PDA

View Full Version : Boring Baseball?


PaleHoseGeorge
10-01-2002, 11:04 PM
Am I the only one who is getting sick of the way baseball is played today? Everyone is standing around waiting for someone to hit a homerun. Tonight's Yankees/Angels game was a good example. B-O-R-I-N-G.

Homeruns are soooooo overrated. What's the big excitement? Watching some guy scratch his ass trotting around the bases? I would greatly prefer a triple that rattles around in the corner. Am I alone in these sentiments?

I remember teams like Herzog's Cardinals in the 80's. You simply hated to see any of them get on base because YOU KNEW they would steal second base, play run and hit, or damned near anything to get a run home. You were on pins and needles from the time ball four was called.

Forget about anybody stealing bases today. They just stand around with their thumb up their butt. Zzzzzzzz...

:jerry
"Starting a catcher in left field. Now THAT'S excitement!"

cheeses_h_rice
10-01-2002, 11:10 PM
Tonight's Yanks/Angels game was a bit of a snoozer...it seemed that most of the runs were on zingers. I think every Yankee RBI except 1 was a home run. Still, the game was tight, and I thought the Angels were going to steal one....but, alas, "Yankee magic" (hurl) prevailed.

Now watching the D-backs/Cards game. I think most of the RBIs so far in this one have been off zingers, too. I guess that's what you get when you have fastball pitchers like Clemens and Johnson, et al. vs. power guys like Edmonds, Pujols, etc.

ChiWhiteSox1337
10-01-2002, 11:12 PM
StL/Az game has been mixed, the Cards hit 2 2 run jacks, but they also had a triple(from pujols) and a sb from renteria, but yeah, the nyy-ana game was really boring because all it was, was whoever could hit more home runs

sox_fan_forever
10-01-2002, 11:16 PM
Good, it wasn't just me. I also thought the Angels-Yankees game was boring.

FanOf14
10-02-2002, 07:43 AM
The lack of pitching (and defense in the Oakland-Twins game) in the playoffs so far (I know, only one day's worth of games played) is turning my stomach. I really couldn't believe that the Twins won - after three errors in a playoff game...oakland shut down way too quick. I hope the A's find a way to win at the Hump Dome.

duke of dorwood
10-02-2002, 07:58 AM
I agree-runs should be more precious and I get tired of one homer after another. It has gotten so scripted.

Dadawg_77
10-02-2002, 09:48 AM
What you don't like the Earl Weaver School of Baseball?

Eckstein's at bats were fun to watch, just because he worked the count. Nice reach to break up the pitchout. But the question of the day, is why do managers only use their closers in the ninth? If the guy is your best arm in the pen bring him out to face their big dogs at the end of a game and use a second tier arm to face the bottom of the lineup.

duke of dorwood
10-02-2002, 10:01 AM
That's what I meant by scripted. There is no reason not to use him in the eighth. He's useless in the ninth if the other team doesnt bat.

Nellie_Fox
10-02-2002, 10:29 AM
I've complained about this before. The ball is jacked, pitching and defense have declined, the game has become Home Run Derby. It seemed like every day on Sportscenter you were hearing about some new home run record; most ever by a shortstop, most ever by a second baseman, most by a switch hitting Lithuanian playing on his fifth major league team.

Home runs excite the casual fan, and they certainly have their place, but clearing the bases is often a rally-killer. When there are runners on and hit after hit, the ballpark is electric. Then comes the home run, the excitement peaks, and then the air goes out of the place as the bases are empty for the next batter. Wasn't Pierzynski's triple more exciting than a home run? I certainly thought so.

Bring back the stolen base, the hit and run. Heck, I even like "wavin' Wally" for his aggressiveness. Yeah, he ran the Sox into a lot of outs, but I say make the defense make a play.

Chisox353014
10-02-2002, 11:19 AM
:reinsy
Wait, you can still play baseball in October? Who knew?!

WhiteSox = Life
10-02-2002, 06:42 PM
I'll admit it. I like offense. I like home runs. But no longer are home runs what they used to be. 50 nowadays is considered a good year, whereas just 10 years ago, 50 was a monster season. With the lack of pitching, closed-in ballparks, and rampant supplement/steroid usage, baseball is now just a sullied sport, and I don't believe it can ever regain its image back.

They should probably modify the MLB logo now after Sosa so it looks like a beefed-up steroid-abusing monster instead of a lean, hitting machine like a Williams or a Killebrew (whom the logo was originally modeled after).

There's nothing wrong with being big, e.g. guys like Frank Thomas and Albert Pujols, to name a couple, but guys like Sosa look like they belong in those strong-men competitions.

MLB has a lot of problems facing them over the next several years, and they need to regain the true fan's trust and love for the game. Casual fans will pay, yeah, even the no-brained fans, i.e. Cubs fans, but once their team (except the Cubs, of course) stuck stinking the place up, nobody will show. Unless MLB stops alienating everyone, from the casual fan to the avid fan to the totally passionate fan, I'm afraid Major League Baseball may lose all their supporters, and, as of now, it's not looking good...

Jjav829
10-02-2002, 07:14 PM
I agree with the anti-HR people. Im not a big fan of the HR. Sure, some homeruns are exciting. But for the most part they are boring. I like watching the Angels because of their 9,1,2 hitters. That trio of Kennedy, Eck, and Erstad is just fun to watch for me. I loved watching Eckstein's 3rd AB against Clemens last night. Just watching him foul off pitch after pitch and watching Kennedy dancing around at first. To me, thats more fun than watching a HR. I wish the Sox had those three guys playing up the middle. I'd rather watch a guy work a count, get a hit, steal a base, take the extra base, (see the Angels 5th inning last night)etc. rather than watch a juiced up player go up there and swing from the heels trying to hit one out.

MarkEdward
10-02-2002, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by WhiteSox = Life
I'll admit it. I like offense. I like home runs. But no longer are home runs what they used to be. 50 nowadays is considered a good year, whereas just 10 years ago, 50 was a monster season.

This year only two players hit 50+ home runs. Last year only three players hit 50+ home runs. 50 home runs is still considered a great season.

They should probably modify the MLB logo now after Sosa so it looks like a beefed-up steroid-abusing monster instead of a lean, hitting machine like a Williams or a Killebrew (whom the logo was originally modeled after).

Players these days use weights, have better diets, and even have personal fitness trainers. Just because they're big doesn't mean they're on steroids.

Unless MLB stops alienating everyone, from the casual fan to the avid fan to the totally passionate fan, I'm afraid Major League Baseball may lose all their supporters, and, as of now, it's not looking good...

Yeah, MLB's only making billions and billions of dollars each year. They're doomed.

gogosoxgogo
10-03-2002, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Homeruns are soooooo overrated. What's the big excitement? Watching some guy scratch his ass trotting around the bases? I would greatly prefer a triple that rattles around in the corner. Am I alone in these sentiments?

THANK YOU! I'm so glad that someone has the same views on this as me! I've always thought that the homerun was waaay too overrated. That's why I enjoyed the baseball the Sox were playing at the beginning of the year. They got a guy on, stole a few bases, bunted him over, sacrificed him in. THAT is baseball. And that is why I'm so upset I wasn't born in 1959! As Hank Aaron once said (I don't know what the exact quote is), "the triple has always been more excited than the homerun."

Nellie_Fox
10-03-2002, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
This year only two players hit 50+ home runs. Last year only three players hit 50+ home runs. 50 home runs is still considered a great season. Only two? Do you have any idea how rare it used to be to have anyone hit 50? We would go decades without it. League home run titles were routinely won by guys in the upper 30's. Now it happens every year, multiple times. And it's done by 170 pound middle infielders. Fifty is still hard to do, but it was amazing up until the last decade.

voodoochile
10-03-2002, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
Only two? Do you have any idea how rare it used to be to have anyone hit 50? We would go decades without it. League home run titles were routinely won by guys in the upper 30's. Now it happens every year, multiple times. And it's done by 170 pound middle infielders. Fifty is still hard to do, but it was amazing up until the last decade.

Exactly, I remember when Cecil Fielder hit 50 in B2B seasons and everyone was amazed. That was not that long ago from a history of baseball perspective. Yes, it is still a great season, but 60 has now become the number that defines an amazing season...

maurice
10-03-2002, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I remember teams like Herzog's Cardinals in the 80's.

One of my all-time favorite teams, especially with Coleman-Smith-McGee batting 1-2-3. Any one of them was capable of stealing 50+ bases in a season. The Sox will be lucky to have anyone steal 20 in 2003 (though they may have six guys with 20+ HRs).

The saddest part is that catchers and pitchers are much worse at holding runners now.

FarmerAndy
10-03-2002, 02:45 PM
I agree with most everybody here. Over the last few years the regualr season has been tainted by overpowering offense, but you could always count on the post-season for good ballgames.

Now it appears that the longball has tainted the playoffs too. I always loved the playoffs because of amazing pitching, defense, and 2-1 final scores. So far this year it seems like the losing team is scoring at least 5 runs. It's crap.

The homerun in and of itself is not a bad thing. But it used to be so much more exciting, because it didn't happen every five minutes. The frequency of homeruns nowdays has taken the excitement out of them. It's really ruining everything I love about baseball.

In a perfect world, MLB would enforce a weight limit on players. (Based on the players height of course, it wouldn't be fair to enforce the same limit on Thomas or Sexton that you would on Eckstein.) They'd move the fences back too. Oh well, we don't live in a perfect world.

Nellie_Fox
10-03-2002, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by FarmerAndy
In a perfect world, MLB would enforce a weight limit on players. (Based on the players height of course, it wouldn't be fair to enforce the same limit on Thomas or Sexton that you would on Eckstein.) They'd move the fences back too. Oh well, we don't live in a perfect world. Maybe raise the mound back up?

FarmerAndy
10-03-2002, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
Maybe raise the mound back up?

Yes, that too.

MarkEdward
10-03-2002, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
Only two? Do you have any idea how rare it used to be to have anyone hit 50? We would go decades without it. League home run titles were routinely won by guys in the upper 30's. Now it happens every year, multiple times. And it's done by 170 pound middle infielders. Fifty is still hard to do, but it was amazing up until the last decade.

Decades, huh? I count one decade in which a player didn't hit 50 home runs in a season.

And who's this 170 pound middle infielder hitting all these homers?

Dan H
10-03-2002, 04:48 PM
The 1977 White Sox hit 192 home runs, and we thought that was great. Now the team hits over 200 homers and we yawn. The homer has become too common place. No one wants to go back to the dead ball era, but the home run just doesn't pack the punch it used to. Good fundamental baseball can very exciting with the right number of homers. Now everybody and his brother hits a ton of homers but they don't even know how to run the base paths.

Nellie_Fox
10-03-2002, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Decades, huh? I count one decade in which a player didn't hit 50 home runs in a season.

And who's this 170 pound middle infielder hitting all these homers? A decade is just ten consecutive years. Nobody did it between 65 and 77. That's over a decade. Then nobody did it again between 77 and 90. That's over a decade. Now it has happened every year since 95. That's eight consecutive years. Before that it had never happened more than two consecutive years, and even that only happened three times (two of those were Babe Ruth.)

Okay, I exaggerated on 170 pounders hitting 50, but not by much.

ode to veeck
10-03-2002, 07:38 PM
50 nowadays is considered a good year, whereas just 10 years ago, 50 was a monster season

Who remembers slugginng Bill Melton leading the AL with 30 HRs?

ode to veeck
10-03-2002, 07:44 PM
Players these days use weights, have better diets, and even have personal fitness trainers. Just because they're big doesn't mean they're on steroids.


Bulls---! If they were small and then they got big, they used steroids or Mac's precursors. Guys like Willie Mays and Reggie Jackson and many more before them gained 8 to 10 pounds max over their careers. Its not the weights, its the biochemistry, one strong reason the majors have a PR problem --they should asterisk all the HR marks of the last 5 years like they used to do to Maris' mark (for different reasons)

MarkEdward
10-03-2002, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
Bulls---! If they were small and then they got big, they used steroids or Mac's precursors. Guys like Willie Mays and Reggie Jackson and many more before them gained 8 to 10 pounds max over their careers. Its not the weights, its the biochemistry, one strong reason the majors have a PR problem --they should asterisk all the HR marks of the last 5 years like they used to do to Maris' mark (for different reasons)


I fully agree. Who needs evidence? Unfound accusations rule!

doublem23
10-03-2002, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
I fully agree. Who needs evidence? Unfound accusations rule!

