Retire Jason Varitek's number?

[User Name]

....because they have traditional views, which is why you're making her point for her.

[Kimmi]

I watch a lot of baseball and I saw a lot of Pujols when he was a Cardinal and I have seen a lot of Howard too. This may disturb you but I would never even consider picking Howard over Pujols in any year unless his stats completely overwhelmed Pujols' stats -- and then I would resort to advanced stats for more information.

 

BTW, I didn't make the point that traditionalist views are so often wrong. You conflate traditionalist views with someone who lets their opinions be dictated by basic or (as you would term them) traditional stats. That assumption is incorrect.

 

The point that I did make is that there are a lot of sports writers who are idiots.

 

Well if you would never consider picking Howard over Pujols in any year, then you were not basing your 2008 decision on the just the traditional stats. You were basing it on a larger body of work and what you have seen in the advanced stats. And that is more or less my point.

 

By calling the people who voted for Howard idiots, you are saying that the traditionalist view was wrong.

[a700hitter]

Well if you would never consider picking Howard over Pujols in any year, then you were not basing your 2008 decision on the just the traditional stats. You were basing it on a larger body of work and what you have seen in the advanced stats. And that is more or less my point.

 

By calling the people who voted for Howard idiots, you are saying that the traditionalist view was wrong.

But according to you, I am a traditionalist, and I was right.

[Kimmi]

But according to you, I am a traditionalist, and I was right.

 

You are only willing to accept the stats/data when they agree with you.

 

The new school thinking is the ability to accept the stats/data when they disprove everything you've thought to be true.

 

So far, I haven't seen that from you. As I've said before, you once posted that if the data disagrees with your eyes/belief, you're trusting your eyes/belief. That is very traditional thinking.

[Bellhorn04]

And that should be the end of that.

[Spudboy]

I doubt it!

[a700hitter]

You are only willing to accept the stats/data when they agree with you.

 

The new school thinking is the ability to accept the stats/data when they disprove everything you've thought to be true.

 

So far, I haven't seen that from you. As I've said before, you once posted that if the data disagrees with your eyes/belief, you're trusting your eyes/belief. That is very traditional thinking.

This is not true. I will accept stats that contradict my opinion. When I have seen a lot of a player, the stats almost always confirm my opinion, so there is no need to change my opinion. With regard to players that I see less often, especially west coast players, I resort to stats and advanced stats frequently. Why is it so important for you to label people? I use the best resources available to form my opinions. When it comes to the Red Sox, my eyes are usually my best resource. With regard to players on teams other than the Red Sox, I don't rely on my eyes as much.

[a700hitter]

i doubt it!

lol!!!

[Kimmi]

And that should be the end of that.

 

I know. Game, set, match.

[Kimmi]

This is not true. I will accept stats that contradict my opinion. When I have seen a lot of a player, the stats almost always confirm my opinion, so there is no need to change my opinion. With regard to players that I see less often, especially west coast players, I resort to stats and advanced stats frequently. Why is it so important for you to label people? I use the best resources available to form my opinions. When it comes to the Red Sox, my eyes are usually my best resource. With regard to players on teams other than the Red Sox, I don't rely on my eyes as much.

 

It is not important to me to label people. I don't see anything wrong with saying that a person's view or thinking is traditional or old school. It's part of the point of the debate.

 

As far as you accepting stats/data that contradict your view, I'm not just talking about single players. I'm mostly talking about overall traditional beliefs that have been debunked. When you are presented with such data, you come up with every argument as to why the data is not valid, rather than accepting it.

 

Cases in point:

 

1. Speedy runners do not give the hitter at the plate an advantage.

2. Taller pitchers do not have an advantage, and scouts are biased against shorter pitchers.

[a700hitter]

It is not important to me to label people. I don't see anything wrong with saying that a person's view or thinking is traditional or old school. It's part of the point of the debate.

 

As far as you accepting stats/data that contradict your view, I'm not just talking about single players. I'm mostly talking about overall traditional beliefs that have been debunked. When you are presented with such data, you come up with every argument as to why the data is not valid, rather than accepting it.

 

Cases in point:

 

1. Speedy runners do not give the hitter at the plate an advantage.

2. Taller pitchers do not have an advantage, and scouts are biased against shorter pitchers.

I would accept stats that debunked my beliefs if I thought that the statistical study was comprehensive and reliable. Also, you continue to misstate what you think is my so-called traditional position.

 

With regard to item number 1, I did not feel at that time that those studies were comprehensive or compelling enough to establish anything. Secondly, I do not feel strongly about the so-called traditionalist view that speed on the bases gives batters an advantage. I said that in my last post on this, but you continue to misstate my position on this. I know of several batters that have hated having runners jump around on the bases. Yaz used to tell them to stop. I do firmly believe that speed on the bases puts pressure on and disrupts defenses. That is a much different issue than the issue addressed by your studies.

 

As for the second issue, I have explained that the bias against smaller pitchers is a bias in favor of velocity, and that bias is based in science (not sabremetrics) which dictates that taller guys with long limbs produce velocity more efficiently. A bias based in science is not unreasonable bias. It is called playing the percentages. They know that percentage-wise a much higher percentage of taller guys can hit high velocities than smaller guys. Isn't sabremetrics all about playing the percentages?

 

If you want to debunk what you think are my traditionalist views with statistics, first you need to correctly characterize and identify my views and then you need to provide statistics that are comprehensive and compelling.

 

The fact that you continue to misstate my positions looks like a desperate attempt to win an argument or put a label on me. I don't like labels, because the label of "traditionalist" that you put on people is meant to marginalize and discredit the opinions of those people with whom you disagree as uninformed.

 

I and most baseball obsessed fans look at whatever we need to learn about the game even if we watch a lot of it. I have been digging into stats for 50 years. I have seen stats used in a compelling way and I have seen stats misused. The best stats member that we had at TalkSox was Jayhawk Bill. He presented compelling cases that opened peoples eyes, and he did it without labeling other members who disagreed with him.

Edited January 10, 2016 by a700hitter

[Kimmi]

I would accept stats that debunked my beliefs if I thought that the statistical study was comprehensive and reliable. Also, you continue to misstate what you think is my so-called traditional position.

 

Perhapss your opinion that the study was not comprehensive and reliable is because it does not support what you believe.

[Kimmi]

Secondly, I do not feel strongly about the so-called traditionalist view that speed on the bases gives batters an advantage. I said that in my last post on this, but you continue to misstate my position on this. I know of several batters that have hated having runners jump around on the bases. Yaz used to tell them to stop. I do firmly believe that speed on the bases puts pressure on and disrupts defenses. That is a much different issue than the issue addressed by your studies.

 

OK, so a speedy runner disrupts the defense. I'll agree with that. However, that disruption gives no advantage to the offense. In fact, it gives a slight advantage to the defense by giving a disadvantage to the batter at the plate. Same issue.

[a700hitter]

Perhapss your opinion that the study was not comprehensive and reliable is because it does not support what you believe.

How many times do I need to state it? i have no strong opinion on this, so I don't care what the study would conclude. I just don't think it was an adequate study to provide definitive proof either way. Do you want to keep going in a circle here?

[Kimmi]

The fact that you continue to misstate my positions looks like a desperate attempt to win an argument or put a label on me. I don't like labels, because the label of "traditionalist" that you put on people is meant to marginalize and discredit the opinions of those people with whom you disagree as uninformed.

 

I am not trying to label or discredit anyone. The fact of the matter is, there are traditional views and there are new school views. Not all traditional views are wrong, but many of them are. New school views are sometimes wrong as well.

 

As I've said many times, no one here is either/or. However, I do believe that most people here lean more in one direction than the other. That's okay.

 

When I call something a traditional view, that's because that's what it is. There's no way around it.

[a700hitter]

OK, so a speedy runner disrupts the defense. I'll agree with that. However, that disruption gives no advantage to the offense. In fact, it gives a slight advantage to the defense by giving a disadvantage to the batter at the plate. Same issue.

I don't think that they are the same issue at all. I think that is a real stretch. Are you saying that disrupting the defense is a benefit to the defense? That is laughable.

[a700hitter]

I am not trying to label or discredit anyone. The fact of the matter is, there are traditional views and there are new school views. Not all traditional views are wrong, but many of them are. New school views are sometimes wrong as well.

 

As I've said many times, no one here is either/or. However, I do believe that most people here lean more in one direction than the other. That's okay.

 

When I call something a traditional view, that's because that's what it is. There's no way around it.

And you lean toward being a homer and there is nothing wrong with that, but you don't like that label. Edited January 11, 2016 by a700hitter

[Jasonbay44]

http://www.talksox.com/forum/threads/11774-Hello-to-all-Red-Sox-parents

 

speaking of Tek...

[Bellhorn04]

I don't think that they are the same issue at all. I think that is a real stretch. Are you saying that disrupting the defense is a benefit to the defense? That is laughable.

 

Isn't the basic point that it's a simultaneous distraction to the pitcher, the defense and the hitter?

[User Name]

Isn't the basic point that it's a simultaneous distraction to the pitcher, the defense and the hitter?

 

This is correct, and it's not rocket science.

[a700hitter]

Isn't the basic point that it's a simultaneous distraction to the pitcher, the defense and the hitter?

I don't think the disruption is equal to pitcher, defense and hitter. Disruption to the defense is not a good thing to the defense. It forces errors, makes players play out of position etc. Speed is a valuable weapon. Are you taking the position that disruption to a defense caused by speed is a positive or neutral for the defense? That is just silly. Edited January 11, 2016 by a700hitter

[Bellhorn04]

I don't think the disruption is equal to pitcher, defense and hitter. Disruption to the defense is not a good thing to the defense. It forces errors, makes players play out of position etc. Speed is a valuable weapon. Are you taking the position that disruption to a defense caused by speed is a positive or neutral for the defense? That is just silly.

 

No, I am not taking that position at all. Disruption to the defense is not good for the defense. But disruption to the offense is good for the defense.

 

So the issue is, which benefit is greater? And the only way to answer that is with the empirical evidence. For that I have to refer to Kimmi.

[a700hitter]

No, I am not taking that position at all. Disruption to the defense is not good for the defense. But disruption to the offense is good for the defense.

 

So the issue is, which benefit is greater? And the only way to answer that is with the empirical evidence. For that I have to refer to Kimmi.

So, you can go either way on this? You can be convinced that speed on the bases is an advantage for the defense?

 

Hmmm, and all these years I gave Theo credit for getting Dave Roberts and Francona credit for pinch running him for Millar. Who knew?

Edited January 11, 2016 by a700hitter

[cp176]

So, you can go either way on this? You can be convinced that speed on the bases is an advantage for the defense?

 

Hmmm, and all these years I gave Theo credit for getting Dave Roberts and Francona credit for pinch running him for Millar. Who knew?

 

 

Ouch on that one!

[Bellhorn04]

So, you can go either way on this? You can be convinced that speed on the bases is an advantage for the defense?

 

Hmmm, and all these years I gave Theo credit for getting Dave Roberts and Francona credit for pinch running him for Millar. Who knew?

 

Ah yes, one example proves the point.

[a700hitter]

Ah yes, one example proves the point.

Taking the position that speed that disrupts defense gives the defense an advantage is absurd.

[Bellhorn04]

Taking the position that speed that disrupts defense gives the defense an advantage is absurd.

 

What about the disruption to the hitter? Are you denying that or forgetting about it?

[a700hitter]

What about the disruption to the hitter? Are you denying that or forgetting about it?

The disrupted pitcher and defense outweighs any disruption to the batter. This is an absurd notion that disruption to the defense is good for the defense. Beyond what the batter may or may not do, there are rushed throws, fielders taking their eye off the ball, the base runner taking an extra base, staying out of a DP etc. Are there reliable stats to cover all of that? This is too ridiculous for me to debate. Speed on the bases is not an advantage for the defense. Just call me a traditionalist on this one and let it be. Edited January 11, 2016 by a700hitter

[a700hitter]

Ouch on that one!

Doug, and all those years you carried a stopwatch that you didn't need. Also, it must have been an enigma that our slow-footed Red Sox teams got beat by teams with speed. We should have been a dynasty in the 1970's.

[Bellhorn04]

Doug, and all those years you carried a stopwatch that you didn't need. Also, it must have been an enigma that our slow-footed Red Sox teams got beat by teams with speed. We should have been a dynasty in the 1970's.

 

If we had better pitching we would have been a dynasty in the 1970's, slow-footed or not.