Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bobby Abreu... has won a Gold Glove Award

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • baseballPAP
    replied
    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.....

    Leave a comment:


  • ed hardiman
    replied
    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.
    Last edited by ed hardiman; 11-12-2005, 10:45 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteelSD
    replied
    Originally posted by johncap
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • johncap
    replied
    Originally posted by Reds Nd2
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Reds Nd2
    replied
    Originally posted by johncap
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Reds Nd2
    replied
    Originally posted by johncap
    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.

    Originally posted by johncap
    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.

    Originally posted by johncap
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • johncap
    replied
    Originally posted by SteelSD
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • johncap
    replied
    Originally posted by 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?
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • SteelSD
    replied
    Originally posted by 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.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • donzblock
    replied
    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?
    Last edited by donzblock; 11-11-2005, 04:17 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ed Wade is God
    replied
    Originally posted by SteelSD
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • johncap
    replied
    Originally posted by SteelSD
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • johncap
    replied
    Originally posted by baseballPAP
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • SteelSD
    replied
    Originally posted by ed hardiman
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteelSD
    replied
    Originally posted by johncap
    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.
    Last edited by SteelSD; 11-11-2005, 10:59 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X