Posted by MikeT23 on 2/10/2014 4:45:00 PM (view original):
Accept your victory.   I said maybe it wasn't such a bad thing to pass the buck to Davis, Wilson, Buhner, etc, etc.    Not because they suddenly got better but because EM's "clutch" stats made him very ordinary(or worse).   Hell, Seattle probably should have pinch hit for him in close games or late in games.

Not sure that's a convincing argument to include him in the HOF but it's good to know that crappy players gave SEA a better chance to win that Martinez did. 

You're funny.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/10/2014 4:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/10/2014 4:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/10/2014 4:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/10/2014 3:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/10/2014 3:46:00 PM (view original):

To summarize my part of this discussion (since the folks on the other side seem confused):

If I have a hitter of EM's caliber, with a lesser hitter on deck (as most everybody who batted behind him was), if the game is on the line and I need a base hit, I want him to be agressive at the plate.  If there's a ball in the strike zone, I want him swinging at it and trying to put the ball in play.  I don't want him working the count and drawing a base on balls, especially if he's passing on hittable pitches to do that.  Because by doing that, he's just passing the buck to the lesser guy behind him to get the job done.

Now if he puts the ball in play and makes an out . . . that's baseball.  But at least he's trying to do his job, which is to be a hitter in a situation in which a hit is called for.

If he walks because he was not given any hittable pitches . . . that's also baseball.  Let's hope the guy behind him gets it done.

I'm not sure why this is so baffling to some folks here.

I guess my confusion stems from your (or maybe Mike's) belief that that isn't exactly what happened. No one has shown any evidence that Martinez looked to walk when the game was on the line.

Yet you (or somebody) argued that his walking "improves their chances of winning".

In almost all situations a walk increases the likelyhood of a run scoring and the amount of runs a team can expect to score.

Does it really?  Or is this just another misapplication of your beloved stats and probability matrices?

It does. You can look it up.

And yes, of course it does.  Guy gets on base = increase of average runs scored.

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/10/2014 4:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/10/2014 4:45:00 PM (view original):
Accept your victory.   I said maybe it wasn't such a bad thing to pass the buck to Davis, Wilson, Buhner, etc, etc.    Not because they suddenly got better but because EM's "clutch" stats made him very ordinary(or worse).   Hell, Seattle probably should have pinch hit for him in close games or late in games.

Not sure that's a convincing argument to include him in the HOF but it's good to know that crappy players gave SEA a better chance to win that Martinez did. 

You're funny.

The numbers are what they are.   Wish I'd looked up Martinez's horrible close/late splits before I argued for him to swing the bat in close/late games.   He should have been leaning into pitches.  Take one for team, Edgar.   No, no, just leave your bat in the dugout, we don't want you swinging.

He's very good close and late.  And in tie games.  And in 1 run games.  And in "high leverage situations." 

Also, 2 guys on base is much better than 1 guy on base.  Just reminding you.

Trolllll ta trolltrolltroll

Posted by bad_luck on 2/10/2014 4:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/10/2014 4:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/10/2014 4:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/10/2014 4:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/10/2014 3:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/10/2014 3:46:00 PM (view original):

To summarize my part of this discussion (since the folks on the other side seem confused):

If I have a hitter of EM's caliber, with a lesser hitter on deck (as most everybody who batted behind him was), if the game is on the line and I need a base hit, I want him to be agressive at the plate.  If there's a ball in the strike zone, I want him swinging at it and trying to put the ball in play.  I don't want him working the count and drawing a base on balls, especially if he's passing on hittable pitches to do that.  Because by doing that, he's just passing the buck to the lesser guy behind him to get the job done.

Now if he puts the ball in play and makes an out . . . that's baseball.  But at least he's trying to do his job, which is to be a hitter in a situation in which a hit is called for.

If he walks because he was not given any hittable pitches . . . that's also baseball.  Let's hope the guy behind him gets it done.

I'm not sure why this is so baffling to some folks here.

I guess my confusion stems from your (or maybe Mike's) belief that that isn't exactly what happened. No one has shown any evidence that Martinez looked to walk when the game was on the line.

Yet you (or somebody) argued that his walking "improves their chances of winning".

In almost all situations a walk increases the likelyhood of a run scoring and the amount of runs a team can expect to score.

Does it really?  Or is this just another misapplication of your beloved stats and probability matrices?

It does. You can look it up.

Awesome.  I did just that.

Let's use this run expectancy matrix for our example.  It's an aggregation of all major leaguers, in all situations, in all ballparks, over the course of four major league seasons (1999 - 2002).

The keyword here is aggregation.

So in a situation where you have a runner on second and two outs, your expected runs scored is .344 runs.  If the batter walks, then you now have runners on first and second with two outs, and you've transitioned to a new state in which your expected runs scored is now .466.  On average, you will score one more run in every eight opportunities.  A good thing, right?

Well, let's just go back to that pesky keyword, aggregation.  In a situation where you have Nick Normal pitching, Alan Average at bat, and Mike Mediocrity on deck, these numbers probably hold true over the long run.

But what if instead of Nick Normal on the mound, you have Mariano Rivera.  Edgar Martinez is in the batter's box, and Russ Davis is on deck.

If Edgar walks, have you still increased your expected runs by .122 runs?

I'd say: probably not.  I'd argue that you may have not increased your expected runs at all, and quite possibly may have decreased your chances of scoring.  Because you're not dealing with aggregations of four years of all MLB players.  You're now dealing with real players with skills levels that may deviate quite a bit from Nick Normal, Alan Average and Mike Mediocrity.

That's the human element of the game of baseball that you miss when you go so far down the rabbit hole of stats and probability matrices that you can't see past your calculator.

Your move, Perfessor,

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/10/2014 5:09:00 PM (view original):
He's very good close and late.  And in tie games.  And in 1 run games.  And in "high leverage situations." 

Also, 2 guys on base is much better than 1 guy on base.  Just reminding you.

Good at walking.  Not swinging.    So, yeah, take the walk and let an immortal like Jay Buhner do the heavy lifting. 

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/10/2014 4:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/10/2014 3:47:00 PM (view original):
Here you go.

EM, runner on 2nd:   308/486/475
RD, runners on 1st/2nd:  232/306/430

Do you still think EM walking was the better play?

Davis averaged .288 RBI per atbat in that scenario.  Martinez averaged .266 RBI per atbat in that scenario.  You tell me.

And why does this have to be Russ Davis?  As said before, Jay Buhner was damn good at baseball and very often hit behind him.

for tec.  Russ Davis, even below his normal splits, averages more runs per atbat than Edgar.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/10/2014 5:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/10/2014 5:09:00 PM (view original):
He's very good close and late.  And in tie games.  And in 1 run games.  And in "high leverage situations." 

Also, 2 guys on base is much better than 1 guy on base.  Just reminding you.

Good at walking.  Not swinging.    So, yeah, take the walk and let an immortal like Jay Buhner do the heavy lifting. 

Swinging, too.

2 > 1

And again, neither of you have shown how Edgar Martinez was less aggressive at the plate in situations where a hit was NEEDED.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/10/2014 5:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/10/2014 4:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/10/2014 4:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/10/2014 4:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/10/2014 4:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/10/2014 3:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/10/2014 3:46:00 PM (view original):

To summarize my part of this discussion (since the folks on the other side seem confused):

If I have a hitter of EM's caliber, with a lesser hitter on deck (as most everybody who batted behind him was), if the game is on the line and I need a base hit, I want him to be agressive at the plate.  If there's a ball in the strike zone, I want him swinging at it and trying to put the ball in play.  I don't want him working the count and drawing a base on balls, especially if he's passing on hittable pitches to do that.  Because by doing that, he's just passing the buck to the lesser guy behind him to get the job done.

Now if he puts the ball in play and makes an out . . . that's baseball.  But at least he's trying to do his job, which is to be a hitter in a situation in which a hit is called for.

If he walks because he was not given any hittable pitches . . . that's also baseball.  Let's hope the guy behind him gets it done.

I'm not sure why this is so baffling to some folks here.

I guess my confusion stems from your (or maybe Mike's) belief that that isn't exactly what happened. No one has shown any evidence that Martinez looked to walk when the game was on the line.

Yet you (or somebody) argued that his walking "improves their chances of winning".

In almost all situations a walk increases the likelyhood of a run scoring and the amount of runs a team can expect to score.

Does it really?  Or is this just another misapplication of your beloved stats and probability matrices?

It does. You can look it up.

Awesome.  I did just that.

Let's use this run expectancy matrix for our example.  It's an aggregation of all major leaguers, in all situations, in all ballparks, over the course of four major league seasons (1999 - 2002).

The keyword here is aggregation.

So in a situation where you have a runner on second and two outs, your expected runs scored is .344 runs.  If the batter walks, then you now have runners on first and second with two outs, and you've transitioned to a new state in which your expected runs scored is now .466.  On average, you will score one more run in every eight opportunities.  A good thing, right?

Well, let's just go back to that pesky keyword, aggregation.  In a situation where you have Nick Normal pitching, Alan Average at bat, and Mike Mediocrity on deck, these numbers probably hold true over the long run.

But what if instead of Nick Normal on the mound, you have Mariano Rivera.  Edgar Martinez is in the batter's box, and Russ Davis is on deck.

If Edgar walks, have you still increased your expected runs by .122 runs?

I'd say: probably not.  I'd argue that you may have not increased your expected runs at all, and quite possibly may have decreased your chances of scoring.  Because you're not dealing with aggregations of four years of all MLB players.  You're now dealing with real players with skills levels that may deviate quite a bit from Nick Normal, Alan Average and Mike Mediocrity.

That's the human element of the game of baseball that you miss when you go so far down the rabbit hole of stats and probability matrices that you can't see past your calculator.

Your move, Perfessor,

That exact situation happened exactly 112 times in his entire career. 32 were intentional. 

So all this over 80 PA where I'd be willing to bet many of the walks were pitch arounds? Much ado about nothing. 

Looking at the walks a little closer, not one if them in 1994 was intentional. For all but three of that group Griffey was batting behind Martinez. So, for those, I'd be willing to bet that the walk did increase expected run scoring by at least .122.

<<But what if instead of Nick Normal on the mound, you have Mariano Rivera.  Edgar Martinez is in the batter's box, and Russ Davis is on deck.>>

Do your effin homework...Edgar owned Rivera.....game over....

Martinez’s production against Rivera — a .579 average (11-for-19) with two homers, three doubles, three walks and 1.705 OPS — is easily the best of any opponent.

and why do you insist on bringing Russ Davis up after Edgar...you guys are a joke...you have no actual knowledge of how the Mariner line-up was constructed.

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/10/2014 5:22:00 PM (view original):
And again, neither of you have shown how Edgar Martinez was less aggressive at the plate in situations where a hit was NEEDED.

This.

There's no reason to think that Edgar's walk rate should be looked at differently than any other great hitter's walk rate.

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/10/2014 5:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/10/2014 5:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/10/2014 5:09:00 PM (view original):
He's very good close and late.  And in tie games.  And in 1 run games.  And in "high leverage situations." 

Also, 2 guys on base is much better than 1 guy on base.  Just reminding you.

Good at walking.  Not swinging.    So, yeah, take the walk and let an immortal like Jay Buhner do the heavy lifting. 

Swinging, too.

2 > 1

The fact that all-time great Russ Davis was producing more runs per AB indicates that "swinging" was not Martinez's forte'.