|
|
#101
09-22-2007, 01:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bonds won\'t return to Giants
[ QUOTE ]
I must be missing something here but I don't get why so many people in this thread seem to think signing Bonds would be a good idea. Let's look at the facts: 1. He'll be 44 next year 2. He doesn't play every game 3. Will likely only DH 4. Has had injury problems the last few years 5. His production isn't anything that special anymore This year's stats: G 125 AVG.279 HR 28 RBI 66 Runs 75 These are likely to get worse next year not better. They've gone done the last three years. Oh, did I mention he'll turn 44 next year? This isn't 2000 Bonds, this will be 2008 Bonds. Why would you pay someone who can't play every game a lot of money when you can get someone younger who would likely produce just as much as he would next year? I really don't see any teams making a serious play for him next year unless he agrees to play for a very low salary. I'm not even factoring in the hate the guy has around the league with fans. Many teams will shy away from him just because of that. [/ QUOTE ] DHing full time and not hitting b/w Durham and Molina will make his numbers go down? 
|
|
#103
09-22-2007, 01:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds won\'t return to Giants
[ QUOTE ]
5. His production isn't anything that special anymore [/ QUOTE ] As of right now, he leads all of baseball in OPS. He's only played 17 fewer games than A-rod, thanks to the recent toe injury, and he leads A-rod in EqA .363 to .352. Think about that. A-rod is having possibly his best season ever, Bonds is 43 and you think he is not performing....and he leads A-rod in EqA by 13 points. [ QUOTE ] These are likely to get worse next year not better. They've gone done the last three years. [/ QUOTE ] They said that for the past three years also, and yet he is still the best hitter in baseball at age 43. [ QUOTE ] Oh, did I mention he'll turn 44 next year? This isn't 2000 Bonds, this will be 2008 Bonds. [/ QUOTE ] 2007 Bonds is a better hitter than 2007 anybody. [ QUOTE ] Why would you pay someone who can't play every game a lot of money when you can get someone younger who would likely produce just as much as he would next year? [/ QUOTE ] What younger player could a team easily acquire that is going to lead MLB in OPS next year?
|
|
#104
09-22-2007, 01:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds won\'t return to Giants
I love a thread where half the people joke around pretending to have never heard of Moneyball, then the other half make it obvious they really need to read it.
|
|
#105
09-22-2007, 01:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds won\'t return to Giants
[ QUOTE ]
2. He doesn't play every game 3. Will likely only DH 4. Has had injury problems the last few years [/ QUOTE ] 3. will likely improve both 2 and 4. he should get injured less and play more games b/c he'll be a dh. re: his production going down, hie .eqa this year is .363, better than either of his previous 2 years. for comparison, David Ortiz's .eqa is .347
|
|
#107
09-22-2007, 01:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds won\'t return to Giants
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] his .eqa this year is .363 [/ QUOTE ] For even more comparision: <u>Career high EqA</u> Pujols - .362 (2003) A-rod - .352 (2005) Griffey - .344 (1994) [/ QUOTE ] I love Bonds.
|
|
#108
09-22-2007, 01:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds won\'t return to Giants
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] his .eqa this year is .363 [/ QUOTE ] For even more comparision: <u>Career high EqA</u> Pujols - .362 (2003) A-rod - .352 (2005) Griffey - .344 (1994) [/ QUOTE ] eqa isn't the end-all stat. What matters most is what you do with that eqa once you get on base.
|
|
#109
09-22-2007, 02:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds won\'t return to Giants
HAY GUISE DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT BONDS'S EQA AND OPS NUMBERS LOOK LIKE AND HOW THEY COMPARE TO THE REST OF THE LEAGUE?
From a sheer novelty standpoint, I'd actually like to see how long he can play. Maybe he'll pull a John McEnroe and people will come around to him at the tail end of his career.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
