Posted by bad_luck on 2/10/2014 5:25:00 PM (view original):

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.

Posted by seamar_116 on 2/10/2014 5:29:00 PM (view original):
<<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 tecwrg on 2/10/2014 5:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seamar_116 on 2/10/2014 5:29:00 PM (view original):
<<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.

I'm using examples.

But, whatever.  Edgar owned Rivera.  And instead of Russ Davis, make the on-deck hitter somebody Rivera owned.

So again, back on point . . . what's better . . . EM having an aggressive PA, or walking and passing the buck to Pete Patsy, hoping that run expectancy matrix holds up?

Posted by bad_luck on 2/10/2014 5:51:00 PM (view original):
How? You just said that I wasn't getting it because I was dealing in aggregation and not "real players."

So I went and looked at "real players" The exact real players we're talking about and the exact situation you brought up. Martinez rarely walked in that situation. When he did, it was often intentional. When it wasn't intentional, Griffey and Buhner were batting behind him.

His non-intentional walks in that exact situation increased run scoring probability. Real players. Real situations.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/10/2014 5:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/10/2014 5:51:00 PM (view original):
How? You just said that I wasn't getting it because I was dealing in aggregation and not "real players."

So I went and looked at "real players" The exact real players we're talking about and the exact situation you brought up. Martinez rarely walked in that situation. When he did, it was often intentional. When it wasn't intentional, Griffey and Buhner were batting behind him.

His non-intentional walks in that exact situation increased run scoring probability. Real players. Real situations.

Again, way to avoid the point.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/10/2014 5:41:00 PM (view original):

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'.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/10/2014 5:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/10/2014 5:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/10/2014 5:51:00 PM (view original):
How? You just said that I wasn't getting it because I was dealing in aggregation and not "real players."

So I went and looked at "real players" The exact real players we're talking about and the exact situation you brought up. Martinez rarely walked in that situation. When he did, it was often intentional. When it wasn't intentional, Griffey and Buhner were batting behind him.

His non-intentional walks in that exact situation increased run scoring probability. Real players. Real situations.

Again, way to avoid the point.

Which was...?

That I'm not dealing in real players? What more could you possibly ask for?

Posted by tecwrg on 2/10/2014 6:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/10/2014 5:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/10/2014 5:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/10/2014 5:51:00 PM (view original):
How? You just said that I wasn't getting it because I was dealing in aggregation and not "real players."

So I went and looked at "real players" The exact real players we're talking about and the exact situation you brought up. Martinez rarely walked in that situation. When he did, it was often intentional. When it wasn't intentional, Griffey and Buhner were batting behind him.

His non-intentional walks in that exact situation increased run scoring probability. Real players. Real situations.

Again, way to avoid the point.

Which was...?

That I'm not dealing in real players? What more could you possibly ask for?

Correct me if I'm wrong: your point is that EM walking statistically increases the expected number of runs to be scored, according to the expected runs matrix.  Every time.

Correct?

So you want to avoid the discussion?

OK.  We'll let that stand for what it is.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/10/2014 6:55:00 PM (view original):
And around we go.

I say, "because it helps the Mariners score runs."
You say, "every time?"
I say, "sure."
You say "what if there's a runner on second, two outs and Russ Davis is hitting behind him. That walk certainly can't be viewed as a good thing."
I say "but it is. Having two guys on is always better*** than one, even if you're trading a great hitter for a lesser hitter because, in the long run, you'll score more runs."
You say, "that's stupid," but offer no evidence to actually back up your claim. Decry stats as useless and people who use them as witches.
I say, "I'm still waiting for your evidence."
You say, "I already gave you my evidence, but here, have this non-sequitur."
Mike jumps in and doubles down on his prior idiocy.
We all go down that long and twisted tunnel.
75 pages later we end up here. Exactly where we started.

So, I'll go back to the beginning one more time.

Edgar Martinez had a high OBP. He also had a high average and slugging percentage. There is nothing about his high OBP that is bad. Like all great hitters he walked at a decent rate. There is no evidence to show that he was looking for a walk or was passing the buck in important situations. In reality, he was probably being pitched around a lot. Anyone who tries to frame his high OBP as a bad thing is an idiot.






***obviously there are a couple situations where you only need one run and the second runner doesn't make any difference, bottom 9th, tie game, for example. But Martinez only walked once in his entire career in this situation (the other times he was intentionally walked), so we can ignore it for the purposes of this discussion.

I started arguing against EM always taking a walk before I knew he didn't hit very well in clutch situations.   I'm fine with him walking now and letting Wilson, Davis, Buhner, etc, etc, do the actual work.

But I'm even more convinced that he doesn't belong in the HOF.    Passing the buck to a Davis, Wilson, Buhner because you can't deliver isn't HOF-worthy.