Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bobby Abreu... has won a Gold Glove Award

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

  • runningshoes
    replied
    Originally posted by SteelSD
    Quick question: How are you able to determine the ability level of a player you don't watch everyday?
    Take your word for it?

    Leave a comment:


  • ed hardiman
    replied
    Originally posted by baseballPAP
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ed hardiman
    replied
    Originally posted by SteelSD
    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.
    Originally posted by SteelSD
    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.
    Originally posted by SteelSD
    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.
    Originally posted by SteelSD
    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.
    Originally posted by SteelSD
    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:
    Originally posted by SteelSD
    ...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.
    Originally posted by SteelSD
    He's ignorant. So are you."
    ibid.
    Originally posted by SteelSD
    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.
    Originally posted by SteelSD
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Androctus
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • baseballPAP
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • baseballPAP
    replied
    Originally posted by johncap
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • johncap
    replied
    Originally posted by SteelSD

    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.....


    Originally posted by SteelSD
    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.

    Originally posted by SteelSD
    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.


    Originally posted by SteelSD
    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.


    Originally posted by SteelSD
    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.


    Originally posted by SteelSD
    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.

    Originally posted by SteelSD
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • SteelSD
    replied
    Originally posted by johncap
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • johncap
    replied
    Originally posted by SteelSD
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteelSD
    replied
    Originally posted by donzblock
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteelSD
    replied
    Originally posted by Ed Wade is God
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • donzblock
    replied
    Originally posted by SteelSD
    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"?
    Last edited by donzblock; 11-10-2005, 04:27 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteelSD
    replied
    Originally posted by ed hardiman
    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."

    Leave a comment:


  • johncap
    replied
    Originally posted by 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?
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ed Wade is God
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X