Very true. But like DD alluded to, we're not exactly faced with alot of situations with runner on 3rd, less than 2 outs and Berkman at the plate, because our first two hitters (generally Biggio/Ensberg) can't get on base in front of him. An offense starts at the top and works down, and right now the top of the lineup sucks.
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? there is no scenario in which fewer baserunners and [/i]more[/i] outs is preferrable. unless you're on defense. anyway - we're getting a bit off-topic: i'm merely at a loss why anyone would disparage berkman's OB%. would you rather him hit for no power and NOT be on base...?
Berkman averages 6 sac hits/flies per 162 games. Insignificant, especially considering his average production in other areas.
I'm comparing his April 2003 with this years... believe it or not, it was worse. Eventually, he ended up raising the slugging % enough to get a decent OPS that year... but that first month of the season put a big dent in the overall season numbers. But the fact that he was able to rebound that season gives me more confidence that he'll end up righting the ship this year... there's no reason why he won't.
Say your #6 hitter is Hunter Pence and #7 and #8 are Ausmus and Everett. I'd rather Hunter Pence try to drive the run in rather than walk and rely on Ausmus & Everett. Obviously, if there are no pitches to hit, the walk is better. But if you're just watching good pitches to hit go by and then drawing a walk, then that's not helpful to the team's success. Depends. If the run scored from 3rd, then it might very well be a preferable scenario to have more outs, fewer people on, but one more run scored.
well... I want the run to score. That's how you win--by scoring runs, not necessarily by "avoiding outs". And, the Astros have been notorious for leaving guys on base. 2 runners on base is *not* as good as one runner having scored and no runners on base. You have no guarantee--in fact you have less than a 50% chance--that either of the runners will score. 6 sac flies and how many doubles and how many home runs? Because typically, it's the same kind of hit (minus the runner down the line). If his slugging is down, then his RBIs will be down. And that's his job--to drive in the runner. If Berkman is getting his usual ton of walks but he's not getting his doubles, dingers, and handful of sac flies with men on base, that's a problem! I'm not "disparaging Berkman's OBP" as Ric says, I'm disparaging people pointing to his OBP and saying there's not a problem when every other area of his production--the part that earns him 8 or so million dollars--is down. Way down. (But Berkman will be OK; he's not the best example of this.) Baserunners don't win games, runs scored do. Berkman's in a slump; he's not the best example of this. Morgan Ensberg is a great example--all that power gone to waste.
39 career sacs with a runner on third (with or without other runners on base) 30 career doubles 19 career homeruns 516 PAs I can't find out how many of those were sac situations, though. Interestingly, his slugging is 85 points higher than his career average when there is a runner on third and no one else on base. Not true at all. There are plenty of metrics out there to show how many runs you can expect on average under all out and baserunner situations. A quick glance of one I found shows that you'll get: 0.897 runs from a one-out situation with a runner on third 1.088 runs from a one-out situation with runners on first and third Of course, these are averages--and the figures surely would be magnified by the fact that Berkman and Lee are not average hitters. Sacs don't affect SLG. No one said Berkman wasn't having problems. Anyway, he will be OK, because we know he's getting on base, which is a stat far more consistent than batting average and slugging--those will return to the mean with enough ABs.
you're making up an argument here, major; i'm not condoning letting pitches zip by so you can work a walk; i obviously want our guys to jump on hittable pitches. i'm only saying that it's silly to disparage berkman's ability to get on base. but you're scoring A run, and, as stated, you win by scoring runS. you lessen your chance of doing that if you give up outs to make that happen. no, you have the same probability (assuming those %s are even correct; where did you find those - they sound like wild guesstimates), because there's still a runner on 3rd, there're still less than 2 outs... only, you've added another baserunner. so it's the EXACT SAME SITUATION, only you now have an additional baserunner, and thus, an additional opportunity to score runS.
except he's getting on base by hitting seeing-eye grounders and walks. that's not indicative to me that he's going to be driving in runs anytime soon, unless something changes dramatically...which is certainly possible, as players go through slumps and timing issues frequently. what does it mean that OBP is a more consistent stat than average or slugging? here's my problem...we had this discussion last year with Burzmali regarding "cumulative stats" and how great Ensberg was last season because of his OBP. Ensberg got on base fine...great. He also watched good pitches go by that were opportunities to drive in runs...he did that quite frequently. If he's batting leadoff, I have no problem with that. If he's batting cleanup, I've got a problem with that. I was told that cumulative stats, like RBI's, really aren't good measures. I'm sorry, but I will never agree with that. The scoreboard each night tracks one cumulative stat that I care most about: runs scored. Whether you're scoring the runs or driving in the runs, your value starts there in my book. That's what wins ballgames from a hitter's perspective. the astros can't afford lance being merely an on-base guy. there are too many weaker hitters in the lineup. lance needs to be winning games with his bat as he did last year and as lee has this season. without that, we just don't have the guns to get it done. and most teams are in that same boat. if pujols isn't driving in runs, the cards aren't winning.
if you recognize the team's limitations beyond berkman, isn't it possible other teams - you know, which pay scouts a lot of money and have years and years of MLB experience - have caught on to this, too, and are not letting him beat them? this isn't ALL about lance berkman... but if we grant him the slump in slugging, here're the options: he can make a ton of outs in addition to not hitting for power, or he can still get on base and not hit for power - which is better? and that's why i don't understand why you would disparage OB%.
I don't think anyone has disparage's his ability to get on base. It's the idea that OBP is the most important thing, no matter where a player is in the lineup. The original argument started last year when Ensberg was still getting on base but not getting RBIs and people were arguing that was a good thing. But the problem was that he was working walks by simply not swinging much - and letting a lot of hittable pitches go by. So in that scenario, his taking walks (in the 6 spot with crappy hitters following him) wasn't as helpful as him swinging more aggressively. This isn't quite true. If you have a runners on 1st and 3rd with 1 out, you can hit into a inning-ending double play. If the previous batter had hit the same ball, you may just score a run. That said, this is relatively minor. The bigger issue is that if the man that walked was, say, Hunter Pence, and the man at the plate is now Brad Ausmus, your chances of scoring have decreased compared to only a runner on 3rd and Pence at the plate. That's why teams intentionally walk people in the first place.
No, I mean the same type of physical hit on the ball--a solid contact on the good part of the bat for a deep line drive or fly ball. One will get either: a double, home run, or sac fly (assuming a runner is on 3rd with less than two outs). Of course not. But a high SLG suggests that he's driving the ball a lot--and that's what you want from Lance Berkman, not exclusively "seeing eye singles" and a ton of walks. That's what I meant to communicate when I brought up SLG. No, no, no. My percentages were indeed guesstimates, but not wild. Baseball is a game of failure--30% is a very, very good hitter. As such, it's safe to assume that less than 50% of the time will a hitter be able to move a runner over (factoring in a deep ground ball or a deep fly ball and a .300 avg). I'm sure there are accurate figures to be had. To the original point: you compared a runner on third with one out to runners on first and third with one out. The numbers, posted by Jugdish, are pretty similar between those two scenarios. But, that's not what I was comparing. I was comparing the situation with the next batter exclusively. If Lance fouls off pitches he normally drives deep, then gets a walk, then what percentage chance is there that Carlos Lee drives in the run? Would you agree that it's less than 50%? If you think it's greater, I need to see numbers, because I don't buy it. If Lance drives the ball the way Lance does, the runner scores. Then, 100% of the time when Lee comes to the plate, the Astros have already scored a run. I don't think we'll ever really agree on this. I hear a lot of sabremetricians talking about "giving up outs". But, in the very next breath, they'll complain about runners left on base. A sac bunt I can see complaining about, but why in the hell complain about a sac fly??? For heaven's sake, a run just scored!! Bottom line: if Lance Berkman is at the plate and a runner is on 3rd, I want him to get his pitch and smack the hell out of it. If he doesn't see a good pitch at all and gets a walk (rather than K on a low-and-away slider), that's great. 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.
It means that a guy can start the year off with right around his expected OBP for six weeks or so, while hitting 50 points over what you'd expect, and you can know that his AVG will drop and normalize as the season goes on. See Ausmus 2006. Me too. 1st or 2nd is the only place for him at this point. RBIs are dependent on your team's performance as well as your own. Lance's RBI total would be higher if he were a Yankee last year, lower if he were a Devil Ray. And you score more runs over the course of a season by not sacrificing outs. Also, you can only score runs if you get on base. (Which is why Ensberg is a 1 or 2) Agreed. I'm sure they both will, as well.
I don't know what msn is complaining about...Lance is already on pace for 11 sac flies this season--a personal best!
agreed...but i'm not asking to make his stats relative to other teams...i'm comparing him to the 2006 astros which are remarkably similar.
Then again, look at Ensberg who maintained a high OBP last year despite losing the ability to hit. They are also dependent on your individual skill at situational hitting and a willingness to swing the bat.
Lance was a 1 man offense last year. He had 136 RBI, the next highest guy was 62. He hit 45 homers, the next highest total was 23. Nobody else had a team like that, nobody else had to carry his offense like that. Not Barry, not Pujols, not Howard. What Berkman did was just amazing, considering the lack of supporting cast in the lineup. I don't think it's fair to hold him to that standard every season. He's mortal, he's going to go through tough times. But he's not going to put up MVP caliber numbers every year. If he produces like he did in 04 or 05, that's still impressive.
maybe not, but i read it as a very snide, joe morgan-like dismissal of OB%. again, he's not hitting for power; given that the reality we have to deal with, would you rather he walk or make outs? it IS the most important thing. not making outs; it's every bit as elemental as scoring more than your opponent. the ONLY way teams can stop you from scoring runs is by making outs. sure, you can find circumstances where outs are acceptable - bottom of the 9th, game tied, runner on third - an out there is ok. but by and large, the very basic conceit of the game is to avoid making an out. that, or a jillian other things could happen; but you're working backwards from a fatalistic conclusion to prove a point - i mean, should a team NEVER put a man on 1st with less than 2 outs for fear it might lead to an inning ending double play? the bottom line is this, and it's irrefutable, unless you want to argue number designations: two men on base is better than one. 1 out is better than 2. but lance berkman doesn't hit in front of brad ausmus, and that's who we're talking about. berkman hits in front of carlos lee. so while i would never argue berkman's on pace for anything beyond a mediocre season, it's certainly not a "bad" season if he's 40-42% of lee's ABs, and it's certainly not something to disparage or dismiss as meaningless.
