From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Bonds "choke"?
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 02:08:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.225111.26316@odin.corp.sgi.com> kubey@sgi.com (Ken Kubey) writes:
>In article <1ad5f1INN4b0@renoir.hal.COM> charly@hal.COM (Charly Rhoades) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep30.055359.308@odin.corp.sgi.com> kubey@sgi.com (Ken Kubey) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep29.223917.682@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>In article <1992Sep29.005602.528@odin.corp.sgi.com> kubey@sgi.com (Ken Kubey) writes:

>>>>>How bad will Barry Bonds choke in the 1992 NLCS?

>>>>>Extra Disclaimer:  I have nothing against the Pirates, their fans, 
>>>>>or Mr. Bonds.  I just happen to believe in clutch hitters and 
>>>>>choke hitters and I believe that Mr. Bonds will choke again.

>>>>Like Reggie Jackson's 3 for 18 in his first three World Series?

>>>Did Reggie's team lose any of those Series?

>>>How many WS rings does Jackson have?   How many does Bonds have?

>>This is getting a bit ludicrous, but I'm strangely compelled to
>>make one last attempt at persuasion....

>Oh goody.

>>Whether he performs badly again (more accurate than "chokes"), Barry
>>Bonds will have been instrumental in getting the team *to the playoffs*.
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Okay

>>And no matter how instrumental he is in any series of games (or an
>>entire season of games), no one player is *that* critical to the outcome
>>to be held entirely responsible for it.  That's what I'm receiving
>>from you.  Is that what you wish to send?

>I like Barry Bonds.  I like to watch him play.  I root for the Pirates
>unless they are playing the Giants or Cubs.  I never said that
>Bonds was soley responsible for the Pirates losing in the playoffs.
>I think he was "instrumental" in their losing, however.  He left a lot
>of men on base.  Van Slyke and Bonilla were also "instrumental".

>>Why rag on Bonds so?  

>In my humble opinion, he doesn't not bat well under the pressure of
>the NLCS and IMHO, that is called "choking".  

Could you give evidence to back up your humble opinion?  How
do you know that his poor performance in thrteen playoff games 
is in any way related to pressure?  Or is this just a story you've
made up to "explain" things not working out your way?  

>I don't think I am
>ragging on Bonds the way people "rag" on Acker and Galarraga.

Indeed.  Those people have good reason.  Those two players have no
business being where they are.  

>>Was he the reason the Pirates lost?  

>If he had hit .300 in the 1991 NLCS would the Pirates have won?

I thought you weren't holding him responsible.  Yes, perhaps they
would have won.  But his hitting .300 would have meant that the 
Braves' pitching would not have been as goodas it actually was.  

Now, suppose the Pirates *had* won, and he'd done as badly as he did.
As you said elsewhere, nobody remembers things like that when you
win.  That's an odd attitude -- elevating faulty memory to a virtue.
After all, your point about supposed "pressure" would be just as
valid in such a situation.  But you choose to exclude such events,
and go with the old "choke" nonsense, which is mainly a way of denying
that the opponents won because they played better, instead blaming
some unspecified character flaw in the losing team for its loss.

>>Was his
>>performance with the bat any worse than anyone else's?  Was his (and
>>the other Pirate batters') offensive performance more important than
>>the few, but horrendously catastrophic innings of Bad Pitching (TM)
>>by Pirate hurlers?

>I remember Bonds failing.  He is one of the top players in the game
>and he did not produce anywhere close to his lifetime averages.

His lifetime averages are accumulated versus league-average-minus
pitching.  That doesn't exactly describe the Braves, does it?

>>I'd post the numbers (again) if I thought you'd even care what the
>>answers to these specific fact-based questions are.  But it seems to
>>me you want to continue the petulant "Bonds is a choker!  Bonds is a
>>choker!" playground chant.

>All I was trying to do was make a prediction about Bonds' performance
>in the 1992 NLCS.  If he does well in the LCS then my prediction
>is wrong.  If he does very badly then my prediction is right.

Noted.  What does this have to do with REggie Jackson's rings?
And will you forget, or aks US to forget, if the Pirates win and
Bonds doesn't do well?

>The rest of this is big waste of time.

ALL of this is a big waste of time.  Predicting an outcome of a short
series is hard enough; predicting one player's 30 AB is impossible.
Care to cast horoscopes for the rest of the team?

>>Or is it that you just love seeing such an obviously good player fail?

>See above.  I was pulling for bonds and the Pirates in '90 and '91.

So you call him a choker for his efforts.  "Choke" is a stupid term,
one that's impossible to make sense of.

>>How would you feel if SGI's Indigo workstation fails miserably, and
>>afterward the stockholders constantly announce "Kubey choked!
>>Kubey can't make deadlines!  Kubey can't perform!"??  Even if you
>>*had* screwed up on that one project, you weren't the only one on
>>the team.  And ignores all previous good work you have accomplished.

>SGI doesn't pay me $3,000,000 a year so I wouldn't expect that kind
>of abuse. 

Non-sequitur city...

> If SGI *did* pay me $3,000,000 a year I would feel a
>lot more responsible for the company's performance and would accept
>blame if things went wrong.  

Huh?  Even if it wasn't your screwup?  Seems to me that blame is
blame, no matter what you're paid.

>As it is, I'm just a figurative 2nd string
>player on a farm team hoping to make in to triple-A someday.

And to do that, you'll needto be evaluated fairly, not just on one
small portion of your contribution, no?

Roger

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball