I agree, Sam. He's sure to swing upwards towards his career averages (just as surely as Ausmus was to swing downwards last season). My take isn't to knock Berkman, but to knock this notion that if middle-of-the-order guys stop driving the ball and picking up RBIs it's OK as long as they have a great OBP. Ensberg is the quintessential example. I'm with Max and Jug that he belongs 1st or 2nd, if he is to be in the lineup at all.
This is where we'll never, ever agree. The very basic concept of the game is to score runs. And, as you have already admitted (while arbitrarily limiting it to the 9th inning), it is possible to score a run while making an out. No, you're ignoring the percentages. One run is better than none. A sac fly *guarantees* a run. A walk gets you another shot at maybe scoring a run or two. The numbers Jug posted earlier suggest a minimal increase in runs scored between the two situations, yet here you still argue that it's better. It's not. And in this context, your "bottom line" is certainly *not* "irrefutable".
roughly the same. if we discount ground outs (for the purpose of simplifying our data), berkman totaled 177 hits/sac flies in 544 PAs last year; so he would have ostensibly driven in a run 32.5% of the time. lee totaled 198 H/SFs in 635 PAs; or 31.2%. but you'd prefer lee hit with more more outs and fewer people on base...? so will you not complain at the end of the game when the astros lose 2-1? lie you said; agree to disagree. i'm at a loss how anyone would say a walk is not good.... it's not preferred; nut not good?...
No, not roughly the same. If Lance drives one run in, then when Lee hits one run has scored 100% of the time. If Lance doesn't, the 100% goes down to 31.2%. Have I finally communicated this effectively? And (again), the numbers Jugdish gave present a *minimal* increase--in other words, most of the time the guy who walked doesn't score. But, the OBP looks good, and "2 runners are better than 1". It surprises me, Ric, that you'd avoid this metric. Sure, that's it. It has nothing to do with the very low probabilities of whether that runner on first will actually score (and the fact that a runner already did score) and everything to do with my wanting Lee up there with nobody on base. Not about that situation, I won't. Maybe about two innings later when Ensberg was up with runners on 1st and 2nd and two outs and watched strike three. I'm at a loss how anyone would say scoring a run is bad. Like I said, wait, here let me quote:
And, the funny thing is, Berkman only averages 6 sac flies a year (thanks to Jug for that number). So you know what: some (not most, but some) of those walks, rather than sac flies, are doubles or long, loud singles. A couple are home runs. That's what happens when Berkman is hitting like Berkman. Walks are good, but when you've earned an 8 million dollar contract, you didn't earn it with walks.
For virtually every player, situational stats = stats over all PAs Lance-- Career: .302/.416/.559/.975 RISP: .303/.445/.539/.985 RISP, 2 out: .292/.455/.522/.977
no question. it was great. but i think the expectation of lance is a helluva lot more than what we're getting so far this year, his OBP notwithstanding. if he finishes the season on the exact pace he's on right now...with high OBP and cumulative numbers at the same pace...then he's had a disappointing year for a Lance Berkman caliber player. i think most people expect lance to put up MVP caliber numbers. or at least all-star level numbers. he's not doing that. and it's hurting the Astros, in my view, big time. please don't think i'm suggesting he won't turn it around, however. i think it's far more likely he does than he doesn't.
Except we're not just talking about getting buts, but the ability to have productive outs as well: the ability to hit to one side of the field, the ability to not strikeout when you have a man on 3rd, the ability to lift the ball in the air for sac flys, etc. People who are able to do that are going to have more RBI's than a guy like Adam Dunn who's just going to hit a HR or strikeout.
no, he earned it hitting sac flies, right?... no one is making this argument; certainly not me. in fact, it's insulting, really - do you honestly think i believe walks are better than base hits? they gave him his contract because of how infrequently he makes outs. msn, this is what you posted, and this is what i was initially responding to: the answer is still roughly 31%; nearly the same chance that berkman has. so my argument isn't that the sac fly is a bad thing, but that the walk is better: my likelihood of being able to score the run remains the same; i've simply added another runner, and thus, another potential opportunity to score. which is less likely to happen, msn: a) berkman scoring from first; or b) berkman scoring from his seat in the dugout? you're advocating playing for a single run; i'm proposing there's merit in setting yourself up to score more runs, especially at the expense of an out. if you settle for the sac fly, and 1 run, clearing the bases with 2 outs, you have drastically reduced your chances of scoring again that inning. tomato. tomatoh. you'd prefer a run, 2 outs and empty bases when lee hits; i'd prefer 1 out and 2 runners on when lee hits. isn't that why we gave him the big contract? (or was that for the walks?) oh-so-slight problem: i didn't say that. i said a walk was preferrable. i never said scoring a run was bad. never. nowhere.
Where'd I say that? No, they didn't. Holy crap, that is a beautiful over-extension of the "baseball is all about not making outs" nonsense. They gave Lance his money because he hits 30-40 dingers and 90 RBIs a year. 31% versus 100%. Once again, that runner on first you're talking about rarely scores. I'll take the 100%, thank you. As a matter of fact, I'll take Lance driving the ball--because based on the numbers already posted (which you have yet to address) it's more likely a double or home run than it is a sac fly. But I'll take all of those over a walk. Because, you know, a run actually scored as opposed to, "now we might score two runs!!!!" How likely is it that Lance scores from first? Not very. Additionally, you're now down to a 31% chance of scoring the guy on third, when he *does* score if Lance drives the ball. No, I'm not. I'm advocating driving the ball rather than taking the walk. Often times, that's a double and not a sac fly. If Lance Berkman is driving the ball, you are setting yourself up to score more runs over the course of a season. Statistically, it's not that drastic. A runner on first scores far less often than the 31% you mention for the runner on 3rd. No, I'd prefer Lance drives the ball. It might be a run, 2 outs, and empty bases, or it might be a run, 1 out, and Lance on 2nd. Or 2 runs, 1 out, empty bases. I don't like tomatoes. It was because he "avoids outs". You know, the essence of baseball. You're right. I was taking your argument out of context as you did mine.
We should be talking about hits, though. Lance has 39 career sacs. He has 309 hits with a runner on 3rd. He's not sacrificing an out to get those hits. And he gets those hits at almost exactly the same rate and with the same amount of power as he does in all non-"situation"s.
Lance has always got on base around the rate he's doing it now. His lack or RBIs is not due to him walking more. He's losing RBIs because when he has an AB, he's not hitting well. If you're complaining about his walks now, where were you when he was doing the same thing a year ago but crushing the ball? Those walks could have been even more hits!
Not complaining about his walks now. Not bashing Lance Berkman. I was commenting on this: "the #1 objective of every hitter at every level of baseball, from tee-ball to the majors, is to NOT make an out. and berkamn is still, even now, very good at not making outs". A 3-6 hitter's job is to drive in runs, not to pad OBP statistics. Thing is, when he's doing the one, the other always follows. Again, Morgan Ensberg is a far better example of this than Lance Berkman. Until he stops being afraid to swing his bat, he has no business in the middle of the batting order.
Additional comment: This is *precisely* (and concisely--well done) what I've been meaning to say. There are those who would argue that he *is* hitting well, and point to his OBP. Poppycock.
How is that relevant to anything? We're talking about whether it's better or not to get a productive out vs. a walk, and when that's the case. Of course we'd prefer a hit over an out or a walk - that's has nothing to do with anything.
it was a dig at you and your "when you've earned an 8 million dollar contract, you didn't earn it with walks." comment, which i found insulting. no one has said that. no, it's the game in a nutshell, every bit as relevant, but also as overly simplistic as "you have to score more than your opponent." it's not 100%, msn!!! the chances of lance berkman driving in a runner on 3rd base with less than 2 outs is 33% (roughly). yes? ok? the chances of carlos lee driving in a runner on 3rd base with less than 2 outs is 31% (roughly). so which is a better situation? runner on 3rd; or runner on 1st and 3rd? it's a really simple question. you're still every bit as likely to get the run home, but now you have another runner in play. you're hedging - all of us want him to drive the ball, not settle for walks - i've made this point repeatedly. 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. but that's not what we're discussing; we're specifically debating the merits of sacrificing an out. considering the likelihood of berkman and lee driving in a runner from 3rd with less than 2 outs is roughly the same, why would you prefer to give up an out and a baserunner? THAT'S the debate. where did i make something up and attribute it to you, msn? i never, ever, at any time, even remotely hinted that scoring a run is bad. and you throwing that at me rests at where our paths diverge, making it a problematic (within the context of this discussion) interpretation of my position. i'm ok with lance berkman hitting a sacrifice fly to score a run; but i would prefer a walk and carlos lee up with 2 on and 1 out. who? this began when MM disparaged OB%; but no one in their right mind would see the 6 XBHs, the OB% and conclude he's "hitting well." he's obviously not hitting for power. granting that, which would you prefer: he also not get on base? or, at least he's still getting on base and has two decent hitters behind to help try and pick up the slack? that's it. that's the ned of any point i'm trying to make here - his OB% being high is a GOOD thing because it means he's still seeing the ball well, still working the count to his favor - he's just not being challeneged by wise pitchers. 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. so why take a dig at "bill beane-counters" (laugh) because they recognize OB% as something positive?
The Astros were very good at "not making outs" last night for the first 15 batters. For the first 15 batters, their OBP was a solid .533. There was something seriously lacking, though. "Not making outs" is *not* "the game in a nutshell", although it is overly simplistic. "The game in a nutshell", at least if you want to actually WIN, is to score more than your opponent. You flat don't see what I'm trying to say. I've tried to explain it three times. I'll give it one more shot: The comparison I'm trying to draw is exclusively when Carlos Lee is up to bat. Berkman's odds of bringing a run in are an extraneous argument here. Yes, it is. But you're ignoring (over and over again) my very simple question: which is a better situation: having already scored a run, or having two men on base, a 33% chance of scoring one run, and an 8-10% chance (wildly extrapolated from Jugdish's numbers) of scoring the guy on first? (by the way, the "already scored" is what I was referring to as "100%".) No, I've repeated that theme several times the last day and a half. But what I've been trying to drive home here, is that if Lance is hitting like himself, *both* are happening. Because the difference between a sac fly and an RBI double is 1 or 2 degrees of trajectory, Ric. Same type of swing. Same type of contact. Do you not understand this? No one goes up to the plate saying, "I need to hit a sac fly." He goes up there saying, "I need to drive the ball." You can define the debate however you like; I've said repeatedly that Lance should go to to the plate looking to drive the ball. (I've also said repeatedly that he's just flat not a good example of this discussion. Lance will be fine. Morgan is a better example.) You took my remark out of context and twisted it around for the sake of wit. I didn't take exception to it; it was all in good fun. I did *not* say that "a walk is bad". I said it was bad if Lance fouls off hittable pitches (you know, that he would drive deep for an RBI) and then gets only a walk. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. And as I said, "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." You may recall that is the statement you turned into "how anyone would say a walk is not good...." If Lance were going to go unchallenged, it would have been last year. Working a walk does *not* mean he is "seeing the ball well", it means he's still judging the strike zone well. "Seeing the ball well" means the hitter sees it well coming out of the pitcher's hand, including its rotation. I don't get to catch many games on television, so I'm not sure what the situation actually is: is he popping a lot of pitches foul? Is he indeed swinging late (popups and foul grounders the opposite way)? When Lance is "seeing the ball well", you see the ball leaving the infield in a hurry, not 6 XBH in 25% of the season. Your best RBI guy has 6XBH. You don't think that's a real problem?? wtf? That's not what the dig was about. If you don't understand what I said, just tell me. But don't "make something up," as you don't seem to like it being done to you. (I probably have to clarify that the last statement was in jest.)
