Has anyone noticed whenever you watch ESPN anymore. All they talk about is Bonds and how he is the greatest player of any baseball era. They didn't bother to give any other players any credit. And sure I do agree without Bonds in SF they would be a .500 team most likely. But why do they ALWAYS have to talk about him? I couldn't care less who it was if they just quit talking about him so much. I don't know if he's on the juice or not. But I think ESPN needs to be a little more Fair & Balanced. I think he is probabily referred to one of the greatest players of all time because alot of people forget about the old school players. Like before 1960. Who made Baseball what it is today...
-
Re: ESPN & Bonds are in bed together!
And you change your avatar just to support your thread.
-
Re: ESPN & Bonds are in bed together!
And you change your avatar just to support your thread.
Comment
-
Re: ESPN & Bonds are in bed together!
And you change your avatar just to support your thread.
Comment
-
Re: ESPN & Bonds are in bed together!
Oh leave them alone.
Its not like Bill Walton on the Lakers jock.
Comment
-
Re: ESPN & Bonds are in bed together!
Oh leave them alone.
Its not like Bill Walton on the Lakers jock.
Comment
-
Re: ESPN & Bonds are in bed together!
Oh leave them alone.
Its not like Bill Walton on the Lakers jock.
Comment
-
Re: ESPN & Bonds are in bed together!
No I perodically change my avatar. I think I changed it last Sunday. But I geuss it does support it.
Comment
-
Re: ESPN & Bonds are in bed together!
No I perodically change my avatar. I think I changed it last Sunday. But I geuss it does support it.
Comment
-
Re: ESPN & Bonds are in bed together!
No I perodically change my avatar. I think I changed it last Sunday. But I geuss it does support it.
Comment
-
Re: ESPN & Bonds are in bed together!
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Mr_October said:
No I perodically change my avatar. I think I changed it last Sunday. But I geuss it does support it.
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
LOL I was kinda kidding, but I really didn't know when you changed you avatar either.
But no, I read the newspaper today and can definitely see why Bonds would deserve an MVP hands down. And it truly was no contest.
But then the dude from St. Louis was all talking about how Bonds gets his slugging percentage because of his walks...
He also said that 90 RBI's really doesn't qualify for an MVP year. First of all, he should have watched Giants games instead of looking at statistics. He just said that his slugging percentage was high because of so many walks (even though that doesn't do [censored you naughty boy] to your slugging percentage), well maybe he should realize that over 75% of his opportunities to drive in runs have been killed by some kind of walk. Also, I suppose that he doesn't really know the meaning of MVP. It's not statistics in general, but they do give you an edge.
Hey, last thing. Does anyone remember the 1962 NL MVP? The dude that beat Hank Aaron when Aaron had 45 home runs, 128 RBI's, and a .323 batting average? That's right... Maury Wills. Does anyone remember what he did? Hmm, let's check out the stats:
.299 BA
6 HR
49 RBI
Why?
Oh yeah, because of that big number 104... uh... oh yeah... STOLEN BASES. That's right. Because of his 104 stolen bases, that led to 102 wins, an LA Dodger record. I think that's the true meaning of an MVP, and that St. Louis writer should check that out.Comment
-
Re: ESPN & Bonds are in bed together!
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Mr_October said:
No I perodically change my avatar. I think I changed it last Sunday. But I geuss it does support it.
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
LOL I was kinda kidding, but I really didn't know when you changed you avatar either.
But no, I read the newspaper today and can definitely see why Bonds would deserve an MVP hands down. And it truly was no contest.
But then the dude from St. Louis was all talking about how Bonds gets his slugging percentage because of his walks...
He also said that 90 RBI's really doesn't qualify for an MVP year. First of all, he should have watched Giants games instead of looking at statistics. He just said that his slugging percentage was high because of so many walks (even though that doesn't do [censored you naughty boy] to your slugging percentage), well maybe he should realize that over 75% of his opportunities to drive in runs have been killed by some kind of walk. Also, I suppose that he doesn't really know the meaning of MVP. It's not statistics in general, but they do give you an edge.
Hey, last thing. Does anyone remember the 1962 NL MVP? The dude that beat Hank Aaron when Aaron had 45 home runs, 128 RBI's, and a .323 batting average? That's right... Maury Wills. Does anyone remember what he did? Hmm, let's check out the stats:
.299 BA
6 HR
49 RBI
Why?
Oh yeah, because of that big number 104... uh... oh yeah... STOLEN BASES. That's right. Because of his 104 stolen bases, that led to 102 wins, an LA Dodger record. I think that's the true meaning of an MVP, and that St. Louis writer should check that out.Comment
-
Re: ESPN & Bonds are in bed together!
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Mr_October said:
No I perodically change my avatar. I think I changed it last Sunday. But I geuss it does support it.
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
LOL I was kinda kidding, but I really didn't know when you changed you avatar either.
But no, I read the newspaper today and can definitely see why Bonds would deserve an MVP hands down. And it truly was no contest.
But then the dude from St. Louis was all talking about how Bonds gets his slugging percentage because of his walks...
He also said that 90 RBI's really doesn't qualify for an MVP year. First of all, he should have watched Giants games instead of looking at statistics. He just said that his slugging percentage was high because of so many walks (even though that doesn't do [censored you naughty boy] to your slugging percentage), well maybe he should realize that over 75% of his opportunities to drive in runs have been killed by some kind of walk. Also, I suppose that he doesn't really know the meaning of MVP. It's not statistics in general, but they do give you an edge.
Hey, last thing. Does anyone remember the 1962 NL MVP? The dude that beat Hank Aaron when Aaron had 45 home runs, 128 RBI's, and a .323 batting average? That's right... Maury Wills. Does anyone remember what he did? Hmm, let's check out the stats:
.299 BA
6 HR
49 RBI
Why?
Oh yeah, because of that big number 104... uh... oh yeah... STOLEN BASES. That's right. Because of his 104 stolen bases, that led to 102 wins, an LA Dodger record. I think that's the true meaning of an MVP, and that St. Louis writer should check that out.Comment
-
Re: ESPN & Bonds are in bed together!
I do agree with the fact that Bonds is one of the game's top hitters. And has been for several years. He deserves all of his sucess. All I'm trying to say is ESPN promotes him to be this player that no one has ever been or seen before. But then again they promote anything that is currently going to bring in ratings like they did for LeBron James before he debuted.Comment
-
Re: ESPN & Bonds are in bed together!
I do agree with the fact that Bonds is one of the game's top hitters. And has been for several years. He deserves all of his sucess. All I'm trying to say is ESPN promotes him to be this player that no one has ever been or seen before. But then again they promote anything that is currently going to bring in ratings like they did for LeBron James before he debuted.Comment
Comment