Stephen Drew or Yunel Escobar?

by dmitri on Mar 10, 2008 8:44 PM EDT Comment 14 comments

Going into last year, Stephen Drew had all of the hype; Yunel Escobar had very little. Then Drew hits less than .250 and Escobar hits .326.

Most commentators expect Drew to perform better and Escobar to perform worse. Drew is projected to hit .260 - .270, and Escobar .280 - .300.

Looking at batting average only, who would you rather have for the next 5 years - Drew or Escobar?

Poll

Who will hit for a higher average over the next five years?

Stephen Drew

113 votes

Yunel Escobar

98 votes

211 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 14 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

TINSTAABA

LOL

"Motivation, being good is a lot better than being pathetic." - thefasterblade, Project Prospect

by PujolsJunkie on Mar 10, 2008 9:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The question isn't one for this community

I think that the people on this community (myself included) don't value batting average very highly (if at all), so to ask a question like that is not going to get warm responses.

Additionally, it's impossible to say. When you have two hitters, one a ~.280 and the other a ~.290, over the course of 5 years the ~.280 might just outhit average wise the ~.290. The statistical probability is not incredibly low. After all, I think I read somewhere (Moneyball?) that the difference between .275 and .300 is like 1 hit every two weeks.

by mroak89 on Mar 10, 2008 10:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

To answer the latter

"Know what the difference between hitting .250 and .300 is? It's 25 hits. 25 hits in 500 at bats is 50 points, okay? There's 6 months in a season, that's about 25 weeks. That means if you get just one extra flare a week - just one - a gorp... you get a groundball, you get a groundball with eyes... you get a dying quail, just one more dying quail a week... and you're in Yankee Stadium."
-Crash Davis

Wisdom.

I'm shaving my head!

by ufoboy90 on Mar 10, 2008 11:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I knew....

I wouldn't be the only person to think of that speech when I read that 1 hit per two weeks thing.

But to answer the original question, I probably would go with Yunel, but I am not a big fan of the Drew family.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Mar 10, 2008 11:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You

Really can't immediately label Stephen Drew similarly to J.D. Drew. J.D. never showed the motivation to succeed at the big league level and can't stay healthy. Stephen Drew has shown none of that.

by napes22 on Mar 11, 2008 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmm

That lack of motivation sure has hurt J.D.'s career line to the tune of .284/.390/.500 (128 OPS+). Nope, no success there.

Oh, and he's played 140 games in 3 of the last 4 seasons, only interrupted by a broken leg.

by patsfan on Mar 11, 2008 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

At 31

Drew appears to be an average hitter with injury concerns and startling trends:

OPS+ 157
OPS+ 145
OPS+ 126
OPS+ 105

Given his God-given ability, I don't think it's crazy to think he's had a disappointing career. People may differ on why that's the case (injuries, lack of motivation, etc.), but OPS+'ing 105 at age 31 is not acceptable for a corner OF with his natural talent.

by Yakker on Mar 11, 2008 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's a fair point

And he is clearly in decline (though I would expect him to be better than last year).

I'm just wary of using lack of motivation or anything like that as an excuse for why someone doesn't live up to an imagined expectation. He's clearly been a well above average player in his career, and maybe that's exactly how talented he is.

by patsfan on Mar 11, 2008 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The value of AVG

Batting average is a very flawed stat. During a season, it's not at all a very good indicator of how good a hitter someone is. At the end of a season, it's not much better. The denomenator's flawed -- I'd much prefer that everything were divided by PA, rather than AB -- and the numerator doesn't remotely adjust for the difference between a bleeder and a rope.

Still, over time, it becomes a bit better. If you take two full-time major league veterans with a few thousand at-bats to their name, one a .300 hitter and one a .250 hitter, the difference between the two will be noticeable.

(Similarly, the win is an awful statistic, but there aren't too many horrible pitchers who have won 300 games. I will not tolerate Don Sutton jokes.)

I'm not saying that Yunel's going to keep hitting 50 points above Drew. I am saying that if he does for the next five years, however, that will be very good evidence that he's a better hitter.

http://www.chop-n-change.com

by alexwithclass on Mar 11, 2008 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by Yoda on Mar 11, 2008 12:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

to the fact that BA is a useful stat. It's not the stats in and of themselves that have worth. Its how we interpret and use them that makes all the difference

I am just now reaching the age of Dusty Baker prospectdum. maybe i should give Krivsky a call

by Terry Ryan Jr on Mar 11, 2008 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs