Agree here too.
quote:Originally posted by ammo: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.
Sometimes it does work out that way but clearly the K saved that inning. Even a Rasmus DP scores a run. I'm very much aware that there are occasions when a K hurts a team less than a DP and never said otherwise.
As it pertains to Ryan Braun.....
Braun was a monster in his rookie 2007 season, but he has never been able to repeat those kinds of power numbers. In fact, his isolated slugging has declined in each of the four years he has been in the big leagues, moving in tandem with his strikeout rate, which has also fallen each year.
...
Braunâs making more contact, perhaps at the expense of hitting with as much authority. His overall contact rate has increased each season â 76.3% in â07, 79.2% in â08, 80.8% in â09 and 81.9% in 2010 (81% MLB average). Braunâs K rate has gone from 24.8% in â07 to 21.1% in â08, 19.1% in â09 and 17.3% this year.
...
Whether itâs a conscious decision or not, Ryan Braun is putting the bat on the ball more often while splitting the gaps and clearing the fence less frequently, a combination that has led to a career-worst .362 wOBA â still a quality mark, but well below his pre-season projections of .393 from ZiPS and .404 from CHONE. Braun seems plenty capable of once again hitting for prodigious power, with both ZiPS (.243 rest-of-season ISO) and CHONE (.238) predicting more slides for Bernie Brewer from here on out. To recapture his previous form, Braun might want to let âer rip at the plate more often â the extra thump would be well worth a few additional whiffs.
fangraphs
Braun was a monster in his rookie 2007 season, but he has never been able to repeat those kinds of power numbers. In fact, his isolated slugging has declined in each of the four years he has been in the big leagues, moving in tandem with his strikeout rate, which has also fallen each year.
...
Braunâs making more contact, perhaps at the expense of hitting with as much authority. His overall contact rate has increased each season â 76.3% in â07, 79.2% in â08, 80.8% in â09 and 81.9% in 2010 (81% MLB average). Braunâs K rate has gone from 24.8% in â07 to 21.1% in â08, 19.1% in â09 and 17.3% this year.
...
Whether itâs a conscious decision or not, Ryan Braun is putting the bat on the ball more often while splitting the gaps and clearing the fence less frequently, a combination that has led to a career-worst .362 wOBA â still a quality mark, but well below his pre-season projections of .393 from ZiPS and .404 from CHONE. Braun seems plenty capable of once again hitting for prodigious power, with both ZiPS (.243 rest-of-season ISO) and CHONE (.238) predicting more slides for Bernie Brewer from here on out. To recapture his previous form, Braun might want to let âer rip at the plate more often â the extra thump would be well worth a few additional whiffs.
fangraphs
Watching Prince in the 9th last night is why contact is important. Swinging for the 2 run homer with no one on base with 2 strikes. Give me a guy making contact trying to score runs instead launching the meaningless homer when your down by 2.
that "guy making contact" is the Ryan Braun you have seen all year
quote:Originally posted by kabeerme:
As it pertains to Ryan Braun.....
Braun was a monster in his rookie 2007 season, but he has never been able to repeat those kinds of power numbers. In fact, his isolated slugging has declined in each of the four years he has been in the big leagues, moving in tandem with his strikeout rate, which has also fallen each year.
...
Braunâs making more contact, perhaps at the expense of hitting with as much authority. His overall contact rate has increased each season â 76.3% in â07, 79.2% in â08, 80.8% in â09 and 81.9% in 2010 (81% MLB average). Braunâs K rate has gone from 24.8% in â07 to 21.1% in â08, 19.1% in â09 and 17.3% this year.
...
Whether itâs a conscious decision or not, Ryan Braun is putting the bat on the ball more often while splitting the gaps and clearing the fence less frequently, a combination that has led to a career-worst .362 wOBA â still a quality mark, but well below his pre-season projections of .393 from ZiPS and .404 from CHONE. Braun seems plenty capable of once again hitting for prodigious power, with both ZiPS (.243 rest-of-season ISO) and CHONE (.238) predicting more slides for Bernie Brewer from here on out. To recapture his previous form, Braun might want to let âer rip at the plate more often â the extra thump would be well worth a few additional whiffs.
fangraphs
Ok, so lets get this straight.
The Brewers are scoring more runs this year because Braun is striking out less and not hitting with as much authority?
And Prince is way down on RBI's and striking out more?
Help me understand the theories going on throughout this thread and how it relates to the Crew scoring so far this season?
IMO, fangraphs are skewed because of the "Juice" that was going on in baseball for quite a long time, even if it was 52 years of data.
These equations give way more credence to slugging as a percentage of production as a result during juice times when the American League easily had 7-8 guys in the lineup that didn't give a sh?t about BA and contact hitting, everything was a K and swing for the fence.
IMO, These have been false times for the average ballplayer.
Could this study give the same comparison for the K/ScoredRuns ratio in baseball leading up to say 1990?
JMO.
These equations give way more credence to slugging as a percentage of production as a result during juice times when the American League easily had 7-8 guys in the lineup that didn't give a sh?t about BA and contact hitting, everything was a K and swing for the fence.
IMO, These have been false times for the average ballplayer.
Could this study give the same comparison for the K/ScoredRuns ratio in baseball leading up to say 1990?
JMO.
the years Corey and Rickie are having seems to be compensating for the weaker sticks of Prince and Braun this year
quote:Originally posted by trump:
Help me understand the theories going on throughout this thread and how it relates to the Crew scoring so far this season?
The facts are that how often a team or individual strikes out does not correlate to offensive productivity. Period.
As for this year, the Brewers have the 5th most K's, yet have scored the 7th most runs per game.
If you believe that strikeouts are "worse" outs, then you should see data that directly correlates that as strikeouts increase run production decreases. There is no such data showing that. The "52 years of data" was not run by fangraphs, but baseball prospectus.
You may have been taught that strikeouts were bad, and "putting the ball in play" was much better, but there is no such data that backs these old school myths up. Strikeouts are not "worse outs" than the romantic belief of advancing the runner and productive outs.
statistics..
I was having fun with a Bulls fan on RealGM that was trying to tell me that Derrick Rose (24% 3pt) shoots better than Jennings (38% 3pt).
Rose shoots 42% from 16-21 ft. while Jennings shoots 35%
The combined averages were in favor of rose...
However, when you take into context the point value of the shots and the 3pt shot being a "harder" shot because it comes from range.... Jennings led the points per shot debate by 10%.
So, i like advanced stats.. they are fun. However, Give me 20 minutes and similarish situations.. I can make an entirely different argument to whatever you are trying to prove. Numbers are very malleable. Bulls fans are just dum-dums (just like Cub fans).
With Ryan Braun, i think he is just in a little funk - might be due to injury, might be due to complacency. Im not sure, but we all know this funk wont last forever.
I was having fun with a Bulls fan on RealGM that was trying to tell me that Derrick Rose (24% 3pt) shoots better than Jennings (38% 3pt).
Rose shoots 42% from 16-21 ft. while Jennings shoots 35%
The combined averages were in favor of rose...
However, when you take into context the point value of the shots and the 3pt shot being a "harder" shot because it comes from range.... Jennings led the points per shot debate by 10%.
So, i like advanced stats.. they are fun. However, Give me 20 minutes and similarish situations.. I can make an entirely different argument to whatever you are trying to prove. Numbers are very malleable. Bulls fans are just dum-dums (just like Cub fans).
With Ryan Braun, i think he is just in a little funk - might be due to injury, might be due to complacency. Im not sure, but we all know this funk wont last forever.
Show me data for baseball up to 1990 that proves your thesis, I'm thinkin it might be different ... don't include the last 20 years, go with the 32 years before 1990.
From 1972 until 1989, 64% of the top 5 highest run producing teams in baseball were also the top 5 teams in strike outs.
Babe Ruth's top 5 run scoring seasons were also his top 5 strike out years. Also 3 of those years were his top 3 solo home run years.
In a phenomenal season of run producing consistency, the 1973 New York Mets scored 4,5, or 6 runs in 146 games, while leading the league in strike outs, balks, and hustle.
link
*note- all stats cited on this post are made up and completely pretend b/c I, like trump, am to damn lazy to come up with my own counter argument.
Babe Ruth's top 5 run scoring seasons were also his top 5 strike out years. Also 3 of those years were his top 3 solo home run years.
In a phenomenal season of run producing consistency, the 1973 New York Mets scored 4,5, or 6 runs in 146 games, while leading the league in strike outs, balks, and hustle.
link
*note- all stats cited on this post are made up and completely pretend b/c I, like trump, am to damn lazy to come up with my own counter argument.
52 years is a nice round number though ...
Here's a better idea.
I've provided data sources multiple times that clearly proves my point.
If you disagree, you find that the data that backs up your belief.
I've provided data sources multiple times that clearly proves my point.
If you disagree, you find that the data that backs up your belief.
... in a data fitting the mold kind of way.
Nah, I'm not looking up, lets swing for the fences ...
1 Question for you though:
When Prince or Braun come up with guys on 1st and 2nd do you hope they strike out if they aren't going to hit a home run?
Nah, I'm not looking up, lets swing for the fences ...
1 Question for you though:
When Prince or Braun come up with guys on 1st and 2nd do you hope they strike out if they aren't going to hit a home run?
quote:Originally posted by trump:
When Prince or Braun come up with guys on 1st and 2nd do you hope they strike out if they aren't going to hit a home run?
Instead of pointing our your inability to comprehend the written word where I specifically stated time and time again that I am comparing the "value" of a strikeout to ANY OTHER OUT, I'll sum it up thusly.
No, I'd prefer the do the following in priority order other than a HR:
1. Triple
2. Double
3. Single
4. Walk
5. HBP
6. Reach on Error (EDITED, thanks gotcheese)
7. Any out other than a Double Play.
8. Double Play.
Final question for you - did you eat lead paint chips as a child?
The research says that there is no correlation between runs scored and strikeout rate. There's been multiple citings of this. However, striking out with a runner on 2nd or 3rd and less than 2 outs..... pisses me off as much as watching Macha put Kottaras in the lineup. Baby seal clubbing time.
how bout reach on an error?
quote:Originally posted by CAPackFan95:
Final question for you - did you eat lead paint chips as a child?
I know, just having fun with the stat dudes.
I can just see/hear you, Bonger and Diggr at home watching a Crew game ...
CaP - "God, I hope Prince just strikes out here if he isn't going to do something positive and produce runs".
Bonger - "Word".
Diggr - "Yep, and did you guys get the memo on the 52year K Report?"
quote:Originally posted by Diggr14:
The research says that there is no correlation between runs scored and strikeout rate. There's been multiple citings of this. However, anystrikingout with a runner on 2nd or 3rd and less than 2 outs..... pisses me off as much as watching Macha put Kottaras in the lineup. Baby seal clubbing time.
my version
and Cap-
9. triple play
quote:Originally posted by GotCheese:
how bout reach on an error?
Impossible. Everyone knows guys reach base more often on drop third strikes.
seems backward. Can you back that statement up in anyway or is it just a completely stupid thing to say? Are you just trying to poke fun of a discussion you can't comprehend? Is there something we can do to help you?
Hope I'm not out of context as I have not been following this discussion, but...
Actually, I believe a dropped third strike should be on that list. It results from a pass ball or wild pitch. If I'm not mistaken...neither count as an error by the score keeper.
I would also rather have my player reach by error than being HBP
Actually, I believe a dropped third strike should be on that list. It results from a pass ball or wild pitch. If I'm not mistaken...neither count as an error by the score keeper.
I would also rather have my player reach by error than being HBP
My comment is that putting the ball in play on an error occurs more than a drop 3rd SO, no? Oh yeah, forgive me for disagreeing with El-ka-God.
correct Pdog, passed balls and wild pitches are pitching statistics, not fielding ones. That is why you don't get an earned run on a passed ball, but it is still not called an error (a fielding term).
I guess you could break down the HBP into painful and non-painful, and place it on the list accordingly. I believe CAP's point (which may or not be completely over the head of some) is that strike outs do not rank differently than other outs in the whole scheme of things and secondly that all out are bad when compared to non outs (fascinating that I have to keep adding that).
I guess you could break down the HBP into painful and non-painful, and place it on the list accordingly. I believe CAP's point (which may or not be completely over the head of some) is that strike outs do not rank differently than other outs in the whole scheme of things and secondly that all out are bad when compared to non outs (fascinating that I have to keep adding that).
quote:Originally posted by TD:
My comment is that putting the ball in play on an error occurs more than a drop 3rd SO, no? Oh yeah, forgive me for disagreeing with El-ka-God.
disagree all you want, just don't sound like an idiot when you do. And actually disagree with something I said rather than something no one has said.
and feel free to piss and moan in general, everyone loves a pity party.
Small weiner syndrome?
Wah wah wah.
My point was that putting the ball in play and error occuring is more likely than a dropped 3rd strike. Rebuttal or going to use the strawman?
Wah wah wah.
My point was that putting the ball in play and error occuring is more likely than a dropped 3rd strike. Rebuttal or going to use the strawman?
I don't think I ever did disagree with that. How anyone was supposed to gather that nugget from your posting contributions is beyond me. We need some next level derp mindreading to get to the point of some of your posts lately.
If you really are curious about the size of my penis, I can ignore you via PM just as well.
If you really are curious about the size of my penis, I can ignore you via PM just as well.
So I quote GotCheese's statement about reaching on an error and yet you could not make out the "rolleyes"? Next time I will break it down Barney style so you can comprehend. Sheesh.
I am still in the camp that hitting the ball is better than not hitting the ball because the chances are more likely than a run scoring, no?
I am still in the camp that hitting the ball is better than not hitting the ball because the chances are more likely than a run scoring, no?
not if it results in an out
So a sac fly is worse than a strike out? A suicide squeeze is worse than a SO?
Since this thread is 6 pages long, and I haven't posted anything at all here (pretty sure anyway)and without reading, it is a good guess I might be the only one who hasn't added to this marathon... Anyway, here is a little nugget I found from the book Men At Work by George F. Will (1990):
Not all 'failures' are really failures. Some of them contribute to run creation. Official scoring reflects this by not charging an at bat when the hitter delivers a sacrifice or sacrifice fly. But a hitter who, with no outs and a runner on second, gives himself up by grounding to the right side of the infield, thereby enabling the runner to advance to third, has "failed" to get a hit but has succeeded at the team project of advancing the process of run creation. One night in 1989,in a 5-1 Padres win over the Reds, Tony Gwynn had this batting line: 4 at bats, 0 hits, 0 runs, 3 RBIs. He drove in runs with two infield groundouts and a sacrifice fly. That batting line shows why the only certain failure for a batter is the failure to put the ball in play. By the way, the night before Gwynn's 4-0-0-3 night, Darren Daulton of the Phillies went 5-for-5 but neither drove in nor scored a run.
Not all 'failures' are really failures. Some of them contribute to run creation. Official scoring reflects this by not charging an at bat when the hitter delivers a sacrifice or sacrifice fly. But a hitter who, with no outs and a runner on second, gives himself up by grounding to the right side of the infield, thereby enabling the runner to advance to third, has "failed" to get a hit but has succeeded at the team project of advancing the process of run creation. One night in 1989,in a 5-1 Padres win over the Reds, Tony Gwynn had this batting line: 4 at bats, 0 hits, 0 runs, 3 RBIs. He drove in runs with two infield groundouts and a sacrifice fly. That batting line shows why the only certain failure for a batter is the failure to put the ball in play. By the way, the night before Gwynn's 4-0-0-3 night, Darren Daulton of the Phillies went 5-for-5 but neither drove in nor scored a run.
quote:Originally posted by TD:
So a sac fly is worse than a strike out? A suicide squeeze is worse than a SO?
nope, read the thread
quote:Originally posted by hoophead:
Since this thread is 6 pages long, and I haven't posted anything at all here (pretty sure anyway)and without reading, it is a good guess I might be the only one who hasn't added to this marathon... Anyway, here is a little nugget I found from the book Men At Work by George F. Will (1990):
Not all 'failures' are really failures. Some of them contribute to run creation. Official scoring reflects this by not charging an at bat when the hitter delivers a sacrifice or sacrifice fly. But a hitter who, with no outs and a runner on second, gives himself up by grounding to the right side of the infield, thereby enabling the runner to advance to third, has "failed" to get a hit but has succeeded at the team project of advancing the process of run creation. One night in 1989,in a 5-1 Padres win over the Reds, Tony Gwynn had this batting line: 4 at bats, 0 hits, 0 runs, 3 RBIs. He drove in runs with two infield groundouts and a sacrifice fly. That batting line shows why the only certain failure for a batter is the failure to put the ball in play. By the way, the night before Gwynn's 4-0-0-3 night, Darren Daulton of the Phillies went 5-for-5 but neither drove in nor scored a run.
gee, is that like a once in a millenium storm as it relates to this topic?
No strike outs to get those RBI's though. Further proof.
what a pair. Your capacity to completely fail to grasp the obvious is what sets you apart. But really, if it is that confusing, I can explain it again.
No thanks. There are those that lead and those that follow. There is no proof that a SO is better than any other out with runner's on. Just thinking about how good Jim Gantner was at getting Molly to second or 3rd by pulling the ball was incredible.
quote:Originally posted by TD:
There is no proof that a SO is better than any other out with runner's on.
Whew. Good thing, as no one said that.
But, since you brought it up, can you please point to the proof that any other out is better than a strikeout?
Thanks, I'll hang up and wait for the derp.
Sorry I could not respond sooner, interestingly enough I had a screaming baby and irrational toddler I had to attend to.
It did give a moment to come up with the best format to rehash 6 pages of this thread. It works for Bill Gates, so I figure I can do a question and answer as well.
EKB, are strike outs worse than other outs?
Great and topical question. The issue with strike out is do they impact scoring? Do teams the strike out a lot score less runs? Do teams that donât strike out win more games? Two ways to answer this question, one is to lean back and contemplate how I feel about this. Obviously swinging and missing is the lowpoint of an at bat, so striking out must be a terrible thing that drags a team down. The other way is to actually answer the question by examining the evidence. What stands out here is, strike outs is not a determining factor in how many runs a team scored. Teams that strike out a lot, teams that strike out a little, you cannot sort them similarly by runs scored. If strike outs were really worse, then teams that strike out would consistently score less runs than teams the put the bat on the ball more. It just doesnât happen that way.
So you are saying you want guys to strike out?
Well, no. Outs are always bad and always less preferable than hits and walks. Getting on base is the name of the game. AVG, Kâs, etc are just not as important as OBP and SLG. How often are you getting on an what kind of power do you get on with.
How big is your penis?
Well, um. Not going to answer that and a little unnerved that is something you desire to know.
I think it is crazy you would rather Prince strike out with a runner on third no outs rather than hitting a sac fly.
Now wait a second, I never said that.
Yes you did, you said all out are the same and strike outs are no worse.
Again, Iâm talking about outs over the course of a season and how they correlate to scoring runs. Sac flys and moving the runner over are more preferable outs, but over the course of the season there are enough double plays and such that it evens out. Theme here, outs are bad.
Obviouslt, making contact is simply better than striking out.
First of all, spell check? Again, it is a very romantic belief that striking out is worse than a guy who makes contact. As I quoted last year, other than a bruise ego a strike out really isnât that significant. Look over the K numbers of some of the best run producers, it is not about avoiding strike outs, it is about the positive things you can produce. Adam Dunn, Ryan Howard, Mark Reynolds, it is not about the strike outs, it is about the production. I really think it comes down to how sad we felt in little league when we struck out vs the other guy who was thrown out at first by 6 steps. These guys are professionals, all outs are bad and there is no more pride in lining out to short vs whiffing on a high fastball; outs are bad.
But when you make contact you have the chance to get a hit
Hits are a totally different animal (i.e. ânot outsâ)
But you canât have a chance at a hit if you donât make contact.
You also canât hit into a double play when you strike out.
Seriously, you do have a small wiener.
Not sure where this fascination comes from. Really, when I think of small wiener syndrome, I think of guys who flip out oddly on internet message boards, feel the need to tell everyone that they make more money, etc. anonymously on a message board, or who wish for painful deaths on other posters on a message board. That seems like the actions of a guy who needs to create validation to a bunch of faceless strangers as though it is important. If you need to prove how important you are anonymously on the internet, you might have a lightswitch in your pants.
Nice strawman
I really donât think you know what that term means.
So you donât think Ryan Braun should cut down on his strike out rate?
Well, I really canât answer that. If cutting down on his strike outs results in getting on base more and hitting with more power, then sure, go for it. If lowering his strike outs just means he lines out to short more, with no increase in the frequency he gets on base or drives in runs, then no, reducing strike outs didnât accomplish anything.
Who is your least favorite (non-current) Milwaukee Brewer?
That would have to be Johnny Estrada. Talk about a guy who never struck out. What an empty line other than BA. Now he didnât strike out, but when he didnât slap a single he sure did get his (non strike out) outs in bunches. OBP and OPS were vacant and his P/PA was always low. A few Kâs now and then coupled with a few walks and maybe waiting for his pitch to hit might have lowered that batting average a little bit, but it might have resulted in making a pitcher or two work a little bit and it might have made his line a little more productive.
So you donât want guys to hit sac flys?
No, not when getting a hit is an option. I would rather, every single time, want a guy to get a hit over a sac fly. Now if he is going to get an out, I would rather that out at least drive in a run or advance a runner. If he strikes out, pops out the first basemen, or grounds out the third basemen, doesnât really matter to me. I say bad words at my television if he hits into a double play.
Ah ha, so striking out is worse than other outs
Man, I feel like I have said this a hundred times, over the course of a season, you cannot look at K rates as an indicator of run production. A strike out is just as bad as most other outs, and preferable to a double play or triple play. Kâs are outs, just like ground outs and pop flys. The idea that striking out is worse in some way to a sharp ground ball to the second basemen is romantic thinking, not grounding in actual production on the field.
But today a team scored a runner from third by hitting a ground ball to the second basemen, proof that striking out is worse than making contact.
Well, in that situation yes, the outcome was better when contact was made vs. striking out. Today there was also a slew of double plays that killed rallys. You simply cannot take one instance and generalize that to a broad statement that making contact is better than striking out.
If you're wiener is so big, what do you do for a living?
This again? C'mon man. And it is your, not you're (you are). I have a decent job, but I am this close to seriously dropping it all for some male stripping. With the coin I can bring in dancing, I can take off from June through August and just focus on softball. I also have a god complex.
If there are situations where making contact is better than a strike out, shouldnât teams play that way, going for the productive out?
Absolutely not. Teams that take that philosophy are playing not to lose, rather than playing to win. Turns out the evidence indicates the same, playing for productive outs is still playing for a bad outcome (an out). This leads to less runs. Now I am not saying there is no place for small ball for certain situations, but for the most part, if you play to get hits understanding that a strike out might happen, in the long run you will score more runs.
Prince just struck out with a man on third, no outs. You happy skidmark?
Outs are bad, this pisses me off. At least he didnât hit into a double play.
Can I point out in every game thread when a strike out didnât move a runner over or score a man from third?
Only if you want to sound stupid. Have you ever seen a doctor about lead poisoning? Any way, do you want every time a strike out would have avoided a runner getting throw out at home on a contact play or stayed out of a double play brought up, because it happens with about the same frequency.
OK, admit it, strike out are emasculating and a sign of a poor baseball player.
For real? I guarantee you Ryan Howard is more jealous of Princeâs higher OPS than lower strike out total. These guys forget strike outs the same as other outs. The all piss them off. These guys want to get on base.
Can you run down an exhaustive list of preference for what guys do at the plate?
No
please?
(Most of this thanks to CAP)
1. Home Run
2. Triple
3. Double
4. Single
5. Walk
5a. Reach on Error (now there are levels of beneficial errors; ex. Taking two bases, multiple errors, 2 runs score vs this place in the list)
5b. HBP
5c. Passed ball on a third strike that the runner gets to first on
6. Any out other than a Double Play.
7. Double Play
8. Triple Play
Ha! You do hate sac flies
Thinking in limited scenarios again. Lets not forget that an out when you are leading off an inning simply cannot have any positive result, no productive outs when you lead off the inning. Same goes for two outs; strike out or a deep fly to the warning track in center is all the same. Just like there are situations for small ball, there are situations where an out is less negative than others. If we canât have a hit or a walk, I certainly want the out to plate a run over not plating the run and even more than getting the runner out at the plate or a double play. You just cannot generalize that situation to a broad statement that âmaking contact is better than striking out,â because in the long run, teams that strike out with a higher frequency or lower frequency score runs at the same rate.
your stupid and mean
It did give a moment to come up with the best format to rehash 6 pages of this thread. It works for Bill Gates, so I figure I can do a question and answer as well.
EKB, are strike outs worse than other outs?
Great and topical question. The issue with strike out is do they impact scoring? Do teams the strike out a lot score less runs? Do teams that donât strike out win more games? Two ways to answer this question, one is to lean back and contemplate how I feel about this. Obviously swinging and missing is the lowpoint of an at bat, so striking out must be a terrible thing that drags a team down. The other way is to actually answer the question by examining the evidence. What stands out here is, strike outs is not a determining factor in how many runs a team scored. Teams that strike out a lot, teams that strike out a little, you cannot sort them similarly by runs scored. If strike outs were really worse, then teams that strike out would consistently score less runs than teams the put the bat on the ball more. It just doesnât happen that way.
So you are saying you want guys to strike out?
Well, no. Outs are always bad and always less preferable than hits and walks. Getting on base is the name of the game. AVG, Kâs, etc are just not as important as OBP and SLG. How often are you getting on an what kind of power do you get on with.
How big is your penis?
Well, um. Not going to answer that and a little unnerved that is something you desire to know.
I think it is crazy you would rather Prince strike out with a runner on third no outs rather than hitting a sac fly.
Now wait a second, I never said that.
Yes you did, you said all out are the same and strike outs are no worse.
Again, Iâm talking about outs over the course of a season and how they correlate to scoring runs. Sac flys and moving the runner over are more preferable outs, but over the course of the season there are enough double plays and such that it evens out. Theme here, outs are bad.
Obviouslt, making contact is simply better than striking out.
First of all, spell check? Again, it is a very romantic belief that striking out is worse than a guy who makes contact. As I quoted last year, other than a bruise ego a strike out really isnât that significant. Look over the K numbers of some of the best run producers, it is not about avoiding strike outs, it is about the positive things you can produce. Adam Dunn, Ryan Howard, Mark Reynolds, it is not about the strike outs, it is about the production. I really think it comes down to how sad we felt in little league when we struck out vs the other guy who was thrown out at first by 6 steps. These guys are professionals, all outs are bad and there is no more pride in lining out to short vs whiffing on a high fastball; outs are bad.
But when you make contact you have the chance to get a hit
Hits are a totally different animal (i.e. ânot outsâ)
But you canât have a chance at a hit if you donât make contact.
You also canât hit into a double play when you strike out.
Seriously, you do have a small wiener.
Not sure where this fascination comes from. Really, when I think of small wiener syndrome, I think of guys who flip out oddly on internet message boards, feel the need to tell everyone that they make more money, etc. anonymously on a message board, or who wish for painful deaths on other posters on a message board. That seems like the actions of a guy who needs to create validation to a bunch of faceless strangers as though it is important. If you need to prove how important you are anonymously on the internet, you might have a lightswitch in your pants.
Nice strawman
I really donât think you know what that term means.
So you donât think Ryan Braun should cut down on his strike out rate?
Well, I really canât answer that. If cutting down on his strike outs results in getting on base more and hitting with more power, then sure, go for it. If lowering his strike outs just means he lines out to short more, with no increase in the frequency he gets on base or drives in runs, then no, reducing strike outs didnât accomplish anything.
Who is your least favorite (non-current) Milwaukee Brewer?
