Adam Jones related....Does anybody know

[El Gordo]

I'm glad that Johnny has taken over Trea's role of being the pioneering Lobachevsky to the board's typically, stagnant "Euclidean" approach to statistics.

Look, statistical logic can be bent and expanded in any direction!

[video=youtube;IL4vWJbwmqM]

[El Gordo]

You can't look at it as those metrics are saying he's not good. All UZR or dWAR is saying is that a player has fielded more/fewer balls than average. That could be for any number of reasons, including an average distribution of catchable balls just didn't come Adam Jones' way. And the odds of something like that happening are much greater early in the year.

Over a long period of time those biases tend to wash out. Not always, though, and there's no way you can count on them washing out over 39 games.

Even so it is puzzling to me why FB and UZR, relying on the same raw data, could be so far apart on Jones, up to this point...:scratchchinhmm:

[DrungoHazewood]

I looked at his splits on Baseball Reference after this post and his batting average with men on base is .211 with a .648 OPS in 75 plate appearances.

With the bases empty he's a .364 hitter with 1.166 OPS in 92 plate appearances.

He's obviously been a much better hitter with nobody on base.

If outcomes were always 100% directly proportional to skill we'd have something here.

The world is a probability function.

[Lucky Jim]

The world is a probability function.

My epitaph.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Another solo HR. What a bum.

[waroriole]

18 of his 28 HR have tied the game or put us ahead.

Jones is a winner.

[caesarod]

18 of his 28 HR have tied the game or put us ahead.

Jones is a winner.

There it is!

This is the stat I've been looking for tonight. Should have just come here first.