From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 11 Sep 92 02:06:16 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1992Sep09.175729.37031@watson.ibm.com>, mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones) writes:
> In article <1992Sep8.124713.852@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>>In article <5463@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
>>> Thus spake z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu:
>>>>	Yes and no. True, he does hurt his team's chances of scoring
>>>>*additional* runs in that inning. However, the object of the games is to score
>>>>runs. However Fielder manages to get Phillips across the plate is (in general)
>>>>good, because it means the Tigers have scored a run. 
>>> 
>>> Not quite.  This misses a key factor, which is the same key factor missed by
>>> the mediots (who tend to make this same argument).  
>>	Ah, so it is bad to score a run? Also, note that I added 'in general'.
> 
> Steeerike one. Strawman argument, low and outside but catching the corner.
> No one, particularly Dr. Dave, said it was bad to score a run. Tell me, if
> you have a runner on third, is it better to score him by a sac fly or a
> single? In that situation, I think even you would have to admit that while a
> sac fly is better than a K, it's not as good as a single. I find it hard to
> accept that making an out is (in general) good, even if it scores a run.

	I would hardly call one line an 'argument'. I *never* said a single is
worse than a sac fly. Some outs are better than other sorts of outs. Dr. Dave
*was* insinuating that trading an out for a run is not good.

> 
>>> In other words, 90% of the work in getting that run for the team had already
>>> been done by the time the RBI man came to the plate.
>>> 
>>> If you always play to get that particular runner home at any cost, you'll 
>>> tend to never score more than one run per inning.  Translation: you'll lose
>>> a whole lot.
>>
>>	Okay, Mr. Obnoxious Baseball Guru, of the 90% of the time that the
>>runner on third scores, how often is it the result of a groundout or a hit?
>>I was NEVER saying that a groundout is better than a hit -- what I was saying
>>was that it's important that the run is scored. I don't want that other 10% to
>>occur.
> 
> Steerike two, uncalled-for personal attack. Dr. Dave is almost unfailingly
> polite, practically never obnoxious. You, on the other hand.... There are a

	Oh, being nice like comparing me to a mediot? That's *not* insulting?


>>>>A groundout RBI is better than a popout or strikeout.
>>> But a walk is better than either.
>>	Not really. The batter has failed to drive in the run, and you can't
>>assume the next batter will. And there is now a chance for a DP grounder.
> 
> Oh my! A chance for a DP grounder! Guess we'd just better not put anybody on
> base at all! 

	Yep, I'm the only sarcastic person in this group...

> C'mon, think of the general case, say second inning, score 0-0,
> Phillips at third, one out, Fielder batting. Which would you prefer as
> Tettleton steps to the plate:
>    a) one run in, two out, no one on.
>    b) no runs in, one out, runners at first and third.
> I'll give you a hint. You're probably going to score more runs in situation
> b). 

	Considering that Tettleton strikes out about 3-4 times as much as he
hits HRs, he's more likey to whiff than to park one. Tettleton is also as slow
as hell, so a grounder has a good chance to be a DP. If he singles, you'll have
one run in, and Fielder *might* be on third. You'll need a *second* hit to
score Fielder. Who's after Tettleton, Deer? Well, there's out two, swinging.
This leaves it up to Whoevers Next to drive in that coveted second run with two
out.
	
Brandon Cope