Hot Dogs and Apple Pie
Oh, yes! Today, April 26, 2006, I got a baseball game like I like them. It was a little higher scoring than I care for, but the Mets won, which is a very good feature, and it featured some terrific defense and exciting offense.
Rookie Brian Bannister has been throwing 100 pitches in five inings so far in his starts. Today he only got to 86 because he strained a hamstring running the bases. That’s right, the Mets pitcher had two doubles, drove in two runs and sore the go-ahead run in the sixth inning. He came up lame as he got to third base, but staggered home to give the Mets a 4-3 lead. Bannister toughed it out with a busted leg better than many everyday players, who would have taken the opportunity to sit down on third base.
That wasn’t the only highlight. Rickey Henderson (I told you there were hot dogs) was in attendence as he is helping coach Jose Reyes on the fine art of leading off. Reyes walked to lead off the game, gave Rickey a wave of acknowledgement, and got picked off. It’s a work in progress. Reyes also got two hits and two walks, each time giving a wave to Rickey. Reyes stole two bases as well. It was a great performance from Jose. Hopefully, Rickey can keep up the encouragement.
They interviewed Rickey, and Rickey was asked about teaching Jose to be more patient. Rickey said (and I am paraphrasing here) “no, that isn’t Jose’s game. He’s a contact hitter, and we talk about him swinging at better pitches.” It was interesting. Yes, I know swinging at better pitches means better plate discipline but let’s not nitpick. Reyes may have more luck with more regular interaction with Rickey.
It was just a fun game. Carlos Delgad-it, hitting a long bomb into the bay. Floyd hit the ball hard a few times. Ramon Castro got three hits *again*. Endy Chavez bunted almost every PA. David Wright struggled some - both in the field and at the plate, but he did double and walk. Julio Franco singled *and* stole a base - the oldest player to steal since Arlie Latham in 1909. Latham stole his base, ironically, on the day/year Franco was born.
The Mets got 17 hits. This was just a day after getting 10 hit. They are hitting again, and that should spell truble for upcoming opponents.
On the flip side, Aaron Heilman had an inning of great relief, and an inning of not so great relief. Duaner Sanchez was outstanding. Chad Bradford looked good. Darren Oliver gothe win with some good work as well.
The apple pie portion of the program was courtesy of Billy Wagner against Barry Bonds with two outs in the ninth and the Giants down by two runs, and a runner on second. Wagner brought heat, and Bonds brought maple. Bonds hit one to the power alley for a home run, number 711, to tie the game and send it to bonus frames. Mmmmmm, nice warm apple pie à la mode.
It’s no secret that I am a Bonds fan, and a Mets win where Bonds hits a significant blast, both historical and within the context of the game is just fantastic for me. fortunately I was TiVoing the game while I watched and could replay that home run a few times.
Those of you that think Bonds’ knees are going to be too torn up for him to get around or be productive, I hope the last few games have given you cause to re-think that. He’s one of the all-time greats, and I expect him to lead the league in OPS+ this year. All he needs is 502 PAs, and he looks good enough to do it.
On the downside, with Bannister out, I don’t know who is going to take his slot if he can’t. Could be Heilman, but I hope not. Could be Jose Lima, but I hope not. I’m not sure there are any good options. Bannister has won ugly, but he’s won, and he swings the bat well.
Darren Oliver and Tom Glavine are pretty good hitting pitchers. I think it’s a cool feature of this year’s team. I would use Oliver as the occassional pinch-hitter.
I hope you get the chance to watch today’s game. It was outstanding and had me cheering quite a bit.
Chris Dial
Posted: April 26, 2006 at 09:44 PM |
145 comment(s)
Related News:
NY Mets
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
More good news: The Mets decided to push Zambrano back to Monday against the Nationals so that Trachsel starts Sunday in Atlanta.
Great win today, btw. A series win in Atlanta, obviously no easy task, would be huge.
also- give rickey a full time job! god i love that guy. how could you NOT put him on your all time team? just for the antics alone. if he can teach reyes to be more selective and wait for something tasty, and be willing to walk if the pitcher won't give it to him, reyes really could be an excellent player.
also also- having a 1b with power is like woah cool.
lastly- julio franco is amazing. i hope he can play until he's 50. i bet a team with him and rickey as starters would whollop the royals.
Randolph said before the game Wednesday he wanted "to sleep on" the possible change that would have Pedro Martinez, Tom Glavine and Trachsel face the Braves and push back Zambrano so that he would face the Nationals at Shea Stadium on Monday night. But by game's end, the manager had put the plan in motion.
The off-day Thursday allows the Mets to fiddle with the rotation, move up Trachsel's start and not have anyone pitching on short rest. Zambrano will make his start with seven days off.
yay
The Mets currently have 2 pitchers from VZ... both big, big fan favorites.
This guy and this fellow
i don't truck with that sort of sass. :D
It's one thing to doubt that he can still hit (woe to the doubters on that one). It's another thing to see the shape he's in generally, and the condition of his legs, and believe that he is going to have a lot of trouble (a) on the bases, (b) covering left field, and (c) staying in the line-up. I remain skeptical on all of those things, Chris, and I don't think that is an unreasonable position to take. I will be very, very surprised if he get 502 PAs, and I suspect he will be, too.
Gold Glove LF:Manny Ramirez::Manny Ramirez:Bonds
If Manny costs you 20 runs a year in LF (a low estimate) Bonds has to cost the Giants 40-50 unless his condition improves. Still, if he's worth 90 runs on offense (include the terrible baserunning) he still ends up as a very good player.
Norfolk
Milledge 1-3, BB
Keppinger 2-4
Maine 7 IP 5 hits 1/9 bb/so
Bell 1 IP 0 hits 0/2 bb/so
Bingo
Andy Wilson 2-4, 2 2B
Owens 1 IP 1/3 bb/so
After today's outing, Owens's line looks like this: 12 IP 4 hits 5/27 BB/SO. That's pretty ridiculous.
St. Lucie
Abreu 2-4
Concepcion 2-4, HR, BB
Abreu is the cuban defector the Red Sox had signed but later released because he lied about his age. Ambiorix is having a comeback year. He was hitting .320/.386/.413 with a 8/18 BB/SO in 75 AB coming into today's game. Lets hope Jim Bowden is paying attention.
Soler 6 IP 1 hit 1/8 bb/so
Speaking of Cuban defectors...Alay's season line after today's game: 0.86 ERA 21 IP 11 hits 8/25 BB/SO. Can he really be that far behind from Pelfrey?
Hagerstown
Fernando! 2-9 2 2B
Pellot 1-4, 4 BB
Evans 1-5, 2B 3 BB
Long game.
Maine pitched a good game tonight, is on the 40-man roster and would have his normal rest if he takes Bannister's turn in the rotation so I think he makes too much sense not to be the guy. I can't imagine Bannister is able to make his next start even if this isn't very serious. Anyway, I don't think is necessarily a downgrade and we'd at least get a look at Maine.
from baseball america:
Strengths: Maine succeeds more with command than pure stuff. He added a slider to give him four legitimate pitches, along with his fastball, curveball and changeup. He throws 90-91 mph with natural deception, and adds and subtracts from his fastball nicely. He's not afraid to work inside.
Weaknesses: None of Maine's pitches is overwhelming, which explains why he struggles when he moves up to a new level. He has a long-arm delivery and must work to stay on top of the ball. He also needs to refine his command and throw quality strikes after learning that advanced hitters lay off balls out of the zone.
The Future: Maine has a ceiling of a No. 3 starter, and probably a No. 4 or 5 guy on a first-division club. But he's a pitcher's pitcher and should get the most out of his ability.
and now Bannister:
Strengths:
Refining his cutter helped Bannister take a huge step forward. He spots his cutter and his 90-mph fastball to both sides of the plate. His 12-to-6 curveball can be devastating at times.
Weaknesses:
Despite his success, Bannister still raises some obvious red flags. His fastball’s movement is less impressive than its average velocity, and he tends to leave it up in the zone. He doesn’t have much feel for a changeup, and his curveball is inconsistent.
The Future:
Bannister held his own in Triple-A and probably will return there in 2006. He’ll be among the first in line for a callup in 2006 and could become as much as a No. 4 or 5 starter.
These two guys sounds awfully similar to me.
Rickey is awesome. I'd like to see him hired full time. Hell I'd love for him to be signed.
I agree with Dial, Bonds will lead the league in OPS+. I see him playing 120 games which should put him right around the magic 502 number.
And Piazza hit his 400th homer!
Fernando! was 3-9 with 2 doubles and the game isn't over yet. It was suspended after the 17th inning.
Gold Glove LF:Manny Ramirez::Manny Ramirez:Bonds
If Manny costs you 20 runs a year in LF (a low estimate) Bonds has to cost the Giants 40-50 unless his condition improves.
You know, and I hate to pick on J. Cross here, as he's an in-law (not really, but that's my wife's maiden name), I wish people would stop saying that.
Bonds, IMO, looks fine. He looks "eperienced". He is a fantastic judge of FBs, and is making hte efforts needed.
Right now his ZR is right in line with his career mark (which is slightly above average in LF), and I think he'll keep it there.
*I* don't think he looks bad defensively, and I think I am as good a judge as anyone.
Did you see the play in Game 1 of the Mets series where the 3b had to catch a pop up to left field because Bonds could not move, or the Nady homer Bonds could of caught (although it would have been a good play)?
Yes, I did. Few, if any, LFs playing in Bonds positioning would have caught that ball.
That's an example of a play where people who don't know how to judge defense would judge Bonds' defense.
I bow to your greater wisdom Professor.
Anyway, as for Bonds, we may just have to agree to disagree and see where the numbers settle at the end of the year, Chris, since I'm sure you'll agree that his ZR after 20 games is about as meaningful as counting 50 grains of sand in the Sahara.
As for the way he is playing, here's one way to look at it. You seem to be saying that he is being very smart about when to expend energy, knowing what plays he can make and not even trying to put on a good show for balls he knows he's not going to get to anyway, so why try? That is, as you are implying, the smart play of a veteran who has to carefully conserve his resources for the plays he CAN make.
But doesn't that, in and of itself, constitute a warning sign about both durability and ability? Bonds is being smart, and maybe he does have enough in the tank, properly conserved, to get through the year. But maybe he's pinching a supply that is already too short. I say this because I think I've seen older players, especially late in the season, do what I believe you are suggesting, but I can't ever recall seeing one do it in April. Not like this. Not to the point where they are staggering around the bases on a home run, and barely getting off their feet on a possibly catchable home run ball in a close game. Maybe, as you have said, our eyes are deceiving us watching on tv and we don't know what to look for. I take the point as possibly valid. But by mid-season, we will know a lot more about whether Bonds's body will hold up. And I'll be more than ready to admit I was wrong if it does. So hold me to it, because I'm firmly out here on the limb: that is a player whose body is not going to be able to bear up to the rigors of the major league season for too much longer.
You are welcome, and forgiven.
Well, it's meaningful in the sense that "he's killing teh Giants on defense in these 20 games" is demonstrably untrue. Certainyl nothing like hte Manny Ramirez remark. He *IS* catching FBs hit to LF. Regardless of what you guys think he "looks like". Vlad Guerrero likes like crap swinging at pitches - what are the results?
That is, as you are implying, the smart play of a veteran who has to carefully conserve his resources for the plays he CAN make.
But doesn't that, in and of itself, constitute a warning sign about both durability and ability? Bonds is being smart, and maybe he does have enough in the tank, properly conserved, to get through the year. But maybe he's pinching a supply that is already too short. I say this because I think I've seen older players, especially late in the season, do what I believe you are suggesting,
Ted Williams was like this in April. He ahted it. Bonds is also coming back from knee surgery - I *would* expect him to start slower in games, and get his knee more used to game conditions.
but I can't ever recall seeing one do it in April. Not like this.
Like *what*? He *catching* all the FBs hit to left (above average rate, anyway)
Not to the point where they are staggering around the bases on a home run, and barely getting off their feet on a possibly catchable home run ball in a close game.
These two observations are seen through *terribly* brown-colored glasses.
that is a player whose body is not going to be able to bear up to the rigors of the major league season for too much longer.
I think you simply underestimate Bonds' toughness.
Us yellowbeards are never more dangerous than when we're dead.
Soler has no business pitching in A-ball.
-- MWE
Brown-colored glasses? Hmmmmm . . . If rose-colored glasses are optimism, I guess brown-colored are pessimism? But I'm honestly not inclined to see this question one way or the other. I may be mistaken in what I'm seeing, but I don't think it's because I want to see it one way or the other. Lord knows there are people around here (and around baseball) who want to see Bonds break down physically as confirmation of a hundred things -- no wait, that's not right; of ONE thing they think about Bonds. Maybe you think I'm in that boat?
Not so. Remember how I've taken Piazza's decline. Others have somehow seen a great hitting catcher hit his mid-30s and decline and said, "AHA! Steroids!" I've said, "Huh? This is what happens to catchers when they reach a certain number of games caught. It's been happening since long before steroids, and it'll keep happening." Bonds is 41, about to turn 42. If he's breaking down, as I think I'm seeing, that's explanation enough. Maybe there's more to it, maybe there's not, but I won't particularly be interested in it.
I acknowledge that I think you see Bonds performance pessimistically, but NOT with the *hope* he fails.
You are expecting him to fail, so everything you see has the tint of "because he is on the verge of breaking down".
You see a man staggering around the bases - I see a man with a sore knee taking extra precautions not to stress it. You see those precautions as evidence he's barely holding it together - I see them as something you can do for a really long time.
I haev that knee, and when I play golf and have to climb a hill, I have an exaggerated limp because my left leg, if asked to pull my weight too much will inflate. So I don't ask it to, unless I have to. And I can play golf all day (72 holes in a day). Yes it is sore, but a day off every few days keeps it from being "career-ending".
bunyon and *many* others have been going around saying his bat speed was down and he couldn't generate the power, blah blah blah on the basis of no HRs in 30 ABs. Well, we know all about that now.
Never underestimate the mean - you don't know the power of the Dark Side.
Back to our boys: According to the Giants' web site, only 11 visiting players had hit homers into McCovey Cove on the fly coming into this season. It had never been done by two visiting players in the same series before. However, of the 11, two of them were . . . drumroll please . . .
Carlos Delgado, Florida Marlins, July 23, 2005
Cliff Floyd, New York Mets, August 21, 2004
Both Delgado and Floyd did it again this week.
Ripley's Believe It . . . Or Not!!!!
Based on the length of those HRs, and the lack of lng bombs from the late 90s those two are on steroids...
Somebody observed in the chat that the Met HR record is in jeopardy. Oh, big time.
I'm jsut glad that Delgado passed Ty Wigginton in HRs on the season.
It looked to me like he tried to pick it up too quickly and didn't bend over far enough to do so, like a dozen fielders do every day. He did in in an effort to keep Woodward at first (which was already VERY unlikely).
well you guys got a puerto rican first baseman in return. what you really need is a japanese second baseman and maybe a korean starting pitcher ... although i suppose a korean loogy might have to do.
Fair enough...
That pinch-hit home run bought Bonds *alot* of extra PAs. He's feeling it now.
Resisting my best effort (# 25) to steer it back on course. Ah, well. No BTF blog has really been launched without a Bonds' thread to call its own, has it? ;-)
The pop-up that the 3rd baseman had to field the other day is a ball that normally goes to the LFer. I don't think I buy the idea that Bonds knew that the 3rd baseman would get there and just slacked off. What I saw was that Bonds was never going to get close to a ball that other LFers would catch. I agree that the homerun ball he "missed" isn't worth considering and it wasn't really clear from the camera angle whether anyone could have brought that one back. Either way, that won't come up very often.
