Add new comment

In truth, I've been listening to the "productive" out rhetoric for 40 years, and my take ...
MOST of the commentary from managers and players is "generally" intended to convey that a productive out is better than an UNPRODUCTIVE out.  Basically, the 'move the runner over' out is better than whiffing, and leaving him where he is.
Nobody on the planet (that I know of), is going to (or ever has) suggested that the productive out is better than the productive NON-out. 
The cloudiness is when the rhetoric falls apart when couched in terms of "purposefully" guiding a groundball to a specific fielder.  In the abstract, (outside of the actual sacrifice bunt), the concept is kinda ludicrous.  (If players HAD that kind of control, wouldn't they just guide the ball BETWEEN fielders?)
While many, many people get lost in the divide between lauding a result vs. suggesting a course of action ... ultimately, Wak seems to be complaining (IMO) that he simply hasn't had the opportunity to laud his boys for not screwing up WORSE.  They make outs w/o moving runners over, (not surprising, since people are so rarely on base to begin with).
In truth "some" intent can be figured into an at-bat.  With a man on second and none out, a hitter can be thinking about RF instead of LF ... but Seattle has been remade into a team dominated by left-hand hitters.  (the term 'hitter' may be a stretch, but hey we're stuck with the context). 
One of those little, (few people know) SABR tidbits that is helpful to know.  The majority of INFIELD *OUTS* are pulled.  The majority of OUTFIELD outs are to the opposite field.
In generic terms, you don't want Figgins TRYING to pull a ball on the ground (batting lefty) -- that just means more outs.  But, you don't want him pulling the ball righty either, because that means more outs, too, (and probably more DPs).
In the end, the Ms don't suck at "productive outs" because they are or are not trying to produce them.  They just suck at hitting overall.