JBJ's Spring

[a700hitter]

No, it is not lumping in speedsters with slow runners. These studies have a lot more validity than your anecdotal evidence. But this is a typical response. When given data that doesn't support one's opinion, just claim that the data is not valid. Show me some data that proves otherwise.

 

The difference is night and day between the top 2 or 3 base stealing guys and the next level. The rest of the group, even though speedsters, are not comparable to Hamilton or Ellsbury prior to 2014.

Edited April 9, 2015 by a700hitter

[a700hitter]

These studies have a lot more validity than your anecdotal evidence. .

First of all with regard to your use of the term "these studies", I am critiquing only the one study -- the one in the link you provided. Second, I am not comparing the study to any anectodal evidence presented by me as I have not presented any anectodal evidence on this isdue. Quite the contrary. I am however predicting that a similar study based on Ellsbury from 2007-2013 would yield similar results as those published for Billy Hamilton, but with a much larger sample size.

Edited April 9, 2015 by a700hitter

[a700hitter]

But this is a typical response. When given data that doesn't support one's opinion, just claim that the data is not valid. Show me some data that proves otherwise.

The date in this study is obviously flawed. The comparator group is just not comparable. Data on Ellsbury over 5 seasons would be comparable. Carl Crawford in his prime with Tampa would provide comparable data. Look at the data for the top 2 or 3 elite base stealers if you want an indicator of the effect that Ellsbury had on the lineup.

Edited April 9, 2015 by a700hitter

[Kimmi]

The difference is night and day between the top 2 or 3 base stealing guys and the next level. The rest of the group, even though speedsters, are not comparable to Hamilton or Ellsbury prior to 2014.

 

 

I disagree that the difference is night and day between the top 2 or 3 base stealers and the next level. A disruptive runner is a disruptive runner. They will get the same types of throws to first, etc. as Hamilton and Ellsbury will.

[Kimmi]

First of all with regard to your use of the term "these studies", I am critiquing only the one study -- the one in the link you provided. Second, I am not comparing the study to any anectodal evidence presented by me as I have not presented any anectodal evidence on this isdue. Quite the contrary. I am however predicting that a similar study based on Ellsbury from 2007-2013 would yield similar results as those published for Billy Hamilton, but with a much larger sample size.

 

 

Okay so you're basing your opinion on no evidence. As I said before, it's quite possible that Ellsbury is an exception. But it's also just as possible that he is not.

[a700hitter]

Okay so you're basing your opinion on no evidence. As I said before, it's quite possible that Ellsbury is an exception. But it's also just as possible that he is not.

 

The evidence exists. I just don't know where or how to dig it up. I am not basing my opinion on that evidence. I am saying that I think that if that data is compiled it will support my opinion. The statistical evidence in the cited study does not convince me that my opinion about the effect of an elite base stealer like Ellsbury is wrong.

[a700hitter]

I disagree that the difference is night and day between the top 2 or 3 base stealers and the next level. A disruptive runner is a disruptive runner. They will get the same types of throws to first, etc. as Hamilton and Ellsbury will.

 

We can agree to disagree on this point.

[Spudboy]

I like base runners and I like fast ones more.

 

I'll take a team with speed any day. Aside from the tail end of Harper and of course The Frail One the Sox have not had real speed on the base paths in the 48 years I've been watching them.

 

And I can't remember the last catcher the Sox had that could trow out runners, either.

 

It's just entertainment anyway.

[Kimmi]

The evidence exists. I just don't know where or how to dig it up. I am not basing my opinion on that evidence. I am saying that I think that if that data is compiled it will support my opinion. The statistical evidence in the cited study does not convince me that my opinion about the effect of an elite base stealer like Ellsbury is wrong.

 

 

Here's the problem I am having. Those with "traditional" opinions make claims with no statistical evidence to back up those opinions. If traditionalists are so sure that someone like Ellsbury has a large impact on the defense and opposing pitcher, why don't they conduct a study on it? All the data they need is there. Back up these claims with some concrete evidence.

 

OTOH, there have been several studies that show otherwise. Here's another one:

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/base-stealer-intangibles-part-2/

 

This one actually shows that a disruptive runner might gain a whopping 1.3 runs over the course of a season!

 

I admit that none of these studies are perfect. However, when there are several studies conducted on the same subject, and they all conclude more or less the same thing - that the idea that a prolific base stealer disrupts the defense enough to give his team extra wins is mostly false - then I think you have to start believing that there is merit to them.

 

Otherwise, where are the studies showing otherwise?

[Kimmi]

I like base runners and I like fast ones more.

