Turn Off Ads?
Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 89

Thread: Get 'em over, get 'em around, get 'em in

  1. #1
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    16,000

    Get 'em over, get 'em around, get 'em in

    During yesterday's game, there was a very annoying exchange in which the Reds announcers went on at length about how a runner should always score from 2nd base on a single to the outfield. He even went so far as to say that if you can't score, you should lose some weight.

    Hatteberg is on 2B at the time. Hopper comes up, and after a rough AB, does a nice job of taking a low inside change-up to the right side to move Hatteberg to 3rd. The announcers go on and on about what a great job of hitting it was. Brantley (I think) even goes on to point a game where Larkin came up four times with a guy on 2B and grounded out to second each time, advancing the runner and how that shows how great a hitter he is. I would counter that a great hitter would've gotten some hits and driven in the runner, while putting another run on base, but that's not my primary point. He must've said at least 10 times, "that's how you play the game". I swear, I wanted to punch him in the face. Anyways...

    In the next AB, Griffey lines a ball up the middle to score Hatteberg from 3rd base. Woohoo. However, given that Hatteberg is supposed to score from 2B on a single every time anyways, as the announcers told me, is it really that crucial to waste an out advancing him to 3B?

    Yes, I understand that if you're going to make an out, a productive one is better than not. However, they pretty strongly asserted that advancing the runner was the primary function of the AB, right on the heels on pointing out that the runner at 2B should NOT need to be advanced in order to score.

    Am I missing something? This is what bugs me about the "play the game the right way" crowd. It's often contradictory, emphasizing sub-optimal non-zero outcomes simply because they make people feel better about not producing an actually good outcome. Brantley rambled on, placing emphasis in consecutive points that were not only contradictory (at least in terms of the appropriate level of emphasis) but condescending (as he was clearly ranting against the "anti-small-ball" crowd) as well.

    Marty is no better, railing Dunn for his defense and strikeouts constantly, but giving Hopper and Freel a free pass when they misplay balls in to hits or ground out weekly on the first pitch of an AB.

    I'm tried of it. I don't ask for a sabermatrician poet to call our games. I'm even fine with somebody who believes in a small ball, pitching & defense oriented team and can defend the point articulately. But is it too hard to ask for announcers to use logic, not rely solely on anecdotal evidence when making sweeping claims, not contradict themselves, and not condescend to fans who may have a point of view developed after 1985?
    Last edited by RedsManRick; 08-09-2007 at 01:16 PM.
    Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #2
    Box of Frogs edabbs44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    16,296

    Re: Get 'em over, get 'em around, get 'em in

    Moving a runner from 2nd to 3rd, to me, is more important when there are none out since that runner can now score on a sac fly or ground out.

  4. #3
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    16,000

    Re: Get 'em over, get 'em around, get 'em in

    Quote Originally Posted by edabbs44 View Post
    Moving a runner from 2nd to 3rd, to me, is more important when there are none out since that runner can now score on a sac fly or ground out.
    Yes. Moving a runner from 2B to 3B is important, as opposed to simply making an out that does not advance him. However, it is a much worse outcome than not making an out at all, particularly not making an out that advances him from 2B to home.

    Focusing on moving the guy over as some wonderful thing completely ignores the fact that he made an out, and outs are bad, not good. It should be "Darn. Well, at least it was a productive out." not, "Woohoo! Great job! Now THAT's how you play the game the RIGHT way"... (...non-clutch, not-sac fly, striking-out-non-stop Adam Dunn).
    Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.

  5. #4
    The Lineups stink. KronoRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West N. Carolina
    Posts
    55,655

    Re: Get 'em over, get 'em around, get 'em in

    How many runners getting thrown out at home would it take before demanding people score from 2nd on a single was stopped?
    Go Gators!

  6. #5
    Waitin til next year bucksfan2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    10,171

    Re: Get 'em over, get 'em around, get 'em in

    I think that the new Billy Beane way of baseball has ignored this philosophy to a large extent. Getting a runner to third base with less than two outs is a very important part of a baseball game. It is especially important that when the hitter is in a pitchers count that he get the ball to the right side to move the runner up. I read an article back when larkin was in his prime and an analysist said that Larkin could have hit 10 to 20 points higher if he wasn't such an unselfish player. It all goes back to the idea of a productive out. The goal of the game is to score more runs than the opposing team. Sure you lose an out if you move a runner up to third from second but you give that runner so many more options to score when he is at 3rd with less than 2 outs.

  7. #6
    Redsmetz redsmetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Winton Place
    Posts
    11,168

    Re: Get 'em over, get 'em around, get 'em in

    It's interesting that in today's game, the Dodgers loaded the bases on a single to left field. Clearly the runner could NOT have scored there - he would have easily been thrown out.

