11/21/24
August 14, 2007
The Last Go Round: "I think we’re lucky as Pirates fans that we got to witness that Bonds, up close and personal for more than six years, three of them coming with him at the height of his prowess. And while it would have been nice if he’d stuck around a little longer, we’ll never have to live with the legacy of doubt that surrounded him in his later years."
posted by jasonspaceman to baseball at 12:46 PM - 20 comments
During a six month period in 1992, he ripped the town and the franchise for being racist, played a key role in a third straight NLCS loss, and completed the dismantling of a potential dynasty by bolting to San Francisco for the richest contract in baseball history. Could we be any luckier than to have witnessed that? My personal career highlight of his was his awsome 1992 NLCS batting average of .191. I don't want to here any more crap about him being the greatest hitter or player of all time. If you can't do it when it counts then what are you really worth? The object is to win championships not homerun titles, he blew it in the playoffs 3 times for Pittsburgh. But then again, hasn't it always been about Barry and nothing else?
posted by Steel_Town at 02:18 PM on August 14, 2007
Sid Bream's on line one.
posted by SummersEve at 04:56 PM on August 14, 2007
Yup.... That's the problem, Steel_Town. Baseball's a team sport. Whilst I admire Barry's raw talent (a lot), his poor clubhouse attitude and lack of tact with the press makes him a liability for most (soon to be any) teams.
posted by slackerman at 04:57 PM on August 14, 2007
Sid Bream fucking rules! I was working that night, and we'd just shut down the restaurant when the bartender came in and said the game was getting good. We walked in minutes before Francisco Cabrera and Sid Bream broke Pittsburgh's heart. Unbelieveable night, unbelieveable way to end an LCS.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 06:42 PM on August 14, 2007
Steel_Town: My personal career highlight of his was his awsome 1992 NLCS batting average of .191. I don't want to here any more crap about him being the greatest hitter or player of all time. If you can't do it when it counts then what are you really worth?Yeah, the best measure of a player is their post-season performance. Don't let anyone convince you of silliness like "sample size"- that's just those darn stat "heads" trying to distract you from your true "gut" feeling.
posted by hincandenza at 09:04 PM on August 14, 2007
Yeah, the best measure of a player is their post-season performance. Best players ever. I can't tell if I'm being facetious or not.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 09:25 PM on August 14, 2007
I don't recall anyone saying Ted Williams, Willie Mays or any of the players Crafty linked to as "The greatest player ever". As everyone here has pointed out post season stats are not the end all of how a player will be judged. But if your going to call someone the greatest ever they should at least have some respectable post season numbers. Yup.... That's the problem, Steel_Town. Baseball's a team sport. So if Peyton Manning throws four interceptions in the superbowl and the Colts loose do you just cast that aside and say football is a team sport? If the star of the team who is probably largley responsible for the team being in the playoffs chokes it is not unreasonable to put a large part of the blame on them for loosing. I beleive there was a chink in the chain in the '92 NLCS. From that point forward Barry was no longer in my circle of trust.
posted by Steel_Town at 09:47 AM on August 15, 2007
......... if your going to call someone the greatest ever they should at least have some respectable post season numbers. So, it would be impossible to call Ernie Banks the best player ever, because he played zero post season games. Not that I think Ernie is the best player, though in my book he'd merit consideration for top 100. I am just pointing out a flaw in your argument.
posted by tommybiden at 02:59 PM on August 15, 2007
I am not talking top 100 I am talking greatest ever. And yes, I guess I would say it is impossible to say a guy who never once led his team to the playoffs is the greatest player ever to play the game.
posted by Steel_Town at 03:21 PM on August 15, 2007
But if your going to call someone the greatest ever they should at least have some respectable post season numbers. [...] And yes, I guess I would say it is impossible to say a guy who never once led his team to the playoffs is the greatest player ever to play the game.Well by that argument, Steel_Town, Barry Bonds has led his team to the playoffs 7 separate times. In the 2002 World Series, he hit .471 (8 for 13), with 13 walks, 4 HR, 6 RBI, and an incredible OPS of 1.994 (.700/1.294)- meaning he reached base 7 times out of 10 for the series while effectively averaging more than a single per at-bat. So, he led his team to the World Series, he had one of the most successful World Series as a hitter in history (only the best performances of Ruth, or the '77 Jackson output, can compare)... yet they still lost. Peyton Manning is not relevent: more so than any other sport, baseball is a team sport that inherently prevents one player, excepting maybe a particularly good pitcher, from ever "taking over" a game or series and carrying his team on his back.
posted by hincandenza at 06:02 PM on August 15, 2007
In the 2002 World Series, he hit .471 (8 for 13), with 13 walks, 4 HR, 6 RBI, and an incredible OPS of 1.994 (.700/1.294)- meaning he reached base 7 times out of 10 for the series while effectively averaging more than a single per at-bat. I could be wrong here but is 2002 right smack in the middle of all of the Bonds steroid allegations. Excuse me while I go bury my head in the sand.
posted by Steel_Town at 08:51 AM on August 16, 2007
So if Peyton Manning throws four interceptions in the superbowl and the Colts loose do you just cast that aside and say football is a team sport? If the star of the team who is probably largley responsible for the team being in the playoffs chokes it is not unreasonable to put a large part of the blame on them for loosing. If in fact that same player is not the reason the team wins do you then hand him the MVP trophy also? Lets look at it ...if Manning throws 4 picks it is clearly not his fault. The reciever ran the wrong route, the line did not give him time, there was interference that was not called. Do you think M.J. could have done it without Pippen, Kerr, Big Bill, Paxton etc.? Let us not continue to raise good or great players to a level above others to the point that any cardboard cut-out of a man can fill the other roster spots!
posted by CHIEF FAN at 11:36 PM on August 16, 2007
Do you think M.J. could have done it without Pippen, Kerr, Big Bill, Paxton etc.? Well, that is the exact opposite of what I am saying. I'm saying, Pippen and Co. could not have done it without Jordan. And why is that? Because he was so great. In fact, he is one of those athletes I would call "the greatest ever" in thier sport, if not in all of sports. And furthermore, I think a lot of you would agree with me on that. Do you all really think we would be saying that if he hadn't of won 6 championships? more so than any other sport, baseball is a team sport that inherently prevents one player, excepting maybe a particularly good pitcher, from ever "taking over" a game or series and carrying his team on his back. Could pirates have gone on to win the Series in those three years in the 80's and 90's? No one really knows, but I bet a couple of homeruns in a 7 game series could have changed things. A two dinger game by Bonds could have won one game that we lost, which in turn gives the Pirates the series, so yes, they can not take over but they sure as hell can have a huge impact on an entire series. And all it would have take was his typical regular season play.
posted by Steel_Town at 08:15 AM on August 17, 2007
So if Peyton Manning throws four interceptions in the superbowl and the Colts loose do you just cast that aside and say football is a team sport? No because the impact a quarterback has on a game is significantly greater than an outfielder. The quarterback is involved in every play. If a teams quarterback has a terrible game chances are very good that the team isn't going to win the game. Just as if the quarterback plays fantastic they'll most likely win. In baseball if a team's number three hitter goes 0-4 they still have an excellent chance. There are eight other players who can come through with the big game and help win it for the team. Like Hal Incadenza said baseball is more of a team sport because it is quite hard for one player to win or lose the game for his team.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 10:31 AM on August 19, 2007
Please see my above comment on the impact he could have had.
posted by Steel_Town at 09:08 AM on August 20, 2007
The other eight players in the batting order could have had the same impact. To say he blew in in the playoffs three times for Pittsburgh is ridiculous. His teammates had equal opportunities to help win a championship.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 10:43 AM on August 20, 2007
I hear your argument Steel_Town but there are way too many holes in that same argument that you're presenting. I understand that if Barry Bonds had a better postseason, then maybe the Pirates would've had a better chance in the playoffs. The reason I say you have holes in that argument is because in baseball, not one player is solely responsible for winning or losing. Pitchers play their role(s) and all position player(s) had a chance to do something in every at-bat, not just Bonds. To say that the only reason the Pirates did not advance in the playoffs during Bonds' tenure there is a slap to the faces for all the other players that played with Bonds during that time. I think your right that Bonds should've had a better showing in the playoffs but IMO, he's not the only player that deserves to be vilified, he's just the name that everyone remembers.
posted by BornIcon at 12:17 PM on August 20, 2007
But I still think it is fair to say that without Bonds in the line-up all season, the Pirates don't make the playoffs in the first place. If he can be the difference there why can't his poor performance be the difference in the playoffs. It wasn't all of the Pirates not performing in the playoffs. It was Barry Bonds who was not carrying his weight. Like I jokeingly said before, there was a chink in the chain and it was Bonds. I thank him for all of the awsome games he played here before he left and for getting us to the playoffs those years, along with a good pitching staff, but he choked, plain and simple. Like I said before, the greatest ever don't choke in the playoffs and he choked not once, not twice, but 3 times.
posted by Steel_Town at 03:19 PM on August 20, 2007
In the 1992 NLCS Bonds had the most runs scored of any Pirate. He also was tied for second on the team in RBI's and had the third highest OBP. In the 1991 NLCS Bonds had a very poor performance, but it is still ridiculous to blame the Pirates loss on him seeing as the Pirates batted just .224 in that series and no player other than Jay Bell batted better than .304. The situation is very similar in 1990 with the Pirates' team average being a paltry .194. Bonds led the team in runs scored during that series as well. I think it is same to say that almost all of the Pirates were not performing in the playoffs. Bonds was just one of many.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:23 PM on August 20, 2007
Likely, he'll be seen in Pittsburgh at least a few more times.