Not-So-Obnoxious Baseball Thread

SSBrew - 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Strike zone info for geeks only. 1)About once a game, an at-bat ends in something other than a strikeout even when a third strike should have been called. Umpires want to make the right call, but they also don’t want to make the wrong call at the wrong time. Ironically, this prompts them to make bad calls more often.
2) To put it another way, on close calls, umpires are unlikely to call a fourth ball, a third strike, or a second strike in a row.

I first learned this through a different study that I think I posted earlier in this thread. The main thing I grew to understand is relax... it's not some umpire trying to screw your team.http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/four-strikes-and-youre-out/
It's a statistical non biased study based on a million pitches. It happens, and when you understand it happens, it can be predictive, you will see it, and even appreciate it because you'll know it's baseball when everyone else is screaming about a blown pitch call.
 
oh good god Indians fan

proxy.jpg
 
Noesi DFA'd thank god just letting the batters hit off a tee would be better then him.
 
I know it's a teeny tiny sample. But in his 3 innings (and 3 games) Kimbrel has been damn near perfect.

Kimbrel has faced 9 batters, none of them have reached base safely, only 3 have put the ball in play.

Meaning he has struck out 66% of the batters he's faced so far.
 
hoppyhoppyhippo said:
I know it's a teeny tiny sample. But in his 3 innings (and 3 games) Kimbrel has been damn near perfect.

Kimbrel has faced 9 batters, none of them have reached base safely, only 3 have put the ball in play.

Meaning he has struck out 66% of the batters he's faced so far.
Click to expand...

And it's already April 4th. October is only 6 months, or 158 games away.
 
iaefebs said:
And it's already April 4th. October is only 6 months, or 158 games away.
Click to expand...

I know all that. And acknowledged it's a very small sample. And he won't maintain it for the whole season, it's virtually statistically impossible. But even in a 3 game sample it's awesome.
 
hoppyhoppyhippo said:
I know all that. And acknowledged it's a very small sample. And he won't maintain it for the whole season, it's virtually statistically impossible. But even in a 3 game sample it's awesome.
Click to expand...

I wanted to delete the comment,and came back to delete it and to post this instead. I think I know the rules of the game. The same as I think I understand the new challenge replay rule. This was so obvious a missed call that I called it right away, But I saw in the replay that the Ump didn't immediately signal the out so I was waiting for replay.Then I searched about the unintentional/intentional transfer rule that allowed the call to be upheld. Google it... I learned something new. 55 years of baseball and still learning. I've seen this play so many times over the years that it's not even a question in my mind, the fact that MLB replay upheld the call makes me realize that they've called it wrong every time I've seen it before. I don't mind the call. I've seen it and accept it. I have to say I'm not a fan of replay even though It's benefited the Tigers so far this year. I think it should be kept for reversing the Gallarga perfect game type situation.


http://m.mlb.com/video/v31814225/baldet-tigers-challenge-call-play-confirmed-in-5th
 
One thing I like about the challenge is it forces umps to enforce rules they may not see otherwise. Perfect example was in the Braves/Nats game yesterday, Desmond hit a liner down the line that went under the padding, Upton raises his hands indicating it's out of play, umps don't stop the play Desmond gets an inside the park homer. Challenge is handled pretty quickly and play goes on as it should.
 
I liked this replay, but not for the call or challenge. My thought was on whether it is better to run full out to 1st, or head first slide. We've always been told it's faster to run. I'm conflicted after watching it. Blackmon seemed to gain distance on the leap to the bag, but then lost it sliding on the dirt. It sort of backs up what I always thought. It's faster to go head first to the bag as long as you don't slide in the dirt.

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/638175...es-challenge-in-1st-call-overturned/?c_id=mlb
 
There's not really a debate. Sports Science did a thing on it and found that given even an ideal dive, running was 10 milliseconds faster. Even more drastic the dirtier you get. Sliding is wise when there's tag potential (fielder pulled off the bag being the most common example. Here's an old article on why it's a bad idea

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/physics-to-mark-teixeira-dont-dive/
 
hoppyhoppyhippo said:
There's not really a debate. Sports Science did a thing on it and found that given even an ideal dive, running was 10 milliseconds faster. Even more drastic the dirtier you get. Sliding is wise when there's tag potential (fielder pulled off the bag being the most common example. Here's an old article on why it's a bad idea

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/physics-to-mark-teixeira-dont-dive/
Click to expand...

I know that once you touch the ground you will slow down. But how many times do we see a outfielder dive and stretch out to make a catch. In many of those cases we assume the player would not have gotten to the ball by running or would they? The Tiger center fielder Austin Jackson never dives, but runs to the ball. I think if he would dive once in awhile he could get to a fly ball. Maybe he doesn't dive because he realizes outfielders should never dive but continue to run.
 
iaefebs said:
I know that once you touch the ground you will slow down. But how many times do we see a outfielder dive and stretch out to make a catch. In many of those cases we assume the player would not have gotten to the ball by running or would they? The Tiger center fielder Austin Jackson never dives, but runs to the ball. I think if he would dive once in awhile he could get to a fly ball. Maybe he doesn't dive because he realizes outfielders should never dive but continue to run.
Click to expand...

That's because of angles. The base you're safe on whether your foot touches it or not. When you're diving to make a catch it's because you couldn't catch it easily and safely standing up because of the angle. You're comparing apples and oranges. When you're running through a base you're running a straight line. When you're fielding a fly ball you're running a line, tracking a ball with your eyes and then when you dive you're basically ruling that you cannot run under it and it's easier to catch a ball while diving tan turning your glove upside down and catching in full stride.

Again apples and oranges. A more interesting debate is whats' the faster way to slide, feet first or head first. I've read some interestin thoughts on both. RUnning through first is absolutely faster, it's been proven in a scientific manner as well.
 
hoppyhoppyhippo said:
That's because of angles. The base you're safe on whether your foot touches it or not. When you're diving to make a catch it's because you couldn't catch it easily and safely standing up because of the angle. You're comparing apples and oranges. When you're running through a base you're running a straight line. When you're fielding a fly ball you're running a line, tracking a ball with your eyes and then when you dive you're basically ruling that you cannot run under it and it's easier to catch a ball while diving tan turning your glove upside down and catching in full stride.

Again apples and oranges. A more interesting debate is whats' the faster way to slide, feet first or head first. I've read some interestin thoughts on both. RUnning through first is absolutely faster, it's been proven in a scientific manner as well.
Click to expand...

I'm not considering the more obvious plays of a fielder diving when catching a ball at ground level. I'm thinking of lateral catches or balls that could be caught above the waist by simply continuing to run. I've always known that it is faster to run to a base that you are allowed to overrun rather than slide. The play I posted the link to made it appear that the runner gained momentum when he started the dive and of course lost it when he made contact with the ground, making me wonder if there could be a perfect dive. I finally tracked down a reasonable video that shows the initial gain and the lost momentum with a near frictionless dive to the bag. Now when I talk baseball I can be sure I'm talking facts and explain why. I no longer need to rely on 40-50 years of stuff I've always heard and believe.

The 1:30 mark of the video shows what I saw with the initial gain but also shows the resultant loss without taking the ground friction to account.

http://espn.go.com/high-school/baseball/video/clip?id=6571277


EDIT *** sorry hoppy... I didn't see the link in the article you posted above http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/physics-to-mark-teixeira-dont-dive/ that would have got me to the link I posted here much sooner. I read the article as some dude with a stopwatch timing some GIFs from a player coming off an injury. I completely missed the embedded link.
 
That link clearly proves that running through is faster. As far as that initial gain it's because of load. If he dives any later he overshoots the bag and is out because he didn't touch the bag.

What happens is you lose the burst of the added stride(s) you get a larger burst off your dive

Now an interesting thing to see is if there was a way with a lunging jump (almost really a skip) and a certain player's stride that you could shave off basically an unnecessary stride so you get that added burst of the dive but do it at a point where you don't lose a stride.
 
hoppyhoppyhippo said:
That link clearly proves that running through is faster. As far as that initial gain it's because of load. If he dives any later he overshoots the bag and is out because he didn't touch the bag.

What happens is you lose the burst of the added stride(s) you get a larger burst off your dive

Now an interesting thing to see is if there was a way with a lunging jump (almost really a skip) and a certain player's stride that you could shave off basically an unnecessary stride so you get that added burst of the dive but do it at a point where you don't lose a stride.
Click to expand...

A lunging jump is what I believe leads to stress fractures in the shins.
 
iaefebs said:
A lunging jump is what I believe leads to stress factors in the shins.
Click to expand...

I can see that. Just kinda of musing at faster ways to get to first. I've partially wondered if doing a footfirst slide where you pendulum your leg after last slide may save time but if it does I imagine it's a knee shredder.
 
hoppyhoppyhippo said:
I can see that. Just kinda of musing at faster ways to get to first. I've partially wondered if doing a footfirst slide where you pendulum your leg after last slide may save time but if it does I imagine it's a knee shredder.
Click to expand...

You've alluded to foot first slides in a couple posts, I've always believed that rotating your lower half to be in front of your chest is slower than a headfirst slide into a base that you must stop and tag and remain on. Lets use 2nd and third as those bases and not 1st or home. That way you could come back to a play at 1st.
 
iaefebs said:
You've alluded to foot first slides in a couple posts, I've always believed that rotating your lower half to be in front of your chest is slower than a headfirst slide into a base that you must stop and tag and remain on. Lets use 2nd and third as those bases and not 1st or home. That way you could come back to a play at 1st.
Click to expand...

I've been taught that sliding headfirst is faster, I've also thought that sliding headfirst is faster because of what you described above. I believe in my gut it's faster but other research has proven sliding footfirst can be faster or the difference is negligible.

http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/30/6/834.abstract

That being said, I'd rather players slide footfirst and be out a few more times then deal with th enumber of injuries I"ve seen sliding headfirst in terms of minor (sprains and strains) to major (Heyward broke his thumb derailing his promising rookie season)
 
Absolutely ridiculous that we have to make these west coast swings. For the players and fans it is 12:30 in the morning on the east coast. It will be 1:30AM to the players from the East coast before the game is over. The west coast teams can play ball here at 10:00 AM I'm sure it's easier to play ball at 10:00 am than 1:00 AM
 
iaefebs said:
Absolutely ridiculous that we have to make these west coast swings. For the players and fans it is 12:30 in the morning on the east coast. It will be 1:30AM to the players from the East coast before the game is over. The west coast teams can play ball here at 10:00 AM I'm sure it's easier to play ball at 10:00 am than 1:00 AM
Click to expand...

I agree. The baseball business must find some advantage in it, but the homers are hating it. Not a fan of the 2:00 games either - we had one today (who watches a 2:00 game on a Wednesday?)
 
passedpawn said:
who watches a 2:00 game on a Wednesday?
Click to expand...

I do..:) But I'm retired. Wednesday I watch my 1 year old grandson, I have the game on and I am training him to be a fan. Funny thing about the late night west coast games is I gave up at 1:00 AM I had the recorder set to record an extra 1/2 hour past the end time. I got up in the morning and started to watch the game where I left off. It made it to the 9th inning and stopped recording. WTF? Tiger game went extra innings. The game went on till 2:30 AM... Hey the team plays in Florida for spring training, starts the season and plays all it's games at 1:00 and is done by 4:00. Then it has to fly to California, start at 10:00 and play till 2:30AM:cross: I went to the news to find out the score because the next replay wasn't till noon and I knew I would hear the score before then. Spoiler alert.... Victor Martinez hit a homer to win the game. Go Tigers...
 
Braves have all but inevitably Swept the Nationals, which leads to a fun factoid, Braves are responsible for all 5 of the Nationals losses this year, and also both of the Brewers losses.
 
I'm not in favor of the new rule regarding "transfer" of the ball from glove to throwing hand to complete an out. The rule makes it a different call if there are less than two outs. A infielder that receives a ball and steps on the base or plate and on the attempted relay drops the ball the runner is safe. If it is the third out a fielder doesn't have to transfer the ball and it is an out. A outfielder that catches a ball will make a base runner retreat to his previous base, however if the outfielder drops the ball on the transfer then the hitter is safe, the runners are out of position, and a throw to the infield will cause the lead runner to become an out. I see someone exploiting this rule. Comments?

EDIT I found an article that discusses this exact scenario.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/baseballs-new-strategy-drop-the-ball-on-purpose/

Written before I questioned it here. I'm not the only one to have thought about it.
 
hoppyhoppyhippo said:
I think it's more clean. Before it was way more up for interpretation.
Click to expand...

Wait for the interpretation problems that come up when outfielders with a speedy runner on first catch a ball that causes the speedy runner to retreat and then deliberately muck the transfer so they can throw to second to cause a force out. Now you probably will have a less base stealing threat at first instead of the speedster.
 
End the challenge calls. Use the replay only to reverse calls that are obvious. No more challenge on the bang bang plays at first, decide on whether you want to protect collisions at the plate or not. End the transfer rule. A catch is a catch. I thought of a new scenario on the ridiculous new rules.

Men at 1st and 2nd no out.... Line drive to SS (1 out) who tags the runner off second (2nd out) and attempts to throw out the runner at first who fell down returning to the base. During the transfer to the throwing arm he drops the ball. Does this eliminate the two outs? Since the SS can still pick up the ball and throw to 1st (because the runner is laying on the ground) is it a triple play or one out. What is the call? The new rules suck. I find myself watching every catch to see if there will be a transfer. This is not what I've been watching for more than 50 years. I accept the calls in a game and I wouldn't mind seeing a way to reverse some calls. But this system is not the way to go.
 
I don't like the direction that baseball is taking. I haven't watched football in years because of the rediculous fouls and reviews on nearly every play. The referees are lawyers for god's sake.

In baseball, if these reviews make the game much slower, people will tune out.
 

Similar threads

apache_brew
Done with liquid yeast
2 3
Replies
119
Views
8K
user 341102
U
MaxStout
I've been invited to do a pro/am brew. I'm stoked!
2
Replies
66
Views
4K
Hoppy2bmerry
Hoppy2bmerry
Hop
Ongoing Review: BrewHardware Premium Recirculating BIAB Package
Replies
4
Views
777
Bobby_M
Bobby_M
Langerz
First Fermentation with a Tilt - Questions
Replies
20
Views
2K
AZ Maverick
AZ Maverick
R
Tales from the crypt - brewing with "sophisticated" yeast
Replies
3
Views
938
Blackdirt_cowboy
Blackdirt_cowboy
Brewer's Friend 300

Latest posts

Back
Top