From: mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 17:57:29 GMT
Organization: IBM Corp. Kingston NY

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.

>> 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
couple of things Dr. Dave is trying to point out to you, and I promise you
he didn't make any of them up. Earl Weaver understood most of them. 
1. If you play for one run, that's all you'll get. Trading an out for a run,
in most circumstances, decreases your chances of winning games. It virtually
always decreases your chances of scoring more runs in the inning, and in the
majority of games in the major leagues, the winning team scores as many runs
in a single inning as the losing team does in the entire game.
2. If Phillips is on third base and Cecil doesn't get him in, he'll probably
still score. Therefore, it's certainly not a good trade in this point to
give up an out to get the run. *IF* you're going to make an out, then it's
better to score the run while doing so, but it's better still to not make
the out and give Tettleton et. al. a shot at knocking in the run.

>>>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! 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). 

   Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com

Show me a good loser, and I'll show you an idiot.
	- Leo Durocher