|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 17, 2013 1:24:11 GMT -5
Here is a philosophical question. Take two players who are identical in every statistical and qualitative way except for two differences.
The first player has 20 more productive outs than the second player. The second player has 10 more walks than the first.
Which player would you rather have on your team?
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Feb 17, 2013 15:26:42 GMT -5
Here is a philosophical question. Take two players who are identical in every statistical and qualitative way except for two differences. The first player has 20 more productive outs than the second player. The second player has 10 more walks than the first. Which player would you rather have on your team? dk...I believe the example you give is almost impossible to attain....if one guy has 10 more walks, the other guy would have to have 10 more hit by the pitch in order to end up with the same avg/obp/slg/...and in that example, it is clearly the guy with more productive outs being better for the team....  |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 17, 2013 20:22:50 GMT -5
Here is a philosophical question. Take two players who are identical in every statistical and qualitative way except for two differences. The first player has 20 more productive outs than the second player. The second player has 10 more walks than the first. Which player would you rather have on your team? dk...I believe the example you give is almost impossible to attain....if one guy has 10 more walks, the other guy would have to have 10 more hit by the pitch in order to end up with the same avg/obp/slg/...and in that example, it is clearly the guy with more productive outs being better for the team.... Rog -- Let's make this simple: The player starts with 500 at bats, 100 walks, 100 singles, 25 doubles, 5 triples and 20 home runs. The first player comes to the plate 10 times more and walks each time. The second player comes to the plate 20 more times and makes a productive out each time. Which guy do you prefer? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1560&page=1#8952#ixzz2LD12D0CL |
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Feb 18, 2013 13:56:18 GMT -5
Here is a philosophical question. Take two players who are identical in every statistical and qualitative way except for two differences. The first player has 20 more productive outs than the second player. The second player has 10 more walks than the first. Which player would you rather have on your team? dk...I believe the example you give is almost impossible to attain....if one guy has 10 more walks, the other guy would have to have 10 more hit by the pitch in order to end up with the same avg/obp/slg/...and in that example, it is clearly the guy with more productive outs being better for the team.... Rog -- Let's make this simple: The player starts with 500 at bats, 100 walks, 100 singles, 25 doubles, 5 triples and 20 home runs. The first player comes to the plate 10 times more and walks each time. The second player comes to the plate 20 more times and makes a productive out each time. Which guy do you prefer? dk..let me make it simple enough for a stats nerd to understand...it makes a difference on whether they had the same stats including your walks versus outs (as your initial question) or what you just wrote....what you just wrote does not require any thing regarding stats, all you really want to know is whether you want 20 productive outs or 10 walks.....and as Ted Williams learned as a manager, he wanted his hitters to swing at close pitches in some clutch situations instead of accepting a non productive walk...the very fact that a guy walks 10 times means nothing except to a stats nerd...the rerst of us might want to know if it was an 8th hitter hitting ahead of a non hitting pitcher?...did the walks force in a run???Did the walk keep an inning alive and result in runs scoring? How productive were the outs?? did they win the game or put the winning run in position to score?? etc., etc,. ..but the stats nerd will come back with the same old redundent crap we have heard so often that you have to avoid outs...well, not if they win games... |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 19, 2013 11:30:11 GMT -5
This is a philosophical question, Don. As such, the added walks and productive outs are just average walks and productive outs.
By the way, your question as to whether the walks kept an inning alive (which every single on of them does) and resulted in more runs being scored is more or less irrelevant, since whether added runs scored depended on actions by others that the hitter himself couldn't control.
Just answer the question, rather than try to obfuscate it.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Feb 19, 2013 14:09:18 GMT -5
This is a philosophical question, Don. As such, the added walks and productive outs are just average walks and productive outs. By the way, your question as to whether the walks kept an inning alive (which every single on of them does) and resulted in more runs being scored is more or less irrelevant, since whether added runs scored depended on actions by others that the hitter himself couldn't control. Just answer the question, rather than try to obfuscate it. dk..once more you put your foot in your mouth...the ONLY value that a walk has is its effect on the results of a ball game...there are times that a batter can control the number of walks he receives....Vlady and Pablo are two examples of guys who could get more walks if they would temper their aggressiveness, but were more valuable swinging the bat...I would certainly take more productive outs than walks...20-10....that is the same reasoning that managers prefer the Intentional Walk as a strategy or "pitching around" a batter when a game is on the line...not the intentional productive out.... |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 19, 2013 16:20:13 GMT -5
dk..once more you put your foot in your mouth...the ONLY value that a walk has is its effect on the results of a ball game... rog -- I understand your point. But the ultimate effect of anything that happens in a game relies on others. Even a solo home run could have been as much as a grand slam if teammates had reached base. The average value of certain accomplishments in baseball include a single at around a third of a run, a single at about half a run, a double at arond three-quarters of a run, a triple at about one run, and a home run at about 1 2/5ths run. I'm going from memory here, but that's approximately correct. Those are the value assuming average actions from teammates. So what are more valuable -- 10 walks or 20 productive outs? In an average situation with average teammates, is it better to walk 10 times or to make 20 productive outs? As for my putting my foot in my mouth, that is a comment few would make. Don -- I would certainly take more productive outs than walks...20-10.... Rog -- That is what I figured. Yet the value of the average productive out (not all) is rather small, while the value of a walk is about a third of a run. I'm not sure you made the right choice -- although I can certainly think of situations in which your answer would be correct. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1560&page=1#9005#ixzz2LNkvDn00Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1560&page=1#9005#ixzz2LNhMihKO |
|
