There's a good article on SFGate.com about whether walking Bonds all the time is a good strategy. They quote Bill James, who did computer simulations of surrounding Babe Ruth with marginal players and walking him all the time:

"I have little doubt the excessive intentional walks to Bonds are helping the Giants," James said from his home in Kansas. "The walks set up so many innings."

James conducted a study, aiming to determine whether it makes sense to intentionally walk a batter such as Bonds or Babe Ruth every time he steps in the box. Into his computer, James programmed Ruth's best season (1921) and surrounded him with marginal players -- worse than Bonds' current supporting cast, according to James.

James simulated thousands of games. In one set of games, the computer walked Ruth every time. In the other set, Ruth was walked in normal situations.

"The conclusion of the study was that, as great a hitter as Ruth was, and as bad as his teammates were, it was still far, far more destructive to just walk him than it was to pitch to him," James said. "It wasn't even close. He was nowhere to the point it made sense to just walk him every time."

James chose San Francisco native Gino Cimoli, an outfielder in the late '50s and '60s, to bat after Ruth. In one full season of simulated games in which Ruth was walked every time, Cimoli batted .267 (right about his career average) with eight homers -- but a whopping 151 RBIs. His career high was 72.

My guess is that managers don't want to answer the questions about not walking Bonds. Reporters will criticize you if you pitch to Bonds and he beats you, but it's okay not to pitch to Bonds and have someone else beat you. It's nice to see SF Gate realized this may not be the best strategy.

Of course, the best way for Bonds not to beat you is to have him out of the lineup. He's missing the entire Pittsburgh series, but is expected back Tuesday. We'll see.