Although Bonds fell nine plate appearances short of qualifying for the Major League lead in on-base percentage, the Elias Sports Bureau added those appearances to his season-ending total -- determining that even with the extra at-bats he still would have led the league in that category -- and awarded him MLB's top mark at .454. It was the highest on-base percentage since 1894 for a player his age with more than 300 plate appearances.

WTF is this about? Has something like this ever been done before? Does Brian McCann get to add a few more plate appearances to his total and "officially" claim to have finished in the top 5 (or whatever) in batting average for the 2006 season? If it didn't happen on the field, it didn't happen at all.

The more I think about this, the more it pisses me off. Why assume that Bonds would merely have made nine simple outs in those plate appearances? As long as we're in the Land of Make Believe, I say we should assume that he grounded into nine consecutive double plays. There, it's done. Now Barry Bonds must be entered into the official Elias record book under "Double Plays, Consecutive: 9". Look, everyone, I'm the Great and Mighty Elias. I can invent things that didn't happen on the field and enter them into the annals of Official Baseball History. Tremble before my awesome powers.

I understand the reasoning behind awarding Bonds the OBP title, but not the reasoning behind leaving that .454 mark intact. If you're going to add nine hitless plate appearances in order to qualify him for the title (which seem unobjectionable), shouldn't his "adjusted" OBP then reflect those nine hitless appearances?

Admittedly this is a strange way of looking at it, since Bonds's real OBP is .454. But since Elias is the one which is hypothosizing those nine hitless appearances in the first place, it would seem that they'd want to be consistent in their reasoning, at least on their leaderboard list, if not in their overall stats.

Does Brian McCann get to add a few more plate appearances to his total and "officially" claim to have finished in the top 5 (or whatever) in batting average for the 2006 season?

Yes, actually. If you don't hit the PA qualifications for the batting title, they add hitless ABs until you do, then recaculate your average.

This case seems unusual, because I wasn't aware that they did the same for OBP. Is this the first time they've done it?

To clarify, that procedure is used to determine if someone's the batting champion. They wouldn't do that, per se, to give someone a Top-5 award.

This has been established practice by MLB in determining other rate-based titles for a long time. It's how it's done with batting average. Get over it. They aren't adding hits, they aren't adding times on base, they are just assuming outs; worst-case outcomes.

And those hypothetical double plays wouldn't have affected OBP. The worst you can be charged with is one plate appearance without a corresponding "reached base". If you want to charge him with hypothetical GDP to make the cutoff in some weighting system, you can do so if you want.

McCann went 147 for 442 At-Bats in 492 PA. So to qualify him, you work it out as 147-for-452 or .325 which wouldn't even put him in the NL top 5.

(which seem unobjectionable)

To you.

This rule has been in existence since 1967, according to baseball-reference.com. Tony Gwynn won a batting title in 1996 with only 498 plate appearances (you're supposed to have at least 502 in a 162 game season).

Even if we assume the absolute worst happened in those additional plate appearances (e.g. Bonds grounded into 9 triple plays), his resulting OBP would have been the best in the NL. And that's the absolute WORST that could happen, whether it was Bonds or his replacement (because Bonds wasn't able to play) at the plate. I think it's fair enough.

If someone went 240 for 250, then missed the second half of the season, I'd still feel comfortable giving him the batting title.

Mungo Jerry's just grumpy 'cause we're no longer In the Summertime.

I don't have a problem with it, in general. What's worse for the integrity of the game, having the stats note that a player would have hit least XXX if he had a few more at bats, or having a team roll an injured player out in a wheelchair so that he can get his few more at bats needed to qualify? Because someone would do the latter if it came to it, even if it wouldn't have been the case here.

This rule is pretty standard, its talked about whenever someone has a chance to lead in batting and might be a few PA short.

As Cooper says, its been here since 1967. The rules for qualifying have changed over the years. First it was based on at bats (400 I think) until Ted Willams had a year with 6 billion walks or something but less than 400 AB.

Even if we assume the absolute worst happened in those additional plate appearances (e.g. Bonds grounded into 9 triple plays), his resulting OBP would have been the best in the NL.

I don't see what worst case has to do with it. OBP doesn't care if the last 9 PA are triple plays or game winning sac flies. Either way its a time up and no reaching base.

