ketchuplover: :)

Oops!

ketchuplover: I receive this message when I have clicked the link.


"Video unavailable"

rod03801: I'll take the "Over" on that, Rod!

Brian1971: I agree with that! I was thinking Seattle did well to be down just 13 to 0 in the first quarter. 17 or 21 to 0 and the rally at the end could not have happened.

ketchuplover: Yes, that was an amazing game, but a very sad loss for the team I was rooting for. Up by 12 points with just a few minutes left in the game and having led 16 to 0 at the half. Seattle's first touchdown on the fake field goal thrown by their punter was an omen of more to come. It is hard to believe how Seattle managed to win that game. The successful onside kick, that improbable two point conversion, Green Bay's long field goal in the rain to send it into overtime, and that blazing touchdown drive for Seattle to win on the first possession in overtime.

ketchuplover: I'll be rooting for them too. :)

ketchuplover: I've been thinking about this post. It is incredible that anyone can run a marathon in the first place, let alone in under three hours.

2 hours, 3 minutes? Wow! How can someone maintain a pace of faster than 12 miles per hour that long? This person is running 5 minute miles for two hours.

If I could run 6 miles per hour for four hours, which is a pace of 10 minute miles, I still wouldn't even have run the 26.2 miles of a marathon. I can imagine a faster pace being more efficient, but there's got to be a trade off as the speed increases.

49ers are in. Next game coming up.

awesome: Oh yeah, this reminds me.
I have to mail a check to Adrian in California, the 49er fans as my Packers lost the game. Good game and close until the fourth quarter.

The game before it was an amazing game from start to finish, Broncos versus Ravens. I dislike both of them, but it was a great game. Since I was in Denver while it was played, it was not a happy time for the home team fans when the final score occured.

"GERRY": I moved out of state. I also no longer watch NASCAR.

So, I'm no longer doing the pool. I kind of miss the camaraderie at the bar, making the pools up, while speculating on my pick and those of others. From your posts it sounds like NASCAR is having a better season than the last few. I also have not watched a single baseball game so far this year. After having gone to two or more games every year since 1967 and having season tickets since 1979, I find this change in myself something to ponder, but I suppose life makes changes in us. I did watch games 6 & 7 of the NBA Finals last week. Game 7 was a good game, and the only NBA team I root for won it. I still dislike soccer and am tired of this soccer stuff the media keeps telling us about. Soccer ain't squat in the United States. Heaven help us if the United States' team advances to the final round, win or lose, luckily or skillfully, as it'll then get way too much media attention.

I am thinking that my job that I have now takes up way too much of my time and it prevents me from having much of a chance to follow sports. It is why I have lowered the number of games I play here and lengthened the time limits in the ones I do play.

I just checked the results page of NASCAR. You are right about the winners being different except for Jimmie Johnson. Denny Hamlin has won five races? The Busches have been winning too? Kevin Harvick too. Where's Jeff Gordon? I'll check the standings next. With one win Kevin Harvick is the points leader? I have never liked this points stuff for determining the champion, but that's how it is. And yes, I dislike this "Race for the Cup" they started a few years ago. Mark Martin is racing again this year and in eleventh? Was it last year or the year before when he was near the top of the chart and withdrew from racing some races as he said he was thinking of retiring? I am not the only one that has life make changes. :)

RANK+/- DRIVER POINTS STARTS WINS T/5 T/10 WINNINGS
1 -- Kevin Harvick 2334 --- 16 0 1 6 11 3,339,840
2 +4 Jimmie Johnson 2194 -140 16 0 4 7 10 3,661,930
3 -1 Kyle Busch 2193 -141 16 2 2 5 9 3,170,050
4 -1 Denny Hamlin 2183 -151 16 0 5 7 7 3,000,560
5 +2 Jeff Gordon 2142 -192 16 0 0 7 8 2,809,320
6 -2 Kurt Busch 2118 -216 16 2 2 6 9 3,948,830
7 -2 Matt Kenseth 2092 -242 16 0 0 4 8 2,688,870
8 -- Jeff Burton 2027 -307 16 0 0 3 7 2,528,100
9 -- Greg Biffle 2011 -323 16 0 0 2 10 2,477,910
10 +1 Tony Stewart 1983 -351 16 1 0 3 7 2,475,490
11 +1 Mark Martin 1947 -387 16 1 0 5 6 2,238,240
12 -2 Carl Edwards 1932 -402 16 0 0 1 6 2,398,130

