Crew @ ATL

What do you think CAPpy
... Should the Crew use up all the weeks 'stats tonight?

Great question (as usual).  

 

Counterpoint: what number do you think green tastes like?  

Asphinctor says what?

Yes they do

Haha, as your king would say ... smoof.

powerful stuff as usual trump.  

 

 

back to adult talk, can we assume (once he can get those home runs to stay in the park) that Braun's thumb surgery was a success? 

If Melvin hates stat geeks, then he is ignoring data which would help him perform his job better.   Reynolds is actually on the great St Louis Cardinals and getting significant playing time.  That's weird huh?  The guy you brought up as some AWESOME example of how bad Doug Melvin is, is now playing on arguably the smartest franchise in the game.  Maybe you and trump should inform them of how big a mistake it is, as regardless of his production, he strikes out a lot which makes him bad.

 

 

All I see is that the Brewers struck out 9 times.  That's 33% of the outs made by strikeout.  Surely the Brewers must have scored no runs and stranded at least 15 men on base due to all those horrible strikeouts.  

 

 

Sure helps when the guy batting above .250 has a strong back, huh?

I have a feeling we can do a lot better then Doug Melvin.   2 playoff appearances in 11 years is great but I don't think most fans are satisfied with it.  Unless you are satisfied with mediocrity.

As for the immortal Mark Reynolds - you do realize he's hitting 30 points above his career average?  Something tells me he will probably come back to his norm eventually and I really doubt he's the difference on a team that is loaded (once again) with a lot of homegrown talent.

I do agree with you that STL has it figured out - that is they know how to win and win consistently.  Maybe we can hire a few of their guys to run our ball club?

lottsa pwning going on in this thread...

I am pretty sure that if the following stat was available - average number of advancements per out (between grounders, fly balls, and strikeouts) that runners advance at a higher clip when a batter grounds out versus when a batter strikes out.

 

If so, your statement is - well - 100% wrong.

Let's take this piece by piece, being 100% wrong and all.  

 

My math could be fuzzy, but somewhere around 1/3 of all outs happen with two outs, so I would suspect even if we could calculate average number of advancements per out, this metric would be the same for ground balls, strike outs and dramatic hauling a home run back into the field of play fly balls.  

 

would that that be correct?  

So you are saying a Strike out to end an inning is no different than a grounder or fly out to end an inning?

 

Is it possible a strike out to end an inning is possibly better than a ground out or pop out on the first or second pitch to end an inning????

1. Can you link me to this "Average Number of Advancements Per Out" stat (that doesn't exist)?  I'd love to see it, as I can't find it on any of the typical websites like baseball reference or fangraphs or ESPN.  Thanks in advance!  (see what I did there?)

2.  With no one on base, how does one establish the value of a groundball being better than a strikeout in your "Average Number of Advancements Per Out" stat (that doesn't exist)?

3.  With two outs, how does one establish the value of a groundball being better than a strikeout in your "Average Number of Advancements Per Out" stat (that doesn't exist)?

4.  With a runner on first or first and second and less than two outs, how does one establish the value of a groundball being better than a strikeout in your "Average Number of Advancements Per Out" stat (that doesn't exist)?

 

Here's some actual data for you though, considering I'm 100% wrong and all.

 

For 2014

There were 165,614 AB.  

96,195  (58%) were with no one on base.  

29,339 (18%) with with men on base and two outs.

26,870 (16%) of those ABs were with men on 1st or 1st and 2nd or bases loaded with less than 2 outs where a ground ball would most likely lead to a double play which is far far worse than a strike out for those of us with reasoning abilities.

 

So a full 92% of all ABs had absolutely no opportunity to prove a groundball being better than a strikeout in your "Average Number Of Advancements Per Out" stat (that doesn't exist).

 

Which leaves us with 13,210 (8%) of all ABs where we can see the impact of groundball instead of a strikeout in  your  "Average Number Of Advancements Per Out" stat (that doesn't exist).

 

So, I've established with data, that less than 8% of all ABs can even address a groundball being better than a strikeout in your "Average Number Of Advancements Per Out" stat (that doesn't exist).

 

So, now the ever important part you need to answer.  Where does the impact of the "Average Number Of Advancements Per Out" stat (that doesn't exist) show up?  Do teams that strikeout less in these scenarios score more runs?  Win more games?  

 

I'll eagerly await your answer in establishing where we can see the impact of a groundball being better than a strikeout in your "Average Number Of Advancements Per Out" stat (that doesn't exist).

 

 

Your right  in the laws of averages... But I can count on no hands when I've ever said with 2 outs and guys on  base ( and pitcher only with 1 out) " boy, if he doesn't hit it in air here I hope he strikes out"

So, with 2 outs, you think it's more productive and beneficial to the team to hit a fly ball instead of a strikeout?

 

Well, that's, that's something.  

Sh, yes ... Doesn't everyone?

I never said fly out ...

Is this like a deep INT on 4th down is as good a punt?  Personally I think all turnovers in football and all outs in baseball are bad. 

No only people with zero cognitive abilities and apparently you.  (note, this group may overlap)  

 

Whether the 3rd out of an is a strikeout, a screaming line drive caught by the 3B, a lazy fly ball to CF, or a weak ground ball to the pitcher, it's the 3rd out, and it doesn't matter in the least how it was made.

.. Read and comprehend.
Get out of your idiot savant stat aftr-the fact mindset and act like you do not know whats gonna happen on a pitch.

So what I'm hearing is there are instances where a hitter making contact but still getting an out would be more productive than a hitter whiffing.  

 

A sacrafice fly that scores a run, or a hit that advances a runner.  In these senario by the shere fact that a runner advances proves that making contact is 100% better than striking out.  The only possible way phadreus could be wrong would be if something worse than an out could happen by making contact.  That simply does not exist.  

First off, I realize it is not a stat, which simply means it is not one that is measured.

 

Secondly, thanks for demonstrating to me that a ground ball out is better than a strike out, albeit not a lot better.

Wait a second.  Someone says you can sometimes hit into something called a "double play."  According to Wikipedia, this means the  contact resulted in two outs instead of just one.  

 

probably never happens though.  More hair on your balls. Hitting into a double play than casualy walking back to the dugout.  

Ok.  I'll act like I don't know what's going to happen on a pitch with 2 outs and the team I root for at bat.

 

1.  "I hope the batter hits a home run!"

2.  "I hope the batter gets a hit of any kind"

3.  "I hope the batter gets a walk"

4.  "I hope the batter doesn't make an out"

 

I know that logic and numbers are hard for you.  But NO ONE has ever stated "I HOPE THIS BATTER STRIKESOUT BECAUSE DERRRRRRRRR STRIKEOUTS GOOD!"

 

What I'm saying again, slowly for you.

 

In the vast majority of ABs (>76%) there is absolutely no impact to anything whatsoever regarding how a batter makes an out.  With 2 outs or with no one on base, it doesn't matter how a batter makes at out as there is no change to "advance a runner".  

 

And, most importantly, there is nothing that can prove any impact on the results of a baseball game, over the long term, that striking out is a worse out than any other out.

 

But, please continue calling me an idiot savant while you argue a position with absolutely no proof whatsoever.  That's always a good call.

So, in terms of strategy, if there is a guy on first we should be playing for cotact at all costs.  Hitters should either be bunting the guy over or hitting behind the runner.  None of this swinging for a hit that might result in a K.  Small ball like this probably results in way more runs scored.

Where was that proven?

 

Remember when I asked you this?

 

So, now the ever important part you need to answer.  Where does the impact of the "Average Number Of Advancements Per Out" stat (that doesn't exist) show up?  Do teams that strikeout less in these scenarios score more runs?  Win more games?  

Proof for what?  .... Your talk here is after the fact, mine is not.
You are statistical genius, bill James would pat you on the head, congrats.
Wanna a cookie?

I'm sure, since making contact is 100% without a doubt better than striking out, for the last 50 years or so, teams that strike out a lot have to score piles less runs than teams who don't strike out.  Strike outs, being the worst kind of out, simply has to correlate with scoring less runs.  Like 100% correlate.  Hitters who strike out less simply have to be better than a guy who strikes out more.  Has to.  Build a team on a low k rate and you have to have an offensive juggernaut.   Probably the only thing being a close second would be the team with the highest batting average.  

You dispute my claim and data that strikeouts are not worse than any other out.  

 

So, I'm asking you to show me the data that proves your position.

 

That's the discussion we're having.  

 I must hear more about your Nostradamus theory of baseball.  

 

 

Graphs?   

 

Pencil neck

And not needed but keep stroking each other ... Your wives don't care, its baseball.

CAPpy,vwhen did I ever say that here?

You always seem to want to make a wager, tell me, what are the odds you can compose a coherent, logical post today?  

Finally you make sense .... In regards to this thread ... Name the bet?

Or just more witty sarcasm?

I want us both to agree on a bet that decides 1 of us leaves this site forever?