Lou on SportsCenter

[CuseCubFan69]

Your example doesn't make any sense. That wasn't a successful team, and sac flies shouldn't be the goal of an AB.

 

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.

 

how is making an out a bigger benefit than a hit? that doesn't make sense. sounds like someone's in love with the idea of making outs. it's okay, the cubs have been in love with the idea of making outs for a long time now.

 

every time up, the hitter should look for a pitch to drive. if no pitch satisfies the hitter, he should walk down to first or tip his cap to an excellent pitcher.

 

putting the ball in play for the sake of putting it in play is worse than striking out.

 

Honestly? You would rather see a guy K than to have him drive in the run?

[Andy]

Well, to be fair, the 69 team did win 92 games. They just didn't finish in first. And they didn't have the benefit of playing in a more inclusive playoff system like nowadays. It wasn't because they were great at sac-fly RBIs, though.

 

Still, it's pretty sad that Cubs fans still talk about the 69 team. At least as Bears fans we have 1985, which is at least under 3 decades ago. And they actually won a championship.

 

It's pretty crazy when you think about it... A team that started out hot and collapsed late in the season... Doesn't that happen all the time? Hell, in 2001 and 2004 it happened to the Cobs. Yet people still talk about that team all the time. I guess it's also because they had a few future HOFers. Still, I don't get it. Maybe it's because I'm younger.

 

I'm going to stick by the reasoning that because so many boomers grew up in the 60's that everything that comes out of that era is overromanticized.

 

The 2004 team was better than the 1969 team. The 2004 team's collapse was far more ridiculous.

 

The reason why it's "romanticized" is because it was first time the Cubs were in the hunt for first place in many many years.

 

And yet there is one collapse and 2 playoff chokes that should be much more memorable that a team that faded with 2 months to go in the season.

 

I know the others were closer but this was the first for many many Cub fans and you never forget your first.

This is true. My first was 2001 (was only 11 and not into the Cubs yet in 1998) and I think about that team quite often.

[CubinNY]

Well, to be fair, the 69 team did win 92 games. They just didn't finish in first. And they didn't have the benefit of playing in a more inclusive playoff system like nowadays. It wasn't because they were great at sac-fly RBIs, though.

 

Still, it's pretty sad that Cubs fans still talk about the 69 team. At least as Bears fans we have 1985, which is at least under 3 decades ago. And they actually won a championship.

 

It's pretty crazy when you think about it... A team that started out hot and collapsed late in the season... Doesn't that happen all the time? Hell, in 2001 and 2004 it happened to the Cobs. Yet people still talk about that team all the time. I guess it's also because they had a few future HOFers. Still, I don't get it. Maybe it's because I'm younger.

 

I'm going to stick by the reasoning that because so many boomers grew up in the 60's that everything that comes out of that era is overromanticized.

 

The 2004 team was better than the 1969 team. The 2004 team's collapse was far more ridiculous.

 

The reason why it's "romanticized" is because it was first time the Cubs were in the hunt for first place in many many years.

 

And yet there is one collapse and 2 playoff chokes that should be much more memorable that a team that faded with 2 months to go in the season.

 

I know the others were closer but this was the first for many many Cub fans and you never forget your first.

This is true. My first was 2001 (was only 11 and not into the Cubs yet in 1998) and I think about that team quite often.

 

1984 was more heart breaking than 2003 for me.

 

In 84 the Cubs hadn't been to a post season since 1945.

[David]

Honestly? You would rather see a guy K than to have him drive in the run?

 

 

That's not what he's saying at all.

[CubColtPacer]

Your example doesn't make any sense. That wasn't a successful team, and sac flies shouldn't be the goal of an AB.

 

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.

 

how is making an out a bigger benefit than a hit? that doesn't make sense. sounds like someone's in love with the idea of making outs. it's okay, the cubs have been in love with the idea of making outs for a long time now.

 

every time up, the hitter should look for a pitch to drive. if no pitch satisfies the hitter, he should walk down to first or tip his cap to an excellent pitcher.

 

putting the ball in play for the sake of putting it in play is worse than striking out.

