Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
  • Locked thread
Elizabeth Mills
Jan 2, 2005

Weyland's Top Executive

Corporate Feed


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.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Elizabeth Mills
Jan 2, 2005

Weyland's Top Executive

Corporate Feed


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.

Inspector_666
Oct 7, 2003

benny with the good hair


Not only do I agree with that, but we also need fractional errors.

Popete
Oct 6, 2009

This will make sure you don't suggest to the KDz
That he should grow greens instead of crushing on MCs

Grimey Drawer

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.

exploded mummy
Sep 10, 2008

Anytime I need to see your face I just close my eyes
And I am taken to a place
Where your crystal minds and magenta feelings
Take up shelter in the base of my spine
Sweet like a chica cherry cola

-Cheap Trick


Doctor Rope

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.

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.

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.

Grittybeard
Mar 29, 2010


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.

Peanut President
Nov 5, 2008





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 Oct 24, 2017 around 18:41

Elizabeth Mills
Jan 2, 2005

Weyland's Top Executive

Corporate Feed


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?

Ammat The Ankh
Sep 7, 2010

库昊


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.

Big Mean Jerk
Jan 27, 2009

MENTALLY
DEFEATED


Grimey Drawer

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

fast cars loose anus
Mar 2, 2007

Your 2017 World Series MVP


Pillbug

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.

The Pussy Boss
Nov 2, 2004

Nice post.


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.

CellBlock
Oct 6, 2005

It just don't stop.


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.

Elizabeth Mills
Jan 2, 2005

Weyland's Top Executive

Corporate Feed


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 8Ĺ 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 pitcherís plate, and the two 12-inch edges coinciding with the first and third base lines.
If you do the math and remove the 17x8 rectangular portion, leaving only the triangle, then if the point of the triangle closest to the catcher is a 90 degree angle, then per the pythagorean theorem, the rules delineate an impossible triangle.

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.

exploded mummy
Sep 10, 2008

Anytime I need to see your face I just close my eyes
And I am taken to a place
Where your crystal minds and magenta feelings
Take up shelter in the base of my spine
Sweet like a chica cherry cola

-Cheap Trick


Doctor Rope

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

exploded mummy fucked around with this message at Jan 4, 2018 around 05:12

Peanut President
Nov 5, 2008





Elizabeth Mills posted:

Home plate, as laid out by the rules, cannot physically exist.

Per rule 2.02:

If you do the math and remove the 17x8 rectangular portion, leaving only the triangle, then if the point of the triangle closest to the catcher is a 90 degree angle, then per the pythagorean theorem, the rules delineate an impossible triangle.

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.

agreed on all points

Twenty Four
Dec 21, 2008

HAIKOOLIGAN

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.

Popete
Oct 6, 2009

This will make sure you don't suggest to the KDz
That he should grow greens instead of crushing on MCs

Grimey Drawer

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!

Inspector_666
Oct 7, 2003

benny with the good hair


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.

tadashi
Feb 20, 2006



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/...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.

Elizabeth Mills
Jan 2, 2005

Weyland's Top Executive

Corporate Feed


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

Ginette Reno
Nov 18, 2006

Do you not want your hotdog?
(pause)
I'll keep it for you.
(pause)
I thought you were going to leave me.

Fun Shoe

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.

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

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.

Timby
Dec 23, 2006

Your mother!


The shift absolutely destroys Schwarber and Rizzo gets into funks where he can't beat it at all.

Twenty Four
Dec 21, 2008

HAIKOOLIGAN

Popete posted:

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!

tadashi
Feb 20, 2006



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.

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.

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 thatís the surprising story of The Shift. Itís a psychological ploy for which both sides actually fall, perhaps without knowing it. And thatís why it persists.

Elizabeth Mills
Jan 2, 2005

Weyland's Top Executive

Corporate Feed


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.

Inspector_666
Oct 7, 2003

benny with the good hair


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...

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.

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.

Popete
Oct 6, 2009

This will make sure you don't suggest to the KDz
That he should grow greens instead of crushing on MCs

Grimey Drawer

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.

Good Dog
Oct 16, 2008

Who threw this cat at me?

Dinosaur Gum

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.

bawfuls
Oct 28, 2009

VIVA PUIG


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.

Inspector_666
Oct 7, 2003

benny with the good hair


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.

R.D. Mangles
Jan 10, 2004


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.

Popete
Oct 6, 2009

This will make sure you don't suggest to the KDz
That he should grow greens instead of crushing on MCs

Grimey Drawer

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.

Inspector_666
Oct 7, 2003

benny with the good hair


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.

Charles 2 of Spain
Nov 7, 2017



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?

Peanut President
Nov 5, 2008





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.

ego symphonic
Feb 23, 2010



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.

Charles 2 of Spain
Nov 7, 2017



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.

Popete
Oct 6, 2009

This will make sure you don't suggest to the KDz
That he should grow greens instead of crushing on MCs

Grimey Drawer

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.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Peanut President
Nov 5, 2008





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

  • Locked thread