Jays fans, start praying...
David M Tate
game have any basis in fact, the Jays are in serious trouble offensively.
Apparently, new batting coach Larry Hisle has decided that many of the Jays
were "overly selective" and "not aggressive enough at the plate" last season,
and is trying to do something about it.
Now, let's put this in perspective. The Jays, as a team, drew 499 walks
last season, which was 11th in the AL (Cleveland, New York, and California
were worse.) Additionally, the Jays had a team OBP of .322 which was tenth-
best in the AL (Baltimore and the abovementioned teams were worse). League-
leading figures for walks and OBP were 699 (Detroit) and .344 (Minnesota).
Conversely, the Jays struck out 1043 times (only Detroit had more) last year.
Maybe I'm missing something, but does this look like a team that's being too
selective and insufficiently aggressive??? It looks to me more like a team
that's not being selective AT ALL. John Olerud was the only player with more
than 60 BB, so of course he's the prime offender.
A team with more than 2 K's per BB, offensively, needs to be more *aggressive*?
Right.
--
David M. Tate | "Whoever wants to know the heart and
dt...@unix.cis.pitt.edu | mind of America had better learn
"Poetry is the synthesis of hyacinths | baseball."
and biscuits." --Carl Sandberg | --Jacques Barzun
David M Tate
>
>This is getting ridiculous. I believe this thread started because
>someone mistakenly equated accumulated strikeouts with larry hisle's
>definition of "agressive" baseball.
Gotta read more carefully, Roger. What I *did* suggest was that a team
that has very low walks and very high strikeouts probably isn't lacking
aggressiveness, but more likely lacking patience (or skill, or both).
If those were swinging strikeouts for the most part, then it's skill they
lack, and they need to be more patient in order to get pitches they *can*
hit. If they were all looking strikeouts, then where are the walks that
invariably come when you don't swing much?
I'd love to see a breakdown of strikeouts by looking/swinging. Does anyone
know what the league averages are for that?
David M Tate
>two out, do you want a walk (setting up the double play) or do you want the
>ball in play, whether sac fly, groundout, basehit, bunt or what have you?
I want the walk, unless I'm tied or down by one in the last inning. That
way I increase my expected runs scored for this inning. An out (even a sac
fly) is at best a break-even. This has been studied. In the long run, the
team that takes the walks in these situations will score more runs (and thus
win more games) than a similar team that always puts the ball in play.
>You want the ball in play - THAT is agressive baseball!
No, I want as many runs as I can get. That's *winning* baseball.
>And the team that
>strikes out (as opposed to making contact) is not playing agressive baseball!
Not necessarily. Swinging (and missing) is aggressive. Swinging twice and
then watching strike 3 go by is also pretty aggressive. It all depends on how
and why you strike out.
Gordon Niguma
>>>You obviously haven't watched too many Blue Jays games. Because John
>>>Olerud is not aggressive enough earlier in the count he misses
>>>opportunities to get hits (on say a first pitch fastball right down the
>>>middle of the plate).
>> I watch the Jays probably 100+ games a year. I do agree that sometimes John
>>misses quality strikes early in the count. But look at players like Damo
>>Garcia was, they flailed at everything and they weren't any good because they
>>never drew walks. If John starts continuously swinging at first pitches, who's
>>going to throw him anymore strikes? His walk total will go to shit. He'll have
>>to swing more to improve; but I don't think he should lose all of his selectivity.
>>
>> Gord Niguma
>> (fav Player John Olerud)
>First of all, I'm not advocating that John Olerud adopt Damo Garcia's batting
>habits (or that he burn his uniform). In response to your comments, I think
>that you should know that Johnny O put one out of the yard yesterday against
>Roger Clemens, swinging on a first-pitch fastball. Hisle is doing his job,
>and Johnny O will have a *BIG* year this year.
Yes but he still has to be selective on the first pitch. Sure if guys start
throwing him heaters right down the middle Johnny's gotta try to hit to avoid
going in the hole 0-1. But once he does this pitchers will start throwing balls
on first balls and he will have to make adjustments constantly. I think
people have a difference in what "aggresive" and "selective" are.
Gord Niguma
(glad Olerud cranked one against Clemens)
.
9128...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
>Gotta read more carefully, Roger. What I *did* suggest was that a team
>that has very low walks and very high strikeouts probably isn't lacking
>aggressiveness, but more likely lacking patience (or skill, or both).
No sir I suggest YOU read more carefully. I was not referring to your
posting. I was referring to the posting made by some Oriole fan who
could not understand why Larry Hisle felt that a team that had so many
strikeouts had to be more agressive at the plate. I don't really care
whether you think the Jays are agressive or not.
Larry Hisle, the Jays batting coach, thinks the Jays lack agression at
the plate. You, with your intimate knowledge of the situation, feel that
the problem is not a lack of agression, but instead, a lack of patience
or skill.
Obviously one of you does not understand what agressive hitting is.
I am finished with this thread. I should have known that explaining
baseball fundamentals to stats-drunk computer nerds is a hopeless task.
--
roger l. maynard
9128...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
Sudbury Ont.
Canada
Michael Zimmers
>Conversely, the Jays struck out 1043 times (only Detroit had more) last year.
This reminds me: at the outset of the '91 season, there was much attention
given to the Tiggers' prospects for breaking the team season K record. I
may have missed any posts on the outcome (then again, interest in the matter
may have fizzled). How close did they come?
Michael Zimmers
>Besides, why would you want to "put the ball in play" when it's going to be
>a groundout, a fly out, a pop out, or a line out? You should never take an
>out at the expense of a walk.
I've seen this thought tossed around the group for some time, and I've
often wondered: aren't you underestimating the difficulty of getting a
walk? Comparing the amount of times batters attain either, and considering
how much more often a batter's "trying" to walk (he's almost always sort-of
trying), it appears to me that bases on balls are tough to earn. Throw
in the fact that an attempted sacrifice could turn into a hit or an error,
while an attempted BB could become a called strike three, and I have
Gordon Niguma
>>Gotta read more carefully, Roger. What I *did* suggest was that a team
>>that has very low walks and very high strikeouts probably isn't lacking
>>aggressiveness, but more likely lacking patience (or skill, or both).
>No sir I suggest YOU read more carefully. I was not referring to your
>posting. I was referring to the posting made by some Oriole fan who
>could not understand why Larry Hisle felt that a team that had so many
>strikeouts had to be more agressive at the plate. I don't really care
>whether you think the Jays are agressive or not.
>Larry Hisle, the Jays batting coach, thinks the Jays lack agression at
>the plate. You, with your intimate knowledge of the situation, feel that
>the problem is not a lack of agression, but instead, a lack of patience
>or skill.
And Tate is correct. Aggresive hitters probably strike out more than
patient ones; look at Rob Deer, Shawon Dunston et al. They K alot. The
only guy I can think of who is aggresive but doesn't strike out much
is Puckett. This happens because these hitters dig themselves in a hole by
flailing away.
>Obviously one of you does not understand what agressive hitting is.
>I am finished with this thread. I should have known that explaining
>baseball fundamentals to stats-drunk computer nerds is a hopeless task.
Good. Don't come back until you know what you're talking about. Gary
Huckabay please come out and tell this guy about baseball fundamentals; you
played ball about as well as anyone on this net.
Gord Niguma
(fav player: John Olerud)
Greg Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life Spira
>I'd love to see a breakdown of strikeouts by looking/swinging. Does anyone
>know what the league averages are for that?
1990 Data:
NL
29.6 % of strikeouts were called strikeouts
70.4 % of strikeouts were swinging strikeouts
AL
28.5 % of strikeouts were called strikeouts
71.5 % of strikeouts were swinging strikeouts
This has been a public service announcements brought to you by Greg Spira's
very crashed, possibly permanently so, hard drive.
Greg
--
sp...@panix.com "The one-O delivery to Fisk. He swings. Long drive,
cmcl2!panix!spira left field! If it stays fair, it's gone! Home Run!"
158-17 Riverside Dr. Ned Martin, 10/22/75
Whitestone NY 11357 (Insert your favorite baseball moment here)
David M Tate
>In <203...@unix.cis.pitt.edu> dt...@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:
>
>>Gotta read more carefully, Roger. What I *did* suggest was that a team
>>that has very low walks and very high strikeouts probably isn't lacking
>>aggressiveness, but more likely lacking patience (or skill, or both).
>
>No sir I suggest YOU read more carefully. I was not referring to your
>posting.
You said "the original poster", or words to that effect. That was me.
Sounds like you meant to refer to David Nieporent, though.
>Larry Hisle, the Jays batting coach, thinks the Jays lack agression at
>the plate. You, with your intimate knowledge of the situation, feel that
>the problem is not a lack of agression, but instead, a lack of patience
>or skill.
Ah, here it comes again, the old "how can you possibly question the judgement
of someone who has been a part of The Game for 437 years now?"...
>I am finished with this thread. I should have known that explaining
>baseball fundamentals to stats-drunk computer nerds is a hopeless task.
Not really. You should try it sometime...
Nelson Lu
I don't think I am underestimating the difficulty of getting a walk. In fact,
since it is so difficult to get a walk, if you are not careful (as some
"aggressive"-drunk netters are (Mike, that was a remark toward Roger's
accusation that Dave Tate was stat-drunk)), you will easily forgo the walk and
get a fly out, a ground out, a line out, a pop out, or a strike out. A walk
is difficult to get; it is easy to lose.
