so you would have preferred them having no baserunners?... i mean, honestly, what's your point? men have to be on base to score runs. no, i actually do know exactly what you're trying to say, and IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE TO OUR DISCUSSION. the discussion is not about whether berkman should swing away or take pitches. it's a discussion of two specific results of his (fake) at bat and whether the team would be better off with him 1) making an out but scoring the run, or 2) getting on base and handing carlos lee the exact same scoring opportunity, only with an additional runner on base. does that make sense? what?!?!?! i'm IGNORING that? so i haven't in three previous posts made it very clear what my answer is? really? here, let me help ya out: I WOULD PREFER BERKMAN WALK WITH 1 OUT AND A RUNNER ON THIRD TO HIM SACRIFICING AN OUT TO DRIVE IN A RUN yes, you have, and it couldn't possibly be more irrelevant, because it supposes i prefer a walk above all else, and that is patently untrue (something i've repeated several times the last day). again, this is NOT a discussion of whether we want lance berkman to swing away and drive the ball or sit back and take pitches; it's a discussion of specific results of his at bat. and the choices aren't a well-hit ball that could drop or be a sac fly, but, very simply: a sac fly (an out) or a walk. period. you would prefer the run scoring and, for all intents and purposes, shutting down any additional chance to score by emptying the bases. and that's not "wrong;" but i would favor berkman walking, saving the out, and bringing lee to the plate and pence to the on deck circle with 2 on and still only 1 out. again, we're discussing SPECIFIC RESULTS. you're positioning this as if i would prefer berkman to not take his hacks, let the bat sit on his shoulder, and be content with him drawing walks, and that could not be more wrong. and i've never once contended that statement, msn. never, in fact, let's jump back to my last post, in which i plead for you to understand that: "if he hits a double, of course that's infinitely better than a walk. if we accomplish nothing more from this discussion, let's at least establish that." so why do you keep bringing up this point? i love how you choose to quote yourself... probably just a mistake you left off the: "But if he fouls off three or four perfectly hittable pitches and then works a walk, no way is that good for the Astros. No stinking way." so, yeah - how in the world did i ever wind up thinking you thought a walk was a bad thing? there's no stinking way i could have drawn that conclusion... yes; i misspoke. point is still valid: the foundation of what makes him a great hitter does not look to be in disrepair, and that, admist the bad news, is good news. (sigh....) i love how you choose to represent what i've posted: "if he was slumping AND whiffing at bad pitches or late on balls consistently... and his OB% was plummeting as well.... then we'd have a REAL problem on our hands. notice how the "REAL" is in all caps? we have a real problem; but we could have a REAL problem... YOU DIDN'T MAKE THE DIG!! seriously, do you read my posts, or are you in too much of a hurry to respond to them? because i CLEARLY stated that MM made the dig ("who? this began when MM disparaged OB%"). just as i clearly stated i want berkman driving the ball; i prefer a hit to a walk; i don't think scoring runs is a bad thing; and in this paticular fake at bat, i prefer a walk to a sac fly, a question you actually had the gall to accuse me of ignoring when my answer to it is the basic foundation of this entire discussion!!
I don't know, maybe my preference would have been for them to score? Yes it *is* relevant. However, I think, based on your next response, that we're discussing two different things. No, it's not. It's this simple: if Berkman gets pitches to hit, and is not driving the ball, there's a problem. A walk is little consolation of that. Again, I think we're discussing two different things, or at least two different angles. Then, you prefer a 32% chance of one run scoring and a 8% chance of another run scoring to an actual run scored. That's what I'm saying. Oh, and Vegas is calling (joke). I'm sorry, but it's not that simple. If you want to deal exclusively in ex post discussion, then b****ing about fly balls is completely illogical. Here's what I mean: if it's choosing between a walk and a sac fly exclusively, I probably still *do* take the sac fly, and you and I disagree and I think we understand one another there. But what I've been trying to get across is that swing that generated an average of 6 sac flies per year over the last few years more often generated a long, deep single or double, or a home run. And when Lance is right, he's driving the ball. My angst in this discussion comes more from the Ensberg argument last year (that's why I've been saying Lance is a poor example). Dude was hitting 4 and 5 in the order, and watching perfectly hittable pitches go by. Then folks were praising him because of his OBP. Ensberg was a complete, utter, cataclysmic failure last year. Because his job, especially with runners on base, is to drive the ball. But the odds of the guy scoring from first are negligible. I think we understand one another, but we disagree. And I shouldn't. Again, my angst in this discussion is that if a 3-6 hitter is no longer driving the ball at all, then OBP is no consolation. Ric, that is disingenuous. No one in his right mind would come to that conclusion. And frankly, it's frustrating to me that you see the two differently. I knew I was hyperbolizing your argument beyond what you intended; I thought you knew that's what you were doing. It was a freaking jest, for heaven's sake. You've most likely seen him hit much more than I have this year. If he's not swinging late and hitting under a ton of pitches, and if his approach is solid, I agree. I followed with one in kind. I was talking about my post. Listen, I was aware you speaking of Max. I was representing my dig, the one with the same wording, and presumptuously assuming that they had the same intent. I felt you were ignoring was one of the percentages, and frankly you've only addressed them by claiming they are irrelevant. I've edited this post twice to remove terse, condescending language. I hate being condescended to, and I shouldn't respond in kind. I respect your position, Ric. But I don't agree.
and what's the first step of that process? perhaps, but i take exception - i've asked repeatedly throughout this thread: granting berkman's power slump, do you prefer he just not get on base at all? would loud outs be preferrable? that's a legitimate, sarcasm-free question. yes, because two baserunners is more than 1, and my chances of that runner from third scoring hasn't changed; or, at least, it hasn't changed significantly. msn, let me take you back to our ORIGINAL exchange: msn said: If you're a 3-6 hitter, and a runner is on third with less than 2 outs, your job is NOT to "not make an out" -- it's to drive in the freaking run. An out is more productive than a walk in this instance. i added the emphasis; and here's how i responded: no, a walk is better because... it's not an out. would you rather carlos lee come to bat with runners on 3rd and 1st and 1 out, or a runner on 1st with 2 outs? the discussion is, and always has been (at least for me) about specific results - an out or a walk. in my mind, anything beyond that is irrelevant. and yet, still infinitely better than the odds of him scoring from the dugout after committing the inning's second out... you would prefer they not drive the ball AND not get on base...? and yes, that is what you're saying - not explicitly, but there are only two things that can happen when batting: you can get on base or not get on base. 50/50. if the guy getting on base in "no consolation," then you're minimizing the most fundamental aspect of the game. that doesn't mean the hitter is having a good year, or that we prefer him walking to hitting home runs. but it IS a (small) consolation in the face of bad news, and it's certainly not something that should be disparaged or marginalized as some unconventional, stat-geeking perspective. it's a message board, msn, so i'll grant you leeway in terms of intent, interpretation, etc., but in the context of this discussion, your comments re: the viability of a walk in that circumstance, were very clear, at least to me. and that's fine; i respect your position/opinion, too. we DO disagree, but i never felt you actually understood why i was disagreeing with you. you would give up the out; i wouldn't. you'd prefer carlos lee hit with 2 outs, no one on and a run scored; i'd rather carlos lee hit with 2 on and 1 out
Does it matter if they finish? "Loud outs" are often a sign that a slump is just about over--a loud out is a solid contact, a ball driven deep. In the context of this discussion, in fact, a loud out scores a run. In the same breath, however, I'm not disparaging Lance's good eye at the plate (hence, his walks). The percentage of times that runner on first is not beyond the scope here ("runners on 3rd and 1st and 1 out"). If the out is more productive, the run has ALREADY SCORED. Hence, the question of whether chancing the scoring that second runner is completely relevant. ...while no runs have scored with only a 33% chance of scoring one, as opposed to one run having already scored. Again, I believe we understand one another here and disagree. No, that is *not* what I'm saying (you predicted that response, I'm sure). The reason you interpret my take in that erroneous light is because of the following on which we do not agree at all: "the most fundamental aspect of the game." (For one thing, what the hell does the defense do? And, if it's all about keeping the batter from making outs, can they then ignore the baserunner? But, I digress.) "There are only two things that can happen wehn batting: get on base or not get on base. 50/50." IMO, that is grossly oversimplified. I know you'll take exception to this, but if the man doesn't get on base but a run scored, how is that bad?? Because we lose the less than 1-in-10 chance that he'll then score from first?? You even stated earlier that in the 9th of a tied game a sac fly is OK. Well, it's 50/50--either you make an out or you get on base. Does that rule now no longer apply when winning the game immediately is at stake? That's fair. And, MM's original dig was in fact aimed at certain stat-geeks who were praising a middle-of-the-order guy who did nothing all year last year but draw walks. Ridiculous. The clarification you add here for the first time makes a difference. Earlier simply represented my comment as "a walk is not good." But, you still haven't represented it correctly--I clearly communicated that if he got no pitches to hit the walk was good. I felt equally misunderstood, Ric. That's one of the difficulties on a message board. There, fixed it for ya. The fundamental difference: you thinking about not making outs so that runs are possible, I think about getting a run and getting it now. Hell, it worked for the '85 Cardinals!
ouch. msn, i think one fundamental difference we're having that hasn't been mentioned is i *think* you're approaching this from a "2007 astros" perspective, where runs are scarce and 5/9 of the batting order is, on most nights, well below league average. and i certainly know i'm coming from a MUCH larger perspective; ie baseball in general. the 2007 astros would probably be better served scoring runs when they can. unfortunately. the 2007 yankees would probably be better served to take the walk and bring up the next all-star to the plate with 2 on and 1 out. you asked in your response about the defense: their job is to make outs. and they only have to make 27 of 'em to win. and that's why i'd rather not hand them any "free of charge," so to speak. i know a run is valuable, but few games end up 1-0. isn't the league's average ERA 4-something? i just feel you're scenario plays for a single run, and mine presents the possibility of more, while not reducing the chances of getting at least that 1 run home. it's just a philosophical difference.
And they never, never, not ever "gave up outs", did they? (Perhaps it's the '82 Cardinals I'm thinking of.) No sac bunts, no sac flies, no hit-and-runs which avoided the double play (while of course they were hoping for 1st and 3rd). High OBP is one of the indications of all-around good hitting, not an indication that a guy would come to the plate with a man on 3rd and think, "I'd rather take a walk than get a sac fly." Oh, and I only mentioned them in passing--I realize this Astros team does not have the personnel to play the small-ball, suffocate-their-offense type of game.
Lance with a runner on 3rd is good for .355 RBI (48 RBI/135 PA). Carlos Lee with a runner on 1st and 3rd is good for .531 RBI (93 RBI/175 PA). Which would you choose over the course of a large sample size?
Way to skirt the question. I was thinking of the '82 team, not the '85 team. The '82 team also led the NL in walks and OBP. They were also third in sac bunts and third in sac flies. They played great small ball. It was exciting to watch. It seems like you're representing my take as opposing walks and OBP, and I never intended to communicate that. I said, "High OBP is one of the indications of all-around good hitting, not an indication that a guy would come to the plate with a man on 3rd and think, "I'd rather take a walk than get a sac fly." Carlos, of course. But that wasn't the question. The question was if I'd want the run driven in already--and the answer is yes. Even at .531, there's still a 47% chance the run wouldn't score. If Lance drives the ball, it's good for the club whether that particular ball is caught in the outfield or not. One out, a runner at third. The pitcher induces a deep ground ball to short. Hey, they got the out! Is the defense happy? No--because their job is to keep people from scoring. How many times have you seen a shortstop, on a shallower grounder, "look the runner back" at 3rd, risking not making the play at 1st--and sometimes not even make the play at 1st? Because getting that out is not as important as either getting the baserunner at 3rd out or at least keeping him from scoring. Because baserunners alone don't win games (hence the LOB stat). Moreover, when that runner is on 3rd in a tight game, the infielders move in. Does that give them a better chance to get the batter out? No, it gives them a better chance to keep the runner from scoring--at the risk of missing a hot grounder up the middle or on the corner altogether. To the scenario at hand--if the team is up 8-1, they get the out and let the guy score. But if the team is only up 2-1, or they're tied, it's a whole other issue. It's not as simple as "making outs", in my opinion.
The idea of small ball is a myth. There are various ways to construct an offense, but the basic principles remain - get on base and advance the runners as far as possible. The 82 Cards may have been exciting with all of those sacrifices, but they finished 5th in the NL in runs scored, while the 85 Cards led the NL and scored almost 100 more runs than the 82 version. What were the big differences between the two clubs (both had identical batting averages and nearly identical OBP)? The first is obviously speed - the 82 Cards stole an NL-best 200 bases, while the 85 team stole 300. But the 85 squad also slugged 15 points higher. As you mentioned the 82 squad ranked very high in SH & SAC, but the 85 team finished middle of the pack. What does that all tell you? A team with a higher SLG% will score more runs than a scrappy team with guys who will bunt and unselfishly take a sac fly.
No, it's not. It's a method to employ if you have the personnel, but it should never be employed exclusively (just like waiting for a dinger or playing for the big inning shouldn't be employed exclusively). Advance the runners to home plate. If you have a runner at 3rd, drive the ball. Both teams finished first in the Majors at outscoring opponents in the playoffs. They had different methods, but they each got the ultimate goal. Agreed! Now, if you have a team that's not really capable of a high slugging percentage, what should you do? A rabbit trail, but I credit Herzog for construcing the attack of his teams to the strengths they had on the roster.
Actually, the '82 Cardinals put down 6 sacrifices in the postseason. 3 were by the pitcher, 2 resulted in a score (one was meaningless, in a 13-1 win; the other was a walk-off). They won by hitting 5 home runs and 20 doubles in 10 games. Their OPS went up 135 points in the NLCS and 42 points in the WS. The '85 team had the same numbers in the postseason (5 and 20), but in 3 more games.
I can kind of see your point of fitting your game to your players, but honestly, if the personnel you have can only play small ball, you're not going to be very good. Everybody points to the White Sox to say that small ball (or Smart Ball, whatever Guillen calls it - he's an idiot) can work, but it's a poor argument. In the White Sox championship season of 2005, they finished 9th in the AL in runs scored. Their pitching, which allowed the fewest runs in the league, is what got them to the post-season. It is true that their offense vastly improved in 2006. Guess why - they led the AL in HR & SLG. That doesn't sound like small ball to me.
There are many situations that determine if a "small ball" approach is a good decision: What's the score? What's the inning? Who's the pitcher? What's their bullpen like? Who's on base? How's the defense playing? How's your team hitting? What part of the lineup is due up? Etc, etc, etfreakingc. I'm not going to jump into yall's discussion past this post, but why is it an either-or proposition? Versatility is a good thing. Having the various players in you lineup play to their strengths is a good thing. I haven't read the whole thread, but yall's argument doesn't make a lick of sense to me. The oversimplification going on is a tad baffling.
Because it's not (at least not where I'm coming from). I said it was an approach to use, and not one to use exclusively.
I'm quite aware, but that doesn't look right to me; and it's slang, so I really don't care; and if you wanted to be extra pedantic, shouldn't it be y'all's? msn: "one approach to use" - seems obvious enough to me.
