D-Cab Still Bad

[square634]

I have nothing against productive walks, but you apparently are another one who doesn't realize not all walks are productive and not all outs are bad or non-productive. I love how some folks come in late in an on going argument and have no knowledge of the actual points being debated.

Not all walks are productive. Some outs can be productive. But 99% of walks are productive and 99% of outs are unproductive. Obviously, some outs can be more productive than others in different situations. But the point is, I want players on the team that have the skill to walk because they help teams score runs (for example, today Roberts gets a 2-out walk, we score 5 runs because he extended the inning). And yes, drawing walks is a skill. Anyone who claims to watch the games with so much experience and insight can tell that, for example, Corey Patterson does not have the skill of pitch recognition.

I know I won't convince you, but I went ahead and got the stats from last year since you said the Sox and Yanks are so good at productive outs.

Red Sox 2007:

BB: 689

Sacrifice Flies: 54

SH (sacrifice hits): 30

Runs scored: 867

Yankees 2007:

BB: 637

Sacrifice Flies: 54

SH: 41

Runs Scored: 968

Baltimore Orioles 2007:

BB: 500

Sacrifice Flies: 47

SH: 38

Runs Scored: 756

So we had 7 fewer sacrifice flies, and were between the Yanks and Sox in sacrifice bunts. Obviously more than these stats go into scoring runs, but based on this, which seems to be more important? If I had the time, I'd compile the numbers of sacrifice flies divided by number of plate appearances with a runner on third base. I bet the Orioles would have a higher ratio because we had fewer guys on base. But by your logic, the team that hits more sac flies with runners on third should be better because they are good at getting productive outs.

[The Wedge]

My memory could be failing me but I would bet that the Orioles and Yankees have played more closely contested games than blowouts over the past few years. At least through most of the game it was tight, until the 9th inning!

The Yankees as are Boston and all playoff or championship caliber teams are opportunistic scorers and will advance runners and utlitze sac flies thus scoring even more runs than just by merely bashing the ball. I know they and Boston do this excessively against the Orioles. I have seen more than enough of it and it is very frustrating to outhit the Yankees 10-4 and still lose the game by a run.

My memory is just fine, and I can tell you they play way more teams than the Orioles throughout the season.

Your basic point is still faulty though. Any act which puts a runner on base is, by very definition, productive. If the people behind him can't capitalize on that production, they are the unproductive ones. There is no such thing as a non-productive walk.

[The Wedge]

Not all walks are productive. Some outs can be productive. But 99% of walks are productive and 99% of outs are unproductive. Obviously, some outs can be more productive than others in different situations. But the point is, I want players on the team that have the skill to walk because they help teams score runs (for example, today Roberts gets a 2-out walk, we score 5 runs because he extended the inning). And yes, drawing walks is a skill. Anyone who claims to watch the games with so much experience insight can tell that, for example, Corey Patterson does not have the skill of pitch recognition.

I know I won't convince you, but I went ahead and got the stats from last year since you said the Sox and Yanks are so good at productive outs.

Red Sox 2007:

BB: 689

Sacrifice Flies: 54

SH (sacrifice hits): 30

Runs scored: 867

Yankees 2007:

BB: 637

Sacrifice Flies: 54

SH: 41

Runs Scored: 968

Baltimore Orioles 2007:

BB: 500

Sacrifice Flies: 47

SH: 38

Runs Scored: 756

So we had 7 fewer sacrifice flies, and were between the Yanks and Sox in sacrifice bunts. Obviously more than these stats go into scoring runs, but based on this, which seems to be more important? If I had the time, I'd compile the numbers of sacrifice flies divided by number of plate appearances with a runner on third base. I bet the Orioles would have a higher ratio because we had fewer guys on base. But by your logic, the team that hits more sac flies with runners on third should be better because they are good at getting productive outs.

Why bother, he ignores stats, especially when they don't correlate with his arguments.

[Old#5fan]

ALL. WALKS. ARE. PRODUCTIVE.

It's not the person who gets the BB's fault that the dumbass behind him doesn't do anything with the opportunity.

How is a walk productive if the walker neither scores a run, or causes a run to score? Please explain that? Merely not making an out is not meeting the definition of "productive" as it didn't produce anything other the opportunity for the next hitter to bat, which may or may not produce anything.

[NewMarketSean]

Here is what I have learned from Oldfan in the last few weeks...

1. Luke Scott will put up .240/12/40 in 2008.

2. Luis Hernandez's defense will outweigh his ineptitude at the plate. Basically sticking a shovel in the dirt at SS is an improvement over Tejada.

3. Outs are better than walks.

4. If you haven't watched TV for 50 years starting at the age of 4 you know nothing.

5. Tennis analogies in baseball discussions are awesome.

6. Respect your elders!

Do I have that right?

[The Wedge]

How is a walk productive if the walker neither scores a run, or causes a run to score? Please explain that? Merely not making an out is not meeting the definition of "productive" as it didn't produce anything other the opportunity for the next hitter to bat, which may or may not produce anything.

I have said it about 5 times now. I'll say it till I'm blue in the face. It is not the fault of the person who draws the walk if the batters behind him fail to bring him in. The player who drew the walk was productive. The players behind him were not. This does not invalidate the production of the player who drew the walk, it simply reflects badly on the players who couldn't move him around.

[Pedro Cerrano]

How is a walk productive if the walker neither scores a run, or causes a run to score? Please explain that? Merely not making an out is not meeting the definition of "productive" as it didn't produce anything other the opportunity for the next hitter to bat, which may or may not produce anything.

So is a lead-off double that strands the runner unproductive?

DOUBLES ARE UNPRODUCTIVE!!!

[square634]

My memory could be failing me but I would bet that the Orioles and Yankees have played more closely contested games than blowouts over the past few years. At least through most of the game it was tight, until the 9th inning!

The Yankees as are Boston and all playoff or championship caliber teams are opportunistic scorers and will advance runners and utlitze sac flies thus scoring even more runs than just by merely bashing the ball. I know they and Boston do this excessively against the Orioles. I have seen more than enough of it and it is very frustrating to outhit the Yankees 10-4 and still lose the game by a run.

I think the Orioles play small ball much more than those teams do. The Yanks and Sox are known for mashing the ball with power, being patient, and drawing walks. These are the aspects that many people want the Orioles offense to have (you have also said that power is important, I'll give you that). If you are right, then why have the Yanks and Red Sox been so successful with this strategy while we have been so unsuccessful with guys like Jay Payton that make contact?

I have to go to class. Peace.

[Old#5fan]

Not all walks are productive. Some outs can be productive. But 99% of walks are productive and 99% of outs are unproductive. Obviously, some outs can be more productive than others in different situations. But the point is, I want players on the team that have the skill to walk because they help teams score runs (for example, today Roberts gets a 2-out walk, we score 5 runs because he extended the inning). And yes, drawing walks is a skill. Anyone who claims to watch the games with so much experience insight can tell that, for example, Corey Patterson does not have the skill of pitch recognition.

I know I won't convince you, but I went ahead and got the stats from last year since you said the Sox and Yanks are so good at productive outs.

Red Sox 2007:

BB: 689

Sacrifice Flies: 54

SH (sacrifice hits): 30

Runs scored: 867

Yankees 2007:

BB: 637

Sacrifice Flies: 54

SH: 41

Runs Scored: 968

Baltimore Orioles 2007:

BB: 500

Sacrifice Flies: 47

SH: 38

Runs Scored: 756

So we had 7 fewer sacrifice flies, and were between the Yanks and Sox in sacrifice bunts. Obviously more than these stats go into scoring runs, but based on this, which seems to be more important? If I had the time, I'd compile the numbers of sacrifice flies divided by number of plate appearances with a runner on third base. I bet the Orioles would have a higher ratio because we had fewer guys on base. But by your logic, the team that hits more sac flies with runners on third should be better because they are good at getting productive outs.

HEY, for the umpteeth time I am not saying there is not some degree of skill involved in normally drawing a walk at the major league level. However, it is much easier at all levels to do than hitting. Furthermore, all walks are not difficult to attain. When pitchers are wild it is sometimes as easy as just standing at the plate and a piece of cardboard (fathead) of George Brett could draw a walk like at times with Cabrera or John Parish pitching! So to elevate walking ability to hitting ability is not comparable IMO. It takes much more skill to hit than walk. By their very nature hitting is an active skill and walking a passive skill.

[NewMarketSean]

HEY, for the umpteeth time I am not saying there is not some degree of skill involved in normally drawing a walk at the major league level. However, it is much easier at all levels to do than hitting. Furthermore, all walks are not difficult to attain. When pitchers are wild it is sometimes as easy as just standing at the plate and a piece of cardboard (fathead) of George Brett could draw a walk like at times with Cabrera or John Parish pitching!

Hitting a baseball is the hardest thing to do in sports. No one is saying that hitting a baseball in play is easier to do than taking a walk.

You are, however, severely undervaluing walks.

[Pedro Cerrano]

The thread has gotten so stupid..

[square634]

HEY, for the umpteeth time I am not saying there is not some degree of skill involved in normally drawing a walk at the major league level. However, it is much easier at all levels to do than hitting. Furthermore, all walks are not difficult to attain. When pitchers are wild it is sometimes as easy as just standing at the plate and a piece of cardboard (fathead) of George Brett could draw a walk like at times with Cabrera or John Parish pitching!

Ok... so what's your point? Does that make walks less valuable? You also failed to address 90% of my post, but that's not surprising.

[byrdz]

How is a walk productive if the walker neither scores a run, or causes a run to score? Please explain that? Merely not making an out is not meeting the definition of "productive" as it didn't produce anything other the opportunity for the next hitter to bat, which may or may not produce anything.

It's productive because it's not an out...how hard is that concept to grasp?

[BaltimoreTerp]

My memory could be failing me but I would bet that the Orioles and Yankees have played more closely contested games than blowouts over the past few years. At least through most of the game it was tight, until the 9th inning!

The Yankees as are Boston and all playoff or championship caliber teams are opportunistic scorers and will advance runners and utlitze sac flies thus scoring even more runs than just by merely bashing the ball. I know they and Boston do this excessively against the Orioles. I have seen more than enough of it and it is very frustrating to outhit the Yankees 10-4 and still lose the game by a run.

On sacrifice hits (the ones that advance runners), the Red Sox were 29th last year, and the Yankees 20th. In 2006, 28th and 23rd. In 2005, 29th and 25th.

Sense a trend there?

[Pedro Cerrano]

On sacrifice hits (the ones that advance runners), the Red Sox were 29th last year, and the Yankees 20th. In 2006, 28th and 23rd. In 2005, 29th and 25th.

Sense a trend there?

Ummm, let me see....oh yea, good offenses don't waste outs? Is that what we're looking for? (crosses fingers)...