first man on 2nd base to start extra innings in MLB history

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by zappa1

No matter how much data you have, you still can't predict how long a game will go. You can have 20 years of data and it proves nothing as to what will happen next. You need a crystal ball for that. You still don't know what will happen. Why don't you try that fuzzy math? You keep trying to prove how your numbers tell you everything and they tell me squat. Nothing. They tell me the past. That was yesterday, and yesterday's gone.

Oh
Well, since you're not the kind of person who uses information, there's no reason to continue interacting with you


I will say, that life must be either fascinating or endlessly frustrating for you

Never knowing if the coffee mug you set down on the table is going to simply fall through it, smash it into pieces or rest safely on it. Not knowing if the sun is going to appear over the horizon in the morning or not. Wondering if you'll smash into the ceiling when you pull the sheet off yourself when you wake up.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

At least you had an open mind about it.

The runner on second rule was implemented to shorten games. It does that.

Why is it necessary? Fans don't have to stay for extra innings. They paid for nine and can leave after nine without feeling cheated.

[TheMaus2]

Originally Posted by zappa1

No matter how much data you have, you still can't predict how long a game will go. You can have 20 years of data and it proves nothing as to what will happen next. You need a crystal ball for that. You still don't know what will happen. Why don't you try that fuzzy math? You keep trying to prove how your numbers tell you everything and they tell me squat. Nothing. They tell me the past. That was yesterday, and yesterday's gone.


And the 3 batter rule already cost Don Mattingly and the Marlins a game in just the 2nd game of the year because he couldn't change pitchers. Dum dum rule # 2.

yes because history never gets repeated

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Why is it necessary? Fans don't have to stay for extra innings. They paid for nine and can leave after nine without feeling cheated.

Fans pay for a game, not for a specific number of innings.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...lan-to-fix-it/

the problem concerns teams that use a parade of relievers who enter the game from the sixth inning onward and throw the hell out of the ball, knowing they’ll probably max out at one inning at a time.

the whole problem is that OMGs are a renewable resource, with no real constraints on supply.

It also yields rosters that are grossly imbalanced relative to the amount of value that these relievers generate. According to FanGraphs, relief pitchers accounted for only about 9 percent of the value (in wins above replacement) that all position players and pitchers created last year. And yet, they occupy about 25 percent of roster slots.

And to a larger degree than you probably realize, these OMGs bear responsibility for the ever-increasing rate of strikeouts in baseball

The bold is the gist of the article. Nate Silver doesn't like that pitching has evolved and that MLB has changed the way it uses pitchers in order to get the most production out of them.

Starters have less success the third time through the order, so let's have them pitch the third time through less. This requires more relievers. Silver wants starters to pitch deeper into games thus almost guaranteeing starters face the order for the third time more. Relievers have the most success (gaged by strikeout rate) when they pitch five or fewer batters (ideally this works out to be one inning) and have less success the more batters they face. Silver wants relievers to pitch to more batters, into their times of less success. And in order to accomplish this he thinks forcing an (data based but still) arbitrary limit on the number of pitchers a team can have on their roster.

The whole point behind his argument is to basically force pitchers to not be as effective by forcing them to pitch into situations where they statistically do worse. This is the exact same thing as forcing a pitcher who obviously sucks after seeing just one batter into pitching to two more batters because of... minutes on a clock. It's arbitrarily handicapping pitchers so that batters have a better chance of getting hits and scoring runs.

The better thing is to let baseball evolve and adjust to changes like OMGs and shifts. OMGs hard to score off of? Then change your strategy. Shifts hard to hit against? Then change your strategy. That's what sports are; adjusting to changes in order to come out victorious. Not hampering the opponent because you can't figure out how to best them.

[cephasjames]

I guess a question that Silver's idea brings up is would his suggested changes change the number of strikeouts or just the strikeout rate? When starters and relievers need to pitch during their less effective times they'll probably give up more hits and runs, but will the outs that will still occur magically stop being as many strikeouts? Strikeouts have trended up with the trend of launch angle. Will launch angle be used less because pitchers are pitching less effective? I wouldn't assume so since it would probably be easier for batters to hit off of pitchers. Therefore their is no reason for the number of strikeouts to decrease, just the rate of them.

