The Ortiz Dilemma

[rhet]

so question....

 

so in your opinion , would you say Ortiz had a great year last with the fact that he had 99 RBI's ?

 

No.

[Dipre]

1. A hitter can score a run with nobody one base.

In less than 10% of run-scoring opportunities, therefore rendering it useless as a reliable source of runs.

 

2. Even if a runner scores because the batter made an out, it's still an RBI. So the goal to "not make outs" is not always ideal by your own admission.

Incorrect, because while the out was "productive" it's still not as good as driving in the run without making the out, which just shortened the amount of AB's you're going to see by 1/27. Can you argue otherwise?

 

3. Again, a hitter can score a run with nobody one base. Of course, nobody was ever arguing that having baserunners is bad thing.

So you think a team can go on to score 720 runs (the league average) when the average team hit 130 home runs? Interesting. You're not arguing that "having runners on base is a bad thing" but you're trying to argue the importance of batting average over OBP, when BA is, in itself, a part of OBP.

 

Can't score if you're not on base. Can't score them if they're not on base. Well, in over 90% of the time at least.

[rhet]

In less than 10% of run-scoring opportunities, therefore rendering it useless as a reliable source of runs.

 

Incorrect, because while the out was "productive" it's still not as good as driving in the run without making the out, which just shortened the amount of AB's you're going to see by 1/27. Can you argue otherwise?

 

So you think a team can go on to score 720 runs (the league average) when the average team hit 130 home runs? Interesting. You're not arguing that "having runners on base is a bad thing" but you're trying to argue the importance of batting average over OBP, when BA is, in itself, a part of OBP.

 

Can't score if you're not on base. Can't score them if they're not on base. Well, in over 90% of the time at least.

 

 

Dipre, you make a sweeping absolute statement that is factually wrong. I just pointed it out.

 

And for the record, I happen to favor baserunners and hitters who can drive them in.

[Dipre]

Dipre, you make a sweeping absolute statement that is factually wrong. I just pointed it out.

 

And for the record, I happen to favor baserunners and hitters who can drive them in.

 

I'll go ahead and put it this way: There is a direct correlation between getting on base and scoring runs. Counting on solo home runs as the basis of your argument is shaky at best. To address the "sweepingness" of my statement, you can't score runs consistently unless you get on base, and you can't drive in runs consistently unless people get on base ahead of you.

 

And for the record, in the right situation, everyone can "drive runs in" which is why RBI's are an opportunistic stat. Some will drive more runs in than other because of their quality as a hitter, but said quality is not defined by the number of runners they bring to home plate, because that is directly dependent on the amount of runners that get on base in front of them.

 

If you hit Albert Pujols 9th on the Royals i don't think he drives in 100 runs....do you?

[rhet]

If you hit Albert Pujols 9th on the Royals i don't think he drives in 100 runs....do you?

 

If you hit Drew 3rd on the Cardinals, he doesn't drive in 100. But Pujols does. Every year.

 

Some guys are better driving runs in than others. It's not that complicated.

[Gom]

It's amazing how the usage of PEDs can create a monster career out of a guy that probably shouldn't have even been in the majors...and even more amazing that people don't see it.

[Dipre]

If you hit Drew 3rd on the Cardinals, he doesn't drive in 100. But Pujols does. Every year.

 

Some guys are better driving runs in than others. It's not that complicated.

 

I bet if you hit Drew third on the Cardinals, he drives in 100. Hell, i bet Alberto Callaspo drives in 100. The more guys you get on base, the more runs you drive in. Not that complicated.

[rhet]

I bet if you hit Drew third on the Cardinals' date=' he drives in 100. Hell, i bet Alberto Callaspo drives in 100. The more guys you get on base, the more runs you drive in. Not that complicated.[/quote']

 

Drew already hit 3rd on the Cardinals and didn't come close.

[Dipre]

Drew already hit 3rd on the Cardinals and didn't come close.

 

A) Different Cardinals team.

