bizaff

Yes, fair enough.. I probably overstate when I say baseball could be more accurate. I think it's even a little more complex - the strike zone in 3 dimensions is made up of 7 planes - 5 being the outline of the plate projected up and down, and then the 2 heights. The point I get at is that tracking a pitch as it comes in, along with lining up on either the inside or outside corner which forces an ump to basically "guess" at the other corner, and paying attention to everything else in the at-bat, and filtering OUT framing.. I just don't think it's worth placing that trust in a human anymore when much more conclusively objective and correct options exist. Trying to think how this would work in practice.. once the heights of the strike zone are set, could a tone simply sound in an earpiece if the ball crosses any part of the zone? Then the ump can use that to signal ball and strike. Ok, I'll stop hijacking now.

There may be no visible line the ball touches, but the technology is very well within our grasp to call correct balls and strikes with MUCH greater accuracy than the human eye. The tennis technology claims accuracy within 2.6mm, or 1/10th of an inch. I see no reason to think baseball would be less accurate - one could claim even more accurate. The strike zone is a well defined 3 dimensional solid that cameras can track. Yes, it's slightly different per batter, but it's not like that can't be adjusted for. You're right, all sports to involve an adjustment to officials, but this particular issue can be cured.

Heh, that's about it. Veteran play by Mauer - give the defense the option to hand you a run - they obliged

Normally I can see them but this one didn't work for some reason.

Is there any video of the Mauer baserunning thing in the 8th? I was listening on the radio when it happened but I want to see it.

I came to this thread to see if anyone else thought this too. I tuned in specifically this series to hear how he would do. I will continue to tune in specifically to series he does for his insight. I'm quite impressed.

I can't remember where I found this link now, but it makes the case Rodney didn't make a bad pitch. I agree. The results don't support it, but that happens. https://imgur.com/a/YoSn7bC I'm not thrilled with the Rodney experience, but in this game he pitched pretty well, all things considered.

I'm still scratching my head at all this. On the surface it just seems like a mistake, but I can't believe it's that simple. Could it be a calculated gamble that they thought they might have more overall depth if the other teams return their Rule 5 picks? And the Twins picked a Rule 5 just to cover the short term loss in depth? The pitchers the Twins didn't protect don't fit into the new pitching approach? If they return their Rule 5 picks, do we really want them back? Are those players developing at another team's expense? I just don't understand. I'd like to understand the thought process.

Originally, I thought the Twins being upset at the bunt was pretty silly, then I read this. What if LaMarre steals when he's not being held on? I'm guessing a lot of Orioles are going to be pretty upset, and I understand why. I'm not a big fan of the unwritten rules, and I don't really support them, but I totally get where Dozier's coming from in context of not holding LaMarre on. I'm not saying I agree with him, but I get it.

The owners are taking pretty much all of the risk. It sure doesn't seem like much of a risk based on how revenues have been increasing over the last couple of decades, but really they're the ones in for hundreds of millions of dollars. If people decide to stop watching (which they probably won't.. but they could), how much would owners lose? If anyone really ISN'T taking a financial risk, it's the players. That being said, I would still like to see more money go to non-owners, specifically minor leaguers and other staff. Not sure how to deal with how much players should get. I do scratch my head when someone makes $30MM a year playing baseball and wonder if that's right. I suppose that's what the CBAs tend to even out over the long term. For all the metrics that baseball operations are digging into, I'd be very interested to see the metrics on business side - how to advertise, how much to spend on players, how much to charge for a beer.. what drives the baseball decisions? Maximizing profit over the long term?

And today I search for 20 seconds and find it. My post in http://twinsdaily.com/blog/536/entry-9070-warne-when-everyone-is-healthy-whats-the-ideal-twins-lineup/ showed what it would be like late last year.. vs Lefties RF Grossman (OBP .402, OPS .732) CF Buxton(OBP .398, OPS .868) 1B Mauer(OBP .376, OPS .747) 2B Dozier(OBP .440, OPS 1.039) 3B Sano(OBP .395, OPS 1.011) DH Escobar (OBP .346, OPS .796) LF Rosario (OBP .299, OPS .715) C Castro (OBP .337, OPS .709) SS Polanco (OBP .287, OPS .682) vs Righties 1B Mauer (OBP .385, OPS .813) DH Grossman (OBP .350, OPS .740) 3B Sano (OBP .343, OPS .826) RF Kepler (OBP .348, OPS .855) LF Rosario (OBP .336, OPS .856) CF Buxton (OBP .290, OPS .684) 2B Dozier (OBP .325, OPS .774) C Gimenez (OBP .353, OPS .693) SS Polanco (OBP .316, OPS .733) Maybe I'll put one together for the current roster based on last year's numbers..

This is the article I keep going back to - https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/3/17/795946/optimizing-your-lineup-by I tried putting together lefty and righty lineups based pretty strictly on this (can't find the post now) and it looked a little weird

I posted this a while ago in another thread (http://twinsdaily.com/topic/26786-automate-the-strike-zone/): For the sake of example, more on the set height/size strike zone: The strike zone of Jose Altuve (5ft 5 in) is smaller than that of Jon Rauch (6ft 11 in) - that's an 18 inch spread.If you center the zone between those two (which isn't average, but it's the probably the best case for batters), a player is up to 9 inches away from the average zone.They don't need to adjust that whole height, since you're only taking the area between the knees and armpits.. let's say that's half (in reality it's worse as it's not at the waist, it's at the armpits and knees).A tall/short player needs to adjust their swing vertically up to 4 inches to deal with a batter-independent strike zone.That seems pretty significant.That moves the strike zone from the knees down to the shins, or the armpits up to the shoulders. Now the pitchers - assume the strike zone is as it is today.If a pitcher releases around 55 feet from home plate and has to adjust 4 inches for different players, they need to adjust the angle of the delivered pitch by about half a degree.That's a pretty tiny adjustment.They need to deal with wind which already affects it in that neighborhood (best source I could find - https://jmcdonaldmedia.com/2011/03/18/how-does-weather-affect-baseball/), and they "calibrate" that out with warmup pitches every inning. A batter-independent strike zone would least affect an average sized batter, but would hamper anyone not of average size, far worse the less "average" the batter is.The adjustment a pitcher has to make today in a batter-dependent strike zone is half a degree, which they already do. I can't see a world I'd ever support a batter-independent strike zone.

I've seen this a few times in the past few months the idea of moving Dozier to 3rd. Isn't his arm why he didn't stick at short?

I think this gets tricky. The average regular at-bat is a "negative play", depending on how you define negative play. I've seen the charts that show you're worse off with 1 out -2- than 0 out 1-- and in general I agree with them. I just wonder if some of the advanced analytics (as in analytics that MLB teams pay for, not stuff we see) show that the bunt is the best possible play for a given batter against a given pitcher, given EV. I'm not sold they have it, but with all the statistics and being able to crunch big data, maybe they really do know more than we think they do. A sacrifice bunt is objectively better than a strikeout. I'm guessing a lot of these calls are much closer to even than we think they are. I do agree that there are WAY too many botched bunts.

Thinking about 4 division winners and 8 wildcards.. what if it were 4 division winners and 4 wildcards.. the wild card series are 2 or 3 game series where the wild card team has to sweep a division winner to advance?

I thought I heard someone say on air that the rulebook doesn't really clearly call out how a "checked swing" works.. it can be the wrists, it can be the bat head crossing the plate, it can be the bat breaking the parallel with the front of the plate.. I did a quick scan of the rules and didn't find any detail.

I don't think I'm a fan of Bert being pitching coach. I can't remember where I read it but it was something along the lines of you don't want a great pitcher as a pitching coach. If they were great, they often are quite naturally gifted, which you can't really teach. You want someone who had to work incredibly hard to eke out every little advantage they could to remain competitive. Those are the guys that can help and teach.

http://www.tangotiger.net/re24.html "Statistically, a baserunner bunted over to 2nd is more likely to score." I don't know if there's any data to specifically support this. What the tables show, all things being equal: 1) If you sac bunt a guy from 1st to 2nd, you will score less runs in that inning 2) If you sac bunt a guy from 1st to 2nd, you will be less likely to score 1 run in that inning I read these as both contradicting the quoted statement. The problem is, in game situations all things aren't equal. If you approach this from an EV (expected value) point of view, situations involving the current batter, current pitcher, and next batter will tweak the numbers somewhat. If someone hits bad, the bunt may improve either 1), 2) or both. The thing we DON'T have is context specific information about this batter/this pitcher/next batter. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the analytics department HAS calculated these and hands them to Molitor. It's pretty rare you see 2/3/4 bunt; if it's someone that is a worse batter, it may be the best play you have. I'm the first to say, in general, all the bunting is bad. I am willing to consider that analytics Molitor has that we don't make it the best option.

I don't mind sending Santana out for the second.. once he still didn't have command or the sinker, pull him. Ultimately he only gave up one run in the second so it's not that bad either way. He's been so good this year, it just sucks that he didn't have it last night. I don't think he was using the half hour delay as "an excuse", he said the loss was his fault.. he was trying to analyze why he didn't have it. I respect him for saying the delay hurt him and for taking responsibility. I'm sure no one was more crushed than him. Awesome roller coaster, too bad they left the "meat on the bone" in a couple innings. I hope they bring Molitor back. I don't like all the bunting, and I think some improvements can/need to happen in bullpen usage, but I think he's up to it. The team had growing pains, the manager can too.

Ugh. I hate this kind of thing. This was malicious intent to injure. I think he should be suspended for at least weeks. If you can't play nice, you don't get to play. Calling him safe is ridiculous.. I don't think the ump saw he had the ball when he tagged him.. or when he tagged him again. I'm sure you can find some rule to interpret it either way, but he's out.

http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/users/brooks/public_html/feda/datasets/expectedruns.html I think RE24 (runs expected by base-out state) tell a good story, but not the whole story. When you need to score X number of runs, that's different than trying to maximize runs. If you don't look at a specific batter/pitcher, bunting a guy from 1st to 2nd is, without exception, a bad play. You'll score less runs on average, and you're less likely to score a single run. If you have a guy on 2nd with no outs and you need 1 run, sac bunting increases the odds you'll get that one run, but decreases the average runs you'll get in that inning. For the 9th down by 1, that may be a good play. Now you can weigh in with the details of a certain situation, like this pitcher/this batter. If he was trying to bunt for a base hit because 3rd was playing back too far, great.. but in general, sacrificing a guy from 1st to 2nd sucks.

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/3/17/795946/optimizing-your-lineup-by If you believe the new-fangled statistics (which I do), the 3 spot is the least important of the first 5. The proposed order of importance is: 1, 4, 2, 5, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9. The first two slots are dominated by OBP, with the next three OPS. 6th is if you have someone stealing well, the rest in decreasing effectiveness. IF you take into account just season stats (which doesn't account for things like how Buxton has come on lately and such), and bind yourself to OPS, OBP, and wOBA vs lefties and righties, I see: vs Lefties RF Grossman (OBP .402, OPS .732) CF Buxton (OBP .398, OPS .868) 1B Mauer (OBP .376, OPS .747) 2B Dozier (OBP .440, OPS 1.039) 3B Sano (OBP .395, OPS 1.011) DH Escobar (OBP .346, OPS .796) LF Rosario (OBP .299, OPS .715) C Castro (OBP .337, OPS .709) SS Polanco (OBP .287, OPS .682) vs Righties 1B Mauer (OBP .385, OPS .813) DH Grossman (OBP .350, OPS .740) 3B Sano (OBP .343, OPS .826) RF Kepler (OBP .348, OPS .855) LF Rosario (OBP .336, OPS .856) CF Buxton (OBP .290, OPS .684) 2B Dozier (OBP .325, OPS .774) C Gimenez (OBP .353, OPS .693) SS Polanco (OBP .316, OPS .733) After putting this together and stepping back to look at this, it's not what I'd expect Sure you can do some tweaks to prioritize OBP or OPS, but I think this is close to what The Book would argue.

I recently read "Smart Baseball", "The Book", and "Moneyball", and I buy into the idea that clutch is an illusion. I'll have to look when I have the book in my hands again, but I believe they did a comparison of high leverage situations vs regular situations and people performed pretty much at their average stats over a long sample. I don't think clutch is a looking forward type thing, but it can tell you when people have been "clutch". When they examined someone who had a great clutch season, other seasons they've had were nothing out of the ordinary. I read that as simple statistical variance - SOMEONE is going to have a clutch season, but it can't really be used to project as it doesn't carry forward. That being said, I'm a Mauer fan - he's a good hitter.. not as good as he used to be, but I'm glad he's on the team.

Agreed - I like the shutdown/meltdown statistics I've seen before. Anyone watch his bad outings close enough to see if there was something specific? It was over a spread of time so I'm guessing a single injury is unlikely.. Does anyone remember any specific problems he had in