What Giant losers.

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Carbo

Originally posted by: Red Yawn

Originally posted by: Carbo

Bonds can't do everything

Bonds can't do anything in the post season. That's been his history. Mr. October, he ain't.

He did damn good last year. Of course being moron you didn't take that into account before demonstrating your complete ignorance for all to see here at ATOT with your totally clueless post. Are you and lager Siamese Twins connected at the rectum?

You sniveling moron. Get over the fact that your boy will be watching another WS on the tube. He did damn good last year? And? What's your point? He still didn't earn a ring. But, last year aside, the man has been an anchor in the post season. His stats are embarrasing:

Year Round Tm Opp WLser G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG SB
+------------------+-----+--+---+--+--+--+--+--+---+--+--+-----+-----+-----+--+
1990 NLCS PIT CIN L 6 18 4 3 0 0 0 1 6 6 .167 .375 .167 2
1991 NLCS PIT ATL L 7 27 1 4 1 0 0 0 2 4 .148 .207 .185 3
1992 NLCS PIT ATL L 7 23 5 6 1 0 1 2 6 4 .261 .414 .435 1
1997 NLDS1 SFG FLA L 3 12 0 3 2 0 0 2 0 3 .250 .250 .417 1
2000 NLDS2 SFG NYM L 4 17 2 3 1 1 0 1 3 4 .176 .300 .353 1
2002 NLDS1 SFG ATL W 5 17 5 5 0 0 3 4 4 1 .294 .429 .824 0
NLCS SFG STL W 5 11 5 3 0 1 1 6 10 2 .273 .619 .727 0
WS SFG ANA L 7 17 8 8 2 0 4 6 13 3 .471 .700 1.294 0
+------------------+-----+--+---+--+--+--+--+--+---+--+--+-----+-----+-----+--+
8 Postseason Series 2-6 44 142 30 35 7 2 9 22 44 27 .246 .425 .514 8
+------------------+-----+--+---+--+--+--+--+--+---+--+--+-----+-----+-----+--+

So, yes, we can see he did do good last year. Of course being a moron you didn't take into account 1990, 1991, 1992,and 1997 before demonstrating your complete ignorance for all to see here at ATOT with your totally clueless post.
If you were a woman, (and you might be based on your baseball insights), you'd be an airhead blonde who sells her ass for the first illegal landscaper who tosses a plate of rice and beans her way.
Barry Bonds........sheesh.........

Ah I see you are a typical snotgobbling dweeb who is emboldened by the anonymity of the Internet.

These last numbers:

WS SFG ANA L 7 17 8 8 2 0 4 6 13 3 .471 .700 1.294 0, would have won him the MVP of the Series had they won. Face it knucklehead, you are just a wanker who doesn't know a Player for the ages when he sees one. Now go wash your face as you have an substance that resembles the yolk of an egg all over it!

 

[Carbo]

These last numbers:
WS SFG ANA L 7 17 8 8 2 0 4 6 13 3 .471 .700 1.294 0, would have won him the MVP of the Series had they won.

Exactly. Had they won. Would have, could have, should have....but, once again, they didn't, nor did your boyfriend.
These numbers:
1990 NLCS PIT CIN L 6 18 4 3 0 0 0 1 6 6 .167 .375 .167 2
1991 NLCS PIT ATL L 7 27 1 4 1 0 0 0 2 4 .148 .207 .185 3
1992 NLCS PIT ATL L 7 23 5 6 1 0 1 2 6 4 .261 .414 .435 1
1997 NLDS1 SFG FLA L 3 12 0 3 2 0 0 2 0 3 .250 .250 .417 1

show a player who has failed miserably with the pressure of the playoffs. Perhaps if he had performed to the level that is expected of your "Player for the ages" incarnation he might have helped his team win a championship.
Now go wash your face as you have a substance that resembles the yolk of an egg all over it!

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Carbo

These last numbers:
WS SFG ANA L 7 17 8 8 2 0 4 6 13 3 .471 .700 1.294 0, would have won him the MVP of the Series had they won.

Exactly. Had they won. Would have, could have, should have....but, once again, they didn't, nor did your boyfriend.
These numbers:
1990 NLCS PIT CIN L 6 18 4 3 0 0 0 1 6 6 .167 .375 .167 2
1991 NLCS PIT ATL L 7 27 1 4 1 0 0 0 2 4 .148 .207 .185 3
1992 NLCS PIT ATL L 7 23 5 6 1 0 1 2 6 4 .261 .414 .435 1
1997 NLDS1 SFG FLA L 3 12 0 3 2 0 0 2 0 3 .250 .250 .417 1

show a player who has failed miserably with the pressure of the playoffs. Perhaps if he had performed to the level that is expected of your "Player for the ages" incarnation he might have helped his team win a championship.
Now go wash your face as you have a substance that resembles the yolk of an egg all over it!

you should have included this years line as well.

.222 ba, .333 sluggin, 2 rbi's . . .

i still think bonds is one of the greatest hitters ever, but you can't deny he hasn't been great in the playoffs.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Carbo

These last numbers:
WS SFG ANA L 7 17 8 8 2 0 4 6 13 3 .471 .700 1.294 0, would have won him the MVP of the Series had they won.

Exactly. Had they won. Would have, could have, should have....but, once again, they didn't, nor did your boyfriend.
These numbers:
1990 NLCS PIT CIN L 6 18 4 3 0 0 0 1 6 6 .167 .375 .167 2
1991 NLCS PIT ATL L 7 27 1 4 1 0 0 0 2 4 .148 .207 .185 3
1992 NLCS PIT ATL L 7 23 5 6 1 0 1 2 6 4 .261 .414 .435 1
1997 NLDS1 SFG FLA L 3 12 0 3 2 0 0 2 0 3 .250 .250 .417 1

show a player who has failed miserably with the pressure of the playoffs. Perhaps if he had performed to the level that is expected of your "Player for the ages" incarnation he might have helped his team win a championship.
Now go wash your face as you have a substance that resembles the yolk of an egg all over it!

When was the last player in Baseball to Win a World Championship by himself?? Face it fscktard you are as ignorant as they come and on this forum thqat's saying a lot.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Carbo

These last numbers:
WS SFG ANA L 7 17 8 8 2 0 4 6 13 3 .471 .700 1.294 0, would have won him the MVP of the Series had they won.

Exactly. Had they won. Would have, could have, should have....but, once again, they didn't, nor did your boyfriend.
These numbers:
1990 NLCS PIT CIN L 6 18 4 3 0 0 0 1 6 6 .167 .375 .167 2
1991 NLCS PIT ATL L 7 27 1 4 1 0 0 0 2 4 .148 .207 .185 3
1992 NLCS PIT ATL L 7 23 5 6 1 0 1 2 6 4 .261 .414 .435 1
1997 NLDS1 SFG FLA L 3 12 0 3 2 0 0 2 0 3 .250 .250 .417 1

show a player who has failed miserably with the pressure of the playoffs. Perhaps if he had performed to the level that is expected of your "Player for the ages" incarnation he might have helped his team win a championship.
Now go wash your face as you have a substance that resembles the yolk of an egg all over it!

The thing with Bonds is that they don't pitch to him! The stats you provided, for every year before last year's postseason, Bonds has 19 hits in 97 at bats, which is about a .200 avg. Add in the 17 walks, and assuming a walk is as good as a hit like they say in baseball (even moreso in the playoffs where 1 run can mean everything), then you could theoretically say that Bonds is batting 36 for 97, which equates to a .371 average.

Furthermore, you can't say that someone has either always been clutch or not throughout their whole career... Maybe the postseasons before the last he learned something new each time, and what you saw last year was the totality of his postseason experience. For instance, you can't say, well Bonds wasn't a great homerun hitter b/c he didn't hit 70+ homeruns every season... If you look his stats, they have pretty much gone up throughout the years, so to compare his stats back then to now is inaccurate. Were you the same person, who would have made the same decisions now, that you would have made 11-13 years ago? Physically or mentally?

 

[Geekbabe]

Bonds is an awesome hitter,too bad everybody walks him instead of actually trying to use pitching skills when he's at bat.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Carbo

These last numbers:
WS SFG ANA L 7 17 8 8 2 0 4 6 13 3 .471 .700 1.294 0, would have won him the MVP of the Series had they won.

