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 Jun 28, 2013 11:20:16 GMT -5
Open Letter to Brian Sabean
Please do NOT make a trade for a two month rental player. That's not what this team needs. I would rather finish last this season and regroup for next year. You have had your successes recently but at the moment the staple of the team (starting pitching) is leaking oil, both on the major league roster and in the farm system, and you need to evaluate what is to be done and how soon prospects like Crick might actually be ready and balance that against any moves to be considered.
If you do make a move before the deadline, please make it a minor one that doesn't shake the roster up too much or make sure that what we receive is a player who we will be able to control beyond this season.
My preference is to play the season out with what we have on the roster and see what happens. Keep evaluating the 25 man roster and the prospects in the minors to see what offseason moves we will need to make. None of this "win now and F%&^ the future" crap. We have already won titles doing that...now it's time to develop the young talent pool and not gut it.
Do NOT trade for Ricky Nolasco or some other rental player because even if we win, we lose by weakening our farm system even more than it already is. This is a season to think about the future...and if the team is able to get it together and make the playoffs without a major move being made, they will be all the stronger mentally in October because of it.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 29, 2013 0:53:44 GMT -5
Randy, I think Brian has learned his lesson. The Beltran trade is a clear exception, but Brian has an excellent record of acquiring players at the trade deadline who go on to make a difference -- even so-called ham and eggers.
By the way, Randy, Marco Scutaro was acquired as a rental player. So I wouldn't necessarily recommend against trading for a lame duck player. It depends on the deal.
Generally speaking I'm right with you. But I think your statement is too absolute.
As for your comment that this season is about the future, what if the Giants had felt that way in 2010? They didn't make the playoffs until the final day of the regular season, and they wouldn't have made them at all if not for the several players acquired midseason.
Again, I agree with you in principle. I simply would encourage you to take a broader look at the actualities of the situation. This season is about this season AND the future.
You say that if the Giants are able to get it together and make the playoffs without a major move being made, they will be stronger because of it. But weren't they strong enougn in 2010, a season in which they made a surprising number of in-season deals?
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Jun 29, 2013 6:47:36 GMT -5
I completely agree about trading for a rental, and I don't think Sabean will trade for a rental like Nolasco or Garza unless he gets a window to negotiate a new contract. Bud Norris is a better target because he has two years left before he becomes a free agent. The Dodgers are supposedly the front runners for Nolasco and of course they have no such worries about a rental because they'll outbid anyone. Amazing that they're looking for a starter when they started spring training with about eight of them!
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 29, 2013 9:39:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jun 29, 2013 10:18:21 GMT -5
It would be nice if your posts on this topic would materialize into a point. We've established that there are a number of different variables that go into winning..if chemistry is an unknown like you claim, then why discount and mock it? Its almost as if you're angry at the word because its above your understanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jun 29, 2013 15:00:21 GMT -5
Rog is angry at the word because it can't be numerically quantified. It's a human element. Rog doesn't like that the game is played by humans, and that there are aspects of it that can't be boiled down to numbers or predicted numerically.
As for the Dodgers, did you really have any doubt that players like Crawford, Beckett, and Ramirez would miss significant time?
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 30, 2013 8:43:52 GMT -5
Boagie -- if chemistry is an unknown like you claim, then why discount and mock it? Its almost as if you're angry at the word because its above your understanding. Rog -- Yep, after 38 years of studying chemistry, it's above my understanding. Come on now. EVERYBODY knows it's the study of living organisms. Actually, some seem to treat it is if it WERE a living organism, one that gets clutch hits, strikes out batters with a runner at third base and fewer than two outs, and steals bases with impunity. My whole point about team chemistry is that we just don't know how much difference it makes. Perhaps chemistry measures intangibles, which are basically traits that can't be quantified. My own guess is that they can be big in basketball, with a perfect example being Shane Battier, whose personal statistics aren't good, but whose teams just seem to play better when he's on the court. In baseball, I have to wonder. There really isn't much teamwork involved. I don't think the old question has yet been answered as to whether chemistry promotes winning, or winning promotes chemistry. Hey, let's take a look at some of the Giants of 2010. Aubrey Huff was viewed as a team leader in 2010, with his (very) briefs being the symbol of their success. Apparently he lost his chemistry in 2011 and 2012. Cody Ross was another. Except that Cody went on to play better at Boston than he did with the Giants -- and the Red Sox didn't win even 70 games. Again, I'm not saying chemistry doesn't exist. Depending on how one defines it, it would appear that it does. But whereas extremely detailed statistics indicate it can make a surprising difference in basketball, no one has shown that it makes much difference in baseball. A poster said that chemistry is what helps a team win in September and October. If that is true, why doesn't it do so in April, May, June and July? I honestly don't know how much chemistry means in baseball. Then again, neither does anyone else. Did the Giants have good chemistry earlier this season, but now they've lost it? Why did they lose it, and where did it go? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1865&page=1#12135#ixzz2XhpHjYOo |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 30, 2013 9:04:12 GMT -5
Allen -- Rog is angry at the word because it can't be numerically quantified. It's a human element. Rog -- I'm not at all angry with the word, but as I pointed out, neither I nor anyone else knows how important it is, since -- as you correctly point out -- it can't be quantified. We can quantify how a player plays baseball. We can't quantify his effect on team chemistry. So we don't truly know if it makes a significant difference or not. There are becoming fewer intangibles in sports, since more and more things are being measured. Even then, the question exists as to how accurate the measurements are. But the good thing is that they are improving -- and being understood -- more virtually each and every day. Allen -- Rog doesn't like that the game is played by humans, and that there are aspects of it that can't be boiled down to numbers or predicted numerically. Rog -- I think you will find that I complain about those humans less than most. As an example, do you or I complain about the umpires more? Do others here question more the decisions made by Bruce Bochy, or do I? Allen -- As for the Dodgers, did you really have any doubt that players like Crawford, Beckett, and Ramirez would miss significant time? Rog -- Not really, since we know that a previous injury history increases the chance of future injury. How do we know it? Because it has been studied statistically. People act as if I don't understand anything but statistics. That's far from true. It's simply that I understand their important to, well, understanding. I learned a TON about baseball from my dad and from watching something like 500 Giants games in person with him. Did my dad know much about baseball? Well, he knew enough about it that he became a very close friend of Chris Speier, even though he was a generation older than Chris. He knew enough about it that he was a small part of Chris' returning to the Giants. He knew enough about it that he spoke to Horace Stoneham on Chris' behalf. He was close enough to it that he shagged balls hit by Michael Jordan when only four people were around. He impressed Chris enough that Chris sent two of his kids from Scottsdale to Alamo in the East Bay to attend his funeral. Because of that I know enough about the game that I spent a wonderful three or four hours talking to Chris Lincecum about baseball until I finally had to leave to catch the night's final ferry. I know enough about it that he and I have exchanged hundreds of emails on baseball. I know enough about it, Allen, that I told you Pedro Martinez had arm trouble well before it became public. You know that one to be true because you were there. So don't anyone here give me this crud that all I understand statistics. I give credit to others such as Boly and Don for their particular areas of expertise about the game, but as far as a general understanding of it -- all statistics aside -- I'm right there with anyone on this board. If stats were all I knew, how in the world was I able to have long conversations with Chris Speier when I was younger and even longer ones with Chris Lincecum now that I'm older? I have asked the posters here to show areas of baseball they know that I don't, and with the exception of Boly and mechanics and Don and Giants history, no one has been able to do so. Either show those areas, or get off this foolish "statistics only"kick. I don't like team chemistry because it can't be quantified? Why then have I studied it for 38 years? Again, show me the knowledge I DON'T have. Or simply acknowledge that I do, or that worst case you don't know whether I do or not. But don't forget to ask Allen about Pedro Martinez. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1865&page=1#ixzz2XhtX3Ry3 |
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jun 30, 2013 10:01:03 GMT -5
Rog -- Yep, after 38 years of studying chemistry, it's above my understanding. Come on now. EVERYBODY knows it's the study of living organisms.
Boagie- Actually its the study of matter. Biology is the study of living organisms. But I haven't been studying it for 38 years so I yield to your expertise.
As far as the Giants chemistry goes, you're right it's an unknown. There's no solid proof that it does or doesn't help them win. We also can't explain why a player goes on a hot streak. They often say its because a hitter is seeing the ball better..but has his vision actually improved?
These are things that can't really be explained. But I think its foolish to say they don't exist. Afterall, players do get hot and teams do sometimes have a level of success that doesn't exactly make sense on paper.
I find it amusing that you use the word "luck" so often but discount "chemistry" as an unknown. Chemistry we at least know exists, where as luck holds about as much factual proof as a unicorn.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 30, 2013 11:40:31 GMT -5
Rog -- Yep, after 38 years of studying chemistry, it's above my understanding. Come on now. EVERYBODY knows it's the study of living organisms. Boagie- Actually its the study of matter. Biology is the study of living organisms. But I haven't been studying it for 38 years so I yield to your expertise. Rog -- You didn't think I INTENTIONALLY defined biology? I guess my sarcasm didn't work. Boagie -- As far as the Giants chemistry goes, you're right it's an unknown. There's no solid proof that it does or doesn't help them win. We also can't explain why a player goes on a hot streak. They often say its because a hitter is seeing the ball better..but has his vision actually improved? Rog -- Part of it can be the luck of whether balls fall in or not, but mostly I would say it is mechanical. As for the vision thing, I suspect that has to do more with the mechanics, but I'm simply guessing -- as I pretty much am about the rest, as well. If knowing what causes a slump were easy, they probably wouldn't last as long. My suspicion is that they're mechanical, and that the mechanical change evolves somewhat slowly, changing muscle memory and making it tougher to break out of. But I haven't studied that at all and am merely guessing. I do know that players look at a lot of film and still often have a hard time breaking habits and getting out of their slump. Boagie -- These are things that can't really be explained. But I think its foolish to say they don't exist. Afterall, players do get hot and teams do sometimes have a level of success that doesn't exactly make sense on paper. Rog -- Slumps are different from chemistry, aren't they? Maybe it is chemistry that causes or contributes to slumps, but I suspect the impact isn't great. But like you, I really don't know. Chemistry exists in basketball because there are plays that aren't measured by points scored, assists or rebounds. There is work going on to measure these other aspects, but it is still rudimentary. In baseball, we can measure more, including productive outs. We can measure how the chances of scoring a run or runs are affected by a player's at bats. Fielding is harder to measure, since it includes things like positioning and break on the ball. But those things too will likely be measured as time goes on and such measurement improves. In basketball, setting picks, switching on defense, making passes for "secondary" assists and other factors may help the team without showing up on the score sheet. But baseball is mostly pitcher against batter, and I'm not quite sure how chemistry helps the pitcher or batter win those battles. I don't know the impact of chemistry on baseball, but I suspect it has less impact than other team sports that involve more teamwork. Boagie -- I find it amusing that you use the word "luck" so often but discount "chemistry" as an unknown. Chemistry we at least know exists, where as luck holds about as much factual proof as a unicorn. Rog -- We know luck exists, and it is easier to see than chemistry. If a hitter lines out, we know he hit in bad luck. If he bloops a ball in or hits a squibber that is so slow as to allow him to arrive safely, we know he has been lucky. If the defensive team screws up, we know the offensive team was lucky (although to an extent, teams can put pressure on the defense to "force" that luck). The results of chemistry aren't as easy to see. With luck, we can both see how it happens, and we can see its results. With chemistry, it's pretty tough to see either definitively. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1865&page=1#12156#ixzz2XiU8kjq9 |
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jun 30, 2013 21:41:08 GMT -5
Rog -- Slumps are different from chemistry, aren't they? Maybe it is chemistry that causes or contributes to slumps, but I suspect the impact isn't great. But like you, I really don't know.
Boagie- I wasn't saying both had any correlation, I was just giving two examples of things that can't be measured statistically and don't necessarily make sense all the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jun 30, 2013 21:53:35 GMT -5
Rog- Chemistry exists in basketball because there are plays that aren't measured by points scored, assists or rebounds. There is work going on to measure these other aspects, but it is still rudimentary.
