Mets: Worst Team Money Can Buy
25436-vaughn
I've never seen anything like it. An incredibly punchless team.
Can't blame the front office: who would've thought that adding
Bonilla, Murray and Randolph would result in the team with the
lowest team batting average in the majors?
The only suspense game-to-game is: how exactly will they fail
to score runners in scoring position this time?
I understand last year's massive underachieving; with Cashen as
GM, Harrelson as manager and Type Z personalities like McReynolds,
Jefferies and Viola around it was fairly predictable.
But this year?
Unbelievable.
Dick V.
Edward [Ted] Fischer
>
>I've never seen anything like it. An incredibly punchless team.
>
>Can't blame the front office: who would've thought that adding
>Bonilla, Murray and Randolph would result in the team with the
>lowest team batting average in the majors?
I said lots of contradictory things about the Mets in the off-season.
But I was never *that* impressed about the Murray/Randolph signings.
Or the Mets offense in general.
Murray didn't produce much last year. At his age, why would anybody
expect him to help the team significantly this year? And predictably,
he has a .755 OPS. (Last year he had a ~.725 OPS.) Not bad, but the
Mets severly overpaid for him.
Bonilla isn't running the ~.900 OPS that he ran last year. But then,
he just moved to one of the worst offensive parks in the league. You
can't complain *too* much about his .800+ performance.
Randolph had an excellent year last year. But at his age, did you
really want to bet on him?
Meanwhile, Magadan and Coleman are doing better than I expected. The *real*
culprits are:
Hundley/O'Brien
A .600 OPS is miserable even for a catcher!
Schofield/Elster
Also weak.
and....
Howard Johnson. A sub-.700 OPS.
To quote Amit Likhyani from April:
"I will streak naked down Forbes avenue if HoJo does not muster more
than a .792 OPS."
All I can say to that is "Start your cam-corders!"
Cheers,
-Valentine
--
"What is John Valentin still doing in the minors?" ted...@cs.cornell.edu
Joe Baldino
games to go, then you can start complaining. Their division sucks as do all
your opinions on the N.Y. METS! In the end this team will show you why they
are the highest paid.
DEFINITELY
J.B.
Terence Page
>DEFINITELY
>J.B.
Well, here is the classic "I love my team and I am blind to how bad they are"
syndrome. It's not so bad when these guys pledge their loyalty to a lousy team,
but the least they can do is be realistic. The Mets winning the pennant this
year is about as likely as Jerry Brown in the White House.
T
Dodgers Fan
Joe Baldino
Well I can understand why you feel this way since you are a Dodger fan.
Well at least my team has a chance.
J.B.
Donald P Boell
Black, Righetti and McGee) and the Dodgers made this year (Davis). You
can't buy a pennant unless you are very lucky.
Nelson Lu
Davis was not signed as a free agent; he was acquired in a trade. However,
are you somehow saying that signing people as free agents are usually mistakes?
They usually don't make you pennant winners, but they usually improve the
team, unless you are making really stupid signings such as signing Kevin Gross
and Eric Show.
In the Mets case, Murray didn't fit the team's needs, and Randolph was not
really needed. But do you really want to say that a signing is a good one
*only* if a team wins the pennant, and all other free agent signings are bad
ones? Texas signed Nolan Ryan as a free agent, and has yet to win a pennant.
Does that make the Ryan signing a bad one?
===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
Committee to Elect Johnny Ray as Angels Second Baseman
Committee to Elect Mike Witt as Angels Ace
Committee to Elect Cookie Rojas as Angels Manager
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (clau...@leland.stanford.edu)
Matt Telles
>
> Well, here is the classic "I love my team and I am blind to how bad they are"
>syndrome. It's not so bad when these guys pledge their loyalty to a lousy team,
>but the least they can do is be realistic. The Mets winning the pennant this
>year is about as likely as Jerry Brown in the White House.
>
Hmm. Guess I better get out the "Moonbeam shorts". Lessee here, the Mets
a) aren't hitting
b) aren't pitching
c) aren't fielding
and they are 6 games back (and moving up). Saberhagen will be back after the
all-star break as will Franco. HoJo is almost guaranteed to start hitting as
will Bonilla (the law of averages *has* to work in your favor sooner or later).
The pitching staff:
Cone : excellent stuff.
Fernandez : has good stuff, no run support
Schourek : this guy could be the best pitcher in baseball if his team ever
scored a run for him...
Gooden : for a man that shouldn't have been pitching yet I think he's doing
fairly well
Saberhagen : it's always tough to say what someone will do after an injury,
but I think he will carry on.
The Metsies will probably trade for a middle-reliever and very possibly for a
Coleman-like speedster (with a better on-base percentage). Watch for some small
trades (or possibly bringing up a few prospects) right after the all-star break.
matt
(putting on his Moonbeam Shorts(tm))
--
==============================================================================
Matt Telles mat...@auto-trol.COM
{...}ncar!ico!auto-trol!mattel
Auto-trol Technology 12500 N Washington Denver, CO 80241-2404 (303)252-2874
Roger Lustig
>In article <14...@hades.hera.Sbi.Com> pa...@zip.sbi.com (Terence Page) writes:
>> Well, here is the classic "I love my team and I am blind to how bad they are"
>>syndrome. It's not so bad when these guys pledge their loyalty to a lousy team,
>>but the least they can do is be realistic. The Mets winning the pennant this
>>year is about as likely as Jerry Brown in the White House.
>Hmm. Guess I better get out the "Moonbeam shorts". Lessee here, the Mets
>a) aren't hitting
>b) aren't pitching
>c) aren't fielding
Actually, only a). The fielding isn't great, but it's not bad either.
And the pitching is just fine. We can see this by the fact that they
win ANY games with their 2-run offense.
>and they are 6 games back (and moving up). Saberhagen will be back after the
>all-star break as will Franco. HoJo is almost guaranteed to start hitting as
>will Bonilla (the law of averages *has* to work in your favor sooner or later).
Bonilla doesn't seem to be hitting all that badly *now.*
>The pitching staff:
>Cone : excellent stuff.
>Fernandez : has good stuff, no run support
>Schourek : this guy could be the best pitcher in baseball if his team ever
> scored a run for him...
>Gooden : for a man that shouldn't have been pitching yet I think he's doing
> fairly well
>Saberhagen : it's always tough to say what someone will do after an injury,
> but I think he will carry on.
>The Metsies will probably trade for a middle-reliever and very possibly for a
>Coleman-like speedster (with a better on-base percentage). Watch for some small
>trades (or possibly bringing up a few prospects) right after the all-star break.
Even if they don't, I think they can play a bit better. Now, if Hundley
would only hit a bit better, and show that he's not all "potential."
Roger
AL...@cunyvm.bitnet
front office signed Bonilla, Murray, Saberhagen etc. as if they were a
championship team acquiring the missing piece when what they really should
have done is break the team and concentrate on developing their farm talent
and spend the next few years developing themselves into a championship team,
which is what they did in the early 80's.
As it stands now they have people playing out of position and unless they
make changes, they will be mediocre for the next few years. Signing Bonilla
and Murray was an attempt to patch up a team that has been on the decline
since the late 80's. Murray-Johnson-Bonilla are not the best 3-4-5 tandem
in the league. Pirate fans could tell you all about Bonilla, and Murray has
his best years behind him. Howard Johnson can hit but he couldn't even field
at 3b, and now he is expected to play cf.Put all the names together(Magadan,
Pecota, Schofeild, Randolph, etc. and ask yourself "Is this team going
anywhere?" As for next year, when the Reds and Braves are in the division?
Forget it...
IMO, they should concede the next few years to the Braves and Reds, unload
the high-priced players and rebuild. In a N.Y. market that expects a winner it
is hard to do, but Met fans have been through it before and if they can either
sacrifice 3-5 years now, or spend the next 10 years signing free agents in
a vain attempt for a winner...Other teams have tried this and mortgaged their
future for a "quick fix" and ended up setting themselves back even further...
Al
Packman, Aaron I.
>The Mets have made the same mistake the Giants did two years ago (getting
>Black, Righetti and McGee) and the Dodgers made this year (Davis). You
>can't buy a pennant unless you are very lucky.
>
>
they traded for him fair and square.
Aaron Packman
Matt Telles
>In article <1992Jul7.1...@auto-trol.com> mat...@auto-trol.com (Matt Telles) writes:
>>Hmm. Guess I better get out the "Moonbeam shorts". Lessee here, the Mets
>>a) aren't hitting
>>b) aren't pitching
>>c) aren't fielding
>
>Actually, only a). The fielding isn't great, but it's not bad either.
>And the pitching is just fine. We can see this by the fact that they
>win ANY games with their 2-run offense.
True. I was mostly putting forth the opinions of the Met-bashers on the net
recently. Fielding has been decent, pitching quite good recently.
>>and they are 6 games back (and moving up). Saberhagen will be back after the
>>all-star break as will Franco. HoJo is almost guaranteed to start hitting as
>>will Bonilla (the law of averages *has* to work in your favor sooner or later).
>
>Bonilla doesn't seem to be hitting all that badly *now.*
No he isn't. I hadn't realized how well he was doing until I got to watch a TBS
broadcast this week. Mostly I was thinking of his numbers at Shea. mea culpa.
>
>>The Metsies will probably trade for a middle-reliever and very possibly for a
>>Coleman-like speedster (with a better on-base percentage). Watch for some small
>>trades (or possibly bringing up a few prospects) right after the all-star break.
>
>Even if they don't, I think they can play a bit better. Now, if Hundley
>would only hit a bit better, and show that he's not all "potential."
>
Actually, if Magadan, HoJo, Bonilla and Murray are hitting, they can afford the
offensive liabilities of Schofield and Hundley. Randolph is OK although nothing
like his heyday. I'll keep Coleman/Boston in LF ..
Matt
Sean Sweda
First of all, Doubleday owns the Mets, so they can sign free-agents until
the cows come home and it won't make a difference. The question is "When
does signing a free-agent hurt your team?" Now there are two answers to
this: 1) when you are stupid and sign a player who doesn't help the team
ala Gary Gaetti; or 2) the player you sign is keeping a younger, more
talented player out of the linup (Braves fans on the net are very familiar
with this, as I assume most would like to see Justice at first, Keith
Mitchell in the outfield, and Sid Bream history).
Now, you just said the Mets have no players in the farm system who are
capapble of stepping in and becoming good MLB ballplayers, so how are they
hurting the team by filling holes with the likes of Randolph and Murray.
Granted neither are all that great, but Murray at first, Magadan at third,
and HoJo in center is better offensively than HoJo at third, Magadan at
first and Hubie Brooks in right.
As for mortgaging the future, the only young player they dumped in the
off-season was Jefferies, who IMHO still has star potential. Keith Miller
is 27-28 and McReynolds is on his last legs, and they got a 2-time
Cy_Young award winner who is 27-28 as well. Not a bad trade, especially
when viewed against the trades that REALLY hurt this team. Namely
Tapani-Aguilera-et al for Viola and (this one really hurts) Dykstra and
McDowell for Juan Samuel (ugh!).
Sean
D. Scott Kitchen (CCAC) <skitchen>
>
(Mets ranting deleted)
>
> Well, here is the classic "I love my team and I am blind to how bad they
>are" syndrome. It's not so bad when these guys pledge their loyalty to a
>lousy team, but the least they can do is be realistic. The Mets winning
>the pennant this year is about as likely as Jerry Brown in the White House.
>
>T
>Dodgers Fan
Well, first of all, T, I agree with you on how badly the other guy was
blathering, but I think you're off on your prediction about the Mets not
being able to win a pennant this year. Maybe my own eyes are a little
blinded (yes, I'm a Mets fan, too), but hear me out a little...
1) 6 games back can easily be made up. Seems to me I remember a
much-maligned Yankees team from 1978 that was 14 games or so back and came
back to win not only a pennant, but the World Series as well.
2) Saberhagen being out has hurt this team so much (as if no one could
tell). When he comes off the DL and begins pitching again, the turnaround
in morale will be surprising.
3) Dead bats? Well, yes. Why aren't they hitting? Who knows. Will they
start hitting again? IMHO yes. They can't stay down that long.
Comments?
--
Scott Kitchen | ICBM: 40.88 N 74.56 W | Mail: skit...@pilot.njin.net
Knox's Principle of Star Quality: Whenever a superstar is traded to your
favorite team, he fades. Whenever your team trades away a useless no-name,
he immediately rises to stardom.
Joe Baldino
>Black, Righetti and McGee) and the Dodgers made this year (Davis). You
>can't buy a pennant unless you are very lucky.
>
>
>A small point needs to be made here: the Dodgers didn't "buy" Eric Davis,
>they traded for him fair and square.
The only diference is that Eric Davis sucks and isn't worth what Bonilla
is.
J.B.
Scott Barman
>In the Mets case, Murray didn't fit the team's needs, and Randolph was not
>really needed. But do you really want to say that a signing is a good one
>*only* if a team wins the pennant, and all other free agent signings are bad
>ones? Texas signed Nolan Ryan as a free agent, and has yet to win a pennant.
>Does that make the Ryan signing a bad one?
Or does it make the Murray signing a bad one when he seems to be the
only one on that team producing? And Murray did fit a need--but we
had this flame war before, didn't we?! :-)
--
scott barman | <This space intentionally left blank>
sc...@asd.com |
(I can barely speak for myself, you expect me to speak for my employer??)
Nelson Lu
>Or does it make the Murray signing a bad one when he seems to be the
>only one on that team producing? And Murray did fit a need--but we
>had this flame war before, didn't we?! :-)
Yeah, Murray must be really producing with that .338 OBP, with a solid but
not spectacular .423 SLG...
Greg Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life Spira
>In article <1992Jul10....@asd.com> sc...@asd.com (Scott Barman) writes:
>>Or does it make the Murray signing a bad one when he seems to be the
>>only one on that team producing? And Murray did fit a need--but we
>>had this flame war before, didn't we?! :-)
>Yeah, Murray must be really producing with that .338 OBP, with a solid but
>not spectacular .423 SLG...
Its kind of ironic that the only Met really producing is the one who has
suffered the most criticism here in New York - Bobby Bonilla. He's been far
and away the best hitter on the team, and, using Jeff Sagarin's ratings in
BW, he's been the third most productive outfielder in the NL so far (behind,
ironically, Bonds and Van Slyke).
Greg
--
sp...@panix.com "The one-O delivery to Fisk. He swings. Long drive,
cmcl2!panix!spira left field! If it stays fair, it's gone! Home Run!"
158-17 Riverside Dr. Ned Martin, 10/22/75
Whitestone NY 11357 (Insert your favorite baseball moment here)
Joe Baldino
>only one on that team producing? And Murray did fit a need--but we
>had this flame war before, didn't we?! :-)
>Yeah, Murray must be really producing with that .338 OBP, with a solid but
>not spectacular .423 SLG...
The Mets paid Murray to drive in runs and he is on a pace to drive in 108.
I call that producing.
J.B.
Nelson Lu
>The Mets paid Murray to drive in runs and he is on a pace to drive in 108.
>I call that producing.
That Pete O'Brien, then, must have had a hell of a year last year, driving in
88 runs with a .300 OBP and a .402 SLG (eating 421 outs in the process).
Joe Baldino
>Jose Uribes...
By reading your statement I take it that your not a big baseball fan, because
if you were you would know that in order to win a baseball game you have to outscore
your opponent. Yes that means someone has to drive in runs. There're only a few
ways teams can score without getting an actual RBI. As for the N.Y. METS getting
on base for Eddie Murray , I guess you being out west haven't heard that Mets
aren't hitting as a team. Eddie just makes the most of his opportunities.
J.B.
Greg Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life Spira
Sigh. No.
The Mets pay Murray to help the team win. They gave him a big contract hoping
that he would help the team score more runs and play decent defense.
Murray's offense has been that of an average NL first baseman so far. Not
bad, but certainly great either. And he has not hit as well as the guy who
would've played first if Murray wasn't a Met, Dave Magadan
Roger Lustig
By reading your posting I take it your'e not a big fan of USENET.
*PLEASE* keep your line length under 80, say, around 72.
Now, as for making the most of his opportunities, why not tell us how
many opportunities Eddie Murray has HAD relative to the rest of the
team?
And how many runners has he failed to plate, and how many innings has he
ended with his outs?
RBI mean little because they don't address the inequality in
opportunities. Everyone went all gooey over Joe Carter the other year,
without noticing that only about 7 guys in the last 15 years had come up
with more runners in scoring position.
Yes, the Mets aren't hitting as a team, and that INCLUDES Eddie Murray.
If he were hitting, he'd have 15 more RBI.
Roger
Scott Barman
>>Hmm. Guess I better get out the "Moonbeam shorts". Lessee here, the Mets
>>a) aren't hitting
>>b) aren't pitching
>>c) aren't fielding
>
>Actually, only a). The fielding isn't great, but it's not bad either.
>And the pitching is just fine. We can see this by the fact that they
>win ANY games with their 2-run offense.
Gee... Roger, I know I've been in Miami a few days, but they have looked
not much better than the 1991 Mets, who were not much better than the
1962 Mets, recently. Did you see last night's (7/9) game in Houston?
ARGH! What the @#$%^ is Makey Sasser doing in left field? ARGH!!
>Bonilla doesn't seem to be hitting all that badly *now.*
Now that he's on the road. About two weeks ago, SportsChannel gave a
split of Bonilla's home and away averages. He's doing much better on
the road than in Shea!
>>The Metsies will probably trade for a middle-reliever and very possibly for a
>>Coleman-like speedster (with a better on-base percentage). Watch for some small
>>trades (or possibly bringing up a few prospects) right after the all-star break.
>
>Even if they don't, I think they can play a bit better. Now, if Hundley
>would only hit a bit better, and show that he's not all "potential."
I wish they would. Sometimes I want to jump through the TV set and
smack them into reality, that's how frustrated I am. I am also getting
tired of this by-the-book managing style of Torborg. If he had the
balls to try something, I think he would have at least tied that game in
Atlanta on Wednesday night.
Maybe I'll become a Marlins fan... :-(
Scott Barman
>the high-priced players and rebuild. In a N.Y. market that expects a winner it
>is hard to do, but Met fans have been through it before and if they can either
>sacrifice 3-5 years now, or spend the next 10 years signing free agents in
>a vain attempt for a winner...Other teams have tried this and mortgaged their
>future for a "quick fix" and ended up setting themselves back even further...
Al Harazin has already started the "rebuilding" of the Mets. In AA
and A level they have chosen carefully future starting pitchers and
other replacements. The problem is that these prospects, if they make
it, will not be available for another three-to-five years. In the mean
time, get used to this situation because it will take that long to
repair the damage.
Paul S Galvanek
>Its kind of ironic that the only Met really producing is the one who has
>suffered the most criticism here in New York - Bobby Bonilla. He's been far
>and away the best hitter on the team, and, using Jeff Sagarin's ratings in
>BW, he's been the third most productive outfielder in the NL so far (behind,
>ironically, Bonds and Van Slyke).
