Barry Bonds Interview after Game 7

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Stark
How about all the runs he scored? I hate to say this Stark because you are usually pretty competent when you post but you are spouting ignorant nonsense. Glaus couldn't even carry Bonds Jockstrap and I bet Glaus would be the first to admit it!!!
Again, if you take away all the runs he scored, the outcome would have been the same in every game except game 1. I don't doubt his abilities as a hitter, but if an athlete never scores a clutch run or makes the difference in any game, how can they be considered "great"? Regular season is regular season.

In my book, Elway wasn't great until he won a Superbowl. Jordan, Shaq and Kobe weren't great until they won a championship (and they all were deciding factors in their victories). Bonds is the Dominique Wilkins and Dan Marino of MLB... a great athlete, but he never won it all... and never will.

Game 1: Giants 4, Angels 3 (Bonds 1 RBI off HR in 2nd)
Game 2: Giants 10, Angels 11
Game 3: Giants 4, Angels 10
Game 4: Giants 4, Angels 3 (Bonds draws walks. In 8th inning with score tied, Angels pitch to him and he grounds out. JT Snow and Sanders combine for game winning run)
Game 5: Giants 16, Angels 4 (Bonds goes 3 for 4, 2 runs, 1 RBI. Still, the Giants would have won without his bat)
Game 6: Giants 5, Angels 6 (Barry Bonds misplays a bloop hit, allowing Anderson, the go-ahead run, to take second. Glaus hits a gigantic fly to deep left, where Bonds is giving chase. He won't get there. Glaus has a two-run double that gives the home team a 6-5 lead.
Game 7: Giants 1, Angels 4

Bonds may be a threat to hit a monster HR, but he's just as likely to end up in a Santiago ground ball double play when he's walked. It will be interesting to see if the new Giants manager puts up with Barry's act.

According to everything coming out of Barry's mouth after losing game 7, he DOESN'T EVEN CARE about losing the World Series. I think that says the most about his character.
Obviously a Dodger fan as you haven't a clue. Hey you can't possibly know everything, you should just be careful when you post an opinion so that you don't come across as ignorant.

BTW, I'm not defending Bonds because I'm a Giants Fan because I am an A's fan. Being from the Bay Area though I am very familiar with Bonds and bercause I am a huge Baseball fan I appreciate his skill and I am very happy that I have had the chance top see the greatest Player of today. All thosw who say he's not a nice guy, what do you have to say about Ted Williams, Joe Dimaggio or Ty Cobb? Those guys were bigger jerks than Bonds ever was or will be. Of course if you had any knowledge of Baseball History you'd already know that.

I imagine that if those players were around today, they'd be frowned upon just as much as Bonds is. (BTW-I've always been aware of the stories of Cobb and Williams being jerks, but I don't think I've ever heard anything negative said about DiMaggio's character...not saying it's untrue, just that I've never heard about it.) There's a difference, though, in saying "He is a jerk" and "He was a jerk."

 

mpitts

Lifer
Jun 9, 2000
14,732
1
81
Originally posted by: Stark
That may be the single-most myopic statement I have heard yet. Bonds did not cost his team the World Series. Christ, the guy went 8-17 with 4 HRs and a .700 on base percentage.

Why isn't it Robb Nen's fault for allowing Garrett Anderson to hit the ball? Or Santiago for calling the wrong pitch which Anderson hit? Or how about Worrell for putting the men on base before Nen came in? There are hundreds of decisions/pitches/plays that decide the outcome of the game.

There is this thing called the big picture. Maybe you have heard of it.
I said he HELPED cost his team the series with a huge error at the worst possible time. There is this think called English literacy. Maybe you should try it some time. :p

Sure, Bonds hit some monster bombs... but name one hit in a key game that won a game.
Game 1: monster blast, Giants win by 1
Game 2: monster blast, HR, Giants lose
Game 3: HR, Giants lose
Game 4: 3 walks, no HR, Giants win
Game 5: 3 for 4, no HR, Giants win big
Game 6: HR, key error during Angels comeback
Game 7: 1-3, 1BB, no HR

Spezio's HR in the 6th game was bigger than any Bonds hit in the entire playoffs.

Bonds is a great player, sure. But his defense hurt his team and for all his great hitting power, it never made the difference in any game. He never put them on top, his hits didn't win a game. Apart from Game 1, if you took away all Bonds HRs, the outcome would have been the same in every game.

It isn't just his power hitting that makes him a great offensive baseball player. I could care less if he hit ZERO home runs. He is out there to help his team win. Holy crap, this guy hit almost .500 in the World Series and was seeing one or MAYBE two pitches to hit in each at bat. He walked 13 times and got on base 70% of the time.

It isn't his fault that he wasn't given the opportunity to win the game with a home run. Lord knows that if the opportunity would have even presented itself (which it didn't) that he would have seen 4 wide ones.

He is not the best defensive baseball player in the world, but you have to admit that the Giants have a better chance of winning baseball games when he is in the lineup as opposed to if he is not. His presence in the lineup changes how the people in front of him are pitched to. If you ask me, Jeff Kent is more responsible for the Giants losing than anyone else on that team. Other than Game 5, he sucked. He sucked in the field and he was useless at the plate.
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
But his defense hurt his team and for all his great hitting power, it never made the difference in any game


Well duh, he didn't get a chance. Think they are going to throw him any good pictches when the bases are loaded?
 

mpitts

Lifer
Jun 9, 2000
14,732
1
81
Originally posted by: Stark
How about all the runs he scored? I hate to say this Stark because you are usually pretty competent when you post but you are spouting ignorant nonsense. Glaus couldn't even carry Bonds Jockstrap and I bet Glaus would be the first to admit it!!!
Again, if you take away all the runs he scored, the outcome would have been the same in every game except game 1. I don't doubt his abilities as a hitter, but if an athlete never scores a clutch run or makes the difference in any game, how can they be considered "great"? Regular season is regular season.

In my book, Elway wasn't great until he won a Superbowl. Jordan, Shaq and Kobe weren't great until they won a championship (and they all were deciding factors in their victories). Bonds is the Dominique Wilkins and Dan Marino of MLB... a great athlete, but he never won it all... and never will.

Game 1: Giants 4, Angels 3 (Bonds 1 RBI off HR in 2nd)
Game 2: Giants 10, Angels 11
Game 3: Giants 4, Angels 10
Game 4: Giants 4, Angels 3 (Bonds draws walks. In 8th inning with score tied, Angels pitch to him and he grounds out. JT Snow and Sanders combine for game winning run)
Game 5: Giants 16, Angels 4 (Bonds goes 3 for 4, 2 runs, 1 RBI. Still, the Giants would have won without his bat)
Game 6: Giants 5, Angels 6 (Barry Bonds misplays a bloop hit, allowing Anderson, the go-ahead run, to take second. Glaus hits a gigantic fly to deep left, where Bonds is giving chase. He won't get there. Glaus has a two-run double that gives the home team a 6-5 lead.
Game 7: Giants 1, Angels 4

Bonds may be a threat to hit a monster HR, but he's just as likely to end up in a Santiago ground ball double play when he's walked. It will be interesting to see if the new Giants manager puts up with Barry's act.

According to everything coming out of Barry's mouth after losing game 7, he DOESN'T EVEN CARE about losing the World Series. I think that says the most about his character.

You can sit here and spout off irrelevant rheotric all you want. The fact remains that having Bonds in the lineup gives the Giants a better chance to win baseball games.

You can't blame him for Santiago (or whoever is in the five-hole) not producing. You can't blame him for Jeff Kent's inability to get on base.

Barry Bonds did NOT lose the World Series for the Giants. They would have never made it there without him and they would not have made it to Game 7 without him out there. He can't control every aspect of the game. He misplays one ball in the outfield and all of the sudden the fact that he posted HUGE NUMBERS IN THE WORLD SERIES means absolutely nothing. He produced when he was given the opportunity. He can't control the score of the game before that. He can't control whether there are people on base. He can't control if the opposing manager wants to intentionally (or unintentionally) walk him. He goes up there, sees maybe two pitches an at-bat to hit, and produces.

Your "examples" of what Bonds did in each game and how the Giants would have won without him are so far-fetched. Don't you think that the Giants hitters saw different pitches than they would have if Bonds had not been in the lineup? You can't just take a guy's box score line, pull it out and say "SEE! They would have done just fine without him." That is not realistic.

I am pretty sure all you used to talk about was how he couldn't produce in the playoffs (which was true) and now that Bonds has blown that theory out of the water, you have to grasp at straws to base an argument to justify why you don't like the guy.


 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: mpitts
Originally posted by: Stark
How about all the runs he scored? I hate to say this Stark because you are usually pretty competent when you post but you are spouting ignorant nonsense. Glaus couldn't even carry Bonds Jockstrap and I bet Glaus would be the first to admit it!!!
Again, if you take away all the runs he scored, the outcome would have been the same in every game except game 1. I don't doubt his abilities as a hitter, but if an athlete never scores a clutch run or makes the difference in any game, how can they be considered "great"? Regular season is regular season.

In my book, Elway wasn't great until he won a Superbowl. Jordan, Shaq and Kobe weren't great until they won a championship (and they all were deciding factors in their victories). Bonds is the Dominique Wilkins and Dan Marino of MLB... a great athlete, but he never won it all... and never will.

Game 1: Giants 4, Angels 3 (Bonds 1 RBI off HR in 2nd)
Game 2: Giants 10, Angels 11
Game 3: Giants 4, Angels 10
Game 4: Giants 4, Angels 3 (Bonds draws walks. In 8th inning with score tied, Angels pitch to him and he grounds out. JT Snow and Sanders combine for game winning run)
Game 5: Giants 16, Angels 4 (Bonds goes 3 for 4, 2 runs, 1 RBI. Still, the Giants would have won without his bat)
Game 6: Giants 5, Angels 6 (Barry Bonds misplays a bloop hit, allowing Anderson, the go-ahead run, to take second. Glaus hits a gigantic fly to deep left, where Bonds is giving chase. He won't get there. Glaus has a two-run double that gives the home team a 6-5 lead.
Game 7: Giants 1, Angels 4

Bonds may be a threat to hit a monster HR, but he's just as likely to end up in a Santiago ground ball double play when he's walked. It will be interesting to see if the new Giants manager puts up with Barry's act.

According to everything coming out of Barry's mouth after losing game 7, he DOESN'T EVEN CARE about losing the World Series. I think that says the most about his character.

You can sit here and spout off irrelevant rheotric all you want. The fact remains that having Bonds in the lineup gives the Giants a better chance to win baseball games.

You can't blame him for Santiago (or whoever is in the five-hole) not producing. You can't blame him for Jeff Kent's inability to get on base.

Barry Bonds did NOT lose the World Series for the Giants. They would have never made it there without him and they would not have made it to Game 7 without him out there. He can't control every aspect of the game. He misplays one ball in the outfield and all of the sudden the fact that he posted HUGE NUMBERS IN THE WORLD SERIES means absolutely nothing. He produced when he was given the opportunity. He can't control the score of the game before that. He can't control whether there are people on base. He can't control if the opposing manager wants to intentionally (or unintentionally) walk him. He goes up there, sees maybe two pitches an at-bat to hit, and produces.

Your "examples" of what Bonds did in each game and how the Giants would have won without him are so far-fetched. Don't you think that the Giants hitters saw different pitches than they would have if Bonds had not been in the lineup? You can't just take a guy's box score line, pull it out and say "SEE! They would have done just fine without him." That is not realistic.

I am pretty sure all you used to talk about was how he couldn't produce in the playoffs (which was true) and now that Bonds has blown that theory out of the water, you have to grasp at straws to base an argument to justify why you don't like the guy.
I guess it's all about some Nancy Boy Fans getting their panties in a wad because Bonds tells some hack Sports Reporter that his question was stupid because..well because it was!

Mpitts, us real Baseball fans know better than to dwell on petty BS.

 

mpitts

Lifer
Jun 9, 2000
14,732
1
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: mpitts
Originally posted by: Stark
How about all the runs he scored? I hate to say this Stark because you are usually pretty competent when you post but you are spouting ignorant nonsense. Glaus couldn't even carry Bonds Jockstrap and I bet Glaus would be the first to admit it!!!
Again, if you take away all the runs he scored, the outcome would have been the same in every game except game 1. I don't doubt his abilities as a hitter, but if an athlete never scores a clutch run or makes the difference in any game, how can they be considered "great"? Regular season is regular season.

In my book, Elway wasn't great until he won a Superbowl. Jordan, Shaq and Kobe weren't great until they won a championship (and they all were deciding factors in their victories). Bonds is the Dominique Wilkins and Dan Marino of MLB... a great athlete, but he never won it all... and never will.

