JD Drew

[seabeachfred]

I didn't say they presented an absolute truth. I said they presented data objectively, which they do. How people interpret them is the only subjective part about it.

 

I don't get your point at all, since most statistics have built in mechanisms to account for variance, etc. which you mention yourself. Look at OPS+ (since baseball is what we're talking about, and you bring up politics) it's adjusted for league output and stadium variables, that's why Babe Ruth has a higher career OPS+ than Bonds.

 

I don't mean to come off as a jerk here, but i don't think you know how many of these statistics work. Maybe you should take the time to analyze them.

 

User---You seem very reluctant to accept an opinion that differs from yours, but what's worse you seem to take delight in castigating those differing opinions. You have to learn to agree to disagree. I personally have stayed out of this debate, but not you or anyone else is going to convince me that J.D. Drew was a top notch player for us because in my opinion he was not. He seemed to be a fragile sort who simply would not play when there was the slightest thing wrong with him. He did not drive in many runs, never even hit 290 in any of the five years he played for us and I don't think he ever hit 25 or more home runs.

 

As I write this I think you should be aware that I was a J.D. fan. I think he had a sweet swing and when he went on a t ear he could help carry the team, but it seemed to me every time he got on one of those runs he would come up with some kind of ailment and all that momentum would be lost. I saw that for five seasons and if I were to grade him it would be an effort to give him a C+

[User Name]

It doesn't matter whether you were a JD Drew fan or not. The purpose of this discussion was to establish the merits of statistical analysis against subjective opinion, not "castigating" anything. The fact is, he was an above average player. There is no agreeing to disagree with a fact.

 

You're taking this on a personal level because i disagree with you a lot, and i do so because i like to preach logic.

 

I have every right to defend my opinion as long as i don't make it personal, something you should learn.

[User Name]

You do come off as a jerk. Sorry for being so blunt! I've read James's book and am quite familar with statistics in general and their interpretation since I use and interprete them daily professionally. I just have become less enamored with his (James's) work than I was several years ago when I first posted defending his thesis on another board.

 

Not to be provocative, but the subjectivity begins when one makes the decision as what to measure or which variables to factor in as important.

 

I was making a larger point that all data is subject to interpretation. And the various variance formulae are attempts to objectify and assign quantative values to assist in that interpretation. What you refer to as objective perhaps is a misnomer when actually quantative may be a better description. (The whole question of objective truth and statistics is larger question for someother board )l In the end it is a subjective analysis which quantative data can assist. That was my original point which you may finally understand. Otherwise Carmine would manage the team.

 

Let me make another provocative analogy to illustrate this point. The Red Sox 2011 season has been described as disasterous. Why ? They didn't win the title when many expected them to. Okay that's one interpretation. Yet, they won 90 games. Compared to the thirty other teams they had an "above average" season. Yet in the American League East they finished third or mediocre. Which was it, disasterous, above average, or mediocre. All are objectively true. There is data supporting each interpretation. Which, one accepts depends on one's perspective. I don't demean someone or another poster because they choose one of the three options. I may disagree but not demean.

 

I choos to describe Drew as mediocre based on the data I consider important.

 

Don't care. This is not personal, and should not be made so. When i said i thought you didn't understand the statistics i didn't mean it as an insult.

 

This has been the point of discussion all along. You admit to being subjective and not caring about statistical data that eliminates said subjectivity as much as possible.

 

All along, the point has been to measure "production". A lot of statistics (some of them being adjustments of some of James' early formulas) are all about taking out the variables out of the analysis. That's why specific values we may hold dear when analyzing a player are not as accurate as using a specific stat that eliminates the noise created by variability. Things such as home park, league average production, era, all can be accounted for by advanced statistics.

 

If you don't like it, that's fine, but it doesn't mean that in a neutral context, the initial idea that Drew was above average loses value.

[Cask N Flagon 76]

Fact is JD Drew was a decent player for us for 5 years not great but not horrible. But he was without

a doubt a guy that got bit by the injury bug quite frequently and that's what really hindered his time

here unfortunately.

[Elktonnick]

It doesn't matter whether you were a JD Drew fan or not. The purpose of this discussion was to establish the merits of statistical analysis against subjective opinion, not "castigating" anything. The fact is, he was an above average player. There is no agreeing to disagree with a fact.

 

You're taking this on a personal level because i disagree with you a lot, and i do so because i like to preach logic.

 

I have every right to defend my opinion as long as i don't make it personal, something you should learn.

 

It is not a fact but rather your subjective interpretation of a prescribed set of selected quantatative data to support your conclusions. There are numerous other data sets both quantatative and qualatative that one could draw upon to support an alternative conclusion. Fred, I and others (I submit the majority of RSN) chose to accept an alternative set of data which we believe is a more accurate description of actual performance. What you call logic really isn't because you have fallen into a classic logical fallacy; IMHO the a priori assumption. Even your advocacy of OPS(from a previous post) has its detractors within the sabermetric community. In short as I posted above there really is no such thing as a purely objective analysis. Every statistical analysis has within it the seeds of subjectivity. To argue otherwise is a fools errand.

[Elktonnick]

Which specific data are you you referring to as the ones you consider important?

 

I don't mean to be evasive but scroll back to where this debate started I think you will find my arguments and data sets posted previously.

[seabeachfred]

It is not a fact but rather your subjective interpretation of a prescribed set of selected quantatative data to support your conclusions. There are numerous other data sets both quantatative and qualatative that one could draw upon to support an alternative conclusion. Fred' date=' I and others (I submit the majority of RSN) chose to accept an alternative set of data which we believe is a more accurate description of actual performance. What you call logic really isn't because you have fallen into a classic logical fallacy; IMHO the a priori assumption. Even your advocacy of OPS(from a previous post) has its detractors within the sabermetric community. In short as I posted above there really is no such thing as a purely objective analysis. Every statistical analysis has within it the seeds of subjectivity. To argue otherwise is a fools errand.[/quote']

 

Kind of reminds you of our old "friend" Boomer, doesn't he Elk????? He was the same way with his selected mumbo jumbo of statistical analysis to support a position(s) that couldn't hold up. Then he fled the board when all his predictions came up bogus. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if that is exactly who this User guy is. The same stale and stubborn position of trying to make something stand the test of reasonable analysis when it can't do so. Drew was paid,what, $15 million a year? For that kind of money I would think averaging 290-25-80 would be expected of him. He never reached those figures even once.

 

Another thing Elk. Boomer never agreed with me once on any post I made; User hasn't since I came back here. Wouldn't surprise me if they are one and the same person. What he doesn't seem to understand is that these statistical analysis is subjective but he insists his is right and the other opinions are wrong. Sounds like Boomer to me.

[Elktonnick]

Kind of reminds you of our old "friend" Boomer, doesn't he Elk????? He was the same way with his selected mumbo jumbo of statistical analysis to support a position(s) that couldn't hold up. Then he fled the board when all his predictions came up bogus. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if that is exactly who this User guy is. The same stale and stubborn position of trying to make something stand the test of reasonable analysis when it can't do so. Drew was paid,what, $15 million a year? For that kind of money I would think averaging 290-25-80 would be expected of him. He never reached those figures even once.

 

Another thing Elk. Boomer never agreed with me once on any post I made; User hasn't since I came back here. Wouldn't surprise me if they are one and the same person. What he doesn't seem to understand is that these statistical analysis is subjective but he insists his is right and the other opinions are wrong. Sounds like Boomer to me.

 

I was wondering much the same. We'll see who is that behind the curtain!

[User Name]

 

Another thing Elk. Boomer never agreed with me once on any post I made; User hasn't since I came back here. Wouldn't surprise me if they are one and the same person. What he doesn't seem to understand is that these statistical analysis is subjective but he insists his is right and the other opinions are wrong. Sounds like Boomer to me.

 

Bro, i don't know who you're talking about.

 

The only reason i insist i'm "right" when arguing with you is because you say some really stupid stuff, and honestly, you're kind of a bandwagon fan. Go Rockies, and Guardians, and all of the other teams you're a "die-hard fan" of.

