Jacoby_Ellsbury

Something I forgot to mention: In 2005, the GM of the Dodgers was Paul DePodesta, who worked right under Billy Beane in Oakland for almost a decade and fully believed and practiced this "moneyball" idea(giving it that kind of name implies that it isn't rooted in simple common sense, though). Since Drew and on-base percentage are synonymous, and that's what the A's made their living on in the early part of the decade, of course DePodesta would really want him. When Drew opted out in 2007, the GM was Ned Colletti, a standard old baseball guy who held a completely different philosophy that leaned more toward "traditional" ideas. So yeah, small wonder that Drew left LA and the Dodgers didn't give their left nut to try and retain him. TWO DIFFERENT GM'S WITH TWO DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHIES.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/athletics/ci_13180524?source=rss Out of the season due to clinical depression. Total ingrate. What a wimp.

Think he meant Tito.

So you don't have an anti-Drew bias and a pro-Nixon bias? f***ing christ almighty. Yeah, he's been really f***ing injury riddled this year, ay? 2008 is the only season since 2003 where he's missed a significant amount of games. You're positive he will break down in the future on what evidence, doctor? Once again, you clearly can't differentiate between durability issues and performance issues. Either that, or you're just pulling arbitrary junk out of thin air. Admission that I stuck words in your mouth? My mockery of your ridiculous ideas flew clear over your head, and now you front this terrible attempt at saving face. If anything, you're the one placing words in my mouth with this post. I can now write you down as a hypocrite. .374 OPS, .842 OPS, 15 HR. THIS ISN'T MEDIOCRE. HIS PERFORMANCE IS MEDIOCRE IF YOU LOOK AT THE HORRIBLE, MEANINGLESS, ARCHAIC STATS THAT YOU'VE BEEN CLINGING TOO. I'll say it one more time. Batting average and RBI are stat abortions that completely massacre the very idea of common sense. It's one thing to just read numbers, apparently it's another to comprehend what these numbers are telling you. But he gets on base, DOESN'T MAKE OUTS, and contributes to the offense positively. He can be an estrogen druggie and I wouldn't give a s*** as long the aforementioned holds true. Atlanta and LA lost him through free agency. Drew left Atlanta to sign a fat deal with the Dodgers. He became too expensive for the Braves. Drew opted out of his LA deal to sign a fatter deal with Boston. LA had two outfield prospects ready to make a splash on the major league team, and had no desire to overpay for Drew as a result. St. Louis the only team that cut the ties with Drew, as opposed to Drew cutting ties with them. DREW CUT TIES WITH LA AND ATLANTA, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. St. Louis traded him both for pitching and Jones signed a two year deal for $36 million, and they hoped to make him a reclamation project. If it didn't work, they weren't bound to him long-term. Drew would have required that they commit five years, which they didn't want to do with the likes of Matt Kemp, Andre Either, and (at the time) Delwyn Young coming through the system. Comparing Manny to Drew? Really? RBI are an insult to intelligence. What does this information tell you? That the batter produced a base hit that caused a runner on base, that he had no hand in putting on base, to score. The batter is credited with the base hit, rightfully so. But the batter is also credited with driving in the runner he has no connection to, which is ********. Baserunners and batters, on the same team, are almost entirely different factions in any given game situation. Clutch isn't just meaningless and irrelevant, it's non-existent. I know they aren't robots. That doesn't mean their hitting ability increases or decreases with a runner at X base with X outs. Good, you can have the 100 instances of a meaningless statistical recording, while I focus on plate discipline, walks, getting on base, and not making outs, and come away with all the winnings. Oakland Athletics, wins per season in order from 2000-2006: 91, 102, 103, 96, 91, 88, 93. Their sole offensive focus through this entire period was plate discipline, on-base percentage, and walks. All with either the lowest or among the lowest payrolls in baseball. Since I know the world series argument is coming next, the playoffs are a crapshoot. One bad outing by your ace in a given series can ruin your season... even if you are the better team. That's one of the reasons why a wild card team is in the WS virtually every year. Currently the franchise is rebuilding, since they don't really have the financial to go get outside guys to assure they stay on stop every year. Because half of baseball is still putting their money on RBI's. 65 year old baseball-lifer goons that only recognize and acknowledge names and completely dismiss common sense... they don't sway my opinion in the least. I don't understand what you're asking. This is the finest example yet of your strict adherence to whatever those f***s on ESPN tell you. Drew gets on base (DOESN'T MAKE OUTS) at a rate similar to some of the best players in the history of the game? Oh no, that can't be right! He's not enough of a gritty dirtdog for that to make any sense!! Sweet jesus. If you would stop hugging batting average and RBI for two seconds, and look at something meaningful for a change, all the evidence is right there. Quality on-base percentage? Check. Quality OPS? Check. Walks? Check. Not making outs? Check. You know what, let's try this another way: Runs scored for each team that J.D. Drew has been a member of and played a meaningful role: 2000 Cardinals: 809 2001 Cardinals: 887 (one of his very best statistical seasons, hampered a bit by injuries) 2002 Cardinals: 787 2003 Cardinals: 876 2004 Braves: 803 2005 Dodgers: 685 (Drew played 72 games) 2006 Dodgers: 820 2007 Red Sox: 867 2008 Red Sox: 845 2009 Red Sox: 620 thus far So tell me, is he just always in the right place at the right time, constantly shielded and piggy-backed by the likes of Mark McGwire, Albert Pujols, Chipper Jones, and Manny Ramirez, or is he some underlying factor in each team's run total? I think I already know your answer. Unbelievable. This is like me taking Martinez's lack of stolen bases and using it to try and front a coherent argument about how unproductive he is. Wouldn't make much sense, would it?

