|
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. Jack Curry http://www.myyesnetwork.com/16197/blog/
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 22:08 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 09:59 |
|
|
I wish someone would put an island in the middle of center field where if the ball landed there it was a home run.
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2011 23:57 |
|
|
the popes toes posted:You can't wOBA off the island. hehehe
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 00:07 |
|
|
it's not an island, but Tampa had the dreaded catwalk, which I think was hilarious as a non-ray's fan.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 00:08 |
|
|
I like reading Keith Law, but I also enjoy his foodchat, gamechat, and being an incredibly snarky dickhead to idiot fans, so ymmv.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 00:20 |
|
|
KIM JONG TRILL posted:I wish someone would put an island in the middle of center field where if the ball landed there it was a home run. Every center fielder would just stand by the island. Although it would probably cause a lot of hilarious inside the park home runs when they trip over the hill, so it could still work out.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 01:19 |
|
|
Aetilus posted:it's not an island, but Tampa had the dreaded catwalk, which I think was hilarious as a non-ray's fan. I'm down with this as long as if it rolls off the island it's a foul ball. And so that players could reach the island in an attempt to blow the ball off of it.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 01:27 |
|
|
I never really cared about baseball growing up but after moving to Texas and going to a ton of Astros games (you think YOUR nosebleed tickets are cheap), I'd like to get into baseball some more and learn more about the intricacies of the game. I don't really have any team to root for, but that's not what I'm interested in right now. I'll find one. Probably the Astros ( ). But since I'm trying to watch more baseball this year, I'd like to figure out some teams that are going to be fun to follow, whether because of some young guns, some horrific flaw so that every game has the possibility of becoming a trainwreck (like whenever the Diamondbacks reached into their bullpen last season), or because they're just fun to watch, and stick with them through the season, win or lose.Give me some teams and tell me why they'd be fun to follow.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 06:23 |
|
|
This seems as good a place as any; is there a website that is the baseball equivalent of KSK? Funny, sometimes stupid but generally entertaining? The Giants are fun to watch if you like good pitching and goofy swing at everything 3rdbasemen. And you aren't annoyed by Brian Wilson yet.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 06:24 |
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Give me some teams and tell me why they'd be fun to follow. The Orioles are not by any means going to be a GOOD team. Their pitching is too bad to be salvageable by anything other than a complete overhaul. But they are going to loving hit this year. Entertaining as hell. Arctic Baldwin posted:This seems as good a place as any; is there a website that is the baseball equivalent of KSK? Funny, sometimes stupid but generally entertaining? If you can tolerate the fact that the site is no longer updating, this is the holy grail of baseball make-funnering. http://www.firejoemorgan.com/
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 06:32 |
|
|
I keep intending to get Twitter if only to follow Ken Tremendous. I still read FJM when I am bored
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 06:33 |
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Give me some teams and tell me why they'd be fun to follow. I usually latch on to specific players, especially pitchers, whom I like to watch. Felix Hernandez and Ichiro make the Mariners an occasional watch. I'll probably end up watching a lot of Phillies games if I get mlb.tv just to see what that rotation can do.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 06:43 |
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:I never really cared about baseball growing up but after moving to Texas and going to a ton of Astros games (you think YOUR nosebleed tickets are cheap), I'd like to get into baseball some more and learn more about the intricacies of the game. I don't really have any team to root for, but that's not what I'm interested in right now. I'll find one. Probably the Astros ( The Rangers have a really good offense and play in a very hitter-friendly park. You'll probably get to catch a few games on your local Fox Sports channel. I know we occasionally get a few Astros games in DFW on our FSN channel when the Rangers aren't playing.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 07:11 |
|
|
if you're just looking for a team to bandwagon but not become a long term fan of, I think the Marlins are gonna be fun to watch. Mike Stanton hits the ball absurdly hard when he makes contact and could be a 40HR guy as soon as this year, Logan Morrison was looking like an on-base machine in his debut last year, they've got a legit ace in Josh Johnson and 2 more good power pitchers in Nolasco and Sanchez. Hanley's pretty good too.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 08:27 |
|
|
Tiny Torso posted:Hanley's pretty good too. I know he had a down year last season but this is a crazy understatement. Dude's 27 and has a .905 career OPS as a shortstop, and that's without playing half his games in Coors like Tulo does. Hanley owns. Grozz Nuy fucked around with this message at Mar 10, 2011 around 09:31 |
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 09:29 |
|
|
ozymandius1024 posted:The book is great, and the movie has a good chance of being quality. Reasons? If feels like an eternity since the last good baseball movie. Here's to hoping it doesn't suck. I remember my grandparents taking me to see The Sandlot when I was a little kid. Such fond memories.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 17:59 |
|
|
Grittybeard posted:I'm down with this as long as if it rolls off the island it's a foul ball. And so that players could reach the island in an attempt to blow the ball off of it. Also, the island should move through time and space so that you're never really sure when it will be in your park but through statistical analysis, you may be able to predict when the opportunity might arise and on what trajectory you should hit the ball.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 18:43 |
|
|
Tiny Torso posted:if you're just looking for a team to bandwagon but not become a long term fan of, I think the Marlins are gonna be fun to watch. Mike Stanton hits the ball absurdly hard when he makes contact and could be a 40HR guy as soon as this year, Logan Morrison was looking like an on-base machine in his debut last year, they've got a legit ace in Josh Johnson and 2 more good power pitchers in Nolasco and Sanchez. Hanley's pretty good too. Yeah I'm going to be watching a lot of Mike Stanton this year, his power is pretty insane.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 18:53 |
|
|
What are some of the differences between the two leagues, other than rules? Which is more known for hitting? Pitching? Maybe fielding? Things along those lines would be interesting to read about.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 18:55 |
|
|
The AL has the DH because they realized nobody wants to see pitchers trying to hit.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 18:58 |
|
|
Gee Wizard posted:What are some of the differences between the two leagues, other than rules? Which is more known for hitting? Pitching? Maybe fielding? Things along those lines would be interesting to read about. The AL typically has more offense because of the DH. Similarly, the NL is regarded as more of a pitchers league because they don't have a DH. I've never heard of a differentiation between fielding in leagues, unless people decide that the NL has better fielders because there are less runs (because there is no DH).
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 18:58 |
|
|
leokitty posted:The AL has the DH because they realized nobody wants to see pitchers trying to hit. And because they were late the latin american and negro player party
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 19:02 |
|
|
Oodles of Wootles posted:The AL typically has more offense because of the DH. Similarly, the NL is regarded as more of a pitchers league because they don't have a DH. I've never heard of a differentiation between fielding in leagues, unless people decide that the NL has better fielders because there are less runs (because there is no DH). The NL has historically been a bit more of a speed and fielding league, even going back before the DH, for a variety of small and largely institutional reasons.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 19:05 |
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:The NL has historically been a bit more of a speed and fielding league, even going back before the DH, for a variety of small and largely institutional reasons. Like what? Is this some kind of self-perpetuating cycle, where you need speed to compete against the other teams?
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 19:11 |
|
|
Gee Wizard posted:Like what? Is this some kind of self-perpetuating cycle, where you need speed to compete against the other teams? - The aforementioned tilting of minority players to the NL, which didn't really even itself out until the 70s and 80s. - Parks more conducive to small ball in the NL. - Money. Players have been paid on dingers and ribbies for 85 or 90 years, and even just one team spending a lot more to get those guys (read: the Yankees) can tilt things. - Just random luck. The NL has ended up with a lot of generational pitchers and the AL has ended up with a lot of generational sluggers over the course of baseball history. - AL teams exploiting the efficiency of walk and dinger guys better. - A bit of what you're suggesting, that at some point it just became The Way and conventional wisdom led teams to build "NL style" in the NL and "AL style" in the AL. Most of these effects have washed out, and much of the difference that is left is indeed an illusion created by the DH.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 19:20 |
|
|
I know most of us already know that speed is an overblown concept in baseball, but wasn't there a study showing that speed has basically zero correlation to team success?
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 19:25 |
|
|
A drat FOG posted:I know most of us already know that speed is an overblown concept in baseball, but wasn't there a study showing that speed has basically zero correlation to team success? It comes down to run expectancy, or the likelihood that you will score a run in a given situation. Here is the Baseball Prospectus Run Expectancy matrix from 1999-2002, with the top row representing outs and the left column representing base runners : code:Likewise, moving a runner from 2nd to 3rd with no outs, you only add .293 versus the .892 run expectancy you shave off if that runner is out. You could also look at win probability in which the stakes are even higher.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 19:48 |
|
|
A drat FOG posted:I know most of us already know that speed is an overblown concept in baseball, but wasn't there a study showing that speed has basically zero correlation to team success? The run expectancy tables show why speed is overrated (by the way, has anyone made updated run expectancy tables? The one above is now 8 years old and it the same table everyone seems to post) but I do remember that Paul Depodesta had a fact on his blog: teams that out-homer their opponents more often than not are winning teams, and there's no correlation between out-stealing your opponent and winning. edit: Here are tables for many time periods, including 1993-2010. http://tangotiger.net/re24.html If anyone has one for 2002-2010, I wouldn't mind seeing it. OdinsBeard fucked around with this message at Mar 10, 2011 around 20:45 |
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 20:41 |
|
|
I also want a three dimensional run expectancy table that breaks each situation down by line up position.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 20:50 |
|
|
I have an "options" question- From what I've read, Brent Lillibridge is out of options with the White Sox. Now I just want to make sure I understand this concept because it's pretty much the only thing that confuses me- he HAS to be on the 25 man roster, right? That is, if he weren't to make the team, he has to clear waivers in order to be sent down to the minors? And since non-waiver trades are in force, can a team just grab him from the wire without having to make a deal with Chicago? Or does the waiver rule apply 365?
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 21:08 |
|
|
Yeah, if someone could explain options to me in a dumbed-down manner I'd appreciate it as well edit: Also, it seems like the guys who go to college for awhile have a harder, less patient road to go through in order to reach the majors. If the team signs some 17 year old kid and throws him in rookie ball, he has like 6 years to make it worth his and their while in the long run. If you draft a 22 year old college senior, in 3 or 4 years he'll already be considered a AAAA player because of his age so if he doesn't figure things out soon, he's poo poo out of luck. That's how it seems to me, anyway. So why do so many guys choose going to school over trying their hand at baseball? Is there a breakdown of the percentages of guys that make it out of high school and out of college? Is Beane the only one that tried to exploit that market inefficiency in the draft by going after older guys and did it work? BIZORT fucked around with this message at Mar 10, 2011 around 21:15 |
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 21:11 |
|
|
leokitty posted:The AL has the DH because they realized nobody wants to see pitchers trying to hit. Jay Mohr, of all people, said the NL is better because watching pitchers try to bat is the most entertaining part of a game.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 21:13 |
|
|
Gee Wizard posted:What are some of the differences between the two leagues, other than rules? Which is more known for hitting? Pitching? Maybe fielding? Things along those lines would be interesting to read about. 
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 21:46 |
|
|
Okay, I'm fully on board the baseball train. My local team is the Rockies, who I know have a few young promising players, like Ubaldo Jimenez, Carlos Gonzalez, and Troy Tulowitzki. Plus, I get to skip all of the tortured-fan bullshit by jumping on board now  Is there anything I should know about the team, either in its present form or historically? Are there any negative perceptions of Rockies fans? (Probably not, but I want to make sure I meet them if there are)
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 22:35 |
|
|
JediGandalf posted:The National League is God's True Form of Baseball. The Devil has possessed the American League with it's foul creation, the Designated Hitter. why did god intend for his teams to give up 3 free outs a game?
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 22:49 |
|
|
Because it's funny to see Randy Johnson bat
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 22:51 |
|
|
Seeing AL pitchers try to hit in interleague play is always hilarious.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 23:23 |
|
|
Gee Wizard posted:Okay, I'm fully on board the baseball train. My local team is the Rockies, who I know have a few young promising players, like Ubaldo Jimenez, Carlos Gonzalez, and Troy Tulowitzki. Plus, I get to skip all of the tortured-fan bullshit by jumping on board now Before 2007, when the Rockies had an incredible run of like 20 wins in 21 games to make the playoffs by a single game (I think) Rockies fans were perceived as Broncos fans with nothing to do in the summer, but since then they've had a pretty solid fanbase for obvious reasons. In the '90s, the Rockies were known for having a bunch of dudes who hit a bunch of home runs, Larry Walker, Andres Galarraga, Vinny Castilla, Dante Bichette and Ellis Burks. Most of those guys turned out to actually be pretty mediocre/bad and a lot of their performance was due to Coors field. You probably know this by now, but Coors has a reputation as a major hitters' park, because it is. Right now it's one of the top 3 or so hitters' parks in the league, but in the '90s, before the humidor, it was even more insanely skewed toward hitters. Speaking of Coors, there's a decent chance that Carlos Gonzalez isn't really that good. The media has a love affair with him because he's from a young upstart team and he's viewed as "toolsy" (power, contact, speed, defense all together), but he had a huge home/away split last year. Similarly, Ubaldo Jimenez had a pretty near historic start to last year where he gave up like three loving runs in 10 starts or some poo poo like that, but he's not actually *that* good. He's good though. Tulo is golden though, he's a top player in the game without a doubt. Finally, your team has a reputation for being run by evangelical fundamentalist Christians, and sometimes people make jokes about that. That's all I can think of.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 23:28 |
|
|
BIZORT posted:Yeah, if someone could explain options to me in a dumbed-down manner I'd appreciate it as well To borrow from Purple Row (http://www.purplerow.com/2009/2/12/...ctions-part-two) An option year is used: -If a player is on the 40-man roster in spring training but optioned to the minors before the season begins. -If a player is sent down to the minors during the regular season--even if a player broke camp with the team However, an option year is NOT used: -If a player is not sent to the minors during a year (obviously). -If a player’s optional assignment(s) to the minors total less than 20 days in one season. However, this is very unlikely to happen as a minimum assignment is ten days. -If they are called up in September, because during September the 40 man roster is technically the active roster. TUS posted:I have an "options" question- You are correct in that, because he is pre-free-agency-eligible with his contract purchased by a Major League club, his contract requires that he be on the 25-man, unless he clears waivers. Then, he can be sent anywhere. Upon recall, the cycle resets and he must clear waivers again to be sent down.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 23:37 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 09:59 |
|
|
KIM JONG TRILL posted:Seeing AL pitchers try to hit in interleague play is always hilarious. Counterpoint http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=2991136
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2011 23:38 |
|
