2014 Offseason Thread

[Northern Star]

Excellent point. Neither approach has proved to be fool- proof when handing out contracts.

 

This is why 100% guaranteed multi year contracts are insane, and a detriment to the game. (Sure, it's just coincidental that so many players have their best season when in the last year of their contract).

[a700hitter]

This is why 100% guaranteed multi year contracts are insane, and a detriment to the game. (Sure, it's just coincidental that so many players have their best season when in the last year of their contract).

Yep. Agreed 100%

[cp176]

Watching a player tells you what he could do. Stats tells you what he HAS done. Some stats are misleading because of the effect of other players in the outcome (W/L for pitchers). But at the end of the day, which approach - eyes or numbers - tells the fullest story when trying to gauge greatness and/or whether to hand out a seven year contract?

 

My guess = both. There are a lot of people relying solely on stats who have never played, coached, been on a field, or even worked with a team. I would not trust their opinions as evaluators. I also think that before long term contracts are offered, Knowing what goes on inside a person is extremely important. There might be a lot there worth knowing that the stats don't tell. Actually I am sure that there would be a great deal worth knowing that the stats don't tell. I would hate to have to pick just one evaluation tool to use.

[cp176]

What, like the Bible?

Your posts entertain me. They are great.

[Northern Star]

My guess = both. There are a lot of people relying solely on stats who have never played, coached, been on a field, or even worked with a team. I would not trust their opinions as evaluators. I also think that before long term contracts are offered, Knowing what goes on inside a person is extremely important. There might be a lot there worth knowing that the stats don't tell. Actually I am sure that there would be a great deal worth knowing that the stats don't tell. I would hate to have to pick just one evaluation tool to use.

 

There are intangibles, too of course. You need to know does he bust it out of the box, does he take bad routes to balls (maybe his speed masks it, and that doesn't show in stats). Is he overconfident? Does he not give a s***? Cancer in the clubhouse? These things impact your team as well, and need consideration when kicking the tires on a player.

[cp176]

There are intangibles, too of course. You need to know does he bust it out of the box, does he take bad routes to balls (maybe his speed masks it, and that doesn't show in stats). Is he overconfident? Does he not give a s***? Cancer in the clubhouse? These things impact your team as well, and need consideration when kicking the tires on a player.

 

Absolutely!!! To many coaches, those intangible things are as important as any stat you will ever see. Once again- I am sure everyone agrees that there is room for both. Too much of a reliance on either would not tell a very complete picture.

[Bellhorn04]

Watching a player tells you what he could do. Stats tells you what he HAS done. Some stats are misleading because of the effect of other players in the outcome (W/L for pitchers). But at the end of the day, which approach - eyes or numbers - tells the fullest story when trying to gauge greatness and/or whether to hand out a seven year contract?

 

It's a good question. With some exceptions, the future performance of baseball players remains very difficult to predict. Carl Crawford's stats going into 2011 didn't justify $142 million, but they sure made him look like a premier all-around player.

[Northern Star]

It's a good question. With some exceptions, the future performance of baseball players remains very difficult to predict. Carl Crawford's stats going into 2011 didn't justify $142 million, but they sure made him look like a premier all-around player.

 

Although it's a shrewd bet that performance will fall off after age 35, without a little help from the cream and the clear, and especially for pitchers. But let's throw that out of the window and sign players through 38-40 with vast sums of money that we'll never see an appropriate return on.

[User Name]

Watching a player tells you what he could do. Stats tells you what he HAS done. Some stats are misleading because of the effect of other players in the outcome (W/L for pitchers). But at the end of the day, which approach - eyes or numbers - tells the fullest story when trying to gauge greatness and/or whether to hand out a seven year contract?

 

This is wrong on so many levels. First off, over a larger sample, advanced statistics can pretty accurately predict what a player will do. Second, most of those "affected by other player" stats are considered incomplete and archaic (RBI's and wins, i'm looking at you). Third, as Kimmi said, the recipe isn't complete without all of the ingredients. FO's these use both scouting presence and statistical analysis to make their decisions, but in the end, there's just no foolproof way to accurately predict what a player(s) is (are) going to do in the future.

[a700hitter]

Absolutely!!! To many coaches, those intangible things are as important as any stat you will ever see. Once again- I am sure everyone agrees that there is room for both. Too much of a reliance on either would not tell a very complete picture.

 

I remember a story about Joe McCarthy when he was Yankee manager telling a sportswriter why he loved Joe Gordon so much. He called Joe Gordon over in the presence of the writer a said: "Hey Joe, what is your batting average?" Joe said, "I don't know". "How many Home Runs do you have?" The answer was the same. "How many runs have you driven in?" Again, Gordon didn't know. McCarthy told the writer that Gordon didn't care about his own accomplishments. He only cared about one thing -- winning, and that is why McCarthy loved him.

[Elktonnick]

My guess = both. There are a lot of people relying solely on stats who have never played, coached, been on a field, or even worked with a team. I would not trust their opinions as evaluators. I also think that before long term contracts are offered, Knowing what goes on inside a person is extremely important. There might be a lot there worth knowing that the stats don't tell. Actually I am sure that there would be a great deal worth knowing that the stats don't tell. I would hate to have to pick just one evaluation tool to use.

 

I agree

[Bellhorn04]

This is wrong on so many levels. First off, over a larger sample, advanced statistics can pretty accurately predict what a player will do. Second, most of those "affected by other player" stats are considered incomplete and archaic (RBI's and wins, i'm looking at you). Third, as Kimmi said, the recipe isn't complete without all of the ingredients. FO's these use both scouting presence and statistical analysis to make their decisions, but in the end, there's just no foolproof way to accurately predict what a player(s) is (are) going to do in the future.

 

UN, you said 'over a larger sample, advanced statistics can pretty accurately predict what a player will do.' Then you said 'in the end, there's just no foolproof way to accurately predict what a player(s) is (are) going to do in the future.' ???

[User Name]

UN, you said 'over a larger sample, advanced statistics can pretty accurately predict what a player will do.' Then you said 'in the end, there's just no foolproof way to accurately predict what a player(s) is (are) going to do in the future.' ???

 

Pretty accurately =/= 100% correct, foolproof= certain, and of course, stats don't account for injury, so i assumed that was obvious from the argument. Then again, assuming makes an ass out u and i.

[cp176]

I agree

 

What do you think Elktonnick - Is there even an argument here? All of us seem to agree that it takes more than one tool to evaluate players. I think that I am on your wavelength here. If anyone today relies solely on just watching and using their instincts to evaluate, I am afraid they would be missing out on some talented players. On the other hand, if technological statistics were they only source of evaluation, I would not be a fan of the game. I'll admit it, i am a traditionalist. That to me is what baseball is all about - it never bores me.

[mvp 78]

Stats 70%

Eyeballs 20%

Intuition 10%

[cp176]

Stats 70%

Eyeballs 20%

Intuition 10%

 

save $ - stay home - play stratomatic baseball

[Elktonnick]

What do you think Elktonnick - Is there even an argument here? All of us seem to agree that it takes more than one tool to evaluate players. I think that I am on your wavelength here. If anyone today relies solely on just watching and using their instincts to evaluate, I am afraid they would be missing out on some talented players. On the other hand, if technological statistics were they only source of evaluation, I would not be a fan of the game. I'll admit it, i am a traditionalist. That to me is what baseball is all about - it never bores me.

 

Since the advent of the Major League package I have seen virtually every Red Sox game since 2003. I have read James's book and a few others as well. I've learned far more about Sox players by watching them play than by reading their stats, all their stats including the so called advanced statistics, The so called advanced statistics aren't really that advanced they are just a different way of describing what HAPPENED. I agree that the new models are great for comparing past performances of different players. However, as we have seen over and over again with Bill James projections they simply have their drawbacks. Otherwise we would have celebrated more World Series titles then we have had. Marveled at that great Red Sox Short stop Renteria; WMB would be starting at third, we would be toasting that great aging Red Sox outfielder Carl Crawford, you get my point

 

I've learned nothing beats watching guys play every day. Bradley Jr is one example, after seeing him play one sees his flaws which weren't reflected in his earlier minor league stats.

 

Whenever you buy stocks or equities, your broker always reminds you that "past performances are no guarantee of future results" so to with Sabermetrics. Enjoy them for what they are. As for me give me a great scouting dept full of guys who played and taught the game. They aren't perfect either but they bring perspective which is often lacking in pure quantitative analysis.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Elktonnick

[a700hitter]

Since the advent of the Major League package I have seen virtually every Red Sox game since 2003. I have read James's book and a few others as well. The so called advanced statistics aren't really that advanced they are just a different way of describing what HAPPENED. I agree that the new models are great for comparing past performances of different players. However, as we have seen over and over again with Bill James projections they simply have their drawbacks. Otherwise we would have celebrated more World Series titles then we have had. Marveled at that great Red Sox Short stop Renteria; WMB would be starting at third, we would be toasting that great aging Red Sox outfielder Carl Crawford, you get my point

 

I've learned nothing beats watching guys play every day. Bradley Jr is one example, after seeing him play one sees his flaws which weren't reflected in his earlier minor league stats.

