Orel Miraculous said:
It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that this article raises many questions and comes up with relatively few answers. It does provides some data to back up what most of us already knew: grounders produce more errors than fly outs, righties reach on errors more often than lefties, the speed of a batter affects error rates, and so on. But I feel that the questions it raises are far more interesting than these "answers", and I hope that this article stimulates interest in this somewhat obscure topic and encourages people to investigate some of these open questions. What caused error rates to suddenly drop or rise in certain parks? What caused the fluctuations in some parks' ground out, fly out or strikeout factors? Why were Bob Horner's out so much harder to field cleanly than Mo Vaughn's? Hopefully, this article is a first small step toward answering some of these kinds of questions.
The weirdest and most endearing stories, though, feature Manny Ramirez. “Remember the road trip when Manny told everyone to come to a party in my room, and he ordered all this food and Champagne?” Martinez says to Millar. Hours went by, everyone was having fun, but Ramirez never showed. Turned out he’d gone to another hotel room and fallen asleep.
And you lost the war. Billy Beane still hasn't won a World Series since he wrote that book. Now go back to your mother's basement.JohntheBaptist said:The most exhausting thing to me is the continued meta-debate about there being a new set of numbers in baseball. If youre producing a baseball show, use them or dont. But the constant self important grandstanding from either side as a baseball discussion is mind-numbing at this point.
Who the fuck cares if a baseball player looks at "advanced metrics"? And why would I care that you, Joe Magrane, think theyre worthless when they literally drive the decision making being made across the sport?
Moneyball came out almost 15 years ago. The cultural shift happened and is over.
Harold Reynolds is incredibly frustrating. At times he's actually very good. Seriously. I know it's unfashionable to say that but he is, at times. There will be a discussion of some minor point of taking a lead or pickoffs or something like that and Harold will bring information and enthusiasm to it and he adds value. Then, if someone brings up any stat newer than hits and rbi he'll sneer some openly anti-intellectual line where you half expect him to be keeping the studio warm in winter by burning old copies of Bill James' Baseball Abstracts.jimbobim said:The emmy winning Harold just completely lifted this guy's story while talking about Lester. It's a great read, but kind of stunning to see the blatant lifting.
Van Everyman said:Completely agree. I think in another era he would be a pretty popular commentator. And I think that's why MLB and Fox have him aboard – he brings a lot of energy and love for the game to his work. It would be great if one of the people the networks partner him up with would offset his anti-sabremetrics tirades. That would be s decent conversation I think.
templeUsox said:Pedro Martinez has joined MLB Network as an analyst.
Vasgersian! Thanks for the correction. Then there was no possible "excuse", like having been tortured with short jokes all his life. Glad someone else saw it.JimBoSox9 said:It was Vasgergian, not Rosenthal, but ya it was super-awkward and not well thought.
InsideTheParker said:Yeah, this is really an unpleasant form of sexism