Given the media attention that Barry Bonds postseason performance, both for his past shortcomings and his seeming rapid turnaround this year, I am left to think that the media have nothing better to write and/or talk about. Well, I know that I don't, but I'd rather discuss how offbase the discussion has been.
Bonds was neither struggling in the playoffs nor has he "turned it around". The problem is that we are discussing 97 at-bats spread over 11 years in the former and 17 at-bats in five games in the latter. In each case, there are too few at-bats in the sample to set a pattern. Yes, Bonds had fewer home runs and hits over the years, but if you take 100 random at-bats from various series through his career you could probably get worse numbers. OK, these are not your typical games-they are playoff games. But Bonds is only human: he has good games and bad games. Some of those bad games can happen during the playoffs.
To prove the point, I have taken the postseason performance of every major-leaguer to hit 400 or more home runs. I though about taking all Hall-of-Famers but then I reconsidered. These are generally top-caliber offensive players more readily comparable to Bonds and they are a smaller and easier group to deal with. It's not a perfect group but who of us is? They are in reverse order by OPS (on-base plus slugging):
Yes, Bonds is below average but not by a whole lot. Legends are at the top (well, bottom here) of the list: Aaron, Ruth, and Gehrig. But there are legends like Williams, Mays, and Schmidt who fare worse than Bonds. Ernie Banks never even got to play in a postseason game-damn Cubs.
It's going to be fun to watch Bonds play in the NLCS: the pitching approach that the Cardinals use against him, the shifts, etc. But enough already with the playoff performance questions. The press should find a new story and just let Bonds play. Maybe Ted Williams' kids will do us all a favor and start feuding again so that the Jim Grays of the world have a new story to cover.