USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
2009 Boston Red Sox
- Thread starter FiveHole12
- Start date
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: 2009 Boston Red Sox
By the way, just because you went to school for finance doesn't mean you know anything at all about baseball statistics. Which, it is more than clear that you do not.
You are making yourself sound so ignorant it's not even funny.The guy's not producing. Why is every other stat misleading except the one you want to focus on?How is batting average misleading? Either you can hit the ball or you can't...Basically what we have now is people saying batting average and RBI's don't matter.
By the way, just because you went to school for finance doesn't mean you know anything at all about baseball statistics. Which, it is more than clear that you do not.
Re: 2009 Boston Red Sox
Sparky, I hate to burst your bubble here, but an uncompleted undergradute education in math and an addiction to fantasy league baseball does not make you a statistical expert. I'll cut you a little slack here as not being in the working world you have no idea how little you actually know. What I can tell you, and what you ought to realize, preferably before you join the real world, is that if you focus on one stat, that you 'like best' with no context or analysis of the larger picture you will get 1) laughed at, and 2) fired. This approach will get you into trouble if you're assessing a business or a player.
However, please go on amusing me with your "I've taken 3 years of study in undergrad so I'm suddenly StatsMaster" schtick.
Sparky, I hate to burst your bubble here, but an uncompleted undergradute education in math and an addiction to fantasy league baseball does not make you a statistical expert. I'll cut you a little slack here as not being in the working world you have no idea how little you actually know. What I can tell you, and what you ought to realize, preferably before you join the real world, is that if you focus on one stat, that you 'like best' with no context or analysis of the larger picture you will get 1) laughed at, and 2) fired. This approach will get you into trouble if you're assessing a business or a player.
However, please go on amusing me with your "I've taken 3 years of study in undergrad so I'm suddenly StatsMaster" schtick.
joegrav
New member
Re: 2009 Boston Red Sox
If we're gonna play the 'I'm smarter than you' card, do any of us really think we understand baseball stats better than the Red Sox organization? They seem to think pretty highly of Drew.
As a NASA Rocket Scientist and Harvard Ph.D., you should be able to understand that RBI is dependent upon the other people who are on base. When two guys with similar batting averages and OPS's have dramatically different RBI totals, that should be all you need to know.
Again, the reason why batting average can be misleading is that a few bloop hits, infield singles, or poor defensive alignments can be the difference between .255 (eww!) and .280 (not bad!), or .280 (not bad) and .300 (very good!!!). We have psychological associations with certain numbers in batting average that actually aren't all that dramatically different from one another. If Drew hit nine more singles with nobody on base instead of nine walks with nobody on base, suddenly he's a '.300 hitter' despite having the exact same productivity level. That's why AVG can be misleading.
OPS uses a much, much larger sample of data meaning that there isn't as much fluctuation, and that lucky hits aren't overvalued compared to walks or reaching on errors. Yeah, a lucky bloop hit or a wind-blown pop fly, or a fly ball that the fielder loses in the sun and turns into a hit might drive in a run, making it better in a certain situation than drawing a walk, but that doesn't properly measure the hitting skill of the guy who hit the ball.
RBI and strikeouts are two of the most overvalued statistics in baseball. Relying on them to make your argument pretty much flies in the face of progressive baseball thinking, which is based on actual statistical analysis (like the kind you do at NASA), not "I saw this guy do this once." You have to go beyond the surface to actually examine a hitter's worth. The Wins Above Replacement Player stat, which factors in power, average, baserunning, avoiding double plays, defensive range, arm, and fielding, puts JD Drew at #9 among all outfielders and #4 among RFs. Yeah, sure... the guy is a stiff.
The argument here isn't that JD Drew should be MVP or something, it's that you'd be hard pressed to find a better RF who you could realistically get to join the Red Sox right now. Name me a name. I'd like to see the Red Sox acquire a 30-40 home run guy as well, because there is a serious power gap in the middle of the lineup. But I don't think they'll be able to do it at RF. Drew is a great guy to have in the lineup, he's just not going to be the home run bopper. They need to get one of those guys at corner infield or at DH.
If we're gonna play the 'I'm smarter than you' card, do any of us really think we understand baseball stats better than the Red Sox organization? They seem to think pretty highly of Drew.
As a NASA Rocket Scientist and Harvard Ph.D., you should be able to understand that RBI is dependent upon the other people who are on base. When two guys with similar batting averages and OPS's have dramatically different RBI totals, that should be all you need to know.
Again, the reason why batting average can be misleading is that a few bloop hits, infield singles, or poor defensive alignments can be the difference between .255 (eww!) and .280 (not bad!), or .280 (not bad) and .300 (very good!!!). We have psychological associations with certain numbers in batting average that actually aren't all that dramatically different from one another. If Drew hit nine more singles with nobody on base instead of nine walks with nobody on base, suddenly he's a '.300 hitter' despite having the exact same productivity level. That's why AVG can be misleading.
OPS uses a much, much larger sample of data meaning that there isn't as much fluctuation, and that lucky hits aren't overvalued compared to walks or reaching on errors. Yeah, a lucky bloop hit or a wind-blown pop fly, or a fly ball that the fielder loses in the sun and turns into a hit might drive in a run, making it better in a certain situation than drawing a walk, but that doesn't properly measure the hitting skill of the guy who hit the ball.
RBI and strikeouts are two of the most overvalued statistics in baseball. Relying on them to make your argument pretty much flies in the face of progressive baseball thinking, which is based on actual statistical analysis (like the kind you do at NASA), not "I saw this guy do this once." You have to go beyond the surface to actually examine a hitter's worth. The Wins Above Replacement Player stat, which factors in power, average, baserunning, avoiding double plays, defensive range, arm, and fielding, puts JD Drew at #9 among all outfielders and #4 among RFs. Yeah, sure... the guy is a stiff.
The argument here isn't that JD Drew should be MVP or something, it's that you'd be hard pressed to find a better RF who you could realistically get to join the Red Sox right now. Name me a name. I'd like to see the Red Sox acquire a 30-40 home run guy as well, because there is a serious power gap in the middle of the lineup. But I don't think they'll be able to do it at RF. Drew is a great guy to have in the lineup, he's just not going to be the home run bopper. They need to get one of those guys at corner infield or at DH.
Last edited:
GreatLakerMohawk
Mushroom Cloud-Laying Mofo
Re: 2009 Boston Red Sox
I've figured out who Rover is.
He's the Million Dollar Man Ted DiBiase.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vm4TG56KGZ4&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vm4TG56KGZ4&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
I've figured out who Rover is.
He's the Million Dollar Man Ted DiBiase.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vm4TG56KGZ4&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vm4TG56KGZ4&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Re: 2009 Boston Red Sox
Sooo.....in hindsight the Sox would resign Drew to a 14M a year contact? Oooookayyyyyyy....
See, sometimes, ball clubs make mistakes. It happens when its a real game, and not a computer simulation.
Beyond that, the rest of your post is right out of Chapter 1 of the Statsnerd Bible. In your quest to be the smartest kid in the class, you belittle relevant stats such as, oh I don't know, a guy's ability to hit safely over the course of 500 at bats, for more obscure stats like you're some sort of deep thinker. You're not. You come off as an idiot, especially when you fall in love with the trendy stat du jour amongst the nerd population (last year it was WHIP, now its OPS, next year GRIT+ most likely
).
Lets take you apart one by one:
1) "When two guys with similar batting averages and OPS's have dramatically different RBI totals, that should be all you need to know." Umm....no actually. One guy could be hitting in the clutch. Or, one guy could be taking walks all day while the other guy is driving in runs even if he's making outs. Next....
2) "Again, the reason why batting average can be misleading is that a few bloop hits, infield singles, or poor defensive alignments". Stupid statement on many levels. Bloop hits, infield singles, etc affect everybody, not just one player or two getting lucky. Also with something called "scouting" teams ought to have defensive alignments down at this point. What kills you is that the guy has been mediocre over 3 years. Either he's really unlucky, or he's just not that good.
3) Last time I checked, and please correct me if you disagree, but the point of baseball is not to have a higher OPS than the other team, its to score more runs. Therefore, saying RBI's are an overrated stat smacks of the opinion of a never-played-the-game geek. For a leadoff hitter, who's job is to score runs, sure - his RBI's vs the cleanup hitter isn't a fair assessment. For a guy in a spot in the lineup where RBI production is needed, 60+ a year isn't cutting it.
So to sum up, you like your ilk have decided to measure your self worth in some sort of contrarian, scoring runs and winning games isn't as important as average fly outs to ground outs ratio or something similar. This always plays out the same. Instead of using these metrics to add more insight to more telling stats, you Urkel's all try to cling to Wins Above Replacement and other nonsense as the Holy Grail. What you fail to realize, constantly, is that these measurements are purely up to the whims of the person creating the model, hence its a self fulfilling prophecy. There's a great article on this very subject in SI this week, making the case that Tim Raines is as worth of the HOF as Roberto Clemente. This is put together by your presumed God, Bill James. While I have no opinion on this, having never seen Clemente play (I'd have no problem on Raines being admitted having seen him play) things such as run equivalents due to differences in ball park size and replacement scoring per era can't actually be quantified. Its up to the opinion of the person creating the model, and you can cherry pick certain stats to make it show whatever you please.
So, keep talking up JD Drew. The deeper you go, the more ridiculous your arguments get.
GLM - I'm more Macho Man Randy Savage - circa the 1980's...
Sooo.....in hindsight the Sox would resign Drew to a 14M a year contact? Oooookayyyyyyy....
See, sometimes, ball clubs make mistakes. It happens when its a real game, and not a computer simulation.
Beyond that, the rest of your post is right out of Chapter 1 of the Statsnerd Bible. In your quest to be the smartest kid in the class, you belittle relevant stats such as, oh I don't know, a guy's ability to hit safely over the course of 500 at bats, for more obscure stats like you're some sort of deep thinker. You're not. You come off as an idiot, especially when you fall in love with the trendy stat du jour amongst the nerd population (last year it was WHIP, now its OPS, next year GRIT+ most likely
). Lets take you apart one by one:
1) "When two guys with similar batting averages and OPS's have dramatically different RBI totals, that should be all you need to know." Umm....no actually. One guy could be hitting in the clutch. Or, one guy could be taking walks all day while the other guy is driving in runs even if he's making outs. Next....
2) "Again, the reason why batting average can be misleading is that a few bloop hits, infield singles, or poor defensive alignments". Stupid statement on many levels. Bloop hits, infield singles, etc affect everybody, not just one player or two getting lucky. Also with something called "scouting" teams ought to have defensive alignments down at this point.
What kills you is that the guy has been mediocre over 3 years. Either he's really unlucky, or he's just not that good. 3) Last time I checked, and please correct me if you disagree, but the point of baseball is not to have a higher OPS than the other team, its to score more runs. Therefore, saying RBI's are an overrated stat smacks of the opinion of a never-played-the-game geek. For a leadoff hitter, who's job is to score runs, sure - his RBI's vs the cleanup hitter isn't a fair assessment. For a guy in a spot in the lineup where RBI production is needed, 60+ a year isn't cutting it.
So to sum up, you like your ilk have decided to measure your self worth in some sort of contrarian, scoring runs and winning games isn't as important as average fly outs to ground outs ratio or something similar. This always plays out the same. Instead of using these metrics to add more insight to more telling stats, you Urkel's all try to cling to Wins Above Replacement and other nonsense as the Holy Grail. What you fail to realize, constantly, is that these measurements are purely up to the whims of the person creating the model, hence its a self fulfilling prophecy. There's a great article on this very subject in SI this week, making the case that Tim Raines is as worth of the HOF as Roberto Clemente. This is put together by your presumed God, Bill James. While I have no opinion on this, having never seen Clemente play (I'd have no problem on Raines being admitted having seen him play) things such as run equivalents due to differences in ball park size and replacement scoring per era can't actually be quantified. Its up to the opinion of the person creating the model, and you can cherry pick certain stats to make it show whatever you please.
So, keep talking up JD Drew. The deeper you go, the more ridiculous your arguments get.
GLM - I'm more Macho Man Randy Savage - circa the 1980's...
Last edited:
joegrav
New member
Re: 2009 Boston Red Sox
Oy vey. You keep missing the point.
Totally irrelevant question. If I were GM of the Sox, I wouldn't sign Drew for $14M either. That's beside the point of whether or not Drew is good, and whether or not you could find someone better.
Uh huh. Batting average is a simple, obvious statistic - whether or not a guy hits safely. Where as on base percentage is this crazy, mindblowing, abstract measurement - how often a guy gets on base and doesn't make an out. Uhh, it's just as simple and just as relevant genius.
