Bobby Abreu... has won a Gold Glove Award

[ed hardiman]

no you can't. if you win, you magically have heart and good chemistry. it's the nature of winning. loosing always generates negative reaction. that's one of the basic principles of sports psychology.

The 93 Pillies didn't win the World Series so I don't get your point.
You haven't written a single sentence predicated on fact that buttresses your ill conceived notion that Abreu is anything other than king of your statistical molehill.
Abstract baseball minutia stacked like pancakes doesn't get around the real consistent opinion voiced by those who watch him daily.
What's your LNOPGWWAWP?
(Lifetime Number Of Phillies Games Watched While Abreu Was Playing)

[[email protected]]

Well duh. BA is at least a more accurate appraisal of a player's hitting accomplishments and/or ability

Batting average doesn't tell if a hitter had 130 singles, 40 doubles, 5, triples, and 25 home runs in a season or 200 singles. Walks and HBP gets you on base and helps your team win games. Batting average completly ingores that. If you take the time to learn what Runs created is you'll see that it is a much better stat to evaluate hitters by than batting avg.

[johncap]

Batting average doesn't tell if a hitter had 130 singles, 40 doubles, 5, triples, and 25 home runs in a season or 200 singles. Walks and HBP gets you on base and helps your team win games. Batting average completly ingores that. If you take the time to learn what Runs created is you'll see that it is a much better stat to evaluate hitters by than batting avg.

It's ALL BS! Stats lie, period, end of story. The subjectiveness that is not being considered is what is skewing this entire debate. Great players are great because of the intangible and tangible couipled with longevity and statistical prowess. Ralph Kiner put up some numbers but was never a great player in ANY realm. Other than being a NY broadcaster he'd have noever gotten int the HOF. I'd take a healthy gamer like Jim Eisenreich any day of the week over Abreu.

Know why? Cause I've watched Abreu play.

[Ravenlord]

you're all a waste of time and effort. you're the same people who booed Mike Schmidt. how about you actually try to disprove what i've said, or at the very least do some basic research.

and i don't play fantasy baseball.

oh yeah, and have fun losing to me when i ascend into a front office.

The Backlash

[ed hardiman]

...you're all a waste of time and effort. you're the same people who booed Mike Schmidt...

Mike Schmidt was the greatest 3rd sacker of all time and using his name to flog us in a lame attempt to justify your sabermetric slobbering is beneath the quiet dignity of this hallowed forum of baseball scribblery.

...can we all agree that a double is better than single?
that a triple is better than a double? that a homerun is better than a triple? (and in a subsequent post)...how about you actually try to disprove what i've said...

Ever hear of Ty Cobb (72% of hits were singles) or Pete Rose (75% of his hits were singles)?
According to your theory Bobby Abreu's the better player because only 60% of his hits have been singles.
I can predict with 100% certainty (+/- 0.00% error rate) in baseball everybody picks Cobb and Rose over Abreu.
Finally the Phillies won a World Series when Rose hit .282 not his best statistical year but he played like his head was on fire every single game.
Is that proof enough?
Before you respond with numerical inanities chew on this:

"Using math to describe the infinite intangibles of great baseball is like using cement to describe Mozart."
e.m. hardiman Nov. 2005

...oh yeah, and have fun losing to me when i ascend into a front office.

Best of luck on your aspiration to eventually become a GM of a fantasy baseball team...

[baseballPAP]

It's ALL BS! Stats lie, period, end of story. The subjectiveness that is not being considered is what is skewing this entire debate. Great players are great because of the intangible and tangible couipled with longevity and statistical prowess. Ralph Kiner put up some numbers but was never a great player in ANY realm. Other than being a NY broadcaster he'd have noever gotten int the HOF. I'd take a healthy gamer like Jim Eisenreich any day of the week over Abreu.

Know why? Cause I've watched Abreu play.

When faced with the choice of numbers which tell me Abreu is a great hitter, and some guy sitting behind me at the stadium who started yelling "Its GONE!" when the shortstop is back-pedalling for the ball, I'll gladly take the stats, each and every time. The best thing about loud-mouth fans of a particular team is that they seem to feel the need to make everyone think like they do. Stat-heads just want people to believe in what can be PROVEN.

Is Abreu a good OFer? Nope. Does he deserve a GG? Not Even. Would I like to have him on my team? You bet your backside.

[baseballPAP]

my common sense says that if i'm Abreu, i'm getting out of Philly and going somewhere that appreciates my 7.43 RC/27.

