What will be the 2017 greatest weakness for the Sox?

[Kimmi]

I watch games similarly, although without the beer. And I usually find most of my complaints about umpires to be unjustified when I see replays. Unless for some reason the umpire in question is Joe West.

 

Stats to me are to fill some of the other 21 hours in the day when a game isn't on...

 

It's almost as if I wrote this post myself, right down to the Joe West reference.

[Kimmi]

I consider myself a stat geek, but not a hardcore one. I consider Kimmi a hardcore stat geek. I'm a softcore stat geek, I guess.

 

Unbeknownst to yourself, you just paid me one of the highest compliments that you could pay me.

 

Honestly, I'm not a stat geek in the sense that the Fangraphs or Baseball Prospectus guys are. I wish I were as smart as them when it comes to stats. I am a hardcore stat geek in terms of buying into and supporting their work.

 

Maybe I should be called a 'stat geek groupie'.

[Kimmi]

Would you like the label "Cinemax Stat Geek"?

 

LOL That is funny.

[mvp 78]

Stats very rarely enter the picture when I'm watching a game.

 

However, IMO, they are 100% necessary in order to get the best assessment of a player and in order to get the best understanding of the game. For me, they enhance the enjoyment of baseball.

 

I don't typically care about the other team. I don't need stats to tell me about performance for a guy on the Sox. Stats typically back up things my eyes already see. For example, it was obvious that Pedey's defense sucked in 2015 and just as obvious that he turned it around in 2016.

 

The only understanding that I really care about is that the team with more runs will win the game. That's the only truth, everything else is just conversation.

[Bellhorn04]

I'm a big follower of WAR now. I think it's cool to see Betts with a 9.6 WAR sitting second in the AL behind Trout's 10.6. (And you really can't ask for much simpler numbers than those.)

 

Alsop worth noting that the top 4 vote-getters in the AL MVP this year were in the same order as their WAR numbers.

[moonslav59]

I'm a big follower of WAR now. I think it's cool to see Betts with a 9.6 WAR sitting second in the AL behind Trout's 10.6. (And you really can't ask for much simpler numbers than those.)

 

Alsop worth noting that the top 4 vote-getters in the AL MVP this year were in the same order as their WAR numbers.

 

What's also very encouraging when looking at the AL WAR leaders on fangraphs is how many of our players placed in the top tier:

 

2) Betts 7.8

12) Pedey 5.2

16) JBJ 4.8

19) Bogey 4.7

(22) Ortiz 4.4)

34) Ramirez 2.6

 

4 in the top 20 and 5 in the top 35!

 

Pitching:

1) Porcello 5.2

3) C Sale 5.2

7) Price 4.5

22) Wright 2.8

*31) Pomeranz 2.5 (half season)

*NL ranking

 

3 of the top 7 and 5 of the top 30 or so in their league!

 

That's 10 guys with a WAR over 2.5. (all top 70 batters+pitchers) in their league last year.

 

7 guys with a WAR over 4.5!

 

Sox(7): Betts 7.8, Porcello 5.2, Sale 5.2, Pedroia 5.2, JBJ 4.8, Bogey 4.7, Price 4.5

Guardians (4): Lindor 6.3, Kluber 5.1, Kipnis 4.8, Ramirez 4.8

Cubs (3): Bryant 8.4, Rizzo 5.0, Hendricks 4.5 (Lester 4.3)

Dodgers (3): Seager 7.5, Kershaw 6.5, Turner 5.8

 

[Kimmi]

I don't typically care about the other team. I don't need stats to tell me about performance for a guy on the Sox. Stats typically back up things my eyes already see. For example, it was obvious that Pedey's defense sucked in 2015 and just as obvious that he turned it around in 2016.

 

The only understanding that I really care about is that the team with more runs will win the game. That's the only truth, everything else is just conversation.

 

I have no doubt that everyone here knows enough about baseball that they can make pretty accurate assessments about players' performances without any stats. I do not doubt that one bit.

 

That being said, there are two big caveats to that:

 

1. Your eyes and your biases will deceive you sometimes. That is not a knock on anyone's ability to 'know what they see'. It's just a fact of human nature.

 

2. There is no way to make any comparative assessments without stats unless you watch every game played by every team. If you really don't care about the other teams, then I suppose you don't need stats.

[Kimmi]

The above being said, here is my opinion regarding stats:

 

1. No one needs stats to simply watch and enjoy a baseball game.

 

2. However, if you are on a baseball forum discussing and debating baseball with serious and knowledgeable fans, which we all are, then you need to be able to back up what you're saying. It may not sit well with some people, but IMO, saying that "I know what I see" isn't going to cut it because of points 1 and 2 above, especially when the stats say otherwise. That is JMO, but I'm going to call you on it every time. This is not directed at anyone in particular, but just a general statement.

