Hey Mark, RE: Bonds' defense I think the keyword in your post is "back in the day". By 2000, Bonds was 35-years-old, bigger, and probably a little less mobile in the outfield than he originally was. Not to say that from 2000 onward Bonds was terrible in the outfield, he wasn't. But, a +4 defense in LF isn't anything to sneeze at. It's respectable. Baseball Projection -- Sean Smith's new stats website -- has just posted career Wins Above Replacement values for players from 1954-2008. Needless to say, this is a crazy-valuable resource. I'll point you to Bonds' page: http://www.baseballprojection.com/war/b/bondb001.... Check out the column labeled TZ or for Total Zone. It's how many runs a player saved for his position above (or below) average. Bonds had some really great fielding seasons during his time in Pittsburgh. +30 runs in 1989, +22 runs in 1990, +12 runs in 1991. That's adding 1-3 wins by defense alone. Good stuff. But, it looks like when Bonds got to SF -- and as he got bigger, physically -- he lost some mobility in the field. He was still very good at times, though. In 1997 he was a +12 run defender in LF and in 1998 he was at +14 runs. Very good defensive totals. I think if you check out his TZ values as he aged, you can see he lost a little something in the field but he was still quite respectable. In 2006, on one good leg, he was a +4 defender, above average. In 2007 he fell to -7 runs below average. I always felt that Bonds was unfairly criticized for his defense in the later stages of his game. I can't tell you how many brain-dead announcers I've heard drone on about how "immobile" he was in LF in his last few seasons. He lost a step, but he was still miles ahead of guys like Adam Dunn, Carlos Lee, and Pat Burrell. I'm rambling, but I agree with you to an extent. Bonds was a good defender, but in 2000 a +4 score seems to fit with a player who was aging and had gotten much physically bigger.

I saw that post. Nice work. Helton had no chance due to the fact that the Giants had the best record in baseball that season. He's a fine, fine player, Rockie or not, and I'm impressed that you could show he was very, very valuable that season. My only quibble is the defense factor for Bonds. Barry had some serious glove back in the day. I'm not sure the metrics quite appreciate that. To me, that tips it for the G-POPE. /anecdotal-not-statistical warning I rarely, if ever, saw Bonds be out of position, flub catchable balls, fail to hold runners, miss the cutoff man, etc. An undervalued defender. Speed, grace, timing, he had it all. He gets knocks because he had an average-at-best arm, but he got to balls so quickly and got them back to the infield in a flash, which made up for that "shortcoming."