Baseball Beliefs

[Vris]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

Oh, screw it:

Well, I believe in the soul... the cock...the pussy... the small of a woman's back... the hangin' curveball... high fiber... good scotch... that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent overrated crap... I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a Constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve, and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days. Goodnight.

Sell out.

[UngratefulDead]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

Actually, yes, although it's quite old now so you may have already read it. Craig Wright and Tom House wrote a book in the late 1980s called "The Diamond Appraised" in which they looked at catchers' effects on ERA. The conclusion I reached (I think they may have been a little more sympathetic) was that unless you actually played a non-catcher out of position (like Geno Petralli, who the Rangers were trying out back there at about the time the book was published - oh, I should mention that Wright and House were employed by Texas at the time), the effects were negligible. Tim McCarver may beg to differ, but McCarver's evidence is anecdotal and not statistical in nature. I have yet to see a single study that shows that there is any difference in pitch-calling or plate-framing ability between any catcher who has gone through the requisite training.

I haven't read that, but I'll check it out. I'm just really torn, I've been told it has no effect, or that it has a great effect, and, really, both those possibilities seem well within the realm of reason.

[crazyhorsejohnny]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

Actually, yes, although it's quite old now so you may have already read it. Craig Wright and Tom House wrote a book in the late 1980s called "The Diamond Appraised" in which they looked at catchers' effects on ERA. The conclusion I reached (I think they may have been a little more sympathetic) was that unless you actually played a non-catcher out of position (like Geno Petralli, who the Rangers were trying out back there at about the time the book was published - oh, I should mention that Wright and House were employed by Texas at the time), the effects were negligible. Tim McCarver may beg to differ, but McCarver's evidence is anecdotal and not statistical in nature. I have yet to see a single study that shows that there is any difference in pitch-calling or plate-framing ability between any catcher who has gone through the requisite training.

Tell that to pitchers who prefer one guy instead of another. Not because the guy looks good. Because he does something the pitcher likes more like framing or calling a better game. Being comfortable is huge between a pitcher and a catcher.

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by crazyhorsejohnny

Tell that to pitchers who prefer one guy instead of another. Not because the guy looks good. Because he does something the pitcher likes more like framing or calling a better game. Being comfortable is huge between a pitcher and a catcher.

Anecdotally, this may seem to be true, but I need more proof than a couple of amusing anecdotes.

[Carlton]

Originally Posted by UngratefulDead

With the stathead (most posters) vs. scouthead (crazyhorsejohnny and assorted aliai) debates, I decided to sit down and think about which aspects of baseball I believe in and don't believe in. This is what I came up with, feel free to list your own if it interests you.

Believe In:
OPS (and I think that slugging is undervalued, so I put more credit into OPS than some)
Speed (not necessarily basestealing, although I think the value of stolen bases is understated in the Moneyball style)
Defense
Clubhouse Chemistry (Pretty much the only non-moneyball thing I definitely feel has an effect)
K/9 IP as the most telling pitching stat

Don't Believe In:
Clutch hitting (too much evidence against it)
Veteran experience (except tying into the clubhouse chemistry, veterans can have a good affect on youngsters, but not as much as, say, Joe Morgan would attribute)
Bunting, except in rare situations
"Knowing how to win"

Still Unknown:
Catchers' effect on pitchers. This is the aspect of baseball I have the most interest in, if anybody has any interesting studies on this, I'd love to read it.

1)Ok OPS...I have hate/hate relationship with OPS...it values slugging way too much, and of course walks....it takes out a whole genre of hitter...a Loretta, Gwynn, Ichiro, Cobb, Maranville...those guys. Plus too many walks...is a BAD thing

2) Speed? Well, Herb Washington had speed...you get the point. More important to me is something that you CANNOT measure, focus and base running mentality...able to read a pitcher on a steal...able to picture in your mind the hop of a ball in the OF to go from 1st to 3rd

3)Defense!!! Very hard to measure, so many variables...does the pitcher provoke Groundballs, is it grass or turf? How big is the OF corner that guy is playing...does he play CF at Baker Bowl...or the Polo Grounds? does he get alot of assists because they test his weak arm...or no assists because they respect his arm? WHEW...defense is "seeing is believing"

4) CLubhouse Chemistry? Today...nah. All are doing their own thing, maybe if one guy like a Jeter or a Schilling is ultra competitive, it might rub off, but other than that...today's ballplayers are ruled by $$$. In the early years when they roomed together, spent off days together...yes..it was VERY important

5)k/9---The dilutting of pitching nowadays. Because a guy has a great K total in the minors does that say "He's talented" or the batters are impatient? I like a great WHIP number myself...I'd rather have control then power. As for the test that shows power pitchers achieve more and last longer...well no ****! That's the ONLY scouts look for...velocity. Jamie Moyer, Greg Maddux...a betcha 20 guys like them have gotten passed over the last 20 years because they throw upper 80's

6)Clutch Hitting---I believe it's there but the opposite...lemme explain. Just like in everyday life, some people crash when pressure is on them, same thing in baseball...they overthink, hear the crowd rise, know the game is on the line...and fail! The guy who just focuses on a 'clutch' situation, like any other at bat...is clutch. Like Joe Montana down by 7...he just goes about it like it was the 1st quarter 0-0. Other QB's (McNabb) try to hard

7)Veteran Experience---Like chemistry, not important anymore. Technology has made mentoring a thing of the past. Jimmie Foxx probably asked Ty Cobb Mack what Ted Lyons threw when his fastball fizzled. Today, a batter can get any P's pitch on any game in any situation by calling up the Scouting department

8)Bunting---ahh the lost art...but true, why bunt when the bandboxes allow you to rip a double, get a walk, hit a HR. Those are the only 3 plays in baseball nowadays...walk, double and HR...3bs? haha, they have to run as soon as they hit the ball for THAT! Sbs? get real, Raines and Henderson laugh at Pierre and that other guy Singles? Yea, knock down that OPS on a contract year.

9) Knowing how to win---rubbish, every player wants to win...means more $$$

10) Catcher's effect on pitchers ---Today? Pfft, either the Pitcher speaks no English or the Catcher doesn't...a Pitcher gets gametape on every batter or makes his own notes...(RE: Schilling) Back before TV, hell yea they were. I bet Ray Schalk knew every hitter tendency and passed it on to his pitchers, like Cobb back in the box, so Schalk threw outside. Al Simmons crowding the plate, can't hit an inside curve...things of that nature. Plus, teams were tight, players were usally friends and hung out with each others' family...so you had a friend behind the plate...and he's been with the team 6 years...just like you! How many Catchers and Pitchers have been on same team for a long time like Pete Alexander and Bill Rariden? Not many




(I guess the usual dolts will try once again...)

[crazyhorsejohnny]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

Anecdotally, this may seem to be true, but I need more proof than a couple of amusing anecdotes.

You mean like Mary Madelaine told Peter Jesus was alive but he said he had to see it with his own eyes.

[Joshv02]

What I believe in:

Baseball is a beautiful sport.

What I don't believe in:

Baseball was somehow better before xyz happened. Baseball is only different at different times.

btw:

Originally Posted by crazyhorsejohnny

You mean like Mary Madelaine told Peter Jesus was alive but he said he had to see it with his own eyes.

I may not get this reference, but I'm SURE there is a comma missing somewhere.

[randomlefty10]

I believe in:
A veteran catcher who can handle young pitchers
A veteran starter who can handle young pitchers
Good fielding (%) corner infielders
Good range up the middle (2B,SS,CF)
Good power in the corners (LF, RF, 1B, 3B)
At least one guy who has an OBP above .390
At least one guy who can hit over .325
One guy who can hit 40+ HR
A RP with a fastball of 95+
At least one LH starter
A RP with a good groundball rate
Guys who can bunt if they can't hit above .250

Don't believe in:
That Jeter is a "winner"
That the DH should be there
That interleague play should exist
That MLB player sshould not be tested regularly for steroids
That the All-Star game should decide HFA for the WS
That Bud Selig should be commish
That Tampa Bay should have a team
That baseball should ever have more than 8 playoff teams
That anything is better than opening day.

[crazyhorsejohnny]

Originally Posted by Joshv02

What I believe in:

Baseball is a beautiful sport.

Women are beautiful. Or babies. But baseball? That's pushing it.

[Joshv02]

not worth it.

[randomlefty10]

You'd say babies are beautiful but not baseball?

That's a messed up order if you ask me.

[crazyhorsejohnny]

Originally Posted by randomlefty10

You'd say babies are beautiful but not baseball?

That's a messed up order if you ask me.

Well I have one beautiful baby boy who is now 13 months old.

[crazyhorsejohnny]

Originally Posted by Joshv02

not worth it.

What is so beautiful about it? Been to Skydome to watch a game? Is baseball more beautiful than football or basketball? Cmon joe calling a sport beautiful is dumb. Maybe going to a game at camden yards with your family on a BEAUTIFUL sunny day with a gentle breeze, well that might be considered beautiful. But the game of baseball? Not. I love baseball but beautiful it's not. It's fun to watch live (not at skydome) or watching it with buddies while having a few beers. That's baseball.

[randomlefty10]

Well ok, your baby might be beautiful as in if its your child then maybe so, but babies in general? Nah.

[crazyhorsejohnny]

Originally Posted by randomlefty10

Don't believe in:
That Jeter is a "winner"
That Bud Selig should be commish

For sure!

[crazyhorsejohnny]

Originally Posted by randomlefty10

Well ok, your baby might be beautiful as in if its your child then maybe so, but babies in general? Nah.

Funny thing too is no matter what your baby actually looks like, he's always beautiful in your eyes. Here's a pick of my son Noah. (gets his looks from his mother) I ain't easy on the eyes. (bear belly and all)

[crazyhorsejohnny]

Originally Posted by Joshv02

I may not get this reference, but I'm SURE there is a comma missing somewhere.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,

Is that enough commas for ya Mr. Know it all?

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by crazyhorsejohnny

You mean like Mary Madelaine told Peter Jesus was alive but he said he had to see it with his own eyes.

Exactly, and also why I am not a Christian.

And it's Mary Magdelene, not Mary Madeleine. I think the latter was the star of a French children's book.

[crazyhorsejohnny]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

Exactly, and also why I am not a Christian.

And it's Mary Magdelene, not Mary Madeleine. I think the latter was the star of a French children's book.

Are you french too?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by crazyhorsejohnny

Are you french too?

That's a good one. Seriously- what's wrong with you ? So far, you've managed to argue Morgan's word is gospel, that baseball is not beautiful because you didnt think (and I use the word lightly) so, and in general, what exactly ? If we pick an objective subject and you want to argue that, by all means lets (like the inane "Robinson is the best" arguement- or the tired crap about Catcher's ERA ) - anything else, don't bother trying.

And yes, that is a very cute kid.