PDA

View Full Version : Sox team averages and Juan Uribe's magic Wand


Bigfoot38
04-25-2008, 06:58 PM
I was just looking on ESPN.com and their baseball stats(they have really good splits to go look at)

White Sox rank in following Categories


Bases Loaded AVG: 1st in MLB at .474
1st inn- 6th inn: 29th in MLB at .240
7th inn on: 11th in MLB at .261
RISP 2 out: 17th in MLB at .218
RISP less than 2 outs: 1st in MLB .326
"Close and Late": 1st in MLB .360 (next is MIN at .308), not sure what is defined as close and late, my guess after 7th inning 3 run game.

Teams # 9 hitter (Uribe and some Hall typically): MLB 17th, AL 12th... which means 5 NL teams pitchers, except MIL they hit kendall 9, hit better than Uribe.

Boondock Saint
04-25-2008, 08:07 PM
I was just looking on ESPN.com and their baseball stats(they have really good splits to go look at)

White Sox rank in following Categories


Bases Loaded AVG: 1st in MLB at .474
1st inn- 6th inn: 29th in MLB at .240
7th inn on: 11th in MLB at .261
RISP 2 out: 17th in MLB at .218
RISP less than 2 outs: 1st in MLB .326
"Close and Late": 1st in MLB .360 (next is MIN at .308), not sure what is defined as close and late, my guess after 7th inning 3 run game.

Teams # 9 hitter (Uribe and some Hall typically): MLB 17th, AL 12th... which means 5 NL teams pitchers, except MIL they hit kendall 9, hit better than Uribe.

Those numbers are garbage. Juan Uribe gets 3+ at bats per game, every game. A NL pitcher bats 2, maybe 3 times a game, once every five days. So if a pitcher gets a hit every other game, he's hitting around .300. If Uribe gets a hit every other game, he's looking at something like a .125 average. Juan Uribe is an average #9 hitter.

Tragg
04-25-2008, 08:53 PM
Those numbers are garbage. Juan Uribe gets 3+ at bats per game, every game. A NL pitcher bats 2, maybe 3 times a game, once every five days. So if a pitcher gets a hit every other game, he's hitting around .300. If Uribe gets a hit every other game, he's looking at something like a .125 average. Juan Uribe is an average #9 hitter.
If pitchers could hit .300 they'd bat more....and the few who can, do.

The real issue is how Uribe stands in relation to other 2b; Also, many other #9 hitters are young players who could improve, so it's an investment. Uribe is no investment.

There's no reason to have a bad hitting 2b long term

Elephant
04-25-2008, 08:59 PM
More importantly we're last in the league in runs per runner. For as much as we get on base we don't drive em in. We need to start hitting when nobody is on and early in the game.

Lefty34
04-25-2008, 09:12 PM
Those numbers are garbage. Juan Uribe gets 3+ at bats per game, every game. A NL pitcher bats 2, maybe 3 times a game, once every five days. So if a pitcher gets a hit every other game, he's hitting around .300. If Uribe gets a hit every other game, he's looking at something like a .125 average. Juan Uribe is an average #9 hitter.

Surely you must be joking. Juan Uribe does get those 3+ AB's per game, and look what he does with them, through 67 AB's: .164/.222/.269 with an OPS + of 30. That is absolutely horrendous for a #9 hitter. Even if Uribe's numbers are on par for a #9 hitter (though I don't know at what stats you are looking because the average line for a #9 hitter is .246/.299/.343, and as you can see, Uribe is well blow all of those marks. And because I know voodoochile is big on sample sizes, so using Uribe's numbers from 2007, assuming his production was coming solely from the 9-hole, his line was .234/.284/.394, with the AL average 9-hitter production being .250/.302/.367, with Uribe being below in all categories except for slugging. Though Uribe's 2007 numbers are closer to those of the average 2007 AL 9-hitter, it must be noted that not all of Uribe's AB's came in that 9-hole, meaning he might have seen a completely different set of pitches based on where he was batting.

The fact still remains that Uribe is 67 AB's into the season, putting up these **** numbers, and still receiving those 3+ AB's per game you mentioned from Ozzie. Why?

Boondock Saint
04-25-2008, 10:36 PM
Okay, I think my post is being misunderstood. Either that, or I didn't get my point across well enough. I'm not defending Uribe's horrible hitting. What I was saying was that it was unfair to point out that there are five pitchers that have a higher batting average than Uribe. There's still hitters out there with a 1.000 batting average. None of them bat every day. There's probably pitchers out there with a .000 ERA. It doesn't make them Cy Young, it means they haven't pitched many innings.

I guess what I'm saying is that I KNOW that Uribe is a bad hitter. But as far as #9 hitters go, we could be doing worse.

chisoxfanatic
04-25-2008, 11:19 PM
I guess what I'm saying is that I KNOW that Uribe is a bad hitter. But as far as #9 hitters go, we could be doing worse.
Isn't that true?! Uribe is looking pretty good in the field defensively, so at least he's putting out some production on a nightly basis. He's the guy you go to for the glove, not the bat. Right now, we don't have any better options for a regular #9 hitter.

Lefty34
04-25-2008, 11:19 PM
Okay, I think my post is being misunderstood. Either that, or I didn't get my point across well enough. I'm not defending Uribe's horrible hitting. What I was saying was that it was unfair to point out that there are five pitchers that have a higher batting average than Uribe. There's still hitters out there with a 1.000 batting average. None of them bat every day. There's probably pitchers out there with a .000 ERA. It doesn't make them Cy Young, it means they haven't pitched many innings.

I guess what I'm saying is that I KNOW that Uribe is a bad hitter.

OH! Yeah, now that I look at it that way I see that I totally missed your point. Yes that is the problem with small sample sizes (though if I remember high school statistics well enough, Uribe's 67 AB's is above the acceptable threshold for repeated occurrences in a statistical test). If you cannot tell, I will jump at any chance to rag on Uribe for being slow, dumb and just generally bad at baseball, but, once again, I see your point now.

But as far as #9 hitters go, we could be doing worse.

This, however, I do not agree with. While it is true we could be doing worse for a #9 hitter, the "worse off" alternative is a guy that goes to the plate in a gurney, at least IMO.

EndemicSox
04-25-2008, 11:32 PM
The question is...how many runs does a good defensive second baseman save per season, compared to an average or bad one. 5? 10? 2? I'm thinking the answer is rather insignificant over the course of a season. From what I've seen of Alexei with the bat, I'm not quite sure he is an upgrade with the stick, as sad as that is, but he should get a shot at some point in the very near future. There is a better option available...because Juan is just about the worst starter in MLB at the moment...

As for these numbers...they don't paint a pretty picture regarding what to expect down the road...the so called "clutch" run producing hits will stop falling at such a rate...and the rest of the lineup will need to pick it up...

gosox41
04-25-2008, 11:44 PM
The question is...how many runs does a good defensive second baseman save per season, compared to an average or bad one. 5? 10? 2? I'm thinking the answer is rather insignificant over the course of a season. ...

I have no idea what the answer is but the Sox must feel it's signficant enough. If they didn't think it was, they'd give Fields on the job training and utilize his bat.

For the record, I don't think Fields should be at 2B, I'm just responding to a way to increase offense at a position where some think defense isn't important.



Bob

MarksBrokenFoot
04-26-2008, 12:16 AM
Okay, I think my post is being misunderstood. Either that, or I didn't get my point across well enough. I'm not defending Uribe's horrible hitting. What I was saying was that it was unfair to point out that there are five pitchers that have a higher batting average than Uribe. There's still hitters out there with a 1.000 batting average. None of them bat every day. There's probably pitchers out there with a .000 ERA. It doesn't make them Cy Young, it means they haven't pitched many innings.

I guess what I'm saying is that I KNOW that Uribe is a bad hitter. But as far as #9 hitters go, we could be doing worse.


The original post does not say there are 5 pitchers with better stats than Juan. It says there are 5 TEAMS whose entire pitching staff combined have better stats than Juan. Yes, you are correct, it's not hard for 1 pitcher to coast along with a decent line for some time. It is near impossible for 5 starting pitchers to pool stats better than a 2nd baseman, but here we are.

Scottiehaswheels
04-26-2008, 12:29 AM
The original post does not say there are 5 pitchers with better stats than Juan. It says there are 5 TEAMS whose entire pitching staff combined have better stats than Juan. Yes, you are correct, it's not hard for 1 pitcher to coast along with a decent line for some time. It is near impossible for 5 starting pitchers to pool stats better than a 2nd baseman, but here we are.Also the OP is forgetting that pitchers bat maybe twice in the NL so a lot of that #9 hitter stats are going to be from guys who are paid almost specifically to come off the bench and hit as well.

MISoxfan
04-26-2008, 05:36 AM
Those numbers are garbage. Juan Uribe gets 3+ at bats per game, every game. A NL pitcher bats 2, maybe 3 times a game, once every five days. So if a pitcher gets a hit every other game, he's hitting around .300. If Uribe gets a hit every other game, he's looking at something like a .125 average. Juan Uribe is an average #9 hitter.

5 teams collective pitching staff, not 5 individual pitchers. Although yes it also includes around 1 bench player at-bat per game.

LoveYourSuit
04-26-2008, 04:54 PM
Let me continue to beat the dead hoarse here.

After this anemic performance today in game 1, our BA is down to .243 which is once again dead last in the AL behind the Indians who are hitting 7 points higher at .250.

Unlike last year, we have a very good chance to compete this year because of what appears to be a very strong starting rotation we have here so far. We are getting quality starts almost every night now but our offense is letting us down big time. The bullpen although shaky the last week +, is still night and day better than last season.

I hate to jump on the "fire Walker" bandwagon, but two years back to back of this crap is starting to make think it is time to make a change there just for the sake of making a change.

Scottiehaswheels
04-26-2008, 05:01 PM
I saw something in Reifert's blog that Walker was 0-lifetime against Cerutti, now I'm not sure, but I'm guessing he was a soft tossing lefty.

Lip Man 1
04-26-2008, 05:03 PM
Love:

Let me play 'devil's advocate' here. Not saying you're wrong but I think the problem is more complex.

Greg Walker may very well be a big part of it but what if Walker is providing instruction to the hitters and they are 'ignoring' him for lack of a better word.

How much responsibility goes to the individual hitters and then overriding all, how much of this is a result of perhaps the unspoken organizational philosophy?

By that I mean the "home run or nothing" approach that the Sox have had since the start of this decade, with the exception of a more balanced attack in 2005.

I mean actions speak louder then words right? Ozzie this off season stated in the newspapers he was tired of solo home runs, tired of strikeouts and that he wanted to go back to "Ozzie-Ball."

What happened?

According to a story by Van Dyke in the Tribune yesterday, the numbers say the Sox are farther away from the more subtle "Ozzie-Ball" approach to baseball then at any time since Guillen took over as manager in 2004.

It's not in my opinion just Walker, he's a part of it, but in my opinion there are larger issues at work here.

And they can't be changed overnight even if Kenny tomorrow decided to make a major philosophical change in the Sox approach.

And yes John Cerutti was left handed and a breaking ball, off speed pitcher.

Lip

turners56
04-26-2008, 05:05 PM
Let me continue to beat the dead hoarse here.

After this anemic performance today in game 1, our BA is down to .243 which is once again dead last in the AL behind the Indians who are hitting 7 points higher at .250.

Unlike last year, we have a very good chance to compete this year because of what appears to be a very strong starting rotation we have here so far. We are getting quality starts almost every night now but our offense is letting us down big time. The bullpen although shaky the last week +, is still night and day better than last season.

I hate to jump on the "fire Walker" bandwagon, but two years back to back of this crap is starting to make think it is time to make a change there just for the sake of making a change.

Here's my views on the problems as to why this offense isn't producing the way it was before.

1. Nick Swisher isn't walking anymore. Nick is in a big slump when it comes to the average, I think he's trying too hard to get that up right now instead of concentrating on getting on base. He's the table setter, he has to be there for this team to play well.
2. A.J. and Crede are cooling down. After their amazing starts, both of them seem to be coming back to earth.
3. Juan Uribe, enough said.
4. Jermaine Dye will be out of the lineup for the majority of this series, he's a vital part of the middle part of this order, he's a huge loss for a short stint.
5. Konerko still isn't hitting. He's improving, but he's still not hitting that well.
6. Orlando Cabrera, along with Swisher, are getting on base less.

Those 1-0 leads we were used to early in the season aren't happening anymore. It used to be where Swisher would get on, Cabrera would advance him, and someone in the middle of the order (most likely Dye) would knock him in. Now, the first inning seems to be just empty without Nick getting on base more often. I think that has a lot to do with the recent batting slump this team is in.

