Below are the pitching projections for SG’s CAIRO. ZiPS is already out so I’ll post the batter projections later today.
| Name | IP | HR | BB | SO | RA | ERA | FIP |
| Matt Garza | 194 | 21 | 64 | 177 | 4.11 | 3.65 | 3.66 |
| Ryan Dempster | 200 | 22 | 76 | 184 | 4.55 | 4.14 | 3.83 |
| Carlos Zambrano | 103 | 10 | 44 | 81 | 4.39 | 4.11 | 4.05 |
| Trey McNutt | 133 | 13 | 59 | 100 | 4.64 | 4.29 | 4.23 |
| Randy Wells | 119 | 15 | 39 | 81 | 4.55 | 4.29 | 4.30 |
| Jay Jackson | 164 | 22 | 58 | 114 | 5.16 | 4.77 | 4.51 |
| Casey Coleman | 99 | 12 | 42 | 66 | 5.34 | 5.02 | 4.60 |
Garza is undoubtedly the best starting pitcher the Cubs have. Those aren’t great numbers, but they’re very good. CAIRO expects a rebound season from Dempster for good reason. McNutt is as good or better than Randy Wells. That’s surprising.
| Name | IP | HR | BB | SO | RA | ERA | FIP |
| Sean Marshall | 77 | 4 | 24 | 79 | 3.19 | 2.93 | 2.65 |
| Carlos Marmol | 77 | 4 | 49 | 107 | 3.49 | 3.37 | 3.16 |
| Andrew Cashner | 41 | 3 | 20 | 35 | 4.03 | 3.74 | 3.98 |
| Jeff Samardzija | 57 | 5 | 33 | 52 | 4.55 | 3.89 | 4.19 |
| Scott Maine | 39 | 5 | 19 | 37 | 4.48 | 4.15 | 4.24 |
| Jeff Beliveau | 78 | 11 | 39 | 84 | 4.51 | 4.16 | 4.33 |
| John Gaub | 39 | 4 | 29 | 44 | 4.77 | 4.42 | 4.35 |
| Marcos Mateo | 42 | 6 | 20 | 37 | 5.10 | 4.76 | 4.56 |
| James Russell | 63 | 11 | 16 | 48 | 5.17 | 4.21 | 4.61 |
| Chris Carpenter | 56 | 6 | 32 | 43 | 4.86 | 4.50 | 4.81 |
| Rafael Dolis | 63 | 5 | 41 | 42 | 5.06 | 4.67 | 4.88 |
| Justin Berg | 37 | 4 | 19 | 21 | 5.16 | 4.71 | 4.91 |
| Esmailin Caridad | 52 | 8 | 24 | 38 | 5.75 | 5.24 | 5.13 |
Sean Marshall has shown himself to be the better reliever than Carlos Marmol over the last two to three seasons. CAIRO expects that trend to continue and he expect him to be significantly better than Marmol. League average ERA in the bullpen is about 4.05 so Cashner is a bit above average and Samardzija, Maine, are a bit better than replacement.
Needless to say, the Cubs need some pitching. They were 25th in ERA a year ago and 22nd in FIP. The starters were 28th in ERA and 22nd in FIP. The relievers were a lot better as they were 9th in ERA and 14th in FIP.
False.
/eccles2
[quote name=GBTS]This.
Walks. Are. Part. Of. Baseball.[/quote]So is getting thrown at in the head or batters running over catchers or people like Matt Holliday trying to take out the man a 2nd in any way possible.
So is the pitcher batter in the NL, sac bunts, general ignorance by the manager and dumbass announcers.
So is using your best reliever in the less optimal manner, batting “contact guys” second, and sticking speedy guys in the leadoff spot without regard for their ability to get on base.
I’ll stop complaining about the IBB if you stop complaining about all the other stuff.
B, could you please answer that blackboard question that Mish posted? I’ve got an e-mail thread about it that’s starting to get contentious. (dying laughing)
[quote name=GBTS]B, could you please answer that blackboard question that Mish posted? I’ve got an e-mail thread about it that’s starting to get contentious. (dying laughing)[/quote]
it’s a paradox, no?
[quote name=josh]Jolsey? Pooey is definitely funnier. Also, agree 100%. What about Berkman?[/quote]
Forgot about Old Greybeard. He is in competition with Freese.
MB, I’m not complaining about the IBB. I think it was dumb, because IBBs are dumb. I think what is stupid is the people complaining about it on the grounds of wanting the drama of Pujols batting with the game on the line. Complain about the dumb decision, not because Ron Washington owes baseball fans anything.
[quote name=GBTS]B, could you please answer that blackboard question that Mish posted? I’ve got an e-mail thread about it that’s starting to get contentious. (dying laughing)[/quote]
It’s 25%, 1 in 4. But then there are two 25% answers, which make it 50% of getting the question right. But there is only 1 50% which make the answer 25%. But then there are two 25% answers.. /brain explode
Other answer: it is 25%. If it is a scantron, there is only one answer. 1 in 4. So one of the A or D answers is correct, the other is incorrect.
There are so many stupid things that are just a part of the game.
As for whether I want Iowa to run the hurry up offense when the game is in hand, no, but I want them to play their best players.
Football is also very different in that baseball’s focus is the batter/pitcher match-up. It’s one on one. A better analogy in football would be the team with a lead giving up penalties late in the game. Here, take these 15 yards. We don’t need ‘em. What’s the one thing that teams with a lead avoid like the plague? Penalties. Football teams aren’t going to intentionally help the opposing team, but in baseball it’s common practice.
Helmet to helmet contact is a part of football. Despite that, I like that football has tried to significantly reduce this. I encourage anything in baseball that reduces the IBB.
[quote name=WaLi]It’s 25%, 1 in 4. But then there are two 25% answers, which make it 50% of getting the question right. But there is only 1 50% which make the answer 25%. But then there are two 25% answers.. /brain explode
Other answer: it is 25%. If it is a scantron, there is only one answer. 1 in 4. So one of the A or D answers is correct, the other is incorrect.[/quote]GRE logic says eliminate A and D because they are similar and guess between B and C. In this case you’d have a 50% chance, making B the correct answer. However, since D or A is obviously a wrong answer accidentally changed to the right answer, then you must choose which is the right 25%. You have a 50/50 chance.
[quote name=josh]GRE logic says eliminate A and D because they are similar and guess between B and C. In this case you’d have a 50% chance, making B the correct answer. However, since D or A is obviously a wrong answer accidentally changed to the right answer, then you must choose which is the right 25%. You have a 50/50 chance.[/quote]In other words…it could go either way.
BEWB CUPCAKES
[quote name=Rice Cube]In other words…it could go either way.[/quote]Well, when you factor in your audience, a bunch of smart ass college students (presumably), then you have to figure that more than half of them are going to be clever enough to spot your paradox and give some long, rambling explanation of why what they chose is correct, making the odds slightly better than 50%. Around 60%, so clearly C is the correct choice.,
I think the hurry up offense comparison is pretty apt because outs in baseball are the equivalent to time in football. When you run out of either and you don’t have the lead, the game is over.
The equivalent rule change in football as to punishing the IBB would be that if a team has the lead and clearly doesn’t try to get a first down, but rather just run out the clock, then the clock stops. That’d be ludicrous.
You’re allowed to run out the clock in football. It’s boring, but you can do it any way you want. You’re allowed to throw four balls in baseball.
[quote name=GBTS]B, could you please answer that blackboard question that Mish posted? I’ve got an e-mail thread about it that’s starting to get contentious. (dying laughing)[/quote]
Checking the numbers now. My gut says it’s C so that must be wrong (dying laughing). I have zero intuition with probability problems.
[quote name=GBTS]I think the hurry up offense comparison is pretty apt because outs in baseball are the equivalent to time in football. When you run out of either and you don’t have the lead, the game is over.
The equivalent rule change in football as to punishing the IBB would be that if a team has the lead and clearly doesn’t try to get a first down, but rather just run out the clock, then the clock stops. That’d be ludicrous.
You’re allowed to run out the clock in football. It’s boring, but you can do it any way you want. You’re allowed to throw four balls in baseball.[/quote]That doesn’t quite hold up, since an IBB slightly decreases the chance you win, so it’d be more like punishing a team for intentionally running around behind the line of scrimmage for several minutes, going back to the other goal line and back to the line while evading the other team. Who wants to see that play?
I think I’m missing something in this argument. Are we talking about Pujols last or are we still talking about that 2 base IBB stuff from the other day?
[quote name=Berselius]Checking the numbers now. My gut says it’s C so that must be wrong (dying laughing). I have zero intuition with probability problems.[/quote]Here’s how I’m looking at it:
Rice Cube’s favorite color is either Blue, Green, or Red. You don’t know which, but it’s one of those three. There are four cars outside. Two are Blue, one is Green, one is Red. If you pick at random, what are the odds you will pick Rice Cube’s favorite car?
If the percentage answer to THAT question isn’t 25%, 50%, or 60%, it’s a paradox.
Chris Carpenter could also get MVP with a dominant performance tonight, imo.
[quote name=Berselius]I think I’m missing something in this argument. Are we talking about Pujols last or are we still talking about that 2 base IBB stuff from the other day?[/quote]Maybe we were talking about cats.
[quote name=Berselius]I think I’m missing something in this argument. Are we talking about Pujols last or are we still talking about that 2 base IBB stuff from the other day?[/quote]I’ve admittedly equated the two. I don’t think anybody WANTED to see Pujols get walked last night, but that doesn’t mean the Rangers should be punished for it.
[quote name=Berselius]I think I’m missing something in this argument. Are we talking about Pujols last or are we still talking about that 2 base IBB stuff from the other day?[/quote]www.whatberseliusismissinginthisargument.com
[quote name=Berselius]MB, I’m not complaining about the IBB. I think it was dumb, because IBBs are dumb. I think what is stupid is the people complaining about it on the grounds of wanting the drama of Pujols batting with the game on the line. Complain about the dumb decision, not because Ron Washington owes baseball fans anything.[/quote]I don’t disagree with that, b. I’m just saying there should be a significantly higher penalty if you want to just pitch around someone.
This is one where we need to go back to the beginning of the game. What was the goal at that time? There were no walks. It was about the match-ups (first the batter/pitcher and then the baserunner/fielder). You threw the ball so the batter could make contact.
Why do we not care about batters making contact? Because it’s exciting. More and more fans came to the game when pitchers started striking batters out. It was awesome. It was the home run before the home run was popular.
Baseball existed for several years without stolen bases. In the early 1860s some dude (can’t remember who off the top of my head) stole a base. It was exciting. It became popular
Home runs were discouraged. Spit balls were legal. Sagging attendance resulting in outlawing the spit balls to improve offense and home runs became the most exciting play in baseball.
They lowered the mound when pitching again dominated. The strikezone has gotten smaller and smaller in order to create more offense. Offense is exciting and it gets fans to attend games.
These rules were all created to increase excitement. Is the game better off with Albert Pujols batting in that situation or being pitched around? I don’t know how anybody could say the game itself is better off having done what the Rangers did. I realize all 30 managers would have done the same thing. I don’t care about Washington doing it or LaRussa doing it. I don’t care about the sac bunts that I’ve heard you guys complaining about because it’s unfortunately still way too much a part of the game. I’d favor rules that eliminate it. I don’t dislike them like MO does, but I don’t like them.
The bottom line is that rules have been and will continue to be created in baseball and other sports because it’s more exciting to the fans. I don’t care about the individual IBBs or whoever does them. As GBTS said, it’s a part of the game. So is drilling someone in the head. There’s not a place for either in baseball.
[quote name=Rice Cube]Maybe we were talking about cats.[/quote]This is the worst thing to every happen on this blog.
I reject the equivalence. IBBs are clearly within the rules, while drilling someone in the head is not. You’re illicitly conflating what is customarily part of the game with what is legally a part of the game.
[quote name=GBTS]I think the hurry up offense comparison is pretty apt because outs in baseball are the equivalent to time in football. When you run out of either and you don’t have the lead, the game is over.
The equivalent rule change in football as to punishing the IBB would be that if a team has the lead and clearly doesn’t try to get a first down, but rather just run out the clock, then the clock stops. That’d be ludicrous.
You’re allowed to run out the clock in football. It’s boring, but you can do it any way you want. You’re allowed to throw four balls in baseball.[/quote]Time late in a football game is different than the remaining outs late in baseball games. Teams with a 28 point lead with 90 seconds today can’t win. The game is over at that point (probably sooner if someone wants to look into). Wouldn’t surprise me if it was over at about 3 minutes. A 4-run lead (similar to the 4 touchdown lead) with 2 outs and 2 strikes on the batter is anything but over.
Throughout the game the time is similar to outs, but late in the games they can sometimes be very different.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]This is the worst thing to every happen on this blog.[/quote]
Using that meme again? Maybe you need to take a break. You look tired.
[quote name=Berselius]Checking the numbers now. My gut says it’s C so that must be wrong (dying laughing). I have zero intuition with probability problems.[/quote]There’s no answer. It can’t be A because the probability of picking the answer “25%” is 50%, so the probability of choosing this answer is greater than the answer. It can’t be D for the same reason. It can’t be B because the probability of picking B is 25%, which is less than the answer. It can’t be C for the same reason. Unless there’s a secret definition for “correct” the professor is using, such as the answer most likely determined to fit the implied definition of correct, in which case the answer will vary depending on the sampled group and may not even be on the list. The questions tricks you by giving you what would be a correct answer in A, but rendering it incorrect. However, once you mind has determined “25%” is correct, you seek ways compare the other answers to that.
That’s the best I can come up with.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]I reject the equivalence. IBBs are clearly within the rules, while drilling someone in the head is not. You’re illicitly conflating what is customarily part of the game with what is legally a part of the game.[/quote]There’s nothing illegal about hitting a batter. In fact, it’s as defined as intentionally walking someone. That we have a moral problem with someone going after someone’s head is our problem. The MLB rules don’t care if the HBP is on the butt or between the eyes.
[quote name=josh]That doesn’t quite hold up, since an IBB slightly decreases the chance you win, so it’d be more like punishing a team for intentionally running around behind the line of scrimmage for several minutes, going back to the other goal line and back to the line while evading the other team. Who wants to see that play?[/quote]Well, in baseball strategically you shouldn’t IBB because you should try to get the out without adding baserunners. It’s a much better approach to just go at the guy. You could argue in football that running plays for the purpose of just running out the clock isn’t strategically sound because you should be trying to get first downs, which will result in a much greater amount of plays where the clock is running.
So you could say they’re both inefficient ways of trying to do the same thing: end the game.
DiPoto——————> angels gm
LaCava——————-> orioles gm
Something about those capitalized third letters that seems to be an advantage. Must be the new market inefficiency. So EpStein.
[quote name=mb21]There’s nothing illegal about hitting a batter. In fact, it’s as defined as intentionally walking someone. That we have a moral problem with someone going after someone’s head is our problem. The MLB rules don’t care if the HBP is on the butt or between the eyes.[/quote]Well MB, if we had an actual problem with people intentionally drilling batters in the face on a regular basis just because they can, I’ll join that crusade with you.
[quote name=josh]There’s no answer. It can’t be A because the probability of picking the answer “25%” is 50%, so the probability of choosing this answer is greater than the answer. It can’t be D for the same reason. It can’t be B because the probability of picking B is 25%, which is less than the answer. It can’t be C for the same reason. Unless there’s a secret definition for “correct” the professor is using, such as the answer most likely determined to fit the implied definition of correct, in which case the answer will vary depending on the sampled group and may not even be on the list. The questions tricks you by giving you what would be a correct answer in A, but rendering it incorrect. However, once you mind has determined “25%” is correct, you seek ways compare the other answers to that.
That’s the best I can come up with.[/quote]There is no spoon.
There are so many discussions going on right now. (dying laughing)
[quote name=GBTS]I’ve admittedly equated the two. I don’t think anybody WANTED to see Pujols get walked last night, but that doesn’t mean the Rangers should be punished for it.[/quote]Last night worked out pretty well because they were punished for it. Both times (the BB to Berkman was an unofficial IBB). So that makes me happy, but I don’t think they should have been punished that much. In both situations they were better off pitching to the guy at the plate. If a simple rule change would get teams to stop being stupid then it’s a good thing. We’re watching better baseball and that’s good.
[quote name=josh]There’s no answer. It can’t be A because the probability of picking the answer “25%” is 50%, so the probability of choosing this answer is greater than the answer. It can’t be D for the same reason. It can’t be B because the probability of picking B is 25%, which is less than the answer. It can’t be C for the same reason. Unless there’s a secret definition for “correct” the professor is using, such as the answer most likely determined to fit the implied definition of correct, in which case the answer will vary depending on the sampled group and may not even be on the list. The questions tricks you by giving you what would be a correct answer in A, but rendering it incorrect. However, once you mind has determined “25%” is correct, you seek ways compare the other answers to that.
That’s the best I can come up with.[/quote]
Josh, that line doesn’t work. The reason why is suspect that it is 60% because the probabilities should be additive, though given the nonlinearity of the problem it might just not be solvable.
[quote name=GBTS]Well MB, if we had an actual problem with people intentionally drilling batters in the face on a regular basis just because they can, I’ll join that crusade with you.[/quote]I’d argue that one person being intentionally hit in the head is a far greater problem than every batter in a game being intentionally walked.
Personally, I’m all for making the game more exciting. I love an exciting game. To me IBB can be exciting, because it sets up an expectation: that the next batter will make an out, and that the pitcher will have to pitch well to avoid an unintentional walk. Putting the runner on is its own punishment, as they showed last night. To me, it increases the tension, which I find exciting. If the game were a homerun derby, I wouldn’t watch. I don’t watch the actual homerun derbies. It’s a chess match, to me.
That said, if they can alter the rules to make the game even more exciting in new ways, I’d be willing to give it a watch and see what the effect was.
[quote name=Berselius]Josh, that line doesn’t work. The reason why is suspect that it is 60% because the probabilities should be additive, though given the nonlinearity of the problem it might just not be solvable.[/quote]The probability that you know more about it than I do is >60%. I like 60% only because it’s not related in a simple way to the other three answers. If this were a GRE question, I’d answer C.
In other words, if I’m in a situation where I believe one answer is correct and this isn’t a misprint, I choose C. If I’m in a situation where I think some is jerking me around I’d fill in all the circles and draw a dick around them.
[quote name=josh]Personally, I’m all for making the game more exciting. I love an exciting game. To me IBB can be exciting, because it sets up an expectation: that the next batter will make an out, and that the pitcher will have to pitch well to avoid an unintentional walk. Putting the runner on is its own punishment, as they showed last night. To me, it increases the tension, which I find exciting. If the game were a homerun derby, I wouldn’t watch. I don’t watch the actual homerun derbies. It’s a chess match, to me.[/quote]I agree with this. If people want to punish or abolish IBBs purely because they are boring and a less exciting, they can make that argument and thats fine. I just think its stretching too far to say that IBBs are an evil to the game that must be remedied somehow.
Also, we are looking for Technically Correct, the best kind of Correct.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/cubs-fans-will-need-patience/
not that it really says anything that hasn’t been said, but a cubs offseason link is a cubs offseason link
[quote name=work sucks]http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/cubs-fans-will-need-patience/
not that it really says anything that hasn’t been said, but a cubs offseason link is a cubs offseason link[/quote]I’m basically just killing time until the off-season. This Cards/Rangers bullshit is a distant second.
[quote name=Berselius]Using that meme again? Maybe you need to take a break. You look tired.[/quote]FLAGGED
[quote name=GBTS]I agree with this. If people want to punish or abolish IBBs purely because they are boring and a less exciting, they can make that argument and thats fine. I just think its stretching too far to say that IBBs are an evil to the game that must be remedied somehow.[/quote]IBBs aren’t some evil. There’s a lot of stupid shit in baseball that should be fixed. IBBs are one of them, but only one.
As for what the most exciting game is, it’s up to the fans. At what point will baseball attract the most viewers? We know they attracted many more during the steroid era. Offense is awesome. I’m guessing the optimal runs per game would be around 10 per team. Beyond that you drive away the fans away who remember the good ol’ days. More than that and it’s a circus. But I don’t know. It’s entirely possible that 15 or 20 runs per game per team would be what most attracts the fans.
[quote name=mb21]There’s nothing illegal about hitting a batter. In fact, it’s as defined as intentionally walking someone. That we have a moral problem with someone going after someone’s head is our problem. The MLB rules don’t care if the HBP is on the butt or between the eyes.[/quote]Soudns to me like you have a moral problem with IBBs. Which makes this a contest of values.
As I said before, I don’t hate sac bunts nearly as much as MO, but I would favor something that eliminates them. There are occasions where it’s best for the team to do so, but 95% of the time the team sac bunts it’s stupid and costly. If I had my way, I’d also create a system that rewards teams for putting solid lineups together. (dying laughing)
A reward system for solid lineups would mean that Ryan Theriot never plays again.
[quote name=mb21]As I said before, I don’t hate sac bunts nearly as much as MO, but I would favor something that eliminates them. There are occasions where it’s best for the team to do so, but 95% of the time the team sac bunts it’s stupid and costly. If I had my way, I’d also create a system that rewards teams for putting solid lineups together. (dying laughing)[/quote](dying laughing), I would love to see a set of ground rules that punished teams for stupidity, of whatever stripe. The Cardinals would never win anything with LaRussa at the helm.
Theo and Rickets got dinner last night.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/celebrity/aboutlastnight/chi-sighting-theo-epstein-and-tom-ricketts-watch-world-20111027,0,353980.column
If you don’t know the Fifty/50, it’s a douchebag/bro bar. Haven’t decided if it’s more douchebag or bro. It could go either way.
[quote name=mb21]IBBs aren’t some evil. There’s a lot of stupid shit in baseball that should be fixed. IBBs are one of them, but only one.
As for what the most exciting game is, it’s up to the fans. At what point will baseball attract the most viewers? We know they attracted many more during the steroid era. Offense is awesome. I’m guessing the optimal runs per game would be around 10 per team. Beyond that you drive away the fans away who remember the good ol’ days. More than that and it’s a circus. But I don’t know. It’s entirely possible that 15 or 20 runs per game per team would be what most attracts the fans.[/quote]Your average fan probably doesn’t care for chess matches like I do. I’m willing to concede that. Basketball is a sport where the teams score just a ridiculous shit-ton of runs, and the excitement comes from those little misses and those little things you do that occasionally keep the other team from scoring. The back and forth can be exciting.
EDIT: It’s not runs in basketball. I’m an idiot :L
[quote name=mb21]A reward system for solid lineups would mean that Ryan Theriot never plays again.[/quote]
That Szymborski tweet from last night was priceless:
(dying laughing)
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder](dying laughing), I would love to see a set of ground rules that punished teams for stupidity, of whatever stripe. The Cardinals would never win anything with LaRussa at the helm.[/quote]It would be a better game. What else is something teams do that are stupid?
[quote name=WenningtonsGorillaCock]Theo and Rickets got dinner last night.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/celebrity/aboutlastnight/chi-sighting-theo-epstein-and-tom-ricketts-watch-world-20111027,0,353980.column
If you don’t know the Fifty/50, it’s a douchebag/bro bar. Haven’t decided if it’s more douchebag or bro. It could go either way.[/quote]
Too swanky for bros. All d-bag, all the time. Lots of striped shirts and pointy dress shoes.
[quote name=mb21]It would be a better game. What else is something teams do that are stupid?[/quote]Let their pitcher try to field?
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]That Szymborski quasi-papal outfit from last night was priceless.
[/quote]
.
When Pujols came to the plate in the 10th, I said, “Fuck it. Pitch to him.”
