Boagie's Fun Fact of the Day

[Islandboagie]

You could go 2-5 with a homer and single every day of the season, hit .400, slug 1.000, hit 162 homers with 324 hits!

.... and still have a lower OPS than Bonds did in 2004.

[donk]

your assuming that you would go 801 at bats without a base on balls....and if not,I would much rather have all those homers, runs batted in and runs scored than the 200+ walks Bonds received...

[Islandboagie]

Don- your assuming that you would go 801 at bats without a base on balls....and if not,I would much rather have all those homers, runs batted in and runs scored than the 200+ walks Bonds received...

Boagie- The only thing I'm guilty of assuming is that nobody would take my "fun fact" too seriously.

I said you could go 2-5 with a homerun and a single every day of the season. I mentioned nothing about a walk. I mentioned nothing about hit by a pitch, or a sac fly, or anything other than a homerun and a single. it's a fun fact, not reality, I thought the 162 homeruns would have tipped you off.

While I agree, it's very unlikely that nobody would go 801 at-bats without a walk, it's also unlikely that nobody would go that long without a double, I however mentioned nothing about doubles either.

I agree with you Don, I'd rather have the player who hits 162 homeruns. Which proves this fact can be taken two different ways. 1- It shows just how good Bonds' 2004 season was. 2- it shows that OPS isn't always a perfectly accurate stat in rating how good a hitter might be.

I think a little of both might ring true.

[donk]

I was playing the game, too....however, you have hit on what I have been saying right along every time Rog brings up some new stat that really means little ... what ever the stat is you always have to go back to the basics to see what it all means.....not everyone is a future HOF and when you start talking OPS, it is almost impossible to tell anything finite about the guy....you are going to have a wide range of OPS but some belong to guys that would fit in as one or two slot hitters, etc...

[sharksrog]

OPS is a simple measure of a player's hitting effectiveness that is a pretty good one. If a guy has a .900 OPS, he's a pretty good hitter -- virtually no matter how he compiles it.

Don makes a good point when he says that simply by looking at a guy's OPS you can't tell what TYPE of hitter a guy is. That .800 OPS might be a power hitter who doesn't get on base much (There aren't many of these.) It might be a guy without much power who gets on base a lot . (Not a whole lot of those either.) Or it might be a guy who gets on base decently and has at least a modicum of power. (This is usually the case in this area.)

But OPS will give us an estimate of whether a hitter is good or not. Almost anyone with a .600 OPS isn't a very good hitter. Almost anyone with a .900 OPS is.

What OPS doesn't tell us that OBP is even more important than SLG. Barry Bonds illustrates this point to a great degree, since in his 2004 season he put up the highest OBP in history.

If you can't get a guy out, you can't keep him from scoring runs. A team of the guys Boagie brought up would score about 13.5 runs per game on average. An average inning would have three outs, a homer and a single. If the single came before the homer, the team would score two runs in the inning. If the homer came before the single, the team would score one run.

It is estimated that a team of nine Barry Bonds would have averaged 21.2 runs in 2004. That's a pretty huge difference. In fact, that would allow the 2004 Bonds team to win most of its games from the 2001 Bonds team (complete with its 73 homers per player), which is estimated at 17.4 runs.

A modified OPS of something like (5 OBP + 3 SLG) divided by 4 would likely yield an even better measure of a player's hitting than OPS does. But it would require a little more work.

[Islandboagie]

I agree that a team of players who put up 2004 Bonds-like numbers would score more runs than a team of the guy who hits 162 homeruns, based on the obp difference. But a team of Bonds wouldn't be pitched around. Pitching around Bonds was a strategy used by the opposing pitcher and manager to take him out of the equation. If the pitcher was forced to pitch to the team of Bonds' I highly doubt that the team would bat .400, nor would they average 9 homeruns a game.

If there was a full team of Bonds' the 2004 Bonds wouldn't exist on that team. 9 Barrys wouldn't be pitched around to the extent that Barry was in 2004. Thus lowering his walk total substantially. Now, If you insist on using those walks that were effected by the rest of the Giants lineup in 2004 to prove your point, then I think we should use runs and rbis to figure out which team would score more as well.

But we're not talking about teams, we're talking about two individual hitters.

2004 Barry Bonds vs. the 162 homerun hitter.

I guess the best way to answer the question is to logically figure whether or not Bonds would have hit .400 with 162 homeruns if he had 5 at-bats in every game in 2004. Considering Bonds never batted .400, and never came close to hitting 162 homeruns, I think the answer is clear as to who the better hitter is.

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- I agree that a team of players who put up 2004 Bonds-like numbers would score more runs than a team of the guy who hits 162 homeruns, based on the obp difference. But a team of Bonds wouldn't be pitched around. Pitching around Bonds was a strategy used by the opposing pitcher and manager to take him out of the equation. If the pitcher was forced to pitch to the team of Bonds' I highly doubt that the team would bat .400, nor would they average 9 homeruns a game.

Rog -- But they would likely outscore the team that did. By the way, if we take out the amazing 120 intentional walks Barry received that season, his numbers would still have been .362/.511/.812/1.323.

Only three other players since 1900 have had single-season OBP's of over .511 (Ruth, Williams and Mantle), and only Ruth and Mantle were over .512.

Only Ruth and Bonds have been above the 1.323 OPS.

So, yeah, I think a team of nine Bonds's would have scored a TON of runs, even if none of them could have been pitched around except with first base empty and/or two outs.

By the way, Bonds' 120 intentional walks compare with the 125 IBB's of the best three players behind him -- Willie McCovey, Albert Pujols and Ryan Howard.

Barry's 120 intentional walks were more than the seven highest seasons of Willie Mays (although it should be noted that Willie's record doesn't include IBB's prior to 1955, so if his 1954 season were added in, it might bring his top seven seasons to or slightly above Barry's 120).

When it comes to fun facts, there are a LOT of them out there. Thanks for bringing up the topic, Boagie!



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1443&page=1#8605#ixzz2K3dx6KIP

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- But we're not talking about teams, we're talking about two individual hitters.

2004 Barry Bonds vs. the 162 homerun hitter.

I guess the best way to answer the question is to logically figure whether or not Bonds would have hit .400 with 162 homeruns if he had 5 at-bats in every game in 2004. Considering Bonds never batted .400, and never came close to hitting 162 homeruns, I think the answer is clear as to who the better hitter is.

Rog -- You make a sound argument here Boagie, but I don't believe it is the most accurate one. Based on the 147 games Barry played, your guy makes 441 outs (assuming he never hits into a double play) while hitting 162 homers and 162 singles. Taking away Barry's double plays and sacrifice flies, and he made 238 outs.

If we take out the intentional walks and double Barry's totals (giving him 476 outs compared to the other "player's" 441), Barry winds up with 88 singles, 54 doubles, 6 triples, 90 home runs, 224 walks and 18 hbp.

Your "player" winds up with 57 more homers, 59 more singles, 54 fewer doubles, 6 fewer triples, 224 fewer walks and 18 fewer hbp.

Nine Bonds likely score about as many runs as nine of your "players." And if he hadn't been pitched around so much (which resulted not only in his non-intentional but also some of his intentional walks when pitchers got behind 2-0 or 3-1), Barry likely would have hit even better than he did.

Your player had 294 hits, 147 singles, no doubles, no triples, 147 home runs, no walks and no hbp. Doubling Bonds' totals to more or less equalize the outs made, Barry had 270 hits, 88 singles, 6 triples, 90 homers, 224 walks and 18 hbp. Barry's "team" would reach base so many more times -- even without the intentional walks -- that his team would have a great shot at winning more than half the games.

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- 2004 Barry Bonds vs. the 162 homerun hitter.

I guess the best way to answer the question is to logically figure whether or not Bonds would have hit .400 with 162 homeruns if he had 5 at-bats in every game in 2004. Considering Bonds never batted .400, and never came close to hitting 162 homeruns, I think the answer is clear as to who the better hitter is.

Rog -- As I mentioned in my previous post, Boagie, you are ignoring the many, many more times Bonds reached base. Which, as an aside, shows how important walks are. I can't remember my precise calculation, but IIRC it works out something like two-thirds of the time (or even higher), a walk is as good as a single.

Think about my discussion of Gary Brown and Joe Panik. I think Joe will reach base a lot more than Gary does, which should much more than offset Brown's speed advantage. Using a 1-5 scale (5 tops, 3 average and 1 bottom) in evaluating the five tools, I would go as follows:

Hitting -- Brown 2, Panik 4

Power -- Brown 2, Panik 2

Running -- Brown 4.5, Panik 2

Fielding -- Brown 4, Panik 2.5

Throwing -- Brown 4, Panik 3

One can see that Brown is more toolsy, but is that enough to offset Panik's hitting advantage? Ultimately, that will depend on how much advantage Panik has in hitting. Thus far, he has hit for a better average but mostly gotten on base more and struck out less than Brown.

I like that combination to more than make up for Joe's deficits in running, fielding and throwing. I think Joe's continued development will be greater than Gary's.

Gary's top tools of speed, defense and throwing are pretty much developed. He does have room for improving his base stealing.

Joe's top tool of hitting is something that traditionally develops as he rises through the organization, much as a pitcher becomes more of a pitcher.

I think Joe will become a pretty good major league hitter -- likely equal to or a little better than Marco Scutaro. I think Gary will struggle to reach base.



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1443&page=1#ixzz2K3u850DH

[sharksrog]

Remember how I mentioned that an adjusted OPS of 5 times OBP plus 3 times SLG, divided by 4 might be a better measure? Using the adjusted OPS, Brown's .800 in the minors exceeds Panik's .792. That would argue that Brown has been slightly the better hitter thus far.

Obviously, I think that order will reverse. One thing I just noticed that helps Brown's cause is that he gets hit with a ton of pitches. He has been hit by 23 and 19 pitches the past two seasons. That certainly is a "skill" that could aid him in getting on base.

I like this development (or, more accurately, my finally seeing it). I still like the prognosis at the plate better for Panik, but this does help Brown become a better leadoff man. If Gary can hit a little and draw a few more walks, he could actually become a nice first-place hitter.

With Gary's fine fielding, that would be a very nice development. I wish I were more optimistic than I am, but I am more optimistic than I was.

Gary is cleary being pitch inside a lot. Stay turned.

[Islandboagie]

Rog -- As I mentioned in my previous post, Boagie, you are ignoring the many, many more times Bonds reached base. Which, as an aside, shows how important walks are. I can't remember my precise calculation, but IIRC it works out something like two-thirds of the time (or even higher), a walk is as good as a single.

Boagie- Walks are important, but the point you're missing is that Barry wouldn't walk nearly as much if he was protecting himself.

But what the heck, lets say in 2004 Barry gets 810 plate appearances like the other hitter would have ...Barry still doesnt get 162 runs, or 162 rbis nor does he hit .400 or hit 162 homeruns.

Lets put the other guy in the 2004 Giants lineup. We know he hits 162 homeruns and hits .400. He also gets AT LEAST 162 runs and rbis (likely above 200 for both.) Bonds still would better those stats?

Lets say the fictional player only plays in 100 games, he still likely passes Bonds in RBIs and runs, bats .400 and hits 100 homeruns.

[sharksrog]

Rog -- As I mentioned in my previous post, Boagie, you are ignoring the many, many more times Bonds reached base. Which, as an aside, shows how important walks are. I can't remember my precise calculation, but IIRC it works out something like two-thirds of the time (or even higher), a walk is as good as a single.

Boagie- Walks are important, but the point you're missing is that Barry wouldn't walk nearly as much if he was protecting himself.

But what the heck, lets say in 2004 Barry gets 810 plate appearances like the other hitter would have ...Barry still doesnt get 162 runs, or 162 rbis nor does he hit .400 or hit 162 homeruns.

Lets put the other guy in the 2004 Giants lineup. We know he hits 162 homeruns and hits .400. He also gets AT LEAST 162 runs and rbis (likely above 200 for both.) Bonds still would better those stats?

Lets say the fictional player only plays in 100 games, he still likely passes Bonds in RBIs and runs, bats .400 and hits 100 homeruns.

Rog -- Your point here shows an important factor. With the exception of home runs, runs are based on the contributions of multiple players. Even when a player is credited with a run scored or an RBI, unless it came by virtue of his own home run, the player didn't solely create the run.

And there can be players who don't even receive credit for an RBI or run scored who also contributed to the run. In fact, it might make sense to set up a category for a player who contributed to a run by making a (productive) out and another for a player who contributed to a run without making an out (but by means of a hit, walk or hbp) advanced the runner who scored).

Would Barry Bonds equal your hypothetical player in runs scored or RBI's? Actually, Boagie, he would come close. Your guy makes 441 outs per 294 runs scored and 294 RBI's. On a pro-rated basis, Barry would score 191 runs and drive in 239.

In reality, if Barry were playing with eight other Bonds's, he would have had many more runners on base and would have driven in even more runs. And if he had Bonds's batting behind him, he certainly would have scored a lot more runs.

In addition, while your guy didn't have a single "run assist," Bonds would have had a LOT of them.

Bottom line, though, nine Barry's would very likely score more runs than nine of your guys would.

The thing about your guy is that he makes outs three times out of every five times he comes to the plate. Barry doesn't.

Your guy would average five batters per inning. A team of five Barry's would average six batters per inning. You know how they say not to let a team have an extra out? That's primarily so the team doesn't get an extra batter. If a team has an extra batter per inning, it's going to score a LOT of runs.

And Barry's team would have an extra batter per inning on average. Your "team" has five batters per three outs. Barry's team would average six batters per three outs.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1443&page=1#8613#ixzz2K4vIdS1w

[Islandboagie]

Rog- Would Barry Bonds equal your hypothetical player in runs scored or RBI's? Actually, Boagie, he would come close. Your guy makes 441 outs per 294 runs scored and 294 RBI's. On a pro-rated basis, Barry would score 191 runs and drive in 239.

