+- Sons of Ivy (https://sonsofivy.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Chicago Cubs (https://sonsofivy.com/forum/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Friendly Confines (https://sonsofivy.com/forum/forum-8.html)
+--- Thread: Keith Law chat highlights (/thread-7760.html)
Pages:
1
2
Keith Law chat highlights - kbwsb - 02-13-2009
He's kind of a prickly mofo, but he's damn smart, and is an interesting hybrid: a serious baseball scout who also thinks stats can be beneficial. Some items:
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Otis : Is there a good way to measure the best situational hitter (not just clutch, but moving runners and making productive outs). Do GM's take this into account? If so, doesn't Orlando Hudson make a lot of teams better?
Keith Law: There are no productive outs. Just discard the term. Unless a run scores directly on the play, an out nearly always puts a major dent in your run expectation for the inning. So GMs who take "productive outs" into account are ... bad GMs.
John (NJ): Per A-Rod SI story: Any chance the Feds shake down Selena Roberts for her sources? Those people have committed the biggest crime in this whole story.
Keith Law: There's no federal shield law, right? Not only do I expect her to be asked to divulge her sources, the only correct ethical course of action for her is to divulge them. From a normative point of view (rather than a legal one), the benefit from producing this information does not, in my opinion, justify how the information was obtained (the sources violated a federal court order) or the invasions of A-Rod's privacy and that of the other 103 players. I'd really like to see the leakers face the consequences of their actions, which I can only imagine were done out of spite. This wasn't exactly Watergate - did anyone hear the news on Saturday and think, "Wow, baseball has a steroids problem? That's news to me!"
Jason (Brooklyn): Keith, follow-up re: "productive outs," please. There may be no prductive outs, but aren't outs that at least move a runner up deemed less unproductive than outs that fail to advance a runner?
Keith Law: The positive value of moving a runner up a base is dwarfed by the negative value of the additional out in just about every base-out state. The exceptions (off the top of my head) are an out that scores a run and an out that takes you from 0 outs and runners on 12x to 1 out and x23.
Dan (DC): Did you ever post any thoughts on the Pie/Olson trade? Can Pie hit for LF?
Keith Law: I won't give up on Pie - I think he just needs an extended opportunity. I like the swing and the power potential, but the approach is a little wobbly. I'm pretty sure he's not a fan of the breaking ball.
Sacrifice Bunt: If you don't believe in productive outs, do you not believe in me?
Keith Law: For non-pitchers, no, not really. Bunting for hits, yes, absolutely, but the pure sacrifice? I'd sooner buy a six-pack of Old Mildred.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Keith Law chat highlights - Clapp - 02-13-2009
Let's learn some more about Keith Law
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->is walking around with crabapples in his cheeks. 4:24 PM Feb 11th from txt<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->says that miniskirt is more fattering than flattering. 9:07 PM Feb 8th from txt<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->is reading All the Pretty Horses. 8:19 AM Jan 25th from web<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->is eggnog + espresso = bliss. 5:44 PM Jan 4th from web<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->knows the best things happen while you're dancing 7:22 PM Dec 24th, 2008 from txt<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->is baking Christmas cookies. Do not disturb him. 6:03 PM Dec 21st, 2008 from web<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Keith Law chat highlights - Clapp - 02-13-2009
Also, I get the productive out argument but I completely disagree with that when you're in the playoffs and runs are hard to come by. If there's a runner on 2nd and no outs, and you move him over to 3rd base, that's a good at bat.
Keith Law chat highlights - kbwsb - 02-13-2009
<!--quoteo(post=17745:date=Feb 12 2009, 11:49 PM:name=Clapp)-->QUOTE (Clapp @ Feb 12 2009, 11:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->If there's a runner on 2nd and no outs, and you move him over to 3rd base, that's a good at bat.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, he agrees with you...actually used that example later in the chat.
He's mostly coming from the perspective that outs are hugely important, and you don't give them up unless there's a profoundly big payoff.
Keith Law chat highlights - Clapp - 02-13-2009
<!--quoteo(post=17746:date=Feb 12 2009, 10:54 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Feb 12 2009, 10:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=17745:date=Feb 12 2009, 11:49 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Feb 12 2009, 11:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->If there's a runner on 2nd and no outs, and you move him over to 3rd base, that's a good at bat.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, he agrees with you...actually used that example later in the chat.
