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.
I don't think he's "demonstrated" that.
Do you really think that hitters will continue to hit the ball right at him all year?
How many Giants games have you watched this season? How many have you scored? How TF do you know all the balls he's caught were "hit right at him"?
Mr. Strawman, meet Mr. Cross.
Ah, I see you've shifted your argument.
Well, that makes you a liar too.
*YOU* shifted the argument. I responded to it.
Wins and losses, in 5 starts are more heavily dependent on pitcher quality than ZR is dependent on fielding quality after 20 games.
How do you know that?
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.
How would you like it demonstrated?
ZR is basically self-defining wrt value. It's completely different for assessing "true talent".
You are just wrong here.
The value of the performance has been average (or above).
That's indisputable. I can't believe you'd be with Base here.
btw, that's not really a strawman you quoted, it's just a ridiculous hypothetical. There's a difference.
But, you're right that I haven't seen very much Bonds this year. It's just that the Bonds I've seen has looked really bad. Maybe I saw him at his gimpiest and he'll be healthier and better. My real objection with your argument is your claim that observation isn't worth much compared to 20 games worth of ZR. 20 games of ZR is worth almost nothing.
Changing my argument to a ridiculous position to esily knock it down is a strawman, I think.
Not necessarily. As near as we can tell using just ZR, it's been average (and as close as we can tell just using ERA, Bannister has been excellent). But if you really want to judge value, you either (a) use data in addition to ZR (and unfortunately there isn't much to use) or (b) admit that there is huge uncertainty, due to otential distribution of opportunities or whatever. Either way, it's not "indisputable".
I can't believe you'd be with Base here.
And I'm surprised by your position. I would think you'd have less certainty in the meaning of the numbers.
Your (and Rob's) observation on two plays in two games is worth *actually* nothing.
And the ZR describes the value of his performance. I don't know how you can deny that.
When Bonds has been on the field, there have been 24 FBs to LF. Bonds caught 21. That's average performance. Manny-level fielding would catch 18.
I can't fathom that you can describe his performance thus far as anything but average. What would an average LF do differently? Run over and catch those 21 balls more smothly? WTF!?!
Uncertainty wrt what? That an avg LF may have caught more of the FBs? There have only been 24. He caught 21.
I can't believe you'd be with Base here.
And I'm surprised by your position. I would think you'd have less certainty in the meaning of the numbers.
No, I'm certain the numbers mean 24 FBs, 21 caught. On average that's what a LF catches on FBs hit to LF. Is it *possible* that an avg LF would have caught all 24? Sure. Is it likely? In fact, no LF (thus far) still has a 1.000 ZR, so no.
Here's how LFs have performed so far
I am certain the numbers are what they are. I have NEVER claimed that meant Bonds would automatically continue to perform that way.
What do you think I should be "less certain" about?
Again, Harold, feel free to take me up on teh wager.
I don't think so. I think that has nothing to do with teh question.
You are clearly asking there that a 20-g ZR demonstrate "true talent" as well as long term ZR. That isn't required when you refer to a specific level of performance over a specfic period.
A person that hits 10 HRs in 100 ABs has performed as if he is Babe Ruth. That's a simple fact (wrt that aspect of his game). Does that mean that he'll maintain that pace? No, the dataset stands on its on, and it doesn't require that 10 HRs in 100 ABs have a correlation to a season to say that the performance over that period was *in fact* Ruthian. It was.
Of course, they might all have been catchable balls and an average LFer might have caught all 24. I don't know. I haven't seen all 24 balls. Either way, the point is that he doesn't look good out there and ZR provides no information about how well he's playing the position.
The statement that he's played average defense is different than the statement that the VALUE of his defense to this point has been average. I can't confirm the latter statement but I think it's entirely possible.
the performance over that period was *in fact* Ruthian. It was.
This is where we disagree. The results were Ruthian. The batter might have been hitting a lot of mistake pitches over short fences. With better pitches he might not have done nearly that well over that stretch. Sure, the VALUE of his performance was Ruthian but his performance might not have been.
review the thread. Here's what started this:
"Bonds looks like he's really going to hurt the Giants in the field. In fact, he's so gimpy that I would put it this way:
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."
Now you are drawing fine lines on value and peformance when you were declaring him costing the giant 40-50 runs.
Oh, you didn't say it once - you said it twice:
"Bonds is about as likely to end up as an average LFer as Wily Mo Pena is to be an average CFer. The fact that the numbers are average so far doesn't mean that he's played average thus far....Maybe Bonds will get healthier but otherwise he's a big problem out there."
Now, that's not someone trying to say what you just said above. You were pretty sure Bonds was sitting in a La-Z-Boy out there.
I had said:
"I don't want to give the wrong impression. It is evident he's hurting, and he isn't the going to be the LF that won 8 GG. But he's going to be average-ish defensively"
Then Rob started the "but it doesn't mean he'll do it all year" - and I never said it *meant* that.
But this statement:
"The fact that the numbers are average so far doesn't mean that he's played average thus far" is garbage.
MORE THAN LIKELY, it means *EXACTLY* that - certainly over the number of chances he's gotten.
I certainly think the burden of demonstration is on you that the average LF would catch more of them or not. Heck, just find the three balls he missed.
You guys don't have the good sense to say:
"Okay, he isn't hurting them yet, but based on how he runs *I think* he will."
You're just too goddamned stubborn.
"The results of the performance were Ruthian, but the performance isn't."
WTF?
A) Bonds has played average defense in LF on the BIP.
B) Bonds has played poorly and gotten lucky on the BIP.
C) Bonds has played very well and gotten unlucky on the BIP.
The wager has nothing to do with the point I'm making. I don't care what his ZR will be the rest of the year. I'm saying that his ZR doesn't measure the entirety of his performance or his value.
Specifically, Bonds has let a lot of singles turn into doubles. Has he thrown anybody out advancing? I'm saying that he hasn't done well at things that aren't measured by ZR. ZR essentially overrates him.
And even if you disagree that ZR overrates him, that's beside the point, becuase my point isn't about Bonds specifically as much as it as about relying on ZR. Surely there are some players who are overrated by ZR. But if their ZR is average, how could you say it's "indisputable" that the value of their performance is average?
Can you link to the incident?
Thanks.
No, it means nothing. We could go back and forth like this all day. I think I've made my points and you've ignored them. You've stated your logic and I've said why I don't agree. In response to post 118, I think choice B) is easily the most likely followed by A) with C) a distant third.
I don't have access to video of all 24 plays nor would I spend the time looking at it if I did.
As I am sure you know, those things contribute very little to an OF defensive "score".
"Thrown anyone out advancing"? Well, there are 14 LFs ith 125 IP in the NL and 4 have not. 6 have thrown out *one* runner.
that's a silly example.
Can you demonstrate *in any way* "he hasn't done well at things that aren't measured by ZR."
He has no assists in 126 IP? That's not going to sell me.
Surely there are some players who are overrated by ZR.
Not likely in 24 FBs. And overall, not very much. Nor not very often.
But if their ZR is average, how could you say it's "indisputable" that the value of their performance is average?
Mostly because the things ZR doesn't measure for OF are very small contributors to a fielder's value.
I think you might re-read all I've written in this thread and read it for what it says - not what Rob or JCross said I said.
What "point" do you think you've made?
He looks like he isn't catching any balls? You are certain those other three balls would have been caught, but you don't recall any of them?
What is it you think Bonds should have done to have "average" defensive performance that he hasn't done? Throw out *one* baserunner*?
One reason we can go back and forth is that I have data and you have conjecture. Data you don't like because it is a small sample (which would be a problem if I were claiming something else other than his past performance), but you just don't like the way he looks AFAICT.
I like this one alot.
He's let *ALOT* of singles into doubles? More or less than average? How doyou know? What about Cliff Floyd's dribbling out there? Soriano? Burrell? Adam Dunn? Carlos Lee? Jose Cruz Jr? Jason Bay? Josh Willingham?
Well, there's seven LFs right there....
Opening Day - Eric Young hit one in the corner at PETCO
Next Game - Adrian Gonzalez hit a near bomb in the gap (but to LF-ish).
vs Braves 6-Apr - Renteria. This one looks like (based on what I can tell) it *may* have been played into a 2B - I think it is a wet grass 2B (this is the series it rained a lot and Chipper hurt his knee).
vs Braves 9-Apr - LaRoche hits one deep.
vs Dodgers 14-Apr - Ledee dumps one in down the line.
vs DBax 17-Apr - Hudson 2b - this one may be "played into a 2B".
vs Rocks 21-Apr L Gonzalez hits one deep.
Woodward's 2B the other night into the foul territory.
So no, he has *NOT* played "lots of singles into doubles".
Perhaps you are thinking of Randy Winn's play the other night in LF when the Mets doubled to left a couple of times.
not it isn't! if the difficulty of the plays is below average, a below average defensive performance could result in an average zone rating.
But the value of the performance is still going to be average. Do the math!
No, it's not. You say, "do the math", but the math only works out that way because of the imprecision of ZR.
I may need to do this. I don't really see how you could disagree with what I'm saying, so the more sensible answer is that I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say. :-)
no comment on all those doubles?
I should put this in bold so that you actually read it:
I'm not talking about the VALUE of his performance. I'm talking about his performance.
I acknowledge that he caught an average number of balls. This is really besides the point. In one game I might go out there and catch an average number of the balls in my zone. That doesn't mean that I played the position as well as an average centerfielder during that game. If I cirlced around a flyball and somehow caught it, I still played like crap.
I haven't ignored that at all.
I've tried to point out to you - it isn't *how*, it is *how many*. It DOES NOT MATTER if you circle around *as long as you catch them*.
We aren't selling jeans here.
Eckstein looks like crap as a SS. He has a weak arm and is too short.
All that really matters is whether or not he turns the GBs into outs. It doesn't matter if his throws lollipop to first *if they beat the runner*.
The *numbers* matter, not how it looked when you got there.
Now, how you looked may mean you can't keep it up (see what I said in 116 - "Okay, he isn't hurting them yet, but based on how he runs *I think* he will."), but that *isn't* the same as what you are talking about.
Also, I wouldn't say that Eckstein looks like crap at SS.
Yes, and if they have made some tough plays you assume that won't continue (they got a good jump, the ball hung, etc).
I don't assume that, because ALL ZR balls are balls where hte play is made more than 50% of the time.
I've tried to point out to you - it isn't *how*, it is *how many*. It DOES NOT MATTER if you circle around *as long as you catch them*.
We aren't selling jeans here.
Mr. Straw Man, meet Mr. Dial.
I'm staying out of the remainder of this discussion. Dial causes my far too much aggravation.
Anyway, (dismount high horse), I went and checked Bonds' PROTRADE rating, which is based on a UZR-type methodology: for each ball hit, compare the actual play made or not made by the fielder to an average of all similar balls over the past several years. I'm simplifying a little, but that's the essence of the system, and I'm pretty sure UZR works the same way too.
In any case, Bonds was +2.38 runs for the month of April. Now, PROTRADE is not context-neutral, so catching a line drive that is usually a double is worth a lot more with the bases loaded and nobody out than it is with the bases empty and one out. I don't know if that taints this data. But if it doesn't, it sure doesn't seem like he's making easy plays.
For comparison:
Alfonso Soriano, +2.02 runs
Pat Burrell, -8.96 runs
Adam Dunn, -1.13 runs
Carlos Lee, -1.96 runs
Jose Cruz, Jr., -1.33 runs
Josh Willingham, -0.65 runs
Now, I'm not saying that Bonds will continue to post good numbers. I've seen a couple games in person this year and he does not look like he is moving well. But here is another measure that says that has has been better than average, and it takes batted ball characteristics into account, so it's not based on him making plays that are easier than average.
In fact, given that there is context involved, it lends some credence to Dial's theory that Bonds is conserving himself and giving effort proportional to situational importance. Also it seems like some evidence that Bonds is making up for his reduced mobility with superior instincts, jumps, and/or routes.
I've closed the discussion and logged the thread.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main