same question
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?
it is the topic we are talking about
quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
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.
you're joking right? That's is how you are going to justify the crappy study you posted?
Not joking at all. In fact I think both studies are nothing but jokes. There are many factors to runs being scored and Ks vs other outs isn't one of them.
the original question, still out there.....
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?
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:
same question
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?
it is the topic we are talking about
That's never been the topic I was talking about. I've said that over and over. For some reason you want to put those words in my mouth.
I even laid out this example to further explain myself. For some reason you keep coming back to Ks vs other outs.
---------------
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.
so you are not going to answer the question?
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
the original question, still out there.....
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?
I really don't see much relevance Ks/to runs scored one way or another. I think there are times when other types of outs can produce runs that Ks don't. We've all heard an announcer say the pitcher could really use a strike out here.
But there are too many other factors that determine runs scored. Opposing pitchers, ballparks, some teams have more HR hitters, defenses, base running blunders, and I'm sure several more I'm not thinking of. Types of outs would fall way down on my list.
quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
I really don't see much relevance Ks/to runs scored one way or another.
Have we gone full circle? The point I made earlier, and CAP made as well was that strike outs don't matter to runs score, i.e. there is no correlation between teams that strike out a lot vs. team that don't strike out a lot when it comes to run production. Ultimately fans put to much weight on the strike out when in the long run they don't really matter vs. any other out.
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.
So when you originally disagreed with CAP's statement (that K's do not correlate to anything worse) you were actually agreeing with the statement. And when you tried to discredit CAP's statement with a data analysis, you purposely chose one with imaginary numbers to further agree with the point. And you've maintained your position for 4 pages to further emphasize how much you agree that there isn't any relevance in putting credence to strike outs are worse than an out with contact. And you said that I was not smart as a way of further cementing your position that you agreed that lamenting strike outs as a worse type of out doesn't hold water.
I think I have it now.
quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
Isn't making contact and getting a base hit also good?
You keep killing those strawmen. Nicely done! Next up from PackerRick - Sky is Blue.
quote: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.
I'll ask this one final time - I know you THINK this. Where is ANY data that PROVES this?
I mean really, where's this supposed study that carves up Baseball Prospectus like a turkey? Instead of changing the arguments and ignoring data and calling the data I've produced irrelevant just because you don't like that it makes you look completely wrong, if you have data that proves Prospectus and me wrong, share it! Unless you're just trolling? If so, kudos. But I doubt you have the capacity to pull that off.
You know what I think? I think you haven't looked at any data that has been produced that proves your position totally wrong. I think you probably don't even know what Baseball Prospectus is. I think you don't know anything about stats beyond a rudimentary grade school level. I think you are lying through your teeth about this carving up Prospectus study.
Prove me wrong.
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
I really don't see much relevance Ks/to runs scored one way or another.
Have we gone full circle? The point I made earlier, and CAP made as well was that strike outs don't matter to runs score, i.e. there is no correlation between teams that strike out a lot vs. team that don't strike out a lot when it comes to run production. Ultimately fans put to much weight on the strike out when in the long run they don't really matter vs. any other out.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.
So when you originally disagreed with CAP's statement (that K's do not correlate to anything worse) you were actually agreeing with the statement. And when you tried to discredit CAP's statement with a data analysis, you purposely chose one with imaginary numbers to further agree with the point. And you've maintained your position for 4 pages to further emphasize how much you agree that there isn't any relevance in putting credence to strike outs are worse than an out with contact. And you said that I was not smart as a way of further cementing your position that you agreed that lamenting strike outs as a worse type of out doesn't hold water.
I think I have it now.
I don't agree with his statement. He mentions nothing about Ks to runs scored in his original statement. Runs to Ks was his strawman. Where do you see runs to Ks?
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?
Those number on that link are posted are probably just as true as his but like I said, I didn't read and only posted it for your enjoyment.
quote:Originally posted by CAPackFan95:quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
Isn't making contact and getting a base hit also good?
You keep killing those strawmen. Nicely done! Next up from PackerRick - Sky is Blue.quote: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.
I'll ask this one final time - I know you THINK this. Where is ANY data that PROVES this?
