Navafan29

Very nice. With 2 outs and bases empty, they manage to get through the bottom of the lineup.

.... I will keep trying my hardest not to take this offense for granted...

I'm speachless

I don't agree with the mainstream opinion that anonymous, internet, and message board communication should have different etiquette than real life communication. I agree that your view of how interaction fundamentally should be is more mainstream than my view. I don't think that people are "welcome" (as you say) to share their opinions without much research if the mainstream internet culture reacts like it usually does. If I wanted to, I could have a pretty good shot at logically proving why your reaction to my post is unfair, by showing how you simplify my points to make them seem dumber, and then give an emotional reaction to it, to make for snappy presentation. But If I got into that, I would be hypocritically going against my own etiquette, because I don't believe that the degree of logical nitpicking I'd have to get into is healthy for people to spend time on.

I can see that you have a different, more logical and aggressive personality on the internet than you probably do in real life. If this was real life, you'd probably act more like like "Hey, you're another baseball fan who shares my interest. I don't agree with you on this topic, but at least you aren't ignorant of baseball like most people are." I wish I could have a human conversation with people on the internet sometime. Topics on a casual Red Sox forum where there's no rules and people have inappropriate avatars should not be treated like an MLB press conference. The things we say here probably aren't going to determine whether or not there are automated strike zones. MLB is not some presidential election where you can convince people to vote a certain way. The way that post credibility works is: doing research is optional, but if you do provide sources etc., then it makes one's post more credible. When I make posts that don't contain much research, I know that it doesn't have sources etc. to back it up, but I'm not trying to make my post on the same credibility level as a sports writer's. It's self evident that these posts of mine are not backed by much besides well thought out logic, and it doesn't have to be pointed out that I didn't do much research, because that's self-evident, and I'm not trying to be 10/10 credibility. However, even posts without much research can make interesting points that add color to a discussion. You know how the more people you have in a room, the more likely you are to come up with good ideas? Well, if we limited discussion to only professionally written papers, then less people would be motivated to post, and less ideas would be discovered, making discussions less complete. I'll let you guys know if I find data on human calf-length-to-height ratios etc., and how much variation there is among humans, which would provide insight into my idea that Gameday, ESPN etc. automated strike zones are not completely accurate due to human body ratios being different, and MLB players' stances being different. Though most people don't have the "100% accurate or we shouldn't have sensors" opinion that I have, so I'm not sure there'd be much of a point in me providing this research.

I don't think Gameday and ESPN's zones etc. are 100% accurate, due to the reasons I mentioned. Having sensors on the players' clothing is an interesting idea. Though the sensors would only be accurate if players tightened their pants in the same very specific way. And if their shirts had the sensors, the sensors would get ruffled around and shift from the correct position, unless we mandate tight spandex sensor uniforms for all teams. I'm not sure you could get the sensors to be in the exact right spot. The technology does exist to make automatic ball & strike calls that are much more accurate than umpires, there's no doubt about it. But I want 100% perfection, or no sensors at all.

Okay, here's something that I always wonder about, that nobody ever takes into consideration when talking about automated strike zones: According to the rule book, the top and bottom of the strike zone are set to be at the height of the correct parts of the body (the knees for the bottom, and whatever the technical part for the top is that keeps changing every year). However, the height of these body parts depends on how much the batter is crouching down. The rulebook says that the top and bottom of the zone are defined according to the batter's stance as they prepare to take the pitch. Granted, I think umpires picture the batter in a default stance and don't adjust the zone for this rule all the time... But if there were automated strike zones, we couldn't adjust the top and bottom of the zone for the batter's stance, and wouldn't this unfairly penalize guys who crouch down low, according to what the rule is supposed to be? Also, humans generally have very similar bone and limb length ratios, but not everyone's knees & torso are going to be the exact same shape and as high up on their height as everyone else's knees & torso. An automated strike zone would have to use a formula to determine where the top and bottom of one's strike zone is, based on their height and the "expected percentage of the height of the default batting stance" that the top and bottom are at. People are trying to be more correct with the automated strike zone, but it would make the strike zone technically inaccurate by a slight amount for most players, especially players with a batting stance that isn't exactly the default stance, and players who don't have perfect human limb ratios. This would bug the heck out of me. If we're going to get rid of most in-game side drama and all entertaining managerial arguments by having an automated strike zone, then we better get the automated zone 100.0% correct, or it won't be worth what it takes away from the game.

I think I get what the "theme" of this season is now. We don't have many comeback wins. We have good chemistry, but most of our wins are from brute force earlier in the game. People don't see a cursed underdog in us anymore. We're the team that is destined to get brought down by an underdog in the postseason or right before the postseason. But we're trying to defy the narrative by winning the World Series due to pure talent, and we're going to have fun doing it. And now that we've let the Blue Jays back into the season, the 3 way race for 1st is going to get real interesting pretty quickly.

Great to get that first walk off win, to make the team feel like they are in every game till the end! Very clutch hitting, and clutch non-Buchholz pitching this game! I'm calling this my second favorite game of the year so far.

It's time to become the next hands-down top franchise, at least in the AL. Yankees fans seem demoralized with the 2010 All Star team they have at the moment, and aren't showing up to the games as much. Red Sox fans have the same energy they had 10 years ago. The fanbases that want championships as much as us all seem to be in the NL. We have a way of finding magic skill sets & chemistry on a frequent basis. Our fans are tough on our players and let them have it, but are very quick to forgive a player for lack of performance when they bounce back with a good effort, like with the standing ovation to Price tonight. This is a place where stars will want to play, and be motivated to perform well. We have money. The Red Sox franchise will be the perfect vehicle for success, and be among the top jocks in the AL for a long time to come, despite individual years of falling short, like every team goes through. NL teams like the Cardinals will rival us in franchiseness, but the franchises that rival us will be full of more old school baseball purist nerds than new school jock enthusiasm like we have. Not that our type of fans are better than other types of fans, but we have our own style that fits the "dominant AL franchise" roll well.

I was hoping this could be an epic landmark night where we go in 1st right as we get our ace back. But I ain't going to be picky. This very solid performance by Price was huge. We're pretty much doomed if he does bad (at least financially) but on our way to glory if he does good.

Orioles have Adam Jones batting in the 7th with 2 guys on, and only down by 3 runs.

Yeah... I'm a victim of player team changing. I've been a big fan of Java code lately though. No rush, but if an admin sees this, can they change my name from Navafan29 to Javafan29?

IIRC Bogaerts is a Derek Jeter fan, like most people. He just did a Derek Jeter throw for his best defensive play of the year. And the guy was out by a mile!!

So let me get this straight. JBJ gets thrown out at home on a grounder, to make it two outs with only a man on 1st. That always spells the end of an inning, and that's how the story is supposed to go. But this Sox team doesn't care. It doesn't care what's supposed to happen. It ended up loading the bases and then scoring that inning anyways.

Hmm would I rather have a Pedroia home run ball, or be interviewed on live TV during a Red Sox game for missing it? That fan they just interviewed has a great story to tell.

Nobody's home run is more satisfying than a Pedroia home run. He puts his whole body in it, and has to plan out that he'll swing for a homer in advance to get enough power. Never a fluke. Kevin Millar at-the-game mojo is working.

Every time I think I've seen the funniest named player on the A's, someone with a funnier name warms up in their bullpen. Lol @ Ryan Dull. Chris Young is proving himself against lefties!

Can we please keep the Boston Globe nerd in the booth for the whole game? The best called games are when they have two color commentators instead of just Remy and a play-by-play. It lights a fire under Remy, adds more interesting conversation, and is more entertaining. Having more people talk prevents those dead air moments where O'Brian has to fill in with random stat after random stat.

Oh, all I was saying is that the hits that are hitting for power (extra base hits, home runs) are part of OBP, which adds to the overlap of the two stats. Really good input on this topic so far. I like statistics that I can understand the math behind, as long as it isn't a crazy formula. GPA sounds very promising. Not sure if this is possible (or it might already exist), but what if there was a stat that proportioned everything perfectly according to the situation etc.? It would treat a bases empty walk as equal in value to a bases empty single, since they accomplish the same thing. A walk off sac fly would be equal to a walk off home run. Even if you don't go that far, maybe you could take SLG and merge OBP into it, to make it a "how good is every at-bat on average" stat. Have walks and hit by pitches each have a multiplier like homers are x4, etc.. I will be looking into the stats you guys mentioned here.

Are you freaking kidding me? This team is inhuman in the 1st inning.

I thought of something. Since OPS is an increasingly popular statistic, I'll bring this up. OPS is on base percentage plus slugging percentage, as in: OBP * 1 + SLG * 1 or just: OBP + SLG If OPS is on base percentage plus slugging percentage, and there's no multipliers to weight OBP or SLG in the equation, this is saying that OBP and SLG are exactly as valuable as each other. I find it unlikely that this is true. Perhaps the ability to get on base is about as valuable as the ability to hit for power, but these are two different stats that are calculated in different ways. There's some redundancy in adding them together, since SLG is already composed of hits, which are part of OBP; and a big chunk of OBP is hitting for power, which is a part of SLG. Does the redundancy in each cancel out exactly even when they are added together? I doubt it. I feel like there is a better equation to be made that combines OBP and SLG, other than one which says that two differently calculated stats are exactly equal in their numbers' value. OPS might be a slightly flawed statistic. I can think more in-depth about this when I am not tired, like I am now.

If they were serious boos at JBJ for a very insignificant error, all I can say is: It's still better for us to have a wacko sitting somewhere in the stands than an empty seat. Some other teams only have a few baseball nerds who attend, and the embarrassing empty void. They'd love some wackos to fill those seats and make their fanbase better. JBJ had an amazing game, and is probably the best #9 hitter in MLB right now. I am really warming up to him. I used to not be a big JBJ fan, since he stuck out swinging at everything without putting much effort into strategy or plate discipline. But today, he had one really good take on a curveball that started in the zone and ended up a ball just off the zone down & in. I think it was with two strikes, and the old JBJ would have swung and missed at that 95% of the time. That said it all to me. I think his current hot streak has gone on long enough such that he'll develop muscle memory from it, and increase his minimum skill level & development. I get why JBJ is the #9 hitter instead of #7 or #8 - because they want a fast runner to lead off before the leadoff guy, instead of having a slow running catcher blockade the bases. But would it make sense to temporarily switch JBJ to leadoff and move Betts to #9? I'm torn, because logically it makes sense considering the hot streak, but it may cause a slight chemistry harming rift, if Betts feels like he's being punished for nothing. But having JBJ as a leadoff hitter while he's still hot is hard to resist.

If JBJ is gonna make an error, it might as well be in the game where we're up by 79 runs. Could not mind less. And it meant we got to see Smith pitch to another hitter with his amazingly entertaining pitches.

Hey Athletics, you got a pitcher with an 0.95 ERA? Our 7, 8, and 9 hitters have something to say about that. Funny, because I never predict a HR from Holt, but I was thinking home run in that AB.