Kimmi

I never said it was an attack. You keep putting that word in my mouth. And please, the whole nature of a discussion board is to debate and defend one's position/opinion. Every poster here provides a defense of his/her opinion almost daily. It has nothing to do with believing that there was an unfathomable attack. Stop with that nonsense.

LOL As Bellhorn said, you're a mess, but you're likeable.

You got me there. Please remember that next time you try your "three last place finishes in four years" argument.

IMO, some of the questioning is unwarranted. I'm not saying that the poster does not have the right to question it. Any poster has the right to question whatever he/she wants. I'm saying that the reasoning behind certain questions is unfounded, making the questioning unwarranted. Henc, I will provide my defense of the questioning. And no, I do not see any questioning of stats as an unfathomable attack. Do not presume that you know what I'm thinking or feeling. As far as the second paragraph in this post is concerned, did you even read the rest of my response? That said, when you say that you don't need stats to tell you about the Red Sox, I disagree. That is not a shot at your knowledge of baseball or the Red Sox. But you, nor anyone, can fully understand or assess the game without looking at the stats, even if you watch every game for 100 years. I know you're going to believe otherwise, but you won't convince me.

This is what statisticians do. They question everything. If there is something that you have questioned about stats, it's highly likely that they have questioned it themselves and tested it. They are very good about being able to eliminate variables and isolate those that they are trying to test. As much as humanly possible anyway. There are things that don't work. There are things that they once thought worked, but with the advancement of new technology, later realized didn't work. There are things that they think are true or false, but have yet been able to prove or disprove statistically. But at least they are always testing and making improvements and corrections. They are not willing to accept that something is good or true just because it's been that way for 100 years.

As far as the radar gun thing goes, it has never been a secret that different guns will give you different readings. The location of the gun in the stadium will also affect the reading. That said, over the course of enough innings and enough pitches in different stadiums, even that data will tend to become fairly reliable. You will have a good idea of how hard a pitcher can throw. As YOTN said, a pitcher's velocity is a stat that is more or less used in and of itself. A pitcher's velocity is not used in determining pitch framing, ERA, K rate, WAR, or anything else where a faulty reading will skew that data. This is an area where a scout would be a better source than the data anyway. One pitcher's 90 mph fastball might look like 95 mph, depending on deception and differential with the offspeed stuff.

FTR, any questioning of stats is not viewed as an unfathomable attack. However, when there is questioning of stats, I am going to offer my defense, especially if I feel the questioning is unwarranted. That said, I will never buy into anyone's belief that he/she does not need stats to fully understand baseball. I don't care how long you've been watching and how well you know the game. Not pointing to anyone in particular here, since as far as I know, everyone here understands the importance of stats, just to varying degrees. And that also goes the other way - you can't fully understand baseball by stats alone.

What SK posted about independent 3rd parties collecting data and what I posted about statisiticians cross checking the data of others are not mutually exclusive. We are talking about all kinds of data and stats here. Most of the standard stats are pretty straight forward and easily double checked by simply reviewing the game, ie. batting average, OBP, Ks. The data collected by pitch/FX is extremely accurate. It is recorded by 2 or 3 cameras (not radar guns) in each stadium. The cameras are equipped with very sophisticated software that tracks the pitch from release point until it hits the catcher's mitt. Pitch/FX revolutionized the world of pitching data, most notably the pitch framing stats. BIS and STATS INC are two major baseball data collecting third parties. BIS is the one that supplies the data for UZR and plus/minus. There are several other lesser known such third parties that collect their own data, and I'm sure many MLB teams have their own team of data collectors. If one company posts some data that seems out of line with another companies, it will not go unnoticed. Additonally, within any particular third party, they have taken every measure possible to cross check their own data and to eliminate bias and human error. For instance, BIS has at minumum two highly trained video scouts independently watching and charting every play. If their data does not match on any particular play, then additional scouts will review said play. They also rotate their scouts regularly, so that any scout is not always charting the same team or even the same division. This helps avoid biases. Even with all the steps taken to eliminate human error, it will never be 100% eliminated. It can't be. BIS readily acknowledges where its shortcomings lie (with catcher defense, for instance) and these statisticians are constantly reviewing data and finding ways to improve upon it. The company's sole purpose is collecting, reviewing, and analyzing data in an effort to better understand baseball. A big part of that is testing the reliability of their data, which they also do constantly. So yes, I feel very confident about the integrity and the consistency of the data collection process. Certainly, I would say it's, by far, much better than the home team's biased official scorekeeper's ruling on whether something is a hit or an error. For that matter, it's even, by far, much better than an umpire's ruling on whether a pitch is a ball or a strike.

