Nieuwendyk

[KeithK]

Not entirely true.  Sometimes you do see a guy go up trying to lift the ball for a sac fly.  But it's generally a contact hitter who makes a living hitting the ball into the ground.  The power hitters do pretty much just try to mash the ball.

I do agree with those who think a sac fly should be a time at bat.  It's really no different from scoring a guy on a ground out and there's no reason to reward the guy who tries to mash the ball and ends up flying out, which he might have done anyway.  A sac bunt is different, 'cuz you're actually sacrificing an at bat, with very minimal chance of reaching.

For the heck of it, a quick glance at sac fly stats in the AL last year shows a bunch of power hitters in the top 10 (e.g. Frank Thomas, Troy Glaus) but also a few contact hitters like Omar Vizquel.  2001 has Alex Rodriguez, Jason Giambi and Jaun Gonzalez, but also Alex Gonzalez and Adam Kennedy.

I still think going to third on a ball to the left side is a dumb idea.  The odds of making it on a routine grounder are pretty small, unless you're a speedster.  That would be an interesting study/analysis to read, but I think it would be hard to judge properly because determining the probability of success, which is needed to do the cost-benefit analysis.

[jtwcornell91]

Keith K '93 wrote:
I still think going to third on a ball to the left side is a dumb idea.  The odds of making it on a routine grounder are pretty small, unless you're a speedster.  That would be an interesting study/analysis to read, but I think it would be hard to judge properly because determining the probability of success, which is needed to do the cost-benefit analysis.

The other problem is that the simplest analysis assumes the batter will be thrown out if you don't go.  I would think the chance of the shortstop or first baseman blowing the 6-3 play is at least comparible to the shortstop or third baseman blowing the 6-5 FC.  (Longer throw vs head start and tag play.)

[Greg Berge]

By definition the guys who try to "cross against the rule" now are disproportionately inexperienced baserunners (pitchers do it all the time without thinking).  Another factor is if guys did it more often it would also screw with fielders' heads, thus costing them time on the simple throw to first.  A fast runner on second might be able to turn the simple out to a dilemma for the fielder whether to risk losing everybody.  Just think of how often the fielder turns down a decent percentage of nailing the lead runner on a sac bunt because of the slight chance of blowing all the outs.

The 80's Cardinals used to torture opponents by running in untraditional situations.  They probably netted a dozen runs during a season by tagging both runners up on fairly long flies with runners on first and second -- a lot of things can go wrong on a 7-6-4 relay to pick up the runner from first, and any slip up means the guy from second rounds third and scores.  Now, not everybody has four bona fide speedsters to mess with your head, but they did demonstrate that fielding is dangerous enough that the opposing manager shouldn't give up too much without a fight.



Post Edited (05-21-03 19:47)

[Greg Berge]

Nieuwy: from great news to terrible news in twenty minutes.

Joe scores the game tying goal tonight to force game 6 to overtime.  Then, after Ottawa wins it in o.t., the NJ trainer had to walk him off the bench, presumably he is injured.

Damn, damn, and damn again.  :-(

[Alan]

ESPN.com has this article:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/playoffs2003/story?id=1557477
but doesn't detail the injury. It looks like we have to wait to find out what it is and how long he may be out!

[Al DeFlorio]

According to today's New York Times, it's a leg injury.  When asked if he'd be ready Friday, Joe was quoted as saying "absolutely."  We shall see.  Tough nut for the Devils Friday, I'd say.

[jd212]

I used to think that sac flies don't count as at-bats. However, I was listening to the Yankees/Red Sox game on Tuesday, and Nomar's first at bat was a sacrifice fly. Now, he was on a 20 game hitting streak and the commentator commented that, should he walk at the rest of his at-bats, his hitting streak would halt. However, if none of those at-bats counted, why would his hitting streak end? On a similar note, if the game were postponed in the middle due to inclement weather, do none of the statistics count towards career numbers? I assume so... ::screwy::

[ugarte]

Jason wrote:
. . . if none of those at-bats counted, why would his hitting streak end?

It is a GP without a hit (and a plate appearance to boot).  If Nomar took the field in the first inning, took a Soriano bad-hop grounder in the plums, and was taken out of the game, the hitting streak would be over.

[tom nachod \'63]

Hitting streaks refer to consecutive official games in which you make an appearance.  Thus if you Pinch hit, the game counts in your streak..  So in the example you cited, the sacrifice fly was a plate appearance, putting the streak in jeopardy if he did not get to bat again for any reason, ( let'ssay an injury which takes you out of the game) or got up to bat and did not get any hits.    Also, if you are hitless in nine innings, but get a hit in the extra inning of a tie game, the hit counts for your streak.   If the game gets rained out after it is official, the stats count, and if you got a hit, fine, your streak is still on, but if you got up twice, hit a sac fly and walked.. tough , your streak is through. It's pretty logical when you think it through  Joe D's streak is,  he appeared in 56 consecutive games in which he got at least one base hit..

[Greg Berge]

It is consistent with the consecutive GP streak (aside: one of the stupidest stats in sports, sorry Ripken).  If Ripken is on the lineup card that his manager turns in, then is scratched and never takes the field, his streak continues.

[Rich Stamboulian]

Are you sure about that?  

I recall a game against the Yanks years ago when he was having back trouble.  The announcers said he was in the original lineup and had a discussion about this very thing.  They said, after some "research" that if he had not make an appearance, the streak would ghave ended.

[KeithK]

The screwy situation would be a game that gets rained out after 5 innings with the score tied.  The game is official, so the stats count.  But the Score is tied, so the game doesn't.  Probably this would interrupt a hitting streak, even though the game would never go in the team's record.  Then again, there used to be tie games from time to time in the old days, which must've been handled the same way.

My favorite hitting streak story involves Don Mattingly.  Back in '83 when he was a rookie, Mattingly had two hitting streaks of around 20 games apiece, separated by one one hitless game.  That game happened to be the pine tar game, which he had entered in the 8th inning as a defensive replacement for Steve Balboni.  When they ended up replaying the ninth inning of that game, Mattingly got a plate appearance in the bottom of the ninth.  Since this was the continuation of a game from a month before, the stats would have been attributed to the original date.  Had he gotten a hit (he didn't) he would have retroactively had a 40 or so game hitting streak, which would have set the record for the longest hitting streak by a rookie.

[adamw]

The (practically) verbatim wording of the consecutive games played rule is ... the player must have at least one plate appearance, or play at least one half inning in the field.

[Section A]

Anybody here play the "beat the streak" game on MLB.com? It's fun; check it out.

[Greg Berge]

[q]the player must have at least one plate appearance, or play at least one half inning in the field.[/q]

That doesn't make sense.  What of the situation where a PH is lifted for another PH without ever actually facing a pitch (which happens a few times a season due to a L/R pitching switch)?   This cannot be a plate appearance, right?  Yet it is counted as a GP, right?

So, is the "consecutive GP" rule distinct from the "ordinary" GP rule?



Post Edited (05-22-03 18:14)