batmagadanleadoff

Vic Sage wrote: This issue is so NOT bullshit, that calling it bullshit is bullshit. Thank you. Plus I owe you for Wee Willie Small Balls, which I've been using ever since.

Elster88 wrote: ]If, for example, the bat manufacturer had created a bat that could project a batted ball at an unreasonable rate of speed so as to create a heightened risk over and above the usual risks a person believes they assume when playing baseball, and that the manufacturer was aware of these heightened risks and chose to conceal those risks or worse, to lie about those risks --- well under this scenario, I don't see why a bat manufacturer couldn't be liable. That sounds ridiculous. I'm forced to assume you have no idea what you are talking about. What part of the post do you think is ridiculous? Do you think that the hypothetical scenario is ridiculously unlikely? Or do you think that it would be ridiculous to deem a bat manufacturer liable even under my hypothetical scenario? If you answer "ridiculous" to the last sentence, it seems to me that you are saying that a bat manufacturer can never ever be liable, under any circumstances; that a bat manufacturer essentially has carte blanche to put any kind of bat into the stream of commerce and to make whatever claims or representations it feels like making with respect to its' bats, even false and dishonest claims. EDIT: I should add that I have no rooting interest in this lawsuit. To the extent that I have any interest at all here, it's for fairness. So if the evidence ultimately demonstrates that the accident was an unfortunate tragedy and that the defendants did not contribute to the accident, then there shouldn't be any liablility. What I did though, is present a hypothetical set of facts under which a bat manufacturer could be held liable.

Rockin' Doc wrote: If the league had required the use of wood bats and the boy had been hit and injured by the barrel of a broken bat they family and their lawyer would likely be filinfg a suit claiming that wood bats are dangerous because they can break and become projectiles. It would be tougher to prevail here. The risk that you describe is so common to baseball, that the hypothetical injured little leaguer will be deemed to have understood and assumed this particular risk by agreeing to play. An interesting hypothetical case here would involve a little leaguer who never played or watched baseball beforehand, and where the league never explained that particular risk to him. In this hypothetical but unlikely scenario, the little leaguer never underestood that a bat could break, and that the broken part could hurtle through the air and strike him, causing injury. By the way, are there any little leagues that still use wooden bats?

="Mendoza Line"]Now I'm wondering what it is that wooden bats can dream about. The point that metal bats are more powerful now than they were 20 or 30 years ago is a good one. But even if the bat industry is constantly updating their products to make them more effective (and more dangerous), shouldn't it still be up to Little League to either outlaw metal bats completely or to come up with specs for allowable metal alloys? It's tough to blame the bat industry for producing better bats. I, for one, wouldn't be in a position to judge the merits of this particular lawsuit, without more facts. But generally speaking, I can envision a scenario under which a bat manufacturer could be held liable for the type of injury suffered by the little leaguer in the top post. If, for example, the bat manufacturer had created a bat that could project a batted ball at an unreasonable rate of speed so as to create a heightened risk over and above the usual risks a person believes they assume when playing baseball, and that the manufacturer was aware of these heightened risks and chose to conceal those risks or worse, to lie about those risks --- well under this scenario, I don't see why a bat manufacturer couldn't be liable. And because I can invent a set of facts under which a bat manufacturer should be held liable, I would be hesitant to call the specific case referred to here as "utter bullshit", without knowing more. As that case is litigated, the relevant facts will be disclosed. For what it's worth, the little leaguer in this case was pitching from a mound that was 45 feet from the plate, instead of 60 feet.

="Nymr83"]making fun of yourself isn't going to stop others from making fun of you too, i felt the need to pile on. I wasn't trying to stop anyone from piling on. I deserve a good ribbing and I can appreciate a funny post as much as anyone, even when I'm the target. Though I'm not surprised that it's you that needs to pile on here. (Need? Did you write "need"?)

Nymr83 wrote: If you want to sue the league thats one thing (though i still think you should lose) but to sue the bat maker is just total and utter bullshit and i hope the bat maker not only wins their motion for summary judgment but gets attorneys fees awarded too because the claim is so frivolous. i'm sorry your kid got hurt but its not the bat company's fault. Wow! You're unusually hostile this morning. I used to think that you reserved your anger just for me, but even brain damaged 12 year olds aren't safe. So why is this lawsuit "utter bullshit"? Is it "utter bullshit" because of the facts specific to this case? Or are you saying that a bat manufacturer can never be liable, no matter what the circumstances? And why does the kid's family have your blessing (lucky for them) to sue the league, when you imply that such a lawsuit is also destined to fail? Or maybe it's bullshit because it's bullshit.

TheOldMole wrote: Is it possible for something to be pretty much verbatim? Pretty much. Here's my quote, verbatimized: "pitching coach Rick Peterson has told friends Schneider is the best catcher intellectually with whom he has worked." Here, I'm quoting the writer, who's quoting Peterson.

Nymr83 wrote: hello? vegas? i'll take the Giants to win the superbowl. no no i don't want the points, give me the money line! Hey -- isn't that the same joke I made about an hour before you did?

Elster88 wrote: In the pre-game, Wagner said he loves pitching to Schneider. Mets pitching coach Rick Peterson called Brian Schneider the smartest catcher he's ever worked with.

KC wrote: Uh, it's May 17th. And put me down for the '69 Mets winning 100 while you're at it! I thought you guys started this poll today. Mar. 17. May 17. All looks the same kinda. Although I have to admit, I did think it strange that this contest would've been started today.

="batmagadanleadoff"]NYM - 93.5 UNDER PHIL - 87.5 OVER ATL - 84.5 OVER FLA - 68.5 OVER CHIC - 87.5 OVER MILW - 84.5 OVER ARIZ - 86.5 OVER SD - 84.5 UNDER COLO - 82.5 UNDER I picked nine teams instead of eight. Remove MILW from my picks. That should fix it. So: NYM - 93.5 UNDER PHIL - 87.5 OVER ATL - 84.5 OVER FLA - 68.5 OVER CHIC - 87.5 OVER ARIZ - 86.5 OVER SD - 84.5 UNDER COLO - 82.5 UNDER

NYM - 93.5 UNDER PHIL - 87.5 OVER ATL - 84.5 OVER FLA - 68.5 OVER CHIC - 87.5 OVER MILW - 84.5 OVER ARIZ - 86.5 OVER SD - 84.5 UNDER COLO - 82.5 UNDER

AG/DC wrote: I don't know that. Baserunning takes judgment. Thanks to your formula, it's informed judgment. But eyeballing that play and what it took to make it, my judgement is that Reyes is safe more than 45.5% of the time. I agree with the eyeballing part. I think that the best way to judge the play is probably by eyeballing it, by seeing it develop and processing all the baseball information in the fraction of a second it takes to decide if the runner should stay or go. But who's eyeballs are we using here?

AG/DC wrote: Can you show your work? If you're right, it's hard to argue that it was the wrong play. Considering how superlative Guzman's effort had to be, it's hard to argue that Reyes doesn't slide in successfully more than 45.5% of the time. Add to that the possiblity of Boone throwing the ball away. But this is pure speculation. First of all, how sure are you that Reyes makes that play more than 45% of the time? And even if he does, the next question to ask is how much more than 45% of the time would Reyes be successful. For example, if we could determine that Reyes makes that play 48% of the time, or 55% of the time, or some other number slightly higher thatn 45%, then Reyes would be risking a lot to gain a little. To say that the play in question needs to be successful 45% of the time to break-even, means that over the course of time, a team is neither better or worse at 45%.

AG/DC wrote: Can you show your work? Sure. The starting point here is that the Mets chances of winning were 35.5% had Reyes remained on second. Therefore, Reyes would have had to increase the Mets chances of winning (>35.5%) in order to justify his base attempt. According to your figures, the Mets chances of winning would have risen to 55.7 % had Reyes reached third safely, but dropped to 18.5% with Reyes getting thrown out. So ... Safe at third = 55.7%, Out at third = 18.5% Calculating a 45% success rate yields (.45 x 55.7) + (.55 x 18.5) = almost 35.5 -- the break-even point. _____________ Here is the formula: (break even success rate x 55.7) +((1-break even success rate) x 18.5) = 35.5 When you work out the formula, you get a break even success rate of slightly over 45%

One way to analyze that play is with a lot of hindsight. In other words, it was a bad play because Reyes was out. Reyes thought that he'd cover the 90 feet to the bag before the Nats third basemen could move 10 or 15 feet back into position. And as it turned out, the third baseman didn't even have to get all the way back to the base.

Assuming all your figures are correct, Reyes would have to reach third successfully slightly more than 45% of the time in order to justify his attempt -- that is, in order to increase the Mets chances of winning, over and above the 35.5% with Reyes remaining on second base. Now the trick here is to determine precisely how successfully Reyes' dash to third would be, in and of itself, under those same game conditions.

metirish wrote: I'm certainly not saying I love the bunt play , it has it uses and Bobby knew when to use it, I do not like bunting early in the game. Sure. The sac bunt does have its' place. Dropping the H-Bomb has its' place, too. I'm opposed to dropping down the bunt, indiscriminately, Willy-Nilly style. Lately, my favorite Met inning is the one where the #2 hitter leads off. It's just about the only time I'm comfortable that Willie won't call for the bunt with the middle of the order due up. Even better when Church is the #2 guy.

metirish wrote: [i think a manager who has a National League pedigree is better suited for the Mets , I always liked how Valentine would try and make things happen during a game, stuff like that. You won't catch Valentine bunting early in Colorado, either.

metirish wrote: Nothing not to like about any of that batmagadanleadoff , although I would prefer a walk , a drag bunt for a hit and then a three run home run. Plus, that's better for the team batting average.

metirish wrote: batmagadanleadoff Personally I would like the next manager to be a National League type. How come?

metirish wrote: batmagadanleadoff , are you in favor of a manager that plays for the big inning , more of an American League style? Personally I would like the next manager to be a National League type. I like the big inning. What's not to like about scoring three, four or five runs in one frame? Dierker was correct in noting that the winning team 's biggest inning alone, will usually suffice to outscore its' opponent's entire game. I am a big believer of Earl Weaver's "give me two walks and a three run homer any day of the week" mentality.

AG/DC wrote: Many of the studies I've seen concluding that bunting is a bad strategy have failed to factor in staying-out-of-the-double-play. Maybe McCovey and Stargell and Piazza should have sac bunted more often.