 

Whenever you buy stocks or equities, your broker always reminds you that "past performances are no guarantee of future results" so to with Sabermetrics. Enjoy them for what they are. As for me give me a great scouting dept full of guys who played and taught the game. They aren't perfect either but they bring perspective which is often lacking in pure quantitative analysis.

 

Stats are great to learn about players that you don't get a chance to see play, and with 700 major leaguers and thousands of minor leaguers it would be impossible to have enough scouts to get adequate coverage.

 

I would doubt that a major league team spends 70% on their stats function and 20% on scouting. It is probably the reverse.

 

What the statheads are not taking into consideration is that the stats themselves are not automatically produced. There are people who are watching these games who are recording the information. It is a form of personal scouting using statistics. Statistical reports don't include the nuances and subtleties that a scouting report will provide. The individual scouting report is always more complete if the scout has been following the player for a while.

 

I would liken the issue of scouting reports vs stats to internet communication vs. in-person conversations. There is a lot of internet communication today and a ton of information, but in-person communication is superior as expression, inflection and body language cannot be conveyed on the internet. Communications experts say that the nonverbal aspects of communication make a substantially larger impact than the words used to communicate.

 

The other thing that the statheads don't understand is that those of us who trust our eyes when we watch players day in and day out, we still look at stats, but I don't look at them to tell me how the Red Sox are performing. Occasionally, I will check the stats to get some specific information. If Pedroia is raking, I might check the stats to see what he has done in the last few weeks. The stats give me the specific information, but they merely confirm what I already knew -- that he is raking. I will study the stats of visiting players, because I don't watch them everyday. I' ll check their splits etc. Most of the time if the guy is a veteran, his stats line up with my opinion of him, but there are many times that the stats reveal that he is in an anomolous hot streak or cold streak, but as you said past performance is no guarantee of future performance. That is especially true of a player's hot streak or slump. That situation can reverse itself in a single AB, and no stat can accurately predict when. Live scouting is much more accurate in that regard as they can judge body language that indicates increased confidence, a change in the player's swing or approach etc.

 

In any event, this is a stupid argument. We all enjoy the game in different ways. If someone is intent on proving that he knows more about baseball than I do based on the way that I process the game, let them think so. That's their issue, not mine.

Edited January 26, 2015 by a700hitter

[cp176]

Since the advent of the Major League package I have seen virtually every Red Sox game since 2003. I have read James's book and a few others as well. I've learned far more about Sox players by watching them play than by reading their stats, all their stats including the so called advanced statistics, The so called advanced statistics aren't really that advanced they are just a different way of describing what HAPPENED. I agree that the new models are great for comparing past performances of different players. However, as we have seen over and over again with Bill James projections they simply have their drawbacks. Otherwise we would have celebrated more World Series titles then we have had. Marveled at that great Red Sox Short stop Renteria; WMB would be starting at third, we would be toasting that great aging Red Sox outfielder Carl Crawford, you get my point

 

I've learned nothing beats watching guys play every day. Bradley Jr is one example, after seeing him play one sees his flaws which weren't reflected in his earlier minor league stats.

 

Whenever you buy stocks or equities, your broker always reminds you that "past performances are no guarantee of future results" so to with Sabermetrics. Enjoy them for what they are. As for me give me a great scouting dept full of guys who played and taught the game. They aren't perfect either but they bring perspective which is often lacking in pure quantitative analysis.

 

I am a believer. Thanks for that post!

[a700hitter]

Stats 70%

Eyeballs 20%

Intuition 10%

 

That lines up with Stevie Wonder's opinion.

[Bellhorn04]

No matter how much information you have at your disposal, the performance of some players will be extremely difficult to predict, regardless of injuries. No one could have predicted how bad Crawford would be in 2011, and no one can exactly explain it, either.

 

Some guys are just extremely erratic - like Buchholz and Masterson - and no one is sure exactly why.

 

Some guys 'lose it' and then get it back, like Lester - possibly because of an adjustment in mechanics.

