Baseball Pet Peeve Thread

[jersey cubs fan]

1. People who act like painfully obvious statements like " won/loss records are not a good way to judge pitchers " is some recent discovery known only by the most clever of baseball fans. Come on. Do you really think people of the 1930's, 1940's, or whenever were too stupid to figure this out ? We are not talking about the stone age here. This has been common knowledge for as long as baseball has existed.

 

2. People who act all high and mighty and condescending towards baseball fans who may not know, or even care about, the above statement. There is nothing wrong with the casual fan taking his son/daughter to a game at beautiful Wrigley. It is one of the many things that makes baseball great.

 

3. People who twist statements like " won/loss records are not a good way to judge pitchers " around to " won/loss records don't matter ". Don't matter ? Of course they matter. The only thing that really does matter when it is all said and done is how many games you WON. Still the most important stat in baseball.

 

I could go on and on.

 

Thank you.

 

Good day.

 

I'm sure some people realized the issues, but conventional baseball wisdom still, to this day puts far too much emphasis on pitcher wins. My biggest issue with it has more to do with the fact that they refer to win totals a lot more than record. An 18-15 season is more impressive than a 10-2 season because an 18 is greater than 10.

 

As for point 2, I would agree. I don't get all the whining about "casual fans". I get annoyed at casual fans who go on and on about conventional nonsense they know is true because they heard it on the radio. But I don't see how anybody can get upset with a person who buys a ticket to enjoy a day at the ballpark and isn't all that in tune with the stats many others find fascinating.

 

On that note, a huge pet peeve of mine is the notion of "true fans". Get over yourself.

[CubmanPi]

3. People who twist statements like " won/loss records are not a good way to judge pitchers " around to " won/loss records don't matter ". Don't matter ? Of course they matter. The only thing that really does matter when it is all said and done is how many games you WON. Still the most important stat in baseball.

You're comparing team wins with pitching wins. One matters, one doesn't. The W-L record for a pitcher (bad stat) by itself does nothing to indicate how likely a team is to win or lose (very important stat) when he takes the mound for them. When Harden and his 1-1 record take the mound tonight, I think he gives the Cubs better than a 50-50 shot of winning.

 

Welcome to the forum.

[jersey cubs fan]

3. People who twist statements like " won/loss records are not a good way to judge pitchers " around to " won/loss records don't matter ". Don't matter ? Of course they matter. The only thing that really does matter when it is all said and done is how many games you WON. Still the most important stat in baseball.

You're comparing team wins with pitching wins. One matters, one doesn't. The W-L record for a pitcher (bad stat) by itself does nothing to indicate how likely a team is to win or lose (very important stat) when he takes the mound for them. When Harden and his 1-1 record take the mound tonight, I think he gives the Cubs better than a 50-50 shot of winning.

 

Welcome to the forum.

 

What does that matter? When a 1-1 team takes the field that does nothing to indicate how likely a team is to win or lose.

 

I believe the record matters. While it's possible a mediocre pitcher could go 20-2 in a season, it's not very likely. Records by themselves don't define a pitcher, and they are a bad way to compare one pitcher to another, especially on seperate teams. But they still matter.

[kujay]

1. People who act like painfully obvious statements like " won/loss records are not a good way to judge pitchers " is some recent discovery known only by the most clever of baseball fans. Come on. Do you really think people of the 1930's, 1940's, or whenever were too stupid to figure this out ? We are not talking about the stone age here. This has been common knowledge for as long as baseball has existed.

 

Well, if that's true, then why do we still hear broadcasters touting the W-L record as a measure of the value of a starting pitcher? Why is it used as a stat in fantasy leagues?

[fromthestretch]

1. People who act like painfully obvious statements like " won/loss records are not a good way to judge pitchers " is some recent discovery known only by the most clever of baseball fans. Come on. Do you really think people of the 1930's, 1940's, or whenever were too stupid to figure this out ? We are not talking about the stone age here. This has been common knowledge for as long as baseball has existed.

 

2. People who act all high and mighty and condescending towards baseball fans who may not know, or even care about, the above statement. There is nothing wrong with the casual fan taking his son/daughter to a game at beautiful Wrigley. It is one of the many things that makes baseball great.

 

3. People who twist statements like " won/loss records are not a good way to judge pitchers " around to " won/loss records don't matter ". Don't matter ? Of course they matter. The only thing that really does matter when it is all said and done is how many games you WON. Still the most important stat in baseball.

 

I could go on and on.

 

Thank you.

 

Good day.

