Bobby Abreu HOFer?

[tdawg87]

28 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Maybe you don't understand a damn thing anyone tells you. Abreu was not an exciting player to watch. Nobody stopped what they were doing to watch an Abreu at bat.

Vlad was an amazing athlete that threw out runners at first base on line drives to right field. That is why the manager picked Guerrero for his bench, because he was a dynamic and exciting player that could hit anything for power, steal bases and gun runners down. He was a true five tool player. 

 

To be fair, I'd consider Trout to be "boring" in his own way. He's like the Super Ultra White Abreu.

[Tank]

1 hour ago, Angelsjunky said:

 

WAR wasn't really around back in the 90s, or at least barely so. Back then, statnerds looked at the Bill James stuff like Runs Created and Offensive Winning %. I think WARP (Baseball Prospectus) came first, probably sometime in the late 90s. It wasn't added to Fangraphs until 2008, and Baseball Reference until 2010.

exactly, so using it today as an argument is kind of pointless as back in 1999 it wasn't really used as a tool for evaluating players.

[Blarg]

1 hour ago, tdawg87 said:

To be fair, I'd consider Trout to be "boring" in his own way. He's like the Super Ultra White Abreu.

[happybat4]

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

Maybe you don't understand a damn thing anyone tells you. Abreu was not an exciting player to watch. Nobody stopped what they were doing to watch an Abreu at bat.

Vlad was an amazing athlete that threw out runners at first base on line drives to right field. That is why the manager picked Guerrero for his bench, because he was a dynamic and exciting player that could hit anything for power, steal bases and gun runners down. He was a true five tool player. 

 

I do understand that. You asked me when Abreu should have been an all star. I did, he was better than Vlad in 1999 and deserved to be an all star. I'm literally answering the question you asked.

[happybat4]

48 minutes ago, Tank said:

exactly, so using it today as an argument is kind of pointless as back in 1999 it wasn't really used as a tool for evaluating players.

I agree. But this is a great way to see how under appreciated players from past years were.

[Blarg]

4 minutes ago, happybat4 said:

I do understand that. You asked me when Abreu should have been an all star. I did, he was better than Vlad in 1999 and deserved to be an all star. I'm literally answering the question you asked.

Obviously the Manager of the NL team felt your opinion didn't hold water. And, no, Abreu wasn't better than Vlad in 1999, they had nearly identical OPS+, the difference is Vlad hit 42 home runs while Abreu hit 20. That power is what you  want off the bench in an All Star game. 

[happybat4]

6 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Obviously the Manager of the NL team felt your opinion didn't hold water. And, no, Abreu wasn't better than Vlad in 1999, they had nearly identical OPS+, the difference is Vlad hit 42 home runs while Abreu hit 20. That power is what you  want off the bench in an All Star game. 

Abreu had a better first half offensively. Not to mention at the end of the year Abreu had 27 stolen bases and Vlad had 14. Vlad also had 19 errors in the outfield that year. 

Do you really think Vlad was the better player that year?

[Blarg]

Yes and every year after. He was head and shoulders better than Abreu. As I said, nobody stops what they are doing to see if Abreu will get a single while there wasn't a single Vlad a bat that I didn't watch when he was an Angel.

[happybat4]

8 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Yes and every year after. He was head and shoulders better than Abreu. As I said, nobody stops what they are doing to see if Abreu will get a single while there wasn't a single Vlad a bat that I didn't watch when he was an Angel.

Do you simply judge players based on whether people stop and watch them? 

[steveuk]

9 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Yes and every year after. He was head and shoulders better than Abreu. As I said, nobody stops what they are doing to see if Abreu will get a single while there wasn't a single Vlad a bat that I didn't watch when he was an Angel.

So you just created a new all important quantifiable stat? WAWTAB?

[Lou]

3 hours ago, happybat4 said:

Somebody mentioned that Abreu was only a 2 time all-star and Gwynn was a 15 time all star so therefore Gwynn was much better

Not once did I ever state Gwynn was "much better" than Abreu.

[happybat4]

2 minutes ago, Lou said:

Not once did I ever state Gwynn was "much better" than Abreu.

I guess the correct way to phrase it is Gwynn was elected to more all star games because people overvalued batting average.

[tdawg87]

I like how this is a legit argument.

Well done, @Stradling.

[happybat4]

37 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Yes and every year after. He was head and shoulders better than Abreu. As I said, nobody stops what they are doing to see if Abreu will get a single while there wasn't a single Vlad a bat that I didn't watch when he was an Angel.

I remember the disappointment when the Angels released Glenn Allen Hill. Remember the mammoth home runs he used to hit. My friends and I I used to stop whatever we were doing to watch his at bats. They were insane to release him 

[Lou]

6 minutes ago, happybat4 said:

I remember the disappointment when the Angels released Glenn Allen Hill. Remember the mammoth home runs he used to hit. My friends and I I used to stop whatever we were doing to watch his at bats. They were insane to release him 

He hit 1 home run as an Angel. After he was released, he never played again. 

[Blarg]

41 minutes ago, happybat4 said:

Do you simply judge players based on whether people stop and watch them? 

No, if I stop and watch them. Vlad was a generational player, like Trout. Insane skills. Abreu was just a really good player. There was nothing about his 1999 season that cried foul that he wasn't a managerial All Star pick for the bench. He didn't earn a starting position. 

[Tank]

1 hour ago, happybat4 said:

I guess the correct way to phrase it is Gwynn was elected to more all star games because people overvalued batting average.

so getting hits isn't important? i thought that was the whole point of hitting. what an odd position to take.

Edited December 29, 2021 by Tank

[tdawg87]

3 minutes ago, Tank said:

so getting hits isn't important? i thought that was the whole point of hitting. what an odd position to take.

Well, getting on base is important, and Abreu did a better job of that over his career.

You guys are old.

[Angelsjunky]

43 minutes ago, Blarg said:

No, if I stop and watch them. Vlad was a generational player, like Trout. Insane skills. Abreu was just a really good player. There was nothing about his 1999 season that cried foul that he wasn't a managerial All Star pick for the bench. He didn't earn a starting position. 

No he wasn't. I hear you about him being really fun to watch, but that was due to his unique style of hitting and, to a lesser degree, his arm.

That said, while no one could golf bad pitches like he could, as an overall hitter, there were several guys who were better. During Vlad's prime years (which I'll call 1998-2007), he was 13th in wRC+ with 146, tied with Larry Walker. Bonds (194), McGwire (173), Pujols (166), Manny (158), Giambi (155), A-Rod (152), C Jones (150), Thome (149), Hafner (147), Sheffield (147), and Berkman (147) were all ahead of him.

If you want something a bit more traditional, he was 10th in OPS.

He was also 9th in WAR over that time-frame, behind A-Rod, Bonds, A Jones, C Jones, Pujols, Rolen, Abreu, and Helton, just ahead of Jeter, Giles, Edmonds, and Manny.

He was a great player, but far from a generational player. A generational player must be, by definition, the best player of his generation - or at least arguably so. Vlad wasn't. He wasn't even one of the top five.

[Lou]

3 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

Well, getting on base is important, and Abreu did a better job of that over his career.

You guys are old.

lol.

.395 vs .388

I'd rather have a batter get a hit than walk. 

 

[tdawg87]

1 minute ago, Lou said:

lol.

.395 vs .388

I'd rather have a batter get a hit than walk. 

 

Why?

[Angelsjunky]

And Blarg, I know you are talking about the eyeball test, which is why I agree that he was a lot of fun to watch, and his ability to hit a bad pitch and throw was super impressive. But I think focusing on "wow, cool" and ignoring actual results (stats) just diminishes the value of a term like "generational player." That really has to mean best player, meaning their contribution to winning games, day in and day out. 

When I see someone like Giancarlo Stanton step up to the plate, I think "Scary - that dude is huge and has unparalleled power." I mean, has there been a stronger guy who has played baseball? But that doesn't make him a generational player. 

Edited December 29, 2021 by Angelsjunky

[Lou]

10 hours ago, Lou said:

Abreu played for the Yankees, Dodgers and Astros. 

Did you guys miss this? 

[Lou]

Just now, tdawg87 said:

Why?

Runners on 2nd and 3rd, no outs. 

Which do you prefer, a hit or an out? 

[tdawg87]

Just now, Lou said:

Runners on 2nd and 3rd, no outs. 

Which do you prefer, a hit or an out? 

I'll take the RBI's. Abreu did that better, as well.