FanDuel - WFBC

November 15, 2004

Yawn.:
He led the league in all three batting rate stats (AVG, SLG, OBP). He reached all the proper counting stats (40HR/100RBI/100Runs). He almost single-handedly carried his team to the playoffs. And still 8 writers thought someone else was more valuable...

posted by grum@work to baseball at 03:10 PM - 51 comments

If you separated his walks into intentional and non-intentional, he would have finished 5th AND 6th in the walks category. He had more intentional walks than the next 8 guys on the leaderboard combined. He had more intentional walks than every team in the majors. (except, obviously, the Giants) His SLG was higher than the league average OPS. His OBP was higher than the league average SLG. His AVG was higher than the league average OBP. He now has more MVP awards in the last 4 years than anyone else has in their career. He now has more MVP awards in his career than the next two guys on the list combined. He has now received 30 awards (All-Star, MVP, Gold Glove, Silver Slugger) during his 19 year career.

posted by grum@work at 03:33 PM on November 15

And to think that he would have 8 if he hadn't gotten jobbed when Jeff Kent won the award in 2000. As much as I like Beltre, Pujols and Rolen, the writers who voted for those folks should be stripped of their voting priviliges.

posted by holden at 04:02 PM on November 15

And to think that he would have had 9 if he wasn't even more of a jerk in the early 90s and got robbed by Pendelton... The stats are just ridiculous. Like him or not, he's the best player since Ruth. Noone changes the face of a game more.

posted by Bernreuther at 08:08 PM on November 15

Sorry, he's a dick and his team didn't make the playoffs. I wouldn't vote for him either.

posted by mr_crash_davis at 09:42 PM on November 15

The award is MVP, not Mr. Charming.

posted by tieguy at 11:43 PM on November 15

Bonds is a great player and has had a wonderful career. This said I dont believe that is the MVP of the league. Nobody pitches to him anymore which inflates his stats. There were others who a monster years and led thier teams to the playoffs. I strongly believe that if people would pitch to Bonds, walk him less; his stats would be still be good but not at the level they are now. This is not a popular view and many of you will scoff at what I am saying. I think that Bonds is getting the MVP soley because of his career homers. The home run is a much over rated Stat. Thats all we see on the highlights anymore. Baseball is much more than the Home Run.

posted by daddisamm at 11:47 PM on November 15

The award is MVP, not Mr. Charming. Unless it's the Gold Gloves and you play next to the best shortstop in the game. *crash*

posted by dusted at 11:52 PM on November 15

So did you miss the part where he led the league in batting average and on base percentage? Even if every single one of his hits were singles he'd still be the best hitter in the league right now, numbers-wise. His on base percentage was not just better than everyone else's, it was way better than everyone else's. It was better than any hitter has ever had, ever. I ranted about this more here, in the context of a claim by someone I know that Suzuki had a better season. If you don't want to read it, the nutshell of that rant is real, real simple: if you think Barry Bonds' greatness this year is just about home runs, you're not paying attention. End of discussion. [Tangentially, counting MVP awards is a bit misleading; when Ruth played you could only win it once in a career. So he would likely have had a slew as well.]

posted by tieguy at 11:55 PM on November 15

He had a .383 OBP based purely on his walks. If he had not gotten a single his the entire season he would have finished 14th in the NL and tied for 25th in the entire league OBP (with Pudge Rodriguez and Kevin Millar). That is quite impressive.

posted by rick_mo at 01:42 AM on November 16

Nobody pitches to him anymore which inflates his stats. Nobody pitches to him anymore. Can you think of a another player that's true of? And what does it say about a guy if (almost) every team in the majors respects him like that?

posted by yerfatma at 06:21 AM on November 16

You guys can pull stats from the moon, it still wont change my mind. He is impressive, very impressive. However, manipulating stats doesnt count for the real thing. You guys dont know how he would bat over an entire season of people pitching to him. I am not downplaying what he has down, I am just now giving him "god" status! And yes its all about the homers and the steroids with Bonds--thats what makes for a good news story.. Trust me I do pay attention!

posted by daddisamm at 07:37 AM on November 16

You guys can pull stats from the moon, it still wont change my mind. So what would change your mind? Probably nothing. It's the same mindset that makes people insist that Nolan Ryan is the greatest pitcher of all time, even if you showed there were at least 10 pitchers better than him. Once you have an opinion, not much is going to change it... You guys dont know how he would bat over an entire season of people pitching to him. Take a look at what happened in 2001, 2002, and 2003. The reason he's getting all the IBB is because of what he did the three previous years. His truly crazy IBB numbers only happened this year.

posted by grum@work at 07:55 AM on November 16

Nolan Ryan is far from the greatest pitcher of all time. I feel that he worth has been well over rated.

posted by daddisamm at 08:48 AM on November 16

That doesn't really disprove the general point, does it? Who is your NL MVP? If the home run is over-rated, can we agree on slugging % as a metric? My basic problem here is we have a few hundred MLB pitchers, coaches and managers who have agreed they are better off putting Barry Bonds on base instead of pitching to him, yet you're using that to say he wouldn't be as good if they did pitch to him. Why should we believe you instead of them? I understand you're not a fan of stats, but you have to bring something more to the table than opinion, especially when it sounds like an uninformed one.

posted by yerfatma at 09:03 AM on November 16

Last year, Pujols at least had a good argument, with Bonds missing a good part of the season. This year, no contest. I can't stand Bonds as a person, but as a player he is amazing.

posted by mbd1 at 09:18 AM on November 16

Disclaimer: I do not follow baseball very closely, I definitely don't follow individual players' stats, and I have no opinion on Mr. Bonds' worthiness as MVP, so you can disregard what I'm saying here (which I'm sure you're going to do anyway). That said, this award is inherently subjective. Most Valuable Player: how do you define that? If it were simply stats, we wouldn't need voters to begin with, we could just set up some complicated equation to make the determination. But of course, that's inherently subjective as well, as those who follow the BCS could tell you. Those who set it up must make determinations as to what stats to use and how much weight to give to them. Most Valuable Player, to me, would be influenced, but hardly determined, by numbers. It wouldn't be surprising to me that those who voted someone other than Bonds did so because they consider his intangibles (leadership, ability to fire up teammates) to be lacking, and also because he's got this steroids thing hanging over his head. You can disagree with their conclusions, but saying their voting privileges should be yanked is unwarranted. Or perhaps you want a system that removes the votes and goes solely on stats? How would you set that up?

posted by deadcowdan at 09:38 AM on November 16

I understand you're not a fan of stats, but you have to bring something more to the table than opinion, especially when it sounds like an uninformed one. Uninformed? Then why to I read and listen to all of that baseball stats and stories that are out there. Look I have said several times, that Bonds is doing some amazing things. I personally dont think it warrants being the MVP. Can I back my opinion with a bunch of stats. Not to the degree that you would like. Just because another person's opinion is different to yours, deosnt mean that person is uninformed! I quess that I am just fighting a loosing battle here. SO all hail King Barry!!!!! All hail the steroid God!!! May HE hit 900 homers!! and may all of his walks be intentional!!!!! ALL Haill King Barry!!! uuugg!!!!

posted by daddisamm at 09:42 AM on November 16

Nobody pitches to him anymore. Can you think of a another player that's true of? And what does it say about a guy if (almost) every team in the majors respects him like that? That they all think he is on the juice and may therefore hit it all the way to Sacramento with a tailwind? I don't like Bonds. I stopped paying attention to baseball in 1995 (Would have been after the 94 strike, but I still had faith as long as Ripken was around). I will reserve my opinion on how good Bonds the baseball player is (he is a major league dick as a human being) until after I learn the results of whether he is taking performance-enhancers. If the results come in and he is clean, I will say "The guy is a hugely arrogant self-centered asshole, but he is an amazing ballplayer." Or I will say "The guy is a hugely arrogant self-centered asshole, and it sucks that he harmed the game and took away so much for other players." As it stands now, I have no proof, and so I will not judge him. As for baseball, I was very glad to see the BoSox win (I love underdogs no matter what sport), but now that the so-called Curse is gone, I will probably tune out baseball even more. Thank goodness there is plenty of good soccer to watch during the summer :)

posted by scully at 09:42 AM on November 16

Let me rephrase the argument in very, very simple terms. There are two good things a batter can do at the plate, independent of his team: drive himself in, or get on base to be driven in. Let's agree for the sake of discussion that driving yourself in is overrated, as dadisamm says. Then the other thing a hitter can do is get on base to be driven in. Very simply, this year, Barry Bonds was better than any player ever at getting on base to be driven in by his teammates. Ever. Better than Ruth. Better than Williams. Better than anyone ever. So... if home runs are overrated, frankly, you've made the case for Bonds stronger- he was not the best home run hitter ever this year. He was, however, the best overall hitter, ever, period, this year. Pretty sure that makes him MVP.

posted by tieguy at 10:44 AM on November 16

Here are my guy Ray Ratto's thoughts on how Bonds' persona has turned him into a social leper. MVP award? Couldn't have happened to a more deserving guy. Getting booed at the ceremony at the World Series? See above.

posted by wfrazerjr at 10:54 AM on November 16

I think you should be attacking his argument that his numbers wouldn't be very good if he wasn't walked as much, essentially that all these walks meant he did more damage instead of less. You're right, we don't know how he'd bat, but we have a pretty damn good idea, given how well he did when he did get to see strikes. In fully 200 fewer ABs than most other people, he finished what, 3 HR off the league lead? Still drove in over 100 runs, and still posted an ungodly slugging percentage. Sure, the OBP and SLG might decrease some if he had 100-150 more at bats (I'd agree with the OBP, probably not the SLG though), but they still would have led the league, and then his other numbers would have been astronomical. OK, but let's throw the numbers out the window and put it nice and simply. Without Bonds, the Giants aren't a .500 team. With Bonds, they're one game shy of the playoffs. That is the very definition of Most Valuable. The same can not be said of any other player in baseball, except possibly Vlad, who carried Anaheim in and should get his MVP today.

posted by Bernreuther at 11:00 AM on November 16

Look I have said several times, that Bonds is doing some amazing things. I personally dont think it warrants being the MVP. Okay, so what does warrant being the MVP? In your opinion, who deserved it, and why did they deserve it more than Bonds? Here is a chance to explain yourself. Instead of going off the deep end (ALL Haill King Barry!!! uuugg!!!!), why don't you just explain it in a calm and rational manner.

posted by grum@work at 11:06 AM on November 16

I am calm and rational. I am just going with the flow. However, Beltre had a monster year and lead his team to the playoffs. He would have been my choice for MVP. However, I know when I am whipped----"All Hail King Barry!!!" By the way, anybody object to me wanting Vlad for AL MVP?

posted by daddisamm at 11:52 AM on November 16

In retrospect, the "uninformed" thing probably wasn't a good idea. I was trying to goad you into explaining your reasoning, not insult you. So you can climb down off the cross now.

posted by yerfatma at 12:06 PM on November 16

By the way, anybody object to me wanting Vlad for AL MVP? Nobody is going to "object" to it. This isn't a court of law. And yah, I think he's a good choice. So is Johan Santana and possibly Miguel Tejada. But that September push is probably enough for Vlad to win it without any gnashing-of-teeth and wringing-of-hands.

posted by grum@work at 12:17 PM on November 16

It's tough to climb down off a cross once someone has nailed you up there.

posted by wfrazerjr at 12:30 PM on November 16

Just to jump in here - because what wonderful debates Bonds has brought back to baseball. Fans should feel a little happy at being able to live through the career of a once in a century player. Statistics are extremely useful in comparing performance (not predicting it as we've ranted many a time before), but in any case, he is obviously the league MVP. He fulfills all of the criteria we impose on the selection - winning team in the playoff hunt, making his team better, and statistically dwarfing the rest of the planet. Beltre is a worthy runner-up, but that is all until Barry comes back to the peleton. If the MVP is about team performance (compared to potential) and individual performance as it relates to the team than you cannot make a choice beyond Bonds. Liking him, steroids, etc. have little to do with it. Vlad wins it on the strength of his September. I always thought that Sheffield's year was inflated because of the problems with Giambi and the line-up he had around him.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 12:58 PM on November 16

I was on no cross!-- I just will not change my mind about Bonds and MVP! "All Hail King Barry" If I knew this was a court of law-I would Have worn my Black Robe. ;-)

posted by daddisamm at 01:34 PM on November 16

Personally, I also think Bonds is the hands-down easiest choice. I'd only be echoing others here in saying that he had the single greatest offensive season in the history of baseball, thus almost singlehandedly keeping the Giants in the race. (Schmidt did a thing or two to win some games too) Too bad he'll never get championship hardware.

posted by rocketman at 01:34 PM on November 16

It's tough to climb down off a cross once someone has nailed you up there. I don't take your meaning. Hang on a sec while I pierce this guy's side.

posted by yerfatma at 02:19 PM on November 16

Too bad he'll never get championship hardware. Yeah, agreed that that is a shame. Somewhere I read it suggested that the Giants get Beltran for a year to hit behind Bonds and give him protection- Beltran would never go for it (or, well, Boras wouldn't) but imagine the season Barry could have. Makes me salivate at the thought.

posted by tieguy at 02:45 PM on November 16

Did I hear Tim Kurkjian say yesterday that Bonds could be the only Hall Of Famer to never have played on the same team as another Hall Of Famer? Of al his teammates in all his years in the bigs, only Bobby Bonilla and Jeff Kent even have an outside shot at the Hall, and neither has a strong case. That, to me, makes Bonds' accomplishments even more astonishing. He's doing this stuff with nobody around him. At all.

posted by chicobangs at 03:31 PM on November 16

Baseball is a team game. Bonds shouldn't be penalized because his team can't win the big one. Bad team, great player. I'd give him the MVP.

posted by roberts at 04:02 PM on November 16

Everything Ray "Ratface" Ratto says can be utterly and completely dismissed. He has had a gun at Bonds' head his entire career, and if people "dislike" Bonds it's because Ratto and others, for whatever pathetic interpersonal reasons and childish unresolved juvenile envy, or even covert racism, have decided to paint a big target on Bonds. If you read that linked article, Ratto devotes nothing to Bonds' on field accomplishments, and instead spends every paragraph trying to justify why we should all hate Barry, simply because Ratface hates Barry. I'm betting not one of the people on this thread has ever met Barry Bonds, or talked to him in depth. If there are exceptions, they may be of the "passed him once on the street" kind. Fact is, none of us know him, we know only the perception of him that the Ratto's of the world paint. As far as I'm concerned, if Barry was white, Ratto would write glowing portraits of him, like he did about "good ol' Texas boy" Jeff Kent (who was as big a prima donna as Barry, and whose selfish motorcycle stunting was more damaging than any barcaloungers in the clubhouse) and we'd all be gushing right now on how terrific it was that a swell human being won his 7th MVP award. In any event, I'd defy any one of you who gave the backhanded "Sure he's a dick, but he deserves the award anyway" comments to justify, with genuine evidence, real personal experience, or some other meaningful way why we should believe that Cal Ripken was a "good guy" while Bonds is not. You can't do it, you simply can't do it, because none of you know either of these guys. Barry might be one of the nicest, most genuine people you'd ever meet- if you ever met him. Maybe he's shy by nature, and thus seems as awkward to the vultures in the media as the geeky kid in high school is around the popular kids. But you never will know Barry, and the Ratto's of the world are petty little Heathers who insist on tearing down the very thing that makes their careers, insist on tearing apart those who won't kowtow to their stupid little media circle jerk. If Ratface had any real talent, anything to contribute to this world besides trying to play Salieri to Bonds' Mozart, we wouldn't be lacing this discussion with unfounded comments "weighing" his MVP with his "personality". Ridiculous. It's all just very ridiculous...

posted by hincandenza at 09:43 PM on November 16

Agreed, Hal. Kent's a perfect example. Reputed to be a clubhouse cancer on the Mets, he comes to the Giants and suddenly he's the good guy? I recall some announcer (McCarvely?) bloviating a few years back about how Kent had reacted to the Bonds-antipathy situation like a man, when in fact Kent was slagging Bonds in the press and Bonds wasn't talking to them. That's reacting like a man?

posted by alex_reno at 10:14 PM on November 16

Standing next to Barry Bonds, just about anyone (including Jeff Kent) would appear to be a right jolly fellow. I'm not sure what the hell you people want -- Bonds is by all public accounts a surly, unfriendly bastard who seems to like it that way. He's pretty much handed me (and Ray Ratto) the gun, loaded it with hollow points and arm-wrestled it up to his temple. Who am I to go against his wishes? If he's a wonderful human being in private, that's just spiffy. I hope he is, seeing as he has children and a family. But as you said, I don't know him privately. Neither do you. But guess what? I'm going to take the word of Ray Ratto and just about every other sports media person I know who may have to deal with him that he's a supreme knob, as opposed to thinking maybe they are ALL racists or ALL liars. Kinda farfetched, ain't it? As I said above: MVP award? Couldn't have happened to a more deserving guy. Getting booed at the ceremony at the World Series? See above.

posted by wfrazerjr at 11:19 PM on November 16

Are you sure you aren't confusing Ray Ratto with Rick Reilly? Because I DEFINITELY know that the latter RR has a running beef with Bonds because he got snubbed for an interview with him (like maybe 10 years ago). He's even been caught editing (or leaving out) quotes to make Bonds look worse in his articles. My favourite time will be when Bonds gets inducted into the Hall of Fame. I'm waiting for the (few) writers to twist themselves into knots trying to explain why they didn't vote for Bonds on the first ballot. "Well, he's not a nice guy." - like Ty Cobb "Well, he might have been a cheat." - like Phil Neikro "Well, he never won a championship." - like Ernie Banks "Well, he played in a time of inflated stats." - like Cal Ripken

posted by grum@work at 10:52 AM on November 17

Unless he's actually proven to have taken steroids (not out of the question, but ATM I feel like we should continue to work on the presumption of innocence) any writer who doesn't vote him to the hall of fame on the first ballot should lose their voting rights.

posted by tieguy at 11:31 AM on November 17

Both RRs are anti-Bonds. Two more and it's a Monopoly.

posted by yerfatma at 11:31 AM on November 17

wfrazerjr. So we're arguing over whether or not to believe your local (or Barry's local) sportswriters when it comes to their take on his personality? And you outright reject the opinion that the stories may not in fact be true, but may be sports writers trying to sell papers? For the past year most of the media I've seen (the stuff that literally comes out of Barry's mouth in front of the camera, then is edited to suit content) has been nothing short of positive. Maybe a little arrogant - but definitely positive. Why should I believe the Rattos and Shaunausseys of the world? They too have an agenda - build 'em up and tear 'em down.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 12:18 PM on November 17

Here's an alternative method of analysis. Unfortunately, I think it would favor large-market teams.

posted by yerfatma at 02:34 PM on November 17

It gets a little old seeing people trot out the "They're just trying to tear him down" line. If just about every damned sportswriter on the planet says the guy is a jackass, I think it's much more plausible to believe them than think there's some vast conspiracy to sully the good Bonds name. Jesus, where are they all meeting -- Area 51?

posted by wfrazerjr at 07:03 PM on November 17

yerfatma: interesting idea, though I actually think what it would favor most are one-star teams- i.e., remove Barry from the equation, and there are no sellouts at Pac Bell this year, whereas Boston without Nomar or Pedro would still have sold out every game this year, and NYY without Sheffield would still have a gigantic TV contract.

posted by tieguy at 07:13 PM on November 17

Yeah, I considered that, but the flip side is that an extra 5% on the Sox or Yankees revenue might be worth more than 25 sellouts to the Brewers.

posted by yerfatma at 07:56 PM on November 17

Are you sure you aren't confusing Ray Ratto with Rick Reilly? Goddammit. Yes, yes I was confusing them. :( I feel stupid. Rick Reilly is the one I'm thinking of. I don't know Ray Ratto's reputation that well... but if he's anything like Reilly, he's a primo jackass! I of course know neither personally, but that shouldn't dissuade me from believing that Reilly must unequivocably be a jackass. wfrazerj and the Area 51 cabal: It's not about him being a living saint or not, it's how the media, in sports and in other areas as well, lives by a "script" written somewhat unconsciously by those some media personalities. They mistake their own impressions and feelings for "conventional wisdom" or "the common man's view", when it is nothing of the sort. A reporter might take a snub too personally, and cast all future actions in that negative light, even though the average reader wouldn't care less how the reporter is treated by the player, even if that player is a decent human being and gregarious amongst those he knows well. Some perfectly nice people can be rude, or simply non-interactive, to reporters. And some reporters mistake their own sense of importance and their deadline/column inches/airtime to fill, for some kind of moral responsibility the player has to entertain the reporter or give them juicy quotes. And once a player is, fairly or unfairly, tagged with a certain "role" (good guy, surly type, quiet intellectual, rugged team cheeleader, etc) all the usual suspects start reporting everything about said player so that it fits that prism. Reporters who meet Bonds for the first time will block out good qualities and just notice the stuff that reinforces the impression they believe they're supposed to have of him. Rick Reilly (the one I meant!) could watch Barry Bonds dash into a burning orphanage and save 20 crippled children, and his story headline would be "Bonds found suspiciously close to orphanage fire; arson not ruled out as cause." We do see the same behavior in politics- when candidates are forced into "scripts" for reporters to use etc, such as "Bush is dumb but likeable, Gore is a school marm"- but that's a subject too broad to mention here.

posted by hincandenza at 04:10 AM on November 18

It gets a little old seeing people trot out the "They're just trying to tear him down" line. If just about every damned sportswriter on the planet says the guy is a jackass, I think it's much more plausible to believe them than think there's some vast conspiracy to sully the good Bonds name. Jesus, where are they all meeting -- Area 51? One of the Toronto sports writers (as catty a bunch as you'll find in any major American sports city) has always flung mud at Barry Bonds. However, he's never had a chance to interview him. Not once. So my question is: where does he get his opinion of him? Probably the same place that 99% of the readers get it: from a writer. But then, where does THAT writer get it from? The irony is that since Bonds doesn't give out that many interviews, all of the new(er) sports writers have to use the opinion of other sports writers. Guess what? Mark McGwire used to be considered an asshole by the media. He was rude, standoffish and wasn't used to giving interviews. Then, during his 1998 assault on the HR record, he started acting nice. Do you think any of the writers reminded their readers what a jackass McGwire used to be? No, because now the big guy was "playing nice" and giving all these interviews. Hell, they were so busy worshipping at his altar that they even glossed over the semi-banned drug they found in his locker. Imagine the furor if that drug had been found in Rickey Henderson's, Barry Bonds', Albert Belle's or Manny Ramirez's locker.

posted by grum@work at 07:49 AM on November 18

But then, where does THAT writer get it from? See, that's the fallacy here. Everyone tries to eventually boil this down to one source, one guy who got shafted by Bonds at some point and apparently started some big cabal against Bonds to ruin his image. There are PLENTY of writers and broadcasters out there who DO deal with Bonds in locker rooms and interview situations on a fairly regular basis. How many of them are standing up and saying, "You know what? Barry is a really nice fellow who's just portrayed unfairly in the media." Feel free to post a link to that story, and don't tell me no one wants to write it. Hell, that would be the freaking scoop of the century. Here's a link to a Slate column talking about Bonds and his relationship with the press. Whether it's all an act or whatever, look at the quotes in the middle of this and answer me a question: if a guy where you work acted like that, would you think everyone's out to get him? Or would you just think, "Wow. What a dick."?

posted by wfrazerjr at 08:39 AM on November 18

Well, I think we're beating this subject to death now, but wfrazerj, I think your linked article proves the point I'm making:

And unlike some other sports "villains," Bonds does not exhibit a brazen disregard for his public image. He lives a quiet life off the field, stays away from police blotters, night-club fracases, drugs, and other things that other notorious athletes get drawn to like moths to the bug zapper. The only blemishes on Bonds' record—his scrapes with teammates and the media—are self-inflicted and by design.
Basically, that article's whole point seems to be "Barry's a decent human being, doesn't seem to beat his wife or kids, have a drug problem (a la Dwight Gooden, not a la Mark McGwire), hang out at strip clubs- in short, act like a member of the Portland Trailblazers." So where is the basis for his "what a dick" reputation? Well exactly: it sounds like Barry's one "flaw" is that he doesn't take the press seriously, that he goofs on them. Or maybe he just doesn't like them; remember he grew up in baseball, and may have a bias against the media going way back. But that said, is this much different than even the nicest celebrities messing with the paparazzi on Celebrities Uncensored 28? Do we really think that if Tom Cruise tells any paparazzi he sees "to go screw themselves" that this is really an accurate reflection of him as a human being, or that we can evaluate him based on what the paparazzi say about him? It's not like Barry needs the media to survive, not like some rook who wants to build a reputation. Why would he ever start a love affair with them after a certain point? So if Bonds' only case of being a dick is that he doesn't treat the scrubs in the sportswriting media with enough deference, I can't see how that by itself is a reflection of his being a dick. And as for his teammate relationship, I have never heard evidence, outside of Jeff Kent of course, that he's difficult to work with. If I had a guy in my Accounts Receivable group at work who often tweaked the Accounts Payable types, who we all had to work with but weren't always too fond of, I wouldn't consider him a dick; I'd consider him that funny guy who doesn't take his job too seriously or get all bogged down in office politics.

posted by hincandenza at 10:42 AM on November 18

Thanks Hal. Barry's treatment of the media and the subsequent public assault that it brings to discussions of his 'personality' have little or no bearing on the truth.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 01:28 PM on November 18

First of all, don't f*ck with the Account Payable. They'll kick your ass later. "You know what? Barry is a really nice fellow who's just portrayed unfairly in the media." Feel free to post a link to that story, and don't tell me no one wants to write it. Hell, that would be the freaking scoop of the century. One. Two. And that was simply from typing "Barry Bonds nice guy" into Google.

posted by grum@work at 02:44 PM on November 18

That second link is nice.

posted by dusted at 02:53 PM on November 18

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.