Elktonnick

" During Pap’s tenure with the Phils, he has not exactly been a fan favorite. Nicknames such as Papelblow are commonly heard to reference his tendency to blow leads in the ninth inning over the past two years, but this year has been different. Papelbon has been one of the best closers in baseball, and if not for his attitude, there would not be many complaints about him. Unfortunately, with Papelbon, a team needs to take the entire package (attitude included)." Read more at http://throughthefencebaseball.com/where-do-phillies-jonathan-papelbon-go-from-here/43976#SDRhzw5qesAyYEKr.99 Comcast Philadelphia had the following: "Will fans ever look past last week’s incident? Will Papelbon’s signing always be viewed as an expensive mistake in this town? Will he always be perceived as the guy in the black hat that other teams want nothing to do with? Remember, there were teams desperate for closers this summer and the Phillies were willing to pay a lot of his salary in a trade, and no one wanted him." There's more but this makes the point. Paps is good but is he worth it? He is now viewed as a talented nutcase.

Recently WMB has been swinging earlier in the count. Nevertheless, I have seen virtually every one of his at bats. I can assure you he was mostly taking strike one and strike two. He struck out 70 times about one out of every three times at bat. He usually struck out on a breaking ball mostly sliders out of the zone. When he has two strikes, he is a sucker for that pitch. The pitchers know it hence the high strike out rate. They get ahead on the count then toss the sliders and its sayonara WMB. He can cut down on his strike out rate if he swings earlier on the fast ball. IMO

It isn't his pitching, its his baggage. The Sox don't need another prima donna a--hole.

See the original argument was over OBP not OPS nor OPS+ . Let me recap the original discussion once again. My original contention was that the Red Sox should de emphasize working the count and have hitters like Middlebrooks et al swing earlier in the count. Jacksonian countered with his contention about OBP and pitch count going as far as contending that " OBP is the most important factor." I believe that contention is not supported by the data. "The outliers don't prove anything one way or the other. Outliers happen in baseball for a variety of reasons and can be dismissed because they don't fit the general pattern indicated by larger sample sizes. " Not to be rude, but that is a specious statement. And here is the reason. The so called outliers are relevant and important because the original contention was there is "a direct correlation between OBP and Runs Scored". not it is probable that they would score more runs. If one gives examples where that statementnis not true they aren't outliers. It is fact that runs counter to the hypothesis. (An inconvenient truth so to speak) In this instance, it refutes the argument. Besides there isn't one so called outlier there are many. BTW Here is Bill James's observation "The largest variable determining how many runs a team will score is how many times they get their leadoff man on base." I think James himself wouldn't buy the contention that team OBP is the most important indicator of total runs scored, otherwise he wouldn't have written what he did. In summation the argument wasn't about OPS or OPS+ which clearly are better indicators than OBP which in truth really means how many walks a player gets.

Foe once I have to agree with Olbermann

Papelbon is the worst case scenario.

Well said. A higher OBP doesn't in and of itself mean a higher run production, end of story.

You can't throw out so called outliers as inconvenient when your argument is direct correlation. The argument that I am refuting is driving up pitch count and OBP are the most important factors in runs scored. If you look at this year's AL data the three teams with the largest difference between Batting Average and OBP were Oakland, Tampa Bay, and Boston. They finished 3rd 14, and 15th in runs respectively. I could make the case statistically that Batting Average and Slugging percentage were more important then the number of walks a team got because that's what we are really talking about when we discuss OBP.

Why would the Red Sox want Papelbon back? That has trouble written all over it.

If JBJ's futility at the plate doesn't convince this kid that he needs to change both his attitude and swing then I can't feel sorry for him when he is no longer in baseball.

Act think you know that two teams don't prove much. Statistics don't give an absolute answer but a pretty clear indication of future probability. It is like studying horse a racing form. You can look for indicators that will greatly improve your chances of successful betting...but there are no absolutes Actually they do, they prove that there isn't a direct correlation. Direct correlation means that an increase in one variable results in an increase in another variable. You see we weren't talking probability nor were we talking about positive correlation. If you look at the entire stats for the entire American league you will see that an increase to the variable OBP did not result in an increase in the variable Runs scored in numerous cases. The Boston Baltimore example is but one of many. I never said there wasn't some relationship between OBP and increased run production just not the direct correlation nor is it the most important factor as alleged. BTW as I said it is theoretically possible (I admit not probable) for a team to have an OBP of 500 in a game and not score a single run. We saw a less spectacular version of that happen all year with the Red Sox when they out hit their opponents only to lose. The Sox were 9th in OBP yet 15 th in runs scored. Hence no direct correlation bewteen increased OBP and runs for Boston this year now was there? Regarding the second point one can't prove what hasn't happened yet. The third point , Middlebrooks is a product of the Red Sox system. Holt isn't. Both Holt and Betts swing for the entire field. WMB doesn't that's why Betts and Holt are successful hitting with two strikes and WMB isn't. Again to suggest that working the pitch count is a successful strategy for every hitter is flat out bad baseball. WMB has started to swing earlier in the count BTW if you saw Sundays game. Your reference to the A's is meaningless since I am talking about the Red Sox. not the A's who have to work with different restrictions and a different environment than do the Red Sox. I believe as do others that the Red Sox will modify their over emphasis on driving up pitch count in part due to the limitations and strengths of their current ballplayers which was my original point.

Besides, I believe the argument was about OBP and runs scored and not about team success. Not exactly It was about this statement: "Driving pitch counts up and getting on base directly correlate to runs." And like I wrote this years AL stats don't support that premise . Baltimore is 11th in OBP yet 6th in runs scored, Boston 9th in OBP yet 15th and last in runs scored, for example. My point is that the Red Sox philosophy of driving up pitch counts and their over emphasis on OBP has to change. This is especially noticeable in WMB's case who was striking out on pitches out of the zone after taking strikes one and two which were usually right down the middle. Furthermore I believe we will see the Sox change that philosophy as evidenced by their signings of Cespedes and Castillo who are free swingers.

Never said that there wasn't some relationship between the two. Remember Jacksonianmarch made two claims that I disagreed with; The first was driving up pitch counts and the second was "OBP is the most important factor." The data simply doesn't support either premise. BTW Bill James did make the following point: "The largest variable determining how many runs a team will score is how many times they get their leadoff man on base." That is not the same as OBP for the team as a whole. I suspect many conflate the two.

BTW After yesterday's game the Red Sox have an OBP of 314, Baltimore 313 Kansas City 312 and Seattle 301. While Texas the team with the worst record in the AL has a 315 OBP. Minn has a 323 OBP Clearly OBP is not an indicator of success on the diamond. Anyone who says otherwise simply is denying the statistical truth.

Fred I too saw the same thing all year which is why I argue for them to rethink their hitting approach. As I said elsewhere, I think we saw that with Middlebrooks yesterday who swung early in the count on virtually every at bat. Certainly both Cespedes and Castillo are swinging early. I doubt the Red Sox will be changing their approach to hitting any time soon.

I am not saying Sabermetrics doesn't work or doesn't have value because it does. I too have his book and others also. But sabermetrics is tool. Correlation and causality are two different things. (Too many confuse the two.) Regarding OBP it is theoretically possible for a team with a 500 OBP to lose to a team that gets only one hit and one baserunner. The big lesson of sabermetrics is that baseball changes. Teams that can adjust to those changes have the competitive advantage.

In love it when a saber geek has been proven wrong they come up with silly over statements. I never said or claimed there was a correlation with anything you did. What I said was there has been a reported increase in velocity in the majors and we are seeing more teams with power arms in the bull pens. As this trend is likely to continue, i.e. more teams with stronger bull pens, teams will adjust to this new reality. Even your data if true, shows that pens have a better ERA then do starters which if continued over a long term certainly argues against using pitch counts to drive starters from the game. Why would it be smart baseball to do so if a team only faces a bull pen with a lower ERA then the starters. That's what your above data suggests not mine. I guess you didn't read or understand the meaning of your own data. Now who believes in the guy who comes down chimneys. BTW I've got to go and feed the reindeer:)

It is an illusory correlation reflecting your myside bias. Your original statement was not true. Get over it. The point is that teams will be changing their approaches to hitting next year for two reasons. One is the increase in average velocity by pitchers throughout the majors because of the increased number of power arms in the bullpen. The second is the increased number of shifts. Ron Darling and Cal Rypken alluded to this during today's KC Detroit game. What worked in the past won't necessarily work in the future.

The above does not alter the basic falsity of your original premise ie " getting on base directly correlates to runs." The plain English of that statement is not true. Higher OBP in all and every case by itself does not lead to more runs scored as the basic fact that the O's and Red Sox have the same OBP yet the O's not only scored more runs than the Red Sox did but won more games. The facts are the facts. Now there are numerous reasons why the O's scored more runs and won more ball games then did the Red Sox, none of which had anything to do with OBP. The rest of your statistical analysis is rather meaningless to the end result now isn't it. It only serves to obscure the embarassing truth the higher OBP does not always lead to more runs being scored. In any event I believe the Red Sox will be modifying their philosophical approach to hitting because of the increased number of power arms coming out of the bullpen next year. As a result we will see less reliance on driving up pitch count.

I also notice the disappearance of the saber geeks lately.

That is exactly right. Baseball is not a static game. That is the underlying paradox of sabermetric analysis. Baseball evolves as teams adjust to different strategies and tactics. Sabermetrics has taught clubs that lesson. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. What worked in the past may not work in the future as teams adjust to each other. The team that is more nimble at adjusting to these future trends will have the competitive edge.

That doesn't account for the overall increase in ML velocity, a trend that is more likely to continue than dissipate, Moreover driving up pitch counts didn't work very well for the Bosox this year now did it. They were last in batting average and runs scored despite being 9th in OBP. Curious that both the O's and Red Sox had the same OBP 313 yet the the Red Sox were last in runs scored and the O's were 5th. This years stats certainly don't prove the smug sabernetric mantra "Driving up pitch counts and getting on base directly correlate to runs" they don't. It is a bit more complicated than that as any analysis of this year's data will demonstrate.

Remember Castillo hasn't played baseball in over 18 months until recently. This is the reason Cherrington wants him to play in the AFL and the Puerto Rican league to get 200 ABs before spring training.

Both could be true. The organization philosophy may be outdated. Just as batters and pitchers have to adjust to trends strengths and weakness, organizations have to adjust their philosophies to the changing trends in baseball. This doesn't mean that WMB weakness at reading pitches isn't his problem, it clearly is. WMB aside, the pitch count philosophy made strategic sense when mid relievers weren't as good (or as fast) as starters. The trend now is to have dominant relievers who can throw upwards of 95 but just not that long. Recently I heard in one ML telecast that the average velocity of ML pitching has increased by over 2 mph in the last 3-5 years. If this is indeed true then teams need to adjust their thinking to the new competitive reality. The trend is more noticeable with Middlebrooks but clearly none of the Sox hitters are doing as well as they did in years past. Pedroia is an excellent example. Yes it may have been his wrist but also his tendency to take the first pitch clearly has put him at a competitive disadvantage. Is the wrist or is it the strategic philosophy? Interesting question!