Suzuki vs Story - Early Returns on Investment

[moonslav59]

But for pitching fWAR they use FIP.

 

Yes, but that is still a measure of accomplishment and not really ability.

 

I'm not a big fan of weighting FIP so heavily. There are plenty of proven good pitchers who get people out without high K numbers. They are short-changed in fWAR, IMO.

[notin]

But for pitching fWAR they use FIP.

 

Yes, because FIP is based on a pitcher' accomplishments. His K's, his BB's and his HR's allowed. And it gives him no credit for batted balls that may or may not be cause by players of varying defensive skills...

[notin]

I don’t think those 4 rings the Red Sox have won since 04 have anything to do with stats, and I don’t think the reason the Red Sox didn’t win has anything to to with your stats either. We’ve already gone over this. Bob Gibson was a big reason the Sox didn’t win in 67, and Grand Pa Buckner’s creaky legs was a big reason they didn’t win either, but if you really want to stick to your belief that metrics was the reason the Sox won, or didn’t win then good for you, because in all these years I’ve been a Red Sox fan I haven’t heard that anyone else spout that same theory, so good for you. Some people will believe anything. Come on man!

 

It really doesn't matter what you think. When the Sox brought in Epstein and Bill James back in 2003, the team took an extremely radical turn success-wise and went from 0 titles in 86 years to a team that has won 4 titles in the last 18. They were very public about using metrics other teams were not using. They were even occasionally called "Moneyball, but with money". Maybe you buy into the reason they went so long without any titles was because of one pitcher in 1967, but results speak for themselves. Just because you don't like metrics doesn't mean they don't work. And do you have any equally whacky theories for why they didn't win the other 85 years?

 

And really? Buckner? The game was already tied. Well, I suppose when you live in denial, why bother with facts anyway, right?

 

But all that matters are results. Unless you don't like how those results came about...

[notin]

Yes, but that is still a measure of accomplishment and not really ability.

 

I'm not a big fan of weighting FIP so heavily. There are plenty of proven good pitchers who get people out without high K numbers. They are short-changed in fWAR, IMO.

 

That is an absolute flaw with fWAR. It tends to favor high K pitchers...

[illinoisredsox]

It really doesn't matter what you think. When the Sox brought in Epstein and Bill James back in 2003, the team took an extremely radical turn success-wise and went from 0 titles in 86 years to a team that has won 4 titles in the last 18. They were very public about using metrics other teams were not using. They were even occasionally called "Moneyball, but with money". Maybe you buy into the reason they went so long without any titles was because of one pitcher in 1967, but results speak for themselves. Just because you don't like metrics doesn't mean they don't work. And do you have any equally whacky theories for why they didn't win the other 85 years?

 

And really? Buckner? The game was already tied. Well, I suppose when you live in denial, why bother with facts anyway, right?

 

But all that matters are results. Unless you don't like how those results came about...

 

Buckner was the goat of the series not because he let that ground ball through, but because the #3 hitter in the line-up managed to end something like 14 or 15 innings, many with men on base. People have pointed to the fact that Jim Rice did not drive in a run in those 7 games, but he led off a ridiculous number of innings due to Buckner's ineptitude at the plate and seldom came up with anyone on base, let alone in scoring position.

[Old Red]

It really doesn't matter what you think. When the Sox brought in Epstein and Bill James back in 2003, the team took an extremely radical turn success-wise and went from 0 titles in 86 years to a team that has won 4 titles in the last 18. They were very public about using metrics other teams were not using. They were even occasionally called "Moneyball, but with money". Maybe you buy into the reason they went so long without any titles was because of one pitcher in 1967, but results speak for themselves. Just because you don't like metrics doesn't mean they don't work. And do you have any equally whacky theories for why they didn't win the other 85 years?

 

And really? Buckner? The game was already tied. Well, I suppose when you live in denial, why bother with facts anyway, right?

 

But all that matters are results. Unless you don't like how those results came about...

 

I know to you it only matters what you think, but that doesn’t carry anymore weight than my opinion. My opinion about Gibson was only about 67, and nothing else, and I know I’m not the only one in thinking that. You’re right, and I have said metrics are to me only good on paper you would use in the bathroom. And with Buckner you have no clue, because the game was NOT TIED when the ball went through his legs. How come you are the only one I have EVER heard with your theory on why the Red Sox have won, or haven’t won WS Titles??

[Bellhorn04]

And with Buckner you have no clue, because the game was NOT TIED when the ball went through his legs.

 

Red...this is disappointing.

