Lou on SportsCenter

[USSoccer]

and i believe that making an out in a run-scoring situation is much less valuable than a hit. if you try to make an out in that situation, there's no guarantee that you will score the run, might i remind you.

 

Of course a hit is better and no one would say different. And who's trying to make an out? I talked about making contact is a better option than striking out with a man on third and striking never brings home the guy from 3rd. WP/PB would but no matter what the technique the runner probably scores from that.

 

With a runner at third and less than two outs you better believe that the goal of the AB is to drive the ball to the OF deep enough to drive the runner in from third. If it results in a Sac Fly then it was still a very succesful at bat.

 

A base hit is a great bennie to the AB if it happens. But picking up the runner at third is a bigger bennie.

 

The poster who started this disagrees.

[CuseCubFan69]

and i believe that making an out in a run-scoring situation is much less valuable than a hit. if you try to make an out in that situation, there's no guarantee that you will score the run, might i remind you.

 

Of course a hit is better and no one would say different. And who's trying to make an out? I talked about making contact is a better option than striking out with a man on third and striking never brings home the guy from 3rd. WP/PB would but no matter what the technique the runner probably scores from that.

 

With a runner at third and less than two outs you better believe that the goal of the AB is to drive the ball to the OF deep enough to drive the runner in from third. If it results in a Sac Fly then it was still a very succesful at bat.

 

A base hit is a great bennie to the AB if it happens. But picking up the runner at third is a bigger bennie.

 

The poster who started this disagrees.

 

I read it as if he gets a hit even better but scoring the run is the most important thing.

[Magnetic Curses]

and i believe that making an out in a run-scoring situation is much less valuable than a hit. if you try to make an out in that situation, there's no guarantee that you will score the run, might i remind you.

 

Of course a hit is better and no one would say different. And who's trying to make an out? I talked about making contact is a better option than striking out with a man on third and striking never brings home the guy from 3rd. WP/PB would but no matter what the technique the runner probably scores from that.

 

over the course of a season, you will be more successful trying to hit the ball hard in that situation. if you're down 1 with a runner at third, you have the same chance of knocking the runner in by putting a good swing on the ball then by chopping weakly at it, trying to hit it to an infielder.

 

in addition, you have a much better chance of winning by trying to hit the ball hard.

 

Who's chopping weakly at a ball? I'm talking about hitting the ball sully and not striking out sure, putting a good swing on it is helpful obviously. If I have a Theriot up and there are 1 out and a guy at third and that run is needed, I want him to at least hit the top half of the ball to score the runner, especially if the inf is playing back. Still a good solid swing but not the proverbial girl swing that you mentioned in your post.

 

there's no guarantee that hitting the top half of the ball will produce the run. and if he's trying to hit the top half of the ball, why not just focus on hitting the whole ball and increasing your team's run expectancy? i mean, if he's so good at hitting a ball in a certain place, he must be skilled enough to drive the ball somewhere, right?

 

micromanging like that decreases your overall runs and thusly your win total.

 

if theriot is so good that he can hit the ball wherever he wants to, why put a limit on what he can do?

[CubColtPacer]

and i believe that making an out in a run-scoring situation is much less valuable than a hit. if you try to make an out in that situation, there's no guarantee that you will score the run, might i remind you.

 

Of course a hit is better and no one would say different. And who's trying to make an out? I talked about making contact is a better option than striking out with a man on third and striking never brings home the guy from 3rd. WP/PB would but no matter what the technique the runner probably scores from that.

 

over the course of a season, you will be more successful trying to hit the ball hard in that situation. if you're down 1 with a runner at third, you have the same chance of knocking the runner in by putting a good swing on the ball then by chopping weakly at it, trying to hit it to an infielder.

 

in addition, you have a much better chance of winning by trying to hit the ball hard.

 

I think the bolded part is where we all are disagreeing-I don't think it is the same chance at all-trying to put a good swing on the ball leads to more K's and more pop-ups that lesssen the chance of scoring the runner.

 

that's simply not true. trying to make an out is worth considerably less than not trying to make an out.

 

by swinging weakly, you lessen your run expectancy in all situations.

