Went up to LA this weekend, caught the Dodger-Giant game Saturday night. Barry Bonds went 0 for 2, with two walks (one intentional) and a sac fly. But the interesting story in this game was that of former Dodger Roy Gleason, who played with the club briefly in 1963 before being shipped to Vietnam. While serving his country, Gleason suffered a career-ending injury.

So the Dodgers brought Gleason out onto the field to throw the ceremonial first pitch. Vin Scully had a prerecorded message running on the scoreboard and welcomed the former outfielder back to Dodger Stadium. Gleason threw the pitch in the dirt to rookie Koyie Hill. Then something special happened. As Gleason was walking off the field, Scully reappeared on the scoreboard and mentioned that Gleason had lost the World Series ring he’d received for his part in the 1963 season. The current Dodger team then came out of the dugout and lined up along the third base line. Manager Jim Tracy stepped forward to present Gleason with a new World Series ring.

For an organization that has been notably lacking in class since the O’Malleys sold it to Fox, this was a terrific moment and it was great to see a guy like Gleason getting his due. The game was fun, but nothing in the actual contest measured up to what happened before it. I’m glad I was there to see it and to learn about Gleason’s story. ESPN has more about Gleason.

Housekeeping

Just did a little work over there on the right:

• Updated links to Aaron’s Baseball Blog and etaoinshrdlu
• Moved Scoresheet Baseball to "Useful Resources"
• Added Retrosheet and Boston Dirt Dogs

Mailbag

Speaking of Bonds, regular reader Chewy Lomax chimes in with this question:

As Bonds reaches the “Mays level”, what do you think are the odds that he will reach Aaron’s mark and when?

Also, in my opinion, primarily because of diluted pitching and a physically stronger brand of professional athlete, it seems that there many more players with the potential to reach 755 in the relatively near future…do you agree and if so, who are the players to watch?

Back in the 1980s (the 1981 Baseball Abstract I believe), Bill James introduced something he calls "The Favorite Toy" to help determine a player’s chances of reaching a particular milestone based on established rate of production in that area and estimated years remaining in career.

At the conclusion of 2002, The Diamond Angle ran the numbers and estimated that Bonds had a 20% chance of breaking Aaron’s record.

That’s a pretty good chance, but it’s gotten even better since then. Bonds is now at 657; he’s into double digits needed to pass Aaron. Think about that for a second. At any rate, thanks to 756watch.com, we can see Bonds’ updated numbers. Through Sunday, Sept. 21, his chances are 31.7%.

This site also gives estimates for other current big leaguers, which brings us to the second part of Chewy’s question. According to James’ formula, Alex Rodriguez has the best shot of any player to break the home-run record, at 36.6%. Others who have a chance are Sammy Sosa (23.9%), Jim Thome (7.5%), Albert Pujols (5.4%, assuming his listed age is correct), and Andruw Jones (1.1%). I also happen to think that Vlad Guerrero is a monstrous year or two away from joining this list.

Which of these guys will break the record? Who knows? But consider that the estimated chance that anyone currently playing will hit 756 or more home runs now stands at 71.4%. Whether it’s because of diluted pitching (I don’t think so, but that’s a rant for another day) or physically stronger athletes, those are some pretty good odds that we’ll see Aaron’s record fall in the next 20 years.

Josh Barfield

A few weeks ago, we started looking at Barfield and some possible paths his career might take. We compared how Barfield stacked up against a variety of players who’d posted similar numbers at a similar stage in development, and looked at those other players’ adjacent years for clues as to where Barfield might be headed. Of course, this is all speculation, but the Padres have wrapped up last place in the NL West for 2003. What else is there to do but speculate about the future, right?

Using the same set of players, and using the formula "(Year 3 / Year 2) * 100 – 100", let’s see how everyone did in Year 3 versus Year 2.

name     yr lvl  obp  slg   ba  iso bb/k xb/h
Lee       2  A+ .366 .496 .301 .195 .377 .331
          3  AA .360 .570 .280 .290 .382 .536
        dif  +1  1.6 14.9  7.0 48.7  1.3 61.9
Hidalgo   2  AA .309 .434 .266 .168 .421 .369
          3  AA .341 .450 .294 .156 .527 .331
        dif  0   1.4  3.7  1.5  7.1 25.2  1.3
Hunter    2  A+ .330 .348 .246 .102 .494 .250
          3  AA .331 .401 .263 .138 .467 .333
        dif  +1  0.3 15.2  6.9 35.3  5.5 33.2
Ward      2  A+ .373 .435 .291 .144 .740 .319
          3  AA .398 .524 .329 .195 .676 .317
        dif  +1  6.7  2.5 13.1 35.4  8.6  0.6
Stynes    2  A+ .339 .423 .304 .119 .625 .265
          3  AA .351 .435 .317 .118 .639 .254
        dif  +1  3.5  2.8  4.3  0.8  2.2  4.2
Gant      2  A  .332 .397 .256 .141 .478 .321
          3  A+ .372 .529 .277 .252 .918 .472
        dif  +1 12.0 33.2  8.2 78.7 92.1 47.0

Numbers in red denote deterioration from Year 2 to Year 3.

Now here are the average, low, and high marks for each category:

     obp  slg   ba  iso bb/k xb/h
avg  5.2 15.1  6.0 31.7 17.8 21.2
min  1.6  2.8  7.0  7.1  8.6 10.3
max 12.0 33.2 13.1 78.7 92.1 61.9

And now for a quick illustration of what is meant by the phrase, "lies, damn lies, and statistics." Here’s what Barfield’s numbers would look like next year if his change from Year 2 to Year 3 was in line with the average, minimum, or maximum of those who have gone before him:

name              obp  slg   ba  iso bb/k xb/h
Barfield(Yr2Act) .389 .530 .337 .193 .410 .368
Barfield(Yr3Avg) .409 .610 .357 .254 .483 .446
Barfield(Yr3Min) .383 .545 .313 .179 .375 .330
Barfield(Yr3Max) .436 .706 .381 .345 .787 .596

Right, some of those numbers are pretty silly. If Barfield slugs over .700, I’ll eat my hat. I’ll eat all of my hats. I’ll go out and buy more hats and eat those, too.

But even if you take the worst differentials in each category and apply those to Barfield’s Year 2 numbers, you end up with a .313/.383/.545 season. At age 21? In Double-A? From a second baseman? Works for me.

Of course, as I’ve said numerous times, no man is a set of reducible equations. Looking closely at how analogous players performed and developed over time is a useful exercise in trying to determine how Barfield might develop. Will he take another leap forward, as Gant did? Will he flatline like Stynes? Will he regress, like the many who never made it to the big leagues did?

Who can say? This gives us ideas, not answers…