That would have to be Johnny Estrada. Talk about a guy who never struck out. What an empty line other than BA. Now he didnât strike out, but when he didnât slap a single he sure did get his (non strike out) outs in bunches. OBP and OPS were vacant and his P/PA was always low. A few Kâs now and then coupled with a few walks and maybe waiting for his pitch to hit might have lowered that batting average a little bit, but it might have resulted in making a pitcher or two work a little bit and it might have made his line a little more productive.
So you donât want guys to hit sac flys?
No, not when getting a hit is an option. I would rather, every single time, want a guy to get a hit over a sac fly. Now if he is going to get an out, I would rather that out at least drive in a run or advance a runner. If he strikes out, pops out the first basemen, or grounds out the third basemen, doesnât really matter to me. I say bad words at my television if he hits into a double play.
Ah ha, so striking out is worse than other outs
Man, I feel like I have said this a hundred times, over the course of a season, you cannot look at K rates as an indicator of run production. A strike out is just as bad as most other outs, and preferable to a double play or triple play. Kâs are outs, just like ground outs and pop flys. The idea that striking out is worse in some way to a sharp ground ball to the second basemen is romantic thinking, not grounding in actual production on the field.
But today a team scored a runner from third by hitting a ground ball to the second basemen, proof that striking out is worse than making contact.
Well, in that situation yes, the outcome was better when contact was made vs. striking out. Today there was also a slew of double plays that killed rallys. You simply cannot take one instance and generalize that to a broad statement that making contact is better than striking out.
If you're wiener is so big, what do you do for a living?
This again? C'mon man. And it is your, not you're (you are). I have a decent job, but I am this close to seriously dropping it all for some male stripping. With the coin I can bring in dancing, I can take off from June through August and just focus on softball. I also have a god complex.
If there are situations where making contact is better than a strike out, shouldnât teams play that way, going for the productive out?
Absolutely not. Teams that take that philosophy are playing not to lose, rather than playing to win. Turns out the evidence indicates the same, playing for productive outs is still playing for a bad outcome (an out). This leads to less runs. Now I am not saying there is no place for small ball for certain situations, but for the most part, if you play to get hits understanding that a strike out might happen, in the long run you will score more runs.
Prince just struck out with a man on third, no outs. You happy skidmark?
Outs are bad, this pisses me off. At least he didnât hit into a double play.
Can I point out in every game thread when a strike out didnât move a runner over or score a man from third?
Only if you want to sound stupid. Have you ever seen a doctor about lead poisoning? Any way, do you want every time a strike out would have avoided a runner getting throw out at home on a contact play or stayed out of a double play brought up, because it happens with about the same frequency.
OK, admit it, strike out are emasculating and a sign of a poor baseball player.
For real? I guarantee you Ryan Howard is more jealous of Princeâs higher OPS than lower strike out total. These guys forget strike outs the same as other outs. The all piss them off. These guys want to get on base.
Can you run down an exhaustive list of preference for what guys do at the plate?
No
please?
(Most of this thanks to CAP)
1. Home Run
2. Triple
3. Double
4. Single
5. Walk
5a. Reach on Error (now there are levels of beneficial errors; ex. Taking two bases, multiple errors, 2 runs score vs this place in the list)
5b. HBP
5c. Passed ball on a third strike that the runner gets to first on
6. Any out other than a Double Play.
7. Double Play
8. Triple Play
Ha! You do hate sac flies
Thinking in limited scenarios again. Lets not forget that an out when you are leading off an inning simply cannot have any positive result, no productive outs when you lead off the inning. Same goes for two outs; strike out or a deep fly to the warning track in center is all the same. Just like there are situations for small ball, there are situations where an out is less negative than others. If we canât have a hit or a walk, I certainly want the out to plate a run over not plating the run and even more than getting the runner out at the plate or a double play. You just cannot generalize that situation to a broad statement that âmaking contact is better than striking out,â because in the long run, teams that strike out with a higher frequency or lower frequency score runs at the same rate.
your stupid and mean
quote:teams that strike out with a higher frequency or lower frequency score runs at the same rate.
Just maybe; if the high strike out teams would strike out LESS, they would score MORE runs and if the low strike out teams struck out MORE, they would score LESS runs?