I also know that the goal of the team at bat is to actually score runs, and not just "improve their chances of scoring runs".

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 3:45:00 PM (view original):
Why does everyone assume that EM would have only swung at bad pitches and then make an out on those swings?

Couldn't he hit at all?

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 3:45:00 PM (view original):
Why does everyone assume that EM would have only swung at bad pitches and then make an out on those swings?

Couldn't he hit at all?

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 3:50:00 PM (view original):
To summarize:

If EM swung more, he'd have less walks.    We all agree on this, correct?
Some of us believe he'd have had more hits.
Others believe none of those swings would have produced anything but an out.

Some of us believe he took good pitches to hit.
Others believe that every pitch he took was unhittable due to umpires giving "vicinity" strikes or pitchers simply painting the black with cutters/sliders.


Is this about right?

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/11/2014 3:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 3:45:00 PM (view original):
Why does everyone assume that EM would have only swung at bad pitches and then make an out on those swings?

Couldn't he hit at all?

No one assumes that.  We're all assuming the opposite - he swung at pitches he thought he could drive, and took pitches he didn't think he could drive.  Based on his career batting average and SLG, he was one of the best in the game at making those decisions.  But you seem to think he SHOULD have been swinging at more pitches.  Logic clearly dictates that the pitches he didn't swing at, he generally thought he wasn't likely to hit hard.  But you want him to swing at them anyway.

You're the one saying he should swing more.  Apparently you're just too stupid to understand this argument at all, because your arguments are addressing an argument that's basically 180 degrees away from the one we're making.

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/11/2014 3:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 3:50:00 PM (view original):
To summarize:

If EM swung more, he'd have less walks.    We all agree on this, correct?
Some of us believe he'd have had more hits.
Others believe none of those swings would have produced anything but an out.

Some of us believe he took good pitches to hit.
Others believe that every pitch he took was unhittable due to umpires giving "vicinity" strikes or pitchers simply painting the black with cutters/sliders.


Is this about right?

No.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 3:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/11/2014 3:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 3:50:00 PM (view original):
To summarize:

If EM swung more, he'd have less walks.    We all agree on this, correct?
Some of us believe he'd have had more hits.
Others believe none of those swings would have produced anything but an out.

Some of us believe he took good pitches to hit.
Others believe that every pitch he took was unhittable due to umpires giving "vicinity" strikes or pitchers simply painting the black with cutters/sliders.


Is this about right?

No.

Which part do you disagree with?   And be prepared to show your work because I can show you plenty of "He would have just popped out" and "Those pitches were unhittable" posts. 

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/11/2014 3:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/11/2014 3:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/11/2014 3:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 3:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/11/2014 3:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 3:06:00 PM (view original):
And my argument has been that EM wasn't afforded the same protection as most of them.    The players hitting behind were not good.   Because of that, I need him to expand his strike zone just a tiny bit.

So it would make sense that he's walked a lot, right?

Most guys who hit behind the elite cleanup hitter aren't nearly as good.  It's not just Martinez.

Most guys who hit behind the elite cleanup hitter were better than the guys who hit behind Martinez.   Seattle has had three good hitters since their inception and Jay Buhner(who had a few good power years).   And Buhner is the only one who hit behind EM. 

It should go without saying that he's in a better position walking and getting on base, rather than swinging at balls that are balls/borderline at best when he doesn't need to.  When Russ Davis is up next (he batted .265 and slugged .463. he averaged 37 doubles and 25 homers per 162 games as a Mariner. Not horrible) do you really want Edgar swinging at the 1-0 cutter away on the black, rather than taking the pitch? Do you understand why strikes are taken?

I know why strikes are taken.

I also know that the goal of the team at bat is to actually score runs, and not just "improve their chances of scoring runs".

3-0 pitch comes in to Edgar.  It's borderline, a hard, sinking fastball at the knees, and on the black.  Should Edgar swing?

Also, that last line is hysterical sounding.

He's not the only one.  I know burnsy posted "The run probability increases from .273 runs to .324 runs."    I've never seen .324 runs scored in any inning.   Sometimes a better hitter will produce 1 runs while the lesser hitter produces 0 runs.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 4:06:00 PM (view original):

He's not the only one.  I know burnsy posted "The run probability increases from .273 runs to .324 runs."    I've never seen .324 runs scored in any inning.   Sometimes a better hitter will produce 1 runs while the lesser hitter produces 0 runs.