JD Drew

[Elktonnick]

There's no reasoning with Drew haters. Everyone on internet baseball forums knows about the Drew threads' date=' and it's funny because the only people who think Drew sucks or is below average are the same guys who think RBIs are a valid stat.[/quote']

 

Name calling is usually the last retort of those who know they have lost the argument. It is usually the last refuge when reason fails them. It won't change the fact that Drew's page on the Baseball Encyclopedeia is written. The stats says mediocre. One who had potential but never lived up to it.

You wanted stats. Knock yourself out!

I think the following stats you may find validate my point: JD Drew was above average until age 30 after below average

 

J.D. Drew age-based similar players (through age 35)

 

Totals given below are career totals beginning at age 31 through the end of their careers or through last year.

 

Career totals for these players

Sim Player From To Yrs G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG SB CS OPS+

+---++-------------------+---------+--+----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+---+----+

J.D. Drew 2007-2011 5 606 2012 339 532 113 15 80 286 333 452 .264 .370 .455 13 11 114

945* Larry Doby 1955-1959 5 518 1771 284 494 80 13 77 314 255 355 .279 .369 .469 5 6 124

940 Reggie Sanders 1999-2007 9 972 3356 538 885 189 27 180 552 328 837 .264 .334 .497 146 52 112

935 Ray Lankford 1998-2004 6 708 2141 358 579 134 11 103 339 326 670 .270 .368 .488 59 21 120

922 Cliff Floyd 2004-2009 6 558 1822 257 482 90 4 83 289 203 371 .265 .350 .455 30 6 108

919 Bill Nicholson 1946-1953 8 713 1954 270 474 92 15 83 298 316 326 .243 .354 .432 5 1 115

912 Bob Allison 1966-1970 5 496 1394 203 339 56 17 63 180 199 305 .243 .340 .443 24 15 123

909 David Justice 1997-2002 6 793 2767 454 785 153 8 145 495 451 507 .284 .381 .502 20 15 126

907 Ryan Klesko 2002-2007 6 653 2148 307 586 136 7 83 332 337 384 .273 .371 .459 19 14 123

905 Vic Wertz 1956-1963 8 752 2206 280 601 97 2 108 461 266 331 .272 .350 .465 2 5 117

904 Bob Johnson 1937-1945 9 1280 4690 831 1389 268 66 180 868 766 570 .296 .397 .497 68 43 141

J.D. Drew 2007-2011 5 606 2012 339 532 113 15 80 286 333 452 .264 .370 .455 13 11 114

+---++-------------------+---------+--+----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+---+----+

Average of all 10 Players 6 744 2424 378 661 129 17 110 412 344 465 .273 .368 .477 37 17 120

Avg of all 10 Retired Players 6 744 2424 378 661 129 17 110 412 344 465 .273 .368 .477 37 17 122

J.D. Drew through age 30 9 960 3161 605 905 160 33 162 509 529 685 .286 .393 .512 74 26 131

+---++-------------------+---------+--+----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+---+----+

Projected Career Totals 15 1704 5585 983 1566 289 50 272 921 873 1150 .280 .382 .497 111 43 127

J.D. Drew career totals 14 1566 5173 944 1437 273 48 242 795 862 1137 .278 .384 .489 87 37 124

This line combines the player's stats through age 30 plus the stats of the retired similar players after age 30.

 

 

You may find the follow ing enlightening.

 

This is JD Drew's

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 18 (876), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

 

Baseball-Hall of Fame Monitor

 

All-Time and Active Leaders

 

This is another Jamesian creation. It attempts to assess how likely (not how deserving) an active player is to make the Hall of Fame. It's rough scale is 100 means a good possibility and 130 is a virtual cinch. It isn't hard and fast, but it does a pretty good job. Here are the batting rules.

 

Also, I require a minimum of 30 points in this metric before the value is displayed for a player.

 

For Batting Average, 2.5 points for each season over .300, 5.0 for over .350, 15 for over .400. Seasons are not double-counted. I require 100 games in a season to qualify for this bonus.

For hits, 5 points for each season of 200 or more hits.

3 points for each season of 100 RBI's and 3 points for each season of 100 runs.

