No such thing as "productive outs"?

[KENMonteSS86]

When a team goes 0 FOR 19 with runners in scoring position, you hit no home runs and the other team scores 2 runs, yet you STILL win...to me, that is the epitomie of "small ball"...

Small ball is NOT just bunting...it's doing the little things needed to win ballgames--like hitting THREE sacrifice flies with a man on third and less than two out...

Boston is doing all the little things RIGHT in order to win ballgames--while we look like we couldn't hit our way out of a paper bag. You don't need the 3-run HR all the time in order to win--you just need to execute.

Boston "gave away" three outs, yet scored three runs off of them...to those who say there is no such thing as a "productive" out, or that you shouldn't give away outs--it just goes to show that if you do the little things right, you WILL win...

Boston had three sac flies in one game--we've had TWO this ENTIRE season thus far. Boston will sure as hell get their share of HRs--they've got a good lineup filled with guys who can hit the ball out of the park. But they also know that in order to win, you also need to do the little things right...which is something the '96--'00 Yankee teams also knew and did.

Those were teams that also got their share of HRs...after all, guys like Jeter, O'Neill, Bernie, Tino, Posada...they could all hit the ball out of the park. But they also did all the little things right, did what needed to be done in order to WIN...and that is the biggest difference I see between our teams since 2002 and the teams back then...

Anybody still want to say there is no such thing as a productive out or that you can't give away outs and still be able to win on a consistent basis?

[Mikey The Great]

Obviously, that's not true. The Red Sox had one hit with runners in scoring position during the last two games and still won both times. They hit three sacrifice flies on Saturday and two of those outs with runners in scoring position involved moving a runner from second to third.

There are productive outs in baseball. It's just that we don't see them enough in the Bronx!

[jpao89]

Ken,
There is nothing more productive than not making an out in the first place, but you are absolutely right on the money. The "O'Neil" teams took care of the little things first and the big things happened as a result.

[yankees7]

Iv'e been preaching about small ball and lack of it for the past three weeks. Everyone just waking up to the fact you can't rely on the HR all the time??? ITS FUNDEMENTAL BASEBALL!!!!

[World Champions NYY]

And of course it would be nice to see some productive hits as well.

[KayForPresident]

Sheffield's AB in the 9th yesterday epitomized why this team isn't scoring runs. I know he has a violent swing in general, but when you're down 2-0 with no one on, you cut down on your swing and make contact.

[Bosox Guy in Chitown]

Originally posted by KayForPresident
Sheffield's AB in the 9th yesterday epitomized why this team isn't scoring runs. I know he has a violent swing in general, but when you're down 2-0 with no one on, you cut down on your swing and make contact.

I agree completely. As soon as I saw that rip I was pretty sure Williamson was going to get him with a K. When there's two out and no one on base, you can't hit a 2-run homer.

[WiffleWOOD]

the problem is not that there is no "small ball." small ball is not better than HR, no matter how you look at it. The problem is that they're not hitting HR either.

although slightly tangential, a study at strikethree.com (http://www.strikethree.com/99/08/14/matt.shtml) shows that a team constructed solely of sluggers (with terrible batting average, and whose only hits are homeruns) will beat a team of singles guys (.400 batting average, all singles and outs) nearly 60% of the time.

yes, it would be nice to be getting more hits. The problem, however, is not that the team can't produce a run here and there "small ball style." that is effective in the playoffs, not the regular season. The problem is that Posada is the only one hitting the long ball.

[wileedog]

I know the stat heads around here hate BA as a statistic, but right now I would say that is the number one problem.

The 96-00 didn't win with "small ball". They didn't win with "productive outs" (although they were better at it than this lineup currently is). They won with an uncanny knack for stringing together 4, 5, 6 hits in an inning, and yes, the occasional timely bomb.

These numbers tell it all

Jeter: .175
A-Rod: 257
Sheffield: .265
Matsui: .262
Giambi: .204
Bernie: .167
Wilson: .167 (Cairo plz. k. thnx)

I don't care about productive outs, small ball, HRs, OBP or anything else. When Jorge Posada is leading the team in BA with .281, and the team as a whole is hitting a whopping .217, you are going to lose ballgames. A lot of them.

You can't bunt a guy home from 2nd. Nor can you walk him home from 2nd. At some point you have to hit. Until the Yanks start hitting all this talk about small ball and HRs is pointless.

[World Champions NYY]

Originally posted by wileedog
I know the stat heads around here hate BA as a statistic, but right now I would say that is the number one problem.

The 96-00 didn't win with "small ball". They didn't win with "productive outs" (although they were better at it than this lineup currently is). They won with an uncanny knack for stringing together 4, 5, 6 hits in an inning, and yes, the occasional timely bomb.

These numbers tell it all

Jeter: .175
A-Rod: 257
Sheffield: .265
Matsui: .262
Giambi: .204
Bernie: .167
Wilson: .167 (Cairo plz. k. thnx)

I don't care about productive outs, small ball, HRs, OBP or anything else. When Jorge Posada is leading the team in BA with .281, and the team as a whole is hitting a whopping .217, you are going to lose ballgames. A lot of them.

You can't bunt a guy home from 2nd. Nor can you walk him home from 2nd. At some point you have to hit. Until the Yanks start hitting all this talk about small ball and HRs is pointless.

As you indicate, sometimes it really isn't all that complicated.

[KayForPresident]

I'm not a stat-head, but I agree with them on the uselessness of BA to judge a player's ability. I do however, like to look at BA with RISP. Hitting .200 isn't the worst thing so long as that one hit in 5 ABs comes at the right time.

So, here's Avg w/RISP....10ABs or more:

Posada .429
Shef .318
Matsui .273
Giambi .231
Jeter .176
Bernie .143
ARod .118

[2JAY]

Originally posted by wileedog
I know the stat heads around here hate BA as a statistic, but right now I would say that is the number one problem.

The 96-00 didn't win with "small ball". They didn't win with "productive outs" (although they were better at it than this lineup currently is). They won with an uncanny knack for stringing together 4, 5, 6 hits in an inning, and yes, the occasional timely bomb.

These numbers tell it all

Jeter: .175
A-Rod: 257
Sheffield: .265
Matsui: .262
Giambi: .204
Bernie: .167
Wilson: .167 (Cairo plz. k. thnx)

I don't care about productive outs, small ball, HRs, OBP or anything else. When Jorge Posada is leading the team in BA with .281, and the team as a whole is hitting a whopping .217, you are going to lose ballgames. A lot of them.

You can't bunt a guy home from 2nd. Nor can you walk him home from 2nd. At some point you have to hit. Until the Yanks start hitting all this talk about small ball and HRs is pointless.

Right on the money.
Maybe part of the problem, that a few others have alluded to, is that this line-up does have too many "superstars" in it. Players who aren't used to making the so called "dirty outs" and who are not willing to cut their swing down when they trail 2-0 with nobody on base in the 9th.

[wileedog]

Originally posted by 2JAY
Right on the money.
Maybe part of the problem, that a few others have alluded to, is that this line-up does have too many "superstars" in it. Players who aren't used to making the so called "dirty outs" and who are not willing to cut their swing down when they trail 2-0 with nobody on base in the 9th.

No, I think everyone's just anxious and feeling the pressure. Sheff is going to swing that way no matter what the count or situation is. That's how he hits, and that's how he has become such a terrific run producer in his career.

Once a couple people get on track I think it will get infectious to the whole team (other than Wilson). I don't buy the whole "HR Approach" argument and never will. Nobody looks comfortable at the plate right now, so I don't think its necessarily a swinging for the fences mentality that's doing us in.

[wileedog]

Originally posted by KayForPresident
I'm not a stat-head, but I agree with them on the uselessness of BA to judge a player's ability. I do however, like to look at BA with RISP. Hitting .200 isn't the worst thing so long as that one hit in 5 ABs comes at the right time.

So, here's Avg w/RISP....10ABs or more:

Posada .429
Shef .318
Matsui .273
Giambi .231
Jeter .176
Bernie .143
ARod .118

Not to get into stat argument, but IMO BA with RISP is just a function of BA. Eventually given a large enough sample size the two numbers will be reflective of each other.

The bottom line is if your hitting, you'll do it with men on or otherwise.

And while I wouldn't use it either as a sole judge of hitting ability, I think its foolish to throw the stat out as useless too. There are not many 320+ hitters who don't have corresponding OPS and OBP numbers. Just part of the equation IMO and it should be looked at.

