|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 3, 2013 20:41:33 GMT -5
Boagie -- You see Rolen's error as good luck for the Giants, I still merely see it as the other team not playing up to the capabilities required to be a Championship team. Championship teams don't choke on plays in crucial games. Rog -- You just defined Rolen's error as good luck for the Giants. Dood - Uh, no...I see above that he defined Rolen's error as the Reds player not playing up to championship level. Rog -- Do the Giants have control over Rolen's error? No, they don't. That makes Rolen's performance luck for the Giants. That he booted a ball that most third basemen would normally field a high percentage of the time, makes it GOOD luck for the Giants. The Reds -- Rolen in particular -- have control. Therefore, the play isn't bad luck for THEM. Luck involves not having control. Performance DOES involve control. On the play, the Giants performed poorly, hitting a very fieldable ball, but they got lucky. Rolen and the Reds performed poorly and got the lack of results one would expect from a lack of performance. They weren't unlucky. Rather, they messed up. So did the Giants on the play. But the Giants got lucky. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1574&page=1#9291#ixzz2MWxjzwTv
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 3, 2013 20:45:25 GMT -5
Boagie -- when it was all over, they proved to have the least amont of weaknesses, which in my opinion makes them the best team. Rog -- No, they didn't prove that. They proved that in a small sample of games they prevailed over all other teams in the tournament. I will say this, though. With the Giants having added Mijares, Pence and Scutaro, they might indeed have been the best team at the end of the season. They certainly played as though they were. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1574&page=1#ixzz2MWzuhkkJ
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 3, 2013 20:51:00 GMT -5
Dood - Maybe not...but your lame comments about luck sure as hell devalue the effect of the skill and hard work factors. Rog -- They weren't intended to. You chose to read that into them. Let me ask you this, Randy. When you hit four line drives in a row that were all caught, did you think there was no luck in baseball? Or did you think you had done your job well, but suffered from some very, very poor luck? You didn't consider it bad luck when balls took a bad hop on you? You didn't consider it bad luck when your opponents kept dribbling balls through the infield and having their pop ups just barely fall in? You didn't consider it bad luck when the umpire called you out on strikes on a pitch outside the strike zone? You didn't consider it bad luck when you beat a throw to first and still were called out? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1574&page=1#ixzz2MX0qzLjI
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 3, 2013 21:11:54 GMT -5
Rog - The Reds didn't field up to their capabilities, which is something the Giants have no control over. If you have no (or minimal) control over something, its results are luck to you. Dood - No, that would be true if you were playing strat o matic or some other such stats geek game where it is assumed that all plays will probably be made routinely, according to some fielding metric. Rog -- The lesser team can win a game strictly by being lucky, but the better team can't win with better skills if it gets too much bad luck. You don't think, for example, that Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak had an element of luck in it? Other hitters have been hotter than Joe for longer than 56 games, but just didn't have the luck of having their hits spaced in a manner that included at least one in each game. Would you guess that there were periods of more than nine innings in which Joe didn't get a hit? I would be shocked if that weren't the case. Joe simply had the luck of not having any of those nine-inning-or-longer periods encompass a full game. Want to know what the best short string of pitching may have been? Jim Barr retired a record 40-something hitters in a row. But since it came over two games, he never pitched a single perfect game. No pitcher was perfect for longer than Barr, but his timing wasn't as good as theirs. He was less fortunate than others. Take a look at no-hitters. They aren't always thrown by the best pitchers. They are often thrown by those pitchers who happen to have the luck of good timing. Johnny Vander Meer was a darn good pitcher when he threw back-to-back no-hitters in 1938. But he wasn't as good as the no-hitters would make it seem. There were five NL pitchers that season who finished ahead of Johnny in the MVP voting. How about the back-to-back no-hitters in Giants games -- one by the Giants (Gaylord Perry) and one by the Cardinals (Ray Washburn?). A bettor could have gotten extremely high odds against that happening. So if it DID happen, was he lucky or good? Could he do it again? If Joaquin Arias hit 1000 such ground balls, how many times would he reach base? If he would be retired 900 times, was he lucky or good when he reached base in that instance? Arias' job was to hit the ball hard. Rolen's job was to field the ball successfully. Neither performed his job well, yet Arias was rewarded by reaching base. Rolen made a poor play; so did Arias. One had good luck, the other had no luck at all. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1574&page=1#ixzz2MX2JS8h2
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 3, 2013 21:18:43 GMT -5
Rog - You've played baseball enough to know it is indeed a game of inches. Line drives become hits about 70% of the time. That means three out of l0 don't fall in. Once the batter hits the ball, he has no control over its results. Dood - true, but he has FULL control before the ball reaches the strike zone. And the pitcher and defense have the scouting report to tell them where--and where not--to pitch a certain batter and where the defense should be playing. The advance scouts and the coaching staff are all a part of this too. Maybe a pitcher missed his location by just a fraction and the ball was able to be hit away from the defense instead of to it. There's more about this than just hitting the ball hard or softly. Rog -- Of course. But rare is the hitter who can hit the ball exactly where he wants to. Usually the best hitters are the ones who hit the ball the hardest and farthest. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1574&page=1#ixzz2MX7Pkuo4
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 3, 2013 21:23:16 GMT -5
Rog - It is foolish to say that a game in which hard-hit balls are caught and poorly-hit balls fall in doesn't involve luck. Dood - maybe so, but it is even MORE foolish to say that a team was able to win a playoff series, and especially three of them, by employing the strategy of luck. Rog -- Have you ever seen anyone employ the strategy of luck? Luck isn't a strategy. It just happens. So, no, I have never seen a team win OR lose by employing a strategy of luck. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1574&page=1#ixzz2MX98isuk
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 3, 2013 21:35:30 GMT -5
Rog - Baseball is actually a very unfair game. Ask Willie McCovey. Dood - I'd be willing to bet you a million bucks that Willie would say the game is more about skill than luck. And even on that line drive to Richardson, I have heard Willie say he should have hit that ball out of the park. Rog -- Well, of COURSE he would say that. If he hit the ball out of the park in fair territory, no luck would be involved once he hit the ball. The appropriate question to ask Willie would be, "If the game were played a hundred times, would you be willing to take your chances if you could hit the ball that hard every time?" I suspect Willie would smile and say something like, "OH, yeah." Or perhaps he would simply say, "That's right, Lon." Ironically, Willie DID hit a ball over the fence in that at bat. But the ball was foul down the right field line. Let me ask you this, Randy: If you were Willie, wouldn't you be willing to take your chances if you hit a ball that hard? I'll bet neither you nor I ever hit many that hard. The Yankees likely should have pitched to the right-handed hitting Orlando Cepeda -- or at least pitched McCovey VERY carefully. McCovey had hit Terry hard in the Series, going 3 for 10 with a homer and a triple. But the Yankees got lucky. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1574&page=1#ixzz2MXA69AVm
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 4, 2013 9:48:00 GMT -5
You win Rog, it's all luck.
And you're right about the regular season being the better sample to rate a team.
In 2012 the Nationals made 94 errors, the Giants made 115 errors. The Nationals received more luck than the opposing team. The Giants recieved less luck, therefor the Nationals were luckier than the Giants, not better.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Mar 4, 2013 12:47:50 GMT -5
Rog - Let me ask you this, Randy: If you were Willie, wouldn't you be willing to take your chances if you hit a ball that hard? I'll bet neither you nor I ever hit many that hard.
Dood - It depends. If the defense had been playing Willie a certain way and Willie noticed it and hit the ball right at the defense hard many times during the series, he would probably not want to hit it that way again, hard or not. If I was myself or you or someone else on this board, then i would be more than ecstatic to hit the ball hard anywhere. But a HOFer like Willie knows better...it's better to hit em soft where they aint than to hit em hard where they are.
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 4, 2013 15:59:18 GMT -5
Rog - Let me ask you this, Randy: If you were Willie, wouldn't you be willing to take your chances if you hit a ball that hard? I'll bet neither you nor I ever hit many that hard. Dood - It depends. If the defense had been playing Willie a certain way and Willie noticed it and hit the ball right at the defense hard many times during the series, he would probably not want to hit it that way again, hard or not. If I was myself or you or someone else on this board, then i would be more than ecstatic to hit the ball hard anywhere. But a HOFer like Willie knows better...it's better to hit em soft where they aint than to hit em hard where they are. Rog -- More of Willie's hits were hard-hit than most. No doubt he did bloop in a few, since he was played very deep. But I think you are foolish if you think that a power hitter such as McCovey can or even should try to hit the ball "where they ain't." He isn't Wee Willie Keeler. It has been written that Richardson was out of position and that if he had been in proper position, he actually wouldn't have made the catch. I saw the play recently, and it appeared to me that Richardson was in decent position. Later in Willie's career second basemen played him more toward the line and deeper. In that instance, Richardson would have had to go to his backhand, and indeed he might not have been able to catch the ball. Ted Williams is arguably the best hitter in history. When faced with the Ted Williams shift, Ted didn't intentionally go to left field very often, even though that area was open. My guess is that if hitting through the shift was good enough for Williams, it was good enough for McCovey. Unlike later in his career, the Yankees weren't extremely overshifted for Willie Mac. Without an exaggerated hole to shoot for, do you honestly think McCovey could or should have tried to put the ball between first and second? Maybe up the middle, but even then Willie would be going away from his strength, which was as a pull hitter. In the Series, McCovey had 11 at bats against Ralph Terry. He struck out twice, popped to the catcher, grounded out to first and to second, flied out to right and to left. He also singled to center, tripled to center, homered to deep right -- and lined out to Richardson. Against right-hander Bill Stafford he walked, was called out on strikes, flied out to shallow left-center field and grounded out to second. Willie sat three times against the Hall of Fame southpaw Ford, and had just one at bat against a southpaw. In that at bat, he grounded out to second against lefty reliever Bud Daley. Reviewing Willie's performance, it appears he had done well when he hit the ball hard (triple, homer and likely a single). In his other at bats, he sprayed the ball around (including a fly out to left and one to left center), but had no hits aside from possibly the single. It appears Willie did everything right -- except he hit that last ball hard but where Richardson could field it. As I stated before, I believe Willie would tell us that he would take his chances if he hit the ball that hard again. (Keep in mind that 70% of line drives become hits.) If asked if he should have tried to hit the ball where nobody was, I suspect he would say that he wished he had, but that his job was to hit the ball hard. I believe you may be over-thinking this. A few notes from this discussion: . McCovey wasn't established against lefties yet and sat out each of the three games pitched by Ford. . Both Ford and Terry were able to get three starts because of the rain that delayed the final two games. . In today's game, a strong lefty reliever would likely be brought in to face McCovey. Harvey Kuenn may have pinch hit. Kuenn had started each of the four games against Ford, but had gone only 1 for 12 in the series. . McCovey himself had only 12 plate appearances against southpaws all season, and just one in the World Series. . If not for the wet field after the days of rain, Mays' double down the right field line would likely have scored the speedy Matty Alou with the tying run, meaning McCovey's at bat would have been for the win, not the tie. . Right before McCovey's 7th-inning triple, Mays had hit a shot down the left field line that was caught on a great catch by left fielder Tom Tresh. . Getting back to the luck thing, there were at least three times in the game where the Giants were unlucky: . When Mays' shot was caught. . When the wet ground prevented Mays' double in the 9th (with two outs and a very speedy runner on first) from tying the game. . When McCovey's shot was caught. The weather's allowing both Ford and Terry to pitch three games each took away the Giants' advantage in starting pitching depth. The Giants were quite possibly the best team in baseball that season. They won 103 games (including two playoff wins over the Dodgers), and they beat out a Dodgers team that won 102 games themselves (including one playoff win). The Yankees won 96 regular season games. When all was said and done, the Giants had played three more games than the Yankees and won six more. Had McCovey's liner gotten by Richardson, they would have won eight more. Two great teams. Luck clearly played a part. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1574&page=2#9322#ixzz2MbQYeckr
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Mar 4, 2013 16:35:01 GMT -5
I was only speaking in the context of that specific Game 7 AB...naturally a power hitter has to keep the mentality of a power hitter in the long term to maximize effectiveness. But in that situation, Id have preferred if he hit a weak 22 hopper into left field
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 4, 2013 18:03:19 GMT -5
Randy -- I was only speaking in the context of that specific Game 7 AB...naturally a power hitter has to keep the mentality of a power hitter in the long term to maximize effectiveness. But in that situation, Id have preferred if he hit a weak 22 hopper into left field Rog -- I went through the series at bat by at bat for Willie because you talked about if the defense was playing Willie a certain way and he noticed it but didn't take advantage (or presumably, didn't notice it when he should have). Have you seen where Richardson was playing? His position was pulled toward first base as you would expect for a lefty hitter, but nowhere near the three-infielders-on-the-right-side shift Willie faced later. Had Willie hit a 22-hopper to the left side as you suggested, it almost certainly would have remained on the infield. Since Willie wasn't particularly fast (although he wasn't slow once he got moving), it is also unlikely he would have beaten the ball out. Your point was that Willie himself would say of his line drive to Richardson that he should have hit it where they ain't. No question Willie wishes he had hit the ball in a different direction or that Richardson had been playing elsewhere, but I'm guessing he was quite pleased with his personal effort -- just not the result. Let's put it another way: 70% of line drives become hits. The percentage of less-hard hit balls that become base hits is less than half that rate. That would seem to indicate it isn't all that easy to hit 'em where they ain't. Back in Wee Willie Keeler's day, the bats and swings were much different than in Willie's day. Willie McCovey hit in bad luck that day, and so did Willie Mays. In the overall series, the Giants had the bad luck of the bad weather allowing Whitey Ford 17-8, 2.90) and Ralph Terry (23-12, 3.19) to pitch six of the seven games. The rest of the Yankees staff went 56-46 with an ERA well over four. Let's give credit to Ford and Terry for being very, very good. But even as workhorses, they started only half the percentage of games they started in the Series. Meanwhile, the Giants' advantage of a four-deep rotation was greatly diminished. The Yankees beat the Giants in the World Series, and they beat them fair and (sort of) square. But I doubt the Yankees were truly the better team. During the regular season, the Giants outscored their opponents by 188 runs. The Yankees stood tall by 137 runs. Even in the World Series, the Giants outscored the Yanks 21-20. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1574&page=2#9343#ixzz2Mc6PuSVv
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 4, 2013 18:28:22 GMT -5
Boagie -- You win Rog, it's all luck. Rog -- Show me where I said that, Boagie. I certainly don't believe it. Certainly the Giants were -- as any team would have been -- lucky to win it all. Do you agree that it is the very rare team that truly should be an odds-on favorite to win it all? But that doesn't mean it is ALL luck. Why would you think anyone felt that way? Boagie -- And you're right about the regular season being the better sample to rate a team. Rog -- Glad we agree. Boagie -- In 2012 the Nationals made 94 errors, the Giants made 115 errors. The Nationals received more luck than the opposing team. Rog -- Huh? Boagie --The Giants recieved less luck, therefor the Nationals were luckier than the Giants, not better. Rog -- Huh? I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but the Nationals outscored the Giants, they gave up fewer runs, they gave up fewer unearned runs, and they had a lower ERA. And the Reds did all this despite playing in a slightly tougher division. It's hard to know in advance how a season will go, but as much as I like the Giants' chances, I like those of the Nationals even better. The one advantage the Giants do have is that they are more tested than the young Nationals. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1574&page=2#9350#ixzz2McDrA9dT
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 6, 2013 12:03:16 GMT -5
Boagie -- In 2012 the Nationals made 94 errors, the Giants made 115 errors. The Nationals received more luck than the opposing team.
Rog -- Huh?
Boagie- The Nationals opponents made more errors than the Nationals. If we adopt the same "luck" factor you're giving the Giants during the post season to the Nationals, they recieved more luck during the regular season than most other teams due to the amount of errors they benefitted from.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 6, 2013 17:15:25 GMT -5
Boagie -- In 2012 the Nationals made 94 errors, the Giants made 115 errors. The Nationals received more luck than the opposing team. Rog -- Huh? Boagie- The Nationals opponents made more errors than the Nationals. If we adopt the same "luck" factor you're giving the Giants during the post season to the Nationals, they recieved more luck during the regular season than most other teams due to the amount of errors they benefitted from. Rog -- Over the course of a season, a team has SOME control over how often their opponents make errors. Teams that hit more ground balls force more errors than teams that hit more fly balls and/or strike out more. Teams with more speed and/or an aggressive style on the bases force more errors. Teams that bunt more often -- especially if they have speed -- force more errors. But on any given play, receiving the benefit of an error is mostly luck. For an error to be charged, the official scorer is told that it should be on a play that could be made with "ordinary effort." By definition, balls on which errors are charged are almost always plays that are made more often than not. When one ISN'T made, a definite element of luck is involved. In 2010, the Giants didn't do anything special to force the errors by the Braves' second baseman. Yet without those, they could very easily -- perhaps probably -- been knocked out of the playoffs in the very first round. Would our perception of the 2010 Giants be very different if that had happened? Obviously it would have. Had Buster Posey been called out on an attempted steal of second base, the result might have been different. He should have been called out, and it is hard to imagine he did anything special to cause the umpire to miss the call. As I have been saying, it happens, no matter how good the official. Joaquin Arias has good speed, but not enough to force Rolen into rushing what was a pretty routine play until it take a little bit of a bad hop (but not enough for the play to be called a hit). Over a full season, the right team might force 5 or 10 more errors than the average team. But in a single series -- and especially a single game -- it is more likely than not that the difference won't materialize itself. Please don't think I believe the Giants' winning was ALL about luck. First of all, they had to be good enough to make the postseason in the first place. Secondly, once they did so, they had at least close to as good a chance as any other team. But there were eight teams, which means a team would need to have a very large advantage to be more likely to win a World Championship than to lose it. The Giants may not have been better than the other teams, and they virtually certainly weren't THAT much better. Let's suppose you were going to flip a coin three times. In order to win, you needed all three tosses to be heads. Given the odds, if you won, you were lucky. If you lost, well you did what pretty much was expected. Unless a team is WAY better than the others, how is that series of three coin tosses all that much different than having to win three series in order to be the World Champions? Ray Ratto wrote a column at CSNBayArea.com after last night's Sharks game. The Sharks won 2-1 in a shootout despite, frankly, being outplayed for most of the game. Yet they won the shootout, and most Sharks fans went home happy. I know after seeing it on TV, I felt a lot better than I felt after watching live last Thursday's shootout LOSS by the same score. But had a Vancouver shot been an inch away from where it was, the Canucks would have won without the shootout. Instead, the shot clanked off the iron, and the game went to overtime. Baseball games as well are decided by such slim margins. And in a short series, the series winner can easily hinge on how a slimmest of slim margins goes. It can be so close as to almost be the flip of the coin. The better team doesn't always win the single series -- whether in the regular season, the first round of the playoffs, the second round, or the Championship Series itself. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1574&page=2#9376#ixzz2MnXabJxb
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 28, 2013 14:55:10 GMT -5
Rog -- Guess what, Boagie? Virtually ANY team that wins the World Series got lucky.
SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. By Chris Haft-- The San Francisco Giants have won everything recently except believers.
The arduous challenge of sustaining postseason success is well-documented. The New York Yankees of 1998-2000 were the last team in either league to win consecutive World Series; no National League club has won back-to-back World Series since the 1975-76 Cincinnati Reds.
Yet outside of their ardent fan base, the Giants rarely are mentioned as Series contenders, despite winning two of the previous three Fall Classics and retaining 21 of 25 players from the roster that produced a four-game sweep of Detroit to end last October.
When anointing the class of the NL, pundits prefer to cite the flashy Washington Nationals, with Bryce Harper and Stephen Strasburg; the Reds, whose All-Star collection of Brandon Phillips, Jay Bruce and Joey Votto complements an impressive pitching staff; or the Los Angeles Dodgers, who have paid handsomely to bolster their roster.
Meanwhile, the Giants remain relatively overlooked, though they possess the young stars, shutdown pitching and proven performers that distinguish the aforementioned teams.
"It's a club that I don't think has gotten the credit that it deserves for the talent that's here," Giants manager Bruce Bochy said. "Everyone talks about our pitching, but I think this club is loaded with more talent than what's been said about it. We were underdogs last year and in the playoffs, and we're going into the season as underdogs in our division. I understand that, with [the Dodgers] increasing their payroll. But when you look at this club with the [Buster] Poseys, [Hunter] Pences, and [Pablo] Sandovals, it's a team loaded with talent.
"What bothers me sometimes is I hear this word 'lucky' and 'the ball bounced our way,'" Bochy added. "You don't win 94 games and be lucky. You don't do what we did two of the last three years and be lucky. It takes talent, and this team has a lot of talented players."
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 28, 2013 17:07:24 GMT -5
"What bothers me sometimes is I hear this word 'lucky' and 'the ball bounced our way,'" Bochy added. "You don't win 94 games and be lucky. You don't do what we did two of the last three years and be lucky. It takes talent, and this team has a lot of talented players." Rog -- Last season the Giants had only the 5th-best pitching and 6th-best hitting in the league (as measured by ERA and runs scored, respectively). That's far from an outstanding combination. Yet they won the World Series and did so in exciting and unusual fashion. Virtually any team winning the World Series benefits from luck, even if only getting hot at the right time. It would appear the Giants benefited more than most. Despite the loftier level of competition they faced, the Giants won seven straight games to end the postseason. They didn't do so one time in the regular season -- despite rarely facing competition as formidable as the Cardinals and Tigers in seven straight games. Winning 94 games in the regular season is very good -- but not great. Winning 11 out of 16 games in the postseason is far more impressive than 94 out of 162. But that is the nature of small samples. In order to win 94 games, the Giants no doubt suffered through stretches in which they lost 11 of 16 games, and they also had stretches when they won 11 of 16. Fortunately, they hit one of the 11 out of 16 stretches at just the right time. One poster here talks about how the Giants won because they were really good, not because they were lucky. They won with a little of both, of course, as is almost always the case with a World Champion. But that same poster gave up on the Giants about three-quarters of the way through the season, so what does he know about the team? Wasn't he more negative toward the team than someone who comes to the logical and rational conclusion that the Giants won the World Series because they were BOTH lucky and good? Someone who was wise enough NOT to give up on the Giants when they were struggling is likely wise enough to also see that teams win because of a combination of skill and luck. The guy who gave up on the Giants apparently didn't think they had the skill to persevere. In this case, he was wrong. He relied more on emotion than analysis, or his analysis was flawed. Either way, he gave up WAY too early. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1574&page=2#ixzz2OsFo3p8s
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 28, 2013 19:38:53 GMT -5
I guess Bochy and you disagree.
Will you at least acknowledge now that Bochy doesn't like this underdog label that's been given to the team? In previous posts you said he didn't mind it, and in fact you calimed he welcomed it to spur on his team to play better...as if that would really be a driving force for team.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 29, 2013 11:42:33 GMT -5
Boagie -- I guess Bochy and you disagree. Will you at least acknowledge now that Bochy doesn't like this underdog label that's been given to the team? In previous posts you said he didn't mind it, and in fact you calimed he welcomed it to spur on his team to play better...as if that would really be a driving force for team. Rog -- I wasn't posting about Bruce, for whom I have the utmost respect. I was speaking of someone here who actually gave up on the Giants at midseason and now criticizes others who allegedly don't give them enough respect. How often have we said that we tend to get overly excited when our teams get hot and pour our hearts out unnecessarily when they struggle? In our excitement or angst, it's easy to forget. I do think our swings are fed to some extent when the media calls a game "must win," when usually it is very important but not an absolute must win situation. Last year the Giants DID have no fewer than SIX absolute must win games. And somehow they found a way to win each of them. Every season all but no more than one team has a true must win game. And only one team will win the last must win game it has that season. If a loss doesn't mean the end of the season, the game isn't truly a must win. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1574&page=2#9897#ixzz2OwjDKmVY
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 29, 2013 12:25:09 GMT -5
Will you at least acknowledge now that Bochy doesn't like this underdog label that's been given to the team? In previous posts you said he didn't mind it, and in fact you calimed he welcomed it to spur on his team to play better...as if that would really be a driving force for team.
Rog -- I wasn't posting about Bruce, for whom I have the utmost respect.
Boagie: I was though. We'd had a conversation a few weeks back about the "lucky" label that's been given to the Giants. I disagree with it, you tend to agree with there being a luck factor. Then you went on to say that Bochy likes the underdog label because it gives his team more incentive. I now posted a lengthy quote from Bochy where he clearly doesn't like being called lucky, and thinks his team should get more respect. And you're still holding pat, even when you're given a quote that says you're wrong. I gotta hand it to you, Rog, you're a tenacious sob.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Mar 29, 2013 12:46:59 GMT -5
thanks Roger for reminding me why I dont miss posting here...I see you've even gotten under Boagie's skin now and I'll bet you are why we dont see more of Boly too. Funny how your snobbish arrogance is the one thing Donk and I agree on.
I hope the rest of you enjoy the beginning of the season. I'll enjoy it a lot more without reading Rog's crap. See you later in the season maybe.
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 29, 2013 14:29:50 GMT -5
Rog -- I wasn't posting about Bruce, for whom I have the utmost respect. Boagie: I was though. We'd had a conversation a few weeks back about the "lucky" label that's been given to the Giants. I disagree with it, you tend to agree with there being a luck factor. Then you went on to say that Bochy likes the underdog label because it gives his team more incentive. I now posted a lengthy quote from Bochy where he clearly doesn't like being called lucky, and thinks his team should get more respect. And you're still holding pat, even when you're given a quote that says you're wrong. I gotta hand it to you, Rog, you're a tenacious sob. Rog -- I'm not sure our viewpoints are mutually exclusive, Boagie. And if they are, then, yeah, Bruce's quote would indicate you are right and I am wrong. Here's my thinking on the subject, which I believe I expressed before: I think most managers would say that their teams aren't getting enough respect (your point). I would also say that most managers would use that lack of outside respect to motivate their team (my point). Don't those two things complement each other, rather than exclude? I'm sorry if the post you responded to you seemed to be about the luck factor and it is perceived/used by Bruce. I was actually pointing out the hypocrisy of giving up on the Giants last season and then criticizing others for not having enough respect for them now. As for myself, I'm picking the Giants to win the division, although to me it's a tough call. The Dodgers have bought themselves a ton of talent, but questions remain about their health, their ability to put up good seasons at this stage of their various careers, and how their chemistry will be. The Giants have done it; the Dodgers haven't. But the Dodgers seem to have a lot more depth, if it is healthy. Let's suppose both Angel Pagan and Matt Kemp became injured (and Kemp has been the less healthy of the two and would seem more likely to become injured). But let's suppose they both get injured. The Giants would probably move Gregor Blanco to center, play Andres Torres in left, and bring up the loser in the battle for the 5th outfielder position (unless it is Gillespie and he signs elsewhere, which I wouldn't think would be the case). That's not horrible, but it would mean that the two players the Giants are hoping to be good enough to form a reasonably productive platoon would each be playing everyday (with some assistance from the 4th and 5th outfielders). The Dodgers would have three options. Elian Herrera has the most center field experience and posted a .901 OPS in AAA last season. Alex Herrera is a corner outfielder who went 1.010 in AAA. Or they might bring up the phenom, Yasiel Puig, the guy who hit .526 in spring training. Puig was sent to AA, so clearly he's raw. But whereas most flashes in the pan would hit well in early spring training and then fold, Puig had 11 hits in his final 15 at bats. The Giants would clearly have the defensive advantage. Blanco and Torres are both excellent. The Dodgers would have to go with an inexperienced center fielder. But the Dodgers appear capable of putting a strong hitter in place, and if that hitter were Puig, a potential superstar. If a starting pitcher went down, the Giants have almost no one. It is possible the Dodgers will have Lilly, Capuano and Harang in their bullpen. Hanley Ramirez is already out for a couple of months, so the Dodgers' infield depth is already being tested. The Giants have Joaquin Arias, but nothing tested and healthy behind him. Losing a starting pitcher would hurt the Giants the most. The good news is that their five starters have been amazingly healthy. Both the Giants and Dodgers could be really good or closer to average. Then there are the Diamondbacks and Padres. The NL West looks like a pretty good division. By the way, Bleacher Report picked the Giants' lineup as only the 15th best. That was actually ahead of both the Red Sox and Yankees, but lower than one might expect from a team that finished 6th in the NL in runs scored. But generally speaking, the AL teams have better hitting due to the DH, so perhaps 15 isn't all that bad. Belt, Sandoval, Pence, Scutaro and left field will likely be the keys to what could be a very good lineup or a struggling one. Pagan, Crawford and even Posey could be up or down. Pre-season prognostications are fun, since they indicate perceptions of relative strength. But the truth is that almost every team enters the season with a range of 10-15 wins or more, depending on all the variables. One can make a perfectly logical group of predictions and wind up being wrong, while one can throw things together willy nilly and wind up being close to right. That's one of the reasons they play the games. (Another might be making money.) Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1574&page=2#9909#ixzz2OxGkj0gC
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 29, 2013 14:31:11 GMT -5
Randy -- thanks Roger for reminding me why I dont miss posting here...I see you've even gotten under Boagie's skin now and I'll bet you are why we dont see more of Boly too. Funny how your snobbish arrogance is the one thing Donk and I agree on. I hope the rest of you enjoy the beginning of the season. I'll enjoy it a lot more without reading Rog's crap. See you later in the season maybe. Rog -- Happy Easter anyway, Randy. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1574&page=2#ixzz2OxVfn5in
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 29, 2013 15:25:38 GMT -5
Rog -- I'm not sure our viewpoints are mutually exclusive, Boagie. And if they are, then, yeah, Bruce's quote would indicate you are right and I am wrong.
Here's my thinking on the subject, which I believe I expressed before:
I think most managers would say that their teams aren't getting enough respect (your point). I would also say that most managers would use that lack of outside respect to motivate their team (my point).
Don't those two things complement each other, rather than exclude?
Boagie- In the movies, yes. I believe the manager did this in the movie 'Major League.' That worked beautifully in Hollywood, but how accurate was their portrayal of major league baseball?...don't forget, they all slept in bunk beds together during spring training.
In the real world though, I believe a manager's job is to create a winning atmosphere in the clubhouse, that includes not bringing in a newspaper that says "you suck." The Giants didn't win the World Series because they felt like underdogs, the Giants won the World Series because they know they're champions. Buster Posey has never been an underdog. Tim Lincecum has gone through his life being better than everyone else, same with Bumgarner, Pablo...ect.