===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
Charter Member of the Acker-o-phobics Anonymous
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (clau...@leland.stanford.edu)
Sherri Nichols
>In article <1992Mar22.2...@watserv1.waterloo.edu> mwdw...@watnow.waterloo.edu (Martin White) writes:
>>fastball strikes and dig themselves a hole right from the start. IMHO, a
>>swinging strike is more acceptable than looking strike.
>
>Why? What difference is there between the two? IMHO a swinging strike
>is exactly the same thing as a looking strike.
Actually, I think a swinging strike is somewhat worse than a looking
strike. That swinging strike could be on a pitch outside the strike zone;
by definition, the looking strike never is.
Sherri Nichols
snic...@adobe.com
Gary Lost In Germany Huckabay
>> A team with more than 2 K's per BB, needs to be more *aggressive*?
>> Right.
>
>Being too selective doesn't necessarily mean taking too many walks. If you're too selective, you'll let a lot of strikes go by because 'it wasn't your ptich'. And THAT is what leads to the high strike out total.
First off, please trim down articles you're responding to, and watch
your line length.
Second, rubbish.
Being selective, in any player I've ever seen, means not swinging at
bad pitches. This may comes as a surprise, but usually, bad pitches
are OUT of the strike zone. And therefore, OFTEN called balls.
Then again, with the current sad state of the strike zone in MLB, I
can see why people are taking their hacks - that zone is about 24
inches wide at thigh level.
Anyone notice my disdain for more MLB umps, or am I being too subtle.
"Let's shave Rich Garcia's head, and put him on a bus." - Bryce Lynn.
--
* Gr Hckb * t's vwl fr sgntr wk. pprntl, 'v sd p m vwl lltmnt. *
* "Fwr Vwls * "nd drng th fw mmnts tht w hv lft, w wnt t tlk rght dwn *
* thn Dv * t rth, n lngge tht vrybdy hr cn sl ndrstnd." - Mlclm X *
* Thrnl." * & Lvng Clr. *
Gary Lost In Germany Huckabay
>>A team with more than 2 K's per BB, needs to be more *aggressive*?
>>Right.
>>
>I think what Hisle means is that the Jays look at too many first-pitch
>fastball strikes and dig themselves a hole right from the start. IMHO, a
>goes, he takes his walks at times when a sacrifice fly or a hit would serve
>the club better.
Prove it.
Very seldom does a SF help a club more than a walk - almost
exclusively in the late innings of close games. As for a hit always
being preferable to a walk - this startling revelation really takes me
by storm.
If you guys don't like Olerud's walks, send him to Oakland. We'll
send you just about anything for him.
Gary Lost In Germany Huckabay
>>Huh? Are you seriously claiming that a team which did *not* let a lot
>>of *balls* go by *did* let a lot of strikes go by? Are you seriously
>>claiming that Toronto's K/W ratio came from taking strikes and swinging
>>at balls?
>
>>If so, where did you come up with *that* tidbit?
>
> pitchers don't throw balls at batters that are taking pitches, they
> throw strikes. If the jays were more aggressive, that is, if they
> put the ball in play more, they would get a lot more balls thrown their
> way. agressive hitters don't strike out - they put the ball in play.
Oh, THIS makes sense! So, in other words, pitchers don't throw balls
to Wade Boggs - they throw strikes. Then Wade must be very
impressive, to draw 80+ walks per year when people are throwing him
nothing but meaty pitches. And that Frank Thomas guy - drawing 138
walks by not taking pitches! Whoo-ee!
If you can't follow baseball, at least try to at LEAST follow what
you're actually saying.
Every post I've read this morning is depressing thus far.
Have we made NO progress? WALKS ARE SOMETHING A BATTER DRAWS - TO A
GREATER EXTENT PITCHERS 'GIVE'. Hitters who walk will likely to
continue to walk. Walks are a very important part of a player's
offensive game.
If you play for my team, on offense, full time, and don't walk AT
LEAST 60 times a year, I will attempt to get rid of you. Even if you
hit .300. I can probably trade you for more than you're worth.
"Walks=Wins". Offensive slogan of the Miskatonic Cephalopods.
David Marc Nieporent
>In <203...@unix.cis.pitt.edu> dt...@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:
>>>pitchers don't throw balls at batters that are taking pitches, they
>>>throw strikes. If the jays were more aggressive, that is, if they
>>>put the ball in play more, they would get a lot more balls thrown their way.
>>I think you have it backwards, Roger. Pitchers don't throw strikes (which
>>might get hit) to batters who have shown that they'll swing at balls. Why
>>bother?
>of course pitchers don't throw strikes at batters who swing. just as
>pitchers throw strikes at batters who don't swing. John Olerud never
But this is silly. Rickey Henderson. Wade Boggs. Brett Butler. These
are all people who don't swing, and yet *they* manage to walk a lot more
than they strike out. So I guess pitchers DON'T throw them strikes, and
yet they don't swing.
>swings at the first pitch and it is always a strike. Damaso Garcia
>(remember him?) never took the first pitch and it was always high and outside.
>the point I am trying to make is that by "agressive" hisle means to put
>the ball in play to take advantage of the speed of white, alomar and
>derek bell (i hope). putting the ball in play makes things happen. that
>is agressive baseball.
Then Hisle is being silly. "Aggressive," to most people, is the
opposite of "Patient." Aggressive, therefore, means swinging at more
pitches instead of taking them. Therefore, you will put more in play
(mostly for OUTS), and you will also strike out a lot more.
>>>agressive hitters don't strike out - they put the ball in play.
Of course they do strike out. If you swing more often, you strike out
more. You walk less. The people who strike out the least, like Wade Boggs,
are the *patient* people.
>>...for an out (or two), 70% of the time. This is good? I'd rather have
>>the missing walks than the few extra hits, by a large margin.
>again...if you have a white or an alomar in scoring position with less than
>two out, do you want a walk (setting up the double play) or do you want the
>ball in play, whether sac fly, groundout, basehit, bunt or what have you?
That depends. Is it the bottom of the 9th, with me tied or behind by
one? Then I want you to swing. But how often are you in this situation?
EVERY other time, I want a walk. Come on. People don't hit into double
plays very often. But they *do* make outs all the time.
Why you'd want the batter to get out, ending a rally, instead of walking
in order to lead to a big inning, is beyond me.
Of *course* a hit is better than a walk. But no one gets a hit more
than 35% of the time.
>You want the ball in play - THAT is agressive baseball! And the team that
>strikes out - as opposed to making contact - is not playing agressive baseball!
Huh? If you swing, there's a GOOD chance of striking out. You're
defining "agressive" in a strange way -- "Swinging which results in
contact." No hitting coach can make someone make contact. People
always try to make contact when they swing.
>--
>roger l. maynard
>9128...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
>Sudbury Ont. Canada
--
David M. Nieporent |ALEast 92: 1.Baltimore 2.Boston 3.Toronto
niep...@phoenix.princeton.edu |4. Detroit 5.Milwaukee 6.NY 8.Cleveland
|
"Not likely to call anyone an idiot except John MacNamara,Elias & Murray Chass"
Gary Lost In Germany Huckabay
>9128...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger "Tweedledum" Maynard) writes:
>> pitchers don't throw balls at batters that are taking pitches, they
>> throw strikes. If the jays were more aggressive, that is, if they
>> put the ball in play more, they would get a lot more balls thrown their
>Agreed 100% Roger!
Hey, I just *had* to do this. Sorry, gang.
"Hmmm. Pronoun Trouble." - D. Duck.
"Is Dave Kirsch REALLY the antichrist?" - A Current Affair, 3/22/92.
"My affair with Greg Spira lasted 4 months." - Madonna, 3/16/92.
"So WHY did you kill them, Mr. Lundy? Help me out here." - P.
Donahue.
David Marc Nieporent
>In <203...@unix.cis.pitt.edu> dt...@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:
>>>pitchers don't throw balls at batters that are taking pitches, they
>>>throw strikes. If the jays were more aggressive, that is, if they
>>>put the ball in play more, they would get a lot more balls thrown their way.
>>I think you have it backwards, Roger. Pitchers don't throw strikes (which
>>might get hit) to batters who have shown that they'll swing at balls. Why
>>bother?
>of course pitchers don't throw strikes at batters who swing. just as
>pitchers throw strikes at batters who don't swing. John Olerud never
But this is silly. Rickey Henderson. Wade Boggs. Brett Butler. These
are all people who don't swing, and yet *they* manage to walk a lot more
than they strike out. So I guess pitchers DON'T throw them strikes, and
yet they don't swing.
>swings at the first pitch and it is always a strike. Damaso Garcia
>(remember him?) never took the first pitch and it was always high and outside.
>the point I am trying to make is that by "agressive" hisle means to put
>the ball in play to take advantage of the speed of white, alomar and
>derek bell (i hope). putting the ball in play makes things happen. that
>is agressive baseball.
Then Hisle is being silly. "Aggressive," to most people, is the
opposite of "Patient." Aggressive, therefore, means swinging at more
pitches instead of taking them. Therefore, you will put more in play
(mostly for OUTS), and you will also strike out a lot more.
>>>agressive hitters don't strike out - they put the ball in play.
Of course they do strike out. If you swing more often, you strike out
Gary Lost In Germany Huckabay
>I am finished with this thread. I should have known that explaining
>baseball fundamentals to stats-drunk computer nerds is a hopeless task.
Gee, I'm already in a bad mood. I guess I'll jump in here, to the
surprise of no one.
Grab a bat, Roger. Any time, any where. The day you can teach ME
anything about playing baseball is the day hell freezes over. I'll
take the mound, or the box, with you on the other side any day.
