Bobby Abreu... has won a Gold Glove Award

[MasonDixon]

How does something like this happen? I never bought into most of the talk about him being an absolutely awful RF, but a Gold Glover? Is this a sick joke?

[donzblock]

How does something like this happen? I never bought into most of the talk about him being an absolutely awful RF, but a Gold Glover? Is this a sick joke?
If it is not a sick joke, this award proves how meaningless Gold Glove awards are. Abreu did not have a good year in the field this year, and he has been consistently awful since the Phillies installed him in right. However, this award might make him more attractive in a trade.

Is there a rightfielder who fields his position worse than Abreu? Is there anybody less willing to injure himself in pursuit of a fly ball?

[Ed Wade is God]

Is this a sick joke?

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. It's a shame he gets this award because he really dogs it in the outfield. It's not worth it to Abreu to hustle in the outfield and risk hurting himself ,because if he does, the stats that he loves so much might suffer.

[johncap]

It's all about rep. He enhanced his overall rep by hitting all those homers at the AS game. What a joke. Did you hear Gillick gushing about him and Burrell today? Yikes! Gonna be another long year next year!

[LP fan]

It's all about rep. He enhanced his overall rep by hitting all those homers at the AS game. What a joke. Did you hear Gillick gushing about him and Burrell today? Yikes! Gonna be another long year next year!

Sometimes you can overlook a good thing when its right in front of you. Abreu is a quality major league outfielder, and has been for years. Burrell is getting close. Rollins is on the verge of being a great player...Utley and Howard look like they have potential.... there is a good nucleus here...

as for Abreu, who is better in the NL? the only other option may be Guillen...
Walker is too old and hobbled up, and a lot of the other RFs were journeymen or young guys...

[johncap]

Sometimes you can overlook a good thing when its right in front of you. Abreu is a quality major league outfielder, and has been for years. Burrell is getting close. Rollins is on the verge of being a great player...Utley and Howard look like they have potential.... there is a good nucleus here...

as for Abreu, who is better in the NL? the only other option may be Guillen...
Walker is too old and hobbled up, and a lot of the other RFs were journeymen or young guys...
And sometimes the old adage, "there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics" rears it's ugly head. The guy is a stone cold dog! Roof roof! He's petrified of the fence and quits on more balls than Tony Gonzalez (the baseball player, not the tight end), he makes more mental mistakes than Jeff Stone and he's the LEAST clutch ~.300 hitter in the majors.

Other than that he's great. Let's hope to God Stand Pat doesn't stand pat. Neither of the corner outfielders hits in the clutch and neither is downright dependable when it really counts.

Hell, third inning, 5-1 game, both are superstars. Loosey goosey, dynamite. Eigth inning, 3-3 game, they both melt like spring snow on a chimney top.

Abreu is the FIRST move I make. Especially now that he's got another crown to add to his trade value. Because mark my words, in two years he'll be a run of the mill .265 hitter who's timid in the outfield and will have ZERO trade value. Which is what makes him our kind of guy.

To answer your question, I'd take Jeff Francouer, Shawn Green, absolutely Brian Giles, today, over him in the NL, and in the AL there aren't too many I WOULDN'T take over him!

This year get the MLB package and watch some Phillies games. You'll be enlightened.

[LP fan]

And sometimes the old adage, "there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics" rears it's ugly head. The guy is a stone cold dog! Roof roof! He's petrified of the fence and quits on more balls than Tony Gonzalez (the baseball player, not the tight end), he makes more mental mistakes than Jeff Stone and he's the LEAST clutch ~.300 hitter in the majors.

Other than that he's great. Let's hope to God Stand Pat doesn't stand pat. Neither of the corner outfielders hits in the clutch and neither is downright dependable when it really counts.

Hell, third inning, 5-1 game, both are superstars. Loosey goosey, dynamite. Eigth inning, 3-3 game, they both melt like spring snow on a chimney top.

Abreu is the FIRST move I make. Especially now that he's got another crown to add to his trade value. Because mark my words, in two years he'll be a run of the mill .265 hitter who's timid in the outfield and will have ZERO trade value. Which is what makes him our kind of guy.

To answer your question, I'd take Jeff Francouer, Shawn Green, absolutely Brian Giles, today, over him in the NL, and in the AL there aren't too many I WOULDN'T take over him!

This year get the MLB package and watch some Phillies games. You'll be enlightened.

another point of view:

Abreu's steadiness finally got him noticed. Runners have long ago stopped challenging his cannon arm and he rarely leaves his feet, but the Venezuelan seldom misses a game -- or a play that has to be made.

2005 GOLD GLOVE WINNERS

P Kenny Rogers 4 Greg Maddux 15
C Jason Varitek 1 Mike Matheny 4
1B Mark Teixeira 1 Derrek Lee 2
2B Orlando Hudson 1 Luis Castillo 3
SS Derek Jeter 2 Omar Vizquel 10
3B Eric Chavez 5 Mike Lowell 1
OF Torii Hunter 5 Andruw Jones 8
OF Vernon Wells 2 Jim Edmonds 8
OF Ichiro Suzuki 5 Bobby Abreu 1

all those managers and coaches can't be that wrong.....and they all have pretty good seats to watch the games from....Francoeur? he's only played a half year..aren't you jumping the gun a bit???

[johncap]

all those managers and coaches can't be that wrong.....and they all have pretty good seats to watch the games from....Francoeur? he's only played a half year..aren't you jumping the gun a bit???
Really? The quality of the decisions the likes of Charlie Manuel made on the field last year is supposed instill confidence that his ilk recognizes the value of a defensive player that anyone here who knows baseball clearly sees as timid and avoids any kind of difficult play? I referenced Tony Gonzalez earlier for a very good reason. In his day, the early 60s, he set a record for consecutive errorless chances in the OF, which kind of puts an exclamation point on my earlier reference to stats being a kind of lie. The pure and simple fact about Tony G was he never went after anything that wasn't hit right at him. He never dove, never left his feet and only played the safe chances. It's an afront to a guy like Larry Bowa who gave his all on every ball and led the league year after year in every defensive category including attempts assists, fewest errors but won exactly how many Gold Gloves? And why was that? Because Dave Concepcion was a better hitter. No other reason. Abreu's stock rose because of his show at the AS game, no other reason. He was third on the Phillies in OF assists behind a part time player in Jason Michaels, and spare me that they were afraid of his arm. He's no Johnny Callison! He has a strong but relatively inaccurate arm, and he's not feared because half the time he's taking the wrong route or lolly gagging after the ball. Pat Burrell has had more assists than him every year they've played together but two and no one will mistake him for Roberto Clemente anytime soon either.

[donzblock]

another point of view:

Abreu's steadiness finally got him noticed. Runners have long ago stopped challenging his cannon arm and he rarely leaves his feet, but the Venezuelan seldom misses a game -- or a play that has to be made.

2005 GOLD GLOVE WINNERS

P Kenny Rogers 4 Greg Maddux 15
C Jason Varitek 1 Mike Matheny 4
1B Mark Teixeira 1 Derrek Lee 2
2B Orlando Hudson 1 Luis Castillo 3
SS Derek Jeter 2 Omar Vizquel 10
3B Eric Chavez 5 Mike Lowell 1
OF Torii Hunter 5 Andruw Jones 8
OF Vernon Wells 2 Jim Edmonds 8
OF Ichiro Suzuki 5 Bobby Abreu 1

all those managers and coaches can't be that wrong.....and they all have pretty good seats to watch the games from....Francoeur? he's only played a half year..aren't you jumping the gun a bit???
If you continue to make comments like the above, you will continue to have zero credibility. Abreu is a lousy rightfielder; if you worship him, you are worshipping a golden calf, not a gold glove. Abreu seldom misses a game because he tip toes around the outfield like the timid little man he is. Where the hell is your common sense? If it were true that Abreu was the best rightfielder in the NL (and he is not even close to that), then the gold glove award should have been vacated for 2005.

[ed hardiman]

I'm all for Bobby winning the Gold Glove because it means Endy has a pretty good chance of getting voted MVP.

[KCGHOST]

As a group of Gold Glovers the NL team can really hit.

[ed hardiman]

As a group of Gold Glovers the NL team can really hit.
Then give them a Gold Bat.

[Go Bravos!!!#1]

I too haven't noticed Abreu to have a great glove.

[LP fan]

To answer your question, I'd take Jeff Francouer, Shawn Green, absolutely Brian Giles, today, over him in the NL, and in the AL there aren't too many I WOULDN'T take over him!

This year get the MLB package and watch some Phillies games. You'll be enlightened.

The facts don't support you.... a good idea to compare Abreu with Giles: not counting the first two years of their careers, when they didn't get many at bats, Giles has 9 years experience with 3 clubs, Abreu 8 years patrolling the outfield with the phillies.

At bats per year: Abreu 565; Giles 503 abreu is either more durable or puts the ball into play more;
runs per year: Abreu 104; Giles 92 - you're giving up some runs scored
RBIs per year: Abreu 94; Giles 92 - pretty much a wash
HR per year: Abreu 23; Giles 27 - pretty much a wash
offensively, abreu is better with runs scored and stolen bases

Fielding:

Total chances per year: Abreu 309; Giles 294
Abreu gets to more balls per year - so that timid stuff is just a load of cr#p
Put outs per year: Abreu 293; Giles 280 - encore
Assists per year: Abreu 10.6; Giles 8.4
Errors per year: Abreu 5.5; Giles 5.78
FPCT: Abreu 0.982; Giles 0.981

Abreu is a better right fielder - no contest

maybe you need to get the mlb package and watch some more padres games

[donzblock]

Here's an assignment for you, LP fan. Analyze your stats, and you tell us what they do not cover and where they fall short.

[LP fan]

Here's an assignment for you, LP fan. Analyze your stats, and you tell us what they do not cover and where they fall short.

well, obviously lots is not covered: doubles, triples, walks, on base percentage, to name a few offensively

however, upon further analysis, Abreu still comes out ahead of Giles:
Total bases: Abreu 293/y; Giles 271/y
Walks: Abreu 107; Giles 98
Stolen bases: Abreu: 29; Giles 10
OBP: Abreu .4ll; Giles .413
TPA: Abreu 681; Giles 612

On the whole you can expect Abreu to steal more bases, bat more times, walk more times, get on base as much, yada yada yada....
but, if you were talking about clutch hitting, etc... wouldnt that pretty much wash out over 8 years of stats?
or are you getting at more intangibles,like, is he a good clubhouse guy, does he tell jokes in the shower?, is he nice to the reporters? does he care about his team mates? how can anyone who is not a player know about that?

Defensively, as this is about a gold glove, how else can you compare the 2 players? maybe if Bobby played a few more innings than he'd get a few more chances......over 8/9 years of stats, I don't really know how much of a factor that is; I guess where I fell short, is like Giles, most of his throws fall short of home plate.....:D

anyways, dblock, I know we don't agree on much, but, hey I think we're both phillies fans.....heres to the World Series in '06..or ' 07..Gillick is a winner...good track record

[Ravenlord]

Is there a rightfielder who fields his position worse than Abreu?quite possibly Matt Lawton and definetly Matt Stairs. unlike the two of them though, Abreu does have an arm for RF...even if it is average by RF standards.

Is there anybody less willing to injure himself in pursuit of a fly ball?not a right fielder, but i'd have to say steroid bonds.

[donzblock]

anyways, dblock, I know we don't agree on much, but, hey I think we're both phillies fans.....heres to the World Series in '06..or ' 07..Gillick is a winner...good track record
I'll settle for '06. Gillick, however, appears to have accepted this job to ease his way into retirement. If he is serious about being a Phillies' GM rather than a management lap dog, then he should start by trading that fabulous gold glover, Abreu. He can use your stats to make other teams want him.

Now you can atone for your sins, LP fan, by staying away from CB Park this year.

[johncap]

well, obviously lots is not covered: doubles, triples, walks, on base percentage, to name a few offensively

however, upon further analysis, Abreu still comes out ahead of Giles:
Total bases: Abreu 293/y; Giles 271/y
Walks: Abreu 107; Giles 98
Stolen bases: Abreu: 29; Giles 10
OBP: Abreu .4ll; Giles .413
TPA: Abreu 681; Giles 612

My God, do I wish I had seen this dreck earlier. Let me ask you, do you ever watch actual baseball ,or do you play the games usingthe back of their player cards like we did when we were kids? Stratomatic maybe? See, the point is that when a guy goes 4-4 with 4 RBI and they win 11-2 and then the next day strikes out three times leaving 5 guys on base and they lose 2-1, he ends up with great stats but they're very soft stats. I don't know if the kind of detail I'd like to see exists but I GUARANTEE you that both Abreu and Pat Splat have VERY different numbers late in close games than they do in blow outs. ONE time this year did Abreu deliver after the sixth inning in a close game, that I recall and I'm pretty familiar with about every game they played. Those numbers mean squat and I'm so tired of stats being used to blindly justify today's players.

Eddie Murray can you hear me?

Abreu is a dog, with fantasy baseball numbers. He's far from the guy I want up needing any kid of hit late in a close game. And THAT is how I rate the value of an offensive player. Brian Giles is a clutch guy who will run into the wall to make a play for you, just like his brother. Don't embarrass yourself anymore trying to show Abreu superior to Giles. I'd trade Abreu and another player to get Brian Giles here.

[Mr. Met]

Giles is a free agent, no?

Anyway, I've long considered Abreau the best trading chip the Phillies have. This Gold Glove hardware can only pump up the value.

[LP fan]

My God, do I wish I had seen this dreck earlier. Let me ask you, do you ever watch actual baseball ,or do you play the games usingthe back of their player cards like we did when we were kids? Stratomatic maybe? See, the point is that when a guy goes 4-4 with 4 RBI and they win 11-2 and then the next day strikes out three times leaving 5 guys on base and they lose 2-1, he ends up with great stats but they're very soft stats. I don't know if the kind of detail I'd like to see exists but I GUARANTEE you that both Abreu and Pat Splat have VERY different numbers late in close games than they do in blow outs. ONE time this year did Abreu deliver after the sixth inning in a close game, that I recall and I'm pretty familiar with about every game they played. Those numbers mean squat and I'm so tired of stats being used to blindly justify today's players.

Eddie Murray can you hear me?

Abreu is a dog, with fantasy baseball numbers. He's far from the guy I want up needing any kid of hit late in a close game. And THAT is how I rate the value of an offensive player. Brian Giles is a clutch guy who will run into the wall to make a play for you, just like his brother. Don't embarrass yourself anymore trying to show Abreu superior to Giles. I'd trade Abreu and another player to get Brian Giles here.

You are the one who should be embarrassed: you made a qualitative, opinionated statement without any evidence to support it.....I at least provide some evidence to support my point of view....

[LP fan]

I'd trade Abreu and another player to get Brian Giles here.

thank God you're not the new GM then....
Abreu leads a team that won 88 games....Giles stumbles around with a barely .500 club, and has done nothing to improve that team in 3 yrs...no thanks, I'd pass on that trade.

[Ravenlord]

Abreu is only one of the best hitters in baseball. the thing to do would be to keep him, and acquire Giles. Burrell, Giles, Abreu, Howard and Utley are going generate more than enough offense to compensate for a below average defensive CFer.

[donzblock]

thank God you're not the new GM then....
Abreu leads a team that won 88 games....Giles stumbles around with a barely .500 club, and has done nothing to improve that team in 3 yrs...no thanks, I'd pass on that trade.
Then "God" is responsible for the latest Phillie screw-up. Abreu does not lead the Phillies; he is not a leader. He is exactly what Johncap says he is: a soft stats guy who chokes in the clutch. Giles is far better than Abreu; he is even better at drawing bases on balls. If you would pass on that trade, then you would fail on that trade.

[Androctus]

You are the one who should be embarrassed: you made a qualitative, opinionated statement without any evidence to support it.....I at least provide some evidence to support my point of view.... The FBI says they can prove it through physics in a nuclear laboratory. Of course they can prove it. Theoretical physics can also prove that an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy! But use your eyes, your common sense..

[Ravenlord]

my common sense says that if i'm Abreu, i'm getting out of Philly and going somewhere that appreciates my 7.43 RC/27.

Abreu, 2005:
RISP: 944 OPS
RISP 2/outs: 825 OPS
Bases Loaded:1157 OPS
Close and Late: 993 OPS
Overall: 879 OPS

Abreu, Career:
RISP: 1003 OPS
RISP 2/outs: 976 OPS
Bases Loaded: 988 OPS
Overall: 923 OPS

[ed hardiman]

When last I checked baseball is played on a field not on a calculator...what's his PGWH rating?

[Androctus]

my common sense says that if i'm Abreu, i'm getting out of Philly and going somewhere that appreciates my 7.43 RC/27.
What is that? Some kind of sailboat?

.

[Ravenlord]

Runs Created per game. it's the average amount of runs a lineup of 9 of that player would score per game.

[Ravenlord]

When last I checked baseball is played on a field not on a calculator...what's his PGWH rating?
he said to the college baseball player. where did you get PGWH from?

[Androctus]

Runs Created per game. it's the average amount of runs a lineup of 9 of that player would score per game.That must be the most useless stat that I have ever heard of....

[Ravenlord]

That must be the most useless stat that I have ever heard of....
really? i'm sure you've heard of batting average.

[Ravenlord]

NL top 10 in RC/27

DLee-10.02
Pujols-9.45
Helton-8.97
Bay-8.38
Delgado-8.07
Giles-7.68
Griffey-7.56
Cabrera-7.56
Dunn-7.53
Berkman-7.53
Abreu-7.43
Ensberg-7.41

[ed hardiman]

he said to the college baseball player. where did you get PGWH from?
"Played Game With Heart"

[Ravenlord]

"Played Game With Heart"
irrelavent when you put up his numbers.

[LP fan]

irrelavent when you put up his numbers.

here, here....

does anyone do 162 of anything with heart every time? does a surgeon perform 162 surgeries with heart all of the time? does a professor teach 162 classes with heart? a lawyer argue 162 cases, a band 162 concerts, etc, etc, etc.... what do they expect of this guy....hopefully his talents are appreciated by his team mates...

ps I am surprised to see Giles ahead on that list of RC/27

[Ravenlord]

i was surprised to see Helton that high on the list as well as Giles. i guess that 400+ OBP has more value than i had previously thought.

[ed hardiman]

irrelavent when you put up his numbers.
Says who?
What did Bill James ever hit?
If baseball is so numerically rigid and predictable why is it so hard to win the World Series?
Show me one measly quote where anyone in baseball said "We traded for him based on his RC/27."
How many players are in the Hall of Fame for "would of, could of, or should of?"
My advice is watch Abreu in a dozen games next year and you'll be far less enamored with his "would of" rating.
here, here....does anyone do 162 of anything with heart every time? does a surgeon perform 162 surgeries with heart all of the time? does a professor teach 162 classes with heart? a lawyer argue 162 cases, a band 162 concerts, etc, etc, etc.... what do they expect of this guy....hopefully his talents are appreciated by his team mates...ps I am surprised to see Giles ahead on that list of RC/27
LP did you watch the 93 Phillies?
They weren't RC/27 guys, the best available ballplayers or even all that likable as human beans but they didn't waste a single game that season.
So there's the easiest 162 of something played with heart I can think of and I could rattle off plenty more teams who got to the Series on heart rather than talent.
You need guys that give a catcrap about every single pitch if they're just dialing it in like Abreu all you get is meaningless stats.

[Androctus]

really? i'm sure you've heard of batting average.Well duh. BA is at least a more accurate appraisal of a player's hitting accomplishments and/or ability, but even that doesn't tell the whole story. Unless we are cloning Abreu's, in the real world Abreu doesn't hit with Abreu on base and Abreu on deck. And lets consider how many flyballs a whole outfield of Abreu's would let fall in front of them. Sorry, this meaningless trifle is just not an accurate guage of anything.

[Ravenlord]

So there's the easiest 162 of something played with heart I can think of and I could rattle off plenty more teams who got to the Series on heart rather than talent.
.
no you can't. if you win, you magically have heart and good chemistry. it's the nature of winning. loosing always generates negative reaction. that's one of the basic principles of sports psychology.

[Ravenlord]

Well duh. BA is at least a more accurate appraisal of a player's hitting accomplishments and/or ability, but even that doesn't tell the whole story. Unless we are cloning Abreu's, in the real world Abreu doesn't hit with Abreu on base and Abreu on deck. And lets consider how many flyballs a whole outfield of Abreu's would let fall in front of them. Sorry, this meaningless trifle is just not an accurate guage of anything.
you obviously don't know what Runs Created is, not that i had expected you'd go and research the point on your own.

RC/27 is derived from converting Runs Created into a game average. the Runs Created formula is ((H+BB+HBP-CS-GDP)*(TB+.26(BB-IBB+HBP)+.52(SB+SF+SH)) divided by total plate appearances.

RC is has about a 3% margin of error in its accuracy. that margin of error comes from men reaching on errors and team speed, and few other immeasurable athletic skills and luck. but a 2% margin is not large enough to make the metric invalid.

RC works because it measures everything the offense (or pitching allowed if you reverse it) did to score runs (ESPN uses the newest version of RC, which the exact formula isn't released, but it includes situational hitting and productive outs and is a 2% margin of error).

to get the RC/27 value, you first need his RC value, then you divide RC by the quanity of AB-H+CS+GDP+SF+SH or RC / (AB-H+CS+GDP+SF+SH). take the answer from that and multiply by 27.

as far as a lineup of 9 Abreu's goes, it will score a lot of runs. RUNS CREATED DOES NOT MEASURE DEFENSE, RUN PREVENTION IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT, AND FAR FAR MORE COMPLICATED ANALYSIS.

runs created is a predictable value. player performance is a predictable value. is projection 100%? of course not. that's why it's projection. but for established players, you can project quite accurately what they will do next season (except for R and RBI, which are team dependent stats). as with most things, there are some excpetions.

If baseball is so numerically rigid and predictable why is it so hard to win the World Series?
because the post season is played in short series. ever hear about the law averages? you have to have a large enough grouping for the averages to work, and a 5-game, 7-game, and 7-game series isn't enough games for it to even out.

How many players are in the Hall of Fame for "would of, could of, or should of?" not quite sure what you mean, but with the exception of guys in the Hall for their gloves, very very few guys have below league average RC/27.

You need guys that give a catcrap about every single pitch if they're just dialing it in like Abreu all you get is meaningless stats.this setence doesn't even make sense...no result is meaningless, and it just so happens, that Abreu is in an elite category in getting non-bad results.

and one last thing:
can we all agree that a double is better than single?
that a triple is better than a double?
that a homerun is better than a triple?
then why are we going to use a metric that makes all of them the same AND ignores other ways of getting onbase?

[Androctus]

you obviously don't know what Runs Created is, not that i had expected you'd go and research the point on your own.I didnt have to, you told me what it was, and by your definition it was:Runs Created per game. it's the average amount of runs a lineup of 9 of that player would score per game.

So like I said in other words, this stat (by your definition above) has absolutely no value in accurately evaluating a player except for perhaps in the land of fantasy baseball, where I cannot deny Abreu is definately a keeper. It has zero real world application. Its like saying a football team with 11 Peyton Mannings will score 257.9 points a game

but for established players, you can project quite accurately what they will do next season By this the "established" Yankees win the series every year
(except for R and RBI, which are team dependent stats). Then it is in fact useless analysis.

The pit of statistics, and what they realy mean. With men on and the game on the line, does it matter what Utley's RC/27 was? No. We just know he had a tendency to deliver, the same way folks remember Babe Ruth. What we remember this year about Abreu is that with down by one run with 2 gone in the ninth, we turned off the TV, those who actually followed the team, anyway. Did you get many Philly games over there in Ohio, or are you defending him because he delivered big for your fantasy team again this year?

[Ed Wade is God]

Did you get many Philly games over there in Ohio, or are you defending him because he delivered big for your fantasy team again this year?

Hit the nail right on the head there Don. Too bad there isn't a stat for determining how many fly balls dropped in front of or behind him that were playable. Or a stat that shows how well he performs in innings 7-9 in tie, one run or two run games with runners on base. Also these statisticians should take into account his large amount of strikeouts.

But to appease the stat fans here's some good ones...
The Phillies were involved in a tight wild care race for all of September and the few days in October, down to the final game of the year. Check out Abreu's stats when the team needed him the most

September OPS= .791
Final week of the season OPS= .494

I hope he's traded for a reliable starter during the offseason. Next year wherever he goes the fans there will realize he's not some superstar, but a good player who doesn't come through in the most important situations, while the rest of country gushes over his beautiful stats.

[johncap]

I didnt have to, you told me what it was, and by your definition it was:

So like I said in other words, this stat (by your definition above) has absolutely no value in accurately evaluating a player except for perhaps in the land of fantasy baseball, where I cannot deny Abreu is definately a keeper. It has zero real world application. Its like saying a football team with 11 Peyton Mannings will score 257.9 points a game

By this the "established" Yankees win the series every year
Then it is in fact useless analysis.

The pit of statistics, and what they realy mean. With men on and the game on the line, does it matter what Utley's RC/27 was? No. We just know he had a tendency to deliver, the same way folks remember Babe Ruth. What we remember this year about Abreu is that with down by one run with 2 gone in the ninth, we turned off the TV, those who actually followed the team, anyway. Did you get many Philly games over there in Ohio, or are you defending him because he delivered big for your fantasy team again this year?
You hit all the nails succinctly on the head! All these modern'day stat experts overlook one minor little thing, subjectivity. Ther reference about a team of Peyton manning's scoring 257 points a game is also right on the money.

[johncap]

irrelavent when you put up his numbers.
You've got a LOT to learn about sports dude! Baseball in particular. A LOT!

[ed hardiman]

no you can't. if you win, you magically have heart and good chemistry. it's the nature of winning. loosing always generates negative reaction. that's one of the basic principles of sports psychology.
The 93 Pillies didn't win the World Series so I don't get your point.
You haven't written a single sentence predicated on fact that buttresses your ill conceived notion that Abreu is anything other than king of your statistical molehill.
Abstract baseball minutia stacked like pancakes doesn't get around the real consistent opinion voiced by those who watch him daily.
What's your LNOPGWWAWP?
(Lifetime Number Of Phillies Games Watched While Abreu Was Playing)

[charlesblalack@yahoo.com]

Well duh. BA is at least a more accurate appraisal of a player's hitting accomplishments and/or ability
Batting average doesn't tell if a hitter had 130 singles, 40 doubles, 5, triples, and 25 home runs in a season or 200 singles. Walks and HBP gets you on base and helps your team win games. Batting average completly ingores that. If you take the time to learn what Runs created is you'll see that it is a much better stat to evaluate hitters by than batting avg.

[johncap]

Batting average doesn't tell if a hitter had 130 singles, 40 doubles, 5, triples, and 25 home runs in a season or 200 singles. Walks and HBP gets you on base and helps your team win games. Batting average completly ingores that. If you take the time to learn what Runs created is you'll see that it is a much better stat to evaluate hitters by than batting avg.
It's ALL BS! Stats lie, period, end of story. The subjectiveness that is not being considered is what is skewing this entire debate. Great players are great because of the intangible and tangible couipled with longevity and statistical prowess. Ralph Kiner put up some numbers but was never a great player in ANY realm. Other than being a NY broadcaster he'd have noever gotten int the HOF. I'd take a healthy gamer like Jim Eisenreich any day of the week over Abreu.

Know why? Cause I've watched Abreu play.

[Ravenlord]

you're all a waste of time and effort. you're the same people who booed Mike Schmidt. how about you actually try to disprove what i've said, or at the very least do some basic research.

and i don't play fantasy baseball.

oh yeah, and have fun losing to me when i ascend into a front office.

The Backlash (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=35961)

[ed hardiman]

...you're all a waste of time and effort. you're the same people who booed Mike Schmidt...
Mike Schmidt was the greatest 3rd sacker of all time and using his name to flog us in a lame attempt to justify your sabermetric slobbering is beneath the quiet dignity of this hallowed forum of baseball scribblery.
...can we all agree that a double is better than single?
that a triple is better than a double? that a homerun is better than a triple? (and in a subsequent post)...how about you actually try to disprove what i've said...
Ever hear of Ty Cobb (72% of hits were singles) or Pete Rose (75% of his hits were singles)?
According to your theory Bobby Abreu's the better player because only 60% of his hits have been singles.
I can predict with 100% certainty (+/- 0.00% error rate) in baseball everybody picks Cobb and Rose over Abreu.
Finally the Phillies won a World Series when Rose hit .282 not his best statistical year but he played like his head was on fire every single game.
Is that proof enough?
Before you respond with numerical inanities chew on this:

"Using math to describe the infinite intangibles of great baseball is like using cement to describe Mozart."
e.m. hardiman Nov. 2005
...oh yeah, and have fun losing to me when i ascend into a front office.
Best of luck on your aspiration to eventually become a GM of a fantasy baseball team...

[baseballPAP]

It's ALL BS! Stats lie, period, end of story. The subjectiveness that is not being considered is what is skewing this entire debate. Great players are great because of the intangible and tangible couipled with longevity and statistical prowess. Ralph Kiner put up some numbers but was never a great player in ANY realm. Other than being a NY broadcaster he'd have noever gotten int the HOF. I'd take a healthy gamer like Jim Eisenreich any day of the week over Abreu.

Know why? Cause I've watched Abreu play.

When faced with the choice of numbers which tell me Abreu is a great hitter, and some guy sitting behind me at the stadium who started yelling "Its GONE!" when the shortstop is back-pedalling for the ball, I'll gladly take the stats, each and every time. The best thing about loud-mouth fans of a particular team is that they seem to feel the need to make everyone think like they do. Stat-heads just want people to believe in what can be PROVEN.

Is Abreu a good OFer? Nope. Does he deserve a GG? Not Even. Would I like to have him on my team? You bet your backside.

[baseballPAP]

my common sense says that if i'm Abreu, i'm getting out of Philly and going somewhere that appreciates my 7.43 RC/27.

Abreu, 2005:
RISP: 944 OPS
RISP 2/outs: 825 OPS
Bases Loaded:1157 OPS
Close and Late: 993 OPS
Overall: 879 OPS

Abreu, Career:
RISP: 1003 OPS
RISP 2/outs: 976 OPS
Bases Loaded: 988 OPS
Overall: 923 OPS

For the non statitic minded, OPS is On Base % Plus Slugging %. It is widely recognized as THE best way to determine if a batter is worth his salt. The league average is .740 for all NL batters in 2005. Now take another look...for the unnamed poster who seems to tell me that Abreu is terrible in the clutch, that he only got a big hit once all year:
ABREU IS BETTER THAN THE LEAGUE IN EVERY SITUATION! If the guy is so bad in the clutch, how is it that he was 200 points better than average with runners in scoring position? How about 400 points better with the bases loaded?

If you want to argue 'til you're blue in the face, go ahead. But don't try to tell me that Ravenlord isn't giving any real evidence when that is exactly what he IS doing. You are giving opinions, and poorly thought out ones at that.

[donzblock]

For the non statitic minded, OPS is On Base % Plus Slugging %. It is widely recognized as THE best way to determine if a batter is worth his salt. The league average is .740 for all NL batters in 2005. Now take another look...for the unnamed poster who seems to tell me that Abreu is terrible in the clutch, that he only got a big hit once all year:
ABREU IS BETTER THAN THE LEAGUE IN EVERY SITUATION! If the guy is so bad in the clutch, how is it that he was 200 points better than average with runners in scoring position? How about 400 points better with the bases loaded?

If you want to argue 'til you're blue in the face, go ahead. But don't try to tell me that Ravenlord isn't giving any real evidence when that is exactly what he IS doing. You are giving opinions, and poorly thought out ones at that.
Do Ravenlord's stats indicate what the score was when Abreu connected? In other words, how clutch were Abreu's hits? If Abreu gets hits with runners in scoring position when the Phillies are leading 10-1 or losing 10-1, are those hits clutch hits?

[Androctus]

Maybe Ed, Don or Steve will agree with me, it amusing to have people pop up at random in the Phillies forum, who are fans of the Mets, or Reds, or whoever, who probably have not seen a Phillies game all season, except perhaps the time they swept Cincinatti or so, and try to convice us we are wrong about things we have witnessed all season, every day, every game. And I'm a relative newcomer. I'm sure they've been putting up with it longer than I have. Maybe I'll swing by the Red's forum and explain why their whole team is crap. That being said But don't try to tell me that Ravenlord isn't giving any real evidence when that is exactly what he IS doing. You are giving opinions, and poorly thought out ones at that. Anyone who's seen Law and Order knows that eyewitness accounts are not regarded as opinion, and your notions that you can encompass a player's value based solely on his statistics is rubbish. Statistics is what probably got Abreu a gold glove, that alone is evidence enough against their value. Fashizzel. If the guy is so bad in the clutch, how is it that he was 200 points better than average with runners in scoring position? What is "clutch"? If clutch is driving in runs when the game is already won, or when your down by five, then Abreu is king. I see Raven put up some terrific numbers for "close and late". What is that, by definition? You produce numbers for seventh inning on, tie game or down by 2 or less and I'll give some creedence to what you say. Then you can call whatever team you representing here and petition to have them make a trade for him. You can watch him all season, as we have for the past 6 years or more, and you can witness firsthand how the stats just don't reveal everything.

[johncap]

and i don't play fantasy baseball.
[/url]
You should start, cause that's all all of this nonsense is good for.

[johncap]

For the non statitic minded, OPS is On Base % Plus Slugging %. It is widely recognized as THE best way to determine if a batter is worth his salt. The league average is .740 for all NL batters in 2005. Now take another look...for the unnamed poster who seems to tell me that Abreu is terrible in the clutch, that he only got a big hit once all year:
ABREU IS BETTER THAN THE LEAGUE IN EVERY SITUATION! If the guy is so bad in the clutch, how is it that he was 200 points better than average with runners in scoring position? How about 400 points better with the bases loaded?

If you want to argue 'til you're blue in the face, go ahead. But don't try to tell me that Ravenlord isn't giving any real evidence when that is exactly what he IS doing. You are giving opinions, and poorly thought out ones at that.
Did you say something? Something that makes sense? Or were you just dooling down your chin?

Apparently another guy who's never actually watched Abreu play. You know they don't give credits for studying that backs of baseball cards....

[SteelSD]

I see Raven put up some terrific numbers for "close and late". What is that, by definition? You produce numbers for seventh inning on, tie game or down by 2 or less and I'll give some creedence to what you say.

"Close And Late" - Results in the 7th inning or later with the batting team either ahead by one run, tied or with the potential tying run at least on deck.

Here's Abreu from 2002-2004, BTW:

None On: .264 BA/.382 OBP/.450 SLG- .832 OPS
Runners On: .332 BA/.449 OBP/.548 SLG- .997 OPS
With RISP: .329 BA/.450 OBP/.566 SLG- 1.016 OPS
w/RISP- 2 Out: .328 BA/.487 OBP/.563 SLG- 1.050 OPS
Close and Late: .288 BA/.431 OBP/.464 SLG- .895 OPS

If Bobby Abreu is such a choker, why does his performance (BA, OBP, and SLG) escalate across the board situationally? Even in "Close and Late" situations, Abreu has a history of producing a BA nearly 25 points higher than when he walks to the plate with no one on base in front of him and he was even better than that in 2005. His OBP is nearly 50 points higher. Over the past four seasons when the game is on the line, Abreu finds a way to get himself on base around 43% of the time. Does that not help the Phillies? And all of that is happening while he's facing, in large part, the best bullpen pitchers the opposition has to offer.

If Abreu is so bad situationally, why does he hit better with Runners On? Why does he perform even BETTER than that with Runners in Scoring Position? Why does his performance CONTINUE to escalate with RISP and Two Out?

If "clutch" were real, there's not a possible argument any rational person could make that would not include Bobby Abreu as a player who has that intangible quality as a hitter.

We see donzblock infer that Abreu's RISP performance is isolated to "blowouts". Where is the evidence to support that contention? Did Abreu's "Close and Late" 400+ Plate Appearances of escalated performance over the past four seasons somehow happen in "blowouts" as well? Of course not- just as his RISP performance wasn't limited to scenarios after games got out of hand.

You guys get to watch one of best hitters in baseball at work game after game after game. You could slice your pinky off and still count on one hand the players worth more Runs to their team in 2005 than Abreu. Yet there's nary an ounce of appreciation for exactly how good Abreu is with a bat in his hand.

That's just plain tragic.

[Androctus]

And another jumps into the fray, ass first.We see donzblock infer that Abreu's RISP performance is isolated to "blowouts". Where is the evidence to support that contention? Did Abreu's "Close and Late" 400+ Plate Appearances of escalated performance over the past four seasons somehow happen in "blowouts" as well?"The FBI says they can prove it through physics in a nuclear laboratory. Of course they can prove it. Theoretical physics can also prove that an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy! But use your eyes, your common sense. " You can use whatever stats you can to prove your point, as Ed Wade is (not) God pointed out: But to appease the stat fans here's some good ones...
The Phillies were involved in a tight wild care race for all of September and the few days in October, down to the final game of the year. Check out Abreu's stats when the team needed him the most

September OPS= .791
Final week of the season OPS= .494All the numbers you propose are no substitute for actually sitting and watching the games or following the team. Am I saying he's not a good hitter? NO. Yes, he's above the league norm in almost every area. He scores, drives in runs, yadda yadda but when its crunch time and the games on the line, I'm just hoping someone else is on deck, because in spite of what your stats say, when it really matters, he's really not there...Stats even out that a guy may go 10 for 10 in april in close games and 0 for 20 the rest of the way down a pennant race. But on paper he's hitting .333 and looks like a clutch God. Remember also he hit almost half his home runs in a single month. Don't beleive? Fine. Trust your stats, get him on your team and come talk to us in a year.

[donzblock]

I am willing to experience the tragedy of losing this clutch hitter. In the late innings of close games, Abreu alters his swing and strives mightily to draw walks. We have been watching Abreu for his entire career, and he is miserable in the clutch, magnificent when the game is out of reach. If your stats suggest that Abreu is at his best with runners on base in the late innings of close games, then your stats are wrong. He is a lousy clutch hitter, an abominable fielder, and I hope he ends up playing for a team that one of of you statistically minded Abreu fans roots for. The tragedy will be yours.

[ed hardiman]

I find all these sabermetric rattling know nothings a refreshing change of pace from reality.
Their vaunted stats can raise the dead up to the best hitter in the NL...
Next they'll sanctify Endy Chavez and we'll all be the wiser for their ability to spin whole cloth from the entrails of his dismal career...
I suppose Ravenlord will choose not to illuminate further his contention that the doubles, triples, and home runs Abreu hits in a greater percentage makes him intrinsically better than Cobb or Rose.
Perhaps the latest wave of metrically challenged youth would care to justify such nonsense...
Of course they're entirely missing the point this thread is about Abreu's fielding not being Gold Glove caliber but I'm sure the stats they pore over hold an equal suprise for us and why should they actually watch somebody play when they have these piles of numbers to stack...

[SteelSD]

Am I saying he's not a good hitter? NO. Yes, he's above the league norm in almost every area. He scores, drives in runs, yadda yadda but when its crunch time and the games on the line, I'm just hoping someone else is on deck, because in spite of what your stats say, when it really matters, he's really not there.

So regardless of what the historical record of what really happened says, you'll think what you want.

How truly common of you.

Oh, and remember- you were the guy who asked for the numbers you're now choosing to ignore.

Stats even out that a guy may go 10 for 10 in april in close games and 0 for 20 the rest of the way down a pennant race. But on paper he's hitting .333 and looks like a clutch God. Remember also he hit almost half his home runs in a single month. Don't beleive? Fine. Trust your stats, get him on your team and come talk to us in a year.

Baseball is a game of streaks. Great players have them. Good players have them. Bad players have them. The year before, Abreu posted .326 BA/.483 OBP/.500 SLG numbers in September and finished the season on a tear.

I might just hang around a bit because it's obvious you really don't know a whole lot about how this whole "baseball" thing really works.

[SteelSD]

I am willing to experience the tragedy of losing this clutch hitter. In the late innings of close games, Abreu alters his swing and strives mightily to draw walks.

And not making Outs is bad why?

We have been watching Abreu for his entire career...

All that tells me is that you've spent a lot of time watching a game you don't understand. Kudos to you.

...and he is miserable in the clutch, magnificent when the game is out of reach.

Prove it. That's right. Prove it. If your contention is true, the hisorical event record (some folks call them "statistics") will demonstrate it.

If your stats suggest that Abreu is at his best with runners on base in the late innings of close games, then your stats are wrong.

LOL! Yeah...the historical event record is wrong because your brain misinterprets what it sees. That's a good one.

He is a lousy clutch hitter, an abominable fielder, and I hope he ends up playting for a team that one of of you statistically minded Abreu fans roots for. The tragedy will be yours.

Any team would be lucky to have Bobby Abreu. The fact that you can't figure that out truly speaks to your ignorance level.

[SteelSD]

Perhaps the latest wave of metrically challenged youth would care to justify such nonsense...

Or perhaps we'd rather sit back and watch you build strawmen. It's pointless for you to do so, but somewhat amusing to watch you create opposing arguments out of thin air that have nothing to do with Bobby Abreu.

Endy Chavez? Good lord.

[donzblock]

And not making Outs is bad why?
Abreu does make out in clutch situations. Furthermore, by drawing a walk, he makes it possible for somebody else to make the crucial out. He does not drive in a run when he walks unless the bases are loaded, but if the bases are loaded in a close game, Bobby will not walk.



All that tells me is that you've spent a lot of time watching a game you don't understand. Kudos to you.
No, I've never understood the game. That is why I am so grateful that a genius like you has condescended not only to explain it to me but to stick around and continue to explain it to me even after you have explained it to me.



Prove it. That's right. Prove it. If your contention is true, the hisorical event record (some folks call them "statistics") will demonstrate it.
If I understand what you are saying, proof to you constitutes numbers or statistics. What is the stat that appears when Abreu loafs after a fly ball and fails to catch it? What number registers when Bobby sees an outfield wall and slows down so that he will not hit it? Do you have the figures that tell us in feet per second how much speed Bobby loses each time Bobby slows down when the fear in his veins causes alarm bells to go off in his brain? And do you have the figures that measure how much Bobby fails to elongate when the parabola of a fly ball requires him to do so? How far beyond his nose can Bobby reach, and precisely how fast does he run when he finds himself in a circumstance that requires him to stretch?

Apparently, you have the numbers that prove Bobby is a superb outfielder. Give us those numbers, Statistician Magician. Prove it with numbers. Prove it, big shot. Show us how keenly intelligent you are as you teach us all about the great game of baseball.



LOL! Yeah...the historical event record is wrong because your brain misinterprets what it sees. That's a good one.
Your LOL has already been canceled out by my SOL (Snore Out Loud).



Any team would be lucky to have Bobby Abreu. The fact that you can't figure that out truly speaks to your ignorance level.
Yes, it does, but with you doing the educating, I am confident that my ignorance level will soon rise a few inches to the oblivion level. With your help, my goal is to reach by the end of next summer the barely conscious level. After that, I might even be able to emerge from the abyss and reach up and touch Charlie Manuel's big toe.

Clearly, there is now cause for optimism since you have acknowledged how important it is for you to stick around and infuse a little brilliance into this forum. I think I speak for everybody in expressing to you my humble gratitude.

[Androctus]

So regardless of what the historical record of what really happened says, you'll think what you want.

How truly common of you.

Oh, and remember- you were the guy who asked for the numbers you're now choosing to ignore. I think what I want based on what I see and I make my conclusions based oon what my eyes tell me, and I'm not ignoring your precious numbers, what I'm trying to explain and you cant grasp is that they don't tell the whole story, and those of us who follow the Phillies like myself who have either seen or heard almost every game this year, are obviously in touch with what is not shown across from the funny papers because we've seen it, not on one occasion, but again and again and again, and are not deceived by glittery statistics. The Fact the Mr. Abreu has a gold glove now is direct evidence of this, because while on paper he looks like a viable outfielder, those of us who actually seen him in the field know for certain he is not in the same category as say, Andruw Jones or Jim Edmonds. You sir,and Mr Ravenlord, have not even indicated yet if you have even actually witnessed Bobby Abreu play one inning of baseball.

I might just hang around a bit Please do. This is the longest forum debate I've ever seen where someone didn't take a shot at someone else's mother yet.

because it's obvious you really don't know a whole lot about how this whole "baseball" thing really works.Oh I think I do, and on some higher level that apparently you havn't come to grips with yet. I understand baseball here in Philly is played, won and lost on a field of grass, and not in the offices of the Elias Sports Bureau or some website.

[SteelSD]

Abreu does make out in clutch situations. By drawing a walk, he makes it possible for somebody else to make the crucial out. He does not drive in a run when he walks unless the bases are loaded, but if the bases are loaded in a close game, Bobby will not walk.

Then that will be tracked in actual game records. Your charge is to go find those game records and give me some demonstrable evidence that what you say is true.

If not, you're done because all the relevant factual information thusfar leads us in a direction opposite that of your position.

No, I've never understood the game. That is why I am so grateful that a genius like you has condescended not only to explain it to me but to stick around and continue to explain it to me even after you have explained it to me.

Actually, the ultimate in condescencion was your truly funny "If the actual game records don't say what I think they should say then they're wrong!" exclamation (paraphrased of course).

Could you get any more childish than that? That's like a kindergarten student vehemently arguing with their teacher that 1+1 equals 3 just because they think so.

If I understand what you are saying, proof to you constitutes numbers or statistics.

All offensive performance is tracked- even in individual game log records that can be easily found at espn.com. The game doesn't just exist in your brain after it's over.

Apparently, you have the numbers that prove Bobby is a superb outfielder. Give us those numbers, Statistician Magician. Prove it with numbers. Prove it, big shot. Show us how keenly intelligent you are as you teach us all about the great game of baseball.

That's strange. I've never mentioned Abreu's defense. If you were as adept at processing non-statistical information as you claim to be, I can't see how that little fact slipped your mind.

If your brain plays tricks on you like that with something as simple as words on a screen, I'm not sure why we'd ever believe you're able to know what's happening during a game as complex as baseball while you're watching it.

Your LOL has already been canceled out by my SOL (Snore Out Loud).

Well, golly. A variation on the age old "I know you are but what am I?"

I swear that someone needs to write a book called "Internet Smack for Dummies" just to help out a guy like you.

Yes, it does, but with you doing the educating, I am confident that my ignorance level will soon rise a few inches to the oblivion level.

Oh, you need not look forward to that as you're already at the PINNACLE of both "ignorant" and "oblivious".

In fact, you should plant a flag there, build a little hut, and start a garden because it doesn't appear that you'll be coming down from there anytime soon.

[SteelSD]

I think what I want based on what I see and I make my conclusions based oon what my eyes tell me, and I'm not ignoring your precious numbers...

They're not "my" numbers. They're accurate historical game records. Those numbers flow from the game because they're what actually happened.

...what I'm trying to explain and you cant grasp is that they don't tell the whole story...

Of course they don't. But then, as neither of us have the ability to accurately perceive, store, and recall every play from 162 games during a season, that doesn't matter. Those numbers are history and they can validate our perceptions or blow them up if we know how to read the historical record.

If we could only have real knowledge about players we watched constantly, then none of us would be remotely qualified to talk about anything other than our own teams. And that's just stupid.

...and those of us who follow the Phillies like myself who have either seen or heard almost every game this year, are obviously in touch with what is not shown across from the funny papers because we've seen it, not on one occasion, but again and again and again, and are not deceived by glittery statistics.

On the flipside, you're not allowing yourself to be enlightened by those statistics either. Ignoring them is far worse than over-reliance on them.

The Fact the Mr. Abreu has a gold glove now is direct evidence of this, because while on paper he looks like a viable outfielder, those of us who actually seen him in the field know for certain he is not in the same category as say, Andruw Jones or Jim Edmonds. You sir,and Mr Ravenlord, have not even indicated yet if you have even actually witnessed Bobby Abreu play one inning of baseball.

Yes, I've seen Bobby Abreu play baseball. In fact, I tune into Phillies games every once in a while with the MLB ticket package on Dish.

And you might be surprised to note that I actually agree with you. Bobby Abreu did not deserve the Gold Glove (which is often given to the best hitter or a formerly excellent fielder based on reputation). In fact, only four Right Fielders in MLB produced a lower percentage of Outs on balls they could be reasonably expected to field. Over time, all fielders lose a step here and there as they age. It's happening to Abreu but folks haven't figured it out because of his reputation and prowess with the bat.

But I didn't need to watch 162 Phillies games to notice that.

Please do. This is the longest forum debate I've ever seen where someone didn't take a shot at someone else's mother yet.

Oh yeah? Well your mom...;)

Oh I think I do, and on some higher level that apparently you havn't come to grips with yet. I understand baseball here in Philly is played, won and lost on a field of grass, and not in the offices of the Elias Sports Bureau or some website.

Baseball doesn't start and end with a spreadsheet. But it's not accurately stored in our brains either. That's the truth.

[johncap]

"Close And Late" - Results in the 7th inning or later with the batting team either ahead by one run, tied or with the potential tying run at least on deck.

Here's Abreu from 2002-2004, BTW:

None On: .264 BA/.382 OBP/.450 SLG- .832 OPS
Runners On: .332 BA/.449 OBP/.548 SLG- .997 OPS
With RISP: .329 BA/.450 OBP/.566 SLG- 1.016 OPS
w/RISP- 2 Out: .328 BA/.487 OBP/.563 SLG- 1.050 OPS
Close and Late: .288 BA/.431 OBP/.464 SLG- .895 OPS

If Bobby Abreu is such a choker, why does his performance (BA, OBP, and SLG) escalate across the board situationally? Even in "Close and Late" situations, Abreu has a history of producing a BA nearly 25 points higher than when he walks to the plate with no one on base in front of him and he was even better than that in 2005. His OBP is nearly 50 points higher. Over the past four seasons when the game is on the line, Abreu finds a way to get himself on base around 43% of the time. Does that not help the Phillies? And all of that is happening while he's facing, in large part, the best bullpen pitchers the opposition has to offer.

If Abreu is so bad situationally, why does he hit better with Runners On? Why does he perform even BETTER than that with Runners in Scoring Position? Why does his performance CONTINUE to escalate with RISP and Two Out?

If "clutch" were real, there's not a possible argument any rational person could make that would not include Bobby Abreu as a player who has that intangible quality as a hitter.

We see donzblock infer that Abreu's RISP performance is isolated to "blowouts". Where is the evidence to support that contention? Did Abreu's "Close and Late" 400+ Plate Appearances of escalated performance over the past four seasons somehow happen in "blowouts" as well? Of course not- just as his RISP performance wasn't limited to scenarios after games got out of hand.

You guys get to watch one of best hitters in baseball at work game after game after game. You could slice your pinky off and still count on one hand the players worth more Runs to their team in 2005 than Abreu. Yet there's nary an ounce of appreciation for exactly how good Abreu is with a bat in his hand.

That's just plain tragic.
First of all, let's start at the END of your statment. This thread is about his defensive capabilities. However, it has diverted into the entirety of his package, thus the dicsussion of his lack of clutch hitting.

Now, to the rest of your data.

It's full of crap. I'd LOVE to see the source of it and take it apart based on CLOSE and BLOW OUT, because it's totally incomprehensible that those numbers are correct. Either that or I only watch the games where he dribbles the ball to second base in the 8th with runners at second and third and one out trailing by a run, which seems to me like virtually every game.

BTW, here are Brian Giles comparable stats:

None On: .230 BA/.323 OBP/.381 SLG- .544 OPS
Runners On: .381 BA/.637 OBP/.629 SLG- 1.020 OPS
With RISP: .368 BA/.520 OBP/.644 SLG- 1.236 OPS
w/RISP- 2 Out: .417 BA/.629 OBP/.747 SLG- 1.330 OPS
Close and Late: .544 BA/.699 OBP/.834 SLG- 1.534 OPS

They came from the same place yours came from! I believe.

[johncap]

Over time, all fielders lose a step here and there as they age. It's happening to Abreu but folks haven't figured it out because of his reputation and prowess with the bat.
This one paragraph demonstrates how you pidgeonhole aspects of a player that you think are analytically proven by these spewed stats.... Fact is that Abreu has NOT demostrated any perceived loss of speed or jump. He is in fact just a dog who lolly gags after balls, is petrified of the fence and never leaves his feet except to do a quarterback's slide on occasion.

His prowess with the bat was best exemplified in the exhibition that was the All-star Game HR Derby, which goes to show the power of marketing and suggestion. It's is absolutely amazing how much that did for this guy's credentials and why I wrote on this site the very next day that he should be traded immediately because his value would never be higher.

In the relative scheme of things this is obviously trivial, but it really demonstrates for me how much of American life has been reduced to image, perception and marketing and no longer does intelligent subjectiveness rule judgement. Reality is so skewed by these sermons on the mount about the virtues and validity of every lame-brain new age artifical stat.

[johncap]

I Please do. This is the longest forum debate I've ever seen where someone didn't take a shot at someone else's mother yet.
:crazy :crazy :crazy :crazy

Oh I think I do, and on some higher level that apparently you havn't come to grips with yet. I understand baseball here in Philly is played, won and lost on a field of grass, and not in the offices of the Elias Sports Bureau or some website.

Tou*****che

[Androctus]

Lets try a controlled test then. Will all members of the Academy, formerly known as The Academy, please answer the following question:

Bottom of the ninth, two outs, man on second, down by one, please indicate below which Philadelphia Philly (2005 roster) would you most like to see at bat?

[Reds Nd2]

...thus the dicsussion of his lack of clutch hitting.

And we are still waiting breathlessly for someone to demonstrably prove this ascertion is in fact true. Instead of repeating the same tired dogma, why dosen't someone do a little research and try proving their point once in awhile. The only problem with that is, and it's been clearly pointed out, the research already shows the assumption to be what it is, false. What I find to be truly laughable about all of this, you Philly fans want to get rid of one of the best hitters on your team, not to mention in the league, because of a perceived inability to perform in what amounts to 16% of his plate appearances over the last four seasons.

Now, to the rest of your data.

It's full of crap.

BTW, here are Brian Giles comparable stats:

None On: .230 BA/.323 OBP/.381 SLG- .544 OPS
Runners On: .381 BA/.637 OBP/.629 SLG- 1.020 OPS
With RISP: .368 BA/.520 OBP/.644 SLG- 1.236 OPS
w/RISP- 2 Out: .417 BA/.629 OBP/.747 SLG- 1.330 OPS
Close and Late: .544 BA/.699 OBP/.834 SLG- 1.534 OPS

They came from the same place yours came from! I believe.

The data did indeed come from the same place. It came from the games being played on the field. The data only becomes crap when it doesn't tell you what you want to hear or, as in this case, totatlly blows your misconceptions out of the water. The mere fact that you would call the data crap and then turn right around and use the same data as a comparable for Giles tells me that you are way in over your head in this discussion. Not to worry, you seem to have plenty of company.

[SteelSD]

Now, to the rest of your data.

It's full of crap.

Um...no. It's what actually happened in those situations from 2002-2004. RL posted the numbers from 2005.

I'd LOVE to see the source of it and take it apart based on CLOSE and BLOW OUT, because it's totally incomprehensible that those numbers are correct.

Just because you can't comprehend it, that doesn't mean it's untrue. And if you'd like to break down the data further, links to every PA of every game for the 2005 season is available on the Phillies page at espn.com.

Either that or I only watch the games where he dribbles the ball to second base in the 8th with runners at second and third and one out trailing by a run, which seems to me like virtually every game.

That's understandable. Because our brains are unable to perceive, store, and recall non-degraded information, our perceptions are often driven by what we think happened rather than what actually did.

That's where statistics (again, historical event records) can help validate our perceptions. It's just all too common that the lazy fan doesn't care and will throw out anything that doesn't support their too-often-inaccurate preconceived perception of what happened. Those fans don't actually care about reality. They just want to be right and often think that they have some kind of "higher level" of baseball knowledge as they "don't need" those nasty statistics. Problem is that they can't achieve that "higher level" until they understand how limited their brain is and actually start caring about validating opinions before accepting them as truth.

Folks might think that Abreu got to fewer balls in RF than he should have. We look at a record of events, and by golly- that's accurate. The historical record matches up with the perception. That's great, but...

The Abreu "un-clutch" position has been demonstrated to be inaccurate. Yet we still see resistance from folks because it's more important that they are able to continue to THINK Abreu's a choker than it is for them to know the truth.

That's just plain silly and it has nothing to do with actual baseball knowledge. Instead, it has everything to do with folks who'd rather sit back and think what they want to whether it be right or wrong. And that's fine. But those folks don't belong anywhere near a baseball discussion about what actually happened them.

BTW, here are Brian Giles comparable stats:

None On: .230 BA/.323 OBP/.381 SLG- .544 OPS
Runners On: .381 BA/.637 OBP/.629 SLG- 1.020 OPS
With RISP: .368 BA/.520 OBP/.644 SLG- 1.236 OPS
w/RISP- 2 Out: .417 BA/.629 OBP/.747 SLG- 1.330 OPS
Close and Late: .544 BA/.699 OBP/.834 SLG- 1.534 OPS

They came from the same place yours came from! I believe.

Uh, no. The performance numbers I posted for Bobby Abreu did not come from your ass. They came from here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?statsId=5698&type=batting&year=2005

[Reds Nd2]

Abreu does make out in clutch situations. Furthermore, by drawing a walk, he makes it possible for somebody else to make the crucial out. He does not drive in a run when he walks unless the bases are loaded, but if the bases are loaded in a close game, Bobby will not walk.

No one said that Abreu doesn't make outs when the game is close and late. But in 2005, only Chase Utley made fewer outs in those situations. Abreu lead his team in out avoidance the prior three seasons in the close and late situations that seems to be coveted the most here. Abreu drawing a walk is not a failure on his part. Avoiding outs is a good thing. In fact, as the #3 hitter in the lineup that's his job.

[ed hardiman]

Or perhaps we'd rather sit back and watch you build strawmen. It's pointless for you to do so, but somewhat amusing to watch you create opposing arguments out of thin air that have nothing to do with Bobby Abreu.Endy Chavez? Good lord.
Nice dancing around Cobb and Rose to get to Endy...What about Lance Parrish?
The perfect example of looks good on paper sucked for the Phillies.
Amusing?
I agree your stat-bot hysteria amply illustrates your all too amusing "Star Trek Factor" now that Kirk's too fat to worship you invented an arcane statistical abstract to replace the dialectic Klingon arguments that made your life worth living...
...I've seen Bobby Abreu play baseball. In fact, I tune into Phillies games every once in a while with the MLB ticket package on Dish.
That's some pedigree...I've seen open heart surgery on the Discovery channel a couple of times but I don't churlishly lecture people who draw different conclusions than I do.
...But those folks don't belong anywhere near a baseball discussion about what actually happened them.
I must have missed it. Did the dorks reach a quorem? If so when did they vote you arbiter of who can or cannot discuss baseball?
Baseball doesn't start and end with a spreadsheet.
This is an example of the law of averages proving even a blind squirrel can find an acorn...
I might just hang around a bit because it's obvious you really don't know a whole lot about how this whole "baseball" thing really works.
I know one thing you proved beyond a doubt we can whip your eyes but we can't make you see...such startling insight from one so shallowly acquainted with Bobby Abreu's last 900 games except for the few you caught on Dish TV.
...truly speaks to your ignorance level....you're already at the PINNACLE of both "ignorant" and "oblivious".
Calling Don Block ignorant?
That's low class and entirely uncalled for.
You owe him an apology and maybe you should seriously consider going back to wading in the kiddie pool clearly you aren't fit to swim with adults.
Until such time as you do I'll consider you the nonpareil of "A paucity of knowledge can be dangerous."

[ed hardiman]

Lets try a controlled test then. Will all members of the Academy, formerly known as The Academy, please answer the following question:

Bottom of the ninth, two outs, man on second, down by one, please indicate below which Philadelphia Philly (2005 roster) would you most like to see at bat?
As former BGfL I would rather see Chase or Ryan stepping up and smacking a box of waffles than Bobby Apnea drawing a walk...

[johncap]

Hey guys, shhhhh, we did it. All the dopes outside Philly now think Bobby Abreu is the second coming of not only Manny, but Roberto too, shhhh, not too loud, they'll hear you. Put that call into Gillick and tell him they're primed now. We got the Reds guy, the SteelSD guy, who I can only imagine is a non-descript Dodgers fan in South Dakota with that name, and some Ets-ugees who I'm sure are ready to tote all those totally meaningless, artificial, fantasy league crap stats to their team's GM and plead the case for trading the ranch for Bobby A!

Please if it were only true!

Okay, next thread..... "Pat Burrell's Got the Chicks But 30 Homers Won't Cut It"

Followed by: "Ugueth The Gasoline, I'm Out"

And the last one, "Ding Dong, David Bell Deserves A New Contract Extension"

We gotta get the Red Sox thinking Burrell can replace Manny, the Mariners to rekindle their love affair with Bell and someone, to make sure we don't get the second coming of PO back in our pen. Well, he may end up in a Venezuelan pen so that may not be a big problem....

[Ed Wade is God]

First off, I believe Abreu is a good hitter. If he didn't try to bash all those homers (which results in a lot of Ks) and batted lead off, he would have been an All-Star more than once.

This thread makes we want to go the Mets thread and trash Beltran because Ramon Castro had a higher OPS this year. Therefore Ramon Castro is a better player. Charlie Manuel received a 2nd place vote and a few third place votes in the NL Manage of The Year voting, finishing fifth. Therefore he is the fifth best manager in the NL, although he made awful decisions most of the year, which cost his team the playoffs.

Stats have their place in the game, but in no way should they be used to ultimately judge a how good a player is. In my opinion the best way to judge a player is by watching him, but I may be crazy. Chase Utley was hands down the MVP of this team and he didn't have the sexiest stats. If you're a fan of a different team and have never watched Abreu play, don't tell the people who actually watch the game how well he does in late game situations. I'd love to see his BA with RISP in the 8th or 9th innings in tie games or which the Phillies are trailing by one or two runs.

How can the beliefs of Phillies fans and stat fans be so different on Abreu's clutchness? Maybe because Phillies fans watch the games? Who knows?

[johncap]

Lets try a controlled test then. Will all members of the Academy, formerly known as The Academy, please answer the following question:

Bottom of the ninth, two outs, man on second, down by one, please indicate below which Philadelphia Philly (2005 roster) would you most like to see at bat?

From 9/1 to the end of the season- AFTER 6th inning of close game
Utley
Rollins- he was so unconcscious the last month I don't think he KNEW what inning it was or what the score was
Howard
Burrell
Michaels/Lofton
Abreu
Lieberthal
Bell

Before 9/1 overall - AFTER 6th inning of close game
Utley
Howard
Burrell
Michaels/Lofton
Abreu
Thome
Rollins
Lieberthal
Bell

BEFORE 6th inning of close game or anytime in a rout either way
Burrell
Abreu
Utley
Howard
Michaels/Lofton
Rollins
Bell
Lieberthal

Of course, a healthy pre-2004 Thome changes things considerably, but we may never see that guy again.

[SteelSD]

I know one thing you proved beyond a doubt we can whip your eyes but we can't make you see...such startling insight from one so shallowly acquainted with Bobby Abreu's last 900 games except for the few you caught on Dish TV.

Ah, the crux of the lazy fan argument- the concept that one must view every game involving the player in question in order to have a valid opinion about said player.

Quite amusing on multiple levels. You didn't see Ty Cobb play baseball, yet brought up his name. Heck, your own logic excludes you from any discussion involving a baseball player you don't see play constantly.

Remember that the next time you tap on your keyboard or open your mouth, kid.

Calling Don Block ignorant?

I'm not "calling" anyone anything. Insults are your M.O., not mine. Just a statement of fact. He's ignorant. So are you. Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of as long as one is committed to overcome it. You, however are happy to you don't know much. That's what we call a "problem".

That's low class and entirely uncalled for.

No, again. Wasn't a qualitative thing. Just plain fact. Now, if I'd called him "stupid", that might be a bit out of line. But you don't have to be stupid to be ignorant. I mean, look at you.

You owe him an apology and maybe you should seriously consider going back to wading in the kiddie pool clearly you aren't fit to swim with adults.

The only people involved in this discussion who are "owed" anything are those who've spent considerable time trying to teach you something. I'd like those minutes of my life back, please.

Until such time as you do I'll consider you the nonpareil of "A paucity of knowledge can be dangerous."

Yeah, that really hurts considering that it's coming from a guy whose catchphrase should be "Ignorance is bliss."

[donzblock]

Then that will be tracked in actual game records. Your charge is to go find those game records and give me some demonstrable evidence that what you say is true.

If not, you're done because all the relevant factual information thusfar leads us in a direction opposite that of your position.
You are issuing me a charge? There is nothing like the arrogance of the ignorant. Any other charges while you're at it? I have a charge for you, sir. I am charging you to plunge into your cat's litter box and unearth all its hard work. As you have so clearly demonstrated, that is probably the sort of work you do best. In your subsequent report, which I am charging you to have on my desk tomorrow morning before 8:00, tell us what numbers your pet produces, and tell us what light those numbers shed on both the hitting and fielding of Bobby Abreu.


Actually, the ultimate in condescencion was your truly funny "If the actual game records don't say what I think they should say then they're wrong!" exclamation (paraphrased of course).
"Paraphrasing" does not mean "putting words into someone else's mouth." But then it is not surprising that words would give you trouble since you seem to prefer numbers.

Could you get any more childish than that? That's like a kindergarten student vehemently arguing with their teacher that 1+1 equals 3 just because they think so.
Look at the little boy argue by analogy. The analogy of the litter box above was inspired by your example. Incidentally, doesn't 1 + 1 = 3? I've always insisted on that.



All offensive performance is tracked- even in individual game log records that can be easily found at espn.com. The game doesn't just exist in your brain after it's over.
Do you mean that there is a reality outside my brain and that you, sir, actually exist and are not something I dreamed up? I always believed that I conjured up Philip K. Dick and that he conjured up you, and that you remained after I terminated PKD because he was repeating himself but you were just too much fun to eliminate. But the thought that you might actually exist is truly frightening.



That's strange. I've never mentioned Abreu's defense. If you were as adept at processing non-statistical information as you claim to be, I can't see how that little fact slipped your mind.
Yes, isn't it strange that you never mentioned Abreu's defense even though that happens to be the topic of this thread? And isn't it strange that we would want to talk about the topic of this thread? And isn't it doubly strange that you have not applied your statistical genius to a fact that you now acknowledge and that we have been insisting on all along: that Abreu is a terrible fielder who does not deserve a gold glove.
If your brain plays tricks on you like that with something as simple as words on a screen, I'm not sure why we'd ever believe you're able to know what's happening during a game as complex as baseball while you're watching it.
Oh, such a witty man dispensing such a devastating insult! How will I ever recover from it? No, you're right: to understand what is happening in the complex game of baseball, I do require the expert analysis of a genius like you. So once again, I am joining with my colleagues in thanking you for blessing this forum with your magnificence and munificence. I would like to issue another charge to you: can you give us the numbers that would prove that Charlie Manuel is a genius? But do it on another thread, because, as has been pointed out to you, this one is dealing brilliantly with the golden glove of Bobby Abreu.



Well, golly. A variation on the age old "I know you are but what am I?"

I swear that someone needs to write a book called "Internet Smack for Dummies" just to help out a guy like you.
Now if I didn't know any better, I would swear that the little boy seems a little upset. Look at the little insults he is digging out of his little copy of "Internet Smack for Dummies." What a cute little book. Is your copy signed? Is it a limited edition? I suspect it is very limited. And is that what made you think it was just right for you?



Oh...you're already at the PINNACLE of both "ignorant" and "oblivious". Yes, I know, and I will probably remain there for the rest of my life, but how can "ignorant" and "oblivious" be at a "pinnacle"? Aren't "ignorant" and "oblivious" at the bottom? Are you having trouble with words again? And you're trying so hard to be clever.

In fact, you should plant a flag there, build a little hut, and start a garden because it doesn't appear that you'll be coming down from there anytime soon.I see you really have me up on a height, don't you? I guess you look up to me, don't you? Would you be kind enough to send me your copy of "Gardening for Dummies"?

[SteelSD]

Stats have their place in the game, but in no way should they be used to ultimately judge a how good a player is. In my opinion the best way to judge a player is by watching him, but I may be crazy.

Quick question: How are you able to determine the ability level of a player you don't watch everyday?

2nd Quick question: How are General Managers able to accurately understand a player's value when making trade and signing decisions if they are unable to watch the opposing team for 162 games?

Chase Utley was hands down the MVP of this team and he didn't have the sexiest stats.

You're kidding, right?

Not only was Chase Utley the MVP of the Phillies, he was- hands down- the most productive middle infielder in the National League; finishing 12th among all NL players in Runs Created (110.7). In fact, the only skill position player ranked above Utley on that list was the Mets' David Wright. Utley's offensive numbers were exceptionally good in 2005 and he was the best defensive 2B in the National League.

And I didn't need to see a single Phillies game to know all that. Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it?

If you're a fan of a different team and have never watched Abreu play, don't tell the people who actually watch the game how well he does in late game situations.

Good God. IT'S ALL RECORDED HISTORICAL INFORMATION! It's right there in front of me. I can see how Abreu did in late-game situations and he did very well over the 2005 season and from 2002-2004.

I'm truly sorry that what actually happened doesn't mesh with what you think actually happened, but you can't change fact to fiction just because you want something else to be so.

I'd love to see his BA with RISP in the 8th or 9th innings in tie games or which the Phillies are trailing by one or two runs.

Oh good lord. So now you'd like to isolate the totality of Abreu's season into what couldn't possibly be more than 40 or 50-odd AB because that fits your definition of "clutch"?

You maybe think that performance before the 8th or 9th Inning might be important too? And Abreu overperformed his none on numbers over the past four years in Close and Late games. We already know this because some folks tracked it for us and I've posted the results on this very thread.

I'm not at all sure what your point is, unless it's an attempt to grind Abreu's performance down to the point where you can find something (anything) that will allow you to be right. But you're not right. Abreu is not a choker. Hasn't been for the past four seasons. Escalates his performance situationally. Finished 13th in the NL in THT's "Clutch" ranking system in 2005.

BTW, if you wanted to find the results of ANY Abreu Plate Appearance, you can find the game log for every Phillies game at espn.com. You say that you'd "love" to see this or that. Well, go freakin' find it. There's nothing stopping you except for maybe a fear that what you find will- again- not jibe with your perception of things.

How can the beliefs of Phillies fans and stat fans be so different on Abreu's clutchness? Maybe because Phillies fans watch the games? Who knows?

Because some Phillies fans on this thread don't care enough to find out if they're right or wrong before saying potentially untrue things.

[SteelSD]

You are issuing me a charge? There is nothing like the arrogance of the ignorant. Any other charges while you're at it? I have a charge for you, sir. I am charging you to plunge into your cat's litter box and unearth all its hard work. As you have so clearly demonstrated, that is probably the sort of work you do best. In your subsequent report, which I am charging you to have on my desk tomorrow morning before 8:00, tell us what numbers your pet produces, and tell us what light those numbers shed on both the hitting and fielding of Bobby Abreu.

I respectfully decline your charge. The litterbox stinks after our cats have taken a donzblock.

:D

[johncap]

Quite amusing on multiple levels. You didn't see Ty Cobb play baseball, yet brought up his name. Heck, your own logic excludes you from any discussion involving a baseball player you don't see play constantly.
Mr. Bliss,

Cobb's rep does NOT stem from his stats, but from firsthand accounts of people, writers and others who did something you obviously feel is irrelevant in evaluating a baseball player.They WATCHED him play! Those recounts are what his legend and "greatness" are baded on. Stats are always secondary to subjective observation. Always. And until you learn that you will continue to embarrass yourself with people who know the sport. Go play some poker.

[SteelSD]

Cobb's rep does NOT stem from his stats, but from firsthand accounts of people, writers and others who did something you obviously feel is irrelevant in evaluating a baseball player. They WATCHED him play!

Those recounts are what his legend and "greatness" are baded on. Stats are always secondary to subjective observation. Always. And until you learn that you will continue to embarrass yourself with people who know the sport. Go play some poker.[/QUOTE]

Um...Cobb's numbers are accurate accounts of his performance during his playing days. Cobb was infatuated with his own stats for most of his life because HE KNEW that his continuing "legend" was carried by his numbers.

Performance. Without it, there would be no "legend" of Ty Cobb. Without historical records, there would have been no career hit record. Without the historical record, no one would have ever realized that Cobb actually led the league in Home Runs in 1909, much less OPS (10 times as a matter of fact). Without the historical record, we wouldn't be able to discuss whether or not Honus Wagner was the better hitter. Without the numbers, you wouldn't have a clue as to whether or not Cobb was actually THAT good or just some myth.

Ty Cobb's legend was built on the back of the same statistical record you don't give a crap about. He never played on a World Champion. He didn't play on the east coast. He performed very poorly over 17 career playoff games. He won one MVP award. The remainder of his "legend" stems from the accounts of him being a nasty dirty player and that he allegedly killed a guy.

You'd rather rely on accounts fed to you by baseball writers? That's deliciously ironic because it was the baseball WRITERS who just handed Bobby Abreu an undeserved Gold Glove award.

They're the same guys who threw one to Rafael Palmeiro in 1999 for, I guess, fielding the DH position exceptionally well. You think maybe if they'd taken the time to check the historical record they'd have figured out that Palmeiro only played 28 games at First Base that season?

If subjective observation from those you trust results in big fat mistakes like those, does that validate your contention that subjective observation trumps statistical analysis? Nope.

In fact, it points in the other direction. The data tells me that the perception of Abreu's fielding is correct. He doesn't get to as many balls as he should. But the data also tells me that the perception of Abreu as a "choker" is incorrect. Having access to the historical record allows me to validate my perceptions and knowing how to read it allows me to approach 100% accuracy while you're throwing darts at a board based on firsthand subjective perception or, even worse, secondhand subjective evaluations from writers who screw up all the time.

Pretty tough for me to take anyone seriously who relies on baseball writers to tell him what's going on when they can't figure out what's what when it's right in front of their own faces.

[johncap]

Um...Cobb's numbers are accurate accounts of his performance during his playing days.

Seriously, what planet are you from? Do you recount your sexual encounters statistically too? Like, do you keep a spreadsheet (no pun intended) of when, where, with whom, positions, successes and failures, earlies and lates, What? I'm sure you've come up with some interesting acronyms for combined nuances and then you measure yourself against your friends, oops, sorry, friends, I doubt it, they need to speak your language to be a friend.....


Cobb was infatuated with his own stats for most of his life because HE KNEW that his continuing "legend" was carried by his numbers.

Cobb was a borderline psychopath, so, much like Terrel Owens, yes, he was self-consumed, but I doubt VERY seriously that he was infatuated with his stats. The stats YOU speak of weren't nearly as revered as they are today by the seriously misguided who worship them as demogods. Yea, I'm sure Cobb enjoyed seeing 4-4 in the daily boxscore in the newspaper, but he didn't persue the Sunday papers for league leaders and the like which weren't available like today. He certainly didn't fire up his old laptop and check out his stats on the web. And the compilation of stats was a vey time consuming manual process that would have required tons of work to update and publish even more than monthly. Your delusional if you think that eras player even gave more than a cursory notice to their stats. Their individual stats weren't even the primary issue at contract time.

Performance. Without it, there would be no "legend" of Ty Cobb. Without historical records, there would have been no career hit record. Without the historical record, no one would have ever realized that Cobb actually led the league in Home Runs in 1909, much less OPS (10 times as a matter of fact).
Ahh, yes, and Cobb's legend certainly was built on that little known fact that he led the league in HRs in the dead ball era. Yup, that's his legend alright. You're making our case the more you speak. The utter ridiculousness of dredging up Cobb's HR prowess which had ZERO bearing on his legend. Futher, his legend, his "historcal record", comes from the chronicalization of his individual feats, his brutality, his fierceness; not his statistics.


Without the historical record, we wouldn't be able to discuss whether or not Honus Wagner was the better hitter.
We can "discuss" anything but not decide who was the "better hitter" Because to do so requires a level of subjectivity that isn't available to us today. The historical record you speak of is not the stat book but the recounts of eye witnesses who wrote of his exploits.


Without the numbers, you wouldn't have a clue as to whether or not Cobb was actually THAT good or just some myth.
The numbers, properly used are meaningful. Abused, they detract from their meaning.


Ty Cobb's legend was built on the back of the same statistical record you don't give a crap about.

Quite the contrary. I grew up devouring stats, specifically baseball stats. I am an amateur sports statistician to this day. I RESENT this absurd notion that sports and athletes ARE their statistics. They're not.

You'd rather rely on accounts fed to you by baseball writers? That's deliciously ironic because it was the baseball WRITERS who just handed Bobby Abreu an undeserved Gold Glove award.
Touche. But pretty dumb. Yes, I prefer to weigh eyewitness accounts, anecdotal essays and supplement with statistical data. Yes, that's how I look at historical performances of athletes. Not hold up ina room with Bill James' memoirs on how he destroyed the minds of young baseball fans with endless drivel.

This is tiring.

Let me end here. I have no idea how old you are, but my guess is twenty-something. So tell me god of the stats, no let's ask two questions. First who was the BETTER PLAYER, Aaron or Mays?

Second, who was the BEST HITTER of all time?

I can hear the legion cackling from here!

[baseballPAP]

Did you say something? Something that makes sense? Or were you just dooling down your chin?

Apparently another guy who's never actually watched Abreu play. You know they don't give credits for studying that backs of baseball cards....

Yep....just dooling.

If you want something to make sense, try reading your posts in the mirror...maybe backwards they're literate and meaningful. They sure aren't the way I'm reading them.

[baseballPAP]

It appears that the strawmen have built strawmen. And so on.

The thread started as a complaint that Abreu didn't deserve the gold glove. I don't recall anyone here saying he did deserve it.

The same bunch of over-the-top ignorant "real" baseball fans that are ignoring all FACTS that prove otherwise were the ones that shifted gears here to Abreu's perceived lack of clutch hitting. Let me ask you this: If you go to a game, and your favorite whipping boy goes 3 for 3 and the team wins in a blow out, what do you remember about the game? The win. If in the same game, they lose in a blowout despite said player getting 3 hits, then what sticks in your mind? The loss. Now, if it is a tight game, your whipping boy is at the plate with 2 outs and a runner on second, and rips a line drive in the gap, you remember what? The win, because you chose not to like the player who did it, you perceive that the team had a great win, and soon forget who facilitated it. Same situation and your guy strikes out? What a bum. That idiot never does anything right.

Those are reactions pulled from an old Pscychology paper I wrote, from a survey of 100 basketball fans(obviously I changed the situations to fit this). The answers in every case were more than 70% to the reaction I listed above, and the final one(guy is a bum) was the choice of 86 of the 100 surveyed. It is human nature to remember what you want....

Oh, and the line about the catbox being full of donzblock was an absolute CLASSIC!

[Androctus]

I say we all meet in a parking lot and rumble over this, with a full party of statisticians onhand to record the whole event. Then we can go to the corner pub and wipe our backsides with the results while we sit and ruminate the clutch ass-whipping we just delivered.

[ed hardiman]

Ah, the crux of the lazy fan argument- the concept that one must view every game involving the player in question in order to have a valid opinion about said player.
I encourage valid opinion express one and we'll all be the wiser for your remarks.
Quite amusing on multiple levels. You didn't see Ty Cobb play baseball, yet brought up his name. Heck, your own logic excludes you from any discussion involving a baseball player you don't see play constantly.
I asserted fact not self absorbed minutia incorrectly extrapolated to justify pseudo-algebraic conclusions.
I saw Rose and Parrish play "constantly" which easily refutes your construct from either approach.
Facts are simply not your friend.
The premise refuted by the citation of Rose and Cobb was: "...doubles, triples, and home runs are more important than singles."
No they aren't.
Nor is citing undisputed fact like "actual recorded quantity" as opposed to relying on "voodoo-math derived quality" invalid.
Abreu has not through effort to date qualified for a Gold Glove.
Remember that the next time you tap on your keyboard or open your mouth, kid.
I assume calling me a "young goat" is another example of you personally attacking anyone who doesn't bow before your underwhelming arguments.
I'm not "calling" anyone anything. Insults are your M.O., not mine. Just a statement of fact. He's ignorant. So are you. Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of as long as one is committed to overcome it. You, however are happy to you don't know much. That's what we call a "problem".
Accuracy eludes you but I included the quotes where you repeatedly called him ignorant and now you add me to the growing list of victims of shameful remarks you cast off as easily as you shed responsibility for their reckless use.
Again you dishonor the simple dignity of this forum.
At the very least have the courage of conviction to stand behind your ignominious remarks as they sink into well deserved oblivion.
No, again. Wasn't a qualitative thing. Just plain fact. Now, if I'd called him "stupid", that might be a bit out of line. But you don't have to be stupid to be ignorant. I mean, look at you.
You'd do better to examine your own lack of couth.
Let me break down the sentence for you so you can stop wallowing in denial:
...you're already at the PINNACLE of both "ignorant" and "oblivious".
"...you're" refers to Don. "...already at" means located "...the PINNACLE of both" I believe in context you mean highest point or culmination as opposed to its other accepted meanings of turret, spire or buttress which in terms of context means to reach the highest point or degree of "ignorant" and "oblivious". even the feeblest intellect would recognize my assertion and conclusion was in fact the correct assessment.
Perhaps where you reside using the characterization "ignorant" is the height of wit in polite society its usage is eschewed for being self relevatory as opposed to illuminating a defect in others.
He's ignorant. So are you."
ibid.
The only people involved in this discussion who are "owed" anything are those who've spent considerable time trying to teach you something. I'd like those minutes of my life back, please.
I abjure any such thing you might incorrectly deign lacking in my education.
Yeah, that really hurts considering that it's coming from a guy whose catchphrase should be "Ignorance is bliss."
Thanks but as motto's go it lacks panache.

[ed hardiman]

It appears that the strawmen have built strawmen. And so on...etc.
I applaud trotting out unscientific self administered surveys to draw dubious conclusions about what's been plainly stated about Bobby Apnea winning the Gold Glove.
You might take a moment to read the Phillies thread and see we aren't purists about posting tangential remarks ranging far and wide on accepted subjects.
I must point out though and strongly condemn your characterization SteelSD, Reds Nd2, Ravenlord and yourself are "strawmen" or "over-the-top ignorant."
Certainly you could confer a gentler distinction upon yourself.

[runningshoes]

Quick question: How are you able to determine the ability level of a player you don't watch everyday?

Take your word for it? ;)

[SteelSD]

So tell me god of the stats, no let's ask two questions. First who was the BETTER PLAYER, Aaron or Mays?

Willie Mays.

Second, who was the BEST HITTER of all time?

Even though Barry Bonds posted three better seasons versus the league, Babe Ruth's career is still the pinnacle of performance.

[SteelSD]

The premise refuted by the citation of Rose and Cobb was: "...doubles, triples, and home runs are more important than singles."

No they aren't.

The 2005 Cincinnati Reds led the National League in Runs Scored.

The 2005 Cincinnati Reds hit the fewest Singles in the National League.

The offenses (and offensive players) that end up producing the most Runs aren't the ones who hit the most singles or have the highest Batting Averages. They're the guys who avoid the most Outs while acquiring the most bases. That's irrefutable. We know that a Double, Triple, and Home Run are better than a Single.

Ty Cobb was a great hitter and his overall career ranks him among the top 10 most productive hitters of all time. But only because he was so good at avoiding Outs and acquring bases. It doesn't matter HOW he did that. It just matters that he was able to.

Rose's primary value was his ability to get on base any way possible. But during the Reds' run in the 1970's, Rose wasn't even the most productive hitter on his team. He simply didn't avoid Outs and acquire bases as well as other players (Joe Morgan in particular).

Oh, and for those who don't think athletes themselves feel that their "legend" is driven by their statistical prowess...

If you ever have the chance to have Rose autograph something for you, there's a good chance he'll sign his name and then write either "4256" or "Hit King" below his name.

[johncap]

Yep....just dooling.

If you want something to make sense, try reading your posts in the mirror...maybe backwards they're literate and meaningful. They sure aren't the way I'm reading them.
Sorry, my finger was broken. But I'm sure you knew it was drooling.... Do you have nothing better to do?

[johncap]

The 2005 Cincinnati Reds led the National League in Runs Scored.

The 2005 Cincinnati Reds hit the fewest Singles in the National League.

The offenses (and offensive players) that end up producing the most Runs aren't the ones who hit the most singles or have the highest Batting Averages. They're the guys who avoid the most Outs while acquiring the most bases. That's irrefutable. We know that a Double, Triple, and Home Run are better than a Single.

Ty Cobb was a great hitter and his overall career ranks him among the top 10 most productive hitters of all time. But only because he was so good at avoiding Outs and acquring bases. It doesn't matter HOW he did that. It just matters that he was able to.

Rose's primary value was his ability to get on base any way possible. But during the Reds' run in the 1970's, Rose wasn't even the most productive hitter on his team. He simply didn't avoid Outs and acquire bases as well as other players (Joe Morgan in particular).

Oh, and for those who don't think athletes themselves feel that their "legend" is driven by their statistical prowess...

If you ever have the chance to have Rose autograph something for you, there's a good chance he'll sign his name and then write either "4256" or "Hit King" below his name.
When we want to measure normal athletes, Pete Rose is not on out short list. This is very old and really pointless so let's just agree to end it here.

[Ed Wade is God]

Quick question: How are you able to determine the ability level of a player you don't watch everyday?

2nd Quick question: How are General Managers able to accurately understand a player's value when making trade and signing decisions if they are unable to watch the opposing team for 162 games?



You're kidding, right?

Not only was Chase Utley the MVP of the Phillies, he was- hands down- the most productive middle infielder in the National League; finishing 12th among all NL players in Runs Created (110.7). In fact, the only skill position player ranked above Utley on that list was the Mets' David Wright. Utley's offensive numbers were exceptionally good in 2005 and he was the best defensive 2B in the National League.

And I didn't need to see a single Phillies game to know all that. Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it?



Good God. IT'S ALL RECORDED HISTORICAL INFORMATION! It's right there in front of me. I can see how Abreu did in late-game situations and he did very well over the 2005 season and from 2002-2004.

I'm truly sorry that what actually happened doesn't mesh with what you think actually happened, but you can't change fact to fiction just because you want something else to be so.



Oh good lord. So now you'd like to isolate the totality of Abreu's season into what couldn't possibly be more than 40 or 50-odd AB because that fits your definition of "clutch"?

You maybe think that performance before the 8th or 9th Inning might be important too? And Abreu overperformed his none on numbers over the past four years in Close and Late games. We already know this because some folks tracked it for us and I've posted the results on this very thread.

I'm not at all sure what your point is, unless it's an attempt to grind Abreu's performance down to the point where you can find something (anything) that will allow you to be right. But you're not right. Abreu is not a choker. Hasn't been for the past four seasons. Escalates his performance situationally. Finished 13th in the NL in THT's "Clutch" ranking system in 2005.

BTW, if you wanted to find the results of ANY Abreu Plate Appearance, you can find the game log for every Phillies game at espn.com. You say that you'd "love" to see this or that. Well, go freakin' find it. There's nothing stopping you except for maybe a fear that what you find will- again- not jibe with your perception of things.



Because some Phillies fans on this thread don't care enough to find out if they're right or wrong before saying potentially untrue things.

Great points, all of them. It would be too redundant if I were to reply to each one with my opinons since just about all of it would be been said already in this epic thread. I believe teams have scouts who go to games to watch players to determine how well they play, as well as using stats. Stats can be used to judge players. Abreu has good stats and is a good player, but stats shouldn't be the end all of arguments.

Could you leaf through espn.com and see if Bobby performs well under my definition of clutch. I really don't have the time, seriously. I'm not trying to punk out of doing it, if you want to wait a month until I'm on break from college, I'll look it up. The definition of clutch varies greatly between fans, so I don't think what I said was too outrageous.

Also one more thing, I have no problem with you posting here. It's good to have something to talk about during the offseason, but please cut down on the cockiness in which you make your posts. Thanks.

[donzblock]

SteelSD has challenged us pretty well here, and I have to confess that his stats on Abreu surprise me. They surprise me, but they don't convince me. However, it is also possible that my disdain for Abreu as a fielder has made me less than objective about him as a hitter.

Before I make a proposal, I also want to point out that there is no anti-Abreu conspiracy here. I have never met with Johncap, Androctus, and Ed Hardiman and plotted a scenario that was designed to slander Abreu, nor has any one of us influenced Howard Eskin on WIP to disparage Abreu. Why then do we all agree that Abreu is soft in the clutch, and why are we all suspicious about numbers?

I think it's partly because we are often aware of situations where stats just don't apply. For example, in a terrific late-season game against the Reds this year, the Phillies, down 4 runs in the top of the 9th, scored 3 quick runs on a Chase Utley homer with no outs. Abreu, the next hitter, in what has to be called a clutch situation, struck out. That strikeout would seem to generate a stat that could be used by those who view him as awful in the clutch: it represents what seems to be an all too familiar Abreu failure in a very important at bat. However, the 3-2 pitch that Abreu took was both low and way inside. Abreu should have been the tying run on 1st and still none out. He was right to take that pitch, but the ump made an awful call. Abreu was visibly upset and argued the call. The ump ejected someone; the announcers thought it might have been Abreu, but they weren't sure. (Abreu remained on the bench in apparent violation of the rules.)

Now why should that count against Abreu if we are evaluating what kind of clutch hitter he is? It was a godawful call by the umpire. If I were collecting data on Abreu, I would not count that at bat.

(Subsequently, Burrell struck out. The game eventually was won when Bell hit a 2-out 2-run homer in what I described on another post as the stuff dreams are made of.)

I would rather analyze the situation than the stats. In fact, the stats seem meaningless to me unless I can see them against the background of what actually happened. I'm willing to change my mind about Abreu only if we can reconstruct the 160-200 at bats he must have had in the 7th, 8th, and 9th innings of 2005. Is such a task doable? Is such a request unreasonable?

[SteelSD]

SteelSD has challenged us pretty well here, and I have to confess that his stats on Abreu surprise me. They surprise me, but they don't convince me. However, it is also possible that my disdain for Abreu as a fielder has made me less than objective about him as a hitter.

The latter happens all the time. In fact, the Reds' current "Abreu" lighting rod is a guy named Adam Dunn.

Before I make a proposal, I also want to point out that there is no anti-Abreu conspiracy here. I have never met with Johncap, Androctus, and Ed Hardiman and plotted a scenario that was designed to slander Abreu, nor has any one of us influenced Howard Eskin on WIP to disparage Abreu. Why then do we all agree that Abreu is soft in the clutch, and why are we all suspicious about numbers?

Because opinions (either right or wrong) constantly develop independently of each other. This is particularly true in the information age- especially when coupled with the fact that most "baseball" writers don't do much but opine these days in order to push their own agendas. So even though you, I, and everyone else has MORE access to subjective information, much of that information is of far lower quality than in the past.

I think it's partly because we are often aware of situations where stats just don't apply. For example, in a terrific late-season game against the Reds this year, the Phillies, down 4 runs in the top of the 9th, scored 3 quick runs on a Chase Utley homer with no outs. Abreu, the next hitter, in what has to be called a clutch situation, struck out. That strikeout would seem to generate a stat that could be used by those who view him as awful in the clutch: it represents what seems to be an all too familiar Abreu failure in a very important at bat. However, the 3-2 pitch that Abreu took was both low and way inside. Abreu should have been the tying run on 1st and still none out. He was right to take that pitch, but the ump made an awful call. Abreu was visibly upset and argued the call. The ump ejected someone; the announcers thought it might have been Abreu, but they weren't sure. (Abreu remained on the bench in apparent violation of the rules.)

Bad calls happen occassionally, but they don't happen constantly. The actual impact they have in a macro sense is minimal and it's going to even out across all the players because, generally speaking, they see the same quality of umpires throughout the season.

Now why should that count against Abreu if we are evaluating what kind of clutch hitter he is? It was a godawful call by the umpire. If I were collecting data on Abreu, I would not count that at bat.

Anecdotal evidence can help supplement the historical records we have, but that kind of stuff is only good if we're evaluating isolated Plate Appearances.

(Subsequently, Burrell struck out. The game eventually was won when Bell hit a 2-out 2-run homer in what I described on another post as the stuff dreams are made of.)

And let's remember that the impact of that Home Run was only possible because of Utley's earlier longball hit while down 4 Runs. If Abreu had done the same thing when down by four Runs (which is one Run away from qualifying as "blowout" status) and had the Phillies lost the game, I dare say we'd see some folks talking about how Abreu was just "stat padding".

Was Utley "stat padding" when he hit that HR?

And that's the problem with definitions of "clutch" or "choke". Everything that happens early in a game affects the game state at the end. We know that intuitively, but because we tend to focus more on the late-game we tend to wash away real "clutch" performances well before Inning nine rolls around. In some cases, the most IMPORTANT Run may not be the last. It may be a first Inning HR in a 0-0 game. Maybe a 6th Run scored in the fifth will end up being the winning margain.

Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see the need to ignore what happens in the first two thirds of each baseball game because Innings 1-6 really really matter too.

I would rather analyze the situation than the stats. In fact, the stats seem meaningless to me unless I can see them against the background of what actually happened.

I'm not at all saying that analyzing the situation isn't meaningful. Far from it. But only when we're isolating a specific Plate Appearance.

See, it just doesn't matter to me that in a single PA the hitter reached on a blooper instead of a hard line drive. I know that baseball's a random game like that and that everyone is going to get a hit that looks like a line drive in the box score. But, in the end, the best performers are generally going to continue to be the best performers because of the numbers they put up. The big deal about that is one has to know what the "right" numbers are otherwise they'll end up paying big bucks for guys who have shiny reputations but who don't have the performance needed to justify the expense.

Now, on the flipside, knowing something like how Eric Milton has a knee injury that will never heal is truly helpful "subjective" information because we can apply it to the macro. When the Reds acquired him last offseason, we could look at his recent numbers (crap). Then we could supplement our knowledge of his actual performance (again, crap) info about the physical issue and come to a pretty good conclusion that Dan O'Brien threw millions of dollars into the toilet by signing him.

And why did Dan O'Brien (Reds GM) sign him? Because he was a "professional pitcher". A guy who "knows how to win". All subjective crap. That doesn't mean that professionalism and attitude doesn't matter. All it means is that the subjective criteria used in the decision to sign Milton DIDN'T trump his recent past and projectible future performance. So instead of having a good pitcher, the Reds ended up with a lame hurler who was bad with the Phillies and didn't fit the Reds ballpark. All because of subjective nonsense that could have been washed away by anyone with a hint of knowledge as to how to properly evaluate a pitcher's actual performance while incorporating an acceptable level of the subjective (i.e. things that really matter over the long haul).

And just so you know- when the Reds blew millions on Paul Wilson last offseason, they did so because of the same things ("professional", "good in the clubhouse", "real leader", "knows how to win"). What they didn't incorporate into their analysis is that Wilson had put up identical below-average seasons for four years prior to that signing and that the current medical reports on him showed that he had a serious arm injury.

The point isn't that subjective analysis should be EXCLUDED. The point is that there needs to be some sort of balance between the subjective or objective. Otherwise, you'll end up with a team that underperforms signficantly. And what you'll also find is that when the losing starts, the "chemistry" stops.

I'm willing to change my mind about Abreu only if we can reconstruct the 160-200 at bats he must have had in the 7th, 8th, and 9th innings of 2005. Is such a task doable? Is such a request unreasonable?

It's doable, but I'm not gonna be the guy to do it because A) I've already got what I need (i.e. Abreu's performance numbers) and B) It would be exceptionally time consuming.

All the game logs (including PBP information about every pitch) for the 2005 season are available at espn.com if someone would like to isolate each PA like that.

[johncap]

SteelSD has challenged us pretty well here, and I have to confess that his stats on Abreu surprise me. They surprise me, but they don't convince me. However, it is also possible that my disdain for Abreu as a fielder has made me less than objective about him as a hitter.

Before I make a proposal, I also want to point out that there is no anti-Abreu conspiracy here. I have never met with Johncap, Androctus, and Ed Hardiman and plotted a scenario that was designed to slander Abreu, nor has any one of us influenced Howard Eskin on WIP to disparage Abreu. Why then do we all agree that Abreu is soft in the clutch, and why are we all suspicious about numbers?

I think it's partly because we are often aware of situations where stats just don't apply. For example, in a terrific late-season game against the Reds this year, the Phillies, down 4 runs in the top of the 9th, scored 3 quick runs on a Chase Utley homer with no outs. Abreu, the next hitter, in what has to be called a clutch situation, struck out. That strikeout would seem to generate a stat that could be used by those who view him as awful in the clutch: it represents what seems to be an all too familiar Abreu failure in a very important at bat. However, the 3-2 pitch that Abreu took was both low and way inside. Abreu should have been the tying run on 1st and still none out. He was right to take that pitch, but the ump made an awful call. Abreu was visibly upset and argued the call. The ump ejected someone; the announcers thought it might have been Abreu, but they weren't sure. (Abreu remained on the bench in apparent violation of the rules.)

Now why should that count against Abreu if we are evaluating what kind of clutch hitter he is? It was a godawful call by the umpire. If I were collecting data on Abreu, I would not count that at bat.

(Subsequently, Burrell struck out. The game eventually was won when Bell hit a 2-out 2-run homer in what I described on another post as the stuff dreams are made of.)

I would rather analyze the situation than the stats. In fact, the stats seem meaningless to me unless I can see them against the background of what actually happened. I'm willing to change my mind about Abreu only if we can reconstruct the 160-200 at bats he must have had in the 7th, 8th, and 9th innings of 2005. Is such a task doable? Is such a request unreasonable?
That's an interesting event you bring up in this situation. I recall that game and sequence of events. And I would temper your defense with the fact that the overriding issue with Abreu late in games, as opposed to earlier in games or in non-pressure situations, is he tends to be too selective and wait for things to happen instead of being aggressive. There are places and times for certain players to wait out walks and be patient and there are other situations where certain players need to be aggressive. I will also add that that was not the norm for Abreu. All too often he hit weak grounders to the right side looking very uncomfortable and lunging for off speed or pitches off the plate. Seldom were his outs in crucial situaions "loud" and seldom did he deliver the critical blow, contrary to the stats.

I'll also add that I like Gillick already. It has been reported today that they have offered Abreu to Toronto for Vernon Wells. The Jays are worried about how much Abreu is owed. Can we take up a collection?

[johncap]

And just so you know- when the Reds blew millions on Paul Wilson last offseason, they did so because of the same things ("professional", "good in the clubhouse", "real leader", "knows how to win"). What they didn't incorporate into their analysis is that Wilson had put up identical below-average seasons for four years prior to that signing and that the current medical reports on him showed that he had a serious arm injury.
Funny, I spent an hour on the phone today with the second biggest Yankee's fan I know and all he did was rant that he's so tired of the Yankees going after all these "stars" instead of character players like in the "old days". As was stated elsewhere in this encyclopedic thread, groups of statistically rich players don't make a winning team.

[Reds Nd2]

The stats YOU speak of weren't nearly as revered as they are today by the seriously misguided who worship them as demogods.

Once again, your positioning your opinion as fact when nothing could be further from the truth. Stats were revered by the public from the very first box score published by the New York Morning News on October 22, 1845. At the time, box scores simply listed "hands lost" (outs) and run for each player and line score showing the runs scored per inning by each team. Those primitive box scores continuously evolved as the game itself did. Sometimes by leaps and bounds. By 1858, box scores were still including HL and Runs, but they were routinely adding up to nine extra lines for a players defense and his at bats. As the game of baseball grew from it's infancy, so did America's fascination and interest in those "crappy" stats. They couldn't turn to ESPN and catch the latest Web Gems. For most fans around the country, the stats painted a picture of the game they otherwise wouldn't be able to see. " These tallies gave a reader a vivid snapshot of how every player's bat, legs, and glove impacted a win or loss."1.

Yea, I'm sure Cobb enjoyed seeing 4-4 in the daily boxscore in the newspaper, but he didn't persue the Sunday papers for league leaders and the like which weren't available like today.

Well, newspapers had been publishing box scores and stats since 1845 and several weeklies were available. Including the Spirit of the Times, the nation's leading sports weekly which began covering baseball regularly in the mid-1850's. 2. and The Sporting News which began publishing in 1866. 3. While I profess no knowledge of Cobb's reading habits, I'm sure he had quiet a bit of interest in not only his own stats, but those of Nap Lajoie too. In 1910, both men were battling for the batting title with the prize being a new automobile from Chalmers Motor Company. "Cobb believed he had the title wrapped up with two days left in the season; never one to pass up the chance for increased wealth, he decided to sit those games out." 4. So once again, contrary to your opinion, these stats were readily available and Cobb had more than a passing interest in his stats.

Your delusional if you think that eras player even gave more than a cursory notice to their stats. Their individual stats weren't even the primary issue at contract time.

Your the only one being delusional here. I mean seriously, how many times can one person be in a single post? Henry Chadwick, the Father of Baseball, complained, well he complained about alot of things, but in 1880 he had this to say, "The present method of scoring the game and preparing scores for publication is faulty to the exterme, and it is calculated to drive players into playing for their records rather than their side." 5. When professional baseball was born in 1869, and more than likely before that as teams had already began the task of bidding for the best players, there was a financial stake involved in baseball. But as player salaries began to be influenced by run and hit totals, batters became less interested in bunting and moving runners over, teamwork-oriented acts, and instead swung for homeruns. 6. Not only were the players accutely aware of their stats, so too were the owners and managers. They had to be, because then as now, stats did indeed tell the story of who the better players were.

All footnotes used came from The Numbers Game: Baseball's Lifelong Fascination with Statistics by Alan Schwarz. This is an excellent book and I would encourage anyone who has an interest in furthering their understanding of this great game to check it out.

[Reds Nd2]

As was stated elsewhere in this encyclopedic thread, groups of statistically rich players don't make a winning team.

I'll take the statistically rich team over the statistically poor team everyday of the week.

[johncap]

This is an excellent book and I would encourage anyone who has an interest in furthering their understanding of this great game to check it out.
Send me some of what you're smoking. Understanding this great game has VERY little to do with drowning yourself in statistical minutiae. Statistics are the trivia of the sport. Look up the word trivia.

[SteelSD]

Funny, I spent an hour on the phone today with the second biggest Yankee's fan I know and all he did was rant that he's so tired of the Yankees going after all these "stars" instead of character players like in the "old days". As was stated elsewhere in this encyclopedic thread, groups of statistically rich players don't make a winning team.

Good lord.

All the Yankees have done in the "new days" (I guess we'll call it that) it to produce nine division titles, 11 consecutive playoff appearances, five World Series appearances and four World Series titles since 1995. Freakin' team has been to the World Series almost half the time in a little over a decade-long dynasty run BECAUSE of their ability to perform (i.e. Run Scoring and Run Prevention).

Your friend is daft. And shame on you for listening to that whining for a freakin' hour and THEN attempting to position some "Yankees character flawed" B.S. as truth while pushing your ridiculous agenda.

Seriously, if you can't figure out that your buddy neither appreciates or understands how the Yankees put together such a run of excellence, then why in the world would you have any credibility at all? If that's the kind of "subjective" information you're relying on, you need to stop it because you're being fed mounds of garbage. And you don't even KNOW it's garbage? Wow.

And the Yankees would actually do even BETTER if Steinbrenner wouldn't keep pushing Cashman to acquire "name" players who've had seasons they're not likely to repeat- particularly on the pitching side (Pavano, Wright, Vazquez, Weaver, etc.). The Yankees can cover those mistakes because they spend more money than anyone, but that team would be completely unstoppable (and less expensive) if they had someone who really knew how to interpret performance data in order to use that information to build a solid projection and risk models.

[ed hardiman]

I think for the most part "a leader in the clubhouse" is code for "stinks as a player" and is often trotted out for dreadfuls like Dave Bell.
Statistically Bell is part of a larger disturbing trend of all glove-no stick 3rd sackers but trading a younger Polanco instead of Bell for Urbs was just inconceivable.
I freely admit I've previously conspired to malign Pickles Dillhoefer in this forum and hereby renounce my membership in that particular venomous cabal though I'm open to broader conspiracies.
Gillick is making trade Bobby noises so this may all be rendered mute by circumstance.
I think Abreu's stats are like concentrating on counting pixels in a picture if you stand back far enough you won't like what you see.
Abreu had the tools to be better than he became and that always raises the hackles on Phillies fans.
That's Philly and while he isn't the worst player by any standard he gets a failing grade for exhibiting poor situational decisions.
Mike Schmidt (the greatest 3rd sacker of all time) was emotionless but if you saw him field a hit there was no question he was a Gold Glove dead bang player.

[baseballPAP]

Thank you. Well, all but JohnCap, you're just a stubborn ass. You have not admitted defeat, or that the numbers are more important, but you have admitted that they are a factor. I fully admit that the numbers don't tell the whole story, but I'm stubborn enough to believe that given one or the other, opinion of fans or stats, that the stats will be closer to accurate 99% of the time. I'm curious however... are there no Phanatics out there who believe in "new-age" baseball? Not a single saber guy in the crowd?

Anyway, thanks again for the enjoyable posting.....

[johncap]

Thank you. Well, all but JohnCap, you're just a stubborn ass. You have not admitted defeat, or that the numbers are more important, but you have admitted that they are a factor. I fully admit that the numbers don't tell the whole story, but I'm stubborn enough to believe that given one or the other, opinion of fans or stats, that the stats will be closer to accurate 99% of the time. I'm curious however... are there no Phanatics out there who believe in "new-age" baseball? Not a single saber guy in the crowd?

Anyway, thanks again for the enjoyable posting.....
Admitted defeat? You're out of your mind. You guys have no clue what baseball is about. These other guys are tempering themselves because they realize they're up against rigid, pocket-protector types who have no clue what the true essence of baseball, and sport, is. I produce and distribute statistics on a weekly basis for amatuer sports. The perception of the recipients is humorously similar to the reception we give you. The unstated opinions of the people who my stats are intended for, lack the depth of understanding that these numbers are merely an overview of performance that needs to be framed by the subjectiveness and other considerations that give them validity. At this time those stats are for ice hockey. The validation and subjectivity involves such issues as what line a player is on, how that line is used, what the player's specific role on the line is, etc. While a bit different than the individual aspect of baseball stats, nonetheless, one player's 32 points and +18 must be framed to give it proper perspective against another's 9 points and +4. The stats alone do NOT constitute one's contribution versus the other's, nor do the numbers alone determine who is the better player. THAT is the essence of this debate, and on THAT, there is no defeat.

Not to mention, I don't come here to win, or lose. Presumably I come here to be "entertained" and to enhance my exposure to trivial details and other perspectives on the game I like most. Having always been an avid stats person, especially for baseball stats, and an amateur statistician, I've grown my disdain for the Bill James set gradually but more fervently because of the application and misguidance in debates over hall of fame qualifications, first and foremost. But that's a topic for another day and already of more than a handful of threads. But it's the same argument and the same kind of misapplied logic as this Abreu debate.

So, if you think you've won, enjoy it, I'm sure it's a lonely place to have such a narrow view of life. But maturity will open a lot of new horizons for you if you let it.

[johncap]

Good lord.

All the Yankees have done in the "new days" (I guess we'll call it that) it to produce nine division titles, 11 consecutive playoff appearances, five World Series appearances and four World Series titles since 1995. Freakin' team has been to the World Series almost half the time in a little over a decade-long dynasty run BECAUSE of their ability to perform (i.e. Run Scoring and Run Prevention).

Your friend is daft. And shame on you for listening to that whining for a freakin' hour and THEN attempting to position some "Yankees character flawed" B.S. as truth while pushing your ridiculous agenda.

Seriously, if you can't figure out that your buddy neither appreciates or understands how the Yankees put together such a run of excellence, then why in the world would you have any credibility at all? If that's the kind of "subjective" information you're relying on, you need to stop it because you're being fed mounds of garbage. And you don't even KNOW it's garbage? Wow.

And the Yankees would actually do even BETTER if Steinbrenner wouldn't keep pushing Cashman to acquire "name" players who've had seasons they're not likely to repeat- particularly on the pitching side (Pavano, Wright, Vazquez, Weaver, etc.). The Yankees can cover those mistakes because they spend more money than anyone, but that team would be completely unstoppable (and less expensive) if they had someone who really knew how to interpret performance data in order to use that information to build a solid projection and risk models.
Once again you pidgeonhole a Yankee-supporter's position on the state of his team based on statistical detail. I guess his emotional investment counts little. The expectations that those legions of titles have produced shouldn't aford him dissapointment considering they've not won a trophy since 2000. Obviously, being a Phillies' fan, I have little true understanding of what a Yankee fan expects. Afterall, growing up in the 60s my wildest hope as each new season started was for my team to make it to the lofty status of a .500 team. We each have our own aspirations and interests. I humor my Yankee and Red Sox fan friends as if I symathize with their plight, while I seeth because my team has never and probably will never have ownership driven first and last to win it all.

Those championships in the Yankee's bank mean little to current Yankees fans. Perhaps they mean less than Abreu's stats do to knowing Phillies fans eager to see him cashed in and the team improved.

[SteelSD]

...nor do the numbers alone determine who is the better player.

And yet, no one with an opposing view has- even once- attemted to position that statistics are the end-all-be-all of player evaluation and anaylsis. That's a strawman- a deceptive attempt at creating a non-existant opposing argument.

In fact, I've spent many posts explaining that the true goal is to understand how to be incorporate the objective and subjective in order for teams to give them the best understanding of a player's true value. The more information the better.

These other guys are tempering themselves because they realize they're up against rigid, pocket-protector types who have no clue what the true essence of baseball, and sport, is.

Or maybe the other guys have "tempered" themselves because they have the ability to acutally read and comprehend the views of folks who may not be in total agreement with them. I'd suggest that a far more plausable explanation than your tripe considering that you keep mistaking a position that calls for incorporation to be an "all stats and nothing else" position.

I produce and distribute statistics on a weekly basis for amatuer sports.

And that qualifies you for no points in a baseball discussion. Anyone can compile and distribute data. But it takes special skill to be able to draw relevant information from the data.

You've talked about hockey thusfar and aptly noted that it's not exactly a direct comparison to baseball (no other sport really is). But let's talk about hockey for a moment because, like any sport, you'll find really flawed statistics there.

Any halfway decent statistical analyst would tell you that raw Plus/Minus rating is far too subjective to be anything but mildly suggestive. It's a team-dependant metric that doesn't isolate a player's actual contribution. Instead, it simply identifies score fluctuations occuring when that player is on the ice without accounting for Defenseman quality, Goalie proficiency, and it doesn't account for ice time or average shift length. The "Production Value" statistic attempts to isolate individual scoring contribution by identifying average minutes of ice time per Point registered by an offensive player, but that metric falls short as well because it doesn't identify defensive contribution or equalize for power play or shorthanded situations. It's not measuring actual "production". Just points per minute. Again, that's something any decent statistical analyst can tell you within five seconds.

What an EXCELLENT analyst can do is equalize for everything I've noted above and produce a metric that gives us a far more accurate representation of a player's actual performance value while on the ice for his hockey team.

And that's all folks have been doing since Branch Rickey (you'll probably recognize the name) invented something called "On Base Average" (the precursor to the modern On Base Percentage). See, Branch Rickey isn't just the guy responsible for integrating the modern game. He's also the grandfather of sabermetrics. He was a forward-thinking innovator who, one day, noted that the most productive hitters were the guys who got on base most often rather than the guys who nubbed the most singles.

Bill James was simply the next step in the evolutionary chain (and he's got a WS title ring BTW) and he just keeps on trucking- without ignoring the "intangibles" aspect of the game and while producing highly advanced accurate performance metrics like Runs Created (which is over 97% accurate). Billy Beane wasn't necessarily the "next" evolutionary step, but he's the most recognizable "next" guy in the chain. Beane's organization may be driven, in part, by an actuarial-like risk analysis and projection scheme, but his biggest contribution was to use highly reliable metrics to identify market inefficiencies in order to capitalize them. Beane- often maligned for a lack of focus on defense and "chemistry"- actually won't draft guys who have perceived "character" deficiencies and (piggybacking on Paul DePodesta's project) produced the best MLB defensive team in 2005.

Theo Epstein earned his WS ring in Boston by capitalizing on massive market inefficiencies when he got a HUGE chunk of offense for a song (most prominently David Ortiz). A guy named Voros McCracken was also part of that. He's a "stathead" who figured out that Pitchers have little control over anything but Home Runs allowed and Walks.

Paul DePodesta guided the Dodgers to their first full-season division title since 1998 in his first season as General Manager in 2004. During his brief tenure (including only one full offseason), he brought in more talent than he let go and almost every notable big money player he sent packing dramatically underperformed for their salary level. Steve Finley, Adrian Beltre, Kaz Ishii, Jose Lima, Jose Hernandez, Alex Cora, Hideo Nomo, and Guillermo Mota were 30+ Million bucks worth of awful in 2005. Sean Green, Juan Encarnacion, Tom Martin, Dave Roberts, and Paul Lo Duca were over 20 Million bucks of mediocrity. The guy pushed a ton of mediocre-to-bad players off that team both during and after the 2004 season, won the division in 2004 while playing just as well without Lo Duca as with (even though Penny was injured for almost all of that late-season run) and spent big money on actual perfomers for 2005 like Jeff Kent, J.D. Drew, Derek Lowe, and Brad Penny. That "stat head" actually got better performance at about half the price of the guys he gave up, but had his team eaten by the Disabled List in 2005 after having his payroll throttled by a clueless owner who was over-reliant on an equally clueless Tommy Lasorda for advice and that combination got a super baseball mind fired from a team that hasn't had a direction without him for, literally, over a decade.

Cleveland had a nice run in the late nineties, and their team was perpetuated by a solid breakthrough in the market- i.e. Cleveland began signing a lot of their young players to long-term contracts; effectively buying out the first (and second at times) years of arbitration and/or free agency eligibility. This appeared to be a good idea at the time, but salaries were severely escalating and agents began demanding more and more of the team which eventually led to a large number of misses on the LTC front. As recently as 2001, the Indians had the fifth highest payroll in the Major Leagues. In 1993, the Indians were third to last in MLB payroll. They invested more money into the team that occupied their new park (1994- Jacobs). That payroll continued to escalate to a point where they could no longer afford to pay for the product they were putting on the field as the novelty of Jacobs had worn off (a small-market curse). In fact, as recently as 2001, the Indians put up the 5th highest payroll in the AL- an unsupportable 92.6 Million bucks.

A guy named Mark Shapiro took over the Cleveland franchise in November of 2001 knowing that he'd be severely payroll limited. The Cleveland payroll dropped from 92.6M to 78.9M and that was more than they could afford. Charles Nagy wasn't working out as planned. Travis Fryman was a waste of money. Jaret Wright was being paid over four million bucks based on nothing other than the team's incessant need to sign young players to what were now over-the-top contracts. In short, the whole idea of a LTC to young players was being turned on it's ear by agents who were happy to capitalize on the stupidity of John Hart (this continued for years).

So what does Shapiro do knowing that he's left with a bunch of high-priced crap that either won't produce or won't take the field? First, he implements a statistical evaluation system that allows the team to objectively evaluate talent (this is documented). He ships Bartolo Colon to the Expos for Grady Sizemore, Cliff Lee, and Brandon Phillips. He sends Russ Branyan to the Reds for Ben Broussard. He trades Einar Diaz and Ryan Drese to the Rangers for 1B Travis Hafner (heard of him?). He ships off Chuck Finley to the Cards for Coco Crisp. And he signs Casey Blake as a minor league FA. His system is allowing him to identify undervalued talent and he worked his tail off to acquire it.

That's the start of a comeback on the cheap. Oh, the Indians got worse in 2002 as they were destined to given the fodder left behind via indisciminate signings by Hart. Shapiro then lets an aging 1B (Thome) walk to the Phils because he knows he can't afford him and benefits from the draft picks he'll get for him. The 2004 payroll is now lower than the 2003 payroll (34.3M versus 48.6M) and the team got better. In 2005, the payroll (41.5M) ranked among the bottom five in MLB. The Indians won five more games than did the Phillies in 2005 with less than half the payroll. Why? Because Mark Shapiro understands the value of performance metrics and has set up his team to capitalize on undervalued players in other organizations while jettisoning the dreck left behind by his lesser predecessor. Shapiro is a "stat geek". Uh-oh.

Mark Shapiro just took home the MLB Executive of the Year award without even making the Playoffs.

And the "number cruncher" crew is growing. The Arizona Diamondbacks just hired one by grabbing former Red Sox Josh Byrnes. The Rangers have one now too after hiring 28-year-old Jon Daniels after John Hart resigned (he knows how to get when the getting is good). The fact that guys like Hart, Gillick (who the Phils actually hired...yeesh), Bowden, O'Brien, Minaya still have GM jobs or the potential for GM jobs is really a testament to how pervasive the "old boy network" currently is. In fact, Tommy Lasorda wouldn't even be a top advisor to an owner if all things were right and good. But they're not.

Still, we're seeing an evolutionary leap in the analytical ability of current General Managers and it's not going to stop. When we watch a Milwaukee game on television, we see hitter On Base Percentages post on the screen. We see announcers talking about how important it is to get on base. Milwaukee for God's sake. It's about to become pervasive and you either understand or you get left behind in the world of the subjective wondering why your team doesn't win. That doesn't mean that every "stat guy" is going to win (see: Riccardi, J.P.) or even win every year (see: team, any). But that does mean that a goodly portion of MLB teams understand the concept behind risk analysis and performance projection.

Now, because I don't build strawmen, I'll just ask you straight out:

"What, if any, baseball metrics do you feel are the most accurate reflections of a player's performance from the offensive and pitching sides?"

And I'll also ask, "If statistical analysis is just 'trivia', then why are all these teams hiring guys who are so good at it?"

[Ravenlord]

having not read a single post in this thread since my last post on it (but knowing the people involved as i do...), i am going to state three things.

1. when two players have nearly the same statistical evaluation, i'm going to go with the one scouts like (unless money becomes an issue). you can also read that as the one that the subjective thinks more highly of.

2. the goal of people like me and Steel, and SABRMatt, isn’t' to totally replace the subjective with hard statistical analysis. it's actually to blend the two. however, because the numbers DO often outweigh the subjective, it is often, and sadly so, comes across as being overlooked by the 'new generation' (for lack of a far better term).

3. to quote from Rob Neyer's Big Book of Lineups:
"In 1992, the Phillies won forty-three percent of their games and finished in sixth. In 1994, the Phillies won forty-seven percent of their games and finished fourth.
And in between, the Phillies won sixty percent of their games, finished first, and came pretty damn close to winning the World Series. At the time, the big story was the personality of the Phillies. They were a plain-talkin’, tobacco spittin’, hard-livin’, bunch of ballplayers, epitomized by their dynamic leadoff man, Lenny Dykstra. Nails.
But you know, if it was personality that won the pennant, why didn’t the Phillies play nearly so well in 1992or or 1994? The answer, of course, is that the Phillies didn’t win in ’93 because of their great chemistry; they won because a huge number of their players enjoyed uncharacteristically great seasons. Just look at the Single-Season Lineup.
…three 1993 Phillies, and they weren’t the only ones. Third basemen Dave Hollins had two great seasons in the majors, and one of them was 1993. Shortstop Kevin Stocker arrived from the minors in July, batted .324 in seventy games; he finished his career with a .254 average. Tommy Greene won thirty-eight games in his career, and sixteen of them came in 1993."

the thing behind SABR/stats isn't to create a soulless game, nay, it is to answer the questions generated by the game that the subjective has never been able to. for me, the stats have deepened the game. the most fun i have is watching the stuff of a pitcher, comparing his stats to pitchers with lesser or greater stuff, and trying to figure out what will happen (assuming health of course).

stats have deepened mine, and many others enjoyment of the game. while at the same time, it has diluted it for many others. but the truth is, much of baseball, and its front offices, often don't understand what the numbers say. numbers which are just records of what actually happened.

if Derek Lowe has pitched 200 innings, he's recorded 600 outs. but sometimes people don't look deep enough into that, or they look too deeply into that.

which i guess brings me to Bobby Abreu (even though i've used entirely pitcher analogies til this point). Abreu is the only player i have ever seen who is wildly successful sabermetrically and traditionally who is hated. i don't understand it in the least, and due to the massive stubbornness of most Phils' fans, i don't expect to ever change. but that's part of the culture of the city/team and as weird as it seems to me, it's part of what makes baseball truly great

just because you don't believe in statistics doesn’t make it any less true than it actually is. just enjoy the game for how you perceive it. in part, my enjoyment of the game comes from trying to find perfect balance of stat and subjective. Abreu, B. Giles, Dunn, Thome, etc all found this with me. Giambi is notably left off, because scouts said he'd be nothing (unlike the rest), though even without juicing, he's proven he can still be great (or had he just found an undetectable? given Giambi's personality, i doubt that).

but i'm drunk now, so what does it matter, since the level of just about everyone in this thread's arrogance makes MY megalomania seem non-problematic.

[Ravenlord]

and while reading a BP article (Baseball Prospectus), it occurs to me to say that i have the utmost respect for everyone in thread. Steel for his incredible knowledge of stats, which i'm still (unfortunately for me) learning from, and Donzblock for his knowledge and reverance for the history of the game (which unforutanatly, i don't find applicable to me at this time).

[SABR Matt]

Sometimes you can overlook a good thing when its right in front of you. Abreu is a quality major league outfielder, and has been for years. Burrell is getting close. Rollins is on the verge of being a great player...Utley and Howard look like they have potential.... there is a good nucleus here...

as for Abreu, who is better in the NL? the only other option may be Guillen...
Walker is too old and hobbled up, and a lot of the other RFs were journeymen or young guys...

Are you actually suggesting that not only is Abreu a good outfielder...but Guillen is too? Wow...that is truly spectacular how much the eyes can fool people.

[SABR Matt]

Sorry to dredge up a post from way back when...I just got directed to it so I'm catching up with this thread...LOL

[baseballPAP]

Admitted defeat? You're out of your mind. You guys have no clue what baseball is about. These other guys are tempering themselves because they realize they're up against rigid, pocket-protector types who have no clue what the true essence of baseball, and sport, is. I produce and distribute statistics on a weekly basis for amatuer sports. The perception of the recipients is humorously similar to the reception we give you. The unstated opinions of the people who my stats are intended for, lack the depth of understanding that these numbers are merely an overview of performance that needs to be framed by the subjectiveness and other considerations that give them validity. At this time those stats are for ice hockey. The validation and subjectivity involves such issues as what line a player is on, how that line is used, what the player's specific role on the line is, etc. While a bit different than the individual aspect of baseball stats, nonetheless, one player's 32 points and +18 must be framed to give it proper perspective against another's 9 points and +4. The stats alone do NOT constitute one's contribution versus the other's, nor do the numbers alone determine who is the better player. THAT is the essence of this debate, and on THAT, there is no defeat.

Not to mention, I don't come here to win, or lose. Presumably I come here to be "entertained" and to enhance my exposure to trivial details and other perspectives on the game I like most. Having always been an avid stats person, especially for baseball stats, and an amateur statistician, I've grown my disdain for the Bill James set gradually but more fervently because of the application and misguidance in debates over hall of fame qualifications, first and foremost. But that's a topic for another day and already of more than a handful of threads. But it's the same argument and the same kind of misapplied logic as this Abreu debate.

Do you even bother to read before you start typing? I said no one admitted defeat, and the first thing you question is that I said you did. PAY ATTENTION!
You question my knowledge of the game, well I question yours. I have considerable knowledge in every area of the game, including(but not limited to)

~ Watching 50+ games for the last 24 years, and most years well over 100
~ Playing baseball and softball for the last 28 years.
~ Playing baseball board games like APBA and Strat, as well as running leagues using Diamond Mind
~ Reading every book in the library about baseball before I graduated high school, and most since then
~ Participating in countless message boards etc. online for nearly 10 years

So what great enlightenment have I missed? You on the other hand stand firm on a single old fashioned ideal, while berating any and all opposing viewpoints without any consideration of their possible merits. You prefer to invent your own opposition instead of actually responding to any that has been given you. The single most unbelievable thing to me is that people on this board give you any respect at all, you truly don't deserve it.

[baseballPAP]

So, if you think you've won, enjoy it, I'm sure it's a lonely place to have such a narrow view of life. But maturity will open a lot of new horizons for you if you let it.

Hmm, that would be the pot calling the kettle black if ever I read it. You call my view narrow, yet I am very open to anyone who can show me anything that proves their point. I suggest you take your own advice.

[donzblock]

The single most unbelievable thing to me is that people on this board give you any respect at all, you truly don't deserve it.
Allow me to explain why I respect Johncap. He is a human being, and the proof that he is human is that he responds with intense feelings to the game of baseball (and he does not, as far as I know, allow these intense feelings to draw him into a life of crime). Furthermore, his agonizing over what the Phillies have been doing for the past 25 years makes perfect sense: his pain is the pain of a person who respects the game so much that it kills him to see it being brutalized by Phillie owners who do not respect the game but who give lip service to doing so. If you root for the Phillies, you not only have to put up with awful baseball, but you have to cut through the verbal crap of owners who swear they are striving for quality. You witness the dreck; and then you listen to the lies and the euphemisms of an Ed Wade, a Dave Montgomery, a Ruben Amaro, and a Bill Giles. And after you listen to them, you want to grab them by their throats.

Johncap is responding primarily to that kind of corrosive dishonesty. And even though it may be difficult rooting for a team like the Cincinnati Reds these days, it is much worse rooting for the Phillies for the simple reason that the Phillies are the worst team in the history of professional sports. The Reds and Phillies are losers these days, but the Phillies have a longer history of losing than anybody.

That kind of background engenders a kind of frustration that may make the Phillies' fan somewhat intemperate in his criticism of his team. However, we are all capable of admitting a mistake and learning from it; I am sure you are, too. (Now I have to organize my thoughts and respond to some of Steel's thoughts. There is so much material on this thread that I am going crazy trying to decide what to respond to.)

[LP fan]

Are you actually suggesting that not only is Abreu a good outfielder...but Guillen is too? Wow...that is truly spectacular how much the eyes can fool people.

What I meant was....considering the whole package...defense, offence and speed......Abreu is a quality player.....do you seriously disagree?

[baseballPAP]

Allow me to explain why I respect Johncap. He is a human being, and the proof that he is human is that he responds with intense feelings to the game of baseball (and he does not, as far as I know, allow these intense feelings to draw him into a life of crime). Furthermore, his agonizing over what the Phillies have been doing for the past 25 years makes perfect sense: his pain is the pain of a person who respects the game so much that it kills him to see it being brutalized by Phillie owners who do not respect the game but who give lip service to doing so. If you root for the Phillies, you not only have to put up with awful baseball, but you have to cut through the verbal crap of owners who swear they are striving for quality. You witness the dreck; and then you listen to the lies and the euphemisms of an Ed Wade, a Dave Montgomery, a Ruben Amaro, and a Bill Giles. And after you listen to them, you want to grab them by their throats.

Johncap is responding primarily to that kind of corrosive dishonesty. And even though it may be difficult rooting for a team like the Cincinnati Reds these days, it is much worse rooting for the Phillies for the simple reason that the Phillies are the worst team in the history of professional sports. The Reds and Phillies are losers these days, but the Phillies have a longer history of losing than anybody.

That kind of background engenders a kind of frustration that may make the Phillies' fan somewhat intemperate in his criticism of his team. However, we are all capable of admitting a mistake and learning from it; I am sure you are, too. (Now I have to organize my thoughts and respond to some of Steel's thoughts. There is so much material on this thread that I am going crazy trying to decide what to respond to.)
Well put Don, and thank you. I'm not sure if I stated this before, but I am a Reds fan, so believe me, I(John Allen) feel(Dan O'Brien) your(Rich Aurilia whining) pain(Eric BLEEPING Milton). It would be nice however for someone to offer a different viewpoint without resorting to insults, stubborness and outright obliviousness to any good point that differs from their own. You have done this. Many others in this thread have. Even Hardiman, though I suspect it pains him :noidea . Johncap has done none of this, thus I have no respect for him. I'm done on this topic...thanks everyone for some great debating.

[johncap]

And I'll also ask, "If statistical analysis is just 'trivia', then why are all these teams hiring guys who are so good at it?"
Because it's trendy and the Wall Street-like thing to do. It's very similar to the hype and mis-aligned praise for the so-called Dell methodology. In the evolution of both, the lustre will wear from the pumpkin and the truth will become more clear.

That said, that was a VERY impressive diatribe, laden with some very insightful detail. The only part I'll argue is that you haven't tried to convince us that it's ALL about stats. I have neither the energy or inclination to go back and rehash it, but that's how we got here.

And yes, hockey stats leave a lot to be desired. Baseball stats are so broad and pervasive and manipulative that only they can produce this kind of debate and meteoric thread.

[johncap]

The single most unbelievable thing to me is that people on this board give you any respect at all, you truly don't deserve it.
Gee, I'm not sure I can go on.... Did your mom help you write that?

[SteelSD]

Because it's trendy and the Wall Street-like thing to do. It's very similar to the hype and mis-aligned praise for the so-called Dell methodology. In the evolution of both, the lustre will wear from the pumpkin and the truth will become more clear.

But here's the thing...

All those GM's aren't using the some single dogmatic methodology. Beane's methodology differs from that of Shapiro which differs from that of Epstein.

The only methodology replication in play right now is that folks feel that the incorporation of statistical analysis can benefit their team by allowing them to minimize risk and maximize performance. That's not "trendy" as much as it is smart business practice. And it's just a continuing of the incorporation of objective analysis that began way before scouts started using radar guns.

It's unfortunate that the layperson tends to interpret sabermetrics to be an "objective instead of subjective" argument. It's not. Never has been, regardless of what Joe Morgan tries to tell us about "Moneyball" (a book he claimed was written by Billy Beane himself).

See, player personnel decisions have long been driven by statistics- particularly since the implementation of the modern free agent system. Teams have traditionally payed big money for things like Batting Average, Runs Batted In, and pitchers' Win totals. Problem was that teams ended up blowing a ton of that cash because they were paying for the WRONG statistics. Not sure why folks are so critical of other folks making an effort to figure out what's actually worth paying for. Baseball is littered with stupid decisions that could have been avoided had someone with an ounce of sense noted that people were making decisions based on bad information (just like if NHL teams were grabbing players just because of their +/- ratings).

What we're seeing is teams getting smarting about what to pay for and how to find players worth paying. As this continues, you're going to see more methodology variations based on a statistical analysis theme. You're also going to see some GMs win and some GMs lose. And yeah, you're going to see some GMs whose methodologies don't pay off as well as others (which is what we've always seen anyway).

The lazy fan is going to look at the failure of one of these new "stat head" GMs and point to that as an indictment of statistical analysis in general. That's kind of silly because you could remove every "new age" GM from the game and you'd still have "traditionalist" general managers who'd be falling flat on their faces while some would succeed.

The simple truth is that the more information you have and the better you are at analyzing it, the better off you're going to be. The crux of the objective/subjective debate is and always will be about the level of incorporation. Unfortunately, the more traditional-minded folks are ill-equipped to enter into that sort of debate because they tend to lack an understanding of the stats and whatever methodology they're attempting to denigrate. In many cases, they won't even make an effort to understand statistical analysis because, after all, math is hard and change is difficult.

On the flip side, the sabermetricians were borne of traditionalist cloth. Any "stat guy" you run into already has the knowledge of the "subjective" side of the game. Let's face it- no one just wakes up one day with a laptop in hand and then decides they like this whole baseball thing but ONLY the statistics.

[johncap]

Unfortunately, the more traditional-minded folks are ill-equipped to enter into that sort of debate because they tend to lack an understanding of the stats and whatever methodology they're attempting to denigrate. In many cases, they won't even make an effort to understand statistical analysis because, after all, math is hard and change is difficult.
When Kent Bottenfield-like decisions are no longer made I'll buy into this. In the meantime temper the "great moves" like David Ortiz (which was as much accident as stroke of genius) with a some of the bad ones. When Bill James was hired I throught it was a good move if the stats were deployed and scrutinized in a sensical manner, but I have to tell you I think the heads are growing at an alarming rate and the inmates think they've taken over the asylum. The is an old boys club that won't give it up that easily.

[SteelSD]

When Kent Bottenfield-like decisions are no longer made I'll buy into this.

Kent Bottenfield-like decisions will always be made because you'll never see every team hire a GM smart enough to not trade Jim Edmonds for Kent Bottenfield. And Bottenfield is a great example of how teams pay for players who don't deserve it.

The "bigger fool" (speaking of GMs of course) has always been out there and will continue to be out there. And I can guarantee that more teams than ever will figure out who that bigger fool is.

In the meantime temper the "great moves" like David Ortiz (which was as much accident as stroke of genius) with a some of the bad ones.

Some of the "bad ones" include Beane's signing of a guy like Jermaine Dye to a huge contract with little reason. Paul DePodesta acquired Milton Bradley while underestimating exactly what a huge uncontrollable jerk he actually was.

But David Ortiz was no accident. If you take a look at the 2003 transactions (including the 2002 offseason) you'll see a pattern. See, Epstein wasn't exactly blessed by the high payroll left behind even though naysayers often chalk up the 2004 Red Sox team to high payroll moreso than Epstein's ability to spin gold from flax.

Ortiz put up .272 BA/.339 OBP/.500 SLG numbers for the Twins in 2002 at age 26. He was coming into his "age-prime" seasons (generally age 27 to age 29) and had put up big time numbers in the minors while playing against players his own age (a big deal because many players can put up big numbers against younger competition). That was a calculated move. Even though Epstein knew that Ortiz couldn't play defense, he got Ortiz because of his offensive projections and got him for an incredibly low 1.25M.

During that same pre-2004 period, Epstein also got Mike Timlin for less than 2M. He signed Bill Mueller for almost 1.5M less (2.1M) than the Cubs gave him the season before. Epstein picked up a rotation piece (Bronson Arroyo) off waivers from the Pirates for nothing. He stole Todd Walker from the Reds for a couple of chumps. He got Kevin Millar from the Marlins for virtually nothing (the Marlins wanted to sell him to the Japanese league). Ditto Gabe Kapler from the Rockies. Epstein swiped Scott Williamson from the Reds in exchange for a couple A-Ball arms.

Then after the 2003 season, Epstein got Mark Bellhorn from the Rockies for pretty much nothing. He tossed Casey Fossum and suspects to the D'Backs to get Curt Schilling. He spent real money on Keith Foulke and got an incredible season from him. Epstein grabbed Curt Leskanic for nothing after KC (of all teams) gave up on him even though he had a history of solid performance. He wanted to improve the defense (and get a SS who could actually stay off the DL) to supplement the team and moved Nomar and a minor leaguer (Murton) and got a great defensive 1B (Mientkiewicz) and SS (Cabrera) for the stretch run. Epstein had to take some chances with the pen (due to injuries and inconsistency) and got Mike Myers off waivers from Seattle late in the season and he put up solid numbers.

During the 2003 season, the combination of Ortiz, Mueller, Millar, and Walker (almost half the offense) cost the Red Sox only 8 million dollars. In 2004, we can replace Walker with Bellhorn and those four roster slots combined for a salary of about 10 million bucks.

One thing that's lost of most fans is that even though the Red Sox have traditionally (recently at least) spent a lot of money, Theo Epstein didn't have a lot of money to spend because the majority of it was tied up in extreme contracts negotiated before he joined the club. If Epstein didn't have the ability to put together nearly half of a great offense on the cheap (and let's face it- a combo of Ortiz, Mueller, Millar, and Walker/Bellhorn for 10M bucks or less IS cheap), he wouldn't have been able to sign Foulke or trade for Schilling because he wouldn't have been able to absorb the 15+ million just those two players represented in 2004.

Basically, Epstein knew a few things coming into 2003. First, he knew that high OBP offense was particularly undervalued. Second, he knew that he would have to spend real money for pitching. Third, he realized that the only way he could afford the pitching he needed was to save money by getting real values on the offensive side.

David Ortiz and Co. wasn't an "accident'. Those signings were the result of a specific design.

When Bill James was hired I throught it was a good move if the stats were deployed and scrutinized in a sensical manner, but I have to tell you I think the heads are growing at an alarming rate and the inmates think they've taken over the asylum. The is an old boys club that won't give it up that easily.

And I haven't seen anything from the Red Sox that tell me they don't know what they've been doing during the Epstein/James/McCracken era. But I agree with you about the "old boys club". The irony, IMHO, is that the same "OBN" (Old Boys Network) has been trying to get their scouts to use more objective methodology when evaluating players (radar guns, standardized report language, etc.). And frankly, there's simply no objective rating system for scouts in most organizations. If you miss 99 times and then find Sammy Sosa, the OBN will remember you for being the guy to find Sammy Sosa. Heck, we've seen guys who's careers have been made by "hitting" on a single player while we never hear about the other 99% of players they've suggested who've never done a thing. We've also heard about guys who listened to said scout 100 out of 100 times without ever seeing the player but who are credited with "having a hand" in signing a player they would have never known about had the scout not recommended him.

If I were that scout, I'd be scared too when some new-age guy took over my club because I might just assume that he'd actually (finally) be evaluating my ability- on an objective level- based on the percentage of players I've suggested that actually make a MLB contribution. If I were that executive, I'd be similarly worried that I'm going to be exposed. But at the same time, if I were good enough at finding those guys I wouldn't have to be worried about a thing. And that's really what it boils down to.

