The odds are continuously paying fractions of the vegas lines… i believe it is criminal… its a monopoly.. the only “legal” “sportsbook” intown,

I think rather than complain.. just not use proline… go online or sumthing,, cuz … they will never,, ever offer competitive lines.

their slow, primitive.. and since their lines dont change,, they really protect them selves with low odds..

Sometimes~~~~ they even mix up the favourites with the underdogs,,
But it doesnt even matter when a Fav gets 1.6 and an underdog gets 1.8

1. I don’t like the fact that the stat is in itself a generalization of the amount of pitches received, negating specifics such as a median value of pitches per plate appearance ( If a guy is batting .350 on the first pitch, the stat is useless, or if swinging on the 1st pitch against a guy with good command is needed, also negates the stat ), or how certain situations merit having more pitches per plate appearance ( which I am going to go against your argument here ).

2. On your side, you create an argument with the same generalization that somehow getting many pitches per plate is meaningless ( working a walk isn’t a good at-bat ) and that the ends of winning on offense doesn’t justify the means of creating it from seeing more pitches. The fallacy in your argument is that you think taking pitches to work a walk is a system that “bad hitters” only use, and that it is only one system.

Getting a high number of pitches is a great thing because:

1. Players, whether at-bat or in the dugout, have the ability to see the pitchers’ stuff, and has a sense of what to expect in future innings. More pitches means it is less likely players get deceived the 2nd and 3rd time around. This usually kills young pitchers who don’t have great game plans, and tend to struggle in the later innings early in their careers ( see: Felix Hernandez, Derek Lowe, Randy Johnson ).

2. You can break down a pitcher if you keep the heat on him, especially in the stretch position. It is one thing for a pitcher to throw 12 pitches in an inning, with one batter getting 5 pitches. Its another when a pitcher throws 23 pitches, and struck out a player after 11 pitches. The team has more of an advantage to wear him down within the inning; it is hard for the arm to throw consistently within an inning as each pitch is thrown.

3. The last statement can correlate along an entire game. If you have 11 players who are out, and they get 6 pitches in their at-bat, and you have 7 others that got on base on 3 pitches each, that looks like a good box score, especially when no runs are given up.

BUT think about it: 11 outs, 6 pitches average: 66 pitches; 7 players, 3 pitches: 21. 87 pitches in less than 4 innings isn’t good. And pitchers just don’t do as well after the 90 pitch mark.

Good teams like the Red Sox, Yankees, and Indians have players that wear out the pitcher, and they either get him out of the game, take advantage of his mistakes after throwing an abundance of pitches, or they get to him when he fatigues toward the end.

The leader board doesn’t place in the value of good at-bat hitters ( some are there in the top 30: Ramirez, Damon, Abreu, Thome, Giambi, Rios, Upton, Mauer ) since some hitters take advantage of first-pitch advantages ( Ramirez looks at the 1st pitch, but will at times swing at the 1st or 2nd pitch as an adjustment of pitchers getting ahead of the count ). I think a median value would make more sense to calculate the value of pitches-per-at-bat.

Good argument though. But 10 pitches is a good at-bat; that’s one-tenth of a starting pitchers game, and it could be a harbinger that he might not even last that long.

In ‘07 Arredondo bombed back in A Ball (6.43 ERA, 1.63 WHIP), but he recovered to go 2.52 (ERA)/1.12 (WHIP) back–once again–in AA. His hit rate dropped to 5.76/9 IP, and his K rate climbed to 10.08/9 IP.

I believe he was in AA and had the success. Then he was demoted for insubordination, not sure what he did, then stunk in A. Probably sulking. Then called back up late in the season and continued in AA.