I don't see the problem - if a guy is so far ahead that even a series of all-outs leaves him ahead, then he is the best.
I'd object if someone said, "Well, he would have only needed 2 hits in 20 more AB to qualify, and surely he could have done that."
No way. I wouldn't give anyone a single hit - but I will give them the outs.

shouldn't his "adjusted" OBP then reflect those nine hitless appearances?

Nine more hitless ABs puts Bonds at .437, six points ahead of Pujols.

Has something like this ever been done before?

I'm pretty sure it has, but I can't think of any examples at the moment. I don't know what the standards are, though; how many hitless ABs are they allowed to add in such a situation? Ten? Twenty?

Of course, if it wasn't Barry, nobody would care.

WTF is this about? Has something like this ever been done before?

I guess you know by now, that the answer is "yes". It's SOP. Sorry you don't like it. Write your congressman.

Then Hurricane Hazel was the last man to hit .400 -- enough of this Teddy Ballgame hogwash

Then Hurricane Hazel was the last man to hit .400 -- enough of this Teddy Ballgame hogwash

Er, no. Hazel hit .403 in 134 AB in 1957. Toss in 350 or so hitless ABs to make him eligible for the batting title, and he's not even hitting his weight.

And Paciorek woulda had three hits and two walks in 512 plate appearances: not exactly MVP quality, either.

I don't know what the standards are, though; how many hitless ABs are they allowed to add in such a situation? Ten? Twenty?

As many as it takes to get to the minimum, right (assuming that with that minimum number of PAs, the player would still get the batting title based on his number of actual hits)? As a practical matter, it wouldn't be more than about 40 or so.

I don't know what the standards are, though; how many hitless ABs are they allowed to add in such a situation? Ten? Twenty?

There's no limit. Let's say, for example, that Cole Hamels decides to give up pitching to focus on hitting. He gets hits in his first 201 AB. On the last one, the homerun travels at the speed of light around the world and hits Cole in the back, injuring him for the year.

You can add 301 hitless at bats and unless someone tops .400 he wins the batting title.

You hold, Peter.

I don't like it, as it upsets the majestic accounting that is baseball stats. Many people like to point out that every hit is awarded to someone's record AND marked as given up by a pitcher. With the magical 9 AB, some pretend ABs that never happened are somewhat in the record book, but additional outs aren't recorded to a pitcher.

If a team was going to roll him out in a wheelchair, there would be downsides to this, either having to roll his wheelchair into left field, removing another player from the lineup, etc. Instead, they get to continue to try and win games, and after the season add some pretend at bats to his record.

Getting on the field is a talent and a skill. If a player can't qualify, he doesn't qualify.

If a team was going to roll him out in a wheelchair, there would be downsides to this, either having to roll his wheelchair into left field, removing another player from the lineup, etc.

Would it satisfy you if they did some sort of sham where Bonds just stood in the batters' box on crutches and took three strikes?

I would think the reason that they allow the "adding outs" is to avoid making a mockery of the game in this manner.

the homerun travels at the speed of light around the world and hits Cole in the back, injuring him for the year.

I hate it when that happens!

shouldn't his "adjusted" OBP then reflect those nine hitless appearances?

Nine more hitless ABs puts Bonds at .437, six points ahead of Pujols.

Right, and this is why Bonds deserves the OBP title. But if Elias lists the leaders in that category, I think that Bonds's number on that list should be .437, with the proper notation as to how that number was derived.

To address BLB, though, I also think that the overall league stats should reflect his real totals, both the .454 and his real number of plate appearances. BLB's point about the averages all balancing is a valid one.

Regarding post #20: that's not the way it works. They don't actually add PAs (or ABs) to the player's record. The rule is that *if* you were to add enough PAs to qualify the player for the title without changing any other aspect of his record and that the resulting BA (or OBP, in this case) would still lead the league, the player is awarded the title even though they don't actually have the minimum number of required PAs. That's it. The player's actual record is unchanged.

I'm pretty certain that Bill Madlock won the 1981 NL batting title this way too. I am not certain though.

I'm pretty certain...I am not certain

I'm a #####..I am not a #####. Madlock averaged 3.068 plate appearances per team game that year. Short of the required 3.1. I'm absolutely certain that he won the title by the same standard.

With the magical 9 AB, some pretend ABs that never happened are somewhat in the record book, but additional outs aren't recorded to a pitcher.

