It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:08 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:50 am
Posts: 11175
Location: Schaumburg
pizza_Place: Palermo's
Will Spiegel discuss his issues with alcohol, speaking tersely to women, as well as the spectacle he made of himself...in public, if you weeell?

viewtopic.php?f=75&t=109093

Image


Last edited by Tad Queasy on Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:11 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:09 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 6:03 pm
Posts: 4944
What happened?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20573
pizza_Place: Giordano's
To hear these guys tell it (and I'm assuming Bernstein will be worse about it, somehow), it might actually be a GOOD thing that the Cubs shit their pants in the NLCS.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:50 am
Posts: 11175
Location: Schaumburg
pizza_Place: Palermo's
I don't disagree that making the NLCS three straight years and winning one World Series is pretty damn good, especially considering the less-than-stellar history of this franchise over the last century or so, but Parkins saying "People need to have a cognitive understanding of the randomness of baseball." just makes me laugh and roll my eyes.

Image


Last edited by Tad Queasy on Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 54157
Location: Pearl Harbor, Waukesha, and other things that make no sense
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Ain't no understanding like cognitive understanding

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 31935
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Literally nothing random about that series. It is a 100% a$$ whooping. That was a case of the much better team won. It happened as it should.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 54157
Location: Pearl Harbor, Waukesha, and other things that make no sense
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
I cognitively understand that the Dodgers were 91-36 at one point.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 31935
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Curious Hair wrote:
I cognitively understand that the Dodgers were 91-36 at one point.


The only thing I can remember about my Psych 100 class down at U of I was the following:

The TA for the class was making jokes about Bill Clinton. In hindsight, she actually looked like a thinner version of Moinca Lewinsky. She put up some joke on the overhead for the Clinton Income Tax Form. It was a post card that said: 1) Write down your income. 2) Send the amount in line 1 to the IRS.

In any case, my point is I don't even understand the term cognitive.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 11:10 am
Posts: 42094
Location: Rock Ridge (splendid!)
pizza_Place: Charlie Fox's / Paisano's
Curious Hair wrote:
Ain't no understanding like cognitive understanding

'Cause cognitive understanding don't stop ....... except in cases of dementia, Alzheimer's, Lewy Body, stroke, cerebral malaria, CTE, Facebook use, sleep deprivation, being a sports messageboard owner/moderator, etc.

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:24 am
Posts: 38526
Location: RST Video
pizza_Place: Bill's Pizza - Mundelein
Tad Queasy wrote:
I don't disagree that making the NLCS three straight years and winning one World Series is pretty damn good, especially considering the less-than-stellar history of this franchise over the last century or so, but Parkins saying "People need to have a cognitive understanding of the randomness of baseball." just makes me laugh and roll my eyes.

Image


Image

_________________
Darkside wrote:
Our hotel smelled like dead hooker vagina (before you ask I had gotten a detailed description from beardown)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81627
denisdman wrote:
Literally nothing random about that series. It is a 100% a$$ whooping. That was a case of the much better team won. It happened as it should.

True and still, the Cubs lead in 4 of 5 games. With a good/great bullpen this series might have gone 7.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20573
pizza_Place: Giordano's
denisdman wrote:
Literally nothing random about that series. It is a 100% a$$ whooping. That was a case of the much better team won. It happened as it should.


People tend to use "randomness"—or, in Bernstein's case, a bastardized usage of "variance" because he thinks it makes him sound smarter—as filler for all baseball failures.

Randomness in baseball is a line drive finding a glove, a warning track shot with just enough backspin to carry it over the wall, a diving liner turning over and touching down fair instead of foul. This series loss isn't about randomness, because the team was victimized by very little of that, if any at all. This is about a failure to execute, top to bottom.

Kris Bryant's 14 K's in 40 AB's in the postseason this year weren't random. The team as a whole this series striking out at a rate above 30% isn't random. Schwarber batting .167 isn't exactly unexpected given his regular season. Walking Yu Goddamned Darvish wasn't a statistical anomaly caused by small sample size. The litany of weak grounders being turned into outs isn't an unfair changing of the baseball winds.

The personalities will try to spin it like the dice just came up wrong for the Cubs this year and they crapped out, when really they crapped their pants.


Last edited by Juice's Lecture Notes on Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 31935
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
rogers park bryan wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Literally nothing random about that series. It is a 100% a$$ whooping. That was a case of the much better team won. It happened as it should.

True and still, the Cubs lead in 4 of 5 games. With a good/great bullpen this series might have gone 7.


Was there really any point in a game where you felt the Cubs were in complete control? The closest I could argue for is when they had that early 2-0 lead on Saturday.

Even when they led you felt like the Cubs were an accident waiting to happen.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81627
denisdman wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Literally nothing random about that series. It is a 100% a$$ whooping. That was a case of the much better team won. It happened as it should.

True and still, the Cubs lead in 4 of 5 games. With a good/great bullpen this series might have gone 7.


Was there really any point in a game where you felt the Cubs were in complete control? The closest I could argue for is when they had that early 2-0 lead on Saturday.

Even when they led you felt like the Cubs were an accident waiting to happen.

Absolutely not. I kinda thought they had a shot in Game 1.

But if they had a good pen, I would have. That's my point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 54157
Location: Pearl Harbor, Waukesha, and other things that make no sense
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
The personalities will try to spin it like the dice just came up wrong for the Cubs this year and they crapped out, when really they crapped their pants.

I'm Jim Rome. C-B-S SPORTS-RA-DI-O!!

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:54 pm
Posts: 13318
pizza_Place: Home Run Inn
10am hour with Sahadev Sharma was excellent Cubs talk.

_________________
Sherman remarked, "Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?" Grant looked up. "Yes," he replied, followed by a puff. "Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow, though."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:34 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 76659
Location: Chicago Heights
pizza_Place: Aurelio's
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Literally nothing random about that series. It is a 100% a$$ whooping. That was a case of the much better team won. It happened as it should.


People tend to use "randomness"—or, in Bernstein's case, a bastardized usage of "variance" because he thinks it makes him sound smarter—as filler for all baseball failures.

Randomness in baseball is a line drive finding a glove, a warning track shot with just enough backspin to carry it over the wall, a diving liner turning over and touching down fair instead of foul. This series loss isn't about randomness, because the team was victimized by very little of that, if any at all. This is about a failure to execute, top to bottom.

Kris Bryant's 14 K's in 40 AB's in the postseason this year weren't random. The team as a whole this series striking out at a rate above 30% isn't random. Schwarber batting .167 isn't exactly unexpected given his regular season. Walking Yu Goddamned Darvish wasn't a statistical anomaly caused by small sample size. The litany of weak grounders being turned into outs isn't an unfair changing of the baseball winds.

The personalities will try to spin it like the dice just came up wrong for the Cubs this year and they crapped out, when really they crapped their pants.


What you're talking about really relates to the way this team is built and the current conventional wisdom on structuring an offense. Part of that is the idiotic belief (mostly made without any real thought and usuallly just a regurgitation of something read at Fangraphs or Prospectus or Sheehan's newsletter) that "a strikeout is no different than any other out." This is often followed by the same person talking about BABIP and the randomness of balls in play. It seems lost upon these people that it then logically follows that a non-strikeout will result in an overall OBP of around 30% while a strikeout results in an OBP of slightly more than 0%.

_________________
His mind is not for rent to any God or government.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81627
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Literally nothing random about that series. It is a 100% a$$ whooping. That was a case of the much better team won. It happened as it should.


People tend to use "randomness"—or, in Bernstein's case, a bastardized usage of "variance" because he thinks it makes him sound smarter—as filler for all baseball failures.

Randomness in baseball is a line drive finding a glove, a warning track shot with just enough backspin to carry it over the wall, a diving liner turning over and touching down fair instead of foul. This series loss isn't about randomness, because the team was victimized by very little of that, if any at all. This is about a failure to execute, top to bottom.

Kris Bryant's 14 K's in 40 AB's in the postseason this year weren't random. The team as a whole this series striking out at a rate above 30% isn't random. Schwarber batting .167 isn't exactly unexpected given his regular season. Walking Yu Goddamned Darvish wasn't a statistical anomaly caused by small sample size. The litany of weak grounders being turned into outs isn't an unfair changing of the baseball winds.

The personalities will try to spin it like the dice just came up wrong for the Cubs this year and they crapped out, when really they crapped their pants.


What you're talking about really relates to the way this team is built and the current conventional wisdom on structuring an offense. Part of that is the idiotic belief (mostly made without any real thought and usuallly just a regurgitation of something read at Fangraphs or Prospectus or Sheehan's newsletter) that "a strikeout is no different than any other out." This is often followed by the same person talking about BABIP and the randomness of balls in play. It seems lost upon these people that it then logically follows that a non-strikeout will result in an overall OBP of around 30% while a strikeout results in an OBP of slightly more than 0%.

I believe strikeouts, mathematically dont affect run expectancy anymore than ground outs or fly outs.


How is a strikeout different? Just in judging the hitter? Or affecting the game?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:46 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 76659
Location: Chicago Heights
pizza_Place: Aurelio's
rogers park bryan wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Literally nothing random about that series. It is a 100% a$$ whooping. That was a case of the much better team won. It happened as it should.


People tend to use "randomness"—or, in Bernstein's case, a bastardized usage of "variance" because he thinks it makes him sound smarter—as filler for all baseball failures.

Randomness in baseball is a line drive finding a glove, a warning track shot with just enough backspin to carry it over the wall, a diving liner turning over and touching down fair instead of foul. This series loss isn't about randomness, because the team was victimized by very little of that, if any at all. This is about a failure to execute, top to bottom.

Kris Bryant's 14 K's in 40 AB's in the postseason this year weren't random. The team as a whole this series striking out at a rate above 30% isn't random. Schwarber batting .167 isn't exactly unexpected given his regular season. Walking Yu Goddamned Darvish wasn't a statistical anomaly caused by small sample size. The litany of weak grounders being turned into outs isn't an unfair changing of the baseball winds.

The personalities will try to spin it like the dice just came up wrong for the Cubs this year and they crapped out, when really they crapped their pants.


What you're talking about really relates to the way this team is built and the current conventional wisdom on structuring an offense. Part of that is the idiotic belief (mostly made without any real thought and usuallly just a regurgitation of something read at Fangraphs or Prospectus or Sheehan's newsletter) that "a strikeout is no different than any other out." This is often followed by the same person talking about BABIP and the randomness of balls in play. It seems lost upon these people that it then logically follows that a non-strikeout will result in an overall OBP of around 30% while a strikeout results in an OBP of slightly more than 0%.

I believe strikeouts, mathematically dont affect run expectancy anymore than ground outs or fly outs.


How is a strikeout different? Just in judging the hitter? Or affecting the game?


I think the disconnect is that after the out is recorded there is little difference between a K and any other out.

But to say that you have one batter who is likely to strike out in 30% of his plate appearances and another that is likely to have the same BABIP but will only strike out 10% of the time and they are equivalent (assuming everything else is equal), well you can see how silly that is.

_________________
His mind is not for rent to any God or government.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:33 pm
Posts: 12078
pizza_Place: Vito and Nick's
randomness in basuboru? leash will visit this thread soon and wreak vengeance


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:33 pm
Posts: 12078
pizza_Place: Vito and Nick's
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Literally nothing random about that series. It is a 100% a$$ whooping. That was a case of the much better team won. It happened as it should.


People tend to use "randomness"—or, in Bernstein's case, a bastardized usage of "variance" because he thinks it makes him sound smarter—as filler for all baseball failures.

Randomness in baseball is a line drive finding a glove, a warning track shot with just enough backspin to carry it over the wall, a diving liner turning over and touching down fair instead of foul. This series loss isn't about randomness, because the team was victimized by very little of that, if any at all. This is about a failure to execute, top to bottom.

Kris Bryant's 14 K's in 40 AB's in the postseason this year weren't random. The team as a whole this series striking out at a rate above 30% isn't random. Schwarber batting .167 isn't exactly unexpected given his regular season. Walking Yu Goddamned Darvish wasn't a statistical anomaly caused by small sample size. The litany of weak grounders being turned into outs isn't an unfair changing of the baseball winds.

The personalities will try to spin it like the dice just came up wrong for the Cubs this year and they crapped out, when really they crapped their pants.


What you're talking about really relates to the way this team is built and the current conventional wisdom on structuring an offense. Part of that is the idiotic belief (mostly made without any real thought and usuallly just a regurgitation of something read at Fangraphs or Prospectus or Sheehan's newsletter) that "a strikeout is no different than any other out." This is often followed by the same person talking about BABIP and the randomness of balls in play. It seems lost upon these people that it then logically follows that a non-strikeout will result in an overall OBP of around 30% while a strikeout results in an OBP of slightly more than 0%.

I believe strikeouts, mathematically dont affect run expectancy anymore than ground outs or fly outs.


How is a strikeout different? Just in judging the hitter? Or affecting the game?


I think the disconnect is that after the out is recorded there is little difference between a K and any other out.

But to say that you have one batter who is likely to strike out in 30% of his plate appearances and another that is likely to have the same BABIP but will only strike out 10% of the time and they are equivalent (assuming everything else is equal), well you can see how silly that is.

put the damn ball in play. besides, when you're off, you're off. you get nothing. can kill you in a short series, for a variety of reasons.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:00 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 76659
Location: Chicago Heights
pizza_Place: Aurelio's
tommy wrote:
put the damn ball in play. besides, when you're off, you're off. you get nothing. can kill you in a short series, for a variety of reasons.


Right. Let's simply it. We have a crystal ball and we know that:

1) Player A will come to bat and strike out.
2) Player B will come to bat and put the ball in play.

Regardless of the ultimate disposition of Player B's at-bat, it's more desirable simply because it will result in him reaching base approximately 30% of the time.

JLN?

_________________
His mind is not for rent to any God or government.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:04 pm
Posts: 12561
Location: Lake of the Ozarks (whenever I can)
pizza_Place: Mauries Table
rogers park bryan wrote:
denisdman wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Literally nothing random about that series. It is a 100% a$$ whooping. That was a case of the much better team won. It happened as it should.

True and still, the Cubs lead in 4 of 5 games. With a good/great bullpen this series might have gone 7.


Was there really any point in a game where you felt the Cubs were in complete control? The closest I could argue for is when they had that early 2-0 lead on Saturday.

Even when they led you felt like the Cubs were an accident waiting to happen.

Absolutely not. I kinda thought they had a shot in Game 1.

But if they had a good pen, I would have. That's my point.
They averaged 1.6 runs per game in the NLCS. A better pen wasn't going to save them.

_________________
If we nominate Trump we will get destroyed & we'll deserve it.- L Graham
I’m going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law.- DJT 2016
MAY THEY ROT IN HELL. AGAIN, MERRY CHRISTMAS!- DJT 12/25/23


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81627
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
denisdman wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Literally nothing random about that series. It is a 100% a$$ whooping. That was a case of the much better team won. It happened as it should.

True and still, the Cubs lead in 4 of 5 games. With a good/great bullpen this series might have gone 7.


Was there really any point in a game where you felt the Cubs were in complete control? The closest I could argue for is when they had that early 2-0 lead on Saturday.

Even when they led you felt like the Cubs were an accident waiting to happen.

Absolutely not. I kinda thought they had a shot in Game 1.

But if they had a good pen, I would have. That's my point.
They averaged 1.6 runs per game in the NLCS. A better pen wasn't going to save them.

They probably wouldn't have won, but they could have made it a series, got it to 6 or 7 games.

Astros are playing Game 6 today (with a decent chance to win) and have averaged 1.8

It was an ass kicking no doubt, Im really just pointing out how huge bullpens can be in post season.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 39597
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
tommy wrote:
put the damn ball in play. besides, when you're off, you're off. you get nothing. can kill you in a short series, for a variety of reasons.


Right. Let's simply it. We have a crystal ball and we know that:

1) Player A will come to bat and strike out.
2) Player B will come to bat and put the ball in play.

Regardless of the ultimate disposition of Player B's at-bat, it's more desirable simply because it will result in him reaching base approximately 30% of the time.

JLN?


With a runner on third and no outs I think the team wants player B to be up.

_________________
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

-Ronald Reagan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:06 am
Posts: 6412
He is having twins and naming them, Chardonnay and Wellington.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:17 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 76659
Location: Chicago Heights
pizza_Place: Aurelio's
pittmike wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
tommy wrote:
put the damn ball in play. besides, when you're off, you're off. you get nothing. can kill you in a short series, for a variety of reasons.


Right. Let's simply it. We have a crystal ball and we know that:

1) Player A will come to bat and strike out.
2) Player B will come to bat and put the ball in play.

Regardless of the ultimate disposition of Player B's at-bat, it's more desirable simply because it will result in him reaching base approximately 30% of the time.

JLN?


With a runner on third and no outs I think the team wants player B to be up.



The mitigating factor is that guys who strike out a lot and get to remain in the big leagues while playing regularly tend to have a lot of power. I'm sure that JLN can give us a number where the cost of the strikeouts is outweighed by the benefit of the power. The problem is that you don't know when the homers are going to come. The Cubs don't really have any table setters. Zobrist is the one guy they have who reliably puts the ball in play.

_________________
His mind is not for rent to any God or government.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 11:30 am
Posts: 1497
pizza_Place: Bianchis
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
tommy wrote:
put the damn ball in play. besides, when you're off, you're off. you get nothing. can kill you in a short series, for a variety of reasons.


Right. Let's simply it. We have a crystal ball and we know that:

1) Player A will come to bat and strike out.
2) Player B will come to bat and put the ball in play.

Regardless of the ultimate disposition of Player B's at-bat, it's more desirable simply because it will result in him reaching base approximately 30% of the time.

JLN?


What if Player B has a higher percentage of getting beamed in the head by a throw from the 3rd Basemen, or pulls a hammy running to first, or gets attacked by a drunk White Sox fan? Does that change the importance? :)

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
Ah, Lemonparty, the 8th sacrament.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:22 am
Posts: 15018
pizza_Place: Wha Happen?
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
tommy wrote:
put the damn ball in play. besides, when you're off, you're off. you get nothing. can kill you in a short series, for a variety of reasons.


Right. Let's simply it. We have a crystal ball and we know that:

1) Player A will come to bat and strike out.
2) Player B will come to bat and put the ball in play.

Regardless of the ultimate disposition of Player B's at-bat, it's more desirable simply because it will result in him reaching base approximately 30% of the time.

JLN?


With a runner on third and no outs I think the team wants player B to be up.



The mitigating factor is that guys who strike out a lot and get to remain in the big leagues while playing regularly tend to have a lot of power. I'm sure that JLN can give us a number where the cost of the strikeouts is outweighed by the benefit of the power. The problem is that you don't know when the homers are going to come. The Cubs don't really have any table setters. Zobrist is the one guy they have who reliably puts the ball in play.


this was essentially my Lofton/DeRosa argument in 04/05.

They miss Fowler, and they do need more contact hitters. But those guys are cheaper and easier to find.

_________________
Ба́бушка гада́ла, да на́двое сказа́ла—то ли до́ждик, то ли снег, то ли бу́дет, то ли нет.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 31935
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
tommy wrote:
put the damn ball in play. besides, when you're off, you're off. you get nothing. can kill you in a short series, for a variety of reasons.


Right. Let's simply it. We have a crystal ball and we know that:

1) Player A will come to bat and strike out.
2) Player B will come to bat and put the ball in play.

Regardless of the ultimate disposition of Player B's at-bat, it's more desirable simply because it will result in him reaching base approximately 30% of the time.

JLN?


JORR, the stats guys frame the argument differently, which is the flaw in their logic. They say something like this:

"An out made via strikeout is the same as a batted out." Meaning, they are talking about a known batted out. Where they fail is exactly what you described. A batted ball is an opportunity to get on base either by hit or fielder error. Whereas a strikeout is almost always an out but for the few times where there is a successful dropped third strike.


It is sickening to watch the poor quality of at bats, while guys hit right into the shift time after time and swing as hard as they can when the situation calls for a ball in play. I know the games evolves, but I am having a hard time seeing how the high level of strikeouts is good for offenses and the fans.

I couldn't be more disappointed in the Cubs' approach at the plate during the Dodgers series. They should be ashamed- swinging at pitches above their heads and in the dirt and into the shift.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TriColoredPastas and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group