Congratulations! In a mere 112 MLB at-bats, you have officially achieved Joey Gallo 2.0 status.
Over Gallo's 10-season career, his batting average stood at .194. But let's ponder his salad years, Gallo's first seven in Texas, when he twice hit 40 HRs and made the all-star team. Over those seven years, he batted - gulp - .211.
Right now, you're hitting - gulp - .212.
Over his 10-year career, Gallo fanned 1,292 times - roughly 130 times per season. With the Rangers, in his halcyon years, he struck out 797 times - about 113 per season.
You're currently at 47, well on your way to beat him.
Gallo finished his career with 208 HRs. With Texas, he hit 145 - about 20 per season.
You have five - on your way to about 20.
And don't get me wrong. Your home runs are glorious. The ball springs off your bat, SpaceX trajectories, (and Fun Fact: The time it takes each ball to reach the upper decks corresponds exactly to the duration of the human male orgasm!) Your HRs make us believe. Trouble is, your strikeouts make us remember the horror show that was Gallo's final incarnation with the Yankees: a .159 batting average and 194 strikeouts - 48 percent of his ABs - over two years.
Unfortunately, this fan base all too well recalls Joey Gallo.
In fact, I doubt you'll reach seven years in NY without serious adjustments.
Sir, with all due respect, you must bunt! Gallo did it. It's part of the reason why he lasted 10 years. You must bunt - push the ball between the pitcher and 1B, and use your speed to beat the defense. Right now, you're wasting that speed. Bunt enough times, and you'll force opposing 1B to move in, creating defensive gaps. Learn to bunt, and you can maybe add 20 points to your BA.
Yesterday, in the 10th, with the tying run on second, you came to bat with one job: Advance the runner. The Braves didn't even bother to cover the chance of a bunt. Their 1B played back, daring you to lay one down. And you struck out swinging, uppercuts on balls high and inside, ridiculously unhittable. They never worried about a bunt. They knew you wouldn't. Or couldn't.
Hey, I'm not blaming you for the loss. It was a team effort. The Yankees fanned nine times, and these days, that's nothing. But you are here under a strikeout cloud, and when Cody Bellinger returns - which could be soon - your playing time is about to become zilch. You might even find yourself in Scranton with Anthony Volpe and Jasson Dominguez - the Big Three Former Yankees of the Apocalypse.
Sir, if you've got any bunts in that bat, it's time to show them. And if you don't know how to bunt, Scranton will be a great place for you to learn.
Posts
16 comments:
When he hits the ball, good things tend to happen. I like that he gets singles, doubles, even a recent triple. But he has to make contact more often. Bunting? Sure. Most of the team should learn to bunt. If only the Scooter was here to give lessons.
Here's where analytics and AI have ruined baseball...
Baseball analytics dislikes the sacrifice bunt because data shows that voluntarily trading an out to advance a runner reduces a team’s overall run expectancy. Outs are the most precious and limited resource in an inning, and giving one away lowers the mathematical probability of scoring multiple runs.
The Math Behind Run Expectancy
Runner on first, no outs: The average team will score about 0.94 runs for the rest of that inning.
Runner on second, one out: After a successful sacrifice bunt, the expected runs drop to roughly 0.66 runs.
The Trade-Off: While a bunt slightly increases the chance of scoring at least one run, it drastically decreases the chances of scoring a big inning with multiple runs (via home runs, walks, or extra-base hits).
Why Analytics Favors Swinging Away
Outs are currency: Making an out is the single most damaging thing a hitter can do to stall an offense. Keeping all three outs alive yields more long-term value.
Maximizing damage: Modern data emphasizes slugging and high on-base percentages over "small ball" because home runs and extra-base hits create exponential scoring value.
The "Nobody Wins" Play: As analyst Bill James famously noted, a sacrifice bunt is a play where the defense is happy because they got an out, and the offense is happy they got a base—meaning the offense usually gave up too much value to get
The anal ytics prove that over 125 years of baseball was wrong. Just like with batting average. And level swings. And strikeouts. None of that matters. Except they all do, regardless of the numbers.
And this is also what is wrong with AI. Reality is not something you can project via math.
"Reality is not something you can project via math." +++++++1
Or perhaps the long explanation is that they aren't anywheres close to knowing all the variables in the equation. One day, maybe they can calculate what it takes to blow out a fart and get a win in extras. They don't have the know how, yet. Not even close.
You know what’s really a lot of fun to do? Ok - let me tell yah…
Comparing and contrasting Jones’ and Chisholm’s at bats.
It’s a blast.
And in addition - it’s a real treat to watch how Chisholm reacts after fu - er - messy up. Bad AB, horrendous throw to first, misplayed ball in the field . . . the man instantly plays the visual blame game. Like looking at his fingers and the palm of his hand yesterday after that awful “lollipop” of a throw as if there was a bone protruding out of it. Or visually dissecting his glove on an error or examining his bat for holes after a strike out.
Maybe Jazz should also go down to Scranton to learn that these issues are not due to equipment problems or BS physical issues. It has to do to BS problematic brain.
ranger, Do the analytics data show that a team that bunts is LESS likely to win a game like yesterday? Or do they merely show that bunting reduces overall run expectancy? Because these are two completely different things. For example, I would expect that a team that never, ever bunts will generate more total runs over the course of a season than the exact same team that bunts in those situations. But that doesn't mean that the team that never bunts would win more games. I would expect the team that bunts, in certain situations, to win more games. And then there is also the problem of differentiating between winning more games versus winning a game when it really counts. These are the problems, as I see it, with the analytics they use today.
I haven't been paying much attention to whether the Yankees are still using the torpedo bats. I think Wells was still using it, last I checked.
I look around baseball, and no one else is using that monstrosity. The other day, I saw that dude Meidroth on the White Sox reach out across the plate, hit a flare the other way down the right field line, for a two RBI bingle. That, I believe, would have been impossible, or at least far less likely, with a torpedo bat. That pitch must've been at least 6-8 inches off the outside corner, maybe more. Meidroth didn't do his exit velocity any favors with that hit. But you know what? He got the job done. That's the only thing that counts. Fuck analytics. Fuck exit velocity. Fuck torpedo bats.
(…Has to do with his BS problematic brain - or maybe his brain is just auto correcting typos like my phone is trying to force me into upgrading my hardware)
There's another thing that analytics has done to ruin baseball: the thing with batting your best hitter #2. I can't stop laughing at the stupidity of it.
Did anyone check out the national tv game last night on the peacock channel? ASS-stros at the Friars. The Choir Boys won, 7-2, in classic Yankee home run derby style. All of the runs in this game came via home runs.
ASS-stros had their best hitter, Yordan Alvarez, hitting #2. And you know what happened in the 9th? Alvarez came up as the last chance salooner! Yes, that's right, losing 7-2, he comes up in the 9th, with two outs, nobody on base!!!
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry, I know it ain't Aaron Judge, but just couldn't resist. Alvarez struck out swinging wildly, to boot.
Look, I would tend to agree that the #2 hitter thing probably maximizes total run production over the course of a season. But does it maximize the number of wins? Because those two things ain't the same thing. Then again, does it maximize your chances of winning any one particular game? Because once again, that's a completely different thing. No one gives a flying fuck whether you win a game 24-0 or 17-0. Nobody gives a flying fuck whether you have your best hitter coming up again for a 4th or 5th at bat if you're losing 7-2 in the 9th inning.
If fucking Ba-Boone had any spine power, he'd take all the guys that use the torpedo bats and have a sit down, convince them of the error of their ways. Take all those torpedo bats, drench them in lighter fluid, and have a Doors style funeral pyre party.
Ranger, those analytics most likely don't cover the situation with the ghost runner in extra innings. With a man already on second, the probability is much higher. At least to tie the game. Adding into the equation the next few batters' strikeout rates undoubtedly changes the numbers. I learned a lesson about AI last week. I had contractors come to my home to give quotes on redoing a shower. I looked up the approximate times for each step of the procedure. It listed the approximate time plus ballpark cost. When one contractor gave me a price higher than AI, he said, " AI is good for many things. But AI has never done the job, and so can't factor in the nuances and problems that often arise on the job."
Courtesy of The Animals, "Sky Pilot":
Cam Schlittler's the man
He throws ninety-nine
Cam will find courage
That the Yanks score in time
Trent Grisham will homer
To tie up the game
That's the best they can do
Cuz the offense is lame
(drums): doo-do doo-do doo-do doo-do
doo-do doo-do doo-do doo-do
Cammmmmmmmm Schlittler
(trumpets): baam baam baam ba-ba baaaammmm
Cammmmmmmmm Schlittler
One run's what you need
You'll never ever ever
Lose this game
Cammmmmmmmm Schlittler
(trumpets): baam baam baam ba-ba baaaammmm
Cammmmmmmmm Schlittler
One run's what you need
You'll never ever ever
Lose this game
+1 I've seen many extra inning games in the ghost runner era where the home team ties it up by advancing the runner to third, getting the run in, then pitching holds in the next inning, win it in the bottom of that inning
Playing Situational baseball beats analytics more often than not. In extra innings especially under current rules the final outcome is most often determined by one run. Moving the runner to third with one out is a terrific opportunity to score. In yesterday’s game, Jones didn’t even try to adjust his approach at the plate, instead using his usual long uppercut swing with the resultant failure. After the game, the team was blasé as usual…soon Jones, Dominguez, and Volpe will be together again at Scranton, which speaks volumes about the team’s player development, which should (but does not) include teaching the fundamentals of the game.
I think the talent the Yankees have pretty much compares with any of the best teams in baseball. Their approach is dead last, however. The lack of fundamentals, lack of understanding of how to win, that's all on the manager and coaching. The cavalier attitude towards everything. The "analytics based approach" to everything. The "we gave it our best shot, but it just didn't happen for us" kind of thing. No, you's guys ain't givin' it your best shot, you're doing almost everything back-ass-wards. I'd love to take a broom and whack 'em all over their heads with the dirty end.
Post a Comment