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

Posted by bad_luck on 2/11/2014 2:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/11/2014 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/11/2014 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/11/2014 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 2/11/2014 1:43:00 PM (view original):
Well, you're assuming that he TOOK strikes, rather than fouling them off.  I don't want my RBI guys to TAKE strikes with guys on base.... ever.

Sure, I'm assuming that he sometimes took strikes.  Anybody who walks 14% of the time thoughout their career achieves that rate by working the count.

If I'm EM's manager with 2 outs in the bottom of the ninth, down a run, with runners in scoring position,  I'm yelling to him as he's walking to the plate "COME ON EDGAR, LET'S GET THAT RUN IN!!"

BL is yelling "COME ON EDGAR, GET ON BASE.  IT IMPROVES OUR CHANCES OF SCORING RUNS!!!"

Aggressive versus passive.

Please list all the times Martinez walked with two outs in the bottom of the ninth and runners in scoring position.

I'll wait while you see that you are arguing a hypothetical that literally happened one time (excluding IBB).

Of course it's a hypothetical.

Would it make you happy if I went back and editted every post in this thread to refer to the fictional "Edward Martinez" who had a career stat line similar to the real Edgar Martinez?  Would that make you less confused?

No, it wouldn't.

You're saying Martinez doesn't deserve to be in the hall because of X.

X never actually happened.

I think you're confused again (SHOCKING!), as "X" is not my argument against EM in the HOF.

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.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/11/2014 2:16:00 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.

Then yes, he's arguing X. Because that's what I was referring to.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/11/2014 1:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 2/11/2014 1:31:00 PM (view original):
I think one of the problems is that some seem to think that all pitches are within an inch or two of the strike zone, and that a GOOD or GREAT hitter could still make solid contact with a ball that misses the zone.

I have a big problem with RBI-guys (3-4-5-6 in the batting order) who take STRIKES, but not if they take walks.  For example, I can think of a couple of times when big RBI-guys in playoff games took CALLED third strikes to end a game (Mike Piazza and Ryan Howard).  That's inexcusable.

But you also don't tell your guys to swing at pitches that are not really hittable, just because the guy on deck isn't as good.  You're on a TEAM, where everyone has to do their job.  If you extend the strike zone, you're not going to make solid contact and drive the ball... you're essentially becoming that on-deck hitter that isn't as good. 

 If you extend the strike zone, you're not going to make solid contact and drive the ball... you're essentially becoming that on-deck hitter that isn't as good. 

Bingo

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/11/2014 2:15:00 PM (view original):
I get the impression that if Mike argued pretty much anything, that tec would back him up.  This argument makes no sense.  What is being argued by you guys haven't been shown as something that actually happened.

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.

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/11/2014 2:24:00 PM (view original):
Fred McGriff walked 17.8% of the time with RISP? WHY HAS HE EVER BEEN MENTIONED FOR HOF CONSIDERATION? Ugh. SWING.

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?