Next: Matt Maloney
From: RJA on 3 Jun 2007 22:47 "John Kasupski" <kc2hmz(a)wzrd.com> wrote in message news:nhq663h7ibu052nclq6cga2mpebcknffer(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 20:56:03 -0400, "RJA" <rja(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com> > wrote: > >>Here's what we can agree on. Across the board, it evens out because most >>on-base situations are runner on first situations. However, many of the >>remaining situations dictate that contact is better than a K. Are we all >>on >>the same page then? > > Even if there is a runner on first, while a walk might be as good as a > single, nobody ever hit a two-run dinger by standing there watching > the ball smack into the catcher's mitt. Same goes for doubles and > triples. The only way to do that is to swing the bat. Which, if you're > not going to do that, why bother carrying it up there with you? But the runner on 1st scenario is the one which you can actually argue that a K can be better than contact. In most other situations, you can't do that.
From: RJA on 3 Jun 2007 22:52 "Kevin McClave" <kmcclaveSPAM(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> wrote in message news:hvs663d35nflns3iatvmcv6qsighalq5g1(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 20:56:03 -0400, "RJA" <rja(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com> wrote: > >>"Kevin McClave" <kmcclaveSPAM(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> wrote in message >>news:7pj6631174r0bl1i9oe0glha2pvfas2php(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:01:16 -0400, John Kasupski <kc2hmz(a)wzrd.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:16:15 -0400, Kevin McClave >>>><kmcclaveSPAM(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>Guys are going to get on base at a 40% clip if >>>>>they're the best. That was a given in my point. >>>> >>>>They're not going to get on base at a 40% clip by keeping the bat on >>>>their shoulders. >>> >>> Hey, think what you want. >> >>Here's what we can agree on. Across the board, it evens out because most >>on-base situations are runner on first situations. However, many of the >>remaining situations dictate that contact is better than a K. Are we all >>on >>the same page then? > > I wouldn't say that, if by the remaining situations you mean the men on > and the number of outs (and not the result of the AB). Yes, I mean the other situations. 2nd and 3rd with x out, 2nd with x out, 3rd with x out or bases loaded with x out. Even nobody on works. > I would say contact could be better than a K, or even should be if you > prefer, but a popup isn't any better than a K in most situations and a > lineout DP is worse. > > I can assume the response would be that a popup has the chance to drop in > where a K does not, but therein lies the entire point of this > discussion...that the times that happens are so infrequent that they make > no significant difference in the long run. But I'm not talking about a K for a should be out. I'm only talking about K vs. contact. Contact encompasses base hit. > Could one of those drop in > popups win a game? Sure, but so could the lack of a CS at a crucial time > or a guy not taking an extra base because he didn't get a good secondary > lead. However, the K stigma seems out of proportion to those other > things, > even though, as the other guys have tried to quantify here, it isn't > anymore damaging than the any number of the other possibilities.. Only when comparing K vs. any other out, which at least I am not doing. I don't know if the others are talking about that or not.
From: Kevin McClave on 3 Jun 2007 23:13 On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 22:52:49 -0400, "RJA" <rja(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com> wrote: >"Kevin McClave" <kmcclaveSPAM(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> wrote in message >news:hvs663d35nflns3iatvmcv6qsighalq5g1(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 20:56:03 -0400, "RJA" <rja(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com> wrote: >>> >>>Here's what we can agree on. Across the board, it evens out because most >>>on-base situations are runner on first situations. However, many of the >>>remaining situations dictate that contact is better than a K. Are we all >>>on the same page then? >> >> I wouldn't say that, if by the remaining situations you mean the men on >> and the number of outs (and not the result of the AB). > >Yes, I mean the other situations. 2nd and 3rd with x out, 2nd with x out, >3rd with x out or bases loaded with x out. Even nobody on works. > >> I would say contact could be better than a K, or even should be if you >> prefer, but a popup isn't any better than a K in most situations and a >> lineout DP is worse. >> >> I can assume the response would be that a popup has the chance to drop in >> where a K does not, but therein lies the entire point of this >> discussion...that the times that happens are so infrequent that they make >> no significant difference in the long run. > >But I'm not talking about a K for a should be out. I'm only talking about K >vs. contact. Contact encompasses base hit. But what you asked if we agreed on (with my added emphasis) was that "many of the remaining situations dictate that contact *is better* than a K." I don't think that is self evident. Yes, contact might encompass a base hit, but it encompasses many of the possibilities that are not base hits, as well. That's why I said contact could or should be, but it also could be neutral or it could be worse. The good things that can happen include a hit. The bad things include a lineout (or Griffey pulling something twisting too fast to watch a foul back to the screen), and a popup in most cases will be neutral compared to a strikeout. >> Could one of those drop in >> popups win a game? Sure, but so could the lack of a CS at a crucial time >> or a guy not taking an extra base because he didn't get a good secondary >> lead. However, the K stigma seems out of proportion to those other >> things, >> even though, as the other guys have tried to quantify here, it isn't >> anymore damaging than the any number of the other possibilities.. > >Only when comparing K vs. any other out, which at least I am not doing. I >don't know if the others are talking about that or not. I understand what you're asking. I also understand the distinction you're making between that and "an out is an out." ****************************************************************** Kevin McClave "To justify himself, each relies on the other's crime." ~Albert Camus ******************************************************************
From: Lance Freezeland on 4 Jun 2007 17:27 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 11:44:57 -0400, John Kasupski <kc2hmz(a)wzrd.com> gave us: >On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 14:04:11 -0500, Lance Freezeland ><freezelandlaw.nospam(a)consolidated.net> wrote: >>No, fantasy baseball is guys like you and me drafting teams of players >>to compete in specified stat categories. >...as opposed to the real world, where guys like you and me draft >teams of players to compete in ONE specified stat category - that >being the number under the W column in the standings that appear in >the paper every morning. >>Have you ever played fantasy baseball? >No. I've never owned a rubber love doll, either. In both cases, the >real thing is sufficient for me. But yet you feel qualified to comment on it from a perspective of ignorance. Enlightening. -- Lance "Some of the things I've seen here I haven't seen anywhere else I've managed." -- Lou Piniella articulates what it means to be initiated into Cubdom 6/2/07 ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
From: RJA on 4 Jun 2007 21:18
"Lance Freezeland" <freezelandlaw.nospam(a)consolidated.net> wrote in message news:tr0963ddjc33te2gaeef9dujh9ao971g4b(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 11:44:57 -0400, John Kasupski <kc2hmz(a)wzrd.com> > gave us: >>On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 14:04:11 -0500, Lance Freezeland >><freezelandlaw.nospam(a)consolidated.net> wrote: > >>>No, fantasy baseball is guys like you and me drafting teams of players >>>to compete in specified stat categories. > >>...as opposed to the real world, where guys like you and me draft >>teams of players to compete in ONE specified stat category - that >>being the number under the W column in the standings that appear in >>the paper every morning. > >>>Have you ever played fantasy baseball? > >>No. I've never owned a rubber love doll, either. In both cases, the >>real thing is sufficient for me. > > But yet you feel qualified to comment on it from a perspective of > ignorance. Enlightening. Sounds like someone has a case of the Mondays! > > -- > Lance > > "Some of the things I've seen here I haven't seen anywhere else I've > managed." > -- Lou Piniella articulates what it means to be initiated into Cubdom > 6/2/07 > > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet > News==---- > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ > Newsgroups > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption > =---- |