OH NO JEFF FRANCOEUR

[BigWorm]

IS BATTING .420 WITH 3 HR'S.

How could this happen? Were we all wrong about him? This especially hurts because our outfield sucks (save the rookie). WTF? Did he learn how to hold up against a curveball low and away?

[Hobbes]

Any player can start hot. He'll revert soon enough.

[Dreamscape]

Doesn't hurt me much. Couldn't be happier for a guy. Raise the Mets' expectations and then crash and burn there, too.

[The Rap]

He's off to a fast start and that is good but wait till NY fans watch him take a nosedive.

[Bad Blood]

What scares me is that he's drawn five walks already

[KB 34]

When I heard the Mets were counting on him to be their #5 hitter I was thrilled. That meant the Braves only had to compete with the Phillies and Marlins for the division title. Seriously, the season is young and Francoeur will revert to his true form, which is not hitting a 3 run HR in his first game to beat the Cubs or anything like that. I wouldn't even trade Melkey Cabrera for him which is really saying something.

[CanadaBravesFan]

As a Mut

GP - 85
AB - 324
H - 106
2B -23
3B - 3
HR - 13
RBI - 48
BB - 18
K - 49
Ave - .327

[I Come in Peace]

Just further proof Terry Pendelton is useless.

[bmcvay10]

Here I am.... Sorry, I got lost there for a while.

Francoeur will probably revert back to a .265/.325/.430 hitter. Which is very good compared to how he finished up in Atlanta. First, I think we all agree that he wasn't any sort of star player like all the hype suggested of him. Second, I think he isn't as bad as his last performances suggested he was. Perhaps he was sincerely "trying to do too much" in his hometown. His attitude and ego seem like they'd keep Jeff from being uncomfortable in the mass media...just not around the people/fans/and city he grew up around. Obviously, there's no real way to measure my suggestion...but I feel fairly confident that his self-induced pressures were real, and ended up negatively impacting his performance in Atlanta.

[KB 34]

Jeff Francoueur OBP last season: .338

Francoeur was no doubt under a lot of pressure to perform as he should have been considering his talent. The problem was his attitude and blatant disrespect to Bobby Cox and the Braves front office while a Brave and after being traded, even though they gave him more opportunities than any other player I can think of in a Braves uniform. Most players cherish the opportunity to play for Bobby Cox because he's clearly a really good person manager who makes things fun and enjoyable, even if some of his decisions are questionable. I'm 100% sure Francoeur was the problem, not Bobby Cox. I'm rooting for him to destroy the Mets clubhouse and playoff chances for many years to come.

[jlcct]

Well if you are rooting for him to ruin their clubhouse then he probably won't let you down. He already spoke out a few days ago about Manuel's decision to bat Reyes third in the order. He of course had to tell the New York media that he didn't agree with the decision and they obviously jumped on the chance to run the story in every paper in New York. Then I think it was yesterday when Baseball Tonight made up a story about four Mets players being sick and tired of Manuel's decisions. Franidontcarehowtospellhisnameanymorebecauseheisnolongerabravecoeoueoe r came out and told the media that he and the rest of the team are 110% behind their beloved manager and any decisions he may make. This is just another awesome example of how he can't keep his mouth shut and it came full circle.... again.
He managed to be an ass in the Atlanta media and now he's taking his show on the road to New York. Are you kidding me? By the end of the season we could probably write a book on this kid and all the thoughtless decisions he makes. I'm happy for the Mets. Enjoy him.

[quick]

Jeff is a fantastic athlete. No reason he shouldn't play well. This was just not the place for him. If he can learn to manage the strike zone, and apparently he is learning to work the count and take walks, he can be a fine player.

[Wahoo]

Jeff is a fantastic athlete. No reason he shouldn't play well. This was just not the place for him. If he can learn to manage the strike zone, and apparently he is learning to work the count and take walks, he can be a fine player.

Actually, see Dream's post. He still hasn't learned jack.

Also side note: I know I may be in the minority on this one, but I don't think Francoeur was nearly as talented as initially advertised.

[Middle Man]

He's a talented athlete but he's got some serious flaws that will always hinder his baseball abilities, IMHO. I would bet a considerable amount of money that his numbers at the end of the season will not be particularly praise-worthy.

[quick]

Actually, see Dream's post. He still hasn't learned jack.

Also side note: I know I may be in the minority on this one, but I don't think Francoeur was nearly as talented as initially advertised.

He was picked 23rd in the first round by the Braves. Braves scouting didn't understand this lack of talent?

[KB 34]

The story was Francoeur would have been picked higher if he would have signed with someone other than the Braves. I don't doubt Francoeur's talent unless one considers brains to be part of his talent. Perhaps the question should be asked if he was that good of a baseball talent, or a really unique talent considering he was a two sport star. I don't know enough knowledge about his background or have the desire to research it.

[quick]

The story was Francoeur would have been picked higher if he would have signed with someone other than the Braves. I don't doubt Francoeur's talent unless one considers brains to be part of his talent. Perhaps the question should be asked if he was that good of a baseball talent, or a really unique talent considering he was a two sport star. I don't know enough knowledge about his background or have the desire to research it.

I don't think Francoeur is stupid. He speaks his mind and is honest. He's not a "politician", i.e. he is not duplicitous. Today we assume spinmesiters are somehow smarter than those who just say what they think. I am not sure that is an accurate assessment. You could call him naive, but that is not the same as stupid.

Francoeur does believe in himself. Some would call that cocky, but he is one of the best high school football players this state has ever seen, according to one AJC columnist. And, he moved through the minor league system quickly. I can forgive him for thinking he's a pretty fair player.

[KB 34]

If the bum Francoeur really believes 100 RBIs means he had a good season then he's stupid, simple as that in my opinion. Being rushed and all means he should be able to respond to challenges and make adjustments quickly. He's never been able to handle that and says stupid things whenever someone challenges him on his miserable production. A true sign of stupidity is that he expects people to believe he's doing well when the stats are quite clear that he's not. He got by a long ways on talent in my opinion but failed when the level of competition rose and suddenly his talent was above average but the intangibles played a huge factor.

[Chris_Moderato]

If Heyward really believes 100 RBIs means he had a good season then he's stupid, simple as that in my opinion. Being rushed and all means he should be able to respond to challenges and make adjustments quickly. He's never been able to handle that and says stupid things whenever someone challenges him on his miserable production. A true sign of stupidity is that he expects people to believe he's doing well when the stats are quite clear that he's not. He got by a long ways on talent in my opinion but failed when the level of competition rose and suddenly his talent was above average but the intangibles played a huge factor.

You mean Frenchy, right? You said Heyward.

[Wahoo]

I don't think Francoeur is stupid. He speaks his mind and is honest. He's not a "politician", i.e. he is not duplicitous. Today we assume spinmesiters are somehow smarter than those who just say what they think. I am not sure that is an accurate assessment. You could call him naive, but that is not the same as stupid.

Francoeur does believe in himself. Some would call that cocky, but he is one of the best high school football players this state has ever seen, according to one AJC columnist. And, he moved through the minor league system quickly. I can forgive him for thinking he's a pretty fair player.

Having watched him play the outfield for 2.5 years in Atlanta, I seriously question the know-how of that AJC columnist. Supposedly he was a corner/safety, but I fail to see how he could have been that good with such a shoddy first step. Secondly, more so than playing the outfield, playing in the secondary in football requires knowledge of geometry and knowing how to take good angles. He displayed a consistent inability to do that when he was playing outfield for the Braves.

The guy has a cannon and has a pretty good top speed (but slow acceleration), but he was hyped/projected to be a 5-tool guy. He most definitely was/is not that. I'm not saying he wasn't talented, but I am saying he wasn't as talented as the hype around would lead you to believe.

[Dreamscape]

Watching Francoeur, I always got the impression he would be a hard hitter, but lack the range to be a plus safety. Probably heady enough to get a few picks, but not capable of covering some of the better ACC tight ends.

Just found his rivals profile (http://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/football/recruiting/player-Jeff-Francoeur-697;_ylt=As90BpTzgwFfqHzFVluvC99DPZB4), btw. Four-star DB.

[warefreak]

All I'll say is the kid is doing awesome as a met. Ryan Church isn't even on our team anymore.

I didn't want Francouer on our team anymore, but I still got sick to my stomach when i saw we traded him to the Mets. I'm sure the Royals or SOMEBODY over in the AL could have used him so we could watch him resurrect his career somewhere where it didn't hurt our team's chances. Everybody knew he just needed a change of scenery and that he IS a good MLB player who will help a team with his defense and his offense.

[KB 34]

Here are Francoeur's splits for the season. He's returned to form over the last couple of weeks. I have complete confidence in him continuing to screw over the Mets.
Split G GS PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS TB GDP HBP SH SF IBB ROE BAbip tOPS+ sOPS+
2010 Totals 17 17 75 65 12 18 4 1 3 9 0 0 8 7 .277 .347 .508 .854 33 4 0 0 2 1 2 .263 100 130
Last 7 days 6 6 24 23 3 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 .087 .125 .130 .255 3 1 0 0 0 0 2 .100 -38 -29
Last 14 days 12 12 53 47 8 10 1 1 1 3 0 0 5 5 .213 .283 .340 .623 16 3 0 0 1 1 2 .214 48 69
Last 28 days 17 17 75 65 12 18 4 1 3 9 0 0 8 7 .277 .347 .508 .854 33 4 0 0 2 1 2 .263 100 130
Last 365days 92 91 383 354 52 108 24 3 13 50 1 3 19 53 .305 .339 .500 .839 177 7 3 0 7 4 4 .322 96 122


http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/f/francje02.shtml

[Murphys#1Fan]

Hey...I'd take him back in a heartbeat the way he's hitting right now. Now think about this...who would you rather have in your outfield right now...Melky Cabrera or Jeff Francoeur??? NUF SAID!!!

[Wahoo]

Hey...I'd take him back in a heartbeat the way he's hitting right now. Now think about this...who would you rather have in your outfield right now...Melky Cabrera or Jeff Francoeur??? NUF SAID!!!

Sigh. How soon we forget. KB's stats have merit. The guy was hitting over .421 a week ago. He's regressing back towards his career average. Granted, Melky Cabrera sucks, so saying you'd rather have Francoeur than him is like choosing between a bag of fresh dog crap and a bag of stale dog crap.

[Murphys#1Fan]

Sigh. How soon we forget. KB's stats have merit. The guy was hitting over .421 a week ago. He's regressing back towards his career average. Granted, Melky Cabrera sucks, so saying you'd rather have Francoeur than him is like choosing between a bag of fresh dog crap and a bag of stale dog crap.

Well...you can have your Melky and I'll take my Frenchy and be done with it then.

[KB 34]

Shovels on sale..............shovels on sale..........get your shovels while they last.
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:WAMWqxvQn5bL7M:http://www.americantrails.org/i/tools/shovels.jpg

[Wahoo]

Well...you can have your Melky and I'll take my Frenchy and be done with it then.

Well I don't want either. I'd rather have a GOOD outfielder.

[BigWorm]

Might as well start another thread called OH NO KELLY JOHNSON. Dude has 7 HR's doubling his career output for the Atlanta Braves.

[KB 34]

I'm quite confident we're going to see a lot more of KJ in the future. He'd look great in LF right now the way he's hitting. Of course the Braves would have had to let him play everyday to begin with. I'm rooting for him to become a preennial All Star but unfortunately it wasn't going to happen in Atlanta.

