Ultimate proof regarding intentional base on balls

[MARCPELLETIER]

In the past, I claimed that, when issuing an intentional base on balls with 2 outs, Hal was not considering who the next batter was, or .

Here is the ultimate proof:

SUBSTITUTE P - John Franco
0 B.Mueller 3 Pop Out b-0
1 D.Mohr 3 Strike Out b-0
2 T.Hollandsworth 4 Single & Error - 1B b-2
2 2 T.Nixon 0 Int Walk b-1
2 12 J.Giambi 2 Ground Out b-0

Trot Nixon has NOTHING on his card (except a HBP at 11, and a si* 1-6 at 4). In this situation (man on second), there is absolutely NO chance, on Nixon's card, to produce a rbi.

Yet, Hal issued an Int Walk to Nixon in order to face Jason Giambi.

Giambi's card vs lhp is LOADED. Also, his clutch is POSITIVE. Any way you look at it, there is no statistic whatsoever that makes Giambi worse than Nixon in this specific situation.

This is the ultimate proof that Hal doesn't consider at all who is in the next hitter when issuing an intentional walk.

Now, if you ask why issuing a walk at all to Nixon?

What is even more remarkable is that Franco is a 8L pitcher: he gives really little to left-handed hitters, except homeruns---but Nixon is weak, so all these homeruns turn out to singles in his case. Overall, disregarding def-XX, there was 5 chances out of 216 that Nixon produces a rbi: 0.6 chances of double, and 4.4 chances of homeruns that, in Nixon's case, would turn out in single**.

What this tells me is that, when Hal considers if issueing a walk is a good thing or not, it does NOT use a benchmark for slugging, or for rbi chances. If it would be using a benchmark for these stats, then it would have never issued a walk to Nixon, because this is a clear example where Nixon falls under any benchmark possible.

We already know, from looking at the league stats, that Hal is highly sensitive to clutch ratings.

I thus believe that the only stat that Hal is sensitive too, when considering issueing a IBB, is clutch. In this case, Nixon's clutch is not too bad: it's zero!!!! (of course, it's zero because there is nothing to take out from this card, but it's still zero).

I don't know the settings of the team that has Franco, but let's say it was aggressive. Then I imagine that the following happens:

1-A 2-out, men in scoring position situation occurs.
2-Hal looks at the clutch of the hitter (Nixon = zero)
3- Hal compares it to the settings being used (aggressive = issue a walk to all zero and positive clutch)
4- Hal issues an IBB or not.

[cummings2]

I am going through the scenario trying to give HAL the benefit of the doubt but I agree with you. There is nothing to make me understand the IBB.

First I looked for the nature of the outs in the hitter's card, that is just to make sure that Nixon doesn't have tons of gbCs or anything to advance the runner coupled with Giambi's littered card of gbAs but not really, the nature of Nixon's outs doesn't really pose that big a chance of Hollandsworth advancing to 3rd where a WP would score the run.

The only bit of information that I am interested in seeing is the AVG and SLG stats for both Giambi and Nixon in that specific league at the time of the AB. I ask because some time ago I had Ron Mahay (opp) IBB Casey Kotchman (my team), the only reason why Kotch was there is because my reg. 1B was injured. The thing that jumped at me is that at the time of that AB Kotchman was batting .344 (in something like 20-25 PAs) so I assumed that HAL was using the season's stats, not the card values.

Having said that, I agree with you, there is no clear (or obscure for that matter) reason to walk Nixon to face Giambi...as well as there is no reason to not PH for Nixon considering that he has a far better chance of getting injured than hitting the ball in that case.

[MARCPELLETIER]

[code:1:6e2893f53d]
The only bit of information that I am interested in seeing is the AVG and SLG stats for both Giambi and Nixon in that specific league at the time of the AB.[/code:1:6e2893f53d]

That was very early in the season, but Giambi's on-base and slugging were superior. Batting average was virtually the same at that time of at-bat.

[cummings2]

So that's it.

I guess case is closed then. I see absolutely no reason, other than the 4 step decision process you described above.

[MARCPELLETIER]

Kotchman is also a "zero" clutch!!! (of course, because there is no hit at all on his card!!!)

[MARCPELLETIER]

At the time of at-bat:

Nixon, T. L RF 3(0)e5 29 5 1 1 6 3 0 0 .310 .448 .375 9R 2.84M
giambi J L 1B 4e15 8 3 0 1 4 2 0 2 .333 .833 .500 6L 0.98M

[cummings2]

:lol:

OMG!!!

I have visions of Billy Bean trashing the exec office after seeing that IBB.

Those numbers leave zero, zilch, nada, not an ounce of logic to walk Nixon.

[cummings2]

I'll see if I can find that Kotchman AB.

[cummings2]

Well, I can't find that Kotchman AB. I thought it was more recent but ater looking I think it was in of my earlier teams (with deleted boxscores).

To be perfectly honest I can't remember who was up at bat after Kotchman, I remember it was Mahay on the mound though. Either way, your example leaves no room for doubt IMHO.

Now a question which unfortunately has to be asked, and perhaps answered, more relying empirical facts than on hard numbers:

I remember reading of the experience of a player that when setting IBB to extra conservative he noticed his team increasingly attempting Hit and Run plays (I believe it was H&R - I might be wrong) now, what jumped to mind was some sort of programmed balancing-realism-equalizer thingie (noticed the scientific term used there, eh?) where if a player manipulates the settings so as to have the team perform in an [u:d08ade0d58]exaggerted[/u:d08ade0d58] way outside "normal" baseball practices, then the team's performance will be compensated somehow.

My most common experience is with players that, I believe at least, check all the do not bunts and do not hit and runs, then they set their manager settings to extra conservative, so at the end of the sason their stats have no sacs, no sqz, no H&R, only a handful of SB... well theoretically this is a sound move right? No out is wasted, production is maximized...well, in my experience those teams have "unexplainable" bullpen collapses, or down seasons from hitters and pitchers alike.

With that in mind is that I believe most of the settings are best left at normal or conservative, nothing extra and very few players checked to do more of or less of.

[DOUGLASKALINOUSKY]

HAL can't use clutch alone, because when you play the cd version of the game, one can turn off clutch. If clutch is off and it is the only metric, then hal would never walk anyone.

Doug