>
I guess that doesn't say much for Jeff Sagarin's rating now does it.
If you can argue that a .260/424/370 set of numbers, especiallyt in the manner
he's accumulated these, is third best or anywhere near acceptable then you're
fooling yourself.
PSG
Roger Lustig
>In article <1992Jul10....@panix.com>
sp...@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:
>>Its kind of ironic that the only Met really producing is the one who has
>>suffered the most criticism here in New York - Bobby Bonilla. He's been far
>>and away the best hitter on the team, and, using Jeff Sagarin's ratings in
>>BW, he's been the third most productive outfielder in the NL so far (behind,
>>ironically, Bonds and Van Slyke).
>I guess that doesn't say much for Jeff Sagarin's rating now does it.
Well, let's see *your* ratings...
>If you can argue that a .260/424/370 set of numbers, especiallyt in the manner
>he's accumulated these, is third best or anywhere near acceptable then you're
>fooling yourself.
Speaking of which, did we ever finalize our bet about Bobby Bo hitting
15 homers for the year?
Oh, and what does "in the manner he's accumulated these" mean?
R
>PSG
Edward [Ted] Fischer
>he's accumulated these, is third best or anywhere near acceptable then you're
>fooling yourself.
How *has* he accumulated these? By hitting a ton and a half on the road,
and having a total limp bat at home. Is that less valuable than hitting
a consistent .260/.370/.424? Why?
(Actually, its .264/.378/.449 through last Sunday...)
I still don't see how Sagarin can figure that he has been the third
best OF, though I'd still place him in the top 10. And .827 OPS isn't
what he's being paid for, but it's well above average.
Cheers,
-Valentine
--
"What is John Valentin still doing in the minors?" ted...@cs.cornell.edu
Paul S Galvanek
>
>Speaking of which, did we ever finalize our bet about Bobby Bo hitting
>15 homers for the year?
>
Why you don't actually think he'll hit more than that do you?
>Oh, and what does "in the manner he's accumulated these" mean?
What it means is that if you go through the Mets box scores since the start
of the season his preformance takes on a whole different appearance than
the the image the totals give. There's really quite a neat pattern to it,
he goes 0 for 3, 0 for 4 for a bunch of games then tears some rookie or
over the hill pitcher a new asshole with a 4 for 4 or 5 game where he racks
up a bunch of rbis and hey the totals look almost respectable. The Pirate
Mets series here in Pittburgh last month was typical, 1 hit in the first
three games which the Mets lost all of them then he tars and feathers the
new kid just like everyone else and the Mets fall further behind. Several
times now he's sat for a week or ten days at the same rbi level then he
goes nuts in just a game or two to keep pace with the other ball players that
contribute day in and day out for their teams. And as if reading from a script
just like I described at the beginning of the season everyone that defends
the guy said oh he was 5 for 16 I'll take that any day totally disregarding
the fact that for what ever his totals were he still left more men on base
in first three games which they lost than he brought in in the one they won.
The Met fans are booing him because they see how little he's done to keep
the team from falling apart and they see him for the six million dollar joke
that he is. But then why am I complaining, the Mets have him we don't, we're
still in first place they're not.
Hey Bobby keep up the good work!
But the thing I find most amazing about this group is that prior to this season
when we talked about others that hit near .260 and slugged .424 that was just
an unacceptable level. Now that Bonilla is posting those kinds of
numbers, well that's considered just fine.
PSG
Edward [Ted] Fischer
>of the season his preformance takes on a whole different appearance than
>the the image the totals give. There's really quite a neat pattern to it,
>he goes 0 for 3, 0 for 4 for a bunch of games then tears some rookie or
>over the hill pitcher a new asshole with a 4 for 4 or 5 game where he racks
>up a bunch of rbis and hey the totals look almost respectable.
Hm. Maybe I *should* do this. Or do you want to do the legwork? It
would probably make us all shut up if you could actually prove this
point.
>The Met fans are booing him because they see how little he's done to keep
>the team from falling apart and they see him for the six million dollar joke
>that he is.
Actually, the Mets fans are booing him because he has only 11 (?) RBIs
in Shea. And those are the games they most get to see. Check out his
H/R split. It makes Wade Boggs look steady!
>But the thing I find most amazing about this group is that prior to
>this season when we talked about others that hit near .260 and slugged
>.424 that was just an unacceptable level. Now that Bonilla is posting
>those kinds of numbers, well that's considered just fine.
Okay, who was *ever* slammed for an hitting .264/.378/.449? Are you
thinking of Steve Buechele? He never came *close* to that OBP. Van
Slyke? He's hitting that well now, but not last year. Again, his OBP
was lower. Bonilla isn't earning his $6 million, but he's hitting
decently...
Greg Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life Spira
>In article <1992Jul10....@panix.com> sp...@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:
>>Its kind of ironic that the only Met really producing is the one who has
>>suffered the most criticism here in New York - Bobby Bonilla. He's been far
>>and away the best hitter on the team, and, using Jeff Sagarin's ratings in
>>BW, he's been the third most productive outfielder in the NL so far (behind,
>>ironically, Bonds and Van Slyke).
>>
>I guess that doesn't say much for Jeff Sagarin's rating now does it.
Sagarin's rating system is fine. I would rank Bonilla a bit lower, say, at
around 5th among major league outfielders, but that's a small difference.
>If you can argue that a .260/424/370 set of numbers, especiallyt in the manner
>he's accumulated these, is third best or anywhere near acceptable then you're
>fooling yourself.
Well, I would argue that being one of the top 5 offensive outfielders in
the league is plenty adequate. If anything, Bonilla's been more productive
than I would have expected.
So, yes, a .378 OBP and a .446 SLG (numbers through Saturday's games) are great,
especially when you consider that most of the runs he's helped create have been
key to Mets victories. I certainly didn't expect him to post as high an OBP
as he has in the first half, an OBP which has lead to tons of runs. His power
numbers are a bit below what I expected, though.
And, by the way, Paul, you're the one who continues to fool yourself. You've
made it extremely obvious over the past couple of years here that the very
mention of Bonilla's name turns your brain into mush and all your critical
reasoning abilities into jello. I saw a woman on tv the other day whose
words kind of reminded of me what I imagine your thoughts are like when
Bonilla's name comes up. Something like this:
"Bad! Bobby Bad! Evil! Bobby Bo Bad! Bad! Bad! Evil! Bobby Bad! Bad! BAD!"
The fact remains that Bonilla's been one of the most productive outfielders
in the NL this year. He may not be third, he may not be, as I believe he is,
fifth, but he's way up there. That's a fact, Paul, and you can't change it.
Greg
(On a slightly more negative Bobby note, could someone please tell Jeff
Torborg to stop going around saying that "Bobby Bonilla is one of the best
defensive outfielders in baseball." The idea is utterly ludicrous. I know
that Jeff needs to come up with things to say on his 25 times a day appearances
on WFAN, but that claim is just too much.)
Roger Lustig
ro...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>Speaking of which, did we ever finalize our bet about Bobby Bo hitting
>>15 homers for the year?
>Why you don't actually think he'll hit more than that do you?
Look, I'll be perfectly happy to take your five bucks or whatever, but
he *does* have eleven at the midpoint of the season, and traditionally
does a little better in the second half.
Just say the word and it's a bet. I'll be in Pittsburgh in Nov.
>>Oh, and what does "in the manner he's accumulated these" mean?
>What it means is that if you go through the Mets box scores since the start
>of the season his preformance takes on a whole different appearance than
>the the image the totals give. There's really quite a neat pattern to it,
>he goes 0 for 3, 0 for 4 for a bunch of games then tears some rookie or
>over the hill pitcher a new asshole with a 4 for 4 or 5 game where he racks
>up a bunch of rbis and hey the totals look almost respectable.
well, since you've obviously done this analysis, I'm sure you'll post
it instead of just asserting it over and over. In fact, you could just
list the pitchers he hit the 11 homers off of.
Seriously, if you take his daily BA (or OPS or whatever), is its
variance any different from that of other players? Perhaps you should
back this assertion up.
And when you've done that, tell us why this makes him a bad player if
it's true.
>The Pirate
>Mets series here in Pittburgh last month was typical, 1 hit in the first
>three games which the Mets lost all of them then he tars and feathers the
>new kid just like everyone else and the Mets fall further behind.
Well, if it's so damn typical, why not list his performance in the other
25 series the Mets have played?
>Several
>times now he's sat for a week or ten days at the same rbi level then he
>goes nuts in just a game or two to keep pace with the other ball players that
>contribute day in and day out for their teams.
Well, with nobody hitting ahead of you, RBI are hard to find. Now, why
not post the data to back up your assertions?
>And as if reading from a script
>just like I described at the beginning of the season everyone that defends
>the guy said oh he was 5 for 16 I'll take that any day totally disregarding
>the fact that for what ever his totals were he still left more men on base
>in first three games which they lost than he brought in in the one they won.
Big fat hairy deal! EVERYBODY leaves more men on than they drive in.
(Add to this the fact that your argument is rather insulting to Pirate
pitching -- as though they had nothing to do with this...)
>The Met fans are booing him because they see how little he's done to keep
>the team from falling apart and they see him for the six million dollar joke
>that he is. But then why am I complaining, the Mets have him we don't, we're
>still in first place they're not.
Because you're so twisted with hate that you've gone completely
irrational. Now, do we have that bet?
>But the thing I find most amazing about this group
is that prior to this season
>when we talked about others that hit near .260 and
slugged .424 that was just
>an unacceptable level.
Now that Bonilla is posting those kinds of
>numbers, well that's considered just fine.
Well, as usual you leave out the data that matter: his high OBP.
Nobody's ever claimed that a guy with .820 OPS in a pitcher's park is
"unacceptable;" in fact, that's the definition of a batting star. Tell
me, who called it unacceptable?
(Oh, and watch your line length. 72 is nice.)
Roger
David DeMers
...
>I still don't see how Sagarin can figure that he has been the third
>best OF, though I'd still place him in the top 10. And .827 OPS isn't
>what he's being paid for, but it's well above average.
Er, I think .825 OPS or so *is* what he's being paid for. This
is Bobby Bonilla here folks. He's 29 and has a career .829 OPS,
and has moved to that offensive paradise, Shea Stadium. I think
he's right on track for anyone's reasonable expectations. If Mets
fans are dissatisfied, well, they're *Mets fans*, who, as a group,
have never shown much understanding of baseball talent.
BB is giving them what he promised, and a lot of teams would be
pretty happy to be getting his production. If you pay Ferrari
prices for a Camaro, you get an ok car, but you shouldn't be
surprised when it won't go 150 mph or corner at 1g.
--
Dave DeMers ddemers@UCSD dem...@cs.ucsd.edu
Computer Science & Engineering C-014 demers%c...@ucsd.bitnet
UC San Diego ...!ucsd!cs!demers
La Jolla, CA 92093-0114 (619) 534-0688, or -8187, FAX: (619) 534-7029
Greg Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life Spira
>What it means is that if you go through the Mets box scores since the start
>of the season his preformance takes on a whole different appearance than
>the the image the totals give. There's really quite a neat pattern to it,
>he goes 0 for 3, 0 for 4 for a bunch of games then tears some rookie or
>over the hill pitcher a new asshole with a 4 for 4 or 5 game where he racks
>up a bunch of rbis and hey the totals look almost respectable. The Pirate
>Mets series here in Pittburgh last month was typical, 1 hit in the first
>three games which the Mets lost all of them then he tars and feathers the
>new kid just like everyone else and the Mets fall further behind. Several
>times now he's sat for a week or ten days at the same rbi level then he
>goes nuts in just a game or two to keep pace with the other ball players that
>contribute day in and day out for their teams.
Sigh.
Bonilla's RBI distribution:
3,2,2,2,1,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,2,3,2,3,1,6,4,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,3
Perfectly normal. A couple of big games, 16 games where he had one RBI,
7 games where he had 2, 4 where he had 3.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your "analysis," Paul. RSB would be
a lot less entertaining if that happened.
>But the thing I find most amazing about this group is that prior to this season
>when we talked about others that hit near .260 and slugged .424 that was just
>an unacceptable level. Now that Bonilla is posting those kinds of
>numbers, well that's considered just fine.
Who did you have this conversation with, Paul? Certainly not Roger etc.,
because they wouldn't have ever mentioned batting average in the discussion.
And while I'm here, let me show how, as of last Sunday, Bonilla was clearly
one of the top 5 outfielders in the league.
First, let's mention the two players clearly better than Bonilla:
OBP SLG
Bonds .428 .575
Van Slyke .411 .495
No contest.
Now the one player on Bonilla's level:
Gwynn .392 .452
And lets mention Bonilla here:
Bonilla .378 .449
Gwynn's raw percentages are slight better (17 OPS "points"), but Bonilla
plays in a park that reduces run scoring by about 5% more. That makes it
about even.
Sagarin's ratings put Bonilla slightly ahead, I'm not sure if I would.
Okay. Let's now see who else has an OBP over .350
Gant .355 .459
You can add about .013 to Gant's SLG for his stolen bases, which makes his
OPS about equal to Bonilla's. But you'd rather have the OBP than the SLG,
and the huge difference in the parks makes Bonilla a clear choice.
Butler .373 .354
No contest, even before you add the negative of his caught stealings.
Lankford .367 .450
He gets a bonus of about .013 SLG for his stolen bases, which puts his
numbers about even. The difference in parks gives the edge to Bonilla.
Jose .359 .456
See Lankford.
Okay, now let's see if anybody has enough power to offset the offense
generated by Bonilla's OBP
Dawson .315 .477
Uh, no.
Walker .333 .502
41 points of OBP is worth more than 53 points of slugging (If my memory
serves me correctly, a point of OBP is worth about 1.4 points of slugging.
Or something like that)
Okay, one more possibility.
Grissom .340 .410
Doesn't look close, but Grissom has been extremely succesful on the
basepaths. A stolen base adjustment to his SLG makes his .487. Still,
Bonilla's higher OBP gives him the ad again even though their OPSs are
equal.
This is why Jeff Sagarin's rating of Bonilla as the third best offensive
outfielder in the NL is not only reasonable but pretty accurate.
Greg
Paul S Galvanek
>
>Sigh.
>
>Bonilla's RBI distribution:
>
>3,2,2,2,1,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,2,3,2,3,1,6,4,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,3
>
>Perfectly normal. A couple of big games, 16 games where he had one RBI,
>7 games where he had 2, 4 where he had 3.
>
Perfectly normal? I suppose the obvious has alluded you, did you notice
that you've only accounted for 28 of his, 88 games ? There's a few, 60
to be a bit more accurate where Bobby might just as well not have showed
up and could have done just as well.
I don't think you'll convince me or the Met fans that this is normal or
acceptable for a player who claims to be one of the top three outfielders
in the game and is being paid like he was the best.
As for the totals you posted, I don't dispute them. I'm saying that
totals can be deceiving when evaluating a player. I don't believe that
any player that crams ALL of his offensive numbers into only one third
of the games he's played (as Bobby has done) is really helping his team
over the course of the season.
PSG
Paul S Galvanek
>
>well, since you've obviously done this analysis, I'm sure you'll post
>it instead of just asserting it over and over. In fact, you could just
>list the pitchers he hit the 11 homers off of.
I have...
>
>Seriously, if you take his daily BA (or OPS or whatever), is its
>variance any different from that of other players? Perhaps you should
>back this assertion up.
... this is one thing that's slowing me up simply because I'm having
trouble reproducing the "rollercoaster" in this media but give me a day
or so...
Okay so I did some leg work to see just exactly how much Bobby Bonilla's
so called production has contributed to the Mets season and while there's
no single stat I could think of to demonstrate my point, here's a few.
Since I have no local paper I have only the last Baseball Weekly to go by
so these numbers are complete through July sixth in which Bobby Bonilla
appeared in 81 of 82 Met games. In those 81 games he has...
Failed to reach base in 21 games (26%)
Gone Hitless in 35 games (43%)
Failed to score a run 49 games (61%)
Failed to produce an RBI 55 games (68%)
Failed to score a run AND RBI 41 games (51%)
Multiple hit games 17 games (21%)
Multiple hit games accounting for
a % of his total HITS (72) 44 hits (61%)
a % of his total RBIS (48) 29 rbis (60%)
a % of his total RUNS (39) 22 runs (56%)
Even more interesting is if you include the four other games he had more than
1 RBI to the 17 multiple hit games (4-8, 5-4, 5-20, 7-1) and you find that those
21 games account for 38 of his 48 RBIs a full 79% of his RBI production.
Add the three games (4-14, 4-19, 5-4) where he scored multiple runs with out
getting multiple hits and you find that 28 of his 39 (72%) are scored in 20
games.
In the 55 games he failed to collect an RBI he left runners on base in 39 of
those games (71%) and stranded a total of 83 base runners in only games he
games with out an RBI.
He has had consecutive hitless games on 9 occasions, 3 consecutive hitless
games 5 times and 4 consecutive hitless twice.
He's also had stretches of games with out an RBI 3 games (four times) 4 games
(three times) 5 games (once) 6 games (twice) and a single 11 game no rbi,
no run showing
I can show a day by day accounting of his "production" if you'd like but it
I can tell you that it is as I said string of hitless, or one hit games
punctuated by 4, 5 and 6 hit and RBI games with the bottom line being that
you can account for about 80% of hit total offensive production in fewer
than 24 games. And of those games the Mets only won about half (though that's
an estimate since I haven't yet counted).
I only wish I had saved last years Baseball Weeklys that way I could show that
(as I told you Pirate announcers had said) this is fairly typical of the way
Bobby Bonilla "produces" for his team, not very often and in bunches when he
does.
PSG
Sherri Nichols
>In article <1992Jul10....@panix.com> sp...@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:
>>Its kind of ironic that the only Met really producing is the one who has
>>suffered the most criticism here in New York - Bobby Bonilla. He's been far
>>and away the best hitter on the team, and, using Jeff Sagarin's ratings in
>>BW, he's been the third most productive outfielder in the NL so far (behind,
>>ironically, Bonds and Van Slyke).
>>
>
>I guess that doesn't say much for Jeff Sagarin's rating now does it.
Or perhaps it says more about the bias you approach the numbers with.
>If you can argue that a .260/424/370 set of numbers, especiallyt in the manner
>he's accumulated these, is third best or anywhere near acceptable then you're
>fooling yourself.
Ok, name more than two better. Should be easy if those numbers are not
"anywhere near acceptable".
Oh, and be sure to show us in what manner the players you pick as better
are better.
Sherri Nichols
snic...@adobe.com
Roger Lustig
ro...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>well, since you've obviously done this analysis, I'm sure you'll post
>>it instead of just asserting it over and over. In fact, you could just
>>list the pitchers he hit the 11 homers off of.
>I have...
Sorry, I must have missed it. Anyone still got that posting who could
send it to me?
>>Seriously, if you take his daily BA (or OPS or whatever), is its
>>variance any different from that of other players? Perhaps you should
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>back this assertion up.
>... this is one thing that's slowing me up simply because I'm having
>trouble reproducing the "rollercoaster" in this media but give me a day
>or so...
>Okay so I did some leg work to see just exactly how much Bobby Bonilla's
>so called production has contributed to the Mets season and while there's
But you didn't show us whether it was atypical, i.e., you didn't show
whether other players do this.
>no single stat I could think of to demonstrate my point, here's a few.
Funny, I just listed a few in the post your'e responding to. I'll
repeat: take his daily OPS and take the variance. Now repeat for
players with similar numbers of PA, and with similar OPS (within 100
pointa, say). Is his variance any bigger?
>Since I have no local paper I have only the last Baseball Weekly to go by
>so these numbers are complete through July sixth in which Bobby Bonilla
>appeared in 81 of 82 Met games. In those 81 games he has...
>Failed to reach base in 21 games (26%)
What's the average for people with a .380 OBA?
>Gone Hitless in 35 games (43%)
Ditto.
>Failed to score a run 49 games (61%)
Ditto. (For people batting in his slot.)
>Failed to produce an RBI 55 games (68%)
Paul, you just don't get it. These are utterly meaningless numbers if
you have nothing to comare them to. If we don't know the league batting
average, then a .335 BA is meaningless. Same for all these supposedly
horrendous numbers.
>Failed to score a run AND RBI 41 games (51%)
>Multiple hit games 17 games (21%)
Is this a good or bad thing? Why?
>Multiple hit games accounting for
> a % of his total HITS (72) 44 hits (61%)
> a % of his total RBIS (48) 29 rbis (60%)
> a % of his total RUNS (39) 22 runs (56%)
Are you implying it's bad to do this? Please show some evidence.
(Also, list the pitchers, since you claim he only hits against bad
pitchers. Of course, EVERYONE hits better against bad pitchers,
otherwise they'd be good pitchers.
>Even more interesting is if you include the four
other games he had more than
>1 RBI to the 17 multiple hit games
(4-8, 5-4, 5-20, 7-1) and you find that those
>21 games account for 38 of his 48 RBIs a full 79% of his RBI production.
Aha. So it's suddenly BAD to hit when there are 2 or 3 men on base.
Interesting.
I suppose you're going to tell me it's bad when Bonilla hits a grand
slam, too.
Hey, what's the Mets' W-L when Bonilla has these terrible, destructive
games where he hits? And what was the average margin of victory in
those games?
>Add the three games (4-14, 4-19, 5-4) where he scored multiple runs with out
>getting multiple hits and you find that 28 of his 39 (72%) are scored in 20
>games.
And divide by the GNP and you get nothing at all. Paul, WAKE UP! All
your typing of numbers means bupkis -- unless we have something to
compare to.
>In the 55 games he failed to collect an RBI he left runners on base in 39 of
>those games (71%) and stranded a total of 83 base runners in only games he
>games with out an RBI.
What's the average?
>He has had consecutive hitless games on 9 occasions, 3 consecutive hitless
>games 5 times and 4 consecutive hitless twice.
Again, what's the average for a guy who bats .260? And who gives a
shit? A hit is a hit, and .260 is .260.
>He's also had stretches of games with out an RBI 3 games (four times) 4 games
>(three times) 5 games (once) 6 games (twice) and a single 11 game no rbi,
One more time: is this relatively bad? Is this relatively good? Does
it make any difference?
>no run showing
>
>I can show a day by day accounting
>of his "production" if you'd like but it
>I can tell you that it is as I said string of hitless, or one hit games
>punctuated by 4, 5 and 6 hit and RBI games with the bottom line being that
>you can account for about 80% of hit total offensive production in fewer
>than 24 games.
Go ahead. I'd like to see that. And then tell me what the league
average is. Otherwise, you're just rattling.
>And of those games the Mets only won about half (though that's
>an estimate since I haven't yet counted).
Well, that's better than their overall W-L, now, isn't it? Also, what
does this have to do with anything? Last I heard, no team had charged
their rightfielder with winning all their games for them.
>I only wish I had saved last years Baseball Weeklys that way I could show that
>(as I told you Pirate announcers had said) this is fairly typical of the way
>Bobby Bonilla "produces" for his team, not very often and in bunches when he
>does.
You know, your scare quotes around every instance of the word "produce"
fairly scream "bullshit" -- since it's perfectly obvious to anyone who
isn't in a rage like yours that Bobby Bonilla has ahd some trouble
hitting at Shea, and that's that. He's been a perfectly useful
ballplayer in road games, where the Mets have needed the help the most,
and all your sneering and fake (because un-normed) statistics won't
change that.
Now, do we have that bet or not? Will Bobby Bo end up with > 15 HR or
not? I'm asking for the third time; so far, each time I've tried to
take you up on your offer, I've gotten dead silence in return.
Roger
Roger Lustig
>>3,2,2,2,1,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,2,3,2,3,1,6,4,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,3
>>Perfectly normal. A couple of big games, 16 games where he had one RBI,
>>7 games where he had 2, 4 where he had 3.
>Perfectly normal? I suppose the obvious has alluded you, did you notice
>that you've only accounted for 28 of his, 88 games ?
Well, what's the league average, Paul? How often do MOST players get
RBI's? You're the one who insists that Bonilla's numbers show how bad
he is; it's up to you to show that these numbers are, in fact, bad.
>There's a few, 60
>to be a bit more accurate where Bobby might just as well not have showed
>up and could have done just as well.
Yeah, right. No RBI == worthless. Get a life.
>I don't think you'll convince me or the Met fans that this is normal or
>acceptable for a player who claims to be one of the top three outfielders
>in the game and is being paid like he was the best.
No, Paul, YOU convince US. YOU show us the numbers for other players.
So far we have nothing to compare.
>As for the totals you posted, I don't dispute them. I'm saying that
>totals can be deceiving when evaluating a player.
And we'd like to know why. (Not to mention wanting to know whether your
scary assertions about his production are even true.)
>I don't believe that
>any player that crams ALL of his offensive numbers into only one third
>of the games he's played (as Bobby has done) is really helping his team
>over the course of the season.
a) As you damn well know, RBI is not equal to "ALL of his offensive
numbers."
b) Bonilla has hardly gone .000 OPS in 2/3 of his games. Don't lie.
c) Tell us WHY you don't believe that.
And what about that bet?
Roger
Sherri Nichols
>Er, I think .825 OPS or so *is* what he's being paid for. This
>is Bobby Bonilla here folks. He's 29 and has a career .829 OPS,
>and has moved to that offensive paradise, Shea Stadium. I think
>he's right on track for anyone's reasonable expectations. If Mets
>fans are dissatisfied, well, they're *Mets fans*, who, as a group,
>have never shown much understanding of baseball talent.
Actually, it's probably as much the fault of the NY media as it is the
fault of the fans. It seems like there's been this perception that Bonilla
was having a bad season *before* the season ever began. Bonilla is having
pretty much the same season he's had for the last several seasons; he's one
of the more steadier performers in the league.
What I wonder is why HoJo has always managed to remain the fair-haired boy
despite being a very inconsistent performer.
>BB is giving them what he promised, and a lot of teams would be
>pretty happy to be getting his production.
If the Pirates had Bonilla with that production, the pennant race would be
over.
Sherri Nichols
snic...@adobe.com
Paul S Galvanek
>
>Now, do we have that bet or not? Will Bobby Bo end up with > 15 HR or
>not? I'm asking for the third time; so far, each time I've tried to
>take you up on your offer, I've gotten dead silence in return.
>
>Roger
Not a chance. It's obvious that no matter what stats I post you will still
try to rationalize why a player that show any offense in less than a third
of his games, regardless of his totals, is an asset to his team. I don't
to compare him to know that stranding 85% of the runners on base when he
comes to bat is well below average.
Problem is that you seem to think that a team, any team, signs players with
an eye towards how many number he will post. Wrong, they sign players with
the idea that they will help win games. Perhaps they assume that if a player
posts a certian set of numbers he'll will surely help the team but that is
not the always the case.
Bonilla is stranding way to many runners, having to many hitless games,
failing to reach to many times and simply not helping the Mets win games
The Met fans see it, the New York sports writers see it and the Met front
office is starting to see it. The only one Bonilla is producing for is
him self.
I will certainly sit down and compare the pathetic numbers he is putting
up with other outfielders but somnething tells me that won't sway you
either.
PSG
AL...@cunyvm.bitnet
sw...@css.itd.umich.edu (Sean Sweda) says:
>
>
>First of all, Doubleday owns the Mets, so they can sign free-agents until
>the cows come home and it won't make a difference. The question is "When
>does signing a free-agent hurt your team?" Now there are two answers to
>this: 1) when you are stupid and sign a player who doesn't help the team
>ala Gary Gaetti; or 2) the player you sign is keeping a younger, more
>talented player out of the linup (Braves fans on the net are very familiar
>with this, as I assume most would like to see Justice at first, Keith
>Mitchell in the outfield, and Sid Bream history).
>
Doubleday does own the Mets, but after Frank Cashen left, most of the
responsibilities concerning the team went to Al Harazin. He was behind
these deals and signings. Free agency can be good for a team ( ex. the
'88 Dodgers and the Yankees of the late 70's), but there are a lot of teams
out there who have tried the "quick fix" and got burned.
>Now, you just said the Mets have no players in the farm system who are
>capapble of stepping in and becoming good MLB ballplayers, so how are they
>hurting the team by filling holes with the likes of Randolph and Murray.
>Granted neither are all that great, but Murray at first, Magadan at third,
>and HoJo in center is better offensively than HoJo at third, Magadan at
>first and Hubie Brooks in right.
>
That is not what I said, but the Mets farm system now is not as good as
it was years ago. I said that they should concentrate on developing their
farm talent. Randolph and Murray make for decent players to fill in the
gaps but they aren't getting any younger and what happens a few years from
now? The Mets need new blood, and the sooner they start to develop young
players the better.
>As for mortgaging the future, the only young player they dumped in the
>off-season was Jefferies, who IMHO still has star potential. Keith Miller
>is 27-28 and McReynolds is on his last legs, and they got a 2-time
>Cy_Young award winner who is 27-28 as well. Not a bad trade, especially
>when viewed against the trades that REALLY hurt this team. Namely
>Tapani-Aguilera-et al for Viola and (this one really hurts) Dykstra and
>McDowell for Juan Samuel (ugh!).
>
>Sean
I did say that the Mets have been on the decline since the late '80s, so
I wasn't just referring to their attempt to clean house during this past
off season, but I was also meant those two trades. I would rather have
Dykstra out in cf and Aguilera in the bullpen than what they have now.
Keep in mind that they have been losing to the Pirates the last two years
and the Pirates talent is getting more depleted as they lose more of their
stars to free agency. Next year and from then on, the Mets not only have to
worry about the Pirates, but also the Braves and Reds. If the Mets made 2nd
place by default, they will probably be in 3rd or 4th place from now on. I
said that they should concede the next few years to those two teams and
rebuild because their division just got tougher and they can't beat out
Pitt. as it is now...
Al
David DeMers
>In article <1992Jul13.0...@panix.com> sp...@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:
>>Sigh.
>>Bonilla's RBI distribution:
>>3,2,2,2,1,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,2,3,2,3,1,6,4,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,3
>>Perfectly normal. A couple of big games, 16 games where he had one RBI,
>>7 games where he had 2, 4 where he had 3.
>Perfectly normal? I suppose the obvious has alluded you, did you notice
>that you've only accounted for 28 of his, 88 games ? There's a few, 60
>to be a bit more accurate where Bobby might just as well not have showed
>up and could have done just as well.
What are the other players doing? Bobby contributes *runs* in about
1/3 of the Mets games. Seems pretty reasonable. Do you really
expect him to produce in ALL of the games? Come on, there are only
a handful of OFs who are producing more than BB; really only Van Slyke
and Bonds are clearly exceeding his production.
I suspect you are coloring your attitude by the fact that his
production is mostly on the road. But it ends up being runs
and runs turn into wins, especially when the whole team
is producing.
>I don't think you'll convince me or the Met fans that this is normal or
>acceptable for a player who claims to be one of the top three outfielders
>in the game and is being paid like he was the best.
Well, it sure looks normal to me. How does this production compare
with, say, McGriff or Sheffield or Bonds or Gant or Lankford or Jose?
I suspect you'll find just about the same distribution. After all, top
players end up with about 1 RBI for every 2 games. If they hit a
3 run HR, that takes care of almost a week.
>As for the totals you posted, I don't dispute them. I'm saying that
>totals can be deceiving when evaluating a player. I don't believe that
>any player that crams ALL of his offensive numbers into only one third
>of the games he's played (as Bobby has done) is really helping his team
>over the course of the season.
But this is what ALL players do! EVERYBODY has 0-fer games about
half the time. If he walks and doesn't score, is that HIS fault?
Why don't you compare his production rates to other top players?
You'll find that he's doing quite well. Sheffield had a stretch
in June where he had something like 1 RBI in two weeks. But he's
been pretty damned productive for the season as a whole. The
difference is that when Sheffield has a lousy day, McGriff cracks
a tater or two. The Mets just stink if BB doesn't carry them.
Sherri Nichols
>>
>>Now, do we have that bet or not? Will Bobby Bo end up with > 15 HR or
>>not? I'm asking for the third time; so far, each time I've tried to
>>take you up on your offer, I've gotten dead silence in return.
>>
>>Roger
>
>Not a chance. It's obvious that no matter what stats I post you will still
>try to rationalize why a player that show any offense in less than a third
>of his games, regardless of his totals, is an asset to his team.
Huh? What's to rationalize about whether a player gets more than 15 homers
or not? That's all that Roger's bet is about: will Bobby Bonilla hit more
than 15 homers in 1992, or not?
Sherri Nichols
snic...@adobe.com
Greg Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life Spira
>In article <1992Jul13.0...@panix.com> sp...@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:
>>
>>Sigh.
>>
>>Bonilla's RBI distribution:
>>
>>3,2,2,2,1,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,2,3,2,3,1,6,4,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,3
>>
>>Perfectly normal. A couple of big games, 16 games where he had one RBI,
>>7 games where he had 2, 4 where he had 3.
>>
>Perfectly normal? I suppose the obvious has alluded you, did you notice
>that you've only accounted for 28 of his, 88 games ? There's a few, 60
>to be a bit more accurate where Bobby might just as well not have showed
>up and could have done just as well.
Well, first I've only done RBIs, not runs scored. (Caveat: I don't believe
that RBIs are a decent evaluator of production; players do not control their
opportunities and do not control when their hits come, as far as I'm
concerned). But do you have any reason to believe that this distribution
isn't normal? I think that for a type of player such as Bobby, this
distribution is exactly what you would expect. It's not what you would
expect from a singles hitter, of course.
>I don't think you'll convince me or the Met fans that this is normal or
>acceptable for a player who claims to be one of the top three outfielders
>in the game and is being paid like he was the best.
I don't recall Bonilla ever claiming he was one of the three best outfielders
in the game.
And he's being paid his market value - his talent has nothing to do with it.
The correlation between salaries and talent is not that strong.
>As for the totals you posted, I don't dispute them. I'm saying that
>totals can be deceiving when evaluating a player. I don't believe that
>any player that crams ALL of his offensive numbers into only one third
>of the games he's played (as Bobby has done) is really helping his team
>over the course of the season.
Why? I'm serious. Why do you believe that? What difference does it make
if he drives in 2 runs in 30 games each or 1 run in each of 60 games? Or
3 runs in 20 games? Why do you think one is better than the other?
Note - If he drove in 6 runs in each of 10 games, I'd see a point.
John Franjione
>In article <1992Jul13.1...@Princeton.EDU> ro...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>
>>Now, do we have that bet or not? Will Bobby Bo end up with > 15 HR or
>>not? I'm asking for the third time; so far, each time I've tried to
>>take you up on your offer, I've gotten dead silence in return.
>>
>>Roger
>Not a chance. It's obvious that no matter what stats I post you will still
>try to rationalize why a player that show any offense in less than a third
>of his games, regardless of his totals, is an asset to his team. I don't
How about YOU go and look at your favorite "clutch" player stats and
let us know HIS distribution of RBI's. How do you have any idea
whether having RBI's in 1/3rd of games is normal or not? I don't think
you do. From what I've seen, you've done maybe 1% (if that) of the research
required to back up your spurious claims. On the other hand, I believe
that the people posting these numbers do have an idea about these
things.
>to compare him to know that stranding 85% of the runners on base when he
>comes to bat is well below average.
Where did you get this number? Made it up? What is average, oh
omnicient one?
>Problem is that you seem to think that a team, any team, signs players with
>an eye towards how many number he will post. Wrong, they sign players with
>the idea that they will help win games. Perhaps they assume that if a player
>posts a certian set of numbers he'll will surely help the team but that is
>not the always the case.
When is it not the case? How about an example with REAL evidence, not
one of your classic insight-lacking claims?
>Bonilla is stranding way to many runners, having to many hitless games,
>failing to reach to many times and simply not helping the Mets win games
>The Met fans see it, the New York sports writers see it and the Met front
>office is starting to see it. The only one Bonilla is producing for is
>him self.
>I will certainly sit down and compare the pathetic numbers he is putting
>up with other outfielders but somnething tells me that won't sway you
>either.
This I've got to see.
Tell you what, Paul. Refute this. Andy Van Slyke is the BIGGEST
CHOKE PLAYER in the National League. Last year, in game 6 of the NLCS,
he took a CALLED THIRD STRIKE on a CURVEBALL for the last out. There
was a runner in scoring position. My grandmother would have at least
swung. Especially against Alejandro Pena, who has proven this year
that he is one of the WORST relievers in the NL. If Van Slyke can't
bring himself to take the bat off his shoulder in the most crucial
atbat of the season, when a mere single would have tied the game,
against one of the WORST relievers in the NL, throwing his SECOND BEST
PITCH, then he doesn't deserve a major league job.
John Franjione
Sean Sweda
>it was years ago. I said that they should concentrate on developing their
>farm talent. Randolph and Murray make for decent players to fill in the
>gaps but they aren't getting any younger and what happens a few years from
>now? The Mets need new blood, and the sooner they start to develop young
>players the better.
>
All I was trying to point out was that there is no Keith Mitchell clone
sitting at Tidewater because of Murray. I think the Tigers should have
proved to you by now that you cannot accidentally stumble upon a good MLB
player by promoting every 24-25 year old player you have, and call this
"developing talent." There has to be talent there, and in this case
there really isn't.
>
> I did say that the Mets have been on the decline since the late '80s, so
> I wasn't just referring to their attempt to clean house during this past
> off season, but I was also meant those two trades. I would rather have
> Dykstra out in cf and Aguilera in the bullpen than what they have now.
(sniff) me too.
> Keep in mind that they have been losing to the Pirates the last two years
> and the Pirates talent is getting more depleted as they lose more of their
> stars to free agency. Next year and from then on, the Mets not only have to
> worry about the Pirates, but also the Braves and Reds. If the Mets made 2nd
> place by default, they will probably be in 3rd or 4th place from now on. I
> said that they should concede the next few years to those two teams and
> rebuild because their division just got tougher and they can't beat out
> Pitt. as it is now...
>
> Al
Right, but how does signing Murray/Randolph hurt? That's all I'm saying.
The problem with the Mets is that their offense is:
a) not as good as Joe Fan thinks it is
and
b) it is underachieving
So put these two together and its understandable why they are struggling.
As soon as Torborg gets his head out of his ass and HoJo out of the
leadoff spot, maybe the offense will improve. Then if we get Saberhagen
back at 100%, Doc starts pitching like Doc circa 1986 even, and Franco
hurries back, there is a small possibility that this team can play .600-.650
ball in the second half. And that small possibility is what we poor
Mets fans cling to...
Sean
Matt Telles
I think for Paul, this means that he accumulated them as a Met. Paul, I realize
that you don't like Bonilla, and I think that we all know this by now. Could
you please just tone it down a little?
It gets tiring to read the same thing over and over. If you have new points, I
for one would love to debate them with you. But the same old thing again just
gets boring...
Thanks,
Matt
--
==============================================================================
Matt Telles mat...@auto-trol.COM
{...}ncar!ico!auto-trol!mattel
Auto-trol Technology 12500 N Washington Denver, CO 80241-2404 (303)252-2874
David M Tate
>
>The Mets paid Murray to drive in runs and he is on a pace to drive in 108.
>I call that producing.
Even though the team would be scoring more runs with an average first
baseman there?
(Time once again for The Joe Carter Thread That Wouldn't Die...)
--
David M. Tate | "Slyder, slyder, breaking late
dt...@unix.cis.pitt.edu | On the corner of the plate
William "Toe" Blake | What immortal bat and eye
"The Slyder" | Could brave thy fierce trajectory?"
Roger Lustig
ro...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>Now, do we have that bet or not? Will Bobby Bo end up with > 15 HR or
>>not? I'm asking for the third time; so far, each time I've tried to
>>take you up on your offer, I've gotten dead silence in return.
>>Roger
>Not a chance. It's obvious that no matter what stats I post you will still
>try to rationalize why a player that show any offense in less than a third
>of his games, regardless of his totals, is an asset to his team. I don't
>to compare him to know that stranding 85% of the runners on base when he
>comes to bat is well below average.
Um, how is this relevant to his hitting 15 homers?
Also, where do you get this "stranding 85%" number? Does that mean he
only drove in 15% of the runners avaialable to be driven in? Not the
same as "stranding." Also -- a shade above league average, according to
last year's Elias. 14 to 15% is average (only 5% of runners at first
get plated on a given AB) so one might say that Bobby Bo is a little
below expectations, but hardly a disaster.
>Problem is that you seem to think that a team, any team, signs players with
>an eye towards how many number he will post. Wrong, they sign players with
>the idea that they will help win games.
Right, and intelligent GMs since Branch Rickey have figured out that
posting certain numbers ALWAYS helps a team. And nothing you have said
here, none of the bullshit numbers you've posted -- bullshit because you
have neither given a baseline for comparison nor an argument as to why
high variance in offensive production is necessarily bad -- changes a
bit of that.
>Perhaps they assume that if a player
>posts a certian set of numbers he'll will surely help the team but that is
>not the always the case.
Why? What situations make it NOT the case? Tell us, and tell us WHY.
>Bonilla is stranding way to many runners,
Prove it. Show that it's true.
>having to many hitless games,
Prove it. Show that it's true, then show what you mean by "too many."
Show us why one hit in each of two games is much better than two hits in
one.
>failing to reach to many times
Perhaps you should stop smoking those funny cigarettes. He has an OBA
of .380, and has reached base in about as many games as anyone else who
has similar numbers.
Or can you show otherwise?
>and simply not helping the Mets win games
Bullshit! It's Hojo and all the midgets who are keeping the Mets from
winning. Decent hitting from them would mean that Bonilla would have 10
more RBI and 20 more R. Blaming the best hitter on the team is
hilariously stupid, Paul. The Met offense stinks with few exceptions
(Bonilla, MAgadan, perhaps Murray); getting bats into three more lineup
slots is what will win games.
>The Met fans see it, the New York sports writers see it and the Met front
>office is starting to see it. The only one Bonilla is producing for is
>him self.
Yeah, right. The Met fans DO see that he doesn't hit at home; but he's
about the ONLY Met hitting on the road, the one keeping the Mets in
games on the road.
As for the NY sportswriters, it says a hell of a lot about you that you
align yourself with that pack of nitwits.
>I will certainly sit down and compare the pathetic numbers he is putting
>up with other outfielders but somnething tells me that won't sway you
>either.
It sure will help more than your silly-assed assertions without
foundations.
Now, is he or isn't he going to hit 16 homers, and do we have $5 on it?
You wanted to make this bet a month ago -- you said you'd put money on
it -- and I offered to take you up. Care to revise the bet to smething
else?
Roger
Brent Hutto
>In article <1992Jul13.1...@Princeton.EDU> ro...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>
>>Now, do we have that bet or not? Will Bobby Bo end up with > 15 HR or
>>not? I'm asking for the third time; so far, each time I've tried to
>>take you up on your offer, I've gotten dead silence in return.
>>
>>Roger
>
>Not a chance. It's obvious that no matter what stats I post you will still
>try to rationalize why a player that show any offense in less than a third
>of his games, regardless of his totals, is an asset to his team. I don't
>to compare him to know that stranding 85% of the runners on base when he
>comes to bat is well below average.
Please post that average. Also tell us what average you are refering
to. All batters? All outfielders? All NL black outfielders who play
in NY city? Ah, it doesn't matter, because you haven't lookup up or
calculated any average at all. You're just asserting. Bare assertions
seem to work for politicians, but you are running for office. Use at
least *some* fact(s) to back up your assertions. It's not that hard.
>Problem is that you seem to think that a team, any team, signs players with
>an eye towards how many number he will post. Wrong, they sign players with
>the idea that they will help win games. Perhaps they assume that if a player
>posts a certian set of numbers he'll will surely help the team but that is
>not the always the case.
OK, then calculate how much or how little he has helped them "win
games". Then compare his performance with some other applicable
group. Then sit back and be amazed at how much more interesting
discussion you have produced (as opposed to the "Is not" "Is too"
"Is not" "Is too" game).
>Bonilla is stranding way to many runners, having to many hitless games,
>failing to reach to many times and simply not helping the Mets win games
>The Met fans see it, the New York sports writers see it and the Met front
>office is starting to see it. The only one Bonilla is producing for is
>him self.
Well, the part about "way too many", etc. is certainly OK, since
it clearly means "way too many for your personal taste". We can't
argue with logic like that. Of course, if you really meant "way
too many for *anyone* to think that he's productive", then you
have a huge burden of proof, so that's clearly not the way in which
you meant it.
>I will certainly sit down and compare the pathetic numbers he is putting
>up with other outfielders but somnething tells me that won't sway you
>either.
I could imagine a lot of different standards which would sway me
if you post accurate analyses showing that they do, in fact, act
in support of your assertions. I can't speak for anyone else,
but *I'm* interested in seeing what you find. Really. It may
be that Barry Bonilla isn't very productive. I can't tell one
way or another because I haven't looked up any facts on the
matter. If you would look up some facts and post them (along
with some facts pertaining to other players), I could make up
my own mind (which is the only way *my* mind gets made up).
>
>PSG
>
-------------------------------
Brent Hutto
hu...@SMTC.engr.scarolina.edu
Brent Hutto
>In article <29...@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, ps...@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul13.1...@Princeton.EDU> ro...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>>
>>>Now, do we have that bet or not? Will Bobby Bo end up with > 15 HR or
>>>not? I'm asking for the third time; so far, each time I've tried to
>>>take you up on your offer, I've gotten dead silence in return.
>>>
>>>Roger
>>
>>Not a chance. It's obvious that no matter what stats I post you will still
>>try to rationalize why a player that show any offense in less than a third
>>of his games, regardless of his totals, is an asset to his team. I don't
>>to compare him to know that stranding 85% of the runners on base when he
>>comes to bat is well below average.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Please post that average. Also tell us what average you are refering
> to. All batters? All outfielders? All NL black outfielders who play
> in NY city? Ah, it doesn't matter, because you haven't lookup up or
> calculated any average at all. You're just asserting. Bare assertions
> seem to work for politicians, but you are running for office. Use at
> least *some* fact(s) to back up your assertions. It's not that hard.
Sorry for the lousy typing. Much below my usual (mediocre) standard...
-------------------------------
Brent Hutto
hu...@SMTC.engr.scarolina.edu
Gerry Myerson
In article <29...@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, ps...@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
> Bobby Bonilla
> appeared in 81 of 82 Met games. In those 81 games he has...
>
> Failed to reach base in 21 games (26%)
> Gone Hitless in 35 games (43%)
> Failed to score a run 49 games (61%)
> Failed to produce an RBI 55 games (68%)
> Failed to score a run AND RBI 41 games (51%)
> Multiple hit games 17 games (21%)
> Multiple hit games accounting for
> a % of his total HITS (72) 44 hits (61%)
> a % of his total RBIS (48) 29 rbis (60%)
> a % of his total RUNS (39) 22 runs (56%)
and suggests
> this is fairly typical of the way
> Bobby Bonilla "produces" for his team, not very often and in bunches when he
> does.
[I have made massive deletions here.] So, if a player has 72 hits in 81 games,
how many times would we expect him to go hitless? How many multiple-hit games
would we expect him to have? If we assume that there is NO tendency for hits
to bunch together, the Poisson distribution (details below) gives the answer;
Hitless, 33.3; One hit, 29.6; Multiple hit, 18.1.
Now look at Bonilla:
Hitless, 35; One hit, 29; Multiple hit, 17.
You could hardly ask for a better match. Bonilla has shown no more tendency to
hit in bunches than a fair coin shows a tendency to come up heads in bunches.
Poisson distribution for beginners; if someone has H hits in G games, let
r=H/G; then for n=0,1,2,... the expected number of games with n hits is
G times (r to the n) times (e to the minus r), all divided by n factorial;
here, e, the base of natural logarithms, is about 2.718, and n factorial
means the product of the integers up to n. Zero factorial is defined to be 1.
Gerry Myerson
Greg Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life Spira
>In article <1992Jul13.1...@Princeton.EDU> ro...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>
>>Now, do we have that bet or not? Will Bobby Bo end up with > 15 HR or
>>not? I'm asking for the third time; so far, each time I've tried to
>>take you up on your offer, I've gotten dead silence in return.
>>
>>Roger
>Not a chance. It's obvious that no matter what stats I post you will still
>try to rationalize why a player that show any offense in less than a third
>of his games, regardless of his totals, is an asset to his team. I don't
>to compare him to know that stranding 85% of the runners on base when he
>comes to bat is well below average.
What on Earth does any of this have to do with Roger's proposed bet
regarding how many homers Bonilla will hit this year?
By the way, Bonilla's RISP #s:
AVG OBP SLG
Total .267 .379 .446
RISP .264 .375 .425
In 87 RISP at-bats, he has 39 RBIs.
He's even better with runners on overall:
.293 .395 .504
By the way, I would guess that the average NL player strands about 85% of
the runners he finds on base.
>Problem is that you seem to think that a team, any team, signs players with
>an eye towards how many number he will post. Wrong, they sign players with
>the idea that they will help win games. Perhaps they assume that if a player
>posts a certian set of numbers he'll will surely help the team but that is
>not the always the case.
Strange. I've posted several times the last week (not in this thread)
trying to explain to people that a player's job is to contribute towards
winning and not to pile up RBI numbers.
>Bonilla is stranding way to many runners, having to many hitless games,
>failing to reach to many times and simply not helping the Mets win games
>The Met fans see it, the New York sports writers see it and the Met front
>office is starting to see it. The only one Bonilla is producing for is
>him self.
I would guess Bonilla's driven in a better than average % of runners,
and I know he's reaching base plenty of times.
cc00...@wvnvms.wvnet.edu
> Not a chance. It's obvious that no matter what stats I post you will still
> try to rationalize why a player that show any offense in less than a third
> of his games, regardless of his totals, is an asset to his team. I don't
> to compare him to know that stranding 85% of the runners on base when he
> comes to bat is well below average.
>
Why am I getting into this? :)
From 1991, the following are percentages of runners left on base:
Barry Bonds 76%
Bobby Bonilla 80%
Andre Dawson 81%
Ron Gant 81%
Steve Buechele 82% (Couldn't resist this one.)
Terry Pendleton 82%
Kevin Mitchell 83%
Hal Morris 84%
George Bell 85%
Len Dykstra 90%
While 85% is a bit on the low side, to only be leaving 3% more runners on
base than last year's MVP can't be that bad!
Doug Saunders
cc00...@wvnvms.wvnet.edu
Commissioner, Internet Baseball League
Edward [Ted] Fischer
>so called production has contributed to the Mets season and while there's
>no single stat I could think of to demonstrate my point, here's a few.
Paul, chill out! As far as I can tell, the numbers below are *not*
unusually streaky. You could calculate them for, say, Kirby Puckett
and get a similar type of distribution. So he's failed to have a run
or RBI in half of his games. HOW MANY PLAYERS DO ANY BETTER???? If
he got an RBI every day, people would be comparing him with the Babe.
A 162 RBI season????
Keep in mind that players *will* be a bit streaky. Especially when
they have enormous home/road splits. But these numbers are not
exceptional in that regard. As a roto player who tracks his team's
performance day-by-day, I can assure you that RBIs are *often*
bunched. It's not the isolated RBI here and there that has put me in
first place. It is the two, three, four, and five RBI performances
which account for probably 80% of my RBIs. And it's not unusual for
one of my power hitters to go without an RBI at all for a week. Power
hitters seem to be even streakier than most.
The real question is not whether Bonilla produces runs consistently,
but whether his production helps to win games. If you could show that
he only gets hits in 10-2 blowouts, you might have a case. If you
could support your earlier claim that he will have no RBIs for a week
and then 5 in one night, you might have a case. But you can't! Sure,
he has had a couple 4-RBI games. So does everybody. All it takes is
a bases-juiced HR. Bonilla does *not* have an unusual number of
multiple-RBI games.
>He has had consecutive hitless games on 9 occasions, 3 consecutive hitless
>games 5 times and 4 consecutive hitless twice.
Can I have him for my roto team? Seems like an *amazingly* consistent
hitter.
>I can show a day by day accounting of his "production" if you'd like but it
>I can tell you that it is as I said string of hitless, or one hit games
>punctuated by 4, 5 and 6 hit and RBI games with the bottom line being that
>you can account for about 80% of hit total offensive production in fewer
>than 24 games. And of those games the Mets only won about half (though that's
>an estimate since I haven't yet counted).
Give it up. The facts prove that you are lying. He has not had
enough 4 RBI games to be characterized that way. And what is wrong
with multiple-hit games?
>I only wish I had saved last years Baseball Weeklys that way I could show that
>(as I told you Pirate announcers had said) this is fairly typical of the way
>Bobby Bonilla "produces" for his team, not very often and in bunches when he
>does.
Paul, that is typical of the way *all* hitters produce. Especially
power hitters which, believe it or not, Bonilla is doing a rather good
imitation of.
-Valentine
--
"What is John Valentin still doing in the minors?" ted...@cs.cornell.edu
David H. Thornley
>try to rationalize why a player that show any offense in less than a third
>of his games, regardless of his totals, is an asset to his team. I don't
>to compare him to know that stranding 85% of the runners on base when he
>comes to bat is well below average.
>
4.9% of players on first, 17.2% of players on second, and 41.1% of players
on third. Hint: there were a *lot* more players on first than on third.
Bonilla is well above average if he drives in 15% of those on base when
he comes to bat. Last year, Canseco drove in about 21.5% of the runners he
had available.
Nor are we trying to rationalize. We see good offensive numbers, and *you*
are telling us that, for some strange reason, they don't mean anything. You
post numbers and claim streakiness when the numbers are almost identical to
a random distribution. It looks to me like you're rationalizing that hits
and RBIs mean nothing if they're in clumps, which is an awful strange
statement.
>Problem is that you seem to think that a team, any team, signs players with
>an eye towards how many number he will post. Wrong, they sign players with
>the idea that they will help win games. Perhaps they assume that if a player
>posts a certian set of numbers he'll will surely help the team but that is
>not the always the case.
>
Actually, teams do look at the numbers. Players with good numbers tend to
help win games. Looks like Bonilla is doing it.
>Bonilla is stranding way to many runners, having to many hitless games,
>failing to reach to many times and simply not helping the Mets win games
>The Met fans see it, the New York sports writers see it and the Met front
>office is starting to see it. The only one Bonilla is producing for is
>him self.
>
I don't have figures on runners stranded, but bear in mind that nobody
drives in 25% of available runners. (Following according to the last
McWeekly.) Bonilla has 73 hits in 81 games, so obviously if he has more
than 8 no-hit games he has had multi-hit games in which he has been very
useful. He has a .378 OBP, and therefore has been reaching a *lot*. What
would be "too many times failing to reach", and who in MLB can be expected
to reach enough times?
Bonilla is helping the Mets win games. He just can't do it all. The Mets,
as a team, are .233/.319/.340. HoJo is .225/.332/.362, Murray is
.258/.334/.413, and Boston is .231/.305/.395 (the other left fielders are
worse). The only power positions doing well are third base (Magadan at
.293/.402/.347) and right field (Bonilla at .264/.378/.449).
You might be right in that Bonilla is not worth what the Mets paid for
him, but that's because the Mets are more than one good right fielder
away from contending. If HoJo and Murray were hitting like they used to
nobody would worry about Bonilla.
>I will certainly sit down and compare the pathetic numbers he is putting
>up with other outfielders but somnething tells me that won't sway you
>either.
>
If you make it a fair comparison, it will sway us. Make it your usual
unfair comparison and it won't. Are you in fact willing to admit that
Bonilla *might* be a good player?
David Thornley
"When all is said and done, far more has been said than done"
Paul S Galvanek
>>
>>Not a chance. It's obvious that no matter what stats I post you will still
>>try to rationalize why a player that show any offense in less than a third
>>of his games, regardless of his totals, is an asset to his team.
>
>Huh? What's to rationalize about whether a player gets more than 15 homers
>or not? That's all that Roger's bet is about: will Bobby Bonilla hit more
>than 15 homers in 1992, or not?
>
>Sherri Nichols
>snic...@adobe.com
No that's not the bet, not that there ever was one. I said at the beginning
of the year that Bonilla would finish the season hittin .250 slug closer to
400 than 500, give or take a few points, and hit 15 near fifteen HRs.
Roger has already tried rationalizing by selecting only the homerun numbers
to quibble about. He knows that Bonilla is very near the other numbers I
predicted and has real good chance of proving me right and he thinks that
he can still get me on the home run total, which I still say he won't.
PSG
Sherri Nichols
>to quibble about. He knows that Bonilla is very near the other numbers I
>predicted and has real good chance of proving me right and he thinks that
>he can still get me on the home run total, which I still say he won't.
