White Sox Interactive Forums
Talking Baseball

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Talking Baseball
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 07-04-2018, 05:51 PM
I_Liked_Manuel I_Liked_Manuel is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: downers ****ing grove
Posts: 1,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
I don’t get it. If “pace of play” is such a bugaboo to MLB brass, shouldn’t anything that produces more outs and speeds up games be embraced rather than shunned?
I don't think anybody cares about baserunners impacting pace of play. The mound visits, batters stepping out of the box, pitchers stepping off the mound, the endless line of middle relievers needing to warm up, etc causing pace of play to get out of hand is what people care about
__________________
Teacher Says, Every Time Brian Anderson Gets A Hit, An Angel Gets Its Wings.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-04-2018, 07:01 PM
Lip Man 1 Lip Man 1 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chubbuck, Idaho
Posts: 32,949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
You indirectly bring up the entire point of the argument in this post, which is that the evidence currently available to us suggests that the “little things that win games” do not actually win games.

Since this fundamental disconnect is not likely to be reconciled any time soon, continuing this debate is pointless.
I agree, we are from different generations I presume and see the game differently. Some love stats and algorithms and feel the way to play the game is the way the computer print out says (even though stats can be made to say 2+2=5)...and that's fine if you go for that.

Others prefer the nuances, the chess-match, the human element, the all around skills of a professional baseball player who can do more things to win a game than hit a home run, walk or strike out.

As Kenny would say, "it is what it is..."
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-04-2018, 07:38 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 9,218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lip Man 1 View Post
I agree, we are from different generations I presume and see the game differently. Some love stats and algorithms and feel the way to play the game is the way the computer print out says (even though stats can be made to say 2+2=5)...and that's fine if you go for that.

Others prefer the nuances, the chess-match, the human element, the all around skills of a professional baseball player who can do more things to win a game than hit a home run, walk or strike out.

As Kenny would say, "it is what it is..."
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I feel I must reiterate one more time that “like” has nothing to do with it. The folks on one side of this argument have explained, in great detail, the extensive research and sophisticated mathematical analysis that informed their opinions. The folks on the other side have shown nothing of the sort.

Nostalgia and platitudes about “the right way to play the game” are not an acceptable counter-argument. The concrete data available to us says that the “right way to play the game” is no longer “right,” but since that conclusion doesn’t mesh with people’s long-held aesthetic sensibilities, they willfully ignore it.

The new look of the game may be uncouth to a great many viewers, but the 30 teams in Major League Baseball are sending us an unmistakably clear message:

They would rather win ugly than lose pretty.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horsemaster Fred
This is the major leagues so get it how you live and let’s fight tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-04-2018, 09:01 PM
Lip Man 1 Lip Man 1 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chubbuck, Idaho
Posts: 32,949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
The new look of the game may be uncouth to a great many viewers, but the 30 teams in Major League Baseball are sending us an unmistakably clear message:

They would rather win ugly than lose pretty.
Except when it doesn't seem to work say for the White Sox since 2007.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-04-2018, 09:45 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 9,218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lip Man 1
Except when it doesn't seem to work say for the White Sox since 2007.
Because they have been worse at it than their competitors.

Your argument about the White Sox not winning with this style only has relevance if the teams who are winning championships are doing so with the small-ball approaches you pine for. A quick look at the past 11 World Series winners (since you mentioned 2007 in another post, I’ll use it here as a cut-off) shows that this is not the case. Here is where each ranked in MLB in terms of OPS:

2007 Red Sox-3rd
2008 Phillies-7th
2009 Yankees-1st
2010 Giants-16th
2011 Cardinals-5th
2012 Giants-14th
2013 Red Sox-1st
2014 Giants-14th
2015 Royals-9th
2016-3rd
2017 Astros-1st

The 3 Giants teams seem to be the only outliers here. All 8 other teams were in the top-third of the league in OPS, with 6 of those 8 teams being in the top-quintile, and 3 of them leading the league.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-04-2018, 10:11 PM
Lip Man 1 Lip Man 1 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chubbuck, Idaho
Posts: 32,949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
Because they have been worse at it than their competitors.

Your argument about the White Sox not winning with this style only has relevance if the teams who are winning championships are doing so with the small-ball approaches you pine for. A quick look at the past 11 World Series winners (since you mentioned 2007 in another post, I’ll use it here as a cut-off) shows that this is not the case. Here is where each ranked in MLB in terms of OPS:

2007 Red Sox-3rd
2008 Phillies-7th
2009 Yankees-1st
2010 Giants-16th
2011 Cardinals-5th
2012 Giants-14th
2013 Red Sox-1st
2014 Giants-14th
2015 Royals-9th
2016-3rd
2017 Astros-1st

The 3 Giants teams seem to be the only outliers here. All 8 other teams were in the top-third of the league in OPS, with 6 of those 8 teams being in the top-quintile, and 3 of them leading the league.
I'll take your word for it although I have no real idea what OPS is more mumbo /jumbo to me. My point, which I've made in the past, is you need "balance" like the Sox had in 2005. Guys with power, guys who can run, guys who hit for a higher average. Not just a bunch of guys who swing at everything and hope they hit it 623 feet. You've got to find ways to score and win games when you aren't hitting balls 543 feet.

Balance is the key word.

Here's some stats for you too. The Sox in 2005 were in the top quarter of the league in bunts, stolen bases, infield hits, sacrifice flys and home runs.

Say it with me..."balance."

By the way I thought it was pointless to keep discussing this?

Hope you had a good holiday.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-04-2018, 11:47 PM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is offline
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 54,697
Blog Entries: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lip Man 1 View Post
How could anything be worse then the fundamentally unsound, baseball-stupid, losing play I've been seeing on the South Side basically since 2007?

Not being facetious with that comment.

I'm for anything and everything that forces players to become more well rounded, that stresses the "little things" that win games since no one can guarantee a team is going to hit three home runs a game (with men on base).

That's a simplification of course of my 'philosophy' but you get the general idea. I think banning shifts would do that, but there's no way to know for sure until or unless this were to happen.

I don't think it will but the very fact that Manfred and MLB has talked about it means there is a chance of it happening.

And perhaps I'm stupid but when someone says "hitting the ball hard with lift" that means trying to hit home runs in my mind by basic definition. Dave Kingman would enjoy that philosophy (to go along with his .236 batting average...)
Yep you don't get what people are talking about when they talk about elevating angles on the swing. The simple fact is that balls with higher angles off the bat go for more hits. The alternative of course is hitting grounders and I assume you can agree that grounders are the least desirable outcome in almost all at bats.
__________________

Riding shotgun on the Sox bandwagon since before there was an Internet...
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-05-2018, 08:33 AM
asindc asindc is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 8,611
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by voodoochile View Post
Yep you don't get what people are talking about when they talk about elevating angles on the swing. The simple fact is that balls with higher angles off the bat go for more hits. The alternative of course is hitting grounders and I assume you can agree that grounders are the least desirable outcome in almost all at bats.
Another alternative is striking out, which is the least desirable outcome in almost all at bats.
__________________
"I have the ultimate respect for White Sox fans. They were as miserable as the Cubs and Red Sox fans ever were but always had the good decency to keep it to themselves. And when they finally won the World Series, they celebrated without annoying every other fan in the country." Jim Caple, ESPN (January 12, 2011)


"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the (bleeding) obvious is the first duty of intelligent men."George Orwell
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-05-2018, 08:51 AM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is offline
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 54,697
Blog Entries: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by asindc View Post
Another alternative is striking out, which is the least desirable outcome in almost all at bats.
True, but if BABIP and SLG go up enough to generate more runs with an approach that favors pulling the ball most of the time over a balanced approach then the rest doesn't matter.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-05-2018, 01:26 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 9,218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by voodoochile
True, but if BABIP and SLG go up enough to generate more runs with an approach that favors pulling the ball most of the time over a balanced approach then the rest doesn't matter.
Thank you for a perfect summation.

Simply put, the extra singles and non-strikeout outs do not lead to as many runs as the people who advocate for them think they do. The available math states that this approach costs a team runs in the aggregate when compared to the added power generated by the alternative option of free-swinging.

I’m sure that someone’s response will be something along the lines of “Why not have BOTH? You NEED to have BOTH!”

I think that is a great idea. Let’s do everything possible to get 6 or 7 Frank Thomas clones who can do both.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 07-05-2018, 04:29 PM
Lip Man 1 Lip Man 1 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chubbuck, Idaho
Posts: 32,949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
I think that is a great idea. Let’s do everything possible to get 6 or 7 Frank Thomas clones who can do both.


You don't need six or seven Frank Thomas'...did the 2005 Sox have six or seven of them?

You need a balance of guys who can do different things and do those different things well to have a successful blend.

Doing that only seems to be difficult for a small handful of unsuccessful teams over the last 10 years, the Sox being one of them. And I'm sure the Sox have had at least some analytical folks in the front office during that time period. Hasn't worked very well has it? (And no its not just because of the stat-based philosophy so I'm not trying to attack that aspect.)
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-05-2018, 04:52 PM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is offline
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 54,697
Blog Entries: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lip Man 1 View Post


You don't need six or seven Frank Thomas'...did the 2005 Sox have six or seven of them?

You need a balance of guys who can do different things and do those different things well to have a successful blend.

Doing that only seems to be difficult for a small handful of unsuccessful teams over the last 10 years, the Sox being one of them. And I'm sure the Sox have had at least some analytical folks in the front office during that time period. Hasn't worked very well has it? (And no its not just because of the stat-based philosophy so I'm not trying to attack that aspect.)
The 2005 Sox were an average offensive team who finished 5th in the majors in HR that season but otherwise were pretty "meh". They built their huge regular season lead in June, much of it coming behind Frank Thomas's huge month.

The offense improved markedly during the post season posting a .821 OPS with a .476 SLG on 18 HR. All of those numbers dwarfed the next closest teams with Houston managing 12 HR in second place.

Pitching was a different matter. They were top 5 in most categories and then absolutely wiped the opposition off the board in the playoffs, yielding 0.97 WHIP, 2.55 ERA and .594 OPS AS A TEAM in the 12 games played.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-05-2018, 05:59 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 9,218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lip Man 1


You don't need six or seven Frank Thomas'...did the 2005 Sox have six or seven of them?

You need a balance of guys who can do different things and do those different things well to have a successful blend.

Doing that only seems to be difficult for a small handful of unsuccessful teams over the last 10 years, the Sox being one of them. And I'm sure the Sox have had at least some analytical folks in the front office during that time period. Hasn't worked very well has it? (And no its not just because of the stat-based philosophy so I'm not trying to attack that aspect.)
I used Frank Thomas as an example because he is the most easily identifiable example Sox fans have of a flawless hitter.

It goes without saying that you won’t succeed in acquiring a lineup full of Frank Thomas clones, but you still try anyway. You try and get six or seven of those guys and hope that one or two actually can reach those heights, two or three more become something relatively close and have both their hit and power tools develop above average, and the rest develop at least one of those tools to be above average.

And if only one tool ends up above average, it would preferably be power. And if I have a choice between two players, all other things being equal, I’m taking the guy with more power. That really is the point of the entire debate.

The 2005 White Sox are a great example. They had eight legitimate power threats in the lineup at any given time. They had one 40-homer guy, one 30-homer guy, two 20-homer guys, and four 15-homer guys. Speaking of Frank, he chipped in 12 homers himself during his brief period of good health.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-05-2018, 07:07 PM
Lip Man 1 Lip Man 1 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chubbuck, Idaho
Posts: 32,949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
I used Frank Thomas as an example because he is the most easily identifiable example Sox fans have of a flawless hitter.

It goes without saying that you won’t succeed in acquiring a lineup full of Frank Thomas clones, but you still try anyway. You try and get six or seven of those guys and hope that one or two actually can reach those heights, two or three more become something relatively close and have both their hit and power tools develop above average, and the rest develop at least one of those tools to be above average.

And if only one tool ends up above average, it would preferably be power. And if I have a choice between two players, all other things being equal, I’m taking the guy with more power. That really is the point of the entire debate.

The 2005 White Sox are a great example. They had eight legitimate power threats in the lineup at any given time. They had one 40-homer guy, one 30-homer guy, two 20-homer guys, and four 15-homer guys. Speaking of Frank, he chipped in 12 homers himself during his brief period of good health.
And as I've stated before the were in the top quarter of the league in home runs, bunts (heaven forbid!), stolen bases, infield hits and sacrifice flys.

Balanced offense. As Farmer says, "get em on...get em over, get em in..."
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-05-2018, 07:28 PM
Frater Perdurabo Frater Perdurabo is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 19,592
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lip Man 1 View Post
And as I've stated before the were in the top quarter of the league in home runs, bunts (heaven forbid!), stolen bases, infield hits and sacrifice flys.

Balanced offense. As Farmer says, "get em on...get em over, get em in..."
And when you get a runner on first, you’re more likely to score him (and potentially additional runs) with an extra-base hit, than by stacking singles or sacrifices. Exit velocity and launch angle merely are the means to measure the extent to which a swing is likely to produce that extra-base hit.
__________________
The universe is the practical joke of the General at the expense of the Particular, quoth Frater Perdurabo, and laughed. The disciples nearest him wept, seeing the Universal Sorrow. Others laughed, seeing the Universal Joke. Others wept. Others laughed. Others wept because they couldn't see the Joke, and others laughed lest they should be thought not to see the Joke. But though FRATER laughed openly, he wept secretly; and really he neither laughed nor wept. Nor did he mean what he said.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:33 AM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.