Continuing a thought

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • CircleChange11
    Registered User
    • Jul 2009
    • 1113

    #46
    Originally posted by Zinger View Post
    When you started the thread you spoke of a different pitching philosophy of pitching to contact rather than using "electric stuff". I took this as "OK Johnny, we're going to try something different. Instead of trying to blow it by these batters, we're going to be more efficient with your pitches by allowing them to hit it and then let the defense do their job." Sounds pretty intriguing to me - at least worth some investigation.

    As a baseline, the traditional "strike em out" mentality, when it succeeds, uses 4.6 pitches to achieve an out (using CircleChange's data).

    What would we expect the comparable results to be when we succeed with pitching to contact? It's about 3 pitches per contact but since only 44% of contacts resulted in an out you need 2.3 at-bats (1/.44) to get one out. So that results in about 7 pitches per out.

    This only analyzes the results when the strategies succeed (if a strategy doesn't look good even when everything goes right, why bother?). Walks are a failure for either the "strike em out" strategy or a "pitching to contact" strategy. Perhaps if failures in either strategy were much more prevalent or had a much bigger downside then they might have a big influence on the results.

    Things look better with your data for Stilwell. He takes 4.5 pitches per K but 5.2 pitches per contact, primarily because his defense is converting 63% of BIP to outs. Now maybe we're close enough to wonder how much the walk rate might be improved for a pitching to contact pitcher and whether that would tip the balance. Unfortunately we don't have data so can only imagine. (But while we're at it we would need to recognize that some of the extra hits would be for extra bases, tipping the balance back towards pitching for strikeout).

    Anyway, that's how I look at it.
    Another interesting aspect to this ... does pitching to contact become a more effective strategy as one ages or moves up divisions. I think whole-heartedly it does.

    To me, the exception might be LL (11-12) where you've got the youth version of a men's baseball team playing on a softball field. Put those exact same teams on a larger field and pitching to contact might be more desirable.

    Comment

    • scorekeeper
      Scorekeeper
      • Jan 2007
      • 9413

      #47
      Originally posted by CircleChange11 View Post
      1. Depends on following batters.
      2. Depends on quality of pitcher.
      3. Depends on game situation.
      Hmmm. Looks a lot like it depends on how much you want to win. What I’m trying to say is, winning at the ML level means something different than it should at all previous levels. I know the reality is that it not only means as much at lower levels, but often means more, however that’s know how I believe it SHOULD be.

      In general, I go after the hitter. Just because that's my nature, my preference, and I feel that pitchers have to learn to get guys out.
      My belief as well, but I don’t qualify it by saying “in general”.

      Now, having said that I think if we started listed all sorts of situations where walking "Prep Cabrera" isn't that bad, we'd end up with a lot more situations than we originally thought. So, in short, yes I think the reality is that playing "sissy ball" (tongue in cheek) by walking and/or avoiding the other team's "Casey" is probably a good strategy. Think of it this way, if you were playing a team that walked your far and away best hitter 4 times, would it bother you?
      Well, we’re at a point where deeply felt beliefs and principles are entering into the equation, and that gets “dangerous”. By that I mean its only a :good” strategy” if winning at the cost of teaching or learning if more important to you. I really don’t put the NEED to win on any kind of equal footing as the NEED to teach or learn, so I can’t see myself ever giving the ok to issue an IBB for anyone at any time, short of the ML. I realize that isn’t normal, but why does it make me wrong?

      Again, we're talking about levels where the best hitters get HITS 40-50% of the time, and a large portion of them are extra base hits. We're talking man among boys type stuff, not just "gee that kid sure does make a lot of contact".
      All I can say is, you have your beliefs and I have mine. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but even at 50% hits, the odds are still that that batter is going to be put out. Not only that, is it even the slightest bit possible, that if more pitchers threw to more supposed “super stud”, the result would be that the worst possible outcome would be found to be much rarer than what it was thought to be? I’m will to accept that I might be wrong and that the result would be worse than expected, so why isn’t it possible to go the other way?

      As I said, I believe it depends on one’s devotion to winning as opposed to their devotion to teaching.
      The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.