 

3. Often times, even when what we see is obvious, it's nice, fun, or interesting to be able to quantify things. For example, Papi's baserunning, which NS asked about in another thread. We all know he was bad at baserunning. We even heard the comment "I don't need stats to tell me that", which is fair enough. However, I was intrigued to know exactly how bad he was. Nicely enough, there's a stat for that.

 

4. In short, stats are both wonderful and necessary.

[Kimmi]

I'm a big follower of WAR now. I think it's cool to see Betts with a 9.6 WAR sitting second in the AL behind Trout's 10.6. (And you really can't ask for much simpler numbers than those.)

 

Alsop worth noting that the top 4 vote-getters in the AL MVP this year were in the same order as their WAR numbers.

 

As much opposition as there is to WAR, it really is a great stat. It's not perfect, but it is pretty comprehensive and it is pretty simple to use. It also allows for comparisons across leagues, positions, and time eras.

 

Most importantly, it works.

 

It should not be the end all be all, but if you had to stick to just one stat, WAR is it.

[a700hitter]

I have no doubt that everyone here knows enough about baseball that they can make pretty accurate assessments about players' performances without any stats. I do not doubt that one bit.

 

That being said, there are two big caveats to that:

 

1. Your eyes and your biases will deceive you sometimes. That is not a knock on anyone's ability to 'know what they see'. It's just a fact of human nature.

 

2. There is no way to make any comparative assessments without stats unless you watch every game played by every team. If you really don't care about the other teams, then I suppose you don't need stats.

Stats are helpful to me to stay informed about the rest of the league, but not about the Red Sox. Over my lifetime, I have watched thousands of games so I can adequately assess what I am seeing from the Red Sox players and compare that against the league standards. Watching every Red Sox game leaves me with no knowledge gaps that need to be filled by stats. I am not a homer when it comes to their performance. When one of our players stinks, I realize it and say it, I don't lie to myself that they are better than they are. Stats could be helpful as a reality check to homer fans who watch the team through rose colored glasses, so I get your point, but that has never been me.

[moonslav59]

Stats are helpful to me to stay informed about the rest of the league, but not about the Red Sox. Over my lifetime, I have watched thousands of games so I can adequately assess what I am seeing from the Red Sox players and compare that against the league standards. Watching every Red Sox game leaves me with no knowledge gaps that need to be filled by stats. I am not a homer when it comes to their performance. When one of our players stinks, I realize it and say it, I don't lie to myself that they are better than they are. Stats could be helpful as a reality check to homer fans who watch the team through rose colored glasses, so I get your point, but that has never been me.

 

Fact Denier.

[a700hitter]

Fact Denier.

I am a fact observer.

[notin]

Stats are helpful to me to stay informed about the rest of the league, but not about the Red Sox. Over my lifetime, I have watched thousands of games so I can adequately assess what I am seeing from the Red Sox players and compare that against the league standards. Watching every Red Sox game leaves me with no knowledge gaps that need to be filled by stats. I am not a homer when it comes to their performance. When one of our players stinks, I realize it and say it, I don't lie to myself that they are better than they are. Stats could be helpful as a reality check to homer fans who watch the team through rose colored glasses, so I get your point, but that has never been me.

 

Observation is subjective, however. That's not unique to any of us, and certainly not a limitation on "everybody else". I make observations all the time, but the truth is many of them are flawed in some capacity. However, I do realize this.

 

If you don't need stats to enjoy baseball, fine. But not needing stats doesn't make anyone more knowledgeable or observant.

[notin]

I'm a big follower of WAR now. I think it's cool to see Betts with a 9.6 WAR sitting second in the AL behind Trout's 10.6. (And you really can't ask for much simpler numbers than those.)

 

Alsop worth noting that the top 4 vote-getters in the AL MVP this year were in the same order as their WAR numbers.

 

And if he stays healthy, this year at the ripe old age of 25 (26 in August), Mike Trout will start passing Hall of Famers in career fWAR. He's already less than 3 fWAR behind Jim Rice..

[notin]

I don't typically care about the other team. I don't need stats to tell me about performance for a guy on the Sox. Stats typically back up things my eyes already see. For example, it was obvious that Pedey's defense sucked in 2015 and just as obvious that he turned it around in 2016.The only understanding that I really care about is that the team with more runs will win the game. That's the only truth, everything else is just conversation.

 

Even without looking it up, it was NOT obvious his defense sucked. It was not HIS best defensive season, but that isn't the same thing.

