Kimmi

Now you're speaking my language. There is a threshold BA (and OBP and SLG) over which a hitter should not sac bunt. Without looking it up, I don't recall the exact numbers either, but it varies depending on the base/out state and also on whether scoring one run is more important than scoring multiple runs. There are certain instances when the BA break even point was below .100. Someone like Bonds should never sac bunt. It also changes as the trends in baseball changes. For instance, the threshold was lower during the steroid era when HRs were more plentiful. If I recall correctly, it only makes sense statistically to sac bunt if it is the 8th inning or later, the team needs to score one run, there are no outs, and there is a runner on second base. One of my criticisms of Farrell is his overuse of the sac bunt.

I have said many times that I am not a fan of Pablo's contract and that I thought there were better options in terms of value. That said, despite the downward trend, Pablo still should have provided an upgrade over what we had at 3rd base the previous year, albeit an expensive one. The Sox signed arguably the best free agent 3B available to fill a hole. I didn't agree with the contract, but IMO, it's really no different than signing the best available free agent pitcher (Price) to fill a hole.

It is a bias against short pitchers because of the false belief that taller pitchers throw harder.

True, false, and false. Scouts like velocity. There is no evidence that velocity and height have any correlation - that is an assumption made by scouts based on an ingrained false belief. Here is one person's finding from a very simple but effective study: "As one can see from the R-squared of 0.012, there is no relationship between height and fastball velocity." http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2012/11/5/3602072/mlb-fastball-velocity-height-weight-sabermetrics-myths One of the articles I linked studied the relationship between durability and height. Here is the finding: "These data demonstrate that there is no statistical evidence that shorter pitchers are more or less durable than taller pitchers. The statistics suggest that they are just as prone to each type of injury,they recover at the same rate and they get injured as often. Given that durability is the most often cited concern for baseball executives when drafting shorter pitchers, the evidence in this study that durability does not correlate to a pitcher’s height is highly significant." There was an actual physical study done that showed that velocity was generated from mechanics, not from height. I'll have to locate that.

I can see both sides to this. Dombrowski is under no obligation to cater to the fans' requests for autographs, etc. He should be able to do his Christmas shopping without being bothered. OTOH, as a public figure, he has to know and expect that fans are going to approach him when he is out in public, especially when he is in a Red Sox store. It might be an inconvenience, but he doesn't have to be rude about it.

Offense was a big need for us after 2014. Beefing up the offense made a lot of sense.

As much as I've defended Hanley, I have never been comfortable with the idea of him at first base. I think he has the physical talent and ability to field the position fine, but I don't think he has the ability to stay in the game mentally. This has the potential to be even more damaging than having him in LF was. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that he will pleasantly surprise us.

There was more than one study. There was very strong evidence disproving the point. You are choosing not to believe it because it doesn't gel with what you intuitively believe. As far as the sac bunt goes, the data shows that the sac bunt is almost never a good idea. However, there are certain times when sacrificing is statistically the right play. The sac bunt should not be ruled out completely. As I said, it has its place in the game, when the numbers call for it, which is far less often than most people, including managers, believe.

This is a mostly BS post. First off, the eye test is never enough unless you watch both players play the vast majority of their games. We are not talking about the overall careers of the players, we are talking about one year. As far as the stats telling a lie, that is kind of my point. The traditional stats "told a lie". Hence, the need for the sabermetrics. Lastly, for a player for whom it was supposedly so easy to 'see' that he shouldn't have even been in the discussion, Howard received 12 first place votes to Pujol's 18, and 308 voting points to Pujols' 369. He was very much in the discussion.

Thank you.

Yes, I did.

lol

I think this is part of it too. With steroids, you can see the physical effects of cheating. You can see the physical advantage that it gives the players. That's not the case with amphetamines.

I was thinking that, and it's as good as any reason that I can come up with.

Logically, I agree with what you're saying. For whatever reason, though, past players like Aaron who used greenies doesn't bother me as much. I'm not sure that I have a rational reason for why that is the case.

This is what I've been trying to get at with the whole "old school versus new school" thing. Even if he did read it, he will disregard it for one reason or another because it does not gel with what he believes.

As far as the talent evaluators go, they are largely biased against shorter pitchers.

Taller pitchers do have a release point closer to the batter. They also do have more of a downward plane toward the plate. However, these things have not translated to better pitching performance. As far as taller pitchers having more velocity, "While longer arms, acting as levers, are certainly helpful in throwing hard, having a quick arm is just as important, if not more so." Once again, the idea that taller pitchers are better is a traditional idea that has been so ingrained into people that it has been widely accepted with no proof. The numbers show otherwise.

I did not bring this up to debate the topic again, but rather to give an example of a traditional belief or old school belief. The idea that having a "disruptive" runner on first base benefits the batter at the plate is one that is largely believed to be true. However, the data simply does not support this notion. A traditionalist is going to believe it anyway, because that's what he/she "knows" from all the years of watching baseball, despite what the numbers say. FTR, it was more than one study that I linked. You choose not to believe the stats because they don't support what you've always believed. Before I researched the topic, I would have sworn up and down that having a disruptive runner on first benefits the hitter at the plate. After seeing the data on the topic, I now believe otherwise. That, for me, is what I see as the difference between old and new school. (Yes, CP, I know it's not an either/or thing.) You are going to believe what intuitively seems to make sense regardless of the data. I am going to believe the numbers. As far as sac bunts go, they absolutely do have their place in baseball. Unfortunately, the sac bunt is a tactic that is way overused.

It was a debate about who should win the MVP vote (2008, I believe) between Pujols and Howard. While we both agreed that Pujols should win, the other guy argued that Howard should not even be in the discussion. I pointed out Howard's flashy HR and RBI totals. The other guy threw out all these advanced stats at me. I don't remember the exact numbers or stats that were pointed out to me, but up until that time, I did not really even have much of an idea of what sabermetrics was. He explained a few things. I did a lot of reading and research. Like I said, the debate opened my eyes to a whole new world.

I have a very hard time with the idea of letting someone like Bonds, McGwire, or ARod in. It just doesn't sit right with me. It is a valid point that players already enshrined "cheated" by taking greenies, but allowing these guys in still doesn't sit right with me. Even though Bonds was a great player without cheating, once he decided to cheat, he loses the honor of the HOF, IMO.

I agree with you that the voting process needs to be rebuilt. Not only with HOF voting, but with some of the other awards as well. Some of the reasons why some voters will not vote for a certain player are just crazy. The whole idea that some voters have that relief pitchers or DHs are not worthy of being in the HOF is ridiculous. Hoffman should be in and so should Edgar Martinez.

There are not many starting pitchers under 6'2" because they are not being drafted due to bias. There are a lot of people who falsely believe that tall pitchers will have more success than shorter pitchers.

We once had a debate about how much a speedy runner on first base disrupts the defense. I stated that that idea is largely a myth, and cited several studies. You more or less said that you don't believe those studies, not in those exact words. That, to me, is a largely traditional view.

Be careful what you ask for. http://sabr.org/research/does-pitcher-s-height-matter http://www.hardballtimes.com/short-pitchers-still-getting-short-shrift/