LoveYourSuit
04-26-2008, 05:14 PM
Love:

Let me play 'devil's advocate' here. Not saying you're wrong but I think the problem is more complex.

Greg Walker may very well be a big part of it but what if Walker is providing instruction to the hitters and they are 'ignoring' him for lack of a better word.

How much responsibility goes to the individual hitters and then overriding all, how much of this is a result of perhaps the unspoken organizational philosophy?

By that I mean the "home run or nothing" approach that the Sox have had since the start of this decade, with the exception of a more balanced attack in 2005.

I mean actions speak louder then words right? Ozzie this off season stated in the newspapers he was tired of solo home runs, tired of strikeouts and that he wanted to go back to "Ozzie-Ball."

What happened?

According to a story by Van Dyke in the Tribune yesterday, the numbers say the Sox are farther away from the more subtle "Ozzie-Ball" approach to baseball then at any time since Guillen took over as manager in 2004.

It's not in my opinion just Walker, he's a part of it, but in my opinion there are larger issues at work here.

And they can't be changed overnight even if Kenny tomorrow decided to make a major philosophical change in the Sox approach.

And yes John Cerutti was left handed and a breaking ball, off speed pitcher.

Lip

Agree Lip.


But if the team is going out there ignoring what Walker is preaching, then they have no respect for him and the guy needs be shown the door.

Firing Walker might send a shockwave in that clubhouse, especially those that have been here the longest and continue to suck (Uribe).

Frater Perdurabo
04-26-2008, 09:31 PM
I think Lip is right.

I think the organization's hitting philosophy sucks, from promoting young hitters solely on the basis of their ability to hit for power to the constant swinging for the home run at the MLB level.

But Walker still is part of it. Barring a major turnaround, I think Walker should be fired.

voodoochile
04-26-2008, 11:04 PM
I think Lip is right.

I think the organization's hitting philosophy sucks, from promoting young hitters solely on the basis of their ability to hit for power to the constant swinging for the home run at the MLB level.

But Walker still is part of it. Barring a major turnaround, I think Walker should be fired.

Some stats:

NAME GP (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=chw&cat=gamesPlayed&season=2008&split=0&seasonType=2&type=reg) AB (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=chw&cat=atBats&season=2008&split=0&seasonType=2&type=reg) R (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=chw&cat=runs&season=2008&split=0&seasonType=2&type=reg) H (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=chw&cat=hits&season=2008&split=0&seasonType=2&type=reg) 2B (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=chw&cat=doubles&season=2008&split=0&seasonType=2&type=reg) 3B (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=chw&cat=triples&season=2008&split=0&seasonType=2&type=reg) HR (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=chw&cat=homeRuns&season=2008&split=0&seasonType=2&type=reg) TB (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=chw&cat=totalBases&season=2008&split=0&seasonType=2&type=reg) RBI (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=chw&cat=RBIs&season=2008&split=0&seasonType=2&type=reg) BB (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=chw&cat=walks&season=2008&split=0&seasonType=2&type=reg) SO (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=chw&cat=strikeouts&season=2008&split=0&seasonType=2&type=reg) SB (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=chw&cat=stolenBases&season=2008&split=0&seasonType=2&type=reg) CS (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=chw&cat=caughtStealing&season=2008&split=0&seasonType=2&type=reg) BA (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=chw&cat=avg&order=false&season=2008&split=0&seasonType=2&type=reg) OBP (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=chw&cat=onBasePct&season=2008&split=0&seasonType=2&type=reg) SLG (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=chw&cat=slugAvg&season=2008&split=0&seasonType=2&type=reg) OPS (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=chw&cat=OPS&season=2008&split=0&seasonType=2&type=reg)
Nick (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=5937)Swisher (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=5937)23 74 16 16 1 0 2 23 5 19 16 0 2 .216 .379 .311 .690
O. Cabrera (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=3739)23 86 15 21 2 0 1 26 5 11 10 3 0 .244 .337 .302 .639
Jim Thome (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=2604)22 75 15 18 4 0 6 40 18 14 20 0 0 .240 .367 .533 .900
Paul Konerko (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=3747)22 74 11 15 3 0 3 27 16 11 16 0 0 .203 .322 .365 .687Combined they are:

AB 309 R 57 H 70 2B 10 HR 11 TB 110 RBI 44 BB 55 BA .227 OBP .343 SLG .356 OPS .699

I think that's before tonight's game, but still, how many teams are going to be consistently offensively productive with their top 4 hitters having that combined line.

When those folks break into stride, this team is going to hit a ton. If they never do, we're ****ed anyway...

Lip Man 1
04-26-2008, 11:17 PM
Voodoo:

Like with Love you make a great point but I just think it's prudent to 'hedge your bets' and have other offensive options besides just trying or hoping to hit a three run home run.

Sure if all four of those guys hit .230 the Sox are dead but what if they each hit .250? Having some speed, having some guys at the bottom of the order who can move runners along and do some small things may still make the four guys hitting .250 more productive wouldn't you say? At least enough to grind out a winning season.

Right now there's no option it seems for the Sox. Live by the home run, die by the lack of home runs with guys on base. There has to be a middle ground isn't there?

Lip

TheVulture
04-27-2008, 02:28 AM
Love:

Let me play 'devil's advocate' here. Not saying you're wrong but I think the problem is more complex.

Greg Walker may very well be a big part of it but what if Walker is providing instruction to the hitters and they are 'ignoring' him for lack of a better word.

How much responsibility goes to the individual hitters and then overriding all, how much of this is a result of perhaps the unspoken organizational philosophy?


What if you work as a manager in an office and your team performs poorly? I don't think the boss would except the notion that you're telling your workers the right things to do, but they just don't listen to you. He'd probably say I'll find someone they will listen to then.

russ99
04-27-2008, 07:00 AM
I'd think a lot of that is that we have Crede and Uribe (and lesser with Anderson and Hall) with the team this year, and since we didn't trade those guys and pick up a decent hitting replacement at 2B (not sold on Richar yet either) backup catcher and also a decent hitting OF sub in the offseason, some of those results are to be expected. Something can also be said for Uribe's horrible stats being balanced out by Joe's especially good numbers

I'm worried that it may get worse with Dye out and possibly less effective for a while while recovering. Groin injuries can be tricky, as we all know. Looks to me Swisher's trying to do too much. Ozzie needs to give him a day off and let him refocus, but we can't likely do that with JD out.

