Individual Poster Page

See copyright notice at the bottom of this page.

List of All Posters

Hitting the cutoff man (June 13, 2003)

Posted 6:08 a.m., June 23, 2003 (#12) - unc84steve(e-mail)
  Hi there, I don't post here that often, but I hear good things about this place. I was reading through this thread, and I think the 35 degree angle is way too high because the focus is on distance. Obviously the method is good so far however.

I was going to ask some "real world" questions starting with our maligned LF, Luis Gonzalez (max 10 assists years ago). A few plays come to mind (single with runner on 2nd, digging double out of corner), but I'm guessing the easiest one would be the sac fly, runner tagging 90 feet.

I'd say 4 seconds is a fair 3rd to home time to give. Some batters get flying times of 3.5 down to first, but I don't think runners really want to crash into the "tools of ignorance."

I think 300 feet is a good approximation for a sac fly that runners would gamble on.

My questions center on time & the "lolly pop" throws. MAXIMUM DISTANCE is not really the issue--Gonzo doesn't need to prove to the fans he can throw a ball 300 feet even with a 35-angle. He needs to get the ball there at least within 4.5 seconds so if the runner stumbles, the ball arrives in the same picture frame as the scoring run.

Hitting the cutoff man (June 13, 2003)

Posted 6:25 p.m., June 23, 2003 (#14) - unc84steve(e-mail)
  Good guess, it's Steve. It's also coincidental, because I was discussing with a friend how rarely one sees a relay throw on a sacrifice fly play. I really want to see if the first-order assumptions can be made more practical in this model.

Maybe my parameters a little off. Perhaps 300 feet is longer than most sacrifice throw challenges to home plate. Another consideration is that most throws to home arrive on one bounce.

In other words, the real question isn't whether a relay throw is a viable option. It's whether this works on plays we see.

My recollection from college physics is that the time of the play can be solved by looking at the vertical component alone. For example for 250 feet, 4 seconds, assuming ground to ground trajectory, the max height would be the same as the distance any ball would fall in 2 seconds. The key, in one sense, is to keep the throw's max height to a minimum (assuming you can still generate enough of a horizontal velocity/distance). This is one reason that on Astroturf infields, some 3rd basemen developed one-hop throws to keep the maximum height lower (and thus the throw's time lower).

For now, I think it would be good to just test a 250 throw on the fly in 4 seconds to home plate. That would be an impressive Vlad Guerrero or Richard Hidalgo throw. We have a very good idea of pitching mph & angles. You mentioned 35 degrees as one for batted balls. It would be interesting to see if the angles and mph of the throw is reasonable.

What about corked bats? (June 20, 2003)

Posted 6:37 a.m., June 24, 2003 (#1) - unc84steve(e-mail)
  Wait, I thought this scientists said that corking bats didn't really help. Now I see him hedging his conclusion that it's hard to say whether the increase in bat speed compensates for the loss in mass. ("Experiments to follow") Ha!

At least I was happy to see he's looking at the actual swing and notes in one of the articles: "the primary motion of the bat just before impact is a rotation of the bat about a point roughly 6 inches from the knob end of the bat. The player's hands (wrists) supply the force/torque to cause this rotation."

Making Money (June 23, 2003)

Posted 6:58 a.m., June 24, 2003 (#1) - unc84steve(e-mail)
  I'm going to have to find the original article. But saying:

"If all the non-winning variables remain the same the marginal rev $/ marginal win is 2.65. (Though he does have a curved relationship if we include the playoffs.)"

Seems similar to "Besides that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" (I don't know if you do smilies here :-)

Please. Teams in MLB are supposed to chase "trophies & rings!" (the problem occurs when they stop). Joe Garagiola, Jr. drives me crazy, but those playoffs were fun (at least in 2001). Many teams delude itself into shooting the moon (aka "playoffs") to get to that "curved relationship" portion where playoffs help marginal revenue--that has got to count. (Big time)

Hey, trust me, I'll be there for all the "anti marketing" conspiracies you want, but MLB hasn't officially canceled the playoff yet, have they?

--Steve

Making Money (June 23, 2003)

Posted 6:00 p.m., June 24, 2003 (#3) - unc84steve(e-mail)
  I'm sorry, I need to apologize.

First, reading Voros McCrackin's essay was revealing. I tend to see the complications in everything, while Voros asks if "obvious" matter. This is similar to his model of assigning the roles of pitching vs. defense.

Second, I jumped to the conclusion that you (or he) was neglecting an important part of the marginal revenue equation because it seemed so obvious to me that teams like my hometown D'backs got a next season bump from the actual playoff berth (as opposed to the winning pct.)

I see with further review that in the comments section the last exchange with Art asked that specific question.

So anyway to summarize my understanding of the article & data, is that it concentrates on MARGINAL salaries, wins & revenue. That is completely different than the ABSOLUTE salaries, wins & revenues. Of course, the Yankees & LA have higher starting points than KC & Milwaukee do, but that involves different baselines which has nothing to do with marginal calculations.

I assume Carlos Beltran has the same MARGINAL effect on wins in KC as he would for the Yankees. But perhaps as people grossly exaggerated the effects in the WL columns of free-agents (10 to 20 instead of 3 to 6), I'm sure people exaggerate the revenue effects of a star on revenue.

(Rationalizing) I didn't see the effect on attendance but perhaps small markets get more excited when the local teams make a run and get some extra wins (as opposed to the jaded big cities). This would be reflected in extra attendance, merchandising and TV where all eyes would be on the local heroes.

This could lead to Carlos Beltran getting as good an offer in KC as in a big market literally because of the "big fish in a small pond" argument. There may be more T-shirt buyers in LA or NYC, but in those cities they have Shawn Green, Nomo, Lo Duca; Jeter, Soriano, Giambi to also choose from.

Tippett and DIPS (August 1, 2003)

Posted 2:19 a.m., August 4, 2003 (#46) - unc84steve(e-mail)
  I was surprised that Voros McCracken's model seems to have worked well dating back to the dead ball era. Pete Alexander & Walter Johnson can be explained as being beyond the skill level of the batters. However it's striking that pitchers Lefty Grove, Carl Hubbell & Bob Feller aren't on the top ten lists.

Seeing Warren Spahn, Tom Seaver & Jim Palmer on the list made me wonder about pitcher intelligence. Roger Kahn's [i]The Head Game[/i] shows Spahn to be witty and always thinking. Palmer would reposition his outfielders constantly. I assume those three had a game plan. Greg Maddux has that reputation.

So "lack of time era change" & "intelligence" are my final answers.

Mike's Baseball Rants - Sac Flies (August 28, 2003)

Posted 9:40 p.m., September 9, 2003 (#8) - unc84steve(e-mail)
  As far as the origin of the sacrifice fly rule we can speculate a lot, but asking historians would be better. My guess: in the pre-Ruth era, going for HR's was a sucker game so outfielders played much shallower and batters hit liners & grounders--not fly balls. A sac fly was a special skill ala a sac bunt which would be needed in low-scoring games only in specific situations.

That's different than the "oh by the way" nature of SF's scoring runners from 3rd breaking up rallies in a higher scoring environment.

Personally, I'm for tracking "the stat formerally known as SF" as well as changing the BA & error rules. Just describe what happens.