Just for clarification, Paul, is the "which I still say he won't" referring
to Roger not "getting" you on the HR total, or Bonilla not getting 15
homers?
BTW, I'm still waiting for that voluminous list of outfielders who are
clearly better than Bonilla this year?
Sherri Nichols
snic...@adobe.com
Paul S Galvanek
>I think for Paul, this means that he accumulated them as a Met. Paul, I realize
>that you don't like Bonilla, and I think that we all know this by now. Could
>you please just tone it down a little?
Whether I like him or not means nothing. What I think is that people that
do like him have a habit of setting the stage just right to make the arguement
that he is as good as they believe. When you say that he's the 3 rd best
right fielder in the NL, that is not that far from saying he's one of the best
bull fighters in Alaska, it may be true but you've narrowed the field of
competition so far down that it isn't much of an accomplishment.
Being one of the top ten offensive outfielders in the National League may be
true but it doesn't say much because if you haven't noticed the National
League outfielders are, just as last year, are putting up pretty poor numbers
compared to their American League counterparts, with the exception of Bonds,
Gwynn and Van Slyke.
If you really want to show how great he's doing compare him to ALL outfielders
playing in the majors, Bonds, VanSlyke and Gwynn still compare favorably why
shouldn't the other NL outfielders be expected to do the same? How does
Bonilla's fourth best in the NL place him in a contest with say...
B. Anderson M. Devereaux
D. Winfield K. Griffey
J. Carter B. Bonds
R. Seirra T. Gwynn
R. Henderson A. VanSklye
D. Tartabull D. Bichette
K. Puckett S. Mack
...Pick any number you like, OPS, OPI, SA, TA you chose then tell me that
Bonilla is one of the top outfielders in the major leagues and it might
mean something. Or better yet, since I've been told so many times that
defense is not really that important and we know his is not good, compare him
all MLB players with similar games and/or PA and show me where his offensive
production places him.
With out looking at any numbers, I have none to look at, I'll guess he
doesn't finish in the top 25 in anything except maybe OBP.
Prove me wrong.
PSG.
David M Tate
>>Jose Uribes...
>
>By reading your statement I take it that your not a big baseball fan, because
>if you were you would know that in order to win a baseball game you have to
>outscore your opponent.
Hi, Joe. Nice to meet you, too.
So far, so good.
>Yes that means someone has to drive in runs.
No, that means that someone has to *score* the runs. They count whether
they were driven in or not. More importantly, they count no matter who
actually crosses the plate, and no matter who was at bat at the time. I'll
come back to that below.
>There're only a few ways teams can score without getting an actual RBI.
True. However, there are lots and lots of ways that a team can score without
some one particular batter getting an RBI, and there are tons of runs that
*fail* to score in innings where that batter got an RBI.
The real question is "Did what this batter did increase or decrease the total
number of runs that the team was going to score in this inning, and by how
much?". Would you disagree with that?
The funny thing is, people get RBIs for all sorts of bad hitting. Grounding
into a force out with one out and runners on second and third "earns" you an
RBI, but it also kills what was probably going to be a big inning. A sac fly
there is even worse. And these things *don't* even out in the long run,
because certain types of hitter (like Joe Carter) are much more likely to
do the things that lead to cheap and useless RBIs than are other types of
hitter.
Pop quiz: you've got one out, men on first and third, and Frank Thomas at the
plate. Would you rather he (a) takes the walk, or (b) extends his strike zone
and hits an RBI sac fly or grounder?
If you chose (b), you are apparently "not a big baseball fan, because if you
were you would know that to win you need to outscore your opponent", and in
the long run the team that walks in that situation will score more runs than
the team that hits the sac fly. Instant gratification, in baseball as in life,
is usually a bad idea.
(Incidentally, these are not my personal opinions out of thin air. These
things have been studied several different ways, and the conclusions are
always the same.)
Of course, we haven't even touched on the problem of unequal opportunities,
park effects (e.g. a run in Wrigley is worth less than a run in the Astrodome)
and so on. When you get right down to it, RBI totals don't tell you much at
all about how much that particular player has contributed to (or detracted
from) team scoring. The vast majority of runs that the team scores depend on
the contributions of multiple players, and RBI counting does a miserable job
of correctly apportioning the credit in those cases.
--
David M. Tate | "And did those cleats in ancient time
dt...@unix.cis.pitt.edu | Walk beneath Fenway's monster green?
William "Toe" Blake | And was the holy Sultan of Swat
"The New Cooperstown" | In Yankee's pleasant pastures seen?"
Edward [Ted] Fischer
>try to rationalize why a player that show any offense in less than a third
>of his games, regardless of his totals, is an asset to his team. I don't
>to compare him to know that stranding 85% of the runners on base when he
>comes to bat is well below average.
Is it? Assume (roughly) half of all baserunners are on first, and 2/3
of the remaining baserunners are on second. From my Elias, "average"
is a 40% conversion rate from third, an 18% conversion rate from
second, and a 5% conversion rate from first. Multiply this by the
distribution of baserunners, and "average" conversion rate would be:
.50 * .05 + .33 * .18 + .17 * .40 = 15%
So it seems that Bonilla is, in fact, converting RBI chances at an
average rate. Which isn't all that good, not for an outfielder. Not
worth $6 million per year. But it isn't all *that* bad, either. In
fact, it seems to be dead average!
Of course we can't *really* tell until we know the actual distribution
of runners on first/runners on second/runners on third that he has
faced. But at first glance, 85% doesn't look *that* bad.
>Bonilla is stranding way to many runners, having to many hitless games,
>failing to reach to many times and simply not helping the Mets win games
>The Met fans see it, the New York sports writers see it and the Met front
>office is starting to see it. The only one Bonilla is producing for is
>him self.
Bonilla should never have moved to Shea. His production is down, and
he's taking a lot of crap for it. Any ideas why he has never hit well
(or even adequately) there?
>I will certainly sit down and compare the pathetic numbers he is putting
>up with other outfielders but somnething tells me that won't sway you
>either.
He is producing runs and RBIs at a reasonable clip. He is hitting for
OBP and SLG. Maybe he really *does* have a disproportionate part of
his production in blowouts. The Mets certainly aren't living up to
their Pythagorean projection, which would seem to indicate something
like that. But it's hard to really tell without:
1) An awful lot of legwork on Bonilla. (Which you seem to have done.)
2) Some league average numbers for context.
If you can provide both of those, it might be convincing. Of course,
I could argue reverse causality too... When Bonilla produces it
"sparks" the team's offense to an outstanding game? (Not that I
believe in such things, but...)
Cheers,
Jim Mann
writes:
> The funny thing is, people get RBIs for all sorts of bad hitting.
Grounding
> into a force out with one out and runners on second and third "earns"
you an
> RBI, but it also kills what was probably going to be a big inning. A
sac fly
> there is even worse. And these things *don't* even out in the long
run,
> because certain types of hitter (like Joe Carter) are much more likely
to
> do the things that lead to cheap and useless RBIs than are other types
of
> hitter.
"Useless" RBI? That's going a bit too far. I'd agree that some RBIs
are less useful than others and that in some cases it is even
better to walk and not get the RBI, but any RBI has SOME use. There
is a run scored, after all.
> Pop quiz: you've got one out, men on first and third, and Frank Thomas
at the
> plate. Would you rather he (a) takes the walk, or (b) extends his
strike zone
> and hits an RBI sac fly or grounder?
What's the situation: Is it a close game? Is it a late inning?
Who is pitching and who is up next? How many outs? What's
the count. (If it's 2-0 or 2-1, it might be more worthwile
to swing at a slightly outside pitch since you'd still
need yet another to walk.)
In any case, it's not an a) or b) choice. A big question here is how
much does extening the strike zone a bit to go after balls that are just
in/outside hurt Thomas's batting average?
--
Jim Mann jm...@vineland.pubs.stratus.com Stratus Computer
David M Tate
>In article <30...@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dta...@pitt.edu (David M Tate)
>writes:
>> do the things that lead to cheap and useless RBIs than are other types of
>> hitter.
>
>"Useless" RBI? That's going a bit too far. I'd agree that some RBIs
>are less useful than others and that in some cases it is even
>better to walk and not get the RBI, but any RBI has SOME use. There
>is a run scored, after all.
Yes, there is a run scored. But in many situations (like the one I describe
below) that run is probably going to score *eventually* this inning, no
matter what the current batter does. His job is to help ensure that the guy
currently on third isn't the *only* run that scores in the inning.
There are two situations (one out & runner on third only, and one out with
runners on first and third) where a sac fly has a positive marginal value and
increases the expected number of runs the team will score in that inning. IN
EVERY OTHER SITUATION the sac fly causes you to score *fewer* runs (in the
long run) than the average outcome. It's only a slight negative, to be sure,
but it's still a negative. In no case is it worth more than 0.2 expected runs,
and the two favorable cases only account for about 1/3 of all situations in
which a sac fly is possible. The worst is the none-out-bases-loaded sac fly,
which reduces expected scoring by about .35 runs.
>> Pop quiz: you've got one out, men on first and third, and Frank Thomas
>> at the plate. Would you rather he (a) takes the walk, or (b) extends
>> his strike zone and hits an RBI sac fly or grounder?
>What's the situation: Is it a close game? Is it a late inning?
>Who is pitching and who is up next? How many outs?
Good point. If it's the ninth inning, and your team is down by one or tied,
then it's definitely good to get the sac fly. In every other case, you still
come out better off in the long run without the sac fly. If there's one out,
as mentioned above, you might be slightly ahead even in earlier innings or
with different scores.
>What's
>the count. (If it's 2-0 or 2-1, it might be more worthwile
>to swing at a slightly outside pitch since you'd still
>need yet another to walk.)
Here I disagree. Batters like Thomas don't walk because they're trying to
accumulate balls, but because they only swing at strikes. There's a big
difference. Frank prefers that the pitcher throw strikes, so that he can
maul the ball (or at least have a good try). However, he understands that
swinging at balls out of the strike zone isn't going to help anyone. He
would mutilate his OBP and batting average, cut down his power numbers, and
generally be much less valuable to the team. Oh, yes, he'd also increase his
RBI numbers, simply because *some* of those extra pitches swung at would
result in RBI hits and sac flies and ground outs. Not enough to make it a
good tradeoff, but some. This is Joe Carter's secret: if you have lots of
men on base ahead of you, and swing at absolutely anything, you can steal all
those RBIs from the guys behind you (while leaving them nobody, especially
yourself, in scoring position).
>In any case, it's not an a) or b) choice. A big question here is how
>much does extening the strike zone a bit to go after balls that are just
>in/outside hurt Thomas's batting average?
Yes, that's the big question. From what I've heard from people who've played
at high level (Huckabay, Chuck Oertli, some secondhand reports from other
major leaguers, Ted Williams's book, etc.) the answer is "a whole helluva lot".
I think you've put your finger on the key issues and tradeoffs very well, Jim.
From there it's a matter of quantifying what's going on to the point that we
can decide what's valuable and what isn't. All the work I've seen points to
the idea that just because a run scored when you put the ball in play doesn't
mean that you helped the team. Sure, you avoided the worst possible outcome
for the inning (no more runs scoring), but you may also have prevented all
those possible big innings. It has been pointed out here before that the
winning team usually has one inning in which they equal or surpass the losing
team's total score for the game. I'd think this would be a strong indicator
that one-run strategies are on the wrong track.
Sherri Nichols
>are less useful than others and that in some cases it is even
>better to walk and not get the RBI, but any RBI has SOME use. There
>is a run scored, after all.
I don't think it's going too far at all. Yes, an RBI does mean that a run
has scored. However, it may have severely cut down the possibility of any
further run scoring in the inning. As has been demonstrated here several
times, you don't win games scoring runs one at a time; you win games by
scoring runs in bunches. That's a key point in the argument against RBIs.
The people in favor of the RBI as an important stat argue the following:
that an RBI means a run scored, and run scoring is what's important, and
the fact that RBIs only cover a small part of what went into the scoring of
that run doesn't matter. Those of us opposed to the RBI as an important
stat don't disagree that run scoring is what's important, but we take issue
with the idea that the RBI is telling you much about what a player
contributed to his team's scoring runs (and hence, winning games) because
of the following factors:
(1) RBI is strictly a counting stat. It does not take into account that a
player batting 5th on the Big Red Machine of the 70s is going to get many
more opportunities to drive in runs that a player who played on the Padres
teams of that era. Hence, the mere fact that a player has 100 RBIs may or
may not be impressive.
(2) RBIs don't take into account whether the cost of getting the RBI
outweighed the benefit. It is not the case that it is *always* good to get
one run, regardless of how you got it. To a small extent, the RBI stat
recognizes this, as RBIs aren't awarded when a run scores on a double play.
Those are runs scored, just like any others; if run scoring is all that
matters, then it would make sense to award an RBI here as well.
(3) It is possible for a player to maximize his individual RBI totals
without maximizing the team's runs scored total. This is related to (2).
Obviously, if I make a disproportionate number of my RBIs on outs, I'm
getting lots of RBIs, while stealing the opportunities for RBIs for the
players behind me. See Joe Carter, 1990. He had a .290 OBA (compared to
league average, including pitchers, of around .320). Yet he had 115 RBIs.
His RBIs consumed more outs than most players, and therefore tended to
decrease the potential for multiple-run innings for his team. Yet the RBI
believers think he had a good season, because he drove in 115 runs.
(4) RBIs ignore that there is a very big difference between driving a run
in from first, and driving one in from third, and that there is substantial
benefit in advancing runners and avoiding outs. That's why a lot of us
prefer to use OPS to evaluate players. SLG is a better measure of how good
a player is at advancing runners, and OBA tells us how good the player is
at avoiding outs. Avoiding outs is very important to team run scoring,
again, because run scoring happens in bunches, not one at a time.
>In any case, it's not an a) or b) choice. A big question here is how
>much does extening the strike zone a bit to go after balls that are just
>in/outside hurt Thomas's batting average?
Ted Williams, for one, thinks there is a substantial drop off in batting
average as you extend the the strike zone. Another piece of evidence is to
look at how changes in the way the strike zone is called have affected
hitters.
Sherri Nichols
snic...@adobe.com
Joseph B Huber
>some one particular batter getting an RBI, and there are tons of runs that
>*fail* to score in innings where that batter got an RBI.
Agreed!
>The real question is "Did what this batter did increase or decrease the total
>number of runs that the team was going to score in this inning, and by how
>much?". Would you disagree with that?
Can you answer this question immediatly after the batter makes an out? I don't
think so. The answer seems quite dependent and what happens in the following
AB's. If the question can't be answered immediatley after the AB, it doesn't
seem like a fair way to evaluate the AB.
Example: I strike out with bases loaded and one out. The next batter homers.
My strikeout doesn't appear to have cost the team many runs. If the
batter after me singles, and the batter after him makes an out, now how many
runs did I cost the team? If the batter after me also makes an out, how can
one determine how many runs I cost the team?
Another situation: I am an "average" batter and I walk with the bases loaded
and two outs. The next batter strikes out. Did I "increase" or "decrease the
number of runs that my team was going to score" by walking? I could have made
an out and none would have scored. I could have singled and 2 *might* have
scored etc. How many runs were we going to score in the first place?
>The funny thing is, people get RBIs for all sorts of bad hitting. Grounding
>into a force out with one out and runners on second and third "earns" you an
>RBI, but it also kills what was probably going to be a big inning.
>A sac fly there is even worse.
Yes, it probably does kill a big inning. But, perhaps the batter swung at a
two strike pitch that looked like it would be a called third strike, and
because of his human limitations, he hits it hard, but right to second base. I
would say that grounding out (or hitting a deep fly ball) and bringing a run
in is preferable to watching strike 3 fly by. And I wouldn't necessarily call
this "bad" hitting either. The batter could have struck out (watching or
swinging), hit back to the pitcher, popped up, or some other thing that caused
an out without scoring the run (yes, he could have gotten a hit too). My point
is the batter did do something constructive during the AB. On the other hand,
swinging away on a 3-0 pitch and grounding out would be poor judgement on the
batter's part.
>because certain types of hitter (like Joe Carter) are much more likely to
>do the things that lead to cheap and useless RBIs than are other types of
>hitter.
What is a "useless" RBI? Are you implying that the run scored is useless as
well?
>Pop quiz: you've got one out, men on first and third, and Frank Thomas at the
>plate. Would you rather he (a) takes the walk, or (b) extends his strike zone
>and hits an RBI sac fly or grounder?
>
>If you chose (b), you are apparently "not a big baseball fan, because if you
>were you would know that to win you need to outscore your opponent", and in
>the long run the team that walks in that situation will score more runs than
>the team that hits the sac fly. Instant gratification, in baseball as in life,
>is usually a bad idea.
a) if these are the choices, but how many times are only these choices
realistic? In how many AB's is getting a walk really a possibility? Of course,
if Thomas KNOWS that he is going to be walked, he should not extend his strike
zone. There isn't alot of time to decide whether one should swing or watch.
--
Joe Huber
(jbh...@iastate.edu) | Capt. James T. Kirk on the 2nd law of thermo:
Dept. of Mech. Egr. | "It's not a hundred percent efficient,
Iowa State University | but nothing ever is."
Roger Lustig
snic...@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>>>Not a chance. It's obvious that no matter what stats I post you will still
>>>try to rationalize why a player that show any offense in less than a third
>>>of his games, regardless of his totals, is an asset to his team.
>>Huh? What's to rationalize about whether a player gets more than 15
homers
>>or not? That's all that Roger's bet is about: will Bobby Bonilla hit more
>>than 15 homers in 1992, or not?
>No that's not the bet, not that there ever was one.
a) Well, you WANTED to -- until I tried to take you up.
b) that *stil* doesn't explain your answer above.
>I said at the beginning
>of the year that Bonilla would finish the season hittin .250 slug closer to
>400 than 500, give or take a few points, and hit 15 near fifteen HRs.
You said it in May, and what you said was: 15 HR, no more than a few
points over .250. I'm willing to add in the SLG.
Let's make it three separate bets: I'll give you a break of 3 HR (so the
break is 18); 5 points of BA (as you yourself asked for) i.e., .255; and
SLG of .450. Five bucks on each.
And I'll add in: Andy van Slyke's OPS will drop 25 points from its
current level. I recall you saying that he looked good for his April
numbers all year; he's already come down from that.
Four bets, five bucks each. Witnessed by r.s.b. We may wind up not
exchanging any money at all, or one of us might wind up owing the other
as much as $20.
Note: 30+ days on the DL kills bets for either player.
>Roger has already tried rationalizing by selecting only the homerun numbers
>to quibble about.
Hardly a quibble: he projects to 23 or 24, given that he's likely to
improve at Shea. That's not 15 -- and since, just three days ago, you
were expressing confidence that he *wouldn't* hit more than 15, it ain't
ME doing the rationalizing.
