Epic Strike Out Thread

quote:

Originally posted 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.

lamest concession ever

You have the lamest gameplan ever. Keep getting B slapped so you try to change the topic little by little.

cowardly response

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.

Just for refrence

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
That's not the way you phrased it in the first question. You wanted me to compare two different team's stats.

I want to make a comparison that can actually be made. If it is only logical that putting the ball in play will lead to greater production, then teams who put the ball in play should have greater production. A clear and distinct line from your position. Some teams put the ball in play more often and some don’t, if the act of putting the ball in play (clearly taken from your argument) logically leads to better numbers, it should happen that way. It doesn’t.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
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.

You are overestimating again. Can you name one player who reaches base 40% of the time they make contact now? Or will you tuck tail again and refuse to use actual data to back up your argument? (predicted response- “You are changing the argument again, I’m saying if a player did increase contact and reach base 40% of the time that he would in fact reach base 40% of the time.)

Seriously, you have all these logical premises, you would think one of them would actually play out and happen as you predict.

Teams that make contact over striking out will logically perform better- disproven
If Carlos Gomez reduced his strike out rate his production will logically improve- disproven
Carlos Gomez is a crappy hitter- proven
Teams that strike out more lose more games- disproven

I know you will claim that all these counterarguments don’t actually address your position, or that stats are misleading, but they all stem from your initial position that It's only logical that putting the ball in play more often will lead to a higher BA and/or OBP. While there are real world examples of how your premise doesn’t hold up when real baseball is played, you cannot present one example of how your premise holds true aside from your magical and childlike reasoning while sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to examine how your hypothesis hold up. That is what the rest of the world does after proposing a hypothesis, they look to see if it holds up. I have to believe (unlike your 40% myth) that there are even examples of guys or teams who have significantly reduced K numbers and improved production. While looking at isolated or small data sets and ignoring the big picture is a TD method of gathering evidence, at least it would give you something.

Eagerly anticipating how you avoid this post.

let's consider a guy like Ichiro. Dude doesn't strike out and is totally a slap hitter, an awesome one at that. Guy gets on base a lot and scores a lot of runs. His production, year in and year out is great and predicated on making contact. I don't want him to strike out more- he is already great at what he does (and strike outs are bad).

Makes him no more honorable that Adam Dunn who takes a polar opposite approach. (I don't want him to change his already proven effective method either). I not going to tell Ichiro to strike out more or Dunn to strike out less.

Getting worked up over strike outs and making contact doesn't play out when looking at real baseball. It is about how you produce, not how you get out. There are examples of big strike out guys who don't produce and slap hitters who can't make runs happen either. Thinking contact will fix all your production issues is a naive way of looking at the game.

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
It is about how you produce, not how you get out.

Hey guys, what's going on in this thread?

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:


I want to make a comparison that can actually be made. If it is only logical that putting the ball in play will lead to greater production, then teams who put the ball in play should have greater production. A clear and distinct line from your position. Some teams put the ball in play more often and some don’t, if the act of putting the ball in play (clearly taken from your argument) logically leads to better numbers, it should happen that way. It doesn’t.
---------------------------------
If you want to make a comparison between 2 different teams that's your choice. I was strictly talking about one team, the Brewers. But I'm sure it could apply to many teams because many teams have contact hitters swinging for the fences. And it's basically changed to that because HRs( big numbers so you don't spin that into another strawman) mean more money in contract negotiations. Comparing different teams with different types of personnel is just an apples to oranges comparison.
----------------------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
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.

You are overestimating again. Can you name one player who reaches base 40% of the time they make contact now? Or will you tuck tail again and refuse to use actual data to back up your argument? (predicted response- “You are changing the argument again, I’m saying if a player did increase contact and reach base 40% of the time that he would in fact reach base 40% of the time.)

Probably one end of the spectrum to the other. OBP for plate appearances that don't result in a K.

Adam Dunn .527
Gomez .360

Now before you say I'm counting BBs, those count in OBP and the first sentence of my original statement refers to a BB as a positive to not striking out.

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:
let's consider a guy like Ichiro. Dude doesn't strike out and is totally a slap hitter, an awesome one at that. Guy gets on base a lot and scores a lot of runs. His production, year in and year out is great and predicated on making contact. I don't want him to strike out more- he is already great at what he does (and strike outs are bad).

Makes him no more honorable that Adam Dunn who takes a polar opposite approach. (I don't want him to change his already proven effective method either). I not going to tell Ichiro to strike out more or Dunn to strike out less.

Getting worked up over strike outs and making contact doesn't play out when looking at real baseball. It is about how you produce, not how you get out. There are examples of big strike out guys who don't produce and slap hitters who can't make runs happen either. Thinking contact will fix all your production issues is a naive way of looking at the game.

How many guys with games that should be tailored more to Ichiro's swing like Adam Dunn? Most every team has a couple. How many 6'8 285 lbs guys slap like Ichiro? None.

A walk is not an out, Rick.

It's also not "putting the ball in play".

The constant here (and has been) is outs. Strikeouts versus other outs. Strikeouts as they apply to production (runs) in the real world. Not walks, not hits (both obviously more desirable outcomes). Nobody has ever said that walks or hits aren't more desirable outcomes than a strikeout. Nobody.

But you knew that: "Before you say I'm counting BB's..." tells me that you already knew that.

You know what I think? I think deep down you know you're wrong, and you simply don't have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

Cool. A brand new made up statistic because all others have failed him.

OBPbip.

I guess when you have nothing that backs your argument, you are forced to do that.

I mean, I love it! He wants a stats that shows OBP when making contact, so he removes K's! But he keeps BBs.

I mean, that's not intellectually dishonest at all!

I would rather have 9 Ichiro's in the line-up vs 9 Dunn's. That's just me though!

quote:

Originally posted by Coach:
A walk is not an out, Rick.

It's also not "putting the ball in play".

The constant here (and has been) is outs. Strikeouts versus other outs. Strikeouts as they apply to production (runs) in the real world. Not walks, not hits (both obviously more desirable outcomes). Nobody has ever said that walks or hits aren't more desirable outcomes than a strikeout. Nobody.

But you knew that: "Before you say I'm counting BB's..." tells me that you already knew that.

You know what I think? I think deep down you know you're wrong, and you simply don't have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

No it's never been Ks vs BBs. My initial sentence in my initial statement clearly mentions BBs as a positive result of not striking out. The constant is your inability to comprehend that.

The "Before you say I'm counting BB's..." is to counter the next predictable lame ass statement that comes from the geek squad. By taking that away it saves countless irrelevant posts from the squad. It's called being one step ahead of you which pretty much summarizes what's happened this entire thread.

A team of Ichiro's would be formidable, I can't argue that. Based on 1 Ichiro's production, 9 of them would probably be very exciting to watch. A team of Dunn's would be fun as well. Adam gets on base slightly (very slightly) at a better rate than Ichiro and with more power, but you can't argue Ichiro's capacity to score runs.

Again, I don't want Ichiro to strike out more just like I don't want Dunn to worry about making contact more. Both players are incredibly productive with their current approach, almost as if they know strike outs don't correlate to production, so they both do what the do best.

I would hate to watch a team of Dunn's in the field though.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:

No it's never been Ks vs BBs.

That's the only accurate portion of your post.

The rest is you continuing to attempt to defend the indefensible, and continue to take personal shots (fine with me by the way) because you have no argument whatsoever.

You're just not a very bright guy, Rick.

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
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.

You are overestimating again. Can you name one player who reaches base 40% of the time they make contact now? Or will you tuck tail again and refuse to use actual data to back up your argument? (predicted response- “You are changing the argument again, I’m saying if a player did increase contact and reach base 40% of the time that he would in fact reach base 40% of the time.)

You've hidden from this question again. You propose that a team will reach base on 40% of the ball they make contact with (I assume you mean in play- I'll give you that) but no such team or even player exists. No one does this. Only childlike and magical thinking bases a position on a premise that cannot be replicated in real life. You again live in this magical world where only good things come from making contact. It doesn't play out in the actual game.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
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.

to assume making contact instead of striking out will get you on base 40% is illogical.

We can even take it down to 30% (still a high estimate, but at least there are guys who do this). If we are playing to more contact out of fear of the strike out, a lot of guys are going to have to change their approaches. A lot of the guys who strike out a lot see a lot of pitches. At the risk of striking out, they draw a lot of walks and wait for their pitches to hit. They are comfortable accepting strike outs in order to get on base a lot and hit for power. Asking them to change that and push for contact will (if we are assuming) get them that increase of 30% but at the expense of drawing walks and hitting for more power and increasing those double plays. This is an assumption, but just as sound an assumption as thinking that if the play to more contact that the walk rates and power will remain constant. Actually thinking that just getting more contact will only result in positive change is a lot less sound, as we can look at team data and see that how often teams strike out has little impact on production in comparison to teams that make contact more often. Childlike and magical thinking fails again.

Highest Career BABIP, Minimum 3000 PA, 1913-2007

Ty Cobb, .3785
Rogers Hornsby, .3655
Derek Jeter, .3613
Rod Carew, .3585
Ichiro Suzuki, .3572
Miguel Cabrera, .3538
Harry Heilmann, .3511
Joe Jackson, .3507
Tris Speaker, .3503
Bill Terry, .3500
Bobby Abreu, .3489
Ron LeFlore, .3466
Riggs Stephenson, .3459
George Sisler, .3458
Kiki Cuyler, .3456
Ross Youngs, .3454
Wade Boggs, .3438
Roberto Clemente, .3429
Kirby Puckett, .3421
Tony Gwynn, .3414

Since teams who strike out a lot produce offensively no different than teams who make contact more, it is only logical that strike outs are no different than putting the ball in play more often and will not lead to less runs or lower OBP or more losses.

quote:

Originally posted by Coach:
Highest Career BABIP, Minimum 3000 PA, 1913-2007

you forgot errors and contact walks. Add those two factors (+childlike and magical thinking) and everybody gets on base at a 40% clip.

not that I should need to again, but I want to re-state that I hate strike outs. It is actually all outs that I dislike. If I were ranking things I don't like, it would look something like this

sac flies -> all other outs -> double plays is to mother in law -> meatloaf -> people texting while driving. Now if there is going to be an out, plating the run is better than not but I loathe double plays. Still, all outcomes are not desirable. Same with my mother in law. I tolerate her and try to be cordial, but there is a reason we live 300 miles away. Still better than meatloaf, which every says they make the best. I'm sorry, your meatloaf sucks and I hate it. If you make it for me when I visit, I'll eat it politely, but I won't like it. Now if I see you texting while driving, then I am livid. Risking my life and yours to LOL your BFF's, I hate you.

I don't want to encourage teams to strike out more, I just want to acknowledge saying strike outs are extra bad is a myth, all out suck.

I swear to God if Rick says "it's only logical" one more time I'm going to refer to him as Spock from that day forward.

And the last man to get on base 40% of the time when making contact, Ted Williams in 1941. I think that's longer than 52 years.

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
A team of Ichiro's would be formidable, I can't argue that. Based on 1 Ichiro's production, 9 of them would probably be very exciting to watch. A team of Dunn's would be fun as well. Adam gets on base slightly (very slightly) at a better rate than Ichiro and with more power, but you can't argue Ichiro's capacity to score runs.

Again, I don't want Ichiro to strike out more just like I don't want Dunn to worry about making contact more. Both players are incredibly productive with their current approach, almost as if they know strike outs don't correlate to production, so they both do what the do best.

I would hate to watch a team of Dunn's in the field though.

Do you want Escobar and Gomez to strike out less?

Gomez has struck out less, and he put up his worst year in every offensive category. Gomez's numbers proved that clearly. You ignored it because people disagreeing with you makes your vajayay hurt.

Keep clinging to your logic though, and keep name calling anyone that disagrees with you and uses facts to disprove your thoughts.

That's what intelligent adults do.

quote:

Originally posted by CAPackFan95:


That's what intelligent adults do.

That's something you'd know nothing about.

1. you're not intelligent
2. you're not an adult
3. there's no 52 year study on it

The defense rests your honor.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
Do you want Escobar and Gomez to strike out less?

Yes, like all outs I want to see less strike outs. Both players need to show more patience and draw walks. I don't care if the strike out totals don't change for either of them if they can get the walk totals up.

any chance you can answer my questions?

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
Do you want Escobar and Gomez to strike out less?

Yes, like all outs I want to see less strike outs. Both players need to show more patience and draw walks. I don't care if the strike out totals don't change for either of them if they can get the walk totals up.

any chance you can answer my questions?

I've answered every question you've asked except any that are in your "essay" posts which I don't read. Problem is, you're in denial so bad that if I don't give you the answer you want you don't consider it an answer.

BTW, thanks for finally agreeing with me that the Brewers strike out too much with your Gomez and Escobar answers. Could have shaved 18 pages off the thread had you just admitted that right away.

And of course the "..like all outs" part completely escapes you.

You are absolutely pathetic.

Yes, that does escape me since I was never a part of that discussion.

And denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

You are aware the post he was responding to was yours, right?



I love this guy.

I don't know which post you're referring to. I put the girl on ignore. Probably something she posted.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
Do you want Escobar and Gomez to strike out less?

Yes, like all outs I want to see less strike outs. Both players need to show more patience and draw walks. I don't care if the strike out totals don't change for either of them if they can get the walk totals up.

any chance you can answer my questions?

I've answered every question you've asked except any that are in your "essay" posts which I don't read. Problem is, you're in denial so bad that if I don't give you the answer you want you don't consider it an answer.

BTW, thanks for finally agreeing with me that the Brewers strike out too much with your Gomez and Escobar answers. Could have shaved 18 pages off the thread had you just admitted that right away.

Definitely Alzheimers.

Or do you have an evil twin that posts as you?

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
I don't know which post you're referring to. I put the girl on ignore. Probably something she posted.

And you're lying about that too.

You've bottomed out. All you have left is insults.

Pot, meet kettle.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
You've bottomed out. All you have left is insults.

You just ducked again, Rick. He was replying to your post.

Look up....it's up there.....you just replied again.....

That either makes you stupid, or a liar....which is it?

Blind. I don't see anything but your nonsense.

He sounds just like the little boy who says, "If you can't play my way I'll take my ball and go home!"

What an honor, being put on ignor by Rick. I've achived CAPackFan95 status.

Baseball fellas

Baseball

That just means you have the gall to post facts that are contrary to PackerRick's world view.

Baseball fellas, baseball

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
BTW, thanks for finally agreeing with me that the Brewers strike out too much with your Gomez and Escobar answers. Could have shaved 18 pages off the thread had you just admitted that right away.

They can strike out twice as much for all I care, as long as they take the walks and get the singles the need to get on base. It has never been about the outs for me (hate them outs), it has been about the production. If Gomez never strikes out again and still fails to get on base, he still sucks as a hitter.

claiming contact will get you on base at a 40% clip, how is that not crap?

if making more contact results in more runs, how come making more contact doesn't result in more runs?