Roger takes another 2-1 loss

[Señor Stan]

USA eliminated by Mexico.

[Reuben]

I think they need to add a couple hitters before he'll consider pitching for that team again.

[Fredia]

1. so baseball is now as american as mexico
2. heard on the radio that clemens was starting to talk retirement again
3. the wbc should be either considered a failed experiment or a bargining tool when the million dollar (aka the usa team) whine they are not paid enough

[MRaup]

Michael Young can kiss my white ass. Thanks for screwing our chances there, Captain No Bunt.

[astro pete]

Quote:
Michael Young can kiss my white ass. Thanks for screwing our chances there, Captain No Bunt.

What happened?

[MRaup]

Quote:

Quote:
Michael Young can kiss my white ass. Thanks for screwing our chances there, Captain No Bunt.

What happened?

1st and 2nd, nobody out in the 6th or 7th with Mexico leading 2-1. Francour at 2nd and I don't even remember who at first. Young squares to bunt. Ball in the dirt. Francour has to scramble back to 2nd when the catcher throws back to the bag. Not really close play. Francour was trying to get a big lead so he wouldn't get gunned down trying to move up to 3rd, since Mexico was selling out on the bunt.
Next pitch is right down the pipe. Young semi-pokes at it and misses. Francous, thinking the same thing I'm sure anyone that has ever actually played/watched/thought about baseball was thinking, was about half way to 3rd because the pitch was the perfect pitch to bunt. He was hung out to dry, and ended up in a rundown.
So instead of 2nd and 3rd with 1 out, we had runner at 2nd with 1 out. The next batter hit a grounder that probably would've tied it up.

[HurricaneDavid]

Quote:
3. the wbc should be either considered a failed experiment or a bargining tool when the million dollar (aka the usa team) whine they are not paid enough

Hopefully you are not insinuating that the WBC is a failed experiment because USA lost... and who's whining about not being paid enough?  As far as I knew, the only ones being paid (and complaining about it) were the MLB umps.

[Fredia]

i meant when it came time to bargin .. i mean it does not look good that among the highest "best" players that usa has and they could not beat mexico
yes in a way i guess i mean that .. i mean there is outsourcing of course but basebal

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Michael Young can kiss my white ass. Thanks for screwing our chances there, Captain No Bunt.

What happened?

1st and 2nd, nobody out in the 6th or 7th with Mexico leading 2-1. Francour at 2nd and I don't even remember who at first. Young squares to bunt. Ball in the dirt. Francour has to scramble back to 2nd when the catcher throws back to the bag. Not really close play. Francour was trying to get a big lead so he wouldn't get gunned down trying to move up to 3rd, since Mexico was selling out on the bunt.
Next pitch is right down the pipe. Young semi-pokes at it and misses. Francous, thinking the same thing I'm sure anyone that has ever actually played/watched/thought about baseball was thinking, was about half way to 3rd because the pitch was the perfect pitch to bunt. He was hung out to dry, and ended up in a rundown.
So instead of 2nd and 3rd with 1 out, we had runner at 2nd with 1 out. The next batter hit a grounder that probably would've tied it up.

Worse. Bunt. Attempt. Ever!

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
i mean it does not look good that among the highest "best" players that usa has and they could not beat mexico

HEY!

Quote:
yes in a way i guess i mean that .. i mean there is outsourcing of course but basebal

You know, there is a fine line between playing baseball and of course playing baseball well.  For the former, you just need to get a bunch of guys together, plop down four bases in a diamond shape and use a ball, a bunch of gloves and a couple of bats.  Now you're ready to play baseball.

The latter though requires a whole lot more than just getting guys together and calling them a team.  In fact, the missing ingredient to this whole equation to me is the very aspect of team.  Why is Korea, Japan, the Dominican Republic and of course Cuba advancing?  Because they're a better collection of players talentwise than anybody else?  In some cases for individual players, like Pujols and Ichiro for example, yes the players are very good and perhaps better than the other players on other teams (for sure in the case of Pujols).  But what you saw in this tournament is a severe lack of team and more of an exhibition of how far will talent get us in terms of the USA team (and perhaps others).  Korea has been playing a team game during this tourney, guess what... they're undefeated.

The above statement of a missed bunt is indicative of how much a team game baseball really is.  In this way and this way alone I can fully accept and actually embrace that the four teams that are in the semi-finals are deserving of that position in this tourney.  It is not the fault of the tourney and in some ways not even the fault of the USA team (term used loosely).  If fault must be ascribed here, then blame the lack of preparation for the tourney to sell out in a team game concept, which is really hard to do for a bunch of guys who are not used to some of things that they would need to adhere to accomplish this.

Or you can just blame Canada instead (and Mexico).

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
i meant when it came time to bargin .. i mean it does not look good that among the highest "best" players that usa has and they could not beat mexico
yes in a way i guess i mean that .. i mean there is outsourcing of course but basebal

Are you aware that people have been playing baseball outside of this country for more than a century? This tournament is not the first time people in Japan and Mexico have picked up a ball and bat.

[Fredia]

yes i am aware that the usa does not have a patent on baseball but it is still to my knoledge thought of as an all amercian type game. a reverse example is with soccer .. the usa has a team and plays the game on a naional stage but at this point is has fans and all but still not considered the national pass time

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
yes i am aware that the usa does not have a patent on baseball but it is still to my knoledge thought of as an all amercian type game. a reverse example is with soccer .. the usa has a team and plays the game on a naional stage but at this point is has fans and all but still not considered the national pass time

Baseball is much bigger in Japan than soccer is in the United States or in Japan. It is bigger in Taiwan too. I'm not certran about the Dominican Republic or Puerto Rico, but I think baseball is bigger there too.

[BudGirl]

Quote:


The latter though requires a whole lot more than just getting guys together and calling them a team.  In fact, the missing ingredient to this whole equation to me is the very aspect of team.  

Chemistry.  Makes me think of the 2005 Astros.

All the best players in the world can lose a team game if they don't play as a team.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:


The latter though requires a whole lot more than just getting guys together and calling them a team.  In fact, the missing ingredient to this whole equation to me is the very aspect of team.  

Chemistry.  Makes me think of the 2005 Astros.

All the best players in the world can lose a team game if they don't play as a team.

SMALL SAMPLE SIZE.

[BudGirl]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


The latter though requires a whole lot more than just getting guys together and calling them a team.  In fact, the missing ingredient to this whole equation to me is the very aspect of team.  

Chemistry.  Makes me think of the 2005 Astros.

All the best players in the world can lose a team game if they don't play as a team.

SMALL SAMPLE SIZE.

The Astros are one example for one sport.  You can't think of any teams that excelled based on playing as a team?

[Bench]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


The latter though requires a whole lot more than just getting guys together and calling them a team.  In fact, the missing ingredient to this whole equation to me is the very aspect of team.  

Chemistry.  Makes me think of the 2005 Astros.

All the best players in the world can lose a team game if they don't play as a team.

SMALL SAMPLE SIZE.

The Astros are one example for one sport.  You can't think of any teams that excelled based on playing as a team?

The movie "Victory"?

[Zan]

Quote:
I'm not certran about the Dominican Republic or Puerto Rico, but I think baseball is bigger there too.

I get the impression that soccer isn't even that popular in PR, but Americans just assume Hispanic = soccer. Insofar as I speak with any confidence on this, it is because I have family in PR.

[Zan]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


The latter though requires a whole lot more than just getting guys together and calling them a team.  In fact, the missing ingredient to this whole equation to me is the very aspect of team.  

Chemistry.  Makes me think of the 2005 Astros.

All the best players in the world can lose a team game if they don't play as a team.

SMALL SAMPLE SIZE.

The Astros are one example for one sport.  You can't think of any teams that excelled based on playing as a team?

It's a claim that's hard to back up, I think. For instance, I could point to multiple teams that achieved success in spite of their players hating each other. I think of Kent and Bonds with SF. Yet the concept of "playing as a team" is so nebulous that it can be morphed in such a way that allows any successful team to meet its definition. I think that people rarely say that a team full of players who suck play with chemistry, and when teams do well they tend to automatically get credited with chemistry and playing well together.

I don't think the WBC is indicative of anything about chemistry. For instance, I doubt the DR lost because they lacked chemistry. I just think that the WBC shows that teams of a requisite skill level can win on any given night. And I think the WBC proves (as if we didn't already know this) that many countries have that requisite skill level.

I must admit that losing to Canada shocked me.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


The latter though requires a whole lot more than just getting guys together and calling them a team.  In fact, the missing ingredient to this whole equation to me is the very aspect of team.  

Chemistry.  Makes me think of the 2005 Astros.

All the best players in the world can lose a team game if they don't play as a team.

SMALL SAMPLE SIZE.

The Astros are one example for one sport.  You can't think of any teams that excelled based on playing as a team?

I was talking about Team USA. If "anything can happen" in a playoff series of five or seven games, then that's even more the case in the six games Team USA played in the World Baseball Classic.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
You know, there is a fine line between playing baseball and of course playing baseball well.  For the former, you just need to get a bunch of guys together, plop down four bases in a diamond shape and use a ball, a bunch of gloves and a couple of bats.  Now you're ready to play baseball.

The latter though requires a whole lot more than just getting guys together and calling them a team.  In fact, the missing ingredient to this whole equation to me is the very aspect of team.  Why is Korea, Japan, the Dominican Republic and of course Cuba advancing?  Because they're a better collection of players talentwise than anybody else?  In some cases for individual players, like Pujols and Ichiro for example, yes the players are very good and perhaps better than the other players on other teams (for sure in the case of Pujols).  But what you saw in this tournament is a severe lack of team and more of an exhibition of how far will talent get us in terms of the USA team (and perhaps others).  Korea has been playing a team game during this tourney, guess what... they're undefeated.

The above statement of a missed bunt is indicative of how much a team game baseball really is.  In this way and this way alone I can fully accept and actually embrace that the four teams that are in the semi-finals are deserving of that position in this tourney.  It is not the fault of the tourney and in some ways not even the fault of the USA team (term used loosely).  If fault must be ascribed here, then blame the lack of preparation for the tourney to sell out in a team game concept, which is really hard to do for a bunch of guys who are not used to some of things that they would need to adhere to accomplish this.

Or you can just blame Canada instead (and Mexico).

How does an individual's failure at the individual act of laying down a bunt constitute failure to play as a team?

Isn't the Japanese team a collection of their big-leaguers just like Team USA?

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
You know, there is a fine line between playing baseball and of course playing baseball well.  For the former, you just need to get a bunch of guys together, plop down four bases in a diamond shape and use a ball, a bunch of gloves and a couple of bats.  Now you're ready to play baseball.

The latter though requires a whole lot more than just getting guys together and calling them a team.  In fact, the missing ingredient to this whole equation to me is the very aspect of team.  Why is Korea, Japan, the Dominican Republic and of course Cuba advancing?  Because they're a better collection of players talentwise than anybody else?  In some cases for individual players, like Pujols and Ichiro for example, yes the players are very good and perhaps better than the other players on other teams (for sure in the case of Pujols).  But what you saw in this tournament is a severe lack of team and more of an exhibition of how far will talent get us in terms of the USA team (and perhaps others).  Korea has been playing a team game during this tourney, guess what... they're undefeated.

The above statement of a missed bunt is indicative of how much a team game baseball really is.  In this way and this way alone I can fully accept and actually embrace that the four teams that are in the semi-finals are deserving of that position in this tourney.  It is not the fault of the tourney and in some ways not even the fault of the USA team (term used loosely).  If fault must be ascribed here, then blame the lack of preparation for the tourney to sell out in a team game concept, which is really hard to do for a bunch of guys who are not used to some of things that they would need to adhere to accomplish this.

Or you can just blame Canada instead (and Mexico).

How does an individual's failure at the individual act of laying down a bunt constitute failure to play as a team?

Isn't the Japanese team a collection of their big-leaguers just like Team USA?

Oakland A's. Is it necessary to remind anyone that the skills necessary to win a short series are not the same as are necessary to get to the short series?  Beane denied it, ignoring his teams' lack of baseball skills and complaining that he needed $50 million more to win.  It is a surprise to anyone that the players on the US team didn't have those skills?  Is it a surprise to anyone that the teams that have players from leagues that value those skills are in the final?  

Is it really necessary to go through a bunch of crap dissertation of how random chance (a crap shoot?) has more validity than skill?

Does it really matter to anyone who wins the WBC?  (Except if Cuba wins, that's going to have hilarious opinion page consequences.)

As for chemistry, here's what Bill James thinks,

"...leadership, hustle, focus, intensity, courage and self-confidence; it is a very, very different thing to say that leadership, hustle, courage and self-confidence do not exist or do not play a role on real-world baseball teams. The people who think that way. . .not to be rude, but they?re children. They may be 40-year-old children, they may be 70-year-old children, ..."

I love that quote.

[Arky Vaughan]

Random chance doesn't have more validity than skill, which is one reason why South Africa was outscored 38-12 in three games. But between two teams close in skill level, where one might win 45 percent of the time, the other 55 percent of the time, in six games that could just as easily be 4-2, 3-3 or 2-4.

As for the Bill James quote, he's right that it's an oversimplification to claim that leadership, chemistry, etc. have nothing to do with performance. But it's also an oversimplification to claim that everything can be explained by those things. Sometimes one team beats another team regardless of their relative skill levels, chemistry, leadership, make-up, what have you.

None of that makes a hill of beans, because what counts is who wins. All four teams in the finals are extremely talented. It's not as they're not qualified to be there. But I don't think the reason they're there is solely explainable by the claim that they were better put together as teams, they had better chemistry, leadership, etc.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Oakland A's. Is it necessary to remind anyone that the skills necessary to win a short series are not the same as are necessary to get to the short series?  Beane denied it, ignoring his teams' lack of baseball skills and complaining that he needed $50 million more to win.

?My shit doesn?t work in the playoffs,? he acknowledges. ?My job is to get us to the playoffs. What happens after that is fucking luck.?

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Oakland A's. Is it necessary to remind anyone that the skills necessary to win a short series are not the same as are necessary to get to the short series?  Beane denied it, ignoring his teams' lack of baseball skills and complaining that he needed $50 million more to win.  It is a surprise to anyone that the players on the US team didn't have those skills?  Is it a surprise to anyone that the teams that have players from leagues that value those skills are in the final?

I'm not disputing, by the way, that if you're setting up a team to play an eight-game tournament, that you should build the team to compete in low-scoring, close games. The pitching was built that way. Not so sure about the offense. But then, what would such an offense look like, exactly?

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
How does an individual's failure at the individual act of laying down a bunt constitute failure to play as a team?

If it were the only example, then it wouldn't.  But it is *indicative* of a team built from a collection of All-Stars that are not asked to do these task on their own teams.  Most of the guys brought into the team were guys who function differently on their own team.  Asking them to become support or role players is not necessarily how you can built a *tournament* team.

Quote:
Isn't the Japanese team a collection of their big-leaguers just like Team USA?

So?  Who said anything about big leaguers?  I was talking about a lack of role players who mesh together as a team.  And btw - the chemistry quote was not mine, that was someone else.  I was speaking of functions that make a team a team.  Lack of function makes for a confused collection of ball players.  In a tournament, much like the post-season, the group that has meshed as a team or plays like a team is more apt to win than one that is not.  At least in the MLB, you get 162 games to mesh and understand your role.  To bring together 30 players who are talented and world class for a month, expect them to mesh in functions is in no way, IMHO, a way to build a team.

You want to build a team for this particular tournament, then put them together six month prior, pick more role players or players who know how to function in team aspects and go for it.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
But I don't think the reason they're there is solely explainable by the claim that they were better put together as teams, they had better chemistry, leadership, etc.

Whoa there pardner.  The four teams had a collection of players who are extremely talented.  The DR team was an all-star collection of players.  The Japanese team is one as well.  But just watching these four teams play, you could see the difference in team ball aspects that set them apart from squads such as the Team USA.  Some media and fans have noticed passion as a missing ingredient, so be it.  Some say leadership, so be it.  Some like me ascribe a lack of role players on offense and defense to supplant the wonderful collection of pitchers (sans a woeful performance by Dontrelle Willis).  You have your own opinion too.

Nothing put forth to date by anyone here was meant to be an end-all/be-all, at least not from what I read from anyone.

[Surferwang]

They're planning on having this every four years, right?  I think that's the only way they can make it seem important.

Anyways, I think they need to change the whole format up a little to make it not seem like a crapshoot.

[Fredia]

i would be happy if they just changed the tie breakers.

