Pages

Saturday, August 31, 2013

What Parents Should Say as Their Kids Perform - Tim Elmore



H/T to Mrs. TheSlav for sending this and it bears repeating. At the Olympic level recent studies have documented that for those who rise to the highest levels, maintaining a continued positive and supportive role is one of the keys to development.

And it helps the participants to experience what many on the outside would view as an enviable and enjoyable ride.  

The Six Simple Words and the before and after competition statements are excellent. Not a word about winning or losing, issues the coach may or should be involved in, individual plays that did or didn't work out.

Good stuff.

from Growing Leaders with Tim Elmore:
What Parents Should Say as Their Kids Perform - Tim Elmore:

In my work at Growing Leaders, we enjoy the privilege of serving numerous NCAA and professional sports teams each year. After meeting with hundreds of coaches and athletes, I noticed an issue kept surfacing in our conversations. Both the student-athlete and the coach were trying to solve the same problem.  What was that problem?
The parents of the student-athletes.
- See more at: http://growingleaders.com/blog/what-parents-should-say-as-their-kids-perform/#sthash.AmOxZ9q7.dpuf
What we parents may not recognize is the pressure and angst this kind of involvement applies. May I tell you what student-athletes are telling me?

I love my mom, but when she does this, I get the feeling she doesn’t trust me.

My parents are great, but I feel like I have multiple coaches telling me what to do and I get stressed out over it.

I’m getting blackballed by my teammates because my mother keeps texting me and my coach, to give suggestions. I wish she would chill.

I feel like I’m never quite good enough; I can never fully please my parents.


What We Should Say When Our Kids Perform
The most liberating words parents can speak to their student-athletes are quite simple. Based on psychological research, the three healthiest statements moms and dads can make as they perform are:
Before the Competition:                                    After the competition:
  1. Have fun.                                                    1. Did you have fun?
  2. Play hard.                                                    2. I’m proud of you.
  3. I love you.                                                    3. I love you.
Six Simple Words…
- See more at: http://growingleaders.com/blog/what-parents-should-say-as-their-kids-perform/#sthash.AmOxZ9q7.dpuf

'via Blog this'

The Barry Zito Era: $126M for 3.5 WAR = $63M per ring


I hear the argument that the SABR metric oriented crowd makes that this was a horrifically bad contract or investment on the part of the Giants and I have to chuckle a bit. If WAR is the only valid measuring stick, then certainly and without a doubt, NOT a good deal.

But if you had told me when Barry Zito signed with the Giants prior to the 2007 season that by the end of the deal the Giants would have TWO world series championships, I would have to say, also without a doubt, this would be a great deal and a fantastic return on investment.

Now granted, the Giants did NOT win two World Series championships entirely due to the efforts of Barry Zito, but it would be foolish to minimize the contributions he made and the benefits he brought to the table. Some of which are very difficult to quantify.

Remember, this was a franchise that was transitioning from an offensive oriented, Barry Bonds led team to a defensive minded, pitching oriented team. Zito's stature and contract allowed a Matt Cain, Tim Lincecum and Madison Bumgarner to develop under a lower level of scrutiny than if mega-bucks Barry were not around to brutalize. He allowed those guys to develop while flying under the radar.

The team was also making the transition from a veteran oriented, Felipe Alou led team to a younger Bruce Bochy led squad.

Would Giants management and fans have preferred that the Barry Zito of 2007-10 produce more than 40 wins? Absolutely.

Did the 3 win record posted in 2011, almost seal the deal among fans that this was an epically bad signing? Absolutely.

Did the rebound in 2012 balance the scales of being left off the playoff roster in 2010? In a sense, I think it did. Some will say, the Giants won without Zito in 2010 because of this, dismissing ANY of his contributions to get them to the first championship. In fairness, you then have to acknowledge that you don't have the second championship without Zito.

On balance, the Zito era in San Francisco is in my opinion an unqualified success and is an almost heroic path that I can only liken to the path that NY football Giants fans took with a QB by the name of Phil Simms.

There were high initial hopes that were dashed for various reasons, some due to injury, some just lack of productivity. Eventually with Simms and the Giants, two Super Bowls were won.  One of those titles the Giants won with Simms on the DL and a backup finishing the work that Simms started. So, like Zito, some fans will retroactively short-change the accomplishments of Simms to validate their prior bashing by saying, "well, he really only won one title, Jeff Hostettler won the other one". I think I could have QB'd that team after they started something like 10-0. It was a credit to the confidence they had built WITH Simms at the helm that they were able to win it all in spite of losing their leader heading towards the playoffs. Fans who wanted to at one time run both of these perceived bums out of town, are eventually rewarded by basking in the glow of two trips to the sports mountain top. And fans and media pundits are left to re-jigger their prior missives about said bums and re-write history. There are many more Giants fans who will say they supported Simms all along then there actually were.

I have to admit that I did not fully support sticking with Barry Zito as much as I did earlier with Phil Simms, but in both cases, I'm glad the respective organizations DID stick with them. All of  the ex-post facto analysis and hand wringing of why the organizations were wrong but things somehow worked out right notwithstanding, I unequivocally salute Barry Zito for all the strength and perseverance he has demonstrated personally and which he brought to the Giants. To me, his contributions are immeasurable. Going forward, I would challenge the SABR crowd to find a metric that would adequately measure those qualities. Then we might really have something of value to discuss.

Thursday, August 29, 2013

2013 Giants: Bringing no-hit stuff to the ballpark every night


The phrase "brings no-hit stuff every outing" is a good thing when referring to a pitcher, like a Matt Cain or a Tim Lincecum. When it can be used to adequately describe a team's offense, mayhem ensues. But this is our 2013 San Francisco Giants. You thought I was going to say "bringing boring back to baseball" didn't you. See I mixed in a curve ball.

from Yahoo Sports:
Rockies' Chacin toys with no-hitter, beats Giants - Yahoo! Sports:
"I knew he had a no-hitter going," said shortstop Crawford, whose missed catch was costly in the Rockies' four-run sixth. "It's just nice to get a hit, put something on the scoreboard."
'via Blog this'

Brandon Crawford seems to believe that registering a "hit" is bringing something tangible to the scoreboard. Maybe that's part of the problem, we're setting our expectations a bit too low. The objective for the offense, Mr. Crawford, is to score runs. By doing that more times than ones opponent, you win games.

This is a baseball, fellas. And this is a baseball bat. Let's get back to basics here.



Sunday, August 25, 2013

Strength Exercises For Baseball - SledgeHammer Time!!



Having used a sledgehammer this weekend to break up the concrete base of a basketball goal that was set-up near our driveway by a previous owner, I can personally vouch for the effect this type of work has on your grip and forearms as well as the core. Both areas of my body are very sore today, as are my shoulders, which are crying out for Advil.

Anything that is endorsed by Ted Williams ( the axe swinging work ) is good enough for me as far as translating into bat swing benefits.   I would think that the axe swinging and tree chopping would be as anaerobic as the sledgehammer swings.

from mammothstrength.com
Strength Exercises For Baseball:
SLEDGEHAMMER SWINGS: Ted Williams used to say that he developed his swing by chopping down trees. Any baseball player that saw his swing probably grabbed an axe and headed to the forest. Sledgehammer swings are a more convenient option these days. Doing overhead swings works your core, as well as your grip strength and forearms. This has a tremendous carry over to your bat speed.
'via Blog this'



some more general info from ezinearticles.com:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Sledgehammer-Fitness&id=2992556

Saturday, August 24, 2013

Ichiro logs 4,000th hit, but should it count





This is fine. Ichiro is the "Global Hit King" ahead of Pete Rose. And now the argument can be made that Sadaharu Oh with 868 HR's is now the "Global HR King".

from SABR.org
http://sabr.org/latest/sabr-asian-baseball-research-committee-salutes-ichiro-suzuki-4000th-career-hit

The Asian Baseball Research Committee of the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR) proudly salutes New York Yankee outfielder Ichiro Suzuki on achieving milestone hit 4,000 in his international professional baseball career.

“Since his MLB debut in 2001 Ichiro’s disciplined, zen approach to hitting has thrilled fans, earned the respect of his peers, and established his place in baseball history as one of the game’s greatest hitters,” said Bill Staples Jr., chairman of the SABR Asian Baseball Committee (http://research.sabr.org/asianbb).

Despite the fact that sports historians and writers have debated the significance of Ichiro’s combined career hits on both sides of the Pacific, his 4,000 hits is an incredible record worth appreciating.
Pete Rose (4,256) and Ty Cobb (4,189) are the only players in MLB history to reach 4,000 hits. However, some say that if Ichiro's statistics in Nippon Professional Baseball (NPB) are considered, then minor-league statistics should be included as well. MLB.com writer Bryan Hoch points out that only six players would reach the 4,000 hit milestone with the inclusion of “minor-league” stats:
  • Pete Rose – 4,683 (4,257 MLB + 427 minors)
  • Ty Cobb – 4,355 (4,189 MLB + 166 minors)
  • Jigger Statz – 4,093 (737 MLB + 3,356 Pacific Coast League)
  • Ichiro Suzuki – 4,000 (2,722 MLB + 1,278 NPB)


And please, to all you bed-wetters out there:
WE ARE NOT GOING BACK BABE RUTH AS THE HR KING!!  

from baseball-reference.com:
Statistic Description: Home Runs Hit/Allowed



So let's see where that leaves us. Four of the top ten HR leaders, soon to be two of the top five and 6 of the top fourteen -- 40% and more of the top HR hitters in the sport will be persona non grata to the sports Hall of Fame and it's voters.

You may as well do something to increase membership. Open it up to international players like other sports do. I'm sure you don't need the permission of the guys who like to sign things with the initials HOF after their name. They have a vested economic interest in keeping the membership exclusive.

Baseball keeps getting itself entangled in the "but, does it really count" argument. Again, it's good for talk radio, but not necessarily great for the sport overall. Four thousand hits is four thousand hits. It's a monument to consistency, excellence and longevity wherever it happened. I'm not going to get into this hair-splitting of hits as if hits were posted on the currency exchange. I mean what's the value of a Japanese(hit) today vs. and American(hit) vs. a Cuban(hit).

Sorry, not doing it. Too complicated, too volatile.

US Dollar equals
98.68 Japanese Yen
Disclaimer





Details on SABR Defensive Index and new Rawlings Gold Glove Awards selection process | SABR


This seems to be the best of both worlds. Some objective data-driven input combined with the old subjective voting of peers. The main gripe was that offensive ability was leaking too much into the peer voting.  This should help the guys who are valued for their glove so much that the coach is willing to allow a .230 hitter to remain in the lineup. That in and of itself should tell you all you need to know about a guys defensive value. But now we've found a way to quantify the value and take the offensive bias out of the process a little bit.

"As we looked to marry ‘The Art of Fielding with the Science of Baseball™,’ the composition of the SABR Defensive Index is exactly what we were hoping to achieve,” said Mike Thompson, senior vice president of marketing for St. Louis-based Rawlings. "Since its inception in 1957, the Rawlings Gold Glove Award has relied on the major-league managers and coaches’ invaluable insights and keen understanding of the art of fielding to reward the best defensive players in the game. The new sabermetric component in the selection process is just another example of how the iconic Award has evolved throughout history as the industry standard honoring defensive excellence at the highest level of baseball.”

from SABR.org
Details on SABR Defensive Index and new Rawlings Gold Glove Awards selection process | SABR:

Here are some more details about the new selection process for the Rawlings Gold Glove Award and Rawlings Platinum Glove Award, presented by SABR:

Why did Rawlings choose to collaborate with SABR on this initiative?
SABR is a respected leader in the baseball industry, with a special expertise in baseball data and analysis. As we sought out the "experts" in this field, it became clear that SABR was the ideal choice. As a non-profit, independent third party, SABR has no commercial interest in defensive measurement. This combination of objectivity and expertise was important to Rawlings.
How was the SABR Defensive Index (SDI) developed?
SABR formed the SABR Defensive Committee, led by SABR President Vince Gennaro. From its 6,000 members, SABR identified and appointed recognized experts in fielding data and analytics, some of which have put two or more decades of effort into measuring defensive performance. This group met throughout the spring and summer to evaluate the historical and current body of work on fielding measurement. The committee developed a framework and criteria to evaluate existing metrics and ultimately aggregated the leading metrics in a balanced way to create the SDI — a bottom-line measure of an individual player's defensive performance.
What fielding metrics make up the SDI?
The SDI is built from two types of defensive metrics — those that come from batted ball location-based data, and those which originate from the play-by-play records of games. We gave more weight (70%) to the batted ball location-based metrics, which evaluate the degree to which a fielder makes plays in specific zones on the diamond. The player's performance is measured in comparison to his peers. The play-by-play based metrics (30% of the SDI) are important in that they approach defensive measurement from an alternative vantage point — a more generalized approach that estimates the number of batted balls hit into a fielder's area.
Within the batted ball location-based category, we've included 3 measures — Defensive Runs Saved (DRS) from John Dewan's company, Baseball Info Solutions; Ultimate Zone Rating (UZR), authored by noted sabermetrician Mitchel Lichtman; and Runs Effectively Defended (RED) from Chris Dial. The play-by-play based metrics include two measures:Defensive Regression Analysis (DRA) from Michael Humphreys and Total Zone Rating(TZ).
What are some of the defensive elements that are measured within the SDI's components?
Fielding metrics included in the SDI capture a fielder's range, his throwing arm, his sure-handedness, his ability to turn double-plays (for SS and 2B), his ability to convert bunts into outs (primarily P, C, 3B, and 1B), scoops of throws in the dirt (1B), as well as the number of "excellent" and "poor" fielding plays. In addition, for outfielders, his ability to prevent runners from taking an extra base is also rated. For catchers, blocking balls in the dirt and stolen bases/caught stealing are also included in their ratings. Finally, for pitchers, we include his ability to control the running game by holding runners on base, in addition to many of the above criteria. (Pitch framing by catchers is not currently included in the defensive metrics that comprise the SDI.)
How will you blend the SDI with the managers' and coaches' votes?
The committee has created a simple way to convert the SDI—which is expressed in the number of runs a fielder "saves" his team—into 30 "votes" for each Rawlings Gold Glove Award awarded.
What percent of the overall RGGA criteria will the SDI represent?
The 30 votes originating from the SDI will be added to the votes we typically receive from the managers and coaches. Each manager and up to six (6) coaches on the major-league staff is allowed to vote for the Rawlings Gold Glove Award. NOTE: managers and coaches cannot vote for their own players. Based on the number of votes typically submitted from managers and coaches, the SDI will represent approximately 25% of the Rawlings Gold Glove Award criteria, depending on the number of votes received from the managers and coaches.


'via Blog this'

Friday, August 23, 2013

A MLB umpire talks about framing - just catch the ball, let me sell the strike!!


Diamond Demo: Lucroy's catching

 02/26/13 | 00:04:36

Brewers catcher Jonathan Lucroy talks with MLB Network about how he frames pitches and places his feet when crouching behind the plate

Lucroy talks about the footwork behind the plate and framing. A 4 1/2 minute catching clinic. "Just catch the ball and stop it" - Catching 101. Below there are some great articles from Baseball Prospectus on the issue of catchers framing. This gets more and more attention from baseball announcers and the entire instant replay crowd. So in the interest of fairness you can read some observations from a MLB umpire on how he views framing.

The catchers mentioned in the articles like Lucroy and Jose Molina of the Rays are worth their weight in gold. They will have a job even if the hit .225 because of what they bring to the defensive side.

The main thing is to receive the ball "quietly", without a lot of movement. No pulling or jerking pitches "back into the strike zone", you know what that tells everyone in the ballpark. Catchers are selling the location as acceptable to the umpires and umpires are selling the call to the other 50,000+ umpires at the ballpark. That's how the game works.

What is left unsaid in almost every analysis EXCEPT that of the MLB umpire below is that, in the umpires mind, the decision of ball-or-strike has been made BEFORE all of this so-called framing or selling goes on. But try to sell THAT to the instant replay fanatics.



from Baseball Prospectus:
Baseball Prospectus | Spinning Yarn: Removing the Mask Encore Presentation:
by Mike Fast
September 24, 2011
Exaggerated glove and body movements are well known to be distracting to umpires. As Brent Mayne wrote in The Art of Catching:
Simply catch the ball firmly. When the pitch and glove meet, that’s where the action should stop. The catcher should have enough strength to stop the momentum of the ball so that strikes don’t turn into balls. Think of a gymnast “sticking” a landing. Just “stick” the ball, hold it for a brief second, then throw it back.
Catcher Receiving Techniques Having covered the derivation and accuracy of the measurement, let us turn to the question of what catchers are doing to gain or lose a strike call. Are there mechanical differences in technique between the best and worst catchers?
I selected two of the best catchers—Jose Molina and Jonathan Lucroy—and three of the worst catchers—Ryan Doumit,Jorge Posada, and Jason Varitek—and reviewed video of their borderline pitch calls. I observed two primary differences in technique between the good and bad catchers.
Both Molina and Lucroy displayed stable, quiet mechanics when receiving borderline pitches. Posada was the opposite, often jumping, bouncing, and shifting his stance and lunging and swiping to catch pitches. It was almost painful to watch him behind the plate. Varitek and Doumit had more stable stances, but each displayed a negative behavior that appeared to cost them strike calls. (Posada displayed both of these negative traits, and more.)
It is worth mentioning that one should not compare receiving mechanics on curveballs to mechanics on other pitch types, as was done in this analysis of Lucroy. Catchers typically set up with a different stance on curveballs to prepare to block a possible pitch in the dirt. Curveballs also drop much faster from the front of the plate to the catcher’s glove than other pitch types do. (The numbers reported above include all pitch types, but one potential improvement would be to look at receiving numbers for curveballs separately, though the smaller sample size could be a challenge.)
Let’s compare Varitek to Lucroy. According to my metric, Varitek cost the Red Sox about 16 runs by losing 101 expected strike calls in part time duty over the last two seasons. Lucroy took over the starting job for the Brewers in the middle of the 2010 season and has gained about 41 runs by getting 284 extra strike calls since then.
Lucroy got extra strikes for his pitchers both on the bottom and outside edges of the strike zone. Varitek did not get these same calls for his pitchers. Let’s see how they compared in 2011 on calls to right-handed batters.
Lucroy’s glove moved a few inches at most, but Varitek’s glove traveled about two feet down and then back up.
I also reviewed video of 10 pitches caught by Jose Molina along the outside edge of the zone to left-handed batters and 12 pitches caught by Doumit in similar locations. Eight of ten pitches received by Molina were called strikes, and 10 of 12 pitches received by Doumit were called balls. Let’s see how they compared in 2011 on calls to left-handed batters:

'via Blog this'

Matt Lucroy C - Gonzalez Hitter

Jason Varitek C - Ben Zobrist Hitter


===
May 21, 2013

BP Unfiltered

Former MLB Umpire Jim McKean on Catcher Framing

 http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=20623

Jim McKean worked as an MLB umpire from 1973-2001, serving on three World Series crews. He became one of MLB’s umpire supervisors after retiring from active duty and has since served as an umpiring consultant for ESPN. He offered his thoughts on the influence a catcher’s receiving skills can have on an umpire’s calls.
On catcher framing: "Everybody says, ‘Oh, he’s a good framer, he’s a bad framer,’ and that’s just an entertainment word. It’s just, he caught the ball correctly. And what I mean by that is if he catches the low pitches with his palm up, so the ball comes up, catches the high pitch down, catches the outside pitches with the fingers turned in. But catching the ball correctly means the steadiness of the glove. As long as the ball is received steadily with a strong hand, then it’s a lot easier to see the pitches. And every time they do that and they go ‘Oh, he’s a good framer,’ well, no, he’s just catching the pitch correctly. That’s just my interpretation. And I was in the big league for about 30 years, so I’ve seen all sorts of catching, and good catching will make it easier for umpires to call more strikes.”
On whether he preferred calling pitches behind catchers with good receiving skills: "Lots of times, you want to work, obviously, behind catchers who catch the ball correctly. And if you want to use that word ‘frame’—but ‘frame,’ to me, is like you’re trying to trick somebody. And they don’t trick you because they hold it and turn it, move it, and they go, ‘Oh look, I’m framing’—he’s not, you’re not fooling anybody. You see the guy move the ball, and my first words are, ‘Hey, keep that glove still or it’s going to be a ball.’ Very rarely do they do that. I’ll tell you, he can pull that ball in anywhere, if it’s not in the strike zone, they’re not going to call it a strike. … Little League you see guys pulling the balls all over, and you go, ‘Oh, look, he fooled the umpire.’ Well, that’s easy, easy. It doesn’t happen at the major-league level.”
On the difficulty of calling strikes for catchers with poor receiving skills: “You get guys that catch a low pitch and drive it into the ground. And it might be in the strike zone, but it’s borderline low, it could be in the strike zone. If you catch it correctly, with the palm up and on the plate, you’re going to get it called a strike. If you don’t, it’s going be called a ball. Because it’s very difficult to call a strike when a ball is in the ground, even if it goes through the strike zone. And a lot of people don’t want to tell the truth, but that’s the way it is. Balls and strikes will be called where they go across the plate and how the catcher catches.”
On pitches that umpires can’t see: “I don’t know if it has something [to do] with the hitter’s location, and how they crowd the plate, and everybody wears this armor on their arms and they’re all crowding the plate—I mean, in my day if you got into the batter’s box you either batted up at the front of the box or the back of the box, you didn’t necessarily crowd the plate. That takes a lot of the strike zone away from the umpire, and believe it or not, it’s nearly impossible for the umpire to see the four quadrants of the plate, in other words, all four corners. Especially with your head location, if it’s inside, you’re going to miss the back quadrant if it’s a right-handed hitter. When you can’t see them all, that’s just human nature. People say, well, you stand up high to see a ball. If you stand up high, then you can’t see the low pitches. You stand too low, you can’t see the—I mean, there’s parts of it, you’re not going to see everything. But experience and judgment tells you what’s a ball and what’s a strike.”
“You get big catchers, too, and that makes it difficult. You’re constantly telling them, ‘Hey you’ve gotta get down, you’ve gotta get down, I can’t see.’”
On a catcher setting up outside for an outside pitch: "I will definitely go out there with him, because I know where that pitch is supposed to be. Now, the problem you run into is, when a catcher moves out there, you move out there a little bit with him. Then they throw the ball inside, and it’s in the strike zone, and it looks like he’s diving to catch it. And that’s very difficult to call a strike on. You can do it, and most of the time the hitter’s going to look at you and say, ‘Jimmy, how can that be a strike? He’s diving back to catch it.’ But again, we have to worry about, supposedly, where it goes through the strike zone, because it’s going to be recorded. We can look at that later and say, ‘Look, that second ball is in the strike zone!’ And also that recorder doesn’t record everybody screaming at you. You know what I mean? That’s a big part of the game. When I’m looking at the game, I’m looking just at the game itself, I’m not looking at the conditions. And that all goes into umpiring. I’ve never had a computer or a video replay of everybody screaming at me.”
On the catcher’s job vs. the umpire’s job: "What you’re doing as an umpire is, you’re a manager, and you’re trying to keep everybody happy. Now I’m not saying you call balls and strikes according to who’s screaming and yelling. That has nothing to do with it, because you’re going to reap the benefits of working postseason play and playoffs and All-Star games on your percentage that you get the pitches right and wrong. And they keep a percentage of every pitch that’s called, and whether it was right or wrong. And of course the guys with the higher percentages, those are the guys that are going to work the postseason play. So you’ve got to be correct. But I’m just talking, you know, on a single pitch here and there. If a pitch is through the strike zone, and the catcher takes the glove and rams it into the ground and you call it a ball, most of the time they’re not going to say too much about it. So a lot of the onus is on the catcher. And that’s where this ‘framing’ word comes into being. Because the umpire, basically, looks just for one thing: the ball in the strike zone. He doesn’t have to worry about catching it, and moving, and calling pitches, calling curveballs, fastballs, putting fingers down. All I’ve got to worry about is, ‘Did that ball go through the strike zone or not?’ That’s my job first.”

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

POSTGAME NOTES: “I do think we drifted mentally, and that shouldn’t happen.” | Giants Extra


San Francisco Giants No.6 prospect Heath Hembree

Great, now Bochy is talking like he's Dr. Phil!!



I guess you don't want to bring Hembree up too early and mess with his delicate psyche, but let's face it. If he has a delicate psyche, he's never going to amount to much as a closer.

A "solid three-pitch mix" sounds more like a prerequisite for a starting pitcher than a reliever.

I prefer my closer's scouting report to read more like "dominating one-pitch mix that he will throw at any time, any location and get outs. No fears. No doubts, No prisoners taken. Here it is. Hit it if you can." O.K. two pitches tops.

Times a wasting boys. Let's see if this dog can hunt.

from Giants Extra:
POSTGAME NOTES: “I do think we drifted mentally, and that shouldn’t happen.” | Giants Extra:

— From everything I’m hearing, sounds like Heath Hembree will be here next month. Hembree has a 1.50 ERA in July and August and is said to finally have a solid three-pitch mix working. He has always had the big fastball, but the slider and changeup have come a long way. Speaking of minor league pitchers, this is good work from the Giant Potential blog. Mejia is part of a very, very deep rotation in San Jose.

'via Blog this'


from Giants Potential Blog:
http://jim.biola.edu/~connerp/wordpress/fresno-notes-late-june-2013/#more-1392

According to the all-knowing Chris Kutz, Hembree has been struggling with a new pitch he’s implementing: a slider. Up until this year, Hembree has been mostly a fastball/changeup guy, but Hembree and pitching coach Pat Rice have been working a slider to add to the hard-throwing righty’s repertoire
As you may be able to tell from the above video, Hembree’s fastball is electric, and Kutz says it’s improved in velocity since 2012, sitting in the mid-90s and reaching 98. Though Chukchansi Park’s radar gun was (and is always) very spotty that night, all the guys in the press box vouched that based on reports from the entire season, Hembree was throwing anywhere from 93 to 97 last Friday.
But the slider is definitely a work in progress, and Kutz says it has accounted for some of Hembree’s worst outings, including a June 17 shellacking. Hembree went to the mound against the Salt Lake Bees to work on his slider, and threw far more of that breaking pitch than he’d ever thrown in what Kutz says was an attempt to see how it worked in a game situation.

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Giants DFA Jeff Francoeur - McCovey Chronicles


Whoopsie!!! Well, maybe throwing the bat at the ball would increase his chances for contact.

You know, this seems like the right thing to do, if only for one reason. Francoeur's Runs Created / Game with the Giants this year is 1.8 according to The Baseball Cube. 

If you don't believe me, see for yourself.
http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/profile.asp?P=jeff-francoeur

from McCovey Chronicles:
Giants DFA Jeff Francoeur - McCovey Chronicles:
The Giants designated Jeff Francoeur for assignment on Tuesday, meaning they'll have 10 days to trade him, lose him on waivers, or release him. Which is to say, the Giants released Francoeur proactively.
'via Blog this'

This is a basic explanation of what Runs Created / Game is from a 2006 missive on Yahoo.
http://voices.yahoo.com/calculating-baseball-stats-runs-created-rc-50211.html
RC27 attempts to measure how many runs a team would score if they had a lineup made up of the same player nine times. In other words, a team with nine Derrek Lee (circa 2005) clones hitting in every spot in the lineup might expect to average about 10.6 runs per game.
Can you imagine the damage a lineup of NINE Jeff Francoeur's would create?  The game would never be the same. 

Although on many nights, it seems as if the Giants are doing exactly that. Putting out a lineup of nine Jeff Francoeur's. If you don't believe me, ask the pitching staff.  Having said that, it appears as if hitting coach Hensley "Bam Bam" Meulens job is safe. That's cool though, we love Bam Bam!!!


He's not hitting anything either. Maybe that's how he got the nickname.

Monday, August 19, 2013

GAA’s ‘Hawkeye’ stood down following error during All-Ireland minor semi-final - Independent.ie


Wait, what?!? Replay got one wrong. This is clearly a man bites dog story.

So all those announcers who want to see refs and umpires replaced by a system that is just going to displace the argument from an actual human being to an anonymous, nowhere-to-be-found, pocket-protector wearing computer programmer?

In tennis, they argue with the computer. Now soccer. And it is "soccer", not football. Ah, who cares!!

from Independent.ie:
GAA’s ‘Hawkeye’ stood down following error during All-Ireland minor semi-final - Independent.ie:

The controversial error saw Hawkeye brand a perfectly good point as a ‘miss’ during the All-Ireland minor hurling semi-final between Limerick and Galway.
The goal-line technology was brought in by GAA chiefs this year – making its debut at the All-Ireland Club Finals on St Patrick’s Day in Croke Park.
Up until today, the system, which is sponsored by Specsavers, was in full use for the All-Ireland championships.
It’s thought to have cost the GAA somewhere in the region of €200,000, although the costs have never been confirmed.
However following today’s mistake, GAA chiefs stood down ‘Hawkeye’ and an investigation into how the error occurred is underway.

'via Blog this'

Baseball Historical Insight: Revisiting Major League Integration: Meaningful Numbers



Bryan Soderholm has illustrated statistically what a good number of African American athletes of the era have previously stated. Their observation was that unless the black athlete was clearly and demonstrably, far and away the superior player, he wasn't on the team. Equal wasn't quite good enough. A little bit better, not enough. Had to be clearly and convincingly.

I'm not sure there aren't other factors that describe the more recent decline in participation demonstrated by the Business Insider graphic shown above. There we may be seeing the more recent effects of such things as travel ball and the enormous expenses involved in playing and getting exposure to college and professional scouts. Baseball runs the risk of being considered almost an elitist, affluent, country club sport similar to golf, tennis and polo. Imagine that!! 

The lack of full scholarships available in baseball at the Division I level comparable to football and basketball would also be high on the list. 

Baseball Historical Insight: Revisiting Major League Integration: Meaningful Numbers:

Third:  By 1960, of 125 position players who had been in major league starting line-ups for at least five years since Jackie Robinson's 1947 debut, only 16 (a mere 13 %) were blacks. But the more significant number is that 10 of those 16 were "elite" players whose cumulative wins above replacement (WAR) for their five best years put them among the 10 best position players in their league between 1947 and 1960 or whose career arc wound them up in the Hall of Fame.  
See the following earlier post: 
http://brysholm.blogspot.com/2013/04/continuing-reflections-on-42-great.html.
That means nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of black position players who were regulars for at least five years were elite players, compared to 18 percent of white position players.  Robinson, Doby, Campanella, Irvin, Minoso, Mays, Aaron, Banks, Clemente, and Frank Robinson were all exceptional players proving they could indeed play with the best players in major league baseball, but integration could not be considered consolidated until black players of more modest abilities were given the opportunity to realistically compete for starting big league jobs.
Finally, by 1964, as shown in the table above, blacks accounted for nearly a quarter of the 247 players who were regulars on (now) 20 major league teams by the criteria mentioned earlier.  Indicative of there no longer being any doubt about blacks in major league baseball, nearly 35 percent of the total number of position players who were regulars in starting line-ups for at least five years between 1961 and 1970 were African American or black Latinos.  However, while only 13 percent of the white position players were elite players as defined above, more than one-third (35 percent) of the black players were elite in that context.  And that does not even include the likes of Reggie Jackson and Rod Carew, whose careers started in the late 1960s but did not reach the five-years-as-a-regular threshold until the early 1970s. While it was now a certainty that black players with superior ability would find a place in major league starting line-ups, it appears that even in the 1960s when it came to players of more average major league ability competing for big league jobs, which is the majority of players, the odds still favored the white player.

Starting Position Players, Comparative Summary
1947-1960 STARTING POSITION PLAYERS (5 years)

White Players
Black Players

Regulars
Elite
% Elite
Regulars
Elite
% Elite
NL
53
9
17 %
11
8
73 %
AL
56
11
20 %
5
2
40 %
MLB
109
20
18 %
16
10
63 %

1961-1970 STARTING POSITION PLAYERS (5 years)

White Players
Black Players

Regulars
Elite
% Elite
Regulars
Elite
% Elite
NL
40
4
10 %
32
14
44 %
AL
53
8
15 %
17
3
18 %
MLB
93
12
13 %
49
17
35 %

'via Blog this'