On this particular play, one could argue we’ve been scoring plays like this incorrectly all along. If a stolen base isn’t awarded because the defense made no attempt (defensive indifference), why should a fly ball with a 38% hit probability be scored any differently? If we’re trying to be accurate (and I know that quite often baseball does not), shouldn’t this be scored like the sacrifice fly that it truly is?
A home run is, essentially, a ground rule event, since every outfield fence is different. In both cases, the ball is rendered unplayable by leaving the yard whether on the fly or on a hop. They should change the rule and the two events should be scored consistently with each other. Either walk-off homers are singles (which I doubt anyone wants to see), or GR doubles are doubles.
Yeah, I wanted to be able to sing one song beautifully to my wife, Sally. "If I loved you," from the musical carousel. I went to a voice coach who told me it doesn't work that way. You actually have to learn how to sing. I have a terrible voice. I took lessons. We did scales for what seemed like forever. Finally, she gave me a song to sing. "Impossible Dream," I kid you not. Then, "What kind of a fool am I." She insisted she wasn't trolling me. (That was before trolling was a thing.) I sang my heart out on those songs, hoping to get to "If I loved you." She told me I was making progress. Thing was I wasn't hearing myself. She was hearing me. Finally I recorded myself singing those songs. They were so awful, I threw in the towel. So I wish you luck for whatever you hope to accomplish. Some of those items look really difficult.
Just catching up on Joe’s posts. A couple of days ago, he wrote about the difficulty of small market teams competing. Joe mentioned that small market teams would have done as least as well, perhaps better, in a no-playoffs league. Certainly the Rays, Guardians, Brewers would have.
One point that I didn’t see made by Joe or in the comments is that what this means is mostly just that those teams have gotten unlucky in the playoffs. That’s mostly what the playoffs are: similar to the regular season but just much more random. Turns out the Rays got unlucky and the Giants got lucky. In another universe, the reverse could be true. That’s what it means that the playoffs are a crapshoot. (Yes, teams can orient themselves towards short series, but there’s only so much you can do).
This doesn’t change any of Joe’s points (the regular season is great!) but most of what you get with large playoffs is more randomness. Recently this luck has gone against small market teams who have overcome their disadvantages to build a strong team, a particularly devastating stroke of luck but mostly luck nonetheless.
I have a problem with Joe's analysis (and most people who make these comparisons). It's not that you can't win as a small market team, it's that as a huge market team like the Dodgers, Yankees, Phillies (and should be Mets - that's one for Joe's side) you can virtually guarantee you are in the race every damn year.
Perhaps. Actually, even more than big-market-small-market, it’s about history. The original 16 teams are still massively better than the newcomers (e.g. Yankees vs. Mets).
Here’s a fun(?) fact: on the strength of their last decade, the Astros as a franchise pushed their historical record over .500 to .503. The Blue Jays are very close to the mark, but just below. Prior to the Astros crossing the line, there were 11 franchises with historical winning records. The *youngest* of these was…the Yankees
Apropos of nothing here, just a note that even the greats can be upended by some form of Kryptonite.
Tadej Pogacar was crusing to another Grand Tour victory, this time in Spain. After only a week, he had already accumulated a substantial lead in the three week race. Out of nowhere, something in the road appeared & Tadej was down on the concrete. Likely a fractured clavicle, concussion & multiple laceration.
What was thought to be another big win as preparation to the World Championship in Montreal has turned into surgery & rehab. And for the rest of the peloton, a chance at unexpected victories.
Sad to see Tadej crash out. He's so much more fun to watch ride than most of the old greats, who would get a 7 second lead and then ride behind their team the rest of the race.
There’s a bit of a chicken-and-the-egg thing on this ground roll double debate.
Most times, the batter doesn’t run all the way to second, nor does the runner from second come home, meaning that the hit is not a double and the run from second doesn’t score not only by the rules you list above, but by the general rules of the game.
But do the batter and runner behave that way because they’re aware of the rule? I doubt it.
What I mean to say is that I agree with Mike that it should be available as a double, and it should be available for two runs to score, but the outcome is typically correct anyway.
I like the list Joe sets out. As a fellow child born in the Year of Yaz, having silly yet audacious goals to chase seems like a fun way to stay perpetually young. I need to come up with a few of my own.
...
My $0.02 on the walk-off RBI count ... Mike's argument is statistics for the sake of statistics and nothing more. It is a faux value judgment wrapped around a number. As a longtime member of the stathead movement - I can see my dogeared copy of Palmer & Thorn's "Hidden Game" as I type this - I can appreciate the beauty of the numbers. But numbers are not sacrosanct and are not perfect representations, only vague approximations.
Kelenic is datapoint number 2,130 in the difficulty of grading prospects. Consensus top 10 - and mostly top 5 - entering his age 21 season, he has utterly flopped. I'd wonder how much the lost year as a 20-year-old in 2020 impacted him, but by 2023, he was at least cromulent. Now he's on his sixth franchise with nothing to show for the hype as a youngster.
But that deal, for the Mets, wasn't exactly getting 1/4th of a season of a player. Even if Cano had nothing, Edwin Diaz had himself a nice little career in Nuevo-Shea.
Every time a young ballplayer gets bashed for taking a (theoretically) reduced price contract, I point out Jared Kelenic. The Mariners tried to sign him to a long term deal and he refused (or "bet on himself"). That hasn't worked out so well.
I'm too lazy to do it myself, but would love to see a systemic attempt at quantifying it. I suspect that, on average, the teams come out ahead on the bet. That is, for every Jon Singleton who gets paid and gives the team nothing, there are several Ozzie Albieses who end up well under they otherwise would have. But that is just a guess. Data first, conclusion later ... eh, just opine based on my feels!
My other prior is that there could well be a disconnect between position players and pitchers here. There are far too many careers like Spencer Strider's - great, then broken, and only hoping to get back. Position players occasionally break (from Pete Reiser to Tony Conigliaro to Dickie Thon to Jeff Hammonds ...) but that is much rarer.
Related: I remember in 1976 Mark Fidrych signed a six-year deal that was well below what he could have reasonably expected to get. He said that he did it to make sure that he would receive the MLB pension. Turned out that was a good choice on The Bird's part.
I suspect you are correct about the teams coming out ahead on average (or they probably wouldn't do it). But that doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad idea for the kids to take the money.
Absolutely! The risk-reward calculation is different for each side.
I suspect that the amount a player gets as a signing bonus after the draft also plays a role in the calculus. Kelenic reportedly got $4.5m from the Mets so, if he has competent financial advisors, his down-side risk wasn't similar to that of some kid from Curacao or Venezuela.
Agreed. I was going to point to Kelenic’s signing bonus and contrast it with Albies’ which I believe was $350,000. $4.5m certainly makes it easier to bet on yourself.
that's a great list for you Joe, look forward to hearing all about the card trick. I noticed your knuckleball item. one story I have with this, my son as a maybe freshman in HS was throwing to me in the backyard and said Im going to try a knuckleball. I was like sure, but understand it's not that easy and probably you're going to need to work on it to get it right. He threw me the most perfect knuckler - thing didn't rotate at all and just sort of floated all over the place. so yea Joe. throw the knuckler, might be easier than you think.
So we know he put in the work for YEARS. I want to know what the key adjustment here was. Regardless, it is awesome to see a CF having a season like this.
Here's a great chocolate cake recipe, it is a little high on effort but relatively forgiving on technique.
https://www.kingarthurbaking.com/recipes/chocolate-fudge-blackout-cake-recipe
On this particular play, one could argue we’ve been scoring plays like this incorrectly all along. If a stolen base isn’t awarded because the defense made no attempt (defensive indifference), why should a fly ball with a 38% hit probability be scored any differently? If we’re trying to be accurate (and I know that quite often baseball does not), shouldn’t this be scored like the sacrifice fly that it truly is?
When Kevin McGonigle ends his lengthy career tied with Tris Speaker at exactly 792 doubles, we'll all know who the REAL Doubles King is.
Post a picture of said “Mambo” shirt
A home run is, essentially, a ground rule event, since every outfield fence is different. In both cases, the ball is rendered unplayable by leaving the yard whether on the fly or on a hop. They should change the rule and the two events should be scored consistently with each other. Either walk-off homers are singles (which I doubt anyone wants to see), or GR doubles are doubles.
Yeah, I wanted to be able to sing one song beautifully to my wife, Sally. "If I loved you," from the musical carousel. I went to a voice coach who told me it doesn't work that way. You actually have to learn how to sing. I have a terrible voice. I took lessons. We did scales for what seemed like forever. Finally, she gave me a song to sing. "Impossible Dream," I kid you not. Then, "What kind of a fool am I." She insisted she wasn't trolling me. (That was before trolling was a thing.) I sang my heart out on those songs, hoping to get to "If I loved you." She told me I was making progress. Thing was I wasn't hearing myself. She was hearing me. Finally I recorded myself singing those songs. They were so awful, I threw in the towel. So I wish you luck for whatever you hope to accomplish. Some of those items look really difficult.
If it is indeed true that "it's the thought that counts," then you have won the day, sir.
I'm with Mike on changing the rule, but in this case (drawn in outfield) it's not quite as egregious.
Just catching up on Joe’s posts. A couple of days ago, he wrote about the difficulty of small market teams competing. Joe mentioned that small market teams would have done as least as well, perhaps better, in a no-playoffs league. Certainly the Rays, Guardians, Brewers would have.
One point that I didn’t see made by Joe or in the comments is that what this means is mostly just that those teams have gotten unlucky in the playoffs. That’s mostly what the playoffs are: similar to the regular season but just much more random. Turns out the Rays got unlucky and the Giants got lucky. In another universe, the reverse could be true. That’s what it means that the playoffs are a crapshoot. (Yes, teams can orient themselves towards short series, but there’s only so much you can do).
This doesn’t change any of Joe’s points (the regular season is great!) but most of what you get with large playoffs is more randomness. Recently this luck has gone against small market teams who have overcome their disadvantages to build a strong team, a particularly devastating stroke of luck but mostly luck nonetheless.
I have a problem with Joe's analysis (and most people who make these comparisons). It's not that you can't win as a small market team, it's that as a huge market team like the Dodgers, Yankees, Phillies (and should be Mets - that's one for Joe's side) you can virtually guarantee you are in the race every damn year.
Perhaps. Actually, even more than big-market-small-market, it’s about history. The original 16 teams are still massively better than the newcomers (e.g. Yankees vs. Mets).
Here’s a fun(?) fact: on the strength of their last decade, the Astros as a franchise pushed their historical record over .500 to .503. The Blue Jays are very close to the mark, but just below. Prior to the Astros crossing the line, there were 11 franchises with historical winning records. The *youngest* of these was…the Yankees
Apropos of nothing here, just a note that even the greats can be upended by some form of Kryptonite.
Tadej Pogacar was crusing to another Grand Tour victory, this time in Spain. After only a week, he had already accumulated a substantial lead in the three week race. Out of nowhere, something in the road appeared & Tadej was down on the concrete. Likely a fractured clavicle, concussion & multiple laceration.
What was thought to be another big win as preparation to the World Championship in Montreal has turned into surgery & rehab. And for the rest of the peloton, a chance at unexpected victories.
So it goes ...
Sad to see Tadej crash out. He's so much more fun to watch ride than most of the old greats, who would get a 7 second lead and then ride behind their team the rest of the race.
I was watching the Tigers/Dodgers game and Mike would have loved seeing that the broadcast initially had the score 3-1, as if it was a double.
There’s a bit of a chicken-and-the-egg thing on this ground roll double debate.
Most times, the batter doesn’t run all the way to second, nor does the runner from second come home, meaning that the hit is not a double and the run from second doesn’t score not only by the rules you list above, but by the general rules of the game.
But do the batter and runner behave that way because they’re aware of the rule? I doubt it.
What I mean to say is that I agree with Mike that it should be available as a double, and it should be available for two runs to score, but the outcome is typically correct anyway.
I like the list Joe sets out. As a fellow child born in the Year of Yaz, having silly yet audacious goals to chase seems like a fun way to stay perpetually young. I need to come up with a few of my own.
...
My $0.02 on the walk-off RBI count ... Mike's argument is statistics for the sake of statistics and nothing more. It is a faux value judgment wrapped around a number. As a longtime member of the stathead movement - I can see my dogeared copy of Palmer & Thorn's "Hidden Game" as I type this - I can appreciate the beauty of the numbers. But numbers are not sacrosanct and are not perfect representations, only vague approximations.
well, considering that this game has always been about statistics (.400, 60, 56, etc) in a significant way, his take makes sense, at least to me.
Oh, it makes sense. I understand it fine. It is just wrong. ;-)
The Mets got 47 games of Javier Baez in 2021 for PCA. Man that is painful to write as a fan.
Thankully, Jarred Kelenic hasn't panned out. At least so far.
Kelenic is datapoint number 2,130 in the difficulty of grading prospects. Consensus top 10 - and mostly top 5 - entering his age 21 season, he has utterly flopped. I'd wonder how much the lost year as a 20-year-old in 2020 impacted him, but by 2023, he was at least cromulent. Now he's on his sixth franchise with nothing to show for the hype as a youngster.
But that deal, for the Mets, wasn't exactly getting 1/4th of a season of a player. Even if Cano had nothing, Edwin Diaz had himself a nice little career in Nuevo-Shea.
You are the first person to use the word "cromulent" since Howard Cosell died. Well played.
Every time a young ballplayer gets bashed for taking a (theoretically) reduced price contract, I point out Jared Kelenic. The Mariners tried to sign him to a long term deal and he refused (or "bet on himself"). That hasn't worked out so well.
I'm too lazy to do it myself, but would love to see a systemic attempt at quantifying it. I suspect that, on average, the teams come out ahead on the bet. That is, for every Jon Singleton who gets paid and gives the team nothing, there are several Ozzie Albieses who end up well under they otherwise would have. But that is just a guess. Data first, conclusion later ... eh, just opine based on my feels!
My other prior is that there could well be a disconnect between position players and pitchers here. There are far too many careers like Spencer Strider's - great, then broken, and only hoping to get back. Position players occasionally break (from Pete Reiser to Tony Conigliaro to Dickie Thon to Jeff Hammonds ...) but that is much rarer.
Related: I remember in 1976 Mark Fidrych signed a six-year deal that was well below what he could have reasonably expected to get. He said that he did it to make sure that he would receive the MLB pension. Turned out that was a good choice on The Bird's part.
I suspect you are correct about the teams coming out ahead on average (or they probably wouldn't do it). But that doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad idea for the kids to take the money.
Absolutely! The risk-reward calculation is different for each side.
I suspect that the amount a player gets as a signing bonus after the draft also plays a role in the calculus. Kelenic reportedly got $4.5m from the Mets so, if he has competent financial advisors, his down-side risk wasn't similar to that of some kid from Curacao or Venezuela.
Agreed. I was going to point to Kelenic’s signing bonus and contrast it with Albies’ which I believe was $350,000. $4.5m certainly makes it easier to bet on yourself.
that's a great list for you Joe, look forward to hearing all about the card trick. I noticed your knuckleball item. one story I have with this, my son as a maybe freshman in HS was throwing to me in the backyard and said Im going to try a knuckleball. I was like sure, but understand it's not that easy and probably you're going to need to work on it to get it right. He threw me the most perfect knuckler - thing didn't rotate at all and just sort of floated all over the place. so yea Joe. throw the knuckler, might be easier than you think.
One big difference for PCA is how he is doing against lefties.
In 2025: .188/.217/.377 with 7 HRs in 170 at bats.
In 2026: .316/.416/.583 with 11 HRs in 168 at bats.
So we know he put in the work for YEARS. I want to know what the key adjustment here was. Regardless, it is awesome to see a CF having a season like this.
Wow, that is HUGE!