Bonds needs to hire better teammates
Mark Reichert
obviously he needs to hire better teammates who will get on base in
front of him and drive him batting behind him. He should also hire a
better manager, who will actually choose the right people to bat in
front of him and behind him.
Ronald L Matthews
Nobody hates Bonds. Obviously Bonds is a very good player.
Equally clearly, however, is the fact that a good many players in
both leagues have out-performed Bonds this year, for whatever
reason. This is a matter of public record. The people you
accuse of bashing Bonds are actually bashing pseudo stat fans who
won't accept the fact that Bonds' participation in his team's
offense has been nothing special this year.
Now it may be true that Bonds is not a force in baseball this
year because of all the intentional walks. But this does not
change the fact that Bonds is not a force in baseball this year
and all the weaseling by pseudo stat fans trumpeting OPS isn't
going to change that.
cordially, as always,
rm
Bradley K. Sherman
Dusty Baker should be batting Bonds first. Those extra
plate appearances would add up to a lot of extra runs.
--bks
JoshuaBlue
because of your horrible trollness or if you ACTUALLY BELIEVE WHAT YOU
SAY. i mean if you do.. that's just beyond comprehension and it
hurts. its hurts me very badly.
-josh.
Sam222134
>change the fact that Bonds is not a force in baseball this year
>and all the weaseling by pseudo stat fans trumpeting OPS isn't
>going to change that.
please, if someone else had bonds' cartoonish stats, you'd the first one on
your knees.
Ronald L Matthews
michael bakunin
> both leagues have out-performed Bonds this year
Eh? Who? Using what weird-o stat?
Your point, as I read it, is that despite ample demonstration he is
the best hitter in the game, Mr. Bonds has been unable singlehandedly
to win every game for his team. True. Next you'll explain that
Johnson and Schilling can't win games in which they do not pitch.
Despite limited contribution from center, first, and right, the Giants
have the second-most runs scored in their league, playing in a
pitcher's park, second only to a team that plays in a hitter's park.
Go to some baseball games, willya? I've never seen another season to
match. Of which 'clear out-performer' were you thinking?
your pal,
-mb
Sam222134
>You must be new around here.
nope, been around for years; i'm just not a regular. actually, not much has
changed.
Cameron Laird
michael bakunin <bakun...@yahoo.com> wrote:
.
.
.
>Despite limited contribution from center, first, and right, the Giants
>have the second-most runs scored in their league, playing in a
>pitcher's park, second only to a team that plays in a hitter's park.
.
.
Also Aurilia is having a replacement-level year.
Hey, are people enjoying the chance to watch Santiago?
'Seems to me there are two or three heartwarming human-
interest stories brewing there.
Unless it's true that he's now just an alien simulacrum.
--
Cameron Laird <Cam...@Lairds.com>
Business: http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal: http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html
Ronald L Matthews
>> Equally clearly, however, is the fact that a good many players
>> in both leagues have out-performed Bonds this year
> Eh? Who? Using what weird-o stat?
Runs scored and runs driven in. Nothing "weird-o" about those
stats. Those stats lie at the essence of the game.
> Your point, as I read it, is that despite ample demonstration
> he is the best hitter in the game, Mr. Bonds has been unable
> singlehandedly to win every game for his team.
I don't know what you mean by "best hitter" but Bonds simply has
not participated in as many runs scored as 10 or 12 other players
in the NL. I don't expect Bonds to single-handedly do anything.
But if he is the "best hitter" as you say then clearly he should
have participated in a lot more of his team's runs, especially
since his teammates don't seem to have any problem scoring them.
They are amongst the league leaders in runs scored despite the
fact that their offensive horse isn't anywhere nearly as
productive as the big bats on virtually every other NL team.
> True. Next you'll explain that Johnson and Schilling can't win
> games in which they do not pitch.
Oh, I see. You're a troll.
G'nite Martha,
cordially, as always,
rm
Chris Cathcart
rlm thanks you for the compliment, cordially, as always
cc
Hops
"Ronald L Matthews" <r...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:3d74bb64_4@corp-
> But if he is the "best hitter" as you say then clearly he should
> have participated in a lot more of his team's runs, especially
> since his teammates don't seem to have any problem scoring them.
> They are amongst the league leaders in runs scored despite the
> fact that their offensive horse isn't anywhere nearly as
> productive as the big bats on virtually every other NL team.
>
heh. 'despite'?
--
A screaming comes across the sky
Vinay Kumar
>
> Hey, are people enjoying the chance to watch Santiago?
> 'Seems to me there are two or three heartwarming human-
> interest stories brewing there.
In a recent Padres-Giants game, Rick Sutcliffe mentioned what a great
story Santiago's been. He said something like, "People should be
talking about stories like this. I'm sick of hearing about contraction,
a strike or revenue sharing."
Matt Vasgersian responded, "You know what I'm sick of? Listening to
millionaires complaining." He then spent the remainder of the
half-inning complaining about millionaires complaining, which is
actually a bit more irritating than the millionaire complaining in the
first place. What a dolt.
Ronald L Matthews
> heh. 'despite'?
Certainly. Just imagine how many more runs SF would have scored
if they had the bat of an ARod, or a Giambi or a Pujols or at
least a dozen more players in their lineup instead of Baby Bonds.
The superiority of these players over Baby Bonds as run producers
is a matter of public record.
cordially, as always,
rm
--
"It's hard to be more widely scorned than someone who challenges the
conventional wisdom, is not diplomatic while doing so, and is *right*.
A lot of people seem to consider this combination unforgiveable. I
tend to see it as a very high recommendation." Craig Richardson
JoshuaBlue
newsreader? because I don't think I can handle seeing anymore of rm's
posts.
-josh
michael bakunin
> >> in both leagues have out-performed Bonds this year
> > Eh? Who? Using what weird-o stat?
> Runs scored and runs driven in.
Oh, I see. You're a stat-head.
> Nothing "weird-o" about those
> stats. Those stats lie at the essence of the game.
Go watch some baseball, stat boy. It's easy and fun, inexpensive on
television, and with practice you may learn to discern which players
are exceptional and which are not by watching actual games.
> Oh, I see. You're a troll.
I watch a lot of baseball. When you argue there are a dozen other,
better hitters in his league than Mr. Bonds, you make it plainly
apparent that if you do watch any games, you do not understand them.
-mb
John Gregory
> Just imagine how many more runs SF would have scored
> if they had the bat of an ARod, or a Giambi or a Pujols or at
> least a dozen more players in their lineup instead of Baby Bonds.
I'm imagining, oh, about "zero". No, wait, a negative number seems
to be coming through.
What are your grounds for believing that opposing teams would pitch
to an ARod, if plugged into Bonds's spot in the lineup, anymore so
than they do to Bonds himself?
Now, maybe if you had specified Tony Gwynn instead of ARod... the
gravitational pull exerted on the baseball would bring those pitches
intended for the outside back into the strike zone? 8v)
--
John Gregory ashbury at skypoint.com http://www.skypoint.com/ tilde ashbury
Thought for the moment:
Never insult an alligator until you've crossed the river.
Ronald L Matthews
> Go watch some baseball, stat boy. It's easy and fun,
> inexpensive on television, and with practice you may learn to
> discern which players are exceptional and which are not by
> watching actual games.
Which players are exceptional? Is a player exceptional in a team
sport because he helps his team win or because he has nice fat
personal stats? Baby Bonds has nice fat personal stats but lots
of players have participated in scoring more runs than he. Jeff
Kent is one of them.
If you wish to bring my opinion into it, I will say that the
player who participates in the most scoring is more valuable to
the team than the player with the fattest personal stats, unless
of course, both players happen to be the same.
>> Oh, I see. You're a troll.
> I watch a lot of baseball. When you argue there are a dozen
> other, better hitters in his league than Mr. Bonds, you make it
> plainly apparent that if you do watch any games, you do not
> understand them.
