Jump to content

CUT4: Why 9 innings? Why 4 balls?


weams

Recommended Posts

 

Quote

For decades, baseball has remained such a constant that its rules and structure have become as cherished as its greatest players. The run-scoring environment might have changed a bit since 1905, but the fundamental look and feel of the game hasn't. Legendary sportswriter and Spink Award winner Red Smith, as always, said it best: "Ninety feet between bases is perhaps as close as man has ever come to perfection."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm always glad when someone writes about early baseball history. But I think the author missed a few nuances.

- Pitchers such as Jim Creighton were pushing the envelope 10 years before Tommy Bond.

- Harry Wright didn't change the rules. There were annual meetings reviewing and revising rules going back to the 1850s.

- How could teams combine for 60-100 runs when the rules stated the game ended when one team reached 21?

- The 154 game schedule was tried as early as 1898. 1920 went back to 154 because WWI ended.

- During the pitcher's box era you were allowed a short run up or at least a couple of hops before pitching.

- He mentioned the shockingly low 2.96 (actually  2.37) ERA in 1880.  What he didn't say was runs per game were very similar to today at 4.69.  Teams averaged 4.3 errors a game and about half of all runs were unearned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I'm always glad when someone writes about early baseball history. But I think the author missed a few nuances.

- Pitchers such as Jim Creighton were pushing the envelope 10 years before Tommy Bond.

- Harry Wright didn't change the rules. There were annual meetings reviewing and revising rules going back to the 1850s.

- How could teams combine for 60-100 runs when the rules stated the game ended when one team reached 21?

- The 154 game schedule was tried as early as 1898. 1920 went back to 154 because WWI ended.

- During the pitcher's box era you were allowed a short run up or at least a couple of hops before pitching.

- He mentioned the shockingly low 2.96 (actually  2.37) ERA in 1880.  What he didn't say was runs per game were very similar to today at 4.69.  Teams averaged 4.3 errors a game and about half of all runs were unearned.

I think they fielded remarkably well, considering the gloves they used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, 25 Nuggets said:

This is why statistics prior to 1890 need to be taken with a grain of salt.

They forgot to mention the "walks count as hits" rule.in 1887.

Modern sites and encyclopedias have removed the walks from the hits column for 1887.  Tip O'Neill hit .435, not .485.

I think everyone is better off thinking of baseball history as a continuum. It has never sat still. They constantly changed rules prior to about 1904, and although that tailed off the parks, players, owners, salaries, cities and other conditions have always been in flux. MLB today is probably as different from MLB in 1940 as it is from Korean baseball or NCAA baseball. I think it's a mistake to say there was a big inflection point in any single year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

And Alexander Cartwright was fire chief of Honolulu for 13 years.

And a huge sugar cane baron IIRC...

 

A clip I remember from Ken Burns' "Baseball." 90' to 1st base. Paraphrased quote, "Think of the plays at 1B. If it's 89 feet how many close plays are safe? .300 BA is the norm. Think if it's 91 feet... Pitchers become Gods."

 

Very paraphrased...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 1/5/2017 at 4:19 AM, scOtt said:

And didn't you get unlimited Balls back in the 19th Century? Pitch until you got 3 strikes or an out or a hit?

Sorry to dredge up a week+ old thread, but I've been limited in posting lately.

Waaaaay back in the amateur era, like the 1850s, there weren't balls and strikes.  The pitcher was more-or-less tossing the ball in so the hitter could put it in play. By the early 1860s pitchers like Jim Creighton were trying to get batters out on their own with speed and curves, and they started instituting ball/strike rules.  They finally settled on the modern three strikes and four balls in 1888.  It was mainly the balls that changed, essentially going from nine to four in a number of steps.  As far as I know 1887 was the only year where three strikes wasn't the rule, it was four, and that was definitely the only year with a non-three strike rule since 1871.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/5/2017 at 4:21 AM, scOtt said:

Throw strikes or die.

I've long been curious about a form of baseball that went back to the early paradigm of putting the ball in play almost all the time.  You could make the rule that a walk was two or three bases, the strike zone bottom of the knees to top of shoulders, and move the mound back to about 75'.  Or just recreate the rules of 1875 - pitchers had to throw underhand and put limits on snapping the wrist and bending the elbow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I've long been curious about a form of baseball that went back to the early paradigm of putting the ball in play almost all the time.  You could make the rule that a walk was two or three bases, the strike zone bottom of the knees to top of shoulders, and move the mound back to about 75'.  Or just recreate the rules of 1875 - pitchers had to throw underhand and put limits on snapping the wrist and bending the elbow.

You might have to adjust the ball to keep it from becoming beer league softball out there.  Unless of course you want 30 runs a game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



  • Posts

    • dWAR is just the run value for defense added with the defensive adjustment.  Corner OF spots have a -7.5 run adjustment, while CF has a +2.5 adjustment over 150 games.    Since Cowser played both CF and the corners they pro-rate his time at each to calculate his defensive adjustment. 
    • Just to be clear, though, fWAR also includes a substantial adjustment for position, including a negative one for Cowser.  For a clearer example on that front, as the chart posted higher on this page indicates, Carlos Santana had a +14 OAA — which is the source data that fWAR’s defensive component is based on. That 14 outs above average equates to 11-12 (they use different values on this for some reason) runs better than the average 1B.  So does Santana have a 12.0 defensive value, per fWAR? He does not. That’s because they adjust his defensive value downward to reflect that he’s playing a less difficult/valuable position. In this case, that adjustment comes out to -11.0 runs, as you can see here:   So despite apparently having a bona fide Gold Glove season, Santana’s Fielding Runs value (FanGraphs’ equivalent to dWAR) is barely above average, at 1.1 runs.    Any good WAR calculation is going to adjust for position. Being a good 1B just isn’t worth as much as being an average SS or catcher. Just as being a good LF isn’t worth as much as being an average CF. Every outfielder can play LF — only the best outfielders can play CF.  Where the nuance/context shows up here is with Cowser’s unique situation. Playing LF in OPACY, with all that ground to cover, is not the same as playing LF at Fenway or Yankee Stadium. Treating Cowser’s “position” as equivalent to Tyler O’Neill’s, for example, is not fair. The degree of difficulty is much, much higher at OPACY’s LF, and so the adjustment seems out of whack for him. That’s the one place where I’d say the bWAR value is “unfair” to Cowser.
    • Wait a second here, the reason he's -0.1 in bb-ref dwar is because they're using drs to track his defensive run value.  He's worth 6.6 runs in defense according to fangraphs, which includes adjustments for position, which would give him a fangraphs defensive war of +0.7.
    • A little funny to have provided descriptions of the hits (“weak” single; “500 foot” HR). FIP doesn’t care about any of that either, so it’s kind of an odd thing to add in an effort to make ERA look bad.  Come in, strike out the first hitter, then give up three 108 MPH rocket doubles off the wall. FIP thinks you were absolutely outstanding, and it’s a shame your pathetic defense and/or sheer bad luck let you down. Next time you’ll (probably) get the outcomes you deserve. They’re both flawed. So is xFIP. So is SIERA. So is RA/9. So is WPA. So is xERA. None of them are perfect measures of how a pitcher’s actual performance was, because there’s way too much context and too many variables for any one metric to really encompass.  But when I’m thinking about awards, for me at least, it ends up having to be about the actual outcomes. I don’t really care what a hitter’s xWOBA is when I’m thinking about MVP, and the same is true for pitchers. Did you get the outs? Did the runs score? That’s the “value” that translates to the scoreboard and, ultimately, to the standings. So I think the B-R side of it is more sensible for awards.  I definitely take into account the types of factors that you (and other pitching fWAR advocates) reference as flaws. So if a guy plays in front of a particular bad defense or had a particularly high percentage of inherited runners score, I’d absolutely adjust my take to incorporate that info. And I also 100% go to Fangraphs first when I’m trying to figure out which pitchers we should acquire (i.e., for forward looking purposes).  But I just can’t bring myself say that my Cy Young is just whichever guy had the best ratio of Ks to BBs to HRs over a threshold number of innings. As @Frobby said, it just distills out too much of what actually happened.
    • We were all a lot younger in 2005.  No one wanted to believe Canseco cause he’s a smarmy guy. Like I said, he was the only one telling the truth. It wasn’t a leap of faith to see McGwire up there and Sosa up there and think “yeah, those guys were juicing” but then suddenly look at Raffy and think he was completely innocent.  It’s a sad story. The guy should be in Hall of Fame yet 500 homers and 3,000 hits are gone like a fart in the wind cause his legacy is wagging his finger and thinking he couldn’t get caught.  Don’t fly too close to the sun.  
    • I think if we get the fun sprinkler loving Gunnar that was in the dugout yesterday, I don’t think we have to worry about him pressing. He seemed loose and feeling good with the other guys he was with, like Kremer.
    • I was a lot younger back then, but that betrayal hit really hard because he had been painting himself as literally holier than thou, and shook his finger to a congressional committee and then barely 2 weeks later failed the test.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...