Rumor - Murton for Soriano?

[SanJoseCubsFan]

I think more distracted espically if they are a top baserunner in the league. No when there are men on past 1B I think thats when the pitcher and defense become more focused. I think the pitcher becomes to much focused on holding the runner on that it takes away from who he's pitching too. Thats why i wanted a legitamate leadoff hitter and I think Pierre is that even if he doesn't have an All-Star season.

 

If pitchers get distracted, then why did the person following Pierre perform worse when Pierre was on base more?

 

Apparently, Castillo's not good @ hitting w/ a guy on first. Small sample size considering the many, many speedy leadoff men who have played baseball...

 

And yet a very sizable sample for the exact individual we're talking about. Can we see the effects from some of these other speedy leadoff men?

 

 

There was an article on Hardballtimes.com on Feb 6 that talks of this. There is also a link looking at basestealers and effect on the #2 batter at the bottom of the article. It is interesting to think about. The link showed with no outs the batter is helped quite a bit for 40+ basestealer and as the outs go up the effect is smaller. Anyway enjoy

 

http://www.retrosheet.org/Research/PankinM/sabr32.pdf

[RynoRules]

I think more distracted espically if they are a top baserunner in the league. No when there are men on past 1B I think thats when the pitcher and defense become more focused. I think the pitcher becomes to much focused on holding the runner on that it takes away from who he's pitching too. Thats why i wanted a legitamate leadoff hitter and I think Pierre is that even if he doesn't have an All-Star season.

 

If pitchers get distracted, then why did the person following Pierre perform worse when Pierre was on base more?

 

Apparently, Castillo's not good @ hitting w/ a guy on first. Small sample size considering the many, many speedy leadoff men who have played baseball...

 

And yet a very sizable sample for the exact individual we're talking about. Can we see the effects from some of these other speedy leadoff men?

 

 

There was an article on Hardballtimes.com on Feb 6 that talks of this. There is also a link looking at basestealers and effect on the #2 batter at the bottom of the article. It is interesting to think about. The link showed with no outs the batter is helped quite a bit for 40+ basestealer and as the outs go up the effect is smaller. Anyway enjoy

 

http://www.retrosheet.org/Research/PankinM/sabr32.pdf

 

That makes a lot of sense, actually. You'd figure with two out and a man on first (be he Marke Grace or Rickey Henderson) that the picther would be more likely to concentrate on the batter. By contrast, with no one out and Rickey on first, the picther is more apt to be distracted. That's reasonable.

[CubfaninCA]

I think more distracted espically if they are a top baserunner in the league. No when there are men on past 1B I think thats when the pitcher and defense become more focused. I think the pitcher becomes to much focused on holding the runner on that it takes away from who he's pitching too. Thats why i wanted a legitamate leadoff hitter and I think Pierre is that even if he doesn't have an All-Star season.

 

If pitchers get distracted, then why did the person following Pierre perform worse when Pierre was on base more?

 

Apparently, Castillo's not good @ hitting w/ a guy on first. Small sample size considering the many, many speedy leadoff men who have played baseball...

 

And yet a very sizable sample for the exact individual we're talking about. Can we see the effects from some of these other speedy leadoff men?

 

It's 1 out of hundreds of examples. You guys should be the one's proving it doesn't exist since you're challenging around 100 years of conventional wisdom.

[CubinNY]

It's 1 out of hundreds of examples. You guys should be the one's proving it doesn't exist since you're challenging around 100 years of conventional wisdom.

It is physically impossible to demonstrate something does not exist. One can only demonstrate that something exists.

 

Convential wisdom often gets people in trouble.

[Outshined_One]

It's 1 out of hundreds of examples. You guys should be the one's proving it doesn't exist since you're challenging around 100 years of conventional wisdom.

 

We've pointed out numerous examples. As a matter of fact, you have not pointed out anything worthwhile in this thread as a useful example. All you've done is point out things that are tenous at best in terms of the claims of this "conventional wisdom" that you keep harping on.

 

We have presented a number of cases, facts, and statistics. Every single one of them has pointed out that there is little, if any, evidence to back up the claims of the "conventional wisdom". The evidence that does back this up is only in outlier cases wherein the pitcher is "weak-minded" or whatever. In the majority of cases, speed does not equate to making pitchers lose focus. The guy could be the fastest player on the field and still be a nitwit on the base paths, making him easy pickings for the pitcher and catcher.

 

Give me a smart baserunner with decent speed over a speed demon with little concept of what to do on the basepaths any day.

