Sox hitting??

[Kimmi]

Bringing up Bryce Brentz is a 0 impact move that won't help the team but could hurt them. He's AAAA player, i don't get this fascination with him..

 

Because dudes dig the long ball.

[Station 13]

Because dudes dig the long ball.

 

Chicks digs it.

 

Plus baseball is doing it throughout.

[Fan_since_Boggs]

Bringing up Bryce Brentz is a 0 impact move that won't help the team but could hurt them. He's AAAA player, i don't get this fascination with him..

 

I don't think anyone is fascinated with him; we are talking about replacing a replacement level player with a guy who might be just a little better than that. The "better" involves more impressive platoon splits (and power) against LHP.

[bowman]

He needs to get a look. You can't ignore that kind of power.

[Larry Cook]

Benintendi with two taters today. Red Sox redeem themselves.

[S5Dewey]

What about research that refutes what is, in your opinion, obvious?

 

I'm willing to consider almost anything. What I'm not willing to do is to sell out 50 years of experience based on what statisticians say.

 

At the risk of offending number-crunchers everywhere, number-crunchers are notoriously soulless. All they see are the numbers. I simply believe there's more to baseball than numbers and those things can't be quantified. It's why we say "Baseball is a funny game".

[User Name]

I'm willing to consider almost anything. What I'm not willing to do is to sell out 50 years of experience based on what statisticians say.

 

At the risk of offending number-crunchers everywhere, number-crunchers are notoriously soulless. All they see are the numbers. I simply believe there's more to baseball than numbers and those things can't be quantified. It's why we say "Baseball is a funny game".

 

S5, I like you, but this is a bunch of dribble. First off, most sabermetricians crunch numbers to better understand the game because they love it. Calling a group of people you have had zero interaction with "soulless" just because their opinion does not match yours is both shallow and pedantic. Also, the whole "50 years" of experience point is bogus. Ask Josh Donaldson what "50 years of experience" about hitting got him to. He defied convention by actively challenging the collective advice of people with tens of years of experience with great results (and based on modern research I might add).

 

The fact that some things can't be quantified is true, but it doesn't demerit statistical or modern research.

[a700hitter]

What about research that refutes what is, in your opinion, obvious?

It usually doesn't if relevant data is used in an appropriate sample size.

[User Name]

It usually doesn't if relevant data is used in an appropriate sample size.

 

Miracles happen.

[a700hitter]

Miracles happen.

I believe that sabremetricians call those enigmas or outliers.

[User Name]

I believe that sabremetricians call those enigmas or outliers.

 

You are definitely an enigma Ted.

[a700hitter]

You are definitely an enigma Ted.

Only because I am a small sample size.

[Jasonbay44]

I don't think anyone is fascinated with him; we are talking about replacing a replacement level player with a guy who might be just a little better than that. The "better" involves more impressive platoon splits (and power) against LHP.

 

More impressive splits against scrubs in AAA. Chris Young is fine. Being a 4th OF isn't an easy job, especially with the random ways Farrell deploys Young. Brentz is going to make an impact.

[S5Dewey]

S5, I like you, but this is a bunch of dribble. First off, most sabermetricians crunch numbers to better understand the game because they love it. Calling a group of people you have had zero interaction with "soulless" just because their opinion does not match yours is both shallow and pedantic. Also, the whole "50 years" of experience point is bogus. Ask Josh Donaldson what "50 years of experience" about hitting got him to. He defied convention by actively challenging the collective advice of people with tens of years of experience with great results (and based on modern research I might add).

 

The fact that some things can't be quantified is true, but it doesn't demerit statistical or modern research.

 

Ok, that's fair, but I'll say that my comment about "soulless" was written somewhat tongue-in-cheek - which doesn't always 'carry' well on line. At the same time, I've known and continue to know many people who deal with numbers every day in their jobs and for many of them their reality seems to differ from the reality of other people. In short, they see more things as "cut and dried" while other people tend to take a wider - and more liberal - view of things.

 

Neither approach is "correct". There's room for both approaches as long as both approaches are weighed equally.

