OrangeWhoopass.com Forums
General Discussion => Talk Zone => Topic started by: DVauthrin on December 05, 2007, 03:53:43 pm
-
http://houston.astros.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071204&content_id=2317431&vkey=news_hou&fext=.jsp&c_id=hou
On middle of the order plans:
Even before the Astros signed Bourn, the skipper had already decided he would rather Pence hit third rather than lead off. Cooper met with both Berkman and Lee about moving a spot or two down in the order, and both, according to Cooper, were receptive.
For Cooper, who hit third for the majority of his career, Pence is a multi-dimensional talent who can hit for average and power and can also steal bases. While Pence's speed makes him a good candidate to lead off, his bat appears to be better suited for the middle of the order.
"I'm under the belief that Hunter can do a lot on a baseball field, probably more than most," Cooper said. "He's a very gifted player, an exciting player. For us, I think the best fit is for him to be in that three-hole. We're going to visit that during Spring Training. A lot depends on what happens here in the next couple days [at the Winter Meetings] and what happens this winter.
On base stealing
"I think we were at the bottom of the league as far a stolen bases are concerned," Cooper said. "We're going to change that and the only way to do that is to add some speed. I think we've done that with the two guys we've had at the top, and then the guy possibly that's going to be the third guy [Pence] has the ability to steal 20 bases. Bourn has the ability to steal 50 bases. They will get the green light, they will run. We'll be aggressive in those situations and they'll have the freedom to do that."
-
http://houston.astros.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071204&content_id=2317431&vkey=news_hou&fext=.jsp&c_id=hou
On middle of the order plans:
Even before the Astros signed Bourn, the skipper had already decided he would rather Pence hit third rather than lead off. Cooper met with both Berkman and Lee about moving a spot or two down in the order, and both, according to Cooper, were receptive.
For Cooper, who hit third for the majority of his career, Pence is a multi-dimensional talent who can hit for average and power and can also steal bases. While Pence's speed makes him a good candidate to lead off, his bat appears to be better suited for the middle of the order.
"I'm under the belief that Hunter can do a lot on a baseball field, probably more than most," Cooper said. "He's a very gifted player, an exciting player. For us, I think the best fit is for him to be in that three-hole. We're going to visit that during Spring Training. A lot depends on what happens here in the next couple days [at the Winter Meetings] and what happens this winter.
On base stealing
"I think we were at the bottom of the league as far a stolen bases are concerned," Cooper said. "We're going to change that and the only way to do that is to add some speed. I think we've done that with the two guys we've had at the top, and then the guy possibly that's going to be the third guy [Pence] has the ability to steal 20 bases. Bourn has the ability to steal 50 bases. They will get the green light, they will run. We'll be aggressive in those situations and they'll have the freedom to do that."
I like Cooper more and more every time I see a quote. Speed Kills!
corrected as I can't spell.
-
Looking better all the time.
-
I like Cooper more and more every time I see a quote. Speed Kills!
corrected as I can't spell.
It's o k , obviously, I can't either.
-
http://houston.astros.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071204&content_id=2317431&vkey=news_hou&fext=.jsp&c_id=hou
On middle of the order plans:
Even before the Astros signed Bourn, the skipper had already decided he would rather Pence hit third rather than lead off. Cooper met with both Berkman and Lee about moving a spot or two down in the order, and both, according to Cooper, were receptive.
For Cooper, who hit third for the majority of his career, Pence is a multi-dimensional talent who can hit for average and power and can also steal bases. While Pence's speed makes him a good candidate to lead off, his bat appears to be better suited for the middle of the order.
"I'm under the belief that Hunter can do a lot on a baseball field, probably more than most," Cooper said. "He's a very gifted player, an exciting player. For us, I think the best fit is for him to be in that three-hole. We're going to visit that during Spring Training. A lot depends on what happens here in the next couple days [at the Winter Meetings] and what happens this winter.
Wade dropped that hint in the Matsui signing story on Sunday that prav linked to in his NYCU.
""Kaz is an ideal fit for our club," said Wade. "He's an outstanding defensive second baseman and is a perfect fit to hit second behind Michael Bourn. Kaz runs extremely well. He steals bases, moves runners and takes the extra base; he plays the game the right way. With he and Bourn at the top, followed by [Hunter] Pence, [Lance] Berkman and [Carlos] Lee, we should have a very potent offensive attack.""
-
I thought it was like the Fifth Commandment that every new manager had to announce that his team would be stealing more bases next year? Isn't that in Genesis or Deuteronomy?
-
if it is Pence/Berkman/Lee, Noe and i will high five.
-
That's a bit cynical. Are you saying you think they WON'T try and steal more bases next year?
Personally, I like what SmithWade have/has done so far to build the team. Ain't nothin' like watching the opposing pitcher sweat it out every time Bourn, Matsui, or Pence makes it to first.
I thought it was like the Fifth Commandment that every new manager had to announce that his team would be stealing more bases next year? Isn't that in Genesis or Deuteronomy?
-
That's a bit cynical. Are you saying you think they WON'T try and steal more bases next year?
Personally, I like what SmithWade have/has done so far to build the team. Ain't nothin' like watching the opposing pitcher sweat it out every time Bourn, Matsui, or Pence makes it to first.
Milwaukee? Philly??? Sounds like a familiar strategy.
-
I thought it was like the Fifth Commandment that every new manager had to announce that his team would be stealing more bases next year? Isn't that in Genesis or Deuteronomy?
It's in 1st Opinions 4:16
" And thou shall call the host of fans together and say 'I give all runners who run as though having their hair on fire, the light that is green so that they may expand their territory to the valley of the shadow of scoring position'."
-
I thought it was like the Fifth Commandment that every new manager had to announce that his team would be stealing more bases next year? Isn't that in Genesis or Deuteronomy?
Don't think that was Larry D. philosophy. Sparky Anderson is rolling in his grave, as I know he never said that.
-
if it is Pence/Berkman/Lee, Noe and i will high five.
I think it has to be that way otherwise you are putting pence in a position to struggle, as he would get worked around batting 5th and would have to show a great growth in plate discipline to handle it.
I'm most excited about all the things a bourn-matsui-pence top of the order can do to apply pressure to the pitcher/defense.
-
I thought it was like the Fifth Commandment that every new manager had to announce that his team would be stealing more bases next year? Isn't that in Genesis or Deuteronomy?
Lamentations.
-
if it is Pence/Berkman/Lee, Noe and i will high five.
And Froback...
-
And Froback...
me too ... high four and counting ...
-
me too ... high four and counting ...
i'll make it 5.
-
half a dirty dozen, count me in.
-
Where do yall think the offense will stack up in the NL next year?
Top 5? Top 10?
-
In the Top 8 in the NL.
-
Where do yall think the offense will stack up in the NL next year?
Top 5? Top 10?
I guarantee they will be top 16.
-
I guarantee they will be top 16.
Somewhere between first and last. Of course, if we knew for certain where it would fall, we'd be working for the Houston Astros. I wonder if anyone can know for sure?
-
Somewhere between first and last. Of course, if we knew for certain where it would fall, we'd be working for the Houston Astros. I wonder if anyone can know for sure?
Well judging on talent they should be a very formidable offensive team next year. How good depends on the bourn-matsui-pence top 3.
-
Somewhere between first and last. Of course, if we knew for certain where it would fall, we'd be working for the Houston Astros. I wonder if anyone can know for sure?
I'm waiting for the movie version to come out.
-
Somewhere between first and last. Of course, if we knew for certain where it would fall, we'd be working for the Houston Astros. I wonder if anyone can know for sure?
Actually, I do know... they're going to finish in a tie for 5th. I'm glad someone finally asked, because keeping this to myself has been absolutely killing me. Also, the pitching winds up being adequate, but not great, and a key injury in July proves costly. They finish with 89 wins and miss the wildcard by a game. Not too bad, but it's a bit of a letdown at the end. You'll see what I mean.
Who wants to talk 2009?
-
Actually, I do know... they're going to finish in a tie for 5th. I'm glad someone finally asked, because keeping this to myself has been absolutely killing me. Also, the pitching winds up being adequate, but not great, and a key injury in July proves costly. They finish with 89 wins and miss the wildcard by a game. Not too bad, but it's a bit of a letdown at the end. You'll see what I mean.
Who wants to talk 2009?
Who wins the election?
-
Where do yall think the offense will stack up in the NL next year?
Top 5? Top 10?
Bourn should be a very good leadoff man, and the meat of the order of Pence, Berkman and Lee should be among the best in the league. Wigginton is a solid six. If the others in the order can play complimentary roles with the skills they have, there is no reason the offense can't score in the top half of the league. Of course, this assumes everyone plays up to par, which hardly ever happens, and injuries don't plague the team, which isn't a very safe bet.
-
Of course, if we knew for certain where it would fall, we'd be working for the Houston Astros.
Even with their near-omniscient powers, I doubt they know for sure.
-
Actually, I do know... they're going to finish in a tie for 5th. I'm glad someone finally asked, because keeping this to myself has been absolutely killing me. Also, the pitching winds up being adequate, but not great, and a key injury in July proves costly. They finish with 89 wins and miss the wildcard by a game. Not too bad, but it's a bit of a letdown at the end. You'll see what I mean.
Who wants to talk 2009?
What I want to know is why *ANYONE* would ask me anything with you around? See that seer, that seer right there!
-
Even with their near-omniscient powers, I doubt they know for sure.
It's all smoke and mirrors, I tells ya. Smoke. And. Mirrors.
-
FIFY.
It's all smoke and mirrors, I tells ya. Smoke (OBP). And. Mirrors (Slg).
-
FIFY.
I wuz pretty sure the implied was understood. My bad.
-
Who wins the election?
Election? What election?
-
This means that smokemirrors are more useful than either smoke or mirrors.
-
This means that smokemirrors are more useful than either smoke or mirrors.
SAM = Smoke+And+Mirrors
Judging a team's SAM is basically judging a team's likelihood of success. Roll over Pythagorean!
-
Somewhere between first and last. Of course, if we knew for certain where it would fall, we'd be working for the Houston Astros. I wonder if anyone can know for sure?
Who said anything about knowing for certain?
Arky: What are you expecting Bourn's obp to be? If he's puts up less than middle three hundred, and Matsui repeats his non-Coors numbers, I don't think the offense will be top half.
-
Here we fucking go again.
-
Who said anything about knowing for certain?
Me.
Arky: What are you expecting Bourn's obp to be? If he's puts up less than middle three hundred, and Matsui repeats his non-Coors numbers, I don't think the offense will be top half.
Are you certain about that?
-
Who said anything about knowing for certain?
Arky: What are you expecting Bourn's obp to be? If he's puts up less than middle three hundred, and Matsui repeats his non-Coors numbers, I don't think the offense will be top half.
Not Arky, but Bourn's OBP will be .347. FACT!
What do I win?
Maybe this could be Race for the Lid - Burzmali edition.
-
Who said anything about knowing for certain?
Arky: What are you expecting Bourn's obp to be? If he's puts up less than middle three hundred, and Matsui repeats his non-Coors numbers, I don't think the offense will be top half.
If my aunt had gonads she would be my uncle.
-
If my aunt had gonads she would be my uncle.
Actually, both men and women have gonads. Only men, however, have nads.
-
SAM = Smoke+And+Mirrors
Judging a team's SAM is basically judging a team's likelihood of success. Roll over Pythagorean!
I think we should add this to the official glossary.
-
That's a bit cynical. Are you saying you think they WON'T try and steal more bases next year?
It wasn't an original line, sort of. There was a line in a Frank Deford novel from last year that said something to the effect that every new manager announces that next year the team will steal more bases, and they start out stealing more bases, and then by mid-season they're sinking towards the norm because stealing bases is risky relative to the reward. It was a pretty good novel, with a lot of good lines, but I think it was more observation than cynicism. It would be pretty cynical if I thought Cooper didn't mean it.
-
Me.
Are you certain about that?
Okay. It seemed like you were responding to my question, which was just asking for opinions.
Of course not.
-
SAM = Smoke+And+Mirrors
Judging a team's SAM is basically judging a team's likelihood of success. Roll over Pythagorean!
Predictions are the Jerry Springer of sports talk.
-
Not Arky, but Bourn's OBP will be .347. FACT!
What do I win?
Maybe this could be Race for the Lid - Burzmali edition.
You need to carry that out to 37 digits, like pi.
-
Arky: What are you expecting Bourn's obp to be? If he's puts up less than middle three hundred, and Matsui repeats his non-Coors numbers, I don't think the offense will be top half.
I'm not expecting anything one way or the other. Based on his minor-league record and his major-league performance to date, however, I wouldn't be surprised to see Bourn reach base in the mid-.300s. Only five National League teams broke .350 at the lead-off spot last season, so it's not as if someone like that grows on trees. The Astros were second-to-last in lead-off OBP last year at .309, so I'd expect Bourn to be a significant improvement. And even if Matsui is a disappointment as far as getting on base is concerned, I wouldn't expect him to be a drop-off from the 13th-place .320 OBP that Astros No. 2 hitters put up last year. So you've got a leadoff man likely to be an improvement in getting on base, a No. 2 hitter who shouldn't be any worse at getting on base than last season, both of whom are much faster than anybody else the Astros put at the top of the line-up in 2006. Put Pence, Berkman, Lee and Wigginton behind them and the Astros could very well be more solid at the top six spots in the order than they have been since 2004.
-
I'm not expecting anything one way or the other. Based on his minor-league record and his major-league performance to date, however, I wouldn't be surprised to see Bourn reach base in the mid-.300s. Only five National League teams broke .350 at the lead-off spot last season, so it's not as if someone like that grows on trees. The Astros were second-to-last in lead-off OBP last year at .309, so I'd expect Bourn to be a significant improvement. And even if Matsui is a disappointment as far as getting on base is concerned, I wouldn't expect him to be a drop-off from the 13th-place .320 OBP that Astros No. 2 hitters put up last year. So you've got a leadoff man likely to be an improvement in getting on base, a No. 2 hitter who shouldn't be any worse at getting on base than last season, both of whom are much faster than anybody else the Astros put at the top of the line-up in 2006. Put Pence, Berkman, Lee and Wigginton behind them and the Astros could very well be more solid at the top six spots in the order than they have been since 2004.
Good points as usual Arky. I remain skeptical, but very hopeful. If anything, the speed should be fun to watch.
-
I'm not expecting anything one way or the other.
Are you certain about that?
-
Actually, I do know... they're going to finish in a tie for 5th. I'm glad someone finally asked, because keeping this to myself has been absolutely killing me. Also, the pitching winds up being adequate, but not great, and a key injury in July proves costly. They finish with 89 wins and miss the wildcard by a game. Not too bad, but it's a bit of a letdown at the end. You'll see what I mean.
Who wants to talk 2009?
Miss the wildcard by a game AND finish in 5th? Impressive.
-
Miss the wildcard by a game AND finish in 5th? Impressive.
5th on offense.
-
If anything, the speed should be fun to watch.
You're going to watch? Wow.
-
. . . both of whom [Bourne and Matsui] are much faster than anybody else the Astros put at the top of the line-up in 2006.
I keep thinking of a Billy Beane line from MoneyBall, that speed is the most over-valued talent in the game. His notion was that when you're running 90' in a straight line, what you're talking about with most pretty fast runners is at most a few 10ths of a second difference, and that difference come into play enough to make the value of that speed very high. I wonder if what we're really talking about when we say speed is skill at base running and aggression? I doubt that Biggio at his best was anywhere near as fast as Glen Barker.
-
Actually, I do know... they're going to finish in a tie for 5th. I'm glad someone finally asked, because keeping this to myself has been absolutely killing me. Also, the pitching winds up being adequate, but not great, and a key injury in July proves costly. They finish with 89 wins and miss the wildcard by a game. Not too bad, but it's a bit of a letdown at the end. You'll see what I mean.
Who wants to talk 2009?
A "SPOILER ALERT" would have been nice.
-
I keep thinking of a Billy Beane line from MoneyBall, that speed is the most over-valued talent in the game. His notion was that when you're running 90' in a straight line, what you're talking about with most pretty fast runners is at most a few 10ths of a second difference, and that difference come into play enough to make the value of that speed very high. I wonder if what we're really talking about when we say speed is skill at base running and aggression? I doubt that Biggio at his best was anywhere near as fast as Glen Barker.
Bags was a very good example of baserunning (probably the best I have seen), without speed. I am taking about speed! The kind that makes pitchers sweet, the kind that forces a ss to rush a throw, that is what the stros were lacking the last few years. Willy T had it, he was/is not a great base stealer, but he put a hell of a lot of pressure on the other team. Speed Kills!
-
Bags was a very good example of baserunning (probably the best I have seen), without speed. I am taking about speed! The kind that makes pitchers sweet, the kind that forces a ss to rush a throw, that is what the stros were lacking the last few years. Willy T had it, he was/is not a great base stealer, but he put a hell of a lot of pressure on the other team. Speed Kills!
So are these guys as fast as Willy T?
-
So are these guys as fast as Willy T?
I hear that the new CF is. He also happens to know how to steal a base. Mat is way faster than what we had hitting second last year. Hunter is faster than Berkman, etc.
Minor League Stats.
new guy Willie T
yr SB SB
2000 36
2001 29
2002 54
2003 23 57
2004 58 55
2005 38
2006 45
Looks like I was wrong about Willy T not being a good base stealer. Just does not seem like he ran alot (Approx 30 steals yr) in the Major leagues. Maybe Garner's style of play?
Promise I am done modifying.
-
I keep thinking of a Billy Beane line from MoneyBall, that speed is the most over-valued talent in the game.
more nonsense from Mr. Beane. speed is taking at least two bases on every hit. speed is getting to balls that slow players cannot. speed is scoring big runs when slow players stop a 3rd. it is not just stealing bases or running 90' in a straight line.
-
Who wins the election?
Screw that, who wins the Superbowl, NBA, NHL Championships and the NCAA Tourney? I'm heading to Vegas...
-
I keep thinking of a Billy Beane line from MoneyBall, that speed is the most over-valued talent in the game. His notion was that when you're running 90' in a straight line, what you're talking about with most pretty fast runners is at most a few 10ths of a second difference, and that difference come into play enough to make the value of that speed very high. I wonder if what we're really talking about when we say speed is skill at base running and aggression? I doubt that Biggio at his best was anywhere near as fast as Glen Barker.
Beane needs to get to the park and watch some more baseball. It's not as well measured by some base stealing stat, as it is beads of sweat on the brow of the middle releiver in the 7th inning.
-
more nonsense from Mr. Beane. speed is taking at least two bases on every hit. speed is getting to balls that slow players cannot. speed is scoring big runs when slow players stop a 3rd. it is not just stealing bases or running 90' in a straight line.
I think we're talking about baserunning speed, not defense. Defense and offense are different parts of the game. Is the baserunning you're talking about a product of one runner being faster than another? Lots of fast twitch muscles? Speed? If you'll go back and read carefully, my question was: isn't good baserunning more often a difference in aggression and skill than the ability to run fast?
Nobody takes two bases on every hit.
-
more nonsense from Mr. Beane. speed is taking at least two bases on every hit. speed is getting to balls that slow players cannot. speed is scoring big runs when slow players stop a 3rd. it is not just stealing bases or running 90' in a straight line.
Isn't it a little hypocritical for you to say something like this about Beane, but also react so emphatically against anybody that even moderately questions the decisions/strategy of Wade or Smith?
-
So are these guys as fast as Willy T?
I've said it before, but IMO Bourn is the fastest man in MLB. Remember, he is also a left handed batter, making his route to first base even shorter than Willy T's.
Speed effects every part of the game. A speedy defense helps the pitching staff, a speedy offense will score runs without a situational hit needed.
I was watching a windy Wrigley afternoon game last year, Bourn was playing RF for Victorino who was injured. A right handed Cub hit a shallow foul pop behind 1B. Bourn came flying in from right center and stumbled over the stupid bullpen mound in foul territory, injuring his ankle, but he still dived for the ball. He missed it, but the amount of ground he covered on that one play was amazing.
He is an absolute missile.
-
Isn't it a little hypocritical for you to say something like this about Beane, but also react so emphatically against anybody that even moderately questions the decisions/strategy of Wade or Smith?
fuck off.
-
I think we're talking about baserunning speed, not defense. Defense and offense are different parts of the game. Is the baserunning you're talking about a product of one runner being faster than another? Lots of fast twitch muscles? Speed? If you'll go back and read carefully, my question was: isn't good baserunning more often a difference in aggression and skill than the ability to run fast?
Nobody takes two bases on every hit.
first to third on singles
second to home on singles
first to home on doubles
fast runners do that. slow ones advance one base and stop
-
If Beane had focused a little more on speed & defense the A's would have played in a WS or 3 recently.
-
If Beane had focused a little more on speed & defense the A's would have played in a WS or 3 recently.
The playoffs are mostly luck and pitching. I think given the severe payroll constraints and the relative strength of the AL, his track record is pretty outstanding.
-
The playoffs are mostly luck and pitching. I think given the severe payroll constraints and the relative strength of the AL, his track record is pretty outstanding.
luck? seriously, do you think that actually winning WS championships means nothing?
-
If Beane had focused a little more on speed & defense the A's would have played in a WS or 3 recently.
Ask Theo Epstein about the stolen base.
-
luck? seriously, do you think that actually winning WS championships means nothing?
Alot of it is luck. Luck may be a misleading term, I guess you could chance, variation.
-
I think given the severe payroll constraints and the relative strength of the AL, his track record is pretty outstanding.
What does his track record consist of outside of writing a book and having three very good pitchers under club control that won a ton of games for the A's? This is an honest question.
-
Alot of it is luck. Luck may be a misleading term, I guess you could chance, variation.
clue.less.
-
What does his track record consist of outside of writing a book and having three very good pitchers under club control that won a ton of games for the A's? This is an honest question.
[pet peeve]Billy Beane didn't write the fucking book. He provided access, but let's get it right, ok?[/pet peeve]
-
What does his track record consist of outside of writing a book and having three very good pitchers under club control that won a ton of games for the A's? This is an honest question.
and drafting Jeremy Brown as the poster child of his philosophy.
-
The playoffs are mostly luck and pitching. I think given the severe payroll constraints and the relative strength of the AL, his track record is pretty outstanding.
Damn, dude. You can't be for real. Ridiculous post after ridiculous post, you've got to be pulling our leg.
-
Are you certain about that?
Not necessarily. Perhaps I should consider whether I recognize the difference between hope, doubt and expectation.
-
I keep thinking of a Billy Beane line from MoneyBall, that speed is the most over-valued talent in the game. His notion was that when you're running 90' in a straight line, what you're talking about with most pretty fast runners is at most a few 10ths of a second difference, and that difference come into play enough to make the value of that speed very high. I wonder if what we're really talking about when we say speed is skill at base running and aggression? I doubt that Biggio at his best was anywhere near as fast as Glen Barker.
i would think that this small difference in speed being insignificant argument is negated by two things: 1. most pro defensive players are so good that a few 10ths of a second is quite often the difference between getting to a base safely and not getting to a base safely, and similarly, most pro offensive players are so good at hitting the ball to a certain spot on the field that a few 10ths of a second is often the difference between an out and a fair ball 2. pure raw speed is not nearly as common a skill in baseball as it is in some other sports; most promising young baseball players display a strong ability to hit, field, and throw, with speed being a bonus rather than a necessity.
think of the difference between adam everett and derek jeter-- the difference in time from when each would get to a ground ball hit to their right is probably even smaller in time than the already small difference between a fast runner and average runner getting to first base, yet everett is praised endlessly by sabr people for his defensive skills and the impact this has on the game, while jeter's defensive shortcomings are constantly brought up by the same crowd as reason for the baseball world to temper their effusive praise. and if you think about it, the amount of 'questionable chances' that an mlb shortstop gets in a given game, meaning the amount of balls hit in the shortstop's zone that aren't routine, is probably about the same or maybe even less depending on how you intereperet as the amount of situations in a given game where a fast runner makes a difference over an average runner (close outfield plays, close plays at a base, situations where stealing a base is a threat, advancing from first to third, scoring from second to home, etc.)
-
I keep thinking of a Billy Beane line from MoneyBall, that speed is the most over-valued talent in the game. His notion was that when you're running 90' in a straight line, what you're talking about with most pretty fast runners is at most a few 10ths of a second difference, and that difference come into play enough to make the value of that speed very high. I wonder if what we're really talking about when we say speed is skill at base running and aggression? I doubt that Biggio at his best was anywhere near as fast as Glen Barker.
Yeah, but what if you have smart baserunning and speed tied into one? You have the Anaheim Angels and that is not bad to have at all. In the time of Moneyball, the Angels, with their philosophy, have won a World Series. Oakland, with Beane at the helm, haven't made it out of the ALDS yet in the few times they've made the playoffs. Truth be told, Beane's playoff teams were great not because of his great philosophy on offense. The Oakland A's have been good playoff teams because of Mulder, Zito and Hudson's pitching.
Pitching and defense makes a team a contender.
-
I keep thinking of a Billy Beane line from MoneyBall, that speed is the most over-valued talent in the game. His notion was that when you're running 90' in a straight line, what you're talking about with most pretty fast runners is at most a few 10ths of a second difference, and that difference come into play enough to make the value of that speed very high. I wonder if what we're really talking about when we say speed is skill at base running and aggression? I doubt that Biggio at his best was anywhere near as fast as Glen Barker.
These guys appear to know a lot more about what they're doing on the basepaths than "Feets, Don't Fail Me Now."
-
Alot of it is luck. Luck may be a misleading term, I guess you could chance, variation.
Just change your screen name to MoneyBall. And then go back, read it again, and try to understand more of it.
-
more nonsense from Mr. Beane. speed is taking at least two bases on every hit. speed is getting to balls that slow players cannot. speed is scoring big runs when slow players stop a 3rd. it is not just stealing bases or running 90' in a straight line.
I think the conventional wisdom from Sabrematricians is that "stealing bases" is overrated. I think Neil may of misquoted Billy Beane. Speed is an awesome thing to have on a baseball team.
-
The playoffs are mostly luck and pitching. I think given the severe payroll constraints and the relative strength of the AL, his track record is pretty outstanding.
Wow. What I don't know about baseball would fill volumes but to ascribe the outcome of the 30 or so games that comprise MLB playoffs each year to mostly pitching and luck seems to disregard the reality of the role that hitting and defense play in the games.
-
Wow. What I don't know about baseball would fill volumes but to ascribe the outcome of the 30 or so games that comprise MLB playoffs each year to mostly pitching and luck seems to disregard the reality of the role that hitting and defense play in the games.
no, no. players do not actually play games. they just generate numbers. it is all about numbers.
-
Not necessarily. Perhaps I should consider whether I recognize the difference between hope, doubt and expectation.
What makes a fan special is hope. What makes a fan miserable is doubt. What makes a fan insufferable is great or lower than a snake's belly expectation.
-
[pet peeve]Billy Beane didn't write the fucking book. He provided access, but let's get it right, ok?[/pet peeve]
Yes. Thanks for putting me in my place.
-
Yes. Thanks for putting me in my place.
Sorry, but "Billy Beane wrote MoneyBall" is a hot button for me.
-
If Beane had focused a little more on speed & defense the A's would have played in a WS or 3 recently.
Or, just some players who know how to run the bases, fast or not. Beane said something like the playoffs are a crap shoot. But then, after yet another short post season, he changed his mind and said that the post season was all about money.
-
Sorry, but "Billy Beane wrote MoneyBall" is a hot button for me.
If I've read that V times, I've read it a hundred.
-
Damn, dude. You can't be for real. Ridiculous post after ridiculous post, you've got to be pulling our leg.
Chance plays a significant role in baseball. Even over 162 games, it may not even out. In five or seven games, it can be decisive. Look at the 2005 World Series, which may be one of the closest sweeps in history. That may sound ridiculous but would not seem so to anyone who watched those games. That doesn't mean building a team and that team performing has nothing to do with it, since luck is the residue of design. But sometimes the ball just doesn't bounce your way.
-
About luck: there is such a thing in baseball. It's called staying healthy. That is the pinnacle of being lucky.
However, some of what some call luck is also the bounce of the ball at times. But baseball players say all the time that luck evens out during a long season, so you don't even think about it. One day you get the bounce of the ball go your way, the next day you get it to go against you, but you move on. So no one really puts much emphasis on luck as much as they do in preparation. Branch Rickey said it this way: "Luck is the residual effect of preparation meeting opportunity".
Some say it this way "You make your own luck".
-
You're going to watch? Wow.
The writers' strike must have you recycling old material.
-
Isn't it a little hypocritical for you to say something like this about Beane, but also react so emphatically against anybody that even moderately questions the decisions/strategy of Wade or Smith?
Beane is different. He's a heretic among real baseball men.
-
Beane needs to get to the park and watch some more baseball. It's not as well measured by some base stealing stat, as it is beads of sweat on the brow of the middle releiver in the 7th inning.
The statheads-don't-watch-baseball line sure is getting serious play today. Is somebody here getting paid royalties on that?
-
Chance plays a significant role in baseball. Even over 162 games, it may not even out. In five or seven games, it can be decisive. Look at the 2005 World Series, which may be one of the closest sweeps in history. That may sound ridiculous but would not seem so to anyone who watched those games. That doesn't mean building a team and that team performing has nothing to do with it, since luck is the residue of design. But sometimes the ball just doesn't bounce your way.
Joe Crede played out of his mind over at third base. It was the difference between the Astros having the bounce of the ball go their way or as it happened... NOT. Crede made the most of his opportunity to shine. That is what Branch Rickey meant when he spoke about luck in baseball.
-
I think we're talking about baserunning speed, not defense. Defense and offense are different parts of the game. Is the baserunning you're talking about a product of one runner being faster than another? Lots of fast twitch muscles? Speed? If you'll go back and read carefully, my question was: isn't good baserunning more often a difference in aggression and skill than the ability to run fast?
Nobody takes two bases on every hit.
If your guy with top speed in Strat-o-Matic has a AAA rating, he does. So this must be another example of fantacrap.
-
If you want to see the effects of Speed!, look at Ozzie Smith's stats. (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/smithoz01.shtml)
See if you can spot the years he batted second behind Vince Coleman.
-
Sorry, but "Billy Beane wrote MoneyBall" is a hot button for me.
I welcome any assistance that may keep me from looking like a dumbass.
-
Beane is different. He's a heretic among real baseball men.
No he's not. It's the Beane followers who often times twist what he actually says into something entirely different that are somewhat insufferable. Beane has his moments, but he wouldn't be where he is if he didn't have a lot of "Baseball man" in him.
Trust me.
-
What makes a fan special is hope. What makes a fan miserable is doubt. What makes a fan insufferable is great or lower than a snake's belly expectation.
I fully expect the Astros to go to the World Series next year. Speed at the top of the lineup, boppers in the middle, adequate hitting defensive specialists at the bottom. 5 runs a game, fact. Roy leading the charge, Backe is back, Home Wandy decides to go on road trips too, Woody brings a solid 200IP, 4.5era campaign and Patton is R.O.Y. Brocail whips the young 'uns into shape and creates the next Wagner/Dotel/Lidge out of Albers/Sarfate/Sampson. Jacksonians crystal ball is broken, I see 100 wins. Time to get down on my belly and slither...
-
Just change your screen name to MoneyBall. And then go back, read it again, and try to understand more of it.
How's he going to have time to read if he's watching every game every night trying to get a clue?
-
If your guy with top speed in Strat-o-Matic has a AAA rating, he does. So this must be another example of fantacrap.
Or you can watch the Anaheim Angels play baseball too. I have to admit that Mike Scoscia is one of my favorite baseball managers.
-
Some say it this way "You make your own luck".
"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have."
Thomas Jefferson
-
How's he going to have time to read if he's watching every game every night trying to get a clue?
Time management. (Or the proverbial walk and chew gum method).
-
The statheads-don't-watch-baseball line sure is getting serious play today. Is somebody here getting paid royalties on that?
Arky ... I gotta chime in here. Your statistical analyses are always well thought through and founded on lots of real data. I 9and others) do not always agree with your conclusions, but I (at least) *always* appreciate your posts. Furthermore, you show every indication of actually enjoying the game of baseball in and of itself. I assume that you actually do watch the games, even when you do not mention it in every post.
However, when someone throws out half-baked references to various fanta-crap stats with the accompanying comments about *not* watching the game, (or even the recent 'all about the numbers') comment, then we as readers do not need any logical skills to deduce that that particular poster does not watch (much) actual baseball. I do not think that the generalization you propose above holds, and i do not think anyone here has suggested that it does although Jim R may have come close).
-
How's he going to have time to read if he's watching every game every night trying to get a clue?
You can understand MoneyBall without ever having seen a game.
The point wasn't that Beane is an OBP disciple. It was *somewhat* about statistical analysis.
But at the bottom line, it was about trying to find an advantage by selling what others valued too highly, and buying what was perceived as undervalued.
What Beane-bashers don't follow is that within two years of that book, he had moved off of OBP and onto defense, because everyone was jumping on board with OBP.
-
No he's not. It's the Beane followers who often times twist what he actually says into something entirely different that are somewhat insufferable. Beane has his moments, but he wouldn't be where he is if he didn't have a lot of "Baseball man" in him.
Trust me.
I think Beane himself would point out that the reason he adopted the approach he did was not because of a particular love of stats per se, but because he wanted to find a competitive advantage by identifying and acquiring players that other teams with more money would ignore using a more traditional approach.
-
Arky ... I gotta chime in here. Your statistical analyses are always well thought through and founded on lots of real data. I 9and others) do not always agree with your conclusions, but I (at least) *always* appreciate your posts. Furthermore, you show every indication of actually enjoying the game of baseball in and of itself. I assume that you actually do watch the games, even when you do not mention it in every post.
However, when someone throws out half-baked references to various fanta-crap stats with the accompanying comments about *not* watching the game, (or even the recent 'all about the numbers') comment, then we as readers do not need any logical skills to deduce that that particular poster does not watch (much) actual baseball. I do not think that the generalization you propose above holds, and i do not think anyone here has suggested that it does although Jim R may have come close).
Arky is trying to see how much of his crap i will take before i tell him to go fuck himself. he'll be surprised.
my "you do not watch games" posts are directed at specific people or publications. i have no fucking idea what all "statheads do. i do lknow that Burzarky is clueless about baseball. i have no idea, either, how much baseball Arky watches. i do know he sat with me for a time at the Biggio coronation.
-
I think the conventional wisdom from Sabrematricians is that "stealing bases" is overrated. I think Neil may of misquoted Billy Beane. Speed is an awesome thing to have on a baseball team.
I don't know if there's conventional wisdom about this. I think there is the notion that base-stealing is a net loss if success is not acheived at least two-thirds of the time. There is also evidence to suggest that hitting for average, drawing walks and hitting for power play a more important role in scoring runs than stolen bases do.
-
You can understand MoneyBall without ever having seen a game.
The point wasn't that Beane is an OBP disciple. It was *somewhat* about statistical analysis.
But at the bottom line, it was about trying to find an advantage by selling what others valued too highly, and buying what was perceived as undervalued.
What Beane-bashers don't follow is that within two years of that book, he had moved off of OBP and onto defense, because everyone was jumping on board with OBP.
MoneyBall is often subscribed to those who would like to learn more about business acumen. It's about leveraging what you can in a percieved disadvantage (lack of money to compete) and making it work. Hanging on to the details is not understanding the ideal behind the book.
-
I think Beane himself would point out that the reason he adopted the approach he did was not because of a particular love of stats per se, but because he wanted to find a competitive advantage by identifying and acquiring players that other teams with more money would ignore using a more traditional approach.
Yes. Yes he would.
-
The writers' strike must have you recycling old material.
Sounds good from a long-playing, yet broken record.
-
I don't know if there's conventional wisdom about this. I think there is the notion that base-stealing is a net loss if success is not acheived at least two-thirds of the time. There is also evidence to suggest that hitting for average, drawing walks and hitting for power play a more important role in scoring runs than stolen bases do.
Point well made. I just wanted to clarify that what I've learned from sabrematricians is that steals in it of itself is not something that leads directly to winning baseball. The steal will only work for a team in terms of winning when it comes at a high percentage success rate. I actually like the argument. But when talking about "speed", that is an entirely different matter than steals (which is a residual effect on the plus side of speed in baseball). I don't think Beane is against speed as much as the misuse of it to win ballgames (ie: steals).
-
I think Beane himself would point out that the reason he adopted the approach he did was not because of a particular love of stats per se, but because he wanted to find a competitive advantage by identifying and acquiring players that other teams with more money would ignore using a more traditional approach.
forgetting about moneyball specifics, beane seems to above all else be a good, often great, old-fashioned GM. the guy has displayed a solid ability to value the players on his roster, perhaps a necessity due to the A's budget constraints. think about, for instance, the performances of zito, mulder, and hudson after he gave them up (zito was a free agent) versus what he got back for them (barton, haren, meyer). and through all this, roster mainstays like chavez, kotsay, ellis, swisher, crosby. always depth in the farm system. you never hear about the a's making a desperate trade for one player, or a yard sale trade like the marlins. he has built a team that's competitive every year.
-
You can understand MoneyBall without ever having seen a game.
The point wasn't that Beane is an OBP disciple. It was *somewhat* about statistical analysis.
But at the bottom line, it was about trying to find an advantage by selling what others valued too highly, and buying what was perceived as undervalued.
What Beane-bashers don't follow is that within two years of that book, he had moved off of OBP and onto defense, because everyone was jumping on board with OBP.
I agree entirely with you that Beane's goal was to exploit what he thought was an arbitrage between the value of those players and how others actually valued them.
-
forgetting about moneyball specifics, beane seems to above all else be a good, often great, old-fashioned GM. the guy has displayed a solid ability to value the players on his roster, perhaps a necessity due to the A's budget constraints. think about, for instance, the performances of zito, mulder, and hudson after he gave them up (zito was a free agent) versus what he got back for them (barton, haren, meyer). and through all this, roster mainstays like chavez, kotsay, ellis, swisher, crosby. always depth in the farm system. you never hear about the a's making a desperate trade for one player, or a yard sale trade like the marlins. he has built a team that's competitive every year.
This goes to an important point about Beane that had nothing to do with statistics. In large part due to budget constraints, Beane made an effort to squeeze all the performance he could out of a player before the big payday for free agency, and then to trade the player away to restock his farm system.
-
This goes to an important point about Beane that had nothing to do with statistics. In large part due to budget constraints, Beane made an effort to squeeze all the performance he could out of a player before the big payday for free agency, and then to trade the player away to restock his farm system.
So consequently, he was very open-minded to any ideas that would help him in that regard. Beane's open-mindedness makes him the guardian saint if you will of those with neo-ideas on how to evaluate and rate ballplayers.
Beane took full advantage of those new ideas without compromising what he needed to do: field a competitive baseball team in a low market area.
-
Speed.
If you have ever played competitive baseball you would completely understand the effect it has in nearly all situations. It's difficult to explain on paper (and convince the doubters) unless you have felt the sweat growing on your palms and the slight panic you feel when that speedy hitter comes up to bat with the game tied in the 9th as you ponder what you are going to do if the ball is hit to you, knowing that even the slightest mistake could cost you the game.
I have felt that more times than I care to admit. I know for a fact that speed has a huge effect on the physical and mental aspects of the game.
-
Point well made. I just wanted to clarify that what I've learned from sabrematricians is that steals in it of itself is not something that leads directly to winning baseball. The steal will only work for a team in terms of winning when it comes at a high percentage success rate. I actually like the argument. But when talking about "speed", that is an entirely different matter than steals (which is a residual effect on the plus side of speed in baseball). I don't think Beane is against speed as much as the misuse of it to win ballgames (ie: steals).
One problem is that traditional statistics don't reflect speed as well as they could. It would be very interesting to see extra bases on hits and advancing on outs tracked for base runners.
Another problem is an example of taking an argument (wait for it, Noe) out of context. When books about statistical analysis were first published, one of the arguments raised was that teams were hurting themselves by favoring speed at the top of the order over all other characteristics, such as getting on base. This was not an argument that speed was meaningless or bad per se, but that speed was not very useful if the player possessing it couldn't reach base very frequently. Over time, the context of the argument was removed, and it just got shorted to speed is not very useful. The condition to the argument, if the player possessing it couldn't reach base very frequently, was omitted, and the argument ceased to have any logic to it.
-
So consequently, he was very open-minded to any ideas that would help him in that regard. Beane's open-mindedness makes him the guardian saint if you will of those with neo-ideas on how to evaluate and rate ballplayers.
Beane took full advantage of those new ideas without compromising what he needed to do: field a competitive baseball team in a low market area.
Exactly. I gather from reading Moneyball that Beane would be happy to return to five-tools traditional scouting if he thought other teams had abandoned that approach and he could thus derive a competitive benefit from using it.
-
Wow. What I don't know about baseball would fill volumes but to ascribe the outcome of the 30 or so games that comprise MLB playoffs each year to mostly pitching and luck seems to disregard the reality of the role that hitting and defense play in the games.
I don't think what we're talking about as luck is the same.
WS 2005: Clemens hammy goes out, I say that's luck. The ump says Wheeler plunked Dye, replay showed he didn't, that's luck. Podsednik hitting the walkoff homer against Lidge, that's luck imo. Oswalt having his worst performance in the playoffs (maybe the entire season at home), that's luck imo.
A lot of times great regular season teams fare poorly in the postseason, and I think you can look at that as being influenced alot by the small sample size and luck. Sometimes teams just get hot, etc.
BTW, I never said anything about "all about numbers", so I'm not sure where you are getting that from. And I watch a ton of baseball.
-
One problem is that traditional statistics don't reflect speed as well as they could. It would be very interesting to see extra bases on hits and advancing on outs tracked for base runners.
Another problem is an example of taking an argument (wait for it, Noe) out of context. When books about statistical analysis were first published, one of the arguments raised was that teams were hurting themselves by favoring speed at the top of the order over all other characteristics, such as getting on base. This was not an argument that speed was meaningless or bad per se, but that speed was not very useful if the player possessing it couldn't reach base very frequently. Over time, the context of the argument was removed, and it just got shorted to speed is not very useful. The condition to the argument, if the player possessing it couldn't reach base very frequently, was omitted, and the argument ceased to have any logic to it.
ie: You can't steal first base. All agreed upon and in the case of the Houston Astros, Michael Bourn, not Kaz Matsui is the key to making it all work.
-
MoneyBall is often subscribed to those who would like to learn more about business acumen. It's about leveraging what you can in a percieved disadvantage (lack of money to compete) and making it work. Hanging on to the details is not understanding the ideal behind the book.
As is supported by the fact that its author is more famous for business writing than sports writing.
-
One problem is that traditional statistics don't reflect speed as well as they could. It would be very interesting to see extra bases on hits and advancing on outs tracked for base runners.
Arky - You're better at crunching the numbers than me, so I think you might find a lot to chew on here:
http://danagonistes.blogspot.com/search/label/Baserunning
-
Exactly. I gather from reading Moneyball that Beane would be happy to return to five-tools traditional scouting if he thought other teams had abandoned that approach and he could thus derive a competitive benefit from using it.
Agreed.
-
Sounds good from a long-playing, yet broken record.
Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
-
ie: You can't steal first base. All agreed upon and in the case of the Houston Astros, Michael Bourn, not Kaz Matsui is the key to making it all work.
but you can steal a hit, or cause an error.
-
ie: You can't steal first base. All agreed upon and in the case of the Houston Astros, Michael Bourn, not Kaz Matsui is the key to making it all work.
Bourn is only certain to lead off one time per game.
-
Arky - You're better at crunching the numbers than me, so I think you might find a lot to chew on here:
http://danagonistes.blogspot.com/search/label/Baserunning
Thanks for the link. An excerpt (Noe, the Advil is in the third drawer on the left in the kitchen).
On the other hand former Moneyball pinup Jeremy Brown was the clear winner of the "Triple-A Plodder Award", giving up 8.8 runs, 7.6 of those while attempting, or not attempting, to advance on hits (EqHAR). His total in that category was almost 2.5 runs worse than anyone else at his level as he managed to get thrown out four of the six times he tried to advance on hits in 30 opportunities.
-
Podsednik hitting the walkoff homer against Lidge, that's luck imo. Oswalt having his worst performance in the playoffs (maybe the entire season at home), that's luck imo.
These things are not luck, they are performance. If isolated performances are luck, then the entire game is luck. In which case, go watch a coin-flipping competition.
-
I don't think what we're talking about as luck is the same.
WS 2005: Clemens hammy goes out, I say that's luck. The ump says Wheeler plunked Dye, replay showed he didn't, that's luck. Podsednik hitting the walkoff homer against Lidge, that's luck imo. Oswalt having his worst performance in the playoffs (maybe the entire season at home), that's luck imo.
A lot of times great regular season teams fare poorly in the postseason, and I think you can look at that as being influenced alot by the small sample size and luck. Sometimes teams just get hot, etc.
BTW, I never said anything about "all about numbers", so I'm not sure where you are getting that from. And I watch a ton of baseball.
wow
-
Bourn is only certain to lead off one time per game.
But his speed can affect the entire game.
-
ie: You can't steal first base. All agreed upon and in the case of the Houston Astros, Michael Bourn, not Kaz Matsui is the key to making it all work.
Amen.
-
WS 2005: Clemens hammy goes out, I say that's luck. The ump says Wheeler plunked Dye, replay showed he didn't, that's luck. Podsednik hitting the walkoff homer against Lidge, that's luck imo. Oswalt having his worst performance in the playoffs (maybe the entire season at home), that's luck imo.
Then what on earth isn't luck?
-
These things are not luck, they are performance. If isolated performances are luck, then the entire game is luck. In which case, go watch a coin-flipping competition.
Luck isn't necessarily a good way to describe it. But given that Podsednik had gone roughly 600 plate appearances that season with only one other home run (in the ALDS), the chances of him hitting one at that moment were pretty slim, weren't they?
-
Bourn is only certain to lead off one time per game.
But everytime he comes to the plate the threat is the same.
-
Then what on earth isn't luck?
Chuck Norris.
-
Luck isn't necessarily a good way to describe it. But given that Podsednik had gone roughly 600 plate appearances that season with only one other home run (in the ALDS), the chances of him hitting one at that moment were pretty slim, weren't they?
boy, i'm so glad to learn that some of my spectacular failures as a player and coach were just luck.
-
Luck isn't necessarily a good way to describe it. But given that Podsednik had gone roughly 600 plate appearances that season with only one other home run (in the ALDS), the chances of him hitting one at that moment were pretty slim, weren't they?
Luck is the ump missing Ausmus' homer, the right way.
-
I don't think what we're talking about as luck is the same.
WS 2005: Clemens hammy goes out, I say that's luck.
Agreed. Health and luck are tied together. But that is why you should be *prepared* to deal with it with *depth* in your organization. Clemen's hammy problems should've opened the door for a good young pitcher to take over and shine (opportunity meets preparation) and it didn't. BTW - if Clemens went on the mound to pitch in cold weather with a bad hammy, he's okay enough to pitch and no excuses should be offered. Tip your cap at that point.
The ump says Wheeler plunked Dye, replay showed he didn't, that's luck.
That's not luck, that is a part of the game that happens all the time. It's played by humans and the arbiters are human as well.
Podsednik hitting the walkoff homer against Lidge, that's luck imo.
That is a straight fastball down the middle of the plate and a major league hitter doing what they all do best... hit the damn thing a very long way. No luck involved in that.
Oswalt having his worst performance in the playoffs (maybe the entire season at home), that's luck imo.
Oswalt had a great game, but had his *usual* Oswalt inning against a damn good team (they wouldn't be in the WS if they weren't). If we keep going like this, then the Chicago WhiteSox will have no glory for playing outstanding baseball (especially on defense and especially pitching).
A lot of times great regular season teams fare poorly in the postseason, and I think you can look at that as being influenced alot by the small sample size and luck. Sometimes teams just get hot, etc.
You tend to preceive as luck (bad in this case) takes all the competitive nature out of the game itself. If you play the game, you know that days happen when the other team just plays *better* than you and you have to tip the cap. You don't go around saying you lost because of luck. You just don't do that in baseball.
No whining.
-
These things are not luck, they are performance. If isolated performances are luck, then the entire game is luck. In which case, go watch a coin-flipping competition.
Yeah, obviously on the individual level it is performance. I'm saying from the perspective of putting together a team, a GM can build a team that will have success over the course of the long regular season and be reasonable about predicting a certain level of production, etc. During the playoffs, the sample size is so short that alot of times luck, (chance, variation) comes into play that the GM can't control.
-
Luck isn't necessarily a good way to describe it. But given that Podsednik had gone roughly 600 plate appearances that season with only one other home run (in the ALDS), the chances of him hitting one at that moment were pretty slim, weren't they?
Slim chance = luck? A major league hitter dropping a Lidge meatball into the seats isn't exactly an unusual occurance.
-
but you can steal a hit, or cause an error.
Yup, wherein speed can help you (and all out hustle too).
-
Yeah, obviously on the individual level it is performance. I'm saying from the perspective of putting together a team, a GM can build a team that will have success over the course of the long regular season and be reasonable about predicting a certain level of production, etc. During the playoffs, the sample size is so short that alot of times luck, (chance, variation) comes into play that the GM can't control.
no, no, no, no
-
Bourn is only certain to lead off one time per game.
And...?
-
But his speed can affect the entire game.
Yes, the *actual* point of having speed that can get on base. It makes the job of those hitting behind him work.
-
Luck isn't necessarily a good way to describe it. But given that Podsednik had gone roughly 600 plate appearances that season with only one other home run (in the ALDS), the chances of him hitting one at that moment were pretty slim, weren't they?
Nope. Fastball down the middle of the plate, belt high, straight as an arrow took away any disadvantage the hitter had, no matter who he may be. You're asking them to hit it a long way by throwing that pitch.
-
These things are not luck, they are performance. If isolated performances are luck, then the entire game is luck. In which case, go watch a coin-flipping competition.
To me, "luck" is the ball that Lane (I think) hit down the 3B line 8th or 9th inning of one of the games in Chicago (in the 2005 WS). Past the bag it hooks into foul territory and heads for the tarp. It's headed right for the corner of the tarp: if it stays "outside" the corner it will go down the left field line and whoever is on 2nd will score the tying run; if it stays "inside" the corner, it will bounce back to the third baseman who is chasing it, and the runner on 2nd will have to hold at 3rd. Luck was in the WhiteSox corner on that play, the ball bounced back to the third baseman, and the Astros lost by one run.
ETA: to make it clearer (I hope) which game I was talking about.
-
Nope. Fastball down the middle of the plate, belt high, straight as an arrow took away any disadvantage the hitter had, no matter who he may be. You're asking them to hit it a long way by throwing that pitch.
So the better way to look at it was not Podsednik's likelihood of hitting a homer in general, but Lidge's likelihood of serving the fastball up on a platter -- a much higher likelihood indeed.
-
Yes, the *actual* point of having speed that can get on base. It makes the job of those hitting behind him work.
Indeed. It would also be interesting to see the performance of batters with a guy like Bourn or Matsui on base as opposed to with a guy like Berkman or Lee on base.
-
boy, i'm so glad to learn that some of my spectacular failures as a player and coach were just luck.
As a player and coach? Shoot, I'm now attributing everything that goes wrong to luck.
-
So the better way to look at it was not Podsednik's likelihood of hitting a homer in general, but Lidge's likelihood of serving the fastball up on a platter -- a much higher likelihood indeed.
Why disregard Podsednik's lack of power?
-
Indeed. It would also be interesting to see the performance of batters with a guy like Bourn or Matsui on base as opposed to with a guy like Berkman or Lee on base.
well if the speedsters are standing on second, the batters are more likely to pad their RBI totals.
-
Slim chance = luck? A major league hitter dropping a Lidge meatball into the seats isn't exactly an unusual occurance.
What do you call it when something with a slim chance of happening does happen?
-
So the better way to look at it was not Podsednik's likelihood of hitting a homer in general, but Lidge's likelihood of serving the fastball up on a platter -- a much higher likelihood indeed.
And even at a more granular level, Lidge getting himself into a hitter's count where they look for a challenge fastball and the outcome is bad had a much higher likelihood. I guess it's the cat with toast strapped behind his back: Podsednik = cat, Lidge = toast.
-
And...?
What about when Matsui leads off an inning? Or comes up to bat with one out, two out. Having an obp guy at leadoff is important, so is having one at #2.
-
What about when Matsui leads off an inning? Or comes up to bat with one out, two out. Having an obp guy at leadoff is important, so is having one at #2.
Im done.
-
Im done.
i wish it were that easy. it will go on forever.
-
As a player and coach? Shoot, I'm now attributing everything that goes wrong to luck.
fucking ridiculous
-
Why disregard Podsednik's lack of power?
Do you understand that a mid- to upper-90's fastball transfers enough power that even the lightest hitters can homer if they hit it squarely?
-
Indeed. It would also be interesting to see the performance of batters with a guy like Bourn or Matsui on base as opposed to with a guy like Berkman or Lee on base.
Eggszactly. If Bourn and Matsui do not do their job, and Berkman and Pence take more walks, it becomes the job of Lee, Wiggington and Towles to drive them in. All the years people were down on AE, it primarily because he wouldn't drive in the runs that Lane, Ensberg and Wilson (and then Huff) failed to plate.
Bourn is the key to make Matsui work and then both of them are the key to make Pence and Berkman really work, and then Lee cleans up everything. Wiggington's career stats (hey look at me using stats!) indicate he's going to be a solid #6 and that takes pressure off Towles and all pressure is off AE to just be a solid #8 guy that plays great defense.
That last part on AE is up for debate and I'm surprised it hasn't been discussed as much as Matsui or Bourn has the last few weeks. I'm actually worried about AE's defense at this point.
-
What about when Matsui leads off an inning? Or comes up to bat with one out, two out. Having an obp guy at leadoff is important, so is having one at #2.
Do you think the Phillies should move Ryan Howard to the #2 hole?
-
What do you call it when something with a slim chance of happening does happen?
When I do it? Skill and hard work.
-
As a player and coach? Shoot, I'm now attributing everything that goes wrong to luck.
It seems like there should be some middle ground between pretending that everything's luck and pretending that nothing's luck.
-
When I do it? Skill and hard work.
Sometimes hits fall in, sometimes they don't. Not all of that can be determined by skill and hard work, by the hitter, by the pitchers or by the fielders.
-
What about when Matsui leads off an inning? Or comes up to bat with one out, two out. Having an obp guy at leadoff is important, so is having one at #2.
REPEAT (yet again): Matsui has to do better than his career OBP this season. I look forward to seeing if he does. But overall, he fits the scheme of being a #2 hitter for *THIS* lineup.
*sheesh* (do you even read what people say to you? Seriously!)
-
Eggszactly. If Bourn and Matsui do not do their job, and Berkman and Pence take more walks, it becomes the job of Lee, Wiggington and Towles to drive them in. All the years people were down on AE, it primarily because he wouldn't drive in the runs that Lane, Ensberg and Wilson (and then Huff) failed to plate.
Bourn is the key to make Matsui work and then both of them are the key to make Pence and Berkman really work, and then Lee cleans up everything. Wiggington's career stats (hey look at me using stats!) indicate he's going to be a solid #6 and that takes pressure off Towles and all pressure is off AE to just be a solid #8 guy that plays great defense.
That last part on AE is up for debate and I'm surprised it hasn't been discussed as much as Matsui or Bourn has the last few weeks. I'm actually worried about AE's defense at this point.
Because of the injuries?
-
Do you understand that a mid- to upper-90's fastball transfers enough power that even the lightest hitters can homer if they hit it squarely?
Got it. The guy didn't hit a homer all season, and I'm almost certain that he saw at least some fastballs down the middle of the plate. I don't think it's a stretch to say that it was highly unexpected that he hit his first homer off of an elite closer in dramatic fashion to win a world series game.
-
REPEAT (yet again): Matsui has to do better than his career OBP this season. I look forward to seeing if he does.
Expectation, hope or doubt?
Or all of the above?
-
Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
Agendas are the clogged toilets of open minds.
-
Because of the injuries?
Yes. AE's value goes way down for this team if he isn't playing the defense he's played for the last five years.
-
Sometimes hits fall in, sometimes they don't. Not all of that can be determined by skill and hard work, by the hitter, by the pitchers or by the fielders.
Why not?
-
Got it. The guy didn't hit a homer all season, and I'm almost certain that he saw at least some fastballs down the middle of the plate. I don't think it's a stretch to say that it was highly unexpected that he hit his first homer off of an elite closer in dramatic fashion to win a world series game.
that does not mean it was luck! have you played baseball at any level? if you made a good play, was that luck?
this is totally ridiculous.
-
Expectation, hope or doubt?
Or all of the above?
Yes. I'm a fan.
-
Yeah, obviously on the individual level it is performance. I'm saying from the perspective of putting together a team, a GM can build a team that will have success over the course of the long regular season and be reasonable about predicting a certain level of production, etc. During the playoffs, the sample size is so short that alot of times luck, (chance, variation) comes into play that the GM can't control.
You refer to to actual players playing actual games in terms of sample size, chance and variation. You intimate that there may be times when a GM does have control over what happens on the field, just not during the playoffs. You think that when things happen that are in the statistical minority, they are luck. I honestly don't know what to tell you.
-
Got it. The guy didn't hit a homer all season, and I'm almost certain that he saw at least some fastballs down the middle of the plate. I don't think it's a stretch to say that it was highly unexpected that he hit his first homer off of an elite closer in dramatic fashion to win a world series game.
Unexpected <> lucky.
-
You refer to to actual players playing actual games in terms of sample size, chance and variation. You intimate that there may be times when a GM does have control over what happens on the field, just not during the playoffs. You think that when things happen that are in the statistical minority, they are luck. I honestly don't know what to tell you.
i do know.
-
No he's not. It's the Beane followers who often times twist what he actually says into something entirely different that are somewhat insufferable. Beane has his moments, but he wouldn't be where he is if he didn't have a lot of "Baseball man" in him.
Trust me.
It's from memory, from a long time ago, and I may have misquoted him. I'm often guilty of misquoting if the book's not in front of me. But what I recall was really divided into two parts. Part one was that speed qua speed was overvalued. Not that it wasn't valuable, just that teams tended to prize speed for speed's sake too highly. The second part was that speed qua speed among reasonably fast players didn't make a difference in a game as often as one thought. Plays where the player is thrown out at first because they're 1/10th of a second faster down the line are glorious, but not really all that common. A team may make touchdowns because of a few tenths of a second, but a team isn't going to go to the playoffs or win in the playoffs because of a few tenths of a second.
-
Do you think the Phillies should move Ryan Howard to the #2 hole?
No, Victorino had a mid .300 obp, Howard had a near .600 slg.
I think an argument could be made for Utley, but that would only work if the pitcher hit 8th to keep 2 batters in between P and best hitter.
-
I think an argument could be made for Utley, but that would only work if the pitcher hit 8th to keep 2 batters in between P and best hitter.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Tanked Commander!
-
Agendas are the clogged toilets of open minds.
So can the hobgoblin get the toilet unclogged?
-
So can the hobgoblin get the toilet unclogged?
We'll work on that.
-
Got it. The guy didn't hit a homer all season, and I'm almost certain that he saw at least some fastballs down the middle of the plate. I don't think it's a stretch to say that it was highly unexpected that he hit his first homer off of an elite closer in dramatic fashion to win a world series game.
Unexpected isn't luck. Luck is what we don't or can't understand. Podsednik did exactly what he'd trained to do. He looked for and saw a fastball in an area he could hit it. He put the very best swing on it he could. The result was an unexpected homer that was the culmination of several different events. But it wasn't luck.
-
You refer to to actual players playing actual games in terms of sample size, chance and variation. You intimate that there may be times when a GM does have control over what happens on the field, just not during the playoffs. You think that when things happen that are in the statistical minority, they are luck. I honestly don't know what to tell you.
I'm saying that during the regular season, a GM can put together a roster with some reasonable expectation of the result. Is this not true? How else would GMs put together teams if not to work towards some reasonable goal in mind of success or production. There is some level of evaluation, based on the roster, right? Well all I'm saying is that in the postseason there is an element of luck/chance whatever you want to call it, that the GM can't control through roster manipulation.
-
Why not?
If they all work equally hard, how does it happen that the pitcher or fielder sometimes succeeds in lieu of the hitter, or vice-versa?
-
To me, "luck" is the ball that Lane (I think) hit down the 3B line 8th or 9th inning of one of the games in Chicago (in the 2005 WS). Past the bag it hooks into foul territory and heads for the tarp. It's headed right for the corner of the tarp: if it stays "outside" the corner it will go down the left field line and whoever is on 2nd will score the tying run; if it stays "inside" the corner, it will bounce back to the third baseman who is chasing it, and the runner on 2nd will have to hold at 3rd. Luck was in the WhiteSox corner on that play, the ball bounced back to the third baseman, and the Astros lost by one run.
Was this luck (or chance)? Was it performance? Some of both? Or something else entirely?
-
Luck isn't necessarily a good way to describe it. But given that Podsednik had gone roughly 600 plate appearances that season with only one other home run (in the ALDS), the chances of him hitting one at that moment were pretty slim, weren't they?
Luck is a tremendously shitty way to describe it. Unexpected? I guess. But putting a good swing on a bad pitch is not luck, regardless of what happened in the previous 600 trips to the plate.
Players fail to get hits in the vast majority of their ABs. That doesn't make the hits lucky.
-
Unexpected isn't luck. Luck is what we don't or can't understand. Podsednik did exactly what he'd trained to do. He looked for and saw a fastball in an area he could hit it. He put the very best swing on it he could. The result was an unexpected homer that was the culmination of several different events. But it wasn't luck.
I guess we define luck differently.
-
Was this luck (or chance)? Was it performance? Some of both? Or something else entirely?
In my opinion, luck/chance.
-
Unexpected isn't luck. Luck is what we don't or can't understand. Podsednik did exactly what he'd trained to do. He looked for and saw a fastball in an area he could hit it. He put the very best swing on it he could. The result was an unexpected homer that was the culmination of several different events. But it wasn't luck.
If he did exactly what he was trained to do with that fastball, was he guaranteed that result? Could he have gotten under it by a quarter or half inch and popped it up instead?
-
Luck is a tremendously shitty way to describe it. Unexpected? I guess. But putting a good swing on a bad pitch is not luck, regardless of what happened in the previous 600 trips to the plate.
Players fail to get hits in the vast majority of their ABs. That doesn't make the hits lucky.
Can a player exert the same amount of skill and effort in two different at-bats, against virtually the same pitch, and have two different outcomes?
-
If they all work equally hard, how does it happen that the pitcher or fielder sometimes succeeds in lieu of the hitter, or vice-versa?
Humanity. Not luck. There are many things we do not yet fully understand. That doesn't make the results of those things luck. The statistics generated are an attempt to understand some of those things. Everything is completely predictable if you have enough information at hand.
-
We'll work on that.
Tell him to be careful not to trip over all the agendas on his way into the bathroom.
-
Got it. The guy didn't hit a homer all season, and I'm almost certain that he saw at least some fastballs down the middle of the plate. I don't think it's a stretch to say that it was highly unexpected that he hit his first homer off of an elite closer in dramatic fashion to win a world series game.
How does "highly unexpected" mean "lucky"?
-
Humanity. Not luck. There are many things we do not yet fully understand. That doesn't make the results of those things luck. The statistics generated are an attempt to understand some of those things. Everything is completely predictable if you have enough information at hand.
This is a stronger statement of the statgeek position than even most statgeeks would be prepared to make.
-
If he did exactly what he was trained to do with that fastball, was he guaranteed that result?
If you were armed with enough information you could have.
Could he have gotten under it by a quarter or half inch and popped it up instead?
Not in that instance.
-
Humanity. Not luck. There are many things we do not yet fully understand.
Didn't you just define luck as that which we don't understand?
-
This is a stronger statement of the statgeek position than even most statgeeks would be prepared to make.
Not really. Though I did spend 3 semesters of grad school studying statistics.
Get to know more professorial stat geeks.
-
Not really. Though I did spend 3 semesters of grad school studying statistics.
Get to know more professorial stat geeks.
he's a lawyer, and as you know, we know everything.
-
Didn't you just define luck as that which we don't understand?
We call luck what we don't understand. IMO, everything is understandable given enough time.
-
he's a lawyer, and as you know, we know everything.
I have an aunt and an uncle who are lawyers. Now, all is clear.
-
Can a player exert the same amount of skill and effort in two different at-bats, against virtually the same pitch, and have two different outcomes?
If applying skill to similar situations and getting different outcomes is luck, then the entire game is luck. Period.
There's a batter. 7 times, he's out. 3 times, he gets a hit. Now he's a .300 hitter. Were all the hits luck, because he's demonstrated that he gets out most of the time? Is every AB luck, because you can't know what's going to happen when the player makes his best swing?
In short, if the outcome of an at-bat is luck, then I guess the reason I'm not a professional ballplayer is because I'm extremely fucking unlucky.
I'm baffled by your recent trend of picking up the logical non-sequitors of others, and defending them to the end.
-
If he did exactly what he was trained to do with that fastball, was he guaranteed that result? Could he have gotten under it by a quarter or half inch and popped it up instead?
Yes. But he didn't. That's not good or bad luck, that's performance.
-
Yes. But he didn't. That's not good or bad luck, that's performance.
Which is what got him to that spot, at that time, in the first place.
-
I'm saying that during the regular season, a GM can put together a roster with some reasonable expectation of the result. Is this not true? How else would GMs put together teams if not to work towards some reasonable goal in mind of success or production. There is some level of evaluation, based on the roster, right? Well all I'm saying is that in the postseason there is an element of luck/chance whatever you want to call it, that the GM can't control through roster manipulation.
The GM puts a team together that he believes can compete. He has no control over what happens on the field at any time. Not the regular season, not the playoffs. Ask the GMs of the 22 teams that don't make the playoffs if the regular season went the way they planned.
-
The GM puts a team together that he believes can compete. He has no control over what happens on the field at any time. Not the regular season, not the playoffs. Ask the GMs of the 22 teams that don't make the playoffs if the regular season went the way they planned.
But GMs have expectations based on evaluation. I don't think KC expected to make the playoffs, or evaluated themselves as a playoff level roster.
-
Which is what got him to that spot, at that time, in the first place.
Yes, a major leaguer is someone who has consistently performed at the highest of all levels of baseball. Only a handful get to this level. It always strikes me as funny when I hear beer drinking slobs say about a major league player "He sucks!". They have that right if they pay their ticket, but the reality is that these guys hardly suck at playing baseball.
-
Yes, a major leaguer is someone who has consistently performed at the highest of all levels of baseball. Only a handful get to this level. It always strikes me as funny when I hear beer drinking slobs say about a major league player "He sucks!". They have that right if they pay their ticket, but the reality is that these guys hardly suck at playing baseball.
Here's a tangent. I'm sitting next to that buffoon, I paid for my ticket too. Why should I have to listen to that?
-
Randy Johnson releases a fastball and a bird comes between him and home plate.
I think I could see that falling in the definition of good/bad luck, but maybe not.
-
Randy Johnson releases a fastball and a bird comes between him and home plate.
I think I could see that falling in the definition of good/bad luck, but maybe not.
Marksmanship.
-
Yes, a major leaguer is someone who has consistently performed at the highest of all levels of baseball. Only a handful get to this level. It always strikes me as funny when I hear beer drinking slobs say about a major league player "He sucks!". They have that right if they pay their ticket, but the reality is that these guys hardly suck at playing baseball.
One of the things striking about this discussion, and about the quality of ballplayers, is how specialized the demanded skills are, and that when we say "speed" we're not being very precise. AE is a good example. Speed isn't what AE does, mostly, it's quickness and eye-hand coordination, almost fine motor skills. He's not about gross motor muscles down the line, he's about lateral movement quickness and coordination and having his hands where they need to be. Outfielders may use speed more, but a speedy outfielder with bad jumps is still a slow outfielder.
It worries me that the leg injury may affect AE. Hope not.
-
But GMs have expectations based on evaluation. I don't think KC expected to make the playoffs, or evaluated themselves as a playoff level roster.
You're all over the fucking place. You've argued that the GM can't control the playoffs, and that he has some control over the regular season. I'm saying that he has control over assembling the roster and how the roster is utilized, but not what happens on the field. This is not arguable, unless you're contending that GMs have superpowers that we're not yet aware of.
Again, do really you think that GMs have some sort of control during the regular season that they lose when the playoffs roll around? If so, why the hell did Ned Colletti allow the Dodgers to finish 4th in the NL West? I'm pretty sure his expectations were a touch higher. Or did "luck" just get the best of them in the long, otherwsie controllable season?
-
Outfielders may use speed more, but a speedy outfielder with bad jumps is still a slow outfielder.
He's Roger Cedeno.
-
Humanity. Not luck. There are many things we do not yet fully understand. That doesn't make the results of those things luck. The statistics generated are an attempt to understand some of those things. Everything is completely predictable if you have enough information at hand.
You sound like Sherlock Holmes.
-
boy, i'm so glad to learn that some of my spectacular failures as a player and coach were just luck.
A lot of people think that way these days:
Good Outcomes are due to hard work and skill
Bad Outcomes are due to luck and/or a conspiracy
-
A lot of people think that way these days:
Good Outcomes are due to hard work and skill
Bad Outcomes are due to luck and/or a conspiracy
In baseball, you have a tremendous amount of respect for the guys on the other dugout. They're playing to win too and sometimes they're just performing better than you on that day or that series. I know many people believe that when a manager or baseball player on the winning side takes time to praise their opponents that it's all fake. Tipping the cap is something fans don't understand entirely I guess, but it's something a player lives by when playing the game.
It's not faint praise after a well played game or series. Even after a one-sided affair, you'll hear a winning team say "Hey, that's a good club over there and we caught at the right time... they're struggling right now, so we caught a break (not luck) that they're grinding right now".
You have a profound respect for opponents because you know that they prepared to win just like you did. It's the team that executes the best that wins... not the luckiest one.
-
One problem is that traditional statistics don't reflect speed as well as they could. It would be very interesting to see extra bases on hits and advancing on outs tracked for base runners.
Didn't they used to track this ... counting a trip from 1st to 3rd on a single as a "stolen base"?? It seems to me that I read that somewhere. (And I am talking about 18xx, not 195x here).
-
In baseball, you have a tremendous amount of respect for the guys on the other dugout. They're playing to win too and sometimes they're just performing better than you on that day or that series. I know many people believe that when a manager or baseball player on the winning side takes time to praise their opponents that it's all fake. Tipping the cap is something fans don't understand entirely I guess, but it's something a player lives by when playing the game.
It's not faint praise after a well played game or series. Even after a one-sided affair, you'll hear a winning team say "Hey, that's a good club over there and we caught at the right time... they're struggling right now, so we caught a break (not luck) that they're grinding right now".
You have a profound respect for opponents because you know that they prepared to win just like you did. It's the team that executes the best that wins... not the luckiest one.
I agree with you totally; I was just pointing out many people prefer to blame a lack of success on something external, rather than the other side was better, or (worst of all) they failed to prepare.
-
I agree with you totally; I was just pointing out many people prefer to blame a lack of success on something external, rather than the other side was better, or (worst of all) they failed to prepare.
I know, I just used your post as a platform to talk about tipping the cap. It is something that is my personal pet peeve about most fans. They have no idea what player do to prepare for a game and how much respect they have for opponents. It's just not easy to hit a round ball with a round stick, so when it's done right, you tip your cap.
-
As it supported by the fact that its author is more famous for business writing than sports writing.
people are quick to point out that michael lewis wrote that book and not beane, but i think that those same people are perhaps not as quick to properly credit much of the book's philosophies to lewis and not beane. lewis is an excellent writer, and he has a track record of interesting stories about under-the-radar sports figures with enterprising and/or eclectic minds. his style is to analogize the sports figure's philosophy to a down to earth, folksy philosophy about solving the problems of life. so i think it's a bit unfair to view beane as some sort of guru, when much of that guru status is implied by the author. i hear beane interviewed on the radio every once in a while and he comes off as a laid-back, typicial northern california kind-of guy (not unlike bill walsh's personality, in my opinion), hardly the type who would posess the hubris to label himself as anything close to what other people label him as.
-
Didn't they used to track this ... counting a trip from 1st to 3rd on a single as a "stolen base"?? It seems to me that I read that somewhere. (And I am talking about 18xx, not 195x here).
Yep, in 1898 the rule changed.
A stolen base is credited to the base runner when he reaches a base he attempts to steal without the aid of batting or fielding errors or a hit by the batter. [10.08]
-
Yeah, obviously on the individual level it is performance. I'm saying from the perspective of putting together a team, a GM can build a team that will have success over the course of the long regular season and be reasonable about predicting a certain level of production, etc. During the playoffs, the sample size is so short that alot of times luck, (chance, variation) comes into play that the GM can't control.
Luck is what happens when your strat-o-matic version of Podsednik hits a walk-off homerun in the replay. Or maybe you should call *that* "chance variation" (i.e. luck of the dice). What actually happens in the real game is the momentary display (or lack thereof) of a particular set of player skills on each side of the outcome. A batting average of .300 does not indicate that a player has a 30% chance of getting a hit based on "luck" ... rather, it reflects the *fact* that over the past xxx number of chances, he was skillful enough to have gotten a hit 30% of the time. That is an entirely different thing.
Does it say *anything* about the future? Of course it does. Given an reasonable sample size and a reasonable set of contexts, it becomes reasonable to project a certain level of future performance. Even this, though, is based on a reasonable conclusion about skill that can be derived from past performance. Note that "reasonable" is different than "actual", "true", "accurate", etc. It is *reasonable* and hterefore worth taking into account. But when the next AB comes up, the actual result will have everything to do with the skill of the pitcher, batter and fielders involved as they each try to execute a particular plan based on the context of the event. It will *not* be determined by luck or chance variation.
-
Luck is what happens when your strat-o-matic version of Podsednik hits a walk-off homerun in the replay. Or maybe you should call *that* "chance variation" (i.e. luck of the dice). What actually happens in the real game is the momentary display (or lack thereof) of a particular set of player skills on each side of the outcome. A batting average of .300 does not indicate that a player has a 30% chance of getting a hit based on "luck" ... rather, it reflects the *fact* that over the past xxx number of chances, he was skillful enough to have gotten a hit 30% of the time. That is an entirely different thing.
Does it say *anything* about the future? Of course it does. Given an reasonable sample size and a reasonable set of contexts, it becomes reasonable to project a certain level of future performance. Even this, though, is based on a reasonable conclusion about skill that can be derived from past performance. Note that "reasonable" is different than "actual", "true", "accurate", etc. It is *reasonable* and hterefore worth taking into account. But when the next AB comes up, the actual result will have everything to do with the skill of the pitcher, batter and fielders involved as they each try to execute a particular plan based on the context of the event. It will *not* be determined by luck or chance variation.
Excellent.
-
If applying skill to similar situations and getting different outcomes is luck, then the entire game is luck. Period.
There's a batter. 7 times, he's out. 3 times, he gets a hit. Now he's a .300 hitter. Were all the hits luck, because he's demonstrated that he gets out most of the time? Is every AB luck, because you can't know what's going to happen when the player makes his best swing?
In short, if the outcome of an at-bat is luck, then I guess the reason I'm not a professional ballplayer is because I'm extremely fucking unlucky.
I'm baffled by your recent trend of picking up the logical non-sequitors of others, and defending them to the end.
it is called being a troll.
-
A lot of people think that way these days:
Good Outcomes are due to hard work and skill
Bad Outcomes are due to luck and/or a conspiracy
You forgot "He choked."
-
people are quick to point out that michael lewis wrote that book and not beane, but i think that those same people are perhaps not as quick to properly credit much of the book's philosophies to lewis and not beane. lewis is an excellent writer, and he has a track record of interesting stories about under-the-radar sports figures with enterprising and/or eclectic minds. his style is to analogize the sports figure's philosophy to a down to earth, folksy philosophy about solving the problems of life. so i think it's a bit unfair to view beane as some sort of guru, when much of that guru status is implied by the author. i hear beane interviewed on the radio every once in a while and he comes off as a laid-back, typicial northern california kind-of guy (not unlike bill walsh's personality, in my opinion), hardly the type who would posess the hubris to label himself as anything close to what other people label him as.
Agreed. A lot of it was Lewis' spin on what Beane was doing.
-
We call luck what we don't understand. IMO, everything is understandable given enough time.
I agree with this, which is why I don't think "luck" is the right word. But there are things beyond a player's control no matter what level of preparation and effort he exerts, including what the other players do.
This is why I can't stand it when people boo a player and accuse him of choking or not trying when he fails. Failure is a part of the game.
-
If applying skill to similar situations and getting different outcomes is luck, then the entire game is luck. Period.
There's a batter. 7 times, he's out. 3 times, he gets a hit. Now he's a .300 hitter. Were all the hits luck, because he's demonstrated that he gets out most of the time? Is every AB luck, because you can't know what's going to happen when the player makes his best swing?
In short, if the outcome of an at-bat is luck, then I guess the reason I'm not a professional ballplayer is because I'm extremely fucking unlucky.
I'm baffled by your recent trend of picking up the logical non-sequitors of others, and defending them to the end.
The best hitter in the league can be shut down by the worst pitcher in the league, just as the best pitcher in the league can be taken deep by the worst hitter in the league. A guy can make his pitch and still get beat. A guy can get good wood on the ball and still line out. Luck's not the correct word to describe that, but it's not always entirely within the conscious control of the hitter or the pitcher, either.
The best a GM can do is put together the best roster he can, the best the manager can do is field the best line-up and defensive alignment and make the best strategic decisions he can, and the best the players can do is prepare and put out the best effort they can. Sometimes that still isn't enough. Maybe that's not luck, but it's not for lack of effort, or even necessarily for lack of skill.
-
The best hitter in the league can be shut down by the worst pitcher in the league, just as the best pitcher in the league can be taken deep by the worst hitter in the league. A guy can make his pitch and still get beat. A guy can get good wood on the ball and still line out. Luck's not the correct word to describe that, but it's not always entirely within the conscious control of the hitter or the pitcher, either.
The best a GM can do is put together the best roster he can, the best the manager can do is field the best line-up and defensive alignment and make the best strategic decisions he can, and the best the players can do is prepare and put out the best effort they can. Sometimes that still isn't enough. Maybe that's not luck, but it's not for lack of effort, or even necessarily for lack of skill.
The point I made was that Podsednik's home run and Oswalt's bad start are not examples of luck. Those are player performances. I didn't say that the player can control the outcome, that it's a lack of effort or a lack of skill. I'm saying it's not luck.
-
What do you call it?
-
What do you call it?
I call it consequence.
-
So is there no luck at all in baseball? Are there any situations where anyone might consider luck coming into it in some way?
My baseball career never made it past the club level in college, but there were certainly times where I'd smack a line drive directly at the left fielder when an ounce more strength would have sent it just over his head, or a microsecond's difference in starting my swing would have pulled it closer to the line. Luck?
Interesting discussion nonetheless.
-
So is there no luck at all in baseball?
Yes, there is luck in baseball. The degree(s) mentioned is in question.
Are there any situations where anyone might consider luck coming into it in some way?
Yes, sometimes you consider yourself lucky when you don't injure yourself sliding incorrectly, get hit in the head by a line drive coming at you. That sort of thing. But making a play you're supposed to make or hitting a ball you're supposed to hit... luck? No, not really.
My baseball career never made it past the club level in college, but there were certainly times where I'd smack a line drive directly at the left fielder when an ounce more strength would have sent it just over his head, or a microsecond's difference in starting my swing would have pulled it closer to the line. Luck?
No, baseball.
-
You answered your own question, KG. You did not start your swing soon enough. Luck would be if the LF tripped just as he reached to catch your liner.
Luck was the pebble in front of Kubek, not the unlikey Maz HR
-
Just thought I would clarify:
Maybe luck is the wrong word for it.
There are clearly steps GMs can take to produce success in the postseason. I think the most important things found in the study I read were strikeout rate of the pitching staff, overall strength of the closer, and team defense. However, outside of these variables that show strong correlation with playoff success, I think there is evidence of a strong element of that happening which "should" not happen. Is that luck? Chance? Variation? Whatever you want to call it, it's something that a GM can't control to any degree or plan for. I guess it's the short nature of the playoffs. Over a best of 5 or best of 7 series, the situations won't "even out" as much as over a full regular season.
Edit: Also want to point out that I'm not an anti-pitching/defense fantasy baseball player or whatever you want to call it. You have to have pitching/defense to help your shot at winning in the playoffs, especially for resource limited teams.
-
Luck was the pebble in front of Kubek, not the unlikey Maz HR
Awesome. Seriously. This is like something a Zen master would say.
-
Awesome. Seriously. This is like something a Zen master would say.
Zen is Jim R.'s bitch.
-
No, baseball.
Here's what Brad Ausmus had to say about a game vs the Cubs where the Astros hit several frozen ropes right at ErrorMiss
When asked about the "bad luck" Ausmus replied, "I don't know, there's been a third baseman standing there for 140 years."
-
Here's what Brad Ausmus had to say about a game vs the Cubs where the Astros hit several frozen ropes right at ErrorMiss
When asked about the "bad luck" Ausmus replied, "I don't know, there's been a third baseman standing there for 140 years."
Eggszactly. You're playing against somebody so tip your cap if they make the play.
-
Ask Theo Epstein about the stolen base.
Or Jeremy Giambi about the slide.
-
You answered your own question, KG. You did not start your swing soon enough. Luck would be if the LF tripped just as he reached to catch your liner.
Luck was the pebble in front of Kubek, not the unlikey Maz HR
sincerely, thank you. compliments from you about my writing mean a lot to me.
was this Zen fellow a sociopath, too?
-
sincerely, thank you. compliments from you about my writing mean a lot to me.
was this Zen fellow a sociopath, too?
The sociopaths in their dens tremble at JimR's approach.