ptatc

We have to entertain ourselves somehow. I'm currently in a virtual meeting about student progress in the clinical experiences. This is much more entertaining.

And they are fair. I understand your point of view. I just think it is inherently flawed. Not wrong but limited in its scope.

Everything you said is true from a particular point of view. However, disagree with your premise that counting stats tell the entire story. you are far too limited on your view of the value of a player when all you do is count. Volume does not equate to importance.

I never said RP>SP. In fact it's the opposite. My stance has been that with the current lineup and the current pitching staff prior to any acquisitions, the pitching staff was the greater need. That's it. With the limited resources they had with being close to the tax, they needed to focus on pitching not a RF. I don't like having Vaughn/Sheets/Engel foe RF but it is the lesser of the evils.

True. Roster construction is more than just "get the best player" when they already have most of the team completed with good players.

Hitter do contribute offensively and defensively. The pitchers also contribute defensively with put outs and assists, admittedly at a lower rate. If you only include RP and only look at counting stats it will be inherently biased towards the player, again a weakness in counting stats. How many of those PAs were in high leverage situations? How important is the out for the RP when there is a runner in scoring position and he needs to get 2 outs. The counting stats can't measure the importance of plays.

Exactly. There was a study out of Stanford that looked at the costs of each and the EV won by a moderate margin. Their conclusion was that EV will be significantly better once the battery disposal issues are resolved with improved methods.

This is correct. If you have a bad infield defense you should try to have more strikeout pitchers. I don't think the Sox have too bad of an infield defense. Moncada, TA and Abreu are pretty good. I haven't watched Harrison enough to judge that yet. The OF defense though is going to be rough.

Not more important has a greater effect on the game. But you are missing the point. and discussing a totally discussing the wrong topic It is the difference between the effect of a hitter vs. the pitcher not pitcher vs. pitcher. By trying to figure out which pitcher has a greater effect you are indirectly proving my point that the pitcher effects the game more than the hitter, good or bad.

This is my point. I don't agree that is can be accurately measure. Hence the reason that if you only quote WAR and only look at WAR you aren't getting the whole picture. You are leaving out important information. All stats can be used but none of them give you everything.

I didn't say valuable. I said the importance of the pitchers increases. Because the pitchers now need to come in for higher leverage siutations and they can have a greater effect on the game. The effect the game more because they are involved in more plays. Why is the QB the most important position in football? He effects every play. The more pitches throw the more effect the pitcher has on the game. Hence SP>RP

I don't disagree that the hole in the rotation was important. However, that gets back to the cost of acquiring that starter. If there are 3 openings in the pen, is that more efficient to fix than one starter. Can they cobble together enough performance for a 5th starter easier than finding 3 in house effective bullpen guys.

Over the years but not yearly. The way they determine the replacement level number doesn't keep up with the players performance and is another inherent weakness in the stat.

I would disagree. The more pitches thrown the greater the importance of the pitcher. A hitter is only going to impact the game for 4-5 PAs and may not be in high leverage situations. The pitchers are going to be out there involved in every pitch of every game regardless of the PAs. I don't see anyway what I said agrees with you.

I don't think anyone wants this. Its just a matter of where you think the team has it's greatest weakness. You think it's the lineup. I think its the pitching.

What is replacement level. Is there a single stat that measures you that replacement level is? Shouldn't it change annually based upon what a replacement is that year as talent level changes. OR are players exactly the same today as they were in 1982?

There could be an unlimited number of pitches, it's not standardized. However, just because it is difficult to measure doesn't mean it isn't important. Just because you can measure the PAs or outs doesn't mean its the only way to measure it. Even though it is currently the standard way of measuring it doesn't mean its the only way nor does it mean you shouldn't use other information. No one stat can tell you everything about anything. At one time batting average was the standard.

So there is only one way to measure baseball? There may be the best we currently have but it by no means covers everything and it can always be improved.

Just because some people measure baseball in that manner doesn't mean it's the only way to look at it. If you confine yourself to only one view, you limit your information. WAR does attempt to solve it but again WAR is severely limited in it's ability to measure actual game performance. It is purely counting and volume. There are other factors to games than pure volume. It is inherently biased against pitching as it only counts volume. by innings. As I've shown pitchers effect more plays in a game than just pure volume of outs. Granted it is a different way to look at it but as with anything, if you only look at it from one way, you limit your information. WAR is a good attempt but it by no means paints the whole picture. One stat can't possibly do that.

As long as he can move well, then its fine. Can't say ive watched him.

We just added a 240 line to the garage. It charges at 8Kw per hour and didn't raise our electric bill that much.

That would be good, provided the achilles is healed.

I know he isn't a starter for them it was just an observation of paying a guy nearly 500,000 an inning. Not many teams can do that. I think their starters would be Kershaw Heaney Anderson Buehler Uria May Some subset of that. doesn't look great with a 270 mil payroll. 90 mil more than the Sox. Their 3 highest paid pitchers are Bauer, Price and Kershaw. None of which may pitch this year. That's 100 million.

Starting rotation seems to be the most glaring. They especially with health. Which again is on a team with probably at least 60 mil more to spend. Just glanced at the payroll. They are paying David Price 32 million and he pitched 73 innings last year.

My wife gets free charging at work so that decreases our cost even more.