[homer]

 

Quote:
But then, what would such an offense look like, exactly?

It would inlude David Eckstein, without question. If I remember correctly, 99 out of 100 journalists agree that he has the biggest heart in the game.

Perhaps Scott Podsednik too. He is an ignitor... a true catalyst.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:
But then, what would such an offense look like, exactly?

It would inlude David Eckstein, without question. If I remember correctly, 99 out of 100 journalists agree that he has the biggest heart in the game.

Perhaps Scott Podsednik too. He is an ignitor... a true catalyst.

I wonder how a team would ensure that it has a bunter at the plate at the precise moment a bunter is needed. Maybe nine bunters would do the trick.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:
But I don't think the reason they're there is solely explainable by the claim that they were better put together as teams, they had better chemistry, leadership, etc.

Whoa there pardner.  The four teams had a collection of players who are extremely talented.  The DR team was an all-star collection of players.  The Japanese team is one as well.  But just watching these four teams play, you could see the difference in team ball aspects that set them apart from squads such as the Team USA.  Some media and fans have noticed passion as a missing ingredient, so be it.  Some say leadership, so be it.  Some like me ascribe a lack of role players on offense and defense to supplant the wonderful collection of pitchers (sans a woeful performance by Dontrelle Willis).  You have your own opinion too.

Nothing put forth to date by anyone here was meant to be an end-all/be-all, at least not from what I read from anyone.

But how did Korea lose to Japan in the semi-final? Korea had shown itself to be the "teamliest" team in the tournament through the first six games it played. And Korea had already beaten Japan twice.  Did Korea lose some of its "teamliness" that day?

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
But then, what would such an offense look like, exactly?

It would inlude David Eckstein, without question. If I remember correctly, 99 out of 100 journalists agree that he has the biggest heart in the game.

Perhaps Scott Podsednik too. He is an ignitor... a true catalyst.

I wonder how a team would ensure that it has a bunter at the plate at the precise moment a bunter is needed. Maybe nine bunters would do the trick.

Are you being stupid on purpose? Or does your argument require that contrary facts be couched in the most simplistic way possible?  Baseball, as opposed to other sports, is controlled by the defense.  The offense has no control over who is batting at the crucial moments.  Teams made of players who can do more that walk or hit a homerun have better chances to win a short series.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Are you being stupid on purpose? Or does your argument require that contrary facts be couched in the most simplistic way possible?  Baseball, as opposed to other sports, is controlled by the defense.  The offense has no control over who is batting at the crucial moments.  Teams made of players who can do more that walk or hit a homerun have better chances to win a short series.

Precisely my point. There's no way to guarantee that your little ball guy is going to be at bat when you need him to be, so building a team that way isn't always effectual. Having some guys in the line-up who can hit home runs and draw walks is beneficial even to a team in a short series. What happens if those are the guys up to bat when the bunt is needed?

Note that you used the term better "chances." Even better "chances" aren't guarantees.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Are you being stupid on purpose? Or does your argument require that contrary facts be couched in the most simplistic way possible?  Baseball, as opposed to other sports, is controlled by the defense.  The offense has no control over who is batting at the crucial moments.  Teams made of players who can do more that walk or hit a homerun have better chances to win a short series.

Precisely my point. There's no way to guarantee that your little ball guy is going to be at bat when you need him to be, so building a team that way isn't always effectual. Having some guys in the line-up who can hit home runs and draw walks is beneficial even to a team in a short series. What happens if those are the guys up to bat when the bunt is needed?

Note that you used the term better "chances." Even better "chances" aren't guarantees.

All major league players should know how to bunt.  It's not a play that requires any special skill, other than concentration and practice, of course.  The incident with the US team highlights the reason why the Cubans and Japanese are in the finals and the US and other teams that have heavy MLB representation aren't.  All of the players on those teams are fundamentally sound, if a bunt was needed, if a smart base runner on 2nd was needed, the player on the field could handle the situation.  No special substitution required. Not true of MLB players.  That the players are fundamentally sound is a better explanation for what happened than the knee jerk "small sample size" reaction.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
All major league players should know how to bunt.  It's not a play that requires any special skill, other than concentration and practice, of course.  The incident with the US team highlights the reason why the Cubans and Japanese are in the finals and the US and other teams that have heavy MLB representation aren't.  All of the players on those teams are fundamentally sound, if a bunt was needed, if a smart base runner on 2nd was needed, the player on the field could handle the situation.  No special substitution required. Not true of MLB players.  That the players are fundamentally sound is a better explanation for what happened than the knee jerk "small sample size" reaction.

What's more knee-jerk? Conceding that even if you increase your "chances" of winning, they're still just that -- "chances" -- and they may not come through for you?  Or trying to ascribe post-hoc, anecdotal explanations for why some teams advanced and other teams did not?

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
All major league players should know how to bunt.  It's not a play that requires any special skill, other than concentration and practice, of course.  The incident with the US team highlights the reason why the Cubans and Japanese are in the finals and the US and other teams that have heavy MLB representation aren't.  All of the players on those teams are fundamentally sound, if a bunt was needed, if a smart base runner on 2nd was needed, the player on the field could handle the situation.  No special substitution required. Not true of MLB players.  That the players are fundamentally sound is a better explanation for what happened than the knee jerk "small sample size" reaction.

What's more knee-jerk? Conceding that even if you increase your "chances" of winning, they're still just that -- "chances" -- and they may not come through for you?  Or trying to ascribe post-hoc, anecdotal explanations for why some teams advanced and other teams did not?

Post hoc?  Not at all.  I don't think anyone who has been paying attention to playoff baseball is surprised by this one. I especially thought the DR was overhyped, considering their pitching. Your allegiance to your thesis is obscuring the plain facts of the matter.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
But then, what would such an offense look like, exactly?

It would inlude David Eckstein, without question. If I remember correctly, 99 out of 100 journalists agree that he has the biggest heart in the game.

Perhaps Scott Podsednik too. He is an ignitor... a true catalyst.

I wonder how a team would ensure that it has a bunter at the plate at the precise moment a bunter is needed. Maybe nine bunters would do the trick.

And so the sarcasm meter goes into the red zone! *beep*!

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Post hoc?  Not at all.  I don't think anyone who has been paying attention to playoff baseball is surprised by this one. I especially thought the DR was overhyped, considering their pitching. Your allegiance to your thesis is obscuring the plain facts of the matter.

Speaking of facts, it's a factual matter of probabilities that no matter how well you build a team, there are no guarantees as to how it will perform. It's a factual matter that the fewer games you play, the greater the likelihood that the outcomes will not conform to the probabilities.

It's ironic that for someone who denigrates the ability of a statistical model to predict outcomes in baseball because, among other things, there are too many unmeasurable variables, that you believe you can wade through all those variables and pinpoint so well the specific characteristcs and events that determine how two out of 16 teams have wound up where they are after 38 games.

If it was so obvious that Team USA was ill-constituted to win, why weren't the professional baseball men who put together the team able to see it? Maybe you should apply to organize the 2009 squad.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
But then, what would such an offense look like, exactly?

It would inlude David Eckstein, without question. If I remember correctly, 99 out of 100 journalists agree that he has the biggest heart in the game.

Perhaps Scott Podsednik too. He is an ignitor... a true catalyst.

I wonder how a team would ensure that it has a bunter at the plate at the precise moment a bunter is needed. Maybe nine bunters would do the trick.

And so the sarcasm meter goes into the red zone! *beep*!

I was trading a spike on the meter for a spike on the meter.

Seriously, though, I am curious as to your thoughts, Noe, on who you'd put on the team.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
But how did Korea lose to Japan in the semi-final?

Japan scored more runs?

Quote:
Korea had shown itself to be the "teamliest" team in the tournament through the first six games it played.

*ALL* four teams in the semi-finals had shown themselves to be playing team baseball.  Not just Korea.  Did you not understand that?  Only two can come out of the semi-final and here is a news flash for you, only one can come out of the final too.

Quote:
And Korea had already beaten Japan twice.

So?

Quote:
Did Korea lose some of its "teamliness" that day?

No, Japan just scored more runs than them.  You don't *really* understand baseball unless it has a measurement attached to it, do you? And I mean that in the kindess way possible.  When Hudson Hawk says things like "I can take a bunch of castoffs from a select team and gimme some time with them teaching the fundamentals, and I'll beat those select teams."  It's all about a team game being played in that way.  It's not just a collection of talent that will win games in baseball, most especially in a tournament.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
I was trading a spike on the meter for a spike on the meter.

'Tis why it was a very acceptable answer, my maign!

Quote:
Seriously, though, I am curious as to your thoughts, Noe, on who you'd put on the team.

Seriously, no you don't.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Post hoc?  Not at all.  I don't think anyone who has been paying attention to playoff baseball is surprised by this one. I especially thought the DR was overhyped, considering their pitching. Your allegiance to your thesis is obscuring the plain facts of the matter.

Speaking of facts, it's a factual matter of probabilities that no matter how well you build a team, there are no guarantees as to how it will perform. It's a factual matter that the fewer games you play, the greater the likelihood that the outcomes will not conform to the probabilities.

It's ironic that for someone who denigrates the ability of a statistical model to predict outcomes in baseball because, among other things, there are too many unmeasurable variables, that you believe you can wade through all those variables and pinpoint so well the specific characteristcs and events that determine how two out of 16 teams have wound up where they are after 38 games.

If it was so obvious that Team USA was ill-constituted to win, why weren't the professional baseball men who put together the team able to see it? Maybe you should apply to organize the 2009 squad.

No, I'm not the one who pretends he can pinpoint specific characteristics.  I'm just pointing out, look for yourself, this kind of thing happens alot.  A's saw it after their problems in post season.  Not that they especially did anything about it. Now I'm seeing the Red Sox looking to the Angels for better strategies.  

As for applying to organize, that psuedo-expert schtick is your deal.  In any case, the players that were on the teams were, for the most part, the ones that agreed to play, not necessarily the ones that the organizers wanted to play.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
If it was so obvious that Team USA was ill-constituted to win,

No, no, no... ill constructed and lack of practice time to mesh into a team.  Win?

Quote:
why weren't the professional baseball men who put together the team able to see it?

My personal opinion?  Arrogance.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
*ALL* four teams in the semi-finals had shown themselves to be playing team baseball.  Not just Korea.  Did you not understand that?  Only two can come out of the semi-final and here is a news flash for you, only one can come out of the final too.

No, Japan just scored more runs than them.  You don't *really* understand baseball unless it has a measurement attached to it, do you? And I mean that in the kindess way possible.  When Hudson Hawk says things like "I can take a bunch of castoffs from a select team and gimme some time with them teaching the fundamentals, and I'll beat those select teams."  It's all about a team game being played in that way.  It's not just a collection of talent that will win games in baseball, most especially in a tournament.

But "scored more runs" is a measurement.

And prior to the semifinal, the results of Japan's play had been more similar to that of the United States than to that of Korea.

Prior to Japan's convincing 6-0 victory over Korea, Korea was 6-0, Japan was 3-3 and the United States was 3-3.  Korea advanced because it had the best record in Round 2.

Japan advanced because it won the tiebreaker against the United States.  Here's how that tiebreaker was determined:

1. The winner of head-to-head games between the tied teams.

Japan, Mexico and the United States all had head-to-head records of 1-1.

2. The team allowing the fewest runs per nine innings (RA/9) in head-to-head games between the tied teams.

Japan allowed 5, Mexico allowed 7 and the United States allowed 5 runs in head-to-head games.

3. The team allowing the fewest earned runs per nine innings (ERA) in head-to-head games between the tied teams.

Japan allowed 4 and the United States allowed 5 earned runs in head-to-head games. Japan advances.

And what play was it that led to that unearned run that made the difference between Japan and the United States advancing to the semifinals?

"Randy Winn hits a sacrifice bunt. Missed catch error by second baseman Tsuyoshi Nishioka, assist to third baseman Akinori Iwamura. Vernon Wells to 2nd. Randy Winn to 1st."

So Japan advanced over the United States because the winning run Japan allowed in its head-to-head game against the United States was the result of Japan's error on a bunt attempt by the United States.

Ironic that this is the discernable event that constitutes Japan's advantage of playing better as a team.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
As for applying to organize, that psuedo-expert schtick is your deal.

Not really.  I just talk about meta-baseball.  I wouldn't pretend to be able to put together a real baseball team.  Now, an expert such as yourself, who knows when the real baseball men are worthy of veneration, and when they are begging for second-guessing, that's a job description specifically written for you.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:
If it was so obvious that Team USA was ill-constituted to win,

No, no, no... ill constructed and lack of practice time to mesh into a team.  Win?

But I'm actually persuaded by the notion that if you're building a team for an eight-game tournament, it'll have different characteristics than a team built for a 162-game regular season.  Contrary to Pravata's provocations, I do see that there are some steps that can be taken to improve a team's chances of winning in a tournament or short series.  Which is why teams constitute they pitching staffs differently, for example, in October than from April to September.

I think the "playing as a team" problem is always going to exist in a thrown-together tournament unless it's the World Series champion that plays on behalf of the United States, but then it'd be without its foreign players.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
As for applying to organize, that psuedo-expert schtick is your deal.

Not really.  I just talk about meta-baseball.  I wouldn't pretend to be able to put together a real baseball team.  Now, an expert such as yourself, who knows when the real baseball men are worthy of veneration, and when they are begging for second-guessing, that's a job description specifically written for you.

You're being very whiny here.  And all because I don't accept your expertise?  And, yes, you do only talk about talking about baseball.  It's what you should stick to. You really haven't a clue.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
You're being very whiny here.  And all because I don't accept your expertise?  And, yes, you do only talk about talking about baseball.  It's what you should stick to. You really haven't a clue.

How could I be whining when I haven't a clue and I'm honoring your expertise?  Sometimes the baseball men are beyond question -- when Pravata agrees with them -- and sometimes they're obviously screwed up -- when Pravata doesn't agree with them.  It's a neat paradigm.  You stick to that, and I'll stick to talking about talking about baseball, or whatever it is I do.

One difference between us is that I never feel the need to tell you that you don't have a clue or that you're being very whiny or to ask whether you're being stupid on purpose.  I wonder why that is?

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
You're being very whiny here.  And all because I don't accept your expertise?  And, yes, you do only talk about talking about baseball.  It's what you should stick to. You really haven't a clue.

How could I be whining when I haven't a clue and I'm honoring your expertise?  Sometimes the baseball men are beyond question -- when Pravata agrees with them -- and sometimes they're obviously screwed up -- when Pravata doesn't agree with them.  It's a neat paradigm.  You stick to that, and I'll stick to talking about talking about baseball, or whatever it is I do.

One difference between us is that I never feel the need to tell you that you don't have a clue or that you're being very whiny or to ask whether you're being stupid on purpose.  I wonder why that is?

That's because I don't pretend to be an expert and I try very hard not to be whiny.  So that could be one reason you don't have to say those things. You do however feel the need to denigrate any observation that doesn't meet your personal criteria of proof as "anecdotal" as if that were a bad thing.  Arky says the whole thing can be explained by "SMALL SAMPLE SIZE" and everyone is supposed to tip their cap and go on?  More going on than that.  Here's an article that I think is informative, The Link

[Gizzmonic]

Hey fellas, how about some lineup cards?  Come on, entertain me!  Enough with that unseemly sniping!  

What natural born YOO KNIGHTED STATES baseballers would you choose for the team-let's assume that everyone in MLB is healthy and wants to play.

[Limey]

Quote:
Baseball is much bigger in Japan than soccer is in the United States or in Japan. It is bigger in Taiwan too. I'm not certran about the Dominican Republic or Puerto Rico, but I think baseball is bigger there too.

Ironically, Team USA is ranked 5th in the world in soccer; which is as high as its baseball equivalent can claim based on WBC results.

[Limey]

Quote:
Random chance doesn't have more validity than skill, which is one reason why South Africa was outscored 38-12 in three games. But between two teams close in skill level, where one might win 45 percent of the time, the other 55 percent of the time, in six games that could just as easily be 4-2, 3-3 or 2-4.

See Series, 2005 World.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
But "scored more runs" is a measurement.

Yes, but you asked me how Korea lost to Japan.  Well, they scored less runs at the end of nine innings.

Quote:
And prior to the semifinal, the results of Japan's play had been more similar to that of the United States than to that of Korea.

*HOW* Japan has played in *this* tournament in no way *reflects* a similarity to Team USA's play.  Results are meaningless when it comes to style.

Quote:
Prior to Japan's convincing 6-0 victory over Korea, Korea was 6-0, Japan was 3-3 and the United States was 3-3.  Korea advanced because it had the best record in Round 2.

