6/11 Sox go fishing (vs Marlins)

[Elktonnick]

evilhand' date=' man, I like your stuff, but don't lose your cool. I argue with Elktonnick quite a bit myself. He's certainly not a troll. Troll is a very strong word.[/quote']

 

Evilhand just rants and worships at the shrine of sabermetrics but won't concede its limitations. As far as Nomar he was dumped beceause of his attidude that is a fact. It is iimmaterial what they got for him.They had to get rid of him because he was hurting the team as everyone who remembers Nomar pouting on the bench knows.

 

I find it amusing that data counts when it proves ones point but doesn't count when it doesn't. Sample size is too small or some other such nonsense. The knock on Youlis is that he is always hurt. The data suggests that once a player goes on the DL there is an increased probability that he will go on the DL again. Besides I agree with Jackie Mac ,Youklis is a detriment. His behavior last night merely reinforces that fact. His production continues to fall. It may rebound slightly but he'll continue to decline just as Jason Bay has.

 

BTW if sabermetrics were so great and Bill James's prognostications so wonderful why is this team mired in last place and hasn't won a playoff game since 08 ? I know too small a sample or no fair there were injuries. The best thing that could happen to Boston besides trading Youk now is to either unplaug Carmine or infect it with the stuxnet virus.

[jung]

I am not quite sure that I see the distinction you are making

 

Yes there is a distinction between proposing solutions and highlighting problems. They are distinctly different and you are smart enough to know they are distinctly different activities.

 

Inaccuracy in calling balls and strikes is the problem.

Suggesting that humans can no longer call balls and strikes because of what V chooses to all this "new thing" of late action on pitches is guiding to a proposed solution....ala a software based system.

 

In this case suggesting that movement on late breaking pitches is a "new thing" is wrong in the first place. Eck nearly fell off his NESN stool at that one.

 

In addition, suggesting that human beings can no longer call balls and strikes because of this so called new thing of late action on pitches has implications for removing a piece of the game action activity pie from the umps which is the same thing as taking food off their table. Please don't give me this "Oh gee I am just to obtuse to see that" ******** 700 because I know you are not obtuse at all.

[Bellhorn04]

Technology could be added to balls and strikes calls without taking anything away from the umps by implementing a limited challenge system. But the first obstacle to that is that everyone would have to agree that there is such a thing as a fixed strike zone. What a radical concept that is...

[Elktonnick]

Technology could be added to balls and strikes calls without taking anything away from the umps by implementing a limited challenge system. But the first obstacle to that is that everyone would have to agree that there is such a thing as a fixed strike zone. What a radical concept that is...

 

All of this is nonsense. The beauty of baseball is that it is not perfect. BV is off the reservation with this whole computer aided balls and strikes. You might as well do away the home plate and put a wicket with stumps and bales. And each pitchers gets six pitches and the batter can choose to run or not, now hey that would be a novel game!

[mvp 78]

All of this is nonsense. The beauty of baseball is that it is not perfect. BV is off the reservation with this whole computer aided balls and strikes. You might as well do away the home plate and put a wicket with stumps and bales. And each pitchers gets six pitches and the batter can choose to run or not' date=' now hey that would be a novel game![/quote']

 

Isn't it just great when a pitcher gets screwed out of a perfect game or the wrong team wins because of a blown call?!? What beauty!

[Bellhorn04]

Using technology to review calls is already here, in all the major sports, including baseball. And I think it's been a good thing.

[Elktonnick]

Isn't it just great when a pitcher gets screwed out of a perfect game or the wrong team wins because of a blown call?!? What beauty!

 

More people will remember that game than they would have had the umpire not blown the call. Technology is fine but only in proportion. Baseball doesn't need expanded replays especially when calling balls and strikes.

[FredLynn]

It is not practical to review any questionable balls and strikes calls. Games would take six hours to play. Missed ump calls are part of the game; always have been, always will be.

[Bellhorn04]

It is not practical to review any questionable balls and strikes calls. Games would take six hours to play. Missed ump calls are part of the game; always have been' date=' always will be.[/quote']

 

No, pumpsie, it would be a simple matter to review a limited number of balls and strikes calls, say 2 challenges per manager. With a good system in place it would add 5-10 minutes to each game.

 

They review home run calls already. Why is that, if mistakes are just part of the game?

[TutGadol]

More people will remember that game than they would have had the umpire not blown the call. Technology is fine but only in proportion. Baseball doesn't need expanded replays especially when calling balls and strikes.

 

And more people remember the early 40's because of WWII. I guess I'm glad that happened too.

 

Personally, I enjoy inaccuracy. I like the idea of making up rules and not enforcing them as well as I possibly can.

[jung]

I think umps have to much leeway in how they position themselves behind catchers and I would resolve that as a first order of business. You cannot really train these guys on balls and strikes the way you as a league want them called if you allow the home plate ump to position himself wherever he damn well pleases. That is the first thing baseball needs to come to terms with.

 

Once baseball has them all in one spot, baseball can dictate how balls and strikes will be called and we will then have a shot at imposing consistency which is really the biggest complaint anybody has.

 

You give managers two challenges and it will be "oh gosh, if I only had a third challenge we could have won". Its ********.

[Cocos Disciples]

More people will remember that game than they would have had the umpire not blown the call. Technology is fine but only in proportion. Baseball doesn't need expanded replays especially when calling balls and strikes.

 

The subjective "memorable game" is not more important than the objective "correct call."

[Elktonnick]

The subjective "memorable game" is not more important than the objective "correct call."

 

Life isn't fair. The beauty of baseball is that it is representative of a slower non technological era. The obsession with making the game and the officiating perfect would ruin the pace and soul of the game. It is a slippery slope.

