What will be the 2017 greatest weakness for the Sox?

[Kimmi]

I think "stat geek" is a label they bestow upon themselves and they like to give derogatory labels to everyone with whom they disagree.

 

False statement.

[a700hitter]

 

If clutch exists, it will be measurable through the player's performance.

Not really. Players at different times in their careers can handle pressure differently.

[Kimmi]

Stathead is not derogatory. if you prefer "geek", we can go with that. I would have thought that calling someone a geek might be derogatory.

 

Then again, you don't think 'fat slob' is derogatory.

 

You insult people in any way you want, then somehow 'rationalize' it as being okay.

[a700hitter]

False statement.

Which part is false? The second part is true. You label people.

[Kimmi]

The question was... Why do stat deniers worry about the motives of stat geeks?

 

I thought I'd answered the question but I'll expound on it a bit.

 

If a person who knows the outcome of a research before he starts it his "motive" will be to prove himself right - much like a poster who can do research to find you an orange elephant if it "proves" his point.

 

Every so-called "stat-geek" I've seen here has already questioned even the possibility that "clutch" could exist - although some have back-peddled away from that position a bit - so I have to question their objectivity and therefore their results.

 

I strongly question the stance that since something can't be proven mathematically the conclusion is that it doesn't exist.

 

I know that you likely won't believe this, but stat geeks are probably far more objective and less likely to be swayed by bias than you give them credit for. They aren't trying to prove themselves right. They may have an opinion on something going in, but they are not going to 'sway' the numbers to prove themselves right.

[a700hitter]

Then again, you don't think 'fat slob' is derogatory.

 

You insult people in any way you want, then somehow 'rationalize' it as being okay.

I never said that "fat slob" is not derogatory. It is derogatory and I meant it to be insulting. I do not think it constitutes an attack on the man's character anymore than calling someone shorty. Get the story straight.

[Kimmi]

Which part is false? The second part is true. You label people.

 

Not in a derogatory fashion. And not anymore so than anyone else here does.

 

I refer to people as traditionalists. Others refer to people as stat geeks. There's no difference.

[Kimmi]

I never said that "fat slob" is not derogatory. It is derogatory and I meant it to be insulting. I do not think it constitutes an attack on the man's character anymore than calling someone shorty.

 

Except that is pretty much the opposite of what you said before.

[a700hitter]

Except that is pretty much the opposite of what you said before.

I just maintained that it was not an attack on character. I never said that it wasn't insulting. Get it straight.

[a700hitter]

Not in a derogatory fashion. And not anymore so than anyone else here does.

 

I refer to people as traditionalists. Others refer to people as stat geeks. There's no difference.

You consider yourself to be a "stat geek." So no one is labeling you in a way that you don't label yourself. "Anti-stat" and "traditionalist" are not accurate for the people who you pin those labels on.

[Spudboy]

who is responsible for this? Spud?

 

what????

[Spudboy]

I just maintained that it was not an attack on character. I never said that it wasn't insulting. Get it straight.

 

I remember this conversation. Ted is recalling it as it was, I believe.

 

I said quite clearly that Pablow was a fat f*** or whatever and I said that I meant it as an insult.

 

By the way, I just read an article written Thursday by Pete Abraham that said the Sox are anxious for Pablow to be back in the lineup because he is so clutch.

 

It seems that The Sox believe in clutch.

[cp176]

what????

 

I had to blame Moon's rant on someone -lol. He baffled me with the ******** on the last one. I got through half of it but that is all I could deal with. Plus I wanted to find out if you had crawled out of the snow. We are coming home for a week or so and I bet I know what it is going to be like traveling through Boston to get to Maine!

[notin]

Because it's human nature that if a person goes into a situation "knowing" what the outcome will be they won't have much trouble proving what they already "know".

 

1. Not what he asked.

 

2. Are you actually trying to say stat people who "disproved" clutch went into it with a pre-determined mindset, but YOU have been open-minded on the subject?

 

3. Exactly why would the stat community have a pre-determined outcome for clutch? Saying "because they can't explain it" is a cop out and incorrect answer. First, that's a challenge to that type of crowd. And second,*are you saying "anti-stat" people are always so open-minded when it comes to change and are willing to embrace anything that challenges their "expertise"? You know, like defensive metrics?

[notin]

Stathead is not derogatory. if you prefer "geek", we can go with that. I would have thought that calling someone a geek might be derogatory.

 

Not since "The Big Bang Theory" hit the airwaves...

[notin]

"Anti-stat" and "traditionalist" are not accurate for the people who you pin those labels on.

 

But "clutch" is?

[notin]

The question was... Why do stat deniers worry about the motives of stat geeks?

 

I thought I'd answered the question but I'll expound on it a bit.

 

If a person who knows the outcome of a research before he starts it his "motive" will be to prove himself right - much like a poster who can do research to find you an orange elephant if it "proves" his point.

 

Every so-called "stat-geek" I've seen here has already questioned even the possibility that "clutch" could exist - although some have back-peddled away from that position a bit - so I have to question their objectivity and therefore their results.

 

I strongly question the stance that since something can't be proven mathematically the conclusion is that it doesn't exist.

 

Are you actually saying the clutch support crowd entered the argument without "knowing" the outcome? The stat crowd at some point did research and work and math. The non-stat crowd provided zero proof for the existence beyond "I know it when I see it." Yet somehow THAT is the side operating without a bias?

 

Which side is really seeing their so-called expertise questioned?

[cp176]

But "clutch" is?

 

Is calling someone clutch derogatory? What did I miss? I have been called anti-stat, traditionalist, old fashioned, old school, and just old. Sorry - left one out - conservative (the only one I like). I don't think any of the other labels really apply but oh well. If someone watched me play today and called me clutch, in all honesty that would thrill me - the others even though I can live with them, not so much. All things I don't think need to be proven in my world.

[notin]

Is calling someone clutch derogatory? What did I miss? I have been called anti-stat, traditionalist, old fashioned, old school, and just old. Sorry - left one out - conservative (the only one I like). I don't think any of the other labels really apply but oh well. If someone watched me play today and called me clutch, in all honesty that would thrill me - the others even though I can live with them, not so much. All things I don't think need to be proven in my world.

 

I'm questioning its accuracy as a label. ..

[Bellhorn04]

Are you actually saying the clutch support crowd entered the argument without "knowing" the outcome? The stat crowd at some point did research and work and math. The non-stat crowd provided zero proof for the existence beyond "I know it when I see it." Yet somehow THAT is the side operating without a bias?

 

Which side is really seeing their so-called expertise questioned?

 

I think several of us 'clutch' believers have acknowledged that it simply can't be proven one way or the other.

 

The SSS of postseason numbers and the randomness of baseball make it a complete exercise in futility.

 

Why can't we just leave it at that.

[moonslav59]

I think several of us 'clutch' believers have acknowledged that it simply can't be proven one way or the other.

 

The SSS of postseason numbers and the randomness of baseball make it a complete exercise in futility.

 

Why can't we just leave it at that.

 

Well said. I'm fine with moving on to another topic that has already been beaten to death as well.

[moonslav59]

So, what is this team's greatest weakness?

(These are the choices I'd have provided.)

 

A) The pen

3B

C) Starter depth

D) 1B/DH (Moreland for Papi)

E) Catcher

F) Manager (Mangement)

G) Lack of clutch hitting (just kidding!)

 

[Bellhorn04]

The bullpen is definitely a potential problem.

 

Third base is pure X factor.

[moonslav59]

The bullpen is definitely a potential problem.

 

Third base is pure X factor.

 

Agreed, and I view "X" as a weakness until proven otherwise.

 

I think our 6th starter is so good, it just about mitigates the weakness we have from 7-12.

 

I think Moreland for Papi is certainly a step down, but better D at 1B and Young DH'ing vs LHPs should help lessen than drop off in offensive production, if perhaps only slightly. I'm not sure I'd call HanRam-Moreland-Young a weakness at 1B-DH though.

 

I think our 3 catchers can produce 1-2 capable near league average catchers.

 

To me, the pen and 3B are our weakest positions, but that may not mean they are or will end up weak when compared to the league norm.

[notin]

The bullpen is definitely a potential problem.

 

Third base is pure X factor.

 

Pitchers who are typically not good enough to be starters are typically relegated to bullpen jobs. But one point about the Sox bullpen is the improvement in the rotation could and should lead to less reliance on the bullpen.

 

Plus if Pomeranz winds up in the bullpen it might actually be pretty good.

 

Starter depth might br the biggest issue. Getting decent pitchers like Niese tp take a minor league deal and serve as depth would be great but is unlikely. If health in the big three becomes an issue, the starter depth will lead to more reliance on the bullpen. So starter depth right now strikes me as the biggest weakness.

 

Unfortunately it's a tough problem to address. The Sox really need one of the younger arms in the system to step up in a big way. I have no idea who has that potential. ..

[notin]

I think several of us 'clutch' believers have acknowledged that it simply can't be proven one way or the other.

 

The SSS of postseason numbers and the randomness of baseball make it a complete exercise in futility.

 

Why can't we just leave it at that.

 

There is a big difference between believing in clutch hitters and saying everyone who doesn't is operating with an agenda...

[moonslav59]

Pitchers who are typically not good enough to be starters are typically relegated to bullpen jobs. But one point about the Sox bullpen is the improvement in the rotation could and should lead to less reliance on the bullpen.

 

Plus if Pomeranz winds up in the bullpen it might actually be pretty good.

 

Starter depth might br the biggest issue. Getting decent pitchers like Niese tp take a minor league deal and serve as depth would be great but is unlikely. If health in the big three becomes an issue, the starter depth will lead to more reliance on the bullpen. So starter depth right now strikes me as the biggest weakness.

 

Unfortunately it's a tough problem to address. The Sox really need one of the younger arms in the system to step up in a big way. I have no idea who has that potential. ..

 

I think we can handle one starter injury well but not two.

 

I do think Pom improves the pen enough to not be a big concern, especially if we can get anything out of Carson Smith.

 

I worry about this: Uehara, Ziegler & Tazawa > Thornburg + 1/2 season from Smith.

 

(Adding Pom does go a long way to evening that equation up. I suppose adding Wright does too, but Pom looks to be a better pen arm. If ERod starts in AAA, our pen loses a good arm.)

[notin]

I think we can handle one starter injury well but not two.

 

I do think Pom improves the pen enough to not be a big concern, especially if we can get anything out of Carson Smith.

 

I worry about this: Uehara, Ziegler & Tazawa > Thornburg + 1/2 season from Smith.

 

(Adding Pom does go a long way to evening that equation up. I suppose adding Wright does too, but Pom looks to be a better pen arm. If ERod starts in AAA, our pen loses a good arm.)

 

That's a very incomplete equation

 

Ziegler was only around for a little over a half season homself.

 

Why not adk if a full season of Thornburg plus a full season of Kelly plus a half seasonof Smith is more or less than a full season of Uehara, a full season of Tazawa and a half season of Ziegler?

[moonslav59]

That's a very incomplete equation

 

Ziegler was only around for a little over a half season homself.

 

Why not adk if a full season of Thornburg plus a full season of Kelly plus a half seasonof Smith is more or less than a full season of Uehara, a full season of Tazawa and a half season of Ziegler?

 

Fair enough. I will argue that the "full season of Kelly" was there for the taking last year. He didn't get a full season because he sucked. That could happen again, so I wouldn't use him in your point.

 

Is this better?

 

3/4 Uehara + 3/4 Tazawa + 1/2 Ziegler > Full Thornburg + 1/2 Smith

 

We could add Scott, Kelly, a full ML season of Hembree plus the Pom/Wright aspect to tilt the balance the other way. We could also trade for another Ziegler type this year.

 

I don't think out pen is "weak", but I do think it has the least strength value of our team with the possible exception of the "X factor" 3B situation.

[Bellhorn04]

There is a big difference between believing in clutch hitters and saying everyone who doesn't is operating with an agenda...

 

I don't believe those who don't are operating with an agenda. I just like arguing with them.