bostopz

I'm with spudboy- I'd take the ace.

However we know sometimes people are resistant to change. It happens to many people-- ball players are not exempt. In this case these pros have succeeded all their lives - and basically leading up to their pro ball career they've silenced many of their critics through their sheer will and stubbornness. Sometimes that becomes their undoing. If Victorino can do it- maybe so can Panda. If he never tries we'll never know. For me as a fan (which panda can care less about) -- I can wait with no harsh statements this year. If he wants to try to work it out for a year I don't think our Sox will be much of a factor- then go for it. But if his pathetic disgraceful right-handed hitting extends into mid-may next year and we have a legit chance to be contenders, Farrell has to consider platooning him if he doesn't try the left-handed alternative. Which the platooning would be outrageous but the team can't live with "two-for forty-one," can they? Panda is two-for-forty-one right-handed. Panda is two-for-forty-one right-handed. Panda is two-for-forty-one right-handed. Panda is two-for-forty-one right-handed. Panda is two-for-forty-one right-handed. You can't have such a miserable right-handed hitter in your lienup batting 5th or 6th -- unless you are going to actively pinch hit for him.

Player’s need to be held accountable. The team isn’t hitting like it should not close. And Castillo is coming. What are some moves you think the sox will make? Mike Napoli – When do the sox say they’ve had enough? Excellent defense but his hitting is god-awful. Right now there isn’t much to do unless you consider platooning him until he shows you something. Do you think platooning? If so what is breaking point to do it? Platoon him with Holt? Or if season is declared over (long ways away from that) – consider moving Ramirez to first base? When does sox management say they had enough of a lousy hitting Napoli if he doesn’t improve much and he is likely gone next year? Or if he improves and we’re out of it when do you put him on the bench? Victorino – IS there a type of pitcher he gets overwhelmed by at this point in his career? Play him 2 out of every 3 days as long as he is hitting decent and the sox are in the playoff hunt? Nava—In 2013 he tanked in the playoffs I think. Understandable. Last year when we needed him early in the year he tanked. He did well when the season was basically over. This year so far we have a repeat performance of god-awful hitting. He tanked yet again for us when we needed him early. Will there ever be breaking point with this guy that you have had enough and just trade him? Panda part 1– He thinks he is going to come around right-handed but what would be the breaking point? I thought we’d be a 4th place team this year so I’m okay with his 1st year “waiting” for him to work out his right-handed woes despite his trend showing otherwise. He’s an automatic right-handed hitting out. What would be the breaking point by pulling him consistently late when we need a big hit in 8th or 9th inning when opposing team has a lefty? Would that embarrass him enough to scrap hitting right-handed? Heck you can even pull him for a left handed-hitter and he’ll probably hit the lefty better than Panda has shown. How long do you wait for him to show you he can be at least decent as a righty otherwise pinch hit for him regularly? Papi – One my favorite players ever – what is the breaking point for having him hit 3rd? Right now we don’t really have a legit 3 hitter (maybe you can say Ramirez) in terms of performance – but if a player would emerge would the sox have the guts to drop Papi to 5 or 6? And he is probably going to be back next year – if he continues to hit pretty bad would the sox have the guts to be hard on him? Panda part 2 – If he could show he can hit decent right-handed (or bat left-handed vs lefties and hit decent that way) and hit very good left-handed vs righties, do you think he can be a 3 hitter? And if he is a legit .300 hitter who also is decent vs lefties – do you think the sox would have the guts to use him as a 3 and drop Ortiz?

Yes they (the stolen bases) do. You're just using a statistic that isn't well-suited to draw the conclusion you want. Just as you say things like no longer arguing- the same comes from me. Just as I stated on my past posts - I brought out the dictionary to define the word "clutch" to some stat geek an he said to me "lol you are using a dictionary." Yeah - I'm using what the word means. In this case you think I'm being difficult / ignorant whatever- while I'm shaking my head saying you and the stat geeks ignore grit and momentum etc or you become just like the stat geek I once argued with - you change meaning of words (in this case identify momentum or clutch or "playing under pressure" or confidence or grit) in your own terms to fit your argument of total love for stats. That's okay- just consider when you sometimes bring up on other threads how metrics is so telling vs the tradionalists-- more than likely the tradionalist doesn't buy the way you are using the stats that basically sum up your own individual opinion. The stat geek for example with stolen bases thinks they can measure a game or two by using their own definition of what momentum is (or clutch_ etc. There is no universal stat to measure if momentum builds up confidence which then helps a team win 110 of 11 games. IMO stolen bases lends a hand ot that. The Yankees this year are a perfect example. One game when Yanks were struggling with their bats - they executed a hit and run with Ellsbury going to 2nd, Garner this a weak ground ball to short that winds up going to left field. Yanks get a big inning win the game I believe. A short tiem later in 9th inning Gardner comes in as pinch runner I bleeive steals 2nd. A-Rod gets basehit to center Yanks win. They've built momentum. Players become more confident. While many of that know "clutch hitters exist" also know their other factors their than hard-boiled stats. We don't need someone making up their own definition of the word and pretending THAT should be the universal definition. The Yanks now have been doing pretty well- built on momentum - and some f it has to do with the early base-stealing examples I've given - because obviously those wins would have bred confidence. I don't need a metrics geek to tell me about confidence, clutch or momentum -- I know it exists. Thanks for this - you're a classy person kimmi -- I seem to have gotten you frustrated but I understand -- and usually it would be that way with a disagreement of traditonalist vs sabermetrics. I won't reply to your thread any longer.

Momentum can last for more than a single game - you just said so yourself. A guy like Ellsbury who stole 58 bases with only 4 steals then add up Victorino's stolen bases and Pedroia's you will have games that carry over. Once you acknowledge the carry over exists -- it impacts all teams throughout either the league or the division. Because you can't define the carry over doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's just that you don't know. That doesn't make it overrated. It just means metrics is ill-equipped to figure it out. I think you are wrong how you look at things. For example, Perdroia's grit is part of who he is. He has it. None of us needs metrics to tell us so. So his grit does impact many games because that is what he is - how he plays. That type of play rubs off on others. IMO you pretend to use the word but don't really use it. As you've said before all players have handled pressure in order to get to the majors. IMO that means all players have had to have grit. I don't agree with your assertion in some aspects but I'm baffled how you throw words around like "pressure" grit" and confidence" and just don't seem to back them up with anything. They're "hollow." I have no idea still from you what "a strong believer in grit" is by metric geeks vs "normal grit." Bottomline is you seem to think I erroneously tie in momentum and grit and confidence and clutch while I think you erroneously separate them. When momentum begins you don't know when it begins any more than I do just as we don't know if Pedroia has any more grit than most of the other players in baseball. We can't prove it. Just because you make up a stat momentum doesn't mean the stat is gospel. It can't be measured just as base-stealing can't be measured the way you are trying to do. The Kansas City Royals stole 7 bases - coming form behind to beat the A's. IMO in part the stolen bases contributed to that momentum which contributed to confidence just as games during the season can do the same thing thus it can be the difference form making the playoffs or being eliminated in the playoffs. And somehow that is overrated? . All sabermetrics geeks could do is pretend to use season averages. Tell that to the Angels and Orioles that stolen bases and momentum is overrated. Using a league "average" for defining stolen bases as important or unimportant is a misuse of the data. For teams that can run, to shut them down can be a make or break season. To put them in the same category as a team that rarely steals and uses base-stealing as a weapon is wrong. If you had to play the Sox of 2013, or the old rays teams 19 times or the Royals team 19 times, you have a mediocre catcher's arm -- that stolen bases -- makes or breaks your season. The metric becomes irrelevant in that division vs another that doesn't use it. Just as the momentum for Sox in 1st championship year was built through the stolen bases. That momentum carried over to two series.

No--- it still is. Base stealing is not overrated. As you even agreed base-stealing can be a catalyst to provide momentum. Momentum breeds confidence. Thus base-stealing can be catalyst to momentum thus I don't see how that makes base-stealing over-rated.

I'm not sure where to put the subject of this thread. I apologize if it is in wrong area. I've been reading two projected/ highly talented big time pitchers have had Tommy John surgery. One form last year and one from this year. Last year was Aiken. This year it is Matuella. Matuella also has an issue with his back from what I've read. Do you risk drafting one if they become available? http://dcprosportsreport.com/MLBMocks.htm If not these guys whether they get picked before or they are too risky, what about the kid from pre school; Allard? Do you risk taking a prep kid with the 7 pick? Are we confident Ball will someday be an impact that we can risk to go after another prep school kid?

Wait a minute! I thought this was the basis of our disagreement? Suppose you had a catcher that all but wipes out that kind of momentum? Isn't that a high value?

I'm arguing points that you ignoring. How can Pedroia's grit mean anything if it isn't impacting a lot of games? Especially from someone stating they are a strong believer in grit. The way I see it- you say you are a strong believer but when I bring up his grit has impacted a lot of games, you back off. To me you're straddling the fence. And please don't take this personal-- my issue with you and similar metrics geeks is that you seem to tell us that you are a strong believer in other things other than metrics but then when someone like me says base-stealing is important (in the manner you and I spoke) -- and imo you can use momentum from a guy like Ellsbury ((who was something like 58-4 (steals vs caught)) - you go back to saying "just the stats please." To me, when you say things like this, you are no more a "strong believer" in non-metrics things than an antheist is with their belief in God. Basically non-existent. Thus if you won't acknowledge Pedroia's grit doesn't impact a lot of games, I don't see how you can mention that you are a "strong believer" in grit. Momentum (one of many things) in an inning is achievable by base-stealing or the threat of base-stealing. If you agree momentum exists - then isn't base-stealing and the threat a possible catalyst?

Gotta love how the name calling comes from such a classy poster as yourself. Please keep up throwing out the insults.

What I've been driving at here from the start of your thread is that you (anyone) really can't prove nearly as much you think from the stats you or others provide. Because you can't measure things like "grit or "momentum." You speak of being a "strong believer" in "grit" for example. But you are no more a "strong believer" than just a "random passing believer." If I'm wrong then tell me what is real difference between being "a strong believer" or being a "a miniscule believer?" You just know it exists. However on some level you know momentum exists but you can't define when it exists. So if you don't know when it starts to exist who are you or any statistician to minimize the impact if someone else believes it has more impact? It's just as non-measurable as your "grit." At least I didn't see it from your reply that you have a defined measurement as to when momentum starts to exist. . So if someone were to say "because of Pedroia's grit, he has impacted a lot of games," you can't dispute it any more than you can dispute "because of Ellsbury's prowess of base-stealing, he has contributed to momentum which has impacted many games."

1--- Who says Pedroia has more grit than any other player? Where are the stats to back up who has more grit? You had said any player that comes into MLB has proven they can handle pressure. So who is to say not every single one of those players have some grit that was needed in order to handle the pressure? Their grit may have come from their tough childhood but they show it differently, correct? So who has the most grit and who has the least and how can we define "grit" to have any real meaning? Isn't it possible that we toss out grit and just say Pedroia is a really good player just as many do with "clutch?" 2--- Can you tell me when momentum begins to exist? What definition is used to define momentum in terms of baseball? ---You don't have to answer this about clutch --> The same people that try to define "clutch?" --You don't have to answer this --> but Did you know when I argued a while back with a metrics geek about Clutch he tried to suggest in order to be "clutch" you had to hit better than what was your normal average. he said that to some extent. SO by this person's definition if a guy was a .500 hitter but batted .490 late in tight games he wouldn't be considered "clutch."

