Red Sox Sign Masataka Yoshida

[mvp 78]

Wow! It’s more about the circumstances of when it happened.

 

Wow indeed.

[Old Red]

Wow indeed.

 

Fisk hit many HR, but the one he hit in the 75 WS was legendary, because of when it was done. How about the steal by Dave Roberts? Would that have been such a big deal if it hadn’t of happened when it did?

Edited August 23, 2023 by Old Red

[mvp 78]

Fisk hit many HR, but the one he hit in the 75 WS was legendary, because of when it was done. How about the steal by Dave Roberts? Would that have been such a big deal if it hadn’t of happened when it did?

 

I don't remember those plays? Were highlights shown?

[moonslav59]

This all too funny.

[Old Red]

I don't remember those plays? Were highlights shown?

 

You wasn’t watching the games, or just going by the analytics, or whatever stat you went by at the time. You would sure miss a lot without the eye test.

[moonslav59]

You wasn’t watching the games, or just going by the analytics, or whatever stat you went by at the time. You would sure miss a lot without the eye test.

 

Spoken by the guy that admits he stopped watching all baseball.

 

Priceless!

[dgalehouse]

I don't much care for all the analytics , but I will say that it was a treat to watch the killer Bees play the outfield for the Sox a few years ago. I think the Sox' pitchers appreciated it as well. It was light years better than what we have seen more recently. I don't think that is arguable.

[Maxbialystock]

You wasn’t watching the games, or just going by the analytics, or whatever stat you went by at the time. You would sure miss a lot without the eye test.

 

By the "eye test" you of course mean something you saw on the boob tube and not in person, (where the eye test is suspect).

 

I do agree that some things are best realized on replays via the internet or TV. The box score for last night, for example, only captures part of what happened.

 

That said, just the primary stat, the score, pretty much captures what happened. The Astros won easily.

 

And the box score does tell us Verlander went 6 IP while getting 9 K's and giving up 0 runs. In other words, we don't need your freaking "eye test" to know Verlander dominated the Sox and was the deciding factor in the game. The errors, the weak hitting by the Sox, the mental errors, etc, were infuriating but not the reason why the Sox lost.

[Old Red]

Spoken by the guy that admits he stopped watching all baseball.

 

Priceless!

 

Spoken by the guy who bailed real quick on the Red Sox last year. I may have stopped watching baseball, but I haven’t bailed on following the Red Sox. I would say bailing is worse.

[mvp 78]

You wasn’t watching the games, or just going by the analytics, or whatever stat you went by at the time. You would sure miss a lot without the eye test.

 

I didn't even start following the Red Sox until they hired Chaim Bloom so...

[Old Red]

I didn't even start following the Red Sox until they hired Chaim Bloom so...

 

Ah the gloom, and doom regime. I’ve heard about that. I haven’t heard to many good words about it though. The word on the street gets around fast.

[moonslav59]

Spoken by the guy who bailed real quick on the Red Sox last year. I may have stopped watching baseball, but I haven’t bailed on following the Red Sox. I would say bailing is worse.

 

It might be nice if you actually respond to the point made.

 

You keep going on and on about the "eye test" while admitting you do not watch any baseball. You don't seem to get the contradiction. You never do.

 

I'm not sure why that relates to me giving up on a flawed tam, last year, but I'm sure you can make some convoluted connection.

[notin]

You wasn’t watching the games, or just going by the analytics, or whatever stat you went by at the time. You would sure miss a lot without the eye test.

 

 

Always a good move to chastise someone for not watching the 1975 World Series when his forum moniker does suggest he was born in 1978…

[notin]

By the "eye test" you of course mean something you saw on the boob tube and not in person, (where the eye test is suspect).

 

I do agree that some things are best realized on replays via the internet or TV. The box score for last night, for example, only captures part of what happened.

 

That said, just the primary stat, the score, pretty much captures what happened. The Astros won easily.

 

And the box score does tell us Verlander went 6 IP while getting 9 K's and giving up 0 runs. In other words, we don't need your freaking "eye test" to know Verlander dominated the Sox and was the deciding factor in the game. The errors, the weak hitting by the Sox, the mental errors, etc, were infuriating but not the reason why the Sox lost.

 

Televised games are useless for Eye Test on defense. Except for the catcher and pitcher, since 95% of the time they’re the only defensive players on the screen…

[moonslav59]

Televised games are useless for Eye Test on defense. Except for the catcher and pitcher, since 95% of the time they’re the only defensive players on the screen…

 

Maybe not totally useless, if you are not looking at first step defense or the like.

 

Often, the TV shows all there is to know about a misplay or a great play.

 

The TV showed me enough, the last two nights to confirm our defense sucks and allows way more runs to score than the "unearned runs" column shows in the stat columns hawked by traditionalists.

[moonslav59]

Always a good move to chastise someone for not watching the 1975 World Series when his forum moniker does suggest he was born in 1978…

 

Nah... He was just showing how much he respects differing opinions.

 

lmao.

[mvp 78]

Always a good move to chastise someone for not watching the 1975 World Series when his forum moniker does suggest he was born in 1978…

 

Not the suggestion at all.

[dgalehouse]

I think MLB probably issued a " suggestion " to the teams to let the official scorers know that it is preferred that they award more hits and fewer errors. That is the most likely reason for the scoring.

[mvp 78]

I think MLB probably issued a " suggestion " to the teams to let the official scorers know that it is preferred that they award more hits and fewer errors. That is the most likely reason for the scoring.

 

I don't know where it came from, but I've read it elsewhere that official scorers are more likely to call more plays a hit and less errors (see: Harper's inside the park job that should have had an error called).

[moonslav59]

I think MLB probably issued a " suggestion " to the teams to let the official scorers know that it is preferred that they award more hits and fewer errors. That is the most likely reason for the scoring.

 

Agreed, and IMO, they were pretty bad about calling misdefended plays errors, even before this.

 

This is one area defensive metrics takes a step in the right direction on dinging poor defense, even if not an official "error."

[Bellhorn04]

I think MLB probably issued a " suggestion " to the teams to let the official scorers know that it is preferred that they award more hits and fewer errors. That is the most likely reason for the scoring.

 

So now I'm going to have to check the stats and see how much the ratio of hits to errors has changed.

[mvp 78]

So now I'm going to have to check the stats and see how much the ratio of hits to errors has changed.

 

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-trends-inside-the-decline-in-errors-plus-bobby-witt-jr-breaks-out-and-christian-yelich-returns-to-form/#:~:text=There%20were%201.77%20errors%20per,rate%20in%20history%20this%20season.

 

There were 1.77 errors per game in 1970. That number gradually dropped to 1.71 in 1980, 1.51 in 1990, 1.42 in 2000, and 1.25 in 2010. Clearly though, that decline has accelerated in recent years, and MLB is on pace to post its lowest error rate in history this season. It's all bookkeeping that has no real impact on the action on the field. It is a rather significant shift in a short period of time though.

 

2019: 1.19 errors per game (between the two teams)

2020: 1.17

2021: 1.08

2022: 1.06

2023: 1.01

[dgalehouse]

So now I'm going to have to check the stats and see how much the ratio of hits to errors has changed.

 

Uh-oh.

[moonslav59]

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-trends-inside-the-decline-in-errors-plus-bobby-witt-jr-breaks-out-and-christian-yelich-returns-to-form/#:~:text=There%20were%201.77%20errors%20per,rate%20in%20history%20this%20season.

 

There were 1.77 errors per game in 1970. That number gradually dropped to 1.71 in 1980, 1.51 in 1990, 1.42 in 2000, and 1.25 in 2010. Clearly though, that decline has accelerated in recent years, and MLB is on pace to post its lowest error rate in history this season. It's all bookkeeping that has no real impact on the action on the field. It is a rather significant shift in a short period of time though.

 

2019: 1.19 errors per game (between the two teams)

2020: 1.17

2021: 1.08

2022: 1.06

2023: 1.01

 

My eye test says it's worse, but maybe I'm failing to notice the watered down defense in MLB, these days.

[Old Red]

My eye test says it's worse, but maybe I'm failing to notice the watered down defense in MLB, these days.

 

What would you call the Red Sox defense?

[Old Red]

Always a good move to chastise someone for not watching the 1975 World Series when his forum moniker does suggest he was born in 1978…

 

You know I never really noticed that before. Silly me. I feel so embarrassed.🙈

[moonslav59]

What would you call the Red Sox defense?

 

Horrific or worse.

[notin]

Not the suggestion at all.

 

But one certainly could interpret it that way, and the 1975 World Series was 48 years ago, so even middle age people were born since then…

[redsoxrules]

I wonder why MLB is on pace for lowest rate of errors. They call base hits that should be errors ffs

[moonslav59]

You don't have to believe in metrics or think defensive metrics have any value, but there has to be a shred of truth to some of it.

 

As of now, here are the 2023 DRS (Defensive Runs Saved):

 

+70 TOR

+28 TBR

+27 BAL

+22 TEX

+18 SEA

+1 HOU

-26 BOS

 

Add or subtract from actual run differential:

+169 TEX

+141 TBR

+88 HOU

+53 BOS

+49 BAL

-5 BAL

 

Just even out the D, and we have the 4th best run diff in the AL.

 

Don't say it makes little difference.