Abreu, 2005:
RISP: 944 OPS
RISP 2/outs: 825 OPS
Bases Loaded:1157 OPS
Close and Late: 993 OPS
Overall: 879 OPS

Abreu, Career:
RISP: 1003 OPS
RISP 2/outs: 976 OPS
Bases Loaded: 988 OPS
Overall: 923 OPS

For the non statitic minded, OPS is On Base % Plus Slugging %. It is widely recognized as THE best way to determine if a batter is worth his salt. The league average is .740 for all NL batters in 2005. Now take another look...for the unnamed poster who seems to tell me that Abreu is terrible in the clutch, that he only got a big hit once all year:
ABREU IS BETTER THAN THE LEAGUE IN EVERY SITUATION! If the guy is so bad in the clutch, how is it that he was 200 points better than average with runners in scoring position? How about 400 points better with the bases loaded?

If you want to argue 'til you're blue in the face, go ahead. But don't try to tell me that Ravenlord isn't giving any real evidence when that is exactly what he IS doing. You are giving opinions, and poorly thought out ones at that.

[donzblock]

For the non statitic minded, OPS is On Base % Plus Slugging %. It is widely recognized as THE best way to determine if a batter is worth his salt. The league average is .740 for all NL batters in 2005. Now take another look...for the unnamed poster who seems to tell me that Abreu is terrible in the clutch, that he only got a big hit once all year:
ABREU IS BETTER THAN THE LEAGUE IN EVERY SITUATION! If the guy is so bad in the clutch, how is it that he was 200 points better than average with runners in scoring position? How about 400 points better with the bases loaded?

If you want to argue 'til you're blue in the face, go ahead. But don't try to tell me that Ravenlord isn't giving any real evidence when that is exactly what he IS doing. You are giving opinions, and poorly thought out ones at that.

Do Ravenlord's stats indicate what the score was when Abreu connected? In other words, how clutch were Abreu's hits? If Abreu gets hits with runners in scoring position when the Phillies are leading 10-1 or losing 10-1, are those hits clutch hits?

[Androctus]

Maybe Ed, Don or Steve will agree with me, it amusing to have people pop up at random in the Phillies forum, who are fans of the Mets, or Reds, or whoever, who probably have not seen a Phillies game all season, except perhaps the time they swept Cincinatti or so, and try to convice us we are wrong about things we have witnessed all season, every day, every game. And I'm a relative newcomer. I'm sure they've been putting up with it longer than I have. Maybe I'll swing by the Red's forum and explain why their whole team is crap. That being said

But don't try to tell me that Ravenlord isn't giving any real evidence when that is exactly what he IS doing. You are giving opinions, and poorly thought out ones at that.

Anyone who's seen Law and Order knows that eyewitness accounts are not regarded as opinion, and your notions that you can encompass a player's value based solely on his statistics is rubbish. Statistics is what probably got Abreu a gold glove, that alone is evidence enough against their value. Fashizzel.

If the guy is so bad in the clutch, how is it that he was 200 points better than average with runners in scoring position?

What is "clutch"? If clutch is driving in runs when the game is already won, or when your down by five, then Abreu is king. I see Raven put up some terrific numbers for "close and late". What is that, by definition? You produce numbers for seventh inning on, tie game or down by 2 or less and I'll give some creedence to what you say. Then you can call whatever team you representing here and petition to have them make a trade for him. You can watch him all season, as we have for the past 6 years or more, and you can witness firsthand how the stats just don't reveal everything.

[johncap]

and i don't play fantasy baseball.
[/url]

You should start, cause that's all all of this nonsense is good for.

[johncap]

For the non statitic minded, OPS is On Base % Plus Slugging %. It is widely recognized as THE best way to determine if a batter is worth his salt. The league average is .740 for all NL batters in 2005. Now take another look...for the unnamed poster who seems to tell me that Abreu is terrible in the clutch, that he only got a big hit once all year:
ABREU IS BETTER THAN THE LEAGUE IN EVERY SITUATION! If the guy is so bad in the clutch, how is it that he was 200 points better than average with runners in scoring position? How about 400 points better with the bases loaded?

If you want to argue 'til you're blue in the face, go ahead. But don't try to tell me that Ravenlord isn't giving any real evidence when that is exactly what he IS doing. You are giving opinions, and poorly thought out ones at that.

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....

[SteelSD]

I see Raven put up some terrific numbers for "close and late". What is that, by definition? You produce numbers for seventh inning on, tie game or down by 2 or less and I'll give some creedence to what you say.

"Close And Late" - Results in the 7th inning or later with the batting team either ahead by one run, tied or with the potential tying run at least on deck.

Here's Abreu from 2002-2004, BTW:

None On: .264 BA/.382 OBP/.450 SLG- .832 OPS
Runners On: .332 BA/.449 OBP/.548 SLG- .997 OPS
With RISP: .329 BA/.450 OBP/.566 SLG- 1.016 OPS
w/RISP- 2 Out: .328 BA/.487 OBP/.563 SLG- 1.050 OPS
Close and Late: .288 BA/.431 OBP/.464 SLG- .895 OPS

If Bobby Abreu is such a choker, why does his performance (BA, OBP, and SLG) escalate across the board situationally? Even in "Close and Late" situations, Abreu has a history of producing a BA nearly 25 points higher than when he walks to the plate with no one on base in front of him and he was even better than that in 2005. His OBP is nearly 50 points higher. Over the past four seasons when the game is on the line, Abreu finds a way to get himself on base around 43% of the time. Does that not help the Phillies? And all of that is happening while he's facing, in large part, the best bullpen pitchers the opposition has to offer.

If Abreu is so bad situationally, why does he hit better with Runners On? Why does he perform even BETTER than that with Runners in Scoring Position? Why does his performance CONTINUE to escalate with RISP and Two Out?

If "clutch" were real, there's not a possible argument any rational person could make that would not include Bobby Abreu as a player who has that intangible quality as a hitter.

We see donzblock infer that Abreu's RISP performance is isolated to "blowouts". Where is the evidence to support that contention? Did Abreu's "Close and Late" 400+ Plate Appearances of escalated performance over the past four seasons somehow happen in "blowouts" as well? Of course not- just as his RISP performance wasn't limited to scenarios after games got out of hand.

You guys get to watch one of best hitters in baseball at work game after game after game. You could slice your pinky off and still count on one hand the players worth more Runs to their team in 2005 than Abreu. Yet there's nary an ounce of appreciation for exactly how good Abreu is with a bat in his hand.

That's just plain tragic.

[Androctus]

And another jumps into the fray, ass first.

We see donzblock infer that Abreu's RISP performance is isolated to "blowouts". Where is the evidence to support that contention? Did Abreu's "Close and Late" 400+ Plate Appearances of escalated performance over the past four seasons somehow happen in "blowouts" as well?

"The FBI says they can prove it through physics in a nuclear laboratory. Of course they can prove it. Theoretical physics can also prove that an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy! But use your eyes, your common sense. " You can use whatever stats you can to prove your point, as Ed Wade is (not) God pointed out:

But to appease the stat fans here's some good ones...
The Phillies were involved in a tight wild care race for all of September and the few days in October, down to the final game of the year. Check out Abreu's stats when the team needed him the most

September OPS= .791
Final week of the season OPS= .494

All the numbers you propose are no substitute for actually sitting and watching the games or following the team. Am I saying he's not a good hitter? NO. Yes, he's above the league norm in almost every area. He scores, drives in runs, yadda yadda but when its crunch time and the games on the line, I'm just hoping someone else is on deck, because in spite of what your stats say, when it really matters, he's really not there...Stats even out that a guy may go 10 for 10 in april in close games and 0 for 20 the rest of the way down a pennant race. But on paper he's hitting .333 and looks like a clutch God. Remember also he hit almost half his home runs in a single month. Don't beleive? Fine. Trust your stats, get him on your team and come talk to us in a year.

[donzblock]

I am willing to experience the tragedy of losing this clutch hitter. In the late innings of close games, Abreu alters his swing and strives mightily to draw walks. We have been watching Abreu for his entire career, and he is miserable in the clutch, magnificent when the game is out of reach. If your stats suggest that Abreu is at his best with runners on base in the late innings of close games, then your stats are wrong. He is a lousy clutch hitter, an abominable fielder, and I hope he ends up playing for a team that one of of you statistically minded Abreu fans roots for. The tragedy will be yours.

[ed hardiman]

I find all these sabermetric rattling know nothings a refreshing change of pace from reality.
Their vaunted stats can raise the dead up to the best hitter in the NL...
Next they'll sanctify Endy Chavez and we'll all be the wiser for their ability to spin whole cloth from the entrails of his dismal career...
I suppose Ravenlord will choose not to illuminate further his contention that the doubles, triples, and home runs Abreu hits in a greater percentage makes him intrinsically better than Cobb or Rose.
Perhaps the latest wave of metrically challenged youth would care to justify such nonsense...
Of course they're entirely missing the point this thread is about Abreu's fielding not being Gold Glove caliber but I'm sure the stats they pore over hold an equal suprise for us and why should they actually watch somebody play when they have these piles of numbers to stack...