What Happens with Lowell?

[Dipre]

rhet, you and a700 are different cases, because your problem is not an undying love for players, but an undying love for the legendary beast known as the "RBI".

[rhet]

rhet' date=' you and a700 are different cases, because your problem is not an undying love for players, but an undying love for the legendary beast known as the "RBI". [/quote']

 

Okay, I've been outted. I admit I love players who produce runs.

[Dipre]

Okay' date=' I've been outted. I admit I love players who produce runs.[/quote']

 

You don't love the players, you love the stat. Admit it.

[Spudboy]

This.

 

Indeed.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Okay' date=' I've been outted. I admit I love players who produce runs.[/quote']

RBI isn't a reliable measure of players producing runs. On base percentage, that one stat that JD Drew is so proficient at, is much more telling.

 

 

But we've all told you this already. About a billion times. And you just cling to those retarded little theories of yours and don't even offer up a defense or counter-explanation at this point, just stir the pot and sit defiantly.

[TedWilliams101]

The easy solution: don't get hung up on just one stat. The way to get the best picture of a hitters worth is to look at all the stats; BA, OPS, situational hitting, RAR, playing time, etc. The most telling is OPS, but even that alone isn't always enough to distinguish hitters.

[rhet]

Stats of percentages are not stats of production.

OBP, a very valuable stat, is a stat of percentage.

RBIs and runs are stats of production.

It's best to get players who can excel at both percentages and production.

[Dipre]

Stats of percentages are not stats of production.

OBP, a very valuable stat, is a stat of percentage.

RBIs and runs are stats of production.

It's best to get players who can excel at both percentages and production.

 

RBI's a stat of chance. Try to spin it more please.

[rhet]

RBI's a stat of chance.

 

Especially when Drew is up with the bases loaded.

[Dipre]

Only when Drew is up with a man on 3rd.

 

Click your heels and say "There's not stat like RBI, there's no stat like RBI". Maybe then it'll stop being a support stat.

[YeAuldBroade]

I disagree Dipre.. yes there have to runners on the bases for there to be rbi's but a productive hitter makes use of the OPPORTUNITY where as a non-productive hitter doesn't. Luck/chance is only a factor when you're trying to dismiss poor production numbers.

[rhet]

Click your heels and say "There's not stat like RBI' date=' there's no stat like RBI". Maybe then it'll stop being a support stat.[/quote']

 

You sure are obsessed with that one stat.

 

Many of us look at all the stats.

[Dipre]

I disagree Dipre.. yes there have to runners on the bases for there to be rbi's but a productive hitter makes use of the OPPORTUNITY where as a non-productive hitter doesn't. Luck/chance is only a factor when you're trying to dismiss poor production numbers.

 

That's about the size of it. It's not a good measure of a hitter's ability.

 

You sure are obsessed with that one stat.

 

Many of us look at all the stats.

 

Did you click your heels?

[YeAuldBroade]

That's about the size of it. It's not a good measure of a hitter's ability.

Ah when obstinance trumps logic. Don't be angry Dipre, I like that in a man.

 

And it's a good measure of a hitters ability to produce (not the only measure but a good one). That is one of the abilities sought after in some hitters - production, really it is.

[Dipre]

Ah when obstinance trumps logic. Don't be angry Dipre, I like that in a man.

 

And it's a good measure of a hitters ability to produce (not the only measure but a good one). That is one of the abilities sought after in some hitters - production, really it is.

 

You're telling me when obstinance trumps logic? Really?

 

Let me put it another way.

 

 

The amount of runs you can drive in is directly tied to the amount of runners you find on base, so how can something directly related to a variable be a good measure of a hitter's ability?

 

Why, instead of looking at RBI's, you don't look at a player's actual situational hitting statistics?

 

Logic, a term you used yourself, would dictate that the correct way to measure a player's production in regards to situational hitting are his overall numbers, not a "chance" stat like RBI.

[YeAuldBroade]

You're telling me when obstinance trumps logic? Really?

 

Let me put it another way.

 

 

The amount of runs you can drive in is directly tied to the amount of runners you find on base, so how can something directly related to a variable be a good measure of a hitter's ability?

 

Why, instead of looking at RBI's, you don't look at a player's actual situational hitting statistics?

 

Logic, a term you used yourself, would dictate that the correct way to measure a player's production in regards to situational hitting are his overall numbers, not a "chance" stat like RBI.

No it's the amount of runners you drive in that you find on base. Look if he's not a "productive" hitter when he comes to the plate with the bases loaded, he leaves the bases loaded. If he is a productive hitter some/all of those base runners cross the plate. It's not an every time situation but it certainly is relevant over the course of a season. And did I not say it was only one of the statistics to look at? Seriously, you're completely discounting it because it doesn't tell 100% of the picture - well no one stat in baseball tells 100% of the picture. RBI's as a single number is as good at any other stat in quickly judging a players productivity. That's all. You're really making way too much out of this. It's a number that tells part of a story - just like OPS is a number that tells part of a story - and RAR is a number........

[BigPapiEnFuego]

No it's the amount of runners you drive in that you find on base. Look if he's not a "productive" hitter when he comes to the plate with the bases loaded' date=' he leaves the bases loaded. If he is a productive hitter some/all of those base runners cross the plate. It's not an every time situation but it certainly is relevant over the course of a season. And did I not say it was only one of the statistics to look at? Seriously, you're completely discounting it because it doesn't tell 100% of the picture - well no one stat in baseball tells 100% of the picture. RBI's as a single number is as good at any other stat in quickly judging a players productivity. That's all. You're really making way too much out of this. It's a number that tells part of a story - just like OPS is a number that tells part of a story - and RAR is a number........[/quote']

 

Don't even bother arguing with the guy, it will just go on forever and you will never be right.

[Dipre]

No it's the amount of runners you drive in that you find on base. Look if he's not a "productive" hitter when he comes to the plate with the bases loaded' date=' he leaves the bases loaded. If he is a productive hitter some/all of those base runners cross the plate. It's not an every time situation but it certainly is relevant over the course of a season. And did I not say it was only one of the statistics to look at? Seriously, you're completely discounting it because it doesn't tell 100% of the picture - well no one stat in baseball tells 100% of the picture. RBI's as a single number is as good at any other stat in quickly judging a players productivity. That's all. You're really making way too much out of this. It's a number that tells part of a story - just like OPS is a number that tells part of a story - and RAR is a number........[/quote']

 

See, here's the issue, by your take on things Pedroia isn't a "productive hitter".

 

He had more men on base than Drew last year, yet drove in less runs, why? Because he got on base at a .440 clip with RISP which led him to be the league leader in runs scored.

 

Was he not productive? Au contraire, meaning his RBI numbers don't reflect at all his actual contributions to the team.

 

Besides, by that argument, a lot of really good hitters who don't bat in an RBI spot in good lineups are not that good.

 

Don't even bother arguing with the guy' date=' it will just go on forever and you will never be right. [/quote']

 

Thanks for your constructive opinion on the argument. Care to make a Pearl Jam comment now?

[BigPapiEnFuego]

 

Thanks for your constructive opinion on the argument. Care to make a Pearl Jam comment now?

 

Yes, I would. According to statistical analysis, Pearl Jam sucks.

[Dipre]

Yes' date=' I would. According to statistical analysis, Pearl Jam sucks.[/quote']

 

Not as much as RBI.

[YeAuldBroade]

See, here's the issue, by your take on things Pedroia isn't a "productive hitter".

 

He had more men on base than Drew last year, yet drove in less runs, why? Because he got on base at a .440 clip with RISP which led him to be the league leader in runs scored.

 

Was he not productive? Au contraire, meaning his RBI numbers don't reflect at all his actual contributions to the team.

 

Besides, by that argument, a lot of really good hitters who don't bat in an RBI spot in good lineups are not that good.

QUOTE]

No there are many types of hitters, including table-setters/lead-off men etc. And how many times does someone have to beat you with a rubber hose before you get the point of it's one number that tells part of the story. You just gave one situation - if someone wanted to they could come up with 100 other situations that prove RBI's are King. Neither of you would have proved your point. RBI's aren't King, nor are they as worthless as you insist they are. You could now post 100 situations where RBI's don't tell the whole story and I would say - Yes, so? Because I'm not making the point you keep trying to argue against. This is slowly slipping into silly territory where two people argue on the internet for arguments sake.

 

RBI's tell part of the story and are a worthwhile stat. No one would trade for a guy based on his RBI's but it's a good number to begin with if you're looking for someone to help a team drive in some runs - because your team is already loaded with high average guys. It tells part of the story. The only people that could be wrong on this topic are the ones that say it's the end all be all of productivity and the ones that say it's a worthless stat.

[Dipre]

No there are many types of hitters, including table-setters/lead-off men etc. And how many times does someone have to beat you with a rubber hose before you get the point of it's one number that tells part of the story. You just gave one situation - if someone wanted to they could come up with 100 other situations that prove RBI's are King. Neither of you would have proved your point. RBI's aren't King, nor are they as worthless as you insist they are. You could now post 100 situations where RBI's don't tell the whole story and I would say - Yes, so? Because I'm not making the point you keep trying to argue against. This is slowly slipping into silly territory where two people argue on the internet for arguments sake.

 

RBI's tell part of the story and are a worthwhile stat. No one would trade for a guy based on his RBI's but it's a good number to begin with if you're looking for someone to help a team drive in some runs - because your team is already loaded with high average guys. It tells part of the story. The only people that could be wrong on this topic are the ones that say it's the end all be all of productivity and the ones that say it's a worthless stat.

 

It's not worthless, it's a "support" or "chance" statistic. Not the same thing.

 

And for the record, my whole point is that RBI aren't an accurate reflection of a player's ability at the plate, and they're not, they help to determine how good a player is at A) Situational hitting. B ) The creation of runs.

 

The "type of hitter" thing is not entirely accurate, and it helps bring the value of the statistic down and prove even further that it's a "chance stat".

 

Johnny Damon has drove in over 80 runs four times, and over 90 once, batting leadoff every time except for 2009 with the Yankees.

 

That's a product of the lineup you hit in, and the amount of opportunities you get.

[YeAuldBroade]

Dipre... I disagree but this is silly, so I'm done. We keep saying the exact same thing every time.

 

We now know each other's position on the subject and I'm sure we're the better for it. lol

[Dipre]

Dipre... I disagree but this is silly, so I'm done. We keep saying the exact same thing every time.

 

We now know each other's position on the subject and I'm sure we're the better for it. lol

 

We should just both turn on rhet for spelling his user without capitals. Just sayin'.

[YeAuldBroade]

We should just both turn on rhet for spelling his user without capitals. Just sayin'.

Wow! Really? :thumbdown obviously the standards for accepting posters here isn't very high.

[Dipre]

Wow! Really? :thumbdown obviously the standards for accepting posters here isn't very high.

 

What do you say? We got ourselves a UAr? (United against rhet)?

[YeAuldBroade]

What do you say? We got ourselves a UAr? (United against rhet)?

Absolutely! Well that's until someone else comes along that we choose to pick on.

[TedWilliams101]

Pedroia won the MVP without hitting 20+ HR or getting anywhere near 100+ RBIs, the 2 stats which you think are the most telling. Clearly the people who actually matter in baseball don't agree with you... at all.

[YeAuldBroade]

Pedroia won the MVP without hitting 20+ HR or getting anywhere near 100+ RBIs' date=' the 2 stats which you think are the most telling. Clearly the people who actually matter in baseball don't agree with you... at all.[/quote']

I hope this post isn't an indication of your reading and comprehension skills.

 

"the 2 stats which you think are the most telling" - nope. I think you need to go back and re-read this thread. I'm not going to argue things I never said or even alluded to.

[Spudboy]

Back on topic?

 

I think Lowell will collect $12.5 mil. while sitting on the bench as his hip continues to calcify.