Ceetar

I mean, radio signals from the top of the ESB probably only reach the three states. I'd argue they don't even mean like, Mystic or Camden (or hell, Montauk) when they say tri-state. https://c.tenor.com/XioAoxwN0FwAAAAC/tri-state.gif>

wasn't address you or anyone specific, there's a coordinated push by the fascist party to portray cities, and mass transit as dangerous, and crime as out of control, etc. It's all copaganda, and nonsense. And hell, NYC is poised to burn millions of dollars to perform security based on this nonsense, which is _ACTUALLY_ going to be spend giving overtime to cops to harass homeless people.

movie tickets and bread have gotten expensive too. granted I'm outside the city so I don't ride as much as I used to, but the mass transit isn't safe thing is copaganda. It _is_ noisy, but it's also a baseball stadium, so that's kind of to be expected. There's also something alluring to a live event with your real two eyes out in public with other fans, etc, but admittedly, it's not for everyone. I do find in modern times I focus a lot more on the game in person than I do at home, being distracted by chores and life and responsibility, but the farther you are, the more hassle it is. I'm theoretically not far, but if I leave at 5 I'm not there until 6:30 and it's $30 to get there and $25 to park, and then I'm not back home until 11, best case.

That seems bad strategy, if we're hitting it anywhere, to grass and over the fence seems preferable.

The one variable I've introduced here that isn't being discussed is the "hitting a grounder towards an unoccupied 3B vs. bunting towards an unoccupied 3B" question. Am I wrong to think that the former is easier than the latter for most hitters? Even forgetting about the advantage that swinging away gives you on two strikes (fouls count as fouls, not strikes three), it seems to me more natural and more feasible to do. Plus if you actually get the ball hit semi-hard to 3B, you might get a double out of it. So why bunt with two strikes instead of trying to hit a grounder towards 3B? It's a 90mph slider tailing away from you, or a 98 mph fastball letter-high, now you don't just want to hit it, you want to hit it a tiny fraction of a second late so it goes towards third?

=kcmets post_id=99279 time=1657566454 user_id=53] Hit it where they ain't > fancy spray graphs.

or maybe just, you know, pitch to him, not try to hurt him?

yeah, the field level OF stuff is only bad once you loop around into fair territory. Lots of standing room up top too, which good views.

Yeah, but that means that you've effectively moved the defense out of what they think is their best positioning against you. What I'm talking about here is bunting against the shift, not bunting against a more traditional defense. sure..because then they've gotten what they want, reducing your .ISO and what not. Like everything else in baseball, it's a bit of a cat and mouse thing..if you can improve your bunting skill enough that you're competent with you, there are certainly high-value times you can do it, where the risk-reward calculus makes it worthwhile. But altering your game on a more macro scale to become more of a singles hitter isn't going to work out long term. There are players of course, where it's more valuable, Jeff McNeil is basically a singles hitter already, so you don't really need to be much better at bunting than hitting to make it worthwhile. But of course, McNeil isn't frequently _over_ shifted. It's not particularly difficult to pick the 4 best spots on the infield to stand against him here. [attachment=0]mcneil.jpg[/attachment]

I agree about the out of town scoreboard, and I'd apply the giant logo thing to the new ribbon boards as well, everything's a little overly designed. For things that are mainly information (pitch type, count, pitch count, scores, etc) just keep it simple and stagnant. The scrolling killed me last time, the old one was fine, except for the inning flips, which was just a simple programming thing that they never fixed (it would go TOP-1 two outs, to TOP-1 zero outs during the commercial break, before flipping to BOT-1 zero outs.) i'm resigned to the beer thing, but with the young kids and Covid i've only made it to a game or two a year, so it's still a splurge for me. If I was back to going to even 6+ games, I'd bristle a lot more. I've started tipping more on these things in general, just to a heightened understanding of the economics of that type of worker, and my growing disparity to it, but it's still mildly frustrating and I'm not even sure they get that money, or if like all Citi Field employees just split the tip money somehow. (probably still stiffing the dishwashers and the like) I agree about the outfield seating as well. The Big Apple Seats are all mostly fine, and the back of the Coke Corner is subject to some of the same stuff, but I think it's still kind of okay. If you're stuck with the OF, that's probably where I'd pick. It's sort of the trade-off of having the infield so on top of the game, but they probably should've curved it out a little more. That benefit becomes a drawback when you're "on top of" LF. I do kind of wish they'd make the second level wraparound as well. Build a little bridge from the top of the offices/building behind the Shea Bridge along the back (or front?!?!?) of the scoreboard and over to the left field landing.

I'm not being argumentative but how much 'data' about not bunting to vacated bases can there be when it's only occasionally done? I know it drive some nuts, but HIT IT WHERE THEY AIN'T!!! (edited for clarity) counter-point: STAND WHERE THEY HIT IT!! there's plenty of data on bunting, on how successful it is. There's plenty of data on the relative value of a double, triple or homer over a single too. Bottom line is you better be a damn good bunter, and then it'd only be a matter of days before the defense adjusted to stand where you hit it, and your success rate plummets and now you're a .220 singles hitter.

Edgy MD wrote: My only problem with bunting against the shift is that it isn't done all day in all counts. this is one of those things that the data is pretty convincingly in support of not bunting.

This season, Boston leads the league in BA after 0-2 with .192. The Mets are .178. (and that's 4th) McNeil is at .186. Minimum 20 PA, J.P Crawford is at .407, then Andrew Vaughn at .308, Steven Kwan at .306, Wilmer Flores, Luis Arraez and Jarren Duran at .300. These are like, 20-60PA samples, with pretty high BABIP for the most part. unsustainable. I'm sure if you broke it down you'd find a lot of lucky flares or squibs that found holes for these guys.. It's why the Dodgers were right to let ..was it Betts? take first on the 0-2 appeal a few weeks ago.

yes, but go ahead and challenge it with data, not lack of data. It's not like there's a nugget of data that suggests clutch hitting exists and we just haven't isolated it. This _IS_ the same nonsense being wielded during the pandemic. "Cloth masks might not be that effective therefore I'm not gonna bother" or "people that are vaccinated still get Covid so it must be ineffective" We have MORE data, MORE understanding. Yes, obviously continue to question, but this is NOT the same status quo, it's a more informed one. We know for example, in almost every single case, that a runner on second with 1 out is a lower scoring situation than a runner on first with no outs. In millions of situations, this holds true. we have the results of what happens. If you're going to question that, you better have some sort of subset of data or situation that you think data's not capturing, to explain why you're questioning it.

I think it improved the knowledge base of the average baseball exec and the average fan considerably, and that's a good thing. But the games are longer and less interesting as a result. Most hitters are going to wait for a pitch they can knock out of the park, and will happily take a walk if they don't get it. They are also not afraid of striking out if their approach leads to more runs in the long haul. These things can all be justified by the stats, but I would argue that the little things and the diversity of players' styles and the strategy involved are what made baseball fun. But all these things are easily fixable if MLB really cared. I find the game MORE interesting now than 18 years ago personally. A lot of the "less interesting" is from the broadcast/marketing/advertising side, specifically the lack of diversity thing, because TV Networks want more uniformity and predictability. They don't want to have to understand nuance, etc. But if you want more contact, shrink the strike zone and deaden the ball a little to reduce home runs (something MLB maybe is trying to do but they're remarkably bad at it). It'd be remarkably easy to adjust the strike zone once it's robotic. The same with strike outs/homers. Currently the strike zone shrinks on 0-2, but if you want to shift the Home Run/Strike Out match, you can not shrink it on 0-2, which means you're more likely to strike out, less likely to walk, etc, so you're gonna make more outs per home run, and it might not be worth it as much. It'll incentivize contact. But I'll reiterate ,I much prefer the home runs and the strikeouts to soft groundouts to second. And I'd caution Rob "I hate baseball" Manfred on thinking that that's what's keeping people away from the game that would otherwise watch.

Edgy MD wrote: Does anybody else think that analogy works? "there's no evidence for something but I'm still gonna insist it must be out there somewhere"

Bill James is a good example of someone that went a certain distance and then just kind of stopped. The clutch hitting thing is akin to saying "well I dunno, maybe the vaccine will have crazy side effects 2 decades from now!"

Edgy MD wrote: nobodies closed off to continued understanding except like, people that read moneyball and think "oh, well we missed OBP, but we understand now" And stopped thinking. Those are people. And there are a lot of them. I don't think there's any real subset of people that treat the 2004 knowledge of baseball as a pinnacle. Maybe a handful, but mostly those are people that just happened to decide they'd understood everything at the same time as moneyball. Reluctantly accepting that OBP is good. Very few of them are arguing in good faith though.

nobodies closed off to continued understanding except like, people that read moneyball and think "oh, well we missed OBP, but we understand now" And stopped thinking. We're learning new things all the time, better quantifying defense, etc.

the answer is pretty close to zero, because now we recognize high OBP as talent. If you mean bad contact spray hitters, those players weren't good and we're not messing them up so much as cutting bait for better players.

Moneyball actually came out in 2004, it was _About_ the 2002 season. I think my favorite moneyball concept is that players are bad sources about what is "good" baseball, and what happened in a game/season and why.

The Hot Corner wrote: I hope Bassitt puts up, then shuts up. 50/50 he's not contagious anymore at least.

btw, it's worth noting that he's "active" now without a test because the made up arbitrary protocol that has nothing to do with whether he's still infectious says 5 day quarantine.

what Covid protocols are everywhere? I mean, he decided to test on his own, because of teammates/daughter after feeling a little extra tired in a start. How many MLB players are testing there, versus pounding another pain-killer or "energy drink" and ignoring it? 10%?

I like home runs.