Exactly. Had they won. Would have, could have, should have....but, once again, they didn't, nor did your boyfriend.
These numbers:
1990 NLCS PIT CIN L 6 18 4 3 0 0 0 1 6 6 .167 .375 .167 2
1991 NLCS PIT ATL L 7 27 1 4 1 0 0 0 2 4 .148 .207 .185 3
1992 NLCS PIT ATL L 7 23 5 6 1 0 1 2 6 4 .261 .414 .435 1
1997 NLDS1 SFG FLA L 3 12 0 3 2 0 0 2 0 3 .250 .250 .417 1

show a player who has failed miserably with the pressure of the playoffs. Perhaps if he had performed to the level that is expected of your "Player for the ages" incarnation he might have helped his team win a championship.
Now go wash your face as you have a substance that resembles the yolk of an egg all over it!

The thing with Bonds is that they don't pitch to him! The stats you provided, for every year before last year's postseason, Bonds has 19 hits in 97 at bats, which is about a .200 avg. Add in the 17 walks, and assuming a walk is as good as a hit like they say in baseball (even moreso in the playoffs where 1 run can mean everything), then you could theoretically say that Bonds is batting 36 for 97, which equates to a .371 average.

Furthermore, you can't say that someone has either always been clutch or not throughout their whole career... Maybe the postseasons before the last he learned something new each time, and what you saw last year was the totality of his postseason experience. For instance, you can't say, well Bonds wasn't a great homerun hitter b/c he didn't hit 70+ homeruns every season... If you look his stats, they have pretty much gone up throughout the years, so to compare his stats back then to now is inaccurate. Were you the same person, who would have made the same decisions now, that you would have made 11-13 years ago? Physically or mentally?

Shhh watch it or you will hurt Pugsleys feelings by blowing his argument out of the water!

 

[DanTMWTMP]

yay giants lost!!! HAHAHAHA TAKE THAT booyah!! (runs for cover)

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP
yay giants lost!!! HAHAHAHA TAKE THAT booyah!! (runs for cover)

Hey they were beat by the better team..at least for that series. Pudge was the man!

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Carbo

These last numbers:
WS SFG ANA L 7 17 8 8 2 0 4 6 13 3 .471 .700 1.294 0, would have won him the MVP of the Series had they won.

Exactly. Had they won. Would have, could have, should have....but, once again, they didn't, nor did your boyfriend.
These numbers:
1990 NLCS PIT CIN L 6 18 4 3 0 0 0 1 6 6 .167 .375 .167 2
1991 NLCS PIT ATL L 7 27 1 4 1 0 0 0 2 4 .148 .207 .185 3
1992 NLCS PIT ATL L 7 23 5 6 1 0 1 2 6 4 .261 .414 .435 1
1997 NLDS1 SFG FLA L 3 12 0 3 2 0 0 2 0 3 .250 .250 .417 1

show a player who has failed miserably with the pressure of the playoffs. Perhaps if he had performed to the level that is expected of your "Player for the ages" incarnation he might have helped his team win a championship.
Now go wash your face as you have a substance that resembles the yolk of an egg all over it!

The thing with Bonds is that they don't pitch to him! The stats you provided, for every year before last year's postseason, Bonds has 19 hits in 97 at bats, which is about a .200 avg. Add in the 17 walks, and assuming a walk is as good as a hit like they say in baseball (even moreso in the playoffs where 1 run can mean everything), then you could theoretically say that Bonds is batting 36 for 97, which equates to a .371 average.

Furthermore, you can't say that someone has either always been clutch or not throughout their whole career... Maybe the postseasons before the last he learned something new each time, and what you saw last year was the totality of his postseason experience. For instance, you can't say, well Bonds wasn't a great homerun hitter b/c he didn't hit 70+ homeruns every season... If you look his stats, they have pretty much gone up throughout the years, so to compare his stats back then to now is inaccurate. Were you the same person, who would have made the same decisions now, that you would have made 11-13 years ago? Physically or mentally?

Have you actually seen Bonds play back 10 yrs ago?

all these intentional walks to bonds is a recent PHENOMENON, it wasn't ALWAYS that way. he didn't get walked intentionally than normal back then.

in the past, bonds post season performance was soo awful it would have been foolish to IBB him.

 

[Stark]

I remember this argument the last time bonds was eliminated from the playoffs.

 

[Ranger X]

I wouldn't exactly take too much away from the Marlins. They're a decent team. After the All-Star break, they've been playing very well.