I think the Basketball Free Throw example doesn't hold up as well because basketball is a swingy game. In that case the blame doesn't fall upon the FT shooter (who is already playing better than expected), but on other factors (defense playing poor or rest of team playing bad)
They lost because of the shift tho.If a pitcher throws a perfect game for 18 innings, and then gives up a solo homer in the bottom of the 19th to lose 1-0, is it the pitcher's fault they lost? Because the WPA on that play would be around 40%
I'm not saying that play didn't have a drastic impact on the game. But there's simply no way to prove that they lose because of the shift. Maybe the RF drops the ball if he's in position? Maybe the batter tried to put more air under it knowing they had shifted in?
That’s the exact same situation here. One mistake doesn’t mean that mistake cost them the game. The Phillies scored two runs, and also gave up a two run homer. That shift did not cost them the game
I don’t care enough about this to go any further, but if you cannot understand why ur wrong, then do not pursue a profession with a logical side to it plz
If a pitcher throws a perfect game for 18 innings, and then gives up a solo homer in the bottom of the 19th to lose 1-0, is it the pitcher's fault they lost? Because the WPA on that play would be around 40%
I'm not saying that play didn't have a drastic impact on the game. But there's simply no way to prove that they lose because of the shift. Maybe the RF drops the ball if he's in position? Maybe the batter tried to put more air under it knowing they had shifted in?
I get what you are trying to say, but don’t do this.That’s the exact same situation here. One mistake doesn’t mean that mistake cost them the game. The Phillies scored two runs, and also gave up a two run homer. That shift did not cost them the game
I don’t care enough about this to go any further, but if you cannot understand why ur wrong, then do not pursue a profession with a logical side to it plz
There ya go not sure how to spell it out more than that. Shifting did burn them and did lose them the game because they did it when they should not have. I get your argument that perhaps all 27 of the outs they got were because of shifting, but that can be flipped either way until we argue in circles as it presupposes an argument where outs are only the result of the defender being in the proper place (which is always correct). However, this is not always due to the manager's configurations.
There is a difference between the 'shift' (as a means of describing the defensive alignment irrespective of managerial tinkering, or which is to say, positing the shift as wherever the fielders are at any given time) and 'shifting' (the manager intentionally placing the fielders in a given spot, when factoring in algorithms, statistics, where the ball is expected to be hit, etcetera.)
In definition A, the shift will always be correct on an out, and always incorrect when there's a hit (on any non 3TO play, of course ) A driver following the rules will always avoid hitting another car; Unless the other car runs the red light and t-bones them. It isn't the fault of driver A, since they were following the rules of the road. This is your argument and I agree on principle that whenever the defender is in the right spot and catches an out, the shift/defensive alignment was correct.
In definition B, the shift was intentionally decided by the manager given the output using inputs he is aware of. A perfectly intelligent baseball manager (say, an AGI), could calculate everything from wind speed, wind pattern, where the ball is expected to land, the weight of the ball, pitcher, and batter before the first pitch is thrown, each fielder's range, and so on. In a perfect world, the manager can always use these and other factors to calculate the exact place to play his defenders to provide the highest probability of getting an out on a non 3TO play.
The problem with this argument, which seeks to elevate the shift as a perfect means of accomplishing that goal, is that baseball to normal humans is much more quantum rather than deterministic. No human or algorithm out there can divine these factors with perfect accuracy (and never will be, because the pitch location, speed, break alone will always be too varied to judge, without factoring in batter reaction time, swing speed, swing angle, launch velocity given some of these factors, etc.) So while a perfect AGI could (and would) shift the defense perfectly, a human manager can't. Which means a human's ability to shift 'correctly' comes down to an inherent grasp of as many controllable and observable factors that he can observe.
Gabe Kapler missed two of the most obvious that even a human should control. Wind Speed, and The Batter's Power potential. As I said, I'll give him a pass on the latter, since Rosario is just a 60 power potential (for whatever one scout's opinion is worth here), and AAA stats aren't necessarily translatable. He made the wrong decision in where to place his outfielders given the factors he should be able to read. It's very easy to dismiss this because 'the shift is always the higher percentage play', but there is an inherent missing word in that sentence: "The correct shift is always the higher percentage play". Kapler made the wrong shift because he ignored two important factors (that would've changed the algorithm entirely, were he knowledgable enough to consider these as important) and thus lost his team the game. It does not invalidate the shift because the correct shift is always the correct shift.
To end with the car driving again: Driving at 80 MPH will always get you to Seattle from LA faster than it would driving at 40 MPH. But driving to Seattle in the rain with traffic at 80MPH means you're much more likely to crash and die than ever get there. Even a self driving car would know this and correct, because it has a larger understanding of the multitude factors necessary, not just one.
Today in the Gabe Kapler Saga
https://deadspin.com/six-games-in-everyone-already-hates-gabe-kapler-1825042530
Managing is so overrated.
I don’t care enough about this to go any further, but if you cannot understand why ur wrong, then do not pursue a profession with a logical side to it plz
God, I love the irony here. And, man, you're an ass.
You're the guy who said my kids won't ever have more than a third grade grasp of the English language
I'm both shocked and not at how many of you cannot grasp this.
You cannot say something cost someone the game when they do it every play. Does blocking cost a team a game when the last play is a sack? Does shooting 3's lose someone a game if the never shoot 2's?
Either shifting is why they will win and lose every game, or its a small part of the ultimate outcome of each individual game.
Gabe lost the game for the Phillies. I get what you are saying, but he didn't just shift the outfielder. I have never seen an outfielder play so shallow in a mlb game. This isn't about the merits of shifting you outfielders, but about the incompetencey of a manager.
Gabe lost the game for the Phillies. I get what you are saying, but he didn't just shift the outfielder. I have never seen an outfielder play so shallow in a mlb game. This isn't about the merits of shifting you outfielders, but about the incompetencey of a manager.
That was like four notches below what yankee got last time he played FIFA
Also I think it was sound advice
This is just a cultural thing for Coloradans. @bruin228 prepare the ceremonial firstdown.terblol. Rockies pitcher has given up 5 hits, 4 walks and 4 runs through 3 innings but decided to celebrate after striking out the pitcher with the bases loaded in the 3rd. The small victories i guess
Soonerfan's take is on point. I think me and NML are both partially right but we just thingsescalatedquickly.gif
What happened in the game is more akin to a team scoring 4 runs while shutting the other team out until the 9th inning, and then the closer beans/walks/balks 8 batters in a row and they lose the game
I imagine your point is something along the lines of "Without the shift, the score might've been 6-2 by the time Rosario came up to bat there and it would not have mattered", which I agree with completely. But along the same line of hypotheticals, without Kapler's shifting mistake the score may have remained 2-2 (or perhaps 3-2 since there was a runner on 3rd) and thus the game would've played out differently from there. I think both of these statements can be true at once
Hopefully you don't pursue a career in logic.How is it like that at all?
Okay I can agree with this.
If he didn’t shift all game and then did in that situation, THEN it’s fair to say that cost him the game or whatever.
The initial statement was (im paraphrasing) “Kapler shifts all game long, and it cost him the game.” But he also, theoretically, got some extra outs because of the shifting. So shifting may or may not have had a negative impact for his team. So I don’t think an acceptable opinion is “shifting cost him the game” because of one play.
If someone took batted ball data and marked all the movements of the fielders, and then concluded that shifting was a net negative for the game - then it would be a more acceptable take.
I also think that’s incredibly short sighted and putting too much into a small sample size, but at least there’s logic behind it. There wasn’t any in the initial statement.
Brian Dozier is the one getting upset and simultaneously breaking the “unwritten” rules. He’s a tool
If a pitcher throws a perfect game for 18 innings, and then gives up a solo homer in the bottom of the 19th to lose 1-0, is it the pitcher's fault they lost?
Reds vs. Oakland would look like a slow-pitch softball game.Oakland has the biggest bunch of bum pitchers known to man. Jesus Christ