The Unresolved Bullpen Angst Thread

[Eli]

This is the most bizarre inning of professional baseball I've ever seen in my life.

You figure if there's any such thing as baseball momentum...that getting out of that goofy ass situation allowing no runs would yield something in the bottom of the 9th inning.

...like three of the shittiest at-bats of the entire season.

Why?  Because 2 of the 3 batters were rung up on pitches out of the zone?  Reed trapped the ball, so it's hard to complain about the umping, but the strike zone in the bottom of the 9th was completely different from what it was the rest of the game.

Really? I seem to remember Wells getting those calls all night too. Maybe I'm wrong. Can a STATFAG back me up? Or prove me wrong? Either way is fine for me

Here's Wells' strikezone as plotted by Pitch F/X data:



Here's Franklin's:

So Wells got 12 calls outside the zone in 7IP, while Franklin got 5 in 1IP. 

God damn, you talk about Pittsburgh the umpires a lot.

[ChuckD]

This is the most bizarre inning of professional baseball I've ever seen in my life.

You figure if there's any such thing as baseball momentum...that getting out of that goofy ass situation allowing no runs would yield something in the bottom of the 9th inning.

...like three of the shittiest at-bats of the entire season.

Why?  Because 2 of the 3 batters were rung up on pitches out of the zone?  Reed trapped the ball, so it's hard to complain about the umping, but the strike zone in the bottom of the 9th was completely different from what it was the rest of the game.

Really? I seem to remember Wells getting those calls all night too. Maybe I'm wrong. Can a STATFAG back me up? Or prove me wrong? Either way is fine for me

Here's Wells' strikezone as plotted by Pitch F/X data:



Here's Franklin's:

So Wells got 12 calls outside the zone in 7IP, while Franklin got 5 in 1IP. 

You're just going to continue whining about the umpires no matter what I type, so instead of wasting my own time, I'll direct you to look at this link: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/strike-zone-fact-vs-fiction

Edit: Also, I agree with what Eli said.

Fake Edit: You're insufferable.

[MAD]

If CFiHP rails against arbiters in the courtroom as habitually as he rails against arbiters on the playing fields, he'll have a shorter career than Moonlight Greenberg.

[Quality Start Machine]

If CFiHP rails against arbiters in the courtroom as habitually as he rails against arbiters on the playing fields and rinks, he'll have a shorter career than Moonlight Greenberg.

Pens fan'd.

[CubFaninHydePark]

If CFiHP rails against arbiters in the courtroom as habitually as he rails against arbiters on the playing fields, he'll have a shorter career than Moonlight Greenberg.

Eh, can't be fined for contempt here.   And I was just trying to make a tongue in cheek "statfag" type observation.

[BC]

Since I haven't chimed in about last night's umpiring yet...

.....

.....

.....

That home plate umpire sucked ass.

[Eli]

Since I haven't chimed in about last night's umpiring yet...

.....

.....

.....

That home plate umpire sucked ass.

I thought you had chimed in.

.....

.....

.....

Wait, you and CFiHP aren't the same person?

[Slaky]

Since I haven't chimed in about last night's umpiring yet...

.....

.....

.....

That home plate umpire sucked ass.

I thought you had chimed in.

.....

.....

.....

Wait, you and CFiHP aren't the same person?

I can't be the only that's noticed BC's become a lot more sufferable, right?

[powen01]

Since I haven't chimed in about last night's umpiring yet...

.....

.....

.....

That home plate umpire sucked ass.

I thought you had chimed in.

.....

.....

.....

Wait, you and CFiHP aren't the same person?

I can't be the only that's noticed BC's become a lot more sufferable, right?

Anyone who cares about being a real statfag will be able to compile some statistics on his posts to really have a basis for comparison.

[BC]

Since I haven't chimed in about last night's umpiring yet...

.....

.....

.....

That home plate umpire sucked ass.

I thought you had chimed in.

.....

.....

.....

Wait, you and CFiHP aren't the same person?

I can't be the only that's noticed BC's become a lot more sufferable, right?

Don't worry, the Bears and Illini football will be starting soon enough. I usually can keep myself in check with just one team to worry about, but when it gets to 3 in September (And, maybe, October) I can't contain myself.

[ChuckD]

Since I haven't chimed in about last night's umpiring yet...

.....

.....

.....

That home plate umpire sucked ass.

I thought you had chimed in.

.....

.....

.....

Wait, you and CFiHP aren't the same person?

I can't be the only that's noticed BC's become a lot more sufferable, right?

Anyone who cares about being a real statfag will be able to compile some statistics on his posts to really have a basis for comparison.

Interesting. Here's a chart which tracks the number of posts by BC per Slak post for each month over the last year.



Hypothesis: Slak finds BC more "sufferable" when there is less interaction between the two.

Interpreting the chart, months with a low BC/Slak ratio represent spans where Slak was posting quite a bit while BC maintained a lower profile on the messageboard. These months should coincide with less interaction between the two and a heightened perception of "BC sufferability" by Slak (or vice versa. Shockingly, July, 2009 is witness to a huge spike in the BC/Slak ratio.


Two possible interpretations:
a) The hypothesis is not refuted, yet needs slight modification. This could be the case if Slak's opinion of BC is time-lagged and his perception of BC's increased sufferability is actually a delayed reaction to the BC/Slak ratio experienced over the preceding months. Of note: BC made only one post in April and 8 posts in both May and June, while not even halfway through July, his post count for the ongoing month stands at 16. If this is true, then Slak should find BC to be abnormally insufferable during the upcoming month.

b) The hypothesis is refuted (aka "familiarity breeds non-contempt"). This could be the case if BC's increase in posting has lead Slak to perceive a greater amount of commonality. However, for this hypothesis to hold true, more data regarding the nature of Slak's perceptions of BC's sufferability during the preceding months would need to be collected.

[Saul Goodman]

Since I haven't chimed in about last night's umpiring yet...

.....

.....

.....

That home plate umpire sucked ass.

I thought you had chimed in.

.....

.....

.....

Wait, you and CFiHP aren't the same person?

I can't be the only that's noticed BC's become a lot more sufferable, right?

Anyone who cares about being a real statfag will be able to compile some statistics on his posts to really have a basis for comparison.

Interesting. Here's a chart which tracks the number of posts by BC per Slak post for each month over the last year.



Hypothesis: Slak finds BC more "sufferable" when there is less interaction between the two.

Interpreting the chart, months with a low BC/Slak ratio represent spans where Slak was posting quite a bit while BC maintained a lower profile on the messageboard. These months should coincide with less interaction between the two and a heightened perception of "BC sufferability" by Slak (or vice versa. Shockingly, July, 2009 is witness to a huge spike in the BC/Slak ratio.


Two possible interpretations:
a) The hypothesis is not refuted, yet needs slight modification. This could be the case if Slak's opinion of BC is time-lagged and his perception of BC's increased sufferability is actually a delayed reaction to the BC/Slak ratio experienced over the preceding months. Of note: BC made only one post in April and 8 posts in both May and June, while not even halfway through July, his post count for the ongoing month stands at 16. If this is true, then Slak should find BC to be abnormally insufferable during the upcoming month.

b) The hypothesis is refuted (aka "familiarity breeds non-contempt"). This could be the case if BC's increase in posting has lead Slak to perceive a greater amount of commonality. However, for this hypothesis to hold true, more data regarding the nature of Slak's perceptions of BC's sufferability during the preceding months would need to be collected.

Awesome.

Looking forward to the peer review.

[Quality Start Machine]

BC = Before Christ

Slak = Jesus

[Slaky]

Since I haven't chimed in about last night's umpiring yet...

.....

.....

.....

That home plate umpire sucked ass.

I thought you had chimed in.

.....

.....

.....

Wait, you and CFiHP aren't the same person?

I can't be the only that's noticed BC's become a lot more sufferable, right?

Anyone who cares about being a real statfag will be able to compile some statistics on his posts to really have a basis for comparison.

Interesting. Here's a chart which tracks the number of posts by BC per Slak post for each month over the last year.



Hypothesis: Slak finds BC more "sufferable" when there is less interaction between the two.

Interpreting the chart, months with a low BC/Slak ratio represent spans where Slak was posting quite a bit while BC maintained a lower profile on the messageboard. These months should coincide with less interaction between the two and a heightened perception of "BC sufferability" by Slak (or vice versa. Shockingly, July, 2009 is witness to a huge spike in the BC/Slak ratio.


Two possible interpretations:
a) The hypothesis is not refuted, yet needs slight modification. This could be the case if Slak's opinion of BC is time-lagged and his perception of BC's increased sufferability is actually a delayed reaction to the BC/Slak ratio experienced over the preceding months. Of note: BC made only one post in April and 8 posts in both May and June, while not even halfway through July, his post count for the ongoing month stands at 16. If this is true, then Slak should find BC to be abnormally insufferable during the upcoming month.

b) The hypothesis is refuted (aka "familiarity breeds non-contempt"). This could be the case if BC's increase in posting has lead Slak to perceive a greater amount of commonality. However, for this hypothesis to hold true, more data regarding the nature of Slak's perceptions of BC's sufferability during the preceding months would need to be collected.

Ladies and gentleman I give you marijuana.

[Kermit, B.]

Since I haven't chimed in about last night's umpiring yet...

.....

.....

.....

That home plate umpire sucked ass.

I thought you had chimed in.

.....

.....

.....

Wait, you and CFiHP aren't the same person?

I can't be the only that's noticed BC's become a lot more sufferable, right?

Anyone who cares about being a real statfag will be able to compile some statistics on his posts to really have a basis for comparison.

Interesting. Here's a chart which tracks the number of posts by BC per Slak post for each month over the last year.



Hypothesis: Slak finds BC more "sufferable" when there is less interaction between the two.

Interpreting the chart, months with a low BC/Slak ratio represent spans where Slak was posting quite a bit while BC maintained a lower profile on the messageboard. These months should coincide with less interaction between the two and a heightened perception of "BC sufferability" by Slak (or vice versa. Shockingly, July, 2009 is witness to a huge spike in the BC/Slak ratio.


Two possible interpretations:
a) The hypothesis is not refuted, yet needs slight modification. This could be the case if Slak's opinion of BC is time-lagged and his perception of BC's increased sufferability is actually a delayed reaction to the BC/Slak ratio experienced over the preceding months. Of note: BC made only one post in April and 8 posts in both May and June, while not even halfway through July, his post count for the ongoing month stands at 16. If this is true, then Slak should find BC to be abnormally insufferable during the upcoming month.

b) The hypothesis is refuted (aka "familiarity breeds non-contempt"). This could be the case if BC's increase in posting has lead Slak to perceive a greater amount of commonality. However, for this hypothesis to hold true, more data regarding the nature of Slak's perceptions of BC's sufferability during the preceding months would need to be collected.

Might I propose a third interpretation?

The number of posts per month is not necessarily directly proportional to the amount of interaction between BC and Slak, nor does it give us any indication of the quality of such interactions.  Therefore, the posts per month ratio by itself is a flawed statistic, and you need to invent a new one with a clever acronym.