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.
I just hope the series isn't as pitching-dominated as the playoffs. It gets tiresome watching people swing at splitters in the dirt, AB after AB. I haven't seen so many o-fers since the Dodgers in 1966.
I used to feel this way until the NLCS and World Series in '91. I do kind of like high-scoring games sometimes, because of the lead changes, and because hitting is fun to watch, but those two series 22 years ago were when I began to appreciate how tense and exciting low-scoring games can be. It's edge-of-the-seat time when you know that every base-runner who gets on, and every runner who doesn't score, and sometimes every pitch, could be the moment that makes the difference as each team tries desperately to scratch out that one run or two that will just barely be enough to win it.
Actually, I wonder whether we'll see a slugfest at some point, especially sometime during games two through four. I don't mean a lopsided game where only one team scores a fair number of runs, like last night or the last game of the NLCS, but a real old-fashioned donnybrook where both teams rack up the runs.
The way these teams can score, it seems that if it's going to happen, a slugfest might be especially likely in the next few games. Because of the break of several days after the LCS's, and the additional time off for the upcoming starting pitchers since the managers have used their aces in the first game, over the next few games some starting pitchers could be over-rested and missing some sharpness off their control. Just a thought. You never know what will happen, and we could certainly see tight, low-scoring games from here on, but if there's going to be a high-scoring game, the possibility of over-rested pitchers who may have lost a little edge makes the next few games especially likely times for this to happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
Two storied franchises -- with real fans -- are in action. No Devil-snakes, Death-Ray-Tarpons or whatever, with their empty seats. The spirits of Yaz and Slaughter, Gibby and The Kid, Pesky and The Man, all in time for Halloween!
I like to see fresh faces from time to time, but I do agree that there's something special about a series between two old and storied clubs. It really does bring back the memories of great players and great moments from years past.
Shades of the '06 series, with the Cards aided by pitchers throwing the ball wildly around the infield.
Matheny finally figures out that the stolen base base can be a weapon.
Matt Adams has hit three balls sharply to the left side. If he can continue to do that, he will neutralize the shift and could be a factor.
Allen Craig is walking and running very gingerly on his left foot, actually almost limping, hell have to be rested until they get back to Boston, except as an emergency pinch hitter with important runners on base..
The only one I boycotted was the Mets/Yankees. I didn't watch a single pitch of it. I often watch very little of any seires the Yankees are in, after having them shoved down my throat every Saturday afternoon and Sunday and Wednesday night all season.
Actually, I consider the WS to be anticlimactic, and the real excitement is the race to get there. Getting on the field is the big thing, and then winning it is just a footnote. If a kid, a couple of generations from now, says "My Grampa played in the World Series", nobody is going to ask "Did they win?"
Yeah I'm boycotting this too. The two most unlikeable teams are playing, no way around it
Shades of the '06 series, with the Cards aided by pitchers throwing the ball wildly around the infield.
Matheny finally figures out that the stolen base base can be a weapon.
With their 45 team stolen bases, the Cardinals finished dead last in the NL this season. Despite this they managed to score 783 runs, tops in the NL by a whopping 77 runs.
In that the object of an offense isn't to steal lots of bases, it is to score lots of runs, I would have to say that Matheny has been making the right decisions about this weapon.
Pretty much every aspect of the game has been studied to see how it correlates, or fails to do so, with the production or prevention of runs. Stolen bases correlates with.....triples. This establishes that triples are more a function of speed than power. Apart from that, stolen bases do not correlate with the scoring of runs nor with the winning of games. In precise words, the beneficial aspects of stealing bases cannot be distinguished from random chance.
With their 45 team stolen bases, the Cardinals finished dead last in the NL this season. Despite this they managed to score 783 runs, tops in the NL by a whopping 77 runs.
In that the object of an offense isn't to steal lots of bases, it is to score lots of runs, I would have to say that Matheny has been making the right decisions about this weapon.
Pretty much every aspect of the game has been studied to see how it correlates, or fails to do so, with the production or prevention of runs. Stolen bases correlates with.....triples. This establishes that triples are more a function of speed than power. Apart from that, stolen bases do not correlate with the scoring of runs nor with the winning of games. In precise words, the beneficial aspects of stealing bases cannot be distinguished from random chance.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. sabermetrics are easy t look up. But there are situations in which the SB is a powerful weapon and we saw it tonight. If Kozma and Jay don't steal, the fly ball doesn't score a run, and the ball doesn't get thrown around, and there is no 3-tun inning.. Sabermetric run expectancies are based on average runners on base with average batters at the plate ln average game conditions. The outcome is likely to be different in selected SB situations, which an intelligent manager is able to discern..
The Cards batted .330 with runners in scoring position, which mans one third of stealing runners would have scored on those RISPs. And those 45 team stolen bases likely yielded more runs than sabermetrics would predict, because they got driven home by hitters who in the real world actually hit better with RISP than the average number sample that drives sabermetrics..
Lets say runner on second, 2 out. If he stands there, it takes two hits to bring him home. One run. What is the RE if he is out stealing, and those next two batters lead off the next inning with those same two hits?
I'm not saying Matheny should have stolen 300 bases on 450 tries. I saying I saw a number of games in which runners with SB capability stood on first and died on base.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. sabermetrics are easy t look up. But there are situations in which the SB is a powerful weapon and we saw it tonight. If Kozma and Jay don't steal, the fly ball doesn't score a run, and the ball doesn't get thrown around, and there is no 3-tun inning.. Sabermetric run expectancies are based on average runners on base with average batters at the plate ln average game conditions. The outcome is likely to be different in selected SB situations, which an intelligent manager is able to discern..
The Cards batted .330 with runners in scoring position, which mans one third of stealing runners would have scored on those RISPs. And those 45 team stolen bases likely yielded more runs than sabermetrics would predict, because they got driven home by hitters who in the real world actually hit better with RISP than the average number sample that drives sabermetrics..
Lets say runner on second, 2 out. If he stands there, it takes two hits to bring him home. One run. What is the RE if he is out stealing, and those next two batters lead off the next inning with those same two hits?
I'm not saying Matheny should have stolen 300 bases on 450 tries. I saying I saw a number of games in which runners with SB capability stood on first and died on base.
If you alter an outcome in a game, then you cannot assume the same events would have followed. Further, your presentation also neglects the potential negative impact of trying and failing to steal.
Finally, regardless of the "selected stolen base situations" the same potential payoffs and penalties apply. "Selected SB situations", in mathematical terms, is no different from "selected numbers on the roulette wheel." It seems like some science is being applied, the the odds are not altered in any manner.
If you alter an outcome in a game, then you cannot assume the same events would have followed. Further, your presentation also neglects the potential negative impact of trying and failing to steal.
Finally, regardless of the "selected stolen base situations" the same potential payoffs and penalties apply. "Selected SB situations", in mathematical terms, is no different from "selected numbers on the roulette wheel." It seems like some science is being applied, the the odds are not altered in any manner.
You have altered the events of the game, and argued that if they had attempted more steals, they would have scored fewer runs. That is altering the events of the game. You have also argued that a different strategy in each instance would have regressed the outcome to the sabermetric mean, regardless of the runner, or the pitcher, or the catcher, or the batter, or the score, or the game situation.
Your roulette wheel analogy is saying that every runner in every situation has exactly the same SB success ratio, and every succeeding batter has exactly the same productivity potential. Which deserves no comment.
You are a die hard opponent of every stolen base, because you are dedicated to the principle that the SB attempt always, in every situation, rregresses to the mean of reduced RE, and is therefore invariably bad strategy. If you are not an opponent of every stolen base in every situation, then you must subscribe to the doctrine that sometimes it is of benefit, which is exactly what I have proposed. You can't have it both ways.
It is like arguing that the intentional walk is always bad, based on the sabermetric argument that a walk, regressed to the mean, raises the RE. The RE with runners on first and second is higher than the RE with second only, therefore the IBB is always a bad idea. Am I following your line of thinking? As you put it, "regardless of the "selected [Intentional Walk] situations" the same potential payoffs and penalties apply."
If you alter an outcome in a game, then you cannot assume the same events would have followed. Further, your presentation also neglects the potential negative impact of trying and failing to steal.
Finally, regardless of the "selected stolen base situations" the same potential payoffs and penalties apply. "Selected SB situations", in mathematical terms, is no different from "selected numbers on the roulette wheel." It seems like some science is being applied, the the odds are not altered in any manner.
Not exactly true. If the Cards are measuring time to the plate and notice something in their favor, then science is applied and the odds turn to the Cards favor.
To suggest odds are the same in every situation is to ignore the fact that certain pitcher/catcher combinations are easier to steal against than others (think AJ Burnett/Rod Barajas in 2012).
I don't know enough about the Lackey/Salty combo to suggest they're as bad as my example, but given Matheny doesn't employ double steals often, I'd venture a guess they saw something that made the tactic a better than average risk.
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.
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.