[bowman]

Is the Judge hitting himself out of the American League MVP award. If he continues on this pace maybe Benny catches him for Rook of the year. I really thing The Judge will finish up the season on a good note, but you never know. He will really have to tank I would think to lose Rookie of the year with the homers he has already put up. Something to watch..

[Nick]

As much as we try, it's difficult to capture statistically a bloop single vs hard line drive in gap caught for an out. Numbers initially say 1-1 vs 0-1. But if you witnessed both at bats, your memory tends to favor the guy who hit the line drive......thus begins "I don't care what the stats say" argument.

[cp176]

Ok, that's fair, but I'll say that my comment about "soulless" was written somewhat tongue-in-cheek - which doesn't always 'carry' well on line. At the same time, I've known and continue to know many people who deal with numbers every day in their jobs and for many of them their reality seems to differ from the reality of other people. In short, they see more things as "cut and dried" while other people tend to take a wider - and more liberal - view of things.

 

Neither approach is "correct". There's room for both approaches as long as both approaches are weighed equally.

 

I agree with what I think that you are saying. Maybe that is the safest way to go about agreeing with someone's point of view if you are not actually speaking with them. I will amend what I said slightly - I agree with everything you said up to the point where you used the "liberal" word. (lol)

[cp176]

As much as we try, it's difficult to capture statistically a bloop single vs hard line drive in gap caught for an out. Numbers initially say 1-1 vs 0-1. But if you witnessed both at bats, your memory tends to favor the guy who hit the line drive......thus begins "I don't care what the stats say" argument.

 

Actually there is a lot of truth to what you are saying here.

[jad]

As much as we try, it's difficult to capture statistically a bloop single vs hard line drive in gap caught for an out. Numbers initially say 1-1 vs 0-1. But if you witnessed both at bats, your memory tends to favor the guy who hit the line drive......thus begins "I don't care what the stats say" argument.

 

Except that statistics capture this perfectly! If a guy has the ability to hit bloop singles every game over a 162-game period, then that's the guy you want on your team--not the guy who hit line drives for nothing but outs over the 162 games, ending up with a .000 BA. (That's the whole point of statistics: you don't extrapolate from one case, e.g., 'oh, the coin flip came up heads, THEREFORE statistically coin flips always come up heads'.)

[S5Dewey]

It's perception. There are some who'd say that the player with the bloop hits is the better player based on statistics, but there are also those who "know" that the guy who's hitting the line drives is probably the better player.

[Bellhorn04]

Except that statistics capture this perfectly! If a guy has the ability to hit bloop singles every game over a 162-game period, then that's the guy you want on your team--not the guy who hit line drives for nothing but outs over the 162 games, ending up with a .000 BA. (That's the whole point of statistics: you don't extrapolate from one case, e.g., 'oh, the coin flip came up heads, THEREFORE statistically coin flips always come up heads'.)

 

But has there ever existed a guy with the ability to hit bloop singles every game (or most games) over a 162-game period?

[User Name]

And even worse, stats these days measure absolutely all of that anyways with exit velocity and launch angles.

[notin]

As much as we try, it's difficult to capture statistically a bloop single vs hard line drive in gap caught for an out. Numbers initially say 1-1 vs 0-1. But if you witnessed both at bats, your memory tends to favor the guy who hit the line drive......thus begins "I don't care what the stats say" argument.

 

True if you live and die by batting average, home runs and RBI..

 

Not true if you look at BABIP, LD% and all the other numbers available...

[Spudboy]

I'd like to hear Username?s opinions on why Mookie's numbers are down this year and what he may forecast for his near future at the plate.

[Nick]

And even worse, stats these days measure absolutely all of that anyways with exit velocity and launch angles.

 

Okay you are onto something........

 

Do we ignore the traditional baseball stats and value more what I call 'athletic' stats? That is contact rate combined with exit velocity and launch angle matters the most? End results thus are pretty much random at this point. But will that translate to 'winning'?

Edited August 13, 2017 by Nick

[sk7326]

Okay you are onto something........

 

Do we ignore the traditional baseball stats and value more what I call 'athletic' stats? That is contact rate combined with exit velocity and launch angle matters the most? End results thus are pretty much random at this point. But will that translate to 'winning'?

 

I don't think so - but you need to know what the stats are measuring.

 

The field of measuring baseball continues to evolve (and there are probably 30 different versions of these stats which the public doesn't see) - it is all just additional planks on the body of knowledge. So "contact" is one of those places where the industry is just learning more. It's just trying to get at the inputs - especially the stuff which the olden days never had the chance to measure ... exactly what is hard contact ... and exactly what is good defense. Is pitching 90% of the game, really?

 

What correlates most with winning is scoring more runs than the other guy ... what correlates with that is generating outs on one end and preventing outs on the other. Now, I think the idea of how patience at the plate helps prevent outs has been largely covered. But what characteristics of batted balls reduce the likelihood of generating an out - and more importantly, what part of it is controllable? And then, once you figure that out - is it teachable, or is it something that has to be scouted. (patience/approach is one of those where the common knowledge shifted from "teach" to "scout" because of analytics)

 

The new stats COULD be better - but there is still a lot of noise, and you have to know what you are looking at. For instance, wOBA (or wRC+) is probably the best one-stop stat for offense. The pitching ones are much tougher - because the amount that a pitcher can control batted balls is very much in the air ... it seems like some pitchers can, but it still is very noisy.

[Nick]

I don't think so - but you need to know what the stats are measuring.

 

The field of measuring baseball continues to evolve (and there are probably 30 different versions of these stats which the public doesn't see) - it is all just additional planks on the body of knowledge. So "contact" is one of those places where the industry is just learning more. It's just trying to get at the inputs - especially the stuff which the olden days never had the chance to measure ... exactly what is hard contact ... and exactly what is good defense. Is pitching 90% of the game, really?

 

What correlates most with winning is scoring more runs than the other guy ... what correlates with that is generating outs on one end and preventing outs on the other. Now, I think the idea of how patience at the plate helps prevent outs has been largely covered. But what characteristics of batted balls reduce the likelihood of generating an out - and more importantly, what part of it is controllable? And then, once you figure that out - is it teachable, or is it something that has to be scouted. (patience/approach is one of those where the common knowledge shifted from "teach" to "scout" because of analytics)

 

The new stats COULD be better - but there is still a lot of noise, and you have to know what you are looking at. For instance, wOBA (or wRC+) is probably the best one-stop stat for offense. The pitching ones are much tougher - because the amount that a pitcher can control batted balls is very much in the air ... it seems like some pitchers can, but it still is very noisy.

 

Really good stuff......if feels like doing homework and I'm getting headache...

 

On a side note, I do like that we can chart every hit ball for a player. Then you can overlay onto another field. For Sox we are looking for guys with tons of fly balls to left field, someone like Nunez.

[notin]

I'd like to hear Username?s opinions on why Mookie's numbers are down this year and what he may forecast for his near future at the plate.

 

This sounds like a job for the WAPM..

[sk7326]

Really good stuff......if feels like doing homework and I'm getting headache...

 

On a side note, I do like that we can chart every hit ball for a player. Then you can overlay onto another field. For Sox we are looking for guys with tons of fly balls to left field, someone like Nunez.

 

I would not get too bogged down - it's just knowing what the information is saying. After all, there IS no stat which will say everything - if there were, then being a GM would be super easy. Why vote for awards if WAR were that precise? What is true is that the great seasons of yore still are great (like Ortiz 2016) - what the new stuff has done I think is allow us to appreciate a season like Victorino's 2013 (or Ellsbury's) in a way which the old stats did not do nearly adequately enough.

 

Anybody could see 2000 Pedro was amazing - but seeing an 11 win Felix Hernandez season as special, then it helps to have some of the new stuff.

 

A place where the new stuff showed was Pedroia's MVP in 2008. While I am sure most voters voted for scrappy mctufferson and his leadership abilities on a terrific team, advanced numbers end up taking a season that looked good but not amazing, and revealed just how fantastic he really was that year.

[moonslav59]

This sounds like a job for the WAPM..

 

What will be all the Sox numbers going to be over the last 6 weeks of the season?

 

Turn on that old rusty WAPM machine of yours!