Junkballer

9 minutes ago, Mad5577 said:

both team had the best player in the world, and both team sucks, the Lakers were wasting Kobe's prime as the Angels are wasting trout's

however, with basketball, all you need a a couple of pieces (bynum and Gasol), but in baseball, i just don't see anyway the Angels can become great in the near future. 

 

This thread remembers me of taking acid prior to English class.

if it was today hed probably be vaping.

I doubt it.  Real men don't vape, they stare lung cancer square in the figurative eye and 

Was wondering that as well. Are there that many compensation picks between 1st and 2nd round?

I believe there are 16 compensation picks this year.

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/153269260/2016-mlb-draft-order-set

I got the Convention Center model to catch furries unawares.

I was reading a Patrick O'Brian novel and came across this description of a particular miserly character, "deeply stupid, griping, illiberal, an avid tenacious pinchfist lickpenny, a sordid lickpenny and a shrew".  I immediately said "Arte!".

That would make it a different zone for each player.  That's why if a robotic system is implemented, IMO, you would have to change the strike zone to a fixed zone.  That way, no matter what the stance or height of a person is, the zone would be the same for everyone.  The bottom and top of the strike zone would be so many inches, and the plate of course would be the other measurement.  Of course this is a huge change from the historical strike zone.  And adjustments will need to be made.  My guess is, with a 3d robotic system, the strike zone will become smaller, probably the area around the waist.  Because top to bottom, the movement is greater than left to right.  And guys like Kershaw will be feasting on dropping the ball down into the back of the zone from above the head.

The zone is already different for each player based on anatomy and stance.  I'm just suggesting to eliminate stance from the equation and standardize the top line of the zone from a somewhat vague "midway between top of shoulders and belt" to a fixed proportional distance from the top of the shoulder.  The zone has to adjust for the height of the player in some form or fashion.  I don't think a fixed zone will ever be considered.

But the strike zone is subjective.  It's below the knee and between the belt and shoulders as you address the ball to hit.  And as long as you have that definition of the strike zone, it will be up to interpretation of an ump, or some geek in a trailer to interpret it for each batter.  And depending on the definition, the strike zone can vary from player to player. 

 

And while I'm against going the computerized method.  If you go that way, you have to change the definition of the strike zone, to get rid of the subjectiveness.  Otherwise, you are just changing one problem for another.

You're right, the zone definition will have to be modified to implement this, but is that so bad?  I've always thought that a crouching stance affords an advantage over a standing stance.  I realize that the rule is "stance as prepared to swing" so I think there is some gray area between stance and posture when commencing the swing, but either way I believe an umpire will be influenced by a crouching stance.  Wouldn't it be better to assign the horizontal parameters of the zone by taking a measurement of the player's bottom of the knee and a fixed point below the shoulder instead of using the vague definition of where the player wears his pants?  Example, measure from bottom of knee to top of shoulder and multiply by .6.  This would give each player a fixed zone based on his anatomy, not his stance.  Obviously the system would have to align the zone for the height of the bottom of the knee as well.  All this can be done before the season starts and be a requirement for all call-ups.

Bring on the robots! Preferably they'll look like the Johnny Cab driver from Total Recall.

It's not just that umpires miss calls but when the misses occur.  To an extent, early consistency lulls batters into thinking this is what he can expect.  The batter is counting on the call consistency even more in the late innings, especially in late counts, so mistakes made later after having enforced a particular zone have a huge potential to decide the outcome of a game.  If there is a opportunity to improve it, do so. 

 Even the best umps will have their imaginary zone moved from:

-different pitch trajectory

-angle which the pitch was viewed (to get around the catcher)

-self-correction (response to own mistakes)

-concentration (over 140 pitches per game)

-pitch framing (small degree)

-hangover (Joe West will tell you all about it)

Calling pitches is not an easy thing to do and for the most part they do as good a job as a person can, but this issue, much the same as instant replay, corrects something that directly affects wins and losses.  I'll never understand those who say that "the human element" is preferable.  Yes, when it comes to the players, but if technology can add to the integrity of the game, I'm all for it.

"I'm willing to go over the cap for the right player" = "Watts is the perfect location for your hedge fund brokerage's billboard.  Trust me, it'll be fine"

No, those people aren't in the HOF because sportswriters don't like assholes that aren't fellow sportswriters.

 

FTFY

But he only looked lazy because his stride was so smooth.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/449125-how-much-actual-playtime-occurs-in-a-baseball-game/

According to this article, 2 games were timed for actual time the ball was in play.  They included the time from the ball leaving the pitchers hand to the catcher and on balls that were hit, the time until the player was called safe or out.  The two games, which were from different eras and timed by different people, came up with 8.5 minutes and about 12.3 minutes of time in play.  

Baseball is obviously a different animal from football because you can ignore what happens in between whistles in football and still have an almost complete understanding of the game, whereas you can't say the same if you only viewed a baseball game from the time the ball left the pitchers hand to when the catcher caught it or a player was called safe/out.  That being said, it does highlight one of the characteristics of the sport that can be polarizing, the action/waiting ratio.  It comes down to personal preference of course whether you mind the increase in non-essential waiting time.  For myself, as much as I love the game, I have a hard time spending an entire hour, let alone 3 during a weeknight. Even on weekends I can't spend the time to watch a whole game without liberal use of the fast-forward button on the DVR.  When I'm at a game, I'm focused on the game for the most part, not socializing or playing with my phone, so I wan't the play to flow quickly. I'd welcome a pitch clock, reduction in mound visits, and requiring the batter to stay in the box and be prepared to take the next pitch. Tighten up the waiting time and I'd watch more and probably go to more games.

It was an ALL STAR GAME. And back then All-Star Games didn't even matter, they didn't count for anything. 

It was a different era and different mind-set.  They counted for pride.  Something some of today's players and a lot of younger fans wouldn't understand, thinking everything comes down to the dollar.

In this league, yes.  In leagues where pants are worn, no.