|
Tony Phillips posted:If they're in foul territory at the time then no. If the player is in fair territory, they muff it and the ball lands foul - it's a fair ball.* gently caress that call along with all pro-Yankee umpiring.
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 16:07 |
|
|
tarlibone posted:Actually, it gets tricky. But to keep it simple, just remember that at the time a fielder touches the ball, it's the position of the ball, not the player, that determines whether it is fair or foul. If the player attempts to field the ball in fair territory, and the ball is in fair territory at the time this attempt is made, and this attempt causes the ball to go into foul territory, then it's a fair ball. And as a corollary, the line itself is fair. The ball must be completely beyond the line to be foul. If any part of the ball is above any part of the line, it's a fair ball.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:If a player tries to catch a ball in foul territory and the ball hits his glove but he can't hang on, does that put the ball into play? A player may be charged with an error, but the ball is still dead and the batter/runners can't advance. (This does mean it is possible to commit errors in a perfect game.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
tadashi posted:gently caress that call along with all pro-Yankee umpiring. Never forget that the Twins had the bases loaded/no outs that same inning and still didn't manage to score.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 19:51
|
|
Tater Love 
|
Also, you're not allowed to blow the ball across the foul line.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLroDoPFdWY
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
I admit I don't know the farm system that well but I feel like the Reds have been making trades to win THIS season for the past few seasons, depleting their farm and yet the playoff window with the current roster has closed even with all the aggressive trades. I do feel like the NL Central has been a tough division with the pirates actually performing now but the the rate at which the Reds have been losing is disheartening and the long term prospects seem poor. Someone tell me why I'm dumb and wrong please.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
Molybdenum posted:I admit I don't know the farm system that well but I feel like the Reds have been making trades to win THIS season for the past few seasons, depleting their farm and yet the playoff window with the current roster has closed even with all the aggressive trades. I do feel like the NL Central has been a tough division with the pirates actually performing now but the the rate at which the Reds have been losing is disheartening and the long term prospects seem poor. If I were a Reds fan, I wouldn't give up on the near future. The Reds just seemed to have a lot of bad luck this season. I don't think anybody saw these type of seasons coming for Bruce and Votto. On the bright side, Billy Hamilton has shown flashes that he can contribute on offense (his base-running alone is worth something) and is a good center fielder. They have some decent prospects, too, just nobody who's going to help soon. They really really really need Votto and Bruce to bounce-back, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Those trades made for some really good Reds teams, they just got unfortunate in the playoffs. The prospects they traded are all pretty much busts at this point because Walt Jocketty is really good at trading prospects for major league talent. e: oof I forgot about Encarnacion but idk if he would have been good without Blue Jays Dinger Magic Groucho Marxist fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Aug 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Say a game is on the last out of a potential no-hitter. Say there's a weird blooper hit into the infield and the fielder realizes that he won't be able to get the out in time. Can he intentionally airmail the ball into the stands to get it to count as an error?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Errors are up to the scorer's decision so if it would have been a remotely close play it'd go as a hit. Fielding a swinging bunt you have absolutely no play on and then make a terrible throw will go as a base hit and then possibly allow the runner to advance to second.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
If it was really that close of a play, it would probably be scored as a base hit + the runner taking 2nd on the throwing error.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Say a game is on the last out of a potential no-hitter. Say there's a weird blooper hit into the infield and the fielder realizes that he won't be able to get the out in time. Can he intentionally airmail the ball into the stands to get it to count as an error? Depends on if the official scorer thinks the runner would have been safe regardless. It would be a hit+error in that case. No fielder is going to throw it into the stands deliberately if he thinks he has a shot at the out, though, so the scorer should be able to tell pretty clearly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
drat, that would be a funny loophole.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Say a game is on the last out of a potential no-hitter. Say there's a weird blooper hit into the infield and the fielder realizes that he won't be able to get the out in time. Can he intentionally airmail the ball into the stands to get it to count as an error? Whether or not such a play is scored an error or a hit is based on human judgment--in this case, the scorekeeper's. Let's assume this is the third baseman is the fielder. (It doesn't matter, but the third baseman would be the most likely to be involved in this scenario, given how far away he is from 1st compared to the other positions.) Essentially, if the official scorer believes that the third baseman could not have been made the play with normal effort, then despite the error, it may well be scored a hit. Then, because the ball was airmailed, the runner will almost certainly take 2nd base on the errant throw. In this case, it would be a single (1B), and he takes 2nd on an E-5 (throwing error on the 3rd baseman). However, if the scorer believes that the out could have been made with normal effort by the third baseman and that the only reason the batter-runner got to first safely was because of the errant throw, then it would be scored as an E5 all the way. In your scenario, we know the intent of the third baseman, so the correct way to score it would be 1B + E5. The scorer, not being God, doesn't have this luxury, but would probably see it that way, too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
The cynical way to look at it is the scorer might say it's an error anyway to preserve the no hitter if it's in favor of the home team. Scorers seem to get blamed for homerism a lot, although I don't have any idea how true that is. It would have to be at least superficially close though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
Grittybeard posted:The cynical way to look at it is the scorer might say it's an error anyway to preserve the no hitter if it's in favor of the home team. Scorers seem to get blamed for homerism a lot, although I don't have any idea how true that is. Happened earlier this year with Darvish and Ortiz. No hitter got broken up anyway, but there's no way Ortiz's hit wouldn't have been scored a hit under normal circumstances. (And of course it was subsequently changed to a hit later as well.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Grittybeard posted:The cynical way to look at it is the scorer might say it's an error anyway to preserve the no hitter if it's in favor of the home team. Scorers seem to get blamed for homerism a lot, although I don't have any idea how true that is. This is true. There are many times that I've had to scratch my head at the decisions they make. But, the situation described is just so often scored 1B-EX that I don't see how it'd go any other way. After all, it would appear that the errant throw was caused by the fielder being in too big a hurry to make an accurate throw, and the only reason for that would be if the fielder had good reason to think that there wasn't time to set his feet and make a proper throw to first. It's weird how some big things can totally depend on some person's judgment, and nobody even really knows who that person is. In 1910, Nap Lajoie, of the Cleveland Naps, reached 1st base on an error in a game against the St. Louis Browns. The Browns' manager begged and even tried to bribe the official scorer to change this error to a hit, as that would give Lajoie the batting title over Ty Cobb, who'd taken the last game of the season off, as it was highly unlikely that Lajoie would overtake him. The scorer's decision stood, and Cobb won the title.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
So did Yusmerio Petit throw a perfect game and I just didn't hear about it? How did he get this 46 straight outs record?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 12:45
|
|
|
VJeff posted:So did Yusmerio Petit throw a perfect game and I just didn't hear about it? How did he get this 46 straight outs record? Six relief appearances plus the beginning of a start. e: Also possibly some outs at the end of the crappy start he had that got him sent back to the bullpen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 12:48
|
|
|
It's clear by this point that all hitters are terrible, and even middling, replacement-level talent is going for insane money. Guys with 0.2 WARP are getting 8-figure deals. I thought 'replacement-level' meant these were guys that were chilling in AAA and could be had for league-minimum by anyone, at most for a million apiece. Is it time to re-evaluate not just how WAR is calculated, but actually what "replacement-level" is? Is it not just possible, but likely, that the pool of true replacement-level players is much shallower (and more expensive) than originally thought?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Calling hitters as a general group "terrible" suggests to me that rather than hitters being bad, pitchers have been re-developing an edge ever since the end of the steroid era. Hitting and pitching has generally been cyclical, and for the moment increased scouting information available has seemed to benefit pitchers more due to better shifting and understanding of hitter weaknesses. Also fewer steroids and greenies might also help, although that's debatable. I don't know which guys with 0.2 WAR that get 8-figure deals you're thinking of. Don't WAR and other similar stats normalize league-wide on a year-by-year basis? Meaning, if all hitters are more "terrible" this year than last, then the top player should still have the same league-leading OPS+, and should still provide the same value over a replacement player. Your last question kind of conflicts with your original statement. If good players are undervalued by WAR (and therefore more expensive than thought), then wouldn't a guy with a 0.2 WAR getting $$$ mean the problem has self-corrected?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Pander posted:Calling hitters as a general group "terrible" suggests to me that rather than hitters being bad, pitchers have been re-developing an edge ever since the end of the steroid era. Hitting and pitching has generally been cyclical, and for the moment increased scouting information available has seemed to benefit pitchers more due to better shifting and understanding of hitter weaknesses. I have seen this attributed to the development of the pitch tracker, which has resulted in umpires substantially lowering the strike zone, much to the pitchers' advantage. The strike zone used to end about the waist, which pitchers hated. Offensive production began falling with the increase in low strikes. I don't know if the relationship is real, but its certainly plausible. I'd really like to think that all the idiots bitching about umpires and their strike zones are directly responsible for the lack of hitting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Looking at just the Padres (chosen at random): Chase Headley, 1.4 WAR, $10.4m Evereth Cabrera, 0.6 WAR, $2.4m Cameron Maybin, 0.4 WAR, $5m Nick Hundley, 0.1 WAR, $4m And on the pitching side Tim Stauffer, -0.1 WAR, $1.6m Eric Stults, -0.7 WAR, $2.7m Either a replacement-level player is much worse than we currently understand, or management of baseball teams is much worse at identifying talent than amateurs on the internet. I'm asserting the former; that true replacement-level talent is so bad and/or not as freely available as believed that we need to revise how we view Evereth Cabrera, because either he's overpaid or he's significantly above replacement level, and I don't think he's overpaid. (or is he?)
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
The last I heard, 1 WAR = ~$6M Cabrera sound perfectly priced. Everth is entering his arb years and in 2013 he provided 3+ WAR (which would be worth $15M). So he's actually been providing a fantastic value for his money. A one year fluctuation where he falls to what he SHOULD cost is hardly a terrible deal for the Padres unless it signals the start of a downward trend where he ends up costing his club a lot. His age, performance, and his price tag suggest he's either a young developing player or should be a bench player. It's not his fault if the club instead treats him like a starter and he produces less than he should. Chase Headley has finally entered free agency after Arb-3 bumped him up to about $10M. Ignoring the fact he's produced over 21 WAR so far (a $100M+ value) for far under-market value, his past year wasn't bad. When you start with the expectations of superstardom at the rock-bottom pricing he had been at for the past half decade, his 2014 does seem bad. But in a more objective sense he's a plus defender and league-average bat (with a history of doing well above league-average). $10M for an above-average 3B in today's market seems very reasonable. If he went to my preferred club (Chicago White Sox) for an AAV of $10MM I'd be doing somersaults. I couldn't tell you about Hundley, he seems like backup catcher who had a bit of potential before. $5MM/yr seems a bit high, sure. Maybin seems like an overpay, but they might project him developing into a better hitter more than I do. He's a good defensive CF as it stands. PetCo makes offensive evaluation tricky, and he doesn't have enough PA to really get an idea. Stults just pitched awful this year. The two years before he was a reasonable value. He was a good Petco pitcher, but got murdered on the road. Most of the contracts you're pointing out seem to involve arbitration pricing. It's just how the pricing structure works. It doesn't always work out that player value = money paid to player value. In fact, it RARELY does. Often times you get the young phenom who waaaaay overproduce his trifling rookie/early arb contracts. And you'll frequently get the older veteran who will never meet his steep price. This is part of the way a pricing system built on risk/reward works. Pay more for a more known quantity that may provide less reward, or pay less on unknown players who bust at a higher rate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Pander posted:And you'll frequently get the older veteran who will never meet his steep price. This is part of the way a pricing system built on risk/reward works. Pay more for a more known quantity that may provide less reward, or pay less on unknown players who bust at a higher rate. This is really mercenary and doesn't take into account clubhouse things, like feeling that you're always on the chopping block, but from a GM's perspective it seems like a winning business model - unless my theory that replacement-level players are not as freely available (or competent) as the WARP model supposes, which would mean WAR should be revised up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Chase Headley was a fringe MVP candidate in 2012 and has been one of the better third basemen in the NL for years, though he probably won't hit 30 HR again. He had a down year in 2013 but bounced back nicely - not sure what flavor of WAR you're using, but Baseball Reference has him at 3.5 between the Padres and Yanks. Everth was pretty good in 2012 and 2013; he didn't hit as well this year and then got hurt, but he's a shortstop with a good glove who is fast and can hit a little. Looking at those guys' WAR for just this year is misleading, even if we use your figure for Headley. They both have a track record of better production. Cameron Maybin, iirc, was a top prospect at one time. The Padres signed him to an extension before he hit arbitration. That's one way small-market teams like the Padres can compete: signing young, promising players to multi-year deals before they get expensive in arbitration, or hit free agency. The player gets the security of a multi-million dollar, set-for-life contract, but maybe loses out on a big payday if he becomes a star. Sometimes this works; the Rays signed Evan Longoria to a long contract in his rookie year, and they got a huge steal. And sometimes it doesn't, like with Maybin (although a Padres fan could tell you more about his specific case than I can).
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Everblight posted:I guess from a fantasy GM standpoint it seems silly to overpay a veteran on the order of $5-8m for known production, when you could literally have 10 players at that rate (making league minimum) and if they don't pan out, just waive them (and eat the $500k) until one proves he can provide at least replacement-level play. If it took you five players, you'd have $2.5m spent on a player under team control for 2-4 years who is providing at least a half a WAR for a few hundred grand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Maybin was a first round draft pick and was the major acquisition for the Marlins in the Miguel Cabrera trade. He was absolutely a top prospect, but I don't think he got his current contract until he went to the Padres.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Again, I'm not talking about specific players, just that the concept of a replacement player as compared to who is actually bumming around in AAA seems to have a disconnect, and empirically bad players (Nick Punto, Ryan Howard, James Loney) get big deals and hang on much longer than they probably should compared to chancing on a few AAA guys, even if you have to eat their entire contract.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Everblight posted:Again, I'm not talking about specific players, just that the concept of a replacement player as compared to who is actually bumming around in AAA seems to have a disconnect, and empirically bad players (Nick Punto, Ryan Howard, James Loney) get big deals and hang on much longer than they probably should compared to chancing on a few AAA guys, even if you have to eat their entire contract. The conceptual replacement player is just that: a concept. Some clubs would LOVE to have one in case a star goes down, while other are loaded with the quintessential AAAA types but lack real MLB stars or AA types that can project to stardom. Your attitude toward roster turnover seems more akin to NFL practices than MLB. MLB player development is usually a much longer process than NFL. In the NFL, most high-skill position players peak in their early to mid 20s. In the MLB, players typically peak in the late 20s, and undergo gradual increases in competition levels to ingrain proper habits. This increased development time renders a strategy of mucking through bargain bin players to keep the good and discard the chaff pretty much impossible, because it takes years and great efforts to properly identify and train the 'good'. The players you call "empirically" bad either were once very good or still serve a specific useful function. Ryan Howard was overpaid, injured, and his skill set declined at the exact same time. He's somewhat of an anomaly in how bad his situation panned out. He is not a 'typical' MLB bad contract. Loney has more often than not been an MLB-starter level hitter. Punto has a lot of positional flexibility with plus defensive skills and decent speed on the basepaths. Plus he's still pretty cheap. Pander fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Sep 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
There isn't some huge supply of good prospects who could make it in MLB if only they weren't blocked by lovely vets. Prospects aren't an exact science, but teams do have a pretty good idea who the real prospects in their system are, and who's just filler. They've scouted them and watched them play and worked with them for years. And in general, teams can look at a player's minor league stats, and the league(s) he was in, and his age at the time, and have a decent idea of his potential. Don't get me wrong though, there are busts, and guys who come out of nowhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
To expound on Nick Punto a little bit I think positional flexibility needs to be brought up. Let's assume a 'standard' Nick Punto year as 0.4 oWAR over 250 PA, 0.6 dWAR, and he plays 2B, SS, and 3B, with maybe a game or two in the OF to cover an injury. Now you might argue that he's hardly worth more than a replacement player based on the numbers. But in reality, he provides a great deal of utility value, which WAR tends to underrate. Star players and starters don't play in every game, and only requiring one spot on the 25-man roster to fill in for 3+ different positions allows for the GM to provide the manager with an additional specific roleplayers, like maybe a dedicated off-the-bench left-handed hitter, or a 5th OF specifically for late-game defensive substitutions or pinch-running. Or, if the manager is Ozzie Guillen, an extra reliever. So even though he's borderline replacement level in terms of counting-stat production, the fact Punto relieves the need for separate competent backup 3B/2B/SS players on the bench has a value that doesn't show up in WAR.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Pander posted:So even though he's borderline replacement level in terms of counting-stat production, the fact Punto relieves the need for separate competent backup 3B/2B/SS players on the bench has a value that doesn't show up in WAR.  it up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Everblight posted:I guess then the question is, how valuable is that? Because Nick Punto cannot possibly be worth $3m a year to 0.6 2.6 1.6 1.3 1.7 0.5 1.8 0.2 The approximate value of 1 WAR on the free agent market is currently ~$5-7M (this is a very rough metric and shouldn't be taken as gospel, but it's what teams are actually paying). So yeah, if the 'standard' Nick Punto year is worth about 0.4 WAR as Pander suggested, then that is worth $2-3M per year. Nick Punto is not overpaid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
GET MONEY
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Everblight posted:I guess then the question is, how valuable is that? Because Nick Punto cannot possibly be worth $3m a year to What are you basing your monetary assessments upon? To me, $3M is a shitton of money and I'd be loving ecstatic to have it, since it's probably as much or more (I don't feel like determining for sure how far I'm off) than I'll make in my lifetime. To a baseball team, $3M for a veteran utility player providing between about 0.3-1 WAR is fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Pander posted:What are you basing your monetary assessments upon?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Everblight posted:Twenty years of Marlin fandom, which boils down to "If he costs more than $440,000 a year, he's gone." I assume all teams are operating under the same "keep payroll under $30m a year for 25 players" restrictions, and sometimes forget that other teams are actually profitable/don't cook the books enough that an occasional whiff on a Cameron Maybin isn't going to bankrupt the team. And the Marlins are owned by a comic-book-villain evil genius.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Let's stop acting like $/WAR is worth a poo poo since it treats a nonlinear value like a linear one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 16:07 |
|
|
Groucho Marxist posted:Let's stop acting like $/WAR is worth a poo poo since it treats a nonlinear value like a linear one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 23:52
|
|