From Kimmi: I think the debate arises when the stats and the eyes disagree. Which one is correct in those situations? Well, I think you know what my answer to that question is, at least the majority of the time. From Kimmi: I do think it would be helpful if you shortened your posts some, and limited each post to one particular argument. For example, the first post you made in this thread jumped from the topic of stolen bases, to momentum, to whether Oakland's collapse was due to Cespedes leaving, to Mariano versus Pettitte in the HOF. Yes Kimmi I did reference quite a few. But you have to understand my pov vs. yours. [i]When the stats disagree vs the eyes[/i]- in an argument-- you just reference the stats. My counter-argument is there are other factors other than stats. You and many others may say “of course there are” yet if I were to say for example- there are other factors that makes base stealing important in some manner- you and others would dismiss it and say - “well then, show me the stats.” So in one breath you say you’re a strong believer in non-quantifiable elements but then it never really “means anything.” SO when I reply I have to use multiple examples to keep it going. You don’t because you’re basically holding your hat to the one stat. I have to show as a counter-argument something like “grit” means something or the stats you identify mean little. I have to use more examples. In my post that you refer to - the stolen bases, to the momentum, to Oakland’s collapse regarding Cespedes leaving and Rivera are all related to in some manner to your initial statement of when the stats and the eyes disagree, they either relate to stats that don’t tell the story or non-quantifiable points that relate to something more than “just the stats.” And if someone can show me different- great – “I’m all ears.” But these all go together- even if you have an issue with one I don’t believe you can knockout all. I know you didn't say this - but for others - This time I used MSFT WORD so hopefully I caught all the typos.

Kimmi -- All I have to say is -- YIKES! I'm getting lambasted by a poster for my observations calling them laughable which certainly our replies are about one or two posts away from each of us hurling insults at one another --and then inevitably of course others chime in. I'm being called a troll by another poster who somehow has tied my typos (yes I make a lot of them = I'm sorry - I try to correct them which anyone can look at a lot of my prior posts and see I have made revisions to my posts- but I also think I mentioned I was in a hurry on this thread. How my typos got tied to troll - I don't know but whatever.). In addition I'm supposedly another poster. I can tell you I'm not -- but for anyone to suggest it - it means this topic I'm not really welcome - possibly further insults would come about and hijack your thread. In fact on this thread I was the one that sent you a post on the jbj thread that others could be bored of this topic that if we wanted to continue you could create another thread and I'd oblige. But now "I'm a troll." Well- anyhow the point is this is your thread and I don't want to hijack it. I'll refrain from posting on your thread if you wish. It's your decision - it's your thread. You come on here with a certain expectation of fun - and you start a thread - I don't have to post. I'm not into pyssign the whole damn world off. It's not that important. With all that said - whether you want me posting on this or not -- please keep in mind - probably this comment more of others-- Kimi you and I look at things completely differently. You had replied to a post of mine that YOU disagreed with nearly everything I said.-- And it's the same with me to you- which is why in part I think you specifically mentioned to me that you were creating this thread. SO it seems like I'm just being a pain in the azz with you when I disagree so often but in fact I'm not meaning to - it just happens. I know you don't take offense but I wonder if others do and they think I just want to be contrarian. Final point- if we disagree as often as we do-- one point I had brought up previously is that I don't believe how you are using data draws the conclusion you say it does. For me to counter that - I have to bring in other points - as you call it- all-over-the-map --as you said to me --- There is so much wrong with this post that I don't even know where to start. I'm trying to show or ask or understand what you or talking about or mean. For example when you say "you are a strong believer in grit" -- I have no idea what that general comment means vs why you are or aren't a strong believer in momentum too. Which, by the way, I'm not clear if you are or aren't. None of them are quantifiable. Why does grit get edge if it does? Because you say so? Or maybe you aren't really "a strong believer/" Now I've asked you more than one question. But that is how I have to prove my points. Your use of stats in some cases that just define an area of the game that is more than just the stats you provide. There are unquantifiable factors. Using examples and then responding to other posters etc -- can't all be done with one question. If that is what you want me to do - I can't -- thus tell me you want it -- then I'll just refrain. Let someone else who believes in things like- knows they exist - like "a clutch hitter" wage "war" with you. It's your call on this- I don't want to hijack your thread.

So answer the question for once in your life. Who is more deserving Rivera or Pettit? If you say Rivera is more deserving because he was the best - then what about pinch hitters? How many Yankee fans do you know that will tell you they would rather have had Pettit? I live closer to New York and I'm surrounded by Yankee fans. I listen to the NY radio station and never have I heard someone try to explain who is greater/better Pettit or Rivera and they choose Pettit. And just to let you know -- when one player leaves and everyone goes into slump and he joins another team and they begin to hit better that is considered data. Here is the definition of data an satts. Imagien that - there is this little thing called a dictionary that you could look up their meanings: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/data?s=t a body of facts; information TWO times Cespedes left. One time he left the etam he left - fell APART. Got it? The other team he joined - began to hit better. Got it? Those are considered data and stats. The definition of stats is: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/statistics the science that deals with the collection, classification, analysis, and interpretation of numerical facts or data, and that, by use of mathematical theories of probability, imposes order and regularity on aggregates of more or less disparate elements. It's all one big miracle!!! The guy leaves and his team miracuosuly tanks and he joins another team and they hit better -- yet it's all one big miracle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just as Kimmi did - she choose to respond to what she wanted to and broke it into segemts. I'll choose to respond what I want to - and so and so on and so. . . Can't touch everything.

C'mon you think I'm going to believe you? We've been on opposite sides and you're bias has shown itself. When Kimmi makes a post she didn't have to prove but I did. Sure buddy.

So you're saying stats support the starter? I can only guess you are saying that because I don't see that you've provided numbers that Rivera's value is greater according to advanced metrics. If that is the case - so in some cases we can throw away the stats? If Rivera was "only" 2nd greatest closer in history, do we continue to throw them away / put him in the Hall as more deserving than Pettit?. Or 3rd? DO we continue to disregard stats in the same manner? What's the point/ the measurement that we begin to use stats again? Kimmi said the following: That said, when claims like "a speedy base-runner really disrupts the defense and helps the batter" are made, despite evidence to the contrary, I have to go with the evidence. IS the greatest pinch-hitter ever (a batter that was primarily just a pinch-hitter) also ahead of Pettit if they were to go head-to-head? Of course not. because we don't need statistics to tell us that a reliever should get in and a pinch-hitter shouldn't, right? But anyhow - Pettit's value is ahead of the greatest reliever in terms of sabermterics, is it not? Just as it is ahead of the pinch-hitter. What sabermetrics data tells us that "the greatest reliever ever" and maybe the 2nd or 3rd greatest ever are more deserving/great enough to get in vs the starter like Pettit even though the metrics tell us different? It sounds to me like there is a lot of cherry-picking going on. We cherry-pick the metrics we want to use then individually decide for example if the 2nd or 3rd greatest rleeiver are more deserving that a Pettit. The advanced metrics we throw them away to justify a mythical "2nd or greatest 3rd best reliever" in the history of the game, do we not?

And sky - I love ya dude. But you talk about avoiding the question regarding Pettit vs Rivera, you certainly did it. Just wow! Where is Pettit even mentioned in your reply to me or any starter for that manner? I was asking the value of Pettit vs Rivera. I have no idea why you are mentioning Hanrahan and Rodney etc. How is any of that related to Pettit?

Are you saying it was all just ONE BIG COINCDENCE that when Cespedes left, the rest of the team just happened to go in ONE BIG SLUMP??? I hope you aren't saying that. And are you also trying to say Cespedes was a below average offensive player?

The data shows that once Cespedes left they collapsed, doesn't it? You said you go with the data. Here is what you said: That said, when claims like "a speedy base-runner really disrupts the defense and helps the batter" are made, despite evidence to the contrary, I have to go with the evidence. FTR, until I read the research on this particular topic, I would have sworn up and down that this claim was true. The evidence shows once he left they collapsed. Yet in this case you are not applying the data, right? You have made a decision to disregard the data, correct? You call it "timing." Maybe the"data" shows a drop, Maybe their hitting did improve - I really don't know but I believe it didn't. I believe the data would show a decline in runs scored.