I'll count you a winner if you make contact with ONE of my pitches,
even with a bad rotator cuff. All you have to do is foul one off.
The main thing that makes your explaining baseball fundamentals a
hopeless task is your mammoth ignorance thereof.
The next time you're within a hundred miles of me or so, bring your
equipment. You sound like you could use a big slice of humble pie -
even more than *I* could, which is saying something.
Stats-drunk computer nerd, indeed.
*TEQUILA* drunk baseball nerd, perhaps....
David Marc Nieporent
>>There seems to be some guy I remember, I think he played third base
>>for the Red Sox, who as a rule almost never swings at the first pitch
>>whether it's a strike or not. Gosh, I wish I could remember his name,
>>since by the logic of some of the people in this group, his lack of
>>aggression on that first pitch would make him one of the poorest
>>batters of all time.
>>Dennis Shea
>we are not talking about how "good" players like Wade Boggs are. We
>are talking about "agressive". Wade Boggs is not an aggressive hitter.
Oh, so what you're saying is that Hisle isn't teaching the team to be
*good*, he's teaching them to be aggressive. Well, pardon me for
asking, but why? I would think the goal SHOULD be good, rather than
aggressiveness.
>Neither was Ted Williams. Teams like Boston, Detroit and especially
>Earl Weaver's old Orioles play "conservative" baseball, looking for the
>big inning, the longball. There is nothing "bad" about this. Some teams
>are very successful with this approach. Other teams, traditionally fast
>teams, with good pitching, like the Blue Jays or like Herzog's old Cardinals
>don't play conservative longball. They play aggressive, hustling baseball
>scratching out runs.
Huh? The Cardinals under Whitey Herzog used to *CONSISTENTLY* be near
the top of the league in walks. You're changing the subject. You're
talking about being aggressive or conservative *on the basepaths*, while
Hisle and the rest of us are talking about being agressive or patient
*at the plate.* The two really have nothing to do with each other.
> The question is not which style is "better" or if
>a conservative hitter is better than an agressive one. The point is that
>some teams, usually fast teams with good pitching, can play agressive ball
Yes, the way you define aggressive, ONLY teams with good pitching can
play aggressively. Because they aren't going to score any runs! So
they're going to NEED good pitching to win.
>while slower teams with power play conservative longball. I myself
>prefer longball, but the Jays are better suited to the other style.
>This is getting ridiculous. I believe this thread started because
>someone mistakenly equated accumulated strikeouts with larry hisle's
>definition of "agressive" baseball.
No. What happened was someone (you?) said that Hisle wants the Jays to
be more aggressive, to swing more. Now, we *know* that very few of the
current Jays walk, but they *do* strike out a lot. What does that tell us?
That none of them take many pitches. Now, it could be, as you said, that
they really take *tons* of pitches, all of them being strikes. But one
wonders why the Jays would be different than any other team. (And besides,
I *know* that Joe Carter doesn't take pitches. I've watched him throughout
his career.) Every other team takes pitches, and walks. Why do Jays
opponents only throw them strikes?
The Jays were near the bottom of the league in runs scored. Why? It
wasn't from lack of power; they were above average there. It wasn't
from lack of stolen bases; they were at the top of the league there. It
wasn't from hitting into too many DPs; they hit into almost the fewest
in the league. It wasn't from not getting enough hits; they were league
average in batting average. What was it from? Lack of OPB. They
were near the bottom of the league in walks.
And no matter how you slice it, swinging more is not going to increase
their walks.
> Don't matter anyway cause it's
>the Jays and the Expos this year, and all you Yankees will give up
>and start watching hockey...
Oh, good. Glad you told me. I'll just throw away my Orioles tickets then.
Thanks. :) Not. Only the Jays would add a 37 year old pitcher in an
attempt to strengthen the part of the team that doesn't need strengthening.
The Expos? Only if they can dump Wallach.
Joe Lundy
|> Hey, I just *had* to do this. Sorry, gang.
|>
|> "Hmmm. Pronoun Trouble." - D. Duck.
|>
|> "Is Dave Kirsch REALLY the antichrist?" - A Current Affair, 3/22/92.
|>
|> "My affair with Greg Spira lasted 4 months." - Madonna, 3/16/92.
|>
|> "So WHY did you kill them, Mr. Lundy? Help me out here." - P.
|> Donahue.
"Chad Jackson traded for Ron Hassey" - SI, 3/23/92
"Thornley Wows 'Em" - Review of his triumphant debut in "Man from Le Mancha"
"So, Mr. Clinton, what is your reaction to funneling money to the Muskatonic Cepalopods?" - Mike Kinsley, Crossfire
Now back to your regularly scheduled BS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Joe Lundy Encore Computer Corporation, 6901 W. Sunrise Blvd. |
| jlu...@encore.com Mail Stop 811, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33313-4499 |
| "Everyone likes Fielder" |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Marc Nieporent
vi...@vaxr.sscl.uwo.ca
>
> again...if you have a white or an alomar in scoring position with less than
> two out, do you want a walk (setting up the double play) or do you want the
> ball in play, whether sac fly, groundout, basehit, bunt or what have you?
> strikes out - as opposed to making contact - is not playing agressive
> baseball!
>
With all due respect, roger, I don't consider getting the ball into
play at every opportunity to be playing agressive baseball: I
consider that being STUPID. If you can get the pitcher to walk you,
on average, your team will score more runs, because you have not made
an out, and there is now another man on base for the people behind you
in the order to drive in.
If you "attempt to put the ball into play" at every chance, you WILL
STRIKE OUT MORE. Just act Rob Deer (who swings for the fences every
chance he gets), BUT is smart enough to let the opposing team walk him
frequently.
I would argue that being aggressive in the fashion you describe
(eschewing the walk for putting the ball in play) and not striking out
are just about incompatible; being aggressive and walking are NOT
incompatible.
Vince Gray vi...@vaxi.sscl.uwo.ca vg...@uwovax.bitnet
Sherri Nichols
>In article <1992Mar23.0...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> 9128...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca ( ) writes:
>>>>agressive hitters don't strike out - they put the ball in play.
>
>Of course they do strike out. If you swing more often, you strike out
>more. You walk less.
Actually, it *is* possible to both not strike out at lot, and not walk a
lot. Johnny Ray and Steve Garvey were both in this category; low strikeout
rates *and* low walk rates.
Not that that was particularly beneficial, mind you.
Sherri Nichols
snic...@adobe.com
guil...@otago.ac.nz
> Winning teams have big innings. Look at the great offenses. All of
> them. They waited for their pitches.
>
> A good example: Whitey Herzog's Cards. Some years, they walked a lot
> and led the NL in OBA. Some years, they didn't. Here are the years
> they led the league: 82, 85, 87, 89. Three pennants and a surprising
> 3rd place (5th expected). The other years they were useless.
>
> Everybody said, "they're so aggressive." But they stole the bases and
> hit-and-ran and swung away with men on base about the same every year!
> The difference? Some years they walked.
year team ba rank team bb rank runs rank hr
82 .264 2 569 2 685 5 67
83 .270 2 543 5 679 5 83
84 .252 8 516 6 652 6t 75
85 .264 1 586 1 747 1 87
86 .236 12 568 5 601 12 58
87 .263 6 644 1 798 2 94
88 .249 4 484 6 578 11 71
89 .258 2 507 7t 632 7t 73
There's a smidgen of truth in RL's example. Actually, though, the Cards
in `83 were really as useful as in `82, then in `84 and `86 they didn't
lose walks too much but they certainly lost a lot of hits and homers.
Finally in `88 and `89 their walks did go down (as well the ba and hr
again). But I think it would be safe to change the word "walked" in
the last line above to "hit." Unless of course we assume that the
small dip in walks resulted in the large dips in the other stats.
Note: kind of a weird team, weren't they? That `85-`87 thing must
be some kind of hard-to-define record.
Bill Guilford
Roger Lustig
>>Gotta read more carefully, Roger. What I *did* suggest was that a team
>>that has very low walks and very high strikeouts probably isn't lacking
>>aggressiveness, but more likely lacking patience (or skill, or both).
>No sir I suggest YOU read more carefully. I was not referring to your
>posting. I was referring to the posting made by some Oriole fan who
>could not understand why Larry Hisle felt that a team that had so many
>strikeouts had to be more agressive at the plate. I don't really care
>whether you think the Jays are agressive or not.
Well, all the definitions of "aggressive" we've seen so far look a lot
like the definition of "stupid." And, given what the Jays DO do at the
plate, playing MORE "aggressively" would be ULTRAstupid. The Jays need
to walk more. Period. They do everything else just fine.
>Larry Hisle, the Jays batting coach, thinks the Jays lack agression at
>the plate. You, with your intimate knowledge of the situation, feel that
>the problem is not a lack of agression, but instead, a lack of patience
>or skill.
Indeed.
>Obviously one of you does not understand what agressive hitting is.
Well, we've had it explained to us several times, and we can't for the
life of us think of a lot of GOOD hitters who hit that way. I mean,
Mookie Wilson is aggressive and all that, but he's not exactly a
franchise player.
>I am finished with this thread. I should have known that explaining
>baseball fundamentals to stats-drunk computer nerds is a hopeless task.
Ah, but rudeness is well worthwhile, eh? Keep in mind that Dr. Dave
has probably seen three times as many ML games as you have; I've been to
a couple myself.
OHh, and remember that the only stat we were talking about is Team Runs
Scored. Some of us have a nagging feeling that this stat has a LOT ot
do with good offenses.
