Reply With Quote
so there is more action in a scoreboard than there is on the field?
Truthnuke tbhDoes it show a graph?
robinlopez.gif
Yes, there's more action on the scoreboard than on the povertyball field.
of course it sux if you rooting for Dodgers (or even Stros)
I am not a die hard Dodger Blue fan or Kings fan i support them more casual than Lakers, Bruins or Cowboys but hard to enjoy how amazing this series is while in it ..
baseball has had two amazin WS back2back ...
this series deserves 7 games . that damn midget Altuive is crushing it ...
And if we lose this ...Roberts lost it game 2 by mismanaging his starters and bullpen ...
by over working Jansen and Morrow he killed the only sure advantage we had ...
I don't even like beisbol too much, but the ws is pretty exciting this year (and last year). Never felt bukakeball was exciting, even in the rare occasion there are more than zero goals.
robinlopez.gif
Jansen is a . Nothing but disappointment watching this guy.
Nice graph, and accurate
BIG MLS playoff game last night.
Guess the score?
Huge ratings last night, a 24 share, which means 24% of all TVs turned on were watching the WS.
Not surprised, Tbh. Most of Eduardo's ( LkrFan) family is watching. So many dodger bandwagoners here with newly bought blue caps and flagsHuge ratings last night, a 24 share, which means 24% of all TVs turned on were watching the WS.
Same with the LA Kings, suddenly everybody was a damn hockey fan.
Comparing just game 5's.
Didn't I bring up a juiced ball earlier in the season when scoring waa up/HRs were being hit like crazy and you just attributed it to skill?
Fatball is difficult (just like other non-athletic games like billiards and golf) so anytime you see a e chances are there's some sketchy stuff going on.
How very observant of you! Indeed, I'm an experimental psychologist. Many of my colleagues like baseball for its statistical complexity. It's fair to say I'm a casual fan. I actually played little league as a kid, but I completely sucked ass.
Do you do anything psych-related?
Wrong and easily disproven, but keep banging that drum out of your infantile baseball bias.
Now that we have that out of the way, the increased homer rate during the regular season is more attributed to player's adjusting their swings than a juiced ball.
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/if-t...e-homer-surge/A juiced ball could influence many things, but not launch angle. Batters, it seems, are making better quality contact more often — even if that conclusion isn’t immediately revealed in the league-wide fly-ball rates. Maybe it explains a large part of what’s going, maybe just a small part. But it explains some of it.
friend of FanGraphs and professor emeritus of physics at the University of Illinois — was asked by MLB to review the research as an independent source. Lindbergh spoked with Nathan.
“Quite frankly, I was disappointed at that result, because I was hoping I’d find something,” Nathan, who was compensated by MLB for the time he spent studying the BRC report, tells me by phone. However, he says, “I saw nothing in the data that was presented that suggests that the ball has been altered at all.”
Wrote Lindbergh in conclusion:
If the spread of dingers has less to do with COR or seam height than with a wave of Yonder Alonso–like breakouts by hitters who’ve tailored their swings to lift low pitches, then pitchers could exploit those uppercuts by raising their own sights … The historic performance we’ve seen since mid-2015 still supports at least a little skepticism about the true roots of baseball’s home run revolution; without witnessing the tests, we can’t consider these findings definitive. But the “juiced ball” hypothesis does seem much less likely than I thought it did two days ago. “It has every look of being su ious,” Nathan says about the timing of baseball’s big-fly bailout. “But as I said, there’s nothing I could find that suggests anything amiss.”
I don't really care about whether the regular season ball was juiced or not. If anything, I'm on board since with the advent of deep bullpens over the past 2 years, hitters needed some kind of equalizer, so a juiced ball (which is within range of specs) simply balances out the sport more. I'd rather incentivize contact hitting and speed as a means of an offense generator over homers, though, but due to shifts and the supreme ATHLETICISM of middle infielders and outfielders, it's in' hard to beat modern MLB defenses. That's why I'm for moving the fences back (won't happen).
My complaint here is this slick ball they suddenly introduced for the WS (don't know if it's intentional or poor quality QC on MLB's part). Slider reliant pitchers are getting s ed since they can't optimally grip this ball. MLB isn't alone here. Your precious Povertyball introduced some ty bouncy ball in the World Cup many times to increase scoring (in a sport that actually needs it).
Last edited by midnightpulp; 10-30-2017 at 06:14 PM.
No. Just a hobbyist reader.How very observant of you! Indeed, I'm an experimental psychologist. Many of my colleagues like baseball for its statistical complexity. It's fair to say I'm a casual fan. I actually played little league as a kid, but I completely sucked ass.
Do you do anything psych-related?
Nice on the other bolded. To further enhance your appreciation of the sport, here's a good response I found to a new baseball fan from Ireland getting into the game:
This is why baseball isn't a slow sport. 300 pitches per game and every one matters and can have a snowball effect into the next pitch/event. Chuck D, a baseball fan, said it best:Another thing to pay attention to (sounds like you already do) is the count. The count is at the heart of baseball's "tension" and action. Even though baseball is not a running around sport, the way the action unfolds through the count is as "action packed" as any other sport, even if players aren't constantly dribbling, juking, shooting, etc.
To compare it to soccer (a sport I'm sure you're familiar with), a 3-1 count is very much like a striker finding the ball in open space going toward the goal. The crowd tenses up or cheers at the looming scoring opportunity. It probably won't come (just like a homerun is unlikely), but the audience instinctively knows that a striker in open space is very dangerous (or beneficial) to their team. Same thing when a dangerous hitter has a 3-0, 3-1 count to work with. Here's a table of how the odds shift of getting a hit per the count:
http://research.sabr.org/journals/im...86/study_5.jpg
So a pitcher battling back from a hitter's count to get the out is much like a defender slide tackling that striker in open space to stunt his attack.
Here's the odds of scoring a run with men on base:
http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/users/brook...ectedruns.html
So in a bases loaded, no outs situation, a team will score at least a run 88% of the time. To compare it to soccer again, that's basically like having a free penalty kick. If the team manages to get out of the situation unscathed, it's the equivalent of a goalie saving that point blank penalty shot.
And in addition to that, you got all sorts of interesting tactics and metagame going on. Defensive shifts, pitch sequencing to set up a different pitch sequence the next AB (think poker and folding to an aggressive raise to get the player to push on you when you have a hand), pitching changes to exploit a matchup, working counts to drive up pitch counts, etc.
How the pace of the game seems slow to the [uninformed] watcher, but it’s really fast when you understand. Details are important, details are important in every little thing.
Last edited by midnightpulp; 10-30-2017 at 06:09 PM.
Damn, you slurp apali 's nob on that barely matters.Comparing just game 5's.
So what score can your unathletic fat mexican ass shoot in golf?
FKLA and the TwinkTrot crew sadly have a very limited view of athleticism and only consider sports where there's constant motion (whether the ball being in constant motion [FKLA would probably consider volleyball an athletic sport, but it burns as much calories as playing baseball and centered around basically one athletic trait: jumping. But it's "fast paced" or something] or the players. I'll say this. SS, 2B, and outfielders are under a more overall athletic demand than any basketball player, PG or otherwise.
Very rarely, if ever, are you dead on full sprinting for more than 90 feet in basketball, even when getting back to defend fastbreaks (the players below the rim are already beat and just trot, it's usually players above the 3 point getting back in a sprint, and it's more of a controlled sprint than anything). Check out Lebron James block on Iggy.
He went into a sprint around the half-court line (48 feet) and leaped a good 6 feet forward and about 35" high. Impressive.
Billy Hamilton dead sprinting for 123 feet reaching 22mph and laying out for a diving catch (an equally impressive "jumping feat" as what Lebron did).
https://www.mlb.com/video/roberts-on...e/c-1866047283
Pure straight up vertical?
And addition to that, outfielders often have 90-105mph throwing arms. Here's Kevin Kiermaier nearly nailing the speedy Mookie Betts with a 100mph throw from 344 feet away in the air and on target. Nothing in basketball can with that (athletically).
https://www.mlb.com/indians/video/st...?tid=240568594
Nothing in basketball demands the full body athletic "explosion," if you will, of hitting or pitching. Not jump shooting, first step into a dribble-drive, nor dunking. It would do the TwinkTrot well to investigate the biomechanics of certain athletic feats instead of just rating athletic feats on how pretty they look.
Last edited by midnightpulp; 10-30-2017 at 09:39 PM.
And they have a Houston hat in their holster too, just in case.Not surprised, Tbh. Most of Eduardo's ( LkrFan) family is watching. So many dodger bandwagoners here with newly bought blue caps and flags
Same with the LA Kings, suddenly everybody was a damn hockey fan.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