Even with the screw up in spring training, players can and usually do improve with more playing time and experience. It was a very reasonable expectation to think Hanley could, at minimum, be no worse in left field than he was at SS. Frankly, if Hanley had maintained his level of play from last season, he would be worth his contract. His contract was not ridiculous, except in hindsight.

I don't agree with all of this, but this is a very fair post CP. I also had concerns regarding Hanley's attitude when I first heard of his signing. However, after hearing that he really wanted to play in Boston and that he volunteered to switch positions to do so, I felt a lot better about that. There may or may not be some truth to the speculation. But at this point, that's all it is - speculation. It's similar to how so many people attacked Lackey's character when he was pitching poorly. I heard so many accusations of how he was a terrible teammate and a terrible person for divorcing his wife when she was battling cancer. All of that was speculation and none of it turned out to be true. All that said, I understand why most people want Hanley off the team.

I think one of the problems with the team early in the season was the amount of transitioning going on. We had a lot of players who were either playing new positions, playing on a new team, playing in a new league, or a combination of those things. This is true of the pitching staff as well as the position players. In that sense, it's good to have some continuity and some veteran team presence. If JBJ and Castillo stick in the outfield, which I really hope they do, we'll have all three outfield positions, SS, and catcher filled with all relatively young and inexperienced players. If Shaw is our first baseman, that's another relatively young and inexperienced position. Pablo has a lot of MLB experience, but not so much with this team and in this league. In terms of the bats, the potential is there for this offense to be very good. But there are some question marks with Castillo, JBJ, Vazquez, and Shaw. They have shown in the past two months that they can play very well. Can they sustain it over a full season? I think so, but as I keep saying, there has to be a good plan B.

I can see you're subconsciously trying to prolong the season by making it yesterday. LOL Unfortunately, the Sox have wrapped up at least a tie for last place. No matter. Finish out the season with a win! Go Sox!!!

Sigh.....

Come on offense! Score some stinking runs!

That could be, and Shaw has looked very good. If that's the case, though, they need to have a solid back up plan. Shaw's experience at the big league level is not extensive enough to know for sure that he can handle the job.

LOL I'll never tell.

LOL People actually debate Star Trek? Your night has no doubt been more exciting than mine, though I must say that I'm very much enjoying this dill pickle.

Breslow has done a decent job. In terms of the Sox offense, it's a snoozer.

You guys can act like you have lives all you want. I know better.

Geez. Where is everyone? Breslow starting a game, and no one cares to comment on that??? Go Breslow! Go Sox!!!

It was not a "blind" assumption that Hanley could transition to left field. It was an educated assumption. That is not the issue right now with Hanley though. I happen to agree with you that he really has no position to play on this team next year, unless he surprises us all and can play first base decently. I have said many times that I have my doubts about that. I have been against putting him at first base all along. That said, I think it was Lovullo who said that Hanley actually looked really good taking grounders at first before he was shut down. Their concern is how he will handle throws to him from his infielders, which is no small concern.

All of the things that those writers are conveying is speculation. They, just like many fans, are "reading between the lines" and speculating that Hanley has quit, that he refused to play first base, that he's not really injured, etc. It's true that he has some baggage from the past. However, as you mentioned, we really have not heard any direct reports about any issues in the clubhouse or with his teammates, etc. Only speculation. It's quite possible that some of these things turn out to be true. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me. Right now there is no proof of any of that. He really doesn't deserve the criticism on his character based on speculation. Criticize his baseball play all you want, but I think the dislike for Hanley because of his terrible play is being displaced onto his character.

Sorry, but I am not familiar with his voice. If you recall, I am not at all a Star Trek fan. I'm sure I have seen him in some movie or show somewhere along the line, but I have no clue what his voice sounds like.

LOL Those two avatars are fairly similar too. When someone changes his/her avatar, it takes me a while to adjust to it.

Don't you all start associating the way the poster looks with his/her avatar? That's not always the case, depending on the avatar, or if the poster changes it frequently. But YOTN is a good example. I picture him looking just like his avatar. He probably looks nothing like that.