Skip to content
BOL Conferences
Learn More - Click Here!

Page 1 of 2 1 2
Thread Options
#248245 - 09/23/04 06:17 PM 2004 NL MVP
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Who do you think deserves the award?

It's hard to post objective facts on defense performance, so I will provide this on run production (runs + RBI - HR), the ultimate offensive statistic, in order to get the conversation started:

1. Rolen 195
2. Pujols 194
3. Abreu 185
4. Castilla 183
5. Bonds 176
6. Drew 173
7. Edmonds 169
8. Cabrera 169
9. Berkman 167
10. Beltre 166

Return to Top
Chat! - BOL Watercooler
#248246 - 09/23/04 06:25 PM Re: 2004 NL MVP
zaibatsu Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
Why not a pitcher? Its been a long time since a pitcher won either MVP award, but I can't believe that no pitcher this year would be in the top 10.

My vote would be Bonds. I agree with this from Ken Rosenthal of the Sporting News:

"he's second in the league in runs. Bonds' .605 OBP, padded by walk totals that will eclipse his '02 record, gives the team an immense advantage in run production, helping an otherwise mediocre group remain in contention."

And that is what the MVP is all about: who is the most value to their team? That would have to be Bonds. You can't just look at run production. He is amazing this year. If you don't believe me, just ask all the major league managers who won't pitch to him.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city

Return to Top
#248247 - 09/23/04 06:37 PM Re: 2004 NL MVP
redsfan Offline
Power Poster
redsfan
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,455
The Pennant Race
I agree with Z - Bonds has ot be the Most Valuable Player. The Giants are nowhere without him, and nobody in the league wants to give him a chance to beat them.

All those other chaps have had outstanding years, but if you give Bonds a normal number of walks (say 110) and replace those walks with at bats where he actually gets to hit, he drives in another 20-30 runs, hits another 10 homers or so, and we aren't even having a conversation.
_________________________
The opinions expressed here are personal and do not represent opinions of my employer.

Return to Top
#248248 - 09/23/04 06:43 PM Re: 2004 NL MVP
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Answering your questions in reverse order:

If you are discussing offensive performance, there is nothing to say that is more important than run production. Getting on base via the walk is fine and dandy. Assuming you score. A Ruthian slugging percentage is great. Assuming you're driving in runs.

But I never said you should just look at run production. You should also look at defense, on which Bonds is a liability. You should look at team leadership. Again, liability.

You are correct that his team would not be in contention without him. But (a) they haven't won yet. And (b) would the Cardinals have won their division without either Pujols or Rolen? Maybe, but they wouldn't have won 100 games, for sure.

I've never liked designating a pitcher as an MVP (starters pitch every 5th game now, used to be every 4th, but either way you are talking about 20 or 25 percent; closers pitch in less than 5% of their team's innings). I would make an exception if a pitcher has an incredibly dominant (Gibson in '68) season, but none have this year.

Return to Top
#248249 - 09/23/04 06:48 PM Re: 2004 NL MVP
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

nobody in the league wants to give him a chance to beat them...if you give Bonds a normal number of walks (say 110) and replace those walks with at bats where he actually gets to hit, he drives in another 20-30 runs, hits another 10 homers or so...




What he could have done is completely irrelevant. What matters when a team is on offense is who is producing runs, not who is getting on base. If Bonds is standing on first base at the end of the inning, that doesn't help his team. If he walks, steals a base, and scores, that matters. And it would be reflected in his run production totals (see above).

Return to Top
#248250 - 09/23/04 06:51 PM Re: 2004 NL MVP
Dazed&Confused Offline
Member
Dazed&Confused
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 76
Bonds, Bonds, Bonds

The guy kills everything he hits, which unfortunatly is not a whole lot. Imagine what his production would be like if he actually got picthes to hit every now and then.
He does take a rest break during the opposite half of the inning but it was not more then a few weeks ago when he had a laser assist (throwing some one out at home). I think he is the greatest (offensivly) of all time and deserves every peice of recognition he gets.
I am obviously a giants fan but since i was relocated I have seen like three games. But from what I have seen, he hasn't changed much.

