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.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/11/2014 4:13:00 PM (view original):

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.

Pardon me while I high five myself.

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/11/2014 4:16:00 PM (view original):
Do you honestly think I think there's a 0% chance of more hits if Egdar swung at everything?  

If your odds of being as successful as you can be are much less when you swing at a pitch that's out of the strike zone, or on the black, then wait for your pitch.  If you don't get it, and you walk, your odds of winning and scoring runs go up.

If you're talking about a situation where you NEED a run, I understand getting angry when he's taking a hittable fastball on 2-0.  But there's no evidence on how he handled those situations.  

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 4:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/11/2014 4:16:00 PM (view original):
Do you honestly think I think there's a 0% chance of more hits if Egdar swung at everything?  

If your odds of being as successful as you can be are much less when you swing at a pitch that's out of the strike zone, or on the black, then wait for your pitch.  If you don't get it, and you walk, your odds of winning and scoring runs go up.

If you're talking about a situation where you NEED a run, I understand getting angry when he's taking a hittable fastball on 2-0.  But there's no evidence on how he handled those situations.  

Who has suggested he swing at everything?   Or that he must swing at pitches low and on the black? 

I think good hitters should be able to handle a pitch that isn't in their wheelhouse.    Is it your contention that every pitch he took was unhittable?

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/11/2014 4:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 4:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/11/2014 4:16:00 PM (view original):
Do you honestly think I think there's a 0% chance of more hits if Egdar swung at everything?  

If your odds of being as successful as you can be are much less when you swing at a pitch that's out of the strike zone, or on the black, then wait for your pitch.  If you don't get it, and you walk, your odds of winning and scoring runs go up.

If you're talking about a situation where you NEED a run, I understand getting angry when he's taking a hittable fastball on 2-0.  But there's no evidence on how he handled those situations.  

Who has suggested he swing at everything?   Or that he must swing at pitches low and on the black? 

I think good hitters should be able to handle a pitch that isn't in their wheelhouse.    Is it your contention that every pitch he took was unhittable?

No.  What did I say that made you think that?  Why are you jumping to ridiculous conclusions on what I'm saying?

Have you also not considered the possibility that by taking the 1-0 pitch that wasn't a great pitch to swing at, then he allows himself to "wait for his pitch" and have a better atbat?  He gets a better pitch to hit and smashes it?

Do you understand how atbats work?  How you're supposed to handle yourself facing a pitcher?

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/11/2014 4:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 4:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/11/2014 4:16:00 PM (view original):
Do you honestly think I think there's a 0% chance of more hits if Egdar swung at everything?  

If your odds of being as successful as you can be are much less when you swing at a pitch that's out of the strike zone, or on the black, then wait for your pitch.  If you don't get it, and you walk, your odds of winning and scoring runs go up.

If you're talking about a situation where you NEED a run, I understand getting angry when he's taking a hittable fastball on 2-0.  But there's no evidence on how he handled those situations.  

Who has suggested he swing at everything?   Or that he must swing at pitches low and on the black? 

I think good hitters should be able to handle a pitch that isn't in their wheelhouse.    Is it your contention that every pitch he took was unhittable?

No.  What did I say that made you think that?  Why are you jumping to ridiculous conclusions on what I'm saying?

Have you also not considered the possibility that by taking the 1-0 pitch that wasn't a great pitch to swing at, then he allows himself to "wait for his pitch" and have a better atbat?  He gets a better pitch to hit and smashes it?

Do you understand how atbats work?  How you're supposed to handle yourself facing a pitcher?

Pretty much every post that asked "Was he supposed to swing at a pitch on the black?"

Have you not considered that he took pitches that was a great pitch to swing at?     Have you not considered that he didn't crush every pitch he swung at?  That some of them were outs, some were fouls and some were simple misses?   Have you not considered that a 1-0 is a hitter's count while 1-1 is more of a pitcher's count?

Do you understand anything about baseball?

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 4:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/11/2014 4:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 4:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/11/2014 4:16:00 PM (view original):
Do you honestly think I think there's a 0% chance of more hits if Egdar swung at everything?  

If your odds of being as successful as you can be are much less when you swing at a pitch that's out of the strike zone, or on the black, then wait for your pitch.  If you don't get it, and you walk, your odds of winning and scoring runs go up.

If you're talking about a situation where you NEED a run, I understand getting angry when he's taking a hittable fastball on 2-0.  But there's no evidence on how he handled those situations.  

Who has suggested he swing at everything?   Or that he must swing at pitches low and on the black? 

I think good hitters should be able to handle a pitch that isn't in their wheelhouse.    Is it your contention that every pitch he took was unhittable?

No.  What did I say that made you think that?  Why are you jumping to ridiculous conclusions on what I'm saying?

Have you also not considered the possibility that by taking the 1-0 pitch that wasn't a great pitch to swing at, then he allows himself to "wait for his pitch" and have a better atbat?  He gets a better pitch to hit and smashes it?

Do you understand how atbats work?  How you're supposed to handle yourself facing a pitcher?

Pretty much every post that asked "Was he supposed to swing at a pitch on the black?"

Have you not considered that he took pitches that was a great pitch to swing at?     Have you not considered that he didn't crush every pitch he swung at?  That some of them were outs, some were fouls and some were simple misses?   Have you not considered that a 1-0 is a hitter's count while 1-1 is more of a pitcher's count?

Do you understand anything about baseball?

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 4:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/11/2014 4:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 4:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/11/2014 4:16:00 PM (view original):
Do you honestly think I think there's a 0% chance of more hits if Egdar swung at everything?  

If your odds of being as successful as you can be are much less when you swing at a pitch that's out of the strike zone, or on the black, then wait for your pitch.  If you don't get it, and you walk, your odds of winning and scoring runs go up.

If you're talking about a situation where you NEED a run, I understand getting angry when he's taking a hittable fastball on 2-0.  But there's no evidence on how he handled those situations.  

Who has suggested he swing at everything?   Or that he must swing at pitches low and on the black? 

I think good hitters should be able to handle a pitch that isn't in their wheelhouse.    Is it your contention that every pitch he took was unhittable?

No.  What did I say that made you think that?  Why are you jumping to ridiculous conclusions on what I'm saying?

Have you also not considered the possibility that by taking the 1-0 pitch that wasn't a great pitch to swing at, then he allows himself to "wait for his pitch" and have a better atbat?  He gets a better pitch to hit and smashes it?

Do you understand how atbats work?  How you're supposed to handle yourself facing a pitcher?

Pretty much every post that asked "Was he supposed to swing at a pitch on the black?"

Have you not considered that he took pitches that was a great pitch to swing at?     Have you not considered that he didn't crush every pitch he swung at?  That some of them were outs, some were fouls and some were simple misses?   Have you not considered that a 1-0 is a hitter's count while 1-1 is more of a pitcher's count?

Do you understand anything about baseball?

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2014 4:30:00 PM (view original):
If you're too dumb to understand, I believe it.    Look in your stat book and tell me the probabilities of getting a hit after 1-0 pitches and 1-1 pitches. 

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/11/2014 4:25:00 PM (view original):
Also, PLEASE SHOW ME EVIDENCE ON HOW EDGAR MARTINEZ WAS TOO PATIENT relative to other elite cleanup hitters.