Or are things different in Canada?
Roger
Michael Zimmers
>In article <1#-jaz-mz...@netcom.com> mzim...@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>>I've seen this thought tossed around the group for some time, and I've
>>often wondered: aren't you underestimating the difficulty of getting a
>>walk? Comparing the amount of times batters attain either, and considering
>>how much more often a batter's "trying" to walk (he's almost always sort-of
>>trying), it appears to me that bases on balls are tough to earn. Throw
>>in the fact that an attempted sacrifice could turn into a hit or an error,
>>while an attempted BB could become a called strike three, and I have
>I don't think I am underestimating the difficulty of getting a walk. In fact,
>since it is so difficult to get a walk, if you are not careful (as some
>"aggressive"-drunk netters are (Mike, that was a remark toward Roger's
>accusation that Dave Tate was stat-drunk)), you will easily forgo the walk and
>get a fly out, a ground out, a line out, a pop out, or a strike out. A walk
>is difficult to get; it is easy to lose.
Let's pursue this a bit. If the "typical" batter has a 10% success rate
in getting a walk, and a 50% success rate in making a sacrifice (I have
very little idea how accurate these figures are, but they're hopefully
close enough to faithfully represent the point), the EV of a walk would
have to be five times that of a sacrifice. Is it? I'd doubt it.
I'm not questioning the value of a walk, but it may be just as unreasonable
to expect of some players as an HR is of others. As admirable as they are,
Nelson Lu
>Let's pursue this a bit. If the "typical" batter has a 10% success rate
>in getting a walk, and a 50% success rate in making a sacrifice (I have
>very little idea how accurate these figures are, but they're hopefully
>close enough to faithfully represent the point), the EV of a walk would
>have to be five times that of a sacrifice. Is it? I'd doubt it.
>
>I'm not questioning the value of a walk, but it may be just as unreasonable
>to expect of some players as an HR is of others. As admirable as they are,
Interesting question. I am not sure. Gary, do you have some insight on this?
Does anybody who has played baseball for an extended period?
Meanwhile, in an average plate appearance, the chance of a walk (I am just
using the AL, for simplicity sake) is about 9.1% over the past season.
But meanwhile, there is another problem. In the situation with a runner on
third and less than two outs, if you try for the sac fly, you *might* get a sac
fly, but you might also get a line out, a pop out, a ground out, or a strike
out. Which means, if you forgo the walk by going up there and hack, you might
not even get a sac fly.
David M Tate
>in getting a walk, and a 50% success rate in making a sacrifice (I have
>very little idea how accurate these figures are, but they're hopefully
>close enough to faithfully represent the point), the EV of a walk would
>have to be five times that of a sacrifice. Is it? I'd doubt it.
Actually, the EV of a walk is usually much more than double that of a
sacrifice, since the sacrifice has a *negative* EV, while the walk has a
positive EV. So the sac is really "X% slightly bad, (100-X)% awful".
Even so, I think we need to ask just what "success rate" means in the
context of walks. Hitters using the philosophy that Roger Lustig and
Gary Huckabay (and I) have been advocating will only walk when they are
not given a pitch they can make good use of, or miss it when it comes.
If you think of "success rate" for walks as being that fraction of time
that your plate appearance is a walk, among times when you don't decide
its outcome by swinging, then the success rate is around 50% for the
league. (I.e., people walk as often than they strike out looking, as
a league.) It's all a question of reference class; what is the set among
which we want to consider walks? "All plate appearances" isn't quite right,
because the walk is a fallback position, not a primary objective. I think
that plate appearances in which no action toward the primary objective was
taken is a fair category; that would PAs decided looking.
>
>I'm not questioning the value of a walk, but it may be just as unreasonable
>to expect of some players as an HR is of others. As admirable as they are,
Monty Norwood
Stuff deleted by Monty.
>
>Let's pursue this a bit. If the "typical" batter has a 10% success rate
>in getting a walk,
A 10% success rate in getting a walk would be excellent. That would be a walk
every 10 plate appearances and would effectively make a player's OBP
equal to BA + .070 (rough approximation). Few players who walk this often. My
rule of thumb if I were a GM or Manager, is that I would want my guys to walk at
least once every 11 plate appearances (i.e., 600 AB should have 60 BB also).
Ryne Sandberg, for example, has only achieved this level once and was close in
1987. Those are his two best years in OBP I believe. He has been more like 1/12
in other years (excepting his rookie year) always walking about 50 times while
getting 600+ AB's. But he could improve in this area (and did last year).
In 1991 Mark Grace walked 70 times and had 619 AB, his BA was .273 and his
OBP was .346 (BA +.073). This was close to one walk every 10 PA.
Tony Fernandez had 558 AB and 55 BB, with a BA of .272 and an OBP of .337
(BA + .065). This was about the best example of the 1 BB per 11 PA I could
find quickly. Dave Martinez walked 20 times with 396 AB, or close to 1/21,
despite a .295 BA his OBP was lower than Fernandez's (.332 or BA + .037).
With this rule of thumb, .270 hitters finish above league average in OBP and
good hitters post good OBP's ( > .350).
Of course, the Cubs had only 3 players who fit this category last year that
had significant numbers of PA (Sandberg, Grace, Villanueva -- in 192 AB).
This is the reason you hear the Cubs offense denigrated on the net, the rest
of their offensive numbers (i.e., SLG) being inflated by Wrigley.
> and a 50% success rate in making a sacrifice (I have
>very little idea how accurate these figures are, but they're hopefully
>close enough to faithfully represent the point), the EV of a walk would
>have to be five times that of a sacrifice. Is it? I'd doubt it.
I suspect that for sacrifice bunts the success rate is much higher than
50%. Sacrifice flys are somewhat random, meaning that it is not always
obvious that the batter was trying to do that.
I can't speak to the EV a walk has over a sacrifice but it would move a
runner from first to second WITHOUT CONSUMING AN OUT. This is the key
point people are trying to make when they say SF and SACs are not good
strategies (except in obvious 1 run situations).
Having poor hitting pitchers sacrifice probably makes sense because their
success rate at getting a hit or walk is quite low (less than 20%) but for
other hitters, like Jay Bell in my opinion, the odds of a hit or walk are
33% or greater and the runner may advance even on an out so why give the
out away? Of course, strategies should vary based on park, in Wrigley or
Fenway 1 run strategies make no sense early in the game but in Busch or
the Astrodome it might make more sense since the expected number of runs
per game is lower. It is not clear if this reasoning is exhibited by
major league managers (it may well be by the good ones, I have no data on
which parks see the most SACs by non-pitchers).
>
>I'm not questioning the value of a walk, but it may be just as unreasonable
>to expect of some players as an HR is of others. As admirable as they are,
I think the complaint of most "stat heads" is that the value of the walk
appears to be unappreciated by many "experts" in the game. It may be
unreasonable to expect some players to walk, but in the opinion of
people who respect OBP it is more unreasonable that they are in the majors
or starting BECAUSE they don't know how to draw a walk and have an
resultant low OBP.
Just my two cents worth...
Monty
Mike Fester
>In article <1992Mar23.0...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> 9128...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca ( ) writes:
>>are talking about "agressive". Wade Boggs is not an aggressive hitter.
>
>My, I think that I'd love to have more of those "conservative" .400 hitters
>on my team.
>
>Why is this "aggression" quality that you're after so interesting, if the
>best hitters don't have it? Why should I want it for my team, if it doesn't
>help them win?
>
>I'll pay to watch Ted Williams walk before I pay to watch Pete Incaviglia
>aggressively strike out any day.
>
How do you feel about Kirby Puckett?
Mike
--
Disclaimer
These opiini^H^H damn! ^H^H ^Q ^[ .... :w :q :wq :wq! ^d X exit X Q ^C ^?
:quitbye CtrlAltDel ~~q :~q logout save/quit :!QUIT ^[zz ^[ZZZZZZ ^H ^@ ^L ^[c ^# ^E ^X ^I ^T ? help helpquit ^D ^d ^C ^c help exit ?Quit ?q
Andrew T. Kim
>mzim...@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>
>>Let's pursue this a bit. If the "typical" batter has a 10% success rate
>>in getting a walk, and a 50% success rate in making a sacrifice (I have
>>very little idea how accurate these figures are, but they're hopefully
>>close enough to faithfully represent the point), the EV of a walk would
>>have to be five times that of a sacrifice. Is it? I'd doubt it.
>>
>>I'm not questioning the value of a walk, but it may be just as unreasonable
>>to expect of some players as an HR is of others. As admirable as they are,
clau...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>
>Meanwhile, in an average plate appearance, the chance of a walk (I am just
>using the AL, for simplicity sake) is about 9.1% over the past season.
>
>But meanwhile, there is another problem. In the situation with a runner on
>third and less than two outs, if you try for the sac fly, you *might* get a sac
>fly, but you might also get a line out, a pop out, a ground out, or a strike
>out. Which means, if you forgo the walk by going up there and hack, you might
>not even get a sac fly.
>
I'm no stat expert, but from my observation...
Looks to me that you and Mike is talking about two different animal,
Nelson. What you have here (9%) is a likelihood of getting a walk for a
given player for a given plate apperance. I think Mike is talking about
the success rate per *attempt* to measure the difficulty of getting a walk
or a sacrifice.
