|
ayn rand hand job posted:He has barely played 2 seasons over 3 years. He's got a .301 BABIP in 1200 PA, and generally speaking, that's right about league average. I haven't seen enough of him to know he's destined to have a lower BABIP/be a bad hitter/flame out entirely. Out of curiosity, how many PA would you say it takes for career BABIP to be of value?
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
Segura also buried his nine-month-old son a month ago. I imagine that kind of messes with one's focus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
JoeRules posted:Out of curiosity, how many PA would you say it takes for career BABIP to be of value? More than 2 seasons. His career isn't long enough to break it down to being an issue of luck, or hey, the book on how to pitch him is much better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
Is it totally wrong to say that Segura could be the ss version of Carlos Gomez? He seems like he's an excellent athlete who's still learning how to play baseball but could hit a good amount dingers and get on base at an acceptable rate (for the position) if he can get it together?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
tadashi posted:Is it totally wrong to say that Segura could be the ss version of Carlos Gomez? He seems like he's an excellent athlete who's still learning how to play baseball but could hit a good amount dingers and get on base at an acceptable rate (for the position) if he can get it together? They have very similar slashlines when you compare Gomez's age 21 partial season with the Mets and Segura's ongoing age 24 season. So maybe they could be. I'd say odds are against it, unless you want to bet on Segura discovering a power stroke out of nowhere in the next few years. Not impossible, but I think he'll lack the hit tool and elite base-stealing skill of Gomez. Think "fast Gordon Beckham" not "weak Carlos Gomez".
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Pander posted:They have very similar slashlines when you compare Gomez's age 21 partial season with the Mets and Segura's ongoing age 24 season. So maybe they could be. I'd say odds are against it, unless you want to bet on Segura discovering a power stroke out of nowhere in the next few years. Not impossible, but I think he'll lack the hit tool and elite base-stealing skill of Gomez. Think "fast Gordon Beckham" not "weak Carlos Gomez". Comparing an age 21 season to an age 24 season rarely works out all that well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Carlos Gomez was an outright bad player for 5 years, had one decent season, and is now a perennial MVP candidate you can't really count on comparing his career arc to anyone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
I understand that pretty much everybody is put on waivers this time of year. I noticed on twitter that Strasburg and Harper were claimed off waivers so the Nationals pulled them back. What's the point of trying to claim players like that? Hoping someone is asleep at their computer and let's it happen? Blocking trades?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
I would imagine in that case it's just to block someone trading the farm for one of those guys just in case, it could also be that the team was really interested in trading and seeing if the Nats would deal with them. The waiver trade deadline is a weird thing, I wouldn't mind if someone more in tune with all of the rules could post a quickish rundown of how everything works.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Teams will add a bunch of names at once in the hopes that the player they actually want to clear slips by
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Grittybeard posted:I would imagine in that case it's just to block someone trading the farm for one of those guys just in case, it could also be that the team was really interested in trading and seeing if the Nats would deal with them. From my quick read of wikipedia, here's how it goes: Between July 31 (the trade deadline) and August 31 (the waiver trade deadline), any player to be traded must be waived. If a player is waived, any team can claim them. If claimed, the player's current team has to either negotiate a trade within two business days, rescind the waiver, or do nothing and let the new team take the player. (If claims come from multiple teams, preference is given to the player's current league and then teams with worse records.) Once a waiver is rescinded, that player can't be rescinded again that season, so in this case, if Strasburg and Harper were put back on waivers, they could get snatched up by another team. If, after three days, nobody has claimed a waived player, the player has "cleared" waivers and can be sent to the minors, traded, or released outright.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
I'd have to assume most teams that make waiver claims are at least interested in making a deal. Most of the guys that get claimed and then pulled back are guys that just about any team would like to have (for the right price) and most teams would be willing to give up (for the right price). I know there's probably lots of administrative shenanigans that I don't know about or see when it comes to transactions, but I think trade waivers are a pretty straightforward sort of thing. That said, is there a crash course one can take in transaction management? The business side of baseball is fascinating to me, but also mystifying. I suppose there's Moneyball, but are there any other not-so-well-known sources I could check out?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
gleep gloop posted:I understand that pretty much everybody is put on waivers this time of year. I noticed on twitter that Strasburg and Harper were claimed off waivers so the Nationals pulled them back. What's the point of trying to claim players like that? Hoping someone is asleep at their computer and let's it happen? Blocking trades? Teams are interested in seeing what will be offeree for them, even if they aren't going to trade him. My source on this is so many years when Barry Bonds was put on waivers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
rickiep00h posted:I'd have to assume most teams that make waiver claims are at least interested in making a deal. Most of the guys that get claimed and then pulled back are guys that just about any team would like to have (for the right price) and most teams would be willing to give up (for the right price). I know there's probably lots of administrative shenanigans that I don't know about or see when it comes to transactions, but I think trade waivers are a pretty straightforward sort of thing. Yes and no. It's my understanding that the waiver wire is one of the big areas of unwritten rules coming into play. There's a lot of "we won't block your guys if you won't block ours" unspoken quid-pro-quo that isn't fully captured by the actual rules alone. But on the other hand there's an understanding that if you try to aim too high someone's gonna get in the way. v  v
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
So say Joe "Cake-eater" Mauer is put on waivers. The Marlins, being in need of a temporarily broken light-hitting first baseman, put a claim on him. The Twins say they want Giancarlo Stanton in return. Terry Ryan gets laughed off the phone. At this point, they either pull Mauer back, or let the claim go through. Is there any benefit to doing nothing besides dumping salary and/or hamstringing the claimant's budget? Is the claimant even required to negotiate in good faith? Could they offer peanuts (or even nothing) and say "Take it or leave it"? In the Myers example, why wouldn't he be pulled back? Just to dump salary? It seems preferable than sending him to the minors and being on the hook for a MLB contract, but wouldn't you rather get something, even a Drew Butera, than nothing? I dunno, it just seems like an odd, esoteric thing to have around in a rules environment that so strictly controls what you can and can't do with a guy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
In Myers case as I understand it Toronto was just happy to dump the salary and the Padres had no interest in actually acquiring the player at all, so they probably didn't offer anything. I don't think there are any good faith rules involved in this, if you claim someone and just say you're claiming them and aren't interested in a trade that's fine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Teams claim players to keep them from other teams all the time, too. It's how Cody Ross ended up with the Giants a few seasons ago (and it ended up being the best accident possible for them).
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure Jose Canseco was another hilarious "lol blocked wait poo poo we didn't actually want him what are you doing" as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
rickiep00h posted:Is there any benefit to doing nothing besides dumping salary and/or hamstringing the claimant's budget? Is the claimant even required to negotiate in good faith? Could they offer peanuts (or even nothing) and say "Take it or leave it"? The Blue Jays have a more accurate example of this kind of salary dump more recently. Alex Rios in 2009 was a straight salary dump via a waiver claim to the White Sox (a move that history probably shrugs its shoulders over, as Rios was somewhat productive, if incredibly unevenly season-by-season). They also traded Vernon Wells before the season began for Juan Rivera and Mike Napoli, but they valued losing Wells' gargantuan contract more than either player they received.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
Mike Napoli was a good get for Vernon Wells even without the bloated contract, but lol whoops AA decided to trade him for a reliever in attempt to game the comp pick system, which failed when said reliever imploded.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
Yeah. He out-thought himself there. Probably wasn't aware of how much Arencibia was about to suck and/or undervalued how good Napoli is at the whole hitting thing. Still that's why I said "they" valued the contract dump more than the players received. Clearing out the garbage Ricciardi contracts was still pretty impressive. Hard to say how much one move affects the future, but they're 6.5 behind the Orioles now, and if Toronto finishes within 10 games at the end of the year, it'd be the first time they've done that in 21 years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
Groucho Marxist posted:Mike Napoli was a good get for Vernon Wells even without the bloated contract, but lol whoops AA decided to trade him for a reliever in attempt to game the comp pick system, which failed when said reliever imploded. This was an act of genius, I don't know what you're talking about  ...I miss Nap 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
IcePhoenix posted:I'm pretty sure Jose Canseco was another hilarious "lol blocked wait poo poo we didn't actually want him what are you doing" as well. With the 2000 Yankees. He was really pissed off because they got him then barely played him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
What dictates whether the shortstop or second baseman goes to second base to try and tag out a runner attempting to steal?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 09:44
|
|
|
VJeff posted:What dictates whether the shortstop or second baseman goes to second base to try and tag out a runner attempting to steal? Generally, the handedness of the batter. Shortstop covers for a lefty hitter, second baseman for a righty. More specifically, the goal is to cover the steal attempt while minimizing the chance you create a hole for the hitter. So, you should base the decision on a specific batter's tendencies related to hitting the ball to either left field (second baseman would cover steal) or right field (shortstop would cover).
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 10:06
|
|
|
Capt. Sticl posted:Generally, the handedness of the batter. Shortstop covers for a lefty hitter, second baseman for a righty. More specifically, the goal is to cover the steal attempt while minimizing the chance you create a hole for the hitter. So, you should base the decision on a specific batter's tendencies related to hitting the ball to either left field (second baseman would cover steal) or right field (shortstop would cover). They will also share the duty for a hitter that can hit to either side. SS/2B will signal to each other as to who has the base on the next pitch with a running threat on. They try to randomize it to minimize the hit-and-run advantage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
Dee Gordon fouled to deep left just now. The left fielder went to play it but the ball bounced away. What the hell is that? Either it's playable or it's not. I feel like if you attempt to catch foul ball and fail, that should count as a good ball.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
Was there anything special about this or was it just a foul ball that the fielder didn't get to? It sounds like it's just a rules of the game thing, a ball in foul territory is different from a ball out of play.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Grittybeard posted:Was there anything special about this or was it just a foul ball that the fielder didn't get to? It bounced off the left field wall, but he was right on top of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:Dee Gordon fouled to deep left just now. The left fielder went to play it but the ball bounced away. Why would you give the umpires even more judgment calls
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:It bounced off the left field wall, but he was right on top of it. What the Hell? It was foul all the way. Left fielder ran in that direction and never touched it or had a chance to barring a stupidly dangerous dive/slide into a wall. For what possible reason would that have been a fair ball or whatever you're talking about?  Deteriorata posted:Anybody on base? Runners can advance after a foul catch. It's often better to let fouls go in that case. No - Gordon was leading off the bottom of the 1st. Tony Phillips fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:It bounced off the left field wall, but he was right on top of it. Anybody on base? Runners can advance after a foul catch. It's often better to let fouls go in that case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Tony Phillips posted:What the Hell? It was foul all the way. Left fielder ran in that direction and never touched it or had a chance to barring a stupidly dangerous dive/slide into a wall. For what possible reason would that have been a fair ball or whatever you're talking about? Hahahaha. Yeah, let's have the LF break his goddamned legs so he can catch that ball.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:Dee Gordon fouled to deep left just now. The left fielder went to play it but the ball bounced away. Because you have to draw a line making a clear delineation between a ball in play and a ball not in play, and the line in this case is literal. The person running across the line doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
Badfinger posted:Because you have to draw a line making a clear delineation between a ball in play and a ball not in play, and the line in this case is literal. The person running across the line doesn't matter. Technically he didn't run across the line marking in play or out of play, because that would have broken his legs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
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?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
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? Nope.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
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? 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.* *unless the batter is Joe Mauer and its the 2009 playoffs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
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.* 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. If the player is somehow standing in fair territory and is holding his arm out to try to catch a ball that is about to land in foul territory beyond 1st or 3rd base, though, this is still a foul ball, as long as it's clear to the umpire that at the time the fielder attempted to catch the ball, it was already in foul territory. This is still a foul ball even if the player, who is in fair territory and reaching out into foul territory, drops the ball. (It can be scored an Error if that happens, though, unless the scorer believes that the decision to drop the ball was to prevent a runner from tagging and advancing.) Also, if a bunt is rolling down the foul line between 1st or 3rd bases, rolls foul, and then is touched by a fielder whose body is completely within fair territory, it's a foul, even if the fielder can't manage to pick up the ball. It's all about ball position.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:57
|
|
