Red Sox To Sign J.D. Martinez

[dannycater]

51-game on-base Fenway Streak...bravo JD, helluva run

[notin]

I remember seeing some paper that theoretically a ball could rise. It involved some combination of velocity and spin rate so as to overcome the effects of gravity and drag (air friction). Chapman has the velocity to do it but he can’t generate the spin rate and at his spin rate, he would have to be able to throw over 110.

 

Now if a submariner could somehow generate enough velocity, he MIGHT be able to do it. Was it Bradshaw who almost scraped the ground with his delivery?

 

Chad Bradford aka “The Guy Manny Owned”.

 

There is a difference between an overhand fastball rising and a fastball thrown at a slight upward trajectory rising....

[Spudboy]

Fast balls do not rise.

 

Really high fastballs remain a little higher as they past the zone because their trajectory ( altitude, really ) does not have as much time to decay from gravity.

 

All this can be modeled and proven by anyone who understands the physics involved.

[a700hitter]

Because it involves tampering with equipment, which is illegal in every sport.

 

There are ways a bat could be tampered with to increase batted ball distance. Cork isn’t one of those materials. (Although as it is less dense than wood, the reduced weight of the bat might lead to increased bat speed, which would be good. But if this is the case, a hitter should consider the perfectly legal maneuver of using a lighter bat)...

Going the legal route of a lighter bat without the caulk would reduce the surface area for hitting the ball. Hollowing out the bat and filling it with lighter material makes the bat lighter without altering it's surface area. Lighter bats equal faster bat speed resulting in additional distance, not to mention the trampoline effect of the cork in the barrel.

[Emp9]

But with the protection thing, the numbers just don't show hitters doing better in relation to how good the hitter behind them is - no matter whether it makes them feel better at the plate or not.

 

Theory is one thing and hard cold numbers are another.

 

I think thats a weak argument though. The numbers won’t show a great AB that ended in a K either. Not in positive way for the batter, that is. It’s a Stike Out that will be added to all his other strike outs accordingly. Never mind that said batter worked a full count and fouled-off 15 pitches, helped wear down the pitcher for the next batter, or maybe helped yank the pitcher depending on his pitch count, or whether the team won because of it. A productive AB, advancing a base runner won’t show up either, it’ll just be an Out. The “Cold Hard Numbers” DON’T show everything. They certainly don’t show the series of events that make up any paricular game. In isolation the subtleties and nuances count. Over the course of a whole season they get lost in the mix. Cold Hard Numbers are exactly that... Cold.Hard.Numbers.

[Bellhorn04]

I think thats a weak argument though. The numbers won’t show a great AB that ended in a K either. Not in positive way for the batter, that is. It’s a Stike Out that will be added to all his other strike outs accordingly. Never mind that said batter worked a full count and fouled-off 15 pitches, helped wear down the pitcher for the next batter, or maybe helped yank the pitcher depending on his pitch count, or whether the team won because of it. A productive AB, advancing a base runner won’t show up either, it’ll just be an Out. The “Cold Hard Numbers” DON’T show everything. They certainly don’t show the series of events that make up any paricular game. In isolation the subtleties and nuances count. Over the course of a whole season they get lost in the mix. Cold Hard Numbers are exactly that... Cold.Hard.Numbers.

 

One of the Cold Hard Numbers is pitches seen per at-bat.

 

Numbers won't show all the subtleties and nuances, I agree with that. Numbers will never be able to track everything. But generally speaking, large samples mean more than small ones.

[Emp9]

One of the Cold Hard Numbers is pitches seen per at-bat.

 

Numbers won't show all the subtleties and nuances, I agree with that. Numbers will never be able to track everything. But generally speaking, large samples mean more than small ones.

 

Yes, with zero context. Productive outs too, with zero context.

[cp176]

I think thats a weak argument though. The numbers won’t show a great AB that ended in a K either. Not in positive way for the batter, that is. It’s a Stike Out that will be added to all his other strike outs accordingly. Never mind that said batter worked a full count and fouled-off 15 pitches, helped wear down the pitcher for the next batter, or maybe helped yank the pitcher depending on his pitch count, or whether the team won because of it. A productive AB, advancing a base runner won’t show up either, it’ll just be an Out. The “Cold Hard Numbers” DON’T show everything. They certainly don’t show the series of events that make up any paricular game. In isolation the subtleties and nuances count. Over the course of a whole season they get lost in the mix. Cold Hard Numbers are exactly that... Cold.Hard.Numbers.

