Epic Strike Out Thread

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
curious the "better" study had all the numbers wrong

I saw that. The study I didn't post carved up that baseball perspective study like a Thanksgiving turkey.

Of course it did.

quote:

Originally posted by CAPackFan95:

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
curious the "better" study had all the numbers wrong

I saw that. The study I didn't post carved up that baseball perspective study like a Thanksgiving turkey.

Of course it did.

Not bad, only took 6 days to come up with that gem.

Twins suck. New thread

quote:

Originally posted by Diggr14:
Twins suck. New thread

Talk radio pretty down on that club here. Heard some talk that they need JJ back to get the offense going:

we was robbed!

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:

Not bad, only took 6 days to come up with that gem.

And yet that gem still contains more than anything you've provided, other than an imaginary study you did of the 1998 SFG.

I'd ask to see this analysis that "carves up" Basbeball Prospectus, but we all know that it doesn't exist, and it's yet another of your delusional studies that only you are privy to, because it exists only in your head.

Now, can you please get back to telling us how 4 AB disproves a 52 year analysis?

Here's my original statement that making more contact would produce more runs for the reasons I stated. Your 52 year study that an out is an out has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm not talking about trading Ks for outs, I'm trading Ks for baserunners (or moving baserunners) and based on a player's OBP it has to increase with more balls put in play.
--------------------------------
I really disagree with this statement. 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.

if you are saying that if we traded strike outs for base hits of some kind, that the team would have better slash lines, then I agree with you. I'm a little surprised no one has come to that conclusion before.

now wait a second, this doesn't seem quiet right

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
Here's my original statement that making more contact would produce more runs for the reasons I stated. Your 52 year study that an out is an out has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm not talking about trading Ks for outs, I'm trading Ks for base runners (or moving base runners) and based on a player's OBP it has to increase with more balls put in play.
--------------------------------
I really disagree with this statement. 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.

but, you clearly and succinctly were responding to the exact question I have in bold.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:

quote:

Originally posted by CAPackFan95:

quote:

They strike out too much (8th in MLB).

You are aware that more strikeouts do not correlate to anything worse that an out of any other sort? Or not I guess. I know, lemme guess, you can remember that one time when a fly ball would have scored a runner and they struck out?

I really disagree with this statement. 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.

Sounds to me like that is exactly the issue you are responding to. CAP is clearly talking about outs, and you disagree with the statement.

Again, if all you are saying is that hits lead to more runs and a higher batting average than strike outs, I agree with you. Since you purposely chose (a really crappy) study to discredit CAP assertion that K's are just outs, no different in the long run than a fly out or ground out, I don't get the feeling that is what you meant.

I'm saying exactly what my original statement above reads. And yes, that's a conclusion that a week ago you were disagreeing with. My position has never changed.

I even posted this example.
I'm not comparing Ks to outs as much as saying Ks hurt an offense. It only stands to reason if a player cuts down on his Ks he'll be more productive offensively. If a player had 500 ABs, 150 hits, and 100Ks, he'd be a .300 hitter and a .375 hitter when he puts the ball in play. If he cut down 40 Ks he'd get 15 more hits in the same 500 ABs and now he's a .330 hitter. For your theory to work out he'd have to make an out all 40 times that he doesn't K. An out is an out but a hitter is not going to K 40 less times and replace those ABs with 40 outs.

As far as the relationship to Ks and runs scored, I don't see it. There are many other factors to scoring runs than what type of outs a team makes. The fact that team A scored just as many runs as team B did despite striking out 50 more times means what if team A has a decidedly better offense, maybe hit 50 more HRs, better OBP, SLG,faced weaker pitching, etc?

Twins suck... who cares. Get a greencard and move to Wisconsin already.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
It only stands to reason if a player cuts down on his Ks he'll be more productive offensively.

Outs being constant, whether K's or any other out doesn't matter. If a guy cuts down his K's but gets just as many outs he will not be more productive offensively in the long run.