 

Well, first I'd refer more to Cuse's post of wanting to hit a solid ground ball-that's what I'd want my hitters as well. Also, if hitting a ground ball makes the chances of scoring the run significantly higher, then that makes up for the difference between the out and a baserunner. It will decrease your chances of scoring multiple runs in that scenario (which is low anyway, because most of the time I want my players doing this is when there are poor hitters coming up behind them), but you will definitely increase your chance of scoring 1 run, and in those circumstances the 1 run that has a greater chance of scoring has more value than the small possibility of multiple runs.

[CubColtPacer]

and i believe that making an out in a run-scoring situation is much less valuable than a hit. if you try to make an out in that situation, there's no guarantee that you will score the run, might i remind you.

 

Of course a hit is better and no one would say different. And who's trying to make an out? I talked about making contact is a better option than striking out with a man on third and striking never brings home the guy from 3rd. WP/PB would but no matter what the technique the runner probably scores from that.

 

over the course of a season, you will be more successful trying to hit the ball hard in that situation. if you're down 1 with a runner at third, you have the same chance of knocking the runner in by putting a good swing on the ball then by chopping weakly at it, trying to hit it to an infielder.

 

in addition, you have a much better chance of winning by trying to hit the ball hard.

 

Who's chopping weakly at a ball? I'm talking about hitting the ball sully and not striking out sure, putting a good swing on it is helpful obviously. If I have a Theriot up and there are 1 out and a guy at third and that run is needed, I want him to at least hit the top half of the ball to score the runner, especially if the inf is playing back. Still a good solid swing but not the proverbial girl swing that you mentioned in your post.

 

there's no guarantee that hitting the top half of the ball will produce the run. and if he's trying to hit the top half of the ball, why not just focus on hitting the whole ball and increasing your team's run expectancy? i mean, if he's so good at hitting a ball in a certain place, he must be skilled enough to drive the ball somewhere, right?

 

micromanging like that decreases your overall runs and thusly your win total.

 

if theriot is so good that he can hit the ball wherever he wants to, why put a limit on what he can do?

 

It's a lot easier to hit a ground ball no matter what the pitcher throws then to drive the ball for a base hit-it is much, much easier to do the first than the second.

[CuseCubFan69]

and i believe that making an out in a run-scoring situation is much less valuable than a hit. if you try to make an out in that situation, there's no guarantee that you will score the run, might i remind you.

 

Of course a hit is better and no one would say different. And who's trying to make an out? I talked about making contact is a better option than striking out with a man on third and striking never brings home the guy from 3rd. WP/PB would but no matter what the technique the runner probably scores from that.

 

over the course of a season, you will be more successful trying to hit the ball hard in that situation. if you're down 1 with a runner at third, you have the same chance of knocking the runner in by putting a good swing on the ball then by chopping weakly at it, trying to hit it to an infielder.

 

in addition, you have a much better chance of winning by trying to hit the ball hard.

 

Who's chopping weakly at a ball? I'm talking about hitting the ball sully and not striking out sure, putting a good swing on it is helpful obviously. If I have a Theriot up and there are 1 out and a guy at third and that run is needed, I want him to at least hit the top half of the ball to score the runner, especially if the inf is playing back. Still a good solid swing but not the proverbial girl swing that you mentioned in your post.

 

there's no guarantee that hitting the top half of the ball will produce the run. and if he's trying to hit the top half of the ball, why not just focus on hitting the whole ball and increasing your team's run expectancy? i mean, if he's so good at hitting a ball in a certain place, he must be skilled enough to drive the ball somewhere, right?

 

micromanging like that decreases your overall runs and thusly your win total.

 

if theriot is so good that he can hit the ball wherever he wants to, why put a limit on what he can do?

 

You have a bigger spot to shoot for. You're looking upper/center and not just the center and hitters work on these things, ones like Theriot do.

[Magnetic Curses]

and i believe that making an out in a run-scoring situation is much less valuable than a hit. if you try to make an out in that situation, there's no guarantee that you will score the run, might i remind you.

 

Of course a hit is better and no one would say different. And who's trying to make an out? I talked about making contact is a better option than striking out with a man on third and striking never brings home the guy from 3rd. WP/PB would but no matter what the technique the runner probably scores from that.

 

over the course of a season, you will be more successful trying to hit the ball hard in that situation. if you're down 1 with a runner at third, you have the same chance of knocking the runner in by putting a good swing on the ball then by chopping weakly at it, trying to hit it to an infielder.

 

in addition, you have a much better chance of winning by trying to hit the ball hard.

 

I think the bolded part is where we all are disagreeing-I don't think it is the same chance at all-trying to put a good swing on the ball leads to more K's and more pop-ups that lesssen the chance of scoring the runner.

 

that's simply not true. trying to make an out is worth considerably less than not trying to make an out.

 

by swinging weakly, you lessen your run expectancy in all situations.

 

Well, first I'd refer more to Cuse's post of wanting to hit a solid ground ball-that's what I'd want my hitters as well. Also, if hitting a ground ball makes the chances of scoring the run significantly higher, then that makes up for the difference between the out and a baserunner. It will decrease your chances of scoring multiple runs in that scenario (which is low anyway, because most of the time I want my players doing this is when there are poor hitters coming up behind them), but you will definitely increase your chance of scoring 1 run, and in those circumstances the 1 run that has a greater chance of scoring has more value than the small possibility of multiple runs.

 

again, it comes down to not making outs. there's absolutely no proof that supports your hypothesis, while tangotiger alone has amassed more data than could ever possibly be known by me on the subject.

 

a runner on third with nobody out scores just as many times, if not more, when a player tries to drive the ball rather than waving at it weakly.

[Magnetic Curses]

and i believe that making an out in a run-scoring situation is much less valuable than a hit. if you try to make an out in that situation, there's no guarantee that you will score the run, might i remind you.

 

Of course a hit is better and no one would say different. And who's trying to make an out? I talked about making contact is a better option than striking out with a man on third and striking never brings home the guy from 3rd. WP/PB would but no matter what the technique the runner probably scores from that.

 

over the course of a season, you will be more successful trying to hit the ball hard in that situation. if you're down 1 with a runner at third, you have the same chance of knocking the runner in by putting a good swing on the ball then by chopping weakly at it, trying to hit it to an infielder.

 

in addition, you have a much better chance of winning by trying to hit the ball hard.

 

Who's chopping weakly at a ball? I'm talking about hitting the ball sully and not striking out sure, putting a good swing on it is helpful obviously. If I have a Theriot up and there are 1 out and a guy at third and that run is needed, I want him to at least hit the top half of the ball to score the runner, especially if the inf is playing back. Still a good solid swing but not the proverbial girl swing that you mentioned in your post.

 

there's no guarantee that hitting the top half of the ball will produce the run. and if he's trying to hit the top half of the ball, why not just focus on hitting the whole ball and increasing your team's run expectancy? i mean, if he's so good at hitting a ball in a certain place, he must be skilled enough to drive the ball somewhere, right?

 

micromanging like that decreases your overall runs and thusly your win total.

 

if theriot is so good that he can hit the ball wherever he wants to, why put a limit on what he can do?

 

You have a bigger spot to shoot for. You're looking upper/center and not just the center and hitters work on these things, ones like Theriot do.

 

how is the upper center part of the ball bigger than just the center of the ball?

 

it seems to me that asking your hitters to hit the ball ineffectively hamstrings them in game situations.

[CubColtPacer]

and i believe that making an out in a run-scoring situation is much less valuable than a hit. if you try to make an out in that situation, there's no guarantee that you will score the run, might i remind you.

 

Of course a hit is better and no one would say different. And who's trying to make an out? I talked about making contact is a better option than striking out with a man on third and striking never brings home the guy from 3rd. WP/PB would but no matter what the technique the runner probably scores from that.

 

over the course of a season, you will be more successful trying to hit the ball hard in that situation. if you're down 1 with a runner at third, you have the same chance of knocking the runner in by putting a good swing on the ball then by chopping weakly at it, trying to hit it to an infielder.

 

in addition, you have a much better chance of winning by trying to hit the ball hard.

 

I think the bolded part is where we all are disagreeing-I don't think it is the same chance at all-trying to put a good swing on the ball leads to more K's and more pop-ups that lesssen the chance of scoring the runner.

 

that's simply not true. trying to make an out is worth considerably less than not trying to make an out.

 

by swinging weakly, you lessen your run expectancy in all situations.

 

Well, first I'd refer more to Cuse's post of wanting to hit a solid ground ball-that's what I'd want my hitters as well. Also, if hitting a ground ball makes the chances of scoring the run significantly higher, then that makes up for the difference between the out and a baserunner. It will decrease your chances of scoring multiple runs in that scenario (which is low anyway, because most of the time I want my players doing this is when there are poor hitters coming up behind them), but you will definitely increase your chance of scoring 1 run, and in those circumstances the 1 run that has a greater chance of scoring has more value than the small possibility of multiple runs.