[KayForPresident]

Originally posted by wileedog

No, I think everyone's just anxious and feeling the pressure. Sheff is going to swing that way no matter what the count or situation is. That's how he hits, and that's how he has become such a terrific run producer in his career.

That kind of approach may very well produce great numbers over the course of a 162 game season, but it's not going to cut it against top pitchers. Billy Beane will tell you which players have great numbers. He'll draft them, develop them, and unleash them on the rest of the AL. They'll compile great numbers from April to September and make the playoffs. But in October, when you have to actually PLAY the game, they get knocked out.

That said, the guy with arguably the most "intangibles" on this Yankee team, Derek Jeter, is leading the charge of recent futility. So...who the hell knows what's causing this funk.

Once a couple people get on track I think it will get infectious to the whole team (other than Wilson). I don't buy the whole "HR Approach" argument and never will. Nobody looks comfortable at the plate right now, so I don't think its necessarily a swinging for the fences mentality that's doing us in.

I think it has more to do with this team believing their own hype. Instead of having tough at bats, working counts, and playing the game the way they should, they're going out there thinking it will come to them. They have to go out and get it.

[KayForPresident]

Originally posted by wileedog


Not to get into stat argument, but IMO BA with RISP is just a function of BA. Eventually given a large enough sample size the two numbers will be reflective of each other.

The bottom line is if your hitting, you'll do it with men on or otherwise.

And while I wouldn't use it either as a sole judge of hitting ability, I think its foolish to throw the stat out as useless too. There are not many 320+ hitters who don't have corresponding OPS and OBP numbers. Just part of the equation IMO and it should be looked at.

I know what you're saying and of course, statistically speaking, a .330 hitter should have corresponding numbers with RISP. However, I think some situational stats, such as BA w/RISP, can quantify a player's mental makeup rather than his overall ability. I for one, do believe in players having "intangibles" which many stat heads will claim is not the case and probably have numbers to prove it.

[wileedog]

Originally posted by KayForPresident


That kind of approach may very well produce great numbers over the course of a 162 game season, but it's not going to cut it against top pitchers. Billy Beane will tell you which players have great numbers. He'll draft them, develop them, and unleash them on the rest of the AL. They'll compile great numbers from April to September and make the playoffs. But in October, when you have to actually PLAY the game, they get knocked out.

Given Sheff's numbers over his career, I'd just assume leave him alone. He saw a pitch he thought he could murder, and went at it. It was probably more of a reaction than conscious decision. Also don't forget Sheff is still learning the pitchers in the AL.

I think it has more to do with this team believing their own hype. Instead of having tough at bats, working counts, and playing the game the way they should, they're going out there thinking it will come to them. They have to go out and get it.

Maybe, although I think its more the pressure to live up to that hype than believing they just have to show up and they'll win.

The guys with the drive and skill to play the game at the level most of these Yankees (usually) do are by nature extremely competitive. No one wants to be the goat. No one wants to be the guy letting the team down. As a result, everyone is. That would account for a lot of the over-swinging as well.

Anyway, that's my theory, but who the hell knows. Maybe it's the "Curse of David Justice" as somebody mentioned in another thread....

[wileedog]

Originally posted by KayForPresident


I know what you're saying and of course, statistically speaking, a .330 hitter should have corresponding numbers with RISP. However, I think some situational stats, such as BA w/RISP, can quantify a player's mental makeup rather than his overall ability. I for one, do believe in players having "intangibles" which many stat heads will claim is not the case and probably have numbers to prove it.

Logically I disagree with you.

But I admit I always look at a guys BA w/RISP too for the very same reason....

[World Champions NYY]

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

As wilee has stated, when you have a team BA hovering around .200 you're not going to score runs. Considerations revolving around OBP, HR, et al become fairly superfluous when you're generating that kind of "attack".

[KayForPresident]

Originally posted by World Champions NYY
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

As wilee has stated, when you have a team BA hovering around .200 you're not going to score runs. Considerations revolving around OBP, HR, et al become fairly superfluous when you're generating that kind of "attack".

Ahem...heart attack? Panic attack?

[WindRavenX]

Originally posted by yankees7
Iv'e been preaching about small ball and lack of it for the past three weeks. Everyone just waking up to the fact you can't rely on the HR all the time??? ITS FUNDEMENTAL BASEBALL!!!!

