Did anyone posting here actually hear the segment? This isn't some crazy Bernstein theory nor was it only about Bryant. It was simply another discussion involving advanced metrics. Bernstein was citing a relatively new stat which evaluates a catchers affect on the number of bad picthes being called strikes as well as batters that are most frequently jibed. Bryant was used as an example. Also catchers being scouted based on the projected runs they gain a team in a season rather than BA. Boers was OK with it and Bernstein thought it had gotten out of hand. It was actually a topic I had never heard discussed in much detail previously.

_________________
Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.- JD Vance
If you committed violence on that day, obviously, you shouldn’t be pardoned.- JD Vance on the J-6 insurrectionists

That's perfect.

_________________

Man, the tired remnants of the shattered and beaten B&B ALS are still scurrying about!

Yes I heard it and you are correct but the emphasis to make his points was basically all Bryant.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

Pittmike droppin' bombs!

For those who are interested... http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/11127248/how-catcher-framing-becoming-great-skill-smart-teams-new-york-yankees-espn-magazine

_________________
Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.- JD Vance
If you committed violence on that day, obviously, you shouldn’t be pardoned.- JD Vance on the J-6 insurrectionists

But as JORR stated, Bernstein is discussing it in the context of defending Theo. For the last couple of years we've heard him say that Theo's brilliance was unfairly negated by new rule changes regarding international signings. Then earlier this year we listened to Dan and Len Kasper talk about David Ross's hidden value in framing pitches. But now, as Soler struggles and Bryant looks like a mere mortal, the problem is apparently the "new" strike zone -- a combination of framing and umpires who are calling strikes below the knees.

He may have a point with respect to the zone but it all comes across as being a Theo apologist. And when he and Sheehan talk about how strikeouts will kill the game, I think they are wrong. I loved watching deGrom, Betances, and Chapman blow some of these guys away.

_________________

They can't stop listening to the idiot. ALS'ers extend that tongue:

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

I didn't actually hear the segment, but I have heard bernstein go on about pitch framing like a kid with a new toy or an HR Director with a new buzzword. But if Sheehan or bernstein actually believes the proliferation of strikeouts has to do with a "new" strikezone or pitch framing (which has been done for one hundred years), they're just wrong. The fascination with the walk is resulting in all those strikeouts. Guys like Joey Votto come to the park to walk rather than hit. Okay, he's a guy who is good at it. But when you have these other (medicore) guys up there taking pitches they should be cutting at, what the fuck do you think is going to happen?

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.

that's definitely part of it, but guys are throwing harder unless you don't believe the MPH data.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

Well, I don't believe Chapman was throwing 103 last night. I think that's a number they throw on the Jumbotron so the fans can go, "OOOOOOHHHHHHHH!"

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.

yeah I dunno. maybe related to the fact a starter is only "expected" to go six innings, so they air it out all the time.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

DAN SPENT YEARS SCREAMING THAT STRIKEOUTS ARE PREFERABLE TO OUTS ON BALLS IN PLAY

JESUS

_________________

Dubious

Do any proposed metrics get rejected by the saber community?

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

I would not rather have to read the background shit (as is my want) because Bernstein's concept of number's theory is predicated on gimickry and outcome. His over the top, measured tone when talking numbers runs into his "it works great up to the point of...." concession. That, and some of the basic concepts of numbers that he conveniently ignores (ignorant?) when introducing one of his new pet theories or when pressed on his own understanding of the concept.

_________________
DRINK BƎTTƎR. @theRIPH