 

B ) You're conveniently omitting the Dodgers, which at that time, were probably a lesser team than the current Cardinals team.

[rhet]

A) Different Cardinals team.

 

B ) You're conveniently omitting the Dodgers, which at that time, were probably a lesser team than the current Cardinals team.

 

A middle of the order hitter with a lifetime .390 OBP who's had more than 73 RBIs TWICE in a 12 year career? Are you kidding me?

 

Yeah, I agree, Callapso would drive in more than Drew.

[Dipre]

A middle of the order hitter with a lifetime .390 OBP who's had more than 73 RBIs TWICE in a 12 year career? Are you kidding me?

 

Yeah, I agree, Callapso would drive in more than Drew.

 

You mean the two years he combined hitting in the middle of a lineup and playing over 140 games, magnifying even more the opportunistic nature of the mythical beast known as the RBI?

[VA Sox Fan]

It's amazing how the usage of PEDs can create a monster career out of a guy that probably shouldn't have even been in the majors...and even more amazing that people don't see it.

 

What's even MORE amazing is that your ban was lifted.

[Dipre]

What's even MORE amazing is that your ban was lifted.

 

[TedWilliams101]

I don't think RBIs are a meaningless stat, but I don't thing it tells all that much either. I much prefer to look at their splits with RISP to determine the quality of hitter in RBI situations. I agree that the #1 goal on offense is to not make outs, but in RBI situations, I think that driving that run(s) in becomes more important (productive outs).

 

JD Drew is an interesting hitter. He isn't someone who consistently performers well with RISP, he seems to flip flop every year, having a great year followed by a terrible year. 2009 he was terrible with RISP, 2008 he was great, 2007 he was awful again, 2006 great, 2005 awful, 2004 great, and so on.

 

Now, there is a correlation (really causation) between guys who perform in the "clutch" and how many runs they drive in. When looking at 2009, it would appear that JD Drew had a fantastic year and that his low RBI total was low due his place in the lineup (few RISP opportunities). While it's true he had fewer opportunities than Pujols (143PA to 189), Drew squandered his opportunities where as Pujols made the most of his.

 

Now, a lot of people don't believe in "clutch", but I think it's simply a misunderstood idea. I believe in clutch, but I believe in it over a large sample size, not per single at bat. There are guys who do well in pressure situations and guys and don't. The guys who consistently perform well in pressure situations are what I would call "clutch".

 

I love having JD Drew in RF, but he is too much of a Jekyll & Hyde to consistently drive in 100+ runs if he were to hit in the 3/4 hole. He's not the prototypical run producer.

[Dipre]

I agree with most of the above post, but Drew has driven in 99 and 100 before when playing in typical "RBI" spots in lineups (Atlanta and Dodgers) but he is too hot/cold, i'll give you that.

 

I'll also re-state that RBI's, runs scored and batting average are not useless, but rather support stats, because they aren't stand-alone indicatives of a player's offensive worth, because as you stated, the goal is to not make outs, and even if an out is "productive" when not making said out would yield the same result (driving in a run) then you go the not-make-outs route every time.

[rhet]

I agree with most of the above post, but Drew has driven in 99 and 100 before when playing in typical "RBI" spots in lineups (Atlanta and Dodgers) but he is too hot/cold, i'll give you that.

 

I'll also re-state that RBI's, runs scored and batting average are not useless, but rather support stats, because they aren't stand-alone indicatives of a player's offensive worth, because as you stated, the goal is to not make outs, and even if an out is "productive" when not making said out would yield the same result (driving in a run) then you go the not-make-outs route every time.

 

You would take a walk with a guy on 3rd over a sac fly.

That's where we part company.

[Spudboy]

I don't think RBIs are a meaningless stat, but I don't thing it tells all that much either. I much prefer to look at their splits with RISP to determine the quality of hitter in RBI situations. I agree that the #1 goal on offense is to not make outs, but in RBI situations, I think that driving that run(s) in becomes more important (productive outs).

 

JD Drew is an interesting hitter. He isn't someone who consistently performers well with RISP, he seems to flip flop every year, having a great year followed by a terrible year. 2009 he was terrible with RISP, 2008 he was great, 2007 he was awful again, 2006 great, 2005 awful, 2004 great, and so on.

 

Now, there is a correlation (really causation) between guys who perform in the "clutch" and how many runs they drive in. When looking at 2009, it would appear that JD Drew had a fantastic year and that his low RBI total was low due his place in the lineup (few RISP opportunities). While it's true he had fewer opportunities than Pujols (143PA to 189), Drew squandered his opportunities where as Pujols made the most of his.

 

Now, a lot of people don't believe in "clutch", but I think it's simply a misunderstood idea. I believe in clutch, but I believe in it over a large sample size, not per single at bat. There are guys who do well in pressure situations and guys and don't. The guys who consistently perform well in pressure situations are what I would call "clutch".

 

I love having JD Drew in RF, but he is too much of a Jekyll & Hyde to consistently drive in 100+ runs if he were to hit in the 3/4 hole. He's not the prototypical run producer.

 

Excellent post. It will certainly incite some s***. But you are not alone in your conviction.

[Dojji]

So TW, if I have this right you'd describe "clutch" as a player who performs as well or better in pressure situations that he does in everyday situations, as opposed to someone who tenses up when he's under the gun.

[Dipre]

You would take a walk with a guy on 3rd over a sac fly.

That's where we part company.

 

Did you read the post?

 

What it means is that with the bases loaded and no out, i'd take a walk over a sac fly. Wouldn't you?

[Dipre]

Excellent post. It will certainly incite some s***. But you are not alone in your conviction.

 

Why will it incite s***? It's a well thought-out post that makes solid points.

[TedWilliams101]

So TW' date=' if I have this right you'd describe "clutch" as a player who performs as well or better in pressure situations that he does in everyday situations, as opposed to someone who tenses up when he's under the gun.[/quote']

 

Exactly. My idea of "clutch" is simply being able to perform in pressure situations. Now there are certainly limits to this. I wouldn't call a bad offensive player "clutch" even if they perform to their career averages in RISP situations, they just aren't good enough to begin without. I only like to use clutch when talking about good offensive players or those who elevate themselves in RISP (which is very rare). I know this isn't what most people consider "clutch", but it's the best way I can think of to use the term with any sort of meaning.

[artman556]

i sure hope ortiz can snap out of it and start hitting again

[boomer]

AND He just Hits a DOUBLEEEEEE!

[Teleporting Mike Cameron]

Maybe the ejection gives him a little "EXTRA" motivation and he gets going?

[TedWilliams101]

0 for 4 with 4 strikeouts today. I know it's only been 6 games, but I'm officially starting to worry.

[Soxfan1]

I wonder how long til Dipre changes up that avatar and custom title.

[VA Sox Fan]

I wonder how long til Dipre changes up that avatar and custom title.

 

I wonder how long til you stop being a dork

[Dipre]

I wonder how long til Dipre changes up that avatar and custom title.

 

When i feel like it, really. I like Ortiz and appreciate what he has done for this team, so i'll stand behind him for as long as possible.

[Soxfan1]

I wonder how long til you stop being a dork

 

Good one!

 

When i feel like it' date=' really. I like Ortiz and appreciate what he has done for this team, so i'll stand behind him for as long as possible.[/quote']

 

Fair enough. After today, I'm on the fence.

[YeAuldBroade]

TedWilliams, excellent post.

 

If RSN would just shutup about Ortiz, he'd probably be doing much better.. but we all know that will never happen.

 

Ortiz will be in the lineup at least through April. Francona will give him that long to try and work it out. From now until... I'm just going to do what I always do, watch every game and root for the Sox.

 

And a few have noted but it hasn't really caught on, Ortiz is a notorious slow starter. I didn't expect him to come out of the gate flying.