Filter posts by...
Playing_Approach
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
By , 12:28 AM
http://texas.rangers.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110411&content_id=17643966¬ebook_id=17649334&vkey=notebook_tex&c_id=tex
Texas was up 2-0 with 2 outs and a runner on 2nd with Cabrera, a RHB up at the plate and Feliz, Texas’ RH closer on the mound. Washington, the Texas manager, did what any old-school manager worth his weight in practice balls would do - he ordered the IBB.
Some nifty quotes from the article:
First frick:
“I had to pick my poison, and I didn’t want Cabrera taking us to extra innings,” Washington said. “Martinez is a good hitter and I have respect for him, but he’s not swinging the bat well. He could have caught one and won the ballgame, but I decided to take my chances. I didn’t want Cabrera tying that game.”
And then frack:
“I think the answer is very simple: They did what they felt gave them the best chance to win the game,” Tigers manager Jim Leyland said. “And that’s what you do as a manager. If they felt that was their best chance to win the game, then that’s what they should do. I give them a lot of credit.
In related news, a manager at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi power plant tried to contain the massive radioactive leaks with duct tape. A senior Japanese government official was quoted as saying this:
“He did what he thought he had to do to give us the best chance of containing the leak. And that’s all you can ask of your nuclear plant manager. If he felt that was their best chance of rectifying the problem, then that’s what they should do. I give him lots of credit. In fact, I gave him a raise!”
Thursday, March 10, 2011
A fun article by RJ that focuses on how Cesar Izturis had so few plate appearances.
***
(Hmmm… I can see these images. You know, I think I have a problem with png images at BPro, but not jpg.)
Monday, March 07, 2011
A high school coach ordered his goalie off the ice so that they could lose a game, allowing their opponent to move ahead in the playoffs and bumping out a rival. Had they won the game instead, the rival would have proceeded into the playoffs too. The coach didn’t want that. The coach was made aware of the circumstances at the moment he made his decision because of texting: there were several games being played that afternoon, and his game was still ongoing, so he knew the lay of the land.
So, his team lost, and his rival wasn’t in the playoffs. But, the kids didn’t like it, not one bit. No one liked it. And so, the kids agreed and the league ruled that the team that threw the game would do a sudden death against the rival. They lost the game, but, really, they won where it counts:
Wake also praised Westwood’s players, who told him they were unhappy to see the game thrown and were keen to play the Friday afternoon game.
“These kids are winners already because they’ve stepped up and, as a principal, I’m very proud of them,” he said. “Unfortunately some adults got in the way of the kids.”
If the kids were in charge, things would have worked out better. Lord of the Flies be damned.
***
The closest I’ve seen in terms of throwing a game was when the Expos and Blue Jays played an exhibition game in 1979. Because it was an in-season game, there was a time limit to the game. The game was tied heading into the bottom of the 11th, in Toronto. The Expos manager (Dick Williams) stalled. And after he was ordered to get back to the dugout, the warm up tosses were completed, and on the last pitch the catcher threw the ball past second base and into the outfield. Time limit reached.
An exhibition game, with proceeds for charity.
Friday, February 25, 2011
This is what it’s like in hockey. Crisp did the right thing, or at least the thing that would be accepted as proper. In hockey, Crisp would have gone after Bartlett. Unfortunately in baseball, the pitcher is the designated goon:
There are unwritten rules in baseball, and one of them is that middle infielders don’t drop their knee in front of the bag intentionally, or in a way that can be thought to be intentionally.... So I got up and had some choice words for [Jason Bartlett]. He didn’t even look at me.... Bartlett didn’t cover the bag; [Akinori Iwamura], the second baseman, did instead, so my mentality of how hard I was going in simmered on the last few steps. I still went in hard, because my mentality was to go in really hard, but it wasn’t nearly as hard as I was going to go in on Bartlett.... I get there for the game and one of the guys from the other team, who used to play for [us] came up and said, “What’s going on man, you trying to get hit by the baseball?” I said, “No, but if I get hit, it’s not going to be even. It is what it is.” ... I didn’t think I was going to get hit in my first at-bat, but boom, boom, bam, [James Shields] hit me in the leg.... Without thought to how it was going to go down, I took my helmet off and ran out there.
