notin
-
Posts
53,584 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
45
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
2026 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by notin
-
No, the delta shows how we magnify small differences in baseball. The difference between a .220 hitter and a .320 really is only 10 hits in 100 at bats (and 10 hits in 100 at bats is 10 percent!!!!). The difference between a 3.50 ERA and a 4.50 ERA is 17 earned runs over 150 innings. But we lol at the lower players like they’re incapable and the treat the better ones like stars. And there is a huge irony in you accusing me of being incapable of admitting I’m wrong (mvp called me out on things like 3 times yesterday. Maybe more. I made comical excuses but that’s a form of copping to them. The relative difference is meaningless. A .280 hitter named Player A might be 27% better than a .220 hitter named Player B, if you like. But what does that mean? The likelihood of Player A getting a hit is still only 6% greater than Player B getting one (assuming batting averages are accurate predictors). Spin how you want and sell it to who believes you, but that’s not going to make Player A’s average 0.27 better than Player B’s…
-
That’s because it’s Bellhorn being Bellhorn, like when he refused to admit the difference between “only” and “first”…
-
I’d gladly take the package to Sox received for Betts over the one the Marlins received for Miguel Cabrera…
-
I know. How dumb to think something that happens 32 times out of 100 happens 10 times more than something that happens 22 times out of 100! True or false: a .320 hitter gets hits in 10% more of his at bats than a .220 hitter…
-
I believe “A Boy Named Sue” was written by Shel Silverstein…
-
A .280 hitter is successful 28% of the time. A .220 hitter is successful 22% of the time. That’s NOT 6%? If a .220 hitter was successful in 6% more of hit at bats, what would his average be?
-
What’s the difference between 28% and 22%? Key word - difference. I know what you’re saying but you’re misapplying it to the point. A batting average is already a percentage. As in out of 100. Looking at it from a perspective of at bats, not hits. If a player has 100 at bats and gets 22 hits, he hits .220 (or 22%) If he was successful 6 more times out of those same 100 at bats, he hits .280 (28%) If the odds in a casino game go from 1 in 10 to 2 in 10, while the odds have increased by 100%, but the percentage of total players who win still only increases by 10%…
-
Stop. I didn’t say “better”; I said “more often”. A .280 hitter is credited with a hit in 28% of his at bats. A .220 hitter is credited with a hit in 22% of his at bats. Therefore the difference is 28% - 22%, which equals 6%. And over the any number of at bats, the .280 hitter will be credited with hits 6% more frequently than the .220 hitter. What you’re calculating is how many more bits the .280 will have when both have the same number of at bats, which is actually not real useful. (A batting average is already a ratio; why are you comparing ratios?)
-
Some with as many as 9 members…
-
I remember Mike Lowell talking about how tough it was to switch leagues. The better pitchers you usually had an inkling about, but the problems came from all these guys that you never heard of before…
-
No, but there is a lengthy history with tens of thousands of precedents predicting he will decline. Now, how far he declines is one part of it, and would he still have been worth his rather lofty salary is another…
-
Somewhere on a Tampa Rays forum somewhere on the net, there’s a thread titled “Those Pesky Red Sox Won’t Go Away.” They’re the defending AL champs. We’re drafting 4th. We’re the pests here…
-
Sometimes these spikes players have are just lucky breaks. There’s not much difference between a .220 hitter and a .280 hitter (3 hits in 50 at bats) but if a career .220 hitter starts hitting .280, then questions arise about what’s different. Is he cheating? Did he re-tool his swing? Maybe he is just getting lucky 6% more often?
-
Most likely. And really, he is the #9 hitter. By #9 hitter standards, he’s pretty dangerous…
-
Very true. There is a big difference between Doug Frobel (6'4" maybe 50-60 lbs?) and Jonathan Broxton (6'4", eats meal larger than Doug Frobel)
-
Gonzalez, Chavis, Hernandez, Vazquez, Munoz, and the guy I'd like to see go there - Devers.
-
Fagnraphs touched on that earlir this year. https://blogs.fangraphs.com/matt-barnes-one-simple-trick/ But a lot of fans see a player improve or have a career year, and the assumption is cheating. A lot of times, the difference between a career year and a normal year just isn't as big as many think...
-
Pitching and defense. Everyone needs pitching. Boston needs people who can field, as well. Dalbec can be demoted or traded. This team has a few people who can handle first. Also, I’m really coming around on Kike as full time CF. I’m fine with Arroyo at 2b. I had some questions about him before the season. He’s done a great job answering them…
-
Well, this guy doesn’t agree with you. https://bosoxinjection.com/2021/06/10/red-sox-lets-stop-assuming-every-pitcher-using-sticky-stuff/
-
Then how about the attendance at a Van Damme movie?
-
And number 74 that year was Garin Cecchini, whose entire career consisted of 40 plate appearances…
-
I put my solution out there in the “Pesky Rays” thread…
-
The idea is the pitch clock will fix Manfred’s game pace white whale, and then maybe he will stop f***ing everything else up…
-
I never liked how some of these ranking organizations put players in their top 100 lists prior to playing their first minor league game. But they have their methods….
-
29 IP already this year, making it his second most active season. But I have many well-supported doubts about him reaching his lofty career high of 55…
