• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Baseball Triple Crown

bmoneydeac said:
i'm not a knuckle dragger that things football pwns and baseball sucks, but do you really think baseball has more strategy than football?
Click to expand...

I do think there is more strategy. You're changing pitchers multiple times a game, giving off days, pitch counts, stealing bases, bunting, etc.

...and there are a lot more coaches in football.

I love football. I played football, I worked for Wake football in school, I had season tickets every year until moving to FL. I just think that people that talk about how much baseball sucks don't really understand it.
 
deacphan said:
no. more nuanced strategy perhaps, but football playbooks are 1,000 pages long and change yearly. the baseball playbook is rarely updated. so maybe different types of strategy. that's also why i think a baseball manager is far less important than a football coach.
Click to expand...

No doubt. Baseball has even had a few player-managers over the years. Can you even begin to imagine that in football?
 
DeaconCav06 said:
I do think there is more strategy. You're changing pitchers multiple times a game, giving off days, pitch counts, stealing bases, bunting, etc.

...and there are a lot more coaches in football.

I love football. I played football, I worked for Wake football in school, I had season tickets every year until moving to FL. I just think that people that talk about how much baseball sucks don't really understand it.
Click to expand...

There is definitely a lot of strategy in baseball, but you could come up with the same type of examples with football. Like I said before, I don't think you could easily say one is more strategic/nuanced than the other. We should just enjoy them for what they are, not argue about which is better.
 
Yeah. I would amend what I said to say that it's different strategy and not as obvious. Maybe not more or less.
 
Are there people on the MLB thread that watch 100+ games that also talk about how much it sucks every week? I think you are a real idiot if you watch every week and complain about how terrible it is... especially when you say something like "I wouldn't even watch if it wasn't for fantasy or gambling." I don't like baseball that much but I'm not betting on random baseball games and getting in a fantasy league.
 
This thread has gone all over the place.
 
Why does it always have to be that you like football or you like baseball? Frankly, I like them both for completely different reasons.
 
Most baseball strategy isn't executed by the manager -- more by the catcher/pitcher.
 
IAppreciateIt said:
Most baseball strategy isn't executed by the manager -- more by the catcher/pitcher.
Click to expand...

I recognize that, thanks for the negrep though. (although, just like the football analogy, this statement is only true at the professional level). However, there is no such thing as a player coach in the football the same way there were player managers in baseball.
 
deacphan said:
so the only thing that matters is games played, hits, homers, and rbis?
Click to expand...

No, just giving some of the stats. Tigers are tied for first & Angels are out of playoffs most likely. That usually seems to matter. Angels winning the West so that helps a guy like Hamilton normally. Making playoffs is usually tiebreaker & Trout while really good as a rookie is just that-rookie sensation who is getting pub from making all star game as a starter. Take Cabrera's entire year & run at triple crown AND team tied for lead in division...he is the MVP
 
KLaw: Trout the Rational Choice for MVP

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/blog...-only-rational-choice-american-league-mvp-mlb

TLDR or for those w/o insider...

Defense: Per UZR, Trout has 13 runs saved from defense. Cabrera has cost his team 9. Per Defensive Runs Saved, Trout has saved 25 while Cabrera has cost 4.
Baserunning: Trout has stolen 46 bases in 50 attempts, and because the break-even rate is somewhere in the 70 to 75 percent range, that is a significant net gain for the Angels, and he's added another six runs on the bases independent of his base-stealing prowess. Cabrera, on the other hand, has stolen four bases and been caught once, while his baserunning has cost the Tigers just under 3 runs.

Oh, and Miggy has feasted on Minnesota and Cleveland, the two worst pitching staffs. Trout has been going against the Rangers, O's and Mariners, all teams in the top half for ERA.
 
TheReff said:
No, just giving some of the stats. Tigers are tied for first & Angels are out of playoffs most likely. That usually seems to matter. Angels winning the West so that helps a guy like Hamilton normally. Making playoffs is usually tiebreaker & Trout while really good as a rookie is just that-rookie sensation who is getting pub from making all star game as a starter. Take Cabrera's entire year & run at triple crown AND team tied for lead in division...he is the MVP
Click to expand...

I'd argue that he's been getting publicity because he's the best player in baseball this year.
 
261826_10152163277595521_261380568_n.jpg
 
With regard to the TC, why does no one consider the effect that specialists have on actually achieving the TC in today's game? And I don't just mean relief pitchers who specialize in getting certain types of hitters out. I mean the guys who concentrate on hitting bombs regardless of Ks and low average (Adam Dunn, Mark Reynolds), and the guys who hit for average regardless of production (Ichiro in his heyday, Jose Reyes, etc).

I'm not saying its the argument I'd make, but I wonder why no one mentions it.
 
PhilliesDeacs said:
With regard to the TC, why does no one consider the effect that specialists have on actually achieving the TC in today's game? And I don't just mean relief pitchers who specialize in getting certain types of hitters out. I mean the guys who concentrate on hitting bombs regardless of Ks and low average (Adam Dunn, Mark Reynolds), and the guys who hit for average regardless of production (Ichiro in his heyday, Jose Reyes, etc).

I'm not saying its the argument I'd make, but I wonder why no one mentions it.
Click to expand...

those players have always existed. what do you think pete rose was?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top