If you're the best of the best at finding talent I'm not going to care about your methodology. But baseball has 30 General Managers and 30 Asst. General Managers and 30 Managers and 30 Directors of Scouting and innumerable scouts. Without the ability to analyze data, those GM's are completely reliant on how good their scouts are with subjective data because there's no way they can process, remember, and recall enough events from enough games to have anything resemling a clue as to what really happened.

You and I both know that's a dangerous thing as a scout who lucks into a top guy (regardless of how many "misses" he has) is elevated to tenure status. How can you fire the guy who's credited with finding Sammy Sosa- regardless of how much garbage he told you to sign before or after? That's the question too many organizations answer with "We can't!" But all they're really doing is rolling dice. All they're doing is hoping that Omar Minaya has some kind of real skill other than throwing darts at a board while blindfolded. All they're doing is relying on Ed Wade's ability to hire the right people without knowing if Ed Wade has the ability to hire the right people.

And we know that the OBN will surround themselves with guys they've worked with before regardless of how good they are. This is painfully obvious when you're a Reds' fan. Dan O'Brien used to work for Texas and so did Jerry Narron (who's now the manager) and Jerry Narron knows Bucky Dent really well so Dent is now the Bench Coach.

And so it goes...

[Androctus]

I want to thank everyone for the last 45 minutes I did not spend working because I was trying to catch up on everything that went on over the weekend.

[Androctus]

Hey here's some more useless figures for the statmongers:

Bobby Abreu is now the subject matter for 2 of the top three "replied to" threads of all time here in Baseball Fever's Phillies Forum. This one, now over 120 replies and still going, and Donzblock's infamous "Trade Abreu" thread weighs in at #3, which, by the way, also includes another lively debate regarding the validity of certain statistics... hoo rah

[ed hardiman]

Hey here's some more useless figures for the statmongers:

Bobby Abreu is now the subject matter for 2 of the top three "replied to" threads of all time here in Baseball Fever's Phillies Forum. This one, now over 120 replies and still going, and Donzblock's infamous "Trade Abreu" thread weighs in at #3, which, by the way, also includes another lively debate regarding the validity of certain statistics... hoo rah
I have gone verb for verb with an "on adjective percentage" of .983...

[donzblock]

Bad calls happen occassionally, but they don't happen constantly. The actual impact they have in a macro sense is minimal and it's going to even out across all the players because, generally speaking, they see the same quality of umpires throughout the season.
In my experience, bad calls never even out. What goes around never comes around. O. J. Simpsons get away with murder. They even get away with double murders and then spend the rest of their lives on golf courses. Angels of Death like Josef Mengele commit abominable crimes and then escape to South American countries and die wealthy and old. And every mistake by an umpire has consequences that alter the continuum, and nothing will ever be the same again, and human events essentially remain unpredictable, unless you are talking about the Phillies, in which case you can safely predict that they will not win it all.

Anecdotal evidence can help supplement the historical records we have, but that kind of stuff is only good if we're evaluating isolated Plate Appearances.
That is exactly what I would like to do: evaluate the in-the-clutch plate appearances of Abreu during the season. Reconstructing the situation would produce material that is far more substantial than the stuff in an anecdote.



And let's remember that the impact of that Home Run was only possible because of Utley's earlier longball hit while down 4 Runs. If Abreu had done the same thing when down by four Runs (which is one Run away from qualifying as "blowout" status) and had the Phillies lost the game, I dare say we'd see some folks talking about how Abreu was just "stat padding".

Was Utley "stat padding" when he hit that HR?
No, Utley was certainly not stat padding when he hit that homer. Nobody in that situation would have been stat padding. In that situation, it was the 9th inning. It was a game the Phillies had to win. With two men on and none out, Utley at the plate with one swing of the bat had a chance to put the Phillies back in the game. He had to feel the tension of that moment. I felt it as I watched him. Every aspect of that situation screamed out "Clutch!" That at bat would have to be defined as clutch, and magnificent Chase came through under pressure.

And that's the problem with definitions of "clutch" or "choke". Everything that happens early in a game affects the game state at the end. We know that intuitively, but because we tend to focus more on the late-game we tend to wash away real "clutch" performances well before Inning nine rolls around. In some cases, the most IMPORTANT Run may not be the last. It may be a first Inning HR in a 0-0 game. Maybe a 6th Run scored in the fifth will end up being the winning margain.
It is easier to define "clutch" if the situation occurs at the end of the game. If the stats are to be meaningful, we obviously have to come up with a comprehensive definition of "clutch"; or we could evaluate each individual at bat and determine if the situation merits being described as "clutch."

Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see the need to ignore what happens in the first two thirds of each baseball game because Innings 1-6 really really matter too.
In a World Series, Stengel once pinch hit for Clete Boyer in the first or second inning. Boyer couldn't believe it, and he did not have an official at bat that game even though he was a starter. Stengel's move seemed foolish and hasty, but he would have agreed with you that innings 1-6 really matter. Of course, they do.


See, it just doesn't matter to me that in a single PA the hitter reached on a blooper instead of a hard line drive. I know that baseball's a random game like that and that everyone is going to get a hit that looks like a line drive in the box score. But, in the end, the best performers are generally going to continue to be the best performers because of the numbers they put up. The big deal about that is one has to know what the "right" numbers are otherwise they'll end up paying big bucks for guys who have shiny reputations but who don't have the performance needed to justify the expense.
We disagree on when those numbers are put up. Abreu's numbers are consistently good each year, but we feel he is soft when it really matters.


The point isn't that subjective analysis should be EXCLUDED. The point is that there needs to be some sort of balance between the subjective or objective. Otherwise, you'll end up with a team that underperforms signficantly. And what you'll also find is that when the losing starts, the "chemistry" stops.
I agree.



It's doable, but I'm not gonna be the guy to do it because A) I've already got what I need (i.e. Abreu's performance numbers) and B) It would be exceptionally time consuming.

All the game logs (including PBP information about every pitch) for the 2005 season are available at espn.com if someone would like to isolate each PA like that.
I don't have the time, either, but I will make the attempt. Now will Gillick trade Abreu and lower himself in Steel's eyes but raise himself in ours? Or will Gillick realize that Steel's arguments so far have been more substantial than ours and keep the bum? Now that the Eagles are dead, we can pay full attention to the Phillies.

[Androctus]

It's doable, but I'm not gonna be the guy to do it because A) I've already got what I need (i.e. Abreu's performance numbers) and B) It would be exceptionally time consuming.

All the game logs (including PBP information about every pitch) for the 2005 season are available at espn.com if someone would like to isolate each PA like that.
"I have a proposal for you. Have your statistician cross this forum, present himself before our Academy, put his head between his legs, and kiss his own arse."

[johncap]

Now that the Eagles are dead, we can pay full attention to the Phillies.
First I digress....no one says an at bat in the second inning means less than one in the ninth with regard to the outcome of the game, HOWEVER, there is substantially different stress placed on the player in those two differing scenarios. Some players rise to the pressure situations and outperform their averages under pressure, and others wilt under pressure producing far lower numbers under stress than when not under stress. It's easy to select parameters for what is and isn't stressfull. 7th inning or later within 3 runs, as far as I'm concerned for the purpose of this discussion. That doesn't mean a bases loaded sitation in the ninth down four doesn't qualify but you have to draw the line somewhere or it'd go in incessantly.

Now, as for the quote.... What is the statistical breakdown of going to the so-called prevent defense like last night? As Vaughan Hebron said, it's the "porevent yourself from winning defense". We won't even talk about the idiotic play calling by Reid and horrendous decision from McNabb.

Thank God I walked away at 20-7 to do something else and din't endure that.

[SteelSD]

In my experience, bad calls never even out. What goes around never comes around. O. J. Simpsons get away with murder. They even get away with double murders and then spend the rest of their lives on golf courses. Angels of Death like Josef Mengele commit abominable crimes and then escape to South American countries and die wealthy and old. And every mistake by an umpire has consequences that alter the continuum, and nothing will ever be the same again, and human events essentially remain unpredictable, unless you are talking about the Phillies, in which case you can safely predict that they will not win it all.

We're not talking about Josef Mengele, O.J. Simpson, or even Don Denkinger. We're talking about an umpire calling a ball a strike and that's as common an occurrance for every hitter as it is for any hitter.

That is exactly what I would like to do: evaluate the in-the-clutch plate appearances of Abreu during the season. Reconstructing the situation would produce material that is far more substantial than the stuff in an anecdote.

Go for it. But before you do, make sure you define what you're using for "clutch" because your Utley scenario below really don't fall within the normal "clutch" parameters.

No, Utley was certainly not stat padding when he hit that homer. Nobody in that situation would have been stat padding. In that situation, it was the 9th inning. It was a game the Phillies had to win. With two men on and none out, Utley at the plate with one swing of the bat had a chance to put the Phillies back in the game. He had to feel the tension of that moment. I felt it as I watched him. Every aspect of that situation screamed out "Clutch!" That at bat would have to be defined as clutch, and magnificent Chase came through under pressure.

Ok. I assume you'll be using every late-game scenario in which Abreu walked to the plate with his team down by four Runs as well then?

It is easier to define "clutch" if the situation occurs at the end of the game. If the stats are to be meaningful, we obviously have to come up with a comprehensive definition of "clutch"; or we could evaluate each individual at bat and determine if the situation merits being described as "clutch."

Actually, it's only easier to perceive "clutch" in late-game scenarios.

And you might want to note that, over time, pretty much all players' situational numbers end up migrating to their norm. You'll see short-term transient yearly fluctuations, but hitters do end up being the same hitters in every situation over time.

In a World Series, Stengel once pinch hit for Clete Boyer in the first or second inning. Boyer couldn't believe it, and he did not have an official at bat that game even though he was a starter. Stengel's move seemed foolish and hasty, but he would have agreed with you that innings 1-6 really matter. Of course, they do.

Then why use only part of the picture to define a player's value?

We disagree on when those numbers are put up. Abreu's numbers are consistently good each year, but we feel he is soft when it really matters.

See, I think it "really matters" all the time. It's Major League Baseball after all.

I agree.

One down, one thousand to go. ;)

I don't have the time, either, but I will make the attempt. Now will Gillick trade Abreu and lower himself in Steel's eyes but raise himself in ours? Or will Gillick realize that Steel's arguments so far have been more substantial than ours and keep the bum? Now that the Eagles are dead, we can pay full attention to the Phillies.

If Gillick trades Abreu, he's going to be judged on what he gets rather than what he gives up. I'll trade anyone. But Gillick better get more for Abreu than the Phils got for Scott Rolen.

[SteelSD]

First I digress....no one says an at bat in the second inning means less than one in the ninth with regard to the outcome of the game, HOWEVER, there is substantially different stress placed on the player in those two differing scenarios.

Using that logic, PA's with Runners On would be "more stressful" than PA's with none on. Plate Appearances with Runners In Scoring position would escalate that stress level as would the same situation with two Outs. Close-and-Late game scenarios would further increase the stress level on a hitter.

And Bobby Abreu, over the past four seasons, has raised his performance level in every one of those "more stressful" situations.

Some players rise to the pressure situations and outperform their averages under pressure, and others wilt under pressure producing far lower numbers under stress than when not under stress.

People have been trying to find those players for years and haven't been able to. Just wanted to let you know that.

It's easy to select parameters for what is and isn't stressfull. 7th inning or later within 3 runs, as far as I'm concerned for the purpose of this discussion. That doesn't mean a bases loaded sitation in the ninth down four doesn't qualify but you have to draw the line somewhere or it'd go in incessantly.

Close and Late: Results in the 7th inning or later with the batting team either ahead by one run, tied or with the potential tying run at least on deck.

The current Close and Late definition approximates what you're talking about.

The "Close and Late" parameters are as follows:

If Ahead: One-Run gap Maximum
If Tied: Zero-Run gap

If Behind:
*None On= Two-Run gap maximum
*One On= Three-Run gap max
*Two On= Four-Run gap max
*Three On= Five-Run gap max

And BTW, the Utley PA donzblock noted would actually fall under the "Close and Late" umbrella because he walked to the plate with the tying Run on deck.

Peformance in the situations listed above is what the current "Close and Late" metric tracks. In fact, it's exactly what donzblock was talking about- situations in which the player had an opportunity to give his team an opportunity to win the game or, at minimum, put the game within reach.

Again, here's Abreu with the opportunity to win or to put the game within reach:

None On 2002-04: .264 BA/.382 OBP/.450 SLG
Close and Late: 2002-04: .288 BA/.431 OBP/.464 SLG

None On 2005: .267 BA/.383 OBP/.446 SLG
Close and Late 2005: .298 BA/.422 OBP/.571 SLG

Now, there's no way to just wash that performance away by claiming that Abreu produced in "meaningless" Close and Late game scenarios because, by your own (and donzblock's) definition there ARE no "meaningless" Close and Late game scenarios. And look at that peformance. Not only did Abreu raise his BA in CaL situations, but he made fewer outs and acquired more bases as well. His 2005 performance escalation is even more severe than his prior three seasons.

Now, I'm not one to believe in "clutch". But from 2002 to 2005, when the Phillies needed someone to help create an insurance Run, break a tie, or help pull them back to win a winnable game from the 7th Inning on, Bobby Abreu has been the guy to do it.

[ed hardiman]

This dissection of Abreu's numbers reminds me of something I once heard about Mussolini that he made the trains run on time.
His numbers were good but he wasn't.
Numbers alone do not make the player.
I don't need to know the equation for cracking oil to figure out I got a batch of bad gas in my car.
Nothing I've read here changes the fact Abreu is best traded now because of his age, contract, peak value and he doesn't bring the intangibles needed to get a team to the World Series.
All the abstracted numbers in the world aren't ever going to change that reality they're nice to know but this is a baseball forum not the math club...

[SteelSD]

This dissection of Abreu's numbers reminds me of something I once heard about Mussolini that he made the trains run on time.
His numbers were good but he wasn't.

And if the totality of running a country was getting trains to their stations on time, you'd have a point. But instead, you don't.

Numbers alone do not make the player.

No one ever said they did. Milton Bradley puts up good numbers consistently. Don't want him anywhere near my club. But then, allowing your perception of "intangibles" proficiency to drive your idea of a player's value doesn't work either because you end up with guys like Eric Milton on a team because he's a "proven winner". And you end up with a "leader" who "plays the game the right way" like Rich Aurilia- who did nothing but whine about playing time in 2005.

I don't need to know the equation for cracking oil to figure out I got a batch of bad gas in my car.

Unless you have the ability to run a diagnostic, you don't know what's wrong with your car. Even worse, if your car consistently breaks down and you simply blame it on the same thing because you don't know any better, you'll never actually get it fixed.

And that's what you're doing. Bobby Abreu is not what's "wrong" with the Phillies. He's not what's preventing the Phillies from taking the next step.

The Phillies have a fairly mediocre pitching stafff (finished 10th in the NL in pitching in 2005). They won almost exactly as many games as any team would have given their Run differential (Runs Scored versus Runs Allowed). So did Atlanta.

To fix it, the Phillies either need to improve their offense while the pitching holds steady or improve the pitching while scoring the same number of Runs next season. Or, if Atlanta takes a tumble (and they might without Mazzone) and no one else in the NL East improves, the division is the Phillies' to lose. But I'd rather focus on actually improving the club's performance rather than count on everyone else crashing and burning.

Nothing I've read here changes the fact Abreu is best traded now because of his age, contract, peak value and he doesn't bring the intangibles needed to get a team to the World Series.

Actually, Thome or Howard is the guy who needs to go. They're redundant pieces. The Phils have no one who can reasonably replace Abreu's performance in RF. Jason Michaels is a nice little player (love the guy's OBP) but he's no Abreu with the stick.

Common sense tells us that Thome is the guy (age, contract, etc.) who needs to be moved of the two, but Howard's value may never be higher coming off his ROY award.

Now, I know all the dreck about trading within one's own division, but I would think that either Thome or Howard would be attractive to a team like Atlanta. If Gillick can remember how to trade, targetting Atlanta isn't a bad idea. They've got guys like Chuck James just waiting to help out someone's rotation and you never know about the availability of a guy like Marcus Giles (who could be moved if the Braves clamp down Furcal with a big money deal).

Seriously, if the Phillies were able to get a return of something like Giles and James for Thome or Howard, that would be a coup. It would allow them to plop Giles in at 2B, move Utley back to 3B (significantly upgrading offensively versus Bell), and slot James in the rotation (or allow him to stretch out in the pen before doing so).

The above scenario (or something similar) would be able to improve team performance as a certainty because they'd simply be moving a redundant piece for upgrades elsewhere. Abreu's "intangibles" aren't going to keep the Phils out of the playoff for gosh sakes. Removing Abreu is NOT "addition by subtraction" in that regard, nor does trading him necessarily get the team any better because it's doubtful that any players he'd bring in would make up the offensive loss moving him would represent.

All the abstracted numbers in the world aren't ever going to change that reality they're nice to know but this is a baseball forum not the math club...

All you're saying is that you're going to think what you like regardless of what the facts say. Yeah, I kinda already knew that so you didn't need to type it again.

You're right though- a baseball forum isn't just a "math club". But it shouldn't be a faith-based ongoing religion seminar where things like actual facts are devalued or ignored because they don't jibe with someone's subjective belief system.

[philliesnation]

And if the totality of running a country was getting trains to their stations on time, you'd have a point. But instead, you don't.


You overestimate the Italians. They still love the infrastructure that Mussolini brought to the country and only second comes the fact that he was an incompetent facist dictator. The only point ed was trying to make is the one seen in evaluating Carl Everett or T.O.

[SteelSD]

You overestimate the Italians. They still love the infrastructure that Mussolini brought to the country and only second comes the fact that he was an incompetent facist dictator. The only point ed was trying to make is the one seen in evaluating Carl Everett or T.O.

Thanks for the info about the Italians. That's mind-boggling to me but then, every nut has a good idea once in a grand while I guess.

Anyway...

I actually agree about the potential pratfalls of overlooking a player's "character". I think I cited Milton Bradley in that respect (a guy who's simply uncontrollable). Terrell Owens is a turd in the same mold. But then, the "uncontrollable" guys are quite different from those who might just be your normal kind of jerk from time to time.

You should see the White Sox fans. They're convinced that Kenny Williams signed Carl Everett because of his GOOD character while he's been outed by other organizations as being a punk. Ditto for A.J. Pierzynski (sp?). He got a nasty rep in his last season with the Giants.

And that's the thing. One teams punk might be another team's good guy. In fact, new Dodger's GM Ned Colletti (former Asst. GM with San Fran) recounted a story about when the Giants acquired Jeff Kent:

Colletti: When we had Matt (Williams) and Barry (Bonds), they made up something like 30% of the payroll, so we knew we had to trade one of them, and it had to be Matt. Cleveland came forward, and we were looking at (Jeff) Kent. People would tell us he's a selfish player, a loner, not a glowing report at all. So we went back to the Mets organization--where he'd played before--and we asked them what we could expect. They said he'd play hard every day.

Now look at that. You've got two different organizations (Cleveland, NYM) and each had a different take on Jeff Kent. Both reports on Kent came from folks who should know what they're talking about. In fact, it had taken only 39 games with the Indians for Kent to cultivate a perception that he was a bad seed. Yet, both organizations thought differently of Jeff Kent.

Too often it comes down to who you believe more. And frankly, it often doesn't matter who's right or wrong if at least one of your sources is able to say something (anything) good about a guy another organization tells you is a big fat jerk. Why is that? It's because the team looking to acquire the player knows that his performance will- almost without exception- trump a perceived character flaw.

And now that Kent has been away from Cleveland for nine seasons and been a part of four playoff teams (including one WS team), how do we perceive Kent now? He's perceived by many to still be a jerk. But this jerk has also helped his team to the postseason in nearly half the seasons since Cleveland labeled him a jerk. The Dodgers made the playoffs in 2004 WITH Milton Bradley on the squad. But the 2005 Dodgers got wracked by injuries and before you know it, Bradley and Kent are at each other's throats.

Look, 30 teams leave spring training every season. 30 managers tell us that their team has great "chemistry" regardless of whether or not Jeff Kent or Carl Everett is on the squad. Yet only eight teams perform well enough to make the playoffs. Only two teams peform well enough to get to the World Series. And most times one or both of those teams have a player or two on it only their mothers would love. Interesting how that all works.

[ed hardiman]

...All you're saying is that you're going to think what you like regardless of what the facts say. Yeah, I kinda already knew that so you didn't need to type it again.You're right though- a baseball forum isn't just a "math club". But it shouldn't be a faith-based ongoing religion seminar where things like actual facts are devalued or ignored because they don't jibe with someone's subjective belief system.
All you've done is regurgitate numbers.
Which is best summed up by Truman Capote's quote:
"That's not writing it's typing."
My opinion is apparently extremely obvious to those of us who watch Abreu play on a regular basis and just as obviously not understood by those of you who don't.

[donzblock]

We're not talking about Josef Mengele, O.J. Simpson, or even Don Denkinger. We're talking about an umpire calling a ball a strike and that's as common an occurrance for every hitter as it is for any hitter.
And as you well know, I was also talking about an umpire calling balls and strikes, and when he blows one or two, things never even out.



Go for it. But before you do, make sure you define what you're using for "clutch" because your Utley scenario below really don't fall within the normal "clutch" parameters.
I am going to define "clutch" as a situation occurring in the late innings of the game and am open to suggestions for a good definition.



Ok. I assume you'll be using every late-game scenario in which Abreu walked to the plate with his team down by four Runs as well then?
No, if Abreu were the first hitter up in a late inning with his team down 4 runs, I would not count that as a clutch situation.



Actually, it's only easier to perceive "clutch" in late-game scenarios.

And you might want to note that, over time, pretty much all players' situational numbers end up migrating to their norm. You'll see short-term transient yearly fluctuations, but hitters do end up being the same hitters in every situation over time.
That is what I will be trying to verify. Will these ESPN stats and reconstructions indicate if an umpire made a bad call similar to the one that victimized Abreu in the 9th inning of that incredible game against the Reds?



Then why use only part of the picture to define a player's value?
"Important" is not synonymous with "clutch." A hit in a non-clutch situation may turn out to be important.



See, I think it "really matters" all the time. It's Major League Baseball after all.
What "really matters" is not synonymous with "clutch."


If Gillick trades Abreu, he's going to be judged on what he gets rather than what he gives up. I'll trade anyone. But Gillick better get more for Abreu than the Phils got for Scott Rolen.
Yes, Gillick will get killed here very quickly if his trades bomb. Phillie fans have no patience and should have no patience.

[Androctus]

You realize of course that Yoogy "Urban Warfare" Urbina tried to burn down several of his servants because they were having this exact same debate about his buddy up the street for 6 days straight

[SteelSD]

All you've done is regurgitate numbers.
Which is best summed up by Truman Capote's quote:
"That's not writing it's typing."

Instead of watching you continue to post non-applicable quotes from everywhere BUT baseball, how about we take one from a guy who knows something about it...

"Statistics, of course, cannot tell the whole story. They fall short of bridging the gap between human expectancy and fulfillment. They cannot measure such intangibles as intelligence, courage, disposition, effort.

But somehow baseball's intangibles balance out. They reflect themselves in other ways. Over an entire season, or many seasons, individuals and teams build an accumulation of mathematical constants. A man can work with them. He can measure results and establish values. He can then construct a formula which expresses something tangible..." -- Branch Rickey

You gonna argue with Branch Rickey's words, now Ed?

Look, I know that you don't really have the first clue about how this whole statistical analysis thing works. But your ignorance and over-reliance on common myth and subjective dogmatic reasoning doesn't make statistical analysis a bad thing. It just means that others possess a relevant skill set you don't. That doesn't make you a bad fan- just a less informed one.

[SteelSD]

And as you well know, I was also talking about an umpire calling balls and strikes, and when he blows one or two, things never even out.

True or False: Hitters see virtually the same quality of umpires throughout the season.

Now, don't get me wrong- Abreu may see a high number of borderline pitches called either for or against him. As he takes a ton of pitches (and, subsequently tends to be bashed for B.S. like not being "aggressive" enough), I'd anticipate that. But I don't, for a moment, think it's plausible that umpires make mistakes more often with Abreu than they do with a player who takes a comparable number of pitches.

I am going to define "clutch" as a situation occurring in the late innings of the game and am open to suggestions for a good definition.

Is there something wrong with the "Close and Late" definition that I posted? I mean, other than the fact that Abreu performs well in those situations?

That "Close and Late" definition appears to satisfy your criteria (including counting the Utley HR).

No, if Abreu were the first hitter up in a late inning with his team down 4 runs, I would not count that as a clutch situation.

Ok then. But how does a player hit a three-Run Home Run without that first hitting reaching base when down by four Runs?

That is what I will be trying to verify. Will these ESPN stats and reconstructions indicate if an umpire made a bad call similar to the one that victimized Abreu in the 9th inning of that incredible game against the Reds?

Of course not. But in a macro sense, that's also irrelevant.

"Important" is not synonymous with "clutch." A hit in a non-clutch situation may turn out to be important.

What "really matters" is not synonymous with "clutch."

Only because it appears that "clutch" doesn't exist in Innings 1-through-6?

I've always wondered about that. Why can't "clutch" happen in the first two-thirds of a baseball game?

Yes, Gillick will get killed here very quickly if his trades bomb. Phillie fans have no patience and should have no patience.

And I certainly wouldn't have any patience with Gillick even if I HAD patience. There was a point in his career where a guy like Gillick inspired a bit of confidence. That was before his last couple of years at the helm of Seattle, where it appeared that he couldn't be bothered to actually improve a club that was very close to taking the next step (like the Phillies). At this point, if I were a Phillies fan (and I do like the club), I'd need Gillick to show me some aptitude before feeling anything but uneasy about his presence there.

[Androctus]

"Thats one pound for a five minute argument, but only five pounds for a course of ten"

"I think I'll just take the five minutes, and see how it goes...."

[donzblock]

True or False: Hitters see virtually the same quality of umpires throughout the season.

Now, don't get me wrong- Abreu may see a high number of borderline pitches called either for or against him. As he takes a ton of pitches (and, subsequently tends to be bashed for B.S. like not being "aggressive" enough), I'd anticipate that. But I don't, for a moment, think it's plausible that umpires make mistakes more often with Abreu than they do with a player who takes a comparable number of pitches.
My point is that when an umpire does make a mistake, that mistake has consequences, and no divine prime mover will undo the consequences of that mistake. When I evaluate a stat, I want to know if the ump made a mistake in a particular situation, and I also want to know what else was going on that may have influenced that particular stat.



Is there something wrong with the "Close and Late" definition that I posted? I mean, other than the fact that Abreu performs well in those situations?

That "Close and Late" definition appears to satisfy your criteria (including counting the Utley HR).
"Late" is fine if you mean from the 7th inning on. "Close" needs to be defined.



Ok then. But how does a player hit a three-Run Home Run without that first hitting reaching base when down by four Runs?

The clutch hit would be Utley's three-run homer. The first hitter in that inning is not under as much pressure. His team is down 4 runs, there is nobody on, and he can't be expected to accomplish something in that situation that will put the Phillies back in the game. His base hit in that situation is important, but it is not a clutch hit.

I've always wondered about that. Why can't "clutch" happen in the first two-thirds of a baseball game?
Perhaps it can by somebody else's definition. However, because there are so many innings left to be played in the game, I am going to withhold the "clutch" designation from that situation.



And I certainly wouldn't have any patience with Gillick even if I HAD patience. There was a point in his career where a guy like Gillick inspired a bit of confidence. That was before his last couple of years at the helm of Seattle, where it appeared that he couldn't be bothered to actually improve a club that was very close to taking the next step (like the Phillies). At this point, if I were a Phillies fan (and I do like the club), I'd need Gillick to show me some aptitude before feeling anything but uneasy about his presence there.
Right now, I have as much confidence in Gillick as I have in the Phillies' owners. It appears that he will retain Manuel. That really is the deal breaker, and it seems to indicate that Gillick is another Phillies' GM lapdog.

[SteelSD]

My point is that when an umpire does make a mistake, that mistake has consequences, and no divine prime mover will undo the consequences of that mistake. When I evaluate a stat, I want to know if the ump made a mistake in a particular situation, and I also want to know what else was going on that may have influenced that particular stat.

Well, if that's the case we might as well go back to the days when baseball scorers only counted "clean" hits rather than give credit to the hitter for a blooper that fell in.

Over time, random umpiring issues are going to have little to no impact on a player's performance. Your bigger issue is going to be the effect of randomness inherent to small data samples. But at least you're willing to look into it. That's a big deal considering that a hitter like Abreu posted only around 100 Plate Appearances in Close and Late situations in 2005.

The reason it's a big deal is that you'll see a lot of folks harping on Player A or Player B without realizing that they're incapable of understanding how well a player hits over 84 non-connected AB (the number of AB Abreu posted in CaL situations in 2005) using an "eyes-only" approach. Even if the AB are consecutive, we still can't trust our eyes to come to any relevant conclusion as to a player's hitting prowess much less when they're dispersed over the course of 162 games.

Considering that players generally fail at least twice as often as they succeed regardless of the situation from a Batting Average standpoint, it's important to note that the difference between a .300 hitter and a .250 hitter over 84 AB is a grand total of four Hits over 162 games. Neither of our brains has the ability to process data like that over a full season. In fact, what most often occurs is that we see a streak of failure, miss a couple successes, and claim that a hitter is a big choker when the reverse may be true. I'm not sure why that would be a surprise to anyone considering how easy it is either to miss four Hits or to forget them.

And even if we saw all 25 "Close and Late" Hits acquired by Bobby Abreu in 2005, our brains wouldn't know the difference between "good" and "bad" in the end because, again, we can't process the difference in any meaningful way.

"Late" is fine if you mean from the 7th inning on. "Close" needs to be defined.

It appears you've already partially defined it with Utley's HR. It happened after the 7th Inning and it occurred when the tying Run was on deck when the Phillies are behind. Add in a one-Run lead and tie ballgames and you've got exactly the "Close and Late" definition I've already posted.

The clutch hit would be Utley's three-run homer. The first hitter in that inning is not under as much pressure. His team is down 4 runs, there is nobody on, and he can't be expected to accomplish something in that situation that will put the Phillies back in the game. His base hit in that situation is important, but it is not a clutch hit.

I've seen a lot of clutch hits. I've yet to see a real live clutch hitter (in the traditional sense).

Perhaps it can by somebody else's definition. However, because there are so many innings left to be played in the game, I am going to withhold the "clutch" designation from that situation.

Ok. I've given you Abreu's Close and Late numbers which appear to approximate (and possibly directly match) your definition of "clutch". Is there any reason, other than Abreu's obvious success in those situations, to go over the same data?

Second question: Is it possible for Player A to put up below-average "Close and Late" numbers and still be more valuable than Player B who put up above average "Close and Late" numbers over a season?

The reason I ask is that this board seems quite focused on "clutch" numbers while sort of washing away all other performance as being something that doesn't really matter all that much. Not speaking of you, of course, because you've already noted that many important things happen before Inning 7. Does it therefore make sense to you that someone else would attempt to tie a player's total offensive contribution up in a very small portion of his annual plate appearances?

Now, no one's ever found solid demonstrable evidence of the existence of a seperate clutch hitting skill set as it relates to baseball (and oh yeah, they've tried). But considering the focus on "clutch" performance and our associated perception of situational "pressure", I think they're worth asking. Heck, here's another one...

Isn't it possible that the same hitter might feel MORE pressure when going up against Randy Johnson in the 3rd Inning of a tie game than he'd feel when facing a random reliever in the 8th Inning of the same game?

See, "clutch" is an intuitive concept. But all too often, our intuition goes out the window when we forget to ask ourselves whether or not what we perceive (like a hitter feeling "pressure") is actually nothing but our own imprint left over by our perception of situational importance. That creates a false logic string- i.e. The situation seems important to us, therefore the hitter MUST feel more pressure than in a situation we perceive as being less important.

Then we tend to create a "pressure" hierarchy. A Plate Appearance with no one on in a "blowout" is a low-pressure situation. A PA with no one on in a tie game is more pressure. A PA with no one on late in a tie game is more pressure than that. A PA with Runners on in a blowout is less pressure than something but more pressure than something else, etc. etc. etc.

The problem is that we don't account for external factors that may actually be causing "pressure". Furthermore, we don't properly identify that the very act of stepping into a batter's box against a pitcher who throws a 90+MPH fastball and a wicked changeup/slider/curve is a pretty darn pressure-packed event regardless of the situation. Hitter walks to the plate not knowing what's going to come at him, knows he as about three-tenths of a second to identify pitch velocity, location, and ball spin. In order for any MLB hitter to be a MLB hitter, he already needs to have a good idea about how to suppress the physiological symptoms of stress. Hitters who can't do that don't make the Show. They're weeded out well before that point or have very short stays because they can't hack it.

Now, considering that the best hitters in the game all must have the ability to suppress their reactions to stress, why is it that we think they'd be freaked out by a runner ahead of them or the score of the game? It might seem intuitive to some folks that a hitter just can't handle "added" pressure above-and-beyond that of just facing a quality MLB pitcher, but it's not intuitive to me considering the complexity of the behavior in question.

Just because a situation may appear to be more important to us, that doesn't mean a hitter actually perceives more "pressure" in that situation. It may be intuitive to believe he does, but that which may be intuitive is also routinely incorrect.

Right now, I have as much confidence in Gillick as I have in the Phillies' owners. It appears that he will retain Manuel. That really is the deal breaker, and it seems to indicate that Gillick is another Phillies' GM lapdog.

Gillick would scare me as well.

[LP fan]

[QUOTE=SteelSD]
The reason I ask is that this board seems quite focused on "clutch" numbers while sort of washing away all other performance as being something that doesn't really matter all that much. Not speaking of you, of course, because you've already noted that many important things happen before Inning 7. Does it therefore make sense to you that someone else would attempt to tie a player's total offensive contribution up in a very small portion of his annual plate appearances?

