6.28.11 v the Rays

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by traderumor

But, before I get hammered (just kidding), what happens if both teams "find ways to win them" in the same game? I'm really starting to feel like your arguing to be consistent more than you really believe that the game works this way.

Let the best man win. Teams with the fewer mistakes typically win. Yes, these cliches are not always applicable, but I believe they're relevant.

It's a competition between two teams. The team that plays better generally wins. And when that doesn't happen, it's because one team didn't put distance between they and the other team enough to keep from coming down to unlucky bounces.

I'm not arguing to be consistent. This is, has and always will be my outlook on sports. Luck is a part of it, but talent and production is and will always be the most important aspect. Always. Regardless of sport.

If it comes down to a 50/50 ball, then a team didn't execute enough to leave it out of the hands of fate. It's that same reason I don't like to pass off blame to refs or umpires, because if you let it come down to a blown call or two by an official, then you likely are conveniently forgetting all the mistakes by your own team or players that let it come down to that.

I'm not doing anything to stay consistent. This is how I've always felt.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by jojo

Maybe in games like "this", the better team might win.

I'd say it was a push. There isn't much overall difference between the Reds and Rays. Until recently, the Rays were floundering around the .500 mark, but have streaked, sort of like when the Reds were 8 over. They are top loaded with starting pitching and try to get by with their hitting, we are the opposite, both play good defense.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by traderumor

They are averages. To compare a game's results to the average and make conclusions about how a team fared on any given night is ludicrous. And I've read the detail in your posts. You know better.

If that were truly the case, then what' the point of saying "they scratched for 3 runs against David Price." How would we know that were even a worthwhile feat if we weren't comparing it to his previous averages?

There is still enough of a baseline to gauge an expectation based on a player's typical performance. Scratching for three runs against David Price wouldn't mean anything if we didn't have something to compare it to.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

Let the best man win. Teams with the fewer mistakes typically win. Yes, these cliches are not always applicable, but I believe they're relevant.

It's a competition between two teams. The team that plays better generally wins. And when that doesn't happen, it's because one team didn't put distance between they and the other team enough to keep from coming down to unlucky bounces.

I'm not arguing to be consistent. This is, has and always will be my outlook on sports. Luck is a part of it, but talent and production is and will always be the most important aspect. Always. Regardless of sport.

If it comes down to a 50/50 ball, then a team didn't execute enough to leave it out of the hands of fate. It's that same reason I don't like to pass off blame to refs or umpires, because if you let it come down to a blown call or two by an official, then you likely are conveniently forgetting all the mistakes by your own team or players that let it come down to that.

I'm not doing anything to stay consistent. This is how I've always felt.

I think that view is somewhat true at the broader level of an entire season, but in a sport with as many events as MLB, it is not true at the level of one MLB game, which is what we are discussing. The same for your analysis of Reds vs. Price and comparing number of K's and runs scored to his overall averages and concluding that the Reds had a "subpar" offensive night. It is not representative of evaluating the performances, especially considering the variation in the data comprising the averages. In my statistics classes, simple averages were not very highly regarded.

[PuffyPig]

Price was really dealing today.

Everyone could see that.

I thought the Red's hitters did pretty good against a great pitcher who had his stuff and command tonight.

[Always Red]

I thought getting Cueto out of there against Damon was a great idea, especially given Damon's earlier AB's against Johnny. He didn't hit the ball hard against Bray, and looking back, it's always easy to 2nd guess.

I would have done the same, had I been managing. Didn't work out, obviously. Heisey gave a heck of an effort trying to get to the ball.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by traderumor

I think that view is somewhat true at the broader level of an entire season, but in a sport with as many events as MLB, it is not true at the level of one MLB game, which is what we are discussing. The same for your analysis of Reds vs. Price and comparing number of K's and runs scored to his overall averages and concluding that the Reds had a "subpar" offensive night. It is not representative of evaluating the performances, especially considering the variation in the data comprising the averages. In my statistics classes, simple averages were not very highly regarded.

