Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bobby Abreu... has won a Gold Glove Award

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

  • Androctus
    replied
    Originally posted by baseballPAP
    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.
    Last edited by Androctus; 11-22-2005, 08:25 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • johncap
    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.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • baseballPAP
    replied
    Originally posted by donzblock
    I didn't want "Sept onward." I just wanted September.
    Subtract 2 Don...he drove in 2 in Oct.

    Leave a comment:


  • baseballPAP
    replied
    Originally posted by Androctus
    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.

    Originally posted by Androctus
    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.


    Originally posted by Androctus
    ...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
    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. 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • baseballPAP
    replied
    Originally posted by ed hardiman

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • donzblock
    replied
    Originally posted by ed hardiman
    Sept. onward 103 at bats yielding 18 rbi's.
    I didn't want "Sept onward." I just wanted September.

    Leave a comment:


  • Androctus
    replied
    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.
    Last edited by Androctus; 11-22-2005, 06:37 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ed hardiman
    replied
    Originally posted by SteelSD
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ed hardiman
    replied
    Originally posted by donzblock
    How many RBIs did Abreu have in September?
    Sept. onward 103 at bats yielding 18 rbi's.

    Leave a comment:


  • donzblock
    replied
    How many RBIs did Abreu have in September?

    Leave a comment:


  • SteelSD
    replied
    Originally posted by ed
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ed hardiman
    replied
    Originally posted by Androctus
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ed hardiman
    replied
    Originally posted by baseballPAP
    Please lets not add that quack to this already disturbed thread!
    You're too Jung to remember Freud...he was all glove and no stick.

    Leave a comment:


  • ed hardiman
    replied
    Originally posted by SteelSD
    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...layerID=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.
    Last edited by ed hardiman; 11-21-2005, 05:24 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteelSD
    replied
    Originally posted by ed hardiman
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X