>He knows that Bonilla is very near the other numbers I
>predicted and has real good chance of proving me right and he thinks that
>he can still get me on the home run total, which I still say he won't.
OK: have it your way. If you prefer 15 to 18, I'll be happy to take
your money either way.
Roger
Doug Huffer
>much does extening the strike zone a bit to go after balls that are just
>in/outside hurt Thomas's batting average?
>
Ted Williams has said that if he ever tried to start hitting balls outside
of his zone, then he would lose the ability to hold off of those "bad"
pitches. Could be an excuse, but it seems that you wouldn't want to
start any bad habits at the plate.
Note: By excuse I mean rebuttle to contentions that he walked to much
which I don't believe. After all, no ball player's expected to drive
himself in every time. It's up to the club to have people bat behind
him to advance him the most effeciently (with minimal use of outs, of
course).
>--
>Jim Mann jm...@vineland.pubs.stratus.com Stratus Computer
*************************************************************************
* Doug G. Huffer * 1992 Not The Worst Anymore Series: *
* e-mail: dg...@quads.uchicago.edu * Royals over Cubs in 6 *
* The University of Chicago - * *
* Not just good, good for you! * George Brett, 2900 and counting!! *
*************************************************************************
David M Tate
>In article <30...@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dta...@pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:
>
>>The real question is "Did what this batter did increase or decrease the total
>>number of runs that the team was going to score in this inning, and by how
>>much?". Would you disagree with that?
>
>Can you answer this question immediatly after the batter makes an out? I don't
>think so. The answer seems quite dependent and what happens in the following
>AB's. If the question can't be answered immediatley after the AB, it doesn't
>seem like a fair way to evaluate the AB.
I can answer it in the only way I think really matters, in terms of expected
runs. In other words, in the long run, how many runs will the team tend to
score in innings where I do *this* instead of doing *that* at the plate?
After all, we're really interested in this player's individual contribution
to run-scoring, which should not (nay, must not) be made to depend on whether
the guys behind him do their jobs or not.
For any given situation (i.e. number of outs and where the runners are) we
know the league average number of runs that *should* result in the remainder
of the inning. A reasonable way to evaluate an at bat is thus "If I add up
the runs that scored immediately, and add to them the expected runs from the
situation the batter leaves behind, how does that compare with how many runs
I expected to score in this inning when he *started* the at bat?". If, after
the at bat, I now expect *fewer* total runs in the inning than I did before
the at bat, is it unfair to call any RBI that occurred there "useless"? It
can certainly happen. Any sac fly with 0 outs or a runner on second is an
example.
>Example: I strike out with bases loaded and one out. The next batter homers.
>My strikeout doesn't appear to have cost the team many runs. If the
>batter after me singles, and the batter after him makes an out, now how many
>runs did I cost the team? If the batter after me also makes an out, how can
>one determine how many runs I cost the team?
In the long run, every time you strike out with the bases loaded and one out
costs your team an average of between .8 and .9 runs. Sometimes you'll get
lucky, sometimes you'll get unlucky, but over a whole season that's what you
are losing.
>Another situation: I am an "average" batter and I walk with the bases loaded
>and two outs. The next batter strikes out. Did I "increase" or "decrease the
>number of runs that my team was going to score" by walking? I could have made
>an out and none would have scored. I could have singled and 2 *might* have
>scored etc. How many runs were we going to score in the first place?
On average, less than one, so yes your walk certainly helped. A walk *always*
helps, because the next guy has a situation no worse than yours. (Unless the
next guy is a pitcher, in which case the difference in batting skill becomes
significant.)
You can't know, while batting, what the guys coming up after you are going to
do. The best you can do is give them the best *chance* to maximize team runs.
In 95+ % of all at bats, this means maximizing the expected number of runs
the team will score. In a few ninth-inning (or later) situations with scores
tied or down by one, this means maximizing the chance of scoring at least one
run, which makes any RBI valuable.
>Yes, it probably does kill a big inning. But, perhaps the batter swung at a
>two strike pitch that looked like it would be a called third strike, and
>because of his human limitations, he hits it hard, but right to second base. I
>would say that grounding out (or hitting a deep fly ball) and bringing a run
>in is preferable to watching strike 3 fly by.
Of course. Sometimes, there's nothing the batter can do, and the pitcher will
win more than half of all confrontations. All you can try to do is *tend* to
do the things that help the most, as often as possible. I'm not criticizing
the guy who protects the plate with two strikes; I'm criticizing the guy who
is terrified of *getting* to a 2-strike count, and so swings at the first pitch
he can reach. Like Joe Carter, or Brian Harper.
>>because certain types of hitter (like Joe Carter) are much more likely to
>>do the things that lead to cheap and useless RBIs than are other types of
>>hitter.
>
>What is a "useless" RBI? Are you implying that the run scored is useless as
>well?
No. I'm saying that the other runs that should have scored would have been
useful, too. If you're going to give a batter credit for the runs that score
because of what he did, you must also debit him for the runs that *don't* score
because of what he did. With knowledge of average situational values, we can
come close to doing this. Very close.
>a) if these are the choices, but how many times are only these choices
>realistic? In how many AB's is getting a walk really a possibility?
For batters who refuse to swing at pitches out of the strike zone, a walk is
a definite possibililty in *every* plate appearance. I've seen more than
enough bases-loaded walks this season alone to convince anyone of that.
>Of course,
>if Thomas KNOWS that he is going to be walked, he should not extend his strike
>zone. There isn't alot of time to decide whether one should swing or watch.
It's not a question of knowing that you're going to be walked, it's a question
of not allowing yourself to swing at bad pitches. Thomas goes up there every
time looking for a pitch he can murder, and leaves the others alone. As a
result, he not only walks 20% of all his plate appearances (did you realize
that?), but punishes the ball severely, in general, when he doesn't walk. But
you don't have to be a power threat to get that kind of "respect". Pitchers
just don't throw that many strikes. Check out Brett Butler or Ozzie Smith in
recent years. No power, but they walk all the time.
--
David Tate | "When tomatoes last in the bullpen bloom'd,
dt...@unix.cis | And the great star early troop'd to the showers in the night
.pitt.edu | I mourned, and yet shall mourn with ever-returning spring."
IE, U. Pitt | --Walt "Lefty" Whitman
Scott Barman
Bonilla and how good or bad he is. You folks are missing the boat! All
these stats gurus, should really look at the numbers and find the real
attack point, instead of trying to over-analyze them. Here, let this
non-fan of stats give you a start-
Bobby Bonilla at Shea Stadium:
Avg.: .211, HR: 3, RBI: 18
You are trying to prove distribution of runs, long term projections,
etc. Separate the forest from the trees and look at the reality--as in
he ain't doin' jack sh*t at home! [I think he's hitting over .280 on
the road] Now have your fun!
(and people wonder why I hate the over-abuse of statistics!)
--
scott barman | <This space intentionally left blank>
sc...@asd.com |
(I can barely speak for myself, you expect me to speak for my employer??)
Roger Lustig
jbh...@iastate.edu (Joseph B Huber) writes:
>In article <30...@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>
dta...@pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:
>>number of runs that the team was going to score in this inning, and by how
>>much?". Would you disagree with that?
>Can you answer this question immediatly after the batter makes an out? I don't
>think so. The answer seems quite dependent and what happens in the following
>AB's. If the question can't be answered immediatley after the AB, it doesn't
>seem like a fair way to evaluate the AB.
Read the question again.
"Did
WHAT THIS BATTER DID
increase or decrease the total?"
We're not talking about what the other batters did, but about THIS
batter. With THIS batter, we look at actual performance; with the
others, we look at the probabilities of their doing this or that.
That's all we *can* do, because what they ACTUALLY do is not determined
by THIS batter.
And, yes, it can be evaluated right after the AB.
>Example: I strike out with bases loaded and one out. The next batter homers.
>My strikeout doesn't appear to have cost the team many runs. If the
How do you figure? Given that you had about one chance in 3 of getting
a hit or a walk, which would increase the total by one run, you've cost
the team 1/3 of a run plus whatever the batter who now won't hit in this
inning would have added.
But of course you can't do it that way; you have to look at the
situation you leave when you go back to the dugout. Before, there were
at least two chances to score as many as four runs; now there's only
one. And increasing your team's *chances* of scoring lots of runs is
the best strategy.
>batter after me singles, and the batter after him makes an out, now how many
>runs did I cost the team? If the batter after me also makes an out, how can
>one determine how many runs I cost the team?
Against expectations, that's how. You realize that this one time is not
typical (no single instance is); and consider what's *likely* to happen
as a result of your actions.
>Another situation: I am an "average" batter and I walk with the bases loaded
>and two outs. The next batter strikes out. Did I "increase" or "decrease the
>number of runs that my team was going to score" by walking? I could have made
>an out and none would have scored. I could have singled and 2 *might* have
>scored etc. How many runs were we going to score in the first place?
Can't say -- except as an expectation. But expectation is how we make
baseball decisions anyway! That's how we make lineups, pitch to this or
that hitter, position the outfield, etc.
>>The funny thing is, people get RBIs for all sorts of bad hitting. Grounding
>>into a force out with one out and runners on second and third "earns" you an
>>RBI, but it also kills what was probably going to be a big inning.
>>A sac fly there is even worse.
>Yes, it probably does kill a big inning. But, perhaps the batter swung at a
>two strike pitch that looked like it would be a called third strike, and
>because of his human limitations, he hits it hard, but right to second base. I
Well? How did the count get to two strikes?? Didn't the batter have
something to do with that, too? Good batters don't get INTO that
situation too often.
>would say that grounding out (or hitting a deep fly ball) and bringing a run
>in is preferable to watching strike 3 fly by.
Compared to taking strike 1 low and outside, though, it sucks. And THAT
is what we're talking about, ultimately: swinging at bad pitches and
getting SOME RBI at the cost of MANY outs. Sure, there are times when
you have to swing -- but it's not EVERY time, and some guys swing at all
kinds of junk and it hurts their teams while they pile up the ribbies.
Fielder, Carter, Dawson, etc., etc. Rather than letting the TEAM
maximize runs, they maximize THEIR stats.
Ted Williams said it best: you can't hit .600. Sometimes you'll make
out. But flailing away is a good way to hit .230 and hurt your team,
and just because you're getting a lot of RBI by flailing doesn't mean
that this is helping your team. The cost in outs is ultimately too
high.
>And I wouldn't necessarily call
>this "bad" hitting either. The batter could have struck out (watching or
>swinging), hit back to the pitcher, popped up, or some other thing that caused
>an out without scoring the run (yes, he could have gotten a hit too). My point
>is the batter did do something constructive during the AB. On the other hand,
>swinging away on a 3-0 pitch and grounding out would be poor judgement on the
>batter's part.
This is basically irrelevant to the discussion. For one thing, we're
talking about whole AB's, not single pitches -- and hitters do have
some control over the course of an AB. For another, the situaitons you
describe are not equally common to all hitters--some get into those
pickles far more often than others, and are stuck with the problem of
swinging at junk vs. getting called out. Disciplined hitting will cut
down on this problem -- but may also cost one a few RBI's. Yet the team
will likely prosper for it.
>>because certain types of hitter (like Joe Carter) are much more likely to
>>do the things that lead to cheap and useless RBIs than are other types of
>>hitter.
>What is a "useless" RBI? Are you implying that the run scored is useless as
>well?
It's useless because it doesn't increase expected team runs. Sometimes
it LOWERS expected team runs. The run itself is a run, of course, but
the expected 2 runs that are now only 1.5 runs are a loss to the team.
>>Pop quiz: you've got one out, men on first and third, and Frank Thomas at the
>>plate. Would you rather he (a) takes the walk, or (b) extends his strike zone
>>and hits an RBI sac fly or grounder?
>>If you chose (b), you are apparently "not a big baseball fan, because if you
>>were you would know that to win you need to outscore your opponent", and in
>>the long run the team that walks in that situation will score more runs than
>>the team that hits the sac fly. Instant gratification, in baseball as in life,
>>is usually a bad idea.
>
>a) if these are the choices, but how many times are only these choices
>realistic?
Note that the choices, however, are just those for which the Thomases
and Williamses and Clarks get slammed. And the Dawsons get praised.
>In how many AB's is getting a walk really a possibility?
For Frank Thomas, I'd say about half.
>Of course,
>if Thomas KNOWS that he is going to be walked, he should not extend his strike
>zone. There isn't alot of time to decide whether one should swing or watch.
And yet good hitters like Thomas and Clark are always willing to swing
at a GOOD pitch. They DON'T go up their looking for the walk.
Roger
Edward [Ted] Fischer
>
>>The real question is "Did what this batter did increase or decrease the total
>>number of runs that the team was going to score in this inning, and by how
>>much?". Would you disagree with that?
>
>Can you answer this question immediatly after the batter makes an out? I don't
>think so. The answer seems quite dependent and what happens in the following
>AB's. If the question can't be answered immediatley after the AB, it doesn't
>seem like a fair way to evaluate the AB.
Reasonable question. What you *really* want to ask is "Did what this
batter did increase or decrease the *expected* number of runs that the
team scores in this inning, and by how much?"
A walk almost invariably increases the expected number of runs in the
inning, *even* if the guy who walks is great and the player batting
behind him is merely average. Yet walks produce RBIs *less* often
than does an out. While in almost every situation, even an RBI out
*decreases* the expected number of runs for the inning.
So you have two #4 hitters... The one walks 1 time in 3, the other
takes every chance to swing at the ball. They both have similar
(good) BA and SLG numbers. The batter who swings away will clearly
get more RBIs. But the team with the batter who walks will end up
scoring more runs. Not only will the #4 hitter score runs off of the
walks, but the #5 hitter will get more chances to drive in the #2/#3
hitters (and will likely convert a fair number of them).
For an example of this effect, look at Fred McGriff. An excellent
hitter who was doomed to bat behind George Bell, one of the biggest
RBI hogs in the majors. 1991 was the *worst* of his last four. Yet
he got 14 more RBIs than his next closest season.
>Yes, it probably does kill a big inning. But, perhaps the batter swung at a
>two strike pitch that looked like it would be a called third strike, and
>because of his human limitations, he hits it hard, but right to second base.
An RBI out is better than a useless out. But a walk is *far* better
than either. Because it gives the *next* batter an even better
situation than you faced! (Even if he isn't as good a hitter, he
should be able to do equally well given the better situation.) I
would not trade 40 walks for 10 singles and 30 RBI outs. But it is
far more common that those 40 walks are traded for 8 singles, 8 useful
outs, and 24 useless outs. After all, how well can you hit on balls
out of the strike zone? *That* simply is not a good trade!
But note that the 8 single/8 useful out player will get more RBIs. I
don't mind my cleanup hitter walking. If the #5 hitter isn't
converting those RBI ops, I'll take it out on him! But whenever a
hitter walks, he wins. In those rare cases where a walk *isn't* good
for the team, the pitcher issues one intentionally.
>a) if these are the choices, but how many times are only these choices
>realistic? In how many AB's is getting a walk really a possibility?
Dunno. Ask Frank Thomas. He seems to think that it is possible 130+
times per year. Of course if you were to ask Andre Dawson, he might
quote a figure 1/10 that size!
>Of course,
>if Thomas KNOWS that he is going to be walked, he should not extend his strike
>zone. There isn't alot of time to decide whether one should swing or watch.
Swing at what you can hit. Don't swing at what you can't hit. It
doesn't usually cost you anything (except humiliation) to take a
called third strike that you couldn't have hit solidly anyways.
I *hate* Mike Greenwell. Why? Because he often swings at pitches
that he has *no* chance of hitting solidly. He gets a lot of RBIs
this way. He also kills a *hell* of a lot of innings. If Greenwell
were more patient (and healthy), he could be a good hitter. Instead
he has sucked from 1989 on...
Roger Lustig
>I'm sitting here and watching folks bandy back and forth about Bobby
>Bonilla and how good or bad he is. You folks are missing the boat! All
>these stats gurus, should really look at the numbers and find the real
>attack point, instead of trying to over-analyze them. Here, let this
>non-fan of stats give you a start-
>Bobby Bonilla at Shea Stadium:
> Avg.: .211, HR: 3, RBI: 18
>You are trying to prove distribution of runs, long term projections,
>etc. Separate the forest from the trees and look at the reality--as in
>he ain't doin' jack sh*t at home! [I think he's hitting over .280 on
>the road] Now have your fun!
Thanks for the condescension.
Now go back over my postings. I've said this very thing at least twice.
So has Dr. Dave, EXPLICITLY pointing to the effect this has on fans and
writers.
So, I believe, has Sherri.
Now, once you've done that, tell us just what significance this has. If
he carries the team on the road (and he has), is this bad? (Would they
have won ANY games on the road otherwise? Only a slight exaggeration.)
Now, as for distribution of runs, only one person has argued that
Bonilla's is bad, and he's been rather soundly refuted. As for
long-term projections, well, what do you suppose the POINT of this stuff
is?
Now have your fun.
Twit.
>(and people wonder why I hate the over-abuse of statistics!)
Because you can't read and don't understand what you DO read?
Now tell me, where's the abuse of statistics? I think some of us have
done rather sensible things with stats in this discussion. Some have
not, but since you're not flaming anyone in particular, but rather feel
the need to attack everyone who dares to analyze Bonilla's performance
-- INCLUDING the people who have made the point you so triumphantly
bring out as news -- it's hard to tell what you mean.
Roger
Paul S Galvanek
to provide me with updated stats as of yesterday of all ML players with a
minimum 200 PAs. I've arranged them from top to bottom according to Linear
Weights and marked NL outfielders with an * and AL outtfielders with **.
Now someone please exlpain how any player at the bottom of this list can
claim to be amongst the top offensive players, or even "hitting good"
which was the claim that started this thread again.
Please someone tell me what I missed this time...
Oh and just so as you know, I also tried arranging this list by OPS (I
know that this is a favorite stat around here) just to see if things came
up differently and it did. Bonilla's .815 OPS put him sixth from the
bottom of the list instead of tenth.
PA BA SLG OBA OPS BAT RUN TOT
THOMAS,F 368 0.306 0.517 0.442 0.959 30.54 0.60 31.14
BONDS,B 290 0.303 0.588 0.434 1.022 27.02 2.70 29.72 *
MCGRIFF,F 337 0.316 0.578 0.426 1.004 30.46 -0.90 29.56
MARTINEZ,E 347 0.328 0.564 0.396 0.960 24.98 1.80 26.78
MCGWIRE,M 362 0.262 0.583 0.383 0.966 26.67 -0.60 26.07
KRUK,J 355 0.346 0.493 0.447 0.940 27.62 -2.10 25.52
ANDERSON,B 393 0.286 0.507 0.381 0.888 19.35 3.60 22.95 **
VANSLYKE,A 351 0.340 0.500 0.411 0.911 21.97 0.60 22.57 *
CLARK,W 345 0.318 0.497 0.411 0.908 21.97 0.30 22.27
MOLITOR,P 353 0.319 0.489 0.393 0.882 18.67 2.70 21.37
SHEFFIELD,G 354 0.325 0.557 0.385 0.942 23.49 -2.70 20.79
PUCKETT,K 375 0.334 0.535 0.361 0.896 18.83 0.60 19.43 **
WINFIELD,D 358 0.303 0.503 0.386 0.889 19.27 0.00 19.27 **
ALOMAR,R 341 0.323 0.460 0.412 0.872 16.20 1.80 18.00 **
HRBEK,K 278 0.294 0.489 0.411 0.900 17.28 0.60 17.88
DAULTON,D 320 0.269 0.494 0.377 0.871 15.75 1.80 17.55
HENDERSON,R 243 0.277 0.436 0.422 0.858 12.59 4.80 17.39 **
WHITAKER,L 286 0.294 0.494 0.420 0.914 18.93 -1.80 17.13 **
GRACE,M 360 0.313 0.445 0.409 0.854 16.67 0.30 16.97
TARTABULL,D 283 0.251 0.457 0.407 0.864 15.15 0.30 15.45 **
HOILES,C 234 0.280 0.539 0.405 0.944 16.60 -1.20 15.40
VENTURA,R 370 0.298 0.442 0.389 0.831 14.93 -1.80 13.13
SANDERS,D 237 0.317 0.552 0.361 0.913 12.31 0.60 12.91 *
LANKFORD,R 369 0.287 0.454 0.370 0.824 11.09 1.80 12.89 *
TETTLETON,M 365 0.250 0.484 0.365 0.849 14.82 -2.40 12.42
KNOBLAUCH,C 368 0.303 0.366 0.397 0.763 7.80 4.20 12.00
MCREYNOLDS,K 345 0.257 0.442 0.367 0.809 10.80 1.20 12.00 **
DESHIELDS,D 373 0.304 0.410 0.379 0.789 8.60 3.30 11.90
SIERRA,R 360 0.306 0.491 0.340 0.831 10.66 0.90 11.56 **
BONILLA,B 353 0.263 0.440 0.375 0.815 11.30 0.00 11.30 *
SHARPERSON,M 236 0.328 0.433 0.424 0.857 12.44 -1.20 11.24
GWYNN,T 363 0.321 0.437 0.385 0.822 12.44 -2.10 10.34 *
SANDBERG,R 364 0.279 0.464 0.357 0.821 11.06 -0.90 10.16
ALOU,M 184 0.316 0.509 0.358 0.867 8.20 1.80 10.00 *
BAERGA,C 366 0.323 0.469 0.360 0.829 9.65 0.30 9.95
WALKER,L 308 0.278 0.511 0.333 0.844 9.83 -0.60 9.23 *
PHILLIPS,T 384 0.258 0.387 0.397 0.784 11.92 -2.10 9.82
BIGGIO,C 383 0.284 0.401 0.376 0.777 7.96 1.20 9.16
MORRIS,H 231 0.320 0.435 0.410 0.845 10.25 -1.50 8.75
O'NEILL,P 305 0.260 0.415 0.374 0.789 7.52 0.00 7.52 *
Carl Rempert
>>I call that producing.
>
>Even though the team would be scoring more runs with an average first
>baseman there?
Prove your statement. Give us numbers. As a stathead you make an unqualified
statement such as that and you expect us to believe you. If you expect
non-statheads to have data to back up statements, then you must do the same.
Until such time your statement bears no weight.
Carl R.
Edward [Ted] Fischer
>Okay here's my final attempt to make my point. Someone was gracious enough
>to provide me with updated stats as of yesterday of all ML players with a
>minimum 200 PAs. I've arranged them from top to bottom according to Linear
>Weights and marked NL outfielders with an * and AL outtfielders with **.
Well, whoever did that must have screwed up. I don't see Rivera on
this list or Pena. Or Burks, Plantier, or Clark. They all have 200+
PAs. For that matter, an awful lot of players are missing from this
list!
>Now someone please exlpain how any player at the bottom of this list can
>claim to be amongst the top offensive players, or even "hitting good"
>which was the claim that started this thread again.
I believe this list of yours *is* a list of the top offensive players.
>Please someone tell me what I missed this time...
You don't miss anything. You simply misrepresent. I would say
Bonilla is a borderline All-Star, and offensively about the fifth most
productive OF in the NL. Which *does* kind of imply that if you take
a list of All-stars, that he is going to end up near the bottom of the
list. And if you take a list of HOFers, he's going to look downright
miserable!
If you are going to bother going to the work to do studies like this,
at least be honest! Note that Bonilla is #XXX out of YYY major league
OFs. Note that he is #XXX out of ZZZ major league players. By only
listing the top fifth of major leaguers, you bias your result.
If you honestly believe that Bonilla sucks, why do you so feel the
need to bias the studies against him? Shouldn't the truth tell? Your
point that Bonilla is worse than many non-OFs and AL OFs is well
taken. But your method of proof sucks!
I imagine there are fully 80 major league OFs with 200+ PAs. If
Bonilla is 10th or even 20th on that list, he is not doing *that*
badly. And if you restrict it to outfielders with 300+ PAs, he might
look even better... He is having a quality season.
That being said, I think Bonilla is disappointing a bit. While his
career averages are .357/.472 (and he is *almost* hitting that well),
over the last four years he has put up numbers more like .360/.490.
And *last* year he had an OPS of .883.
Paying him $6 million isn't going to make him suddenly hit for a
.900 OPS! He has never done that in his career, and he isn't about
to start now. Paying him $6 million to play *right* *field* in a
park where he has always struggled is downright foolish! He has
always been more valuable as an excellent offensive 3B than he has
as an above-average offensive RF.
But don't take it out on Bonilla... The Mets are getting what they
should have expected. No more, not significantly less.
Chuck McCusker P015
his performance is not worth $6 mil a year?
Chuck Ross - C.McCusker only owns this ID - he doesn't use it!!!!
Sherri Nichols
>Isn't the point that although he may be performing at or near expectations,
>his performance is not worth $6 mil a year?
How exactly do you determine what the monetary value of a performance is?
Salaries are more tied to market demand than performance. Had Bobby
Bonilla come out with this coming off-season's crop of free agents, he
wouldn't have gotten a $6 million dollar contract, because there would be
many alternatives to Bonilla. Bonilla (luckily for him) came out in a year
with relatively few impact free agents, and he benefitted accordingly.
Nobody that I'm aware of has ever said that Bonilla's performance was
"worth" $6 million a year. We don't even know what that means. The issue
is that Paul Galvanek continues to assert that Bobby Bonilla not only isn't
worth $6 million a year, but that he's worthless to his team, piling up
individual stats at no benefit to his team.
Sherri Nichols
snic...@adobe.com
Dan Swartzendruber
> In article <1992Jul14.2...@news.iastate.edu> jbh...@iastate.edu (Joseph B Huber) writes:
> >In article <30...@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dta...@pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:
> >
[deleted]
> Swing at what you can hit. Don't swing at what you can't hit. It
> doesn't usually cost you anything (except humiliation) to take a
> called third strike that you couldn't have hit solidly anyways.
I agree, except for one specific case. Runner at third, one out, and any
of the following counts on the hitter {0-2,1-2,2-2}. I would rather see
my hitter swing at a marginal pitch outside, because he may be able to get
the runner home. I have seen Jack Clark take a close outside pitch in this
situation so many times it makes me want to scream. If you're 3-2 or there
are two outs, fine take a close one, since in the former case, you stand a
good chance of getting on so the guy behind you can drive you in and in the
latter case, since there are two outs, you need a hit to get the runner home
anyway, which you're not likely to do swinging at a marginal pitch. I feel
less strongly about this with a higher ball count, but with 0-2, it seems to
me that taking it is not a win, because you still have an uphill fight to
get the BB.
> I *hate* Mike Greenwell. Why? Because he often swings at pitches
> that he has *no* chance of hitting solidly. He gets a lot of RBIs
> this way. He also kills a *hell* of a lot of innings. If Greenwell
> were more patient (and healthy), he could be a good hitter. Instead
> he has sucked from 1989 on...
Complete lack of disagreement from me! It especially drives me bullshit
when he swings at a bad first pitch with runner(s) in scoring position
and two outs. Gack!
> Cheers,
> -Valentine
> --
> "What is John Valentin still doing in the minors?" ted...@cs.cornell.edu
--
Dan S.
Roger Lustig
>In article <30...@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>
dta...@pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:
>>>The Mets paid Murray to drive in runs and he is on a pace to drive in 108.
>>>I call that producing.
>>Even though the team would be scoring more runs with an average first
>>baseman there?
>Prove your statement. Give us numbers. As a stathead you make an unqualified
>statement such as that and you expect us to believe you. If you expect
>non-statheads to have data to back up statements, then you must do the same.
>Until such time your statement bears no weight.
a) Tate did not make that statement "as a stathead." He made it simply
as one who has noted how many outs Murray makes, and how much offense he
provides while making those outs.
b) There's no need to get insulting.
c) Tate has given TONS of numbers. If you want average numbers for
first basemen, just look in today's USA Today Baseball Weekly. Insert
them into the Met lineup in Murray's place. Run simulated games with
the average 1B instead of Murray, and see whether the team gets more
runs, and whether the average 1B has more RBI.
d) Tate has shown over and over how averages and other indices of
production relate to team run scoring. Don't pretend that he hasn't, or
that it's his duty to post a dissertation every time he makes a
perfectly reasonable claim.
Roger
>
>Carl R.
Paul S Galvanek
>
>Well, whoever did that must have screwed up. I don't see Rivera on
>this list or Pena. Or Burks, Plantier, or Clark. They all have 200+
>PAs. For that matter, an awful lot of players are missing from this
>list!
>
Sorry. I should have been bmore clear in my posting, in that I was given the
top twenty offensive preformers from both the American Leauge and National
Leauges I didn't mean to imply that these were all the players with 200 PAs.
PSG
Paul S Galvanek
>
>No, they weren't! Or do you honestly think that there are only 40
>players with 200+ PA???????? And that all of them have at least +7.5
>LW????
No Roger you're not listening again...
>Easy. You've left off about 100 players, most of whom will be at the
>bottom of the list. NEEEEXT?
No I didn't "leave them off". I said that Bonilla was a. not among the
top three NL outfielders b. all the top NL outfielders, even if he were
to be one would not be amongst the top outfielders in MLB with the exception
of Bonds, Gwynn and Van Slyke. c. that judging stricly on offensive production
I bet that Bonilla wouldn't crack the twenty five major leagueres at all
positions.
I needed only to show a list of the top 25 to prove any one or all three of
those and I produced the top 40 just to how correct I was.
PSG
>
Paul S Galvanek
The combined salaries for the 28 AL all stars for this season was 51.?
million. Interesting in that the Mets salary for their 25 men in a
whopping 46.6 million. Looks to me like someone got taken..
not that's terribly relevant just interesting.
PSG
Roger Lustig
ps...@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>Okay here's my final attempt to make my point. Someone was gracious enough
>to provide me with updated stats as of yesterday of all ML players with a
>minimum 200 PAs.
No, they weren't! Or do you honestly think that there are only 40
players with 200+ PA???????? And that all of them have at least +7.5
LW????
>I've arranged them from top to bottom according to Linear
>Weights and marked NL outfielders with an * and AL outtfielders with **.
Fair enough.
>Now someone please exlpain how any player at the bottom of this list can
>claim to be amongst the top offensive players, or even "hitting good"
>which was the claim that started this thread again.
Easy. You've left off about 100 players, most of whom will be at the
bottom of the list. NEEEEXT?
>Please someone tell me what I missed this time...
You got it.
>Oh and just so as you know, I also tried arranging this list by OPS (I
>know that this is a favorite stat around here) just to see if things came
>up differently and it did. Bonilla's .815 OPS put him sixth from the
>bottom of the list instead of tenth.
Great. Now tell me what the list ACTUALLY represents.
From Sunday's NYT, here are some players not on your list, but who have
200+ BA: Gomez, Orsulak, Devereaux, Ripken, Milligan. That's just the
Orioles; there are 25 other teams. Looks like you're about 100-150
players short. Now go back and do it again (there are stats you can use
posted weekly here), and use the WHOLE list, not one with some arbitrary
cutoff.
Roger
Jacob Lesgold
>>In article <30...@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dta...@pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:
>>>In article <14...@hades.hera.Sbi.Com> jbal...@zip.sbi.com (Joe Baldino) writes:
>>>>The Mets paid Murray to drive in runs and he is on a pace to drive in 108.
>>>>I call that producing.
>>>Even though the team would be scoring more runs with an average first
>>>baseman there?
[also deleted is where Roger says Dave has generally posted numbers
and proved his statements]
It is true that Dr. Dave ususally does post numbers and prove his statements.
This time he didn't, and Carl pounced on him for it. Is Carl wrong?
No, Tate (I hate talking about him in the third person this way, but...)
should be held to whatever standards we're holding everyone else to.
If he says that Murray is a below average first baseman, he should post
the relevant numbers for Eddie and for the average. If we have to look it
up when he posts, then we can surely look it up when anyone else posts.
I happen to think that the odds are extraordinarily good that Dr. Dave actually
has gone and at least looked at numbers I consider relevant and has a good
case to make, which would be relatively trivial to do (i.e., post
Eddie Murray's MLV and that of the NL average first baseman). This being the
case, it's not that unreasonable to ask him to do it.
OF course, there's still no call to be insulting...
--
JJ Cool L Sable Scarab jles...@nwu.edu
"Could you fancy me as a pirate bold
Or a longship Viking warrior with the old gods on his side?" -- Jethro Tull
Doug Huffer
>to provide me with updated stats as of yesterday of all ML players with a
>minimum 200 PAs. I've arranged them from top to bottom according to Linear
>Weights and marked NL outfielders with an * and AL outtfielders with **.
>
>Now someone please exlpain how any player at the bottom of this list can
>claim to be amongst the top offensive players, or even "hitting good"
>which was the claim that started this thread again.
>
>Please someone tell me what I missed this time...
>
>Oh and just so as you know, I also tried arranging this list by OPS (I
>know that this is a favorite stat around here) just to see if things came
>up differently and it did. Bonilla's .815 OPS put him sixth from the
>bottom of the list instead of tenth.
>
>
> PA BA SLG OBA OPS BAT RUN TOT
>THOMAS,F 368 0.306 0.517 0.442 0.959 30.54 0.60 31.14
>BONDS,B 290 0.303 0.588 0.434 1.022 27.02 2.70 29.72 *
>MCGRIFF,F 337 0.316 0.578 0.426 1.004 30.46 -0.90 29.56
[partial list of players deleted for brevity]
>KNOBLAUCH,C 368 0.303 0.366 0.397 0.763 7.80 4.20 12.00
>MCREYNOLDS,K 345 0.257 0.442 0.367 0.809 10.80 1.20 12.00 **
>DESHIELDS,D 373 0.304 0.410 0.379 0.789 8.60 3.30 11.90
>SIERRA,R 360 0.306 0.491 0.340 0.831 10.66 0.90 11.56 **
***********
>BONILLA,B 353 0.263 0.440 0.375 0.815 11.30 0.00 11.30 *
***********
>SHARPERSON,M 236 0.328 0.433 0.424 0.857 12.44 -1.20 11.24
>GWYNN,T 363 0.321 0.437 0.385 0.822 12.44 -2.10 10.34 *
>SANDBERG,R 364 0.279 0.464 0.357 0.821 11.06 -0.90 10.16
>ALOU,M 184 0.316 0.509 0.358 0.867 8.20 1.80 10.00 *
>BAERGA,C 366 0.323 0.469 0.360 0.829 9.65 0.30 9.95
>WALKER,L 308 0.278 0.511 0.333 0.844 9.83 -0.60 9.23 *
>PHILLIPS,T 384 0.258 0.387 0.397 0.784 11.92 -2.10 9.82
>BIGGIO,C 383 0.284 0.401 0.376 0.777 7.96 1.20 9.16
>MORRIS,H 231 0.320 0.435 0.410 0.845 10.25 -1.50 8.75
>O'NEILL,P 305 0.260 0.415 0.374 0.789 7.52 0.00 7.52 *
And which of these players would you consider *bad*. Bonilla??
Looks like he's surrounded by all-stars to me. I don't think that
there's a player on this list that I wouldn't want to have on my team.
*************************************************************************
* Doug G. Huffer * dg...@quads.uchicago.edu *
* Kansas City Royals *
* AL Western Division Champs: 1976, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1984, 1985 *
* AL Champs: 1980, 1985 * World Champs: 1985 *
*************************************************************************
Roger Lustig
ussc...@bnr.ca (Chuck McCusker P015) writes:
>Isn't the point that although he may be performing at or near expectations,
>his performance is not worth $6 mil a year?
Depends on whom you ask. I think most of us would agree that he's not
the best salary/performance ratio in the ML, but nobody expected him to
be. In fact, EVERYONE who gets those wages is somewhat overpaid, in
that performance is likely to slack off some after the great years that
led to the payday. In part, it's a reward for past performance.
In part, also, it's a quirk of a particular market. Last year there WAS
only Bonilla avaialble, so he got what he wanted. (OK, there was
Tartabull.) If he and Bonds had come on the market at once, he wouldn't
have gotten paid as much, simply because demand would have been lower.
Anyway, if he starts hitting at home, attendance will rise again (it's
hurting at Shea!), and he will earn his money. Hitting and fielding are
NOT what he's paid for; putting asses in seats and getting channels
changed is what he's paid for.
Roger
Nelson Lu
>Sorry. I should have been bmore clear in my posting, in that I was given the
>top twenty offensive preformers from both the American Leauge and National
>Leauges I didn't mean to imply that these were all the players with 200 PAs.
So, even if Bonilla were the #10 from the bottom on the list, he is about the
#31 best offensive performer in the majors.
Now, what is the problem with being the 31st best offensive performer in the
majors?
===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
Committee to Elect Johnny Ray as Angels Second Baseman
Committee to Elect Mike Witt as Angels Ace
Committee to Elect Cookie Rojas as Angels Manager
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (clau...@leland.stanford.edu)
David Grabiner
> Okay here's my final attempt to make my point. Someone was gracious enough
> to provide me with updated stats as of yesterday of all ML players with a
> minimum 200 PAs. I've arranged them from top to bottom according to Linear
> Weights and marked NL outfielders with an * and AL outtfielders with **.
> Now someone please exlpain how any player at the bottom of this list can
> claim to be amongst the top offensive players, or even "hitting good"
> which was the claim that started this thread again.
> Please someone tell me what I missed this time...
Look at the whole list, rather than cutting it off after 40 players.
All you have shown is that Bonilla is below average offensively among
the top 40 players in the major leagues. By this measure, he is the
11th-best offensive regular in the NL, out of about 100 players with the
required PA; that sounds pretty good to me. He is 15th out of about 78
regular outfielders in the majors (I don't know how many teams actually
have three), which is also good.
> Oh and just so as you know, I also tried arranging this list by OPS (I
> know that this is a favorite stat around here) just to see if things came
> up differently and it did. Bonilla's .815 OPS put him sixth from the
> bottom of the list instead of tenth.
Linear Weights is better here; OPS isn't quite as accurate, and doesn't
give base-stealers any credit (or penalty, in the case of players such
as Gwynn), but it is easier to calculate.
> PA BA SLG OBA OPS BAT RUN TOT
> BONILLA,B 353 0.263 0.440 0.375 0.815 11.30 0.00 11.30 *
That's 11.30 runs above league average. I don't have the league totals,
but I would assume that an average outfielder would be about +4.
--
David Grabiner, grab...@zariski.harvard.edu
"We are sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary."
"Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again."
Disclaimer: I speak for no one and no one speaks for me.
Roger Lustig
edw...@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes:
>>Well, whoever did that must have screwed up. I don't see Rivera on
>>this list or Pena. Or Burks, Plantier, or Clark. They all have 200+
>>PAs. For that matter, an awful lot of players are missing from this
>>list!
>Sorry. I should have been bmore clear in my posting, in that I was given the
>top twenty offensive preformers from both the American Leauge and National
>Leauges I didn't mean to imply that these were all the players with 200 PAs.
Well, you dodn't imply it; you *said* it. No matter, though; we now
know that Bobby Bonilla is in the bottom ten of the top 40. And since
the COMPLETE list would contain about 160 players, he's somewhere around
the 80th percentile of the distribution, no?
And since both his OPS and his LW (which you used for rankings) give him
as a flat-out positive, and since his home field favors the pitcher, and
since many of the guys on the list come from hitters' parks, we have to
BOOST his rating just a bit.
All in all, this adds nothing to your argument that Bonilla is not
helping his team. Looks to me like he's helping it quite a lot,
ESPECIALLY given the shortage of good-hitting RFs in the majors.
Roger
>PSG
>
Roger Lustig
dsw...@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
>In article <1992Jul15....@cs.cornell.edu>,
dta...@pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:
>[deleted]
>> Swing at what you can hit. Don't swing at what you can't hit. It
>> doesn't usually cost you anything (except humiliation) to take a
>> called third strike that you couldn't have hit solidly anyways.
>I agree, except for one specific case. Runner at third, one out, and any
>of the following counts on the hitter {0-2,1-2,2-2}. I would rather see
>my hitter swing at a marginal pitch outside, because he may be able to get
>the runner home.
How big is "may get"? That is, what are the odds? And what are the
costs if you don't? On a bad pitch, I bet the odds of plating the
runner are perhaps one in ten. Sometimes you'll hit a foul ball,
sometimes you'll whiff, and *occasionally* you'll get a good grounder or
fly ball. The rest of the time (popup, K, grounder that doesn't score
the run) you hurt the team. Does it even out in the long run, given
that the pitch has a good chance of being a ball if you *don't* swing,
and that the next pitch might well be hittable or an obvious ball?
I'm not so sure it does even out.
>I have seen Jack Clark take a close outside pitch in this
>situation so many times it makes me want to scream.
And I've seen Clark pop up or strike out a lot, too. Given the kind of
hitter he is, he's practically DOOMED to do one of those things if he
does swing.
And I've seen lots of other hitters swing at those cheesy pitches, and
only rarely succeed. (Every now and then somebody will reach out and
hit a pitchout, but I can't recommend it.)
>If you're 3-2 or there
>are two outs, fine take a close one, since in the former case, you stand a
>good chance of getting on so the guy behind you can drive you in and in the
>latter case, since there are two outs, you need a hit to get the runner home
>anyway, which you're not likely to do swinging at a marginal pitch. I feel
>less strongly about this with a higher ball count, but with 0-2, it seems to
>me that taking it is not a win, because you still have an uphill fight to
>get the BB.
Is it that much more uphill than the job of getting the runner home on a
junk pitch? Don't be too sure.
>> I *hate* Mike Greenwell. Why? Because he often swings at pitches
>> that he has *no* chance of hitting solidly. He gets a lot of RBIs
>> this way. He also kills a *hell* of a lot of innings. If Greenwell
>> were more patient (and healthy), he could be a good hitter. Instead
>> he has sucked from 1989 on...
>Complete lack of disagreement from me! It especially drives me bullshit
>when he swings at a bad first pitch with runner(s) in scoring position
>and two outs. Gack!
Well, more often than not, a bad pitch is a bad pitch is a bad pitch.
And since hitters trying for a sac fly don't get it more than half the
time on the GOOD pitches, how hard it must be with a bad one!
Roger
Roger Lustig
ro...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>No, they weren't! Or do you honestly think that there are only 40
>>players with 200+ PA???????? And that all of them have at least +7.5
>>LW????
>No Roger you're not listening again...
Cut the bullshit, Paul. Stupid quotes out of context will NOT help your
cause. I have enclosed, at the bottom of this posting, the two
sentences of yours that I was replying to; the above followed the first
sentence. Areyou so cowardly that you can't bear to admit that you did
EXACTLY that -- omit most of the players in the league, while claiming
to have them all?
>>Easy. You've left off about 100 players, most of whom will be at the
>>bottom of the list. NEEEEXT?
>
>No I didn't "leave them off".
Perhaps not. But read your own words: you said these were all the
players with 200+ PA, and that Bonilla was at the bottom of the list.
Which is nonsense, of course. In a later post you said you didn't "mean
to imply"that these were all the players, but rather the top 40, but
that's EXACTLY what you had said.
>I said that Bonilla was a. not among the
>top three NL outfielders b. all the top NL outfielders, even if he were
Well, your list didn't show *that* either. He certainly IS among the
top NL outfielders.
>to be one would not be amongst the top outfielders in MLB with the exception
>of Bonds, Gwynn and Van Slyke. c. that judging stricly on offensive production
>I bet that Bonilla wouldn't crack the twenty five major leagueres at all
>positions.
All of which has nothing to do with the posting I was responding to, and
which you have chosen to misrepresent. Shame on you.
>I needed only to show a list of the top 25 to prove any one or all three of
>those and I produced the top 40 just to how correct I was.
Well, if you'd SAID that was what you were doing, I'd never have written
the above. But you didn't. You said something quite different, and I
responded accurately to what you said. See below.
Now, since Bonilla is a non-adjusted 30th on your list, and some of
those ahead of him are from hitters' parks, I suspect he IS pretty close
to the top 25. So offhand I'd say that you haven't proven anything
The article in question (first two paragraphs only):
other than that there are a few outfielders better than he.
In article <31...@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> ps...@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>Okay here's my final attempt to make my point. Someone was gracious enough
>to provide me with updated stats as of yesterday of all ML players with a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>minimum 200 PAs. I've arranged them from top to bottom according to Linear
^^^^
>Weights and marked NL outfielders with an * and AL outtfielders with **.
>Now someone please exlpain how any player at the bottom of this list can
>claim to be amongst the top offensive players, or even "hitting good"
>which was the claim that started this thread again.
Doesn't look like anything about top 20 was mentioned at all. And,
quite frankly, any player at the bottom of the list (to say nothing of
10th from the bottom) most certainly IS "hitting good."
Now look above again. You've changed your tune entirely. You were NOT
out to prove a), b), or c); you were out to prove that Bonilla was not
"hitting good."
In short, Paul, you have gotten caught in a lie. You said something
this morning, and don't have the guts to stand by it this afternoon, and
you can't bear to admit that you were wrong, and so you pretend you
never said it.
And you STILL haven't given me an answer about that bet. Or the very
specific ones I proposed yesterday.
Roger
>
Greg Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life Spira
>Okay here's my final attempt to make my point. Someone was gracious enough
>to provide me with updated stats as of yesterday of all ML players with a
>minimum 200 PAs. I've arranged them from top to bottom according to Linear
>Weights and marked NL outfielders with an * and AL outtfielders with **.
>Now someone please exlpain how any player at the bottom of this list can
>claim to be amongst the top offensive players, or even "hitting good"
>which was the claim that started this thread again.
Paul, the original post - mine - which you're referring to - said that
Bonilla was about the 3rd best offensive outfielder in the NL. And that he
was the best offensive player on the Mets so far.
(By the way - if you had said "Bonilla may be the third best offensive
outfielder so far, but he's closer to tenth than he is to first" I would
have agreed)
That's all I said. Yes, you're right - AL outfielders, are on the whole,
doing better than NL outfielders, and Bonilla doesn't look quite as good
compared to them.. And there are a number of NL people at other positions
- McGriff, Clark, Kruk, Sheffield, Daulton, Deshields who are doing better
than Bonilla (I'm not including Grace because of the parks and Sanders
because of the at-bats). I didn't say anything to the contrary, and I don't
recall anybody else saying such things either (though I could be wrong).
The main point of my original post was to say that Bonilla's doing pretty
good, about what should be expected of him, and that the Mets' problems
lie elsewhere.
That's all. Really.
As far as I can see, the statistics you just posted support that viewpoint,
because they show that Bonilla is one of the top 5 outfielders offensively
in the NL, and since they're 36 outfielders, if that's not "pretty good,"
what is?
Greg
--
sp...@panix.com "The one-O delivery to Fisk. He swings. Long drive,
cmcl2!panix!spira left field! If it stays fair, it's gone! Home Run!"
158-17 Riverside Dr. Ned Martin, 10/22/75
Whitestone NY 11357 (Insert your favorite baseball moment here)
David DeMers
>his performance is not worth $6 mil a year?
So, that's the *owners* problem! He didn't *make* them pay him
that much; it was purely voluntary. If they thought that the extra
money would magically transform itself into homeruns, that's
their own little hallucination.
--
Dave DeMers ddemers@UCSD dem...@cs.ucsd.edu
Computer Science & Engineering C-014 demers%c...@ucsd.bitnet
UC San Diego ...!ucsd!cs!demers
La Jolla, CA 92093-0114 (619) 534-0688, or -8187, FAX: (619) 534-7029
Greg Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life Spira
>I'm sitting here and watching folks bandy back and forth about Bobby
>Bonilla and how good or bad he is. You folks are missing the boat! All
>these stats gurus, should really look at the numbers and find the real
>attack point, instead of trying to over-analyze them. Here, let this
>non-fan of stats give you a start-
>Bobby Bonilla at Shea Stadium:
> Avg.: .211, HR: 3, RBI: 18
>You are trying to prove distribution of runs, long term projections,
>etc. Separate the forest from the trees and look at the reality--as in
>he ain't doin' jack sh*t at home! [I think he's hitting over .280 on
>the road] Now have your fun!
Scott, you usually make more sense than this. I have no idea what your
point is, or if you're trying to make a point. The one thing everyone
has agreed on is that Bonilla has stunk at home and been much better on
the road (.310/.403/.518) vs (.211/.348/.352).
We know that, and have mentioned it several times. So what?
The matter that we have been discussing concerns whether Bonilla's overall
performance has helped the Mets. His home/road splits are interesting,
but they certainly don't contribute anything to either side of the argument.
>(and people wonder why I hate the over-abuse of statistics!)
>--
Scott, it's posts like yours that are the problem - they throw numbers
out that have no meaning, no context, no relevance. That is abuse of
statistics, and I think Roger and all the Daves will agree with me that
stats should not be abused in such a way.
Please do not abuse stats like this in the future - if you don't know stats,
leave the stats to the "professionals." Otherwise, it reads like a civilian
trying to defuse a bomb in front of the bomb squad!
Kurt Bose of Biscayzee
were posted then! Carl's just got a bug in his pants about it. Why should Dr.
Dave have to waste bandwidth rehashing *everything* he has already shown just
because some people didn't care to remember or have the guts to read the
postings in the first place? Yeesh.
--
* Kurt Bose (as in * I am NOT the Antichrist, no matter what my future mother
* Daisy, not Rose) * in law may think. Nor do I pretend to speak for UNM. Tried
*kb...@carina.unm.edu* it one time, but they caught me at it. I think they were a
* Junior Stathead * tad miffed at me, sure, but the Dean's hair DID grow back.
boyd.j.bowman
>In article <1992Jul15.1...@brtph560.bnr.ca> ussc...@bnr.ca (Chuck McCusker P015) writes:
>>Isn't the point that although he may be performing at or near expectations,
>>his performance is not worth $6 mil a year?
>
I think you are not giving Bobby Bo a opportunity to get use to NY Fans. Look
how long it took Strawberry to get use to the abuse of NY fans. I think if we
give Bobby a chance, he will show us that he is worthy of his $6 mil contract.
That is if anybody is worth that much money!!!
If you are going to base all your criticism on money/production, let's look at
Ryne Sandberg for awhile and let Bobby Bo adjust.
Jacob Lesgold
>Oh, please! We had this discussion a month ago, and it was proved then! Stats
>were posted then! Carl's just got a bug in his pants about it. Why should Dr.
>Dave have to waste bandwidth rehashing *everything* he has already shown just
>because some people didn't care to remember or have the guts to read the
>postings in the first place? Yeesh.
Obviously I missed it then. (no smiley)
Sorry, I'll try to read and memorize everything in the future... :-)
(since the numbers actually _have_ apparently been posted, my peeve obviously
doesn't apply. Sorry about the waste in bandwidth...)
JJ Cool L Sable Scarab jles...@nwu.edu
"Cats will be cats, and cats will be cool
Cats will be careless, and cats can be cruel
Cats will be cats, remember these words
Cats will be cats, and cats will eat birds" -- Timbuk3, "Facts about Cats"
Jonathan King
>>Bonilla's RBI distribution:
>>
>>3,2,2,2,1,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,2,3,2,3,1,6,4,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,3
>>
>>Perfectly normal. A couple of big games, 16 games where he had one RBI,
>>7 games where he had 2, 4 where he had 3.
Well, I wouldn't say "normal"; looks more like "negative binomial" to a
SDCN like me. :-)
>Perfectly normal? I suppose the obvious has alluded you, did you notice
>that you've only accounted for 28 of his, 88 games ? There's a few, 60
>to be a bit more accurate where Bobby might just as well not have showed
>up and could have done just as well.
Time out! Bobby Bo has averaged almost exactly 4.0 plate appearances per
game this year, and has personally driven in .597 runs per game so far.
Is this good or bad? You suggest it's lousy. I'm pretty sure it's not.
Consider: with their lusty .318 OBP, you can show that the Mets average
about 3/(1-OBP) = 4.4 plate appearances per inning, and score (on average)
only .428 runs per inning, or fewer than Bobby Bo drives in fewer PAs in
his average game.
You make another point, which is that in 58 of these games that Bobby
Bonilla drove in zero runs, and suggest that this is about the same as
"not showing up". I don't know what you mean exactly, but I assume
you mean that you would expect RBI in a larger proportion of the games
he played, given the total number of runs he drove in.
It's a little tough to examine this claim directly, but I'll make an
analogy with Mets run-scoring per inning again, since it's easier to
show that this distribution is almost *exactly* what you'd expect from
a reasonable model of run-scoring, and that the Bobby Bo rbi/game
distribution is very similar.
Here's a table of Mets Run-scoring in three weeks of games this May and
June, and two different models of that run-scoring:
Runs/Inning Total_Innings Proportion_of_Total Poisson NegBinomial
0 88 .77 .67 .76
1 18 .16 .27 .15
2+ 8 .07 .06 .08
This is an offense that scored an average of .4 runs per inning in
this sample. Are the totals in column 3 as streaky as they might
look? Well, if every Met inning were independent of every other Met
inning, and the expected scoring were constant across innings, then we
can model Met run-scoring for bunch of innings with a Poisson
distribution using the mean runs per inning as the Poisson parameter.
(Another recent post gives more details, so I'll skip them.)
The Poisson model predicts the proportions shown in the fourth column
above, which is in the right, um, ballpark. But it's easy to see that
the Mets are a bit "streakier" than this prediction; they're more
likely to be shut out, in particular. Why is this? Well, it probably
isn't fair to assume that expected scoring is constant across innings;
when you start an inning at the bottom of the order, you don't expect
to score .4 runs; similarly, you don't expect to score as many runs in
an inning facing Tom Glavine as you do against "Strikeforce" Stanton.
But if your run-scoring expectation varies from inning to inning, a
better distribution to use would be the Negative Binomial (note for
SDCNs: this can be derived from a Poisson if we assume the parameter
is distributed with a gamma pdf). I've been playing with this for
some time, and found in general that *most* team's run-scoring can be
fit by a Negative Binomial model with one parameter fixed, and the
other set to the team's average scoring. (Dr. Dave will cringe at
this, with good reason, but I'm an empirical guy in a hurry.) My
off-the-shelf Negative Binomial model for the Mets is presented in
column 5. It doesn't look too bad for the effort I put into it.
Next, I made a wild analogy, and decided to fit Bonilla's per-game RBI
data to the *same* model, under the assumption that Bobby Bo is no
more flaky than his fellow Mets, and has almost as many PAs in a game
to drive in runs as the Mets have in an inning. This certainly didn't
have to fit well. But it did.
RBIs/Game Bonilla % Neg. Bin %
0 .67 .66
1 .18 .20
2+ .15 .14
Not too shabby for a no-look 1-parameter fit. This *doesn't* show that Bonilla
is more or less flaky than any other outfielder, of course, but it does suggest
you can model RBI data as well as you can run-scoring data, and suggests that
"streakiness" is in some way proportional to production. (I wonder if Darryl
Strawberry knows this :-)).
>I don't think you'll convince me or the Met fans that this is normal or
>acceptable for a player who claims to be one of the top three outfielders
>in the game and is being paid like he was the best.
I probably didn't convince you, but without looking at more data than
I'm willing to chase down, I'm not sure that I could. If you expect
Bonilla to bat in more runs, it would certainly help if his team-mates
would emulate his OBP.
>As for the totals you posted, I don't dispute them. I'm saying that
>totals can be deceiving when evaluating a player. I don't believe that
>any player that crams ALL of his offensive numbers into only one third
>of the games he's played (as Bobby has done) is really helping his team
>over the course of the season.
I don't know where you get this "ALL" from. I can say that you would
almost *certainly* expect something like this clustering of RBIs given
his Bonilla's RBI production, which you might still complain about, but
that's another issue.
Anybody got Cecil Fielder's data handy? Or anybody else's?
jking
John Franjione
>In article <1992Jul15.1...@Princeton.EDU> ro...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul15.1...@cpqhou.compaq.com> ca...@cpqhou.UUCP (Carl Rempert) writes:
>>>In article <30...@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dta...@pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:
>>>>In article <14...@hades.hera.Sbi.Com> jbal...@zip.sbi.com (Joe Baldino) writes:
>It is true that Dr. Dave ususally does post numbers and prove his statements.
>This time he didn't, and Carl pounced on him for it. Is Carl wrong?
>No, Tate (I hate talking about him in the third person this way, but...)
>should be held to whatever standards we're holding everyone else to.
This is classic. Since when has anyone but Dave Tate, Sherri Nichols,
Roger Lustig, etc. actually taken the effort to prove anything they
say. There is the occasional exception, but for the most part, NOBODY
BUT THE "STATHEADS" (used affectionately) feels the need to back up
their assertions.
John Franjione