04/25/24
September 17, 2004
700: Barry Bonds hits his 700th home run.
posted by kirkaracha to baseball at 11:35 PM - 22 comments
Bah 700, at this level only two numbers really mean anything: 715 and 756. 700 is nice but is it really a milestone at this point? Not trying to be dismissive in the "hip-to-not-care" way, I just really feel that after say 600, only passing people above you in the list really matters. Barry should win MVP this year, hands down. Crazy numbers. Which leads you to believe he should be pitched to. Odds are he is not going to keep that up all season with 3 or 4 official AB's a game. Still great numbers but not that crazy. He is 250-300 AB's behind some of the other ratio stat leaders, that is amazing in itself considering he hasn't missed any major time. The true crime will be Johnson not getting the Cy Young.
posted by pivo at 12:42 AM on September 18, 2004
Knowing it was going to happen doesn't make it less awe-inspiring when I watched as they cut away from the Sox/Yankees (sweet game, that!). Who could possibly justify him not winning the MVP? It should be a foregone conclusion, just as it is every year. Jesus. 7 MVPs?!? That may be more untouchable than whatever homerun record he eventually sets (let's not forget that several sluggers have a shot at getting past 700 themselves, especially if they can stay healthy like Bonds has).
posted by hincandenza at 01:53 AM on September 18, 2004
I think hitting number 700 is huge. Just because there's another bigger milestone ahead of him, his health willing, does not render this one meaningless.
posted by rcade at 09:05 AM on September 18, 2004
Well, there are a lot of sportswriters who think he's a big meanie, and so they just won't vote for him. Thing is, there's nobody else in his galaxy right now, and everyone knows it. The proof of that? He's got 207 walks. And counting. See, the players and managers have spoken. Two hundred and seven walks. And there's still two weeks left in the season.
posted by chicobangs at 10:28 AM on September 18, 2004
Salon's King Kaufman has a series of items arguing for Bonds as MVP:
- On-base percentage plus slugging percentage (OPS): Bonds is having the best season ever
- Batting average: Bonds was batting .375 on September 14
- Imaginary managerial cojones
- Runs: he's second in the league in runs and 1st in runs created
- He should get the Hank Aaron award
- Barry Bonds, 2002 -- 1.381
- Babe Ruth, 1920 -- 1.3791
- Barry Bonds, 2001 -- 1.3785
- Babe Ruth, 1921 -- 1.359
- Babe Ruth, 1923 -- 1.309
posted by kirkaracha at 11:10 AM on September 18, 2004
Well, there are a lot of sportswriters who think he's a big meanie, and so they just won't vote for him. And those are the ones that should have their voting rights taken away. In fact, that would be a good way of finding the dumbass voters: if you didn't vote for Bonds as the MVP in 2004, then you are obviously incompetent. Statistically: His AVG is higher than the league OBP. His OBP is higher than the league SLG. His SLG is higher than the league OPS. His OPS is the highest of all time. It's (another) season for the ages. It's obvious he has no real top-shelf help on the team and they are STILL in the playoff race. Other than the patently stupid arguments ("He's only 15th in RBI!"*), there is no reason he shouldn't get the MVP. *for the record, he's 1st in the league in RBI/AB (among qualifying batters)
posted by grum@work at 11:12 AM on September 18, 2004
Jayson Stark has some spectacular Bonds numbers here. My favorite:
* a record Bonds has a shot at is most times reaching base (by hit, walk or hit-by-pitch). The record is 381, by Babe Ruth. Bonds' pace through Thursday: 376. Here are the only seasons of 350 or more since 1900, according to Lee Sinins' Sabermetric Encyclopedia: 381 -- Babe Ruth 1923 358 -- Ted Williams, 1949 356 -- Barry Bonds, 2002 353 -- Babe Ruth, 1921Way more relevant than Ichiro's quest for the hits record, IMHO.
posted by tieguy at 11:18 AM on September 18, 2004
We've spent a lot of virtual ink on defending Bonds, but actually- is anyone out there seriously talking about anyone else? The only question left is whether the vote will be unaninous. grum is right- just like the yabo who didn't vote for Pedro for MVP in '99 because he publicly stated "pitchers shouldn't be eligible", whoever actually puts Bonds anywhere else on his ballot but 1st should be rendered ineligible forever. And chico nailed it in noting that 207 walks and counting means that the whole of the National League has already voted who the most valuable, and most feared, player is.
posted by hincandenza at 12:51 PM on September 18, 2004
I'm very glad to see SF Outfielder getting the truly deserved love here. If he does get the 7th MVP, who is number two on that list?
posted by billsaysthis at 01:52 PM on September 18, 2004
We've spent a lot of virtual ink on defending Bonds, but actually - is anyone out there seriously talking about anyone else? Back in July, there was a lot of talk about Rolen, Pujols, Beltre, and even Edmonds as MVP candidates. But a recent search finds that almost everyone (except the diehard Cardinals fan) that Bonds is the "5-star lock" for NL MVP. A good article on this is found on Salon. (just click through the free-day pass thingy to read the article) The best line: "The other "candidates" -- in the sense that Ralph Nader is a candidate for president -- are Adrian Beltre of the Dodgers, at long last having his breakout season, and a trio of Cardinals: Albert Pujols, Scott Rolen and Jim Edmonds."
posted by grum@work at 01:53 PM on September 18, 2004
I'm very glad to see SF Outfielder getting the truly deserved love here. Don't confuse respect for the numbers with love. He's still a colossal dickhead.
posted by pivo at 02:26 PM on September 18, 2004
pivo needs to to explore his inner irony, saysbill.
posted by billsaysthis at 03:15 PM on September 18, 2004
Can never tell bill. Some follks think he's the bees knees and has never seen a chemical enhancement (though they did appear on his doorstep).
posted by pivo at 03:29 PM on September 18, 2004
Although I acknowledge that up until very recently he's done himself no favors at all with the media, and even if his blood has over the years been switched with that of some superpowerful alien and laced with some steroid-meth-nitro-plutonium concoction, I still think he's the bees knees.
posted by chicobangs at 05:24 PM on September 18, 2004
I agree with chico. Personally, I love that he's a colossal dickhead. Warts and all, Barry is one of my favorite superstar athletes. And to those who think 700 isn't a big deal, I can kinda see where you're coming from. After all, only three players are in the 661 club. But we sports fans tend to cherish these round numbers: 20 wins, 3000 hits, 300 yards. We use them as convenient measuring sticks, as a way to size up the different players and decide who is good, who is mediocre, who sucks, and who is great. So if 700 doesn't mean anything, does that mean 800 won't mean anything?
posted by rocketman at 06:14 PM on September 18, 2004
My favorite Bonds stat of the year: If you took all of hits away, in other words if he has zero hits - his OBP is still something like .375 because of his walks. Higher than only about 600 ballplayers. Beltre I thought was the obvious number two. Dodgers would be sunk without him.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 06:29 PM on September 18, 2004
So if 700 doesn't mean anything, does that mean 800 won't mean anything? To me 800 would mean something. After passing Aaron it would be all there was to shoot for really. 700 is nice and round and all but after the hype from passing Mays, and the deserved hype coming from passing Ruth, just getting 700 is meh. As you noted, every one from 661-714 is the same. He is still top three.
posted by pivo at 07:26 PM on September 18, 2004
To recant a bit...If he were scratching it out, with no shot at Ruth or Aaron (a la say McGriff going for 500, with no shot in hell at 501), THEN 700 would mean something. With the forgone conclusion of getting the record, that's where it diminishes quite a bit. Enough from me on the merits of 700.
posted by pivo at 07:33 PM on September 18, 2004
Without taking anything away from Bonds, I think Gordon Edes forgets one thing when calling Bonds "the game's greatest player" in today's Boston Globe; Bonds was never a great pitcher in addition to being an offensive juggernaut.
posted by yerfatma at 11:34 AM on September 19, 2004
Well, yerfatma, he is only 40 years old. There is still time.
posted by chicobangs at 03:04 PM on September 19, 2004
I hate Bonds, and I normally say that a guy has to propel his team to the playoffs to be the MVP. In a normal year, I'd be trying to give it to Rolen. But be honest -- if the Giants didn't have Barry, where would they be this season? For God's sake, their second-best offensive player is J.T. Snow! Without His Royal A-Holiness, San Fran might have won 65-70 games, tops. Give the Man his due.
posted by wfrazerjr at 02:10 AM on September 20, 2004
Let's talk MVP. Barry Bonds vs. second place AVG: .373 vs. .341 OBP: .611 vs. .464 SLG: .830 vs. .683 OPS: 1.436 vs. 1.113 BB: 207 vs. 122 IBB: 105 vs. 25 And that's not counting all those fancy formula statistics. Even if Giants miss playoffs, I say the king still earns his crown. I just can't think of another candidate.