Baseball Pet Peeve Thread

[David]

The other day Steve Phillips said, on what is considered the premier baseball show on the premier sports network, that the Jason Bay trade was bad for the Red Sox because he was hitting .230 or something with RISP this year. There are countless things wrong with this statement that even a fan with a basic understanding of statistics would see. Or is Phillips just another exception like Joe Morgan?

 

The fact is, fans are being spoonfed this crap over and over and people really believe it. Whether you choose to believe that it's because they're pandering to a certain common denominator or because they really don't know is up to you. And if you try to argue with those same fans, they'll just toss out the old, "I heard it on ESPN. They must be right, and you must be wrong." You can't even discuss things that way.

[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)...

 

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.

 

Ignorance has nothing to do with a lack of ability to comprehend or understand. It's the refusal to learn or to want to learn. At least, that's the way I use it. I didn't refer to the people as stupid, but the concepts they adhere to. But I could see how one could misunderstand that.

[ConstableRabbit]

The other day Steve Phillips said, on what is considered the premier baseball show on the premier sports network, that the Jason Bay trade was bad for the Red Sox because he was hitting .230 or something with RISP this year. There are countless things wrong with this statement that even a fan with a basic understanding of statistics would see. Or is Phillips just another exception like Joe Morgan?

 

The fact is, fans are being spoonfed this crap over and over and people really believe it. Whether you choose to believe that it's because they're pandering to a certain common denominator or because they really don't know is up to you. And if you try to argue with those same fans, they'll just toss out the old, "I heard it on ESPN. They must be right, and you must be wrong." You can't even discuss things that way.

The best was the commercial with people who used to talk sports out of their asses (literally), until they started watching espn. It made me sick -- the only thing that's worse than someone who doesn't know about about a topic is someone who thinks they know what they're talking about!

[Transmogrified Tiger]

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?

 

When you step to third you're attempting at the runner on third, even if you don't throw the ball. After that you're no longer bound by those balk rules because you're not on the rubber. It's the same reason that stepping off and flashing your arm to the runner at first isn't a balk.

[CuseCubFan69]

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?

 

When you step to third you're attempting at the runner on third, even if you don't throw the ball. After that you're no longer bound by those balk rules because you're not on the rubber. It's the same reason that stepping off and flashing your arm to the runner at first isn't a balk.

 

I got into a little debate regarding that w/an ump. Once you step off, you're an infielder and the rules change regarding an overthrow.

[Banedon]

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.

 

The reason they push their chests out is because they want to get the body ahead of the feet. Any part of your body crossing the plane wins the race.

 

In baseball, it doesn't matter whether it's your foot, hand, or pinky finger, so long as something touches the base.

 

Friction is less relevant at first, because ideally the way you would dive is so that at the instant you hit the ground, your hand touches the bag. The friction should all occur as you slide past the bag. I'm not advocating that a 6ft player dive 9ft before the bag and let momentum get him the rest of the way. I'm advocating that with your arm outstretched, above your head, if you're 7ft from foot to fingertips, that you dive as close to precisely that distance as possible.

 

When you run out of the batters box, if you stay on your feet the whole way, your feet have to run 90ft. I presume no argument there.

 

If you dive at first base, your feet only had to travel 83 ft (presuming the 7ft foot to fingertip measurement). The rest of that distance is covered by the height of the person and outstretched arms. This distance can actually be a little greater if your dive allows you travel a foot or two before touching the ground.

 

Running 83ft is going to be faster than running 90ft.

 

I really wish Mythbusters had done this experiment right.

[Tanner_20]

players hanging on too late in their careers

 

Fans telling players when they should retire

 

People jumping to conclusions.

Sosa is still not retired and hoping to be signed, much like Bonds. If unwanted, hang em up.

[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.

 

The reason they push their chests out is because they want to get the body ahead of the feet. Any part of your body crossing the plane wins the race.

 

In baseball, it doesn't matter whether it's your foot, hand, or pinky finger, so long as something touches the base.

