A Little More From Joey V

[puca]

Unless it is an intentional walk, or a four pitch walk, you are assuming that there were no pitches in the at bat sequence that were hittable strikes. I never presented that a player should swing at pitches out of the strike zone. That is your idea.

We have found some common ground, although I'd like to know your definition of a 'hittable' strike. I imagine that in most cases, early in the count, a batter is looking for a pitch to drive - a certain pitch in a certain location. I would hope that a batter wouldn't take such a pitch for a strike.

[puca]

The interesting thing is, I think a lot of people arguing "always take the walk" would kill Dusty if he pitched to, say, Mike Trout or Miguel Cabrera in that same situation. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think they would be a lot more willing to give up the walk in that case and take their chances with the next two guys.

My point is this -- there's a good reason the other team would pitch around guys like Votto, Trout or Cabrera in those situations. Sure, it could lead to more big innings, but my guess is when you have a truly exceptional hitter and the next two guys are strikeout/DP-prone, it also probably increases the likelihood of getting out of the inning without allowing a run.

So, while taking that walk every time may ultimately lead to more runs in the macro, I think it also decreases the chances for scoring that one run you need in the micro.

Now ... if the other team effectively pitches around one of those guys and doesn't give them anything to hit, then they have to take the walk. But if they get something in the strike zone, jump on it.

But that is exactly why faulting Joey for his lack of RBIs in those situations is absurd. A RH pitcher would be insane to give Votto anything to hit with first base open and runners in scoring position and BP on deck - regardless of how many outs there were.

[RollyInRaleigh]

We have found some common ground, although I'd like to know your definition of a 'hittable' strike. I imagine that in most cases, early in the count, a batter is looking for a pitch to drive - a certain pitch in a certain location. I would hope that a batter wouldn't take such a pitch for a strike.

See previous post. You are hoping against something that happens fairly frequently.

[Hoosier Red]

That surmises that a hitter never takes a good pitch. They all take good pitches, just like all pitchers throw "mistakes."

Oh sure, but I don't think any hitter goes up with the intention to take a good pitch.

If the criticism is that Votto takes too many pitches that he could be driving to the outfield, I'd strongly disagree. But that doesn't mean he never does it.

[puca]

See previous post. You are hoping against something that happens fairly frequently.

What happens frequently? A pitcher groves a pitch? A pitcher groves a pitch to a great hitter? A pitcher groves a pitch to a great hitter with first base open and a runner on third? A pitcher groves a pitch to a great hitter with first base open, a runner on third and much worse hitter (based on most statistics not named RBI) on deck?

And even then, in order to fully convince me that Votto is not doing his 'job' in those situations you would not only have to show that Joey is taking a inordinate number of fat strikes, you would also have to somehow convince me that he should have been looking for that pitch. If he is sitting curve he's probably not going to be able to catch up to a fat fastball anyhow.

[Raisor]

Reds are in the field. Up by a couple of runs. Cardinals have a runner on third less than two outs. Ball is hit to the right side.

Don't the Reds ( and every team in baseball) let the run score to record the sure out at first?

How is that different than a sac fly in that case? Yet you take the out and you're happy about it.

The sac fly in that case is considered a failure.

Think about it.

[RFS62]

Reds are in the field. Up by a couple of runs. Cardinals have a runner on third less than two outs. Ball is hit to the right side.

Don't the Reds ( and every team in baseball) let the run score to record the sure out at first?

How is that different than a sac fly in that case? Yet you take the out and you're happy about it.

The sac fly in that case is considered a failure.

Think about it.

What you just described is a strategic approach relative to the situation.

How's that any different than situational hitting?

Seems to me that the absolute declarations that a walk is always better is macro thinking, and trying to drive the ball or get it into the outfield (something that many seem to think can't be accomplished and should never be attempted) is the micro approach. The situational hitting drills that every advanced player is taught throughout his career.

Would the same scenario be the strategy if it was the ninth inning, less than two outs, and the winning run on third?

[Hoosier Red]

What you just described is a strategic approach relative to the situation.

How's that any different than situational hitting?

Seems to me that the absolute declarations that a walk is always better is macro thinking, and trying to drive the ball or get it into the outfield (something that many seem to think can't be accomplished and should never be attempted) is the micro approach. The situational hitting drills that every advanced player is taught throughout his career.

Would the same scenario be the strategy if it was the ninth inning, less than two outs, and the winning run on third?

Exception that proves the rule. The only time the defense doesn't gladly trade the "out" for "Run prevention" is when that one run is crucial, 1 run up or tied, late in the game.

[RFS62]

Exception that proves the rule. The only time the defense doesn't gladly trade the "out" for "Run prevention" is when that one run is crucial, 1 run up or tied, late in the game.

Every at bat is situational.

The macro approach depends on the law of large numbers.

The micro approach is situational.

[Hoosier Red]

Every at bat is situational.

The macro approach depends on the law of large numbers.

The micro approach is situational.

Of course. But if in 9 out of 10 situations, the defense acts one way, it leads one to believe they fear one thing above another.