Red Sox' relative strengths and weaknesses

[Bellhorn04]

A projection is simply the best estimate of what a player's talent level is, nothing more. That doesn't mean (obviously) that a player is going to play to that exact level of talent. No one or nothing can predict the future with 100% accuracy. No projection system can account for injury or randomness. MLB projection systems are very similar to weather projection systems.

 

There are various articles of how good projection systems are. The developers of these systems acknowledge their limitations. They are also constantly tweaking their systems to make them better.

 

They are not foolproof, but they are actually pretty good, and much better than human projections.

 

I'm fine with all that, but it's disappointing that there are no track records kept for how projections have compared to actual results. It's as if they don't want us to know.

[Elktonnick]

They offer a lot more insight into a player's actual performance and contribution to the team.

 

They are also less flawed.

 

that's only because we have the traditional stats also.

[a700hitter]

That might be the case, but if the stats disagree with your way of thinking, you're going with your way of thinking. That's the old school philosophy.

Not true at all. The less opportunity that I have to watch a player the more I rely on the stats. Conversely, the more I see a guy play, the less I need the stats. At the extreme, I don't need advanced stats to form an opinion about Red Sox players as I watch almost every game. When I look at their stats, it is out of curiosity and not to guide my opinion. The stats for the Red Sox almost always line up with my opinions.

[User Name]

Good point.

 

How is that a good point? Sabermetrics research began before the 70's hit, but took almost three more decades to enter mainstream consciousness. When Bill James refined the sabermetric approach, he sure as hell wasn't 66. Baseball is extremely resistant to change, and that's just further proof.

[Bellhorn04]

How is that a good point? Sabermetrics research began before the 70's hit, but took almost three more decades to enter mainstream consciousness. When Bill James refined the sabermetric approach, he sure as hell wasn't 66. Baseball is extremely resistant to change, and that's just further proof.

 

Well, I have seen the age factor get brought into the old school-new school debate about baseball stats. For example, just this morning a poster on this board said: "Yeah, the old cranks on this board are in a huge rush to adopt analytics. LOL"

[cp176]

As I've said many times, I realize that being old school or new school is not an either/or thing. I don't think there's a person on this board who doesn't understand the importance of having that balance.

 

I do believe that most people lean one way or the other though, don't you?

 

Your comment/asking about Bill James playing baseball tells me which way you lean. Again, when I say someone is old school, that is not meant to be an insult. As I've said before, my father is very old school. I would never insult my father.

 

 

My comment about Bill James tells you which way you think I lean. My opinion is that if he did not actually play, he missed the experience of playing a wonderful game. I take 0 offense by anything you say on this board. Once again, I enjoy reading different points of view. If old school to you, means not being afraid to admit that your opinion could be wrong, you got me pegged - I am old school. I learn something new everyday. I will say this - given the choice between actually playing and experiencing the games in general or studying them solely from a statistical perspective, I know you can figure out which way I lean on that one.

[Elktonnick]

I confess my opinion of James has diminished greatly. His ill conceived defense of Pete Rose, Penn State and Jerry Sandusky damaged his reputation.

[User Name]

Well, I have seen the age factor get brought into the old school-new school debate about baseball stats. For example, just this morning a poster on this board said: "Yeah, the old cranks on this board are in a huge rush to adopt analytics. LOL"

 

It is a factor. Not for everyone, but it is. Let's call a spade a spade.

 

The Bill James example is a terrible one because he was in his 20's when he started proposing sabermetrics, and it was the old guard, resisting change, that kept it from advancing the game for three decades.

[User Name]

My comment about Bill James tells you which way you think I lean. My opinion is that if he did not actually play, he missed the experience of playing a wonderful game. I take 0 offense by anything you say on this board. Once again, I enjoy reading different points of view. If old school to you, means not being afraid to admit that your opinion could be wrong, you got me pegged - I am old school. I learn something new everyday. I will say this - given the choice between actually playing and experiencing the games in general or studying them solely from a statistical perspective, I know you can figure out which way I lean on that one.

 

Except that this is a terrible misconception. The guy who really brought advanced stats to the mainstream media played professional baseball, but didn't excel at it. And he sure has had a good record of success with very little money over the years. Also, a lot of former players who are now doing scouting/FO work rely on advanced statistics to do their work. If the guys who played use a mixture of traditional scouting/advanced analytics, how would we, members of Talksox, know better?

[a700hitter]

Well, I have seen the age factor get brought into the old school-new school debate about baseball stats. For example, just this morning a poster on this board said: "Yeah, the old cranks on this board are in a huge rush to adopt analytics. LOL"

Take it where comes from. He is just here to criticize other posters. He adds nothing to the baseball discussion. He should take his act elsewhere.

[cp176]

Except that this is a terrible misconception. The guy who really brought advanced stats to the mainstream media played professional baseball, but didn't excel at it. And he sure has had a good record of success with very little money over the years. Also, a lot of former players who are now doing scouting/FO work rely on advanced statistics to do their work. If the guys who played use a mixture of traditional scouting/advanced analytics, how would we, members of Talksox, know better?

 

? - A misconception of myself?

[SoxnCycles]

Take it where comes from. He is just here to criticize other posters. He adds nothing to the baseball discussion. He should take his act elsewhere.

 

Just the Three Stooges here.

Coincidentally, the "new' versions are about the same age as the originals.

[a700hitter]

? - A misconception of myself?

 

Lol!

[Kimmi]

I'm fine with all that, but it's disappointing that there are no track records kept for how projections have compared to actual results. It's as if they don't want us to know.

 

I don't think it's that they don't want you to know. The creators of these projection systems are quite open about their shortcomings.

 

In terms of individual player projections, I think part of the reason is that there are too many different projected stats to keep an easy track record. Do you want a track record of BA, OBP, HRs, Ks, etc. etc.

[Kimmi]

that's only because we have the traditional stats also.

 

I don't understand what you mean by this.

[Kimmi]

Not true at all. The less opportunity that I have to watch a player the more I rely on the stats. Conversely, the more I see a guy play, the less I need the stats. At the extreme, I don't need advanced stats to form an opinion about Red Sox players as I watch almost every game. When I look at their stats, it is out of curiosity and not to guide my opinion. The stats for the Red Sox almost always line up with my opinions.

 

But you have said before that if the stats say something different than what you believe, you're going with what you believe.

[Kimmi]

How is that a good point? Sabermetrics research began before the 70's hit, but took almost three more decades to enter mainstream consciousness. When Bill James refined the sabermetric approach, he sure as hell wasn't 66. Baseball is extremely resistant to change, and that's just further proof.

 

I didn't think it was a very good point either. The fact that James is 66 has nothing to do with the term "new school".

[Kimmi]

My comment about Bill James tells you which way you think I lean. My opinion is that if he did not actually play, he missed the experience of playing a wonderful game. I take 0 offense by anything you say on this board. Once again, I enjoy reading different points of view. If old school to you, means not being afraid to admit that your opinion could be wrong, you got me pegged - I am old school. I learn something new everyday. I will say this - given the choice between actually playing and experiencing the games in general or studying them solely from a statistical perspective, I know you can figure out which way I lean on that one.

 

Do you feel that you lean more toward traditional views and beliefs, or more toward the findings of recent studies that have disproved many of the traditional views?

[Kimmi]

Take it where comes from. He is just here to criticize other posters. He adds nothing to the baseball discussion. He should take his act elsewhere.

 

Not true. Cycles makes many posts that add to the baseball discussion. Others criticize posters too - they just do it in a more subtle manner. Subtlety does not make the criticism any better.

[Youk Of The Nation]

Not true. Cycles makes many posts that add to the baseball discussion. Others criticize posters too - they just do it in a more subtle manner. Subtlety does not make the criticism any better.

 

No, but it is far more admirable. I admit it's very disappointing when the subtlety goes unnoticed, though. I've insulted people more than a few times on this site and had it go unnoticed, like a transparent balloon on a breezy summer day or a girl reading a book in Alabama.

[cp176]

Do you feel that you lean more toward traditional views and beliefs, or more toward the findings of recent studies that have disproved many of the traditional views?

 

 

That is a good question. It would really have to do I think with what you are specifically talking about. My values might seem traditional I guess to some. When it comes to something like baseball or athletics in general, I like to think that I am open to any new concept or idea. In all honesty, I find many "younger" people to be much less tolerant with respect to many things than I am. I really get a little nervous and tend not to trust people who are so set in their opinions that they won't listen, respect, and consider someone elses point of view. I was fairly successful with respect to my teaching and coaching career until I retired from all in 2014. You think someone could have started teaching and coaching in 1973 and been successful over that period of time without learning to adjust and often times change? I think you know the answer to that one. With respect simply to baseball, in all honesty I don't that embracing saber metrics defines someone as new school or old school. There is a lot more that goes into than that. Sorry you had to read all this. The simple answer - with respect to baseball - old school, new school, blend of both. With respect to things that really matter in my life like my family, guess you could call me a traditionalist.

[a700hitter]

But you have said before that if the stats say something different than what you believe, you're going with what you believe.

When it regards Red Sox players that I have seen play hundreds of times, I would trust my observations, but I can't think of any situations where that has happened. Until now, the stats have supported my observations in those cases.

[a700hitter]

Not true. Cycles makes many posts that add to the baseball discussion. Others criticize posters too - they just do it in a more subtle manner. Subtlety does not make the criticism any better.

No, he doesn't provide valuable contributions to the baseball discussion. He's a nasty prick who should post elsewhere. I don't think that I am being subtle at all.

[SoxnCycles]

No, he doesn't provide valuable contributions to the baseball discussion. He's a nasty prick who should post elsewhere. I don't think that I am being subtle at all.

 

Which is why I stay.

I fit right in.

[Bellhorn04]

I didn't think it was a very good point either. The fact that James is 66 has nothing to do with the term "new school".

 

When I said it was a good point my only real intention was to stick up for us old folks. A lot of us Baby Boomers think we're still young...

[a700hitter]

When I said it was a good point my only real intention was to stick up for us old folks. A lot of us Baby Boomers think we're still young...

 

Our bodies may betray us, but our minds remain sharp.

[mvp 78]

Which is why I stay.

I fit right in.

 

At the very least, you are able to take whatever you dish out. Most former posters on here would attack and then be offended if anyone stood up to them.

 

And a good feud is always fun to read when the offseason gets boring. I'd like to see a good UN/iortiz thread right about now...

[User Name]

Do not ignite my hate. It's a power you cannot control.

[mvp 78]

Do not ignite my hate. It's a power you cannot control.

 

C'mon, let's go for a stroll down the Mariano Hwy together!

[User Name]

C'mon, let's go for a stroll down the Mariano Hwy together!

 

Ugh. f*** Papelbon.