Amazing, Astonishing, Astounding

Tell your kids how lucky they were to have been alive to witness the greatest season for a hitter in history. Make sure to tell them before several players come along and dwarf the accomplishments of Barry Bonds in 2001. Because what we saw last year is still beyond belief.

There's no point asking if you'd ever seen anything like it before, because nothing like it had ever happened before. Yes, Mark McGwire obliterated Roger Maris' single-season home run record in 1998, and he had a fabulous season to boot. He was the best, most feared, most valuable player in the National League that year -- never mind that the award went to Sammy Sosa.

Well, I did mind that the award went to Sosa. I'm no fan of McGwire's, but his performance was awe inspiring. His team, however, wasn't, and because Sosa's team reached the postseason (which happened because the Giants didn't), he was the National League MVP in 1998. The vote wasn't even all that close.

Which is why I was sure Sosa, or Luis Gonzalez, would get the award for 2001, even though Bonds clearly had the best season, like, ever. The Giants finished two games back of the Diamondbacks -- a gut-wrenching season, as they all are -- but weren't nearly the dogs that the St. Louis Cardinals (except for McGwire) were in 1998. Gonzalez, by all accounts, is a great guy and a popular player for a very good team. He smoked 57 home runs and drove in 142 while hitting .325 and scoring 128 runs while cranking out 198 hits -- I mean, he was spectacular, especially when you consider that before becoming a Diamondback, he was nothing special at the plate. But suddenly, after donning that hideous purple, pinstriped uniform, he was Ted Williams. So I figured he would be the runaway MVP. And he would have been if there were no Barry Bonds. I'm happy to be wrong about this MVP vote.

Sosa was -- once again -- dynamite, with 64 home runs (making him the only player to reach 60 in three different seasons), a .328 average, 146 runs scored, and 160 driven in. I reasoned that if somehow Bonds did win the MVP, it's only because Sosa and Gonzalez would split a bunch of votes, and Bonds would "sneak in."

Here are the three players' season totals:

Talk about a wealth of candidates. Every one of these seasons was ridiculous. (And in case you're wondering, Bonds' batting average was indeed the highest of the three, nudging out Sosa by .00017477.)

Arguments against Bonds included the fact that he played in fewer games than the other two, and that he drove in fewer runs -- even the fact that he drove in "only" 137 runs on 73 home runs, as if that were somehow selfish of him. He had only 156 hits -- that's less than one per game. And despite all those gaudy home runs, Sosa still had more total bases. Those walks, well, sure, you walk a lot if you're not willing to swing outside of your zone to drive in a run, see -- if you think of yourself ahead of the team. (Riddle me this: If you have roughly a 33% chance of getting a hit when you swing at the ball and a 100% chance of reaching base when you walk, are you helping your club by swinging at a bad pitch?)

And he had way fewer at-bats than the other two -- I suppose because he's a slacker. Wanna see what the numbers would've been if Sosa and Bonds had had 609 at-bats, everything else being equal?

I guess you don't give it to Bonds because he struck out over 100 times and hit only three triples.

Of course, as we now know, all of my defensive arguments on behalf of Bonds are academic, as he did win his (unprecedented) fourth MVP. The Bonds haters don't accept it, as evidenced on the Giants newsgroup and other places, citing the short right-field wall, for instance (and failing to notice that Bonds hits better on the road and that he's hit all of the Giants' Cove shots except for two by Felipe Crespo). Mostly the Bonds haters -- who also post indignant messages about how he, at age 37, doesn't deserve a five-year deal for ridiculous pay -- will say anything they have to, simply because they hate the guy. (Besides: who does deserve a five-year deal for ridiculous pay?)

For the moment, let's just focus on Bonds' performance, leaving Gonzalez and Sosa alone. Bonds' .328 batting average, in itself, is nothing special. It's good, certainly, but nowhere near the all-time top 10. But that .515 OBP... in case you're new to OBP and don't know what that means, it means that Bonds reached base in over half of his plate appearances. I think I saw a kid do that in Little League once. I mean, it's not just good, it's stupendous. Ruth did it; Williams did it; Hornsby did it; nobody else.

Ruth used to hold the record for slugging percentage in a season -- again, for the uninitiated, that's total bases per at-bat; with total bases being one base per single, two per double, etc. Ruth set that record in 1920 by slugging .847 (and followed it up with .846 the next year; in 1927, when he became the first man to reach 60 homers, he slugged "only" .772). Bonds blew past that record by 16 points.

Ruth drew 170 bases on balls in 1923, and that record stood for nearly 80 years, too -- until Bonds drew 177. That's a good thing; getting on base is good. The man reached base by walks or hits 333 times in 2001. The fact that he scored "only" 129 might relate to Jeff Kent having a down year (albeit still a good one), and the team not having a number-five hitter for most of the season.

Bonds' OPS -- that's on-base percentage plus slugging percentage -- was 1.379: sadly, just a shade (i.e., less than a point) below Ruth's all-time single-season record. For those who feel that adding SP and OBP is tantamount to adding apples and oranges, I would agree, to an extent, but I'd still point out that you'd have an edible fruit salad. See, the denominator in OBP includes at-bats, walks, hit-by-pitch, and sacrifice flies, while the SP denominator is simply at-bats. (As an aside, if it were up to me, the OBP denominator would be all plate appearances. Many feel that sacrifice bunts should continue to be excluded because the batter shouldn't be penalized for giving himself up, but I disagree strenuously. Each successful, normal sacrifice bunt is a plate appearance that results in an out, and the batter does not reach base. So what if the cause is noble?)

Further, for those who are suspicious of them newfangled stats like OBP and SP, and especially OPS, bear in mind that Branch Rickey -- the guy who brought Jackie Robinson to the major leagues in 1947 -- was a huge proponent of OBP and SP, feeling that they tell you way more about a hitter than batting average.

To those who bemoan the short distances to the walls at Pac Bell Park, I say this: check Bonds' home/road splits. Pac Bell gave Bonds no particular advantage in setting the all-time single-season home run record: he hit 37 at home, 36 on the road. On the other hand, he did do markedly better at home than on the road, which makes him unusual among Giants hitters. At home he went .335/.516/.915/1.431, compared to .321/.514/.817/1.332 away.

Here's a quick look at the home/road splits of Giants hitters with 100 or more plate appearances: Rich Aurilia had a .987 OPS at home, .899 on the road, but he hit 22 homers on the road and only 15 at home; Eric Davis had a .716 OPS at home, .559 on the road; Russ Davis had an .835 OPS at home, .762 away; and Andres Galarraga's home OPS was .885, compared to .847 on the road. Those, along with Bonds, are the five players Pac Bell helped at all, and only two of them were in the lineup most of the time.

Marvin Benard had a .683 OPS at home, .835 away; Shawon Dunston's OPS was .784 at home, .820 away; Bobby Estalella's OPS was .639 at home, .705 away; for Pedro Feliz it was .608 at home, .663 on the road; Edwards Guzman's OPS was an appalling .435 at home, a fine .849 on the road; Jeff Kent had an .864 OPS at home, .887 on the road; Ramon Martinez went .649 at home, .700 on the road; Calvin Murray went .592 at home, .737 away; for Armando Rios it was a wretched .626 at home, an excellent .989 away; Benito Santiago's OPS was an almost-as-wretched .629 at home, and a fairly wretched .696 away; J.T. Snow went .620 at home, .879 on the road; John Vander Wal went .597 at home, .873 on the road. That's 12 players, six of whom you could call regulars.

And the Giants' team had an OPS of .775 at home, .827 on the road; they hit 97 home runs at home (60 not by Bonds) and 138 away (102 not by Bonds). Forget the dimensions: Pacific Bell Park is a pitcher's park. Two years of data have told us this. Doesn't mean it'll always be a pitcher's park. Things change. As more new, hitterish ballparks come along, traditionally hitterish parks will seem less so.

Barry Bonds was the guy whom opposing managers brought in lefty specialists to face. I don't have the numbers on that, but I'm assured that he didn't do well against lefthanded relievers, which makes perfect sense -- I mean, they're brought in because they can get him out, so they get him out. On the other hand, Bonds still tattooed lefthanders as a group (.312/.487/.752/1.239), though that's nothing compared with the way he hit righthanders (.334/.526/.910/1.437). He homered every 8.3 at-bats against lefties, every 6.0 at-bats against righties. But are you gonna sneeze at that dropoff? I sure won't.

ESPN.com's "finesse/power" splits have Bonds doing a little worse than his overall numbers might suggest: .354/.517/.723/1.240 against "finesse" (which I imagine means "strikes out fewer batters than most"), and .280/.466/.789/1.255 against "power." This alone suggests to me that pitchers who strike hitters out are far more valuable than pitchers who don't. If an opposing batter hits a ball, something bad might happen.

I would say that Bonds saw the ball better during the day than at night, which is certainly a reasonable thing to do. He went .320/.472/.928/1.400 under the sun, .331/.533/.833/1.366 under the lights. Sure, both sets of figures are sensational, and while the OPS differential is slight, the way each OPS is created bears examination: In day games, Bonds clearly was more ready to hack than at night. In fact, he homered every 5.9 at-bats during the day while walking every 4.6 plate appearances, and homered every 6.9 at-bats at night while walking every 3.4 plate appearances.

(As in the main article, I don't have HBP data, so OBP and plate-appearance figures are approximate -- close, but not exact.)

As with the rest of the team, Bonds played few games in domes or on Astroturf, but in each case his OPS was astronomical: 1.418 on turf, 1.837 (with eight home runs) in domes -- largely thanks to Bank One Ballpark.

Not one of his ESPN-provided splits showed an OPS of less than 1.239

You could say Bonds started off cold. He homered on Opening Day against the Padres, then went 0-for-21 -- the worst skunking he's ever endured. He finished out the month batting .240, but with a 1.109 OPS and 11 home runs. He went off in May, pounding out 17 dingers and going .369/.547/1.036/1.583 -- yes, that 1.036 is slugging percentage alone. June and July saw him cool off, but he still hit 11 home runs in June, along with 1.298 OPS, and his OPS in July was 1.143 -- despite only six home runs. (What happened there was that the Giants went into St. Louis not long before the All-Star Break, and Bonds wanted to put on a show like Mark McGwire. He messed up his swing for about three weeks.) Along came August: .350/.536/.887/1.423, featuring 12 home runs, giving him 61 for the season. Then in September he cranked it up even more: .365/.565/1.000/1.565. (This is no surprise. He always turns up the heat in September, contrary to the "choker" label that's been pinned on him for years.)

He hit a major-league-record 39 home runs before the All-Star Break, even given the fact that was stuck on 39 for what seemed like months; he hit the other 34 afterwards. (Well, obviously.) But don't be fooked into thinking that he fell off in the second half. Hardly. His first-half numbers: .305/.487/.826/1.314; in the second half: .355/.547/.908/1.455. His lowest OPS in any month was the 1.109 in April.

Bonds likes the first pitch, resolving plate appearances 79 nine times. (ESPN.com says he walked 28 times, which I have to assume refers to intentional walks; I guess they're saying that even though Bonds saw at least four pitches during each intentional walk, those plate appearances each were settled on the first pitch.) Now, this doesn't mean that he swung at the first pitch more than anybody else -- in fact, he only resolved at-bats on the first pitch in 12% of his plate appearances (unless you count the walks, which ups the percentage to 16%). The rest of the team resolved their plate appearances in only one pitch 14% of the time.

If Bonds settled an at-bat early, he was generally superb: 1.868 OPS on 0-1 pitches, 1.427 OPS on 1-0, 1.524 on 2-0, 1.356 on 2-1, and 3.646 on 3-0 (which is to say that he hit 3-0 pitches three times and homered twice; on 45 occasions, the next pitch was ball four). On 2-2 pitches his OPS was still .989; 2.058 on 3-1; and even 1.131 on 3-2. In 18 at-bats settled on 0-2 pitches, his OPS was only .667; in about twice as many 1-2 counts, though, it was .189.

Go ahead: call Bonds a choker, because indeed he was better in the first six innings of games (.343/.530/.914/1.445) than afterwards, when he was merely fantastic (.295/.480/.752/1.232). Again, you can pretty much attribute this to lefty relievers whose job was to get Bonds out. His close-and-late numbers were .314/.547/.829/1.376, with 10 homers in 70 at-bats.

Bonds' critics will point to his 46 solo home runs, but his numbers were .295/.454/.849/1.303, compared to .374/.587/.884/1.471 (and still 27 homers) with runners on. Course, he had only 301 plate appearances with runners on, and walked in 101 of those. (Jeff Kent, for instance, had 50 more plate appearances with runners on, and, of course, the "runner on" was Bonds much of the time. Luis Gonzalez had 345 plate appearances with runners on and walked 50 times, and Sammy Sosa had 375 appearances with runners on and walked 78 times.) Bonds came to the plate with the bases loaded 22 times, pounding two grand slams, two doubles, and eight singles (.667/.571/.2.000/2.571). Amazingly, he did not draw a bases-loaded walk; nor did he strike out. And he came to the plate five times as a pinch-hitter, homering once (to win a game in Montreal) and singling.

Bonds had 164 plate appearances with runners in scoring position, and opposing teams walked him 71 of those times. When they didn't walk him, he hit 13 homers (one every 6.8 at-bats) and 11 doubles, going .382/.650/.944/1.594. In two-out RISP situations he went only 6-for-24 -- but drew 32 walks (while striking out only once). He homered once, but his numbers were .250/.684/.458/1.143.

The stats at CBS.com are more complete in some ways than those at ESPN.com, less complete in others. For instance, CBS at least has hit-by-pitch data -- Bonds got nailed nine times. However, I don't plan to go back and make corrections to the ESPN stats, because they're close enough. But there are some differences: for instance, where ESPN uses "close and late," CBS uses "late-inning pressure situations." I'm not sure what the difference is. (Bonds was outstanding in both categories, naturally: 1.370 and 1.277.) With nobody out Bonds' OPS was 1.307; it was 1.489 with one out and 1.311 with two. He led off innings on 103 occasions (.333/.456/.964/1.420), homering 15 times (that's one per 5.6 at-bats -- see, pitchers are less afraid of him with nobody on, even with nobody out). As I said in the main article, it seemed to me that he led off an awful lot of innings, but Sammy Sosa led off 119 times and Luis Gonzalez led off 116. You can thank Rich Aurilia for the differential, even though it really seemed as though he always made the last out with Bonds on deck. Obviously I was way off the beam.

In 22 plate appearances in extra innings, Bonds got only four hits (and was walked seven times), but two of those hits were homers and one was a double. His numbers were .267/.500/.733/1.233. the circumstance under which he really failed to thrive was as a DH: 3-for-17 with a homer, though he still walked nine times (.176/.462/.412/.874). I've read of players having a hard time concentrating when they're not in the game on both sides of the ball, and maybe Bonds is one of them.

The teams Bonds especially murdered were the Angels (5-for-11, two homers, 1.629 OPS), Brewers (11-for-27, four homers, 1.627 OPS), Braves (10-for-19, seven homers (all solo), 2.324 OPS), Reds (8-for-23, four homers, 1.500), Astros (6-for-15, two homers, 1.546), Mets (10-for-23, two homers, 1.538), Pirates (for a change: 8-for-17, three homers, 1.758), Padres (21-for-55, 11 homers, 1.588), and Rockies (17-for-52, 10 homers, 1.456). The teams he had trouble with (relatively speaking, anyway) were the Mariners (3-for-14, one homer, .643), Rangers (1-for-7, but with an .824 OPS due to six walks), and Dodgers (13-for-65, .858 OPS despite six homers).

He tore it up on the road against the Diamondbacks (15-for-32, five homers, 1.685), Rockies (10-for-28, four homers, 1.395), Padres (9-for-28, five homers, 1.334), Mets (6-for-13, one homer, 1.534, Braves (7-for-10, six homers, 3.369), Brewers (5-for-10, three homers, 2.171), and Pirates (4-for-9, two homers, 1.778). The places he should've avoided were the homes of the Rangers (1-for-7, .824), Cardinals (1-for-9 with a homer, .911), Dodgers (4-for-35, one homer, .540), A's (1-for-8, .587), and Mariners (3-for-14, one homer, .643).

Sosa and Gonzalez both got to play against Detroit and Kansas City. That makes sense for Sosa because he's on an NL Central team playing against AL Central teams in interleague play. For Gonzalez, well, it's the result of blatant unfairness in the schedule that, in itself probably accounted for the two-game margin the Diamondbacks had over the Giants. Both Bonds and Gonzalez faced Oakland, Anaheim, and Seattle, with Bonds faring better against each of those teams, but where Bonds played against Texas, Gonzalez got the Royals and Tigers. Well, the Rangers didn't have any pitching to speak of, but the Royals and Tigers were actively bad. So where Bonds faced the Rangers' poor staff in only three games (see the stats above), Gonzalez feasted on three games' worth of Royals pitching (8-for-13, four homers, 2.197) and three more of Tigers pitching (5-for-9, two homers, 2.107). I'm not excusing Bonds' showing against the Rangers, but I'll betcha he'd rather have faced the Royals and Tigers. And the rest of the Giants would agree.

Other than that, Sosa (the only righthanded batter of the trio) was the guy who really murdered lefties (.387/.569/.882/1.451 with 13 dingers -- why, he was Bondsian!) in 138 plate appearances. Bonds, as I pointed out earlier, went .312/.487/.752/1.239 against lefties with 17 home runs in 189 plate appearances. Gonzalez did very well against lefties (15 homers, .312/.414/.624/1.038), especially considering that he had 222 plate appearances against them. Whether or not lefty specialists were brought in to face Gonzalez, he was at a disadvantage compared to Bonds.

Against righthanders Bonds had 475 plate appearances, the lowest total of the three players, and hit 56 home runs while going .334/.526/.910/1.436. Gonzalez hit 42 dingers in 506 plate appearances against righties (.331/.435/.716/1.151), while Sosa hit 51 homers in 584 plate appearances against them (.316/.406/.709/1.115. (Again, it makes sense that Sosa would face righthanders more often than the other two.) You'd have a hell of a time proving to me that any one of these guys was not amazingly great in 2001. (I would point out that Pac Bell Park is significantly more pitcherish than Wrigley Field or Bank One Ballpark, but how much more, I don't know, and I'm not going to look it up. So there.)

Bonds, as I pointed out, was indeed helped by Pac Bell Park -- maybe it really is The House That Barry Built: .335/.516/.915/1.431 and 37 homers, compared to .321/.514/.817/1.331 on the road. Gonzalez, to my surprise, did a tiny bit better on the road (.308/.424/.701/1.125, 31 homers) than at home (.342/.434/.674/1.08, 26 dingers) (if you pay little attention to batting average), and Sosa wasn't all that much better at home (.335/.431/.765/1.196, 34 homers) than on the road (.321/.444/.798/1.153, 30 taters). I would not say that any form of home-field advantage helped any of these players significantly.

Playing in Wrigley, Sosa had way more daytime action (403 plate appearances; Bonds had 197 and Gonzalez 218). It's sort of strange that he was better at night: .352/.455/.767/1.222, compared to .309/.424/.713/1.137 in the sunlight. Gonzalez -- great during the day (.305/.431/.576/1.007) -- still was much better at night (.333/.427/.734/1.161). Bonds, again, went .320/.472/.928/1.400 during the day, .331/.533/.833/1.366 at night.

Unsurprisingly, all three players were terrific with RISP (1.594 for Bonds, 1.254 for Gonzalez, 1.203 for Sosa), even with two out (1.142, 1.058, 1.136, respectively, though in each case their batting averages and slugging percentages were way down, especially Bonds). All were terrific, too, with runners on, though Bonds (1.471) was head and shoulders above Gonzalez (1.206) and Sosa (1.210). Bonds hit fewer homers (27) than Gonzalez (30) and Sosa (28) with runners on, but then he had fewer plate appearances (305, 345, and 365, respectively). Bonds was far and away better with the bases empty (1.303) than Gonzalez (1.038) and Sosa (1.134). He comes up better statistically with the bases loaded, but the sample sizes are so small: six opportunities for Bonds, 11 for Gonzalez, and 19 for Sosa. (Each player hit two grand slams.) The three men had roughly the same number of opportunities in late-inning pressure situations, and all, of course, were wonderful: .305/.539/.831/1.370 with nine homers in 89 opportunities for Bonds, .292/.471/.600/1.071 with five in 87 tries for Gonzalez, and .329/.429/.671/1.100 with seven dingers in 91 tries for Sosa. Under late-inning pressure with runners on, Bonds went 7-for-22 with two homers and 14 walks (1.277 OPS); Gonzalez was 4-for-22 with two homers and 13 walks (.986); and Sosa was 15-for-35 with two homers and 12 walks (1.257).

In terms of OPS and sheer quantity of home runs, Bonds was quite a bit better than both Gonzalez and Sosa with less than two outs. With two outs, however, it gets interesting: Gonzalez had 217 at-bats, Sosa 218, and Bonds 154; Gonzalez walked 39 times, Sosa 51, and Bonds 84. Bonds had the worst batting average of the three, but he dwarfed them otherwise: .286/.545/.766/1.311, compared to .290/.410/.622/1.032 for Gonzalez and .303/.437/.693/1.130 for Sosa.

Earlier on I talked about how often these players led off an inning. In his 103 opportunities, Bonds hit 15 home runs (one per 5.6 at-bats) and went .333/.456/.964/1.420, while in 116 opportunities Gonzalez hit eight homers and went .232/.345/.525/.870. Sosa, in 119 tries, homered 12 times and went .311/.403/.728/1.131.

The first inning was very kind to all three hitters, with Gonzalez, in 161 tries, going.320/.373/.633/1.006 with 11 homers and 11 walks. Sosa, in 154 tries, homered a whopping 16 times with 25 walks in going .302/.416/.738/1.154. Bonds homered 12 times in 144 plate appearances (with 52 walks) and went .356/.590/.878/1.468.

After the sixth inning, all three men were deadly: Gonzalez, in 229 plate appearances, hit 19 homers and drew 38 walks while going .292/.419/.670/1.089; Sosa homered 15 times with 36 walks in 217 tries, going .337/.452/.680/1.132; and Bonds, in 202 opportunities, drew 49 walks and hit 20 home runs while going .295/.480/.752/1.232.

As well as Bonds did in extra innings -- two homers, a double, and a single in 15 at-bats, with seven walks (two intentional) for a 1.233 OPS, Gonzalez topped him (1.246 OPS) by going 4-for-12 with a double, a homer, and seven walks (five intentional). Sosa wasn't even on the radar, as he participated in only six extra-inning games, going 0-for-8 with a pair of intentional walks.

Bonds and Sosa started somewhat slowly -- I've mentioned Bonds' .240 batting average in April and his 0-for-21 skid after homering on Opening Day. Sosa hit seven homers that month, and nobody talked about him (despite a 1.026 OPS). Gonzalez got all the attention, hitting 13 homers and putting up an OPS of 1.226 while driving in 27 runs that month.

He had a fine May (1.035 with seven homers), as did Sosa (1.059 with eight), but neither compared with Bonds (1.583, 17 homers). Gonzalez turned it up a notch in June, hitting 12 home runs (while Bonds and Sosa each hit 11) and putting up a 1.350 OPS, better than Bonds' 1.298 or Sosa's 1.153, and driving in 35 runs (compared to 28 for Sosa and 19 for Bonds -- who walked 34 times, compared to 16 for Gonzalez and 15 for Sosa.

July was another great month for all three players. Sosa and Gonzalez each homered nine times (compared to six for Bonds) and put up dandy OPSes (1.061 for Gonzalez, 1.106 for Sosa). Bonds' OPS was 1.143, and he drew 30 walks, compared to 23 for Sosa and only 11 for Gonzalez. Bonds also pounded 10 doubles, while Gonzalez had five and Sosa seven.

Sosa poured it on big-time in August, though. While Gonzalez was still outstanding (1.162 OPS, 10 homers), Sosa homered 17 times and drove in 36 (1.405 OPS). Bonds' OPS was higher (1.424), but, again, he walked significantly more often (31, to go along with 12 homers) than Gonzalez (25) or Sosa (16).

In September it wasn't even close. Sosa was great -- 1.073 OPS, seven homers -- but Gonzalez fell off the table -- .818 OPS (which isn't exactly awful), four homers. Meanwhile, Bonds' OPS was 1.565, as he homered 12 times and walked 28 -- 11 more than Gonzalez, 13 more than Sosa.

Before the All-Star Break, Bonds was leading the pack with a 1.313 OPS (while Gonzalez' was at 1.188 and Sosa's was at 1.126). In the second half, though, Gonzalez dipped a bit (1.032 and 22 home runs, compared to 35 in the first half) while Sosa poured it on (35 home runs -- one more than Bonds -- and a 1.225 OPS, not to mention 77 RBIs. But Bonds' 1.455 OPS outshone them both.

Ha! You wish I'd said "In short" earlier, but no, I had to write all of the foregoing first. That'll teach you.

But -- in short --while Gonzalez and Sosa both had outrageously great seasons, Barry Bonds was insanely great, unprecedentedly supreme, and a bunch of other superlatives I don't feel like coming up with. Not only was this guy the National League's best and most valuable (and Most Valuable) player in 2001, he might have been the most valuable player I've ever seen. I shudder to think where the otherwise generally mediocre Giants would've been without Bonds for the last nine years.