[cephasjames]

Trola,

Silver's suggestions seem to have more to do with the "Baseball is boring" factor (aka Too Many Homeruns, Walks, and Strikeouts) than with the time factor.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

Fans pay for a game, not for a specific number of innings.

Regardless, if they don't want all they paid for they can leave. Its not like they're prisoners.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Why is it necessary? Fans don't have to stay for extra innings. They paid for nine and can leave after nine without feeling cheated.

I don't know that it is necessary

The league wanted to shorten games
This rule will do that.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Regardless, if they don't want all they paid for they can leave. Its not like they're prisoners.

The players are
As are all the other employees that make baseball happen

I imagine most people prefer going to work and knowing that it'll be for a set amount of time. Not, probably six hours, but, maybe like 12

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by wahmbulance

Nate Silver doesn't like that pitching has evolved and that MLB has changed the way it uses pitchers in order to get the most production out of them.

I mean, yes, that is, in fact the argument. Pitchers are too far ahead of hitters right now and it's impacted the game. That's the whole entire point. MLB has a long, long history of intervening when this balance is off, from changing the number of balls and strikes in a count to adding the designated hitter to raising and lowering the mound to juicing the ball over the past few years in an attempt to keep runs per game high. So far this year even that's failing miserably; the sample size is small but the league is hitting .232 so far, which is 20 points below what the league hit last year (which was arguably already too low) and in spite of HR/9 being nearly as high as they were last year, offense itself is down by 15%.

This would be a way to bring back the balance of pitching without going after more draconian measures like my idea of changing the way baseballs are manufactured (which of course itself would have to be tested pretty thoroughly in the minor leagues). Perhaps it by itself would have such a large impact that the league could un-juice the ball.

MLB tinkering is absolutely nothing new, in spite of the sometimes reactionary nature of the fanbase. Your "waaah this was just mean" retort to my response that a lot of baseball fans see any change, no matter how small, no matter how potentially beneficial, as bad because change = bad doesn't actually address the point, it just makes you cry about it some more.

On top of that, baseball is kind of in the midst of a huge crisis right now; even before COVID-19 hit, league-wide attendance was down by more than 10% last year compared to its high in 2008. During that time - just 11 years - the average game time grew by *15* minutes, Ks have risen by 2 per game, and the only reason the overall offensive environment is still roughly the same is that there were 40% more HRs hit last year. Generally speaking, more offense = more exciting games, but the league has managed to fudge the numbers without actually keeping the overall level of excitement, and the fans have responded. Even if the game was actually as static and unchanging as the faux-purists pretend that it is, it clearly needs to make changes.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Regardless, if they don't want all they paid for they can leave. Its not like they're prisoners.

And, well, the numbers indicate that fans *are* leaving. We've gone from 32k fans per game in 2008 to 28k last year. AND NOW WE ARE ON PACE TO HAVE 0K FANS okay obviously we can't use this season as a data point but when we get back to normal in 2021 or 2022 and attendance is way, way down, we can't blame it all on COVID-19. Baseball is increasingly becoming a game followed primarily by older white men and if the league wants to stay relevant, it needs to change that. Making the games more exciting to watch is a big part of that.

[CBeisbol]

Pitching has improved by leaps and bounds recently

Batters have adjusted by swinging for the fences instead of trying to piece together numerous singles

The result is, perhaps, not the most exciting game for the fans

So, MLB is, and should, be looking at changing the rules

I, personally, would prefer seeing the mound lowered or moved back, maybe accompanied by an increase in the size of the strike zone. If this would work to incentivize contact without hurting, physically, pitchers.

I don't know that it would.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Pitching has improved by leaps and bounds recently

Batters have adjusted by swinging for the fences instead of trying to piece together numerous singles

That's the "just universe" fallacy treatment of this, yes. In fact, the evidence at hand suggests that a. HRs are way up only in the last ~4 years, and b. there is a detectable difference in the composition of the baseballs used now vs. in 2015.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Juiced_ball_theory

The result is, perhaps, not the most exciting game for the fans

So, MLB is, and should, be looking at changing the rules

On this, at least, we agree.

