that's really the point STEAM, strike outs are not the determining factor. Maybe they strike out more and score more runs? Strike outs are outs, but no worse than other outs, and all outs are bad.
If you do want to know what factors contribute to runs, look at OBP and SLG. Teams that do these two things well score runs. That is why we have seen low strike out rate teams not score runs; they play small ball which limits scoring opportunities, grants outs to the opposition (outs are always bad), and play to one run. If you want to score runs, it is about how you get on base, not how you get your outs. The teams that don't strike out a lot and the teams that do- if they get on base and hit well when they do hit, score runs.
You just can't sort the teams by strike outs and expect to learn about them offensively, other than the rate they strike out.
Instead of banking on your thought of "maybe", why not look at the actual data which clearly indicates that the number strikeouts a team has shows no correlation whatsoever to runs scored.
... over 52 years.
HAHAHAHA! OMGWTFLOLBBQ!
That's a good one. See it's funny, because I actually linked to real data instead of pulling opinions out of my arse that had no basis whatsoever with anything resembling reality. Woo boy, that never gets old!
That's a good one. See it's funny, because I actually linked to real data instead of pulling opinions out of my arse that had no basis whatsoever with anything resembling reality. Woo boy, that never gets old!
In one game it matters, on each team's makeup it matters ... over the course of several generations in the ocean of data k/scoring doesn't matter.
what matters?
Outs? Yes, they are bad. All of them.
Outs? Yes, they are bad. All of them.
and K's? yes, they are bad. All of them.
And Runs? they are good, yes all of them.
K's are outs (you knew that, right?)
Outs are bad. K's are out. Ipso facto- K's are bad.
Using high or low strike out totals as a indicator of a team or players worth- not worth it.
Outs are bad. K's are out. Ipso facto- K's are bad.
Using high or low strike out totals as a indicator of a team or players worth- not worth it.
But coach made me cry when I struck out!
quote:Originally posted by CAPackFan95:
But coach made me cry when I struck out!
Don't look at me ... you were the little bi?ch that got them to go to the CoachPitch BS. You were the little "participation" trophy winner, you were the one that had to play ball with the girls ...
Man, I didn't know I would have to get Elk his bi-polar meds. Sheesh.
quote:Originally posted by TD:
bi-polar
I don't think you know what that means
Considering I am taking Abnormal Psych right now, I guess I would have to consider you more of a paranoid schizo.
curious what the progression of an online abpsych course is that takes a guy from SWS (small wiener syndrome) to bi-polar to paranoid schizophrenia. Is it like a random DSM-V generator?
abpsych. hilarious.
abpsych. hilarious.
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
curious what the progression of an online abpsych course is that takes a guy from SWS (small wiener syndrome) to bi-polar to paranoid schizophrenia. Is it like a random DSM-V generator?
abpsych. hilarious.
Small weiner syndrome, generators, and a strike out thread. Typical day in the Packer forum.
Only thing missing is Adam Dunn.
quote:Considering I am taking Abnormal Psych right now, I guess I would have to consider you more of a paranoid schizo.
Bryant & Stratton has psych degrees now? The internets rules!
quote:Originally posted by trump:
Don't look at me ... you were the little bi?ch that got them to go to the CoachPitch BS. You were the little "participation" trophy winner, you were the one that had to play ball with the girls ...
SEE THAT'S FUNNY BECAUSE HE'S IMPLYING I'M A GIRL!
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
{snip}
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.
{snip}
your stupid and mean
My early vote for post of the year.
quote:Originally posted by CAPackFan95:
But coach made me cry when I struck out!
Well, you were pussy back then.
Even so, you're also 100% right regarding the topic at hand. It's not even debatable.
I was never comparing Ks to other outs. It started with a comment about the Brewers striking out too much and my post was stating if they made more contact they'd have more offensive production. CAPackFan95 took the striking out too much comment to mean they would be making other types of outs instead. And based on some obscure date he read it shows an out is an out as far as overall run production is concerned. The only thing more strike outs correlate to is less contact and that is worse than any other type of out.
I've watched many games since this thread and seen way more times where even making outs helped teams score runs as opposed to Ks, not to mention how positive it was making contact in those situations. I posted 5-6 examples after 3 games and stopped because it would be endless examples. Even the DP argument took a dump when Escobar booted 2 DP balls to cost games and Counsell another. A few guys got thrown out on the contact play and a few more scored.
I'd really like to know how high K totals relate to the more important issue of W/L but when I threw it out before nobody responded. Maybe it takes another 52 years to gather that info.
-------------------------------------------------
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've watched many games since this thread and seen way more times where even making outs helped teams score runs as opposed to Ks, not to mention how positive it was making contact in those situations. I posted 5-6 examples after 3 games and stopped because it would be endless examples. Even the DP argument took a dump when Escobar booted 2 DP balls to cost games and Counsell another. A few guys got thrown out on the contact play and a few more scored.
I'd really like to know how high K totals relate to the more important issue of W/L but when I threw it out before nobody responded. Maybe it takes another 52 years to gather that info.
-------------------------------------------------
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.
Just for craps and giggles, I decided to see how the debate being had here would apply to the current standings of my fantasy league.
There are three teams in my league (12 team points keeper league that I've been a part of since 1992...first season was 1991) that are head and shoulders above the next nine offensively (teams 2/3 are within one point of being tied in offensive points primarily due to team 2's low # of errors).
League offensive scoring criteria is 2 points for a run or an rbi, 1 point for a sb, and -1 for an error (trying to introduce at least a shred of some defense into the game).
There are no offensive points awarded for categories, so if you're #1 in OBP or Slugging or BA that's great, but it doesn't help you in the standings.
******AB***R***OBP%***Slug%****K********E
Team 1 3147 510(1) 5th_____ 3rd____ 741(1) -49 points
Team 2 3256 483(3) 3rd_____ 2nd____ 685(2) -35 points
Team 3 3203 489(2) 1st_____ 1st____ 642(4) -53 points
In my league, the top three teams in scoring (runs as well as overall)are also 1st/2nd/4th in K's.
There are three teams in my league (12 team points keeper league that I've been a part of since 1992...first season was 1991) that are head and shoulders above the next nine offensively (teams 2/3 are within one point of being tied in offensive points primarily due to team 2's low # of errors).
League offensive scoring criteria is 2 points for a run or an rbi, 1 point for a sb, and -1 for an error (trying to introduce at least a shred of some defense into the game).
There are no offensive points awarded for categories, so if you're #1 in OBP or Slugging or BA that's great, but it doesn't help you in the standings.
******AB***R***OBP%***Slug%****K********E
Team 1 3147 510(1) 5th_____ 3rd____ 741(1) -49 points
Team 2 3256 483(3) 3rd_____ 2nd____ 685(2) -35 points
Team 3 3203 489(2) 1st_____ 1st____ 642(4) -53 points
In my league, the top three teams in scoring (runs as well as overall)are also 1st/2nd/4th in K's.
quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
It started with a comment about the Brewers striking out too much and my post was stating if they made more contact they'd have more offensive production.
Statistically not true at all if the contact you're talking about results in an out. Outs are bad.
quote:The only thing more strike outs correlate to is less contact and that is worse than any other type of out.
That's what the debate (in part has been about). It's not true, and you're 100% wrong.
If you still don't get it by now, I doubt that you're going to.
quote:Originally posted by Coach:quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
It started with a comment about the Brewers striking out too much and my post was stating if they made more contact they'd have more offensive production.
Statistically not true at all if the contact you're talking about results in an out. Outs are bad.
Does it sound like the contact I'm talking about would result in just outs?
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 Coach:
quote:The only thing more strike outs correlate to is less contact and that is worse than any other type of out.
That's what the debate (in part has been about). It's not true, and you're 100% wrong.
If you still don't get it by now, I doubt that you're going to.
I won't get it. I always thought making contact and reaching base was better than striking out. I never realized how complicated baseball was for some.
quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
Does it sound like the contact I'm talking about would result in just outs?
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 continue to miss the point.
Outs are bad whether or not it is a strike out. Over the course a season high strikeout totals are simply not a direct indicator of poor offensive production (i.e. runs).
quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
I won't get it. I always thought making contact and reaching base was better than striking out. I never realized how complicated baseball was for some.
It continues to fly right over your head.
Where has anyone said that reaching base wasn't better than striking out (when the reverse has been stated over and over)?
No, it's not flying over my head. This is my initial response to a discussion that started with a comment about the Brewers striking out too much. All I'm talking about is the benefits of making contact and putting the ball in play as opposed to striking out. Nothing about comparing Ks to other type of outs.
---------
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 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 PackerRick:
No, it's not flying over my head.
Yes, it is.
quote:
It's only logical that putting the ball in play more often will lead to a higher BA and/or OBP.
I know you think that's true. It isn't.
You don't have to believe us, just take a look at the stats.
Just using my league as an example, how would you explain the top three teams in runs are also 1-2-3 in Ks?
PR what they are saying is... player A and player B have similar production but do it in two different ways.
Player A might strike out a bunch more than player B.. but he hits more home runs and a higher slugging percentage than player B because he probably is overswinging and batting for power.
Production.. runs/rbi have been statistically shown to be unaffected by players that have a higher k% than not. Personally, I'd rather have players that dont k alot. That's just my preference, but production wise, the statistics show there really isnt a difference in overall production - just rather the way in which the production is inevitably achieved.
Player A might strike out a bunch more than player B.. but he hits more home runs and a higher slugging percentage than player B because he probably is overswinging and batting for power.
Production.. runs/rbi have been statistically shown to be unaffected by players that have a higher k% than not. Personally, I'd rather have players that dont k alot. That's just my preference, but production wise, the statistics show there really isnt a difference in overall production - just rather the way in which the production is inevitably achieved.
quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
The only thing more strike outs correlate to is less contact and that is worse than any other type of out.
Let's take your theory and apply it to a hypothetical situation. Lets take a player who walks a lot, hits a bunch of home runs, drives in a pile of runs but strikes out a lot. We'll call him Adam Dunn. Adam, at the urging of his coach (we'll call him, Jason Kendall), decides to change his approach at the plate to get more contact. He chokes up, doesn't take those power swings and puts more balls in play. This change in approach does drop his k rate, and he even see's a bump in his batting average which his wife thinks is neat. Problem is he no longer walks as much, so his OBP (which his wife doesn't understand) goes down a little. He also hits into twice as many rally killing double plays and hits 15 less home runs than his typical 40. In the end, you have transformed a magnificent run producer into a player who has a higher average, but less production all around because you thought striking out was his problem.
quote:Originally posted by Diggr14:
Production.. runs/rbi have been statistically shown to be unaffected by players that have a higher k% than not.
Which is exactly what we've been discussing: offensive production (runs).
"Pitching, defense, and #%$@! three run homers."
-Earl Weaver
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
The only thing more strike outs correlate to is less contact and that is worse than any other type of out.
Let's take your theory and apply it to a hypothetical situation. Lets take a player who walks a lot, hits a bunch of home runs, drives in a pile of runs but strikes out a lot. We'll call him Adam Dunn. Adam, at the urging of his coach (we'll call him, Jason Kendall), decides to change his approach at the plate to get more contact. He chokes up, doesn't take those power swings and puts more balls in play. This change in approach does drop his k rate, and he even see's a bump in his batting average which his wife thinks is neat. Problem is he no longer walks as much, so his OBP (which his wife doesn't understand) goes down a little. He also hits into twice as many rally killing double plays and hits 15 less home runs than his typical 40. In the end, you have transformed a magnificent run producer into a player who has a higher average, but less production all around because you thought striking out was his problem.
Jason Kendall is a worse coach than he is a (end of career offensive) player, and PR is married to Adam Dunn?
I didn't know that.
Ground out RBI for Braun. More support vs the K by Joe.
quote:Originally posted by Coach:quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
No, it's not flying over my head.