 

As for the other guy, he claims he understand statistics but doesn't, and refuses to admit it by applying his subjective ideas and general passion towards a player when making his points. Kind of like a kid.

 

To avoid hassle, i'll go ahead and save me a ton of headaches by putting both of you and your idiocy on ignore. Thank you, and have a nice day.

[Cask N Flagon 76]

Bro, i don't know who you're talking about.

 

The only reason i insist i'm "right" when arguing with you is because you say some really stupid stuff, and honestly, you're kind of a bandwagon fan. Go Rockies, and Guardians, and all of the other teams you're a "die-hard fan" of.

 

As for the other guy, he claims he understand statistics but doesn't, and refuses to admit it by applying his subjective ideas and general passion towards a player when making his points. Kind of like a kid.

 

To avoid hassle, i'll go ahead and save me a ton of headaches by putting both of you and your idiocy on ignore. Thank you, and have a nice day.

 

 

Wow are you always a D*** or just a person that likes to force their opinions as FACT".

I'm not trying to start a war, I'm just calling it as i see it brother. I do see though the reality

of a bandwagon fan Rockies, Guardians etc... But imean come on there his opinions nothing

more then what you state as fact.

[User Name]

Wow are you always a D*** or just a person that likes to force their opinions as FACT".

I'm not trying to start a war, I'm just calling it as i see it brother. I do see though the reality

of a bandwagon fan Rockies, Guardians etc... But imean come on there his opinions nothing

more then what you state as fact.

 

Did you read his post?

 

I never made it personal, but he did. That's exactly why i put them on ignore. Thanks for your input though.

[Cask N Flagon 76]

Did you read his post?

 

I never made it personal, but he did. That's exactly why i put them on ignore. Thanks for your input though.

 

 

 

I did read his post of course User. But we always have an opinion that's what makes these

boards fun and you would agree with me on that principle i know you would. I did not

mean it personal as well i hope you did not take it that way my man.

[Elktonnick]

Bro, i don't know who you're talking about.

 

The only reason i insist i'm "right" when arguing with you is because you say some really stupid stuff, and honestly, you're kind of a bandwagon fan. Go Rockies, and Guardians, and all of the other teams you're a "die-hard fan" of.

 

As for the other guy, he claims he understand statistics but doesn't, and refuses to admit it by applying his subjective ideas and general passion towards a player when making his points. Kind of like a kid.

 

To avoid hassle, i'll go ahead and save me a ton of headaches by putting both of you and your idiocy on ignore. Thank you, and have a nice day.

 

Talk about ad hominum argumentum WOW

 

You didn't address any of the points I raised. Just because I've read Remington and James's work and don't ascribe them the same status as sacred scripture gives you no right to say I don't understand advanced statistics because you have no idea what or who you are talking about.

 

Fred will tell you I find them interesting but only a guide not an absolute. I am glad you ignore me because simply you aren't up tp the rigors of intellectual debate. You kind of remind me of the kid with whom we used to play pick up games of ball in the park, back in the fifties. If he didn't get his way so he took his bat and ball and went home. Did you ever play pick up games of ball in the park? Did you ever play ball? Did you ever coach or manage a ball team at any level? I know Fred and I have. The only differnece is I did it in Spanish. Catch the drift amigo! Vaya con Dios!

[User Name]

I did read his post of course User. But we always have an opinion that's what makes these

boards fun and you would agree with me on that principle i know you would. I did not

mean it personal as well i hope you did not take it that way my man.

 

Obviously not. I'll drop the argument now, and i have no specific problem with the Elktonnic guy, although i find his take on the argument appalling.

 

I do apologize if i came off as abrasive, since i thought i was making my point rationally and without personal attacks, but Fred's "opinion" really riled me up.

[User Name]

Talk about ad hominum argumentum WOW

 

You didn't address any of the points I raised. Just because I've read Remington and James's work and don't ascribe them the same status as sacred scripture gives you no right to say I don't understand advanced statistics because you have no idea what or who you are talking about.