Friday, February 11, 2011
By , 03:40 AM
Wow, there are so many things wrong with this story, my head is spinning!
In case you don’t read it, here is a synopsis:
High school pitcher throws 80 with a wicked curve. He gets cut from his high school team on the second day of tryouts. Why?
He has two prosthetic legs and the coach says that he can’t field bunts and the other teams could win by constantly bunting. Wow!
From the article:
Anthony, a sophomore, was cut on the second day tryouts. Coach Mike Bradley’s main concern was that Anthony can’t field bunts, and that teams would take advantage of his inability to jump off the mound quickly.
What a wonderful inspiration to the school, community, and the world to have this kid pitch on his high school team. And it is not like he can’t pitch. A high school kid throwing 80 with a “wicked curve”, while not MLB material, is at least average for most high schools. Who the f**ck cares if their team wins with him pitching? How is that relevant in high school sports?
Perhaps most importantly, and this was pointed out (because it is obvious) in the SB blog entry (hat tip to them) by Andy Hutchins that referenced this story, what kind of effing coach from another high school is going to order his team to bunt against this pitcher? Again, who cares if THEY win the game. They should be honored to play against someone like this kid. And if they bunt, the kid simply drills the next kid in the ribs with his 80 mph heater. End of story.
BTW, what about the adage that, “Pitching is all about the legs?” Seriously. Is that another baseball truism down the drain?
Thursday, February 03, 2011
Dave Magadan says no:
12) Staying on statistics, Fans realize that most, if not all, ballplayers analyze videotape of their at-bats frequently. But are players aware of their progress, or regressions, related to the batted ball data that Fangraphs publishes, such as how often they swing at, or refrain from, pitches in and out of the zone?
DM: Very few players are aware of those statistics. They become aware when someone asks them about it. In some cases I might bring it up to a player to prove a point. Maybe they’re chasing out of the zone with two strikes, with RISP, etc…
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Say when the difference is 50 points, stop the game, mix up the teams, and have some fun the rest of the way.
Monday, January 24, 2011
You would think that more baserunners would try to score in lineout situations like this:
Dodger outfielders Juan Pierre and Andre Ethier were on second and third bases, respectively. With one out, Dodger pitcher Randy Wolf lined out to his Diamondback counterpart, Dan Haren. Haren then threw behind Pierre, who had broken for third on contact. Arizona’s second baseman, Felipe Lopez, casually applied the tag to Pierre to record the third out and end the inning with no runs scoring.
Or so he thought.
Lopez’s lackadaisical tag gave Ethier enough time to cross home plate. After the Diamondbacks left the field, and on advice from Dodgers bench coach Bob Schaefer, Torre walked out and appealed to the umpire crew for Ethier’s run to count. The umpires allowed the run, which they should have done in the first place, and left us with a narrow miss of a so-called “fourth out.”
Torre relayed Schaefer’s heads-up call after the game, “When it happened, Bob Schaefer said, ‘That’s the four-out play.’” Schaefer was referring to a passage under rule 7.10, that reads as follows,
Appeal plays may require an umpire to recognize an apparent “fourth out.”
Had the Diamondbacks noticed the run scoring while they turned the double play, they could have appealed at third base. In their defense, the umpire should have been clear and indicated that a run scored. Unfortunately, they missed the call, and that’s why Torre had to appeal to get the run and not the defense appealing the runner leaving third early.
Had the umpires properly indicated a run scored right away, the defense could have appealed and touched third base with the ball. Umpires would have had to call Ethier out since he was running on contact and did not tag up after Harden caught the ball in the air. Since the Diamondbacks had already turned the double play and ended the inning with three outs, Ethier’s out on appeal would look like a fourth out.
But, MLB rules have that covered. The passage in rule 7.10 goes on to say:
If the third out is made during a play in which an appeal play is sustained on another runner, the appeal play decision takes precedence in determining the out.
So, an appeal by the Diamondbacks still would have held the batter to be out, but Ethier would have been the one doubled off third instead of Pierre being doubled off second.
That seems to be as close as we can get to a fourth out in an inning. In addition to the rulebook simply attributing the third out to a different runner to keep the number of outs as three, circumstances for a defensive appeal on a time play so specific as to qualify for this little exercise just don’t come around very often.
