Red Mosquito

Home plate is different. Catcher is protected. The collision is a great play and now it's been eliminated.

Coach wrote:Home plate is different. Catcher is protected. The collision is a great play and now it's been eliminated.

The purpose of the protection isn't for collisions, though.

resonance of distance wrote:No more collisions at the plate rule in baseball. Cather can't block, runner can't run into him- u gotta slide now.

Terrible rule change.

Yeah, we were way better off watching seasons/careers get ruined.

philpritchard wrote:

resonance of distance wrote:No more collisions at the plate rule in baseball. Cather can't block, runner can't run into him- u gotta slide now.

Terrible rule change.

Yeah, we were way better off watching seasons/careers get ruined.

can we get a list of careers that were ruined by home plate collisions vs a list of collisions at home plate that didnt ruin anyones career?

warehouse wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

resonance of distance wrote:No more collisions at the plate rule in baseball. Cather can't block, runner can't run into him- u gotta slide now.

Terrible rule change.

Yeah, we were way better off watching seasons/careers get ruined.

can we get a list of careers that were ruined by home plate collisions vs a list of collisions at home plate that didnt ruin anyones career?

Ray Fosse

Johnny Estrada was never the same after the cheap shot collision with Darin Erstad. I don't think there was a play at home nor was he blocking the plate.

CopperTom wrote:

warehouse wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

resonance of distance wrote:No more collisions at the plate rule in baseball. Cather can't block, runner can't run into him- u gotta slide now.

Terrible rule change.

Yeah, we were way better off watching seasons/careers get ruined.

can we get a list of careers that were ruined by home plate collisions vs a list of collisions at home plate that didnt ruin anyones career?

Ray Fosse

It's not just about ruined careers, it's about any unnecessary/avoidable injury. Buck Martinez had his career ended. Buster Posey was the best young catcher in the game when he lost 100 games.

I don't know a lot of them off the top of my head... I'm sure someone has tracked them elsewhere.

Regardless, the rule doesn't completely eliminate collisions. It's meant to do two things: prevent runners from going out of their way to hit a catcher who isn't blocking the plate and prevent catchers from blocking the plate when they don't have the ball. I don't really see the issue with that.

How about in the discussion of collisions we talk about how often the play actually made a difference? Most of the time the collision occurred because of a bad decision to run, so the ball clearly beat them there. Plays at the plate are exciting, collisions are just fucking stupid. Good Riddance.

Team Skitch.

@SkitchP wrote:How about in the discussion of collisions we talk about how often the play actually made a difference? Most of the time the collision occurred because of a bad decision to run, so the ball clearly beat them there. Plays at the plate are exciting, collisions are just fucking stupid. Good Riddance.

There was just a play at the plate in the jays-yanks game that got reviewed. Call stood (out). I agree collisions wreck careers, but the new rule is going to cause a lot of confusion.

a puck that hits the crossbar or post is not counted as a shot on goal

ok, so maybe not a rule per se...

Peeps wrote:a puck that hits the crossbar or post is not counted as a shot on goal

ok, so maybe not a rule per se...

Really? That's interesting.

Peeps wrote:a puck that hits the crossbar or post is not counted as a shot on goal

ok, so maybe not a rule per se...

These days, you hear a lot more about "shots attempted" vs. "shots on goal" (i.e., the first category includes blocked shots, wide shots, and post hits), and I can totally see it becoming more of an "official" stat soon.

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

Peeps wrote:a puck that hits the crossbar or post is not counted as a shot on goal

ok, so maybe not a rule per se...

Really? That's interesting.

A shot on goal is only a shot that otherwise would have gone in the net, had it not been stopped by the goalie. Obviously, sometimes that's a bit of a judgement call. But by that definition, a shot that hits the post wasn't going in (and wasn't saved).

In terms of gauging a team's offensive effort, ST is right, it's much better to look at attempts, or scoring chances.

mray10 wrote:

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

Peeps wrote:a puck that hits the crossbar or post is not counted as a shot on goal

ok, so maybe not a rule per se...

Really? That's interesting.

A shot on goal is only a shot that otherwise would have gone in the net, had it not been stopped by the goalie. Obviously, sometimes that's a bit of a judgement call. But by that definition, a shot that hits the post wasn't going in (and wasn't saved).

In terms of gauging a team's offensive effort, ST is right, it's much better to look at attempts, or scoring chances.

What exactly defines a 'scoring chance'? Because I've seen 0 scoring chances, but 2 SOGs and don't understand how that can be.

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

mray10 wrote:

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

Peeps wrote:a puck that hits the crossbar or post is not counted as a shot on goal

ok, so maybe not a rule per se...

Really? That's interesting.

A shot on goal is only a shot that otherwise would have gone in the net, had it not been stopped by the goalie. Obviously, sometimes that's a bit of a judgement call. But by that definition, a shot that hits the post wasn't going in (and wasn't saved).

In terms of gauging a team's offensive effort, ST is right, it's much better to look at attempts, or scoring chances.

What exactly defines a 'scoring chance'? Because I've seen 0 scoring chances, but 2 SOGs and don't understand how that can be.

No definition at all. This goes into a bit: http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hoc ... ing-chance

A show on goal is pretty much anything that would have gone in the net had the goalie not stopped it, so even a shot from the blue line that's more or less a dump in that happens to be on goal counts. That's clearly not a real scoring chance by any definition, however.

mray10 wrote:

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

mray10 wrote:

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

Peeps wrote:a puck that hits the crossbar or post is not counted as a shot on goal

ok, so maybe not a rule per se...

Really? That's interesting.

A shot on goal is only a shot that otherwise would have gone in the net, had it not been stopped by the goalie. Obviously, sometimes that's a bit of a judgement call. But by that definition, a shot that hits the post wasn't going in (and wasn't saved).

In terms of gauging a team's offensive effort, ST is right, it's much better to look at attempts, or scoring chances.

What exactly defines a 'scoring chance'? Because I've seen 0 scoring chances, but 2 SOGs and don't understand how that can be.

No definition at all. This goes into a bit: http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hoc ... ing-chance

A show on goal is pretty much anything that would have gone in the net had the goalie not stopped it, so even a shot from the blue line that's more or less a dump in that happens to be on goal counts. That's clearly not a real scoring chance by any definition, however.

Thanks for "clearing" that up!

@SkitchP wrote:How about in the discussion of collisions we talk about how often the play actually made a difference? Most of the time the collision occurred because of a bad decision to run, so the ball clearly beat them there. Plays at the plate are exciting, collisions are just fucking stupid. Good Riddance.

My issue with this collisions was that it rarely works. The catchers almost always held on to the ball. If the ball ha just hit the catchers glove(the only scenario where the catcher drops the ball,) sliding would have scored the run easily.

numbers wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:How about in the discussion of collisions we talk about how often the play actually made a difference? Most of the time the collision occurred because of a bad decision to run, so the ball clearly beat them there. Plays at the plate are exciting, collisions are just fucking stupid. Good Riddance.

My issue with this collisions was that it rarely works. The catchers almost always held on to the ball. If the ball ha just hit the catchers glove(the only scenario where the catcher drops the ball,) sliding would have scored the run easily.

Exactly. The collision in probably about 95% of cases is a last ditch "oh shit, why did I run" for a guy that is clearly going to be thrown out, so they try and run over the catcher.. and you're right, they almost always hold on to the ball.