I asked you if you think players can build off of momentum. Prior to that you said you were a strong believer in the human element of the game. Are you a believer in momentum? The Yankee game is on (I should shut it off but freidn here likes Yanks!!) but the Yank announcer said same thing last night the Sox-Yanks announcer(s) said. Yanks got a run and they said the Yank pitcher needed a shut down inning. So as even the announcers said it last night with Red Sox, and you said you are a strong believer in the human element, thus I'll ask again or clarify what you just posted to me now- can players build off of momentum? Yes or no? I think you said "yes they can." Am I right in that assumption? And a further point --secondly-- do you have data to show momentum is 50-50? You specifially you used 50-50. There is no evidence if it is 55-45? 58-42? 52-48? And if you believe as strongly as you say about the human element, why do you dismiss momentum vs grit? How do you define grit and how does sabermterics define grit? Did you say on the other thread that players that make it in pro ball had a ton of pressure trying to make it - so it means once they get in they can handle any pressure? Does this mean all the players have grit too? They'd have to have grit to make it considering all the pressure they were under, wouldn't they? I don't understand how you can separate a player "with grit" and determine their grit has any more value than momentum other than "your say-so." There is no evidence to suggest teams with more grit win any more or less than teams that build momentum, is there? If momentum can't be shown to win, how can grit? Thus why are you believing in grit and not momentum? What justification is there of "confidence" vs "grit" vs "momentum" - -- none are proven data points in how to measure wins are there? You don't know player a is more confident than player b, do you? So what if I were to say to you you're wrong -- that grit and confidence are just as much crap as any other human element such as momentum because it can't be proven through the data? Can you prove my statement wrong with data?

dup

Maybe kimmi can correct me if I'm wrong. But what got our conversation started was Vasquez and the cs%. So we had three base -stealers, thus I wouldn't classify this as "moments." So the Red SOx as team were stealing throughout the season. Other teams that swipe an occasional bases is one thing, isn't it? If you are playing the Red Sox 19 times, you have 19 games to worry about stolen bases. But anyhow, regarding Ellsbury bellhorn said difference is 19 runs. And when Ellsbury was stealing his 52 bases, how many did he steal in ties, 1 run games etc? Are there stats showing when he was making those steals in the 7th, and separately the 8th inning and separately the 9th inning and the batting averages/obp of thereafter when Ellbsury gets on base? And the 19 that Bellhorn mentioned- that could eb the difference between making the playoffs and getting knocked out, right? And the Red Sox overall % of their big 3 for steals was pretty darn impressive was it not? I'd be interested to know how many items they got cs or stole in a 4 run game or tie game or losing by 1 etc. Because mathematically that would make a difference, right? If you get caught when you are 3 runs ahead vs 1 run behind or tied etc? Thus many of the 12 steals maybe they were run games and it hurt a lot. Or maybe it was the other way around. Do we know that? I'm in manufacturing. Say we have 20 end items on contract needed ot produce. All 20 end items have 100 parts contained in them. Each of the 20 end items winds up I received 99 of each but missing one part of each. A report will show me I have 99% availability. OFC another report will show me I have 0 delivered because I need all 100 to make the part. But my point is, I'm not sure "averages" apply here for base-stealing. Its the accumulation moments throughut the season that can kill you.

I got to run to work shortly. Usually I am never on around this time. But -- if in this case Red Sox had a running team in 2013. The combination of Ellsbury, Victorino and even Pedroia on that team They sole 90 bases and got picked off just 12 times. So while getting caught hurts 12 times - the 90 steals as team is pretty big overall, isn't it? I'd think they would have some real strong numbers, wouldn't they? SO now as a running game, its's not just 19 runs. It's much more, right? And heck- we didn't have that good of a 5 hitter in 2015 either. I'm aksign some of these questions, I don't know. And I am eager to hear from kimmi on the bunch of questions I had asked her. And does fangraph account for when they played together? Or just an aggregate? DOes it account for when we go against "2013 Tampa Bay Pitching" or "Houston Astro 2013 pitching?" Thanks!!!