Jump to content


Plus Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


DrungoHazewood last won the day on November 12 2019

DrungoHazewood had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,730 The Grand Hangout Council Member


About DrungoHazewood

  • Rank
    Hangout Contributor
  • Birthday 6/19/1971

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Homepage
  • Interests
    Nate, Sam, Baseball, Soccer, Virginia Tech sports, Hiking, Cooking, Photography, Mad treks to the far corners of the globe
  • Occupation
    Electronics Engineer/Program Manager
  • Favorite Current Oriole
    Matthias Dietz
  • Favorite All Time Oriole
    Doug DeCinces

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. In the NBA/NFL case it's ridiculous to impose upon the players the requirement to pretend to go to college for a year or two. And in my opinion it's ridiculous to have colleges pretend to educate basketball players and other athletes who are really majoring in a one- or two-year basketball program. I get why the NBA likes this. Free minor leagues, and player development risk reduction. But for colleges, they've strayed far, far from their educational charters by giving free rides to athletes who have no intention of getting a degree unless their athletic careers get derailed.
  2. I like Mancini, he's a good player. But he just had a 3-win peak year at age 27 when most players peak, and in a year with juiced baseballs. It's good they're going year-to-year with him.
  3. That's why people get nostalgic about the pre-free agency days. There was no discussion of player retention beyond "is he still a positive for the team?" If yes, then keep him. But I've long since made peace with the fact that the old setup is both awful for players and never, ever coming back. While fans loved having Mike Cuellar for eight years on absurdly team-friendly terms, maybe Mike Cuellar would have liked some say in where he played and for how much. And I don't blame him one bit.
  4. What is comes down to is the amount of tactical planning from coaches or similar (in baseball, the catcher). In basketball, soccer, probably hockey, maybe rugby there's little or none of that. A soccer manager discusses and lays out tactical plans during training, and it's up to the individual players to execute that in a game. The decisions on how to execute plays or how the game flows are in the heads of each player. To "steal" plans you'd have to be reading the minds of the opponents. There's no secret codes, no radios, no delving into game theory three turns ahead. There is a pretty easy fix in baseball, since the pitcher-catcher interaction is really the only (slightly) encrypted tactical communications. They could allow electronic aides to facilitate communications between pitcher and catchers and the bench. Either radio, or some other kind of signaling device. Or a team could just decide to have the pitcher call all the pitches and not tell anyone ahead of time. Allow all sign stealing, and then start judging catchers on how well they anticipate pitches.
  5. It would be a lot harder to cheat in baseball if you made all sign stealing legal. If you don't want your signs stolen come up with better cryptography. Although you'd still have doctored balls, corked bats (those should be legal, too, since they're actually counter-productive), and PEDs.
  6. I think they should punish Astros and Red Sox minor leaguers, since they're not part of the union. Sure, they didn't do anything, but sacrifices must be made.
  7. Zimmerman seems to be one of those guys who you can almost like despite going to UVA. Ben Olsen, a handful of others. But if Mancini starts taking classes in Charlottesville I'm done with him.
  8. Here's an example of random variation: a regular position player gets about 100 or 125 PAs a month. Similar to how many lefties Givens faces in a year. In Eddie Murray's career he had July batting averages ranging from .172 to .357. The .172 and the .357 were consecutive years in mid-career. He also had consecutive year pairs of .364 and .279, .260 and .337, .282 and .348,and he had a .238 the year before his .357. Even players known for their consistency have wide variations in results in small samples.
  9. Or that's a nice narrative to backfit into what's actually random variation.
  10. He faces 100 or 120 lefties a year. BABIP can take thousands of PAs to stabilize. In 2017 his BABIP against lefties was just over .200, in 2018 it was just over .300. In 2016 it was .474(!). I'm sure some of this was his approach and execution. But a lot of it is just natural random variation in tiny samples of PAs.
  11. Hunter's career OPS against in the 9th is .753. Overall it's .736. In the 6th and 7th it's over .800. In the 8th it's .586, probably because when he's pitched well he's almost always been used as a setup guy. I'm very skeptical of the choking label, or the idea that it takes a special kind of person to pitch the 9th inning. Tommy Hunter is probably not lacking in pixie dust, it's that he's a reliever with a low strikeout rate and high variability in outcomes.
  12. Maybe the Orioles have been stealing signs using a cutting edge technological scheme, and the last two years they were really had 35-win true talent.
  13. The Orioles are trying their best to win every game. They just have a roster of players who often make that very hard, and that's because there are very few incentives and multiple dis-incentives to win 75 games instead of 55. If baseball is going to take atomic's advice (and they won't) and treat not spending every available dime on current wins as treason, then they need to also change the incentives to do so. Although I suppose a permanent ban from baseball for all GMs and owners who don't spend every cent on current year wins would be a pretty good incentive, if also terribly difficult to enforce consistently and also harmful to the long-term prospects of mid-to-small market teams.
  14. Okay, I get that. But I'm also in favor of explicitly calling things out ahead of time. Baseball made a rule that says you can't use electronic means to steal signs. What they didn't do is say what happens when someone does it. When they drew up the rule was it seen as a huge deal, or just another thing? Is it comparable to a spitball, or paying off an ump? By remaining silent on consequences they leave it open to debate when it happens, by whomever is in power when it happens. It's like saying you can't exceed the speed limit, but there's no specified punishment. We'll leave it up to the judge in traffic court to figure out if the punishment is $50 or $10,000.
  • Create New...