Game 1: Giants 4, Angels 3 (Bonds 1 RBI off HR in 2nd)
Game 2: Giants 10, Angels 11
Game 3: Giants 4, Angels 10
Game 4: Giants 4, Angels 3 (Bonds draws walks. In 8th inning with score tied, Angels pitch to him and he grounds out. JT Snow and Sanders combine for game winning run)
Game 5: Giants 16, Angels 4 (Bonds goes 3 for 4, 2 runs, 1 RBI. Still, the Giants would have won without his bat)
Game 6: Giants 5, Angels 6 (Barry Bonds misplays a bloop hit, allowing Anderson, the go-ahead run, to take second. Glaus hits a gigantic fly to deep left, where Bonds is giving chase. He won't get there. Glaus has a two-run double that gives the home team a 6-5 lead.
Game 7: Giants 1, Angels 4

Bonds may be a threat to hit a monster HR, but he's just as likely to end up in a Santiago ground ball double play when he's walked. It will be interesting to see if the new Giants manager puts up with Barry's act.

According to everything coming out of Barry's mouth after losing game 7, he DOESN'T EVEN CARE about losing the World Series. I think that says the most about his character.

You can sit here and spout off irrelevant rheotric all you want. The fact remains that having Bonds in the lineup gives the Giants a better chance to win baseball games.

You can't blame him for Santiago (or whoever is in the five-hole) not producing. You can't blame him for Jeff Kent's inability to get on base.

Barry Bonds did NOT lose the World Series for the Giants. They would have never made it there without him and they would not have made it to Game 7 without him out there. He can't control every aspect of the game. He misplays one ball in the outfield and all of the sudden the fact that he posted HUGE NUMBERS IN THE WORLD SERIES means absolutely nothing. He produced when he was given the opportunity. He can't control the score of the game before that. He can't control whether there are people on base. He can't control if the opposing manager wants to intentionally (or unintentionally) walk him. He goes up there, sees maybe two pitches an at-bat to hit, and produces.

Your "examples" of what Bonds did in each game and how the Giants would have won without him are so far-fetched. Don't you think that the Giants hitters saw different pitches than they would have if Bonds had not been in the lineup? You can't just take a guy's box score line, pull it out and say "SEE! They would have done just fine without him." That is not realistic.

I am pretty sure all you used to talk about was how he couldn't produce in the playoffs (which was true) and now that Bonds has blown that theory out of the water, you have to grasp at straws to base an argument to justify why you don't like the guy.
I guess it's all about some Nancy Boy Fans getting their panties in a wad because Bonds tells some hack Sports Reporter that his question was stupid because..well because it was!

Mpitts, us real Baseball fans know better than to dwell on petty BS.


Hahahaha.. So true. So true. :D


 

Stark

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2000
7,735
0
0
You can sit here and spout off irrelevant rheotric all you want. The fact remains that having Bonds in the lineup gives the Giants a better chance to win baseball games.

You can't blame him for Santiago (or whoever is in the five-hole) not producing. You can't blame him for Jeff Kent's inability to get on base.

Barry Bonds did NOT lose the World Series for the Giants. They would have never made it there without him and they would not have made it to Game 7 without him out there. He can't control every aspect of the game. He misplays one ball in the outfield and all of the sudden the fact that he posted HUGE NUMBERS IN THE WORLD SERIES means absolutely nothing. He produced when he was given the opportunity. He can't control the score of the game before that. He can't control whether there are people on base. He can't control if the opposing manager wants to intentionally (or unintentionally) walk him. He goes up there, sees maybe two pitches an at-bat to hit, and produces.

Your "examples" of what Bonds did in each game and how the Giants would have won without him are so far-fetched. Don't you think that the Giants hitters saw different pitches than they would have if Bonds had not been in the lineup? You can't just take a guy's box score line, pull it out and say "SEE! They would have done just fine without him." That is not realistic.

I am pretty sure all you used to talk about was how he couldn't produce in the playoffs (which was true) and now that Bonds has blown that theory out of the water, you have to grasp at straws to base an argument to justify why you don't like the guy.
Don't you wonder how good the Giants could have been had Bonds not been such a complete selfish @hole? Do you think he ever encouraged Kent (who had a miserable series) or rooted on his other teammates? No, he was too busy scowling in the dugout.

The Angels pitched 3 ROOKIES in game 7 to win the World Series. Lackey and Donnely were on the Rome show today and said they had the full support of all the vets in the clubhouse. They wanted to win for guys like Salmon, Erstad, Percival... guys who had put their time in. Do you think anyone on the Giants wanted to win for Bonds (besides Barry himself)?

In every sport, there's the old saying "there's no I in Team." Very rarely do you actually see it lived out. The Angels are the ultimate example of that concept. The Giants, on the other hand, were a bunch of guys playing for themselves, following in the mold that Bonds first cast.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Stark
You can sit here and spout off irrelevant rheotric all you want. The fact remains that having Bonds in the lineup gives the Giants a better chance to win baseball games.

You can't blame him for Santiago (or whoever is in the five-hole) not producing. You can't blame him for Jeff Kent's inability to get on base.

Barry Bonds did NOT lose the World Series for the Giants. They would have never made it there without him and they would not have made it to Game 7 without him out there. He can't control every aspect of the game. He misplays one ball in the outfield and all of the sudden the fact that he posted HUGE NUMBERS IN THE WORLD SERIES means absolutely nothing. He produced when he was given the opportunity. He can't control the score of the game before that. He can't control whether there are people on base. He can't control if the opposing manager wants to intentionally (or unintentionally) walk him. He goes up there, sees maybe two pitches an at-bat to hit, and produces.

Your "examples" of what Bonds did in each game and how the Giants would have won without him are so far-fetched. Don't you think that the Giants hitters saw different pitches than they would have if Bonds had not been in the lineup? You can't just take a guy's box score line, pull it out and say "SEE! They would have done just fine without him." That is not realistic.

I am pretty sure all you used to talk about was how he couldn't produce in the playoffs (which was true) and now that Bonds has blown that theory out of the water, you have to grasp at straws to base an argument to justify why you don't like the guy.
Don't you wonder how good the Giants could have been had Bonds not been such a complete selfish @hole? Do you think he ever encouraged Kent (who had a miserable series) or rooted on his other teammates? No, he was too busy scowling in the dugout.

The Angels pitched 3 ROOKIES in game 7 to win the World Series. Lackey and Donnely were on the Rome show today and said they had the full support of all the vets in the clubhouse. They wanted to win for guys like Salmon, Erstad, Percival... guys who had put their time in. Do you think anyone on the Giants wanted to win for Bonds (besides Barry himself)?

In every sport, there's the old saying "there's no I in Team." Very rarely do you actually see it lived out. The Angels are the ultimate example of that concept. The Giants, on the other hand, were a bunch of guys playing for themselves, following in the mold that Bonds first cast.
Man Stark, you are really starting to talk out your ass. Bonds supported his teamates, in fact when the Cardinals threw at Lofton Bonds was the first guy out of the dugout and he was rtight in the middle of the Melee. Even when he is thrown at he doesn't make a big deal out of it. As for trying to make Bonds the bad guy in his dispute with Kent, I have news for you, Kent is the biggest red ass in the Giants Dugout. Hell halfway through the season he was whining about no having a contract extension to the press. How's that for team. How about next time you get your facts straight?

As for Bonds wanting to win this just for him, that is just the press talking. Bonds has repeatedly talked about his personal accolades coming in second to the team. He's a team player first and formost. I still remember when the Giants beat the scum bag Dodgers for the Wild Card spot the last year of Candlestick. After the game Bonds jumped up on the Dugout and was giving the Gaints fans high fives and hugs. Man you are typical of an LA Sport Fan. All talk and no knowledge!
 

Stark

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2000
7,735
0
0
My uncle is from up in the Bay area and he sounds just like you guys. Bonds is the greatest... blah blah blah.

The entire Stark family (from So. Cal) is going to Thanksgiving up in NoCal, so we made a little wager during the series. If the Angels lost, we all had to buy rally monkeys and spank them throughout dinner. If the Giants lost, my uncle would have to eat chicken for dinner. He still hasn't replied to whether he prefers KFC or Swanson's. :p

Time to face the facts no cal:
We beat you in basketball. We beat you in baseball. Keep sending water and just accept it.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Stark
My uncle is from up in the Bay area and he sounds just like you guys. Bonds is the greatest... blah blah blah.

The entire Stark family (from So. Cal) is going to Thanksgiving up in NoCal, so we made a little wager during the series. If the Angels lost, we all had to buy rally monkeys and spank them throughout dinner. If the Giants lost, my uncle would have to eat chicken for dinner. He still hasn't replied to whether he prefers KFC or Swanson's. :p

Time to face the facts no cal:
We beat you in basketball. We beat you in baseball. Keep sending water and just accept it.
Hahaha.. well at least you have some consolation for living down there. There's no question in my mind that the best team, the Angels, won the WS (obviously) I'm just pointing out how full of it you criticism of Barry Bonds is. Of course your post above let's us know that your nonsense had more to do with Family rivalry than fact. Do us a favor, next time save you foolishness for the Thanksgiving Dinner instead of this forum:)

BTW, how's your Pro Football team doing this year? Oh thats right, you don't have one:)
 

mpitts

Lifer
Jun 9, 2000
14,732
1
81
Originally posted by: Stark
My uncle is from up in the Bay area and he sounds just like you guys. Bonds is the greatest... blah blah blah.

