|
Post by holiday613 on Dec 9, 2018 20:37:40 GMT -5
For killing whatever was left from Wgasamarc's initial intent to create a great Giants Board for entertainment purposes...Your hijacking of this space with you sanctimonious ,elitist,multi posting,simplistic,haughty,bullshit has all but scared away everyone from this site...I was here long enough to remember that Wgasa created this board to get away from you , but much like a sad selfish leach , you found this alternative board, and single- handedly , destroyed what was meant as enjoyable space to vent and laugh..Fuck you with your so called baseball knowledge,,,Fuck you with your better-than-thou simplistic analysis that nobody cares for and no matter how many times posters have begged you to go away you just spend hours posting mostly drivel that nobody gives a shit about...I know what your predictable response will be..."Why don't you prove me wrong" etc etc..... Thats because after all these years you just don't get it..An opinion is like an asshole...Everyone has one...So either stop pontificating like you are some kind of baseball Pope or do everyone else a favor and please get the fuck outa here for goodness sakes... Man. you are such an arrogant asshole...And the funny thing is I like you as a person!! We had a great fantasy baseball season awhile back and found you a total gentleman...But when it comes to this board, you morph into some lunatic asshole that I just can't explain away...So for the last time, for Wgasa's memory either get with the program or just leave us all alone!!!
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 10, 2018 4:48:18 GMT -5
Nice to have you back, Mordy! Happy holidays.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 10, 2018 14:47:09 GMT -5
I think Mordy was a little harsh, but most of what he says is true. So I hafta ask, Rog, why cant you be more like the person Boly describes, here? Why can't you be more like the person Mordy describes in the fantasy league, here?
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 11, 2018 16:38:50 GMT -5
You're absolutely right, Boagie. I have to try much harder.
You guys can help me out by trying to be more open to new ideas and by responding with more reasons rather than "that's the way it's always been done" or, worse, "you wouldn't understand it because you can't see past the numbers." WHAT is it that I can't see, and specifically what is it about the numbers that you think is getting in my way?
It would also help me if when someone criticizes the Giants or a move they made that they know what they're talking about. I've mentioned that Randy's harsh criticism of the Nunez trade while knowing next to nothing about it seems ridiculous. Or regarding Farhan, what was the point in being negative toward him when we didn't really know what we were being negative about? He seems to be thought of quite highly around baseball.
But I can't control that. I can control how I act here, and I need to do a much better job. And if Randy wanted to respond in kind, he could stop embarassing himself with his ridiculous icon.
And seriously, guys, if there is something I'm not understanding, help me understand it. I'm just not getting the feeling of explanation and identification.
And I hate to seem demanding here when I can change only myself -- and I agree I need changing -- but is it possible when discussing something like whether Buster Posey should hit and run that we can get beyond merely that he hits into lots of double plays? Of course he does. We all agree he does. I even went so far as to point out how many double plays he's grounded into in how many opportunities.
But it makes little sense to examine only one side of an issue. How likely is he to swing and miss? How likely is the runner to be thrown out if he does so? How likely is it that he'll foul off the pitch, possibily putting himself in a hole rather than being ahead in the count if he hadn't had to swing at it? If he has to swing at more than twice as many pitches as he presently swings at -- and mostly WORSE pitches than the one he tries to hit -- how is that likely to affect his contact? How many ground ball, line drive and fly balls double plays is he likely to hit into?
We all realize Buster would ground into far fewer double plays by hitting-and running. But at what cost in quality of contact, falling behind in the count, getting runners thrown out, and lining into double plays?
The decision as to whether to hit and run is similar to putting on an over-shift. No question the overshift cuts off hits to the over-shifted side. But how many hits does it give up to the other side? How many more errors are made because players are playing in spaces they're not accustomed to? Does it hurt the pitchers by limiting their pitching options so as not to make it easier to hit outside the shift? How does the over-shift affect the advancement of runners? How likely is the batter to try to take advantage of the over-shift by bunting or going the other way? How successful is he likely to be? How much difference does that make in this ball game at this time with these runners on base and with these batters coming up?
Saying that the over-shift should be used simply because it cuts off hits to the pull side is like saying that the hit-and-run play should be used because it cuts down on balls grounded into double plays. No question it's true, but it ignores "the other side of the story."
