OT: Player who didn’t make the baseball Hall of Fame that you think should?

[Stainmaster]

OK??? So some guy has an opinion. In every measure wins is the most important stat. All you have to do is look at the standings.

Wins say nothing about a pitcher's ability.

Every moment you spending dying on this hill is a moment you spend declaring to the world "I know absolutely nothing about the game of baseball!"

 

[Madmannsucks]

Wins say nothing about a pitcher's ability.

Every moment you spending dying on this hill is a moment you spend declaring to the world "I know absolutely nothing about the game of baseball!"

Oh, Thank you for the enlightenment. I know plenty, but refuse to acknowledge the over use of stats created by people who wouldn't know a double steal from a double play. There is analyzing and then there is over analyzing. Statistics are for losers.
Wins say plenty for a starting picture. A reliable arm going out and staying at least 5 innings for one thing. His E R A was during the steroid era and mostly in the A L with the DH. Keeping your team in the game. Oh KYTITG for statistic lovers. Average of 6.4 IP per start for the statistic lovers also. If anyone cares. I do not. 103 games over 500. Call it meaningless. While you do, the people that get paid for such decisions continually come clamoring for pitchers with such stats, regularly declaring to the world..."I along with Madmannsucks, know nothing about the game of baseball".

 

[Stainmaster]

Statistics are for losers.

Congratulations, nobody who sees this will ever take you seriously.

 

[Madmannsucks]

Congratulations, nobody who sees this will ever take you seriously.

Right. Notice the incredible number of pitchers in the HOF with very low W-L percentages....count if you like. You disagree, so no one will take me seriously. Baseball isn't that hard. If you give up 3, you have to score 4. Things missing since the new analytics? Bunting, hit and run, stolen bases, moving the runner over. Also strikeouts at an all time high. Fundamentals non existent. So take one statement from my post, and write it off.
Sorry, your "I know more about baseball than you" fails to impress me. Your "everyone thinks I am right" approach, is laughable.

 

[Stainmaster]

Things missing since the new analytics? Bunting, hit and run, stolen bases, moving the runner over. Also strikeouts at an all time high. Fundamentals non existent.

Keep digging. I'm loving it.

 

[methodology]

Right. Notice the incredible number of pitchers in the HOF with very low W-L percentages....count if you like. You disagree, so no one will take me seriously. Baseball isn't that hard. If you give up 3, you have to score 4. Things missing since the new analytics? Bunting, hit and run, stolen bases, moving the runner over. Also strikeouts at an all time high. Fundamentals non existent. So take one statement from my post, and write it off.
Sorry, your "I know more about baseball than you" fails to impress me. Your "everyone thinks I am right" approach, is laughable.

Analytics has shown that stealing bases is a net negative unless you steal at about 70% success rate.

Analytics has also shown it is detrimental to the team to bunt as you are giving away an out and actually decreasing your chance of scoring a run.

Sacrifice Bunting is Sacrificing My Brain Cells – The Ocho

With a man on first and no outs, you’ve got a 71.5% win expectancy. Move him to second while sacrificing an out and that expectancy drops to 70.3%. Yes, it’s a small difference, but it becomes even more profound earlier in the game. Of course, there are other mitigating or aggravating factors to consider when deciding to bunt, such as who the person bunting is, what the opposing defence looks like, and who is on the mound. However, statistics show that even in the most beneficial of situations, sac bunting will decrease your chances to pick up a victory.

According to Baseball Prospectus, over the course of an entire game you have a 24.4 percent better chance of scoring a runner from first with no outs than you have of scoring a runner from second with one out. In addition, in situations with two base runners, teams stand a 10.4% better chance at scoring one run with runners on first and second with no outs than they do with runners on second and third with one out. With a man on first base and no outs, an MLB team’s probability of scoring at least one run in the inning in 2015 was 0.499, essentially 50%. Pushing that runner up to second in exchange for an out reduced those odds to 0.447, or just under 45 percent.

Not only does the bunt reduce the number of runs the team could expect to score in that inning (from 0.84 to 0.65) but it reduces the team’s odds of scoring any runs at all.

Hit and runs still happen but at a lower rate and it's usually a delayed hit and run cause wait for it... analytics has proven how important outs are and giving away outs is not a good thing.

Strikeouts at all time highs are a combination of reasons. Pitchers are much better and harder to make contact against especially with all the pitching changes. Every team has 5+ pitchers who throw 96+ mph while back in the day there were couple handful in the entire league. Add to that launch angles have proven to be more important which leads to hitting for more power/ less contact/ more swing in miss. Being a .280 slap hitter with a .650 OPS is incredibly less productive than a .230 hitter with .780 OPS

You might "know" baseball but the analytics and best course of action has passed you by. You haven't progressed with the new evidence of what is proven to be the correct way. It's equivalent of playing blackjack thinking you making your own plays is better than making the correct book play

 

[Madmannsucks]

YAWN!!!!!

 

[Madmannsucks]

Strikeouts at all time highs are a combination of reasons. Pitchers are much better and harder to make contact against especially with all the pitching changes. Every team has 5+ pitchers who throw 96+ mph while back in the day there were couple handful in the entire league. Add to that launch angles have proven to be more important which leads to hitting for more power/ less contact/ more swing in miss. Being a .280 slap hitter with a .650 OPS is incredibly less productive than a .230 hitter with .780 OPS
Really. So it has nothing to do with say choking up with 2 strikes. or swinging for the downs on every pitch? Problem is players have shown, no matter how hard a pitcher throws, the batters catch up. When Ryan threw aspirins, he was one of only a few. When they all do it, it is no longer a novelty and the batters catch up. That not science just common sense.

 

[Madmannsucks]

Of course, teams don't only bunt in sacrifice situations. There is one scenario in which teams have been far more successful when bunting.
A team in 2014 starts an inning with a run expectancy of .460 runs. When bunting to lead off an inning, teams are averaging .563 runs, a swing of more than 10%. This is skewed by great bunters such as the Los Angeles Dodgers' Dee Gordon and the Washington Nationals' Denard Span often leading off. But it makes sense, as players who have bunted with no one on base this season have reached by hit or error 41% of the time, far better than those who have swung away.