I, personally, would prefer seeing the mound lowered or moved back, maybe accompanied by an increase in the size of the strike zone. If this would work to incentivize contact without hurting, physically, pitchers.

I don't know that it would.

Increasing the size of the strike zone at this point would just make *more* strikeouts, and the tricky thing about lowering the mound is that it's not really a thing that gets checked, like, ever. The league has sent that directive out and it just basically tells groundskeepers to do so if they feel like it, and as such the effects tend to be spotty.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Originally Posted by wahmbulance

Can't handle someone disagreeing with you so you decide to go kindergarten playground name calling?

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

Can't handle someone disagreeing with you so you decide to go kindergarten playground name calling?

You really weren't even disagreeing, is the thing. You just repeated what Silver said in his article and then said "I don't like it!".

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

You really weren't even disagreeing, is the thing. You just repeated what Silver said in his article and then said "I don't like it!".

So, not going to address your childish behavior?

EDIT: Upon rereading my post this is a fair assessment.

EDIT 2: At least it shows I actually read the article rather than just skimming and going off the rails, like is so common these days.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Increasing the size of the strike zone at this point would just make *more* strikeouts, and the tricky thing about lowering the mound is that it's not really a thing that gets checked, like, ever. The league has sent that directive out and it just basically tells groundskeepers to do so if they feel like it, and as such the effects tend to be spotty.

It would increase the value of contact
And decrease the value of waiting for a pitch to try to rip into the seats
And decrease walks

So, decrease the three true outcomes and increase balls in play



There's also a detectable increase in launch angle recently

I'll agree that the balls have changed and that may have been as a counter measure to the increase in pitching quality

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

MLB has a long, long history of intervening when this balance is off, from changing the number of balls and strikes in a count to adding the designated hitter to raising and lowering the mound to juicing the ball over the past few years in an attempt to keep runs per game high.

I agree with this 100%. But other than the DH (which is not a mandatory position, pitchers can still bat in the AL if the team wants to) there is no precedent for artificially limiting the number of a certain position that can play on a team. EDIT: Although I guess this year with the expansion to a 26 man roster they did limit the number of pitchers, for the first time in history, to 13. This limt still allows pitching to continue as it has rather than hamper it like Silver suggests.

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Your "waaah this was just mean" retort to my response that a lot of baseball fans see any change, no matter how small, no matter how potentially beneficial, as bad because change = bad doesn't actually address the point, it just makes you cry about it some more.

Which word that I used is synonymous with "mean?" Was it "hyperbolic" or "unhelpful?" Because hyperbole is not helpful when trying to have fact-based conversation. And your statement was hyperbolic.

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

On top of that, baseball is kind of in the midst of a huge crisis right now; even before COVID-19 hit, league-wide attendance was down by more than 10% last year compared to its high in 2008. During that time - just 11 years - the average game time grew by *15* minutes, Ks have risen by 2 per game, and the only reason the overall offensive environment is still roughly the same is that there were 40% more HRs hit last year. Generally speaking, more offense = more exciting games, but the league has managed to fudge the numbers without actually keeping the overall level of excitement, and the fans have responded. Even if the game was actually as static and unchanging as the faux-purists pretend that it is, it clearly needs to make changes.

I'm not opposed to more (and better) offense. I'd love to see more small ball return and fewer attempts at insta-score homeruns. And I'm fine with adjusting the mound to accomplish that. There is precedent for that and I think the pitchers will learn to adjust. I just don't feel that hampering pitchers like Silver wants is a good solution to the offensive woes currently taking place.

[zappa1]

[QUOTE=CBeisbol;4677286]Oh
Well, since you're not the kind of person who uses information, there's no reason to continue interacting with you

Promise? You troll these boards only for one thing. You think your numbers tell you the whole story and so you feel you have to shove it up everybody's nose. It doesn't work with me. At 65 years old I've seen many clowns like you. If you notice, I don't interact with you. You are the one always badgering me on these boards. Greedy? Remember? You think you're so smart that you even claim a certain ball player should have never been a major league player because your slide rule tells you so. But guess what? He was. And that bothers you? You can't interact with anybody unless you can shove your numbers up their nose. So please stop your obsession with me and stop trolling me. You're just showing how little of a person you are.