Rumor - Murton for Soriano?

[JD42K]

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?

 

Actually, I bet that it would. But, since they are on the same team, then it would be counter-productive.

[UK1679666180]

WOW! Thanks. You've really opened my eyes. (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".

 

I was the one who used the phrase "weak minded" pitchers. I explained why I used it and how a pitcher can avoid getting distracted.

 

Your ability to be sarcastic was clouded by actually asking what I thought was a legit question rather than being cute.

 

Save your attempts for trying to appear witty for someone else, some of us try to have intelligent posts and some like you try to ruin it for the rest of us.

Edited February 25, 2006 by UK

[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.

 

LOL. What field teaches this idea?

 

Science. I understand if you've never heard of it.

[JD42K]

WOW! Thanks. You've really opened my eyes. (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".

 

I was the one who used the phrase "weak minded" pitchers. I explained why I used it and how a pitcher can avoid getting distracted.

 

You're ability to be sarcastic was clouded by actually asking what I thought was a legit question rather than being cute.

 

Save your attempts for trying to appear witty for someone else, some of us try to have intelligent posts and some like you try to ruin it for the rest of us w/ your weak-mindedness.

 

I appreciate you explaining how a pitcher can avoid getting distracted. You should write a book or something. I wasn't aware that pitchers could vary their times to the plate and throw over to first base(?!?). Wow! You must have watched at least one baseball game before(I'm sure you've watched more than that...it was very informative and well thought out). You're like the Joe Morgan of posters( by "poster", I don't mean those things you put on the wall, but by people that contribute messages, or "posts", to message boards).

 

I'll try to control my attempts at humor in the future. I'm really sorry( by "sorry", I mean that I apolgize, or apologise). I've been told by my mom that I'm really funny and a really great catch(by "catch", I mean a partner, or significant other, for some nice girl). I guess I believed her, the lying whore. That's the last time you make a fool out of me, Mother...the LAST time.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

WOW! Thanks. You've really opened my eyes. (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".

 

I was the one who used the phrase "weak minded" pitchers. I explained why I used it and how a pitcher can avoid getting distracted.

 

You're ability to be sarcastic was clouded by actually asking what I thought was a legit question rather than being cute.

 

Save your attempts for trying to appear witty for someone else, some of us try to have intelligent posts and some like you try to ruin it for the rest of us w/ your weak-mindedness.

 

I appreciate you explaining how a pitcher can avoid getting distracted. You should write a book or something. I wasn't aware that pitchers could vary their times to the plate and throw over to first base(?!?). Wow! You must have watched at least one baseball game before(I'm sure you've watched more than that...it was very informative and well thought out). You're like the Joe Morgan of posters( by "poster", I don't mean those things you put on the wall, but by people that contribute messages, or "posts", to message boards).

 

I'll try to control my attempts at humor in the future. I'm really sorry( by "sorry", I mean that I apolgize, or apologise). I've been told by my mom that I'm really funny and a really great catch(by "catch", I mean a partner, or significant other, for some nice girl). I guess I believed her, the lying whore. That's the last time you make a fool out of me, Mother...the LAST time.

 

If someone is the Joe Morgan of posters, it's not going to be UK. That's pretty uncalled for.

[UK1679666180]

Nice editing trick as I never called you weak-minded, I find your tone on here to be repulsive, but that's for others to decide.

 

I'll ignore you as you should ignore me, as the board probably doesn't want to read this stupidity (as I edited and erased originally, b/c it was inappropiate).

[Neuby]

I gotta think having a guy like Rickey Henderson on first base disrupts the pitcher. Sorry I don't have a stat to pull out that proves it. I know a pitcher is going to the throw a hitter more fastballs with a burner on first. [/i]

[treebird]

WOW! Thanks. You've really opened my eyes. (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".

 

I was the one who used the phrase "weak minded" pitchers. I explained why I used it and how a pitcher can avoid getting distracted.

 

You're ability to be sarcastic was clouded by actually asking what I thought was a legit question rather than being cute.

 

Save your attempts for trying to appear witty for someone else, some of us try to have intelligent posts and some like you try to ruin it for the rest of us w/ your weak-mindedness.

 

I appreciate you explaining how a pitcher can avoid getting distracted. You should write a book or something. I wasn't aware that pitchers could vary their times to the plate and throw over to first base(?!?). Wow! You must have watched at least one baseball game before(I'm sure you've watched more than that...it was very informative and well thought out). You're like the Joe Morgan of posters( by "poster", I don't mean those things you put on the wall, but by people that contribute messages, or "posts", to message boards).

