Amusing fangraphs piece on him yesterday.
http://www.fangraphs.com/not/a-j-pierzynski-beholds-the-nothing-that-is-not-there/
http://www.fangraphs.com/not/a-j-pierzynski-beholds-the-nothing-that-is-not-there/
topps148 said:I leave it as an exercise for the reader to alter the following to produce his own preferred personal parody.
Allow,
Therefore, that in the planetary scene
Your disaffected flagellants, well-stuffed,
Smacking their muzzy bellies in parade,
Proud of such novelties of the sublime,
Such tink and tank and tunk-a-tunk-tunk,
May, merely may, madame, whip from themselves
A jovial hullabaloo among the spheres.
This will make widows wince. But fictive things
Wink as they will. Wink most when widows wince.
It's only a sample size of two, but I think JF is simply not interested in putting Ross in a game where he is the next day's likely starter. I think in April with a back up catcher with 37-year old legs, this is not indefensible. Especially where the run expectency of fist and second no out is pretty good no matter what. It only looks bad in hindsight because AJP did the one thing you cannot do. And they did get a run, if I remember correctly.Plympton91 said:That was a fantastic at bat by AJ last night with runners on first and second and no one out, wasn't it? Again against a lefty, perfectly set up to use Ross to hit for him. Again no patience from AJ. I think he might be one of the most inexplicable signings of the Henry era. I just don't understand how this team, with all the payroll flexibility they had for Salty, and prospect depth they had to make a trade for Hannigan if they didn't want a 3 year commitment that Salty got from The Fish, chose this unlikable hacker. He even looks like he's out of shape to me, going through the motions on a final big payday. Blech.
alwyn96 said:Honestly, I've missed a lot of AJ's PA so far, but at least aesthetically, I do prefer shorter PAs. I mean, I prefer whatever it is that leads to the Red Sox winning, but nice quick PAs are a nice brand of baseball.
Plympton91 said:That was a fantastic at bat by AJ last night with runners on first and second and no one out, wasn't it? Again against a lefty, perfectly set up to use Ross to hit for him. Again no patience from AJ. I think he might be one of the most inexplicable signings of the Henry era. I just don't understand how this team, with all the payroll flexibility they had for Salty, and prospect depth they had to make a trade for Hannigan if they didn't want a 3 year commitment that Salty got from The Fish, chose this unlikable hacker. He even looks like he's out of shape to me, going through the motions on a final big payday. Blech.
topps148 said:I leave it as an exercise for the reader to alter the following to produce his own preferred personal parody.
Allow,
Therefore, that in the planetary scene
Your disaffected flagellants, well-stuffed,
Smacking their muzzy bellies in parade,
Proud of such novelties of the sublime,
Such tink and tank and tunk-a-tunk-tunk,
May, merely may, madame, whip from themselves
A jovial hullabaloo among the spheres.
This will make widows wince. But fictive things
Wink as they will. Wink most when widows wince.
alwyn96 said:Honestly, I've missed a lot of AJ's PA so far, but at least aesthetically, I do prefer shorter PAs. I mean, I prefer whatever it is that leads to the Red Sox winning, but nice quick PAs are a nice brand of baseball.
ookami7m said:
Why do you prefer them from the Red Sox? I can understand shorter PAs from the opponent as it saves wear and tear on the pitching staff and gets the Sox back to bat faster, but I love watching 8-9 pitch grind at bats from our team...
Andrew said:
Why?
Andrew said:Why are there so many baseball "fans" who hate watching baseball?
Andrew said:Why are there so many baseball "fans" who hate watching baseball?
alwyn96 said:
Is there a specific "fan" you are referring to? Because no one in this thread is saying anything even remotely like that.
Hell, I'm sitting here making excuses for why a player whose approach probably isn't helping the team win is actually still fun to watch. We all love baseball here. It's ok to think some parts of the game are more interesting than others. I happen to like contact. Maybe you adore pitchers who take as much time as possible between pitches. That's your weird prerogative, I guess, but I think there's room for everyone to like different things about baseball. Call me crazy.
Andrew said:
The huge pull for having shorter games. I can understand wanting to eliminate things that aren't part of the game and waste time, but the number of pitches in an at-bat aren't one of those things. Throwing over to first, or holding the ball for a few extra beats to disrupt a runner aren't one of those things. And Buster Olney was even pushing changing it so regulation games are only 7-innings.
Not having a clock makes it fun to me. Like DDB just said, every pitch has so much potential in it. And the game allows for that. It's what is beautiful about the game.
I just don't get it. Like I said, if you're a fan of baseball why do you want there to be less of it during a game?
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:We dont want less baseball, we just dont want the dramatic tension of the game to be drained out of it by all the time wastting. Working a good AB isnt a problem, but all the stalling between pitches by both pitcher and batter is.
Andrew said:
The huge pull for having shorter games. I can understand wanting to eliminate things that aren't part of the game and waste time, but the number of pitches in an at-bat aren't one of those things. Throwing over to first, or holding the ball for a few extra beats to disrupt a runner aren't one of those things. And Buster Olney was even pushing changing it so regulation games are only 7-innings.
Not having a clock makes it fun to me. Like DDB just said, every pitch has so much potential in it. And the game allows for that. It's what is beautiful about the game.
I just don't get it. Like I said, if you're a fan of baseball why do you want there to be less of it during a game?
Andrew said:
The huge pull for having shorter games. I can understand wanting to eliminate things that aren't part of the game and waste time, but the number of pitches in an at-bat aren't one of those things. Throwing over to first, or holding the ball for a few extra beats to disrupt a runner aren't one of those things. And Buster Olney was even pushing changing it so regulation games are only 7-innings.
Not having a clock makes it fun to me. Like DDB just said, every pitch has so much potential in it. And the game allows for that. It's what is beautiful about the game.
I just don't get it. Like I said, if you're a fan of baseball why do you want there to be less of it during a game?
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:We don't want less baseball, we just don't want the dramatic tension of the game to be drained out of it by all the time wasting. Working a good AB isn't a problem, but all the stalling between pitches by both pitcher and batter is.
Andrew said:
I just don't get it. Like I said, if you're a fan of baseball why do you want there to be less of it during a game?
DrewDawg said:
Come on---you know what they're talking about. Stepping out of the batter's box between every pitch isn't baseball. Pitchers taking forever between pitches isn't baseball.
We all want the same 9 innings and 27 outs. We don't want more time for Harold Reynolds to speak.
Reverend said:
People are conflating the different reasons that make a game go lone, I think. It's entirely possible to want to speed up the time between events while still valuing other aspects of the game that may slow it down.
KiltedFool said:Figure in some of the push to shorten games is an attempt to make it so young children have an opportunity to actually watch the end of the game. Hard to hook the next generation of fans when the vast majority of them end after bedtime on a schoolnight.
KiltedFool said:Figure in some of the push to shorten games is an attempt to make it so young children have an opportunity to actually watch the end of the game. Hard to hook the next generation of fans when the vast majority of them end after bedtime on a schoolnight.
Here is the best post I could find with data for all teams over the past 40 years:Homar said:I know, it's pollyanna, but really, the problem with length of games is the 2.5-3 minutes between innings for commercials. Really, cut a minute out that, reduce revenue, drop salaries 10% and I'm good. The relentless commercial assault between innings and in game is what really irritates me. I love the Sox working the count, and don't mind a stroll out of the batter's box every now and again. But waiting an eternity between innings to see one more Jordan's ad, well, that I can do without.
ishmael said:Here is the best post I could find with data for all teams over the past 40 years:
http://blog.revolutionanalytics.com/2010/08/baseball-games-getting-longer.html
It seems likely that the continuous rise from the 1970s to the mid-1990s can be mainly attributed to two factors: more runs scored (meaning more pitches, more at bats, more throws to first, etc.) and more commercial breaks, as teams moved from having some games broadcast (or only on premium networks such as NESN in the 1990s) to every game being on TV.
Savin Hillbilly said:
I would also add that there's a time and a place for the tempo to slow. The "stalling" that's so annoying in the third inning of an early May Tuesday night game against a non-divisional rival is completely appropriate in the ninth inning of a playoff clincher with the score tied and men in scoring position. I'd be almost disappointed to have the players going briskly about their business in that situation. The pauses allow time for the tension to bloom. So to me pacing in a baseball game is kind of an art.
radsoxfan said:Just because the numbers are so outrageous, here are AJ's first 28 PA on the Red Sox.
.321/.321/.321/.642 (BA/OBP/SLG/OPS). 7Ks, O BBs, 0 XBH
More interestingly....
AJ Pierzynski
Overall swing percentage: 73.9% (career avg. 58.8%)
Swing percentage at balls outside the strike zone: 67.6% (career avg. 38.7%)
2nd highest in all of baseball in 2014 (min 20 PA)
Overall swing percentage: 63.7% (Ian Desmond)
Swing percentage at balls outside the strike zone: 52.1% (Jonathan Schoop)
Red Sox team average (which would be lower without AJ)
Overall swing percentage: 42.5%
Swing percentage at balls outside the strike zone: 25.4%
What is going on with this guy? Tiny sample to be sure, but he's blowing away even the biggest hackers in the rest of the league in a similarly tiny sample. And he is swinging way more often than even he typically does. It's hard to imagine a major league player swinging at 67.6% of pitches that are balls. Has he given up? Has he gone blind?
If this keeps up, we will all be anxiously awaiting the Christian Vazquez/Blake Swihart era even more than we thought.
topps148 said:I leave it as an exercise for the reader to alter the following to produce his own preferred personal parody.
Tokyo Sox said:
So, not a big anagram crowd around here then?
radsoxfan said:Just because the numbers are so outrageous, here are AJ's first 28 PA on the Red Sox.
.321/.321/.321/.642 (BA/OBP/SLG/OPS). 7Ks, O BBs, 0 XBH
More interestingly....
AJ Pierzynski
Overall swing percentage: 73.9% (career avg. 58.8%)
Swing percentage at balls outside the strike zone: 67.6% (career avg. 38.7%)
2nd highest in all of baseball in 2014 (min 20 PA)
Overall swing percentage: 63.7% (Ian Desmond)
Swing percentage at balls outside the strike zone: 52.1% (Jonathan Schoop)
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
Maybe the real issue is that he just can't identify the strike zone very well? Maybe he needs glasses?
radsoxfan said:Great article. Not surprising results re: AJP
Interesting that Nomar and Vlad both had seasons near the top of the "good decision" list. I guess when you swing at almost 100% of strikes, you end up making a lot of good decisions overall.
Also odd that the top 20 seasons were all from 2002-2004, and all the top 20 worst were all 2009-2013.