Dipre
-
Posts
20,953 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Boston Red Sox Videos
2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking
Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
News
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by 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.
-
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Can't score them if they're not on base. If they ARE on base, you can even score them by making outs. Can't score if you can't get on base. Arguing that is like calling "Water" "Air".
-
-
-
RBI's, runs scored, and batting average. All ya need.
-
Batting average is a measure of how good a hitter a player is? There's a ton wrong with that statement. Let me ask you a question, who's the better, more productive hitter? Adam Dunn or Juan Pierre? Who would you rather have playing for the Sox? RBI's are an opportunistic statistic, debating that is like calling the sky red. Runs correlate directly to the stat you hate the most, OBP, do they not? I don't "hate" the basic stats, i just see them for what they are, which is "support". If you think you can base a convincing argument on a player's production based on batting average, i'd like to see it.
-
Every Red Sox on either of my fantasy teams is starting today.
-
But they have a lot of guys with high RBI totals.
-
In order for you to demand "respect" then you must first abide by the forum's demands of basically not being a troll and a baiting idiot. Just sayin'.
-
You continue to be stupid. He was horrible the first two months of the season, that is correct, but he was one of the most productive players in baseball thereafter. So the two months of suck automatically override the four months of awesome because it suits your retarded argument? It's almost as dumb as Jacko's definition of "burn".
-
They're rounded up into the same package of statistical fail, which you, of course, seem to love. (Even though runs aren't that bad) On what? They all suck, are you serious? Or are you going to tell me a statistic as fluctuating as BA is somehow a good measure of offensive production. The only thing that "burned" is half of your brain cells.
-
-
Joe West says the Sox and Yankees are "pathetic and embarrassing"
Dipre replied to yeszir's topic in Boston Red Sox Talk
Dude..... -
Because he's either not a Red Sox fan or a complete moron. I'll go for a "special mix" of both.
-
-
Batting average is the worst measure of offensive production.
-
-
Joe West says the Sox and Yankees are "pathetic and embarrassing"
Dipre replied to yeszir's topic in Boston Red Sox Talk
Dude....... -
1) Since when did becoming a f***ing idiot become "trendy"? Because you, PWNdroia, seem to think your stupidity is "cool". (Hint:It's not) 2) After reading reason 1, why is PWNdroia still allowed to post here? I keep losing massive amounts of brain cells every time i read one of his posts, and ignoring won't work, because half the site quotes him correcting his stupidity. 3) A seahorse costume, really?
