Dumb baseball questions.

#26
#26
volfanbill said:
it actually makes less sense to me, because Beltre and Clement were on base before the error. With the home run, both runners would have advanced home regardless of the error. Now i'm perplexed.
Click to expand...

but the error occurred with two outs. therefore, had Wright not done whatever he did to blow the play, the inning would have been over.

he should have been charged with 2 runs, but only got 1.
 
#28
#28
doozer said:
but the error occurred with two outs. therefore, had Wright not done whatever he did to blow the play, the inning would have been over.

he should have been charged with 2 runs, but only got 1.
Click to expand...

he shouldn't have been charged for any of them and wasn't. The Wright error makes all runs unearned and the earned run came in the fifth when Bloomquist scored. That makes sense now. Counting Wright's error as an out, the inning is over.
 
#29
#29
volfanbill said:
it actually makes less sense to me, because Beltre and Clement were on base before the error. With the home run, both runners would have advanced home regardless of the error. Now i'm perplexed.
Click to expand...

There were two out when the error was committed therefor anything that happened after that point would have resulted in the runs being unearned....All the runs that scored in that inning were unearned because the pitcher should have been out of the inning. The batter that hit the HR should have never gotten to the plate.

Edit: saw where you figured it out.
 
#30
#30
volfanbill said:
he shouldn't have been charged for any of them and wasn't. The Wright error makes all runs unearned and the earned run came in the fifth when Bloomquist scored. That makes sense now.
Click to expand...

ah, yeah, i had just noticed that too. silly of me to overlook that twice.
 
#31
#31
yeah sorry about typing out all my confusion instead of just working it in my head. Took me awhile to realize the earned run didn't actually come as part of that inning. I was too busy trying to figure out how he was charged with a run out of that situation.
 
#32
#32
Vercingetorix said:
The closers only feel comfortable in those situations because that's the only situation they ever pitch in now. Gone are the two- or three-inning Goose Gossage-style saves that the statistic was originally designed to capture; at some point, the entire job of the closer changed because of the statistic. The tail wagging the dog, so to speak.

Consider Bruce Sutter's line from 1979, when he won the Cy Young as a relief pitcher: 62 G, 102 IP, 37 SV. Now look at last year's line for Jose Valverde, who led the NL in saves: 65 G, 64 1/3 IP, 47 SV. Valverde had more saves, which is the modern definition of Closer Success, but look at the innings pitched. Which one helped his team out more?
Click to expand...

I personally thank the save is overrated these days. There should be some more ground rules. No way should a save count if you come in during the ninth inning with 3 run lead. I wonder how many, if any of Sutter's saves came from pitching 3 innings?
 
#33
#33
#34
#34
volfanbill said:
I personally thank the save is overrated these days. There should be some more ground rules. No way should a save count if you come in during the ninth inning with 3 run lead. I wonder how many, if any of Sutter's saves came from pitching 3 innings?
Click to expand...

Sutter was a little behind the curve; I should probably have looked at Gossage first. A quick and properly inaccurate (since I have been into the Guinness tonight) count has 1979 Sutter with exactly one 3 inning save. I have him with 12 saves of 2 innings or more, though, and 10 more in which he had a save after coming in in the 8th. Plus it's clear from his wins, losses, and no-decisions that he was being brought into a lot of tie games in the late innings. He even had one game in which he was credited with a blown save and five innings pitched (!). The Cubs were clearly using him in all sorts of late and close situations. Nowadays he'd have twice as many saves but half as many decisions and innings pitched. And he'd be half as valuable, too.
 
#35
#35
just to be clear, when you say he has one 3 inning save do you mean that it wasn't actually within 3 runs and he pitched 3 innings, therefore earning the save regardless of whether it was a 5-4 ballgame or a 9-2 ballgame when he entered the game?

To hopefully be more clear, I was asking on the fact that any reliever that pitches 3 innings or more and finishes the ballgame is credited a save no matter how big or little the lead is when he comes in.
 
#36
#36
Rich Gossage, 1975: 62 G, 141 2/3 IP (!!), 26 SV. Six of which, by my count, were three innings or more, and another six which were more than two innings. Plus he had another half-dozen games in which he pitched 5-7 innings in relief. Can you imagine? It'd be like Trevor Hoffman coming in in the fourth inning in a game in which the Padres were still close and going the rest of the way.

(Well, before Hoffman got old and started sucking.)

Modern dominant relievers could be that useful, too. They're just not given a chance, because they're too busy coming into the 9th inning of games when their team's up by 2 with the 7, 8, and 9 hitters coming up.
 
#37
#37
volfanbill said:
just to be clear, when you say he has one 3 inning save do you mean that it wasn't actually within 3 runs and he pitched 3 innings, therefore earning the save regardless of whether it was a 5-4 ballgame or a 9-2 ballgame when he entered the game?

To hopefully be more clear, I was asking on the fact that any reliever that pitches 3 innings or more and finishes the ballgame is credited a save no matter how big or little the lead is when he comes in.
Click to expand...

I hadn't looked at the box score, although I did just now. Sutter came in with a 4-1 lead to start the 7th inning and won 4-3. So a save by any measure. Gossage no doubt had a bunch of the three-inning plus types.

I wish they'd expand the save rule to let the scorer use his discretion. Give the save to the guy who comes in during the 7th with runners on and slams the door, not to the guy who mops up two innings later after his team has put another insurance run or two on the board.
 
#38
#38
It's a little bit of a goofy stat, but the "Hold" stat is probably what relievers should be measured by instead of the Save. Really, a Save is just a Hold that happens to occur at the end of the game.
 
#39
#39
Since we talking strange/uncommon baseball stuff, here's one most folks don't know.

It's possible for a pitcher to record more than 3 strikeouts in an innings. One man has actually done it 3 times (only person to throw more than 3 Ks in an inning multiple times).

5 Ks in an inning has happened a few times in minor league ball, once in MLB spring exhibition, but never in a regular/post season MLB game.
 
#40
#40
DrRosenRosen said:
Since we talking strange/uncommon baseball stuff, here's one most folks don't know.

It's possible for a pitcher to record more than 3 strikeouts in an innings. One man has actually done it 3 times (only person to throw more than 3 Ks in an inning multiple times).
Click to expand...

That's not really strange.
 
#41
#41
GAVol said:
It's a little bit of a goofy stat, but the "Hold" stat is probably what relievers should be measured by instead of the Save. Really, a Save is just a Hold that happens to occur at the end of the game.
Click to expand...

We're in complete agreement here. They count the hold, apparently, because you see it in the box score, but then you never see it anywhere else. You can't even find it on the stathead sites. And yet that's exactly what a relief pitcher is trying to do, right? Why don't you see a list of "holds leaders" anywhere?
 
#42
#42
DrRosenRosen said:
Since we talking strange/uncommon baseball stuff, here's one most folks don't know.

It's possible for a pitcher to record more than 3 strikeouts in an innings. One man has actually done it 3 times (only person to throw more than 3 Ks in an inning multiple times).

5 Ks in an inning has happened a few times in minor league ball, once in MLB spring exhibition, but never in a regular/post season MLB game.
Click to expand...

while he didn't strike out 5, or even 4, I watched a game the other day where the pitcher had two outs and nobody on. He struck the guy out only to have him reach on a passed ball. Beaned the next guy, struck out the next guy only to have him reach on another passed ball and suddenly the bases were loaded. The next guy hit a screamer down the first base line, but the RFer made a great diving catch to end the inning.
 
#43
#43
1. Does a pitcher know what the weakness of every player he faces? IE this batter hated high fast ball ect....

In the Majors, Yes. Everyone. When I played JUCO teams had computers in their dugouts with relief pitchers reading off information of every at bat of our players. The defense would shift and like clock work they would hit right into the shift. If it's like that in TN JUCO, then professional baseball must be ridiclious.

2. Why pull Johnathan P. just because he gave up a run and now your down 1 run? He has only played 1 inning?

I'm going with Bill, in saying that he is out of his element, but also most times you have a game the next day and when JP is programmed to get 3 outs getting any more will put useless stress on his arm and throw him out of whack. You play 162 games someone's gonna F-up somewhere, in the majors it's all about keeping the systematic and routine.

3.Who do you think is the best offensive team in baseball?

Numbers would suggest the Rangers but I'm going with the Phillies. If all pistons are hitting the Braves are a close 2nd.
 
#44
#44
Vercingetorix said:
Bill certainly knows how I think...

He's right; modern relievers (and especially closers) have been so conditioned to go one inning at a time that using them for more than that is somewhat of a gamble. The modern method of running a bullpen is basically to use as many guys as it takes, one inning at a time, saving the closer only for Save Situations and bringing in LOOGYs (Lefty One Out Guys) as needed. I think it's a dumb way to go about it, primarily because it's letting an arbitrary statistic (the save) determine when and how you use your best reliever. If I were a manager, I'd use my closer in all sorts of situations -- late and tied, two on and nobody out in the 6th inning of a one-run game, 8th inning but the heart of the order coming up, etc. But managers inevitably leave the closer on the bench when the game's on the line, waiting for a save situation that may or may not happen.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you guys here.

When a player knows his role and the role is described to a T, then they will do better at said job.

Would you say a leadoff hitter could give him team just as much production batting in the 4th hole? That leadoff position, like a closer, if a defined role where you know your job and are comfortable in it.

I just think when you have guys that know they are Specialty (leftys), Long relief, Short relief, set-up men, and closers they just do their job better.

I'm sorry but taking the mound in the 6th with two on is much different than coming in one up in the bottom of the ninth. Closers are a different breed, they live off the fact that they have the nastiest stuff in the pen and they live off the ninth inning adrineline rush.

In theory it sounds good but I don't think it would fly too long in practice. Like I said in the post above it's a 162 game season you have to be systematic with your players and define their roles. I'm a firm believer that sucessful Teams and successful businesses are those in which the team's or entity's jobs are defined in great detail.
 
#45
#45
Last night Boston had a man on 2nd and 3rd with 1 out. The batter was no one special but the Backs walked him to make bases loaded. The man who batted next was o for 2 and he was no great hitter so why walk a guy with one out to load the bases if the next batter is just average?

Could it have been a lefty pitchervs type deal?
 
#46
#46
Fine Vol said:
Last night Boston had a man on 2nd and 3rd with 1 out. The batter was no one special but the Backs walked him to make bases loaded. The man who batted next was o for 2 and he was no great hitter so why walk a guy with one out to load the bases if the next batter is just average?

Could it have been a lefty pitchervs type deal?
Click to expand...

could've have been a deal to set up a good pitching match up, but it sounds like the Dbacks wanted to set up a double play.
 
#47
#47
The catcher who replaced Varitek played really well. Through out Young at 2nd and hit 2 for 3 I think. JV's contract is up this year.
 
#48
#48
Business said:
3.Who do you think is the best offensive team in baseball?

Numbers would suggest the Rangers but I'm going with the Phillies. If all pistons are hitting the Braves are a close 2nd.
Click to expand...

the phillies are good, no doubt about it. I just like Texas better. On paper if you just look at the names, it screams the Phillies over the Rangers. But 109 strikeouts already for Ryan Howard? That's horrible. Burrell's in the 60s in strikeouts. Hamilton leads the way for the Rangers, but he's only in the 50s. I take the rangers OBP and overall batting avg to put them clearly on top.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top