Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
It's been mentioned a couple of times on the site that we fared better without Bonds in the line up than with him this year. I have no idea if that's true and, if so, whether the right metric is win/loss percentage or average runs scored. Still, it's counterintuitive and it's a lot more encouraging than hearing we did much worse without him in the line up. I'd be really interested to see some analysis from those of you who are deft with stats that breaks down how we did without him and which lineups actually fared the best.
This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.
0 recs |
70 comments
Comments
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
With Bonds, we averaged about 4.03 runs per game.
There were only 45 games that Bonds did not start. As such, there were a couple of outliers, such as 5/13 when Mark Sweeney was playing left field and the team score 15 runs. This had a significant effect and I would attribute the difference in RS/G to this oddity. It is interesting to note though, that with that odd lineup, consisting mainly of young guys, they scored more than 10 runs 3 times.
by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Dec 15, 2007 10:28 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
Succumb to the Enchanted t-shirt! Adopted dad of Minor Izzy
by hairball on Dec 15, 2007 11:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't have the time to do this right now
Basically, I think it's a bunch of crap.
by awesomer on Dec 15, 2007 10:30 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
I was noticing that if you subtract his 28 HRs from his 75 runs scored, his unbelievably high OBP only generated 47 runs. I am wondering if his station to station baserunning, coupled with our lack of SLG last year meant that we, in effect, wasted his OBP. And, further, maybe the decent OBP guys who will replace him in LF (Roberts/Lewis), becasue they are faster and more aggressive, migh score just about as many runs. I know they won't knock in as many, that will have to come from elsewhere in the order.
Maybe Rowand + a full year (as opposed to the 400 ABs Gonds got) of Roberts/Lewis may not be the incredible shortfall one might be inclined to assume.
by allfrank on Dec 15, 2007 11:20 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Please exit the Frank Club NOW , Sir.
Well , duh.
by victor frankenstein on Dec 15, 2007 11:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
So the circus surrounding Barry and the event of the All Star game in San Francisco certainly didn't help the mindset of the players.
One can say I'm looking for excuses...perhaps or it could have played a large part in the loss of focus for this club.
Then yet again, I could be tired of people writing that this club sucks as if that accomplishes anything other than venting...if that's the case...cool.
by Buzzword on Dec 15, 2007 12:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
by Mike on Dec 15, 2007 11:36 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
Of course, Bonds won't be driving in himself, so that will make him even less likely to get around to score. Unless he's Bugs Bunny, who's still my number one target for this offseason to fill all our lineup holes.
BB
by BlackDougal on Dec 15, 2007 4:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
Anyways, your question is flawed. Barry didn't put up a .450 OBP, it was .480 and Roberts, Winn, and Rajai didn't put up a .400 OBP, they put up .331, .353, and .363, respectively. The best case of those three for your argument is a difference of .117, or a difference of about 70 outs over 600 PA. No way in hell their speed makes up for that.
by marcello on Dec 16, 2007 8:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
by billiejameshayes on Dec 15, 2007 12:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
Since an NBA player is 1/5 of the lineup and baseball player is 1/9, it might not be as telling, but I'd be interested to see this in Bonds' case, not just games he played vs. games he didn't; but /innings he played vs. those he didn't. I'd like to see both runs scored and runs allowed.
by Goofus on Dec 15, 2007 1:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem is that baseball is different
All the PBP metrics already attempt to measure how a player does defensively versus other players at his position. Many in come in +/- form, + a certain number of plays or runs versus average, - a certain number of plays or runs versus average.
As for the offensive stuff, you need to do a whole honking pile of adjustments if you want to most correctly measure his performance in context. Just runs scored proves nothing. Bonds can't control when Durham and Vizquel choose to suck more than usual or when they choose to actually not suck so much. This isn't a matter of him being a "ball hog" and not wanting to pass the ball to Durham or Vizquel, thus resulting in them having crappy numbers.
No one is going to do all that work and then post it for free on a blog that doesn't even belong to him / her.
by rfloh on Dec 15, 2007 2:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
by marcello on Dec 16, 2007 8:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
by jponry on Dec 15, 2007 12:54 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
Would you both at least concede that the stat gives one reason to hope that perhaps the dropoff in 2008 without Bonds might not be as dramatic as most of us would assume?
by Goofus on Dec 15, 2007 1:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
But it's awfully difficult to justify in any particularly satisfying way, considering there are so many other cirucmstances involved.
One thing I haven't hear people mention is that Bonds played in a high percentage of "veteran lineup" games. Or, Bochy would play the "team that gives us the 'best' chance to win" as often as he could when Bonds was in the lineup.
This lineup, of course, included all of our worst players, which does a little bit to maybe rationalize one of the 177 angles this question has.
by howtheyscored on Dec 15, 2007 1:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
by howtheyscored on Dec 15, 2007 1:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
There is a definite trend on the supporting staff.
by chefasaurus on Dec 15, 2007 6:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
I guess a stat to find is how many games did our opening day lineup play. See what their average is runs scored per game.
by ramirez415 on Dec 17, 2007 12:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
by jponry on Dec 15, 2007 1:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
From an offensive viewpoint, I think the dropoff is still going to be quite large.
Per out, Bonds got more mileage than anyone else in the National League in 2007. His EqA of .353 led the league, beating guys like David Wright, Albert Pujols, and Chipper Jones.
If you're unfair of EqA here's the definition from BP's glossary
When Bonds took AB's he was an elite offensive player in the NL last year.
The Giant are going to replace Bonds, on most days, with one from the group of Dave Roberts/Fred Lewis/Nate Schierholtz. And they'll hope that Aaron Rowand can pick up some of the slack in the OF but I'm not sure he's going to be any better than say a Randy Winn is, offensively at least.
The Giants are going to have to hope that Lincecum takes another step forward, Zito rebounds, Cain continues to pitch well, and overall the pitching remains good-to-great to even hope to replace the loss of Bonds.
If Durham could rebound and come closer to his career numbers it would help, too.
I just don't think you can lose a Barry Bonds, Albert Pujols, David Wright, or Chipper Jones, keep essentially the same lineup, and hope to be a better team.
The pitching will have to carry us, and everyone already knows that.
by xanthan on Dec 15, 2007 1:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
by victor frankenstein on Dec 16, 2007 12:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
I think the question is not so much how great offensive Bonds was, but how effective the team was in utilizing his offensive might. As noted by someone above, this sport is about as individualistic as can be in a team concept. All his walks are useless if the point is to avoid him hitting and, say, have Durham make an out and end the inning (as he did a lot last season). Also, he might have a high OBP but we don't know how the runs creation models out there properly handle when the OBP is at such extremes, many models fail when something is at an extreme. So EqA might work in a simulation context, say (not sure what context it works in), but not when a batter is deliberately walked so many times to avoid (successfully given how Durham hit) high run base-states.
Durham was horrible in the second half, a whole half season of sucking, I can't believe that there wasn't something physically wrong with him, unless, that is, he really is at the end of his career. At least Vizquel recovered somewhat after his horrible April - still not prior goodness but acceptable for a #8 hitter.
Durham wasn't even acceptable for a pitcher, basically, after the ASG, .165/.256/.247/.503, he alone could perhaps explain why the offense sucked so much with Bonds starting, as Durham was the one hitting behind him so often, he also batted 3rd a lot (poorly), but when he hit cleanup (meaning Bonds probably not in the lineup) he actually hit OK, .757 OPS, OK that is relative to the suck that he was in 2007, so the two combined could add up to a lot of difference between Bonds/NoBonds lineups.
So it is plausible that our offense without Bonds could be better than with him, particularly if the hitter in the lineup with him (Durham) is hitting so poorly. Using the lineup data by Cyril Morong that is used by Baseball Musing's lineup optimizer, the difference of Durham alone, expected vs. actual 2007 (expected .356 OBP/.429 SLG; actual .256 OBP/.247 SLG), results in an overall drop in run production of 0.53 runs. That accounts for a huge percentage of the difference in runs. As long as production at 2B isn't that bad again (i.e. either Durham returns to hit something like what Bill James projects, .337 OBP/.410 SLG, or Frandsen hits what he projects .330 OBP/.404 SLG), we should not be as bad as 4.0 runs scored we were with Bonds in the lineup, we could be up to 4.2 or 4.3 runs per game, still bad, but still better than "with Bonds in the lineup".
Hope makes it sound like there's no reason to think Lincecum can't advance without some divine assistance. Lincecum was much better after his initial difficulties in his (roughly) second month, 4.62 ERA in his first 12 starts, 3.39 ERA in his last 12 starts. If he pitches in-between the 3.39 for that half and the 4.00 he had overall, that will be improvement and I think it is reasonable to think he can continue to do that. He worked on other pitches when he was in college and improved himself, his walks was killing him his first two years in college, but he improved it enough in his third to win the Golden Spike award.
If you use Cain as a template, Cain had a 4.15 ERA his first season, 3.26 ERA second half of his first season, 3.65 ERA in his second season. I think somewhere between 3.39 and 3.65 ERA is reasonable to expect from Lincecum. Personally, seeing the struggles Cain has had believing in his stuff - and seeing that Lincecum don't share this particular problem - I think Lincecum should easily best what Cain did in 2007, and that the Giants were getting desperate for even contemplating trading Lincecum.
Zito was already rebounding by the end of the season. He had a 4.11 ERA in the second half, and El Lefty Malo noted a two month ERA of 3.33 at the end of the season. Those are much better than his final 4.53 ERA. And a 4.53 ERA is actually not that bad for a #3 starter - which we all acknowledge he in actuality is, though clearly not in terms of salary (though I still say you have to observe his actual year by year pay to approximate what value he should be delivering to the team; $10M in 2007 buys you a league average starter and he was approximately that in 2007).
Cain, he ended with a 2.96 ERA in the last two months, after struggling all season to realize that his fastball is just not hittable by major league hitters, so he started throwing more fastballs for strikes. He had an amazing 67 K/14 BB ratio those two months, he didn't even come close to a sub-10 walk month the first four months.
Cain and Lincecum are ready for a breakout truly Ace-type seasons and Zito should be an able #2 type but #3 for our rotation. Lowry, if still around, probably is another #2 type performance (around 4 ERA), but our #4. And most teams have lousy #5 starters, but I think one of Correia, Sanchez, Misch (my bet on Correia or Misch) will do well in the #5 spot (I'm leaning/hoping Sanchez gets to start in AAA in 2008).
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Dec 17, 2007 5:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
+1!
by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 17, 2007 9:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
If you go to this page:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php
It will make sense. Compare "RS" to "EQR".
by zenbitz on Dec 18, 2007 8:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry
by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 18, 2007 9:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Sorry
by billiejameshayes on Dec 18, 2007 12:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Sorry
BTW, condescend much?
by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 18, 2007 3:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
EQA
EQA sets OBP at 1.5 times the value of SLG. For the current ERA, OBP is worth around 1.8 times SLG or thereabouts, so EQA "underrates" high OBP players, compared to other linear weights runs estimators that are "tweaked" for the modern era.
by rfloh on Dec 18, 2007 9:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
by marcello on Dec 16, 2007 9:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
First - all it's clear that Bonds OBP+SLG was worth alot to the Giants lineup.
Now, lets say that because his OBP is mostly walks, and the rest of the Giants can't hit, so the OBP was wasted, then you would expect the Giants to have scored FEWER runs than expected from their OPS or EqA. They actually scored more.
As for the Bonds In vs. Out. It's just sample size - if the runs were scored at random, there woudld be some split like 4.0/4.5. If some serious nerd wants to calculate a P-value for this, that woudl prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.
There is no reason to hope for a "non Bonds bump". There is reason to hope in that Vizquel/Durham MIGHT not be totaly toast, and could play more like 2006 than 07.
by zenbitz on Dec 15, 2007 5:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
IBB's
Let's just forget about formula's for awhile and think about what we've been watching on the field the last few years. How many times have we seen a runner or two on base, the other team either intentionally walks Barry or pitches around him. The hitters behind him fail to deliver and we end up with either no runs or 1 run when we could have gotten 3 or 4. Well you say, "statistics show that the team scored more runs after Barry walked than they did when he didn't walk." No kidding! That's because about the only time opposing teams would actually throw hittable pitches was when he came up with the bases empty!
Now, what would happen if you replaced Barry in the lineup with a good hitter, but one other teams weren't so scared of? That hitter will get a lot more AB's as opposed to PA's and thus get a lot more opportunty to drive in the runners on base!
I wouldn't call it clogging the bases. I would call it filling in the bases. You fill empty bases with hitters you fear in hopes of getting hitters you don't fear so much out. It's why simple OBP's are overrated, and why a pitcher like Noah Lowry is a lot more effective than his peripheral stats would suggest. I believe some of the more advanced statistical analysts have recognized this and treat IBB's differently than non-IBB's. The problem with Barry is that for every IBB, there were 2 pitch-arounds that got counted as non-IBB's.
by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 15, 2007 5:40 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: IBB's
by zenbitz on Dec 15, 2007 9:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't Matter?
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss a 4.63 vs 4.03 run differential over 46 games as being sample size noise. That's a fairly substantial difference and substantial sample size too. I'd guess that is does have a significant P value.
by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 15, 2007 10:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Correction
by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 15, 2007 10:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Correction
But I tell you what, if someone sends me a file with the Giants runs for each game in 2007, marked with the ones Bonds played in, I will run the stats on it. Any text format would be fine.
by zenbitz on Dec 16, 2007 10:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Correction
by billiejameshayes on Dec 18, 2007 3:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: IBB's
1 , 000 , 000 , 000 , 000 , 000 , 000 , 000 , 000 , 000 , 000 , 000 , 000...
Still , I'm going to miss the very real one run possibility and the anticipation it brought.
by victor frankenstein on Dec 16, 2007 12:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
It's not a secret that this squad gave up a LOT of outs in 2007. Roberts (the leadoff hitter for most of the year) had a .297 OBP in the first half. Durham held down the title of Worst Hitter in the National League for the entire season and Feliz and Molina did what they did best. And even in Sept, Bonds' starts were accompanied by a lineup consisting of the 'veteran presence' that was available. For example: One Sept 15th, the lineup against the Pads was
ROBERTS
DURHAM
WINN
BONDS
MOLINA
AURILIA
FELIZ
VIZQUEL
The Replacements (Davis, Lewis, Schierholtz, Frandsen and G-Rod) have better OPS numbers than the old men. So basically Bonds' unworldly OPS numbers were not enough to make up for the futility of KRAD FM. So it's not Bonds' fault. It's Bochy's for not realizing who the better options were. Why he felt compelled to surround Bonds with the underachieving vets is a whole other discussion.
But the numbers show that if Bonds and Teh Kids were the everyday lineup for July/Aug/Sept they would have scored more runs...and would probably be be drafting later than 5th....huh....Boch, you're a shrewd man.....
by chefasaurus on Dec 15, 2007 6:10 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
by chefasaurus on Dec 15, 2007 6:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
Given the situation, a decent hitter, like Rowand, who other teams woudn't pitch around, might actually produce more runs than Barry, not because they are a better hitter, but because they get more opportunity.
by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 15, 2007 8:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
Succumb to the Enchanted t-shirt! Adopted dad of Minor Izzy
by hairball on Dec 15, 2007 11:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So, basically,
Wow, I didn't know that stats like OPS were that wonderful. If only Brian Sabean and Andy Baggarly had told Giants fans this. (I'm not being sarcastic at you, but at Sabean and Baggarly)
by rfloh on Dec 16, 2007 5:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
OPS of non-Bonds Giants in Bonds' starts
OPS of non-Bonds Giants in Bonds' non-starts.
(not that I disagree with your presumption, I think it's likely to be true, you just didn't really back it up).
This is what I would look at IF it was determined that .6 fewer RPG in 46 games was significant enough to even look for a reason.
by zenbitz on Dec 16, 2007 10:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
- When Bonds wasn't in the lineup, it's not like they Pujols and Rolen to replace Bonds/Durham.
- The difference between "KRAD FM" and "the kids" was about 8 points in average OPS+, but it wasn't as cut and dry as the kids only played when Bonds wasn't in the lineup. It might have skewed that way, but there were plenty of games where guys like Nate, Frandsen, Ort and Davis were inthe same lineup, so this 8 point differential is dilluted.
by Goofus on Dec 16, 2007 11:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
Frandsen (.331/.710) to Durham (.295/.638)
Rodriguez (.327/.638) to Molina (.298/.731)
R Davis (.363.743) to Roberts (.331/.695)
Obviously, these are full season numbers, not specific to the games they played, so it's more of a broad scope. But losing 30+ points of OBP at multiple positions is pretty sad. And those were the three positions that we saw the most changes in the games with and without Bonds. Aurilia and Feliz were equally sucky when starting at 3B, so no use comparing them and by scanning Bonds gamelogs, 1B changes seemed independent of Bonds' presence.
If you take those three above players OBP and average them with Bonds' .480/1.045 and the Giants LF average production last year of .420/494:
Vets and Bonds: .355/.771
Kids and Bonds: .375/.784
Vets and LFs: .336/.744
Kids and LFs: .360/.751
So essentially Durham, Molina and Roberts' poor OBPs "compensated" for Bonds great numbers. Now I know there are plenty of specifics ignored, but just based on a general averages, it is possible for KRAD FM to 'cancel out' Bonds' numbers. As long as the placement LF are greater than .355/.771 (which Winn and Lewis were), the over-all OBP/OPS numbers are higher without Bonds.
I was also too lazy to figure the average LF production minus Bonds (Nate, Ort, Franny, Klesko, Sweeney, Davis, Winn, etc). When I get more time I'll go game by game.
by chefasaurus on Dec 16, 2007 4:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
by Goofus on Dec 16, 2007 5:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
"The Kids" is defined as anyone not of the KRAD FM squad
- Bonds did not start one game with three or more of The Kids in the lineup
- In the 46 Games that Bonds did not start, only ten games consisted of four or more Vets (22%)
- In 36 Bondsless games four or more of The Kids started.
On a side note, this is really disturbing as an evaluation of Bochy.
by chefasaurus on Dec 16, 2007 11:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
by NearestNorwich on Dec 15, 2007 8:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
Basically ignore ALL situational stats or "splits". Up to and including platoon splits. Vs. this pitcher, that pitcher, home, road, whatever.
Baseball events have a very high variance. That means to get a true "value" you need lots and lots of samples (PA). This is why ERA is basically meaningless for Relievers (that and it doesn't count who's on base when they come in).
Also ignore stats that are team-mate dependent:
Runs (for hitters), RBIs, W/L.
Ignore stats that are arbitrary: Errors, Saves, Holds.
by zenbitz on Dec 16, 2007 10:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
Brian Sabean is either stupid or constrained by past rhetoric (so he has to pretend that the reason that the Giants weren't more successful is because they had the burden of having the best player of all time on their team the past 14 years). Either way, listening to Sabean is not a good way to learn how good baseball teams are constructed.
When you make predictions (i.e. what we are doing right now) you must take into account all stats. You are not allowed to ignore the vast majority of Giants games where the hitters sucked because of some nebulous idea that playing on the same field as Barry made them worse. If you saw Omar and Randy hangin' with Greg Anderson or found a letter from a recently captured al qaeda operative threatening to kill Pedro's mother unless he swung at every curve thrown in the dirt, fine. But selectively throwing out data causes sampling issues. There have been studies done, and as long as you are only going off of stats, the best predictions are made by looking at all stats. Looking at only the most optomistic stats to feel better is your right as a Giants fan, but it is not a good way to accurately predict how they will do next year.
I can't believe people actually think that losing the best offensive player on the team could possibly help the Giants score more runs.
by billiejameshayes on Dec 16, 2007 1:01 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
by NearestNorwich on Dec 16, 2007 9:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
Once again, I haven't heard anyone saying that losing Bonds will help. I think what those of us trying to understand this (even Sabean) are thinking is that perhaps the drop-off without Bonds won't be as horrible as we would expect.
by Goofus on Dec 16, 2007 11:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I have a suggestion.
Just look at the players the Giants have now. Project those players. Use ZIPs, PECOTA, Marcel or even a simple homebrew projection: just use an average of how many runs above or below average they were the last 2 years from Baseball Prospectus.
by rfloh on Dec 16, 2007 11:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Projections
by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 16, 2007 2:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Projections
by zenbitz on Dec 16, 2007 5:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not saying that it looks bleak
I'm basically saying that people are making this too complex, trying to tease out the Bonds runs differential issue.
Just forget Bonds, and evaluate the current roster as is.
by rfloh on Dec 16, 2007 10:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
If you want to argue that Ort is better than Klesko or that Winn + Roberts + Rowand is a better outfield than Winn + Roberts + Bonds, then do so. Sure, if the Giants have better players this year than last year, they should be expected to be better. But demonstrating so would require making an argument rather than engaging in gesticulative speculations in the general direction of cherry-picked stats as though they were indicative of anything meaningful.
The question was asked about the larger relevance of the fact that the Giants scored more runs without Bonds in the lineup. The answer: none. If the Giants are less horrible then many think, great. This stat does nothing--nothing--to indicate this is likely.
by billiejameshayes on Dec 16, 2007 3:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
Never noticed any of your posts before, but if you're going to give dismissive "whatevers" and throw all these BS accusations, I've seen enough to make up my mind about you.
To be honest, I think the offense has a chance to be as good or slightly better than last year, but it has nothing to do with Bonds leaving. Here's why:
- Vizquel shouldn't be as bad
- Aurilia shouldn't have the injury-related bad season.
- Roberts shouldn't have the injury-related bad 1st half and Davis provides a decent platoon partner.
- Durham will either rebound or they'll give up on him early and go with Frandsen.
- Ort, Nate and Lewis all enter the season with more big-leage ABs under their belt, so I expect them to produce more consistently and challenge for playing time.
by Goofus on Dec 16, 2007 5:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
I'm a longtime lurker--even back to the days at Waiting for Boof when Grant was half-jokingly bleging about being willing to write ufc programs (although I'm pretty sure back then the neologism "bleg" wasn't invented yet). So you haven't noticed my posts before since they haven't existed that long.
I wasn't trying to be dismissive, but rather avert pedantry. Since you are (sort of) passive-agressively attacking my character, however, I feel the need to respond.
"What selective stats did I use?"; "What stats did I cherry pick? The only stat I mentioned in this entire thread was the average OPS of "the kids" vs. "the vets"."
To recapitulate: a supposition was made. It was wrong. I said so. You took issue with that and brought up +- stats. It is a poor stat, used in basketball because of the dearth of stats available. The entire ontology of +- is that it germinated out of a desire to find the best combination of players. The only way Bonds wasn't one of the best combination of players is either: 1) he is much worse than is commonly supposed (and nobody believes that); or 2) he exerts some nebulous force to make his teammates worse when he is on the field--which is ridiculous. I assumed you, like many sports pundits, believed 1). If I was mistaken, I'm sorry. If so, though, there is no reason to even broach +/-. Not that there is one otherwise.
You also repeatedly asked if the Bonds/non-Bonds runs scored per game stat was an indication that possibly the Giants weren't as bad as is often thought. Not to be a jerk, but: no. You are wrong. There have been studies done, and the best way to measure "true" talent is to take into account EVERY data point, not just a few. I pointed to the Cain run support numbers, which every Giant fan should have a rough idea of anyway. You should know the sample size issues with runs scored. In case I need to make the point explicit, here it is:
The Giants scored 101 runs in the 32 games Cain started. But 32 is less than 47. So, in order to make a valid comparison with the non-Bonds games, let's add another 15 games, assuming that the Giants score (their rough average of) four runs per game. Thus, our group of 47 is complete. The number of runs scored is 161, for a per game average of 3.43. This is almost the exact same difference with the average Giants game as the average non-Bonds game is with the average Bonds game. Since Cain has an essentially nil impact on offensive runs scored per game, this should tell you that the games without Barry are likely to be similarly lacking in saying something meaningful about the "true" offensive talent on the field at the time.
How can we be sure? By doing what we should have been doing from the start: examining Barry's actual contributions to Giants wins. There is a stat designed explicitly for this very purpose: Win Shares. According to THT, Barry had 21 win shares last year, effectively giving him credit for 7 wins. But a better method is to measure Win Shares Above Bench; this measures how many win shares Barry would have above a typical bench player. Barry had 12, good for 4 wins above replacement level. Also, both WS and WSAB give credit for defense. Some people think too little, so if you are pessimistic about Barry's D, you could knock off a win. That is an example of an honest analysis of Barry's contributions, not a cherry-picked stat.
Why is the run differential stat dishonest? Because it isn't the best stat available. If you have data for a whole season, you HAVE to look at it. No exceptions. You measure the talent of Bonds (and each of his teammates) by looking at his (their) individual contributions. The only reason people are pointing to this stat (and not, say, the equally meaningless Cain stat) is because it makes the Giants look good. Not honest. Use Win Shares, Linear Weights, etc.--hell, use obp or ba--but use all the data, not only a handful. Hope is not a good method of prediction.
"When did I say Winn/Roberts/Rowand is better than Winn/Roberts/Rowand? "
You didn't; I was giving a hypothetical example of what one would have to do to make an honest analysis that the Giants will be better than last year (and something very similar would have to be done to "show" the Giants are likely to be better than most assume). I disagree with your analysis, but what you did in the last post is what I was saying should be attempted.
Goofus, I like you as a poster and you are a respected member of the community, so I am not trying to pick on you. "Statheads" were asked to answer a question and I responded. I'm sorry if I misrepresented your posts, but if I did so I legitimately didn't understand what you were trying to say. We all hope that the Giants will be better next year, and I don't fault you for that. But the stats that you pointed to base your (potential) optomism on do not support your conclusions, however tentative.
by billiejameshayes on Dec 17, 2007 5:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Condescend Much?
I don't know my EqAs from my Ass , but I know condescension. He's going to great length to carefully , considerately and with absolutely no personally derisive attacks explain his points - so put your acetylene away. That's beneath you.
by victor frankenstein on Dec 18, 2007 9:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
by Evan on Dec 16, 2007 4:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
by zenbitz on Dec 16, 2007 5:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
by joeytothelimit on Dec 17, 2007 10:44 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Calling all stat geeks re: Bonds
Barry Bonds was worth somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 points of OBP, 15 points of SLG and 30 points of OPS to the Giants last season.
It is likely that the Giants' poor run-scoring ability in non-Bonds starts was as related to Barry's absence as to the Giant's poor run-scoring ability in Matt Cain's starts was to Matt's presence.
It is also likely that should the Giants add no more bats (which I don't believe will be the case) and score even fewer runs next season, that would be more directly related to the loss of Barry Bonds' bat from the lineup.
As poor as the Giants' batting order was last season, does anyone TRULY believe it was better without Barry?
by sharksrog on Dec 18, 2007 11:26 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re:does anyone believe it was better without Barry
by chefasaurus on Dec 18, 2007 3:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Post-PED Power Predictions
Are power numbers actually trending downward? Will the Mitchell report exacerbate that trend?
thanks in advance, McCoven statheads, for your thoughts.
by The Gene Hackman on Dec 18, 2007 7:13 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

by 


