Where did I say that there were "better" hitters than Baby Bonds?
I voice no opinion about Baby Bonds' abilities. Baby hit 73 home
runs last year. You can't argue with that.
All I am saying is that lots of players have participated in
scoring more runs than Baby Bonds this year. That's not an
opinion. That's a fact. You can look it up.
Jeff Kent is SF's MVP. Again.
cordially, as always,
rm
Ronald L Matthews
> On 3 Sep 2002, Ronald L Matthews wrote:
>> Just imagine how many more runs SF would have scored if they
>> had the bat of an ARod, or a Giambi or a Pujols or at least a
>> dozen more players in their lineup instead of Baby Bonds.
> I'm imagining, oh, about "zero". No, wait, a negative number
> seems to be coming through.
That's a silly response, isn't it? You wish to be treated with
respect in discourse and yet you make trolling noises like that.
> What are your grounds for believing that opposing teams would
> pitch to an ARod, if plugged into Bonds's spot in the lineup,
> anymore so than they do to Bonds himself?
ARod is a much bigger cog in Texas lineup than Baby Bonds is in
SF. He participates in far more runs than Baby Bonds does. I
see no reason why a change of sweater or even a change of leagues
would cause a change of strategy with him at the plate. The NL
is an inferior league anyway so I doubt that he would be pitched
to any more conservatively if he did move over.
cordially, as always,
rm
John Gregory
> John Gregory <ash...@no.spam.com> trolled:
> > On 3 Sep 2002, Ronald L Matthews wrote:
>
> >> Just imagine how many more runs SF would have scored if they
> >> had the bat of an ARod, or a Giambi or a Pujols or at least a
> >> dozen more players in their lineup instead of Baby Bonds.
>
> > I'm imagining, oh, about "zero". No, wait, a negative number
> > seems to be coming through.
>
> That's a silly response, isn't it?
Of course it isn't.
Silly is to tout a stat like r+rbi-hr. It produces a smaller value,
than even a teammate's, for the hitter most often called (by his
fellow major leaguers) the best of our time. That makes you the
expert on silly responses.
> ARod is a much bigger cog in Texas lineup than Baby Bonds is in SF.
Opposing NL teams would understand ARod's value, and pitch around him
in the SF lineup too.
--
John Gregory ashbury at skypoint.com http://www.skypoint.com/ tilde ashbury
Thought for the moment:
An inconvenience is an adventure wrongly considered. -- G. K. Chesterson
Ronald L Matthews
> Silly is to tout a stat like r+rbi-hr. It produces a smaller value,
> than even a teammate's, for the hitter most often called (by his
> fellow major leaguers) the best of our time. That makes you the
> expert on silly responses.
I've never said anything about Bonds abilities as a hitter. If
Bonds is regarded as the best hitter by his peers then that puts
him in the same league as Andre Dawson and I am satisfied with
that.
All I am pointing out is that Kent has participated in more run
scoring than Baby Bonds. That fact speaks for itself, doesn't
it?
And ain't that a bitch?
cordially, as always,
rm
Tom MacIntyre
wrote:
>On 3 Sep 2002, Ronald L Matthews wrote:
>
>> John Gregory <ash...@no.spam.com> trolled:
>> > On 3 Sep 2002, Ronald L Matthews wrote:
>>
>> >> Just imagine how many more runs SF would have scored if they
>> >> had the bat of an ARod, or a Giambi or a Pujols or at least a
>> >> dozen more players in their lineup instead of Baby Bonds.
>>
>> > I'm imagining, oh, about "zero". No, wait, a negative number
>> > seems to be coming through.
>>
>> That's a silly response, isn't it?
>
>Of course it isn't.
>
>Silly is to tout a stat like r+rbi-hr. It produces a smaller value,
>than even a teammate's, for the hitter most often called (by his
>fellow major leaguers) the best of our time. That makes you the
>expert on silly responses.
Isn't it equally silly, though, to not subtract something? In its
extremes, a player could have 100 home runs, all solo, no other R or
RBI, and 200 runs produced (which of course is a poor reflection of
what actually happened). Extrapolation in the opposite direction is
even more ridiculous, but there must be a realistic area of the range
where R+RBI-(HR*X) is valid. Is it fair to apply this "X" as a
universal constant, or is it a "variable", some formula based on the
way the average player's ratios of the three factors correlate? Is it
fair to let a 20-HR guy with 200 R+RBI be equal to a 40-HR guy with
the same production? Is this middle range in such a place that, for
all intents and purposes, the double-counted HR are in fact of no
consequence? Those runs which counted for double should have a
different value in any paper analysis, if the paper analysis is to
reflect the events on the field...shouldn't they?
Tom
Dvd Avins
<r...@nospam.com> writes:
>All I am pointing out is that Kent has participated in more run
>scoring than Baby Bonds. That fact speaks for itself, doesn't
>it?
If driving in a run is participating in run scoreing, then advancing a runner
who later scores also is. However, even if it were correctly described, the
RBI+R fact you refer to is quite remarkable.
-- Proud sponsor of the Dick Tidrow, Fred Stanley, and Dave Schneck pages on
baseball-reference.com
michael bakunin
> sport because he helps his team win or because he has nice fat
> personal stats?
You seem to be obsessed with statistical measures. Let it go.
> Baby Bonds has nice fat personal stats but lots
> of players have participated in scoring more runs than he. Jeff
> Kent is one of them.
There you go tallying things up again. Spend some time watching both
men hit. Mr. Kent is a fine batter, but he can be made to fish for
bad balls in a way to which Mr. Bonds seems preternaturally immune.
Mr. Bonds has so few weaknesses that he's taken a game predicated on
failure by the hitter and turned it upside-down; at this point, I'm
surprised when his plate appearances lead to outs. Not so Mr. Kent.
> Where did I say that there were "better" hitters than Baby Bonds?
"many players in both leagues have out-performed Bonds this year."
A position player's job is 80% hitting, it seems to me. You can't
outperform the man if you're not a better hitter.
> Jeff Kent is SF's MVP. Again.
How you can watch both men play and say that is beyond me. Turn off
your monitor and pick up your remote, now; the game's on.
-mb
Ronald L Matthews
> There you go tallying things up again. Spend some time
> watching both men hit. Mr. Kent is a fine batter, but he can
> be made to fish for bad balls in a way to which Mr. Bonds seems
> preternaturally immune.
Of course Baby Bonds will pad his OPS with yet another
meaningless walk while MVP Kent will fish out those bad balls for
an rbi. It's runs that win games, not walks. Maybe if Baby
Bonds walked less he might score or drive in more runs than he
does now. But then again we all know that rbis are overrated.
It's walks that win baseball games, right doofus?
> Mr. Bonds has so few weaknesses that he's taken a game
> predicated on failure by the hitter and turned it upside-down;
> at this point, I'm surprised when his plate appearances lead to
> outs. Not so Mr. Kent.
It's too bad that the team which scores the fewest outs doesn't
win jack-shit, isn't it?
It's runs that win games, my befuddled little friend and SF's MVP
Kent, along with about a dozen others, participates in the
scoring of more runs than Baby Bonds.
Ain't that hard to swallow?
You're going to have to do a lot better than this.
G'nite Wanda,
cordially, as always,
rm
Tom MacIntyre
wrote:
>michael bakunin <bakun...@yahoo.com> trolled:
>
>> There you go tallying things up again. Spend some time
>> watching both men hit. Mr. Kent is a fine batter, but he can
>> be made to fish for bad balls in a way to which Mr. Bonds seems
>> preternaturally immune.
>
>Of course Baby Bonds will pad his OPS with yet another
>meaningless walk while MVP Kent will fish out those bad balls for
>an rbi. It's runs that win games, not walks. Maybe if Baby
>Bonds walked less he might score or drive in more runs than he
>does now. But then again we all know that rbis are overrated.
>It's walks that win baseball games, right doofus?
