In the first 15 games at the ballpark, more than a dozen flyballs were caught on the warning track.

 

This is a hilariously stupid thing to include in an article without any context.

 

I love hilariously stupid comments with no basis to them.

 

The other day I proposed to somebody a hypothetical situation where two pitchers go an entire season without giving up any hits but one of them has 200 strikeouts while the other only has 100 strikeouts. Which is more dominant? (assuming equal walks, equal defense, all else equal). His response? All strikeout pitchers are better because it is observed that roughly 30% of balls put into play result in hits, therefore a pitcher who gives up more balls in play gets luckier.

 

Except you can't use an outside sample in statistics to explain the population. Especially when the population is given.

 

/end Dr Beinfest tangent

In the first 15 games at the ballpark, more than a dozen flyballs were caught on the warning track.

 

This is a hilariously stupid thing to include in an article without any context.

 

I love hilariously stupid comments with no basis to them.

 

The other day I proposed to somebody a hypothetical situation where two pitchers go an entire season without giving up any hits but one of them has 200 strikeouts while the other only has 100 strikeouts. Which is more dominant? (assuming equal walks, equal defense, all else equal). His response? All strikeout pitchers are better because it is observed that roughly 30% of balls put into play result in hits, therefore a pitcher who gives up more balls in play gets luckier.

 

Except you can't use an outside sample in statistics to explain the population. Especially when the population is given.

 

/end Dr Beinfest tangent

 

His Conclusion: Pitcher B is more dominant than pitcher A.

 

Premise: He had more SO than Pitcher A

 

Assumption: The more SO a pitcher has, the more dominant he is.

-In order to refute this argument, you have to prove that more SO has no consequence in being dominant, e.i other stats

 

Your argument is weak like this, HOWEVER, once you propose that all other stats are equal... then it's hard to refute his argument.

 

This is a horrible example.

To take away some of the warehouse feel and to provide some sound absorption. Ive noticed that sound really cares and echoes, more so then other roofed facilities. Atleats that how it sounds on tv. In person could be different.

 

It sounds great in person. Loud.

In the first 15 games at the ballpark, more than a dozen flyballs were caught on the warning track.

 

This is a hilariously stupid thing to include in an article without any context.

 

I love hilariously stupid comments with no basis to them.

 

The other day I proposed to somebody a hypothetical situation where two pitchers go an entire season without giving up any hits but one of them has 200 strikeouts while the other only has 100 strikeouts. Which is more dominant? (assuming equal walks, equal defense, all else equal). His response? All strikeout pitchers are better because it is observed that roughly 30% of balls put into play result in hits, therefore a pitcher who gives up more balls in play gets luckier.

 

Except you can't use an outside sample in statistics to explain the population. Especially when the population is given.

 

/end Dr Beinfest tangent

 

His Conclusion: Pitcher B is more dominant than pitcher A.

 

Premise: He had more SO than Pitcher A

 

Assumption: The more SO a pitcher has, the most dominant he is.

-In order to refute this argument, you have to prove that more SO has no consequence in being dominant, e.i other stats

 

Your argument is weak like this, HOWEVER, once you propose that all other stats are equal... then it's hard to refute his argument.

 

This is a horrible example.

 

Maybe you don't understand statistics too well... a population is representative of something that factually is truth. If both pitchers go an entire season without giving up a run, they are equally as dominant statistically. It doesn't matter how they accomplished it if all else is the same. They both accomplished the same goal under the same support with no circumstances different.

 

If your population is represented by each pitcher's season, you have the population. You can't use a sample (an outside sample, at that) to explain why a pitcher striking out less batters makes him less dominant. That argument fails. Those statistics are irrelevant. That's standard practice in statistics. If you have the population, you have the population. It has the answers. For example, if the US Census says that the current US population is 300 million, but a private study done in 1996 based on sampling indicates that by 2012 the US population will be 310 million, that data is irrelevant. It does not apply in this case. In fact, it's flat out wrong.

 

My argument is not weak. In fact, one could argue that if a pitcher is able to control the ball so well that he could force every single ball put in play to be an out, he's likely incredibly in command not only of his pitches, but in command of the batter's mind. He's arguably more dominant than a strikeout pitcher.

I've always said K's are over rated. Pitcher gets guys out, that's what really matters. But that means a pitcher has to have a good defense behind him. IOW, turning the game into a team sport. A dominate pitcher is anyone that gets those outs consistently. Knowing how to pitch each batter so he can get those outs is part of the domination.

You know what I would like them to do but would probably be beyond expensive?

 

I think the stadium would benefit have a kind of taught fabric ceiling. It would disguise the warehouse feel.

 

 

Ya lost me on this. You want to get rid of the retractable and put in a tarp?

 

Anyway.......Last I heard this is what the Rays were trying for on the stadium that they wanted built. The idea goes back to the Romans with the Coliseum who actually had sailors stationed there, pulling ropes to open and close it. No idea what ever happened with the Rays quest for a new home.

 

I think he meant having a tarp-like material on the underside of the roof sections.

 

Regarding the Rays' stadium, the funding measure was voted down by the residents of St. Pete. The Rays really want to move to Tampa proper, but St. Pete is holding them to their lease to keep them from mo img across the bay. Last I heard, Tampa had offered a new proposal where they'd build a new cruise ship terminal on the St. Pete side of the bay in exchange for letting the Rays out if their lease so they could move to Tampa.

 

 

Your right on it, just add an underside to the roof.

 

Ah. Never really thought about that. Of course I never thought about the warehouse effect either. I don't get that feeling in there.

 

BTW Thanks to Hawk for the Rays update.

I wish people would shut the f*** up about the park dimensions and "suppression" of home runs.

 

The park is ranked 11th of 16 in HR/game. It's defintely a pitchers park, but let's not pretend it's some crazy abnormality.

 

I also wonder how much the quality of the Marlins starting pitching (a lot of groundballs) and the struggling offense has to do with that home run rate. Remember that the Marlins have been on the road a bunch so there's not a huge sampling.

 

 

Oh...i agree. I didn't really pay attention to the majority of the article. Only the part that I bolded since I found it rather interesting and kinda horrible at the same time.

I'm not talking about the fact that you posted this (I'm glad you did). I'm becoming frustrated with people like Kirk Gibson and the "frustrated hitters" who are jumping to conclusions about the park.

 

Totally agree. Like I said before...You build a team on pitching speed and defense, and you build a ball park to be a pitchers park, you DON'T change the park. Other teams don't like it? Too bad. Don't think it was built for them.

 

 

just wanted to highlight this significant moment here everyone. Take note of the time and date! You may never see it again!

 

Just wanted to highlite this significant moment here. A moderator trying to get a non-Marlins argument started. So many rules of the board broken daily, and this is what is important?

 

And just for the record....We have agreed on plenty of things in the past.

what argument am I trying to start? Just making a little joke that you & penguino are actually in agreement on something. Take it easy.

In the first 15 games at the ballpark, more than a dozen flyballs were caught on the warning track.

 

This is a hilariously stupid thing to include in an article without any context.

 

I love hilariously stupid comments with no basis to them.

 

The other day I proposed to somebody a hypothetical situation where two pitchers go an entire season without giving up any hits but one of them has 200 strikeouts while the other only has 100 strikeouts. Which is more dominant? (assuming equal walks, equal defense, all else equal). His response? All strikeout pitchers are better because it is observed that roughly 30% of balls put into play result in hits, therefore a pitcher who gives up more balls in play gets luckier.

 

Except you can't use an outside sample in statistics to explain the population. Especially when the population is given.

 

/end Dr Beinfest tangent

 

His Conclusion: Pitcher B is more dominant than pitcher A.

 

Premise: He had more SO than Pitcher A

 

Assumption: The more SO a pitcher has, the most dominant he is.

-In order to refute this argument, you have to prove that more SO has no consequence in being dominant, e.i other stats

 

Your argument is weak like this, HOWEVER, once you propose that all other stats are equal... then it's hard to refute his argument.

 

This is a horrible example.

 

Maybe you don't understand statistics too well... a population is representative of something that factually is truth. If both pitchers go an entire season without giving up a run, they are equally as dominant statistically. It doesn't matter how they accomplished it if all else is the same. They both accomplished the same goal under the same support with no circumstances different.

 

If your population is represented by each pitcher's season, you have the population. You can't use a sample (an outside sample, at that) to explain why a pitcher striking out less batters makes him less dominant. That argument fails. Those statistics are irrelevant. That's standard practice in statistics. If you have the population, you have the population. It has the answers. For example, if the US Census says that the current US population is 300 million, but a private study done in 1996 based on sampling indicates that by 2012 the US population will be 310 million, that data is irrelevant. It does not apply in this case. In fact, it's flat out wrong.

 

My argument is not weak. In fact, one could argue that if a pitcher is able to control the ball so well that he could force every single ball put in play to be an out, he's likely incredibly in command not only of his pitches, but in command of the batter's mind. He's arguably more dominant than a strikeout pitcher.

 

OK then. All things being equal, you stick to your guy that has 100 SO, ill take the one with 200 for next season.

 

By the way, using mind control as an argument automatically makes it pretty weak (but i can tell youre being facetious).

And you enjoy the fact that he pitched the same amount of innings, let up the same amount of runs, hits, walks, etc.

 

Enjoy thinking that there's a difference between each season. Zero equals zero, you cannot disprove that.

 

And I wasn't being facetious, nor does it weaken my argument. I wasn't being literal about 'controlling the mind'. I mean that the pitcher knows what the batter is looking for, how to treat the batter, where to throw to him, how to throw to him, what pitch to throw to him, etc.. Mentally, he's a superior pitcher (although not necessarily superior to the strikeout pitcher in those regards, but you can make the argument).

Anyways, main point is that you're failing to even address the big part of my point. His introduction of statistics was absolutely not allowed and flat out wrong. He had no idea what he was talking about, and pretended like he was so sure of himself.

I like chasing cars.

I like chasing cars and saving Africa.

Touche, quite well-played.

 

I was alluding to an SNL skit, actually, though.

SNL ain't my forte. I have no attention span for TV shows.

Will Forte

what argument am I trying to start? Just making a little joke that you & penguino are actually in agreement on something. Take it easy.

 

Stuff like that goes over his head a lot. Don't worry.

I've always said K's are over rated. Pitcher gets guys out, that's what really matters. But that means a pitcher has to have a good defense behind him. IOW, turning the game into a team sport. A dominate pitcher is anyone that gets those outs consistently. Knowing how to pitch each batter so he can get those outs is part of the domination.

 

Well, first of all, a good defense is not always easy to assemble. Even if you have one, a batter who puts a ball in play has a probability of getting a hit around 30% of the time, whereas a hitter who fails to put the ball in play is 0%.

 

Strikeouts should not be the definitive statistic to measure the quality of a pitcher, but those pitchers who get a lot of them have a lot easier time suppressing both home runs and base hits. Pitching purely to contact could present a lot of problems.

Strikeouts are a good inferential, but mean nothing in the words of description.

Funny that there was zero talk of moving fences in our entire tenure at Sun Life, which almost always had HR/G factors under 1.

On tv I've noticed a loud ringing noise during the majority of the games. Has anyone notice it in the park?

 

 

Yep I heard it at games and also on TV. Some kind of radio feedback I think. I know they asked Samson about it earlier in the year and he said they were trying to fix it. But I still heard it last home stand.