Sunday, January 02, 2011
Through the Hey Bill, I’m yapping my thought on etiquette rules. This is what I’ve said (and if you want to see what he says, check out his site.)
=====================================================
(A) “the culture of the game wouldn’t tolerate them"… You are of course speaking as an American. What if the normal practice after hitting a HR or getting a K in the Dominican Republic was alot of showboating? Would they need to conform to the unwritten American rules if they play in MLB?
(B) What was your opinion of Prince Fielder’s walk off HR when he “bowled” over his teammates like bowling pins?
(C) In my opinion, for rules of etiquette, let the players themselves create the rules for the appropriate playing conditions. How players act and react when the ball is not in play is inconsequential to me as a fan.
***
(A) No, I don’t think one should let the dominant culture completely subsume the minority culture. There is room to let new practices take shape, and if a DR pitcher striking out a hitter means a bit of gunslinging mannerisms, that’s ok. I loved Carlos Perez’ kookiness in Montreal, and I’d encourage more individuality like that. Don’t forget that America (and Canada) is different from the other countries, being countries of immigrants. I think that plays a role.
(B) Fielder’s HR is at the 30 second mark, and pay special attention to what he does at the 40 second mark (calling out his teammates), and then when he reaches home plate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxWeRhih-jo
(C) That’s correct I’m saying they shouldn’t because we are dictating what of their emotions, planned or spontaneous, is appropriate, while the ball is dead. I should have no opinion on what etiquette rule ARod crossing Braden’s mound breaks. It’s a player v player issue. A fan and owner should not legislate that. Players should establish the etiquette rules for the most part.
***
I am talking about the rules of etiquette when the play is dead, that that is inconsequential for me as an observer, and is entirely within what the players’ playing conditions is. To make the analogy to a Ford car, that would be whether Ford requires its employees to not make fun of each other if they drive a Honda. These things are inconsequential to me as a consumer. The media or fans legislating behaviour that has no impact to whether you have an out or run is an overreach. If players are ok with Michael Jordan trash-talking on a basketball court, but they are not ok with him trash-talking on a golf course, then let the players legislate that rule. How am I impacted as a fan?
Saturday, December 18, 2010
We’ve talked about this a few times. I see no problem with starting the 10th or 12th inning with a runner on 2B. It’s still baseball because, well, having a runner on 2B with 0 outs happens all the time.
What other options are available, if the intent is to complete the game quicker? Could you for example accept a 4-out inning? Those also happen, sort of, with errors. So, it’s not like it’s unbaseball. Could you start each batter with a 1-0 count?
Please, if you are thinking “HR Derby”, leave this site, and never ever come back. HR Derby scenarios never happen in baseball. It’s an argument that a VP from Fox News would make.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Carson makes the case.
This could be similar to the way Vlad swings hard at everything...he looks bad sometimes, but then you look at his career. Can we necessarily separate Hanley’s loaf as something independent of his overall talent?
I love the possibility…
Thursday, December 09, 2010
To add or remove a baseball player or basketball player would seem like a huge deal. In football, we see the 11- and 12-man teams with NFL and CFL.
In hockey, they used to have a rover, and reduced eventually the number of skaters from 6 to the current 5 (plus goalie). Iian gives us some fascinating tidbits that before the role was removed altogether, it went through a transition, an abrupt change, from being closer to a 4th forward, to being closer to a 3rd defensemen. Great stuff. If we were to introduce a 6th skater in the NHL, what would happen? And if we were to remove a skater to get us down to 4, what would happen? I love stuff like that, and it seems that even if we think we know what would happen for a few years, things may still shift radically anyway.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
I was asked to participate in a discussion, so here’s the first in that series. I’ll just update this thread as more links come up:
This week’s question: If you had to pick one NHL rule that you would institute, change, or remove, what would you choose? Why?
I’d change the icing rule so that it’s not a race to the puck/boards, but a race to some other point on the ice, like it’s been proposed (say the faceoff circle in the defensive zone...if the icing team beats the race to the circle, then it’s a race to the puck). I’d also maintain the rule even in shorthanded situations. If the league really thinks the shorthanded team is too much at a disadvantage without the special non-icing rule for them, then change it to a 90-second penalty or 110-second penalty to maintain the icing rule.