As basic measurement statistics, On Base % and slugging % have a lot more in common with batting average and runs scored than they do with analysis stats like VORP, WARP and WPA. When you put on base percentage in with the latter group, it shows that you don't understand either one of them. Of course, just because you don't understand the analysis stats doesn't mean they aren't valuable; if you did a quick five second google and figured out what went into them, you'd realize that the most commonly used ones rely upon traditional measurement statistics.
You say that Tony and I are looking at one favored statistic and blocking everything else, which is just false. You look at '.280, 25 home runs' and don't look beyond that - that's the closed minded thinking.
First of all .280, 25 home runs isn't a garbage major league player, it's a pretty good one. Secondly, there is a big, big, big, big, big difference in value between a guy who hits .280 and never walks, never makes the pitcher throw more pitches and work harder, never gets extra-base hits, and plays poor defense, and someone who hits .280 and does all of those things well. That, combined with the fact that a lot of the 'TV graphic' metrics rely more than I'd like on luck and the players around you in the lineup, means you have to dig a little deeper to learn anything meaningful about a player.
Find me Red Sox 6/7 hitters who drive in over 100 runs hitting behind big time RBI guys. I'm guessing there aren't many of them throughout history. Now, Drew should be batting 2nd just about every game; he'd be a lot more valuable there, imo. But that's another discussion for another day.
Oy vey. You keep missing the point.
Sooo.....in hindsight the Sox would resign Drew to a 14M a year contact? Oooookayyyyyyy....
Totally irrelevant question. If I were GM of the Sox, I wouldn't sign Drew for $14M either. That's beside the point of whether or not Drew is good, and whether or not you could find someone better.
Uh huh. Batting average is a simple, obvious statistic - whether or not a guy hits safely. Where as on base percentage is this crazy, mindblowing, abstract measurement - how often a guy gets on base and doesn't make an out. Uhh, it's just as simple and just as relevant genius.
Yeah, OPS, what a weird, trendy, flavor of the month stat. Not like it's been around for a long time now, not like some of the best GMs in baseball highly value it (including the one that won 2 World Series titles in Boston). WHIP, nobody cares about that stat any more, it was totally '2007'. And hey, I'm going to make up a fake stat name and make fun of it! Hahahah!when you fall in love with the trendy stat du jour amongst the nerd population (last year it was WHIP, now its OPS, next year GRIT+ most likely
As basic measurement statistics, On Base % and slugging % have a lot more in common with batting average and runs scored than they do with analysis stats like VORP, WARP and WPA. When you put on base percentage in with the latter group, it shows that you don't understand either one of them. Of course, just because you don't understand the analysis stats doesn't mean they aren't valuable; if you did a quick five second google and figured out what went into them, you'd realize that the most commonly used ones rely upon traditional measurement statistics.
You only get three outs in an inning. If you make the third out of an inning (1 out of 3 chance), it doesn't matter if it's a deep fly that could advance the runner. And I would argue that depending on the situation, it's sometimes more beneficial to get on base and create the possibility of a bigger inning than bring home a run with an out. I would back this up, but that would require the use of statistics showing how many runs each on base/outs situation leads to on average, and that would be super nerdy since it would rely on 'data' and 'things that actually happened over the course of 100 years in baseball,' rather than your snappy judgments from having played for your middle school JV team.
Right, it affects everybody, but sometimes people just happen to have it affect them more than others - and just five or six hits makes a huge difference in perception of batting average. Just because you say something folksy like 'luck balances out for everyone in the end,' doesn't make it true. That's why we have stats to analyze bigger samples of data, and why we even have some stats that can help us understand who's happening to get the breaks and who's not (I would explain Batting Average on Balls in Play, but that's obviously a crazy abstract nerdy difficult concept because it's not one of the three stats they put on the screen on ESPN).
Ahh, right. That's why every team always uses the same defensive alignment against every player. There's no such thing as evolution in shifts or defensive alignments. Every team approaches Ortiz, Ellsbury, and Drew the exact same way on defense. Riiight. As someone who obviously is super-observant from watching every game, and thus has no need to look at statistics to analyze players' ability, you'd think you'd realize that defensive alignments are ALWAYS a work in progress.Also with something called "scouting" teams ought to have defensive alignments down at this point.
Agreed. And if you put the worst player on the Washington Nationals on the Yankees, he would suddenly have a lot more runs and a lot more RBIs, even if he hit for the same average (although he would probably have a higher average, since he'd have better protection and the rest of the hitters would wear out the opposing pitcher a lot more than the Nationals would). Suddenly, Nationals Guy is a better player just because he's on the Yankees?
False. Fail. No. Nobody's saying 'I'd rather my team have a higher OPS than score more runs than the other team.' What rational people are saying is 'if we're looking at who to add to the team in the offseason, what's the right way to measure what someone might bring to the team?' And comparing Fly ball/ground ball ratio to simple statistics like ON BASE PERCENTAGE is just completely ignorant. Period.
You say that Tony and I are looking at one favored statistic and blocking everything else, which is just false. You look at '.280, 25 home runs' and don't look beyond that - that's the closed minded thinking.
First of all .280, 25 home runs isn't a garbage major league player, it's a pretty good one. Secondly, there is a big, big, big, big, big difference in value between a guy who hits .280 and never walks, never makes the pitcher throw more pitches and work harder, never gets extra-base hits, and plays poor defense, and someone who hits .280 and does all of those things well. That, combined with the fact that a lot of the 'TV graphic' metrics rely more than I'd like on luck and the players around you in the lineup, means you have to dig a little deeper to learn anything meaningful about a player.
Find me Red Sox 6/7 hitters who drive in over 100 runs hitting behind big time RBI guys. I'm guessing there aren't many of them throughout history. Now, Drew should be batting 2nd just about every game; he'd be a lot more valuable there, imo. But that's another discussion for another day.
Last edited:
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: 2009 Boston Red Sox
joe, if you are going to do it, do it right.
You know what the difference Is between hitting .250 and hitting .300? I got it figured out. Twenty-five hits a year in 500 at bats is 50 points. Okay? There's 6 months in a season, that's about 25 weeks--you get one extra flare a week--just one--a gork, a ground ball with eyes, a dying quail--just one more dying quail a week and you're in Yankee Stadium!
joe, if you are going to do it, do it right.
You know what the difference Is between hitting .250 and hitting .300? I got it figured out. Twenty-five hits a year in 500 at bats is 50 points. Okay? There's 6 months in a season, that's about 25 weeks--you get one extra flare a week--just one--a gork, a ground ball with eyes, a dying quail--just one more dying quail a week and you're in Yankee Stadium!
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: 2009 Boston Red Sox
1984 sox.
boggs 55 rsbi
evans 104
rice 122
armas 123
easler 91
buckner 67
geddy 72
barrett 45
gutierrez 29
(billy bucks missed the first two months here as he was in chi and came in the eckersley trade)
that was a lot of runs driven in by the 5/6/7 slots considering 2/3/4 didn't leave much on the table for them to clean up
1984 sox.
boggs 55 rsbi
evans 104
rice 122
armas 123
easler 91
buckner 67
geddy 72
barrett 45
gutierrez 29
(billy bucks missed the first two months here as he was in chi and came in the eckersley trade)
that was a lot of runs driven in by the 5/6/7 slots considering 2/3/4 didn't leave much on the table for them to clean up
Re: 2009 Boston Red Sox
I love that movie.
joe, if you are going to do it, do it right.
You know what the difference Is between hitting .250 and hitting .300? I got it figured out. Twenty-five hits a year in 500 at bats is 50 points. Okay? There's 6 months in a season, that's about 25 weeks--you get one extra flare a week--just one--a gork, a ground ball with eyes, a dying quail--just one more dying quail a week and you're in Yankee Stadium!
I love that movie.
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: 2009 Boston Red Sox
Rover really does sound like every single person who doesn't understand the stats.
And the whole "you're an undergrad so you don't know anything!" thing is stupid. You know zero about sports statistics. Clearly.
I've been interested in this stuff since middle school. I read stuff about it. I look at the formulas. I know what they're talking about. I know more about it than you. Sorry if it p!sses you off to hear a young whippersnapper with the gall to say that to you.
I don't know why you keep pretending that we think walking is the only good thing he does. The guy gets a ton of extra base hits. Do you know how slugging % works? It's not exactly a crazy newfangled stat. He was 3rd among AL outfielders last year in it.
