Master Index of Archived Threads


Walkoffs Bollux Up Stats

Edgy MD May 31 2017 04:13 PM

Player One comes up with the bases loaded in the bottom of the 12th inning, and rips a ball into the gap. As it skips to the wall, the defense puts their heads down as the offense celebrates the win. Player Two also comes up with the bases loaded in the bottom of the 12th inning, and hits a high deep fly. Realizing that there is no way he can throw a tagging runner out from that distance, the outfielder, after making an initial break for the ball, pulls into a jog and turns toward the dugout as the ball falls gently on the edge of the warning track, easily catchable, but ignored in futility, as the offense celebrates the win. Player Three also comes up with the bases loaded in the bottom of the 12th inning, and hits a long ball into the rain and over the fence. As the winning run scores, his teammates mob him on the basepaths between first and second, not allowing him to complete the circuit around the bases that his hit seemingly entitled him to. If not for the defensive indifference and (in the last case) offensive interference caused by the singular nature of walkoffs, these players would have achieved a double (with two or three RBI), a run scoring sacrifice fly, and a grand slam, respectively. Instead, they all get credited with a one-run single. In other sports, players are expected to modestly play out the game after the result has become a fait accompli. It's probably not too much to ask for the offense and defense to at least complete the play at hand, but that's never been the reality in baseball, and in the face of this long-standing culture, would probably seem at least somewhat farcical if they were asked to do it now, at least initially. But I wonder if maybe the official scorer couldn't be empowered to score the play as it most likely would have turned out had the defense not folded or the offense not interfered. Baseball's story is largely told through stats. And walkoffs bollux up stats.

Ceetar May 31 2017 06:20 PM Re: Walkoffs Bollux Up Stats

And official scorers award sacrifices for bunt-outs. And a flare that just happens to land behind the second baseman playing in is scored the same as a scorcher off the wall that careens right to the fielder. And a pitcher's ERA and FIP go down when Endy leaps over the fence to steal a home run. Few stats tell the whole story.

Mets Willets Point May 31 2017 06:27 PM Re: Walkoffs Bollux Up Stats

On the other hand, there's Merkle's Boner where not finishing the play at hand nullified the walk-off.

Edgy MD May 31 2017 06:31 PM Re: Walkoffs Bollux Up Stats

Ceetar wrote: And official scorers award sacrifices for bunt-outs. And a flare that just happens to land behind the second baseman playing in is scored the same as a scorcher off the wall that careens right to the fielder. And a pitcher's ERA and FIP go down when Endy leaps over the fence to steal a home run. Few stats tell the whole story. These can be dealt with differently. But they are not what I'm speaking of. Nor did I write that any particular stats "tell the whole story."

Lefty Specialist May 31 2017 06:50 PM Re: Walkoffs Bollux Up Stats

It's a good thing that Cedeno crossed the plate before Pratt bear-hugged Ventura.

G-Fafif May 31 2017 08:01 PM Re: Walkoffs Bollux Up Stats

One of the slam-bangingest Mets games of the high-octane era of offense, May 21, 2000, was statistically reshaped by walkoff scoring shenanigans. The Mets beat the Diamondbacks that day, 7-6, most memorably through the torching of the Big Unit by Super Joe (thus imbuing McEwing with his giant-killer reputation). Every one of the Mets' nine hits through eight innings was for extra bases: five doubles, four homers. In the ninth, McEwing led off by walking, then stealing second. Derek Bell proceeded to line a ball to deep right to score McEwing. It was ruled a single. In real life, it was a double. Its scoring didn't change the outcome, but it did alter the agate. A game that earned the right to be described as the Mets pounding out ten extra-base hits and no singles was diminished ever so slightly. Then again, the Mets won a game in which Randy Johnson started and struck out 13, so no complaints, not really.

Benjamin Grimm May 31 2017 08:03 PM Re: Walkoffs Bollux Up Stats

The Mets have played three games that ended with a walk-off triple I'm surprised that it ever happens. You would have to have a runner on first, and the batter would have to reach third base before the runner scored, right?

Edgy MD May 31 2017 08:11 PM Re: Walkoffs Bollux Up Stats

In theory, yeah. I guess the scorer felt it was OK to award the batter as many bases as the winning runner took to score.

Frayed Knot May 31 2017 09:31 PM Re: Walkoffs Bollux Up Stats

Edgy MD wrote: In theory, yeah. I guess the scorer felt it was OK to award the batter as many bases as the winning runner took to score. Or simply feel that the hit was sufficient enough that he was going to get there anyway, something that wouldn't always be the case particularly if there were two outs at which point batters have little incentive to even try for 3rd. They would though if there were zero or one out though as now he becomes the new winning run. Only if the runner were thrown out at the plate for the 3rd out of the inning would it seem to me that the strict 'which came first' test needs to be applied. Pre-1920 rules awarded the batter only the amount of bases needed to score the run, even on balls over the fence. When records started to be computerized in the late 1960s it was discovered that Babe Ruth lost a HR this way. A debate quickly ensued about whether to award him #715, one that had implications for Hank Aaron as the specter of him catching Babe was then starting to look like a real possibility. In the end it was ruled that the standards of the time should apply and Babe wound up 'stuck' on 714

RealityChuck May 31 2017 10:25 PM Re: Walkoffs Bollux Up Stats

The number of walk-off wins is so small that they are no more than statistical noise. Their influence is miniscule.

Edgy MD May 31 2017 10:58 PM Re: Walkoffs Bollux Up Stats

It was more than noise in the Ruth case above, for instance. In a long career, any one play may have a relatively innocuous effect on the stat line, but we try to score those plays right. Take Number Three above. A walkoff grand slam instead of a one-run single, in the post-season? That could be the difference in a guy's Hall of Fame case.

G-Fafif May 31 2017 11:04 PM Re: Walkoffs Bollux Up Stats

Edgy MD wrote: A walkoff grand slam instead of a one-run single, in the post-season? That could be the difference in a guy's Hall of Fame case. In the judgment of a friend, that move put Pratt into the Hall of Unforgivable Dopes on the first ballot.

Ceetar Jun 01 2017 02:06 PM Re: Walkoffs Bollux Up Stats

G-Fafif wrote: Edgy MD wrote: A walkoff grand slam instead of a one-run single, in the post-season? That could be the difference in a guy's Hall of Fame case. In the judgment of a friend, that move put Pratt into the Hall of Unforgivable Dopes on the first ballot. I'd argue just the opposite. The Grand Slam single ELEVATES his case. It's more memorable. How did Ventura do in the postseason? He's remembered as a big hero right? That's a key moment. a game-winning hit that was quirky. His numbers are garbage in the postseason. And an extra 3 bases would not make a meaningful difference in that. He's actually one of the big reasons the Mets LOST that NLCS.

Edgy MD Jun 01 2017 02:09 PM Re: Walkoffs Bollux Up Stats

You're deliberately missing both my point and his.

Ceetar Jun 01 2017 02:20 PM Re: Walkoffs Bollux Up Stats

Edgy MD wrote: You're deliberately missing both my point and his. no, I'm just making a different point. There is no consistency in scoring from scorer to scorer from year to year from decade to decade. They score things by convention and those conventions often change. There's not really a 'right' way to have it all equal.

Edgy MD Jun 01 2017 02:27 PM Re: Walkoffs Bollux Up Stats

Ceetar wrote: Edgy MD wrote: You're deliberately missing both my point and his. no, I'm just making a different point. While ignoring and changing the position of the person you disagree with. I get it. You don't care that stats get bolluxed up.

Ceetar Jun 01 2017 02:57 PM Re: Walkoffs Bollux Up Stats

I didn't change anyone's position I suggested a different one might perhaps be more valid. He said Pratt's action make him a first ballot dope in reference to you suggesting his HR->Single could be the difference in a HoF case. I presented the opinion that the spectacle of it actually elevates the lesser stat well over any minute value the difference in scoring makes. I'm not really sure what point I'm missing, perhaps make it clearer?