Japan advanced because it won the tiebreaker against the United States.  Here's how that tiebreaker was determined:

1. The winner of head-to-head games between the tied teams.

Japan, Mexico and the United States all had head-to-head records of 1-1.

2. The team allowing the fewest runs per nine innings (RA/9) in head-to-head games between the tied teams.

Japan allowed 5, Mexico allowed 7 and the United States allowed 5 runs in head-to-head games.

3. The team allowing the fewest earned runs per nine innings (ERA) in head-to-head games between the tied teams.

Japan allowed 4 and the United States allowed 5 earned runs in head-to-head games. Japan advances.

And what play was it that led to that unearned run that made the difference between Japan and the United States advancing to the semifinals?

"Randy Winn hits a sacrifice bunt. Missed catch error by second baseman Tsuyoshi Nishioka, assist to third baseman Akinori Iwamura. Vernon Wells to 2nd. Randy Winn to 1st."

So Japan advanced over the United States because the winning run Japan allowed in its head-to-head game against the United States was the result of Japan's error on a bunt attempt by the United States.

Ironic that this is the discernable event that constitutes Japan's advantage of playing better as a team.

Well, they did.  The team USA put together, had it played more as a team, should have *NEVER* been in a tie-breaker situation.  Get it?  Again, I said I didn't blame Team USA (per se), I blamed the lack of preparation time to get them to mesh into a team, understand functions of certain roles that make up a team play style and of course, then executing it.  Michael Young is never asked to bunt in a game situation by his manager.  To ask him to do so in this tournament was a mistake, either by the manager or by the system to put together this squad.  Or by both.

[pravata]

Quote:
Hey fellas, how about some lineup cards?  Come on, entertain me!  Enough with that unseemly sniping!  

What natural born YOO KNIGHTED STATES baseballers would you choose for the team-let's assume that everyone in MLB is healthy and wants to play.

Not my thing.  I leave this sort of stuff, trade suggestions, predictions, lineup manipulations etc to the certified geniuses.  Or those with clockwork mechanisms that can do these things by rote.  I think most people have difficulty discerning what is right in front of their face, no need to do further damage by speculating.   MLB has gotten away from the fundamentals.  It's passe, bunting, base running, fielding, all are smirked at.  For now, I think the tide is turning.  However, those are the attributes that win short series. As for "chemistry" no way they're going to be able to play together long enough to really mesh.  I anticipated an inkling of trouble, listening to the DR v. Astros st game, there was a missed popup between short and left for the DR team. This stuff isnt automatic.  It would be difficult to find 8 MLB players who played together as well as the SKoreans.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
But I'm actually persuaded by the notion that if you're building a team for an eight-game tournament, it'll have different characteristics than a team built for a 162-game regular season.

You could even have the same squad if you wanted to, but give them more time to understand how to play a role in a team environment instead of everyone being the star of the show that they're almost all used to in their respective teams.  What Chipper Jones is asked to do on the Braves is totally different than what he was asked to do on Team USA (as an example, perhaps he wasn't, but certainly he knew he wasn't the team's central guy).  So if you want a collapsed amount of time to put together this team, then use more of a role player approach to built this team *since you don't have the time to have these guys* switch to a role on a team approach.

Quote:
Contrary to Pravata's provocations, I do see that there are some steps that can be taken to improve a team's chances of winning in a tournament or short series.  Which is why teams constitute they pitching staffs differently, for example, in October than from April to September.

In a tournament, your pitching and defense count for a ton.  Moreso than in a playoff environment where you get four out of seven chances to win.  Tournaments are different and hence why *teams* with tournament experience such as Japan, Korea, Cuba and the DR have the notion how to play in these things.

Quote:
I think the "playing as a team" problem is always going to exist in a thrown-together tournament unless it's the World Series champion that plays on behalf of the United States, but then it'd be without its foreign players.

I agree with this premise wholeheartedly.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
One difference between us is that I never feel the need to tell you that you don't have a clue or that you're being very whiny or to ask whether you're being stupid on purpose.  I wonder why that is?

Actually, if I may with all kindness interject here, you do have a way of saying things that reflect telling the other person that they're very stupid.  At least half of the time you respond to me, I react with "why doesn't Arky just say he thinks I'm stupid or ignorant and be done with it?".

I really does come across that way, whether you realize it or not.  And I'm sure I'm just as guilty of this as anyone else.  But pravata is often the one accused of what many, many, many TZers practice... oft times the accusers are the very ones who have honed this skill to an art.  At least pravata is honest in his approach.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
That's because I don't pretend to be an expert and I try very hard not to be whiny.  So that could be one reason you don't have to say those things. You do however feel the need to denigrate any observation that doesn't meet your personal criteria of proof as "anecdotal" as if that were a bad thing.  Arky says the whole thing can be explained by "SMALL SAMPLE SIZE" and everyone is supposed to tip their cap and go on?  More going on than that.  Here's an article that I think is informative, The Link

It doesn't take anything approaching an expert to suggest that the outcome of a single game or handful of games is not necessarily a useful indicator of whether a team was not put together properly.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Well, they did.  The team USA put together, had it played more as a team, should have *NEVER* been in a tie-breaker situation.  Get it?  Again, I said I didn't blame Team USA (per se), I blamed the lack of preparation time to get them to mesh into a team, understand functions of certain roles that make up a team play style and of course, then executing it.  Michael Young is never asked to bunt in a game situation by his manager.  To ask him to do so in this tournament was a mistake, either by the manager or by the system to put together this squad.  Or by both.

How long had the other teams played together before the tournament?  Is the Cuban team the same national team that plays together regularly in international competitions?

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
That's because I don't pretend to be an expert and I try very hard not to be whiny.  So that could be one reason you don't have to say those things. You do however feel the need to denigrate any observation that doesn't meet your personal criteria of proof as "anecdotal" as if that were a bad thing.  Arky says the whole thing can be explained by "SMALL SAMPLE SIZE" and everyone is supposed to tip their cap and go on?  More going on than that.  Here's an article that I think is informative, The Link

It doesn't take anything approaching an expert to suggest that the outcome of a single game or handful of games is not necessarily a useful indicator of whether a team was not put together properly.

I've spent considerable time disassociating myself from any suggestion that changing the makeup of the team would have altered the outcomes.   It's these types of comments which cause me to question whether you intentionally ignore previously presented informtion, or whether it's something you cannot avoid.  It's the skill sets I'm questioning.  Bunting etc. is not rewarded in the MLB, it's not surprising to me that a MLB player failed to execute a bunt in a crucial situation.  In any case, this line of inquiry seems more useful to me than dismissing winning or losing as dependent on a crap shoot or the superscillous notion that the batting order should consist of 9 starting pitchers.

[Bench]

Quote:

Quote:
Well, they did.  The team USA put together, had it played more as a team, should have *NEVER* been in a tie-breaker situation.  Get it?  Again, I said I didn't blame Team USA (per se), I blamed the lack of preparation time to get them to mesh into a team, understand functions of certain roles that make up a team play style and of course, then executing it.  Michael Young is never asked to bunt in a game situation by his manager.  To ask him to do so in this tournament was a mistake, either by the manager or by the system to put together this squad.  Or by both.

How long had the other teams played together before the tournament?  Is the Cuban team the same national team that plays together regularly in international competitions?

I think the more pertinent issue is not how long have the individuals played with eachother, but rather how long they have played at all this season. It's over halfway done with the baseball season in Cuba, and the Koreans and Japanese were at the tail end of their spring training when the WBC began. They were in better baseball shape, and I think that showed. The other teams displayed more rustiness and streakiness, those guys played more consistent baseball.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
I've spent considerable time disassociating myself from any suggestion that changing the makeup of the team would have altered the outcomes.   It's these types of comments which cause me to question whether you intentionally ignore previously presented informtion, or whether it's something you cannot avoid.  It's the skill sets I'm questioning.  Bunting etc. is not rewarded in the MLB, it's not surprising to me that a MLB player failed to execute a bunt in a crucial situation.  In any case, this line of inquiry seems more useful to me than dismissing winning or losing as dependent on a crap shoot or the superscillous notion that the batting order should consist of 9 starting pitchers.

"But I'm actually persuaded by the notion that if you're building a team for an eight-game tournament, it'll have different characteristics than a team built for a 162-game regular season. Contrary to Pravata's provocations, I do see that there are some steps that can be taken to improve a team's chances of winning in a tournament or short series. Which is why teams constitute they pitching staffs differently, for example, in October than from April to September."

I.e., different skill sets.  Besides pitching and defense.

[Arky Vaughan]

One thing that I think makes little-ball skills more attractive in a tournament or short series is (the perception at least) that they have higher chances of success.

Even the most proficient home run hitters are going to hit a home run only every dozen or so plate appearances, and the best average hitters are going to get a hit only every three or four at-bats.

But we would expect if a player reached base in a crucial situation for the next batter, if he was sound in fundamentals, to be able to lay down a sacrifice with a greater than 1-in-12 or even 1-in-4 probability of success.  Or to hit behind the runner even if the batter makes an out.  Or to expect the runner to be able to steal a base with a much higher likelihood of safety.

When people talk about being able to manufacture runs, they are talking about being able to do the things that can be done successfully with much greater frequency than hitting a home run or even a base hit.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
I've spent considerable time disassociating myself from any suggestion that changing the makeup of the team would have altered the outcomes.   It's these types of comments which cause me to question whether you intentionally ignore previously presented informtion, or whether it's something you cannot avoid.  It's the skill sets I'm questioning.  Bunting etc. is not rewarded in the MLB, it's not surprising to me that a MLB player failed to execute a bunt in a crucial situation.  In any case, this line of inquiry seems more useful to me than dismissing winning or losing as dependent on a crap shoot or the superscillous notion that the batting order should consist of 9 starting pitchers.

"But I'm actually persuaded by the notion that if you're building a team for an eight-game tournament, it'll have different characteristics than a team built for a 162-game regular season. Contrary to Pravata's provocations, I do see that there are some steps that can be taken to improve a team's chances of winning in a tournament or short series. Which is why teams constitute they pitching staffs differently, for example, in October than from April to September."

I.e., different skill sets.  Besides pitching and defense.

Yes finally, on the bottom of p.3 of this thread, you're welcome. But not until after excreting the two previous inflammatory comments.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Yes finally, on the bottom of p.3 of this thread, you're welcome. But not until after excreting the two previous inflammatory comments.

Perhaps if you weren't so busy calling people stupid or clueless or calling their posts excrement you would've caught this 21 hours ago:

The Link

And it still doesn't change the fact that no matter how you construct the team, a handful of games isn't necessarily going to give you proof that they're put together right.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Yes finally, on the bottom of p.3 of this thread, you're welcome. But not until after excreting the two previous inflammatory comments.

Perhaps if you weren't so busy calling people stupid or clueless or calling their posts excrement you would've caught this 21 hours ago:

The Link

And it still doesn't change the fact that no matter how you construct the team, a handful of games isn't necessarily going to give you proof that they're put together right.

A hypothetical "question" that ends with the word "exactly"?  Saw it and passed it by as a taunt.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Yes finally, on the bottom of p.3 of this thread, you're welcome. But not until after excreting the two previous inflammatory comments.

Perhaps if you weren't so busy calling people stupid or clueless or calling their posts excrement you would've caught this 21 hours ago:

The Link

And it still doesn't change the fact that no matter how you construct the team, a handful of games isn't necessarily going to give you proof that they're put together right.

A hypothetical "question" that ends with the word "exactly"?  Saw it and passed it by as a taunt.

It wasn't. I'm wondering what kinds of things offensively that one would build into a tournament or playoff team rather than a regular-season team.  Which I posed a couple of posts about a few minutes ago.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Yes finally, on the bottom of p.3 of this thread, you're welcome. But not until after excreting the two previous inflammatory comments.

Perhaps if you weren't so busy calling people stupid or clueless or calling their posts excrement you would've caught this 21 hours ago:

The Link

And it still doesn't change the fact that no matter how you construct the team, a handful of games isn't necessarily going to give you proof that they're put together right.

A hypothetical "question" that ends with the word "exactly"?  Saw it and passed it by as a taunt.

It wasn't. I'm wondering what kinds of things offensively that one would build into a tournament or playoff team rather than a regular-season team.  Which I posed a couple of posts about a few minutes ago.

Right, and when you challenged us to describe the team "exactly", no one took the bait.  You don't see the difference do you.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Right, and when you challenged us to describe the team "exactly", no one took the bait.  You don't see the difference do you.

That wasn't my intention.  Now you're just talking semantics.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Right, and when you challenged us to describe the team "exactly", no one took the bait.  You don't see the difference do you.

That wasn't my intention.  Now you're just talking semantics.

I dont think so.  Not if you look at outcomes.  One question is responded to, the other is not, by anyone, not just me.  You may consider, to yourself, why that is.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
I dont think so.  Not if you look at outcomes.  One question is responded to, the other is not, by anyone, not just me.  You may consider, to yourself, why that is.

I'll give it the due reflection that I accord all your suggestions.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
How long had the other teams played together before the tournament?

Longer than Team USA and the management on the Team Cuba is the same every year.  They have philosophically put in place the ingredients that they preach to each and every team they construct.  The players *adapt* to the philosophy, not the other way around.  Japanese and Korean baseball is played at this level already in these countries, so the adaptation to role player team ball isn't quite a huge jump.  Team USA is reflective of a MLB marathon season and the outcome of this world class talent/tournament poor team was evident.  If the Cuban National, Japanese, Korean, DR, Venezuelan and Puerto Rican teams were to join the MLB and you put together a team of the same player for Team USA (and perhaps some others who opted out), the outcome would be different IMHO of course.  Because you'd be playing under MLB standards and not tournament standards and that makes a world (no pun intended) of difference.

Quote:
Is the Cuban team the same national team that plays together regularly in international competitions?

Some are, some were not.  But the National team for Cuba plays a lot more tournaments than Team USA, that is for sure, so they've managed to adapt a philosophy to play such tournaments.  The arrogance of Team USA to just roll out 30 superstars for three weeks was just that... arrogance.  The talent is far superior in the Team USA than most if not all the teams (and yes, I include Team DR).  But to build a team for a tournament, have the infrastructure in place to manage said team, to have the personnel whose full time job it is to pick the players who will fit a philosophy to win such tournament games, is not quite there in this country.

There is the Carribean series, the world games, et. al. and yet we wonder why it is that Team USA has problems in these tourneys when in fact they paid little to no attention to these tournaments, unlike the other countries.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
I dont think so.  Not if you look at outcomes.  One question is responded to, the other is not, by anyone, not just me.  You may consider, to yourself, why that is.

I'll give it the due reflection that I accord all your suggestions.

Fine by me.  Now you can drop the pretense that your replys were ever serious.  Then we can be spared the wounded complaints.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
One thing that I think makes little-ball skills more attractive in a tournament or short series is (the perception at least) that they have higher chances of success.

It is a counter-measure to great pitching in a sense.

Quote:
Even the most proficient home run hitters are going to hit a home run only every dozen or so plate appearances, and the best average hitters are going to get a hit only every three or four at-bats.

And it (failure) exponentially increases when you face the great pitching you do in the playoffs (MLB is what I'm talking about here).  I remember the seasons after season of angst by fans and media alike cast upon Biggio and Bagwell for their playoff failures.  Well, they faced guys like Glavine, Smoltz, Maddux, Kevin Brown to name a few, for a majority of those times.

Quote:
But we would expect if a player reached base in a crucial situation for the next batter, if he was sound in fundamentals, to be able to lay down a sacrifice with a greater than 1-in-12 or even 1-in-4 probability of success.  Or to hit behind the runner even if the batter makes an out.  Or to expect the runner to be able to steal a base with a much higher likelihood of safety.

Done correctly, what this type of play does is change the situation dramatically for a pitcher.  Some can pitch with runners on base, some change enough to allow just enough of a crack in the door to allow the offense on the other side to put a run on the board.  Hence why the MLB teams want power on their pitching, just to counter-act a team's want to try and manufacture a run.  If you have a hard thrower on the mound, the likelihood that said pitcher will power his way through the next hitter or two is what they want.  So I believe teams are now willing to allow better fastball hitting hackers (the proverbial free swingers) to take their swings and they'll take their chances that way.

You take the good with the bad in that way too, that is why Carl Everett had one of the worse at bats I've ever seen in a playoff situation setup perfectly for the Astros to take a NLDS series from the Braves.  Everett went up their hacking against a very wild John Rocker with the bases loaded, nobody out in the ninth inning with the score tied and the series tied at 1-1.  It is times like this that I just want to take these hackers of today's baseball and shoot them all for being so lost when it comes to baseball 101.  In 2005, Lance Berkman had a similar at bat against Isringhausen of the Cardinals right after Jeff Bagwell came up huge with a two out hit in game six to tied the score in the ninth inning.  With runners on base, the pressure was on Izzy to get Berkman out.  His first pitch was up around the helmet of Berkman and it look for all the world that Izzy was overthrowing his fastball (hence why it was rising as much as it was).  Berkman, however, was up there to hack and three pitches later, he was a strikeout victim and the inning was over.  This is the Lance Berkman who has a very good eye at the plate and has a very excellent OBP career mark.  But yet, he went up to the plate in this playoff game with today's hacker mentality.  Shame, but oh well, may as well take your hacks if your going to make an out any way.

Quote:
When people talk about being able to manufacture runs, they are talking about being able to do the things that can be done successfully with much greater frequency than hitting a home run or even a base hit.

They're also talking about putting most pitchers in a situation they would rather not be in.  Only the most proficient of the pitchers who are on their game will be able to survive these situations, especially in the playoffs.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Fine by me.  Now you can drop the pretense that your replys were ever serious.  Then we can be spared the wounded complaints.

For the last time, the post I made was in earnest, but I don't see the point in arguing with you about it any further.  And you'll forgive me if I'm skeptical about the sincerity behind your advice on self-reflection about how I express my opinions.  I'm not sure what else you'd want me to say to get you to lay off, anyway.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:
How long had the other teams played together before the tournament?

Longer than Team USA and the management on the Team Cuba is the same every year.  They have philosophically put in place the ingredients that they preach to each and every team they construct.  The players *adapt* to the philosophy, not the other way around.  Japanese and Korean baseball is played at this level already in these countries, so the adaptation to role player team ball isn't quite a huge jump.  Team USA is reflective of a MLB marathon season and the outcome of this world class talent/tournament poor team was evident.  If the Cuban National, Japanese, Korean, DR, Venezuelan and Puerto Rican teams were to join the MLB and you put together a team of the same player for Team USA (and perhaps some others who opted out), the outcome would be different IMHO of course.  Because you'd be playing under MLB standards and not tournament standards and that makes a world (no pun intended) of difference.

Quote:
Is the Cuban team the same national team that plays together regularly in international competitions?

Some are, some were not.  But the National team for Cuba plays a lot more tournaments than Team USA, that is for sure, so they've managed to adapt a philosophy to play such tournaments.  The arrogance of Team USA to just roll out 30 superstars for three weeks was just that... arrogance.  The talent is far superior in the Team USA than most if not all the teams (and yes, I include Team DR).  But to build a team for a tournament, have the infrastructure in place to manage said team, to have the personnel whose full time job it is to pick the players who will fit a philosophy to win such tournament games, is not quite there in this country.

There is the Carribean series, the world games, et. al. and yet we wonder why it is that Team USA has problems in these tourneys when in fact they paid little to no attention to these tournaments, unlike the other countries.

So you're talking more about team composition than skill sets.  For example, do you think the 30 guys who played for Team USA, if they were together for three months rather than three weeks, would have played better?

I'm just not sure any tournament can work if that's the case.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:
One thing that I think makes little-ball skills more attractive in a tournament or short series is (the perception at least) that they have higher chances of success.

It is a counter-measure to great pitching in a sense.

Quote:
Even the most proficient home run hitters are going to hit a home run only every dozen or so plate appearances, and the best average hitters are going to get a hit only every three or four at-bats.

And it exponentially increases when you face the great pitching you do in the playoffs (MLB is what I'm talking about here).  I remember the seasons after season of angst by fans and media alike cast upon Biggio and Bagwell for their playoff failures.  Well, they faced guys like Glavine, Smoltz, Maddux, Kevin Brown to name a few, for a majority of those times.

Quote:
But we would expect if a player reached base in a crucial situation for the next batter, if he was sound in fundamentals, to be able to lay down a sacrifice with a greater than 1-in-12 or even 1-in-4 probability of success.  Or to hit behind the runner even if the batter makes an out.  Or to expect the runner to be able to steal a base with a much higher likelihood of safety.

Done correctly, what this type of play does is change the situation dramatically for a pitcher.  Some can pitch with runners on base, some change enough to allow just enough of a crack in the door to allow the offense on the other side to put a run on the board.  Hence why the MLB teams want power on their pitching, just to counter-act a team's want to try and manufacture a run.  If you have a hard thrower on the mound, the likelihood that said pitcher will power his way through the next hitter or two is what they want.  So I believe teams are now willing to allow better fastball hitting hackers (the proverbial free swingers) to take their swings and they'll take their chances that way.

You take the good with the bad in that way too, that is why Carl Everett had one of the worse at bats I've ever seen in a playoff situation setup perfectly for the Astros to take a NLDS series from the Braves.  Everett went up their hacking against a very wild John Rocker with the bases loaded, nobody out in the ninth inning with the score tied and the series tied at 1-1.  It is times like this that I just want to take these hackers of today's baseball and shoot them all for being so lost when it comes to baseball 101.  In 2005, Lance Berkman had a similar at bat against Isringhausen of the Cardinals right after Jeff Bagwell came up huge with a two out hit in game six to tied the score in the ninth inning.  With runners on base, the pressure was on Izzy to get Berkman out.  His first pitch was up around the helmet of Berkman and it look for all the world that Izzy was overthrowing his fastball (hence why it was rising as much as it was).  Berkman, however, was up there to hack and three pitches later, he was a strikeout victim and the inning was over.  This is the Lance Berkman who has a very good eye at the plate and has a very excellent OBP career mark.  But yet, he went up to the plate in this playoff game with today's hacker mentality.  Shame, but oh well, may as well take your hacks if your going to make an out any way.

Quote:
When people talk about being able to manufacture runs, they are talking about being able to do the things that can be done successfully with much greater frequency than hitting a home run or even a base hit.

They're also talking about putting most pitchers in a situation they would rather not be in.  Only the most proficient of the pitchers who are on their game will be able to survive these situations, especially in the playoffs.

In effect, it goes back to something Pravata says above -- you can pick the pitcher who's going to be in game, but not necessarily the batter.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
So you're talking more about team composition than skill sets.  For example, do you think the 30 guys who played for Team USA, if they were together for three months rather than three weeks, would have played better?

Yes, if they're willing to set aside some of their previous roles on their respective teams and play a different role on the tournament team.  Given time, most if not all will comply because it has absolutely zero impact on major league contractual talks.  The composition of this year's team was probably good enough to win this tournament going away.  But the team was totally lost and played like it.  It had a disjointed appearance to me and some may say it was because most of these guys were in first week of spring training form.  But I read things about some of these players getting ready earlier, so I guess some validity can be ascribed to a lack of spring training, but overall I believe it to be a combination of lack of training and specifically training to be a tournament bound team.

Quote:
I'm just not sure any tournament can work if that's the case.

Most of the players on Team USA will agree with you.  The magic that Bob Watson did to put together the young, talented and well prepared for a tournament Olympic Gold medal team shows how much the USA pool of talent coupled with a team aspect can do.  Roy Oswalt, Ben Sheets, Jon Raunch and the other pitchers on this team, along with the stellar defense of Adam Everett, Doug Manckbunchalphabets and others with just enough offense was only going to work if you gave them enough time to prepare.  Tommy Lasorda is often talked about as a rah-rah guy, but he managed that Team USA team in that tournament beautifully.  You want success in a tourney, get the same kind of commitment from the MLB as Bob Watson did for that team.

Good luck!

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
In effect, it goes back to something Pravata says above -- you can pick the pitcher who's going to be in game, but not necessarily the batter.

The game in the MLB goes in cycles.  It is not like hard throwers on the mound was just invented this era or the advent of the hacker mentality to counter-act said power pitchers up and down ones lineup either.  In the era of the pitching dominant days of baseball, to manufacture a run was to rely on getting a pitcher to a place or situation he would rather not be in.  And then hope your defense and pitching was better on that day to win the game.  Boring?  Not to me, it was a thing of beauty.  This particular tournament, with the thrilling games between the Koreans and Japanese, the DR and Cuba, Panama and Cuba, the USA vs Mexico, Puerto Rico vs DR and on and on showed what excitement these types of games can create.

