2016 Red Sox Hot Stove Discussion Thread

[SoxnCycles]

? What - I don't get what you are saying. Should I have said - If you are simply a stat geek then you are a fool + If you are just a scout trusting geek you are a foo? Or was your comment directed toward my slightly hypocritical "Amen brother"?

 

I'll try to be a little clearer. I do get a kick out of you though.

 

Well, it is confusing when you say stat and scouting should be used, but them take shots at "stat geeks".

Who knew that enjoying numbers was some sort of character flaw.

 

Waltr disregards pretty much every stat that was created after 1970 and you seemed to agree with him.

"Slightly hypocritical" doesn't translate well in written form.

[cp176]

you need stars because you can't get enough coverage with scouts and the consistency and quality of the scouts would vary too much. Ideally. You would clone your best scout about 50 times and send him to every major and minor league game and high school and college too. Lol. You might need to clone him 200 times. Lol! You need the stats for them to target the limited scouting resources.

 

I don't think an organization needs to do a lot of advanced metrics on their own players. If they don't know more about their own players from watching them day in and day out than the stats could possibly tell them, there is something wrong with the organization,. Stats are necessary part of the whole process, because there are hundreds of games going on at various levels-- college, minors, independent leagues and international.

 

The Red Sox organization is proving that it doesn't matter what you do and where your points of emphasis lie, it can still be screwed up. Are other organizations just better at data collection and scouting?

[cp176]

Well, it is confusing when you say stat and scouting should be used, but them take shots at "stat geeks".

Who knew that enjoying numbers was some sort of character flaw.

 

Waltr disregards pretty much every stat that was created after 1970 and you seemed to agree with him.

"Slightly hypocritical" doesn't translate well in written form.

 

 

I'm guessing that slightly hypocritical translates about as well seemed to agree with him. What I will say is that when anyone says anything on here that might slightly be considered disparaging toward the stat folk, it seems to create a major s*** storm. Why do you think that is? A little defensive - a little insecure? I kind of think that it takes the best of both worlds to make. Although you couldn't prove that based on the current Red Sox roster and performance.

[a700hitter]

The Red Sox organization is proving that it doesn't matter what you do and where your points of emphasis lie, it can still be screwed up. Are other organizations just better at data collection and scouting?

I don't know what they are doing, but the results are horrible. They are going to have to figure out what is wrong with their process. There is something fundamentally wrong if they are this consistently bad with one of the biggest payrolls.

[SoxnCycles]

I'm guessing that slightly hypocritical translates about as well seemed to agree with him. What I will say is that when anyone says anything on here that might slightly be considered disparaging toward the stat folk, it seems to create a major s*** storm. Why do you think that is? A little defensive - a little insecure? I kind of think that it takes the best of both worlds to make. Although you couldn't prove that based on the current Red Sox roster and performance.

 

If you think this exchange constitutes a "major s*** storm", I'd say you're a tad sensitive.

 

If you think that it takes both strategies to make an informed opinion, why make "disparaging" comments about stats or their use at all?

I think stats are a vital part of free agent signing and minor league player development.

But, I don't make remarks about scouts and the important job they do.

 

Just doesn't make a lot of sense to me to pick one over the other.

 

So, lighten up, Francis.

[cp176]

If you think this exchange constitutes a "major s*** storm", I'd say you're a tad sensitive.

 

If you think that it takes both strategies to make an informed opinion, why make "disparaging" comments about stats or their use at all?

I think stats are a vital part of free agent signing and minor league player development.

But, I don't make remarks about scouts and the important job they do.

 

Just doesn't make a lot of sense to me to pick one over the other.

 

So, lighten up, Francis.

 

Easy there - Francis - what's up with that? You telling me to lighten up? You inclined to a little overreaction are you? It's all good.

[sk7326]

Advanced stats are useful in baseball for a few different reasons, especially compared to other sports.

 

1. There are just a lot more datapoints ... twice as many games as any other sport, duh

2. The fundamental exchanges in baseball are fairly simple and happen sequentially. Pitcher pitches, hitter hits and then the ball goes into play and something happens there. Compare the challenge to trying to measure the results of a football play, where 22 guys are in motion and all of them have some impact on the success of the play. You also don't have the information disadvantage you have in football or basketball (where the play was supposed to go, or what a defender's assignment is). Aside from defensive shifts, the movements are isolated, and with few exceptions, hitters and pitchers are chasing the same thing every pitch. (an out, or a non-out)

 

Scouting and metrics complement each other. You do need metrics for your own guys, just because the metrics are unbiased and can show things the scouts might not see. (and maybe allow you to change emphases) While metrics can identify the components of a good player, only scouts can take some of that information and make it actionable. Clearly something in the Red Sox process is squirrely there. One I have identified is I don't know if they have been able to fully capture the impact of Fenway Park on defensive measurement - because there have been some confounding results with some choices that looked like they should have worked out.

[SoxnCycles]

Advanced stats are useful in baseball for a few different reasons, especially compared to other sports.

 

1. There are just a lot more datapoints ... twice as many games as any other sport, duh

2. The fundamental exchanges in baseball are fairly simple and happen sequentially. Pitcher pitches, hitter hits and then the ball goes into play and something happens there. Compare the challenge to trying to measure the results of a football play, where 22 guys are in motion and all of them have some impact on the success of the play. You also don't have the information disadvantage you have in football or basketball (where the play was supposed to go, or what a defender's assignment is). Aside from defensive shifts, the movements are isolated, and with few exceptions, hitters and pitchers are chasing the same thing every pitch. (an out, or a non-out)

 

Scouting and metrics complement each other. You do need metrics for your own guys, just because the metrics are unbiased and can show things the scouts might not see. (and maybe allow you to change emphases) While metrics can identify the components of a good player, only scouts can take some of that information and make it actionable. Clearly something in the Red Sox process is squirrely there. One I have identified is I don't know if they have been able to fully capture the impact of Fenway Park on defensive measurement - because there have been some confounding results with some choices that looked like they should have worked out.

 

Yup, I don't think the problem is as simple as "they're relying on Carmine and Bill James too much" or "they're relying on the scouting dept too much"

 

There's a fundamental flaw somewhere in baseball ops.

Hopefully, hiring Dipoto (as a consultant, not a replacement for Cherrington, BTW) is the first step in correcting it.

[cp176]

Advanced stats are useful in baseball for a few different reasons, especially compared to other sports.

 

1. There are just a lot more datapoints ... twice as many games as any other sport, duh

2. The fundamental exchanges in baseball are fairly simple and happen sequentially. Pitcher pitches, hitter hits and then the ball goes into play and something happens there. Compare the challenge to trying to measure the results of a football play, where 22 guys are in motion and all of them have some impact on the success of the play. You also don't have the information disadvantage you have in football or basketball (where the play was supposed to go, or what a defender's assignment is). Aside from defensive shifts, the movements are isolated, and with few exceptions, hitters and pitchers are chasing the same thing every pitch. (an out, or a non-out)

 

Scouting and metrics complement each other. You do need metrics for your own guys, just because the metrics are unbiased and can show things the scouts might not see. (and maybe allow you to change emphases) While metrics can identify the components of a good player, only scouts can take some of that information and make it actionable. Clearly something in the Red Sox process is squirrely there. One I have identified is I don't know if they have been able to fully capture the impact of Fenway Park on defensive measurement - because there have been some confounding results with some choices that looked like they should have worked out.

 

ok - I'm afraid what all of it says to me is that we aren't looking at a quick fix. We aren't just a few moves away. Without major changes made by people who know what they are doing we are talking years. I hope it goes like this - pitching - defense -offense. They are going to have to push the reset button.

[Bellhorn04]

With the way major league baseball works now, you can have all the statistical analysis and scouting in the world and sometimes it all comes down to the personal judgment of whoever is making the calls. Whether or not to re-sign Lester or trade Lackey for example. Whichever move you make is going to be risky.

[Kimmi]

Stupid statistics: WHIP, WAR, BOPS. Who caame up with this nonsense? Agents looking to make their client seem better than he is. The most ridiculous is a "SAVE". I'm 71 yo and have been to and seen beaucoup games in my lifetime. I've never NEVER never seen a guy get a game-tying or winning hit from the on deck circle

 

The way the "Save" is defined is seriously flawed. I will give you that. There is a huge difference between a 4 outs, one run save and a 5 run, one out save where the tying run is on deck.

