|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 210 OF 914 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-16-10 | | Jim Bartle: PP: Bill James did a long chapter to the development of relief pitchers in one of his books, maybe the Historical Abstract. I don't remember much, but I think he said Sutter or Fingers was the key, the first to be used as a closer only when the team held the lead. I do remember he did an analysis and claimed it would be much more effective to use the closers in tie games at the end rather than with a two-run lead, instead of the other way around (as most everybody does today). |
|
Sep-16-10
 | | keypusher: <playground player> Bill James' Abstract had a very interesting article re using computer simulations trying to determine which way to use a baseball staff was best. But although he simulated baseball staffs from various eras (i.e., how did teams use their staffs in 1910, 1930, 1960, 1980, 2000), he didn't use historical data to try to infer what worked better, because scoring varies so much from era to era that the scoring data would swamp everything else. Yes, 1930 was a crazy year, but throughout the 20s and 30s scoring was much higher than it had been in the teens. So if you just looked at historical data you would conclude that managers somehow forgot how to use their staff in the 1920s, or that everyone more or less simultaneously forgot how to pitch. |
|
Sep-16-10
| | keypusher: Pipped by Bartle. |
|
| Sep-16-10 | | Jim Bartle: I don't know the best way to use pitchers, but one thing does irritate me. Some managers and pitchers seem to take the "saves" stat seriously, as pitchers want as many saves as possible. What's the point? |
|
| Sep-16-10 | | crawfb5: I realize that I know less about baseball stats than just about anyone here, but it seems to me a way to damp out a lot of the statistical fluctuation in "run-happy" periods would be to use won/lost stats instead of runs scored. Presumably whatever is responsible for better hitting (equipment or rule changes, phase of moon, etc.) would roughly even out across teams during that period. Granted, it's not as sensitive a measure as runs scored, but I think that might be a good thing in this case. <JB> One reason pitchers might take such stats seriously is if they feel it's become part of their performance evaluation by management. |
|
| Sep-16-10 | | Jim Bartle: No question! When it comes time for salary negotiations or arbitration, it's hard for a pitcher to say, "Yeah, my saves were down but they used me differently. I was just as effective." Doesn't make it right, on either side.
There are similar problems with position players as well, though less than in years past with the ascension of the stat nuts, and in particular the understanding that the number of walks a player gets is a key stat. James used to point to players like Bobby Grich, Brian Downing, Gary Redus and Craig Biggio as able to help their teams win, despite not having any real eye-popping numbers. And there were players with great numbers like Steve Garvey, Cecil Fielder as not being as good as they appeared. |
|
| Sep-17-10 | | playground player: <crawfb5>, <keypusher>, <jim bartle> I realize the question is not as easy as it looks. Just think about the different ways a "save" has been defined! They all go into the record book as "saves," but to me there's a big difference between simply finishing a game your team was winning, and having to get the last out with the tying run on base, at bat, or on deck--whatever definition was in use at the time. Maybe just looking at "runs scored" is not the best way. Maybe it would be, if we didn't count the Dead Ball era (pre-1920). Still, the inquiry might yield very instructive results! For instance... If, when it comes to changing the number of runs scored by your opponent, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE whether you train your starters to hang in there, or rely on Stu Miller or Sparky Lyle to nail down the game, or make half a dozen pitching changes in the late innings--well, if it makes no difference, then what are the teams paying all those guys for? |
|
| Sep-17-10 | | Deus Ex Alekhina: Did no one here even attempt to make a comment on Derek Cheeter's latest bid for an Obie (off-Broadway award for acting)? |
|
| Sep-17-10 | | Jim Bartle: Sorry, I have been trying to recover from "losing" an online game against PB where he made a move, then took it back. He freely admitted it afterward, but said, "That's chess." |
|
Sep-18-10
 | | Phony Benoni: <JB> Sorry, but using a replay off your Rybka Camera Attachment counts as illegal computer use, and <technical draw> was quite right to disallow it. Best $20 I ever spent. |
|
| Sep-18-10 | | Jim Bartle: I never have the latest technology, I'm always behind the times. It's a Fritzcam. I only upgraded from my Sargoncam a couple of years ago. |
|
| Sep-18-10 | | Jim Bartle: I reached this position to play as white. I had no idea what to do. 
click for larger viewObviously my king can't come forward in support of the kingside 3 vs. 2 advantage, as black will play b4 and queen the c-pawn. But can I keep the black king from munching my kingside pawns? |
|
Sep-18-10
 | | tpstar: <I had no idea what to do> Offer a draw. =) The White King can't advance to e5 or b6 due to the breakthrough ... b4! and Black Queens. But then Black's King must mind your breakthrough b5! and White also Queens. As a rule, gaining the Opposition is always right, so your first move should be 1. Kf3 Kg5/Ke5 2. h3 keeping the Black King out of your Kingside. With best play, you will probably reach this: 
click for larger viewBoth sides have sufficient losing chances that a draw is the expected outcome. The Kings just keep triangulating, while if you try advancing your Pawn, Black's breakthrough works. |
|
| Sep-18-10 | | Jim Bartle: Thanks, tpstar. As it turned out, I tried to advance my kingside pawns, black played b4 and picked off my f-pawn, leaving pawns facing each other on the a and h files. I thought I had it won, but the black king slipped into h8 just ahead of my pawn. 45. Ke3 Ke5 46. f4+ Kd5 47. g4 g6 48. h4 h5 49. gxh5 gxh5 50. Kf3 b4 51. cxb4 c3 52. Ke2 Kc4 53. Kd1 Kxb4 54. f5 Kc5 55. f6 Kd6 56. Kc2 Ke6 57. Kxc3 Kxf6 58. Kd4 Kf5 59. Kc5 Ke6
60. Kb6 Kd7 61. Kxa6 Kc7 62. Kb5 Kb7 63. Kc5 Ka6 64. Kd5 Kxa5 65. Ke5 Kb4 66.Kf5 Kc5 67. Kg5 Kd6 68. Kxh5 Ke7 69. Kg6 Kf8 70. h5 Kg8 71. h6 Kh8 72. h7 |
|
| Sep-19-10 | | Travis Bickle: Hey Phony & all you sports fans did you that Bears game today? It wasn't no Detroit game. ; P |
|
Sep-19-10
| | Phony Benoni: Looking like a strange year with Dallas and Minnesota both starting off 0-2 (and isn't Brett Favre looking horrible?). Thank goodness for the Lions. At least there are some constants. |
|
| Sep-19-10 | | Jim Bartle: Didn't see it, but three interceptions for Favre? Not good. Bears over Dallas? Looks like a misprint. Plus Raiders actually won a game, and Jets crunched New England. |
|
| Sep-19-10 | | hangingenprise: phony: isn't it great! the cowgirls loose again, o yea a super bowl contender. this is the year favre actually leaves the game as a player for good. |
|
| Sep-19-10 | | Travis Bickle: Phony & All You Sportsfans, New England's defense lookng a little suspect. Brett Favre looks old. ; P |
|
Sep-19-10
| | Phony Benoni: What will be very interesting, if the Vikings continue to do poorly, is to see if Favre gets benched. I think the Vikings' backup QB is either Babe Dahlgren or Ryan Minor, but I'm not sure. |
|
Sep-19-10
 | | WannaBe: No, their back up is some guy named Ole, you often see him in the stands with big beard wearing horned helmet and a big mug of who knows what... Maybe they can bring back Culpepper, he is playing in the UFL. http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/06/07/... Or bring back that guy named Kramer, can't remember the first name. |
|
| Sep-20-10 | | Jim Bartle: You mean Cosmo or Tommy? |
|
Sep-20-10
| | Phony Benoni: I thought he meant Erik, Jerry, or Ted. |
|
| Sep-20-10 | | Jim Bartle: I think Jerry died just the other day. |
|
| Sep-20-10 | | Jim Bartle: There's a player on the Dolphins named Richie Incognito. I'd never heard of him. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 210 OF 914 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