I said a lot of other things, too.
I mean it. If the Rangers lose tonight, I quit baseball. The only thing that would bring me back would be the exact moment the Rangers win the World Series if that happens.
Last night was what the 8th inning of 2003 NLCS Game 6 would have been if it were the 9th inning of the World Series and there were two outs…twice.
[quote name=josh]Your average fan probably doesn’t care for chess matches like I do. I’m willing to concede that. Basketball is a sport where the teams score just a ridiculous shit-ton of runs, and the excitement comes from those little misses and those little things you do that occasionally keep the other team from scoring. The back and forth can be exciting.
EDIT: It’s not runs in basketball. I’m an idiot :L[/quote]I love the low-scoring games in baseball. I also love the high scoring games. The games that annoy me the most are the 5-4 games. Neither team did anything exceptional. Average offense, average defense, average pitching. It was just a fucking average game.
[quote name=mb21]It would be a better game. What else is something teams do that are stupid?[/quote]Pitching closers in non-save situations?
Not understanding the defensive spectrum?
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Too swanky for bros. All d-bag, all the time. Lots of striped shirts and pointy dress shoes.[/quote]It can’t be just one thing. It’s 50/50 (dying laughing)
Waste time preparing for a pitch. This is why Roy Halliday is the greatest pitcher of this generation. He’s fun to watch because he doesn’t spend an hour fucking around after every pitch.
MB, clearly you just don’t “get it”. That’s The Beauty of Short Hops. (dying laughing).
[quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]When Pujols came to the plate in the 10th, I said, “Fuck it. Pitch to him.”
I said a lot of other things, too.
I mean it. If the Rangers lose tonight, I quit baseball. The only thing that would bring me back would be the exact moment the Rangers win the World Series if that happens.
Last night was what the 8th inning of 2003 NLCS Game 6 would have been if it were the 9th inning of the World Series and there were two outs…twice.[/quote]I figured you were going nuts. I remember the Pujols IBB because I wanted to see him hit and I was pretty sure the difference between Pujols and Berkman with the platoon advantage was non-existent. They walked Pujols to pitch to a very hot Pujols. That’s what they did.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Pitching closers in non-save situations?
Not understanding the defensive spectrum?[/quote]I love the closer’s idea. If teams need to get the closer work he can work the 8th. No more 9th inning.
[quote name=josh]Your average fan probably doesn’t care for chess matches like I do. I’m willing to concede that. Basketball is a sport where the teams score just a ridiculous shit-ton of runs, and the excitement comes from those little misses and those little things you do that occasionally keep the other team from scoring. The back and forth can be exciting.
EDIT: It’s not runs in basketball. I’m an idiot :L[/quote]Eh I think NBA is boring as hell and most basketball. Maybe I’ll watch the playoffs if the Bulls or Magic are involved. I guess I wouldn’t want an average of 10-15 runs scored a game. I think that is kind of the magic of baseball, that it can be an exciting 1-0 game. Games would last forever then too unless they enforced a pitch timer and stopped managers arguing for no damn reason.
[quote name=mb21]I love the low-scoring games in baseball. I also love the high scoring games. The games that annoy me the most are the 5-4 games. Neither team did anything exceptional. Average offense, average defense, average pitching. It was just a fucking average game.[/quote]Team A has a four -run lead on 4 homeruns going into the 9th and Team B scores 5 off the closer with 3 solid singles, a granny and another homerun one-pitch later. It’s exciting for Team B’s fans, for sure, and it doesn’t necesserily have to have been done sloppily.
[quote name=mb21]I love the closer’s idea. If teams need to get the closer work he can work the 8th. No more 9th inning.[/quote]
It still feels strange to think that the 9th inning closer role has only been around for 20 years or so
[quote name=josh]Waste time preparing for a pitch. This is why Roy Halliday is the greatest pitcher of this generation. He’s fun to watch because he doesn’t spend an hour fucking around after every pitch.[/quote]That’s something else that needs to be changed immediately. There is no reason whatsoever a pitcher can’t release the ball within 10 seconds after he gets it back. I’d set the rule at 12 seconds because some people are just idiots. If it takes longer than 12 seconds it’s a ball. If there is a runner on base, you get 15 seconds to come home or throw to first. No stepping off the mound. You get 3 additional seconds to check on the runners. That’s plenty.
[quote name=WaLi]Eh I think NBA is boring as hell and most basketball. Maybe I’ll watch the playoffs if the Bulls or Magic are involved. I guess I wouldn’t want an average of 10-15 runs scored a game. I think that is kind of the magic of baseball, that it can be an exciting 1-0 game. Games would last forever then too unless they enforced a pitch timer and stopped managers arguing for no damn reason.[/quote]If time is a huge issue and the timer doesn’t solve it, they could go to 7 innings. That would reduce the runs per game and the game would be faster.
[quote name=WaLi]Eh I think NBA is boring as hell and most basketball. Maybe I’ll watch the playoffs if the Bulls or Magic are involved. I guess I wouldn’t want an average of 10-15 runs scored a game. I think that is kind of the magic of baseball, that it can be an exciting 1-0 game. Games would last forever then too unless they enforced a pitch timer and stopped managers arguing for no damn reason.[/quote]Actually, I never watch basketball either. I was playing the “average fan” part of the thought experiment. BB is fairly popular, and shows that lots of scores can be fun, to people. Higher scoring games would highlight who are the good pitchers and who are the REALLY good pitchers. The really good ones would keep games 1-0. The tension would be even higher in those games, if the average score for a baseball game was 10 runs. You’d be just waiting for someone to blink, and the final inning would be a huge release of the tension.
Okay, I just had an epiphany.
IBB problem solved: batters can always choose to accept ball four. You can take your base, or get another pitch. If that next pitch is ball four again, same thing. Every additional four ball fours, the batter can choose to take a walk plus an extra base.
I would imagine nearly ever hitter would accept the walk first chance he got after the first four balls. The more balls your pitcher throws without a strikeout or a ball in play, the more powerful the ultimate walk becomes if the hitter eventually accepts.
I defy you to come up with any possible scenario where this idea is bad.
Edit: Could even shorten it up. After 6 balls, you can take two bases. After 8, three bases.
10 balls ——> automatic home run.
[quote name=josh]Waste time preparing for a pitch. This is why Roy Halliday is the greatest pitcher of this generation. He’s fun to watch because he doesn’t spend an hour fucking around after every pitch.[/quote]I think they should have a marksman in the press box with a pellet gun. If the pitcher isn’t set 10 seconds after getting the ball back, he gets a pellet in the ass cheek.
I also say that the earlier problem is unpossible
[quote name=mb21]If time is a huge issue and the timer doesn’t solve it, they could go to 7 innings. That would reduce the runs per game and the game would be faster.[/quote]How about rewarding speedy players by letting them round the bases more than once (in certain conditions, obviously)? Campana would actually have value even if his average stayed low. A team would need at least one speed demon on the team at any given time, to ensure that they had a chance to score 2 on a combination triple then a double after. Or a designated runner for one player.
How about complicating the rules, like in Hearts, where if you get to 7 and the other team hasn’t scored a single run and you have more than 10, they get all your runs.
[quote name=GBTS]Okay, I just had an epiphany.
IBB problem solved: batters can always choose to accept ball four. You can take your base, or get another pitch. If that next pitch is ball four again, same thing. Every additional four ball fours, the batter can choose to take a walk plus an extra base.
I would imagine nearly ever hitter would accept the walk first chance he got after the first four balls. The more balls your pitcher throws without a strikeout or a ball in play, the more powerful the ultimate walk becomes if the hitter eventually accepts.
I defy you to come up with any possible scenario where this idea is bad.[/quote]
Umpire ball count clicker indicator things count 0-3 balls and 0-2 strikes. You would have to invent a whole new line of products that goes from 0-12 balls.
(might be 0-4 balls, 0-3 strikes. I’m not sure. Edit if necessary)
idea ==> bad.
[quote name=WaLi]Umpire ball count clicker indicator things count 0-3 balls and 0-2 strikes. You would have to invent a whole new line of products that goes from 0-12 balls.
(might be 0-4 balls, 0-3 strikes. I’m not sure. Edit if necessary)
idea ==> bad.[/quote]Digital, baby.
[quote name=WaLi]Umpire ball count clicker indicator things count 0-3 balls and 0-2 strikes. You would have to invent a whole new line of products that goes from 0-12 balls.[/quote]Job creation.
Idea —–> Still win.
[quote name=josh]Digital, baby.[/quote]
[quote name=GBTS]Job creation.
Idea —–> Still win.[/quote]Jobs would be outsourced which would cause more money in underdeveloped countries. That money would be spent on developing players. Eventually those players are better than MLB players and a new league is developed and MLB in America is canceled.
Edit: Idea —> Still Bad
Edit of Edit: WaLi —> Idiot.
[quote name=josh]Digital, baby.[/quote]Touche.
[quote name=GBTS]Okay, I just had an epiphany.
IBB problem solved: batters can always choose to accept ball four. You can take your base, or get another pitch. If that next pitch is ball four again, same thing. Every additional four ball fours, the batter can choose to take a walk plus an extra base.
I would imagine nearly ever hitter would accept the walk first chance he got after the first four balls. The more balls your pitcher throws without a strikeout or a ball in play, the more powerful the ultimate walk becomes if the hitter eventually accepts.
I defy you to come up with any possible scenario where this idea is bad.[/quote]Because it’s the same thing as it is now. Only rarely would a hitter refuse to take the walk, which would be just the same as if made the same rule for sac bunts. The defense loves them.
It’s actually kind of funny. As a defense, teams love the sac bunt and then they get on offense and they do the same fucking thing.
Something like this was mentioned on The Book Blog and a commenter pointed out how allowing the batter to refuse or adding 2 balls to the next hitter would mess with the statistics. You’d have to look at how many 4-ball walks there were and 2-ball walks. With the idea GBTS has, you’d have to create all kinds of things. 8 ball home run, 7 ball triple, and so on. I kind of like looking at the statistics right now and knowing that every one of the 300 walks in Carlos Marmol’s career have been 4-ball walks.
[quote name=mb21]Because it’s the same thing as it is now. Only rarely would a hitter refuse to take the walk, which would be just the same as if made the same rule for sac bunts. [/quote]Exactly. Unintentional, standard walks would be unaffected. The only time this would come into play is game-on-the-line situations like last night. Pujols can stand up there and take ball five, six, seven, etc. waiting for a pitch he wants to hit. And the longer it takes, the more punishing the idea of a walk becomes for the pitcher who can’t find the zone. Would he rather attack Pujols after four balls and pound the zone, or keep nibbling and risk a two or three base walk?
If your only problem with IBBs is that they are boring, this is the perfect remedy.
But with your idea (which I kind of support) you are talking about 4-ball doubles.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]I think they should have a marksman in the press box with a pellet gun. If the pitcher isn’t set 10 seconds after getting the ball back, he gets a pellet in the ass cheek.[/quote]I like it, but pitchers would just wear a metal shield around their ass. Just put a guy up there with a rifle. If you take longer than 12 seconds he shoots right behind your foot. The next time he takes your head off. The average amount of time between pitches would drop to something like 2.7 seconds. Problem solved.
[quote name=GBTS]Exactly. Unintentional, standard walks would be unaffected. The only time this would come into play is game-on-the-line situations like last night. Pujols can stand up there and take ball five, six, seven, etc. waiting for a pitch he wants to hit. And the longer it takes, the more punishing the idea of a walk becomes for the pitcher who can’t find the zone. Would he rather attack Pujols after four balls and pound the zone, or keep nibbling and risk a two or three base walk?
If your only problem with IBBs is that they are boring, this is the perfect remedy.[/quote]Why not just make it a potential 2-base walk from the start?
[quote name=mb21]I like it, but pitchers would just wear a metal shield around their ass. Just put a guy up there with a rifle. If you take longer than 12 seconds he shoots right behind your foot. The next time he takes your head off. The average amount of time between pitches would drop to something like 2.7 seconds. Problem solved.[/quote]
Offense would definitlely go up with 2.7 seconds between pitches (dying laughing)
[quote name=mb21]As I said before, I don’t hate sac bunts nearly as much as MO, but I would favor something that eliminates them. There are occasions where it’s best for the team to do so, but 95% of the time the team sac bunts it’s stupid and costly. If I had my way, I’d also create a system that rewards teams for putting solid lineups together. (dying laughing)[/quote]MGL’s finding in The Book was that teams bunt about as often as they should (though not necessarily when they should).
[quote name=mb21]I like it, but pitchers would just wear a metal shield around their ass. Just put a guy up there with a rifle. If you take longer than 12 seconds he shoots right behind your foot. The next time he takes your head off. The average amount of time between pitches would drop to something like 2.7 seconds. Problem solved.[/quote]The position would be called the Nudger. In centuries to come, the Nudger would be more of an honorary position than anything. Some of the old timers would talk about the good old days when one got to shoot Josh Beckett in the skull cap, but mostly those stories would have faded away. These days, the pitchers are so fast, the Nudger barely ever loads his gun.
I hate the idea of making the bunt illegal. At the very least, players should be allowed to bunt for a hit to keep the defense honest. And I don’t see how you can make sac bunts illegal without making bunts for hits illegal.
[quote name=ACT]I hate the idea of making the bunt illegal. At the very least, players should be allowed to bunt for a hit to keep the defense honest. And I don’t see how you can make sac bunts illegal without making bunts for hits illegal.[/quote]You can only bunt with no runner on.
how about this? If you want to intentionally walk someone you have to throw 4 consecutive pitches that land in front of home plate. I’m pretty sure teams won’t be doing that anymore considering there are usually runners on 2nd or 3rd. If the runner on 2nd knows a ball in the dirt is coming he’s just going to steal 3rd. A fast runner like Campana may even be able to steal home if he knows a ball in the dirt is coming.
It’s still easier to just make it a 2-base walk. With a runner on 2nd base and Barry Bonds at the plate, he’d still be IBBd. Runners on 2nd and 3rd.
If we’re talking about exciting, we have to go DH or 8-man lineup. That screws up certain historical comparisons, but it is easily the lamest part of an NL game. A hitting pitcher is more of a sideshow than anything.
I think I like gbts’ 6-8-10 idea better than any of the other proposals i have heard.
[quote name=ACT]I hate the idea of making the bunt illegal. At the very least, players should be allowed to bunt for a hit to keep the defense honest. And I don’t see how you can make sac bunts illegal without making bunts for hits illegal.[/quote]Bunting for hits would have to remain legal. Offenses need them. Some players couldn’t survive without them. You could make a rule that doesn’t allow the batter to show bunt until after the pitch has been delivered. It makes it a lot harder to sac bunt and you can still bunt for a hit. If some hitter can prove to me that flashing bunt and pulling back before the pitcher has thrown it makes any impact on the defense I might think differently. I find it hard to believe that a defense at this point is going to come in if someone flashes bunt and pulls the bat back. They know where they’re going to be positioned in certain situations before the game starts.
Baseball was really popular in the 80′s when scoring was mostly down, but the game (at least the NL) was dominated by speedsters. I don’t think bringing fans to the game is a simple matter of upping the number of runs scored (10 per team? Really?) Fans are attracted to things like speed, power, and marketable players (Junior!). Driving the scoring up to 2 or 3 times what it is now would probably do little but drive away long-time fans (I certainly have little interest in seeing a ton of 11-10 games.)
[quote name=josh]If we’re talking about exciting, we have to go DH or 8-man lineup. That screws up certain historical comparisons, but it is easily the lamest part of an NL game. A hitting pitcher is more of a sideshow than anything.[/quote]I think you go with the DH. I wouldn’t mind an 8-man lineup, but I just don’t see that ever happening.
[quote name=ACT]Baseball was really popular in the 80′s when scoring was mostly down, but the game (at least the NL) was dominated by speedsters. I don’t think bringing fans to the game is a simple matter of upping the number of runs scored (10 per team? Really?) Fans are attracted to things like speed, power, and marketable players (Junior!). Driving the scoring up to 2 or 3 times what it is now would probably do little but drive away long-time fans (I certainly have little interest in seeing a ton of 11-10 games.)[/quote]You may be right. It certainly seems to me that baseball has gone out of its way to make baseball an easier game for the offense. Almost every change they’ve made over time has been done to increase offense. They never would have done anything about steroids if home run records weren’t being broken. The fans never would have cared and neither would they. But it’s possible that has helped reduce interest in the game though I suspect it has more to do with the game just being boring to most people.
[quote name=mb21]Why not just make it a potential 2-base walk from the start?[/quote]Because then you have to make any four-ball walk a 2-base walk, unless you let the umpire have the discretion to decide what walks are intentional, and which aren’t.
[quote name=GW]I think I like gbts’ 6-8-10 idea better than any of the other proposals i have heard.[/quote]Herman Cain aint got shit on me.
My only problem with sac bunts is that pitchers do it automatically (with the defense playing accordingly). Other than that, they’re just not common enough to be a bother. It’s done by weaker hitters and there is even game theory involved which can add to the game.
[quote name=GW]I think I like gbts’ 6-8-10 idea better than any of the other proposals i have heard.[/quote]You’d have to declare before the at-bat and you’d have to do so in a way that takes up no time at all. That would be my concern with doing something like that. After 4 balls the player, manager, bench coach and front row fan discuss it over. They talk about the pitcher’s tendency to throw 4 more balls after already throwing 4 more and weight the value of taking one base or going for more. They pull out their win expectancy slider and then call the owner and file paperwork with MLB. (dying laughing)
Obviously that’s not how it is, but I could see it eating a lot of time. If you could do it in a way that after ball 4 the pitcher gets the ball back and throws pitch 5 without any difference from what it is today I’m all for it.