And I’d go with four-on-four for the whole game. For PP, I could go either way (5-4, or 4-3). Two-man PP would have to be 5-3.
That was my answer. Looking at the answers of the others, I have to agree on the point system being out-of-whack. Had I thought about it, I would have put that one #1. For the 4-on-4, while I said whole game, I’d be happy also for just the whole 3rd period instead. There’s a danger that if you do something as drastic as whole game, that it upsets the balance significantly. We don’t need to go all-in. So, good idea from Tom Awad.
Shootouts is cool and fun, and breakaways is part of hockey. So, I’m ok there. But, we should think in terms of a natural progression. A GM proposed going to OT as 4-on-4 for 4 minutes, then 3-on-3 for 3 minutes before going to shootout. Again, makes perfect sense. Not to mention that in practice, players will often scrimmage as 3-on-3 (half-ice) because that’s how the coaches can see your skill level open up, no different than a pickup basketball game. Now wouldn’t that be super cool for the NBA too? This is similar to football leagues that have OT where each side will get once chance with the ball on the 20. Or starting an inning with a runner on base.
And I agree about the head shots. Same applies in baseball. Intent is irrelevant. If you are reckless, like a reckless driver, it doesn’t matter if you intended to hurt someone. What matters is if you actually did.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
And does the level of competition matter?
Manchester High School coach Marco Pizzoferrato told the Hartford Courant last week that a list of coded plays, written on an armband belonging to one of his players, can be seen attached to the clipboard being used by Southington High School coach D.J. Hernandez in films from Southington’s 28-14 win against Manchester on Oct. 22.
In an amateur setting, where the point is not to win, but to compete, you are cheating yourself; it’s an empty, hollow win.
In a pro setting, where it’s all about winning, I have no doubt that Jeter and ARod would approve of using the coded plays.
Monday, November 01, 2010
It was a beautiful sight: 7th inning, two runners on base, two outs, with Baumgarner seemingly in trouble. The ideal spot for the coach to visit the pitcher to “calm” his nerves. Bochy told the coach NOT to go out, so the pitching coach took two steps back. The players huddled, and Baumgarner got the out.
I can’t stand the mid-inning relief change, and the mid-inning mound visit by the coach is even worse. Thanks Bochy.
Monday, October 18, 2010
I can’t see any of the charts from the office, so I’ll comment when I can.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Some rules to consider. These should NOT be taken as serious rule proposals necessarily, but they do offer us a chance to understand and discuss the impact. It’s about how well we can apply our baseball knowledge if new rules are introduced. Ready?
1. Don’t Look: Batters are assessed two strikes if they take a pitch over the plate without swinging at it (called “taking a strike”). This idea comes from breaking the dependency between actual strikes and the strike count. The benefit is batters will be much more motivated to swing at pitches. Likewise, pitchers will be much more motivated to throw strikes. This should cause more balls to be hit into play causing more action. It should also speed up play.
I like the idea of forcing the batter to swing. But, the pitcher will NOT be motivated to throw strikes. Quite the contrary. He’ll pitch like he starting off at 0-1, meaning he’s going to pitch to the edge. In any case, you just have to do a late swing, and that cancels out the “strike looking”. I dunno, it would seem to be hard to implement. If it is implementable, then the number of called balls should go down to 3 for a walk. That will increase motivation for the pitcher to throw strikes.
2. Keep Walking: If a batter is walked, the batter can walk to the furthest base that is open. So if there is no one on base, the walked batter can take third base. This should make pitchers even more motivated to throw strikes. It will limit the number of intentional walks, and it should speed things up.
Won’t do anything about the IBB, since they’ll be stuck at 1B most of the time. Giving a batter a triple will make it more likely he’s going to be taking as much as possible. The pitcher will be motivated to throw strikes.
3. Double Down: If a batter hits a home run with men on base, the base runners get to stay on base. Their point total still counts (so if two men were on base when the home run is hit, the team earns three runs). This rewards home runs even more, thus increasing the pressure on the pitcher to strike out batters.
