What is a double? In Baseball it’s a hit that results in the batter ending up safe at second base although, to be fair, there are other plays which would deposit said batter at second which would not be called doubles. It can be confusing. So let’s say a double is a hit which results in the batter reaching second safely on the play and the official scorer deems it a double, not a hit and an error, an error, a moved up on the throw to another base, none of those possible non-double events that put the batter on second with one swing. An actual double is what we are discussing here.
What is a double? What does it do beyond leave the batter at second base? It moves runners around the bases, usually two or more bases, which means a runner should score from second and can score from first as the result of a double. A very rare event would be a runner moving up one or no bases during the commission of a double. It happens on occasion but the runner must get stuck on third, which makes it hard to imagine his not scoring during a double but it happens. Not scoring from second on a double is much more easily done, especially if the runner has to hold up to see if a ball will be caught. He could also be waiting to tag up. Whatever the reason, we tend to get critical of runners who don’t cover two or three bases when a double is hit.
Why does one double score the runner from first and the other double only send him to third? Well obviously there is the speed of the runner to consider and, the arm of the outfielder who fields the double could cause a runner to be hesitant to test that arm. A coach might be hesitant to send a runner home for any number of reasons.
On the basepaths any number of mishaps may occur, including tripping, falling, getting a slow start, having to wait to see if a ball will be caught, making a poor turn at a base, hesitating for any reason, losing track of the ball and slowing down to find the ball. These are all considerations for a base runner of any speed. But it turns out there is even more to consider. Doubles are unalike in many ways; they are not uniform.
Taking extreme cases, the fastest runner on the team hits a double in which he slides in safe and the throw, which was in time, is just off line. That was a short double. At the other extreme the slowest player on the team hits a double that allows him to round second and think about going for three, but, remembering how slow he is, he gets a third of the way there and lumbers back to second. That was a long double. So doubles come in different sizes. Though one name fits all.
You wouldn’t think anything as thoroughly quantified as baseball statistics would need a clarification. That is not what I am proposing. A Double is one (1) double in the scorebook but it’s overall effect on the fan and the runners is always greater than just a double. Of course doubles can score a maximum of 3 runs so they have a cachet of power that RBIs lend any enterprise. And so we think a three run double is larger than a two run double is larger than a one run double and so on down to the two out, nobody on double in the ninth, a ton of runs down, the loneliest double of them all.
We have long doubles and we have short doubles, we have bloops and liners and majestic flies which look like homers, and these beautiful arcs are just what a double looks like before the running starts. But then it comes time to pay attention to the race around the bases (which we join in progress after we see where the ball lands.) Meanwhile the runners are running full out and they are guessing how far they may get to run as they see the ball fielded, or losing sight of the ball, picking up the third base coach, which they would be due to do by this time anyway and then the drama may be short - with a clean pickup or extended - with a tricky carom or bounce adding time to the play. All this time, you the fan are calculating, estimating first the trajectory, maybe straining to check if it’s fair or foul, looking for the outfielder’s reaction, estimating trajectories again. Remembering the runners you see who got how far and sometimes you wonder if someone didn’t run the bases properly.
Our range of doubles differs most measurably by how much time elapses from hitting the ball until when the ball is returned to the infield or home. So if you like measuring stuff with a stopwatch you have a career ahead of you in timing doubles. Only because I don’t have a stopwatch I’m recommending another way.
The other way of measuring doubles beyond the stoic “one”is to estimate how far an average runner would progress before being tagged out. The values would be from 2.0 to 2.9 with 2.0 representing a close play at second, the runner is safe and 2.9 representing a close play at third, the runner is tagged out. The best part about this stat is that it cannot be accurately measured but only estimated so old timers can stand up and proclaim,”that double was a 2.99, I reckon.” And everyone will know what the guy is talking about this time and nod sagely.
Who gets to be the average runner? This is another beautiful stat, immeasurable except in the mind. You could say of a fast runner that he got to second on a 1.8. Because doubles have imaginary values it would be fun to speculate about those values. Not imaginary numbers but numbers which are imaginary in the sense that they are ever approximate and infinitely arguable. There is a fuzzy math. I like to call this fuzzy thinking.
I like to think doubles range from about 1.8 -3.2. Depends on the speed of the runner. And the arm of the outfielder. And where the ball is hit. And how high. And how fast. And how far away from everyone else the ball lands. Many, many parameters but a 2.2 should be able to score Aquino from first. I’m just sayin’.

Need an Adderall to comprehend this.

(03-13-2013 04:28 PM)Baconator Wrote:  Need an Adderall to comprehend this.

Yeah, can someone sum that post up for me?

My brain hurts.

somebody save me from the wall of text

Pat, can I buy a paragraph?

Sorry the formatting didn't transfer and that I didn't notice it. Dreadful reading now. I couldn't get through it. Some kind of joke I think.

What is a double? In Baseball it’s a hit that results in the batter ending up safe at second base although, to be fair, there are other plays which would deposit said batter at second which would not be called doubles. It can be confusing.

So let’s say a double is a hit which results in the batter reaching second safely on the play and the official scorer deems it a double, not a hit and an error, an error, a moved up on the throw to another base, none of those possible non-double events that put the batter on second with one swing. An actual double is what we are discussing here.

What is a double? What does it do beyond leave the batter at second base?

It moves runners around the bases, usually two or more bases, which means a runner should score from second and can score from first as the result of a double.

A very rare event would be a runner moving up one or no bases during the commission of a double. It happens on occasion but the runner must get stuck on third, which makes it hard to imagine his not scoring during a double but it happens. Not scoring from second on a double is much more easily done, especially if the runner has to hold up to see if a ball will be caught. He could also be waiting to tag up. Whatever the reason, we tend to get critical of runners who don’t cover two or three bases when a double is hit.

Why does one double score the runner from first and the other double only send him to third? Well obviously there is the speed of the runner to consider and, the arm of the outfielder who fields the double could cause a runner to be hesitant to test that arm. A coach might be hesitant to send a runner home for any number of reasons.

On the basepaths any number of mishaps may occur, including tripping, falling, getting a slow start, having to wait to see if a ball will be caught, making a poor turn at a base, hesitating for any reason, losing track of the ball and slowing down to find the ball. These are all considerations for a base runner of any speed. But it turns out there is even more to consider.

Doubles are unalike in many ways; they are not uniform.
Taking extreme cases, the fastest runner on the team hits a double in which he slides in safe and the throw, which was in time, is just off line. That was a short double. At the other extreme the slowest player on the team hits a double that allows him to round second and think about going for three, but, remembering how slow he is, he gets a third of the way there and lumbers back to second. That was a long double. So doubles come in different sizes. Though one name fits all.

You wouldn’t think anything as thoroughly quantified as baseball statistics would need a clarification. That is not what I am proposing. A Double is one (1) double in the scorebook but it’s overall effect on the fan and the runners is always greater than just a double. Of course doubles can score a maximum of 3 runs so they have a cachet of power that RBIs lend any enterprise. And so we think a three run double is larger than a two run double is larger than a one run double and so on down to the two out, nobody on double in the ninth, a ton of runs down, the loneliest double of them all.

We have long doubles and we have short doubles, we have bloops and liners and majestic flies which look like homers, and these beautiful arcs are just what a double looks like before the running starts. But then it comes time to pay attention to the race around the bases (which we join in progress after we see where the ball lands.)

Meanwhile the runners are running full out and they are guessing how far they may get to run as they see the ball fielded, or losing sight of the ball, picking up the third base coach, which they would be due to do by this time anyway and then the drama may be short - with a clean pickup or extended - with a tricky carom or bounce adding time to the play. All this time, you the fan are calculating, estimating first the trajectory, maybe straining to check if it’s fair or foul, looking for the outfielder’s reaction, estimating trajectories again. Remembering the runners you turn to see who got how far and sometimes you wonder if someone didn’t run the bases properly.

Our range of doubles differs most measurably by how much time elapses from hitting the ball until when the ball is returned to the infield or home. So if you like measuring stuff with a stopwatch you have a career ahead of you in timing doubles. Only because I don’t have a stopwatch I’m recommending another way.

The other way of measuring doubles beyond the stoic “one”is to estimate how far an average runner would progress before being tagged out. The values would be from 2.0 to 2.9 with 2.0 representing a close play at second, the runner is safe and 2.9 representing a close play at third, the runner is tagged out. The best part about this stat is that it cannot be accurately measured but only estimated so old timers can stand up and proclaim,”that double was a 2.99, I reckon.” And everyone will know what the guy is talking about this time and nod sagely.

Who gets to be the average runner? This is another beautiful stat, immeasurable except in the mind. You could say of a fast runner that he got to second on a 1.8. Because doubles have imaginary values it would be fun to speculate about those values. Not imaginary numbers but numbers which are imaginary in the sense that they are ever approximate and infinitely arguable. There is a fuzzy math. I like to call this fuzzy thinking.

I like to think doubles range from about 1.8 -3.2. Depends on the speed of the runner. And the arm of the outfielder. And where the ball is hit. And how high. And how fast. And how far away from everyone else the ball lands. Many, many parameters but a 2.2 should be able to score Aquino from first. I’m just sayin’.

Now even I can read it.

Now that is using fuzzy thinking!

Is this from someone's class assignment to write 1,000 words analyzing a simple topic or event? (And went 102 words over, to boot!)

Summing up: a lot of stuff about doubles, a joke about fuzzy thinking, and a nonproposal to rank doubles (and all hits) by a system according to how far the runner advanced before making an out.

Values of doubles are discussed as having a range of 2.0 to 2.9 and are roughly analagous to the elapsed time from the swing to the moment the ball is returned to a base or home. It is an estimate of time as measured by progress of the baserunner.

Self deprecating joke

If he hits it over the fence, he can score from the batter's box.

He can leave it on the track and score from the box, and get 4 RBIs to boot.

(03-14-2013 10:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If he hits it over the fence, he can score from the batter's box.

(03-14-2013 10:21 AM)elf owl Wrote:  Summing up: a lot of stuff about doubles, a joke about fuzzy thinking, and a nonproposal to rank doubles (and all hits) by a system according to how far the runner advanced before making an out.

Values of doubles are discussed as having a range of 2.0 to 2.9 and are roughly analagous to the elapsed time from the swing to the moment the ball is returned to a base or home. It is an estimate of time as measured by progress of the baserunner.

Self deprecating joke

Jokes are always funnier when they have to be explained.

It happens Joke Exegesis is a hobby of mine and a virtual necessity since nobody can follow my jokes, which are a dense cloud of degenerate matter. Also I completely agree jokes are always funnier the ninth, tenth time you explain them to me. I really start to get them then.

It turns out there are a lot of ways to not score from first on a double, no matter what field it's hit to. I would say a 2.5 would score a fast runner easily and a 2.0 probably not unless the runner was extremely fast with a good jump. It all depends on the arms and the aims of the fielders. Sometimes that double won't be fat enough to score Aquino.

So there is a conceptual system of rating hit balls by how far the runner could have gotten before being tagged out. Values are from .0 (strikeout) to 4.0 (homerun). Singles would be from 1.0 to 1.9 (or any number of decimals.) Doubles rate from 2.0 to 2.9. Triples would be from 3.0 to 3.9.

The virtue of such a conceptual scheme is that it shows more accurately the effect of the hit or missed ball than the simpler designations, single, double, triple and homerun. Note the system isn't perfectly measurable but it does give a clearer view on why certain hits are followed by station to station base running rather than more productive results. For instance a 2.0 Double is less effective than a 2.5 at moving runners around the bases. You can compare hits more accurately with dutiful estimates of the "size" of a hit, even though there are more accurate ways to differentiate doubles, for instance, elapsed time from the swing to the return of the ball to a base in play. But that lets out hits with no one on base where the fielder can take his time returning the ball to the field.

I like the indeterminate nature of the enumeration. It's an invitation to debate with your friends. Integers are so boring, we need to supplement them with decimals.

Since I first wrote this screed I have been rating hits using Fuzzy Thinking. (Like Fuzzy Math but virtual.) I literally can't view a hit as anything else. It's very instructive to learn just how different the magnitude of doubles can be by rating them with an imaginary measuring stick.

So to complete the original thought and relate it to the topic at hand. When Aquino doesn't score from first on a double you should ask first how big a double it was. Then you can take apart Aquino's base running shortcomings.

It's my impression that very few runners can score from first on a double in the 2.0 range.

Dancing with myself.

(03-21-2013 02:26 PM)elf owl Wrote:  Dancing with myself.

Generation X or Billy Idol around, say, 1980 or 1981?

Bingo.

(03-21-2013 02:21 PM)elf owl Wrote:  So there is a conceptual system of rating hit balls by how far the runner could have gotten before being tagged out. Values are from .0 (strikeout) to 4.0 (homerun). Singles would be from 1.0 to 1.9 (or any number of decimals.) Doubles rate from 2.0 to 2.9. Triples would be from 3.0 to 3.9.

The virtue of such a conceptual scheme is that it shows more accurately the effect of the hit or missed ball than the simpler designations, single, double, triple and homerun. Note the system isn't perfectly measurable but it does give a clearer view on why certain hits are followed by station to station base running rather than more productive results. For instance a 2.0 Double is less effective than a 2.5 at moving runners around the bases. You can compare hits more accurately with dutiful estimates of the "size" of a hit, even though there are more accurate ways to differentiate doubles, for instance, elapsed time from the swing to the return of the ball to a base in play. But that lets out hits with no one on base where the fielder can take his time returning the ball to the field.

I like the indeterminate nature of the enumeration. It's an invitation to debate with your friends. Integers are so boring, we need to supplement them with decimals.

Since I first wrote this screed I have been rating hits using Fuzzy Thinking. (Like Fuzzy Math but virtual.) I literally can't view a hit as anything else. It's very instructive to learn just how different the magnitude of doubles can be by rating them with an imaginary measuring stick.

So to complete the original thought and relate it to the topic at hand. When Aquino doesn't score from first on a double you should ask first how big a double it was. Then you can take apart Aquino's base running shortcomings.

It's my impression that very few runners can score from first on a double in the 2.0 range.

Bo Jackson

Cool Papa Bell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7IgTE593oA