[notin]

And with Buckner you have no clue, because the game was NOT TIED when the ball went through his legs.

 

Good old revisionist history.

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYN/NYN198610250.shtml

 

Scroll down to the bottom of the play-by-play. The score is in there, too...

[Old Red]

Red...this is disappointing.

 

I love it when a plan comes together intentionally, or not. BAZINGA! One thing I learned early on was how some analyze every word on here just to pounce, and say I gotcha, so once again BAZINGA.

Edited April 30, 2022 by Old Red

[notin]

How come you are the only one I have EVER heard with your theory on why the Red Sox have won, or haven’t won WS Titles??

 

 

 

I mean, they hired Bill James in 2003 and started piling on titles in 2004. They adopted a boring "take lots of pitches" approach that worked for years but made games maddeningly long. They spent money, but they stopped caring about RBIs and focused on OBP and other stats. They had their flops, but overall it has been an extremely successful approach. Hell, this year was Mike Wacha on anyone's radar?

 

If you have NEVER heard this theory before, I guess they just don't discuss this stuff in the sandpile you bury your head in..

[Old Red]

I mean, they hired Bill James in 2003 and started piling on titles in 2004. They adopted a boring "take lots of pitches" approach that worked for years but made games maddeningly long. They spent money, but they stopped caring about RBIs and focused on OBP and other stats. They had their flops, but overall it has been an extremely successful approach. Hell, this year was Mike Wacha on anyone's radar?

 

If you have NEVER heard this theory before, I guess they just don't discuss this stuff in the sandpile you bury your head in..

 

Sand pile is better than the kitty litter you sit in, but no I have NEVER heard the Red Sox have won, or haven’t won WS, because of the Metrics.

Edited April 30, 2022 by Old Red

[dgalehouse]

In 1986 , Schiraldi was in for the save and the championship. He got two outs then gave up three straight singles . All were hit over the infielders , but short of the outfielders. Had they been hit harder , they may well have been easy outs. If Buckner makes that play , the game is still tied and would have continued. The Sox may or may not have won. In 2004 , if Dave Roberts is picked off or thrown out stealing ( almost happened ) , the Sox would have been swept in four by the Yankees. A lot of close calls , near misses and what ifs . That's baseball.

[Old Red]

In 1986 , Schiraldi was in for the save and the championship. He got two outs then gave up three straight singles . All were hit over the infielders , but short of the outfielders. Had they been hit harder , they may well have been easy outs. If Buckner makes that play , the game is still tied and would have continued. The Sox may or may not have won. In 2004 , if Dave Roberts is picked off or thrown out stealing ( almost happened ) , the Sox would have been swept in four by the Yankees. A lot of close calls , near misses and what ifs . That's baseball.

 

If Bill Lee hadn’t hung one to Tony Perez, or Joe Morgan hadn’t of blooped one into CF in the seventh game of the 1975 WS the Sox could have won that one too, but he did, and he did, and that’s baseball. Not metrics.

[notin]

Sand pile is better than the kitty litter you sit in, but no I have NEVER heard the Red Sox have won, or haven’t won WS, because of the Metrics.

 

Well then if you never heard it, it’s clearly true. Just don’t muck up your credibility with stories about groundballs going through Buckner’s legs…

[notin]

If Bill Lee hadn’t hung one to Tony Perez, or Joe Morgan hadn’t of blooped one into CF in the seventh game of the 1975 WS the Sox could have won that one too, but he did, and he did, and that’s baseball. Not metrics.

 

But what you’re missing is the frequency. You isolated 3 games in an 86 year stretch (really two. Game 6 in 1986 doesn’t belong this list), and think that’s equal to a team that has been in the hunt nearly every year for two decades now. Now, post season expansion helps, but do you think or not that the last 18 years are the most successful in team history?

 

They certainly haven’t been loaded with the best players in team history, but that wasn’t the question…

[Old Red]

But what you’re missing is the frequency. You isolated 3 games in an 86 year stretch (really two. Game 6 in 1986 doesn’t belong this list), and think that’s equal to a team that has been in the hunt nearly every year for two decades now. Now, post season expansion helps, but do you think or not that the last 18 years are the most successful in team history?

 

They certainly haven’t been loaded with the best players in team history, but that wasn’t the question…

 

You have your wild theories, which is your right, and your opinion, and I’ll just stick to baseball being baseball theory, and opinion.

[Old Red]

Well then if you never heard it, it’s clearly true. Just don’t muck up your credibility with stories about groundballs going through Buckner’s legs…

 

Once again . BAZINGA! It’s certainly doesn’t make it true, because you say so being one of a kind, or not.

Edited April 30, 2022 by Old Red

[notin]

You have your wild theories, which is your right, and your opinion, and I’ll just stick to baseball being baseball theory, and opinion.

 

And you’ll also stick to avoiding questions, I see…

[Old Red]

And you’ll also stick to avoiding questions, I see…

 

You’re the only one out on a limb in the only tree in the forest, so there is nothing to answer to.

[notin]

You’re the only one out on a limb in the only tree in the forest, so there is nothing to answer to.

 

That’s what they also said to Darwin and Erathothenes and Pasteur and a few others…

[Old Red]

That’s what they also said to Darwin and Erathothenes and Pasteur and a few others…

 

Are you trying to convince you, or me? It certainly doesn’t convince me, but toot your horn all you want. I got earplugs in.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

So for an entire day on a thread about Trevor Story, one poster focused on the offense of Jackie Bradley, who my eyes tell me has been great as usual at his speciality: defense.

 

Meanwhile, Story has been shaky transitioning to the position the Sox supposedly signed him to play for the next six years, and has the highest K-rate among regulars (along with Dalbec).

[Old Red]

If JBJ continues to struggle, it could be time to give Duran a real shot at the job. He seems like a player who could really provide a spark to this team.

 

As of right now Duran is hitting 391.

Edited April 30, 2022 by Old Red

[Kimmi]

Stats never tell the whole story of the final results. Sometimes certain stats would only be useful if put on a piece of paper, and used in the bathroom. How many stats. Do you need to tell you JBJ is not a good hitter?

 

The final results also never tell the whole story about how well or poorly a player is doing. There is a lot of luck in the game of baseball. A LOT. JBJ is not a great hitter, but he's certainly better than the .156 BA. His xBA, based on exit velocity and launch angle, is .226. Again, not great, but good enough to hide in the #9 spot if the rest of the offense is performing. JBJ's bat is not the problem. It's the other 8 guys in the line up that are the problem.

[Kimmi]

If JBJ continues to struggle, it could be time to give Duran a real shot at the job. He seems like a player who could really provide a spark to this team.

 

If the offense continues to struggle, I would not be surprised to see Duran up sooner rather than later. I agree that he could provide a spark. That said, I am one who is always preaching patience. I would not make any big moves based on 3 weeks. Let's get JD healthy and back in the line up every day. Hopefully the other bats will come around soon. Again, IMO, JBJ is not the problem. It's the other guys.

[Kimmi]

It’s just hilarious to me that so many like that kind of soup, and can’t survive without it.

 

As a math teacher, I live on that soup.

[Kimmi]

So for an entire day on a thread about Trevor Story, one poster focused on the offense of Jackie Bradley, who my eyes tell me has been great as usual at his speciality: defense.

 

Meanwhile, Story has been shaky transitioning to the position the Sox supposedly signed him to play for the next six years, and has the highest K-rate among regulars (along with Dalbec).

 

Story's bat looks like it's starting to come around.

 

And I still think he should be playing SS with Xander at 2B. I acknowledge that there is a lot more that goes into that decision that I am not privy to, but on the surface, I'd have Story at SS.

[Bellhorn04]

The final results also never tell the whole story about how well or poorly a player is doing. There is a lot of luck in the game of baseball. A LOT. JBJ is not a great hitter, but he's certainly better than the .156 BA. His xBA, based on exit velocity and launch angle, is .226.

 

How does that xBA compare to his 2021 number?

[Kimmi]

How does that xBA compare to his 2021 number?

 

His 2021 xBA was .194, so not as wide a gap between actual BA and xBA last year.

[redsoxrules]

If the offense continues to struggle, I would not be surprised to see Duran up sooner rather than later. I agree that he could provide a spark. That said, I am one who is always preaching patience. I would not make any big moves based on 3 weeks. Let's get JD healthy and back in the line up every day. Hopefully the other bats will come around soon. Again, IMO, JBJ is not the problem. It's the other guys.

 

How can you say JBJ is not part of the problem? He's been a minus player since last year. He's a big part of the problem. Catching balls is not going to score you runs. You need both.

 

It doesn't matter how well he's hitting the ball. At the end of the day he's not getting on base and doing s*** since last year.

 

Let's look at ichiro Suzuki. This guy most of his hits were single and they weren't pretty but at the end of the day he got on base any way he could whether it was bloop hits or weak soft grounders.

 

JBJ can hit the ball as hard as he want. At the end of the day if those balls don't fall for hits it don't mean s***.