Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Post by thebluebus on Feb 26, 2023 13:47:07 GMT -5
I was pretty indifferent about the pitch clock initially but this kind of shit is concerning. Maybe MLB should have listened to the damn players and not gone so fast with the clock. Going from nothing to 15 seconds seems like too quick. Start with 20-25 seconds or something.
I was pretty indifferent about the pitch clock initially but this kind of shit is concerning. Maybe MLB should have listened to the damn players and not gone so fast with the clock. Going from nothing to 15 seconds seems like too quick. Start with 20-25 seconds or something.
Its 20 seconds with runners on board....
This situation is on the batter, not the pitcher and the catcher comes into play which is another layer to look at.
My gripe would be the clock is gigantic and its in your face when watching. You never see the play clock in nfl unless its extra points and of course the scorebug shows the clock so you always know whats up. Nba has the graphic on the paint and scorebug but its not bothersome.
I was pretty indifferent about the pitch clock initially but this kind of shit is concerning. Maybe MLB should have listened to the damn players and not gone so fast with the clock. Going from nothing to 15 seconds seems like too quick. Start with 20-25 seconds or something.
Its 20 seconds with runners on board....
This situation is on the batter, not the pitcher and the catcher comes into play which is another layer to look at.
My gripe would be the clock is gigantic and its in your face when watching. You never see the play clock in nfl unless its extra points and of course the scorebug shows the clock so you always know whats up. Nba has the graphic on the paint and scorebug but its not bothersome.
Regardless of whether the batter or pitcher makes the violation, it's just too much, too soon imo. Start slower, with more time before going so quick with it all and having these kind of strikes/balls called which mess up an AB.
I think I saw something saying the big clock will be a lot smaller and out of site for the regular season games.
This situation is on the batter, not the pitcher and the catcher comes into play which is another layer to look at.
My gripe would be the clock is gigantic and its in your face when watching. You never see the play clock in nfl unless its extra points and of course the scorebug shows the clock so you always know whats up. Nba has the graphic on the paint and scorebug but its not bothersome.
Regardless of whether the batter or pitcher makes the violation, it's just too much, too soon imo. Start slower, with more time before going so quick with it all and having these kind of strikes/balls called which mess up an AB.
I think I saw something saying the big clock will be a lot smaller and out of site for the regular season games.
Im sure if this happens in a series clinching playoff game youll see complaints cause a violation like this determines the outcome and you hope it doesnt come to that. Maybe they amend it for the playoffs for the later innings.
Post by piggy pablo on Feb 28, 2023 5:12:14 GMT -5
Haven't seen enough pitch clock yet to have much of a take but I hate the runner on second in extra innings. Thought for sure they'd do away with that after last year. Too big of a momentum advantage for the away team, imo.
Haven't seen enough pitch clock yet to have much of a take but I hate the runner on second in extra innings. Thought for sure they'd do away with that after last year. Too big of a momentum advantage for the away team, imo.
If anything, I thought the runner on 2nd rule really benefits the home team. If the road team scores one or more runs you know you have to play for a big inning. But if they don't score, you can play small ball, bunt the winning runner over to 3rd if you want and play for 1 run. The road team doesn't have that option.
Post by piggy pablo on Feb 28, 2023 12:02:59 GMT -5
"Home teams went 113-103 in extra-inning games last year and are 262-263 in extra innings since the runner on second rule started in 2020, according to the Elias Sports Bureau. Home teams were 312-294 in extra-inning games from 2017-19, Elias said."
From this month. Very even so that's good but with homefield advantage being what it is I think an even record suggests a slight edge to the away team. But it's more of a mental advantage than strategic. As players get used to it, that one- or two-run mental advantage probably erodes.
Post by thebluebus on Feb 28, 2023 14:39:54 GMT -5
I'm not sure the advantage I was talking about would necessarily equate to wins. The team would still have to execute to score the runs, but the advantage seems clear. Knowing whether you need one run or more to either win or tie the game is an advantage the other team batting first doesn't have, so they're never going to have the ability/strategy to play for one run (which is a lot more doable with the runner on 2nd rule.)
Of course a lot of teams nowadays don't or wouldn't take advantage of that anyway because they refuse to bunt or move the runner over. But when you only need one run, its more likely to see it.
Post by thebluebus on Feb 28, 2023 15:32:02 GMT -5
It might not lead to more wins for various reasons. First, just because you know how many runs you need to win or tie (literally impossible for the road team) doesn't mean you will get those runs. If the road teams scores 4 runs in the top of the 10th, that's great you know that you don't need to play for one run now... but you're still likely going to lose.
And like I said, they'd still have to execute. Even if the home team only needs one run, they would 1) actually have to take advantage of that (i.e bunt the runner over) and 2) execute getting the run in. None of that is automatic.
It might not lead to more wins for various reasons. First, just because you know how many runs you need to win or tie (literally impossible for the road team) doesn't mean you will get those runs. If the road teams scores 4 runs in the top of the 10th, that's great you know that you don't need to play for one run now... but you're still likely going to lose.
And like I said, they'd still have to execute. Even if the home team only needs one run, they would 1) actually have to take advantage of that (i.e bunt the runner over) and 2) execute getting the run in. None of that is automatic.
If you bunt the runner over, you have two chances at a single to win the game, or one chance at a sac fly to win the game. If you leave the runner at second, you have 3 chances to single to win the game, and one chance at getting the runner over naturally (FC, sac fly, passed ball/wild pitch, stolen base) and then getting the sac fly to win the game.
Why would you push the option that gives you fewer chances to score? Just curious. And obviously who is batting matters in the particular situation and context.
It might not lead to more wins for various reasons. First, just because you know how many runs you need to win or tie (literally impossible for the road team) doesn't mean you will get those runs. If the road teams scores 4 runs in the top of the 10th, that's great you know that you don't need to play for one run now... but you're still likely going to lose.
And like I said, they'd still have to execute. Even if the home team only needs one run, they would 1) actually have to take advantage of that (i.e bunt the runner over) and 2) execute getting the run in. None of that is automatic.
If you bunt the runner over, you have two chances at a single to win the game, or one chance at a sac fly to win the game. If you leave the runner at second, you have 3 chances to single to win the game, and one chance at getting the runner over naturally (FC, sac fly, passed ball/wild pitch, stolen base) and then getting the sac fly to win the game.
Why would you push the option that gives you fewer chances to score? Just curious. And obviously who is batting matters in the particular situation and context.
You have a bunch more options than just a single or sac fly. You can score with any type of hit, a sac fly, a well placed ground ball, a wild pitch or passed ball, a balk, or even an infielder error. Point being you get a bunch of different ways to get that winning run in, many of which the hitter simply has to put the ball in play and avoid the strikeout. Relying on a hit can prove difficult when the best hitters in the game only do it about 30% of the time.
I know a lot of teams are anti-bunt these days but there are certain situations where it seems pretty beneficial, one of those being when you're playing for just 1 single run and trying to get the runner over to 3rd with less than two outs.
If you bunt the runner over, you have two chances at a single to win the game, or one chance at a sac fly to win the game. If you leave the runner at second, you have 3 chances to single to win the game, and one chance at getting the runner over naturally (FC, sac fly, passed ball/wild pitch, stolen base) and then getting the sac fly to win the game.
Why would you push the option that gives you fewer chances to score? Just curious. And obviously who is batting matters in the particular situation and context.
You have a bunch more options than just a single or sac fly. You can score with any type of hit, a sac fly, a well placed ground ball, a wild pitch or passed ball, a balk, or even an infielder error. Point being you get a bunch of different ways to get that winning run in, many of which the hitter simply has to put the ball in play and avoid the strikeout. Relying on a hit can prove difficult when the best hitters in the game only do it about 30% of the time.
I know a lot of teams are anti-bunt these days but there are certain situations where it seems pretty beneficial, one of those being when you're playing for just 1 single run and trying to get the runner over to 3rd with less than two outs.
You have a bunch more options than just a single or sac fly. You can score with any type of hit, a sac fly, a well placed ground ball, a wild pitch or passed ball, a balk, or even an infielder error. Point being you get a bunch of different ways to get that winning run in, many of which the hitter simply has to put the ball in play and avoid the strikeout. Relying on a hit can prove difficult when the best hitters in the game only do it about 30% of the time.
I know a lot of teams are anti-bunt these days but there are certain situations where it seems pretty beneficial, one of those being when you're playing for just 1 single run and trying to get the runner over to 3rd with less than two outs.
"sToP bUnTiNg, HiT dInGgeRs"... as they K for the 3rd time in the game.
If you bunt the runner over, you have two chances at a single to win the game, or one chance at a sac fly to win the game. If you leave the runner at second, you have 3 chances to single to win the game, and one chance at getting the runner over naturally (FC, sac fly, passed ball/wild pitch, stolen base) and then getting the sac fly to win the game.
Why would you push the option that gives you fewer chances to score? Just curious. And obviously who is batting matters in the particular situation and context.
You have a bunch more options than just a single or sac fly. You can score with any type of hit, a sac fly, a well placed ground ball, a wild pitch or passed ball, a balk, or even an infielder error. Point being you get a bunch of different ways to get that winning run in, many of which the hitter simply has to put the ball in play and avoid the strikeout. Relying on a hit can prove difficult when the best hitters in the game only do it about 30% of the time.
I know a lot of teams are anti-bunt these days but there are certain situations where it seems pretty beneficial, one of those being when you're playing for just 1 single run and trying to get the runner over to 3rd with less than two outs.
Sure, but you score from 2nd or 3rd on any type of hit, possibly an infielder error. A wild pitch or passed ball moves you up a base without sacrificing that out. I'm not sure what a "well placed ground ball" is in this scenario that isn't a hit - presumably if you bunt the guy over to third the infield is in to get the guy at home.
So any scenario you come up with you are sacrificing the out to do what you want to do to score less often than you could if you didn't bunt. Outs are the currency of the game, you can't just give those up. I do agree that there's a situation every once in awhile where it makes sense, but it's usually context dependent.
You have a bunch more options than just a single or sac fly. You can score with any type of hit, a sac fly, a well placed ground ball, a wild pitch or passed ball, a balk, or even an infielder error. Point being you get a bunch of different ways to get that winning run in, many of which the hitter simply has to put the ball in play and avoid the strikeout. Relying on a hit can prove difficult when the best hitters in the game only do it about 30% of the time.
I know a lot of teams are anti-bunt these days but there are certain situations where it seems pretty beneficial, one of those being when you're playing for just 1 single run and trying to get the runner over to 3rd with less than two outs.
Sure, but you score from 2nd or 3rd on any type of hit, possibly an infielder error. A wild pitch or passed ball moves you up a base without sacrificing that out. I'm not sure what a "well placed ground ball" is in this scenario that isn't a hit - presumably if you bunt the guy over to third the infield is in to get the guy at home.
So any scenario you come up with you are sacrificing the out to do what you want to do to score less often than you could if you didn't bunt. Outs are the currency of the game, you can't just give those up. I do agree that there's a situation every once in awhile where it makes sense, but it's usually context dependent.
You don't always score from 2nd on any hit. A single doesn't bring the runner home every time depending on where it's hit, the runner's speed, the outfielder's arm, ect. They do score every time from 3rd tho. Also if the 3rd baseman boots a ground ball, the runner from 2nd doesn't score. They do from 3rd. For the wild pitch/passed ball/balk, I was talking about the runner already being at 3rd. They score in that case. If you have a runner on 2nd, sure they move up, but they don't automatically score the winning run. "Well placed ground ball" means it could be a ground out to 2nd base where the runner scores. Sure, if we're strictly talking extra innings, and that runner on 3rd is the winning run, then the infield is playing in. But that creates more holes in the infield. A grounder between 3rd & SS that would normally be an easy out might get through with the SS playing in. There's so much range that gets lost playing the infield in, thus creating more opportunities for a "well placed grounder."
Again, I don't agree with the notion that you will score that one run less often if you successfully get them to 3rd with less than two outs. The whole "can't give up outs" rhetoric is a little overblown. Sure, it holds true a good amount of the time because teams aren't playing for just one run when there's an opportunity for a big inning. In that case, outs are more valuable. But when you simply need one run, that's not always the case. I'm sure if the winning run is on 3rd, a team would gladly "give up" an out on a sacrifice fly to win the game, right? Same goes for a squeeze play. Giving up an out to score a run, or at least bettering your chance to score that run, can be beneficial.
I do agree, much of it is circumstantial and depends on the situation. Who's batting, who's on deck, what's the speed of the runner on base, ect. Like, I don't expect Mike Trout to be bunting in any circumstance (unless it's to surprise for a hit, and not an actual sacrifice.) But again, I think there's this stigma now where teams think they really shouldn't at all, which is absurd imo. Definitely times to do it, even if infrequently.
Me and Mayo are starting our tour of all 30 ballparks this year (I mean, technically we've already checked off Wrigley together, but may officially revisit anyway lol).
Has anyone else attempted this? Or aspire to?
this is like a lifetime goal, let alone one year, good luck!
So we’re officially fucked at SS now that Lux is gone. I mean it wasn’t like he was gonna make or break the season but we had a capable body in the hole. Looks like they might have to platoon the spot unless we pickup a stray SS somewhere.
Bright side is May made his Spring debut, that kid is 🔥
So we’re officially fucked at SS now that Lux is gone. I mean it wasn’t like he was gonna make or break the season but we had a capable body in the hole. Looks like they might have to platoon the spot unless we pickup a stray SS somewhere.
Bright side is May made his Spring debut, that kid is 🔥
I mean, at least the Red Sox can trade you an all-star for pennies on the dollar.