 

I'll take a team with speed any day. Aside from the tail end of Harper and of course The Frail One the Sox have not had real speed on the base paths in the 48 years I've been watching them.

 

And I can't remember the last catcher the Sox had that could trow out runners, either.

 

It's just entertainment anyway.

 

 

I like base stealers too Spud. And I like having a catcher who can throw out would be base stealers.

 

Speed is a deadly weapon. I'm not discounting the importance of "speed" in any way.

 

That said, stolen bases are still overrated. IMO, speed is more important on the basepaths for being able to take the extra base on a hit.

[a700hitter]

Here's the problem I am having. Those with "traditional" opinions make claims with no statistical evidence to back up those opinions. If traditionalists are so sure that someone like Ellsbury has a large impact on the defense and opposing pitcher, why don't they conduct a study on it? All the data they need is there. Back up these claims with some concrete evidence.

 

OTOH, there have been several studies that show otherwise. Here's another one:

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/base-stealer-intangibles-part-2/

 

This one actually shows that a disruptive runner might gain a whopping 1.3 runs over the course of a season!

 

I admit that none of these studies are perfect. However, when there are several studies conducted on the same subject, and they all conclude more or less the same thing - that the idea that a prolific base stealer disrupts the defense enough to give his team extra wins is mostly false - then I think you have to start believing that there is merit to them.

 

Otherwise, where are the studies showing otherwise?

 

Here is the problem that I have. Not every article that does some statiscal research arises to the level of a "study". The other so-called "study was an article and it's conclusion was based on faulty data. Garbage in. Garbage out. If the data is faulty, the study lacks integrity.

 

As for backing up ones opinions, I don't watch baseball to give myself homework, but I do have opinions as the result of watching for almost 50 years. This is a message board where I come to express and share those opinions. I am not looking to convince others of my opinions. I really don't care much about that. Howevere the lawyer in me will examine the evidence presented before I will admit that it indicates that my opinion is not supported by facts. The study in that other link was an article with a theory based on faulty stats and assumptions.

[bostopz]

How do you know that? You just "think", but you're not validating that opinion.

 

Who are you replying to? Me or Kimmi? None of us gave evidence did we? So it's to both of us? if it's to one of us, why are you leaving the other off-the-hook?

[bostopz]

The benefit to the batter comes from having any runner on first base, not just a base-stealing threat. In other words, having David Ortiz on first base gives the batter an advantage that he wouldn't have if there were no runner on first. The advantage comes from the shifts in defense.

 

If that runner on first base is a "disruptive" runner (Ellsbury) versus a non disruptive runner (Ortiz), some of that advantage is actually lost. There are some exceptions to this, but as a whole, the batter is hurt by a disruptive base runner on first.

 

SO there was little benefit having that pinch runner (Roberts) Red sox had in helping come back from the 3-0 deficit vs Yanks? Isn't the combo of Ellsbury and Vitorino in 2013 similar to having a terrific pinch runner? Thus the sox didn't have one great base stealer they had two. To diminish that running game I sort of like the argument I used to have with sabermetrics fans that take it is a religion. It's a very useful but not a religion. Anyway I can remember telling them a certain a player was clutch and I used a dictionary to define clutch and said this is what so-and-so player did.

 

he came back at me and said "LOL you are using a dictionary."

 

I kid you not. Whoever the guy was he is trying to redefine what the word clutch meant. David Ortiz is clutch.

 

Other things you can know without metrics. One thing I believe is players feel some sort of pressure. They're human not a computer program. They can react to pressure in different ways on different days to different circumstances.

Edited April 10, 2015 by bostopz

[bostopz]

The big issue is pitching out of the stretch vs the windup ... there is some substantial difference there with many pitchers. The mythology of the base stealer making pitchers nervous is there - but this isn't 1983. TEAMS just don't run that much anymore. I mean aside from your Dee Gordon or Billy Hamilton outlier, we're still taking about 40-50 steals leading the league.

 

We were a running team in 2013, were we not? At least the top of the order, right?

 

Did we win our first title by going through the Yanks because we sat back or was base stealing a huge factor in that series? To add to that point -- were we a "running team" in that series? Or did we just a have big stolen bases? Thus the point of "there isn't a lot of running teams any more" is sort of irrelevant isn't it? It only takes one player - one stolen base to turn the tide. Wasn't it crucial over a 7 game series? SO it can be crucial in a 7 game series but not crucial over a season?

 

How do you think the A's felt about stolen bases after the Royals ran over them last year?

 

How bad was it over a time when Tampa Bay used to run the ball down our throat? Were you really saying "that's okay that Crawford is running all over the bases vs us?" It had little to no impact? It wouldn't have sped up any pitchers delivery knowing he was on base about to swipe the next? So it's okay to let him get a triple off a single?

Edited April 10, 2015 by bostopz

[bostopz]

Here's the problem I am having. Those with "traditional" opinions make claims with no statistical evidence to back up those opinions. If traditionalists are so sure that someone like Ellsbury has a large impact on the defense and opposing pitcher, why don't they conduct a study on it? All the data they need is there. Back up these claims with some concrete evidence.

 

OTOH, there have been several studies that show otherwise. Here's another one:

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/base-stealer-intangibles-part-2/

 

This one actually shows that a disruptive runner might gain a whopping 1.3 runs over the course of a season!

 

I admit that none of these studies are perfect. However, when there are several studies conducted on the same subject, and they all conclude more or less the same thing - that the idea that a prolific base stealer disrupts the defense enough to give his team extra wins is mostly false - then I think you have to start believing that there is merit to them.

 

Otherwise, where are the studies showing otherwise?

 

Again there is no such thing as clutch, right?

 

I just gave a bunch of examples how stolen bases impact the game. Roberts stolen bases - if we spread it out over a season as you suggest how many runs did he produce? But in reality you and I know his swipes were ENORMOUS. Weren't they? Thus the way you are looking it - it's not totally correct way to look at it, is it? Just as how the sabermetrics guys are in denial about "clutch?"

 

And are they in denial about a closer still? Didn't they have data that backed up the 1st inning should be treated like the 9th or something like that - and you don't really need a closer for the 9th? I don't know this but it was something to this effect, wasn't it?

[User Name]

Who are you replying to? Me or Kimmi? None of us gave evidence did we? So it's to both of us? if it's to one of us, why are you leaving the other off-the-hook?

 

I'm not arguing with Kimmi. I'm arguing with you. If I was arguing with her, I would have said the same thing.

[User Name]

We were a running team in 2013, were we not? At least the top of the order, right?

 

Did we win our first title by going through the Yanks because we sat back or was base stealing a huge factor in that series? To add to that point -- were we a "running team" in that series? Or did we just a have big stolen bases? Thus the point of "there isn't a lot of running teams any more" is sort of irrelevant isn't it? It only takes one player - one stolen base to turn the tide. Wasn't it crucial over a 7 game series? SO it can be crucial in a 7 game series but not crucial over a season?

 

How do you think the A's felt about stolen bases after the Royals ran over them last year?

 

How bad was it over a time when Tampa Bay used to run the ball down our throat? Were you really saying "that's okay that Crawford is running all over the bases vs us?" It had little to no impact? It wouldn't have sped up any pitchers delivery knowing he was on base about to swipe the next? So it's okay to let him get a triple off a single?

 

You're extrapolating a bit of anecdotal evidence while trying to argue a point that, while it has some merit, is not really quantifiable. Also, your points about clutch are terrible. Give that argument a break.

[cp176]

SO there was little benefit having that pinch runner (Roberts) Red sox had in helping come back from the 3-0 deficit vs Yanks? Isn't the combo of Ellsbury and Vitorino in 2013 similar to having a terrific pinch runner? Thus the sox didn't have one great base stealer they had two. To diminish that running game I sort of like the argument I used to have with sabermetrics fans that take it is a religion. It's a very useful but not a religion. Anyway I can remember telling them a certain a player was clutch and I used a dictionary to define clutch and said this is what so-and-so player did.

 

he came back at me and said "LOL you are using a dictionary."

 

I kid you not. Whoever the guy was he is trying to redefine what the word clutch meant. David Ortiz is clutch.

 

Other things you can know without metrics. One thing I believe is players feel some sort of pressure. They're human not a computer program. They can react to pressure in different ways on different days to different circumstances.

 

Chili Davis called David Ortiz a clutch hitter. That is good enough for me. Anyone who has ever played any sport absolutely knows that clutch players live.

 

I like you believe that the use of sabermetrics is very valuable but there is a lot more to it than what the computer spits out.

[sk7326]

Chili Davis called David Ortiz a clutch hitter. That is good enough for me. Anyone who has ever played any sport absolutely knows that clutch players live.

 

I like you believe that the use of sabermetrics is very valuable but there is a lot more to it than what the computer spits out.

 

I have seen Ortiz come up very big, the famous homerun against Detroit for instance. It was funny since it was in a closely contested series where he was otherwise horrendous.

 

Clutch is a fan's term - I get nervous and excited at big moments. But I don't think it is a skill you pay for - often coming up big is a function of just coming up. Ortiz has had a lot of clutch moments - but a lot of that is because the Red Sox have been a hell of a good team during his tenure.

[Bellhorn04]

I have seen Ortiz come up very big, the famous homerun against Detroit for instance. It was funny since it was in a closely contested series where he was otherwise horrendous.

 

The last part is true, but the Red Sox as a team were getting blown away by Detroit pitching until then.

 

I've thought about that at-bat. One might be able to argue that Benoit choked there because the last thing he should have done was give Ortiz a pitch he could jerk like that.

[cp176]

I have seen Ortiz come up very big, the famous homerun against Detroit for instance. It was funny since it was in a closely contested series where he was otherwise horrendous.

 

Clutch is a fan's term - I get nervous and excited at big moments. But I don't think it is a skill you pay for - often coming up big is a function of just coming up. Ortiz has had a lot of clutch moments - but a lot of that is because the Red Sox have been a hell of a good team during his tenure.

 

I truly do understand what you are saying. I hope that you understand why I feel as i do. I honestly believe that there individuals that perform better than others when the lights get brightest and the pressure is on. I'm not sure that you can measure it but I know that there are people out there who are able to do things that others can't do in certain situations. Two players that seem to have similar abilities. I don't consider it a fan's term. Coaches use it , players use it. They know it exists. Thankfully and I mean that sincerely, inspite of what some might suggest , everything is not predictable. Things happen all around us all the time for which there are no answers to the question why. I believe in data and i believe in statististics and I know that there are a few special athletes who get things done in pressure situations better than others. I am extremely happy that this great game isn't quite as robotic as some would suggest.

[bostopz]

I'm not arguing with Kimmi. I'm arguing with you. If I was arguing with her, I would have said the same thing.

 

So it's okay for Kimmi not to provide proof but I must?

[bostopz]

You're extrapolating a bit of anecdotal evidence while trying to argue a point that, while it has some merit, is not really quantifiable. Also, your points about clutch are terrible. Give that argument a break.

 

No reason for me to give what is the truth a rest.

[bostopz]

I have seen Ortiz come up very big, the famous homerun against Detroit for instance. It was funny since it was in a closely contested series where he was otherwise horrendous.

 

Clutch is a fan's term - I get nervous and excited at big moments. But I don't think it is a skill you pay for - often coming up big is a function of just coming up. Ortiz has had a lot of clutch moments - but a lot of that is because the Red Sox have been a hell of a good team during his tenure.

 

I don't agree with this at all. So if a player bats .220 in a 1 run game in the 8th/9th inning he is just as "clutch" as someone who bats .300?

 

Clutch is NOT a fan's term. If you don't want to believe in it - okay it's your perogative. But I KNWO it exists therefore no reason for me not to speak to it when I see it. Whether I'm a fan or not-- it still exists.

[User Name]

No reason for me to give what is the truth a rest.

 

That is a terrible argument. Stick to your day job bro.

[User Name]

I don't agree with this at all. So if a player bats .220 in a 1 run game in the 8th/9th inning he is just as "clutch" as someone who bats .300?

 

Clutch is NOT a fan's term. If you don't want to believe in it - okay it's your perogative. But I KNWO it exists therefore no reason for me not to speak to it when I see it. Whether I'm a fan or not-- it still exists.

 

Again, terrible argument.

 

I think Bigfoot exists, therefore it exists!

[User Name]

So it's okay for Kimmi not to provide proof but I must?

 

That's not even close to the point. The discussion you two are having is separate from the one we were having.

[mvp 78]

Talking about the existence of clutch is like debating politics or religion. What a waste of time.

[Bellhorn04]

Talking about the existence of clutch is like debating politics or religion. What a waste of time.

 

I find that debating something like clutch can be fun for a little while but it reaches a point where you have to say 'OK we're done here.'

 

American political debates usually escalate rapidly into ideological ranting and insults.

[cp176]

Actually I have found much of the whole debate dealing with the role sabermetrics play to be just something to fill a void between swinging a golf club. No one doubts the valuable role using the data gathered from them plays. The debate is over to what extent. Things just go round and round. I find the game threads to be very refreshing and a hell of a lot more real than how many runs a great catcher who can't hit a lick saves for his team over the course of a season. The beauty of any forum I think is that if you don't like it then don't play. I don't need everything to be provable in my life so I actually enjoy some of these debates. They are a lot more real to me than some of this other crap that gets tossed around.