      Comment

      • scorekeeper
        Scorekeeper
        • Jan 2007
        • 9413

        #48
        Originally posted by Zinger View Post
        Please understand that I have a completely open mind about pitching to contact.
        That’s a good thing around this crew!

        The difference between intent and results matters a lot in this discussion. If my pitcher's intent is "do not walk, but try to get a strikeout" and then the batter gets a hit I make sure the pitcher knows that was not a failure because I'm afraid otherwise he'll prioritize strikeouts over avoiding walks.
        Here’s another thing I think is not correct “thinking”. It doesn’t matter what a pitcher’s intents was, if a batter got a hit, the pitcher failed to get him out, and that’s failure no matter how you look at it. Its not failure he should shoot himself over, but its certainly not success.

        What we're discussing (I think) is sending pitchers out with the intent of "do not walk, but try to get the batter to make contact".
        I think it’s a bit deeper than that. It should be to get every batter out, no matter what the situation or how it gets done.

        In other words, a result of contact is not a failure. An intention of contact may or not be a "failure" - that's up for discussion.
        No, a result of either contact or no contact could be either success or failure. It depends on perspective and how success and failure are defined. I think a batter who has just hit a screaming liner in the gap that the CF made the greatest catch of all time on, failed, but some believe he should be credited with success because he didn’t do worse. IOW, standing with the bat on your shoulder looking at strike 1 is success because its may not have been a perfect pitch to drive. Doing the same thing on strike 2 can also be thought of as successful for the same exact reason. But doing it for the 3rd time in a row is an abject failure. However, watching 3 balls, then having the pitcher accidently hit the bat for a foul ball, then watching that 3rd strike is often seen as a success because he caused 7 pitches to be thrown. Sorry, its not as bad as looking at 3 without ever taking the bat off the shoulder, but its still bad in my book.

        But I wasn’t brought up thinking baseball wasn’t about failure, so it doesn’t bother me to recognize failure in the game. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s me.
        The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.

        Comment

        • CircleChange11
          Registered User
          • Jul 2009
          • 1113

          #49
          Originally posted by scorekeeper View Post
          Hmmm. Looks a lot like it depends on how much you want to win. What I’m trying to say is, winning at the ML level means something different than it should at all previous levels. I know the reality is that it not only means as much at lower levels, but often means more, however that’s know how I believe it SHOULD be.

          Well, we’re at a point where deeply felt beliefs and principles are entering into the equation, and that gets “dangerous”. By that I mean its only a :good” strategy” if winning at the cost of teaching or learning if more important to you. I really don’t put the NEED to win on any kind of equal footing as the NEED to teach or learn, so I can’t see myself ever giving the ok to issue an IBB for anyone at any time, short of the ML. I realize that isn’t normal, but why does it make me wrong?
          It's difficult to have multiple conversations at the same time.

          We can't discuss [1] IBB's if you want to win and [2] IBB's if you want to teach.

          It's obvious that IBB's occur in situations primarily when a team is looking to win.

          I feel like the target is moving all over the place.

          All I can say is, you have your beliefs and I have mine. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but even at 50% hits, the odds are still that that batter is going to be put out.
          But the odds are even better than the next guy gets out. So if you can avoid a 50/50 chance for a 70/30 (in your favor), why not take it?

          I think we can all accept that at the HS level, it is pretty much about winning.

          Not only that, is it even the slightest bit possible, that if more pitchers threw to more supposed “super stud”, the result would be that the worst possible outcome would be found to be much rarer than what it was thought to be? I’m will to accept that I might be wrong and that the result would be worse than expected, so why isn’t it possible to go the other way?
          My experience as a player/coach is that super stud would LOVE for pitchers to pitch to him all the time. It's tough to maintain good timing when you might see one pitch to hit in a double-header.

          As I said, I believe it depends on one’s devotion to winning as opposed to their devotion to teaching.
          The discussion was about whether there are good times to issue a walk. Now, it's about whether one's focus in on winning or teaching.

          I guess I have to ask, "If you have a chance to pitch around super stud to increase your chances of winning the game, and you don't take it. What are you really teaching your players?" Balls are better than brains? I admit, I'm guilty of subscribing to that motto from time to time, but too often and you're just a bad decision maker.

          Comment

          • mudvnine
            Super Moderator
            • Apr 2008
            • 9494

            #50
            Originally posted by CircleChange11 View Post
            It's difficult to have multiple conversations at the same time.

            I feel like the target is moving all over the place.
            Welcome to BBF

            In memory of "Catchingcoach" - Dave Weaver: February 28, 1955 - June 17, 2011

            Comment

            • scorekeeper
              Scorekeeper
              • Jan 2007
              • 9413

              #51
              Originally posted by CircleChange11 View Post
              It's difficult to have multiple conversations at the same time.
              If you want easy conversations, I think you’ll find little is accomplished. Actually, when the conversation splits, what it shows is that there is a lot of thinking going on, and that’s a good thing.

              We can't discuss [1] IBB's if you want to win and [2] IBB's if you want to teach.
              Why? Those are two very different philosophies, and I believe they are at the root of a lot of why the game is played.

              It's obvious that IBB's occur in situations primarily when a team is looking to win.
              Which is precisely why I don’t believe they have a place at any level where the main object of the game is development.

              I feel like the target is moving all over the place.
              Me too, but I keep trying to follow all the movements.

              But the odds are even better than the next guy gets out. So if you can avoid a 50/50 chance for a 70/30 (in your favor), why not take it?
              Again, its entirely perspective driven. If you’re main driving force is throwing that win up there, then you take the fewest chances possible and play the percentages. But, if you look at it as not just your pitcher missing an opportunity to “test” himself, but for the batter to “test” himself as well to give both players the maximum chance to grow and an learn, you’ve got something entirely different.

              I think we can all accept that at the HS level, it is pretty much about winning.
              That may be what you accept, but not me. I know you may think I’m lying, but the truth is, I really couldn’t care less which team wins when I score a game. Would I prefer “my” team wins? Of course, but that’s because I know them on a personal level, not because I want to see them get better and not the players on the other team. In the end, I sincerely want the players on both teams to improve, and if any of them have great success I applaud them.

              My experience as a player/coach is that super stud would LOVE for pitchers to pitch to him all the time. It's tough to maintain good timing when you might see one pitch to hit in a double-header.
              I guess I have a difficult time with people saying that in order to develop, the competition needs to be as high as possible, then they take every opportunity to avoid that competition when it comes down to crunch time. Why not just play a bunch of losers who can’t hit the ball, and then your pitchers don’t have to worry? Like I said, seems a little crazy to me.

              The discussion was about whether there are good times to issue a walk. Now, it's about whether one's focus in on winning or teaching.
              And the discussion’s changed. Are you unwilling or unable to change with it?

              I guess I have to ask, "If you have a chance to pitch around super stud to increase your chances of winning the game, and you don't take it. What are you really teaching your players?" Balls are better than brains? I admit, I'm guilty of subscribing to that motto from time to time, but too often and you're just a bad decision maker.
              Well, hopefully I’m teaching my players to play the game the best they can, so if they win they can be proud of winning because they executed their skills in a superior manner, not because their manager took advantage of the rules to avoid conflict. It’s a decision everyone must make for themselves.
              The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.

              Comment

              • CircleChange11
                Registered User
                • Jul 2009
                • 1113

                #52
                Originally posted by scorekeeper View Post
                I guess I have a difficult time with people saying that in order to develop, the competition needs to be as high as possible, then they take every opportunity to avoid that competition when it comes down to crunch time. Why not just play a bunch of losers who can’t hit the ball, and then your pitchers don’t have to worry? Like I said, seems a little crazy to me.
                I think that's a fair point.

                And the discussion’s changed. Are you unwilling or unable to change with it?
                That's not my issue.

                What happened was the following conversation ...

                1. There's no good time for a walk.
                2. Someone demonstrated that there are plenty of times for a "good walk".
                3. Well yeah, if you focus on winning.

                IMO, you cannot discuss game theory situations without the emphasis being on winning, because that's the foundation of game theory.

                Next time just say that you oppose IBB because the emphasis should be on teaching and development rather than winning.

                I would also point out that part of a coach's job is to TEACH his team how to win.

                Well, hopefully I’m teaching my players to play the game the best they can, so if they win they can be proud of winning because they executed their skills in a superior manner, not because their manager took advantage of the rules to avoid conflict. It’s a decision everyone must make for themselves.
                As I said, I strongly prefer "straight up baseball", but there's game theory, gamesmanship, etc involved in all levels of baseball. To not teach how to execute it or defend it would be to have your team unprepared for what they are likely to face.

                Comment

                • scorekeeper
                  Scorekeeper
                  • Jan 2007
                  • 9413

                  #53
                  Originally posted by CircleChange11 View Post

                  That's not my issue.

                  What happened was the following conversation ...

                  1. There's no good time for a walk.
                  2. Someone demonstrated that there are plenty of times for a "good walk".
                  3. Well yeah, if you focus on winning.

                  IMO, you cannot discuss game theory situations without the emphasis being on winning, because that's the foundation of game theory.
                  Why, because you place much more emphasis on winning than development or is it for some other reason?

                  Next time just say that you oppose IBB because the emphasis should be on teaching and development rather than winning.
                  I could have said that, but it didn’t’ occur to me at the time.

                  I would also point out that part of a coach's job is to TEACH his team how to win.
                  Now there’s something that arched my eyebrows and got my face all scrunched up.

                  How does teaching players to avoid conflict benefit them as players? Those kinds of decisions aren’t in the player’s hands, so how does it benefit them to know how to do it. Is it to keep them from bit*ching and complaining that they weren’t given the chance to try because the manager has no confidence in them?

                  Sorry. Teaching them how to execute plays and improve their thinking processes is teaching them how to win, but teaching them to not only be afraid, but be so afraid the coward’s way has to be taken isn’t teaching them how to win, but rather teaching them how to be afraid and not have confidence in their abilities.

                  As I said, I strongly prefer "straight up baseball", but there's game theory, gamesmanship, etc involved in all levels of baseball. To not teach how to execute it or defend it would be to have your team unprepared for what they are likely to face.
                  If you truly do prefer "straight up baseball", why not have the players play that way? What could the very worst consequence be, a loss? Don’t you remember how it felt when you were a kid and you got the stud out, even in a situation where he couldn’t hurt you? Imagine how it would feel if you got him and he had the chance to do the team a lot of damage! Heck, even if you went after him and got eaten alive, at least there’d be no thoughts of being afraid. But how bad does it hurt to chicken out, then have the guy who’s supposed to be weaker eat your lunch? Now you’ve gotten beat by someone inferior and that’s really bad. But even if the strategy succeeds, how much long will the pain last from the fans and the kid you walked all hollering what sissy you were.

                  But, as I keep saying over and over, its all in one’s perception. Evidently you’re much closer to a win any cost guy than you think you are, but it doesn’t mean you’re a lousy coach or lousy person. We just have different thoughts on a course of action, and its not a big deal.
                  The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.

                  Comment

                  • real green
                    Registered User
                    • Jul 2011
                    • 2327

                    #54
                    Originally posted by scorekeeper View Post
                    Why, because you place much more emphasis on winning than development or is it for some other reason?



                    I could have said that, but it didn’t’ occur to me at the time.



                    Now there’s something that arched my eyebrows and got my face all scrunched up.

                    How does teaching players to avoid conflict benefit them as players? Those kinds of decisions aren’t in the player’s hands, so how does it benefit them to know how to do it. Is it to keep them from bit*ching and complaining that they weren’t given the chance to try because the manager has no confidence in them?

                    Sorry. Teaching them how to execute plays and improve their thinking processes is teaching them how to win, but teaching them to not only be afraid, but be so afraid the coward’s way has to be taken isn’t teaching them how to win, but rather teaching them how to be afraid and not have confidence in their abilities.


                    If you truly do prefer "straight up baseball", why not have the players play that way? What could the very worst consequence be, a loss? Don’t you remember how it felt when you were a kid and you got the stud out, even in a situation where he couldn’t hurt you? Imagine how it would feel if you got him and he had the chance to do the team a lot of damage! Heck, even if you went after him and got eaten alive, at least there’d be no thoughts of being afraid. But how bad does it hurt to chicken out, then have the guy who’s supposed to be weaker eat your lunch? Now you’ve gotten beat by someone inferior and that’s really bad. But even if the strategy succeeds, how much long will the pain last from the fans and the kid you walked all hollering what sissy you were.

                    But, as I keep saying over and over, its all in one’s perception. Evidently you’re much closer to a win any cost guy than you think you are, but it doesn’t mean you’re a lousy coach or lousy person. We just have different thoughts on a course of action, and its not a big deal.
                    Interesting point but a bit selfish don't you think? For a pitcher to go after a stud hitter when the highest odds for the team win says to walk him! SK as a numbers guy you know A LOT of baseball decissions are based on odds of the outcome and is considered "Straight Up" baseball.

                    Adding emotion to the decission is EGO based nothing more. How about the kid following the stud that was just walked and hits in the winning run. You play the game to win. A close game. Late innings. Runner in scoring position. Empty 1st base with 2 outs. .500 BA stud comes to the plate who has hit the ball hard all night. The right call is to walk him period. Win at all cost includes cheating and risking injury, not this. This is simply smart ball.

                    Scared, coward, give me a break. It's the right call.

                    Comment

                    • mudvnine
                      Super Moderator
                      • Apr 2008
                      • 9494

                      #55
                      Originally posted by real green View Post
                      Interesting point but a bit selfish don't you think? For a pitcher to go after a stud hitter when the highest odds for the team win says to walk him! SK as a numbers guy you know A LOT of baseball decissions are based on odds of the outcome and is considered "Straight Up" baseball.

                      Adding emotion to the decission is EGO based nothing more. How about the kid following the stud that was just walked and hits in the winning run. You play the game to win. A close game. Late innings. Runner in scoring position. Empty 1st base with 2 outs. .500 BA stud comes to the plate who has hit the ball hard all night. The right call is to walk him period. Win at all cost includes cheating and risking injury, not this. This is simply smart ball.

                      Scared, coward, give me a break. It's the right call.
                      I had a whole lot longer and a lot more "colorful" response written that basically said that "smart ball" is not (or means) "win at all cost" baseball. "real green", I'll just let your post express my thoughts....

                      So....I agree 100%
                      In memory of "Catchingcoach" - Dave Weaver: February 28, 1955 - June 17, 2011

                      Comment

                      • scorekeeper
                        Scorekeeper
                        • Jan 2007
                        • 9413

                        #56
                        Originally posted by real green View Post
                        Interesting point but a bit selfish don't you think? For a pitcher to go after a stud hitter when the highest odds for the team win says to walk him! SK as a numbers guy you know A LOT of baseball decissions are based on odds of the outcome and is considered "Straight Up" baseball.
                        You bet. But as a numbers guy I know that often the decisions are based on perceptions or dogma, not necessarily facts. Now I don’t know what the answer to this is because as I’ve said, until this year I never tracked IBBs, and in fact even though I now have that data point, I don’t present it anywhere.

                        Let’s forget the “stud” hitter for a moment and consider every IBB by every pitcher on every hitter who’s ever received one. What percentage of times did the IBB “succeed”, i.e. get the desired outcome, and how different is that percentage than if the IBB hadn’t been given? That’s the real test. Unfortunately, its impossible to tell what would have happened because something else was done. I know a lot of folks have different opinions, but its something which can never be proven one way or the other, therefore its open to conjecture, and no one’s right or wrong.

                        Adding emotion to the decission is EGO based nothing more. How about the kid following the stud that was just walked and hits in the winning run. You play the game to win. A close game. Late innings. Runner in scoring position. Empty 1st base with 2 outs. .500 BA stud comes to the plate who has hit the ball hard all night. The right call is to walk him period. Win at all cost includes cheating and risking injury, not this. This is simply smart ball.
                        I understand what you’re TRYING to say, but what you’ve said is that I’m not only wrong, but couldn’t possibly be right under any circumstances. I’m sorry but I’ve learned that sure as snot is gooey, statements like that almost always lead to embarrassment.

                        Scared, coward, give me a break. It's the right call.
                        What would you call someone on a REAL battlefield in a REAL war who wouldn’t do everything in his power, including giving up his life to overcome a foe, especially when the odds were at least 50-50 he would prevail? As much as some people believe differently, my personal belief isn’t that a baseball field and a battlefield are equal. Now at the ML level, it’s a completely different story, but on an amateur field, to me, there’s no sense in not giving it a shot. I understand the thinking, but I honestly can’t picture myself doing it.

                        So, to you it’s the right call but to me it isn’t. No big deal.
                        Last edited by scorekeeper; 06-19-2012, 07:58 PM.
                        The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.

                        Comment

                        • real green
                          Registered User
                          • Jul 2011
                          • 2327

                          #57
                          Originally posted by scorekeeper View Post
                          What would you call someone on a REAL battlefield in a REAL war who wouldn’t do everything in his power, including giving up his life to overcome a foe, especially when the odds were at least 50-50 he would prevail? As much as some people believe differently, my personal belief isn’t that a baseball field and a battlefield are equal. Now at the ML level, it’s a completely different story, but on an amateur field, to me, there’s no sense in not giving it a shot. I understand the thinking, but I honestly can’t picture myself doing it.
                          So, to you it’s the right call but to me it isn’t. No big deal.
                          Great point, 50/50 shot he would prevail, but if he failed his whole platoon will be killed. If he waited for a better moment, improving his odds to 70/30, which is the better decission?

                          There are times when winning is not the priority where it might make sense to see what the kid on the hump has in the tank. I understand that, but if you are playing straight up than the highest odds for minimizing damage is the walk.

                          Comment

                          • CircleChange11
                            Registered User
                            • Jul 2009
                            • 1113

                            #58
                            Originally posted by scorekeeper View Post
                            Why, because you place much more emphasis on winning than development or is it for some other reason?
                            I think that's an intentionally loaded phrase. Technically a coach that is 50.1% winning and 49.9% development, emphasizes winning over development.

                            MY preference is not always the reality of the situation.

                            How does teaching players to avoid conflict benefit them as players? Those kinds of decisions aren’t in the player’s hands, so how does it benefit them to know how to do it. Is it to keep them from bit*ching and complaining that they weren’t given the chance to try because the manager has no confidence in them?
                            Well, as a former pitcher, I can say with confidence that what I wanted to do and what was perhaps best for the team weren't always the same thing. My preference was to never come out of a game or walk anyone. Some might call that confident, some might call it arrogant.

                            Regardless, the "lesson" learned is that what's best for the team is more important than what might be best for that individual player.

                            Sorry. Teaching them how to execute plays and improve their thinking processes is teaching them how to win, but teaching them to not only be afraid, but be so afraid the coward’s way has to be taken isn’t teaching them how to win, but rather teaching them how to be afraid and not have confidence in their abilities.
                            Whenever I say something like this out of frustration over an IBB, the response I usually get is "Well, maybe you should have more than one good player" ... and there's some truth to that. The best way to avoid IBB's is to have a bunch of good hitters. Even then there'll still be IBBs because it improves the defense's chances of getting out of the inning without allowing the run.

                            Most times IBB's are issued, the defense is already in a tough spot, and issuing the IBB puts them in a situation where they have a greater chance gto escape with no runs allowed.

                            Now, IBB's just to avoid a hitter is a different scenario, but the same logic applies. You call it focusing on winning rather than player development, and I somewhat agree with that. Baseball is a balance between between winning the game and developing each player as an individual.

                            The "best" move in terms of your 5th reliever's development might be to bring them in with the bases loaded and 1-out in a tie game just for the experience. That may not be the best move for the team as a whole.

                            If you truly do prefer "straight up baseball", why not have the players play that way?
                            As a head coach in youth baseball I have never issued a IBB or a sac bunt. As a asst coach in HS I have advised to IBB a certain batter for a more favorable matchup.

                            Again, my preference is not always reality, and my preference isn;t always the smartest move.

                            What could the very worst consequence be, a loss?
                            ... or losing the trust of your players.

                            Imagine how it would feel if you got him and he had the chance to do the team a lot of damage! Heck, even if you went after him and got eaten alive, at least there’d be no thoughts of being afraid.
                            Actually, after getting eaten alive there may now be scary thoughts.

