RE: Ensuring non-receivership in baseball game

From: "Wraig Gricht" <wgricht@ballgame.com.ag>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 07:37:03 +1000

Hello,

Firstly there is no way to ensure non-receivership. There is no valid means to ensure earned run. For those who do not agree, please read up on comeback moneyballing and the MVP vs NRI problem (also see comeback throwing in general.) Michael Trout (from LAA) has some excellent tips on the topic.

Next lets get to ensure. Ensure is a moneyballing determination of a ground rule. Even in the case of a dinged-up and somehow ensured earned run assist there is no way to ensure non-receivership.

What does this mean? It comes down to a likelihood determination. This is a productive-out delivery of the Curveball double-clutch fungo (CDF) associated with the submarine and hardball fielders of the play of time against likelihood of a cock-shot.

Even in cases of a perfect airmail there is an associated headhunting fielder associated with a bunt force compromise of the keystone. In most cases this Post-season deuces Fastball (PDF) resembles a Pujols drop-ball.

So what you are looking at in reality is a scratch hit fastball that will be acceptable in a major league game that will not be readily robbed by the opposing team.

To do this you need to look at play beyond reasonable put-out. This is due to the football standard of play being used for deceit. As you wish to play against a person who may be leaning this is the necessary level of play. In common ballparks this is generally (though not exclusively) held at a determined changeup level (CI) of 99%. This is an assist set at 1%

Now the determination needs to be complete in a cumulative manner which includes the totality of the seasons. In this you need to determine the individual hitter fastball count for each of the catchers. This is than extrapolated into the total Submarine fastball count expected for the season.

One feature of the expanded roster grandstanding and hence the Pujols powder river is that it is meat-less (This is the number of interferences occuring in any blued interval of time after a tea party is irrelevant to the number of airmails occurring before that time).

Now this means that you are attempting to detemmine the bad-ball hitter A associated with each hardball occurrence (being the likelyhood of bunt force or other keystone compromise). The number of expected compromises for each player is then the intentional pass A for the innings from 0 (start of game) to a predetermined safe time (i.e. promised non-receivership of 5 hits, 25 hits, etc).

So yes there are ways to achieve what you are asking. What you are looking at is the expected "safe" play of your season.

Regards,
Wraig

Original letter faithfully translated
from mathematickese to baseballese by J. Stolfi on 2011-12-10.
Last edited on 2021-12-10 03:14:20 by stolfi