The lineup I'd like to see

[Americal Man]

the BSR factor causes one to look for a landing sight asap esp when are more than three feet off the ground.

 

i kinda like the new SAW weapons they have - lots of bang for the buck. they have some great new ways of ventilating the bad guys....

[elsrbueno]

The Sox have 4 "setup men" in Timlin, Tavarez, Riske and Seanez. Your guess is as good as mine how it will be configured for opening day, ah just 2 months away now.

 

I think we learned our lesson from last year that you can never be too deep in the bullpen. We have 4 guys who should be reliable enough setting up instead of one last year. Plus if Foulke is more like the 2005 version than the 2004 version we'll have 3 setup men because one of them will become the closer.

 

At the very least having Riske, Seanez, and Tavarez here will keep the workload down on Timlin, which is definately a good thing. He's put a TON of innings on his arm since joining the Sox.... and he's not getting any younger.

[Hammer]

the BSR factor causes one to look for a landing sight asap esp when are more than three feet off the ground.

 

i kinda like the new SAW weapons they have - lots of bang for the buck. they have some great new ways of ventilating the bad guys....

 

I know! think we should start a helicopter thread so we can openly discuss the truely magical and fun filled things that can go wrong while your flying in an eggbeatuh!!!

[Redguitar985]

I think we learned our lesson from last year that you can never be too deep in the bullpen. We have 4 guys who should be reliable enough setting up instead of one last year. Plus if Foulke is more like the 2005 version than the 2004 version we'll have 3 setup men because one of them will become the closer.

 

At the very least having Riske, Seanez, and Tavarez here will keep the workload down on Timlin, which is definately a good thing. He's put a TON of innings on his arm since joining the Sox.... and he's not getting any younger.

 

Yeah, there's nothing saying we won't have another Matt Mantei in our bullpen this year who'll be out for the year, so the more quality setup guys the better.

[Americal Man]

timlin should see less time this year. I read an article that seanz had been taking martial arts training which had renewed his strength and increased his stamina. i rememer the first time he pitched for us he had great creds but was just out of sorts at that time.

[Americal Man]

I know! think we should start a helicopter thread so we can openly discuss the truely magical and fun filled things that can go wrong while your flying in an eggbeatuh!!!

 

 

so many things it's scary...... mostly wobbly ones..

[YAZMAN]

Did Wade Miller sign yet?

[Redguitar985]

Did Wade Miller sign yet?

 

Yeah, he signed with the Cubs.

[YAZMAN]

Yeah, he signed with the Cubs.

 

Any details? I thought the 750k we paid him last year wasn't a bad move.

[ORS]

and finally, to me at least..........happiness is a belt fed weapon!

 

Hammer out!

Now you're talking. I was a machine gunner in the grunts. When I made team leader (and then squad leader), I still never gave the pig up when we hit the bush. I got lucky and never patrolled in a hostile land and never had to fire a shot off the range. GUNS UP!!!

 

Semper Fi, right back at ya Hammer.

[guapo34]

Hate to do this to you.

 

Average MLB 1b-man for 2005

.276/.350/.471/821

 

Youkilis

.265/.376/.411/.787

 

better than averageOBP but awful slugging and OPS for a 1b....

 

 

Most people estimate OBP as being 3 times as important as slugging percentage in runs scored. His above average OBP makes up for his below average slugging percentage.

[TheRivernator]

uh, um, er riv!!! we won 95 games last year....they only reason you got the flag was because of one more win....what was that about last years pathetic seasons??? bottom line is that we have flat out improved in all areas and you know it...were gonna get a good hard look of things to come in just about a couple of weeks or so...man oh man a shevitz what are you gonna do if your 1-5 loaded supahstahs go in the toilet like they did last year for how many games??? are you already assuming that giambi is gonna repeat his season just like that?? you got two big things to think about........if big schill returns to his form of 04 and foulkey does as well, you better not be counting your pennant until it hatches..

wonder where hawk and BB are??? on second thought, who cares where hawk and BB are.

 

 

hammer, I am talking about the guys you got in the yard sale. Lowell, Gonzalez, and Loretta are coming off career low years. You are replacing Mueller, ERent and Graf in the lineup, 3 guys who carried their weight. I am not saying the sox 2005 season was pathetic, just the comb ined 2005's of the 3 guys you brought in. Sorry for the confusion....

[KeepTheFaith1229]

hammer, I am talking about the guys you got in the yard sale. Lowell, Gonzalez, and Loretta are coming off career low years. You are replacing Mueller, ERent and Graf in the lineup, 3 guys who carried their weight. I am not saying the sox 2005 season was pathetic, just the comb ined 2005's of the 3 guys you brought in. Sorry for the confusion....

 

 

Rent didn't carry his weight, or at least not for the size of his contract...

[Redguitar985]

Any details? I thought the 750k we paid him last year wasn't a bad move.

 

I'm not sure how much they're paying him. Does anyone else know? All I know is that they signed him to a one-year deal a few weeks ago.

[riverside sluggers]

Rent didn't carry his weight, or at least not for the size of his contract...

