King Kaufman's Sports Daily
Introducing the Barry Bonds for MVP Stat of the Day, through which the lunatic argument that there are other candidates will be patiently debunked.
Sept. 13, 2004 | One of the great things about following sports is that you can really get yourself good and shocked every once in a while. Buster Douglas knocking out Mike Tyson. Super Bowl III. The Miracle on Ice. Stephon Marbury making a smart play.
But I don't know that I've ever been around for anything as shocking as the fact that presumably intelligent people actually believe someone other than Barry Bonds should win the National League's Most Valuable Award.
Bonds is simply having one of the greatest seasons anyone's ever had, ever, including himself. And when I say he's having one of the greatest seasons ever, it's only because I'm too timid to just say he's having the greatest season of all time, which he might be.
But one thing is sure: If Bonds doesn't win the MVP this year, it will be the greatest such robbery ever, Ted Williams included, because the only seasons even remotely comparable to Bonds' 2004 are a couple of his own MVP years and a few of Babe Ruth's before the modern MVP was introduced.
The other "candidates" -- in the sense that Ralph Nader is a candidate for president -- are Adrian Beltre of the Dodgers, at long last having his breakout season, and a trio of Cardinals: Albert Pujols, Scott Rolen and Jim Edmonds.
The Dodgers and Cardinals are both cruising to division titles, while Bonds' Giants are leading a close race for the wild card. We talk about this every year, but let's dispense of it now in case the Giants, who aren't very good, lose that race to either the Cubs, Astros, Padres or Marlins, all of whom are also not very good.
The argument that a player has to be on a playoff team to win the MVP is absurd. It's absurd because a great player's value does not diminish just because he happens to be surrounded by lousy teammates, though an argument could be made that a lack of talented teammates increases the great player's value, in the same way that a $100 bill is much more valuable to me than the same note is to Bill Gates. After all, the Dodgers without Beltre or the Cardinals without any of their big three sluggers are still pretty good teams. The Giants without Bonds are the 2003 Tigers.
It's a silly argument, and I don't make it, but it could be made.