 

I think he meant that in that situation, scoring the run gives you a bigger marginal benefit to a hit-if a person made a hit 25 percent of the time and struck out 75 percent of the time, or if they made an out in those situations that scored the run 75% of the time and struck out 25% of the time, which one would you take? Obviously a hit is the best option, but the extra risk in working for a hit has to be factored in as well .

[CuseCubFan69]

Honestly? You would rather see a guy K than to have him drive in the run?

 

 

That's not what he's saying at all.

 

What do you think "Putting a ball in play just to put it in play is worse than striking out" means then?

[USSoccer]

Your example doesn't make any sense. That wasn't a successful team, and sac flies shouldn't be the goal of an AB.

 

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.

 

how is making an out a bigger benefit than a hit? that doesn't make sense. sounds like someone's in love with the idea of making outs. it's okay, the cubs have been in love with the idea of making outs for a long time now.

 

every time up, the hitter should look for a pitch to drive. if no pitch satisfies the hitter, he should walk down to first or tip his cap to an excellent pitcher.

 

putting the ball in play for the sake of putting it in play is worse than striking out.

 

I think he meant that in that situation, scoring the run gives you a bigger marginal benefit to a hit-if a person made a hit 25 percent of the time and struck out 75 percent of the time, or if they made an out in those situations that scored the run 75% of the time and struck out 25% of the time, which one would you take? Obviously a hit is the best option, but the extra risk in working for a hit has to be factored in as well .

 

Going to the plate intending to make an out is stupid. If you have two strikes on you, whatever, but the goal of any PA should be to get a hit, not hit a flyout to CF.

[Magnetic Curses]

Your example doesn't make any sense. That wasn't a successful team, and sac flies shouldn't be the goal of an AB.

 

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.

 

how is making an out a bigger benefit than a hit? that doesn't make sense. sounds like someone's in love with the idea of making outs. it's okay, the cubs have been in love with the idea of making outs for a long time now.

 

every time up, the hitter should look for a pitch to drive. if no pitch satisfies the hitter, he should walk down to first or tip his cap to an excellent pitcher.

 

putting the ball in play for the sake of putting it in play is worse than striking out.

 

Honestly? You would rather see a guy K than to have him drive in the run?

 

if you're just trying to put the ball in play you aren't putting the ball in play effectively, increasing the chances that you will ground into a double play or ground harmlessly out, not advancing the runner at all. i'd rather have a hitter try to get the most effective PA that he can, that includes working deep into the count, putting pressure on the pitcher to make a perfect pitch.

 

when these factors are taken into account, a strikeout may be the least apparently valued outcome, but the more pitches a pitcher throws, the greater the chances are that he'll make a mistake.

 

you can't have a hitter afraid to strike out in that kind of situation. you may have more strikeouts with runners on, but i guarantee that you will score more runs by doing this over the course of the season.

[CubColtPacer]

Your example doesn't make any sense. That wasn't a successful team, and sac flies shouldn't be the goal of an AB.

 

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.

 

how is making an out a bigger benefit than a hit? that doesn't make sense. sounds like someone's in love with the idea of making outs. it's okay, the cubs have been in love with the idea of making outs for a long time now.

 

every time up, the hitter should look for a pitch to drive. if no pitch satisfies the hitter, he should walk down to first or tip his cap to an excellent pitcher.

 

putting the ball in play for the sake of putting it in play is worse than striking out.

 

I think he meant that in that situation, scoring the run gives you a bigger marginal benefit to a hit-if a person made a hit 25 percent of the time and struck out 75 percent of the time, or if they made an out in those situations that scored the run 75% of the time and struck out 25% of the time, which one would you take? Obviously a hit is the best option, but the extra risk in working for a hit has to be factored in as well .

 

Going to the plate intending to make an out is stupid. If you have two strikes on you, whatever, but the goal of any PA should be to get a hit, not hit a flyout to CF.

 

I would argue that it depends on the game situation, hitter, and how the defense is playing. There are many situations where the first priority has to be to get the run in however possible-a hit is a nice bonus. If the defense is conceding the run, run expectancies would tell you that sometimes it's worth more runs just to take the more sure ground ball out (which could still turn into a hit) rather than risk an out that does not drive in the run.

[CuseCubFan69]

Your example doesn't make any sense. That wasn't a successful team, and sac flies shouldn't be the goal of an AB.

