Baseball Pet Peeve Thread

[Banedon]

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.

 

I respect that your aversion to it is more about injury, and I feel ya there.

 

But players diving for moving objects all the time in the outfield...and their hand gets to that spot far faster than their feet would have gotten to that spot. And that object is moving...in theory it should be easier to dive for a stationary object.

[CuseCubFan69]

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.

 

I respect that your aversion to it is more about injury, and I feel ya there.

 

But players diving for moving objects all the time in the outfield...and their hand gets to that spot far faster than their feet would have gotten to that spot. And that object is moving...in theory it should be easier to dive for a stationary object.

 

Interesting example, I never thought of that one.

[flyseye]

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.

 

So it is your assumption that the broadcasters, many of whom actually played the game, know less than you do ? Not buying it. They are simply keeping the broadcast somewhat generic so as not to alienate the millions of fans who really don't care about WHIP,or whatever, or want to listen to it being explained.

 

Like I stated, I do not particularly agree with this approach, but I certainly do not think that they all know less than I do about the game.

 

I guess to flat out answer your question, yes I do think they over inflate simple stats so the broadcast appeals to a wider group. Surprising as it may seem, many, probably most, of the people watching a ball game would find many of the things discussed on this board about as exciting as watching the grass grow.

[David]

I can't tell you how often a person who isn't a casual fan will be informed of/look at a pitcher's sparkling stats and be like, "Yea, but how many games has he won." Conversely, you'll often see these same people respond to a pitcher with horrible stats but a decent win total and they'll be like, "He knows how to win games. That's all that matters," or some other similar anecdotal nonsense. These aren't people that just go to a few games a year or catch a few on TV, either. These are fans that consider themselves big fans, post on baseball message boards, listen to sports radio and call in to shows.

 

It's stupid. People aren't being condescending by pointing out that it's stupid. They're just not being baseball ignoramuses

 

Really, I have no problem with them continuing to think that way. Ignorance is bliss. People can keep believing in Santa Claus. My main problem with it is that they are the ones who act ridiculously condescending when their "facts" are challenged.

[Mugged By Fluffy]

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.

 

I respect that your aversion to it is more about injury, and I feel ya there.

 

But players diving for moving objects all the time in the outfield...and their hand gets to that spot far faster than their feet would have gotten to that spot. And that object is moving...in theory it should be easier to dive for a stationary object.

 

Interesting example, I never thought of that one.

 

I hear that example all the time, to which it leaves me speechless and shuts me up every time. How about I stick with the injury and the harder for the ump to judge the play arguement? :D

[CuseCubFan69]

I can't tell you how often a person who isn't a casual fan will be informed of/look at a pitcher's sparkling stats and be like, "Yea, but how many games has he won." Conversely, you'll often see these same people respond to a pitcher with horrible stats but a decent win total and they'll be like, "He knows how to win games. That's all that matters," or some other similar anecdotal nonsense. These aren't people that just go to a few games a year or catch a few on TV, either. These are fans that consider themselves big fans, post on baseball message boards, listen to sports radio and call in to shows.

 

It's stupid. People aren't being condescending by pointing out that it's stupid. They're just not being baseball ignoramuses

 

Really, I have no problem with them continuing to think that way. Ignorance is bliss. People can keep believing in Santa Claus. My main problem with it is that they are the ones who act ridiculously condescending when their "facts" are challenged.

 

It gave Fergie a Cy Young over Seaver and that made me happy as all heck to throw that in a Met fans face!

[CubinNY]

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.

 

I respect that your aversion to it is more about injury, and I feel ya there.

 

But players diving for moving objects all the time in the outfield...and their hand gets to that spot far faster than their feet would have gotten to that spot. And that object is moving...in theory it should be easier to dive for a stationary object.

Please no Bandon. Let's not go through this again.

 

Keep your beliefs but know they are wrong. You can't catch a ball with your foot. You can't get to some spot ahead of you faster by stopping running.

Edited August 13, 2008 by CubinNY

[David]

I'm honestly not even sure if the glove gets to the ball any faster than his foot would when the player dives. Baseball players can't catch balls with their feet, so there's really no counterexamples to go on.

[jersey cubs fan]

So it is your assumption that the broadcasters, many of whom actually played the game, know less than you do ?

 

It would be ridiculous to think otherwise. You don't need to be smart to be good at playing. Nor do you need to be smart to look/sound good on tv/radio.

 

There are just far too many examples of not only broadcasters possibly dumbing things down, but actually going on and on, passionately, in support of their precious conventional wisdom.

 

 

It is seriously nonsensical to think they all know the facts but just pretend to be dumb so casual fans will stay tuned.

[David]

Another one - the idea that MVPs have to come from winning teams, unless there is a really, really good player on some losing team that deserves it more by some arbitrary wide margin.

 

It's an individual award.

 

Unfortunately, I don't think this one's ever gonna change much in any sport. Sucks to be a great player on a crappy team, I guess.

[Banedon]

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.

 

I respect that your aversion to it is more about injury, and I feel ya there.

 

But players diving for moving objects all the time in the outfield...and their hand gets to that spot far faster than their feet would have gotten to that spot. And that object is moving...in theory it should be easier to dive for a stationary object.

Please no Bandon. Let's not go through this again.

 

Keep your beliefs but know they are wrong. You can't catch a ball with your foot. You can't get to some spot ahead of you faster by stopping running.

 

Catching it is irrelevant. Think of a diving catch. The ball lands at spot X and the player catches the ball just a hair from touching the ground. You really think that you could have gotten your foot to spot x faster than you could get your hand there so that the ball lands on your foot, or you can kick it? Sorry buddy...it's not wrong. It's common sense.

[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.

 

I want to further add to this by saying that if your job is to broadcast or write about a sport, you yourself should be willing to learn about more advanced statistical analysis. That doesn't mean you have to talk about all of it, but considering that you are getting paid to be what is basically viewed as a "subject-matter expert," then you should learn as much as you can about that subject. A good broadcaster should know where to draw the line when deciding what to use in a broadcast and what would be deemed too complex for a large audience. Explaining that a guy won 15 games due in large part to run support is not too complex for the average fan. Explaining that stealing 50 bases in a season isn't all that great if you got caught 22 times isn't too complex. Explaining that getting on-base increases your chances of scoring a run because you can't score a run without first getting on base isn't a complex concept. You don't have to talk about WARP or EqA or Park Adjusted statistics to communicate some of the basic concepts. For example, I could say that Vinny Castilla's 1998 stats were inflated due to playing half his games in Colorado, and people would understand that. I don't need to say that his OPS+ was only 127 or that his OPS would have been closer to .830 rather than .951 in a netral setting in order to convey that.

[David]

Another one - the notion that strikeouts = impatient hitters

[flyseye]

I can't tell you how often a person who isn't a casual fan will be informed of/look at a pitcher's sparkling stats and be like, "Yea, but how many games has he won." Conversely, you'll often see these same people respond to a pitcher with horrible stats but a decent win total and they'll be like, "He knows how to win games. That's all that matters," or some other similar anecdotal nonsense. These aren't people that just go to a few games a year or catch a few on TV, either. These are fans that consider themselves big fans, post on baseball message boards, listen to sports radio and call in to shows.

 

It's stupid. People aren't being condescending by pointing out that it's stupid. They're just not being baseball ignoramuses

 

Really, I have no problem with them continuing to think that way. Ignorance is bliss. People can keep believing in Santa Claus. My main problem with it is that they are the ones who act ridiculously condescending when their "facts" are challenged.

 

If you do not think that referring to others as stupid or ignorant because they do not understand something you might is condescending, I don't have much else to say.

[CuseCubFan69]

Man David, you're really peeved.

[Mugged By Fluffy]

I'm honestly not even sure if the glove gets to the ball any faster than his foot would when the player dives. Baseball players can't catch balls with their feet, so there's really no counterexamples to go on.

 

My hero! :)

 

 

Let me add to the list, swinging and striking out on the high pitch. Arg!

[CubinNY]

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.

 

I respect that your aversion to it is more about injury, and I feel ya there.

 

But players diving for moving objects all the time in the outfield...and their hand gets to that spot far faster than their feet would have gotten to that spot. And that object is moving...in theory it should be easier to dive for a stationary object.

Please no Bandon. Let's not go through this again.

 

Keep your beliefs but know they are wrong. You can't catch a ball with your foot. You can't get to some spot ahead of you faster by stopping running.

 

Catching it is irrelevant. Think of a diving catch. The ball lands at spot X and the player catches the ball just a hair from touching the ground. You really think that you could have gotten your foot to spot x faster than you could get your hand there so that the ball lands on your foot, or you can kick it? Sorry buddy...it's not wrong. It's common sense.

Catching is completely relevant. In fact, it is the MOST relevant variable. It's maddening. What part of the body is closest to the ground? What is the fastest way to get to spot X with the body? That's it I'm done.

[David]

I can't tell you how often a person who isn't a casual fan will be informed of/look at a pitcher's sparkling stats and be like, "Yea, but how many games has he won." Conversely, you'll often see these same people respond to a pitcher with horrible stats but a decent win total and they'll be like, "He knows how to win games. That's all that matters," or some other similar anecdotal nonsense. These aren't people that just go to a few games a year or catch a few on TV, either. These are fans that consider themselves big fans, post on baseball message boards, listen to sports radio and call in to shows.

 

It's stupid. People aren't being condescending by pointing out that it's stupid. They're just not being baseball ignoramuses

 

Really, I have no problem with them continuing to think that way. Ignorance is bliss. People can keep believing in Santa Claus. My main problem with it is that they are the ones who act ridiculously condescending when their "facts" are challenged.

 

If you do not think that referring to others as stupid or ignorant because they do not understand something you might is condescending, I don't have much else to say.

 

 

Come on. It's not an inability to understand. It's a flat out refusal to be open minded about things even when obvious common sense is presented. These aren't complex concepts that only certain people can grasp. It's simple and a lot of people just refuse to embrace it because it goes against what they've always believed (obviously, this idea goes beyond the W-L stat, baseball, sports, etc. and applies to many aspects of life)...

[ConstableRabbit]

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.

 

I respect that your aversion to it is more about injury, and I feel ya there.

 

But players diving for moving objects all the time in the outfield...and their hand gets to that spot far faster than their feet would have gotten to that spot. And that object is moving...in theory it should be easier to dive for a stationary object.

Please no Bandon. Let's not go through this again.

 

Keep your beliefs but know they are wrong. You can't catch a ball with your foot. You can't get to some spot ahead of you faster by stopping running.

 

Catching it is irrelevant. Think of a diving catch. The ball lands at spot X and the player catches the ball just a hair from touching the ground. You really think that you could have gotten your foot to spot x faster than you could get your hand there so that the ball lands on your foot, or you can kick it? Sorry buddy...it's not wrong. It's common sense.

I think that's more due to the trajectory of the ball.

If the ball hits the ground, an out will not be recorded, right? So we're not trying to just meet where the ball is, but rather to prevent it from touching the ground as well as meeting where the ball is. Because the ball falls from the air to the ground (obviously) he only way to "buy time" is to get lower to the ground in order to catch the ball before it touches the ground. Because you can't run at full speed with your glove on the ground, you need to dive because it's the fastest way to reach the ball with your glove close to the ground. So you're not getting there as fast, but the name of the game is not to get there fastest, it's to get to the ball before it touches the ground.

 

It's not a good comparison to reaching first base.

 

Even so, with first base, you're trying to touch something that is on the ground, which is why you should run through the base, stretching out your foot in a final lunge. Diving slows you down not only because you're touching the dirt and sliding into the base (extra friction), but you're also touching the base with your hand, which has to move from the top of your body to the ground. The only reason to slide is to avoid a tag or to slow yourself down (at 2nd or 3rd) so you don't overrun a base.

[CubinNY]

I think that's more due to the trajectory of the ball.

If the ball hits the ground, an out will not be recorded, right? So we're not trying to just meet where the ball is, but rather to prevent it from touching the ground as well as meeting where the ball is. Because the ball falls from the air to the ground (obviously) he only way to "buy time" is to get lower to the ground in order to catch the ball before it touches the ground. Because you can't run at full speed with your glove on the ground, you need to dive because it's the fastest way to reach the ball with your glove close to the ground. So you're not getting there as fast, but the name of the game is not to get there fastest, it's to get to the ball before it touches the ground.

 

It's not a good comparison to reaching first base.

 

Even so, with first base, you're trying to touch something that is on the ground, which is why you should run through the base, stretching out your foot in a final lunge. Diving slows you down not only because you're touching the dirt and sliding into the base (extra friction), but you're also touching the base with your hand, which has to move from the top of your body to the ground. The only reason to slide is to avoid a tag or to slow yourself down (at 2nd or 3rd) so you don't overrun a base.

 

I agree.

[fromthestretch]

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.

 

So it is your assumption that the broadcasters, many of whom actually played the game, know less than you do ? Not buying it. They are simply keeping the broadcast somewhat generic so as not to alienate the millions of fans who really don't care about WHIP,or whatever, or want to listen to it being explained.

 

Like I stated, I do not particularly agree with this approach, but I certainly do not think that they all know less than I do about the game.

 

I guess to flat out answer your question, yes I do think they over inflate simple stats so the broadcast appeals to a wider group. Surprising as it may seem, many, probably most, of the people watching a ball game would find many of the things discussed on this board about as exciting as watching the grass grow.

 

You really believe a lot of former players are put in the broadcast booth due to their knowledge of the game? Many are put in there because they're a name fans recognize and in some case are charismatic. The ones that are brought in for knowledge of the game due to playing experience can talk about how to properly throw a curveball or the challenges a hitter faces against a guy with a great changeup or a problem they might see with someone's swing. They can talk in detail about what it's like to get swept in a big series in September, how it can wear on some guys to be on the road for two weeks at a time, how a manager has to keep peace in a clubhouse with 25 different personalities. That's the valuable knowledge they bring to the table and that they can communicate to the fans at home. And there's nothing wrong with that, as long as they stick to what they know. The problem is when they start talking about how this guy is a great hitter because he's hitting .310, ignoring the fact that his OBP is .330 and he doesn't hit for power. Then they make fun of more advanced stats because they themselves can't grasp them.

Edited August 13, 2008 by grassbass

[David]

If someone is taught all the facts about evolution and responds with some stupidity like, "Come on, there's no way we came from monkeys. If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys today?!" (I've heard someone make this exact argument, BTW)... it's not at all condescending to call that person a moron.

 

Just IMO.

Edited August 13, 2008 by David

[CubinNY]

If someone is taught all the facts about evolution and responds with some stupidity like, "Come on, there's no way we came from monkeys. If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys today!" (I've heard someone make this exact argument, BTW)... it's not at all condescending to call that person a moron.

 

Just IMO.

Or at least point out that the statement is moronic. The question is the person's level of prior information.

 

Wins are important, but they are a team statistic, not an individual statistic. Wins as a statistic for a pitcher becomes less important with each game the pitcher does not finish. And within in that, each inning that is not pitched.

[flyseye]

I can't tell you how often a person who isn't a casual fan will be informed of/look at a pitcher's sparkling stats and be like, "Yea, but how many games has he won." Conversely, you'll often see these same people respond to a pitcher with horrible stats but a decent win total and they'll be like, "He knows how to win games. That's all that matters," or some other similar anecdotal nonsense. These aren't people that just go to a few games a year or catch a few on TV, either. These are fans that consider themselves big fans, post on baseball message boards, listen to sports radio and call in to shows.

 

It's stupid. People aren't being condescending by pointing out that it's stupid. They're just not being baseball ignoramuses

 

Really, I have no problem with them continuing to think that way. Ignorance is bliss. People can keep believing in Santa Claus. My main problem with it is that they are the ones who act ridiculously condescending when their "facts" are challenged.

 

If you do not think that referring to others as stupid or ignorant because they do not understand something you might is condescending, I don't have much else to say.

 

 

Come on. It's not an inability to understand. It's a flat out refusal to be open minded about things even when obvious common sense is presented. These aren't complex concepts that only certain people can grasp. It's simple and a lot of people just refuse to embrace it because it goes against what they've always believed (obviously, this idea goes beyond the W-L stat, baseball, sports, etc. and applies to many aspects of life)...

 

So now it is your contention, unlike in the first quoted post where you stated these people are " stupid " or "ignoramuses ", that they are just stubborn ? It is now your contention that these ideas are not complex concepts that only a chosen few can understand ? That approach sounds much less condescending. Thank you.

[ConstableRabbit]

I think that's more due to the trajectory of the ball.

If the ball hits the ground, an out will not be recorded, right? So we're not trying to just meet where the ball is, but rather to prevent it from touching the ground as well as meeting where the ball is. Because the ball falls from the air to the ground (obviously) he only way to "buy time" is to get lower to the ground in order to catch the ball before it touches the ground. Because you can't run at full speed with your glove on the ground, you need to dive because it's the fastest way to reach the ball with your glove close to the ground. So you're not getting there as fast, but the name of the game is not to get there fastest, it's to get to the ball before it touches the ground.

 

It's not a good comparison to reaching first base.

 

Even so, with first base, you're trying to touch something that is on the ground, which is why you should run through the base, stretching out your foot in a final lunge. Diving slows you down not only because you're touching the dirt and sliding into the base (extra friction), but you're also touching the base with your hand, which has to move from the top of your body to the ground. The only reason to slide is to avoid a tag or to slow yourself down (at 2nd or 3rd) so you don't overrun a base.

 

I agree.

You....AGREE with me?

 

Stop the presses.

 

But seriously:

I was also thinking about runners. The reason they push their chests out is because in a race, you need to break a plane (one that happens to be about equal to the height of your chest), not reach down and touch something. They are trying to go as fast as possible, by running through the finish line, while at the same time putting the part of their body that needs to be furthest out, furthest out.

When a baserunner is heading toward first base, they should also run through the base, putting the part of their body that needs to be furthest out, furthest out. In a race, it's your chest, but in baseball, it's your foot.