Baseball Pet Peeve Thread

[Ski]

Guess I'll pop in here...

 

-Pitchers who throw over to first like 5 times before pitching to a batter

-Umpires with inconsistant strike zones

-People bashing Marquis

 

 

Maybe I'll have a few more later.

[Cynosure]

Guess I'll pop in here...

 

-Pitchers who throw over to first like 5 times before pitching to a batter

-Umpires with inconsistant strike zones

-People bashing Marquis

 

 

Maybe I'll have a few more later.

 

Bashing Marquis is OK as long as people realize he IS the best #5 in baseball.

[Warren Brusstar]

So-called sabr experts here who don't understand that while certain statistics (performance with men in scoring position, for example) have absolutely no predictive value, they have substantial retrospective value.

 

Example:

 

Player A has a career OPS of .700, a 2008 OPS of .800, and a 2008 OPS with men in scoring position of 1.100

 

Player B has a career OPS of .900, a 2008 OPS of .810, and a 2008 OPS with men in scoring position of .650.

 

1. Prospectively, I'll take Player B. He's the better bet going forward.

2. Retrospectively, there is absolutely no doubt that Player A has been more valuable in 2008.

 

Many so-called SABR experts understand #1, but utterly refuse to acknowledge #2.

[Soul]

Games that are not broadcast in HD.

[Tracer Bullet]

So-called sabr experts here who don't understand that while certain statistics (performance with men in scoring position, for example) have absolutely no predictive value, they have substantial retrospective value.

 

Example:

 

Player A has a career OPS of .700, a 2008 OPS of .800, and a 2008 OPS with men in scoring position of 1.100

 

Player B has a career OPS of .900, a 2008 OPS of .810, and a 2008 OPS with men in scoring position of .650.

 

1. Prospectively, I'll take Player B. He's the better bet going forward.

2. Retrospectively, there is absolutely no doubt that Player A has been more valuable in 2008.

 

Many so-called SABR experts understand #1, but utterly refuse to acknowledge #2.

 

Setting aside the fact that I don't know of any poster here that refers to him or herself as a SABR expert, I don't know any SABR expert that would look solely at OPS, let alone OPS w/ RISP, and make an absolute statement about which player has been more valuable in one season.

[Warren Brusstar]

So-called sabr experts here who don't understand that while certain statistics (performance with men in scoring position, for example) have absolutely no predictive value, they have substantial retrospective value.

 

Example:

 

Player A has a career OPS of .700, a 2008 OPS of .800, and a 2008 OPS with men in scoring position of 1.100

 

Player B has a career OPS of .900, a 2008 OPS of .810, and a 2008 OPS with men in scoring position of .650.

 

1. Prospectively, I'll take Player B. He's the better bet going forward.

2. Retrospectively, there is absolutely no doubt that Player A has been more valuable in 2008.

 

Many so-called SABR experts understand #1, but utterly refuse to acknowledge #2.

 

Setting aside the fact that I don't know of any poster here that refers to him or herself as a SABR expert, I don't know any SABR expert that would look solely at OPS, let alone OPS w/ RISP, and make an absolute statement about which player has been more valuable in one season.

 

Meh. I'm dumbing down the analysis.

 

The point, of course, is that while performance in "clutch" situations has no predictive value, it absolutely does and should value when voting on things like the MVP award.

[ConstableRabbit]

NBC reporters trivializing Jason Lezak's performance in the 4x100 relay to his face by saying that it was the greatest accomplishment of the Olympics because it kept Michael Phelps' record breaking dreams alive.

 

Oh, wait. This is only for baseball.

 

Umps that don't appeal to first/third on close check swings.

[Butterscup1679666578]

Umpires in general. So many of them think they are above the game now. No one is there to see them, just call the game fairly and quit trying to show everyone up.

[NCCubFan]

Games that are not broadcast in HD.

And those that ARE broadcast in HD but not available to people outside the Chicago area because stupid DirecTV doesn't have WGN-HD.

[Derwood]

Games that are not broadcast in HD.

And those that ARE broadcast in HD but not available to people outside the Chicago area because stupid DirecTV doesn't have WGN-HD.

 

Tough to know who to blame about it. Is DirecTV unwilling to show it? Is WGN difficult to negotiate with? There are a few other channels that DirecTV doesn't have in HD yet (Travel Channel, etc.) but you never hear why.

[Omar]

-Pitchers who take forever (Trachsel, Howry, etc.)

[Fro]

No instant replay for bad calls when the manager slowly walking out to the ump and arguing takes longer than the play review would.

[Soul]

Games that are not broadcast in HD.

And those that ARE broadcast in HD but not available to people outside the Chicago area because stupid DirecTV doesn't have WGN-HD.

 

Tough to know who to blame about it. Is DirecTV unwilling to show it? Is WGN difficult to negotiate with? There are a few other channels that DirecTV doesn't have in HD yet (Travel Channel, etc.) but you never hear why.

 

I don't know. They keep it close to the vest. Sometimes DirecTV doesn't even announce a channel and it simply pops up in the guide one day.

 

There are some sites that try to follow what's happening, but I've always found the info to be a little sketchy.

[Guest]

Games that are not broadcast in HD.

And those that ARE broadcast in HD but not available to people outside the Chicago area because stupid DirecTV doesn't have WGN-HD.

 

People who complain about games that aren't being shown in HD.

[Guest]

I skimmed the thread so I don't know if these has been mentioned but...

 

People who boo when a pitcher throws over to first a couple times.

 

People who attribute the Brewers' winning streak to Prince Fielder shoving Manny Parra. They're one of the best teams in the NL and were playing three of the worst four teams in the NL during the win streak so of course they should be winning the games.

[Guest]

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.

 

I disagree with you completely on this one because I don't believe it's truly an individual award; it does depend on how good your team is because, well, you can't really be that valuable to a team that sucks. If your team isn't anywhere near playoff contention with you, they're going still not going to be in playoff contention without you so you obviously didn't make that much of a difference. Therefore, you're not valuable to the team you're on. Obviously you'd be more valuable to a team in playoff contention, but that's not the case. You're on a team that stinks. I know it's not your fault but you're still not that valuable to the team you play for.

 

I will say, however, that I think there should be two separate awards. One for the most valuable and one for the best player in the league to distinguish between the two. ARod on a last place Texas team wasn't valuable to his team but he was still one hell of a player.

 

And on a side note, people who compare the MVP to the Cy Young award in this respect. The Cy Young award is given to the best pitcher in each league, not the most valuable.

[Cynosure]

I skimmed the thread so I don't know if these has been mentioned but...

 

People who boo when a pitcher throws over to first a couple times.

 

People who attribute the Brewers' winning streak to Prince Fielder shoving Manny Parra. They're one of the best teams in the NL and were playing three of the worst four teams in the NL during the win streak so of course they should be winning the games.

 

Anddddd now.........

[NCCubFan]

Games that are not broadcast in HD.

And those that ARE broadcast in HD but not available to people outside the Chicago area because stupid DirecTV doesn't have WGN-HD.

 

People who complain about games that aren't being shown in HD.

People who complain about people who complain about not getting what they're paying for. (We can keep going back and forth on this forever.)

[Guest]

Games that are not broadcast in HD.

And those that ARE broadcast in HD but not available to people outside the Chicago area because stupid DirecTV doesn't have WGN-HD.

 

People who complain about games that aren't being shown in HD.

People who complain about people who complain about not getting what they're paying for. (We can keep going back and forth on this forever.)

 

If DirecTV doesn't have WGN-HD outside the Chicago area and you have DirecTV but live outside the Chicago area, you're not exactly paying for it because they don't offer it.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Fans who think they can tell balls and strikes to an accuracy of a few inches from watching on TV, when the camera is hundreds of yards away, at a skewed angle, and flattening a 3-D image into 2D, all of which affect spatial perception.

 

The fact that the greatest Cubs team of my and possibly several generations is playing, but I can't fully enjoy it because everything will be judged by a few coinflips in October.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

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.

 

I disagree with you completely on this one because I don't believe it's truly an individual award; it does depend on how good your team is because, well, you can't really be that valuable to a team that sucks. If your team isn't anywhere near playoff contention with you, they're going still not going to be in playoff contention without you so you obviously didn't make that much of a difference. Therefore, you're not valuable to the team you're on. Obviously you'd be more valuable to a team in playoff contention, but that's not the case. You're on a team that stinks. I know it's not your fault but you're still not that valuable to the team you play for.

 

I will say, however, that I think there should be two separate awards. One for the most valuable and one for the best player in the league to distinguish between the two. ARod on a last place Texas team wasn't valuable to his team but he was still one hell of a player.

 

And on a side note, people who compare the MVP to the Cy Young award in this respect. The Cy Young award is given to the best pitcher in each league, not the most valuable.

 

 

The fact that this logic is never taken to it's logical conclusion.

 

If you can't be valuable to a team that is bad, you can't be valuable to any team that misses the playoffs at all. And you really can't be valuable to a team that makes the playoffs comfortably and could have done so without you, either.

 

"Most Valuable" means "Good player on a team that just barely made the playoffs," apparently.

[RedFlash]

IDK if it's been mention but:

 

righties who can fake over to third and then whirl around to first (don't even have to throw the ball) and not be call a balk, yet when a lefty tries to do the same thing, it's call a ball......

[radarluv1]

Games that are not broadcast in HD.

And those that ARE broadcast in HD but not available to people outside the Chicago area because stupid DirecTV doesn't have WGN-HD.

 

People who complain about games that aren't being shown in HD.

 

we shouldnt complain when arbitrary factors outside our control affect our picture quality and enjoyment of watching games.

[biittner77]

CubinNY wrote:

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.

 

This is a great point and speaks to the crux of the matter. The crusty old sportswriters that use wins as the be all and end of of pitcher evaluation remember an era when pitchers threw a lot more complete games. During that time pitchers controlled their own destiny except for run support. Thus it's easy to see why they would associate wins with starting pitchers in an exaggerated way.

 

The reason why people still think wins are a good measure of a pitcher's performance is that human beings are for the most part too lazy to challenge an accepted "truth". Of course the world is flat, I can see the ground and it's flat beneath my feet.

[TruffleShuffle]

the florida marlins - their "ballpark", their "fans", their "announcers", their "owner". pretty much everything about them is a pox on baseball.