Since Rick isn't likely to get any brighter in the next few minutes, I'll spill the beans.
Despite the high K numbers for all of those "teams" (top three remember), they are also 1-2-3 in not only runs (RBI's count in my league every bit as much as runs BTW...in RBI's the teams rank 1-2-4), but also 1-2-3 in Slugging % and in the top five in OBP (the latter two were listed).
One stat that I didn't post (pretty much goes hand in hand with Slugging %) is that they are 1-2-3 in HR's as well.
High K rates do not directly correlate to low OBP, nor to lack of run production despite the childhood prejudices of the willfully obtuse.
Run production has more to do with (as EKB correctly posted earlier) what players do well instead of how they make their outs (outs being bad) over the course of a season.
The numbers are what they are, and they don't lie.
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
In every counter argument you present, you assume that they will cut walks and everything will magically improve, but that just doesn't play out in reality.
I'll bring this up again, how can you have a Pollyanna assumption with considering the converse? You brought up a player who gets on base 40% of the time he makes contact, well then yes, if making contact was that simple to getting on base at that amazing rate, then everyone would do that. Can you give me an example of a player who currently gets on base 40% of the time they make contact? If you can prove that increasing contact will get you on base 4 out of every 10 AB's, then possibly you have an arguement.
It is also theoretically possible that in order to cut down on strike outs, a player would have to change his approach, in some cases significantly. We'll take Rickie for example. For Rickie to cut down on strike outs he will likely have to be more aggressive early in the count. This will most certainly drop that walk rate. Now he has to get enough balls in play to at the least make up for not taking walks. Also, being more aggressive early in the count means he can't sit on his pitches because he is shooting for contact over power (a fair assumption I think- not many power hitters were great at avoiding the strike out). So now he needs to get on base enough to compensate for the drop in power. Also, higher contact rate will also likely increase the number of double plays that Rickie hits into (another safe assumption as contact hitters tend to hit into more double plays). That tends to be a production killer, not only individually, but team wide as well. Right now, Rickie is one of the most productive second basemen in baseball and putting up monster numbers, are you really advocating for him to change his approach at the plate?
So here is the issue, in all your examples, the only possible outcome for changing an approach at the plate (reducing strike outs) is that production will simply get better. What you refuse to consider is focusing on being that contact guy could take away everything that is a certain players strength. You would think that if just lowering K rates and increasing contact were really that correlative to run production, teams would emphasize that aspect. Instead, Ryan Howard gets a 100 mill + contract.
One could also look at production over a large span (say 52 years) and see if k rates correlate to run production. Turns out, your hypothesis fails there as K rates don't correlate to run production at all. Probably why teams are not so concerned about getting guys like Adam Dunn, Rickie Weeks, Mark Reynolds and David Wright needing to cut down on strikes. One could also consider how making those "productive" outs by increasing contact would correlate to more runs. Turns out again that it is not the case. Teams that emphasize small ball are really good at scoring one run by making contact, but suck at scoring 2, 3, 4 or more runs. Teams that are content that strike outs are just outs and don't take the PackerRick endorsed approach don't kill rallies by giving away outs and over the course of the season score.more.runs.
Game. Set. Match.
Again.
Again.
quote:Originally posted by TD:
Well, we can focus on outs based on the first inning.
We can also focus on Cappy's bases loaded, no outs scenario. Two batters, one K's and the other hits into a double play. Which outcome is more desirable?
Again, if you want to bring up every situation as it occurs, you have to remember that baseball is a game where things just seem to even out. For every situation you bring up where the K got nothing or the contact resulted in a productive out, there are equally as bad results that happen at the same rate (contact play resulting in a guy out at the plate, double plays). If that was not the case, then there would be a relationship between not striking out and scoring more runs- there just isn't.
I'll even take it one step further as a run scoring on a double play is considered a positive. I'll attest that it is not, as you give outs which is the worst thing you can do. While the double play plated a run, it took away another batter in the inning. Ultimately, it is more important to get more guys to the plate than to score one run while giving up two outs.
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
I'll even take it one step further as a run scoring on a double play is considered a positive. I'll attest that it is not, as you give outs which is the worst thing you can do. While the double play plated a run, it took away another batter in the inning. Ultimately, it is more important to get more guys to the plate than to score one run while giving up two outs.
Which is why a player (rightfully so, IMO) doesn't get an RBI for it.
quote:We can also focus on Cappy's bases loaded, no outs scenario. Two batters, one K's and the other hits into a double play. Which outcome is more desirable?