Anyway, I need to work much harder. I hope you guys will help make it easier for me. It's still my responsibility, and if you guys can help me, hopefully we'll all be happier with the result.
|
|
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 Dec 11, 2018 17:17:41 GMT -5
I actually thought Mordy was a little harsh too...but then Rog responds as he always does and now I see why Mordy's Fbomb tirade was pretty accurate. Rog's entire post was..."I can change but you all need to change too because it's your fault that I act like a jackass."
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 11, 2018 18:21:18 GMT -5
It's not a matter of people trying to understand you better, Rog. It's a matter of learning to just let it go when it's clear they've made their mind up. You aren't talking to children who want to learn from you, you're talking to people that have watched the game for numerous decades and are pretty set in the way they think and feel about the game.
Make your posts, make your argument, make a counter argument, if you're still not changing anyone's mind then just let it go. That's what the rest of us do.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 12, 2018 11:13:05 GMT -5
Rog's entire post was..."I can change but you all need to change too because it's your fault that I act like a jackass."
Rog -- You're right -- excpt for the "I have to try much harder" part.
And the "I can control how I act here" part.
And the I need to do a much better job" part.
And the "I agree I need changing" part.
And the "I need to work harder" part.
And the "It's still my responsibility" part.
And the part where I explain that I can use your help: "I hope you guys will help make it easier for me."
You read what you want to read, Randy, ignore what you want to ignore, and misinterpret a good portion of the rest.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 12, 2018 11:34:45 GMT -5
Make your posts, make your argument, make a counter argument, if you're still not changing anyone's mind then just let it go. That's what the rest of us do. Rog -- I get your point here, Boagie, and I'll be working on that. How would you feel though if you proved something to a huge extent, had faced only a weak argument (not talking specifically about you, Boagie) and still weren't acknowledged? I gave half a dozen strong reasons why Simmons has been a better defender than Crawford, yet very little acknowledgement of them. The simple "Simmons has won 16 out of 19 possible shortstop defense awards compared to Brandon's four out of 21" should have been highly convincing on its own. 16 to 4 with Crawford winning only one time when they went head-to-head? Clearly the baseball world agrees strongly with me. Throw in all the other strong reasons, and the case becomes close to open and shut. How about the Baez two-strike bunt? The basic response is that it simply isn't done (even though it occasionally -- although quite rarely -- is done, including two World Series later. That even though I didn't say the Baez strategy was right; simply that it MIGHT not have been wrong. If someone had made these three argmuents, I would have felt at least someone was trying to make valid points: . Even if the bunt had been put in fair territory, there was no guarantee the runner would have scored from third. The runner was alerted to get a good break, but the squeeze play wasn't a suicide squeeze. . Even if the bunt increased the chance of the runner scoring from third, it likely reduced the chance of scoring more than one run, and more than one run might have been needed. . The final detailing of how Baez had already hit in the series with two strikes was strong and supportive, but was that too small a sample? Wouldn't it make sense to look at, for instance, how Baez had fared over the entire season or even the entirety of his career. Those are reasonable arguments against bunting, and they would have made me re-examine my position. But it simply isn't done wasn't a valid argument against. It's not that you guys don't agree; it's that as in the Baez discussion, you sometimes take a very strong position and back it up with virtually nothing. Your arguments often come down to essentially, we know baseball, and you don't, so don't bother us with your facts. At least that's the way it seems from this side. I hope that in the Baez situation, you can see that there WERE valid arguments you guys could have used to support your position. But you guys took the easy way out with "It simply isn't done," when your argument should have been "It simply isn't done, and he are reasons you may not have considered." Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4956/thank-rog?page=1#ixzz5ZUFTBBwP
|
|
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 Dec 12, 2018 13:23:32 GMT -5
Do you not see what an arrogant self centered prick you are? Everything is about you. Boagie very succinctly pointed out how the rest of us just lay out our opinions and don't give a rat's ass about "acknowledgement." If you disagree with us, it's not going to cause us to pitch a baby fit until you do so. But for some reason you have to beat a dead horse over and over.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 12, 2018 14:22:07 GMT -5
It's not that you guys don't agree; it's that as in the Baez discussion, you sometimes take a very strong position and back it up with virtually nothing.
|
|
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 Dec 12, 2018 15:44:09 GMT -5
How would you feel though if you proved something to a huge extent, had faced only a weak argument (not talking specifically about you, Boagie) and still weren't acknowledged?