    Likewise, I doubt that Hatte would have scored from second on Griffey's hit; it was so sharply hit and Hatteberg would have had to hold up to make sure the pitcher hadn't snared it.

    The aforementioned announcers are full of a little hooey.

  8. #7
    I hate the Cubs LoganBuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,160

    Re: Get 'em over, get 'em around, get 'em in

    You missed out on Marty's take on that same sequence. It was another tribute to Norris Hopper, about doing the little things. Then Griffey got the hit, and it was like "meh". I was reminded of the line from a thread the other day "I bet Norris Hopper's parents listen to the broadcast.".
    The Sox traded Bullfrog the only player they've got for Shottenhoffen. Four-eyes Shottenhoffen a utility infielder. They've got a whole team of utility infielders.

  9. #8
    Be the ball Roy Tucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Mason, OH
    Posts
    12,128

    Re: Get 'em over, get 'em around, get 'em in

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsManRick View Post
    But is it too hard to ask for announcers to use logic, not rely solely on anecdotal evidence when making sweeping claims, not contradict themselves, and not condescend to fans who may have a point of view developed after 1985?
    Yes.

    Pay attention to the open sky

  10. #9
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    16,000

    Re: Get 'em over, get 'em around, get 'em in

    Again, my point isn't really to debate the value of a productive out. God knows we've covered that ground already. It's the condescending, contradictory crap that that we're getting from our announcers that has me so ticked off.
    Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.

  11. #10
    Matt's Dad RANDY IN INDY's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Brownsburg, Indiana
    Posts
    15,268

    Re: Get 'em over, get 'em around, get 'em in

    I don't see anything wrong with Hopper advancing the runner from second to third. It was an important play in that baseball game, and helped the Reds win a tight one, 1-0. I thought that it was a good piece of situational hitting with the likes of Griffey, and the middle of the order to follow.
    Talent is God Given: be humble.
    Fame is man given: be thankful.
    Conceit is self given: be careful.

    John Wooden

  12. #11
    Passion for the game Team Clark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    8,104

    Re: Get 'em over, get 'em around, get 'em in

    The only problem I have with the "play the game the right way" comment is Media types who can't explain it the "right way".
    It's absolutely pathetic that people can't have an opinion from actually watching games and supplementing that with stats. If you voice an opinion that doesn't fit into a black/white box you will get completely misrepresented and basically called a tobacco chewing traditionalist...
    Cedric 3/24/08

  13. #12
    Matt's Dad RANDY IN INDY's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Brownsburg, Indiana
    Posts
    15,268

    Re: Get 'em over, get 'em around, get 'em in

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsManRick View Post
    Again, my point isn't really to debate the value of a productive out. God knows we've covered that ground already. It's the condescending, contradictory crap that that we're getting from our announcers that has me so ticked off.
    I appreciate your opinion, Rick. When anything is driven down your throat in a condescending manner, it is going to create some animosity.
    Talent is God Given: be humble.
    Fame is man given: be thankful.
    Conceit is self given: be careful.

    John Wooden

  14. #13
    Matt's Dad RANDY IN INDY's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Brownsburg, Indiana
    Posts
    15,268

    Re: Get 'em over, get 'em around, get 'em in

    Quote Originally Posted by Team Clark View Post
    The only problem I have with the "play the game the right way" comment is Media types who can't explain it the "right way".
    And you are right on the mark!
    Talent is God Given: be humble.
    Fame is man given: be thankful.
    Conceit is self given: be careful.

    John Wooden

  15. #14
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    16,000

    Re: Get 'em over, get 'em around, get 'em in

    Quote Originally Posted by Team Clark View Post
    The only problem I have with the "play the game the right way" comment is Media types who can't explain it the "right way".
    Precisely TC. And this was a case where the "Right Way" was emphatically stated to include always scoring from 2B on a single, followed by a "Right Way" productive out to the right side, followed by a single that likely would NOT have scored the runner, which was virtually ignored as being part of the "Right Way" formula.

    So... which Right Way is the "Right Way" Mr Brantley?

    I find it funny that the "Right Way" often centers around making the best of a sub-optimal situation. Guys who do the optimal thing too often just don't play the game the "Right Way". My "Right Way" to play the game with a runner on 2B and none out is to hit a 500 foot bomb to center.
    Last edited by RedsManRick; 08-09-2007 at 02:02 PM.
    Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.

  16. #15
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,297

    Re: Get 'em over, get 'em around, get 'em in

    During the 8th inning Jeff Brantley was running down how the Reds scored. He said the key play of the inning was Hoppers ground out to second base. Not the double by Hatteberg to get to second, or Griffeys single that plated Hatteberg, but Hoppers weak ground ball on a pitch that would have been a ball had he not swung the bat.

    I can't make that up. I thought about pulling out some of my hair.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25