Posted on 07/16/2006 4:52:06 PM PDT by MikefromOhio
LOL
They've been playing 500 ball for a month and a half now, but gawd the first month was excruciating. Seeing the Tigers do what they've done this year gives us hope. I wonder what Pudge is doing next year?
We've lacked courage on the mound. Like chinese water torture I've seen game after game lost because the pitcher gets the batter in the hole just to back off and try to "paint the corners" rather than just go after them. I know that's the pitching coach that's doing it, but a catcher with balls would be a big plus for the Royals.
I'll bet Ozzie Gullien is wishing he hadn't told Ordonez to "Go play for the F'n Tigers".
Ordonez was good before but with the Tigers he's really become a force to be reconed with.
The guy playing centerfield for the Royals has a golden glove in his future
Joey Gathright. Golden glove is a given. He's probably one of the fastest players in MLB today. If we can get him some dicipline at the plate we'll have one of the premire leadoff men in the majors.
We agree that stats don't matter.
Sincerely
Soccer Fan
War the Manual Buzzer making me buy a new monitor
Calif. 2 K.C. 3 (9) (L-Ryan) Cin. 6 S.F. 1 Mont. 1 Pit. 6 Atl. 0 L.A. 5 Hou. 8 S.D. 4 NYM 8 Phila. 5 (W-Murray-CG) Bos. 0 NYY 4 Oak. 1 Tex. 0 (W-Wirth-CG) Stl 6 ChC 2 Tor. 3 Bal. 8I don't see any blown saves...just games won by too many runs and complete games. Closest was the Angels-Royals, with Nolan Ryan blowing the CG.
Minn. 3 Mil. 10 Det. 1 Cle. 0 (W-Rozema-CG) ChW 8 Sea. 3I didn't find the double header, though.
stats is one thing, but when it gets to the point where the announcers are saying things like, "this switch hitter has a .500 average, batting left handed, against right hand relief pitchers, in the 7th inning, at home, with 2 bases occupied, and at least a 4 run lead, after the all star break..." then its friggin' ridiculous.
I find that to be fun, but then again I like Math :)
Baseball is quirky like that.
Most casual sports fans can name how many homers Babe Ruth hit. Some can't name how many Touchdowns Walter Payton had or how many Emmitt Smith ended up with.
That's just the way it is.
and that doesn't happen, so I don't know what you are talking about, at least it never happens on the games I'm watching and I watch quite a few of them.
The "Save" stat was watered down, I think, around 1969.
Some things about baseball are still evolving - a sea change (equivalent to the extinction of the dinosaurs) was Tony La Russa developing the late-inning specialist-centered bullpen.
The 'pen used to be just five guys who couldn't throw 300 solid innings a year. Look at the now-seemingly ridiculous workloads pitchers had to toil under pre-1968. Think of how much longer careers could have been extended (e.g. a Mel Stottlemyre or Warren Spahn). Everyone has a "closer" these days. Most if it, I think, is because of the large guaranteed contracts given to players: creates economic incentive to avoid excessive wear-n-tear, and that shows up on the field.
Just out of curiosity (if it's not too much work), who got the win in the KC/Angels game?
Al Hrabosky.
The Mad Hungarian! Awesome! Thank you.
The reason baseball is so stat-nuts is because of an American cultural tradition that seeks to nurture the past while embracing the future. Just as an anecdote, my Dad talks about Brooks Robinson in the same hushed tones that (if I ever have kids) I would reserve for Alex Rodriguez.
What baseball is is a discrete, measurable series of events that lend themselves to individual pitcher/batter matchups (with ballpark and weather also somewhat easily quantified). Using league central measures of tendency, with the raw muscle of mathematics, you can, as an intellectual exercise, match up the 2001 Mariners vs. the 1919 White Sox (throw out the postseason).
You can't do that watching Peyton Manning throw into various secondaries and schemes, because there are so many injuries and substitutions in football the events are not discrete, but continuous and (hate to use the word) subjective.
That's where the Baseball Stat Geek really shines. God Bless America.
maybe but you have to have stones to be a closer for 10-15 years, and a rubber arm that can throw 2 or 3 innings (counting warm ups, bullpen tosses and in-between innings) every other night.
Some guys are just fit to be a closer. Rivera is one of them. Others are not (Brad Lidge??).
Just watch, the save will be the next big stat. Right now, for pitchers, it's 300 wins or 3000 strikeouts, but now it's going to be 300 or 350 saves.
If you look at how starting pitching is going and who is doing the best, we MIGHT have the last couple 300 win pitchers for a long time pitching right now. I figure that Glavine will get there, Mussina will get close and you can't count out guys like Willis and maybe Carlos Zambrano, but they are all young guys and it will be 10 years before they get close.
I used to watch Brooks Robinson AND Jim Palmer every night during the HTS Orioles broadcasts during the late 80s and early 90s....
I didn't mean to disparage the Save, at all. It's the Stat of the New Millenium.
Used to be you had to finish the final three innings of any win (still an unconditional qualifier), but you didn't get credit for closing out the ninth with a lead, at least without tying runs on base.
See? You made your point extremely well. This is what makes a baseball geek: statistics are the lifeblood of cross-generational comparisons. I would agree: the 300 game winner could very well become a relic of the past. And closers, despite only 100-odd IP a season, have to be ready every day, if not every other day - and they typically will face both left and right-handed hitters.
I agree. Other sports can be entertaining, but baseball is special.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.