This must not be allowed to stand. MLB should have a fan vote on which pitcher is most deserving of having these extra outs added to their record. My vote would go to Gavin Floyd, he needs all the help he can get.

Regarding post #20: that's not the way it works. They don't actually add PAs (or ABs) to the player's record. The rule is that *if* you were to add enough PAs to qualify the player for the title without changing any other aspect of his record and that the resulting BA (or OBP, in this case) would still lead the league, the player is awarded the title even though they don't actually have the minimum number of required PAs. That's it. The player's actual record is unchanged.

I understand the rule. That's why I said they are "somewhat" in the record book. The "record" has an understood 9 PAs to make him qualify. So they 9 PAs are somewhat in the record book.

Funny that this is controversial at all. Obviously many situations could develop where someone who didn't win the title had more hits, more total bases, more times on base than the person who won the rate title - which is absurd.

As for the bad arithmetic, Bonds' adjusted OBP was .4462, not .437, giving Bonds the major league lead.

Brian McCann is listed as 6th in batting average and 10th in slugging in the NL with his adjustments.

Ted Williams lost the batting title in 1954 because of added at bats despite 522 PA (huge walk rate). At that time, the standard was 2.6 AT BATS per game, not plate appearances.

Right, and this is why Bonds deserves the OBP title. But if Elias lists the leaders in that category, I think that Bonds's number on that list should be .437, with the proper notation as to how that number was derived.

To address BLB, though, I also think that the overall league stats should reflect his real totals, both the .454 and his real number of plate appearances. BLB's point about the averages all balancing is a valid one.

That's why his OBP is officially what it really is, .454. The record balances. The hitless PA's are added only to calculate where his .454 falls among the leaders. Say for instance that Bonds needed more than 9 more PAs to qualify, and that left him at .429. The top 4 would then read:

Pujols .431
Cabrera .430
Bonds **.454
Johnson .428

This happened just last year in the NL. Moises Alou finished in 5th place in the batting title race, with a batting average 1 point higher than the 4th place guy.

Lee-CHC .335
Pujols-STL .330
Cabrera-FLA .323
Helton-COL .320
Alou-SFG **.321

It's interesting that a similar adjustment cannot be made for the ERA title, as an IP is an accomplishment. Someone who pitched 161 innings and allows 20 ER (1.11 ERA) cannot win the title, because one cannot assume he would get that last IP. He could allow 75 ER in the next inning.

As for the pay cut, see this article for work Sabean has to do.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2006/10/05/SPG2TLIFOR1.DTL

In this article, it suggests that "Hillenbrand and Feliz might be the easiest to secure because both have expressed a strong desire to stay."

Bonds is a great player. Hillenbrand and Feliz?

Using the free agent value calculator on the hardballtimes site, which is based on current salary and win shares above bench for 2005 free agents, and using 2006 win shares above bench, Bonds scores about $22 million. Hillenbrand less than a million. Feliz about $2.5 million. If the latter two get anywhere near their current pay, they should be ready to sign.

Are we really having an extensive argument about this? Until this morning I would never even have imagined that this was controversial.

It's not like they're inventing at-bats - they're just measuring where the record someone DOES achieve should be placed in the context of what other people achieved. Sheesh.

Is there any chance that people would be getting so worked up about this if we weren't talking about Bonds?

Keerist. It's been this way for years.

Feliz is worth $2.5 million? Ha ha ha ha! Not that I think that's necessarily wrong, it could well be true whe you crunch the numbers, but if you've ever watched Feliz strike out flailing at something two feet out of the strike zone, it's a pretty funny concept.

Actually, I do think they should probably bring back Feliz because he's an excellent defensive player and with so many holes to fill, he's not the worst guy they could get to stand near third base. He hits one out every other week or so which helps too. But for some reason the idea that he's worth millions just don't seem right.

Keerist. It's been this way for years.

Indeed, almost every year there is someone.

2005 - Alou and Mark Ellis
2003 - Javvy Lopez and Reggie Sanders
2003 Aubrey Huff

Getting back to the article--is Barry not going to play if some team doesn't pay him  million?

Tony Gwynn won a title due to the rule (1996), and nearly lost one (1993, Galarraga just squeaked in with 506 PAs, but he had a healthy 12 point edge in BA)

Getting back to the article--is Barry not going to play if some team doesn't pay him  million?

This is what I'm interested in. I'm wondering if the Giants won't blink and give him a big contract - he's a huge draw to that ballpark.

It wouldn't make sense for any other team to offer him that kind of money, but I wonder if it wouldn't be dumb for the Giants to let him go.

If you're going to add nine hitless plate appearances in order to qualify him for the title (which seem unobjectionable), shouldn't his "adjusted" OBP then reflect those nine hitless appearances?

I'm sure his "adjusted" OBP does, but who cares? They don't put adjusted OBP on baseball cards. All the adjustment determines is whether or not he wins. He either does or he doesn't. In 1996, Tony Gwynn officially hit .353. For purposes of determining the batting champion, they recalculated and determined that his recalculated average was higher than the next best player. But that's not the number that officially goes in the books because he didn't officially hit that recaculated number. On B-R, it's explained with an asterisk.

I understand your point, but I think think you're trying to combine two concepts that don't really need to be combined. As far as the official stats are concerned, Bonds reached base a .454 clip. As far as the OBP title goes (which, quite frankly, I never knew anyone cared enough about for a big discussion), his adjusted rate was higher than the next best player. What that adjusted amount is doesn't really matter, so long as it's higher than player #2.

I think the point is that the lowest he would have had his OBP go is .437 (or whatever). More likely, it would have been around .454, perhaps even higher. So, list what he actually acheived and give him the league lead if it would be impossible for him to qualify without his OBP falling below the next guy in line.

It is rather rare for a league leader to be so asterisked. Going back to 1950 (342 category-seasons), there have been only 6:

Bonds, Gwynn, Madlock, Gene Woodling OBP 1953, Ted Williams OBP and SLP 1954.

These negotiations are interesting because of how value is determined and the press attention.

First issue is what aspects of performance wins games? The (it's safe to say) anti-Bonds SF press harps on the ".270 hitter" and only "77 rbi". The Giants could do the same. Bonds counters with "leading the majors in OBP", rbi is a team stat and .400+ average with RISP means 77 rbi not his fault (and he won an MVP with 90 rbi). Press says he can't defend, Bonds has stats that say he can and how much does that matter anyway?

Second issues is butts in the seats and associated revenues. SF press says "All Star game" and Yankees. Bonds says "will Giants fans be excited with Randy Winn as the All Star rep?"

Third issue is health. Bonds is trying to sell that he'll be more healthy and more productive next year. Giants'll tell him he's really old and it's risky. What's the middle there? Assume next season will be about the same as this was?

The Madlock batting title in 1981 was an exception to the normal rule that the standards for qualification are based on scheduled games played, rather than actual games played, due to the special circumstances that season. According to Total Baseball:

"Due to the strike-shortened season, the games a team played, rather rather than the scheduled games, were the basis for individual championships. Pittsburgh, Madlock's club, played 103 games. Thus, 103 X 3.1 = 319 plate appearences to qualify for the batting championship. Madlock topped the required 319 PA's by one."

I wonder if Sabean wouldn't try to trade Pitching to the Yankees for A-Rod, (assuming the texas 10 million a year goes along with the deal so he only costs the giants 15 miilon) I mean it's not what I would do...but for some reason, I see some symetry there and can easily imagine that happening.

46: Yeah, and Sheffield plays 3B. You must like imagining, I don't think the Yanks are that dumb or that the Giants have anyone but Cain the Yanks would want.

Who said anything about Sheffield?

There would be plenty of viable options for the Yankees at 3rd base, and they would probably go for the best defender they could get. They have enough offense elsewhere.

If A-Rod doesn't start hitting in the post season, I think that greatly enhances the possibility he would be traded. SFO is as good a guess as any other team.

If A-Rod doesn't start hitting in the post season, I think that greatly enhances the possibility he would be traded.

Doesn't Rodriguez have a no-trade clause? Not that he would necessarily turn down a trade, but do you think he would want to go to the Giants?

Someone may have made this point already, but isn't it a bit arbitrary to just add plate appearances until you get to the minimum cut-off? How do we know that, given 50 more plate appearances, Bonds or whoever else wouldn't have gone 0 for 50? 0 for 9 is not the "worst case outcome"; it is just one of zillions of completely invented outcomes. This makes no sense to me at all.

What's the difference between someone hitting .410 in 499 PAs and one month of the season left and someone hitting .410 in 499 PAs with no more games left to play? The former is unlikely to finish the season above .400 unless he immediately gets hit by a bus, but the latter is going to get some kind of calculated batting title and credit for hitting .400?

I realize these are rate stats, and no distinction is made between hitting .410 in 550 PAs and .410 in 650 PAs so long as you are over the minimum cutoff, but I still think this is an unintutive correction at best.

What's the difference between someone hitting .410 in 499 PAs and one month of the season left and someone hitting .410 in 499 PAs with no more games left to play? The former is unlikely to finish the season above .400 unless he immediately gets hit by a bus, but the latter is going to get some kind of calculated batting title and credit for hitting .400?

If you don't extrapolate, you could end up with an absurd situation where one player has more hits in fewer ABs, yet doesn't win the title.

Player A - 175 hits, 450 ABs, 40 other PAs, .389 BA
Player B - 170 hits, 495 ABs, 40 other PAs, .343 BA

If player A went 0-55, he would still win the title.

He could allow 75 ER in the next inning.

Can we leave Russ Ortiz out of this discussion?

What I find interesting is that Bonds finished 6th in OPS with the adjustment but they won't do the adjustment for OPS+. He'd easily still be in the top 10 with 9 extra outs, but they won't calculate it for that stat.

Doesn't Rodriguez have a no-trade clause? Not that he would necessarily turn down a trade, but do you think he would want to go to the Giants?

I don't want to take this too far, because obviously I am just speculating out my keister....so pleast take it as such.

If he has a BAD post season, and it's certainly started out that way for him, his position there will be untenable. If he was being booed mercilessly this year, how would it be next year if he continues to flop "when it counts"? At least as bad or most likely, if imagineable....even worse. He was miserable. I don't think he would want to go through another year like that. I think that he would agree to waive his NTC.

As for SFO....WHY NOT? It's big enough to not be small market, but small enough to probably make him feel a little more comfortable.

If the Giants don't keep Bonds, and with all the other guys they have leaving, they would have plenty of money to pay A-Rod 15 million, (Again, I am assuming the 10 million kick in from Texas goes with him) and they would immediately have another big name marquee player to help fill the void left by Bonds' departure.

And finally, the Giants DO have what the Yankees need most....good young pitching.

I am sure there are some good reasons why this won't ever happen, but there are at least a few reasonable scenarios that I can envision where it might.

What I find interesting is that Bonds finished 6th in OPS with the adjustment but they won't do the adjustment for OPS+. He'd easily still be in the top 10 with 9 extra outs, but they won't calculate it for that stat.

Who exactly is this "they," Daryn? MLB doesn't calculate OPS officially, let alone OPS+.

If Daryn means baseball-reference, there are some inconsistencies. For example, Williams is listed as the OPS+ leader (no **'s to indicate AB's were added) and on the single-season leader list for his 1954 season. He's listed as the OBP leader with **'s, but not on the single-season leader list though even with at bats added that's a top 100 season.

If he has a BAD post season, and it's certainly started out that way for him, his position there will be untenable. If he was being booed mercilessly this year, how would it be next year if he continues to flop "when it counts"? At least as bad or most likely, if imagineable....even worse. He was miserable. I don't think he would want to go through another year like that. I think that he would agree to waive his NTC.

I agree with this. If the Yankees don't win the WS and ARod plays poorly (or maybe even if they win and he plays poorly), he's gone. He's not going to want to stay and they're not going to want to keep him. ARod + the TX money could bring them a good young pitcher and a servicable 3B. (Mora and Loewen would make some sense, but I doubt they trade ARod in the division). SF makes a certain amount of sense. Houston? LAA?

If he has a BAD post season, and it's certainly started out that way for him, his position there will be untenable. If he was being booed mercilessly this year, how would it be next year if he continues to flop "when it counts"? At least as bad or most likely, if imagineable....even worse. He was miserable. I don't think he would want to go through another year like that. I think that he would agree to waive his NTC.

I agree with this. If the Yankees don't win the WS and ARod plays poorly (or maybe even if they win and he plays poorly), he's gone. He's not going to want to stay and they're not going to want to keep him. ARod + the TX money could bring them a good young pitcher and a servicable 3B. (Mora and Loewen would make some sense, but I doubt they trade ARod in the division). SF makes a certain amount of sense. Houston? LAA?

that's odd

"I agree with this. If the Yankees don't win the WS and ARod plays poorly (or maybe even if they win and he plays poorly), he's gone."

