BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Jenkins: Pitching to Pujols

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Jenkins: Pitching to Pujols

Attention geeks that never played the game (this means you Amsinger!)...scroll down for some pitching/life tips by Jenkins

One of the really tired laments of recent years—“Why does anyone pitch to Barry Bonds?—has been resurrected in the case of Albert Pujols. Yo, all you geeks who never played the game: They pitch to Pujols (watch Tim Lincecum tonight) because athletes compete. Will they make terrible mistakes? You bet. Will they regret throwing Pujols a 3-1 fastball when they could have just pitched around him? Absolutely. It’s just that big-league baseball isn’t about quitting, wimping out, taking the easy route. Runners at second and third, one out? Of course you walk Pujols, or Bonds, or Willie McCovey. But when you can change the momentum of a ballgame, making it clear that you and your team matter, you go right after the guy. He’s not hitting .831. He makes outs, a good deal of the time, just like everyone else. Play the game hard, or just quit. And don’t listen to the idiots who, if they had their way, would see not a single strike thrown to Pujols all year . . .

Repoz Posted: June 30, 2009 at 01:31 PM | 63 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: cardinals, sabermetrics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. regfairfield Posted: June 30, 2009 at 01:47 PM (#3237601)

Doesn't anyone who lives in their mother's basement realize it's dumb in general to walk someone every time they're up.

2. Shooty: Applying to be Fearless Leader

Posted: June 30, 2009 at 01:50 PM (#3237602)

Do we know if Bruce Jenkins played the game?

3. Jose Can You Seabiscuit Posted: June 30, 2009 at 01:57 PM (#3237612)

"Geeks who never played the game."

I have two issues at the moment with this phrase;

1. Aren't these the people likely reading this and other articles? Do people like Jenkins think insulting their readers is a wise decision?

2. Not to nitpick but like many people here I DID play the game. I played a lot as a kid. When I turned 15 I stopped because I wasn't good enough to make my high school team. I would love to know how much more baseball than me Bruce Jenkins and his ilk played because I suspect that most of these people did not play any more baseball than I did.

EDIT: Coke to Shooty

4. Shooty: Applying to be Fearless Leader

Posted: June 30, 2009 at 02:01 PM (#3237617)

And don’t listen to the idiots who, if they had their way, would see not a single strike thrown to Pujols all year . . .

Also, who is advocating this? Surely a talent like Bruce Jenkins wouldn't stoop to a strawman argument. And when Buck Showalter walked Bonds with the bases loaded, was he a geek, too? Like all great writers, Bruce Jenkins work inspires questions. And wonder. Don't forget the wonder!

5. hokieneer Posted: June 30, 2009 at 02:19 PM (#3237632)

I would love to know how much more baseball than me Bruce Jenkins and his ilk played because I suspect that most of these people did not play any more baseball than I did.

I've always been in this boat. I made my HS varsity team as a freshman, played 4 years. Played 2 years of American legion. Had offers to try out at small colleges, but decided to go to VT for the education. So I know I played more ball than most of these writers who categorize me as a "baseball nerd".

6. GregQ Posted: June 30, 2009 at 02:21 PM (#3237636)

Jenkins always talks, or rather writes, in this condescending fashion. One of my drinking buddies used to be his next door neighbor and I just sent him a note asking if he knows if Jenkins played ball.

7. GregQ Posted: June 30, 2009 at 02:22 PM (#3237638)

8. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: June 30, 2009 at 02:26 PM (#3237641)

Shooty gets a 2nd coke for posting what I was just about to submit--that in reality there are very few people who think Pujols should be walked in every PA from here on out. Is that merely hyperbole from Jenkins, or a mailed-in sentence?

9. Alex Vila Posted: June 30, 2009 at 02:33 PM (#3237646)

And, yet Satchel Paige said that if a man can beat you, walk him.

10. Moneyball can't buy you love (Joey B.) Posted: June 30, 2009 at 02:53 PM (#3237662)

If my team was playing against the Padres, I'd be really ticked off if my pitcher ever let Adrian Gonzalez beat me under any circumstances. That poor guy has absolutely no protection in his lineup to speak of.

11. Kiko Sakata

Posted: June 30, 2009 at 02:57 PM (#3237667)

Not to take away from the well-deserved Bruce Jenkins-bashing, but have y'all noticed the season that Pujols is having? Good lord! I went to BB-Ref's NL Batting leaders a couple of nights ago and Pujols is leading the league in OBP, SLG, Times on Base, Total Bases, Home Runs, Runs Scored, RBI. He's leading in IBB 24-11 over the 2nd-place guy (Gonzalez). And, of course, he's blowing away the competition in every sabermetric measure yet created. The guy's just unbelievable.

12. kthejoker Posted: June 30, 2009 at 03:07 PM (#3237673)

Not to defend Jenkins, but if you played the game, you don't really qualify as a "geek who never played the game", do you?

13. bunyon Posted: June 30, 2009 at 03:16 PM (#3237682)

14. hokieneer Posted: June 30, 2009 at 03:18 PM (#3237684)

bunyon,

I went to an ag school to study Computer engineering though, haha. Not sure if that is in line with your college choices.

What positions did you play? I made the Varisty team as a catcher, moved to 3b my sophomore year, and played 3b/1b the rest of my HS days.

15. bunyon Posted: June 30, 2009 at 03:40 PM (#3237703)

I went for engineering and wound up in chemistry. Purely by accident. I had decided I was no engineer and one day I got back a chemistry test that I'd aced. Prof asked, jokingly, in front of the class, if I wanted to be a chemistry major. Why the hell not? I said yes and signed up after the class just to surprise him. It stuck.

You really might be me. I caught until I was 12 when I was diagnosed with diabetes. Docs told me not to catch anymore, which is a shame because it is the position I had the natural speed for (seriously, I have the build and had a really good arm and am turtle slow)*, so I moved to third. And played some first. I also pitched a good deal.

I should know this, as I teach in the ACC, but how are the Hokies in baseball?**

* Favorite baseball memory: one hot, sticky, July night I make my way to third base. Our coach comes up to me, puts a hand on my shoulder and leans in close. In a whisper, he says, "Paul, listen carefully," I start to imagine a squeeze or some other devious, cunning plan. He continues, "I expect you to score on a triple."

** Much better than Wake Forest, I'm sure.

16. Levi Stahl Posted: June 30, 2009 at 03:40 PM (#3237704)

Pujols is almost the only reason the Cardinals are over .500. Well, and Chris Carpenter and Adam Wainwright. But good god, they've not gotten much from anyone else on offense. He's been astonishing to watch.

17. HGM Posted: June 30, 2009 at 03:41 PM (#3237705)

Greg Amsinger on MLB Tonight last night was actually advocating walking Pujols all the time. It was the first inning, tie game, Lincecum pitching, and he said "Why are they pitching to him?" and then Plesac and Ripken told him the very obvious fact that it is dumb to walk a guy, whoever he is, in the first inning, with 2 outs, and arguably the best pitcher in the game on the mound. So, Jenkins isn't really using hyperbole here - there are people who believe this nonsense - but it's certainly not the geeks in their mother's basements.

18. Benji Gil Gamesh is not being paid to be that guy Posted: June 30, 2009 at 03:41 PM (#3237706)

but if you played the game, you don't really qualify as a "geek who never played the game", do you?

His tone suggests that in his mind, the latter is implicit in the former.

It's doubly hilarious given that the true "geeks" are the ones who would argue exactly the opposite, and show you a study to back up why.

19. Rich Rifkin Posted: June 30, 2009 at 03:48 PM (#3237714)

The book Bruce Jenkins won't read.

20. Steve Treder Posted: June 30, 2009 at 03:50 PM (#3237718)

It was the first inning, tie game, Lincecum pitching, and he said "Why are they pitching to him?" and then Plesac and Ripken told him the very obvious fact that it is dumb to walk a guy, whoever he is, in the first inning, with 2 outs, and arguably the best pitcher in the game on the mound.

Particularly given that Lincecum proceeded to strike Pujols out, making him look silly in the process.

It was my opinion, often presented on this site, that during that ridiculous 2001-2004 stretch, opponents overdid the "just walk Bonds" approach, that they were on balance helping the Giants' offense by providing Bonds with such an otherworldly OBP. Great as he was, force him to swing the bat and you retired Bonds more than 60% of the time. Same with Pujols.

Clearly, it makes all sense to walk a guy like this later in the game, in a situation where one of his bombs will be a game-changer. But to give away 60%+ chances for outs in non-crucial situations is a dumb idea.

21. James Darnell's #1 Fan Posted: June 30, 2009 at 03:58 PM (#3237727)

I'm 29 and still playing in Mexico. Been playing non-stop since I was 10 years old.

There's a new team in Rosarito that wants to come up to a profesional Mexican League (They are still figuring out if it's the Golden league or Mexican Pacific League or the Mexican Summer League) they want me to tryout this coming month.

22. Clemenza Posted: June 30, 2009 at 04:05 PM (#3237731)

It was my opinion, often presented on this site, that during that ridiculous 2001-2004 stretch, opponents overdid the "just walk Bonds" approach, that they were on balance helping the Giants' offense by providing Bonds with such an otherworldly OBP. Great as he was, force him to swing the bat and you retired Bonds more than 60% of the time. Same with Pujols.

Great point.

Secondly, I played college baseball. And these "geeks who never played the game" have taught me more about the game than I could possibly teach them. My appreciation and enjoyment of the game has increased 10 fold over the last 10-12 years largely because of these geeks and I thank them for it.

23. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: June 30, 2009 at 04:10 PM (#3237737)

I played club ball in college and led my team in walks.

24. Davo Malvolio Posted: June 30, 2009 at 04:11 PM (#3237739)

Yo, all you geeks who never played the game...

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl/player_search.cgi?search=bruce+jenkins

What?!?!?!

25. Davo Malvolio Posted: June 30, 2009 at 04:15 PM (#3237746)

How bad would the teammates of, say, a 2001 Barry Bonds have to be for it to make sense to intentionally walk him every single time? If you surrounded him with the worst ML player at every position, would you save runs by walking him 100% of the time?

26. bunyon Posted: June 30, 2009 at 04:15 PM (#3237747)

22: Seconded.

21: Very cool! Good luck!

27. The cushions are crowded for Edmundo

Posted: June 30, 2009 at 04:45 PM (#3237793)

"I expect you to score on a triple."
At last. You know how they tell you growing up that there is always someone more misfortunate than you. Finally, I found the someone whom I could beat in a footrace.

28. bunyon Posted: June 30, 2009 at 04:54 PM (#3237804)

I'm likely that guy for a number of people, Edmundo.

29. cardsfanboy

Posted: June 30, 2009 at 05:02 PM (#3237817)

One of the really tired laments of recent years—“Why does anyone pitch to Barry Bonds?—has been resurrected in the case of Albert Pujols. Yo, all you geeks who never played the game:

as a guy who has probably watched 90% of Alberts plate appearances this year, I can tell you that Al Hrabosky, Rick Horton, Mike Shannon, Whitey Herzog, Ozzie Smith, Joe Morgan and others that I can't think of right now, have all asked the same question in one form or another. (not to mention actions by several managers who do avoid pitching to Pujols---see Leyland)

beyond that, the guys general point does stand. They do pitch to Pujols because to do otherwise is not in their blood.

30. The cushions are crowded for Edmundo

Posted: June 30, 2009 at 05:03 PM (#3237818)

bunyon, did you have dreams like I did, where I would try to run with all my might and my legs just didn't move? My foot would just not leave the ground.

31. AROM Posted: June 30, 2009 at 05:04 PM (#3237819)

he's blowing away the competition in every sabermetric measure yet created.

Not to mention leading in dozens that haven't even been invented yet.

32. Ron Johnson Posted: June 30, 2009 at 05:10 PM (#3237828)

#25 You may want to take a look at A first cut look at Bonds and the IBB

I seem to recall one of the guys involved with the Book running a similar study -- and coming up with specific recommendations on when to issue the IBB to Bonds.

33. Steve Treder Posted: June 30, 2009 at 05:12 PM (#3237831)

beyond that, the guys general point does stand. They do pitch to Pujols because to do otherwise is not in their blood.

But here's the thing: it very likely is "in their blood," a deeply-embedded competitive drive, to pitch to Pujols. But it's also the right thing to do sabermetrically (in non-crucial situations, of course, and no one's arguing otherwise about that). Jenkins sets up a false tension between what the real-man jocks want to do and what the never-played-the-game geeks want to do, when no such thing exists.

34. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: June 30, 2009 at 05:13 PM (#3237832)

beyond that, the guys general point does stand. They do pitch to Pujols because to do otherwise is not in their blood.

I agree. In addition, I can't argue that they shouldn't, either. To me the only times they shouldn't is in high-leverage situations (e.g. tie game late, runners at 2nd & 3rd, etc). He is the greatest hitter in the game right now, yet he still gets a hit only 35% of the time. Statistically, that means you pitch to him unless the hit he might get would be huge.

And I can't help but wonder if the guy is juicing. He looks just like McGwire now. I'm not accusing him of anything; I'm just worried that he'll eventually be outed.

35. Random Transaction Generator Posted: June 30, 2009 at 05:13 PM (#3237833)

How bad would the teammates of, say, a 2001 Barry Bonds have to be for it to make sense to intentionally walk him every single time? If you surrounded him with the worst ML player at every position, would you save runs by walking him 100% of the time?

I think Baseball Prospectus ran a bunch of simulations where they surrounded him with below-replacement-level players.
Walking him every time was a HUGE mistake.

36. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: June 30, 2009 at 05:14 PM (#3237835)

At this rate I'll need to go back to the store to buy more coke (Thanks Steve).

37. Steve Treder Posted: June 30, 2009 at 05:16 PM (#3237839)

I seem to recall one of the guys involved with the Book running a similar study -- and coming up with specific recommendations on when to issue the IBB to Bonds.

And Bill James presented such a study, I believe in the New Historical Abstract, in which he simmed Babe Ruth 1921 batting in a lineup of a bunch of replacement-level stiffs.

The conclusion of every such study is that unless the rest of the lineup bats .000 or something damn close to it, it is definitely sub-optimal to walk Ruth/Bonds/Pujols every time up. A 1.000 OBP is a damn powerful offensive weapon; it just doesn't make sense to hand it to your opponent.

EDIT: I'll be buying some cokes myself ...

38. cardsfanboy

Posted: June 30, 2009 at 05:35 PM (#3237856)

But here's the thing: it very likely is "in their blood," a deeply-embedded competitive drive, to pitch to Pujols. But it's also the right thing to do sabermetrically (in non-crucial situations, of course, and no one's arguing otherwise about that). Jenkins sets up a false tension between what the real-man jocks want to do and what the never-played-the-game geeks want to do, when no such thing exists.

I agree, not defending his ridiculous article, just defending the concept of not walking Pujols, and that even in times when it's probably best to walk him, that the pitcher doesn't because that is not their nature. Right now the Cardinals have no bats performing behind Pujols, and no other bats in the lineup. (Schumaker has had a good last two weeks, and Ludwick has looked better recently but is still not getting results--long flyouts mostly) There is almost zero consequences if they walk Albert everytime he comes to the plate, the team seems to only have one inning per game where they might even have a multi hit inning. but if they walked him everytime, the odds will eventually catch up to the team.

and Jenkins not played baseball concept is always silly no matter which writer writes it, have you seen some of these writers? is there really any sports journalist out there that have played ball at any level? I'll take a team composed of primates to play the best that the BBWAA could offer and I don't think the game would be close, the Primates would destroy them.

39. DCW3 Posted: June 30, 2009 at 06:23 PM (#3237935)

Pujols is almost the only reason the Cardinals are over .500. Well, and Chris Carpenter and Adam Wainwright.

Hey, don't forget Ryan Franklin--top ERA among MLB relievers. No, really. And Joel Pineiro's been at least as good as Wainwright this year. No, really.

But, yeah, their non-Pujols offense is a disaster.

40. Ron Johnson Posted: June 30, 2009 at 06:50 PM (#3237986)

Steve (et al) the James study demonstrates that an IBB every time up is a bad idea. The other studies come up with specific game states whem the IBB is a good idea.

The study I linked to analyzed 367,416 game states with the Giants batting and found that an IBB was correct 4978 times. And of those, only 1604 were IBBs to Bonds (and the author did talk about the first inning IBB. Unless the Giants were already up by at least 5 runs, there was no situation where an IBB was a good decision)

This doesn't specifically address the "how bad" question, but it does provide a framework.

I recall doing a quick and dirty study and coming to the conclusion that if the hitter after Bonds was just a little worse than Glenallen Hill then the IBB would be a viable decision much of the time. Catch being that I don't recall the specifics of "much" (beyond almost any time there was an open base)

41. base ball chick Posted: June 30, 2009 at 11:28 PM (#3238284)

why do a study with "players" who couldn't POSSIBLY play in the majors? you talk about a totally useless waste of numbers moving around. wouldn't it make a LOT more sense to do the study with his like, you know, ACTUAL team???

and me i am getting damm tired of jenkins and his little media friends complaining about how Us People didn't never play baseball

WELL IF YOU SEXIST SKUM DIDN'T BAN US FROM THE GAME WE WOULD BE OUT THERE PLAYING BASEBALL LIKE WE DID BACK IN THOSE GOOD OL DAYS YOU WEREN'T AROUND FOR THAT YOU MISSIN SO BAD!!!!! you know. the rule sez no bat, no balls, no play. so what is YER excuse????

HMMMMMMMMM????!!!

now where was i before i got oh so pissed off before i climbed outten that basement in my mama house????

oh yeah

about Uncle

yeh, he really IS that good. that said, it isn't a good idea to pitch to the SOB with the game on the line because that self same SOB gonna hurt you bad. trust me on this. i been watching him 18-25 times a year since he come up and beat out Roy-oswalt for the ROY back in 01 and even then i knew it was bad BAD luck him being with the cards

42. Srul Itza Posted: July 01, 2009 at 01:14 AM (#3238378)

Pujols just went yard again

Just shy of the halfway mark, he is batting .330 with 29 HRs and 75 RBI.

If St. Louis makes the post season again, who would his competition be for the MVP? Who would the writers turn to, to avoid honoring Pujols this time?

And out of curiosity, does anybody know how St. Louie is drawing on the road? Are people coming out the park for the opportunity to see El Hombre? If not, WHAT IS WRONG WITH THEM!!!

43. Adrian, Stubblebeard, and Bucketfoot Al Posted: July 01, 2009 at 01:28 AM (#3238408)

Do you mean the "who had a career year so we can avoid giving this award to Mantle/Mays/Bonds AGAIN award?"

44. cardsfanboy

Posted: July 01, 2009 at 01:32 AM (#3238426)

Do you mean the "who had a career year so we can avoid giving this award to Mantle/Mays/Bonds AGAIN award?"
yep, that is more accurate. Wright may have a chance, Chipper seems to be pretty good. Ibanez is having a career year. Fielder is within easy distance to take the rbi title and that is all that is needed.

45. Srul Itza Posted: July 01, 2009 at 01:41 AM (#3238437)

Wright may have a chance

If the Mets don't make it to October, I don't see them giving it to him, especially since his power numbers are in the crapper.

Chipper seems to be pretty good

His BA is down lately, and he already has one award.

Ibanez is having a career year.

He's a possible spoiler, yeah since the Phils will probably make the post-season.

Fielder is within easy distance to take the rbi title and that is all that is needed

If the Brewers squeeze past the Cards into the play-offs, and he keeps up the pace and grabs the RBI crown, he could be a spoiler too.

Of course, if Albert tops 60 HR this year, I think he gets the "Clean HR King Crown", and the MVP with it.

46. Srul Itza Posted: July 01, 2009 at 01:47 AM (#3238444)

Pujols just went yard again

No, this is not a delayed double post.

.332, 30 HR, 77 RBI -- you don't really need the sabermetric stats to realize he is having a monster year.

47. cardsfanboy

Posted: July 01, 2009 at 01:47 AM (#3238446)

Albert with another homerun today.

48. cardsfanboy

Posted: July 01, 2009 at 01:48 AM (#3238448)

Pujols is making it arguable that you really should walk him everytime, although Ludwick hit a "triple" afterwards so he would have scored either way.

49. cardsfanboy

Posted: July 01, 2009 at 01:53 AM (#3238461)

.332, 30 HR, 77 RBI -- you don't really need the sabermetric stats to realize he is having a monster year.

and of course leading the national league in rbis, homeruns, runs scored, obp, slg, and ops and probably top 5 in batting average.

50. Srul Itza Posted: July 01, 2009 at 01:56 AM (#3238463)

He's pumped his overall line up to .332/.452/.743/1.195

Hey -- you don't suppose he knows we've been talking about him today? ;-0

51. cardsfanboy

Posted: July 01, 2009 at 02:02 AM (#3238473)

Pujols has 61 runs scored, driven himself in 30 of those times and has been on base a league leading 148 times.

52. hokieneer Posted: July 01, 2009 at 02:13 AM (#3238492)

Pujols has a legit shot at the triple crown

Avg: he's 5th right now. Take a look at the top 10 in the NL. Sandoval could win the title, Wright has a bad k% and a fluky BABIP. I'll pass on Beltran, Tejada, Pierre, Hawpe & Guzman.

HR: To me this was always the toughest category for the triple crown for him because while he has power, there has always been Dunn, Howard, Fielder, insert big LH slugger here. He seems to be pulling out to an early lead here.

RBI: Again running out ahead of the pack. Fielder & Howard have the better hitters in front of them though.

53. Srul Itza Posted: July 01, 2009 at 02:28 AM (#3238513)

After homering in his last two at-bats, he just drew a walk.

So where is Jenkins with the outrage? I expect him down on the field, screaming that Romo is a girly-man who lives in his mama's basement.

54. cardsfanboy

Posted: July 01, 2009 at 02:29 AM (#3238515)

Pujols always has a legit shot at the triple crown, in fact I would say he is the only player playing that that can be said about. Still it's unlikely, but if he continues to expand his zone like he has this year he may not reach his goal of having fewer strikeouts than walks (I think he's two behind right now) but i think he has a better chance at reaching the two counting numbers.

of course the Cardinals team has to start doing something in front and behind him. (and of course if he could get the grand slam? triple crown plus runs scored title it would be nice)

55. cardsfanboy

Posted: July 01, 2009 at 02:30 AM (#3238521)

56. Rich Rifkin Posted: July 01, 2009 at 02:32 AM (#3238527)

If St. Louis makes the post season again, who would his competition be for the MVP? Who would the writers turn to, to avoid honoring Pujols this time?

Pujols, to my mind, is well up in the MVP race. Maybe Chase Utley could be considered a good second place MVP candidate, if you adjust for position. ... No one is going to give a pitcher the MVP when you have such a great hitter in the game, but Tim Lincecum (4.8 WAR), too, deserves some consideration.

57. hokieneer Posted: July 01, 2009 at 02:51 AM (#3238566)

in fact I would say he is the only player playing that that can be said about.

I have been waiting for Miguel Cabrera to join that conversation. Waiting in the sense of investing way too much money in Migguey cards and memorabilia a few year ago. He certainly has all the natural talents to do it, but now I doubt he'll ever enter the "Pujols-pantheon".

58. Doug's Hopkin off the band wagon Posted: July 01, 2009 at 03:02 AM (#3238595)

56 - I agree about Puj being way ahead right now.

Utley has been great, but he will be splitting votes after Howard inevitably heats up and if Ibanez does anything in the second half.

Braun will have a power push too at some point and, if his .330ish average holds up at all, might look like a solid candidate too. But again, he'd be splitting votes with Fielder's gaudy ribbie count.

Hanley is having a very good year. If Florida doesn't collapse the media might fall in love with his candidacy.

If the Mets can somehow make the playoffs then Wright might get some bizarre "he sacrificed power to help the team win when everyone else on his team tanked it with injuries" type votes.

59. cardsfanboy

Posted: July 01, 2009 at 03:09 AM (#3238616)

Hanley is having a very good year. If Florida doesn't collapse the media might fall in love with his candidacy.

I can't believe I forgot him, the sob has been carrying my fantasy team (thanks to my own crappy picks, injuries and falling off the cliff for so many players that it still hasn't got me to a winning record) and every time it seems he may be cooling off he gets hot again.

60. Alex meets the threshold for granular review Posted: July 01, 2009 at 03:53 AM (#3238749)

2009_Cardinals.jpg

61. misterdirt Posted: July 01, 2009 at 08:27 PM (#3239521)

This thread is probably dead and I doubt if anybody here really wanted to know whether it is correct to walk Pujols with 2 outs and nobody on in the first inning, but I ran the numbers on his current stats (July 1) and it is slightly better to walk him than to let him hit, for both right handed and left handed average ability pitchers. With Lincecum pitching it probably would not be, unless he gets behind in the count, and then even he should walk him.

62. misterdirt Posted: July 01, 2009 at 08:42 PM (#3239571)

Whoops! Correction I was looking at the wrong column in my spreadsheet. It is still a losing proposition for the average pitcher to walk Pujols in that situation unless HE falls behind in the count. Lincecum is always better off pitching to him.

63. Don't want the truth; just wanna see some dingers Posted: July 01, 2009 at 08:50 PM (#3239596)

Sandoval could win the title

Is he a natural 3B? I can't think of too many 3B as big as he is (246 lbs according to Yahoo!).

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Jenkins: Pitching to Pujols

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics