Fundamentals of major league baseball

[orangeroses07]

Originally Posted by wpr

Yep. Even though I said this had nothing to do with Cubs players per se. It just happened to be the game I was listening to at the time. Cub fan's are so self conscience.

In all honesty, Cardinal fans are the same way when it comes to other teams fans talking about us. Everybody who loves their team as much as Cardinal and Cubs fans do, will defend their team.

[IlliniSteve]

I didn't hear it, you said he called Castro selfish. So I went off of that.

Cub fans are not in the wrong, I'm just trying to defend our best player. Don't know why you wanted to make this thread in the first place. To me, this whole thing just kind of came off as a little jab at Starlin Castro. You can watch any game and any player and find mistakes similar to this. Next time Lance Berkman makes an error I'll go ahead and start up a thread.

[KBLEE]

Originally Posted by illiniobserver22

So many logical leaps going on in the original post here.

1. Who are you to say Starlin wasn't trying to hit the ball to the right side? Maybe his timing was just slightly off in this at bat. Maybe every pitch was inside, or offspeed.

2. Why is it a good idea to give up an out to move a runner forward?

Here are the historical run expectancy values (league wide, 1969-1992):

Runner on 2nd, 0 outs: 1.102 runs
Runner on 3rd, 1 out: 0.943 runs

3. How do you know Rizzo still hits a fly ball if DeJesus is standing on 3rd? Don't you think he probably gets different pitches (lower in the zone) in that situation?

4. Why is Starlin Castro trying to hit a single that results in a run for his team selfish? Seems that would be a better outcome for his team than moving a runner forward one base. So actually you could say he was being unselfish, as a sacrifice bunt is much less likely to hurt his batting average than swinging away is. However, he chose the selfless act of putting his at bat at much greater risk for the possibility of giving his team a 1-0 lead. He's a hero.

And, unless something has changed in the last 2 weeks, Starlin has the most hits of any NL player since the day he was brought up 2 years ago. So - betting on him getting a hit is not exactly a long-shot.

[IntenselyOrange]

Wow. Some people need to get a grip. This thread started out very promising. A question of new approaches to baseball vs. the old methods and it's been hijacked into cubs-Cardinals nonsense.



I'm curious if anyone on here favors any old-school tactics that are losing favor? Any of the new stats that people like or really dislike?

[wpr]

Originally Posted by IlliniSteve

I didn't hear it, you said he called Castro selfish. So I went off of that.

Cub fans are not in the wrong, I'm just trying to defend our best player. Don't know why you wanted to make this thread in the first place. To me, this whole thing just kind of came off as a little jab at Starlin Castro. You can watch any game and any player and find mistakes similar to this. Next time Lance Berkman makes an error I'll go ahead and start up a thread.

Steve it is very apparent that you routinely skim a post and then presume that you know all that was said and respond bases on your incorrect assumptions. If you would have bothered to read the whole thing you would have seen:

Originally Posted by wpr

It is not my desire to make this a bash the Cubs or their players thread. I am wondering if people think Castro is selfish as the announcers were saying (my wording not theirs.) by trying to get a base hit to make his numbers look good instead of doing what was best for the team by trying to get the runner to third and having his batting average drop.

You are not alone in skimming posts. I do it all the time. ( I was going to re post these lines yesterday in response to someone else’s misunderstanding but I just didn’t care enough to do it. Let him remain ignorant was my feeling.) There is just too many posts to read them all thoroughly. What I try not to do it to respond to posts I have not read closely.

There was no need to defend him. I was not trying to say he was selfish. I used that word because I couldn't think of a better term to use at that time. Clevenger actually failed in a similar circumstance twice.

I used Castro for a few reasons. First he is the better hitter. Better hitters can do more with a bat than average hitters. Second in Clevenger’s first AB he struck out on a wicked breaking ball on the outside part of the plate. It looked to me like he was trying to hook it and pull the ball. Being a left handed batter he would have gotten the ball on the right side of the diamond and moved the runner up. I was not going to condemn a batter for failing to try and do what I was asking him to do. Trying and failing is not the same as not trying at all. Third the announcers mentioned that Castro has led the league in hits since he made it to the show. That was a part of the reason they wanted to see him give it at least one shot to right. Someone in one of their posts asked the question how do we know he wasn't trying to take the ball to right? (A fair question) It was radio so I don't know. I will say that pulling the ball to left 3 straight swings makes one assume he wasn't but I don't know for sure but that would be a pretty messed up swing if yo try to go to right and foul twice out of play to the left and then ground out to short. I guess you can say he was being held to a higher standard because of his great abilities. “To whom much is given of him shall much be required." Fourth I was not in the car and listening to the radio any longer after Castro’s first AB.

As I mentioned earlier it is apparent why you don’t understand why I made this post. I said in several of my posts that I wanted to discuss the fundamentals of baseball and how they are seemingly changing. I did not post this in the Cub’s thread because I did not want this to be a discussion of Cubs players and their perceived failures or lack thereof. The Cub player just happened to be the one who was at bat when I heard the announcer talking about it. I have heard Shannon and many other announcers talk about moving the runner over for more than 30 years. I specifically didn’t start the thread immediately after Castro grounded out to the SS. After I saw it happen 3 or 4 more times during the game I decided it was something we could talk about.

Originally Posted by KBLEE

And, unless something has changed in the last 2 weeks, Starlin has the most hits of any NL player since the day he was brought up 2 years ago. So - betting on him getting a hit is not exactly a long-shot.

That is a major reason I wanted to look at Castro and not Clevenger. Hall of Fame hitters only get hits 1/3 of the time at best. But a great batsman can flip the ball to the right side more than 50-60% of the time. Obviously there are a lot of factors involved such as the kind and location of the pitch.

Originally Posted by IntenselyOrange

Wow. Some people need to get a grip. This thread started out very promising. A question of new approaches to baseball vs. the old methods and it's been hijacked into cubs-Cardinals nonsense.



I'm curious if anyone on here favors any old-school tactics that are losing favor? Any of the new stats that people like or really dislike?

thank you. I am so disgusted with these Cubs fans whining about what they think is someone picking on one of their players I wish Dan would lock the thread. They don't want to discuss the real thread they want to wail and cry that they are being treated unfairly no matter how many times i have said that is not what I am talking about.

[AHSIllini32]

Originally Posted by wpr

thank you. I am so disgusted with these Cubs fans whining about what they think is someone picking on one of their players I wish Dan would lock the thread. They don't want to discuss the real thread they want to wail and cry that they are being treated unfairly no matter how many times i have said that is not what I am talking about.

Oh give it a rest for Christ's sakes. Even your Cards fans brethren are telling you to stop !!!!!ing about Cubs fans defending their best player against an unneeded attack because he didnt move ONE baserunner over ONE time. :rolleyes:

Oh to answer your question, yes fundamentals have changed at the game shifted towards more of a power game...there, that was easy.

[wpr]

Originally Posted by AHSIllini32

Oh give it a rest for Christ's sakes. Even your Cards fans brethren are telling you to stop !!!!!ing about Cubs fans defending their best player against an unneeded attack because he didnt move ONE baserunner over ONE time. :rolleyes:

Oh to answer your question, yes fundamentals have changed at the game shifted towards more of a power game...there, that was easy.

I keep saying there was no attack. You keep whining about it. YOU GIVE IT A REST SALLY.
I have never ignored a poster before. You have been such an @ss you win the prize.

[AHSIllini32]

Look at your very first post in this thread, specifically starting after your, "a few more comments" sentence....that's all I'll say about it.

Regardless, fundamentals have changed and moving a runner over isn't nearly as important as it used to be.

[ctblaisdell83]

I'll take a shot at the original question in the thread...

Modern managers are more likely to look at the probabilities of scoring 1 or more runs in a given situation. If you have a good hitter up (let's say number 3 in your lineup) and good hitters behind him, you may decide that you want your #3 hitter to take a normal at bat so as to not compromise the probability of getting a hit, especially a hit for extra bases.

With modern stats, you can look at what the difference in probability is for scoring 1 run, or 2 runs, or 3 if the runner advances to 3rd on an out vs. letting the #3 hitter swing away. As someone else said, the strategy of moving a runner along at the expense of an out is more attractive in run-scarce environment, which is not the case today. Also it would be a different situation in the 9th inning of a tied game.

BTW - if you notice on gamecasts, they sometimes tell what the probability is of scoring a run...or 2+ runs...given the game situation. A 'standard' table of run expectations shows 62.5% of scoring at least 1 run with a man on 2nd and 0 outs. It is 66% with a man on third and 1 out. So you could ask whether moving the runner along makes a lot of sense if you're keeping the hitter from having a more productive at bat.

[wpr]

Originally Posted by ctblaisdell83

I'll take a shot at the original question in the thread...

Modern managers are more likely to look at the probabilities of scoring 1 or more runs in a given situation. If you have a good hitter up (let's say number 3 in your lineup) and good hitters behind him, you may decide that you want your #3 hitter to take a normal at bat so as to not compromise the probability of getting a hit, especially a hit for extra bases.

With modern stats, you can look at what the difference in probability is for scoring 1 run, or 2 runs, or 3 if the runner advances to 3rd on an out vs. letting the #3 hitter swing away. As someone else said, the strategy of moving a runner along at the expense of an out is more attractive in run-scarce environment, which is not the case today. Also it would be a different situation in the 9th inning of a tied game.

BTW - if you notice on gamecasts, they sometimes tell what the probability is of scoring a run...or 2+ runs...given the game situation. A 'standard' table of run expectations shows 62.5% of scoring at least 1 run with a man on 2nd and 0 outs. It is 66% with a man on third and 1 out. So you could ask whether moving the runner along makes a lot of sense if you're keeping the hitter from having a more productive at bat.

Although he is probably their best player Castor hits 2nd and not 3rd. Is it not the job of the 1 & 2 hitters to set the table for 3 and 4? Maybe more so in the past than today.

Somewhere in the back posts it stated the run expectancy is:

Runner on 2nd, 0 outs: 1.102 runs
Runner on 3rd, 1 out: 0.943 runs

I wonder what the run expectancy is for a runner on 2nd and 1 out? My guess it is somewhere around .70. I don't now the number but wouldn't it then make metric sense to move the runner up to 3rd? If the number was .60 or lower it certainly would. If it was .80 or higher not so much.

[ctblaisdell83]

Originally Posted by wpr

Although he is probably their best player Castor hits 2nd and not 3rd. Is it not the job of the 1 & 2 hitters to set the table for 3 and 4? Maybe more so in the past than today.

I should have said, in the first inning I would not have Castro as #2 hitter hitting the other way in this situation.

Also your run expectancies should be different than the numbers I provided, which were probability of scoring a run, not probable total runs scored. Hope that makes sense

Probability of scoring a run with runner on 2nd & 1 out is 41%

[uiba99]

Not to digress from the love fest, but you know what really grinds my gears? Many major league players (particularly infielders) don't ever use their throwing hand to back up their gloves when they're catching fly balls.

I know, I know, they're professionals and they can make a snappy catch without using both hands but there are kids watching and it never hurts to keep consistent in your fundamentals. Especially since we've all seen players flub catches because they didn't have their throwing hands ready to keep the ball in the glove if it pops out.

That's the first thing I tell my two year old daughter (who loves baseball). Whenever she sees an infielder or (even worse) an outfielder catching a popup with one hand, I tell her that a competent player has both hands up just to be safe. That is exactly the form I expect her to use once we progress from short grounders to fancier catches. Gotta develop those skills as soon as possible.

[illiniobserver22]

Originally Posted by wpr

I wonder what the run expectancy is for a runner on 2nd and 1 out? My guess it is somewhere around .70. I don't now the number but wouldn't it then make metric sense to move the runner up to 3rd? If the number was .60 or lower it certainly would. If it was .80 or higher not so much.

Runner on 2nd, 1 out - 0.678 runs

But your point doesn't make any sense. The expectancy of future states is already taken into account in the original numbers.

In other words, the 1.102 runs expected for runner on 2nd with 0 outs is counting all the things that happen after that point for the rest of the inning. Bunts, home runs, strikeouts, whatever are all rolled into that 1.102 number.

So yes, while you go down to 0.678 runs with a flyout, you also go up to 2.477 with a HR, 1.853 with a single, etc. and you give up those chances if you bunt.

Hence the reduction in run expectancy from 1.102 to 0.943.

[wpr]

+1 uiba99.
I have never been a big fan of those kinds of catches. (Old School)

I was wondering if we were going to hear from you again in this thread once it took a left turn. Glad you stuck around.
Nor of infielders who go after a grounder "side saddle" instead of getting in front of it when they have the time to do so.

[wpr]

Originally Posted by illiniobserver22

Runner on 2nd, 1 out - 0.678 runs

But your point doesn't make any sense. The expectancy of future states is already taken into account in the original numbers.

In other words, the 1.102 runs expected for runner on 2nd with 0 outs is counting all the things that happen after that point for the rest of the inning. Bunts, home runs, strikeouts, whatever are all rolled into that 1.102 number.

So yes, while you go down to 0.678 runs with a flyout, you also go up to 2.477 with a HR, 1.853 with a single, etc. and you give up those chances if you bunt.

Hence the reduction in run expectancy from 1.102 to 0.943.

First I didn't say to bunt him to third. that wold be stupid in the first inning and most innings with a quality #2 hitter. I said advance the runner to 3rd by hitting to the right side of the diamond/field.

My point is this:
If a runner at 3rd with 1 out is a .943 and a runner at 2nd with 1 out is .678 it does make sense to give up an out so to speak to get the runner to third. The probability is greater of scoring 1 or more runs that inning than leaving him at second. There is after all a roughly 70% chance (or more) that the batter, no matter who he is, is going to make an out. The next 2 hitters after him will also make an out about 70% of the time. (I am ignoring OBP as it will take 3 walks, HBP to get the runner in.) So 2 productive outs will most likely generate a run. 2 unproductive outs will not.

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by wpr

First I didn't say to bunt him to third. that wold be stupid in the first inning and most innings with a quality #2 hitter. I said advance the runner to 3rd by hitting to the right side of the diamond/field.

My point is this:
If a runner at 3rd with 1 out is a .943 and a runner at 2nd with 1 out is .678 it does make sense to give up an out so to speak to get the runner to third. The probability is greater of scoring 1 or more runs that inning than leaving him at second. There is after all a roughly 70% chance (or more) that the batter, no matter who he is, is going to make an out. The next 2 hitters after him will also make an out about 70% of the time. (I am ignoring OBP as it will take 3 walks, HBP to get the runner in.) So 2 productive outs will most likely generate a run. 2 unproductive outs will not.

The chance of making an out is taken into account in the run expectancy matrix, to a certain extent. If it's a pitcher or Dee Gordon hitting that changes things. The matrix is overly simple, but nevertheless you need to compare 2nd with no outs to 3rd with 1 out. You compare your current situation to the situation should you decide to sacrifice.

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by uiba99

Not to digress from the love fest, but you know what really grinds my gears? Many major league players (particularly infielders) don't ever use their throwing hand to back up their gloves when they're catching fly balls.

I know, I know, they're professionals and they can make a snappy catch without using both hands but there are kids watching and it never hurts to keep consistent in your fundamentals. Especially since we've all seen players flub catches because they didn't have their throwing hands ready to keep the ball in the glove if it pops out.

That's the first thing I tell my two year old daughter (who loves baseball). Whenever she sees an infielder or (even worse) an outfielder catching a popup with one hand, I tell her that a competent player has both hands up just to be safe. That is exactly the form I expect her to use once we progress from short grounders to fancier catches. Gotta develop those skills as soon as possible.

Oh man. I go rounds with my son over this.

[illiniobserver22]

Originally Posted by wpr

First I didn't say to bunt him to third. that wold be stupid in the first inning and most innings with a quality #2 hitter. I said advance the runner to 3rd by hitting to the right side of the diamond/field.

My point is this:
If a runner at 3rd with 1 out is a .943 and a runner at 2nd with 1 out is .678 it does make sense to give up an out so to speak to get the runner to third. The probability is greater of scoring 1 or more runs that inning than leaving him at second. There is after all a roughly 70% chance (or more) that the batter, no matter who he is, is going to make an out. The next 2 hitters after him will also make an out about 70% of the time. (I am ignoring OBP as it will take 3 walks, HBP to get the runner in.) So 2 productive outs will most likely generate a run. 2 unproductive outs will not.