 

Ditto, How could the Sox replace the worst shortstop of 2005 with the 3rd ranked best shortstop?!! Damn it all Theo. Top it off, prized prospect Dustin Pedroia is set to take over in 07 or even sooner.

[TheRivernator]

MJ- want to make a bet on which team scores more runs this year?

 

Lets look at some numbers for this years crop of superstars

 

Posada 34/35 yrs old 99-03 AVG- .273 04-05 .267

Giambi 35 yrs old 99-03 AVG .311 04-05 .248

B Will 37/38 yrs old 99-03 AVG .313 04-05 .255

Sheffield 37 yrs old 99-03 AVG .317 04-05 .290

Jeter 31/32 yrs old 99-03 AVG .324 04-05 .301

 

Boy, like a good wine, these guys keep getting better with age. I wonder how much more of a decline we will see in their stats THIS year!!!!

 

nice to see how you picked the last 2 yrs for Giambi instead of the last one where he just so happened to lead the entire major leagues in OBP. Good to see you picking sheff in this equation since he has averaged 122RBI the last 2 yrs and the span you are counting as prior, he averaged 105. What a dropoff!!!! As for Jeter, his last 3 yrs have been remarkably consistent, and comparing him to when he had career yrs is not right. He had one amazing yr where he had a .990 OPS and ever since has sat in the mid .800s and really hasnt moved. He isnt sliding as much as it is he had one solid yr and peaked young. You cannot take a large chunk of stats and compare them to a limited range. To that same effect, you can say the same thing about the 3 guys you got and how they had career lows. Well, their career lows were last yr and have not bounced back like Giambi did. Notice I didnt defend Posada or Bernie as I know they are declining. Sometimes honesty with yourself is the best way to go you know??

[Paradisecity]

nice to see how you picked the last 2 yrs for Giambi instead of the last one where he just so happened to lead the entire major leagues in OBP. Good to see you picking sheff in this equation since he has averaged 122RBI the last 2 yrs and the span you are counting as prior, he averaged 105. What a dropoff!!!! As for Jeter, his last 3 yrs have been remarkably consistent, and comparing him to when he had career yrs is not right. He had one amazing yr where he had a .990 OPS and ever since has sat in the mid .800s and really hasnt moved. He isnt sliding as much as it is he had one solid yr and peaked young. You cannot take a large chunk of stats and compare them to a limited range. To that same effect, you can say the same thing about the 3 guys you got and how they had career lows. Well, their career lows were last yr and have not bounced back like Giambi did. Notice I didnt defend Posada or Bernie as I know they are declining. Sometimes honesty with yourself is the best way to go you know??

 

 

So i take it from a lack of a response that you do NOT want to bet on who scores more runs?

 

 

Furthermore- you CAN compare a smaller sample to a larger sample when looking for a recent decline in numbers. Make it the last 3 years versus the 4 previous. I don't care- the numbers will still show a major drop- just not as much. Why is that? Because they keep getting older and keep putting up stats worse than the previous year. Comparing them to when they had career numbers IS EXACTLY THE POINT, because they all keep moving away from those numbers.

 

Wait- so you are comparing Gary Sheffield's RBI's batting behind A-Rod, Jeter and Matsui, to when he was batting for the Braves and Dodgers?

 

Great comparison. No variables there. Don't you need to pass science classes to be a doctor? Doesn't testing hypotheses have something to do with it?

[ORS]

Most people estimate OBP as being 3 times as important as slugging percentage in runs scored. His above average OBP makes up for his below average slugging percentage.

I don't know where you read/heard this. Here's the correlation to runs scored for each of the rate stats:

 

BA - .828

OBP - .866

SLG - .890

OPS - .922

 

A higher slugging average results in more runs scored 2.4% more often that it does for OBP.

 

Source

[Paradisecity]

ORS...thats one way to look at it.

 

I look at it with a little more elementary theory involved- What happens if every player on your team has a 1.00 OBP?

[ORS]

ORS...thats one way to look at it.

 

I look at it with a little more elementary theory involved- What happens if every player on your team has a 1.00 OBP?

In the extreme case that any rate stat has reached it max value (BA = 1.000, OBP = 1.000, SLG = 4.000, OPS = 5.000), runs scored will always be infinite since no one is making outs.

[TheRivernator]

So i take it from a lack of a response that you do NOT want to bet on who scores more runs?

 

 

Furthermore- you CAN compare a smaller sample to a larger sample when looking for a recent decline in numbers. Make it the last 3 years versus the 4 previous. I don't care- the numbers will still show a major drop- just not as much. Why is that? Because they keep getting older and keep putting up stats worse than the previous year. Comparing them to when they had career numbers IS EXACTLY THE POINT, because they all keep moving away from those numbers.

 

Wait- so you are comparing Gary Sheffield's RBI's batting behind A-Rod, Jeter and Matsui, to when he was batting for the Braves and Dodgers?

 

Great comparison. No variables there. Don't you need to pass science classes to be a doctor? Doesn't testing hypotheses have something to do with it?

 

 

name your price, well knowing my current professional status that is....

[guapo34]

I don't know where you read/heard this. Here's the correlation to runs scored for each of the rate stats:

 

BA - .828

OBP - .866

SLG - .890

OPS - .922

 

A higher slugging average results in more runs scored 2.4% more often that it does for OBP.

 

Source

 

Thats not what corrleation means. That simply means that the relationship between runs and SLG is more linear. For example, if team runs increased by 1 for every 100 points for SLG (obviously not the case) for every team in the study, the correlation would be 1. That doesn't mean SLG contributes more to runs scored. A quick google search gave me this article:

http://www.pankin.com/sabr34.pdf

 

Supporting my statement. Its generall accepted that OBP is more important than SLG. This is just one example. I haven't even read the whole thing, but its opening states exactly what i did. 1 point of OBP=3 of SLG. While this exact ratio is debatable, which of the two states leads to more runs isn't really.

[MannyRamirezfan05kb]

I think there best LineUp should be:

1. Coco Crisp CF

2. Mark Loretta 2B

3. David Ortiz DH

4. Manny Ramirez LF

5. Jason Varitek C

6. Mike Lowell 3B

7. Trot Nixon RF

8. Kevin Youkilis 1B/JT Snow

9. Alex Gonzalez SS

[ORS]

Thats not what corrleation means. That simply means that the relationship between runs and SLG is more linear. For example, if team runs increased by 1 for every 100 points for SLG (obviously not the case) for every team in the study, the correlation would be 1. That doesn't mean SLG contributes more to runs scored. A quick google search gave me this article:

http://www.pankin.com/sabr34.pdf

 

Supporting my statement. Its generall accepted that OBP is more important than SLG. This is just one example. I haven't even read the whole thing, but its opening states exactly what i did. 1 point of OBP=3 of SLG. While this exact ratio is debatable, which of the two states leads to more runs isn't really.

I know what correlation means. A correlation of 1 means that the output variable increases 100% of the time the input variable increases. A correlation of -1 means the output decreases 100% of the time the input decreases. A correlation of 0 means it increases, decreases, or goes unchanged with equal frequency - meaning no relationship between input/output. Thus, a higher correlation means the statistic in question leads to runs more often than the lower correlated statistic.

 

Until OBP correlates to runs more than SLG, I will not consider SLG 1/3 as important as OBP. The difference between the two is quite negligible, meaning they have equal importance IMO.

 

EDIT: Just finished reading the link you provided. In no place does it support a claim that OBP is more important than SLG. It is about scaling changes in OBP to changes in SLG. This needs to be done due to the fact that the typical range for SLG will be from .300 (crappy) to about .600 (studly), while OBP will vary from around .300 to .450-ish. Obviously, 1 point of SLG doesn't equal one point of OBP.

[Plumpamania]

First off check this out:

 

http://forums.netsports.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51250&perpage=25&pagenumber=2

 

This comes from our own beloved BoSox Rule from another message boards, which actually proves with statistics that Crisp was overall better than Damon last year.

 

Next, Epstein and Francona have said Pedrioa is their starting SS. Gonzalez if waived only costs the Red Sox about $750,000, chump change. Gonzalez is only back up if Pedroia bombs out in Spring Training.

 

1). CF Crisp (s)

2). 2B Loretta ®

3). DH Ortiz (l)

4). LF Ramirez ®

5). RF Nixon (l)

6). C Varitek (s)

7). 3B Lowell ®

8). 1B Youkilis ®

9). SS Pedroia ®

 

Lester will probably be called up mid-season as his ETA predicts. Hansen, Declarmen and Meredith will all get shots this year too.

 

If Murphy breaks out at AAA, look for his call up in case of a Nixon injury.

[Americal Man]

I think murphy may need a full season at aaa. Hitting .275 at portland is ok for that level but he'll see some better pitching at the next level. Only 4 errors is a plus as I heard his defense is his strong suit - rf is probaly the future for him unless coco can't cut it in cf.

[Ray10]

The lineup looks good to me. It looks pretty strong and has some really decent bats throughout it. I can't wait to see them play this season.

[guapo34]

I know what correlation means. A correlation of 1 means that the output variable increases 100% of the time the input variable increases. A correlation of -1 means the output decreases 100% of the time the input decreases. A correlation of 0 means it increases, decreases, or goes unchanged with equal frequency - meaning no relationship between input/output.

 

You're doing good so far.

 

Thus, a higher correlation means the statistic in question leads to runs more often than the lower correlated statistic.

 

This is where you're wrong. Correlation deals with how linear the relationship is. It has NOTHING to do with the magnitude. Singles would correlate with runs scored more than Grand Slams would. That doesn't mean singles lead to more runs than Grand Slams do.

[ORS]

You're doing good so far.

 

 

 

This is where you're wrong. Correlation deals with how linear the relationship is. It has NOTHING to do with the magnitude. Singles would correlate with runs scored more than Grand Slams would. That doesn't mean singles lead to more runs than Grand Slams do.

I suggest you read this sentence again...

 

Thus, a higher correlation means the statistic in question leads to runs more often than the lower correlated statistic.

 

I'm talking about frequency, not magnitude. Higher correlation means it is closer to linear, which means the higher correlated number results in runs at a higher frequency.

[kidneyboyNhamstergirl]

wow those are big words. I like baseball