Rover really does sound like every single person who doesn't understand the stats.
And the whole "you're an undergrad so you don't know anything!" thing is stupid. You know zero about sports statistics. Clearly.
I've been interested in this stuff since middle school. I read stuff about it. I look at the formulas. I know what they're talking about. I know more about it than you. Sorry if it p!sses you off to hear a young whippersnapper with the gall to say that to you.
I don't know why you keep pretending that we think walking is the only good thing he does. The guy gets a ton of extra base hits. Do you know how slugging % works? It's not exactly a crazy newfangled stat. He was 3rd among AL outfielders last year in it.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: 2009 Boston Red Sox
what bothers me about drew is he's such a sally. always hurting here or there. (though you gotta give him credit for being hated so in philly )
what bothers me about drew is he's such a sally. always hurting here or there. (though you gotta give him credit for being hated so in philly
)Re: 2009 Boston Red Sox
Yikes Tonystatsnerd, you're acting like I made fun of the Lord of the Rings trilogy or something.
I'm thrilled that you've been practicing statsnerding since middle school, or for the last 3 years. The problem is you don't have the ability to step back from the stats and decipher what they actually mean. Memorizing 1000 different stat combinations doesn't make you an expert in analyzing a baseball player. It makes you a nerd with too much time on your hands.
So, back to Drew. If you think he's the 3rd best offensive outfielder in the AL you're a laughingstock. You're not smarter than everybody else for making that statement, you're cherry picking and then misreading one stat that favors the guy over other ones that don't. He doesn't have a "ton" of extra base hits. He's middle of the road. Did you ever stop and think that maybe people can look at stats, the same stats you are, understand them, but either 1) not find them as important as yourself, or 2) look at them in the context of other measures and draw different conclusions (like in this case, that Drew is in fact not the 3rd best offensive outfielder in baseball, since he's barely the 3rd best offensive outfield option on his own team this year).
So once again, keep hanging your hat on JD Drew being this great baseball player. Really, I can't get enough of a good chuckle over this one. But one bit of advice, you need to stop doing this in the place of getting out of the dorm and making real friends.
Yikes Tonystatsnerd, you're acting like I made fun of the Lord of the Rings trilogy or something.
I'm thrilled that you've been practicing statsnerding since middle school, or for the last 3 years. The problem is you don't have the ability to step back from the stats and decipher what they actually mean. Memorizing 1000 different stat combinations doesn't make you an expert in analyzing a baseball player. It makes you a nerd with too much time on your hands.
So, back to Drew. If you think he's the 3rd best offensive outfielder in the AL you're a laughingstock. You're not smarter than everybody else for making that statement, you're cherry picking and then misreading one stat that favors the guy over other ones that don't. He doesn't have a "ton" of extra base hits. He's middle of the road. Did you ever stop and think that maybe people can look at stats, the same stats you are, understand them, but either 1) not find them as important as yourself, or 2) look at them in the context of other measures and draw different conclusions (like in this case, that Drew is in fact not the 3rd best offensive outfielder in baseball, since he's barely the 3rd best offensive outfield option on his own team this year).
So once again, keep hanging your hat on JD Drew being this great baseball player. Really, I can't get enough of a good chuckle over this one. But one bit of advice, you need to stop doing this in the place of getting out of the dorm and making real friends.
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: 2009 Boston Red Sox
You lose.
That whole post though... I get it, you're just trying to get a rise out of me. We just disagree, and I don't think any argument from either of us is going to persuade either of us to change camps.
9th among AL outfielders.
You lose.
That whole post though... I get it, you're just trying to get a rise out of me. We just disagree, and I don't think any argument from either of us is going to persuade either of us to change camps.
joegrav
New member
Re: 2009 Boston Red Sox
My favorite thing about all of this is that Rover implied that he was clearly correct because he took high level math courses, then went on to work with financial statistics - therefore, he knows more than Tony does.
Then he goes on to dismiss Bill James, who literally makes his living by analyzing and creating baseball statistics. He is on the payroll of the Boston Red Sox for the specific purpose of statistical analysis. His methods have been heavily influential among multiple major league general managers.
He knows nothing, but Rover knows everything, because he studied math in grad school.
Yup.
My favorite thing about all of this is that Rover implied that he was clearly correct because he took high level math courses, then went on to work with financial statistics - therefore, he knows more than Tony does.
Then he goes on to dismiss Bill James, who literally makes his living by analyzing and creating baseball statistics. He is on the payroll of the Boston Red Sox for the specific purpose of statistical analysis. His methods have been heavily influential among multiple major league general managers.
He knows nothing, but Rover knows everything, because he studied math in grad school.
Yup.
thecomicbookguy
Nobody.
Re: 2009 Boston Red Sox
Disregarding all the sniping at each other, Rover's posts do represent the common Sox fan, IMO, in that most don't like JD Drew all that much, thinking he's easily-injured, and simply overrated by the Red Sox. That's just the average Sox fan's impression of him, and no stat package is really ever going to change it at this point.
My favorite thing about this is that you and Tony have spent so much time arguing with someone who is obviously never going to share any part of your viewpoint.
Disregarding all the sniping at each other, Rover's posts do represent the common Sox fan, IMO, in that most don't like JD Drew all that much, thinking he's easily-injured, and simply overrated by the Red Sox. That's just the average Sox fan's impression of him, and no stat package is really ever going to change it at this point.
Re: 2009 Boston Red Sox
It would be easy to list 9 better outfielders in baseball than JD Drew, but there's no need. I'll ask this simple question of Joe and Tony.
From a batting perspective, with OPS as the guide apparently, who would you rather have on your team. Drew or Ichiro?
It would be easy to list 9 better outfielders in baseball than JD Drew, but there's no need. I'll ask this simple question of Joe and Tony.
From a batting perspective, with OPS as the guide apparently, who would you rather have on your team. Drew or Ichiro?
Re: 2009 Boston Red Sox
Safe to say it is a bad idea to base your conclusions entirely on sports radio or the stats books.
The majority that have watched Drew play for the last several years would feel, regardless what the stats say, he has been underwhelming.
Some guys get hits when you need them, others go 3-4 on nights when you are winning 10-1.
I don't dislike Drew but he reminds me of Pat Burrell and Bobby Abreu when they were in Philly...the stats were good but if you followed the team you knew they had more solo homeruns in out of reach games than they did clutch hits in close games. You knew they rarely instigated a rally and when it didn't matter they 'came up big'. If they came up with 2 outs in the ninth you started to get ready for bed.
Emotion doesn't win games but you knew Kapler was doing everything he could on every play/pitch...the emotionless guys who watch the third strike and walk back to the dugout like they were just checking the mailbox to see if any junkmail arrived create very little goodwill.
Fans like to see guys who care, get dirty, take the inside fastball off the hip, take out the ss on a potential dp, stretch a single into a double, sign autographs, argue a bad call, punch ARod etc. nobody does it every play or game but if you never do it then it is noticed...if all they can offer are their stats then I can understand if fans don't value their stats as much as the next guy's.
You could build a team of good stats guys that would come in last place in a good division...I submit Drew or Burrell could start in that outfield, who else is in the lineup?
Safe to say it is a bad idea to base your conclusions entirely on sports radio or the stats books.
The majority that have watched Drew play for the last several years would feel, regardless what the stats say, he has been underwhelming.
Some guys get hits when you need them, others go 3-4 on nights when you are winning 10-1.
I don't dislike Drew but he reminds me of Pat Burrell and Bobby Abreu when they were in Philly...the stats were good but if you followed the team you knew they had more solo homeruns in out of reach games than they did clutch hits in close games. You knew they rarely instigated a rally and when it didn't matter they 'came up big'. If they came up with 2 outs in the ninth you started to get ready for bed.
Emotion doesn't win games but you knew Kapler was doing everything he could on every play/pitch...the emotionless guys who watch the third strike and walk back to the dugout like they were just checking the mailbox to see if any junkmail arrived create very little goodwill.
Fans like to see guys who care, get dirty, take the inside fastball off the hip, take out the ss on a potential dp, stretch a single into a double, sign autographs, argue a bad call, punch ARod etc. nobody does it every play or game but if you never do it then it is noticed...if all they can offer are their stats then I can understand if fans don't value their stats as much as the next guy's.
You could build a team of good stats guys that would come in last place in a good division...I submit Drew or Burrell could start in that outfield, who else is in the lineup?