Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

User Name

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    18,192

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Boston Red Sox Videos

2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking

Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker

News

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by User Name

  1. User Name
    Slightly improved.
  2. User Name
    The two hits against Sale don't change the fact that he's been terrible against lefties this year. They have his number.
  3. User Name
    That's a great question, and above my pay grade.
  4. User Name
    If it was as easy as you say, they would have done it by now. It's just impossible for the human eye to discern borderline calls with any sort of consistency. As for the study, unless I'm mistaken, under-recognition errors apply "true-strike" (or recognized zone) judgement.
  5. User Name
    ^This.
  6. User Name
    I've heard on a couple podcasts that Rollins was going to get the title regardless of Reigns' failed drug test. The Ambrese thing is what came out of LF.
  7. User Name
    If you've read the studies, then you know that "true strike" percentage is taken into account in a lot of the more nuanced studies. In fact, accounting for true strikes, ump's error rate is still significantly close to 14%, reinforcing the notion of the earlier numbers produced. The fact that a significant portion of those judgement errors come from The Matthew effect reinforced the notion that something needs to be done to improve strike zone efficiency.
  8. User Name
    Travis Shaw has a .597 OPS against lefties. If that's "very good" then the standards for productive offensive numbers have lowered significantly.
  9. User Name
    The June swoon is real.
  10. User Name
    On the topic of WWE, apparently they heard our cries since Dean Ambrose is now champion.
  11. User Name
    And don't forget: The more of a superstar you are, the more favorable calls are to you. Not so damn bad!
  12. User Name
    Where did I misspeak? You jumped into the argument without knowing what you were responding to. Clearly my definition of the outside quadrants in gameday was wrong, but that doesn't invalidate the point. The studies consider the gray area, meaning the error rate determined by said studies is correct. And feel free to continue being a jerk then. Whatever bro.
  13. User Name
    Hugh is right. That's widely considered developmental best practice for a reason.
  14. User Name
    It's a firm hyperbolic prediction. Not an "if you say otherwise you're the devil" argumentative affirmation. It's obvious the Blue Jays may keep him.
  15. User Name
    I am changing my selection to "Below .500. These guys stink!", let hell freezeth over because of my agreement with iortiz.
  16. User Name
    The study he analyzes very much argues otherwise. Umpire bias is pretty noticeable.
  17. User Name
    Then you don't know what you're responding to. Kimmi's initial point was that most of the umps' errors (per the studies) were done on borderline calls. What I argued was that that's not the case. Apparently you agree. And whether you care what I think of your posts or not, you could stand being a little less of an argumentative douche, and a little more active on actual discussions, which you can proven you're pretty decent at.
  18. User Name
    His conclusion is annoying, but the data is right in line with the fact that umpires should be doing a better job.
  19. User Name
    The study's huge. Read the blog spot
  20. User Name
    The part about umpire errors, measurements and true strikes is really deep into the study analysis. Have fun!
  21. User Name
    I did not, and that's not the point. This is exactly what YOTN called you out on the other day, and it might be a good idea to cut that s*** out. I may f*** around every so often, but I make actual baseball-related posts on here instead of constantly looking to create flame wars. Again, the infamous "ball zone", for the purposes of measuring pitcher accuracy, is used as a leeway point for umpires, because while everything that falls on there is supposed to be called a ball (per the rulebook) they are semi-consistently called strikes if they even touch the zone. But don't take my word for it, read the article I posted above which presents some studies on both strize-zone accuracy and umpire bias. I'm not the one doing these studies.
  22. User Name
    I actually get where the discrepancy lies: You pulled that up from the "About Gameday" part of the mlb.com site, correct? Well what they define as the "ball zone" is actually a zone right outside the 3x3 grid where pitches should be called balls but can realistically be called strikes. In this image: http://mlb.mlb.com/shared/components/gameday/v4/images/about/3d2.jpg You can clearly see the implementation of a "greyed out" area to illustrate this very point. Remember that this discussion started because of the measurement of of umpire accuracy: https://www.umpirebible.com/blog/?p=542 This is an interesting read on the methodology used by people who use pitch/fx to gather strike zone data ( As I have stated before, there is a margin for error applied to the umpire, they call them "true strikes"). Even better, and this is going to be right up your wheelhouse (and MVP's) there's a large-scale discussion on clear umpire biases here. Recommended reading.
  23. User Name
    How about posting something productive for once, like making an actual point? They added the system because it's gained legitimate use by the MLB.
  24. User Name
    It's not a "ball zone" It's literally a gray area where strikes may be called. Hell, they've even incorporated it into current-gen videogames, and that's exactly what they call it!
  25. User Name
    Encarnacion will be DH'ing for the Sox next year. It just makes too much sense.
×
×
  • Create New...