Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bobby Abreu... has won a Gold Glove Award

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

  • Ravenlord
    replied
    Originally posted by ed hardiman
    I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere. Your etch-a-sketch analysis is hard to follow...
    so you're what...14?

    Leave a comment:


  • SteelSD
    replied
    Originally posted by ed hardiman
    Rickey's clearly discussing the importance of intangibles not statistics...
    Well, then you're quite obviously daft.

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

    GOODBYE TO SOME OLD BASEBALL IDEAS

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

    by Branch Rickey


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

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

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

    I like many others in this thread base their opinion on actually observing Abreu play on the field and consequently find the statistically driven uninitiated unable to draw a proper inference and incapable of expressing themselves in an adult manner befitting reasonable discourse.
    Translation: "Ed's ignorant about the entire concept of statistical analysis as it pertains to baseball, so his mission is to debase the use of analytics rather than to undertand their relevance."

    I don't own a dog.
    Considering the quality of your posts during this discussion, if you had a dog I have no doubt that he'd own you.

    Leave a comment:


  • ed hardiman
    replied
    Originally posted by SteelSD
    ...
    I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere. Your etch-a-sketch analysis is hard to follow...
    Last edited by ed hardiman; 11-18-2005, 01:17 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteelSD
    replied
    Originally posted by ed hardiman
    (1) Did you read Branch's first sentence? What do you think that means?
    It means the same thing I've been saying- OF COURSE statistics don't tell the whole story. Never said they did. If you possessed even rudimentary reading comprehension skills, you'd know that by now.

    Nice to see that you apparantly skipped the rest of Rickey's quote. But then, I've grown used to guys like you simply ignoring that which doesn't match up with your opinion. What does the entirety of Rickey's quote mean do you think?
    (2)Get to the point. You must empty rooms with your long winded pointless dissertations.
    What in the world would you possibly know about a "point"???

    You haven't had one yet on this thread.

    (3) Did they kick you out of the "Insufferable Boors with Calculators" thread? I mean we're so very lucky to have you drop these steaming bon mots of baseball wisdom.
    If you actually realized how little you know you would be appreciative. But then, the ignorant often don't know they're ignorant. If they did, they'd do something about it. But then, when it comes to having an iota of ability to incorporate relevant objective data into an evaluation, you're the worst-case scenario- you know you're ignorant but choose to do nothing about it.

    (4) Everything is subjective even data.
    I can use math to prove by halving the distance travelled a bullet will never hit you incredibly enough despite solid calculations to the contrary in real life you're dead as a mackerel.
    That first sentence is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen in print and the second is pretty close.

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

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

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

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

    If your premise is so infallible why do they play the season?
    Shouldn't they just crunch the numbers and tell us how it turns out?
    Your first sentence is another intellectually dishonest strawman. No predictive analysis is infallable. No one you're arguing with has EVER claimed that to be their position. EVER. But not being perfect isn't a valid argument against sabermetrics or actuarial science.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Oh I forgot it must be that in any given game it's the team that wins on the field not on paper that gets the "W"...Which is why a dog like Abreu will never hunt.
    Bobby Abreu was worth more Runs to the Phillies offense than any other player on your roster. Period. Only Barry Bonds was worth more Wins to his team in 2004 than Abreu was worth to the Phillies that season. No Phillies player was worth more Wins to his team than Abreu contributed in 2005.

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

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

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

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

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

    Leave a comment:


  • ed hardiman
    replied
    Originally posted by baseballPAP
    Wow...this is a lot of dumb wrapped up in a single post.....Did you read PAST the first sentence? What do you think the rest of it means?
    Rickey's clearly discussing the importance of intangibles not statistics, by the way intangible means:
    Incapable of being perceived by the senses or incapable of being realized or defined.
    Additionally Rickey points out you can attempt to partially define intangibles:
    Originally posted by Branch Rickey
    "...Over an entire season, or many seasons, individuals and teams build an accumulation of mathematical constants. A man can work with them. He can measure results and establish values. He can then construct a formula which expresses something tangible."
    Expresses means:
    to convey or suggest a representation of
    It does not mean:
    above all else or the sole criteria in judging a player
    as SD implied in his self contradictory post.
    Rickey indicates statistics clearly:
    Originally posted by Branch Rickey
    "...fall short of bridging the gap between human expectancy and fulfillment. They cannot measure such intangibles as intelligence, courage, disposition, effort..."
    These are the very things we're discussing about Abreu lacking.
    So while SD was exceedingly Freudian to paste a passage impaling his cherished notion statistics solely measure the value of a player I surely thought a towering arbiter of intellect like yourself easily grasped the suitably obvious irony of SD hoisting himself on his own petard.
    Originally posted by baseballPAP
    The statistics are based on the season Ed, not the other way around. Good stats just tell us the patterns to look for, and the results that can be reasonably expected. No one here ever said the statistics are more important than what happens on the field...just that they help those of us who are willing to better see what DID HAPPEN.
    I like many others in this thread base their opinion on actually observing Abreu play on the field and consequently find the statistically driven uninitiated unable to draw a proper inference and incapable of expressing themselves in an adult manner befitting reasonable discourse.
    Originally posted by baseballPAP
    Abreu is most definately hunting Ed....he's just hunting the big game while your whiny little dog is chasing a chipmunk.
    I don't own a dog.
    Last edited by ed hardiman; 11-18-2005, 12:09 AM.

    Leave a comment:


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

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

    Leave a comment:


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

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

    If your premise is so infallible why do they play the season?
    Shouldn't they just crunch the numbers and tell us how it turns out?
    Oh I forgot it must be that in any given game it's the team that wins on the field not on paper that gets the "W"...
    Which is why a dog like Abreu will never hunt.
    Last edited by ed hardiman; 11-17-2005, 10:54 PM.

    Leave a comment:


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

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

    Leave a comment:


  • SteelSD
    replied
    Originally posted by donzblock
    My point is that when an umpire does make a mistake, that mistake has consequences, and no divine prime mover will undo the consequences of that mistake. When I evaluate a stat, I want to know if the ump made a mistake in a particular situation, and I also want to know what else was going on that may have influenced that particular stat.
    Well, if that's the case we might as well go back to the days when baseball scorers only counted "clean" hits rather than give credit to the hitter for a blooper that fell in.

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

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

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

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

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

    The clutch hit would be Utley's three-run homer. The first hitter in that inning is not under as much pressure. His team is down 4 runs, there is nobody on, and he can't be expected to accomplish something in that situation that will put the Phillies back in the game. His base hit in that situation is important, but it is not a clutch hit.
    I've seen a lot of clutch hits. I've yet to see a real live clutch hitter (in the traditional sense).

    Perhaps it can by somebody else's definition. However, because there are so many innings left to be played in the game, I am going to withhold the "clutch" designation from that situation.
    Ok. I've given you Abreu's Close and Late numbers which appear to approximate (and possibly directly match) your definition of "clutch". Is there any reason, other than Abreu's obvious success in those situations, to go over the same data?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Leave a comment:


  • donzblock
    replied
    Originally posted by SteelSD
    True or False: Hitters see virtually the same quality of umpires throughout the season.

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



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

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



    Ok then. But how does a player hit a three-Run Home Run without that first hitting reaching base when down by four Runs?
    The clutch hit would be Utley's three-run homer. The first hitter in that inning is not under as much pressure. His team is down 4 runs, there is nobody on, and he can't be expected to accomplish something in that situation that will put the Phillies back in the game. His base hit in that situation is important, but it is not a clutch hit.

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



    And I certainly wouldn't have any patience with Gillick even if I HAD patience. There was a point in his career where a guy like Gillick inspired a bit of confidence. That was before his last couple of years at the helm of Seattle, where it appeared that he couldn't be bothered to actually improve a club that was very close to taking the next step (like the Phillies). At this point, if I were a Phillies fan (and I do like the club), I'd need Gillick to show me some aptitude before feeling anything but uneasy about his presence there.
    Right now, I have as much confidence in Gillick as I have in the Phillies' owners. It appears that he will retain Manuel. That really is the deal breaker, and it seems to indicate that Gillick is another Phillies' GM lapdog.
    Last edited by donzblock; 11-17-2005, 01:52 PM.

    Leave a comment:


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

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

    Leave a comment:


  • SteelSD
    replied
    Originally posted by donzblock
    And as you well know, I was also talking about an umpire calling balls and strikes, and when he blows one or two, things never even out.
    True or False: Hitters see virtually the same quality of umpires throughout the season.

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

    I am going to define "clutch" as a situation occurring in the late innings of the game and am open to suggestions for a good definition.
    Is there something wrong with the "Close and Late" definition that I posted? I mean, other than the fact that Abreu performs well in those situations?

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

    No, if Abreu were the first hitter up in a late inning with his team down 4 runs, I would not count that as a clutch situation.
    Ok then. But how does a player hit a three-Run Home Run without that first hitting reaching base when down by four Runs?

    That is what I will be trying to verify. Will these ESPN stats and reconstructions indicate if an umpire made a bad call similar to the one that victimized Abreu in the 9th inning of that incredible game against the Reds?
    Of course not. But in a macro sense, that's also irrelevant.

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

    What "really matters" is not synonymous with "clutch."
    Only because it appears that "clutch" doesn't exist in Innings 1-through-6?

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

    Yes, Gillick will get killed here very quickly if his trades bomb. Phillie fans have no patience and should have no patience.
    And I certainly wouldn't have any patience with Gillick even if I HAD patience. There was a point in his career where a guy like Gillick inspired a bit of confidence. That was before his last couple of years at the helm of Seattle, where it appeared that he couldn't be bothered to actually improve a club that was very close to taking the next step (like the Phillies). At this point, if I were a Phillies fan (and I do like the club), I'd need Gillick to show me some aptitude before feeling anything but uneasy about his presence there.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteelSD
    replied
    Originally posted by ed hardiman
    All you've done is regurgitate numbers.
    Which is best summed up by Truman Capote's quote:
    "That's not writing it's typing."
    Instead of watching you continue to post non-applicable quotes from everywhere BUT baseball, how about we take one from a guy who knows something about it...

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

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

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

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

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


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



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



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



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

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



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



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


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

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X