Just a reminder this was off southsidesox another internet message board. We're accepting it as correct. It's the same as taking a post from anyone here that includes a old quote from somebody which may or may not be accurate. I know it's the off season and we ware looking for anything to discuss, but this stuff becomes legend and pretty soon we all "know" what Manto is trying to do when in reality it's just some guy posting on an message board writing a feature post on what he believes Manto is trying to do.

 

If you plug the result into Google, there are 156 results that pop up with this quote. They didn't just make it up.

It's a false equivalency. If you take ball four you have a 100% chance of getting on base and not making an out, but if you swing (and managed to make contact) you've only got around a 30% chance of getting on base and not making an out.

But you're forgetting the fact that while there is a 100% that batter will reach base if he takes ball 4, there may be a significant drop off from him (Jayson Bay in 2006) to the next hitter. Once the next hitter comes up, he has the same s***ty odds of getting on base as any other hitter, and what are the odds the pitcher is going to walk two batters in a row?

 

You guys can espouse the OBP all you want, but the question is not just about taking a walk versus swinging away...obviously if you knew every batter had an equal chance of reaching base or driving in runs, the question is answered much more easily, but it simply is not. I'd like to see someone actually account for that.

Runs produced...oh god.

 

He's right in that you don't always look to take a walk, but come on...

See, this condescending attitude is what pisses me off about sabr advocates. It's always thumbing your nose at anything that doesn't abide strictly by some incredibly general set of data, despite the fact that there are always scenarios that the data is simply not specific enough to address.

Edited November 2, 201114 yr by iamshack

Not going to read all the posts, but...good job Manto.

 

Think of all the times when Dunn/Rios would walk with that man on third and two outs, or something equally useless when we needed a hit.

Not going to read all the posts, but...good job Manto.

 

Think of all the times when Dunn/Rios would walk with that man on third and two outs, or something equally useless when we needed a hit.

Dunn had 12 walks last year with RISP and 2 outs, out of 51 plate appearances. He hit .103 in those circumstances.

 

I'd rather have him walk.

Not going to read all the posts, but...good job Manto.

 

Think of all the times when Dunn/Rios would walk with that man on third and two outs, or something equally useless when we needed a hit.

 

Under no circumstance is a walk "useless." That's ridiculous.

Under no circumstance is a walk "useless." That's ridiculous.

 

If it doesn't lead to a run?

If it doesn't lead to a run?

 

Yes. Getting on base is never useless.

If it doesn't lead to a run?

 

Another runner on base is going to lead to a higher probability of more runs scored regardless of the situation.

 

As for Manto's quote, I think he's spot on. With a runner on 3rd and less than one out the marginal increase in the probability of runs scored due to a walk is going to be small. If the ball is an inch outside, get the f***ing run in.

Yes. Getting on base is never useless.

 

I get what Manto is trying to say. I really think people are oversimplifying it to demonize him. The object of a baseball game is to get more runs than the other team. More hits or walks doesn't win a game. It helps, but it doesn't determine it alone. Wanting a guy to concentrate on driving in runs versus the most passive attempt of just getting on base is two different mentalities. I agree I would rather have the guy trying to drive the runner in from third, versus just getting on base. I honestly believe with that mentality would benefit a team that has struggled for years to bring home runners from third with less than two outs.

I get what Manto is trying to say. I really think people are oversimplifying it to demonize him. The object of a baseball game is to get more runs than the other team. More hits or walks doesn't win a game. It helps, but it doesn't determine it alone. Wanting a guy to concentrate on driving in runs versus the most passive attempt of just getting on base is two different mentalities. I agree I would rather have the guy trying to drive the runner in from third, versus just getting on base. I honestly believe with that mentality would benefit a team that has struggled for years to bring home runners from third with less than two outs.

 

Yes, we're all in agreement that you'd rather have the guy knock in the run. Jake said a walk with RISP and two outs is useless. No. A K or a popup is useless.

Edited November 2, 201114 yr by Jordan4life

Under no circumstance is a walk "useless." That's ridiculous.

Then why did so many people complain when Ozzie called for a sac bunt in front of Konerko?

Then why did so many people complain when Ozzie called for a sac bunt in front of Konerko?

 

The person was probably a terrible bunter?

Then why did so many people complain when Ozzie called for a sac bunt in front of Konerko?

 

A team full of bad bunters outside of Pierre? Situations that didn't really call for a bunt? It's the AL? There's a lot of reasons. I don't see what this has to do with a walk ever being useless.

A team full of bad bunters outside of Pierre? Situations that didn't really call for a bunt? It's the AL? There's a lot of reasons. I don't see what this has to do with a walk ever being useless.

When it opened first base and the team walked Konerko, you know that half the board went nuts.

Yes, we're all in agreement that you'd rather have the guy knock in the run. Jake said a walk with RISP and two outs is useless. No. A K or a popup is useless.

But what we're not all in agreement on is why a most-likely walk is necessarily better than your best hitter taking a walk and bringing up your next hitter, who in all likelihood, creates a significant dropoff in expected results...

When it opened first base and the team walked Konerko, you know that half the board went nuts.

 

Well, this team has greatly underachieved for three years. And having a very bad manager was part of that.

But what we're not all in agreement on is why a most-likely walk is necessarily better than your best hitter taking a walk and bringing up your next hitter, who in all likelihood, creates a significant dropoff in expected results...

 

Really good point. It creates higher OBP, and still lessens your likely results.

But what we're not all in agreement on is why a most-likely walk is necessarily better than your best hitter taking a walk and bringing up your next hitter, who in all likelihood, creates a significant dropoff in expected results...

 

This I can agree with. You can make good arguments either way. But I'll never view a walk as bad or useless. Isn't that Dusty Baker smack?

NO SHUT UP YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF BABY WHINERS AND I'M TAKING MY BALL AND GOING HOME.

#slavburn

Really good point. It creates higher OBP, and still lessens your likely results.

It does, however, mean more pitches.

Another runner on base is going to lead to a higher probability of more runs scored regardless of the situation.

 

As for Manto's quote, I think he's spot on. With a runner on 3rd and less than one out the marginal increase in the probability of runs scored due to a walk is going to be small. If the ball is an inch outside, get the f***ing run in.

This nails it. Nothing wrong with a walk, it is pretty much always better than an UNproductive out... but you nailed what I think Manto was really trying to say here.

 

Someone needs to change the thread subtitle because its not close to true.

It does, however, mean more pitches.

 

Which if it is a team philosophy can be useful.

 

If you have one or two guys working the count and the remainder of the lineup swinging at the first close pitch they see, the walk is not effective.

 

Boston and New York are successful because they can tax a good starter and get them out with the philosophy of fighting off good pitches and taking a ton of pitches.

 

If Adam Dunn looks at a strike down the middle on 2-0 and gets a walk to get to the OPS terrible Alex Rios, this idea has failed.

 

You have to have a team of OPS focused players not just a couple sprinkled in here and there.

 

When Frank Thomas and Ray Durham were in sync it worked to perfection when Julio Franco was there to protect them. When Dan Pasqua was there to protect them, it did not work that well.

 

 

Which if it is a team philosophy can be useful.

 

If you have one or two guys working the count and the remainder of the lineup swinging at the first close pitch they see, the walk is not effective.

 

Boston and New York are successful because they can tax a good starter and get them out with the philosophy of fighting off good pitches and taking a ton of pitches.

 

If Adam Dunn looks at a strike down the middle on 2-0 and gets a walk to get to the OPS terrible Alex Rios, this idea has failed.

 

You have to have a team of OPS focused players not just a couple sprinkled in here and there.

 

When Frank Thomas and Ray Durham were in sync it worked to perfection when Julio Franco was there to protect them. When Dan Pasqua was there to protect them, it did not work that well.

 

Don't you DARE defame The Great Pasqua! He was a better version of the right handed Dan Pasqua!