Valentine's Big Mouth

[Elktonnick]

And Bill James works for the Sox.

 

The mistake that the Sox have made is that the point of the statistical studies was that stolen bases are not a very valuable offensive weapon. Part of the reason why was because of the risk of getting thrown out and losing a base runner. Those results of those studies would be quite different if you virtually eliminated the risk of being thrown out. The Red Sox perverted the results of those studies by applying it to the defensive strategy de-emphasizing the importance of controlling the running game. By lowering the risk of throwing out opposing runners, stealing ases became a very viable and valuable strategy for beating the Red Sox. One of the dangers of arming baseball coaches and managers with advanced statistics is that they are not a very intelligent group, and they are likely to misuse them. It's kind of like letting a chimp fly a fighter jet.

 

Excellent point.That was exactly the way I saw it also.

[User Name]

A lot of saber-analysts have presented, over the years (Tango included) the benefits of the stolen base and sacrifice bunt in situations where success is almost assured. If don't think this is necessarily a problem with the statistical analysis the Red Sox were doing, but a combination of weak-throwing catchers and an incorrect interpretation of said analysis.

 

Again, you can control the running game without resorting to every-pitch slidesteps, although that is easier said than done.

[seabeachfred]

Slide-step pitching usually makes the pitcher lose some velocity' date=' bite and location on his pitches too. You can control the running game without having to slide-step.[/quote']

 

Not with a rag arm like Varitek behind the plate, and if someone says he was a reserve catcher last season he played a helluva lot more than just a back up. Salty has a better arm but seemed out of throwing position much of the time when trying to nail base runners. We ought to be better in that this year because, first of all, Valentine is stress it, and, second Shoppach is good at it.

[a700hitter]

Not with a rag arm like Varitek behind the plate' date=' and if someone says he was a reserve catcher last season he played a helluva lot more than just a back up. Salty has a better arm but seemed out of throwing position much of the time when trying to nail base runners. We ought to be better in that this year because, first of all, Valentine is stress it, and, second Shoppach is good at it.[/quote']If you eliminate the slide step entirely, it is one less thing for runner to think about. No one goes to it whenever there is a runner on first, but it has to be there for the runner to think about.

[Elktonnick]

A lot of saber-analysts have presented, over the years (Tango included) the benefits of the stolen base and sacrifice bunt in situations where success is almost assured. If don't think this is necessarily a problem with the statistical analysis the Red Sox were doing, but a combination of weak-throwing catchers and an incorrect interpretation of said analysis.

 

Again, you can control the running game without resorting to every-pitch slidesteps, although that is easier said than done.[/QUOT

 

It is situational in both cases, when to run and when not to do. The data suggests late in close games is the time to run. So if you are going to defend that is the time to do it. So it foilows that it is far more important for the middle and late relievers to have this skill rather than a starter especially at Fenway Park. Given that the statistical analysis was based on data over a twenty year period that teneded to average out weak throwing catchers. So if our catchers were significantly below average it did tend to exacerbate the problem . This argues for definitely not bringing Tek back.

[SoxSport]

An obvious fallacy, since last year stolen bases were a very effective offensive weapon against the Red Sox--as shown by sabermetrics! See my post on runs scored due to SBs. They had a net 28 runs scored against them due to SBs, about 20% of the total net runs scored (+138).

 

Yeah--you're right on. The opposition stole so much they made it an effective saber weapon. While the Red Sox remained glued on 1B--relatively speaking. The break even for zero net runs is about 70% SB success. The opposition was at 76% while the Red Sox success was 71%--near zero net runs.

 

Funny how none of the mainstream media covers analysis like this. Simple stuff. It shows a glaring weakness on how the Red Sox were run last year. Make that run on.

 

And Bill James works for the Sox.

 

The mistake that the Sox have made is that the point of the statistical studies was that stolen bases are not a very valuable offensive weapon. Part of the reason why was because of the risk of getting thrown out and losing a base runner. Those results of those studies would be quite different if you virtually eliminated the risk of being thrown out. The Red Sox perverted the results of those studies by applying it to the defensive strategy de-emphasizing the importance of controlling the running game. By lowering the risk of throwing out opposing runners, stealing ases became a very viable and valuable strategy for beating the Red Sox. One of the dangers of arming baseball coaches and managers with advanced statistics is that they are not a very intelligent group, and they are likely to misuse them. It's kind of like letting a chimp fly a fighter jet.

[seabeachfred]

An obvious fallacy, since the Red Sox showed last year stolen bases were a very effective offensive weapon against them--as shown by sabermetrics! See my post on runs scored due to SBs. They had a net 28 runs scored against them due to SBs, about 20% of the total net runs scored (+138). Maybe those preppies in the FO were misinterpreting statistics. I don't think any of them were math majors. James was an economics major, but he knows a lot of statistics. I wouldn't include him. But he was just a consultant--wonder where he stands on this.

 

Yeah--you're right on. The opposition stole so much they made it an effective saber weapon. While the Red Sox remained glued on 1B--relatively speaking.

 

Funny how none of the mainstream media covers analysis like this. Simple stuff. It shows a glaring weakness on how the Red Sox were run last year. Make that run on.

 

One of the reasons I think we will actually be better this year is that Francona is no longer in the dugout keeping our runners glued to the bases only to be wiped out by the enormous amount of double plays we always seemed to hit into. Add his miserable field managing and we may be looking at 10-12 more wins this coming season with a good field manager in the dugout and one that will take it to the opposition instead of that miserable and frustrating station-to-station mantra that we've been in.

 

Other teams will not be able to sit back and wait for the inevitable ground ball for the DP, it will have to keep their eyes open for anything to go down because with BV at the helm it will our turn to take it to the defense.. I think the contrast this year with be very different.

[SoxSport]

One of the reasons I think we will actually be better this year is that Francona is no longer in the dugout keeping our runners glued to the bases only to be wiped out by the enormous amount of double plays we always seemed to hit into. Add his miserable field managing and we may be looking at 10-12 more wins this coming season with a good field manager in the dugout and one that will take it to the opposition instead of that miserable and frustrating station-to-station mantra that we've been in.

 

Other teams will not be able to sit back and wait for the inevitable ground ball for the DP, it will have to keep their eyes open for anything to go down because with BV at the helm it will our turn to take it to the defense.. I think the contrast this year with be very different.

 

You know Henry is aware of all this, being a pretty smart saber guy. And you know Bobby V. will change the SB philosophy fast.

 

There are two schools of thought about Tito. One is, hey he won two World Series, he must be a good manager. The other is he sucks if you watch his game managing. I always though his game managing was mediocre. As for winning a World Series, it takes a good effort and a hell of a lot of luck.

[Elktonnick]

An obvious fallacy, since last year stolen bases were a very effective offensive weapon against the Red Sox--as shown by sabermetrics! See my post on runs scored due to SBs. They had a net 28 runs scored against them due to SBs, about 20% of the total net runs scored (+138).

 

Yeah--you're right on. The opposition stole so much they made it an effective saber weapon. While the Red Sox remained glued on 1B--relatively speaking. The break even for zero net runs is about 70% SB success. The opposition was at 76% while the Red Sox success was 71%--near zero net runs.

 

Funny how none of the mainstream media covers analysis like this. Simple stuff. It shows a glaring weakness on how the Red Sox were run last year. Make that run on.

 

You may find this article interesting as to your point.

 

Stolen base attempts are, like save opportunities and intentional walks, one of the few baseball stats that are entirely elective. You can't decide to hit a home run or strike out a batter or even steal the base, but you can decide that you have the green light, read the pitcher and take off for the next bag. It's because of this that analyzing stolen base attempts is a fairly pure activity: They tell you pretty much what is going on in the game, as a whole, at any moment in time.

 

Now, one of the popular misunderstandings of sabermetrics was fundamentally a timing issue. Because analytics made the leap to the mainstream during a time of high offense -- with statheads correctly warning that the risks involved in attempting to steal a base weren't worth the payoff -- the idea took hold that sabermetrics says that stealing bases is bad. The fact is, in a vacuum, nothing is good or bad. Baseball is a closed system for the most part, so changes in one part trickle through and affect the whole. In the 1990s and 2000s, it was relatively easy to advance baserunners with extra-base hits, and a home run was a likely event, historically speaking. Because of this, the value of moving a runner up 90 feet was lessened, and the cost -- the out created by having that runner caught stealing -- was incredibly high. Stolen bases weren't bad because statheads don't like seeing close plays at second base; stolen bases were bad because the juice wasn't worth the squeeze.

 

Well, as we've been talking about for a while now, offense has dropped significantly in the past two years. Offensive levels in 2011 are roughly where they were in 1992.

It stands to reason, then, that if the value of stolen bases goes up in low-offense eras, that steals should be coming back into vogue. And they are. In 1992, there were 4,865 stolen-base attempts, about 1.15 per team game; or looked at another away, a steal was attempted about 12 percent of the time that a runner reached first base, as approximated by adding singles, walks and HBPs (this is a blunt instrument designed to better estimate stolen-base opportunities). In 2000, at the peak of the offensive era, teams were looking to swipe a bag .87 times a game, a drop of nearly 25 percent in just eight years, and they ran about 8.6 percent of the time a runner was on first.

 

By comparison, the 2011 season is a track meet. On a per-game basis, steals have bounced back a bit, to .94 per team game, but that doesn't tell the whole story. Look at the numbers above again: Batting average is even lower, but slugging is higher. Extra-base hits are still high relative to singles, so the better denominator is opportunities: those runners on first base. Teams are now attempting to steal bases at a rate of around 10 percent of the time that a runner reaches first. It's not quite 1992 again, but the running game is bouncing back toward prominence.

 

The reason it may not get all the way back is that while runs per game are trending down, the shape of offense is still more like the 2000s than the early 1990s. We're playing in a high-strikeout era, one in which power is still a big part of the game. Singles are as rare as they've ever been -- the dip in offense has been about trading singles for outs and homers for doubles and triples. The percentage of plate appearances ending in a single, 15.2 percent, is lower than it was when offense reached its peak in 2000 (15.6 percent), but it's much lower than it was the last time offense was at its current level, in 1992 (16.3 percent). Even in 1968, the nadir of the second dead-ball era, singles accounted for 15.8 percent of all PAs. For all the focus on how home runs have become less frequent -- and they have -- it's the slow decline of the base hit that is at the core of 2011's low run-scoring.

 

So while run levels would dictate trying to steal more, the biggest benefit of a steal -- putting a runner in a place where he can score on a single -- is trending toward all-time lows. It is, quite frankly, a vexing problem: creating runs in a peak-strikeout, low-BABIP, low-HR/FB environment. We simply haven't ever seen these conditions in MLB before, and it may be a while before we know what works best in this environment.

 

For more from Joe Sheehan, read his newsletter or follow him on Twitter.

 

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/joe_sheehan/06/09/stolen.bases/index.html#ixzz1iuVcwokU

[a700hitter]

You know Henry is aware of all this, being a pretty smart saber guy. And you know Bobby V. will change the SB philosophy fast.

 

There are two schools of thought about Tito. One is, hey he won two World Series, he must be a good manager. The other is he sucks if you watch his game managing. I always though his game managing was mediocre. As for winning a World Series, it takes a good effort and a hell of a lot of luck.

with guys like Ellsbury, Crawford and Pedroia, Bobby V will run a lot. Unlike Tito who was math challenged to the point that he can't compute a tip on a bill, Bobby V. will know the pitchers times to the plate and the runners times and the success rate will remain very high and there will be a lot more steals. HE'll also know the those numbers on defense, and we will see pitch outs, slide steps etc.

[Elktonnick]

with guys like Ellsbury' date=' Crawford and Pedroia, Bobby V will run a lot. [b'] Unlike Tito who was math challenged to the point that he can't compute a tip[/b] on a bill, Bobby V. will know the pitchers times to the plate and the runners times and the success rate will remain very high and there will be a lot more steals. HE'll also know the those numbers on defense, and we will see pitch outs, slide steps etc.

 

I think Sheehan's article re-enforces your point. BV will have this team run more. Defensively that's certainly why they picked up Shoppoch. Not to belabor the point but all the more reason we hopefully have seen the last of Tek and Wake.

[Bellhorn04]

An obvious fallacy, since last year stolen bases were a very effective offensive weapon against the Red Sox--as shown by sabermetrics! See my post on runs scored due to SBs. They had a net 28 runs scored against them due to SBs, about 20% of the total net runs scored (+138).

 

Yeah--you're right on. The opposition stole so much they made it an effective saber weapon. While the Red Sox remained glued on 1B--relatively speaking. The break even for zero net runs is about 70% SB success. The opposition was at 76% while the Red Sox success was 71%--near zero net runs.

 

Funny how none of the mainstream media covers analysis like this. Simple stuff. It shows a glaring weakness on how the Red Sox were run last year. Make that run on.

 

Varitek's numbers last year, though, would tend to support the view that giving up a lot of stolen bases won't kill you if the pitching is good. In his 68 games the opposition had 73 stolen bases in 85 attempts. Pretty bad numbers. But the opposition only scored 3.57 earned runs per game when Varitek was catching.

[Elktonnick]

Varitek's numbers last year' date=' though, would tend to support the view that giving up a lot of stolen bases won't kill you if the pitching is good. In his 68 games the opposition had 73 stolen bases in 85 attempts. Pretty bad numbers. But the opposition only scored 3.57 earned runs per game when Varitek was catching.[/quote']

 

I think who was pitching had more to do with it than Varitek. After all he caught their best pitcher

[Bellhorn04]

I think who was pitching had more to do with it than Varitek. After all he caught their best pitcher

 

That is true. A few guys at another forum I post on broke down all the numbers though, and it wasn't just Beckett that produced the good numbers with Varitek. Anyway I don't want to open up all the 'he calls a good game' stuff.

[seabeachfred]

You know Henry is aware of all this, being a pretty smart saber guy. And you know Bobby V. will change the SB philosophy fast.

 

There are two schools of thought about Tito. One is, hey he won two World Series, he must be a good manager. The other is he sucks if you watch his game managing. I always though his game managing was mediocre. As for winning a World Series, it takes a good effort and a hell of a lot of luck.

 

SoxSport, by now you and others know pretty well that I didn't think much of Francona as a field manager. He was too predictable and his ultra conservative game plans were so easy to predict and defend against, but check this out. If we had won the World Series last fall it would have been three for Tito and that would have made him a heavy favorite for a Hall of Fame Induction, and you know what else? I would have been yelling the loudest for his induction despite my lack of enthusiasm for the guy. Winning trumps all, however, but since he is no longer with us I won't have to wish a guy the HOF when as a manager he was clearly out of his element.......in my opinion.

[SoxSport]

Varitek's numbers last year' date=' though, would tend to support the view that giving up a lot of stolen bases won't kill you if the pitching is good. In his 68 games the opposition had 73 stolen bases in 85 attempts. Pretty bad numbers. But the opposition only scored 3.57 earned runs per game when Varitek was catching.[/quote']

 

The quality of the pitching doesn't show up in the saber formula for runs scored from SBs.

It's purely a function of success or failure at stealing a base, .3SB - .6CS. What happened last year is teams stole the hell out of the Red Sox, achieving success in 76% of 412 attempts. That's 3 times the attempts the Sox made with 71% success.

 

If you try to steal a lot, and are successful a high percentage(>70%) of the time (having a few good basestealers helps), stealing can be very effective in scoring runs. As for the effect on ERA, the Red Sox allowed 34 runs from SBs over 162 games, or about .2 runs per game. For Tek, the numbers are 15 runs allowed in 68 games he caught, or .2 runs per game. No difference. That's .2 runs of the team ERA of 4.20. 5% of the total ERA. They finished 22nd in the overall ERA standings. An ERA of 4.00 would have raised them to 17th. Note in Tek's case, the lower ERA actually results in a higher % due to SBs.

[a700hitter]

Arguing that it doesn't hurt performance to allow steals at the rate an in quantity allowed by the Red Sox is like arguing that loading the bases with no one out doesn't hurt performance, because Dice K used to pitch out of those situations on a regular basis. It's just a silly notion.

[User Name]

^ Misinterpretations like this one are what i was talking about in my previous post.

[seabeachfred]

No matter how any of us slice it we have to control the opponents running game better this season and there has to be more emphasis to keep them from running wild on us as well as pitching effectively to keep more runners off the bases. After all we were 9th in team ERA in the AL and no matter how you slice that too, it is not a good finish for us. Shoppach could help in that regard now that Varitek is hopefully gone (keeping my fingers crossed on that), and there should be less running because hopefully Wakefield will be gone as well. It always was stormy weather when he was on the mound because it looked like the old Penn Relays when he took the hill. I think BV will stress that this Spring because he knows he has to.

[YAZMAN]

I had a sausage, egg, and cheese wrap for breakfast at a local donut shop for breakfast. It had chopped onions, red peppers...delicious.

 

I know deep down inside that somehow Booby Valentine was responsible for that. I'd like to personally thank him.

[VA Sox Fan]

I bumped this thread for 2 reasons.

 

First my dear friend YAZMAN started the thread,

 

Second this the thread that certain folks weighed in on the "Crawford Not Calling BV Back" NON-STORY/NON-ISSUE ETC ETC. Kick ass in 2012 Carl!!