On the topic of pitchers, I think Schmidt should have been considered last year for MVP, he didn't even win the Cy Young award but he was a lights out pitcher. To bad things havn't gone so well this year.

Just my thoughts...
_________________________
My boss doesn't even know I am here so he cannot take any responsibility for my opinions!

Return to Top
#248251 - 09/23/04 06:53 PM Re: 2004 NL MVP
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

Bonds, Bonds, Bonds...Imagine what his production would be like if he actually got picthes to hit every now and then.




Yes, imagine. But then vote for the MVP based on reality.

Return to Top
#248252 - 09/23/04 07:00 PM Re: 2004 NL MVP
zaibatsu Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
I am not a Bonds fan, but nothing has been said here to change my mind. It is:

B*O*N*D*S
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city

Return to Top
#248253 - 09/23/04 07:09 PM Re: 2004 NL MVP
bb Offline
100 Club
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 145
Big XII
I have to agree with -Z-, my vote would go to Bonds.

Where do the SF Giants finish if you take Barry Bonds out of the lineup? They might be as bad a Colorado (Castillo), 20 games under .500, or on life support for the Wild Card like the Phillies (Abreu).

He is going to win another batting title (at age 40) despite being a power hitter. He is still in the hunt for the NL home run title despite being walked 213 times and counting..... I could go on, but I am not the biggest Bonds fan in the world, but you have to admire his game.

Now ask that same question of Pujols, Rolens or Edmunds. Where are the Cardinals without one of these players? They are still a very good team that most likely makes the playoffs.

Bonds has made everyone else on his team better. That is very difficult to say in a team sport that is so dependent on individual effort.

Return to Top
#248254 - 09/23/04 07:20 PM Re: 2004 NL MVP
Bankster Offline
Diamond Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,181
Yinzerville, PA
I'll take Scott Rolen for MVP. He is having a great season at the plate, and shouldn't be penalized because he has other great hitters around him. Plus his defense is excellent, which is especially important on a team with a pretty average pitching staff. Also the Cardinals have run away with a tough division, and being the best player on the best team has to count for something.

Sure Bonds is the best player in the game, but this season belongs to the Cardinals and their best player, Scott Rolen. There are too many 'what-if's' with Bonds. What-if he didn't demand so much money, maybe the Giants could afford to put some better players around him, and the walks wouldn't be an issue.

No pitchers for MVP, they have their own award.

Return to Top
#248255 - 09/23/04 07:29 PM Re: 2004 NL MVP
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

you have to admire his game.




I agree that he is an incredible hitter when he hits. But he is not the best in the league at producing runs. He is a defensive liability. And he is a negative presence in the clubhouse.

Quote:

Now ask that same question of Pujols, Rolens or Edmunds. Where are the Cardinals without one of these players?




I wouldn't count on that. The Redbirds have struggled since Rolen has been out.

Quote:

Bonds has made everyone else on his team better.




Prove it.

For all of you "he could do such and such if only he was pitched to" types - consider a hypothetical player who was so incredible a hitter that every time he saw a pitch in the strike zone, he homered. As a result, he is walked in every plate appearance (OBP 1.000). He scores 120 runs, drives (walks) in 25 (bases loaded walks). But the rest of his team isn't that good (evidenced by the total runs scored despite reaching base each time up). With a good pitching staff, his team competes for the wild card spot. Thankfully, he competes in the AL, so he isn't dead defensive weight. MVP?

Return to Top
#248256 - 09/23/04 07:38 PM Re: 2004 NL MVP
zaibatsu Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
Quote:

And he is a negative presence in the clubhouse.




Has he been? Evidence?
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city

Return to Top
#248257 - 09/23/04 07:47 PM Re: 2004 NL MVP
Bankster Offline
Diamond Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,181
Yinzerville, PA
Quote:

Quote:

And he is a negative presence in the clubhouse.




Has he been? Evidence?




The Pirates top set-up man, Salmon Torres was interviewed when the Giants came to town, because he came-up as a rookie with the Giants. He told stories of how mean and nasty Bonds treated him, to the point where he would go back to his hotel at nights and cry himself to sleep. Now for a grown man and a professional athlete to admit that he cried himself to sleep, that to me is convincing evidence that Bonds is a negative clubhouse influence and a overall jerk.

