Retire Jason Varitek's number?

[Bellhorn04]

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.

 

Don't forget getting picked off, caught stealing and running into outs. It's not all sunshine and roses.

[mvp 78]

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

 

Plus bad coaching (Zimmer) and ownership (letting Fisk and Lynn go).

[a700hitter]

Don't forget getting picked off, caught stealing and running into outs. It's not all sunshine and roses.

I'm done with this topic. Don't bother buying a stopwatch when you get a scouting position.

 

imo speed is more important now that Home Run and power production is down after the steroid era.

Edited January 11, 2016 by a700hitter

[User Name]

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

 

I like you.

[Bellhorn04]

I'm done with this topic. Don't bother buying a stopwatch when you get a scouting position.

 

imo speed is more important now that Home Run and power production is down after the steroid era.

 

Just so there's no confusion, I'm not saying speed isn't an asset or that it can't be used as a weapon, and I'm pretty sure nobody else is either. That was never the point.

[a700hitter]

Just so there's no confusion, I'm not saying speed isn't an asset or that it can't be used as a weapon, and I'm pretty sure nobody else is either. That was never the point.

 

Speed disrupts defense. It is that simple. There are no metrics that would establish the contrary. I am not talking about batting averages with speedy runners on base. That is not what I am asserting. Speed disrupts defenses and that is not a good thing for the defense.

[cp176]

Speed disrupts defense. It is that simple. There are no metrics that would establish the contrary. I am not talking about batting averages with speedy runners on base. That is not what I am asserting. Speed disrupts defenses and that is not a good thing for the defense.

 

Anything to put pressure on the defense to make them do something physically or mentally different than what they want to do is a good thing from an offensive standpoint. Speed does that.

[Bellhorn04]

Speed disrupts defense. It is that simple. There are no metrics that would establish the contrary. I am not talking about batting averages with speedy runners on base. That is not what I am asserting. Speed disrupts defenses and that is not a good thing for the defense.

 

By ignoring batting averages with speedy runners on base, you're taking an important part of the equation out of the equation.

[Bellhorn04]

Here's a question about speed using a guy who was mentioned here just a little while ago: Dave Roberts

 

In 2004 Roberts stole 38 bases and was caught 3 times.

In 2005 Roberts stole 23 bases and was caught 12 times.

 

Did Roberts' base-stealing attempts have a positive or negative effect on his team's offense in 2004?

Did Roberts' base-stealing attempts have a positive or negative effect on his team's offense in 2005?

 

I'm 99% sure the answers are: Positive in 2004, Negative in 2005. Kimmi can help me out with this - I remember her mentioning a study that showed you have to have a high success rate on steals in order for the positive of the extra bases to outweigh the negatives of the extra outs.

[mvp 78]

Anyway, no, don't retire Tek's damn number!

[Bellhorn04]

Anyway, no, don't retire Tek's damn number!

 

You're right. He was no good at throwing out base runners, and other teams disrupted the crap out of us when he was behind the plate.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

The issue was not about stolen bases, per se, but about the perceived added advantage that a speedy runner gives to his team when he is on first. Obvioulsy, if the runner can successfully steal second, then that's an advantage to the offense.

 

The secondary effect of "disrupting the defense" and thereby giving the offense, namely the guy at the plate, a big advantage is false. The advantage comes from having a runner on first, period. It could be David Ortiz. The advantage to the offense comes from having players playing out of position with ANY runner on first.

 

That advantage to the offense dissipates when the runner on first is a disruptive runner. The 12 to 16 points that a hitter gains in wOBA when there is a runner on first dissipates to just 2 points when that runner is a disruptive one.

[Kimmi]

And you lean toward being a homer and there is nothing wrong with that, but you don't like that label.

 

Homer is a derogatory term. Look it up. Traditionalist is not. I would not be offended if someone told me I had old school baseball views, and truth be told, I do have a few of them.

[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?

 

Speed is an advantage. The threat of a stolen base with a runner on first is not.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

This is an extremely traditionalist post.

[Kimmi]

I'm done with this topic. Don't bother buying a stopwatch when you get a scouting position.

 

imo speed is more important now that Home Run and power production is down after the steroid era.

 

On this, you are correct. The value of the stolen base has gone up.

 

That said, stolen bases have largely been overrated.

[Bellhorn04]

I've always thought that Roberts's stolen base, while a great play, has been blown out of proportion just a bit. The reason I say that is that you don't hear about Bill Mueller's RBI single nearly as much. That was at least as great a play.

[Kimmi]

Anything to put pressure on the defense to make them do something physically or mentally different than what they want to do is a good thing from an offensive standpoint. Speed does that.

 

Actually, it's just having a runner on first base that does that.

[Kimmi]

I've always thought that Roberts's stolen base, while a great play, has been blown out of proportion just a bit. The reason I say that is that you don't hear about Bill Mueller's RBI single nearly as much. That was at least as great a play.

 

Not to mention Millar's walk.

[Kimmi]

Here's a question about speed using a guy who was mentioned here just a little while ago: Dave Roberts

 

In 2004 Roberts stole 38 bases and was caught 3 times.

In 2005 Roberts stole 23 bases and was caught 12 times.

 

Did Roberts' base-stealing attempts have a positive or negative effect on his team's offense in 2004?

Did Roberts' base-stealing attempts have a positive or negative effect on his team's offense in 2005?

 

I'm 99% sure the answers are: Positive in 2004, Negative in 2005. Kimmi can help me out with this - I remember her mentioning a study that showed you have to have a high success rate on steals in order for the positive of the extra bases to outweigh the negatives of the extra outs.

 

You are correct sir. During the steroid era, the break even point on stolen bases was roughly 70%. Now, it's roughly 66-67%. Any success rate over that would be a benefit to the team. Below that would be a negative.

[Kimmi]

Anyway, no, don't retire Tek's damn number!

 

On a related note, Tek and Wakefield will be inducted into the Red Sox Hall of Fame.

 

Well-deserved for both.

[a700hitter]

By ignoring batting averages with speedy runners on base, you're taking an important part of the equation out of the equation.

Come up with something compelling and comprehensive and I will pay attention. Batting average is not comprehensive. Hitters batting behind fast runners will often be looking to make productive outs. The argument that disrupting defense is good for the defense is absurd. You are being ridiculous.

[a700hitter]

Here's a question about speed using a guy who was mentioned here just a little while ago: Dave Roberts

 

In 2004 Roberts stole 38 bases and was caught 3 times.

In 2005 Roberts stole 23 bases and was caught 12 times.

 

Did Roberts' base-stealing attempts have a positive or negative effect on his team's offense in 2004?

Did Roberts' base-stealing attempts have a positive or negative effect on his team's offense in 2005?

 

I'm 99% sure the answers are: Positive in 2004, Negative in 2005. Kimmi can help me out with this - I remember her mentioning a study that showed you have to have a high success rate on steals in order for the positive of the extra bases to outweigh the negatives of the extra outs.

This doesn't take into account the times that he was on base and didn't attempt to steal. His speed was still disruptive in those situations by taking extra bases, forcing bad throws, making the defense play out of position, breaking up DPs. The stats in your post are incomplete and inconclusive. Sorry, Bells. I am not going to let you up off the mat on this one, because you are making an absurd argument. Edited January 12, 2016 by a700hitter

[a700hitter]

The issue was not about stolen bases, per se, but about the perceived added advantage that a speedy runner gives to his team when he is on first. Obvioulsy, if the runner can successfully steal second, then that's an advantage to the offense.

 

The secondary effect of "disrupting the defense" and thereby giving the offense, namely the guy at the plate, a big advantage is false. The advantage comes from having a runner on first, period. It could be David Ortiz. The advantage to the offense comes from having players playing out of position with ANY runner on first.

 

That advantage to the offense dissipates when the runner on first is a disruptive runner. The 12 to 16 points that a hitter gains in wOBA when there is a runner on first dissipates to just 2 points when that runner is a disruptive one.

The issue was about disrupting the defense, not about helping the guy at the plate, so don't keep trying to steer the argument to that narrow issue. Speed causes errors, misplays and encourages hitters to move the runner along by making productive outs (thus hurting the batter's stats while helping their team). Speed disrupts defense in many ways, and disruption to the defense is not good for the defense. Edited January 12, 2016 by a700hitter

[a700hitter]

This is an extremely traditionalist post.

Ok, homer.

[a700hitter]

Homer is a derogatory term. Look it up. Traditionalist is not. I would not be offended if someone told me I had old school baseball views, and truth be told, I do have a few of them.

I don't think homer is a derogatory term. A homer is defined as "someone who shows blind loyalty to a team or organization, typically ignoring any shortcomings or faults they have." There is nothing wrong with rooting for your home team. It is less derogatory than the definition of "traditionalist" which is defined as "someone who is stubbornly conservative and narrow-minded." Edited January 12, 2016 by a700hitter

[cp176]

Actually, it's just having a runner on first base that does that.

 

Part of the package that has to be taken into consideration is what speed can do to an opponent from a mental aspect. I do not view the game in singular bits of statistical data. If I did, I would not like the game. It would lose its magic for me.

[mvp 78]

On a related note, Tek and Wakefield will be inducted into the Red Sox Hall of Fame.

 

Well-deserved for both.

Guess they'll let anyone into that place!

[mvp 78]

You're right. He was no good at throwing out base runners, and other teams disrupted the crap out of us when he was behind the plate.

 

I like you.

[Bellhorn04]

Come up with something compelling and comprehensive and I will pay attention. Batting average is not comprehensive. Hitters batting behind fast runners will often be looking to make productive outs. The argument that disrupting defense is good for the defense is absurd. You are being ridiculous.

 

I never made that argument. Your reading comprehension is terrible.