Kimmi

Here's the problem I am having. Those with "traditional" opinions make claims with no statistical evidence to back up those opinions. If traditionalists are so sure that someone like Ellsbury has a large impact on the defense and opposing pitcher, why don't they conduct a study on it? All the data they need is there. Back up these claims with some concrete evidence. OTOH, there have been several studies that show otherwise. Here's another one: http://www.hardballtimes.com/base-stealer-intangibles-part-2/ This one actually shows that a disruptive runner might gain a whopping 1.3 runs over the course of a season! I admit that none of these studies are perfect. However, when there are several studies conducted on the same subject, and they all conclude more or less the same thing - that the idea that a prolific base stealer disrupts the defense enough to give his team extra wins is mostly false - then I think you have to start believing that there is merit to them. Otherwise, where are the studies showing otherwise?

First off, it's really a moot point since neither one of has 10,000 posts and can change our sig line. Secondly, your condition that Porcello has to reach 150 IP no matter what is unfair in the case that he gets injured in some freak play that is beyond his control. That, IMO, has nothing to do with durability. That said, I will accept it anyway.

High tension wires by themselves, maybe not. But sniffing glue while living under them, huge problem!

LOL You are too funny. I liked the overreaction to Game 1 much better.

He pitched pretty well up to the HR ball. It wasn't the HR ball that killed him, it was the walk before that, which led to the single because of the runner being held on by the 1B. Personally, I thought that some of the pitches on that walk should have been strikes. Or maybe I'm just a homer.

That stunk. Oh well, tomorrow is another day.

Let's go offense!

Nice inning by Ogando.

Saved by the rain.

Dang it! Just missed it!

Come on Hanley, show Paps who's boss!

Geez....

Rally time!

Well that stinks.

Okay so you're basing your opinion on no evidence. As I said before, it's quite possible that Ellsbury is an exception. But it's also just as possible that he is not.

I disagree that the difference is night and day between the top 2 or 3 base stealers and the next level. A disruptive runner is a disruptive runner. They will get the same types of throws to first, etc. as Hamilton and Ellsbury will.

Whew, he got out of it. Time for some offense!

No, it is not lumping in speedsters with slow runners. These studies have a lot more validity than your anecdotal evidence. But this is a typical response. When given data that doesn't support one's opinion, just claim that the data is not valid. Show me some data that proves otherwise.

I feel like I'm watching last year's offense...

As I said before, there are some exceptions, and you may be right about Ellsbury, but you can't say that for sure. Also, please note the caveat about the extremely small sample size used with Hamilton, so you can't even say that his effect is significant.

Teams should be able to roll over any runs over 5 that they don't need.

Harang was the ace of the Reds staff, once upon a time.

No, I likely wouldn't be happy about it, but I wouldn't necessarily be unhappy either if the Sox are winning.

Fangraphs pitcher WAR is based on FIP and Inning Pitched.

A disruptive runner in one study that I looked at was classified as those with the highest stolen base attempt rates, those above 15%, and a minimum of 400 SB opportunities. In that study, BA was .273 with aggressive runners on first, versus .281 with non aggressive runners on first base. SLG % also dropped about 25 points with an aggressive runner on first versus nonaggressive. In another study, having any runner on first improved wOBA for the hitter by about 14 points. Having a disruptive runner on first dropped that advantage to just 2 points. http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/does-a-speedster-on-base-help-the-guy-at-the-plate-051314