By the way, I am a disgruntled Pirates fan and Bonds hater if you haven't noticed.

Return to Top
#248258 - 09/23/04 07:54 PM Re: 2004 NL MVP
zaibatsu Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

And he is a negative presence in the clubhouse.




Has he been? Evidence?




The Pirates top set-up man, Salmon Torres was interviewed when the Giants came to town, because he came-up as a rookie with the Giants. He told stories of how mean and nasty Bonds treated him, to the point where he would go back to his hotel at nights and cry himself to sleep. Now for a grown man and a professional athlete to admit that he cried himself to sleep, that to me is convincing evidence that Bonds is a negative clubhouse influence and a overall jerk.

By the way, I am a disgruntled Pirates fan and Bonds hater if you haven't noticed.





Any evidence this year?
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city

Return to Top
#248259 - 09/23/04 08:01 PM Re: 2004 NL MVP
Bankster Offline
Diamond Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,181
Yinzerville, PA
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

And he is a negative presence in the clubhouse.




Has he been? Evidence?




The Pirates top set-up man, Salmon Torres was interviewed when the Giants came to town, because he came-up as a rookie with the Giants. He told stories of how mean and nasty Bonds treated him, to the point where he would go back to his hotel at nights and cry himself to sleep. Now for a grown man and a professional athlete to admit that he cried himself to sleep, that to me is convincing evidence that Bonds is a negative clubhouse influence and a overall jerk.

By the way, I am a disgruntled Pirates fan and Bonds hater if you haven't noticed.





Any evidence this year?




Any reason to believe that he has suddenly changed?

The Giants have a good veteran coach and many experienced players, which contributes to their success. Have you noticed that young players don't generally have much success with the Giants. Coincidence??????

Return to Top
#248260 - 09/23/04 08:17 PM Re: 2004 NL MVP
Chi Offline
Platinum Poster
Chi
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 606
New England
Quote:

He is a defensive liability.




Defensive Liability? I'm sorry, but has his defense changed all that much since last year? Or the year before that? Or the year before that? Barry Bonds won the NL MVP in 01', 02', and 03'. Bonds has lost a step or two, but I would say he is an average / above average outfielder. If you want a defensive liability, I would point to Manny Ramirez of the Boston Red Sox who constantly drops easy balls or misplays the outfield.

I also imagine Rolen, Pujols, Abreu, and Castilla have been pitched at (meaning, not intentionally walked) more times than Bonds.
_________________________
Respect It.

Return to Top
#248261 - 09/23/04 08:31 PM Re: 2004 NL MVP
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

Defensive Liability? I'm sorry, but has his defense changed all that much since last year? Or the year before that? Or the year before that? Barry Bonds won the NL MVP in 01', 02', and 03'.




No, it hasn't changed. I would say that he has been a defensive liability most of those years.

Quote:

I also imagine Rolen, Pujols, Abreu, and Castilla have been pitched at (meaning, not intentionally walked) more times than Bonds.




The fact that they are pitched to more often just means that they get fewer free trips to first base. What's your point? Playing on offense is about scoring and driving in runs. If not, please tell me when the rules changed.

Return to Top
#248262 - 09/23/04 08:32 PM Re: 2004 NL MVP
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

Has he been? Evidence?




How about having a Barry-only section of the locker room? How about not running out ground balls? How about not riding the team bus?

(Really, this is not a very serious case you are making, Z.)
Last edited by Jokerman; 09/23/04 08:33 PM.
Return to Top
#248263 - 09/23/04 08:42 PM Re: 2004 NL MVP
redsfan Offline
Power Poster
redsfan
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,455
The Pennant Race
Quote:

But he is not the best in the league at producing runs.




He has not produced as many runs as some other players you have named. But if you look at his run production versus his actual opportunities (runs produced per at bat), no one is even close. He produces a run with every other at bat. For Pujols and Edmonds, it's every third at-bat. Edmunds is slightly better, with 2 runs produced roughly every five at-bats.

If he gets pitched tothe way those other guys bet pitched to, he produces another 30-40 runs, which makes him the leading run producer in all of major league baseball by 20 runs.

The moneyball boys put their stock in a stat called OPS: Onbase percentage plus Slugging percentage. Bonds' OPS is roughly 1.45. That's 29% higher than Edmunds', 36% better than Pujols', and 41% better than Rolen's.

Every one of the guys you mentioned as having produced more runs has more help than Bonds. Castilla has Todd Helton and Jeromy Burnitz. Rolen, Pujols, and Edmonds play together. Abreu has Jim Thome. There isn't a single Giant other than Bonds in the top 10 in any major offensive category. Bonds leads the league in average, walks, on-base percentage, and slugging percentage. He's second in runs scored and third in home runs.

Quote:

He is a defensive liability.




Only in your dreams. Among National League left fielders, he's tied for 3rd in fielding percentage, tied for second in range factor (the % of balls in his zone he gets to and his 11 assists are the same as Edmunds with only 2/3 the number of chances. Pujols is middle of the pack definsively among first basemen, and he plays with two gold glove caliber infielders (Rolen and Renteria).

Quote:

And he is a negative presence in the clubhouse.





The only person I've ever heard publicly criticize Bonds' clubhouse presence is Jeff Kent, who got hurt riding his dirt bike and covering it up. And I haven't seen his new team win any playoff series since the moved on, either.

Botton line: If the Giants don't have Bonds, they're not even the wild card chase. With Bonds, they have a chance to win their division, and they're right at teh top in the wild card.

Bonds is more important to his team than any of those other guys are to theirs. He's the MVP
_________________________
The opinions expressed here are personal and do not represent opinions of my employer.

Return to Top
#248264 - 09/23/04 08:53 PM Re: 2004 NL MVP
zaibatsu Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
Quote:

Quote:

Has he been? Evidence?




How about having a Barry-only section of the locker room? How about not running out ground balls? How about not riding the team bus?

(Really, this is not a very serious case you are making, Z.)




I am not trying to make a case. He is not a negative effect in the locker room unless those who play with think he is. Your facts do not make him a negative effect unless it actually is a negative effect. Prima donna act or not, if the other players are not effected, it is not a negative effect. I am not a fan, but you are obviously a detractor. Give me the proof that he actually is a negative factor. Preferably quotes from his team mates that he has effected the team negatively. I don't have a dog in this hunt--I figure he is a negative to some degree, but you have not shown this.

Remember, I did not come up with a statement that he is a positive or a neutral effect in the locker room. It was you who came up with the statement that he is a negative effect. Maybe you have given all your evidence. I am just not convinced until I hear the players themselves from this year's team say it. Of course, that may not happen until after the season.

Sorry for rambling.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city

Return to Top
#248265 - 09/23/04 09:01 PM Re: 2004 NL MVP
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

...if you look at his run production versus his actual opportunities (runs produced per at bat), no one is even close.




Again, that is NOT how games are decided. Does it mean that he can perform when he has the chance? Yes. Does it necessarily make him valuable? No.

Quote:

If he gets pitched tothe way those other guys get pitched to...




OH, I see. I thought we were voting for Most Valuable Player. But you guys are talking about the MPVP (Most Potentially Valuable Player). Sorry for the confusion.

Quote:

The moneyball boys put their stock in a stat called OPS: Onbase percentage plus Slugging percentage. Bonds' OPS is roughly 1.45. That's 29% higher than Edmunds', 36% better than Pujols', and 41% better than Rolen's.




OPS does a great job of showing how good a hitter somebody is. It doesn't, however, correlate with producing runs, which, again, is how games are decided. Until the rules are changed to award victories based on total bases or baserunners, let's talk about run production.

Quote:

Every one of the guys you mentioned as having produced more runs has more help than Bonds. Castilla has Todd Helton and Jeromy Burnitz. Rolen, Pujols, and Edmonds play together. Abreu has Jim Thome. There isn't a single Giant other than Bonds in the top 10 in any major offensive category.




Ok, this is the first thing you've said that has any bearing on the MVP race. But to make this case, the Giants have to make the playoffs, and you have to be able to say that the Cardinals would have still had a good year w/o one of their candidates. Also, the Dodgers can make the same argument.

Quote:

Quote:

He is a defensive liability.




Only in your dreams. Among National League left fielders, he's tied for 3rd in fielding percentage, tied for second in range factor (the % of balls in his zone he gets to and his 11 assists are the same as Edmunds with only 2/3 the number of chances. Pujols is middle of the pack definsively among first basemen, and he plays with two gold glove caliber infielders (Rolen and Renteria).




Pujols is pretty good at first. He is excellent at digging low throws.

Bonds is a terrible outfielder. He gets assists because guys go for third base on him like he's the...nevermind. He has a weak arm. He doesn't hustle. I challenge anyone to find an article in a reputable sports magazine praising his defense.

Quote:

Quote:

And he is a negative presence in the clubhouse.




The only person I've ever heard publicly criticize Bonds' clubhouse presence is Jeff Kent...




And Jim Leyland, Andy Van Slyke, RJ Reynolds...

Quote:

Botton line: If the Giants don't have Bonds, they're not even the wild card chase. With Bonds, they have a chance to win their division, and they're right at the top in the wild card.

Bonds is more important to his team than any of those other guys are to theirs. He's the MVP




Well, that's an opinion, and you have a right to it. It is certainly better than trying to say he is a good leftfielder or a good teammate.

Return to Top
#248266 - 09/23/04 09:01 PM Re: 2004 NL MVP
Anonymous
Unregistered

Quote:

No, it hasn't changed. I would say that he has been a defensive liability most of those years.




Please tell me you're joking. Please tell me that you looked at Bonds' statistical numbers in the outfield during 02' and 03' and saw that his numbers are similar to that of Ichiro Suzuki, who is considered the best defensive outfielder in baseball.

Return to Top
#248267 - 09/23/04 09:04 PM Re: 2004 NL MVP
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

I am just not convinced until I hear the players themselves from this year's team say it. Of course, that may not happen until after the season.





Actually, it won't happen until they're no longer teammates, and even then most won't say anything negative against him out of decency. But people who observe the situation can comment on it (though it is fair to point out that they have their own problems with Barry).

Return to Top
#248268 - 09/23/04 09:07 PM Re: 2004 NL MVP
bb Offline
100 Club
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 145
Big XII
The fact that they are pitched to more often just means that they get fewer free trips to first base. What's your point? Playing on offense is about scoring and driving in runs. If not, please tell me when the rules changed.




You just helped me make the point that Bonds is the best player in baseball and is deserving of the Most Valuable Player award this season.

It's all about "scoring runs" - Second in the NL with 120. Lead his team (801) - 15% of the total.

It's all about "driving in runs" - 13th in the NL with 99 RBI and nearly 200 less official at bats because he walks so many times. Leads the team (13% of the teams total - 757)

Batting average - leads the NL (.370) by 30 points.

Home Runs - third in the NL with 43 (once again in 200 less ABs). Leads the team (25% of the teams total).

On base average - crushing everyone (.611) next closest is Todd Helton with a .463 and he plays at Coors Field. Leads the team.

Oh by the way, he is still on pace to have more home runs (43) than stikeouts (36).

As I stated before, I am not a Barry Bonds fan. But based on the number I spell M.V.P. - BONDS.

Return to Top
#248269 - 09/23/04 09:12 PM Re: 2004 NL MVP
zaibatsu Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
Quote:

Quote:

I am just not convinced until I hear the players themselves from this year's team say it. Of course, that may not happen until after the season.





Actually, it won't happen until they're no longer teammates, and even then most won't say anything negative against him out of decency. But people who observe the situation can comment on it (though it is fair to point out that they have their own problems with Barry).




So, why did you have Bonds 5th if he is such a negative in the clubhouse, a bad fielder, and a liability to the team. This seems a little bit of a contradiction. How can someone who causes strife even be considered for an MVP, which is an award for more than performance? (I don't necessarily disagree with the negative influences, I just think his positive contributions outweigh his negatives.)

As an aside, I have seen some great teams where it was not even the best statistical player on the team that deserved the MVP. A great leader can sometimes be more important than statistics.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city

Return to Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2