 

I would love to see someone here try to predict the final 2015 numbers for our current rotation. If your numbers are way off because of injury, you get a complete pass, of course.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Bellhorn04

[Spitball]

I have been a baseball fan since 1962. By 1964 and at the age of eleven years-old, I had a pretty serious grasp on the game of baseball and especially the Boston Red Sox. My family and I went to lots of games in the early 60s when you could just walk up to Fenway and get box seats for about $5.00 each.

 

As a kid, I played baseball and whiffle ball almost every day. I was also a voracious reader on the subject. I read The Sporting News cover-to-cover each week. It was 99% baseball stories and statics in the 1960-70s and was known as the Baseball Bible. I had hundreds of baseball cards and studied them. I had hundreds of statistics (Hr, RBI, Avg, W-L, BB, SO, ERA) memorized.

 

I have always loved baseball. I still watch virtually every Red Sox game as well a others I can get on my MLB television package. For me, it isn't about embracing the statistical side and dismissing the visual side. They both totally enhance each other. It is like a scientific study. I make observations, draw conclusions, and look at the statistics to support my opinions. Baseball isn't just a passion, it is a lifelong study.

 

To me, statistics are necessary on a baseball board. It comes down to using hard evidence (statistical facts) supporting a reasoned judgment versus someone expressing an opinion based on just more opinion.

[a700hitter]

If the Nats do sign Scherzer does that make it likely they'll deal Zimmerman? Let's see if that possibility is raised by the media.

 

I think they would trade him only for a big bat or a blue chip prospect. They would be ill- advised to move him in return for a grab-bag of middling prospects.

[a700hitter]

No matter how much information you have at your disposal, the performance of some players will be extremely difficult to predict, regardless of injuries. No one could have predicted how bad Crawford would be in 2011, and no one can exactly explain it, either.

 

Some guys are just extremely erratic - like Buchholz and Masterson - and no one is sure exactly why.

 

Some guys 'lose it' and then get it back, like Lester - possibly because of an adjustment in mechanics.

 

I would love to see someone here try to predict the final 2014 numbers for our current rotation. If your numbers are way off because of injury, you get a complete pass, of course.

 

Yes, I would like to see that too.

[cp176]

I have been a baseball fan since 1962. By 1964 and at the age of eleven years-old, I had a pretty serious grasp on the game of baseball and especially the Boston Red Sox. My family and I went to lots of games in the early 60s when you could just walk up to Fenway and get box seats for about $5.00 each.

 

As a kid, I played baseball and whiffle ball almost every day. I was also a voracious reader on the subject. I read The Sporting News cover-to-cover each week. It was 99% baseball stories and statics in the 1960-70s and was known as the Baseball Bible. I had hundreds of baseball cards and studied them. I had hundreds of statistics (Hr, RBI, Avg, W-L, BB, SO, ERA) memorized.

 

I have always loved baseball. I still watch virtually every Red Sox game as well a others I can get on my MLB television package. For me, it isn't about embracing the statistical side and dismissing the visual side. They both totally enhance each other. It is like a scientific study. I make observations, draw conclusions, and look at the statistics to support my opinions. Baseball isn't just a passion, it is a lifelong study.

 

To me, statistics are necessary on a baseball board. It comes down to using hard evidence (statistical facts) supporting a reasoned judgment versus someone expressing an opinion based on just more opinion.

Come on Spiball, did you play stratomatic baseball like I did? We used to also play corkball as well.

[Elktonnick]

No matter how much information you have at your disposal, the performance of some players will be extremely difficult to predict, regardless of injuries. No one could have predicted how bad Crawford would be in 2011, and no one can exactly explain it, either.

 

Some guys are just extremely erratic - like Buchholz and Masterson - and no one is sure exactly why.

 

Some guys 'lose it' and then get it back, like Lester - possibly because of an adjustment in mechanics.

 

I would love to see someone here try to predict the final 2014 numbers for our current rotation. If your numbers are way off because of injury, you get a complete pass, of course.

 

I presume you mean 2015 numbers.

[mvp 78]

@PeteAbe: Medford native Bill Monbouquette, who pitched 8 seasons for the #RedSox from 1958-65, has died. Won 114 games in majors, threw a no-hitter.

[mvp 78]

That lines up with Stevie Wonder's opinion.

 

Would you rather:

 

100% just make you're own s*** up, if you're wrong later on just move the goalposts or blame something else

[Bellhorn04]

I presume you mean 2015 numbers.

 

Yes, 2015, my bad.

[mvp 78]

save $ - stay home - play stratomatic baseball

 

The Sox were 0 for a lifetime until they embraced statistics.