HOF caliber cleanup hitters: (just went to career HR page and clicked on 6 that I knew were cleanup hitters most of their career)

BB rate w RISP
Reggie Jackson 14.8%
Jim Thome 21.6%
Frank Robinson 17.4%
Mark McGwire 22.3%
Harmon Killebrew 19.6%
Edgar Martinez 19.9%

Now why were these guys all aggressive at the plate in these spots, and Edgar wasn't?

And just so we're all clear, Edgar is AT BEST, a borderline case.  Great hitter... period.  All comparably elite hitters are in the HOF, but all comparably elite hitters also played the field for most of their careers.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 8:23:00 AM (view original):
Here, I'll break it down(and I think this is tec's argument too):

A runner on 2nd with two down and a .320 hitter at the plate.   Assuming he doesn't choke like EM apparently did during his career(.269), you have a 32% chance of scoring a run.  If there's a .250 hitter at the plate, you have a 25% chance of scoring a run.   

Obviously, if the .320 hitter walks, you still have a 25% of scoring a run but the odds of scoring two runs increases.   And you now have a chance to score three runs which was not possible without the walk.    And this is where everything went bonkers.  No one has disputed the possibility of multiple runs increasing with the walk.

But, if I'm in a close game, or there are two aces battling it out that day, I want that ONE run.   And I want the better hitter attempting to get me that run.

THIS is what tec and I have been arguing.

Can't you guys retain anyfuckingthing for more than 3 minutes?

OK. AGAIN. This is a very selective situation.  And you've shown no evidence that A) Edgar was worse in these very specific situations and B) No evidence that Edgar was a passive hitter in these situations. 

"2 outs, RISP" does not equal "I NEED ONE RUN SWING THE BAT"

Posted by bad_luck on 2/11/2014 2:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 8:23:00 AM (view original):
Here, I'll break it down(and I think this is tec's argument too):

A runner on 2nd with two down and a .320 hitter at the plate.   Assuming he doesn't choke like EM apparently did during his career(.269), you have a 32% chance of scoring a run.  If there's a .250 hitter at the plate, you have a 25% chance of scoring a run.   

Obviously, if the .320 hitter walks, you still have a 25% of scoring a run but the odds of scoring two runs increases.   And you now have a chance to score three runs which was not possible without the walk.    And this is where everything went bonkers.  No one has disputed the possibility of multiple runs increasing with the walk.

But, if I'm in a close game, or there are two aces battling it out that day, I want that ONE run.   And I want the better hitter attempting to get me that run.

THIS is what tec and I have been arguing.

Can't you guys retain anyfuckingthing for more than 3 minutes?

It's always better to have two guys on base as opposed to one. Even if the next hitter isn't as good.

Unless one run ends the game. And Martinez walked a grand total of one time (excluding IBB) with a runner on 2nd or 3rd when one run would have ended the game.

Do you undestand the difference between 32% and 25%?

Do you know which run is the "important" run before the game ends?

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/11/2014 2:16:00 PM (view original):
He's arguing that EM was too selective in situations where 1 run is all you NEED.  And not showing any reasoning on why he feels that way.

Actually, that's not my argument at all.

My argument all along has been a hypothetical exercise in strategy.  EM was just used as an example of the type of hitter I was referring to.

There are times when you want your best hitter to be more aggressive at the plate than usual.  BL is stuck on "but a walk is good, I'll take a walk any time".

It's the bottom of the 16th inning in a hypothetical game, two outs, tying run on second,  winning run on first, and the fictional "Edward Martinez" is batting.  The guy on deck is the last guy on the bench, a utility infielder batting .105 for the season.

Do you want the fictional "Edward Martinez" to be agressive at the plate?  Or would you settle for him walking because "walks are good" and put the fate of the game in the hands of the .105 hitter?

2 outs, RISP happened 1175 times in Edgar's career.  If 10% of those times were situations where you're thinking "one run can/will decide this game, get a hit" then you're looking at 118 plate appearances (in which you don't know the outcome) and using your lack of knowledge of how he did in that situation and saying its a reason he's not a HOFer, or to determine if hes aggressive or passive in big spots in his career.  So A) you're using a lack of information and acting like you have it and B) even if you had that info, it's just 118 PAs over the course of a career.

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

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/11/2014 2:16:00 PM (view original):
He's arguing that EM was too selective in situations where 1 run is all you NEED.  And not showing any reasoning on why he feels that way.

Actually, that's not my argument at all.

My argument all along has been a hypothetical exercise in strategy.  EM was just used as an example of the type of hitter I was referring to.

There are times when you want your best hitter to be more aggressive at the plate than usual.  BL is stuck on "but a walk is good, I'll take a walk any time".

It's the bottom of the 16th inning in a hypothetical game, two outs, tying run on second,  winning run on first, and the fictional "Edward Martinez" is batting.  The guy on deck is the last guy on the bench, a utility infielder batting .105 for the season.

Do you want the fictional "Edward Martinez" to be agressive at the plate?  Or would you settle for him walking because "walks are good" and put the fate of the game in the hands of the .105 hitter?

So your entire argument is that you would prefer a hit to a walk?

Wow. Thanks for that. What would we do without you around here keeping us from not preferring hits.

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/11/2014 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 8:23:00 AM (view original):
Here, I'll break it down(and I think this is tec's argument too):

A runner on 2nd with two down and a .320 hitter at the plate.   Assuming he doesn't choke like EM apparently did during his career(.269), you have a 32% chance of scoring a run.  If there's a .250 hitter at the plate, you have a 25% chance of scoring a run.   

Obviously, if the .320 hitter walks, you still have a 25% of scoring a run but the odds of scoring two runs increases.   And you now have a chance to score three runs which was not possible without the walk.    And this is where everything went bonkers.  No one has disputed the possibility of multiple runs increasing with the walk.

But, if I'm in a close game, or there are two aces battling it out that day, I want that ONE run.   And I want the better hitter attempting to get me that run.

THIS is what tec and I have been arguing.

Can't you guys retain anyfuckingthing for more than 3 minutes?

OK. AGAIN. This is a very selective situation.  And you've shown no evidence that A) Edgar was worse in these very specific situations and B) No evidence that Edgar was a passive hitter in these situations. 

"2 outs, RISP" does not equal "I NEED ONE RUN SWING THE BAT"

2 down, RISP is NOT a very selective situation.   If happens a lot.   Every game.   Sometimes multiple times during a game.

I'll ask you the same question.   Do you know how important one specific run is before the game is over?

By "agressive" [sic], do you want him swinging at pitches OUT of the strike zone, thus diminishing his effectiveness?  

What is the cutoff for the on-deck hitter for this level of aggressiveness... .250, .220?

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/11/2014 2:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 8:23:00 AM (view original):
Here, I'll break it down(and I think this is tec's argument too):

A runner on 2nd with two down and a .320 hitter at the plate.   Assuming he doesn't choke like EM apparently did during his career(.269), you have a 32% chance of scoring a run.  If there's a .250 hitter at the plate, you have a 25% chance of scoring a run.   

Obviously, if the .320 hitter walks, you still have a 25% of scoring a run but the odds of scoring two runs increases.   And you now have a chance to score three runs which was not possible without the walk.    And this is where everything went bonkers.  No one has disputed the possibility of multiple runs increasing with the walk.

But, if I'm in a close game, or there are two aces battling it out that day, I want that ONE run.   And I want the better hitter attempting to get me that run.

THIS is what tec and I have been arguing.

Can't you guys retain anyfuckingthing for more than 3 minutes?

It's always better to have two guys on base as opposed to one. Even if the next hitter isn't as good.

Unless one run ends the game. And Martinez walked a grand total of one time (excluding IBB) with a runner on 2nd or 3rd when one run would have ended the game.

Do you undestand the difference between 32% and 25%?

Do you know which run is the "important" run before the game ends?

You don't ever know that. Which is why you try to maximize run scoring opportunities and not just play for one run.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/11/2014 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 8:23:00 AM (view original):
Here, I'll break it down(and I think this is tec's argument too):

A runner on 2nd with two down and a .320 hitter at the plate.   Assuming he doesn't choke like EM apparently did during his career(.269), you have a 32% chance of scoring a run.  If there's a .250 hitter at the plate, you have a 25% chance of scoring a run.   

Obviously, if the .320 hitter walks, you still have a 25% of scoring a run but the odds of scoring two runs increases.   And you now have a chance to score three runs which was not possible without the walk.    And this is where everything went bonkers.  No one has disputed the possibility of multiple runs increasing with the walk.

But, if I'm in a close game, or there are two aces battling it out that day, I want that ONE run.   And I want the better hitter attempting to get me that run.

THIS is what tec and I have been arguing.

Can't you guys retain anyfuckingthing for more than 3 minutes?

OK. AGAIN. This is a very selective situation.  And you've shown no evidence that A) Edgar was worse in these very specific situations and B) No evidence that Edgar was a passive hitter in these situations. 

"2 outs, RISP" does not equal "I NEED ONE RUN SWING THE BAT"

2 down, RISP is NOT a very selective situation.   If happens a lot.   Every game.   Sometimes multiple times during a game.

I'll ask you the same question.   Do you know how important one specific run is before the game is over?

I see.  Are you the guy who sacrifices the guy from 2nd to 3rd in the first inning to get a 1 run lead?

Posted by bad_luck on 2/11/2014 2:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/11/2014 2:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 8:23:00 AM (view original):
Here, I'll break it down(and I think this is tec's argument too):

A runner on 2nd with two down and a .320 hitter at the plate.   Assuming he doesn't choke like EM apparently did during his career(.269), you have a 32% chance of scoring a run.  If there's a .250 hitter at the plate, you have a 25% chance of scoring a run.   

Obviously, if the .320 hitter walks, you still have a 25% of scoring a run but the odds of scoring two runs increases.   And you now have a chance to score three runs which was not possible without the walk.    And this is where everything went bonkers.  No one has disputed the possibility of multiple runs increasing with the walk.

But, if I'm in a close game, or there are two aces battling it out that day, I want that ONE run.   And I want the better hitter attempting to get me that run.

THIS is what tec and I have been arguing.

Can't you guys retain anyfuckingthing for more than 3 minutes?

It's always better to have two guys on base as opposed to one. Even if the next hitter isn't as good.

Unless one run ends the game. And Martinez walked a grand total of one time (excluding IBB) with a runner on 2nd or 3rd when one run would have ended the game.

Do you undestand the difference between 32% and 25%?

Do you know which run is the "important" run before the game ends?

You don't ever know that. Which is why you try to maximize run scoring opportunities and not just play for one run.

So you've never watched a game and thought "Damn.  We need that run" even if it wasn't the bottom of the 9th?

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/11/2014 2:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/11/2014 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 8:23:00 AM (view original):
Here, I'll break it down(and I think this is tec's argument too):

A runner on 2nd with two down and a .320 hitter at the plate.   Assuming he doesn't choke like EM apparently did during his career(.269), you have a 32% chance of scoring a run.  If there's a .250 hitter at the plate, you have a 25% chance of scoring a run.   

Obviously, if the .320 hitter walks, you still have a 25% of scoring a run but the odds of scoring two runs increases.   And you now have a chance to score three runs which was not possible without the walk.    And this is where everything went bonkers.  No one has disputed the possibility of multiple runs increasing with the walk.

But, if I'm in a close game, or there are two aces battling it out that day, I want that ONE run.   And I want the better hitter attempting to get me that run.

THIS is what tec and I have been arguing.

Can't you guys retain anyfuckingthing for more than 3 minutes?

OK. AGAIN. This is a very selective situation.  And you've shown no evidence that A) Edgar was worse in these very specific situations and B) No evidence that Edgar was a passive hitter in these situations. 

"2 outs, RISP" does not equal "I NEED ONE RUN SWING THE BAT"

2 down, RISP is NOT a very selective situation.   If happens a lot.   Every game.   Sometimes multiple times during a game.

I'll ask you the same question.   Do you know how important one specific run is before the game is over?

I see.  Are you the guy who sacrifices the guy from 2nd to 3rd in the first inning to get a 1 run lead?

Could be.   When facing Bob Gibson, I might.  Especially if Fred Stanley was at the plate and I had a HOFer on deck.   You can apply that to many situations using many different players.    Every game isn't won a 3 run homer, you know.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 2:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/11/2014 2:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/11/2014 2:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 8:23:00 AM (view original):
Here, I'll break it down(and I think this is tec's argument too):

A runner on 2nd with two down and a .320 hitter at the plate.   Assuming he doesn't choke like EM apparently did during his career(.269), you have a 32% chance of scoring a run.  If there's a .250 hitter at the plate, you have a 25% chance of scoring a run.   

Obviously, if the .320 hitter walks, you still have a 25% of scoring a run but the odds of scoring two runs increases.   And you now have a chance to score three runs which was not possible without the walk.    And this is where everything went bonkers.  No one has disputed the possibility of multiple runs increasing with the walk.

But, if I'm in a close game, or there are two aces battling it out that day, I want that ONE run.   And I want the better hitter attempting to get me that run.

THIS is what tec and I have been arguing.

Can't you guys retain anyfuckingthing for more than 3 minutes?

It's always better to have two guys on base as opposed to one. Even if the next hitter isn't as good.

Unless one run ends the game. And Martinez walked a grand total of one time (excluding IBB) with a runner on 2nd or 3rd when one run would have ended the game.

Do you undestand the difference between 32% and 25%?

Do you know which run is the "important" run before the game ends?

You don't ever know that. Which is why you try to maximize run scoring opportunities and not just play for one run.

So you've never watched a game and thought "Damn.  We need that run" even if it wasn't the bottom of the 9th?

Sure. But I'd always prefer to have two or three runs instead of one. And I know that putting more guys on base leads to more runs being scored.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 2:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/11/2014 2:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/11/2014 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 8:23:00 AM (view original):
Here, I'll break it down(and I think this is tec's argument too):

A runner on 2nd with two down and a .320 hitter at the plate.   Assuming he doesn't choke like EM apparently did during his career(.269), you have a 32% chance of scoring a run.  If there's a .250 hitter at the plate, you have a 25% chance of scoring a run.   

Obviously, if the .320 hitter walks, you still have a 25% of scoring a run but the odds of scoring two runs increases.   And you now have a chance to score three runs which was not possible without the walk.    And this is where everything went bonkers.  No one has disputed the possibility of multiple runs increasing with the walk.

But, if I'm in a close game, or there are two aces battling it out that day, I want that ONE run.   And I want the better hitter attempting to get me that run.

THIS is what tec and I have been arguing.

Can't you guys retain anyfuckingthing for more than 3 minutes?

OK. AGAIN. This is a very selective situation.  And you've shown no evidence that A) Edgar was worse in these very specific situations and B) No evidence that Edgar was a passive hitter in these situations. 

"2 outs, RISP" does not equal "I NEED ONE RUN SWING THE BAT"

2 down, RISP is NOT a very selective situation.   If happens a lot.   Every game.   Sometimes multiple times during a game.

I'll ask you the same question.   Do you know how important one specific run is before the game is over?

I see.  Are you the guy who sacrifices the guy from 2nd to 3rd in the first inning to get a 1 run lead?

Could be.   When facing Bob Gibson, I might.  Especially if Fred Stanley was at the plate and I had a HOFer on deck.   You can apply that to many situations using many different players.    Every game isn't won a 3 run homer, you know.

Why the hell would you have Fred Stanley ahead of a HOF caliber hitter?

I'm starting to understand.  You think there are many more situations where you're thinking "we need one run" than I do.

Also, I'm waiting for you to show me how Edgar Martinez was a passive hitter, or at least more passive than pretty much every elite cleanup hitter that's ever played.