He's mostly coming from the perspective that outs are hugely important, and you don't give them up unless there's a profoundly big payoff.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, I missed that. Yeah I don't mind Keith Law. He gets a little carried away sometimes but he understands the game very well. He made some good points there.
Keith Law chat highlights - Scarey - 02-13-2009
<!--quoteo(post=17746:date=Feb 13 2009, 12:54 AM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Feb 13 2009, 12:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=17745:date=Feb 12 2009, 11:49 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Feb 12 2009, 11:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->If there's a runner on 2nd and no outs, and you move him over to 3rd base, that's a good at bat.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, he agrees with you...actually used that example later in the chat.
He's mostly coming from the perspective that outs are hugely important, and you don't give them up unless there's a profoundly big payoff.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It sounds to me that he's basically saying that INTENTIONALLY making an out just to move a base runner up is unacceptable unless you're a pitcher... which I agree with.
Keith Law chat highlights - veryzer - 02-13-2009
i've never liked the bunt, especially when the runner is already in scoring position.
a ground out that advances the runner is infitely better than a strike out, which does no one no good ever.
Keith Law chat highlights - Coldneck - 02-13-2009
<!--quoteo(post=17762:date=Feb 13 2009, 07:59 AM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Feb 13 2009, 07:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->i've never liked the bunt, especially when the runner is already in scoring position.
a ground out that advances the runner is infitely better than a strike out, which does no one no good ever.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is it OK to root for DLee to strike out when your 75% sure the alernative is a double play?
Keith Law chat highlights - veryzer - 02-13-2009
<!--quoteo(post=17766:date=Feb 13 2009, 07:59 AM:name=Coldneck)-->QUOTE (Coldneck @ Feb 13 2009, 07:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=17762:date=Feb 13 2009, 07:59 AM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Feb 13 2009, 07:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->i've never liked the bunt, especially when the runner is already in scoring position.
a ground out that advances the runner is infitely better than a strike out, which does no one no good ever.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is it OK to root for DLee to strike out when your 75% sure the alernative is a double play?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
you root for lee the way you see fit.
*kiss kiss*
Keith Law chat highlights - The Dude - 02-13-2009
<!--quoteo(post=17746:date=Feb 12 2009, 11:54 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Feb 12 2009, 11:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=17745:date=Feb 12 2009, 11:49 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Feb 12 2009, 11:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->If there's a runner on 2nd and no outs, and you move him over to 3rd base, that's a good at bat.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, he agrees with you...actually used that example later in the chat.
He's mostly coming from the perspective that outs are hugely important, and you don't give them up unless there's a profoundly big payoff.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong, he says that if you have 1st and 2nd and bun them over to 2nd and 3rd, it's a good out.
I agree with him- my least favorite play in baseball is bunting with a man on 2nd.
Keith Law chat highlights - Butcher - 02-13-2009
Unless the pitcher (or someone like Gaithright) is at the plate, I despise the bunt.
Keith Law chat highlights - rok - 02-13-2009
<!--quoteo(post=17780:date=Feb 13 2009, 09:55 AM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Feb 13 2009, 09:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Unless the pitcher (or someone like Gaithright) is at the plate, I despise the bunt.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, I tend to agree. I also think that even in playoff situations, teams tend to bunt too much in the NL. There aren't many situations recently where I recall a sac bunt being the difference maker in the outcome of a playoff game. Maybe I'm wrong.
I do believe though that some outs are more productive than others with men on base.
Keith Law chat highlights - Coldneck - 02-13-2009
[brenly]bunts are chicken-shit plays [/brenly]
Keith Law chat highlights - ruby23 - 02-13-2009
If there's a guy on 1st and Lee is up and less than 2 outs, we should hit and run every fricken time.
Keith Law chat highlights - veryzer - 02-13-2009
<!--quoteo(post=17799:date=Feb 13 2009, 11:47 AM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Feb 13 2009, 11:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->If there's a guy on 1st and Lee is up and less than 2 outs, we should hit and run every fricken time.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
hit and runs are something i can get behind. i'd like to get behind you too, ruber.