Barry Bonds is the DEVIL!!!

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (687 of them)

Best defense defined as: most outfield assists, least errors per chances (aka fielding percentage), higher zone ranking, higher range factor.

Range Factor = ((PO + A) divided by innings)
Zone rating = The percentage of balls fielded by a player in his typical defensive "zone," as measured by STATS, Inc.

― gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 30 September 2004 00:24 (nineteen years ago) link

how do you figure? for ex alou is highest in ZR, lowest in RF.

[i have a feeling i know what the answer is anyway; you got this idea from those quiz questions at georgewbush.com, didn't you?]

― John (jdahlem), Thursday, 30 September 2004 00:48 (nineteen years ago) link

Range Factor vs Zone rating

This is what I don't understand (John's comment about Alou only adds to the confusion).
Aren't both stats a measure of how many balls the player is able to field? Wouldn't having a high RF also indicate that you're fielding a high %age of balls in your defensive zone (=high ZR)?

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 30 September 2004 01:57 (nineteen years ago) link

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/main/article/lichtman_2003-03-14_0/

Bill James introduced us to Range Factor (RF) as, essentially, the number of outs made per game. This was convenient at the time, because we had no other context but the game. The problem is that a game is not necessarily nine innings for each fielder. As well, each fielder is dependent on his pitching staff and "luck" for opportunities.

STATS began tracking Zone Rating (ZR) as, essentially, the total number of outs per balls in a fielder?s "area of responsibility" (i.e., zone). This addressed some of the shortcomings of RF.

think about the difference in balls in play b/w a staff like the cubs and one like the mets - ZR and RF would only be different measurements of the same thing if opportunities were equal across the board, but due to luck and variations among pitching staffs, they're not at all. so zone rating's quite a bit fairer as it tries to measure fielding ability on an equal opportunity basis, but it's got its own problems as you'll find (depending on how interested you are in this stuff) if you read on above.

[if it's still not clear, here's one of those extreme examples that sometimes help: a guy who gets to just 10 balls in a season can have a much higher ZR than a guy who fields 200 - provided only a handful of balls were hit into his (the former's) zone. of course, the latter fielder would have a much higher RF, since range factor merely measures PO+A regardless of actual opportunity]

― John (jdahlem), Thursday, 30 September 2004 11:36 (nineteen years ago) link

Back on the more measurable side of the ball... Several folks on the SABR e-list have pointed out in recent days that Bonds is assured of setting the seasonal record of rate of bases reached per out ...1.615 through Sunday. This leaves even Ruth's best seasons in the dust. (Ichiro's rate this year is .716 times per out.)

Where's the attention? Not from equivocators like Joe Morgan & Co.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 30 September 2004 13:35 (nineteen years ago) link

yeah, ruth's (??) "bases reached per out" record has become truly legendary of late, esp. after mcgwire and bonds failed to break it in even their most torrential campaigns...it's a shame something so clearly NOT ARCANE as this isn't getting major attention from ESPN

― John (jdahlem), Thursday, 30 September 2004 20:38 (nineteen years ago) link

Yeah, arcane and not nearly as significant as some slappy singles hitter piling up a counting stat...

Of course ESPN isn't gonna mention it (tho I've seen SportsCenter graphics on FAR more arcane matters), or audiences would never stop laughing at J*e M*rgan's "Beltre, Pujols and Bonds are all MVPs."

It illustrates BB is underrated, is all.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 30 September 2004 20:48 (nineteen years ago) link

yeah, i'm glad you brought it up and all i just really really don't think it deserves the same kind of attention ichiro's getting for a handful of reasons (and it looks like i correctily guessed that was your insinuation)

sure a mention would be nice but i can never get my head around these "per out" stats...it's just not very natural, ya know?

― John (jdahlem), Thursday, 30 September 2004 20:55 (nineteen years ago) link

I dunno, it seems not making outs is the key to offense, and Bonds is excelling this year like no one ever has.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 1 October 2004 14:02 (nineteen years ago) link

five months pass...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0006GSJCE/sr=1-16/qid=1110320096/

― gygax! (gygax!), Tuesday, 8 March 2005 22:20 (nineteen years ago) link

$80 is the DEVIL!

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 8 March 2005 23:58 (nineteen years ago) link

ten months pass...

Alou seriously considers batting Bonds in the #2 spot.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2006/01/20/SPGECGQDM71.DTL

― Steve Shasta (Steve Shasta), Friday, 20 January 2006 19:03 (eighteen years ago) link

Looking good:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/3918/photos

― Steve Shasta (Steve Shasta), Monday, 23 January 2006 20:42 (eighteen years ago) link

he pulled out of the wbc.

― maura (maura), Tuesday, 24 January 2006 14:39 (eighteen years ago) link

so does anyone have a predicted "line" for BB this year, stats-wise?

― gear (gear), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 03:25 (eighteen years ago) link

he didn't really look like he shrunk that much did he? esp consider he spent the past year blogging. anyhow my guess - he hits around 40 homers, yr bayliss's and cowherd's think this 'proves' something or other.

― j blount (papa la bas), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 05:04 (eighteen years ago) link

I don't think he'll play enough to get to 40.

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 19:16 (eighteen years ago) link

I think his 1999 line is not a stretch:

102 games of .262/.389/.617, 34 HRs, 73BB:62K

no comment on the 15 SBs.

― Steve Shasta (Steve Shasta), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 20:47 (eighteen years ago) link

34's around 40!

― j blount (papa la bas), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 23:08 (eighteen years ago) link

three weeks pass...

http://mlb.imageg.net/graphics/product_images/pMLB2-1991767reg.jpg

― c(''c) (Leee), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 22:44 (eighteen years ago) link

well well well

― j blount (papa la bas), Monday, 20 February 2006 01:25 (eighteen years ago) link

lookit what we got here

― gear (gear), Monday, 20 February 2006 01:36 (eighteen years ago) link

llew llew llew

― j blount (papa la bas), Monday, 20 February 2006 09:12 (eighteen years ago) link

llew llew llew
I've got some apples
llew llew llew
You have some too

― David R. (popshots75`), Monday, 20 February 2006 15:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Barry bein Barry.

― c(''c) (Leee), Monday, 20 February 2006 19:23 (eighteen years ago) link

LEW LEW LEW

http://media.lawrence.com/img/photos/2005/03/30/action1968LewAlcindor_t600.jpg

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 20 February 2006 19:53 (eighteen years ago) link

Holy shit that pic is AWESOME!

― David R. (popshots75`), Monday, 20 February 2006 20:54 (eighteen years ago) link

It really is. I shrunk it b/c it was 600x600 -- you should look at the original size if you haven't already.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 20 February 2006 20:59 (eighteen years ago) link

Leee OTM.

― Steve Shasta (Steve Shasta), Tuesday, 21 February 2006 17:13 (eighteen years ago) link

That this is bigger news than Clemens perpetual diva-act is telling.

― Steve Shasta (Steve Shasta), Wednesday, 22 February 2006 01:05 (eighteen years ago) link

"We'll tackle that bridge when it happens."

Telltale signs of Roid Rage -- mixed metaphors!!!

― c(''c) (Leee), Thursday, 23 February 2006 02:42 (eighteen years ago) link

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/03/01/sp_baseball_azbm106.jpg

― c(''c) (Leee), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 20:15 (eighteen years ago) link

More.

― c(''c) (Leee), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 22:40 (eighteen years ago) link

...

― gear (gear), Wednesday, 1 March 2006 01:48 (eighteen years ago) link

I'd hit it.

― Steve Shasta (Steve Shasta), Wednesday, 1 March 2006 01:52 (eighteen years ago) link

i think i saw him down on santa monica blvd last night

― gear (gear), Wednesday, 1 March 2006 02:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Barry Bonds is The Devil... In DISGUISE!

― Jimmy Mod: The Prettiest Flower In The Pond (The Famous Jimmy Mod), Wednesday, 1 March 2006 03:46 (eighteen years ago) link

Great rack!

*thumbs up*

― David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 1 March 2006 04:34 (eighteen years ago) link

Does HGH give you bitch-tits?

― Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Wednesday, 1 March 2006 05:57 (eighteen years ago) link

Who is being "hazed" in that situation again?

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Wednesday, 1 March 2006 19:05 (eighteen years ago) link

We the viewers.

― c(''c) (Leee), Wednesday, 1 March 2006 20:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Paula Abdul

― NoTimeBeforeTime (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 1 March 2006 20:19 (eighteen years ago) link

My eyes.

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Thursday, 2 March 2006 11:42 (eighteen years ago) link

Day got worse.

― c(''c) (Leee), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:01 (eighteen years ago) link

Make that "Day 2."

― c(''c) (Leee), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:04 (eighteen years ago) link

NEW YORK (SI.com) -- Beginning in 1998 with injections in his buttocks of Winstrol, a powerful steroid, Barry Bonds took a wide array of performance-enhancing drugs over at least five seasons in a massive doping regimen that grew more sophisticated as the years went on, according to Game of Shadows, a book written by two San Francisco Chronicle reporters at the forefront of reporting on the BALCO steroid distribution scandal.

(An excerpt of Game of Shadows that details Bonds' steroid use appears exclusively in the March 13 issue of Sports Illustrated, which is available on newsstands beginning on Wednesday. The book's publication date is March 27.)

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/baseball/mlb/03/06/news.excerpt/index.html?cnn=yes

― maura (maura), Tuesday, 7 March 2006 19:32 (eighteen years ago) link

i just finished reading that article. nothing shocking to me.

― otto midnight (otto midnight), Tuesday, 7 March 2006 19:49 (eighteen years ago) link

at this point i'm just going on the assumption that the only player not using 'roids is juan pierre

― gear (gear), Tuesday, 7 March 2006 20:11 (eighteen years ago) link

I wonder what proof they have. I mean, this is rather specific.

― polyphonic (polyphonic), Tuesday, 7 March 2006 20:30 (eighteen years ago) link

Well, if everyone's on roids, then it's a level playing field, so there's no problem! Wheeeeeeeeee!

― David R. (popshots75`), Tuesday, 7 March 2006 20:41 (eighteen years ago) link

Skipping 587 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.