Things Marty Loves to Complain about

[REDREAD]

Yes, stupid.
.

Not stupid.

Runs are more scarce than outs.
Think about it this way.. let's say every inning that you got a man on with zero or one outs, you could small ball your way to a run... Assuming you had a decent pitching staff, you'd run away with the division every year.

Obviously, a hit is more desirable than a SF, but a SF is productive.
Sure, a SF reduces the chance of a big inning, but it gets a run home. Unless you are losing by a large number of runs (in which case the win expectancy is tiny anyhow), you always will trade one out for a run. Heck, many situations it's worth trading 2 outs for a run (bunt and sac fly).

[RichRed]

Yea, too bad we can't clone Welsh and have him on radio and TV. He's clearly the best announcer, IMO. Not only does he broadcast good, but Marty is much better behaved. Jim Kelch also to a lesser degree helps control Marty's rants.. Brantley and Thom will egg Marty on (or at least let the rant continue to go on)..

Honestly, I wonder. If Marty had not been partnered with Joe the majority of his career, I think Marty's ugly side would've come out a lot earlier and he wouldn't be such a legend now.

Also, last night, Marty made a comment that Joey Votto was on pace for something like 76 RBIs and "That's not getting it done"
I actually think RBI can be useful in some context, but people like Marty give the RBI a bad name.. People like Marty are the reason the stat-leaning people hate RBI so much.

It's really incredible. The Brennamen have eyes: they watch Choo get on base (unless it's against a lefty), they watch Cozart or Robinson make an out or bunt Choo over, they watch Votto get walked with first base open or pitched to with no one on base. They SEE all this, heck they're the ones telling us it's happening, and yet, they still wonder how Votto doesn't have more RBIs, in fact it's SHOCKING that he doesn't have more. It's stuff like that that really makes you question how much they understand the game that's unfolding right in front of their eyes.

[Hoosier Red]

Not stupid.

Runs are more scarce than outs.
Think about it this way.. let's say every inning that you got a man on with zero or one outs, you could small ball your way to a run... Assuming you had a decent pitching staff, you'd run away with the division every year.

Obviously, a hit is more desirable than a SF, but a SF is productive.
Sure, a SF reduces the chance of a big inning, but it gets a run home. Unless you are losing by a large number of runs (in which case the win expectancy is tiny anyhow), you always will trade one out for a run. Heck, many situations it's worth trading 2 outs for a run (bunt and sac fly).

I think you're confusing approach with results here.

It's stupid to "try for a sacrifice fly" because it's really hard to hit a ball to exactly where you are intending to hit it. And if you are trying to lift a ball for a sacrifice fly but miscalibrate, it ends up being a pop out or a ground out.

Players who hit sacrifice flies are trying to get a hit every single time. If they miss just a little bit on a ball they think they can line a base hit on, it may end up being a sacrifice fly, but I guarantee you that is not their intent.

[dougdirt]

Not stupid.

Runs are more scarce than outs.
Think about it this way.. let's say every inning that you got a man on with zero or one outs, you could small ball your way to a run... Assuming you had a decent pitching staff, you'd run away with the division every year.

Obviously, a hit is more desirable than a SF, but a SF is productive.
Sure, a SF reduces the chance of a big inning, but it gets a run home. Unless you are losing by a large number of runs (in which case the win expectancy is tiny anyhow), you always will trade one out for a run. Heck, many situations it's worth trading 2 outs for a run (bunt and sac fly).

Trying to hit a sac fly doesn't promise the run scores. It also means you are significantly decreasing your chances of getting a hit because you are changing your swing to try and get it in the air. Fly balls go for hits less than ground balls or line drives. Pop ups never go for hits. Between the two, you are looking at an out happening about 85% of the time. Out of that 85%, how many are going to get the job done? 50%? 40%?

If you could guarantee a sac fly, sure, go for it. But you can't do that. Going up there and trying to hit one isn't the same as going up there and actually doing it.

So far in the Majors this year there have been 4121 plate appearances with a runner on 3rd, less than 2 outs and the ball was put in play (not accounting for sac bunts) in 2013. There have been just 635 sac flies on those. One out of every 6.5 chances has resulted in a sac fly.

1 out of 4 chances for a crappy hitter results in a hit. 1 out of 5 chances for a really poor hitter results in a hit.

Go for the hit if they throw you strikes and accept the outcome of a beneficial out if it happens as a side effect.

[Always Red]

Also, last night, Marty made a comment that Joey Votto was on pace for something like 76 RBIs and "That's not getting it done"
I actually think RBI can be useful in some context, but people like Marty give the RBI a bad name.. People like Marty are the reason the stat-leaning people hate RBI so much.

I think it's just stubbornness, to be honest. Thom mentioned RBI and Votto last night as well.

I'm certainly no "stat guy" but even I can figure out that if Joey Votto posts these numbers...

...with RISP: .329/.480/.500/.980 with 11 intentional walks,

...and posts these numbers overall: .325/.437/.514/.952

that means he is a better hitter with runners in scoring position than he is overall. How much more than that can you do? Guys aren't in position to be driven home, and 11 of those times that runners have been there have resulted in intentional walks.

It's just so simple that it makes me want to cry.

[redssince75]

Not making an out in order to score even more runs.

Well I don't think Marty or anyone else complains when a batter DOESN'T make an out in a sac fly situation. The complaint is about non-productive outs. Especially Ks.

[BCubb2003]

I think it's just stubbornness, to be honest. Thom mentioned RBI and Votto last night as well.

I'm certainly no "stat guy" but even I can figure out that if Joey Votto posts these numbers...

...with RISP: .329/.480/.500/.980 with 11 intentional walks,

...and posts these numbers overall: .325/.437/.514/.952

that means he is a better hitter with runners in scoring position than he is overall. How much more than that can you do? Guys aren't in position to be driven home, and 11 of those times that runners have been there have resulted in intentional walks.

It's just so simple that it makes me want to cry.

Excellent point. That should be the mantra when talking about Votto.

Is there a way to measure situational hitting? Many fans have this notion that Big Lug goes to the plate looking for his one pitch, and if the pitcher can stay away from that, Big Lug has no answers. Scrappy Guy goes to the plate looking for a way to win, notices how the fielders are playing him, has seen that the pitcher is losing command in the zone and thinks "I can go the other way on this guy." And gets the job done.

It may be more myth than anything, but is there a way to measure?

[Blitz Dorsey]

People complaining about him on a message board?

No, wait, I bet he doesn't care about that.

[Hoosier Red]

Especially Ks.

Bingo. I do think there's something to making sure you're covering the whole strike zone with 2 strikes in that situation. Maybe choking up(though I don't know how much that helps.) But if a player goes down swinging, or hits a hard ground out or line out to an infielder.
Dems the berries.

But the problem is that when they do that, it just builds into a giant pile of times he "didn't get the job done" that get brought up the next time the player has the audacious idea to take a 3rd strike.

The other fact that gets missed is in most situations a player will in fact "not get the job done." The expectation that he will get it done a majority of the time, much less every time he comes to the plate with a runner on 3rd and fewer than 2 outs is simply preposterous.

[REDREAD]

I think you're confusing approach with results here.

It's stupid to "try for a sacrifice fly" because it's really hard to hit a ball to exactly where you are intending to hit it. And if you are trying to lift a ball for a sacrifice fly but miscalibrate, it ends up being a pop out or a ground out.

Players who hit sacrifice flies are trying to get a hit every single time. If they miss just a little bit on a ball they think they can line a base hit on, it may end up being a sacrifice fly, but I guarantee you that is not their intent.

I've heard players say that in a sac fly situtation, they try and hit the ball hard to the OF because that will score a run (and obviously if it drops in for a hit or HR, so much the better).. Is that what they are really trying to do, or are they just saying something for the interview? Hard to say.

I guess it depends on the definition of "try for a sac fly". Let's ignore walks for a minute.. If a player is trying for a hit, we can make some assumptions and use his batting average as an approximation for success. If he's trying for a hit/sac fly.. what are his chances? Hard to say. I imagine a guy with outstanding bat control like Larkin might increase his chances of driving in the run.. An inexperienced guy like Robinson? Maybe it hurts his chances.. I don't know. In any event, I'm not sure we can make a sweeping statement that it's stupid to try for a sac fly.

[Hoosier Red]

I've heard players say that in a sac fly situtation, they try and hit the ball hard to the OF because that will score a run (and obviously if it drops in for a hit or HR, so much the better).. Is that what they are really trying to do, or are they just saying something for the interview? Hard to say.

To me that sounds like interview speak. Where else are they going to try to hit the ball? Also, remember that a guy who grounds a ball through the infield to score that run is going to say he was just trying to hit the ball hard. The statements often times reflect that they were trying to do exactly what they just did.

Hit the ball hard. If you get a little bit on top of it, you've got probably a 50/50 shot at the ball getting through the infield. If you get the trajectory right, you're lining a ball into the outfield and perhaps beyond, if you get just under it, it's likely a fly ball deep enough to score a guy from 3rd.

[REDREAD]

Trying to hit a sac fly doesn't promise the run scores. It also means you are significantly decreasing your chances of getting a hit because you are changing your swing to try and get it in the air. Fly balls go for hits less than ground balls or line drives. Pop ups never go for hits. Between the two, you are looking at an out happening about 85% of the time. Out of that 85%, how many are going to get the job done? 50%? 40%?

Doug, I think it's going to be difficult or impossible for us to calculate that number based on game data, just because sac fly situations do not come up very often, and there's a multitude of other variables that makes it impossible to isolate it.
Plus, how would we be able to know if the player was trying for a sac fly or not?
I guess I will stand by what I said in another posts. Some players with great bat control MIGHT be able to increase their chance of successfully driving in a run by trying to get a sac fly. I can't prove it. Likewise, no one can prove that trying for a hit/sac fly hurts the chances of drivign in a run.

If you could guarantee a sac fly, sure, go for it. But you can't do that. Going up there and trying to hit one isn't the same as going up there and actually doing it.

When any hitter comes to the plate, the most likely outcome is an out.
You can't guarantee a walk or hit either. There's no guarantees at all.

So far in the Majors this year there have been 4121 plate appearances with a runner on 3rd, less than 2 outs and the ball was put in play (not accounting for sac bunts) in 2013. There have been just 635 sac flies on those. One out of every 6.5 chances has resulted in a sac fly.

Interesting..what happened in the other scenerios.. like how many hits, how many double plays, etc.

1 out of 4 chances for a crappy hitter results in a hit. 1 out of 5 chances for a really poor hitter results in a hit.

But in the above scenerio you're excluding the cases where a hitter was trying for a sac fly but ended up with a hit. No one is saying the batter should go up there and say "I'm not even trying for a hit, just a lazy fly ball".

Go for the hit if they throw you strikes and accept the outcome of a beneficial out if it happens as a side effect.

I'm willing to listen, but I'm still not convinced that trying to hit the ball to the outfield is a bad strategy.

[BCubb2003]

We'd probably have to know more about what a player tries to do in other situations. Does he (try to) hit the ball on the ground through a drawn-in infield? Does he go to the right side to move the runner over? Does he go with the pitch he's given, or try to pull everything? Does he just try to "sock it" in any and all situations? Like the dim catcher in "Bang the Drum Slowly," is there no point in keeping a book on him because he keeps no book on himself?

[redssince75]

If the point of the anti-sac-fly people can be stated this simply, then I agree with it: if a player is good enough to try and succeed at hitting a sac fly, why doesn't he just try and succeed to hit a single? My main concern is that a player at all costs avoid a K with a man on 3rd and fewer than two outs.

As to Marty, I have only heard him the last 5 years on SiriusXM. I've never lived in the broadcast area. I think he is a cantankerous treasure, and all you "Reds fans" (cough cough) talking bad about him should be ashamed.

[Chip R]

I'm willing to listen, but I'm still not convinced that trying to hit the ball to the outfield is a bad strategy.

Not that sacrifice flies are a bad thing (because they score runs and runs are good) but it's not strategy since I don't believe that players - no matter what they say to the media - are trying to get a fairly deep fly ball right to an outfielder. In some cases that wouldn't be the best strategy anyway. Example: slow runner i.e. Corky Miller on 3rd; batter hits a medium fly ball to the LF who has a gun i.e. Josh Hamilton. It would be suicide to send Corky home on a medium fly ball like that. Sure, Josh might overthrow the catcher or flub the throw but more often than not, Corky is going to be out. Whereas a single gets him home from 3rd and it doesn't result in an out.

My belief are that sacrifice flies are happy accidents. And if something happens that is an accident it can't be strategy. As I said, no matter what they say, I don't believe that hitters are going up there to hit a sacrifice fly. I believe they are trying to drive the ball for a home run or a double or a single - even a triple if they are fast enough. If they happen to not hit the ball quite right and it ends up as a sacrifice fly, that's fine, but it's not the result they originally wanted.