 

again, it comes down to not making outs. there's absolutely no proof that supports your hypothesis, while tangotiger alone has amassed more data than could ever possibly be known by me on the subject.

 

a runner on third with nobody out scores just as many times, if not more, when a player tries to drive the ball rather than waving at it weakly.

 

Can you point me to any data that supports your hypothesis either?

[CuseCubFan69]

and i believe that making an out in a run-scoring situation is much less valuable than a hit. if you try to make an out in that situation, there's no guarantee that you will score the run, might i remind you.

 

Of course a hit is better and no one would say different. And who's trying to make an out? I talked about making contact is a better option than striking out with a man on third and striking never brings home the guy from 3rd. WP/PB would but no matter what the technique the runner probably scores from that.

 

over the course of a season, you will be more successful trying to hit the ball hard in that situation. if you're down 1 with a runner at third, you have the same chance of knocking the runner in by putting a good swing on the ball then by chopping weakly at it, trying to hit it to an infielder.

 

in addition, you have a much better chance of winning by trying to hit the ball hard.

 

Who's chopping weakly at a ball? I'm talking about hitting the ball sully and not striking out sure, putting a good swing on it is helpful obviously. If I have a Theriot up and there are 1 out and a guy at third and that run is needed, I want him to at least hit the top half of the ball to score the runner, especially if the inf is playing back. Still a good solid swing but not the proverbial girl swing that you mentioned in your post.

 

there's no guarantee that hitting the top half of the ball will produce the run. and if he's trying to hit the top half of the ball, why not just focus on hitting the whole ball and increasing your team's run expectancy? i mean, if he's so good at hitting a ball in a certain place, he must be skilled enough to drive the ball somewhere, right?

 

micromanging like that decreases your overall runs and thusly your win total.

 

if theriot is so good that he can hit the ball wherever he wants to, why put a limit on what he can do?

 

You have a bigger spot to shoot for. You're looking upper/center and not just the center and hitters work on these things, ones like Theriot do.

 

how is the upper center part of the ball bigger than just the center of the ball?

 

it seems to me that asking your hitters to hit the ball ineffectively hamstrings them in game situations.

 

You don't see how the whole upper and center part of the ball is bigger than just the center?

[USSoccer]

 

Can you point me to any data that supports your hypothesis either?

 

Hilarious. So the onus is always on the people who are tearing down conventional wisdom to provide proof, while you can spout CW all you want and never provide a shred of evidence to back your claims?

[Dirt Dog Sparly]

I am of the opinion that Cuse and I are having a seperate conversation than you Sullymon.

 

This conversation started over IMB saying never. Cuse and then I later are saying, not never but in very special circumstances.

 

For that we are being pilloried for not worshiping at the alter of James.

 

The truth is we both agree with James and are saying that this is how we would apply James to REAL GAME SITUATIONS. What I get from you is that numbers are the reality as opposed to the actual game situations.

 

Go back to my post, the last on page six, and understand that according to James I am a blooming idiot. However I present the case that I picked up the information in that game situation and did the "wrong thing" for the right reasons.

 

Also understand that in eight years of coaching that is the ONLY time I have tried that in a real game. I did it once in a scrimmage game, in my first year of coaching, also but that result was less than optimal.

[CubColtPacer]

 

Can you point me to any data that supports your hypothesis either?

 

Hilarious. So the onus is always on the people who are tearing down conventional wisdom to provide proof, while you can spout CW all you want and never provide a shred of evidence to back your claims?

 

No, I'm not saying that whatsoever. He says I have no proof and then mentioned possible proof for his case. All I did was ask for the data. If he cannot provide the specific proof, then neither side will have won. I can't prove my case, because I can't prove how much higher of a chance the run will score with a different mindset at the plate-without that variable, I cannot do the math and show that run expectancies would be higher that way. He implied that he can prove his side-I'm waiting to see if that is the case or not.

[USSoccer]

 

Can you point me to any data that supports your hypothesis either?

 

Hilarious. So the onus is always on the people who are tearing down conventional wisdom to provide proof, while you can spout CW all you want and never provide a shred of evidence to back your claims?

 

No, I'm not saying that whatsoever. He says I have no proof and then mentioned possible proof for his case. All I did was ask for the data. If he cannot provide the specific proof, then neither side will have won. I can't prove my case, because I can't prove how much higher of a chance the run will score with a different mindset at the plate-without that variable, I cannot do the math and show that run expectancies would be higher that way. He implied that he can prove his side-I'm waiting to see if that is the case or not.

 

Instead of waiting or requiring Sully to post the link, google TangoTiger. I'm not the biggest fan of his, but his research on this speaks fr itself.

[CubColtPacer]

 

Can you point me to any data that supports your hypothesis either?

 

Hilarious. So the onus is always on the people who are tearing down conventional wisdom to provide proof, while you can spout CW all you want and never provide a shred of evidence to back your claims?

 

No, I'm not saying that whatsoever. He says I have no proof and then mentioned possible proof for his case. All I did was ask for the data. If he cannot provide the specific proof, then neither side will have won. I can't prove my case, because I can't prove how much higher of a chance the run will score with a different mindset at the plate-without that variable, I cannot do the math and show that run expectancies would be higher that way. He implied that he can prove his side-I'm waiting to see if that is the case or not.

 

Instead of waiting or requiring Sully to post the link, google TangoTiger. I'm not the biggest fan of his, but his research on this speaks fr itself.

 

I have read most of his data-as far as I know, he hasn't can't introduce a variable to see how much the run scored from trying to make an out vs trying to make a hit, because things like ground ball RBI's are ambigous-was the player trying to make a hit and ended up grounding into an RBI, or were they trying to do what they actually did? Without that question answered, this debate cannot be finished. If he has tried to tackle something like that, then I'd love to see the specific study, but since I have never seen anything like it from looking over most of his studies, I don't think it would be as easy for me to find as somebody who thinks they have seen it proven.

[Magnetic Curses]

 

Can you point me to any data that supports your hypothesis either?

 

Hilarious. So the onus is always on the people who are tearing down conventional wisdom to provide proof, while you can spout CW all you want and never provide a shred of evidence to back your claims?

 

No, I'm not saying that whatsoever. He says I have no proof and then mentioned possible proof for his case. All I did was ask for the data. If he cannot provide the specific proof, then neither side will have won. I can't prove my case, because I can't prove how much higher of a chance the run will score with a different mindset at the plate-without that variable, I cannot do the math and show that run expectancies would be higher that way. He implied that he can prove his side-I'm waiting to see if that is the case or not.

 

Instead of waiting or requiring Sully to post the link, google TangoTiger. I'm not the biggest fan of his, but his research on this speaks fr itself.

 

I have read most of his data-as far as I know, he hasn't can't introduce a variable to see how much the run scored from trying to make an out vs trying to make a hit, because things like ground ball RBI's are ambigous-was the player trying to make a hit and ended up grounding into an RBI, or were they trying to do what they actually did? Without that question answered, this debate cannot be finished. If he has tried to tackle something like that, then I'd love to see the specific study, but since I have never seen anything like it from looking over most of his studies, I don't think it would be as easy for me to find as somebody who thinks they have seen it proven.

 

it is my understanding that attempting to make an out is worth fewer runs in all situations.

[Magnetic Curses]

 

Can you point me to any data that supports your hypothesis either?

 

Hilarious. So the onus is always on the people who are tearing down conventional wisdom to provide proof, while you can spout CW all you want and never provide a shred of evidence to back your claims?

 

No, I'm not saying that whatsoever. He says I have no proof and then mentioned possible proof for his case. All I did was ask for the data. If he cannot provide the specific proof, then neither side will have won. I can't prove my case, because I can't prove how much higher of a chance the run will score with a different mindset at the plate-without that variable, I cannot do the math and show that run expectancies would be higher that way. He implied that he can prove his side-I'm waiting to see if that is the case or not.

 

finding the specific study is a chore an doculd take all day. you've been pointed in that direction, though.

[Magnetic Curses]

and i believe that making an out in a run-scoring situation is much less valuable than a hit. if you try to make an out in that situation, there's no guarantee that you will score the run, might i remind you.

 

Of course a hit is better and no one would say different. And who's trying to make an out? I talked about making contact is a better option than striking out with a man on third and striking never brings home the guy from 3rd. WP/PB would but no matter what the technique the runner probably scores from that.

 

over the course of a season, you will be more successful trying to hit the ball hard in that situation. if you're down 1 with a runner at third, you have the same chance of knocking the runner in by putting a good swing on the ball then by chopping weakly at it, trying to hit it to an infielder.

 

in addition, you have a much better chance of winning by trying to hit the ball hard.

 

Who's chopping weakly at a ball? I'm talking about hitting the ball sully and not striking out sure, putting a good swing on it is helpful obviously. If I have a Theriot up and there are 1 out and a guy at third and that run is needed, I want him to at least hit the top half of the ball to score the runner, especially if the inf is playing back. Still a good solid swing but not the proverbial girl swing that you mentioned in your post.

 

there's no guarantee that hitting the top half of the ball will produce the run. and if he's trying to hit the top half of the ball, why not just focus on hitting the whole ball and increasing your team's run expectancy? i mean, if he's so good at hitting a ball in a certain place, he must be skilled enough to drive the ball somewhere, right?

 

micromanging like that decreases your overall runs and thusly your win total.

 

if theriot is so good that he can hit the ball wherever he wants to, why put a limit on what he can do?

 

You have a bigger spot to shoot for. You're looking upper/center and not just the center and hitters work on these things, ones like Theriot do.

 

how is the upper center part of the ball bigger than just the center of the ball?

 

it seems to me that asking your hitters to hit the ball ineffectively hamstrings them in game situations.

 

You don't see how the whole upper and center part of the ball is bigger than just the center?

 

all i know is that it's better, and easier, and more effective to try to hit the entire ball than a specific slice of it. if you can hit whatever part of the ball you want to, and can seemingly hit the ball in whatever direction required, surely, the hitter is too skilled to be allowed to offer themself up.

 

try to drive the ball in every situation, i didn't say take an uppercut swing and trty to hit a home run, hit the ball hard and good things will happen. if you have a team full of people hitting the ball hard, there's no reason to waste outs.

[CuseCubFan69]

and i believe that making an out in a run-scoring situation is much less valuable than a hit. if you try to make an out in that situation, there's no guarantee that you will score the run, might i remind you.

 

Of course a hit is better and no one would say different. And who's trying to make an out? I talked about making contact is a better option than striking out with a man on third and striking never brings home the guy from 3rd. WP/PB would but no matter what the technique the runner probably scores from that.

 

over the course of a season, you will be more successful trying to hit the ball hard in that situation. if you're down 1 with a runner at third, you have the same chance of knocking the runner in by putting a good swing on the ball then by chopping weakly at it, trying to hit it to an infielder.

 

in addition, you have a much better chance of winning by trying to hit the ball hard.

 

Who's chopping weakly at a ball? I'm talking about hitting the ball sully and not striking out sure, putting a good swing on it is helpful obviously. If I have a Theriot up and there are 1 out and a guy at third and that run is needed, I want him to at least hit the top half of the ball to score the runner, especially if the inf is playing back. Still a good solid swing but not the proverbial girl swing that you mentioned in your post.

 

there's no guarantee that hitting the top half of the ball will produce the run. and if he's trying to hit the top half of the ball, why not just focus on hitting the whole ball and increasing your team's run expectancy? i mean, if he's so good at hitting a ball in a certain place, he must be skilled enough to drive the ball somewhere, right?

 

micromanging like that decreases your overall runs and thusly your win total.

 

if theriot is so good that he can hit the ball wherever he wants to, why put a limit on what he can do?

 

You have a bigger spot to shoot for. You're looking upper/center and not just the center and hitters work on these things, ones like Theriot do.

 

how is the upper center part of the ball bigger than just the center of the ball?

 

it seems to me that asking your hitters to hit the ball ineffectively hamstrings them in game situations.

 

You don't see how the whole upper and center part of the ball is bigger than just the center?

 

all i know is that it's better, and easier, and more effective to try to hit the entire ball than a specific slice of it. if you can hit whatever part of the ball you want to, and can seemingly hit the ball in whatever direction required, surely, the hitter is too skilled to be allowed to offer themself up.

 

try to drive the ball in every situation, i didn't say take an uppercut swing and trty to hit a home run, hit the ball hard and good things will happen. if you have a team full of people hitting the ball hard, there's no reason to waste outs.

 

If the runner scores late in the game who's wasting an out?

[Magnetic Curses]

 

If the runner scores late in the game who's wasting an out?

 

when you could be trying to score enough runs to win instead of playing for extras, in which your chances could be worse, why not attempt to utilize the scoring chance by scoring 2 runs instead of one? unless the object of the game is to simply get a tie.

[CuseCubFan69]

 

If the runner scores late in the game who's wasting an out?

 

when you could be trying to score enough runs to win instead of playing for extras, in which your chances could be worse, why not attempt to utilize the scoring chance by scoring 2 runs instead of one? unless the object of the game is to simply get a tie.

 

It depends on who's up. If you have Theriot up in the situation we have said and Izturis up next, it's what I would do. Again, it's not giving up an out and you're still hitting the ball hard.

[CubColtPacer]

 

If the runner scores late in the game who's wasting an out?

 

when you could be trying to score enough runs to win instead of playing for extras, in which your chances could be worse, why not attempt to utilize the scoring chance by scoring 2 runs instead of one? unless the object of the game is to simply get a tie.

 

It depends on who's up. If you have Theriot up in the situation we have said and Izturis up next, it's what I would do. Again, it's not giving up an out and you're still hitting the ball hard.

 

Exactly-in that type of scenario with those hitters up, better to have a much greater than average chance of a tie than a greater than an average chance for a loss with a small chance of a win.

[CubColtPacer]

 

Can you point me to any data that supports your hypothesis either?

 

Hilarious. So the onus is always on the people who are tearing down conventional wisdom to provide proof, while you can spout CW all you want and never provide a shred of evidence to back your claims?

 

No, I'm not saying that whatsoever. He says I have no proof and then mentioned possible proof for his case. All I did was ask for the data. If he cannot provide the specific proof, then neither side will have won. I can't prove my case, because I can't prove how much higher of a chance the run will score with a different mindset at the plate-without that variable, I cannot do the math and show that run expectancies would be higher that way. He implied that he can prove his side-I'm waiting to see if that is the case or not.

 

Instead of waiting or requiring Sully to post the link, google TangoTiger. I'm not the biggest fan of his, but his research on this speaks fr itself.

 

I have read most of his data-as far as I know, he hasn't can't introduce a variable to see how much the run scored from trying to make an out vs trying to make a hit, because things like ground ball RBI's are ambigous-was the player trying to make a hit and ended up grounding into an RBI, or were they trying to do what they actually did? Without that question answered, this debate cannot be finished. If he has tried to tackle something like that, then I'd love to see the specific study, but since I have never seen anything like it from looking over most of his studies, I don't think it would be as easy for me to find as somebody who thinks they have seen it proven.

 

it is my understanding that attempting to make an out is worth fewer runs in all situations.

 

Well, I can tell you that's not correct. Sacrifices have been proven that they are worth it if the hitter is bad enough, so that's making an out that is worth more runs if the hitter is really bad (for bunts, the hitter has to be really bad though). So already, your assertion that attempting to make an out is worth fewer runs in all situations is not correct.

 

Now, this discussion is not about sacrifice bunts, but there would stand for reason also be situations where bringing in the runner from 3rd would be appropriate with one out (in fact, there should be more situations for that then just moving the runner up a base), so the caliber of hitter could be improved and still have possible situations where attempting to bring home the runner with a ground ball or a fly ball would be the correct move. I'm just saying there are some situations where it is correct, not that is correct all the time.

[Magnetic Curses]

 

If the runner scores late in the game who's wasting an out?

 

when you could be trying to score enough runs to win instead of playing for extras, in which your chances could be worse, why not attempt to utilize the scoring chance by scoring 2 runs instead of one? unless the object of the game is to simply get a tie.

 

It depends on who's up. If you have Theriot up in the situation we have said and Izturis up next, it's what I would do. Again, it's not giving up an out and you're still hitting the ball hard.

 

having izturis up will still be worth not trtying to make an out. the only player who is not working with the percentages would abe a very bad hitting pitcher.

[CuseCubFan69]

 

If the runner scores late in the game who's wasting an out?

 

when you could be trying to score enough runs to win instead of playing for extras, in which your chances could be worse, why not attempt to utilize the scoring chance by scoring 2 runs instead of one? unless the object of the game is to simply get a tie.

 

It depends on who's up. If you have Theriot up in the situation we have said and Izturis up next, it's what I would do. Again, it's not giving up an out and you're still hitting the ball hard.

 

having izturis up will still be worth not trtying to make an out. the only player who is not working with the percentages would abe a very bad hitting pitcher.

 

Again...no one is making an out on purpose.