2016 Red Sox Hot Stove Discussion Thread

[cp176]

It really doesn't amount to much but I just don't like the idea of Farrell making commitments to players without seeing them at the beginning of a new year. It is still possible that someone proves during spring training that they should be playing come opening day. His commitment to established players still makes me nervous. Doesn't seem to leave much room for surprises. Once we get going, I hope that dd will give him a hand.

[a700hitter]

Pretty much, I go with this one. Traditional thinking does not necessarily mean unyielding or old fashioned. Sometimes it really does mean that the common sense rule is being applied. I'm beginning to think that with respect to many things not simply related to baseball, people that constantly advocate for "new" ways of looking at things are unwilling to accept that everything has just not been recently discovered. Over the years, I have found that being open to many different ways of looking at things be they new or old is pretty much the way to go. Now Kimmi - although you do lean in toward one direction - i am not specifically talking about you even though my statement is a bit of a generalization.

Any decisions made regarding building or fielding a team or in-game strategy needs to take into account the fluid dynamics of the game. That is where the art of managing (and general managing) comes into play. It is this aspect of the game that renders statistics useful but imperfect. It is also the part of the game that makes the game interesting. You can watch baseball for 100 years and still see things that you have never seen before. Defensive shifts are an example of on field strategy driven by statistics. All the spray charts had been there for some time before managers starting adopting it. It became prevalent once teams started having statistical success on the field. I think they are being over-used at this point. I also think that the game will adjust to the proliferation of shifts. With power numbers down, coaches will start instructing players to improve bunting and to hit the other way, and the use of the shifts will lessen. Btw, for all of those who think the defensive shift is new, it goes back at least to Ted Williams. I remember shifts for Willie McCovey. I got my hand on an old copy of a 1970 Red Sox game. Yaz hit a groundball to the right of second base and lo-and behold it was fielded by the SS who was positioned on the other side of second base.

[Dojji]

Yeah I don't like committing to Swihart this early when it's entirely possible that Vaz will return the better overall value at catcher. The good news is that this kind of commitment isn't ironclad and won't hold up in the face of any significant amount of evidence to the contrary

[cp176]

Yeah I don't like committing to Swihart this early when it's entirely possible that Vaz will return the better overall value at catcher. The good news is that this kind of commitment isn't ironclad and won't hold up in the face of any significant amount of evidence to the contrary

 

I think that you are right.

[cp176]

Any decisions made regarding building or fielding a team or in-game strategy needs to take into account the fluid dynamics of the game. That is where the art of managing (and general managing) comes into play. It is this aspect of the game that renders statistics useful but imperfect. It is also the part of the game that makes the game interesting. You can watch baseball for 100 years and still see things that you have never seen before. Defensive shifts are an example of on field strategy driven by statistics. All the spray charts had been there for some time before managers starting adopting it. It became prevalent once teams started having statistical success on the field. I think they are being over-used at this point. I also think that the game will adjust to the proliferation of shifts. With power numbers down, coaches will start instructing players to improve bunting and to hit the other way, and the use of the shifts will lessen. Btw, for all of those who think the defensive shift is new, it goes back at least to Ted Williams. I remember shifts for Willie McCovey. I got my hand on an old copy of a 1970 Red Sox game. Yaz hit a groundball to the right of second base and lo-and behold it was fielded by the SS who was positioned on the other side of second base.

 

I can still remember reading what Williams said about shifts. He made no adjustments and still liked his chances. They have been around for quite some time.

[jung]

I agree....Farrell's comments really don't amount to much in practice....which brings me back to where I was earlier. Maybe Farrell just does not want Vaz pushing himself to get there....happy to have him I think if he lands there on opening day but would probably be pretty unhappy if Vaz set himself back by pushing too hard for that goal.

 

Shifts have been around for a very long time. However it is the degree to which they are being implemented and changed now that is the dif. They are shifting based on the hitter, the pitcher and even the count now and shifting up and down the batting order. Throw in men on or bases clear and it is the multiplicity of different shifts that has changed and the caliber of player facing a shift.....It is no longer just the best hitters...not by a long shot.

 

I don't have the numbers for 2015 and I don't think they are out there as yet...but up through 2014 total shifts were going up by as much as 1,000 per year across baseball. I think I remember the number for 2014 was something north of 4,000 total changes during the course of all the games played with the number still growing.