 

Why not make the whole game technological, photo electric cells on the plate, computer chips in the balls. pressure sesnitive bases, standardized playing fields, artifical turf, climate controlled stadia so that every thing is uniform and objective and no variation.

[Emmz]

Life isn't fair. The beauty of baseball is that it is representative of a slower non technological era. The obsession with making the game and the officiating perfect would ruin the pace and soul of the game. It is a slippery slope.

 

Why not make the whole game technological, photo electric cells on the plate, computer chips in the balls. pressure sesnitive bases, standardized playing fields, artifical turf, climate controlled stadia so that every thing is uniform and objective and no variation.

 

This is actually a really good argument. Because if you go in this direction with everything, where does it end? Professional sports are there to entertain the fans more than anything else, because well, that's the catalyst to having professional sports. If it's not fun and people stop going to see the games, then there's no incentive to have the sport to begin with. No income=no game.

 

I think the whole fairness thing is overblown a lot. I'm not really old-school or a purist by any means, and I would actually like there to probably be some sort of way to challenge bad calls, but I also realize that entertains fairness in everything else. Uniform fields/climates, etc. does not sound like any fun to watch, and fun is the only reason why it exists.

[kapsis21]

You give managers two challenges and it will be "oh gosh, if I only had a third challenge we could have won". Its ********.

 

jung i think he has a point though, just like NFL coaches get 2 challenges and thats all. atleast if its so crucial part of the game like that strike to bernardina or the one to pedey.. it could change the outcome of the game in a good way. think about it.

maybe 3 challenges, might be fair.

[SoxSport]

I would give the umps an electronic graphic of the pitch--an instant picture of where the ball actually landed relative to the strike zone. The instant pics that are available on ESPN and MLB during the games.

They should also have access to instant replay on the bases.

 

TV has technology available to help umpires, and it is isn't used for dumb egotistical reasons. They should have access to this technology to make their job easier.

[Bellhorn04]

Life isn't fair. The beauty of baseball is that it is representative of a slower non technological era. The obsession with making the game and the officiating perfect would ruin the pace and soul of the game. It is a slippery slope.

 

Why not make the whole game technological, photo electric cells on the plate, computer chips in the balls. pressure sesnitive bases, standardized playing fields, artifical turf, climate controlled stadia so that every thing is uniform and objective and no variation.

 

If the umps were doing a better a job this wouldn't be an issue. In fact many of the umps are probably doing a very good job. But some of them are screwing up seriously.

[a700hitter]

Yes there is a distinction between proposing solutions and highlighting problems. They are distinctly different and you are smart enough to know they are distinctly different activities.

 

Inaccuracy in calling balls and strikes is the problem.

Suggesting that humans can no longer call balls and strikes because of what V chooses to all this "new thing" of late action on pitches is guiding to a proposed solution....ala a software based system.

 

In this case suggesting that movement on late breaking pitches is a "new thing" is wrong in the first place. Eck nearly fell off his NESN stool at that one.

 

In addition, suggesting that human beings can no longer call balls and strikes because of this so called new thing of late action on pitches has implications for removing a piece of the game action activity pie from the umps which is the same thing as taking food off their table. Please don't give me this "Oh gee I am just to obtuse to see that" ******** 700 because I know you are not obtuse at all.

I'm not trying to be obtuse about this. I just think this whole thing with the umps was meant by Bobby V as a distraction to divert attention away from the team's play. I think it was also meant to stick it to the umps, and what better way to stick it to the umps than to say that they can be replaced by technology?

[Elktonnick]

I'm not trying to be obtuse about this. I just think this whole thing with the umps was meant by Bobby V as a distraction to divert attention away from the team's play. I think it was also meant to stick it to the umps' date=' and what better way to stick it to the umps than to say that they can be replaced by technology?[/quote']

 

I think you are 100% correct. As far as the umps doing poorly, yes there are some sucky umps. Baseball needs to get rid them but is afraid to because of the union. Joe West, Angel Hernandez, Boib Davidson for starters should be let go now.

[SoxFanForsyth]

As I've pointed out multiple times in multiple threads, the sample of play from July until the middle of May has zero value in discussing whether Youk can play while healthy or not. He was hurt during that period, of course he didn't play well. Saying he's been bad while ignoring that fact is sloppy.

 

If he doesn't improve his OPS before the ASB, you'll have a sample large enough to at least start making that guess, but stating that it's WMB and it's over, no more discussion required simply not supportable.

 

Elite hitters don't just lose the ability to hit out of nowhere in their early thirties. When is the last time an MVP caliber player went from MVP caliber production to a .600 OPS in the course of less than a season?

 

The hate for Youk on this board is ridiculous. I get that the shiny new toy is shiny and... well, shiny, but Youk has a long track record of being an elite bat. 18 games since returning from injury is not even close to a large enough sample to declare him cooked. The data from July until mid May is worthless because he was playing hurt.

 

Again, if you want to argue he can't stay healthy, that's different. But arguing he's not a good player is preposterous.

 

That's the thing, evil.

 

Youkilis is never healthy. Nobody is arguing that he's no longer talented. The argument is that he is not consistently healthy. He has had an ENTIRE offseason to get healthy, and he came back and was on the DL within a month. He's clearly not right at the moment, either.

 

Even when he was "healthy" at the start of the season, he was terrible, awful. During ST, he was getting beat badly. He's missed 127 games since 2010. That's 32.9% of the past 3 seasons!!! And when he actually DOES play, he's not even very good because he's constantly trying to play through injuries.

 

He has no value man. He's got no value.

 

Going back to last July, that's 71 games, 291 PA where he has OPS'd below .650.

 

He had an ENTIRE OFFSEASON to get healthy. He comes back, on the DL within a month.

 

You tell me. Why the hell would any team want to trade for that?