Also, Thome and Konerko are really dropping the ball. I'm still waiting for the quoted "step up" we're expecting from those guys this season, but I haven't seen it yet, other than a few Thome HRs. When are Paulie's 10/5 rights vested? We may see a deal before then yet...

Also, I'd expect Kenny's patience with Walker would be a bit less than last season, so if this continues for another month, he may get the axe. Maybe it's a simple as warmer weather getting the bats going.

roadrunner
04-27-2008, 11:17 AM
At least Uribe's playing strong D. The ability to turn the DP is extremely important (ozuna failed to turn an easy one last night for example) and having him at second gives us really strong infield D.

Far more worrisome to me is Konerko's lack of production out of the cleanup spot. (although his RBI total his admittedly okay)

Frater Perdurabo
04-27-2008, 03:11 PM
Far more worrisome to me is Konerko's lack of production out of the cleanup spot. (although his RBI total his admittedly okay)

Can you imagine what his RBI total would be if he actually was hitting at his career average? :o:

Craig Grebeck
04-27-2008, 03:22 PM
The Chicago White Sox rank 7th in runs scored in MLB.

Resume bitching about the lack of sac bunts, hit and runs, and speed.

LoveYourSuit
04-27-2008, 03:31 PM
The Chicago White Sox rank 7th in runs scored in MLB.

Resume bitching about the lack of sac bunts, hit and runs, and speed.


Nice to pick up the paper today to read those stats. :rolleyes:

Just last week they were ranked 2nd in MLB in runs just behind the D-Backs.

The "Well of good luck" is drying up. Those 3 run HRs are no longer coming in bunches as they were.

So the "bitching" about having the worst BA in the AL is pretty legit.

Craig Grebeck
04-27-2008, 03:34 PM
Nice to pick up the paper today to read those stats. :rolleyes:

Just last week they were ranked 2nd in MLB in runs just behind the D-Backs.

The "Well of good luck" is drying up. Those 3 run HRs are no longer coming in bunches as they were.

So the "bitching" about having the worst BA in the AL is pretty legit.
What do you want them to do? What, in your eyes, would improve this lineup?

Some guys are slumping. I'd prefer to call it a well of bad luck.

Bitching about BA is pretty much useless at all times - as BA is an inferior statistic.

LoveYourSuit
04-27-2008, 03:39 PM
What do you want them to do? What, in your eyes, would improve this lineup?

Some guys are slumping. I'd prefer to call it a well of bad luck.

Bitching about BA is pretty much useless at all times - as BA is an inferior statistic.


What I want them to do is get on a different approach at the plate and make adjustments. Start pushing the ball to Right Center.

That's the job of the hitting coach.

Batting Average is not an inferior statistic when it starts affecting your OBP%.... or OBP% is free falling with the the BAs coming down.

Swisher is great example of that.

Craig Grebeck
04-27-2008, 03:41 PM
What I want them to do is get on a different approach at the plate and make adjustments. Start pushing the ball to Right Center.

That's the job of the hitting coach.

Batting Average is not an inferior statistic when it starts affecting your OBP%.... or OBP% is free falling with the the BAs coming down.

Swisher is great example of that.
Thank you. I agree wholeheartedly -- I just don't buy into the opinion that the reason they are struggling is a lack of speed or "home run or nothing" bull****.

LoveYourSuit
04-27-2008, 03:45 PM
Thank you. I agree wholeheartedly -- I just don't buy into the opinion that the reason they are struggling is a lack of speed or "home run or nothing" bull****.


HRs are not a bad thing but are much better when guys are on base. We are not getting on base as much as we were earlier in the year. Even guys who walk a ton like Thome, Swish, Konerko.....all of them are pressing because of their poor batting averages. Those guys are having very bad ABs the last 2 weeks.

Swisher looks like is breaking out a bit today with some line shots he's hit to the opposite side, Maybe Paulie and Thome can follow the same approach.

voodoochile
04-27-2008, 04:12 PM
HRs are not a bad thing but are much better when guys are on base. We are not getting on base as much as we were earlier in the year. Even guys who walk a ton like Thome, Swish, Konerko.....all of them are pressing because of their poor batting averages. Those guys are having very bad ABs the last 2 weeks.

Swisher looks like is breaking out a bit today with some line shots he's hit to the opposite side, Maybe Paulie and Thome can follow the same approach.

I guess that analysis seems silly to me. I mean you say what a great job Swish is doing though he's 1/4 and then suggest PK learn to do likewise when he's 2/2 with 2 HR. I know they are solo shots, but come on, if you are going to analyze, at least have it make sense.

LoveYourSuit
04-27-2008, 04:26 PM
I guess that analysis seems silly to me. I mean you say what a great job Swish is doing though he's 1/4 and then suggest PK learn to do likewise when he's 2/2 with 2 HR. I know they are solo shots, but come on, if you are going to analyze, at least have it make sense.


not to get technical but my post was before PK's 2nd HR.

Until PK starts raking the ball with more consistenacy on a daily basis, he is still slumping to me. He will have one good day like today and struggle the next 3.

Today could be the day he turns it around, we will see.

voodoochile
04-27-2008, 04:27 PM
not to get technical but my post was before PK's 2nd HR.

Until PK starts raking the ball with more consistenacy on a daily basis, he is still slumping to me. He will have one good day like today and struggle the next 3.

Today could be the day he turns it around, we will see.

His average has been steadily rising the last week. Including today, he's up to .218.

roadrunner
04-27-2008, 04:34 PM
Can you imagine what his RBI total would be if he actually was hitting at his career average? :o:

after today i can - and i really like what i see - YES!

Lip Man 1
04-27-2008, 10:00 PM
Craig:

I guess you won't like this then. Ozzie has been quoted now as saying this is a slow team but he's going to start pushing guys to start running and start stealing bases (those who can). The three they swiped this afternoon is an indication of things to come.

I LOVE IT.

Sitting back waiting and hoping someone hits a three run blast hasn't won the Sox dog squat in this decade.

When they had balance in 05 they won the whole damn thing.

That's the only "stat" you need to know partner.

Start dealing with it.

"It's time" to start putting pressure on the opposition again. Force them into wild throws, force them into stupid mistakes, force the opposing pitchers to start throwing more fastballs which the Sox hammer...it's the breaking ball, slow stuff that makes them look useless.

How in the world is that a bad thing?

Lip

Oldfellah
04-27-2008, 11:18 PM
I'd have to agree with your assessment Lip. We need to quit waiting for the long ball and start putting the squeeze in the opposing players heads. Make things happen!! I have full faith that Oz will get things in order sooner, rather than later!

Craig Grebeck
04-27-2008, 11:19 PM
Craig:

I guess you won't like this then. Ozzie has been quoted now as saying this is a slow team but he's going to start pushing guys to start running and start stealing bases (those who can). The three they swiped this afternoon is an indication of things to come.

I LOVE IT.

Sitting back waiting and hoping someone hits a three run blast hasn't won the Sox dog squat in this decade.

When they had balance in 05 they won the whole damn thing.

That's the only "stat" you need to know partner.

Start dealing with it.

"It's time" to start putting pressure on the opposition again. Force them into wild throws, force them into stupid mistakes, force the opposing pitchers to start throwing more fastballs which the Sox hammer...it's the breaking ball, slow stuff that makes them look useless.

How in the world is that a bad thing?

Lip
I'd say the reason they ran a little more this afternoon is that Ramon Hernandez is a joke defensively. Pushing this team to steal bases is more of a joke though -- as this is no doubt the most talented team offensively in years.

The snipe about 2005 is foolish. Do you really think the 2004 and 2006 teams wouldn't have won with the 2005 rotation and bullpen? We won in spite of that horrible offense, not because of it. Do you realize Carl Everett was our 3 hitter for a lot of the season? That offense was not balanced -- it lacked talent. It sucked.

Forcing the defense is way too general an idea. Just get on base -- that causes more than enough of this so called "pressure." As long as Ozzie just writes the lineup card, they will score a lot.

Tragg
04-28-2008, 12:55 AM
When they had balance in 05 they won the whole damn thing.

That's the only "stat" you need to know partner.

Start dealing with it.

"It's time" to start putting pressure on the opposition again. Force them into wild throws, force them into stupid mistakes, force the opposing pitchers to start throwing more fastballs which the Sox hammer...it's the breaking ball, slow stuff that makes them look useless.

How in the world is that a bad thing?

Lip
Last year, the hacking approach (with plenty of sacrifice bunts) yielded the FEWEST runs in baseball. This year, we are near the top in runs scored....and we're complaining????? And even considering reverting to the 2007 approach????? It would be even crazier if it involves bringing Jerry Owens up.


Times change. The 2005 team stole bases (podsednik did anyway). It was not particularly balanced - but 4 runs wins a lot of games when the pitching staff is lock-down.
This team takes walks and pressures teams with lots of baserunners. The walking needs to continue.
When we don't score it's because no one is getting on base, something bunting and stealing wouldn't cure.
Sure I'd like more speed - to get around the bases.
But how can we not be happy with this offense?

Lefty34
04-28-2008, 01:23 AM
Craig:

I guess you won't like this then. Ozzie has been quoted now as saying this is a slow team but he's going to start pushing guys to start running and start stealing bases (those who can). The three they swiped this afternoon is an indication of things to come.

I LOVE IT.

Sitting back waiting and hoping someone hits a three run blast hasn't won the Sox dog squat in this decade.

When they had balance in 05 they won the whole damn thing.

That's the only "stat" you need to know partner.

Start dealing with it.

"It's time" to start putting pressure on the opposition again. Force them into wild throws, force them into stupid mistakes, force the opposing pitchers to start throwing more fastballs which the Sox hammer...it's the breaking ball, slow stuff that makes them look useless.

How in the world is that a bad thing?

Lip

Your "stat" of "balance" is ambiguous and vague. However, I know what you mean when you are talking about balance. A team that goes up only to hit the HR is going to be waiting for awhile, however a team that is looking to sac bunt all the time isn't going to score a whole lot either.

Also, I was always told in travel baseball that if you have to choose between hitting a fly ball and a grounder, choose the latter, because the defense has to "catch-throw-catch" while with the former the defense need only "catch". However that usually only works in Little League, and with the level at which the professionals play at, hoping for errant throws and the like is going to leave you waiting an equally long while.

I'd have to agree with your assessment Lip. We need to quit waiting for the long ball and start putting the squeeze in the opposing players heads. Make things happen!! I have full faith that Oz will get things in order sooner, rather than later!

Since the meaning of "squeeze" is self-explanatory, I am assuming that what you mean by "make things happen" is that the Sox need to bunt and steal bases more. Let me say that this whole idea of sac bunting and stealing is not a smart move to make. First of all, you are gambling with an out, those things you only get 3 of per inning, and if one is lost, your chances of scoring a run go down substantially.

In fact, when you look at the numbers, a "bad" walk to lead off the inning gives you an expected outcome of 0.878 runs. Now, the common baseball mantra of "manufacturing" runs would be to bunt the runner over to second, however the numbers (which are the same for all teams, in almost all situations) show that successfully bunting the man to second and giving up an out leaves you with an expected outcome of .662 runs.

My question is, why are so many people fascinated with giving up outs? I completely understand that there are situations in which the numbers can be thrown out the window (for instance, if the guy at the plate with a runner on is Juan Uribe batting .190 and the guy after him is batting .260 with an OBP of .390), but on the whole--especially in the beginning of the season--why would you disregard the numbers? Why do people consistently gamble on being the outliers when putting your money (or outs) on being within the bell-curve yields the same result (a run) and is more common?

Frater Perdurabo
04-28-2008, 07:15 AM
How many times does this have to be repeated?

"Balance" means that sometimes - including lots of times in June, July and August 2005, the Sox scored runs on the home run. It also means, though, that when the home runs were not happening, for whatever reason (maybe the bats were slumping, like they were in April and early May 2005), or the opposing pitcher was dealing, they also could manufacture runs. Since I'm sure we all saw this game, remember that this is how they won Game 4 of the World Series!

Lip and I and others are not calling for the Sox to give up outs just to give up outs! We just want the Sox to have the ability to manufacture runs when they need to do so!

Lip Man 1
04-28-2008, 01:11 PM
Frater:

Agreed. How many times do I have to keep writing that in 05 the Sox were in the top quarter of the A.L. in home runs, stolen bases, sacrifice bunts, infield hits and sacrifice flys?

:?:

Lip

Craig Grebeck
04-28-2008, 01:42 PM
Frater:

Agreed. How many times do I have to keep writing that in 05 the Sox were in the top quarter of the A.L. in home runs, stolen bases, sacrifice bunts, infield hits and sacrifice flys?

:?:

Lip
How many times do people have to point out that the offense was not part of the equation that won it in 2005?

That pitching staff wins it every year 2004-2006.

Lefty34
04-28-2008, 02:33 PM
How many times does this have to be repeated?

Lip and I and others are not calling for the Sox to give up outs just to give up outs! We just want the Sox to have the ability to manufacture runs when they need to do so!

You need to repeat this phrase until the uselessness of it becomes apparent to you. Moving a runner over to second with a sac bunt actually reduces your chances of scoring (or "manufacturing", as you call it) a run (from .872 to .660). A sacrifice that moves a runner from second to third (with no one out) also reduces your chances of getting that "manufactured" run (from 1.14 to 1.03). IMO, sacrifices are thought of as the way teams "make things happen" and "manufacture runs" when if you really look at the numbers you will see that those sacrifices reduce your chance of scoring.

Stealing a base, on the other hand, does not deserve all the bad rep that Baseball Prospectus and Billy Beane gives it. Moving a runner from first to second with one out increases your chances of scoring from .527 to .660. However, you are still gambling with an out, and if that runner gets caught (the Sox will be more likely to get caught seeing as how they are a slower team overall), you are left with no one on and two outs, with an expected run count of .103.

I don't care what the Sox did offensively that you think solely won them the WS in 2005. The Sox won the WS primarily because of unbelievable starting pitching and bullpen work, and you would be hard-pressed to find anyone that does not think that.

To me, this notion of "manufacturing runs" means next to nothing in terms of accomplishing what people want the team to accomplish, and the numbers show that. Besides, isn't getting a guy on-base then knocking him in with an extra-base hit or HR "making something happen"? Or is that term reserved for cliched baseball moves that take you out of the very situation you are trying to produce?

soxinem1
04-28-2008, 03:27 PM
Those numbers are garbage. Juan Uribe gets 3+ at bats per game, every game. A NL pitcher bats 2, maybe 3 times a game, once every five days. So if a pitcher gets a hit every other game, he's hitting around .300. If Uribe gets a hit every other game, he's looking at something like a .125 average. Juan Uribe is an average #9 hitter.

Wow, that is about as good as an OJ defense for a guy doing nothing as I've heard around here in a LONG time!:smile:

Lefty34
04-28-2008, 07:44 PM
How many times do people have to point out that the offense was not part of the equation that won it in 2005?

That pitching staff wins it every year 2004-2006.


Exactly, people are so quick to tell you that the "offense did it this way in 05 and that's why we won it" but seem to totally forget about the dominant role starting pitching played.

Lip Man 1
04-28-2008, 08:48 PM
Lefty:

Repeat after me since apparently you don't get it.

IT'S CALLED BALANCE. An ability to find ways to win games OTHER then hitting a three run home run.

NO ONE (certainly not me) is negating or debating the role that pitching had in 05 HOWEVER the Sox didn't win all those one run games that year on home runs did they?

And like it or not, you can NOT dismiss the figures (since you appear to be a big stat guy) of where the Sox finished in bunts, infield hits, stolen bases and so forth.

Question for you and Grebeck the two biggest proponents of "swing at everything, hope to hit it 800 feet."

What the hell happens when you DON'T hit home runs? What's the fall-back option?

Please explain that one to me...you saw last season didn't you?

(Personally I'm still trying to forget it but that's just me.)

And further what happened in 2000 in the playoffs when the "home run hitters" stopped? or 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006?

Don't those seasons tell you people ANYTHING?

Are you trying to convince me that it was all the pitching staffs faults in those seasons?

Sorry...I can't buy that one.

Lip

Lefty34
04-28-2008, 09:08 PM
Lefty:

Repeat after me since apparently you don't get it.

IT'S CALLED BALANCE. An ability to find ways to win games OTHER then hitting a three run home run.

NO ONE (certainly not me) is negating or debating the role that pitching had in 05 HOWEVER the Sox didn't win all those one run games that year on home runs did they?

And like it or not, you can NOT dismiss the figures (since you appear to be a big stat guy) of where the Sox finished in bunts, infield hits, stolen bases and so forth.

Question for you and Grebeck the two biggest proponents of "swing at everything, hope to hit it 800 feet."

What the hell happens when you DON'T hit home runs? What's the fall-back option?

Please explain that one to me...you saw last season didn't you?

(Personally I'm still trying to forget it but that's just me.)

And further what happened in 2000 in the playoffs when the "home run hitters" stopped? or 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006?

Don't those seasons tell you people ANYTHING?

Are you trying to convince me that it was all the pitching staffs faults in those seasons?

Sorry...I can't buy that one.

Lip

Lip:

Repeat with me, because apparently you like to put words into my mouth. "Swing at everything and hope to hit it 800 feet"? First of all, an 800 ft HR would certainly awesome to behold, but still be only worth, at most, four runs. Also, apparently you are thick-skulled and only have the ability to recall the last one or two sentences of a post: I do not disagree that waiting to hit a HR can hurt the team, and that is not what I am talking about. I urge you now to go back and read and understand (or try to) my posts and what I was saying, and just for you I will hit the high points right here: the whole concept of "manufacturing runs" is BS and, when looking at the "big picture" numbers from around the league and throughout history, sacrifices and lost gambles with outs and runners on REDUCES YOUR CHANCES TO SCORE A RUN.

I guess I did not make it clear enough for you that, IMO, the best way to score runs and to "make things happen" is to get guys on base and let singles or extra-base hits take care of business, rather than giving up an out to move a runner over into a situation where you are less likely to be able to score a run. You can moan all you want about the Sox hitting "too many" HR's, but what you cannot deny are the numbers showing that a runner on second with one out is less likely to result in a run than a runner on first with no one out. You want to know a way to score without hitting a home run? Simple: get guys on base and let the chips fall where they may. You most certainly won't win every game this way, nor will you score a run every time you get someone on base, but, with the more chances you give your offense, the more likely they are to conform to the statistical norm of that situation, and those runs will eventually start scoring and those games being won. If you can honestly look those situational numbers in the face and still want to bunt and sacrifice a man over, then you have turned the adventure of scoring a run into a fool's errand.

Lip Man 1
04-28-2008, 09:20 PM
Lefty:

If I misunderstood you I apologize.

Now for the follow up. The problem with your comments is that if as a team you are only hitting .240 or .250 you're by the nature of those numbers NOT going to be able to string together enough hits NOR get enough guys on base consistently to knock in runs.

If you get a bunch of guys ALL hitting. 280 - .290 - .310 then I agree with you 100%.

The White Sox though since July of 2006 have had trouble hitting the baseball consistently. Therefore in my opinion you have to work in other things to help you win games.

The O's didn't throw the ball around all over the field Sunday because they felt like it. They did it because the Sox were running the bases with abandon putting pressure on them and they screwed up.

That's another option in your gun if you can't hit a home run or string together four hits in a row (or five or six) in order to put up some crooked numbers isn't it?

Lip

Lefty34
04-28-2008, 09:43 PM
And like it or not, you can NOT dismiss the figures (since you appear to be a big stat guy) of where the Sox finished in bunts, infield hits, stolen bases and so forth.



No I cannot deny those figures, and if you would have actually read my last post (which, after reading your post over and over, I'm becoming convinced that you didn't) you would have seen that I said I don't understand the bad rep that SB's get by the stat guys in the game. Though I thought it would be a bad move for this year's Sox given they are a slower team than in '05, I still tried to give the SB it's due credit. So, Lip, please read my posts before you start putting words into my mouth.

EDIT: I posted this before reading Lip's new post, so please refer to the one below.

And further what happened in 2000 in the playoffs when the "home run hitters" stopped? or 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006?

Don't those seasons tell you people ANYTHING?

Are you trying to convince me that it was all the pitching staffs faults in those seasons?Again with the you putting words in my mouth, Jesus. No, I am not saying that it is the fault of the pitching staff that the Sox started to lose when the HR's "stopped", and if you were to have read all of my posts (I am now thoroughly convinced you have not), you would not have found anything to support your claim. I do not blame the pitching for anything except 2007 (except Joese Contreras, he is eternally blamed for everything). For those years you listed, I can say nothing other than the Sox simply got beat by better opponents; their OBP and SLG with RISP for all those years were always towards the top of the league, and as a stats guy you always come back to the fact that this is a game where you are considered an amazing asset if you fail 7 out of 10 times. Thus, those years (to FedEx227: I'm so sorry for this cliche, but it must be used) "were not the Sox years", and so be it. Lip, I cannot possibly fathom how you can look at the numbers that come from the game played on the field (the ones that show sacrificing and the like generally detracts from your overall ability to score a run) and can still dislike those numbers.

Look, I know computers can be big, scary machines that spit out numbers that you don't like, and those numbers can contradict with traditional, out-dated baseball reasoning, making them all the more scary an evil. I just want you to know that there is a place online (http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/9467/cats0611oz9fm5.jpg) where anyone can go to discuss how sacrificing a runner over can actually help the team win.

Lefty34
04-28-2008, 09:51 PM
Lefty:

If I misunderstood you I apologize.

Now for the follow up. The problem with your comments is that if as a team you are only hitting .240 or .250 you're by the nature of those numbers NOT going to be able to string together enough hits NOR get enough guys on base consistently to knock in runs.

If you get a bunch of guys ALL hitting. 280 - .290 - .310 then I agree with you 100%.

The White Sox though since July of 2006 have had trouble hitting the baseball consistently. Therefore in my opinion you have to work in other things to help you win games.

The O's didn't throw the ball around all over the field Sunday because they felt like it. They did it because the Sox were running the bases with abandon putting pressure on them and they screwed up.

That's another option in your gun if you can't hit a home run or string together four hits in a row (or five or six) in order to put up some crooked numbers isn't it?

Lip

Crap. Disregard my last post, then, I was just trying to be funny more than anything.

Yes, I do believe that sacrificing has some (limited) value on the diamond. I still believe that if you are able to correctly choose the "who" and the "when" of your stolen bases, you can bypass that need (I do not deny this need) to string along hits and the need to sacrifice runners over, as I believe that you will come out on top more often than not in the long run.

I do not agree with the people at Baseball Prospectus and Billy Beane that the SB (and to some extent, the sacrifice) are worthless, it is just my opinion though that, especially early in the season, you are better off letting the numbers play out. When "crunch time" comes, however, I have no problem with SB's becoming a more central part of the Sox game, as long as those SB attempts are chosen wisely.

Frater Perdurabo
04-28-2008, 09:54 PM
Let's go back to the 2005 Sox. Here's the hypothetical situation:

Game tied. Bottom of the eighth, or top or bottom of the ninth. No outs. #9 hitter Willie Harris draws a walk.

Pods is at the plate. Do you have him swing for the fences? Of course not. That would be stupid.

But Pods is a good bunter and takes pitches.

So, in this situation, he takes pitches to let Harris steal second. Then Pods bunts him over to third. One out, runner on third, Iguchi at the plate.

Now, what do you do?

Plenty of options are better than swinging for the homer. Ground ball to the right side of the infield scores the run. Sac fly scores the run. Either option is much more "high percentage" than trying for a base hit or home run. You only need one run, and you don't need a hit to do it.

Now you've got the run, got the lead, and either have the win or can bring in Jenks to close the game.

This is where having the ability to manufacture a run pays off! That's why it's called "situational hitting."

When the situation calls for it, you want your team to be able to do this!

That's all Lip and I want to see - the ability to manufacture a run when it is needed!

Lefty34
04-28-2008, 11:33 PM
Let's go back to the 2005 Sox. Here's the hypothetical situation:

Game tied. Bottom of the eighth, or top or bottom of the ninth. No outs. #9 hitter Willie Harris draws a walk.


This situation would not be commonplace, seeing as how Harris only got 13 walks in 121 AB's in 2005. Meaning that if this situation was to take place during the regular season, the outcome of this one game is most likely not going to change the outcome of the season for either team, and if it is dependent on the outcome of a season or post-season, this situation would be so are as to render any attempt to build a team around preparing for this situation moronic, but OK, let's see what ya' got.

Pods is at the plate. Do you have him swing for the fences? Of course not. That would be stupid.

Duh, he doesn't hit HR's, I would never tell Pods to "swing for the fences".

So, in this situation, he takes pitches to let Harris steal second. Then Pods bunts him over to third. One out, runner on third, Iguchi at the plate.

Now, what do you do?


Stop it right there, so you are assuming that a) Harris was able to swipe the bag (he has been caught 26 times and made it 72 lifetime) and b) that Pods was able to get the bunt down past the defenders (who would have surely been brought in) in this pressure situation? Who is the pitcher that Harris stole off of? Who was the catcher? Did this arbitrary team bring in a lefty to face Pods? Your situation, while interesting, lacks any real substance, and is thus arbitrary and meaningless, and has no bearing on the decision of whether to "manufacture" runs or let your offense "produce" them.


Plenty of options are better than swinging for the homer. Ground ball to the right side of the infield scores the run. Sac fly scores the run.

Again: Duh, you only need one run to tie. But if the game is as close as you make it out to be, the infield would, again, most certainly be brought in to protect against the ground ball, and who is to say Iguchi (I'm assuming he is your fictional #2 hitter) can execute the sac fly? Did Team Arbitrary bring in a ground ball pitcher to face Iguchi with the drawn in infield (Iguchi only batted .249 with an OBP of .318 against ground ball/sinker ball pitchers)? Iguchi is batted .318 in Close and Late situations in 2005, so why would you want to take the bat out of his hands this late in the game, telling him to try to hit a fly ball that he could just as easily pop up? Since you can automatically assume that what you want to happen happens flawlessly, I can do the same: Iguchi, trying to hit your sac fly, ends up striking out or popping up to the infield, leaving Harris on second with 2 outs. Then, Carl Everett comes to the bat, batting .302 with RISP, 2 outs, trying to score the run. 7 out of 10 times you lose that game or go to extras.

Either option is much more "high percentage" than trying for a base hit or home run. You only need one run, and you don't need a hit to do it.

Again, not necessarily. You are wrongly assuming that any attempt to steal, bunt and/or hit a sac fly or grounder is automatically going to succeed. If Harris is caught stealing by Team Arbitrary's catcher, you're screwed. If Pods pushes the bunt and Harris gets cut down at 3rd: also screwed. If Iguchi bounces a ball to the pulled in 3B with Harris on 3rd (which assumes that all of the previous plays have to go just right), there is a play at the plate that you will most likely lose.

Now you've got the run, got the lead, and either have the win or can bring in Jenks to close the game.

This is where having the ability to manufacture a run pays off! That's why it's called "situational hitting."

When the situation calls for it, you want your team to be able to do this!


Dude, seriously, just because it's called "situational hitting" doesn't mean it will happen flawlessly all the time. There were a lot of things in your little scenario here that needed to go right in order for you to justify "making things happen", and they were all things that could just as easily be screwed up.

I never said that the HR will be the answer to all the Sox run woes, but I don't think that the things in your scenario are necessary, either. Again, either this scenario happens in the regular season (meaning the outcome won't be as crucial) or it happens very late in the season against a close divisional opponent or in the post-season, meaning that it is so uncommon that building at team to do this would not necessarily get you to the post season in the first place.

Frater Perdurabo
04-29-2008, 07:29 AM
Edited for brevity.

Of course things have to go right in any situation!

As with anything, sometimes you have to "play the odds."

My only point is that sometimes, there are situations where all you need is one run to win, and in those cases you might have more success playing for just one run. And in those cases, you want your team to be able to do so.

Of course there are other situations. If Paulie comes up, and has owned a particular pitcher over his career, no outs, bases empty, game tied, wind blowing to left, bottom of the 8th or anytime in the 9th, then you let him swing away.

Lefty34
04-29-2008, 07:03 PM
Of course things have to go right in any situation!

As with anything, sometimes you have to "play the odds."


Exactly! And these (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/sortable/index.php?cid=204022) "odds" show you exactly what you can expect from any general situation you can dream up. Why, as a manager, would you coach your team into a situation that puts them in a, historically, based on the numbers, harder position to score a run?

My only point is that sometimes, there are situations where all you need is one run to win, and in those cases you might have more success playing for just one run. And in those cases, you want your team to be able to do so.This is the most meaningless of all meaningless justifications. It's akin to saying, "well, there may come a time when I am approached on the street by a TV Gameshow host who gives me the opportunity to bench-press 325 lbs or read a calculus book to win a million dollars. And since reading hurts my brain and calculus is hard, I might have more success bench-pressing. And in that situation, I want to be able to bench-press that 325 lbs, so I am going to quit my job and start training now, just in case that situation comes along."

Granted, playing for one run sometimes does come up in a game situation, however just because it does that does not justify gambling with your precious amount of outs in the hopes of "increasing your chances to score" when, statistically, you are better off leaving the runners where they are and not gambling with your outs. There are other ways to win a one-run/close ball game that don't involve the HR or sacrificing your outs needlessly (i.e. sacrificing an out to move a runner over statistically reduces your chances of scoring is sacrificing outs needlessly).

voodoochile
04-29-2008, 08:01 PM
Exactly! And these (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/sortable/index.php?cid=204022) "odds" show you exactly what you can expect from any general situation you can dream up. Why, as a manager, would you coach your team into a situation that puts them in a, historically, based on the numbers, harder position to score a run?

No those odds tell you what happened on average historically in given situations. They cannot predict the best thing to do in any given situation because every situation is different. You can't break baseball down like that. There are too many other factors including wind speed, baserunner speed, whether the pitcher has a hangover. Whether it rained all night and the turf is acting like it's made of quick sand. Whether the regular catcher is out for a days rest and the pitcher doesn't work as well with he backup who by the way drank 23 shots of tequila of a stripper's navel last night when it looked like the game would be canceled, reeks of booze and simply wishes it would start to rain again, so he could take a nap in the dugout before napping some more on the bus to the airport where he hopes to wake up and start drinking again because tomorrow is an off day. Heck, maybe the ump wants to get home early so he can be there for his daughter's birthday party so he's got a 3' plate and it's time to swing at anything.

Every situation in baseball is unique. Modeling the perfect answer to every situation is nearly impossible to do. So many details go into every play. I mean you miss a jumper in the NBA by 1 CM on your shooting hand odds are it still goes in. Miss a pitch by 1 CM on your bat and it's the difference between a pop up and an UD shot.

Stats are a great tool, but good managers know when the odds are in their favor to go against generic yearly stats for man on first nobody out when all they need is a run.