Run expectancy of a runner at 2nd with 0 outs is higher than a runner at 3rd with 1 out. So it is a preferable situation to try to score out of.

What you are saying is that making an unproductive out is less beneficial than a productive one. I agree. And if the two options are A) groundout to the left side or B) groundout to the right side, or course B is the better choice.

But there are so many more positive outcomes that you eschew by attempting to make a productive out. Not making an out is SO much more beneficial than any out (productive or unproductive) that the best decision is always (early in a tie game) to do whatever you can to avoid making that out. Therefore you swing for a hit.

[ilphotog]

Originally Posted by IntenselyOrange

I'm curious if anyone on here favors any old-school tactics that are losing favor? Any of the new stats that people like or really dislike?

One thing that I have noticed over the years is that the traditional table setters are no longer "traditional table setters". It may work out that way at times. Todays players are so much stronger than they were 20 years ago, especially at 2B and SS. In the 70's and 80's if you got 10-20 HR's between them that was considered good. Heck today both normally hit at least 20 HR's a season.
With smaller ballparks and nearly all grass fields the speedy gap hitters are few and far between, in today's lineup from 1-8 nearly everyone can hit a homerun.

*If you get a chance try to watch some highlights from the 70's and 80's and look at how skinny most of the players are, there's really a big difference.

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by ilphotog

One thing that I have noticed over the years is that the traditional table setters are no longer "traditional table setters". It may work out that way at times. Todays players are so much stronger than they were 20 years ago, especially at 2B and SS. In the 70's and 80's if you got 10-20 HR's between them that was considered good. Heck today both normally hit at least 20 HR's a season.
With smaller ballparks and nearly all grass fields the speedy gap hitters are few and far between, in today's lineup from 1-8 nearly everyone can hit a homerun.

*If you get a chance try to watch some highlights from the 70's and 80's and look at how skinny most of the players are, there's really a big difference.

I fell in love with baseball in the early 80s, so I know what you are talking about. I'm hoping that style will make it back, at least a little bit. The turf issue is interesting, and I hadn't considered it, but with PEDs seemingly on their way out runs and HRs are down. Pitching is up. Defense is increasing in its importance too, meaning that speedy OFs and MIs may make a comeback. Of course, they'll need to hit a little better than Dee Gordon unless they play SS like Ozzie Smith.

[ctblaisdell83]

Originally Posted by ilphotog

*If you get a chance try to watch some highlights from the 70's and 80's and look at how skinny most of the players are, there's really a big difference.

Watched a game from the 1970 WS, and two things struck me.

First as you said, the players were thin (except for Boog Powell) and no one had the muscle/bulk of today's power hitters.

Second, the game was way faster. One at bat F Robby didn't step out of the batter's box once and the pitcher didn't take multiple trips to the resin bag. 6 or 7 pitch at bat took about a minute. Today, that same at bat gives you enough time for a bathroom break, to pop some popcorn, and check your email.

[wpr]

Originally Posted by ctblaisdell83

Watched a game from the 1970 WS, and two things struck me.

First as you said, the players were thin (except for Boog Powell) and no one had the muscle/bulk of today's power hitters.

Second, the game was way faster. One at bat F Robby didn't step out of the batter's box once and the pitcher didn't take multiple trips to the resin bag. 6 or 7 pitch at bat took about a minute. Today, that same at bat gives you enough time for a bathroom break, to pop some popcorn, and check your email.

I was watching the Don Larson perfect game last year. Boy was it different as well. First like you said no one stepped out of the batters box. Also when there was an out and they threw the ball around the horn, the catcher and 1B was included in every time. (even on a strike out when the ball began with the catcher.) It took me about 4-5 innings to figure out what the difference was. No balls, strikes, outs or pitch speed in the corner. No crawler across the bottom of the screen. Just the guys playing the game.

[zoggle101]

I've noticed that we are trending back to the skinny players since the whole steroid thing is baseball is actually getting taken care of.

The whole thing is with your best hitter up you usually let them try to do their magic at least until he has two strikes on him. Then you choke up, stay back , and drive the ball to the right side on the ground or in the air. Let's not forget the runner needs to do his part too. Getting a good secondary lead or running on contact by a good base runner makes sure that he gets to third even if the ball is pulled by a right handed hitter most likely. I know it's not the norm to try to advance to third when the ball is pulled to the left side especially with no outs because you never want to make the first out at third but with a good lead, secondary lead, and quick reaction than any ball not hit hard directly at the ss or third baseman should get the runner to second even in the pro's. Another thing is if it's the world series or any game where its your teams last at bat with a runner on second with no outs where one run will win the ball game than I can guarantee you would of seen Castro put a bunt down or hit the ball to the right side to get the runner over into better scoring position for the winning run.

[wpr]

Originally Posted by zoggle101

I've noticed that we are trending back to the skinny players since the whole steroid thing is baseball is actually getting taken care of.

The whole thing is with your best hitter up you usually let them try to do their magic at least until he has two strikes on him. Then you choke up, stay back , and drive the ball to the right side on the ground or in the air. Let's not forget the runner needs to do his part too. Getting a good secondary lead or running on contact by a good base runner makes sure that he gets to third even if the ball is pulled by a right handed hitter most likely. I know it's not the norm to try to advance to third when the ball is pulled to the left side especially with no outs because you never want to make the first out at third but with a good lead, secondary lead, and quick reaction than any ball not hit hard directly at the ss or third baseman should get the runner to second even in the pro's. Another thing is if it's the world series or any game where its your teams last at bat with a runner on second with no outs where one run will win the ball game than I can guarantee you would of seen Castro put a bunt down or hit the ball to the right side to get the runner over into better scoring position for the winning run.

zoggle it is amazing how many times the runner on 2nd goes to third on a ball hit to the 3B or SS these days. perhaps it is his lead. Perhaps it s something else. I know back in the day they rarely did that.

In almost any situation I would not want to see Castro bunt especially a critical game. (I am speaking from the perspective of fundamental baseball. Personally I don't care one way or the other.) If he hasn't done it on some kind of consistent basis for the 162 regular season games nor the rest of the playoffs, he shouldn't do it in the 9th inning of Game 7 either. One of you Cubs fans could tell me I watch about 80-100 Cub games a year and I do not remember seeing Castro bunt. Does he?

[zoggle101]

Originally Posted by wpr

zoggle it is amazing how many times the runner on 2nd goes to third on a ball hit to the 3B or SS these days. perhaps it is his lead. Perhaps it s something else. I know back in the day they rarely did that.

In almost any situation I would not want to see Castro bunt especially a critical game. (I am speaking from the perspective of fundamental baseball. Personally I don't care one way or the other.) If he hasn't done it on some kind of consistent basis for the 162 regular season games nor the rest of the playoffs, he shouldn't do it in the 9th inning of Game 7 either. One of you Cubs fans could tell me I watch about 80-100 Cub games a year and I do not remember seeing Castro bunt. Does he?

Not a Cubs fan and hardly watch them play but with his hand/eye cooridation Castro shouldn't have any trouble putting a bunt down or hitting the ball to the right side. Hopefully the other team doesn't have a wheel play on with first base charging hard, pitcher covering anything on the left side, and third staying at home instead of both the first and third basemen charging hard and having to rely on your ss to win a foot race to third most likely plus having the pressure of putting the tag on the runner. The ideal thing would be to hit a deep sac fly to right field which shouldn't be hard for most pro's especially with how often you see a players back shoulder deep, and uppercut swing. You should know your swing and be able to hit the ball in the air, on the ground, and one hop/line drives thru the infield. Of course when its not your coach throwing meat ball pitches in bp and you're not sure if its going to be in the strike zone its not so easy plus the 90+ fastball that moves, and off speed pitches pro pitchers throw you can see why you can fail 70% of the time and still be an allstar.


I still feel like if the winning run is on second with no outs than you get the guy to third no matter what with a sacrifice bunt, grounder, or fly at any level. Then repeat the process to get him home.