I'm only a bit player on this board, but I see the value of Abreu, the hitter, and do not agree with the others that he should be traded.....even though many would suggest he did not deserve the gold glove, I am happy for him, and proud as a phillie fan...just as I delight in the Rollins hit streak

[ed hardiman]

Instead of watching you continue to post non-applicable quotes from everywhere BUT baseball, how about we take one from a guy who knows something about it...
"Statistics, of course, cannot tell the whole story. They fall short of bridging the gap between human expectancy and fulfillment. They cannot measure such intangibles as intelligence, courage, disposition, effort.
But somehow baseball's intangibles balance out. They reflect themselves in other ways. Over an entire season, or many seasons, individuals and teams build an accumulation of mathematical constants. A man can work with them. He can measure results and establish values. He can then construct a formula which expresses something tangible..." -- Branch Rickey
You gonna argue with Branch Rickey's words, now Ed? Look, I know that you don't really have the first clue about how this whole statistical analysis thing works. But your ignorance and over-reliance on common myth and subjective dogmatic reasoning doesn't make statistical analysis a bad thing. It just means that others possess a relevant skill set you don't. That doesn't make you a bad fan- just a less informed one.
(1)
Did you read Branch's first sentence? What do you think that means?
(2)
Get to the point. You must empty rooms with your long winded pointless dissertations.
(3)
Did they kick you out of the "Insufferable Boors with Calculators" thread?
I mean we're so very lucky to have you drop these steaming bon mots of baseball wisdom.
(4)
Everything is subjective even data.
I can use math to prove by halving the distance travelled a bullet will never hit you incredibly enough despite solid calculations to the contrary in real life you're dead as a mackerel.

Don't keep mistaking copying and pasting as thinking or analyzing it just makes you seem somewhat addle pated.

If your premise is so infallible why do they play the season?
Shouldn't they just crunch the numbers and tell us how it turns out?
Oh I forgot it must be that in any given game it's the team that wins on the field not on paper that gets the "W"...
Which is why a dog like Abreu will never hunt.

[baseballPAP]

Wow...this is a lot of dumb wrapped up in a single post.....
(1)
Did you read Branch's first sentence? What do you think that means?
Did you read PAST the first sentence? What do you think the rest of it means?


Again if your premise is so infallible why do they play the season?
The statistics are based on the season Ed, not the other way around. Good stats just tell us the patterns to look for, and the results that can be reasonably expected. No one here ever said the statistics are more important than what happens on the field...just that they help those of us who are willing to better see what DID HAPPEN.[/quote]
which is why a dog like Abreu will never hunt.
Abreu is most definately hunting Ed....he's just hunting the big game while your whiny little dog is chasing a chipmunk.

[ed hardiman]

Wow...this is a lot of dumb wrapped up in a single post.....Did you read PAST the first sentence? What do you think the rest of it means?
Rickey's clearly discussing the importance of intangibles not statistics, by the way intangible means:
Incapable of being perceived by the senses or incapable of being realized or defined.
Additionally Rickey points out you can attempt to partially define intangibles:
"...Over an entire season, or many seasons, individuals and teams build an accumulation of mathematical constants. A man can work with them. He can measure results and establish values. He can then construct a formula which expresses something tangible."
Expresses means:
to convey or suggest a representation of
It does not mean:
above all else or the sole criteria in judging a player
as SD implied in his self contradictory post.
Rickey indicates statistics clearly:
"...fall short of bridging the gap between human expectancy and fulfillment. They cannot measure such intangibles as intelligence, courage, disposition, effort..."
These are the very things we're discussing about Abreu lacking.
So while SD was exceedingly Freudian to paste a passage impaling his cherished notion statistics solely measure the value of a player I surely thought a towering arbiter of intellect like yourself easily grasped the suitably obvious irony of SD hoisting himself on his own petard.
The statistics are based on the season Ed, not the other way around. Good stats just tell us the patterns to look for, and the results that can be reasonably expected. No one here ever said the statistics are more important than what happens on the field...just that they help those of us who are willing to better see what DID HAPPEN.
I like many others in this thread base their opinion on actually observing Abreu play on the field and consequently find the statistically driven uninitiated unable to draw a proper inference and incapable of expressing themselves in an adult manner befitting reasonable discourse.
Abreu is most definately hunting Ed....he's just hunting the big game while your whiny little dog is chasing a chipmunk.
I don't own a dog.

[SteelSD]

(1) Did you read Branch's first sentence? What do you think that means?

It means the same thing I've been saying- OF COURSE statistics don't tell the whole story. Never said they did. If you possessed even rudimentary reading comprehension skills, you'd know that by now.

Nice to see that you apparantly skipped the rest of Rickey's quote. But then, I've grown used to guys like you simply ignoring that which doesn't match up with your opinion. What does the entirety of Rickey's quote mean do you think?

(2)Get to the point. You must empty rooms with your long winded pointless dissertations.

What in the world would you possibly know about a "point"???

You haven't had one yet on this thread.

(3) Did they kick you out of the "Insufferable Boors with Calculators" thread? I mean we're so very lucky to have you drop these steaming bon mots of baseball wisdom.

If you actually realized how little you know you would be appreciative. But then, the ignorant often don't know they're ignorant. If they did, they'd do something about it. But then, when it comes to having an iota of ability to incorporate relevant objective data into an evaluation, you're the worst-case scenario- you know you're ignorant but choose to do nothing about it.

(4) Everything is subjective even data.
I can use math to prove by halving the distance travelled a bullet will never hit you incredibly enough despite solid calculations to the contrary in real life you're dead as a mackerel.

That first sentence is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen in print and the second is pretty close.

Batting Average is a record of how many Hits were recorded by a hitter per At Bat. A .300 hitter records three Hits every ten At Bats. There's nothing "subjective" about that. The resulting metric is infallable. It does not lie. It tells you nothing but what it is supposed to.

In your second sentence, you produce a scenario in which you "halve" an actual distance. Just a tip, Einstein, but if I know that you halved the distance, I'd be able to figure out what your new "metric" is telling us (i.e. that it's a measurement of half of a true distance). In that scenario it's not the metric that would be the problem. The true problem would be your own dishonest methodology.

Stats don't lie. You, however, appear to own a P.H.D. in intellectual dishonesty.

Don't keep mistaking copying and pasting as thinking or analyzing it just makes you seem somewhat addle pated.

Pot meet kettle...kettle meet Ed.

If your premise is so infallible why do they play the season?
Shouldn't they just crunch the numbers and tell us how it turns out?

Your first sentence is another intellectually dishonest strawman. No predictive analysis is infallable. No one you're arguing with has EVER claimed that to be their position. EVER. But not being perfect isn't a valid argument against sabermetrics or actuarial science.

Before the 2005 season, I "crunched" all the numbers for every player on the Cincinnati Reds roster using performance we could reasonably predict for the players on said roster. The result predicted a probable 2005 Reds record of 77-85 (this is documented) based on the expected Run Differential. The actual record ended up being 73-89 with a Pythag of 75-87 (I'd explain Pythag to you if I had any indication you'd understand it).

Now, that predicted Win total was 95% accurate versus the actual. Versus Pythag, my predicted Win total was 97.4% accurate. The 2.6% variance was due to Eric Milton performing even worse than expected and Paul Wilson's numbers having to be replaced by worse pitchers.

Oh, there's still reason to play the season because you'll always have a random team here or there who gets a few career years out of guys or who ends up with an unpredictable rash of injuries. But there's tangible value in understanding how a team (or a player) most reasonably projects.

In fact, teams pay for the performance players most reasonably project. You think the Phillies paid a ton of cash (and prospects) for Billy Wagner without a notion of his predicted value? Now, the Phillies may have either over-estimated or under-estimated Wagner's most reasonable future performance. But that's what they paid for. They traded for Cory Lidle based on what they thought he'd do for them on the field- not in the clubhouse because a Starting Pitcher has NO value if they can't peform on the field.

You want a point other than having to read what I've posted thusfar? Ok, here's your point...

A lack of infallability does not make an objective perfomance metric worthless.

Oh I forgot it must be that in any given game it's the team that wins on the field not on paper that gets the "W"...Which is why a dog like Abreu will never hunt.

Bobby Abreu was worth more Runs to the Phillies offense than any other player on your roster. Period. Only Barry Bonds was worth more Wins to his team in 2004 than Abreu was worth to the Phillies that season. No Phillies player was worth more Wins to his team than Abreu contributed in 2005.

The "on paper" 2005 Phillies could have been expected to win 89 games because they scored 807 Runs and allowed 726 Runs. The "on the field" Phillies won 88 games. "On paper", the Phillies came into the 2005 season with a fairly mediocre pitching staff containing a couple rotation guys with a recent history of injuries. And, low-and-behold, that's how it played out "on the field" as well.

The problem was NOT Bobby Abreu. The problem was that the Phillies simply didn't have the pitching horses needed in order to reasonably expect a season good enough if something went wrong (and it did). Teams built on the edges or razors tend to fail if something goes wrong- particularly if that something is on the pitching side.

And there's your point- Don't rely on a pitching staff just built to compete when you need a pitching staff built to win unless you project to have an even better offense.

Oh, there's another point there too ('cause you like points)- Don't blame Bobby Abreu for the failure of your pitchers; particularly when Bobby Abreu was worth more Wins to your team than anyone else on offense.

Now, I'd challenge you to have a point. Just once. Just for fun.

[ed hardiman]

...
I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere. Your etch-a-sketch analysis is hard to follow...

[SteelSD]

Rickey's clearly discussing the importance of intangibles not statistics...

Well, then you're quite obviously daft.

In fact, here's the headline and the tagline to the article that quote is pulled from:

GOODBYE TO SOME OLD BASEBALL IDEAS

The 'Brain' of the game unveils formula that statistically disproves cherished myths and demonstrates what really wins

by Branch Rickey


These are the very things we're discussing about Abreu lacking.
So while SD was exceedingly Freudian to paste a passage impaling his cherished notion statistics solely measure the value of a player I surely thought a towering arbiter of intellect like yourself easily grasped the suitably obvious irony of SD hoisting himself on his own petard.

Actually, Rickey supports my position.

And I've yet to find any evidence whatsoever that I've positioned the idea that a player's value is "solely" based on his numbers.

The only irony is that you continue to attempt to position yourself as an intellectual, yet fail miserably at being able to accurately interpret even simple passages and have continually relied on being intellectually dishonest during this debate.

I like many others in this thread base their opinion on actually observing Abreu play on the field and consequently find the statistically driven uninitiated unable to draw a proper inference and incapable of expressing themselves in an adult manner befitting reasonable discourse.

Translation: "Ed's ignorant about the entire concept of statistical analysis as it pertains to baseball, so his mission is to debase the use of analytics rather than to undertand their relevance."

I don't own a dog.

Considering the quality of your posts during this discussion, if you had a dog I have no doubt that he'd own you.

[Ravenlord]

I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere. Your etch-a-sketch analysis is hard to follow...
so you're what...14?

[ed hardiman]

so you're what...14?
No actually I'm not. Thanks for asking.

[ed hardiman]

"This space for rent"
Boy that hurt my feelings.

[Ravenlord]

No actually I'm not. Thanks for asking.
then how about you act appropriately to your age? if you're older than 16, changing a post of objective points to a bunch of 'blah, blah, blah,' is decidingly lacking in maturity. and tells more about you than choosing to totally ignore everything resembling a point in this thread while positioning yourself on continual false premise (read as putting words in people's mouths) with fanatic like reverence.

[ed hardiman]

then how about you act appropriately to your age? if you're older than 16, changing a post of objective points to a bunch of 'blah, blah, blah,' is decidingly lacking in maturity. and tells more about you than choosing to totally ignore everything resembling a point in this thread while positioning yourself on continual false premise (read as putting words in people's mouths) with fanatic like reverence.
Your point is well taken I suppose but then again since SD has practiced unhindered the clumsy art of insult I think he should speak for himself but given the very real indication he's only capable of cutting and pasting and hurling insults without provication it surprises me not in the least to see you take up where he can't possibly follow. As for your baseless remarks about my character I suggest you read the thread and put his behavior in context before you find fault with me.

[Ravenlord]

As for your baseless remarks about my character I suggest you read the thread and put his behavior in context before you find fault with me.as i've read it, you keep claiming people are making a point that is the exact opposite of the one they've made, and now you're frustrated that you keep running into:

A). the brick wall of reality that you can't keep claiming people are saying things that they're not (but on the other hand, that could get a job for a newspaper).

or

B). unwillingness to even attempt to understand a majority of what has been said in this thread, so now you've been forced to using the only bullet you have left in hoping that it's silver: "childishness."

[SteelSD]

I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere. Your etch-a-sketch analysis is hard to follow...

Y'know, at least you TRY to smack talk a little bit. You're no good at it, but the effort is nice and, at minimum, it's a little creative. Bully for you!

Heck, if you keep working at it you might improve to the point of being mediocre. But hey, everyone needs a goal. The refreshing thing is that your ilk is generally too lazy to continue along an intellectually dishonest path while fighting a losing battle because they tend to be afraid of losing all credibility; the inevitable result of your modus operandi. But you? You seem to welcome the opportunity to say stupid things. Not that I don't like whacking your "rebuttal" softballs out of the park. It just tends to get boring after a while, that's all.

Now, you want to actually talk about real baseball or just your myopic version of it? At least donzblock is trying to work everything through. I'll talk with that guy all day because his responses actually demonstrate that he's interested in...oh...I dunno...LEARNING? Heck, I learn stuff by researching the info I need to respond to his positions.

But you? Heck, all I've learned there is that you're someone I wouldn't trust to tell me what's happing in a game if you were sitting next to me at the stadium. An empty chair would divulge as much relevant information as you and at least I'd have someplace to sit my nachos and beer.

You've basically got one more post to demonstrate some kind of intellectual proficiency, reading comprehension, and a base level of honesty. After that, I'm done wasting my time with the likes of you.

[SteelSD]

Your point is well taken I suppose but then again since SD has practiced unhindered the clumsy art of insult I think he should speak for himself but given the very real indication he's only capable of cutting and pasting and hurling insults without provication it surprises me not in the least to see you take up where he can't possibly follow. As for your baseless remarks about my character I suggest you read the thread and put his behavior in context before you find fault with me.

You are ignorant as to how statistical analysis pertains to baseball as I am ignorant as to how to play a piano.

Neither is a qualitative inference. Both are nothing but truth. The difference is that you neither understand or care about your limitation.

Secondly, your methodology demands that you create numerous strawmen even though you've been told multiple times (and have a TON of demonstrable evidence in this very thread) that others do not and have never positioned the arguments you claim they have. The methodology is, at minimum, intellectually dishonest and demonstrates a lack of ability to process information.

Now, considering how unequivocably inaccurate you've been during this discussion, you'd love to degenerate the conversation into an area where poster behavior rather than baseball was the topic, but I'm not going to let you do that. It's too common a practice and too easily identified.

Either you talk about baseball from here on out or you remove yourself from the conversation. Your choice.

[ed hardiman]

as i've read it, you keep claiming people are making a point that is the exact opposite of the one they've made, and now you're frustrated that you keep running into:
A). the brick wall of reality that you can't keep claiming people are saying things that they're not (but on the other hand, that could get a job for a newspaper).
or
B). unwillingness to even attempt to understand a majority of what has been said in this thread, so now you've been forced to using the only bullet you have left in hoping that it's silver: "childishness."
The simple fact is SD has called everyone in here every name he can think of in an futile exercise of puerile self aggrandizement if that eludes you nothing I can say will illuminate it further.
As for lacking in logic or understanding I think it painfully obdurate of SD, PAP, etc. to lecture anyone in this thread.
Unfortunately in life there are people who do not agree with SD, are not ignorant for doing so and fully capable in a written forum of expressing themselves without SD's approval.
If SD insists on being insulting he should get used to being treated in kind and just as plainly when he gets a taste of his own medicine he acts like a child.

[ed hardiman]

...I am ignorant...
Finally we agree.

[Ravenlord]

3..........

[Ravenlord]

Finally we agree.
2.........

will i get to '1' before "Black No. 1" ends?

[ed hardiman]

Oh wait is this where I have to remove myself from the conversation at your behest?
Let's see so far I've maintained Abreu is a good player but lacking the intangibles neccessary to help the Phil's reach post season, is valuable to trade to get much needed pitching and is not a Gold Glove caliber player.
I'm once again not clear as to what you find so offensive, I base my opinion on facts I don't get lost in a thicket of abstract minutia.
You're welcome to plumb such depths as you see fit.
I don't care what you think until such time as you simply make a point and stop making judgements on the character, intellect and integrity of those who post here.
But of course that's not going to happen is it?

[SteelSD]

I'm only a bit player on this board, but I see the value of Abreu, the hitter, and do not agree with the others that he should be traded.....even though many would suggest he did not deserve the gold glove, I am happy for him, and proud as a phillie fan...just as I delight in the Rollins hit streak

LP fan, if I were you (particularly considering that I'm a Reds fan) I'd be proud to be a Phillies fan as well. Your team has a very good offense.

In 2005, the average MLB offense scored 4 or fewer Runs 89 times. The Phillies scored 4 or fewer Runs 81 times. That's a good thing because it's a key indicator that the Phillies will improve a great deal with better pitching. That's all they need to do.

In fact, even after the ASB last season where Montreal looked to be the hot team (they were bound to crash), I though Philly had a great chance to take the Wild Card because they had a strong Run Differential. If Gillick can re-energize himself and actually improve that pitching staff while keeping the offense constant, the Phillies could be looking at 95 Wins in 2006. That's no bull. They need to move either Thome (preferable) or Howard (probably get more of a return given his cost). If they get a real arm out of a deal like that, I'll pick them to win the NL East. And I'm very close already to picking them already considering the defection of Leo Mazzone from Atlanta.

Don't give up hope and don't stop being proud of your team. They haven't been to the playoffs recently, but that doesn't mean they're a bunch of losers.

[Ravenlord]

will i get to '1' before "Black No. 1" ends?guess not. it's bedtime.

[Androctus]

2.........

will i get to '1' before "Black No. 1" ends?
And "Kill all the White People" begins? I'm impressed. I didn't think that album ever made it that far west.

Now, you want to actually talk about real baseball or just your myopic version of it? At least donzblock is trying to work everything through. I'll talk with that guy all day because his responses actually demonstrate that he's interested in...oh...I dunno...LEARNING? Heck, I learn stuff by researching the info I need to respond to his positions. By learning of course you mean we submit to your statistical bludgeoning of our collective intellect and admit you are absolutely correct and we are all wrong? Is that what it will take for you to go away?

[ed hardiman]

...By learning of course you mean we submit to your statistical bludgeoning of our collective intellect and admit you are absolutely correct and we are all wrong? Is that what it will take for you to go away?
I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth or misinterpreting you by agreeing.
I'd hate to cause the non-moderator of this forum to further defend indefensible behavior. In 30 of his 31 total on BBF posts SD has failed to grasp personal attacks are against BBF rules. In this particular thread alone he has in post number: 61, 62, 66, 73, 80, 83, 140, 149, 151, 158, & 159 unequivocally called BBF members "common, childish, ignorant, dummies, oblivious, cat feces, clueless, uninformed, dishonest, dumb, daft, lazy, stupid and other equally disparaging phrases. All of which a non-moderator of this post found less intolerable than the phrase "I agree" SD's use of such blatantly obnoxious characterizations are an unacceptable affront to those of us posting in this forum so I don't care if a non-moderator counts backwards from 100 let alone 3, or even what song they're listening to my behavior is not the problem SD's is. After all baseball ain't stats it's mitts, balls, and bats. Abreu isn't the worst Phillie that honor belongs elsewhere and reiteration of cut and pasted "research" is not discourse nor does it indicate depth or scope of reason. If this rankles him or his friend too damn bad.

[SteelSD]

By learning of course you mean we submit to your statistical bludgeoning of our collective intellect and admit you are absolutely correct and we are all wrong? Is that what it will take for you to go away?

Considering that you haven't appropriately responded to anything I've posted- including a heaping helping of non-statistical real baseball information- I wouldn't take such an admittance on your part to mean anything other than what I already knew coming in:

You're simply overmatched in an actual baseball discussion when you have folks other than Ed's ilk lurking. Ed acknowledged that he was overmatched the moment he posted word one in this thread. Neither of you need to admit that because it's not in question. In fact, I wonder why you and Ed don't just avoid the thread altogether because there IS actual baseball that's being discussed here regardless of Ed's recent M.O. of childishly ranting and carrying on about nothing, which is designed to tangent us all away from the fact that he possesses little actual baseball knowledge.

It's easy to mindlessly parrot "Stats suck! Stats don't tell the whole story! Bwraaaaak!" It's more difficult to understand their relevance when applied to the baseball you claim to be watching. But watch on. Maybe someday you'll figure out what it is you're actually seeing. If so, one day you'll be able to actually add something to a baseball discussion rather than to detract from it.

[ed hardiman]

Another post replete with gratuitous insults
I'm just quoting your stats there's a 37.50% chance your post will contain at least one insult to a BBF poster and a 100% certainty it's incorrect.

[baseballPAP]

I'm just quoting your stats there's a 37.50% chance your post will contain at least one insult to a BBF poster and a 100% certainty it's incorrect.
I guess there's little chance that you live in a glass house, is there Ed?

Your problem in this thread began (not counting your refusal to at least give some credit to the numbers) when Steel said you were ignorant. A word with a negative connotation sure, but it was never meant as an insult. It was meant to say that you don't like what the numbers show you, so you are IGNORING them. That is a fact. From there, you chose to take that as the first shot fired in an imaginary war, and started hurling insults. And now, like anyone who is losing the war (and all the battles), you're trying to throw out all the posts which hurt your feelings, while ignoring your own. Bravo, you'd make an excellent White House PR guy.

[ed hardiman]

I guess there's little chance that you live in a glass house, is there Ed?
None whatsoever.
Your problem in this thread began (not counting your refusal to at least give some credit to the numbers) when Steel said you were ignorant. A word with a negative connotation sure, but it was never meant as an insult.
Actually it started with him calling other BBF posters ignorant I'm sure you'll rationalize that as another example of his exemplary behavior. Perhaps you have equally bland explanations for his use of "common, childish, dummies, oblivious, cat feces, clueless, uninformed, dishonest, dumb, daft, lazy, stupid in post numbered: 61, 62, 66, 73, 80, 83, 140, 149, 151, 158, & 159 in this thread.
It was meant to say that you don't like what the numbers show you, so you are IGNORING them.
Ignoring them? I'm not required to worship, accept or even care what he posts. Nor am I proscribed from posting my opinion even if it does the unthinkable in your puddle and contravenes his. He's welcome to vehemently disagree in return but he is not welcome to assault my character, intelligence or ability to comprehend. In doing so he violates not only the decorum expected in this forum he violates its rules.
That is a fact.
Are you being ironic? Fact actually means: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences something refreshingly lacking in this ad hominem attack.
From there, you chose to take that as the first shot fired in an imaginary war, and started hurling insults.
Your premise suffers in both substance and chronology.
And now, like anyone who is losing the war (and all the battles),
Says who?
you're trying to throw out all the posts which hurt your feelings, while ignoring your own.
No I stand by what I've written as accurate and until such time as he or anyone else eschews insulting me by name or insinuation as well as other members in this forum I will continue to confront such behavior.
Bravo, you'd make an excellent White House PR guy.
Ending strong with a non-sequitur. I'll reciprocate: Kudos, you'd make an excellent toll booth collector.

[SteelSD]

Ignoring them?

Your Post #90 was riddled with inaccuracy, myth, falsehood and demonstrated a severe baseball knowledge deficiency so I chose to try to help you out. My next response to you (Post #94) had nothing to do with anything but baseball (even though you made a number of ridiculous claims). So, what was your reply to Post #94?

Oh, wait…you didn’t have a reply, Ed. But then, that’s your M.O. isn’t it?

In fact, during this entire thread, you’ve simply ignored anything that speaks to baseball and have done nothing but attempt to escalate a baseball discussion into something you think you can better handle with your incessant monotonous grade school antics. You continue to claim the high road but play in the gutter. Obviously you agree with me about how childish you’ve been or you wouldn’t have edited your quote in Post #150 to read “…” instead of 100 lines of “blah blah blah” after Ravenlord called you to the mat on your lacking maturity (a right claim to be sure). Seriously, if you’re going to choose to post as if you were a little child, at least attempt to be man enough to leave that post as it was initially written.

I mean, it’s great that you can cut-and-paste from dictionary.com and use Microsoft Word spellcheck. Every 12-year-old should have that skill, even if they have a better idea of how to apply those words to real life than you do. But you can’t find enough places to steal from to replace the baseball knowledge you lack. That’s quite absurd considering your continued attempts at misplaced chest-thumping bravado. I’d actually sympathize with your plight were you not so entirely focused on doing nothing but switching up a baseball conversation into the kind of low-level juvenile smack you use when completely outmatched as to subject matter knowledge.

As I mentioned earlier, you didn’t need to continue posting in order to solidify our understanding of what you don’t know about baseball. You nailed that one down the moment you first posted to this thread and have since simply continued to remind us of that fact.

Yet you presume to go on the offensive against baseballPAP? Your character should be insulted when you do that for he has infinitely more ability to process information (and he ain't a "stat geek" BTW) than you. In fact, I'd trust baseballPAP's observations well before I'd trust yours because yours have proven to be completely irrelevant and nonsensical. If I awoke form a ten-year coma, I'd trust PAP to tell me what happened as I have no doubt that you'd describe an Earth that was flat and a moon that was made of green cheese. At a baseball game, my cup of beer could tell me more about what's happening than you. My nachos could give me more insight as to the game state than you could. My bratwurst would pass on more relevant feedback as to what just happened than would you.

In short, you have nothing to add to an actual baseball discussion. That's a point. And it's irrefutable.

[ed hardiman]

ibid
Update: There's a 39.39% chance your post will contain at least one insult to a BBF poster and a 100% certainty it's incorrect.

[baseballPAP]

Update: There's a 39.39% chance your post will contain at least one insult to a BBF poster and a 100% certainty it's incorrect.
What's your percentage of replying to something that no one said Ed? Somewhere in the high 90% range I would guess. If you can't take it when someone calls your bluff, please don't sit at the table with the big boys.

[donzblock]

Gentlemen, take it from the voice of reason, from someone who has practiced nothing but tact since arriving on this scene several years ago: we can have an intelligent discussion about this issue without resorting to insults. Yeah, the insults are fun, and we have had a ball throwing them at each other, but this thread is entering its adulthood right about now, and some of us are beginning to repeat our insults. Why don't we acknowledge that we all know how to fling them pretty well and stick to the point; that being Abreu's non-Golden Glovehood and the controversy about whether he can hit in the clutch.

[ed hardiman]

Abreu's never hits in the clutch...it compliments his timid fielding.

[LP fan]

subjective versus objective........ there won't be any resolution....

but looking at the actual data.......ed's getting a whacking on this thread

[ed hardiman]

subjective versus objective........ there won't be any resolution....but looking at the actual data.......ed's getting a whacking on this thread
"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."
Albert Einstein

[LP fan]

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."
Albert Einstein

AND...God does not play dice with the universe......

[donzblock]

AND...God does not play dice with the universe......
And Einstein was an atheist. What happened to the point?

[ed hardiman]

And Einstein was an atheist. What happened to the point?
Abreu's Gold Mitt makes a mockery of the award and debases future winners...indisputable.

[LP fan]

And Einstein was an atheist. What happened to the point?

we're off track, but they're cool quotes....

anyways: as mentioned earlier in the thread by another poster, the phils offence and defense is good enough to win....with Rollins, Abreu, Howard, Burrell and Utley in there.....all thats needed is some pitching I think....better pitching and phils would have been in the series this year....I can live with Bobby's gold glove and perceived lack of ?what - character, hustle?? anyways, his numbers are too good to throw away....trading him will set the team too far back again

[baseballPAP]

Abreu's Gold Mitt makes a mockery of the award and debases future winners...indisputable.
Finally something we can agree on Ed.

[ed hardiman]

Finally something we can agree on Ed.
I welcome such agreement.
As for sabermetrics let me explain my previous opinions and frame them in context none of which is meant as an accusation, pejorative or slight to any one in this forum.
Sabermetrics is an empirical observation not theoretically derived there is no known reason why it works except sometimes it does. There are vast statistical deviations between results and expected results which include weather, injury, luck, illness, personal problems, substance abuse etc.
Sabermetric reasoning says runs win ballgames, hardly earth shattering and not neccesarily a conclusion only a mathmatician can derive. A good measure of a player's worth is the ability to help score more runs than the opposing team. Sabermetrics was hardly the first to recognize higher scoring predicates a desirable outcome.
But runs created doesn't take into account stadiums, starting pitching, bullpens, sea level etc. Runs created doesn't take into account various factors such as lower or higher average levels of offensive production or inequities like better pitching in any given season. In postscript it can make adjustments but I too can predict the past with 100% accuracy after it occurs.
Sabermetrics attempts determining the value of a player in a season gone by and predicting the value of a player in the future based on his past. Two completely different things.
If we're only talking about Abreu's past those of us who watch Phillies games possess far more insight than statistically limited conclusions. Why? Because we observed and can place a value on Abreu's intangibles. Something sabermetrics simply can't and doesn't do. Does that invalidate the expressed opinion of those who haven't such experience? No. But it doesn't qualify them to scold, lecture or belittle those that do.
As far as whatever value or belief system we use to determine the value of his intangible worth it isn't any more or less accurate than sabermetrics which for all its vaunted math is simply the law of averages overcomplicated by the few to the bemusement of many without deriving any better results.
Does sabermetrics help define parameters of consideration in the comparison of players? I think it does so wonderfully if you accept the formula as conclusive. Since the formula's keep changing (regardless of reason) I find it hard to reconcile as immutable.
There are other sabermetric equations to compute all facets of log splitting minutia like win shares, linear weight values etc. they rise and fall like the stock market replaced by the next formula as quickly as they're promulgated so let's get on with Mr. Rickey as an example statistics form sound individual conclusions which I contend he did not.
Unfortunately and despite assertions to the contrary he's consistently clear he values the team as a whole and not the individual he only calculates individual statistics to measure a team's total worth.
There's little surprise a sabermetroid would find refuge in selected passages of Branch Rickey's article:
GOODBY TO SOME OLD BASEBALL IDEAS (www.baseballthinkfactory.org/btf/pages/essays/rickey/goodby_to_old_idea.htm)
First and foremost Rickey qualifies exactly what he believes is the value of his calculations:
"The formula is designed principally to gauge and analyze performance on a team basis."
Rickey only frames individual performance in regards to value to a team but we're talking about an individual not a team. So why is this article cited in an argument questioning the verifiability of individual statistical inference in regards to Bobby Abreu?
Rickey indicates specifically statistics do not account for that which he values most:
"In my experience probably the most important single thing in batting has been the mental attitude of the hitter going to the plate."
Most important? Many in this forum who actually watched Abreu at the plate innumerable times were entirely dismissed as possessing opinions of no value whatsoever because their well grounded actual observation did not conform to statistically driven non-observation. A conclusion I dispute.
Rickey discusses "clutch" as:
"...speed, taking the extra base, stealing one occasionally, managerial savvy and timeliness of hitting. All these capabilities, unmeasurable in an individual, are reflected by one statistic which has never been used to my knowledge and which I shall call "clutch." It is simply the percentage of men who got on base who scored."
Ok that means Abreu by virtue of his hits, walks and steals isn't the worst player on the team and no one is suggesting he is.
Despite all his efforts Rickey had to conclude there's:
"No way of applying all three of these basic factors to individuals as well as teams. Clutch was strictly a team figure..."
Isn't sabermetrics all about applying statistical formula to an individual to predict performance?
Rickey maintains walks drawn are the true key to an individuals worth hardly the stuff of doubles triples and home runs being more valuable using Teddy Ballgame as an example and stating:
"Actually walks are extremely important."
Apparently Rickey contravenes the sabermetric notion extra base hits are more important.
Rickey concretely demonstrates baseball is more than statistical inference using Ty Cobb and Jackie Robinson as an example:
"Cobb...beat you with more than his bat. He beat you with brains, aggressiveness and opportunities, all the things that show up in clutch which we cannot estimate for an individual player. When Cobb got on base his very presence there upset the pitcher. It caused the infield to make errors it would not otherwise make. Jackie Robinson of Brooklyn has the same nuisance value to a lesser degree today, and as a runner on third he has no equal."
A comparison I made without even lifting a pencil to do simple addition. I maintain Abreu does not inspire such terror in the opposition.
Rickey presciently shows why Abreu looks better on paper as a fielder than he is:
"Fielding averages? Utterly worthless as a yardstick. They are not only misleading, but deceiving. Take Zeke Bonura, the old White Sox first baseman, generally regarded as a poor fielder. The fielding averages showed that he led American League in fielding for three years. Why? Zeke had "good hands"! Anything he reached, he held. Result: an absence of errors. But he was also slow moving and did not cover much territory. Balls that a quicker man may have fielded went for base hits, but the fielding averages do not reflect this."
Something I maintain and you also agree with in regards to Abreu's unearned Gold Mitt and poor fielding in the face of statistics.
Finally Rickey puts it in perspective something lacking it seems in the modern adherents of saberism:
"Although the formula gives a comprehensive diagnosis of teams and players, it has limitations. It cannot predict the performance of a team on any given day or in any brief series because players have good and bad days. Nor can it foresee with accuracy the outcome of a pennant race because players do not always live up to past performances."
Players do not always live up to past performances. The devil's in the details I suppose.
Rickey's formula is only as he calls it an "interpretation."
When something by total weight and inference invalidates your argument you are best served by not introducing it if someone points out the obvious tenor of the article which you should know by having read it in its entirety it is ridiculous to cast aspersions in the hope no one will call your bluff and read it. Again I applaud misquoting someone as an entirely honorable tactic in argument but leap nimbly from such devices when they burst into rhetorical flame.
Now I could waste equally long posts on the shortcomings of sabermetrics both mathmatically and by prediction since 1987. It is an interesting and engaging way to attempt to impose order on a chaotic structure. Nor is it entirely invalid either. It does not however rise to such a level of perfection as to merit it precluding or replacing observation, reflection or any other method of forming an opinion. Anyone who believes such formula include or exclude anyone from being knowledgable is simply practicing "a little knowledge can be dangerous."
For a system of certainty to be in place twenty years in a given profession to have so few adherents as GM's, managers, or front office personnel indicates to me the "wonk" factor and lack of practicable applicability not a character defect of those who love sabermetrics nor of those who do not.
This is not a "cutting edge" theory it's a quarter century tweak driven obsessive compulsive attempt to divide chewing tobacco by spit sunflower seed to explain previous outcomes and impose pseudo-science on the future outcome of an abstract art that spins quite freely of sabermetrics 162 games a year. How do I reach this conclusion? Anything that defies their sabermetric calculations is anamoly, luck, or unforseeable circumstance. I call that the gypsy con aspect it doesn't happen if you don't believe. Because sabermetrics fails routinely in experiment year after year it is a belief system not a science. You can't pick and choose data or weight it and call it empirical. That's the nature of any conclusion mathmatically derived. Quadratic equations are accepted because they work and are provable not because Joe Quadratic said it was so.
I encourage everyone to read the Rickey article and look at the predictions of sabermetrics and the vastly different outcomes since 1987. Is sabermetrics interesting? A worthwhile analytical construct? Perhaps but is it the raison d'etre for enjoying discussing baseball? For me and many others no. Does it mean you aren't welcome to introduce, defend, propose or post such conclusions? Does it mean you have to agree with my conclusions? Nope. I'm here to scribble and quibble about baseball. That's why Baskin Robbins isn't famous for one flavor. The original poster of Mr. Rickey's article did us all a service to introduce us to a 51 year perspective of baseball tempered by accepting new approaches to delineating quality. Additionally he makes many good points but insists on couching them in gratuitous vituperative remarks which I find distasteful in the extreme. I have no animosity for that which is typed in the heat of battle when it does not occur in such quantity but at some point enough is enough. I wish all who post here nothing but the best and always enjoy their posts.