I completely disagree. It assumes that the Yankees' management is as stupid as the Yankees' fans and New York sports columnists are. Alex Rodriguez is still the best all around player on the Yankees and there is no reason to get rid of him.

"SF makes a certain amount of sense. Houston? LAA?"

I'm sure the Giants would love to have A-Rod, but I can't think of any position players the Giants have who the Yankees would want in exchange. You think the Bombers would prefer to have Omar Vizquel or Pedro Feliz?

Not that New York is stupid enough to do this, but if the Yankees offered A-Rod and cash for Matt Cain, I'd make the trade if I were Brian Sabean. Yet if San Francisco gives up Cain or any other young starting pitchers, their hope for the future is really shot.

"Houston? LAA?"

Anaheim is a bit weak offensively, and they have a lot of prospects. So, again, only if Cashman is nuts, the Angels make some sense for a trade. I'm sure the Yankees would love to have Roy Oswalt, but unless New York pays Rodriguez's salary, I can't see the Astros pulling the trigger on that deal.

If you don't extrapolate, you could end up with an absurd situation where one player has more hits in fewer ABs, yet doesn't win the title.

Player A - 175 hits, 450 ABs, 40 other PAs, .389 BA
Player B - 170 hits, 495 ABs, 40 other PAs, .343 BA

If player A went 0-55, he would still win the title.

Yeah, and if he went 0-100, he would not. Noone has any idea what "would have" happened had player A played more.

In your scenario, I'd say player A wins the hits title (a counting stat), and player B wins the batting title (a rate stat with a defined minimum number of chances). Why is this absurd?

I completely disagree. It assumes that the Yankees' management is as stupid as the Yankees' fans

. . .

only if Cashman is nuts

This assumes that Von Steingrabber continues to fade away and allow Cashman to hold the reins. If the Yankees lose to Detroit in this series, and A-Rod continues to play as he has -- like that bases-loaded, 2-out strikeout -- he will be blamed REGARDLESS of everyone else's failures -- Georgie may just have one last irrational tantrum in him. In which case, bye-bye A-Rod.

I completely disagree. It assumes that the Yankees' management is as stupid as the Yankees' fans and New York sports columnists are. Alex Rodriguez is still the best all around player on the Yankees and there is no reason to get rid of him.

The yankees have claimed that they're losing money. If they're concerned about payroll and see ARod as a off the field distraction/problem, trading him to clear $15M in payroll and get a good young pitcher makes sense. Sure, ARod is a great player, but he's not untradeable.

Anaheim is a bit weak offensively, and they have a lot of prospects. So, again, only if Cashman is nuts, the Angels make some sense for a trade. I'm sure the Yankees would love to have Roy Oswalt, but unless New York pays Rodriguez's salary, I can't see the Astros pulling the trigger on that deal.

I wasn't talking about Oswalt or anyone close to his level. More like Nick Adenhart or Jason Hirsh.

In your scenario, I'd say player A wins the hits title (a counting stat), and player B wins the batting title (a rate stat with a defined minimum number of chances). Why is this absurd?

Because that's not what a batting champion is. No one should be declared batting champion when someone else has more hits and a higher batting average.

Would you deny a title to someone who goes 450 for 450?

Because someone would do the latter [wheelchair] if it came to it, even if it wouldn't have been the case here.

####### Nykesha Sales. What a ####### travesty.

No one should be declared batting champion when someone else has more hits and a higher batting average.

OK, on second thought, that's not a hard and fast rule either. Someone could go 120 for 360 with 200 walks, while someone else could go 130 for 380 and only 50 walks.

That doesn't mean I conceded my original point.

"I think all of baseball would be glad if you stayed home too, Barry. Do yourself a favor."

I want to see him break the record.

I think all of baseball would be glad if you stayed home too, Barry. Do yourself a favor.

No, all of baseball wouldn't.

My Grandpa raised Bantam chickens which we called "Banties Chickens". These chickens are noted for postering and making the feathers around their heads quite fluffed out when two males are trying to attract the attention of a lady bird.

So can we say that money and a contract is a female chicken?

Shouldn't we be trying to decide who will win in this battle to decide who will get the better of this deal?

My guess will be that the Giants compromise just enough to sign Mr. Bonds at $30 mil for 2 years. And that we will see no less than a dozen more articles on the fluffing of the two combatant's feathers and postering.

My guess will be that the Giants compromise just enough to sign Mr. Bonds at $30 mil for 2 years. And that we will see no less than a dozen more articles on the fluffing of the two combatant's feathers and postering.

If we are giving predictions, I see a one year Thomas-like deal, but with a much higher base salary (say $8-10 million).

"I don't think anybody in the MLB hierarchy is looking forward to the prospect of having to slip clothespins over their collective noses if Barry breaks Aaron's record."

I misinterpreted your earlier remark, Kevin. I thought you were including fans. I suppose you are probably right about the MLB hierarchy. However, I personally think they should celebrate Bonds's accomplishment. He's still the best offensive player I've ever seen. And within a relatively short time, someone (A-Rod?, Pujols?, Howard?, Scutaro?) will cruise past Bonds. It interests me that as great a hitter as Albert Pujols is, he is still not given the extraordinary respect -- by way of getting pitched around -- that Bonds got for a few years. I wonder if we'll ever see that. (I know that part of it was that no one hitting behind Barry was all that good. But even when Bonds hit third and Kent hit fourth, Bonds got walked a tremendous amount.) I don't think even Buck Showalter would intentionally walk Albert with the bases loaded.

"Howard?"

Howard has zero chance. He's like 26 or something.

Cowboy, you are probably right. His 82 home runs in 266 games looks pretty good to me. Howard has a better chance than Scutaro, though.

Bonds scored 74 runs and knocked in 77. He was paid 25% of the Giants payroll to provide 12% of their offense. The Giants got ripped off.

He'll be here all week, folks. Don't forget to tip your waitress before you leave.

Bonds created 96 runs, 12.8% of the Giants total, while using up 268 outs, 6.6% of the Giants total. That would indicate to me that he was worth 19.3% of the Giants payroll if he was of average worth defensively. Obviously, as a left fielder, he's worth less than an average player defensively. I don't know how to adjust for that, so I'll take a guess and say his production was worth 15% of the Giants payroll. Bonds has obviously been overpaid the last two seasons based on his production, juat like he was underpaid for most of his previous years based on his production. Ignoring all other factors, I would guess a $12 million salary would be appropriate for 2007.

As far as the batting title goes, as many others have said, it's been done this way for a long time, and it has affected a number of batting races. No plate apperances are added to the record book; mlb just logically says that a .398 OPB in 4898 plate appearances is more worthy of a title than .385 OBP in 501 plate appearances. Many MLB policies don't make a lot of sense, but this one does.

MLB only thinks that way when it awards a title. MLB doesn't officially award 2nd place or 3rd place to anyone, so it doesn't have a policy on how to interpret similar data in non-title situations.

The Baseball Encyclopedia takes titles seriously. Players who officially won titles are marked as such, even when it turns out for various reasons other players had higher batting averages or more runs etc (usually, but not always, because of counting mistakes made at the time). While the policy with regards to the numbers used are to reflect what really happened on the field, people who were given awards or honors for an achievement can't be changed because we now learned that someone added wrong. So winning titles and having certain statistics are already viewed as two different things.

I'm not really sure what the policy is for stats where mlb doesn't have titles etc (non-official stats) and rankings; I'll try and clarify this.

Bonds created 96 runs, 12.8% of the Giants total, while using up 268 outs, 6.6% of the Giants total. That would indicate to me that he was worth 19.3% of the Giants payroll if he was of average worth defensively.

What the hell? Explain.

It's interesting that a similar adjustment cannot be made for the ERA title, as an IP is an accomplishment. Someone who pitched 161 innings and allows 20 ER (1.11 ERA) cannot win the title, because one cannot assume he would get that last IP. He could allow 75 ER in the next inning.

That points out the biggest problem with using a given number of outs as the cutoff. It should be batters faced since you could then assume the shortfall number of batters all hit hypothetical home runs and do the calculation based on that.

Last weekend Bonds 8 a burger made with 3 kinds of cheeses and 98% lean meat.

That would indicate to me that he was worth 83.98% of the Giants' budget for clubhouse spreads.

It was the highest on-base percentage since 1894 for a player his age with more than 300 plate appearances.

No, it wasn't.