|
I made a MLB Book Thread for discussing good baseball books http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...hreadid=3395398
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 01:28 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 08:51 |
|
|
Oodles of Wootles posted:The Tigers are matched up with the DBacks for some stupid reason Scheduler is a Tigers fan?
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 01:54 |
|
|
Is a man on 3rd allowed to steal home while the catcher is throwing the ball back to the pitcher? For example, runner on 3rd gets a good lead. The pitcher delivers a called strike, and the catcher tosses it back to the pitcher. Can the man on 3rd take off and try to steal home during this? Have any no-hitters or perfect games been won with a bottom 9th walkoff? Home team pitcher goes 9 no-hit innings, but his team dosent score until the 9th.
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 03:25 |
|
|
So I went to a dinner for an invited speaker, and one of the faculty members there bet I could not explain baseball to my advisor in a 90 minutes, well enough that he could watch an entire game and understand what was going on. My advisor is Russian. Anyone have a good resource for this? I think I could do it myself, but I'm just wondering if someone has already done this on the internet.
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 03:45 |
|
|
mt1 posted:Is a man on 3rd allowed to steal home while the catcher is throwing the ball back to the pitcher? For example, runner on 3rd gets a good lead. The pitcher delivers a called strike, and the catcher tosses it back to the pitcher. Can the man on 3rd take off and try to steal home during this? Yep, Jayson Werth did it against the Dodgers in 2009. http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=4532863 He said later it was mainly enabled by the catcher not even looking at him between pitches; he was able to get a big lead and time it right.
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 05:08 |
|
|
stuart scott irl posted:Yep, Jayson Werth did it against the Dodgers in 2009. To clarify, although I know he was asking about specific cases where the ball stays live, if the ball goes dead because of a foul ball or other circumstance, it's not live again until the pitcher steps on the rubber, so that wouldn't be possible (I think). Probably obvious but yeah.
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 05:30 |
|
|
OdinsBeard posted:So I went to a dinner for an invited speaker, and one of the faculty members there bet I could not explain baseball to my advisor in a 90 minutes, well enough that he could watch an entire game and understand what was going on. My advisor is Russian. After explaining the basics, and he says "this is the stupidest sport ever", you could introduce an expert of the game - specifically, Goofy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kQ83_4RdkA
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 05:34 |
|
|
Baseball is a hard sport to explain, not even because it's super intellectual or anything, it's just kind of convoluted. Obviously you would start with the object of the game being to touch all four bases, thereby scoring a point, but where do you go from there? There are so many retarded little things about when you can and can't advance that it can become confusing for a newcomer within seconds. Baseball is a lot easier to pick up just by watching and playing it as a kid.
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 05:37 |
|
|
AtomicBolt posted:After explaining the basics, and he says "this is the stupidest sport ever", you could introduce an expert of the game - specifically, Goofy: Holy poo poo, old Disney shorts are on youtube, how did I not know about this already?
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 05:40 |
|
|
I had to explain baseball to a couple of Icelanders who had never seen the game, and I found it was easy to explain as you watched. It begins to make intuitive sense after awhile.
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 05:44 |
|
|
OdinsBeard posted:So I went to a dinner for an invited speaker, and one of the faculty members there bet I could not explain baseball to my advisor in a 90 minutes, well enough that he could watch an entire game and understand what was going on. My advisor is Russian. "You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes, you win. Sometimes, you lose. Sometimes, it rains. Think about that for a while." Speaking of, we haven't covered essential baseball movies. I think Bull Durham and Major League should be mandatory viewing. Something like "The pitcher tries to throw the ball so the batter can't hit it. The batter tries to hit the ball so the fielders can't catch it. If he gets around the bases, he gets a point. The team with the most points win" seems like a good place to start. Dr. Kyle Farnsworth fucked around with this message at Mar 9, 2011 around 07:37 |
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 07:20 |
|
|
mt1 posted:Is a man on 3rd allowed to steal home while the catcher is throwing the ball back to the pitcher? For example, runner on 3rd gets a good lead. The pitcher delivers a called strike, and the catcher tosses it back to the pitcher. Can the man on 3rd take off and try to steal home during this? Mt5, to answer your question we have to think about what constitutes a "live" ball. Now, a ball is "live" at any time that the ball is in play. That includes when the ball is pitched, and that includes when the catcher tosses it back to the pitcher. So in short, Mt5, yes. A runner on third may attempt a steal in that scenario, though it would be a very difficult play to pull off. One player who I think could do it, though, who I had the honor to play with? Curt Flood. Great, great runner.
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 07:29 |
|
|
Why hasn't the MLB set a standard for stadium specifications? If I had to guess, I'd say it's because all the old stadiums like Fenway and Wrigley were different, and none of them would change. Surely it benefits a team to play to their stadiums strengths? Shouldn't the MLB want to even the playing field so all teams are equal?
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 07:54 |
|
|
Gee Wizard posted:Why hasn't the MLB set a standard for stadium specifications? If I had to guess, I'd say it's because all the old stadiums like Fenway and Wrigley were different, and none of them would change. Surely it benefits a team to play to their stadiums strengths? Shouldn't the MLB want to even the playing field so all teams are equal? edit: sorry for sarcasm I think you hit the nail on the head with the home-field advantage part. I'm sure teams like having that, even if it means not having it the other half of the season. That, and I'm sure since baseball has always been played on unique fields the current administration of the MLB doesn't see a reason to change, and this is a case where I think they are wise in not doing so. danifestmestny fucked around with this message at Mar 9, 2011 around 08:10 |
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 08:05 |
|
|
Gee Wizard posted:Why hasn't the MLB set a standard for stadium specifications? If I had to guess, I'd say it's because all the old stadiums like Fenway and Wrigley were different, and none of them would change. Surely it benefits a team to play to their stadiums strengths? Shouldn't the MLB want to even the playing field so all teams are equal? Even if you dimensionally made the fields the same size, there are other park factors that exist. Wind is a big one - in Seattle, the wind tends to blow out to RF and kill the drives of RHB, so even if you made the field dimensionally the same as any other field, it would still play to favor LHB and suppress RHB power. Or you could consider the difference of hitting in the thinner, higher air of Colorado (or the dry air of Arizona) versus hitting in the humid soup of Miami or the colder and denser air of Seattle or Boston. Unless you wanted to make all the stadiums climate controlled domes, you'll never eliminate park factors, so why not embrace them? Because climate controlled domes suck bigtime.
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 13:01 |
|
|
Funky outfield dimensions are just another cool little thing that sets baseball apart from most other sports, I think it's a good thing and that's the general sentiment, I think it's fair to say.
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 13:18 |
|
|
e: whoops wrong thread
the popes toes fucked around with this message at Mar 9, 2011 around 13:32 |
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 13:26 |
|
|
stuart scott irl posted:Funky outfield dimensions are just another cool little thing that sets baseball apart from most other sports, I think it's a good thing and that's the general sentiment, I think it's fair to say. I agree with that. The only quirky things I don't like about parks are things like the hill in CF at Minute Maid or other obstructions being in play. edit: On Earl Weaver Baseball I always used to create a stadium where every dimension of the outfield would alternate being as far away as allowed and as close as allowed. The outfield wall looked like a shark's mouth. I think the walls were 30' tall, too
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 13:34 |
|
|
Gee Wizard posted:Why hasn't the MLB set a standard for stadium specifications? If I had to guess, I'd say it's because all the old stadiums like Fenway and Wrigley were different, and none of them would change. Surely it benefits a team to play to their stadiums strengths? Shouldn't the MLB want to even the playing field so all teams are equal? Baseball was a game originally played in open fields and parkland. There were no dimensions save where the bases were in relation to each other. A home run was a ball that was hit so far over the head of the fielder it took longer for the fielder to chase it down and throw it back in then it took the batter to run the bases. Outfield fences only really came about once the game was professionalized (ie people became interested in gambling on the outcomes) promoters realized they could sell tickets and needed a wall to keep the non-paying customers out. Even then, sometimes they only built stands behind the infield and let people mill about on the edge of the outfield grass.    As demand led to more standing room crowds then they had space for, new bigger stadiums were built. Since they were building parks in the hearts of cities they had to work with the land available to them. Places like Fenway and Wrigly were an offshoot of needing to squeeze a ballpark onto an exisiting plot of land flanked by streets/trolly tracks. Other stadiums of that era had massive outfields (by todays standards) Yankee Stadium was build on a vast empty lot and was 490' to center field. Shibe Park (home of the Philadelphia A's) was 515. Places like the Polo Grounds were 480' to dead center (but 250/270 down the lines). Over the years the outfields have been getting smaller and smaller. Dimensions in pro baseball have always been wonky and probably will always will be. davecrazy fucked around with this message at Mar 9, 2011 around 13:58 |
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 13:37 |
|
|
Someone should post that awesome website with all of the ballpark diagrams, I forget the link
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 13:43 |
|
|
stuart scott irl posted:Someone should post that awesome website with all of the ballpark diagrams, I forget the link http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/Stadium_lists.html http://www.stadiumpage.com/ - lots of photos of new and old parks davecrazy fucked around with this message at Mar 9, 2011 around 13:55 |
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 13:50 |
|
|
davecrazy posted:Good luck with a liner in foul territory.
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 15:04 |
|
|
Does anyone know enough about Pitch f/x to explain what we are learning from it so far (other than the fact that umps suck)? I am trying to read this primer: http://fastballs.wordpress.com/2010...itchfx-primer/. It's really in depth but gently caress me if it isn't dense and hard to read as hell. I know what Pitch f/x is and what it might be able to do. What I want to know is what we are learning from it or what we have learned so far. I hear that some people think it will actually show that some pitches (and you have to take location, pitch type, break, etc. into account) may actually correspond with batted ball outs more than others.
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 15:49 |
|
|
tadashi posted:Looking through some of the better rookies last year: Colvin needs a year at AAA to learn how to TAKE A loving WALK. 
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 16:00 |
|
|
tadashi posted:Does anyone know enough about Pitch f/x to explain what we are learning from it so far (other than the fact that umps suck)? I am trying to read this primer: http://fastballs.wordpress.com/2010...itchfx-primer/. It's really in depth but gently caress me if it isn't dense and hard to read as hell. It could be used if Pitcher X has an insane start to the season. You could look at the movement charts to see if his stuff has actually improved or if it's just a small sample size fluke.
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 16:06 |
|
|
tadashi posted:Does anyone know enough about Pitch f/x to explain what we are learning from it so far (other than the fact that umps suck)? I am trying to read this primer: http://fastballs.wordpress.com/2010...itchfx-primer/. It's really in depth but gently caress me if it isn't dense and hard to read as hell. From first hand experience working with pitch f/x, it's a really handy tool in differentiating the subtle differences that pitchers throw. It's makes life a lot easier compared to having to eyeball everything, plus as Groucho said it also allows people to digest vast amounts of pitching information relatively quickly and easily. It's a neat tool to be able to use with some real applications in player evaluation
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 16:08 |
|
|
tadashi posted:What I want to know is what we are learning from it or what we have learned so far. This makes me wonder if AJ Burnett really did have a beef with Posada.
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 16:16 |
|
|
Has the idea of a team getting "lucky" in the sense that it'll face other team's #3,4,5 guys a good deal of time vs facing teams Ace and #2 guys over the course of a season ever been researched? I realize it's complete luck of the draw with absolute no control, but it seems like a reason why teams who are playing over their heads are in that position.
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 16:32 |
|
|
the popes toes posted:I've already posted this earlier. Despite the small sample size, it provides corroboration to the complaint that if we look at Cervelli's framing, Posada fares poorly in comparison. Posada isn't getting the strikes. Can you slow down that GIF?
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 16:35 |
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Can you slow down that GIF? real slow
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 16:56 |
|
|
TUS posted:Has the idea of a team getting "lucky" in the sense that it'll face other team's #3,4,5 guys a good deal of time vs facing teams Ace and #2 guys over the course of a season ever been researched? I realize it's complete luck of the draw with absolute no control, but it seems like a reason why teams who are playing over their heads are in that position. It's hard to do any rigorous study of this in terms of #1-5 pitchers because usually by mid-season most teams' rotations will have been thrown completely out of whack and they're no longer ordered best-to-worst in that way. For example, if their #2 gets injured and needs a replacement called up from AAA then suddenly their worst pitcher is the the so-called #2 spot. Or a '#4' pitcher could have a breakout season and end up being the best guy on the team, etc etc. What you could do maybe is average the year-to-date (or projected) xFIP or ERA of all opposing starters a team has faced that year. I don't know if any of the stat sites have 'quality of competition' stats like this yet though.
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 18:22 |
|
|
Tiny Torso posted:It's hard to do any rigorous study of this in terms of #1-5 pitchers because usually by mid-season most teams' rotations will have been thrown completely out of whack and they're no longer ordered best-to-worst in that way. For example, if their #2 gets injured and needs a replacement called up from AAA then suddenly their worst pitcher is the the so-called #2 spot. Or a '#4' pitcher could have a breakout season and end up being the best guy on the team, etc etc. Baseball Prospectus has a link to 'adjusted standings' on the top of the page (free if you're not a subscriber, I think), and it has three records for every team. 1st order is basic Pythagorean record. 2nd order adjusts runs scored/allowed for peripherals and then takes the Pythagorean of that. 3rd order adjusts the 2nd order for strength of schedule.
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 19:05 |
|
|
Deathlove posted:Colvin needs a year at AAA to learn how to TAKE A loving WALK. If OBP is so important, why isn't it on the scoreboard? Politicalrancor fucked around with this message at Mar 9, 2011 around 19:26 |
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 19:18 |
|
|
Politicalfrancouer posted:If OBP is so important, why isn't on the scoreboard?
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 19:20 |
|
|
You can't wOBA off the island.
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 20:01 |
|
|
TUS posted:Has the idea of a team getting "lucky" in the sense that it'll face other team's #3,4,5 guys a good deal of time vs facing teams Ace and #2 guys over the course of a season ever been researched? I realize it's complete luck of the draw with absolute no control, but it seems like a reason why teams who are playing over their heads are in that position. I wonder if you could do like ERA (or run predictor of your choice) vs that team, and compare it to league pitching average or team by team averages.
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 20:03 |
|
|
Can anybody recommend any baseball columnists or blogs? I've generally stuck to ESPN's Sweetspot (it's okay), Joe Pos (rules) and Jeff Passan (meh). I'm thinking this season I should probably expand my reading habits.
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 21:56 |
|
|
NBC's HardballTalk blog is pretty solid. Don't read the comments (as usual).
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 21:58 |
|
|
barkingclam posted:Can anybody recommend any baseball columnists or blogs? I've generally stuck to ESPN's Sweetspot (it's okay), Joe Pos (rules) and Jeff Passan (meh). I'm thinking this season I should probably expand my reading habits. Rob Neyer http://www.sbnation.com/authors/rob-neyer Hardball Talk http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/ (Especially Aaron Gleeman and especially especially Craig Calcaterra. They produce the vast majority of the content anyway) Jonah Keri I cautiously recommend Jonah's Fangraphs work. Do not read other Fangraphs articles http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php?author=20153 Hardball Times http://www.hardballtimes.com/ Badfinger fucked around with this message at Mar 9, 2011 around 22:09 |
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 22:06 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 08:51 |
|
|
Badfinger posted:Rob Neyer I'm really surprised Jonah writes for them but I money is money, I guess.
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 22:08 |
|