 

1. The fact that it is painfully obvious and most likely has been known for several decades makes it that much more frustrating when a sports writer or broadcaster, who gets paid to discuss the sport, can't grasp that simple concept.

 

2. I don't know of anyone that acts condescending towards the casual fan who is enjoying a game with their kid. How often do you really see that happen?

 

3. My guess is that when anyone uses the phrase "won/loss records don't matter," they're speaking in the context of pitcher's records. When looking at the big picture, I could care less about an individual's won-loss record. The team's won-loss record is what counts. If the Cubs win 100 games, does it really matter if Zambrano personally won 14 of them or 21 of them?

[Tanner_20]

players hanging on too late in their careers

base coaches wearing helmets

MLB removing footage of the Farnsworth fight from much of the net

Omar Minaya

media east coast bias

back, back, back

fans saying that Joe Morgan is the best 2B in history

coaching boxes

CB Buckner taking off his mask every chance he gets

not celebrating the games legends until they are ready for the nursing home

under-appreciation of Mark Grace by cubs fans

[flyseye]

3. People who twist statements like " won/loss records are not a good way to judge pitchers " around to " won/loss records don't matter ". Don't matter ? Of course they matter. The only thing that really does matter when it is all said and done is how many games you WON. Still the most important stat in baseball.

You're comparing team wins with pitching wins. One matters, one doesn't. The W-L record for a pitcher (bad stat) by itself does nothing to indicate how likely a team is to win or lose (very important stat) when he takes the mound for them. When Harden and his 1-1 record take the mound tonight, I think he gives the Cubs better than a 50-50 shot of winning.

 

Welcome to the forum.

 

No I am not confusing the two. I am simply saying that the statement " won/loss records don't matter " is the most incorrect statement you can possibly make regarding baseball, I don't care how you are looking at it. And I see it a lot. How many games you WIN is the most important stat in baseball.Period. To say wins don't matter is silly. Are they the best way to judge certain things ? Of course not. Do they matter ? Of course they do.

 

But I really do not need to tell most of you this.

 

Thanks all for the welcome.

[jersey cubs fan]

3. People who twist statements like " won/loss records are not a good way to judge pitchers " around to " won/loss records don't matter ". Don't matter ? Of course they matter. The only thing that really does matter when it is all said and done is how many games you WON. Still the most important stat in baseball.

You're comparing team wins with pitching wins. One matters, one doesn't. The W-L record for a pitcher (bad stat) by itself does nothing to indicate how likely a team is to win or lose (very important stat) when he takes the mound for them. When Harden and his 1-1 record take the mound tonight, I think he gives the Cubs better than a 50-50 shot of winning.

 

Welcome to the forum.

 

No I am not confusing the two. I am simply saying that the statement " won/loss records don't matter " is the most incorrect statement you can possibly make regarding baseball, I don't care how you are looking at it. And I see it a lot. How many games you WIN is the most important stat in baseball.Period. To say wins don't matter is silly. Are they the best way to judge certain things ? Of course not. Do they matter ? Of course they do.

 

But I really do not need to tell most of you this.

 

Thanks all for the welcome.

 

Well that's a blatantly absurd claim.

[Tracer Bullet]

players hanging on too late in their careers

 

Fans telling players when they should retire

[flyseye]

Good day.

 

1. The fact that it is painfully obvious and most likely has been known for several decades makes it that much more frustrating when a sports writer or broadcaster, who gets paid to discuss the sport, can't grasp that simple concept.

 

2. I don't know of anyone that acts condescending towards the casual fan who is enjoying a game with their kid. How often do you really see that happen?

 

3. My guess is that when anyone uses the phrase "won/loss records don't matter," they're speaking in the context of pitcher's records. When looking at the big picture, I could care less about an individual's won-loss record. The team's won-loss record is what counts. If the Cubs win 100 games, does it really matter if Zambrano personally won 14 of them or 21 of them?

 

You really think that the sportscasters are so ignorant ( Joe Morgan excluded ) that they don't know the difference ? Come on. The sportscasters have to appeal to everyone, including the millions of so called casual fans who take their kids to the ballpark . They know what statistics matter, but frankly they aren't going to be too popular of a sportscaster if they try to blither on and on about stuff like this to the "average" fan. I don't particularly agree with this approach, but I certainly do not think they " cant grasp that simple concept ".

[Little Slide Rooter]

The assumption that if a team scores large ammounts of runs one game game, they wont score any the next game. Also the opposite. When the team doesnt score any runs one game, they've been saving up and will automatically have an offensive outburts the next.