The entire Stark family (from So. Cal) is going to Thanksgiving up in NoCal, so we made a little wager during the series. If the Angels lost, we all had to buy rally monkeys and spank them throughout dinner. If the Giants lost, my uncle would have to eat chicken for dinner. He still hasn't replied to whether he prefers KFC or Swanson's. :p

Time to face the facts no cal:
We beat you in basketball. We beat you in baseball. Keep sending water and just accept it.

Nice take, clone. For the record, I live in Atlanta. This has nothing to do with California's stupid NoCal/SoCal war. Oh, and how about those Dodgers? They sure could have used Bonds this year during the strech run when the Giants went 17-5 and the the boys in blue wet the bed.

I never said Bonds was the greatest. But I am also not going to sit here idly by and listen to someone who obviously has issue with the guy and listen to him bad-mouth all of his accomplishments. I am not going to repeat what Red Dawn said about Bonds defending his teammates and being there for him.

Bonds is a great baseball player (again, not the GREATEST). You obviously have a personal issue with him and don't like him, and you let that cloud your judgement. You see what you want to see. You cry about how surly Bonds is in the dugout and how he is basically a cancer, but you refuse to admit that the most selfish player on the team is Kent. BY FAR.

You talk about how much better off the Giants would be without him, but I guarantee you that EVERY player in that dugout would want that guy stepping to the plate in a key situation. It isn't his fault that he is SO RESPECTED BY EVERY TEAM IN BASEBALL that he doesn't get pitches to hit in situations such as that. That should tell you right there that he is an impressive talent, but you are too busy hating on the guy.
 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
Bonds is a great baseball player (again, not the GREATEST). You obviously have a personal issue with him and don't like him, and you let that cloud your judgement. You see what you want to see. You cry about how surly Bonds is in the dugout and how he is basically a cancer, but you refuse to admit that the most selfish player on the team is Kent. BY FAR.

What's HILARIOUS is that Kent owes MUCH of his success to Bonds. What would kent be w/o bonds in that lineup. I guarantee you, w/o kent bonds would still be putting up MVP numbers. not so with kent.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Red Dawn - Mpitts, us real Baseball fans know better than to dwell on petty BS.

Can I join your club? I'll letcha play with my Rusty Staub autographed baseball. :)
 

LXi

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
7,987
0
0
Boy I am so glad there are true baseball fans here that know what they're talking about. I pity Anaheim for not having more of these type of fans. Why do I get the feeling that people here root for the Angels because of

1. Dodgers went home, so I'll root for the team next door, hey we'll all So-Cal right!?
2. Believes the Giants have team issues base on the bogus they heard.
3. Hates Bonds because the of lies they heard from other Bonds haters.

I'm not saying there aren't true Angel fans, there must be; those true Angel fans, take no offense from me. But how many people actually rooted for the Halos because a reason other than those three? How many people bashing the Giants/Bonds have actually followed the MLB season on a regular basis?
 

raptor13

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,719
0
76
To anyone who says Bonds is taking Vitamin S:



He might be. Anyone might be. HOWEVER it is very possible that he gained that much muscle mass by totally legit means. Anyone who says it's not possible is ignorant and/or stupid. Take, for example, myself. Last year, when I entered college, I weighed about 165 pounds. I started lifting regularly and heavily. I was in the gym six times a week busting my ass trying to gain muscle. I was also eating about 6,000 calories a day. It's now one year later. The result? I weigh about 185 pounds and have 5% body fat. And this was all done while lifting was not my priority. I'm a full time student. Bonds is paid to be in the best shape he can be in and perform at the best level he can. If I got paid to lift, I could probably weigh 220 now! The skies the limit with the right training!


As a further example, my friend with whom I lift, got on the same routine as me. He was a competition lifter in high school, weighed 160 pounds upon matriculation, and now weighs 205. He gained 45 pounds of solid muscle in a year. If he can do it, Bonds can do it. Take your head out of your ass.
 

SludgeFactory

Platinum Member
Sep 14, 2001
2,969
2
81
I was curious so I looked this up...

Troy Glaus OPS (2002 World Series): 1.313 Not bad :D

Barry Bonds OPS (2002 World Series): 1.994 :Q

 

hans007

Lifer
Feb 1, 2000
20,212
18
81
Originally posted by: Shaftatplanetquake
why are baseball players' personality so important?

Why not just let them just play the game and stop worshipping them.-- and also stop worrying about them being not as friendly as you would like them to be.



i agree. he's an awesome baseball player. he's not like a father figure, take him for what he is, a guy who plays baseball. and very good at it. i personally think he's much better than mcguire. mcguire broke down and couldnt last. bonds even has longevity.


and as for the team player stuff. baseball isnt basketball. he just has to bat, run and throw the ball back to the infield. he's not a point guard in the nba. he brought a mediocre team to the world series. and that question is ridiculous.

thats like saying if your dad died, and a reported came up to you and asked. ... sir , are you sad that your dad died. its almost that bad. these guys are terrible. its just like jim gray and his stupid ass comments during basically every event where he has to ask some jackass probing question. i remember at the nba slam dunk contest jim gray i think it was, went up to steve francis after the horrible copy the spinningvideo wheel dunk and tried to like ask a stupid question about it. atheletes are still people you dont need to ask them this crap. hell bonds deserves to act like an asshole if he has to put up with crap liek that.
 

Ranger X

Lifer
Mar 18, 2000
11,218
1
0
I have to agree that some of these questions being asked are stupid but who wants to hear answers to common questions if they can possibly get an answer to a question on a touchy subject?

The reporters probably believe they have nothing to lose so they'll ask it. If they get an answer, it's great for them to report back to the public. If they don't get the answer, it was worth a shot. It's totally understandable that Bonds got pissed off after those questions because like someone said, he is human.
 

LXi

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
7,987
0
0
It's very funny how people start ripping Bonds' personality when the original post only asked for the question that made Bonds say it was stupid. Speaking of bad personalities, do these so-Cal people realize that they have one truly sh1tty character in Shaquille O'Neal of their faithful Lakers; he is definitely the most dominant center in basketball right now, but he obviously doesn't have "nice guy" written anywhere on him.

Joe Morgan had this to say about Barry Bonds,

"Everybody's personality is what it is. Trying to change people into what we want them to be, it's just not up to us. We shouldn't be trying to fit people to make them fit what we think a nice person is. I'm sure his friends and family think he is a nice person and I am one of those people.

Most of the images you have of Bonds come from sportswriters views of him. I'm sure you haven't met him personally, you are just going by what you read or saw on TV. They tried to blame the Game 6 ball on him and that he botched the play. They tried to blame him because he doesn't talk after the game."
 

Hamburgerpimp

Diamond Member
Aug 15, 2000
7,464
1
76
I thought this was rather funny from an article:

But then the Angels began their monkey business. Balls started landing one foot away from San Francisco outfielders, including Mr. Bulky himself. Bonds has gotten so thick that he doesn't seem to be able to bend over and pick up a baseball. He doesn't run down bloops and flares anymore, either, and he has this new habit of trying to barehand a bouncing ball, as though he no longer needs a glove. His botching of Garret Anderson's bloop single in the eighth inning of Game 6 -- Bonds looked like a man in a tub trying to find the soap -- led to the unearned winning run in the worst clinching-game choke in World Series history.
 

starwarsdad

Golden Member
May 19, 2001
1,433
0
0
Originally posted by: Shaftatplanetquake
why are baseball players' personality so important?

Why not just let them just play the game and stop worshipping them.-- and also stop worrying about them being not as friendly as you would like them to be.

They get paid millions to play a child's game. Being a good sportsman and role model are part of the deal. It may not be right for kids to idolize ball players, but that's how it is. You can be whatever kind of guy you want in your personal life, but when that camera or mic is on you, you better be mister All American. If you don't like it, give back the money and go back to mamma!
 

LXi

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
7,987
0
0
<<They get paid millions to play a child's game. Being a good sportsman and role model are part of the deal. It may not be right for kids to idolize ball players, but that's how it is. You can be whatever kind of guy you want in your personal life, but when that camera or mic is on you, you better be mister All American. If you don't like it, give back the money and go back to mamma!>>

Can't find another statement that has a BS-to-Truth ratio that's higher than this. Nowhere in the contracts do they say that you have to change your personality in front of the mics. Being a good sportsman doesn't mean being nice to the sportswriters, because the players get paid to play the game, not to become role models or someone that they're not. Charles Barkeley said it best in one of his Nike commercials, "I am not a role model."
 

