Albert PUJOLS beats Barry Bonds in several key statistical areas--PUJOLS for MVP!
viper
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>'St. Louis Post-Dispatch'
>
>Saturday, October 18, 2003
>
>'Bernie Bits' (p. 3 OT)
>
>"Pujols surpasses Bonds in several statistical areas"
All of which were do to Pujols having 201 more At Bats. I would have
liked to see Barry get 591 At Bats, instead of 390.
>
>by Bernie Miklasz
>
>"It's expected that San Francisco's Barry Bonds will win this year's Most
>Valuable Player award for the National League, but Jim Henzler of STATS,
>Inc. makes the case that the honor should go to the Cardinals' Albert
>Pujols.
>
>Henzler reports that Pujols led the majors with 162 runs created this
>season--the fifth-highest total in Cardinals history. And in the 'Win
>Shares' formula devised by Bill James and Henzler--a system of rating a
>player's value to a team--Pujols led the NL with 41 win shares this year,
>two more than Bonds, and six more than Atlanta's Gary Sheffield.
>
>By the way, Pujols' 41 win shares is tied for the fourth-highest total in
>franchise history, exceeded only by Rogers Hornsby (47 win shares in 1922),
>Stan Musial (46 in 1948), and Musial (44 in 1946). Mark McGwire also had 41
>win shares in 1998.
>
>In the coming weeks, we'll present some other interesting Win Shares data
>from Henzler in this space. ..."
>
>
>NL
>
>Player Win Shares
>
>1. PUJOLS 41
>2. Bonds 39
>3. Sheffield 35
>
Wayne Alan Simon
change their entire strategy and approach to the game and even rosters
because of barry. Barry is by far the most valuable player in the game.
Bar none! If pujols wins the MVP it will be a sham.
Zardoz
>'St. Louis Post-Dispatch'
>Saturday, October 18, 2003
>'Bernie Bits' (p. 3 OT)
>"Pujols surpasses Bonds in several statistical areas"
>"It's expected that San Francisco's Barry Bonds will win this year's Most
>Valuable Player award for the National League, but Jim Henzler of STATS,
>Inc. makes the case that the honor should go to the Cardinals' Albert
>Pujols.
>
>Henzler reports that Pujols led the majors with 162 runs created this
>season--the fifth-highest total in Cardinals history. And in the 'Win
>Shares' formula devised by Bill James and Henzler--a system of rating a
>player's value to a team--Pujols led the NL with 41 win shares this year,
>two more than Bonds, and six more than Atlanta's Gary Sheffield.
>
>By the way, Pujols' 41 win shares is tied for the fourth-highest total in
>franchise history, exceeded only by Rogers Hornsby (47 win shares in 1922),
>Stan Musial (46 in 1948), and Musial (44 in 1946). Mark McGwire also had 41
>win shares in 1998.
>
>In the coming weeks, we'll present some other interesting Win Shares data
>from Henzler in this space. ..."
>NL
>Player Win Shares
>1. PUJOLS 41
>2. Bonds 39
>3. Sheffield 35
What I'd like to see is total # of bats this year for both players,
total on base %, total walks, total home runs per bat attempt, of
course the battng averages (Bonds loses this one).
To me Bonds is hands down not only the MVP when you consider these
factors.
Honus Wagner
news:d6u7pvc17koft078t...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 10:36:53 GMT, "Rob Petrie" <r*@att.net> wrote:
>
> >x-no-archive: yes
> >
> >'St. Louis Post-Dispatch'
> >
> >Saturday, October 18, 2003
> >
> >'Bernie Bits' (p. 3 OT)
> >
> >"Pujols surpasses Bonds in several statistical areas"
>
> All of which were do to Pujols having 201 more At Bats. I would have
> liked to see Barry get 591 At Bats, instead of 390.
Win Shares uses Plate Appearances not At Bats so it has nothing to do with
Pujols getting more at bats it has everything to do with Pujols playing more
games than Barry.
Honus Wagner
news:ha48pvkknp8f0isd0...@4ax.com...
Win Shares is based on Plate APpearances and not At bats so the real reason
that Pujols leads is that he played in more games. Something is to be said
for the fact that Pujols did not miss as many games as Bonds.
James Farrar
>Win Shares is based on Plate APpearances and not At bats so the real reason
>that Pujols leads is that he played in more games. Something is to be said
>for the fact that Pujols did not miss as many games as Bonds.
Yes, Anuses is 24? Bonds is 38. Naturally Bonds will miss a few more
games.
--
James Farrar | london...@yahoo.co.uk
"Regardless of what Bud, MLB, the East Coast, or anyone else thinks,
we have the best park, team, organization, and fans in the bigs.
So they can shove it."
donutbandit
many wins turn into losses? 2? 3?
Take Bonds away from the Giants and you have a .500 team.
If the MVP is truly a test of which player was the most important player to
his team, Bonds wins without even a contest.
Richard Booroojian
"Honus Wagner" <hea...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:qJUkb.823$BF1....@news.uswest.net...
> Win Shares is based on Plate APpearances and not At bats so the real
reason
> that Pujols leads is that he played in more games. Something is to be
said
> for the fact that Pujols did not miss as many games as Bonds.
Yeah, there is a clear advantage to not having your dad die on you during a
baseball season.
rb
Greg Lentz
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>'St. Louis Post-Dispatch'
>
>Saturday, October 18, 2003
>
>'Bernie Bits' (p. 3 OT)
>
>"Pujols surpasses Bonds in several statistical areas"
>
>by Bernie Miklasz
>
>"It's expected that San Francisco's Barry Bonds will win this year's Most
>Valuable Player award for the National League, but Jim Henzler of STATS,
>Inc. makes the case that the honor should go to the Cardinals' Albert
>Pujols.
>
>Henzler reports that Pujols led the majors with 162 runs created this
>season--the fifth-highest total in Cardinals history. And in the 'Win
>Shares' formula devised by Bill James and Henzler--a system of rating a
>player's value to a team--Pujols led the NL with 41 win shares this year,
>two more than Bonds, and six more than Atlanta's Gary Sheffield.
>
>By the way, Pujols' 41 win shares is tied for the fourth-highest total in
>franchise history, exceeded only by Rogers Hornsby (47 win shares in 1922),
>Stan Musial (46 in 1948), and Musial (44 in 1946). Mark McGwire also had 41
>win shares in 1998.
>
>In the coming weeks, we'll present some other interesting Win Shares data
>from Henzler in this space. ..."
I know that I was incredibly excited at Pujols having one of the best win
shares seasons of all time. Much more exciting than Bonds chasing the HR
record a couple of seasons ago. I value the win shares stat far more
highly.
Greg Lentz
JVV4sm
>"donutbandit" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns941A780943...@216.102.43.227...
>
>> The Cards didn't make the playoffs even with Pujols. Take him away and how
>> many wins turn into losses? 2? 3?
>
>leading after 7 innings.
30 out of how many? Are you saying those were 30 losses, or simply 30 leads
blown? What was the league average for the same stat.
Are you saying the Cards should have won 115 games (the 85 they won + 30), if
they only had a better bullpen?
> Want to blame that on Pujols, too?
> Take the Cardinals horrid relief pitching out of the debate between
>Pujols and Bonds and St. Louis wins the NL Central by at least 10 games!
How would a team win more games if you take away their bullpen? Sounds to me
like there would be more forfeits.
> If the Giants had a relief corps that pissed away 30 games, the Giants
>wouldn't have made the playoffs, either!
> So let's just compare on the field what Pujols did with what Bonds did.
> Don't forget--Andre Dawson won the '87 MVP with the LAST PLACE Chicago
>Cubs over the much more deserving Ozzie Smith who helped the Cardinals to
>the NL PENNANT, and I didn't hear much complaint about Dawson's winning the
>MVP!
How many examples of that can you come up with? How many times in recent years
has ARod had an "MVP-type" season for the last place Rangers and won the MVP?
>> Take Bonds away from the Giants and you have a .500 team.
>
> The Giants' pitching was much better than the Cardinals, so don't give
>me that .500 team crap if Bonds wasn't in the lineup!
Look at the Giants record over the years when he doesn't play.
> Take the Cardinals horrid relief pitching away this last year that blew
>30 games in those they had leads (crediting just 10 more wins of those 30)
>and you have at least a .586 1st-place team instead of a 3rd-place .525
>team. That wasn't Pujols' fault.
You realize that you are arguing the Puhols wasn't important to his team's
results, right?
> Two can play at that game you are playing!
>
>> If the MVP is truly a test of which player was the most important player
>to
>> his team, Bonds wins without even a contest.
>
> Not true. The Giants' pitching was much superior to the Cardinals and
>THAT was the difference between the 2 teams in what place they wound up.
Yeah, Damian Moss, Kevin Correia, Ryan Jensen, Jim Brower, Kurt AInsworth, and
a cast of a thousand arms were the difference between the Cards and Giants.
JVV4sm
>I know that I was incredibly excited at Pujols having one of the best win
>shares seasons of all time. Much more exciting than Bonds chasing the HR
>record a couple of seasons ago. I value the win shares stat far more
>highly.
I am so tired of the voters looking strictly at the Win Share totals, and
voting accordingly.
j...@socrates.berkeley.edu
:> >Player Win Shares
:> >
:> >1. PUJOLS 41
:> >2. Bonds 39
:> >3. Sheffield 35
: Win Shares uses Plate Appearances not At Bats so it has nothing to do with
: Pujols getting more at bats it has everything to do with Pujols playing more
: games than Barry.
Right.
Of all the major sabermetric stats, Win Shares gives the *most* credit for
playing time, so it's really hard for a guy who missed time to get a good
number.
And there's a fielding component, and IMO that part of it has had a mixed
reception at best. I don't know from this how fielding Win Shares figured
into the state quoted.
At any rate, using Clay Davenport's stats (hitting only), Bonds is 15-20
runs better than Pujols this season, depending on how you ask the
question. I can't seem to find Keith W's VORP report, but IIRC Bonds was
better by that measure, too.
There's no point in trying to resolve differences between the systems
here, but IMO it's just wrong to claim that sabermetric stuff shows Pujols
clearly leading; I think there's more evidence that Bonds was more
valuable, but they were probably close enough that one could reasonably go
either way on it. OTOH, that's if Bonds is fully penalized for missing
time; if one wants to give him a break for missing time based on his dad's
death, then he's pretty clearly the better of the two in 2003.
(Bonds should *not* get a break for missing games for wear-and-tear; he's
legitimately less valuable because he has to rest. One could argue that
he was less valuable because he missed the time for his dad, but there's
also a fair case to be made that in MVP voting that we shouldn't penalize
a player for that).
JHB
donutbandit
news:xzXkb.4598$S52....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "donutbandit" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns941A780943...@216.102.43.227...
>
>> The Cards didn't make the playoffs even with Pujols. Take him away
>> and how many wins turn into losses? 2? 3?
>
> The Cards relief pitching blew THIRTY (30) games when the team was
> leading after 7 innings.
> Want to blame that on Pujols, too?
> Take the Cardinals horrid relief pitching out of the debate
> between
> Pujols and Bonds and St. Louis wins the NL Central by at least 10
> games!
> If the Giants had a relief corps that pissed away 30 games, the
> Giants
> wouldn't have made the playoffs, either!
> So let's just compare on the field what Pujols did with what Bonds
> did. Don't forget--Andre Dawson won the '87 MVP with the LAST
> PLACE Chicago
> Cubs over the much more deserving Ozzie Smith who helped the Cardinals
> to the NL PENNANT, and I didn't hear much complaint about Dawson's
> winning the MVP!
>
>> Take Bonds away from the Giants and you have a .500 team.
>
> The Giants' pitching was much better than the Cardinals, so don't
> give
> me that .500 team crap if Bonds wasn't in the lineup!
>
> Take the Cardinals horrid relief pitching away this last year
> that blew
> 30 games in those they had leads (crediting just 10 more wins of those
> 30) and you have at least a .586 1st-place team instead of a 3rd-place
> .525 team. That wasn't Pujols' fault.
> Two can play at that game you are playing!
>
>> If the MVP is truly a test of which player was the most important
>> player
> to
>> his team, Bonds wins without even a contest.
>
> Not true. The Giants' pitching was much superior to the
> Cardinals and
> THAT was the difference between the 2 teams in what place they wound
> up.
>
>
>
You obviously do not understand what is involved in choosing an MVP. It has
nothing to do with relief pitching, or anything other than the performance
of the player in question and his importance to the team.
Take Pujols away, the Cards lose a few more games. Take Bonds away, the
Giants lose at least 15.
I'm not going to get into an argument with you over this, as you seem to be
an excitable type.
Jamal Bernhard
> There's no point in trying to resolve differences between the systems
> here, but IMO it's just wrong to claim that sabermetric stuff shows Pujols
> clearly leading; I think there's more evidence that Bonds was more
> valuable, but they were probably close enough that one could reasonably go
> either way on it.
And then there's a whole other component that's missing from the
sabermetrics, and that's how a player makes the other players around him
better. Bonds changes the whole dynamic of the Giants' lineup, and teams
change their pitching strategies to others in the lineup sometimes 2 or
3 batters before Bonds comes up...He receives so much attention that he
improves everyone else. That's why despite similar sabermetrics, the
difference between the Giants with and without Bonds is greater than the
difference between the Cards with and without Pujols.
Steven Rubio
wrote:
>I can't seem to find Keith W's VORP report
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/current/vorp2003.htm
Barry: 114.6
Pujols: 97.3
Steven
Steven Rubio
<jamalb.s...@pacbell.goodbyespam.net> wrote:
>And then there's a whole other component that's missing from the
>sabermetrics, and that's how a player makes the other players around him
>better. Bonds changes the whole dynamic of the Giants' lineup, and teams
>change their pitching strategies to others in the lineup sometimes 2 or
>3 batters before Bonds comes up...He receives so much attention that he
>improves everyone else.
Do you have any evidence to support your claim that Bonds improves
everyone else because he receives a lot of attention?
Does Barry change the dynamics of the Giants lineup? Yes. Does this
mean "teams change their pitching strategies to others in the lineup
hitting before Barry?" I don't see the connection, unless you want to
argue that they try even harder to get those guys out so no one is on
base for Barry. It's certainly not clear that this would make the
other hitters better. Nor have you offered any evidence for the idea
that attention paid to Barry leads to improvement in other players.
Steven
Greg Lentz
Just because something can't be easily quantified doesn't mean it isn't
so. IMO, the biggest weakness of sabermetricians is that they are too
eager to dismiss things that can't be easily modeled statistically.
Also IMO, it's totally obvious that Bonds' impact extends beyond just his
individual at-bats. The fact that it can't be proven statistically in no
way shakes my belief that Bonds makes his teammates better just by being
in the lineup.
Greg Lentz
j...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 22:22:06 +0000 (UTC), <j...@socrates.Berkeley.EDU>
: wrote:
: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/current/vorp2003.htm
: Barry: 114.6
: Pujols: 97.3
IOW, pretty much the same. I can't see Pujols being ~15 runs better with
the glove...Win Shares really seems like the oddball here.
JHB
Dobbs Redemption
I'm going to crib a method I saw at Baseball Prospectus, which I
believe Joe Sheehan used to show why Pedro deserved the Cy Young in
the AL this year.
Here are Bonds and Pujols final season stats. Runs and RBI are not
listed since they are team dependent:
AB H 1B 2B 3B HR BB HBP SF BA OBP SLG
OPS PA
Bonds 390 133 65 22 1 45 148 10 2 .341 .529 .749
1.278 550
Pujols 591 212 117 51 1 43 79 10 5 .359 .439 .667
1.106 685
Pujols had 135 more PA than Bonds this year. I've diddled around on a
spreadsheet to try and come up with a line for those extra PA that
would place Bonds' OBP and SLG at Pujols' levels, although I can't
figure a way to get both to match since Bonds is so far ahead in
walks. To keep it simple, I only messed with the 2B column, since
this is where Albert outpaced Barry. Here's what I came up with as a
final season line for Bonds with those 135 extra PA:
AB H 1B 2B 3B HR BB HBP SF BA OBP SLG
OPS PA
Bonds 525 157 65 46 1 45 148 10 2 .299 .460 .648
1.107 685
Now here's the extra 135 PA split out:
AB H 1B 2B 3B HR BB HBP SF BA OBP SLG
OPS PA
Bonds 135 24 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 .178 .178 .356
0.533 135
The argument from here goes, if Bonds had been granted the extra 135
AB and hit like an ailing Shawon Dunston, he would have basically
ended up with Albert Pujols' 2003 season. We shouldn't penalize Bonds
for not providing an extra 30 games of well below replacement value
production. Therefore, Bonds is the MVP. There are some holes to be
shot in this argument, but I think it is thought provoking.
Feel free to point out flaws in my math or propose an alternate line
for the remaining 135 PA. No fair cheating by giving Bonds' negative
HR or BB.
j...@socrates.berkeley.edu
:Bernstein wrote:
:> Of all the major sabermetric stats, Win Shares gives the *most* credit for
:> playing time, so it's really hard for a guy who missed time to get a good
:> number.
: If you don't play, you don't get credit no matter what the excuse!
Putting that aside, the point here is just that there is no consensus on
how much credit playing time per se should get. Win Shares has an extreme
position on that issue, giving lots of credit for showing up. AFAIK, most
any other legit measurement system gives Bonds the edge, just on the
numbers.
:> (Bonds should *not* get a break for missing games for wear-and-tear; he's
:> legitimately less valuable because he has to rest. One could argue that
:> he was less valuable because he missed the time for his dad, but there's
:> also a fair case to be made that in MVP voting that we shouldn't penalize
:> a player for that).
: We shouldn't also penalize Stan Musial (or Ted Williams) for missing
: time in the Armed Services, but if they don't play--they don't get any
: credit!
If you don't play, you are less valuable. No question about that.
Now, how to deal with that if you're a voter for MVP or other awards is
another story. That's pretty much purely subjective. Sabermetrics can't
help with it.
JHB
Richard Booroojian
"Rob Petrie" <r*@att.net> wrote in message
news:Cp2lb.4360$np1....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> We shouldn't also penalize Stan Musial (or Ted Williams) for missing
> time in the Armed Services, but if they don't play--they don't get any
> credit!
I want you to acknowledge that you are consciously dinging Barry Bonds
because his father died. Just go ahead and say it if that's what you really
think. Because that's the only thing you can possibly be thinking when you
make a comment like this.
As for Musial and Williams, who is dinging them? They both made the hall of
fame without any penalty associated with the years the were out of the game.
I think Williams' reputation especially completely takes his service to his
country into account.
rb
swen
Rob Petrie wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
swen
> x-no-archive: yes
>
>>many wins turn into losses? 2? 3?
>
>
> leading after 7 innings.
> Want to blame that on Pujols, too?
> Take the Cardinals horrid relief pitching out of the debate between
> Pujols and Bonds and St. Louis wins the NL Central by at least 10 games!
> If the Giants had a relief corps that pissed away 30 games, the Giants
> wouldn't have made the playoffs, either!
> So let's just compare on the field what Pujols did with what Bonds did.
> Don't forget--Andre Dawson won the '87 MVP with the LAST PLACE Chicago
> Cubs over the much more deserving Ozzie Smith who helped the Cardinals to
> the NL PENNANT, and I didn't hear much complaint about Dawson's winning the
> MVP!
>
>
>
>
> me that .500 team crap if Bonds wasn't in the lineup!
everybody's era is lower at pbp. the giants happen to play there more
than any other team. bonds is on a team in which he is the most valuable
of any player arguably of all time. take bonds from the giants lineup
and the giants have probably one of the worst offenses in the history of
the team. their best everyday player, stats-wise, this year after bonds
was probably grissom at .290-something and like 16 homeruns. are you
kidding me??
>
> Take the Cardinals horrid relief pitching away this last year that blew
> 30 games in those they had leads (crediting just 10 more wins of those 30)
> and you have at least a .586 1st-place team instead of a 3rd-place .525
> team. That wasn't Pujols' fault.
> Two can play at that game you are playing!
>
>
>>If the MVP is truly a test of which player was the most important player
>
> to
>
>>his team, Bonds wins without even a contest.
>
>
James Farrar
>Does Barry change the dynamics of the Giants lineup? Yes. Does this
>mean "teams change their pitching strategies to others in the lineup
>hitting before Barry?" I don't see the connection, unless you want to
>argue that they try even harder to get those guys out so no one is on
>base for Barry.
ISTR an opposition manager saying, basicallg, the strategy for every
inning is dictated by where Bonds is due in the lineup. Pretty sure it
was inSeptember, but I don't have the reference to hand.
JVV4sm
>obviously pitch around B.B.? And he got 61 IWs of those 148, so you have to
>take *that* out of the biased OBP figure to get it individualized (to coin a
>word) as much as possible.
Why is he being walked? To avoid pitching to Bonds or to pitch to someone
who's not Bonds?
> Unfortunately, there are no stats for a W when a pitcher 'pitches around'
>the batter and gives him 4 wide ones that are not intentional or Bonds would
>also suffer more than Pujols in comparison.
I think you're making a silly assertion, but, if Bonds' walks need to be
removed, shouldn't Pujols be penalized by pitchers' eagerness to pitch to him?
> Bonds OBP without his 61 IWs 230/489 = .470
> Pujols OBP without his 12 IWs 289/673 = .429
>
> Significant difference, but not anywhere as much as the .529/.439
>counting IWs which doesn't give the batter any real hitting credit, as it is
>a purely defensive option.
Yes, not making outs is what the defense is looking for, and should be
discounted.
> OPS without any IWs
>
> Bonds OPS = .470 + .749 = 1.219
> Pujols OPS = .429 + .667 = 1.096
>
> Bonds advantage: 0.123 and NOT the IW-inflated 0.172 (1.278 - 1.106)
>
> Pujols earned 394 Total Bases.
> Bonds earned 292 Total Bases.
>
> Pujols advantage: 102 Total Bases.
>
> Pujols had 212 Hits.
> Bonds had 133 Hits.
>
> Pujols advantage: 79 Hits.
>
> I think I'll take the extra 102 Total Bases and 79 Hits (incl. 29 more
>Doubles)
Because doubles are better than home runs.
>Pujols earned instead of the (148-79) 69 more Walks (and 2 HRs)
>Bonds got--incl. the IWs.
Because walks aren't earned. Strike zone judgment should be penalized.
> Just for the record:
>
> Pujols Runs 137 RBIs 124
> Bonds Runs 111 RBIs 90
>
> Advantage: Pujols--Runs 26, RBIs 34.
Runs and RBIs are team stats.
>
> Pujols R + RBI - HR (43) = 218 (Runs accounted for)
> Bonds R + RBI - HR (45) = 156 (Runs accounted for)
The stat that subtracts home runs has been thoroughly discredited.
> Advantage: Pujols 62.
> [HRs double-counted in (R + RBI) total]
Removing 'double counting' has been discredited.
> Interesting. But you left out one important fact: Bonds NOT playing
>in those extra 27 Games (157-130) and 135 less PAs hurt his figures,
>severely. Plus the Games he did play he Walked over once per game (148 W in
>130 G; only 87 W by his own skill), so that didn't help the Giants win,
>either if he didn't swing the bat!
You don't understand the value of walks. Is making an out better?
> If he had played in at least 10 more Games (about 45 more PAs) and
>played at the same level he did during the year, he'd have much more of a
>case.
Excuse him for the death of his father.
> Not playing definitely hurts a player's stats to compare one with
>another; esp. on an MVP voting for the entire year.
> And those that do a per time at bat figuring--I can get up to the plate
>(if I played), 1 at bat, hit 1 HR, and have a BA of 1.000, an OBP of 1.000
>and a SLG of 4.000 and an OPS of 5.000. [all percentages the maximum
>possible!]
A sample size of one is cool.
> Now, how good did I help the team with my 1 at bat; although my
>percentage stats are the best possible?
Randy Johnson hit a home run too once.
> See what I mean about more playing helps the team win more, even if your
>BA/OBP/SLG and OPS is a bit lower?
Only if you're productive. If you're Shawon Dunston or Marvin Benard, playing
a lot doesn't help your team.
>> Feel free to point out flaws in my math or propose an alternate line
>> for the remaining 135 PA. No fair cheating by giving Bonds' negative
>> HR or BB.
>
> How about giving Pujols credit for another 5 games (G-157) and about 22
>more PAs to make it even, if you're gonna give Bonds another "free" 135 PAs?
> Projecting is difficult--and Bonds is now 39 (7/24/64) so if he did get
>up to bat another 135 times, who knows if the long(er) season wouldn't have
>caught up with him, tired him out more than you think, and he did worse than
>you projected?
> Maybe those games off actually helped him do better at the end of the
>season than he *would* have done??? Anything reasonable is a possibility!
eyes roll
JVV4sm
>Bonds and why they are forced to pitch to Pujols!
Because Pujols makes more outs?
James Farrar
>x-no-archive: yes
Something to hide?
> Would not Bonds 148 Walks not also be partially team dependent, to
>obviously pitch around B.B.?
It's true that there's no-one on the team better [more feared] than
him. But it's a false argument, since there's no-one on any other team
that would stop opposition managers giving Bonds the same treatment.
He'd get the IBBs hitting anywhere in any ML lineup.
[rest of fallacious argument snipped; if you don't want it archived,
I'll spare your blushes]
James Farrar
>x-no-archive: yes
> Sarcasm will get you nowhere.
Not when idiots like you try and emulate it but fail, no.
Steven Rubio
<london...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>ISTR an opposition manager saying, basicallg, the strategy for every
>inning is dictated by where Bonds is due in the lineup. Pretty sure it
>was inSeptember, but I don't have the reference to hand.
That's nice. Does this make Bonds' teammates better?
Steven
Richard Booroojian
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Richard Booroojian" <rbooroo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:MW2lb.4393$np1....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > I want you to acknowledge that you are consciously dinging Barry Bonds
> > because his father died. Just go ahead and say it if that's what you
> really
> > think. Because that's the only thing you can possibly be thinking when
you
> > make a comment like this.
>
> No, I'm not dinging Bonds over taking some games off because of his
> dad's health.
Twelve games. And yes you are, as you prove below:
> If you don't play (for whatever reason), you don't get credit.
> That goes for illness in the family, your own injuries, wartime,
> earthquake, the stadium lights go out in the 4th inning, and even rainouts
> that wash out your at bats and the game when you hit 2 HRs, etc.
I know I have been tossing this accusation around a little too often this
year, but I'm starting to think you are Noah.
rb
Greg Lentz
Yep.
Greg Lentz
dave yan
<london...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Steven Rubio <sru...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>Does Barry change the dynamics of the Giants lineup? Yes. Does this
>>mean "teams change their pitching strategies to others in the lineup
>>hitting before Barry?" I don't see the connection, unless you want to
>>argue that they try even harder to get those guys out so no one is on
>>base for Barry.
>
>ISTR an opposition manager saying, basicallg, the strategy for every
>inning is dictated by where Bonds is due in the lineup. Pretty sure it
>was inSeptember, but I don't have the reference to hand.
brad ausmus, the catcher for the astros, a team playing in pujols'
division, said the same thing. to paraphrase: albert is having a great
year, but there is no one in the game like barry. you have to remember
when he's due up *and* you have to keep in mind a place to put him
when he comes up. bonds is the mvp hands down.
and ausmus said this before bonds had the walk-off home-run games
against atlanta.
---
dy
Jamal Bernhard
>>Also IMO, it's totally obvious that Bonds' impact extends beyond just his
>>individual at-bats. The fact that it can't be proven statistically in no
>>way shakes my belief that Bonds makes his teammates better just by being
>>in the lineup.
>
>
> Believe anything you want. But that doesn't make it true.
That's funny, I was going to say the same thing to you.
You're such an obvious homer that I can't take your arguments seriously.
Jamal Bernhard
> Do you have any evidence to support your claim that Bonds improves
> everyone else because he receives a lot of attention?
If I could provide statistical evidence, then that evidence would
already be utilized by the sabermatricians. My point was that there are
some aspects of a players' worth that are difficult to quantify
statistically. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
I still believe that some players are better hitters in the clutch than
others. There's no way you can convince me otherwise, because in my
years of playing organized baseball I saw hitters' personalities and how
their mental approaches at the plate changed (sometimes for better,
sometimes for worse) in pressure situations. Yet this has still not been
"proven" statistically because sample sizes in the major leagues are too
small to find statistically significant differences.
And that's just one example of something that *is* easy to quantify.
I suppose someone could look at player's carrer numbers with/without
Bonds in the lineup -- at least in the 2-5 slots where it has the
biggest impact.
Steven Rubio
<jamalb.s...@pacbell.goodbyespam.net> wrote:
>Steven Rubio wrote:
>
>> Do you have any evidence to support your claim that Bonds improves
>> everyone else because he receives a lot of attention?
>
>If I could provide statistical evidence, then that evidence would
>already be utilized by the sabermatricians. My point was that there are
>some aspects of a players' worth that are difficult to quantify
>statistically. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
I have no problem with the above. But on the one hand, you have
information that can be quantified, with detailed analysis that has
been shown in the past to be useful in evaluating performance, and on
the other hand you have anecdotal evidence like "I played ball and I
remember what it was like." The burden of proof, or if you prefer, the
burden of suggesting something is more likely true than not, is with
the anecdotal folks. It's like the arguments about J.T.'s defense: one
side says "here is what years of statistical analysis suggest about
Snow's contributions," the other side says "yes, but once I saw him
make a great play, and once Aurilia said he likes to throw to J.T."
It's not that the former are clearly right and the latter are clearly
wrong, it's that the latter rely on less-useful evidence, and, in the
end, always seem to be bragging about it ("hey, sabermetrics gives me
a headache, I know what I see when I watch J.T. play, that's good
enough for me").
My own sense, without looking at numbers but just using "common sense"
or whatever it is you folks are utilizing, is that the stuff you
describe would make the other hitters worse, not better. I can imagine
opposing pitchers bearing down more against the other Giants hitters,
because they don't want anyone on base when Barry comes up, because
they want to get those guys out so Barry doesn't bat quite as often,
because they know they'll get a breather when they intentionally walk
Barry. I don't know if any of those things are true ... I'm just
looking at aspects of the game that might not be quantifiable. What I
*am* saying is there are many more ways to read "Bonds gets a lot of
attention" than are being tossed about here, and it remains unclear to
me that the attention paid to Bonds makes his teammates into better
hitters. You say one thing, I say another ... at some point, it's nice
to grab hold of something more concrete than "I have an opinion," and
when we get to that point, sabermetrics is a useful tool.
Steven
Honus Wagner
news:bk3bpv4bneum8e9p6...@4ax.com...
I don't disagree about sabermetrics vs anecdotal, but your statement above
I don't agree with. The "theory" is that pitchers do not want guys to get
on around Barry so they are going to give them more fastballs to hit and at
a lower velocity to be sure to throw it in the strike zone. As most players
hit fastballs better than breaking balls or off speed pitches, it figures
that guys should hit better with Barry in the lineup than without. I see no
real way to "prove" this theory as there is not enough sample size to look
at.
>
> Steven
Steven Rubio
<hea...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>I see no real way to "prove" this theory as there is not enough
>sample size to look at.
Which is why I remain skeptical. Meanwhile, this probably accurately
describes the thinking of some, but it makes no logical sense:
>The "theory" is that pitchers do not want guys to get
>on around Barry so they are going to give them more fastballs to hit and at
>a lower velocity to be sure to throw it in the strike zone. As most players
>hit fastballs better than breaking balls or off speed pitches, it figures
>that guys should hit better with Barry in the lineup than without.
OK, first there's the theory that pitchers don't want guys on base
around Barry. (Well, they don't EVER want guys on base, so how much
Barry influences this would seem problematic, but we'll go with it for
the sake of argument.) If this is true, pitchers will do their best to
get those other hitters out. If it's true that most players hit
fastballs better than they hit the off-speed stuff, and if it's true
that pitchers don't want guys on base around Barry, then there's no
logic to the notion that they'll give those hitters more fastballs to
hit when Barry is looming in the on-deck circle. If you're correct,
they should throw those hitters FEWER good pitches to hit when Barry
is in the lineup, which in this case, if you're correct, means fewer
fastballs, not more frequent fastballs.
The logic depends on hitters doing better in the context of Barry
because pitchers will give them easier stuff to hit, and the reason
they will do this is because they want to get those batters out even
more when Barry is around. Huh?
Steven
j...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: I don't disagree about sabermetrics vs anecdotal, but your statement above
: I don't agree with. The "theory" is that pitchers do not want guys to get
: on around Barry so they are going to give them more fastballs to hit and at
: a lower velocity to be sure to throw it in the strike zone. As most players
: hit fastballs better than breaking balls or off speed pitches, it figures
: that guys should hit better with Barry in the lineup than without. I see no
: real way to "prove" this theory as there is not enough sample size to look
: at.
OK, now think about that. The theory is that pitchers are just incredibly
stupid, right? Bonds to come -- so lets turn Aurilia from, say, a .250
hitter with occassional walks and some power into a .300 hitter with few
walks and lots of power. Does that make any sense at all?
I *do* think managers have to deal with Bonds, and that can feel like he's
dominating the game. Do you walk Cruz to get to the pitcher? Well, that
might get you out of this inning, but it marginally increases the odds
that Bonds gets up another time. What about bringing in a new pitcher?
Well, we're going to want Lefty #1 against Bonds in the 7th, and Lefty #2
if he bats in the 9th, so perhaps we *do* need to double-switch
now....that sort of thing. All that stuff is real, and does have some
real effects, but it's not the sort of thing that would add 30 points to a
batting average. The effect that should be easiest to see would be walks
declining for Giants hitters other than Bonds, and I don't think that has
been the pattern.
And of course he dominates as far as *watching* the game, or understanding
the flow of the game, and it shouldn't be surprising that opposing
managers and players are not immune to it.
Now, what I have seen plenty of times is Aurilia at the plate and a
Sutcliffe or someone like that will talk about how Aurilia's going to get
nothing but fast balls, and then he'll walk on a slider in the dirt, and
then he'll come up again and Sutcliffe will say the same thing.
So I'd say some of it is real changes in the game, some of it is real but
has no effect on the game, and some of it is really persistent myth.
All that said...players who went to the Giants over the period I studied,
which was 1993-2001, tended to improve over STATS forecasts. I thought,
and still think, it was a Dusty Baker effect, but it could be Bonds.
Without the STATS forecasts this year, I haven't been able to continue it,
alas, but my impression is that it was the Cubs, and not the Giants new
hitters, who did better than expected (Grissom on the good side, but Cruz
and Alfonzo on the down side, with Durham just about as would be guessed).
IOW, I think there *could* be an effect. My guess is that if it's Bonds
it's more about being around him than about hitting close to him, but
that's just guessing.
JHB
Honus Wagner
news:bn4c6c$f8a$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> Honus Wagner <hea...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> : I don't disagree about sabermetrics vs anecdotal, but your statement
above
> : I don't agree with. The "theory" is that pitchers do not want guys to
get
> : on around Barry so they are going to give them more fastballs to hit and
at
> : a lower velocity to be sure to throw it in the strike zone. As most
players
> : hit fastballs better than breaking balls or off speed pitches, it
figures
> : that guys should hit better with Barry in the lineup than without. I
see no
> : real way to "prove" this theory as there is not enough sample size to
look
> : at.
>
> OK, now think about that. The theory is that pitchers are just incredibly
> stupid, right? Bonds to come -- so lets turn Aurilia from, say, a .250
> hitter with occassional walks and some power into a .300 hitter with few
> walks and lots of power. Does that make any sense at all?
I am not sure your point necessarily discredits mine: Hypothetical:
Aurillia: .239 hitter, .314 OBP, .424 SLG% against off speed pitches
Aurillia: .250 hitter, .290 OBP, .500 SLG% against fastballs
Bonds: Probability of hitting HR or 2b = 18%
Thus, 5.22% Bonds drives in Aurillia if Aurillia gets a fastball. 5.65%
Bonds drives in Aurillia if he gets a breaking ball. Aurillia only homers
about 2% of the time.
It seems to me that the choice to throw a fastball or a breaking ball in
this case all comes down to the pitchers ability to throw the breaking ball
for a strike.
For a guy like Durham who actually will take a walk and does not hit for
much power, then the option for the pitcher is more pronounced in favor of
the fastball.
dave yan
>On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:24:37 -0700, "Honus Wagner"
><hea...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>>I see no real way to "prove" this theory as there is not enough
>>sample size to look at.
>
>Which is why I remain skeptical. Meanwhile, this probably accurately
>describes the thinking of some, but it makes no logical sense:
>
>>The "theory" is that pitchers do not want guys to get
>>on around Barry so they are going to give them more fastballs to hit and at
>>a lower velocity to be sure to throw it in the strike zone. As most players
>>hit fastballs better than breaking balls or off speed pitches, it figures
>>that guys should hit better with Barry in the lineup than without.
>
>OK, first there's the theory that pitchers don't want guys on base
>around Barry. (Well, they don't EVER want guys on base, so how much
>Barry influences this would seem problematic, but we'll go with it for
>the sake of argument.) If this is true, pitchers will do their best to
>get those other hitters out. If it's true that most players hit
>fastballs better than they hit the off-speed stuff, and if it's true
>that pitchers don't want guys on base around Barry, then there's no
>logic to the notion that they'll give those hitters more fastballs to
>hit when Barry is looming in the on-deck circle. If you're correct,
>they should throw those hitters FEWER good pitches to hit when Barry
>is in the lineup, which in this case, if you're correct, means fewer
>fastballs, not more frequent fastballs.
>
i can see both sides of the argument.
what i think is that on 3-1 or 3-2 counts, the hitter will more likely
see a fastball than an off-speed pitch since pitchers have better
control with the fastball. what is probably too small a sample size to
measure is how much more often a pitcher will throw a fastball in that
situation vs. throwing something off-speed.
also, from what managers and players have said in interviews,
awareness of when bonds is due up and where to put him is an issue
that lurks at the minds of the opposition when they play the giants.
so i can definitely see if there are runners on second and third (and
less than two outs), the batter in front of bonds is going to get
something to hit as the pitcher would want to have first base open for
bonds. again, that's a small sample size.
but what i glean from that tho' is that fear of bonds, be it rational
or not, may impact the concentration of pitcher. i liken it to having
a base-stealing threat on base; someone like a rickey henderson would
divide the concentration of the pitcher. that's an advantage for the
hitter. bonds just provides that distraction for the on-deck circle.
>The logic depends on hitters doing better in the context of Barry
>because pitchers will give them easier stuff to hit, and the reason
>they will do this is because they want to get those batters out even
>more when Barry is around. Huh?
>
well logically, i can't disagree with that.
>Steven
---
dy
Jamal Bernhard
> OK, now think about that. The theory is that pitchers are just incredibly
> stupid, right? Bonds to come -- so lets turn Aurilia from, say, a .250
> hitter with occassional walks and some power into a .300 hitter with few
> walks and lots of power. Does that make any sense at all?
I think there is another thing going on, though -- a "concentration
level" thing that also comes into play, and is impossible to quantify. I
think Barry's presence in the lineup consumes attention from the other
team, both pitchers who throw the ball and coaches who make strategic
decisions.
It's very hard for a pitcher to have top-level concentration all the way
through a game. There are moments (sometimes a couple pitches, sometimes
a couple hitters, sometimes a couple innings) where pitchers lose
concentration a little bit. Concentration takes energy, and pitchers
have limited energy.
I think a lot of energy is consumed thinking about Bonds and pitchers
really jack up their concentration level when he comes to the plate
(unless they walk him). That usually translates into a lapse in
concentration somewhere else in the lineup.
I think there are a number of factors all contributing to Bonds'
influence on the entire lineup, but because each one has a small impact
it is hard to argue or prove.
a newbie
> <jamalb.s...@pacbell.goodbyespam.net> wrote:
>
> >Steven Rubio wrote:
> >
> >> Do you have any evidence to support your claim that Bonds improves
> >> everyone else because he receives a lot of attention?
> >
> >If I could provide statistical evidence, then that evidence would
> >already be utilized by the sabermatricians.
>
> or whatever it is you folks are utilizing, is that the stuff you
> describe would make the other hitters worse, not better.
You've got to be kidding me. Well, just ask Jeff Kent.
Jamal Bernhard
>>If I could provide statistical evidence, then that evidence would
>>already be utilized by the sabermatricians. My point was that there are
>>some aspects of a players' worth that are difficult to quantify
>>statistically. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
>
>
> I have no problem with the above. But on the one hand, you have
> information that can be quantified, with detailed analysis that has
> been shown in the past to be useful in evaluating performance, and on
> the other hand you have anecdotal evidence like "I played ball and I
> remember what it was like." The burden of proof, or if you prefer, the
> burden of suggesting something is more likely true than not, is with
> the anecdotal folks.
I totally agree -- at face value I'm much more likely to accept a
well-developed statistical argument than anectodal "evidence". But when
you say "burden of proof" what do you mean by "proof"? If you mean
quantitative evidence then you're playing an unfair game, because as you
just agreed there are significant aspects that are difficult (or
impossible) to quantify statistically.
So the question really becomes how we decide when to trust anectodal
evidence. For example, when do we decide if a sociological case study is
"valid"? (Some people -- people who believe quantitative evidence is the
only valid form of evidence -- would say "never"...If you're one of
*those* people then we just have to agree to disagree, but it doesn't
sound like you are.) :-)
If by "burden of proof" you mean providing valid reasons for why
anecdotal evidence should be trustworthy, then I'm with you all the way.
For example:
* I played (adult) organized baseball for 12 years at the high school,
college, and semi-pro levels, so I have a relatively large "sample size"
of qualitative evidence to draw from.
* I was a pitcher who hit over .320 until they took the bat out of my
hand in semi-pro ball, so I feel like I have some understanding of the
pitcher/hitter confrontation.
* I was a pitching coach for 4 years so I feel like I got to learn a lot
about the psyche of many different players.
* My degrees are in mathematics and sociology, so I have some
understanding of both what it takes for observations to be statistically
significant and how people's selective memory often distorts their
perception of statistics, and therefore I believe I am more careful
before drawing statistical conclusions from my own personal experience.
* I generally consider myself a bright guy (but I suppose everyone here
can make their own determination about that).
Whether the credentials above lend credibility to my claims depends on
what I'm claiming. When I make a claim about clutch hitters based on
personal experience, for example, I hope that the "evidence" above helps
meet the "burden of proof" (not to mention that most people I've talked
to who have been close to baseball for many years also believe as I do
on this). If people take the evidence above with a grain of salt and
refuse to place any merit in what I say, then that's fine.
My beliefs about Barry making the rest of the team better are much less
rooted in my experience than my beliefs about clutch hitting (which is
why I am not nearly as attached to that opinion as I am to my opinions
about clutch hitting). :-)
In another post I argued that Barry makes others better partly because
he affects the mental concentration level of pitchers...that *is* based
on personal experience. Anyone who pitches and is remotely
self-reflexive notices how concentration level is not constant, and how
working harder to get certain hitters out often leads to a lapse of
concentration somewhere else in the lineup. (A much more obvious example
is a pitcher spending too much concentration on a fast runner and losing
concentration on the hitter.) I do believe that plays a role, but
exactly how significant a role is impossible for me to speculate on.
I also think there is a mental lift that comes from playing around
someone like Bonds that rubs off on players and makes them play at a
higher level -- Grissom made several references to that this year. Some
managers seem to get more out of their players than others, and I think
some players get more out of their teammates than others. Barry seems to
be one of those players, though explaining why (and thus providing more
quantitative proof) is difficult. (It seems easier to explain in other
sports where there is more interaction among teammates during play.)
So, while other people seem to be making more statistical arguments
about why Bonds makes other players better (pitchers throw more strikes
to them, etc etc..), I believe the impact is more on the mental side of
the game. This is certainly based *some* on my personal experience but
perhaps not enough so that I will convince anyone else who is skeptical
(and also not enough so that I cannot be convinced otherwise if a valid
argument is made against it, but so far I have not seen one).
Steven Rubio
Nice trim job! Just in case you forgot, though, here's the two full
paragraphs I wrote that you mostly deleted:
I have no problem with the above. But on the one hand, you have
information that can be quantified, with detailed analysis that has
been shown in the past to be useful in evaluating performance, and on
the other hand you have anecdotal evidence like "I played ball and I
remember what it was like." The burden of proof, or if you prefer, the
burden of suggesting something is more likely true than not, is with
the anecdotal folks. It's like the arguments about J.T.'s defense: one
side says "here is what years of statistical analysis suggest about
Snow's contributions," the other side says "yes, but once I saw him
make a great play, and once Aurilia said he likes to throw to J.T."
It's not that the former are clearly right and the latter are clearly
wrong, it's that the latter rely on less-useful evidence, and, in the
end, always seem to be bragging about it ("hey, sabermetrics gives me
a headache, I know what I see when I watch J.T. play, that's good
enough for me").
My own sense, without looking at numbers but just using "common sense"
or whatever it is you folks are utilizing, is that the stuff you
j...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: j...@socrates.Berkeley.EDU wrote:
:> OK, now think about that. The theory is that pitchers are just incredibly
:> stupid, right? Bonds to come -- so lets turn Aurilia from, say, a .250
:> hitter with occassional walks and some power into a .300 hitter with few
:> walks and lots of power. Does that make any sense at all?
: I think there is another thing going on, though -- a "concentration
: level" thing that also comes into play, and is impossible to quantify. I
: think Barry's presence in the lineup consumes attention from the other
: team, both pitchers who throw the ball and coaches who make strategic
: decisions.
It's possible -- I talked about this elsewhere in this thread. I
disagree about it being impossible to quantify. If it's true, we
should be able to measure it.
Someone should run the numbers for Barry playing/Barry not playing.
That'd be a start.
: It's very hard for a pitcher to have top-level concentration all the way
: through a game. There are moments (sometimes a couple pitches, sometimes
: a couple hitters, sometimes a couple innings) where pitchers lose
: concentration a little bit. Concentration takes energy, and pitchers
: have limited energy.
: I think a lot of energy is consumed thinking about Bonds and pitchers
: really jack up their concentration level when he comes to the plate
: (unless they walk him). That usually translates into a lapse in
: concentration somewhere else in the lineup.
With all respect, I think there's a very strong possibility that your
experience is misleading you.
I think that guys who make it to the majors are the very few who *can*
maintain that kind of concentration and intensity throughout the game. I
can't prove that one, but OTOH I think that evidence from personal
experience below, say, AA ball, really doesn't apply.
For example, I think it's very likely that there are clutch hitters at
lower levels. On this one, I think the studies are pretty convincing that
if there are clutch hitters in MLB, the effect is very, very small. It's
certainly possible that those who can't do their best all the time (one
way of looking at clutch performance) don't make it to the majors; it's
likely that those who can't do their best in high-stress situations don't
make it to the majors.
JHB
Jamal Bernhard
> : I think a lot of energy is consumed thinking about Bonds and pitchers
> : really jack up their concentration level when he comes to the plate
> : (unless they walk him). That usually translates into a lapse in
> : concentration somewhere else in the lineup.
>
> With all respect, I think there's a very strong possibility that your
> experience is misleading you.
>
> I think that guys who make it to the majors are the very few who *can*
> maintain that kind of concentration and intensity throughout the game.
Are you saying you've never seen a major league pitcher lose
concentration? When someone throws 8 balls in a row, what do you think
is causing that? Sometimes it's mechanical, but a lot of time it's mental.
I guess we're totally going to disagree on this. I agree that major
leaguers in general have a higher concentration level than minor
leaguers, but it's not as cut-and-dried as "major leaguers are the ones
that can maintain concentration throughout the game". Mental toughness
is one aspect of being a great player, but there are *lots* of pro
players that have great talent but whose concentration level and mental
toughness is no better than the average minor leaguer.
My concentration level was one of the best in the league, yet I
consistently saw pitchers with better talent (rightfully) move up the
ladder. Physical ability reins supreme -- coaches assume they can teach
mental toughness.
How many Giants over the years have we accused of being a head case?
What is that besides lack of concentration? Even the ones who are not
head cases still lose concentration sometime. The great ones do so very
rarely.
> For example, I think it's very likely that there are clutch hitters at
> lower levels. On this one, I think the studies are pretty convincing that
> if there are clutch hitters in MLB, the effect is very, very small. It's
> certainly possible that those who can't do their best all the time (one
> way of looking at clutch performance) don't make it to the majors; it's
> likely that those who can't do their best in high-stress situations don't
> make it to the majors.
Why? If I'm a .325 hitter 95% of the time and a .275 hitter in pressure
situations, why wouldn't I be in the majors? The whole problem with
quantifying clutch hitting is that the sample sizes are so small that
you need a big discrepancy before it turns up as statistically
significant. And that's for players who have played for years and years
and have accumulated a lot of such at-bats, and these are precisely the
players who are more likely to hit the same in these situations (and
incidentally were the players focused on in studies).
It's been a while since I looked at the studies on clutch hitting, but
my interpretation of them at the time was that clutch hitting could
still exist with a small-medium effect for many players and the sample
sizes for these players are too small to detect this difference.
j...@socrates.berkeley.edu
:> I think that guys who make it to the majors are the very few who *can*
:> maintain that kind of concentration and intensity throughout the game.
: Are you saying you've never seen a major league pitcher lose
: concentration? When someone throws 8 balls in a row, what do you think
: is causing that? Sometimes it's mechanical, but a lot of time it's mental.
I don't want to say that nothing in pitching can be mental; I don't
believe that. I *do* think we tend to massively overstate the mental side
of things. But with pitching, I do think that some of it is mental.
OTOH, is it concentration? I pretty much doubt that. I do think that
failure to control emotions can and does matter.
[...]
: How many Giants over the years have we accused of being a head case?
: What is that besides lack of concentration? Even the ones who are not
: head cases still lose concentration sometime. The great ones do so very
: rarely.
I think that most fans are far too eager to attribute pitching problems to
the guy being a head case, when in fact much of the time it's just a lack
of talent. Or stupidity; I do think that being smart matters for
pitchers, and some of them are not very pitching-smart. But the head case
stuff I think is used as an explanation *way* too easily.
:> For example, I think it's very likely that there are clutch hitters at
:> lower levels. On this one, I think the studies are pretty convincing that
:> if there are clutch hitters in MLB, the effect is very, very small. It's
:> certainly possible that those who can't do their best all the time (one
:> way of looking at clutch performance) don't make it to the majors; it's
:> likely that those who can't do their best in high-stress situations don't
:> make it to the majors.
: Why? If I'm a .325 hitter 95% of the time and a .275 hitter in pressure
: situations, why wouldn't I be in the majors?
Because you wouldn't win the job; you would be hitting .275 in all of the
ABs in spring training, and April, and when you're called up because
someone got hurt, and when the scouts are in the stands in the minors and
in college.
: The whole problem with
: quantifying clutch hitting is that the sample sizes are so small that
: you need a big discrepancy before it turns up as statistically
: significant. And that's for players who have played for years and years
: and have accumulated a lot of such at-bats, and these are precisely the
: players who are more likely to hit the same in these situations (and
: incidentally were the players focused on in studies).
: It's been a while since I looked at the studies on clutch hitting, but
: my interpretation of them at the time was that clutch hitting could
: still exist with a small-medium effect for many players and the sample
: sizes for these players are too small to detect this difference.
I guess I'd say the same except for the word "mediu".
JHB
a newbie
<j...@socrates.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
news:bn526a$nag$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> Jamal Bernhard <jamalb.s...@pacbell.goodbyespam.net> wrote:
>
> : It's very hard for a pitcher to have top-level concentration all the
way
> : through a game. There are moments (sometimes a couple pitches,
sometimes
> : a couple hitters, sometimes a couple innings) where pitchers lose
> : concentration a little bit. Concentration takes energy, and pitchers
> : have limited energy.
>
> : I think a lot of energy is consumed thinking about Bonds and
pitchers
> : really jack up their concentration level when he comes to the plate
> : (unless they walk him). That usually translates into a lapse in
> : concentration somewhere else in the lineup.
>
> With all respect, I think there's a very strong possibility that your
> experience is misleading you.
>
> I think that guys who make it to the majors are the very few who *can*
> maintain that kind of concentration and intensity throughout the game.
I
> can't prove that one, but OTOH I think that evidence from personal
> experience below, say, AA ball, really doesn't apply.
I think you're overestimating major league players. I see plenty of
cases where a pitcher's concentration level (well, call it concentration
or mental toughness or whatever, as long as we know what we're talking
about) is not maintained throughout the game:
Example 1: Shawn Estes.
Example 2: We've all seen many times when a pitcher is cruising along
brilliantly, but then gives up a solo HR to someone. Suddenly he can't
throw strikes anymore to the next couple of hitters, totally losing his
concentration and control.
Example 3: (I've seen this at least twice this season on Sportscenter,
but I don't recall the pitchers' names) A pitcher is ordered to give an
intentionally walk, and afterward he's lost the strikezone, throwing 4
or more consecutive balls to the subsequent hitters.
Example 4: (mentioned here not long ago) Rickey Henderson.
Example 5: (we Giants fans should know this one well) A pitcher is
cruising along just fine, then someone makes a fielding error. The
pitcher suddenly gives up hits after hits or walking hitters.
a newbie
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:15:07 -0700, "a newbie"
> <SF_G...@PacBellPark.OPS> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Steven Rubio" <sru...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> >news:bk3bpv4bneum8e9p6...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:51:08 -0700, Jamal Bernhard
> >> <jamalb.s...@pacbell.goodbyespam.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Steven Rubio wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Do you have any evidence to support your claim that Bonds
improves
> >> >> everyone else because he receives a lot of attention?
> >> >
> >> >If I could provide statistical evidence, then that evidence would
> >> >already be utilized by the sabermatricians.
> >>
> >> My own sense, without looking at numbers but just using "common
sense"
> >> or whatever it is you folks are utilizing, is that the stuff you
> >> describe would make the other hitters worse, not better.
> >
> >You've got to be kidding me. Well, just ask Jeff Kent.
>
> Nice trim job! Just in case you forgot, though, here's the two full
> paragraphs I wrote that you mostly deleted:
Yes, I saw the other two paragraphs, but you said it yourself above that
you derived the above from your "common sense". My comment refers to
your common sense. I saw the sentence "I have no problem with the
above", but if you have no problem with it, then why make a statement
that you don't believe in? Otoh, if you believe in your statement, then
I question your common sense, because it sure is not common. It's one
thing to say Bonds doesn't make hitters around him better, but it's
totally different when you said "the stuff you describe would make the
other hitters worse, not better." I don't think you can find a single
soul, not even a dodger fan, to agree with your common sense that Bonds
makes hitters around him *worse*.
> I have no problem with the above. But on the one hand, you have
> information that can be quantified, with detailed analysis that has
> been shown in the past to be useful in evaluating performance, and on
> the other hand you have anecdotal evidence like "I played ball and I
> remember what it was like." The burden of proof, or if you prefer, the
> burden of suggesting something is more likely true than not, is with
> the anecdotal folks. It's like the arguments about J.T.'s defense: one
> side says "here is what years of statistical analysis suggest about
> Snow's contributions," the other side says "yes, but once I saw him
> make a great play,
I also find this example as unfair and biased, i.e., you exaggerate the
opposing side's statements to being ridiculous. It's true that some
people have over-valued Snow's defense, saying his defense offsets his
offense. But I don't think anyone has used "yes, but once I saw him
make a great play" as the argument.
> and once Aurilia said he likes to throw to J.T."
> It's not that the former are clearly right and the latter are clearly
> wrong, it's that the latter rely on less-useful evidence, and, in the
> end, always seem to be bragging about it ("hey, sabermetrics gives me
> a headache, I know what I see when I watch J.T. play, that's good
> enough for me").
Is that really considered "bragging"? It sounds like it's simply
someone's opinion that you don't agree with.
> My own sense, without looking at numbers but just using "common sense"
> or whatever it is you folks are utilizing, is that the stuff you
> describe would make the other hitters worse, not better. I can imagine
> opposing pitchers bearing down more against the other Giants hitters,
Just using your own medicine, does a pitcher's "bearing down" against
someone produces more outs? Are there any statistical proof of the
effect of "bearing down" getting hitters out more often?
> because they don't want anyone on base when Barry comes up, because
> they want to get those guys out so Barry doesn't bat quite as often,
> because they know they'll get a breather when they intentionally walk
> Barry. I don't know if any of those things are true ... I'm just
> looking at aspects of the game that might not be quantifiable. What I
> *am* saying is there are many more ways to read "Bonds gets a lot of
> attention" than are being tossed about here, and it remains unclear to
> me that the attention paid to Bonds makes his teammates into better
> hitters. You say one thing, I say another ... at some point, it's nice
> to grab hold of something more concrete than "I have an opinion," and
> when we get to that point, sabermetrics is a useful tool.
I don't think anyone's saying sabermetrics is not a useful tool, but
that's different from live and die by it. I think some people are on
the belief that sabermetrics are not *always* right, and they're not
limiting themselves to things that are quantifiable. There are plenty
of stuff in baseball that are not quantifiable or not easily
quantifiable, but saying "I don't believe it" or "I don't agree with it
because there's no statistical proof" is limiting yourself, and being
rigid and stubborn. I guess statheads would laugh at the concepts of
baseball gods and earnest ragging, demanding statistical proof, while
Gregg would say, "Oh yeah? But.... it is *true*! You just have to
believe in it!"
Jamal Bernhard
> : Are you saying you've never seen a major league pitcher lose
> : concentration? When someone throws 8 balls in a row, what do you think
> : is causing that? Sometimes it's mechanical, but a lot of time it's mental.
>
> I don't want to say that nothing in pitching can be mental; I don't
> believe that. I *do* think we tend to massively overstate the mental side
> of things. But with pitching, I do think that some of it is mental.
> OTOH, is it concentration? I pretty much doubt that. I do think that
> failure to control emotions can and does matter.
It sounds like we're meaning the same thing but using different terms. I
basically equate "mental" with "concentration". Good concentration means
focusing all (or most) of your mental energy on the task at hand. There
are lots of things that can result in a lack of concentration, and
failure to control emotions is one of them (and, as you said, an
important one). Over-active emotions take mental energy away from the
task at hand, as does thinking about the guy on deck, the guy running at
first, or the guy screwing your wife. :-)
There are multiple reasons why the mental aspect of the game is more
important for pitchers than position players, but I think it boils down
to an important relationship between physical and mental performance:
(a) Mental exhaustion can lead to physical mistakes
(b) Physical exhaustion can lead to mental mistakes
Pitchers expend much more mental energy (on defense) than position
players. Fielders have to think about their positioning, the situation
(how many outs, runners on base, etc), and what they will do if the ball
comes to them, and these are usually once-per-batter decisions. Pitchers
have to "concentrate" a lot more between each pitch.
Pitchers also expend much more physical energy (on defense) than
position players. They are pushing their body to its physical limit at
the exact same time that they are required to have mental concentration.
(To me, the "same time" aspect of it is important.)
Pitchers that do not have the proper mental toughness can become
mentally exhausted before they become physically exhausted, and that
mental exhaustion can lead to bad pitches. It is a well-documented
phenomenon, although I don't understand the physiology of it. The way I
think about it is if you are becoming mentally fatigued, then you must
spend more of your "total energy" on the mental side of things to
maintain the same level of concentration, and that can lead to a
physical letdown.
Similarly, a pitcher that is physically exhausted can find it tougher to
concentrate mentally. Anyone who has tried to concentrate mental energy
on something when they are physically exhausted can relate to this, and
yes of course professional athletes can do it the best of anyone but it
still can affect them.
Often the relationship between physical and mental fatigue is overlooked
in sports. (Just ask the chess masters who lose 10 pounds in a one-week
tournament....Yes, I know chess is not a sport.) I believe it plays a
big role for positions like pitcher and quarterback because there is a
deep level of mental analysis and concentration required *during* the
game from these positions. For many positions in many sports the
concentration level focuses primarily on the physical action
(concentrate on hitting the serve, making the jump shot, etc.), while
decision-making is more instinctive and does not require sustained
mental analysis. Of course, physical fatigue can still cause mental
breakdowns for these players, too.
But that's the nature of baseball, with the time in-between each "play"
for that type of deeper mental analaysis, and it's really the main
reason why I love it so much. To me the pitcher-hitter confrontation
combines the mental and physical better than any other sport. If I could
have traded a little of my "mental" for a little more "physical", I
probably could have played longer... :-)
Jamal Bernhard
> Example 1: Shawn Estes.
> Example 2: We've all seen many times when a pitcher is cruising along
> brilliantly, but then gives up a solo HR to someone. Suddenly he can't
> throw strikes anymore to the next couple of hitters, totally losing his
> concentration and control.
> Example 3: (I've seen this at least twice this season on Sportscenter,
> but I don't recall the pitchers' names) A pitcher is ordered to give an
> intentionally walk, and afterward he's lost the strikezone, throwing 4
> or more consecutive balls to the subsequent hitters.
> Example 4: (mentioned here not long ago) Rickey Henderson.
> Example 5: (we Giants fans should know this one well) A pitcher is
> cruising along just fine, then someone makes a fielding error. The
> pitcher suddenly gives up hits after hits or walking hitters.
I believe Example 3 is more often due to physical rather than mental
issues. Because pitchers change their delivery for intentional walks, it
can screw with their muscle memory, and occasionally they can have a
hard time getting their release point back. The others I agree are
mostly mental or "concentration" issues (though occasionally in example
5 going to a stretch after being in the windup for quite awhile can also
have a physical effect on delivery).
j...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: <j...@socrates.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
: I think you're overestimating major league players. I see plenty of
: cases where a pitcher's concentration level (well, call it concentration
: or mental toughness or whatever, as long as we know what we're talking
: about) is not maintained throughout the game:
: Example 1: Shawn Estes.
: Example 2: We've all seen many times when a pitcher is cruising along
: brilliantly, but then gives up a solo HR to someone. Suddenly he can't
: throw strikes anymore to the next couple of hitters, totally losing his
: concentration and control.
: Example 3: (I've seen this at least twice this season on Sportscenter,
: but I don't recall the pitchers' names) A pitcher is ordered to give an
: intentionally walk, and afterward he's lost the strikezone, throwing 4
: or more consecutive balls to the subsequent hitters.
: Example 4: (mentioned here not long ago) Rickey Henderson.
: Example 5: (we Giants fans should know this one well) A pitcher is
: cruising along just fine, then someone makes a fielding error. The
: pitcher suddenly gives up hits after hits or walking hitters.
Here's the thing: I don't know that any of these things are really mental,
and not physical. And I don't know that there's a cause and effect there.
Consider example 6:
Pitcher is cruising along just fine, and then pitcher suddenly gives up
hits and hits.
That's example 5, without the error. And example six happens all the time.
Sometimes there's no explanation; the hits just happen to be bunched
together, just like you can roll a string of sevens at craps. Sometimes,
the explanation is fatigue. Sometimes, it's because one of his pitches
suddenly doesn't work any more; for the run of the mill pitcher, that's
something that seems to just happen all the time.
The thing is that if example 5 happens, everyone is going to attribute it
to the error. But we don't know that's true. We know that sometimes
there'll be an error and then the pitcher continues doing well, and
sometimes he doesn't; we also know that sometimes without an error a
pitcher will continue doing well, and sometimes he won't.
As fans (and I think this is true for players as well, but certainly for
fans), we've been conditioned for 100 years to think of sports as a
contest of wills, and we tend to interpret things that happen in those
terms. In fact, when we play, we tend to interpret things that way. But
we know that we're capable of generating those feelings when we can
objectively tell they don't apply -- as anyone who has ever played craps
can testify to. And so we can't entirely trust the players' testimony,
much less our own conclusions.
(There are lots of studies about this. We know that people can "find"
patterns in random numbers, and are far more likely to "see" nonexistent
patterns when they set out to look for them. We know that people are far
more likely to remember the walk after the IBB than the three-pitch K
after the IBB *if* they think that IBBs cause pitchers to lose control, or
remember the hits after the error if they think that errors cause pitchers
to lose it. That doesn't prove that there's no effect, only that our
unsystematic, unaided memories aren't very good at sorting these things
out).
I'm not saying that no pitcher ever lost his temper; I do think it
happens. I believe that we are far, far, far too quick to attribute
physical limitations to mental deficiencies.
And, yes, I think Shawn Estes is a case in point. I don't think he's very
good. I think all this stuff about him not having mental toughness went
like this:
1. First things we here about him are goofy off-field stuff, like the
bike incident.
2. He got off to a terrific start (partially a function of run support),
thus raising hopes unrealistically.
3. He got hurt; he was pitching a bit over his head to begin with, plus
the run support made it seem even better, and then he got hurt and lost
some zip on his fast ball.
4. That made him a mediocre pitcher who everyone thought was really good.
So when his mediocre stuff got him belted more often than not, people
attributed it to the goofiness (see above), rather than understanding that
bad pitchers tend to give up lots of runs.
JHB
Jamal Bernhard
> (There are lots of studies about this. We know that people can "find"
> patterns in random numbers, and are far more likely to "see" nonexistent
> patterns when they set out to look for them. We know that people are far
> more likely to remember the walk after the IBB than the three-pitch K
> after the IBB *if* they think that IBBs cause pitchers to lose control, or
> remember the hits after the error if they think that errors cause pitchers
> to lose it. That doesn't prove that there's no effect, only that our
> unsystematic, unaided memories aren't very good at sorting these things
> out).
>
> I'm not saying that no pitcher ever lost his temper; I do think it
> happens. I believe that we are far, far, far too quick to attribute
> physical limitations to mental deficiencies.
Well, it seems like you're making two distinct arguments:
(A) People are too quick to find patterns in random numbers.
(B) People are too quick to attribute athletic failure to mental rather
than physical reasons.
These arguments are not disjoint. For example in the "4 hits in a row
after an error case" (or any situation of pitcher "failure", for that
matter), the possibilites are:
(1) Mental "failure" (the pitcher pitches worse due to lost
concentration because of the error)
(2) Physical "failure" (the pitcher pitches worse due to physical
fatigue or some other physical issue like going from a windup to a stretch)
(3) Random chance (pitcher is still pitching just as effectively but we
rolled a few sixes in a row)
Argument (A) basically says that people are too quick to assume it's (1)
or (2) when it's really (3). Argument (B) basically says that when
people find a pattern they are too quick to assume it's (1) when it's
really (2).
I couldn't agree with you more on (A). On (B) I'm much more hesitant.
When someone gives up 4 hits in a row after an error, it could be a good
chance that we're dealing with (3), but it's a fairly big coincidence if
we're dealing with (2) given the rate that errors occur, especially if
we're not in the late innings and the pitcher was cruising up to that point.
I'm not trying to give the mental aspect equal weight. If it did, I'd be
pitching right now. ;-) My point is that when we see a pitcher "lose
it" on the mound and we believe (hopefully for some valid reason) that
it's due to a mental deficiency, we might very well be wrong, but if we
*are* wrong I believe it's much more likely that it's due to (3) rather
than (2).
And I'm not even sure how often people really believe someone's failure
is mental. I mean, we talk about "head cases" every so often, and
occasionally we get the "4 hits after an error thing" or the "can't
throw a strike after an IBB" thing, or we see a pitcher's demeanor
change on the mound and believe it's a mental thing. But relatively
speaking these things don't happen very often in the majors, and when
they *do* happen I think they are more likely due to mental rather than
physical defiencies (though it is perhaps more likely it was just
chance). I still think most of the time when we see a pitcher lose it,
we think it's because he sucks (physically, that is). So I don't think I
agree that people are far too quick to attribute physical limitations to
mental deficiencies.
I do certainly agree that there are times where a pitcher has bad
mechanics or some other physical problem that is hard to detect and when
he gets hit we attribute it to mental rather than physical problems. But
I also believe that sometimes we might think a pitcher stinks physically
(i.e., has no talent) when some of his failure is due to mental issues.
In any case, you may be right to a certain extent, but I believe the
random chance thing is a far bigger phallacy that people fall into
rather than the physical vs mental thing.
Jamal Bernhard
> or the "can't
> throw a strike after an IBB" thing
I shouldn't have used this as an example. As I stated in another post, I
believe that this is usually due to physical rather than mental issues
(when it is not due to chance, that is).
j...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: In any case, you may be right to a certain extent, but I believe the
: random chance thing is a far bigger phallacy that people fall into
: rather than the physical vs mental thing.
And with that, I'll quit. The only disagreement I have with the post here
that I clipped was about how often people attribute stuff to mental
failings.
JHB
Jamal Bernhard
> : In any case, you may be right to a certain extent, but I believe the
> : random chance thing is a far bigger phallacy that people fall into
> : rather than the physical vs mental thing.
>
> And with that, I'll quit. The only disagreement I have with the post here
> that I clipped was about how often people attribute stuff to mental
> failings.
Fair enough...It was a fun thread -- thanks :-)
Gregg Pearlman
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Jamal Bernhard" <jamalb.s...@pacbell.goodbyespam.net> wrote in
> message news:1066762375.749792@sj-nntpcache-3...
> > I still believe that some players are better hitters in the clutch than
> > others. There's no way you can convince me otherwise, because in my
> > years of playing organized baseball I saw hitters' personalities and how
> > their mental approaches at the plate changed (sometimes for better,
> > sometimes for worse) in pressure situations. Yet this has still not been
> > "proven" statistically because sample sizes in the major leagues are too
> > small to find statistically significant differences.
>
> We have proof some hitters *are* better in the clutch than others, with
> more than large enough sample sizes (100+ ABs) to make a strong case!
>
> Runners in Scoring Position (RISP)
> from MLB splits:
>
> Player AB H 2b 3b HR RBI BA OBP SLG
>
> Bonds 77 26 5 0 4 40 ,338/.402/.595
> Pujols 131 49 14 0 12 76 .374/.476/.756
>
> Look who comes out ahead in ALL the important categories with Runners in
> Scoring Position, incl. OBP *and* SLG, and BA, too!
>
> The best hitters with RISP for the NL 2003:
> (leaving out Pitchers, and batters with less than 100 ABs; exc. Bonds)
> from MLB splits:
>
> 1. Todd Helton .414/.543/.669 55 for 133
> S. Podsednik .381/.468/.552 40 for 105
> G. Sheffield .379/.472/.621 58 for 153
> I. Rodriguez .375/.463/.583 54 for 144
> A. PUJOLS .374/.476/.756 49 for 131
> then
> B. Abreau
> J. Kent
> M. Loretta
> R. Fick
> J. Lopez
>
> then we come to:
> B. Bonds .338/.402/.595 26 for 77
>
> > And that's just one example of something that *is* easy to quantify.
Well, that's just it: it's one *way* of quantifying. I mean, I look at
the numbers you're providing, and I see a bunch of guys with a minimum
of 105 at-bats "in the clutch" -- defined here as runners in scoring
position. And then we come to Bonds, who has 77 -- and that's not just
because he *missed* some games; it's because when he had a chance to
turn a game around, no one would pitch to him -- at least not very often.
My feeling on clutch hitting is, even if it can't be shown definitively
that it exists, statistically, it at least exists on a psychological
level of some kind. Also, if you're gonna call it "clutch," let's define
some terms. RISP doesn't say very much. If Bonds comes up in the eighth
inning with a runner on second and his team down by six runs, then
grounds out, I don't consider him as having failed in the clutch. I also
pretty much buy into the conclusion that came from the Pythagorean
Theory, which tells us that there's a close relationship between
wins-and-losses and runs-scored-and-allowed, and that is this: It
doesn't matter *when* the runs are scored, just *that* they are scored.
That doesn't keep me from getting pissed off if someone on the Giants
doesn't come through in an important situation, though. And here we come
back to the definition of terms: "runners in scoring position" doesn't
cut it for clutch -- it's too vague. It doesn't take anything into
account except the baserunning situation. To put it more concretely,
how, just as a for-instance, did Pujols and Bonds stack up when batting
in games in which, say, their teams were ahead or behind by no more than
two runs after the seventh inning, regardless of baserunner status?
That's just one example, and I don't know the answer. (I would guess
that Bonds drew *way* more walks, for one thing.) I mean, there's gotta
be some perspective. I'm just not impressed by otherwise unqualified
RISP numbers.
Gregg
a newbie
It certainly can be physical, but I would doubt it's 100% physical (lost
control after IBB). It's not like they never throw to any other base.
At the least I'd say it's 10%/90% mental/physical.
a newbie
<j...@socrates.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
news:bn7935$1f1r$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
<snipped most of the post>
Yes, we really don't know for sure that these things are mental or
physical. I'd bet they're sometimes mental and sometimes physical,
and/or a percentage mental and a percentage physical. I just don't buy
the theory that all the pitchers who've made the major league don't
stumble mentally.
Honus Wagner
news:864mb.4393$wc3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> x-no-archive: yes> message news:1066762375.749792@sj-nntpcache-3...
> > Steven Rubio wrote:
>
> > > Do you have any evidence to support your claim that Bonds improves
> > > everyone else because he receives a lot of attention?
>
> > If I could provide statistical evidence, then that evidence would
> > some aspects of a players' worth that are difficult to quantify
> > statistically. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
>
> > others. There's no way you can convince me otherwise, because in my
> > years of playing organized baseball I saw hitters' personalities and how
> > their mental approaches at the plate changed (sometimes for better,
> > sometimes for worse) in pressure situations. Yet this has still not been
> > "proven" statistically because sample sizes in the major leagues are too
> > small to find statistically significant differences.
>
> We have proof some hitters *are* better in the clutch than others,
with
> more than large enough sample sizes (100+ ABs) to make a strong case!
>
> Runners in Scoring Position (RISP)
> from MLB splits:
>
> Player AB H 2b 3b HR RBI BA OBP SLG
>
> Bonds 77 26 5 0 4 40 ,338/.402/.595
> Pujols 131 49 14 0 12 76 .374/.476/.756
HaHaHa... those numbers are really funny.... Let me guess you made them
up!!!
Bonds real OBP is .654,,,,, that is right, BOnds gets on base over 65% of
the time when runners are in scoring position, while Pujols makes an out
over 53% of the time.
There is a HUGE difference in Bonds' favor in OBP.... a 654 OBP are you
F'ING kidding me that is GOD like.
>
> Look who comes out ahead in ALL the important categories with Runners
in
> Scoring Position, incl. OBP *and* SLG, and BA, too!
>
> The best hitters with RISP for the NL 2003:
> (leaving out Pitchers, and batters with less than 100 ABs; exc. Bonds)
> from MLB splits:
>
> 1. Todd Helton .414/.543/.669 55 for 133
> S. Podsednik .381/.468/.552 40 for 105
> G. Sheffield .379/.472/.621 58 for 153
> I. Rodriguez .375/.463/.583 54 for 144
> A. PUJOLS .374/.476/.756 49 for 131
> then
> B. Abreau
> J. Kent
> M. Loretta
> R. Fick
> J. Lopez
>
> then we come to:
> B. Bonds .338/.402/.595 26 for 77
>
>
> > And that's just one example of something that *is* easy to quantify.
>
> > I suppose someone could look at player's carrer numbers with/without
> > Bonds in the lineup -- at least in the 2-5 slots where it has the
> > biggest impact.
>
>
>
>
Honus Wagner
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Honus Wagner" <hea...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:WJbmb.26$SK5....@news.uswest.net...
> > "Rob Petrie" <r*@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:864mb.4393$wc3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
OK, i have now gone to three sources: ESPN, MLB, CBS and all three confirm
that you made those numbers up.
Here are the numbers from MLB.com:
RISP TEAM G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP SLG
AVG
Runner on 2B San Francisco Giants 46 19 6 7 1 0 1 6 11 25 3 0 0
.727 .579 .368
Runner on 3B San Francisco Giants 17 6 3 2 0 0 0 2 2 9 1 0 0 .733
.333 .333
Runners 1B, 2B San Francisco Giants 79 35 18 8 3 0 2 13 17 14 10 0
0 .460 .486 .229
Runners 1B, 3B San Francisco Giants 31 5 4 4 0 0 1 6 7 6 0 1 0
.909 1.400 .800
Runners 2B, 3B San Francisco Giants 28 1 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 18 0 0 0
.900 .000 .000
Bases Loaded San Francisco Giants 48 11 19 5 1 0 0 12 6 1 0 0 0
.462 .545 .455
RISP San Francisco Giants 115 77 59 26 5 0 4 40 43 73 14 1 0 .654
.558 .338
Note the OBP = .654!!!!!!!!!! May I repeat Un-F'ing believable. I did not
realize that his OBP with runners in Scoring Position was so high!!!!
>
> > Bonds real OBP is .654,,,,, that is right, BOnds gets on base over 65%
of
> > the time when runners are in scoring position, while Pujols makes an out
> > over 53% of the time.
>
> Let me guess--you made them up!!!
>
> > There is a HUGE difference in Bonds' favor in OBP.... a 654 OBP are you
> > F'ING kidding me that is GOD like.
>
> I kid you not. I guess 'God' took a holiday with RISP.
Bill Thompson
1 louder."
"Rob Petrie" <r*@att.net> wrote in message
news:7Tgmb.623$Px2...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Honus Wagner" <hea...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:olfmb.44$SK5....@news.uswest.net...
> > "Rob Petrie" <r*@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:Safmb.411$Px2...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> > > "Honus Wagner" <hea...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:WJbmb.26$SK5....@news.uswest.net...
> > > > "Rob Petrie" <r*@att.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:864mb.4393$wc3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> <snip>
> No, I made an error. I read the OBP and SLG from the player line
> below Bonds with the same BA w/RISP (J.D. Drew .338/.402/.595). Sorry
about
> that!
> Bonds' raw figures are the same as I wrote and the BA, but his
other
> stats are:
>
> .654/.558
>
> <snip>
>
> > RISP San Francisco Giants 115 77 59 26 5 0 4 40 43 73 14 1 0
> .654
> > .558 .338
>
> > Note the OBP = .654!!!!!!!!!! May I repeat Un-F'ing believable. I did
not
> > realize that his OBP with runners in Scoring Position was so high!!!!
>
> Yeah, it's .654 OBP. You want to know why? 'Cause the pitchers gave
> him 73 W's, 53 of them IWs. Big deal! Take out those 53 IWs because of a
> pitcher-mgr. defensive option and his OBP drops to .470. [Pujols to .435]
> Bonds didn't do anything at bat to make those 53 IWs, it was handed to him
> while he just stands there. He only earned 20 Ws w/RISP. A nice way to
> "drive in" those critical runs! [sarcasm]
>
> Pujols' W/IW with RISP is 29/12. All 12 of his IWs for the year were
> with RISP, which sounds logical enough. Bonds' got 53 IW of his 61 IWs
> with RISP, which also sounds logical enough. But 8 IWs were not with
RISP.
> Such as with nobody on-base. Some skill that shows!
>
> Bonds .338/.470/.558 for an IW-adjusted 1.028
> Pujols .374/.435/.756 for an IW-adjusted 1.191
>
> OBP, IW-adjusted = (H + W-IW + HBP) / (AB + W-IW + HBP + SF)
>
> And no pitcher is going to give a batter an IW with a runner on 3b,
so
> that bloated OBP figure non-IW adjusted doesn't give the team any more
RUNS
> on the scoreboard.
> See at the bottom for the RBIs difference between them.
>
> One more thing to be considered with the critical RISP stats between
> Bonds/Pujols --
>
> Bonds had 14 Ks and 3 GIDPs in 77 ABs, while
> Pujols had 15 Ks and 4 GIDPs in 131 ABs; a much smaller percentage
of
> each.
>
>
> > > > Bonds real OBP is .654,,,,, that is right, Bonds gets on base over
65%
> > of
> > > > the time when runners are in scoring position, while Pujols makes an
> out
> > > > over 53% of the time.
>
> 52% (.476 OBP).
>
> Pujols BA is .374. Bonds is .338 or 36 points LESS.
> Pujols SLG is .756
> Bonds SLG is almost 200 points LESS (.558)!
>
> I didn't realize Pujols' SLG was so high!
> Bonds' gets on-base at a higher pct. (courtesy of 53 IWs), but
he
> only drove in 40 Runs!
> Pujols drove in 76 Runs. That's 36 more Runs directly
attributed
> to Pujols w/RISP than Bonds could do for the year.
> RUNS are the name of the game in how to win, not Walks (esp.
IW).
>
>
Arvin Hsu
Rob Petrie <r*@att.net> wrote:
>
> We have proof some hitters *are* better in the clutch than others, with
>more than large enough sample sizes (100+ ABs) to make a strong case!
>
You have no idea what you're talking about do you? Do you understand why
sample size is important? Do you understand what "proof" means?
Here's my only .02 the matter since I doubt the slot machine is accepting
any coins, period:
In order to show that *clutch* exists, one must show that the ability to
hit better with RISP(or whatever you define as a clutch situation)
relative to the rest of the league persists as an _ability_. What's that
mean? It means that a *clutch* ballplayer should perform significantly
better than the league in clutch situations, year-in and year-out.
How do you do that? Identify clutch players(eg. Helton, Pujols), and
compare them over multiple years to the average ballplayer.
Are your clutch players performing better (over their
usual performance) than the average ballplayers? Does this exist over
multiple years?
If you can prove that, you have *clutch*. This 100AB nonsense is just
jibberish.
-Arvin
Jeremy Reaban
"Bill Thompson" <bil...@ixnayontheamspayrgv.rr.com> wrote in message
news:lghmb.8305$rH6...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> Honus, give it up. It's like in Spinal Tap "But, this one goes to
11.. It's
> 1 louder."
>
There's an old saying - "Never argue with someone who uses a character
Dick Van Dyke played as a pseudonym on the internet.
larkin1734
"Arvin Hsu" <ni...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:bnccca$gl$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
: In article <864mb.4393$wc3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
I found this table comparing regular season averages vs postseason averages
for the players with the most postseason at-bats. The lack of formatting
might make it hard to read, but it's best to compare the first number with
the fourth number (reg season avg vs postseason avg), second number with the
firth (reg season obp vs postseason obp), etc. None of them are
significantly better in postseason. Jeter and Jackson are considered great
postseason players, but their postseason numbers are almost identical to
their regular season numbers. Could it be that they seem "clutch" because
their performance doesn't drop off as much as that of the average player?
Is there a easy chart or table comparing a team's WS performance vs their
regular season numbers for that year? I usually assume that WS batting is
worse because the hitters are facing better pitching. The 5th starter (and
sometimes 4th) goes to the bullpen, but the starting lineup doesn't drop the
weakest hitters. If most hitters do worse in the postseason, then the
hitter whose performace doesn't drop looks better by comparison.
REGULAR SEASON POSTSEASON
PLAYER AVG OBP SLG AVG OBP SLG
D. Justice .279 .378 .500 .221 .329 .387
T. Martinez .273 .352 .429 .239 .326 .359
B. Williams .305 .390 .492 .273 .388 .481
D. Jeter .317 .389 .462 .315 .389 .471
P. O'Neill .288 .363 .470 .284 .365 .465
R. Jackson .262 .356 .490 .278 .354 .527
C. Jones .309 .404 .541 .301 .424 .476
K. Lofton .298 .373 .426 .250 .321 .357
P. Rose .303 .375 .409 .321 .385 .440
Y. Berra .285 .348 .482 .274 .354 .452
--
To email directly, use l a r k i n 1 7 3 4 a t e a r t h l i n k d o t n e t