U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-15-2012, 03:26 AM
Status: "Come to Texas; we have plastic straws! And they're OK." (set 13 hours ago)
 
Location: Suburban Dallas
46,990 posts, read 37,122,939 times
Reputation: 28394

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok View Post
Means nothing. Every team from last season had a stretch of baseball where they won a lot of games. Not every team was good. A bad team winning 7 of 10 to start the season is no different than a bad team winning 7 of 10 in August.

I have the Nationals winning about 85 games and LA a bit under .500
I know it means nothing when you look at the longer run. I'm just commenting on things happening now, not in August. That's what this thread is all about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-15-2012, 03:40 AM
Status: "Come to Texas; we have plastic straws! And they're OK." (set 13 hours ago)
 
Location: Suburban Dallas
46,990 posts, read 37,122,939 times
Reputation: 28394
The Cardinals just got their World Champion rings last night, and they followed that with a victory over the Cubs. We'll see if tonight's game gets some new momentum going for St Louis.

Here's the link. Cards' rings feature the rally squirrel

And the Astros pulled it out last night with a four-run top of the ninth, a 5-4 win at Miami. Rubber game is tonight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2012, 07:54 AM
 
Location: Hometown of Jason Witten
5,985 posts, read 3,741,356 times
Reputation: 1915
I just learned that Brian Wilson may be done for the season. And I picked the Giants to win the West.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2012, 11:02 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,212 posts, read 18,624,767 times
Reputation: 18760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridgerunner View Post
I just learned that Brian Wilson may be done for the season. And I picked the Giants to win the West.
One guy who pitches 70 innings a year isn't going to be the difference maker for the Giants. Having a great closer is more of a luxury than a necessity. In 2008, the Phillies won 92 games and the NL championship with their closer Brad Lidge having a super year...1.95 ERA, 41 saves.

In '09 Lidge collapsed, posted a 7.21 ERA with 31 saves.....and the Phillies won 93 games and the NL championship.

Compiling saves and pitching well do not always go hand in hand. In '08 Wilson pitched 62.1 innings, had a 1.44 WHIP rate, gave up seven home runs and had an ERA of 4.62. He saved 41 games. In '09 he pitched 72.1 innings, his WHIP rate improved to 1.20, he gave up just three home runs and posted an ERA of 2.74. He saved 38 games that year.

My thesis is that most of the teams are overinvested in "closers." Studies have shown that in the age before the closer concept was developed, teams entering the 9th inning with a lead won the game at pretty much the same rates that they win them now with the highly paid closer specialist being employed in the 9th. Managers are afraid to go against this dynamic because it is now so well established in the minds of the reporters and fans. If you do not use a closer and you lose, regardless of the actual cause, the fans and the media will believe that it was the lack of a closer which brought about the team failure. Manager loses credibility with media and fans, manager gets fired.

All because of perceptions, not realities.

However '12 works out for the Giants, Brian Wilson wasn't going to be the difference between a good season and a bad one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2012, 01:17 PM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
72,123 posts, read 83,802,658 times
Reputation: 41884
Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok View Post
Means nothing. Every team from last season had a stretch of baseball where they won a lot of games. Not every team was good. A bad team winning 7 of 10 to start the season is no different than a bad team winning 7 of 10 in August.

I have the Nationals winning about 85 games and LA a bit under .500
of course it means something. No one thinks it means sure victories or a winning season, but it means the team has that many more wins than they would have without the streaks. I for one am thrilled with both the teams you ar mentioning. Maybe L>A will be below 500, that isn't likely I will add, they finished about 500 last year and maybe the Natrionals will tumble like they did a few years ago, the second 1/2 but I remember when the real pros, the sports writers, not the people like you and me, laughed when the Dodgers did so well in 1959. How many ever thought they would win the World Series or how many gave Sandy a shot of even staying in the majors? it is way too early to say this or that makes no difference.

Nita
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2012, 02:34 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,212 posts, read 18,624,767 times
Reputation: 18760
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
No one thinks it means sure victories or a winning season, but it means the team has that many more wins than they would have without the streaks.
No, it does not mean that. Streaks, winning or losing, are randon events, neither an indicator of team ability nor containing wins or losses which count any more than wins or losses which take place in a non serial manner.

What was significant about Joe DiMaggio's 1941 season in relation to winning or losing ballgames, was that he compiled 193 hits, not that he happened to organize some of them in a 56 game consecutive streak. Those same 193 hits could have been spread so that DiMaggio never enjoyed more than five consecutive days with hits, and that would not have helped or hurt his club's chances of winning in any manner.

Streaks are without meaning beyond the novelty of them taking place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2012, 03:34 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,379,050 times
Reputation: 36094
The player who wasn't there. The Cubs double-switched in the 8th inning, and LaHair appeared in the in-game box score, He completed his turn at bat, then mysteriously became Clevinger. The broadcast announcers said it was LaHair, then saw Clevinger bat in the next inning, and said LaHair was never in the game, but LaHair and Clevinger were both in the in game box. After the game, only Clevinger was in the official box, and LaHair was not.

The problem: The stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid order of MLB for all players to wear the same uniform number one day out of every season. This is total moron thinking, that happens so often in the Selig regime, stupidity just seems to swim around as an amorphous mass of indistinguishable events.

Theoretically, a batter could even bat out of turn, and unless the opposition facially recognized the player, it would not be detected, and according to the rules, the umpire is not allowed to point it out if he detects it. And after the batter returned to the dugout, it would be impossible to know who had batted. A manager could skip a couple of weak batters, complete a turn at bat, and once there was a pitch to the next batter, the order is validated.

How could MLB possibly make a more idiotic rule than to have every player wear the same number?

Last edited by jtur88; 04-15-2012 at 03:52 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2012, 05:05 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,212 posts, read 18,624,767 times
Reputation: 18760
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
The player who wasn't there. The Cubs double-switched in the 8th inning, and LaHair appeared in the in-game box score, He completed his turn at bat, then mysteriously became Clevinger. The broadcast announcers said it was LaHair, then saw Clevinger bat in the next inning, and said LaHair was never in the game, but LaHair and Clevinger were both in the in game box. After the game, only Clevinger was in the official box, and LaHair was not.

The problem: The stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid order of MLB for all players to wear the same uniform number one day out of every season. This is total moron thinking, that happens so often in the Selig regime, stupidity just seems to swim around as an amorphous mass of indistinguishable events.

Theoretically, a batter could even bat out of turn, and unless the opposition facially recognized the player, it would not be detected, and according to the rules, the umpire is not allowed to point it out if he detects it. And after the batter returned to the dugout, it would be impossible to know who had batted. A manager could skip a couple of weak batters, complete a turn at bat, and once there was a pitch to the next batter, the order is validated.

How could MLB possibly make a more idiotic rule than to have every player wear the same number?
Kwik Kwiz: Which one is Lahair and which one is Clevenger?



Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2012, 07:32 PM
Status: "Come to Texas; we have plastic straws! And they're OK." (set 13 hours ago)
 
Location: Suburban Dallas
46,990 posts, read 37,122,939 times
Reputation: 28394
Here's a little note: The Astros' J.D. Martinez has hit safely in every regular season game this year. In today's loss at Miami, he went 2-for-6 and had an RBI.

Pitchers are still trying to get a feel for the catchers. Both Jason Castro and Chris Snyder are taking turns against every one of the starters so they can get used to one another. That is going to take time as the season wears on.

Also, the 'Stros have had games decided by two runs or less in six of their first nine contests.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2012, 12:37 AM
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM
13,293 posts, read 12,815,067 times
Reputation: 6637
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
Maybe L>A will be below 500, that isn't likely I will add, they finished about 500 last year
Why is it not likely?
They have worse players and Kemp and Kershaw will be hard pressed to be as good as they were last season.


Quote:
real pros, the sports writers
lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top