This type of analysis has to have a situation-by-situation report to
be in any way valid...unlike the generic ones. Bonds has trencended
things...for whatever reasons.
If you want to see how "Baby" Bonds is really doing, the play-by-play
is required, right?
He's probably indeed doing slightly (?) less-well than what he should,
but you appear to want to evade the truth by sullying the
waters...why? Why not seek the truth? The *reasons* are the truth. If
this analysis gets this complex, these cursed sabermetricians may just
go away forever, and baseball can again be enjoyed as it once was...or
not!!
Can't we co-exist????????????????????????????
Tom
Ronald L Matthews
> This type of analysis has to have a situation-by-situation report to
> be in any way valid...unlike the generic ones. Bonds has trencended
> things...for whatever reasons.
Bonds hasn't transcended anything.
> If you want to see how "Baby" Bonds is really doing, the play-by-play
> is required, right?
No. If I want to know how Baby Bonds is really doing I simply
compare the number of runs that he has participated in to the
number of runs that other players have participated in.
The number of runs is reality. OPS is a generalized abstraction.
The only reason that OPS has any value at any time is because,
generally speaking, those with a high OPS usually participate in
the scoring of lots of runs. But in the case of Baby Bonds the
generalization doesn't work.
> He's probably indeed doing slightly (?) less-well than what he
> should, but you appear to want to evade the truth by sullying
> the waters...why?
I don't care about how well he "should" be doing because of his
OPS. My concern is only how well he actually is doing. And his
contribution is nothing spectacular. It is not "sullying the
waters" to point out, quite correctly, that MVP Kent has
participated in more scoring than Baby Bonds.
> Why not seek the truth? The *reasons* are the truth.
No, the facts are the truth. And the facts are that Baby Bonds
hasn't participated in that many runs. You want to know why he
is scoring comparatively few runs while he has such a high OPS.
I don't care. OPS is meaningless abstraction to me and this is
just another reason why. I feel no need to figure out why the
relationship between OPS and run participation has broken down in
his case because I place no value on OPS in the first place.
Some stat fan did a study that showed that, generally speaking,
the players with the highest OPS participate in the most scoring.
Pseudo stat fans extend this abstraction even further by
suggesting that OPS is a reliable indicator of a player's
contribution to scoring.
But while the generalization may be useful when speaking about
large numbers of players, in the individual case all one has to
look at is the actual number of runs that a player participates
in to know whether that player participates in a lot of scoring.
OPS when applied to individual players is redundant, trivial, and
inexact in varying degrees. IOW, OPS is worthless when applied
to individual players. You don't need to know a player's OPS to
know how well he participates in scoring because you already
know, exactly, how often the player participates in scoring by
simply calculating runs+rbi-hr.
IOW, the correct and exact evaluation of any individual's
participation in scoring is runs+rbi-hr. Who cares what his OPS
says when you have the real numbers?
The fact is that the walks, especially the intentional walks,
have inflated his OPS while not inflating his actual run
participation to the same degree. This is obvious. This is not
a very interesting question that merits any study because OPS,
like all other generalizations (such as park factors) are flawed
when applied to individual players.
cordially, as always,
rm
Hops
"Ronald L Matthews" <r...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:3d75061d_2@corp-
> >> But if he is the "best hitter" as you say then clearly he
> >> should have participated in a lot more of his team's runs,
> >> especially since his teammates don't seem to have any problem
> >> scoring them. They are amongst the league leaders in runs
> >> scored despite the fact that their offensive horse isn't
> >> anywhere nearly as productive as the big bats on virtually
> >> every other NL team.
>
> > heh. 'despite'?
>
> Certainly. Just imagine how many more runs SF would have scored
> if they had the bat of an ARod, or a Giambi or a Pujols or at
> least a dozen more players in their lineup instead of Baby Bonds.
>
> The superiority of these players over Baby Bonds as run producers
> is a matter of public record.
>
PA with runners on:
313 Pujols
302 Giambi
278 ARod
220 Bonds
HTH.
But I doubt it.
Mike P. Moffatt
> is an inferior league anyway so I doubt that he would be pitched
> to any more conservatively if he did move over.
The NL won the world series last year, so it's a better league.
Mike
---
Visit http://www.moffatt.us - proud Baseball Reference sponsor of Pat
Burrell, Shea Hillenbrand and Mark Mulder.
Mike P. Moffatt
> player who participates in the most scoring is more valuable to
> the team than the player with the fattest personal stats, unless
> of course, both players happen to be the same.
I think your method highly undervalues players like Greg Maddux and Ozzie
Smith for rather obvious reasons.
When you realize that there's a defensive component to baseball, then you
might start to understand the game.
Steve Grant
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.02090...@troi.cc.rochester.edu...
> > would cause a change of strategy with him at the plate. The NL
> > is an inferior league anyway so I doubt that he would be pitched
> > to any more conservatively if he did move over.
>
> The NL won the world series last year, so it's a better league.
By definition.
Ron Johnson
JoshuaBlue <JoshuaB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>can you killfile/ignore someone if you are using google as your
>newsreader?
Nope. Except of course that google has pretty decent threading.
>because I don't think I can handle seeing anymore of rm's posts.
I'd suggest getting a decent newsreader and hooking up with a free
news server (assuming that your reason for using Google is because
it's free).
--
RNJ
Mike P. Moffatt
>
> By definition.
Oh yeah.. I forgot that part.. thanks!
Ronald L Matthews
>> If you wish to bring my opinion into it, I will say that the
>> player who participates in the most scoring is more valuable
>> to the team than the player with the fattest personal stats,
>> unless of course, both players happen to be the same.
> I think your method highly undervalues players like Greg Maddux
> and Ozzie Smith for rather obvious reasons.
Oh, well so sorry. I thought it was a given that we were talking
about player offense.
> When you realize that there's a defensive component to
> baseball, then you might start to understand the game.
Gee, the trolls are getting desperate.
cordially, as always,
rm
michael bakunin
In re: Mr. Kent
> > Mr. Kent is a fine batter, but he can
> > be made to fish for bad balls in a way to which Mr. Bonds seems
> > preternaturally immune.
> Of course Baby Bonds will pad his OPS with yet another
> meaningless walk while MVP Kent will fish out those bad balls for
> an rbi.
In the first inning last night, Mr. Kent came up with a man on. He
fished, missing. He took strike 2, then popped into a double play.
> It's runs that win games, not walks. Maybe if Baby
> Bonds walked less he might score or drive in more runs than he
> does now.
In the second inning, Mr. Bonds was hit. Had Mr. Kent taken a walk in
the first, the bases would have been loaded with one out. Mr.
Santiago flied out, which might then have scored one run, then Mr.
Sanders and Mr. Minor singled, which certainly would have scored a
few. Had Mr. Kent walked, it would have been 3-1, Giants. As he
popped into a double play, instead Mr. Minor drove in only Mr. Bonds.
> But then again we all know that rbis are overrated.
> It's walks that win baseball games, right doofus?
You're confusing. How does Mr. Kent help his team by missing bad
balls? How is Mr. Bonds losing games by getting on base?
> > Mr. Bonds has so few weaknesses that he's taken a game
> > predicated on failure by the hitter and turned it upside-down;
> > at this point, I'm surprised when his plate appearances lead to
> > outs. Not so Mr. Kent.
> It's too bad that the team which scores the fewest outs
> doesn't win jack-shit, isn't it?
I find watching baseball can be very relaxing when I'm feeling
stressed. I can recommend it to you, as you seem to need it.
> It's runs that win games, my befuddled little friend and SF's MVP
> Kent, along with about a dozen others, participates in the
> scoring of more runs than Baby Bonds.
Now, I'm not a bean counter like you are, so I still don't know what
you're talking about. Watch more baseball games, not just the
Sportscenter highlights, and get back to us.
> Ain't that hard to swallow?
I did notice that while you're more than happy to spout statistical
mumbo-jumbo at me regarding "run participation" you refuse to engage
the other statheads in this newsgroup. In a post on this thread,
"Hops" notes that Mr. Bonds has had a fraction of the plate
appearances with men on base that his contemporaries you think are
"out-performers" have. Give it a look, and answer him:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6bld9.410947%242p2.16870424%40bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com
Don't get back to me on that one, though; I don't need to count on my
fingers to know that Mr. Bonds is the best hitter in his league, and
has outperformed all comers at the plate this year by a wide margin.
All you need to do is watch the games. If you're typing away on your
keyboard tonight when you could be watching, it'll be your loss.
> You're going to have to do a lot better than this.
My performance isn't the issue, but that of Mr. Bonds and the dozen
players you assert have outperformed him. You have the burden of
proof, not I.
-mb
Mike P. Moffatt
> >> player who participates in the most scoring is more valuable
> >> to the team than the player with the fattest personal stats,
> >> unless of course, both players happen to be the same.
>
> > I think your method highly undervalues players like Greg Maddux
> > and Ozzie Smith for rather obvious reasons.
>
> Oh, well so sorry. I thought it was a given that we were talking
> about player offense.
I thought we were discussing which player is more valuable to the
team. You can't just look at offensive numbers to determine that, and you
know it, even if your Excel spreadsheet doesn't.
Ronald L Matthews
> JoshuaBlue <JoshuaB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>can you killfile/ignore someone if you are using google as your
>>newsreader?
> Nope. Except of course that google has pretty decent threading.
>>because I don't think I can handle seeing anymore of rm's posts.
> I'd suggest getting a decent newsreader and hooking up with a free
> news server (assuming that your reason for using Google is because
> it's free).
The really strange thing is that the only reason he reads usenet
is to avoid me.
What do you think of Jonathon's new laptop? I heard that he got
this one insured.
cordially, as always,
rm
Righty
Runs do win games. Well thought out. In order to score runs players must
get on base. The player that gets on base the most often is therefore the
most valuable. Check the numbers on Bond versus Kent.
Best,
Righty
Ronald L Matthews
> In the first inning last night, Mr. Kent came up with a man on.
> He fished, missing. He took strike 2, then popped into a
> double play.
Shit happens.
>> It's runs that win games, not walks. Maybe if Baby Bonds
>> walked less he might score or drive in more runs than he does
>> now.
> In the second inning, Mr. Bonds was hit. Had Mr. Kent taken a
> walk in the first, the bases would have been loaded with one
> out. Mr. Santiago flied out, which might then have scored one
> run, then Mr. Sanders and Mr. Minor singled, which certainly
> would have scored a few. Had Mr. Kent walked, it would have
> been 3-1, Giants. As he popped into a double play, instead Mr.
> Minor drove in only Mr. Bonds.
And?
>> But then again we all know that rbis are overrated. It's
>> walks that win baseball games, right doofus?
> You're confusing. How does Mr. Kent help his team by missing bad
> balls? How is Mr. Bonds losing games by getting on base?
Who on earth ever said that Bonds was losing games? Games are
lost by the entire team.
There's nothing the matter with gettng on base. Getting on base
is good. It's not as good as scoring runs. Getting on base is
not as good as driving in runs. But getting on base is good.
Are you one of these guys who believes that everybody thought
walks were bad until The Bill James Industry came along?
You are, I'll bet! You're one of those guys.
cordially, as always,
rm
Ronald L Matthews
> Runs do win games. Well thought out. In order to score runs
> players must get on base. The player that gets on base the
> most often is therefore the most valuable. Check the numbers
> on Bond versus Kent.
Sorry troll. While it may be necessarily true that scoring
runs entails getting on base, getting on base does not
necessarily result in scoring runs.
In other words it doesn't matter how often you get on base, if
you don't score any runs you lose the game.
G'nite Martha,
cordially, as always,
rm
Righty
You can't score any runs if you do not get on base. You did know that I
bet.
Best,
Righty
Tom MacIntyre
Right, Righty...there is a relationship between runs and how many men
are on base. It isn't 100% correlation, but what is? We wear a
seatbelt all the time in case we get in an accident, and we limit
baserunners in case they might score.
I think sabermetric measures are designed to reflect what is likely to
happen, not what should, will, etc. That's why they are so
misunderstood in many cases. This is also true of some of the more
traditional statistics.
Tom
Ronald L Matthews
> You can't score any runs if you do not get on base. You did
> know that I bet.
You can't score any runs if you don't show up at the park either.
Your point?
cordially, as always,
rm
Righty
"Ronald L Matthews" <r...@nospam.com wasted his breath and made no sense in
message news:3d76a...@corp-news.newsgroups.com...
> Righty <rig...@right.com> extolled:
>
> > You can't score any runs if you do not get on base. You did
> > know that I bet.
>
> You can't score any runs if you don't show up at the park either.
>
> Your point?
>
> cordially, as always,
>
> rm
You can't drive them in either. Why waste your breath? Save it to blow up
your date.
Best,
Righty
michael bakunin
Then again, turnabout is fair play, as you seem to have no idea what
happens in a game. I am watching a baseball game now. Are you?
-mb
h0mi
> michael bakunin <bakun...@yahoo.com> trolled:
>
>> There you go tallying things up again. Spend some time
>> watching both men hit. Mr. Kent is a fine batter, but he can
>> be made to fish for bad balls in a way to which Mr. Bonds seems
>> preternaturally immune.
>
> Of course Baby Bonds will pad his OPS with yet another
> meaningless walk while MVP Kent will fish out those bad balls for
> an rbi. It's runs that win games, not walks.
Runs don't appear out of nowhere. The solo home run is the only way a team
can score a run without the effort of 2 or more people on its team (or a
very giving defense). Walks are a significant aid in scoring these runs to
a team.
> Maybe if Baby
> Bonds walked less he might score or drive in more runs than he
> does now.
How would he score more runs if he gets on base less?
> But then again we all know that rbis are overrated.
> It's walks that win baseball games, right doofus?
>
>> Mr. Bonds has so few weaknesses that he's taken a game
>> predicated on failure by the hitter and turned it upside-down;
>> at this point, I'm surprised when his plate appearances lead to
>> outs. Not so Mr. Kent.
>
> It's too bad that the team which scores the fewest outs doesn't
> win jack-shit, isn't it?
When the home team wins a game, it scores fewer outs than the visiting
team.
When the home team loses, it scores the same number of outs as the visiting
team.
Tom MacIntyre
>Runs don't appear out of nowhere. The solo home run is the only way a team
>can score a run without the effort of 2 or more people on its team (or a
>very giving defense). Walks are a significant aid in scoring these runs to
>a team.
>
With this in mind, I was watching the movie "Stealing Home" tonight,
and I got to thinking...does the runner at the plate get credit for an
RBI on this play? I think yes, but I can't remember for sure.
Tom
Ronald L Matthews
> Ronald L Matthews <r...@nospam.com> wrote
>> Of course Baby Bonds will pad his OPS with yet another
>> meaningless walk while MVP Kent will fish out those bad balls
>> for an rbi. It's runs that win games, not walks.
> Runs don't appear out of nowhere. The solo home run is the only
> way a team can score a run without the effort of 2 or more
> people on its team (or a very giving defense). Walks are a
> significant aid in scoring these runs to a team.
Walks lead to runs sometimes. Nobody has _ever_ said that walks
were bad, despite the best efforts of The Bill James Industry to
convince you all otherwise.
>> Maybe if Baby Bonds walked less he might score or drive in
>> more runs than he does now.
> How would he score more runs if he gets on base less?
Easy. He could participate in the scoring of runs by driving
them in. If Bonds drove in more runs and walked less his OPS
would go down but his participation in the scoring of runs would
go up. What is more important? Runs or OPS?
You see it is generally the case that the higher OPS leads to
more runs. What this means is that it is generally the case that
the maximized OPS represents maximum production. But in the
particular case of Baby Bonds this simply is not the case.
You people have to learn to stop relying on generalizations in
your anal-ysis of individual players. For one thing, it can be
misleading. But more importantly, there is no reason for it.
You don't need to calculate OPS to understand Bonds' contribution
to his team's offense. You simply have to look at his
accumulated totals.
Jeff Kent has participated in the scoring of more runs than Baby
Bonds. If scoring runs is the point of offense then Kent has the
advantage. If padding one's OPS is the point of offense then
Baby Bonds has the advantage.
cordially, as always,
rm
Dvd Avins
<r...@nospam.com> writes:
>Jeff Kent has participated in the scoring of more runs than Baby
>Bonds. If scoring runs is the point of offense then Kent has the
>advantage. If padding one's OPS is the point of offense then
>Baby Bonds has the advantage.
Doing things which maximize your team's runs scored is the point of offense.
Whether you directly participate in the moment of scoring or not. Baseball is a
team game where one must (or at least should) sometimes sacrifice fame and
numbers (such as RBI) for the good of the team.
Run Production (RP, R+RBI-HR) might do as a rough measure of how much fame a
batter would get if the only medium through which baseball was seen was
highlight tape. It wouldn't be a greate measure of that, but OPS would be no
better.
However, the goal is wins (more or less), not individual fame (at least not
directly). When doing one's best to measure a player's contribution to TEAM
runs socred, RP is a comparitively poor measure, becuase it does not take into
account the opportunities lost by making outs. OPS is also not perfect, of
course, and has one particular fault you are focusing on: namely that it does't
look at the actual inning-results from a players' plate appearances. IOW, it
measures potential value, rather than specific value. However the shortcomings
of RP are so great that OPS will generally give a better approximation of
specific value than RP will.
-- Proud sponsor of the Dick Tidrow, Fred Stanley, and Dave Schneck pages on
baseball-reference.com
David Marc Nieporent
No, he doesn't.
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Hops
"michael bakunin" <bakun...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> In a post on this thread,
> "Hops" notes that Mr. Bonds has had a fraction of the plate
> appearances with men on base that his contemporaries you think are
> "out-performers" have. Give it a look, and answer him:
He didn't because it was not in rlm's best interest to do so, trollwise.
rlm is a coward.
Ronald L Matthews
> Ronald L Matthews <r...@nospam.com> writes:
>>Jeff Kent has participated in the scoring of more runs than Baby
>>Bonds. If scoring runs is the point of offense then Kent has the
>>advantage. If padding one's OPS is the point of offense then
>>Baby Bonds has the advantage.
> Doing things which maximize your team's runs scored is the
> point of offense.
That's correct. And Kent has been more successful than Bonds at
doing the things which maximize his team's scoring.
> Whether you directly participate in the
> moment of scoring or not.
Nonsense. Directly particpating in the moment of scoring is the
_only proof_ that what you are doing is contributing to the
team's success.
> Baseball is a team game where one must (or at least should)
> sometimes sacrifice fame and numbers (such as RBI) for the good
> of the team.
Ah, you're trolling. I never learn, do I? I must start reading
the entire post before I bother to respond...
> Run Production (RP, R+RBI-HR) might do as a rough measure of
> how much fame a batter would get if the only medium through
> which baseball was seen was highlight tape. It wouldn't be a
> greate measure of that, but OPS would be no better.
Fame? Run production is an _exact_ measure of a player's
direct participation in scoring. It's scoring that wins baseball
games, not OPS, or even fame.
> However, the goal is wins (more or less), not individual fame
> (at least not directly). When doing one's best to measure a
> player's contribution to TEAM runs socred, RP is a
> comparitively poor measure, becuase it does not take into
> account the opportunities lost by making outs.
Making outs? It doesn't matter who makes the outs, the outs will
be made anyway. The player who goes 1-4 and hits a grand slam
has participated in more scoring than a player who goes 0-0 and
gets stranded 5 times on first after walking.
> OPS is also not perfect, of course, and has one particular
> fault you are focusing on: namely that it does't look at the
> actual inning-results from a players' plate appearances.
No. OPS doesn't look at any actual results with respect to
scoring. Scoring is not in any way a factor in calculating OPS.
OPS doesn't tell you whether the player participated in scoring.
OPS doesn't tell you what kind of player you are looking at. OPS
only tells you whether one player has a higher OPS than another.
Generally speaking, the higher the OPS, the greater likelihood
the player has participated in scoring. But in the particular
case of the individual player you don't need to make such
predictions or putter around with likelihoods. You simply have
to look at the boxscore and you'll have all the facts you need to
make OPS trivial and redundant.
cordially, as always,
rm
Righty
"Hops" <kev812...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jvCd9.306255$Aw4.12...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
rlm must also be new to baseball. He does not understand the game and
should learn more before wasting time with his infantile and boring posts.
Perhaps he might actually go and see a game.
To say that Kent is more valuable than Bonds is outrageous. Without Bonds
over the years he has been a Giant, SF would not have even contended for a
playoff birth.
Kent's numbers with the Giant's are a quantum leap above his prior career.
He is made productive by Bond' presence. That is Bond's value. He makes
his team better.
Best,
Righty
John DiFool
> "Hops" <kev812...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:jvCd9.306255$Aw4.12...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> >
> > "michael bakunin" <bakun...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > In a post on this thread,
> > > "Hops" notes that Mr. Bonds has had a fraction of the plate
> > > appearances with men on base that his contemporaries you think are
> > > "out-performers" have. Give it a look, and answer him:
> >
> > He didn't because it was not in rlm's best interest to do so, trollwise.
> >
> > rlm is a coward.
>
> rlm must also be new to baseball. He does not understand the game and
> should learn more before wasting time with his infantile and boring posts.
> Perhaps he might actually go and see a game.
>
> To say that Kent is more valuable than Bonds is outrageous. Without Bonds
> over the years he has been a Giant, SF would not have even contended for a
> playoff birth.
Is Barry's wife due to have another kid this fall? [G,D,RLH!]
John DiFool
--
========================================================
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man.
-George Bernard Shaw-
========================================================
John Gregory
> > you don't score any runs you lose the game.
> bet.
Hold on, rlm has simply pulled another fast one. Sez he:
1) it doesn't matter how often you get on base,
2) if you don't score any runs
3) you lose the game
Statement number 1 is the tricky one. It *does* matter how often
you get on base, as the more times your team does it, the less
likely the "if" of statement number 2 ever comes into play; do it
about 28 times in a game and a run is pretty darn certain by brute
force, except for double plays and so forth. Statement 3 certainly
then follows from 2, but in ever decreasing frequency if you get
more runners on base in the first place.
"It doesn't matter how often you deposit $1 into your bank account,
if you are impoverished you can't buy a mansion in Beverly Hills."
After a while, enough of those $1 deposits may cover your living
expenses and meet any arbitrary standard of wealth. And a base
runner matters more than a single dollar does.
rlm is into the sure thing of tallying runs after they cross.
He's less interested in the sporting concept of doing the things
that increase one's team's chances of scoring that run in the first
place. Because that takes some inference, and he's afraid to make
a mistake, or even to choose the right percentage play but have it
come out behind some of the time. If the percentage play comes
out wrong, then it *was* wrong in his world. He's the classic
second guesser, which is also contrary to sport, so is it any
wonder if most regard him with contempt?
--
John Gregory ashbury at skypoint.com http://www.skypoint.com/ tilde ashbury
Thought for the moment:
Every man dies; not every man really lives. -- Braveheart
Ronald L Matthews
> Hold on, rlm has simply pulled another fast one. Sez he:
> 1) it doesn't matter how often you get on base,
> 2) if you don't score any runs
> 3) you lose the game
> Statement number 1 is the tricky one.
Nothing "tricky" about "Statement #1" at all, especially since
it's not a premiss.
> It *does* matter how often you get on base,
Not if you don't score any runs it doesn't.
> as the more times your team does it, the less likely the "if"
> of statement number 2 ever comes into play;
I don't care if you leave the bases loaded at the end of every
inning, if you don't score any runs you won't win the game.
Isn't it unbearable?
michael bakunin
> to his team's offense. You simply have to look at his
> accumulated totals.
You don't have to spend your day peering at your calculator or
computer screen. Get yourself out to the ballpark, or at least in
front of the television, and watch some baseball.
With every post you make it more obvious you need it desperately.
-mb
h0mi
<r...@nospam.com> wrote on Thu, 05 Sep 2002 03:02:12 GMT:
> h0mi <h0...@ooohay.com> wrote:
>> Ronald L Matthews <r...@nospam.com> wrote
>
>>> Of course Baby Bonds will pad his OPS with yet another
>>> meaningless walk while MVP Kent will fish out those bad balls
>>> for an rbi. It's runs that win games, not walks.
>
>> Runs don't appear out of nowhere. The solo home run is the only
>> way a team can score a run without the effort of 2 or more
>> people on its team (or a very giving defense). Walks are a
>> significant aid in scoring these runs to a team.
>
> Walks lead to runs sometimes. Nobody has _ever_ said that walks
> were bad, despite the best efforts of The Bill James Industry to
> convince you all otherwise.
Why all of the dispariging remarks about "meaningless walks" then?
At least you ceased, for now, the nonsense about Bonds not being among the
league leaders in any offensive categories.
>>> Maybe if Baby Bonds walked less he might score or drive in
>>> more runs than he does now.
>
>> How would he score more runs if he gets on base less?
>
> Easy. He could participate in the scoring of runs by driving
> them in.
He could also participate in the scoring of runs by being driven in.
The 160 walks Bonds has this year are opportunities given to the Giants to
do just this. That they've failed to drive him in is reflective of the rest
of his teams' failures in that department, and might help explain why
they're in 3rd place in the NL west.
> If Bonds drove in more runs and walked less his OPS
> would go down but his participation in the scoring of runs would
> go up. What is more important? Runs or OPS?
Bonds can drive in more runs without walking less. It'd help for players
ahead of him to get on base when he gets hits, or for him to collect his
hits with players on base instead of not on base.
But participation in the scoring of runs doesn't stop with Bonds' driving
in other batters. If Bonds is on base- and it's clear he's been on base
almost 250 times this season, it's up to other players to drive him in as
well.
Including your SF MVP Jeff Kent.
> You see it is generally the case that the higher OPS leads to
> more runs. What this means is that it is generally the case that
> the maximized OPS represents maximum production. But in the
> particular case of Baby Bonds this simply is not the case.
>
> You people have to learn to stop relying on generalizations in
> your anal-ysis of individual players.
Like how walks are "meaningless"?
> For one thing, it can be
> misleading. But more importantly, there is no reason for it.
> You don't need to calculate OPS to understand Bonds' contribution
> to his team's offense. You simply have to look at his
> accumulated totals.
Accumulated totals don't tell the whole story. Kent has 12 more RBI in 10
more games played. And hitting behind someone who's been on base about 70
more times in 10 fewer games.
> Jeff Kent has participated in the scoring of more runs than Baby
> Bonds.
Kent has participated in 10 more runs that the Giants scored compared to
Bonds while having played in 10 more games than Bonds has.
Ronald L Matthews
> Ronald L Matthews <r...@nospam.com>:
>> Walks lead to runs sometimes. Nobody has _ever_ said that
>> walks were bad, despite the best efforts of The Bill James
>> Industry to convince you all otherwise.
> Why all of the dispariging remarks about "meaningless walks"
> then?
If walks lead to runs this is a good thing. But if the walks
don't lead to runs this is neither good nor bad. Such walks are
meaningless to the outcome of the game. Baby Bonds gets lots of
meaningless walks.
> At least you ceased, for now, the nonsense about Bonds not
> being among the league leaders in any offensive categories.
The only offensive category that Baby Bonds leads is walks.
>> Easy. He could participate in the scoring of runs by driving
>> them in.
> He could also participate in the scoring of runs by being
> driven in.
But he _hasn't_ been driven in nearly as often as his OPS
suggests that he should have been. And he hasn't drivin in
nearly as many runs as his OPS suggests he should have driven in.
That's the whole point. And it's clear that you missed it.
cordially, as always,
rm
Hops
"Ronald L Matthews" <r...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:3d7839e3_3@corp-
> > Why all of the dispariging remarks about "meaningless walks"
> > then?
>
> If walks lead to runs this is a good thing. But if the walks
> don't lead to runs this is neither good nor bad. Such walks are
> meaningless to the outcome of the game. Baby Bonds gets lots of
> meaningless walks.
Vladimir Guerrero hit a HR today in a 4-1 loss to the Phillies. Since his
team lost the game, his home run was meaningless, correct?
Mike P. Moffatt
> > being among the league leaders in any offensive categories.
>
> The only offensive category that Baby Bonds leads is walks.
He's leading the league in Batting Average. Perhaps you're heard of it.
Pete Rose lead the league in it in 1968, 1969, and 1973 so I assume you're
familar with it.
michael bakunin
Normally, I wouldn't stoop to looking these things up, but I was
curious to see whether your adding-machine skills were any good.
Mr. Bonds leads his league not only in walks, but also intentional
walks, batting average, and on-base and slugging percentages. He is
second in home runs and third in both runs scored and extra-base hits.
> But he _hasn't_ been driven in nearly as often as his OPS
> suggests that he should have been.
I don't speak your acronym-laden moon language, but I do know one
thing: you can't drive yourself in unless you hit a home run. The
only statistic that suggests that is his home run total. Only your
teammates can drive you in once you get on base.
Perhaps, after all your paper-shuffling and number-crunching, you
agree with this thread's title.
-mb
Ronald L Matthews
> "Ronald L Matthews" <r...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> Why all of the dispariging remarks about "meaningless walks"
>>> then?
>> If walks lead to runs this is a good thing. But if the walks
>> don't lead to runs this is neither good nor bad. Such walks are
>> meaningless to the outcome of the game. Baby Bonds gets lots of
>> meaningless walks.
> Vladimir Guerrero hit a HR today in a 4-1 loss to the Phillies.
> Since his team lost the game, his home run was meaningless,
> correct?
Not to the final score but to the ultimate outcome of the game,
yes his home run was meaningless.
Ronald L Matthews
>> The only offensive category that Baby Bonds leads is walks.
> Normally, I wouldn't stoop to looking these things up, but I was
> curious to see whether your adding-machine skills were any good.
> Mr. Bonds leads his league not only in walks, but also intentional
> walks, batting average, and on-base and slugging percentages. He is
> second in home runs and third in both runs scored and extra-base hits.
As I said, the only offensive category in which Baby Bonds leads the
league is walks.
Mike P. Moffatt
> league is walks.
What about batting average?
Ronald L Matthews
>> As I said, the only offensive category in which Baby Bonds
>> leads the league is walks.
> What about batting average?
Rate stats don't measure anything real. Rate stats are an
illusion. Besides, the last time I looked the highest batting
average in the majors belonged to an AL pitcher. I think at one
point it was even Fat Boy himself.
cordially, as always,
rm
Dvd Avins
<r...@nospam.com> writes:
>> Mr. Bonds leads his league not only in walks, but also intentional
>> walks, batting average, and on-base and slugging percentages. He is
>> second in home runs and third in both runs scored and extra-base hits.
>
>As I said, the only offensive category in which Baby Bonds leads the
>league is walks.
I suppose you don't include times on base because i'ts not officially kept?
Mike P. Moffatt
> >> leads the league is walks.
>
> > What about batting average?
>
> Rate stats don't measure anything real. Rate stats are an
> illusion.
Jeez.. then we had better get rid of the triple crown.. and we should
stop referring to batting crowns and championships.
Heck, the Toronto Star could save a whole lot of newsprint if they'd just
stop publishing illusions.