                            I've experienced the feeling of giving up a game ending walk off 3-run homer in a 4-2 game. Believe me, I'd much rather walk around being pissed off at my coach for taking me out of the game, then walking around with the feeling that I lost the game for the team.

                            But, as I keep saying over and over, its all in one’s perception. Evidently you’re much closer to a win any cost guy than you think you are,
                            I'm a pretty honest guy and I am more than willing to take any heat that my actions warrant, but the way this phrased just sucks. Then again, I might be much closer to being a no good @'hole than I think I am. *grin*

                            This seems like a pretty far reach for a situation where a coach simply admitted that there are times when an IBB is a pretty smart move even if my preference isn't to IBB batters.

                            I also hate bunts, but admit that there are times when a bunt is a pretty good play ... and the toughest part is that being able to bunt in high leverage situations sometimes requires bunting in game situations where the batter might be better off swinging away.

                            If "my preferences" were reality, baseball might be scored in a totally different way.

                            Comment

                            • scorekeeper
                              Scorekeeper
                              • Jan 2007
                              • 9413

                              #59
                              Originally posted by real green View Post
                              Great point, 50/50 shot he would prevail, but if he failed his whole platoon will be killed. If he waited for a better moment, improving his odds to 70/30, which is the better decission?
                              I was talking about one on one situations, but if you feel the need to throw in all kinds of other things just to win a silly argument with no correct answer, why not just go all the way and say that by waiting the would be saved, and by fighting the world would be lost to malevolent forces?

                              There are times when winning is not the priority where it might make sense to see what the kid on the hump has in the tank. I understand that, but if you are playing straight up than the highest odds for minimizing damage is the walk.
                              Once more time. That can not be proven! Baseball dogma says that’s true, but its impossible to prove something that didn’t take place. But let’s say you’re right. Then there’s absolutely no reason not to walk that “super stud” every single time. Why even take the risk? Why not then just walk ARod every time he comes up with the bases loaded? After all he’s tied as the ML leader? Heck, if he was walked every time he wouldn’t have even 1.

                              The reason is, even with a BA of .373 and an OBP of .387 from 2009 thru 2011, the odds favored pitching to him, and he’s historically been one of the best in those situations. Now if it’s a choice between ARod and Hank Aguirre who only got 33 hits in 388 ABs over 16 years, yeah, it make perfect sense. But what percentage of time is the stud on any team followed by a total dud, as opposed to another stud, although perhaps of less stature?

                              I really don’t get why its so difficult to admit that you believe its more important to try to get some kind of winning advantage strategically, than it is to give a player the opportunity to learn and grow, regardless of the outcome in this situation, but you’ll send a kid who’s obviously overmatched up to bat against King Kong, have another try to sneak a FB past the league’s leading hitter, or run on the best catcher in 6 counties. One’s called “smart” baseball, but the other’s called teaching and learning under pressure.
                              The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.

                              Comment

                              • scorekeeper
                                Scorekeeper
                                • Jan 2007
                                • 9413

                                #60
                                Originally posted by CircleChange11 View Post
                                I think that's an intentionally loaded phrase. Technically a coach that is 50.1% winning and 49.9% development, emphasizes winning over development.
                                Not at all true. The winning percentage of a team is no sure indicator of a coach’s emphasis one way or the other. What you’re saying is, every coach who has a positive WPct emphasizes winning while every coach who doesn’t emphasizes development. Now that’s a really bad argument.

                                MY preference is not always the reality of the situation.
                                Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive.

                                Well, as a former pitcher, I can say with confidence that what I wanted to do and what was perhaps best for the team weren't always the same thing. My preference was to never come out of a game or walk anyone. Some might call that confident, some might call it arrogant.
                                I completely agree, which is why I believe its 100% foolishness to ask a pitcher how he feels, or if he wants to come out.

                                Regardless, the "lesson" learned is that what's best for the team is more important than what might be best for that individual player.
                                No, what you’re saying is, what the manager thinks is best for the team is what’s most important, so that’s the lesson learned.