Dood - heres what you don't get...you are the ONLY one here trying to PROVE something and the only one needing acknowledgement. The rest of us can let it go when nobody agrees with our points...but you don't. It's rude and obnoxious.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 12, 2018 19:55:25 GMT -5
I really enjoy discussing things, Randy. I like it when someone comes up with good counterpoint to a point I make. But when someone comes up with something generic, I feel like I've wasted my time.
Look at the argument Don made today. THAT was a good counterpoint.
You are the worst here, Randy, in that you don't even answer questions. You still haven't explained why you panned the Eduardo Nunez trade without having much of any knowledge about it. I still don't think you know much about it, although if you've been paying attention, you certainly do.
|
|
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 Dec 12, 2018 20:12:37 GMT -5
guess what asshole...everyone here thinks YOU are the worst and this thread created by someone who actually likes you away from the board proves the point. I did not hate the specifics of the trade...I just hated trading Eduardo in general because of the way he performed for my team. Anderson might end up being a good return but for right now, we have gotten the raw end of the deal. Boston has a ring and we have gotten nothing but lousy 3rd basemen since he left.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 12, 2018 22:42:53 GMT -5
I just hated trading Eduardo in general because of the way he performed for my team. Anderson might end up being a good return but for right now, we have gotten the raw end of the deal. Boston has a ring and we have gotten nothing but lousy 3rd basemen since he left.
Rog -- I got the distinct impression you didn't think the Giants got enough for Eduardo. Certainly when I posted what I had learned about Anderson and Santos, you didn't respond by indicating you had nothing against the prospects the Giants got in return -- you simply didn't like the idea of trading Nunez.
Which would then raise the question of why you didn't want to get something for a lame duck when the Giants were obviously out of it. Eduardo was a slightly below average hitter for the Giants, and in his second season his fielding was being exposed. As was pointed out over the winter, we had overrated him in the field in 2016.
As for Eduardo's contribution to the Red Sox's World Championship, he was excellent for them in 2017 when they didn't win it all, but posted an OPS of only .677 in 2018.
As for the postseason, he batted only 28 times, picking up 6 hits and 2 walks. Among his six knocks, he had a double and a homer.
The Red Sox owe Eduardo $5 million for the last season of his two-year contract. My guess is that while they aren't off-the-wall disappointed in him, it wouldn't take much to get him away. After the trade in 2017, he was worth one WAR, which wasn't bad at all for a third of a season. But this past season he was worth a minus one WAR, meaning that for the Red Sox thus far, he has played at the level of a replacement player.
They've paid Eduardo $6 million and owe him another $5 mill, and what they've gotten thus far is a player of the level they could conceivably have called up one of their minor leaguers to provide.
Eduardo has been a .279 hitter over his career, but his OBP is just .314. He plays a lot of positions, but his career fielding percentage is just .958. The one thing Eduardo does quite well is steal bases, but he garnered only seven steals last season despite having over 500 plate appearances. Part of the reason for that was that his OBP was a paltry .289.
Eduardo did put up 1 WAR in his year with the Giants, which is the level of a bench player. I think that in 2016 he played the best defense of his career, giving us false hope in his glove.
The Giants enjoyed a year of Eduardo's play while basically trading Adalberto Mejia for Shaun Anderson and Gregory Santos. The Giants got a year of Nunez and got what I think will turn out to be a good trade of youngsters.
Mejia is a decent fifth starter who has been beset by injuries. Anderson seems likely to me to be a fourth or fifth starter who is likely to have better health and pitch more deeply into games. The 19-year-old Santos is the guy I like. He might not even make the major leagues, but he has the swing-and-miss and groundball stuff to possibly become a top of the rotation guy.
I would easily trade Mejia for Anderson and Santos -- even without the year of Nunez thrown in. Disliking the Nunez trade because the Giants didn't get enough is likely wrong, and disliking it because the Giants gave up two months of a bench-level player seems myopic.
|
|
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 Dec 15, 2018 3:34:26 GMT -5
Well Mordy...I guess your efforts fell completely on deaf ears. If anything Mr stats geek has gotten even worse
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 17, 2018 11:28:13 GMT -5
You guys can help me out by trying to be more open to new ideas and by responding with more reasons rather than "that's the way it's always been done" or, worse, "you wouldn't understand it because you can't see past the numbers." WHAT is it that I can't see, and specifically what is it about the numbers that you think is getting in my way?
***boly says***
Roger, almost never does anyone here post; "That's the way it's always been done."
As I've posted before, you seem driven by the numbers and rarely, if ever, understand, nor agree with anything we say that does NOT conform with your analytic version of things based upon numeric values.
This is not something new that I'm posting here. It's the way you've always been.
We see your points, we consider them, but when we don't agree, you go off on us trying desperately to get US to conform with YOUR perspective.
We don't agree. Why should WE conform to your perspective if we give reasons why we don't like it?
An example would be for this new "opener" trend.
Not only don't we like the concept, we detest it!
We've give our reasons but you want us to 'give it a try.'
Well, it's been given a try and we don't like the results.
Your response is always the same; some version of "well, the numbers indicate that..."
Numbers are your world, and we respect that.
But please stop trying to make it OURS.
It isn't, wasn't and never will be, Roger, so please, I'm begging you. Make your point, and if after an post or three, if we don't agree, let it go.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 18, 2018 3:05:34 GMT -5
An example would be for this new "opener" trend. Not only don't we like the concept, we detest it! We've give our reasons but you want us to 'give it a try.' Well, it's been given a try and we don't like the results. Rog -- Don't be surprised if the Giants use the opener concept on occasion this season. The less deeply into the game the nominal starters go (and last season that didn't average much more than five innings), the more important relievers become. You say you've given your reasons, and the one I remember (please refresh my memory if I've forgotten others) is that using an opener will wear out the bullpen. Yet no one has been able to explain how using an opener for one inning and then a normal starter for six innings is going to tax a bullpen more than using the starter for six innings and then a set up man for one inning. One hoped-for difference is that the use of the opener will generate more favorable matchups, as for instance might be the case if the opponent is heavily loaded toward right-handed hitters at the top of the lineup, and the normal starter is a southpaw. It may make more sense to use a good right-handed reliever who has to pitch only an inning or so to face those right-handers than to open with the southpaw who has to pace himself over (hopefully) six or more innings. You've said the use of an opener will tax the bullpen (I think you mentioned that the team might have to carry as many as 15 pitchers to compensate), but there is no proof or even logic to back that statement up. 6 + 1 = 7. 1 + 6 = 7. As long as that is true, the needing more pitchers argument doesn't hold up. When 1 + 6 equals more than 6 + 1, you may have an argument. But the two have been equal longer than we are old. And that's a long time! As for its having been given a try and you don't like the results, the Rays began using the opener significantly (about half the time) on May 19th. Their pitching was better the rest of the way, and their record was better the rest of the way. It appears they used no more pitchers than the Giants in doing so. They may have used one fewer at times. Why don't you like better results? The Brewers used the opener in the postseason, and their pitching was excellent. There is no evidence that using an opener burns out the bullpen, and there is no evidence that the results of using the opener gives a poorer result. You've given your reasons, and I can accept that we can reach different conclusions. But the two points we've discussed here don't support your argument -- even though you are the one who made the points. By the way, except that 6 + 1 = 1 + 6, what do the numbers have to do with whether to use the opener or not? If by numbers you mean results and possibilities, then the numbers have a LOT to do with the decision. You guys don't seem to want to even consider the possibilty of using an opener, even though the results of its usage last season was pretty favorable. One last point: The AL Cy Young Award winner came from the team that (by far) most used the opener. Not that the fact is more important than the result in wins and losses. Clearly it isn't. But isn't it ironic that the best pitcher in the AL came from the team that used the opener? You know. The guy who had the second-lowest ERA (1.89, which I believe is lower than any San Francisco Giants starter in history) among all major league starters and led baseball in wins? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4956/thank-rog#ixzz5a1Gcn1BH
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 18, 2018 3:08:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 18, 2018 11:36:18 GMT -5
Why are you still arguing the need for an "opener," Rog?
Why?
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 18, 2018 11:38:14 GMT -5
Post Options Post by rog on 8 hours ago Why should WE conform to your perspective if we give reasons why we don't like it?
Rog -- You shouldn't always have to. If your reasons are better, I should change MY opinion to reflect YOUR perspective.
***boly says***
This is the perfect example of what I said before; You're always trying to change someone's mind with what you consider logical perspectives or numbers.
If it's obvious someone does NOT agree; someone does NOT wish to change their position, let it go, Indiana. Let it go!
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 18, 2018 17:05:45 GMT -5
I'm sorry, Boly, but it makes no sense for me to stop talking about the value of the opener (as an example) when the reasons proffered against it are illogical. Really, how can one argue that 6 + 1 doesn't equal 1 + 6? How can one say they don't like the results of the opener when the results have actually been rather good?
The Rays didn't burn out their bullpen, and they received better pitching after they began using the opener consistently. The Brewers used it the concept with good success in the postseason.
Is the opener a good idea every day with every pitcher? Probably not. Is it a good idea some days with some pitchers? Probably.
As I have stated, if a person can come up with a reasonable argument against something, it's fine to disagree. But in the case of the opener, the arguments that have been presented here against it appear strongly to be untrue or illogical.
Another example would be your belief that Brandon Crawford is better on routine plays than Andrelton Simmons. You simply haven't seen Andrelton make enough routine plays to make an informed judgment. Those professionals who HAVE watched every play made by both players believe that Brandon misses more than 50% routine plays than Andrelton does. They grade every play, and their job is to do so objectively. We grade a small portion of the plays made by most players, and we're usually neither as professional nor as objective as the others.
Even as I am trying to study Omar Vizquel more closely to see where he might fall into the defensive hierarchy of shortstops, I keep coming across positive information on Simmons. Perhaps the most comprehensive judgment I have seen regarding Crawford and Simmons is that Brandon is a great defensive shortstop, while Simmons is a generational talent.
The biggest question with regard to Simmons doesn't seem to be whether he's the best defensive shortstop of this decade, but whether he's the best defensive player at ANY position during that time, and where he falls among the all-time great defensive shortstops including Ozzie Smith and Omar.
Speaking of Omar, no one seems to have commented much if at all about the way he didn't catch balls but rather often deflected them into his throwing hand to speed up his exchange. He had fabulous footwork, but given that his arm wasn't strong, that unique ability to exchange his throws likely served him better than any other single skill. We know of shortstops who had or have wonderful footwork, but do we know of any other player who treated the transfer in the same skilled and creative manner Omar did?
You probably know and appreciate Omar more than anyone here, Boagie. What are your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 18, 2018 19:33:26 GMT -5
I'm sorry, Boly, but it makes no sense for me to stop talking about the value of the opener (as an example) when the reasons proffered against it are illogical. Really, how can one argue that 6 + 1 doesn't equal 1 + 6? How can one say they don't like the results of the opener when the results have actually been rather good
***boly says***
Talk about it all you want, Rog, but STOP trying to convince us it's the better way; right way to go.
We disagree.
And if you persist on trying to convince us it is, then be prepared for the fall out which follows.
|
|
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 Dec 18, 2018 20:25:22 GMT -5
Anything that goes against the way things have always been done in favor of a new, yet to be proven successful, method...Rog will favor always. He wont be truly happy until the game we all grew up loving is almost unrecognizable.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 19, 2018 7:36:12 GMT -5
Why should WE conform to your perspective if we give reasons why we don't like it? Rog -- You shouldn't always have to. If your reasons are better, I should change MY opinion to reflect YOUR perspective. ***boly says*** This is the perfect example of what I said before; You're always trying to change someone's mind with what you consider logical perspectives or numbers. Rog -- My saying that you shouldn't have to conform to my perspective if your reasons are better and that if they are, I should change MY perspective is an example that I am always trying to change your mind? Wouldn't my saying instead that yes, you should "conform to (my) perspective if (you) give reasons why (you) don't like it" be a better example? Does 6 + 1 not equal 1 + 6? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4956/thank-rog#ixzz5a8GvHO55
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 19, 2018 7:41:32 GMT -5
Anything that goes against the way things have always been done in favor of a new, yet to be proven successful, method...Rog will favor always. Rog -- No, Randy, what I would recommend is that one keep his mind open to logical ideas until enough evidence can be developed to see if they're successful or not. It is likely to be the case that the new idea works in some situations but not in others. If that is the case, doesn't it make sense to use it in the situations in which it works and not to use it in the situations where it doesn't work? In this particular discussion, the concept of the opener HAS worked. It hasn't worked enough that it has been proven to be correct all the time. In fact, the Rays used it about half the time. But I think it has been proven enough that we should keep our minds open to it. What bothers me here is closed-mindedness. That usually leads to people being stuck and not improving. That's not to say that every new idea is better. But being closed-minded prevents one from making the distinction. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4956/thank-rog?page=1#ixzz5a8Iff2nX
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 19, 2018 7:44:12 GMT -5
Post Options Post by klaiggeb on 20 hours ago Why are you still arguing the need for an "opener," Rog? Rog -- I'm not arguing the need for an opener. I'm merely suggesting we should keep our minds open to it until more conclusive evidence is developed. And keep our minds open to the concept that sometimes it may be a good idea and other times it may not be. You know how they say that a mind is a horrible thing to waste? They might add that a closed mind can be the vehicle that reaches that destination. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4956/thank-rog?page=1#ixzz5a8JvviVz
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 19, 2018 11:22:24 GMT -5
In all of your posts, Roger, it always sounds as if you are arguing for the use of an opener.
I've said this before, every new idea that comes down the pipe, you seem to support.
You may not feel that you do, but that is the way your posts come across.
As to open minds, I/we do have open minds... to an extent.
It's just not to the extent that you like.
We're all different, Roger. Please stop trying to 'educate' us.
|
|
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 Dec 19, 2018 12:23:11 GMT -5
I told you before Boly...Rog wont be happy until the game we grew up loving is dead and buried and replaced by some stats geek fantasy
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 19, 2018 16:51:13 GMT -5
In all of your posts, Roger, it always sounds as if you are arguing for the use of an opener. I've said this before, every new idea that comes down the pipe, you seem to support. You may not feel that you do, but that is the way your posts come across. Rog -- What I'm arguing for is keeping an open mind to the concept. Its use has been limited but effective. My sense is that it isn't the concept for every sitaution, but that when used appropriately, it can be effective. Back when the Giants first began to play, their fans would have been aghast at the idea of using four starters and a bullpen as was the case when we were kids, when virtually every inning pitched by the Giants in their beginning was pitched by one of the three starters on their team. They would have been even more aghast at the use of set up men and a closer. And yet more upset by the idea of using an opener or -- gasp -- a bullpen game. I believe that if we aren't open to ideas, we won't grow. And if we don't grow, we fall behind a rapidly changing world. You and Candee don't go on the same cruise to the same ports on the same ship on the same line for the same number of days every cruise. To some extent, you believe that variety is indeed the spice of life. Heck, I'm more of a set routine guy than a variety guy, but I try not to get stagnant. I try to be open to new ideas. In your most recent post you said "it always sounds as if (I) am arguing for the use of an opener." Earlier though you stated "you want us to 'give it a try.' -- which sounds suspiciously like asking you to keep an open mind. I said "You guys don't seem to want to even consider the possibilty of using an opener," which sounds suspiciously like keeping an open mind. I said "I'm merely suggesting we should keep our minds open to it until more conclusive evidence is developed." You said "Well, it's been given a try and we don't like the results." I replied "the concept of the opener HAS worked. It hasn't worked enough that it has been proven to be correct all the time. In fact, the Rays used it about half the time. But I think it has been proven enough that we should keep our minds open to it." Since the results (in a small sample) have been favorable, I'm surprised you guys don't like them. Here's something to ponder: Entering play on May 19th, the day the Rays began consistently using the opener, their record was 21-22. The rest of the way they went 69-50. Two days later the Giants' record was 24-24, and they went 49-65 the rest of the way. Prior to the Rays' change, they had played about evenly with the Giants. After the change, they pretty much mirrored the Giants' record the rest of the way. They were 19 games over .500 while the Giants were 16 games under .500. I'm not saying that if the Giants had begun using the opener, they would have made the playoffs. What I'm saying is that the Rays are the team that has given the concept by far the biggest test. And it passed with flying colors. You're saying no way, Jose. I'm saying it would seem to be good to keep an open mind, that the concept may work in some cases but not in others, and that it might be a mistake to use it in the wrong situations and not to use it in the right ones. You had the idea that teams should teach their starters to lengthen out. I had mentioned that same idea before and agreed that I would try it with the starters I felt had the most chance of success. I was not only open to your idea, I endorsed it. Meanwhile, you have been closed to my suggestion, not even being willing to consider it. You don't seem to care what the numbers say, even when the numbers are wins and losses. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4956/thank-rog#ixzz5aATlvW9cRead more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4956/thank-rog#ixzz5aAS00YyMRead more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4956/thank-rog#ixzz5aARTAeseRead more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4956/thank-rog#ixzz5aALhLUOa
|
|
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 Dec 19, 2018 18:20:08 GMT -5
I'm not only aghast at the opener but also the ridiculous practice of going to the bullpen early. Pitchers need to stop being babied and instead learn to NUT UP under pressure. That can't happen when they are constantly looking to the bullpen.
I think the only thing the fad of using an opener will accomplish is forcing hitters to do better against whatever arm the pitchers use. Sooner or later it will burn out just like the idiocy of hitting the pitcher 8th did.
|
|