Votto and Choo are down with OBP (article from Reds website)

[Always Red]

Sometimes we make things more complicated than they need to be.

Base runners are good. Walk, hit, error, HBP, whatever.

At some point, in order to score runs (and runs are THE goal of the game), someone needs to hit the ball. If more runners are on base, then this is much better.

[mth123]

I think people put way too much weight on every choice of words that Dusty utters. He's a baseball lifer, not a public speaker. I get the outrage over baseclogging, but I think he was referring to the fact that he didn't want slow guys blocking the fast guys from taking multiple bases and feels its better to hit the slower guys behind the faster guys. I don't agree with him so much, but I don't make the leap that many seem to be making that he thinks getting on base is a bad thing.

I mean think of what your implying about a major league manager. The concept of getting on-base isn't new and we've all known it was a good thing since childhood. Not sure about all the kiddies on here, but my childhood predates anyone ever hearing of Bill James and the entire Stats movement. I like the stats, but most of it is just repackaging and quantifying baseball truisms we've known for a long time. Getting on base has always been a good thing.

[RedEye]

He simply values scoring runs MORE than just getting on base. His problem with it is the attitude it instills in young hitters...a passive approach...instead of an aggressive approach. Which of the 2 do YOU prefer?

It isn't an either/or proposition. That's Dusty's mistake (or perhaps your reading of Dusty). No statistician has ever said scoring runs is not important in baseball. Home plate is technically like a base in some ways too -- it's just the last one. The more you clog the other three bases, the more you cross the last one.

I don't get how drawing a walk is always called "passive". If you think of the goal as not making an out, then a walk can be just as aggressive as a hit. It just doesn't involve the testosterone-filled event of hitting wood against leather. We saw tonight against the Bucs that drawing a nice, tense, drawn-out walk can be quite an aggressive move indeed.

And the micro versus macro argument...I think it's exactly the opposite. If your focus is scoring runs, that's the macro and it's looking at the problem from the TEAM concept. If your focus is not making an out, that's the micro looking at things from the individual concept. It's not one or the other, its a combination of the two that breeds success. If you think team first...the individual success comes around and further promotes the team success. This concept (along with nearly EVERYTHING in baseball) is interconnected to the rest. And on top of all of that is the fact that it's PEOPLE who must perform...not just a set of numbers. And a manager's job is to manage those PEOPLE...not just the numbers.

Lots to respond to here, but let me start with micro vs. macro, which you've misconstrued.

When someone says that "getting a runner to cross the plate" is the important part of the game, he/she are right -- but in a game situational sense of one scoring event. That is what Dusty is in charge of, and what he should be concerned with in some way, sure. His job is to figure out how to push across as many runners as possible, and a lot of "old school" strategies are based on just that perspective -- "small ball," bunting, sacrifices, stealing bases, what have you.

The problem, though, is that these situational strategies that first seem like a good idea in isolated circumstances had rarely (or never) been tested from a macro perspective -- and by that, I mean from a more abstract, statistical point of view and not from the level of game situations. That is -- does giving up an out actually constitute a wise decision in any game situation? Are managers really "manufacturing" runs in a more effective way when they use up one of their 27 outs to "move the runner over" or "take the extra base" ? In short, the answer is pretty much never.

So the expression "not making an out" is the stathead-ese translation of a macro concept (out avoidance) to a game situational perspective (what an individual hitter should try to do when he goes to the plate). It doesn't sound aggressive, but it can be effective. And it doesn't mean just walking.

[FlightRick]

He simply values scoring runs MORE than just getting on base.

I think you're exactly right. Dusty doesn't think getting on base is bad, he just values the runs more than the on-base.

And I -- and others -- still find this objectionable.

If it's Dusty's choice of words, that's fine. But one assumes that -- given the massive debate on the issue -- Dusty's been asked this many times, in many different contexts, and has had a chance to frame his response many different ways. And yet, it always seems to come out "getting on base is great, but it doesn't matter if you don't turn it into an RBI."

This utterly fails to grasp the concept that on-base-getting is, in and of itself, something to aspire to. It doesn't matter what happens after you get on base: getting on base is good even if you get stranded. Being stranded isn't a failure of the strandee, it's a failure of the guy who was at the plate who didn't not make an out.

We don't need to have Dusty send guys up to bat with the goal of taking a walk to be satisfied. We just need to know that Dusty understands the value of getting on base. And it's also not just some "random fan questioning the wisdom of a baseball lifer" issue, either; it's an extension of the Pee-Doc Votto vs. Phillips, RBI vs. OBP discussion. It is, to repeat myself, a question of valuing the outcome, but undervaluing the process.

Trying to come up with an analogy/metaphor, it seems like Dusty and the RBI Lovers may be the baseball equivalent of Creationists. They accept the reality of RBI, and the awesomeness of the RBI, but take a laughably simplistic approach to the cause of the RBI, and have no intellectual curiosity about the process that led to the RBI.

But if you look into it, there are amino acids/building blocks of RBI, which have to evolve and mutate over time, until, eventually, a run is scored. Those building blocks are hits, walks, HBP, and anywhere you find them, you will eventually find RBI. Maybe you won't find RBI everywhere you find them, but you won't find RBI without them. And that's why why are so fascinated by the thought of building blocks of life on Mars: if they exist in two (or more) places in our own solar system, then they exist in billions of places elsewhere in the galaxy.

Those billions of chances give us a certain confidence that those building blocks have/will evolve and mutate to score a cosmic run. The same way that any baseball fan/manager should view a surplus of "building blocks" of getting-on-base as the best way to increase the chances of scoring a literal run.

I could probably wordsmith the above three paragraphs into something a bit more eloquent, but you get the point, right? It's something like "Celebrating the outcome is fine. But celebrating the outcome without understanding the process is less than commendable."



Rick

[Brutus]

I think you're exactly right. Dusty doesn't think getting on base is bad, he just values the runs more than the on-base.

And I -- and others -- still find this objectionable.

If it's Dusty's choice of words, that's fine. But one assumes that -- given the massive debate on the issue -- Dusty's been asked this many times, in many different contexts, and has had a chance to frame his response many different ways. And yet, it always seems to come out "getting on base is great, but it doesn't matter if you don't turn it into an RBI."

This utterly fails to grasp the concept that on-base-getting is, in and of itself, something to aspire to. It doesn't matter what happens after you get on base: getting on base is good even if you get stranded. Being stranded isn't a failure of the strandee, it's a failure of the guy who was at the plate who didn't not make an out.

We don't need to have Dusty send guys up to bat with the goal of taking a walk to be satisfied. We just need to know that Dusty understands the value of getting on base. And it's also not just some "random fan questioning the wisdom of a baseball lifer" issue, either; it's an extension of the Pee-Doc Votto vs. Phillips, RBI vs. OBP discussion. It is, to repeat myself, a question of valuing the outcome, but undervaluing the process.

Trying to come up with an analogy/metaphor, it seems like Dusty and the RBI Lovers may be the baseball equivalent of Creationists. They accept the reality of RBI, and the awesomeness of the RBI, but take a laughably simplistic approach to the cause of the RBI, and have no intellectual curiosity about the process that led to the RBI.

But if you look into it, there are amino acids/building blocks of RBI, which have to evolve and mutate over time, until, eventually, a run is scored. Those building blocks are hits, walks, HBP, and anywhere you find them, you will eventually find RBI. Maybe you won't find RBI everywhere you find them, but you won't find RBI without them. And that's why why are so fascinated by the thought of building blocks of life on Mars: if they exist in two (or more) places in our own solar system, then they exist in billions of places elsewhere in the galaxy.

Those billions of chances give us a certain confidence that those building blocks have/will evolve and mutate to score a cosmic run. The same way that any baseball fan/manager should view a surplus of "building blocks" of getting-on-base as the best way to increase the chances of scoring a literal run.

I could probably wordsmith the above three paragraphs into something a bit more eloquent, but you get the point, right? It's something like "Celebrating the outcome is fine. But celebrating the outcome without understanding the process is less than commendable."



Rick

You're, in my opinion, arguing semantics. Dusty is saying you can get on base, but if you don't score those runners, it doesn't matter. You're saying that you need to keep getting on base. You're both saying the same thing, only Dusty's point is that OBP is great, but eventually guys getting on base has to be translated into runs. If you draw three walks and eventually a pitcher gives you something to hit, you're going to have to put the ball in play and get a hit or else those walks were useless.

He's not saying the walks are useless. He's simply saying that sooner or later, that wooden stick in your hands needs to be used for something. And you can't go into an at-bat purposely looking to take pitches hoping you'll walk. You need to be ready to hit a good pitch regardless of whether it's first pitch or seventh.

[_Sir_Charles_]

It isn't an either/or proposition. That's Dusty's mistake (or perhaps your reading of Dusty). No statistician has ever said scoring runs is not important in baseball. Home plate is technically like a base in some ways too -- it's just the last one. The more you clog the other three bases, the more you cross the last one.

I don't get how drawing a walk is always called "passive". If you think of the goal as not making an out, then a walk can be just as aggressive as a hit. It just doesn't involve the testosterone-filled event of hitting wood against leather. We saw tonight against the Bucs that drawing a nice, tense, drawn-out walk can be quite an aggressive move indeed.

I don't think drawing a walk IS passive either. I think letting a strike sail past that you could drive is being passive because you're more interested in working the count than focusing on driving a pitch. When I think of a passive approach I think of a guy who very rarely swings at the first pitch. I think of a guy who will never swing 3-0 and who will rarely swing 3-1. Those 3 counts are the counts where you are most likely during the entire AB to get a strike near the heart of the plate. But guys who put the walk up on a pedestal (and there's NOTHING wrong with a walk...it's a very valuable AB in MANY respects) will look at that next pitch with the attitude of "force the pitcher to throw a strike". You don't have to do that. The count is already doing it for the hitter. Instead of looking to draw the free pass, look to drive the ball. Yes, even on the first pitch if it's where you can do some damage with it. If you hit it hard and make an out...in my opinion, you had a good at bat, even if it was an out on the first pitch.

And having a passive or aggressive approach at the plate, yes...in my opinion it IS an either/or proposition. If you are changing in the middle of the at bat...you're letting the pitcher dictate your approach IMO.

Lots to respond to here, but let me start with micro vs. macro, which you've misconstrued.

When someone says that "getting a runner to cross the plate" is the important part of the game, he/she are right -- but in a game situational sense of one scoring event. That is what Dusty is in charge of, and what he should be concerned with in some way, sure. His job is to figure out how to push across as many runners as possible, and a lot of "old school" strategies are based on just that perspective -- "small ball," bunting, sacrifices, stealing bases, what have you.

The problem, though, is that these situational strategies that first seem like a good idea in isolated circumstances had rarely (or never) been tested from a macro perspective -- and by that, I mean from a more abstract, statistical point of view and not from the level of game situations. That is -- does giving up an out actually constitute a wise decision in any game situation? Are managers really "manufacturing" runs in a more effective way when they use up one of their 27 outs to "move the runner over" or "take the extra base" ? In short, the answer is pretty much never.

So the expression "not making an out" is the stathead-ese translation of a macro concept (out avoidance) to a game situational perspective (what an individual hitter should try to do when he goes to the plate). It doesn't sound aggressive, but it can be effective. And it doesn't mean just walking.

That's a very fair point. But while I agree with you...please point out the manager not named Dusty Baker who doesn't play things by the old school book. I know some guys point to the Rays manager, but I'm sorry...but I don't see it. He may talk the talk, but he still doesn't walk the walk. He's still playing small ball as you put it. He's still bunting guys over. He's still using the sacrifice. He's also still using lineups that can even be worse than Dusty's. So while many of the "statheads" scream and curse at the horrible managing done by Dusty, simply put, there isn't a better alternative out there. And even if you do find one who is better at those things that drive us all nuts...odds are VERY good that they're MUCH WORSE at the traits that Dusty excels at (and in my opinion are even MORE important than lineups/bunting/double-switching).

[RedEye]

Sir_Charles_;2868791]
And having a passive or aggressive approach at the plate, yes...in my opinion it IS an either/or proposition. If you are changing in the middle of the at bat...you're letting the pitcher dictate your approach IMO.

How is making a choice letting the pitcher dictate? If a batter decides to change his approach, he's dictating, or at least contributing to the event that's about to happen. You imply here that taking a pitch is somehow giving up control. Passivity can be a strategy in certain scenarios, too. Over-aggression can make you weak. Just ask Anakin Skywalker.

That's a very fair point. But while I agree with you...please point out the manager not named Dusty Baker who doesn't play things by the old school book. I know some guys point to the Rays manager, but I'm sorry...but I don't see it. He may talk the talk, but he still doesn't walk the walk. He's still playing small ball as you put it. He's still bunting guys over. He's still using the sacrifice. He's also still using lineups that can even be worse than Dusty's. So while many of the "statheads" scream and curse at the horrible managing done by Dusty, simply put, there isn't a better alternative out there. And even if you do find one who is better at those things that drive us all nuts...odds are VERY good that they're MUCH WORSE at the traits that Dusty excels at (and in my opinion are even MORE important than lineups/bunting/double-switching).

First, I reject the premise that managing and sabermetrics are somehow incompatible. It is possible to be both a "player's manager" and a smart strategist dealing with data. I will simply direct you to this excellent article, among many others, for a discussion of how basic objective principles of analysis could be brought to bear on the field of play. Here's a highlight, and a response to the people-related objections that many managers like Dusty might have:

Each of the above tactics and processes that a sabermetric manager could utilize has a likelihood to increase the team’s wins in a real and for the most part in a measureable way. But they are not without risk. Significant lineup changes could upset some players. A star player may not like being moved from the third spot in the lineup to the first, or from second to fifth. But is this likely to be a big problem? It’s not like the optimal lineup would move a star player from third to ninth. Mostly star players would be moving around somewhere in the top four spots in the batting order. And each of those lineup positions has it’s own (although not necessarily equal) significance and prominence. These worries certainly wouldn’t lead me to turn down the opportunity to give my team an additional win.

Now, your related point -- that people often unfairly single out Dusty as if he's different -- is a fair one. I will only remind you that this is a Reds forum where the majority of us are watching and analyzing our beloved team's moves on the field in great detail. I think most realize that objective analysis still has a ways to go before it moves from GM offices to the field league wide. But I think Dusty's problem (as FlightRick has already pointed out) is that he is so flagrantly dismissive of alternative opinions, and very rarely voices any good arguments as to why. Sure, he's got more experience with the people angle of the game than we armchair managers do or ever will. But then again, he makes millions of dollars to be the best at what he does. You'd think he'd want to be responsible for the latest innovations in game strategy. I would imagine the players would be on board too if they understood that his goals were in their best interest -- winning.

There have been examples of managers who apply more objective strategies on the field. Earl Weaver is the most famous one, but there are others today. Many of them only use the strategies piecemeal at this point. Mike Matheny, for instance, seems to use a more optimized lineup than do Dusty or many others, hitting Matt Carpenter first regardless of his foot speed and lining up his best hitters in the first few slots without regard for the traditionalist values of small ball that dictate a weak bunter/bat handler bats second.

I just don't think it's really too much to ask. These are grown, smart men and talented baseball guys. They just need to open their eyes.

[fielder's choice]

And the micro versus macro argument...I think it's exactly the opposite. If your focus is scoring runs, that's the macro and it's looking at the problem from the TEAM concept. If your focus is not making an out, that's the micro looking at things from the individual concept. It's not one or the other, its a combination of the two that breeds success.

That's just not right. Hitting is not a team sport. It's one hitter vs. one pitcher, one at a time.

[BCubb2003]

That's just not right. Hitting is not a team sport. It's one hitter vs. one pitcher, one at a time.

I think this is at the heart of the argument. I wish I had the time right now to explore the implications of it. Maybe later.

[NebraskaRed]

That's just not right. Hitting is not a team sport. It's one hitter vs. one pitcher, one at a time.

You're simplifying it too much.

If it's ONLY one hitter vs. one pitcher, that would mean that the hitter does not consider if anyone else is on base, what base they're on, how fast/slow of a runner they are, who in the infield/outfield might be slow or weak, who bats after them etc.

You're not making that argument are you?

[_Sir_Charles_]

That's just not right. Hitting is not a team sport. It's one hitter vs. one pitcher, one at a time.

And if you go back and re-read what I typed, you'll realize that you agree with me and I with you. Hitting is one batter with the goal of not making an out (or getting a hit...whichever perspective you prefer). But I said scoring runs was the team concept...not "hitting". Outside of the homerun, the individual doesn't score runs individually...he needs help from his teammates...that's not individualized performance, that's the group collective. Hence, macro.

I know it can be looked at from a different perspective...I'm just relating how I see it. I'm not trying to convince anybody over to my way of thinking or to Dusty's way of thinking or anything...because there's no point. It doesn't matter HOW convincing our arguments are...a manager in the MLB isn't going to read it or incorporate it.

[dubc47834]

Sometimes I think people on here are too smart for thier own good. Baseball is a simple sport. Yes, the more runners you get on base, generally the more that score. But I personally agree with Dusty, if they dont score, whats the use. OBP is great, but scoring runs in better. Let's remember you win games by runs, not OBP. And to think that getting on base but getting stranded is a good thing is crazy to me. Look at those Indians games, bases loaded twice with 1 out or less and no runs scored, we lost both games. To me its not hard to see!!!

[_Sir_Charles_]

Sometimes I think people on here are too smart for thier own good. Baseball is a simple sport. Yes, the more runners you get on base, generally the more that score. But I personally agree with Dusty, if they dont score, whats the use. OBP is great, but scoring runs in better. Let's remember you win games by runs, not OBP. And to think that getting on base but getting stranded is a good thing is crazy to me. Look at those Indians games, bases loaded twice with 1 out or less and no runs scored, we lost both games. To me its not hard to see!!!

I'll save people time and type it for them.

"But OBP LEADS to runs. So it's more important."

But what leads to OBP? Coming to the plate. Before you can come to the plate you must reach the ODC. Before you do that you walk from the dugout. Before that, you walk from the clubhouse. That's alot of walking. Clearly, the MOST important factor in scoring runs...is putting on your shoes. :O)

[NebraskaRed]

I'll save people time and type it for them.

"But OBP LEADS to runs. So it's more important."

But what leads to OBP? Coming to the plate. Before you can come to the plate you must reach the ODC. Before you do that you walk from the dugout. Before that, you walk from the clubhouse. That's alot of walking. Clearly, the MOST important factor in scoring runs...is putting on your shoes. :O)

You clearly don't understand the most important stat SBS (socks before shoes). Votto's SBS is now up to .998

[dubc47834]

I'll save people time and type it for them.

"But OBP LEADS to runs. So it's more important."

But what leads to OBP? Coming to the plate. Before you can come to the plate you must reach the ODC. Before you do that you walk from the dugout. Before that, you walk from the clubhouse. That's alot of walking. Clearly, the MOST important factor in scoring runs...is putting on your shoes. :O)

Hey, that just clarified everything for me!!! Sometimes you just need to break things down to the lowest level for me, break out the crayons you know. Remember Im working on a military education here!!!

THANKS....LOL