RealGM

34Celtic wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Here we go perfect example. After watching the Yankees/Pirates all weekend I have a completely different opinion on Jason Bay. I always thought the guy was nasty because he had good stats. AFter seeing him play the outfield and realizing he has a worse arm than Damon, Coco Crisp, and Juan Pierre did when they were 7....I would not rank him in the top 100 players in baseball. The dude is such a liability in left field that its pathetic. When he is a free agent after 2009, and is 31...he will sign with some American League team to DH because he is that bad in left field.

So

34Celtic wrote:Oh and I'm a huge Barry Bonds fan, but I really wonder about a system in which he is ranked as the 49th best player in baseball. Sorry BBall Jesus....but he is so far behind Carl Crawford as a baseball player in this stage of his career, these rankings are completely flawed

I love Crawford but Bonds is a better hitter by a WIIIIIDE margin.

The one stat you should look for in a player is clutch hits.
I will use Sammy Sosa as an example. He was a good player but he always hit his homers with nobody on base and in blow out games. When the bases were loaded in a tight game he would strike out or ground into a double play.

SportsWorld wrote:The one stat you should look for in a player is clutch hits.
I will use Sammy Sosa as an example. He was a good player but he always hit his homers with nobody on base and in blow out games. When the bases were loaded in a tight game he would strike out or ground into a double play.

Hm, I wonder how Sosa knocked in 158 runs in 1998, his 66-homer year, if all he did was homer when no one was on base. I count 92 people not named Sammy Sosa who were driven in by Sosa. 92 is a lot of RBIs for just about anyone.

So let's take a closer look. I'll just use 2003, the last year Sosa was truly outstanding (.279/.358/.553, 40 homers).

Sosa with bases empty: .260/.339/.550
Sosa with runners on: .297/.377/.556
Sosa with men on, 2 out: .274/.365/.583

Okay, so that's only one season. Let's try 2002:

Bases empty: .275/.356/.562
Runners on: .306/.452/.638
Men on, 2 out: .293/.448/.600

Oh sure, I could just say "clutchness is all in your imagination, and usually just a way to justify thinking more or less highly of a player with nothing to back it up," but it's much more fun to fight these battles on other people's turf.

Next comes the part where I hear something about "lies, damn lies and statistics." In three... two...

Or, he's probably talking about Sammy's most recent season with the Cubs. In 2004 Sammy had a .928 OPS with runners on, .752 with runners on, and .576 with runners on and two outs. Not many Cubs fans disliked him in 2003, it was the next year that everything went to hell.

OldSchoolBBall wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I love Crawford but Bonds is a better hitter by a WIIIIIDE margin.

Not a better player though, according to ESPN he is.


Another example, Wang has let up a .458 average against the 9th place hitter this year. Does this mean that the 9th place hitter in all those games was the best player on the field?

And the Sosa arguements....you realize that he was probably given a lot of fastballs with no one on, and pitchers were a lot more careful with no one on base? Pitchers pitch everyone differently, depending on a situation.

Here's another one....

Runners on 1st and second....2 out....Tie Game. The batter hits a groundball up the middle, the shortstop dives and keeps the ball from getting to the outfield, holding the runner at third. The next batter pops up to end the inning. The shortstop kept the game tied. This is something that I don't think shows up in range factor, and raises the hitters batting average with runners in scoring position.

Bobby Abreu just ran away from Orlando Hudson on a potential double play out. Only one out on the play. Again, something not in the stats.

Crawford's a far better defensive player than Bonds, though. Barry is a complete liability in the field. Would I rather have Bonds on my team if I'm trying to win? Sure, but Crawford is a damn good all around player.

HeyIt'sMe wrote:Crawford's a far better defensive player than Bonds, though. Barry is a complete liability in the field. Would I rather have Bonds on my team if I'm trying to win? Sure, but Crawford is a damn good all around player.

So you're pretty much stating the obvious and conceding that Bonds is the better play, because no body plays not to win.

lpsevier wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



So you're pretty much stating the obvious and conceding that Bonds is the better play, because no body plays not to win.

I admitted Bonds is the better player, although I can kind of see an argument for Crawford. Crawford is the best defensive LF in baseball, and it's not close.