In a normal plate appearance (with runners on), assume that a player has
10% chance of a walk, 25% chance of a hit, 30% chance of sacrifice, 30%
chance of a totally useless out, 5% others (errors?). (Don't nail me down
with the numbers, I have no idea)
Given that a player only concentrates on one thing, I would guess that a
success rate of a walk should be higher (than Mike's 10%) and success rate
of a sacrifice might be close to 50%. One thing that needs to be
considered is that the quality of a success and failure. Even in the best
scenario, sacrifice always results in out. When it fails, sacrifice
attempt ranges from very good (hit by a mistake) to terrible (double play).
Also sacrifice is only useful with runners on base, whereas a walk is good
at all times. I think Dr. Dave's MRV(?) can be helpful in the evaluation,
although we will need better numbers in terms of the difficulty.
Just a suggestion of the approach by a mere mortal.
>=============================================================================
>GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
>Charter Member of the Acker-o-phobics Anonymous
>=============================================================================
>Nelson Lu (clau...@leland.stanford.edu)
_Andy Kim_
Mets vs Red Sox Series II !!!! GO METS !!!!
The Axe Man
>>again...if you have a white or an alomar in scoring position with less than
>>two out, do you want a walk (setting up the double play) or do you want the
>>ball in play, whether sac fly, groundout, basehit, bunt or what have you?
That's pretty silly. Let's say you walk, and set up the double play.
What's the difference between that, and flying out and having the next
batter ground out. If the next batter is going to ground out routinely
to short, it doesn't matter whether the first batter walks or not --
he will be out either way. But since DP's are rare (relative to
all outs) I'd like to take my chances with the walk, since it's
even more likely that the next batter will hit a homer or double
than it is that he will ground into a DP. Then I'd really like to
have that extra guy on base, cause he's probably an extra run.
I like having extra runs.
----Ken Winkler
(kwin...@pbs.org)
*****************************************************************************
* "It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood!" ---FR * Television *
* "Get away from me with that spatula, Fred!" ---Mrs. FR * worth watching *
*****************************************************************************
Barry Mednick
>in getting a walk, and a 50% success rate in making a sacrifice (I have
>very little idea how accurate these figures are, but they're hopefully
>close enough to faithfully represent the point), the EV of a walk would
>have to be five times that of a sacrifice. Is it? I'd doubt it.
bunt attempts succeed more like 80% of the time (just a guess).
One of the reasons being that the team in the field should be happy to
get the out.
The problem with expected value is that drawing a walk increases the
expected number of runs for the inning, while a sacrifice DECREASES
the expected number of runs for the inning. For example, using Thorn &
Palmer, with a runner on first and no outs, the expected number of
runs for the inning is .783. If the next batter walks, the expected
number of runs increases to 1.380. If the next batter sacrifices instead,
the expected number of runs decreases to .699.
Thorn & Palmer concluded that a sacrifice is only advisable when you
have a poor batter at the plate or in the ninth inning of a tie ball game.
Randy Palermo
luigi
--
Randy Palermo lu...@csd.sgi.com Fax: (415)961-6502
Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd Mt. View, CA 94039
If Jerry Brown is the answer, it must be a very strange question - Lloyd Benson
Nick Favron
>
>
>>I'll take the walk, thank you. .200 is a lousy reason to be
>>"aggressive."
>
>Great! But that is your philosophy. Are you denying that the other
>philosophy, scratching for one run at a time and holding them with
>your pitching, are you denying that this philosophy exists? Because
>the issue here is not which philosophy you find effective but which
>philosophy Cito Gaston and Larry Hisle have decided to implement.
>
>
>>Roger
What started this whole discussion was a comment (from a David?)
that indicated the Jay's offense was in trouble because Hisle
was going to make the Jay hitters more (!!) "agressive". Myself, I
agree this is trouble and the thread has shown why. Agressive means
scoring fewer runs - who cares if the philosophy exists?
And all this after Gene Tenace tried to teach something about walking.
Nick
Nick Favron
>
>I am finished with this thread. I should have known that explaining
>baseball fundamentals to stats-drunk computer nerds is a hopeless task.
>
>
Boy, you know how to make friends and influence people. You said
that agressive hitting was good (at least for the Jays) but then
failed to show in any coherent manner, any deinition of agressive
that was actually helpful. Maybe you need to learn some baseball
fundamentals before you explain them.
Nick.
Mike Fester
>Huh? Are you seriously claiming that a team which did *not* let a lot
>of *balls* go by *did* let a lot of strikes go by? Are you seriously
>claiming that Toronto's K/W ratio came from taking strikes and swinging
>at balls?
and taking pitches in it, cause you to have more K's and fewer BBs?
Mkie
Gary Matrix Of Sin Huckabay
>(Bill Bolosky) writes:
>>9128...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca ( ) writes:
>>>we are not talking about how "good" players like Wade Boggs are. We
>>>are talking about "agressive". Wade Boggs is not an aggressive hitter.
>>>Neither was Ted Williams.
>>
>>My, I think that I'd love to have more of those "conservative" .400 hitters
>>on my team.
>>
>>aggressively strike out any day.
>>
>How do you feel about Kirby Puckett?
I think he's one of the most overrated ballplayers of my lifetime.
He's friendly with the media. That's his biggest asset. His
secondary average has never been as high as I'd like from a superstar,
and he's helped a great deal by his home park.
If he'd WALK every once in a while, I'd think he were as good as his
reputation. But face it - he's not in the top eschelon of offensive
ballplayers.
Would ANYONE, in terms of sheer offense, rather have a .300 hitter in
Puckett over a .260 hitter like Canseco? Right now? Even if they
were the same age?
Puckett's strengths are greatly amplified by his park, and they're
loved by the media. He'd NEVER have been a superstar if he didn't get
along with the media like he does.
mlst...@descartes.waterloo.edu
Expires:
References: <1992Mar23.0...@Princeton.EDU> <1992Mar23.0...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> <1992Mar24....@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: University of Waterloo
Keywords:
I sincerly doubt the new hitting coach will have significant enough
authority to be able to even begin to effect any changes in such players as
Alomar, Winfield, Gruber, Carter, or White, who are the brunt of the Blue
Jays offensive lineup. The remaining players could do with some agressiveness
training. e.g. Lee, Borders, Maldanado, Olerud. However, currently Lee has been
hitting .300 throughout spring training, Olerud .250, Maldanado .350, and
Borders has significant spring figures also. With both Cito and Tenace now
in the clubhouse watching over anything, I really REALLY doubt any diminutive
changes to someones batting could ever take place and be allowed to continue.
I find this 'Blue Jays start praying..." business totally laughable. Really
, we're going to crush all opposition!
/Michael Stockus
Roger Lustig
>(Mike "Stubborn? Me?" Fester) writes:
>>(Bill Bolosky) writes:
>>>9128...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca ( ) writes:
>>>>we are not talking about how "good" players like Wade Boggs are. We
>>How do you feel about Kirby Puckett?
>I think he's one of the most overrated ballplayers of my lifetime.
>He's friendly with the media. That's his biggest asset. His
Also, when he retires, there's a job waiting for him at Michelin. 8-)
>secondary average has never been as high as I'd like from a superstar,
>and he's helped a great deal by his home park.
More road records:
PUCKETT: 291/328/418 (OPS: 746)
>If he'd WALK every once in a while, I'd think he were as good as his
>reputation. But face it - he's not in the top eschelon of offensive
>ballplayers.
Toward the end of 1992, Frank Thomas will pass Puckett's lifetime walk
total, most probably. Think about it.
Puckett had one great year: 1988. That was head and shoulders above the
rest. For those who dig R and RBI, note that, outside of that one year,
Puckett has *one* 100 R season and *no* 100-RBI seasons.
He also makes loads of outs. 200 hits 4 years in a row; 400 outs EVERY
year. In 1985 it was 521. Average is 455/yr. (463 in 1991--27 DP!)
(Frank Thomas had 405, which I mentioned since I made the walks
comparison above.)
Roger
David DeMers
>I am finished with this thread. I should have known that explaining
>baseball fundamentals to stats-drunk computer nerds is a hopeless task.
I've stayed out of this one, but must protest at this. What "stats-drunk"
computer nerds have done anything here?
YOU posted stupid comments, with nothing but subjective opinion
to back them up. I don't care if
you believe that being "aggressive" at the plate is a good thing,
but it's incomprehensible how you can defend the postition that
the Blue Jays would improve by more aggressiveness. You can CLAIM
that they take too many strikes, but they certainly don't take
many balls, so perhaps they just need better judgment about which
pitches to take and which to watch. Here is a team which is
above average in almost every major offensive category,
*except* walks, and RUNS. Now, in my opinion, at the team
level the ONLY "stat" that counts is runs. What will their
extra aggressiveness gain them? More strikeouts? More 3-pitch
innings by the opposition pitcher? This is good? I'm not
asking for stats, but if you want to try to explain something,
you should use true facts rather than false ones...
Most of us do not want to beat stats into anyone. What looks
like that attitude to some is simply the refusal to take stupid
comments about baseball fundamentals without any arguments to
defend them. I don't understand how you could think that you
"explained" anything.
--
Dave DeMers ddemers@UCSD dem...@cs.ucsd.edu
Computer Science & Engineering C-014 demers%c...@ucsd.bitnet
UC San Diego ...!ucsd!cs!demers
La Jolla, CA 92093-0114 (619) 534-0688, or -8187, FAX: (619) 534-7029
Nelson Lu
>>How do you feel about Kirby Puckett?
>
>I think he's one of the most overrated ballplayers of my lifetime.
>He's friendly with the media. That's his biggest asset. His
>secondary average has never been as high as I'd like from a superstar,
>and he's helped a great deal by his home park.