 

You said a lot here in a thoughtful way. As useful as any type of statistic is, they tend to tell only a part of the story. It is really all about the humans.

[Bellhorn04]

Yes, with zero context. Productive outs too, with zero context.

 

The big numbers don't show everything, I get it.

[Emp9]

Sorry if I mischaracterized what you were saying. My comments are just sort of general musings on the topic.

 

It’s all good man:o I’m just trying to keep a single line of thought on the subject because I can go off the rails... and so can the topic.

[jacksonianmarch]

DD really outdid himself here. Get prime JD at a lower AAV but higher up front and watch him be an MVP candidate. Most Sox fans want the Sox to retain JD, but you should just enjoy the fact that you got him for two prime years and what will likely be no commitment beyond prime

[notin]

Going the legal route of a lighter bat without the caulk would reduce the surface area for hitting the ball. Hollowing out the bat and filling it with lighter material makes the bat lighter without altering it's surface area. Lighter bats equal faster bat speed resulting in additional distance, not to mention the trampoline effect of the cork in the barrel.

 

That is all absolutely true.

 

However when a player tampers with a bat by filling the barrel with a less dense material such as cork, he moves the center of mass (aka the “sweet spot”) closer to the handle of the bat. This creates a shorter moment arm capable of reducing batted ball distance. It’s the exact opposite of using a fungo bat.

 

The increased bat speed certainly can make up for this. The formula for kinetic energy (1/2*mass*velocity squared) tells us bat speed is more important. But a player can only swing his arms so fast. And if he is already at his limit with a bat, corking a bat becomes detrimental due to the reduced moment arm.

 

Therefore he could and should sacrifice the small reduction in surface area for the lighter bat and increased bat speed and maximum moment arm...

[Slasher9]

what about super balls? those scumbag yankees teams of the 70's put superballs in their bats. (see: nettles).

[Kimmi]

which goes back to hitting a baseball is just as much mental as it is physical. if a player "believes" he has "protection" then guess what? he is more confident when stepping in the box and has "protection".

im not sure why people fail to understand the concept.

 

I do believe that having JD in the line up has given the other guys in the line up some confidence. I do believe that part of the improvement with the other hitters this year is due to JD's leadership and coaching.

 

What I don't believe is that that improvement is due to protection.

[Kimmi]

2017 Boston Red Sox vs 2018 Boston Red Sox

 

1. Regression and health

2. Cora's philosophy

3. JD

[Kimmi]

it's weird nomar did that batting glove thing before every pitch.

 

Weird? Not really.

Annoying as hell? Absolutely!

 

LOL I used to watch that routine very closely, trying to figure out exactly what he was doing.

 

Never was quite able to get it.

[Kimmi]

I think thats a weak argument though. The numbers won’t show a great AB that ended in a K either. Not in positive way for the batter, that is. It’s a Stike Out that will be added to all his other strike outs accordingly. Never mind that said batter worked a full count and fouled-off 15 pitches, helped wear down the pitcher for the next batter, or maybe helped yank the pitcher depending on his pitch count, or whether the team won because of it. A productive AB, advancing a base runner won’t show up either, it’ll just be an Out. The “Cold Hard Numbers” DON’T show everything. They certainly don’t show the series of events that make up any paricular game. In isolation the subtleties and nuances count. Over the course of a whole season they get lost in the mix. Cold Hard Numbers are exactly that... Cold.Hard.Numbers.

 

The number of pitches that a batter sees in a plate appearance does show up in the numbers. Productive outs show up in numbers as well.

 

That said, I agree that numbers cannot capture everything. On the point of 'protection', however, the topic has been studied very thoroughly, from probably every angle that you can think of.

[Kimmi]

DD really outdid himself here. Get prime JD at a lower AAV but higher up front and watch him be an MVP candidate. Most Sox fans want the Sox to retain JD, but you should just enjoy the fact that you got him for two prime years and what will likely be no commitment beyond prime

 

That is the beauty of JD's contract.

 

Dombrowski gets an A+ for that.

[a700hitter]

That is all absolutely true.

 

However when a player tampers with a bat by filling the barrel with a less dense material such as cork, he moves the center of mass (aka the “sweet spot”) closer to the handle of the bat. This creates a shorter moment arm capable of reducing batted ball distance. It’s the exact opposite of using a fungo bat.