But with good managers in the real world, I believe having high expectations is what drives players. If negative press were to actually create more incentive to push players then I guess we'll see if the Astros and Padres meet in the World Series this year. I'd be shocked if that were the case.
Negative press in my opinion is a distraction, especially if it's brought into the clubhouse. I would think any manager that would do this should be fired immediately. This would be typically of something Bobby Valentine would do. Bobby called out one of his players in the media to put pressure on him..as we all know that worked out very poorly for both people involved.
So, no, Rog. I don't buy into this method of Hollywood baseball that you seem to think pushes a team to win.
You have this theory that the Giants have benefited from a lot of luck, managerial mind tricks, and Hunter Pence rally cries. I think anyone who honestly believes any of this has been missing out on just what's happened over the last 3 years. To each his own I guess.
And to repeat (because I think it's the key point here) The Giants didn't win because they felt like underdogs, they won because they know they're Champions.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 29, 2013 16:17:36 GMT -5
Boagie -- In the real world though, I believe a manager's job is to create a winning atmosphere in the clubhouse, that includes not bringing in a newspaper that says "you suck." Rog -- It's been done before. Managers and coaches are looking for ways to pull their teams together. One way is to help them to try to get them to work together to overcome an underdog mentality. Haven't you heard managers or coaches say something like, "We don't mind being the underdog."? Boagie -- The Giants didn't win the World Series because they felt like underdogs, the Giants won the World Series because they know they're champions. Rog -- How did the Giants win the World Series the first time? How did they KNOW they wre champions. They entered the postseason (which they clinched on the final day of the regular season) HOPING they were. How did they know in 2012, when they hadn't even made the playoffs in 2011? Boag ie -- Buster Posey has never been an underdog. Tim Lincecum has gone through his life being better than everyone else, same with Bumgarner, Pablo...ect. Rog -- To some extent this is true. But Buster had to switch positions to make it big. Mad Bum had done it in high school, but don't you think he was scared when he went to his first minor league team? Do you think Pablo felt he was better than everyone when he was moved off third base because he wasn't considered good enough at the position and put up OPS of .660 and .631 in two of his first three seasons? Do you think Tim Lincecum felt that way when he was constantly overlooked because he was so small? And if to the extent these guys have gone through life being better than anyone else, what about the OTHER teams who have players who have been treated the same way? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1574&page=2#9913#ixzz2OxqYNxAf
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 29, 2013 16:49:54 GMT -5
Boagie -- You have this theory that the Giants have benefited from a lot of luck, managerial mind tricks, and Hunter Pence rally cries. I think anyone who honestly believes any of this has been missing out on just what's happened over the last 3 years. Rog -- The Giants DID benefit from luck. I haven't commented on managerial mind tricks (which I don't know about) or Hunter Pence rally cries (which maybe would have loosened me up if I were a player, since I would have been laughing a bit at the experience). To keep the luck thing simple, Boagie, let's look at the Giants' very first postseason series in 2010. A primary reason the Giants won the series was because second baseman Martin Prado (.307 batting average, .809 OPS) was injured and was replaced by the unfortunate Brooks Conrad, who made four errors in four games. His double play partner, Alex Gonzales, made a pair of errors himself. When is the last time you heard of a double play combination making SIX errors in four games? For the Braves, that wasn't bad luck, it was poor execution. For the Giants it was flat-out good luck. The Giants didn't do much of anything good to cause the umpire call Buster Posey safe at second on an attempted steal attempt on which he should have been called out. I'm not singling the Giants out as being the only World Champion that benefited from luck. Most World Champions are lucky in addition to being good. A team has to win three separate series in order to win the World Series. Let's suppose a team is good enough to win each series two out of three times. The odds of its winning all three series is less than one out of three. And which team is good enough that it will regularly win two out of three series from other tood teams? Let me ask you this, Boagie. If the 2010 Giants played World Series after World Series enough that they played 20 World Series, how many of those 20 do you think they would have won? One? Two? Four? How about the 2012 team? Almost NO team is good enough that it would win more than half those 20 World Series. The team that wins is the one that gets hot at the right time and/or the one that has the most good fortune. It's not a KNOCK on the Giants to say they benefited from luck. Had the World Champions been any of the other nine teams involved in the postseason, they too would almost certainly have benefited from luck. To benefit from luck DOESN'T mean a team isn't good. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1574&page=2#ixzz2Oxx0kkH8
|
|