giants had the lead
and that the Braves were chasing them. Did Bonds perform well then? He
certainly did. But his team still lost.
>False. One of my arguments has been that other players who had equally
>poor performances and got more chances showed that their early struggles
>didn't mean they were "chokers."
Well until he gets another chance at post season we'll never know. The
only "evidence" there is on the record says he choked in the post season.
Is that predictive of the future? No.
>: I don't have to look at his entire post season career.
>
>Why bother with the evidence?
Again stop trying to re-frame the debate. My point was and still is that
Jackson, for all his post season problems eventually performed well.
Bonds has not in all his post season appearances. You'll never get by his
five home runs.
>Bonds in the 1993 stretch drive was insanely great, and every game meant
>as much as a playoff game. Why don't you look at that by this logic?
Great. It's still not post season. As fae as you're assertion that every
game was like post season? Well I guess that's your opinion.
>Hows about you stop insulting me and address the evidence?
Insulting you? Oh please. Your ego's getting the best of you again f you
don't believe you have one.
>All I'm saying is that a common belief isn't necessarily valid in any way;
>that's why logicians call what you're doing here an example of the
>"bandwagon fallacy."
This is what I'm talking about when I mention your ego. Who are you to
validate another person beliefs? I mean if people say that Bonds choked
in the post season so what? Why have you taken it upon yourself to
correct them? Now if someone says that Bonds is a terribel baseball
player? Well...that's fair game for you to intercede with evidence to the
contrary.
>He hasn't had a chance, has he? In the closest simulation he's gotten, he
>did indeed prove otherwise.
>Erik
No he hasn't. If you want to equate the 1993 race with post season play I
guess that's your perogative.
Robert E Marsili
In article <334035...@pitt.edu>,
Brian D. Bigelow <bdbs...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>You're either not reading carefully enough, or you're relying on
>inaccurate history books. Berra wasn't the ONLY star on the team, but he
>had numerous years when he was that (great) team's best player.
Oh absolutely. But I think as you point out that the Mantle Kid came
along was clearly the superstar of the Yankees.
>regarded by many as the greatest catcher in the history of baseball,
>so while he wasn't AS productive a hitter as Bonds, it's not out of line
>to think of them in the same terms with regard to their importance to
>their teams. While Berra might not have been his team's best player
>EVERY year, he had other years where he was judged to be the LEAGUE'S
>best player. The comparison to Jay Bell is, to put it kindly, a
>stretch.
Actually Brian went I wrote that I was think about the Yankees from the
late 1950's when Mantle was clearly the rising young star on that Yankee
team. At the time Berra was clearly an important part of the Yankees but
not it's superstar.
>> Kelly's career won't be remembered for taking his team
>> to 4 straight conferance titles. It'll be that he lost 4 super bowls.
>
>Which is difficult to do without first winning 4 conference titles, but
>moving right along...
Have you been paying attention at all? I mean didn't I say that a few
posts ago. Christ I hate people that jump in without reading the whole
thread.
>---BDB
Brian D. Bigelow
BDB wrote:
While Berra might not have been his team's best player
> >EVERY year, he had other years where he was judged to be the LEAGUE'S
> >best player. The comparison to Jay Bell is, to put it kindly, a
> >stretch.
> Actually Brian went I wrote that I was think about the Yankees from the
> late 1950's when Mantle was clearly the rising young star on that Yankee
> team. At the time Berra was clearly an important part of the Yankees but
> not it's superstar.
Right, because that was Berra's decline phase. This doesn't change
the fact that Berra WAS the team's best player when the Yankees
were at their MOST dominant, or that Berra had many years when he
was as important to his team as Bonds was to the Pirates of the
early '90s. Further, he had some poor postseason performances,
as Bonds has. That's why the comparison between Bonds and Berra
holds water, for purposes of this thread.
> >> Kelly's career won't be remembered for taking his team
> >> to 4 straight conferance titles. It'll be that he lost 4 super bowls.
> >Which is difficult to do without first winning 4 conference titles, but
> >moving right along...
> Have you been paying attention at all? I mean didn't I say that a few
> posts ago. Christ I hate people that jump in without reading the whole
> thread.
>
Oh, I read the whole thread, all right...I was stating the obvious,
anyway, which really shouldn't be enough to get a rise out of someone
your age (-g-), but so it goes...
--BDB
Brian D. Bigelow
Robert E Marsili wrote:
> The only thing I've seen
> you bring up is that Yogi Berra had equally poor post seasons. The last
> time I checked my baseball history books Yogi Berra wasn't the star of
> that team.
You're either not reading carefully enough, or you're relying on
inaccurate history books. Berra wasn't the ONLY star on the team, but he
had numerous years when he was that (great) team's best player.
> I think a guy named Mantle and Dimaggia played with Yogi.
Yogi broke in in '46, Mantle in '51. DiMaggio retired in '51; his
best years came long before Yogi arrived. Berra was clearly the
Yankee's best player from the late '40s to early '50s (overall, anyway;
Rizzuto won the MVP in '50, though I'm not convinced he was better
than Yogi). Just off the top of my head, I believe Berra not only
won 3 MVP awards, but was in the top 5 in the voting on several other
occasions.
> What were their post season numbers. TO equate Yogi Berra with Barru
> Bonds is ludicrous. A better comparison to Yogi might be Jay Bell.
My, my, my. This'd be a strong candidate for this spring's Hot Air
Award, if not for someone's hard-to-top assertion on the Cubs' n.g. that
Brant Brown "could be a young Ryne Sandberg" (swear to God). Yogi Berra
won 3 MVP awards (as did Mantle) and is
regarded by many as the greatest catcher in the history of baseball,
so while he wasn't AS productive a hitter as Bonds, it's not out of line
to think of them in the same terms with regard to their importance to
their teams. While Berra might not have been his team's best player
EVERY year, he had other years where he was judged to be the LEAGUE'S
best player. The comparison to Jay Bell is, to put it kindly, a
stretch.
> Kelly's career won't be remembered for taking his team
> to 4 straight conferance titles. It'll be that he lost 4 super bowls.
Which is difficult to do without first winning 4 conference titles, but
moving right along...
---BDB
Robert E Marsili
In article <33403A...@pitt.edu>,
Brian D. Bigelow <bdbs...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>Right, because that was Berra's decline phase. This doesn't change
>the fact that Berra WAS the team's best player when the Yankees
>were at their MOST dominant, or that Berra had many years when he
>was as important to his team as Bonds was to the Pirates of the
>early '90s. Further, he had some poor postseason performances,
>as Bonds has. That's why the comparison between Bonds and Berra
>holds water, for purposes of this thread.
Actually you're wrong. The Berra reference, wether he had poor post
seasons or not is simply irrelavant when talking about Bonds. Like it or
not Bonds did not perform to his regular season performance. If Bonds had
no one would consider him a choker. Since Bonds failed to perform in the
post season, those that believe that is a choker have every reason to feel
this way without having their opinions swayed by others.
>Oh, I read the whole thread, all right...I was stating the obvious,
>anyway, which really shouldn't be enough to get a rise out of someone
>your age (-g-), but so it goes...
You didn't get a rise out of me. It seemed funny that you would take a
shot at me for something that I said three days ago. Oh well...
Albert Yang
: Albert Yang <sza...@rocky.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
: >There are no such stats. As you pointed out, this is a matter of opinion.
:
: If there are no stats to prove that Bonds didn't choke how then is it an
: opinion?
Unless we define precisely what "choke" is, it's a matter of opinion. If
you define "choke" as doing poorly in a short series, then sure, Bonds and
a lot of other players have "choked" (though Bonds' 1992 NLCS wasn't as
bad as you think.) The problem with using a short series is that anything
can happen in a short series; over a *long* series, a players' stats will
more accurately represent his true ability. You don't seriously think that
Reggie Jackson would've have hit 135 HR in a 162 game series against the
Dodgers, do you? (5 HR/6 games = 135 HR/162 games). Similarly, Bonds would
not have done so poorly in an extended series, and neither would Ted
Williams, or Reggie Jackson in his 1977 ALCS.
:
: Thank you for accepting the fact that my opinion is my opinion. It must
: be a tough life to be so arrogant to believe you can arbitrate other
: people's opinions. That is what I find soo annoying about statheads.
Well, what I find annoying is your (apparent) opinion that Bonds
is the only great player to have "choked", whereas you make excuses
for other players such as Jackson and Berra, which leads to the
conclusion that your obvious dislike for him (I have no problem with
this; everybody has detractors) is making you apply a harsher standard
than you do to other players.
