Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Sports Talk
Reload this Page >

sportsnation speaks out on bonds and IBBs. about half of the voters are retarded

Sports Talk Discuss all things Sports Related

sportsnation speaks out on bonds and IBBs. about half of the voters are retarded

Old 05-13-04, 01:57 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: frass canyon
Posts: 16,249
sportsnation speaks out on bonds and IBBs. about half of the voters are retarded

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/sports...g?event_id=717

jayson stark's five proposals:how about this proposal? GET A GUY WHO CAN ACTUALLY HIT THE GODDAMNED BASEBALL AND PUT HIM IN THE BATTING ORDER BEHIND BONDS!!!
RoyalTea is offline  
Old 05-13-04, 02:07 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: So Cal
Posts: 8,617
Have these mediots ever considered that any pitcher can just walk Bonds without the catcher standing up and to the side? Just toss some pitches way off the plate. What is he going to do, run across the batters box and stick his bat out?
Aphex Twin is offline  
Old 05-13-04, 02:14 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk Legend
 
chrisih8u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: A few miles north of the Cape
Posts: 18,335
Originally posted by Aphex Twin
Have these mediots ever considered that any pitcher can just walk Bonds without the catcher standing up and to the side? Just toss some pitches way off the plate. What is he going to do, run across the batters box and stick his bat out?
Or better yet, they can drill him in the back!
chrisih8u is offline  
Old 05-13-04, 02:28 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,954
I don't understand the hubbub about this. The only sports where I can remember the rules being significantly changed because of a single player were college hoops outlawing the dunk for fear that Lew Alcindor would dominate the game (which he did anyway) and baseball and height/roster requirements in response to the farce that was Eddie Gaedel.

This 'problem' is not nearly bad enough to change what has been a long standing baseball practice.
Red Dog is offline  
Old 05-13-04, 02:36 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk God
 
twikoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Right Behind You!!!
Posts: 79,497
as much as i hate seeing teams constantly walk a batter they dont think they can get out

all those ideas are just plain silly
the system works.. a player like barry just throws a major kink in it

i cant remember the last time there was a player that every single team was this afraid to pitch to

although, this has slowed down quite a bit.. since barry is in a major slump right now
twikoff is offline  
Old 05-13-04, 02:39 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
fumanstan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 55,343
Things are perfectly fine as is.
fumanstan is offline  
Old 05-13-04, 03:04 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: frass canyon
Posts: 16,249
i'm just upset that close to half the people said they'd rather see their team lose to the giants with Bonds hitting two homers than see their team win with Bonds going 0-2 and 2 IBBs.

WTF?
RoyalTea is offline  
Old 05-13-04, 03:06 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Legend
 
chrisih8u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: A few miles north of the Cape
Posts: 18,335
Originally posted by RoyalTea
i'm just upset that close to half the people said they'd rather see their team lose to the giants with Bonds hitting two homers than see their team win with Bonds going 0-2 and 2 IBBs.

WTF?
These are the same fans that convinced MLB to get rid of the Spiderman advertising.
chrisih8u is offline  
Old 05-13-04, 03:31 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,954
Originally posted by RoyalTea
i'm just upset that close to half the people said they'd rather see their team lose to the giants with Bonds hitting two homers than see their team win with Bonds going 0-2 and 2 IBBs.

WTF?

Focking morons. These are the same idiots who prefer 15-12 games over 2-1 games, more interleague play and more playoff teams.
Red Dog is offline  
Old 05-13-04, 03:38 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Newberg, OR
Posts: 17,240
I wish I could say that I was surprised by the results.
Jeremy517 is offline  
Old 05-13-04, 03:39 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: in Bush territory!
Posts: 11,613
Originally posted by namja on 4/29
What I'd do if I were Bonds:

If they try the "unintentional" intentional walk (pitching to me but pitching 4 balls waaaaaay out of the zone), I'll swing on the 4th and 5th pitches so that the pitcher would have to make 2 extra pitches. Maybe if the count is full, then I'll get to see a pitch. Heck, I might even try this on the "real" intentional walks.
I think this idea is looking brighter each day.
wabio is offline  
Old 05-13-04, 03:42 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Legend
 
chrisih8u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: A few miles north of the Cape
Posts: 18,335
Originally posted by wabio
I think this idea is looking brighter each day.
That would probably be one of the most selfish things in sports history.
chrisih8u is offline  
Old 05-13-04, 03:50 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Hero
 
das Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 35,881
chrisih8u

That would probably be one of the most selfish things in sports history.
Hardly. When your team strands you on base every damn time, I'd rather take my chances at a possible 3-2 pitch, with the added bonus of forcing the pitcher to toss some extra pitches.

Anyway, on this issue, the fault is not with MLB. The fault is with the Giants. If they didn't suck so damn much, this wouldn't be as big a problem.

das
das Monkey is offline  
Old 05-13-04, 03:55 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Legend
 
chrisih8u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: A few miles north of the Cape
Posts: 18,335
Originally posted by das Monkey
Hardly. When your team strands you on base every damn time, I'd rather take my chances at a possible 3-2 pitch, with the added bonus of forcing the pitcher to toss some extra pitches.

Anyway, on this issue, the fault is not with MLB. The fault is with the Giants. If they didn't suck so damn much, this wouldn't be as big a problem.

das

Bonds isnt an automatic HR or base hit, contrary to what some people believe. It would be selfish to give up an IBB just to pad your stats. Plus IBB pitches arent 95MPH sliders. It isnt a huge strain on a pitcher.


If a pitcher was going to walk Bonds, you wouldnt have a problem if Bonds swung twice just to load up the count? What if he strikes out? Instead of a runner on first, now he's on the bench with an extra out.
chrisih8u is offline  
Old 05-13-04, 05:14 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Hero
 
das Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 35,881
The point is that him being on first is essentially useless the way his team is playing, and as such, walking isn't that much more beneficial than striking out. If you don't make it home, who cares that you got to first? Forcing the issue for a chance at a hit isn't selfishly padding your stats; it's trying to make something happen for a team that can't generate any offense. The guy has 51 walks, 26 singles, and 2 doubles (with 2 stolen bases); yet, he's only scored 17 times! 21.5% That's radiculos. However, he has 10 home runs against 41 outs. 24.4%. Statistically, he's a more productive scoring threat swinging than he is walking, and that's including this recent slump. So he forces a 3-2 pitch. It could be a bad pitch. The guy has the best patience in the game. He could still walk.

It's not about Bonds' stats. It's about winning games. And watching Bonds stand on first is leading the Giants to jockeying for last in the West. To answer your question, no I wouldn't have a problem with Bonds if he struck out. If he keeps hitting .350 with a homer every 7.3 at bats, he can strike out as much as he likes.

das
das Monkey is offline  
Old 05-13-04, 05:39 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Legend
 
chrisih8u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: A few miles north of the Cape
Posts: 18,335
Originally posted by das Monkey
The point is that him being on first is essentially useless the way his team is playing, and as such, walking isn't that much more beneficial than striking out. If you don't make it home, who cares that you got to first?
Walking is much more beneficial than striking out. You cant score if you strike out. At least there is a chance of scoring if you get to first base.

Forcing the issue for a chance at a hit isn't selfishly padding your stats; it's trying to make something happen for a team that can't generate any offense. The guy has 51 walks, 26 singles, and 2 doubles (with 2 stolen bases); yet, he's only scored 17 times! 21.5% That's radiculos. However, he has 10 home runs against 41 outs. 24.4%. Statistically, he's a more productive scoring threat swinging than he is walking, and that's including this recent slump. So he forces a 3-2 pitch. It could be a bad pitch. The guy has the best patience in the game. He could still walk.
It doesnt change the fact that being on first base is still a better alternative than getting out. If he refuses to take a free base and gets out, he cost his team an out and a man on base. Not to mention other people being on base. Which would you prefer? Men on first and second with 0 outs, or a man on first with 1 out?


It's not about Bonds' stats. It's about winning games. And watching Bonds stand on first is leading the Giants to jockeying for last in the West. To answer your question, no I wouldn't have a problem with Bonds if he struck out. If he keeps hitting .350 with a homer every 7.3 at bats, he can strike out as much as he likes.

das
Yeah, if he keeps batting .350, but if he strikes out or otherwise gets out, he wont be hitting .350. He may still get hits by loading up the count, but the times he gets out would probably cost his team more.
chrisih8u is offline  
Old 05-13-04, 05:53 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Hero
 
das Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 35,881
Duh ... being on first base is better than being out. That's not the comparison. It's being on first base vs. seeing a 3-2 pitch. Your comparison is no more relevant than: which would you prefer? Bonds on first or worldwide armageddon?

Seeing a 3-2 pitch is not a guaranteed strike out as you insist. Walking is not a guaranteed run. However, the statistics I posted which you conveniently ignored since they prove I'm right , indicate that Bonds is more likely to score a run for his team when he's swinging the bat than when he's taking walks. This is the whole reason why people walk him so much. If it were better for the Giants to have him on first, he wouldn't get walked so much. It's that simple. Whether his batting stats would remain the same only seeing a 3-2 pitch versus having an entire at bat, that's unknown. However, I would argue that it wouldn't be that much different. He'd walk a lot, strike out some, and hit some homers.

Would I rather have a walk than an out? Duh.
Would I rather have a walk than Bonds seeing a 3-2 pitch (the actual discussion)? Not the way his stats are now.

das
das Monkey is offline  
Old 05-13-04, 05:58 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Newberg, OR
Posts: 17,240
Originally posted by das Monkey
The point is that him being on first is essentially useless the way his team is playing, and as such, walking isn't that much more beneficial than striking out. If you don't make it home, who cares that you got to first? Forcing the issue for a chance at a hit isn't selfishly padding your stats; it's trying to make something happen for a team that can't generate any offense. The guy has 51 walks, 26 singles, and 2 doubles (with 2 stolen bases); yet, he's only scored 17 times! 21.5% That's radiculos. However, he has 10 home runs against 41 outs. 24.4%. Statistically, he's a more productive scoring threat swinging than he is walking, and that's including this recent slump. So he forces a 3-2 pitch. It could be a bad pitch. The guy has the best patience in the game. He could still walk.
That argument is invalid though. Those stats are for all of his at bats. To be accurate, you'd only look at his at bats with a 3-2 count. Right now, he's only 2 for 9 with 1 homerun (and six walks) with a full count. That would only be an 11.1% chance of hitting a homerun. That sample size is very small though, so we'll look at last year also. Last year, he hit 2 homeruns in 49 full count at bats, or 4.1%. His overall average in those at bats was .245 with 5 extra base hits (the two homeruns, plus three doubles), plus 38 walks.

Last edited by Jeremy517; 05-13-04 at 06:00 PM.
Jeremy517 is offline  
Old 05-13-04, 06:06 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Legend
 
chrisih8u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: A few miles north of the Cape
Posts: 18,335
Originally posted by das Monkey
Duh ... being on first base is better than being out. That's not the comparison. It's being on first base vs. seeing a 3-2 pitch. Your comparison is no more relevant than: which would you prefer? Bonds on first or worldwide armageddon?
The comparison is Bonds getting a free base or risk getting an out. It would be absurd to rest your entire at-bat on 1 pitch. Your stats are invalid, IMO because they are a product of a full at-bat, not a 1 pitch at-bat.
chrisih8u is offline  
Old 05-13-04, 06:11 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Hero
 
das Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 35,881
That's also invalid, though. A real 3-2 count isn't the same as a fake 3-2 count. And just because he hit a homer on a 2-2 pitch doesn't mean he wouldn't have done it on a 3-2 pitch. Because 3-2 pitches don't occur naturally very often, especially when a player is hot, comparing 3-2 pitches isn't any more useful than comparing at bats. In fact, it may be less useful. When a player like Bonds is hitting well, he'll rarely even reach 3-2 counts.

Like I said, we don't really know how fake 3-2 counts would compare to regular at bats -- we can only guess at that; however, we do know that it's at least worth considering, and is not a selfish stat-padding manuever, but potentially beneficial to his team's offensive production.

das

Last edited by das Monkey; 05-13-04 at 06:14 PM.
das Monkey is offline  
Old 05-13-04, 06:17 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Legend
 
chrisih8u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: A few miles north of the Cape
Posts: 18,335
Originally posted by das Monkey


Like I said, we don't really know how fake 3-2 counts would compare to regular at bats -- we can only guess at that; however, we do know that it's at least worth considering, and is not a selfish stat-padding manuever, but potentially beneficial to his team's offensive production.

das
And potentially detrimental. He certainly isnt guaranteed a hit or a homerun. Just like he isnt guaranteed a strikeout. But I think it would do more damage than good. Assuming the pitcher wouldnt just IBB him anyway.
chrisih8u is offline  
Old 05-13-04, 06:22 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Hero
 
das Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 35,881
When you're team's fighting for last place and barely getting 20% production from his walks, I say it's worth the risk. Besides, the fans would love it.

das
das Monkey is offline  
Old 05-13-04, 06:30 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Legend
 
LurkerDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The People's Republic of Boulder
Posts: 22,011
Isn't the point that the other team would rather put him on 1st base as opposed to letting him swing the bat. So, by trying to create a situation where he might get the chance to swing the bat, you would be--sort of--making the opposing team do something it didn't want to do. So it would not be selfish. But I do think it'd be silly.
LurkerDan is offline  
Old 05-13-04, 06:32 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Newberg, OR
Posts: 17,240
Originally posted by LurkerDan
Isn't the point that the other team would rather put him on 1st base as opposed to letting him swing the bat. So, by trying to create a situation where he might get the chance to swing the bat, you would be--sort of--making the opposing team do something it didn't want to do. So it would not be selfish. But I do think it'd be silly.
If you gave the teams a choice between a 3-2 count and putting him on first, they'd probably choose differently.
Jeremy517 is offline  
Old 05-13-04, 06:41 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Hero
 
das Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 35,881
Yeah, it would simply just force the issue. They could still walk him if they wanted; but now they'd have a much more difficult decision. It's a lot like stealing second when there's a big bat at the plate in a close game. With first base open, they can't resist walking him. Some managers don't steal and "take the bat out of his hands" for this reason. Sometimes, putting the other team in a better position, makes it easier for them to justify doing something that benefits you. Baseball is filled with this give-and-take.

das
das Monkey is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.