Quick Poll-- Will Bobby Valentine be Named Red Sox Manager?

[SoxSport]

If it weren't for that Moneyball book, I wouldn't know who was pulling the strings in the dugout when Tito was managing. The media doesn't go there. But the book revealed how much Beane was into every game the As played--micromanaging. It follows that Epstein and the FO was having similar input with Tito.Recall that Tito had been bench manager in Oakland, so he knew how the system worked. That's probably why he was hired.

 

Really, it points to what this manager hiring is all about--FO control. Valentine clearly is beyond that compared to the other guys who were interviewed. Also, I think Lucchino and Henry are telling us, wanting Valentine, they want less FO in the dugout. Plus more experience to balance the lack of experience with the new GM.

[jung]

Originally Posted by User Name?

No one likes a know-it-all. If hired, Valentine may wear his welcome out in Boston quicker than people assume he will.

That is very true.

 

I had noticed for a long time now that Valentine does have an uncanny knack for looking down his nose at the world in a way that appears purposefully intended to be as condescending as possible. Sometimes a person can be unintentionally condescending and with others you would swear they stand in the mirror trying to perfect their technique. I would associate Bobby V with the latter and not the former.

 

In reality whatever impact Bobby V has on us and the media hardly makes a dimes worth of difference. The impact he has on the team and the FO may be a different matter.

[User Name]

I rue the day SoxSport got his hands on "Moneyball".

[example1]

I rue the day SoxSport got his hands on "Moneyball".

 

Yeah, it's amazing how one persons management style with a manager who has no interest in using data to inform decisions is so easily transposed on Theo and Francona, who was hired because he was open to and interested in that approach. This isn't f***ing witchcraft or sorcery or dark arts. It is using the data available to you to inform decisions. It recognizes that computers are capable of storing information very efficiently and can help a manager know what happened in the past.

 

Some people treat data like it's a weird cult-like belief system and it boggles my mind.

[User Name]

Yeah, it's amazing how one persons management style with a manager who has no interest in using data to inform decisions is so easily transposed on Theo and Francona, who was hired because he was open to and interested in that approach. This isn't f***ing witchcraft or sorcery or dark arts. It is using the data available to you to inform decisions. It recognizes that computers are capable of storing information very efficiently and can help a manager know what happened in the past.

 

Some people treat data like it's a weird cult-like belief system and it boggles my mind.

 

It's also incredibly misguided to think that the book represents everything about sabermetrics. If you don't actually understand the sabermetrics movement, don't comment about it.

[a700hitter]

Yeah, it's amazing how one persons management style with a manager who has no interest in using data to inform decisions is so easily transposed on Theo and Francona, who was hired because he was open to and interested in that approach. This isn't f***ing witchcraft or sorcery or dark arts. It is using the data available to you to inform decisions. It recognizes that computers are capable of storing information very efficiently and can help a manager know what happened in the past.

 

Some people treat data like it's a weird cult-like belief system and it boggles my mind.

This is gibberish and poppycock at best. It borders on the disturbed.

[User Name]

^ Unsurprising. Ignorance is bliss.

[seabeachfred]

Sabermetrics can be a valuable tool if it doesn't become a total end in itself. I used to froth at the mouth with Francona's so-called match-ups which he used to the point of total irrelevancy, some of which went back to four or five years. Players and pitchers change in that amount of time and there is no reason to completely swallow the Beane method of not giving up outs, not stealing, little emphasis on defense. You do that with a low budget team like the A's. You don't do it to the Nth degree with a team like the Red Sox who have the money to procure better talent. As it is, that method the last three years cost us many games because we became too predictable, and as far as not giving up outs we were either first or second the last four years in hitting into double plays with our station-to-station mantra that both Epstein and Francona ran into the ground. We were simply too predictable and easy to defend.

 

A balance between the two methods would work much better in my opinion and with Valentine that is how it will work, and for the betterment of the Red Sox I predict.

 

BY THE WAY, I WANT TO WISH ALL OF YOU ON THIS BOARD A VERY HAPPY THANKSGIVING. ENJOY YOUR DAY TOMORROW ALONG WITH THE TURKEY AND FOOTBALL GAMES.