Edit=> The columns looked good on my page until I sent it, but not in the post, so here's the link for anyone interested in the standings.
http://www.nascar.com/races/cup/2010/data/standings_official.html

Alain: Do they have Dark Chess as one of the games?

"GERRY": Not too well. After having to pick near the end, it can take some luck to get an early pick. Or, you get a good driver and he finishes poorly and back you go. This last race I picked 22nd. I took Joey Logano figuring the rookie might get into the top ten and help me the following week. He finshed 13th, so I'll have a half way decent pick next week. A few of the drivers ahead of him were not picked such as Reutimann (4th) and Bowyer (2nd), so this will get me a higher pick too. When it was my pick, I almost took Kenseth. He started 40th, but he's a good driver and proven as compared to Logano, but I went with Logano just on the hunch and he had a faster car in qualifying. I did not watch the race, but I have a print out of the race results and it looks like Kenseth only completed 6 laps and finished dead last!

I only picked one winner last year. We usually have 15 to 25 people in the pool. If you can pick two winners for the season, you'll break even for the whole year moneywise. Twice I've picked four winners for the whole season. Winning takes the whole pool, but you pick last the following week. Everyone else picks in the order that they finish in. When there's fifteen or so people, everyone usually can pick a good driver. 20 or more people and it starts to get tough for the people picking late. If you're one of those people likes a certain driver, it can get frustrating if someone grabs him before you do, but it makes the pool kind of fun that way especially when you do better at the finish than someone that picked before you. Picking last and winning has happened, but it's been awhile since someone won two races in a row. When I was the commissioner, I had a side pot and kept track of everyone's points that their driver earned each race. At the end of the year, we gave out money to the top three people in points. That was a lot of work and it's not easy for people that don't know numbers and charts like I do, so the commissioners since I resigned have just gone with a winner take all each race.

One year I had a separate pool in addition to the regular pool. Because of the inherent unfairness of picking in the regular pool, I decided to make a parimutuel type pool. Let people pick whenever they wanted and as many drivers as they wanted and bet whatever amount they wanted. So some drivers could have more than one person picking them, but then if he won the people would split the winnings based on their share of the pool. Just like horse racing is done here in California, though I took no cut out of the pool like the tracks do. This was quite fair, but for some reason it didn't catch on and people liked the pool that we already had going, flawed and all. :)

"GERRY": I remember that. The announcers got all bent out of shape about Junior doing that, but I blame it on Daytona's rules and their yellow boundary line. Besides when they replayed the action of it, they kept showing it in slow motion. Anyone can second guess a driver in slow motion after the fact. When they showed it in real speed, I am amazed that it wasn't worse than it was. I will however question Junior's judgment in driving that hard when he's a lap down, but all of them started driving hard after the hundredth lap and the threat of a rain out was becoming apparent.

"GERRY":

The pool uses a random pick for the first race of the year (Daytona), after that the order of picking is determined by how well you did the previous week. I had Jeff Burton in the Daytona 500. He ran near the top ten until just before the race was called on account of the weather, so I finished 28 with him. This garnered me 16th pick for the Auto Club 500 tomorrow as I was the 17th place finisher out of the 23 people that got in the pool. Whoever picks the winner, wins the pool money, but then has to pick last the following week out of those that were in the race the previous week, with new people picking after the previous week winner. So I finally get the list handed to me. 14 people had made their picks, with 1 not participating. When I have to pick this low, I mainly am hoping to pick a driver that will get me into the top 15 or 10 so that the week following will have me with a decent pick and fair to good chance of picking a winner. But today I was looking at Jr. and Newman still unpicked when it was my turn, with Burton qualifying 40th having been choosen already! I suppose Junior misses his Budweiser? Anyway, I picked him and will be rooting for him.

"GERRY": Right. And just what is a competition caution?
That's right, they've codified it into the rules now.

Vikings: What do you mean by as bad as racing in California? I've seen the race there a few times. Usually good races without a bunch of wrecks. Unfortunately they call these fake cautions just when someone is going to start lapping the field. If you're running 1 second faster than a car and a lap is taking 45 seconds, it takes about 45 laps to pass them. Just about 40 laps after no wrecks go by an amazing thing happens. Then they call a "caution" since there's been no wrecks to do it for them, and bunch the field back together for a "restart". How bogus is that? Yeah, a lot of fans like it and now the NASCAR people play to it, but for someone like myself I think it is just cheating and hurts any kind of integrity or pure sports of having the best machine and driver win that day. It really just gets to the lucky guy when a certain amount of laps are complete as to who the eventual winner is. And now they add extra laps when there's a caution at the end of the race. These "innovations" to NASCAR have done nothing to make it seem like an honest sport to me. At least pro wrestling had the integrity to change their sport to be called entertainment a few years back. Same thing with restrictor plates. Isn't the object of a car race to go as fast as possible? And why is it called NASCAR? These aren't stock cars any more. I would like to see an actual stock car race like say back in the sixties or early seventies or before when you could buy the car at the dealer and race it, with allowed modifications.

Oh yeah, some people just like to watch crazy people wreck cars at high speed. That's what restrictor plates are all about. NASCAR silences the drivers when they criticize it in public. I've never heard any of the drivers say they like restrictor plates, whether or not some of them happen to race particular well under the conditions. And don't tell me they don't censor drivers. Just ask Tony Stewart. It's all about money in today's NASCAR. Smaller tracks don't have such problems. Just look at Bristol and see how much fun everyone has. 3 laps down and you're still in the race. Not a chance on a large track without the bogus "Lucky dog", and the fake cautions or a real caution just about guarantee you'll never get back on the lead lap except by being the lucky dog.

I gave up on car racing years ago, but the year before Earnhardt Sr. died I started playing in a pool at a local bar. It was fun and I started to get into NASCAR. The personalities, tracks, and history of it. The year after Senior died is when NASCAR started making changes that in my view ruined it for me and anyone that cared about it. Now it is as it is, and I hope you have your fun. I did however get into today's race, though I don't at present know who my driver is. I made a call right now, but it wasn't picked up. I was out of town yesterday dancing the night away to trance music which is certainly more fun than watching billboards, er cars go in circles and had to send in my money in with a friend. I'm not the commissioner any more, but I still help the new commissioner with making the lineup charts and other things when I'm able to. My friend told me Thursday that he'd be watching the race today, so I might head over there. As you can see, it is hard to get away from it even if I find many faults with it. There's more to sports than the playing and watching of them. I no longer will turn on the television and watch a race by myself. I need people that want to watch and have an interest in the outcome to make it interesting for me.

"GERRY": Restrictor plates, speed limits, and fake cautions, I am thinking that NASCAR has turned into pro wrestling in some ways.

At least it is still fun to pick a driver in a pool for money.

I forgot all about NASCAR. :) I'm doing well.

I have serve as commissioner of the pool for five of the last seven years. It's kind of nice to not even get a call about it starting this week. Is, or was the Daytona 500 today? Who won?

Pedro Martínez: Is that you, Pedro? Welcome back. I'm not the only one that was sad to see you leave and missed you while you were gone.

And yes, I am tired of the Red Sox even more than normally. Must be how the Yankee fans feel about the Angels.

I'll be there tomorrow. The previous two meetings through the years have seen the Red Sox win the series and go to the next round. I'm hoping for a different outcome this time around. OF the nine regular season games they played each other this year, the Angels won eigth of them. This doesn't mean much in a best of five series, but it is reason for me to be optimistic. :)
Hi Czuch! :)

A couple of Yankees fans that I know in the Southern California area just don't see the humor in the bumper sticker about Joe Torre and I (heart) LA ad campaign right now. :)
New York is now last place in the American League East, The Dodger are in second in the National League West. I'm an Angels fan. As far as I know the Angels are the only team in the last ten years that has a winning record against a Joe Torre managed team. Yep, started a new streak against the Dodgers taking two of three last weekend.

srnity: Counting them Green Bay chickens before they hatched, eh? Yeah, I know they had home field advantage and all that other stuff. Plus I'm a fan of theirs from way back when and was happy when Dallas lost just so the Conference Championship game would be held in Green Bay, but Favre just didn't get it done in the second half. Had the Giants had a little more luck, the score wouldn'tve been as close as it was and it wouldn't have gone to overtime where again Favre lagged. Oh well, Green Bay was a lot better this year than I had hope they would be. I'm rooting for the Patriots to go undefeated. I have been since just before they beat the Colts in a battle of the last two remaining undefeated teams. :)
I'm not a Giants fan nor am I against them as I am against certain other teams, but they must have a good team to win the games they've been winning on the road. And they had a good chance to beat the Patriot on the last game of the season that had the Patriots have the first undefeated regular season since Miami did it in '72. Now the Patriots are 18 and 0, What a great season. I think the Super Bowl might be good game. Seems like the last few of them have been pretty good games, unlike some of those stinkers we went through a few years ago.

Jim Dandy: That's quite the list. When is the official one coming out? Later today? Why's Troy Glaus on it twice? Jose Canseco and Sammy Sosa are no surprise for me, but some of these guys are. Scott Shoenweiss? I suppose even a pitcher might get caught up in the fever of it, eh?
Who's Maurice Vaughn? Is it Mo? As is Mo Vaughn, or is it someone else?
Does this list come with when the steroids were used? When were steroids made against the rules? Other drugs too? Is this list an accusation, or is it admitted use, or is it they got caught? Or just what kind of list is it?
What will the powers that be do about it?

awesome: That explains it. May I sum up for you?

Money!

I'm still confused. Why not broadcast it over the air? OK, the cable giants don't show it, but I still have an antenna. Surely enough people would watch some of the games for them to make money selling advertisement time for commercials.

rednaz23: I was rooting for Green Bay, still am, but the Cowboys won. The officiating seem to have missed a few calls, but the game was a pretty good one. Green Bay's backup quarterback did a pretty decent job after Favre got hurt. Him being able to run always changes things. A few people didn't like Harris' job on defense, though he got the lucky interception when Owens had it pop out of his hand in the endzone. That kept Green Bay alive at the end of the game. That call early in the game with forward progress and disallowing the interception and even calling it a complete made a difference. And what happened third and 19? Dallas got the first down and things weren't looking so good for Green Bay after that. Dallas was stunned with that run for a touchdown right up the middle, but they answered back so fast it hardly seemed to matter.

Puckish: I learned tonight that there is two different NFL networks. One is this channel 212 you keep talking about, but on Ruben's Dish Satelite it was a different channel. I think 154. The NFL package is something completely different. It is a type of pay-per-view television that let's you watch every NFL game that is played. Ruben does not have that. Now here's a question for you. Why was tonight's game not on regular over the air broadcast television?

Puckish: I do not know, Pukish. No "C", see?
I haven't turned the television on in over a week. I'm leaving right now to watch the game at my friend's house with the High Definition Television and NFL package.

Czuch: I believe they hire them straight from the Ministry of Information and Propaganda. You know, that same department that brought us Weapons of Mass Distruction and Bush Jr's war service record. Television takes them skill, but it pays more than the government jobs and is much more entertaining. Yeah they hype games. Kind of like how NASCAR hypes the chase. BY the way, how is it that the guy with the most points isn't the season champion? Yeah, lets have a re-start in the middle of the season to keep the masses interested. NASCAR has become wrestling. At least wrestling is honest about it. Everyone likes a close finish or game, but if someone has a big lead, they deserve it. Taking it away from them to help the laggers is not very fair. Just imagine if the umpires said, "OK, it's 13-2 that's a big enough lead, you guys only get two outs an inning and we're giving them four until they get within 3 runs." Tony Stewart's outburst earlier in the season about "Fake Cautions" might have been swiftly swept under the rug, but I'd been saying it for a couple of years now. I noticed towards the end of this season the cautions were called a little slower if it was just contact with the wall and the car kept moving. I'm glad the rules that Football changes are for the play of the game and not for the outcome of the final score even if the object of the rules changes is to keep things in balance between defense and offense.

Czuch: OK, I'll give that a try, but it is only one channel. Will it have the Thursday game on it this week? Since my friend has the NFL package, it's a moot point, but I'll certainly give it a try the next time.

Czuch: No you don't! Least ways, I don't and I have DirecTV here. All of them channels are blocked out and if I go to them they tell me about ordering information.

Jim Dandy: Go Packers!

Should be a good game next Thursday. Packers versus Cowboys. If I understand right, it is only being broadcast on the NFL network or paid television. I have a friend who bought a high definition television just prior to the Football season starting. I've only watched one Football game this year Patriots/Colts), but I was hoping to watch this game next Thursday. I mentioned it to him, while telling him about the broadcast rights and blackout area. He happily told me that he'd also bought the NFL network package. So the game is on at his house! :)

Andersp:
It is similar to the reason of why we drive on the park way and park on the drive way. :)

As far as I know, the real reason is through the evolution of Football. The game that predates all of them was called Football. With the addition of the forward pass and then years of modifications to the rules you have modern Football, which is "foot" in name only. Soccer gets its name from Association Football. Soccer was developed as a less violent and safer version of the then current forms of football, such as Rugby. Since we had Football in the United States already Soccer got known by a different name. While over there in England and Europe the Association version came to dominate and they never developed a game similar to our type of Football except for the two main versions of Rugby which still go by that name or just Union or League depending on which version of Rubgy is being played. Rugby is called Rugby here. Soccer is Soccer. Football is Football or depending on which Football it'll be called be it's league or group. College, Arena, Highshcool, Canadian, NFL are the main types of Football. Soccer is a minor sport here. We all know Soccer isn't nothing much compared to real Football even if it is played in so many places and is so popular in so many places. Soccer is an English invention. Somehow the French got into the control of a portion of it and all you Soccer playing Europeans formed leagues and tournaments and there you have it. The French also had a major say in the schism that developed in Rugby and how there came to be two versions even though the split in Rugby was from the northern parts of England and arguing of paid players and other things. I'm trying to remember this stuff, so maybe an English or French Rugby fan can fill it in better than I can. I've never seen Rugby played though there are people that play it around here in Southern California. I can see Soccer getting lots more popular here some day, but for the time being it is strictly a minor league game. I'm not the only that hates Soccer. Soccer itself is one of the most played games where I happen to live. Kids play it all the time in the parks and fields. There's youth and adult leagues. Where I live happens to have one the highest Mexican and Central Amercian influx of immigrants in Califonia if not the United States, along side Vietnamese (Thought I don't know if the Vietnamese immigrants are a soccer playing people). Plus Soccer doesn't require much in the way of equipment or rules to play. Just some guys, a field, and a ball. Same thing for Football, except you need to know more rules to have a decent game of Football. Football also has a lot more different roles and positions for the players to cover. Defense and offense are completely different aspects. Scoring is more complicated. Yep, Football has changed every year. This is one thing I don't like about it, but it is still a lot better of a game in my opinion than soccer ever will be. I say this as a Baseball fan as that is a game I like the best for watching in person, though one of these days I will see an Australian Rules Football game. That looks like real fun game to watch or play. Flowing like Soccer and tough and rugged like Rugby or Football.

