<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>originally posted by vinividivinci:
While I basically agree, I must take exception to your statement about baseball people and their obsession with individual stats. To me the sport most obsessed with individual stats is the NBA. The vast majority of players place their individual stats way ahead of team (win/loss) stats.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree that NBA players are obsessed with their stats, but are the coaches? In baseball, even the managers are obsessed with their players stats - even to the extent that they knowingly risk losing to help pad their star players stats. I don't see this happening all too often in the NBA, or in any other sport for that matter. NBA coaches make a lot of bonehead decisions IMO (ie. taking the shot clock down to 5 sec or less before even looking for a decent shot with a 5 point lead and 3 minutes left), but rarely do they make questionable decisions solely to pad their star players stats.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>originally posted by dogs24:
A) Early innings of the game, team that's trailing gets a scoring opportunity and the pitcher's spot due up. Even if their starter is getting PUMMELED, if it's early, they will not pinch-hit.
B) Middle innings (especially before the sixth), scoring opportunity in a tight ballgame, pithcer's spot up. He will never get pinch hit for *IF* he is the starting pitcher. If he is a reliever, he will DEFINITELY get pinch hit for. Why?! What' the hell's the difference?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dogs, in these cases I can SOMETIMES sympathize with the managers to an extent. Since a starter only pitches once every five games, one of the most important things expected of him is to give at least 6 innings, thus saving the bullpen from getting overused. In addition, many starters struggle early in games, then find their stride after an inning or 2.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>originally posted by dogs24:
C) Late game bunt-situation...say, two on, nobody out, If one of the premiere guys in the lineup is due, he will *NEVER* bunt...even if it's a tie ballgame, bottom of the ninth, runner on second and nobody out. Why not? Even the best hitters will get out 65%, only about 12-13% better than the worst hitters. Is that worth sacrificing the tremendous advantage of having a runner on 3rd with less than 2 out when you only need one to win?!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here again, I can sympathize with managers. I may be in the minority, but I have always HATED the sacrifice, unless it is done by someone who is good at it (successful 90% of the time or better) and/or someone who is not that big of a threat of a hitter. To have, say Mike Piazza bunting to move a man over from 2nd to 3rd would be insane. Since he never bunts, his chances of success on the sacrifice would probably be less than 50%, and even if he was successful, you still need your LESSER hitters to get the man home.
I do agree, though, that each situation should be treated as a unique case, instead of automatically always doing it "by the book".
While I basically agree, I must take exception to your statement about baseball people and their obsession with individual stats. To me the sport most obsessed with individual stats is the NBA. The vast majority of players place their individual stats way ahead of team (win/loss) stats.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree that NBA players are obsessed with their stats, but are the coaches? In baseball, even the managers are obsessed with their players stats - even to the extent that they knowingly risk losing to help pad their star players stats. I don't see this happening all too often in the NBA, or in any other sport for that matter. NBA coaches make a lot of bonehead decisions IMO (ie. taking the shot clock down to 5 sec or less before even looking for a decent shot with a 5 point lead and 3 minutes left), but rarely do they make questionable decisions solely to pad their star players stats.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>originally posted by dogs24:
A) Early innings of the game, team that's trailing gets a scoring opportunity and the pitcher's spot due up. Even if their starter is getting PUMMELED, if it's early, they will not pinch-hit.
B) Middle innings (especially before the sixth), scoring opportunity in a tight ballgame, pithcer's spot up. He will never get pinch hit for *IF* he is the starting pitcher. If he is a reliever, he will DEFINITELY get pinch hit for. Why?! What' the hell's the difference?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dogs, in these cases I can SOMETIMES sympathize with the managers to an extent. Since a starter only pitches once every five games, one of the most important things expected of him is to give at least 6 innings, thus saving the bullpen from getting overused. In addition, many starters struggle early in games, then find their stride after an inning or 2.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>originally posted by dogs24:
C) Late game bunt-situation...say, two on, nobody out, If one of the premiere guys in the lineup is due, he will *NEVER* bunt...even if it's a tie ballgame, bottom of the ninth, runner on second and nobody out. Why not? Even the best hitters will get out 65%, only about 12-13% better than the worst hitters. Is that worth sacrificing the tremendous advantage of having a runner on 3rd with less than 2 out when you only need one to win?!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here again, I can sympathize with managers. I may be in the minority, but I have always HATED the sacrifice, unless it is done by someone who is good at it (successful 90% of the time or better) and/or someone who is not that big of a threat of a hitter. To have, say Mike Piazza bunting to move a man over from 2nd to 3rd would be insane. Since he never bunts, his chances of success on the sacrifice would probably be less than 50%, and even if he was successful, you still need your LESSER hitters to get the man home.
I do agree, though, that each situation should be treated as a unique case, instead of automatically always doing it "by the book".
