He learned that in a small townAhhh.
A proud graduate of the John C Mellencamp "Small Town" school of writing
He'll probably die in a small town.He learned that in a small town
A scout told me that Wilbur sucks on chili dogs outside the Tastee Freeze. Let’s see your spreadsheets give you that information!He'll probably die in a small town.
I legitimately laughed out loud when I read that yesterday. Seems like a real Rays thing to do; bring back the expensive, shitty pitcher with a crappy attitude so that he can mentor all the young guys.James Shields, anyone?
That's a good question. I personally don't think that shifts are a big deal and that there are ways to beat it, but I Rob Manfred mentioned it as something that his office was taking seriously. What exactly that means, is unknown. And I thought that I read somewhere that the Players Association is also not very keen on shifts either, so if those two factions are in agreement, then maybe we'll see something.Those of you that follow baseball deeper than I- does the talk about shifts have any legs or is it Nick blowing Boras' horn for him?
Hey nick. Go fuck yourself. But first ask James Shields what he thinks about shifts.I was hoping Terry Francona would be the guy who would lead the charge against shifting, but he’s fallen into analytical hypnosis.
“Yeah, and I may be in the minority now. I don’t think you can dictate to teams competitive things. You know what I mean? You hear me say it sometimes, the unintended consequences. I think the game makes its change, sometimes they’re a little slower than maybe you’d like. Hitters are going to adjust. I don’t think we’ve seen it quick enough in our game, but it will happen. And you’ll see hitters earning, making players play them more straight up. You know it just hasn’t happened yet,” Francona said.
“We went through this with launch angle and that hitters have forgotten the basics of fundamental hitting, but I think you’ll see guys getting back to that. So I hate to reward guys who don’t use the field by making a rule change. If we did that every time, our game would be all over the map.”
I am against legislating the shift away. I generally think the solutions are pretty dumb. The easiest to implement goes something like:That's a good question. I personally don't think that shifts are a big deal and that there are ways to beat it, but I Rob Manfred mentioned it as something that his office was taking seriously. What exactly that means, is unknown. And I thought that I read somewhere that the Players Association is also not very keen on shifts either, so if those two factions are in agreement, then maybe we'll see something.
But half of the MLBPA are pitchers, I'm not sure that they would be really thrilled with a ban on shifts. And I'm not even sure how you can ban shifts. I mean, is the shortstop glued to his position? Is he not allowed to shade closer to the bag for a lefty -- technically, that's a shift. How about outfielders who are playing for the batter to pull? And yes, I guess you can argue that these questions are pedantic, but if we give a little on these shifts, how far are we going? Where is the line drawn? And who is going to enforce it? Like will the umpires have to be equipped with tape measures to make sure that a middle infielder isn't x inches away from no man's land?
And if the commissioner is interested in making the games shorter, wouldn't the elimination of shifts run counter to that? You want to get 27 outs fast? Have people hit into shifts, that'll do it.
Nick's basic argument are "shifts stink" and "there weren't a lot of shifts when I was a kid and getting old sucks" plus whatever Boras spoon-feeds him. He hasn't (as far as I've seen) really taken a deep dive as to why shifts aren't good for the game. This is the thing about Cafardo that confounds me, he's a reporter but he's also a writer, if you think that something isn't good for the game; fucking tell me why. Don't just sit atop Mt. Craplympus and hurl "truth" feces like a spastic simian and expect us to eat it up without asking "Why?" Do some work for your paycheck and educate me, asshole.
Please define infielders? Can I put 4 outfielders on the field? Can my "SS" go reeeeeeeally deep and effectively play LF while my "LF" plays shortfield?You ban shifts by mandating that you can't have three infielders on one side of second base in the infield.
I'm opposed to banning shifts, but if they wanted to do so that's how they'd do it. You'd still be able to move around, but this would take away the "put the second baseman in short right" shift.
1. NoPlease define infielders? Can I put 4 outfielders on the field? Can my "SS" go reeeeeeeally deep and effectively play LF while my "LF" plays shortfield?
My point is that you're going to need very explicit definitions to do anything like this. My second question points out that you need to put restrictions on outfielders AND infielders, and you'll need to define what an outfielder is vs. what an infielder is. It's going to take away interesting game situation shifts like the one below at the expense of a muted impact on what people are actually targeting:1. No
2. I'm sure they'd put limits on how deep an infielder can play in the OF.
As I said, I'm opposed to banning shifts for exactly the same reasons.My point is that you're going to need very explicit definitions to do anything like this. My second question points out that you need to put restrictions on outfielders AND infielders, and you'll need to define what an outfielder is vs. what an infielder is. It's going to take away interesting game situation shifts like the one below at the expense of a muted impact on what people are actually targeting:
You're right, I shouldn't have placed you as a defender. I think the people actually proposing this are glossing over how complicated the rules are going to be and how restrictive they'll need to be to address the perceived issue. And that's before going into whether it's an actual issue that requires a solution (which I don't believe).As I said, I'm opposed to banning shifts for exactly the same reasons.
On Dec 19, 2018, at 10:18 AM, [me]:
So Terry Francona -- who I'm sure you'll agree knows more about baseball than you or me -- gives a thoughtful answer about a much-debated topic (shifting) in which he doesn't address what has been commonly called "analytics," and you dismiss it as "analytic hypnosis." That seems to be a rather petty, back-of-the-hand response to someone who has earned quite a bit of respect among your target audience.
Why the pettiness?
--[me]
Nicholas Cafardo <nicholas.cafardo@globe.com>
Wed 12/19/2018, 12:35 PM
How dramatic.
Sent from my iPhone
Drop him a note. Fan interaction is his favorite part of the job.I know math is probably hard to Nick, but he could have at least put in a little effort to try to find out how much the shift actually does matter. Saying Ortiz lost 20-30 points of average without anything to back that up is pretty ridiculous. His BABIP vs the shift since 2010 was 303, compared to 311 in a small sample size vs no shift since 2010, and 300 for his whole career.
You forgot one reason...I don't think Carfado has even put that much thought into it. For him it's no more than: didn't exist when I was a kid + caused by analytics + Scott BoringAss hates shifts = bad.
Regarding the Hall of Shame, it is indeed pathetic that was once the Globe's greatest strength has become its biggest weakness. Volin's drivel is for the most part harmless, except it's really funny today that he nominated Pete Carroll as runner up for Coach of the Year despite the Seahawks having a worse season than the Patriots. It's obvious when he is out of his depth, and irritating when he refuses to acknowledge it. But periodically he raises some good points.One prominent agent said, “I think the reliance on analytics to identify players for each respective team has slowed down the process. One thing the analytics are doing is pushing the older players out of the game. The older players are having trouble finding jobs and are being replaced by younger players whose numbers look better. Again, what some of the younger GMs are missing out on is the intangible things that the older players bring to the table.”
I think it's Volin and it's not really very close, though all three are unlikeable for different reasons....
It got me thinking, who has done a worse job on their Globe Sunday Notes?
Volin and the NFL?
DuPont and the NHL?
Cafardo and MLB?
All are pretty shitty but who is the shittiest?
As I think I read somewhere within the last 18 months or so, the Giants are much more analytically-inclined than the Cafardos are willing to admit.At the risk of hijacking the thread, I find the ongoing insistence that analytics are "ruining the game" baffling. Don't these guys see the sand running out of their hourglasses? The Giants are the only non-analytically-inclined team to have had success in the past 10 years or so. But from Bruce Jenkins to Cafardo to Plaschke, these guys just kill analytics every chance they get. Maybe it's just a schtick?
I don't think it's schtick. I think that it's a combination of a few things:But from Bruce Jenkins to Cafardo to Plaschke, these guys just kill analytics every chance they get. Maybe it's just a schtick?
Spoke to Cafardo.What did James Shields ever do that makes Nick feel he has to mention him 20+ weeks during the year? Wade Miley too, although at least his 2018 with the Brewers was pretty good.
Who do you think will be number one?I figure only two or three more Sundays before Rate The Managers week, always high comedy.
Oh c'mon, you had to be impressed y Nick's point that it will be interesting to see where Machado and Harper signDo you like empty cliches?
Do you like reporters turning a recorder and transcribing said empty cliches?
Then brother, do I have a column for you!
Rich Hill said nothing. Nick Cafardo transcribed nothing. We learned nothing.
And have you looked at James Shields’ numbers in the last five seasons? They’re atrocious. He hasn’t had an ERA+ of over .500, last year he lead the league in losses (I know, I know but Wilbur doesn’t) and his other numbers are a mess but he’s still available!
And Arnie Beyeler has had it so rough, you guys. He had to hit fungoes to Cespades and Hanley Ramirez and they were ungrateful!!! Can you believe that? The fuck?
If this was 1942, Cafardo would spill ink bitching about how Ted Williams is completely disinterested in his defense and that he’ll rue that when his hitting eye eventually fails him.
And it’s fucking rich that Cafardo is condemning TWO professionals about not improving their craft when he’s so god damn resistant to anything new other than wins, losses and batting average. Fuck this dude.
If it happened twice, maybe the problem wasn't with the players......Do you like empty cliches?
Do you like reporters turning a recorder and transcribing said empty cliches?
Then brother, do I have a column for you!
Rich Hill said nothing. Nick Cafardo transcribed nothing. We learned nothing.
And have you looked at James Shields’ numbers in the last five seasons? They’re atrocious. He hasn’t had an ERA+ of over .500, last year he lead the league in losses (I know, I know but Wilbur doesn’t) and his other numbers are a mess but he’s still available!
And Arnie Beyeler has had it so rough, you guys. He had to hit fungoes to Cespades and Hanley Ramirez and they were ungrateful!!! Can you believe that? The fuck?
If this was 1942, Cafardo would spill ink bitching about how Ted Williams is completely disinterested in his defense and that he’ll rue that when his hitting eye eventually fails him.
And it’s fucking rich that Cafardo is condemning TWO professionals about not improving their craft when he’s so god damn resistant to anything new other than wins, losses and batting average. Fuck this dude.