I mean really, where's this supposed study that carves up Baseball Prospectus like a turkey? Instead of changing the arguments and ignoring data and calling the data I've produced irrelevant just because you don't like that it makes you look completely wrong, if you have data that proves Prospectus and me wrong, share it! Unless you're just trolling? If so, kudos. But I doubt you have the capacity to pull that off.
You know what I think? I think you haven't looked at any data that has been produced that proves your position totally wrong. I think you probably don't even know what Baseball Prospectus is. I think you don't know anything about stats beyond a rudimentary grade school level. I think you are lying through your teeth about this carving up Prospectus study.
Prove me wrong.
You're the strawman. Started out saying Ks are no worse than any other outs and spun it into Ks vs runs scored. You're attempt to show how smart you are failed miserably. So far you got the support of El-Ka-Wrong and a token appearance by CB, further proof you have nothing going for you.
quote:Originally posted by PackerRick: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.
Of course getting a base hit is good, but we're not talking about base hits. We're talking about a contact out being better than a strike out!!! During a season or even a career the times a batter strikes out and fails to plate a runner or move a runner may well even out as when the batter hits into a double play or even a triple play killing a ralley. How many times have you seen batter A hit into a DP only to see batter B hit a solo homer. Wouldn't the out batter A made been better to be a strike out so batter B could hit a 2 run homer? Do you get it now???????????????? Isn't this really what we are talking about???????
wow, some humorous stuff here.
You are aware that more strikeouts do not correlate to anything worse that an out of any other sort?
You were under the impression this statement could have been about bench clearing brawls or caught stealing? Maybe he was talking abut how Prince's K's negatively impact his WHIP. Week's striking out with RISP lowers his YAC or Field goal percentage.
Nah, you knew what you were disagreeing with. You felt that contact outs were better in the long run than strike outs and you said so. "Strike out" to "Out of any other sort" was right there, the specific and simple statement made by CAP. Not "strike out" to "not striking out (including walks and hits). If you don't agree that strikeouts do not correlate to anything worse that an out of any other sort?, do you happen to have any evidence to back that up? For the sake of argument, lets say "anything worse" means less runs, because that is why they play the game (f you can find something that indicates strikeouts are worse than other outs in OPS or SLG, that would work for me as well). But again, it seems you do agree that strikeouts do not correlate to anything worse that an out of any other sort?, because you say I really don't see much relevance Ks/to runs scored one way or another. It seems you understand that contact outs are overrated and romanticized in comparison to strike outs. One could get dizzy following you.
Now whatever your opinion on the matter is perfectly fine, others have discussed the same issue cordially. I think most people are a little surprised when they see that strike outs are not more negative than other outs because many of us played the game and we all walked to the dugout slightly more satisfied after lining out to short than when we flailed at an inside fastball. It just turns out all outs are bad, and strike outs are just another variation of the bad out.
If you want to continue, you could try answering the questions or solidifying your argument (on the actual topic of discussion) without referring to people as stupid. If you are going to change what is discussed (adding walks and hits) or pull up imaginary studies (still makes me laugh) or call people stupid (
) or deflection (using who agrees rather than addressing the issue) or simply avoid direct questions, chances are on this board people will call you on it. In fact, I encourage you to continue posting. Much of what you provide is thoughtful, interesting, and occasionally humours. But anyone who is as all over the place as you have been in this debate will likely get a similar response.
You are aware that more strikeouts do not correlate to anything worse that an out of any other sort?
You were under the impression this statement could have been about bench clearing brawls or caught stealing? Maybe he was talking abut how Prince's K's negatively impact his WHIP. Week's striking out with RISP lowers his YAC or Field goal percentage.
Nah, you knew what you were disagreeing with. You felt that contact outs were better in the long run than strike outs and you said so. "Strike out" to "Out of any other sort" was right there, the specific and simple statement made by CAP. Not "strike out" to "not striking out (including walks and hits). If you don't agree that strikeouts do not correlate to anything worse that an out of any other sort?, do you happen to have any evidence to back that up? For the sake of argument, lets say "anything worse" means less runs, because that is why they play the game (f you can find something that indicates strikeouts are worse than other outs in OPS or SLG, that would work for me as well). But again, it seems you do agree that strikeouts do not correlate to anything worse that an out of any other sort?, because you say I really don't see much relevance Ks/to runs scored one way or another. It seems you understand that contact outs are overrated and romanticized in comparison to strike outs. One could get dizzy following you.
Now whatever your opinion on the matter is perfectly fine, others have discussed the same issue cordially. I think most people are a little surprised when they see that strike outs are not more negative than other outs because many of us played the game and we all walked to the dugout slightly more satisfied after lining out to short than when we flailed at an inside fastball. It just turns out all outs are bad, and strike outs are just another variation of the bad out.
If you want to continue, you could try answering the questions or solidifying your argument (on the actual topic of discussion) without referring to people as stupid. If you are going to change what is discussed (adding walks and hits) or pull up imaginary studies (still makes me laugh) or call people stupid (
Mind boggling. The whole point was K's vs other outs show no correlation to production. Of course, Rick knows this, and frankly is just being intellectually dishonest now. I mean honestly the first proof I provided of my statement was the study that related K's to runs scored.
Rick - instead of moving the goal posts once again, or implying I'm stupid (while using the contraction "you're" incorrectly instead of "your" I might add. Ironic, no?), how about providing SOMETHING that defends your belief that my position and the sources I've provided are incorrect? I've asked multiple times. I've tried stating time and time again that I am open to data that shows otherwise. You've provided nothing. At all.
You believe my assertion, and the data I have provided is wrong. Why? What data refutes it? Opinions and biases are not at issue here. Where's the data?
Until you provide data, it's pointless continuing this discussion...
Rick - instead of moving the goal posts once again, or implying I'm stupid (while using the contraction "you're" incorrectly instead of "your" I might add. Ironic, no?), how about providing SOMETHING that defends your belief that my position and the sources I've provided are incorrect? I've asked multiple times. I've tried stating time and time again that I am open to data that shows otherwise. You've provided nothing. At all.
You believe my assertion, and the data I have provided is wrong. Why? What data refutes it? Opinions and biases are not at issue here. Where's the data?
Until you provide data, it's pointless continuing this discussion...
quote:Originally posted by ammo:quote:Originally posted by PackerRick: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.
Of course getting a base hit is good, but we're not talking about base hits. We're talking about a contact out being better than a strike out!!! During a season or even a career the times a batter strikes out and fails to plate a runner or move a runner may well even out as when the batter hits into a double play or even a triple play killing a ralley. How many times have you seen batter A hit into a DP only to see batter B hit a solo homer. Wouldn't the out batter A made been better to be a strike out so batter B could hit a 2 run homer? Do you get it now???????????????? Isn't this really what we are talking about???????
Where did I ever say contact outs? You guys are experts at making things up.
-----------------
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.
--------------
Try to keep up. (don't mean to be so rude but I do recall you responding to me with that line when I thought you were talking about a different situation due to the vagueness of your post).
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
wow, some humorous stuff here.
You are aware that more strikeouts do not correlate to anything worse that an out of any other sort?
You were under the impression this statement could have been about bench clearing brawls or caught stealing? Maybe he was talking abut how Prince's K's negatively impact his WHIP. Week's striking out with RISP lowers his YAC or Field goal percentage.
Nah, you knew what you were disagreeing with. You felt that contact outs were better in the long run than strike outs and you said so. "Strike out" to "Out of any other sort" was right there, the specific and simple statement made by CAP. Not "strike out" to "not striking out (including walks and hits). If you don't agree that strikeouts do not correlate to anything worse that an out of any other sort?, do you happen to have any evidence to back that up? For the sake of argument, lets say "anything worse" means less runs, because that is why they play the game (f you can find something that indicates strikeouts are worse than other outs in OPS or SLG, that would work for me as well). But again, it seems you do agree that strikeouts do not correlate to anything worse that an out of any other sort?, because you say I really don't see much relevance Ks/to runs scored one way or another. It seems you understand that contact outs are overrated and romanticized in comparison to strike outs. One could get dizzy following you.
Now whatever your opinion on the matter is perfectly fine, others have discussed the same issue cordially. I think most people are a little surprised when they see that strike outs are not more negative than other outs because many of us played the game and we all walked to the dugout slightly more satisfied after lining out to short than when we flailed at an inside fastball. It just turns out all outs are bad, and strike outs are just another variation of the bad out.
If you want to continue, you could try answering the questions or solidifying your argument (on the actual topic of discussion) without referring to people as stupid. If you are going to change what is discussed (adding walks and hits) or pull up imaginary studies (still makes me laugh) or call people stupid (
I can't believe you read my initial statement and say I'm changing the discussion. Strawman #1 never even refers to Ks vs runs in his initial statement. That's a leap you guys took. It's just not there boys.
I've answered every question about 5 times and now it's just a matter of you chasing your tail.
You answer this question that I've asked before. Where is Strawman #1 saying Ks are related to runs scored in his initial statement?
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.
quote:Originally posted by CAPackFan95:
Mind boggling. The whole point was K's vs other outs show no correlation to production. Of course, Rick knows this, and frankly is just being intellectually dishonest now. I mean honestly the first proof I provided of my statement was the study that related K's to runs scored.
Rick - instead of moving the goal posts once again, or implying I'm stupid (while using the contraction "you're" incorrectly instead of "your" I might add. Ironic, no?), how about providing SOMETHING that defends your belief that my position and the sources I've provided are incorrect? I've asked multiple times. I've tried stating time and time again that I am open to data that shows otherwise. You've provided nothing. At all.
You believe my assertion, and the data I have provided is wrong. Why? What data refutes it? Opinions and biases are not at issue here. Where's the data?
Until you provide data, it's pointless continuing this discussion...
I didn't say your data was wrong, I said it was irrelevant. The number of times a team Ks is so far down the list of impact on run production that only a no life fool would research it. And the only thing worse is someone buying into a research like that and giving the fool a reason to continue such ridiculous researches.
I've never moved the goal post. You're the one that brought the impact of Ks on runs scored into the discussion later.
As far as my implying that you're stupid, I didn't see you complaining when you started it with the water is wet, sky is blue comments. It's a two way street.If you don't stay on your side someone will run into you.
And the grammar police routine long ago proved out to be a guy with wobbly knees on the way down throwing his last desperation punch.
quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
I didn't say your data was wrong, I said it was irrelevant. The number of times a team Ks is so far down the list of impact on run production that only a no life fool would research it. And the only thing worse is someone buying into a research like that and giving the fool a reason to continue such ridiculous researches.
And, there it is kids. The truth comes out finally. Stats is for geeks. Stats is irrelevant. Stats is only for nerds living at home in their mom's basement. Only fools don't know that strikeouts are worse than advancing the runners. It's ridiculous to do research on something you "know", right?
You could have saved a whole lot of time by just playing that card right away.
I do find it hilarious though, that even though you now say that "the number of times a team K's is so far down the list of impact on run production", you disagreed immediately when I stated exactly that to begin with.
Like I said earlier. You thought I was wrong and you stated that right off the bat. Then when I challenged you and I proved you were completely and utterly wrong, you changed your argument in order to save face.
quote:I've never moved the goal post. You're the one that brought the impact of Ks on runs scored into the discussion later.
If you really believe that wasn't the initial point, then you have the reading comprehension of a bag of phlegm.
quote:As far as my implying that you're stupid, I didn't see you complaining when you started it with the water is wet, sky is blue comments. It's a two way street.If you don't stay on your side someone will run into you.
Highlighting that you state the obvious is not saying you are stupid, it's saying you are obvious.
quote:And the grammar police routine long ago proved out to be a guy with wobbly knees on the way down throwing his last desperation punch.
I couldn't care less about your grammar. It's the irony of you calling me stupid while making a grammatical error that I pointed out and mocked.
quote:Originally posted by CAPackFan95:quote:I've never moved the goal post. You're the one that brought the impact of Ks on runs scored into the discussion later.
If you really believe that wasn't the initial point, then you have the reading comprehension of a bag of phlegm.
Your initial post not mentioning any relationship of Ks to runs scored:
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?
What I'd really like to know is what impact Ks have on the number of games a team wins. Please do a 52 year study on that and check back with us in 2062. By then somebody might care what your opinion is.
shame this hides in the Brewer forum, there is comedy for all levels coming out of this thread
quote:Originally posted by CAPackFan95:
Like I said earlier. You thought I was wrong and you stated that right off the bat. Then when I challenged you and I proved you were completely and utterly wrong, you changed your argument in order to save face.
This is my right off the bat comment. Please show me what's wrong about it.
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've posted that 16 times and changed every time what you claim you are disagreeing with.
What exactly that CAP said do you disagree with?
What exactly that CAP said do you disagree with?
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
shame this hides in the Brewer forum, there is comedy for all levels coming out of this thread
You're finally right about something. I'm having a pretty good time laughing at you two.
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
you've posted that 16 times and changed every time what you claim you are disagreeing with.
What exactly that CAP said do you disagree with?
It's been copied and pasted every time. How can it be changing?
dude, answer the question once
It starts in a different thread than this one but straw is disputing that the Brewers strike out too much and that's why I responded with my more contact post. I disagree with him disagreeing. I'm relatively sure I can post my opinion here and not have it trump by somebody that is posting their opinion as fact.
BTW, I've answered every question you've asked but since they weren't the answers you wanted you're unwilling to acknowledge my prompt responses. How have you been answering my questions?
BTW, I've answered every question you've asked but since they weren't the answers you wanted you're unwilling to acknowledge my prompt responses. How have you been answering my questions?
that's an answer?
See what I mean? If you don't get the answer you what you don't acknowledge my answer.
I really disagree with this statement.
I'm shocked.
about what? Do we need to get Hauser down here to explain things to you?
Here's my response to your first "I disagree" statement.
Here's your immediate response to that above statement.
Seems to me you clearly understand there I referred to the strikeouts impact on an offense. An assertion you disagreed with once again when you stated "K's hurt an offense" and "if a player cuts down on K's he'll be more productive offensively".
So you clearly understood I was making that statement with regard to the correlation of strikeouts to an offense's production.
I didn't change my argument, I clarified in my 2nd post (1 hour 15 minutes after my initial statment) what I meant when I said K's weren't worse than any other out.
So, either you've changed your argument as I assert, or you are being intellectually dishonest by claiming I never related it back to offensive production which I clearly did in my 2nd post when I clarified what I meant by "strikeouts are no worse than any other out".
quote:You can disagree, but the data says otherwise. You make the same typical old school type argument that you believe "sounds logical", but there is 50+ years of compelling data that clearly shows that this logic, while on the face of it may feel logical, the fact is, for hitters, a strikeout vs other types of outs show no correlation to scoring runs. Fact is, an out is an out is an out. And, if anything higher K rates correlate higher with many positive offensive output.
Here's your immediate response to that above statement.
quote: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.
Seems to me you clearly understand there I referred to the strikeouts impact on an offense. An assertion you disagreed with once again when you stated "K's hurt an offense" and "if a player cuts down on K's he'll be more productive offensively".
So you clearly understood I was making that statement with regard to the correlation of strikeouts to an offense's production.
I didn't change my argument, I clarified in my 2nd post (1 hour 15 minutes after my initial statment) what I meant when I said K's weren't worse than any other out.
So, either you've changed your argument as I assert, or you are being intellectually dishonest by claiming I never related it back to offensive production which I clearly did in my 2nd post when I clarified what I meant by "strikeouts are no worse than any other out".
Whether you changed or clarified my immediate response was I'm not relating Ks to runs scored.
I do believe Ks hurt an offense. We saw it last night again in the first inning when Fielder Ks on ball 4 and Hart gets thrown out stealing. Instead of 2 on, 1 out, and Braun up the inning was over. That hurts an offense. And that's just the most recent example I've seen over the last couple weeks. Wolf striking out Rasmus in a 1st and 3rd no out situation the night before followed by a DP.
I do believe Ks hurt an offense. We saw it last night again in the first inning when Fielder Ks on ball 4 and Hart gets thrown out stealing. Instead of 2 on, 1 out, and Braun up the inning was over. That hurts an offense. And that's just the most recent example I've seen over the last couple weeks. Wolf striking out Rasmus in a 1st and 3rd no out situation the night before followed by a DP.
are you taking the controversial, "getting an out hurts an offense" position?
here is what you cannot back up,
It only stand to reason if you follow your scenario where he cuts down on K's and gets more hits. If his K rate goes up and he gets 10 more home runs, he'll be more productive offensively as well. If he strikes out more, but his BABIP increases (out of pure luck) his productivity goes up. If his K rate goes up and he walks more, his productivity will go up, if he turn 100 double plays into 100 strike outs, his fans won't be calling for his head as often. Of course if a guy gets more hits or walks he'll be more productive offensively, but that doesn't in any way validate your position that cutting down strike outs increases someones productivity. The only way you can back that statement up is by exploring the scenario with a constant. If the constant is more hits/walks, then the strike outs don't matter- productivity goes up. If the constant is outs remain the same, then over the course of a season, strike outs don't matter. So your statement is only true if you say, "It only stands to reason if a player cuts down on his Ks and gets more hits he'll be more productive offensively." But I can imbed implied words as well, "It only stands to reason if a player strike out more he'll be more productive offensively." In that statement, I'm implying "It only stands to reason if a player strike out more and gets more hits he'll be more productive offensively."
