Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

Kimmi

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    27,857

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

 Content Type 

Profiles

Boston Red Sox Videos

2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking

Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker

News

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Kimmi

  1. Kimmi
    It is not important to me to label people. I don't see anything wrong with saying that a person's view or thinking is traditional or old school. It's part of the point of the debate. As far as you accepting stats/data that contradict your view, I'm not just talking about single players. I'm mostly talking about overall traditional beliefs that have been debunked. When you are presented with such data, you come up with every argument as to why the data is not valid, rather than accepting it. Cases in point: 1. Speedy runners do not give the hitter at the plate an advantage. 2. Taller pitchers do not have an advantage, and scouts are biased against shorter pitchers.
  2. Kimmi
    I know. Game, set, match.
  3. Kimmi
    You are only willing to accept the stats/data when they agree with you. The new school thinking is the ability to accept the stats/data when they disprove everything you've thought to be true. So far, I haven't seen that from you. As I've said before, you once posted that if the data disagrees with your eyes/belief, you're trusting your eyes/belief. That is very traditional thinking.
  4. Kimmi
    There is a physical difference light colored eyes versus dark colored eyes that makes blue-eyed people more sensitive to sunlight. However, that has not translated into affecting performance in any way. There are always exceptions to the rule, and I believe Hamilton was one of them.
  5. Kimmi
    And none of that precludes a shorter pitcher from throwing as hard as a taller pitcher. I will grant you that the physics behind being taller might give a taller pitcher a natural advantage to throw harder, but a shorter pitcher can make up that advantage in other ways. The blanket statement that taller pitchers throw harder or faster is false. More importantly, drafting or signing, or not drafting or signing, pitchers based on height is not wise.
  6. Kimmi
    One could also argue that Greinke was the best available pitcher. Either way, I still think the perception of one being a good contract/signing and one being a bad contract/signing is based more on people agreeing/disagreeing with the move than anything else.
  7. Kimmi
    Interestingly enough, but not surprising, research has shown no correlation between eye color and day/night splits for hitters. In other words, blue-eyed hitters do not perform any worse playing in the sunlight than their dark-eyed counterparts.
  8. Kimmi
    In an analysis published at Fangraphs, the r-squared for the correlation between height and velocity was 0.013. The correlation coefficient r is just .114. An analysis done at Beyond the Box Score had an r-squared of 0.012.
  9. Kimmi
    I didn't say that all of his pitchers were short. But I do believe that he is giving more credit to shorter pitchers than other GMs are.
  10. Kimmi
    And yet, studies have found no correlation between a pitcher's height and his velocity. They have also found no correlation between a pitcher's height and performance. So you can say as often as you want that height is an advantage to pitchers, but it's simply not true.
  11. Kimmi
    I am not trying to say that Sandoval is in the same class as Price as far as caliber of player. Price is a much better player, but his contract is also much larger. My point is that both players were the best available free agents at their respective positions, and both were signed to contracts that are too large. I don't see the logic in criticizing Ben for getting the best available free agent to fill a need, but praising Dombrowski for getting the best available free agent to fill a need.
  12. Kimmi
    Well if you would never consider picking Howard over Pujols in any year, then you were not basing your 2008 decision on the just the traditional stats. You were basing it on a larger body of work and what you have seen in the advanced stats. And that is more or less my point. By calling the people who voted for Howard idiots, you are saying that the traditionalist view was wrong.
  13. Kimmi
    Welcome Zeke. Glad to have you aboard.
  14. Kimmi
    And that is good to see. I will be keeping an eye on Farrell's use of the sac bunt this season. I have given him somewhat of a pass the past two seasons because our offense was nonexistent at times, and I think Farrell was doing anything he could to score a run.
  15. Kimmi
    And this is why I like you so much.
  16. Kimmi
    The thing about traditional views is that they are views that have just been accepted as true with no proof whatsoever. The sabermetric guys set out to provide proof, one way or the other, thereby bringing a much better understanding to the game. Unfortunately for traditionalist thinking, much of what they believed about baseball has been proven false. To be fair, the sabermetric community is not always right. As technology improves and more data becomes available, they have sometimes had to correct or tweak their findings. The difference is, they are not willing to accept or dismiss something, just because it seems like it should be that way.
  17. Kimmi
    There are so many things that the "whole baseball establishment" has been wrong about. Eno Sarris at Fangraphs also found the same thing: "You usually want your p values smaller than .05, so, in tandem with the poor r-squared numbers, it doesn’t look like there is a relationship between height and fastball velocity and strikeout rate in the big leagues. There *might* be a relationship when it comes to longevity, but the size of the relationship is tiny. Height explains 1% in the variance in career innings pitched totals." As I have said, there seems to be a bias against drafting shorter pitchers. It also seems like they are undervalued in the trade and free agent markets. A forward thinking GM could absolutely capitalize on this. I believe that Billy Beane may already be doing so.
  18. Kimmi
    George Washington University professor Dr. Neil Roach argues that physical size and muscle strength are not nearly as important to a pitchers' velocity as is technique. After measuring the amounts of torque generated by the rotation of the players' humeral bones during the cocking phase of their different throwing motions, it was found that pitchers that generated more humeral torsion threw at higher velocities than those who didn't. In addition, when the rotation of the players' humeri was restricted by a brace, they're pitch velocity declined significantly. According to Roach, a player can gain significant velocity on their fastball by solely changing their mechanics. With the help of coaches, pitchers can learn how to speed up their shoulder (and humeral) rotation, generating more torque and therefore more miles per hour on their pitches. http://www.personal.psu.edu/afr3/blogs/siowfa13/2013/12/what-determines-how-hard-someone-can-throw.html
  19. Kimmi
    I have no doubt that players are put under the microscope, and that coaches/scouts try to mold you into the player they want you to be. My question is about whether the player they want you to be is due to their biases based on unproven traditional beliefs or actual facts. For instance, the thing about the eye color is very interesting. Intuitively, I would guess that blue-eyed people would be more sensitive to the sunlight. However, is there any evidence that blue-eyed pitchers perform worse than dark-eyed pitchers? I'm guessing not. Note to self: Research that.
  20. Kimmi
    I would always prefer pitching over offense too. I understand that you would have preferred Ben signed a starting pitcher last season rather than signing Sandoval. I would have too. But that's not the point. Once the FO decided last season, that they were going to focus on offense rather than on pitching, Ben did the same thing in terms of signing Pablo that Dombrowski did in terms of signing Price. You might not agree with his strategy of prioritizing offense over pitching (I don't either), but the signing of Pablo and Price are same, aside from people disliking/disagreeing with one and liking/agreeing with the other.
  21. Kimmi
    It took a while, but I think most managers are coming around to the idea that the sac bunt is almost never a good strategy.
  22. Kimmi
    If you are not looking at advanced stats, and you are not using the eye test (which again doesn't work unless you watched both players play almost all of their games), then how do you know that Howard should not have been in the running? In terms of traditional thinking, Howard was a beast in HRs, RBIs, and getting his team into the postseason, as Bellhorn posted. He also was a beast during the month of September, batting .352/.422/.852/1.247 , which leaves an impression on voters. Pujols had the clear advantage in BA and strikeouts, but his team was not playoff bound. As I posted earlier, I agreed that Pujols should win. However, based on the traditional criteria, there is no way to say that Howard should not have been in the discussion unless you are using advanced stats, the eye test, which you can't, or basing that opinion on reputation. BTW, thank you for making the point for me about how traditional views are so often so very wrong.
  23. Kimmi
    Farrell may hate the sac bunt but he misuses it. I have often seen him call for the bunt with a man on 1st and no outs. The odds of scoring one run actually go down after a sac bunt in that situation. The hitter at the plate might seem incapable of getting a hit, but unless he's a pitcher, the team would be better off letting him swing away than having him sac bunt.
  24. Kimmi
    If you don't hate Hanley and are certainly not irrational about him, that last paragraph doesn't do a very good job of showing that.
  25. Kimmi
    Hindsight aside, I don't see the incredible differences. In short, it comes down to this. Last year, the Sox needed a 3B. They overpay for the best 3B available. This year, the Sox needed a SP. They overpay for the best SP available.
×
×
  • Create New...