Hops
"Ronald L Matthews" <r...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3d78d...@corp-news.newsgroups.com...
Well you may be on to something here. We shouldn't count the stats from the
losing team, correct? After all no matter how many runs or RBIs, they are
all meaningless.
Steve Grant
news:20020906230307...@mb-mg.aol.com...
> In article <3d78e...@corp-news.newsgroups.com>, Ronald L Matthews
> <r...@nospam.com> writes:
>
> >> Mr. Bonds leads his league not only in walks, but also intentional
> >> walks, batting average, and on-base and slugging percentages. He is
> >> second in home runs and third in both runs scored and extra-base hits.
> >
> >As I said, the only offensive category in which Baby Bonds leads the
> >league is walks.
>
> I suppose you don't include times on base because i'ts not officially
kept?
He doesn't include times on base because it isn't convenient to his
"argument." You knew that, didn't you?
Dvd Avins
<ACE...@concentric.net> writes:
>> I suppose you don't include times on base because i'ts not officially
>kept?
>
>He doesn't include times on base because it isn't convenient to his
>"argument." You knew that, didn't you?
I was pointing out a counting stat other than BB (and IBB) that Bonds leads in,
largely for the benefit of anyone else reading this thread, but also to see
what his response would be.
Mark Reichert
> Oh, I see. You're a troll.
You'd be the newsgroups expert on trolls, given that you've never been
and never will be anything else than a troll. Anybody who keeps
changing his name and e-mail addresses to escape being blocked by
killfiles (sometimes even stealing other posters names) is a troll, by
definition.
Mark Reichert
> rlm must also be new to baseball. He does not understand the game and
Oh, he understands it just fine. His purpose here has never been and
never will be to engage in an intelligent discussion about baseball,
but is instead to get under people's skins and get them replying to
him to make himself feel superior. I'd imagine that he does this
because he's such a loser that this is the only way he can feel
superior to anybody. That's generally the motive of a person who
engages in trolling of newsgroups. Or perhaps he just got used to
torturing small animals and this is the on-line equivalent.
michael bakunin
another player about whom you post as much? Your every protestation
is your vote that he is, indeed, the best player in baseball.
-mb
Ronald L Matthews
>> Not to the final score but to the ultimate outcome of the game,
>> yes his home run was meaningless.
> Well you may be on to something here. We shouldn't count the
> stats from the losing team, correct? After all no matter how
> many runs or RBIs, they are all meaningless.
Sure you can count the stats from the losing team. Just don't
use those stats to pretend that the losing team won.
G'nite Judy,
cordially, as always,
rm
Ronald L Matthews
> "Dvd Avins" <dvda...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message:
>> Ronald L Matthews <r...@nospam.com> writes:
>>>As I said, the only offensive category in which Baby Bonds
>>>leads the league is walks.
>> I suppose you don't include times on base because i'ts not
>> officially kept?
Times on base? You can count hits and you can count walks. Hits
are not walks - why would you add them together?
> He doesn't include times on base because it isn't convenient to
> his "argument." You knew that, didn't you?
Argument? I'm not making any argument. I am simply stating
facts. Baby Bonds has participated in far less run scoring than
a lot of other players in the league. That's a fact. He has
participated in less run scoring than his team's MVP, Jeff Kent.
That's a fact. His OPS is empty and not worth slobbering over
because his real contribution has not been significant. That's a
fact.
If I wanted to make an "argument" I would simply point out that
OPS and the like are useless. But we all know that, don't we?
cordially, as always,
rm
Reichert Mark
> Ronald L Matthews <r...@nospam.com> wrote...
>> Oh, I see. You're a troll.
> You'd be the newsgroups expert on trolls, given that you've
> never been and never will be anything else than a troll.
> Anybody who keeps changing his name and e-mail addresses to
> escape being blocked by killfiles (sometimes even stealing
> other posters names) is a troll, by definition.
Gee, yet another bitter little man.
Reichert Mark
> "Righty" <rig...@right.com> wrote...
>> rlm must also be new to baseball. He does not understand the
>> game and
> Oh, he understands it just fine. His purpose here has never
> been and never will be to engage in an intelligent discussion
> about baseball, but is instead to get under people's skins and
> get them replying to him to make himself feel superior. I'd
> imagine that he does this because he's such a loser that this
> is the only way he can feel superior to anybody. That's
> generally the motive of a person who engages in trolling of
> newsgroups. Or perhaps he just got used to torturing small
> animals and this is the on-line equivalent.
Is responding to clowns like you equivalent to torturing small
animals?
What kind of animal are you? A hamster? Or are you a weasel?
There's lots of weasels around here.
cordially, as always,
rm
Ronald L Matthews
Well if the number of postings we make about a player is
testament to his greatness then clearly Bonds is in the same
league as J** C***** and P*** R***.
cordially, as always,
rm
Ira Blum
> Tom MacIntyre <tom__ma...@hotmail.com> trolled:
>
> > This type of analysis has to have a situation-by-situation report to
> > be in any way valid...unlike the generic ones. Bonds has trencended
> > things...for whatever reasons.
>
> Bonds hasn't transcended anything.
>
> > If you want to see how "Baby" Bonds is really doing, the play-by-play
> > is required, right?
>
> No. If I want to know how Baby Bonds is really doing I simply
> compare the number of runs that he has participated in to the
> number of runs that other players have participated in.
You should get your head out of a stat sheet and watch a game. Particularly
one where Bonds is playing.
Ira
Ira Blum
"Ronald L Matthews" <r...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3d791...@corp-news.newsgroups.com...
one quick note: Bonds has grounded into only 3 double plays this year. and
Sosa has none.
Ira
Brandon Cope
Admittedly I'm guilty of this too from time to time, but why does
anyone bother to reply to any of his posts? I know that some people
are new to the group and don't know of his reputation, but you think
that the rest of us would know better by now ...
Brandon
Dvd Avins
(Brandon Cope) writes:
>why does
>anyone bother to reply to any of his posts? I know that some people
>are new to the group and don't know of his reputation, but you think
>that the rest of us would know better by now ...
Whenever we say anything here, we're really discussing it with the whole group.
Occasionally Roger says something where IMO a response could be useeful to the
group as a whole.
Tom MacIntyre
Another idea which, taken to its extremes, yields the answer.
Tom
Righty
"Mark Reichert" <Mark_R...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:99e65015.02090...@posting.google.com...
Mark,
Every usenet group seems to have this type of troll. Once discovered the
only way to deal with them is to ignore them and hope they go away.
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be like unto him."
Proverbs 26:4
Best,
Righty
michael bakunin
> testament to his greatness then clearly Bonds is in the same
> league as J** C***** and P*** R***.
Great as each player may be, you haven't been posting about them.
Yesterday the Giants won, 4-3. I couldn't watch their game; I was at
another. The log shows they had six walks to their opponents' three.
The Giants turned two into runs, the Snakes one. The one-run margin
of victory was from walks. Their previous 1-0 victory also featured a
walk, to Mr. Bonds no less, in the deciding frame.
Perhaps you might reconsider my advice to catch a few games, so you
can witness the way teams score runs and win games.
-mb
Ronald L Matthews
> Every usenet group seems to have this type of troll. Once
> discovered the only way to deal with them is to ignore them and
> hope they go away.
Well I am not going to go away. I was here long before most of
you and I will be here long after most of you are gone. Over the
years I have argued in good faith on every issue. And I have won
every argument. Little pseudo stat fans like yourself,
overwhelmed by a competent application of the rules of logical
discourse, resort to attacking my credibility by calling me a
"troll." Ironically, the one who first resorted to this "tactic"
is himself a 5 (or is it 6?) time winner of r.s.bb's Official
Troll of the Year Award. Not so ironically is the fact that this
professional troll happens to be a lawyer. IOW, he is a complete
loser, as we all know and nobody is about to argue that.
Those of you who object to me and the other sport fans who post
to this group are cordially invited to post to
rec.sport.baseball.analysis which is a moderated group
specifically designed to thwart "trolls" like me. But of course
nobody ever posts there. It's boring without the "trolls."
It's the so-called "trolls" who make you think. You see Baby
Bonds' name appear at the top of an OPS column in your
spreadsheet and w/o thinking you go about congratulating each
other about how he must be the greatest player of all time and
that only you and the other consumers of The Bill James Industry
understand this.
But a "troll" like me comes along and points out that his OPS is
empty. In terms of real run production Baby Bonds is no better
or even worse than about a dozen or so power-hitters in his
own league. In fact, he has participated in less scoring than his
much maligned teammate, MVP Kent. You can't dispute this, it is
a matter of public record.
You have a choice, you can either examine the value of OPS in
light of my observation or you can attempt to discredit what I
have said by calling me a "troll." Those of you who take the
latter route are the real "trolls." You have nothing to add to
the group beyond mere noise. If you want to yell at me, I'll
yell right back. After all, that's what being a sport fan is all
about.
cordially, as always,
rm
Righty
Proverbs 26:4
"Ronald L Matthews" <r...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3d7b8...@corp-news.newsgroups.com...
h0mi
<r...@nospam.com> wrote on Fri, 06 Sep 2002 05:15:16 GMT:
> h0mi <h0...@ooohay.com> trolled:
>> Ronald L Matthews <r...@nospam.com>:
>
>>> Walks lead to runs sometimes. Nobody has _ever_ said that
>>> walks were bad, despite the best efforts of The Bill James
>>> Industry to convince you all otherwise.
>
>> Why all of the dispariging remarks about "meaningless walks"
>> then?
>
> If walks lead to runs this is a good thing. But if the walks
> don't lead to runs this is neither good nor bad.
Walks can lead to runs scored or not, but when a player is walked, he can
only score if the fielding team makes an array of mistakes (errors,
allowing Bonds to steal 2nd, 3rd and/or home, passed balls, wild pitches or
combinations of any/all of these) or if his teammates make contact with the
ball in such a way that Bonds can score.
That Bonds is stranded on 1st, 2nd or 3rd base by his teammates isn't his
fault.
> Such walks are meaningless to the outcome of the game.
> Baby Bonds gets lots of meaningless walks.
>
>> At least you ceased, for now, the nonsense about Bonds not
>> being among the league leaders in any offensive categories.
>
> The only offensive category that Baby Bonds leads is walks.
Bonds is leading the league in BA.
>>> Easy. He could participate in the scoring of runs by driving
>>> them in.
>
>> He could also participate in the scoring of runs by being
>> driven in.
>
> But he _hasn't_ been driven in nearly as often as his OPS
> suggests that he should have been.
What does a 1.000 OPS mean in terms of how often a player "should have
been" driven in?
Again, its not his fault that he's not driven in. He's been on base 251
times this year, and scored 60 runs in those situations. That's an
indictment of his teammates, not Bonds.
Sosa has been on base 191 times this year, and scored 66 times.
Pujols has been on base 193 times and scored 72 times.
Which team has more wins... the Cubs the Cardinals or the Giants?
h0mi
bakun...@yahoo.com (michael bakunin) wrote on Sun, 08 Sep 2002 16:49:58
GMT:
Yes I think RLM could benefit from watching a few games, then he'd
understand why walking the leadoff hitter in an inning is bad, especially
for relief pitchers. He'd possibly learn that putting people on base
increases the chances of scoring, and the more people on base, the more
runs the team will score when hits do happen.
And he might even see a game where a person drew a walk and drove in a run
with the walk.
Ronald L Matthews
> Ronald L Matthews <r...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Walks can lead to runs scored or not, but when a player is
> walked, he can only score if the fielding team makes an array
> of mistakes (errors, allowing Bonds to steal 2nd, 3rd and/or
> home, passed balls, wild pitches or combinations of any/all of
> these) or if his teammates make contact with the ball in such a
> way that Bonds can score.
That's right. So?
> That Bonds is stranded on 1st, 2nd or 3rd base by his teammates
> isn't his fault.
Nobody said it was his fault. Credit/blame go to the whole team
in team sport. Didn't you know that?
The fact remains, however, that Bonds didn't participate in as
much scoring as other players in the league. "Fault" is not an
issue.
G'nite Rhonda,
cordially, as always,
rm
Tom MacIntyre
It's an indictment of the 3-5 who succeed him in the batting order, at
least.
Tom
Mark Reichert
> Gee, yet another bitter little man.
Well, at least I'm not an pathetic little troll who has nothing better
to do with his time than making posts in order to get a reaction. If
you ever post anything that makes an actual contribution to the
conversations here, it is entirely accidental.
Mark Reichert
> Admittedly I'm guilty of this too from time to time, but why does
> anyone bother to reply to any of his posts? I know that some people
> are new to the group and don't know of his reputation, but you think
> that the rest of us would know better by now ...
Does anybody in this group ever post a FAQ? If there was one, we
might be able to warn the newcomers. I only answer because there are
some post I don't want to see go unanswered, but I'd be less likely to
do it if I knew that EVERYBODY was going to ignore him.
Reichert L Mark
> Reichert Mark <r...@nospam.com> wrote...
> Well, at least I'm not an pathetic little troll who has nothing
> better to do with his time than making posts in order to get a
> reaction. If you ever post anything that makes an actual
> contribution to the conversations here, it is entirely
> accidental.
I'll concede that if I ever post anything to this group that you
understand to be an actual contribution it will be not
necessarily be a real contribution.
cordially, as always,
rm
--
"It's hard to be more widely scorned than someone who challenges the
conventional wisdom, is not diplomatic while doing so, and is *right*.
A lot of people seem to consider this combination unforgiveable. I
tend to see it as a very high recommendation." Craig Richardson
Tom MacIntyre
Reichert) wrote:
Why fixate on it?...we're adults, and adults usually tend to like to
make up their own minds.
Tom
Dvd Avins
Mark_R...@hotmail.com (Mark Reichert) writes:
>Does anybody in this group ever post a FAQ? If there was one, we
>might be able to warn the newcomers. I only answer because there are
>some post I don't want to see go unanswered, but I'd be less likely to
>do it if I knew that EVERYBODY was going to ignore him.
I agree, but having a FAQ that names names would prbably do more harm than
good.
Tom MacIntyre
>In article <99e65015.02090...@posting.google.com>,
>Mark_R...@hotmail.com (Mark Reichert) writes:
>
>>Does anybody in this group ever post a FAQ? If there was one, we
>>might be able to warn the newcomers. I only answer because there are
>>some post I don't want to see go unanswered, but I'd be less likely to
>>do it if I knew that EVERYBODY was going to ignore him.
>
>I agree, but having a FAQ that names names would prbably do more harm than
>good.
It would create a sort of ugly schoolyard/playground tattletale
scenario which is beneath any group of adults, with the possible
exception of an office Christmas party...
Tom
Reichert L Mark
>Does anybody in this group ever post a FAQ? If there was one,
>we might be able to warn the newcomers. I only answer because
>there are some post I don't want to see go unanswered, but I'd
>be less likely to do it if I knew that EVERYBODY was going to
>ignore him.
Stop your whining or everybody will start ignoring you. You have
nothing of substance to add to the debate so you should be
lurking. But your ego refuses to allow your tiny brain to absorb
this simple obvious truth and you insist on trolling anyway. You
get your ass kicked in a public forum and then you run around
whining in a feeble attempt to organize some sort of public
censor.
You're pathetic.
cordially, as always,
rm
Matt Harbon
>
> Does anybody in this group ever post a FAQ? If there was one, we
> might be able to warn the newcomers. I only answer because there are
> some post I don't want to see go unanswered, but I'd be less likely to
> do it if I knew that EVERYBODY was going to ignore him.
The answer is easy. If you don't want to deal with trolls, then move
to a moderated group.
-MH