Many said it had a MLB playoff excitement to it, where every pitch counts, every at bat counts, every play made or not made counts.

[No? in Austin]

By the way, it is subtle but some if not most of the MLB teams/organizations are making a slight change to the philosophy of yesterday.  The importance of supporting pitching with a strong defense and stressing fundamentals at the very least in this area are evident.  I heard one of the broadcasters during the Korean/Japanese 2-1 thriller say that when he asked Derek Jeter if he would compare the style of the Korean team's play to those of his own late 90s/early 2000's Yankee world championship teams, his answer was "Not just the Yankees, but the Marlins, the Diamondbacks, the WhiteSox and on and on...".  The guy said that Jeter was trying to make the point that this Korean team and some others he had seen play were the type of teams that did not beat themselves (strong fundamentals on defense) and did just enought to beat you.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Fine by me.  Now you can drop the pretense that your replys were ever serious.  Then we can be spared the wounded complaints.

For the last time, the post I made was in earnest, but I don't see the point in arguing with you about it any further.  And you'll forgive me if I'm skeptical about the sincerity behind your advice on self-reflection about how I express my opinions.  I'm not sure what else you'd want me to say to get you to lay off, anyway.

Alright then, let have a serious discussion about your earnest suggestion to populate the lineup with 9 bunters. Who exactly would you suggest for this lineup?

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Fine by me.  Now you can drop the pretense that your replys were ever serious.  Then we can be spared the wounded complaints.

For the last time, the post I made was in earnest, but I don't see the point in arguing with you about it any further.  And you'll forgive me if I'm skeptical about the sincerity behind your advice on self-reflection about how I express my opinions.  I'm not sure what else you'd want me to say to get you to lay off, anyway.

Alright then, let have a serious discussion about your earnest suggestion to populate the lineup with 9 bunters. Who exactly would you suggest for this lineup?

I wasn't suggesting nine bunters.  I was asking which players have the skills that would be useful in a tournament or short series.

I don't think discussing this with you any further is fruitful for either of us.  I'd be happy to discuss it with someone who isn't aiming just to pick a fight.  I apologize if I'm misjudging your post, but it seems awfully sarcastic.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
By the way, it is subtle but some if not most of the MLB teams/organizations are making a slight change to the philosophy of yesterday.  The importance of supporting pitching with a strong defense and stressing fundamentals at the very least in this area are evident.  I heard one of the broadcasters during the Korean/Japanese 2-1 thriller say that when he asked Derek Jeter if he would compare the style of the Korean team's play to those of his own late 90s/early 2000's Yankee world championship teams, his answer was "Not just the Yankees, but the Marlins, the Diamondbacks, the WhiteSox and on and on...".  The guy said that Jeter was trying to make the point that this Korean team and some others he had seen play were the type of teams that did not beat themselves (strong fundamentals on defense) and did just enought to beat you.

Again, what I do find ironic is that the play that led to the United States beating Japan was an error by Japan on a bunt attempt by the United States.  This led to the game-winning, unearned run.  But the fact that the run was unearned also led to Japan's advancement in the tournament.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Again, what I do find ironic is that the play that led to the United States beating Japan was an error by Japan on a bunt attempt by the United States.  This led to the game-winning, unearned run.

And TeamUSA should've won by 8 runs had they played better too.  They didn't.  Don't fixate on bunts as much as the overall aspect of putting together a *team* and not 30 guys dressed in the same uniform.

Quote:
But the fact that the run was unearned also led to Japan's advancement in the tournament.

I don't really care about the tie-breaker system.  If you query the Japanese team, I bet none of them knew they had a tie-breaker advantage at all.  Most teams want to beat you by scoring at least one more run than you.  *HOW* you score that one run more than the other team is exactly the point for a tournament such as this.  This isn't the 162 game MLB marathon, and it isn't even the MLB playoff format... it is a tournament similar to Olympic and International games.  Games that the USA has ignored for such a long time and now find themselves wondering if just throwing 30 world class talents together was such a good idea after all.

Nobody in the world cowered in fear of TeamUSA and rarely did they try to match power for power against said team.  They beat the USA (yes by a tie-breaker... but one that should've never happened) because they played tournament enabled baseball: pitching, defense and just enough offense.  The components of this style are indeed small-ball in nature but don't fixate only on small-ball as defined in a 162 game structure such as the MLB marathon... think in terms of tournament baseball.

Speaking as one who has played in national tournaments for amatuer baseball, I can tell you I was well aware of the short comings of Team USA (not in terms of talent but in terms of preparation) and also aware of the ability to win this thing by such teams as Japan.  Cuba, early on, seemed to me to be a deer in the headlights awed team (the Panama game was exciting but Cuba was not the same team I'm seeing now).  They gained confidence in their own style of play as the tournament went on.  And now the two teams that are tournament enabled because of style are going to fight it out tonight.

And I'm not one bit surprised that they are.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:
Again, what I do find ironic is that the play that led to the United States beating Japan was an error by Japan on a bunt attempt by the United States.  This led to the game-winning, unearned run.

And TeamUSA should've won by 8 runs had they played better too.  They didn't.  Don't fixate on bunts as much as the overall aspect of putting together a *team* and not 30 guys dressed in the same uniform.

Quote:
But the fact that the run was unearned also led to Japan's advancement in the tournament.

I don't really care about the tie-breaker system.  If you query the Japanese team, I bet none of them knew they had a tie-breaker advantage at all.  Most teams want to beat you by scoring at least one more run than you.  *HOW* you score that one run more than the other team is exactly the point for a tournament such as this.  This isn't the 162 game MLB marathon, and it isn't even the MLB playoff format... it is a tournament similar to Olympic and International games.  Games that the USA has ignored for such a long time and now find themselves wondering if just throwing 30 world class talents together was such a good idea after all.

Nobody in the world cowered in fear of TeamUSA and rarely did they try to match power for power against said team.  They beat the USA (yes by a tie-breaker... but one that should've never happened) because they played tournament enabled baseball: pitching, defense and just enough offense.  The components of this style are indeed small-ball in nature but don't fixate only on small-ball as defined in a 162 game structure such as the MLB marathon... think in terms of tournament baseball.

Speaking as one who has played in national tournaments for amatuer baseball, I can tell you I was well aware of the short comings of Team USA (not in terms of talent but in terms of preparation) and also aware of the ability to win this thing by such teams as Japan.  Cuba, early on, seemed to me to be a deer in the headlights awed team (the Panama game was exciting but Cuba was not the same team I'm seeing now).  They gained confidence in their own style of play as the tournament went on.  And now the two teams that are tournament enabled because of style are going to fight it out tonight.

And I'm not one bit surprised that they are.

I won't quibble with you on the nature of tournament baseball, but I think you are overlooking or dismissing the significant role that chance plays in a small set of games.  That chance meant that the United States, which was not a well put together team by your estimation, came extremely close to making the semi-finals.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
I won't quibble with you on the nature of tournament baseball, but I think you are overlooking or dismissing the significant role that chance plays in a small set of games.

Well, not really.  You increase your chance to win a tournament if you prepare for said tournament.  
 

Quote:
That chance meant that the United States, which was not a well put together team by your estimation, came extremely close to making the semi-finals.

A team that if you judged by talent alone should've never left things up to chance as much as they should've left it up to preparation.  Do you understand that talent alone brought them that close, but it is also the thing that is dissappointing too because it also left them facing a tie-breaker situation that did not favor them this time.  If TeamUSA keeps arrogantly putting their hopes to win these types of tournaments on talent alone, then by golly the talent gap better be huge... like in DreamTeam vs. Sudan type of huge or in this case Team USA vs Australia.  Else, better to prepare said talent to win these tournaments and not just roll 30 guys together and call it our tourney to lose.

[WulawHorn]

Is the answer then to have a few guys like Bruntlett on the team?

Placido Palanco got most of the starts over a guy like Soriano for the Dominican at 2b as an example, b/c the dominican manager said he needed consistent offense as opposed to Soriano's hit or miss, swing for the fences apporach.  

Ignoring defense for the moment (which Placido is obviously better than Soriano) this trade off was made, per the dominican manager, b/c he specifically said that this early in the year power guys are behind contact guys on the getting ready to play curve, making Palanco a better fit for their aims in tourney ball.  Found that interesting.  Buck was talking about it on XM this morning on my way in.