Jump to content


Plus Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Number5

  1. 19 hours ago, Frobby said:

    I don’t think Beltran cheating in a prior job as a player is legal “cause” for the Mets to fire him from a different job two years later, especially in circumstances where the league has decided not to suspend him.    He was available to do his job with the Mets, and had done nothing wrong in his position as manager of the Mets.    Therefore, I do not believe the Mets had the legal right to terminate his contract without paying his full salary for the period covered for the contract.     That’s why they negotiated a buyout rather than just terminating him unilaterally.    Personally, I find Beltran’s conduct with the Astros reprehensible but I do not find it disgusting that the Mets paid him some severance when they fired him.   

    What if they asked him his role in the Astros' pending cheating investigation during the interview process and he denied any involvement?  When the report later came out, Beltran was named in the report as a participant.  Wouldn't being shown to have lied in the interview process be sufficient grounds?

  2. 4 hours ago, Frobby said:

    I haven’t seen it, partly because my wife doesn’t like war movies.     I’ve missed out on many highly regarded war movies like Apocolypse Now, Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July, and lots of others for that reason.   I only saw Saving Private Ryan on TV when my wife wasn’t around.    


  3. 49 minutes ago, yeoledugger said:

    I am having a bad feeling about Mr. Altuve quickly running off into the dugout and down into the runway right after hitting his walkoff. Why would he do that?

    He had to pee?

  4. 28 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

    I don't either but I bet it would be significant.

    Stuff like this I like to just assume that the guys that like crunching numbers did it correctly or the other guys that like crunching numbers would have corrected them.

    I hear ya, but that just seems way too high to me.  Seems like .6 runs would be closer to the number for the entire half inning, not one out.  That would be 5.4 runs per team per game by simple math ( 9 X .6.)  I'm sure the formula that whoever came up with .6 runs per out came up with is far more complex than that.  I've found in life that there are times that more complex isn't always better.  It would be nice to at least be given a reasonable explanation of how they arrived at the number and a reason that the actual number of runs scored versus outs made would be an incorrect way to do it.  Again, I'm no mathematician, but I do like to be able to at least have something make some kind of sense to me.

  5. 2 hours ago, Frobby said:

    I will give you a different answer than Tony, but it’s based on theory more than actual game observations.   

    First, you need to recognize that Iglesias played a lot more games than Martin.    He played 1169 innings at short compared to Martin’s 785, about 50% more innings.    So if you assumed Martin’s time was increased to Iglesias’ level, his -5 becomes -7 or -8.    Let’s be generous and call it -7.    That makes the difference between Iglesias and Martin 19 outs.

    Calculations done for other defensive metrics show that on average one out equates to .6 runs.    That average is calculated by running some math on every base/out state, and looking at the frequency of how often they occur, and doing a weighted average.    In other words, making a tough play with the bases loaded and two outs has a different impact on runs scored than making that same play with two out and nobody on base.    But when you look at the weighted average of all situations, the impact of making vs. failing to make an out is roughly .6 runs.    So, 19 outs equals 11-12 runs.

    Finally, as a general rule, 10 runs greater or fewer over a season leads to one more or fewer win.    Again, that’s an average.    Depending on exactly when those runs were prevented or allowed, the impact could be much greater.    But applying that average, the difference between Iglesias and Martin should lead to about one extra win.    Obviously, the reality could be different depending on the game situations when these plays occur.    There are times where one play decides the outcome of the game, and other times where the play has no influence on the outcome whatsoever.    

    I'm not a mathematician, so I can't back my opinion up on this, but .6 runs per out seems extremely high to me.  My common sense tells me that there isn't an average of 1.8 runs scored every half inning, even with juiced up balls.  Again, I have no training or experience in this field at all, but it just looks way off to my simple mind.  Can you explain this to me in terms that I can understand?

  6. 22 minutes ago, bobmc said:

    Is using analytics to counteract "pitch tipping" the next new thing?  Reports said that Cora could detect pitch identification without technology.

    Yes, Cora noticed that whenever the pitchers caused loud banging sounds to emanate from below the stands that they then threw an off-speed pitch.

  7. 2 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

    But, how do we punish horse thieves today?  10 lashes with a buggy whip? 

    Death by hanging is well beyond the maximum penalty.  Point is, 1877 is just plain not comparable to 1990 or today.  The 1919 World Series would have been a better comparison for Drungo to have pulled up from the past, IMO.  The Karras-Hornung one year ban in the NFL is more pertinent than 1877 baseball, but is also not quite relevant, given that it is a different sport with a different organization.

    I think that perhaps you and Drungo are somehow perceiving my comments as being in defense of Pete Rose.  They are not.  I have no problem with his banishment.  I remain outraged at Garcia's not being punished in kind at the same period of time.  If anything, umpires should be held more accountable than players and managers, not less.  The very heart of the game is attacked when an umpire is illegally and unduly influenced.  For an umpire to be indebted to illegal bookmakers creates an obvious probability of impropriety.  It has certainly raised questions concerning Garcia's perplexing non-call in the 1996 ALCS.

  8. 7 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

    No.  The historical reference simply puts the Pete Rose ban in context with the history of the game.  It wasn't an isolated incident.  The ban has been in place and used over a long period of time.  The comment was pertinent.

    I disagree.  If anything, it is very much out of context, given the sea of differences between the game and the organization and administration thereof between 1877 and the modern day game.  Again, how we punished horse thieves in 1877 is not pertinent to today.  Well, I've made my point that life's situations in 1877 are irrelevant to this discussion, and certainly nothing has been said here to change my mind on that.  

  9. 45 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

    No, we should ban the umpire for life, not celebrate Pete Rose.  Following good ethical practices isn't old-fashioned, it's just right. 

    Are you actually suggesting that rules against gambling on games a person is involved with are the same as denying people the right to vote?  I'm at a loss as to how that makes any sense at all.

    I beg your pardon.  I didn't say anything of the kind.  My point was and remains that It was highly hypocritical to ban Pete Rose for life and quietly slap the wrist of Richie Garcia at the same time.  That is NOT an endorsement of Pete Rose.

    I also made the point that your comment that what was done in 1877 was somehow pertinent was just plain silly.

  10. 40 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

    It's my understanding that the rules didn't set forth a specific punishment for violating the ban on electronic equipment in the dugout.  To me that's the main difference between this and gambling.   A lifetime ban has been the punishment for gambling since at least 1877.  Jim Devlin was banned in the '77 Louisville scandal, and spent most of the 1880s literally begging for reinstatement, destitute and living on the streets before dying of the consumption.

    What's the punishment for electronic sign stealing?  I don't know, but in most cases it's been nothing.  To me it's unprecedented to impose draconian penalties for something like this.  Loss of draft picks seems somewhat reasonable.

    So we should take the vote away from women and hang horse thieves because that's what they did in 1877?

    The hypocrisy of banning Pete Rose for life while - at the very same time - quietly slapping the wrist of an umpire that gambled and was indebted to illegal bookmakers is a black stain on the game that receives incredibly little notoriety.  The same umpire a decade or so later pretended not to see a fan reaching out onto the field of play to interfere during an ALCS game, despite being positioned in such a way to have to have seen it unless his eyes were closed.  Said umpire was later actually promoted to a supervisory position, only to be summarily dismissed under suspicious circumstances in another playoff series.  Failure to hold umpires to a standard of integrity at least as high as the standard set for players is inexcusable.

  • Create New...