 

Also it is a fluid environment. Last year as Ortiz slowed, teams kept pushing their shifts deeper and deeper into the OF as there simply were more places from which a throw could beat David to 1st. I hate the shift as we see it today because at this rate of increase ultimately we are going to rob baseball of great defensive plays. I really have little interest in seeing a guy positioned so that he just moves a couple of feet and takes away a potential hit as opposed to seeing a guy get a great jump, and track the ball down...maybe either taking such a direct route (JBJ) that he can catch up to the batted ball or is just so fast (Ells) that he outruns the baseball to make a play on it.

[Kimmi]

You are absolutely right. The but here is that the best way to set up a lineup is not currently being used. Whatever you think the traditional way of looking at things really might not be that much different from what you might think the optimal way of setting up a lineup might be. You do have an aversion to the terms themselves. I truly believe that the majority of team owners and managers have been "enlightened". I do not believe that the people doing it today are getting it all wrong.

 

The majority of the GMs have been enlightened (although I'm not sold on Dombrowski being enlightened), but that enlightenment has not trickled down to the managers yet, for whatever reason. Believe it or not, the managers are still getting it wrong, on more than just batting orders.

[Kimmi]

Kimmi, it is one thing to second guess a manager for a particular game or even over the entire season. However, you are questioning the entire baseball establishment. I don't recall a single successful manager who has managed the way you are suggesting over an entire season. BTW I presume you have never managed, or am wrong about that assumption.

 

It's not me that's questioning the entire baseball establishment, it's the sabermetric community. It's what they do. They are not willing to accept that something is a best practice because that's the way it's always been done.

 

You're right about one thing. There hasn't been a manager, successful or otherwise, who has set a lineup the way it should be set. So a team scores 750 runs in a season and everyone says they had a successful lineup. Had they set an optimal lineup, perhaps they would have score 765 runs. Perhaps they would have won one or two more games. The data supports this crazy idea.

[Kimmi]

I wonder if he has anything left other than a need for a paycheck.

 

Oki has forever won a place in my heart. I hope he's successful in his return to MLB. Except when he pitches against the Sox, of course.

[Kimmi]

No, there isn't a best way, there's an ideal way, there's a difference. The ideal way presumes that every event and even every team's baseball season conforms to average numbers, and we all know it doesn't, you should know Kimmi, you've argued yourself redfaced with a700 over this very point all winter.

 

If the ideal way in theory isn't demonstrably sufficiently better than the conentional way to prompt adoption among the minds of the 30 teams of leaders who stake their paychecks on this game and whose job it is to secure the best possible advantage for their team, then there must be some disadvantages, real or perceived, to pursuing the theoretical ideal lineup, and in that case any way in which it might be meaningfully termed "best" is irrelevant, academic at best, pedantic at worst

 

First off, let me say AGAIN that batting order doesn't make that much of a difference. Fans fret waaaayyy too much over some batter hitting in the 3 hole versus the 4 hole. Switching your #2 and #6 guys would make a difference of 2 runs over the entire season.

 

A mistake as egregious as putting a weak hitting pitcher in the cleanup spot and putting your clean up hitter 9th would make a difference of 16 runs over a season, but no manager would do something like that.

 

The difference between the optimal lineup and a traditional lineup is about 15 runs over a season, 1 or 2 games. Not a huge amount, but nor is it insignificant.

 

That said, no manager is willing to buck conventional wisdom and put someone like Youkilis in the leadoff spot. Therefore, the types of changes that we are talking about in the lineup are negligible. Therefore, let me say AGAIN, that a manager is better off putting hitters where they feel most comfortable. In other words, sabermetric folks recommend that managers go with the human element/dynamics thing.

 

Now if there is a manager out there who IS willing to go against traditional wisdom and set a line up correctly, then that's a different story.

[Kimmi]

Pretty much, I go with this one. Traditional thinking does not necessarily mean unyielding or old fashioned. Sometimes it really does mean that the common sense rule is being applied. I'm beginning to think that with respect to many things not simply related to baseball, people that constantly advocate for "new" ways of looking at things are unwilling to accept that everything has just not been recently discovered. Over the years, I have found that being open to many different ways of looking at things be they new or old is pretty much the way to go. Now Kimmi - although you do lean in toward one direction - i am not specifically talking about you even though my statement is a bit of a generalization.

 

Why is it common sense? Because it's always been done that way?

 

There is nothing to support that the traditional lineup, or the way the managers have always done it, is better than some unconventional way. Nothing. There is a lot of data out there to support otherwise.

 

Being open minded is being able to accept that something you have forever believed to be correct just might be wrong.

 

You all have no idea how traditional my baseball beliefs have been until very recently. I never realized how wrong I was about so much in baseball until recently. I was willing to accept that my traditional views were wrong.

 

FTR, I am still very traditional in terms of the play of the field.

[Kimmi]

There are psychological factors in baseball that can never be measured or explained.

 

With regard to the batting order, one thing that always sticks out in my head is what happened in 2008 when Ellsbury was going through a rough stretch leading off.

 

Tito tried Pedroia at leadoff and then he tried Drew.

 

Pedroia had a .520 OPS in 17 games. His overall OPS for the year was .869.

 

Drew had a .596 OPS in 8 games. His overall OPS for the year was .927.

 

Meanwhile Ellsbury put up big numbers hitting at the bottom of the lineup and finally got his old spot back.

 

I have always advocated for someone who is struggling at the top of the lineup to be moved down in the order. For one, if the player is struggling, he's not the best candidate for being at the top of the order. But just as importantly, I think it helps the batter a great deal to have some pressure taken off.

[Bellhorn04]

First off, let me say AGAIN that batting order doesn't make that much of a difference. Fans fret waaaayyy too much over some batter hitting in the 3 hole versus the 4 hole. Switching your #2 and #6 guys would make a difference of 2 runs over the entire season.

 

A mistake as egregious as putting a weak hitting pitcher in the cleanup spot and putting your clean up hitter 9th would make a difference of 16 runs over a season, but no manager would do something like that.

 

The difference between the optimal lineup and a traditional lineup is about 15 runs over a season, 1 or 2 games. Not a huge amount, but nor is it insignificant.

 

That said, no manager is willing to buck conventional wisdom and put someone like Youkilis in the leadoff spot. Therefore, the types of changes that we are talking about in the lineup are negligible. Therefore, let me say AGAIN, that a manager is better off putting hitters where they feel most comfortable. In other words, sabermetric folks recommend that managers go with the human element/dynamics thing.

 

Now if there is a manager out there who IS willing to go against traditional wisdom and set a line up correctly, then that's a different story.

 

I think that the real problem may be with the players more so than the managers. It's pretty much common knowledge that baseball players in general do not react well to stuff that might mess up their heads in the slightest way.

 

I know that Pedroia did some grumbling about hitting leadoff back in 2008. If I recall correctly his main complaint was that he felt like he was trying to alter his normal hitting approach, because there was a bit more pressure on him to draw walks and get on base. And his numbers were awful.

[User Name]

It's not me that's questioning the entire baseball establishment, it's the sabermetric community. It's what they do. They are not willing to accept that something is a best practice because that's the way it's always been done.

 

You're right about one thing. There hasn't been a manager, successful or otherwise, who has set a lineup the way it should be set. So a team scores 750 runs in a season and everyone says they had a successful lineup. Had they set an optimal lineup, perhaps they would have score 765 runs. Perhaps they would have won one or two more games. The data supports this crazy idea.

 

Tony LaRussa.

[Kimmi]

For everyone's reading pleasure, this article expresses my point of view nicely.

 

Over the last 30 years, there has been a revolution in baseball thought. Long held, traditional conceptions of player value, in-game tactics, roster construction and organization building which had grown into truisms of the game, and even worse things that "everybody knows," have been re-evaluated, tested, re-thought and in many cases debunked. Much of the old artifice of baseball theory has been torn down and replaced by a new architecture of ideas which have been widely tested, (informally) peer reviewed, re-tested and improved upon.

 

While these new ideas and the "question everything" philosophy behind them have not been internalized by all baseball fans, sports media, coaches and players, over the last 15 years, they have found a home in many MLB front offices. By most accounts, all major league front offices utilize statistical analysis to some degree. And it appears that many have been willing to change how they evaluate players, build their teams and run their organizations.

 

One of the key tenets of the new baseball thinking, which I will refer to as "sabermetrics" for the sake of ease, is that teams should try to find market inefficiencies and exploit them to gain an advantage over their opponents. But this concept has not yet trickled down to the managerial ranks in any significant way. I contend that there are significant advantages to be had by MLB teams by having their managers act more "sabermetrically". And I am quite curious as to why general managers have not pushed their managers in this direction. I would argue that they should. Here's how:

 

What could a sabermetric manager do?

 

1. Use optimized lineups.

 

It is generally recognized that the optimized lineup over a full season would score five to fifteen runs more than the standard lineup. So we’re very roughly talking about one win. Now one win might not seem like a lot, but as Matt Klaassen’s excellent recent article pointed out, one win is often difference between a good player and a bad player. It can also mean the difference between making it to the playoffs or not. It’s worth about $5 million on the free agent market. In short, should major league teams be turning their back on a win?

 

But that’s exactly what every major league manager does. No MLB team uses an optimized lineup or anything close to it. Sure occasionally some manager will bat the pitcher 8th or use a slow, high-OBP player as the leadoff hitter. But other than these small tweaks, managers do their very best to fit their players into the traditional batting order profile. Why? Because that’s the way it’s always been done, and therefore it must work best that way. They are not interested in studies that show that it doesn’t work best that way. Everybody knows that’s the ways to construct a lineup.

 

 

And if you're so inclined to learn about the other ways in which managers are doing things wrong, here's a link to the full article:

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/4/14/2110082/why-dont-sabermetric-gms-have-sabermetric-managers-and-shouldnt-they

[Kimmi]

I think that the real problem may be with the players more so than the managers. It's pretty much common knowledge that baseball players in general do not react well to stuff that might mess up their heads in the slightest way.

 

I know that Pedroia did some grumbling about hitting leadoff back in 2008. If I recall correctly his main complaint was that he felt like he was trying to alter his normal hitting approach, because there was a bit more pressure on him to draw walks and get on base. And his numbers were awful.

 

That is a valid point. I'm guessing someone like Papi would balk at the idea of hitting 1st or 2nd, though he is better suited for the clean up spot. One writer suggested that hitters probably feel more comfortable in a certain line up spot because that is the traditional role that they've always been told they're best suited for.

 

I read something about the insane number of different batting lineups managers used throughout the season. It doesn't seem that most managers are working towards the "comfort and consistency" mantra.

[Kimmi]

Tony LaRussa.

 

LaRussa probably had it closer than any other manager we've seen.

[Elktonnick]

It's not me that's questioning the entire baseball establishment, it's the sabermetric community. It's what they do. They are not willing to accept that something is a best practice because that's the way it's always been done.

 

You're right about one thing. There hasn't been a manager, successful or otherwise, who has set a lineup the way it should be set. So a team scores 750 runs in a season and everyone says they had a successful lineup. Had they set an optimal lineup, perhaps they would have score 765 runs. Perhaps they would have won one or two more games. The data supports this crazy idea.

Does it now? Unless a theory has been proven by experience and replicated it is still an untested theory.

[Bellhorn04]

That is a valid point. I'm guessing someone like Papi would balk at the idea of hitting 1st or 2nd, though he is better suited for the clean up spot. One writer suggested that hitters probably feel more comfortable in a certain line up spot because that is the traditional role that they've always been told they're best suited for.

 

I read something about the insane number of different batting lineups managers used throughout the season. It doesn't seem that most managers are working towards the "comfort and consistency" mantra.

 

I think most tinkering is done when teams aren't scoring though, not when they are.

[a700hitter]

Does it now? Unless a theory has been proven by experience and replicated it is still an untested theory.

That's right. Sabrementrics uses math but it is not science. There are so many variables that the statistics do not take into account. Until managers start doing it, we only have a theory. Sabremetricsians are not working with the immutable laws of physics. Edited February 5, 2016 by a700hitter

[Spudboy]

Oki has forever won a place in my heart. I hope he's successful in his return to MLB. Except when he pitches against the Sox, of course.

 

I'm certainly with you on this. I always liked the way he competed.

[SoxHop]

For everyone's reading pleasure, this article expresses my point of view nicely.

 

 

 

 

And if you're so inclined to learn about the other ways in which managers are doing things wrong, here's a link to the full article:

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/4/14/2110082/why-dont-sabermetric-gms-have-sabermetric-managers-and-shouldnt-they

 

Thanks for the article Kimmi. I especially agree with the article and the role of the closer. I've never come to grips with the best bullpen pitcher not being used in situations earlier in the game when things start to go bad.

[Bellhorn04]

It's not me that's questioning the entire baseball establishment, it's the sabermetric community. It's what they do. They are not willing to accept that something is a best practice because that's the way it's always been done.

 

You're right about one thing. There hasn't been a manager, successful or otherwise, who has set a lineup the way it should be set. So a team scores 750 runs in a season and everyone says they had a successful lineup. Had they set an optimal lineup, perhaps they would have score 765 runs. Perhaps they would have won one or two more games. The data supports this crazy idea.

 

Of course, if all managers adopted lineup optimization, nobody would be any further ahead, relatively speaking. So what's the point?

[mvp 78]

Tony LaRussa.

 

Pfffft, what did that goober ever win?!?

[cp176]

Why is it common sense? Because it's always been done that way?

 

There is nothing to support that the traditional lineup, or the way the managers have always done it, is better than some unconventional way. Nothing. There is a lot of data out there to support otherwise.

 

Being open minded is being able to accept that something you have forever believed to be correct just might be wrong.

 

You all have no idea how traditional my baseball beliefs have been until very recently. I never realized how wrong I was about so much in baseball until recently. I was willing to accept that my traditional views were wrong.

 

FTR, I am still very traditional in terms of the play of the field.

 

1. Common sense to me has little to do with the past but much to do with doing what I think is the right thing after collecting and considering various opinions and points of view. Change for change sake doesn't work particularly well in my world.

 

2. I am glad that there is and has been a great deal of data supporting what you consider to be unconventional ideas. If the ultimate effect of much of it is as small as you have said it is, i would not fault anyone from not embracing it wholeheartedly too soon.

 

3. You have no idea how open minded I am. I am very hesitant to admit that I am absolutely right about anything until I consider a great deal of information pertinent to the questions I am looking for answers to.

 

4. It sounds like you have arrived at some sort of epiphany. This is a fun conversation and for me something to do. I love the games just clearly not to the extent that I am going to advocate for major changes that really don't seem to amount to much in the grand scheme of things.

Edited February 5, 2016 by cp176
spelling error

[SoxnCycles]

1. Common sense to me has little to do with the past but much to do with doing what I think is the right thing after collecting and considering various opinions and points of view. Change for change sake doesn't work particularly well in my world.

 

2. I am glad that there is and has been a great deal of data supporting what you consider to be unconventional ideas. If the ultimate effect of much of it is as small as you have said it is, i would not fault anyone from not embracing it wholeheartedly too soon.

 

3. You have no idea how open minded I am. I am very hesitant to admit that I am absolutely right about anything until I consider a great deal of information pertinent to the questions I am looking for answers to.

 

4. It sounds like you have arrived at some sort of epiphany. This is a fun conversation and for me something to do. I love the games just clearly not to the extent that I am going to advocate for major changes that really don't seem to amount to much in the grand scheme of things.

 

 

Are you suggesting that Kimmi is advocating for "major change" in baseball?

The NL adopting the DH is a major change.

 

Managers using sabermetrics to attempt to optimize a lineup is about as far from a major change as you can get.

[Dojji]

If this optimization was as good an idea as its advocates claim that it is, someone would have done it by now.

 

The team leadership may not entertain new thoughts lightly, but they're not idiots. If they felt that a sufficient competitive advantage existed to justify trying a given method to improve run production do you really think they'd risk weakening their chances in the playoffs, or even to get to them, by not playing the lineup to its best possible advantage? Come on now people, think through the real implications of what you're actually suggesting.

[cp176]

 

 

Are you suggesting that Kimmi is advocating for "major change" in baseball?

The NL adopting the DH is a major change.

 

Managers using sabermetrics to attempt to optimize a lineup is about as far from a major change as you can get.

 

 

No I am not. I am suggesting that there are still many different ways of looking at potential problems and solving them. IMO - No one way is the right way.

[jung]

I think where this discussion gets fuzzy is that there does appear to be some support here for using sabermetrics as a driving influence in building an entire lineup or a batting order as opposed to using it as guidance. I actually don't know if there might be some guys using sabermetrics unilaterally and to the exclusion of anything else to build an entire lineup. If there are I don't think that would a very smart way to do things. I think that is the dividing line for the discussion. I am trying to parse that with a very thin, sharp blade.

 

As I stated earlier, I would likely use OBP to choose my lead off hitter unless he needed a wheelchair to get down to 1st. So for my money that is a stat that could be useful for choosing that guy. But since I am not excluding the ability to get down the line completely even there I would not be using either a stat or an advanced stat to the exclusion of everything else. I also might not do that if I had two guys with very similar OBP's but one with much more broadly based hitting skills than the other. My recent example was Holt/Mookie. I would not have batted Mookie from the 1 hole with Holt playing as much as he was last year. I would have batted Holt lead off leaving pitchers to have to deal with Mookie with Holt on base if at all possible instead of giving Holt that opportunity with Mookie on base. Had we better than chopped liver at the bottom of the order last year, maybe I would have not been so definitive about that. But it would not take a rocket scientist to see how many other issues I am allowing to influence that decision besides a stat or an advanced stat, not to mention who is pitching.

Edited February 5, 2016 by jung

[cp176]

Buccholz, E-Rod, Porcello, Workman, Barnes, and Layne all early arrivals in camp. This I like. Hopefully Workman's come back story has a happy ending. JBJ and Moncada along with Vazquez already getting things going. Moncada is very young but he may push the envelope a bit. Would love to see them move him around a bit in the field.