Nomadsfest Sox Fans

A forum for the old AOL board Sox fans and others.


    WERE #26

    Share
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2822
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: WERE #26

    Post by rmapasad on Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:20 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:

    Let's see Buckner had his first MLB at bat in 1969 and last one in 1990


    Rob Deer first appearred in 1984 and played until 1993 and somehow got another 50AB in 1996, most likely some sort of serious injury comeback that clearly didn't last very long

    Deer had 2 seasons with an OPS over 800 where he qualified for the batting title.  Ditto Bill Buckner.
    Deer had a 3rd season with an OPS of 884 which was powered by 32 HR in 393 at bats.  Buckner never had anything close.  But he did win a batting title
    for their careers, Deer had an OPS of 766 while Buckners was just 729.  But then Buckner played from 20-40.  Deer was basically 24-32.  So Buckners career averages (AVG/OBP/SLG) are driven down because he played quite a few years where he was clearly below average.  Deer on the other hand, got hurt and disappeared in his early 30's.


    the only way one could conclude Deer is better than Buckner is to subtract all those years Buckner was below average.  However, that would be bad math and false logic.  Buckenr should not be penalized because the Red Sox brought him back at age 40 to see if he could improve upon the 216 average he had the year before just to watch him hit 186.  Conversely, Dee should not be rewarded because he got hurt and he didn't spent a year or three stinking up the joint trying to collect a few more paychecks.


    As much as I would love to agree with sexy bod-Todd on this one, Kevin is 100% correct on this one

    Actually agree with you. First of all, Buckner's last 1000 PA's did drag down his career numbers.   Second, at the height of the Billy Beane revolution 10-12 years ago sabermetric guys like Todd held up Rob Deer up as a shining example of a guy under-appreciated due to his low BA and Buckner being over-rated due to his high BA.   I agree that Deer was under-rated during his playing days and Buckner was over-rated during his. Deer missed the Beane revolution which would have given him more respect. But that doesn't mean Deer was better than Buckner.

    Buckner had 22 WAR over 7900 PA's not counting those last 3 really bad seasons. Deer had 13 WAR over 4200 PA's not counting his one year comeback attempt.   So if Deer had the same 7900 PA's in theory he'd have 25 WAR.   But to your point, who knows if Deer would have stunk it up if he had gotten those last 3700 PA's. Buckner got those added years because he was useful. So yes, Buckner had a better career overall.  

    Buckner was scrappy and hung in there.  It wasn't his fault that teams over-worshipped Bat Average back then and kept trotting him out there even after he couldn't hit .300 anymore.
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2822
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: WERE #26

    Post by rmapasad on Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:06 am

    Deplorable Mark wrote:So two ways he could add another 20 points to that .281 BA projection: 




    ONLY TWO WAYS?!?!?!?!?!


    TIME TO PUT YOUR LYING STUPID ASS ON IGNORE


    LET'S SEE IF ANYBODY ELSE WILL PAY ATTENTION TO YOUR RETARDED STATS

    I have logic on my side. All you have is attitude. 

    The logic for keeping Garcia in 2017 was overwhelming. It was staring you in the face, and you refused to see it out of block-headedness.   Now the same logic of his over-performance in 2017 is as plain as day, and out of block-headedness, you insist he's made this miracle transformation and should be given a 5 year extension.  That is the logic of fanboys and you should know that.

    Admitting you were wrong about Garcia is meaningless.  What else could a person (even as unreasonable as you) do when a guy you INSISTED should be non-tendered hits .330 ?  You gain nothing from admitting you were wrong when you refuse to learn from your mistakes. Stubborn, egotistical bias caused you to be wrong then. Are you any different now ? 

    I don't have any big prediction for Garcia in 2018 other than he won't hit .362 on groundballs again. But his stats say he shouldn't hit less than .270 even he slips back to his 2016 GB average. 
    He's a good hitter at .275 BA with 25-30 HR's and 15-20 more walks (low-mid 800's OPS).  But he needs to get more balls in the air to hit more HR's.  If he doesn't hit more balls in the air, his GB hits fall off and he clocks in at .275/.340/.450 he's just an OK rightfielder but nothing special. 

    Just like there were clear and solid reasons for keeping him in 2017, there are clear and solid reasons for playing wait and see what he's like in 2018.  But you will still INSIST without looking at any contrary logic that you are right. That's just you.  

      Current date/time is Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:03 pm