Epic Strike Out Thread

But what about 27 cans of corn to RF, and the right fielder DROPS ONE?!?!!!

HAH!

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
If 27 batters came up and all struck out how many runs would you score? How many games would you win?

If 27 batters came up and all hit fly balls how many runs would you score? How many games would you win?

quote:

If the first 27 batters of a game came up and made contact do you think they'd be more likely to score more runs and win the game against a team that all 27 struck out?

You STILL can't get it through your head that "contact" doesn't mean ANYTHING.

Grounding out to the pitcher is "contact".

A foul out to the 3B is "contact".

I've said it before, and you prove it again - you willfully ignore that there are significantly more "non-productive" outs than a K.

Maybe you should ignore this again while you look up more outdated put downs for us stat heads. May I suggest "up your nose with a rubber hose"?

quote:

I've said it before, and you prove it again - you willfully ignore that there are significantly more "non-productive" outs than a K.

I thought EKB said all Outs were equally BAD?

quote:

Originally posted by trump:

quote:

I've said it before, and you prove it again - you willfully ignore that there are significantly more "non-productive" outs than a K.

I thought EKB said all Outs were equally BAD?

Which means you don't read very well.

Go figure.

I know that in trying to figure out how to call me a name like "a bundle of cigarettes that uses numbers like a [insert homophobic slur]" that this conversation probably flies right over your head. So, I'll try it slower, mmmkay?

PR and his gang of statphobes believe that contact is more productive than a strikeout.

My point, I'm highlighting that in many instances "contact" is no more productive than a K.

In other words, using the language many of you believe - that there are such things as "productive outs" - I am highlighting that there are many outs that are exactly as "non-productive" as K's (since you believe K's are non-productive), even though the batter made contact.

So, yes, EKB did reiterate (big word for "say again") my original point throughout this lovely exercise - Strikeouts are no better or worse than any other out in the grand scheme of things, proven by reams of data that scares people like you.

Slow enough for you?

So you would always rather have a K if a batter is going to make an out?

Of course, that's exactly what I meant when I wrote "strikeouts are no better or worse than any other out in the grand scheme of things".

Seriously, were you dropped on your head as an infant? Repeatedly?

quote:

Originally posted by trump:
So you would always rather have a K if a batter is going to make an out?

BTW, you never answered my questions from earlier, and I'm still curious to know the following:

A. Have you ever even read a Baseball Prospectus?

B. And if you have, did you understand any of it?

Yes, and all of the data in Baseball Prospectus clearly points out that we should be instructing hitters at young ages to K more to be more productive.
52 years worth of data I believe ...

And yet, that's not what the data (52 years of it HAR HAR HAR) said.

BTW I bet you love Jeff Foxworthy, doncha?

quote:

Originally posted by trump:
Yes, and all of the data in Baseball Prospectus clearly points out that we should be instructing hitters at young ages to K more to be more productive.
52 years worth of data I believe ...

The reason I asked those questions (futilely hoping for a serious answer...oh, well) was that I wanted know if I was dealing with someone (you) who was either:

A. Ignorant (had simply not read much on the subject, and possibly there was still hope).

B. Moronic (had read some on the subject, and was simply too stupid to understand it).

or that you were:

C. Lying (claimed to have read on the subject and/or claimed to have understood it, and still have posted the utter nonsense that you have so far on this thread).

Even I wouldn't have guessed it would've been all three.

Are you really a coach? , I can't believe that you were in High School ... Prodigy?

Already asked and answered, skeezix.

Have another cocktail.



*Edit: And please let me know when you're done editing your stupid.

quote:

Originally posted by trump:
Yes, and all of the data in Baseball Prospectus clearly points out that we should be instructing hitters at young ages to K more to be more productive.
52 years worth of data I believe ...

did anyone say that? I can't find that anywhere. If that is really the depth of evaluation from a poster here, that clearly represents someone who just doesn't understand the topic or issue at all, or is to simple to comprehend it.

quote:

Originally posted by CAPackFan95:


PR and his gang of statphobes believe that contact is more productive than a strikeout.

My point, I'm highlighting that in many instances "contact" is no more productive than a K.

Your definition of contact appears to being hitting the ball and making an out. My definition is putting the ball in play and reaching base at a rate similar to the hitters OBP. My point of view has never been productive outs vs Ks.

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
or is to simple to comprehend it.

Better be careful Bong. Ammo already pulled up TD for the incorrect use of
"their". He might be on you next and say it should be, or is 2 simple to comprehend it.

I think if they would eliminate contact outs and replace them with strike outs, home runs and walks (at a similar percentage as their OBP) then their production would go up more so that if they eliminated strike outs like in Rick's position.

Indisputable.

I think my position is pretty solid, so I'm not concerned with name calling or spelling errors to distract people from evaluating my point.

quote:

Originally posted by WarrenSpahn:
I know those guys are our boppers, but I think the hitting philosophy needs to be, move the runner over, hit the ball behind the runners, whatever.

I talked to a friend(take that Ammo)I work with and his nephew, Jeff Malm, was drafted in the 5th round by TB and is currently playing on a rookie league team in W. Virginia. He said he's not having any fun because they won't let him swing away as much as he wants, Malm was 2 time HS player of the in LV and holds the national HS record for most career hits, because they're teaching him to hit the other way, move runners up, and in general learn situation baseball. I found it ironic that professionals teach this aspect almost immediately when the importance of putting the ball in play has been blown off as an afterthought by some in this forum.

Jeff doesn't appear to be doing anything very well right now. Maybe if he were benched after all those strike outs like some here propose (purposeful strawman added for emphasis) he'd learn to be a better player.

BTW, is that scenario (cool story, I mean that) meant to point out how when hitting instruction emphasizes how to get better outs vs. how to get better hits retards a players growth? Sounds like your vignette bolsters the point that teams shouldn't get worked up about situational hitting and embrace that the strike out isn't worse than a contact out in the course of a career.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
Your definition of contact appears to being hitting the ball and making an out.

Nope. Strawman yet again. Really, Rick, do you offer anything other than strawmen? I acknowledge that it CAN be an out, which you ignore when you just assume a reduced strikeout leads to getting on base or being productive.

quote:

My point of view has never been productive outs vs Ks.

No Rick, that's simply your latest "point of view".

But, I'll ask again, if this was TRULY your point of view all along - why did you start off with disagreeing with my statement that strikeouts are no worse than any other outs?

quote:

Originally posted by CAPackFan95:

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
Your definition of contact appears to being hitting the ball and making an out.

Nope. Strawman yet again. Really, Rick, do you offer anything other than strawmen? I acknowledge that it CAN be an out, which you ignore when you just assume a reduced strikeout leads to getting on base or being productive.

quote:

My point of view has never been productive outs vs Ks.

No Rick, that's simply your latest "point of view".

But, I'll ask again, if this was TRULY your point of view all along - why did you start off with disagreeing with my statement that strikeouts are no worse than any other outs?

I've answered that 10 times and shown how the thread starts with " the Brewers strike out too much", then your reply about an out is an out and then mine about making more contact. Clearly my emphasis is about getting on base. I talk about a walk, hit, error and as a 4th option moving a runner up.

-------------------
If you don't strike out it means you put the ball in play or walk by not swinging at that pitch out of the strike zone. That contact could mean a hit, reaching on an error, or a productive out that moves a runner into scoring position. It's only logical that putting the ball in play more often will lead to a higher BA and/or OBP.

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
Jeff doesn't appear to be doing anything very well right now. Maybe if he were benched after all those strike outs like some here propose (purposeful strawman added for emphasis) he'd learn to be a better player.

BTW, is that scenario (cool story, I mean that) meant to point out how when hitting instruction emphasizes how to get better outs vs. how to get better hits retards a players growth? Sounds like your vignette bolsters the point that teams shouldn't get worked up about situational hitting and embrace that the strike out isn't worse than a contact out in the course of a career.

It's just a story but kind of shows how things have changed. You'd think all players would be taught along the way all the basic fundamentals. Maybe because of his talent he was never required to learn small ball. Uncle Jim said he had 3 hits last night and has 14 RBIs with the team leader having 18. He also said in rookie league so much evaluation is going on that everybody plays 2-3 innings and you seldom face the same pitcher twice in a game.

HS baseball is a big thing out here. Players are recruited and get zoning variances to plan wherever they want. Malm played at Bishop Gorman which cost $10K a year but he goes on a scholarship just like college. His team won state title all 4 years and he started all 4 years.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
That contact could mean a hit, reaching on an error, or a productive out that moves a runner into scoring position.

Let's try this again.

No one has EVER stated that strikeouts are better than: a hit, a walk, or reaching on an error. You are the only one debating whether or not a hit, a walk, or reaching on an error is better than a strikeout. It clearly is, there is no debate.

The ONLY thing that has been argued from this side is a strikeout vs any other kind of out. And, that means ANY - whether you define it as productive or not. What I am debating, and will continue to, is that there is no difference in the long term with regard to offensive productivity the value of a strike vs any other out. An out, is an out. Period. No one has EVER stated that a strikeout is better than a walk, a hit, or reaching on a error. So, really, move on.

Again - there is no data AT ALL that shows a "productive" out is better than a strikeout with regards to individual or team offensive production.

quote:

It's only logical that putting the ball in play more often will lead to a higher BA and/or OBP.

Not necessarily. If I replace every strikeout with a groundout to 2B, my BA and my OBP are not changed in the least. You can hypothetically determine what those replaced strikeouts become, but that's all it is a hypothetical.

If you are arguing that getting more hits or walks will increase your BA or OBP, then again, you are the only one having that argument.

For a month I've been trying to tell you that we're arguing about 2 different things. I'm not arguing one out is decidedly better than another. It's always been about cutting down Ks with more contact and getting on base more.

The only time I went outs to outs was when it started dragging on and I couldn't get my point across that I wasn't arguing outs to outs. That's when I posted a study that I didn't even read just to bust chops and show that anybody can post an internet study on anything. Call then experts or whatever you want but they're just opinions. You think the stats make those opinions fact but somebody else can produce stats that say otherwise and call it fact just as easily.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
If you don't strike out it means you put the ball in play or walk by not swinging at that pitch out of the strike zone. That contact could mean a hit, reaching on an error, or a productive out that moves a runner into scoring position. It's only logical that putting the ball in play more often will lead to a higher BA and/or OBP.

Two questions:

1. If this ascertation were true, wouldn't teams that strike out a lot have lower OBP than teams that don't?

2a. Are we really concerned about BA?
2b. Shouldn't we be concerned about runs?
2c. Same question as 1, substitute runs for OBP

I wrote ORIGINALLY

quote:

You are aware that more strikeouts do not correlate to anything worse than an out of any other sort?

Your FIRST SENTENCE was

quote:

I really disagree with this statement

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
I think my position is pretty solid, so I'm not concerned with name calling or spelling errors to distract people from evaluating my point.

Of course it is when you have Gustapo powers, to edit other posters with hasty remarks and pictures as you see fit ...

Funny how you can reply off-subject.

quote:

Originally posted by trump:

Funny how you can reply off-subject.

Do you buy your victim cards in bulk, or do you make them yourself?

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:

quote:

Originally posted by CAPackFan95:
I wrote ORIGINALLY

quote:

You are aware that more strikeouts do not correlate to anything worse than an out of any other sort?

Your FIRST SENTENCE was

quote:

I really disagree with this statement

You were responding to, and I believed disagreeing with, the "Brewers strike out too much" comment and saying it made no difference whether they struck out or made another out. I took that to mean you don't think they strike out too much and cutting down on Ks wouldn't help their offense and that's what I disagreed with. I agreed with the "Brewers strike out too much" comment and my response shows I think if they made more contact they'd produce more baserunners and have a better offense.

Just taking a guy like Gomez as an example of what I'm saying. There's no doubt his game should be geared to hitting the ball on the ground as opposed to taking the big cut for the fences. He'd be far more production utilizing his skills that way. He strikes out once every 4 ABs which is atrocious for a guy that might hit 5 HRs a season. What if he reduced that to once every 5 ABs ? Gomez gets a hit 31% of the time he makes contact. Over 500 ABs that become 8 more hits and makes him a better offensive player. He's been bunting a lot more the last month and you can bet that comes from the staff to get him to up his pathetic OBP. Not every player is Adam Dunn and will have to give up his power to reduce Ks.

Knock it off, that don't make sense ...

Gomez is a great example of a crappy hitter, period. Agree he needs to drop the power act b/c it is getting him nowhere (other than the bench). There is more to fixing his game than just "make more contact." Bunting is a good strategy for a guy with his skill set, but it does limit things as well. He might benefit just as much from watching a few more pitches rather than flailing at them and drawing a walk or two (horrible BB/PA). But I agree about reducing the strike outs, but they would not hurt nearly as much if he cut down on the infield fly balls he hits so often. Crappy hitter, no doubt.

And for every Gomez there is an Adam Dunn or even a Rickie Weeks. Professional hitters get playing time and big contracts based on how they produce, not how they get out.

Who both happen to be on my fantasy team.

love someone to answer my 2 (.3) questions

Maybe the light goes on for Gomez some day but I see him as a 4th OFer in the future. He'd be a good defensive replacement/PR/spot starter in the OF. He's going to drive us nuts if he gets 400-500 ABs a season.

In the limited times I've seen Cain, he appears to be everything we hoped Gomez would be and I see him in CF next season.

quote:

Originally posted by Coach:
Who both happen to be on my fantasy team.

You have Gomez on you fantasy team? Do you get points for hustle?