LOL at this

[SFAnthem]

Anyone going to Game 3 in Club level, let me know and maybe we can convene around a lounge TV?

man.. I'll be bar hopping the embarcadero for wednesday and thursday games. I'll let others enjoy the playoff atmosphere. I got to see JT's snowball in 2000 and the first round in 2002. I got the allstar hr derby and game, too so it's all good.

 

[SFAnthem]

From what little I can remember. I think CASTECORE was a dentist or something in that arena. I also believe that some people found out about that as well and that led to some other problems . LLDOYLE was a lawyer from Atlanta I think. I also think he was the most respected of all the posters during that time. There was also some other poster claiming to be the CEO of something. Just can't seem to remember what and can't remember the name. Many flaming wars over that person's posts. Always references to their corporate jet and what not. Byco was a Tigers fan. I do remember that there was quite a bit of knowledge within that group.

I can echo these sentiments.

There used to be mods, BruteSentiment was one, I believe. And yeah Castcore's true identity was revealed. That was taking it a bit too far and I think they went to the runboard so that no further trouble was going to happen (Castcore was basically seen as the DeNiro charater in The Fan)

One thing me and Castcore would always butt heads with was his obsession with Edwards (plural) Guzman and Tiny Minor, lol. "Naem Oen Time!" was a popular saying of his as misspellings and grammatical errors always seemed to punctuate his posts.

I agree they were cliquish but that didn't bother me that much. There were some highly entertaining posters back in the day - balzac comes to mind, as well as some good people from the ! dodgers board.

LLDoyle was pretty cool to me - nice guy. What I appreciated most was the wealth of Giants history they knew. These were no fairweather fans and it reminded me of a slice of Candlestick. I was just a kid back in the days, roaming around "general admission" but I liked that hardened approach an old school Giants fan had and in some ways miss it (the bleachers as a bit of that, too)

 

[gp956]

Did you use the same nic back then Robo?

I know, I got flamed once for getting mad at Pedro Feliz always swinging at the first pitch after the pitcher had thrown like 8 straight balls out of the zone.....usually resulting in a GIDP. It was then brought to my attention that Feliz had a .307 average when he swung at the first pitch.....I just had to throw my hands up at at that point and give up.

Bullshit stat, of course. Reminds of a guy I knew who could not understand splits: "a 300 hitter is a 300 hitter he used to say". This was well before the web, and not many people who didn't follow the game closely were conversant about splits.

 

[filosofy29]

Bullshit stat, of course. Reminds of a guy I knew who could not understand splits: "a 300 hitter is a 300 hitter he used to say". This was well before the web, and not many people who didn't follow the game closely were conversant about splits.

lol, you must have a wide/unique perspective on Sabermetrics. It must be interesting to see them grow and understand them way before they were popular (and widespread via the internet), to seeing people who still think that advanced stats have no place in baseball, to seeing people who have a very elementary understanding of them but spew incessantly like they know what they're talking about, to the experts.

I still don't understand them well at all, but it must've been fun to know about them for quite some time and see their growth chart from their infant stage to their current popularity.

 

[gp956]

lol, you must have a wide/unique perspective on Sabermetrics. It must be interesting to see them grow and understand them way before they were popular (and widespread via the internet), to seeing people who still think that stats have no place in baseball, to seeing people who have a very elementary understanding of them but spew incessantly like they know what they're talking about, to the experts.

I still don't understand them well at all, but it must've been fun to know about them for quite some time and see their growth chart from their infant stage to their current popularity.

What's the most frustrating is many neophyte saberists are the most closed minded individuals I've met in a long time - especially frustrating when it's obvious they have no knowledge of the pitch by pitch adjustments being made out there. New converts are like that, I guess. What I liked about most of the saberist stuff is it reflected/confirmed the stuff old school guys already knew, but had not necessarily quantified.

One of the things that surprised me, though, was the almost universal negative outcome that results from bunting players over. That's probably Bill James's greatest insight (incite ). But my focus with sabermetrics has always been the pitcher-batter matchup - that's the area of the game I'm most fascinated with, and which occupies 95% of my attention.

 

[Robotech]

What's the most frustrating is many neophyte saberists are the most closed minded individuals I've met in a long time - especially frustrating when it's obvious they have no knowledge of the pitch by pitch adjustments being made out there. New converts are like that, I guess. What I liked about most of the saberist stuff is it reflected/confirmed the stuff old school guys already knew, but had not necessarily quantified.

One of the things that surprised me, though, was the almost universal negative outcome that results from bunting players over. That's probably Bill James's greatest insight (incite ). But my focus with sabermetrics has always been the pitcher-batter matchup - that's the area of the game I'm most fascinated with, and which occupies 95% of my attention.

That's an interesting take on bunting. I would think that bunting is statistically the correct play to make late in a game when you need a run to tie or take the lead. I don't favor bunting early in the game.

