Posnanski loves Theo Epstein

Joe Pos shares his love for Theo Epstein using a few quotes from a radio interview where Epstein defends J.D. Drew's value to the Red Sox, despite his lack of RsBI. For example:

"Based on his skill set, he’s always going to have underwhelming RBI totals. I couldn’t care less. When you’re putting together a winning team, that honestly doesn’t matter. When you have a player who takes a ton of walks, who doesn’t put the ball in play at an above average rate, and is a certain type of hitter, he’s not going to drive in a lot of runs. Runs scored, you couldn’t be more wrong. If you look at a rate basis, J.D. scores a ton of runs. And the reason he scores a ton of runs is because he does the single most important thing you can do in baseball as an offensive player. And that’s NOT MAKE OUTS."

I'm sharing this link only because I read stuff like this and I just can't imagine the same type of analysis going down in our own front office. Share my sadness, AA.

5 months ago Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright 11 comments 1 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

exactly

If you want to talk about RBIs at all, talk about it as a percentage of opportunity

I don’t see why these eggheads can’t generate an expected RBI stat, divide a dude’s actual RBI by that, and put an end to this tedious debate once and for all.

If Ichiro batted middle of order for a good OBP team, he would have 100+ RBI every year. But he’s not an “RBI guy.”

"If on-base percentage is so important, then why don't they put it on the scoreboard?"

by hotspur on Oct 3, 2009 10:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

RBIs are an overrated stat

It’s the runs scored that matters. I could only imagine Omar doing something as incredibly stupid as what I’m about to describe:

Player A bats behind a powerful and feared player B. Player A will always get good pitches down the middle, and since the team’s no. 1 and no. 2 batters are OBP hogs, player A nets 115 RBI.

Omar trades a big player and some more (say Pedro Feliciano and hypothetical minor leaguer Moore Butts) for player A. Player A has no lineup protection, and the no. 1 and no. 2 players are OBP destroyers. Player A slumps horribly, gets booed by everyone, but still goes home with a $7.5 million. Mets lose 100 games for the first time in ages.

Any general manager who targets a player for their RBI production achieves the anti-greatness of an infamous Jim Duquette.

"The picture looked like I was in the dugout, but they got it all wrong. I absolutely was never in the dugout."
- Mr. B.V. Incognito

by sj10689 on Oct 4, 2009 5:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lineup protection has pretty much been debunked

I’m lazy so hopefully someone else can post the articles disproving it.

"We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people."

by Evan_S on Oct 4, 2009 8:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Theres certainly cases where lineup protection exists.

Barry Bonds drawing 120 intentional walks in 2004 would certainly be far less likely to have happened if he had more potent hitter behind him. Most of the situations he was walked in were with men on base, would managers have made that move 120 times with A-rod hitting behind him? Did Paul LoDuca see more fastballs when Jose Reyes was on base? According to him he did, and I cant find any data to indicate the opposite (it may exist, but if it does I can’t find it). From what I see watching the game, players batting behind Jose definately see better pitches to hit, offering some form of lineup protection. It may be massively overblown by ESPN, but it does exist.

"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green

by Schmidtxc on Oct 4, 2009 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah I agree with you

I’ve seen articles saying protection is a complete fallacy and others (ESPN) swearing it is a major factor in each game. I believe it does exist, but at a relatively minimal level.

"We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people."

by Evan_S on Oct 4, 2009 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think the LoDuca thing

is what they mean when they say “lineup protection”

King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president

by Sam Page on Oct 4, 2009 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

from the Book blog:

“As you know, we looked at "protection" in The Book, and we do see changes in hitting/pitching approach, but the overall production didn’t really change.

One thing I noticed in The Book is how the #5 hitter hits better than he does in other spots, presumably because the #3 and #4 hitters wore him out. There’s lots of great studies to be done in terms of the on-deck impact. "
I don’t think that protection is a major factor, although there is probably some.

by EtSuKe on Oct 4, 2009 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs