Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, February 26, 2019

Yasiel Puig admits he ‘never worked hard’ in L.A, vows to up effort in contract year with Reds

Shield your eyes, Los Angeles Dodgers fans.

Actually, take a long look. Because this is funny.

Yasiel Puig admitted to ESPN recently what was evident to most who were paying attention to the Dodgers in recent years.

He didn’t work hard in Los Angeles.

Fine by me- but, then again, I’m a Giants fan…..

 

QLE Posted: February 26, 2019 at 05:41 AM | 103 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: dodgers, reds, work ethic, yasiel puig

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Belfry Bob Posted: February 26, 2019 at 08:57 AM (#5818209)
Someone didn't teach Puig his cliches - his successful 2019 season should be built around 'listening to my coaches', 'maturity', and 'improved concentration'- not 'I didn't work hard in L.A., but now it's my free agent year, so I am working hard until I get my next contract.'
   2. Bhaakon Posted: February 26, 2019 at 12:00 PM (#5818303)
A fine graduate of the Pablo Sandoval school of public relations.
   3. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 26, 2019 at 12:13 PM (#5818313)
Someone didn't teach Puig his cliches - his successful 2019 season should be built around 'listening to my coaches', 'maturity', and 'improved concentration'- not 'I didn't work hard in L.A., but now it's my free agent year, so I am working hard until I get my next contract.'

Yeah, that's not the marketing message you want to send to other front offices.
   4. Yonder Alonso in misguided trousers (cardinal) Posted: February 26, 2019 at 12:16 PM (#5818315)
Might be only 1-year deals on the table next offseason...
   5. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: February 26, 2019 at 01:37 PM (#5818374)
This is great, and will have Brennemann and co. fuming already.
   6. . Posted: February 26, 2019 at 02:05 PM (#5818394)
This was obvious without his confirmation.
   7. Zonk took his own SATs Posted: February 26, 2019 at 02:13 PM (#5818398)
Sounds like the only person who has worked less hard than Puig.... is his agent.
   8. bfan Posted: February 26, 2019 at 02:16 PM (#5818401)
Who cares whether he works hard, if he shows enough "stick it to the man" flair?
   9. . Posted: February 26, 2019 at 02:22 PM (#5818402)
There's actually a big element out there that mocks the idea of "playing hard" as, indeed, some kind of silly, Man-imposed frivolity. Strange people, strange perspective. It can have no philosophical justification beyond "whatever entertains, entertains."

Sports is lurching in the direction of much of its revenue coming from people who only care about a bet they've placed or things like quality of bat flip, and not from actual fans of teams or fans of athletic competition. If it happens, whatever -- nothing is forever -- but please let's not pretend it's some kind of improvement.
   10. . Posted: February 26, 2019 at 02:31 PM (#5818407)
It's actually a blight on baseball that it's structured so that an admitted dog like Machado can succeed enough to get paid. Every other major sport requires significant effort and those not giving it are ostracized by the respective cultures. The idea that a football player could readily admit to not being Johnny Hustle, and regularly prove it, and after all that still get paid is comical. Not sure what can be done about it -- the rules are the rules -- but yeah.

Hard work and hustle were merely norms in baseball, and now the norm is effectively gone -- fine. It's a mandatory requirement to compete, not a mere norm, in the other sports.
   11. bfan Posted: February 26, 2019 at 02:33 PM (#5818409)

Sports is lurching in the direction of much of its revenue coming from people who only care about a bet they've placed or things like quality of bat flip, and not from actual fans of teams or fans of athletic competition. If it happens, whatever -- nothing is forever -- but please let's not pretend it's some kind of improvement.


One of my favorite pundits is an economist named Tyler Cowan, and he has traced the recent rise in popularity of NBA basketball relative to other professional sports and attributed it to the ability to capture highlights on youtube, that people all over the globe can follow. An in your face, thundering dunk is much more exciting than a HR (unless maybe the HR is followed by a dramatic bat flip).

A by-product of this trend is players starting to play with a style that enhances their own brand at the expense of team basketball and excellent plays that contribute to winning but which do not get captured as well on a 15 second highlight reel. It would be interesting (I do not know) if players seeking new or larger contracts in the NBA will bring up the number of their viewers on youtube or followers on twitter, instead of their in-game statistics.

Any way, it is a theory and it is out there.
   12. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 26, 2019 at 02:38 PM (#5818415)
The idea that a football player could readily admit to not being Johnny Hustle, and regularly prove it, and after allthat still get paid is comical.


Tell it to Albert Haynesworth.
   13. . Posted: February 26, 2019 at 02:41 PM (#5818416)
I don't really mind the styling in the NBA, because I know that the players are playing really ####### hard every minute of the game and that they're doing film study after the games and getting called out if they don't play hard. Anytime you hear an old-timer or a racist say the NBA guys don't play defense or don't play as hard as they used to or whatever, you can rest assured that they're entirely full of ####.

At the end of the day, baseball really is a collection of individuals striving toward only a nominal common purpose in the way the other sports aren't. It's a "team sport" only in construction and because people grit their teeth and insist it is ... but in its essence it really isn't. There's really no impact of one guy's event on another guys performance or ability to perform, or truly collective effort in the way the other sports have.
   14. Moses Taylor, glorified meat shield Posted: February 26, 2019 at 02:45 PM (#5818421)
A by-product of this trend is players starting to play with a style that enhances their own brand at the expense of team basketball and excellent plays that contribute to winning but which do not get captured as well on a 15 second highlight reel.

This is absolutely not at all a new criticism of the NBA. Like just about everything, there's probably some players that it applies to (and would be the case in every single professional sport), but not the majority and not nearly as many as the general outside critics would lead you to believe.
   15. . Posted: February 26, 2019 at 02:47 PM (#5818422)
Basketball, particularly at the NBA level, has always been an improvisational sport with individual differences based on personality. That's an independent variable from effort exerted during play.

And of course the flair in basketball manifests itself in the play and that's what appeals to people. A bat flip is entirely exogenous to actually playing the sport.
   16. JJ1986 Posted: February 26, 2019 at 02:50 PM (#5818426)
A dunk is the best shot a player can take for his team.
   17. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 26, 2019 at 02:52 PM (#5818427)
A by-product of this trend is players starting to play with a style that enhances their own brand at the expense of team basketball and excellent plays that contribute to winning but which do not get captured as well on a 15 second highlight reel. It would be interesting (I do not know) if players seeking new or larger contracts in the NBA will bring up the number of their viewers on youtube or followers on twitter, instead of their in-game statistics.

Any way, it is a theory and it is out there.
I mean, the "players showcasing themselves at the expense of doing unflashy things to help the team win" narrative has been around since what, probably the ancient Mayan ball game where the losing players got killed? "He doesn't care about the team, he's only playing to keep himself from being executed."

But, on the other hand, it does make a certain amount of sense in the NBA context.
   18. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 26, 2019 at 02:53 PM (#5818428)
I don't really mind the styling in the NBA, because I know that the players are playing really ####### hard every minute of the game and that they're doing film study after the games and getting called out if they don't play hard.

I call utter bullshit. Lots of nights the stars can't even be bothered to play.

If you think guys are giving maximum effort every night over a largely meaningless 82 game regular season, you're smoking more pot than the average NBA player, which is a lot.
   19. . Posted: February 26, 2019 at 02:58 PM (#5818432)
If you think guys are giving maximum effort every night over a largely meaningless 82 game regular season, you're smoking more pot than the average NBA player, which is a lot.


I go to a lot of NBA games and sit pretty close and can attest from direct observation.

And of course I never said "absolute 100% maximum effort at all times," I merely said that they were playing really hard and not dogging it like a Machado. There's no analogue to a Machado in the NBA, or even close. The sport and the culture don't permit it. And that trend, unlike in baseball, is actually accelerating. NBAers of 2019 play harder than players of 1979. The idea that that's the case in baseball is laughable.
   20. . Posted: February 26, 2019 at 03:13 PM (#5818435)
As long as we're inventorying:

Here are the major sports in which players of 2019 play harder than players of 1978-85:

Hockey (in part, but not entirely, because of shorter shifts today)
Basketball
Football (although I'm not entirely certain on this one, as with hockey and basketball and baseball)


Here are the major sports where they manifestly do not:

Baseball
   21. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 26, 2019 at 03:21 PM (#5818436)
I merely said that they were playing really hard and not dogging it like a Machado.

But who actually cares? If Machado can be a 6 win player while occasionally "dogging it", I sure as hell want him on my team over a 3 WAR "gritty: player.

Babe Ruth ate hot dogs and drank beer during the games. Bring it on if you can play like Ruth. David Wells threw a perfect game while hungover; that's awesome.

There's no reason for anyone who is already excellent at their job to be expected to work harder. If I can do my job really well in 40-45 hours a week, do I some some moral obligation to stay 60 hours a week?

If a player can be an All-Star while never lifting a weight, or studying video, why does he have to give up his family/night life (take your pick) to be a gym rat?
   22. . Posted: February 26, 2019 at 03:24 PM (#5818437)
But who actually cares?


People who like elite athletes to play with energy and intensity? And for the sports to reward that?

If Machado can be a 6 win player while occasionally "dogging it", I sure as hell want him on my team over a 3 WAR "gritty: player.


Sure, but as I've noted it's a blight on the sport that a player can be such a dog and yet so "good." It couldn't happen in any of the other sports -- or even close. If you want to blame the structure and norms of the sport rather than Machado himself, be my guest, but ultimate "fault" is really neither here nor there. I guess there's something to be said for playing hard even if you don't have to, but that's a different, more philosophical question.

The ultimate answer is that baseball doesn't require enough of its competitors to remain particularly compelling. (*) That's not really that complicated. It's akin to the reason billiards or bowling aren't really that appealing as competitive endeavors.

EDIT: That I now see you've kind of posed more explicitly in the add-ons. I mean there are all matter of philsophical tomes, some of which I'm sure you're familiar, in which the argument is made that striving for excellence even if it takes a shitload of effort is virtuous in and of itself, as is the mere intentional giving of the effort. Why do amateurs train for and run marathons for which they aren't paid a dime?

(*) There was a time that it did and during that time it was indeed compelling.
   23. Cleveland (need new name) fan Posted: February 26, 2019 at 04:01 PM (#5818452)
Sure, but as I've noted it's a blight on the sport that a player can be such a dog and yet so "good."


Why are the phrases "takes plays off" for football players and "plays matador defense" for basketball players so ingrained in the sports lexicon if only baseball players can "dog it"?

When a marathon runner quits in mid race because they can't win, does this imply all out effort?

When a tennis player tanks a set (e.g. something like 6-4 1-6 6-3 match), does this imply all out effort? Nick Krygios anyone?

How often does a striker run past a defender who is just standing around not paying attention. Could they be a little dogging here?

I'm sure that other posters can give examples of how players dog it from additional sports that I am not as familiar with.
   24. . Posted: February 26, 2019 at 04:09 PM (#5818457)
Why are the phrases "takes plays off" for football players and "plays matador defense" for basketball players so ingrained in the sports lexicon


??

They're not. And "matador defense," a rarely-heard-or-used term, isn't really effort-based and in many cases a low-energy appearing effort is the result of actual, understandable tiredness.

Is there some kind of claim that Machado loafs routinely because he's tired from too much expended energy during the game? Not likely.

No real need to be so defensive about it. If you want to like baseball and pretend the other sports have true Machado analogues, fine. Baseball still has a lot of fans. I'm still one, although I see no reason to pretend about its flaws, which are myriad.
   25. bookbook Posted: February 26, 2019 at 04:24 PM (#5818463)
In other sports, on pure athleticism alone, 18-20 year olds come and dominate at the highest level.

In baseball, even the best athletes need several years of concentrated skill development to even crack the major leagues. This is much harder now, in the era of 98 mph specialist relief pitchers and relentless line ups where every hitter is also a power threat.

Fans of other sports are just fast-twitch muscle junkies. Baseball is the hardest sport to play, with the highest needed level of skill development, in the world.

Fans are only switching away from baseball because they don’t have the discernment to appreciate study and painstaking mastery of skill. Fans don’t value real, multi year effort to improve.

There: I turned your foolish argument on its head.
   26. . Posted: February 26, 2019 at 04:34 PM (#5818471)
There: I turned your foolish argument on its head.


Actually, you reinforced it. Baseball is primarily a skill, which is why I said "akin to billiards or bowling" above.(*) It can be a compelling skill, and many people are compelled by it -- to a degree I am, too -- but I distinguish it now from the energy, athletic sports. Again, it used to be far more of an energy, athletic sport -- but it really isn't now. Its choice, not mine.

(*) You can add golf to that list.
   27. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 26, 2019 at 04:39 PM (#5818476)
Again, it used to be far more of an energy, athletic sport

Seriously? Have you seen what the guys back then looked like? They used to smoke and drink in the clubhouse between innings.
   28. . Posted: February 26, 2019 at 05:00 PM (#5818484)
Seriously?


Um, yes??

Have you seen what the guys back then looked like?


Back in the late 70s and 80s? Yeah, of course -- they looked like athletes. And they ran and played much harder than they do now. They ran out ground balls. They ran hard out of the box on fly balls. They had way more triples. They stole way more bases. Etc, etc. Go back to the first inning of I think Game 6 of the 1977 World Series, Steve Garvey's at bat. The game's on YouTube. (It's at around 9:50) He hits a line drive down the RF line in old YS and gets a triple out of it. That kind of thing was a way of life then. It rarely happens today. An absolute sea change. And I'm not sure why we're even arguing about Machado; he effectively admitted he's a loafer and doesn't give a ####.

They used to smoke and drink in the clubhouse between innings.


So? And you're vastly exaggerating, in any event. I'm sure it happens, but it wasn't a way of life.

Who cares if the guys are nominally in marginally better "shape" now, or nominally better athletes, if they don't play with any speed or energy and loaf and pose all the time?

   29. Cleveland (need new name) fan Posted: February 26, 2019 at 05:01 PM (#5818487)
They're not. And "matador defense," a rarely-heard-or-used term, isn't really effort-based and in many cases a low-energy appearing effort is the result of actual, understandable tiredness.


Come on, at least try to be intellectually honest. These are very common terms that I suspect that everyone but you on this site has heard ad nauseum.

Urban dictionary:
Top definition. el matador defense. A lackluster, low-effort form of defense in which the defender simply reaches for the ball and then quickly pulls his hand away -- similar to how a matador pulls his cape out of the way of a charging bull -- as the offensive player drives by him for an easy shot at the hoop. Kobe keeps running on the paint!

ponomik.com
The phrase “matador defense” was originated by Chick Hearn, the legendary announcer for the Los Angeles Lakers. His imaginative creations included “bunny hop in the pea patch” (traveling violation), “into the popcorn machine” (faked out of position), and many others.

edmosca.com
The phrase “matador defense” refers to basketball players who do not put much effort into playing defense. Defense is played with your feet in basketball. Matador defense occurs when the defensive player makes a great show of waving his arms, but doesn’t move his feet and the offensive player dribbles right past.

The term "take plays off" is not as simple to find, but here are some references from the first page of its Google search.

godandsports.net:
The slang term “you wanna bet” is said in answer to something that someone has said, meaning that you are certain that they are wrong. Case in point, the Eagles improbable Super Bowl Victory last year when everybody bet against us, but we still won. ... or do you make excuses or point fingers or take plays off during your contract year …

profootballtalk.nbcsports.com:
Meaning will he take plays off, ##### at coaches etc.? That can be a huge problem as we’ve seen with Moss and with T.O. However, I do think he’ll be a star nonetheless.

kentuckysportsradio.com:
I have seen this kid play and I’m not completely sold on him. Yes he is really big and can move extremely well for his size. But he likes to stand start up on a lot of plays and take plays off. Those things are easily fix able but until I see some improvement I’m not going to say this kid is our saving grace on the DLINE.

If you want to like baseball and pretend the other sports have true Machado analogues, fine.


I have no problem if you don't like Machado and would like him to work harder, but lets get real. There are a lot of athlete who don't give 100% effort all the time. Again, for intellectually honest sake, do you think that Randy Moss and TO gave 100% effort on every play? Do you think that Nick Kygrios gives 100% effort in every match. … Do you think that Kyrie Irving (nbamath.com Irving has been more like a matador for most of his career, yielding driving lanes with little resistance: The Kyrie Irving of past years couldn’t have played on a top-ranked defense. So, sure enough, Boston-era Kyrie has looked much more solid.) always gives 100% effort?
   30. . Posted: February 26, 2019 at 05:03 PM (#5818490)
And of course I never said "absolute 100% maximum effort at all times," I merely said that they were playing really hard and not dogging it like a Machado.


If we're going to pretend that occasional 80% matador defense by a tired player is the same as routine 2% effort by Machado running to first, it seems that further discussion of the matter would be fruitless. Pro athletes in the other sports do, in fact, actually get tired and the tiredness impacts their ability to give full 100% effort every second. That really, truly does happen.

Yes, very few pro athletes if any, give full-out 100% effort every second they're in a game. But that's quite different than barely running at all, which is now routine in baseball. It's fine if people don't care and just want to focus on TEH SKILL, but do people truly not pay any attention, or notice what announcers and many commentators are saying? Watch a Mets game sometime on SNY with the sound up. And they've added Robinson Cano, now 36 years old, to the mix this year, lol.
   31. . Posted: February 26, 2019 at 05:18 PM (#5818492)
I have seen this kid play and I’m not completely sold on him. Yes he is really big and can move extremely well for his size. But he likes to stand start up on a lot of plays and take plays off.


Like matador defense, "taking plays off" means 85% effort -- not 2%. And football is an actually tiring game, which means "taking plays off" might not actually even be happening in any conscious sense.
   32. Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili (TeddyF.Ballgame) Posted: February 26, 2019 at 05:18 PM (#5818493)
James Harden must be exhausted from the opening tip.
   33. asinwreck Posted: February 26, 2019 at 05:27 PM (#5818496)
Players from the 70s and 80s included Greg Luzinski and Terry Forester. Prime athletic conditioning was hardly universal back then.

Pitchers used to take innings off, or at least reduce their velocity to save their arms. Increased velocity is the result of increased effort, and Justin Verlander's ability to do that as a starter going deep into games is remarkable.
   34. NJ in NY (Now with two kids!) Posted: February 26, 2019 at 05:28 PM (#5818497)
James Harden must be exhausted from the opening tip.

Harden is currently carrying the second highest offensive load in the history of the sport.

EDIT: James Harden takes a lot of defensive plays off (outside of post defense) but he's also doing an unimaginable amount of work on the other end of the floor.

In other sports, on pure athleticism alone, 18-20 year olds come and dominate at the highest level.

This doesn't happen and if it does, it's incredibly rare.
   35. Bhaakon Posted: February 26, 2019 at 05:30 PM (#5818498)
I don't really see how these positions are mutually exclusive. Machado is both worth and money and richly deserves scorn for dogging it. Though I Puig's qoute, which if accurate suggests that he dogs it in practice instead of just neglecting to make shows of hustle, is a far worse sin.
   36. TDF, trained monkey Posted: February 26, 2019 at 05:39 PM (#5818502)
In other sports, on pure athleticism alone, 18-20 year olds come and dominate at the highest level.

This doesn't happen and if it does, it's incredibly rare.
On pure athleticism alone? No - every pro in every sport is incredibly athletic; to be able to dominate, they have to also be talented in their sport.
   37. manchestermets Posted: February 26, 2019 at 05:39 PM (#5818503)
There: I turned your foolish argument on its head.


Well, he'll definitely accept that and not just move the goalposts round to the side of the pitch.


Come on, at least try to be intellectually honest.


New here are you?



Why are you all indulging him?
   38. . Posted: February 26, 2019 at 05:45 PM (#5818506)
Players from the 70s and 80s included Greg Luzinski and Terry Forester.


So? Greg Luzinski had 50% more career triples than Albert Pujols in 70% of the plate appearances.(*) Who give a #### how relatively "well-conditioned" he was?

Pitchers used to take innings off, or at least reduce their velocity to save their arms. Increased velocity is the result of increased effort, and Justin Verlander's ability to do that as a starter going deep into games is remarkable.


No more relevant than noting that 3,000 meter steeplechasers pace themselves, and 100 meter sprinters don't. And obviously completely irrelevant to routine loafing on the basepaths.

(*) Career doubles/triples ratio:

Greg Luzinski: 344/24
Albert Pujols: 639/16
   39. Cleveland (need new name) fan Posted: February 26, 2019 at 07:07 PM (#5818513)
Yes, very few pro athletes if any, give full-out 100% effort every second they're in a game. But that's quite different than barely running at all, which is now routine in baseball. It's fine if people don't care and just want to focus on TEH SKILL, but do people truly not pay any attention, or notice what announcers and many commentators are saying? Watch a Mets game sometime on SNY with the sound up. And they've added Robinson Cano, now 36 years old, to the mix this year, lol.


So it is routine, but Machado is somehow uniquely evil that isn't replicated in any other sport. I am fascinated how you divined that football and basketball players are at 85% effort when they are loafing, but Machado is at 2% effort when he is loafing. Sound like a desperate rationalization of your statement that other sports don't have Machado analogues. Using these kind of exact numbers in response to a vague situation is usually a strong indication that someone is trying to obfuscate with statistics. Fine if you think that not running to first base on a routine grounder is worse than not playing defense in basketball or not running a route ala Randy Moss in football, but it happens in many sports. Baseball is not uniquely broken in this way.
   40. . Posted: February 26, 2019 at 07:18 PM (#5818515)
So it is routine, but Machado is somehow uniquely evil that isn't replicated in any other sport.


???

Machado is replicated many times over in baseball. Start with Bryce Harper, and move on to many, many other players.

I am fascinated how you divined that football and basketball players are at 85% effort when they are loafing, but Machado is at 2% effort when he is loafing.


I didn't really find my recitation of the obvious as "fascinating," but vive le difference, I guess.

And basketball players aren't at 85% when they're loafing; they're not loafing because they're at 85%.



   41. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 26, 2019 at 08:09 PM (#5818522)
not running a route ala Randy Moss in football,

Randy Moss gave up on more plays than you can count. Including in the Super Bowl.
   42. . Posted: February 26, 2019 at 08:41 PM (#5818524)
In addition to calling him the smartest receiver he's ever coached, here's what Bill Belichick said about Moss on the eve of his Hall of Fame induction:

“Great receiver, great player, great person,” Belichick said Monday night. “I learned a lot from him. [He was] a great, great, great deep-ball receiver. Very smart, has a really good understanding of the passing game and how to attack defenses from his point of view, which is, certainly, as a player, one that I’m not familiar with.

“[He’s] fast and can get over the top of the defenses and understand how teams look at an explosive weapon like him. He made me a better coach. He made us a much better team and he was a great person to have on the team. He was a lot of fun to be around, but he worked hard and was very committed to winning.”
   43. akrasian Posted: February 26, 2019 at 09:15 PM (#5818528)
How many people invited to give Hall of Fame induction speeches badmouth the player?
   44. Pujols Shot Ya Posted: February 26, 2019 at 09:35 PM (#5818533)
I gotta say the period guy’s comments are some of the most unpleasant reading I’ve done on this site. Hats off, I guess.
   45. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 26, 2019 at 09:46 PM (#5818538)
I gotta say the period guy’s comments are some of the most unpleasant reading I’ve done on this site. Hats off, I guess.


It's SugarBear. He changed his handle specifically to hide his identity, because too many people started ignoring him after recognizing that he never argues in good faith. He just likes trolling for attention.
   46. cardsfanboy Posted: February 26, 2019 at 09:59 PM (#5818540)
Here are the major sports where they manifestly do not:

Baseball



How about here is a sport in which the athlete is putting about 1000% more effort into the offseason and conditioning that they did in the past... Thinking they don't play hard, when the guys back in the day used to go home and do nothing for six months is patently ridiculous.
   47. cardsfanboy Posted: February 26, 2019 at 10:05 PM (#5818541)
It's SugarBear. He changed his handle specifically to hide his identity, because too many people started ignoring him after recognizing that he never argues in good faith. He just likes trolling for attention.


Gotta be, no one else could be that dumb.
   48. Srul Itza Posted: February 26, 2019 at 10:06 PM (#5818542)
He changed his handle specifically to hide his identity, because too many people started ignoring him after recognizing that he never argues in good faith.


You know, if you have the sense to really "ignore" him, he stays ignored, no matter how many times he changes his handle:

40. . Posted: February 26, 2019 at 07:18 PM (#5818515)
[ Ignored Comment ]
   49. cardsfanboy Posted: February 26, 2019 at 10:09 PM (#5818544)
Albert Pujols: 639/16


You do know that for most of his career Albert has played with plantar fasciitis?
   50. cardsfanboy Posted: February 26, 2019 at 10:16 PM (#5818546)
And for about the 1000th time I've mentioned on this site, the simple fact that Pete Rose was known for hustling, empirically indicates that a significant majority of the players in his era did not hustle, simply because it wouldn't have been noteworthy if they did.
   51. Omineca Greg Posted: February 26, 2019 at 10:42 PM (#5818550)
In the orginal ESPN interview that the featured article is discussing, Puig has a real tongue in cheek/piss take vibe that gives his comments quoted above a different context. Here, I'll excerpt a section...

Yasiel Puig had already broken in a red glove by the time his new team conducted its first full workout here last week. The cleats, the duffel bag, the batting gloves -- all red, flowing in perfect harmony with the Cincinnati Reds uniform that he will don for at least the next five months, perhaps even a bit longer.

"By the way," Puig said, starting to smile, "this is my color. I love red."

Any traces of Puig's tumultuous time with the Los Angeles Dodgers have faded by now, but only by way of appearance. The Dodgers remain a very noticeable presence in Puig's thoughts, acting mostly as a source of motivation in a quest to prove that he can -- and, no matter what the numbers say, always could -- hit those damn lefties.

He is, in spite of lingering bitterness, thankful for the time, thankful for the experiences, thankful for the fans and, yes, thankful for the color.

Blue, Puig announced, is his second favorite.

"Those are the two colors that I want to be in my house, in my closet -- red or blue," Puig said. "There's a lot of red teams, there's a lot of blue teams. It's not only Cincinnati, not only Dodgers, you know? Maybe Texas, Anaheim. I don't know. There's a lot of red teams. St. Louis Cardinals -- I don't know. I also can stay here. You never know."


It's not a super article, regular Spring Training fodder, but Puig is less guarded in his comments than most players would be, so it holds some interest that way.
   52. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: February 26, 2019 at 11:13 PM (#5818553)
And for about the 1000th time I've mentioned on this site, the simple fact that Pete Rose was known for hustling, empirically indicates that a significant majority of the players in his era did not hustle, simply because it wouldn't have been noteworthy if they did.


then for the 1001th time you are wrong--Pete Rose didn't hustle more than most players of his era--he just knew how to market it. He is the epitome of white-boy hustle, i.e. "look at me, I'm hustling"--and the press at the time ate it up. After Ali, the best self-promoter ever in sports
   53. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: February 26, 2019 at 11:35 PM (#5818555)
It's SugarBear. He changed his handle specifically to hide his identity, because too many people started ignoring him after recognizing that he never argues in good faith. He just likes trolling for attention.

Gotta be, no one else could be that dumb.

Just give him until tomorrow and he'll top himself. The Ignore function was invented for clowns like him.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

then for the 1001th time you are wrong--Pete Rose didn't hustle more than most players of his era--he just knew how to market it. He is the epitome of white-boy hustle, i.e. "look at me, I'm hustling"--and the press at the time ate it up. After Ali, the best self-promoter ever in sports

Slouching down to first on popups, lazy fly balls, and routine one hop grounders has been going on as long as I can remember, meaning since 1952. The only notably recent act of laziness has been the art of breaking into a home run trot on fly balls that never make it out of the park. I can't remember that sort of thing before sometime in the 90's. Other than that, players today don't hustle any more or less than they ever have in all the years I've been following the game.
   54. SoSH U at work Posted: February 27, 2019 at 12:01 AM (#5818557)

How many people invited to give Hall of Fame induction speeches badmouth the player?


Well, Michael Jordan invited someone to his Hall of Fame induction speech to badmouth him. That's kind of close.

   55. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: February 27, 2019 at 12:09 AM (#5818558)
You know, if you have the sense to really "ignore" him, he stays ignored, no matter how many times he changes his handle:


I like reading his stream of consciousness ramblings for the comedy, but I won't engage him anymore.
   56. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: February 27, 2019 at 01:47 AM (#5818564)
Again, it used to be far more of an energy, athletic sport

Yes it certainly was.
   57. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: February 27, 2019 at 01:50 AM (#5818565)
[31] Like matador defense, "taking plays off" means 85% effort -- not 2%. And football is an actually tiring game, which means "taking plays off" might not actually even be happening in any conscious sense.

You clearly don't watch much Raiders football.

[42] In addition to calling him the smartest receiver he's ever coached, here's what Bill Belichick said about Moss on the eve of his Hall of Fame induction

This is bar none the least compelling, most specious, least honestly intended rebuttal to any argument that I have ever seen on this website.

[48] You know, if you have the sense to really "ignore" him, he stays ignored, no matter how many times he changes his handle:

I rarely use the ignore function because I have to log in every time I want to post a comment, and I found it jarring to have a bunch of content disappear when I logged in. So he fooled me, for a while.
   58. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: February 27, 2019 at 02:05 AM (#5818567)
[57] Interesting. I’ve found it jarring when I get logged out (the “stay logged in” function is a bit hit and miss for me) and accidentally read one of SBB’s posts. At least OJ is gone now. I used to be fundamentally opposed to using the ignore function, but OJ was the one who finally broke me.
   59. . Posted: February 27, 2019 at 06:51 AM (#5818571)
Thinking they don't play hard, when the guys back in the day used to go home and do nothing for six months is patently ridiculous.


Those two things are completely unrelated.
   60. Jose Needs an Absurd Ukulele Concert Posted: February 27, 2019 at 08:52 AM (#5818590)
58 - Does OJ=YR?

59 - Gimme the guy who busts his ass in the off-season and gets himself in shape to be the best player he can be over the guy who runs out a one hopper back to the mound. I'm fully on board with hating the guys like Machado who watch the ball off their bat and jog down the line, I hate that #### too, but you don't become a star player without busting your ass. At the end of the day Machado turning a double into a single once or twice a month is more than offset by the work he's done that enables him to hit 35 homers and make "holy crap did you see that?" plays at third base on a regular basis. And I say this as a HUGE Dustin Pedroia fan who hates Machado.
   61. . Posted: February 27, 2019 at 09:35 AM (#5818608)
Gimme the guy who busts his ass in the off-season and gets himself in shape to be the best player he can be


No reason to assume Machado, et al, are doing that ... but even assuming they are, it's far more important to actually do the things on the field to be the best player you can be.

I hate that #### too, but you don't become a star player without busting your ass.


Sure you can. He doesn't bust his ass on the field -- or anything close -- and he's become a star player. Again, it's more the rules and norms of the sport he plays that permits that.

At the end of the day Machado turning a double into a single once or twice a month is more than offset by the work he's done that enables him to hit 35 homers and make "holy crap did you see that?" plays at third base on a regular basis.


Sure, but already stipulated. The calculus of the sport permits it. But that has nothing to do, really, with the aesthetics of the matter.

   62. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: February 27, 2019 at 10:33 AM (#5818638)
[60] Nah, I never found YR unreadable. I didn’t think his position on revenue sharing was that unreasonable, and even if I did it seemed like a pretty honest belief of his. Even the Good Face, whose opinions I found horrifying, I never blocked since he seemed to me to always be writing in good faith. OJ stands for Orange Julius. His original name here was “I’m not black I’m Orange Julius,” though he went by other names as well. He even got a new account once because too many people had blocked him.
   63. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: February 27, 2019 at 01:49 PM (#5818728)
I'm not defending guys like Puig or Machado, but some of the comments here are...interesting. I recently read Jeff Pearlman's book on the '86 Mets, and while I had heard about how much partying those guys had done I was still pretty amazed at how poorly they took care of their bodies -- the amount of alcohol and drugs, the lack of sleep, the fights, etc. I don't think it's a coincidence that many of those guys had flashes of brilliance for a few seasons but relatively short careers. No doubt there are some guys still doing that stuff in baseball, but overall my impression is that they generally train harder starting at the youth level, take much better care of themselves off the field, train year-round, etc., and that more of them are watching tape and really studying the game than used to.

Today, baseball players may not visibly hustle as much on the basepaths but often times that's a bad percentage play. Greg Luzinski may have had more triples than Albert Pujols, but he was playing in bigger ballparks with more foul territory as well. And how many times was he thrown out at third? Pujols may have had fewer triples but unlike Luzinski, who gave up runs on the basepaths during his career, Pujols has been a net positive on the basepaths. And he's had three times as many SB (and only slightly more CS) during his career. Overall, the game today has more 2B and HR, fewer 3B, and fewer SB attempts but at a higher rate of success.

Different sports require different amounts of skill, athleticism, effort and endurance. What SBB has said about the NBA (and NHL and pro soccer) is generally true, but that's not a knock on baseball. These sports exist on a spectrum, and I'd much rather watch baseball than golf on the one hand or ice hockey on the other. You may prefer something different.

The Randy Moss stuff is intellectually dishonest -- what Belicheck was saying about Moss is very similar to what people here are saying about baseball players.
   64. Howie Menckel Posted: February 27, 2019 at 03:14 PM (#5818767)
   65. cardsfanboy Posted: February 27, 2019 at 04:18 PM (#5818790)
then for the 1001th time you are wrong--Pete Rose didn't hustle more than most players of his era--he just knew how to market it. He is the epitome of white-boy hustle, i.e. "look at me, I'm hustling"--and the press at the time ate it up. After Ali, the best self-promoter ever in sports


I probably should have used the word "perceived" hustling in my comment, I thought about that later... The point is that if Pete Rose is perceived as hustling, that means for a fact that many if not most other players are perceived for not hustling. So someone telling me about today's players not hustling, is just a matter or perception, and it is impossible for them to be right on that, if they also come from a generation that perceived Pete Rose to hustle.

It's simple logic. Player A cannot be perceived to be hustling without acknowledging that means a majority of the players are perceived as non-hustlers. Whether Rose was a self promoter or not, it doesn't change the fact that perception of the majority of the players for the past 50 years has been that they don't hustle on average.
   66. . Posted: February 27, 2019 at 04:26 PM (#5818794)
The only notably recent act of laziness has been the art of breaking into a home run trot on fly balls that never make it out of the park. I can't remember that sort of thing before sometime in the 90's. Other than that, players today don't hustle any more or less than they ever have in all the years I've been following the game.


I must have missed this gem.

Translation: Other than all the recent-vintage loafing on fly balls, players don't loaf any more than they have since 1952!!!
   67. SoSH U at work Posted: February 27, 2019 at 04:27 PM (#5818795)
Today, baseball players may not visibly hustle as much on the basepaths but often times that's a bad percentage play.


I don't think it's right to confuse hustling with bad decision making. Hustling is never a bad percentage play. Running into outs on low-percentage gambles should be discouraged.

Paul Molitor and Derek Jeter routinely hustled, and they were good baserunners.

then for the 1001th time you are wrong--Pete Rose didn't hustle more than most players of his era--he just knew how to market it. He is the epitome of white-boy hustle, i.e. "look at me, I'm hustling"--and the press at the time ate it up. After Ali, the best self-promoter ever in sports


I loathe Pete as much as the next guy, but the idea that he didn't hustle any more than the average guy of his era is absolute nonsense. Now, in his case, he was more likely to run himself into outs than the truly good baserunners of his day, so it wasn't all for good.

Good Christ, he ran over a catcher in a damn All-Star game. The ####### didn't know how to play anyway but balls out.
   68. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: February 27, 2019 at 04:52 PM (#5818813)
I don't think it's right to confuse hustling with bad decision making. Hustling is never a bad percentage play. Running into outs on low-percentage gambles should be discouraged.

Paul Molitor and Derek Jeter routinely hustled, and they were good baserunners.


Sure, that was my point but apologies if it wasn't clear. Guys should always hustle, but having more triples doesn't mean you were hustling more. It might mean you took more risks on the basepaths. Likewise, you should always hustle when you run, but a guy who studies the opposing team and knows when to try to take the extra base may be more valuable. It's like the difference between the guy who crams for the test the night before vs. the guy who does the work evenly over the course of the semester. The former may look like he's working harder if you only watch him that night, and if you don't know their final scores.

Sure, Luzinski had more triples than Pujols. But Pujols had many more SB at a better rate, and he took the extra base 43% of the time vs. 29% for Luzinski. Only citing the first of those stats is cherry picking.
   69. SoSH U at work Posted: February 27, 2019 at 04:58 PM (#5818820)
Sure, Luzinski had more triples than Pujols. But Pujols had many more SB at a better rate, and he took the extra base 43% of the time vs. 29% for Luzinski. Only citing the first of those stats is cherry picking.


Agreed.

I do suspect that there was more emphasis placed on and external push to take the extra base when Luzinski played than when Pujols did. Of course, there was more value in taking the extra base when Luzinski played than when Pujols did, given the differing run environments that characterized most of their careers.

   70. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: February 27, 2019 at 05:15 PM (#5818829)
I do suspect that there was more emphasis placed on and external push to take the extra base when Luzinski played than when Pujols did. Of course, there was more value in taking the extra base when Luzinski played than when Pujols did, given the differing run environments that characterized most of their careers.


Triples are a function many things, the most important probably being, park dimensions.* That the 70's sluggers got more triples than their 2000's counterparts has more to do with Veteran's Stadium vs CBP, Three Rivers vs PNC, Riverfront vs GAB, etc, and not the way people hustled.

*On a league wide level. Of course foot speed is important for the individual.
   71. . Posted: February 27, 2019 at 05:27 PM (#5818832)
That the 70's sluggers got more triples than their 2000's counterparts has more to do with Veteran's Stadium vs CBP, Three Rivers vs PNC, Riverfront vs GAB, etc, and not the way people hustled.


No, it didn't. Just stop with all this. It's ridiculous and it's hard at this point to see why people are defending the loafing.

Greg Luzinski ran harder on the basepaths than Albert Pujols did. Full stop. It's not debatable. Yes, Albert Pujols was probably in "better shape" than Greg Luzinski was, but so what? If I wanted to watch guys in really good shape just stand around and stand or jog, I'd go to Venice Beach or something.

(And the fact that Pujols was fast enough to steal bases when he wanted to is another count in the indictment, not a defense. This, too, is readily obvious.)
   72. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: February 27, 2019 at 05:28 PM (#5818833)
For example, in the 70's, the Orioles played in a terrible park for triples, and despite having their share of fast players, had very low triples totals. From 1975-77, they hit 33, 25, and 28 triples. The Royals, playing in a terrific triples park, hit 58, 57, and 77. Throughout the 70's, the same teams were always among the league leaders, and the same teams were always among the bottom dwellers, despite turnover of players and managers.
   73. . Posted: February 27, 2019 at 05:31 PM (#5818836)
Guys should always hustle, but having more triples doesn't mean you were hustling more.


As a proportion of doubles plus triples, it absolutely does.
   74. SoSH U at work Posted: February 27, 2019 at 05:32 PM (#5818838)
Triples are a function many things, the most important probably being, park dimensions.* That the 70's sluggers got more triples than their 2000's counterparts has more to do with Veteran's Stadium vs CBP, Three Rivers vs PNC, Riverfront vs GAB, etc, and not the way people hustled.


My comment wasn't related to the triples disparity, which I'm well aware is heavily influenced by park, but a general observation.

I was merely saying there was probably more emphasis from the coaching staffs during Luzinski's era on taking an extra base than there was in Pujols' time in part because it was more costly to get thrown out taking an extra base when Albert was playing.
   75. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: February 27, 2019 at 05:36 PM (#5818840)

And yet Pujols took the extra base more often.
   76. . Posted: February 27, 2019 at 05:39 PM (#5818843)
And yet Pujols took the extra base more often.


No, he didn't. There's no set definition of "taking the extra base," and records of such things weren't kept in Luzinski's era. Hitting a ball up the gap gives a hitter a chance to get a triple, but doesn't register as a chance to take the extra base if he jogs and cruises into second. Which Pujols obviously did routinely, given his 2B/3B ratio.
   77. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: February 27, 2019 at 05:53 PM (#5818846)
As a proportion of doubles plus triples, it absolutely does.

For what it's worth, the ratio of triples to (doubles plus triples) across MLB hasn't really changed in over 20 years. It was 9.3% in 1998, and it was 9.3% in 2018.

   78. . Posted: February 27, 2019 at 05:58 PM (#5818849)
In the six NL stadiums with grass fields in 1977 (*), the teams hit 1440 doubles and 216 triples for a ratio of 6.66 doubles for every triple. (**)

In the 15 NL stadiums with grass fields in 2018, the teams hit 3993 doubles and 457 triples for a ratio of 8.73 doubles for every triple.

(*) Wrigley, Fulton Cty, Candlestick, Dodger, The Murph, Shea

(**) The fact that it's grass fields would of course bias this toward the cloddier guys in the league, given the philosophy of getting speed to play on turf.

   79. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: February 27, 2019 at 06:00 PM (#5818850)
No, he didn't. There's no set definition of "taking the extra base," and records of such things weren't kept in Luzinski's era.

Taking the extra base, in B-R's baserunning stats, means going first-to-third on a single, second-to-home on a single, or first-to-home on a double. And yes, we do in fact have records of these things from Luzinski's career.

Pujols has been on first base for 611 singles in his career; he stopped at second 393 times and went to third 195. (No, the totals don't add up because there are other outcomes sometimes.) Luzinski was on first for 398 singles in his career; he stopped at second 332 times and went to third 63.

First on a double: Pujols 112/63; Luzinski 90/22.

Second on a single: Pujols 92/229; Luzinski 80/124.

But sure, the eight extra triples are a much better measure of hustle.
   80. . Posted: February 27, 2019 at 06:05 PM (#5818852)
Picking a year at random from the grass Candlestick go-go era ... 1980. Candlestick is of course a cookie cutter symmetrical stadium with rounded power alleys and a CF fence at around 400 feet.

182 doubles, 45 triples. Ratio: 4.04.

China Basin, 2018, a park that God or Buddha herself would have struggled to make any better for triples:

269 doubles, 41 triples. Ratio: 6.56, more than 50% higher.

Come on, now.

   81. . Posted: February 27, 2019 at 06:06 PM (#5818853)
Taking the extra base, in B-R's baserunning stats, means going first-to-third on a single, second-to-home on a single, or first-to-home on a double. And yes, we do in fact have records of these things from Luzinski's career.


That's an essentially meaningless definition. Not granular enough.

But sure, the eight extra triples are a much better measure of hustle.


As a proportion of doubles plus triples, it absolutely is. There's no mystery to me being able to go to BB-ref and easily show the doubles/triples point and indeed I woudn't have even bothered if I didn't know it would pay off.
   82. SoSH U at work Posted: February 27, 2019 at 06:11 PM (#5818854)
And yet Pujols took the extra base more often.


I think this is the flip side to simply looking at triples and coming to a single conclusion. It was much easier to hit triples in that era, because the ball scooted along the turf to deep walls. But it was also much more difficult to go from first to third on a single, for the very same reason (the ball got to the outfielders much quicker). And, of course, Pujols was, in his prime, a much better athlete than Luzinski.
   83. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: February 27, 2019 at 06:13 PM (#5818856)
In the six NL stadiums with grass fields in 1977 (*), the teams hit 1440 doubles and 216 triples for a ratio of 6.66 doubles for every triple. (**)

In the 15 NL stadiums with grass fields in 2018, the teams hit 3993 doubles and 457 triples for a ratio of 8.73 doubles for every triple.


Not all parks (even grass parks) are created equal (Forbes Field, a grass park, is arguably the greatest triples park of all time). Only two of those six 1977 stadia are still in use today. If you look at just Wrigley and Dodger Stadium, the totals are 482/50 in 1977 (9.4% triples), and 527/47 in 2018 (8.2% triples). That's one extra triple in every 80 opportunities.
   84. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: February 27, 2019 at 06:27 PM (#5818862)
But it was also much more difficult to go from first to third on a single, for the very same reason (the ball got to the outfielders much quicker).

League average for taking the extra base was actually slightly higher back in the day - comparing '78 NL to '18 NL, it's 43% to 41%. (On the other hand, the NL had more total outs made on the bases in '78, 877 to 793, despite having three fewer teams.) Which is to say, yes, the players in 1978 tried for the extra base more often, but it might not have been a good idea for them to do so.
   85. SoSH U at work Posted: February 27, 2019 at 06:34 PM (#5818865)
Which is to say, yes, the players in 1978 tried for the extra base more often, but it might not have been a good idea for them to do so.


A lower run environment should lead to more outs on the bases as a percentage of taking the extra base. But not that much more.

   86. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: February 27, 2019 at 06:57 PM (#5818872)

The ratio of 3B to (3B + 2B) has declined pretty steadily over MLB history. There's always some year-to-year noise in the numbers, but every decade has had fewer triples than the one before it, including a fairly steady annual decline from 1976-1996. Undoubtedly some of this is due to parks, some is due to style of play and some is due to "hustle".

But there's no question that the percentage has held pretty steady since 1996. So to the extent that you have a complaint, it's with how the game has been played for over 20 years now.

1910s 28.1%
1920s 22.7%
1930s 18.9%
1940s 17.9%
1950s 17.0%
1960s 15.8%
1970s 14.4%
1980s 12.9%
1990s 10.6%
2000s 9.4%
2010s 9.4%
   87. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: February 27, 2019 at 07:14 PM (#5818877)
[80] China Basin, 2018, a park that God or Buddha herself would have struggled to make any better for triples

2018: 4th highest PF for triples per ESPN (behind Phoenix, Denver and Texas)
2017: 13th (Oakland, Denver, Minny, PHX, Detroit, Wrigley, GABP, KC, Miami, St Pete, Settle, Philly)
2016: 7th (PHX, Detroit, Texas, Pitt, Fenway, KC)
2015: 3rd (Denver, PHX)
2014: 5th (Texas, Miami, Denver, Detroit)

You uhhh don't think much of the Buddha

I'm sure the rest of your post is made with the same intellectual rigor
   88. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: February 27, 2019 at 07:15 PM (#5818878)

Only two of those six 1977 stadia are still in use today. If you look at just Wrigley and Dodger Stadium, the totals are 482/50 in 1977 (9.4% triples), and 527/47 in 2018 (8.2% triples). That's one extra triple in every 80 opportunities.

I would be interested to see a 3- or 5-year rolling average of that number (I also looked at the Cubs and Dodgers, but didn't have home vs. road stats broken out. However, I see that 1977 was a bit of a down year for triples for them, and 2018 was a bit of an up year. So just focusing on those two years might be misleading.)
   89. . Posted: February 27, 2019 at 07:31 PM (#5818886)
1. There was more effort exerted on the basepaths in 1980 than in 2018.

2. That was in part because of culture and norm, in part because of the run/park environment.

3. The effort, on balance, was wasted as it crossed the magic point where the outs wasted by trying for extra bases became significantly worse than if the teams had simply loafed.

4. Whether the type of effort exerted on the basepaths in 1980 was virtuous in and of itself beyond the competitive context is a significant question that must find its answer outside the competitive context. Significant philosophical reasoning and contemplation suggests that it is.

5. The lower effort has an aesthetic impact on the game as it's played now. As with all things aesthetic, ultimately subjectivity and personal preference are the controlling factors.

6. While I don't subscribe to them, there are colorable arguments to be made that stupidity, of the type exemplified by energetic baserunning BITD, even in the context of something as frivolous as baseball, is something that should be frowned upon.

7. While I don't subscribe to them, there are colorable arguments that the endeavor to bring efficiency to the way baseball is played is a positive virtue independent of its aesthetic effects.
   90. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 27, 2019 at 07:39 PM (#5818887)
4. Whether the type of effort exerted on the basepaths in 1980 was virtuous in and of itself beyond the competitive context is a significant question that must find its answer outside the competitive context. Significant philosophical reasoning and contemplation suggests that it is.
This is like a great parody of...something.
   91. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 27, 2019 at 08:05 PM (#5818888)
4. Whether the type of effort exerted on the basepaths in 1980 was virtuous in and of itself beyond the competitive context is a significant question that must find its answer outside the competitive context. Significant philosophical reasoning and contemplation suggests that it is.

No. Extra effort that makes you worse at your job is by definition bad. If you insist on working 18 hours a day to the point that your delirious and making mistakes and shitty decisions constantly, that "effort" is a bad thing.
   92. . Posted: February 27, 2019 at 08:16 PM (#5818893)
What if it's not your job? Plenty of people play sports where it's not their job.

(Not that I agree with the underlying claim. Try something like The Strenuous Life, and work from there. But there's no need to stick with the fact that it's someone's "job," when plenty of people do the very same tasks for free. The question at hand doesn't really turn on whether the player is Chris Paul or Zion Williamson.)
   93. cardsfanboy Posted: February 27, 2019 at 10:54 PM (#5818930)
No, he didn't. There's no set definition of "taking the extra base," and records of such things weren't kept in Luzinski's era. Hitting a ball up the gap gives a hitter a chance to get a triple, but doesn't register as a chance to take the extra base if he jogs and cruises into second. Which Pujols obviously did routinely, given his 2B/3B ratio.


This shows complete and utter ignorance of how the stats are computed. It's not something that is computed by today's numbers, it's a simple calculation based upon how many times a guy went first to third on a single, or second to home or first to home on a double... it's not really rocket science, and the data has been there for a long time and it goes a long way back..... so yes it does have a set definition.
   94. cardsfanboy Posted: February 27, 2019 at 10:58 PM (#5818931)
Undoubtedly some of this is due to parks, some is due to style of play and some is due to "hustle".


Style of play is the big part, the balls that were triples in the past are now going over the wall. The balls that were triples and are now doubles are being lost because of the size of the park. This isn't rocket science, sure there are probably about 1 triple a year that the average starter is losing by not "running hard" out of the box, but there is no real argument to be made that the same number was not lost 20, 30, 40 years ago either.

The triple argument is just a dumb argument, made by someone who thinks Jack Morris is a hofer, and Bert Blyleven isn't... if that doesn't tell you the analytical ability of this guy, then nothing does.
   95. cardsfanboy Posted: February 27, 2019 at 11:06 PM (#5818933)
1. There was more effort exerted on the basepaths in 1980 than in 2018.


Maybe...maybe not, it's also probable that the average speed of the average player playing today is higher because we have better athletes, so the amount of effort isn't really as important as the speed on the basepaths with that effort, and it's probably safe to say that the average player today is in much better shape, so if they are putting the exact same 85% effort that the players in the past, clearly did, then they are faster.

2. That was in part because of culture and norm, in part because of the run/park environment.

Not really, if you read Bill James Historical abstract, he is able to quote people from 1910 lambasting the lack of effort that players put forth, the perception of you thinking they are putting less effort, is entirely your stilted perception of the game, because you are an old fossil that thinks everything was better when you had an onion on your belt, and the people did things better... you are probably the same type of idiot that thinks kids today don't "do something" that they did in the past as an indication of their moral failing.

3. The effort, on balance, was wasted as it crossed the magic point where the outs wasted by trying for extra bases became significantly worse than if the teams had simply loafed.

And again, people don't actually loaf, they make a conscious decision based upon their years of experience on the amount of effort needed to get the advantage... in fact it's patently ridiculous to think pitchers today loaf more than in the past. Bob Gibson and a host of other hall of famers have talked about taking a batter or two off... no pitcher in todays game can do that, because they don't have crappy 7,8 and 9 hitters to face that the guys in the past today... Today's pitchers have to go all out, which of course means today's batters have to go all out.

5. The lower effort has an aesthetic impact on the game as it's played now. As with all things aesthetic, ultimately subjectivity and personal preference are the controlling factors.


The lower effort is again old man fogeyism it's not a real thing, it's a perception thing because you are a fossil and incapable of accepting change, and instead believe in the past as some type of utopian dream which doesn't match up with any reality that exists.

   96. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: February 27, 2019 at 11:14 PM (#5818935)
Picking a year at random from the grass Candlestick go-go era ... 1980. Candlestick is of course a cookie cutter symmetrical stadium with rounded power alleys and a CF fence at around 400 feet.

182 doubles, 45 triples. Ratio: 4.04.

China Basin, 2018, a park that God or Buddha herself would have struggled to make any better for triples:

269 doubles, 41 triples. Ratio: 6.56, more than 50% higher.

Come on, now.


Don't know why you're so happy with the 1980 Giants. Look at the 1957 Giants: 171/54, 3.17. Hell, the 1911 Giants make them pikers - 225 double, 103 triples, 2.18. Why are you cheering on the 1980 sluggos? I mean, era and ballpark are irrelevant, right? And the 1887 Giants were 167/93, 1.80. Holy cow, we should really go back to those days.
   97. manchestermets Posted: February 28, 2019 at 05:57 AM (#5818948)
The lower effort is again old man fogeyism it's not a real thing, it's a perception thing because you are a fossil and incapable of accepting change, and instead believe in the past as some type of utopian dream which doesn't match up with any reality that exists.


Obligatory link.
   98. Ben Broussard Ramjet Posted: February 28, 2019 at 07:14 AM (#5818950)
Maybe today's outfielders just hustle more to prevent as many triples.
   99. JL72 Posted: February 28, 2019 at 09:52 AM (#5819007)
The balls that were triples and are now doubles are being lost because of the size of the park.


I suspect it is also in part due to current offensive environment. By that I mean speed is not emphasized as much and outs are more protected in the current era. So I could imagine there are more players not trying for triples due to lack of speed and not wanting to make outs. Does not mean they are not hustling.

But then I remember that civilization (and presumably baseball as well), peaked in the 70s.
   100. . Posted: February 28, 2019 at 10:39 AM (#5819031)
By that I mean speed is not emphasized as much and outs are more protected in the current era. So I could imagine there are more players not trying for triples due to lack of speed and not wanting to make outs. Does not mean they are not hustling.


??

If they're running potential triples into coast-into-second doubles, that's the very definition of not hustling.(*) That's kind of the point here -- the sport has been hacked and made entirely efficient, and efficiency means players don't really have to run hard, other than in a very few situations.(**) That's the cultural change.

(*) Note: This isn't necessarily a character judgment.

(**) And in the other major sports, efficiency doesn't mean you don't have to run hard -- it means you do. Hockey has shortened shifts with the flip-side demand being that players go balls-out every second of their shift. Football has specialized, and has always been a balls-out sport anyway. Etc.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogEmpty Stadium Sports Will Be Really Weird
(6681 - 11:20am, Jul 09)
Last: Kiko Sakata

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-9-2020
(2 - 11:02am, Jul 09)
Last: crict

NewsblogFormer Red Sox executive Dave Dombrowski joins Nashville MLB initiative
(26 - 10:43am, Jul 09)
Last: Crispix Attacksel Rios

NewsblogMLB.TV costs $59.99 for the 60-game season
(1 - 10:39am, Jul 09)
Last: pthomas

NewsblogMLB umpire Joe West says U.S. coronavirus deaths aren't actually from coronavirus
(42 - 9:59am, Jul 09)
Last: Zonk took his own SATs

NewsblogOT – NBA Revival Thread 2020
(496 - 9:26am, Jul 09)
Last: JJ1986

NewsblogTrump wants tax breaks to lure baseball fans back, but the incentive could misfire with attendance still barred
(11 - 8:58am, Jul 09)
Last: Rally

NewsblogBraves could ditch ‘Tomahawk Chop,’ but won’t change name
(28 - 4:53am, Jul 09)
Last: BrianBrianson

NewsblogMarcus Hayes: Zack Wheeler, Mike Trout consider opting out, abandoning their teams and the game
(21 - 4:47am, Jul 09)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogTrevor Bauer wants to start every fourth day in 60-game season, and the Reds might let him
(14 - 11:32pm, Jul 08)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogIndians keep Franmil Reyes away from summer camp for not wearing mask at party
(6 - 9:47pm, Jul 08)
Last: Jay Z

NewsblogPhillies’ Andrew McCutchen disses Yankees’ hair policy
(13 - 6:55pm, Jul 08)
Last: Buck Coats

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-8-2020
(11 - 5:58pm, Jul 08)
Last: vortex of dissipation

Newsblog2020 MLB schedule: The 10 matchups, games and series we want to watch most
(4 - 3:49pm, Jul 08)
Last: JRVJ

NewsblogFive things MLB can do right now to confront systemic racism
(13 - 3:29pm, Jul 08)
Last: never forget: the pee tape is 57i66135

-->

Page rendered in 0.8616 seconds
46 querie(s) executed