[bukie]

- Bunting in the first inning with the #2 hitter

- Wasting a pinch hitter to force a pitching change

- Pinch running/hitting with a pitcher that is important to the team's success on the mound

- Using a relief pitcher for one (or fewer?) batter

- Sending the runner around third when the throw is already coming in before the runner reaches third

- Attributing every non-correlating statistical factor to luck (Record in one-run games doesn't directly correspond to wins, so therefore it must depend on luck)

- Splitting statistics so thin that a single HR can result in a huge bump

- Getting angry at a batter for swinging at the first pitch when it's a meatball down broadway

- Giving away outs in the name of being aggressive

[Banedon]

Batters that slide into first base. I can't stand it.

 

People that don't like batters sliding into first base, because they think the batter doesn't get there faster.

 

They do. Otherwise track runners wouldn't lean into the tape at the finish line.

 

The reason for not sliding into first is all about injury.

 

As an addition to this, announcers saying that if it was faster, track runners would dive at the finish line. The reason they don't dive at the finish line is because a rubber track to the face isn't so pleasant.

[bukie]

- People who don't realize the difference between leaning forward and diving involves more than just the composition of the ground :)

[El Ridda]

Chris Berman's call of the Home Run derby....

 

 

Guy hits a 385 ft. home run... "That one was hit all the way to Niagra Falls" (or similar location, depending on where the AS game is being held).

[Banedon]

- People who don't realize the difference between leaning forward and diving involves more than just the composition of the ground :)

 

It's the same concept though. Getting the front of your body ahead of your feet allows a part of your body to cross the "finish line" faster.

 

The same concept can apply in baseball. With a correct slide, minimizing the distance that you actually slide...you can get to first faster than running through it.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Batters that slide into first base. I can't stand it.

 

People that don't like batters sliding into first base, because they think the batter doesn't get there faster.

 

They do. Otherwise track runners wouldn't lean into the tape at the finish line.

 

The reason for not sliding into first is all about injury.

 

As an addition to this, announcers saying that if it was faster, track runners would dive at the finish line. The reason they don't dive at the finish line is because a rubber track to the face isn't so pleasant.

 

I reject your hypothesis without hand held stopwatch findings from you and several buddies.

[kujay]

You really think that the sportscasters are so ignorant ( Joe Morgan excluded ) that they don't know the difference ? Come on. The sportscasters have to appeal to everyone, including the millions of so called casual fans who take their kids to the ballpark . They know what statistics matter, but frankly they aren't going to be too popular of a sportscaster if they try to blither on and on about stuff like this to the "average" fan. I don't particularly agree with this approach, but I certainly do not think they " cant grasp that simple concept ".

 

So you think broadcasters and writers overinflate a stat that is simple but inaccurate so that casual fans will watch the game?

 

Not buying it. And if that is what they are doing, shame on them for being lazy.

[fromthestretch]

Good day.

 

1. The fact that it is painfully obvious and most likely has been known for several decades makes it that much more frustrating when a sports writer or broadcaster, who gets paid to discuss the sport, can't grasp that simple concept.

 

2. I don't know of anyone that acts condescending towards the casual fan who is enjoying a game with their kid. How often do you really see that happen?

 

3. My guess is that when anyone uses the phrase "won/loss records don't matter," they're speaking in the context of pitcher's records. When looking at the big picture, I could care less about an individual's won-loss record. The team's won-loss record is what counts. If the Cubs win 100 games, does it really matter if Zambrano personally won 14 of them or 21 of them?

 

You really think that the sportscasters are so ignorant ( Joe Morgan excluded ) that they don't know the difference ? Come on. The sportscasters have to appeal to everyone, including the millions of so called casual fans who take their kids to the ballpark . They know what statistics matter, but frankly they aren't going to be too popular of a sportscaster if they try to blither on and on about stuff like this to the "average" fan. I don't particularly agree with this approach, but I certainly do not think they " cant grasp that simple concept ".

 

Some of them simply don't grasp that concept. They were spoonfed that garbage from journalists and broadcasters when they were kids, and they're doing the same to this generation of fans. They don't have to get into the really complex stats, but they can introduce basic things like OBP (which has been getting more air-time), WHIP, OPS, etc. They can also do a better job of putting things into context. Do you really think the average fan would be turned off from the game if Joe Buck said something to the effect of, "Juan Pierre is routinely in the top ten in steals each year, but is limited in his chances due to the fact that he has struggled to get on base for the past four years" during a Dodgers game (ignoring the fact that many people are turned off from the game simply because it's Joe Buck doing play-by-play)? Simple things like that or pointing out that a guy has 15 wins despite an ERA of 4.75 because his team has scored a lot of runs for him are not too complex for the casual fan to grasp. Someone who gets paid to talk about the game should be able to do this without confusing people.

[ConstableRabbit]

You really think that the sportscasters are so ignorant ( Joe Morgan excluded ) that they don't know the difference ? Come on. The sportscasters have to appeal to everyone, including the millions of so called casual fans who take their kids to the ballpark . They know what statistics matter, but frankly they aren't going to be too popular of a sportscaster if they try to blither on and on about stuff like this to the "average" fan. I don't particularly agree with this approach, but I certainly do not think they " cant grasp that simple concept ".

 

So you think broadcasters and writers overinflate a stat that is simple but inaccurate so that casual fans will watch the game?

 

Not buying it. And if that is what they are doing, shame on them for being lazy.

This isn't necessarily the same thing, but Len dumbs-down his analysis during the game all the time. I'm pretty sure he could care less about a guy's average.

[bukie]

- People who don't realize the difference between leaning forward and diving involves more than just the composition of the ground :)

 

It's the same concept though. Getting the front of your body ahead of your feet allows a part of your body to cross the "finish line" faster.

 

The same concept can apply in baseball. With a correct slide, minimizing the distance that you actually slide...you can get to first faster than running through it.

 

However, whenever your feet are not on the ground pushing forward, your body is decelerating. If there were a way to lean foward and touch the base without losing your running power in the process, I'd agree completely.

 

The only time I would ever advocate sliding into first would be to avoid a tag. In any other situation it's just not worth it, both from the injuries that can result and from the necessary deceleration to position your body to dive at the base. Sure, theoretically, it may be possible to not purposely decelerate to dive, but in practice that doesn't happen.

[Banedon]

I reject your hypothesis without hand held stopwatch findings from you and several buddies.

 

Problem with that. I'm extremely lazy.

[Derwood]

The fake to third throw to first move should be a balk, as the whole purpose is to deceive the first base runner and that's supposed to be against the rules. Yet, they have it in the rulebook that it's legal, even though you aren't supposed to try to deceive the runner.

 

I hate that. It's an unnecessary exception for a move that rarely does anything in the first place.

 

Is it really that hard to understand why it's legal?

 

how about enlightening us, oh wise one?

[Mugged By Fluffy]

Batters that slide into first base. I can't stand it.

 

People that don't like batters sliding into first base, because they think the batter doesn't get there faster.

 

They do. Otherwise track runners wouldn't lean into the tape at the finish line.

 

The reason for not sliding into first is all about injury.

 

As an addition to this, announcers saying that if it was faster, track runners would dive at the finish line. The reason they don't dive at the finish line is because a rubber track to the face isn't so pleasant.

 

Big difference between crossing a plane(finish line) and actually touching a stationary object on the floor. It takes less time to run two additional steps at full speed than it does to angle downward, propel yourself through the air, and then eventually touch the ground and slide to your destination. As mentioned already...in this scenario you almost have to decelerate to make the leap downward.

 

But with me it's more about injury, and it's about the fact that it makes it harder for the first base ump to judge the play. A lot easier for the ump to listen for a ball hitting a mitt while watching a foot hit the bag, than it is to try and find a hand through a cloud of dust.

Edited August 13, 2008 by Mugged By Fluffy

[Banedon]

- People who don't realize the difference between leaning forward and diving involves more than just the composition of the ground :)

 

It's the same concept though. Getting the front of your body ahead of your feet allows a part of your body to cross the "finish line" faster.

 

The same concept can apply in baseball. With a correct slide, minimizing the distance that you actually slide...you can get to first faster than running through it.

 

However, whenever your feet are not on the ground pushing forward, your body is decelerating. If there were a way to lean foward and touch the base without losing your running power in the process, I'd agree completely.

 

The only time I would ever advocate sliding into first would be to avoid a tag. In any other situation it's just not worth it, both from the injuries that can result and from the necessary deceleration to position your body to dive at the base. Sure, theoretically, it may be possible to not purposely decelerate to dive, but in practice that doesn't happen.

 

Agree about injury.

 

Agree about avoiding the tag.

 

If you're diving through the bag at first though and not trying to dive and stop at it, I still think the deceleration is less significant that the distance you gain by laying out. A 6 foot tall person with their hand outstretched will have their hand reach the base 7ft (total guess) ahead of where their feet are. That's 7ft your feet didn't have to travel.