Mick!!
What, coach?
Ever listen to Smokin' Sucka's Wit Logic?
WTF? What are you smokin', sucka?
Mick, you talk to me like that again and you'll be benched!!!
Will I get to bat like that dream dude without playing the field? I figure I can average 17 homers a season up until death if I don't have to field.

Posted by tecwrg on 9/22/2016 12:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/22/2016 12:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 9/22/2016 11:49:00 AM (view original):
O's with a runner on third and less than two outs: .261/.292/.452, which is better than I expected, but I'd wager most of that is from the first half.

Runner on third, two outs: .206/.282/.289

Isn't runner on third, two outs the exact situation where you should be selectively waiting for a pitch to hit hard? Weakly grounding out to second does you no good there.

Neither does being so selective that you get behind in the count and strikeout.

Have you ever watched baseball?

If you had to make a choice to fix the Orioles offense, would you increase their OBP or reduce their strikeouts?

Do you have the magic words to make it happen once he makes his choice?

Posted by bad_luck on 9/22/2016 2:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 9/22/2016 12:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/22/2016 12:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 9/22/2016 11:49:00 AM (view original):
O's with a runner on third and less than two outs: .261/.292/.452, which is better than I expected, but I'd wager most of that is from the first half.

Runner on third, two outs: .206/.282/.289

Isn't runner on third, two outs the exact situation where you should be selectively waiting for a pitch to hit hard? Weakly grounding out to second does you no good there.

Neither does being so selective that you get behind in the count and strikeout.

Have you ever watched baseball?

If you had to make a choice to fix the Orioles offense, would you increase their OBP or reduce their strikeouts?

First, why are you asking me?

Second, why are you posing it as an either/or?

Honestly, I glanced and thought you were jtpsops. So, yeah, if you don't want to answer, that's fine.

1. He's asking you because he thinks you're the most likely to engage him in some retarded retard slap fight.
2. Because, if there's another option, it won't be as easy to engage in some retarded retard slap fight.


MICK!!!
Yeah, MikeT23.
Do you want to engage BL in some retarded retard slap fight?
No, I'm up next inning and I intend use my bat for a change.
Good job, Mick.

BL GAVE TEC THE OPTION TO NOT ANSWER!!!!

How big of him.

Say "thanks", tec!!! You don't have to answer.

Thanks, PSBL!

I will invoke my right to not answer!

Posted by bad_luck on 9/22/2016 12:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 9/22/2016 12:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/22/2016 12:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 9/22/2016 11:49:00 AM (view original):
O's with a runner on third and less than two outs: .261/.292/.452, which is better than I expected, but I'd wager most of that is from the first half.

Runner on third, two outs: .206/.282/.289

Isn't runner on third, two outs the exact situation where you should be selectively waiting for a pitch to hit hard? Weakly grounding out to second does you no good there.

.206/.282/.289 is terrible under any circumstances. That's Hal Lanier territory.

Sure, but that's not really what I'm talking about. Jtpsops was complaining that the Orioles don't make enough productive outs.

That was one specific example, but my broader point was adjusting approach for the situation (ie: shortening your swing with two strikes, making it your goal to advance a runner instead of trying to hit one into the next county, etc.)

Posted by bad_luck on 9/22/2016 2:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 9/22/2016 12:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/22/2016 12:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 9/22/2016 11:49:00 AM (view original):
O's with a runner on third and less than two outs: .261/.292/.452, which is better than I expected, but I'd wager most of that is from the first half.

Runner on third, two outs: .206/.282/.289

Isn't runner on third, two outs the exact situation where you should be selectively waiting for a pitch to hit hard? Weakly grounding out to second does you no good there.

Neither does being so selective that you get behind in the count and strikeout.

Have you ever watched baseball?

If you had to make a choice to fix the Orioles offense, would you increase their OBP or reduce their strikeouts?

Those correlate. If the O's are striking out less, they're walking more and/or putting the ball in play more, which will result in more hits than Ks will. Don't ask dumb questions.

Posted by Jtpsops on 9/22/2016 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/22/2016 2:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 9/22/2016 12:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/22/2016 12:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 9/22/2016 11:49:00 AM (view original):
O's with a runner on third and less than two outs: .261/.292/.452, which is better than I expected, but I'd wager most of that is from the first half.

Runner on third, two outs: .206/.282/.289

Isn't runner on third, two outs the exact situation where you should be selectively waiting for a pitch to hit hard? Weakly grounding out to second does you no good there.

Neither does being so selective that you get behind in the count and strikeout.

Have you ever watched baseball?

If you had to make a choice to fix the Orioles offense, would you increase their OBP or reduce their strikeouts?

Those correlate. If the O's are striking out less, they're walking more and/or putting the ball in play more, which will result in more hits than Ks will. Don't ask dumb questions.

Maybe they correlate. Maybe they don't. You're advocating less selection and more swings. That means they are less likely to hit an optimal pitch and might make a lot more weak contact.

And we're back to the K discussion again. Balls in play are always better than a K.

What will produce more hits: 100 Ks or 50 Ks and 50 weakly hit balls in play?

Posted by Jtpsops on 9/22/2016 7:12:00 PM (view original):
And we're back to the K discussion again. Balls in play are always better than a K.

What will produce more hits: 100 Ks or 50 Ks and 50 weakly hit balls in play?

I don't disagree (and never have disagreed) that a ball in play is better than a K.

But in this thread, we aren't just talking about K's. We're talking about how selective hitters are and how, when they're very selective, they walk more and only swing at pitches that are crushable (for lack of a better term). Selective hitters also might strike out more (but not always).

I thought we were talking about Bryce Harper in this thread. But who knows. Maybe im stepping on my own dick. I'll just have to head down to Mick's bowling alley and have a beer.

Mick!!!
What's up, coach?
What are we talking about in this thread?
Beats the **** out of me. Some assclown changes the subject every time he doesn't like what's being talked about.
Yeah, he does that a lot.
**** that dude.