[quote name=ACT]My only problem with sac bunts is that pitchers do it automatically (with the defense playing accordingly). Other than that, they’re just not common enough to be a bother. It’s done by weaker hitters and there is even game theory involved which can add to the game.[/quote]That’s a really good point. Realistically baseball would never do anything to eliminate the sac bunt anyway. I could see them doing something to make it more difficult to IBB someone. Batters don’t generally like to be pitched around. They like their free base, but it pisses them off. There’s ego involved with being pitched around. Not that I ever see anything being done about it. There won’t be.
Too bad this revenue chart only goes back to 1990:
http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5167:mlb-revenues-grown-from-14-billion-in-1995-to-7-billion-in-2010&catid=30:mlb-news&Itemid=42
Except for a dip in the early 2000s, baseball has been outpacing inflation, but lately it looks like it’s leveling off. Is more fans even the solution, or more revenue streams? Things during the game that increase audience participation for those willing to pay, perhaps? Live broadcasts to smart phones (or a special electronic device) within the stadium for a fee. Something like that.
[quote name=mb21]You’d have to declare before the at-bat and you’d have to do so in a way that takes up no time at all. That would be my concern with doing something like that. After 4 balls the player, manager, bench coach and front row fan discuss it over. They talk about the pitcher’s tendency to throw 4 more balls after already throwing 4 more and weight the value of taking one base or going for more. They pull out their win expectancy slider and then call the owner and file paperwork with MLB. (dying laughing)
Obviously that’s not how it is, but I could see it eating a lot of time. If you could do it in a way that after ball 4 the pitcher gets the ball back and throws pitch 5 without any difference from what it is today I’m all for it.[/quote]
i don’t see why it would take any more time. ball four, umpire points at the batter, batter runs to first or stays in the box.
[quote name=GBTS]Because then you have to make any four-ball walk a 2-base walk, unless you let the umpire have the discretion to decide what walks are intentional, and which aren’t.[/quote]You can’t give the umpire discretion. The thing is that there wouldn’t be that many 4-pitch walks now. Pitchers can throw strikes a lot more than they already do. The number of intentional walks will be almost non-existent and the number of 4-pitch non-intentional walks would drop considerably. At 2-0 or 3-0 the pitcher is just going throw a strike.
I don’t believe the 4-pitch walk is much of an issue. Some NIBBs would be unfairly penalized, but it wouldn’t be that many. I believe the biggest issue is how it may affect the swing rate for hitters. I don’t believe it would significantly affect it, but I could be wrong on that.
[quote name=josh]Too bad this revenue chart only goes back to 1990:
http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5167:mlb-revenues-grown-from-14-billion-in-1995-to-7-billion-in-2010&catid=30:mlb-news&Itemid=42
Except for a dip in the early 2000s, baseball has been outpacing inflation, but lately it looks like it’s leveling off. Is more fans even the solution, or more revenue streams? Things during the game that increase audience participation for those willing to pay, perhaps? Live broadcasts to smart phones (or a special electronic device) within the stadium for a fee. Something like that.[/quote]
The Bears do this for season ticket holders. they get a little tv to keep (with deposit) and they can pull up any replay at any time, watch other games going on, check fantasy stats, etc. My brother-in-law has it, and it is amazing. It only works within the stadium and about 20 yards outside of it.
[quote name=GW]i don’t see why it would take any more time. ball four, umpire points at the batter, batter runs to first or stays in the box.[/quote]I don’t see it going that smoothly. I don’t think it’s a decision that could be made so quickly on the spot. The batter will have to turn to his manager who may simply nod or point to first or he may ask his bench coach something. I think it will take considerable time.
[quote name=Snyds01]The Bears do this for season ticket holders. they get a little tv to keep (with deposit) and they can pull up any replay at any time, watch other games going on, check fantasy stats, etc. My brother-in-law has it, and it is amazing. It only works within the stadium and about 20 yards outside of it.[/quote]That’s super sweet.
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/10/28/2247906/cards-replace-injured-holliday.html
Holliday off roster for game 7!!
[quote name=mb21]That’s something else that needs to be changed immediately. There is no reason whatsoever a pitcher can’t release the ball within 10 seconds after he gets it back. I’d set the rule at 12 seconds because some people are just idiots. If it takes longer than 12 seconds it’s a ball. If there is a runner on base, you get 15 seconds to come home or throw to first. No stepping off the mound. You get 3 additional seconds to check on the runners. That’s plenty.[/quote] you know how to speed up baseball? everyone gets one swing. that’s it one swing. fuck you you’re out sit the fuck down!
[quote name=Snyds01]http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/10/28/2247906/cards-replace-injured-holliday.html
Holliday off roster for game 7!![/quote]Pfft. Mordecai Brown only needed three fingers to play baseball. Pansy.
Ah, I see it’s a wrist injury. Last night they said something about his finger. Weird. Wrist injuries suck.
^
But it might still happen tonight, so the news folk could still be technically correct. About the Rangers, not Dewey.
That would be pretty fucking cool to be Adron Chambers. If the Cardinals win he gets to celebrate and be a part of what will more than likely be the only championship he ever sees. Not to mention, he played in all of 10 games this year and was on the postseason roster for one (game 7 of the WS).
Tony LaRussa, tactical genius, tireless defender of traditonal scouting, scourge of sabermetrics, to give Ryan Theriot more plate appearances than Albert Pujols:
http://twitter.com/#!/CardsInsider/status/130010252585345024
[quote name=Smokestack Lightning]Tony LaRussa, tactical genius, tireless defender of traditonal scouting, scourge of sabermetrics, to give Ryan Theriot more plate appearances than Albert Pujols:
http://twitter.com/#!/CardsInsider/status/130010252585345024/quote
whats it say, for those of us that have a twitter block at work?
.
I hate Theriot so much.
[quote name=work sucks]I hate Theriot so much.[/quote]
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/10/28/yankees-will-announce-new-contract-with-general-manager-brian-cashman-after-world-series
The Yankees announced during the World Series that they will announce something after the World Series.
new shit: http://www.obstructedview.net/articles/major-league-baseball/last-nights-game-is-a-classic.html