re: Ryan Howard struck out twice tonight in 4 at bats

Ok, if this doesn't help you see the light, then I just dont know what else to say, lol.

2006- Ryan Howard vs. Albert Pujols

This is from Sportsline.com, comparing there stats with runners on base

RISP (.BA/OBP/SLG)

Howard- .256/.426/.518
Pujols- .397/535/.802

RISP2OUTS

Howard- .247/.473/481
Pujols- .435/.581/.826

With Runners on Base

Howard- .287/.436/.644
Pujols- .343/.475/.729

NUMBER OF RBIS FOR THE SEASON

Howard 149

Pujols- 137

Please explain to me how Howard was a better hitter with runners on base, and explain how he did this.

You said RBIs can show you how clutch someone is and how efficient they are at bringing runners on base in to score. So, how exactly how was Howard more efficient and clutch than Pujols???

Pujols did play 16 less games, but he averaged about an RBI per game, so even if you add 16 RBIs to that tota, he still only has 4 more RBIs than Howard despite his numbers being about a thousand times better.

How far are you in this thread, I've conceded and agreed when Baloo made his point

But that is an excellent example

Yeah dog we waaay past that shite.

quote:

---

eah dog we waaay past that shite.

---

Well I see that now, lol.

I hadn't logged on since last night, see about 11 new pages, read 2 or 3 pages of new posts just going back and forth and back and forth.

So, I skipped the rest and figured it was more of the same.

Bad idea, lol.

quote:

---

Correct answer?

---

I've never thought about it, and the debate never got off the ground

"you say all of it is random, then in the next breath say good hitters hit well in the clutch...i dont see what is random about that"

Dude you must have failed all reasoning type classes. Lets try again. Now i'll go down to like 1st grade level. I'll try to figure where you think that I have contridicted myself.

Here goes. A manager will put who he thinks is his best HITTER, notice not, BEST AT DRIVING IN RUNS GUY BECAUSE HE TURNS IT ON GUY, in the middle of the lineup thus producing more RBI chances then anyone else. With me?

Next a good hitter who's hits .325 or whatever will be a good hitter "in the clutch" he will hit .325 why? B/c that;s what he does, again it has nothing to do with "turning it on"

Lastly if clutch hitting were a good measurement tool of a player, a player would duplicate those stats year in year out. Since no one in the history of baseball has I would say it's pretty damn random.

To summarize, a good hitter is a good hitter b/c he can hit not b/c he can get an RBI. A good hitter has more RBI chances therefore more RBI. He is not a good hitter b/c of the RBI

To answer the question about the closers. The problem with the closer is they are rarely used correctly. If you assume that the closer is the best pitcher in the bullpen you would naturally want him to pitch in the situation in which the game is the most on the line. Often it's the setup man who is in this situation in the 7th and 8th innings. Closers now come in with no one on in the 9th with at least a 1 run lead and up to a 3 run lead in a svae situation. The game is still on the line but the situation isn't as dire as it was perhaps an inning ago. The setup man gets no credit for getting out of the big jam and the closer gets a save.

LE thinks RBI is a good measure of an individual's talent because it shows his ablity to "turn it on" with runners on base and it shows "moxy"

Then people who look a little further into the numbers and understand the game shows him that he is wrong.

LSUsmartass comes over to the correct side sort of.

LE keeps being stubbourn and turns into SFP

Someone says derek jeter is awesome, he is quickly shot down.

SFP jumps in with some quote

Now it turns to closers

I mean you could read it to see the arguements. Then you can when LE starts grasping foe straws. There are some good parts I guess it's worth a glance