bostopz

Exactly. I agree with this 100%.

Regarding a speedy baserunner how many bases did Ellsbury steal for us in 2013? You had said the research was done was something to the effect "This one actually shows that a disruptive runner might gain a whopping 1.3 runs over the course of a season!." SO when Ellsbury stole all those bases, you mean to tell me he only scored just over 1 run for the entire season that otherwise he wouldn't have scored if he didn't try to run? Did you watch the game last night? Did you see that little squibbler the Gardner hit when Ellsbury was on the run? Now when I go back and your post above on the human element of the game. You heard last night about hwo the announcers said after sox got 3 runs it was important to have that shutdown inning right after they got the 3. They spoke of "momentum." Do you think players can build off of momentum? A question for you on advanced metrics - I really don't know this. Last year we got Cespedes for Lester. Oakland fell apart. How was Cespedes's value in terms of offensive production for advanced metrics? What advanced metrics would have told us/what could we have learned that the trade was going to destroy Oakland's hitting? I see his WAR was 2.8 with 432 ab - it's not that good to warrant the collapse. I read his presence makes everyone better. Yet his WAR wasn't so hot. What can we learn from sabermetrics in this instance? I can't find the old espn video two guys talking that they thought Pettit was of more value than Rivera and as result should be "more deserving" ot be in HOF. They used advanced metrics as justification by comparing starters vs relievers. And from the data they complied, they stated Pettit WAR or whatever was higher thus he should be mor deserving to get in. I could be wrong about this or missed some finer points. But there is with advanced metrics a value system of which starters are of a higher value I assume - I think it's logical to assume that. Ergo many .500 starters not so good era's with 200 innings get big bucks. But do you know of the Pettit vs Rivera comparison? And if what I said is accurate and Pettit's numbers are of a higher value, who would you is the more deserving HOF player? Thanks for the thread..

I don't agree.

Great! I can too!

Of course, when we're in a disagreement of how you use some of the metrics (you feel you are using them in a justified manner to draw conclusions, I feel some of the metrics in how you are using them are wrong or irrelevant in the manner to which you are trying to use them to prove a point.). I hope this means we won't be hurling insults at one another over time? Anyhow, if we're such a vast disagreement in how you are using the metrics or how you represent them such as base stealing with Ellsbury, it's highly probable that sometimes we are going to have a complete opposite view point. But it's not like we would be disagreeing all the time. We agree on for example that we thought Vasquez was a high valued catcher, didn't we? Somebody can use stats to tell me that Andy Pettit is of more value than Mariano Rivera. However the analytics "experts" may define "more value" or similar meaning Petit is better. IMO-- Mariano Rivera is the guy I'd put in the HOF any day and say he is a greater than Andy Pettit. Rivera was greater and thus "more value" doesn't mean "greater." But you'll get some metrics geeks trying to tell you different and as a result trying to change the meaning of words or either mis-use or twist the data to fit their argument. If you want to start another thread overall and go at it, I'd oblige. I don't think other posters want to see you and I squabble on this thread. Just as long as we don't throw insults at one another II'm fien with all this. Hopefully you're good too that if we disagree it won't be a war of insults?

Okay. I only brought it up because the poster named "username" had asked me in a manner of speak to "prove" what I had said earlier that I disagreed with Kimmee and her use of the metrics (though he didn't ask Kimmee ot prove hers.) . For me there is such thing as "clutch." David Ortiz is the epitome of clutch. I no more have to prove that (which I feel is a fact) than what I have to prove that a guy like Ellsbury's stolen bases is an impact. And I just threw in a little comedy (though I kid you not the poster from long ago actually said it) of that sabometric geek in which I provide him what the definition of clutch was and he replied back "LOL you use a dictionary." Isn't it comical that some geeks are so into the metrics that they justify to themselves that it is okay to disregard the meaning of words just to fit their own argument? Thus there is no universal meaning in baseball of clutch -- just as a poster replied to me about he can tell "what a good hitter is." Everyone has their own definition of what "a good hitter" is too. it's not universal is it? Thus -- please don't give me this "stuff" that Ellsbury's base-stealing wasn't an impact. We know what we see. We know when the sabomteric geeks sometimes try to sell us the Brooklyn Bridge when they change the meaning of words to fit their own argument. We give examples of why the metric is flawed is flawed and we hear teh clcihce rhetoric "you're jsut an old-timer or there sin't enough data blah blah blah. Those are excuses because it doesn't fit their argument.

Hell yes!

I don't agree with this at all. So if a player bats .220 in a 1 run game in the 8th/9th inning he is just as "clutch" as someone who bats .300? Clutch is NOT a fan's term. If you don't want to believe in it - okay it's your perogative. But I KNWO it exists therefore no reason for me not to speak to it when I see it. Whether I'm a fan or not-- it still exists.

No reason for me to give what is the truth a rest.

So it's okay for Kimmi not to provide proof but I must?

Again there is no such thing as clutch, right? I just gave a bunch of examples how stolen bases impact the game. Roberts stolen bases - if we spread it out over a season as you suggest how many runs did he produce? But in reality you and I know his swipes were ENORMOUS. Weren't they? Thus the way you are looking it - it's not totally correct way to look at it, is it? Just as how the sabermetrics guys are in denial about "clutch?" And are they in denial about a closer still? Didn't they have data that backed up the 1st inning should be treated like the 9th or something like that - and you don't really need a closer for the 9th? I don't know this but it was something to this effect, wasn't it?

We were a running team in 2013, were we not? At least the top of the order, right? Did we win our first title by going through the Yanks because we sat back or was base stealing a huge factor in that series? To add to that point -- were we a "running team" in that series? Or did we just a have big stolen bases? Thus the point of "there isn't a lot of running teams any more" is sort of irrelevant isn't it? It only takes one player - one stolen base to turn the tide. Wasn't it crucial over a 7 game series? SO it can be crucial in a 7 game series but not crucial over a season? How do you think the A's felt about stolen bases after the Royals ran over them last year? How bad was it over a time when Tampa Bay used to run the ball down our throat? Were you really saying "that's okay that Crawford is running all over the bases vs us?" It had little to no impact? It wouldn't have sped up any pitchers delivery knowing he was on base about to swipe the next? So it's okay to let him get a triple off a single?

SO there was little benefit having that pinch runner (Roberts) Red sox had in helping come back from the 3-0 deficit vs Yanks? Isn't the combo of Ellsbury and Vitorino in 2013 similar to having a terrific pinch runner? Thus the sox didn't have one great base stealer they had two. To diminish that running game I sort of like the argument I used to have with sabermetrics fans that take it is a religion. It's a very useful but not a religion. Anyway I can remember telling them a certain a player was clutch and I used a dictionary to define clutch and said this is what so-and-so player did. he came back at me and said "LOL you are using a dictionary." I kid you not. Whoever the guy was he is trying to redefine what the word clutch meant. David Ortiz is clutch. Other things you can know without metrics. One thing I believe is players feel some sort of pressure. They're human not a computer program. They can react to pressure in different ways on different days to different circumstances.

Who are you replying to? Me or Kimmi? None of us gave evidence did we? So it's to both of us? if it's to one of us, why are you leaving the other off-the-hook?

Nah - I don't agree. I think the myth is the other way around. For example I don't think overall Ellsbury stealing bases negatively affected Victorino, Pedroia or Papi one bit.

The reason why you think he is going to rebound is that your discarding the facts from the last two years. Maybe you are right to discard them but as of this moment I don't agree - but I'm hopeful like everyone else on here. I see the last two years as a trend not as an aberration. I hope you're right. Hope the guy gets his hitting around that .270 range to boot (his high end) and plays solid defense. Okay I'm done with this-- can't wait to see how it all goes.

How does this matter? So what does difference does it make if the manager is now calling for more fastballs or the catcher is -- if either is concerned about the running game? If you have a catcher with a shotgun arm you don't have to necessarily call for more fastballs, right?

Sure it doesn't make sense. You can make an excuse for a guy you want to succeed. No one ever does that except non Red Sox fans.

I don't agree with how you are looking at this. How often is a pitcher speeding up his delivery? How does this speed up of delivery affect his control in both walks and hits? How about how the infield is situated? How about hit and runs? Does the catcher call for more fastballs? And I don't agree that if you were to see a stat of someone throwing out 52% of the runners that it wouldn't be some form of a deterrent.

So which of the seasons can we discount from Hanigan in the other years when he had 293 ab in 2009, 243 ab in 2010, an 304 ab in 2011?

Allow me to retort. Making excuses for players doesn't make it right.

Nah-- I don't agree with this at all. I hope you're right. Over two years 500 ab is indicative imo. You just don't go from a 5 year .275 hitter to a two year .208 hitter and mostly attribute it to bad luck.

I'm not buying the bold for one second. You are what you are when you have about 530 ab. In addition, there is a reason he was considered a backup. Now we have to be hopeful he could hang on (we need luck on our side). Secondly if we are to bring up Swihart it would be one year ahead of plan. So -- how we have to hope it works out this way -- "It was the right move that this year we were to keep him down in the minors because he needed seasoning. Now he no longer needs seasoning and we should expect he will perform well."

1--- A 34 yo's offense is going to rebound in which he is the starter all season? Please . . . 2--- I wouldn't believe those defensive numbers to boot. The 34 yo is going to be strong defensively all year as the main starter? Please . . . 2--- And Vasquez would have started which then we'd have no reason for Leon. How much better is Hangian than Leon? Do we use the same criteria "if Hanigan's offense rebounds . . . then compare that to Leon?" I am hopeful Hanigan can play well and hold on. Also hopeful that Swihart is "ready" if need be though that wasn't "the plan" this year. If we have to trade for a catcher that would absolutely stink. The numbers aren't gospel - they are estimates. As Kimmi suggested in the past Vasquez's defense was supreme. There is no way a supreme defensive catcher is only so little ahead of a 34 yo that would probably wear down as the starter for an entire year. Further, there is little chance to expect as a starter his offense is going to rebounds when in the last two years he's been pathetic. Now all of a sudden he wears the Sox uniform and there is any emote expectation that he can hit? Mayeb he can -- but it would shear luck if that were to happen. I agree things could happen we won in 2013. Players could over-achieve etc. I just know this -- for all the talk about how many runs a great defensive catcher can prevent-- I know many of you saw the same thing I saw in 2013. That was when the Sox were to meet the Cards -- they said because of Molina the red sox running game of stealing bases would be shut down. And it was when Molina was there. There was no way in hell that defense was worth such a miniscule number.

I don't agree with this. For one - framing has also a lot to do with the pitchers too. If they're all over the plate the greatest framer in the world isn't going to have much luck. Secondly, guys with shotgun arms like Molina you don't run on him. He shuts down the running game. You have an entirely different approach than a guy you can maybe do more hit and runs etc and overall be much more aggressive.