Next: Matt Maloney
From: RJA on
"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
"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
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
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

"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
> =----


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Next: Matt Maloney