Definition of a great AB.........

What’s wrong with a walk?

always.

and a walk is almost always a good AB, with the possible exception of the 2-out/pitcher on deck scenario.

Pablo going from 0-2 to a walk is a very, very good at-bat.

A walk is definitely a good AB.

Good grief.

gets down 0 and 2 in the count, fouls off some pitches, then draws a walk

Sounds like a good AB to me. Prolonged the inning. Got the next guy up. Didn’t hurt the team by making an out. Sounds good.

I’m intrigued by this fucking walk you are talking about.

Tell me more.

I get what you are driving at, but I disagree. I, and everyone else, would have preferred that Pablo drive in the run. However, that fact that he got on base and represented the go-ahead run helped the team. It was a good AB, just maybe not as good as you would have hoped.

It doesn’t matter that we drive up a starting pitchers pitch count because as soon as the opposing team puts in a reliever, we still can’t hit them!

Thanks Shawon

Troll alert! Either that, or it’s Bochy writing a fanpost on McCovey Chronicles. Sometimes, it can be hard to tell the difference.

Batters don’t get pitches right down the plate everytime they go up there to bat. You work with what you’re given, sometimes you get the ball in play, others you make the pitcher throw a lot of pitches to get absolutely nothing out of it.

a walk isnt’ a bad result, and I think it’s fucking stupid to base an opinion of it on a “what if?” scenario .

I understand why ScottMartin thinks the point of the post is evading people, but I think there is an aspect that is evading him.

The supposed original point is that announcers calling the game are debasing the currency by describing a mediocre outcome as a great at-bat (which it wasn’t: it wasn’t any kind of at-bat at all, it was a walk, which is a plate appearance but not an at-bat, a nomenclatural fuckup that drives me up the wall every time). The plaint is that posters are taking this as a criticism of the PA rather than of the description of the PA.

But: if the outcome is not mediocre, then the original point is wrong. I think that what he is missing is that it really was an at least pretty good PA. How it got to 0-2 is only peripherally relevant; unless Sandoval took really bad swings at really awful pitches, it is just something that happened. But once a batter is 0-2, it is the received wisdom that he is largely at the mercy of the pitcher, who indeed has four opportunities to tantalize the batter with difficult pitches only marginally near the strike zone.

To be able to lay off four successive such pitches (OK, maybe some weren’t perfect, but still) shows tremendous diligence and self-control on the part of the batter. To not give in to the temptation to “protect the zone” on pitches that are outside it is the sign of great concentration and not a little inherent ability as a batter (Torres does it regularly).

So it is not mere rhodomontade to describe a PA in which the batter goes from 0-2 to a walk as a “great” plate appearance. It really does manifest greatness on the part of the batter. Maybe, in some cases, for just that one confrontation, but greatness nonetheless.

ELLIPSES AND ANGST! U ARE ALL DUM.

of all the things to complain about concerning the series in Oakland, this must rank 999 out of 1000.

this is just baseball linguistics. When an announcer describes something as a great AB, he’s praising the process, not the result.

A “guy who’ll give you great ABs” is not usually a great hitter, but a guy who doesn’t get himself out, and is good at taking or fouling off a pitcher’s out pitches. Nobody ever says it about Manny Ramirez, but I’ve heard it said about David Eckstein a thousand times.

So, in some of these games, especially Timmy and Sanchy, I’ve noticed that they might have a long inning, throw a lot of pitches, go sit on the bench, and then after the Ginats have 5 pitches or so to make three outs, our young heroes have to go start pitching again.

It seems to me that makes them tired out more quickly than they would otherwise. Or, is it a wash because they don’t really need as much warm-up when they go out again?

I agree. For an average player I thought it was a positive at bat, but not marvelous. Since it was the Panda, the plate appearance was choice, but not exceptional.

…..

Just reading through this genious piece. Good laughs to start the work day.
Howie f’n’ nailed it. Brilliant.

- …. .. … .—. - … – . .-. … - ..- . -.. … ... .. . . .- .. -- ..- .. …. .

Thanks for the good work in this thread, Howie. Finally

early contender for thread of the year

Well-well look. I already told you: I deal with the god damn customers so the engineers don’t have to. I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can’t you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?

Pablo should have hit a homerun in that situation. The announcer calling the game shouldn’t have let him off the hook by referring to his PA as ‘great.’

Wow, and they said Reagan was “The Great Communicator.”

…

…

…

Great ABs are relative.

A BB in the late innings in a close ballgame by the 3, 4, or 5 hitter on the Giants is not only a great at bat, it is a fucking stupendous, accomplishment of the highest order bordering on the definition of greatness itself.

On a decent team, its grabbing your nutsack and leaving it up to the next guy.

Back in 1987 or 1988, I vividly remember Matt Williams have a similar at bat, and the announcers praising him to the sky for it, and noting repeatedly how many pitches he was making the pitcher throw.

So you’re kind of full of shit.

I would, for the record, like to defend Flem’s usage of the adjective “great” to describe Pablo’s AB. That is all.

Wait. What.

BYE SCOTT

IMO they sort of drag out longer than necessary

Damn it, were the really dirty parts deleted??