 

Friction is less relevant at first, because ideally the way you would dive is so that at the instant you hit the ground, your hand touches the bag. The friction should all occur as you slide past the bag. I'm not advocating that a 6ft player dive 9ft before the bag and let momentum get him the rest of the way. I'm advocating that with your arm outstretched, above your head, if you're 7ft from foot to fingertips, that you dive as close to precisely that distance as possible.

 

When you run out of the batters box, if you stay on your feet the whole way, your feet have to run 90ft. I presume no argument there.

 

If you dive at first base, your feet only had to travel 83 ft (presuming the 7ft foot to fingertip measurement). The rest of that distance is covered by the height of the person and outstretched arms. This distance can actually be a little greater if your dive allows you travel a foot or two before touching the ground.

 

Running 83ft is going to be faster than running 90ft.

 

I really wish Mythbusters had done this experiment right.

Right, but what about the time it takes from your hand to go from waist-high to the ground in order to touch the base? The break in stride you have to make in order to start your dive? Your foot is already down there and if you lunge on the last step you get the added boost as well (whether or not that's "running" 90 ft is up to interpretation) as the benefit of not breaking stride and slowing down. You're running 83 ft when you dive, but your body has to transition to the ground.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Tracer Bullet]

players hanging on too late in their careers

 

Fans telling players when they should retire

 

People jumping to conclusions.

Sosa is still not retired and hoping to be signed, much like Bonds. If unwanted, hang em up.

 

I hope your first sentence is completely unrelated to this discussion. Otherwise, it doesn't really make sense.

[Tanner_20]

watching the twins/yanks game, i just found another one. The rule where the baserunner is called out for running inside the baseline, in fair territory, on the way to first. The base is in fair territory. Our old buddy Brendan Harris was hit in the back by a throw from Rasner just before he came down on the bag with Giambi waiting to catch the ball, for no reason, positioned in foul territory. That rule bugs me and apparently Ron Coomer.

 

P.S. Brian Runge just called Cano for being off the bag on a potential DP at second. Runge must have been on the site this morning.

[CubmanPi]

Tomahawk. Chop.

[Banedon]

Right, but what about the time it takes from your hand to go from waist-high to the ground in order to touch the base? The break in stride you have to make in order to start your dive? Your foot is already down there and if you lunge on the last step you get the added boost as well (whether or not that's "running" 90 ft is up to interpretation) as the benefit of not breaking stride and slowing down. You're running 83 ft when you dive, but your body has to transition to the ground.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

Outfielders don't break stride when they dive for a ball.

[Tracer Bullet]

Right, but what about the time it takes from your hand to go from waist-high to the ground in order to touch the base? The break in stride you have to make in order to start your dive? Your foot is already down there and if you lunge on the last step you get the added boost as well (whether or not that's "running" 90 ft is up to interpretation) as the benefit of not breaking stride and slowing down. You're running 83 ft when you dive, but your body has to transition to the ground.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

Outfielders don't break stride when they dive for a ball.

 

Manny disagrees.

[ConstableRabbit]

Right, but what about the time it takes from your hand to go from waist-high to the ground in order to touch the base? The break in stride you have to make in order to start your dive? Your foot is already down there and if you lunge on the last step you get the added boost as well (whether or not that's "running" 90 ft is up to interpretation) as the benefit of not breaking stride and slowing down. You're running 83 ft when you dive, but your body has to transition to the ground.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

Outfielders don't break stride when they dive for a ball.

I guess "break stride" wasn't what I'm looking for.

 

The time it takes for the act of moving from vertical to horizontal to touch the base with your outstretched hand takes more time than lunging forward during a normal sprint to touch the base with your foot, even if being outstretched makes you 7 feet horizontally, lunging forward you can also get a lot of horizontal distance. It's not the same but lunging to touch with your foot is faster than diving to touch with your hand.

 

That's my argument.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Fans who weigh down a simple, enjoyable sport with poetry and philosophy.

 

Fans who think they own players lives to the degree they'll tell them they need to retire or move to a certain part of the country.

[Banedon]

Right, but what about the time it takes from your hand to go from waist-high to the ground in order to touch the base? The break in stride you have to make in order to start your dive? Your foot is already down there and if you lunge on the last step you get the added boost as well (whether or not that's "running" 90 ft is up to interpretation) as the benefit of not breaking stride and slowing down. You're running 83 ft when you dive, but your body has to transition to the ground.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

Outfielders don't break stride when they dive for a ball.

 

Manny disagrees.

 

Touche!

[evv98]

I haven't read all of them, but mine is the All-Star Game winning league having home field advantage in the World Series.

[Cynosure]

My new one is: Fukudome apologists.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

People who rant about how horrible Marquis is, then are forced to acknowledge that he's not horrible (just overpaid and possibly worse than Marshall), then the next day go back to how horrible he is.

[Banedon]

People who rant about how horrible Marquis is, then are forced to acknowledge that he's not horrible (just overpaid and possibly worse than Marshall), then the next day go back to how horrible he is.

 

People that defend mediocity.

[Cynosure]

Fraternization of players on opposing teams while in uniform... which IS against the rules, by the way.

[UK1679666180]

As far as a pitcher's win total:

 

I don't have a problem with someone stating wins, Wins/Losses and ERA are still the most used totals concerning a pitcher. In regards to wins, if you gave me the choice between two pitchers based solely on Ws/Ls, I would take the one with the better record obviously. My next question would be what are the remainder of his stats, where does he pitch at home, etc. so I can get a much more accurate conclusion as far as which pitcher is more likely to be more productive in the future.

 

Wins and Losses have value, just not as much as some would like you to believe. Same thing with batting avg., hitters were largely evaluated on their batting avg., now it has shifted to well beyond whether or not a hitter get a base hit or hits into an out.

[Banedon]

As far as a pitcher's win total:

 

I don't have a problem with someone stating wins, Wins/Losses and ERA are still the most used totals concerning a pitcher. In regards to wins, if you gave me the choice between two pitchers based solely on Ws/Ls, I would take the one with the better record obviously. My next question would be what are the remainder of his stats, where does he pitch at home, etc. so I can get a much more accurate conclusion as far as which pitcher is more likely to be more productive in the future.

 

Wins and Losses have value, just not as much as some would like you to believe. Same thing with batting avg., hitters were largely evaluated on their batting avg., now it has shifted to well beyond whether or not a hitter get a base hit or hits into an out.

 

In his first 3 games with the Cubs, Rich Harden was 0-1. Not exactly representative of his 1.04 ERA in those games.

 

I know, small sample size. But as an individual stat, I just don't see the value, even minimally.

[UK1679666180]

Depending on what you use as the ultimate definer of pitcher's production, you will see a correlation between higher wins/less defeats with that definer.

 

You used Harden's ERA over his 1st 3 starts, over time, if he was to maintain that 1.04 ERA for 34 starts, he would likely lead MLB in wins that year.

 

You pointed out the flaws in using wins as the ultimate definer of pitcher's production (run support/quality of team), which is why wins is never the 1st choice as to why pitcher X is better than pitcher Y.

 

If I was to say....

 

Pitcher X has a record of 150-100 over his 10 year career and pitcher Y is 100-150 during that same timeframe, knowing only their records, who would you guess has the likely lower ERA?

[sneakypower]

something that I think is represented/factored into wins is a pitcher's stamina. power pitchers who rack up higher pitch counts and pitch fewer innings will factor in fewer decisions than pitch-to-contact pitchers. there is value in "eating innings" from the standpoint of saving your bullpen. that's not to say I'd rather have Wakefield than Harden, but I'd view a 2.50 ERA much differently from Halladay than Harden.

 

my biggest baseball pet peeve: Kevin Youkilis

 

i really hate watching that guy hit