 

Prove this conventional wisdom. Back up your facts. Cite specific examples under a variety of circumstances. Show there's a positive correlation between pitchers losing concentration when some one fast is on the basepaths as opposed to when some one slow is on the basepaths.

 

The burden of proof is on you. Prove us wrong.

[frostwyrm]

It's 1 out of hundreds of examples. You guys should be the one's proving it doesn't exist since you're challenging around 100 years of conventional wisdom.

It is physically impossible to demonstrate something does not exist. One can only demonstrate that something exists.

 

Convential wisdom often gets people in trouble.

 

True. For example, it is impossible to prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist. You can only say that there is no known credible evidence that he does exist. Only an omniscient being could state authoritatively that something does not exist.

[BigbadB]

It's 1 out of hundreds of examples. You guys should be the one's proving it doesn't exist since you're challenging around 100 years of conventional wisdom.

It is physically impossible to demonstrate something does not exist. One can only demonstrate that something exists.

 

Convential wisdom often gets people in trouble.

 

True. For example, it is impossible to prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist. You can only say that there is no known credible evidence that he does exist. Only an omniscient being could state authoritatively that something does not exist.

 

Now we're getting somewhere.

[dew1679666265]

While I have never found any empirical evidence stating that speed on the basepaths can hurt a pitchers focus, I do believe that it actually does. My belief comes mostly off of experience playing and watching the game, I've heard and seen the impact a fast runner can have on a pitcher. I can't give exact quotes but I have heard numerous pitchers discuss how difficult it is to focus only on the batter when Rickey Henderson or somebody like that is dancing around at first base. If you want it proven by A + B = C, I can't do that though.

[CubfaninCA]

I agree strong pitchers are unlikely to get rattled, but the Cubs need all the help they can get. Some weak pitchers give them trouble too.

 

Now, how much value does that have compared to the actual ability of getting on base?

 

To me, the ability to distract some of the lesser pitchers isn't nearly as important as the ability to get on 1B.

 

Obviously obp is more important, but ideally you want someone w/ good obp and speed. Pierre fits both.

[CubfaninCA]

It's 1 out of hundreds of examples. You guys should be the one's proving it doesn't exist since you're challenging around 100 years of conventional wisdom.

 

We've pointed out numerous examples. As a matter of fact, you have not pointed out anything worthwhile in this thread as a useful example. All you've done is point out things that are tenous at best in terms of the claims of this "conventional wisdom" that you keep harping on.

 

We have presented a number of cases, facts, and statistics. Every single one of them has pointed out that there is little, if any, evidence to back up the claims of the "conventional wisdom". The evidence that does back this up is only in outlier cases wherein the pitcher is "weak-minded" or whatever. In the majority of cases, speed does not equate to making pitchers lose focus. The guy could be the fastest player on the field and still be a nitwit on the base paths, making him easy pickings for the pitcher and catcher.

 

Give me a smart baserunner with decent speed over a speed demon with little concept of what to do on the basepaths any day.

 

Prove this conventional wisdom. Back up your facts. Cite specific examples under a variety of circumstances. Show there's a positive correlation between pitchers losing concentration when some one fast is on the basepaths as opposed to when some one slow is on the basepaths.

 

The burden of proof is on you. Prove us wrong.

 

Huh??? Someone previously posted a sabr article that says the best base stealers (40+ steals) help the #2 hitters by 10-30 batting average points. Are you just disregarding the "facts???"""

Edited February 25, 2006 by CubfaninCA

[CubfaninCA]

It's 1 out of hundreds of examples. You guys should be the one's proving it doesn't exist since you're challenging around 100 years of conventional wisdom.

It is physically impossible to demonstrate something does not exist. One can only demonstrate that something exists.

 

Convential wisdom often gets people in trouble.

 

So the earth's still flat?

[JD42K]

Can someone give me some examples of these "weak minded" pitchers I keep hearing about? I'd also like some evidence as to why these pitchers are "weak minded". Are they borderline mentally handicapped? And, if they are, shouldn't there be some sort of special on 20/20 or something? Because, I think it's pretty darn amazing that these retards are pitching at the major league level. I know that they're supposed to be really strong and stuff, but it's still quite an accomplishment for these "weak minds". I think they should be celebrated for their accomplishments. Maybe Juan Pierre and the rest of the speedsters should cut them some slack when they get on base instead of trying to "get in" their "weak minds". Shame on you, Juan Pierre. Those "weak minds" are heroes. Mickey Tettleton never danced around and "stole" bases. Shame, shame, shame, Juan Pierre...everyone knows YOUR name.

[Outshined_One]

Huh??? Someone previously posted a sabr article that says the best base stealers (40+ steals) help the #2 hitters by 10-30 batting average points. Are you just disregarding the "facts???"""

 

Three things about that particular article:

 

1) It talks about base stealing, not speed. I don't think this article helps people who have been advocating the argument that speed is what causes the greatest threats on the basepaths. It's intelligence, such as knowing when to break for second, reading a pitcher's motion, and knowing how good of an arm the catcher is.

 

2) I'd be curious to see a more individual breakdown of other players than Murphy/Henderson. While Murphy's numbers increased when Rickey was on base, his numbers were even better with some one else on base. I'd like to see how #2 hitters do in a similar situation.

 

2a) On a similar note, I'd like to see how #2 hitters performed with the successful basestealers (75%+) and the not so successful basestealers who managed to rack up 40+ SBs.

 

My original point remains:

 

In the majority of cases, speed does not equate to making pitchers lose focus. The guy could be the fastest player on the field and still be a nitwit on the base paths, making him easy pickings for the pitcher and catcher.

 

Give me a smart baserunner with decent speed over a speed demon with little concept of what to do on the basepaths any day.

[frostwyrm]

It's 1 out of hundreds of examples. You guys should be the one's proving it doesn't exist since you're challenging around 100 years of conventional wisdom.

It is physically impossible to demonstrate something does not exist. One can only demonstrate that something exists.

 

Convential wisdom often gets people in trouble.

 

So the earth's still flat?

 

Different question. A theory can be proved or disproved by logical analysis of collected evidence, but non-existence of any particular thing can never be proved because for us mere mortals the collected evidence will always be incomplete, since it would require an encompassing knowledge of all things presently contained in the universe to state authoritatively that something does not exist. Non-ominiscient beings can never have more than a subset of the evidence required to prove non-existence.

 

We do, however, have enough evidence to disprove the theory of a flat earth.

Edited February 25, 2006 by frostwyrm

[CubinNY]

It's 1 out of hundreds of examples. You guys should be the one's proving it doesn't exist since you're challenging around 100 years of conventional wisdom.

It is physically impossible to demonstrate something does not exist. One can only demonstrate that something exists.

 

Convential wisdom often gets people in trouble.

 

So the earth's still flat?

 

Different question. A theory can be proved or disproved by logical analysis of collected evidence, but non-existence of any particular thing can never be proved because for us mere mortals the collected evidence will always be incomplete, since it would require an encompassing knowledge of all things presently contained in the universe to state authoritatively that something does not exist. Non-ominiscient beings can never have more than a subset of the evidence required to prove non-existence.

 

Different question? No, that was a non sequiter.

 

No one can disprove the earth is flat. They can only prove that it is flat, and that is impossible. If it is impossible to prove it is flat the earth must be something else.

 

It is fun to believe in ghosts, UFOs, and "intangibles" like the fast guy on the basepaths bugs the pitcher. But at some point most people grow up. Then again some people never do.

[frostwyrm]

No one can disprove the earth is flat.

 

Sure they can. Any theory can be disproved simply by proving another theory which contradicts it. The theory of a round earth contradicts the theory of a flat earth, thereby disproving it.

[UK1679666180]

Can someone give me some examples of these "weak minded" pitchers I keep hearing about? I'd also like some evidence as to why these pitchers are "weak minded". Are they borderline mentally handicapped? And, if they are, shouldn't there be some sort of special on 20/20 or something? Because, I think it's pretty darn amazing that these retards are pitching at the major league level. I know that they're supposed to be really strong and stuff, but it's still quite an accomplishment for these "weak minds". I think they should be celebrated for their accomplishments. Maybe Juan Pierre and the rest of the speedsters should cut them some slack when they get on base instead of trying to "get in" their "weak minds". Shame on you, Juan Pierre. Those "weak minds" are heroes. Mickey Tettleton never danced around and "stole" bases. Shame, shame, shame, Juan Pierre...everyone knows YOUR name.

 

Although I shouldn't respond to this post in a respectful manner or even respond at all, I will.

 

You see it all the time, pitchers will rush their delivery or they don't stay set for a full second. Catchers will jump out of their stance prematurely, etc.

 

With a baserunner w/speed on 1B, a pitcher should always be under the assumption the runner is going to steal. It helps take away the element of surprise and puts further emphasis on what a pitcher must do to upset the timing of the runner.

 

Warren Spahn once said, "Hitting is timing, and pitching is upsetting timing". The same holds true with the pitcher and a runner at 1B.

 

The pitcher has several ways of doing so, coming set and waiting a few seconds and throwing over is one way, vary your delivery times to home as most pitchers use the same set time, turning and throwing while his hands are in the act of moving down toward their final position. They also can throw over from the top of their stretch before their hands join and from the set position wait a couple of seconds, quickly stepping back with his foot off the rubber to prevent the balk fake the throw to 1B.

 

Another is improper stretch mechanics, you can rush your throws in a strecth position just as easily out of the stretch as you can the full windup.

 

Everything done to try and upset the timing of a runner or pick him off of 1B is done without throwing the ball to home. Some pitchers have trouble recognizing it.

 

You want another example of a "weak mind", watch Clement after he got hit for a 2nd time last year. It's not that it's a weak mind or "[expletive]" as incorrectly you put it, it's a mental block, some have it and some don't, some get over it and some don't. Back to Clement, after he got hit with a liner for a second time, as soon as the batter made contact and fouled it straight back, Clement flinched before even finishing his follow-thru.

 

Once a pitcher realizes he can't dictate whether or not a runner is going to go, when he knows he's going home, he has no control over the runner and his focus is on the batter.

 

It's a mental block, it's pretty common in baseball and various aspects of the game, the way Patterson differentiates a ball from a strike is different than Bonds, Patterson might very well have a mental block there.

[fromthestretch]

I agree strong pitchers are unlikely to get rattled, but the Cubs need all the help they can get. Some weak pitchers give them trouble too.

 

Now, how much value does that have compared to the actual ability of getting on base?

 

To me, the ability to distract some of the lesser pitchers isn't nearly as important as the ability to get on 1B.

 

Obviously obp is more important, but ideally you want someone w/ good obp and speed. Pierre fits both.

 

Except the two seasons he hasn't. Two out of his 5 1/2 seasons, he's had an unacceptable OBP for a leadoff hitter.

[UK1679666180]

Obviously obp is more important, but ideally you want someone w/ good obp and speed. Pierre fits both.

 

Like I said before, OBP is the requirement of a productive leadoff, speed is the accessory.

 

If ideals enter the equation, ideally, I'd rather have someone at the top with a higher OBP than Pierre.

[noisesquared]

I agree strong pitchers are unlikely to get rattled, but the Cubs need all the help they can get. Some weak pitchers give them trouble too.

 

Now, how much value does that have compared to the actual ability of getting on base?

 

To me, the ability to distract some of the lesser pitchers isn't nearly as important as the ability to get on 1B.

 

Obviously obp is more important, but ideally you want someone w/ good obp and speed. Pierre fits both.

 

Except the two seasons he hasn't. Two out of his 5 1/2 seasons, he's had an unacceptable OBP for a leadoff hitter.

 

But the other 3.5 seasons have been pretty good. What's the point? He's had more OBP success than failure. His career OBP is very respectable. And Pierre's worst season would still be a huge upgrade over what the Cubs got out of center last year.

[noisesquared]

It is fun to believe in ghosts, UFOs, and "intangibles" like the fast guy on the basepaths bugs the pitcher. But at some point most people grow up. Then again some people never do.

 

What does growing up have to do with believing that a fast guy on the base paths bugs the pitcher? There are very respected baseball men who would agree with the premise that a fast player on the basepaths can affect a pitcher, especially in the late-and-close type situation. Just because someone hasn't found a metric yet to validate the theory does not mean a believer isn't 'grown up' :roll:

[USSoccer]

It is fun to believe in ghosts, UFOs, and "intangibles" like the fast guy on the basepaths bugs the pitcher. But at some point most people grow up. Then again some people never do.

 

What does growing up have to do with believing that a fast guy on the base paths bugs the pitcher? There are very respected baseball men who would agree with the premise that a fast player on the basepaths can affect a pitcher, especially in the late-and-close type situation. Just because someone hasn't found a metric yet to validate the theory does not mean a believer isn't 'grown up' :roll:

 

Can having a baserunner on first jitterbugging around also distract a right handed hitter?

[CubfaninCA]

It's 1 out of hundreds of examples. You guys should be the one's proving it doesn't exist since you're challenging around 100 years of conventional wisdom.

It is physically impossible to demonstrate something does not exist. One can only demonstrate that something exists.

 

Convential wisdom often gets people in trouble.

 

So the earth's still flat?

 

Different question. A theory can be proved or disproved by logical analysis of collected evidence, but non-existence of any particular thing can never be proved because for us mere mortals the collected evidence will always be incomplete, since it would require an encompassing knowledge of all things presently contained in the universe to state authoritatively that something does not exist. Non-ominiscient beings can never have more than a subset of the evidence required to prove non-existence.

 

Different question? No, that was a non sequiter.

 

No one can disprove the earth is flat. They can only prove that it is flat, and that is impossible. If it is impossible to prove it is flat the earth must be something else.

 

It is fun to believe in ghosts, UFOs, and "intangibles" like the fast guy on the basepaths bugs the pitcher. But at some point most people grow up. Then again some people never do.

 

LOL. What field teaches this idea?

[CubfaninCA]

It's 1 out of hundreds of examples. You guys should be the one's proving it doesn't exist since you're challenging around 100 years of conventional wisdom.

It is physically impossible to demonstrate something does not exist. One can only demonstrate that something exists.

 

Convential wisdom often gets people in trouble.

 

So the earth's still flat?

 

Different question. A theory can be proved or disproved by logical analysis of collected evidence, but non-existence of any particular thing can never be proved because for us mere mortals the collected evidence will always be incomplete, since it would require an encompassing knowledge of all things presently contained in the universe to state authoritatively that something does not exist. Non-ominiscient beings can never have more than a subset of the evidence required to prove non-existence.

 

We do, however, have enough evidence to disprove the theory of a flat earth.

 

Great speed affecting pitchers isn't a theory?

[JD42K]

Can someone give me some examples of these "weak minded" pitchers I keep hearing about? I'd also like some evidence as to why these pitchers are "weak minded". Are they borderline mentally handicapped? And, if they are, shouldn't there be some sort of special on 20/20 or something? Because, I think it's pretty darn amazing that these retards are pitching at the major league level. I know that they're supposed to be really strong and stuff, but it's still quite an accomplishment for these "weak minds". I think they should be celebrated for their accomplishments. Maybe Juan Pierre and the rest of the speedsters should cut them some slack when they get on base instead of trying to "get in" their "weak minds". Shame on you, Juan Pierre. Those "weak minds" are heroes. Mickey Tettleton never danced around and "stole" bases. Shame, shame, shame, Juan Pierre...everyone knows YOUR name.

 

Although I shouldn't respond to this post in a respectful manner or even respond at all, I will.

 

You see it all the time, pitchers will rush their delivery or they don't stay set for a full second. Catchers will jump out of their stance prematurely, etc.

 

With a baserunner w/speed on 1B, a pitcher should always be under the assumption the runner is going to steal. It helps take away the element of surprise and puts further emphasis on what a pitcher must do to upset the timing of the runner.

 

Warren Spahn once said, "Hitting is timing, and pitching is upsetting timing". The same holds true with the pitcher and a runner at 1B.

 

The pitcher has several ways of doing so, coming set and waiting a few seconds and throwing over is one way, vary your delivery times to home as most pitchers use the same set time, turning and throwing while his hands are in the act of moving down toward their final position. They also can throw over from the top of their stretch before their hands join and from the set position wait a couple of seconds, quickly stepping back with his foot off the rubber to prevent the balk fake the throw to 1B.

 

Another is improper stretch mechanics, you can rush your throws in a strecth position just as easily out of the stretch as you can the full windup.

 

Everything done to try and upset the timing of a runner or pick him off of 1B is done without throwing the ball to home. Some pitchers have trouble recognizing it.

 

You want another example of a "weak mind", watch Clement after he got hit for a 2nd time last year. It's not that it's a weak mind or "[expletive]" as incorrectly you put it, it's a mental block, some have it and some don't, some get over it and some don't. Back to Clement, after he got hit with a liner for a second time, as soon as the batter made contact and fouled it straight back, Clement flinched before even finishing his follow-thru.

 

Once a pitcher realizes he can't dictate whether or not a runner is going to go, when he knows he's going home, he has no control over the runner and his focus is on the batter.

 

It's a mental block, it's pretty common in baseball and various aspects of the game, the way Patterson differentiates a ball from a strike is different than Bonds, Patterson might very well have a mental block there.

 

WOW! Thanks. You've really opened my eyes. :roll: (first time using one of those "gay" emoticons...that's a case of beer)

 

I was obviously being sarcastic and I have absolutely no idea what you're point is. I, apparently, am one of the "weak minds".