 

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.

 

how is making an out a bigger benefit than a hit? that doesn't make sense. sounds like someone's in love with the idea of making outs. it's okay, the cubs have been in love with the idea of making outs for a long time now.

 

every time up, the hitter should look for a pitch to drive. if no pitch satisfies the hitter, he should walk down to first or tip his cap to an excellent pitcher.

 

putting the ball in play for the sake of putting it in play is worse than striking out.

 

Honestly? You would rather see a guy K than to have him drive in the run?

 

if you're just trying to put the ball in play you aren't putting the ball in play effectively, increasing the chances that you will ground into a double play or ground harmlessly out, not advancing the runner at all. i'd rather have a hitter try to get the most effective PA that he can, that includes working deep into the count, putting pressure on the pitcher to make a perfect pitch.

 

when these factors are taken into account, a strikeout may be the least apparently valued outcome, but the more pitches a pitcher throws, the greater the chances are that he'll make a mistake.

 

you can't have a hitter afraid to strike out in that kind of situation. you may have more strikeouts with runners on, but i guarantee that you will score more runs by doing this over the course of the season.

 

What if the situation is the bottom of the 9th and you're down 1? Getting a good closer to throw an extra pitch or 2 may be a moot point. I agree that you put your best swing on at all times and you usually do what has made you successful but I'd rather see a grounder or a fly ball to the OF than a K anytime in those instances. I don't like giving up outs either.

[Magnetic Curses]

Your example doesn't make any sense. That wasn't a successful team, and sac flies shouldn't be the goal of an AB.

 

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.

 

how is making an out a bigger benefit than a hit? that doesn't make sense. sounds like someone's in love with the idea of making outs. it's okay, the cubs have been in love with the idea of making outs for a long time now.

 

every time up, the hitter should look for a pitch to drive. if no pitch satisfies the hitter, he should walk down to first or tip his cap to an excellent pitcher.

 

putting the ball in play for the sake of putting it in play is worse than striking out.

 

I think he meant that in that situation, scoring the run gives you a bigger marginal benefit to a hit-if a person made a hit 25 percent of the time and struck out 75 percent of the time, or if they made an out in those situations that scored the run 75% of the time and struck out 25% of the time, which one would you take? Obviously a hit is the best option, but the extra risk in working for a hit has to be factored in as well .

 

this ratio is totally imagined, it doesn't exist.

 

the proof we have shows that sacrificing holds no benefit over not sacrificing when trying to push a single run across the plate.

 

however, there's proof that shows sacrificing greatly decreases your chances of scoring multiple runs.

[Magnetic Curses]

Your example doesn't make any sense. That wasn't a successful team, and sac flies shouldn't be the goal of an AB.

 

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.

 

how is making an out a bigger benefit than a hit? that doesn't make sense. sounds like someone's in love with the idea of making outs. it's okay, the cubs have been in love with the idea of making outs for a long time now.

 

every time up, the hitter should look for a pitch to drive. if no pitch satisfies the hitter, he should walk down to first or tip his cap to an excellent pitcher.

 

putting the ball in play for the sake of putting it in play is worse than striking out.

 

Honestly? You would rather see a guy K than to have him drive in the run?

 

if you're just trying to put the ball in play you aren't putting the ball in play effectively, increasing the chances that you will ground into a double play or ground harmlessly out, not advancing the runner at all. i'd rather have a hitter try to get the most effective PA that he can, that includes working deep into the count, putting pressure on the pitcher to make a perfect pitch.

 

when these factors are taken into account, a strikeout may be the least apparently valued outcome, but the more pitches a pitcher throws, the greater the chances are that he'll make a mistake.

 

you can't have a hitter afraid to strike out in that kind of situation. you may have more strikeouts with runners on, but i guarantee that you will score more runs by doing this over the course of the season.

 

What if the situation is the bottom of the 9th and you're down 1? Getting a good closer to throw an extra pitch or 2 may be a moot point. I agree that you put your best swing on at all times and you usually do what has made you successful but I'd rather see a grounder or a fly ball to the OF than a K anytime in those instances. I don't like giving up outs either.

 

i'm going to trust my team's talent and go for the win. i'd refuse to get in the team's way.

