ok, as my head was swirling over counters to steve's ridiculous claims (and believe me, that rant will come later) i think i actually came up with a theory that's worthy of primate discussion.

I was thinking about the relief ace, and how one of the few ways a manager can tip the w/l balance in his favor is by proper relief pitcher usage. Well, why doesn't this work for hitting? Namely, with the greatest hitter of all time, Barry Bonds. I think there is a way to maximize his value on an otherwise anemic offense.

First, you have to determine what the optimum amount of playing time is for Barry. CW thinks that an occassional day off will optimize Barry's performance, on many levels in including mental and physical fatigue, general endurance, and risk of injury. For sake of simplicity, say it comes out to 20 games off a season.

Now, those 20 games need to be spread out. I imagine that there are three levels of fatigue for a player like bonds. 1) I'm ready to go skip 2) I can play if you need me, but a day off would be useful and 3) i'm tired, i need a day off. Clearly, you would never rest him at 1, always rest him at 3, and then try to figure out the best times to rest him at 2.

I think CW is making their biggest mistake in how they utilize rest in the 2 zone. I assume that rest in certain situations (after an extra inning game, day game after a night game, etc) is more valuable. Similarly, it's possible that there is a stress that comes with playing in a game that can't be turned off once it's turned on. In other words, playing two games in a row, even if you are removed halfway through, might be more mentally fatiguing than playing one full game and then having a full day's rest. I don't KNOW that this is true, in fact i think it's not true, but it's possible. However, for the purposes of this theory, i'm going to ignore this unmeasurable level of mental stress.

Ok, so getting back to how to use the 20 games off most efficiently. The first thing you have to do is stop looking at is as 20 games. Instead, see it is 180 innings. If you need to rest bonds for 180 innings, what innings would you pick? Obviously the end of blowouts are where you'd pull him for a replacement (and even CW sees this). But what about the BEGINNING of blowouts. Ah, if only we could look back and figure out how to do that. And there's the rub.

Once Bonds gets into the "2 zone" he should be starting the game on the bench. If the game becomes a blowout

(the term blowout can be defined as loosely as a difference of more than 4 runs. Yes, there will be times where a lead of that size can be overcome, but we are trying to maximize the value of bonds' innings and those percentages of "coming back" are rather low)

then bonds can sit the whole game and get his full rest. However, it's likely that the game will not be a blowout. In those cases, you bring Bonds in whenever he has the greatest likelyhood to have the most impact. At some point in the game, one of the Giants' outfielders is going to come up in an "important" situation (bases loaded, 1 out or maybe first and 2nd with 2 outs) That's when you pinch hit Bonds. I don't care if it's the 8th inning or even the 3rd. At that moment, Bonds is going to have a chance to seriously affect the outcome of the game. In a normal, 4 at bat game, Bonds might have 3 baserunners in front of him. I would have to look at the data to get an accurate number, and i'm too lazy. However, if you start him on the bench and wait for the perfect time, you are GUARANTEEING that he will come up in a "rbi situation". If the Giants spread out their outfielders in the lineup, it's very likely that there will be at least one situation like this. If Bonds breaks the game open, you could even then pull him again. If he gets out, you now at least have bonds in the lineup of a close game.

Critics of this new theory will argue that you want bonds in as much as possible. They are missing the fact that Bonds will be playing the same number of innings that he would be in a CW setting. As soon as he gets to "zone 1" you play him non stop. But when he's in zone 2, you'll be getting maximum output from him. CW would have you pick random games to sit him. But what if you pick a game to play him that winds up being 7-0 in your favor by the 3rd inning. Poor choice. Or what about the games where he comes up four times with nobody on base. a "perfect" performance only equates to 4 runs. Bonds will have played 9 innings and only had the potential to create 4 runs. However, in that exact same game, imagine that tucker, batting 7th, came up in 6th inning with the bases loaded. That one at bat has a potential of 4 runs. If you pinch hit Bonds there, he's already matched the original hypo but did so using only 1/9 th of the energy. If he fails, you still have bonds in the lineup of a close game.

There are times when a guy gets a day off but is asked to pinch hit in the 9th. that's "good", but not "great". If he fails, then you can look back at that 2-1 game and think "oh man, maybe one more at bat by Bonds would have put us over the top". It's currently unheard of to pinch hit early in a game, but why not? Pinch hitting bonds in the 5th inning with the bases loaded may have cost you one at bat, but it's saved you 5 innings and plus you are guaranteeing an RBI situation. Plus, you are GUARANTEEING that you will never waste a bonds inning in a "blowout". bonds would only come in if the game was still in doubt and would leave as soon as it isn't.

I really don't see a downside to this usage of bonds. In zone 2, bonds needs rest. If you wind up not playing bonds two or three games in a row b/c the situation never presented itself, then he'll eventually get back to zone 1 in which case you play him. If there's a string of 10 games where he winds up pinch hitting in the third inning b/c the situation called for it, so be it. Eventually things will even out OR at the very least he gets to zone 3 and you sit him for a game. While this is going on, there will be a vast increase in RBI opportunities and his production will go up.

This usage essentially creates the hitters equivlant of the relief-ace. You are putting yourself and your team in a situation where you best hitter has the best/most opportunities to do the things required to win, i.e. creating runs.

fin.

I want to fine tune this theory (or at least the writing) so when the opportunity presents itself, i can present it to primer. I think at the very least it would spur some discussion.