D-Cab Still Bad

[The Wedge]

I see I simply cannot convince you. So let me put it to you another way. If you cling to the believe that a walk is "always good" would you agree that often or quite frequently a walk is "meaningless" in the context of the game other than to not end an inning or extend a pitchers pitch count?

In that example, often or quite frequently a hit is also meaningless in the context of the game as well. Are you going to go that far as well?

[DrungoHazewood]

Again, it is when you (or anyone else - Drungo are you reading this) makes general statements that all outs are bad and all walks are good that I have to take you to task. It is simply far from being true.

A sac bunt with no one out and runners at first and second with a weak hitter up in a tie game in the bottom of the 9th is a good out.

And a walk to a great hitter with two out and runners on and a very bad-hitting pitcher coming up on a poorly-constructed team with no pinch hitters on the bench is probably a bad walk, assuming the great hitter could get a piece of one of the pitches three feet off the plate.

That's pretty much the extent of it.

[Old#5fan]

In that example, often or quite frequently a hit is also meaningless in the context of the game as well. Are you going to go that far as well?

Sure, I already explained that scenario on this thread. It was a few posts back and you must have missed it.

The object of the game of baseball is to score more runs than your opponent not try never to make an out. Outs are going to happen but sometimes they win games. These are called productive outs and are vitally important because they turn something otherwise bad into something often very good that helps win games. Again, a productive out is more important than a non-productive or non-run scoring or producing hit.

How many times have you seen the Orioles out hit the Yankes like 10-4 yet the Yankees score more runs and win the game? Frequently it is because they score runs even when making outs.

[NewMarketSean]

Sure, I already explained that scenario on this thread. It was a few posts back and you must have missed it.

The object of the game of baseball is to score more runs than your opponent not try never to make an out. Outs are going to happen but sometimes they win games. These are called productive outs and are vitally important.

Wait, so making an out is good... and walking is bad?

[The Wedge]

Sure, I already explained that scenario on this thread. It was a few posts back and you must have missed it.

The object of the game of baseball is to score more runs than your opponent not try never to make an out. Outs are going to happen but sometimes they win games. These are called productive outs and are vitally important because they turn something otherwise bad into something often very good that helps win games.

Yes, but you should never try to make an out, and you should never "give up" on a walk. Either one of those things is just bad stupid baseball, and we've had enough of that in the past 10 years for 2 life times. You only have so many outs to score more runs than your opponent, and putting a man on base, in any situation, gives you better opportunity to score more runs than your opponent.

[byrdz]

Outs are precious!

<img src=http://media.movieweb.com/news/old/12_02/smeagol_2.jpg></img>

[Maverick2143]

Wait, so making an out is good... and walking is bad?

"Yes and up is down, down is up, he says hello when he leaves, goodbye when he arrives."

[byrdz]

more from the Hard Ball Times article:

POP doesn't work for one-run games, either. Teams that win one-run games have a .348 POP compared to the .303 of their opponents, a .045 difference. But again, the OBP difference dwarfs it: .373 to .277. And perhaps most shocking of all, the rate of productive outs per opportunity for teams that win one-run games is .218, the rate for teams that lose is .219. That's right -- the team that makes a higher rate of productive outs is slightly more likely to lose.

What, they backed their claims with statistics?

[Mark Carver]

Outs are good?

From The Wisdom of Weaver

Earl Weaver's Fourth Law: Your most precious possessions on offense are your twenty-seven outs.

Weaver was ahead of his time in understanding the importance of not giving away outs. He says it makes no sense to bunt early in the game since you're giving away an out in a situation where a single run is not crucial. The opportunity cost of giving away outs early always exceeds the benefit.

[The Wedge]

You know what, for the sake of argument, I will concede one, and only one, situation I will gladly take a "productive out."

A game winning walk off sac fly.

[zff4]

I have to call this argument over. Game, set, and match.

It's customary on this board to confine oneself to baseball metaphors even in the heat of silly arguments. "Strike three, yer out," is permissable. Or "Take some pine, meat," will do in a pinch. But under no circumstances are tennis metaphors allowed in meritless baseball internet arguments. For instance,

"You whiffed that one, son," I might reply to someone who rudely tries to conclude an argument by saying "I won, so shutup." That's a balk and against the rules. So I might say, "You're going to get beaned for that around here if you keep it up." But "Game, set and match," will not do. Against the ground rules.

[RVAbird]

It's customary on this board to confine oneself to baseball metaphors even in the heat of silly arguments. "Strike three, yer out," is permissable. Or "Take some pine, meat," will do in a pinch. But under no circumstances are tennis metaphors allowed in meritless baseball internet arguments. For instance,

"You whiffed that one, son," I might reply to someone who rudely tries to conclude an argument by saying "I won, so shutup." That's a balk and against the rules. So I might say, "You're going to get beaned for that around here if you keep it up." But "Game, set and match," will not do. Against the ground rules.

False quote! False quote! I didn't say that!!!

[Old#5fan]

Wait, so making an out is good... and walking is bad?

Go back and read the posts you missed. You are missing the argument entirely as usual.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Go back and read the posts you missed. You are missing the argument entirely as usual.

No, I'd say he has your side pretty well down.

[Old#5fan]

You know what, for the sake of argument, I will concede one, and only one, situation I will gladly take a "productive out."

A game winning walk off sac fly.

Uh, you wouldn't concede a first inning Sac fly that turns out to be the winning run in a 1-0 game? Or for that matter any inning where a Sac fly produces what turns out to be the game winning run even in a 6-5 game?