 

and making a closer throw an extra pitch or two can make all of the difference. as i said, the more pitches, the greater the chances are that one will be a mistake. put some pressure on the guy, make him throw you your pitch, rather than simply trying to put his pitch in play. this method will be much more effective in the long run.

 

if it's my pitcher up, i'd probably try to sacrifice.

[Magnetic Curses]

Your example doesn't make any sense. That wasn't a successful team, and sac flies shouldn't be the goal of an AB.

 

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.

 

how is making an out a bigger benefit than a hit? that doesn't make sense. sounds like someone's in love with the idea of making outs. it's okay, the cubs have been in love with the idea of making outs for a long time now.

 

every time up, the hitter should look for a pitch to drive. if no pitch satisfies the hitter, he should walk down to first or tip his cap to an excellent pitcher.

 

putting the ball in play for the sake of putting it in play is worse than striking out.

 

I think he meant that in that situation, scoring the run gives you a bigger marginal benefit to a hit-if a person made a hit 25 percent of the time and struck out 75 percent of the time, or if they made an out in those situations that scored the run 75% of the time and struck out 25% of the time, which one would you take? Obviously a hit is the best option, but the extra risk in working for a hit has to be factored in as well .

 

Going to the plate intending to make an out is stupid. If you have two strikes on you, whatever, but the goal of any PA should be to get a hit, not hit a flyout to CF.

 

I would argue that it depends on the game situation, hitter, and how the defense is playing. There are many situations where the first priority has to be to get the run in however possible-a hit is a nice bonus. If the defense is conceding the run, run expectancies would tell you that sometimes it's worth more runs just to take the more sure ground ball out (which could still turn into a hit) rather than risk an out that does not drive in the run.

 

again, if you just hit the ball hard, all situations become even. attempting to do anything but hit the ball hard causes you to become a less effective hitter.

 

and i've yet to see the situation in which making an out is worth more runs than not making an out. the situation may exist, but i don't think so.

[CubColtPacer]

Your example doesn't make any sense. That wasn't a successful team, and sac flies shouldn't be the goal of an AB.

 

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.

 

how is making an out a bigger benefit than a hit? that doesn't make sense. sounds like someone's in love with the idea of making outs. it's okay, the cubs have been in love with the idea of making outs for a long time now.

 

every time up, the hitter should look for a pitch to drive. if no pitch satisfies the hitter, he should walk down to first or tip his cap to an excellent pitcher.

 

putting the ball in play for the sake of putting it in play is worse than striking out.

 

I think he meant that in that situation, scoring the run gives you a bigger marginal benefit to a hit-if a person made a hit 25 percent of the time and struck out 75 percent of the time, or if they made an out in those situations that scored the run 75% of the time and struck out 25% of the time, which one would you take? Obviously a hit is the best option, but the extra risk in working for a hit has to be factored in as well .

 

this ratio is totally imagined, it doesn't exist.

 

the proof we have shows that sacrificing holds no benefit over not sacrificing when trying to push a single run across the plate.

 

however, there's proof that shows sacrificing greatly decreases your chances of scoring multiple runs.

 

I'm not talking about sacrificing (I assume you mean bunts here)-I think that major leaguers have enough bat control most of the time though that when a defense is conceding the run in the infield that they can hit a grounder if they want to and score that run. It would be impossible to do a study completely on that (because it's hard to tell which batters are looking for a hit and which ones are looking to score the run first) but it is perfectly rational that with a man on third and one out with the defense conceding the run that it will be more likely that a team will score that run if that is their primary objective rather than hitting the exact same as if nobody was on.

[CubColtPacer]

Your example doesn't make any sense. That wasn't a successful team, and sac flies shouldn't be the goal of an AB.

 

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.

 

how is making an out a bigger benefit than a hit? that doesn't make sense. sounds like someone's in love with the idea of making outs. it's okay, the cubs have been in love with the idea of making outs for a long time now.

 

every time up, the hitter should look for a pitch to drive. if no pitch satisfies the hitter, he should walk down to first or tip his cap to an excellent pitcher.

 

putting the ball in play for the sake of putting it in play is worse than striking out.

 

I think he meant that in that situation, scoring the run gives you a bigger marginal benefit to a hit-if a person made a hit 25 percent of the time and struck out 75 percent of the time, or if they made an out in those situations that scored the run 75% of the time and struck out 25% of the time, which one would you take? Obviously a hit is the best option, but the extra risk in working for a hit has to be factored in as well .

 

Going to the plate intending to make an out is stupid. If you have two strikes on you, whatever, but the goal of any PA should be to get a hit, not hit a flyout to CF.

 

I would argue that it depends on the game situation, hitter, and how the defense is playing. There are many situations where the first priority has to be to get the run in however possible-a hit is a nice bonus. If the defense is conceding the run, run expectancies would tell you that sometimes it's worth more runs just to take the more sure ground ball out (which could still turn into a hit) rather than risk an out that does not drive in the run.

 

 

and i've yet to see the situation in which making an out is worth more runs than not making an out. the situation may exist, but i don't think so.

 

That's not what I am saying at all-I am saying that striving to score the run in some situations which will likely lead to an out (grounding the ball to the second baseman with a man on third and one out) will lead to more runs overall than if in that same situation a decent to sub-par hitter with a high K rate goes up and hits just like he normally would.

[CuseCubFan69]

Your example doesn't make any sense. That wasn't a successful team, and sac flies shouldn't be the goal of an AB.

 

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.

 

how is making an out a bigger benefit than a hit? that doesn't make sense. sounds like someone's in love with the idea of making outs. it's okay, the cubs have been in love with the idea of making outs for a long time now.

 

every time up, the hitter should look for a pitch to drive. if no pitch satisfies the hitter, he should walk down to first or tip his cap to an excellent pitcher.

 

putting the ball in play for the sake of putting it in play is worse than striking out.

 

Honestly? You would rather see a guy K than to have him drive in the run?

 

if you're just trying to put the ball in play you aren't putting the ball in play effectively, increasing the chances that you will ground into a double play or ground harmlessly out, not advancing the runner at all. i'd rather have a hitter try to get the most effective PA that he can, that includes working deep into the count, putting pressure on the pitcher to make a perfect pitch.

 

when these factors are taken into account, a strikeout may be the least apparently valued outcome, but the more pitches a pitcher throws, the greater the chances are that he'll make a mistake.

 

you can't have a hitter afraid to strike out in that kind of situation. you may have more strikeouts with runners on, but i guarantee that you will score more runs by doing this over the course of the season.

 

What if the situation is the bottom of the 9th and you're down 1? Getting a good closer to throw an extra pitch or 2 may be a moot point. I agree that you put your best swing on at all times and you usually do what has made you successful but I'd rather see a grounder or a fly ball to the OF than a K anytime in those instances. I don't like giving up outs either.

 

i'm going to trust my team's talent and go for the win. i'd refuse to get in the team's way.

 

and making a closer throw an extra pitch or two can make all of the difference. as i said, the more pitches, the greater the chances are that one will be a mistake. put some pressure on the guy, make him throw you your pitch, rather than simply trying to put his pitch in play. this method will be much more effective in the long run.

 

if it's my pitcher up, i'd probably try to sacrifice.

 

But a good closer is throwing strikes and taking pitches puts you behind in the count. I agree if this is the beginning to 7th or so inning against a starter but if you have closer in there that's throwing fastballs and sliders or strikes taking pitches is going to put you in a hole quick. Plus, it depends on the talent of the batter.

[Magnetic Curses]

Your example doesn't make any sense. That wasn't a successful team, and sac flies shouldn't be the goal of an AB.

 

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.

 

how is making an out a bigger benefit than a hit? that doesn't make sense. sounds like someone's in love with the idea of making outs. it's okay, the cubs have been in love with the idea of making outs for a long time now.

 

every time up, the hitter should look for a pitch to drive. if no pitch satisfies the hitter, he should walk down to first or tip his cap to an excellent pitcher.

 

putting the ball in play for the sake of putting it in play is worse than striking out.

 

I think he meant that in that situation, scoring the run gives you a bigger marginal benefit to a hit-if a person made a hit 25 percent of the time and struck out 75 percent of the time, or if they made an out in those situations that scored the run 75% of the time and struck out 25% of the time, which one would you take? Obviously a hit is the best option, but the extra risk in working for a hit has to be factored in as well .

 

this ratio is totally imagined, it doesn't exist.

 

the proof we have shows that sacrificing holds no benefit over not sacrificing when trying to push a single run across the plate.

 

however, there's proof that shows sacrificing greatly decreases your chances of scoring multiple runs.

 

I'm not talking about sacrificing (I assume you mean bunts here)-I think that major leaguers have enough bat control most of the time though that when a defense is conceding the run in the infield that they can hit a grounder if they want to and score that run. It would be impossible to do a study completely on that (because it's hard to tell which batters are looking for a hit and which ones are looking to score the run first) but it is perfectly rational that with a man on third and one out with the defense conceding the run that it will be more likely that a team will score that run if that is their primary objective rather than hitting the exact same as if nobody was on.

 

again, you will maximize scoring potential if you try to hit the ball hard. if you consistently attempt to give up outs by hitting the ball to an infielder, you will score less runs. this will cause you to lose more games.

 

you do not ask your players to give anything less than their best plate appearance, ever.

 

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.

[Magnetic Curses]

 

But a good closer is throwing strikes and taking pitches puts you behind in the count. I agree if this is the beginning to 7th or so inning against a starter but if you have closer in there that's throwing fastballs and sliders or strikes taking pitches is going to put you in a hole quick. Plus, it depends on the talent of the batter.

 

if you're good hitter, you look for a pitch you can drive in any situation, regardless of the count. if it's the first pitch, then so be it. you don't have a very good likelihood of putting a good swing on a slider in the dirt.

 

if you don't get it, you walk to first, if he manages to strike you out without throwing a hittable pitch, then he's good and trying to ground out weakly would probably get you just as much a strikeout.

[CubColtPacer]

Your example doesn't make any sense. That wasn't a successful team, and sac flies shouldn't be the goal of an AB.

 

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.

 

how is making an out a bigger benefit than a hit? that doesn't make sense. sounds like someone's in love with the idea of making outs. it's okay, the cubs have been in love with the idea of making outs for a long time now.

 

every time up, the hitter should look for a pitch to drive. if no pitch satisfies the hitter, he should walk down to first or tip his cap to an excellent pitcher.

 

putting the ball in play for the sake of putting it in play is worse than striking out.

 

I think he meant that in that situation, scoring the run gives you a bigger marginal benefit to a hit-if a person made a hit 25 percent of the time and struck out 75 percent of the time, or if they made an out in those situations that scored the run 75% of the time and struck out 25% of the time, which one would you take? Obviously a hit is the best option, but the extra risk in working for a hit has to be factored in as well .

 

this ratio is totally imagined, it doesn't exist.

 

the proof we have shows that sacrificing holds no benefit over not sacrificing when trying to push a single run across the plate.

 

however, there's proof that shows sacrificing greatly decreases your chances of scoring multiple runs.

 

I'm not talking about sacrificing (I assume you mean bunts here)-I think that major leaguers have enough bat control most of the time though that when a defense is conceding the run in the infield that they can hit a grounder if they want to and score that run. It would be impossible to do a study completely on that (because it's hard to tell which batters are looking for a hit and which ones are looking to score the run first) but it is perfectly rational that with a man on third and one out with the defense conceding the run that it will be more likely that a team will score that run if that is their primary objective rather than hitting the exact same as if nobody was on.

 

again, you will maximize scoring potential if you try to hit the ball hard. if you consistently attempt to give up outs by hitting the ball to an infielder, you will score less runs. this will cause you to lose more games.

 

you do not ask your players to give anything less than their best plate appearance, ever.

 

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.

 

There's no guarantee you will score a run, but the chance is higher. How much higher? That's impossible to know for sure, and that number would be the key to know which situation was better-if it was significantly higher, than the out would be the right play, otherwise hitting away would be the right play.

[Magnetic Curses]

There's no guarantee you will score a run, but the chance is higher. How much higher? That's impossible to know for sure, and that number would be the key to know which situation was better-if it was significantly higher, than the out would be the right play, otherwise hitting away would be the right play.

 

attempting to make an out is worth considerably less runs than trying to hit the ball hard in that particular situation.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.