Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bobby Abreu... has won a Gold Glove Award

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

  • donzblock
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • runningshoes
    replied
    Hey guys.

    I'm looking for a dead horse to beat and was told this is place to look.

    Leave a comment:


  • ed hardiman
    replied
    Originally posted by SteelSD
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • johncap
    replied
    Originally posted by SteelSD
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteelSD
    replied
    Originally posted by johncap
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • johncap
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteelSD
    replied
    Originally posted by ed hardiman
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ed hardiman
    replied
    Originally posted by baseballPAP
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ed hardiman
    replied
    Originally posted by SteelSD
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ed hardiman
    replied
    Originally posted by donzblock
    I didn't want "Sept onward." I just wanted September.
    That would be 16 there was only one game in October.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteelSD
    replied
    Originally posted by Androctus
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteelSD
    replied
    Originally posted by johncap
    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".

    Leave a comment:


  • SteelSD
    replied
    Originally posted by 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?
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • donzblock
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • johncap
    replied
    Originally posted by Androctus
    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

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X