Guys just don't add up that much muscle overnight from dead weights and better diets. There is no question in my mind that the majority of Major Leaguers are on steroids and the fact that they are unwilling to test them only adds to my speculation.

MarkEdward
10-03-2002, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
Guys just don't add up that much muscle overnight from dead weights and better diets. There is no question in my mind that the majority of Major Leaguers are on steroids and the fact that they are unwilling to test them only adds to my speculation.

Again, there's no real evedence pointing to a majority of players using steroids. The players are unwilling because they know the tests are not necessary. Remember, the new CBA does call for testing, so I guess we'll find out if these allegations are true.

A question: The NFL has a testing policy. Do you believe no NFL players are on steroids?

voodoochile
10-04-2002, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Again, there's no real evedence pointing to a majority of players using steroids. The players are unwilling because they know the tests are not necessary. Remember, the new CBA does call for testing, so I guess we'll find out if these allegations are true.

A question: The NFL has a testing policy. Do you believe no NFL players are on steroids?

The amount of NFL players on steroids has dropped considerably since the start of testing by all accounts. Yeah, there are still guys who cheat, but look at the sheer number of people who get caught each year (it's always the fault of a supplement nowadays, wink, wink). The system works and it isn't worth it to these guys to risk losing all the extra pay and risk getting booted, for the most part. Yeah, there are guys who get away with it, but not on the number there were before testing. I mean look at the number of fat guys in the league now. That wasn't the case a decade ago. It used to be all muscles and lean mass. Now they have to get the bulk the natural way and it shows in fatter players...

Questions for you: Do you believe that no MLB players are using steroids? Also, where do we draw the line? There are plenty of non-steroid supplements, which were discussed here to death when the rumors were flying this summer, do you think players are using them? I think many people tend to lump them together and call it cheating...

Nellie_Fox
10-04-2002, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
Who remembers slugginng Bill Melton leading the AL with 30 HRs? Actually, it was 33 (1971) and Dick Allen led in 1974 with 32.

ode to veeck
10-04-2002, 03:25 PM
Good catch Nellie, and how could I forget Dick Allen too (who hit line drives past infielders heads that cleared the fense)

ode to veeck
10-04-2002, 03:36 PM
Who needs evidence? Unfound accusations rule!

just take and analyze the year to year weight gain per player and weight gain over career stats and you'll have more than all the hard facts / founded accusations you'll need

we'll leave out the spectral analysis of players eyes, as it won't catch all of them ;-)

why was Maggs only one of the MLB players to put a public stake in the ground this season against steroid usage?

MarkEdward
10-04-2002, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
The amount of NFL players on steroids has dropped considerably since the start of testing by all accounts.

Source?

The system works and it isn't worth it to these guys to risk losing all the extra pay and risk getting booted, for the most part. Yeah, there are guys who get away with it, but not on the number there were before testing.

So you say the system works, but then say it doesn't.

I mean look at the number of fat guys in the league now. That wasn't the case a decade ago. It used to be all muscles and lean mass. Now they have to get the bulk the natural way and it shows in fatter players...

So there were no fat players before steroid testing? I find that very hard to believe.

Questions for you: Do you believe that no MLB players are using steroids? Also, where do we draw the line? There are plenty of non-steroid supplements, which were discussed here to death when the rumors were flying this summer, do you think players are using them? I think many people tend to lump them together and call it cheating...

I believe that the vast majority of MLB players are not on steroids. I can see a 33 year old career minor league player taking 'roids for one last shot at the Show, I guess. I don't think that happens often (at all).

Another question: What is the appropriate punishment if a player is caught doing steroids? An Atlanta Falcon player was caught with steroids this year, and was suspended 4 games (25% of regualr season games).

ode to veeck
10-04-2002, 04:17 PM
I believe that the vast majority of MLB players ARE on steroids. I can see a 33 year old career minor league player STOP taking 'roids for one last shot at the Show, I guess. I don't think that happens often (at all).

voodoochile
10-04-2002, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Source?

So you say the system works, but then say it doesn't.

So there were no fat players before steroid testing? I find that very hard to believe.

Another question: What is the appropriate punishment if a player is caught doing steroids? An Atlanta Falcon player was caught with steroids this year, and was suspended 4 games (25% of regualr season games).

My source is strictly my memory and what I remember seeing in newspapers and hearing on TV through the years. Yes, there were fat players before the testing was implemented, but less of them. Everyone remembers when Fridge came busting (or is it bursting) onto the scene. He was one of the first 300 pounders out there. Steroid use was pretty widely spread in the NFL from what I understand, but if someone has a link to a definitive article, that would be great.

Punishment should be determined by the Players Association and the owners working together, but here are my thoughts:

First offense: 1 month suspension, no pay
Second offense: 1 year suspension, no pay
Third offense: Banned for life and contract is voided.

wassagstdu
10-04-2002, 05:32 PM
I second everything in this thread. If Bonds really does it with creatine, more power to him, that's just better nutrition. But steroids should be vigorously banned. Someone who uses them dies early and in the process devalues the efforts of past and present "natural" players.

As for the long ball, I see it as a "rally killer" too, and the most boring play in baseball, next to the intentional walk IMHO -- though even the IW leaves a man on base. I think it would have a good effect if the home run were counted as a ground rule double. At least move the fences back and deaden the ball. 352 down both lines, 385 in the gaps, and 415 in center sounds about right, and balls stored in the basement... I would really like to see the home run considered a foul ball. Imagine, a whole team of Nellie Fox's or Ichiro's.

Zednem700
10-04-2002, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by wassagstdu
I second everything in this thread. If Bonds really does it with creatine, more power to him, that's just better nutrition. But steroids should be vigorously banned. Someone who uses them dies early and in the process devalues the efforts of past and present "natural" players.

As for the long ball, I see it as a "rally killer" too, and the most boring play in baseball, next to the intentional walk IMHO -- though even the IW leaves a man on base. I think it would have a good effect if the home run were counted as a ground rule double. At least move the fences back and deaden the ball. 352 down both lines, 385 in the gaps, and 415 in center sounds about right, and balls stored in the basement... I would really like to see the home run considered a foul ball. Imagine, a whole team of Nellie Fox's or Ichiro's.

Better nutrition and weight training can easily account for all of the increased muscle in MLB. It wasn't that long ago that baseball players were DISCOURAGED from lifting weights because the fear was that you'd lose flexibility. Now we know that you can safely lift weights, gaining power and losing little. Does that mean that there are no steroid users in MLB, no, but the belief that eveyone is on roids is based on little more than highly suspect testimony, and the common desire of middle aged men to prove that the baseball heroes of their formative years were truly the great ones.

The home run is definitely not a rally killer, the very idea is absurd. Think about it, would it have been better if Mazerowski had doubled? If anyone can produce any real evidence whatsoever that homeruns negatively affect the next hitter I'd like to see it, in fact I'll help you get it published I'm sure SABR would love to see it.

This hatred of the longball is funny but understandable. I am willing to guarantee that most of the people claiming that the homerun is ruining the game or whatever, had their formative baseball experiences while watching low soring baseball. They grew up in the late fifties or pitching dominated 60s or for the younger ones, the early 80s. Human beings have a tendency to overrate the heroes of their youth and in those time periods "small ball" teams did well. Therefore to those who grew up with those teams, great baseball has to be small ball baseball, anything else is not right or, my favorite "ruining the game".

Baseball right now is the best it has ever been. You can deny it all you want, but players today are bigger than before, they take better care of themselves, and they have better training techniques and medical care. No one doubts that the track and field athletes or swimmers of today are far far better than those of the past (just look at the numbers) why won't we admit it for team sports? THe expansion has diluted pitching argument is tired as well. Look at the population of he US over the years and see how well the proportions hold up. THis of course doesn't even factor in the explosion in foreign born ballplayers. Just under half of all minor leagurers were born outside of the United States. We have a far larger population than ever before to choose from yet we somehow can't find players as good as those in the good ole days? Give me a break.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-04-2002, 07:59 PM
Whatever else has been written, my original point was this. Watching baseball where everything hinges on who hit a homerun with men on base is BORING!!!! Furthermore, watching some jerk drag himself in a half-assed trot across four bases is boring, too.

I happen to be one baseball fan who doesn't believe the fiction that the old-timers were superior ballplayers to todays. (I also don't believe the methods they use to build muscle mass are improving the game's popularity, though that's another subject).

All I know for sure is watching baseball today isn't even half as interesting as it was 15-20 years ago, when teams did more to score runs than simply try to jack everything out of the park.

wassagstdu
10-04-2002, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by Zednem700
I am willing to guarantee that most of the people claiming that the homerun is ruining the game or whatever, had their formative baseball experiences while watching low soring baseball. They grew up in the late fifties or pitching dominated 60s or for the younger ones, the early 80s. Human beings have a tendency to overrate the heroes of their youth and in those time periods "small ball" teams did well.

Wow, how did you guess. Guilty! But of course the fact that people who grew up in the "Home Run Derby" era think baseball is all about trotting around the bases with attitude, that's different. But funny too.

As for current players being better, yes, I agree. I have never seen so many great shortstops, and I am pretty sure they don't get that way with steroids. But aside from that and a few like Ichiro, most players today are much richer in natural ability and poorer in learned skills like bunting, baserunning, and hitting the cutoff man than they were in the days when I first decided baseball is a great game.

And the home run is a rally killer because it clears the bases and forces the team at bat to start the rally again. Give me 3 singles to right with men on first and third over a 3-run homer any time.

MarkEdward
10-04-2002, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by wassagstdu

And the home run is a rally killer because it clears the bases and forces the team at bat to start the rally again. Give me 3 singles to right with men on first and third over a 3-run homer any time.

But with the home run you have three runs in, guaranteed. In the second scenario, you must drive in the other two to equal the 3-run homer.

Nellie_Fox
10-04-2002, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
But with the home run you have three runs in, guaranteed. In the second scenario, you must drive in the other two to equal the 3-run homer. Yeah, and while you're waiting for the three-run jack, you can go get a hot dog, chat with the people around you, talk on the cell phone, etc. With base hit after base hit with runners on first and third, you keep getting interrupted by the action. And, damn, it's fun watching all these guys strike out 150 times a year while screwing themselves into the ground trying to get their homers.

WhiteSox = Life
10-05-2002, 12:29 AM
I agree with several points made in this thread.

First of all, the home run is too rampant and needs to be stopped a little bit to preserve the game, in my opinion. I mean, if slap hitters are hitting 20-30 HR's a year, that's just not right. Raise the mound, extend the fences, whatever it takes, even if it means contracting a few teams. However, that's a whole different point.

Secondly, home runs are very overrated. As I said, with the influx of numbers, hitting 20 to 30 home runs isn't that difficult for an average player. A good example is Omar Vizquel. While I don't know what his actual numbers were, he had a more offensive season this year than he has in a while. Of course, there are contributing factors to this, but I digress. Home runs do not mean as much as they used to, but only to the trained eye, not the bandwagon fan.

Lastly, I want to touch on the rally-killer point. Here's my take:
Everything in baseball is arbitrary. It's impossible to point out if a certain apsect is good or not for the game as long as it pertains to the game play and action, of course.

Your team is down by 4 runs, and there are two men on, first and third. Bottom of the 7th and one out. Do you want a 3-run homer here or a base hit the other way? Of course, the answer is arbitrary. A home run here puts your team down by only one now. However, it clears the bases and it takes another home run to tie it up. On the other hand, a base hit scores one run (at least) and puts men on first and third, second and third, second only, third only (or in Sham-Me's case - first only). This puts pressure on the defense and the pitching, but there's still runner(s) that have not come home. If you have the heart of the order coming up, you probably want base hits, so the other guys can possibly tie it up or take the lead with the big swing. But, if it's the bottom of the order, you might want to settle with the home run and hope the top of the order and big guys can push acros the tying run.

How about a wider lead. Say it's the 4th inning and your team is down by 7 runs. With a couple guys on and one out, do you want a guy to swing for the fences and make the lead only 4 runs, or do you want the batter to get just a base hit and drive in one. It's all up to the player/manager/team what they want to do but in cases like this the onus is mostly on the player. This means of course:

Baseball is totally arbitrary, each situation calls for almost any kind of play and it's up to the player/manager/team to decide what they want to do and how they go about it.

It's sometimes difficult to tell what a player's true intentions are in a game where the score is sort of lopsided, e.g. 6-1. If they hit a solo HR are they trying to pad their stats? Or are they trying to help their team out? Besides the obvious players, like Sham-Me, who, of course, go for the home runs whenever, it's really a judgement call on a player's true intentions toward a game.

Go ahead, say what you will about what a player does and why he does it. We'll never truly know unless the player is incredibly honest and tells the "real" truth. Not to constantly rehash my statement, but merely to reiterate without paraphrase:

"Baseball is Arbitrary. And that's what makes it such a beautiful game."

MarkEdward
10-05-2002, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
Yeah, and while you're waiting for the three-run jack, you can go get a hot dog, chat with the people around you, talk on the cell phone, etc. With base hit after base hit with runners on first and third, you keep getting interrupted by the action. And, damn, it's fun watching all these guys strike out 150 times a year while screwing themselves into the ground trying to get their homers.

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the excitement of a home run. I'm just saying that the three-run homer gets the three runs in. No other hit guarantees that.

Also, you want the mound raised. That will increase strikeouts, even for your cherished slap hitters. Is that the kind of excitement you want to see?

Zednem700
10-06-2002, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by WhiteSox = Life
I agree with several points made in this thread.



Your team is down by 4 runs, and there are two men on, first and third. Bottom of the 7th and one out. Do you want a 3-run homer here or a base hit the other way? Of course, the answer is arbitrary. A home run here puts your team down by only one now. However, it clears the bases and it takes another home run to tie it up. On the other hand, a base hit scores one run (at least) and puts men on first and third, second and third, second only, third only (or in Sham-Me's case - first only). This puts pressure on the defense and the pitching, but there's still runner(s) that have not come home. If you have the heart of the order coming up, you probably want base hits, so the other guys can possibly tie it up or take the lead with the big swing. But, if it's the bottom of the order, you might want to settle with the home run and hope the top of the order and big guys can push acros the tying run




Always, always, always take guaranteed runs over the hope that maybe if everything breaks right you might get more runs. Here's a little math to show you why you should always take guaranteed runs. (note, the following analysis is EXTREMELY simplified, but it goes to my point) lets say that the next three baters have an inherent ability to hit .333. That means regardless of the pitcher, situation, etc, they will get a hit every three times at bat. The odds that these three hitters will hit three consecutive singles to equal he same number of runs that the homerun would have acconpishe is 1/27. You can expect those player to get three straigh hits 1 out of every 27 times they come up. Why would you take those odds over a 100% guarantee.

Oh and in response to other comments, I don't find strike outs to be a big deal, or the ability to not strike out all that impressive. Why is a weak squibler down the first base line that advances no one, better than swinging and mising?

Nellie_Fox
10-06-2002, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by Zednem700
Why is a weak squibler down the first base line that advances no one, better than swinging and mising? After the fact, when you know that it simply resulted in an out and didn't advance anyone, then there is no advantage.

However, over the course of the season, I'll take a guy who puts the ball in play over one who strikes out. If you strike out 150 times, that's 150 useless outs. If you hit 150 weak grounders, some are going to be booted, some are going to result in a throwing error, some are going to "seeing eye" their way through, some are just going to advance runners. You have no chance with strikeouts; with the ball in play, things can happen.

maurice
10-07-2002, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
If you strike out 150 times, that's 150 useless outs. If you hit 150 weak grounders, some are going to be booted, some are going to result in a throwing error, some are going to "seeing eye" their way through, some are just going to advance runners.

And -- for the sake of completeness -- some will result in double plays (worse than a K) and fielder's choices (often worse than a K).

I guess it depends. It bothers me a lot more when little, fast guys strike out (e.g., Ray Durham), since they're more likely to beat out a ground ball or a double play.

Soxheads
10-07-2002, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
After the fact, when you know that it simply resulted in an out and didn't advance anyone, then there is no advantage.

However, over the course of the season, I'll take a guy who puts the ball in play over one who strikes out. If you strike out 150 times, that's 150 useless outs. If you hit 150 weak grounders, some are going to be booted, some are going to result in a throwing error, some are going to "seeing eye" their way through, some are just going to advance runners. You have no chance with strikeouts; with the ball in play, things can happen.

Well, technically you can advance to first on a dropped third strike, thus possibly advancing other runners, but that doesn't really happen that often...