Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 50
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    158
    vCash
    1500

    Baseball conventions you don't like

    What are some of the strategical conventions that you think are bogus?

    - Putting speed over OBP at leadoff: I think ability to get on base is the most important thing for a leadoff hitter, speed should be more of a bonus. Also, they sometimes put a guy like Alfonzo Soriano batting first just because he can run. Someone with power should never be put batting with nobody on or after the bottom of the order.

    - The closer must be a hard throwing/strikeout type of a pitcher: Just put in the pitcher who is best at getting hitters out, doesn't matter how he does it.

    - Hitters being aggressive with a 3-0 count: I don't have stats to back me up, but I always thought that from a game-theory perspective, it's almost always better to be taking all the way rather than swinging.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    39,052
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Vodka23 View Post
    What are some of the strategical conventions that you think are bogus?

    - Putting speed over OBP at leadoff: I think ability to get on base is the most important thing for a leadoff hitter, speed should be more of a bonus. Also, they sometimes put a guy like Alfonzo Soriano batting first just because he can run. Someone with power should never be put batting with nobody on or after the bottom of the order.

    - The closer must be a hard throwing/strikeout type of a pitcher: Just put in the pitcher who is best at getting hitters out, doesn't matter how he does it.

    - Hitters being aggressive with a 3-0 count: I don't have stats to back me up, but I always thought that from a game-theory perspective, it's almost always better to be taking all the way rather than swinging.
    The Ricky Henderson/Wade Boggs high OBP types blast away the Pierre/Wills type. Only teams with tight wallets or stupid GM/Managers attempt it anymore.

    Some of the best closers ever have featured change-ups.

    The third point depends on the situation. If the pitcher walked two of the guys and his having a hard time getting strikes, take. Of course if thats a good hitter and the next guy is a .239/.321/.366 hitter, maybe the hitter should swing. There is no way that a hard and fast rule works in this situation.


    6/27/09: “We expect [Rondo] to play by the rules and be a leader as a point guard. We need him to be more of a leader,” Ainge said. “There were just a couple situations where he was late this year, I don’t know if he was sitting in his car, but showed up late and the rest of the team was there. We have team rules and you have to be on time. He was fined for being late, he said he was stuck in traffic, and it’s just unacceptable.”

    Some jerks never learn.....

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Mexas
    Posts
    10,333
    vCash
    1500
    The Save stat.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    North Oakland, California
    Posts
    25,815
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Vodka23 View Post
    What are some of the strategical conventions that you think are bogus?

    - Putting speed over OBP at leadoff: I think ability to get on base is the most important thing for a leadoff hitter, speed should be more of a bonus. Also, they sometimes put a guy like Alfonzo Soriano batting first just because he can run. Someone with power should never be put batting with nobody on or after the bottom of the order.

    - The closer must be a hard throwing/strikeout type of a pitcher: Just put in the pitcher who is best at getting hitters out, doesn't matter how he does it.

    - Hitters being aggressive with a 3-0 count: I don't have stats to back me up, but I always thought that from a game-theory perspective, it's almost always better to be taking all the way rather than swinging.
    I'll take this one step further and say that having a closer at all is stupid. Closer-by-committee is the most rational way to do it, but the save stat is SOO damned overrated.

    Restricting a good reliever to one inning for a very weak reason is just a horrible idea. I'm surprised that there's not a manager out there that has gone 100% closer by committee.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    22,755
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by CubsGirl View Post
    I'll take this one step further and say that having a closer at all is stupid. Closer-by-committee is the most rational way to do it, but the save stat is SOO damned overrated.

    Restricting a good reliever to one inning for a very weak reason is just a horrible idea. I'm surprised that there's not a manager out there that has gone 100% closer by committee.
    If I'm not mistaken didn't Boston try that in 2003? In theory I think your idea works, but it doesn't seem to work in practice even though the sample size is small. I'll agree with you on the save stat being overrated. If players were robots then this idea would work, but some players seem to play better when they have assigned roles. I wish the idea would work as it does make sense to use your best pitcher in the highest leverage spot, but there is not enough data out there to say that it does.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,229
    vCash
    1500
    People still pay attention to RBI. And wins for a pitcher. And John Kruk.
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,684
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    People still pay attention to RBI. And wins for a pitcher. And John Kruk.
    My problem is people that spit on RBI's...then ***** about someone's BA/RISP.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    18,774
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by mell413 View Post
    If I'm not mistaken didn't Boston try that in 2003? In theory I think your idea works, but it doesn't seem to work in practice even though the sample size is small. I'll agree with you on the save stat being overrated. If players were robots then this idea would work, but some players seem to play better when they have assigned roles. I wish the idea would work as it does make sense to use your best pitcher in the highest leverage spot, but there is not enough data out there to say that it does.
    The reason it didn't work in 2003 with Boston is because they had a ****** bullpen. They were 28th in ERA that year, 20th in opponents OPS, and 21st in WHIP. That team is going to struggle no matter what in the late innings.

    And I totally agree that more teams should try it. Better pitchers should be used in high leverage situations. I hate how the second or third best pitcher is throwing in what could be the most crucial spot in the game, because the closer is being saved for the ninth inning. What good is saving your closer for the ninth if you lost the game in the 8th?


    Vic Mackey: You better figure out how much you hate me. And how you're going to deal with that. 'Cause I'm not going anywhere.

    This sums up every sports interview, ever.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    39,140
    vCash
    1500
    The reason I like the closer, and the setup man, and the long reliever, and the lefty specialist, and the whatever, is because in my opinion, players need consistency. I hate switching players positions around, their spot in the lineup, etc., because the more of a rhythm and flow a player is in the better they will perform. I don't want anyone questioning their role on their team, and thus making them **** up psychologically.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    18,774
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Driven View Post
    The reason I like the closer, and the setup man, and the long reliever, and the lefty specialist, and the whatever, is because in my opinion, players need consistency. I hate switching players positions around, their spot in the lineup, etc., because the more of a rhythm and flow a player is in the better they will perform. I don't want anyone questioning their role on their team, and thus making them **** up psychologically.
    Yeah I totally agree. The lefty specialist obviously has no problem facing left handed hitters in the 8th but will crumble facing left handed hitters in the ninth.

    Also the set-up man who on occasion will pitch the ninth when the "closer" is given an off day will have no problem pitching the ninth on that occasion but clearly will falter when pitching in the 9th when there is no designated closer (or the usual closer has pitched earlier in the game).

    In a "closer by comittee" you're still using players in designated roles. The loogy still faces LH hitters. The set up man (or in this case, the second and third best arms) will typically pitch in the 7th or 8th inning. The only difference is, if the 3-4-5 guys are up and the go ahead or tying run is at the plate, it makes more sense to go to your best RP, who we'd call a closer, instead of a set up man. Like I said before, there's no point in saving your closer for the ninth if you lose the game in the 8th.

    If you set up the system properly in the beginning of the season, the players will know their roles. So I'm not really sure what you're arguing about.


    Vic Mackey: You better figure out how much you hate me. And how you're going to deal with that. 'Cause I'm not going anywhere.

    This sums up every sports interview, ever.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    28,291
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    People still pay attention to RBI. And wins for a pitcher. And John Kruk.
    and Harold Reynolds, and the MLBN.
    Free Doug

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,727
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by poodski View Post
    and Harold Reynolds, and the MLBN.
    you killed it

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    26,033
    vCash
    500
    The 100 pitch count limit for pitchers.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,884
    vCash
    1500
    1. Going halfway on a fly ball -- it almost never helps, because outfielders catch fly balls a lot more than they barely miss them. If runners just stayed at their base until the ball was caught, they would be able to tag up a lot more than if they were already out halfway and then had to go back to the previous base in order to tag up.

    2. Closers in general -- putting the same pitcher in the game in a save situation every time, the save statistic, and only using a closer in save situations.

    3. Switch hitters -- most switch hitters are a lot better at hitting from one side of the plate than from the other. In such cases, hitters should always hit from their better side.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    294
    vCash
    1500
    Quality starts was something greedy agents came up with to drive up average pitchers contracts COUGH COUGH gil meche COUGH COUGH

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •