bjamesw22

Mass, I'm 25 and I wouldn't kick her out of bed for eating crackers! I will try and find it, I think it's probably in their "Library' section on the site. Cool brettac1. Thanks.

I would love to see the link to this analysis so I could read up. Sounds interesting. I'd like to see what conclusion they came to. Although I think my last post sums up what I believe about how "heart" plays a part and I really have nothing more to say about it, it'd be nice to see what BP said.

I haven't been one of the people that has said that the Brewers have no heart. So it is not fair for me to tell you what I believe they mean. I have been making a case saying that "heart" plays a good part in this game just like productive outs, or doubles, or SB's, or RBI's, or HR's, or WHIP, or K's, or quality starts, or fielding percentage, etc. Individually these stats mean nothing to me, but when you put them within the context of games within a season they mingle together into a type of baseball that your team plays. The teams that have the best balance of all of these factors wins the most ballgames. You can't look at a each of these individually and say, yup, that is the reason they won the series! The thing is, "heart" has an effect on all of these things. As insignificant as you may think it is, even an insignificant improvement in each of these areas can make a big overall improvement.

ESPN quit tracking it when they realized that the teams that were at the top of productive outs were in the bottom of runs scored, and vice versa. It was basically a useless stat, that again had no correlation to winning. That is an unfair assessment. You're comparing apples to oranges. Of course the teams with the most productive outs were in the bottom of runs scored. That only makes sense. Those are the teams that for the most part have much less power anyways. So it's only natural. If you have two teams with the same talent makeup, the team that makes the most productive outs will win more IMO. It is a mingled stat, meaning there has to be a balance. Does the team that hits the most HR's always or even usually win the division? No, teams need balance between BA, BB, SLG, ERA, WHIP, K's, etc. So what does scoring runs and giving up runs have to do with winning ballgames? The Pathagorean thingy will get you close, but what makes for the deviation from that? You say luck, I say "heart."

He gets a single instead of a double. SLG is lower. No it wouldn't, it would have been a single with an error. His range factor would be lower. Again, his range factor would be lower. I think most if not everyone here agrees that range factor is a horrible stat that has huge flaws. I, personally, do not know of a stat that quantifies this situation, however I'm sure MLB does keep track of something like that. edit: actually wouldn't that just be the productive out stat? Well then show me a productive out stat that is used. You're partially right, but that doesn't dispute the fact that it doesn't effect the game that much, if at all. Really? How can you determine what the impact one of these events has on a game? A guy getting to second instead of staying at first with two outs is a HUGE difference that can cost a ballgame. Or conversely, a player on your team hustling and getting to second instead of holding at first can win you a ballgame. "Heart" has a lot bigger importance than most people give it credit for, ONE of these instances can win or lose a ballgame. If you look at each of these as an individual event, no they don't seem significant. But when you don't know what could happen if they worked out positively for your team how can you determine that? And these things can only help you win, not hurt you. That's the kicker.

and if a player takes plays off, stats will show us those things. Really? How? If a player doesn't get the extra base on a bobbled ball in the outfield, how is that shown? If an OF doesn't hustle to the ball in the OF and get it in as fast as possible and the guy gets a double, how is that shown in the OF's stats? If an OF doesn't go all out for a ball in the OF and it drops right in front of him without giving any effort to make a tough play, how is that shown in his stats? If a player doesn't get the guy over to 2nd with less than two outs, how is that shown in his stats? etc. etc. etc. The fact is, laziness does NOT show up in stats.

It wasn't heart that was preventing Grieve from playing good defense, it was his lack of speed and judgement. You're going to honestly tell me that Grieve didn't have the talent to dive after any of those balls that dropped 3 feet in front of him while he was slowly jogging towards it? Come on now. Besides the point that he WAS horrible out there, his lack of heart definitely added to his suckiness.

All of these things are great, but they don't hold a candle to talent. What do they get you, 2 wins a year? How can you say how many wins it gets you? Put it this way, talent levels equal, I'll take the team who has "heart" over the prima donas(?) every time. And I'd say that the difference between the two would be 10 games or more. How much talent "heart" overcomes is another matter altogether. I don't think a team of all Bonds could be overcome by a team of all Ichiros for example.

Looks to me like those are just normal events in a game that every player is involved in. That statement couldn't be farther from the truth. Not every player, or even close to every player has the heart to do these things day in and day out. If I had a dollar for every time I saw a play and shook my head saying, "how can a professional baseball player be so lazy" I'd be rich. Sometimes, this is called "stupid", especially if no one is behind you. Depends on the situation. What I'm talking about are the players who won't dive no matter what the situation was. Like how everyone would complain that Ben Grieve would let balls drop right in front of him without even trying.

When does a baseball player pass the ball to his teammates? When he puts himself in scoring position. When he gets the runner on first to second with less than 2 outs. When he hustles and stretches a single into a double. When he advances an extra base on a bobbled ball in the OF. When he takes an extra base when a fielder is non-chalant with the ball and doesn't pay attention to the runner. When he does the hidden ball trick and it works. (Had to give Lowell his props, it was genius) When he dives for a fly ball instead of letting it drop in front of him without an attempt. When he backs up the center fielder on a gapper he's diving after. When he calls off players on a pop up to avoid a collision. When he beats out a throw to first that he wouldn't have if he didn't sprint his all. When he sprints around the bases when he hits a fly ball and no one is on or when there is 2 outs. When he sprints to first on a PB ball 4. When he hustles to the ball in the OF and get's it in so the runner can't advance. When he sacrifices his body and knocks the ball down and keeps it in the infield on a hard hit infield grounder. Should I go on? It's called "heart."

Please tell me how the recent "Dream Teams" continue to get steamrolled while having the most talent of any of the other teams BY FAR, even without the Shaq's and Kobe's. They are all individualized jerks who have no idea what a team is and only play for themselves. How did the Pistons win the NBA championships? There is no way they had the most talent. Teams who primarily consist of individualized jerks lose in the end because the trainwreck happens when it matters most.

Seriously Moeller, just because you can't lay off the high fastball doesn't mean the rest of the league will chase over and OVER again I also got a pretty good grin out of it too.

All players need talented players surrounding them. Except when they can't perform coherently because they don't give a crap about about anyone else the outcome isn't as efficient as it would if that same talented person had "heart."

Individual performance only matters when you are a stat head. I will take team performance any day over indivdual success. And I think it has been proven that they don't go hand in hand Exactly why the US "Dream Team" got rocked. All individual performance, no team.

What about when a guy shows too much heart...like when Bill Hall tries so hard to do well that he flails blindly at pitches, and throws temper tantrums in the dugout, who does this help? I'll echoe what Brew said, who said "heart" had anything to do with emotion?

If heart is part "working hard to improve yourself" then I would agree that it's important. I just don't see it helping on a game by game basis, for the most part. Of course that's what heart is, what did you think it was?!? Yes, it is important. How then does it not help on a game by game basis? Isn't that what players to to get better? Work hard day in and day out? And why throw in the "for the most part", so you have an out when someone disagrees with your statement? The fact is, you know it is important but because your statistical mind can't fit it into numbers, you'd rather ignore it and only accept the things you know to be the generalities AKA probabilities and statistics. And that isn't right. And the fact that you can't put it into numbers, you cannot then determine how much it, in fact, has an influence on the game.

But how do you identify it and how do you correlate it's existence with winning? This is a revolving door argument that people for it and against it will argue until the end of time. Just because you can't measure it does not mean it doesn't have importance. And because you CAN'T measure it, there is no way to determine what impact it has, only to say that it DOES have one. Baseball is for the most part an individual sport, football isn't. That is very untrue and you are contradicting many statements you make on a daily basis. You have been one of the biggest advocates that RBI's are a team stat. How about a pitcher's winning percentage? How about rallies? How about runs? I could go on and on.

unless the person who's crying foul was actually the initial offender. If the initial person is condescending, then other people are condescending to that person as a result, it's hard to fault the 2nd party. Definitely true, but you have to admit that I have been MUCH better. And if you would go back and look, besides the first 2 when you told me they sounded condescending which I changed immediately, I have not caused any problems. And the point there is that you told me and helped me learn what is percieved condescending and I fixed that. I think others need that help also is all. Also, if you look back at any of the threads that would possibly be in question you would find that I did not start, nor did I even become condescending. I even got a couple messages in my ezinbox telling me they were at fault and apologized to me. I appreciated that from those people. In the past, most of my comments were never meant to sound as they did. It was just the way it came out. I have definitely been more conscious of it and have improved greatly and I think you'd agree. I have even gone back and re-worded stuff mid-message to be careful. I thank you for making me aware so that others do not take me wrong. Of course, remedying that situation means that the first person must recognize when they were being condescending or baiting, and that's been some of the problems we've had in the past. Admittedly correct, but the fact of the matter is that I am trying to rid myself and others of the causes of these problems. I nor anyone else should have to avoid conversations because certain people are in them being condescending seemingly looking for a fight. I don't know how throwing in a low blow and sticking out your chest within or at the end of a post positively contributes to the board. It is snide and flares tempers.

I have a funny feeling those numbers need to be flip-flopped.

I guess I compare it to a fight. Someone comes out starts insulting someone and pushes them around putting the person in a position where he has to defend himself. Then all of a sudden you have vultures around cheering it on and all hell breaks loose. If the bully get's picked on by a bigger bully, he stops. The bigger bully here is a moderator. They have the power to stop it so that the situations don't come up anymore. There is a difference between civil discussion, insightful comments, and whitty banter and someone being ignorantly condescending trying to make their argument look tougher by cheapshotting the people they are talking to. Just my $.02.

I'm not just talking about me. I'm talking about the way this happens to others also. Whenever someone's competence is being challenged or whenever someone is put down, tempers are going to flare. Not just with me. And we all agree that pissing matches suck, so why not thwart the causes?

One thing I dislike is when someone is being very condescending and I tell the person to stop I am told to basically "mind my own business" because I am not a moderator. There are people who include cheap shots and insults in their posts constantly, and when someone responds to them or defends themselves or someone else they are made out to be the bad guy. I don't think people should be allowed to be condescending and degrade people to make a point. And the same people do it over and over again. And every time I say something to them I am told by someone else to "mind my own business" because I am not a moderator. I don't understand that. I guess I would expect a moderator to step in, support the person being degraded, and say to that person or persons, "there is no point to making a comment or comments like that, please stop." I just believe that the people who start the condescension should be told to stop. And I understand the "just ignore the person" segment here, but when it gets to a point where these people do it all the time, it becomes very upsetting and leads, over time, to retaliation. I've seen people be condescending, although not often, to moderators too, and the moderators get fiesty when jabbed at and I see those taken care of real quick.

When Captn' Lou was interviewed last year by bf.net, didn't he say that the pitcher with the nastiest stuff he's seen is Villy? I thought I remembered something like that. EDIT: I was incorrect. This is the part of the interview I was talking about. Apparently Villy had the best control. BF: Last summer you caught several pitchers that put up impressive numbers at Helena, and now you continue to catch most of those same players here at Beloit. What can you tell us about some of these pitchers? Who has the filthiest stuff? LP: Filthiest stuff...Luis Pena is pretty nasty. Dana Eveland, Dana has some good breaking stuff. Dan Grybash has some real good run on his fastball, he breaks a lot of bats. I would have to say those three off the top of my head. BF: Who has the best control? LP: (Carlos) Villanueva.

The mighty Brewers take on the lowly Reds I was trying to work a little mojo there....it was followed shortly thereafter by... an epic battle of recent central division bottom dwellers. Any WC chances we had took a serious blow after that kick in the junk the Cards gave us.

He pitched against us on July 24th. He got a ND and put up this line. IP H R ER HR BB K 6.0 6 2 2 0 3 4 It was definitely his best outting of the year...I wouldn't say dominant though. He seems to be putting the ball on a tee for everyone else.