Stark

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2000
7,735
0
0
Originally posted by: mpitts
Originally posted by: Stark
My uncle is from up in the Bay area and he sounds just like you guys. Bonds is the greatest... blah blah blah.

The entire Stark family (from So. Cal) is going to Thanksgiving up in NoCal, so we made a little wager during the series. If the Angels lost, we all had to buy rally monkeys and spank them throughout dinner. If the Giants lost, my uncle would have to eat chicken for dinner. He still hasn't replied to whether he prefers KFC or Swanson's. :p

Time to face the facts no cal:
We beat you in basketball. We beat you in baseball. Keep sending water and just accept it.

Nice take, clone. For the record, I live in Atlanta. This has nothing to do with California's stupid NoCal/SoCal war. Oh, and how about those Dodgers? They sure could have used Bonds this year during the strech run when the Giants went 17-5 and the the boys in blue wet the bed.

I never said Bonds was the greatest. But I am also not going to sit here idly by and listen to someone who obviously has issue with the guy and listen to him bad-mouth all of his accomplishments. I am not going to repeat what Red Dawn said about Bonds defending his teammates and being there for him.

Bonds is a great baseball player (again, not the GREATEST). You obviously have a personal issue with him and don't like him, and you let that cloud your judgement. You see what you want to see. You cry about how surly Bonds is in the dugout and how he is basically a cancer, but you refuse to admit that the most selfish player on the team is Kent. BY FAR.

You talk about how much better off the Giants would be without him, but I guarantee you that EVERY player in that dugout would want that guy stepping to the plate in a key situation. It isn't his fault that he is SO RESPECTED BY EVERY TEAM IN BASEBALL that he doesn't get pitches to hit in situations such as that. That should tell you right there that he is an impressive talent, but you are too busy hating on the guy.
You must be a Braves fan... the home of Rocker and Sheffield. You folks down south like to promote cancer to win a few games and make a few bucks. Us folks out in sunny so. cal. don't care much for cancer. That's why we sue your tobacco companies and boo dirtbag athletes. Maybe you could work out a trade for Bonds... in exchange for Smoltz, Maddux, and Glavine. Then you could be just like the Giants next year. Maybe you could even build a moat out of that some swamp land for Barry to hit balls in to.

And as far as the Dodgers go... Tommy Lasorda lives in Fullerton about 10 minutes from Edison Field. He may bleed blue, but he's no dummy when it comes to picking a place to live. Now OC has a championship team of their own and doesn't need to pretend to like the Dodgers once every 10 years when they win the WS.
 

LXi

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
7,987
0
0
<<You folks down south like to promote cancer to win a few games and make a few bucks. Us folks out in sunny so. cal. don't care much for cancer.>>

Well, I think you're the only one on the block that would rather miss the playoffs than to have "cancer" on your team. For the record, Rocker is no longer a Brave, he hasn't been a Brave since the middle of the 2001 season. Oh yea, in your terms, Shaq is a cancer too, and you seem to have no issues with him. I geuss when it comes to hometown bias, you measure with a different standard. H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E.
 

Stark

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2000
7,735
0
0
Originally posted by: LXi
<<You folks down south like to promote cancer to win a few games and make a few bucks. Us folks out in sunny so. cal. don't care much for cancer.>>

Well, I think you're the only one on the block that would rather miss the playoffs than to have "cancer" on your team. For the record, Rocker is no longer a Brave, he hasn't been a Brave since the middle of the 2001 season. Oh yea, in your terms, Shaq is a cancer too, and you seem to have no issues with him. I geuss when it comes to hometown bias, you measure with a different standard. H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E.

So they got rid of rocker and traded brian jordan (good guy) for sheffield... that's like dumping the scarecrow (no brain) and getting the tinman (no heart) to fill his shoes.

How is shaq a bad guy? He may be a little selfish, too touchy about his weight and doesn't like to marry the mothers of his kids, but compared to bonds, rocker, kemp, sprewell, patterson, magic (back in the 80s), ewing and even jordan, he's practically a saint. And unlike Bonds, Shaq makes plays when it counts... in the finals in the fourth quarter when it means the most. Bonds grounds out and drops balls when the pressure is on. Shaq blocks layups and drains shots... and he has 3 rings to show for it.