a700hitter

Again, it is just my opinion. Neither of us have spoken with him, so neither of us knows.

The guy is a psycho.

There you go again. The story about Yaz was not meant to be evidence of anything. It was just a story about Yaz. Can I tell a story here without you think that I am trying to prove or disprove some larger point?

Opinions are opinions. Facts are facts. It's a message board full of both. Facts can be obscured by opinions and opinions colored by emotions. In either case, the whole "calling out" thing is not my thing. People are entitled to their opinions, right or wrong. If people want to call me out for my opinion, I can't stop them, but they better come with compelling facts that address the point I was making, because I will call out the bad evidence as I do my homework as well.

We will have to see what develops.

I think that he has to be wondering why he is paying $72 million to a minor leaguer, unless he is just stoned out of his mind.

^Oh and you are Mr. Excitement?

I never made the assertion that the Red Sox philosophy was to seek out undervalued assets. I am noting it because others have made that assertion to place a feather in the cap of the FO. And yes, those people asserted that the 2013 acquisitions were exacty those types of acquisitions.

The funny thing is that I am certain that over 50 years, I have witnessed more elite base stealing threats on first base than is covered under that statiscal "study" that is based on data from 2003-2005. Easily 10 fold more. Is it evidence what I saw? Of course it is. Is it conclusive evidence? Of course not, and neither are these so-called studies. The effect a baserunner has on a pitcher a batter differ enormously depending on the individuals. Many batters are completely oblivious to the runners on base. Others seem to be engaged with and part of the baserunning strategy. Other batters, it bothers. I don't think a runner on first base bothered Yaz, because he often spoke about making a living using the hole in that situation. I do know that he hated players dancing on second base. He would tell them to stand still and he would drive them in. I suspect that these stories annoy you because you think I am presenting them as some sort of anectodal evidence. I am not. These stories are part of the beauty and fabric of the game to me, and this is a forum where I can tell them. As far as this issue of proving statistically whether a speedy runner on first base has a positive or negative impact on a batter's performance, the real answer is sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. It depends on the individual's involved. The data has no predictive value at all. It would be like using a study that that says 60 percent of people prefer chocolate ice cream to conclude that chocolate ice cream is superior. I realize that this is a bad analaogy, because chocolate ice cream is superior. LOL! Anyway, Kimmi, we can both agree that these surveys are not perfect, and some are less perfect than others. I like the statiscal aspect of the game, and I don't discount it at all. I am not the traditionalist that you think I am. My father taught me about the statiscal folly of the bunt and the insufficiency of relying on batting average befoe Bill James hit puberty. I also have realized that some times those assumptions and statistics get thrown out the window. If you have a guy who can get 20-30 bunt base hits in a season and his success rate is very high, it is a weapon. For most players, bunting is just to be used as an element of surprise and it is otherwise a wasted AB. I like to look at statistical studies, but I also recognize shoddy work for what it is.

And if the market gets to Porello level for mid-level or second tier starters, it will have been the Red Sox that helped establish that market. I think this discussion has established something quite clearly. Signing Porcello was not a value proposition of the sort that GMs like to crow about. At $20 million, he is not an undervalued asset. We have been debating for more than argue a day, and it is a tough arguement that he is worth $20 million. Nevermind that he is a bargain. I just thought that it was RedSox FO philosophy to seek out undervalued assets. I don't think Porcello fits that category. That being said, I do think he will be a solid pitcher this year, but he is not a financial bargain.

I wonder if we are going to see Craig or Holt start a game this weekend to keep them game sharp. Craig needs to be showcased for a trade. Someone has to be cleared out to get Castillo back up. All of that money sitting in AAA can't be sitting well with the Owner when he looks out at a mediocre staff without a single power arm.

What were his physical issues last season that caused the loss of velocity?

Masterson definitely hung a few sliders in the middle of the plate that the batters did not capitalize on. He did hit 90 a few time, but I remember that he used to throw substantially harder.

I was neither looking for the article to support or counter my opinion. It isn't a big issue for me. It is just an opinion that I have. It isn't a belief. I didnt reject the study because it didn't support my opinion. I rejected it, because it lacked statiscal integrity. I wasn't willing to accept the data on Hamilton as proof. I thought it was a better indicator of his particular effect and I suggested that the sample size would become more reliable as it gets larger over the next few years. I also think that the data size for Ells must be fairly substantial. It really isn't that important for my opinion to be declared " right". But for you victory is apparently a must.

If there are no other number two or three pitchers msing north of $20/tear that is the best indication of fair market value -- comparable sales.

Lawyer training is obvious to other lawyers. The rest of you are amateurs.

I am a must read.

Also, this is not at all what I said. I am not convinced that my opinion is right about the issue of elite base stealing speed. I can be convinced by evidence, just not by studies based on faulty data. I guess you are not happy with anything less than capitulation on an issue. You enjoy the game in a different way than I do. Different strokes. Leave it at that. If you want to "prove" a theory using statistics, the evidence has to be compelling. The article you cited, didn't even arise to the level of raising my curiosity.

Overpay can be established at the beginning of the contract if the market wouldn't bear such a price for the player. The AAV is way out of whack with other #2's or 3's even taking into consideration the shorter term.

Bell is not a lawyer and that is obvious. No slam at you Bells. Most people would consider that a compliment.

I am not confident that Masterson can be consistently successful at his current velocity.

So you can't name a single number 2 or number 3 starting pitcher that makes more than $20 million a year. There is your answer whether he is overpaid or not. There is no equating Porcello with Lester who was our # 1 for at least 4 seasons before he left and who strikes out over 200 guys per year. They are not comparable.

1-0 On infield hits and a walk. I'll take it.

You people are comparing apples and oranges. Get a good comparator group. Look at other number 2 and number 3 pitchers and see what they make. That will indicate whether or not the Red Sox overpaid for Porcello.

How many number 2 or 3 pitchers make over $20 million per year?