It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 6:49 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 145 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81627
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Sounds good. Happy Friday.
Same to you!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:40 pm
Posts: 15943
pizza_Place: Boni Vino
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
If you take it further though it could have been on that same catch that the batter closed his eyes and swung randomly and got incredibly lucky on a great pitch. That's why it is better to judge the result.

We should take it a step further and not even look at the result of a pitch. Just look at position and velocity and determine what is good and bad. Then do the same for batters in how good they swung. Ignore strikes and balls and hits and home runs as neither can control 100% of the pitching matchup. Or we could just watch darts.


I was thinking about this concept the other day after watching several hitters swing at balls in the dirt on a 3-2 count. The pitcher gets credit for a strikeout based on the result of the batter's action, not the actual location of the pitch itself. The strikeout exists only because the batter was fooled into swinging at ball 4. So did the pitcher throw a good pitch or a bad pitch? I'm not talking about something a few inches off the plate where the batter has to protect...but rather way out of the zone where I'm assuming the pitcher was not trying to throw (considering there was a 3-ball count). Should that pitch be judged differently (by advanced metrics) than one that is actually in the zone that the batter swings and misses? There is probably already some kind of metric for that type of thing.

_________________
To IkeSouth, bigfan wrote:
Are you stoned or pissed off, or both, when you create these postings?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 12:40 pm 
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 76659
Location: Chicago Heights
pizza_Place: Aurelio's
Jaw Breaker wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
If you take it further though it could have been on that same catch that the batter closed his eyes and swung randomly and got incredibly lucky on a great pitch. That's why it is better to judge the result.

We should take it a step further and not even look at the result of a pitch. Just look at position and velocity and determine what is good and bad. Then do the same for batters in how good they swung. Ignore strikes and balls and hits and home runs as neither can control 100% of the pitching matchup. Or we could just watch darts.


I was thinking about this concept the other day after watching several hitters swing at balls in the dirt on a 3-2 count. The pitcher gets credit for a strikeout based on the result of the batter's action, not the actual location of the pitch itself. The strikeout exists only because the batter was fooled into swinging at ball 4. So did the pitcher throw a good pitch or a bad pitch? I'm not talking about something a few inches off the plate where the batter has to protect...but rather way out of the zone where I'm assuming the pitcher was not trying to throw (considering there was a 3-ball count). Should that pitch be judged differently (by advanced metrics) than one that is actually in the zone that the batter swings and misses? There is probably already some kind of metric for that type of thing.


If he strikes out it was, by definition, a good pitch.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 12:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88693
Location: To the left of my post
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Jaw Breaker wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
If you take it further though it could have been on that same catch that the batter closed his eyes and swung randomly and got incredibly lucky on a great pitch. That's why it is better to judge the result.

We should take it a step further and not even look at the result of a pitch. Just look at position and velocity and determine what is good and bad. Then do the same for batters in how good they swung. Ignore strikes and balls and hits and home runs as neither can control 100% of the pitching matchup. Or we could just watch darts.


I was thinking about this concept the other day after watching several hitters swing at balls in the dirt on a 3-2 count. The pitcher gets credit for a strikeout based on the result of the batter's action, not the actual location of the pitch itself. The strikeout exists only because the batter was fooled into swinging at ball 4. So did the pitcher throw a good pitch or a bad pitch? I'm not talking about something a few inches off the plate where the batter has to protect...but rather way out of the zone where I'm assuming the pitcher was not trying to throw (considering there was a 3-ball count). Should that pitch be judged differently (by advanced metrics) than one that is actually in the zone that the batter swings and misses? There is probably already some kind of metric for that type of thing.


If he strikes out it was, by definition, a good pitch.

That's old school thinking.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 12:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32235
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Jaw Breaker wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
If you take it further though it could have been on that same catch that the batter closed his eyes and swung randomly and got incredibly lucky on a great pitch. That's why it is better to judge the result.

We should take it a step further and not even look at the result of a pitch. Just look at position and velocity and determine what is good and bad. Then do the same for batters in how good they swung. Ignore strikes and balls and hits and home runs as neither can control 100% of the pitching matchup. Or we could just watch darts.


I was thinking about this concept the other day after watching several hitters swing at balls in the dirt on a 3-2 count. The pitcher gets credit for a strikeout based on the result of the batter's action, not the actual location of the pitch itself. The strikeout exists only because the batter was fooled into swinging at ball 4. So did the pitcher throw a good pitch or a bad pitch? I'm not talking about something a few inches off the plate where the batter has to protect...but rather way out of the zone where I'm assuming the pitcher was not trying to throw (considering there was a 3-ball count). Should that pitch be judged differently (by advanced metrics) than one that is actually in the zone that the batter swings and misses? There is probably already some kind of metric for that type of thing.


You are assuming that with two strikes, they're trying to throw it in the zone. If I was pitching to Javy Baez with two strikes, you couldn't pay me to throw a pitch in the zone. Even if it was a full count, I would still throw a breaking ball in the dirt.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 12:43 pm 
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 76659
Location: Chicago Heights
pizza_Place: Aurelio's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Jaw Breaker wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
If you take it further though it could have been on that same catch that the batter closed his eyes and swung randomly and got incredibly lucky on a great pitch. That's why it is better to judge the result.

We should take it a step further and not even look at the result of a pitch. Just look at position and velocity and determine what is good and bad. Then do the same for batters in how good they swung. Ignore strikes and balls and hits and home runs as neither can control 100% of the pitching matchup. Or we could just watch darts.


I was thinking about this concept the other day after watching several hitters swing at balls in the dirt on a 3-2 count. The pitcher gets credit for a strikeout based on the result of the batter's action, not the actual location of the pitch itself. The strikeout exists only because the batter was fooled into swinging at ball 4. So did the pitcher throw a good pitch or a bad pitch? I'm not talking about something a few inches off the plate where the batter has to protect...but rather way out of the zone where I'm assuming the pitcher was not trying to throw (considering there was a 3-ball count). Should that pitch be judged differently (by advanced metrics) than one that is actually in the zone that the batter swings and misses? There is probably already some kind of metric for that type of thing.


If he strikes out it was, by definition, a good pitch.

That's old school thinking.


I don't know about that. I just know the guy is walking back to the bench. For whatever reason he could not hit the pitch. That makes it a good pitch.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 12:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88693
Location: To the left of my post
leashyourkids wrote:
Jaw Breaker wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
If you take it further though it could have been on that same catch that the batter closed his eyes and swung randomly and got incredibly lucky on a great pitch. That's why it is better to judge the result.

We should take it a step further and not even look at the result of a pitch. Just look at position and velocity and determine what is good and bad. Then do the same for batters in how good they swung. Ignore strikes and balls and hits and home runs as neither can control 100% of the pitching matchup. Or we could just watch darts.


I was thinking about this concept the other day after watching several hitters swing at balls in the dirt on a 3-2 count. The pitcher gets credit for a strikeout based on the result of the batter's action, not the actual location of the pitch itself. The strikeout exists only because the batter was fooled into swinging at ball 4. So did the pitcher throw a good pitch or a bad pitch? I'm not talking about something a few inches off the plate where the batter has to protect...but rather way out of the zone where I'm assuming the pitcher was not trying to throw (considering there was a 3-ball count). Should that pitch be judged differently (by advanced metrics) than one that is actually in the zone that the batter swings and misses? There is probably already some kind of metric for that type of thing.


You are assuming that with two strikes, they're trying to throw it in the zone. If I was pitching to Javy Baez with two strikes, you couldn't pay me to throw a pitch in the zone. Even if it was a full count, I would still throw a breaking ball in the dirt.

You can't control if the batter swings.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 12:44 pm 
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 76659
Location: Chicago Heights
pizza_Place: Aurelio's
leashyourkids wrote:
Jaw Breaker wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
If you take it further though it could have been on that same catch that the batter closed his eyes and swung randomly and got incredibly lucky on a great pitch. That's why it is better to judge the result.

We should take it a step further and not even look at the result of a pitch. Just look at position and velocity and determine what is good and bad. Then do the same for batters in how good they swung. Ignore strikes and balls and hits and home runs as neither can control 100% of the pitching matchup. Or we could just watch darts.


I was thinking about this concept the other day after watching several hitters swing at balls in the dirt on a 3-2 count. The pitcher gets credit for a strikeout based on the result of the batter's action, not the actual location of the pitch itself. The strikeout exists only because the batter was fooled into swinging at ball 4. So did the pitcher throw a good pitch or a bad pitch? I'm not talking about something a few inches off the plate where the batter has to protect...but rather way out of the zone where I'm assuming the pitcher was not trying to throw (considering there was a 3-ball count). Should that pitch be judged differently (by advanced metrics) than one that is actually in the zone that the batter swings and misses? There is probably already some kind of metric for that type of thing.


You are assuming that with two strikes, they're trying to throw it in the zone. If I was pitching to Javy Baez with two strikes, you couldn't pay me to throw a pitch in the zone. Even if it was a full count, I would still throw a breaking ball in the dirt.


Correct. If you know you can get the guy to swing at a pitch in the dirt, why throw it where he can hit it?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 12:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32235
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Jaw Breaker wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
If you take it further though it could have been on that same catch that the batter closed his eyes and swung randomly and got incredibly lucky on a great pitch. That's why it is better to judge the result.

We should take it a step further and not even look at the result of a pitch. Just look at position and velocity and determine what is good and bad. Then do the same for batters in how good they swung. Ignore strikes and balls and hits and home runs as neither can control 100% of the pitching matchup. Or we could just watch darts.


I was thinking about this concept the other day after watching several hitters swing at balls in the dirt on a 3-2 count. The pitcher gets credit for a strikeout based on the result of the batter's action, not the actual location of the pitch itself. The strikeout exists only because the batter was fooled into swinging at ball 4. So did the pitcher throw a good pitch or a bad pitch? I'm not talking about something a few inches off the plate where the batter has to protect...but rather way out of the zone where I'm assuming the pitcher was not trying to throw (considering there was a 3-ball count). Should that pitch be judged differently (by advanced metrics) than one that is actually in the zone that the batter swings and misses? There is probably already some kind of metric for that type of thing.


You are assuming that with two strikes, they're trying to throw it in the zone. If I was pitching to Javy Baez with two strikes, you couldn't pay me to throw a pitch in the zone. Even if it was a full count, I would still throw a breaking ball in the dirt.

You can't control if the batter swings.


Yes, I can. My breaking ball is devastating.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 12:45 pm 
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 76659
Location: Chicago Heights
pizza_Place: Aurelio's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Jaw Breaker wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
If you take it further though it could have been on that same catch that the batter closed his eyes and swung randomly and got incredibly lucky on a great pitch. That's why it is better to judge the result.

We should take it a step further and not even look at the result of a pitch. Just look at position and velocity and determine what is good and bad. Then do the same for batters in how good they swung. Ignore strikes and balls and hits and home runs as neither can control 100% of the pitching matchup. Or we could just watch darts.


I was thinking about this concept the other day after watching several hitters swing at balls in the dirt on a 3-2 count. The pitcher gets credit for a strikeout based on the result of the batter's action, not the actual location of the pitch itself. The strikeout exists only because the batter was fooled into swinging at ball 4. So did the pitcher throw a good pitch or a bad pitch? I'm not talking about something a few inches off the plate where the batter has to protect...but rather way out of the zone where I'm assuming the pitcher was not trying to throw (considering there was a 3-ball count). Should that pitch be judged differently (by advanced metrics) than one that is actually in the zone that the batter swings and misses? There is probably already some kind of metric for that type of thing.


You are assuming that with two strikes, they're trying to throw it in the zone. If I was pitching to Javy Baez with two strikes, you couldn't pay me to throw a pitch in the zone. Even if it was a full count, I would still throw a breaking ball in the dirt.

You can't control if the batter swings.


Once he swings he has swung. :lol: I know that sounds dumb, but I think you know what I mean.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 1:35 pm 
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
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Jaw Breaker wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
If you take it further though it could have been on that same catch that the batter closed his eyes and swung randomly and got incredibly lucky on a great pitch. That's why it is better to judge the result.

We should take it a step further and not even look at the result of a pitch. Just look at position and velocity and determine what is good and bad. Then do the same for batters in how good they swung. Ignore strikes and balls and hits and home runs as neither can control 100% of the pitching matchup. Or we could just watch darts.


I was thinking about this concept the other day after watching several hitters swing at balls in the dirt on a 3-2 count. The pitcher gets credit for a strikeout based on the result of the batter's action, not the actual location of the pitch itself. The strikeout exists only because the batter was fooled into swinging at ball 4. So did the pitcher throw a good pitch or a bad pitch? I'm not talking about something a few inches off the plate where the batter has to protect...but rather way out of the zone where I'm assuming the pitcher was not trying to throw (considering there was a 3-ball count). Should that pitch be judged differently (by advanced metrics) than one that is actually in the zone that the batter swings and misses? There is probably already some kind of metric for that type of thing.


If he strikes out it was, by definition, a good pitch.


Yeah, whether he swung at a breaking ball in a dirt or watched a fastball go down Main Street, he got fooled.

_________________
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 Aug 25, 2017 2:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72289
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
leashyourkids wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
:lol:

Good luck convincing Sox fans that nuance exists in baseball/life.

:lol:

You can't just say some dumb shit and then call it nuance.


FWIW, I disagree with what RPB is saying (for the most part). But I'm at least willing to listen to his argument rather than throwing my hands up and saying "nope! dumbest statistic ever made!" without really even knowing what I'm talking about.

That's good. But I do know what I'm talking about. Game Score has been an off debated topic on this board for years. I'm not new to the concept or the argument in favor of it.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 2:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32235
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
FavreFan wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
:lol:

Good luck convincing Sox fans that nuance exists in baseball/life.

:lol:

You can't just say some dumb shit and then call it nuance.


FWIW, I disagree with what RPB is saying (for the most part). But I'm at least willing to listen to his argument rather than throwing my hands up and saying "nope! dumbest statistic ever made!" without really even knowing what I'm talking about.

That's good. But I do know what I'm talking about. Game Score has been an off debated topic on this board for years. I'm not new to the concept or the argument in favor of it.


JORR says you and I use kid gloves with each other. What do you think, you dumb Caller Bob?

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 2:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72289
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
leashyourkids wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
:lol:

Good luck convincing Sox fans that nuance exists in baseball/life.

:lol:

You can't just say some dumb shit and then call it nuance.


FWIW, I disagree with what RPB is saying (for the most part). But I'm at least willing to listen to his argument rather than throwing my hands up and saying "nope! dumbest statistic ever made!" without really even knowing what I'm talking about.

That's good. But I do know what I'm talking about. Game Score has been an off debated topic on this board for years. I'm not new to the concept or the argument in favor of it.


JORR says you and I use kid gloves with each other. What do you think, you dumb Caller Bob?

:lol:

That's ridiculous. We call eachother idiots every other day.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 2:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81627
leashyourkids wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
:lol:

Good luck convincing Sox fans that nuance exists in baseball/life.

:lol:

You can't just say some dumb shit and then call it nuance.


FWIW, I disagree with what RPB is saying (for the most part). But I'm at least willing to listen to his argument rather than throwing my hands up and saying "nope! dumbest statistic ever made!" without really even knowing what I'm talking about.

What is it that you disagree with?

Basically, it boils down to whether you think a pitcher striking someone out is a better performance than getting a ground out (or flyout deep to the wall)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 2:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:05 am
Posts: 25181
Location: Cultural Mecca
pizza_Place: Pequod's / Barnaby's
A ball put in play has a 30% chance of being a hit. A strikeout has a 0% chance of being a hit, and a strikeout victim has a 0.1% chance of reaching base. Someone like JORR would be a huge fan of Game Score, as he knows strikeouts are terrible for hitters.

_________________
Rick Hahn is the best GM in baseball.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 2:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81627
IMU wrote:
A ball put in play has a 30% chance of being a hit. A strikeout has a 0% chance of being a hit, and a strikeout victim has a 0.1% chance of reaching base. Someone like JORR would be a huge fan of Game Score, as he knows strikeouts are terrible for hitters.

JORR loves the Kerry Wood game and thinks Billy Beane is the best GM in the business


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 3:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32235
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
rogers park bryan wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
:lol:

Good luck convincing Sox fans that nuance exists in baseball/life.

:lol:

You can't just say some dumb shit and then call it nuance.


FWIW, I disagree with what RPB is saying (for the most part). But I'm at least willing to listen to his argument rather than throwing my hands up and saying "nope! dumbest statistic ever made!" without really even knowing what I'm talking about.

What is it that you disagree with?

Basically, it boils down to whether you think a pitcher striking someone out is a better performance than getting a ground out (or flyout deep to the wall)


I'm all for judging the means rather than the ends if it makes sense. I'm not Rick.

However, I think it has to be balanced. I disagree that weak contact isn't something a pitcher should be lauded for. Otherwise, Maddux's entire existence is a sham, as is Kyle Hendricks' success.

There is a ton of randomness in baseball, which makes it a sport that requires huge sample size to make it something that we can draw conclusions about. But this particular subject is not one that can be parsed, IMO. If you get a guy out, you did what you're supposed to. There are so many possible outcomes, that I find it futile to try to determine which "means" is "best." Over a large enough sample size, if someone has stats that indicate he is a dominant pitcher, there really shouldn't be a debate regarding how he got those outs. He did what he was supposed to do, within his control.

I'm willing to listen, though. It's entirely possible that I don't understand Gamescore.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 3:16 pm 
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 76659
Location: Chicago Heights
pizza_Place: Aurelio's
There's no difference between a strikeout and any other after the out has been recorded.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 3:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81627
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
There's no difference between a strikeout and any other after the out has been recorded.

There's no difference between a bloop single and a rocket one bounce to RF but one is more impressive, imo


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 3:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81627
leashyourkids wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
:lol:

Good luck convincing Sox fans that nuance exists in baseball/life.

:lol:

You can't just say some dumb shit and then call it nuance.


FWIW, I disagree with what RPB is saying (for the most part). But I'm at least willing to listen to his argument rather than throwing my hands up and saying "nope! dumbest statistic ever made!" without really even knowing what I'm talking about.

What is it that you disagree with?

Basically, it boils down to whether you think a pitcher striking someone out is a better performance than getting a ground out (or flyout deep to the wall)


I'm all for judging the means rather than the ends if it makes sense. I'm not Rick.

However, I think it has to be balanced. I disagree that weak contact isn't something a pitcher should be lauded for. Otherwise, Maddux's entire existence is a sham, as is Kyle Hendricks' success.

There is a ton of randomness in baseball, which makes it a sport that requires huge sample size to make it something that we can draw conclusions about. But this particular subject is not one that can be parsed, IMO. If you get a guy out, you did what you're supposed to. There are so many possible outcomes, that I find it futile to try to determine which "means" is "best." Over a large enough sample size, if someone has stats that indicate he is a dominant pitcher, there really shouldn't be a debate regarding how he got those outs. He did what he was supposed to do, within his control.

I'm willing to listen, though. It's entirely possible that I don't understand Gamescore.

I disagree that it's futile. Stats like Line Drive % are good for that sort of thing.

The thing about the large sample size is irrelevant since we're talking about one game.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 3:26 pm 
Online
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:
There's no difference between a strikeout and any other after the out has been recorded.

There's no difference between a bloop single and a rocket one bounce to RF but one is more impressive, imo


Maybe. But Matty Alou was more effective than many guys who had more power. Consistency is important in baseball. Jamie Moyer was a better pitcher than Kerry Wood.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 3:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81627
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
There's no difference between a strikeout and any other after the out has been recorded.

There's no difference between a bloop single and a rocket one bounce to RF but one is more impressive, imo


Maybe. But Matty Alou was more effective than many guys who had more power. Consistency is important in baseball. Jamie Moyer was a better pitcher than Kerry Wood.

Right, but Kerry Wood's 20K game is a better single game performance than anything Moyer (and most pitchers) ever did.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 3:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32235
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
There is randomness in baseball. Period. So I may not have eloquently stated it by referring to sample size, but that's what I meant.

Anyone who pitches a no-hitter or a perfect game goes down in history... but it's a celebration of the event as much as it is the pitcher (though clearly, the pitcher had to pitch outstandingly well for it to happen). I just think it's more of a result-focused thing than a process-focused thing. Kerry Wood pitched one of the most jaw-dropping games in history. But so did Jake Arrieta. To argue which is better is pretty futile. I realize Frank does it, but it's Frank.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:16 pm 
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
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Jamie Moyer was a better pitcher than Kerry Wood.

He'd look pretty good on the back end of Lou Piniella's staff.

_________________
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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 145 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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