Kimmi

You learn something new everyday.

I have not read the article, but I find this quite interesting. I have experienced phenomenon in everyday life.

Thanks for the recommendation. I've been a big Lindbergh fan since he was a practically a baby. LOL Did you know he is only like 30 years old? And he's been around a while. But I digress. Knowing that I probably won't get around to reading the book any time soon, though it sounds like something I'd really enjoy reading, I read a little about the book and read some informative comments from Miller. Two points that stuck out to me in my very brief reading: 1. Though they are stat geeks, the two personally did a lot of scouting, including scouting the upcoming opposing pitcher and charting every pitch he threw in great detail. Point being, stat geeks are not just about the stats. 2. They both stated in one way or another that where they failed was in not getting the players and the manager to buy into what they were doing. It became a sort of an 'us versus the stat geeks' mentality, and the players presumably 'rebelled', even when a decision was based more on a non-analytical reason. The guys realized the error of their approach after it was too late. The 2nd point stands out to me because one of the first things Cora did when he came to Boston was hire a guy to do just that - relay the data to the players in such a way that they would buy into it. Anyway, good stuff.

Koji was the man. I thank him for his time with Boston, particularly 2013, and wish him the best.

The line up was kind of frustrating, but they had guys on base. They just couldn't get the timely hit. The Sox did not play nearly as bad as the series outcome suggests. Cora said it best. The Sox basically had 2 bad innings and lost the series.

The back end of the BP has been really good. Cora has used those guys effectively. Somebody (Finn, I think) brought up a good point about how Kimbrel was not really open to the idea of what Cora is doing this year.

{Applauds} Both you for making the post and Walden.

No, it doesn't mean 9th inning.

That pretty much sums it up. Saves, Holds, Blown Saves are all bad stats, IMO.

Also, FTR, last I checked neither holds nor blown saves were official MLB stats. Therefore, there are slightly different criteria for those stats, depending on which site you use.

Those 2 guys did blow 13 save opportunities out of 24, but here is why that stat is misleading. BR defines 'save opportunities' as simply saves + blown saves. So yes, the times a reliever pitches the 8th and blows the save is counted as a save opportunity. Pitchers that often pitch in the 8th inning or earlier are getting penalized for blown saves, but are not getting any credit for any of the successful holds. Let's say that Barnes comes into the 8th inning in 20 games and successfully holds 15 of them. That's a success rate of 75%, with 5 blown saves. Then he comes into a save situation in the 9th inning in 5 games and successfully saves all of them. That's a success rate of 100%, with 5 saves. Between the 8th and 9th innings, Barnes was successful 20 out of 25 times, or 80% of the time. With BR's definition of save opportunities, Barnes had 10 save opportunities, and was successful in only 5 of them, making his success rate only 50%. All of his successful holds are ignored with that stat.

I would try my best to re-sign him for a relatively short term deal. Don't know if that will be possible, but I certainly wouldn't overlook trying to keep him. I may be wrong, but he strikes me as someone who is not all about taking the biggest contract.

This had me laughing a lot harder than it had any right to.

Sale also had a slower pace last night. He didn't look as comfortable as he usually does. He and Leon are just on the same page. That's nothing against Vaz, it just is what it is.

I'm not talking offensively. Sale is clearly a better pitcher when pitching to Leon.

This is a great point that often gets overlooked. So maybe a missed defensive out did not directly result in a run that inning, but it does affect things in future innings.

Fair points. I don't see it as a lack of trust. Cora was at the point in those games where he could turn to his high leverage guys who have been pitching very well. We shall keep an eye on this.

LOL That is a scary thought. Actually, acronyms in general are a scary thought.

There actually is a stat, GPA, that has OBP and SLG broken down correctly by percentages. Sadly, it has not caught on.

The goal of the statisticians is to eliminate as many flaws as possible and to get answers. They are not out to try to prove anyone wrong, though that has happened quite a bit, nor are they out to dupe anyone.

^^ Full fledged stat geek.

And wOBA and wRC are even better than OPS.

There are stats that include stolen bases and base running in general, and give you the overall offensive production of and player.

OPS is flawed. So is BA. OPS has a stronger correlation to run scoring than BA does. Also, OPS has a stronger year to year correlation. IMO, that makes it a better stat.

On your first paragraph, I agree completely. As far as OPS and SLG are concerned, I agree that they are flawed, as are all stats, but I don't think that makes them bad stats. IMO, OPS is a very good stat with regard to its correlation to runs scored and its simplicity. BA is quite fine, though I think OPS and many other stats are better in assessing a batter. As you mention, understanding what the stat is trying to measure and understanding its limitations are key. I use sabermetrics all the time, it's just that no one ever listens to me. I also often use the more familiar stats due to their simplicity and familiarity.