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,