|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 17, 2019 14:52:24 GMT -5
I've said before, the difference between stats geeks and baseball men is that the geeks feel it necessary to prove themselves superior. Baseball men are clear on what they know based on experience and therefore they need no confirmation from the outside. You can tell me I don't understand analytics and you would be right to an extent. But to make that out to meaning I don't understand baseball is ludicrous. Rog -- There must be aspects of baseball that you know about. It's just that you do foolish things such as giving up on the 2014 Giants. And now because you wanted the Giants to make more trades than they did, you begrudgingly at best admit the deals they did make were good. You're the only person I've seen who didn't think they did well at the deadline. The weird thing is that you and I were the first two to want the Giants to rebuild. I supported you on that. But you don't seem to understand the complexity of situations. For you the solution is usually just to spend, spend, spend, ignoring that the Giants may be different from most businesses, but they're a business nonetheless. Now you say the game is going downhill, and a traditionalist in particular can argue that it's not as interesting as it once was. But it's hard to argue that it's ever been played at a higher level. Baseball improved for a long time based on bigger, stronger, faster, and now it's improving based on smarter as well. I think the biggest difference between us, Randy, is that I understand the game on the field far better than you realize, but you don't seem to understand the game off the field very well at all. To me, it's the combination of the two that makes the game exciting. I'm not sure anymore than I enjoyed it more even when I was a kid, and the players were literally bigger than (my) life. Ignore me, but email Mark and learn from him. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5463/new-kids?page=2#ixzz5wtC6N09U
|
|
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 Aug 17, 2019 15:03:01 GMT -5
Your definition of higher level differs from mine
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Aug 17, 2019 15:40:18 GMT -5
And mine.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 17, 2019 23:17:54 GMT -5
Pitchers throw harder and with more spin than ever before. Fielders are placed in better positions, and they're faster. Hitters are getting the ball in the air more and I suspect hitting it harder. Runners are quicker. Fielders throw harder. Knowledge of opponents is better and more detailed than ever. Knowledge of a team's own players is better than ever.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Aug 18, 2019 1:43:19 GMT -5
There are 9 teams 20+ games out of first place in their division, and 4 of those teams are at least 30 games out. The small market teams don't have a chance to compete anymore. The major league caliber players are too expensive these days, so instead, lesser quality players are being asked to fill roles, thus allowing good players to crush homeruns and strikeout hitters at a record pace.
|
|
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 Aug 18, 2019 3:56:45 GMT -5
Those pitchers that are so much better can't even complete one damn game anymore. Most can't complete 7 or 8 innings on a regular basis. Assuming you could compare today's players to those of yesteryear in physical ability, that doesn't make the modern players better at making plays or better hitters. You can make outs just as easily hitting it in the air as on the ground.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Aug 18, 2019 10:12:51 GMT -5
Those pitchers that are so much better can't even complete one damn game anymore. Most can't complete 7 or 8 innings on a regular basis. Assuming you could compare today's players to those of yesteryear in physical ability, that doesn't make the modern players better at making plays or better hitters. You can make outs just as easily hitting it in the air as on the ground. Just because we don't know the spin rate of players before the cybermetrics era, doesn't mean they didn't have a great spin rate.
I'm with Randy.
Pitcher's inability to go deeper into games;
Their inability of knowing how to pitch is frustrating.
All too many of them just get out there and "throw."
Where are the guys like Maddox, who LEARN how to pitch and make their stuff work.
Where are the guys like Gibson, and Marichal, and Drysdale, and Bunning, and Carlton, and Randy Johnson who just refuse to be content with 5 ip?
Outside of Bum and maybe a couple of others, they don't exist, and this "I'll be happy with 5," trend has been going on too long.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 19, 2019 4:50:57 GMT -5
The small market teams don't have a chance to compete anymore. Rog -- This is a very good point, Boagie. The top teams have developed tremendous revenue streams that the small market teams can't hope to match. These figures are more than a decade old, but I recently read that the NFL teams shared 80% of their revenue, while the MLB teams shared just 25%. We should be highly appreciative that the Giants are one of the big market, high revenue teams. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5463/new-kids?page=3#ixzz5x2Thew81
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 19, 2019 4:59:06 GMT -5
Just because we don't know the spin rate of players before the cybermetrics era, doesn't mean they didn't have a great spin rate. Rog -- That is true. But pitchers now have advantages such as being able to throw bullpens where every pitch is measured for speed and spin rate. They can experiment with new grips and get immediate feedback. We can complain that pitchers don't go deeply into games now, but it has been shown that pitching is better in shorter spurts, and thus pitchers are allowed to go all out so they can pitch better. That's not to say that it doesn't make sense to try to train pitchers to be able to go deeper into games. Some pitchers are better able to do so better than others. But if pitchers pitch better in shorter spurts, their level of play is highest when they are used in shorter spurts. The argument that pitchers should be able to pitch longer is a different argument than that they are able to pitch better in shorter spurts. Baseball is played by bigger, faster, stronger, better trained athletes who have the opportunity for better nutrition and understanding of nutrition. The game is played with the mind more involved than in the past. It's little wonder the game is played at a higher level. Whether the game is as exciting is, once again, another issue. And the younger players keep getting better and better. Fortunately some of the really young, good players in the game are in the Giants' system. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5463/new-kids?page=3#ixzz5x2UnCpYy
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Aug 19, 2019 9:46:02 GMT -5
roger, we are clearly not going to agree.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 19, 2019 12:00:44 GMT -5
Where are the guys like Maddox, who LEARN how to pitch and make their stuff work. Rog -- Hopefully one of them is in the body of Madison Bumgarner. One thing to keep in mind though is that pitchers almost never are as good after they reinvent themselves. Maddux is a great example of a pitcher who pitched a long time after he lost his best stuff, and he did so with amazing control and a near-eidetic memory. But there were actually three Greg Maddux's: Maddux 1 -- 5.52, 5.61 Maddux 2 -- 3.18, 2.95, 3.46, 3.35, 2.18, 2.36, 1.56, 1.63, 2.72, 2.20, 2.22, 3.57, 3.00, 3.05 Maddux 3 -- 2.62, 3.96, 4.02, 4.24, 4.20, 4.14, 4.22 Maddux 1 was Greg before he got his control Maddux 2 was Greg with control and stuff Maddux 3 was Greg with stuff only One can see a significant difference in the three iterations. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5463/new-kids?page=3#ixzz5x4CmT9Hv
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 19, 2019 12:05:00 GMT -5
There is virtually no question that pitchers pitch better in short bursts. That's why relievers are in general better than starters, even though many of them are failed starters.
We may not LIKE it that pitchers don't pitch so deeply into games. But it is fact that we're getting better overall pitching because of it.
When I say that the game is being played at a higher level, I mean that the pitchers and pitches are better, that the hitters are better, and that the fielders are better and better-positioned. Whether that makes it a more interesting game is another question.
For me, the game is much more interesting, since it is a higher evolution. You guys prefer the old version of the game. I get it.
|
|
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 Aug 19, 2019 12:07:11 GMT -5
Forget it Boly...stats geeks don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Aug 19, 2019 12:57:40 GMT -5
As I have said many times, Roger, I see it my way; I have my opinion, you see it another and have your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 20, 2019 7:33:18 GMT -5
You honestly don't think it's hard to hit in today's game?
There is a proven correlation between throwing hard and pitching better. Today's pitchers throw much harder on average than the pitchers of the past. They put more spin on the ball, which causes it to move more. They have more agile and better-positioned defenses behind them. They have far more information available to them than ever before.
Believing that the pitchers of yesteryear pitched better when they were on the mound goes against the facts.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Aug 20, 2019 9:17:26 GMT -5
You're right about all that except the agile part. I believe defense and speed has been sacrificed for guys that can go yard more often.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Aug 20, 2019 9:49:42 GMT -5
You honestly don't think it's hard to hit in today's game? There is a proven correlation between throwing hard and pitching better. Today's pitchers throw much harder on average than the pitchers of the past. They put more spin on the ball, which causes it to move more. They have more agile and better-positioned defenses behind them. They have far more information available to them than ever before. Believing that the pitchers of yesteryear pitched better when they were on the mound goes against the facts.
First of all, Rog, you're putting words in my mouth.
1-I didn't say that pitchers of yesteryear were bad. In this thread I was addressing today's pitchers inability to go deeper into games. In fact, those were my exact words.
2-Since the spin rate couldn't be measured back then, we simply don't know WHAT their spin rate was. So to use that as a marker of how efficient today's pitcher is, is not fair.
3-I always talk about attitude in one form or another. The pitchers of yeaster year, at least the ones I mention, HAD it.
Bunning, Marichal, Koufax, Drysdale, Gibson, Carlton and so many others.
plus, the knew how to PITCH, not just throw; which is what so many of the pitchers do today.
I do not believe that hitting 100 fastballs today is any easier than it was hitting 95 MPH in Drysdale's day.
Why? Because the reflexes get tuned in to what they see every day.
Thus, in Little League it was hard to hit 50mph, in Pony league, that became common place and everyone hit it.
In Pony league, hitting 70 mph was hard, but by Connie Mack, Legion ball or High School, hitting 70 mph was do-able.
Now understand, I made up those speeds to illustrate a point.
Here's another.
When you first learn to drive, 50 mph seems like light speed.
By the time you've been driving for a while, 50 mph no longer feels like light speed.
I could give a ton more, but my point is still the same; when you see it every day, the body and mind adjust.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 20, 2019 14:14:58 GMT -5
I didn't say that pitchers of yesteryear were bad. Rog -- I didn't mean to imply that you did. I think you believe they were pretty good overall. I myself believe they were better than the pitchers 50 years before them, although there were pitchers back then who themselves were excellent for their generation. But pretty much each generation becomes better than the one that preceded it, as both humans and the game evolve, and that evolution has taken off in the information era. That's is what is perhaps most different about now -- that information has never been nearly this readily available. Heck, we've got more available to us without leaving our computers than most libraries had available in our youths. Which makes it so disappointing that not only do those like Randy not take advantage of the knowledge, they ridicule many of those who do. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5463/new-kids?page=3#ixzz5xAbXjKAl
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 20, 2019 14:33:33 GMT -5
I was addressing today's pitchers inability to go deeper into games. Rog -- I was speaking more about the quality of pitching. I think you remember that I favor your idea of teaching certain pitchers how to pitch more deeply into games. Although people like Boagie sometimes fail to recognize it, there is a value of a pitcher eating innings. Pitchers who can be taught to pitch well late into games should be fostered in those efforts. Those are usually the very best pitchers, although sometimes they can be a horse such as I hoped Shaun Anderson would become. Shaun probably isn't good enough, but I would give up on him in that regard. On the other hand, it has been proven that most pitchers pitch better in short spurts, which is why there is so much emphasis placed on closers, set up men, specialists and sometimes even openers. I become frustrated when I support your idea of trying to build up pitchers so they can extend their workloads. I've even identified pitchers such as Anderson as candidates. But you can't seem to be willing to even give the idea of openers a chance, even though the results to date have been pretty good. As an aside, you have mentioned that you think Farhan is cramming ideas down Bruce's throat and forcing him to use those ideas. Let's suppose the opener was such a forced idea. The Giants used it once; it didn't work well in that game; to the best of my knowledge, they haven't used it again. I think the more we learn about Farhan, the more he seems to have come as advertised. His job has just begun, but so far he's off to a good start. Perhaps even more important, he seems to have shown qualities that should allow him to continue his success. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5463/new-kids?page=3#ixzz5xAdFEy8R
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 20, 2019 14:39:00 GMT -5
So to use that as a marker of how efficient today's pitcher is, is not fair. Rog -- You are correct. The point though is that its importance is realized, and it can now be measured in real time even as a pitcher experiments with different grips while throwing a bullpen. Today's pitchers simply have much more knowledge to work with. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5463/new-kids?page=3#ixzz5xAi2uuJ2
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 20, 2019 14:47:41 GMT -5
I always talk about attitude in one form or another. The pitchers of yeaster year, at least the ones I mention, HAD it. Bunning, Marichal, Koufax, Drysdale, Gibson, Carlton and so many others. plus, the knew how to PITCH, not just throw; which is what so many of the pitchers do today. Rog -- The best starting pitchers of today -- at least the ones with more experience -- tend to have it as well. It looks like Madison may have made an important adjustment in that regard, and I have been quite surprised by the adjustment Clayton Kershaw has made. I am shocked that Kershaw has a 2.63 ERA this season and has struck out more than a batter per inning, including the first seven batters he faced in a recent game. Kershaw has thrown at only 90.3 mph this season. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5463/new-kids?page=3#ixzz5xAjSlEvK
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 20, 2019 14:51:31 GMT -5
I do not believe that hitting 100 fastballs today is any easier than it was hitting 95 MPH in Drysdale's day. Why? Because the reflexes get tuned in to what they see every day. Rog -- I think you mean harder, not easier, and I think you are right. The hitters have advanced physically, and they're more aware of the pitchers' patterns. As you point out, they have had more practice in doing so. It has been shown that pitchers who throw harder are in general more successful than those who throw less hard, so it would seem that pitchers are better than ever. That would imply that in order to hit them, the hitters have to be better than ever, as well. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5463/new-kids?page=3#ixzz5xAlRWeEb
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 20, 2019 14:52:28 GMT -5
|
|
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 Aug 20, 2019 19:12:47 GMT -5
Yeah you're right Rog...only today's players learn and get better. Back in the day nobody learned or improved
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 20, 2019 21:42:15 GMT -5
Randy, that is hardly what I said. But the evidence points strongly to today's players being better. Players have improved in virtually every sport, so why should baseball players be different? Let's look at your contributions to this thread, Randy: "Your definition of higher level differs from mine>: ----- But you didn't show what your definition was, so your comment is virtually meaningless. I showed that my definition was being able to perform well against higher competition. You showed nothing. "Forget it Boly...stats geeks don't get it." ----- But you don't say what they don't get and why they don't get it. Nor do you give specific examples, nor show what they need to do to get it. In other words, you show nothing. "Yeah you're right Rog...only today's players learn and get better. Back in the day nobody learned or improved." ----- Now you make a sarcastic comment supposedly quoting something that was never said to quote. Again, you have said essentially nothing. You don't give much to argue with, Randy, because you don't bother to say anything. If what you post is supposed to show us what you know and think, well, then I guess you know little. And I personally think you know more and would like to read it. Why don't you step out on a limb and actually post something of substance? I'm not saying you have to post a LOT to show us you know something. I myself post more or less in stream of consciousness, and if I were writing, I would be far, far briefer. But look at Mark. Mark is brief, yet he says a ton. When one reads a paragraph from Mark, one has little doubt that Mark has knowledge. Far too often when one reads your comments, he is left to wonder. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5463/new-kids?page=3#ixzz5xCQf9IzzRead more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5463/new-kids?page=3#ixzz5xCPjfurw
|
|