>
>If he'd WALK every once in a while, I'd think he were as good as his
>reputation. But face it - he's not in the top eschelon of offensive
>ballplayers.
Not only that, but he was only 5th offensively among center fielders in the
majors last year, behind Ken Griffey, Lenny Dykstra, Andy Van Slyke, and Ron
Gant, if you use RC/27 (like me :-)).
===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
Charter Member of the Acker-o-phobics Anonymous
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (clau...@leland.stanford.edu)
Monty Norwood
>>How do you feel about Kirby Puckett?
>
>I think he's one of the most overrated ballplayers of my lifetime.
>He's friendly with the media. That's his biggest asset. His
>secondary average has never been as high as I'd like from a superstar,
>and he's helped a great deal by his home park.
>
>If he'd WALK every once in a while, I'd think he were as good as his
>reputation. But face it - he's not in the top eschelon of offensive
>ballplayers.
>
>Would ANYONE, in terms of sheer offense, rather have a .300 hitter in
>Puckett over a .260 hitter like Canseco? Right now? Even if they
>were the same age?
>
>Puckett's strengths are greatly amplified by his park, and they're
>loved by the media. He'd NEVER have been a superstar if he didn't get
>along with the media like he does.
>
Year BA SLG OBP BB
1991 .319 .460 .352 31
1990 .298 .446 .365 57
1989 .339 .465 .379 41
1988 .356 .545 .375 23
1987 .332 .534 * 32 (Maz's book didn't give OBP, but ~ .350)
1986 .328 .537 .366 34
Well, when I read this post I was inclined to agree. However, after looking
at the above numbers I am less likely to join the Kirby bashing. Yes, I
would rather have Canseco but Kirby's OBP is better than I expected.
I don't have home/road splits to justify/refute the Huckster's commentary
about the Twinkie Dome.
Admittingly, an OPS of .811 & .812 does not justify superstardom, even for
a CF (Kirbster's numbers for 1990 and 1991), but it is certainly excellent
when compared to most other CF's playing right now.
The gaudy batting averages have of course inflated the world's opinion of
Kirby (as they have of Tony Gwynn), but he is better than I expected. Posting
an OPS around .900 for 1986-1988 and a consistent OBP of > .350.
I would rather have Kirby than Tony Gwynn and Danny Tartabull and maybe
Bobby Bonnilla. I really need to look at the home/road splits before I go
out on a limb any further
Monster (Monty)
Dave Till
> I sincerly doubt the new hitting coach will have significant enough
>authority to be able to even begin to effect any changes in such players as
>Alomar, Winfield, Gruber, Carter, or White, who are the brunt of the Blue
>Jays offensive lineup. The remaining players could do with some agressiveness
>training. e.g. Lee, Borders, Maldanado, Olerud.
Lee and Borders need aggressiveness training like Imelda Marcos needs new
shoes: they swing at anything at, near, or out of the strike zone.
If Hisle could get these two to *take* a few pitches, then they'd be
productive hitters.
I agree with you on Olerud. He was letting too many strikes go by last year.
> I find this 'Blue Jays start praying..." business totally laughable. Really
>, we're going to crush all opposition!
Shhh. You'll anger the Baseball Gods (tm), who are fond of delivering the
unexpected (e.g., Minnesota vs. Atlanta, that year between 1986 and 1988
that I am trying to forget, etc.).
To any Baseball Gods that might be listening: "He really meant to say that
Toronto has a slim chance of contending this year."
--
--Dave Till, Siemens Nixdorf Information Systems, Sietec Open Systems Division,
2235 Sheppard Ave. E. #1800, Willowdale, Ontario, Canada, M2J 5B5.
tel: (416)496-8510, fax: (416)496-8524, email: da...@sni.CA or da...@snitor.uucp
"Gabba gabba hey gabba hey gabba hey." -- the Ramones, of course
Michael Zimmers
>In article <tp-jr2n...@netcom.com> mzim...@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>>Let's pursue this a bit. If the "typical" batter has a 10% success rate
>>in getting a walk, and a 50% success rate in making a sacrifice (I have
>>very little idea how accurate these figures are, but they're hopefully
>>close enough to faithfully represent the point), the EV of a walk would
>>have to be five times that of a sacrifice. Is it? I'd doubt it.
>The value of 10% for a walk sounds close, but I suspect that sacrifice
>bunt attempts succeed more like 80% of the time (just a guess).
>One of the reasons being that the team in the field should be happy to
>get the out.
>The problem with expected value is that drawing a walk increases the
>expected number of runs for the inning, while a sacrifice DECREASES
>the expected number of runs for the inning. For example, using Thorn &
>Palmer, with a runner on first and no outs, the expected number of
>runs for the inning is .783. If the next batter walks, the expected
>number of runs increases to 1.380. If the next batter sacrifices instead,
>the expected number of runs decreases to .699.
OK, but I bet that the possibility of scoring *one run* does go up after
the sacrifice. It's just that the odds of multiple runs goes down so much
that the EV suffers.
So, we're back to the discussion on managerial philosophy. An impasse.
--
| Michael Zimmers
Free at last! FREE at last!! Thank God Almighty | Home: 408 996 1984
I'm free at last!!! (I never knew MLKJr worked | Work: 408 996 1965
at Atherton Technology) | Data: 408 996 1974
David DeMers
>In article <1992Mar22....@Princeton.EDU> niep...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>Huh? Are you seriously claiming that a team which did *not* let a lot
>>of *balls* go by *did* let a lot of strikes go by? Are you seriously
>>claiming that Toronto's K/W ratio came from taking strikes and swinging
>>at balls?
>To belabor the obvious, wouldn't swinging at pitches out of the strike zone
>and taking pitches in it, cause you to have more K's and fewer BBs?
Of course. It's just hard to imagine an entire team with
strikezone judgment so abysmal that they all do exactly that.
Usually the "aggressive" hitters, er, batters, swing at anything
remotely resembling a pitch, whether it's a ball or strike.
David H. Thornley
>In article <11...@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> zuh...@madrone.eecs.ucdavis.edu (Gary Matrix Of Sin Huckabay) writes:
>>(Mike "Stubborn? Me?" Fester) writes:
>>>How do you feel about Kirby Puckett?
>>
better CFs around. Outperformed in the AL last year only by Griffey
and probably White and maybe Henderson. Barring unfortunate incidents,
he will be elected to the HoF.
>>I think he's one of the most overrated ballplayers of my lifetime.
Nah. Mattingly's much more overrated. Puckett is a very good player
with a superstar reputation.
>>He's friendly with the media. That's his biggest asset. His
>>secondary average has never been as high as I'd like from a superstar,
>>and he's helped a great deal by his home park.
>>
His biggest asset is his batting average. Back when he was hitting large
numbers of homers, and keeping his slugging percentage over .500, he was
one of the best hitters in the league. That was 1986-1988.
>>If he'd WALK every once in a while, I'd think he were as good as his
>>reputation. But face it - he's not in the top eschelon of offensive
>>ballplayers.
>
Walking is not his strong suit. His power also isn't what it used to be,
and I think he's still got more of a reputation than an ability at power
hitting. If he walked, he'd probably slug better, and he would be one
of the best.
>Not only that, but he was only 5th offensively among center fielders in the
>majors last year, behind Ken Griffey, Lenny Dykstra, Andy Van Slyke, and Ron
>Gant, if you use RC/27 (like me :-)).
>
How did White do? Did you park-adjust Dave Henderson?
Another post asked if you'd rather have Puckett or Canseco. As a Twins fan,
if offered the trade, I'd take Canseco in a second.
David Thornley
"I lov'd him as well as anyone, this side idolatry"
(apologies for any mistake made in the quotation)
Dave Kirsch
>Well, if the comments by the ESPN broadcast team during today's Jays/BoSox
>game have any basis in fact, the Jays are in serious trouble offensively.
Sigh. I knew the minute this quote was made it was going to cause clamoring
and confusion in r.s.bb.
Now Dave, these comments were made in an extremely poor context. Tommy 'not
to be confused with E.F.' Hutton took Hisle's comment about one player
(Olerud) and twisted and mangled it. Hisle basically was saying that he wanted
Olerud to be more aggressive in the strike zone, and the quote got mangled
and misinterpreted by about a dozen journalists/media types. (Let's just call
them mediots.) Hisle's been quoted other times about his hitting philosophy,
and unfortunately mediots want to reduce everything to a bottom line; so, they
say "more aggressive". Kind of like how Gary Huckabay's been quoted wrt his
philosophy of life, "Have a good time .. all the time."
I'm very high on Hisle and have been for some time. His hitting philosophies
are *very* similar to Terry Crowley of the Twins, and you know how much I
babbled on about him last year. In a nutshell: (1) Stay disciplined enough
that you only swing at strikes (2) Be aggressive within the strike zone (3) Go
up to the plate mentally prepared, with an idea of what the pitcher might
throw, how the umpire will call it and how you'll react (4) Wait until you get
a pitch you can handle and then drive it (5) Keep a short, simple stroke to
eliminate possible mechanical flaws in the swing (6) etc etc ...
The quote by Hisle regarding Olerud appeared in Baseball America as 'we want
John to be more aggressive'. It appeared in another source (locally here among
other places) as 'we want him to be more selective'. It's an ugly mess.
Just for cannon fodder: Ed Sprague and Derek Bell have strongly sung Hisle's
praises since they've come into contact with him. Look at their OBP and walk
totals before and after they came into contact with Hisle about 1 1/2 years
ago. Other players have had similar good things to say about Hisle, but
Sprague and Bell are the most notable ones.
As far as Olerud is concerned, there's a big difference between "Being
aggressive by hacking at pitches" and "Being aggressive within the strike zone
and not being tentative". My impression was that Olerud was tentative at times
last year. He may have been hurting himself more by not reacting quickly, even
if he was being more patient. Maybe Gary can give us some input here; my
experience playing in high school and in intramural games in college has been
that indecision at the plate is the kiss of death. Please note that I'm *not*
advocating a Shawon Dunston school of hitting here, I'm just saying that there
are times when aggressive can be a good thing. Frank Thomas is the best hitter
I've ever seen at separating the fine line between attacking the ball when
it's in the strike zone and laying off it when it's outside. At times he's
very aggressive, but it doesn't hurt his walk totals because he knows *when*
to be aggressive. Mickey Tettleton in 1990 also struck me as someone who
perhaps was taking too many pitches or being too tentative.
Judging by this spring, I'd say Olerud looks very good. He looks more
comfortable at the plate. The HR he hit off Rocket Roger must've gone 420 or
430 feet and it was on a short, easy swing. He's definitely added some bulk;
his frame is noticeably filled out compared to last year.
>Apparently, new batting coach Larry Hisle has decided that many of the Jays
>were "overly selective" and "not aggressive enough at the plate" last season,
>and is trying to do something about it.
Dave, I think you're reading too much into one silly, poorly worded quote
here.
--
Dave Hung Like a Jim Acker Slider Kirsch ... of the Warren Newson fan club
kir...@ux.acs.umn.edu "Blue Jays all the way in '92"
It's late. Do you know where your kids are? Have you taught them baseball?
Mann 'E' Lee is making a million dollar$ this year. Need I say more?
John H. Rickert
Norwood) writes:
> A 10% success rate in getting a walk would be excellent. That would be a
walk
> every 10 plate appearances and would effectively make a player's OBP
> equal to BA + .070 (rough approximation). Few players who walk this often.
among last year's 95 AL batters with 400 or more AB,
32 had at least 60BB per 600(AB+BB).
The league average was 54 BB/600ABBB.
AL batters reaching 100 were
Frank Thomas 119
Rickey Henderson 104
Mickey Tettleton 101
Jack Clark 100
john rickert
David Marc Nieporent
>In article <1992Mar22....@Princeton.EDU> niep...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>Huh? Are you seriously claiming that a team which did *not* let a lot
>>of *balls* go by *did* let a lot of strikes go by? Are you seriously
>>claiming that Toronto's K/W ratio came from taking strikes and swinging
>>at balls?
>To belabor the obvious, wouldn't swinging at pitches out of the strike zone
>and taking pitches in it, cause you to have more K's and fewer BBs?
Well, to state the obvious, of course. But does ANYONE have that
pathetic a batting eye? Can you name *one* player who TAKES strikes but
SWINGS at balls?
The kind of player who swings at balls, like Puckett, Dunston, Dawson,
Guillen, Manny Lee, etc., is not the type of person who takes pitches at
all. So they certainly aren't going to be taking pitches IN the strike
zone.
There are certainly some players who take tons of pitches, whether or
not they are strikes or balls. (Mickey Tettleton comes to mind.) And
there are some who never take pitches, like the ones I mentioned above.
And there are some who take balls but swing at strikes (Frank Thomas,
Wade Boggs, Rickey Henderson, Brett Butler.) But people who take
strikes and swing at balls? Such a class of people might exist, but
they'd hit about .180 and never make it out of rookie ball.
>Mkie
--
David M. Nieporent |ALEast 92: 1.Baltimore 2.Boston 3.Toronto
niep...@phoenix.princeton.edu |4. Detroit 5.Milwaukee 6.NY 8.Cleveland
|
"Not likely to call anyone an idiot except John MacNamara,Elias & Murray Chass"
Ami A. Silberman
>OK, but I bet that the possibility of scoring *one run* does go up after
>the sacrifice. It's just that the odds of multiple runs goes down so much
>that the EV suffers.
True, but the possibility of scoreing at least one run doesn't get that much
better. Especially when moving a runner on 2nd to 3rd.
>So, we're back to the discussion on managerial philosophy. An impasse.
Not really, the one run strategy is pretty much wrong on statistical grounds
that I really don't have the time to get into now.
--
ami silberman - janitor of lunacy
sil...@cs.uiuc.edu
David M Tate
>In article <203...@unix.cis.pitt.edu> you write:
>>Well, if the comments by the ESPN broadcast team during today's Jays/BoSox
>>game have any basis in fact, the Jays are in serious trouble offensively.
>
> Sigh. I knew the minute this quote was made it was going to cause clamoring
>and confusion in r.s.bb.
[Explanation of Hisle's actual comments and philosophy deleted.]
I'm glad to hear it. You'll note that I added the "if the...basis in fact"
bit to my original comment. I don't *expect* sportscaster to get their facts
and quotes straight; in fact, I expect the opposite.
>>Apparently, new batting coach Larry Hisle has decided that many of the Jays
>>were "overly selective" and "not aggressive enough at the plate" last season,
>>and is trying to do something about it.
>
> Dave, I think you're reading too much into one silly, poorly worded quote
>here.
No, actually I was just repeating the content of about a ten-minute discussion
by Hutton and someone (Physioc? Campbell?) on the broadcast. They were
apparently completely misrepresenting Hisle, which is bad journalism but
good news for the Jays.
Nelson Lu
[I wrote]
>>Not only that, but he was only 5th offensively among center fielders in the
>>majors last year, behind Ken Griffey, Lenny Dykstra, Andy Van Slyke, and Ron
>>Gant, if you use RC/27 (like me :-)).
>>
>How did White do? Did you park-adjust Dave Henderson?
I didn't park adjust Henderson, because I don't have the park adjustments.
These were the raw numbers that I got without stuff like HBP, GIDP, SF, etc.
Ken Griffey 10.03
Lenny Dykstra 8.26
Andy Van Slyke 7.14
Ron Gant 7.13
KIRBY PUCKETT 6.80
Dave Henderson 6.63
Devon White 6.48
Brett Butler 6.32
Eric Davis 6.19
Roberto Kelly 6.12
Willie McGee 6.10
Alex Cole 6.09
Juan Gonzalez 6.05
Darrin Jackson 5.93
Steve Finley 5.33
Dave Gallagher 5.33
Mike Devereaux 5.31
Robin Yount 5.25
Bernie Williams 5.13
Vince Coleman 5.02
Milt Cuyler 4.96
Darren Lewis 4.90
Marquis Grissom 4.84
Ellis Burks 4.83
Junior Felix 4.47
Ray Lankford 4.45
Gary Pettis 4.38
Brian McRae 3.99
Jerome Walton 3.53
Shawn Abner 3.20
Gary Matrix Of Sin Huckabay
> Now Dave, these comments were made in an extremely poor context. Tommy 'not
>to be confused with E.F.' Hutton took Hisle's comment about one player
>(Olerud) and twisted and mangled it. Hisle basically was saying that he wanted
>Olerud to be more aggressive in the strike zone, and the quote got mangled
>and misinterpreted by about a dozen journalists/media types. (Let's just call
>them mediots.)
Kirsch has a way with words, no? Mediot. Add it to the RSBD, right after
'Hassey", but before "Stromblad."
>Hisle's been quoted other times about his hitting philosophy,
>and unfortunately mediots want to reduce everything to a bottom line; so, they
>say "more aggressive". Kind of like how Gary Huckabay's been quoted wrt his
>philosophy of life, "Have a good time .. all the time."
Close, Dave. Mine was "As long as there's sex and drugs, I can do
without the rock and roll." [Actually, these quotes are attributable to
Viv Savage and Mick Shrimpton, respectively.]
> I'm very high on Hisle and have been for some time. His hitting philosophies
>are *very* similar to Terry Crowley of the Twins, and you know how much I
>babbled on about him last year. In a nutshell: (1) Stay disciplined enough
>that you only swing at strikes (2) Be aggressive within the strike zone (3) Go
>up to the plate mentally prepared, with an idea of what the pitcher might
>throw, how the umpire will call it and how you'll react (4) Wait until you get
>a pitch you can handle and then drive it (5) Keep a short, simple stroke to
>eliminate possible mechanical flaws in the swing (6) etc etc ...
I agree, in theory, with all of the above, with specific problems with [5].
It's nice, in theory, to have a short stroke. Unfortunately, everyone
swings differently. I have a notoriously slow swing, but have quick hands,
and am fairly good at gauging pitches. I don't have the luxury of a short
swing which I can unleash quickly, unless I want to sacrifice all my power.
(Not THAT big a sacrifice, but it is something.)
You have to know your limitations. And unless you have bat speed like
Jose Canseco and a release like Rod Carew, your best bet is to learn the
strike zone thoroughly and precisely. No one's a perfect hitter, with
perhaps three exceptions, named Babe, Ted, and Frank.
> As far as Olerud is concerned, there's a big difference between "Being
>aggressive by hacking at pitches" and "Being aggressive within the strike zone
>and not being tentative". My impression was that Olerud was tentative at times
>last year. He may have been hurting himself more by not reacting quickly, even
>if he was being more patient. Maybe Gary can give us some input here; my
>experience playing in high school and in intramural games in college has been
>that indecision at the plate is the kiss of death.
Certainly. You must learn not only to be quick, and to wait on the ball
as long as is physically possible, but most importantly, to be QUICKLY
DECISIVE. This is NOT an easy thing to learn - it's mentally easier to
hack away at anything in the strike zone. Ask 90% of even MAJOR
league players.
