|
exploded mummy posted:Daddy why is Mr Met giving us the finger Still don't understand how they suspended him for that, it's exceptionally on-brand for a guy from Queens.
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
Currently, when a baserunner in a baseball game reaches base via a fielding error, if he eventually scores, it is not an "Earned Run" charged to the pitcher, and does not effect his ERA. This is generally fine; if the player would've been out but a fielder bobbles the catch, then yeah, that makes sense. BUT! The pitcher is also a fielder (1 on your scorecard), and if the pitcher makes an error in the field that allows the runner to reach base, it should be an earned run on that pitcher's record. This is not currently the case, the pitcher and "the fielder in the 1 spot" are treated as totally different people by statisticians. However, fielding your position is *part of the game*, and if you can't chase down a chopper or get the ball to first in a timely manner, you are just as much a detriment to your team as if you allowed a base hit. The rules should be changed so that runs that reach on a pitcher's fielding error are credited to that pitcher. Change my view.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Not only do I agree with that, but we also need fractional errors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
I still advocate that any way you reach base should count as a hit (unless it's a walk, HBP or dropped K). Forced errors aren't accounted for in anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Elizabeth Mills posted:Currently, when a baserunner in a baseball game reaches base via a fielding error, if he eventually scores, it is not an "Earned Run" charged to the pitcher, and does not effect his ERA. This is generally fine; if the player would've been out but a fielder bobbles the catch, then yeah, that makes sense. ERA and earned runs measure the effectiveness of a pitcher's performance while pitching. It is earned as it is a measurement of a pitcher's effectiness as a pitcher. Pitching is not fielding. Pitching has an entirely different ruleset governing it that a pitcher must obey. If a pitcher fails in respect to those rules, a run is considered earned.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
More importantly we're unlikely to get sweeping changes to error rules 120, or 140 or whatever years in. The best way to pursue that would be new stats of some sort and actually looking at those I would think, but it would take years for them to become mainstream. poo poo OPS is really recent as something people pay attention to considering baseball's timeline.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Elizabeth Mills posted:The rules should be changed so that runs that reach on a pitcher's fielding error are credited to that pitcher. Change my view. It's not an Earned Run. Therefore it shouldn't show up on the Earned Run Average. Peanut President fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Oct 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Any truth to the conspiracy theory that MLB juiced the WS balls? Or is the Astros lineup just full of grown-rear end men who can hit the poo poo out of a baseball?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
Elizabeth Mills posted:Any truth to the conspiracy theory that MLB juiced the WS balls? Or is the Astros lineup just full of grown-rear end men who can hit the poo poo out of a baseball? The balls have been juiced since mid 2016, everybody knows it but MLB officially denies it. It might not even be on purpose, the change happened when the ball manufacturer switched factories or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
IIRC, it's mostly because the new manufacturer uses a springier cork for the core and it's just easier to mash it into the stratosphere now. Whether or not that was an intentional decision by MLB...  ed: Lower seams too, according to this article
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
I'd like to know what the cause for the balls being slicker in the World Series was. So many pitchers on both teams mentioned it and Verlander even said they were harder to sign than regular season baseballs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
There's no way that MLB would secretly change the composition of the baseball in order to increase offense at a time when scoring is down around the league. That would be so blatant, everyone would see right through it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
fast cars loose anus posted:I'd like to know what the cause for the balls being slicker in the World Series was. So many pitchers on both teams mentioned it and Verlander even said they were harder to sign than regular season baseballs. It's possible there was a coating or something for MLB Authentication. (I remember when the home run record was in play, they would use balls that were stamped with a UV reactive ink or something so the balls could be authenticated as the actual home run ball.) If they didn't test it out enough, it's possible they inadvertently brought in balls that felt differently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Home plate, as laid out by the rules, cannot physically exist. Per rule 2.02: quote:Home base shall be marked by a five-sided slab of whitened rubber. It shall be a 17-inch square with two of the corners removed so that one edge is 17 inches long, two adjacent sides are 8½ inches and the remaining two sides are 12 inches and set at an angle to make a point. It shall be set in the ground with the point at the intersection of the lines extending from home base to first base and to third base; with the 17-inch edge facing the pitcher’s plate, and the two 12-inch edges coinciding with the first and third base lines. 122 + 122 = 288 root of 288 = 16.97" So either home plate should be 16.97" wide instead of 17" or the two sides that form the tip of the plate should be 12.02" instead of 12". Now, you may ask: "Is this based off the angle of the tip being 90 degrees? Because, what if its not? Woah" Whoa indeed. So to show that it would, in fact, have to be 90 degrees, I went to the rulebook again. Per rule 2.01: (1.04) The infield shall be a 90-foot square. Since the 12-inch edges have to coincide with the first and third base lines, this would mandate a 90 degree angle. When location of home base is determined, with a steel tape measure 127 feet, 3 3/8 inches in desired direction to establish second base. From home base, measure 90 feet toward first base; from second base, measure 90 feet toward first base; the intersection of these lines establishes first base. From home base, measure 90 feet toward third base; from second base, measure 90 feet toward third base; the intersection of these lines establishes third base. The distance between first base and third base is 127 feet, 3 3⁄8 inches. All measurements from home base shall be taken from the point where the first and third base lines intersect. Innocent enough, right? NO. Let's turn to the Pythagorean theorem again. 902 + 902 = 16,200 = c2 c = 127.279220613578554'. But the rules mandate that c should be 127', 3 3/8", which is 127.28125'. We're looking at a difference between 127', 3 3/8" (per the rule) and 127 3 7/20". Meaning that second base, if the diamond is in fact a true square, is 0.024352637 inches TOO CLOSE to home plate to coincide with the rules. So what if we just adjust the 90' distances to align second base up with the 127.28125' requirement? 127.281252 = 16200.5166015625 = a2 + b2 8100.25830078125 = a2 90.0014349929 = a, meaning the basepaths should be 90' and 14/10000th of an inch. Our baseball lives are lies. As it is, there cannot physically exist a perfectly square infield consisting of 90' basepaths and a distance of 127' 3 3/8" between home and second and first and third.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 05:28
|
|
|
there is a thing called significant figures and manufacturing tolerances so that's an interesting exercise, but really useless also this is utter laughable quote:if the diamond is in fact a true square, is 0.024352637 inches TOO CLOSE to home plate to coincide with the rules in order to take this degree of measurement, you are attempting to measure on the atomic level the human eye can not perceive this we do not have manufacturing capability to make mechanical measures to that level seriously. it is actually drat near impossible to actually measure this at all OJ MIST 2 THE DICK fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Jan 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 05:46
|
|
|
Elizabeth Mills posted:Home plate, as laid out by the rules, cannot physically exist. agreed on all points
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 11:32
|
|
|
Elizabeth Mills posted:Home plate, as laid out by the rules, cannot physically exist. Counterpoint: as someone who has scored runs and stepped on home plate, it exists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 12:55
|
|
|
Twenty Four posted:Counterpoint: as someone who has scored runs and stepped on home plate, it exists. Yeah but atoms never actually touch, so technically you've never touched home base. Likewise you can never be put out. Baseball is a sham!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
Twenty Four posted:Counterpoint: as someone who has scored runs and stepped on home plate, it exists. The home plate you stepped on was a fraud, a disgusting, grotesque imitation of what should be there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
Thought this might be the best place to post this: The shift might be bad. Russell Carleton crunched the numbers and it looks like you need a hitter to pull the ball 3x more often for the shift to break even and, also, the shift leads to the kind of ungodly numbers you'd expect when a hitter does hit the other way. https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/36897/baseball-therapy-shift-persists/ I wonder what data teams have that might counter this argument. There must be a reason why everybody's doing it since the math he's doing isn't exactly revolutionary and the teams that started the shift revolution are the teams who invest a lot on stats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
I mean, hitters are very bad at going the other way, so until teams start fielding nine Ichiros that can pick their spot, I think the shift is still effective. I'm reading Big Data Baseball right now, which is all about the Early 2010s Pirates, and they made a great point: If the shift means Prince Fielder can bunt down the third base line for an automatic single, that still means their big bopper is only hitting a single, and you've taken away their main weapon (the XBH) so you're still ahead
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
Elizabeth Mills posted:I mean, hitters are very bad at going the other way, so until teams start fielding nine Ichiros that can pick their spot, I think the shift is still effective. Isn't letting Prince bunt for a single all the time basically the same as intentionally walking him? iirc someone did the math and found out that as lethal as Barry Bonds was at his height it was still better to pitch to him than to give him a guaranteed walk every time he's got men on. But the shift works because like you said most people can't hit the other way so the automatic single isn't really a threat. If a power hitter came up that had the ability and the willingness to bunt a single every time a shift was put on him it would be interesting to see if that changed the defensive team's strategy at all, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
The shift absolutely destroys Schwarber and Rizzo gets into funks where he can't beat it at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 19:12
|
|
|
Popete posted:Yeah but atoms never actually touch, so technically you've never touched home base. Likewise you can never be put out. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 19:12
|
|
|
Ginette Reno posted:Isn't letting Prince bunt for a single all the time basically the same as intentionally walking him? iirc someone did the math and found out that as lethal as Barry Bonds was at his height it was still better to pitch to him than to give him a guaranteed walk every time he's got men on. Overall, the finding in the article is that runs scored due to power lost due to the shift outweighs the runs generated thanks to hitting the ball the other way (and players are hitting the ball the other way or up the middle more often vs. the shift). Unfortunately, walks go up against the shift so the run value is a net negative based on Carleton's estimates. What he's arguing is you should really only shift against players like Bonds (or, in today's game, Rizzo) if it means you can sap their power because they're trying to beat the shift. What it means is that simple spray charts don't tell you who to shift on (also in the article). quote:But that’s the surprising story of The Shift. It’s a psychological ploy for which both sides actually fall, perhaps without knowing it. And that’s why it persists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:17
|
|
|
So we are now 10 years into Pitch/fx data, and there's still no movement on computerized balls and strikes yet, right? It wouldn't even mean less ump jobs, you'd still need someone behind home plate for handing out new balls and making safe/out calls at home and such, but I wonder... Do players want a perfectly fair and exact strike zone? If Blustery Idiot ump is giving you an extra foot on the left side, wouldn't you want that as a pitcher? If you're being paid for your pitch-framing skills as a catcher, wouldn't you hate having that skill essentially eliminated from your skill set? Still, I can't help but think "getting the call right" remains the most important thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 00:16
|
|
|
Elizabeth Mills posted:So we are now 10 years into Pitch/fx data, and there's still no movement on computerized balls and strikes yet, right? It wouldn't even mean less ump jobs, you'd still need someone behind home plate for handing out new balls and making safe/out calls at home and such, but I wonder... Yeah, I don't think most of baseball is as into the idea of a robo-ump as a vocal subset of fans make out. I saw an idea for an augmented-reality setup for the home plate ump that would display the zone for them which I think could be cool and would probably get some traction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 00:19
|
|
|
I tend to think it's that most people are somewhere in the middle. Where yes getting the right call would be ideal but the human element and judgement calls have been such an integral part for so long that it's kinda cool to still have it, it feels like such an integral part of baseball. Or at least MLB and the players know it would be a contentious issue to bring up and may alienate a lot of fans for not a lot of gain. Players might not care as much as you'd think because it can go both ways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
I feel like players and fans would be much much prefer seeing a system in place that removes umpires that are consistently bad at their jobs. I don't mean missing a ball/strike call or safe/out call X number of times necessarily but just the unanimously hated umpires. Even if it wouldn't change all that much I think fans would have a lot less to gripe about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 00:35
|
|
|
Part of the issue as I understand it is that the detailed PitchFX charts we see after games aren't generated in real-time. The real-time systems are not currently accurate enough and still miss too many calls to sell the skeptics on it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 03:06
|
|
|
Good Dog posted:I feel like players and fans would be much much prefer seeing a system in place that removes umpires that are consistently bad at their jobs. I don't mean missing a ball/strike call or safe/out call X number of times necessarily but just the unanimously hated umpires. Even if it wouldn't change all that much I think fans would have a lot less to gripe about. Theoretically they should already be doing this, it's just that the head of the union is one of the hated guys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 03:17
|
|
|
MLB is in a weird space with Pitch F/X and broadcast strike zone boxes. Either the strike zone is an empirical fact rooted in fixed physical space or it is a term of art open to the interpretation of the umpires, but the broadcast gives us both at the same time and it's making everyone nuts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 03:59
|
|
|
Pitch box overlays during a live game suck, I don't mind if they show a pitch tracker on the side or after the pitch. But when it's a live box over the zone it's too distracting and then everyone watching the game makes a comment anytime the ball is a millimeter outside and called a strike.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 04:11
|
|
|
R.D. Mangles posted:MLB is in a weird space with Pitch F/X and broadcast strike zone boxes. Either the strike zone is an empirical fact rooted in fixed physical space or it is a term of art open to the interpretation of the umpires, but the broadcast gives us both at the same time and it's making everyone nuts. Oh the other thing is the in-broadcast zones are always wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 04:50
|
|
|
Bear with me since I only started really understanding baseball a few years ago, but I've never understood why people like the idea of a designated hitter. It hides a guy in the field and protects a pitcher who can't bat. Why would you want to discourage all-round skills?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 12:50
|
|
|
Charles 2 of Spain posted:Bear with me since I only started really understanding baseball a few years ago, but I've never understood why people like the idea of a designated hitter. It hides a guy in the field and protects a pitcher who can't bat. Why would you want to discourage all-round skills? As someone who loathes DH I think the idea is to a) protect the pitcher b) score runs since pitchers usually are bad batsmen anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 14:41
|
|
|
Charles 2 of Spain posted:Bear with me since I only started really understanding baseball a few years ago, but I've never understood why people like the idea of a designated hitter. It hides a guy in the field and protects a pitcher who can't bat. Why would you want to discourage all-round skills? Because pitching and hitting are two completely distinct skills and the probability of a single person being good enough at both of them to excel at the major league level is vanishingly small. It's not that pitchers could be better at hitting if they just practiced more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 15:08
|
|
|
OK, that makes sense if you consider that match ups should be about players doing what they do best, although I'd argue that it's no different to batters needing a fielding skillset. I guess I just like the idea that a spud with a .200 average can come in and hit a game-winning RBI off Kershaw or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
Charles 2 of Spain posted:Bear with me since I only started really understanding baseball a few years ago, but I've never understood why people like the idea of a designated hitter. It hides a guy in the field and protects a pitcher who can't bat. Why would you want to discourage all-round skills? No you're right, it makes no sense to me either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
Charles 2 of Spain posted:OK, that makes sense if you consider that match ups should be about players doing what they do best, although I'd argue that it's no different to batters needing a fielding skillset. I guess I just like the idea that a spud with a .200 average can come in and hit a game-winning RBI off Kershaw or something. Thankfully the NL still exists https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YpHt6t_C68
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 17:07
|
|