@galaxy27 said:
i must be intoxicated, as i honestly thought this was the daisy dukes thread. i guess as long as i'm here i might as well share my dos centavos.
i gave this puppy a cursory perusal and could have sworn that i saw someone say there's no difference between a bases-empty single and a walk.
not so sure about that one.
let's say it's a hotly-contested pitchers' dual with teams trying to manufacture the crap out of a single run. methinks an 8-pitch walk >>>>> a first-pitch single, as you're 7 pitches closer to getting away from this dude who has been completely locking you up and getting to the pen in hopes of breaking the stalemate.
🤷🏼♂️
How about a 14 pitch single where the batter fouled off numerous pitches compared to a 4 pitch walk?
Accurate information, objectivity, and common sense is the theme in this topic.
It is a fact that a bases empty walks indeed sees more pitches than bases empty singles overall.
However, if you find a player who has a knack of having 14 pitch singles, and that person demonstrates that over the course of a season and a career(and not not a couple random events like your example), and he does indeed see more pitches than someone drawing the walks, then go ahead and add that to his totals.
Just make sure you add the proper value, which is going to be something like 1/100th of a run....which is another reason why I didn't bother adding that aspect originally anyway.
let's say it's a hotly-contested pitchers' dual with teams trying to manufacture the crap out of a single run. methinks an 8-pitch walk >>>>> a first-pitch single, as you're 7 pitches closer to getting away from this dude who has been completely locking you up and getting to the pen in hopes of breaking the stalemate.
And I thought I was the MacGyver of manufacturing arguments. You put this one together out of nothing, not even a paper clip. Well done.
......
And it could go the other way. A 4 to 6 pitch walk vs a well-earned single after fouling off five or so pitches and going deep in the count.
let's say it's a hotly-contested pitchers' dual with teams trying to manufacture the crap out of a single run. methinks an 8-pitch walk >>>>> a first-pitch single, as you're 7 pitches closer to getting away from this dude who has been completely locking you up and getting to the pen in hopes of breaking the stalemate.
And I thought I was the MacGyver of manufacturing arguments. You put this one together out of nothing, not even a paper clip. Well done.
......
And it could go the other way. A 4 to 6 pitch walk vs a well-earned single after fouling off five or so pitches and going deep in the count.
It could...but usually doesn't.
It is a fact that a bases empty walks indeed sees more pitches than bases empty singles overall.
However, if you find a player who has a knack of having 14 pitch singles, and that person demonstrates that over the course of a season and a career(and not not a couple random events like your example), and he does indeed see more pitches than someone drawing the walks, then go ahead and add that to his totals.
Just make sure you add the proper value, which is going to be something like 1/100th of a run....which is another reason why I didn't bother adding that aspect originally anyway.
It is a fact that a bases empty walks indeed sees more pitches than bases empty singles overall.
I'll take your word for that, and 1/100th of a run sounds fair for the situation described. But, the example assumed the batter was facing an ace pitcher at the top of his game, when dragging out the AB is a good thing. What if the batter is facing a struggling starter and an ace reliever is just getting the call and won't be ready for several minutes? In that case, it's better to have a quick AB, so the struggling starter has to face another batter. By the logic used, the one-pitch single is now better than the multi-pitch walk. Again, we're talking about 1/100th of a run, but now in the other direction. Overall, my money says a bases empty walk and single are exactly equal. If there's a difference, it's 1/100th of a run per century, not per AB.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
It is a fact that a bases empty walks indeed sees more pitches than bases empty singles overall.
I'll take your word for that, and 1/100th of a run sounds fair for the situation described. But, the example assumed the batter was facing an ace pitcher at the top of his game, when dragging out the AB is a good thing. What if the batter is facing a struggling starter and an ace reliever is just getting the call and won't be ready for several minutes? In that case, it's better to have a quick AB, so the struggling starter has to face another batter. By the logic used, the one-pitch single is now better than the multi-pitch walk. Again, we're talking about 1/100th of a run, but now in the other direction. Overall, my money says a bases empty walk and single are exactly equal. If there's a difference, it's 1/100th of a run per century, not per AB.
Yup. Not really worth trying to pinpoint it to 1/100th or 1/century-ith of a run.
Welcome back class! I hope you've kept up with your assignment and have actually been watching the games. We've logged another 8 games (5%of the season) since the last time I checked in. Before we dive into the game log, I want to share with you a fun fact that shows just how comically ironic the title of this thread is.
Per Angels television broadcaster Mark Gubicza, the 2 run homerun that Trouty hit in the 7th inning on May 28 to turn a 3-2 Angels deficit into a 4-3 Angels lead was the first homerun by Trouty in the 7th inning or later to flip the score since 2014!
Lol
I knew it had been a looooong time since I'd seem him do anything like that late in the game. I didn't realize it had been 8 years!
May 21 - 0 for 3 with a walk and a run scored in a 5-3 win. No strikeouts.
May 22 - 3 for 4 with a solo homerun and a walk, 2R 2 RBI. In the 8th inning, facing the SAME pitcher that he tagged for a homerun, with 2 on and 2 out, Trouty went down swinging.... pressure! The only time he couldn't summon his magic and get on base. The Angels won 4-1 with a pretty good 3 hit night by Trouty, but George says hold my beer!
.
.
May 24 - 2 for 4 in a 5-3 Angels win. Both hits occurred with no one on base, both outs made stranded runners, including a called third strike in the first inning.
May 25
.
.
For those of you that haven't completed your foreign language requirement, that's Spanish for sucking bigly by striking out 4 times in one game.
That's right, Trouty was 0 for 4 with 4 strikeouts in a 7-2 loss. It was the 8th time in his career where he wore the golden sombrero.
George Brett never struck out 4 times in a game even once.
May 26 - 0 for 4 with 3 runners stranded in a 6-3 loss. No strikeouts tonight!
May 27 - 1 for 4 in a 4-3 loss, with 2 strikeouts and a horrible slide that cost his team a run. Leading 3-2, Trouty on 3rd with one out, infield in, a ball hit sharply to Bichette, Trouty going on contact. Trouty was there easily, but instead of sliding over the plate, he tried to be cute and slide by the plate and touching it with his oven mitt. He was tagged out on the forearm while his lower body was completely past the plate. Cost the Angels a run, instead of going up 4-2, the score remained 3-2, and the Blue Jays later rallied to win...pressure!
.
.
May 28 - the aforementioned game with the late inning homerun. 3 for 4, with a homerun, 2 R 2 RBI, in a 6-5 loss. Good game! 2 in one week! Ahem...
.
.
May 29 - 0 for 5 in an 11-10 loss. Pretty much everyone else was mashing the ball, but Trouty went hitless in the final game of a 4 game SWEEP!...pressure! There were no strikeouts by him today, so there's that, I guess...
Please continue with your assignment. Keep watching. These next 6 weeks should show you what Trouty is really made of, as the player we all know and love will likely struggle with the pressure as the Angels continue to sink in the standings.
Fun fact - George Brett struck out 3 times in a game on only 11 occasions. The 1st time was June 25, 1975. The 3rd time was May 20, 1986. The second time occurred in the middle of an almost 11 year stretch that saw the Royals win 6 division titles, 2 American League Championships, and one World Series, Brett struck out 3 times for the second time in his career on July 31, 1982. The pitcher in that game was junk baller Mike Flanagan, who struck out Brett 3 of the 4 times that day in a 2-0 Royals win. Brett singled in his other appearance vs Flanagan. Those 3 strikeouts by Brett were the only 3 that the Royals had that day. No one else on the team struck out.
The knock on Trout has been that he is a paper tiger. Threatening but not when it really counts. I am in the camp that lends more credence to performance in big moments, whether that be in-game or seasonal.
Absolutely, and as the OP demonstrated the knock on Trout is completely wrong. Ultimately, people knock Trout for having bad teammates, resulting in very few "big moments" in the postseason. Don't be one of those people. Enjoy watching the best hitter, and best clutch hitter, of our time.
Exactly.
Kind of like how George Brett was allergic to the ball on defense in the playoffs. I don't hold that against him...but his pitchers' might for Brett allowing so many unearned runs.
The knock on Trout has been that he is a paper tiger. Threatening but not when it really counts. I am in the camp that lends more credence to performance in big moments, whether that be in-game or seasonal.
Absolutely, and as the OP demonstrated the knock on Trout is completely wrong. Ultimately, people knock Trout for having bad teammates, resulting in very few "big moments" in the postseason. Don't be one of those people. Enjoy watching the best hitter, and best clutch hitter, of our time.
Exactly.
Kind of like how George Brett was allergic to the ball on defense in the playoffs. I don't hold that against him...but his pitchers' might for Brett allowing so many unearned runs.
Or if someone wants to use selective sampling, like is often the case in the sports world, to try and create a false/inaccurate narrative, then that can be applied to others too.
For instance, as mentioned above, George Brett's atrocious fielding in the LCS cost his teams multiple trips to the World Series, and those were among the best teams he played on...and those George Brett teams continually underachieved and failed to win a World Series....partly due in part to George Brett not being able to make simple routine plays in the field leading to several unearned runs.
The team finally broke through in 1985 when Bret Saberhagen carried them to the World Series, and George Brett wasn't there when it counted in that series.
The first six games of that contested series, Brett put a slash line of .273/.385/.318 with just ONE RBI.
Then in the game 7 blowout he padded his stats and hit four weak singles when the score was already lopsided to make his overall series look respectable, even though he finished with one RBI still for the entire series, and they only won because of Bret Saberhagen and a horrific call by the umpire.
George Brett costing his team with bad defense in the playoffs. Basically cancelling his hitting...and why they didn't advance to World Series.. See it is easy to make narratives.
ERRORS JUST KILL YOU IN A SHORT SERIES! One of the true axioms in baseball history.
1976 ALCS:
Game one. Brett makes two errors in the first inning. Two. With the score 0-0, Brett has a chance to end the inning with zero runs. Runners on first and second with one out(one of those baserunners already courtesy of a Brett error). Routine ground ball to third, Brett steps on third and then makes an errant throw, failing to end the inning that a MLB third baseman should do in his sleep. Technically, only one of those runs are unearned due to not assuming a double play, but Brett cost them both with bad fielding TWICE in the inning. They never recover from the George Brett circus in the first inning and lose game one in the five game series.
Game five. Deciding game. Bottom of the sixth. George Brett kicks a routine ground ball that leads to an UNEARNED run. The Royals lose 7-6. That unearned run is the difference in the final score. Brett gave away game one and felt generous, so he gave them game five too.
Brett gives the Yankees TWO victories with bad defense in a five game series.
1977 ALCS
Game 2. Down only one run in the sixth. Brett botches routine ground ball and leads to TWO unearend runs. Puts the game out of reach. They lose.
Game 5. Deciding game again. Royals down 4-3 in the 9th. Brett kicks routine ground ball and leads to another unearned run. Changes the entire complexion of the game going into the 9th where they could have played for one run instead of two.
1980 World Series
Game 5. The Royals are winning by one run going into the top of the 9th. Mike Schmidt hits a leadoff single to third. Yes to third. It isn't an error and the ball was hit hard, but Brett was playing out of position and is forced to dive to knock it down on what would be a routine play for 99 percent of third basemen in MLB. Brett out-thought himself and put himself in the wrong spot because Schmidt had bunt a couple times in the series.
Think about that for minute too....for those that still can't see Schmidt as far superior to Brett, Schmidt got into Brett's head in that situation because Schmidt had the ability to lay down a bunt, forcing Brett and his stone hands to play too far up than where he should have(even if he was expecting bunt). Schmidt gets on, and then Schmidt flashes his speed and baserunning ability by scoring the tying run from first on the next hit.
The Phillies take a one run lead in the 9th, courtesy of Brett choking, and Schmidt's prowess.
Brett Strikes out in the bottom of the 9th to add some salt into the wound.
That inning changed the entire series to the Phillies favor. Phillies win World Series, and the greatest third baseman ever wins the WS MVP to go along with his regular season MVP and that inning was a great snap shot to show why.
We already know about Brett being invisible for first six games of 1985 World Series and then padding his stats in a game 7 blowout. Thankfully for Royals fans, Saberhagen carried them, and the ump gift them, to their only World Series.
Royals should have won a couple more than what they did.
Errors aren't nearly as important as you think they are.
George Brett was actually a good fielding third baseman. Not Mike Schmidt or even Buddy Bell, but way better than average. After he lost his ability to be a solid fielder and was shifted to first, the Royals never made the playoffs again.
Your post season analysis doesn't hold water. '76 ALCS Brett has a 19.4% cWPA. '77 ALCS 6.2%. '80 WS -4%. '85 WS -10%.
So in the four series you outline, Brett won 10.2% of a championship ALL BY HIMSELF. Of course this counts every play, not just picking and choosing the ones that fit your hypothesis.
Brett was a great player. Not nearly as good as Schmidt, let alone Trout, but that's not the standard of "great". It doesn't enhance Trout's reputation to diminish Brett's.
BTW, in the 1985 Series, Dane Iorg was almost as impactful as Saberhagen, and Balboni was also huge. The goats would be Ozzie Smith and Worrell.
@daltex said:
1. Errors aren't nearly as important as you think they are.
2. George Brett was actually a good fielding third baseman. Not Mike Schmidt or even Buddy Bell, but way better than average. After he lost his ability to be a solid fielder and was shifted to first, the Royals never made the playoffs again.
3. Your post season analysis doesn't hold water. '76 ALCS Brett has a 19.4% cWPA. '77 ALCS 6.2%. '80 WS -4%. '85 WS -10%.
So in the four series you outline, Brett won 10.2% of a championship ALL BY HIMSELF. Of course this counts every play, not just picking and choosing the ones that fit your hypothesis.
Brett was a great player. Not nearly as good as Schmidt, let alone Trout, but that's not the standard of "great". It doesn't enhance Trout's reputation to diminish Brett's.
BTW, in the 1985 Series, Dane Iorg was almost as impactful as Saberhagen, and Balboni was also huge. The goats would be Ozzie Smith and Worrell.
Daltex, In the Countdouglas method, everything you just said is ignored and you stick with the false narrative by picking and choosing ONLY the events that fit your narrative and ignore everything else .
The Countdouglas method makes George Brett responsible for losing hte 1976 and 1977 playoffs and losing the 1980 world series with those key miscues.
Daltex, I don't agree with the Countdouglas method that is showing George Brett Choked away three World Series, and was a non factor in the one they won. Perhaps Countdouglas needs to re-work his method and stop saying George Brett choked away the 1980 WS and those two playoff series.
Here, the Countdouglas method shows how George Brett gave away the 1980 World Series with poor defense. He allowed what was typically a routine ground ball to be turned into a series changing single.
Here you see a beaten George Brett laying on the turf dejected after not being able to field the routine Mike Schmidt ground ball. A dejected Brett slowly gathered himself up afterwards, but it was too late.
The series was tied two games apiece before this play. The Royals were winning by one run in the 9th inning before this play.
Brett choked. Schmidt got into his head. Schmidt got on base to spur the rally. The Royals lose this game as a result. Then lose the series in the next game.
Lucky for George Brett, another Bret(and a bad umpire) lead his team to their first World Series five years later. In that series, George Brett was invisible for the first tightly contested six games, then padded his stats in a game 7 blowout when it didn't mean anything.
To be clear, the Countdouglas method ignores every event that got to this moment and focuses only on this key moment to make declarative assessments.
Even after Brett's bad fielding gave up the lead, Brett STILL had a chance to be a hero. They were only down by one run heading into the bottom of the 9th. There was a man on first base and nobody out and George Brett came up for the biggest at bat of his career. Countdouglas has said it only counts when done in the biggest moment. World Series tied 2-2. Bottom of the 9th inning, man on first, down by one, so therefore represents George Brett's biggest at bat of his career.
In fact, by the expression on this fan's face, she was crying and praying for George Brett to come through. Many 'clutch' moments are often assigned AFTER the fact. Here we can see the anguish of the fans how big this clutch moment was BEFORE it unfolded.
Time for George to step up for the biggest at bat of his career. Countdouglas likes pitch by pitch accounts. Keep in mind that Brett had already given the lead away in the top half of the inning.
First pitch check swing called strike.
Second pitch Brett swings right through it.
How ironic that on the third pitch Brett gets caught looking. Now I know why Countdouglas is obsessed with Mike Trout getting caught looking in that mere first round divisional playoff game. It is because his hero lost his team the World Series(twice) by getting rung up on three pitches in the biggest at bat of his career and in the Royals franchise history to date.
Here he is walking bat after the biggest choke job in Royals history. Choking in the field in the top of the 9th and then compounding it by choking in the bottom of the 9th getting rung up, therefore rendering ALL of his 'lack of strikeouts' in his career pointless because he struck out when it mattered the absolute most in his career and that franchise's history to date.
I would like to apologize to George Brett fans because I do not feel this way about George Brett. However, fair is fair. If fans are going to use false narratives to tear down other people's favorites(Trout is in no way a favorite of mine though), then they need to apply those same methods to their 'heroes'.
@countdouglas said:
Please continue with your assignment. Keep watching. These next 6 weeks should show you what Trouty is really made of, as the player we all know and love will likely struggle with the pressure as the Angels continue to sink in the standings.
Question? : Who could have predicted on May 30th that Trouty would essentially disappear for such a stretch of games and that the Angels would sink in the standings because of it? Hmmmm?
The answer: anyone that attended the University of Countdouglas!
In case you were confused, this is what clutch looks like... all 4 Orioles batters had 2 strikes on them. Not a one of the 4 stood there and watched strike 3 go by...
.
This... well this is NOT clutch...
@countdouglas said:
Please continue with your assignment. Keep watching. These next 6 weeks should show you what Trouty is really made of, as the player we all know and love will likely struggle with the pressure as the Angels continue to sink in the standings.
Question? : Who could have predicted on May 30th that Trouty would essentially disappear for such a stretch of games and that the Angels would sink in the standings because of it? Hmmmm?
The answer: anyone that attended the University of Countdouglas!
.
.
Put some respect on my name! I'm not afraid to tell the forum what's GOING to happen, and then it happens. Not the first time, either. It would be understandable for some you to suspect that perhaps I have a copy of this lying around:
I've said time and again, you can throw all of those contrived stats out the window. I don't need the fancy schmancy stats to tell me what my eyes see. Life is a sample size of one. You either do, or you don't do. Results are all that matters, and when the pressure ramps up, when the game is on the line, there's only one truth about Trouty...
Comments
Accurate information, objectivity, and common sense is the theme in this topic.
It is a fact that a bases empty walks indeed sees more pitches than bases empty singles overall.
However, if you find a player who has a knack of having 14 pitch singles, and that person demonstrates that over the course of a season and a career(and not not a couple random events like your example), and he does indeed see more pitches than someone drawing the walks, then go ahead and add that to his totals.
Just make sure you add the proper value, which is going to be something like 1/100th of a run....which is another reason why I didn't bother adding that aspect originally anyway.
......
And it could go the other way. A 4 to 6 pitch walk vs a well-earned single after fouling off five or so pitches and going deep in the count.
It could...but usually doesn't.
It is a fact that a bases empty walks indeed sees more pitches than bases empty singles overall.
However, if you find a player who has a knack of having 14 pitch singles, and that person demonstrates that over the course of a season and a career(and not not a couple random events like your example), and he does indeed see more pitches than someone drawing the walks, then go ahead and add that to his totals.
Just make sure you add the proper value, which is going to be something like 1/100th of a run....which is another reason why I didn't bother adding that aspect originally anyway.
I'll take your word for that, and 1/100th of a run sounds fair for the situation described. But, the example assumed the batter was facing an ace pitcher at the top of his game, when dragging out the AB is a good thing. What if the batter is facing a struggling starter and an ace reliever is just getting the call and won't be ready for several minutes? In that case, it's better to have a quick AB, so the struggling starter has to face another batter. By the logic used, the one-pitch single is now better than the multi-pitch walk. Again, we're talking about 1/100th of a run, but now in the other direction. Overall, my money says a bases empty walk and single are exactly equal. If there's a difference, it's 1/100th of a run per century, not per AB.
Yup. Not really worth trying to pinpoint it to 1/100th or 1/century-ith of a run.
Welcome back class! I hope you've kept up with your assignment and have actually been watching the games. We've logged another 8 games (5%of the season) since the last time I checked in. Before we dive into the game log, I want to share with you a fun fact that shows just how comically ironic the title of this thread is.
Per Angels television broadcaster Mark Gubicza, the 2 run homerun that Trouty hit in the 7th inning on May 28 to turn a 3-2 Angels deficit into a 4-3 Angels lead was the first homerun by Trouty in the 7th inning or later to flip the score since 2014!
Lol
I knew it had been a looooong time since I'd seem him do anything like that late in the game. I didn't realize it had been 8 years!
May 21 - 0 for 3 with a walk and a run scored in a 5-3 win. No strikeouts.
May 22 - 3 for 4 with a solo homerun and a walk, 2R 2 RBI. In the 8th inning, facing the SAME pitcher that he tagged for a homerun, with 2 on and 2 out, Trouty went down swinging.... pressure! The only time he couldn't summon his magic and get on base. The Angels won 4-1 with a pretty good 3 hit night by Trouty, but George says hold my beer!
.
.
May 24 - 2 for 4 in a 5-3 Angels win. Both hits occurred with no one on base, both outs made stranded runners, including a called third strike in the first inning.
May 25
.
.
For those of you that haven't completed your foreign language requirement, that's Spanish for sucking bigly by striking out 4 times in one game.
That's right, Trouty was 0 for 4 with 4 strikeouts in a 7-2 loss. It was the 8th time in his career where he wore the golden sombrero.
George Brett never struck out 4 times in a game even once.
May 26 - 0 for 4 with 3 runners stranded in a 6-3 loss. No strikeouts tonight!
May 27 - 1 for 4 in a 4-3 loss, with 2 strikeouts and a horrible slide that cost his team a run. Leading 3-2, Trouty on 3rd with one out, infield in, a ball hit sharply to Bichette, Trouty going on contact. Trouty was there easily, but instead of sliding over the plate, he tried to be cute and slide by the plate and touching it with his oven mitt. He was tagged out on the forearm while his lower body was completely past the plate. Cost the Angels a run, instead of going up 4-2, the score remained 3-2, and the Blue Jays later rallied to win...pressure!
.
.
May 28 - the aforementioned game with the late inning homerun. 3 for 4, with a homerun, 2 R 2 RBI, in a 6-5 loss. Good game! 2 in one week! Ahem...
.
.
May 29 - 0 for 5 in an 11-10 loss. Pretty much everyone else was mashing the ball, but Trouty went hitless in the final game of a 4 game SWEEP!...pressure! There were no strikeouts by him today, so there's that, I guess...
Please continue with your assignment. Keep watching. These next 6 weeks should show you what Trouty is really made of, as the player we all know and love will likely struggle with the pressure as the Angels continue to sink in the standings.
Fun fact - George Brett struck out 3 times in a game on only 11 occasions. The 1st time was June 25, 1975. The 3rd time was May 20, 1986. The second time occurred in the middle of an almost 11 year stretch that saw the Royals win 6 division titles, 2 American League Championships, and one World Series, Brett struck out 3 times for the second time in his career on July 31, 1982. The pitcher in that game was junk baller Mike Flanagan, who struck out Brett 3 of the 4 times that day in a 2-0 Royals win. Brett singled in his other appearance vs Flanagan. Those 3 strikeouts by Brett were the only 3 that the Royals had that day. No one else on the team struck out.
.
@dallasactuary said:
Exactly.
Kind of like how George Brett was allergic to the ball on defense in the playoffs. I don't hold that against him...but his pitchers' might for Brett allowing so many unearned runs.
Or if someone wants to use selective sampling, like is often the case in the sports world, to try and create a false/inaccurate narrative, then that can be applied to others too.
For instance, as mentioned above, George Brett's atrocious fielding in the LCS cost his teams multiple trips to the World Series, and those were among the best teams he played on...and those George Brett teams continually underachieved and failed to win a World Series....partly due in part to George Brett not being able to make simple routine plays in the field leading to several unearned runs.
The team finally broke through in 1985 when Bret Saberhagen carried them to the World Series, and George Brett wasn't there when it counted in that series.
The first six games of that contested series, Brett put a slash line of .273/.385/.318 with just ONE RBI.
Then in the game 7 blowout he padded his stats and hit four weak singles when the score was already lopsided to make his overall series look respectable, even though he finished with one RBI still for the entire series, and they only won because of Bret Saberhagen and a horrific call by the umpire.
Brett was NOT there when it counted most
.
George Brett costing his team with bad defense in the playoffs. Basically cancelling his hitting...and why they didn't advance to World Series.. See it is easy to make narratives.
ERRORS JUST KILL YOU IN A SHORT SERIES! One of the true axioms in baseball history.
1976 ALCS:
Game one. Brett makes two errors in the first inning. Two. With the score 0-0, Brett has a chance to end the inning with zero runs. Runners on first and second with one out(one of those baserunners already courtesy of a Brett error). Routine ground ball to third, Brett steps on third and then makes an errant throw, failing to end the inning that a MLB third baseman should do in his sleep. Technically, only one of those runs are unearned due to not assuming a double play, but Brett cost them both with bad fielding TWICE in the inning. They never recover from the George Brett circus in the first inning and lose game one in the five game series.
Game five. Deciding game. Bottom of the sixth. George Brett kicks a routine ground ball that leads to an UNEARNED run. The Royals lose 7-6. That unearned run is the difference in the final score. Brett gave away game one and felt generous, so he gave them game five too.
Brett gives the Yankees TWO victories with bad defense in a five game series.
1977 ALCS
Game 2. Down only one run in the sixth. Brett botches routine ground ball and leads to TWO unearend runs. Puts the game out of reach. They lose.
Game 5. Deciding game again. Royals down 4-3 in the 9th. Brett kicks routine ground ball and leads to another unearned run. Changes the entire complexion of the game going into the 9th where they could have played for one run instead of two.
1980 World Series
Game 5. The Royals are winning by one run going into the top of the 9th. Mike Schmidt hits a leadoff single to third. Yes to third. It isn't an error and the ball was hit hard, but Brett was playing out of position and is forced to dive to knock it down on what would be a routine play for 99 percent of third basemen in MLB. Brett out-thought himself and put himself in the wrong spot because Schmidt had bunt a couple times in the series.
Think about that for minute too....for those that still can't see Schmidt as far superior to Brett, Schmidt got into Brett's head in that situation because Schmidt had the ability to lay down a bunt, forcing Brett and his stone hands to play too far up than where he should have(even if he was expecting bunt). Schmidt gets on, and then Schmidt flashes his speed and baserunning ability by scoring the tying run from first on the next hit.
The Phillies take a one run lead in the 9th, courtesy of Brett choking, and Schmidt's prowess.
Brett Strikes out in the bottom of the 9th to add some salt into the wound.
That inning changed the entire series to the Phillies favor. Phillies win World Series, and the greatest third baseman ever wins the WS MVP to go along with his regular season MVP and that inning was a great snap shot to show why.
Here is the video: Go to the 2:07:32 mark to watch.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=SlNb2Q4G1x8
We already know about Brett being invisible for first six games of 1985 World Series and then padding his stats in a game 7 blowout. Thankfully for Royals fans, Saberhagen carried them, and the ump gift them, to their only World Series.
Royals should have won a couple more than what they did.
So in the four series you outline, Brett won 10.2% of a championship ALL BY HIMSELF. Of course this counts every play, not just picking and choosing the ones that fit your hypothesis.
Brett was a great player. Not nearly as good as Schmidt, let alone Trout, but that's not the standard of "great". It doesn't enhance Trout's reputation to diminish Brett's.
BTW, in the 1985 Series, Dane Iorg was almost as impactful as Saberhagen, and Balboni was also huge. The goats would be Ozzie Smith and Worrell.
Watched Trout play last night. Did not look good. Hope he goes on a streak and rights the ship.
.
.
Daltex, In the Countdouglas method, everything you just said is ignored and you stick with the false narrative by picking and choosing ONLY the events that fit your narrative and ignore everything else
.
The Countdouglas method makes George Brett responsible for losing hte 1976 and 1977 playoffs and losing the 1980 world series with those key miscues.
Daltex, I don't agree with the Countdouglas method that is showing George Brett Choked away three World Series, and was a non factor in the one they won. Perhaps Countdouglas needs to re-work his method and stop saying George Brett choked away the 1980 WS and those two playoff series.
Here, the Countdouglas method shows how George Brett gave away the 1980 World Series with poor defense. He allowed what was typically a routine ground ball to be turned into a series changing single.
Here you see a beaten George Brett laying on the turf dejected after not being able to field the routine Mike Schmidt ground ball. A dejected Brett slowly gathered himself up afterwards, but it was too late.
The series was tied two games apiece before this play. The Royals were winning by one run in the 9th inning before this play.
Brett choked. Schmidt got into his head. Schmidt got on base to spur the rally. The Royals lose this game as a result. Then lose the series in the next game.
Lucky for George Brett, another Bret(and a bad umpire) lead his team to their first World Series five years later. In that series, George Brett was invisible for the first tightly contested six games, then padded his stats in a game 7 blowout when it didn't mean anything.
To be clear, the Countdouglas method ignores every event that got to this moment and focuses only on this key moment to make declarative assessments.
Even after Brett's bad fielding gave up the lead, Brett STILL had a chance to be a hero. They were only down by one run heading into the bottom of the 9th. There was a man on first base and nobody out and George Brett came up for the biggest at bat of his career. Countdouglas has said it only counts when done in the biggest moment. World Series tied 2-2. Bottom of the 9th inning, man on first, down by one, so therefore represents George Brett's biggest at bat of his career.
In fact, by the expression on this fan's face, she was crying and praying for George Brett to come through. Many 'clutch' moments are often assigned AFTER the fact. Here we can see the anguish of the fans how big this clutch moment was BEFORE it unfolded.
Time for George to step up for the biggest at bat of his career. Countdouglas likes pitch by pitch accounts. Keep in mind that Brett had already given the lead away in the top half of the inning.
First pitch check swing called strike.
Second pitch Brett swings right through it.
How ironic that on the third pitch Brett gets caught looking. Now I know why Countdouglas is obsessed with Mike Trout getting caught looking in that mere first round divisional playoff game. It is because his hero lost his team the World Series(twice) by getting rung up on three pitches in the biggest at bat of his career and in the Royals franchise history to date.
Here he is walking bat after the biggest choke job in Royals history. Choking in the field in the top of the 9th and then compounding it by choking in the bottom of the 9th getting rung up, therefore rendering ALL of his 'lack of strikeouts' in his career pointless because he struck out when it mattered the absolute most in his career and that franchise's history to date.
I would like to apologize to George Brett fans because I do not feel this way about George Brett. However, fair is fair. If fans are going to use false narratives to tear down other people's favorites(Trout is in no way a favorite of mine though), then they need to apply those same methods to their 'heroes'.
Question? : Who could have predicted on May 30th that Trouty would essentially disappear for such a stretch of games and that the Angels would sink in the standings because of it? Hmmmm?
The answer: anyone that attended the University of Countdouglas!
.
.
In case you were confused, this is what clutch looks like... all 4 Orioles batters had 2 strikes on them. Not a one of the 4 stood there and watched strike 3 go by...
.
This... well this is NOT clutch...
what a remarkable thread this has been
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Love it!
lol
Need more banter threads like this. I check back here every few days.
GIVE CALHOUN THE BALL! GIVE CALHOUN THE BALL!
.
.
Put some respect on my name! I'm not afraid to tell the forum what's GOING to happen, and then it happens. Not the first time, either. It would be understandable for some you to suspect that perhaps I have a copy of this lying around:
I've said time and again, you can throw all of those contrived stats out the window. I don't need the fancy schmancy stats to tell me what my eyes see. Life is a sample size of one. You either do, or you don't do. Results are all that matters, and when the pressure ramps up, when the game is on the line, there's only one truth about Trouty...