 

What? Ok.

 

Fred will tell you I find them interesting but only a guide not an absolute. I am glad you ignore me because simply you aren't up tp the rigors of intellectual debate. You kind of remind me of the kid with whom we used to play pick up games of ball in the park, back in the fifties. If he didn't get his way so he took his bat and ball and went home. Did you ever play pick up games of ball in the park? Did you ever play ball? Did you ever coach or manage a ball team at any level? I know Fred and I have. The only differnece is I did it in Spanish. Catch the drift amigo! Vaya con Dios!

 

I still play ball. You didn't counter any of my points. I don't have a problem with you, but why do you have to accuse me of being someone else?

 

Here's the question: Being that Drew was (by OPS, OPS+ and wOBA) the 7th best right fielder out of 30 regulars from 2007-11, how was he not above average? That's the one point you haven't answered. I've said several times the personal stuff does not pertain to the discussion. And the point that he missed time to injury has already been established.

 

Just answer that question, and we can go from there.

[jung]

Guys I really don't know how we could have expected 290/25/80 out of Drew. He only exceeded 25 once in the 8 years before he got here. He only exceeded 80 once in those 8 years and while he did exceed 290 I think three times in those 8 years his BA had already showed steady decline in the years leading up to his signing here.

 

I guess I would have expected him to maybe exceed the HR and RBI marks once or twice in the years he was here but there again the number of games he played in each year becomes the one stat that stands out in that regard and once again that trend has been there since the beginning of time for Drew. If he had played even 130 games in 2008, he very likely would have made both of those marks. It is almost like he makes a point of driving a fan completely off the deep end because in 2008 he was having a pretty good year for him and sure enough, his games played falls to 109. Obviously I am joking a bit because I am sure JD could care less if I am pulling the rest of my hair out or not.

[Elktonnick]

What? Ok.

 

 

 

I still play ball. You didn't counter any of my points. I don't have a problem with you, but why do you have to accuse me of being someone else?

 

Here's the question: Being that Drew was (by OPS, OPS+ and wOBA) the 7th best right fielder out of 30 regulars from 2007-11, how was he not above average? That's the one point you haven't answered. I've said several times the personal stuff does not pertain to the discussion. And the point that he missed time to injury has already been established.

 

Just answer that question, and we can go from there.

 

You reminded me of that person but I didn't accuse merely wondered! Regarding the rest,

 

It is about perspective. OPS,OPS+ and wOBA are useful but only as a descriptor When we speak of data we speak of process measures and outcome measures. OPS etc may well show that he was 7 th. I'' ll concede that point but the flaw in James et al data is that the only indirectly measure and are predictive of outcomes ie wins which are the only outcome that matters in baseball While they measure past production they do't necessarily measure performance that direct translates into outcomes. . They are in my world process measures. In toto, OPS etc. is interesting but not determinative. (I'll leave future discussion for the flaws in OPS et al and limitations perceived in these measures within the sabermetric community for later

 

In summation, it is like the analogy I made to the Red Sox team as whole in an early post. Was their season disasterous, above average or mediocre. There are objective statistical measures that support all three. It solely depends on which data set one selects as determinative. All three are correct.

 

We are probably talking on diffeent planes and may never agree, fine but don't presume to insult me that I don't understand advanced baseball statistics or statistics in general because you haven't the foggiest idea what I know or don't.

[User Name]

I made the assumption because you made the point of mentioning the issue of variables regarding statistics. Several statistics (Like OPS +) take care of those variables by creating a neutral atmosphere for calculation: Like the example that Babe Ruth has a higher OPS+ that Barry Bonds.

 

I didn't mean it as an insult, but i honestly thought you didn't know the process by which those variables are normalized in the equation. If you do understand that in the context of the discussion, then i don't understand what you meant when you said then. I mean, can you blame me?

 

And another thing, if you look at it from a merely statistical standpoint, i don't see any other way to qualify it (the season) but as above average when in the context of the rest of the league for 2011. If you can do otherwise, i'd like to see what your criteria is.

