D-Cab Still Bad

[Old#5fan]

So what should the batter do, swing at those wild pitches so they can get your Oldfan seal of approval?

The object of the game is to score runs. Getting on base (by whatever means necessary) is how you score runs. And really, who cares what you give players credit for, other than yourself?

I didn't address that because we're talking about taking pitches to earn walks! It's the same reason I didn't mention the big bang or cold fusion... because we weren't discussing it!

But now that we are, I might as well take you to task again, because the game of baseball is as much as hitting the ball as it is having the other team get you out. If you put a ball in play, it is now on the defense to make an out. If they can't do that, that is on them. The same can be said of walks.

It's no fluke that the Red Sox, the most patient team at the plate, has won 2 WS in the last 3 years.

You are writing off walks as meaningless and useless. That is 100% wrong. Yes it takes more skill to hit the ball than to take a walk the same way that it takes more skill to thread the needle in football and complete a pass in coverage as opposed to completing a pass in blown coverage.

But it is a skill none the less and if your opponent is giving you something, you'd be an absolute fool not to take it.

And let me finish by asking this... which player would you say is "better"?.

Player 1

.300 AVG

.325 OBP

.440 SLG

.765 OPS

Player 2

.260 AVG

.380 OBP

.440 SLG

.820 OPS

I would guess Player one but not enough information is provided such a runs batted in, scored, or produced. Player one is more likely to have surpassed player two in that regard because of his higher BA which is more likely to produce runs than a mere walk.

Also you again are missing my point which is certainly doesn't always require skill to draw a walk. When you have a pitcher on the mound who cannot throw a strike to save his rear end how much skill does it take to stand there? I will tell you it taks NONE. NADA,. ZILCH. Apparently some of you have not the slightest clue or never faced such a pitcher. It is almost laughable to bat against someone who cannot throw a strike. You would have to be literally stupid beyond belief not to walk or willingly throwing the game as in that South Park episode where they tried to lose every game!

[Hank Scorpio]

My poor, throbbing head.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I would guess Player one but not enough information is provided such a runs batted in, scored, or produced. Player one is more likely to have surpassed player two in that regard because of his higher BA which is more likely to produce runs than a mere walk.

Also you again are missing my point which is certainly doesn't always require skill to draw a walk. When you have a pitcher on the mound who cannot throw a strike to save his rear end how much skill does it take to stand there? I will tell you it taks NONE. NADA,. ZILCH. Apparently some of you have not the slightest clue or never faced such a pitcher. It is almost laughable to bat against someone who cannot throw a strike. You would have to be literally stupid beyond belief not to walk or willingly throwing the game as in that South Park episode where they tried to lose every game!

Why are you ignoring 90% of situations in favor of 10% (if that)?

[Old#5fan]

I'm sorry, but taking a walk is never a bad thing. If the pitcher gives you a free base either by design or incompetence, it's always to the offenses advantage. The ball is then in their court. Even when the "odds on" defensive move is to IBB to create a force.

A highly intelligent young man such as yourself should certainly want to edit this post because such a blanket absolute statement as you keyed above is simply false.

A productive out can many times be much better than a walk. I will give you an example. Suppose Batter a hits a triple with one out. Batter B walks. Batter C hits a taylor made double play ball to short and the inning is over. Now suppose Batter B instead of walking hits a Sac fly or a grounder to deep second. Here an out scored a run and is much better than the walk in the first scenario.

This would even be more magnified if this happened in the 9th inning and would be the difference in winning the game. The productive out is better than the non-productive walk. Case closed. Your statement is proven wrong so you may wish to edit it good Sir!

[NewMarketSean]

I would guess Player one but not enough information is provided such a runs batted in, scored, or produced. Player one is more likely to have surpassed player two in that regard because of his higher BA which is more likely to produce runs than a mere walk.

Also you again are missing my point which is certainly doesn't always require skill to draw a walk. When you have a pitcher on the mound who cannot throw a strike to save his rear end how much skill does it take to stand there? I will tell you it taks NONE. NADA,. ZILCH. Apparently some of you have not the slightest clue or never faced such a pitcher. It is almost laughable to bat against someone who cannot throw a strike. You would have to be literally stupid beyond belief not to walk or willingly throwing the game as in that South Park episode where they tried to lose every game!

How often does someone melt down to Rick Ankiel proportions to where it's not even a question about the pitch being a ball?

Most pitchers, when walking a lot of batters, throw at least one pitch close to the strike zone. Pitchers who lose control don't throw balls over the backstop. You act as if a monkey could take pitches for balls. This is 100% untrue.

There is skill, a lot of skill, in taking pitches for balls when they are close to the plate. That is what sets Kevin Youkilis apart from Jay Payton.

[BaltimoreTerp]

A highly intelligent young man such as yourself should certainly want to edit this post because such a blanket absolute statement as you keyed about is simply false.

A productive out can many times be much better than a walk. I will give you an example. Suppose Batter a hits a triple with one out. Batter B walks. Batter C hits a taylor made double play ball to short and the inning is over. Now suppose Batter B instead of walking hits a Sac fly or a grounder to deep second. Here an out scored a run and is much better than the walk in the first scenario.

This would even be more magnified if this happened in the 9th inning and would be the difference in winning the game. The productive out is better than the non-productive walk. Case closed. Your statement is proven wrong so you may wish to edit it good Sir!

Suppose batter B hit a grounder that couldn't score the runner, or lined out, or popped out, or struck out. All of those are just as likely, if not more, then your situation.

That's why the greatest hitters in history failed six out of ten times.

[The Wedge]

A highly intelligent young man such as yourself should certainly want to edit this post because such a blanket absolute statement as you keyed above is simply false.

A productive out can many times be much better than a walk. I will give you an example. Suppose Batter a hits a triple with one out. Batter B walks. Batter C hits a taylor made double play ball to short and the inning is over. Now suppose Batter B instead of walking hits a Sac fly or a grounder to deep second. Here an out scored a run and is much better than the walk in the first scenario.

This would even be more magnified if this happened in the 9th inning and would be the difference in winning the game. The productive out is better than the non-productive walk. Case closed. Your statement is proven wrong so you may wish to edit it good Sir!

No such thing as a productive out. Case closed. I stand behind my statement 100%. Taking a walk is never a bad thing. Making an out is a bad thing. You get a limited amount of those things, you know...outs. They're the most precious commodity the offense has. You shouldn't ever give them away. No such thing as a productive out.

And this is coming from a guy who when he played even at the low level of competitiveness he did was known for trying to beat out bunts for singles.

[BaltimoreGhost]

Guy once threw a no-hitter on LSD. Who cares?

I'm just saying that some people can have motivation issues with weed, a la

Ricky Williams...LSD is a different drug. But thats still insane.

[Old#5fan]

How often does someone melt down to Rick Ankiel proportions to where it's not even a question about the pitch being a ball?

Most pitchers, when walking a lot of batters, throw at least one pitch close to the strike zone. Pitchers who lose control don't throw balls over the backstop. You act as if a monkey could take pitches for balls. This is 100% untrue.

There is skill, a lot of skill, in taking pitches for balls when they are close to the plate. That is what sets Kevin Youkilis apart from Jay Payton.

So what? If I am a hitter and a pitcher can only throw one out of four pitches close enough for a strike, I am taking all the way on 3-1. You are still missing what I am pointing out. As usual you step into an argument without understanding how it got started. A statement was made by Drungo that all walks involve skill by the hitter. This, I strongly disagree. All you need to do is watch certain pitchers with major control problems to see this is simply untrue. Cabrera and Parrish are two good examples. They will often go through periods where it looks like they couldn't throw a ball even down the middle over the plate if their life depended on it. Another at times I have seen do this is Chris Ray. Jorge Julio was another one, as many times he would be brought in and walk every batter he faced, not even coming close to the strike zone.

I am not talking about the skill in taking close pitches. I am not disputing that at all. I am disputing blanket statements as made by Drungo and seemingly supported by you that all walks are a result of high skill by the batter. I would suggest that most four pitch walks don't really require that much skill by the batter but lack of control by the pitcher or intentionally pitching around a hitter. Either way, the batter doesn't deserve credit for doing nothing but not being stupid in that situation.

[Pedro Cerrano]

A highly intelligent young man such as yourself should certainly want to edit this post because such a blanket absolute statement as you keyed above is simply false.

A productive out can many times be much better than a walk. I will give you an example. Suppose Batter a hits a triple with one out. Batter B walks. Batter C hits a taylor made double play ball to short and the inning is over. Now suppose Batter B instead of walking hits a Sac fly or a grounder to deep second. Here an out scored a run and is much better than the walk in the first scenario.

This would even be more magnified if this happened in the 9th inning and would be the difference in winning the game. The productive out is better than the non-productive walk. Case closed. Your statement is proven wrong so you may wish to edit it good Sir!

Hahaha. Wait. I can make any statement and, given the circumstances, turn it into a bad thing. Hell, I could argue that in certain situations it's better to hit a double than a home run. If Javy Lopez had hit a double instead of a HR in that game two years ago, he wouldn't have passed Tejada on the bases. Miggy still would have scored and Javy would have ended up on second base and we would have saved the out.

Anything can be twisted the way you want it to be but to say that a walk is a bad thing, in any situation, is generally false. So what if the next play is a GIDP? So what if the batter COULD have hit a double instead? The fact remains that a base on balls puts another scoring chance on base and keeps a precious out from being registered on the board.

[beardbr]

As far as walks go versus outs, I am a firm believer in Earl Weaver's philosophy that the only finite item in baseball is outs. You shouldn't give one up, and you should never give the other team an extra. As pointed out by many before me, and probably much more eloquently, any time a runner is on base, regardless of how they got there, it can change the game

[Old#5fan]

Hahaha. Wait. I can make any statement and, given the circumstances, turn it into a bad thing. Hell, I could argue that in certain situations it's better to hit a double than a home run. If Javy Lopez had hit a double instead of a HR in that game two years ago, he wouldn't have passed Tejada on the bases. Miggy still would have scored and Javy would have ended up on second base and we would have saved the out.

Anything can be twisted the way you want it to be but to say that a walk is a bad thing, in any situation, is generally false. So what if the next play is a GIDP? So what if the batter COULD have hit a double instead? The fact remains that a base on balls puts another scoring chance on base and keeps a precious out from being registered on the board.

Yeah, and it also takes the bat out of Manny Ramirez's hand and sets up a DP situation. So to say walks are always good for the batting team is false. I am not saying they are always bad. Please show me where I ever said that?

[Old#5fan]

No such thing as a productive out. Case closed. I stand behind my statement 100%. Taking a walk is never a bad thing. Making an out is a bad thing. You get a limited amount of those things, you know...outs. They're the most precious commodity the offense has. You shouldn't ever give them away. No such thing as a productive out.

And this is coming from a guy who when he played even at the low level of competitiveness he did was known for trying to beat out bunts for singles.

By mere definition I assert a Sac fly is a "productive out" as opposed to a regular or "non-productive out." You can also win a game by making an out in this manner so how can it not be "productive"? As far as a walk goes they may be productive or simply non-productive and irrelevant other than elevating the pitchers pitch count.

This is basic common sense or Elementary Baseball 101. Sorry chief, but that is the way it is. You cannot spin out of this it would not even be logical.

Case closed and you are not only wrong, but way wrong on this. Your theory that walks are "always good" is simply untrue as I have given you very common examples of when they are not. I would agree they are usually good but you actually cannot even make the statement they are never bad as sometimes they are undesirable as when you have your top hitter (say Markakis) intentionally walked with the winning run on second and one out in the bottom of the 9th and he is hitting 7/10 against the closer and Huff comes up with a 0/10 mark and grounds into a DP ending the game! That walk was a BAD thing for an Oriole fan, not a GOOD thing! Believe DAT!

[The Wedge]

I don't care it scores a run. I'd rather they scored that run with a single, because we just lost one of our precious 27 outs.

[Old#5fan]

I don't care it scores a run. I'd rather they scored that run with a single, because we just lost one of our precious 27 outs.

Well there is where you logic is flawed (not that a single would not necessarily be better but as in the scenario I describe the 27th out was unnecessary as the game was over on out 26!

Furthermore you should care it it scores a run. If every third out was a Sac fly that would equate to a run per inning and 9 runs a game! You telling me you wouldn't take 9 runs a game regardless of how they came about?

This goes back to my take on this matter. The game of baseball is not about "not making an out." Your going to make outs - that is a given. The game of baseball is about scoring more runs than your opponent. If productive outs are part of that they are going to help you win, much moreso than non-productive outs or even non-productive walks.

To give you a definition of a "non-productive walk" it is whenever there is a walk in an inning that has no impact on any run scoring. In other words the only offensive value it has is running up the pitch count on the opposing pitcher. An example would be a leadoff walk that gets erased by the next batter hitting into a double play. That walk was a non-productive walk. In the individual player stats though it doesn't show that it was non-productive other than in the game boxscore. Some of you will say it increased the hitters OBP which it did, but in reality it did nothing to help his team win in that particular instance, which is why I don't like OBP as any vital measurement of a player. I much prefer BA, Runs, Hits, RBI's, HR;s, etc.

I really truly fail to understand how anyone with any degree of baseball knowledge of the game and how it is played or even basic common sense cannot undertand that very elementary fact that all outs are not necessarily bad and all walks are not necessarily good?