“(Valentine) did cite Alfredo Aceves as “one of the most astute players we have” for trying to understand subtleties such as hitters’ swing paths.” And a commenter responded…“How did sabermetrics work out for Aceves last night!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
That’s the idea, at least, which is why something Red Sox manager Bobby Valentine said at yesterday’s Jimmy Fund benefit “Sabermetrics, Scouting and the Science of Baseball” seminar at Boston University helped point out numbers can only take a player, and a team, so far.
“I haven’t been given one suggestion based on sabermetrics since I’ve been in Boston,” said Valentine. “Sabermetrics and numbers can’t tell a different story, I don’t think, unless you’re reading a different book.”
Part of Valentine’s point was that number-crunching can help but when it comes to game time, and in that half a second it takes for a ball to travel from a pitcher’s hand to home plate, that’s when reflexes, instincts and talent take over.
“From my vantage point,” said Valentine, “I want my players to just play, I want them to be given information that can help them but once it’s game time, I think they have to react. Use pregame data but play the game. The essence of success in anything you do is being in that moment.”
...Also at the seminar for the second year in a row was Tom Tippett, Red Sox director of baseball services. With Bill James, the founding father of sabermetrics and a senior adviser for the Red Sox, in the audience, Tippett pointed out how even with reams of data at the club’s beck and call, there is still plenty of debate about how best to use it and interpret it. He said that he and James disagreed about whether or not Fenway’s dimensions would help or hurt Carl Crawford.
“Bill argued that Fenway Park would mostly negate Carl’s defensive value” while Tippett argued the opposite. “So far, Bill’s right and I was dead wrong,” said Tippett.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Dale Sams Posted: August 05, 2012 at 10:53 AM (#4200816)Crawford is reported to having had his feelings hurt, and immediatly went 0-72.
I'd like to field a team of Datas (with a Lore thrown in to keep it interesting) with the latest Baked Alaska positronic matrix that could crunch all the necessary numbers in a femtosecond. Because, you know, veteran presence and instinct can only take a player so far.
Wireless Joe Jackson is my choice.
If she weighs the same as a duck...
I don't think we can eliminite the hypothesis that Carl Crawford has mostly negated Carl's defensive value.
That's because he was designed to be a blern-hitting machine!
Look for Bill James to be dealt to the White Sox soon.
I think JMc is right that Crawford's been so bad that it's hard to draw any conclusions. It's not like Crawford has been a defensive asset in road games for the Sox. He's just been an all-around disaster. (If I'm right that Crawford hasn't been better on the road, this sort of kind of support's Tippett's position that Fenway isn't the issue. Of course, Tippett was the one arguing for Crawford' defensive value to the Sox, so it's hard to call him "right", exactly.)
Ahem.
Me-me-me-me-me-me-meeeeeeeee.
I TOLD YOU SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Did Larry Luchino make Tippett say this?
Just kidding. This kind of honest self assessment is what makes for healthy, successful organizations and Tom should be commended for making it publicly.
But it still goes against everything Larry Luccino stands for.
If the latter, what would that argument look like?
All I know is, with those initials, he's an important figure in Superman's life.
"With less ground to cover, nothing should touch the ground in LF?"??
"Crawford's vertical is about 37 feet, right?"
The national anthem, and urinals.
Orly, sabermetrics (the study of objectively look at statistics in baseball) doesn't physically play the game? Tell me more Bobby..
1) The ability to read fly balls that you can catch near The Wall versus those that will hit above your outstretched glove. If you go after a ball that ends up above your glove, it's a double for the batter. If you read it right, and position yourself to get it quickly off the wall, it becomes a double-oops-single. That's obviously valuable, and keeps a runner out of scoring position. It also adds a handful of assists a year for batters that get thrown out who otherwise would not.
2) The ability to barehand a ball off the wall is a big difference between a single, a double, and legit chances to throw somebody out at second. Rice was awesome at barehanding a ball off the wall, and Manny was actually pretty good at it, too.
3) Everybody notes that a strong arm isn't terribly useful in LF at Fenway, and it's true - but an accurate arm is very valuable, because there you'll probably get more chances to throw out a runner in Fenway than most LFs in baseball, both at second and at home.
Notice, again, what is NOT on this list - strnegth of arm, and range. I still don't see why the Red Sox were so willing to pay big money to Crawford, who never struck me as an elite player, and whose strengths don't play into the Red Sox. His defense is less valuable at Fenway, and on a team that has relied in the last decade on doubles and OBP to score lots of runs - as compared to speed - paying a guy who doesn't walk, and derives his power by pulling the ball makes no sense.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main