This has been preached for the last 2 years, at least. Personally, I grew very worried towards the end of the 2002 season when no one was making "productive outs"- instead, players seemed to be swinging for the fences and ignoring the chances to move runners over, bunt, hit a sac fly, etc. etc. That worried me now. Then in 2003 more people picked up on this as the Yankees REALLY focused on being a offense heavy team...
And in the early weeks of NYY baseball in 2004, I and many others still see a team that is not playing "fundamental" baseball. It's irksome and IMO, will cost the team later down the road when several players go into slumps. Being able to manufacture runs is a highly effective way to both prevent and bring players out of slumps. That's my theory as to why in recent years when the team is cold, they're ice cold.

[World Champions NYY]

Originally posted by KayForPresident


Ahem...heart attack? Panic attack?

[markp]

In this forum, RISP is acknowledged to be unimportant because sabermaticians realize it's been proven to equal out over a players career. If you want to talk about RISP, go to the other forum.

Ditto small ball and the utter silliness of "productive outs". Again sabermaticians are beyond that argument. For that reason it's not a subject for discussion among sabermaticians anymore and doesn't belong in this forum.

The problem the yankees have doesn't require much analysis. As has been mentioned previously in this thread, even batting average alone shows why we're not scoring runs: we're not hitting. It's that simple.

And the person who suggested Sheffield should cut down on his swing when he's ahead in the count, that's just plain wrong.

Go back to ITL if you don't like sabermatics. This is not where you belong.

[WiffleWOOD]

Mark, the point of Sabermetrics Symposium is not to start an exclusive club that only you and I and the few others versed in sabermetrics are members of. The point is to spark some healthy discussion between statheads and non, and, more importantly (IMO), to allow those who don't know about sabermetrics to come here to learn.

You have no right to tell people which forums they can post in. Please keep that nonsense somewhere else. If you want to be productive, show these posters why you (we) mostly disregard BA w/RISP and small ball.


-WW

[markp]

if it's a sabermatics symposium, isn't the whole point to not have to listen to the same anti-sabermatic nonsense in ITL? If not, what exactly is the point of this forum?
When it was started, we were assured that people who did this would be dealt with. I mentioned this very thing, and was assured none of this sort of nonsense would be allowed. But here it is, and not only is it allowed, it's defended.

[markp]

if you look at the top pozt in the thread, it's a blatant enictment of sabermatics. Why is someone coming here with a thread that belongs in Sportsbar (let alone ITL) given carte blanche and the person that points that fact out chided?
There are two forums already in existance for this kind of ignorant whining. This forum was supposed to be where those of us with an interest in sabermatics could escape this sort of thing, hence the forum's title.

[AngelAstro]

Originally posted by markp
if you look at the top pozt in the thread, it's a blatant enictment of sabermatics. Why is someone coming here with a thread that belongs in Sportsbar (let alone ITL) given carte blanche and the person that points that fact out chided?
There are two forums already in existance for this kind of ignorant whining. This forum was supposed to be where those of us with an interest in sabermatics could escape this sort of thing, hence the forum's title.

Just to protect the innocent, this thread started out in ITL yesterday. This morning I noticed it was in SS.

[WiffleWOOD]

First of all, this thread was started in ITL, and was moved here by a mod when it started getting stat-heavy. The thought process was, I'm sure, that it could spark a debate about RISP. THAT IS THE POINT OF THIS FORUM. yes, it's great to have threads that are just sabermetricians talking shop. those are more than welcome, and I'm sure that most of them will be like that because those who dont know statistical analysis will be bored by them. but if that was all we had, it would end up being a 5 person forum.

instead, this is a forum that is open to everyone to come and learn about these measures of analysis. So rather than bash these people, why don't you put your energy into trying to convert them, or explain to them your standpoint? And if they are uninterested, well, then, they won't come back to this forum, which will solve your problem.

Either way, you can't lose. They either learn from you and start to think like a sabermetrician, or they are uninterested and go back to ITL. You do lose, however, when you start riding your high horse and refusing to engage in conversation with them.

and by the way, the term is "sabermetrics," not "sabermatics." if you are going to sit here and make fun of people who come to this forum that aren't on your level, at least know what you are talking about.

[markp]

it's been called both from the very start. The sabermatics came from sabermatician which adds the end of mathematician to SABR. But lets not let something like that stop a good insult.

Having one moderator assure us that threads like this wouldn't be allowed here and another telling us that they're just fine is pretty inconsistent.

