From: drw3l@delmarva.evsc.Virginia.EDU (David Robert Walker)
Subject: Re: NLCS Game #5 at 9:41
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:40:10 GMT

In article <7563@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.170357.5813@cs.cornell.edu> tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes:
>>>Why is it?  With a man on third a out the walk and the out produce exactly
>>>the same result - NO RUN!
>>
>>*That* time, it produced no runs.  Next time, perhaps Jeff King will
>>hit a 2-RBI double?  Or a 3-run HR?  Or maybe just get a single to
>>drive in the lead runner himself.
>
>Excuse me but were in the OPB stat, or any other stat for that matter, is
>Jeff King's "potential hit" reflected?  When a hitter steps to the plate it
>is his job to produce, period!  It is not his job to step out of the way and
>give the guy behind him a chance to get the hit, which is exactly what this
>walk did.  

Excuse me, but its a team game. You produce for yourself, or give a
teammate a chance to produce. To paraphrase Jesse Jackson: KEEP
INNINGS ALIVE!
Are you saying that a batter who fails to hit a home run every time up
is a failure? ANYTHING that doesn't make an out is productive. Some
things don't produce as much as others. Walks don't get runners home
from third and singles don't get runners home from first (unless he's
Enos Slaughter). I agree this much; it would be better to have Bonds
hitting than King. He is BETTER. But if he tries too hard to hit
something he can't, he makes an out, ends the inning, and gets called
a choker by everybody in North America. He is better off taking the
walk than making an out. The team is better off with him taking a walk
than making an out. But NO ONE says it is better to walk than to
single.

>It could also be argued that with two outs and a runner at third and the team 
>down five runs, Jeff King's assumed hit might be more valuable as the lead off
>hit of the next inning.  

If you seriously beleive this, even for a second, I'd love to manage
against you in a fantasy league. If King gets a hit NOW, it produces a
run. If he leads off the next inning with a hit, it might produce a
run. A run in now is always better than a potential run later.

>If your arguing that taking the bat out of the hands of one of the top hitters 
>in the game and placing it in the hands of a significantly less qualified hitter
>and leaving it up to him to drive in the run, is a positive thing, you're 
>wasting your time.  I rather take the out and hope for a lead off hit from King
>with the chance to pinch hit for the pitcher.
>
>PSG
If you don't want to let Jeff King hit with runners on the corners, why
in the world would you want to leave the game up to a pinch-hitter? If
he were that good a hitter, he'd be in the lineup and not on the pine.

You NEVER, EVER take the out in baseball. Especially not with two down.

Get it straight: NO ONE in their right mind thinks its better to have
Jeff KIng batting than Barry Bonds. But if Bonds goes chasing pitches
he can't reach, then he isn't really Barry Bonds. He gets to be as
good as he is by being selective. And you will win far more games in
the long haul with hitters like Bonds, who take walks that are given to 
them, even though in this particular game it didn't pay off.

Would I have rather have Bonds hit, or King? Bonds. But if its a choice
between ending the inning or having King hit, than I'll say King.
Every time.

Clay D.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball