quote:Cletus because it confounds you, and because you fear you what you don't understand.
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
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.
quote:Honestly, I encourage you to continue this line of "humor", I (and I'm sure others) enjoy watching you highlight your willful ignorance.
quote:Originally posted by TD:
This is almost laughable
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:quote:Originally posted by TD:
This is almost laughable
oh, it's not almost laughable, it is completely laughable to anyone who can read.
quote:Originally posted by trump:
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.
quote:Originally posted by trump:
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 ...
quote:Originally posted by TD:
Well, Elk made the claim that from 1972-1999 that the top 5 teams in strike outs lead the league in runs(Top 5). I'm still waiting for his 28 year study.
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
*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.
quote:Originally posted by Packdog:
"all outs are equally bad"
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
exactly, strike outs don't matter that much. Strike outs somehow hit peoples romantic side that it is a worse out than any other kind, but it isn't. Outs are bad, simple as that. If team A strikes out 50 times more and scores just as many runs, the K's didn't amount to a hill of beans in their big picture.
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
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.
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
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
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
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.
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.
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong: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.
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
This is a big one, because Rick contends striking out is worse than other outs. I think designating a strike out as a worse out is a romantic way of looking at baseball, and just not grounded in actual team production. And there is actual data to back that up.
[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.
quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
You continue to say I'm arguing Ks are worse than other outs but that's never been the issue with me.
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.
quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
This is a big one, because Rick contends striking out is worse than other outs. I think designating a strike out as a worse out is a romantic way of looking at baseball, and just not grounded in actual team production. And there is actual data to back that up.
[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.
First off, nobody wastes more bandwidth than you.
Secondly, this all started when someone said the Brewers K too much and my discussion has always been about reducing Ks, making more contact, which means a player gets on base more. You continue to say I'm arguing Ks are worse than other outs but that's never been the issue with me. It's been about making more contact to get on base not to make a different type of out.
quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
The Reds can hit. All they're doing is driving the pitch according to where it is in the zone. Nobody is trying to pull outside pitches.
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.
Sounds to me that you believe strike outs are worse than other outs. I base that on you saying strike outs are worse than other outs.
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
I can only take your words at their face value Rick
K= less contact= worse outs. Pretty hard to misinterpret that.
quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
I do believe that says less contact is worse than any other type of out.
quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
I used to think you were just busting balls and just acting dumb. Now I'm worried.
quote:Originally posted by trump:
I get the impression there is a lot you think you know but you don't ...
quote:
...coattail rider, jumper on.
quote:
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:Originally posted by PackerRick:
When counting strike outs you're going by total but what is the % of Ks according to plate appearances? Some teams get to the plate a lot more than others and naturally will have a higher total but I wouldn't be surprised if they K less per appearance.
quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
When counting strike outs you're going by total but what is the % of Ks according to plate appearances? Some teams get to the plate a lot more than others and naturally will have a higher total but I wouldn't be surprised if they K less per appearance.
quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
When counting strike outs you're going by total but what is the % of Ks according to plate appearances? Some teams get to the plate a lot more than others and naturally will have a higher total but I wouldn't be surprised if they K less per appearance.
Talk about grasping at straws........quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
When counting strike outs you're going by total but what is the % of Ks according to plate appearances? Some teams get to the plate a lot more than others and naturally will have a higher total but I wouldn't be surprised if they K less per appearance.
Milwaukee leads the lead in plate appearances- 3539
White Sox have the least- 3294
Median- Colorado w/ 3398
245 plate appearances separate the top from the bottom. The distribution is pretty tight, no outliers. Milwaukee has played 3 more games than the Sox (not enough for me to take the time to figure out PA/G, it would actually make the distribution even tighter).
Your premise hold no weight.
quote:Originally posted by ammo:quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
When counting strike outs you're going by total but what is the % of Ks according to plate appearances? Some teams get to the plate a lot more than others and naturally will have a higher total but I wouldn't be surprised if they K less per appearance.
quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
I wouldn't be surprised if they K less per appearance.