Maybe Bonds will get healthier but otherwise he's a big problem out there.
Actually, it means exactly that.
The pop-up that the 3rd baseman had to field the other day is a ball that normally goes to the LFer. I don't think I buy the idea that Bonds knew that the 3rd baseman would get there and just slacked off. What I saw was that Bonds was never going to get close to a ball that other LFers would catch.
I watched it; I scored it; I disagree. The positioning of the defense on the field was hte primary factor.
Actually, it means exactly that.
No, it doesn't mean anything like that. There's way way way too much noise in a 20-game sample to draw any conclusion like that. The fact that the ball has landed in his glove an average number of times doesn't mean that if he plays left field like he's playing right now over the course of a season that he'll make an average number of plays.
Hey! You can keep Rickey, but Julio's a future coach for the Braves. They're the ones who rescued him from Mexico!
You already poached Glavine and the last days of Julio's playing career.
re-read:
The fact that the numbers are average so far doesn't mean that he's played average thus far.
Yes, it means exactly that.
Reading with comprehension is your friend.
boo stats folk.
now if only ol krukker didn't have to be put down.
(also, over/under on winning the series vs the braves? i'd say that they lose at least one game when Francouer somehow remembers how to hit)
(that pun was dying to be made, my apologies)
The fact that the ball has landed in his glove an average number of times doesn't mean that if he plays left field like he's playing right now over the course of a season that he'll make an average number of plays.
Reading comprehension is your friend. So is diet and exercise.
Thanks in advance.
Reading comprehension is your friend. So is diet and exercise.
You are simply terrible at internet discussions.
JCross said: The fact that the numbers are average so far doesn't mean that he's played average thus far.
Dial said: Actually, it means exactly that.
Rob said: No, it doesn't mean anything like that.
Then Rob went on to make an "unrelated-to-these-comments" statement about projecting the rest of the season.
That you went on to make a separate statement rebutting something that I never said has nothing to do with your opening "correction".
Don't be so dense.
J.
that Bonds has average numbers thus far means *exactly* that he's played average *thus far*.
Those things are the same. You and Rob need to address what I write, not what you think I mean.
Oh, and you are wrong about this.
A. Bonds is making an average number of plays right now
B. If Bonds continues to play as he is right now (making an average number of plays)
C. It does mean that he'll make an average number of plays over the season.
You problem in defensive evaluation is that you are tainting the data with *your* subjective observations.
Yes, there is noise in the very small dataset, but there is NO OTHER EVIDENCE to indicate he won't continue this performance. Other than you "think so".
No, being average now doesn't mean he'll be average at teh end of the season. But being average now, *AND PLAYING LIKE HE's PLAYED THUS FAR* _DOES_ mean he'll be average at the end of teh season.
He'll have to perform at *below* average from here on out, which would *not* be "like he is playing now."
Let me give you an analogy. Brian Bannister has a 2.89 era this season. That is, by any measure, above average. But we know from other statistics that his pitching has not been above average, it has been below average. Specifically, he has walked 17 batters while striking out only 14. He has also allowed 22 hits. On balance, his pitching has been below average, even if it so happens that a lower than average number of feet have touched home plate while he's been standing there.
Aside from all of this, Dial, I'd just like to state that you are an extremely obnoxious guy. You make this board a less enjoyable experience. Try to disagree respectfully instead of acting like a snotty fat guy all the time.
Only if you ignore the fact that we have seen him playing out there and he is immobile. That suggests to a number of us (in fact, everybody but you, by my count), that, however it is that Bonds has managed to put his glove on the ball an average number of times this season, over a larger sample, if he continues to play like he is right now, he will make a below-average number of plays.
Chris is certainly right that -- at least so far -- Rob has produced no evidence that Bonds's average results have been produced by sub-average performance. But this statement is still true:
The fact that the ball has landed in his glove an average number of times doesn't mean that if he plays left field like he's playing right now over the course of a season that he'll make an average number of plays.
Which is fine -- Chris is right to call him on the lack of any evidence for the proposition that Bonds won't make an average number of plays playing like he's playing now. But it's literally, narrowly true: the mere fact that Bonds has made an average number of plays so far doesn't mean he will do so over the course of the season if he keeps playing like he's playing now.
It should, however, be the default assumption, lacking any other evidence. And since we really don't have any other evidence on that question, the discussion reaches a dead end.
Here's the problem Rob. There are objective measures and subjective measures. You don't seem to be able to separate them.
Objectively, teh math, the value of Bonds defensive performance, even thus far witht he sample size, says he's playing average defense in LF. Yes, a larger sample would smooth out the difficulty of chances, but that's all it does.
Let me give you an analogy. Brian Bannister has a 2.89 era this season. That is, by any measure, above average. But we know from other statistics that his pitching has not been above average, it has been below average. Specifically, he has walked 17 batters while striking out only 14. He has also allowed 22 hits. On balance, his pitching has been below average, even if it so happens that a lower than average number of feet have touched home plate while he's been standing there.
What is a pitcher's job? Run prevention. Bannister is preventing runs above average. To this point, his performance *IS* above average. On balance, his performance is *above average*. Walk rates and that otehr junk *DOES NOT MATTER* when looking at whether he has done his job *above average* to date. He has to prevent runs - not walks or hits or strike people out.
Again, you cannot separate what has happened with what you think will happen.
You *subjectively* assess that because of what you see (Bonds mobility; Bannister's component data) both players will perform worse *later*. But that isn't evaluating how they have performed *THUS FAR* (maybe you don't know what "thus far" means).
How you project a player's future performance based on his components is NOT THE SAME as evaluating what his value has been to present.
Aside from all of this, Dial, I'd just like to state that you are an extremely obnoxious guy.
You are aware that you are "Rob Base", correct?
You make this board a less enjoyable experience. Try to disagree respectfully instead of acting like a snotty fat guy all the time.
I'll be nicer if you'll be smarter.
Rob . . . Can I just say, it takes a lot of nerve to write something like that, just a few posts after writing about someone else:
I'd just like to state that you are an extremely obnoxious guy.
There's chutzpah, and then there's chutzpah.
You know, Rob, I don't get phased by name-calling. You aren't helping yourself here.
But I'll agree. I don't think you are going to get any smarter.
Rob,
a prediction is something about what will happen in the future.
"thus far" is a discussion about what has happened in the past.
*Thus far*, Bonds has played average defense in LF and Brian Bannister has pitched above average.
These are facts and they are indisputable.
People reach their peak IQ at around 30, so I suspect you're right. This is probably it for me. Peak weight for the morbidly obese, on the other hand, tends to come right at the end.
It's not a "characterization". You don't seem to understand that we arn't selling jeans. <shrug> You're a commentator; not an analyst. That's fine.
Thanks for showing Cross, Sam, and I the error of our ways. You truly are the grand champion of baseball message board disputes.
Thank you, and you are welcome.
That's fine, I never purported to be a baseball analyst. I'm just a fan. You, on the other hand, seem to fancy yourself an analyst. Yet, you are anable to persuade anybody that your analysis is correct. Sad.
Rob, you really should re-read my # 54. While I started off by stating you have the grain of a point -- that Bonds' ZR to date doesn't mean, by itself, that the quality of his play will produce an average number of plays over the rest of the season -- I also said that, lacking any evidence that it won't, Chris's assumption should be the default position. At least Chris has a (limited) data set to support his view of what is likely to unfold. You've got nothing but a subjective POV.
My own view is different: it's not that his performance is likely to produce below-average numbers, though I think that's certainly possible. It's that his performance is an indication he may have physical limitations that will eventually render him unable to perform and last the season.
Yes, and you blow.
And you're saying that Rob has provided no basis for believing he won't continue to do so.
I subsequently said that when Rob said that I was wrong about his performance thus far.
I'll be happy to wager on Bonds' season ZR.
I guess Chris's false assumptions are infecting your thinking too, Sam. We all saw how the guy moves. We all agree that playing left field involves running and catching fly balls. The fact that Bonds has a serious leg injury that dramatically affects his movements is evidence that something in the ZR either (1) does not accurately reflect his past "performance," by which term I mean to exclude happenings caused by luck and other non-ability related factors; or, (2) at the very least, lacks even the limited predictive value we'd ordinarily assign a 20-game ZR.
You don't know what a "fact" is.
It doesn't matter if it "dramatically affects his movement" in general - only if it prevents him from covering the ground a LF is expected to cover.
You *know* it hasn't thus far, given the chances he has had. You *suspect* it will in the future.
I don't think it will be the impact you do. But it is NOT a fact his leg injury will keep him from playing approximately average defense in LF. THat's just not "a fact".
I might agree with this IF I had seen Bonds play more than two games this year. And even at that, I didn't see them live, but only on television. So I wasn't seeing his break on balls off the bat, and I wasn't seeing his positioning on most hitters.
So I have to give only VERY limited weight to my observation of his mobility (and of its effect on his play). I saw enough to have doubts, and I saw enough to be quite skeptical of his durability. But enough to be confident he will be such a deep liability in left field? Enough to conclude that defensive stats that are usually (not invariably, but usually) reliable are way off the mark? No. I might not wager on them, as Chris would, but I wouldn't just toss them out, not based on the little I've seen thus far.
It doesn't matter if it "dramatically affects his movement" in general - only if it prevents him from covering the ground a LF is expected to cover.
You *know* it hasn't thus far, given the chances he has had. You *suspect* it will in the future.
I don't think it will be the impact you do. But it is NOT a fact his leg injury will keep him from playing approximately average defense in LF. THat's just not "a fact".
You argue like a 6 year-old. That's a fact.
I'll take that as a concession.
Just don't take it as a concession stand. I'd hate for you to show up at my house looking for hot dogs and apple pie.
Now, I'm not half the analyst Chris is (yes, Rob, the door is open -- please don't walk through it), but with my limited understanding, can't both of you be right?
Let's take someone less incendiary as an example. Brian Bannister has a 2.89 ERA. That is clearly above average performance. But isn't it possible that the metric (ERA) doesn't capture everything -- maybe he's being helped by his fielders, maybe the hits/walks/strikeouts have come at the most opportune times, maybe he's getting helped by his relievers?
Put another, slightly more analyst way, isn't it true that ERA is more likely to regress to the mean than things like K:BB ratio? And if it is, isn't it reasonable to point to the disparity between Bannister's ERA and his K:BB and say, "Bannister can continue to pitch exactly as he has, and he will not be above average", with the implication that Bannister is not one of those very rare pitchers whose ERA consistently outperforms their peripherals?
Maybe this is what Base is saying; I don't want to put words in his mouth. But if it is, isn't it just as reasonable to say, "Look, yes, Bannister's ERA doesn't match up with his peripherals. But you don't have any evidence that this is because he is lucky. Maybe he is one of those guys whose ERA's outperform his peripherals, perhaps because he changes his approach with runners on base, perhaps because his approach is well-suited to having a good defense, perhaps because he rubs a lucky shamrock before starts. So without that evidence, you can't say for certain that his ERA is going to get worse. All you can say is that you think it's likely, but that's not a fact."
that's a fact!
I third that motion.
I can't figure out whether Dial should be Kornheiser or Wilbon, though. He has Wilbon's build and Kornheiser's mouth.
-- MWE
What is a pitcher's job? Run prevention. Bannister is preventing runs above average. To this point, his performance *IS* above average. On balance, his performance is *above average*. Walk rates and that otehr junk *DOES NOT MATTER* when looking at whether he has done his job *above average* to date. He has to prevent runs - not walks or hits or strike people out.
Again, you cannot separate what has happened with what you think will happen.
And, if you want to take this head in the sand approach to its logical extreme, a pitcher's job could be to win games (Glavine has been mediocre thus far), to win pennants (who's to say since I dare not assert what I think will happen?) or to win world series (since this has not been determied as yet I can't seem to find any evidence that Anderson Hernandez isn't hitting well). Instead of participating in this silliness most people would just admit that Bannister hasn't pitched very well thus far and Bonds hasn't played defense very well.
Also, I'd suggest that it's Dial who doesn't actually know the difference between objective and subjective. Objective does NOT mean "measured" and does NOT mean "quantitative." It actually means "uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices" and "based on observable phenomena." Since everyone here believes that Bonds looks bad in left field (except for the determined Bonds supporter) that IS objective evidence that he has played badly. In fact, it's much better evidence than the meager statistical data. If Dial is able to come back with a full season's worth of data that indicates that Bonds has played average only then will it really carry more weight (no pun intended) than the consensus of objective observers.
I think seeing Bonds' difficulties moving relative to the average person, let alone the average major league outfielder, is not adjusted statistical evidence. But it is worth taking into account.
For what it's worth, I enjoy both of you on this board.
Well, you are just wrong here.
Wins and losses aren't primarily a function of the pitcher. His ERA is.
If most people "admitted" Bonds hasn't played defense very well thus far, *they'd be wrong*.
I'm stunned *anyone* could think otherwise.
Also, I'd suggest that it's Dial who doesn't actually know the difference between objective and subjective. Objective does NOT mean "measured" and does NOT mean "quantitative." It actually means "uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices" and "based on observable phenomena." Since everyone here believes that Bonds looks bad in left field (except for the determined Bonds supporter) that IS objective evidence that he has played badly. In fact, it's much better evidence than the meager statistical data. If Dial is able to come back with a full season's worth of data that indicates that Bonds has played average only then will it really carry more weight (no pun intended) than the consensus of objective observers.
Wow. Just a big load of it today, J.
You grossly misuse "observable phenomena" in terms of evaluating Bonds' defense.
How does Vlad Guerrrero look at the plate? He takes hideous swings at pitches that aren't close to the strike zone. In your world, he's not performing well at the plate. That's bonkers.
IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW BONDS LOOKS IN THE FIELD.
It only matters if he catches the ball. that's all. Thus far (those were your words, FYI), he has caught the ball.
Many people can't believe Cliff FLoyd played well in LF in 2005 - he "looked" bad.
It doesn't matter how you look.
Observable in that context mean recordable, I think.
20 years of data?
Pete Gray says, yes, that'd be fine.
No. But the question I responded to was *thus far*.
Now that you have gotten either ridiculous, or snippy - put up or shut up.
Now we'll see whether or not you believe what you are posting.
Also if Bannister has 2.89 ERA ( or whatever RA, which is also pretty good I think ), he has done his job. Looking at his peripherals, you may not predict him to continue that success, but to date, he has done his job
It's good you aren't a scout. He's got incredible bat speed and the ball absolutely flies off his bat like few other players. He looks like a stud at the plate and he is one.
20 years of data?
So, the stats of the young gold glove Bonds tell you what to expect from today's gimp? Please, the two players don't even resemble eachother.
IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW BONDS LOOKS IN THE FIELD.
Actually, I believe Tango demonstrated that how a player looks DOES have predictive value.
Observable in that context mean recordable
"recordable"? okay, make a record of the fact that he looks like a gimp. Do you really think that hitters will continue to hit the ball right at him all year?
Wins and losses aren't primarily a function of the pitcher. His ERA is.
Ah, I see you've shifted your argument. Wins and losses, in 5 starts are more heavily dependent on pitcher quality than ZR is dependent on fielding quality after 20 games. In fact, I'd bet that you couldn't show that ZR's after 20 games show even a statistically significant dependence on fielding quality.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main