Jump to content
Can Crochet get the Sox back in the win column? Join our game thread! ×
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

Kimmi

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    27,847

  • 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
    They either don't understand them, or the stats don't support their opinion. If the stats don't support one's opinion, they must be useless.
  2. Kimmi
    LOL Being new to the board, I have not had the pleasure of participating in one of your past Stats versus Observation discussions. To me, the topic doesn't get old. And yes, can we now discuss "clutch"? Please? Other topics I would like to discuss, in no particular order: 1. Are strikeouts bad? 2. The importance (or lack thereof) of lineup construction. 3. Are stolen bases overrated? 4. Momentum 5. Lineup protection
  3. Kimmi
    I would just like to point out that early scouting reports on Dustin Pedroia were very wrong. Scouts often doubted him because of his stature, and he was undrafted out of high school because of those reports.
  4. Kimmi
    Very well said Spitball.
  5. Kimmi
    How did Emmz' name get in a response that was written by me?
  6. Kimmi
    If you see the value in stats, then we have no problem. ;-) Just don't say that you don't need stats. You might not need them to enjoy watching a game, but you need them if you're going to debate on a forum.
  7. Kimmi
    I have read through all of the posts on this topic, and let me say that I have enjoyed reading the discussion/debate. There have been good points brought up on both sides. I think that most agree that it takes a balance of both. I'll be honest. I tend to get a little defensive at the implications that I don't watch the games or that I don't truly understand the game because I tend to use stats to back up my positions. You would not believe how many times I have gotten a response along the lines of "you should try watching the games sometime". Are the two things mutually exclusive? Anyway, thank you for the kind words. Even though we don't agree, I enjoy reading your posts.
  8. Kimmi
    LOL Well, I'm not going to get into a discussion about the Bible, but what I posted about traditional beliefs is true. Traditionalists have been allowed to make claims for dozens of years, with no statistical proof or evidence to back up their claims, only anecdotal evidence. Stat geeks are now proving many of those claims to be false.
  9. Kimmi
    I do not like the idea of eliminating defensive shifts. I sometimes get annoyed by all the shifts, but half the defensive battle is knowing where to position yourself. Now it's up to the offense to figure out how to beat the shifts. Not that we necessarily need more offense. I will take a well-pitched, well-defended game any day of the week over a slugfest.
  10. Kimmi
    I've heard that there is a "win" stat for goalies in the NHL. It sounds about as useless as the "win" stat for pitchers.
  11. Kimmi
    The problem that a lot of people have with sabermetrics is that they are disproving what traditionalists have accepted as true for dozens of years. It's hard to be told that something you've believed for a long time is simply not true.
  12. Kimmi
    I have never discounted the importance of scouting. I have never discounted the importance of watching the games and understanding the intricacies of it. I have never discounted the human element of the game. I agree, both scouting and stats are equally important. As far as I know, Bill James or any of the other stat geeks have never claimed that they can get a complete assessment of a player without the scouts. What I have a problem with is those who discount stats and claim that they don't need them. As I've stated before, that's a cop out response, IMO. You have one person who watches the games and studies supporting statistics. You have another person who only watches the games. Who's going to have a better assessment? Since my eyes were opened to the world of sabermetrics, I enjoy the game even more than I did before.
  13. Kimmi
    In the words of a great somebody (I have no idea who), "You can sometimes tell a lie with statistics, but you can never tell the whole truth without them."
  14. Kimmi
    This is the exact type of response that gets my goat up. I have no doubt that you have watched thousands of games and that you know a good defender when you see one. But regardless of how good of a talent evaluator you might be, you will never get a complete assessment without the stats. For one, your eyes will lie to you. For two, it's human nature to be biased. And for three, without having watched every 2B play more or less every game, you really have no way of knowing if Pedroia is a great defender or a poor one.
  15. Kimmi
    WAR is an excellent descriptive stat, despite what the critics say. For those who think that WAR values defense too much, I would argue that WAR has it about right, and rather its critics don't value defense enough.
  16. Kimmi
    Well, to a certain extent. The good teams will tend to win more of their games by larger margins. The larger the difference in the score, the more skill and talent become a factor. In one run games, randomness is king. It's not necessarily that the ability of the two teams is equal, but rather that their ability is not the deciding factor in the outcome of the game. Bad teams have almost as good a chance of winning a one run game as a good team. In close games, things like missed strike/ball calls, bad bounces, a ball that was fair or foul by 1/2 an inch, a checked swing dribbler that results in a hit, etc. end up being the difference between who won or lost the game. These are things that have little to do with a team's skill.
  17. Kimmi
    I think too many people undervalue defense. I posted elsewhere that Pedroia is one player I would never bet against. He's heard all the speculation about how he has declined offensively. Nothing motivates him more than proving his critics wrong. It's what he's done his entire baseball career.
  18. Kimmi
    LOL Theo made his share of mistakes, but his philosophy on how to build a winning franchise was spot on. IMO, Crawford was Lucchino's doing. I don't think there is any way that Theo would have signed Crawford if he hadn't been more or less forced to do so by Lucchino. It's no secret that the two didn't see eye to eye when it came to baseball ops. Theo and Bill James are my idols.
  19. Kimmi
    I'm know that losing is a great motivator. I played sports. No one likes to lose. It's not luck in the sense of lucky rabbit's foot luck, it's luck in the sense of randomness. Good teams do tend to win slightly more close games, but usually have a lower winning % in close games than their overall winning %. In other words, the closer the score of the game, the more the winning % tends toward .500.
  20. Kimmi
    CP, I did not take any offense to your responses to me. We disagree, but you have responded respectfully to me. Luck definitely plays a roll in any baseball season. IMO, randomness/luck plays a much larger roll in baseball than most people realize. Don't get me started on the false notion that "good teams know how to win the close games". One and two run game outcomes are largely the result of luck.
  21. Kimmi
    I agree that they share part of the responsibility for 2014. They did not have a decent back up plan for Bogaerts/Middlebrooks and for JBJ should they get injured or underperform. Depending on three unproven kids with no viable back up plan did indeed contribute to the horrendous offensive year. That said, the fact that all 3 of them struggled, along with most of the rest of the line up is bad luck. No one could have foreseen the offense being as bad as it was. As far as either 2013 or 2014 being flukes or not, all I'm saying is that out of the 2 years, I would say that the outcome of 2013 was more expected than the outcome of 2014. So, if either of those years is to be considered a fluke, it would be the latter.
  22. Kimmi
    I consider some of his moves to be genius, though he has not earned his "Theo" status yes. ;-)
  23. Kimmi
    Koji indeed had a great year, but it's not like he sucked before that and the great year came out of nowhere. In 2012, his BB/9 and K/BB rates were better than they were in 2013. In other words, the great year should not have been unexpected or considered lucky.
  24. Kimmi
    I don't know why those things would be so unexpected. Nava, ok. Maybe his performance was unexpected. For the most part, the rest of the guys did what the FO knew they were capable of doing. Except for Middlebrooks.
  25. Kimmi
    That to me is good planning on the part of the FO. While I thought the 2014 team was going to be a true contender as well, what the team lacked was some quality depth on the left side of the infield and CF. Even so, I would say that 2014 was kind of the perfect storm of just about everything that could go wrong offensively. Bad luck in 2014.
×
×
  • Create New...