OT: The Yankees

[KeithK]

Duh.  Thanks Will.

Will's snippet on the IF defn. seems to indicate that my original interpretation is right.  Despite the provisions of 6.05L a dropped infield fly is in play and the runners advance at their own risk.  I think this makes sense.  The only reason the ball should be rules dead when a fielder intentionally drops the ball is to prevent easy double plays where the helpless runner is forced out.  This isn't the case on an Infield Fly because the moment the umpire calls Infield Fly the runners (should) know to return to their bases because they cannot be forced out.

[KeithK]

If the umpires ruled that Jackson's hip was intentional it should've been a dead ball.  But they didn't, prehaps influenced by the 55000+ screaming Yankee fans around them :-)

[Steve M]

I stand corrected.  Thanks for looking up the rule.

[Rich S]

You won't be getting used to  it as Yankee fans are.

[cth95]

It all comes down to management being smart enough to get good pitching and team players.  After years of egotistical supersluggers with no team chemistry and mediocre pitching we finally have owners and management who know it takes some pitching and defense as well- not to mention having a bunch of decent players who together keep themselves focused yet light-hearted to make a great team on the whole (and the mindset to come back from 3-0 which I don't think any other team could have done and none has).  I think if you look at the Sox and Yankees last year you can take the idea of having a true “team” and not just a collection of All-Stars and simply flip-flop the teams and thus the results up until the last couple years.  Neither Boston nor NY will win the ALCS every year, but with the focus of the current management, Boston should be right there in the running for a long time.  By the way, I would be willing to bet that Yankees fans are not so used to it right now. :-D

[KeithK]

Red Sox management has decided it needed to pursue pitching and defense a number of through the years.  It's just very easy to get distracted when you play in a ballpark that just about screams "load up on free-swinging right handed power hitters" at you.  Also the Boston ownership had a clear fixation on star personalities through the years when Yawkey was in charge.  You certainly *can* win with a superstar loaded team that has no chemistry - look at the late 70's Yankees.  On some level winning automatically equals chemistry.  But it's probably easier with a more balanced team.

[Jacob 03]

[Q]cth95 Wrote:

 It all comes down to management being smart enough to get good pitching and team players.  [/q]

I can't wait for the day when someone codifies sports fallacies to sit aside the logic ones.  Then we'll be able to put most of our modern notions of "team chemistry" and "team players" there, alongside other gems like "offense wins games; defense wins championships."  ::rolleyes::   And then maybe we'll start re-evaluating our assumptions about how talent translates into winning or our very definition of "talent," instead of making up inane axioms and even more indefinable variables to describe how little we understand a system.  

[KeithK]

[q]And then maybe we'll start re-evaluating our assumptions about how talent translates into winning or our very definition of "talent," instead of making up inane axioms and even more indefinable variables to describe how little we understand a system.[/q]Damn, I hope not.  If we figured everything out, understood all of the variables that really went into winning and got rid of all the superfluous information so we could predict with good accuracy how everything was going to turn out would it really be as much fun to watch pro sports?  I love stats as much as the next sports fan (OK, much more), but I really do hope we don't actually figure it all out.

Side note that is related.  These days it's well established in baseball that plate discipline and strikeout to walk ratios are extremely important for hitters.  Yes, taking a lot of walks does correlate well with scoring a lot of runs.  But does anyone think that the game is better from a fan's perspective because of this?  It's more fun to see a guy swing the bat.

[cth95]

Talent is definitely key and the Sox have plenty, but you can't tell me that the loose atmosphere created by guys like Millar and Ortiz wasn't crucial for the Sox to stay relaxed and thus comeback in the ALCS.  Just look at the results of many big name players in their first few games with big media teams like Boston and New York. Most of them put too much pressure on themselves to be immediate successes and instead struggle until they are more at ease.  I have watched the Sox since I was a kid in the late 70's and I never felt like they would come through in tough situations until 2003 when these guys were brought in and the atmosphere completely changed.  2003 was the first season in which the team truly gave me faith that they would come through in tough times instead of choking and they did over and over again.  Grady Little blew Game 7 by bending for one of the big egos just like on previous Boston teams.  Granted Boston managers often had no choice but to leave the starter in, but the bullpen in the 2003 playoffs had been fantastic.  If any one has spent much time playing sports you know that you can only be as successful as your confidence will let you.  Just compare your focus and mindset on the days of your biggest successes compared to on average days or days you did not perform so well.

[Jacob 03]

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that everyone following sports should turn into the ultimate stat-head, nor that we should take all the passion out of it.  And maybe a feel-good story overemphasizing something ridiculous (oh look!  the 2B and 3B are BEST FRIENDS!) or the historical/social relevance of the sport is nice once in a while.  But it's still possible to have fun and play guessing games and even (gasp!) write a good sports column while paying attention to things that actually impact a game's outcome instead of perpetuating a myth because it makes a good story or because the fan is too ____ (lazy?  ignorant?  hopefully something more forgivable) to at least question an accepted idea.  