When it comes to the strike outs, they are just another crappy out, not different, better or worse in the long run than all the other crappy outs.
here is what you cannot back up,
quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
It only stands to reason if a player cuts down on his Ks he'll be more productive offensively.
It only stand to reason if you follow your scenario where he cuts down on K's and gets more hits. If his K rate goes up and he gets 10 more home runs, he'll be more productive offensively as well. If he strikes out more, but his BABIP increases (out of pure luck) his productivity goes up. If his K rate goes up and he walks more, his productivity will go up, if he turn 100 double plays into 100 strike outs, his fans won't be calling for his head as often. Of course if a guy gets more hits or walks he'll be more productive offensively, but that doesn't in any way validate your position that cutting down strike outs increases someones productivity. The only way you can back that statement up is by exploring the scenario with a constant. If the constant is more hits/walks, then the strike outs don't matter- productivity goes up. If the constant is outs remain the same, then over the course of a season, strike outs don't matter. So your statement is only true if you say, "It only stands to reason if a player cuts down on his Ks and gets more hits he'll be more productive offensively." But I can imbed implied words as well, "It only stands to reason if a player strike out more he'll be more productive offensively." In that statement, I'm implying "It only stands to reason if a player strike out more and gets more hits he'll be more productive offensively."
When it comes to the strike outs, they are just another crappy out, not different, better or worse in the long run than all the other crappy outs.
quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
Wolf striking out Rasmus in a 1st and 3rd no out situation the night before followed by a DP.
And in this instance which you picked a strike out may have been more productive. Instead of the inning being over another batter would have come to the plate which may have resulted in 1. a base hit of some kind allowing a run to score; 2. an error which would have allowed a run to score; 3. a passed ball allowing a run to score; 4. a wild pitch would have allowed a run to score; 5 a balk would have allowed a run to score. So see a strike out some times is not as bad of an out as any other out, certainly not worse as you have contended.
I had a coach one time that explained this pretty simply. An out is an out. As much as he hated guys hitting into double plays, his thought was that if you're putting the bat on the ball there are way more options of things that could happen that are good. With a K, you just go back to the dugout.
Let's use Prince Fielder as an example. I'd much rather have him make contact then strike out because if he makes contact the worse thing that can happen is he makes an out. The best thing that can happen is he hits a home run. If he k's there is no best.
Let's use Prince Fielder as an example. I'd much rather have him make contact then strike out because if he makes contact the worse thing that can happen is he makes an out. The best thing that can happen is he hits a home run. If he k's there is no best.
However, if Prince didnt swing as hard as he did he would not hit as many home runs. And because he swings as hard as he does he strikes out a lot. He even misses balls that would be called strikes, not only balls that are out of the strike zone.
I'd rather have Prince strike out and have Casey hit a 2 run homer than have Pulling a Plow Prince hit into a DP.
I'd rather have Prince strike out and have Casey hit a 2 run homer than have Pulling a Plow Prince hit into a DP.
you also make a good point Ammo. Like it or not, I'm just a guy who prefers contact over a K and you're right sometimes that means hitting into a double play. I will admit that there are times with one out and a runner on first and third that I look at a pitcher and say "do not take the bat off your shoulder".
This is a debate that could go on for years with no winner.
The Prince comment is also true. He sure does swing hard.
This is a debate that could go on for years with no winner.
The Prince comment is also true. He sure does swing hard.
I think you are exactly right Warren when it comes to your formative years of ball. Little League, Babe Ruth, HS- that is where I think you are right. When it comes to the pro's though, the level of hitting and pitching is completely different. Two guys both have an OPS over 900, 100 RBI's and Runs, who cares if one strikes out 100 times and one strikes out 50. It's about how they do the positive things, not how they get their outs.