Unless your statement is completely and clearly, "It stands to reason that if a player gets more hits he'll be more productive offensively", then you are wrong. You are putting to much negative value on the strike out, it just doesn't play out. Your position that putting the ball in play is substantially better than a strike out when talking about outs may seem logical, but just isn't grounded in how things actually work.

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:


You are aware that more strikeouts do not correlate to anything worse that an out of any other sort? Or not I guess. I know, lemme guess, you can remember that one time when a fly ball would have scored a runner and they struck out?

I really disagree with this statement. 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 contactcould 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]

Sounds to me like that is exactly the issue you are responding to. CAP is clearly talking about outs, and you disagree with the statement.

[/QUOTE]

I'm talking the difference between Ks and making contact.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
As far as the relationship to Ks and runs scored, I don't see it. There are many other factors to scoring runs than what type of outs a team makes. The fact that team A scored just as many runs as team B did despite striking out 50 more times means what if team A has a decidedly better offense, maybe hit 50 more HRs, better OBP, SLG,faced weaker pitching, etc?

exactly, strike outs don't matter that much. Strike outs somehow hit peoples romantic side that it is a worse out than any other kind, but it isn't. Outs are bad, simple as that. If team A strikes out 50 times more and scores just as many runs, the K's didn't amount to a hill of beans in their big picture.

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
It only stands to reason if a player cuts down on his Ks he'll be more productive offensively.

Outs being constant, whether K's or any other out doesn't matter. If a guy cuts down his K's but gets just as many outs he will not be more productive offensively in the long run.

Unless your statement is completely and clearly, "It stands to reason that if a player gets more hits he'll be more productive offensively", then you are wrong. You are putting to much negative value on the strike out, it just doesn't play out. Your position that putting the ball in play is substantially better than a strike out when talking about outs may seem logical, but just isn't grounded in how things actually work.

How many different ways do I have to say this? If a guy eliminates 40 Ks and gets on base 18 more times in a season he has to be more productive offensively. How can he not be? Even if he draws a walk he puts pressure on the pitcher or moves a baserunner into scoring position.

I know you're smarter than this so I don't understand what you're trying to prove.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
I'm talking the difference between Ks and making contact.

if you are throwing in hits as part of the equation, then yes. We were talking about the myth of the strike out being worse than other outs. Throughout this whole discussion, I get the feeling you are making the point that the strike out is worse (based on moving players over, etc.) than other outs. That I cannot agree with.

Simply making contact, but still making an out is meaningless in terms of productivity. It may seem logical (I can see that), but it does not play out that way.

quote:

Originally posted by Diggr14:
Twins suck... who cares. Get a greencard and move to Wisconsin already.

I actually lived in WI for 26 years before I headed west. That was 30 years ago so you have to admit I'm loyal to WI teams.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
How many different ways do I have to say this? If a guy eliminates 40 Ks and gets on base 18 more times in a season he has to be more productive offensively. How can he not be? Even if he draws a walk he puts pressure on the pitcher or moves a baserunner into scoring position.

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
if you are saying that if we traded strike outs for base hits of some kind, that the team would have better slash lines, then I agree with you. I'm a little surprised no one has come to that conclusion before.

I never disagreed that hits were better than outs or getting on base was better than not getting on base. I just think you've changed what you were challenging in the first place. which was.....

quote:

Originally posted by CAPackFan95:
You are aware that more strikeouts do not correlate to anything worse that an out of any other sort? Or not I guess. I know, lemme guess, you can remember that one time when a fly ball would have scored a runner and they struck out?

good discussion, guys...here's my two cents...

I do agree an out is an out for batting average, etc...

however, makinag contact out is better than a strike-out...IMHO...

as mentioned, a fly ball out can score a runner...
...a ground out could score a runner....even a double-play ball can score a runner (even though the batter doesn't get an RBI). An error scores a runner (not an out, but it doesn't help the average either).

in general, making contact is better than NOT making contact....

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:

quote:

Originally posted by Diggr14:
Twins suck... who cares. Get a greencard and move to Wisconsin already.

I actually lived in WI for 26 years before I headed west. That was 30 years ago so you have to admit I'm loyal to WI teams.

Ok PR - noted.

Twins still suck though. This is a Brewers forum!

quote:

Originally posted by SanDiegoPackFan:


however, makinag contact out is better than a strike-out...IMHO...

..

Most of the time yes. Looking at strike 3 is a sin, happens way too often now and umpires call the zone tighter with 2 strikes now.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
I'm not talking about trading Ks for outs, I'm trading Ks for baserunners (or moving baserunners) and based on a player's OBP it has to increase with more balls put in play.

LOLOMGWTFBBQ? The WHOLE FARKING POINT I made was exactly this:
"You are aware that more strikeouts do not correlate to anything worse that an out of any other sort? Or not I guess. I know, lemme guess, you can remember that one time when a fly ball would have scored a runner and they struck out?"

Your response to that exact quote was:
"I really disagree with this statement. 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 didn't argue about trading outs for hits. You argued the typical old school gut feel position that the glorified "productive out" is much better than a strikeout and leads directly to a more productive team.

Then, I (and others) proceeded to destroy the argument about productive outs vs strikeouts.

Which is why you've now changed your argument to the strawman of:
"If a guy eliminates 40 Ks and gets on base 18 more times in a season he has to be more productive offensively"

Well done Don Quixote, you slayed the hell out of that windmill. No one was arguing that point. But you won it! Genius. Trading K's for getting on base is a good thing. Next up - water is wet.

Here's another one that will blow your mind. Ready? If a guy eliminates 40 groundouts and gets on base 18 more times in a season he has to be more productive offensively.

Of course, you've still not proven anything with any data that backs up that claim, continuing your trend of definitive statements with absolutely zero data that backs up said statement.

I understand that being your age, you were instilled with these beliefs - that making contact and advancing the runner on 2nd with 1 out by hitting behind him is what real ball players do, they don't strikeout there. (Let's also ignore that a single by the next AB scores the runner more often than not from 2nd as he's running on contact with 2 outs, making that "advance" to 3rd on a productive out meaningless vs a strikeout in most cases.) Choke up with 2 strikes, make contact, hit the ball to the right side of the infield. Can't strike out. Make the other team at least make a play! Fundamentals! Not what these damn kids today do just wanting to swing for the fences and get on ESPN!

I understand the thinking. I was instilled with it growing up as well. It's antiquated and outdated (kudos to EKB) romanticism of what good ball players do.

The problem is, in this case, it's not accurate. At all. Strikeouts are no worse than any other out. Period. That was the original argument I made. That was the original argument you disagreed with. And the numerous sources of data I have pointed to multiple times bear my assertion out.

If you want to argue something else, have at it, but no one is arguing trading K's for reaching base is a good thing. The argument at hand is K's vs any other kind of out.

quote:

Originally posted by CAPackFan95:

Your response to that exact quote was:
"I really disagree with this statement. 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 didn't argue about trading outs for hits. You argued the typical old school gut feel position that the glorified "productive out" is much better than a strikeout and leads directly to a more productive team.

I listed productive out but also hit, walk, reaching by error,just making contact, and putting the ball in play so all you've been doing is cherry picking my quote for one thing.

quote:

Originally posted by SanDiegoPackFan:
however, making contact out is better than a strike-out...IMHO...

as mentioned, a fly ball out can score a runner...
...a ground out could score a runner....even a double-play ball can score a runner (even though the batter doesn't get an RBI). An error scores a runner (not an out, but it doesn't help the average either).

in general, making contact is better than NOT making contact....

I see where you are going, and it makes sense logically (perhaps the cusp of the issue here). Let me try this way before the accusations that "Bong wants guys to strike out" parade starts marching to the dum dum drumb again (specifically not talking to you SDPF- but that drum has started to beat before).

Bases loaded, 1 out and Prince at the plate. I know he is getting an out, I will always chose the deep fly ball to left that scores the run over a strike out. Outs are always bad, always. There is no "good" out. Always bad. Some outs can result in a positive outcome (like a sac fly) but are still bad. A walk or hit is always preferred and a "good" outcome. I say this purposely because teams that do better avoiding outs score more runs, this includes teams committed to doing things like bunting guys over, making contact and not striking out, etc. (Again, there are situations where it is appropriate). Over the course of many seasons, teams that are comfortable with the strike out vs. playing for the "small ball" option score more runs. Emphasizing making contact (in my example, 'small ball') is less effective at scoring runs in the big picture (again, individual situations where I would advocate for it) than your teams less willing to bunt or hit behind the runner and more willing for a big swing even though it increases the potential for a strike out.

Back to the original scenario, with bases loaded there are option A) sac fly, B) strike out and C) inning ending double play. Over the course of a season, with all players involved, "A" doesn't happen with enough frequency to offset "C," making "B" an option that shouldn't get people worked up. Getting upset about strike outs is part of the romantic side of baseball, but not really part of the logical side. How many times a team strikes out does not correlate to how many runs they score. High K teams score the same amount of runs as low K teams, meaning putting the bat on the ball is not substantially better for teams when it comes to scoring runs. K's are not as bad as we make them out to be (still and out, outs are always bad).

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:

quote:

Originally posted by CAPackFan95:

quote:

They strike out too much (8th in MLB).

You are aware that more strikeouts do not correlate to anything worse that an out of any other sort? Or not I guess. I know, lemme guess, you can remember that one time when a fly ball would have scored a runner and they struck out?

I really disagree with this statement. 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.

I think I understand it now, maybe I can help CAP out. When Rick specifically responded to your statement by saying "I really disagree with this statement." he meant "I really disagree with this statement you or anyone else didn't make." It appears the statement he is disagreeing with was not made by anyone, which is where I became confused. Ergo, he in fact does agree with your statement that "strikeouts do not correlate to anything worse than an out of any other sort."

quote:

"A" doesn't happen with enough frequency to offset "C," making "B" an option that shouldn't get people worked up.

Can you look up how many run scoring grounders the Brewers have had with the bases loaded or 1st and 3rd this year? Braun had one just recently that I know wouldn't have scored a run with a SO.

I don't think I can specifically TD, but your scenario could in fact (and in fact, did) happen, just as the opposite happens on a sharply hit ball to the third basemen with a play at the plate or an inning ending double play (which also happened last week).

Look back at CAP's link, it compiles years emphasizing just that.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
but also hit

Which no one argued and was never the point.

quote:

walk,

Which no one argued and was never the point.

quote:

reaching by error,

Which no one argued and was never the point.

quote:

just making contact,

A meaningless and throwaway term that is nothing but a euphemism for productive out because you know that term has been debunked. I mean really, just making contact? Does a foul ball qualify? How about an infield popup that invokes the infield fly rule? Are those more productive than a K?

If you mean something else, I'd be interested what this vague term means.
Well, other than the obvious.

quote:

and putting the ball in play

See above. Yet another more friendly term that really means productive out, but you want to avoid that term because that concept has been destroyed.

Feels like you know that you are clearly incorrect with regards to the original discussion comparing a K vs any other out or a productive out. So, you either change the argument completely or you use vague terms like "putting the ball in play" and "just making contact" to try avoid the obvious.

quote:

so all you've been doing is cherry picking my quote for one thing.

I cherry picked the thing we were initially discussing. I cherry picked your disagreement with my premise of comparing a K to any other out. I have been, and continue to discuss that same point. You have changed the argument multiple times when proven incorrect. That is why it feels to you like I am cherry picking - when in reality I have stayed consistent with the discussion, whereas you have tried to change and broaden the discussion in order to find a sliver of area where you can claim otherwise.

Of course, you are still welcome to provide any links to sources of data that provides a challenge to the studies and data I have provided that show no correlation at all between team and player strikeout rates and productivity. Being a bit of a "stats guy", I trust significant data over personal bias and opinion - so if you have data that shows otherwise that you can point to, I'd love to see it.

quote:

Originally posted by CAPackFan95:


I cherry picked the thing we were initially discussing. I cherry picked your disagreement with my premise of comparing a K to any other out.

My initial statement, where am I comparing Ks to other outs? Looks like I'm talking about putting the ball in play which isn't another more friendly term that really means productive outs and specifically refers to hits, walks and reaching on errors.
------------

I really disagree with this statement. 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.
------------------

If you read the link I posted once it's one more time than I read it. That was a google search that took two minutes designed to show how easy it is to find irrelevant data on the internet that rebuts the irrelevant data that you're using as proof that Ks have no impact on runs scored.

quote:

Originally posted by TD:

quote:

"A" doesn't happen with enough frequency to offset "C," making "B" an option that shouldn't get people worked up.

Can you look up how many run scoring grounders the Brewers have had with the bases loaded or 1st and 3rd this year? Braun had one just recently that I know wouldn't have scored a run with a SO.

I would imagine somebody can pull a 52 year search out of their a$$ and supply that data.

Can I play the dum dum drums today?

sounds like somebody backtracking to me

That's you sliding backwards down the hill again. Probably in your same old tracks too.

I'll give you a consolation victory though. You've proven me wrong when I said you were smart enough to figure it out.

There is one instance where making contact is good. If you foul off many pitches, say 10 or more that pitcher is working harder. Now whether you end the at bat with an out, be it a K or ground ball or fly ball, it really doesn't matter. But making that pitcher work harder by making contact might help the next batter coming up. JMO, JMHO.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
That's you sliding backwards down the hill again. Probably in your same old tracks too.

I'll give you a consolation victory though. You've proven me wrong when I said you were smart enough to figure it out.

last straws of an indefensible position with personal insults. I guess if you've got nothing else....

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
That's you sliding backwards down the hill again. Probably in your same old tracks too.

I'll give you a consolation victory though. You've proven me wrong when I said you were smart enough to figure it out.

last straws of an indefensible position with personal insults. I guess if you've got nothing else....

That's not a personal insult, you made me eat my words. That's all. If you feel insulted you did it to yourself.

I explained something that you agree with but your ego won't let you admit it.
Again, if all you are saying is that hits lead to more runs and a higher batting average than strike outs, I agree with you.

not used to seeing you dig this hard. For the record, I'm pretty clear what an insult is, unless you are refering to another statement no one ever made that you are responding to as though someone made it. If that is the case, you do genuinely have me confused. I'm sticking to that's the best you've got.

quote:

Originally posted by ammo:
There is one instance where making contact is good. If you foul off many pitches, say 10 or more that pitcher is working harder. Now whether you end the at bat with an out, be it a K or ground ball or fly ball, it really doesn't matter. But making that pitcher work harder by making contact might help the next batter coming up. JMO, JMHO.

Isn't making contact and getting a base hit also good? Forcing a pitcher to pitch out of the stretch? Making the defense work and maybe causing an error? Moving a runner up? A lot of things happen when you make contact and put the ball in play that don't happen with a strike out.

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
not used to seeing you dig this hard. For the record, I'm pretty clear what an insult is, unless you are refering to another statement no one ever made that you are responding to as though someone made it. If that is the case, you do genuinely have me confused. I'm sticking to that's the best you've got.

After reading that post I'd say you're definitely confused.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
A lot of things happen when you make contact and put the ball in play that don't happen with a strike out.

is there someone saying that a strike out is better than a hit, because I haven't seen anyone anywhere make that point. Yet you insist on rehashing it. I'm pretty sure everyone agrees any non out is better than an strike out.

The initial point, which you responded to with both your opinion and a research study with imaginary numbers, was that a strike out is no worse than any other out (a contact out if it pleases you). Just out of curiosity, is it of your opinion that contact outs are better or more desirable than strike outs for a team over the course of a season resulting in teams that strike out less scoring more runs? Cause that is where this all started.

strike out = worse than other outs / over the course of a season?

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
A lot of things happen when you make contact and put the ball in play that don't happen with a strike out.

The initial point, which you responded to with both your opinion and a research study with imaginary numbers, was that a strike out is no worse than any other out (a contact out if it pleases you).

How many times do you have to read this to get it? Walks, hits, errors are not contact outs.

I've already explained I didn't even read that link, just threw it out to show how anybody can have a study on the internet and have it called research. That fact that you swallowed the hook is on you.
--------------

I really disagree with this statement. 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