No Barry? Giants won't win
March 23, 2005
by Chris Wang
Barry Bonds is out for half the season or the entire year or he's retired. Whatever the case, the Giants are in trouble and so is my auction fantasy team that just paid $32 dollars for him - actually I'm much more confident in my team responding better than the Giants.
Peter Gammons just wrote an article about how the Giants can still win without Barry. And actually I can't argue against that because he didn't say how many games. I'll also predict that they will win but they're going to lose more than they win because their offense is going to be merely pedestrian without Bonds and will rank in the bottom third of the league in runs which translates to less than .500 baseball, probably closer to .400.
We all know theoretically that Barry changes the game like no one else in the history of the game but by how much? Over the last two season we've had small sample sizes. Last season the Giants were 4-11 in games without Bonds and in 2003, the Giants were 13-18 without Bonds - that's a combined 17-29 (.370) without Bonds. With Bonds the Giants were 174-103 (.628). This season we'll get a closer look over at least a month to two months and it's not going to be pretty.
Let's compare the Giants lineup of 2005 to last season's worst offense in the NL, the Arizona Diamondbacks. The Giants statistics are also from 2004.
Catcher
Diamondbacks 2004: .226/.286/.365, 32 doubles, 13 homers, 61 RBI
Mike Matheny: .247/.292/.348, 22 doubles, 5 homers, 50 RBI
Ugly numbers from both sides. It's a wash.
First Base
Diamondbacks 2004: .301/.346/.474, 41 doubles, 11 homers, 70 RBI
JT Snow: .327/.429/.529, 32 doubles, 12 homers, 60 RBI
Snow had a great season last year though he played in only 107 games. But Snow is 37 and there's no way he's going to repeat those numbers which were the best of his career in batting average, on-base percentage and slugging percentage - can you say fluke? He'll revert to his career averages of .267/.358/.433. While you could argue that it's a slight edge to Snow, I'm saying its pretty much even.
Second Base
Diamondbacks 2004: .267/.315/.426, 30 doubles, 18 homers, 58 RBI
Ray Durham: .282/.364/.435, 28 doubles, 17 homers, 65 RBI
Durham has been injury prone for the last two years and he's not getting any younger. Last season, Durham's main replacement was Neifi Perez who hit .242/.276/.315 - yikes! The numbers are very close leaving Perez out but I'll give a slight edge to Durham because of his superior on-base percentage.
Third Base
Diamondbacks 2004: .257/.314/.380, 33 doubles, 11 homers, 64 RBI
Edgardo Alfonzo: .289/.350/.407, 26 doubles, 11 homers, 77 RBI
It pains me to see how far Fonzie's game has fallen since his '99/'00 peak - goes to show how much a bad back can affect one's game. Despite his mediocre numbers, I'm giving that one to Fonzie.
Shortstop
Diamondbacks 2004: .237/.284/.336, 33 doubles, 5 homers, 55 RBI
Omar Vizquel: .291/.353/.388, 28 doubles, 7 homers, 59 RBI
Wow, Alex Cintron was horrible and his replacements (Gil, Olson: .166 in 122 at-bats) were even more pitiful. No doubt Vizquel wins easily here.
Left Field
Diamondbacks 2004: .275/.362/.465, 39 doubles, 21 homers, 65 RBI
Pedro Feliz: .276/.305/.485, 33 doubles, 22 homers, 84 RBI
The Bonds black hole is filled by Pedro Feliz who is a decent option considering he would have been riding the bench. His on-base percentage is poor and since I gave the edge to Durham earlier because of OBP, I'll have to give the D'Backs a slight edge here.
Center Field
Diamondbacks 2004: .262/.327/.442, 32 doubles, 27 homers, 64 RBI
Marquis Grissom: .279/.323/.450, 26 doubles, 22 homers, 90 RBI
Who would have thought Grissom would still be around and productive at the age of 38? Not me that's for sure. Another draw.
Right Field
Diamondbacks 2004: .273/.319/.398, 34 doubles, 14 homers, 75 RBI
Moises Alou: .293/.361/.557, 36 doubles, 39 homers, 106 RBI
There's no way Alou is going to repeat his success of 2004 as he moves from one of the best power hitter's park to one of the toughest. Last season Alou hit just .247/.316/.400 with 10 homers and 39 RBI on the road. He won't be that bad, but he'll hit with mid-20s power. Despite those numbers, edge to Alou
The Scorecard
That's three clear wins for the Giants, 1 slight win to the Giants, 1 slight win for the D'Backs and 3 draws. While the Giants won't be as bad as the 2004 Diamondbacks, who scored just 615 runs, the Giants will be hard pressed to be much better. Even if they score 100 more runs than that D'Backs squad, they'd only outscore five National League teams from last season.
The Giants could do better if their players can play over their heads, but given their geriatric age profile (only two starters under 33 - Fonzie and Feliz), it is highly unlikely. Giants fans and management better pray that Barry comes back in a hurry and doesn't follow through with his crazy retirement talk.
If you have any questions, comments or suggestions about this column, please use the comments section below or feel free to e-mail me at cwang@fantasyinfocentral.com.
Fantasy Baseball 
To ignore the fact this veteran lineup knows the National League game as well as any team is fool hearty.
These guys don't have 15 plus year careers for nothing.
To simply focus on the batting stats is not the way way to measure any team.Certainly the Giants weren't the best defensive club but to win as many games as they did last season,means they weren't the worst team either.
Any team managed by Felipe Alou is going to scratch and claw their opponents.Let's not forget these guys will also be motivated by opinions just like yours.Old lions can still fight and this team will rally around being told how awful they are.
Do I think they'll repeat as the NL west champs without Bonnds.Probably not.However they will be better than a .400 club.
To ignore the fact this veteran lineup knows the National League game as well as any team is fool hearty.
These guys don't have 15 plus year careers for nothing.
You're correct in baserunning, pitching and defense being important - there's no question. But there's no ignoring the fact the Giants offense without Bonds is going to be bad. And it would also be foolhearty to believe that their veteran players can play much better than they did last year because 1) they don't have Barry in the lineup and 2) they are another year closer to 40. Another factor to consider is that their older players are going to miss games due to their age (Alou (38), Vizquel (37), Snow (37), Durham (33, yet gimpy), Grissom (37)) and their replacements are going to be average at best.
For the Giants to play above .500 baseball, their pitching staff is going to have to be brilliant and rank top 3 in the league in ERA, much like the Dodgers of 2002 had their pitching staff carry the majors worst offense. The Giants pitching staff should see improvement as they will have a full year of Noah Lowry and Jerome Williams as well as the addition of Benitez to shut the door.
I still believe that the Giants are in for a tough year and will be lucky to play .500 baseball without Barry. Just take a look at Pittsburgh from 2004 - their offense scored 680 runs which is a decent estimate of what I believe the Giants would score; they also had a better pitching staff in terms of ERA than the Giants last season, yet their record was 72-89 (.447). Okay so its not .400 baseball, but its not a hell of a lot better either.
"Do I think they'll repeat as the NL west champs without Bonnds.Probably not.However they will be better than a .400 club."
That was my original quote.And I'll stick to with until shown otherwise.
Starts with an "S" and ends with "oids".
Yeah, they are losing the best hitter in the game, but they shouldn't be written off yet IMO.
Yeah, they are losing the best hitter in the game, but they shouldn't be written off yet IMO.
Couldn't agree more.
if a team's playing above .500 in the nl west, it'll likely find itself amongst the contenders for the division crown.
I dont think you can ever overestimate bond's importance to a team. everything will have to go absolutely perfect for the giants to be a .500 team without barry. also standuptriple, I hear you about the giants being able to somehow contend every year, but the very reason they're able to contend year after year just had 3 surgeries in 45 days and will be out for at least half a season.
I guess the 24 guys that also wear the Giants uniform don't do much then???
Ruth wasn't the Yankee's by himself.Rose wasn't the Reds.Nor was Mays the Giants.
I guess the 24 guys that also wear the Giants uniform don't do much then???
Ruth wasn't the Yankee's by himself.Rose wasn't the Reds.Nor was Mays the Giants.
omg I'm trying not to freak out too much but... are you serious? do REALLY believe that the giants wouldve been able to contend AT ALL in the past few years without Bonds?
LOL...I don't! That's why I think their season is pretty much over!
And thats because they are sh*t without him. Alou is the most offensively productive player, and I would put a large sum of money he hits nothing close to 39 home runs. I would look for 30 tops, with a lower BA. And this is the offensive star of the team were talking about. Bonds was more important to the Giants lineup than any other player with their respective team.
I listened to the same garbage about the Edmonton Oilers never winning a Stanley Cup without Gretzky.Dayum if I didn't make a killing in the 1990 season.
This isn't Barry Bonds vs the National League.It's the San Francisco Giants a team of 25 men.
Maybe with Bonds out of the lineup,the team will actually play better.Why? Because they won't be dealing with any of the circus surrounding Bonds.
When it comes to Bonds,you jjust can't win.He's a steroid freak whose records should be wiped out one minute and then the next he's just so valuuable on his own the team he plays for will tank without him.
I agree, although I may have bash the Giants, they still do have a shot. I mean, they play in the NL West and we all know that's a shitty division.
I listened to the same garbage about the Edmonton Oilers never winning a Stanley Cup without Gretzky.Dayum if I didn't make a killing in the 1990 season.
This isn't Barry Bonds vs the National League.It's the San Francisco Giants a team of 25 men.
Maybe with Bonds out of the lineup,the team will actually play better.Why? Because they won't be dealing with any of the circus surrounding Bonds.
When it comes to Bonds,you jjust can't win.He's a steroid freak whose records should be wiped out one minute and then the next he's just so valuuable on his own the team he plays for will tank without him.
Sounds like your going with the Patrick Ewing theory. In that case, the cubs should have a hell of a season. I mean, I am a cubs fan, but im not in denial. Barry Bonds was the MVP. Do you know why? It was not because of his statistics. It was his importance to his team, otherwise known as VALUE. His value to the Giants was undoubtably more important than any other player with their respective team. The Giants don't have one person they can lean on. Until some steps up (and IF someone steps up) they will be looking for production from some one new every game. Schmidt is a solid starter, but I think the rest of the pitching (except probably Benitez, who still has not put together 2 productive seasons in a row though) are all still a couple years away from producing. I sincerely do not think the Giants will do very well this year. And I am not just looking at Barry's impact on the surface.
I listened to the same garbage about the Edmonton Oilers never winning a Stanley Cup without Gretzky.Dayum if I didn't make a killing in the 1990 season.
This isn't Barry Bonds vs the National League.It's the San Francisco Giants a team of 25 men.
Maybe with Bonds out of the lineup,the team will actually play better.Why? Because they won't be dealing with any of the circus surrounding Bonds.
When it comes to Bonds,you jjust can't win.He's a steroid freak whose records should be wiped out one minute and then the next he's just so valuuable on his own the team he plays for will tank without him.
Sounds like your going with the Patrick Ewing theory. In that case, the cubs should have a hell of a season. I mean, I am a cubs fan, but im not in denial. Barry Bonds was the MVP. Do you know why? It was not because of his statistics. It was his importance to his team, otherwise known as VALUE. His value to the Giants was undoubtably more important than any other player with their respective team. The Giants don't have one person they can lean on. Until some steps up (and IF someone steps up) they will be looking for production from some one new every game. Schmidt is a solid starter, but I think the rest of the pitching (except probably Benitez, who still has not put together 2 productive seasons in a row though) are all still a couple years away from producing. I sincerely do not think the Giants will do very well this year. And I am not just looking at Barry's impact on the surface.
If you think that then in all honesty you know Albert Pujols has been ripped off for two years.