Posted by dahsdebater on 8/17/2017 8:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/17/2017 4:58:00 PM (view original):
Nerd.

1 ACTUAL run is always better than 1.4 expected runs.

Only if you're really, really bad at math. Or have a very, very tiny sample size.

I would love to play poker with you.

Here's the disconnect:

Some of us understand that the game is played on the field. It's not a math quiz. We'll talk about "productive outs", "moving runners", "expanding your strike zone", etc, etc. You'll talk about probabilities.

The situation matters but, 9 times out of 10, I'll take one run in, two down after a sac fly. I imagine, 9 times out of 10, you and your ilk will take first and third, one down after a walk. I see the run on the board, you hope for multiple runs that inning. I'm not going to say you're wrong, it's just a different viewpoint.

A walk is not a bad thing. Not making an out is never a bad thing. But a hit is better. He whiffed 1200+ times. I have no idea how many of those were looking with RISP. But I felt Seattle would have benefited from EM expanding his zone rather than passing it to the next guy while looking for a better pitch.

As for poker, you're the guy that loses a big pot hand but proudly states "I made the right call. It just didn't work out." Which is nice but still a loser..

That certainly is a disconnect.

The bottom line is it's foolish to use walks as a negative when evaluating someone as a hitter. As has been pointed out previously in this thread, it would be absurd to say "Ya, those Bonds and Ruth guys were great hitters, but they could've been so much better if they just swung more."

Edgar was a HOF-level hitter. If he wasn't a DH, he'd be in already - which is unbelievably moronic in and of itself.

Posted by Jtpsops on 8/18/2017 10:25:00 AM (view original):
The bottom line is it's foolish to use walks as a negative when evaluating someone as a hitter. As has been pointed out previously in this thread, it would be absurd to say "Ya, those Bonds and Ruth guys were great hitters, but they could've been so much better if they just swung more."

Edgar was a HOF-level hitter. If he wasn't a DH, he'd be in already - which is unbelievably moronic in and of itself.

Omar Vizquel was a HOF-level fielder. If he wasn't a mediocre hitter, he'd be in already.
Ellis Valentine was a HOF-level thrower. If he wasn't mediocre at most other aspects of the game, he'd be in already.
Vince Coleman was a HOF-level base stealer. If wasn't a mediocre hitter (and a coke fiend), he'd be in already.

Edgar did ONE thing well. Something that came up four, maybe five times a game. During the other 60 plate appearances, he sat on his ***, polishing his bat. Others at least were on the field for HALF the plays, presumably ready to make an impact.

Posted by toddcommish on 8/18/2017 10:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 8/18/2017 10:25:00 AM (view original):
The bottom line is it's foolish to use walks as a negative when evaluating someone as a hitter. As has been pointed out previously in this thread, it would be absurd to say "Ya, those Bonds and Ruth guys were great hitters, but they could've been so much better if they just swung more."

Edgar was a HOF-level hitter. If he wasn't a DH, he'd be in already - which is unbelievably moronic in and of itself.

Omar Vizquel was a HOF-level fielder. If he wasn't a mediocre hitter, he'd be in already.
Ellis Valentine was a HOF-level thrower. If he wasn't mediocre at most other aspects of the game, he'd be in already.
Vince Coleman was a HOF-level base stealer. If wasn't a mediocre hitter (and a coke fiend), he'd be in already.

Edgar did ONE thing well. Something that came up four, maybe five times a game. During the other 60 plate appearances, he sat on his ***, polishing his bat. Others at least were on the field for HALF the plays, presumably ready to make an impact.

That's my point though. If Edgar played his entire career as a ****** 3B or a subpar 1B, no one would think twice about putting him in. Which means a guy who hurts his team with his glove is viewed as more valuable than one who doesn't take the field at all. If you don't see the foolishness in that, I don't know what to tell you.

As for someone like Vizquel - I'd have no problem with an all-time defensive great with a weak bat getting inducted. Sadly, many others would.

Posted by Jtpsops on 8/18/2017 10:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 8/18/2017 10:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 8/18/2017 10:25:00 AM (view original):
The bottom line is it's foolish to use walks as a negative when evaluating someone as a hitter. As has been pointed out previously in this thread, it would be absurd to say "Ya, those Bonds and Ruth guys were great hitters, but they could've been so much better if they just swung more."

Edgar was a HOF-level hitter. If he wasn't a DH, he'd be in already - which is unbelievably moronic in and of itself.

Omar Vizquel was a HOF-level fielder. If he wasn't a mediocre hitter, he'd be in already.
Ellis Valentine was a HOF-level thrower. If he wasn't mediocre at most other aspects of the game, he'd be in already.
Vince Coleman was a HOF-level base stealer. If wasn't a mediocre hitter (and a coke fiend), he'd be in already.

Edgar did ONE thing well. Something that came up four, maybe five times a game. During the other 60 plate appearances, he sat on his ***, polishing his bat. Others at least were on the field for HALF the plays, presumably ready to make an impact.

That's my point though. If Edgar played his entire career as a ****** 3B or a subpar 1B, no one would think twice about putting him in. Which means a guy who hurts his team with his glove is viewed as more valuable than one who doesn't take the field at all. If you don't see the foolishness in that, I don't know what to tell you.

As for someone like Vizquel - I'd have no problem with an all-time defensive great with a weak bat getting inducted. Sadly, many others would.

I understand what you're saying, but HE DIDN'T PLAY HIS ENTIRE CAREER AT 3B. He's being evaluated for the HOF as a complete ballplayer, where he falls short. If there was a Hall of Great Hitters who couldn't run and couldn't field (and, oh by the way, never won a championship), he'd be on the first ballot.

Posted by toddcommish on 8/18/2017 11:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 8/18/2017 10:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 8/18/2017 10:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 8/18/2017 10:25:00 AM (view original):
The bottom line is it's foolish to use walks as a negative when evaluating someone as a hitter. As has been pointed out previously in this thread, it would be absurd to say "Ya, those Bonds and Ruth guys were great hitters, but they could've been so much better if they just swung more."

Edgar was a HOF-level hitter. If he wasn't a DH, he'd be in already - which is unbelievably moronic in and of itself.

Omar Vizquel was a HOF-level fielder. If he wasn't a mediocre hitter, he'd be in already.
Ellis Valentine was a HOF-level thrower. If he wasn't mediocre at most other aspects of the game, he'd be in already.
Vince Coleman was a HOF-level base stealer. If wasn't a mediocre hitter (and a coke fiend), he'd be in already.

Edgar did ONE thing well. Something that came up four, maybe five times a game. During the other 60 plate appearances, he sat on his ***, polishing his bat. Others at least were on the field for HALF the plays, presumably ready to make an impact.

That's my point though. If Edgar played his entire career as a ****** 3B or a subpar 1B, no one would think twice about putting him in. Which means a guy who hurts his team with his glove is viewed as more valuable than one who doesn't take the field at all. If you don't see the foolishness in that, I don't know what to tell you.

As for someone like Vizquel - I'd have no problem with an all-time defensive great with a weak bat getting inducted. Sadly, many others would.

I understand what you're saying, but HE DIDN'T PLAY HIS ENTIRE CAREER AT 3B. He's being evaluated for the HOF as a complete ballplayer, where he falls short. If there was a Hall of Great Hitters who couldn't run and couldn't field (and, oh by the way, never won a championship), he'd be on the first ballot.

So fair to say you're opposed to Ortiz and Thome getting in?

Posted by Jtpsops on 8/18/2017 11:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 8/18/2017 11:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 8/18/2017 10:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 8/18/2017 10:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 8/18/2017 10:25:00 AM (view original):
The bottom line is it's foolish to use walks as a negative when evaluating someone as a hitter. As has been pointed out previously in this thread, it would be absurd to say "Ya, those Bonds and Ruth guys were great hitters, but they could've been so much better if they just swung more."

Edgar was a HOF-level hitter. If he wasn't a DH, he'd be in already - which is unbelievably moronic in and of itself.

Omar Vizquel was a HOF-level fielder. If he wasn't a mediocre hitter, he'd be in already.
Ellis Valentine was a HOF-level thrower. If he wasn't mediocre at most other aspects of the game, he'd be in already.
Vince Coleman was a HOF-level base stealer. If wasn't a mediocre hitter (and a coke fiend), he'd be in already.

Edgar did ONE thing well. Something that came up four, maybe five times a game. During the other 60 plate appearances, he sat on his ***, polishing his bat. Others at least were on the field for HALF the plays, presumably ready to make an impact.

That's my point though. If Edgar played his entire career as a ****** 3B or a subpar 1B, no one would think twice about putting him in. Which means a guy who hurts his team with his glove is viewed as more valuable than one who doesn't take the field at all. If you don't see the foolishness in that, I don't know what to tell you.

As for someone like Vizquel - I'd have no problem with an all-time defensive great with a weak bat getting inducted. Sadly, many others would.

I understand what you're saying, but HE DIDN'T PLAY HIS ENTIRE CAREER AT 3B. He's being evaluated for the HOF as a complete ballplayer, where he falls short. If there was a Hall of Great Hitters who couldn't run and couldn't field (and, oh by the way, never won a championship), he'd be on the first ballot.

So fair to say you're opposed to Ortiz and Thome getting in?

Yeah, I have an issue with one-dimensional players. I may be old-fashioned, but I think a BASEBALL PLAYER is better than someone who is just a hitter, or a fielder, or a runner, or a thrower.

Fair enough. I appreciate the consistency.

Todd, I think that's patently unfair. You're basically punishing the players because you don't like the rules. The reality is that the DH exists and is used, and players at that position have been very, very good. It's not fair to punish them for that. I think that since they can't contribute on defense, the standards are certainly higher. But a DH shouldn't have to outhit a poor-fielding 1B or RF to qualify. Those guys aren't adding any value with their defensive "contributions." If he'd played in the modern era Ruth probably would have played a number of his later seasons at DH. Ted Williams would probably have been primarily a DH - his defensive reputation was quite poor. Same could be said for Hank Greenberg. Does the fact that they played in an era in which the DH simply didn't exist make them better players?

I've heard more people argue for Sheffield for the HOF over Edgar over the years, and Sheffield was awful in the field.

Wear and tear, fatigue and potential injury. DH are seldom at risk of any of those like a guy poorly shagging flies for 9 innings or missing grounders regularly. They're not complete ballplayers because, if EM could have been a bad 3B, it seems like they'd have found another hitter and let him be a bad 3B. Sort of like moving C to 1B/OF because their bats are so good but in reverse.

I'd just as soon NOT speculate on what MIGHT have happened in the 20s-60s with some of the best hitters ever if the rules are different. They played the field.

Posted by dahsdebater on 8/18/2017 12:11:00 PM (view original):
Todd, I think that's patently unfair. You're basically punishing the players because you don't like the rules. The reality is that the DH exists and is used, and players at that position have been very, very good. It's not fair to punish them for that. I think that since they can't contribute on defense, the standards are certainly higher. But a DH shouldn't have to outhit a poor-fielding 1B or RF to qualify. Those guys aren't adding any value with their defensive "contributions." If he'd played in the modern era Ruth probably would have played a number of his later seasons at DH. Ted Williams would probably have been primarily a DH - his defensive reputation was quite poor. Same could be said for Hank Greenberg. Does the fact that they played in an era in which the DH simply didn't exist make them better players?

I'm not sure why some of you guys (who clearly know the game) insist on playing HYPOTHETICAL games with "Well, if Edgar played in the Baker Bowl, he would've hit 50 homers" or "If Babe Ruth played in the modern era, he would be a DH".

Well, none of that **** happened. Edgar wasn't a good enough defender for his team, so they played someone else out on the field. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU? It's not like they put Brooks Robinson or another Gold Glove in his place. It was David Bell or Mark McLemore or Russ Davis (pulling random Mariner 3B/UT out of my ***; too lazy to look it up) His impotence/incompetence in the field means they had to insert a lesser hitter into the lineup just to cover his ***.

And it's the HOF, and it's only my opinion. He was a great hitter for the era. That's it. He wasn't a great PLAYER. You disagree. That's fine.

"His impotence/incompetence in the field means they had to insert a lesser hitter into the lineup just to cover his ***."

This is a pretty flawed statement in itself. It's more than likely it was "Well, we've got McLemore and Edgar - which one do you want at third and which one do you want at DH?"

You are again making your own presumptions. You're acting like the Mariners had another good hitter they had to bench because Edgar couldn't play the field. If they had another great hitter on their bench, that hitter or Edgar would've been in the field. The crap they played at third likely had little to do with the fact Edgar was an awful defender and more to do with a lack of better hitting options.

Posted by dahsdebater on 8/17/2017 3:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 8/17/2017 1:32:00 PM (view original):
how is possibly not scoring at all preferable to scoring at least one run? Isn't the aim in baseball to score the most runs possible?

Historically, in situations with 1 out and runners on first and third the team will score 1.17 runs. If you hit a sac fly (or a fielder's choice) and wind up with 2 outs and a runner on first, you score 1 run and expect to score an average of 0.23 more runs, so you improved your situation by about 0.06 runs. A decent result, just slightly above the average outcome. If you get a sac hit and wind up with a runner on 2nd and 2 out, you get your run and expect 0.33 more. Now you've improved your expected runs by .16. If you walk, no runs score, but with 1 out and the bases loaded you expect to score on average 1.57 runs. That's an improvement of 0.36 runs, or 0.2 runs better than the groundout and 0.3 runs better than the sac fly. Unless you really need that first run - as in, as BL says, a walkoff situation, or maybe even if you need 1 to gain a lead or even the score in the late innings - the walk is the best of these 3 scenarios.

I should note here that this is not some sabrmetric mumbo jumbo. Those expected run values are based on historical data from 1984 to 1994. It's also worth pointing out that expected run values increase proportionally with offense. So when Edgar played, when there was more run scoring, the expected run values go up. That means you're giving up a little bit more than these expected run values estimates by taking an out for a run. During Edgar's prime it may have been about .05-.1 more runs more costly to sacrifice vs. walking than the older historical data suggests.

Actually, is is sabrmetric mumbo jumbo.

The approach that hitters in general are taking to their plate appearances these days, due to the influence of sabrmetrics, has changed between today's game and what you saw in the past, such as during the era in which you reference for the expected run values. It would be kind of silly to think that it hasn't, and it's likewise kind of silly to think that those numbers would not change when the game is played with a different mindset.

The bottom line is (and always has been) . . . you should prefer to have your best hitters swinging the bat and putting the ball in play rather than trying to work for the sabrmetrically attractive walk, especially in a situation when runners are on base and in scoring position.

Cutting down on strikeouts as hitters would also be a good thing. Strikeouts add zero value to offense. Arguing that strikeouts are "just a different kind of out" is not only fundamentally incorrect, but basically retarded.

Sabrmetrics have had an adverse impact on today's game and the way that it's played.

As a related aside . . . I was listening to the Yankee game on the radio the other night. One inning, Aaron Judge led off with a double. Didi Gregorius followed. The Yankee announcer said "Didi's job here is to pull the ball and move Judge over to third". And my first reaction was to laugh, knowing that sabremetrics people would be ******* all over that.