Gregory D. May
Brian D. Bigelow wrote:
>
> Rizzuto won the MVP in '50, though I'm not convinced he was better
> than Yogi).
pom-pous, adj. 1. Suggesting ostentatious display. 2. Marked by
pretention or self-importance. 3. Bombastic.
First, I am betting that you never saw either of them play that season,
while the people that voted on the award did. Who really cares if you
think Yogi was better? No one here. If I am right and you did not see
them play, then your opinion can only be based on stats (and perhaps
historical recounts of the season.) Your statement underscores the
weakness in the arguments you have been making in this thread (ad
nauseum). Stats don't mean everything.
Maybe, if Bonds would have delivered just a few key hits -- not game
winners but just a timely rbi or a hard single to start a rally -- he
wouldn't be remembered as such a choker. He was the leader of the team
and he failed in that role more miserably than he did at the plate.
That's something that doesn't get measured in a stat. Put down your
Bill James Abstract and actually watch a game sometime. You would see
what everyone is trying to tell you here.
Roky431485
Right on guys,
lets all support these guys as much as possible and go to a few games this
year.
David Nieporent
In article <334050...@worldnet.att.net>,
>> Rizzuto won the MVP in '50, though I'm not convinced he was better
>> than Yogi).
>pom-pous, adj. 1. Suggesting ostentatious display. 2. Marked by
>pretention or self-importance. 3. Bombastic.
Stupid. adj. Worrying about whether someone is pompous, rather than
whether someone is _right._
>First, I am betting that you never saw either of them play that season,
>while the people that voted on the award did.
Not very frequently. No Baseball Tonight in those days.
>Who really cares if you
>think Yogi was better? No one here.
Obviously you do; it bothered you so much that you felt the need to reply
insultingly to him.
>If I am right and you did not see
>them play, then your opinion can only be based on stats (and perhaps
>historical recounts of the season.)
Wow, imagine that. Basing an opinion upon a record of what actually
happened in a season.
>Your statement underscores the
>weakness in the arguments you have been making in this thread (ad
>nauseum). Stats don't mean everything.
Now there's a content-free sentence. "Stats don't mean everything"
doesn't mean anything. It sounds like a point pretending to be profound,
but failing miserably.
>Maybe, if Bonds would have delivered just a few key hits -- not game
>winners but just a timely rbi or a hard single to start a rally -- he
>wouldn't be remembered as such a choker.
Perhaps. Or maybe he still would. Perception doesn't have much to do
with reality. Mark Lemke has performed poorly in the postseason, but
you'll see people swearing that he's a clutch performer.
>He was the leader of the team
>and he failed in that role more miserably than he did at the plate.
>That's something that doesn't get measured in a stat.
Or anywhere else, because you made it up.
>Put down your
>Bill James Abstract and actually watch a game sometime. You would see
>what everyone is trying to tell you here.
You probably got beat up on the playground a lot, didn't you? I'll bet
he watches a lot more games than you do. I know Bill James does.
Furthermore, I know they understand what they're seeing a lot better than
you do.
Robert E Marsili
In article <5hpeik$n70$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
Albert Yang <sza...@boris.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>Unless we define precisely what "choke" is, it's a matter of opinion. If
>you define "choke" as doing poorly in a short series, then sure, Bonds and
>a lot of other players have "choked" (though Bonds' 1992 NLCS wasn't as
>bad as you think.)
For the last friggin time. I have said time and time and time again that
the people that believe that Bonds "choked" in the playoffs have every
right to believe this and to holf this opinion. Much like you have the
right to hold the opinion that he did not. Period nothing more or nothing
less. Stop making stuff up.
>The problem with using a short series is that anything
>can happen in a short series; over a *long* series, a players' stats will
>more accurately represent his true ability. You don't seriously think that
>Reggie Jackson would've have hit 135 HR in a 162 game series against the
>Dodgers, do you? (5 HR/6 games = 135 HR/162 games). Similarly, Bonds would
>not have done so poorly in an extended series, and neither would Ted
>Williams, or Reggie Jackson in his 1977 ALCS.
But thats not what I said now is it? I said that the fans of Bonds and
the Pirates in the early 90's had every reason to believe that Bonds would
carry his regular season performance to the post season. When he failed
to perform to those expectations the fans responded with the choke label.
