105

[Edgy MD]

Cardinal rookie reliever Jordan Hicks, who the Mets faced earlier this year when he was merely hitting 103, hit 105 twice yesterday against the Phils, one of which missed while tailing away with some terrifying movement.

[tweet:dtfbl80h]

[/tweet:dtfbl80h]

The really weird thing is that he's been effective (2.05) ERA, despite striking out only 3.7 batters per nine. So here you have perhaps the fastest pitcher ever, and he's pitching to contact.

[seawolf17]

HOLY MOLEY the movement on that pitch is BANANAS.

[Edgy MD]

That at-bat ended Odubel Herrera's on-base streak at 45 games, but in a goofy way, as Herrera struck out on a 103-and-change pitch in the dirt, and then dashed to first as the ball skipped past Francisco Peña, the overmatched Cardinal catcher.

Reaching on un-caught strikeouts doesn't count in your favor in on-base percentage calculations, though, so Herrera ended his on-base streak, ironically, by reaching base.

[Vic Sage]

it should count. it indicates you didn't give up on the play and hustled your ass down the line. there should be a statistical reward for that.

[Frayed Knot]

Would a more standard error break the streak? I think it would and this probably gets put in the same category.

[Ceetar]

Vic Sage wrote: it should count. it indicates you didn't give up on the play and hustled your ass down the line. there should be a statistical reward for that.

you struck out. you suck. you're lucky there is any loophole at all. I'm not entirely sure I understand WHY this is a loophole either.

[Edgy MD]

Because the defense didn't complete the play, and therefore they've performed worse.

Yes, I think reaching on errors and passed balls/wild pitch-strikeouts should count in your on-base percentage, but it don't.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: Because the defense didn't complete the play, and therefore they've performed worse. Yes, I think reaching on errors and passed balls/wild pitch-strikeouts should count in your on-base percentage, but it don't.

well, it's still not indicative of batter skill. It's luck of the pitch, the catcher, the outs, the runners. Adding it to OBP would just be confusing, and most modern evaluation stats would strip it back out anyway.


https://sabr.org/research/dropped-third-strike-life-and-times-rule

It looks like it really should just go away anyway. One of those odd remaining bits from the 19th century. Basically, you were supposed to swing and put the ball in play, that WAS the game. if you swung and missed three times the third swing was automatically 'ball in play'. This evolved when they moved to a 'fly game' where if you caught that ball it was an out, and that was what was expected. You were also able to catch balls after only one bounce for an out.

So it remained that you could purposely drop the third strike to trigger the force at all bases and get a double or triple play out of it, and when fielding equipment evolved to make this way more likely, they changed the rule to eliminate it with a runner on first < 2 outs but that's basically the end of it. The rule is vestigial and should probably go the way of the intentional walk.

[seawolf17]

I feel like it has to still count for *something*, though. You can't have an out without someone catching the ball.

[Ceetar]

seawolf17 wrote: I feel like it has to still count for *something*, though. You can't have an out without someone catching the ball.

right but what happens to the ball past when you swing and missed has really nothing to do with you.

[Edgy MD]

Having the presence of mind, character of heart, and fleetness of foot to skedaddle quickly to first does have something to do with you.

And heck, even being a threatening enough hitter that it takes bouncing balls in the dirt to get you to whiff has something to do with you.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: Having the presence of mind, character of heart, and fleetness of foot to skedaddle quickly to first does have something to do with you. And heck, even being a threatening enough hitter that it takes bouncing balls in the dirt to get you to whiff has something to do with you.

to the first..i mean, maybe. But it's already a rare thing and it's even rarer that it's close enough that things like fleetness of foot matter. And it remains something that's not particularly skill-based or repeatable. Adding it to OBP would actually make the stat even less reliable to look at to see who's having a good year, who's creating runs.

As to the second, well, it's really hard just to throw strikes. Pitchers bounce pitches to the worst of batters, and it probably says even more about you if you're swinging at it.

[Edgy MD]

Neither have everything to do with the batter. Both have something to do with the batter.

[Edgy MD]

Miguel Rojas lacked the presence of mind and character of heart to run for first, even in the ninth.

[seawolf17]

Ceetar wrote: seawolf17 wrote: I feel like it has to still count for *something*, though. You can't have an out without someone catching the ball. right but what happens to the ball past when you swing and missed has really nothing to do with you.

Right, but I'm not talking about the batter here, I'm worried about the catcher. No catch, no out. Maybe you do away with letting the batter run to first and just count it the same way you do a two-strike foul, then.

[Centerfield]

Getting HBP counts toward OBP no? That requires even less skill than the aforementioned methods. In fact, it might even suggest an inability (or unwillingness) to get out of the way.

Reaching on an error should unquestionably count toward OBP. Putting a ball in play matters. Having the heart to run out a ball matters. That effort is the difference between a harmless bobble and an actual error. Plus some players have the speed to make any slight bobble fatal, which in turn, could theoretically cause more bobbles. I read that during one of Ichiro's prime seasons he was lapping the field in reaching on errors. That makes perfect sense.

I'm less convinced about the dropped third strike. I can see the rationale behind an actual dropped strike 3. That's an error on the catcher. But what about a devastating splitter in the dirt? The pitcher did his job, got the batter to swing and miss. The catcher, let's assume, blocks the pitch and scoops it. Should he have to tag the batter or throw to first? Both pitcher and catcher did their job. Why should they have to throw to first because the ball happened to hit the dirt? Maybe it would make sense that you can run to first if it gets past the catcher.

I think I am actually arguing against the dropped third strike rule, more than whether or not it should count toward OBP.

[Fman99]

They're not even strikes, so, who cares. Seriously. I'd rather figure out which MLB'er is packing the biggest giggle stick.