10 points for 50 home runs, 4 points for 40 HR, and 2 points for 30 HR.

2 points for 45 doubles and 1 point for 35 doubles.

8 points for each MVP award and 3 for each AllStar Game, and 1 point for a Rookie of the Year award.

2 points for a gold glove at C, SS, or 2B, and 1 point for any other gold glove.

6 points if they were the regular SS or C on a WS team, 5 points for 2B or CF, 3 for 3B, 2 for LF or RF, and 1 for 1B. I don't have the OF distribution, so I give 3 points for OF.

5 points if they were the regular SS or C on a League Championship (but not WS) team, 3 points for 2B or CF, 1 for 3B. I don't have the OF distribution, so I give 1 points for OF.

2 points if they were the regular SS or C on a Division Championship team (but not WS or LCS), 1 points for 2B, CF, or 3B. I don't have the OF distribution, so I give 1 points for OF.

6 points for leading the league in BA, 4 for HR or RBI, 3 for runs scored, 2 for hits or SB, and 1 for doubles and triples.

50 points for 3,500 career hits, 40 for 3,000, 15 for 2,500, and 4 for 2,000.

30 points for 600 career home runs, 20 for 500, 10 for 400, and 3 for 300.

24 points for a lifetime BA over .330, 16 if over .315, and 8 if over .300.

For tough defensive positions, 60 for 1800 games as a catcher, 45 for 1,600 games, 30 for 1,400, and 15 for 1,200 games caught.

30 points for 2100 games at 2B or SS, or 15 for 1,800 games.

15 points for 2,000 games at 3B.

An additional 15 points if the player has more than 2,500 games played at 2B, SS, or 3B.

Award 15 points if the player's batting average is over .275 and they have 1,500 or more games as a 2B, SS or C.

[Emmz]

Completely and totally wrong. Wins have no part in the equation.

 

http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/2010/2/14/1308722/viva-el-war-pitchers-part-1

 

Bzzzzzt!

 

3) Once you have the pitcher's expected W%, you compare it to that of a replacement level player's and multiply by innings pitched per 9.

[jacksonianmarch]

EXPECTED WIN %. Not actual win percentage

[jacksonianmarch]

Remember, the Pythagorean formula is just a way to figure out the W% of a team given it's runs scored and runs allowed. Pythagenpat is a slight modification of that formula, using a floating exponenent, depending on the run environment of that team, instead of 2. This is done to insure that, for example, teams who play in a really low run environment (like the Padres) get more credit towards expected W% for each marginal run scored than a team like the Yankees. The same concept can be applied towards pitchers in the WAR formula

 

So, ready to take that back, or what?

[redsoxrules]

Another thing that people dont realize is that JD was a very good defender , underated IMO for his defense

[Emmz]

So' date=' ready to take that back, or what?[/quote']

 

Interesting, I've never seen an official formula for fWAR, it's always loosely defined as being based around FIP, which is often manipulated in the cases of bad pitchers who have a lot of wins, like Vazquez in 2004, Burnett this year, among other examples.

[Emmz]

Another thing that people realize is that JD was a very good defender ' date=' underated IMO for his defense[/quote']

 

He was excellent, he made it all look so easy out there.

[User Name]

Interesting' date=' I've never seen an official formula for fWAR, it's always loosely defined as being based around FIP, which is often manipulated in the cases of bad pitchers who have a lot of wins, like Vazquez in 2004, Burnett this year, among other examples.[/quote']

 

His formula is not the one used by Fangraphs, which is the one used to convert WAR into a dollar figure.

 

On that point, he is incorrect.

[Elktonnick]

He was excellent' date=' he made it all look so easy out there.[/quote']

 

Except for his defense he was an average ball player. Even his defense wasn't up to Dwight Evens. Most rate Trot Nixon and Drew about the same. But in no case is JD Drew among the "elite" Red Sox right fielders not even close.

 

 

Best Boston Red Sox right fielders of all time: A fan’s opinion

 

By Tom Harrington, Yahoo! Contributor Network Jul 14, 2:20 pm EDT

 

 

Ever since the Boston Red Sox began as an organization in 1901, there have been a number of talented right fielders who have played with the team. As with my previous articles, the criteria for being included as one of the top five players at a position is based on the number of years with the team, hitting and defense success and number of seasons at the position.

 

It is important to note that the honorable mentions for the right field position are J.D. Drew(notes), Pete Fox and Trot Nixon.

 

Tony Conigliaro

 

Although some baseball fans may disagree with Tony Conigliaro being mentioned as one of the top five right fielders of all time for the Sox, Conigliaro had a promising career and could have possibly been a Hall of Famer before he was hit by a pitch during his fourth season with the team. After the incident, "Tony C" never fully regained his talent, but he was the 1969 American League Comeback Player of the Year. On a final note, I do hope that Conigliaro's number is eventually retired by the organization.

 

Dwight Evans

 

Known for being one of the greatest hitters of all time for the Red Sox and for being talented defensively, Dwight Evans also deserves a spot on this list. As a player with the team from 1972 to 1990, Evans was selected to three All-Star games, won eight Gold Glove Awards and was a two-time Silver Slugger Award winner.

 

Buck Freeman

 

Even though many current fans of the organization may not have ever heard of Buck Freeman, Freeman was one of the first members of the organization and helped the team win the 1903 World Series. In addition, the former right fielder was the American League home run champion with the team in 1903 and lead the league in runs batted in 1902 and 1903.

 

Harry Hooper

 

One of the greatest hitters before World War II and the best Red Sox right fielder was Harry Hopper. Hooper helped the team win four World Series and played for the organization from 1909 to 1920.

 

Jackie Jensen

 

Another right fielder who deserves high praise for his excellent years with the Red Sox is Jackie Jensen. Jensen, who played with the team from 1954 to 1959 and in 1961, was selected to two All-Star games with the Sox and was the 1958 American League MVP.

 

Born in Weston, Massachusetts, Tom Harrington has been one of the most faithful fans of the Boston Red Sox. Although he briefly lived in New Jersey and Vermont, Tom was raised as a member of the Red Sox Nation and has been to many games within the past couple of years.

[Dojji]

It's like banging your head against a wall. So now' date=' if you suck 60% of the time, you still played well. It's mindboggling[/quote']

 

Someone doesn't know what a mean average value is.

[Dojji]

Except for his defense he was an average ball player.

 

That is utterly incorrect. Average ballplayers aren't among the best at their position at any point in their contracts. Drew was the best RF in the American League in 2009.

 

It's OK to say "he wasn't a bad player and he probably helped us but I just found it hard to like him." Drew-bashers would be making Aspirin manufacturers less money if they'd just say that and stop trying to dress it up in meaningless fluff arguments to try and sound smarter. You'd be surprised by who might agree with you if you framed the debate that way rather than overselling the argument and forcing those who are a little more objective to say "whoa now, hold on there."

[a700hitter]

That is utterly incorrect. Average ballplayers aren't among the best at their position at any point in their contracts. Drew was the best RF in the American League in 2009.

 

It's OK to say "he wasn't a bad player and he probably helped us but I just found it hard to like him." Drew-bashers would be making Aspirin manufacturers less money if they'd just say that and stop trying to dress it up in meaningless fluff arguments to try and sound smarter.

The precise reason why Drew was so frustrating to fans was that he was so talented, much more so than any replacement player. Due to that fact, it was upsetting that he shut himself down for extended periods of time for minor ailments. If he had played through the minor injuries, his numbers might have suffered, but he was better at 70%. Than anyone we had on the bench.

[Elktonnick]

That is utterly incorrect. Average ballplayers aren't among the best at their position at any point in their contracts. Drew was the best RF in the American League in 2009.

 

It's OK to say "he wasn't a bad player and he probably helped us but I just found it hard to like him." Drew-bashers would be making Aspirin manufacturers less money if they'd just say that and stop trying to dress it up in meaningless fluff arguments to try and sound smarter. You'd be surprised by who might agree with you if you framed the debate that way rather than overselling the argument and forcing those who are a little more objective to say "whoa now, hold on there."

 

That is factually, mathimatically and logically incorrect. A mean average is determined by taking total production divided by time in service. So in the case of a baseball player one coul have a truly out standing year and be the best at a position than followed by years of drought. The sum total divided by years of service gives the average.

 

If you take Drews performance over the five years he played here he actually is below average for rightfielders who wore the Red Sox uniform as the Harrington article pointed out and as the stats I cited above clearly demonstrated.

 

During my lifetime Jackie Jensen, Tony C, Dwight Evens, Trot Nixon and JD Drew were the main rightfielders who played the position for any duration. Nixon and Drew could never be compared favorably to the first three. By any statistical measure, the totality of Drew's career is aveerage albeit with occasional bursts of brilliance. That is what is so irksome, he could have been great but wasn't because he lacked the desire. In the end he is a mediocrity because that is all he wanted to be.

[User Name]

That is factually, mathimatically and logically incorrect. A mean average is determined by taking total production divided by time in service. So in the case of a baseball player one coul have a truly out standing year and be the best at a position than followed by years of drought. The sum total divided by years of service gives the average.

 

If you take Drews performance over the five years he played here he actually is below average for rightfielders who wore the Red Sox uniform as the Harrington article pointed out and as the stats I cited above clearly demonstrated.

 

During my lifetime Jackie Jensen, Tony C, Dwight Evens, Trot Nixon and JD Drew were the main rightfielders who played the position for any duration. Nixon and Drew could never be compared favorably to the first three. By any statistical measure, the totality of Drew's career is aveerage albeit with occasional bursts of brilliance. That is what is so irksome, he could have been great but wasn't because he lacked the desire. In the end he is a mediocrity because that is all he wanted to be.

 

Drew's average season in Boston consisted of a .264/.370/.455 (.824 OPS, 114 OPS+) comfortably above the average RF production of .267/.327/.457 (.784 OPS). He wasn't "elite", but he was comfortably above average in his "mean average value".

 

Also, you are presenting an interesting strawman here, since i can't find anyone mentioning Drew as one of the "Elite RF's" in Red Sox history. That was never the point. The point that the people defending Drew are presenting, and correctly so, is that statistically speaking, Drew was an above average ballplayer offensively and defensively when he was on the field during his tenure here. The "When" being the biggest issue. There is also some hyperbole from that side of the fence when presenting Drew's value.

 

The answer is in between the opinions presented here. He wasn't average, he was above average, but he wasn't "elite" in terms of MLB during his years in Boston (2007-2011). He was, again, above average.

 

Can we all agree here, objectively, from what the statistics actually show?

[Dojji]

No we can't. Because too many people have bought into the idea that he sucks, and want arguments that demonstrate that he wasn't what the stats say he was. So they accentuate the negative and try to drown out inconvenient facts with minutae because that's more comfortable than thinking.

[User Name]

No we can't. Because too many people have bought into the idea that he sucks' date=' and want arguments that demonstrate that he wasn't what the stats say he was. So they accentuate the negative and try to drown out inconvenient facts with minutae because that's more comfortable than thinking.[/quote']

 

Haha i guess you're right.

[Elktonnick]

Drew's average season in Boston consisted of a .264/.370/.455 (.824 OPS, 114 OPS+) comfortably above the average RF production of .267/.327/.457 (.784 OPS). He wasn't "elite", but he was comfortably above average in his "mean average value".

 

Also, you are presenting an interesting strawman here, since i can't find anyone mentioning Drew as one of the "Elite RF's" in Red Sox history. That was never the point. The point that the people defending Drew are presenting, and correctly so, is that statistically speaking, Drew was an above average ballplayer offensively and defensively when he was on the field during his tenure here. The "When" being the biggest issue. There is also some hyperbole from that side of the fence when presenting Drew's value.

 

The answer is in between the opinions presented here. He wasn't average, he was above average, but he wasn't "elite" in terms of MLB during his years in Boston (2007-2011). He was, again, above average.

 

Can we all agree here, objectively, from what the statistics actually show?

 

No. He was an average mediocre ballplayer when viewed in terms of how he played here when judged against those who played that position in the past in Boston. By the way, anove average doesn't make the playoffs. He was a mediocrity because that is what he wanted to be. That's the fact.

