Magnetic Curses

One of those situations, the runner on third with one out, was exactly what I'm talking about. As has been said, a productive out actually increases expected runs scored in this situation. Here is the link: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/productive-outs-and-the-people-who-love-them/ i said "trying to make an out". a "productive" out can be made when a player isn't trying to sacrifice, if you can believe it. thus, a player who's giving it their all by hitting the ball as sharply in any direction as they can, would probably be more likely to score the run in any situation while a player who's waving weakly at a bad pitch in the dirt, can find themselves in an 0-2 hole very quickly.

i don't think he's done a terrible amount for that organization, but i'd trade jones for him today.

as has been stated, mike murphy was all in a tither today, and all week, about lou stating that he's matured and doesn't throw bases anymore. murphy seems to think that base-throwing is a method of scoring runs. what a dope. this is another odd characteristic that some fans look for in their players and managers, a hot temper. why does a manager need to be a firebrand or yell at players? i'd imagine because many people get yelled at at work and need to see that other, more famous people, are getting it as well. what a joke. those people have serious issues.

First: You can't tell me you go 100% everyday at your place of business? I'm sure there are days in which you "half arse" just to get through the day. Second: Unlike your job, there is MAJOR money involved here. If ARam is busting his butt down the line, in a meaningless game, would you still feel good---not that it matters, it is ARam who has to look at himself in the mirror---about it? I rather ARam pick and choose when to bust down the line, instead of busting down the line on a simple ground ball, and get hurt. Aram isn't the only player that doesn't play 100% all the time, so either attack every player in baseball for not going "100%" or get off ARam's back. Suh-wing and a miss. Whatever i think what is being referred to here is that chocolate milk was being satirical. like when steven colbert talks like bill o'reilly to expose the complete childishness of his views.

Those people are liars. Well, I've seen it-people who want to trade players they fully realize are the key to winning for their team, but because of either off-court issues or because of lack of caring on the court they'd rather lose without them than win with them. When it gets to specifics like that, I'm pretty sure they are telling the truth that they would trade those players in a second. if this is true, those people are either liars or losers, complete losers that have lost touch with professional sports. they can go watch college sports and root for their teams to lose. that's pathetic.

i hate kruk and i hate phillips, and, apparently, they hate each other. maybe they'll destroy each other on set someday. we can only hope. hey ted, teams are really breaking down your door to hire, you, eh?

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. yes, they are. hitting the ball weaker than you normally do on purpose is tantamount to sacrificing. and there's a much better chance you'll make an out than score a run.

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. the bold is absurd. if you're trying to drive the ball, you have a much better chance of driving a runner home either way. if you're trying to hit the ball hard, there are plenty of chances that the hitter will still make an out capable of driving the runner home, one does not need to try to make an out. and weren't you the one who said trying to hit the ball hard would only induce useless pop-fly, yet somehow trying to hit a fly ball wouldn't? that's ludicrous. can you step away from your comments and look at how they sound? this is exactly what conventional wisdom gets you. tied up in your own logic and, in the end, believing that making an out is somehow good for the team. see the forest for the trees, my friend.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

here's your 15.5 mil, mr zambrano, thank you for wasting our time, mr. hendry.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.