> Judging by this spring, I'd say Olerud looks very good. He looks more
>comfortable at the plate. The HR he hit off Rocket Roger must've gone 420 or
>430 feet and it was on a short, easy swing. He's definitely added some bulk;
>his frame is noticeably filled out compared to last year.
Sorry, Dave. But big deal... It's spring training. No one not named
Fred or Jose can catch up to a mid-season Clemens heater at the letter,
and those guys will miss it 99 times out of 100.
Monty Norwood
>In article <76...@travis.csd.harris.com> mo...@SSD.CSD.HARRIS.COM (Monty
>Norwood) writes:
>
>> A 10% success rate in getting a walk would be excellent. That would be a
>walk
>> every 10 plate appearances and would effectively make a player's OBP
>> equal to BA + .070 (rough approximation). Few players who walk this often.
>
>among last year's 95 AL batters with 400 or more AB,
>32 had at least 60BB per 600(AB+BB).
Well, that is more than I would have suspected (1 in 3). My choice of the
word "few" seems out of line given the data. Thanks for the numbers.
>The league average was 54 BB/600ABBB.
Hmmm. This is very close to 1 walk in 11 PA's. It seems league average last
year meets my spec. A little surprising to me that the average is that
good. I guess it shouldn't be: If I assume the average team makes 27
outs and gets 9 or 10 hits in a game they would need to walk 3.65 times
per game to meet the 1 in 11 spec. Three or four walks a game on average
doesn't see that far out of line. Of course this is the league average
which means there are a bunch of guys who don't reach this level (my
desired minimum level of proficiency). It would be interesting to do an
analysis of winning teams to see if they tend to be at the high end of
the spectrum. The Mets of 85-90 had a number of people who knew the
value of a walk (HoJo, Strawberry, Hernandez, and I think Carter and
Dykstra), the Oakland A's with R. Henderson, Canseco, McGwire, Baines,
Gallego (last year anyway) and D. Henderson around league average at least
(last year).
This may bode well for the WHite Sox this year with Thomas, Ventura, Raines
and Pasqua (62 BB 417 AB in 1991). Of course they also have Johnson and
Guillen to bring those averages right back down :-).
Anyway, thanks for the data.
Jonathan King
>zuh...@madrone.eecs.ucdavis.edu (Gary Matrix Of Sin Huckabay) writes:
>>reputation. But face it - he's not in the top eschelon of offensive
>>ballplayers.
>>
>>Would ANYONE, in terms of sheer offense, rather have a .300 hitter in
>>Puckett over a .260 hitter like Canseco? Right now? Even if they
>>were the same age?
Right now, of course not, since Puckett is past his prime and Canseco
is not, and this certainly shows up in the stats. But below I put the
OBP/SLG stats for Puckett and Canseco for the years when each were 25,
26, and 27, the prime of the prime for most batters. The problem is
that I have scrambled 'em up.
A .333/.542
B .367/.534
C .375/.545
D .371/.543
E .366/.537
F .359/.556
Ain't that easy, is it? And remember that one of these guys is a
center fielder, while the other has chronic back problems... I'd
still take Canseco, but it would be because although some people
>[...] don't have home/road splits to justify/refute the Huckster's
>commentary about the Twinkie Dome [...]
I do. And it makes a pretty huge difference over their careers.
Canseco, lifetime, has a .356 OBP and a .499 SLG in Oakland, and a
.340 OBP and a .535 SLG away, and the difference was even greater in
1991. Curiously, this home park disadvantage wasn't as big as I
expected, but it is still there.
Meanwhile, Puckett has a .385 OBP and a .512 SLG lifetime in the Dome,
and only a .328 OBP and .418 SLG elsewhere, which is one of the bigger
home advantages you're going to find anywhere. *But* I should point
out that, tatermetrically speaking, the dome is no longer a really
good homer park, and that Kirby has recently shown, along with
drastically reduced power, drastically reduced home/away splits.
Naturally, Canseco still has a chance to make everybody forget that
Kirby Puckett ever lived if he continues to beat up the American League,
but, like everybody else who plays ball, he might only be a tendon or a
disc away from a serious decline.
jking
Paul Chai
>authority to be able to even begin to effect any changes in such players as
>Alomar, Winfield, Gruber, Carter, or White, who are the brunt of the Blue
>Jays offensive lineup. The remaining players could do with some agressiveness
>training. e.g. Lee, Borders, Maldanado, Olerud. However, currently Lee has been
>hitting .300 throughout spring training, Olerud .250, Maldanado .350, and
>Borders has significant spring figures also. With both Cito and Tenace now
>in the clubhouse watching over anything, I really REALLY doubt any diminutive
>changes to someones batting could ever take place and be allowed to continue.
> I find this 'Blue Jays start praying..." business totally laughable. Really
>, we're going to crush all opposition!
>/Michael Stockus
DREAM ON......the Jays will surely choke again this season !!!!!
Mike Fester
>
>>
>>Let's pursue this a bit. If the "typical" batter has a 10% success rate
>>in getting a walk,
>
>A 10% success rate in getting a walk would be excellent. That would be a walk
>every 10 plate appearances and would effectively make a player's OBP
The average last year In both leagues, was a walk every 12.5 plate appearences
without RISP, one every 7 PA with RISP; overall about one every 10 PAs.
>rule of thumb if I were a GM or Manager, is that I would want my guys to walk at
>least once every 11 plate appearances (i.e., 600 AB should have 60 BB also).
That's about average, maybe a bit below.
Mike
Dave Kirsch
>In article <1992Mar25.1...@ux.acs.umn.edu> kir...@ux.acs.umn.edu (Dave Kirsch) writes:
>[Explanation of Hisle's actual comments and philosophy deleted.]
>
>I'm glad to hear it. You'll note that I added the "if the...basis in fact"
>bit to my original comment. I don't *expect* sportscaster to get their facts
>and quotes straight; in fact, I expect the opposite.
Oops. Sorry, should've added that to my post.
And yes, I generally hold sportscasters in about the same high regard as
Dr. Dave.
>No, actually I was just repeating the content of about a ten-minute discussion
>by Hutton and someone (Physioc? Campbell?) on the broadcast. They were
>apparently completely misrepresenting Hisle, which is bad journalism but
>good news for the Jays.
Yes, I agree.
That's Dave Campbell, Gary "Campbell wannabe" Huckabay's statistics mentor,
isn't it?
Actually, I'm kinda surprised more Jays fans aren't familiar with Hisle's
hitting philosophies. It would've saved a lot of confusion in this whole mess.
This 'aggressive is better' stuff is foolish, unless we're talking about
specific, finely detailed circumstances. Besides, even if Hisle *does* do a
great job with the Jays, it's not like he's going to make Manny Lee a good
hitter. I'd expect the results to be similar to what Terry Crowley achieved
with the Twins last year; make the out machines (Gagne, Lee) almost tolerable
and make subtle improvements in the good hitters to make them a little better.
The team OBP probably still isn't gonna be above .330, but the SLG should rise
appreciably.
As long as the right players are put on the field, the Jays' scoring should
go up quite a bit. It still won't be an earth shattering offense, but it
should be enough to give the pitching staff a little more breathing room.
I'm hoping for 750 runs. They could exceed that if everything goes right, but
if White and Carter drop back down, Winfield has a coronary and the youngsters
stagnate they could be looking at 700 runs or under.
Dave Kirsch
>(Dave "You LuvLummox" Kirsch) writes:
>
>> I'm very high on Hisle and have been for some time. His hitting philosophies
>>are *very* similar to Terry Crowley of the Twins, and you know how much I
>>babbled on about him last year. In a nutshell: (1) Stay disciplined enough
>>that you only swing at strikes (2) Be aggressive within the strike zone (3) Go
>>up to the plate mentally prepared, with an idea of what the pitcher might
>>throw, how the umpire will call it and how you'll react (4) Wait until you get
>>a pitch you can handle and then drive it (5) Keep a short, simple stroke to
>>eliminate possible mechanical flaws in the swing (6) etc etc ...
>
>I agree, in theory, with all of the above, with specific problems with [5].
>It's nice, in theory, to have a short stroke. Unfortunately, everyone
>swings differently. I have a notoriously slow swing, but have quick hands,
>and am fairly good at gauging pitches. I don't have the luxury of a short
>swing which I can unleash quickly, unless I want to sacrifice all my power.
>(Not THAT big a sacrifice, but it is something.)
Understood, and agreed. I think Hisle and Crowley are both intelligent
enough to not mess with a good power hitter's swing, at least not by trying
to shorten it. Now, Manny 'flail like a stuck pig' Lee is a different story.
There's really no need for him to have a long swing, unless he's gonna go
back to the rigorous conditioning of a few years ago when he hit .291 with
decent pop. (Scary to think Manny actually hit that, isn't it?) Even then,
I'd rather have better contact and have him get on base more often, rather
than keeping a long swing for power.
>Sorry, Dave. But big deal... It's spring training. No one not named
>Fred or Jose can catch up to a mid-season Clemens heater at the letter,
>and those guys will miss it 99 times out of 100.
[Silence in anticipation of a cerebral response]
DDDUUUUUUUHHHHHHHhhhhhhh.
OK, never mind the Clemens part .. that doesn't matter. What I meant to
imply was that Olerud looked comfortable at the plate and just *creamed* a
pitch with an easy swing. I would've been just as impressed if it were off
of Rich DeLucia (well, almost). It takes a good amount of power to hit a ball
420 or 430 feet off of anyone, even on a hanging fat ball.