Lefty,

For infielders John Dewan's plus/minus system breaks down the balls in play that a fielder gets credit for by left side, right side, and ones that are hit right at them. I'm guessing the Giants are using something similar.

Here's a sample of plus/minus:

http://www.billjamesonline.net/toursite/StatisticsReport_new.aspx?Type=302&Team=0&Player=1&men=2

I only go "LEFT."

Barry's trial starts on March 2nd and the Judge indicated today that she expects it to last 3-4 weeks so it will be done by the end of March. The judge today indicated that the 3 Balco postive steroids tests and the Anderson drug calanders will not be admissable without Anderson testifing to colaberate them. So things are looking up for the aquital I have been expecting all along.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/sports/baseball/06bonds.html?ref=baseball

If Barry is aquited by the end of March he will then become a real possibility for any team willing to buck the used car salesman's collusion including the Giants.

I also wrote about this on my blog, but Baseball Musing's PMR defensive charts for each player shows the plays each player made and should have made, and for Renteria, it clearly shows that he's above average to the left (i.e. towards 2B) and bad to his right. That appears to have been true for the past 3 seasons now, and getting worse with time. http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/DisplayCharts.py?PlayerID=1178&fpos=6&year=2008

All that said... If by some miracle Bonds was on the field, I'd drop everything to buy some tickets to one of those 'View' seats up there... I will be *stoked* to see him beat the Feds. And I'd be double-stoked to watch him swing again. It would be awesome awesome awesome double awesome. But that's just me...

I would like to add a comment on the use of statistics to evaluate players. In general, they are very useful, and back-testing has established that. However, where one could question their validity is about players at the end of their careers - simply because, once they retire, there are no statistics available to test the projection. I would use Durham's last season as a case in point. Based on an expected decline, but also his prior performance, he was projected to have a much worse (partial) season on the Giants than he did (.293 avg, .414 slg, 263 ab) - because his projections, although they averaged in better past years, did not really allow for a bounce back. One thing you do not see in quoted statistics (and there are undoubtedly others who look at much more sophisticated stats than I) is the expected variability in the projections, or the change in variability at different ages of players. So, Mr. Rainman and Mr. Boof are neither incorrect in their judgements - the stats are what they are, but to actually expect Barry, at 45 to be a 100 game stud is, I think, neither testable nor intuitive.

Since it was my brilliance,astonishing insight, and shrewd baseball knowledge that started all of this, it is only fair that I honor you all with my thoughts. You may arise, now.
My position is similar to Rainman's in that, for the money, I see Manny being a huge risk. It seems to me every one is overly enamored with his 2 months with the Dogers (sic). I think Manny is a loose cannon and I do not think that 396 BA, etc, etc has much predictive value. ie, I don't think it will be seen outside of a streak or two in '09 or '10. Look, I don't know the guy, but I am reasonably sure he quit on the Red Sox in order to manipulate his contract/earning power. Bonds never did that; Bonds, in fact, usually played on a little cheaper contract than he was truly worth.
I agree it is far from certain what Bonds, at his age, can do in the way of performance. But he is 0 risk when the contract is considered; Manny, on the other hand, is a huge risk. Bonds would likely be signed for one year, Manny likely for 2. Thus, the risk with Manny is in the $40-50 million range, while with Bonds it is in the 0-$10 million range. Anyone who says Bonds won't perform in '09 is talking with their biases, not reason. No one can promise what either of these players will produce in '09 or '10. They are both nearing the end of their careers. They have both been huge producers, even in the last year in which they played. The difference is the amount of risk. Manny will probably require 2 years, $40 mil guaranteed. Bonds can probably be signed for one year, for next to nothing guaranteed and an incentive laden contract. Manny quit on his team; Bonds worked his ass off to be the best.
Lastly, I am not making a strenuous argument that either route must be taken. It is merely my point that if we are really, really going to try to get a 4th spot hitter, the risk/reward equation favors Bonds by a huge amount. I do, agree, however, that when you consider all of the factors, and they differ for each player, it is highly unlikely that either will produce at a high level in a Giants uniform in '09.

Just a quick question for rainman and you other Bonds-crazy fans...when did you all start becoming Giant fans? I am just curious. I began as a 9-year old in 1976. And the period of the the time that Bonds and Kent played together, have been the most productive era in modern Giants baseball, post-1970. Though the Giants with Bonds but without Kent before the trade and after he left were not as good as the Kent years.

But you Bonds-first fans have to admit that Barry Bonds was and was always a total ass. It was always about Barry first and true Giant fans know that. He cheated the game regardless if everyone else was doing it. Was Jeff Kent, Rich Aurilia, Jason Schmidt juicing? Clearly there is no evidence that they were.

So how can you Bonds-nuts not be embarrassed by the man and actually want him to return. Was Bonds ever a clubhouse leader? We had many playoff opportunities with Bonds, but only got to the World Series once...we need to move on.

And those that still postulate that Bonds would be roughly equal to Manny are nuts. I have written in the past that I think Manny is a cancer and I would not sign him unless the stars all lined up in order. But you cannot just dismiss what he did with the Dodgers. When he is focused in as a hitter, he is unstoppable.

Wouldn't it be nice after four losing seasons without a dominant healthy hitter, to actually win with a potent offense. Instead you Bonds people rather watch Bonds limp around, take a few swings and continue to lose. You people are pathetic! Turn in your season tickets...

Peter, ease up, your hatred and vitriol is going to give you a heart attack. Two things:
1) You assert Bonds is a cheater. Jesus, Peter, wake up. Sports is filled with cheating. Every type of racing, auto, bike, foot, ski, they are all marked by one cheating scandal after another. College sports? Mostly recruiting violations, but that is cheating. Bellicheck and the camera, teams tampering, pro football players on steroids. the Black Sox, the spitball, vaseline, fingernail files, greenies, andro, Bobby Thompson's knowing the pitch... Do I need to go on? Clearly the issue isn't Bonds' cheating, cheating is rampant, even if you want to narrow the discussion to the 2000-2003 steroid years. It is pretty evident several big league and near big league ball players were juicing, including several on the Giants. That we know about.
No, I think the root of your hatred, which looks for a more respectable excuse with which to express itself, is your conviction that Barry is a... let me look up and see how you put it... "total ass." Give me a break. Kent wasn't? Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Curt Shilling, Randy johnson, Pete Rose, Don Drysdale - hell, every Doger (sic) who ever lived.
I was first a Bobby Bonds fan. Disappointed in Barry? Sure. I'm just not all that persuaded it is that big a deal. As they say, the juice doesn't give you the hand-eye coordination, the ability to recognize the pitch, the strike zone knowledge, the discipline to work a count looking for your pitch. I mean, really, why didn't Benny Santiago hit 40 HRs? And the juice wouldn't produce results if Barry wasn't willing to spends thousands of hours in the gym. Was he mis- guided? Probably. But this is a win at any cost culture, a be the biggest star you can be, an American Idol culture. Far too many would do what Barry and hundreds of others have done, in every sport known to man. One sport has the motto, "If you ain't cheatin,' you ain't tryin.'
2. Could you be correct that Bonds is no longer the equal of Manny? You could be. But to assert that anyone who doesn't agree with you is "nuts," is just so much ill-informed arrogance. I don't quarrel with the logic of your opinion that Barry can't do it anymore. The various reasons propounded are all logical, potentially valid. So are the reasons that would support the oppositie opinion. The difference is I am not so arrogant as to label everybody who disagrees with me as "nuts." And I am making a rational choice, the safer choice between two alternatives. Thus, if I am wrong it costs us next to nothing. If you are wrong (about Manny) it costs us about $50 mil.

"Prior to 2005 using Steroids was not cheating. Illegal yes, but not cheating"

I think you mean 2004 for when it became against the rules in baseball.
As far as steroids being illegal - it depends on where in the world you were, what it was, and how you obtained it. A prescription drug used without a prescription for you is illegal in the U.S. As a group, anabolic steroids aren't scheduled in much of the Western Hemisphere and in some places you just go to the farmacia and pick them up.

No, Peter, I tell my kids that when the whole country is on the band wagon, particularly when they are against one person, they are probably wrong. I try to tell them to resist the temptation to look for simple answers. I try to tell them to resist the urge to make themselves feel better by pontificating against someone, particularly if it is someone they don't know and the only "facts" are those they read in the paper.
What do you tell your kids? It's OK for Manny to dump on a team, its management, players, and fans because he's unhappy and wants to renegotiate a contract he prviosuly signed and, thereby, promised to live up to?
As to the rest of your piece, you seem to ignore every fact or argument that is not in agreement with yours. The FACT is neither you nor any of the score of those who agree with you know what you are talking about. Sure, you have an opinion, but you are in no position to promise or assure what production - or lack of production - Bonds would deliver in '09.