TAKE 2-0?
I had to say something about this. Ramblin' Al Bethke, who has been brought to most people's attention for his staunch defense of Bud Selig and for his criticism of David Pinto, recently said this about last night's Brewers victory over the Dodgers...

"I'm still trying to get over Ben Grieve swinging...
...at a 2-0 pitch
...with the bases loaded
...at a pitch that may well have been Ball 3
I know he hit it at a phenomonal [sic] pace, and if it wasn't directly at the 1B, it would have won the game. I just can't see swinging at that pitch. Worst case, it's 2-1, and you're sitting on a hitter's count."

Why swing at a 2-0 pitch in that situation? Why not take a strike and be 2-1? I'll tell you why. HE'S A MAJOR LEAGUE HITTER! That is why. Hitting is the most difficult thing to do in all of sports, so perhaps that pitch was a bit out of the zone. Keep in mind that he did hit an absolute seed, and only because it was right at the first baseman did the run not score. With the bases loaded and a 2-0 count you know that the pitcher is trying to throw a strike. Grieve got the pitch he was looking for and smashed it. If he takes a strike now the count is 2-1 and you can't afford to sit on one pitch/one zone with two outs and the winning run on third. Would you take 3-1 because "if you take a pitch the count is still in your favor"?

People who have read this site in the past know how I feel about "SABR Quixotics". Just because you read Moneyball and read a Rob Neyer column here and there does not make you qualified to be a big league manager or general manager.

If you've never stepped in the box against a decent level of pitching you probably can't understand what it is like. It goes back to the difference between playing to win and playing to not lose. A hitter never goes up to the plate looking to walk (well not a good one). A walk can be the result of a good at-bat, but not the desire of one.