• 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!

OFFICIAL 2018 MLB PLAYOFFS Thread (Cubs free)

Not to you, in general.

Great players have much higher expectations of themselves than others. He expects more of himself. His idea of the jump he got is belied by the tapes.

Sorry, there's no way in hell that play gets made 5 out of every 12 times it happens. I'd be stunned if it was completed 1 in 50.

So you just make up your owns stats disguised as odds.
 
That wasn't to you. It was directed at the post above mine -MHB. Yours hadn't shown up when I posted that one.

Do you think Bradley's idea of a good jump is the same as an inferior CF like Denard Span's is?

Remember there are stat geeks that believe there is no such thing as protection in a line-up, a hitter owning a pitcher or vice versa.

You are acting like I'm the only one who said it was a great catch. But that's OK.
 
4.4 for a 40 is considered to be blazing speed. That's about 27'/second. That's putting your head down, clad in shorts and running, not carrying a glove and not tracking a ball. Thus, it would take about 3 seconds just to cover 78'. That's assuming it wouldn't add to the time for the other aspects necessary to reach the ball.

I seriously doubt there are 5 players out of 12 who run 4.4 in full uni, carrying a mitt and tracking a ball.

No one is talking about crashing into an unpadded wall with such great momentum.
 
No one is talking about crashing into an unpadded wall with such great momentum.

Last night, the broadcasters said the stat geeks said Jackie Bradley Junior's catch last Sunday had a 42% chance of being made. That's basically 5/12 and totally insane. The distance he covered; the fact that he bounced off the warning track and crashed into the uncushioned wall makes that number ludicrous and the formulas used insane.

https://www.si.com/mlb/2018/07/29/red-sox-jackie-bradley-jr-catch

:confused:
 
4.4 for a 40 is considered to be blazing speed. That's about 27'/second. That's putting your head down, clad in shorts and running, not carrying a glove and not tracking a ball. Thus, it would take about 3 seconds just to cover 78'. That's assuming it wouldn't add to the time for the other aspects necessary to reach the ball.

I seriously doubt there are 5 players out of 12 who run 4.4 in full uni, carrying a mitt and tracking a ball.

No one is talking about crashing into an unpadded wall with such great momentum.

Lets use this logic - the hang time was over 4 seconds, but lets just use 4 seconds. And lets use a 5.0 second 40 time. If you run a 5 second 40, you are covering about 24 feet per second. Multiply that by 4 seconds, and you would cover 96 feet. Math seems right so far? The distance between JBJ and the ball was 78 feet and he had 4 seconds. Knowing that he likely runs faster than a 5 second 40 would tell me he got a bad jump.
 
That's kinda silly. If he runs a 4.5, 78' is 3 seconds. That's if he is set, sprinting, not following the ball, not carrying a glove and not trying to catch it. That's also running through a tape and not having to dive.

You are also totally neglecting the fact that his dive took him into a hard wall.

To think that 5 out of 12 CFs would make that play is irrational.
 
There was an article on fangraphs recently - maybe even today - about not letting old grumps get in the way of your enjoyment of baseball. For some reason I can't find it to link to it. Seems pertinent.
 
That's kinda silly. If he runs a 4.5, 78' is 3 seconds. That's if he is set, sprinting, not following the ball, not carrying a glove and not trying to catch it. That's also running through a tape and not having to dive.

You are also totally neglecting the fact that his dive took him into a hard wall.

To think that 5 out of 12 CFs would make that play is irrational.

The hang time was over 4 seconds - I feel like we are saying the same thing and you just don't know it, it's like you are arguing my point and then you come to the exact wrong conclusion. So, full points for showing your work.
 
There was an article on fangraphs recently - maybe even today - about not letting old grumps get in the way of your enjoyment of baseball. For some reason I can't find it to link to it. Seems pertinent.

How is it "grumpy" to try to celebrate a great play and disagree with those who want to put it down? They are the grumps.
 
The hang time was over 4 seconds - I feel like we are saying the same thing and you just don't know it, it's like you are arguing my point and then you come to the exact wrong conclusion. So, full points for showing your work.

A hang time of 4-4.5 seconds doesn't dispute anything I said.

People don't run timed 40s in full unis, while tracking a ball and carrying a mitt. Why don't Olympic sprinters wear hats when they run? Why don't they wear long pants? high socks? Sliding pads? You don't think that slows you down?

You don't think it slows you down to carry a glove that may weigh close to half a pound or more while running? If not why don't sprinters carry them?

You don't think it makes a difference when you crash into a wall at high speed?

You "grumps" keep looking for excuses to not give the young guy credit for a great grab.

Let me know the next time one of those guys sitting behind a computer makes a play rather than trying to get picked.
 
I wish the search on baseball savant worked better for fielding plays so I could identify the similar plays making up the 42%
 
Isn't doing something that 60% of the other CFers in the best baseball league in the world couldn't do...still good?

Why is knowing the statistical probability so threatening to your enjoyment of the game?
 
So rj tried to pick a fight and then got upset when a fight came about because of his post.

Usual suspects.
 
Isn't doing something that 60% of the other CFers in the best baseball league in the world couldn't do...still good?

Why is knowing the statistical probability so threatening to your enjoyment of the game?

It's not threatening at all. Nor is it a statistically probability. It's one group's theory of that which is based on their self-created criteria.
 
I think we can settle this now - everyone thinks it was a good catch.

Now, can we talk about Cole Hamels changeup? It was pretty sick last night.
 
I think we can settle this now - everyone thinks it was a good catch.

Now, can we talk about Cole Hamels changeup? It was pretty sick last night.

Hamels-300x180.jpg
 
It's not threatening at all. Nor is it a statistically probability. It's one group's theory of that which is based on their self-created criteria.
Its not theory
 
Back
Top