                                Whenever I say something like this out of frustration over an IBB, the response I usually get is "Well, maybe you should have more than one good player" ... and there's some truth to that.
                                Of course there is, and that’s what I’m trying to avoid.

                                The best way to avoid IBB's is to have a bunch of good hitters. Even then there'll still be IBBs because it improves the defense's chances of getting out of the inning without allowing the run.
                                That’s the theory, but not necessarily the reality.

                                Most times IBB's are issued, the defense is already in a tough spot, and issuing the IBB puts them in a situation where they have a greater chance gto escape with no runs allowed.
                                When I get into discussions like this, I get angry with myself for not tracking IBBs through the years, because without having done that, I have no way to test either my or anyone else’s theory to see which is the most likely. But I suspect the truth of it is somewhere between us, a lot like where bunting and stolen bases to move a runner are now, compared to where they were 50 years ago. The value of outs seems to have at least doubled, and more and more managers aren’t a willing to risk an out or to purposely put runners on base.

                                Now, IBB's just to avoid a hitter is a different scenario, but the same logic applies. You call it focusing on winning rather than player development, and I somewhat agree with that. Baseball is a balance between between winning the game and developing each player as an individual.
                                But why is that? Baseball’s a game where the object is to win. But the problem is, in order to have the best chance of winning, one teams needs to be able to execute better and more consistently than the other. So what is the proper balance between winning and development? I’d say at the ML level its 95% winning and 5% development, and at the lowest level show be exactly the opposite. But it never seems to happen that way.

                                Even at the lowest levels, most managers never seem to get much past 80% for winning and 20% for development, and the parents don’t even get that far.

                                The "best" move in terms of your 5th reliever's development might be to bring them in with the bases loaded and 1-out in a tie game just for the experience. That may not be the best move for the team as a whole.
                                That kind of thinking confuses me. You say “might be” and “may be”, but I swear, I’ve never seen anything resembling that, even in a intersquad game that I can recall, and I think I’d remember something like that.

                                As a head coach in youth baseball I have never issued a IBB or a sac bunt. As a asst coach in HS I have advised to IBB a certain batter for a more favorable matchup.
                                So now you’re saying exactly what I’m saying, other than we have different definitions for where the change in philosophy should take place. I say it should be at the professional level, but you seem to be leaning toward small field/big field, being the break.

                                Again, my preference is not always reality, and my preference isn;t always the smartest move.
                                You keep defining “SMART” as having the be short term opportunity to win.

                                ... or losing the trust of your players.
                                I don’t quite understand how that could happen unless the players have been indoctrinated that winning is what’s most important, or the manager making the decisions hasn’t conveyed what his philosophies are and the reasons he has them. It seems to be a communication issue, as always.

                                Actually, after getting eaten alive there may now be scary thoughts.

                                I've experienced the feeling of giving up a game ending walk off 3-run homer in a 4-2 game. Believe me, I'd much rather walk around being pissed off at my coach for taking me out of the game, then walking around with the feeling that I lost the game for the team.
                                Having been on both the winning and losing ends of a walk off HR, and a bases loaded walk after an IBB to improve the defense’s odds, I can tell you that the worst of them by far in my experience was the walk after an IBB. Now maybe that’s just me, but as a player and a parent, the feeling was pretty much the same. One gives the feeling of at least I tried, and the other doesn’t.

                                I'm a pretty honest guy and I am more than willing to take any heat that my actions warrant, but the way this phrased just sucks. Then again, I might be much closer to being a no good @'hole than I think I am. *grin*

                                This seems like a pretty far reach for a situation where a coach simply admitted that there are times when an IBB is a pretty smart move even if my preference isn't to IBB batters.

                                I also hate bunts, but admit that there are times when a bunt is a pretty good play ... and the toughest part is that being able to bunt in high leverage situations sometimes requires bunting in game situations where the batter might be better off swinging away.

                                If "my preferences" were reality, baseball might be scored in a totally different way.
                                I’ve tried very hard not to give the impression that someone with a differing oppinion than I have is anything more than someone with a different opinion. Obviously I’ve given you that impression and you feel insulted and personally attacked, and I sincerely apologize because that wasn’t my intent at all.
                                The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X