It simply isn't your place to correct them.
>Well, what I find annoying is your (apparent) opinion that Bonds
>is the only great player to have "choked", whereas you make excuses
>for other players such as Jackson and Berra, which leads to the
>conclusion that your obvious dislike for him (I have no problem with
>this; everybody has detractors) is making you apply a harsher standard
>than you do to other players.
Again you are simply making stuff up. I have never said that Bonds was
the only great player to have choke. Please Albert show me where I have
said that. I have time and again said that Bonds is/has been a great
player that sadly will have that choke label placed on him until he leads
his team to the Series. Now if you want to imply anything more into it
than that you'd be mistaken.
Robert E Marsili
In article <onE9ipG00...@andrew.cmu.edu>,
Venkatesh Natarajan <v...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> So let's start giving batting titles based on 62 at-bats, and ERA
>titles to any pitcher with >= 20 innings....
>
> It's the next logical step.
If the season were only seven games long then I guess that would be
appropriate. Since it isn't you're simply being asinine.
Steve Greanias
>
> It may be unfair to place that label on Bonds but that is the cold hard
> reality of it. You cite Stargell's poor performances in 71 and 72. O.K.
> but think about the 71 series. It's been widely reported throughout the
> years that the 71 series finally placed Clemente in baseball's elite.
>
Actually this comment about Roberto tees me off a bit!
It may be true that in the media's eyes that Clemente's
heroics were not as noted until the 71 series. However,
Clemente's play prior to the 71 series placed him in
baseball's elite, or at least at the same level as the
top 3-5 player during his time. Didn't he get a hit in
every game in the '60 series as well as in the 71 series,
(ie:hits in every world series game he played, PRETTY
DAMNED CLUTCH IF YOU ASK ME!!). Of course there's the
batting crowns and the MVP. BTW, during that MVP season,
wasn't he asked to hit with more power, which he did
producing more rbi's, (my memory is hazy here, so I
may be wrong on this). His HR total wasn't as high
as some of the other players, but I think he excelled
in batting average as far as hitting is concerned.
Then there's that unmatched outfield play, IMO, (including
Mays). One story:I also believe that he drove in the
winning run in one of the all-star games in the 60's.
I think Willie Mays who scored the winning run and after
the game, everyone was interviewing Willie. I think
Willie said something like "there's the man who won the
game", refering to Roberto. I'm not trying to put
importance on all-star game performance here, but
mention it to indicate media biases. I am biased for
Clemente, but he definately earned it in my mind!
As excellent a ballplayer he was, I think he was even a
better person! Hey, I sent him a get well card once as
a young teen. He sent me an autographed picture which
I didn't ask for; TOTAL CLASS IN MY BOOK!!! This is
not even mentioning times he helped others during his
lifetime.
Steve
Venkatesh Natarajan
Excerpts from netnews.alt.sports.baseball.pitt-pirates: 31-Mar-97 Re: F
Barry Bonds by Robert E Mar...@pitt.ed
> I dunno. 20 post season games seems like alot to me.
>
David Nieporent
In article <5hr6om$h...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,>Venkatesh Natarajan <v...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>> So let's start giving batting titles based on 62 at-bats, and ERA
>>titles to any pitcher with >= 20 innings....
>> It's the next logical step.
>If the season were only seven games long then I guess that would be
>appropriate. Since it isn't you're simply being asinine.
The postseason was only seven games long, and people are doing that. I
guess they're the ones being asinine.
Brian D. Bigelow
> Brian D. Bigelow wrote:
> >
> > Rizzuto won the MVP in '50, though I'm not convinced he was better
> > than Yogi).
>
> pom-pous, adj. 1. Suggesting ostentatious display. 2. Marked by
> pretention or self-importance. 3. Bombastic.
>
> think Yogi was better? No one here.
Really? Have you polled everyone on the newsgroup on this question?
I suspect not, and therefore wonder how you come off accusing ME
of pretension (note the spelling, since you obviously had your
dictionary handy) and self-importance. At least I have the humility
to speak for myself, and not for others.
Furthermore, there's something vaguely pathetic about one who quotes
a dictionary while showing a pronounced lack of reading comprehension.
The passage that seems to have provoked you, which you quote above,
states, "I'm not CONVINCED he was better than Yogi" (emphasis added).
Which means, to anyone familiar with the finer points of the language,
"I'm not convinced that he WASN'T, either; there's room for debate."
If I thought Yogi was incontrovertibly better than Rizzuto, as you've
suggested, I'd have said so.
In any event, you completely ignored the gist of that passage (which
was included as an aside, in the interest of accuracy, so that I
wouldn't
be simply arguing that Berra was the Yankee's best player from '48-'55
when, in '50, a TEAMMATE won the MVP award; I realize, in retrospect,
that I needn't have worried about having my argument countered by
actual facts), which was that Berra was the team's best player during
the period, though Rizzuto was arguably better in one particular season.
This was a minor point in my post, and you've thoroughly blown it
out of proportion and used it as an opportunity to attack me personally.
Accordingly, I don't think my response here is the least bit out of
line.
> Maybe, if Bonds would have delivered just a few key hits -- not game
> winners but just a timely rbi or a hard single to start a rally -- he
> wouldn't be remembered as such a choker. He was the leader of the team
> and he failed in that role more miserably than he did at the plate.
Bit of a reversal from our "the Pirates weren't a one-man team" stance
of an earlier, post, isn't it? To argue that, on the one hand,
Bonds' regular season performance wouldn't have made a difference
as to whether or not the Pirates made the playoffs because "they
weren't a one-man team," and on the other, to blame him for the
NLCS losses because "he failed in his role as team leader" is to
draw an awfully fine line.
> That's something that doesn't get measured in a stat. Put down your
> Bill James Abstract and actually watch a game sometime. You would see
> what everyone is trying to tell you here.
Only on this newsgroup can I (a math-illiterate who frankly has
trouble balancing his checkbook) be accused (in the same paragraph,
no less) of (1) being excessively math-oriented, and (2) not watching
enough baseball. I love it.
--BDB
Gregory D. May
Brian D. Bigelow wrote:
>
> . . . pretension (note the spelling, since you obviously had your
> dictionary handy) and self-importance.
Believe it or not, I quoted my dictionary verbatim, and then rechecked
it after your post and that's how it appears. Websters II, New
Riverside Dictionary, paperback edition, page 542. I need a new
dictionary.
>At least I have the humility
> to speak for myself, and not for others.
Humility is a virtue that you have not displayed in this thread. Maybe
you should check the definition of that word (but don't use Websters
II).
> Furthermore, there's something vaguely pathetic about one who quotes
> a dictionary while showing a pronounced lack of reading comprehension.
> The passage that seems to have provoked you, which you quote above,
> states, "I'm not CONVINCED he was better than Yogi" (emphasis added).
> Which means, to anyone familiar with the finer points of the language,
> "I'm not convinced that he WASN'T, either; there's room for debate."
> If I thought Yogi was incontrovertibly better than Rizzuto, as you've
> suggested, I'd have said so.
Hey, you wrote the sentence, not me. There's something very pathetic
about constantly having to explain what you meant to say instead of
saying it that way the first time. My interpretation was correct. My
point wasn't who was actually better between the two. It was that your
opinion of who was better doesn't amount to a much since you are basing
it presumably on stats only, and we all know that the player with the
best stats is not necessarily the MVP. If you weren't so paranoid and
defensive, probably because you know you are being pompous, your reading
comprehension would improve greatly.
> Bit of a reversal from our "the Pirates weren't a one-man team" stance
> of an earlier, post, isn't it?
Not at all. I said he was supposed to be a leader. That is not the
same as saying the Pirates were a one-man team. You had to play
organized sports sometime in your life. If so, you know this.
David Nieporent
In article <333AC1...@worldnet.att.net>,
>>68 postseason ABs doesn't come close to offsetting the above.
>By chance do you play Rotisserie of fantasy baseball where stats mean
>everything? I'm guessing you do. There is no question that the guy has
>put up some of the biggest numbers in the history of the game. He is
>clearly one of the greatest to play the game. But since when do we
>judge athletes simply by numbers.
Of course, that's exactly what you're judging him by.
>The fact that he choked BIG when his
>team needed him the most -- THREE YEARS IN A ROW -- certainly is a
>relevant factor in assessing his historical status in the game.
Relevant to you. Not to me.
And one more time: he didn't perform badly in 1992. It was only
1990-1991 that he did.
steve
<<snip>>
> Similarly, Bonds would
> not have done so poorly in an extended series,
Why don't you statheads lobby the owners to increase the playoffs and WS to
best of, say, 99, then? God willing, they will ALWAYS be best of seven.
That's the beauty of it.
Enough of this thread!!
BTW, Bonds choked again today -- although I know it was just one game --
yadda, yadda, yadda... (I'm not sure if I've *ever* seen a weaker arm in
the OF -- and he even charges the ball nicely -- go figure.) But, of
course, I have no doubt that your stats will show that Barry got to every
ball hit into his "zone," and that he made no errors, yadda, yadda,
yadda...
Enough of this thread, please; our Pirates are undefeated, Womack is an
incredible lead-off hitter, Elster has lost *nothing* from last year (he
even fields as well as Jay Bell), our starting pitching was fantastic, and
(most importantly) the bullpen (*three* of them) did NOT blow the lead
today... all is right with the world.
David Nieporent
In article <01bc3f08$5b0b80a0$7e4ca69d@home_swm.turner.com>,
steve <steve...@turner.com> wrote:
>> Similarly, Bonds would
>> not have done so poorly in an extended series,
>Why don't you statheads lobby the owners to increase the playoffs and WS to
>best of, say, 99, then?
Because it would be unworkable. I'd rather just lobby people to stop
pretending that a short series "proves" something.
>God willing, they will ALWAYS be best of seven.
>That's the beauty of it.
Actually, that's part of the point. You guys keep acting as if
best-of-seven is some sort of sacred number, handed down from god at
Mt. Sinai.
I mean, the WS hasn't always been best-of-seven, though it has been for
quite a while.
But the LCSes have only been best-of-seven for a short time (~10 years),
and the Division Series *still* aren't best-of-seven.
>Enough of this thread!!
>BTW, Bonds choked again today -- although I know it was just one game --
What does that even *mean?* How can you "choke" in a game? You mean
each day he doesn't go 4-4, he chokes?
>yadda, yadda, yadda... (I'm not sure if I've *ever* seen a weaker arm in
>the OF -- and he even charges the ball nicely -- go figure.) But, of
>course, I have no doubt that your stats will show that Barry got to every
>ball hit into his "zone," and that he made no errors, yadda, yadda,
>yadda...
Well, I didn't see the game, so I don't know to what you refer, but the
player only gets credited with getting to the ball if he turns it into an
out.
Rick Brooks
In article <01bc3f08$5b0b80a0$7e4ca69d@HOME_SWM.turner.com> "steve" <steve...@turner.com> writes:
<<snip>>
>> Similarly, Bonds would
>> not have done so poorly in an extended series,
>Why don't you statheads lobby the owners to increase the playoffs and WS to
>best of, say, 99, then? God willing, they will ALWAYS be best of seven.
>That's the beauty of it.
>Enough of this thread!!
>BTW, Bonds choked again today -- although I know it was just one game --
>yadda, yadda, yadda... (I'm not sure if I've *ever* seen a weaker arm in
>the OF -- and he even charges the ball nicely -- go figure.) But, of
>course, I have no doubt that your stats will show that Barry got to every
>ball hit into his "zone," and that he made no errors, yadda, yadda,
>yadda...
Steve, I don't know if you're being sarcastic here or not, but it WAS only one
game. Bonds' throw was off the mark, but so was Jose Guillen's throw to the
plate. Do we call Jose a choker, too?
>Enough of this thread, please; our Pirates are undefeated, Womack is an
>incredible lead-off hitter, Elster has lost *nothing* from last year (he
>even fields as well as Jay Bell), our starting pitching was fantastic, and
>(most importantly) the bullpen (*three* of them) did NOT blow the lead
>today... all is right with the world.
Steve, I always love your posts because of your enthusiasm. I agree totally.
I sure as hell wish Bonds was still playing in Pittsburgh, but he's not, so
let's move on.
I wish I had the same optimism for Womack and Elster-- but I gotta admit they
looked good yesterday. I assume the fielding reference comes from that
grounder he fielded that took the wicked hop. That was indeed a good pick and
throw. I don't know if we can expect 24 homers from him though.
The bullpen was indeed impressive. When Reubel came in and threw about 6 (?)
straight balls, I was worried, but he got the job done. Tough day for
Allensworth at the plate, but he had a nice running catch. I did feel badly
for Kendall, though, when he made that throwing error. Not the best start for
a young catcher whose throwing ability has been questioned. Overall, a great
win, and we should enjoy it.
Anyways, go buccos, and keep up the attitude, Steve. Maybe Gene can use you
as a bench coach :)
Rick Brooks
->Go Bucs. (Now, more than ever.)
Venkatesh Natarajan
Excerpts from netnews.alt.sports.baseball.pitt-pirates: 1-Apr-97 Re: F
Barry Bonds by Robert E Mar...@pitt.ed
> >titles to any pitcher with >= 20 innings....
> >
> > It's the next logical step.
>
> If the season were only seven games long then I guess that would be
> appropriate. Since it isn't you're simply being asinine.
You obviously missed the point. Why *don't* we give batting titles
based on 60 at-bats? Because it's too easy to be (un)lucky over that
period of time. For the same reason, you don't judge people as "chokers"
based on 60 at-bats.
Venk
Brian D. Bigelow
Gregory D. May wrote:
>
> Brian D. Bigelow wrote:
> >
> > dictionary handy) and self-importance.
>
> Believe it or not, I quoted my dictionary verbatim, and then rechecked
> it after your post and that's how it appears. Websters II, New
> Riverside Dictionary, paperback edition, page 542. I need a new
> dictionary.
>
> >At least I have the humility
> > to speak for myself, and not for others.
>
> Humility is a virtue that you have not displayed in this thread. Maybe
> you should check the definition of that word (but don't use Websters
> II).
>
to it. I claimed *only* to have the humility *to not speak for others*
(lest you disagree, I've quoted the relevant portion above), which,
in fact, is correct, since I've not spoken for anyone else on this
thread. Whether I've displayed humility *in general* is an entirely
different question, and one which I neither address, nor particularly
care about.
> > Furthermore, there's something vaguely pathetic about one who quotes
> > a dictionary while showing a pronounced lack of reading comprehension.
> > The passage that seems to have provoked you, which you quote above,
> > states, "I'm not CONVINCED he was better than Yogi" (emphasis added).
> > Which means, to anyone familiar with the finer points of the language,
> > "I'm not convinced that he WASN'T, either; there's room for debate."
> > If I thought Yogi was incontrovertibly better than Rizzuto, as you've
> > suggested, I'd have said so.
>
> Hey, you wrote the sentence, not me.
Indeed, I did. And you *construed* it to mean something other than
what it actually SAYS.
There's something very pathetic
> about constantly having to explain what you meant to say instead of
> saying it that way the first time.
Agreed, but that's only because portions of my audience are apparently
too dense to pick up on shades of meaning, for which I can't be held
responsible.
> My interpretation was correct.
No, it wasn't. Only one with a very weak grasp of the subtleties
of the language would argue that "I'm not convinced Rizzuto was better
than Berra" (what I wrote) means the same thing as "I think Berra was
better than Rizzuto" (your interpretation of the above).
My
> point wasn't who was actually better between the two.
I'm aware of this, and I didn't attempt to argue that point in my
most recent post. See, I actually READ posts before answering them--
I *knew* what your point was.
It was that your
> opinion of who was better doesn't amount to a much since you are basing
> it presumably on stats only, and we all know that the player with the
> best stats is not necessarily the MVP.
Fine. That point's well taken, which is PRECISELY why I *didn't*
say, "I think, beyond any shadow of a doubt, Yogi Berra was a
better player than Phil Rizzuto in 1950. [I've done all I can
do here, Mr. May--I can't be any clearer than that.]"--because
I can't claim to KNOW that with certainty. That's a reasonable point
of debate. And to make that point, you needn't have attacked ME
personally.
>If you weren't so paranoid and
> defensive,
No, paranoia suggests actual FEAR. (Frankly, I've always found
criticism from subliterates more amusing than frightening.) I'd say
my last post was only as "defensive" as it needed to be to refute
the (wholly unprovoked) diatribe you launched at me.
>probably because you know you are being pompous,
No, not really; if I were defensive about being pompous, I'd make
an attempt at being something *other* than pompous. I don't really
CARE if you think I'm pompous. What I object to is your basing
personal attacks upon what are not only MINOR points, but points
which are something OTHER than what you've interpreted them to be.
your reading
> comprehension would improve greatly.
Yuh...better tell my employer-to-be I ain't done learned ta read yet...
And now, back to baseball...
--BDB