From: genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:04:42 GMT
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

Thus spake z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu (Brandon Cope):

>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:
>>>>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? 

>> Steeerike one. Strawman argument, low and outside but catching the corner.
>> No one, particularly Dr. Dave, said it was bad to score 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.

I wasn't insinuating it, I was saying it flat out.  Trading an out for a run
is, in the vast majority of instances, not a winning strategy.  

The reason for this is that you're usually trading more than one expected run
for one concrete run.  This is a good idea if you desperately need to score
exactly one run THIS INNING, and a bad idea if you're trying to score as many
runs as possible over the course of the game.  (A possible exception is the
Jim Leyland approach of playing for one run in the first inning on the theory
that your opponent will alter *his* strategy if you take an early lead.  I
don't necessarily buy this argument, but it might work sometimes.)


>>>>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, 

Whoa!  What prompted this?

>>>I was NEVER saying that a groundout is better than a hit --  I was saying
>>>that it's important that the run is scored. I don't want that other 10% to
>>>occur.

That's what I thought you were saying.  I disagree that this is the most
important thing to worry about.  Better that you play for the big inning,
and occasionally not score at all, than that you play for the one run, and
score fewer runs overall in the long run.

>> Steerike two, uncalled-for personal attack. Dr. Dave is almost unfailingly
>> polite, practically never obnoxious. You, on the other hand.... 
>
>	Oh, being nice like comparing me to a mediot? That's *not* insulting?

I quoted that piece above, to show that I did *not* "compare you to a mediot".
I simply said that you're making the same mistake that they often do.  There's
nothing between those lines to get upset about.

>>>>>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.

Right.  There's also the chance for the three run homer, the two run double,
the walk that loads the bases with one or none out, etc.  If you track what
the outcomes of these various situations are, over many many games, you see
that teams tend to score *more* runs, on average, when they get the walk
instead of the RBI grounder.

What's "obnoxious" about pointing this out?


-- 
      David M. Tate      | From my dugout sleep I fell into the Game
 dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | And I crouched in the circle while my insides froze
 Randall 'Chico' Jarrell | One out from death, one hit from dreamt-of glory
"Death of a Pinch Hitter"| I woke to 'Strike One!' and the nightmare sliders...
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball