david schoenfield replies to my e-mail

[rone]

I asked him last night if he could run a little more analysis, and he replied:

[My stats guy] had [looked] up a few random players earlier for me:

The 600 of 787 seems to be stunning to everyone, but I did some comparisons, and this is what I've found (at bats in an inning where a run was scored vs. total runs scored, approximate):

Barry Bonds - (600/787) * 100 = 76%
Bobby Abreu - (579/769) * 100 = 75%
Craig Wilson - (509/642) * 100 = 79%
Moises Alou - (567/736) * 100 = 77%
Manny Ramirez - (603/863) * 100 = 70%
Jose Guillen - (614/775) * 100 = 79%

So, Bonds' 76 percent isn't necessarily unique.

Well, there goes that idea.  Maybe it's merely a reflection of where they bat in the order.

Comments

[veep.livejournal.com]

I heard this stat on a Giants game TV broadcast recently, and it's really dumb. If the team scores a bunch of runs in an inning, the stat gets biased (Bonds has nothing to do with runs that are started and scored while he's on the bench). But more importantly, if a team scores a bunch of runs in an inning, everybody or almost everybody in the lineup hits that inning. So the only times Bonds doesn't come up in an inning where the Giants score are when the team scores a very few runs in the worst part of the batting order. Why anyone was shocked about this happening relatively rarely is beyond me.

Actually, another source of run-scoring innings that don't include a Bonds plate appaerance is... games he doesn't play. Those runs are included in the 787, as far as I can tell, thus making the statistic EVEN MORE useless when debating what to do when Barry IS in the game.

Sigh.