Dickerson not happy
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
From: HTP on 5 Mar 2010 17:23 On Mar 5, 2:04 pm, eddyg...(a)msn.com (john smith) wrote: > Is it fair to try and make a valid comparison on a pitcher who is second > all time in WS starts to a guy who has but 5? To make a call on this > would be very tough. I would probably take Andy but it has more to do > with his overall post season success, 40 starts and an 18-9 record and a > 3.90 era. > > We both have different opinions on evaluating dominant starting > pitching. I just value the power guys more because even on off nights > they can just get by with pure stuff. Post season baseball is usually > played in cold weather and facing power type guys when it is freezing is > no fun for any hitter. > > Andy P. and Maddux are both Hall Of Famers and were fantastic pitchers. > Their longevity alone speaks for themselves. They can dominate games at > times. They are just more likely to get hit when they don't have great > stuff.. Thats part of the point with maddux - how often did he show up at the ballpark without his good stuff. Looking at his numbers from his prime years, i'd say almost never. Thats the pitcher i'd want on my team. > > I don't believe a hitter ever went up to the plate against Andy or > Maddux and thought to themselves on that particular night, I have no > chance. With the power type guys especially in post season, many hitters > have felt they have had no chance against the likes of Carlton, > Koufax,Seaver,Gibson.Schilling etc.......... You have to remember that those pitchers from the 60's pitched from very high mounds, sometimes illegally so (allegedly). The current regulation height is 10 inches above the plate. Prior to 1969, it was 15 inches. The Dodger stadium mound was said to be even higher than that. I dont know exactly how much effect mound height has, but there was a noticeable uptick in offense between 1968-1969.
From: Ron Johnson on 6 Mar 2010 01:54 On Mar 4, 4:38 pm, John Kasupski <w2...(a)spamfilter.verizon.net> wrote: > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 12:33:34 -0800 (PST), Ron Johnson <ron7...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >What you're talking about has never been called runs created. I've > >seen it > >called runs participated in and a few other things. > > You're right. What I was talking about is called Runs Produced. My bad. > > >Here we go again. It's half runs contributed and it's butt stupid > >to subtract the home runs. > > >Think about it. Triple + Sac Fly. One run scored, One RBI > >Home run followed by flyball out. One run scored, one RBI > > The idea of Runs Produced was to measure how many runs scored as a result of a > player's actions. The reason HRs are subtracted from the total of the player's > runs scored and RBIs because a player who hits a home run is credited with both > a run scored and an RBI on the play - as a result of the fact that he himself > crosses the plate on his own homer. If he belted a solo shot, his team scores > one run on the play, not two, so he is credited with one run produced, not two. I wish I could understand the fascination with this stupidity. Runs and rbi are half of a team run scored. A solo home run just happens to represent both halves. I repeat. Do you wish to assert that triple followed by sac fly is better than home run followed by flyball out.
From: Thomas R. Kettler on 6 Mar 2010 06:52 In article <8b39ca26-9d39-4edc-8394-32c986e20134(a)j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Ron Johnson <ron7941(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 4, 4:38�pm, John Kasupski <w2...(a)spamfilter.verizon.net> wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 12:33:34 -0800 (PST), Ron Johnson <ron7...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >What you're talking about has never been called runs created. I've > > >seen it > > >called runs participated in and a few other things. > > > > You're right. What I was talking about is called Runs Produced. My bad. > > > > >Here we go again. It's half runs contributed and it's butt stupid > > >to subtract the home runs. > > > > >Think about it. Triple + Sac Fly. One run scored, One RBI > > >Home run followed by flyball out. One run scored, one RBI > > > > The idea of Runs Produced was to measure how many runs scored as a result > > of a > > player's actions. The reason HRs are subtracted from the total of the > > player's > > runs scored and RBIs because a player who hits a home run is credited with > > both > > a run scored and an RBI on the play - as a result of the fact that he > > himself > > crosses the plate on his own homer. If he belted a solo shot, his team > > scores > > one run on the play, not two, so he is credited with one run produced, not > > two. > > I wish I could understand the fascination with this stupidity. > > Runs and rbi are half of a team run scored. A solo home run > just happens to represent both halves. > > I repeat. Do you wish to assert that triple followed by > sac fly is better than home run followed by flyball out. I'll go farther than that. I'd argue that the entire idea of Runs Produced is stupid. Consider the following (I'm using names of former major leaguers just for an example); Felipe Alou gets a leadoff walk. Bobby Bonds forces out Felipe Alou at second base but takes first. Mickey Cochrane doubles but Bobby Bonds only reaches third. Andre Dawson hits a sacrifice fly and Bobby Bonds scores. According to Runs Produced, Bobby Bonds and Andre Dawson get credit for the run scored and RBI, respectively, although Felipe Alou and Mickey Cochrane actually produced the positive offensive outcomes. that enabled the run to occur. -- Remove blown from email address to reply.
From: john smith on 6 Mar 2010 18:52 The most important RBI's are with two outs and your team behind in the score in tight ball games, especially in the seventh inning on...
From: tom dunne on 6 Mar 2010 20:10
On Mar 6, 6:52 pm, eddyg...(a)msn.com (john smith) wrote: > The most important RBI's are with two outs and your team behind in the > score in tight ball games, especially in the seventh inning on... Trick question time! What's more important: a two-run homer in the bottom of the ninth that wins the game 2-1, or a two-run homer in the top of the first that wins the game 2-1? Also, which is heavier: a pound of feathers or a pound of bricks? ;) |