notin

To be fair, Cherington did hedge his bets by loading up on groundball pitchers...

At this point, any player dealt shouldn't be written off. It's not about their future in MLB so much as it is about their value as a trade chip. I guess the counterargument is that we don't need to make any deals for pitching since any arm Dombrowski acquires is probably going to get injured almost immediately anyway....

Not only missed ot, but apparently accepted it even after it was revealed. ...

I still like the inclusion of Ramiro Mendoza, who killed the Sox for years, and then when we finally acquired him, was once described on Sports Center by Keith Olbermann as "still secretly pitching for the Yankees." Is there any lower praise?

I'd consider it, assuming it's not someone with very few at bats. I'd also give the label to someone who outperforms in High Leverage, with the same sample size caveat. Know of any such hitter?

True. But the same generally goes for any pitcher over forty. I think some sort of minimum innings qualifier is needed. Otherwise, why go so far back? Why not Kyle Kendrick?

I think we can find someone less impressive than a 40+ pitcher who barely spent one year on the team...

Price has had 3 starts this year. Does that sample size really indicate regression? If he came out of the gate and allowed 1ER in 20 innings, would you think he was clearDr and good to 2...

You know, there was a really long stretch during which the 2016 David Price didn't look like a bad option. ...

Even with the emergence of Devers, I wouldn't mind seeing Swihart moved to third base. Vazquez can handle the catching duties and Swihart is athletic enough to likely handle the change. He has been injury prone a lot the last couple years and 3b is less taxing. While the current team and contracts do allow for Swihart, Devers and Travis to all play their current positions, that would assume the Sox can unload or give up on Sandoval,which I wowould also like. But I have my doubts all three work out and, if and when the Sox need to make atrade, pprobably for a SP, Devers will be the first name other teams want. Swihart is probably the least attractive chip of the three due to his spotty heath track record.

While very true, too many fans hate that type of manager. It was the msin criticism of Francona. ..

It I I don't like this comp. Napoli takes lots of pitches and draws more walks (and has more power).. Josh Roddick might be a better comparison

Not my words. Dannycater's words about me. Although he later admitted that wasn't really the case.

Me either.

I don't expect much offense from either, but, hey, someone has to hit ninth...

Eh. He never really read anything I posted anyway...

The Bogaerts thing was merely an example of how people misunderstand advanced metrics. I opened with a statement about one of the problems with advanced metrics is that people don't understand them. And then I said "FOR EXAMPLE" to actually notify people I was making an example. Seriously. I should not have had to explain that. And this "I didn't say that comprehensive is a bad thing. I just believe that "comprehensive" can be used as a metaphor for "unduly complicated"." You exact words. Copied. Pasted. Underlined. Seriously? If you are implying "Comprehensive" is a metaphor (when I think you mean "synonym) for "unduly complicated, but somehow you are simultaneously saying that doesn't mean it's a bad thing!?!!? In the same sentence?!?!!? When you use your lines about things having too many parts being more likely to break down, those "too many moving parts" are exactly the factors that make it more comprehensive. In fact, now you have been touting "KISS" as the logic in determining a defensive metric. Well, keeping it simple does make it far less comprehensive by definition of the word. And please do not tell me that you have a simple method that is more comprehensive, as the words "simple" and "comprehensive" are actually antonyms.

So in your eyes "comprehensive" is a bad thing? If you want a flaw with advanced metrics, its much simpler. Most fans have no idea how to interpret them. For example, say Bogaerts is ninth in the AL in UZR. Too many say things like " That's got to be wrong. I watch every game. Xander does this. Xander does that. He never does the other thing. UZR must be flawed!" And they miss the obvious reason. Xander might be ninth not because of what he does. But because 8 other shortstops do it better. ..

Travis is a very small sample size, but with too many othrt hitters struggling, one has to wonder if Benintendi might relinquish LF duties to him for a while. I doubt it happens, but plenty of hitters better than Benintendi have been demoted early in their careers...

Maybe Sandoval is like Sampson. Except that instead of hair he gets his strength from belly fat...

The expectation for this year's team was they would pitch better and hit worse than last year's team. The hitting worse thing is right on target, but the pitching hasn't been better. Some big factors have been the injuries to Price and Thornburg. Especially Price, who has all of 5 IP under his belt...

By that logic, the best defensive metric would be Defensive Efficiency, which is simply (Putouts/Balls in play). It doesn't get much simpler. It's used for team defense, and it has very few variables. But it does break down when a team play 81 games per year in a ballpark with a 37 foot high wall in left field, since balls hit 36 feet high off the wall are considered in play with no out recorded. Does such a hit really mean there was inefficient defense? Even errors aren't a good defensive stat. If a player doesn't get to very many balls, he makes fewer errors. Does this make him a good defensive player? Fielding percentage would say so. Don't these very simple stats have far more flaws than UZR or DRS?

UZR does include park adjustments, including what is actually referred to as the "Manny Factor" that accommodates the left field wall...

I think you mean Bull Durham, and not Major League. And it was 1 hit pet week, not 2. But that was also based on 500 at bats over 25 weeks for .050 points of batting average Basically most starters get about 25 at bats per week. So each hit is worth .040 on their avetage for that week. So if Bradley is saving 2 hits per week, is that or not worth the same as getting 2 more hits per week? 1-2 plays per week is a bigger difference than you seemed to think in your original post. To a hitter, it can be .2018040 batting average points. Don't you think it helps a pitcher similarly?

The bias is heavily influenced by sample size. As Sox fans watch infinitely more Bradley than Kiermaier or Pillar - two equally elite defensive centerfielders - they will obviously see Bradley make more great plays than they will see the other two make. It's hard to get around it. Are you implying you're not biased by lopsided samples? If so, what's your ranking of Bradley, Kiermaier and Pillar as defensive centerfielders and why?