7/20 vs. Yanks

[Standing Room]

Holy triple post batman! A troll is as a troll does.

[mvp 78]

And just for clarification purposes, I was called a troll before I said you weren't employed

 

Yes, I believe most of us literate posters could follow the discussion well enough.

[mvp 78]

Dan Plesac, you are such a dummy.

[jung]

Damn it I really wanted to win this game! I know it is just one game and no sense in trying to convince people why I am frustrated and worried but....I just really wanted to win this damned game.

[Standing Room]

Oh well, can't win em all. I'm confident jackoff will go back to "packing" tomorrow.

[VA Sox Fan]

f*** you for being a douche jacko. Idiot.

 

We lost another game we shouldn't have. Sucks ass,

[Station 13]

Mike Carp just hits when he plays. I kinda like letting Napoli sit out a few days a week.

[VA Sox Fan]

Yes, I believe most of us literate posters could follow the discussion well enough.

 

He's always been a condescending prick. Since 2004 at least.

[Standing Room]

He's always been a condescending prick. Since 2004 at least.

 

What I find amusing is how sensitive he becomes when someone acts equally condescending to him or points out how his "predictions" have blown up in his face. He loves to play the victim card, which probably isn't all that surprising considering he's trolling a Red Sox forum.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

If I was Farell, I'd have them practice running bases for 5 f***ing hours in this heat. What an ugly ass game to be at. It's one thing to lose, but playing sloppy pisses me off.

[VA Sox Fan]

What I find amusing is how sensitive he becomes when someone acts equally condescending to him or points out how his "predictions" have blown up in his face. He loves to play the victim card, which probably isn't all that surprising considering he's trolling a Red Sox forum.

 

Yep that's jack-off for ya. You nailed it.

[Standing Room]

If I was Farell, I'd have them practice running bases for 5 f***ing hours in this heat. What an ugly ass game to be at. It's one thing to lose, but playing sloppy pisses me off.

 

Is that you Bobby Valentine?

[Standing Room]

Yep that's jack-off for ya. You nailed it.

 

His therapist deserves every penny.

[VA Sox Fan]

Is that you Bobby Valentine?

 

Nah. Just his 2nd game at Fenway, Ever.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Is that you Bobby Valentine?

 

No, but you can't tell me that baserunning wasn't ugly today. We lost to a good pitcher, oh well it happens. It's just very frustrating when you watch them do s*** like that. Also I have f***ing had it with these has been motherf***ers playing good for the Yankees. I don't get it.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Yankees fans at Fenway were just like Jacko today. Yesterday they were quiet, then today when they're winning they show up. Jacko can't use that work excuse every game. It's getting pathetic, you're a troll. It seems like most games when good things happen to the Yankees, you show up with the work excuse.

[jacksonianmarch]

Yankees fans at Fenway were just like Jacko today. Yesterday they were quiet, then today when they're winning they show up. Jacko can't use that work excuse every game. It's getting pathetic, you're a troll. It seems like most games when good things happen to the Yankees, you show up with the work excuse.

 

I work a whole lot more than the general population

[Standing Room]

Aw, is that what the doctor calls it?

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Don't even waste your time with him Standing Room.

[jung]

Somehow the Sox have got to find a way to either get Vic back into the lineup or find a way to get something similar out of somebody else. Vic out of the lineup has consequences for both the offense and the defense. The offense is simply not the same when Vic is not in there batting behind Ells and in front of Pedey. It really seems to have an impact on Pedey.

 

When Vic is there, Pedey often comes up with a runner already in scoring position and he just tries to dump the ball into RF or CF. Without Vic, Pedey tries to do too much and he starts grounding out AGAIN.

 

Defensively, Nava is just too slow for RF. He just is. He is a stop gap for a couple days at most but he really cannot play RF regularly. I really don't know what the Sox do about that.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

AL hitters are hitting .336 this year when they swing at the first pitch. Ellsbury was hitting .400 swinging at the first pitch, before today's game.

 

I don't want to argue. It's cool that you think swinging at the first pitch is good, but I don't. I personally think there's more benefits to not swinging at the first pitch. Maybe this year it might be good, but how about overall? Do you have numers for that?

[SoxSport]

Somehow the Sox have got to find a way to either get Vic back into the lineup or find a way to get something similar out of somebody else. Vic out of the lineup has consequences for both the offense and the defense. The offense is simply not the same when Vic is not in there batting behind Ells and in front of Pedey. It really seems to have an impact on Pedey.

 

When Vic is there, Pedey often comes up with a runner already in scoring position and he just tries to dump the ball into RF or CF. Without Vic, Pedey tries to do too much and he starts grounding out AGAIN.

 

Defensively, Nava is just too slow for RF. He just is. He is a stop gap for a couple days at most but he really cannot play RF regularly. I really don't know what the Sox do about that.

 

Bradley would make a difference, but LF has been printed on his forehead.

[MJantomaso]

Nava forgot to take the piano off his back before the game.

[jung]

AL hitters are hitting .336 this year when they swing at the first pitch. Ellsbury was hitting .400 swinging at the first pitch, before today's game.

 

I don't want to argue. It's cool that you think swinging at the first pitch is good, but I don't. I personally think there's more benefits to not swinging at the first pitch. Maybe this year it might be good, but how about overall? Do you have numers for that?

 

I just remembered something about the study I referred to earlier. I have got to find the damned thing again. As I remember it, since they did not want to simply end up with a discussion of the value of protecting the plate, they only included swings in counts at pitches that were actually in the strike zone. By eliminating swings in counts at pitches outside the strike zone they also got rid of differences in all hitters ability to judge pitches to be in the strike zone. That does skew the data. So for example, as you might imagine, the hitter's results when swinging 0-2 were worse in an absolute sense than their results when swinging 0-0. However swinging 0-2, hitters ends up swinging at a considerable number of pitches that are outside the strike zone even if by a little bit. As with everything baseball it is complicated. I can see their point. If they included swings in counts at pitches outside the strike zone then they would have simply ended up with a study that said "hitters protect the plate with two strikes" and their average generally sucks when they are forced into that predicament. I suspect they did not think taking four years of data to come up with that hypothesis was worthwhile to them.

 

They were really trying to come up with data specific to pitches in counts that were in the strike zone...in other words pitches that would have been called strikes had they not swung. They were trying to validate with data points that the more pitches a hitter sees from a pitcher, and the deeper into the count he goes, the better his chances of getting a good result swinging at a pitch in the strike zone. That does make some sense. The hitter sees more and more of the pitchers release point. He gets a better feeling about the sequence the pitcher is using to get him out and if he gets the pitcher all the way to a 3 ball count, the better his chances of getting a FB....maybe even a FB right down Main St.

 

I remembered at the time thinking that one of the things they were really trying to get at was the value of guess hitting, whether it really worked or not and whether the hitter generally makes a better guess the more pitches he sees and the deeper into the count he goes. I seem to remember that they did something with swings and misses with two strikes (K's) so that you could see K's separate from balls put in play. But. for the life of me I can't remember what it was or why they did it that way.

 

So to qualify my earlier comment about this study, swings at 0-0 pitches that were in the strike zone yielded worse results for the hitter than any other swing/count at a pitch in the strike zone

[Bellhorn04]

I don't want to argue. It's cool that you think swinging at the first pitch is good, but I don't. I personally think there's more benefits to not swinging at the first pitch. Maybe this year it might be good, but how about overall? Do you have numers for that?

 

Obviously, swinging at the first pitch all the time is not a good thing. Hitters pick their spots to do it. The logical reason for doing it is pretty simple. The pitcher doesn't want to fall behind in the count, right? The easiest way to avoid that is to throw a fastball over the middle of the plate. If you're a hitter and you are expecting the pitcher to do that, is it smarter for you to take that down-the-middle fastball for a strike, or to swing at it?

 

It's all part of the game between pitchers and hitters. You can't just do the same thing all the time.

[Bellhorn04]

Just to add to the discussion about swinging at the first pitch, we all know that a big part of offensive strategy now is seeing a lot of pitches and driving up the starter's pitch count. But at that same time this is going on, overall run production in the big leagues keeps going down. Verducci of SI thinks the strategy of taking a lot of pitches has something to do with it, that by doing this hitters are getting into more pitcher's counts and striking out more.

[User Name]

Verducci can't prove causation between those two factors. The truth is that the main reason offensive production is going down is probably a lot more related to less PED use than it is to whether or not hitters take pitches.

 

During the years when the biggest offensive numbers were being posted, the "drive pitch counts up and get-on-base" offensive approach was just as en vogue as it is right now.

[Bellhorn04]

Verducci can't prove causation between those two factors. The truth is that the main reason offensive production is going down is probably a lot more related to less PED use than it is to whether or not hitters take pitches.

 

During the years when the biggest offensive numbers were being posted, the "drive pitch counts up and get-on-base" offensive approach was just as en vogue as it is right now.

 

Fair enough. But let me counter with this question then: is there any evidence that the 'driving up the pitch count' strategy is actually effective in increasing run production?

[a700hitter]

Fair enough. But let me counter with this question then: is there any evidence that the 'driving up the pitch count' strategy is actually effective in increasing run production?

There is evidence that it makes games interminably long and boring for fans.

[User Name]

That depends. If it's a duel of aces and they're working fast and pounding the zone, it doesn't matter what offensive approach is used. The game will be over fast.