MLB Top 32

I said the two-RBI hit. So unless the .220 hitter's average outcome > 2 runs scored, then we're back to the same question.

Also, after the two-RBI hit, there'd still be a runner on base and the same number of outs. If we're going to look ahead for one outcome, then we need to do so for both.

 

By saying "you don't just want a walk" you are implying that a walk is an undesirable outcome. It's not. It makes the situation better for the team on offense.

 

The average BABIP (Batting Average on Balls in Play) is always around .300. If given a gun-to-the-head choice of a walk or a 30 percent chance of a hit, I'm taking the walk.

 

That's a very false argument. OF COURSE if the pitcher doesn't throw strikes, a walk is better than swinging at the ball. But pitchers, those wicked souls, often throw strikes. Then getting a base hit is good. Hitters who take too many called third strikes don't last long in the big leagues, or any league.
There is no scouting report that ever read, "he can't hit strikes, but he's got a great eye. Sign him up."

 

I have no idea what you're trying to argue, so I am going to resist saying this is really stupid, and ask you to explain what you ARE trying to argue. Cause this doesn't make any sense. About anything.

 

Mark, what I am trying to say is that hitting comes first, then walks. Walks are a function of the batter's ability to get hits, at least at the major league level. There's synergy, and a guy who makes the pitcher throw strikes is also a better hitter for it, but without the ability to hit the ball where the fielders ain't, no batter has much offensive worth.

 

I am implying no such thing. If I get a walk, OK. But I want a hit.

Michael_Gee covers this with his post.

 

You're assuming a connection that doesn't exist. Vlad Guerrero is a great hitter. He doesn't walk. Barry Bonds was a great hitter. He walked a ton, largely because pitchers were too afraid to throw him strikes. But the simple fact remains, if they pitcher isn't going to throw you strikes, you're better off taking your base. Which is part of what made Bonds much better than Guerrero. Sometimes the ability to draw walks flows from a hitter's ability, but often it's an entirely different skill set.

If you wish to stipulate that very few players make the major leagues without the ability to hit a baseball, so stipulated. We're talking about how players add value. A walk is always preferable to an out. Hits are marginally better, but at the big league level, the margins matter.

As to your obsession with some unprovable negative hypothetical about a player who can only walk, it's puzzling but silly and dispositive of nothing. Not making an out is the top goal. Here's a much more apt hypothetical: If you were to manage a big league team and you were given the opportunity, before ANY given at-bat, to take a walk or the outcome of the at-bat -- whatever that would end up being -- which would you choose?

 

If someone makes an out to advance a runner, I'd be OK with that. I'd take a run-scoring sacrifice fly over a walk any day. RBI groundouts can be pretty cool, too.

With that, I'm likely out of this one. It's as non-productive as I imagined it would be.

 

I agree. There isn't a better hitter than Ichiro. It's like shopping for a vehicle, do you want sped or power, sport or class, etc.

 

It is not an aesthetic choice.

Baseball players provide measurable value to their lineups. The goal is the same for everyone: Score as many runs as you can. This isn't subjectively trying to compare Picasso and Van Gogh. Ichiro and Pujols are apples and apples.

 

BABIP does not include home runs, which are of course the single most desirable outcome of any plate appearance. So if your comparison doesn't include the potential of a home run -- and the extreme overweight that should be given to such an outcome -- it's totally invalid.