I don't think we're ever in danger of players shying away from swinging the bat that much (how many times have you sat through a three hour baseball game and wondered, "if only so-and-so swung and missed on a couple more pitches...THEN I would've had a good time!").  And I've seen enough people on this board write about how they really enjoy defensive-minded games.  Some of it's probably rationalization, but I like to think it is possible to enjoy aspects of a game that often go overlooked.  

[Jacob 03]

[Q]cth95 Wrote:

 Talent is definitely key and the Sox have plenty, but you can't tell me that the loose atmosphere created by guys like Millar and Ortiz wasn't crucial for the Sox to stay relaxed and thus comeback in the ALCS.  [/q]
But if the Red Sox had one player who could hit four digits on his SATs or if Luis Sojo lit a couple more cleats on fire in the Yankees clubhouse, then the Yanks would've gone on to beat the Cardinals, right? :-P  There's no way I (or anyone, really) can know how much any single factor had to do with the Red Sox winning that series.  If relaxation was as crucial to the comeback as you assume, I'd bet a lot of money their ability to relax had more to do with being professional athletes and less to do with various eccentricities.  

I don't question the fact that over-hyped "intangibles" play a role in these games.  I am skeptical of the notion that the few intangibles on which the incestuous sports media decide to focus over a stretch of a few days/weeks/months are necessarily the "crucial" ones.  And I'm completely mystified by the fact that such a devoted fanbase will spend so much more time focusing on these aspects than they'll spend on how good their players actually are and how well they performed at the most important times.  

And this neither proves my belief nor disproves yours, but the "Bronx Zoo" had no problem winning a couple of championships in the late 70s without meeting our public definition of "team chemistry."  If a sportswriter wrote that a crucial component of those wins was the fact that the players and management overcame such adversity or some other bullshit line like that, it'd be no less founded than the idea that a team won because it's crazy/stupid/relaxed.  

A team might be able to win without "egotistical supersluggers" or "high-priced free agents" or whomever else everyone's vilifying this week, but it's probably not because they don't have any.  

[cth95]

Certainly talent is almost always the number one key to success, with the exception of one-time deals such as when a more talented team takes an underdog too lightly.  I think team "chemistry" is just one of many factors that leads to winning.  I am not saying that it is the only ingredient (although it is probably a key in extreme cases like last year's ALCS), just that a positive attitude and good vibe among teamates can help push a highly talented team through some low points in a season or game and possibly be the difference between getting deep into the playoffs and winning it all.  It could also simpy help win a tight, critical game at any point in the season when one clutch play can make a difference.  Bullshit luck is another factor and often is also the difference between a championship and a close loss.  No one can argue that Tony Clark's hit into right field taking a freak bounce into the stands for a ground rule double and saving the game for the Sox can be attributed to anything else.  Luck can come at key moments, but will probably not factor consistently throughout an entire season, however.  

[KeithK]

[q]I don't think we're ever in danger of players shying away from swinging the bat that much (how many times have you sat through a three hour baseball game and wondered, "if only so-and-so swung and missed on a couple more pitches...THEN I would've had a good time!"). And I've seen enough people on this board write about how they really enjoy defensive-minded games. Some of it's probably rationalization, but I like to think it is possible to enjoy aspects of a game that often go overlooked.[/q]You missed my point.  I do enjoy the little things in baseball as much as anyone I've ever met and absolutely love baseball (56 professional ballparks and counting).  My point was not that it would be better if players swung and missed more.  That wouldn't be exciting.  It would be a good thing if players swung the bat and put the ball in play a little more.  Not only fewer walks but putting the ball in play earlier in the count.  This would improve the pace of the game.  As much as I can appreciate a batter with a good eye working the count and drawing either a walk or getting a favorable count, on the whole it's a more enjoyable game to watch if batters are swinging the bat.

[Trotsky]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:
It would be a good thing if players swung the bat and put the ball in play a little more.  Not only fewer walks but putting the ball in play earlier in the count.  This would improve the pace of the game.  As much as I can appreciate a batter with a good eye working the count and drawing either a walk or getting a favorable count, on the whole it's a more enjoyable game to watch if batters are swinging the bat.
[/q]

It may be more enjoyable, but it doesn't work.  Exhibit A, the Mets.  We haven't had a patient hitter since John Olerud.  All those guys being aggressive at the plate has meant opposing starters go deep in the game with low pitch counts, letting them set up optimal matchups for opposing relievers.  And that has been a complete disaster.

[cth95]

Agreed.  Look at the success the Sox and Yanks have against almost everyone.  This was also the Yanks' method of dealing with Pedro and getting to the bullpen even on days when Pedro was pitching very well.