[baseballPAP]

Nice post Ed. While I have a few problems with some of your interpretations, the jist of your post is dead on. I would also say here that I think you look at saber-types a bit like my grandfather looks at computers....he knows they can be helpful in some situations, but he doesn't trust them. Fair enough. I did read the article, several years ago, and re-read it just now. I think you're taking what you wanted to from it and spinning its intent a little, but only a little, and we all take what we want from what we read, right?

Anyway, I offer up my apologies for my offenses...they were in the spirit of the argument.

[iPod]

Abreu's never hits in the clutch...it compliments his timid fielding.

But how is that possible when he hits very well in "close and late" situations? Close and late is exactly what you guys keep talking about, the "bottom of the 9th, guy on 2nd, 2 outs, down 1" type of situations. ESPN keeps track of how players do in those situations, and in Abreu's case, all his numbers shoot up. Here are his close and late numbers, per ESPN's website.

.298 BA, 6 HR, 14 RBI, 84 AB
Per 550 at-bats, an about average number of at-bats in a full season, that's 39 home runs and 92 RBI.

In other words, in the 7th inning or later, with the score close, he was, essentially, a .300/40/90 guy. How is it physically possible for Bobby Abreu to have been a poor hitter in the clutch with numbers like those? I'm not asking this in a belittling way, it just seems peculiar to me that a player with such sterling situational numbers would still have a reputation for being "unclutch".

As for the gold glove thing, I probably would agree with you. Just from what I've seen from him he doesn't appear that good, most eyewitnesses that have seen him more (like yourselves) aren't really impressed, and while I don't have much faith in the fielding formulae we have, his numbers don't appear very impressive for 2005. Plus, I believe the fielding numbers that are based on numbers of putouts and assists are quite possibly biased by the fact that the Phillies perhaps (just guessing) have flyball starting pitchers, like Eric Milton, that would induce the Phillies outfielders to have an artificially high number of putouts.

[SteelSD]

As for sabermetrics let me explain my previous opinions and frame them in context none of which is meant as an accusation, pejorative or slight to any one in this forum.

Next time, it would be helpful to use things called "paragraphs".

Sabermetrics is an empirical observation not theoretically derived there is no known reason why it works except sometimes it does.

That's completely inaccurate.

There are vast statistical deviations between results and expected results which include weather, injury, luck, illness, personal problems, substance abuse etc.

None of which are ignored by anyone.

Sabermetric reasoning says runs win ballgames, hardly earth shattering and not neccesarily a conclusion only a mathmatician can derive.

A good measure of a player's worth is the ability to help score more runs than the opposing team. Sabermetrics was hardly the first to recognize higher scoring predicates a desirable outcome.

We're not talking about a simple (and quite intuitive) concept like "score more runs". If baseball were a car, a sabermetrician would be a mechanic. It's not enough to know that a faster car wins a race. You need to know what will most help that car to be faster than the rest of the cars in the race.

But runs created doesn't take into account stadiums, starting pitching, bullpens, sea level etc. Runs created doesn't take into account various factors such as lower or higher average levels of offensive production or inequities like better pitching in any given season.

Sabermetrics not only allows us to understand all of that, it allows us to equalize for all of it (Park Factors, Defense Independent Pitching, etc. etc.). In short, you're trying to say there's a deficiency that doesn't exist. The reason you aren't able to identify that there isn't a deficiency is because you don't really understand how it all works.

In postscript it can make adjustments but I too can predict the past with 100% accuracy after it occurs.

Sabermetrics attempts determining the value of a player in a season gone by and predicting the value of a player in the future based on his past. Two completely different things.

No, they're not. The recent past can be used- with a great deal of accuracy- to predict future performance. The past is not at all unrelated to the future because it gives us insight into what's most likely to happen next.

If we're only talking about Abreu's past those of us who watch Phillies games possess far more insight than statistically limited conclusions. Why? Because we observed and can place a value on Abreu's intangibles. Something sabermetrics simply can't and doesn't do. Does that invalidate the expressed opinion of those who haven't such experience? No. But it doesn't qualify them to scold, lecture or belittle those that do.

And yet, you've consistently (and emotionally) railed against statistical analysis while not understanding it.

And the problem with your contention that you can place a "value" on Abreu's "intangibles" is that you've come to a completely erroneous conclusion about his "clutch" hitting. You claimed that he "never" hits in the clutch when the data tells us that he quite obviously has.

As far as whatever value or belief system we use to determine the value of his intangible worth it isn't any more or less accurate than sabermetrics which for all its vaunted math is simply the law of averages overcomplicated by the few to the bemusement of many without deriving any better results.

Yes, your methodology is less accurate than mine. If it weren't, you'd be lauding Abreu as a fine clutch hitter.

Does sabermetrics help define parameters of consideration in the comparison of players? I think it does so wonderfully if you accept the formula as conclusive. Since the formula's keep changing (regardless of reason) I find it hard to reconcile as immutable.

That which is imperfect is not incapable of having extreme value. We've been over this before.

There are other sabermetric equations to compute all facets of log splitting minutia like win shares, linear weight values etc. they rise and fall like the stock market replaced by the next formula as quickly as they're promulgated so let's get on with Mr. Rickey as an example statistics form sound individual conclusions which I contend he did not.

Evolution is inevitable. Rickey was the grandfather of what we now know as sabermetrics and we keep seeing better and better information developed.

Unfortunately and despite assertions to the contrary he's consistently clear he values the team as a whole and not the individual he only calculates individual statistics to measure a team's total worth.

Rickey was one of those "mechanics" I was talking about. By understanding individual performance, we're better able to understand how that whole "team" thing works. And yes, the metrics I've posted before and use consistently are valid measurements of individual contribution.

There's little surprise a sabermetroid would find refuge in selected passages of Branch Rickey's article:

A "sabermetroid". Thank goodness you're above childish namecalling.

I'm just going to delete your rampantly misguided analysis of the Rickey article you didn't understand and move one. I have no other choice because you made so many aggregious reading comprehension errors, it's pointless to even start with them.

When something by total weight and inference invalidates your argument you are best served by not introducing it if someone points out the obvious tenor of the article which you should know by having read it in its entirety it is ridiculous to cast aspersions in the hope no one will call your bluff and read it. Again I applaud misquoting someone as an entirely honorable tactic in argument but leap nimbly from such devices when they burst into rhetorical flame.

And the guy who's been intellectually dishonest this whole time tries to call someone else a kettle. Or pot. Makes no difference even though it's exceptionally funny.

Now I could waste equally long posts on the shortcomings of sabermetrics both mathmatically and by prediction since 1987.

You don't understand sabermetrics so yes, you'd be wasting our time.

It is an interesting and engaging way to attempt to impose order on a chaotic structure. Nor is it entirely invalid either. It does not however rise to such a level of perfection as to merit it precluding or replacing observation, reflection or any other method of forming an opinion. Anyone who believes such formula include or exclude anyone from being knowledgable is simply practicing "a little knowledge can be dangerous."

I can't count how many times you've posted that strawman (i.e. "replacing observation"). I've burned it to the ground already. It's not an "either/or" proposition and no one on the side opposing you has ever attempted to make that argument. You need to acknowledge that and move on.

For a system of certainty to be in place twenty years in a given profession to have so few adherents as GM's, managers, or front office personnel indicates to me the "wonk" factor and lack of practicable applicability not a character defect of those who love sabermetrics nor of those who do not.

A "lack of practicable applicability"? Riiiiiiiight. Just because you don't know anything about sabermetrics, that doesn't mean it has no practical application. I can't even believe you typed that considering how many teams are using analytics while being quite successful doing so.

This is not a "cutting edge" theory it's a quarter century tweak driven obsessive compulsive attempt to divide chewing tobacco by spit sunflower seed to explain previous outcomes and impose pseudo-science on the future outcome of an abstract art that spins quite freely of sabermetrics 162 games a year.

Baseball has incorporated subjective and objective analysis from almost day one. Both have evolved. Instead of wasting your time (and ours) by continuing to position irrelevant uneducated indictments of objective methodology, you might want to learn something about it to incorporate it into your own knowledge base. You'd be wrong less if you did. Until then, all we're reading is the wailing of a less-informed person telling us the Earth is still flat.

How do I reach this conclusion? Anything that defies their sabermetric calculations is anamoly, luck, or unforseeable circumstance.

That's a dramatic erroneous over-generalization. No one with a hint of sabermetrics knowledge would say such a thing.

I call that the gypsy con aspect it doesn't happen if you don't believe. Because sabermetrics fails routinely in experiment year after year it is a belief system not a science. You can't pick and choose data or weight it and call it empirical. That's the nature of any conclusion mathmatically derived. Quadratic equations are accepted because they work and are provable not because Joe Quadratic said it was so.

Drivel. All of it.

I encourage everyone to read the Rickey article and look at the predictions of sabermetrics and the vastly different outcomes since 1987. Is sabermetrics interesting? A worthwhile analytical construct? Perhaps but is it the raison d'etre for enjoying discussing baseball? For me and many others no.

Then why do you rant on and on about it? Is it that scary to you?

Does it mean you aren't welcome to introduce, defend, propose or post such conclusions? Does it mean you have to agree with my conclusions? Nope. I'm here to scribble and quibble about baseball. That's why Baskin Robbins isn't famous for one flavor. The original poster of Mr. Rickey's article did us all a service to introduce us to a 51 year perspective of baseball tempered by accepting new approaches to delineating quality. Additionally he makes many good points but insists on couching them in gratuitous vituperative remarks which I find distasteful in the extreme. I have no animosity for that which is typed in the heat of battle when it does not occur in such quantity but at some point enough is enough. I wish all who post here nothing but the best and always enjoy their posts.

Until you can police your own behavior like an adult, you need to shut up about the behavior of others. The word "hypocritical" just ain't big enough.

[Androctus]

Considering that you haven't appropriately responded to anything I've posted- including a heaping helping of non-statistical real baseball information- You might stop and wonder why I havn't taken an active part since like page three...it because I was able to ascertain three things at that point - (1) I'm not going to change your mind (2) you are not going to change mine and (3) this thread is doomed. So all that was left was to back away and make light of your efforts to sway the diehards in here. It's a lost cause, friend, but your self dignity refuses you to slip away quietly and stop wasting your time here. Its obvious you are one of those "last word" types. You can have it with me - I don't feel its that important.

I wouldn't take such an admittance on your part to mean anything other than what I already knew coming in:

You're simply overmatched in an actual baseball discussion when you have folks other than Ed's ilk lurking. Ed acknowledged that he was overmatched the moment he posted word one in this thread. Neither of you need to admit that because it's not in question. In fact, I wonder why you and Ed don't just avoid the thread altogether because there IS actual baseball that's being discussed here regardless of Ed's recent M.O. of childishly ranting and carrying on about nothing, which is designed to tangent us all away from the fact that he possesses little actual baseball knowledge.You entitled to your opinion here, but on this you have no stats to back you up. Ed probably has more knowledge in his middle finger, and for the record I agree with everything he has stated thus far from his conclusions about Abreu to his opinion of you. But I'm content to sit and watch Ed work - he doesn't need help from me.

It's easy to mindlessly parrot "Stats suck! Stats don't tell the whole story! Bwraaaaak!" It's more difficult to understand their relevance when applied to the baseball you claim to be watching. To your credit, this is actually the single most incorrect statement thats come from you so far, because I should think that the exact opposite is true. Stats are easily applied to the game for the simple fact that they are so accessible now. situational stats make analysis easy. But to observe someone's character, and how they apply themselves to the game, and all the other intangibles that make a player what they are, takes a bit more. It takes the same observation you like to discredit. If it were as easy as opening a stat book, they wouldn't need scouts, would they?

But watch on. Maybe someday you'll figure out what it is you're actually seeing. If so, one day you'll be able to actually add something to a baseball discussion rather than to detract from it.Oh I've a handle on it and I don't need you to tell me how it works. And I've done it on a level you can't conceive obviously, if you look back I challenge you to find one post of mine that contains the thinly veiled insults and name calling that have riddle your whole entirely ridiculous diatribe - which is why I won't debate with you, Steel. Certainly not that I'm afraid of your intellect, its just you're not worth my time.

[ed hardiman]

Nice post Ed. While I have a few problems with some of your interpretations, the jist of your post is dead on. I would also say here that I think you look at saber-types a bit like my grandfather looks at computers....he knows they can be helpful in some situations, but he doesn't trust them. Fair enough. I did read the article, several years ago, and re-read it just now. I think you're taking what you wanted to from it and spinning its intent a little, but only a little, and we all take what we want from what we read, right? Anyway, I offer up my apologies for my offenses...they were in the spirit of the argument.
No offense taken. I'm only offering my own interpretation and I'm sure others like yourself can draw different conclusions. I am guilty of taking that which makes my case but I specifically posted the url to allow anyone to grade my conclusions. On the whole I think Rickey was quite clear as to how and why he compiled his stats.
Abreu is not a dog or a stiff he's a fine player but I think at his age and with the Phillies who else do they have to offer other than Utley and Howard that has value to get a real arm?
As for saber-types I give them no more and certainly no less weight in regards to evaluating a player I've watched for years. If we were discussing players I was unfamiliar with I would weight their conclusion beyond any superficial analysis my having seen them play occasionally might produce.
It's a case specific matter here.
The rest of it is a lack of fixed methodology for determining value and in changing yearly (even if it is in the pursuit of accuracy) you preclude wide acceptance. Again that's my opinion and if some take umbrage at my eschewing their orthodoxy that's the way the cookie crumbles. I do welcome their opinions this post regardless of agreement.

[ed hardiman]

But how is that possible when he hits very well in "close and late" situations? Close and late is exactly what you guys keep talking about, the "bottom of the 9th, guy on 2nd, 2 outs, down 1" type of situations. ESPN keeps track of how players do in those situations, and in Abreu's case, all his numbers shoot up. Here are his close and late numbers, per ESPN's website..298 BA, 6 HR, 14 RBI, 84 AB Per 550 at-bats, an about average number of at-bats in a full season, that's 39 home runs and 92 RBI.In other words, in the 7th inning or later, with the score close, he was, essentially, a .300/40/90 guy. How is it physically possible for Bobby Abreu to have been a poor hitter in the clutch with numbers like those? I'm not asking this in a belittling way, it just seems peculiar to me that a player with such sterling situational numbers would still have a reputation for being "unclutch". As for the gold glove thing, I probably would agree with you. Just from what I've seen from him he doesn't appear that good, most eyewitnesses that have seen him more (like yourselves) aren't really impressed, and while I don't have much faith in the fielding formulae we have, his numbers don't appear very impressive for 2005. Plus, I believe the fielding numbers that are based on numbers of putouts and assists are quite possibly biased by the fact that the Phillies perhaps (just guessing) have flyball starting pitchers, like Eric Milton, that would induce the Phillies outfielders to have an artificially high number of putouts.
I haven't quite led the Abreu isn't clutch charge but I think the problem comes in watching him throughout entire games where he approaches his first at bat and last at bat with a seeming indifference to game situations now certainly the stats you quote call in question the conclusion he's not as consistent a hitter in post seventh inning situations but one thing was certain last year after the All Star game he was not as effective a hitter as he was before. He declined in every hitting category from the previous season and in almost every category over the previous four seasons. This didn't happen in a vacuum it happened during a very tight pennant race and I think that's a large part of why Phillies fans are currently dissatisfied with his hitting. Is that fair? Is it just a bad second half? Given his career numbers you can write it off as a rough back 81 on the course. Fact is with what the Phutes owe him over the next two years I'm already coloring him going, going, gone. BTW the fly ball pitcher/Milton thing is spot on...

[ed hardiman]

You might stop and wonder why I havn't taken an active part since like page three...it because I was able to ascertain three things at that point - (1) I'm not going to change your mind (2) you are not going to change mine and (3) this thread is doomed. So all that was left was to back away and make light of your efforts to sway the diehards in here. It's a lost cause, friend, but your self dignity refuses you to slip away quietly and stop wasting your time here. Its obvious you are one of those "last word" types. You can have it with me - I don't feel its that important. You entitled to your opinion here, but on this you have no stats to back you up. Ed probably has more knowledge in his middle finger, and for the record I agree with everything he has stated thus far from his conclusions about Abreu to his opinion of you. But I'm content to sit and watch Ed work - he doesn't need help from me. To your credit, this is actually the single most incorrect statement thats come from you so far, because I should think that the exact opposite is true. Stats are easily applied to the game for the simple fact that they are so accessible now. situational stats make analysis easy. But to observe someone's character, and how they apply themselves to the game, and all the other intangibles that make a player what they are, takes a bit more. It takes the same observation you like to discredit. If it were as easy as opening a stat book, they wouldn't need scouts, would they? Oh I've a handle on it and I don't need you to tell me how it works. And I've done it on a level you can't conceive obviously, if you look back I challenge you to find one post of mine that contains the thinly veiled insults and name calling that have riddle your whole entirely ridiculous diatribe - which is why I won't debate with you, Steel. Certainly not that I'm afraid of your intellect, its just you're not worth my time.
I appreciate your remarks...Baseball, Androctus.... You reminds us of all that once was good, and could be again...

[runningshoes]

If baseball were a car, a sabermetrician would be a mechanic.

And if Ed were a psychologist, you'd be his patient. ;)

[ed hardiman]

We're not talking about a simple (and quite intuitive) concept like "score more runs". If baseball were a car, a sabermetrician would be a mechanic. It's not enough to know that a faster car wins a race. You need to know what will most help that car to be faster than the rest of the cars in the race.Sabermetrics not only allows us to understand all of that, it allows us to equalize for all of it (Park Factors, Defense Independent Pitching, etc. etc.). In short, you're trying to say there's a deficiency that doesn't exist.The recent past can be used- with a great deal of accuracy- to predict future performance. The past is not at all unrelated to the future because it gives us insight into what's most likely to happen next.And yet, you've consistently railed against statistical analysis. And the problem with your contention that you can place a "value" on Abreu's "intangibles" is that you've come to a completely erroneous conclusion about this "clutch" hitting. You claimed that he "never" hits in the clutch when the data tells us that he quite obviously has. Yes, your methodology is less accurate than mine. If it weren't, you'd be lauding Abreu as a fine clutch hitter.That which is imperfect is not incapable of having extreme value. We've been over this before.Evolution is inevitable. Rickey was the grandfather of what we now know as sabermetrics and we keep seeing better and better information developed.Rickey was one of those "mechanics" I was talking about. By understanding individual performance, we're better able to understand how that whole "team" thing works. And yes, the metrics I've posted before and use consistently are valid measurements of individual contribution.A "sabermetroid". Thank goodness you're above childish namecalling.I'm just going to delete your rampantly misguided analysis of the Rickey article you didn't understand and move one. I have no other choice because you made so many aggregious reading comprehension errors, it's pointless to even start with them.You don't understand sabermetrics so yes, you'd be wasting our time. I can't count how many times you've posted that strawman (i.e. "replacing observation"). I've burned it to the ground already. It's not an "either/or" proposition and no one on the side opposing you has ever attempted to make that argument. You need to acknowledge that and move on.A "lack of practicable applicability"? Riiiiiiiight. Just because you don't know anything about sabermetrics, that doesn't mean it has no practical application. I can't even believe you typed that considering how many teams are using analytics while being quite successful doing so.
Baseball has incorporated subjective and objective analysis from almost day one. Both have evolved. That's a dramatic erroneous over-generalization. No one with a hint of sabermetrics knowledge would say such a thing.
First I edited your remarks to show you but for your penchant for insults you had the gist of a counter argument. I don't agree with you but that's ok. As far as sabermetroid I was not insulting you I was torn between that and other awkward constructs like sabermetrician, saberlytic, saberteer, saberneer, sabertine, sabertinian, saberfiend, saberlyte, etc. Is it impossible for you to reconcile opinions vastly different than yours can coexist and aren't neccessarily deficient? I hope this ritualistic deletion of my aforementioned post assuages whatever anguish it caused you.

[ed hardiman]

And if Ed were a psychologist, you'd be his patient. ;)
Thanks....A Freudian compliment!

[baseballPAP]

Thanks....A Freudian compliment!
Please lets not add that quack to this already disturbed thread!:crazy

[Androctus]

Please lets not add that quack to this already disturbed thread!:crazyThe only topics not yet touched on in this thread are space exploration and Pre-Cambrian history. Any ideas??

[SteelSD]

Is it impossible for you to reconcile opinions vastly different than yours can coexist and aren't neccessarily deficient?

Nope. You just need to show me something relevant other than your opinion that supports your contention.

In fact, if you say something like, "From watching Abreu, it doesn't appear that he gets a good jump on the ball in right field. When he first came up, he obviously needed to work on his fielding and still has issues out there. At this point it can't explain it other than as a work ethic issue.", I'm going to give that opinion some weight because I don't get to see the guy every day.

At that point in our example above, we'd have two conclusions. First, that Abreu is somewhat deficient in the field. Secondly, that Abreu has a work ethic issue causing him to field fewer balls successfully than your average Right Fielder.

I'm also going to check with other Phillies fans. But I'm not going to dismiss relevant observational information offhand. Never have. But I'm also going to cross check the available objective information I have that pertains to Bobby Abreu's fielding. And if I found that Abreu constantly created Outs on an extremely high percentage of balls he could reasonably be expected to field, it's going to do a whole lot to wash away much of the subjective observational data presented to me.

However, if my cross-checking identifies that Abreu creates fewer outs than he should, I'm going to give that observation more weight. In this case, that's exactly what I found and have previously noted that- as folks here claimed- Bobby Abreu was an undeserving Gold Glove recipient in 2005. At the same time, there would be other Phillies fans who would disagree with any claim of an Abreu "worth ethic" deficiency. At that point, it becomes a question of credibility and I'm going to go with the take of the more credible source.

But you've gone further than that, Ed. You've positioned an opinion that Bobby Abreu "never hits in the clutch". So we perform the same type of cross-check to identify whether or not such a statement may be accurate and we find that, instead, it flies in the face of the objective data. Bobby Abreu has a fairly extensive history of hitting well situationally- including situations that offer us the best standardized defininition of "clutch" (Close and Late). At that point your position that Abreu "never hits in the clutch" becomes unsupportable. In short, it's nothing but a deficient opinion.

[ed hardiman]

Nope. You just need to show me something relevant other than your opinion that supports your contention.
In fact, if you say something like, "From watching Abreu, it doesn't appear that he gets a good jump on the ball in right field. When he first came up, he obviously needed to work on his fielding and still has issues out there. At this point it can't explain it other than as a work ethic issue.", I'm going to give that opinion some weight because I don't get to see the guy every day.
At that point in our example above, we'd have two conclusions. First, that Abreu is somewhat deficient in the field. Secondly, that Abreu has a work ethic issue causing him to field fewer balls successfully than your average Right Fielder.
I'm also going to check with other Phillies fans. But I'm not going to dismiss relevant observational information offhand. Never have. But I'm also going to cross check the available objective information I have that pertains to Bobby Abreu's fielding. And if I found that Abreu constantly created Outs on an extremely high percentage of balls he could reasonably be expected to field, it's going to do a whole lot to wash away much of the subjective observational data presented to me.
However, if my cross-checking identifies that Abreu creates fewer outs than he should, I'm going to give that observation more weight. In this case, that's exactly what I found and have previously noted that- as folks here claimed- Bobby Abreu was an undeserving Gold Glove recipient in 2005. At the same time, there would be other Phillies fans who would disagree with any claim of an Abreu "worth ethic" deficiency. At that point, it becomes a question of credibility and I'm going to go with the take of the more credible source.
But you've gone further than that, Ed. You've positioned an opinion that Bobby Abreu "never hits in the clutch". So we perform the same type of cross-check to identify whether or not such a statement may be accurate and we find that, instead, it flies in the face of the objective data. Bobby Abreu has a fairly extensive history of hitting well situationally- including situations that offer us the best standardized defininition of "clutch" (Close and Late). At that point your position that Abreu "never hits in the clutch" becomes unsupportable. In short, it's nothing but a deficient opinion.
In regards to showing you something relevant I refer you to the Phillies website for Abreu's lifetime hitting stats compare and contrast 2005 with the preceeding seasons.
http://philadelphia.phillies.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/stats/individual_stats_player.jsp?c_id=phi&playerID=110029
Bobby Abreu did not hit well through the entire last half of the 2005 season
AB:265 R:41 H:69 2b:20 3B:1 HR:6 RBI:44 TB:109 BB:50 SO:69 SB:10 CS:5 OBP:.376 SLG:.411 BA:.260
his numbers plummeted during a tight pennant race.
In Sept and Oct 2005 his numbers were simply dreadful:
AB:103 R:16 H:25 2b:9 3b:0 HR:2 RBI:18 TB:40 BB:25 SO:30 SB:5 CS:1 OBP:.388 SLG:.388 BA:.243
In the single most important games last season he hit atrociously.
All games against Houston:
AB:22 R:1 H:4 2B:1 3B:1 HR:1 RBI:3 TB:10 BB:2 SO:8 SB:0 CS:0 OBP:.250 SLG:.455 BA:.182
All games against the Nationals:
AB:70 R:8 H:14 2B:3 3B:0 HR:0 RBI:9 TB:17 BB:15 SO:15 SB:1 CS:0 OBP:.341 SLG:.243 BA:.200
In late innings in he hit .277, 30 points off his lifetime BA.
In the second half of 2005 his BA dropped 60 points from the first half of the season.
My analysis is accurate by any measure.
If the word clutch is so problematic what modifier would you propose for such lackluster numbers from the one guy you counted on the most?
To a certain degree it's unfair to tag him for one bad half but that's the feeling you got from watching him in 2005. Quantifying it by numbers isn't neccessary to those who watched him in those series and during the season. He did after all have a great first half which is why I don't say he cost them games so much as just flickered out at the worst possible moment.
If he had a good 2nd half or even Sep-Oct isn't it valid to opine they might've won the one game they needed to tie or two they needed to get into the playoffs?
That's the larger part of why I and others aren't agog over his lifetime statistical prowess.
If you want to ascribe lifetime numbers to the argument you're absolutely 100% correct in asserting he's a good player but to say close and late is the only definition of clutch is not to my liking as too narrow because during the pennant race Abreu folded like a cheap card table and to me that's closer to choke than clutch in the big book of baseball under the letter "C".
As for his fielding he's no Willie Mays out there and if you define Gold Mitt fielding as being a competent outfielder with a decent arm then he deserves it. But I've never thought your opinion was in the affirmative in regards to his Gold Mitt credentials anyway.

[ed hardiman]

Please lets not add that quack to this already disturbed thread!:crazy
You're too Jung to remember Freud...he was all glove and no stick.

[ed hardiman]

The only topics not yet touched on in this thread are space exploration and Pre-Cambrian history. Any ideas??
Invertebrates never hit for power and while some do for average they're not exceptional baserunners. In space they're more likely to play center field than shortstop.

[SteelSD]

Bobby Abreu did not hit well through the entire last half of the 2005 season. His numbers plummeted during a tight pennant race.

In Sept and Oct 2005 his numbers were simply dreadful:
AB:103 R:16 H:25 2b:9 3b:0 HR:2 RBI:18 TB:40 BB:25 SO:30 SB:5 CS:1 OBP:.388 SLG:.388 BA:.243

Again, paragraphs please. No offense (really) but it's exceptionally difficult to parse out what to respond to when everything is all run together.

First, Bobby Abreu undoubtedly didn't have as good a 2nd half as he did a first half. He had a very difficult July (.214 BA/.319 OBP/.316 SLG) over 96 AB. But he came back with a vengeance in August (.320 BA/.419 OBP/.510 SLG) and even though his power slipped in September, his .395 OBP helped the Phillies. To put that September OBP in perspective, no MLB team got an OBP higher than .395 out of their #3 hitter in 2005. Only the Red Sox matched it. Import his 9 October PA, and that means only one MLB team ended up with a OBP in 2005 for their number three hitter above what you consider to be "dreadful".

Bobby Abreu entered September with a .409 OBP. He finished September with a .406 OBP. The guy didn't crumble. His BA entering September was .295. His BA at the end of September was .287. Do you know how many Hits that differential represents for the entire month?

Four. You're grumpy about four hits. You're calling Bobby Abreu a choker for not having one extra hit per week over the course of a month. From an OBP perspective, the difference between a .409 OBP and a .395 OBP for Abreu's 120 Plate Appearances in September is less than two Outs. The difference between Abreu's pre-September Slugging Percentage and his September numbers is nine bases. Equalize by applying Abreu's hit type rate and you've got a scenario in which Abreu replaced two missing Singles with Walks and didn't get one additional double and one additional Home Run in September.

That's what you're complaining about- one Double and one Home Run for a whole month.

That's the problem when you play with small sample sizes and think the results actually represent dramatic changes in performance over 100 or so AB.

See, that's the great thing about Abreu's offensive game. He's posesses extreme Isolated Discipline (OBP-minus-BA); meaning that even if the hits aren't falling (and we all know that baseball is a game of streaks) he's virtually slump proof.

In late innings in he hit .277, 30 points off his lifetime BA.
In the second half of 2005 his BA dropped 60 points from the first half of the season.

First, your latter contention is incorrect. Abreu's post All-Star-Break BA dipped by 47 points, not 60. Secondly, that's one hit per week. You wouldn't even know those hits were missing if you didn't have the data because neither of our brains have the ability to know the difference between +1 Hit per week and not. Lastly, in Close and Late situations, Abreu posted a .298 BA. Even if BA were an accurate measure of player contribution (it's not), his CaL Batting Average was within 4 points of his lifetime BA and outpaced his 2005 numbers. His CaL OBP (.422) was 11 points above his lifetime OBP. Bobby Abreu was doing his job late-game when it mattered in 2005.

There's really no way you can use Abreu's situational numbers to identify anything other than prowess.

My analysis is accurate by any measure.

Actually, it's a misinterpretation but that's common when you're working with stuff you don't really understand. I'm not saying that to be insulting, mind you. It's just that you're making the same mistakes most of us "sabermetroids" made when we first started working with numbers. ;)

You're overemphasizing ever-so-slight performance variances that look absolutely HUGE to you because you don't yet have the experience needed to properly contextualize them.

If the word clutch is so problematic what modifier would you propose for such lackluster numbers from the one guy you counted on the most?

His numbers weren't "lackluster" by any stretch of the imagination. Baseball is a game rife with streaks. It's rife with random variations in small sample size data (particularly when it's unrelated PA data) from year to year. Abreu's performance was inconsistent in 2005 from month to month. If you want to use the word "inconsistent", I'd have no issue with that because his 2005 offensive performance WAS inconsistent.

That being said, Abreu was not as dramatically inconsistent as you appear the think. Also, the Phillies played very consistent ball from May through the end of the season. It's almost unreal...

2005 Phillies Won/Loss Record by Month:

May: 15-13
June: 15-12
July: 15-12
Aug: 16-11
Sept: 15-12
Oct: 2-0

From May through the end of the season, the Phillies played .565 baseball. To me, that kind of month-to-month consistency is indicative of a team with a solid offense where one guy picks up for the next guy who picks up for the next guy when a team's pitching is mediocre (certainly an issue with the 2005 Phillies). The Phillies Win Percentage from the beginning of September through the end of the season was .586. From September 16th-on, the Phillies played way over the .600 WP mark.

Instead of focusing on a month of two of Bobby Abreu's season, might I suggest that the entire reason a playoff spot was lost was that the Phillies pitchers put up a putrid 4.93 ERA in April and that awful performance was the driver that produced the only losing month for the season (10-14)?

To a certain degree it's unfair to tag him for one bad half but that's the feeling you got from watching him in 2005. Quantifying it by numbers isn't neccessary to those who watched him in those series and during the season.

You're right. It is unfair. But that's the realm of MLB. All too often we fans place nigh-impossible to reach expectations on the known best player on our favorite team(s). You've actually demonstrated that line of thinking perfectly when you noted that Abreu is "the one guy you counted on the most".

He did after all have a great first half which is why I don't say he cost them games so much as just flickered out at the worst possible moment.

He didn't "flicker out at at the worst possible moment. He continued to do things that gave the Phillies the opportunity to overcome the damage their pitching staff had done to them.

If he had a good 2nd half or even Sep-Oct isn't it valid to opine they might've won the one game they needed to tie or two they needed to get into the playoffs? That's the larger part of why I and others aren't agog over his lifetime statistical prowess.

Why isolate that to Bobby Abreu? Seriously, if the Phillies pitchers hadn't puked up an awful April, we wouldn't be talking about Bobby Abreu right now because the Phillies would be in the playoffs. In fact, shortly after the All-Star break I told a very well-versed fan that the Phillies were my pick to take the Wild Card. He looked at me as if I were nuts but they almost made good for me.

You have a good team to root for. In fact, I wish the Reds were in the same position. But they're not. They have a solid offense (like the Phils), but don't have the mediocre pitching (like the Phils) to even make a game of it. Instead, they've got a bunch of crap. If the Phillies can move either Thome or Howard for that ONE ARM and retain a solid closer they're gold. In fact, I've long been of the opinion that the Phillies could dominate the NL East if they had someone at the helm who really knew what they were doing.

If you want to ascribe lifetime numbers to the argument you're absolutely 100% correct in asserting he's a good player but to say close and late is the only definition of clutch is not to my liking as too narrow because during the pennant race Abreu folded like a cheap card table and to me that's closer to choke than clutch in the big book of baseball under the letter "C".

But Abreu didn't "fold". He was still there not making outs while the team was trying to come back from a hole dug much much earlier in the season. There's an old adage that tells us that you can't win a division in April, but that you can certainly lose it. Personally, I think that's bunk because the 1990 Reds absolutely won their division because of their April performance just as the 2005 Phillies lost their chance at a playoff spot due to the atrocious start their pitchers got off to.

Is there a problem with the definition of "clutch"? Certainly. One fan may not feel what the next fan feels and that may not be the same as what a player feels.

As for his fielding he's no Willie Mays out there and if you define Gold Mitt fielding as being a competent outfielder with a decent arm then he deserves it. But I've never thought your opinion was in the affirmative in regards to his Gold Mitt credentials anyway.

Eh, I don't give a crap as to whom the Gold Glove is awarded. It's a farce. It's an award far too often given due to reputation rather than performance. Frankly, it's beyond me to be the slightest bit affected by who wins a GG award.

But the irony is that Gold Gloves are voted on by folks who get paid to watch baseball games. And you're right. I've consistently been of the opinion that Bobby Abreu did not deserve a Gold Glove for his 2005 season (neither did Andruw Jones).

Ed, I have to say that it was refreshing to read a post in which you attempted to use objective analysis. If you continue to do so and begin to properly interpret the data your observational analysis will certainly carry more weight with me.

[donzblock]

How many RBIs did Abreu have in September?

[ed hardiman]

How many RBIs did Abreu have in September?
Sept. onward 103 at bats yielding 18 rbi's.

[ed hardiman]

Again...me.
In the interests of space only I encapsulated your reply. I'm not laying the blame for the Phutes falling short on Abreu nor am I proposing he stinks the joint out.

Yes I am grumpy being shortchanged as you indicate a stiff drink and a box of waffles but much like keeping an open mind while reading your statistical insights I would encourage you to watch Abreu critically the next chance you get and see if he's really the straw that stirs the drink or another Fred Lynn type with more on base speed.

Good stick and glove, All Star even, but not HOF material.
He has, or had the tools to be a consistent 30/30 kind of guy but never turned the heat on.

Last year was a sack of angry cats for Abreu

Before the All Star break he had 18 HR's after 6 (a 66% decline).
Before the All Star break he had 99 H's after 69 (a 30% decline).
Before the All Star break he had 58 RBI's after 44 (a 25% decline).
Before the All Star break he had 170 TB's after 109 (a 36% decline).
Before the All Star break he had 63 R's after 41 (a 35% decline).
Before the All Star break he had 21 SB after 10 (a 53% decline).
Before the All Star break he had .428 OBP after .376
Before the All Star break he had .526 SLG after .411
Before the All Star break he had .307 BA after .260
In other categories he was nearly the same pre/post and 89 games were played pre and only 73 post the All Star game.

The Phillies were 21-23 in one run games last season so Abreu dumping 9-11 HR's is a critical stat regardless of any other but I certainly give him credit for hitting during the 21 one run wins. No one guy is responsible for losing or winning a season. Hell Manuel cost them plenty of games to the point Abreu didn't or shouldn't take that bullet.

Would an outfield of Burell, Bourne, and Abreu, with Howard, Utley, Robbins, a corpse at 3rd sack and Ruiz behind the plate be the right mix to win a division or wild card? I think so but all of this won't matter when the big Cheap Giles rings his dinner bell and tells smithers to trade him rather than pay him the bucks left on his contract.

[Androctus]

So still the basic fact is, no matter how you crunch the numbers, Abreu's productivity was below his usual standards during the last few weeks of the season when it really mattered, this is the argument, no? That is clutch. Not "close and late" but in the middle of a pennant race. Compare Abreu to either Utley, Howard or even Burrell and you'll see they all posted higher averages, comperable OBP, and more RBI than Abreu hitting cleanup. And Rollins, well. Some of us made light of his acheivements in the aftermath of the season ending, but he definately took his game to a whole new level when it counted most. THAT was clutch.

But Abreu didn't "fold". He was still there not making outs while the team was trying to come back from a hole dug much much earlier in the season. As for the whole "avoiding outs" argument, I don't buy it. Walking does not usually drive in runs. Avoiding outs does not equate into productivity, as his 16 runs scored will attest. Now that is remarkable considering his near .400 OBP and all the hitting going on around him, he only scored 16 runs?
I'm sorry in a pennant race, I want my cleanup guy to go out there and take some cuts, not just try to avoid making an out. This is the foundation of Rickey's statements about mental attitude being the single most important factor to good hitting. Drawing a base on balls is usually indicitave of a cautiousness, and while drawing a walk is not bad, when it fails you usually find yourself mired in a bad hitter's count (.240 avg, 30k's) Lets look at the last three games of the season. They were all "must win" games or the wild card race was over - thats as high pressure as you can get. The Phillies won all 3 no thanks to Abreu - 1 for 12 with a walk, 2 runs, 2 rbi.


That's the problem when you play with small sample sizes and think the results actually represent dramatic changes in performance over 100 or so AB.Any clutch numbers you try to sample are going to represent a small group, they are unique situations, be it close and late or September, the pool cant be much more than 150 plate appearances. But to give it some context, we can compare it to Bobby's September numbers of the past three years, of which the Phillies were in a wild card chase for two, I beleive, where Bobby Abreu hit no less than .326, .308 and .366. Those of us who observe, didn't need to see those numbers to know that Bobby just wasn't up to his usual stuff this September, when it mattered. But there they are. The bottom line, there was a production decline, no matter how you skewer your stats to lessen it, even it out, whatever, its there. Our brains did perceive it because its there.

Dissect this post however you will. I'm done with this thread because its just no longer productive, and I'm actaully at work so there probably something else I should be doing than trying to get you to admit that yes, your statistics do not tell the entire story, (while we all agree with you they have real value, mind you) and our observations had perhaps even a hint of truth all along. I'm sorry, you won't be convincing myself, or Ed, or Donz that there is absolutely no middle ground between statistical history and years of recorded scouting, observation and perception, either.

[donzblock]

Sept. onward 103 at bats yielding 18 rbi's.
I didn't want "Sept onward." I just wanted September.

[baseballPAP]

Before the All Star break he had 18 HR's after 6 (a 66% decline).
Before the All Star break he had 99 H's after 69 (a 30% decline).
Before the All Star break he had 58 RBI's after 44 (a 25% decline).
Before the All Star break he had 170 TB's after 109 (a 36% decline).
Before the All Star break he had 63 R's after 41 (a 35% decline).
Before the All Star break he had 21 SB after 10 (a 53% decline).
Before the All Star break he had .428 OBP after .376
Before the All Star break he had .526 SLG after .411
Before the All Star break he had .307 BA after .260
In other categories he was nearly the same pre/post and 89 games were played pre and only 73 post the All Star game.


I feel its important to correct this a little Ed.....these are the projections based on the actual 73 games the played, not on "half". The numbers in ( ) are what a sustained first half would have produced.
HR 18 to 6(15) a 60% decline
H 99 to 69(81) -15%
RBI 58 to 44(48) -8%
TB 170 to 104(139) -26%
R 63 to 41(52) -22%
SB 21 to 10(17) -41%

The .428 OBP is .017 better than his career, but dead even with 2004...could be the result of a stronger than normal first "half", in fact I doubt the .428 he put up for 2004 is going to be repeated or surpassed by a guy who is going to be 32. The .307 BA is close to his career average(.303), but his average for the last 5 years is only .297. He finished the year at .286, so the slow second "half" only served to even out the hot first. The slugging...well, I gotta give you that one:)

The thing I noticed about Abreu the hitter, is that his extra base hit totals are steadily declining, and that his OBP and OPS numbers are depending more on his walk totals than before. Still not a reason to trade him, but upon digging a little deeper, his star is starting to tarnish a bit.

Not trying to disprove anything, just pointing out the disparity when something is only slightly mis-represented..... in this case that fact that most fans call the 2 parts of the baseball season halves, but they are truly far from it.

[baseballPAP]

Avoiding outs does not equate into productivity, as his 16 runs scored will attest. Now that is remarkable considering his near .400 OBP and all the hitting going on around him, he only scored 16 runs?
Actually, if you go the saber route, that is EXACTLY what equates to productivity. Somewhere there is a chart that shows the historical runs average when the leadoff batter reaches, when a hitter reaches with one out, etc. through every situation. While a double is of course always better than a single(or walk), there is little or no difference historically in the number of times a runner scores when he reaches first by any method. In short, no matter how you get there, you have the same chances of scoring. Oh, and if you "only" score 16 runs a month, you'll score 100 or so for the season.

Drawing a base on balls is usually indicitave of a cautiousness, and while drawing a walk is not bad, when it fails you usually find yourself mired in a bad hitter's count (.240 avg, 30k's).
Drawing a walk is more indicative of patience and plate discipline than cautiousness. If you want to explain the bad hitter's count numbers, everyone hits worse in those situations...not everyone draws 100 walks a year.


...I should be doing than trying to get you to admit that yes, your statistics do not tell the entire story, (while we all agree with you they have real value, mind you) and our observations had perhaps even a hint of truth all along. I'm sorry, you won't be convincing myself, or Ed, or Donz that there is absolutely no middle ground between statistical history and years of recorded scouting, observation and perception, eitherNo argument here...this is another one of those strawmen....no one on the saber side of this argument ever said there was nothing to be said for personal observations, and certainly that there wasn't even a hint of truth to them. The only thing said was that his actual performance did not match your perceptions. I never tried to convince anyone that they didn't see him go 0-whatever in a September game...only that his overall performance was solid and of value. AT NO TIME did I ever say the numbers were the be-all and end-all....they're not.

[baseballPAP]

I didn't want "Sept onward." I just wanted September.
Subtract 2 Don...he drove in 2 in Oct.

[johncap]

I feel its important to correct this a little Ed.....these are the projections based on the actual 73 games the played, not on "half". The numbers in ( ) are what a sustained first half would have produced.
HR 18 to 6(15) a 60% decline
H 99 to 69(81) -15%
RBI 58 to 44(48) -8%
TB 170 to 104(139) -26%
R 63 to 41(52) -22%
SB 21 to 10(17) -41%

The .428 OBP is .017 better than his career, but dead even with 2004...could be the result of a stronger than normal first "half", in fact I doubt the .428 he put up for 2004 is going to be repeated or surpassed by a guy who is going to be 32. The .307 BA is close to his career average(.303), but his average for the last 5 years is only .297. He finished the year at .286, so the slow second "half" only served to even out the hot first. The slugging...well, I gotta give you that one:)

The thing I noticed about Abreu the hitter, is that his extra base hit totals are steadily declining, and that his OBP and OPS numbers are depending more on his walk totals than before. Still not a reason to trade him, but upon digging a little deeper, his star is starting to tarnish a bit.

Not trying to disprove anything, just pointing out the disparity when something is only slightly mis-represented..... in this case that fact that most fans call the 2 parts of the baseball season halves, but they are truly far from it.
Let me surprise everyone and defend Abreu here. His late-season stats were definitely affected by being a little hobbled, much like McNabb's recent issues. How hobbled he was only he knows. That said, these stats don't tell the story we're telling. The "pressure situation" stats are THE point. Before AND after he was hobbled and his great breakout at the AS game.

[Androctus]

Oh, and if you "only" score 16 runs a month, you'll score 100 or so for the season. Actually it was 14 for september, 16 including 2 for Oct, and it you do manage 14, you'll score about 84.

Drawing a walk is more indicative of patience and plate discipline than cautiousness. If you want to explain the bad hitter's count numbers, everyone hits worse in those situations...not everyone draws 100 walks a year. Observation again is the key. Stats may indicate a good eye, while scouting may reveal if your bat never leaves the shoulder in key spots, it is in fact caution or pehaps even reluctance to hit.

No argument here...this is another one of those strawmen....no one on the saber side of this argument ever said there was nothing to be said for personal observations, and certainly that there wasn't even a hint of truth to them. The only thing said was that his actual performance did not match your perceptions. Ah but does it? And not just my perceptions, but others as well? back to that it a minute
I never tried to convince anyone that they didn't see him go 0-whatever in a September game...only that his overall performance was solid and of value. AT NO TIME did I ever say the numbers were the be-all and end-all....they're not.You yourself did not, no. But isn't it testament that in the 3 single most important games of the season, Bobby was sadly almost a non-factor? But lets examine my perception for a minute. What was it? Simply this: Bobby Abreu underperformed in clutch situations this year. I define clutch as above being in the heat of a pennant race. Simply that, not that he was a dog, or that he sucks consistently. What to I have to bear out this perception? Examine the following:

1) Did Abreu's performance numbers decline in the second half of the season, and most dramatically in September in the heat of a wild card race? Yes

2) Were his September numbers as good as from previous Septembers (read: pennant races) No

These simple facts support the theory that I and others noted a performance decrease in Mr Abreu down the pennant stretch. Thats all I'm saying, and I have been provided all manner of stats, overcomplicated analysis, and even a few insults insults that his numbers were solid all season, and that is a game of streaks and it was still better than most of the league, blah blah and everything else that is irrelevant under the sun to the point of my simple argument. Did Bobby Abreu, in September and in a wild card race, perform up to his (and no one else's) potential? The answer is no. All the statistics in the world bear that out, if it was a question of one hit a week or whatever it balances out to does not matter. It was perceived by many, without the use of calculators, and is correct.

[johncap]

Did Bobby Abreu, in September and in a wild card race, perform up to his (and no one else's) potential? The answer is no. All the statistics in the world bear that out, if it was a question of one hit a week or whatever it balances out to does not matter. It was perceived by many, without the use of calculators, and is correct.
!!

yup yup

[donzblock]

Abreu's pathetic 14 RBIs in September prove what a bum he was down the stretch and lend substance to what we know is true about him: he is one godawful guy to be hitting for you when you really need a hit.

[SteelSD]

So still the basic fact is, no matter how you crunch the numbers, Abreu's productivity was below his usual standards during the last few weeks of the season when it really mattered, this is the argument, no?

Four hits. That's what you're complaining about. Four hits.

That is clutch. Not "close and late" but in the middle of a pennant race.

Compare Abreu to either Utley, Howard or even Burrell and you'll see they all posted higher averages, comperable OBP, and more RBI than Abreu hitting cleanup. And Rollins, well. Some of us made light of his acheivements in the aftermath of the season ending, but he definately took his game to a whole new level when it counted most. THAT was clutch.

Actually, it's becoming quite apparent that, on this board, "clutch" is whenever Bobby Abreu doesn't do exactly what you want him to. Freakin' team wouldn't have been IN a pennant race without Bobby Abreu and he created enough opportunities during said pennant race.

As for the whole "avoiding outs" argument, I don't buy it. Walking does not usually drive in runs. Avoiding outs does not equate into productivity, as his 16 runs scored will attest.

Well, you don't have to "buy" something for that something to be entirely true. Avoiding Outs is the most important thing a hitter can do. No facet of hitting correlates more highly with Run scoring than does Out avoidance. Period.

Now that is remarkable considering his near .400 OBP and all the hitting going on around him, he only scored 16 runs?

The guy put up a .419 OBP in August (in addition to .320 BA/.510 SLG) and ended up recording 17 Runs Scored that month. Individual Run scoring (excepting Home Runs) is an entirely team-based thing. If Bobby Abreu didn't score enough Runs while posting a high OBP, that's not his fault.

I'm sorry in a pennant race, I want my cleanup guy to go out there and take some cuts, not just try to avoid making an out. This is the foundation of Rickey's statements about mental attitude being the single most important factor to good hitting. Drawing a base on balls is usually indicitave of a cautiousness...

Folks used to say the same garbage about Ted Williams.

...and while drawing a walk is not bad, when it fails you usually find yourself mired in a bad hitter's count (.240 avg, 30k's) Lets look at the last three games of the season. They were all "must win" games or the wild card race was over - thats as high pressure as you can get. The Phillies won all 3 no thanks to Abreu - 1 for 12 with a walk, 2 runs, 2 rbi.

So now you're complaining about Abreu not hitting in games the Phillies won (including a 16-6 blowout and a last-day 8-4 pounding (a game the Nats were never actually in)???

Any clutch numbers you try to sample are going to represent a small group, they are unique situations, be it close and late or September, the pool cant be much more than 150 plate appearances. But to give it some context, we can compare it to Bobby's September numbers of the past three years, of which the Phillies were in a wild card chase for two, I beleive, where Bobby Abreu hit no less than .326, .308 and .366.

Good one. All you've done now is demonstrate that Abreu has a long history of hitting in what you're now calling "clutch" games. If you're trying to demonstrate that a player doesn't hit when you think it matters, you're doing an exceptionally poor job of it.

Those of us who observe, didn't need to see those numbers to know that Bobby just wasn't up to his usual stuff this September, when it mattered. But there they are. The bottom line, there was a production decline, no matter how you skewer your stats to lessen it, even it out, whatever, its there. Our brains did perceive it because its there.

Four hits lacking. Your brain can't process that over a four-week period. You wouldn't even know they were missing without having the numbers in front of you.

Dissect this post however you will. I'm done with this thread because its just no longer productive, and I'm actaully at work so there probably something else I should be doing than trying to get you to admit that yes, your statistics do not tell the entire story, (while we all agree with you they have real value, mind you) and our observations had perhaps even a hint of truth all along. I'm sorry, you won't be convincing myself, or Ed, or Donz that there is absolutely no middle ground between statistical history and years of recorded scouting, observation and perception, either.

Jeez. Unbelievable. ANOTHER variation on the "Stats OR Observation" strawman. I've admitted time after time after time that I AGREE that "stats don't tell the whole story". Cripes, I've dedicated entire posts to the subject so you really need to stop acting as if I think otherwise.

[SteelSD]

Let me surprise everyone and defend Abreu here. His late-season stats were definitely affected by being a little hobbled, much like McNabb's recent issues. How hobbled he was only he knows.

Now that's useful non-statistical information because performance can easily be affected by injury issues. That being said, you'll find that there are some folks who will perceive injury-driven performance variances as "effort" issues.

So who do you trust? Comes down to credibility. And yes, there are fans who will attribute ANY perceived production deficiency to be an "effort" issue and there are those who will, at the first sign of a normal slump, claim that the player MUST be injured somehow (even if he's not).

To follow up on the final point in my last post (in the hopes that folks will STOP building strawmen), a player's injury status or potential is a biggie. I've used Eric Milton and Paul Wilson as examples of this before because their health status when they were signed last offseason by the Reds was a big mitigating factor in projecting their playing time and performance in 2005. The Reds signed Wilson knowing his arm was being held together by bailing wire and, sure enough, the Reds got all of 46.1 awful Innings out of him before he went on the shelf for good. Milton was carrying around a knee injury that will never heal so it wasn't so difficult- when combined with his recent previous performance- to project a guy who wouldn't help the Reds and wasn't at all worth the contract he was handed. And, sure enough, Milton stunk the joint up.

So obviously, relevant valid subjective and observational information can help any analysis or projection. But the keywords are "relevant" and "valid".

[SteelSD]

Did Bobby Abreu, in September and in a wild card race, perform up to his (and no one else's) potential? The answer is no. All the statistics in the world bear that out, if it was a question of one hit a week or whatever it balances out to does not matter. It was perceived by many, without the use of calculators, and is correct.

Actually, no. That's not what you've done.

What has actually happened is that folks demonstrated that Abreu hit well across all situations, including late-game situations which were the primary focus of the indictments against Abreu. We found definitive proof that Abreu performed very well in those late-game situations. So then folks simply (using stats no less) found a period in which Abreu didn't perform well enough for them and decided that would be the new definition of "clutch".

Sorry, but it's that transparent. You can't simply look for when you think Abreu didn't perform well enough for you and call it "clutch" while telling folks you didn't need statistics to identify situations or a timeframe you couldn't identify without checking the numbers.

Here's your M.O.:

1. State that Abreu doesn't hit in the clutch.
2. Define "clutch" as one thing.
3. Run into proof that Abreu hit in the clutch.
4. Check the stats to find out when Abreu didn't hit as well as you'd have liked.
5. Change up the definition of "clutch".
6. Claim you didn't need statistics to tell you when Abreu didn't hit in the newly-defined "clutch".

Uh-uh. It's pretty obvious that "clutch" is now defined as any time Bobby Abreu didn't do as well as you think he should have, regardless of how small the performance variation actually was.

The irony is that Ed, donzblock, and yourself are now fronting a position you could only create using the same numbers you say you don't need.

[ed hardiman]

I didn't want "Sept onward." I just wanted September.
That would be 16 there was only one game in October.

[ed hardiman]

Actually, no. That's not what you've done.
What has actually happened is that folks demonstrated that Abreu hit well across all situations, including late-game situations which were the primary focus of the indictments against Abreu. We found definitive proof that Abreu performed very well in those late-game situations. So then folks simply (using stats no less) found a period in which Abreu didn't perform well enough for them and decided that would be the new definition of "clutch".
Sorry, but it's that transparent. You can't simply look for when you think Abreu didn't perform well enough for you and call it "clutch" while telling folks you didn't need statistics to identify situations or a timeframe you couldn't identify without checking the numbers.
Here's your M.O.:
1. State that Abreu doesn't hit in the clutch.
2. Define "clutch" as one thing.
3. Run into proof that Abreu hit in the clutch.
4. Check the stats to find out when Abreu didn't hit as well as you'd have liked.
5. Change up the definition of "clutch".
6. Claim you didn't need statistics to tell you when Abreu didn't hit in the newly-defined "clutch".
Uh-uh. It's pretty obvious that "clutch" is now defined as any time Bobby Abreu didn't do as well as you think he should have, regardless of how small the performance variation actually was.
The irony is that Ed, donzblock, and yourself are now fronting a position you could only create using the same numbers you say you don't need.
I never defined clutch as such and didn't shift ground in the melee we are discussing last season and the crucial second half pennant drive did comprise 50% of that period in all fairness it should be pointed out you requested such proof as these statistics otherwise we would've been content to stick with "isn't clutch."

In April in 24 games he hit .261 nothing to sneeze at but not nearly his best.
In May in 28 games he hit .392 you have to tip your hat.
In June in 27 games he hit .282 again not too shabby.
In July in 27 games he hit .214 literally his worst month.
In August in 27 games he hit .320. Job well done.
In September in 28 games and Oct in 1 game he hit .243 not so hot at the exact wrong time.

In 2 months he averaged .350-ish great by any def.
In 2 months he averaged .270-ish not bad for a decent player but Abreu is better than decent.
In 2 months and 1 day he averaged .215-ish sub sub par.

So I'd say he was under his average 4 out of 6 months last year and that is not worthy of categorizing as a season of clutch hitting nor is it cherry picking.

My overall impression remains he was less effective last year and parsing it down as you have may ameliorate the numbers somewhat it doesn't change the fundamental conclusion. Isn't it just as compellingly wrong in an argument to say based on May and Aug he was absolutely clutch?

On the other hand I'm not going to dismiss the fact that in light of your input the truth of Abreu's clutchativity may lie more accurately in the middle ground between between either assumption.

[ed hardiman]

I feel its important to correct this a little Ed.....these are the projections based on the actual 73 games the played, not on "half". The numbers in ( ) are what a sustained first half would have produced.
HR 18 to 6(15) a 60% decline
H 99 to 69(81) -15%
RBI 58 to 44(48) -8%
TB 170 to 104(139) -26%
R 63 to 41(52) -22%
SB 21 to 10(17) -41%
The .428 OBP is .017 better than his career, but dead even with 2004...could be the result of a stronger than normal first "half", in fact I doubt the .428 he put up for 2004 is going to be repeated or surpassed by a guy who is going to be 32. The .307 BA is close to his career average(.303), but his average for the last 5 years is only .297. He finished the year at .286, so the slow second "half" only served to even out the hot first. The slugging...well, I gotta give you that one:)
The thing I noticed about Abreu the hitter, is that his extra base hit totals are steadily declining, and that his OBP and OPS numbers are depending more on his walk totals than before. Still not a reason to trade him, but upon digging a little deeper, his star is starting to tarnish a bit.
Not trying to disprove anything, just pointing out the disparity when something is only slightly mis-represented..... in this case that fact that most fans call the 2 parts of the baseball season halves, but they are truly far from it.
I did take pains to define the actual number of games but you make good points. I just think last year indicates based on his numbers and at this stage of his contract the Big Cheap isn't going to keep him, at least with Gillick we should get solid value in return and can probably pull a player that may have 3-6 (less for a pitcher more for a hitter in either case get a young guy) good years for the Phutes at a minimum and perhaps even the eight good ones Abreu gave us.

[SteelSD]

So I'd say he was under his average 4 out of 6 months last year and that is not worthy of categorizing as a season of clutch hitting nor is it cherry picking.

Sure it's cherry picking. First, you're looking only at Batting Average, which is a very poor measure of hitter peformance. Secondly, I'm sure you understand that baseball is a game of streaks and that month-to-month variances are the rule- not the exception. Even superstar players go into funks- sometimes prolonged. We can expect that any hitter might see monthly BA variances because that's the way the game works. And please note that I'm not, at all, attempting to forward the idea that Bobby Abreu was a "clutch" hitter. All I'm saying is that he's not the massive choke artist folks appear to think he is.

Finally, we're (again) looking at a perceived deficiency that adds up to a grand total of four Hits in September. Really, that's what the totality of Bobby Abreu's "choker" status is now wrapped up in- four Hits in a month in which the Phillies played winning baseball. And it's a season that was lost in April by a horrid start from the pitching staff.

As a matter of record, about 70% of a Hitter's base Hits are going to happen when no one is on base. So, we're looking at at least two of those four Hits happening with no one on and two of those four Hits were replaced by Walks. That leaves two Hits and even if those two hits are a Double and a Home Run, we can't say when those hits would have happened in September. If they'd happened during the 16-6 murder of the Mets on Sept. 28th to make it a 18-6 drubbing, I'd be hearing about how Abreu produced- but only in a "blowout".

My overall impression remains he was less effective last year and parsing it down as you have may ameliorate the numbers somewhat it doesn't change the fundamental conclusion.

Now, if your overall impression is that Abreu was less effective last year than in 2004, your impression would be accurate and a quick cross-check of the numbers would confirm it.

But you didn't say that. Instead, you recently made a comment that Abreu "never hits in the clutch". That's a fundamentally different conclusion than if you were just saying that Abreu had, for him, a disappointing season.

Isn't it just as compellingly wrong in an argument to say based on May and Aug he was absolutely clutch?

You'll never hear me call a hitter "clutch", so yes- technically it would be wrong to claim that Abreu was "clutch" in May and August.

And that's really the problem with the word "clutch" anyway. It's overused and erroneously assumed to be an additional skill set allowing a hitter to somehow "will" himself to create an incredibly meaningful event.

So no. I wouldn't say that Bobby Abreu is a "clutch" hitter. But he certainly doesn't have a history of choking either.

On the other hand I'm not going to dismiss the fact that in light of your input the truth of Abreu's clutchativity may lie more accurately in the middle ground between between either assumption.

I don't disagree with that. In fact, if someone were to say, "Y'know, if Abreu would have hit just a little better in September, the Phillies maybe would have made the playoffs.", I wouldn't be able to counter. Even attempting to counter that would be unreasonable because it's absolutely true.

But then, the truth of that opinion isn't isoltated to Bobby Abreu. The same could be said about any player at any time during the 2005 season- including the pitching staff. If someone would have done something just a little bit better at some point, the Phillies might have made the Playoffs in 2005.

Heck, if Ugeth Urbina and Co. would have been able to acquire three Outs instead of giving up 4 Runs in the 8th Inning (aided by an Utley error) on September 26th, maybe the Phillies wouldn't have lost that game and would have ended up with a one-game playoff with the Astros? The Utley error in that provided the margain of victory in that game, BTW. But instead of talking about a late-season pennant race game that was absolutely BLOWN by the Phillies, we're talking about four hits Bobby Abreu didn't have in September that may or may not have led to that one-game playoff.

[johncap]

Is this more of the same or what? I don't care if heit hit .566 in a particular month. The entire premise of this discussion AFTER the issue of his defense is debated, is his results in the clutch, in meaningful opportunities in close games, NOT in any given month or segment of the season. As stated ad nauseum, 2-2 in the first half of a game and 0-2 in crunch time, or 4-5 in a 10-0 blowout all result in great fantasy numbers, as does .323 in May which may be mostly compiled of the aforementioned oppirtunistic stat compilation. Like my hockey guys who revel in 11-1 pastings and acrue 4 goals and five assists, and then get nothing the next 6 games and brag about how they're second on the team in points or goals, while the next guy who busts his butt gets only a couple points in the blowout but is just as productive in close games.

Geez, is this old or what! I'm sure those kinds of breakdowns are available somewhere.

[SteelSD]

Geez, is this old or what! I'm sure those kinds of breakdowns are available somewhere.

Yeah, it IS old because I've posted those breakdowns on this very thread. Abreu's numbers late in tight ballgames are nothing anyone could possibly call "choker" numbers.

[johncap]

Yeah, it IS old because I've posted those breakdowns on this very thread. Abreu's numbers late in tight ballgames are nothing anyone could possibly call "choker" numbers.
I must have missed something meaningful in the 223 posts.

[ed hardiman]

So no. I wouldn't say that Bobby Abreu is a "clutch" hitter.

You had to know I would have to quote this. So here it is.

[runningshoes]

Hey guys.

I'm looking for a dead horse to beat and was told this is place to look. ;)

[donzblock]

We will have no cruelty to animals on this or any other site. I am ending his thread. As the Absolute Arbiter of Aery Assonance, I hereby officially and irrevocably end an issue involving the incomparable Abreu.

[Androctus]

We will have no cruelty to animals on this or any other site. I am ending his thread. As the Absolute Arbiter of Aery Assonance, I hereby officially and irrevocably end an issue involving the incomparable Abreu.I didnt know you had a Quadruple-A card..

[johncap]

And that's really the problem with the word "clutch" anyway. It's overused and erroneously assumed to be an additional skill set allowing a hitter to somehow "will" himself to create an incredibly meaningful event.
Say what? :dance

[donzblock]

Say what? :dance
Say nothing! I am having trouble turning the switch to the off position. I can't seem to---aaarrgh!

[Androctus]

Say nothing! I am having trouble turning the switch to the off position. I can't seem to---aaarrgh!Don't panic! We have an emergency response team standing by to evacuate you from this thread. In the meantime, consult your HitchHikers Guide to Baseball Fever.

[johncap]

Don't panic! We have an emergency response team standing by to evacuate you from this thread. In the meantime, consult your HitchHikers Guide to Baseball Fever.
Just don't step on the, er, um, clutch, that mythical, misunderstood term that doesn't really mean anything anyhow... :clapping

[johncap]

Hey guys.

I'm looking for a dead horse to beat and was told this is place to look. ;)
You found it. We'll give you Bobby "The Babe & Roberto Rolled Into One" Abreu for one Minnie Minoso autographed bat from his 7th decade as a player.

[johncap]

Say nothing! I am having trouble turning the switch to the off position. I can't seem to---aaarrgh!
Come on, we're just geting warmed up here! Afterall, that's why they call it "Hot Stove"... What else can we kick around for the next few months?

[SteelSD]

BTW, guys. I'm hearing fairly credible rumors of Thome heading to the White Sox shortly. Just a heads-up.

Actually it appears that it'll be Thome for Rowand and a prospect arm.

If that's the case, it's a real good deal for the Phillies.

[Androctus]

Come on, we're just geting warmed up here! Afterall, that's why they call it "Hot Stove"... What else can we kick around for the next few months?Why dont we debate our perception of how Pat Burrell hits in the clutch for the next two weeks? Or we can see how many posts can be put in a single thread before we crash the forum?

[johncap]

BTW, guys. I'm hearing fairly credible rumors of Thome heading to the White Sox shortly. Just a heads-up.

Actually it appears that it'll be Thome for Rowand and a prospect arm.

If that's the case, it's a real good deal for the Phillies.
Come here Steel, let me kiss you on the forehead! Not that we want to see Thome go, but Howard has to win out in that duel and anything we get back is good news.

[SteelSD]

Come here Steel, let me kiss you on the forehead! Not that we want to see Thome go, but Howard has to win out in that duel and anything we get back is good news.

Eh...no slobber, thanks. But I did start a thread on it.

[johncap]

Eh...no slobber, thanks. But I did start a thread on it.
My mouse has only learned it's way to this thread. No matter how hard he tries he's unableto go anywehre else lately. Force of habit I guess.

[ed hardiman]

I have employed the services of a priest to do an excorcism on this thread if it fails our only hope may be a wooden stake plunged into its cold black heart of darkness...

[ed hardiman]

Why dont we debate our perception of how Pat Burrell hits in the clutch for the next two weeks? Or we can see how many posts can be put in a single thread before we crash the forum?
Burrell never hits in the clutch...it compliments his timid fielding.

[donzblock]

Nggaaahhh! Nggaaahhhhh! Nyarlothotep! Cthulhu! Nggaaahhhh! Klark-Ash-Ton! No! No! NO!

[BoofBonser26]

Nggaaahhh! Nggaaahhhhh! Nyarlothotep! Cthulhu! Nggaaahhhh! Klark-Ash-Ton! No! No! NO!
Do I hear a thread in distress? :lookitup

[runningshoes]

I think there may actually be a little love going on here, as demented as that may sound.

[johncap]

I think there may actually be a little love going on here, as demented as that may sound.
Hey man, anyone willing to solve out 1B dilemna is in for some serious love. Come here, let me give you some noogies!

Just one question, why do the White Sox have red socks? Do the Red Sox have white socks? Is that like why you drive on the parkway and park on the driveway?

[ed hardiman]

Hey man, anyone willing to solve out 1B dilemna is in for some serious love. Come here, let me give you some noogies!

Just one question, why do the White Sox have red socks? Do the Red Sox have white socks? Is that like why you drive on the parkway and park on the driveway?
No matter how good the White Support Hose felt winning the World Series they're still like 1 for 81 not exactly a dynasty...keeping it Phillies real...

[baseballPAP]

Just posting here for old times sake.....
and to complain about the Reds trading for Tony BLEEPING Womack. I hereby offer up Dan O'Brien and the rest of the Reds front office for a batboy to be named later.:grouchy

[johncap]

Just posting here for old times sake.....
and to complain about the Reds trading for Tony BLEEPING Womack. I hereby offer up Dan O'Brien and the rest of the Reds front office for a batboy to be named later.:grouchy
With the state of the Reds, getting Tony Womack is the least of your problems. He's not a bad player used properly. Hell, you could have gotten Bobby Abreu! :clapping

[Reds Nd2]

Just posting here for old times sake.....
and to complain about the Reds trading for Tony BLEEPING Womack.

Or, as he's to be refered to from this point forward, Tony Blow-mac.

[Reds Nd2]

With the state of the Reds, getting Tony Womack is the least of your problems. He's not a bad player used properly. Hell, you could have gotten Bobby Abreu! :clapping

Unfortunantly, that trade was indicative of the very real problems the Reds have. A front office that doesn't have the first clue of judging baseball talent or the lack of, as may be the case.

The truth is, Bobby Darin would have had better success at getting on base than Blow-Mac will.