[User Name]

Sabermetrics can be a valuable tool if it doesn't become a total end in itself. I used to froth at the mouth with Francona's so-called match-ups which he used to the point of total irrelevancy, some of which went back to four or five years. Players and pitchers change in that amount of time and there is no reason to completely swallow the Beane method of not giving up outs, not stealing, little emphasis on defense. You do that with a low budget team like the A's. You don't do it to the Nth degree with a team like the Red Sox who have the money to procure better talent. As it is, that method the last three years cost us many games because we became too predictable, and as far as not giving up outs we were either first or second the last four years in hitting into double plays with our station-to-station mantra that both Epstein and Francona ran into the ground. We were simply too predictable and easy to defend.

 

A balance between the two methods would work much better in my opinion and with Valentine that is how it will work, and for the betterment of the Red Sox I predict.

 

BY THE WAY, I WANT TO WISH ALL OF YOU ON THIS BOARD A VERY HAPPY THANKSGIVING. ENJOY YOUR DAY TOMORROW ALONG WITH THE TURKEY AND FOOTBALL GAMES.

 

For the umpteenth time, Beane's interpretation of Sabermetrics are not the be-all, end-all on the subject. Again, if you don't know what they actually are, don't make assumptions based on the methods of one guy.

 

Oh, and Happy Turkey Day.

[Elktonnick]

It's also incredibly misguided to think that the book represents everything about sabermetrics. If you don't actually understand the sabermetrics movement' date=' don't comment about it.[/quote']

 

The sabermetrics movement isn't the Holy Quran. Non believers are free to comment. There was an interesting article the other day on how statistics were used to prove two opposite hypotheses regarding human behavior. And before you say we are talking baseball not psychology, we are stalking about statistics ( sabermatrics) and human behavior in a game (baseball). It is relevant.

[Elktonnick]

For the umpteenth time, Beane's interpretation of Sabermetrics are not the be-all, end-all on the subject. Again, if you don't know what they actually are, don't make assumptions based on the methods of one guy.

 

Oh, and Happy Turkey Day.

 

Once again you are wrong and Fred is right

How about Mark Pankin . Are familiar with his work on Markov's chains and baseball

 

Here is what Mark wrote: you may find it enlightening,

 

What do Rock/Paper/Scissors and Baseball Have in Common? - Game Theory, a mathhematical analysis method, applies to both. R/P/S is very simple in that regard, and the solution is not very interesting. Baseball, on the other hand, is far more complicated and has many facets to which game theory can be applied. The presentation, which has virtually no math in it, looks at the possibility of bunting and defending against bunts with a runner on first and none out. Most analysis has shown that bunting, except by very weak hitters such as pitchers, is not an effective way to try to score. Game theory says that being too predictable is not a good idea, and the analysis shows that bunting some fraction of the time, particularly when it is not expected, may be helpful. The link has the slides and some notes from my presentation given at SABR 39 in Washingtion in July 2009.

 

Fred's point about being too predictable is borne out by game theory.

[User Name]

You seem to not take the time to read what others write.

 

What i said was that Beane's interpretation of Sabermetrics is not the Holy Grail of Sabermetric analysis.

 

Several sabermetrician believe in the value of the stolen base when the success rate is high enough, and mention the value of trading a run for an out in specific situations. Since you've done so much research on the subject, i'm sure you knew this though.

[User Name]

The sabermetrics movement isn't the Holy Quran. Non believers are free to comment. There was an interesting article the other day on how statistics were used to prove two opposite hypotheses regarding human behavior. And before you say we are talking baseball not psychology' date=' we are stalking about statistics ( sabermatrics) and human behavior in a game (baseball). It is relevant.[/quote']

 

 

Did you read what E1 posted and what i responded? Misinterpreting others' positions seems to be an ongoing theme with you.

[Elktonnick]

Did you read what E1 posted and what i responded? Misinterpreting others' positions seems to be an ongoing theme with you.

 

Originally Posted by User Name?

 

If you don't actually understand the sabermetrics movement, don't comment about it.

That is what you posted.