Boagie- When I speak of chemistry in baseball I don't necessarily mean on the field. I mean in the clubhouse, in the dugout, during spring training during batting practice..Ect. My examples here are where hitters get out of slumps, or a pitcher makes an adjustment, adjustments rarely happen in a game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jun 30, 2013 22:17:14 GMT -5
Rog -- We know luck exists, and it is easier to see than chemistry. If a hitter lines out, we know he hit in bad luck. If he bloops a ball in or hits a squibber that is so slow as to allow him to arrive safely, we know he has been lucky.
Boagie- The word luck exists, beyond that it's merely a matter of opinion.
Buster Posey could have a 10 pitch at bat and manage to bloop a broken bat single over the shortstops head. I would think that was a good at-bat. Fans of the other team and likely Don would call it luck.
Basically Rog, luck is a word people use when they are jealous, upset that it happened or aren't sure how it happened.
In your and Brian Kenny's case you're both not sure how to explain it so you slap a simple little word on your statistical inaccuracies that way you both can sleep at night.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 1, 2013 1:42:53 GMT -5
Boagie- When I speak of chemistry in baseball I don't necessarily mean on the field. I mean in the clubhouse, in the dugout, during spring training during batting practice..Ect. My examples here are where hitters get out of slumps, or a pitcher makes an adjustment, adjustments rarely happen in a game. Rog -- I understand what you're saying here, but how is it that chemistry off the field enables players to play better? Again, I'm not saying chemistry doesn't exist; I'm saying we haven't seen much evidence that it makes a big difference. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1865&page=1#12193#ixzz2Xm1c2i3f |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 1, 2013 1:45:54 GMT -5
Rog -- We know luck exists, and it is easier to see than chemistry. If a hitter lines out, we know he hit in bad luck. If he bloops a ball in or hits a squibber that is so slow as to allow him to arrive safely, we know he has been lucky. Boagie- The word luck exists, beyond that it's merely a matter of opinion. Rog -- A great example today: Buster grounds to second and is retired at first. Abreu makes a horrid base running mistake, heading toward third base while Torres holds third. Abreu is let of the hook and Torres scores because the Rockies throw the ball into the outfield. That wasn't lucky for the Giants? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1865&page=1#ixzz2Xm2EudF6 |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 1, 2013 1:48:52 GMT -5
Boagie -- Basically Rog, luck is a word people use when they are jealous, upset that it happened or aren't sure how it happened. Rog -- I suppose that can happen, but when the Rockies threw the ball away today, I wasn't jealous, I wasn't upset that it happened, and anyone could seee how it happened. And I don't think there is any question the Giants were lucky on the play. They didn't do anything good to make it happen. It wasn't bad luck on the part of the Rockies; it was a bad throw. For the Giants, it was extremely good luck that got them off the hook for making two poor plays. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1865&page=1#ixzz2Xm2olf1M |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 1, 2013 1:50:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jul 1, 2013 9:35:21 GMT -5
Rog -- A great example today: Buster grounds to second and is retired at first. Abreu makes a horrid base running mistake, heading toward third base while Torres holds third. Abreu is let of the hook and Torres scores because the Rockies throw the ball into the outfield.
That wasn't lucky for the Giants?
Boagie- So you honestly believe the Giants "luck" made that play happen, it wasn't just a bad defensive play by the Rockies?
I can see how someone might blurt out the word luck, however I can't understand why someone would use luck as a factual occurrence in that situation. It would be like using the words karma or fate in the same context.
Fate is really the opposing view of luck. Fate says that there's an order to everything in the universe and as science has proven, order to everything is very often the case. I, myself, don't believe in fate, luck or karma. While I do blindly use those words from time to time I can't consciously use them as facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jul 1, 2013 10:01:28 GMT -5
Rog -- I understand what you're saying here, but how is it that chemistry off the field enables players to play better? Again, I'm not saying chemistry doesn't exist; I'm saying we haven't seen much evidence that it makes a big difference.
Boagie- We know the sports teams often play better at home. I think its safe to say that's due to the chemistry between the fans and the team they're cheering for. That's the only drastic change between playing at home or on the road.
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jul 1, 2013 10:09:11 GMT -5
Rog -- A great example today: Buster grounds to second and is retired at first. Abreu makes a horrid base running mistake, heading toward third base while Torres holds third. Abreu is let of the hook and Torres scores because the Rockies throw the ball into the outfield. That wasn't lucky for the Giants? Allen- I thought it was a mistake by Torres. He should have ran on that play. |
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jul 1, 2013 12:45:27 GMT -5
Rog -- I understand what you're saying here, but how is it that chemistry off the field enables players to play better? Again, I'm not saying chemistry doesn't exist; I'm saying we haven't seen much evidence that it makes a big difference. Boagie- We know the sports teams often play better at home. I think its safe to say that's due to the chemistry between the fans and the team they're cheering for. That's the only drastic change between playing at home or on the road dk...boy, I think this really misses the mark 100%....players that go on the road have a big change in their daily life, especially family men....even a business man can understand the effect of going "out of town" on a business trip compared to his normal routine life of conducting his business at home.....add into the mix the differences in weather, ball fields, etc.....even the effect of the fans changes from team to team....the best example I can remember were the three teams in NYC in the 30's...Yankee fans were very reserved...the elite and their team always seemed to win...the Giant fans were in the middle...not many of them but they could get a good chant going when the team was playing well..Giants won some and were in the middle class...the Dodger fans were "nuts"...lots of characters..Hilda Chester and her cow bell, the Symphonie band parading thru the stands playing terrible music, the guy sitting behind third..blowing up and releasing baloons and yelling cookie in tribute to Cookie Lavagetto, Doger's 3B....lots of noice, fights, etc....the Dodgers didn't win too many games...there are many athletes that relish the opposing fans getting on them...best example...Al Cervi, HOF guard and coach, he would get up to the foul line and encourage the opposing fans to make noise and get on his case and then calmly sink a foul shot.....and there were others that melted on enemy turf.....we used to have fun in the Polo Grounds getting on Cub outfielder, Bill "Swish" Nicholson..we would all yell swish when he swung his bat as the pitcher was getting ready to throw and then a big swish when the pitch came in...Bill used to show his anger.... |
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jul 1, 2013 14:40:03 GMT -5
You say I miss the mark 100% but then you make the fan impact 75% of your post. I'm confused.
Like many of your post this one has a lot of history in it, but in this case its just that, history. Players today don't grab their burlap sack and board a train or a bus. They board planes with their armani suits and designer luggage. Once they get off the plane they go to their lavish hotel room, alone. They don't bunk with teammates. They travel first class all the way. Most of us would probably feel pretty comfortable in their position. While I agree its probably more comfortable at home I doubt they consider their on the road lifestyle a big hindrance on their performance on the field. Afterall, most of the players don't call the Bay Area home anyways.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 2, 2013 9:54:49 GMT -5
Boagie- We know the sports teams often play better at home. I think its safe to say that's due to the chemistry between the fans and the team they're cheering for. That's the only drastic change between playing at home or on the road. Rog -- That's a very good point, since home-field advantage does exist in every sport of which I am aware. So let's look a little closer: Part of home-field advantage may come from better fan support. Part may come from sleeping in one's own bed at night. Part may come from being tired from travel when one is on the road. Some might come from playing in more familiar surroundings. Some might be from being better adjusted to the climate. But there can be little doubt it exists. It also exists in greater degrees in the other primary team sports -- basketball, football, hockey -- than it exists in baseball. That may be due to a shorter schedule, although that shouldn't make a huge difference in the relatively long seasons of basketball and hockey. Home field exists, and while we can delineate a handful of possible causes, home field advantage is an intangible as far as anything I have come across. That it exists less in baseball than in the other sports may back up my opinion that chemistry is less important in baseball than in other sports. The thing about chemistry is that there are more unknowns than knowns. It is hard to believe it doesn't exist at all. The question becomes how much difference it makes, and that isn't a question easily answered. Most of the information I am seeing though, indicates it is quite possibly less important in baseball than in the other sports. And we still can't answer whether chemistry breeds winning or vice versa. Not everything in life is a known, and this appears to be just one more unknown. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1865&page=1#12220#ixzz2Xtpum4gu |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 2, 2013 12:33:50 GMT -5
Rog -- A great example today: Buster grounds to second and is retired at first. Abreu makes a horrid base running mistake, heading toward third base while Torres holds third. Abreu is let of the hook and Torres scores because the Rockies throw the ball into the outfield. That wasn't lucky for the Giants? Boagie- So you honestly believe the Giants "luck" made that play happen, it wasn't just a bad defensive play by the Rockies? Rog -- That's a very good question which should help us get to the meat of the matter. Here is what I wrote initially: "It wasn't bad luck on the part of the Rockies; it was a bad throw. For the Giants, it was extremely good luck that got them off the hook for making two poor plays." So to answer your question, it was BOTH good luck on the part of the Giants and a bad play by the Rockies. Each team made a bad play. The Rockies didn't capitalize on the Giants' bad play, showing poor execution (and not bad luck) on their part. On the part of the Giants, good luck enabled them to escape their bad play through no positive play of their own. Bad execution by the Rockies meant good luck for the Giants. To me, a good play or a bad play comes from actions one can control. Good or bad luck comes from actions one can't control. The Rockies COULD control their actions on the play; hence, bad play. The Giants couldn't control their "recovery" from what was a bad play on their part; hence, they were lucky. The Giants were let off the hook for their bad play by having the Rockies make a bad play that wound up being good luck for the Giants. There are plays where one team had good luck and the other bad; but more frequently, one team makes a good or bad PLAY, resulting in bad or good LUCK for the other team. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1865&page=1#12235#ixzz2XuUhIFKCRead more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1865&page=1#12235#ixzz2XuUGLd4V |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 2, 2013 12:37:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 3, 2013 15:35:11 GMT -5
Open Letter to Brian Sabean
Please do NOT make a trade for a two month rental player. That's not what this team needs.
---boly says---
I'm with you 100%, Randy.
In fact, I made a similar post a week or so before I left for the other coast.
No more rentals!
But I would support deals that do NOT support our farm.
My guy to move has been Susac. He seems to be the only guy who scouts seem to think has real potential to make the show.
I'd also support moving Gary Brown, and, if the right deal came along, I'd move fatso in a heartbeat; Fatso being Pablo.
The bigger he gets, and he continues to bloom... I just see more and more injuries, especially to over taxed hamstrings.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 3, 2013 15:49:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jul 3, 2013 16:55:59 GMT -5
One would hope. Something needs to be done. Since coming back, Pablo's hitting .107 with no extra base hits, no homers, no RBI. Either he's still hurt, he's in a very protracted slump, or he's simply become too fat to play. On a couple of defensive plays, he's too slow to make the play, and flops around like a fish out of water. He's been given alot of chances. He has the resources at his disposal. Either he just doesn't care, or he's just severely lacking in self-discipline.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jul 4, 2013 1:27:59 GMT -5
Rog- Chemistry exists in basketball because there are plays that aren't measured by points scored, assists or rebounds. There is work going on to measure these other aspects, but it is still rudimentary. Boagie- When I speak of chemistry in baseball I don't necessarily mean on the field. I mean in the clubhouse, in the dugout, during spring training during batting practice..Ect. My examples here are where hitters get out of slumps, or a pitcher makes an adjustment, adjustments rarely happen in a game. dk...funny story, the most used statement to describe excellant team work in making a double play is to repeat "Tinkers to Evers to Chance...the most famous DP trio in the early years....led the Cubs to 4 pennants and 2 Rings...they hated each other and never talked to each other unless they had to.....chemistry???>? |
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jul 4, 2013 1:33:35 GMT -5
Rog- Chemistry exists in basketball because there are plays that aren't measured by points scored, assists or rebounds. There is work going on to measure these other aspects, but it is still rudimentary. Boagie- When I speak of chemistry in baseball I don't necessarily mean on the field. I mean in the clubhouse, in the dugout, during spring training during batting practice..Ect. My examples here are where hitters get out of slumps, or a pitcher makes an adjustment, adjustments rarely happen in a game. dk...funny story, the most used statement to describe excellant team work in making a double play is to repeat "Tinkers to Evers to Chance...the most famous DP trio in the early years....led the Cubs to 4 pennants and 2 Rings...they hated each other and never talked to each other unless they had to.....chemistry???>? |
|