[Cask N Flagon 76]

Obviously not. I'll drop the argument now, and i have no specific problem with the Elktonnic guy, although i find his take on the argument appalling.

 

I do apologize if i came off as abrasive, since i thought i was making my point rationally and without personal attacks, but Fred's "opinion" really riled me up.

 

 

 

Wow you come off as a pompous a**hole. I did read the post and you still come off as

a self-absorbed asshat thank you very much. Oh and by the way just because you say

something as YOUR opinion does not make it FACT realize that you self-centered douche.

[User Name]

Wow you come off as a pompous a**hole. I did read the post and you still come off as

a self-absorbed asshat thank you very much. Oh and by the way just because you say

something as YOUR opinion does not make it FACT realize that you self-centered douche.

 

I apologize and you call me asshat. I'll take it as a compliment thank you very much sir.

[Cask N Flagon 76]

I apologize and you call me asshat. I'll take it as a compliment thank you very much sir.

 

 

 

Well i'm glad you like the word asshat it's a gift you can use anytime you want to lol.

I mean no disrespect but i don't think you would want EVERYONE to agree with you

now would you haha.

[User Name]

Well i'm glad you like the word asshat it's a gift you can use anytime you want to lol.

I mean no disrespect but i don't think you would want EVERYONE to agree with you

now would you haha.

 

Not at all. My only problem was being accused of being some dude who i have no connection to.

 

I think the discussion can be civil by attacking the posts as much as you want without the posters. Calling other posters "Sugar coaters" or accusing posters of being someone else is crossing the line. Now that's something i'd like for you to agree with me on.

[Cask N Flagon 76]

Not at all. My only problem was being accused of being some dude who i have no connection to.

 

I think the discussion can be civil by attacking the posts as much as you want without the posters. Calling other posters "Sugar coaters" or accusing posters of being someone else is crossing the line. Now that's something i'd like for you to agree with me on.

 

 

That i do agree on i believe a good solid discussion can be achieved without someone

crossing a line of accusing others of being something they are not. I hope everyone

looks at it that way considering we all are deeply passionate of our sox.

[Elktonnick]

I made the assumption because you made the point of mentioning the issue of variables regarding statistics. Several statistics (Like OPS +) take care of those variables by creating a neutral atmosphere for calculation: Like the example that Babe Ruth has a higher OPS+ that Barry Bonds.

 

I didn't mean it as an insult, but i honestly thought you didn't know the process by which those variables are normalized in the equation. If you do understand that in the context of the discussion, then i don't understand what you meant when you said then. I mean, can you blame me?

 

And another thing, if you look at it from a merely statistical standpoint, i don't see any other way to qualify it (the season) but as above average when in the context of the rest of the league for 2011. If you can do otherwise, i'd like to see what your criteria is.

 

First of OPS etc doesn't take the variable in to account about Bonds being juiced up. That was the point I made when I referred to comparing Ruth and Bonds, I was talking about steroids as the variable. (Go back and check the post) There are other variables that one could use but don't. Even the most ardent supporter are always refining their methodology in an attempt to be more "objective" so that in one sense indicates that there is a recognition on their part that the method has its flaws and limitations.

 

Again in my two previous posts I pointed out the criterea apparently you didn't read the posts closely. Again I understand you don't see the point because your perspective is too narrow.

 

You made a subjective judgment when you said "against the rest of the league". That was your value judgment which is fine it is your right to make that subjective determination as to what to measure. But others are equally valid. For example, another judgment based on objective data is : since the Sox play in the ALE their season was mediocre because they finished third. Another objective judgment could be that the seassn was a disaster because they didn't make the playoffs. In each a subjective assessment was made as to what to measure but each assessment was objective based on what was decided to be measured. None is better than the other to suggest otherwise would be subjective. That is why I stated earlier from rhetorical and logical point of view that you made an a priori assumption which is a classic fallacy in scholastic logic.

[User Name]

First of OPS etc doesn't take the variable in to account about Bonds being juiced up. That was the point I made when I referred to comparing Ruth and Bonds' date=' I was talking about steroids as the variable. (Go back and check the post) There are other variables that one could use but don't. Even the most ardent supporter are always refining their methodology in an attempt to be more "objective" so that in one sense indicates that there is a recognition on their part that the method has its flaws and limitations.[/quote']

 

OPS+ does, which is what i mentioned. It takes into account the inflated offensive numbers around the league because of the "Era" they were playing in. Had it not done so, Bonds may have had a higher OPS+ than Ruth.

 

Again in my two previous posts I pointed out the criterea apparently you didn't read the posts closely. Again I understand you don't see the point because your perspective is too narrow.

 

I'm speaking about the Red Sox season, which is the example you just posted.

 

You made a subjective judgment when you said "against the rest of the league". That was your value judgment which is fine it is your right to make that subjective determination as to what to measure. But others are equally valid. For example, another judgment based on objective data is : since the Sox play in the ALE their season was mediocre because they finished third. Another objective judgment could be that the seassn was a disaster because they didn't make the playoffs. In each a subjective assessment was made as to what to measure but each assessment was objective based on what was decided to be measured. None is better than the other to suggest otherwise would be subjective. That is why I stated earlier from rhetorical and logical point of view that you made an a priori assumption which is a classic fallacy in scholastic logic.

 

I don't agree with anything you say here.

 

If you're going to compare the tenure of JD Drew as a Red Sox player, you compare that tenure against players on the rest of the league during that tenure. That's the only way you eliminate the noise created by "Era" and "League differences". This is my main point of contention, and can't see how that logic is flawed. What prior right fielders did compared to JD Drew is irrelevant to what Drew is doing now compared to the rest of the league if the factor is production.

 

What i see as logical fallacy is trying to compare uneven factors to draw up a conclusion, unless you're making direct player-to-player comparisons.

[Laser Show]

First of OPS etc doesn't take the variable in to account about Bonds being juiced up. That was the point I made when I referred to comparing Ruth and Bonds' date=' I was talking about steroids as the variable.....[/quote']

 

Can you prove Ruth didn't juice?

 

Bonds was already a Hall of Fame player before 2000. Remove his 2001-2004 seasons and you still have one of the greatest players of all time. People tend to forget just how good Barry Bonds was before the steroids accusations.

[Elktonnick]

OPS+ does, which is what i mentioned. It takes into account the inflated offensive numbers around the league because of the "Era" they were playing in. Had it not done so, Bonds may have had a higher OPS+ than Ruth.

 

 

 

I'm speaking about the Red Sox season, which is the example you just posted.

 

 

 

I don't agree with anything you say here.

 

If you're going to compare the tenure of JD Drew as a Red Sox player, you compare that tenure against players on the rest of the league during that tenure. That's the only way you eliminate the noise created by "Era" and "League differences". This is my main point of contention, and can't see how that logic is flawed. What prior right fielders did compared to JD Drew is irrelevant to what Drew is doing now compared to the rest of the league if the factor is production.

 

What i see as logical fallacy is trying to compare uneven factors to draw up a conclusion, unless you're making direct player-to-player comparisons.

 

While you didn't address the point I raised. Iin no way does OPS except in a very minor way reflect juicing because it refers to eras not individuals. Compare Bonds to players in his era who weren't juicing ? It can't because who knows. Hence the limitation.

 

As to the season, again you don't see the point. You are judging the seasson purely based on the rest of the league which is a subjective a prior assumption on your part. The logical fallacy is to say you are right and I am wrong . The question was posed was their season a disaster, above average or mediocre you chose above average based on your objective data set . I choose disaster based on my objective data set. They didn't make the playoffs. It is illogical to say you are right and I am wrong. Or that your assessment is more subjective than mine. We are both being subjective. You just won't admit it. So too with Drew, I say mediocre using my set of objective data which you say is irrelevelent which is subjective determination on your part

 

I say "Tomato" You say Tomahto.

[User Name]

While you didn't address the point I raised. Iin no way does OPS except in a very minor way reflect juicing because it refers to eras not individuals. Compare Bonds to players in his era who weren't juicing ? It can't because who knows. Hence the limitation.

 

The question is who wasn't juicing? And who wasn't taking amphetamines or using corked bats or stealing signs in Ruth's era. Those are uncontrollable variables you simply can't take into account.

 

As to the season, again you don't see the point. You are judging the seasson purely based on the rest of the league which is a subjective a prior assumption on your part. The logical fallacy is to say you are right and I am wrong . The question was posed was their season a disaster, above average or mediocre you chose above average based on your objective data set . I choose disaster based on my objective data set. They didn't make the playoffs. It is illogical to say you are right and I am wrong. Or that your assessment is more subjective than mine. We are both being subjective. You just won't admit it. So too with Drew, I say mediocre using my set of objective data which you say is irrelevelent which is subjective determination on your part

 

I say "Tomato" You say Tomahto.

 

Ok, i'll play your game.

 

I'm going to go ahead and present every right fielder, and is designated as such in BB-Reference or other sources who has played more than five years on the Red Sox (using only their years as a Red Sox) and compare them using OPS+. It may not be perfect, but it's as objective as you can get:

 

 

Buck Freeman: 132 OPS+

Dwight Evans: 127 OPS +

Jackie Jensen: 120 OPS+

Tony Conigliaro: 120 OPS+

JD Drew: 114 OPS+

Harry Hooper: 114 OPS +

Trot Nixon: 112 OPS+

Lou Clinton: 101 OPS+

Troy O'Leary: 99 OPS+

Carlos Quintana: 97 OPS+

Jim Piersall: 93 OPS +

 

As you can see, Drew is tied for fourth amongst the list of OF's i compiled. Make of it what you will.

[Elktonnick]

The question is who wasn't juicing? And who wasn't taking amphetamines or using corked bats or stealing signs in Ruth's era. Those are uncontrollable variables you simply can't take into account.

 

 

 

Ok, i'll play your game.

 

I'm going to go ahead and present every right fielder, and is designated as such in BB-Reference or other sources who has played more than five years on the Red Sox (using only their years as a Red Sox) and compare them using OPS+. It may not be perfect, but it's as objective as you can get:

 

 

Buck Freeman: 132 OPS+

Dwight Evans: 127 OPS +

Jackie Jensen: 120 OPS+

Tony Conigliaro: 120 OPS+

JD Drew: 114 OPS+

Harry Hooper: 114 OPS +

Trot Nixon: 112 OPS+

Lou Clinton: 101 OPS+

Troy O'Leary: 99 OPS+

Carlos Quintana: 97 OPS+

Jim Piersall: 93 OPS +

 

As you can see, Drew is tied for fourth amongst the list of OF's i compiled. Make of it what you will.

 

If you recall I said in my lifetime. Piersall played center. Evens, Conig and Jensen played right Nixon Leary and Q played during my liketime Hooper and Freeman were before my time. Drew has Three above and three below Nixon o'Leary and Q . Three above and three below is in the middle, the classic defintion of mediocre.

 

You admit there are uncontrollable variables which precisely the point about the limitations of OPS and its inherent subjectivity.

 

Ojective as "you can get" is still subjective. Again the larger point I was making.

BTW the perfect is the enemy of the good. QED

[seabeachfred]

Bro, i don't know who you're talking about.

 

The only reason i insist i'm "right" when arguing with you is because you say some really stupid stuff, and honestly, you're kind of a bandwagon fan. Go Rockies, and Guardians, and all of the other teams you're a "die-hard fan" of.

 

As for the other guy, he claims he understand statistics but doesn't, and refuses to admit it by applying his subjective ideas and general passion towards a player when making his points. Kind of like a kid.

 

To avoid hassle, i'll go ahead and save me a ton of headaches by putting both of you and your idiocy on ignore. Thank you, and have a nice day.

 

Oh there we go with that bandwagon s*** again. Stuff it User; if you don't think I'm a rabid and ardent Red Sox fan you're the stupid one. And where did you pick that crap up from? Not from anyone who knows me, that's a certainty. I also encourage you to do exactly that......put Elk and me on ignore. We don't like talking to morons either.