Epic Strike Out Thread

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
I wouldn't be surprised if they K less per appearance.

Premise:

1.A proposition antecedently supposed or proved; something previously stated or assumed as the basis of further argument; a condition; a supposition.

quote:

Originally posted by Coach:
We're getting dangerously close to "Black Knight" (copyright ) territory.

quote:

Originally posted by JJSD: I'm not reading 13 pages, but I heard scuttlebutt about a secret study that carves turkeys. Whoever has it, could you post a link?

quote:

Originally posted by chickenboy:

quote:

Originally posted by Coach:
We're getting dangerously close to "Black Knight" (copyright ) territory.

Hey, that's not my copyright. The sewing circle came up with that. If you've been paying attention, I fancy myself more of a William Wallace.

We've had an alright thing going over here. Don't dirty up our backyard.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
I stand by my original belief (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.) and nothing anybody says or does will ever change it. I've been around baseball for 50 years and no pencil necked geek that couldn't find 3rd base on a baseball diamond is going to change my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
Rick-

is the best you can do to insinuate people are stupid and say "no it's not" to every position counter to yours or "I didn't say that" to direct quotes to what you said? Any chance for something tangible to your position other than how you feel, something compelling other than old wives tales, wishful thinking and mythology?

quote:

Originally posted by Coach:

quote:

Originally posted by chickenboy:

quote:

Originally posted by Coach:
We're getting dangerously close to "Black Knight" (copyright ) territory.

Hey, that's not my copyright. The sewing circle came up with that. If you've been paying attention, I fancy myself more of a William Wallace.

We've had an alright thing going over here. Don't dirty up our backyard.

Your memory betrays you, , I was the one posted that in one of the innumerable threads in which you got your beak handed to you. It's all yours, and yours alone despite Rick's best efforts.

quote:

Originally posted by chickenboy:

rick has nothing to do with this and i guess you just said that you own the copyright. now go back to scouting reports on starks...

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
When are you going to stop putting words in my mouth?

quote:

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:
You're even quoting things I've never said now.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
You attack every comment I make but when I asked 3-4 times in this thread what was the relationship of Ks to W/L you don't respond. You always claim I don't answer your questions even when I do. What's your excuse for continually taking a pass?

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:Are you telling me he's worse off converting 10 Ks to BBs?

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
I stand by my original belief (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.) and nothing anybody says or does will ever change it. I've been around baseball for 50 years and no pencil necked geek that couldn't find 3rd base on a baseball diamond is going to change my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
How can you assume more contact mean less outs (and more runs) when teams/players that do that don't have less out and score more runs that team/players that do strike out more?

It's simple. If a player reaches base 40% of the time he makes contact and he makes contact 40 more times in a season he'll reach base ____ more times in a season? I'll let you get your calculator and figure it out.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
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:
The other day a heard an announcer, seldom watch on the Brewers channel, how much better of a leadoff hitter Weeks would be if he cut down his Ks. Where do you think he was going with that statement?

quote:

Originally posted by chickenboy:
my take (and you would know this if you spent time here)...

quote:

is that the "choke and poke" approach method is appropriate for youth to maybe lower end college ball.

quote:

when you are playing with best, you ain't going to get the errant throws or booted balls. so hence, if you are a player with power, you do not shorten up and avoid the strike out to put the ball in play. You attempt to drive the ball and you will produce more, but most likely with more strike outs. But with more production.

quote:

Now, that being said, there is a time and place for the "choke and poke," and that would be with GoGo.

quote:

However, I agree with stats...and they prove out.

quote:

I like a mixture of, old school and new school...with an major emphasis to new school.

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
When are you going to stop putting words in my mouth?

Words like this? It is right there for all to see.

quote:

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.

You’ve participated in this thread for 13 pages repeatedly stating that making contact is better than not (possibly getting a hit, error, sac fly, etc.) making contact better than not making contact. The only two options for not making contact are a strike out and a walk. The above quotes further emphasize that and an cursory pass through this thread can easily identify to anyone that your position is that strike outs are worse than making contact. You can say “I didn’t say that” a thousand times, but your words are out there for everyone to see. Why not own up to them?

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
You're even quoting things I've never said now.

Did not. If you can show me I would be impressed. This is a cowardly response.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
You attack every comment I make but when I asked 3-4 times in this thread what was the relationship of Ks to W/L you don't respond. You always claim I don't answer your questions even when I do. What's your excuse for continually taking a pass?

You avoid lots of points Rick, typically in direct relation to how much it defeats your premise. You use strawmen
Ex.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:Are you telling me he's worse off converting 10 Ks to BBs?

frequently when you cannot defend your position. In this particular example of course no one said someone would be better off with strike outs than with walks. In fact, this particular poster has said many, many times that all outs are bad, strike outs included. But I will get to my position a little later. And when you really have no ammunition left, you start to insinuate that people are stupid or call names (pencil necked geek makes an appearance a little later in your response). All smoke and mirrors to distract from the issue at hand.
I will respond to your question though, but it will be no new content other than what has been said many, many times. It is undisputable that how often a team strikes out does not correlate to how many runs they score. As the work of the offense is to score runs, this is how your question has been responded to. This is logical, as how many times a team strikes out has no bearing at all on how many runs they give up. The W/L question is a b/s question as you are trying to implicate strike outs in some way to how many runs a team gives up when they are not even loosely related. On the other hand, it is clear that having a bunch or having only a few of those non contact outs has no bearing on how many or how few runs a team scores in order to put themselves in position to win. When looking at actually offensive performance, strike outs are simply not a good indicator of how effective or ineffective a team is at scoreing runs. This destroys the idea that strike outs are worse outs than outs where you make contact with the ball (and have the chance at an error, sac fly) and the mythology of the damage of a strike out fails except with the knowledge that all outs are bad.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
I stand by my original belief (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.) and nothing anybody says or does will ever change it. I've been around baseball for 50 years and no pencil necked geek that couldn't find 3rd base on a baseball diamond is going to change my opinion.

Again with the name calling? You would think if your position was sound, you wouldn’t have to resort to this, but I’m sure you have a good reason for it.
Back to your position, your claim is that if a player or team made more contact and reduced strike outs, it is only logical there would be an increase in BA and/or OBP. If this were so, wouldn’t teams that do strike out a lot have lower BA and or OBP?
Our top 10 teams with the most strike outs are (followed by ranks for BA, OBP, SLG, OPS and runs scored)
Arizona (24th, 14th, 9th, 10th, 17th
Florida (18th, 23rd, 20th, 22nd , 16th
Colorado (11th, 9th, 8th, 8th, 10th
Tampa (22nd, 6th, 16th, 12th, 4th
Milwaukee (14th, 10th, 4th, 4th, 7th
Cincinnati (5th, 8th, 5th, 5th, 6th
Toronto (27th, 27th, 2nd, 7th, 8th
ChC (15th, 18th, 13th, 16th, 21st
Cleveland (26th, 20th, 25th, 23rd, 25th
Washington (19th, 19th, 21st, 20th, 26th
Now that is a scattered distribution! It does appear that striking out might mess with team batting averages. Now, I hope we all know batting average is not the best measure of a man, so I would hope of all the number presented it holds the least weight. Maybe it is the romance of a high batting average that people understand that leads to thinking striking out is extra special bad. I guess if your best way to comprehend the measure of a player is BA, then striking out is worse than other outs could be argued. I don’t feel that way, so let’s proceed. VERDICT- Striking out appears to lower team BA.

OBP bounces all over the place. Now your position is that if you strike out less, those batted balls will turn into more hits, errors, and walks. This doesn’t seem to ring true in the actual standings. It seems that if you strike out a lot, you still cover the gamut when it comes to getting on base. VERDICT- striking out doesn’t mean you get on base more or less than teams who don’t strike out

SLG seems to lean to liking those strike out teams. Half of our highest strike out teams are in the top ten in slugging. The distribution leans to the top, but there are some real low teams as well. I can’t call it conclusive, but it sure seems like striking out doesn’t bring the big picture of your power numbers down at all. VERDICT- striking out again leads to the full spectrum of power production, but high K teams are trending towards being better power hitting teams.

Now we move to OPS. I bolded it to help keep track of the columns, but this might be the most damning piece of evidence that shows striking out as a team is not as devastating as some might think and being a team of “makers of contact” probably doesn’t give you’re the guaranteed outcome that Rick proposes (Still chuckling over your earlier comment that 40% of balls in play result in a guy getting on base)

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
How can you assume more contact mean less outs (and more runs) when teams/players that do that don't have less out and score more runs that team/players that do strike out more?

It's simple. If a player reaches base 40% of the time he makes contact and he makes contact 40 more times in a season he'll reach base ____ more times in a season? I'll let you get your calculator and figure it out.

Quoted so I don’t get accused of making things up. I’m sure that isn’t what you meant though . Clearly more contact (less strike outs) doesn’t mean a higher OPS with again 5 of the top 10 making the top 10 in OPS. It may even be that teams who are comfortable with striking out (i.e. not desperate to get that contact up) can put together some impressive OPS. If making contact was that much more important, wouldn’t the all be at the bottom? Washington and Clevland there to show you striking out a bunch can simply be the indicator of a feeble all around offense. VERDICT shooting for more contact does not make that OPS look more appealing.

Lastly runs, what this is all about. If strike outs are so bad, clearly teams that do it the most frequently will fail completely at scoring runs. Lets peak. Oh snap, these strike out teams are plating runs like mad. Again, 5 in the top 10. That simply shouldn’t happen if strike out are really that damaging to an offense. It’s almost as if striking out is the least of a coaches worries in terms of what.really.impacts.outcomes. VERDICT Strike outs do not correlate to how teams score runs, so the myth of the mystical value of making contact being preferable is busted b/c it just doesn’t play out.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
It's only logical that putting the ball in play more often will lead to a higher BA and/or OBP.

Seems logical, and applies to BA. But does not apply to scoring runs (or getting on base for that matter). Which should we put more weight on, BA or Runs? I’m picking runs because I hate Johnny Estrada and his empty .300 BA.

Now lets talk about it at the player level. Rick has brought up how some announcer said Rickie should cut down on his strike outs. Now if Rickie can cut down on his strike outs and convert them to more singles, doubles and home runs, I say “hell yeah” Rickie, cut down on those strike outs. In fact, I am kind of surprised someone hasn’t brought this to his attention already. How exactly is Rickie going to do this? If he could, I’m guessing he would always knock out at least a single with every AB, but it is almost like the pitchers are trying to make it difficult for him. “Get more hits” just isn’t going to cut it, so he likely would have to alter his approach at the plate in order to achieve the outcome (less strike outs) that Rick is advocating for.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
The other day a heard an announcer, seldom watch on the Brewers channel, how much better of a leadoff hitter Weeks would be if he cut down his Ks. Where do you think he was going with that statement?

Now maybe that was a throw away statement, but I am confident you were using those exact words to defend your position that strike outs are worse outs. Regardless, let’s examine.

In order for Rickie to cut down on his strike outs, he will have to change his approach at the plate. Rickie sees a lot of P/PA (not anything like Adam Dunn, that strike out machine). Part of Rickie’s approach is looking at a lot of pitches. To get him to make more contact, you likely will have to ask him to be more aggressive earlier in the count. Possible outcome A: Rickie will no longer watch those first pitch strikes and bring home a few more hits a year. Possible outcome B: Rickie will not draw as many walks b/c he is hacking more, resulting in a net loss or similar OBP.

Now, with an emphasis on making contact and not having those embarrassing swing and misses, Rickie will have to change his swing somewhat, sacrificing some power. Possible outcome A: Rickie gets 20 more hits this season. Possible outcome B: Rickie hits 10 less home runs this season.

Rickie really starts to dig how he doesn’t strike out, Possible outcome A: Lots of contact means he is racing to first a lot, making that defense work. Possible outcome B: He turns into Jeff Kepinger who seldom strikes out but hits into 21 double plays this year which impacts his team having completely woeful hitting stats (for the record, Rickie has currently hit into 1 double play, but no one is ever on first with his first ab, so he has that going for him).

Rickie is currently putting up MVP type numbers, and on pace to set some records for lead-off hitters. Possible outcome A: wait, what? You want a guy doing what Rickie is doing to cut down his strike outs to satisfy your baseball sensibilities? These are amazing numbers for a second basement, don’t change a thing Rickie.

To wrap up, in every example for every position you have taken Rick, nothing but good things will logically come to teams that put the ball in play more than teams who strike out more. While this may fit your logic model, it does not actually happen that way when they play the game.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
I stand by my original belief (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:

and nothing anybody says or does will ever change it. I've been around baseball for 50 years and no pencil necked geek that couldn't find 3rd base on a baseball diamond is going to change my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Tuna:
I haven't been around as much to read 13 pages but here are a couple of examples of "productive" outs that are better than a "k". Maybe some of these types of outs have already been mentioned.

quote:

Originally posted by TD:
Really? You haven't mentioned that one yet?

I suppose batters never strike out into double plays either?

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
always a good idea to take a few pieces of anecdotal data and generalize it to the entirety of the situation, in the meantime completely missing the big picture. That is visionairy thinking representative of the greatest minds of our generation.

Prince Fielder is 1 for 1 in stolen bases this year, with that percentage he should definitely steal more.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
I still wish he'd answer the question I asked multiple times about the impact of Ks on W/L.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
I still wish he'd answer the question I asked multiple times about the impact of Ks on W/L.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
He's not a lock. Based on a 52 second study I did he's 15-24 career, 62.5%.

quote:

Striking out a lot or a little doesn't increase your chances of getting on base. Striking out a lot or a little doesn't impact how many runs you score. Striking out a lot or a little doesn't impact your win/loss record.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:
If 27 batters came up and all struck out how many runs would you score?

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRick:



If 27 batters came up and all struck out how many runs would you score? How many games would you win? If the first 27 batters of a game came up and made contact do you think they'd be more likely to score more runs and win the game against a team that all 27 struck out?