If you'd rather we use the median than the mean, I'm sure the results would be similar

[CTA513]

It could be worse the Reds could have lost like this:
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=16391793

[reds1869]

Originally Posted by CTA513

It could be worse the Reds could have lost like this:
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=16391793

I can't imagine the RedsZone crucifixion awaiting Stubbs if he did what that CF did!

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by WVRedsFan

Taking Cueto out at only 95 pitches and then bringing Logan in, but apparently that's stupid to think that, so I move we strike it from the record.

I think it's nitpicking a bit to complain about bringing in a lefty to face Damon at that point. Especially a lefty with an ERA below 2.00. And then in the 9th, to complain about bringing in Ondrusek with extras on the line (and he's sporting an ERA below 2.00 as well)...kind of hard to find much fault with that line of thinking. I think Dusty handled it well...just didn't get the result.

And as for the pitch to Longoria...there was nothing wrong with it. Excellent movement, excellent velocity, pretty good location too. Just a well struck ball. Sometimes you've just got to tip your hat to the opponent.

[cumberlandreds]

Sounded like a tough loss. We had thunderstorms in the DC area and my reception kept getting knocked out. So I didn't get to see much of this game.
Sounded like a bloop hit by Damon was the key hit of the game. Just plain bad luck there. I still love what Cueto is doing. With every start like this I get more encouraged that the Reds have found TOR starter they have been looking for.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

If you watch baseball, or rather played it, you know there are a lot of things that happen in the course of a game that you do wrong that could have been done properly. Those mistakes are accountable to the people that make them more than random chance.

Despite your tendency to label everything regression or luck, a lot more of it is a product of the actual players on the field than not.

Gotta agree with Brutus here. There were certainly opportunities earlier in the game. That AB with Heisey comes to mind when he needed to get down the bunt, but fouled off 2 and then struck out. That was big IMO. There were several others. That bloop hit that plated 2...if Heisey keeps that ball in front of him like he was supposed to, only 1 scores. I like that he made the attempt, but to be honest, the person with the best shot at it was probably the shortstop...but Renteria just doesn't have the speed or mobility to get there. Could Janish have gotten it? Maybe. But you can't let it score 2.

So yeah, there were things we could've done better. And yes, there was some luck involved as you'd expect too.

[Tony Cloninger]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

Gotta agree with Brutus here. There were certainly opportunities earlier in the game. That AB with Heisey comes to mind when he needed to get down the bunt, but fouled off 2 and then struck out. That was big IMO. There were several others. That bloop hit that plated 2...if Heisey keeps that ball in front of him like he was supposed to, only 1 scores. I like that he made the attempt, but to be honest, the person with the best shot at it was probably the shortstop...but Renteria just doesn't have the speed or mobility to get there. Could Janish have gotten it? Maybe. But you can't let it score 2.

So yeah, there were things we could've done better. And yes, there was some luck involved as you'd expect too.

Why would Janish not be in there as the SS? Renteria needs to be replaced at SS anytime they have the lead after 7-8 innings.

[cumberlandreds]

Originally Posted by Tony Cloninger

Why would Janish not be in there as the SS? Renteria needs to be replaced at SS anytime they have the lead after 7-8 innings.

I agree with this. ^ Renteria's time at SS should be very limited. He just can't get it done consistently anymore.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

If you watch baseball, or rather played it, you know there are a lot of things that happen in the course of a game that you do wrong that could have been done properly. Those mistakes are accountable to the people that make them more than random chance.

Despite your tendency to label everything regression or luck, a lot more of it is a product of the actual players on the field than not.

This is exactly what I meant by a reductionist view of the game. Of course the players do something on each and every pitch. Every swing and miss is a missed opportunity. Every pitch down the middle is accountable. If he had the right arm slot, if the hitter centered the ball. That is why its a competition, and not a robotic repetition of algorithms. Of course, better players will be able to control more of the controllable parts of the game. Who is arguing otherwise?

Rather, a basic axiom of the game is that there are so many things that are not repeatable skills that randomness is a part of the game and the randomness outweighs the skill most nights.

And as someone who has watched baseball for 40 years and played it, umpired it, and coached it myself several years as well, I get this about the game. It is maddening and frustrating, but it also keeps me coming back because a game of baseball is not always predictable, or a matter of the best team doing enough right things to win.