ORS

Aloha, just went to Oahu from 10/1 to 10/9 for our 10-year anniversary. Had a great time. Don't know what kind of chance there is for it, but that would certainly be interesting. It would be a sort of litmus test for the Sox upper management if they did reunite. How bad would it look for them if the Sox continued some level of disfunction and the Cubs turned things around?

I don't think the 100-pitch count is a James construction, in fact I've read that he is not a supporter of the concept (not as a chiselled in stone rule at least). I do think it came from the movement he generated though (sabermetrics). I can't remember the source, ie the original study, but the synopsis I read indicated the study showed a strong correlation to shoulder/arm injuries when pitchers crossed the 100-110 pitch threshold....especially young pitchers or those with a history of arm injury. The problem seems to be that a cautionary threshold for young guys developing arm stamina and those being nursed back from injury is being used across the board. For veterans with no history of problems, it should be thrown out the window, IMO. They should pitch until they can't get hitters out.

Well, it's kind of hard to judge his answer when you did not post a link to the interview nor the question. Based on his answer, I assumed the question was if alcohol would be allowed in the clubhouse "at all" (the use of the word "ban" sounds comprehensive, ie not allowed in the clubhouse - which covers both the during and after game time period), not if consumption would be allowed during the game. Why don't you share what the actual question was?

I'm not sure I agree. By letting the Cubs talk to Theo and come to an agreement on contract terms before establishing compensation, you have, in effect, whet their appetite. You've set the hook a little deeper from which to play hardball. Hardball up front might have scared them away. Now you have them very interested.

You are missing the point. By deferring to answer, he has committed the club to nothing publicly. What if it turns out that this isn't really all that big of a deal (which is what I tend to think), that the press is sensationalizing everyday, normal behavior in the league? And, what if, when the new staff convenes to decide what the policy will be, they decide to allow alcohol in the clubhouse? If he makes a cliche answer that suggests a strong change, and the press subsequently notices alcohol in the clubhouse, you don't think that would get used against them publicly? If you don't, then we aren't just losing something in the language translation, but you aren't that familiar with the Boston press. A non-answer, before any policy decision has been made, is the right answer here.

If LL's role in decision making is as you describe it, I'm skeptical recovery is possible either in-house or out-of-house.

Lackey is exactly the type of pitcher that FIP misses the boat on. His BABIP the last two seasons has been deserved. He's been a rope machine for the other team. I think FIP would be a lot better if they included the H/9 in the calculation, but then adjusted it to account for expected BABIP (based on batted ball type).

WTF is with the overreaction to Cherington's comment? It was essentially a non-answer. Are you going to ban alcohol from the clubhouse? We won't make that decision until we have a full staff convened. He deferred answering the question until later. Move on.

Fair enough. However, I don't see many posts from you when someone makes a case for player using traditional (Triple Crown) stats, but there are several stating caution about "over-reliance" on stats when some of the more advance stats are being used. I thought it might be instructive to show how much the advanced stats coincide with opinionated player ranking, especially relative to the Triple Crown stats.

I think you are missing the point. In this discussion about stats, we aren't trying to confirm our opinions about the players, rather we are trying to confirm our evaluations of the stats as value measures themselves. You can certainly see the value in wanting lean heavier on stats that place the players in a ranking that coincides with our opinions, right? Extending that point forward, our opinions are not infallible, so once we've determined a level of trust with a measure, we can use it to help us correct any bias (which is never completely removed from human opinion) that may occur in our evaluaitons. This is the point of using stats for player evaluation. If you would, and in an attempt to extend the point into an example, please list your Top 10 active offensive players over whatever timeframe you like (2011 season, last 3 years, career, etc). I'll put a chart together that lists the Top 10 (of qualified players) in the following measures: Linear Weights, WAR (batting only), VORP, OPS, OBP, SLG, BA, RBI. Please indicate actual rank (1,2,3,4,etc), and not just the top 10. EDIT: Actually, on second thought, using career/composite numbers will be messy. Make your list the Top 10 offensive players from the 2011 season.

Of course RBI correlate best to runs scored.....they are a count of .... well .... runs (that are batted in). That kind of goes without saying. As for batting average.... 1. the other stats are measures too, but what they measure adds more information (OBP accounts for non "ball in play" events and is based on the only "clock" in baseball - the number of outs, SLG accounts for the information lost by BA - which is a binary measure) 2. the other stats have a simple "intrinsic" meaning too, provided you are aware of what is being counted 3. no, it isn't raw....the counting stats are raw, all non-counting measures use the raw data, manipulate it, to produce a result, and BA is no different 4. so?

Actually, SLG has a higher correlation to runs scored. That doesn't account for the scaling issue you described, so .001 of OBP is still more valuable than .001 of SLG, but a higher SLG does correlate better. I don't get how somebody who understands the more advanced measures can still rate BA as highly as you do. You call it "pure", which has a meaning of without flaws. That certainly does not describe BA, which is rife with flaws as it pertains to determining offensive value to the team.

Cutting bait until 2015 is the mother of all bad ideas. You are talking about essentially passing on the prime production years from Beckett, Lester, Buchholz, Gonzalez, Crawford, Pedroia, Youkilis, and Ellsbury, all while trying to replace all that talent. Insanity. EDIT: This team is positioned to compete now for the next handful of years. Don't pass that up over some disfunction that can be fixed while maintaining competitiveness.

However, extend the logic. Why would conditioning fluctuate like that? The simplest answer is, he has a good year and gets complacent, coming into the next year in poorer shape, leading to a worse year, which is addressed through conditioning in the offseason, leading to another good year. Occam's razor. But, despite the fact that he had a good year this year, I don't see an environment that would pardon complacency this offseason. Not after the beer n' chicken stuff came out in the press. Beckett is a stubborn SOB, but he also strikes me as very prideful. I'd be surprised if he didn't work his tail off to put that stuff to bed. I could be wrong. He could go completely the other way on it. However, that wouldn't be too hard for the team to figure out during the offseason. If he takes the high road, he'll be a big asset for them next year, IMO. If he takes the low road, it might be a good idea to determine his value to another team.

I agree, and hopefully one of the questions for new manager candidates during the hiring process is something like this, "Do you have a 7-run rule for starting pitchers?"

Impact injuries, though, impact injuries? I'm sensing a deer in the headlights right now.

Seriously? You think volume is the answer?

It's the Boston media, what else would you expect? Especially when it's the representative from the dying media form (print media). They know how to get attention/interest in this town.