"Now, with the young and speedy Lewis, the routine catches look, once again, routine."

LMAO!!! Only someone who looks at nothing but numbers would offer that one up. I will say that Lewis has looked far more comfortable in left field than in right but routine? He often makes the routine look, well, ugly.

There is a lot I like about Lewis and so I don't really want to trash your piece Asher (nor do I have time to do so now) but for the most part I found it to be the worst I've ever read from you.

“Make no mistake about it – the 2008 Giants are a better team than their 2007 counterpart, and the reason is Fred Lewis.”

Or maybe they’re a better team because of Tim Lincecum and Jonathan Sanchez. Or maybe they’re not even a better team: Giants through 101 games in 2007 – 44-57. Giants through 101 games this year – 43-58

“In 2004, he hit .301 with a .414 on-base percentage but couldn't get called up because Bonds was in the way.”

Yes, it’s terrible when you have a guy hitting .362/.609/.812 with 45 home runs in your way. Shame on the Giants for not benching Bonds in favor of Lewis.

“In 2005 he stole 30 bases and hit 28 doubles, but still couldn't get called up.”

Hmmm….Bonds played just 14 games that year and he still couldn’t get called up. Could it have been because Lewis was deemed not yet ready for the majors?

“In 2006, when he finally got his first taste of major league action, he made the most of hit, batting .455.”

Yes Asher, he certainly made the most of those 11 at bats.

“Finally, in 2008, Bonds has moved on, and Lewis has been able to make his long overdue transition to his role as the Giants everyday left fielder and leadoff hitter.”

Only because Dave Roberts got hurt.

“The most obvious area in which Lewis represents an upgrade over Bonds is defense.”

Obvious to someone who has never actually watched Lewis butcher…er…play defense. Yes Lewis can use his speed to make up for his mistakes in judging fly balls and his bad jumps and yes Lewis looks more comfortable and far less atrocious if left field than he did playing in center or right, but what Bonds lacked in range, he made up for in other ways such as being correctly positioned and his quick release which very often held runners from advancing an extra base. Bonds in his advanced age wasn’t the Gold Glover he was in his youth but he would still be a better defensive OF today than Manny Ramirez or Pat Burrell. Lewis will never be a stellar defensive OF though he has made strides towards becoming adequate.

“Freddie has been far better in 2008 than Bonds has been in several years.”

Yes, Fred has been better this year than Bonds’ 170 OPS+ from 2007 and his 156 OPS+ from ’06. Um-hum.

“One of Bonds’ most celebrated attributes was his speed. But this season, Fred Lewis already has 17 stolen bases. Bonds failed to steal that many bases in any of his last nine years in the league, and Lewis’ 17 steals (in 96 games no less!) are more than Bonds had in his last four seasons combined!

Damn a 34+ year old being out run by a 27-year old? Surprise, surprise, surprise Gomer.

Of course, if Lewis had been a better base stealer, he’d have had a much higher minor league career best of just 30. I am very pleased though that Lewis has made great strides in improving his base stealing abilities this year.

Of course you fail to mention that the aging Bonds was highly successful when he did attempt to steal bases in the later half of his career, stealing successfully in 21-of-22 attempts since 2003 and 69-of-80 (86%) since 1999 despite not reaching 17 in a season. And you can bet that the vast majority of those were in key situations.

“Perhaps the most startling difference between Lewis and Bonds is their ability to hit the ball. Bonds only hit .276 last year, and with two full months left in this season, Lewis has 92 hits, on pace for well over 150. But Bonds failed to get more than 150 hits in any of his last six seasons, and failed to even get over 100 in the last two.”

Of course, while Bonds “only” hit .276 last year, he also had a .480 OBP and a .565 SLG. Lewis thus far is hitting .271 with a .347 OBP and a .444 SLG. But at least he’ll get more hits. He won’t get on base as much and he won’t slug as high but he’ll get more hits.

“And there can be no doubt that Lewis is a better run scorer than Bonds had been in recent years.”

And Bonds hit in the middle of the order while Lewis hits at the top. But really, it IS a valid comparison.

“But this season, things have totally turned around. Consider the team's record through 101 games. At the 101-game point last season, the Giants were a pitiful 44-57 and 12.0 games back in the NL West. But this year, the Giants, no longer plagued by enormous, distracting crowds, are currently only 7.0 games behind the faltering Arizona Diamondbacks, a remarkable turnaround.”

Your stupidest statement in this whole piece. Never mind that the Giants are actually a game worse than last year at the same point, they’re five games closer to first (thanks to the D-Backs incompetence) so they MUST be a better team right?

And those enormous, distracting crowds? Down from 39,793 to 35,538. Man that’s a HUGE decrease!!! Almost 4,000 per game!!! I can see how the Giants were distracted with those extra 4K there.

That’s all I have time for now.

Wow. I expected Tony to fall for this, but not Rich.

The written word is not a suitable medium for sarcasm.

Well, I think the problem is less that sarcasm can't be captured by the written word - a point that I think Jonathan Swift would find to be absurd - and more that Rich finds so much of what I say absurd that he did not find the things I was saying in this article to be out-of-the-ordinary.

The whole idea of sarcasm/irony is that the thing being said is so absurd that it is obvious that the person is making the opposite point. But Rich thinks that I spend my time manipulating statistics to see only what I want to see. Thus, when I so eggregiously cited only the statistics in which Fred Lewis topped Bonds and then used those as evidence of Lewis' greatness, Rich said "here we go again."

Though, to be fair, Rich did say that he thought this was the worst article I'd ever written.

But I think his point there was "Of all the ridiculous things you constantly spew forth, this is the most ridiculous by far."

That's not it at all. I don't usually find what you write to be absurd which is why I found this particular piece so absurd. I think the sarcasm in it just simply went over my head.

Methinks Rich was moved emotionally since it was a Giants article, and his sense of judgment was suspended.

Truthfully, Asher, I read the article in your voice, in the dripping-with-angry-sarcasm way you say things, and found it vastly entertaining---and the sense of underlying anger a tad disturbing.