[stitchface]

Yeah it's pretty self explanatory. Not giving credit to a guy who did his job is crazy. If you're going to make a out, make it productive. That is exactly what Dan Johnson did. I would rather have Dan Johnson bringing home that run on a sac fly, rather than not bringing home that run at all.

I'm pretty sure you're missing the point completely.

 

No im not missing the point. He said he thought Kendall's Ab was the only good one in the inning. Which is completely false. Not everyting has to be about stats. Stats aren't useless, but stats are so subjective that one must really pay extreme attention to other details of the game that stats don't record.

 

:shock: I stand corrected raisin.

 

What is that supposed to mean?

 

the shocked face means I can't believe you actually believe that. the comment to raisin is a comment to raisin that has nothing to do with you.xz

[UK1679666180]

ok, so who had good at bats in this inning?

 

Mark Ellis: Strike looking, Ball, Ellis safe at first on Unknown's fielding error, Ellis to second advancing on throw.

Marco Scutaro: Ball, Foul, Foul, Scutaro grounded out to second, Ellis to third

Dan Johnson hit for Antonio Perez.

Dan Johnson: Johnson hit sacrifice fly to center, Ellis scored.

Jason Kendall: Ball, Ball, Strike looking, Kendall singled to center.

Nick Swisher: Strike looking, Strike swinging, Foul, Foul, Swisher struck out swinging.

 

 

I count Kendall and no one else. of course, it was the ninth and the A's were down two - should that matter? Are Scutaro and Johnson's ABs good since they got high fives in the dugout?

 

of course not. if the A's were down one would I think differently? Yes.

 

Without having watched the game, it's once again all situational.

 

Did Mark Ellis get to 2B, b/c he was robbed of a hit and the IF'er in a rush to get the close threw the ball into the dugout?

 

Did Johnson fall behind in the count 0-2 and did the best he could with a tough pitch?

 

How well did the pitchers throw against them?

 

It's incomplete to me.

 

It wasn't productive based on the game situation rather than non-situational outcome.

[stitchface]

ok, so who had good at bats in this inning?

 

Mark Ellis: Strike looking, Ball, Ellis safe at first on Unknown's fielding error, Ellis to second advancing on throw.

Marco Scutaro: Ball, Foul, Foul, Scutaro grounded out to second, Ellis to third

Dan Johnson hit for Antonio Perez.

Dan Johnson: Johnson hit sacrifice fly to center, Ellis scored.

Jason Kendall: Ball, Ball, Strike looking, Kendall singled to center.

Nick Swisher: Strike looking, Strike swinging, Foul, Foul, Swisher struck out swinging.

 

 

I count Kendall and no one else. of course, it was the ninth and the A's were down two - should that matter? Are Scutaro and Johnson's ABs good since they got high fives in the dugout?

 

of course not. if the A's were down one would I think differently? Yes.

 

Without having watched the game, it's once again all situational.

 

Did Mark Ellis get to 2B, b/c he was robbed of a hit and the IF'er in a rush to get the close threw the ball into the dugout?

 

Did Johnson fall behind in the count 0-2 and did the best he could with a tough pitch?

 

How well did the pitchers throw against them?

 

It's incomplete to me.

 

It wasn't productive based on the game situation rather than non-situational outcome.

 

I think its safe to say the count wasn't 0-2 when he walked up to the plate. therefore, its safe to say he failed. how well did the pitchers throw against them? what is this kindergarten? now we are giving players credit for doing "the best they could" against tough pitches? That's ridiculous. he failed.

[stitchface]

Did Johnson fall behind in the count 0-2 and did the best he could with a tough pitch?

 

actually, the play by play clearly shows he swung at the first pitch. you should read it.

[baseball7897]

ok, so who had good at bats in this inning?

 

Mark Ellis: Strike looking, Ball, Ellis safe at first on Unknown's fielding error, Ellis to second advancing on throw.

Marco Scutaro: Ball, Foul, Foul, Scutaro grounded out to second, Ellis to third

Dan Johnson hit for Antonio Perez.

Dan Johnson: Johnson hit sacrifice fly to center, Ellis scored.

Jason Kendall: Ball, Ball, Strike looking, Kendall singled to center.

Nick Swisher: Strike looking, Strike swinging, Foul, Foul, Swisher struck out swinging.

 

 

I count Kendall and no one else. of course, it was the ninth and the A's were down two - should that matter? Are Scutaro and Johnson's ABs good since they got high fives in the dugout?

 

of course not. if the A's were down one would I think differently? Yes.

 

Without having watched the game, it's once again all situational.

 

Did Mark Ellis get to 2B, b/c he was robbed of a hit and the IF'er in a rush to get the close threw the ball into the dugout?

 

Did Johnson fall behind in the count 0-2 and did the best he could with a tough pitch?

 

How well did the pitchers throw against them?

 

It's incomplete to me.

 

It wasn't productive based on the game situation rather than non-situational outcome.

 

I think its safe to say the count wasn't 0-2 when he walked up to the plate. therefore, its safe to say he failed. how well did the pitchers throw against them? what is this kindergarten? now we are giving players credit for doing "the best they could" against tough pitches? That's ridiculous. he failed.

 

He did not fail. He brought the runner home, and to me that means he got the job done. A failed situation would be him not doing anything productive in that situation.

[Guest]

reducing your team's chances to win is not productive to me.

[UK1679666180]

I think its safe to say the count wasn't 0-2 when he walked up to the plate. therefore, its safe to say he failed. how well did the pitchers throw against them? what is this kindergarten? now we are giving players credit for doing "the best they could" against tough pitches? That's ridiculous. he failed.

 

Yeah the quality of the opposing pitches dictates how well a batter can do.

 

If you put every pitch into the same quality catagory, you'd be in a fantasy world. It doesn't work that way.

 

Sure, he didn't get the job done, but that doesn't erase how, why, or what took place to get that result.

 

Similar to telling me that a hitter went 2-4, that doesn't tell me enough as how good did he do. The <1.000 OPS is good statistically but did he hit 2 line drives or 2 seeing eye singles or something in-between?

[Guest]

I think its safe to say the count wasn't 0-2 when he walked up to the plate. therefore, its safe to say he failed. how well did the pitchers throw against them? what is this kindergarten? now we are giving players credit for doing "the best they could" against tough pitches? That's ridiculous. he failed.

 

Yeah the quality of the opposing pitches dictates how well a batter can do.

 

If you put every pitch into the same quality catagory, you'd be in a fantasy world. It doesn't work that way.

 

Sure, he didn't get the job done, but that doesn't erase how, why, or what took place to get that result.

 

Similar to telling me that a hitter went 2-4, that doesn't tell me enough as how good did he do. The <1.000 OPS is good statistically but did he hit 2 line drives or 2 seeing eye singles or something in-between?

 

which is why statistics are only meaningful in a large sample size. nevertheless, that at bat is not a successful one regardless of who he was facing. great hitters get hits off great pitchers. weaker hitters don't. this is all reflected statistically.

[baseball7897]

I think its safe to say the count wasn't 0-2 when he walked up to the plate. therefore, its safe to say he failed. how well did the pitchers throw against them? what is this kindergarten? now we are giving players credit for doing "the best they could" against tough pitches? That's ridiculous. he failed.

 

Yeah the quality of the opposing pitches dictates how well a batter can do.

 

If you put every pitch into the same quality catagory, you'd be in a fantasy world. It doesn't work that way.

Sure, he didn't get the job done, but that doesn't erase how, why, or what took place to get that result.

 

Similar to telling me that a hitter went 2-4, that doesn't tell me enough as how good did he do. The <1.000 OPS is good statistically but did he hit 2 line drives or 2 seeing eye singles or something in-between?

 

If the count was 2-1, 3-1 or sometimes 1-1, then the hitter should be looking for a fastball. If the pitcher gets ahead of the hitter, then the pitcher can make the hitter chase his pitch. Nothing better than a 2-1 off-speed pitch. :)

[Transmogrified Tiger]

So in that situation, would you rather Johnson drive in the run with a sac fly, or walk/get hit by a pitch/hit a pop up that gets dropped/etc.?

[baseball7897]

I think its safe to say the count wasn't 0-2 when he walked up to the plate. therefore, its safe to say he failed. how well did the pitchers throw against them? what is this kindergarten? now we are giving players credit for doing "the best they could" against tough pitches? That's ridiculous. he failed.

 

Yeah the quality of the opposing pitches dictates how well a batter can do.

 

If you put every pitch into the same quality catagory, you'd be in a fantasy world. It doesn't work that way.

 

Sure, he didn't get the job done, but that doesn't erase how, why, or what took place to get that result.

 

Similar to telling me that a hitter went 2-4, that doesn't tell me enough as how good did he do. The <1.000 OPS is good statistically but did he hit 2 line drives or 2 seeing eye singles or something in-between?

 

which is why statistics are only meaningful in a large sample size. nevertheless, that at bat is not a successful one regardless of who he was facing. great hitters get hits off great pitchers. weaker hitters don't. this is all reflected statistically.

 

And that is why I said stats dont tell you everything.

[UK1679666180]

which is why statistics are only meaningful in a large sample size. nevertheless, that at bat is not a successful one regardless of who he was facing. great hitters get hits off great pitchers. weaker hitters don't. this is all reflected statistically.

 

 

 

Had Johnson hit a line drive that CF made a great diving catch that allowed Ellis to score, determining whether or not it was a "good" AB is much more difficult than the cut and dry productive measure.

 

Without watching it, I can't tell you if it was a good or bad AB, I can tell you it was unproductive as far as the game situation.

[Guest]

lol. that's what I said. lets not get into semantics here since the discussion was not about "having good atbats - it was about productive and unproductive outs. :)

[UK1679666180]

If the count was 2-1, 3-1 or sometimes 1-1, then the hitter should be looking for a fastball. If the pitcher gets ahead of the hitter, then the pitcher can make the hitter chase his pitch. Nothing better than a 2-1 off-speed pitch.

 

The most important count in baseball is 1-1. 2-1 offspeed pitches do nothing, if a pitcher changes his arm speed or the batter can't catch-up to his FB and the pitcher does the batter favor by speeding up his bat for him.

[baseball7897]

So in that situation, would you rather Johnson drive in the run with a sac fly, or walk/get hit by a pitch/hit a pop up that gets dropped/etc.?

lol, sorry I forgot about your question. In that situation I would rather have Johnson get on-base. But, if you're going to make an out, then make it productive. I rather have one of my batter's make a productive out, rather than not doing anything productive.

[UK1679666180]

lol. that's what I said. lets not get into semantics here since the discussion was not about "having good atbats - it was about productive and unproductive outs. :)

 

Heh, let me look at your previous statement.

 

 

ok, so who had good at bats in this inning?

[Guest]

I think its safe to say the count wasn't 0-2 when he walked up to the plate. therefore, its safe to say he failed. how well did the pitchers throw against them? what is this kindergarten? now we are giving players credit for doing "the best they could" against tough pitches? That's ridiculous. he failed.

 

Yeah the quality of the opposing pitches dictates how well a batter can do.

 

If you put every pitch into the same quality catagory, you'd be in a fantasy world. It doesn't work that way.

 

Sure, he didn't get the job done, but that doesn't erase how, why, or what took place to get that result.

 

Similar to telling me that a hitter went 2-4, that doesn't tell me enough as how good did he do. The <1.000 OPS is good statistically but did he hit 2 line drives or 2 seeing eye singles or something in-between?

 

which is why statistics are only meaningful in a large sample size. nevertheless, that at bat is not a successful one regardless of who he was facing. great hitters get hits off great pitchers. weaker hitters don't. this is all reflected statistically.

 

And that is why I said stats dont tell you everything.

 

you said johnson's at bat was productive. it wasn't. then you said stats are too subjective - what are you suggesting is less subjective? Your opinion? How is that possible? stats are by definition objective - how they are interpreted is subjective. hence, you can say your interpretation of johnson's out as unproductive is subjective. the fact that he made an out is not at all subjective and is what is reflected in the statistic (or not since he won't get charged with an AB in this case).

[Guest]

lol. that's what I said. lets not get into semantics here since the discussion was not about "having good atbats - it was about productive and unproductive outs. :)

 

Heh, let me look at your previous statement.

 

 

ok, so who had good at bats in this inning?

 

you can take that out of context if you want, but I think the meaning was clear within the framework of this discussion.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

So in that situation, would you rather Johnson drive in the run with a sac fly, or walk/get hit by a pitch/hit a pop up that gets dropped/etc.?

lol, sorry I forgot about your question. In that situation I would rather have Johnson get on-base. But, if you're going to make an out, then make it productive. I rather have one of my batter's make a productive out, rather than not doing anything productive.

 

Obviously you'd rather have a productive out than a non-productive out. But that's not the choice. It's similar to saying that striking out with a runner on first is productive because it wasn't a double play. Just because there are less desirable outcomes doesn't mean the one that happened was good.

Edited September 4, 2006 by Transmogrified Tiger

[baseball7897]

If the count was 2-1, 3-1 or sometimes 1-1, then the hitter should be looking for a fastball. If the pitcher gets ahead of the hitter, then the pitcher can make the hitter chase his pitch. Nothing better than a 2-1 off-speed pitch.

 

The most important count in baseball is 1-1. 2-1 offspeed pitches do nothing, if a pitcher changes his arm speed or the batter can't catch-up to his FB and the pitcher does the batter favor by speeding up his bat for him.

 

The most important/best pitch in baseball is first pitch strike.

 

If the batter is ahead of the count 2-1, then the hitter is looking fastball. I dont care how hard a pitcher throws. If you throw a changeup on a 2-1 count, then your batter will probably pull it foul. Then you have many options on the 2-2 count. Jam the hitter with a fastball, or a slow curveball outside of the zone could get the hitter to chase.

 

The only situation I see to not throw a changeup on a 2-1 count is if the hitter has shown he cannot catch up to your fastball. Then obviously throwing a changeup 2-1 would make no sense. Because it would speed up the hitters bat.

Edited September 4, 2006 by baseball7897

[Guest]

Obviously you'd rather have a productive out than a non-productive out.

 

in this case, I don't care. makes no difference.

[UK1679666180]

Pitch is different than a count, which is why a batter is more unsuccessful down 1-2 in the count rather than 0-1.

[UK1679666180]

If the batter is ahead of the count 2-1, then the hitter is looking fastball. I dont care how hard a pitcher throws. If you throw a changeup on a 2-1 count, then your batter will probably pull it foul. Then you have many options on the 2-2 count. Jam the hitter with a fastball, or a slow curveball outside of the zone could get the hitter to chase.

 

Each pitcher has a "command" pitch, more often than not a command pitch will be his FB and he if can locate it properly, the pitcher should throw it. Each team should have an idea of a hitter's hot/cold chart as well using his batting style as an indicator of where the hitter typically likes the ball (crouched hitters like the ball up more than not and hitter that stand tall usually like the ball low). If the pitcher can't throw his change for a strike as much as his FB, the chance for the hitter taking and getting the count 3-1 is too high. The ability to throw a change where he wants is extremely rare and it's a pitch that's typically at its best down and away from the strike zone. Not enough pitchers are comfortable enough with the change to throw it when they're behind in the count.

[baseball7897]

Pitch is different than a count, which is why a batter is more unsuccessful down 1-2 in the count rather than 0-1.

 

True. I dont know why I included pitch count with first pitch strike.

 

As a pitcher, I go into every game with a strategy. This could be said for all pitchers.

 

1. First pitch strike- how many can I throw and what will be the total affect on the outcome of my game.

2. More change-ups- I will throw the first 5 hitters at least one change-up per AB. Obviously dont throw a weak hitter a changeup.

3. Second time through the order, start your best hitters off with a change-up or off-speed pitch.

4. After I have thrown a change-up, I throw my best fastball(talk about messing with a hitters timing)

5. Throw a 2 seam fastball to get movement

6. Work in and out, up and down

7. When im ahead in the count 0-2, I usually throw a letter high fastball from the center of the plate in, or a curveball in the dirt.( I never throw a 0-2 for a strike)

8. Work the ladder- first pitch fastball low and away. Second pitch fastball belt high in, third pitch fastball letter high.

 

Keep this in mind if your son is a pitcher. I gurantee you he will succeed. But, there are always set backs.

[Bruno7481]

I agree that it is hard to judge the relative sucess of an AB with the few lines of play-by-play that were posted earlier.

 

Dan Johnson hit a sac fly, he could have done a lot worse, and could have done better at the same time.

 

I'm more concerned with the individual quality of the AB. Maybe Johnson hit a lazy flyball. Or he could have hit one to the wall, or been robbed by a dving catch like UK mentioned.

 

If that is the case, that is just part of the game, not necessarilly a failure. I'd be hard pressed to "blame" a guy who crushed one to the wall.

 

And for the record, put me in the group that considers the follwing to be a successfull inning.

 

Juan Pierre doubles.

Ryan Theriot grounds out to 2nd. Pierre advances to 3rd.

Aramis Ramirez grounds out to shortstop. Pierre Scores.

 

Sure it's not a big inning, but sprinkle a couple of those in between a big inning and you will have a good ballclub.