Bonds' HR Drought good for Giants?

by The Gene Hackman on Aug 3, 2007 1:08 PM PDT

This might be stating the obvious, but:

The gravity of 755 and 756 seems to be messing with opposing pitchers and managers in a diabolical kind of way. Their unwillingness to give up these homers and pitch to a crusty Bonds is affording the Giants a Bonds-generated-advantage they haven't enjoyed since his record HR year.

Opposing pitchers are losing focus, facing Bonds. Opposing managers are over-managing Bonds ABs. Didn't the fish and evil-doers seem a little star-struck these last two series?

With Bonds stuck on 754, the Giants are set to win a bunch of games that, all things being equal, this team would probably not win.

So here's to staying on 754.

This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.

Tweet Comment 10 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Re: Bonds' HR Drought good for Giants?

Interesting theory. There's probably a certain truth to it, although Bonds doesn't seem to be getting walked at a much higher rate than earlier in the season. The bigger change in the last couple weeks is that the guys hitting behind Bonds (such as Feliz last night) are finally coming through with some clutch hits. Pete Happy was responsible for 4 of the 11 RBIs in the Dodgers series.

Lon Simmons' adopted dad.

by Kitspool on Aug 3, 2007 1:08 PM PDT reply actions

Re: Bonds' HR Drought good for Giants?

Occam's Razor. The Giants won the series from the Dodgers because THE DODGERS SUCK.

QED.

by Skaldheim on Aug 3, 2007 1:32 PM PDT reply actions

Re: Bonds' HR Drought good for Giants?

Well, of course the Dodgers suck. But appealing to Occam here only works if the Dodgers suck more than the Giants. They do, but 'only' in an inherent/essential kind of way. Demonstratively, they don't suck as much as we do, and but so, Occam's razor cuts the other way.

"Bri-an Sab-e-an, I hope you're satisfied with what you've done..."

by The Gene Hackman on Aug 3, 2007 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Bonds' HR Drought good for Giants?

Of course the Dodgers suck more than the Giants. It's an axiom.

by Skaldheim on Aug 3, 2007 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Bonds' HR Drought good for Giants?

The more accurate statement is Bonds' HR drought good for MLB. Since Bonds has been at 754 every park has been sold out pretty much every night. No doubt Petco will be packed this weekend and if Bonds comes home next week with no more than 755 homers ATT will be sold out with the Nationals and Pirates in town. It might sound crazy, but Barry and Balco have been good for baseball. Bonds is such a polarizing figure that most people either fall into one of two categories, love him or hate him. Regardless of which category you are in, you are going to be at the game to cheer your ass off or boo your ass off. As far as opposing teams psyching themselves out because they don't want to give it up(755, that is), it's difficult to quantify. The Dodgers did pitch to Bonds with a runner on third and two out, but he only has 14 PAs since he hit 754 because of all the BBs.

I did MY job.

by MeSoKrabby on Aug 3, 2007 1:40 PM PDT reply actions

Re: Bonds' HR Drought good for Giants?

*14 ABs

by fireplacetv on Aug 3, 2007 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Bonds' HR Drought good for Giants?

I think the drought is good for those attending McC night at the yard on Tuesday.

Bold Prediction: Klesko will finish the 2007 season with at least 20 HRs. (OPS+ is 129 as of 7/1/07)

by Goofus on Aug 3, 2007 1:58 PM PDT reply actions

Re: Bonds' HR Drought good for Giants?

WOOOO!

Coming to you by proxy (I adopted: Dave Righetti!)

by howtheyscored on Aug 3, 2007 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Bonds' HR Drought good for Giants?

There is a nice article somewhere about how the "bad" intentional/semi-intentional walks to bonds in 2002 were worth ~2 wins/season to the Giants

Those walks are even worse (for opponents, obviously) in 2007 because his SLG is 200-odd points lower.

by zenbitz on Aug 3, 2007 3:04 PM PDT reply actions

Re: Bonds' HR Drought good for Giants?

It's both good and bad to me. Good because the Giants are playing better baseball in the last week or so, making it a lot more entertaining to watch games. Bad because I've had it with the media. I had it with them a long time ago. It's just stupid to look at Yahoo Sports and see about ten photos of Bonds. Not swinging the bat, not playing the outfield, no kinetic shots like most sports photogs take. No. In these photos he's just standing or sitting there. OMG BONDS STANDS AROUND. Such a life-altering development.

Not much will change when he passes Aaron but I hope sometime soon we can go back to enjoying our crappy little team in peace.

Strikeouts are boring. Besides that, they're fascist. Not boring: Emmanuel Burriss. Not facist: THE RETURN OF SF Dugout

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Aug 3, 2007 3:08 PM PDT reply actions