Yes, it is.
quote:
It's only logical that putting the ball in play more often will lead to a higher BA and/or OBP.
I know you think that's true. It isn't.
You don't have to believe us, just take a look at the stats.
Just using my league as an example, how would you explain the top three teams in runs are also 1-2-3 in Ks?
Your fantasy league? Please.
If a player has a .360 OBP and he makes contact 40 more times in a season, 40 less Ks, do you think he'll make out all 40 times? Of course not. He'll reach base an extra 10-12 times and be a more productive offensive player. It's indisputable.
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
The only thing more strike outs correlate to is less contact and that is worse than any other type of out.
Let's take your theory and apply it to a hypothetical situation. Lets take a player who walks a lot, hits a bunch of home runs, drives in a pile of runs but strikes out a lot. We'll call him Adam Dunn. Adam, at the urging of his coach (we'll call him, Jason Kendall), decides to change his approach at the plate to get more contact. He chokes up, doesn't take those power swings and puts more balls in play. This change in approach does drop his k rate, and he even see's a bump in his batting average which his wife thinks is neat. Problem is he no longer walks as much, so his OBP (which his wife doesn't understand) goes down a little. He also hits into twice as many rally killing double plays and hits 15 less home runs than his typical 40. In the end, you have transformed a magnificent run producer into a player who has a higher average, but less production all around because you thought striking out was his problem.
What if Dunn maintains his same approach but lays off a few breaking balls and walks 10 more times in a season. Are you telling me he's worse off converting 10 Ks to BBs?
quote:Originally posted by Coach:quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
The only thing more strike outs correlate to is less contact and that is worse than any other type of out.
Let's take your theory and apply it to a hypothetical situation. Lets take a player who walks a lot, hits a bunch of home runs, drives in a pile of runs but strikes out a lot. We'll call him Adam Dunn. Adam, at the urging of his coach (we'll call him, Jason Kendall), decides to change his approach at the plate to get more contact. He chokes up, doesn't take those power swings and puts more balls in play. This change in approach does drop his k rate, and he even see's a bump in his batting average which his wife thinks is neat. Problem is he no longer walks as much, so his OBP (which his wife doesn't understand) goes down a little. He also hits into twice as many rally killing double plays and hits 15 less home runs than his typical 40. In the end, you have transformed a magnificent run producer into a player who has a higher average, but less production all around because you thought striking out was his problem.
Jason Kendall is a worse coach than he is a (end of career offensive) player, and PR is married to Adam Dunn?
I didn't know that.
Don't quit your day job.
It's (the fantasy league) is simply an easy to understand example (using a run based scoring system).
Don't duck the question because it doesn't support what you believe.
If K's are inversely related to offensive production, then how is what is happening in my league possible?
1/3/5 in OBP and yet 1-2-3 in K's (actually 1-2-4 now including tonight's action)....how is that possible? Remember, also 1-2-3 in runs.
The answer is right in front of your face, and you still can't see it.
Your hypothetical player in your example doesn't have to make an out all 40 times, but over the course of a season it won't statistically matter if he struck out, lined out, or popped out. An out is an out.
What's indisputable is that you don't understand statistics.
Don't duck the question because it doesn't support what you believe.
If K's are inversely related to offensive production, then how is what is happening in my league possible?
1/3/5 in OBP and yet 1-2-3 in K's (actually 1-2-4 now including tonight's action)....how is that possible? Remember, also 1-2-3 in runs.
The answer is right in front of your face, and you still can't see it.
Your hypothetical player in your example doesn't have to make an out all 40 times, but over the course of a season it won't statistically matter if he struck out, lined out, or popped out. An out is an out.
What's indisputable is that you don't understand statistics.
quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
What if Dunn maintains his same approach but lays off a few breaking balls and walks 10 more times in a season. Are you telling me he's worse off converting 10 Ks to BBs?
Once again the arguement is changed. Of course 10 BB is better than 10 Ks, but that is not the point. The point is for Dunn to change to K less and ground out or fly out more. Focus on outs.