[Laser Show]

No. He was an average mediocre ballplayer when viewed in terms of how he played here when judged against those who played that position in the past in Boston. By the way' date=' anove average doesn't make the playoffs. He was a mediocrity because that is what he wanted to be. That's the fact.[/quote']

 

Drew was anything BUT mediocre.

[User Name]

No. He was an average mediocre ballplayer when viewed in terms of how he played here when judged against those who played that position in the past in Boston. By the way' date=' anove average doesn't make the playoffs. He was a mediocrity because that is what he wanted to be. That's the fact.[/quote']

 

This makes no sense at all.

 

In order to establish whether or not a baseball player is "above average player" you have to compare him to the "average player" of his timeline.

 

By your logic, a very above average player like Nick Swisher is "average" or "below average" because he doesn't compare favorably to Gary Sheffield, Paul O'Neill or Babe Ruth.

 

You're kinda grasping at straws here.

[Bellhorn04]

One thing nobody's mentioned is Drew's postseason numbers for us. Everybody knows the Slam, but here are his career postseason numbers for Boston:

 

28 games

107 PA's

286/346/459

805 OPS

4 HR

19 RBI

 

Interestingly enough Swisher has the identical number of postseason games for the Yankees:

 

28 games

114 PA's

160/257/330

587 OPS

4 HR

5 RBI

[Dojji]

Those postseason numbers are pretty solid, even if they are weighted down by a no-show in 09.

[ORS]

This makes no sense at all.

 

In order to establish whether or not a baseball player is "above average player" you have to compare him to the "average player" of his timeline.

 

By your logic, a very above average player like Nick Swisher is "average" or "below average" because he doesn't compare favorably to Gary Sheffield, Paul O'Neill or Babe Ruth.

 

You're kinda grasping at straws here.

You didn't even mention the best part. He was mediocre because he wanted to be mediocre. Maybe the finest example of armchair psychology I've ever seen.

[User Name]

You didn't even mention the best part. He was mediocre because he wanted to be mediocre. Maybe the finest example of armchair psychology I've ever seen.

 

Hahahaha well done!

[Elktonnick]

You didn't even mention the best part. He was mediocre because he wanted to be mediocre. Maybe the finest example of armchair psychology I've ever seen.

 

I find it amusing that armchair managers and wannabe GMs accuse anyone of being armchair anything. You folks haven't refutted anything.

 

As far as armchair psychology I cite the following expert on JD Drew. Who was in a position to observe him first hand:

 

T"ony LaRussa, harshly criticized Drew in the Buzz Bissinger book, 3 Nights in August. In one section, LaRussa opined that Drew didn’t care about the game and that he settled for being less rather than work to reach his fullest potential. In all, LaRussa believed that Drew didn’t care about the game because he had such a big contract. He wasn’t the passionate player that Albert Pujols was. The trouble is that so few are, but most don’t have their name attached to it in a book. Drew was now known as the player Tony LaRussa called lazy and, essentially, a waste of talent. " QED!

[seabeachfred]

When Drew came on board in 2007 I was elated and was in his corner from the get-go, but no one in their right mind can really say that he was an above average player for us because he wasn't. Playoffs in 2007? Top notch!!!! However, look at his stats for the total five years. Batting first in the fifth spot, then moving up and down the order he never drove in 75 runs in a season, never hit 290 or better, never hit 25 home runs. You need a RF who can approach those type of stats and maybe he could have had he been able to stay on the field. For my money, he seemed to have a very low threshold of pain because the word was he wouldn't play hurt. If LaRussa said those things about him we could all say that it was Tony's opinion, but for a man who managed for 33 years, won three WS and is headed to the Hall of Fame I would say that is a pretty good reference for a personal categorizing a player.

 

Drew helped win a World Series in 2007, and unlike so many of you, that was my personal favorite Red Sox team and I appreciate what J.D. did in the post-season, but did we really get the best out of a guy who had a picture perfect swing, had good power, and speed and played good defense? I don't think so. I think when all is said and done he underachieved for us.

[Elktonnick]

When Drew came on board in 2007 I was elated and was in his corner from the get-go, but no one in their right mind can really say that he was an above average player for us because he wasn't. Playoffs in 2007? Top notch!!!! However, look at his stats for the total five years. Batting first in the fifth spot, then moving up and down the order he never drove in 75 runs in a season, never hit 290 or better, never hit 25 home runs. You need a RF who can approach those type of stats and maybe he could have had he been able to stay on the field. For my money, he seemed to have a very low threshold of pain because the word was he wouldn't play hurt. If LaRussa said those things about him we could all say that it was Tony's opinion, but for a man who managed for 33 years, won three WS and is headed to the Hall of Fame I would say that is a pretty good reference for a personal categorizing a player.

 

Drew helped win a World Series in 2007, and unlike so many of you, that was my personal favorite Red Sox team and I appreciate what J.D. did in the post-season, but did we really get the best out of a guy who had a picture perfect swing, had good power, and speed and played good defense? I don't think so. I think when all is said and done he underachieved for us.

 

Agreed ! As Brando said in On the Waterfront, "I could have been a contender I could have been a somebody. " For me he committed the worst offense any ball player with his talent could have committed,he was mediocre becuase he never tried to be better than that, even though he had the talent to do so.

[jung]

In some sense it boils down to whether you include his inability to stay on the field in any argument of his value to a team or if you just take his stats as they are which reflect what he did while on the field and just go with those. It is hard to just go with those in his case because he was unable to stay on the field for long stretches and regular stretches.

 

There were times when he came back for a couple of weeks to just be gone again. I do think that he often took himself off the field for things that would not have kept other players from playing and I think he did it to a fault. The other side to that argument is the number of times that we hear about a player that played through an injury while his stats suffered for it. But I would content that if Drew did take himself off the field for what most would consider miner ailments that he probably hurt his stats doing that. I season full of fits and starts does not sound like a great way to get in a grove to me. On the other hand his post season stats may be as impressive as they are because he often went into the post season about as well rested as any player could ever have hoped for. Lord knows he would not have played in them if there was even a hangnail out of sorts.

[User Name]

No amount of subjective opinion can eliminate what is statistically true, and the whole point of discussion:

 

While healthy, JD Drew was an above average baseball player for the Red Sox, both offensively and defensively.

 

No need to take it personal or rationalize, it is what it is.

 

What you "think" he should have accomplished is irrelevant to the discussion and nothing but conjecture.

[Elktonnick]

In some sense it boils down to whether you include his inability to stay on the field in any argument of his value to a team or if you just take his stats as they are which reflect what he did while on the field and just go with those. It is hard to just go with those in his case because he was unable to stay on the field for long stretches and regular stretches.

 

There were times when he came back for a couple of weeks to just be gone again. I do think that he often took himself off the field for things that would not have kept other players from playing and I think he did it to a fault. The other side to that argument is the number of times that we hear about a player that played through an injury while his stats suffered for it. But I would content that if Drew did take himself off the field for what most would consider miner ailments that he probably hurt his stats doing that. I season full of fits and starts does not sound like a great way to get in a grove to me. On the other hand his post season stats may be as impressive as they are because he often went into the post season about as well rested as any player could ever have hoped for. Lord knows he would not have played in them if there was even a hangnail out of sorts.

 

I think an elite manager such as LaRussa can tell the differnce between a player who plays hurt and one who plays injured. Drew refused to play with any pain and said so. However, Jerry Remy last season related a more telling antecdote that is reflective of Drew's attitude. He asked Drew if he had ever watch a replay of Price's strikeout of him with the basses loaded. Drew said no he hadn't. Remy thought it unusual that he hadn't and made some comment about that being JD Drew. It appeared by this time even Remy had gotten tired of Drew's Didn't give a s*** attitude.

[Elktonnick]

No amount of subjective opinion can eliminate what is statistically true, and the whole point of discussion:

 

While healthy, JD Drew was an above average baseball player for the Red Sox, both offensively and defensively.

 

No need to take it personal or rationalize, it is what it is.

 

What you "think" he should have accomplished is irrelevant to the discussion and nothing but conjecture.

 

The facts prove otherwise. Your opinion isn't fact. In the final analysis during his tenure when totaling up his body of work the stats prove he was a mediocrity for the Boston Red Sox.