bizaff

Yes, fair enough.. I probably overstate when I say baseball could be more accurate. I think it's even a little more complex - the strike zone in 3 dimensions is made up of 7 planes - 5 being the outline of the plate projected up and down, and then the 2 heights. The point I get at is that tracking a pitch as it comes in, along with lining up on either the inside or outside corner which forces an ump to basically "guess" at the other corner, and paying attention to everything else in the at-bat, and filtering OUT framing.. I just don't think it's worth placing that trust in a human anymore when much more conclusively objective and correct options exist. Trying to think how this would work in practice.. once the heights of the strike zone are set, could a tone simply sound in an earpiece if the ball crosses any part of the zone? Then the ump can use that to signal ball and strike. Ok, I'll stop hijacking now.

There may be no visible line the ball touches, but the technology is very well within our grasp to call correct balls and strikes with MUCH greater accuracy than the human eye. The tennis technology claims accuracy within 2.6mm, or 1/10th of an inch. I see no reason to think baseball would be less accurate - one could claim even more accurate. The strike zone is a well defined 3 dimensional solid that cameras can track. Yes, it's slightly different per batter, but it's not like that can't be adjusted for. You're right, all sports to involve an adjustment to officials, but this particular issue can be cured.

Heh, that's about it. Veteran play by Mauer - give the defense the option to hand you a run - they obliged

Normally I can see them but this one didn't work for some reason.

Is there any video of the Mauer baserunning thing in the 8th? I was listening on the radio when it happened but I want to see it.

I can't remember where I found this link now, but it makes the case Rodney didn't make a bad pitch. I agree. The results don't support it, but that happens. https://imgur.com/a/YoSn7bC I'm not thrilled with the Rodney experience, but in this game he pitched pretty well, all things considered.

I'm still scratching my head at all this. On the surface it just seems like a mistake, but I can't believe it's that simple. Could it be a calculated gamble that they thought they might have more overall depth if the other teams return their Rule 5 picks? And the Twins picked a Rule 5 just to cover the short term loss in depth? The pitchers the Twins didn't protect don't fit into the new pitching approach? If they return their Rule 5 picks, do we really want them back? Are those players developing at another team's expense? I just don't understand. I'd like to understand the thought process.

Originally, I thought the Twins being upset at the bunt was pretty silly, then I read this. What if LaMarre steals when he's not being held on? I'm guessing a lot of Orioles are going to be pretty upset, and I understand why. I'm not a big fan of the unwritten rules, and I don't really support them, but I totally get where Dozier's coming from in context of not holding LaMarre on. I'm not saying I agree with him, but I get it.

And today I search for 20 seconds and find it. My post in http://twinsdaily.com/blog/536/entry-9070-warne-when-everyone-is-healthy-whats-the-ideal-twins-lineup/ showed what it would be like late last year.. vs Lefties RF Grossman (OBP .402, OPS .732) CF Buxton(OBP .398, OPS .868) 1B Mauer(OBP .376, OPS .747) 2B Dozier(OBP .440, OPS 1.039) 3B Sano(OBP .395, OPS 1.011) DH Escobar (OBP .346, OPS .796) LF Rosario (OBP .299, OPS .715) C Castro (OBP .337, OPS .709) SS Polanco (OBP .287, OPS .682) vs Righties 1B Mauer (OBP .385, OPS .813) DH Grossman (OBP .350, OPS .740) 3B Sano (OBP .343, OPS .826) RF Kepler (OBP .348, OPS .855) LF Rosario (OBP .336, OPS .856) CF Buxton (OBP .290, OPS .684) 2B Dozier (OBP .325, OPS .774) C Gimenez (OBP .353, OPS .693) SS Polanco (OBP .316, OPS .733) Maybe I'll put one together for the current roster based on last year's numbers..

This is the article I keep going back to - https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/3/17/795946/optimizing-your-lineup-by I tried putting together lefty and righty lineups based pretty strictly on this (can't find the post now) and it looked a little weird

I've seen this a few times in the past few months the idea of moving Dozier to 3rd. Isn't his arm why he didn't stick at short?

I think this gets tricky. The average regular at-bat is a "negative play", depending on how you define negative play. I've seen the charts that show you're worse off with 1 out -2- than 0 out 1-- and in general I agree with them. I just wonder if some of the advanced analytics (as in analytics that MLB teams pay for, not stuff we see) show that the bunt is the best possible play for a given batter against a given pitcher, given EV. I'm not sold they have it, but with all the statistics and being able to crunch big data, maybe they really do know more than we think they do. A sacrifice bunt is objectively better than a strikeout. I'm guessing a lot of these calls are much closer to even than we think they are. I do agree that there are WAY too many botched bunts.

Thinking about 4 division winners and 8 wildcards.. what if it were 4 division winners and 4 wildcards.. the wild card series are 2 or 3 game series where the wild card team has to sweep a division winner to advance?

I thought I heard someone say on air that the rulebook doesn't really clearly call out how a "checked swing" works.. it can be the wrists, it can be the bat head crossing the plate, it can be the bat breaking the parallel with the front of the plate.. I did a quick scan of the rules and didn't find any detail.

http://www.tangotiger.net/re24.html "Statistically, a baserunner bunted over to 2nd is more likely to score." I don't know if there's any data to specifically support this. What the tables show, all things being equal: 1) If you sac bunt a guy from 1st to 2nd, you will score less runs in that inning 2) If you sac bunt a guy from 1st to 2nd, you will be less likely to score 1 run in that inning I read these as both contradicting the quoted statement. The problem is, in game situations all things aren't equal. If you approach this from an EV (expected value) point of view, situations involving the current batter, current pitcher, and next batter will tweak the numbers somewhat. If someone hits bad, the bunt may improve either 1), 2) or both. The thing we DON'T have is context specific information about this batter/this pitcher/next batter. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the analytics department HAS calculated these and hands them to Molitor. It's pretty rare you see 2/3/4 bunt; if it's someone that is a worse batter, it may be the best play you have. I'm the first to say, in general, all the bunting is bad. I am willing to consider that analytics Molitor has that we don't make it the best option.