[Kimmi]

If you are simply one or the other, you are a fool. There is no place for someone who knows virtually nothing about the game other than what the stats tell them. There is no place in the game for someone who refuses to use all available tools to build a roster.

 

No stat geek has ever said otherwise. I have never heard a stat geek say that scouting is not important. Not Cherington, not Theo, not Bill James, not anyone on this or any other site. However, I have heard countless eye test people say that they don't need stats, that they have been watching baseball forever and that they know what they see. So you tell me which group is more "foolish"? And I'm not talking about you CP - you have stated several times that stats are important. I'm talking about on the whole.

 

And FTR, most of the stat geeks, including Cherington, Theo, and Bill James watch as many games as the traditionalists do. It is a false assumption that because they are stat geeks that they don't know a good player when they see one.

[Kimmi]

Each stat is an indicator and if a player performs consistently in each category, it is gives a reliable picture of the player. If performance among statistical categories is inconsistent it is more difficult to figure out what you have in a player. That is when scouting is really important. There is no single stat or even 2 stats are that are definitive. I am not a big believer in WAR.

 

I don't think scouting is the best tool, but it is also the most labor intensive and expensive. Sabremetrics is in many ways a cost effective replacement, but an imperfect one.

 

Every stat is flawed to some degree. However, WAR is a very good descriptive tool of what has taken place. VERY GOOD. It is not as good a tool in the predictive sense, but it is still useful, when coupled with the other tools available.

[sk7326]

ok - I'm afraid what all of it says to me is that we aren't looking at a quick fix. We aren't just a few moves away. Without major changes made by people who know what they are doing we are talking years. I hope it goes like this - pitching - defense -offense. They are going to have to push the reset button.

 

I honestly don't know - because some of the problems seem more daunting than others:

 

Offense - This does not seem to be especially far away. Now there is a realistic question about whether Pedroia can ever be "healthy" again. But what is clear is that Pedroia's bat has not gone anywhere (aside from out of the lineup a bit more frequently than ideal). Ortiz as it turns out is going to end up with a pretty solid year. Ramirez is a giant question mark - how much of his lost season is due to his approach going to seed (which is correctable, and since approach has normally been a strength of his) and Sandoval moreso (you'd like to think a guy with his tendencies could take advantage of The Wall, but alas). Betts and Bogaerts will keep growing. (Bogaerts next step is to lay off the bad balls he has learned how to hit and wait for ones he can drive - but this year was positive on all fronts)

 

Defense - Again, this has been a good defensive team before this year, in fact close to very good last year. The Ramirez thing has to be addressed - there is no reason the Sox should not be able to field a plus outfield. The catcher defense will be either be good or excellent depending on the decisions made there. Much has been written about Sandoval already - I will not add any more.

 

Pitching - (avoiding rabbit hole)

[Kimmi]

Stats are needed because you can't get enough coverage with scouts and the consistency and quality of the scouts would vary too much. Ideally, you would clone your best scout about 50 times and send him to every major and minor league game and high school and college too. Lol. You might need to clone him 200 times. Lol! You can't clone your best scouts so you need the stats to target the efforts of your limited scouting resources.

 

I don't think an organization needs to do a lot of advanced metrics on their own players. If they don't know more about their own players from watching them day in and day out than the stats could possibly tell them, there is something wrong with the organization. Stats are necessary part of the whole process, because there are hundreds of games going on at various levels-- college, minors, independent leagues and international.

 

It's not only that, but your eyes will lie to you. It doesn't matter how good of a scout someone is, human nature is not perfect and things like bias will have its effect.

[sk7326]

No stat geek has ever said otherwise. I have never heard a stat geek say that scouting is not important. Not Cherington, not Theo, not Bill James, not anyone on this or any other site. However, I have heard countless eye test people say that they don't need stats, that they have been watching baseball forever and that they know what they see. So you tell me which group is more "foolish"? And I'm not talking about you CP - you have stated several times that stats are important. I'm talking about on the whole.

 

And FTR, most of the stat geeks, including Cherington, Theo, and Bill James watch as many games as the traditionalists do. It is a false assumption that because they are stat geeks that they don't know a good player when they see one.

 

I think I remember one of the guys on the basketball analytics side (Hollinger, Pelton, somebody) glibly note that the stats guys don't live in their basement ... indeed when you love the sport so much you're willing to do math to learn about it

[a700hitter]

It's not only that, but your eyes will lie to you. It doesn't matter how good of a scout someone is, human nature is not perfect and things like bias will have its effect.

I don't agree with this. I think a trained scout can process information that cannot be conveyed through stats. The human mind is still the most advanced computer.

[cp176]

No stat geek has ever said otherwise. I have never heard a stat geek say that scouting is not important. Not Cherington, not Theo, not Bill James, not anyone on this or any other site. However, I have heard countless eye test people say that they don't need stats, that they have been watching baseball forever and that they know what they see. So you tell me which group is more "foolish"? And I'm not talking about you CP - you have stated several times that stats are important. I'm talking about on the whole.

 

And FTR, most of the stat geeks, including Cherington, Theo, and Bill James watch as many games as the traditionalists do. It is a false assumption that because they are stat geeks that they don't know a good player when they see one.

 

 

Anyone who pigeonholes themselves into either group I guess I would think to be a fool. But you see I also am a liberal Republican or a conservative Democrat. I don't like groups although the fraternity I was in was great. Sadly they were thrown off campus. I feel badly for anyone who can't try to see both sides of any argument. Over the years, personally I would say that I have learned much more from the people who have disagreed with me as opposed to those who have agreed with my points of view. I've enjoyed the civil debates I've been a part of here. I don't like the bitching but I understand that I can get caught up in it as much as anyone else. I don't think the Red Sox recent poor play can be attributed to any one group. It is equally shared by all. I would hate to be the person or group assigning blame.

[Kimmi]

I'm guessing that slightly hypocritical translates about as well seemed to agree with him. What I will say is that when anyone says anything on here that might slightly be considered disparaging toward the stat folk, it seems to create a major s*** storm. Why do you think that is? A little defensive - a little insecure? I kind of think that it takes the best of both worlds to make. Although you couldn't prove that based on the current Red Sox roster and performance.

 

I admit, I become quite defensive when a disparaging remark is made towards the stat folk. What irks me the most is the implication that stat geeks don't understand the game of baseball on the field or don't know a good player when they see one. Yes, I take offense to that implication because nothing could be further from the truth. Personally, I think the stat folk have a much better understanding of the game and the assessment of players than the non-stat folk. I'm not talking about myself here, I have much to learn, but the guys at BP and Fangraphs, not to mention Bill James, are top notch.

[Kimmi]

I don't agree with this. I think a trained scout can process information that cannot be conveyed through stats. The human mind is still the most advanced computer.

 

I'm not saying that a trained scout can't see or process things that aren't conveyed through stats. I think they can also, hence the need for them. However, I think it's also true that sometimes they will see something that isn't there, due to bias.

[Kimmi]

Anyone who pigeonholes themselves into either group I guess I would think to be a fool. But you see I also am a liberal Republican or a conservative Democrat. I don't like groups although the fraternity I was in was great. Sadly they were thrown off campus. I feel badly for anyone who can't try to see both sides of any argument. Over the years, personally I would say that I have learned much more from the people who have disagreed with me as opposed to those who have agreed with my points of view. I've enjoyed the civil debates I've been a part of here. I don't like the bitching but I understand that I can get caught up in it as much as anyone else. I don't think the Red Sox recent poor play can be attributed to any one group. It is equally shared by all. I would hate to be the person or group assigning blame.

 

I think I've told you before that my dad is one of the "I don't need stats" crowd. Regardless of feeling like I'm talking to a brick wall sometimes, I very much respect and appreciate his love of baseball and his baseball acumen.

[jacksonianmarch]

Stats are important. WHIP is highly important because there is a direct correlation between runs scored and batters who reach base. Scouting is equally important. I can buy a BA subscription to find out if a guy throws 97 and what his secondary pitches are. Scouts can tell if the guy has nothing going on upstairs and can tell which guys can control their stuff. You learn a LOT about the unmeasurables when you scout someone. Take Craig Hansen, when you guys drafted him. Kid throws 98 with sink and run and has a plus slider! OMFG, DRAFT HIM NOW AND PUT HIM IN THE CLOSERS ROLE IN THE SAME SEASON!!!! Well, anyone who watched him would see that his sinker ran in over the plate and batters swung at his 98 as if he was throwing 85. No deception in his delivery allowed for great visualization. Add to the fact that he couldn't handle it when guys got on base or when the spot lights were brightest and you have a guy with great "stats" who is now out of baseball. Same with minor league stats. There are guys who can get by on pure ability in AA or A+. Put them in AAA or the bigs and they don't have the work ethic or the intelligence to be good.

[a700hitter]

I'm not saying that a trained scout can't see or process things that aren't conveyed through stats. I think they can also, hence the need for them. However, I think it's also true that sometimes they will see something that isn't there, due to bias.

I don't think the problem is bias, but rather that it is hard to follow a large group of players close enough and often enough to generate reports that are completely reliable. The metrics help the scouts by either confirming or not their opinions. So, the stats are very very important to help them do their job. I really strongly believe that within your own organization, the scouting reports are more important because you see those guys every day. The coaches should know more about their own players than stats could tell them. As far as bias goes, that can enter into decisions whether done by scouting or metrics. The Red Sox believed that Hanley as a SS would be athletic enough to play the OF. That was a bias that proved to be incorrect. It really wouldn't have taken much scouting to see that he just doesn't have the instincts to be successful in the OF.

[iortiz]

Well, the BL is that the Red Sox have not used stats and scouting properly.

[sk7326]

I don't agree with this. I think a trained scout can process information that cannot be conveyed through stats. The human mind is still the most advanced computer.

 

He can - especially things like makeup and projection. But stats can offer an unbiased take on results that for example, liking somebody's Scrappy McScrapperson traits (see Eckstein, David) can cloud. They are complementary pieces - and the analytics stuff has helped shape things that scouting emphasizes that might not have necessarily been the case. (the most famous being the revelation that, in general, approach is born not made)

[sk7326]

Well, the BL is that the Red Sox have not used stats and scouting properly.

 

The former is certainly questionable. The latter is trickier - since talent does not seem to be an issue so much as execution.

[iortiz]

The former is certainly questionable. The latter is trickier - since talent does not seem to be an issue so much as execution.

 

It's not questionable or trickier. The results are out there. The talent, specially at pitching is not there. There's no way to sugar coat it. The plan, execution and results suck.

 

As jcko said, they need to rebuild the FO, immediately.

[jd98]

WAR is a terrible 'stat'. The fact that it varies, often significantly, depending on which website you are using tells you all you need to know. How can it be a reliable stat when it's dependent on what website you are on?

 

Speaking of bad stats, the worst is blown saves for non-closers. It should be a blown hold. It would still be a bad stat, but I'm just tired of every time a middle reliever is being discussed for closer, some media idiot will question the move with something like "he's only 2-10 in save chances". In reality he'd be something like 2-2 in saves and 90-98 in holds.

[sk7326]

WAR is a terrible 'stat'. The fact that it varies, often significantly, depending on which website you are using tells you all you need to know. How can it be a reliable stat when it's dependent on what website you are on?

 

Speaking of bad stats, the worst is blown saves for non-closers. It should be a blown hold. It would still be a bad stat, but I'm just tired of every time a middle reliever is being discussed for closer, some media idiot will question the move with something like "he's only 2-10 in save chances". In reality he'd be something like 2-2 in saves and 90-98 in holds.

 

All save and save related stats are nonsense.

 

Looking at any stats without understanding the components is a bad idea to begin with. The main gap between Fangraphs and Baseball Reference is about how much responsibility to assign a pitcher (there are also differences in defensive measurement, but they are minor - and both sites now use the same functional definition of replacement level). Considering this is actually an open question, it is helpful to have two answers to that question. That any metric is not the one metric which solves all of your measurement problems does not mean it is not a distinct improvement over older made up things like OPS (which add two things which are not equivalent), RBI (which arbitrarily splits the credit for a run being scored), or chicken's blood (which helps Pedro hit the fastball).

[Dojji]

I think I remember one of the guys on the basketball analytics side (Hollinger, Pelton, somebody) glibly note that the stats guys don't live in their basement ... indeed when you love the sport so much you're willing to do math to learn about it

Right. The best analyst is the guy who knows what he's looking at and has the numbers to back him up. In the absence of that you need both perspectives to have about equal weight in the front office as a collective unit.

 

The issue comes when you have someone who has no aptitude for one or the other, and they'll talk up the one they're good at and try to downplay the significance of the one at which they are incompetent.