Jim Dandy: No telling, perhaps the Colts lose even worse? San Diego beat them? On any Sunday, eh?

rednaz23: Which post is that? I haven't ever deleted one in this discussion board and I doubt that MadMonkey recently has. Perhaps it didn't get entered, or you hit the wrong button, or this site went down just after you posted it and the site reverted back to a previous setting? Try posting it again.

Andersp: Actually I found turning up the sound and blocking the video was the way to listen to it!

Czuch: Them bookies are amazing, aren't they? Surprisingly, I had no bets on the game. I just watched it as a fan rooting against the Colts.

awesome: I was impressed with the defenses holding the teams. Those teams both have good offenses with great quarterbacks. Yes, a very good game played by two good teams. By touchdowns the score was approximately 3½ to 3, instead of the 24 to 20. A field goal and three touchdowns versus two field goals and two touchdowns. Yep, that's a close game. Either team could have won it. I'm looking forward to them playing again this year if it happens.

Czuch: Patriots 24 to the Colts 20. Great game. Some amazing good catches in it too. When it was Colts 20 and Patriots 10 with just under 9 minutes left in the game, it wasn't looking good for the visiting Patriots, but they somehow pulled off the rally and then got the turnover with 2 minutes left. I had a Colts fan here watching it with me. He was gloating and I had to bare it, but it become a lot of fun when the rally started and then the Patriots took the lead. :) He had some bets with his son on the game, so they were calling each other during the game to rub each other's noses in it. His son got the last laugh and now he has a dinner out coming. :)

Czuch: Now that Baseball is over, I'm going to start following Football. Right nice of them to have two unbeaten teams squaring off tomorrow. I'll be watching the game. I'm against the Colts, so this means I'll be rooting for the Patriots. Didn't the Colts last year take an unbeaten record to game ten before losing that game?

Vikings: The DH? Then why doesn't the National League dominate the games that are played without it?

There's only a couple of true designated hitters in the American League. Yes, David Ortiz is one of them. I've never liked the DH rule. As I almost exclusively see American League games being the Angel fan that I am and living just six miles from Anaheim Stadium, the DH rule is something I've come to live with even if I don't like it. It seems to me that the National League team should have an advantage when playing an American League team. If they're playing the game with National League rules, their team is already used to playing under those rules. The Pitchers know their role and have some batting practice. The Manager is used to making substitutions and late game maneuvers and switches. When the game is played with American League rules, it should still benefit the National League team. They can have a bench player fill the DH spot in the batting order and managing the Pitchers is just a matter of knowing when to take him out. There's no worrying about the batter order at all.

Czuch: Is it true that the American League so dominates the National League nowadays because of the New York Yankees? I've heard this theory and some of the supporting arguments for it, but I have some doubts. Still, it's hard to argue about the American League's awesome showing in interleague and post season play since the introduction of interleague play.

Czuch: He did well. They seem very high on him. Comparing him to Grady Sizemore, the announcers were. Ol' Coco has been kind of snake bit a few times this year when I've seen him at Anaheim Stadium. Hitting it hard, but at someone. Should've gone, or should've stayed, but the wrong choice. You know what I mean. The one game he just had the worst luck happen to him. His fly caught over the fence. He got tagged out at the plate. And some other stuff. I bet if asked he'd remember that game. :)

Czuch: Unlike three years ago, I'll be rooting for Cleveland and not the Red Sox. It was great in 2004 when the Red Sox were down 3 games to 0 and became the first team in baseball history to win the next 4 games to defeat the Yankees 4 to 3 in the pennant series. The Red Sox have been coming back in playoff series the last few decades, haven't they?

Czuch: Cleveland is doing pretty good against them for the pennant right now, even after Boston hit three homeruns in a row. And what was with Cleveland scoring 7 runs in an extra inning? Wow! Your boys better win this game, or Cleveland might take the series without it going back to Boston for game 6.

Swept right out they were today. :(
The seven runs Boston scored in the top of the eighth inning wiped them out.
Spanked hard. Some day the Angels might beat Boston in the post season.

Game 2 today in the division series.

Tuesday: That sounds like an Intentional Walk as you describe it. I doubt if the bases were loaded prior to the walk, but perhaps the walk loaded them up? As far as the rule that says if a walk is intentional or not, it doesn't change the fact that the batter has walked. There's no rule that prevents the pitching team from being able to intentionally walk a batter or not, so whether or not it looks deliberate or not doesn't matter. It's up to the pitching team to decide to pitch to the batter or not. Sometimes they'll not intentionally walk a batter, but pitch him very carefully and he gets a walk out of it because the pitcher wasn't able to catch the corners of the plate. The manager has already decided that if the batter gets walked that he has a back up plan. Kind of an unintentional intentional walk, so to speak.

awesome: I've never liked intentional walks. While checking out your post's information I came across a link to a book about various strategies employed in baseball called "The Book". I'll have to see about acquiring it.
There's pros and cons to putting someone on base. It certainly gives the batter that's after the guy that receives the intentional walk incentive to get a hit. They're showing him up by saying they'd rather pitch to him than the guy they walked. And if he does get a hit, the guy that was intentionally walked is an extra man on base.

I've never seen a wild pitch during an intentional walk, but I've seen a couple of wild throws that almost got past the catcher.

awesome: IT figures it'd be Buck Showalter, the same guy that used to manage the Texas Rangers that had Bonds walked. I'll have to check into it. Yep, it looks like you're right. There's no mention of Babe Ruth getting a bases loaded intentional walk. I found an article that has five of them being done and a good explanation of the intentional walk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_base_on_balls

I probably heard the guy mention Babe Ruth when it was done to Bonds and thought that he knew what he was talking about. Thanks for straightening me out on that. :)

Tuesday: Yes, it is a fairly common tactic though the scenario you have outlined is not. As far as I know, only two batters have ever been intentionally walked with the bases loaded. Barry Bonds and Babe Ruth.

It is quite common for a team to walk any batter, not just a home run hitting power hitter, with a man on second or men on second and third, to set up force outs at the bases to prevent the lead runners from scoring or advancing on a ground ball in the infield. Of course the manager of the defense will take into consideration the score, the inning, who's scheduled to bat, who's available to pinch hit, and other factors when deciding to do this. It really backfires if the following batter gets a hit.

What's a Z-Score?
The z-score is a statistical measure of how a particular number compares to the average. Technically it is the number of standard deviations from the mean, but one need not have a complete mathematical understanding of the z-score to appreciate that it shows how a given player performs compared to the competition.

For example, if the league average for home runs is 9 and a player hits exactly 9 home runs, his z-score is zero. If he hits more than 9 HRs his z-score will be positive and if he hits fewer than 9 it will be negative. Precisely how positive and how negative will depend on how other players in the league fared. For example:

In the National League in 2001 the league average for home runs was about 12. The leaders:
Barry Bonds 73
Sammy Sosa 64
Luis Gonzalez 57
Several others also exceeded 40. Bonds' HR z-score was +5.20.
In the American League in 1920 the league average for home runs was about 4. The leaders:
Babe Ruth 54
George Sisler 19
Tilly Walker 19
Happy Felsch 17
Nobody else exceeded 12. Ruth hit nearly three times as many HRs as anyone else (in fact, he alone hit more than any team beside the Yankees), so his HR z-score was +8.45 which shows mathematically what we see intuitively: that his performance was more dominant than that of Bonds in 2001.

Vikings:
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/babe-ruth44.htm

"Babe's records for most home runs in a season (60) and a career (714) have been broken, but he still has tremendous staying power among the all-time statistical leaders. He ranks third in home runs, second in at-bats-per-home-run (11.76), second in RBI (2,211), first in slugging percentage (.690), and third in walks (2,062), and he is tied for ninth in batting average (.342). But if there is one statistic that proves Ruth was the greatest of them all, it is this: He was 94-46 with a 2.28 ERA as a pitcher."

In one the articles in this series I read that he and Lou Gehrig combined did indeed hit 1 in 4 of the homeruns in the league one year. Amazing!