|
|
Up until this season, I had made it my entire 15-year fantasy baseball career without having Barry Bonds on my squad.
In one of my leagues this season, however, one member was bound and determined to stick it to the BALCO boys, so Bonds' name came up early in the auction. Evidently, everyone else was scared off because when the bidding stalled at $27—you read that right, $27, and on a $260 cap no less—I found myself with the best hitter of our generation in my lineup.
At the risk of embarrassing my fellow league members to the point I won't be invited back next season, I must point out that Milton Bradley went for $28. So, even if Bonds' production declined in 2004, I had to feel pretty good about my value purchase.
ADVERTISEMENT
But a month into the season, as much as I enjoy the almost nightly bombs—and
the fact that ESPN brings its regularly scheduled program to a screeching halt
and trots out Chris Berman to breathlessly call just about every single Barry
Bonds at-bat—there is one sniggling little question I have:
What's with all the walks?
Okay, that's a little simplistic. It wasn't as if I were totally unaware when I added Bonds to my lineup that he was prone to take a pitch or 8,000. After all, Bonds has walked more than 35 miles in his career (based on 90 feet for each of his 2,070 career free passes).
But morning after morning of checking the box score and seeing yet another 0-1 with three walks got me to thinking if Bonds were really worth the price most had to pay to add him to their roster.
Detractors—and I need to be clear on this, detractors of Bonds' fantasy value, not his personality or allegedly chemically-enhanced physique—knock Barry for not getting enough at-bats to make his gaudy average all that helpful, and for not getting the opportunity to hit with runners on base, thus depriving him of RBIs.
On the surface, the at-bats charge holds some water. Bonds finished third in the majors in batting average last season at .341, but his 390 at-bats were fewest—by 91—of any of the top 20 finishers. In fact, 10 had 100-plus at-bats more than Bonds and six had more than 200 at-bats above and beyond Barry.
This discrepancy is even more glaring in the hits column, where Bonds had 133 base-knocks. Todd Helton, who batted .358 and finished directly above him in the standings, had 209 hits; Edgar Renteria, directly behind Bonds at .330, had 194.
But as everybody knows, the baseball season is a marathon, not a sprint. In that context, a half-dozen fewer at-bats per week isn't such a big deal. Consider this: if your fantasy team with 5,000 at-bats (a pretty standard league minimum) hit .280 as a team and then added Bonds' 2003 numbers, your team batting average would leap to .284. It would take someone with 600 at-bats and a .320 average to give your team a similar boost—and the closest anyone with 600 at-bats came to doing that last year was Vernon Wells, who hit .317 in 678 at-bats.
You could get by with a player who had 500 at-bats, but they'd have to hit closer to .330 to have an impact similar to Bonds. Last year, only four players—Helton, Renteria, Albert Pujols, and Gary Sheffield—fit those criteria.
So while Bonds hasn't seen more than 480 at-bats in a season since 1998 (perspective on that time frame: my daughter was born that year and is just finishing kindergarten), he's also hit .291 or better 13 of the past 14 years, batted .302 or better each of the last four, and is hitting a cumulative .334 over that span.
In other words, ripping the walks is making a mountain out of a molehill.
The negative impact of Bonds' batting eye on your team batting average debunked, it's time to direct our attention at his purported dearth of RBI opportunities.
There's significantly more bite to this charge. In 2001, Bonds drove in 137; only five major-leaguers had more RBI. Of course, 73 of those were of his own doing via the long ball, leaving 64 base-runners Barry brought around.
The following season, Bonds had 110 RBI, tied for 14th in the majors. Once again, 64 base-runners came around, with Barry's 46 dingers accounting for the remaining ribbies.
Last year, Bonds' RBI totals declined for the second consecutive season—something that had never happened previously in his career. Fifty-one players—guys like Jeff Conine and Jay Gibbons and Tony Batista—drove in more runs. The more telling number, however, is that exactly half of Bonds' RBI were self-generated.
However, as any statistician worth his or her salt will tell you, RBI is as much a function of a teammate's performance (getting on base, getting into scoring position) as it is that of an individual player. So the Giants need the top of the order to perform to keep opposing pitchers from taking the bat out of Barry's hands.
It appears as if fears of a third consecutive season of decline for Bonds' RBI numbers can be laid to rest; with 22 already he's on pace for something in the 130 range. It is significant, though, that just over half of his RBI are Barry knocking Barry in, which is alarmingly close to the trend set last season.
Of course, that means all Bonds has to do to reach 100 RBI is hit 50 homers. Hey, the guy is hitting .463 right now, and slugging 1.111. I'm not going to bet against him.
When you look at
it that way, the 0-for-1 with three walks sprinkled in amongst the 2-for-3 with
two homers are a whole lot easier to take.
Back To Index Page