I think that since there are two forums for this sort of thing already, putting or allowing threads like this in a forum designed for those of us that liked to discuss things in a more analytical place kind of defeats the whole purpose.

Why not get on the same page and let the rest of us know if this is really going to be a place where the people who follow the ideas and concepts of SABR can come to discuss that or not. Because if it's going to be yet another place for people to start yet another thread about small ball and how stupid us SABR disciples are, then you can have it. We came here to escape that sort of thing.

[silverdsl]

Let me be crystal clear here: It is unacceptable for users to tell other users where they are allowed to post. It's up to the moderation team, specifically WiffleWOOD in this forum, to decide if there are inappropriate posts being made. As far as I can tell there are no posts in this thead that violate the community standards prior to the discussion of who should be able to post where. I understand that the folks who are into stats and SABR and would like to discuss things from that particular viewpoint - that's the purpose of this forum and the majority of threads in this forum will most likely be stats/SABR oriented exclusively. However, you can't expect that there will never be people who won't argue things from a different point of view or won't say things that you don't agree with. This is an open forum where anyone is free to post and unless Jim decides differently we won't be closing it to non-SABR/stats folks although I don't think we will be encouraging the non-SABR/stats folks to just jump in either.

If you have a problem with the way this forum is being run, please discuss it via PM with WiffleWOOD, the moderator of this particular forum or start a new thread in the Suggestion Box.

Otherwise, please keep the rest of the posts in this thread on-topic.

Thanks.

-Deborah

[markp]

for the same threads that pervade the other forums to arrive here. And what are our moderators concerned about? That the people who are using this forum for the opposite of what it was supposed to have been designed for are allowed to put their 200th thread about how stat-heads are wrong. And I quote:
"Boston is doing all the little things RIGHT in order to win ballgames--while we look like we couldn't hit our way out of a paper bag. You don't need the 3-run HR all the time in order to win--you just need to execute...
...Anybody still want to say there is no such thing as a productive out or that you can't give away outs and still be able to win on a consistent basis?"
and in the other posts:
"Iv'e been preaching about small ball and lack of it for the past three weeks. Everyone just waking up to the fact you can't rely on the HR all the time??? ITS FUNDEMENTAL BASEBALL!!!!"

If that isn't calling out of those of us that think SABR is right then what is it? There's no analysis in that post, only the same tired drivel that the people who were excited about this forum have disproven several hundred times since I've been here.

The focus of this forum was supposed to be SABR-related, wasn't it? I mean it's the name of the forum, isn't it? I think you've lost more than me with this. I know a lot of posters who say they don't come here anymore because the infantile posts far outnumber any rational discussion. They applauded this forum. But since this forum is now going to be the same as ITL and sportbar, and thus more and more filled with the same threads-devoid of analysis and repetitive "small ball" (etc.)threads just like this one. Have fun.

[NicktheStick36]

To get back on topic...

When is an out productive? From listening to the Joe Morgan's of the world, it's moving a runner up a base by hitting a ball to the right side.

Now, there are measurements of how productive this out is. By using a Run Expectancy chart, you can see how many runs an average team would score, given that base/out state. It's based on actual play-by-play data, compiled from 1999-2002, to ensure a good sample. You can find it right here.

Now, the nitty gritty..

Man on first with 0 outs: 0.953 runs
Man on second with 1 out: 0.725 runs
Difference: -0.228 runs
The out is not productive

Man on second with 0 outs: 1.189 runs
Man on thrid with 1 out: 0.983
Difference: -0.206
The out would not be productive

Man on thrid with 0 outs: 1.482 runs
Bases empty, 1 out, run in: 1.297 runs
Difference: -0.185
The out would be productive, but the team is in a worse position to score more runs

1st and 2nd with 0 outs: 1.573
2nd and 3rd with 1 out: 1.467
Difference: -0.106
In this case, the out would be marginal

There is one case where an out is productive...a sacrifice fly with 1 out.
Runner on 3rd, 1 out: 0.983
Bases Empty, 2 out, 1 in: 1.117
Difference: 0.134

The other expectations are based on runners moving up on the fly ball and the like, and frankly, I think I've made my point.

There are very few productive outs.

[WiffleWOOD]

excellent post, nick.

[AngelAstro]

Good post NicktheStick36.

People need to realize that making outs is the worst thing you can do when hitting.

[WiffleWOOD]

Originally posted by AngelAstro
People need to realize that making outs is the worst thing you can do when hitting.

Exactly. I think the confusion with "productive outs" is that it implies that getting the out and advancing the runner is a good thing, when in reality it diminishes the scoring opportunities.

I think many people are decieved by this term, however, when watching an AB with runners on base. The worst thing that can happen is if the batter strikes out. This is the least productive thing one can do, and leaves fans screaming "at least move the runners over!" As a result, when a hitter does move the runners over, it is deemed "productive," at least in relation to the worst possible outcome (K).

As Nick, Mark and Angel have noticed, in most cases this is not actually productive.

[NicktheStick36]

I'd almost rather see a strikeout.

At least then, the hitter saw at least 3 pitches.

[justin32099]

I think it is a misnomer to say that sabermetricians don't believe in situational hitting, contact hitting, and productive outs. I consider myself a sabermetrician in that I believe baseball is a game of probabilties, where understanding the value of a walk, a stolen base, or a bunt is a more accurate way to judge the value of a hitter than subjective observation.

Situational hitting, I believe, does exist--when there is a man on third and less than two outs, it is USUALLY good to try to hit a ground ball to the right side or a fly ball deep to the outfield. Of course this doesn't apply if you're behind by five runs in the eighth inning, when you need a base hit, but in a tie game in the 12th inning (Bellhorn's situation), for example, the marginal impact of that run on the outcome of the game is much, much higher than, for example, a sac fly in the top of the first. A batter's approach should vary depending on the score and what runners are on base--I doubt any sabermetricians would argue with that.

One of the great things about baseball is that we don't understand it all yet, and we probably never will. Why is it that some teams are just better in close games than others? It defies pure statistical deviation. I don't believe in "clutch" hitting, but I do believe that some hitters are better at hitting situationally than others. Perhaps the two get mistaken.

[Rich]

Here's Kevin Kennedy's argument that the lack of situational hitting is hurting the Yankee:

http://www.foxsports.com/content/view?contentId=2358118

...

Now think Yankees. Much of the same thing is happening to them. When you have a modern-day Murderer's Row of A-Rod, Giambi, Sheffield, Posada, Matsui, and Williams, you expect home runs, doubles, and a ton of runs. Well, it ain't happening that way and I'm sure Joe Torre knows why. Joe has always been a National League-style manager, a guy who loves to move runners, create motion on the bases, get the run home when a guy's in scoring position, and keep the offense flowing. If a home run comes, fine, but you can't sit and wait for it.

Joe had that kind of team in '98, when the Yanks finished at 114-48 and swept the Padres in the World Series. He didn't have a bunch of big boppers, though plenty of them had the strength to reach the seats. Paul O'Neill, for instance was always a tough out. He could take the ball the other way down the left-field line, hit it over the middle or into the gaps, and occasionally pull one into the seats. Most of the guys on that team — Jeter, Knoblach, Martinez, Girardi, Brosius, Curtis, Raines, Sojo, Williams — could almost always put the bat on the ball. Over this past weekend, Joe moved runners several times only to have it result in a strike-'em-out, throw-'em-out double play. You didn't see that happen often in '98.

Situational hitting depends on the score, the inning, the count and the pitcher you're facing. You've got to take what the pitcher gives you and go the other way, hit behind the runner, settle for the sacrifice fly or single in the hole if it gets a run home. This is what I had to do with my Texas team. I challenged them to begin hitting to the situation. Then we practiced execution. Go to the opposite field, get the ball in the air, shorten your swing and don't strike out. Once they did that and I was able to add motion to the offense, they suddenly found they were getting more fastballs to hit. And if there is one thing all major-league hitters love, it's a steady diet of fastballs.

I also think the Yankees have to start playing some little ball. You can play little ball and still hit the home run. Both the Marlins and the Angels did that the last two years, and they wound up wearing the rings. Situational hitting wins games, even if you have guys capable of hitting 30-40 home runs. The Dodgers are doing it more this year with great results. The other night Milton Bradley went the opposite way with two strikes and won the game. David Ortiz of the Red Sox admits that he became a better hitter when he cut down on his swing. The way he put it to me is that he's short to the ball now. Because of that, he has become a much more dangerous hitter. With a long swing, going for the fences, you simply have too many holes and a smart pitcher will find them.

(I agee with him to some extent about situational hitting, but not about the little ball. btw, Situational hitting is NOT the same thing as a productive out.)

[Dave in MD]

the Yankees weren't hitting at all, and therefore not scoring. Nothing to do with situational hitting. And by the way Kaat really pissed me off tonight with his bull**** against Moneyball. He claimed Pierre was the mvp of the series despite the fact that Pierre had impact on only one game.

[Rich]

Originally posted by Dave in MD
the Yankees weren't hitting at all, and therefore not scoring. Nothing to do with situational hitting. And by the way Kaat really pissed me off tonight with his bull**** against Moneyball. He claimed Pierre was the mvp of the series despite the fact that Pierre had impact on only one game.

I think one of the reasons they weren't hitting is that too many players were trying to kill the ball, i.e., pressing.

[NJASDJDH]

Originally posted by Dave in MD
the Yankees weren't hitting at all, and therefore not scoring. Nothing to do with situational hitting. And by the way Kaat really pissed me off tonight with his bull**** against Moneyball. He claimed Pierre was the mvp of the series despite the fact that Pierre had impact on only one game.

Agreed about Kaat, I almost hate playing the A's simply because the idiotic YES announcers are guaranteed to make another ignorant comment about "Moneyball" or sabermetrics.

[WiffleWOOD]

Originally posted by NJASDJDH


Agreed about Kaat, I almost hate playing the A's simply because the idiotic YES announcers are guaranteed to make another ignorant comment about "Moneyball" or sabermetrics.

i was thinking the EXACT same thing. They were doing it in nearly every broadcast anyway, but once the A's came in town, all we get is this ignorant bull**** about "moneyball."

[Rich]

Originally posted by WiffleWOOD


i was thinking the EXACT same thing. They were doing it in nearly every broadcast anyway, but once the A's came in town, all we get is this ignorant bull**** about "moneyball."

Although I think it makes him sound like an anti-intellectual, I can understand Kaat's anxiety. He is an older guy, who views the sabermetrics movement as a threat to everything he has known about baseball (even though his fear is unreasonable). Kay, OTOH, has no excuse for sounding so uninformed.

[Rich]

http://yankeefan.blogspot.com/

[AngelAstro]

Dave had it right, they weren't hitting period, thus they didn't score runs.

So, now that the Yanks have scored a couple of runs on singles and sac flies, are they a situational hitting team or are they just starting to hit? To me, it's a circular argument.

[Rich]

Originally posted by AngelAstro
Dave had it right, they weren't hitting period, thus they didn't score runs.

So, now that the Yanks have scored a couple of runs on singles and sac flies, are they a situational hitting team or are they just starting to hit? To me, it's a circular argument.

I don't think it's a dichotomy. I think the pressure to succeed out of the gate superseded a smart approach at the plate for some players.

[AngelAstro]

Originally posted by Rich


I don't think it's a dichotomy. I think the pressure to succeed out of the gate superseded a smart approach at the plate for some players.

I'm not so sure about that. Most of the players on the Yankees are very patient hitters who work the count. The Yankees still walked, as of today they were second in the majors in walks, so I don't think their approach was all that different. They just couldn't buy a hit. I guess we have to define approach a bit better.

[koko]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/column...ter&id=1792101

[RIyankee]

I don't think that having the runner advance on an grounder is relative to skill. The ability to get on base is. The POP statistic doesn't seem like a sound way to evaluate a player. It reminds me of the GWRBI statistic of 10-15 years ago.

[AngelAstro]

Originally posted by koko
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/column...ter&id=1792101

Well, it will be interesting to see which teams have the most runs scored at the end of the season, Detroit or Oakland. Comparing Boston or the Yanks to Detroit isn't fair because of the lack of talent in Detroit compared to the Sox or the Yanks.

What they don't mention in the article is that Detroit is simply outhitting Oakland as a team. Detroit has team averages of .285/.356/.424 while Oakland has .261/.337/.403, so it stands to reason that Detroit has scored more runs so far.

What's also interesting is that Anaheim or Florida is not in the top 6 in POP this season. Anaheim has been a strong slugging team (.446) as have the Marlins (.444). Currently Anaheim, Florida and Detroit are ranked 2, 18 and 1 in runs scored in the league. I'm willing to wager that Anaheim and Detroit won't be up that high all year.