IMO, only because of the order it happened. If it happens the other way around you possibly have a run ... and I would rather have that.
quote:I'll even take it one step further as a run scoring on a double play is considered a positive. I'll attest that it is not, as you give outs which is the worst thing you can do. While the double play plated a run, it took away another batter in the inning. Ultimately, it is more important to get more guys to the plate than to score one run while giving up two outs.
Wow, are you really going to go with that if you were a manager?
quote:Originally posted by trump:
1) Ben Sheets 18K day against the Braves. Pretty sure the Braves would of disagreed on that day.
Good point (I mean that, a really good point), but I think you are talking about two different animals. I do believe K's can be a legitimate measure of a pitcher, but not that simply. K/BB tells me about a guys control and when you have as bad a defense at the Crew, being able to miss bats is certainly a plus. Still, there are gaps in this assumption as well. Is a no hitter with 15 K's better than one with 5? If you strike out the side, but before the last K gave up two singles and a home run, those K's are kind of empty. At the moment, leading baseball with an amazing 27 k/9 is Guillermo Mota (and his 27.00 ERA). When talking about elite pitchers, those tend to be guys who can rack up some sound strike out numbers, but there have also been a lot of high strike out guys who could not put their teams in position to win because they still gave up to many baserunners.
And the point about the psychological impact of strike outs, I think most big leaguers have done it enough that is doesn't impact them much at all. Completely unscientific, but I think hitting into those double plays upsets them more.
quote:Originally posted by trump:
Wow, are you really going to go with that if you were a manager?
Oh yes. Over the course of a season, you will score more runs in those situations without the one run rally killing double play with every other (non double play) outcome. (other than a triple play) Giving up two outs is very, very bad. The only situation where it would really please me is bottom of the 9th, tie game.
If the only option is one run or no runs, I'll take one run. I just won't play for that or be pleased to settle for one run. That double play takes the bat out of one of my run producers hands.
I'll always take the win.
quote:The only situation where it would really please me is bottom of the 9th, tie game
So only a tie game in the bottom of the 9th, you wouldn't take it to tie the game?
I'd prefer to play for the win. Chances are better you win the game in that situation without the double play, so yes, I am not at all pleased with the double play in that situation.
I genuinely don't know what you mean. I think you brought up good points, but I disagree with them and explained why. I don't know how I was rubbing it in your face.
quote:Originally posted by trump:
(and that is a sarcastic laugh and feel you are rubbing the theories in my face)
I genuinely don't know what you mean. I think you brought up good points, but I disagree with them and explained why. I don't know how I was rubbing it in your face.
quote:That double play takes the bat out of one of my run producers hands.
Forgot to tell you, Estrada was the next guy up ... Good Luck with that.
that changes everything
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
I'd prefer to play for the win. Chances are better you win the game in that situation without the double play, so yes, I am not at all pleased with the double play in that situation.
Thats f?cked up in a real kind of way, you must always be thinking you are managing the Yankees.
Note to EKB:
When you are raising those little ones and think you are going to go by the stats to get them to adulthood smoothly with no crisis's ... I got news for you.
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
I'd prefer to play for the win. Chances are better you win the game in that situation without the double play, so yes, I am not at all pleased with the double play in that situation.quote:Originally posted by trump:
(and that is a sarcastic laugh and feel you are rubbing the theories in my face)
I genuinely don't know what you mean. I think you brought up good points, but I disagree with them and explained why. I don't know how I was rubbing it in your face.
i was joking.
quote:Originally posted by trump:
Note to EKB:
When you are raising those little ones and think you are going to go by the stats to get them to adulthood smoothly with no crisis's ... I got news for you.
Not angry (and no offense intended), but that's pointless.
Didn't know you were EKB's guardian?
I'm not, but from a distance it seems as though he has already enough on his plate.
Not to hijack the thread, but would you care to attach how you choose raise your own children to this discussion (assuming you have any, of course)?
Not to hijack the thread, but would you care to attach how you choose raise your own children to this discussion (assuming you have any, of course)?
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but I have looked at what conditions things SIDS are more likely to occur and avoid those things. Even though my mother who successfully raised three unruly boys wants to put pillows in my infant daughters crib, I just won't do it. She also let us bounce around the interior of the Olds 98, but I insist on my kids sitting in car seats b/c statically I am increasing the likely hood of them making it to adulthood.
I also don't get why, if you know the chances of winning a game are greater if you don't hit into that one run double play, you would be content with hitting into that one run double play.
Again, I am a "play to win" kind of guy.
I also don't get why, if you know the chances of winning a game are greater if you don't hit into that one run double play, you would be content with hitting into that one run double play.
Again, I am a "play to win" kind of guy.
quote:I also don't get why, if you know the chances of winning a game are greater if you don't hit into that one run double play, you would be content with hitting into that one run double play.
Because 1 idea is theoretical and the other is a result thats real, you have tied the game and you still have at least 1 more batter in the inning PLUS you know you have 3 more outs coming in the game at least ...
That "Note" was meant to be more baseball related and analogical to the discussion, didn't know Coach would be so intrigued.
only that really real results show teams that don't hit into double plays in those situations score more runs. Than means instead of getting the one run to tie (playing not to lose) you increas your chances to win (playing to win).
Not hitting into the one run double play increases your chances to win the game. There is a chance you don't score a run at all, but there is also a chance the other team scores 4 in the top of the inning with an ace closer.
(sans Johnny Estrada coming to the plate, as stated before, that changes everything)
Not hitting into the one run double play increases your chances to win the game. There is a chance you don't score a run at all, but there is also a chance the other team scores 4 in the top of the inning with an ace closer.
(sans Johnny Estrada coming to the plate, as stated before, that changes everything)
Kelly Clarkson
quote:Originally posted by trump:
That "Note" was meant to be more baseball related and analogical to the discussion, didn't know Coach would be so intrigued.
Not very surprising.
For some reason I just get the impression there's a lot you don't know.
quote:Originally posted by trump:
When you are raising those little ones and think you are going to go by the stats to get them to adulthood smoothly with no crisis's ... I got news for you.
Guess what, one time I forgot my car seat to pick up my son. He was not so small that it was insane to think about driving him home, but I did it anyway.
We got home safe, as it was less than a 2 mile drive.
So obviously using the logic of some here, it's totally cool for me to not use a car seat, even though the stats prove without a shadow of a doubt that its safer, because of this one time it went fine.
Stats. Runner at 3rd one out. Fly ball to normal depth outfield. Run scores.
Ground ball to short with runner on 3rd one out. Run usually scores.
Same situation with a SO. No runs score.
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:quote:Originally posted by TD:
Well, we can focus on outs based on the first inning.
We can also focus on Cappy's bases loaded, no outs scenario. Two batters, one K's and the other hits into a double play. Which outcome is more desirable?
.
And how many runs would they have scored with 3 strike outs in your scenario?
the same as with one K and one double play, only with one less shot at the plate.
Is that really your question?
Is that really your question?
quote:Originally posted by TD:
Runner at 3rd one out. Fly ball to normal depth outfield. Run scores.
Ground ball to short with runner on 3rd one out. Run usually scores.
Same situation with a SO. No runs score.
sharply hit ball to the thirdbasemen, play at the plate and you have an out, no run, two outs, and a man on first.
Shallow fly ball, infield fly, ground ball to the shortstop playing in, ground ball to the pitcher, (possibly ground ball to the second basemen, depending on depth and situation) etc. and the result is a painful out, just like a strike out.
Line drive to the third basemen, tag the bag, double play.
Outs are bad. If there is going to be an out, I'd like the run to plate, but I'm not shooting for it.
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
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.
If a player strikes out 10 more times, but hits 12 more home runs his production will go up.
indisputable and equally not part of the arguement
Which player was this? Jose Hernandez?
Ah yes, "stats"
Scenario:
Runners on 1st and 2nd, no outs. Batter hits into a double play, followed by a single to right, followed by a lazy fly ball to right. No runs scored.
Runners on 1st and 2nd, no outs. Batter strikes out, followed by single to right, followed by lazy fly ball to right, followed by groundout. Minimum of 1, possibly 2 runs score.
We can play statistically insignificant examples of one all day.
But generally, they make you look like you have no clue. So, keep on keeping on there TD.
Scenario:
Runners on 1st and 2nd, no outs. Batter hits into a double play, followed by a single to right, followed by a lazy fly ball to right. No runs scored.
Runners on 1st and 2nd, no outs. Batter strikes out, followed by single to right, followed by lazy fly ball to right, followed by groundout. Minimum of 1, possibly 2 runs score.
We can play statistically insignificant examples of one all day.
But generally, they make you look like you have no clue. So, keep on keeping on there TD.
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
the same as with one K and one double play, only with one less shot at the plate.
Is that really your question?
Right over your head. You miss the mere fact that the first guy struck out which deflates your argument. If the double play would've ooccured first the run scores.
Schizo.
quote:But generally, they make you look like you have no clue.
Elk, you want to provide those stats for 1972-1999 for top strike out teams are the top 5 in runs scored.
I know, right! I provided a link to a massive amount of data that clearly backed my position. How ghey!
Should have followed your example by talking out of my ass without any leg to stand on. Keep on derping.
I especially love that you find it funny that I provided data.
Data is for Nancy boys!
Should have followed your example by talking out of my ass without any leg to stand on. Keep on derping.
I especially love that you find it funny that I provided data.
Data is for Nancy boys!
quote:Originally posted by TD:quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
the same as with one K and one double play, only with one less shot at the plate.
Is that really your question?
Right over your head. You miss the mere fact that the first guy struck out which deflates your argument. If the double play would've ooccured first the run scores.
Schizo.
Honestly, I'm trying to be patient. I don't think I missed the fact that there was a strike out because I specificially mentioned the strike out in my post. I specifically answered your question and you complain about it. Are you under the impression that I think K's are good? I've said about 50 times that K's are bad. Outs are bad. Bad.
I'll give you my evaluation of the bases loaded, no outs situation. If it is my team and I see bases loaded, no outs, I'm thinking big inning. Lots of runs. Now, if I have to chose between a K followed by a double play v.s. a double play that plates a run, I will chose the run scoring play. As a fan, I still see both situations as collosal failures because when I see bases loaded with no outs, I want a bunch of runs.
It has never been that there are outs that score runs or that strike outs are better than outs that score runs. It has been that strike outs are not worse that other outs b/c all outs are bad. For every sac fly, there is a double play or out at the plate, and in the middle is a pile of outs that don't advance runners or score guys. Pair that with striking out with two outs is the exact same (bad outcome) out as any other out, no less manly or amazing than a warning track shot to center. When evaluating players or teams, fixating on strike out totals is a poor way to judge players vs a guy who makes contact more frequently, but carries the same production.
quote:Originally posted by CAPackFan95:quote:Originally posted by trump:
When you are raising those little ones and think you are going to go by the stats to get them to adulthood smoothly with no crisis's ... I got news for you.
Guess what, one time I forgot my car seat to pick up my son. He was not so small that it was insane to think about driving him home, but I did it anyway.
We got home safe, as it was less than a 2 mile drive.
So obviously using the logic of some here, it's totally cool for me to not use a car seat, even though the stats prove without a shadow of a doubt that its safer, because of this one time it went fine.
Thats right. I bet it it just ate at you for weeks that you went against the odds, huh?
Or did you secretly try it again ...
quote:When evaluating players or teams, fixating on strike out totals is a poor way to judge players vs a guy who makes contact more frequently, but carries the same production
I totally agree.
What I believe that you've never admitted to throughout this topic is that those evaluations DO happen on individual players and there is more weight put on a guys stats that K's for outs rather than Contacts for outs. For a team, you can bet that K total is evaluated very closely to when it is happening and who is doing it at what point in the batting order.
Case in point: Inglett last night early in the game ... IMO, that was a very, very big K in the game. The game could of changed right there in a big way ...
JMO.
quote:Originally posted by Coach:quote:Originally posted by trump:
That "Note" was meant to be more baseball related and analogical to the discussion, didn't know Coach would be so intrigued.
Not very surprising.
For some reason I just get the impression there's a lot you don't know.
I get the impression there is a lot you think you know but you don't ... coattail rider, jumper on.
My guess is you are a coach wannabe but need verification on decisions so life has always been a "What if I had done that" for you.
quote:Thats right. I bet it it just ate at you for weeks that you went against the odds, huh?
Or did you secretly try it again ...
He's now conducting a 52 year study.
I find it amazing that you somehow think it's funny that I linked to a data set (Of 52 Years HAR HAR HAR) to back my position.
I know you think it makes me look bad somehow because you know, I could back up my statements beyond just my gut.
I guess you are scared of "numbers and stats" there Cletus because it confounds you, and because you fear you what you don't understand.
Hell, I'm downright surprised you haven't brought out cliches talking about lies, damn lies, and statistics. It's what simple folk resort to when they can't understand numbers; because they don't "need" math beyond trying to figure out how many "removeds" there needs to be before its OK to date your cousin.
Honestly, I encourage you to continue this line of "humor", I (and I'm sure others) enjoy watching you highlight your willful ignorance.
I know you think it makes me look bad somehow because you know, I could back up my statements beyond just my gut.
I guess you are scared of "numbers and stats" there Cletus because it confounds you, and because you fear you what you don't understand.
Hell, I'm downright surprised you haven't brought out cliches talking about lies, damn lies, and statistics. It's what simple folk resort to when they can't understand numbers; because they don't "need" math beyond trying to figure out how many "removeds" there needs to be before its OK to date your cousin.
Honestly, I encourage you to continue this line of "humor", I (and I'm sure others) enjoy watching you highlight your willful ignorance.