When will JD get his Due?

[yankees228]

The Red Sox had 822 RBIs this year.

 

9 JD Drews in the lineup would net 612 RBIs. Sub standard.

 

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're just joking. I hope I'm right.

 

Nine 2009 J.D. Drews would produce approximately 1093.176 runs over the course of a 162 game season.

[redsoxrules]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're just joking. I hope I'm right.

 

Nine 2009 J.D. Drews would produce approximately 1093.176 runs over the course of a 162 game season.

[Cocos Disciples]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're just joking. I hope I'm right.

 

Nine 2009 J.D. Drews would produce approximately 1093.176 runs over the course of a 162 game season.

Just curious, how did you get to that figure? VORP?

 

Obviously 612 is incorrect, because individual RBI are a product of the situation. A guy that gets on base 40% of the time is going to give the guys behind him in the order more chances to drive him in. If there is a team of JD Drews, more guys will be on base and thus more will score, leading to more runs.

[yankees228]

Just curious, how did you get to that figure? VORP?

 

Obviously 612 is incorrect, because individual RBI are a product of the situation. A guy that gets on base 40% of the time is going to give the guys behind him in the order more chances to drive him in. If there is a team of JD Drews, more guys will be on base and thus more will score, leading to more runs.

 

My bad. I shouldn't have just thrown a number out there without a source.

 

http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/LineupAnalysis.py

[redsoxrules]

My signature

[BigPapiEnFuego]

Nine J.D Drews would produce approximately 1093.76 injuries over the course of a 162 game season.

[redsoxrules]

Nine J.D Drews would produce approximately 1093.76 injuries over the course of a 162 game season.

 

[rhet]

Seriously, you guys will resort to any excuse for Drew's failure to produce runs. I don't get the adoration.

 

Look, JD Drew has a lifetime on-base pct of under .300 with the bases loaded. Doesn't matter where he hit or what you consider a "team" stat. A batting average of .206 and OBP of .297 with the bases loaded make JD Drew the anti-RBI man.

[Cocos Disciples]

One JD Drew has missed no significant time this year due to injury.

[Cocos Disciples]

Seriously, you guys will resort to any excuse for Drew's failure to produce runs. I don't get the adoration.

 

Look, JD Drew has a lifetime on-base pct of under .300 with the bases loaded. Doesn't matter where he hit or what you consider a "team" stat. A batting average of .206 and OBP of .297 with the bases loaded make JD Drew the anti-RBI man.

 

What about runners at 2nd and 3rd, or 1st and 3rd, or 2nd, or 3rd?

 

If we're playing this game (we shouldn't be, but whatever), why is bases loaded the only RBI opportunity? Here are his stats in other RISP situations:

 

2nd: .310/.465/.537/1.002

3rd: .250/.406/.470/.875

1st and 2nd: .271/.386/.470/.856

1st and 3rd: .306/.369/.556/.924

2nd and 3rd: .282/.454/.487/.941

 

Send me a slice of that cherry pie.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Seriously' date=' you guys will resort to any excuse for Drew's failure to produce runs. I don't get the adoration.[/quote']

 

And you will resort to any excuse to look past his CLEAR ABILITY to produce runs. Nine 2009 J.D. Drews produce more than a thousand runs. There is all the proof you need to see that he's an efficient offensive player.

 

Look, JD Drew has a lifetime on-base pct of under .300 with the bases loaded.

 

Nobody cares. Clutch doesn't exist. Stop trying to quantify it.

 

Doesn't matter where he hit or what you consider a "team" stat. A batting average of .206 and OBP of .297 with the bases loaded make JD Drew the anti-RBI man.

 

Yeah, he's the anti-RBI man and the 'lineup scores 1000+ runs if I take every at-bat' man. The latter is all that counts here, chief.

[rhet]

I used bases loaded so as to take away your wiggle room that a walk is as good as a run. The only situation where that is true is with the bases loaded, and he FAILS in that situation.

[rhet]

And you will resort to any excuse to look past his CLEAR ABILITY to produce runs. Nine 2009 J.D. Drews produce more than a thousand runs. There is all the proof you need to see that he's an efficient offensive player.

 

 

 

Nobody cares. Clutch doesn't exist. Stop trying to quantify it.

 

 

 

Yeah, he's the anti-RBI man and the 'lineup scores 1000+ runs if I take every at-bat' man. The latter is all that counts here, chief.

 

Using your logic, Jonathan Van Every produced 1400 runs.

[BSN07]

Seriously, you guys will resort to any excuse for Drew's failure to produce runs. I don't get the adoration.

 

Look, JD Drew has a lifetime on-base pct of under .300 with the bases loaded. Doesn't matter where he hit or what you consider a "team" stat. A batting average of .206 and OBP of .297 with the bases loaded make JD Drew the anti-RBI man.

lolwut?

One JD Drew has missed no significant time this year due to injury.

Thank you, like I said earlier, it amounts to about 1 day a week.

What about runners at 2nd and 3rd, or 1st and 3rd, or 2nd, or 3rd?

 

If we're playing this game (we shouldn't be, but whatever), why is bases loaded the only RBI opportunity? Here are his stats in other RISP situations:

 

2nd: .310/.465/.537/1.002

3rd: .250/.406/.470/.875

1st and 2nd: .271/.386/.470/.856

1st and 3rd: .306/.369/.556/.924

2nd and 3rd: .282/.454/.487/.941

 

Send me a slice of that cherry pie.

 

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

I used bases loaded so as to take away your wiggle room that a walk is as good as a run.

 

The player has no control over whether runners are on base ahead of him, so crediting if those runs score (and blaming him if they don't) is total ********.

 

Nobody ever said a walk is as good as a run. Walks seperate on-base percentage from batting average. Team on-base percentage correlates pretty closely with total runs scored. I strive for accuracy.

 

The only situation where that is true is with the bases loaded, and he FAILS in that situation.

 

Just like you FAIL with this ridiculous argument.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Using your logic' date=' Jonathan Van Every produced 1400 runs.[/quote']

What in f***'s name...

 

How'd you arrive at this conclusion?

[rhet]

What in f***'s name...

 

How'd you arrive at this conclusion?

 

Jonathan Van Every .364 .462 .636 1.098

[Cocos Disciples]

I used bases loaded so as to take away your wiggle room that a walk is as good as a run. The only situation where that is true is with the bases loaded' date=' and he FAILS in that situation.[/quote']

 

Pretty sure nobody thinks "a walk is as good as a run". But walks are directly correlated to runs.

 

Again, listen to Theo's explanation in the first post of thread. As he says, Drew's skillset consists of getting on base at a very high clip, but putting the ball in play at a below average rate. 34.7% of his plate appearances result in either a walk or strikeout. Without looking at the mean rate, I can tell you that figure is above it. It simply won't lead to as many RBIs as players who put the bat on the ball more often.

[Cocos Disciples]

Jonathan Van Every .364 .462 .636 1.098

 

I know you know that's ********, so I won't explain why it's ********.

 

It may have something to do with the numbers 13 and 549.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Jonathan Van Every .364 .462 .636 1.098

I'm about 90% sure you're just trolling at this point.

[rhet]

Pretty sure nobody thinks "a walk is as good as a run". But walks are directly correlated to runs.

 

Again, listen to Theo's explanation in the first post of thread. As he says, Drew's skillset consists of getting on base at a very high clip, but putting the ball in play at a below average rate. 34.7% of his plate appearances result in either a walk or strikeout. Without looking at the mean rate, I can tell you that figure is above it. It simply won't lead to as many RBIs as players who put the bat on the ball more often.

 

Among the convoluted excuses I've heard on his lack of run production is the phrase that the goal is not to make an out. The goal is to score runs and some hitters are better at driving them in than others. Yes, I realize Drew's in play percentage is low and that contributes to his inability to drive runs in. As do his inferior averages with RISP.

[rhet]

I'm about 90% sure you're just trolling at this point.

 

Just because I used your own convoluted logic on you?

[redsoxrules]

Using your logic' date=' Jonathan Van Every produced 1400 runs.[/quote']

 

LOL

 

OMF I cant beleive you just did that

 

you used a person that has 11AB for the season for comparisson

 

FAIL

[yankees228]

Just because I used your own convoluted logic on you?

 

How can you continue to be so confident in your stance when you have been proven wrong over and over again by iron clad facts?

[Cocos Disciples]

Among the convoluted excuses I've heard on his lack of run production is the phrase that the goal is not to make an out. The goal is to score runs and some hitters are better at driving them in than others. Yes' date=' I realize Drew's in play percentage is low and that contributes to his inability to drive runs in. As do his inferior averages with RISP.[/quote']

 

The main individual goal for a player is to not make an out. This is not convoluted, it is true.

[rhet]

How can you continue to be so confident in your stance when you have been proven wrong over and over again by iron clad facts?

 

LOL.

 

Really?

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Just because I used your own convoluted logic on you?

You mean attempted to use my very logical logic to try and prove me wrong about RBI being the precursor to eternal happiness, but FUBAR'd and butchered the thinking process?

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

LOL.

 

Really?

 

Respond to these posts, otherwise you're a troll:

 

Oh good one, how about the fact that RBI when it comes to individual player analysis is as unreliable as it gets? Just because RBI's are issued to a player via an idiotic scoring system doesn't mean they're deserving of them. Players are unduly credited for this, when they have zero control over it. Every last RBI situation is sheer luck.

 

To the RBI geeks, the following must all be true:

-Player X did a lesser job if he gets a bases-empty base hit, than if he got a base hit with a runner in scoring position. Player X is at fault for runners not being on base.

-Player X did a lesser job if he hits a solo home run as opposed to a three run home run. Player X is at fault for runners not being on base.

-If Kevin Youkilis hits a left-center double at Fenway, and Dustin Pedroia was on first and went to third, Youkilis somehow did a lesser job than if Ellsbury was on first, and scored on said double. Youkilis should have used his magic powers to warp Ellsbury to first in Pedroia's place.

-Player X succeeded if he hits a grounder to second with a fast runner on third. Even though he made an out, he still succeeded.

 

You believe in RBI as a legitamite way to analyze a player, you think the above actually holds any water and makes sense in this dimension. Which is hilarious.

 

And the 99.999% has gone down quite a bit since 1970 or so. Baseball fans actually think for themselves now as opposed to listening to dullf***s like John Kruk and Fernando Vina.

 

As for the second half of that Einsteinean equation, how can not making outs ever, ever be a bad thing? Are you seriously going to tell me that a walk is a lesser, inferior accomplishment than a grounder to second that happened to plate a runner from third?

 

Very true.

 

 

 

That's why he signed J.D. Drew.

 

 

 

wut

 

Go to ESPN/foxsports/your site of choice, go to stats, find MLB team batting, and tell me which other stat most closely matches up with a team's runs scored. Off you go.

 

 

 

I don't even know what macro to use for this post.

[Cocos Disciples]

Rhet, you still haven't listened to the interview this thread is based on, have you? For the third time, I strongly suggest you do.

[redsoxrules]

Hold on guys .... he's right on the numbers for JVA BUT the guy only has 11 AB this year

 

that's real week

 

how about using someone who has over 400 AB?