Hairyducked Idiot

As long as the trailing team has had five innings at-bat, the game is official and counts. I forget the reasons they might suspend a game and pick it back up later (darkness?), but they are pretty uncommon in MLB. If we are through five and tied, the stats count but the game still gets made up.

Not even close. Most of the break was vertical, and no pitch breaks enough to nick the corner and hit the catcher's glove several inches inside.

what is this you speak of? viewtopic.php?t=43330 oh wowsa!!! that is sweet! the rain doesn't look too bad...that is somewhat of a plus...and if the people are going in...doesn't that mean they are at least going to try and get the game in? It means they are happy to let people buy two or three hours of concessions before sending them home. I'd say, judging by the rain and circumstances, it is about 50/50.

Too add: The ball got away after it hit Duncan and he ran to first, where he just beat the throw, but the ump made no call because he can't advance on a ball that hits him. LaRussa halfheartedly argued.

Would you have prefered that he not be re-signed? when players are making $40 million per year in 5 years, yeah, we'll be thrilled What year was the current highest salary signed?

Didn't Mike Cameron get pitched to and just miss it?

So when we lose, we're bad. When the Brewers lose, we're lucky.

haven't heard anyone say five games. in fact, I think just about everyone here thinks we have holes -- look at the game threads :) Yep, I've heard it on this board. I have serious doubts. Marquis absolutely sucks. Kendall, well...nuff said. Pagan is pathetic. And our offense, no power. Continued lack of patience. Can't hit left-handed pitching. We're a playoff team? LOL We're four months into the season and these players have carried us to a 58-51 record. And we're in a weak division. We ARE NOT a lock for the playoffs -- and I really don't see anyone here saying that -- But we also don't deserve a "LOL" in regards to playoff chances. Well, that's the way I feel about the Cubs tonight. Aside from the one inning yesterday, what the hell did we do? We have too many holes. We MIGHT make the playoffs, but I have no hopes that we'll advance. You don't have to be a good team to advance in the playoffs. Any crap team can beat a good one 3 out of 5.

haven't heard anyone say five games. in fact, I think just about everyone here thinks we have holes -- look at the game threads :) Yep, I've heard it on this board. I have serious doubts. Marquis absolutely sucks. Kendall, well...nuff said. Pagan is pathetic. And our offense, no power. Continued lack of patience. Can't hit left-handed pitching. We're a playoff team? LOL Have you paid attention to the quality of playoff team the NL has been capable of producing the last few years?

we really can't say it was the "same thing" yet though. a strain? if that's even true, it's very vague. We'll see. Wait for the Cubs to tell us how long he'll be out, add a couple days, and we'll move on. I'm reminded of Priorgate. A strain is a tear. However, it can be anything from a very minor tear to a much more serious injury.

He probably could have put more pressure on it if it were a hamstring. It looks like something seized up i.e. a cramp. I hope. That's what I thought too. Hamstrings usually cause guys to limp, but not hop on one foot. Knees, however :(

I'm not going to jump to conclusions just yet. From the looks of it, it could be a hamstring or a knee, or it could be as simple as a cramp. Being a Cubs fan, I'm not optimistic.

so would sosa. i'm not talking about sosa. i'm talking about your citing that Sosa had more plate appearances than Olerud with runners in scoring position. Sosa is the control here, and you're adding the variable of Olerud getting extra hypothetical plate appearances to even out their opportunities. my question was do statisticians maintain that Olerud would continue his current season numbers over those additional plate appearances (small sample size) or regress towards his career numbers over those plate appearances (large sample size). John Olerud would probably regress to the mean in the additional plate appearances. But if you recall, the discussion was "98 Olerud" versus "98 Sosa." This clearly implies that we are discussing a theoretical Olerud and Sosa that both maintain their 98 rates. correct, so even mentioning more plate appearances for Olerud is moot No, because comparing their value means they would swap places. Keeping dancing, though.

I argue that Hill is the best expert on what makes Hill tick. Or as you say succeed or fail. Hill has said several times that he focuses on what happens after the pitch to what he can do with the pitch. When he has had success by his own admission is when he does like the "Nuke" LaLooshe character in Bull Durham. That is not to think and just pitch. After all its part of the catchers job to do the thinking for the battery. But where is the evidence for that? You can't use Hill's testimony to prove that Hill's testimony is expert, that's circular logic. Nuke is a perfect example. Crash filled his head with whatever it took to get him to perform, regardless of whether it was true or not.

so would sosa. i'm not talking about sosa. i'm talking about your citing that Sosa had more plate appearances than Olerud with runners in scoring position. Sosa is the control here, and you're adding the variable of Olerud getting extra hypothetical plate appearances to even out their opportunities. my question was do statisticians maintain that Olerud would continue his current season numbers over those additional plate appearances (small sample size) or regress towards his career numbers over those plate appearances (large sample size). John Olerud would probably regress to the mean in the additional plate appearances. But if you recall, the discussion was "98 Olerud" versus "98 Sosa." This clearly implies that we are discussing a theoretical Olerud and Sosa that both maintain their 98 rates.

Baseball is a game of failure. Failing seven times out of ten over twenty seasons gets you into the hall of fame. Name another sport where failing seven times out of ten gets you playing time outside of a free throw percentage and hockey. Look at Rich Hill, who has good stuff but isnt mentaly tough enough to compete with it. I go no further that Hill himself who admits to focusing to much on the outcome instead of the process. Lou has started to echo those comments. Look at the Daily Herald quotes after Hills last start. The mental side of the game is there from the time you get to the park till the last pitch. It is a part of every play, every pitch. It is more draining of energy than the game itself. Its something you have to experience, rather than talk about. Hill is not an expert on what makes Hill succeed or fail. Hill is a ballplayer. That means he was blessed with the physical ability to throw a baseball in ways that are hard to hit, and has supplemented that with hard work. His head is full of whatever placebo platitudes his coaches have thought would make him perform better if he believed them, regardless of whether they are true.

There is more to the difference between Olerud and Sosa than "home run or not" and "out or not."

Shoot. We had the whole sunday sports section done at my tiny little paper, now we have to rip up the front page. As long as he doesn't homer again tonight, I guess it is okay.

I remember making the same pro-Sosa arguments in 1998 (actual production versus mere "efficiency.") Some poster on alt.sports.pro.baseball.chicago-cubs patiently explained to me why that was flawed thinking, and set me on the proper stathead path.

More than likely, yes. First, don't double count the home runs. That leaves you with Sosa participating in 226 runs. Olerud, batting in the Mets lineup, participated 162 runs. Now first, Olerud got fewer plate appearances despite playing in more games. The .07 difference in their OBPs, multiplied by the number of times Sosa came up to the plate, means Olerud would have gotten on base 54 more times than Sosa did. Sosa's teammates drove him in 47.8% of the time that he got on base without hitting a home run. Sosa is a little faster than Olerud, but Olerud hit about twice as many non-HR extra-base hits, so that means he would have scored much more often when getting on base without a home run. That means 54 extra times on base means roughly 30 extra runs scored (probably more, but I'm being conservative). Now we're up to 192 runs. Olerud had 38.9% of his plate appearances come with runners on base, and drove in runs at a rate of .253 per plate appearance with runner on base. He participated in runs at a .139 rate in at bats without runners on base, a difference of .114. Sosa had 50.8% of his plate appearances come with runners on base. So that means Olerud gets 86 extra plate appearances with runners on base, and at the different rate of .114, that means he would have driven in an extra 10 runs. That makes 202 runs for Olerud. Remember those extra 54 times on base? That also means 54 fewer outs. That means, effectively, 18 extra innings worth of at-bats for Cubs hitters. Given the rate that Cubs hitters scored runs that season, 18 extra innings means, on average, 10 extra runs. Now we're up to 212 runs for Olerud. The difference is now just 14 runs. And we haven't even discussed park effects, which strongly help Olerud's case, or the number of times Olerud's extra times on base would have advanced a runner who was later driven in by someone else's hit (runner on first, Olerud walks to get him to second, someone else singles, Olerud gets no credit on that run).

That's an asinine, semantic point. Statistical analysis is inherently counterfactual, yes. But all analysis is. if it's inherently counterfactual, then why do you preach it like it's irrefutable fact? Because the difference between: "Olerud was more valuable than Sosa" and "Given a reasonable assumption that variance due to outside influences would have been negligible, Olerud's performance implied that he would probably have had more value to his team than Sosa's if the player's had switched spots." is purely semantic, and it is asinine to expect everyone to list all the implied cavaets whenever they talk stats.

That's an asinine, semantic point. Statistical analysis is inherently counterfactual, yes. But all analysis is.

I sure wouldn't. Because of his slightly higher OPS and higher OBP and other miscellaneous sabermetrics? I'm just a caveman; your flashing lights, zooming cars, and mathematics frighten and disorient me, but I think I'll go with the guy who had over 100 more bases that season. Otherwise, it is sort of like saying you'd take the pitcher who gave up the fewest runs total, regardless of how many innings he pitched. If the guy with 474 outs contributed more than the guy with 382, then I'd go with the former. But that's sort of entirely the point? Did he contribute enough more to make up for the extra outs. Or are you saying you'd take one extra base for 100 extra outs?

I sure wouldn't. Because of his slightly higher OPS and higher OBP and other miscellaneous sabermetrics? I'm just a caveman; your flashing lights, zooming cars, and mathematics frighten and disorient me, but I think I'll go with the guy who had over 100 more bases that season. Would you have the guy who made 474 outs or the guy who made 382 outs.

So therefore, all players are equally good because it is counterfactual to argue that another player would have done better or worse in the same situations.