Seven vs. One

Roger may not have deserved that seventh Cy Young, but Mr. Bonds was certainly the right choice for NL MVP, at least the way we see it (SF, given his proclivity for calculating this award based on value-to-team might have given his vote to Adrian Beltre, who produced a greater percentage of his team’s offense).

Is Barry the greatest ever? An open question. But we’ve seen his MVP count (7) put up against Ruth’s (1) in a variety of publications without a note explaining that for much of Ruth’s career there either was no MVP award at all or he was not eligible to win the prize as it existed (in its early days, multiple winners were verbotten). With today’s system, Ruth might well have taken 6 or 7 or more, not to mention a Cy Young from his pitching days.

4 comments… add one
  • You misrepresent my previous claims. I think that value-to-team is a major factor, but not the only determinant. Bonds, we agree, is the deserved winner.
    And let’s not go near the “best ever” argument. We’ve been through that before, and I am on the record as to why I think such discussions are pointless and masturbatory efforts done in the interest of exhibiting one’s knowledge of historically unequivalent data. It’s an open question, as you say, and it should stay that way, and there should also be a moratorium on any attempts to put these two great players head-to-head. Bonds and Ruth are incomparable, both in their greatness in relation to the rest of the game at their own specific time, but also to each other.
    Best question: who the heck voted Bonds third, who put Pujols sixth!?

    SF November 16, 2004, 2:19 pm
  • Masturbatory? In the words of Alvy Singer, “Don’t knock my hobbies.” My point was merely that for anyone wishing to make the onanistic comparison, or even to place the Bonds’ magnificent achievement in context, MVP totals can be misleading. But at least we agree. Barry is the MVP, and anyone who doesn’t think so should be foreced to spend two weeks with him in a small room.

    YF November 16, 2004, 2:35 pm
  • “Huis Clos” for the Louisville Slugger set?

    SF November 16, 2004, 2:39 pm
  • Bonds certainly deserved the MVP, but to compare him to the Babe is rediculous. Taken in the context of their times and the affect they had on the game, Ruth is so far superior to any player in history that to even talk about anyone being in his league is silly. For example, Ruth in his prime years hit more home runs than half of the other teams totals. For Bonds to do likewise he would need to hit over 150 home runs a year! And even in 2001, his 73 is a lot fewer than the 121 the worst team in the league hit that year. And lets not forget the pitching – 94 and 46 with a 2.28 era. The most complete and best player in the history of the game. There is nothing to discus. And that is to say nothing of the 86 year curse on the Red Sox. :-)

    bronxborn November 17, 2004, 12:42 pm

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.