 

 

Crawford on Valentine: 'I think I'm going to like playing for him'

 

Posted by Peter Abraham, Globe Staff February 21, 2012 01:57 PM

By Peter Abraham, Globe Staff

 

FORT MYERS, Fla. — One of the stories that lingered a bit this winter was Bobby Valentine's inability to get Carl Crawford on the telephone to introduce himself.

 

It even sounded like Crawford was ducking him for a time.

 

Untrue, says Crawford. The reason was far less sinister.

 

"I change my number all the time," Crawford said. "That's all it was. I changed by my number and even my agents didn't have it for a while. We eventually talked."

 

Crawford said that from what he knows of Valentine, he likes him.

 

"He's a high-energy guy and I'm the same way," Crawford said. "We had a good talk yesterday and he was making me laugh. I think I'm going to like playing for him."

 

Crawford laughed at the notion that he might have been offended over Valentine criticizing his swing on ESPN last season.

 

"Trust me, I know my swing was screwed up," he said. "He wasn't saying anything I didn't already know

[Elktonnick]

I bumped this thread for 2 reasons.

 

First my dear friend YAZMAN started the thread,

 

Second this the thread that certain folks weighed in on the "Crawford Not Calling BV Back" NON-STORY/NON-ISSUE ETC ETC. Kick ass in 2012 Carl!!

 

 

Crawford on Valentine: 'I think I'm going to like playing for him'

 

Posted by Peter Abraham, Globe Staff February 21, 2012 01:57 PM

By Peter Abraham, Globe Staff

 

FORT MYERS, Fla. — One of the stories that lingered a bit this winter was Bobby Valentine's inability to get Carl Crawford on the telephone to introduce himself.

 

It even sounded like Crawford was ducking him for a time.

 

Untrue, says Crawford. The reason was far less sinister.

 

"I change my number all the time," Crawford said. "That's all it was. I changed by my number and even my agents didn't have it for a while. We eventually talked."

 

Crawford said that from what he knows of Valentine, he likes him.

 

"He's a high-energy guy and I'm the same way," Crawford said. "We had a good talk yesterday and he was making me laugh. I think I'm going to like playing for him."

 

Crawford laughed at the notion that he might have been offended over Valentine criticizing his swing on ESPN last season.

 

"Trust me, I know my swing was screwed up," he said. "He wasn't saying anything I didn't already know

 

IMHO opinion it is a good cover story. Carl understands how bad things were back here and this is a great face saving way to get things back to even keel. From my point of view if you buy the number changing story there is this bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell.

[VA Sox Fan]

IMHO opinion it is a good cover story. Carl understands how bad things were back here and this is a great face saving way to get things back to even keel. From my point of view if you buy the number changing story there is this bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell.

 

Why, of course you'd feel that way.

 

Bottom line is the getting things back on an even keel.

 

The premature uproar is ancient history. Time to move forward.

[Elktonnick]

Why, of course you'd feel that way.

 

Bottom line is the getting things back on an even keel.

 

The premature uproar is ancient history. Time to move forward.

 

You have to know I hear all kind of wild stories everyday in my professional life and this sounds like one of those.

[VA Sox Fan]

You have to know I hear all kind of wild stories everyday in my professional life and this sounds like one of those.

 

Well, ok then.

[FredLynn]

IMHO opinion it is a good cover story. Carl understands how bad things were back here and this is a great face saving way to get things back to even keel. From my point of view if you buy the number changing story there is this bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell.

 

I am going to give Crawford the benefit of the doubt. I know he is one of the hardest working guys on the team during the offseason. I remember reading once about his workout routine; it is very demanding. Its not like he is not giving it everything he has. He is going to have a good comeback year.

How's that for being negative?

[mvp 78]

CC changes phone numbers more than User Name? changes accounts.

 

I don't buy his story, but feel he's brought a good attitude this year. I'm hoping for a nice bounce back year.

[VA Sox Fan]

I am going to give Crawford the benefit of the doubt. I know he is one of the hardest working guys on the team during the offseason. I remember reading once about his workout routine; it is very demanding. Its not like he is not giving it everything he has. He is going to have a good comeback year.

How's that for being negative?

 

I am pleasantly surprised! Be that "negative" whenever you can! :thumbsup:

[a700hitter]

CC changes phone numbers more than User Name? changes accounts.

 

I don't buy his story, but feel he's brought a good attitude this year. I'm hoping for a nice bounce back year.

[FredLynn]

I am pleasantly surprised! Be that "negative" whenever you can! :thumbsup:

 

Don't get too used to it