Jason Van Skike

Reading tons of stuff on Perdomo's take in the USA/DR semifinal. Literally people who are vehemently arguing that taking the pitch is... was... and will always be, what should have happened in that moment. Equally there are people on the other side of the argument who are saying there's no scenario in which he could take, because the pitch was entirely too close. Here is my two cents (for what it's worth): When we look back at moments in time, everything matters. It's incredibly easy to second guess the outcome, and talk about all the reasons why something should/could have happened versus what actually did. People reference data models all the time to defend their positions. In this case specifically... (apologies if my numbers are incorrect as my research was limited and ultimately will have nothing to do with the theme) - The pitch had a .5% chance of being called a strike - Swinging at the pitch results in a 63% whiff rate Those two points alone make an incredibly compelling argument for why taking the pitch was the right decision (that all goes without mentioning what incredible plate discipline and vision to not swing at a 3-2 strike/ball slider from a dude throwing 100). Those two data points - however - rely on big data sets and casually lack tons of context that could make the argument sway the other way. For example: - What percentage of pitches did Corey Blaser call strikes that were below the zone? If you recall he called a similar pitch a strike on Soto the inning prior. - What are Perdomo's individual percentage chances of fouling off 2-strike pitches below the zone? Getting a hit? I have no idea what those numbers look like, but I'm willing to bet that they would certainly lean more in favor of making a swing at the pitch. The only thing we know for certain is that the moment created a singular outcome. The pitch was called strike 3, and the game ended. A heartbreaking feeling for the player I'm sure. That being said, I would have had a really hard time not swinging at the pitch, personally. I say that with full understanding that I might have swung and missed 90 times out of 100. But that 1 time... that 1 time where something great happens is why we play. See the thing about sports is, we can talk about all the could of's, should of's and would have's until we're blue in the face, but what happened will forever be what actually happened. I guess the point of what I'm getting at is that big data can always tell compelling stories. Stories that are easy to explain, and also very easy to understand. But individual moments have different context that we tend to overlook when we're making arguments that validate our own opinions. In this case specifically, I've heard people discussing the fact that if hitters tried to protect against everything, that they would wind up "chasing" way more pitches. Is the point of hitting to minimize your chase rate or TO NOT MAKE OUTS? As a player, when everything is said and done, you get judged on your production, and not what percentage of pitches out of the zone you swung at. Go ask Vlad Guerrero if he's ever thought about his chase rate. I can think of dozens of examples off the top of my head where chasing a pitch led to moments that changed the outcomes of games, lives and careers. I don't hear arguments being made for why players shouldn't have swung at those pitches... In closing, the game is over. We'll never know what would have happened if he swung. I sure would like to know what would have happened if he had.

in 2024, we presented the universal theory of pitching— that arsenal mix/match is the antidote to decay, which neutralizes pure stuff over a large sample. in 2025, we extended it to determine a grand strategy for baseball. behold the blob of blobs and the grid of grids.

College Baseball should do a World Baseball Classic style tournament every year You get an all-star team from top 16 conferences + JUCO + D2 + D3 + NAIA all-star teams It would be highly competitive and fun to watch (This graphic is from 2023 but same idea)

My algorithm has me deep into meteorology twitter right now and let me tell ya things are getting CONTENTIOUS over these snow storm forecasts in the south

“You’re just not working hard enough…” ~Basic Bitch Boomer

A downstream effect of college being so unaffordable is that private equity has bought up youth sports and turned it into a college scholarship hunger games that is ruining communities and putting parents in debt

I’d argue that organizations not backed by private equity are just as much to blame. There’s absolutely no reason parents should be paying $3,000+ per year for “travel” sports before kids are even 12–13 years old.