I don't deny there may be other situations in which a walk would less advance the Twins's chance at a win than trying for a hit or extra-base hit. Generally,in those situations, I suppose I turst Mauer's assessment of the pitches he's getting and what he can do with them -- but there are, I suppose situations that allow for discussion. The Oakland situation is not one of them. In that case, the walk was the right move . . . even if you could have chosen beforehand what Mauer would attempt to do. Situation -- down 3, two outs, two on. A HR ties the game. Anything less requires Plouffe not make an out. An extra base hit allows Plouffe to tie the game with a single. A walk and a single are virtually identical, as the tying run would be on first. If we could choose, which would be want? Ball in play/strike out or walk? Ball in play: HR -- 4% (in 650 plate appearances, that's 26 HRs, assumes effort to hit home run helps a good bit) -- game changed Other extra-base-hit --- 7% (45 double pace for 650 plate appearances) -- still down 1 run, Plouffe hit might tie game, regardless, need Plouffe not to make an out -- generously, perhaps a 50/50 chance of game becoming tied. Single --- 18% -- say . . . a 15% chance of Plouffe and/or others coming through to tie game? Out -- 70% (rate of making outs in non-walk situations (say, 560 of 650 plate appearances, minus 180 hits (.325 BA) Total attempting to put ball in play -- game changed = .04(1.00) + .07(.5) + .18 (.15) =.1025 Walk: 15% (just like a single, relying on Plouffe and others to perform now that tying run is on base). Total for a walk -- game changed= .15 (1.0) = .15 By taking a walk rather than opting for a non-walk situation, Mauer improved the likelihood of the team winning by almost 50% (from about 10% to about 15%). There may be other situations where a walk is a poor strategy for Mauer (tying run on second, for example, may be), but this eample is not one of them.