Boagie- My point here, which you're failing to recognize, is that in a normal major league baseball lineup the fictional character would be the better hitter. He would definitely score more runs and drive in more. In your lineup of 9 barrys, they might score alot, but that's not really judging one hitter, thats judging the guy behind him too. Barry was a great hitter, Rog. But in no full season did he ever average at least a run and rbi a game solely by himself. That's production that is untouchable, even by Barry. Thus making the fictional hitter the better hitter.

[sharksrog]

Now that I understand where you're coming from, Boagie, you're almost certainly absolutely right. Because your guy -- who hits a home run every five at bats -- will be walked, walked, walked -- especially if he's a discriminating hitter.

The closest Barry came to your guy was in 2001, when he averaged a homer once every 6.5 at bats and compiled an .863 SLG. Your guy has a higher SLG (1.000) though, and he hits .400 compared to Barry's .338, so your guy would likely walk as much or more than Barry.

Let's suppose that every five games instead of hitting five homers, five singles and making 15 outs winds up as follows (which might be fairly reasonable): Four home runs, four singles, 12 outs and 5 walks.

Now his SLG remains at 1.000, but his OBP leaps up to .520. Even more than the change from an OBP of .400 to .520 would indicate, this batter has improved his value to his team.

Instead of making 15 outs as before, he now makes only 12. Yet his bases accumulated remain at 25. Instead of accumulating a very healthy 1 2/3 bases per out, he now accumulates more than two bases per out. Four bases accumulated translates roughly to one run.

Your guy accumulated a marvelous 45 bases per nine inning game. If he now draws a walk per game and still hits a homer and a single every five at bats, he now accumulates 56 bases per nine inning game, resulting in perhaps three more runs per game.

Remember, the primary goal of most at bats is to avoid making an out. He wishes to accumulate as many bases as possible while doing so, of course, but if he avoids making an out, he almost always improves his team's cause.

Although you didn't specify it, your hitter would walk a LOT -- meaning he would accumulate more bases while making fewer outs. That would give him more value in the lineup.

In 2004, Barry was so incredibly valuable because he made just under two outs every five trips he made to the plate. He helped his team a LOT with bases accumulated, while hurting it with outs very, very rarely for a hitter.

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- But what the heck, lets say in 2004 Barry gets 810 plate appearances like the other hitter would have ...Barry still doesnt get 162 runs, or 162 rbis nor does he hit .400 or hit 162 homeruns.

Lets put the other guy in the 2004 Giants lineup. We know he hits 162 homeruns and hits .400. He also gets AT LEAST 162 runs and rbis (likely above 200 for both.) Bonds still would better those stats?

Rog -- No, Barry wouldn't beat out those stats. But in those 810 plate appearances, he would make only 317 outs compared to your guy's 482. Baseball isn't measured by time as other games are.

Your guy made the equivalent outs of 18 games plus three innings. Barry made the equivalent outs of 11 games, seven innings. Barry didn't equal the stats of your guy because he didn't cost his team nearly as many games and innings of outs.

The beauty of Barry in 2004 was even with double plays, sacrifice flies and caught stealings, he made only 351 of the Giants' allotted 4374 outs. No other batter has come to the plate as often as Barry and yet made so few outs.

Batters need to be measured compared to outs made, just as a runner is measured in yards per carry.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1443&page=1#ixzz2KACZoVAF

[sharksrog]

That was actually 251 outs, not 351. So whereas an average batter playing every game would make 1 out of every 9 outs, Barry made about 1 out of every 18.

Barry not only had a lot of production when he played, the game was essentially twice as "LONG" (in terms of plate appearances) for him.

If we give the average hitter twice as many plate appearances, he doubles his production. If we double Barry's production, he would have 270 hits, 90 of which were home runs. He would have scored 258 runs and driven in 202 (even though he was seldom pitched to with runners on base).

This isn't a trick. It's just that games are measured in outs, not time. Barry actually extended the game by double in the times he came to the plate.

We have talked about how costly batters with a .300 OBP are to a team. For every 4 outs Barry made, the .300 OBP guy made 7. Based on outs made, for every game his teammates played, Barry was essentially allowed to play only half a game.

Batters need to be rated by bases per out. As mentioned, it's kind of like yards per carry or yards per pass attempt. And that season, Barry was about as good at accumulating bases per every out he made as anyone every has been in a full season.

The more I think about it, the more shocked I am that we don't measure players more by bases accumulated per out.

If we wanted to be even more accurate, we could use the weighted value of a particular play. As an example, a home run is worth around 1.4 runs on average, and it goes down from there. With the exception of the two types of sacrifices and some productive outs, every out is worth a NEGATIVE percentage of a run.

If we took the value of every plate appearance made by a hitter and divided that by the number of plate appearances he makes, we would have a lot better measure than batting average -- or even OPS.

In other words, in terms of statistics, baseball is improving (quite a lot in some areas), but it is just coming out of the Dark Ages.