Looked like strike 3 to me

Mathis sat and watched two strike 3 pitches just to make sure.

Mathis: "I ain't swinging at this shit; I'm gonna miss it anyway!"

Data is flawed too. You can look at pitches out of the strike zone as an indicator of being pitched around, but when a hitter consistently struggles against a particular pitch (ie, sliders low and away), you are going to go right at him with that particular pitch in an effort to get him out. That isn't pitching around someone to me, that taking advantage of the hitters weakness, which is something any smart pitcher does.

 

 

You should be able to prove that the pitches outside of the strikezone are in that area then. I'm sure there's a graphic to show that.

 

The shot you took was out of line. You went into the Stanton thread, made a claim and I refuted it by supporting my position with SEVERAL numbers to back it up. You said nothing more, but decide to continue to argue your position with no evidence at all except "the data is flawed and wrong". It's arrogant.

 

While we're all pissed off about how useless Stanton has been lately (and not what we expected for the year) it is not fair to take shots against those who post in the way they should... support their arguments with actual evidence.

Eh. I at least like that Yelich and Marisnick can steal

Strike 4

c'mon Yelich, only guy who's done anything tonight.

WE GOT A RUN!

 

 

WE

GOT

A

RUN!!!!!

YEAH YELICH

He's so sparky!

YELICH FOR PRESIDENT!

Suck it, KC!!

Love his swing.

has the Ed Lucas magic run its course?

Data is flawed too. You can look at pitches out of the strike zone as an indicator of being pitched around, but when a hitter consistently struggles against a particular pitch (ie, sliders low and away), you are going to go right at him with that particular pitch in an effort to get him out. That isn't pitching around someone to me, that taking advantage of the hitters weakness, which is something any smart pitcher does.

 

You should be able to prove that the pitches outside of the strikezone are in that area then. I'm sure there's a graphic to show that.

 

The shot you took was out of line. You went into the Stanton thread, made a claim and I refuted it by supporting my position with SEVERAL numbers to back it up. You said nothing more, but decide to continue to argue your position with no evidence at all except "the data is flawed and wrong". It's arrogant.

 

While we're all pissed off about how useless Stanton has been lately (and not what we expected for the year) it is not fair to take shots against those who post in the way they should... support their arguments with actual evidence.Where the hell did I take shots at a poster? I said data can be flawed, which it often is. Thats not taking shots at someone.

 

You're making a fuss over me stating that protection might do more to help Stanton from a comfort standpoint than actual pitches seen?

:lol

Lol stanton

Can we send him down to AAA?

There is no reason Ed Lucas should be in our lineup everday.

Good time for a double play, Cishek.

Where the hell did I take shots at a poster? I said data can be flawed, which it often is. Thats not taking shots at someone.

 

 

SomethingFishy also argued that numbers were wrong and "the eye test" was more important.

 

I didn't mean to insinuate that you took a shot at a "poster" but you did say "people are pitching to him more than some would like to admit" which was an underhanded shot against the argument itself. It was a shot against the debate that happened in the Stanton thread.

 

My position in that thread was also supported by several amounts of different data, but I guess it is flawed because it doesn't pass your eye test. Good to know.

 

You're still not proving anything.

Nice play, Giancarlo!

Every time Stanton makes a play, Rich Waltz talks about how he played football.

Ballgame!

Consecutive save #20 for Cishek, I believe.

Very good pitching today.