Bonds/Thomas - double standard?

Bonds/Thomas - double standard?

Post by DAVID GEIS » Sat, 14 Aug 1993 06:55:06


Whether or not it's valid,  I've heard a lot of criticism that Frank Thomas
walks too much.  I don't recall ever hearing the same criticism about Barry
Bonds.

Other than in the Big Hurt's Williamsesque 1990 season,  Bonds has had a much
greater tendency to take a walk than Thomas.  Defining walk percentage as
BB/(BB + AB),  look at the numbers:

1991:  Thomas:  138/697 = .198
       Bonds:   107/617 = .173

1992:  Thomas:  122/695 = .176
       Bonds:   127/600 = .212

1993:  Thomas:  80/467  = .171
       Bonds:   88/463  = .190

Why aren't the same criticisms made about Bonds?  A better question is why do
sportswriters *look* for negative things to say about Frank Thomas?

BTW,  Thomas' slight decrease in tendency to walk is made up for by his *big*
decrease in tendency to strike out,  IMO.  He's on a pace to strike out only
60-70 times this season.

Dave

 
 
 

Bonds/Thomas - double standard?

Post by bonvi.. » Sat, 14 Aug 1993 18:59:02

Quote:

> Whether or not it's valid,  I've heard a lot of criticism that Frank Thomas
> walks too much.  I don't recall ever hearing the same criticism about Barry
> Bonds.

> Other than in the Big Hurt's Williamsesque 1990 season,  Bonds has had a much
> greater tendency to take a walk than Thomas.  Defining walk percentage as
> BB/(BB + AB),  look at the numbers:

> 1991:  Thomas:  138/697 = .198
>        Bonds:   107/617 = .173

> 1992:  Thomas:  122/695 = .176
>        Bonds:   127/600 = .212

> 1993:  Thomas:  80/467  = .171
>        Bonds:   88/463  = .190

> Why aren't the same criticisms made about Bonds?  A better question is why do
> sportswriters *look* for negative things to say about Frank Thomas?

Thomas is not a media favorite. He does not win pennants, he is not
exciting, he looks (relatively) bad in old stats: BA, RBI etc.
Then there are media darlings which are, in the mind of the average
mediot/stat-hating fan, much better than Thomas: Griffey, for example.
In the end, reasons must be found for this all. Walks too much seems
sensible.

G. Bonvicini


 
 
 

Bonds/Thomas - double standard?

Post by DAVID GEIS » Sat, 14 Aug 1993 20:48:01

Quote:


> > Whether or not it's valid,  I've heard a lot of criticism that Frank Thomas
> > walks too much.  I don't recall ever hearing the same criticism about Barry
> > Bonds.

> > Other than in the Big Hurt's Williamsesque 1990 season,  Bonds has had a much
> > greater tendency to take a walk than Thomas.  Defining walk percentage as
> > BB/(BB + AB),  look at the numbers:

> > 1991:  Thomas:  138/697 = .198
> >        Bonds:   107/617 = .173

> > 1992:  Thomas:  122/695 = .176
> >        Bonds:   127/600 = .212

> > 1993:  Thomas:  80/467  = .171
> >        Bonds:   88/463  = .190

> > Why aren't the same criticisms made about Bonds?  A better question is why do
> > sportswriters *look* for negative things to say about Frank Thomas?

> Thomas is not a media favorite. He does not win pennants, he is not
> exciting, he looks (relatively) bad in old stats: BA, RBI etc.

Relative to whom?  Babe Ruth?

The *Sox* don't win pennants.  That's not Thomas' fault.  And he's doing his
best to change that this year.  IMO,  he's also one of the most exciting
players in the game.

Dave

 
 
 

Bonds/Thomas - double standard?

Post by Neal Trav » Sat, 14 Aug 1993 22:46:09


Quote:
> Thomas is not a media favorite. He does not win pennants, he is not
> exciting, he looks (relatively) bad in old stats: BA, RBI etc.

Yeah, he's really *awful* at the traditional stats:

                        BA      HR      R       RBI
1991                    .318    32      104     109
1992                    .323    24      108     115
1993 (thru 114 G)       .321    29      74      93
     (on pace for)              41      105     132

Hardly even worth mentioning.

One reason that Bonds isn't taken to task as much is speed -- Bonds is a
threat to steal a base (or at least, he was before this year).  Perhaps
his status as a one-time lead-off hitter (even mediots sometimes accept
that it's OK for a #1 hitter to walk ... though being 'speedy' like Devo
or Willie Wilson or Omar Moreno is of course even more important) makes
Barry's walks more palatable.

In addition, Bonds has more offense going on around him; the team isn't
as dependent on *him* to produce the big innings.

Still, it does mystify me that Thomas is criticized for walking while
Bonds isn't.  And no one even *notices* that Kruk and Daulton walk so
much.  Or that Cecil has really improved his game by returning the base
on balls to his repetoire.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
 
 

Bonds/Thomas - double standard?

Post by Jon Hamki » Sat, 14 Aug 1993 23:46:24

Quote:



>> Thomas is not a media favorite. He does not win pennants, he is not
>> exciting, he looks (relatively) bad in old stats: BA, RBI etc.
>Relative to whom?  Babe Ruth?

Of course Thomas is good almost by whatever measure you choose.  I
think G. Bonvicini meant he looks bad in the traditional stats relative
to stats such as OBP and SLG.  I'm certainly more impressed by the OPS
he's put up the last couple of years than by the BA, for example.


         University of Illinois

 
 
 

Bonds/Thomas - double standard?

Post by bonvi.. » Sun, 15 Aug 1993 01:04:46

Quote:


>> Thomas is not a media favorite. He does not win pennants, he is not
>> exciting, he looks (relatively) bad in old stats: BA, RBI etc.

> Yeah, he's really *awful* at the traditional stats:

>                    BA      HR      R       RBI
> 1991                       .318    32      104     109
> 1992                       .323    24      108     115
> 1993 (thru 114 G)  .321    29      74      93
>      (on pace for)         41      105     132

> Hardly even worth mentioning.

See what I mean? No records, no batting title, no RBI title, no 40HR, no
pennants, no AllStar starter. He is the only one who compares to Bonds in
the last 3 yrs, has yet to reach his prime, and yet nobody would even consider
him between the 3 best players in the majors, amongst the mediots or
general fans. I asked in a previous thread: has Griffey ever had a season
better than him? And of course the answer is "no". Yet Griffey is on every
time there is baseball on TV. Thomas is Mr. Underrated, and those of the
original poster are the media excuses for their bias.
Let's not touch on Gonzalez, who is arguably the #3
based on the last two yrs. and also projects better than Griffey.

G. Bonvicini

 
 
 

Bonds/Thomas - double standard?

Post by DAVID GEIS » Sun, 15 Aug 1993 01:00:53

Quote:



> >> Thomas is not a media favorite. He does not win pennants, he is not
> >> exciting, he looks (relatively) bad in old stats: BA, RBI etc.

> > Yeah, he's really *awful* at the traditional stats:

> >                       BA      HR      R       RBI
> > 1991                  .318    32      104     109
> > 1992                  .323    24      108     115
> > 1993 (thru 114 G)     .321    29      74      93
> >      (on pace for)            41      105     132

> > Hardly even worth mentioning.

> See what I mean? No records, no batting title, no RBI title, no 40HR, no
> pennants, no AllStar starter.

 He is the only one who compares to Bonds in

Quote:
> the last 3 yrs, has yet to reach his prime, and yet nobody would even consider
> him between the 3 best players in the majors, amongst the mediots or
> general fans.

I do see.  Another point is that consistency means nothing to the media.
Olerud gets more attention (I'm not saying he doesn't deserve attention) for
one *great* season than Thomas gets for three great ones.

Dave

 
 
 

Bonds/Thomas - double standard?

Post by Sherri Nicho » Sun, 15 Aug 1993 01:07:35

Quote:

>Still, it does mystify me that Thomas is criticized for walking while
>Bonds isn't.  And no one even *notices* that Kruk and Daulton walk so
>much.  Or that Cecil has really improved his game by returning the base
>on balls to his repetoire.

Thomas is a big slow first baseman who's supposed to hit homers and drive
people in, like Cecil.  Daulton's a catcher; they aren't supposed to do
anything offensively, so it's gravy no matter what you get.  Kruk doesn't
hit homers, so it's okay for him to walk.  Bonds is fast, so it's okay for
him to walk.  McGwire is a big slow first baseman who hits homers, so he
gets criticism for being too patient.  

(Note that I personally don't agree with the above paragraph.)

If you're big, and relatively slow, and hit homers, in the mediots' eyes,
you're supposed to be up there hacking to drive in those runs.

Sherri Nichols

 
 
 

Bonds/Thomas - double standard?

Post by Ben Torran » Sun, 15 Aug 1993 01:11:36

Quote:

>Whether or not it's valid,  I've heard a lot of criticism that Frank Thomas
>walks too much.  I don't recall ever hearing the same criticism about Barry
>Bonds.
>Other than in the Big Hurt's Williamsesque 1990 season,  Bonds has had a much
>greater tendency to take a walk than Thomas.  Defining walk percentage as
>BB/(BB + AB),  look at the numbers:

I don't know if it will affect the comparison, but I think you should
subtract intentional walks from this formula, since they can't really be
blamed on the hitter.  Bonds is on pace for 47 IBB, which would be a ML
record.  
But in general, I agree that this criticism of Thomas is unfair.  Even
without intentionals, some hitters will get 'semi-intentional' BBs.  If
they start swinging at balls, then the media blames them for that.

                                        ben

 
 
 

Bonds/Thomas - double standard?

Post by Sarcasm Is A Way Of Lif » Sun, 15 Aug 1993 01:30:09


Quote:
>Whether or not it's valid,  I've heard a lot of criticism that Frank Thomas
>walks too much.  I don't recall ever hearing the same criticism about Barry
>Bonds.
>Other than in the Big Hurt's Williamsesque 1990 season,  Bonds has had a much
>greater tendency to take a walk than Thomas.  Defining walk percentage as
>BB/(BB + AB),  look at the numbers:

I suspect a lot more of Bonds' walks are intentional, though.
In the last 2 years, 59 compared to Frank's 19.

Greg

 
 
 

Bonds/Thomas - double standard?

Post by Francis Sma » Sun, 15 Aug 1993 01:53:21

How can *anyone* criticize a baseball player for `walking too much'????  After
all, the other team can always choose to walk you if it wants.  I remember
the Giants playing a series with St. Louis in which they walked Jack Clark a
phenomenal number of times.  Something like 11 times in 3 games, or something
ridiculous like that.  He was their only good hitter, and the Giants took the
bat right out of his hands.  So, are we supposed to criticize Jack Clark for
forcing other teams to walk him???  If teams pitch lousy to a power hitter, is
he supposed to chase bad balls?  Gosh, then we could criticize him for
striking out too much!

--
0 . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . .|2 . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . .
GIANTS                                           Francis Small              
                 Braves               *            Hewlett-Packard Company
                              *    Astros            Microwave Instruments Div.
                             *        Bums             1212 Valley House Dr.
                           *          Reds               Rohnert Park CA, 94928
               *                                                Padres      
           *                                                             Rockie
 . . . . 1 . . . . 2 . . . . 3 . . . . 4 . . . . 5 . . . . 6 . . . . 7 . . . .
The weaknesses of my .signature system are becoming apparent.  

 
 
 

Bonds/Thomas - double standard?

Post by Pablo A. Iglesi » Sun, 15 Aug 1993 03:29:04

Quote:
> Thomas is a big slow first baseman who's supposed to hit homers and drive
> people in, like Cecil.  Daulton's a catcher; they aren't supposed to do
> anything offensively, so it's gravy no matter what you get.  Kruk doesn't
> hit homers, so it's okay for him to walk.  Bonds is fast, so it's okay for
> him to walk.  McGwire is a big slow first baseman who hits homers, so he
> gets criticism for being too patient.  

> (Note that I personally don't agree with the above paragraph.)

> If you're big, and relatively slow, and hit homers, in the mediots' eyes,
> you're supposed to be up there hacking to drive in those runs.

... which is why Joe Carter gets so much media attention. Sad but
true.

Quote:
> Sherri Nichols


--
Pablo Iglesias                             Phone : 410 516 6026
Department of Electrical Engineering       Fax   : 410 516 5566

Baltimore, MD 21231
 
 
 

Bonds/Thomas - double standard?

Post by D. J. Pajer » Sun, 15 Aug 1993 03:11:08

Quote:

>If you're big, and relatively slow, and hit homers, in the mediots' eyes,
>you're supposed to be up there hacking to drive in those runs.

>Sherri Nichols


You are apparently disagreeing with 'mediots' on this. If you're big, and slow,
and hit homers, but you're not supposed to drive in runs, what *are* you
supposed to do?

BTW - is Thomas all that slow, anyway? I know he's big...

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

 
 
 

Bonds/Thomas - double standard?

Post by Chris All » Sun, 15 Aug 1993 04:12:19


Quote:

>>Still, it does mystify me that Thomas is criticized for walking while
>>Bonds isn't.  And no one even *notices* that Kruk and Daulton walk so
>>much.  Or that Cecil has really improved his game by returning the base
>>on balls to his repetoire.

>Thomas is a big slow first baseman who's supposed to hit homers and drive
>people in, like Cecil.  Daulton's a catcher; they aren't supposed to do
>anything offensively, so it's gravy no matter what you get.  Kruk doesn't
>hit homers, so it's okay for him to walk.  Bonds is fast, so it's okay for
>him to walk.  McGwire is a big slow first baseman who hits homers, so he
>gets criticism for being too patient.  

>(Note that I personally don't agree with the above paragraph.)

>If you're big, and relatively slow, and hit homers, in the mediots' eyes,
>you're supposed to be up there hacking to drive in those runs.

>Sherri Nichols


For a good comparison see Eddie Muarry late 70's ,early 80's. Consistently good numbers little respect by the Media
even in his home town. (reason he left).
 
 
 

Bonds/Thomas - double standard?

Post by Neal Trav » Sun, 15 Aug 1993 04:45:22


Quote:
> Thomas is a big slow first baseman who's supposed to hit homers and drive
> people in, like Cecil.  Daulton's a catcher; they aren't supposed to do
> anything offensively, so it's gravy no matter what you get.  Kruk doesn't
> hit homers, so it's okay for him to walk.  Bonds is fast, so it's okay for
> him to walk.  McGwire is a big slow first baseman who hits homers, so he
> gets criticism for being too patient.  
> (Note that I personally don't agree with the above paragraph.)

I never would have guessed, Sherri!

Were there complaints about Ruth, Foxx, Kiner, Killebrew, and other such
big slow walking sluggers?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------