 

Here is my reply

 

The sabermetrics movement isn't the Holy Quran. Non believers are free to comment. There was an interesting article the other day on how statistics were used to prove two opposite hypotheses regarding human behavior. And before you say we are talking baseball not psychology, we are stalking about statistics ( sabermatrics) and human behavior in a game (baseball). It is relevant.

 

I ddin't misrepresent anyhthing.

 

Your arrogance is on insisting what people can post and opine unbecoming. Your not the high priest of intellectual purity on sabermetrics. Moreover I am not convinced that you have a firm understanding of advanced mathematics. I could be wrong but you don't post as if you do?

[User Name]

Says the guy who was smugly trying to "make things easy for me" the other day.

 

Let me help you not strain your brain by putting my points in an easy-to-understand format.

 

1) Statistical analysis is not flawless, but neither is scouting . My point to Fred wasn't that his idea of Saberanalysis + regular old baseball acumen wasn't right, but that the idea that sabermetrics doesn't value the stolen base, sacrifice or defense is false.

 

It's surprising to me coming from a guy (you) who claims to know Tango's work, since his playing the percentages book is a perfect example of the evolution of sabermetrics in regards to these issues, namely the sacrifice's pros and cons, and the importance of the stolen base with efficient base-stealer.

 

In fact, Fangraph's version of WAR includes the stolen base in its offensive formula.

 

2) Billy Beane's "Moneyball" shows an antiquated approach to sabermetrics. It has shifted greatly, as presented above, and the "only values fat power players" is also false. Defense is highly appreciated nowadays in statistical analysis, to the point where it is a large component of most value-appreciation formulas.

 

3) Disregarding sabermetrics is foolish, just as disregarding regular old scouting and coaching is. I agree with Fred here. Neither method is flawless, but both are important. A combination of both is key.

 

I'm not saying people can't criticize statistical analysis, but doing so by using false information is disingenuous.

[Elktonnick]

You seem to not take the time to read what others write.

 

What i said was that Beane's interpretation of Sabermetrics is not the Holy Grail of Sabermetric analysis.

 

Several sabermetrician believe in the value of the stolen base when the success rate is high enough, and mention the value of trading a run for an out in specific situations. Since you've done so much research on the subject, i'm sure you knew this though.

 

You made a blanket statement once again demanding intelelctual purity about the sabermetric movement. Telling someone( Fred who has forgotten more about baseball then you'll ever know )that he can't comment. This a board so one doesn't have time to write a ten page list of citations, The point is that Fred was right and you were wrong. Finally every time you tell posters that they aren't allowed to comment on sabermetrics because they don't agree with your view I am going to call you on it. You believe you are an expert please give me a list of your publications so I can read them and decide for myself.

[User Name]

Whatever bro. Make as many assumptions and create as many fictional positions as you need to sleep at night. Or actually counter my points, which would be interesting to see.

 

Happy Thanksgiving.

[Elktonnick]

Says the guy who was smugly trying to "make things easy for me" the other day.

 

Let me help you not strain your brain by putting my points in an easy-to-understand format.

 

1) Statistical analysis is not flawless, but neither is scouting . My point to Fred wasn't that his idea of Saberanalysis + regular old baseball acumen wasn't right, but that the idea that sabermetrics doesn't value the stolen base, sacrifice or defense is false.

 

It's surprising to me coming from a guy (you) who claims to know Tango's work, since his playing the percentages book is a perfect example of the evolution of sabermetrics in regards to these issues, namely the sacrifice's pros and cons, and the importance of the stolen base with efficient base-stealer.

 

In fact, Fangraph's version of WAR includes the stolen base in its offensive formula.

 

2) Billy Beane's "Moneyball" shows an antiquated approach to sabermetrics. It has shifted greatly, as presented above, and the "only values fat power players" is also false. Defense is highly appreciated nowadays in statistical analysis, to the point where it is a large component of most value-appreciation formulas.

 

3) Disregarding sabermetrics is foolish, just as disregarding regular old scouting and coaching is. I agree with Fred here. Neither method is flawless, but both are important. A combination of both is key.

 

I'm not saying people can't criticize statistical analysis, but doing so by using false information is disingenuous.

 

Once again you didn't address my comments

You are now walking back because quite frankly you were rude to Fred. and never should make the comments you made. You have a tremendous interest in sabeermetrics but I suggest you read more on the subject because your understanding appears to be not as detailed as you think.

[Elktonnick]

Whatever bro. Make as many assumptions and create as many fictional positions as you need to sleep at night. Or actually counter my points, which would be interesting to see.

 

Happy Thanksgiving.

 

fictional positions what the heck are you talking about? I quoted you directly.

[Billy Mueller]

Yes.

 

It CANT be Lamont. What a let down that would be. Valentine is a really smart baseball mind. He says some weird things, but if you listen to him, he knows the game inside and out. He'll also be hard on these guys and wont put up with alot of crap.

 

And even if ya dont like him, he'll at least be fun to watch and listen to. Heck, he says he invented the wrap.

[SoxSport]

Yes.

 

It CANT be Lamont. What a let down that would be. Valentine is a really smart baseball mind. He says some weird things, but if you listen to him, he knows the game inside and out. He'll also be hard on these guys and wont put up with alot of crap.

 

And even if ya dont like him, he'll at least be fun to watch and listen to. Heck, he says he invented the wrap.

 

 

Looks like a power struggle going on here. Cherington vs Valentine/Lucchino.

 

Has Cherington inherited Epstein's power?

 

If no-name Lamont gets the job, the media will go bananas.

[soxfan74]

Yes it's going to be Valentine. Much to my chagrin. The media just had to have a big name. Don't see this guy making it in Boston.

[YAZMAN]

Yes it's going to be Valentine. Much to my chagrin. The media just had to have a big name. Don't see this guy making it in Boston.

 

It will no doubt be a nuclear stint. And if you thought Tito's exit was ugly, well, just wait until the F.O. has had enough of The Bobby V Show.

[Gringo]

It's a shame it's come down to these two re-treads. That said, if it's got to be one or the other, I'll throw my hat in with Bobby V. You know he still has fire in the belly and won't take any s*** from any of the prima donnas, whereas Lamont is kind of a mellow old dude who won't want to get too bothered about the jackassery that the players might try to get away with.

 

My money is on Valentine for 3 years with an option.

 

It's Larry's team after all now, isn't it?

[redsoxbeatz]

How different will our team be with Valentine? That all I want to see.

[SoxSport]

I think this thing might be a kind of power struggle, where Henry wants a manager who is more autonomous from the FO--especially since the FO now has an unproven GM. All this 2nd interview stuff might be just window dressing to keep Cherington in the mix. It's also possible the 2nd interviews were for the bench coach. Maybe it will be Lamont. That would be a lot of experience, with Valentine, in the dugout. Maybe what they want. Just speculation--media style.

[3rdManOut]

Looks like a power struggle going on here. Cherington vs Valentine/Lucchino.

 

Has Cherington inherited Epstein's power?

 

If no-name Lamont gets the job, the media will go bananas.

 

That in itself could be interesting enough and worth it.

[seabeachfred]

Yes.

 

It CANT be Lamont. What a let down that would be. Valentine is a really smart baseball mind. He says some weird things, but if you listen to him, he knows the game inside and out. He'll also be hard on these guys and wont put up with alot of crap.

 

And even if ya dont like him, he'll at least be fun to watch and listen to. Heck, he says he invented the wrap.

 

It could be Lamont my friend, and it wouldn't just be a letdown, it would be a clarion call that nothing has changed and it as if we didn't just go three miserable years without a Playoff win with a bumpkiss manager who was one of the very worst dugout skippers I have ever seen. Lamont would be FrancoMa II and that would mean we were right back where we started in late Sepetember---a full collapse and now without Papelbon. I don't put it past our miserable front office to screw things up again.

 

On a lighter note Billy, I like your handle. I became a Red Sox fan in late 2000 and of all the players on the team I rooted for Bill Mueller is my favorite Red Sox of them all. I loved the guy, thought he was a real Dirt Dog, an over-achiever and a clutch ballplayer who made the plays and got the hits when we needed them. I still miss him.

[mvp 78]

It's Larry's team after all now, isn't it?

 

It's always been his since the new ownership came in.

[sleepyhollow]

IF it was Larry's team from the beginning, do you think we would have experienced a meltdown in September? I think the man has more pride than that.