Chris;

I will find the book and let you know what I think. I didn't really have a negative view on Schmidt (consistent, sturdy, great glove, great power) - I just didn't think his OBA was as strong as it is.

Does Bonds have a hole in his swing these days? I'd like to line up his stance from 1990 with his stance of today. My guess is that he has moved closer to the plate (the partial body armor helps), which allows him to put a good swing on almost anything over the plate. By crowding the plate he does not have to (defensively) slap the pitches on the outer part of the plate to left. The stuff that veers inside can be yanked foul because his swing is so quick.

This stance, plus his compact swing (as opposed to the longer, loopier swings of Schmidt and McGwire) goes a long way towards filling the high-and-tight & low-and-away holes that are common to most hitters. I'd guess that Schmidt's oba got better over time as he improved on laying off the low-and-away stuff. The high-and-tight stuff will always be a problem for the Schmidts and McGwires who need to extend their arms to generate the bulk of their power.

That said, all hitters have holes in their swings. But in the expanded baseball universe of today, the percentage of pitchers who are able to direct pitches to these holes with pace and movement has never been lower. In other words, a hitter's hole is not constant - it is related to who is throwing pitches towards that hole. And Barry Bonds will face Johnson and Schilling only about half as often as Willie Mays had to face Spahn and Sain.

If opposing managers and pitchers were not so careful in pitching to Bonds, he would win the Triple Crown in a gallop.

Regarding your ps, that is a huge split between ba and oba for Schmidt ... wow. As for Rose, the oba does not surprise. He got pitched to because he was not a power threat and he had all those monsters hitting behind him. But Rose beings me to another subject (sorry, this is dragging on I know).

I think this discussion on baseball stats is an interesting companion piece to the Jockey ROI discussion that is ongoing - is there value in these stats?

While Rose's lifetime oba is not that great for a leadoff hitter (I'd guess Rickey's is 40 or 50 points higher), and though he was an average fielder in any of the positions he played, he is still one of the great winners in the history of the game. Yes, he was on good and great teams, but he also had incredible intangibles - competitiveness, desire, smarts - and mostly (for lack of a better word) "heart".

The reason I don't really subscribe fully to the Bill James view on things is that he wants to be able to measure everything. But certain things defy measurement. Ted Williams and Bill James don't think swinging at balls is a good idea, yet Yogi Berra and Roberto Clemente are two bad ball hitters that went all the way to Cooperstown.

But I digress. What made Rose a Rose are his intangibles. Two moments that define Pete Rose for me both happened - not coincidentially - in the 1980 World Series. The Royals were the better team. But Rose willed that Phillies team to their only WS crown.

Moment "A". Foul pop along the dugout. Phillies catcher (Boone?) and first baseman Rose converge of the play. The catcher gets there first, closes his mitt prematurely, and the ball continues earthward. Rose, who never once stopped playing, crouches down and snatches the ball a few inches off the ground. The most amazing 2-3 play I have ever seen.

Moment "B". The Phillies are trailing in the Series and are in a tight game with Dennis Leonard (one of the top hard-throwing righthanders of the day). Leonard comes down and in, way in, with a fastball. Rose does not move an inch. The pitch smacks into his shin. Rose stares out at Leonard and sneers ... as if saying "Is that all you got?".

I hated the guy. He did not have a lot of talent. And, despite all of his great statistics, his greatest attributes were unmeasureable. What player today is capable of producing either "A" or "B"? Much less both. Statistics can be great. But sometimes greatness can only be seen or felt - not measured.

Bob