Jump to content

Offense Observations After Boston Series


Old#5fan

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 167
  • Created
  • Last Reply
No surprise that he hasn't done squat against Papelbon as he looked totally overmatched which is surprising considering BR. Jones, and even Huff looked like Paplebon was very hittable. Even Mora at least hit the ball off him. However, your stats mean little to me as they don't distinguish what part of the game he was hitting (as in game on the line in late innings) or what spot in the lineup he was batting. He just seems not to hit so well in the three hole as he does batting second and I would assume the stats would support my observations on this.

Good to see you are still making ridiculous jabs at Nick when you get a chance.

If I remember correctly, he fell behind 0-2 in that at-bat and laid off 3 nasty pitches from one of the best closers in the game. Sure he swung at ball 4 but even getting to a full count took an incredible eye and great plate discipline. As soon as he chased ball 4, I figured there would be a ridiculous thread on here claiming how unclutch Nick was. Should have known it would be by Oldfan, who at this point is basically the OH equivalent of a combination of Freddie Bynum and Luis Hernandez.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as Nick against Papelbon, I would put my money on Papelbon every time because as it has already been posted, Markakis is 0-6 lifetime against him.

But wait a minute! Doesn't this go against your frequent refrain made ad nauseam that "you can't use past stats to predict future performance" mantra? Isn't that what "stat guys" do???

Didn't you say that "past stats" were no better than a roll of the dice?

So why aren't they in the case of Papelbon vs. Nick???

Please, oh please tell us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But wait a minute! Doesn't this go against your frequent refrain made ad nauseam that "you can't use past stats to predict future performance" mantra? Isn't that what "stat guys" do???

Didn't you say that "past stats" were no better than a roll of the dice?

So why aren't they in the case of Papelbon vs. Nick???

Please, oh please tell us.

He doesn't need stats. He saw that AB with his own eyes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's true. Runs early in the game do count for less after all.

Much less. It's a proven fact. A 1st inning run is actually worth 1/4th of a run less than a 9th inning run.

So a team that wins 4-0 by scoring their runs in the first inning will actually have scored 1 less run than a team winning 4-0 and scoring their runs in the 9th inning.

It's scientific fact, man. Don't argue. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But wait a minute! Doesn't this go against your frequent refrain made ad nauseam that "you can't use past stats to predict future performance" mantra? Isn't that what "stat guys" do???

Didn't you say that "past stats" were no better than a roll of the dice?

So why aren't they in the case of Papelbon vs. Nick???

Please, oh please tell us.

Simple, the stats in this case totally support the easily seen observation that Nick Markakis appears lost when facing Paplebon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

N However, your stats mean little to me as they don't distinguish what part of the game he was hitting (as in game on the line in late innings) or what spot in the lineup he was batting. He just seems not to hit so well in the three hole as he does batting second and I would assume the stats would support my observations on this.

But I provided those stats for you for Nick vs. Huff and you never responded. Could you go back and take a look at those and explain to us how even though statistics show how Nick has hit much better "close and late" than Huff how he really hasn't?

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But wait a minute! Doesn't this go against your frequent refrain made ad nauseam that "you can't use past stats to predict future performance" mantra? Isn't that what "stat guys" do???

Didn't you say that "past stats" were no better than a roll of the dice?

So why aren't they in the case of Papelbon vs. Nick???

Please, oh please tell us.

Because it supports his argument instead of refutes. Duh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I provided those stats for you for Nick vs. Huff and you never responded. Could you go back and take a look at those and explain to us how even though statistics show how Nick has hit much better "close and late" than Huff how he really hasn't?

Thank you.

Unless you can show what spot in the lineup those stats may easily support my point, which is Markakis cannot handle the three spot this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple, the stats in this case totally support the easily seen observation that Nick Markakis appears lost when facing Paplebon.

Can I paraphrase?

"The stats support my argument, and so in this case, they are valid."

Nick had a rough at bat and it seems like you're crucifying him for it. That's harsh. He shouldn't have swung at that ball, but that was the one bad swing he had all game. If a player's going to have only one bad swing all game, I'll take it, and I don't care in what situation it happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I paraphrase?

"The stats support my argument, and so in this case, they are valid."

Nick had a rough at bat and it seems like you're crucifying him for it. That's harsh. He shouldn't have swung at that ball, but that was the one bad swing he had all game. If a player's going to have only one bad swing all game, I'll take it, and I don't care in what situation it happens.

Eddie Murray struck out once in the 9th representing the go ahead run. True story, saw it with my own eyes. He's a bum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I paraphrase?

"The stats support my argument, and so in this case, they are valid."

Nick had a rough at bat and it seems like you're crucifying him for it. That's harsh. He shouldn't have swung at that ball, but that was the one bad swing he had all game. If a player's going to have only one bad swing all game, I'll take it, and I don't care in what situation it happens.

I do care in what situation because when the "bad" swing occurred, it was at the worst possible time in the game. That is when the truly great players step up not recede. I consider that at bat possibly the biggest one Markakis has had this season and he swung wildly at a ball he nor anyone else would have had any chance whatsover of hitting or even fouling off. I understand that you have to protect the plate with two strikes and had Papelbon thrown one of his split finger pitches that looked like a strike but dipped into the dirt I could understand swinging, but that pitch was a fastball way high and outside and I cannot believe he would even be looking at any pitch in that zone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much less. It's a proven fact. A 1st inning run is actually worth 1/4th of a run less than a 9th inning run.

So a team that wins 4-0 by scoring their runs in the first inning will actually have scored 1 less run than a team winning 4-0 and scoring their runs in the 9th inning.

It's scientific fact, man. Don't argue. :D

Right up there with the observation that opposition runs are worse when given up immediately following Oriole rallies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...