[Andy G.]

I'm quite confident we're going to see a lot more of KJ in the future. He'd look great in LF right now the way he's hitting. Of course the Braves would have had to let him play everyday to begin with. I'm rooting for him to become a preennial All Star but unfortunately it wasn't going to happen in Atlanta.

KB, did the Braves not give KJ every opportunity to break out of his slump last season? Look at how long they stuck with him at second base before giving the spot to Prado. He was awful last year. Why do you rewrite history for the sake of being able to take a stab at the organization whenever something doesn't work out for them? Combined with the sound of everyone here splashing into the water as they jump ship(in APRIL), it starts to get really annoying.

[KB 34]

KB, did the Braves not give KJ every opportunity to break out of his slump last season? Look at how long they stuck with him at second base before giving the spot to Prado. He was awful last year. Why do you rewrite history for the sake of being able to take a stab at the organization whenever something doesn't work out for them? Combined with the sound of everyone here splashing into the water as they jump ship(in APRIL), it starts to get really annoying.
Prado earned 2B last season and I won't take that away from him. However, Anderson was a below average outfielder the entire season and KJ would at worst have been his equal. No, the Braves never gave him a sufficient chance because at the first sign of struggles he was platooned even though he was batting better against LHP. I'm not going to pretend to be happy when the organization gives up on a talent like KJ as they did. The offseason before there were KJ for Ludwick talks, and Braves fans weren't completely sold on pulling the trigger. In essence KJ goes from a valuable contributor to a non-tendered player in one season? There's something wrong with that picture. The Braves didn't sell low, they tossed him in the garbage can.

Yes, people aren't very happy with the Braves right now because this team was hyped up to be pretty good and started very nicely. The struggles recently have been pretty bad everywhere except the bullpen. I can't blame anyone who invests a lot of time in the game being upset at the start or venting. The Braves are 8-12 after all. The attachment fans here have to the team leads to up and down moments on the forums. Provided there are interesting conversations and ideas I find both quite engaging. The run last season were fun as were the "Schuerholz sucks, BFH for GM" days. The gamethreads from the really bad bullpen/really good offense year were legendary as well. Creativity can show up in the good or bad baseball times.

[Andy G.]

Prado earned 2B last season and I won't take that away from him. However, Anderson was a below average outfielder the entire season and KJ would at worst have been his equal. No, the Braves never gave him a sufficient chance because at the first sign of struggles he was platooned even though he was batting better against LHP. I'm not going to pretend to be happy when the organization gives up on a talent like KJ as they did. The offseason before there were KJ for Ludwick talks, and Braves fans weren't completely sold on pulling the trigger. In essence KJ goes from a valuable contributor to a non-tendered player in one season? There's something wrong with that picture. The Braves didn't sell low, they tossed him in the garbage can.
You can not blame the Braves for letting KJ go. First of all, since when is it just a no brainer to force a player into making a second position switch? Maybe KJ didn't want to move back to LF. Secondly, the Braves tried to trade KJ. It was obvious that we could not afford for him to sit on the bench while getting paid whatever arbitration gave him, so nobody made an offer. There's no blame here. KJ had every opportunity to be the Braves' second baseman, but sometimes things don't work out for the best. That's life.

[quick]

I have not said I want Francoeur back as the reasons for his problems here still exist and have not changed. I did say I am not surprised at his success in NYC and I stand by that; he is a talented player and if the Mets believe in him and let him know that, he'll do well.

And I'd say 100 RBI is a pretty fair season, at least as a batter.

KJ had more than this fair share of chances. He was streaky to a fault as a batter and not a very good fielder. I wouldn't want him back, either.

It would be nice to have one solid corner outfielder, a young, healthy and strong third baseman, and a solid first baseman. HeyWood will be fine in due course, but he is still very green. Watching the St. Louis lineup the last two nights has been telling. In days gone by, we might have gotten Holliday as a free agent--now we cannot compete for such talent. Instead, we get Glaus, who stands so stiff and upright in the box that unless he golfs the ball he is doomed to swing over-the-top on anything thrown low in the strike zone, netting lots of double-play ground balls.

[Chris_Moderato]

You can not blame the Braves for letting KJ go. First of all, since when is it just a no brainer to force a player into making a second position switch? Maybe KJ didn't want to move back to LF.

I sincerely doubt that a guy in Kelly's position would be dictating one way or the other which position in the field he'd be playing. Seems to me that had he been asked, he'd have been out in left. That's the kind of player he always struck me to be.

I also wouldn't consider it a "second position switch", only because no one was asking him to learn first base or catcher. He'd already logged Major League time in left field, and likely could've made a smooth transition back.

I wish he was out in left for us now, but I don't think the Braves ever had as much faith in him as they had in, say, Francoeur. While they did Kelly ABs last season, and a chance to work his way out of his funk, I think they gave up on him too soon.

Of course, the idea of Kelly playing left probably never crossed their minds, they probably saw that they had two second basemen, and made their moves accordingly. I'll be interested to see where he stands at the end of this season when compared to Diaz and Melky (and anyone else on the left field carousel.)

[Hobbes]

Of course, the idea of Kelly playing left probably never crossed their minds, they probably saw that they had two second basemen, and made their moves accordingly.
I wouldn't go that far. Contrary to popular opinion, the Braves organization isn't full of idiots. I'm sure they did examine the idea of moving KJ back to left quite thoroughly.

More likely is that there was some reason that they didn't like the idea. Bobby might have not liked how KJ handled the position defensively. Or perhaps they thought he would never turn the corner as a hitter and weren't looking for a way to keep him in any capacity. Or maybe they just felt that they needed to trim salary somewhere and KJ drew the short straw.

These conclusions may turn out to be wrong, but it won't be because the Braves failed to consider all the options.

[Chris_Moderato]

I wouldn't go that far. Contrary to popular opinion, the Braves organization isn't full of idiots. I'm sure they did examine the idea of moving KJ back to left quite thoroughly.

More likely is that there was some reason that they didn't like the idea. Bobby might have not liked how KJ handled the position defensively. Or perhaps they thought he would never turn the corner as a hitter and weren't looking for a way to keep him in any capacity. Or maybe they just felt that they needed to trim salary somewhere and KJ drew the short straw.

These conclusions may turn out to be wrong, but it won't be because the Braves failed to consider all the options.

To clarify, I wasn't asserting that they didn't consider the option because the organization is full of idiots.

I do believe, however, that they have more faith in their left field platoon as an everyday option than I do (and I told them as much when they called and asked for my opinion on personnel decisions this off-season).

I have no way of knowing this, of course (in spite of the aforementioned call), so it's all in how you read it. Moving Kelly Johnson back to left field would've seemed uncharacteristic of the Braves organization and you're suggestion that they were ready to just let him walk is probably what really happened.

Not that it matters now. We've got a damn fine second baseman, and left field isn't what's killing us because left field wasn't being relied upon to carry the team anyway.

[-Dr. Brave-]

Instead, we get Glaus, who stands so stiff and upright in the box that unless he golfs the ball he is doomed to swing over-the-top on anything thrown low in the strike zone, netting lots of double-play ground balls.

I like to watch the Peachtree satellite feed on days Glaus plays. When he takes the field, he's stiff enough jogging to first base that I'm surprised he doesn't topple over from leaning forward so much.

[Wahoo]

And I'd say 100 RBI is a pretty fair season, at least as a batter.



In fairness RBI's is one of the worst stats one could use to assess a batter's performance, namely because the number is so easily skewed by number of opportunities and is at least partially dependent on factors outside of the batter's control.


Secondly,

His OPS has dropped over .200 points in 10 days. A product of a small sample size, but this regression is more in line with his career productivity to date. He may someday become an .800 OPS hitter. I don't really wish the guy ill-will, but I am by no means rooting for this guy either. We'll see where his numbers stand at the end of the season, but my money is on what they've always been...mediocre. He's a mediocre hitter. Nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't pay him $4 mil per year for that, but then again we are paying $3 mil for that (roughly) for Melky Cabrera.

[Hobbes]

If you put any player in the 5th spot on a fairly competent offense he'll rack up 100 RBI.

[KB 34]

You can not blame the Braves for letting KJ go. First of all, since when is it just a no brainer to force a player into making a second position switch? Maybe KJ didn't want to move back to LF.
Did the Braves care when they tried to sign Furcal? The story was the Braves planned on moving him to LF and I doubt they wouldn't have talked about it if they weren't at least somewhat serious about it.

[Andy G.]

Did the Braves care when they tried to sign Furcal? The story was the Braves planned on moving him to LF and I doubt they wouldn't have talked about it if they weren't at least somewhat serious about it.
I swear, you're like a rabid dog the way you respond in these threads sometimes. I shouldn't have even made the discussion about whether or not the Braves wanted to move KJ back to LF or if KJ wanted to move back to LF. That's not the point. It was an option. The Braves decided not to go that route. You can disagree with it.

It's so frustrating to try to make a point, only to have it go straight over your head...every...single...time. There are two worlds. The real one, and KB's fantasy land. In KB's fantasy land, if an argument can be made that somebody messed up, than that person deserves fierce blame for said screw up. In the real world, things aren't black and white. Tough decisions have to be made, and it's impossible for every decision to work out for the best. The Braves decided to part ways with Kelly Johnson, rather than put him back in left field. There could be a lot of reasons why they did it. Who care's what they were? KJ's not going to put up an OPS of 1.000 for the year, and we have Martin Prado, who is a heck of a baseball player in his own right. Why must you obsess over these types of situations? You still bring up Dan fcking Kolb for crying out loud. I know I'm delving into larger issues than just Kelly Johnson right now, but it's gotten to a point where I can no longer humor you with these idiotic debates, KB.

If you want to place blame on the organization, go ahead dude. They didn't make KJ hit .224 with a sub-.700 OPS last year.

I don't know what it feels like to see things going poorly, rant about all the terrible decisions and/or performances, then feel better about it after I'm done. If I did, maybe I'd be able to relate to your astonishingly negative opinions.

Cut out the personal attacks. I will have no problems taking action if it becomes necessary. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean you get to make personal attacks. If you have a problem that's what PM is for. KB

[quick]

In fairness RBI's is one of the worst stats one could use to assess a batter's performance, namely because the number is so easily skewed by number of opportunities and is at least partially dependent on factors outside of the batter's control.


Secondly,

His OPS has dropped over .200 points in 10 days. A product of a small sample size, but this regression is more in line with his career productivity to date. He may someday become an .800 OPS hitter. I don't really wish the guy ill-will, but I am by no means rooting for this guy either. We'll see where his numbers stand at the end of the season, but my money is on what they've always been...mediocre. He's a mediocre hitter. Nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't pay him $4 mil per year for that, but then again we are paying $3 mil for that (roughly) for Melky Cabrera.

I think sometimes we overthink stats in this SABR era.

Of course, to get 100 RBI you must have men on base ahead of you. Few NL leadoff hitters will have 100 RBI. But, to get that 100 RBI, you then must drive your teammates in, meaning you need not to strike out, not to hit shallow pops, and not to hit into DPs. You must be clutch. You must not be injured much. You must get good wood on the ball, you must learn to place the ball in areas affected by the defensive shifts, and you must learn how to intentionally hit sac flies. In short, you must become a productive batter with men in scoring position and with men on base generally.

So, while we can look at other stats to round out the picture, the RBI stat is still meaningful.

[Dreamscape]

I think sometimes we overthink stats in this SABR era.

Of course, to get 100 RBI you must have men on base ahead of you. Few NL leadoff hitters will have 100 RBI. But, to get that 100 RBI, you then must drive your teammates in, meaning you need not to strike out, not to hit shallow pops, and not to hit into DPs. You must be clutch. You must not be injured much. You must get good wood on the ball, you must learn to place the ball in areas affected by the defensive shifts, and you must learn how to intentionally hit sac flies. In short, you must become a productive batter with men in scoring position and with men on base generally.

So, while we can look at other stats to round out the picture, the RBI stat is still meaningful.
You really don't have to be "clutch" or anything to drive in 100 runs. You're going to get your hits period. Some of them are going to come with runners on base, some aren't. Hitters are typically going to hit better with runners on for a couple of reasons. Runners on forces the pitcher to go from the stretch, which can be tough for some of them, and if they are allowing runners, they may not be commanding the zone as well as they may like. Plus, you can make "productive outs" that aren't included such as sacrifice flies/hits. In the end, you look "clutch."

Good hitters will hit. Mediocre hitters will not. But regardless, Hobbes' point has merit. Put a competent offense in front of your five hitter, he will rack up RBI's. The more important thing than the RBI was the getting on base.

[quick]

You really don't have to be "clutch" or anything to drive in 100 runs. You're going to get your hits period. Some of them are going to come with runners on base, some aren't. Hitters are typically going to hit better with runners on for a couple of reasons. Runners on forces the pitcher to go from the stretch, which can be tough for some of them, and if they are allowing runners, they may not be commanding the zone as well as they may like. Plus, you can make "productive outs" that aren't included such as sacrifice flies/hits. In the end, you look "clutch."

Good hitters will hit. Mediocre hitters will not. But regardless, Hobbes' point has merit. Put a competent offense in front of your five hitter, he will rack up RBI's. The more important thing than the RBI was the getting on base.

So, by your estimation, any dog can get 100 RBI if men get on base in front of him.

From 2003 to 2008, exactly 3 players in all of MLB had 100 RBI each of these years. It must be harder to do than you say it is....

[Wahoo]

So, by your estimation, any dog can get 100 RBI if men get on base in front of him.

From 2003 to 2008, exactly 3 players in all of MLB had 100 RBI each of these years. It must be harder to do than you say it is....

A.) A hitter's odds of reaching base/getting a hit with runners on base is actually greater, because of the defensive shifts, baserunners being held, etc. So yes, even an average hitter is more likely to get a hit with runners on base. It's not "clutch" it's just simple logic. Aside from "pressure" it's actually easier for a guy to collect a hit when he has runners on base in front of him.

B.) Nearly half of Francoeur's ABs in 2006 and 2007 came with runners on base in front of him. Nearly half of those (1/3 of his total ABs) came with runners in scoring position. So he had more opportunities than the average player to drive in runs. Hell he had more total ABs with runners in scoring position in all of 2006 than Brian McCann had with runners on-base, period, and yet, he only had 10 more RBIs than McCann for the season.

C.) You can actually receive credit for an RBI whilst recording an out (via ground ball or sac fly). While this is productive, why should the batter receive credit as being "productive" when he actually made an out? The runner scored because of the situation (not anything the hitter had any control over).

[Wahoo]

So, by your estimation, any dog can get 100 RBI if men get on base in front of him.

From 2003 to 2008, exactly 3 players in all of MLB had 100 RBI each of these years. It must be harder to do than you say it is....

Faulty logic. All that says is that it's hard to collect 100 RBIs 5 years in a row (and it is). That says nothing about how hard it is to actually drive in runs.

[Dreamscape]

How many people have competent offenses in front of them each of those five seasons? How many stayed healthy all those five seasons? Or avoided suspension for PED use/steroids?

Six seasons is a long time. Now, is it impressive to drive in 100 RBI's for five straight years? Yeah, it is a bit. But a 100 RBI season is not impressive in itself.

For instance, Alex Rodriguez, one of those three you brought up, drove in an even 100 runs in 124 games. Now, 100 RBI's in 124 games sounds pretty impressive. He must have hit in the clutch to pick up so many RBIs in such a short time frame. Over 162 games, he would have picked up 131 RBIs, which would have been nine more than his teammate and AL RBI leader Mark Texieria. But his OPS dropped .70 when a runner was in scoring position. How could he have hit worse with runners on when he was such a good RBI guy? Opportunities. Even though he hit .250 with RISP and 2 outs, he got so many opportunities that he drove in 100.

[quick]

A.) A hitter's odds of reaching base/getting a hit with runners on base is actually greater, because of the defensive shifts, baserunners being held, etc. So yes, even an average hitter is more likely to get a hit with runners on base. It's not "clutch" it's just simple logic. Aside from "pressure" it's actually easier for a guy to collect a hit when he has runners on base in front of him.

I agree; but, the fact is a good AB with men in scoring position or on base is more important than with the bases empty--why? Because you can score without hitting a home run. Conversely, it is by definition easier to hit into a DP with men on base, no? Impossible with the bases clear. Show me a guy who can get the men home and plate runs and avoid DPs and I'll show you a guy you want on your team.


B.) Nearly half of Francoeur's ABs in 2006 and 2007 came with runners on base in front of him. Nearly half of those (1/3 of his total ABs) came with runners in scoring position. So he had more opportunities than the average player to drive in runs. Hell he had more total ABs with runners in scoring position in all of 2006 than Brian McCann had with runners on-base, period, and yet, he only had 10 more RBIs than McCann for the season.


Fine, but getting runs across is how you win games; you cannot win a game with no runs but a high OPS. The point of all offensive stats is to give an indication of those players who can help you score runs. Getting RBIs is actually scoring runs, not an indication of factors that may lead to scoring runs.



C.) You can actually receive credit for an RBI whilst recording an out (via ground ball or sac fly). While this is productive, why should the batter receive credit as being "productive" when he actually made an out? The runner scored because of the situation (not anything the hitter had any control over).


Having watched Glaus play you can make this argument? First, you do not get an RBI with a double play. Glaus is a DP specialist, as was Francoeur as his career here wound down. You get an RBI with a regular out as it is a productive out. Hit the ball deep in the hole on the 2d base side so the runner scores from third and you have accomplished something. Strike out, hit into a DP, pop out short, and you have failed. Even if you draw a walk when the bases are not loaded, no runs have scored and you have left the job for another to complete. But, you get credit for the walk in your on-base percentage.

No one wins games because of a high OBP alone; its about scoring runs.

[Wahoo]

I agree; but, the fact is a good AB with men in scoring position or on base is more important than with the bases empty--why? Because you can score without hitting a home run. Conversely, it is by definition easier to hit into a DP with men on base, no? Impossible with the bases clear. Show me a guy who can get the men home and plate runs and avoid DPs and I'll show you a guy you want on your team.



Fine, but getting runs across is how you win games; you cannot win a game with no runs but a high OPS. The point of all offensive stats is to give an indication of those players who can help you score runs. Getting RBIs is actually scoring runs, not an indication of factors that may lead to scoring runs.




Having watched Glaus play you can make this argument? First, you do not get an RBI with a double play. Glaus is a DP specialist, as was Francoeur as his career here wound down. You get an RBI with a regular out as it is a productive out. Hit the ball deep in the hole on the 2d base side so the runner scores from third and you have accomplished something. Strike out, hit into a DP, pop out short, and you have failed. Even if you draw a walk when the bases are not loaded, no runs have scored and you have left the job for another to complete. But, you get credit for the walk in your on-base percentage.

No one wins games because of a high OBP alone; its about scoring runs.


Your last point is dead on, and that's the entire point of my argument. Just like you can't say that a guy had a productive year just because he posted a high OBP, you can't say the same just because he knocked in 100 runs. But, at least, OBP is more directly attributable to the player's performance than are RBIs. I mean, it's not as if Francoeur was more productive than Brian McCann in 2006 and 2007, but he did have more RBIs. In any regard, that's why OPS is a good measure of a player's productivity.

[KB 34]

When it comes to Francoeur's RBI totals I think it's important to remember how good the Braves offense was in recent times. Here are where the Braves ranked for runs scored in the NL when Francoeur was a Brave and his RBI totals.

2005: fourth (pace for 150 games: 96)
2006: second (103)
2007: third (105)
2008: sixth (71)
2009: sixth (pace for 150 games: 64)
For comparison 2010: 15th (Francoeur's NY pace where the offense is 8th: 81)

When Francoeur has been in a really good lineup he's driven a lot of runs in. When the offense has struggled he doesn't. To me there's a clear trend that his 100 RBI totals were because of the offense around him. I don't think it's fair to judge Glaus too much considering he's only a small part of the Braves offensive struggles they have made it the second worst offense in the NL so far this season.

[Dreamscape]

No one wins games because of a high OBP alone; its about scoring runs.
Show me a high scoring team and ninety-nine times out of a hundred, I'll show you a great OBP. You don't score runs without high OBP. Obviously, it's not that simple. You also need some power. But regardless of how much power you have, the way you build a prolific offense isn't around clutch hitters or speed or whatever. It's based on guys getting on base.

It is the single most important thing in baseball. You are given just 27 outs in a game. It seems like a lot, but you run through them quickly. Getting guys to do the opposite of making an out...i.e. get on base...is your best hope of prolonging that time limit. Even your best hitters will fail to get on base five or six times out of every ten. What you need is guys not making outs to prolong the RBI chances as long as it takes until one of those hits falls.

[quick]

Show me a high scoring team and ninety-nine times out of a hundred, I'll show you a great OBP. You don't score runs without high OBP. Obviously, it's not that simple. You also need some power. But regardless of how much power you have, the way you build a prolific offense isn't around clutch hitters or speed or whatever. It's based on guys getting on base.

It is the single most important thing in baseball. You are given just 27 outs in a game. It seems like a lot, but you run through them quickly. Getting guys to do the opposite of making an out...i.e. get on base...is your best hope of prolonging that time limit. Even your best hitters will fail to get on base five or six times out of every ten. What you need is guys not making outs to prolong the RBI chances as long as it takes until one of those hits falls.

You need both OPS and high RBI totals; the one means nothing without the other. Lots of men on and lots of DPs mean no runs. OPS and RBI are complementary stats. Don't you agree?

[bravos4evr]

RBI has been PROVEN to be a worthless stat in determining an individual batters ability to hit. It has been PROVEN to be a good stat in determining the quality of the hitters who bat in front of said player at getting on base. (cuz when you look at the top 5 RBI men every year you will look above them in the lineup and see two or 3 guys with OBP north of 360).
I know it's hard to let go of the importance of the old counting stats. But batting average and RBI's aren't really that valuable, they basically supply you with the results of a hitters activites at the plate that are contingent on the action os the other players abilities. In other words, Pujols ain't getting 100 RBI's if the guys in front of him are Melky Cabrera and Nate Mclouth, not right now he wouldn't. Yet Frenchy would probably easily get 100 RBI's hitting 5th or 6th for the Yankees..... and Batting average only tells part of the tale , I will give you a scenario:
(assume equal plate appearances)
Player A hits .330 and 105 RBI's has an OBP of .365 and a SLG% of.450
Player B Hits .280 has 90 RBI's an OBP of.385 and a SLG% of .520

who is more valuable as a hitter?

The answer is clearly Player B, he gets on base more and hits for more power. the fifteen RBI difference isn't his fault. The lower SLG% of player A indicates he had more singles than player B but B obviously took more walks mitigating the singles advantage Player A had.

I was resistant to the new stats too but eventually my scientific brain had to accept the reality of them . They are much more accurate when determining who is better.

[-Dr. Brave-]

From 2003 to 2008, exactly 3 players in all of MLB had 100 RBI each of these years. It must be harder to do than you say it is....

Faulty logic. All that says is that it's hard to collect 100 RBIs 5 years in a row (and it is). That says nothing about how hard it is to actually drive in runs.

Six years actually. And all it takes is one serious injury to break that streak.

[HaRdCoReBrAvEsFaN]

All I know...The Mets had 3 wins during Jeff's hot start, starting with his slide that began during the marathon game vs STL the Met's have lost twice going into todays game vs PHI....

[quick]

Six years actually. And all it takes is one serious injury to break that streak.

And staying healthy (or playing hurt) is a talent like any other.

[quick]

RBI has been PROVEN to be a worthless stat in determining an individual batters ability to hit. It has been PROVEN to be a good stat in determining the quality of the hitters who bat in front of said player at getting on base. (cuz when you look at the top 5 RBI men every year you will look above them in the lineup and see two or 3 guys with OBP north of 360).
I know it's hard to let go of the importance of the old counting stats. But batting average and RBI's aren't really that valuable, they basically supply you with the results of a hitters activites at the plate that are contingent on the action os the other players abilities. In other words, Pujols ain't getting 100 RBI's if the guys in front of him are Melky Cabrera and Nate Mclouth, not right now he wouldn't. Yet Frenchy would probably easily get 100 RBI's hitting 5th or 6th for the Yankees..... and Batting average only tells part of the tale , I will give you a scenario:
(assume equal plate appearances)
Player A hits .330 and 105 RBI's has an OBP of .365 and a SLG% of.450
Player B Hits .280 has 90 RBI's an OBP of.385 and a SLG% of .520

who is more valuable as a hitter?

The answer is clearly Player B, he gets on base more and hits for more power. the fifteen RBI difference isn't his fault. The lower SLG% of player A indicates he had more singles than player B but B obviously took more walks mitigating the singles advantage Player A had.

I was resistant to the new stats too but eventually my scientific brain had to accept the reality of them . They are much more accurate when determining who is better.

Too simple--when does player A get his hits? With men in scoring pos? If so, that could account for the extra RBI. Getting on base with 2 outs is not that helpful but your OPS will go up. And where in the lineup do you hit? Right before the pitcher? Well, your OPS will go up, but so what? Driving in runs is still important. Yes, you cannot have RBI without opportunities, which is what all of you are saying; but, you must take advantage of the opportunities....

I understand SABR stats attempt to isolate stats so they are not dependent on other players' play. And, I am sure there are other situational stats that may work better than RBI, but measuring how a batter gets players from base across the plate is still a key, however we choose to measure it.

[Dreamscape]

You need both OPS and high RBI totals; the one means nothing without the other. Lots of men on and lots of DPs mean no runs. OPS and RBI are complementary stats. Don't you agree?
If you mean that a high OPS causes a good amount of RBI's, possibly. But see, my point is that counting stats like RBI and runs and whatever are the PRODUCT OF sound baseball philosophy like high OBP. You seem fixated on the idea that more men on means more double plays. This is a red herring argument because you need to show that OBP correlates with double plays. Yes, you can't have the double play without it, but here's just an example from last year. Here is the team, their OBP, their R/G rank in the NL, and their double plays.
Team OBP R/G DP
Dodgers .346 4.81 141
Rockies .343 4.96 111
Brewers .341 4.85 128
Phillies .334 5.04 90
Cardinals .332 4.51 127
Giants .318 3.95 124
Reds .318 4.15 103
Giants .309 4.06 115
I don't think there is much data based on what I have seen to indicate a true correlation between OBP and double plays.

Listen, obviously, you will find a stray example of a team with a high OBP and low amount of runs scored. It is bound to happen. Much like you can find a low OBP and a high amount of runs scored. Baseball can be very flukey, even over a full season. The 2007 Diamondbacks should have missed the playoffs, but won 90 games despite giving up more runs than they scored. They even made it to the NLCS.

But regardless, as much as baseball is decided on runs and not OBP in the eyes of the final score, the team that is better at getting on base will more than likely win. Baseball is actually an incredibly simple game at its core. Put more runners on before you use up your 27 outs, chances are you come home with a W.

As far as the individual example goes, maybe bravos was simplistic, but all of the other RISP, high leverage, etc. numbers tend to even out over time. Because baseball players do not pick and choose when they get hits. Now, there are the occasional player who see an incredible rise or fall in their stats in high stress situations. Not going to pretend otherwise. But until I see evidence to suggest otherwise, I will consider those players the exception that proves the rule. These aren't superheros who put their cape on when the situation calls for it. They are men who will fail more times than they succeed and whose career numbers will see little deviation against the norm when runners are on vs. when they are not. It's just whole lot easier to pick up RBI's in the former situation that the latter.

[Wahoo]

The entire fault in your emphasis on RBIs, quick, is that no matter how you slice, it's a statistic that measures as much about the performance of the batter's around you as it is your performance. A batter isn't going to drive in 100 runs unless other batters around him are doing well. The value of OBP and slug pct (i.e. OPS) is that more accurately captures the individual's performance because it's a percentage, rather than a counting stat.

I see your point, at some point you have to do something right to accumulate RBI's, and you are right, but your teammates have to just as much right for the same thing to happen, so in actuality the RBI is indicative of group performance moreso than individual performance.

And as Dream said, if a hitter is performing well in the core fundamentals (i.e. getting on base and hitting for power) then the RBIs will follow. But the fact is even an average hitter can accumulate impressive RBI totals just by having more opportunities. Further, if you look at Francoeur, he has 2 years of 100 plus RBIs, but both his OBP and slug percentage were abysmal in those years, which is absolutely indicative that he simply had plenty of opportunities. I guarantee you, if it were hitting before Chipper and McCann those years, he wouldn't have touched 100 RBIs. Hell our offense wouldn't have scored nearly as many runs either.

[The Rap]

I think it is wise to wait out the rest of the season before attempting to ascertain how good KJ or Jeff are. Otherwise the guy who is making us look like chumps is Andruw who hit his 8th HR today and stole his 4th base. In addition, Guillen has him batting 3rd in a loaded lineup.

[Chris_Moderato]

Otherwise the guy who is making us look like chumps is Andruw who hit his 8th HR today and stole his 4th base.

Disagree. Andruw Jones is on the downward arc of his career. We had him for his best years. KJ and Frenchy were sent packing prior to their prime years. That may come back to "bite us" or, like Adam Wainwright, force some of us to sit and wonder what could've been.

Not that any of it is that important. We didn't lose nine games in a row because we lacked Kelly Johnson in out lineup.

[jlcct]

I didn't want the Francoeur story to get away to easily. Reading about how good he was doing with the Mets last year and at the beginning of this year was bothersome. He still sucks and he's showing it more and more every day as he comes back to earth (or a little below). Thanks Jeff! You keep being awesome sir! .705 OPS - .235 AVG - .301 OBP

[KB 34]

Francoeur has one extra base hit in the past 14 days and an OPS of .279 over the past seven days. I had complete faith in Franceour to come through for the Braves this season and after his disappointing start he hasn't disappointed. I wish he had clones playing for the Phillies and Marlins as well. The Braves don't have a position player I'd trade straight up for Francoeur, and that's wonderful to see.

[luvdembravos]

Francoeur Watch: .214 BA and .279 OBP as of May 16th

Yes, he still sucks and his MLB career may be over soon.

[Dreamscape]

Never believe the early season hype. Francoeur is a perfect example. Remember the great start, the cutdown in K's, and the walks? Since April 19, he's 12 for 92 (.141) with 2 walks and 22 K's. On the bright side, he's perfect in three steals attempts.

[luvdembravos]

On the bright side, he's perfect in three steals attempts.

Plus he's got a great smile.

[Wahoo]

A sizzling .643 OPS. Now is just about when that New York pressure cooker starts warming, especially if they keep trotting him out there like Atlanta did. I've never seen one player as unproductive as he is, completely skate by on "reputation", which is far as I can tell is built completely on a myth. This guy is a professional hustler, if nothing else.

[KB 34]

Never believe the early season hype. Francoeur is a perfect example. Remember the great start, the cutdown in K's, and the walks? Since April 19, he's 12 for 92 (.141) with 2 walks and 22 K's. On the bright side, he's perfect in three steals attempts.
That would be four if you count the $5 million the Mets are paying him this season.

[Wahoo]

That would be four if you count the $5 million the Mets are paying him this season.

Ba da bing.

[wordslayer©]

That would be four if you count the $5 million the Mets are paying him this season.

Rick Reilly had better be looking over his shoulder.

[Dreamscape]

A sizzling .643 OPS. Now is just about when that New York pressure cooker starts warming, especially if they keep trotting him out there like Atlanta did. I've never seen one player as unproductive as he is, completely skate by on "reputation", which is far as I can tell is built completely on a myth. This guy is a professional hustler, if nothing else.
Fortunately for Failcoeur, he's not the golden boy in New York. So while he can suck, the Mets fans will be hating on Jose Reyes and David Wright too much to notice him.

[The Rap]

Mets fans are in a foul mood here in NYC simply because it is Santana, a sometimes Pelfrey and what else?

[Andy G.]

This obsession with Jeff Francoeur is beyond disturbing at this point.

[Dreamscape]

This obsession with Jeff Francoeur is beyond disturbing at this point.
I'm game.

What's the next step past obsession since we are already beyond it?

[luvdembravos]

I'm game.

What's the next step past obsession since we are already beyond it?

The next step? Usually someone gets killed.

But in this case the only thing getting killed are the Mets' playoff chances.

[Lauren T.]

Listen out for this one tonight, guys:

Atlanta Braves vs. New York Mets - Jeff 'Frenchy' Francour - I'm pretty proud of this one - 'Beauty School Dropout' ;)

http://twitter.com/bravesorganist/status/14126780536

[Andy G.]

Listen out for this one tonight, guys:



http://twitter.com/bravesorganist/status/14126780536
I heard him play the Oompa Loompa song during Sunday's game. I was listening to the radio and didn't catch the situation of the game, but I thought it was funny to hear during a baseball game.

I'm game.

What's the next step past obsession since we are already beyond it?
I didn't say you were a step beyond obsession. I said your obsession with the man is beyond disturbing, you're like Jake Gyllenhaal and Francoeur is Heath Ledger.

[Lauren T.]

I heard him play the Oompa Loompa song during Sunday's game. I was listening to the radio and didn't catch the situation of the game, but I thought it was funny to hear during a baseball game.
I think he responded to you personally, Andy. :D http://twitter.com/bravesorganist/status/14230070539

[jlcct]

I don't think it's disturbing. I think this is part of why I watch baseball.... Which is disturbing... I get it.

[Dreamscape]

I didn't say you were a step beyond obsession. I said your obsession with the man is beyond disturbing, you're like Jake Gyllenhaal and Francoeur is Heath Ledger.
WHOA!

I'm totally the top, not the bottom.

How dare you.

[Chris_Moderato]

It was really only a matter of time before yet another Frenchy thread got totally, totally gay.

[Andy G.]

WHOA!

I'm totally the top, not the bottom.

How dare you.
:laugh: