216 SportsResearch

@gregd1111 @GageEHC More than that, it’s just…. not quick. This situation would require umpire/manager conference and debate. Defeats the whole purpose of trying to move quickly. If the opposing mgr realizes what you’re doing, it’s so easy to turn this into a 84 minute conversation.

@GageEHC Theoretically, yes, if everything lines up for you to do that. In practice I'm not so sure, seems like someone would have a problem with it, the opposing team or someone in MLB's home office. Either way I'd bet it would be called unsportsmanlike or something

MLB strategy Hypothetical: If you’re up 9-1 in the 4th inning and the imminent forecast looks like rolling thunderstorms any minute, should you intentionally bat out of order 3x to hurry it and try to finish the 5th?

@GageEHC Batting out of order (or any technical violation) takes a long time to sort out/confirm. There would be a 12 minute ump conference for each one. Opposing manager would make sure. The 3rd one would probably be a good 26 minutes lol. Quicker to lay down 3 crappy bunts.

On the other hand, Tigers are 9-3 in their last 12 close out games. If the Guards do force a Game 5, Tigers haven’t lost a winner take all game since 1972. Guards are 0-7 in their last 7 winner take all games and have only won 1 (Game 5 of the 1997 ALDS) in their history.

Just a reminder going into tomorrow’s game… the Guardians have lost 11 straight win-or-go-home playoff games over the last 27 years. CLE hasn’t won a game to stave off elimination since Game 6 of the 1997 World Series. 11 straight losses since that game.

@BBGreatMoments The win can still be a meaningful stat with 2 changes: (1) get rid of the 5 inning rule; (2) you don’t lose your W if a reliever temporarily loses it. Give the W to the earliest P who closes his book with the lead. Make it retroactive. You leave with the lead, you did your job.

I'll Start: I kind of liked when the All-Star Game meant something.

@AllAcesCards @robert09160618 I agree, but if we remove both the 5 inning rule and the rule that you lose the win if the relievers temporarily lose the lead (before your bats get it back), then it does a better job. We make those two changes, apply it retroactively, and the win stat is fixed and meaningful.

@216SportsRes @robert09160618 I agree to a certain extent, but that’s not what the baseball stat “Wins” even records.

Do you think MLB should change the rule where a Pitcher needs to go 5 innings in order to get a win? Should it be changed to 4 innings?

@AllAcesCards @robert09160618 How often your team wins when you start is a very useful stat.

@robert09160618 IMO, no - keep the historical definition. I think we should all just get comfortable with the reality that it is (and always has been) a relatively worthless stat and just move on…

@robert09160618 Yes. The inning qualifier should be removed entirely. If you leave with the lead, you should get the win (assuming your team holds it). This can be applied retroactively. The 5 inning rule is archaic and was designed for the assumption a team would never use more than 2 pitchers.

@EricMulhair @WayneTyson11 Sounds like you’re describing Range Factor, which measures usage. The stat can be useful to measure your pitchers’ tendencies, but people started using it (including as part of WAR) to assume fielders get more chances ONLY because they get 2 balls other guys don’t, which is bull.

@WayneTyson11 Defensive stats from that far back are notoriously unreliable, even according to the good folks who calculate them. The formula has something to do with combining fielding % and # of putouts compared to league average at that position. It's a ROUGH calculation. Best to ignore it.

Just saw that Mickey Mantle was a -9.6 dWAR for his career. How can that even be calculated?

@WayneTyson11 @notgaetti Starts by assuming every hit is a result of a fielder’s “poor range.” If a guy tends to fly to CF, it assumes that when he gets a hit, it’s because CF sucks (even if the hit really was an IF hit to SS). So NYY pitchers gave up hits to dudes who tended to fly to CF in other games

@notgaetti Did you know Freeman is the youngest active hits leader, at 34, since Stan Musial? Stan became the leader at age 31 after DiMaggio’s retirement (and held it until he retired right before his 43rd birthday). Mays was also 34 after Nellie Fox retired but slightly older than Freeman

In the entire 153-year history of Major League Baseball, from 1871 to the present, only 44 different players have ever been the active hits leader. Read that again.

@notgaetti And considering Freeman is only 34, there is a good chance he holds the distinction for 5 to 7 years himself, especially if he is chasing 3000.

@notgaetti In fact, this is only the 5th time since 1890 that there has been no active major leaguer with at least 2500 hits. The period between 1951 and 1954 was the only other time.

@notgaetti Freeman is the active leader with 2114 hits. This is the 2nd lowest total for the active hits leader since 1887 when Cap Anson led with 1944. The only time it’s been lower was in 1952 when Musial was active leader with 2023 after DiMaggio’s retirement. Make of that what you will

@JABowen22 @TheWARmonger_ @notgaetti The issue with RF/9 is it credits the player with ANY uptick in chances. It doesn’t mean a guy got to more balls, just that he had more chances, which are caused by fewer Ks, shifts, or even pull hitters literally targeting him. For all we know, all of those chances were routine

@JABowen22 @TheWARmonger_ @notgaetti No way. Counsell had 459 assists from 2B in 2005, which was about the same as Giles and Grudzielanek among NL 2B. There’s no way anybody can convince me that 76 of those assists (a full one-sixth) was him getting to balls no other major league 2nd baseman would have gotten to.

@Seth5dog @TheWARmonger_ @notgaetti Get rid of the “5 IP rule” for SP and the rule that you don’t get the W if your team temporarily loses the lead after you leave. Give the W to the earliest P on the winner who closes his stat line with the lead. Apply this retroactively. Fixed. Logical. Meaningful.

Jacob deGrom has 84 wins at age 36

@Seth5dog @notgaetti When Feller pitched, it absolutely meant something because it closely tracked how often his team won when the only variable was which SP took the hill. The problem with the wins stat is that its definition hasn’t kept up with the game (but it can/should be fixed).

@Seth5dog @TheWARmonger_ @notgaetti Win should go to the earliest pitcher on the winning team who closes his stat line with the lead. Period. If that’s your definition, the stat is fixed, logical, and meaningful. The loss stat as currently configured works as is.

@Seth5dog @TheWARmonger_ @notgaetti The wins stat has two flaws. Get rid of (1) the 5 inning rule for SP; and (2) the rule that SP loses the win if his team later (temporarily) loses the lead and it becomes the most logical stat in baseball. Re-calculate it retroactively with these metrics (which can be done).