 

Now do I go look up stats to support my argument?

[a700hitter]

Observation is subjective, however. That's not unique to any of us, and certainly not a limitation on "everybody else". I make observations all the time, but the truth is many of them are flawed in some capacity. However, I do realize this.

 

If you don't need stats to enjoy baseball, fine. But not needing stats doesn't make anyone more knowledgeable or observant.

I look at stats a lot -- if for no other reason than I am in several Fantasy league, but I have found that statistics about the Red Sox line up with my observations.

 

Edit: I never said that "not needing stats [makes me] more knowledgeable or observant." What makes me fully informed as an observer of the Red Sox is that I watch almost every pitch throughout the season.

Edited February 12, 2017 by a700hitter

[notin]

I look at stats a lot -- if for no other reason than I am in several Fantasy league, but I have found that statistics about the Red Sox line up with my observations.

 

Edit: I never said that "not needing stats [makes me] more knowledgeable or observant." What makes me fully informed as an observer of the Red Sox is that I watch almost every pitch throughout the season.

 

Fantasy leagues are another way to enjoy stats.

 

I didn't single you out as "New stats are useless. I know everything from watching games and reading the back of baseball cards" guy. And I won't, because I already know who that is, although I don't think he posts here (yet)...

[cp176]

Fantasy leagues are another way to enjoy stats.

 

I didn't single you out as "New stats are useless. I know everything from watching games and reading the back of baseball cards" guy. And I won't, because I already know who that is, although I don't think he posts here (yet)...

 

Hey - are you talking about me? lol

I agree with you that making decisions based on observation is very subjective. Believe it or not, I also am a big fan of using all available data before making decisions. It is just that the subjective piece makes it work for me.

[notin]

Hey - are you talking about me? lol

I agree with you that making decisions based on observation is very subjective. Believe it or not, I also am a big fan of using all available data before making decisions. It is just that the subjective piece makes it work for me.

 

I think most people from BDC know who I am referring to.

[Kimmi]

What I don't agree with is using stats, so long as they agree with your already formed opinion based on observation, but then claiming that the stats are useless or wrong when they don't support your opinion.

[cp176]

I think most people from BDC know who I am referring to.

 

I was just kidding. I think that I know what BDC is.

[cp176]

What I don't agree with is using stats, so long as they agree with your already formed opinion based on observation, but then claiming that the stats are useless or wrong when they don't support your opinion.

 

I think that that is reasonable. i do think though like any piece of information regardless of how important they can be, they don't always tell a complete story.

[cp176]

I was just kidding. I think that I know what BDC is.

 

Pretty sure it is that "other" forum board

[Bellhorn04]

I think most people from BDC know who I am referring to.

 

Ah yes, the one and only georom. He has popped in here for a couple of very quick appearances.

[Kimmi]

I think that that is reasonable. i do think though like any piece of information regardless of how important they can be, they don't always tell a complete story.

 

I agree.

 

That I know of, no stat geek has ever suggested that stats will give you the complete story. By the same token, the eye test cannot tell you the complete story either. Perhaps that's what bothers me when someone says "I don't need stats".

[Spudboy]

I heard Farrell talk today. It seems that Wright and Pom are still working their way back from injury.

 

Could the Sox be short of starting pitching to start the season?

 

Will we lament trading Buch?

[cp176]

I heard Farrell talk today. It seems that Wright and Pom are still working their way back from injury.

 

Could the Sox be short of starting pitching to start the season?

 

Will we lament trading Buch?

 

Some will for sure. I was surprised to hear that Wright isn't ready. I wonder what Vazquez, Travis, Swihart, Leon, and Sandoval would say to anyone who doesn't think that spring training can be a time for some real competition for roster spots. Interesting to see how this all shakes out.

[jacksonianmarch]

Both are in trouble if they're actual injuries and not organizational caution. Wright's shoulder should have healed by now if it was just a rotator cuff strain. Pom has had 4 months off. If his elbow is still barking then someone might need to take a look in there. These would be big developments if you weren't talking about your #5 and #6 starters...

[cp176]

Both are in trouble if they're actual injuries and not organizational caution. Wright's shoulder should have healed by now if it was just a rotator cuff strain. Pom has had 4 months off. If his elbow is still barking then someone might need to take a look in there. These would be big developments if you weren't talking about your #5 and #6 starters...

 

Obviously I don't know anything about there injuries but it did seem to me that in Wright's case particularly, if it wasn't serious enough for some kind of procedure (unless I missed something), he should have healed up. They are both young men.

[jacksonianmarch]

If a "strain" still hurts 6 months after the injury, then it probably isn't a strain