 

I'll try to control my attempts at humor in the future. I'm really sorry( by "sorry", I mean that I apolgize, or apologise). I've been told by my mom that I'm really funny and a really great catch(by "catch", I mean a partner, or significant other, for some nice girl). I guess I believed her, the lying whore. That's the last time you make a fool out of me, Mother...the LAST time.

 

If someone is the Joe Morgan of posters, it's not going to be UK. That's pretty uncalled for.

 

hahahahahahhahahah

 

that's right, the best poster at nsbb is just like joe morgan

[UK1679666180]

There's no doubt speed creates distraction over a guy on 1B who doesn't have speed, it's just which pitchers does it distract and how much does speed compare to actually getting on 1B.

[Yeti]

I've been told by my mom that I'm really funny and a really great catch(by "catch", I mean a partner, or significant other, for some nice girl). I guess I believed her, the lying whore. That's the last time you make a fool out of me, Mother...the LAST time.

 

if you speak the same way to your mother that you do to people here i doubt she ever said these things to you

[CubinNY]

There's no doubt speed creates distraction over a guy on 1B who doesn't have speed, it's just which pitchers does it distract and how much does speed compare to actually getting on 1B.

 

Exactly. And distraction does not always translate to tangible results. And from what we know, more often then not it does not translate to anything.

 

What we have is conventional wisdome based on a logical belief but nothing that supports that it is so.

 

For a guy to even make it to the majors he would have to be able to handle such situations with some level of success.

 

A good baserunner will lul the pitcher into to thinking he is not going almost making him more comfortable. It is much easier to steal with a normal stretch then a slide step.kl;j

[jjgman21]

There's no doubt speed creates distraction over a guy on 1B who doesn't have speed, it's just which pitchers does it distract and how much does speed compare to actually getting on 1B.

 

Exactly. And distraction does not always translate to tangible results. And from what we know, more often then not it does not translate to anything.

 

What we have is conventional wisdome based on a logical belief but nothing that supports that it is so.

 

For a guy to even make it to the majors he would have to be able to handle such situations with some level of success.

 

A good baserunner will lul the pitcher into to thinking he is not going almost making him more comfortable. It is much easier to steal with a normal stretch then a slide step.kl;j

 

the bolded part above is actually a bit of wisdom based on a logical belief but with nothing that supports that it is so, too.

 

the entire notion that the minor league process weeds out those who are worse under pressure, is expected to be accepted, without any scientific evidence of whether this is or is not true. some how we are just supposed to accept that baseball players are different than every other profession in the world because there is a minor league process. there are people who have reached the top of every profession even though they don't perform well under pressure because they are extremely talented overall, but somehow baseball's minor leagues operate differently than the weeding out process in every other profession.

 

I think we see evidence of some attrition by the stats guys in this area. Bill James admitted that there were problems with the way they were trying to measure clutch. and despite the notion that any good pitcher will be a good closer, we saw Depodesta give Gagne a huge contract, Epstein give Foulke a huge contract, and Beane trading for a proven closer three years in a row.

 

I look at it this way. pitching is an activity of intense concentration. there is so much to think about in terms of what is the best pitch to throw in a given situation and it takes tremendous concentration to execute that pitch mechanically. anything that contributes to breaking some of that concentration is going to cause more mistakes and lead to better opportunities for the batter.

 

a fast baserunner may not always result in tangible results in terms of better opportunities for the hitter, but it will rarely if ever result in worse opportunities. a lulled and therefore comfortable pitcher is presumably not a better pitcher. thus, the net effect will be a net gain in improved opportunities for the hitter.

[CubinNY]

There's no doubt speed creates distraction over a guy on 1B who doesn't have speed, it's just which pitchers does it distract and how much does speed compare to actually getting on 1B.

 

Exactly. And distraction does not always translate to tangible results. And from what we know, more often then not it does not translate to anything.

 

What we have is conventional wisdome based on a logical belief but nothing that supports that it is so.

 

For a guy to even make it to the majors he would have to be able to handle such situations with some level of success.

 

A good baserunner will lul the pitcher into to thinking he is not going almost making him more comfortable. It is much easier to steal with a normal stretch then a slide step.kl;j

 

the bolded part above is actually a bit of wisdom based on a logical belief but with nothing that supports that it is so, too.

 

the entire notion that the minor league process weeds out those who are worse under pressure, is expected to be accepted, without any scientific evidence of whether this is or is not true. some how we are just supposed to accept that baseball players are different than every other profession in the world because there is a minor league process. there are people who have reached the top of every profession even though they don't perform well under pressure because they are extremely talented overall, but somehow baseball's minor leagues operate differently than the weeding out process in every other profession.

 

I think we see evidence of some attrition by the stats guys in this area. Bill James admitted that there were problems with the way they were trying to measure clutch. and despite the notion that any good pitcher will be a good closer, we saw Depodesta give Gagne a huge contract, Epstein give Foulke a huge contract, and Beane trading for a proven closer three years in a row.

 

I look at it this way. pitching is an activity of intense concentration. there is so much to think about in terms of what is the best pitch to throw in a given situation and it takes tremendous concentration to execute that pitch mechanically. anything that contributes to breaking some of that concentration is going to cause more mistakes and lead to better opportunities for the batter.

 

a fast baserunner may not always result in tangible results in terms of better opportunities for the hitter, but it will rarely if ever result in worse opportunities. a lulled and therefore comfortable pitcher is presumably not a better pitcher. thus, the net effect will be a net gain in improved opportunities for the hitter.

 

If the bolded part results in something tangible more often then not (i.e. an earned run or run scored) then the guy never gets out of low A ball unless no one ever gets on base.

 

A guy like Greg Maddux is the case in point. He has never worried about guys stealing on him. Why is that? He gets the next guy out.

[CuseCubFan69]

I think there are certain intangables that some players bring with them. Randy Johnson with a ball at your head and if you're a left handed hitter you can't tell me you feel comfortable standing in there. Rickey Henderson on first base...no one can tell me that every MLB pitcher forgets he's there and just pitches. A great hitter is difficult to pitch to if he has a small zone and hits mistakes out of the park and pitchers try to get too perfect and miss their spots. These guys are the best of the best but they are not some robot that just produces numbers for rotisserie leagues. Edited February 25, 2006 by CuseCubFan69

[stitchface]

I think there are certain intangables that some players bring with them. Randy Johnson with a ball at your head and if you're a left handed hitter you can't tell me you feel comfortable standing in there. Rickey Henderson on first base...no one can tell me that every MLB pitcher forgets he there and just pitches. A great hitter is difficult to pitch to if he has a small zone and hits mistakes out of the park and pitchers try to get too perfect and miss their spots. These guys are the best of the best but they are not some robot that just produces numbers for rotisserie leagues.

 

I heard RJ buzzed Damon with a fastball in ST BP = hahaha!

[CuseCubFan69]

I think there are certain intangables that some players bring with them. Randy Johnson with a ball at your head and if you're a left handed hitter you can't tell me you feel comfortable standing in there. Rickey Henderson on first base...no one can tell me that every MLB pitcher forgets he there and just pitches. A great hitter is difficult to pitch to if he has a small zone and hits mistakes out of the park and pitchers try to get too perfect and miss their spots. These guys are the best of the best but they are not some robot that just produces numbers for rotisserie leagues.

 

I heard RJ buzzed Damon with a fastball in ST BP = hahaha!

 

I saw that too....I suppose that's how Damon got his hair cut.

[stitchface]

if you forgot about Ricky, he was on 3rd or even home pretty quickly. There aren't too many guys like that around. In my opinion, pitchers need to learn to control runners in the minors. But the skill is probably largely ignored if pitchers get minor leaguers out. I don't want a pitcher to be trying to learn to hold a runner while facing Albert Pujols.

[jjgman21]

 

If the bolded part results in something tangible more often then not (i.e. an earned run or run scored) then the guy never gets out of low A ball unless no one ever gets on base.

 

A guy like Greg Maddux is the case in point. He has never worried about guys stealing on him. Why is that? He gets the next guy out.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying, but in your attempt to prove that the minor leagues weed out players who can't handle pressure, you appear to be doing exactly what you rail on others for doing , using anecdotal rather than empirical evidence. you want proof of other people's ghosts and ufos, but fail to provide proof of your own ghosts and ufos.

[CubinNY]

 

If the bolded part results in something tangible more often then not (i.e. an earned run or run scored) then the guy never gets out of low A ball unless no one ever gets on base.

 

A guy like Greg Maddux is the case in point. He has never worried about guys stealing on him. Why is that? He gets the next guy out.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying, but in your attempt to prove that the minor leagues weed out players who can't handle pressure, you appear to be doing exactly what you rail on others for doing , using anecdotal rather than empirical evidence. you want proof of other people's ghosts and ufos, but fail to provide proof of your own ghosts and ufos.

 

You cannot prove something does not exist only that it does.

 

The evidence we have suggests that a pesky runner on first affects the hitting stats of the guy behind IF there are no outs. With one or two outs the effect is minimal. This inderectly supports that the average pitcher in the bigs is not distracted by the pesky guy on first. Now if we are comparing pitching from the stretch and the winde up, then the evidence is pretty clear that any runner on base will affect the stats of the pitcher and the hitter. But again this does not support the pesky baserunnner distracting the pitcher. I am sure there are isolated cases where it could and does happen, but I wouldn't plan an entire line up hoping to distract the pitcher.

 

If you would read the entire thread rather than try to prove you can piss farther then next guy you would have noticed that already.

 

Here is the link if you care to read it

 

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

Edited February 25, 2006 by CubinNY

[CuseCubFan69]

if you forgot about Ricky, he was on 3rd or even home pretty quickly. There aren't too many guys like that around. In my opinion, pitchers need to learn to control runners in the minors. But the skill is probably largely ignored if pitchers get minor leaguers out. I don't want a pitcher to be trying to learn to hold a runner while facing Albert Pujols.

 

I teach my pitchers let the baserunner worry about you and you worry about the hitter. It just isn't an easy thing for pitchers to do sometimes. Granted at my level runners have more of an effect but IMO concentration is what makes some pitchers great and others journeyman.

[Dirt Dog Sparly]

if you forgot about Ricky, he was on 3rd or even home pretty quickly. There aren't too many guys like that around. In my opinion, pitchers need to learn to control runners in the minors. But the skill is probably largely ignored if pitchers get minor leaguers out. I don't want a pitcher to be trying to learn to hold a runner while facing Albert Pujols.

 

I teach my pitchers let the baserunner worry about you and you worry about the hitter. It just isn't an easy thing for pitchers to do sometimes. Granted at my level runners have more of an effect but IMO concentration is what makes some pitchers great and others journeyman.

 

Which brings in something I havent seen in the thread. The other end of the battery. If the catcher is good at reciving and can get the guys out going to second, that he should, the pitcher will focus more on the hitter and less on the runner. Someone like Piazza on the other hand will place all the stress of holding the runner on the pitcher. Which means a few more spots missed because of rushing to the plate or split concentration hanging a curve or a slider.

 

Maddux is an exception, but since he is no longer in his prime the extra base he gives up hurts because he isnt automatic to get the next batter.

[BigbadB]

if you forgot about Ricky, he was on 3rd or even home pretty quickly. There aren't too many guys like that around. In my opinion, pitchers need to learn to control runners in the minors. But the skill is probably largely ignored if pitchers get minor leaguers out. I don't want a pitcher to be trying to learn to hold a runner while facing Albert Pujols.

 

I teach my pitchers let the baserunner worry about you and you worry about the hitter. It just isn't an easy thing for pitchers to do sometimes. Granted at my level runners have more of an effect but IMO concentration is what makes some pitchers great and others journeyman.

 

Which brings in something I havent seen in the thread. The other end of the battery. If the catcher is good at reciving and can get the guys out going to second, that he should, the pitcher will focus more on the hitter and less on the runner. Someone like Piazza on the other hand will place all the stress of holding the runner on the pitcher. Which means a few more spots missed because of rushing to the plate or split concentration hanging a curve or a slider.

 

Maddux is an exception, but since he is no longer in his prime the extra base he gives up hurts because he isnt automatic to get the next batter.

 

Which is where the Padres are going to get burned badly this year. Piazza behind the dish in a hitting challenged park is not a good idea. A good defensive catcher who can provide good offense is a much better idea. Whoops, Ramon Hernandez is now an Oriole. #-o

[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.

 

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.

 

Yes, even in his worst year, he's better than what Baker pencilled into the leadoff spot most of last season. But that's not the argument here.

 

He's been in the league 5.5 years. He's had three full seasons and one half season (his rookie year) where his OBP at the end of the year was at least good. He's had two full seasons where his OBP frankly sucked for a guy that doesn't do anything else well but run fast (which isn't very useful if he's not getting on base). So 3.5 seasons of good production, two years of crap production. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence. That said, I do agree that he'll be better than what the Cubs had in the leadoff spot last year. I'm just not all that sure that he'll be three young pitchers and a few million dollars better than what the Cubs had in the leadoff spot last year.

 

I think there's a good chance Pierre will put up a .360+ OBP. I also think there's a good chance he'll put up a sub .340 OBP.

 

The point is, Pierre isn't exactly a sure bet.

[Yeti]

The point is, Pierre isn't exactly a sure bet.

 

what in baseball is?

[bhogg]

so have we traded murton for soriano, yet?