2014 Offseason Thread

[cp176]

@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.

 

That does not make me happy. Kind of grew up watching him. Pretty sure that he was battling leukemia - I think that he had been for a while. Sad news.

[a700hitter]

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.

 

I agree with everything in your post. Where some of the statheads lose me is when they predict player A' s career arc based on the career arc of player B. To me that has zero value other than to demonstrate what is possible. It doesn't demonstrate even the slightest probability. There are usually many other examples of players who were at the same point in their careers that player A is at, but whose career arc was very different than that of player B.

 

I am also still advanced fielding metrics to be unreliable. Any fielding metrics that would show Cespedes as an above average fielder is not reliable. He takes awful routes to balls, can't judge even the simplest carom off any OF wall and when he does get to a ball, he handles it like a hand grenade or hot potato. He has a canon of an arm, but the rest of his game in the field is not above- average.

 

Other than a few uses of stats that I consider dubious such as WAR, I find them useful and use them often for visiting teams, especially west coast teams.

[Bellhorn04]

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

 

Some of the statistical analysis helped, no doubt. But having one of the highest payrolls and being able to acquire guys like Schilling and Foulke to complement the big talent already in place sure did too.

[cp176]

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

 

 

 

Almost anyway right. I'm am sure that the use of collected compiled technical data has helped every team in both leagues to a certain extent.

[Bellhorn04]

Billy Beane is still without a title. He does have the honor of being the only GM to have been played by Brad Pitt in a movie, though.

[mvp 78]

Billy Beane is still without a title. He does have the honor of being the only GM to have been played by Brad Pitt in a movie, though.

 

He's hamstrumg by a cheap owner and a s***** stadium deal.

[a700hitter]

Almost anyway right. I'm am sure that the use of collected compiled technical data has helped every team in both leagues to a certain extent.

 

They also didn't have a World Championship until they went to multi divisional play with a wild card spot.

[cp176]

I agree with everything in your post. Where some of the statheads lose me is when they predict player A' s career arc based on the career arc of player B. To me that has zero value other than to demonstrate what is possible. It doesn't demonstrate even the slightest probability. There are usually many other examples of players who were at the same point in their careers that player A is at, but whose career arc was very different than that of player B.

 

I am also still advanced fielding metrics to be unreliable. Any fielding metrics that would show Cespedes as an above average fielder is not reliable. He takes awful routes to balls, can't judge even the simplest carom off any OF wall and when he does get to a ball, he handles it like a hand grenade or hot potato. He has a canon of an arm, but the rest of his game in the field is not above- average.

 

Other than a few uses of stats that I consider dubious such as WAR, I find them useful and use them often for visiting teams, especially west coast teams.

 

It's not a direct quote, but Mr. James himself would tell us that stats tell us who has been good not who will be good. Useful yes and end all of course not.

Over and out on this one for me 700. I don't think that I would have anything in common with someone who couldn't see the value of personal evaluation. I am pretty sure that a very good case could be made with respect to overuse of technology in general and what negative effects it has had on society today.

[a700hitter]

And all of those Yankee championships were attributable to the Yankees being pioneers in sabermetrics?

[iortiz]

That lines up with Stevie Wonder's opinion.

 

While stats are important, rich teams will always command professional sports, since they have on paper better assembled teams. The same thing happens in any industry. Large Enterprises command their respective markets. It is what it is. How many WSs does the NYY have under their belt? Real Madrid? etc. Sure... In baseball, in recent years, stats have helped underdog/small market teams to have more chances to compete vs big spenders... but still, most of rich teams at least will be considered legit contenders since they have the "best" players who btw are usually attached to top stats.

[iortiz]

And all of those Yankee championships were attributable to the Yankees being pioneers in sabermetrics?

 

Well... you put it in 2 lines what I tried to explain in 10 haha

 

NYY wil be always at least legit contenders and all the big spenders that emerge year after year.

[a700hitter]

Well... you put it in 2 lines what I tried to explain in 10 haha

 

NYY wil be always at least legit contenders and all the big spenders that emerge year after year.

 

If we were communicating in Spanish our roles would have been reversed. Also, your post was much more detailed and descriptive.

[iortiz]

If we were communicating in Spanish our roles would have been reversed. Also, your post was much more detailed and descriptive.

Thanks Ted.

 

I have to say as well that even big market teams in recent years have adopted at some extent the stats into their evaluations in order to fill some specific holes... but still their opening day lineups will be commanded mostly by rich players.

[a700hitter]

Thanks Ted.

 

I have to say as well that even big market teams in recent years have adopted at some extent the stats into their evaluations in order to fill some specific holes... but still their opening day lineups will be commanded mostly by rich players.

The stats are very useful to teams, because the cost of an individual scouting operation to provide coverage of 700 major leaguers and thousands of minor leaguers would be prohibitive. All teams undoubtedly incorporate statistical evaluation in their operations, but this is not rocket science or advanced physics or something that you need an MIT degree to understand. I would also venture that good individual scouting is more of a differentiator today among teams when evaluating players than statistical studies. Statistical studies like defensive shifts have become standard fare. There is less deviation in the quality of these studies than there among scouts.

Edited January 26, 2015 by a700hitter

[Spudboy]

Okay. I see that we have one of the obligatory biannual Stats vs. observation discussion out of the way.

 

Can we now discuss Clutch?

[a700hitter]

Okay. I see that we have one of the obligatory biannual Stats vs. observation discussion out of the way.

 

Can we now discuss Clutch?

 

This will be tomorrow's topic. Lol!

[User Name]

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.

 

I'll bite and present them later.

[User Name]

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.

 

Beautifully presented and absolutely correct. Those who completely dismiss stats just don't understand them imo.

[User Name]

Okay. I see that we have one of the obligatory biannual Stats vs. observation discussion out of the way.

 

Can we now discuss Clutch?

 

This post^ is clutch.

[Palodios]

I wonder if J_E is lurking.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

You f***ing idiots, clutch doesn't exist.(insert 2 paragraphs of insults) /J_E

[Kimmi]

What, like the Bible?

 

 

LOL

 

Well, I'm not going to get into a discussion about the Bible, but what I posted about traditional beliefs is true. Traditionalists have been allowed to make claims for dozens of years, with no statistical proof or evidence to back up their claims, only anecdotal evidence. Stat geeks are now proving many of those claims to be false.

[Kimmi]

I would never question that you enjoy all aspects of the game. I hope that from my posts, you did not get that impression . I am fairly familiar with Bill James and his study of sabermetrics. I certainly don't think that it is an either or situation. I think that a fairer question might be who has the better assessment - the person who relies solely on statistical analysis or the person who has been on the field and has lived the game. I don't think that there is right answer to that question. The best baseball people i know, believe in both used together. On this board, the people whose opinions I value the most such as yours, 700"s, Freds and numerous others certainly see the value in both.

 

 

I have read through all of the posts on this topic, and let me say that I have enjoyed reading the discussion/debate. There have been good points brought up on both sides. I think that most agree that it takes a balance of both.

 

I'll be honest. I tend to get a little defensive at the implications that I don't watch the games or that I don't truly understand the game because I tend to use stats to back up my positions. You would not believe how many times I have gotten a response along the lines of "you should try watching the games sometime". Are the two things mutually exclusive?

 

Anyway, thank you for the kind words. Even though we don't agree, I enjoy reading your posts.

[Kimmi]

I find value in stats, but more for players that I don't see very often -- especially west coast teams. I have found that modern sabermetrics tend to support the opinions that I have formed about the players that I watch most often. I have not found them to be inconsistent with views that I hold about these players or game strategy. There is definitely a value in stats for me, because it is impossible to be familiar with 700 players. But I must admit that when stats conflict with my opinion about players with which I am very familiar, I will go with my gut.

 

 

If you see the value in stats, then we have no problem. ;-)

 

Just don't say that you don't need stats. You might not need them to enjoy watching a game, but you need them if you're going to debate on a forum.

[Kimmi]

Also, welcome back!

 

 

How did Emmz' name get in a response that was written by me?

[Kimmi]

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.

 

 

Very well said Spitball.

[Kimmi]

I would just like to point out that early scouting reports on Dustin Pedroia were very wrong. Scouts often doubted him because of his stature, and he was undrafted out of high school because of those reports.

[mvp 78]

I would just like to point out that early scouting reports on Dustin Pedroia were very wrong. Scouts often doubted him because of his stature, and he was undrafted out of high school because of those reports.

And how did THAT turn out??? An overpaid 2b in his 30's who is all glove no bat!

 

\s

[Kimmi]

Okay. I see that we have one of the obligatory biannual Stats vs. observation discussion out of the way.

 

Can we now discuss Clutch?

 

 

LOL

 

Being new to the board, I have not had the pleasure of participating in one of your past Stats versus Observation discussions. To me, the topic doesn't get old.

 

And yes, can we now discuss "clutch"? Please?

 

Other topics I would like to discuss, in no particular order:

 

1. Are strikeouts bad?

2. The importance (or lack thereof) of lineup construction.

3. Are stolen bases overrated?

4. Momentum

5. Lineup protection

 

[Kimmi]

Beautifully presented and absolutely correct. Those who completely dismiss stats just don't understand them imo.

 

 

They either don't understand them, or the stats don't support their opinion. If the stats don't support one's opinion, they must be useless.