a700hitter

A definition of "traditionalist": https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/traditionalist

The difference between Sandoval or Holt at 3B was not even close to the difference in cost. The money would have been better spent upgrading the train wreck of a pitching staff after Ben had dismantled the 2014 staff. It was as clear as could be, and the misguided priority played out in real time with another awful season.

You must be kidding. I couldn't have been more clear in this thread about my position being that speed disrupts defense. If you didn't disagree with this, then you have been making a completely irrelevant argument.

They needed pitching more. I think Sandoval made them only marginally better on paper than installing Holt at 3B. Not getting a top pitcher for 2015 was misguided.

I don't think homer is a derogatory term. A homer is defined as "someone who shows blind loyalty to a team or organization, typically ignoring any shortcomings or faults they have." There is nothing wrong with rooting for your home team. It is less derogatory than the definition of "traditionalist" which is defined as "someone who is stubbornly conservative and narrow-minded."

Ok, homer.

The issue was about disrupting the defense, not about helping the guy at the plate, so don't keep trying to steer the argument to that narrow issue. Speed causes errors, misplays and encourages hitters to move the runner along by making productive outs (thus hurting the batter's stats while helping their team). Speed disrupts defense in many ways, and disruption to the defense is not good for the defense.

This doesn't take into account the times that he was on base and didn't attempt to steal. His speed was still disruptive in those situations by taking extra bases, forcing bad throws, making the defense play out of position, breaking up DPs. The stats in your post are incomplete and inconclusive. Sorry, Bells. I am not going to let you up off the mat on this one, because you are making an absurd argument.

Come up with something compelling and comprehensive and I will pay attention. Batting average is not comprehensive. Hitters batting behind fast runners will often be looking to make productive outs. The argument that disrupting defense is good for the defense is absurd. You are being ridiculous.

Crawford was also one of the most durable players in the game when we got him. That ended with a thud too. Crawford was a thoroughbred before he left Tampa. Doughnut boy was already in decline when he hit the !market. And I don't see him bouncing back, although I can see him bouncing.

Speed disrupts defense. It is that simple. There are no metrics that would establish the contrary. I am not talking about batting averages with speedy runners on base. That is not what I am asserting. Speed disrupts defenses and that is not a good thing for the defense.

I'm done with this topic. Don't bother buying a stopwatch when you get a scouting position. imo speed is more important now that Home Run and power production is down after the steroid era.

Doug, and all those years you carried a stopwatch that you didn't need. Also, it must have been an enigma that our slow-footed Red Sox teams got beat by teams with speed. We should have been a dynasty in the 1970's.

The disrupted pitcher and defense outweighs any disruption to the batter. This is an absurd notion that disruption to the defense is good for the defense. Beyond what the batter may or may not do, there are rushed throws, fielders taking their eye off the ball, the base runner taking an extra base, staying out of a DP etc. Are there reliable stats to cover all of that? This is too ridiculous for me to debate. Speed on the bases is not an advantage for the defense. Just call me a traditionalist on this one and let it be.

Taking the position that speed that disrupts defense gives the defense an advantage is absurd.

So, you can go either way on this? You can be convinced that speed on the bases is an advantage for the defense? Hmmm, and all these years I gave Theo credit for getting Dave Roberts and Francona credit for pinch running him for Millar. Who knew?

I don't think the disruption is equal to pitcher, defense and hitter. Disruption to the defense is not a good thing to the defense. It forces errors, makes players play out of position etc. Speed is a valuable weapon. Are you taking the position that disruption to a defense caused by speed is a positive or neutral for the defense? That is just silly.

I disagree that the bigger need after 2014 was offense. While our pitching was okay in 2014, it was only because we had Lester, Lackey, and Peavy in the first half of that season. The staff got completely dismantled at the trading deadline. Our starting pitching was decimated going into the off season after 2014. Pitching was the top priority and it was insufficiently addressed. We could have plopped Holt at 3B and pursued pitching. Instead, BC pursued and overpaid a human doughnut to play 3B. Then he signed another IFer for big bucks and played him out of position. His priorities were ridiculously misplaced.

And you lean toward being a homer and there is nothing wrong with that, but you don't like that label.

I don't think that they are the same issue at all. I think that is a real stretch. Are you saying that disrupting the defense is a benefit to the defense? That is laughable.

How many times do I need to state it? i have no strong opinion on this, so I don't care what the study would conclude. I just don't think it was an adequate study to provide definitive proof either way. Do you want to keep going in a circle here?

There are far more 6'2" plus pitchers at the major league level because a higher percentage of tall kids throw harder than the shorter kids. The short kids that make the major leagues are the exception who have defied the odds. Give credit to the scouts who found them. There is not some great untapped pool of hard throwing little guys. That is some sort of fantasy land. If you want to promote more scouting, I am in favor of that, but scouting resources are always limited and very costly. Therefore, they need ways to narrow down the pool of kids that they spend time scouting. The height - velocity correlation is based in science and not a myth. You may not like it, but it is called physics. It's not opinion. Natural gifts do not always translate to success, but you do need the the natural gifts. There are no 5'5" 200lb pitchers because they do not have natural gifts, not because they are victim of bias.

The correlation between height and velocity is not a false assumption. Physical science is such that taller guys produce velocity more efficiently than shorter guys. Does that mean that short guys can't throw hard? No, but the percentages are heavily in favor of tall guys being able to throw at high velocity. Isn't sabremetrics about playing the percentages?

If you are going to pay a guy a ton of money and change his position, you had better be sure that he can play that position or have a fallback position. I really can't think of another free agency signing where the acquiring team moved the player from the infield to the outfield when the player hadn't played a single inning in the outfield.

I would accept stats that debunked my beliefs if I thought that the statistical study was comprehensive and reliable. Also, you continue to misstate what you think is my so-called traditional position. With regard to item number 1, I did not feel at that time that those studies were comprehensive or compelling enough to establish anything. Secondly, I do not feel strongly about the so-called traditionalist view that speed on the bases gives batters an advantage. I said that in my last post on this, but you continue to misstate my position on this. I know of several batters that have hated having runners jump around on the bases. Yaz used to tell them to stop. I do firmly believe that speed on the bases puts pressure on and disrupts defenses. That is a much different issue than the issue addressed by your studies. As for the second issue, I have explained that the bias against smaller pitchers is a bias in favor of velocity, and that bias is based in science (not sabremetrics) which dictates that taller guys with long limbs produce velocity more efficiently. A bias based in science is not unreasonable bias. It is called playing the percentages. They know that percentage-wise a much higher percentage of taller guys can hit high velocities than smaller guys. Isn't sabremetrics all about playing the percentages? If you want to debunk what you think are my traditionalist views with statistics, first you need to correctly characterize and identify my views and then you need to provide statistics that are comprehensive and compelling. The fact that you continue to misstate my positions looks like a desperate attempt to win an argument or put a label on me. I don't like labels, because the label of "traditionalist" that you put on people is meant to marginalize and discredit the opinions of those people with whom you disagree as uninformed. I and most baseball obsessed fans look at whatever we need to learn about the game even if we watch a lot of it. I have been digging into stats for 50 years. I have seen stats used in a compelling way and I have seen stats misused. The best stats member that we had at TalkSox was Jayhawk Bill. He presented compelling cases that opened peoples eyes, and he did it without labeling other members who disagreed with him.