I meant Weeks and Dunn, not Gomez.
I do have Gomes on my roster, he's my 4th OF.
I meant Weeks and Dunn, not Gomez.
I do have Gomes on my roster, he's my 4th OF.
I meant Weeks and Dunn, not Gomez.
I do have Gomes on my roster, he's my 4th OF.
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong: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
1 & 2c. My statement means to take a team that Ks say 900 times and reduce it to 850, not compare a team that Ks 900 times to a different team that's Ked 850 times. I'm talking about reducing Ks and I think most teams have enough little guys that think they are HR hitters to do that. Case in point, the AB Escobar just had. The bases are loaded in a game you're down 6. He's over swinging trying to hit a 6 run HR. He's not the tying run, has no power, so he should just try to make solid contact and help get the tying run to the plate. When this thread started I was specifically talking about the Brewers and not comparing them to any other team.
I think BA and runs scored would both increase if the table setters do their job. Nothing against Escobar but he tries to pull a lot of pitches and early in the season he drove quite a few balls to the RC gap. That should be his game. Gomez is another. Those are the two guys in the Brewers lineup that have no business trying to pull everything or hitting the ball in the air. That being said, I think Escobar will learn the strike zone and refine his game. Gomez, probably not. I think he's on the clock as far as being a regular goes.
please review X4 rules for creative swearing
So what you're saying is that your anger and frustration makes something that isn't true, true?
Nope.
Nope.
quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
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.
It doesn't make a difference in the long run whether its a strikeout or another out. That was my point, that is proven, and it remains what I've argued throughout.
It's also what you disagreed with, and again above in this response you say you disagree with that statement. Why you continue to say your words are being misinterpreted is beyond me.
Again. Let me be clear.
Strikeouts are no worse than any other out. That was what I said originally, that's what I'm saying now.
If you want to claim that replacing strikeouts with hits, walk, or reaching on an error is good, no one has ever argued that point. You win!
quote: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.
You can think that, but that doesn't make it so. If you want to believe that every reduced strikeout leads to baserunners and have a better offense, that's your opinion. Again, you've provided no data that backs that claim. You've said it's logical. You've called me a pencil necked geek that couldn't find 3rd base. But, you've provided nothing that shows that a reduction in strikeouts leads to increased OBP and "a better offense". I've seen the correlation of MLB teams of OBP and strikeouts. There is none. It's another area which you think sounds logical, which you think sounds right, but the data does not back it in any way. And, foreshadowing here, but this belief is about to get obliterated.
quote: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.
Gomez has never hit above .258. His OBP has never been above .296. His season high for HRs is 7. While you can wax poetic about the fast kid slapping out a lot of base hits, maybe he's just not that good? I'm hard pressed to think Gomez is going up their swinging for the fences. I tend to think he's just not a great offensive player that does enough to stick because people fall in love with his speed and dream of him slapping high hoppers he beats out and stealing a bunch of bases. Problem is, it never happens.
quote: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.
Interesting thought. Let's test it out!
We just so happen to have data in which Gomez did strikeout closer to once every 4AB and data in which Gomez struck out once every 5AB.
2010
SO% 22.3%
BA .231
OBP .285
BAbip .287
2009
SO% 20.6%
BA .229
OBP .287
BAbip .286
In 2009 he struck out at the once/5 AB goal you outlined. He increased his SO% closer to the once/4AB scenario in 2010 and the reality is nothing is different. I mean, literally nothing is different. AB and BAbip are ever slightly better in 2010 (by.002 and .001) and OBP is ever slightly better in 2009 (by .002). None of the deltas are significant.
These years for Gomez outline almost the exact scenario you portrayed, and your contention should have born out that Gomez was a better offensive player in 2009, because he put more balls in play. The reality is nothing changed with him putting more balls in play. He is what he is. Regardless of how often he strikes out.
That was the hard part to swallow. Now? The absolute dagger to your argument...
2008
SO% 23.1%
BA .258
OBP .296
BAbip .330
Gomez's best year as an offensive player was the year in which his SO% was the most, and he put the fewest balls in play.
Let's repeat that once again, just to be clear.
Gomez's best year as an offensive player was the year in which his SO% was the most, and he put the fewest balls in play.
In the categories you believed "logically" would increase due to a reduction in strikeouts, he saw the exact opposite.
His best year in BA and OBP occurred the year in which his SO% was highest and he put the fewest balls in play.
To add insult to injury, his worst full year as an offensive player was the year in which his SO% was the lowest and he put the most balls in play.
I anxiously await you to ignore this, call me a loser for digging up this data (because typing baseball-reference.com, typing in Carlos Gomez, and scanning the page is so time consuming...), and/or change the argument.
But, again, the number of strikeouts don't impact a team's production, and they don't impact a players production.
quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
1 & 2c. My statement means to take a team that Ks say 900 times and reduce it to 850, not compare a team that Ks 900 times to a different team that's Ked 850 times.
but that wasn't my question. If it was logical that reducing strike outs would lead to a higher OBP, why doesn't that logic play out when comparing teams that strike out a lot and teams that don't?
If you want to take team A and turn 100 strike outs into 25 hits, that changes everything. Instead, take into account how actual teams have actually performed and explain why teams that strike out a lot and teams that don't get on base and score runs about the same.
Note: Forgive my insistence about BA, it really is not a strong tool to evaluate a player or team, but I understand it is a common metric (doesn't make it any better). It (like strike outs) is one of the last things I examine when taking the value of a hitter into account.
I'm glad Escobar and Inglett had a chance to bat. Those "K's" are ok because 1 swing of the bat and we could have been within 2 of the Stros. At least Escobar didn't make contact and ground into a doubl play because Inglett wouldn't have had the chance to "K" also. "K's" are pathetic especially from our so called contact hitters. I can take K's from sluggers who hit HR's at a steady rate,but K's from the little contact hitters and K's from swinging at **** pitches really pisses me off, no matter what the frickin stats say. The stats can never show the what if's.
3-4-2-0-0
Runs scored in the last 5 games. The stats show this offense as one of the best in the league..... Where the heck is it. You can't go in a shell for multiple games in a row. Fielder wanted to be traded... did anyone listen to his interviews? He'll play like **** the rest of the year. Nice effort on Lucroy's throw fat ass. they gave the error to Lucroy and it was in fat asses glove!
This team is pathetic and "KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK" are worse than other outs.... I don't give a **** what the 52 year study says.
3-4-2-0-0
Runs scored in the last 5 games. The stats show this offense as one of the best in the league..... Where the heck is it. You can't go in a shell for multiple games in a row. Fielder wanted to be traded... did anyone listen to his interviews? He'll play like **** the rest of the year. Nice effort on Lucroy's throw fat ass. they gave the error to Lucroy and it was in fat asses glove!
This team is pathetic and "KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK" are worse than other outs.... I don't give a **** what the 52 year study says.
seems reasonable
They also have been shut out ever since Corey Hart has returned to the line up. Time to DFA him and move on so this offense can reach it's potential.
They also have been shut out ever since Corey Hart has returned to the line up. Time to DFA him and move on so this offense can reach it's potential.
Wasn't any more lucid the 2nd time. Steamer.
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
Instead, take into account how actual teams have actually performed and explain why teams that strike out a lot and teams that don't get on base and score runs about the same.
That's never been my argument. You're basically asking me to defend a position I don't have an opinion on.
quote:Originally posted by STEAMBOAT:
Fielder wanted to be traded... did anyone listen to his interviews? He'll play like **** the rest of the year. Nice effort on Lucroy's throw fat ass. they gave the error to Lucroy and it was in fat asses glove!
This entire team could be close to packing it in. 4 games ago this team was fired up by the Edmonds HR. The last 4 games have to be very depressing and in Sept. we might be seeing a lot of future Brewers.
quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
Instead, take into account how actual teams have actually performed and explain why teams that strike out a lot and teams that don't get on base and score runs about the same.
That's never been my argument. You're basically asking me to defend a position I don't have an opinion on.
No opinion at all even though we've been discussing for seventeen pages?
Yep, that passes the "smell test".
Defend the fact that your premise about Gomez is 180 degrees the opposite.
If a"K" is no different than any other out, why is ONE major category to evaluate a pitcher is his strikeouts per nine innings pitched?
They put pitchers into "THE HALL of FAME" because they were Flame Throwers and got batters out via the "K".
Bottomof the Ninth bases loaded, your club up 1, no outs... are you hoping for a "K" or any other kind of out?
They put pitchers into "THE HALL of FAME" because they were Flame Throwers and got batters out via the "K".
Bottomof the Ninth bases loaded, your club up 1, no outs... are you hoping for a "K" or any other kind of out?
Welcome to the Hall of Fame "John Doe".... How does it feel to be the first player elected into this Hall to throw 5,274 fly ball outs.
Anybody?
The discussion isn't about pitching stats, STEAMS.
The discussion isn't about pitching stats, STEAMS.
quote:Originally posted by Coach:quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
Instead, take into account how actual teams have actually performed and explain why teams that strike out a lot and teams that don't get on base and score runs about the same.
That's never been my argument. You're basically asking me to defend a position I don't have an opinion on.
No opinion at all even though we've been discussing for seventeen pages?
Yep, that passes the "smell test".
That's been the problem all along. Everything I say gets twisted. When I've explained it over and over it gets ignored. All you have to do is look at how this thread started, and I don't think it even start in this thread, and see my statement is all about making more contact. Whatever his name is disagreed that the Brewers struck out too much and I disagree with that. I agree with the original poster that the Brewers strike out too much.
I'll bet my bottom dollar you never even looked at the start of this thread. Trump is right, you're a coattail guy just piling on without saying anything of value. A cheerleader RAH RAH guy.
quote:Originally posted by STEAMBOAT:
If a"K" is no different than any other out, why is ONE major category to evaluate a pitcher is his strikeouts per nine innings pitched?
Congrats, you get to join the group of poor reading comprehension.
No one has discussed the value of a strikeout for a pitcher. These discussions have exclusively been about the correlation of strikeouts to an offense's production.
quote:Bottomof the Ninth bases loaded, your club up 1, no outs... are you hoping for a "K" or any other kind of out?
I'd be ecstatic over a sharp ground ball to 3B for a 5-4-3 triple play.
I'd be thrilled with a one hopper to the pitcher for a 1-2-3 double play.
I'd be great with a sharp liner to the 1B for a 3 unassisted double play.
I'd be happy with a infield pop up that invokes the infield fly rule.
I'd be happy with a K.
quote:Originally posted by Coach:
Anybody?
The discussion isn't about pitching stats, STEAMS.
When you look at a hitters line why do they list Ks but not flyouts?
That ones for you. Don't appeal for help so you can come flying in with a late hit.
I didn't realize we were talking just Offense here with the "K". 
Please tell me their is no correlation in the discussion of "K no different than any kind of out" and pitching STATS using the "K"?
Please stat boy's prove me wrong......
The 2 go hand-in-hand!
Please tell me their is no correlation in the discussion of "K no different than any kind of out" and pitching STATS using the "K"?
Please stat boy's prove me wrong......
The 2 go hand-in-hand!
quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
When I've explained it over and over it gets ignored.
Wrong. You ignore all the data, and you continue to. Like the Gomez data that says the exact opposite of what you claimed it "logically" would.
quote:see my statement is all about making more contact.
And I proved you wrong again, using the example you provided of Carlos Gomez, and the FACT that his best year was the year he made the least contact.
But, keep playing the poor abused victim. Suits you well.
quote:Originally posted by Coach:
Anybody?
The discussion isn't about pitching stats, STEAMS.
What is it about then?
I answered the question about pitching
quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
When you look at a hitters line why do they list Ks but not flyouts?
quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
When you look at a hitters line why do they list Ks but not flyouts?
That ones for you. Don't appeal for help so you can come flying in with a late hit.
Why?
Because somebody thought it was important (or at least interesting) a long, long, time ago (which it isn't, and still has nothing to do with the discussion at hand)?
Glad to see you've moved on to "red herrings".
quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
That's never been my argument. You're basically asking me to defend a position I don't have an opinion on.
this is a cowardly response. You claimed:
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.
you claim if a player/team does A (not strike out), B will happen (increased OBP.). So why not examine if this is true by looking at what teams actually do in terms of A and B?
If it is in fact "only logical" that teams putting the ball in play more will have higher OBP., why doesn't that logic play out? Teams that don't strike out should have clearly better OBP, run production and OPS. Only they don't. There is no reason we can't examine your position using actual team data.
quote:Originally posted by Coach:quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
When you look at a hitters line why do they list Ks but not flyouts?
That ones for you. Don't appeal for help so you can come flying in with a late hit.
Why?
Because somebody thought it was important (or at least interesting) a long, long, time ago (which it isn't, and still has nothing to do with the discussion at hand)?
Glad to see you've moved on to "red herrings".
You don't even know what the discussion at hand is. You're just playing follow the leader.
Want to try again Rick?
Obtuse, intellectually dishonest, and cowardly is no way to go through life old man.
Obtuse, intellectually dishonest, and cowardly is no way to go through life old man.
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
That's never been my argument. You're basically asking me to defend a position I don't have an opinion on.
this is a cowardly response. You claimed: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.
you claim if a player/team does A (not strike out), B will happen (increased OBP.). So why not examine if this is true by looking at what teams actually do in terms of A and B?
If it is in fact "only logical" that teams putting the ball in play more will have higher OBP., why doesn't that logic play out? Teams that don't strike out should have clearly better OBP, run production and OPS. Only they don't. There is no reason we can't examine your position using actual team data.
That's not the way you phrased it in the first question. You wanted me to compare two different team's stats.
If a team reduces their Ks I do believe their BA and OBP will rise based on the number of times they reach base when they make contact. I've already explained this a dozen times so I don't understand why you keep asking the same question from a little different angle so much. If a team reduces 50 Ks, and they reach base 40% of the time they make contact (that's not their OBP so please don't say I'm overestimating again) they should reach base 20 more times. That's logical. To think they'll reduce 50 Ks and make 50 other out when they normally reach base 40% of the time they make contact is illogical.
I see you still are ignoring that your Carlos Gomez premise got killed, huh?
He's Rick.
He doesn't want to talk about the past.
He wants to talk about why 'k's are listed in batting lines instead of the tatters of his completely destroyed argument.
He doesn't want to talk about the past.
He wants to talk about why 'k's are listed in batting lines instead of the tatters of his completely destroyed argument.
quote:Originally posted by Coach:
Want to try again Rick?
Obtuse, intellectually dishonest, and cowardly is no way to go through life old man.
This started in early July. Where were you?
You're right, I am an old man and I remember when I was young and foolish like you. You think you know a lot but everywhere you're going I've been.
quote:Originally posted by Coach:
He's Rick.
He doesn't want to talk about the past.
He wants to talk about why 'k's are listed in batting lines instead of the tatters of his completely destroyed argument.
Why don't you tell that clown he's been on ignore for a week and sometimes I open his posts when I feel like beating up on him. Go ahead, you're the go-for.
no Rick, you don't ever answer the question. Reality doesn't match your position, so you avoid it. You continue to take this hypothetical situation to back up your position rather that looking at how things play out in reality. You assume something would happen (more contact equals better production) while perpetually ignoring actual data that shows it is not true.
You've said over and over again, "It's only logical that putting the ball in play more often will lead to a higher BA and/or OBP" but refuse to actually examine that statement. If what you said is true, there is no reason we can't look at teams and see clear evidence to back up your logic.
You've said over and over again, "It's only logical that putting the ball in play more often will lead to a higher BA and/or OBP" but refuse to actually examine that statement. If what you said is true, there is no reason we can't look at teams and see clear evidence to back up your logic.
Um, in Georgia?
In case you didn't notice (or simply had forgotten given your apparent age), that there was quite the hiatus in this thread.
Why didn't I post sooner?
Because I'm not in the X4 Brewers forum all the time. Does that matter somehow?
I will say, that think I will be around more often now...you can't put a price tag on the sheer comedy in here.
In case you didn't notice (or simply had forgotten given your apparent age), that there was quite the hiatus in this thread.
Why didn't I post sooner?
Because I'm not in the X4 Brewers forum all the time. Does that matter somehow?
I will say, that think I will be around more often now...you can't put a price tag on the sheer comedy in here.
quote:Originally posted by Coach:
Um, in Georgia?
In case you didn't notice (or simply had forgotten given your apparent age), that there was quite the hiatus in this thread.
Why didn't I post sooner?
Because I'm not in the X4 Brewers forum all the time. Does that matter somehow?
I will say, that think I will be around more often now...you can't put a price tag on the sheer comedy in here.
I'd say your act is priceless.
Georgia? Does that mean you're a pencil rednecked geek?
Of course I noticed the hiatus. That's because I was back in WI for a week.
Oh, he's put me on ignore.
What a tough guy. The guy that calls names puts me on ignore, because I destroy his arguments time and time again.
The wussification of America continues, led by PackerRick
What a tough guy. The guy that calls names puts me on ignore, because I destroy his arguments time and time again.
The wussification of America continues, led by PackerRick
Sorry Bong, you're not going to suck me into another one of your strawmen. Start another thread if you want to go there. You already tried every imaginable path possible in this one to move me away from my original statement.
And still you hold on to your willful stupidity (you can only be considered ignorant if you haven't been confronted with the data....which you have) like a derp life preserver.
I honestly feel sorry for you.
I honestly feel sorry for you.