-
Registration is disabled due to constant spammers. Email [email protected] and we will temporarily re-enable registration for you.
2019 MLB Thread
- Thread starter Mr. Radpants
- Start date
Yankee151
Hot Girl Summer
I blacked out halfway through that post once I started color coding it.
If you want to reframe it as "Amed Rosario won the game for the Mets with that triple" then that's cool. To argue otherwise to me takes away all of the 'good shifts' you alluded to. Basically either Kapler shifted wrong on the Rosario triple and lost them the game, or Kapler shifted wrong on every hit the Mets gave up and lost them the game, but either way it's his fault. I think it's much easier and obvious to go with the former but sure the latter holds up too
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). In baseball there's much less in the way of points to be had, which is why WPA charts have a larger impact. Rosario's triple added 27% to the Mets win probability (the highest swing all game), so I think an argument that posits that said play determined the outcome of the game more than any other play is rooted in strong statistically backed logic and not just a HOT TAKE.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYN/NYN201804040.shtml
https://www.fangraphs.com/wins.aspx?date=2018-04-04&team=Mets&dh=0&season=2018
If you want to reframe it as "Amed Rosario won the game for the Mets with that triple" then that's cool. To argue otherwise to me takes away all of the 'good shifts' you alluded to. Basically either Kapler shifted wrong on the Rosario triple and lost them the game, or Kapler shifted wrong on every hit the Mets gave up and lost them the game, but either way it's his fault. I think it's much easier and obvious to go with the former but sure the latter holds up too
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). In baseball there's much less in the way of points to be had, which is why WPA charts have a larger impact. Rosario's triple added 27% to the Mets win probability (the highest swing all game), so I think an argument that posits that said play determined the outcome of the game more than any other play is rooted in strong statistically backed logic and not just a HOT TAKE.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYN/NYN201804040.shtml
https://www.fangraphs.com/wins.aspx?date=2018-04-04&team=Mets&dh=0&season=2018
NML
Well-Known Member
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
Yankee151
Hot Girl Summer
Just in case though here's babys first sabermetrics class for you so you can understand that some plays matter more than others when analyzing the results of a game:
https://www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/wpa/
https://www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/li/
Thank you for the career advice I will keep it in mind!
https://www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/wpa/
https://www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/li/
Thank you for the career advice I will keep it in mind!
NML
Well-Known Member
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'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?
goblue96
Disney and Curling Expert
Today in the Gabe Kapler Saga
https://deadspin.com/six-games-in-everyone-already-hates-gabe-kapler-1825042530
https://deadspin.com/six-games-in-everyone-already-hates-gabe-kapler-1825042530
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
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.
NML
Well-Known Member
Looks like shifting won them the game
except for when the manager makes a call to the bullpen and there isn't even a pitcher down there thats been warming up. So the umpire has to basically do the "managers" job for him and allow the pitcher more pitches than he should be allowed so that he doesn't blow his arm out because his "manager" is a fucking moron
NML
Well-Known Member
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
NML
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
lol, we should just stop. We'll just never grasp the level of intellect and logic that NML apparently owns
NML
Well-Known Member
Kapler being incompetent and that move not costing them the game are not mutually exclusive.
good lord sheeple
NML
Well-Known Member
Let's just phrase the argument the opposite way:
if a team bunted every time they were up, we'd all agree that's a dumb strategy. But maybe the leadoff hitter in the 9th will get on, steal second, and then get bunted in. If that team wins 1-0, did they win because of the squeeze to score the run? Or was it just the play that scored the winning run? Would you praise this manager?
This is a hypothetical worth discussing since Kapler might try it
if a team bunted every time they were up, we'd all agree that's a dumb strategy. But maybe the leadoff hitter in the 9th will get on, steal second, and then get bunted in. If that team wins 1-0, did they win because of the squeeze to score the run? Or was it just the play that scored the winning run? Would you praise this manager?
This is a hypothetical worth discussing since Kapler might try it
Soonerfan09
Well-Known Member
I'm not reading all this, but from what I have read, there seems to be the NML side and the anti-NML side. I believe NML's position is that one play can't win a game, whereas the anti-NML side believes that a single play can, in fact, win a game. Both sides are simultaneously correct. When a game is lost without one glaring mistake that literally costs a team the game, blame can be shifted around pretty liberally, and there probably is no single play that lost you a game. When there is a big time play that you lose from, it is that play that gets the blame. Up until that point, your collective play in all areas has been good enough to give you the lead or keep you tied, meaning that play or situation did lose you the game.
Yankee151
Hot Girl Summer
But if the other team is also shifting correctly at roughly the same rate, the benefit from the shift saving runs is offset in the actual score. Only a glaring error (so to speak, a mis-shift) leads to the unexpected outcome. I think we both agree that the shift when implemented properly is the best play, so in that regard it did save them runs. But the mistake by Kapler cost them two runs because he shifted wrong. I feel this is critical to describing what went down because you can easily look at the opposite side of the argument and see that Callaway didn't make the same blunder, and the game was tied so theoretically both teams should've been saving runs with shifting at a roughly similar rate. The only point of difference was the Rosario triple which failed.
I think it's the opposite of the bunting all game example. 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. Yes the team could've scored more runs, but the blame is going to go on the closer for losing what should be a won game given what he should normally do (taking into account his normal performance).
I think we're too bogged down in our own definitions at this point so whatevs
I think it's the opposite of the bunting all game example. 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. Yes the team could've scored more runs, but the blame is going to go on the closer for losing what should be a won game given what he should normally do (taking into account his normal performance).
I think we're too bogged down in our own definitions at this point so whatevs
Yankee151
Hot Girl Summer
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
Mr. Radpants
Trog Five Standing By
I have been awarding 1 WAR for game winning plays for years as a joke and you guys still had to hash this out in an argument, lol.
NML
Well-Known Member
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.
TonyGin&Juice
Sucking off Lawn Guy Land hobos.
Dozier also does this really lame "Faith Night" where only Christian rock bands and leaders show up. He strikes as the kind of guy that likes to talk about "the blacks" when his non-American caucasian teammates aren't around (read: Max Kepler is busy reading "Mein Kampf".
I'm kind of shocked you passed the Exam P with this kind of thinking.
Skeeter
Uber felon
Reds vs. Oakland would look like a slow-pitch softball game.