 

The increased bat speed certainly can make up for this. The formula for kinetic energy (1/2*mass*velocity squared) tells us bat speed is more important. But a player can only swing his arms so fast. And if he is already at his limit with a bat, corking a bat becomes detrimental due to the reduced moment arm.

 

Therefore he could and should sacrifice the small reduction in surface area for the lighter bat and increased bat speed and maximum moment arm...

Interesting. What is the science by the bat companies that make bats with a hollowed out end ur is there none? I also think you are making an assumption about how the bats are caulked. I am not certain but I thought that they only caulk the bats at the end and not all the way to the sweet spot. Wouldn’t where the caulking was placed make a difference?

[Station 13]

JD just turns 30, he has many prime years left. Dude is just beginning.

[notin]

Interesting. What is the science by the bat companies that make bats with a hollowed out end ur is there none? I also think you are making an assumption about how the bats are caulked. I am not certain but I thought that they only caulk the bats at the end and not all the way to the sweet spot. Wouldn’t where the caulking was placed make a difference?

 

It doesn’t matter where they cork it, the difference in density moves the sweet spot further in. The deeper down the barrel one hollows, the more you move the sweet spot, even if you don’t reach it. Basically, corking the barrel of the bat is de-fungoing it.

 

The way to increase batted ball distance would be to cork the handle of the bat. But the obvious problem there is that it damages the integrity of the wood on the weakest part of the bat, and would definitely lead to more broken bats...

[Kimmi]

JD just turns 30, he has many prime years left. Dude is just beginning.

 

He will probably be very good for several more years, but decline begins in the early 30s. A player in his 30s is past his prime.

[cp176]

JD just turns 30, he has many prime years left. Dude is just beginning.

 

For sure - for many athletes 32-33-34-35- can be extremely productive years.

[moonslav59]

For sure - for many athletes 32-33-34-35- can be extremely productive years.

 

Yes, very true. For others, they drop off a cliff at 31 or 32 (Jim Rice). Most begin declining around 30-32- some faster than others.

 

Rarely, some get better after 30-32 (Dwight Evans).

[Station 13]

For sure - for many athletes 32-33-34-35- can be extremely productive years.

 

He is strictly a DH, he can have a longer career. We can't let a 50HR bat go.

[Emp9]

The number of pitches that a batter sees in a plate appearance does show up in the numbers. Productive outs show up in numbers as well.

 

That said, I agree that numbers cannot capture everything. On the point of 'protection', however, the topic has been studied very thoroughly, from probably every angle that you can think of.

 

Is there an echo in here? Yes, I’m very aware that everything is counted. Again, it tells you nothing about any particular game. Besides, You said “average” & “overall offensive production” which I can only take as Avg/OBP/SG%/OPS.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Emp9

[jacksonianmarch]

JD just turns 30, he has many prime years left. Dude is just beginning.

 

Tell that to Albert Pujols. I think the Sox move on from JD if he opts out. Let him get a 5 year deal from someone else where he shows another year or two of prime and 3-4 years of sub prime decline.

[cp176]

Yes, very true. For others, they drop off a cliff at 31 or 32 (Jim Rice). Most begin declining around 30-32- some faster than others.

 

Rarely, some get better after 30-32 (Dwight Evans).

 

I don't disagree at all about the potential for decline here. I'm sure that the statistical evidence once again indicates that it is risky to sign any player older than 30 to a long term contract. I don't think that a degree in math is necessary to figure that one out. lol My entire premise with statistical data is that they are not always right. You can't take the human element out of the game. The more that it is done the more people will turn away from the game.

[Bellhorn04]

Is there an echo in here? Yes, I’m very aware that everything is counted. Again, it tells you nothing about any particular game. Besides, You said “average” & “overall offensive production” which I can only take as Avg/OBP/SG%/OPS.

 

Maybe it's time for you to explain why you are so preoccupied with what happens in particular games here and there instead of what happens over a long period of time?

[moonslav59]

I don't disagree at all about the potential for decline here. I'm sure that the statistical evidence once again indicates that it is risky to sign any player older than 30 to a long term contract. I don't think that a degree in math is necessary to figure that one out. lol My entire premise with statistical data is that they are not always right. You can't take the human element out of the game. The more that it is done the more people will turn away from the game.

 

I'm still thrilled we signed JD, and I'd love for him to say right now, "I give up my opt out clauses".

 

I disagree that talking numbers and projections scares anyone away. If it does, it might also attract some stat geeks to the game to make up for any losses.