Yes, HR will become very valuable, enough that we’ll get lots of boppers on the team. Teams will also be motivated not to take the extra base on running plays, preferring to possibly keep the bases loaded for the big hitters rather than taking the easy run from 3B.
4. Stranded Hurts: If a team leaves runners on base when the side retires, they lose the same number of points (runs) as the number of stranded runners (not below zero).
This is, well, it doesn’t make sense. Maybe in a high-scoring softball game, it might make sense. But not in MLB. Games will end 0-0 most of the time.
5. Out For Good: If a player is ejected from a game for fighting or arguing with the umpire, the team loses that player in the lineup and on the field. In other words, the team plays with eight players on the field instead of nine. This should cause a big disincentive to get thrown out.
Basically, the player is red-carded like in soccer. Yeah, that is a pretty strong disincentive. The umpires though will be walking on eggshells. Much too dangerous a rule I think.
6. Pop Up Running: Instead of players having to retain their base in case of a fly ball, runners are now allowed to run during fly balls. This increases scoring and game action.
Increases scoring, and reduces strategy. Baserunning and basestealing will ground to a halt.
7. Derby Time: There are no extra innings in the event of a tie. Instead, teams participate in a home run derby to settle a tie (much like hockey does with the “shoot out” format).
Hockey goes to OT first, before the shootout, by going to 4-on-4. The equivalent in baseball would be to start the 10th and 11th innings with a man on base. In hockey, a shootput is equivalent to a breakaway goal or penalty shot, something that happens in actual game time. HR derby is a non-starter. You can go with two men on base to start the inning, or start each batter at 1-0 count. Those would be the equivalents.
8. Leg Up: In the ninth inning, the team that is behind in the score starts the inning with a man on first base. This puts some much needed tension into the game and adds density.
Kinda weird to think about. Say the road team is down by 1, they get a runner on base, they score two, and now the home team is down by 1, and they get a runner on base. But, if the road team was up by 1 to start the inning, no runner on base for them, and then the home team gets a runner on base to start the bottom of the 9th. An obvious home field advantage. I don’t think this will fly, as it’s a very unfair rule (applies only to one side).
Overall, these are not the best suggestions. They let us flex our what-if muscles, but, I don’t think it does much else for me.
Glove-slap: Kevin.
Friday, October 08, 2010
By , 03:42 AM
If you watched the Yankees/Twins game last night you probably heard the commentators go on about the Yankee hitters jumping on Pavano’s first pitch because Pavano tends to throw first pitch fastballs over or near the plate.
Later in the game, they talked about Pavano adjusting to the Yankee approach and then the Yankees adjusting to Pavano, etc.
Sounds all well and good, right?
Wrong!
If batters and pitchers adjust their approaches according to what the other has done in the past during a game, then one or the other is NOT performing (in terms of their approach/strategy) optimally! Game theory tells us that.
Baseball is a game of adjustments only in terms of learning - a player improving upon his skills and strategy and learning new things about his opponent. It should NOT be about the kind of adjustments during a game that you hear from commentators all the time.
Friday, September 17, 2010
A writer asked me about K’s and Mark Reynolds:
He acknowledged that in certain situations - for example, a runner on third and less than two outs or a man on second and nobody out - a strikeout can be costly. But when looking at the 24 possible situations based on outs and bases occupied and weighing them according to how often those situations occur, Tango said a strikeout costs an extra 0.01 runs compared with a ground out or fly out.
“So if you have Mark Reynolds with 200 strikeouts, and given that the average hitter would strike out 100 times, Reynolds’ strikeouts cost one run,” he wrote in an e-mail. “I know it doesn’t ‘feel’ like it, and I know it’s incredibly frustrating to see a hitter strike out in clutch situations, since fans predominantly simply want the batter to put the damn bat on the damn ball.
“But anyone who sits down and works it out has always come to a very similar conclusion.”
Walt Davis says:
Batting average is the single most important component of offensive production and Ks hurt BA. Walks and power can make up for that damage (and then some) but let’s not pretend that Ks don’t hurt.
Strikeouts is not something that you can just reduce in a vacuum. If you look at non-K performance, and you reduce your K, you will find that your non-K performance will also go down. It would be something like this:
200 PA, strikeouts, , -0.30 runs per PA, -60 runs total
500 PA, nonK, +0.15 runs per PA, +75 runs total
Total? 700 PA, +15 runs.
Let’s say now that you reduce your K by 100. This is what you will probably get:
100 PA, strikeouts, , -0.30 runs per PA, -30 runs total
600 PA, nonK, +0.05runs per PA, +30 runs total
Total? 700 PA, +0 runs.
Basically, in order to be really good when you don’t strikeout, you have to have a swing and approach that let’s you strikeout alot as a byproduct. If you shorten your swing or change your approach such that you can reduce your K, you will also reduce your effectiveness when you don’t K.
Is this really what happens? Well, for the majority of hitters, this is what would happen. I have to believe that hitters are smart and have reached the optimal style for their talents.
But, for others, likely a minority, this is not what happens, as evidenced by this study I did a while ago:
And how about overall? The wOBA of the 5250 went from .345 to .344. The Kleskoyan increased from .340 to .354, while the Jedmonds dropped from .354 to .347. So, even though the Kleskoyan actually hit less HR, their lowering of strikeouts actually increased their overall production. And even though Jedmonds hit more HR, their increase in strikeouts lowered their overall production.
The Kleskoyan group of hitters are those hitters that did something different that allowed their K rates to plummet. And their overall production increased. The Jedmonds group of hitters are those that allowed their K rates to jump, and their overall production dropped.
When you do these studies, you are always at the mercy of selection bias: are the players in these groups representative or not? Are the players that didn’t qualify for the study biased or not? Suppose that you have players that actively changed their approach such that they reduced their strikeouts, but their overall production dropped substantially. What would happen? Well, they wouldn’t last long enough to be in the study, and therefore, we won’t see their effects. You can possibly make the same argument for the guys that decide to become longballers and increase their K as well. It’s hard to determine exactly where the bias is.
So, Walt is definitely right that it’s very possible that a reduction in K can improve your overall game, as evidenced by my study. As I concluded in that article:
While I wouldn’t propose a star hitter like Dunn or Soriano change his approach, there are plenty of guys struggling to make it who would find it worthwhile to change their approach to hitting.
The testing of theories to changing approaches should be done on the hundreds of high K hitters struggling to make an MLB team. I would not test those theories on Soriano or Reynolds or Dunn, not until I see results on the lesser players first.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Here’s Bill James on a zero-tolerance policy of bats coming out of hitters hands:
There is a really, really simple solution to this problem that is absolutely certain to work. You make a rule that if the bat OR ANY PART OF THE BAT is thrown by the batter more than 40 feet from home plate, the batter is automatically out, and it goes as a strikeout. If you do that, I guarantee you that hitters will discover real quick that a) they CAN hold on to the bat, and b) they can find bats that don’t shatter on contact. The absence of such a rule allows the batter to get the benefits of a vicious cut and a bat designed for maximum bat speed, but excuses him the dangerous consequences of this combination. That’s unnatural. The natural thing is simply to hold the batter responsible for the bat.
From a baseball-fan perspective, I have no qualms with this. I like it for its inventiveness.
In hockey, if your stick shatters, you are required to IMMEDIATELY drop that stick. Players then lose several seconds skating back to the bench, or worse, staying in their own zones otherwise their team will be shorthanded.
So, it goes back to the test I was proposing with golf: (1) seriousness of offense, and (2) proportional remedy for offense.
In hockey, having a broken stick is dangerous. Same applies for baseball, though not as much. Hockey players are in closer proximity, always moving, and not necessarily focused on the player with the broken stick. So, I agree that it is a seriousness enough offense that it should be codified. Now, what about remedy? In hockey, as I stated, you are basically depriving your team of a skater for a short period of time. The remedy is pretty good there. I wouldn’t go to two minutes penalty, because that would be excessive for something that is essentially a fluke. But, there has to be a cost.
What about baseball? Automatic strikeout is excessive. Giving one strike seems perfectly in keeping with the proportionality of the offense, as well as being similar to what pitchers do that earn automatic balls (going to hand). This will nudge the batter toward getting a more shatter-resistant bat, and getting a better grip on the bat.
from Amazon
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 3 of 342 pages « First < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last »Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date