O noez!

Holy f***ing s***.

Completely and utterly meaningless in every sense of the word. I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Maybe he's a letdown for people that were expecting some five-tool, base-stealing, doubles swatter with .350 batting average. In other words, it sounds like your expectations were a little off. RBI is an insult to intelligence. I'm not calling for Ortiz to be DFA'd. St. Louis was run by a prototypical old baseball guy who put no stock in plate discipline and preferred mere wisdom. He left Atlanta as a free agent to sign a huge deal with the Dodgers. He opted out of the LA deal to sign with Boston. He became too expensive for each of those teams. Only one of them every truly 'passed' on him, and that was to acquire more pitching.

Except they aren't. The guys that get hits with runners in scoring position... the runners just happened to be on base. The batter did nothing to get them there in the first place, all he did was produce a hit that the baserunners scored on. No one is a better or worse hitter with runners on base. Unfortunately, if you happen to get a hit or two with these runners in position, everyone will crown you the newest clutch king of baseball with some incredible knack for improving himself with runners on base. Ridiculous. Oh and I would say not making outs goes a long way towards creating runs, aye?

Batting average and RBI are two of the very worst baseball statistics there are. Batting average is a section of on-base percentage (the measure of how often a player doesn't make outs), and there are players with high OBP and low BA, and vice versa (the former are valuable offensive players, the latter not so much). So batting average holds no water, anywhere. RBI is just an insult to common sense. Why in f***'s name would you credit the batter for advancing runners he had no hand in putting on base? Not all stats are equal in importance. Almost every stat regularly discussed on ESPN is a bunch of worthless horseshit. Having a good on-base percentage means you're not making as many outs as the guy who has a bad on-base percentage. I'd say this is pretty telling, and its simplicity is pretty convenient.

It attempts to quantify clutch. It can't be done. Nobody hits better or worse in certain situations with runners on certain bases and X number of outs. If they do make a good at bat and the runs score, the runners just happened to be on base for it - the batter isn't to blame or to praise for anything pertaining to runners, except maybe bunts. Clutch and every synonym for it is nothing more than a farce. No, he hits worse in random situations that formulate before he comes to the plate and that he has zero control over.

He also doesn't take wild, brainless hacks at every pitch he sees, doesn't have 20 pounds of pine tar on his batting helmet, doesn't speak with the tr00 ballplayer drawl, and doesn't have excessive amounts of dirt and grass stains on his uniform. In other words, he's a soft, unclutch, ungritty infidel worthy of nothing but contempt for his... plate discipline, and his... WALKS... and... NOT MAKING OUTS... and.... ugh, what a talentless waste of skin.

Batting average sucks. His OBP is .375, which is pretty good. Batting average is merely a portion of on-base percentage. RISP average is useless, since it's a stat that tries to quantify 'clutch', which is a phantom quality. Batters also have zero control over whether there's runners on base when he's up, so you can't credit or discredit him for something he has no control over. I agree. .375 OBP, .844 OPS, 15 HR (should get 20, would fall in line with his career averages) is pretty respectable, and there's no reasonable way you accuse him of not producing.

Outfield. .375 OBP, .844 OPS, 15 HR. When is getting on base, NOT MAKING AN OUT, ever a bad thing? It's not his fault if Francona enters him in a spot in the lineup other than what suits his strengths (working the count, taking walks, getting on base, not making outs). An injury. Some guys can play with pain, others can't.

His durability is a concern now? Why, because he's played 112 of a possible 120 games this year, played in 150 games in EVERY season from 04-07, and had that one wrist injury in 2008 that kept out two months? That suddenly elevates him to oft-injured, unreliable pariah status? Real smooth. I think you have 'durability issues' and 'performance issues' scrambled. You also completely failed to notice that 'undurable chump' was my way of making fun of your allegations by making up words to reflect your feelings. So that is also fairly amusing, and makes your declaration of owning me that much more hilarious. L0L GO H0ME I OHND U!!!!!11111

But is Ortiz unable to stay on the field, like Drew? Past three seasons are awfully similar in terms of games played. *claps* lol

Yeah, and Drew's 2008 season is what balloons it to that level. He's missed 18 this season, and missed 20 in 2007, and even those numbers a bit high considering Tito's regular days off issued to his starters. People who label him an injury prone slug only look at 2008 to form their conclusion.

Baiting? lol

We? Who is we? I only criticize someone's play if they appear to be dogging it, or in a random, reactionary post/statement in the game thread (or while watching the game) that has little bearing on my actual opinion. I support finding replacements for players who aren't performing well or up to standards, but very rarely do I criticize the player. Slamming players for performance, aside from if you think they're dogging it, is unreasonable and toolish. Meaningless. Drew is doing nothing here that he wasn't doing before arriving in Boston. His contract makes him the cheap and easy target. But over the past three years, his games played to possible games played is pretty similar to Drew's. So he must an undurable chump, right?