 

[nateistheshi]

What's the most frustrating is many neophyte saberists are the most closed minded individuals I've met in a long time - especially frustrating when it's obvious they have no knowledge of the pitch by pitch adjustments being made out there. New converts are like that, I guess. What I liked about most of the saberist stuff is it reflected/confirmed the stuff old school guys already knew, but had not necessarily quantified.

One of the things that surprised me, though, was the almost universal negative outcome that results from bunting players over. That's probably Bill James's greatest insight (incite ). But my focus with sabermetrics has always been the pitcher-batter matchup - that's the area of the game I'm most fascinated with, and which occupies 95% of my attention.

Is that just overall a negative effect from wasting an out, or is that more of an issue like: bunting in situation A is good, but it's bad in situations B, C, and D, so it has an overall negative value?

 

[gp956]

Is that just overall a negative effect from wasting an out, or is that more of an issue like: bunting in situation A is good, but it's bad in situations B, C, and D, so it has an overall negative value?

If your probability of scoring a run goes down, it really doesn't matter whether it's early or late in the game. The key parameter is the offensive potential of the bunter vs. those who follow.

 

[nateistheshi]

If your probability of scoring a run goes down, it really doesn't matter whether it's early or late in the game. The key parameter is the offensive potential of the bunter vs. those who follow.

I see, that makes sense. What I meant by various situations though wasn't a matter of what inning it is. I was thinking in terms of runner on 1st no outs, runners on 1st and 2nd no outs, runner on 1st 1 out, etc.

 

[tzill]

What's the most frustrating is many neophyte saberists are the most closed minded individuals I've met in a long time - especially frustrating when it's obvious they have no knowledge of the pitch by pitch adjustments being made out there. New converts are like that, I guess. What I liked about most of the saberist stuff is it reflected/confirmed the stuff old school guys already knew, but had not necessarily quantified.

One of the things that surprised me, though, was the almost universal negative outcome that results from bunting players over. That's probably Bill James's greatest insight (incite ;)). But my focus with sabermetrics has always been the pitcher-batter matchup - that's the area of the game I'm most fascinated with, and which occupies 95% of my attention.

I see what you did there....

 

[gp956]

I see, that makes sense. What I meant by various situations though wasn't a matter of what inning it is. I was thinking in terms of runner on 1st no outs, runners on 1st and 2nd no outs, runner on 1st 1 out, etc.

Actually, I was implicitly thinking of the guy at first situation. With a runner at second and no outs it makes sense to move the guy over if you're playing for run one (in the average situation).

This run matrix gives you an idea of what I'm talking about. But this matrix is the average number of runs scored and not the probability of scoring one or more runs (i.e. the probability of scoring zero runs - 1), which is more of what robotech was getting at.

 

[SFAnthem]

hey sorry to interrupt the thread but what is the deal with letting other people know of this place?

I know filo says whoever's cool is cool but I don't want to be the guy who messes this place up

okay carry on with the calculations, you nerds

 

[filosofy29]

hey sorry to interrupt the thread but what is the deal with letting other people know of this place?

I know filo says whoever's cool is cool but I don't want to be the guy who messes this place up

okay carry on with the calculations, you nerds

My fellow nerds and I will retire to the nerdery with our calculators.

Doesn't bother me one bit Anthessy. As long as the rest of the distinguished gentlemen don't mind, have at it. This is a welcome forum as far as I'm concerned.

 

[msgkings322]

hey sorry to interrupt the thread but what is the deal with letting other people know of this place?

I know filo says whoever's cool is cool but I don't want to be the guy who messes this place up

okay carry on with the calculations, you nerds

I think you're referring to InBarryWeTrust and while I agree with filo there's no exclusions here for pretty much anyone (you have to be an obvious douche to not be here, you know the ones), he seems very cool and you should post the link to his messages over there and tell him about it.

 

[gp956]

Interesting that this recently returned old mule still talks to a lot of other old mules, but had no knowledge of the runboard.

 

[filosofy29]

Interesting that this recently returned old mule still talks to a lot of other old mules, but had no knowledge of the runboard.

Once again, valid point.

 

[nateistheshi]

Actually, I was implicitly thinking of the guy at first situation. With a runner at second and no outs it makes sense to move the guy over if you're playing for run one (in the average situation).

This run matrix gives you an idea of what I'm talking about. But this matrix is the average number of runs scored and not the probability of scoring one or more runs (i.e. the probability of scoring zero runs - 1), which is more of what robotech was getting at.

Ok, thank you. I understand where you're coming from now, giving up a free out for 1 base I'd assume increases the avg. for 0 or 1 runs but greatly reduces the number of times that multiple runs will score.

 

[msgkings322]

Interesting that this recently returned old mule still talks to a lot of other old mules, but had no knowledge of the runboard.

That is strange. Is he perhaps a Tito alt, trying to get in here?

 

[nateistheshi]

That is strange. Is he perhaps a Tito alt, trying to get in here?

The guy seems to like Tito...so yes it must be Tito.

 

[Heathbar012]

The guy seems to like Tito...so yes it must be Tito.

Hahahaha. Excellent deductive reasoning. However, I don't think Tito can refrain from exclamation marks and misspellings.