People got really really angry at me last year when I said this about Barry Bonds when he was on his way to the home run record, but it bears rementioning:
Does anybody hit more irrelevant home runs than Barry Bonds?

Last year, on his way to the record 73 home runs, a couple of commentators pointed out that the Giants had a lower winning percentage in games in which Barry Bonds hit a home run than in game where he did hit one.

Now, this year, in the playoffs, Bonds is having a better than usual post-season, four games into the Braves series. Barry has two home runs. Hit in two different games. Which games? Two and three. The Giant lost both of those. Barry did not hit a home run in either of the Giant victories through four games.

I'm not saying that the Giants would be better off without Barry Bonds. My point is merely this: Barry Bonds's home runs have amazingly little to do with whether the Giants win or lose.

CITT -- that's silly, you're smarter than that.

That's one of those "stupid statistics" -- or "damned lies" if you prefer -- like Arizona's record when Craig Counsell is in the lineup, that befogs analysis because there's almost no *direct* relationship between a Bonds HR and a Giant win. Any more than one can say Billy Koch's gopher ball to AJ Pierzynski yesterday was "irrelevant" because, hey, Minnesota never trailed in the game.

The *totality* of Bonds' offensive year (including the .370 BA and the all-time seasonal record in on-base pct) most certainly is the major component in SF's presence in the playoffs.

Yes, statistics are sometimes used to conclude a causal relationship when one may not be there.

I don't think that one can conclude that Bonds' home runs are irrelevant because the Giants have a lower winning percentage in games that he doesn't hit a home run. One way to explain it is this way: when the Giants are losing, opposing pitchers will pitch more to Bonds then when the Giants are winning. So instead of Bonds hitting home runs in games that the Giants win, he gets walked, 2, 3, 4, or even 5 times, giving him less of an opportunity to hit a home run. I'm sure that those walks have contributed to many of those wins. The fact that opposing teams tend to walk him more, especially when the game is on the line, make all of Bonds' home runs relevant.

pat125 - I agree with you - it's more about when the opposing teams will pitch to Barry. The Braves pitched to him when the games were pretty much decided and he hit home runs off Smoltz and Maddux. Last night, they were forced to pitch to him in the 1st inning and he hit a sacrifice fly for the first run. They intentionally walked him later in the game when there were runners on first and third. They had to pitch to him later in the game and he came within a foot of hitting it out to the opposite field. Would that have been irrelevant if it had gone out?
He hits a lot of solo homers but the fact is most teams avoid pitching to him whenever runners are on base.

What about the whole point in the media regarding why the Giants won Game 1 against the Braves? The supporting cast is better this year. So in spite of Bonds "meaningless" homeruns, he is still a threat that teams tend to pitch around. Santiago, David Bell, Jeff Kent, and others are making teams pay for when they DON'T pitch to Bonds.

I'm too lazy, but it would be interesting to see the Giants record in games over the past two years when Bonds has homered, versus when he did not homer.

OK, curiosity got the best of me so I went and looked. I think that I just proved CITT wrong.

2002 W-L
Apr 5-1
May 7-2
June 5-1
July 2-2
Aug 6-3
Sept 4-2

Bonds homers 29-11 0.725
Giants Overall 95-66 0.590
Bonds no homer 66-55 0.545


2001 W-L
Apr 5-6
May 6-7
June 7-3
July 3-1
Aug 8-3
Sept 9-3

Bonds homers 38-23 0.623
Giants overall 89-73 0.549
Bonds no homer 51-50 0.505

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: MSUBulldog ]

Add this: 1-2 in the postseason in 2002 when Bonds homers. Oh well, can't win them all. He'll have a chance to improve or worsen those numbers against the Cardinals. Looking forward to what should be a great series!

Your numbers are perfect MSUBulldog ... thanks for doing some fact checking on me. NO THANK YOU FOR CONFIRMING I MADE A MISTAKE.

I last ran those numbers in mid 2001, when the Giants winning percentage actually was lower in games where Bonds hit home runs. I should have checked to see if that particular statistic held up throughout the entire season, because, obviously to me now, it did not. In August and September of 2001, the Giants weren't losing many games where Bonds homered.

I actually think Bonds had a great game for the Giants tonight in Game Five. Timely hits early. He made a great catch in the late innings, enough to make you think it was the young, lightning fast Pittsburgh Pirates Barry Bonds playing out in left. Even the caught stealing in the 8th inning was a great play. The Giants needed one more insurance run (actually, they didn't, but you would've thought they would've). The Braves just put in a new catcher who you gotta think is ice cold. And it took a dead perfect throw to nail Bonds. His post season demons have been officially exorcised. (Fortunately for the Cardinals, Jeff Kent's have not.)

Good man, CITT -- cuz Barry doesn't get more "relevant" than he was last night.

Feel free to correct me on anything I might misrepresent in the future as well!