Red Mosquito

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...

that made me think of the "fielders indifference" / non stolen base in baseball
not a rule, but a sometimes stupid non stat.

Was a game a few years ago I had on, NY vs Cleveland, Cleveland was up 4 in the 9th with 2 out and a runner on 1st
someone took second on "fielders indifference" not a stolen base, as they were not holding him on / didnt care if he took 2nd. Next ball was up the middle, would have easily had the force at 2nd, but there was no longer a force, and the speed of the hitter gave them no play at first, ya now had 1st and 3rd with 2 outs instead of game over. 3 hits later and the game was over, The Yankees win, the yankeeeeeeeesssssssssss winnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

MadTIGERmaN 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...

that made me think of the "fielders indifference" / non stolen base in baseball
not a rule, but a sometimes stupid non stat.

Was a game a few years ago I had on, NY vs Cleveland, Cleveland was up 4 in the 9th with 2 out and a runner on 1st
someone took second on "fielders indifference" not a stolen base, as they were not holding him on / didnt care if he took 2nd. Next ball was up the middle, would have easily had the force at 2nd, but there was no longer a force, and the speed of the hitter gave them no play at first, ya now had 1st and 3rd with 2 outs instead of game over. 3 hits later and the game was over, The Yankees win, the yankeeeeeeeesssssssssss winnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Defensive indifference is kind of stupid, but it also kind of makes sense in certain situations. I know there are a lot of players who would use those situations to pad some SB stats, so it kind of makes sense to not give full credit there.

The crossbar is different. A shot on net is any shot that either goes into the net or was stopped by the goalie, so it seems logical that a puck that hits the crossbar or post wasn't a shot on net.

philpritchard wrote:

MadTIGERmaN 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...

that made me think of the "fielders indifference" / non stolen base in baseball
not a rule, but a sometimes stupid non stat.

Was a game a few years ago I had on, NY vs Cleveland, Cleveland was up 4 in the 9th with 2 out and a runner on 1st
someone took second on "fielders indifference" not a stolen base, as they were not holding him on / didnt care if he took 2nd. Next ball was up the middle, would have easily had the force at 2nd, but there was no longer a force, and the speed of the hitter gave them no play at first, ya now had 1st and 3rd with 2 outs instead of game over. 3 hits later and the game was over, The Yankees win, the yankeeeeeeeesssssssssss winnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Defensive indifference is kind of stupid, but it also kind of makes sense in certain situations. I know there are a lot of players who would use those situations to pad some SB stats, so it kind of makes sense to not give full credit there.

The crossbar is different. A shot on net is any shot that either goes into the net or was stopped by the goalie, so it seems logical that a puck that hits the crossbar or post wasn't a shot on net.

I think that Cleveland/NY game was a 3 run lead after I thought about it more, im pretty sure it was a 1st and 3rd / 3 run homer to tie the game. 4 runs seems a safe lead, but within 3? it should be considering a stolen base. It can change the inning so fast taking away that force.

the crossbar thing is pretty silly.
you got it past the goalie, you only missed the goal by literally fractions of an inch, which is better than hitting it straight into the goalie if ya ask me.

MadTIGERmaN wrote:the crossbar thing is pretty silly.
you got it past the goalie, you only missed the goal by literally fractions of an inch, which is better than hitting it straight into the goalie if ya ask me.

But... it doesn't matter how good a play it is. A shot that goes four feet wide and deflects off a defenseman's foot into the net is a better result than a weak wrister at the goalie's chest. It doesn't make it a better shot.

Again, a shot on net is any shot that either goes into the net or gets stopped by the goalie on the way to the net. Every single shot on net recorded will go down as either a) a goal or b) a save. Hitting the post is pretty obviously neither of those.

As someone else said, that's why stats like "shots attempted," which takes into account missed and blocked shots, are more descriptive of what actually happened.

philpritchard wrote:
But... it doesn't matter how good a play it is. A shot that goes four feet wide and deflects off a defenseman's foot into the net is a better result than a weak wrister at the goalie's chest. It doesn't make it a better shot.

.

a swinging bunt infield single looks like a line drive in the box score?

MadTIGERmaN wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

MadTIGERmaN 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...

that made me think of the "fielders indifference" / non stolen base in baseball
not a rule, but a sometimes stupid non stat.

Was a game a few years ago I had on, NY vs Cleveland, Cleveland was up 4 in the 9th with 2 out and a runner on 1st
someone took second on "fielders indifference" not a stolen base, as they were not holding him on / didnt care if he took 2nd. Next ball was up the middle, would have easily had the force at 2nd, but there was no longer a force, and the speed of the hitter gave them no play at first, ya now had 1st and 3rd with 2 outs instead of game over. 3 hits later and the game was over, The Yankees win, the yankeeeeeeeesssssssssss winnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Defensive indifference is kind of stupid, but it also kind of makes sense in certain situations. I know there are a lot of players who would use those situations to pad some SB stats, so it kind of makes sense to not give full credit there.

The crossbar is different. A shot on net is any shot that either goes into the net or was stopped by the goalie, so it seems logical that a puck that hits the crossbar or post wasn't a shot on net.

I think that Cleveland/NY game was a 3 run lead after I thought about it more, im pretty sure it was a 1st and 3rd / 3 run homer to tie the game. 4 runs seems a safe lead, but within 3? it should be considering a stolen base. It can change the inning so fast taking away that force.

the crossbar thing is pretty silly.
you got it past the goalie, you only missed the goal by literally fractions of an inch, which is better than hitting it straight into the goalie if ya ask me.

4 runs is a safe lead? It's one swing of the bat.

Fuck You Jobu wrote:.

4 runs is a safe lead? It's one swing of the bat.[/quote]

3 runs or less it SHOULD be a stolen base no matter what, 5 or more id go with fielders indifference
4 would be grey area as you do have to still get the bases loaded.

another stupid rule/scoring thing in baseball (and maybe its been mentioned)
closer blows the save in the top of the 9th and gives up the lead, home team rallies in the bottom half and he gets the win

mad quoting skills as well


.

that you cant go on a killing spree and be arrested

MadTIGERmaN wrote:

Fuck You Jobu wrote: 4 runs is a safe lead? It's one swing of the bat.

3 runs or less it SHOULD be a stolen base no matter what, 5 or more id go with fielders indifference
4 would be grey area as you do have to still get the bases loaded.

another stupid rule/scoring thing in baseball (and maybe its been mentioned)
closer blows the save in the top of the 9th and gives up the lead, home team rallies in the bottom half and he gets the win

There are dozens of games a year where a 5 run lead isn't safe (perhaps that many @ Coors Field alone?)... I don't see why that matters at all in determining a stolen base.

I agree that rewarding a failed save with a win is absurd.

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

MadTIGERmaN wrote:

Fuck You Jobu wrote: 4 runs is a safe lead? It's one swing of the bat.

3 runs or less it SHOULD be a stolen base no matter what, 5 or more id go with fielders indifference
4 would be grey area as you do have to still get the bases loaded.

another stupid rule/scoring thing in baseball (and maybe its been mentioned)
closer blows the save in the top of the 9th and gives up the lead, home team rallies in the bottom half and he gets the win

There are dozens of games a year where a 5 run lead isn't safe (perhaps that many @ Coors Field alone?)... I don't see why that matters at all in determining a stolen base.

I agree that rewarding a failed save with a win is absurd.

I don't think the score of the game should have much of anything to do with a stolen base vs indifference call. It's the defense's response. If the defense thinks a 3 run lead is wide enough that they can allow the runner to take a base, then so be it. The runner is doing well to do what he can and take advantage. But he doesn't deserve a stolen base if the defense is making no attempt to keep him from taking the base.

If a really good base runner gets a great jump and the catcher just eats the ball, the runner shouldn't get a stolen base?

numbers wrote:If a really good base runner gets a great jump and the catcher just eats the ball, the runner shouldn't get a stolen base?

I think they go by if the 2B/SS covers the base, not if there is a throw.

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

numbers wrote:If a really good base runner gets a great jump and the catcher just eats the ball, the runner shouldn't get a stolen base?

I think they go by if the 2B/SS covers the base, not if there is a throw.

its a combination, but, mostly if they are not held on at first / given a free running start more or less
which makes the rule just as stupid as you are never held on at 2nd yet you get a stolen base if you take 3rd.
or, if you over shift to the right for the dead pull lefty, and the 3rd baseman is left covering the whole left side. Runner on 2nd takes 3rd with ease because of the fielders shift, thats a stolen base even though clearly they are given away 3rd.

course the score really shouldnt come into play anyway with the unwritten rule of "thou shalt not run when up late in games"

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

numbers wrote:If a really good base runner gets a great jump and the catcher just eats the ball, the runner shouldn't get a stolen base?

I think they go by if the 2B/SS covers the base, not if there is a throw.

Yeah, I think it's a judgement call a lot like hit vs. error. Did the pitcher try to keep the guy close at all? Did the catcher even consider making a throw? Did the defense respond to there being a runner at all? All of this things factor in.

So, why when Billy Hamilton takes 2nd, and Molina basically says, let him have it, and doesnt even get out of the crouch, is that a stolen base? is that not pretty much the Cards saying "go ahead, take second were not going to chance throwing it away and given you 3rd" Cards are pretty much saying theyre indifferent to you being at 1st, or 2nd

MadTIGERmaN wrote:So, why when Billy Hamilton takes 2nd, and Molina basically says, let him have it, and doesnt even get out of the crouch, is that a stolen base? is that not pretty much the Cards saying "go ahead, take second were not going to chance throwing it away and given you 3rd" Cards are pretty much saying theyre indifferent to you being at 1st, or 2nd

I think it's more likely the Cars are saying "You're Billy Hamilton and we're probably not going to get you anyway." It's not really a situation where they don't care if he goes to second base: they just know it's pretty much inevitable.

philpritchard wrote:

MadTIGERmaN wrote:So, why when Billy Hamilton takes 2nd, and Molina basically says, let him have it, and doesnt even get out of the crouch, is that a stolen base? is that not pretty much the Cards saying "go ahead, take second were not going to chance throwing it away and given you 3rd" Cards are pretty much saying theyre indifferent to you being at 1st, or 2nd

I think it's more likely the Cars are saying "You're Billy Hamilton and we're probably not going to get you anyway." It's not really a situation where they don't care if he goes to second base: they just know it's pretty much inevitable.

was being sarcastic
but it was great watching Mr Molina who will try picking pitchers off of first 2 steps off the bag eat some humble pie watching Billy steal 2nd.

So World Cup tiebreakers prioritize goal differential over head to head, is that correct? If so, that's a stupid rule.

Soccer counting the clock upwards.. not stopping the clock during stoppage of play

Ties