Hugh2

The thing about baseball is you can find ancedotal evidence everywhere. There will always be examples to disprove what is otherwise generally correct. For example I can say there's good evidence that the more swing and miss in a players game the less value that player will have. Yet some players such as Chris Davis, Mark Trumbo and Kris Bryant seem to be just fine in spite.

I know I may come off as a dick sometimes but I mean well....sometimes. I hope everyone has a safe and happy new year!

https://priceonomics.com/can-an-athlete-be-streaky/ Maybe you don't have the same time I do to read. I'm in a house where no one speaks English right now so perhaps your New Years Eve is more involved but it's a great read when you get the chance. I feel some (in sports and life) are threatened by accepting they are largely victims of chance, but I find it empowering.

Randomness is the result of chance

Because results fluctuate, and it's a zero sum game where you're often facing an opponent of equal (or close to it) skill. Someone has to win/lose.

in other words performing optimally under normal conditions.

I think the cold hand is much more plausible than the hot hand. You can't make your eye sight better, brain faster, muscles stronger for some arbitrary period of time like you drank a potion in a video game. I do believe in the cold hand. I believe the randomness can get to you, and get in your head and cause you to press the issue. I also believe good athletes in the right state of mind can prevent and shorten these down turns. Baseball is mental, and sometimes winning that battle is just mainting focus while you let the other guy fall apart. But I also believe in the stats as well, but I also believe that the smaller a sample size the more deceiving the stat line. That 0-20 could entail 4-6 hard hit line drives right at someone and 1-3 amazing plays made against you. That 10-20 could entail 1-2 HR's against a guy was losing his stuff, an infield hit, a misplayed flyball, a weakly hit blooper turned double, and a soft liner that found a hole. In our innate thirst for pattern recognition I think we look at the small sample size and read into it too much. Again, I acknowledge the mental side of the game, but the long term statistics prove at the very least we often over estimate the hot/cool hand. While a stat guy at heart, I also believe incorporating the good old eye test at times too. If a guy is 0-20 with 10 k's and 10 weakly hit balls. I'd consider giving him a day off or dropping him in the order. But if 10 of those outs were scortching hot liners, and a a robbed home run ill bat that guy 3rd if it's Mookie, even if it's the bottom of the 9th and we're down 3-2 with two outs.

Nope, I believe in randomness and I believe in skill as well.

Actually they can often do just that.

I can see schrodingers curve is alive and well.

As someone who has studied statistics vastly in academia I always love and appreciate bits and pieces like this. Bill James is a genius, and it's a shame his biggest detractors are often those who take the least amount of time to understand the work. I always get a kick how people think their feelings and anecdotal stories can trump countless lines from years worth of data.

Truly there are many who are "fooled by randomness"

Stat geek or not empirical evidence is just that. It will always trump feel good anecdotes. I don't think that has to be in conflict with game being mental at times. But the data says you're just as statistically likely to get a hit st any given point of time in or out of a slump. This doesn't mean slumps aren't real. It just means if you're 0-20 years of compiling data shows you're just as likely to break out of your streak there and get a hit as you would be otherwise.

Where did you read that? That's over 1/2 the season.

They did a study once where they took players in a slump and measured the probability of them getting a hit in their next at bat. Surprisingly the results were eerily close to a players career average. I'm not disagreeing with the mental side of the game but at least to some extent slumps are just randomness. Now this seems to disagree with what we see when you can really tell a guy is pressing at the plate but how often do we see guys who seem to be hitting rockets right people and others making weak contact that seems to find a hole? But again even considering the mental aspect (which I do consider to be real) I'd say that the study proves a player is primed to break out of his slump at any moment. You shouldn't bet red at the roulette table just because it hit red 5 times in a row. The odds are exactly the same every time.

If any of these guys would sign a milb deal, or a deal with an opt out it can never hurt to bring in arms during spring training.

To continue my point they can use that reset to go nuts on another top notch free agent or start extending some of their own guys

The penalties aren't harsh for first time offenders and those who only go over the limit by a little. The Sox don't mind going over the limit but living their is obviously another story. If they reset and go back over they don't have to live there because they've bridged the gap until guys like Hanley, and Pablo come off the books.

One of the reasons they could have Kelly in the rotation in Pawtucket is the lack of rotation depth. Yes the top 3 looks strong and 2 out of the 3 of Wright/Erod/Pom looks very promising as well. However we all know that MLB rotations will use over 6 starters during the course of a season and after those 6 your depth in AAA is Owens, Johnson, and Elias. Not saying there aren't other options and moves could be made but that I at least think would be the argument for Kelly in the rotation in Pawtucket. It would be nice to see the Sox pick up a few depth options, I'm intrigued but what Kelly could do out of the pen if he committed himself there full time.

On the contrary the new CBA favors the smaller market teams. They get from losing free agents, they lose less for signing them. More picks, and more money, not to mention all the revenue sharing. The new CBA is a lower for major market teams as it continues to handicap their biggest asset in money. The only real concession they got was a raise to the luxury tax ceiling which is not in step with salary inflation. I think you're right in that these guys are still billionaires making out well, but the last couple CBA agreements have been all about shifting power to the smaller market teams and reaching parity in the sport.

The cool weird thing about our outfield is we don't really need the depth we don't have in CF/RF. If JBJ goes down Betts or Benintendi could slide into center. If Betts goes down JBJ or Benintendi could slide over to right. In both scenarios a holt/young platoon takes over in left.

If Swiharts optimal value is at catcher he should stay behind the plate. I do think there's a strong case that if a guy is more valuable to the team at another position you make it work if the bat is special and there's a need E.G. Mookie Betts. However, there's not a need anywhere other than maybe 3B/1B. Two positions that make Swiharts bat not so special. I really think if he's not our catcher he'll be traded by the end of 2017. Many things can change this outcome obviously

Like I said, you can really make the argument for all three. There's no silver bullet correct solution here. Right or wrong, that's how the cards fall. There's a decent chance Stephen Wright is the odd man out of the rotation despite earning a spot; One could also make a compelling argument for Pom and Erod too. My gut tells me it's Wright, but a lot can happen from now until the end of spring training to change that. It is what it is and as you said it's a good problem to have. Btw, Merry Christmas!

Not many, I like Brent's as a depth option but I'm not sure he's worth a 40 man spot.

In terms of who the 5 man rotation will be I think it could be a pissing contest in here until we are in week two of the season. The first three are locks in Sale, Porcello and Price but after that there is a good argument for all of Wright, Pomeranz, and ERod. Drew Pomeranz. Why he will be the starter: Because of his first half last year, the hefty price the Sox paid for him, and the hope that with some added stamina he can replicate his first half for a whole season going forward. Why he won't be the starter: Someone is the odd man out, he doesn't have the ability to lock down a rotation spot for 32 games and he has more experience of pitching out of the bullpen than the other three. With sucess I might add. Stephen Wright Why he will be the starter: Again he had a really good start to the 2016 season, and at the end of the day he really only had one bad 6 week stretch in August and September. Besides that he pitched like an ACE most of the year and has a track record of average to above average results in Boston and the minors the past 3 years. Why he won't be the starter: No matter how well knuckleballers pitch they always seem to come with some question marks. Their performance can be volatile from game to game and from season to season. There is a sense he was pitching above his talent last year and again at the end of the day someone has to be the odd man out. For a guy who is kind of a one trick pony it becomes pretty easy to throw him into the swing man role which also allows the Red Sox to avoid optioning Eduardo Rodriguez. Eduardo Rodriguez Why he will be the starter: Talent and upside. We've all seen his potential here and in Pawtucket the past few years, with youth on his side and injury behind him he seems primed for a break out season. He very well may have the capacity to be the better pitcher over the next few years than Wright or Pomeranz. Why he won't be the starter: He has an option left, which gives the Sox the option to keep him ready in Pawtucket if anyone from the five man rotation goes down or severely under performs. History tells us this will happen. Despite his upside and high ceiling talent he's never seemed to fully put it together for a full season and considering the last point I made it makes sense for him to get some innings in Pawtucket and prove he's ready and overcome some of his pitch tipping issues while he waits for his next chance. Now I'm sure some here would agree or disagree with many of these points but that's they whole point of this post. I don't think there is a silver bullet answer for what to do, but if I had to guess I'd say all things being equal in spring training that Pomeranz and E-Rod take the 4th and 5th spots while Wright becomes the swing man out of the bullpen. But as the old saying goes, these types of things have a way of working themselves out.