PDA

View Full Version : Strike out = to any other out?



Pages : [1] 2

Red_BlueDevil
12-13-2004, 03:06 PM
Hi all...long time lurker on the board. Over the course of reading the entertaining and informative (b/c of the responses not the original poster) thread started by DunnHater, a question popped into my mind that Hater mentioned but no one seemed to respond to.

I've always believed an out is an out is an out. As in a K is no worse than a ground out or fly out. But I wonder, is this in fact true?

Hater (or bad fundamental's, whatever that joker calls himself) mentioned that, at least by hitting into a group out, you've forced a fielder to do something. He will probably throw you out, but an error might also occur. Other than a dropped third strike, the possibility of an error is almost zero when discussing Ks.

This being the case, shouldn't a ground out or fly out at least be seen as a little bit less of a "bad" than a strike out?

I'm sure more intelligent minds than mine have thought about this question...hopefully someone can fill me in and set me straight on this.

Thanks! :thumbup:

ochre
12-13-2004, 03:19 PM
For the most part an out is an out. It is especially true for a guy like Dunn that gets on base regularly (i.e. doesn't make an out). For people with lower OBP strikeouts can be a sign of futility, or an otherwise bad approach at the plate.

One of the things that interests me as a snapshot statistic is an individuals difference between OBP and BA.

westofyou
12-13-2004, 03:25 PM
Best fielders in the world, plus the slider have made K's less and less horrendous over the years.

The Best fielders get to 70% of the balls hit and the slider makes the hitter have to wait an extra micro-second or make a decision on a ball that will end up out of the zone.

Here's some more on it.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2617

http://thediamondangle.com/archive/nov03/kfile.html

flyer85
12-13-2004, 03:28 PM
Batters Ks were are listed by Bill James as one of the least meaingful offensive stats. In the bottom 8 out of 32.

BCubb2003
12-13-2004, 03:38 PM
And yet pitchers' Ks are among the most meaningful stats. It's the same K. And I've never been able to reconcile that.

Red_BlueDevil
12-13-2004, 03:42 PM
WOY -- I knew somebody would come through. The baseball prospectus link was especially helpful. Being someone who has become quite comfortable with STATA over the past few years, a multivariate regression analysis is a great persuader.

Flyer, I wasn't trying to suggest that number of Ks are a meaningful stat. Quite the contrary actually - I agree with James, of all the individual statistics out there, #Ks is probably close to the bottom in those that will tell you how successful a batter is.

I only meant to mention that, on its face, it seems that a player who Ks 100 times in 100 atbats would have an OBP of .000, while one who hits a grounder to 3rd 100 times in 100 at bats would have an OBP > .000 because of the possibility of an error. If this is true, isn't a K slightly (albeit VERY slightly) "worse" than a ground out?

ochre
12-13-2004, 03:54 PM
and of course putting the ball in play could put you at the bottom of this list:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/dp_batters2004.html

Johnny Footstool
12-13-2004, 07:02 PM
There was a tiny blurb in "Moneyball" about strikeouts actually being worse than most SABR-folks think. The thing is, it's a tradeoff. Adam Dunn strikes out more than anyone, but he also produces a ton of runs. You can live with 150 strikeouts if a guy produces like Dunn, Jim Thome, Reggie Jackson, etc.

westofyou
12-13-2004, 07:06 PM
You can live with 150 strikeouts if a guy produces like Dunn, Jim Thome, Reggie Jackson, etc.

But if they're Wes Helms circa 2003 or Cory Snyder 1993 run.

Tom Lawless Fan
12-13-2004, 07:07 PM
Adam Dunn doesn't belong on any list with jackson and Tomey. Those guys are great players but Dunn is just a young raw player that needs alot of work.

Those guys never struck out as much as dunn last year.

M2
12-13-2004, 07:29 PM
And yet pitchers' Ks are among the most meaningful stats. It's the same K. And I've never been able to reconcile that.

Mathematically speaking, a strikeout for a pitcher and that same strikeout for a hitter are discrete events. What makes a K good for a pitcher is that it's signpost statistic. Pitchers who rack up the Ks generally keep hitters off the basepaths and generally enjoy longer, more successful careers. An individual strikeout doesn't mean that much. A pitcher would be just as happy with a popout, a weak liner or an at-em grounder in the same situation.

Yet there's no connection between lots of Ks for a hitter and the inability to get on base or to have a long, successful career. In fact there's tons of examples of hitters who whiffed a ton yet had excellent OB skills and some of the longest, most successful careers ever. I spent my youth watching Mike Schmidt (and watching Philly fans, the worst fans in baseball, freak out everytime he K'd). For the hitter, an out's an out. It's what he does when he's not making outs that defines his quality.

wheels
12-13-2004, 07:40 PM
That's the best explaination I think I've ever read.

PressBox
12-13-2004, 08:16 PM
This is a good discussion and a fun question to consider: "the hierarchy of outs"

I'll tell you the out play that infuriates me more than anything is a weak popout - especially the ones to the catcher, first baseman, or third baseman in foul territory. I think a popout is worse than a strikeout - mainly just because I feel like feeling this way. :devil:

At least in certain situations, a ground out, fly out, etc. can enable a runner to advance or even score. Such advances are an invaluabe asset to a team, and one which the Reds have woefully struggled with in recent years. I would happily take my chance with a lineup full of guys who can put the bat the ball consistently. So in answer to the question, I think that a popout is worse than a strikeout is worse than any other out. That's just my way of looking at it.

I like Adam Dunn, don't get me wrong - but I do get frustrated in several at-bats when he doesn't cut down on his swing or try to go the other way. Although he creates a lot of runs for the team, he has the potential to create(or set up) many, many more. But I'll take every one of his strikeouts with the production he puts up. I really like what M2 says: "For the hitter, an out's an out. It's what he does when he's not making outs that defines his quality." :thumbup:

M2
12-13-2004, 08:27 PM
I'll tell you the out play that infuriates me more than anything is a weak popout.

Me too. It's all psychological. Thing with a popout is you know you're out long before anyone catches the ball. It's the out that lingers, the one that gives you enough time to contemplate everything you did wrong and the opportunity you just blew.

Raisor
12-13-2004, 08:30 PM
Just a note on Dunn.

152 of his 195 strike outs took place with either no one on base (thus no way to advance a runner) or with runners on but with 2 outs (also, no way to advance a runner).

At least 78% of his K's meant nothing more then a "regular" out.

RFS62
12-13-2004, 09:28 PM
Mathematically speaking, a strikeout for a pitcher and that same strikeout for a hitter are discrete events. What makes a K good for a pitcher is that it's signpost statistic. Pitchers who rack up the Ks generally keep hitters off the basepaths and generally enjoy longer, more successful careers. An individual strikeout doesn't mean that much. A pitcher would be just as happy with a popout, a weak liner or an at-em grounder in the same situation.

Yet there's no connection between lots of Ks for a hitter and the inability to get on base or to have a long, successful career. In fact there's tons of examples of hitters who whiffed a ton yet had excellent OB skills and some of the longest, most successful careers ever. I spent my youth watching Mike Schmidt (and watching Philly fans, the worst fans in baseball, freak out everytime he K'd). For the hitter, an out's an out. It's what he does when he's not making outs that defines his quality.



I agree with Wheels that this is probably the best explanation of this point of view I've heard.

But I must admit that I share BCubb's difficulty in reconciling this disparity.

We judge a pitcher by his K rate, and agree that generally a pitcher is more effective when he doesn't allow a hitter to put the ball in play.

Can this be for any other reason than the idea that putting a ball in play can lead to errors, or the obvious increased chance that balls in play may fall in for hits?

And if this is so, how can the other side of the coin, the hitter, not be a better hitter if he struck out less?

I know the response is usually that he'll hit into more double plays and be swinging at bad pitches and all the other reasons we've gone over ad infinitum.

It just seems counterintuitive, even in the face of all the statistical evidence I've seen.

Two baseball axioms, seemingly at odds with one another. And, like BCubb, I still haven't been able to come to terms with these two generally accepted principles seeming to contradict one another.

BadFundamentals
12-13-2004, 10:21 PM
Take that a step further.........

What is that Danny Graves isn't able to do that most people would agree they would like to have their closer be able to do?

Get a strikeout when he needs it.

Late and close games when one key hit or situational at bat will turn a game a strikeout can save the game or lose it for you.

Goose Gossage, Bruce Sutter, Rollie Fingers, Dennis Eckersley of previous eras knew a little about this as do Gagne and Trevor Hoffman of today's game.

(oh...but I forgot a strikeout is "just another out")


I agree with Wheels that this is probably the best explanation of this point of view I've heard.

But I must admit that I share BCubb's difficulty in reconciling this disparity.

We judge a pitcher by his K rate, and agree that generally a pitcher is more effective when he doesn't allow a hitter to put the ball in play.

Can this be for any other reason than the idea that putting a ball in play can lead to errors, or the obvious increased chance that balls in play may fall in for hits?

And if this is so, how can the other side of the coin, the hitter, not be a better hitter if he struck out less?

I know the response is usually that he'll hit into more double plays and be swinging at bad pitches and all the other reasons we've gone over ad infinitum.

It just seems counterintuitive, even in the face of all the statistical evidence I've seen.

Two baseball axioms, seemingly at odds with one another. And, like BCubb, I still haven't been able to come to terms with these two generally accepted principles seeming to contradict one another.

BadFundamentals
12-13-2004, 10:27 PM
Actually, I don't appreciate your reference to me but I'll consider the source and let it slide. And you're right about your "more intelligent minds" comment. Maybe stick to your "lurking".......



Hi all...long time lurker on the board. Over the course of reading the entertaining and informative (b/c of the responses not the original poster) thread started by DunnHater, a question popped into my mind that Hater mentioned but no one seemed to respond to.

I've always believed an out is an out is an out. As in a K is no worse than a ground out or fly out. But I wonder, is this in fact true?

Hater (or bad fundamental's, whatever that joker calls himself) mentioned that, at least by hitting into a group out, you've forced a fielder to do something. He will probably throw you out, but an error might also occur. Other than a dropped third strike, the possibility of an error is almost zero when discussing Ks.

This being the case, shouldn't a ground out or fly out at least be seen as a little bit less of a "bad" than a strike out?

I'm sure more intelligent minds than mine have thought about this question...hopefully someone can fill me in and set me straight on this.

Thanks! :thumbup:

D-Man
12-13-2004, 10:49 PM
BCubb and RFS:
One key difference between a hitter and pitcher is that a pitcher does not perform in a vacuum. While a hitter's success at the plate is his own doing, the same can not be said of pitchers--they require fielders to make plays on their behalf.

In that sense, think of a K for a pitcher like a HR for a hitter: a K is a signal that a pitcher does not require the help of teammates to assist him in doing his job, much like a HR for an offensive player is a sign that a hitter doesn't need help from his teammates. And since these Ks for pitchers are repeatable over time and highly correlated with winning, we use Ks as a shorthand for good pitching. The inverse can not be said of high-K hitters.

Our world is full of situations where pieces of information are relevant for one subset of the population and irrelevant for others. If someone has a good credit history, he runs no risk of financial ruin if he misses two car payments. No big deal. On the other hand, it is a big deal for someone who has a poor track record with credit. This data point (or *signal*) means something pretty significant for one part of the population--people with bad credit--than it does for the rest. The same can be said of Ks for pitchers and hitters. . .

I'll shut up because my help is probably more confusing than "helpful."

M2
12-13-2004, 11:00 PM
We use Ks as a shorthand for good pitching. The inverse can not be said of high-K hitters.

In a nutshell, that's it.

4256 Hits
12-13-2004, 11:10 PM
Just a note on Dunn.

152 of his 195 strike outs took place with either no one on base (thus no way to advance a runner) or with runners on but with 2 outs (also, no way to advance a runner).

At least 78% of his K's meant nothing more then a "regular" out.

A few of those could have been errors if they were hit. ;)

The real benifits of reducing strike outs is if they can be replaced w/ something other than an out. For example w/ Dunn is that when he doesn't strike out my guess his OPS last year was over 2.000. That why I think if Dunn can cut down on his K's he will become even a better player because he would replace the K's w/ something other than an out.

MWM
12-13-2004, 11:12 PM
A few of those could have been errors if they were hit. ;)

The real benifits of reducing strike outs is if they can be replaced w/ something other than an out. For example w/ Dunn is that when he doesn't strike out my guess his OPS last year was over 2.000. That why I think if Dunn can cut down on his K's he will become even a better player because he would replace the K's w/ something other than an out.

The number of error would be eclipsed by the number of DPs.

westofyou
12-13-2004, 11:36 PM
An individual strikeout doesn't mean that much. A pitcher would be just as happy with a popout, a weak liner or an at-em grounder in the same situation.

Exactly, but the need for a good K rate increases in one out reliever situations more than in over the span of the game situations.

Leading to everyone longing for Gagne type of monsters.

The starting pitcher is assigned 9 innings every 5 days to procure 27 outs, 3 at a time. Back in the day when you had 3-4 starters a team the pitching load was shouldered by less players and "spreading the wealth" in aquiring outs was prefered, because the ball was deader. As the ball livened pitchers pitched lesser innings, were expected to be stronger to combat the increased hitting by keeping the ball out of play more.

The hitter will get 3 ab's in the game for sure, everyday if he's a starter if he K's then he's going to get another chance later in the game, the next day, the next week. And if he accumulates bases then he is evening it out.

The pitcher on the other hand appears only two times a week and helps his team more by limiteding the ball from being in play.

SteelSD
12-13-2004, 11:54 PM
Here's the thing...

The high K rate Pitchers are also generally the low OPS Against pitchers. They allow few hits and few bases. Because of their ability to get hitters to miss.

If you check the numbers since 2001, you'll find that of the seasonal top 10 K/9IP ERA qualifier leaders, only six of them posted OPS Against numbers higher than .700 (well below league average). Only one put up an OPS Against higher than .712 (Brandon Duckworth, .798- 2002).

However, of the top 10 MLB Strikeout Batting Title qualifiers since 2000, only three seasons came in at under 5.00 RC/27 Outs. Only 14 player-seasons in that time span ended up under 6.00 RC/27 Outs.

That tells us that the high K rate players not only put up well above average Run values, but that 94% of the highest K seasons since 2000 would have outscored your average 2004 MLB team per game. 72% of those hitters would have outscored the 2004 Boston Red Sox per 27 Outs.

Really, what the data shows us is that what may appear to be counter-intuitive isn't. The actual effect of a K for a pitcher is very different for a hitter when looking at the actual performance data.

D-Man was correct. The Strikeout, while an important factor for a pitcher's success rate is very very often simply a residue left behind in the wake of a very productive hitter.

4256 Hits
12-14-2004, 12:01 AM
The number of error would be eclipsed by the number of DPs.

I was refering to the 78% of the times that the K was either w/ bases empty or two outs that Rasior refered to. I was also half joking that what the ;) was for.

gonelong
12-14-2004, 12:28 AM
The real benifits of reducing strike outs is if they can be replaced w/ something other than an out.

Good in theory, but then the side-effect will most certainly be a loss of power on balls put in play. I think you would see many less HR and Doubles from a player like Dunn if his focus becomes not striking out. Where would the final numbers fall? Impossible to say, it mostly depends on how successful the guy is in not striking out and what sacrafices are made to meet that goal.

If Dunn was really worried about K'ing a bunch, he'd be swinging at balls much earlier in the count on a regular basis. IMO this would not be a good thing. He would not draw near as many walks, and he would not put up the same power numbers either. I think Dunn sits on certain pitches and he is more likely to see them the longer he can stand at the plate.

GL

gm
12-14-2004, 01:48 AM
Strikeouts are fascist ~ Crash Davis

Crumbley
12-14-2004, 03:43 AM
Adam Dunn will never truly be great until he learns the power of the choke bunt.

Redsland
12-14-2004, 10:26 AM
And the butcher boy.

BCubb2003
12-14-2004, 11:48 AM
If you'll be patient with me, I might yet reach enlightenment...

As the batter walks back to the dugout with his bat on his shoulder, he's thinking, "No biggie, if it hadn't been a strikeout, it would have been another kind of out."

And the pitcher is thinking, "Great, if it hadn't been a strikeout, he might have gotten on base somehow." I wonder why we can't reverse the assumptions.

If the strikeout is the pitcher's homerun, than a batter who gives up lots of homeruns can't be a good thing, can it? The batter has given up all control of the at-bat to the other team and has allowed the pitcher to make sure that he didn't get on base. The point seems to be shifting, though. It's not strikeouts that are important, it's OPS against. Strikeouts just tend to show up in a good OPS against. If there were a lot of wild young Koufaxes and Ryans who got lots of strikeouts but were also ineffective early in their careers, people might not put so much importance in strikeouts as a measure of effectiveness. Who are the "Wild Things" these days, who can "strike out the side" while pitching into and out of trouble? Scott Williamson comes to mind, but are there better examples?

I wonder if we put importance on strikes because it's something we can measure about a pitcher. That's kind of like searching for a quarter down the street from where we lost it because the light is better there.

If a strikeout benefits the pitcher's team, that can't be good for the hitter or his team. If a strikeout doesn't hurt the hitter's team, then what is it, other than something that just looks good on a pitcher's resume?

M2
12-14-2004, 02:02 PM
If a strikeout benefits the pitcher's team, that can't be good for the hitter or his team. If a strikeout doesn't hurt the hitter's team, then what is it, other than something that just looks good on a pitcher's resume?

An out's not a good thing for a hitter regardless of the nature of the out. You're getting tied up in micro stuff.

This is all macro. The way you figure out how well a hitter does in terms of out avoidance is OB. A .400 OB doesn't care if your .600 out percentage is tilted toward Ks or groundouts or flyballs or third strike foul bunts.

As for pitchers, the individual strikeout does not benefit the pitcher or his team any more than any number of other outs. As I said before, Ks are a signpost statistic, a number that usually indicates other things are going well (or, even more important, that they will continue to go well). A low K pitcher can have a great season here and there, Bill James uses Mark Fidrych as the poster boy for this, but over time the pitchers who can't get a decent number of Ks tend to fall back toward mediocrity. Strikeout pitchers are your best bet to be repeatably good, game-to-game and year-to-year. Cory Lidle was a great case in point last season. He doesn't strike out many hitters, but he pitched a few brilliant games last season. Problem is, he can't do that consistently and his occasional brilliance got more than offset by a fairly regular number of stinkers he tossed in there. There's a trap door there for guys like Lidle that doesn't exist for pitchers like Roger Clemens.

What the pitcher needs to get his job done in the macro, over the course of years, is the opposite of what what a hitter needs to get his job done in the macro. Pitchers need outs and it's hard for them to collect those outs consistently without the K being a big part of it (at least 25%). Hitters need hits and walks and it doesn't really matter what they're doing when they aren't getting those.

Rojo
12-14-2004, 02:13 PM
The thinking behind low strikeout pitching is that if too many balls are allowed into play, some will find holes and go for hits. If they don't show up one year, they will the next.

This is true of the hitter as well -- a few more bats-on-the-ball means a few more hits.

However, for the hitter, the value of a few more seeing-I singles is diluted because of playing time.

In his much more limited playing time, those singles can spell disaster for pitchers.

BadFundamentals
12-14-2004, 05:30 PM
You are citing stats to make your "pitching" point but then denying that they would carry the equivalent weight from the opposite (batter's) perspective.

<Isaac Newton rolling in his grave>

(as has been noted) K's have extra "situational" value over and above other outs particularly in late and close games. There is no substitute for a lights out closer who can get a STRIKEOUT when it is needed.

I agree with your point about K's as a "signpost" or "indicator" attribute. An ability to get some strikeouts indicates a pitcher has an "out" pitch of some sort which can be unhittable. This serves a pitcher well on an at bat basis AND over the long haul. Also, most strikeout pitchers (with some exceptions) have heat. No substitute for a little velocity when control/breaking pitches are failing. At one point in time velocity was all scouts cared about when hunting for pitchers. They figured they could teach the control/breaking stuff later.

The flip side (for batters) also holds true. Situationally, except for a double play, there are many cases when a strikeout is the worst possible outcome for an at bat. Additionally, strikeouts are also an "indicator" attribute for hitters. Generally speaking, fundamentally good hitters (the ones most likely to be most consistent game in and game out in multiple situations over a career) will not lead their teams/leagues in strikeouts.



An out's not a good thing for a hitter regardless of the nature of the out. You're getting tied up in micro stuff.

This is all macro. The way you figure out how well a hitter does in terms of out avoidance is OB. A .400 OB doesn't care if your .600 out percentage is tilted toward Ks or groundouts or flyballs or third strike foul bunts.

As for pitchers, the individual strikeout does not benefit the pitcher or his team any more than any number of other outs. As I said before, Ks are a signpost statistic, a number that usually indicates other things are going well (or, even more important, that they will continue to go well). A low K pitcher can have a great season here and there, Bill James uses Mark Fidrych as the poster boy for this, but over time the pitchers who can't get a decent number of Ks tend to fall back toward mediocrity. Strikeout pitchers are your best bet to be repeatably good, game-to-game and year-to-year. Cory Lidle was a great case in point last season. He doesn't strike out many hitters, but he pitched a few brilliant games last season. Problem is, he can't do that consistently and his occasional brilliance got more than offset by a fairly regular number of stinkers he tossed in there. There's a trap door there for guys like Lidle that doesn't exist for pitchers like Roger Clemens.

What the pitcher needs to get his job done in the macro, over the course of years, is the opposite of what what a hitter needs to get his job done in the macro. Pitchers need outs and it's hard for them to collect those outs consistently without the K being a big part of it (at least 25%). Hitters need hits and walks and it doesn't really matter what they're doing when they aren't getting those.

TRF
12-14-2004, 05:41 PM
The flip side (for batters) also holds true. Situationally, except for a double play, there are many cases when a strikeout is the worst possible outcome for an at bat. Additionally, strikeouts are also an "indicator" attribute for hitters. Generally speaking, fundamentally good hitters (the ones most likely to be most consistent game in and game out in multiple situations over a career) will not lead their teams/leagues in strikeouts.

I used to think this way too. But put it in the context of your favorite whiiping boy AD.

I believe someone on the board said that 78% of Dunner's K's came with no ability to advance a runner with an out (ie, nobody on, runners on with 2 outs)

So that means that 22% of Dunn's K's, (not his outs) were with runners on and could be advanced. Quite frankly, I can live with that.

so 78% of the time Dunn was doing what Dunn does... He swings hard. If he changes this approach, his power will diminish.. not might, will.

Thank you, but i prefer to keep the ninth best offensive player in all of baseball on the right track.

Are K's any different than ground outs? both are outs, but there is a potential good and bad to the ground out. Error: good. DP: bad. The DP is the more likely of the two to occur.

A K is a K is a K.

wheels
12-14-2004, 05:43 PM
ANd as M2 stated, it's all about sample size in regards to pitchers, especially relievers.

SteelSD
12-14-2004, 05:52 PM
Additionally, strikeouts are also an "indicator" attribute for hitters. Generally speaking, fundamentally good hitters (the ones most likely to be most consistent game in and game out in multiple situations over a career) will not lead their teams/leagues in strikeouts.

Unfortunately, your posts fit nothing but your own personal definition of "fundamentally good hitter". Fundamentally good hitters DO strike out. Strikeouts are a power and patience residual- both key to "fundamental" hitting.

As with your fatally flawed "KRISP" neo-stat, the issue is that you cannot correlate offensive strikeouts with a lack of result (i.e. Team Runs Scored or individual player offensive Run Value).

All offensive strikeouts tell us is that a player has a propensity to strike out. Without a demonstrable effect from an offensive perspective (which you can't demonstrate), your position ends up being nothing.

What you've done is the opposite of objective analysis. You hate offensive strikeouts, thus you position your points around the concept that strikeouts are bad for an offense without actually being able to demonstrate that strikeouts are bad for an offense.

"A hitter striking out can be bad sometimes."

"Therefore strikeouts for a hitter are bad all the time."

"Therefore hitters who strikeout most are always bad."

You claim to be attentive to situation while broadly over-generalizing occurrances that may or may not be bad without attending to performance attributes that don't support your position while over-emphasizing things that do support your position.

That's as non-objective as it gets.

Instead, you should be asking yourself, "What effect do offensive strikeouts have on team and individual performance?"

If you did, you're answer would be, "Not much of anything."

A review of "KRISP" later. But not on this board.

BadFundamentals
12-14-2004, 05:54 PM
There is a stat about the NFL that X percent of games are decided by a field goal or less (high percentage).

Not sure what the average run differential is in baseball but....best guess ....between 2 and 3 ? I'm sure it's not more than could be reasonably attained in one inning.

Again, nothing better than a lights out closer to come in and strikeout side to end a game. You leave nothing to chance. The more strikeout-prone a team's players are the more likely they are to go down quietly without a chance..............

wheels
12-14-2004, 05:57 PM
You think a team of Adam Dunns are more likely to go down without a chance?

In one mythical ninth inning? Sure those three Dunns might all strike out, but more often, two of them will walk, and one of them will homer.

I'll take my chances.

SteelSD
12-14-2004, 06:00 PM
You think a team of Adam Dunns are more likely to go down without a chance?

In one mythical ninth inning? Sure those three Dunns might all strike out, but more often, two of them will walk, and one of them will homer.

I'll take my chances.

God forbid you mention that a team of Adam Dunn's would rarely need a come-from-behind victory in the Ninth.

Because a team of nine Adam Dunn's would score about 8 Runs per Game.

BadFundamentals
12-14-2004, 06:05 PM
Of course.

You and I may never agree about what the numbers tell us but I bet we do agree that baseball is something of a "numbers" game.

What do Marty and Joe talk about "if you have a bat you're dangerous" ?? Well, unless you don't hit ANYTHING with the bat.

You give yourself no "chance" of reaching base (other than BB) if you don't hit anything. Situationally and in late innings (things that don't show up when you view the SEASON on a whole with just cumulative numbers) - the moments that separate winning TEAMS from losing teams - is when offensive strikeouts kill you the most.



Fundamentally good hitters DO strike out.

BadFundamentals
12-14-2004, 06:06 PM
You think Lindner et al would pay the $$$ for a team of Adam Dunns?

unlikely............


God forbid you mention that a team of Adam Dunn's would rarely need a come-from-behind victory in the Ninth.

Because a team of nine Adam Dunn's would score about 8 Runs per Game.

TRF
12-14-2004, 06:07 PM
He just needs to pay for the one he has.

MWM
12-14-2004, 06:08 PM
You are citing stats to make your "pitching" point but then denying that they would carry the equivalent weight from the opposite (batter's) perspective.

Translation. The argument was way above my head because that's not at all what he was saying.

You put WAAAAAAYYYY too much emphasis on "situational" stats. If a team performs well in the early innings, then those late situations where you need a "clutch" hit will be much fewer. I've always believed that the idea that early game ABs count less than late inning ABs doesn't make a lot of sense. The idea is to score more runs than your opponent regardless of when those runs come.

M2
12-14-2004, 06:08 PM
Great stuff Steel, but it's kind of like being forced to defend walking upright. You're 100% right and yet you have no hope of winning the argument.

FWIW, Mike Schmidt led the league in Ks four times, finished in the top three in the NL in Ks nine times, led his team in Ks nine times. Tony Perez, famed for his consistency in RBI situations, led the BRM in strikeouts almost every season (except when Johnny Bench nudged him in 1975 and 1976) and finished in the league top 10 in Ks 1969-1975, 77-78, 80. He drove in 1,017 runs in those 10 seasons.

BadFundamentals
12-14-2004, 06:09 PM
A "team" of Adam Dunns is not an option.

The options are whether you take your chances with:

1)Casey, Kearns, Pena, Freel and A.J. Barnett or
2)Casey, Kearns, Pena, Dunn and Todd Van Popple

(for example)



You think a team of Adam Dunns are more likely to go down without a chance?

In one mythical ninth inning? Sure those three Dunns might all strike out, but more often, two of them will walk, and one of them will homer.

I'll take my chances.

SteelSD
12-14-2004, 06:10 PM
Great stuff Steel, but it's kind of like being forced to defend walking upright. You're 100% right and yet you have no hope of winning the argument.

Actually, untrue, kind sir.

I had a win in-hand the moment I entered into the discussion.

And y'know, for all you subscribers out there it's getting to be about that time.

Heh. :D

M2
12-14-2004, 06:13 PM
Actually, untrue, kind sir.

I had a win in-hand the moment I entered into the discussion.

I meant more in the sense that Marvis Frazier might not have recognized that Mike Tyson knocked him out.

wheels
12-14-2004, 06:14 PM
Boom!

BadFundamentals
12-14-2004, 06:17 PM
I sort of expected a "Mike Schmidt" or someone similar comment soon.

I think this is more of a "conceptual" argument. I could toss out a list of the most versatile and fundamentally sound hitters of the last 30+ years and all of them would have in common that they don't strikeout TOO TOO much. (in some cases very few strikeouts)

guys like Boggs, Pujols, Carew, Puckett, Casey (throw a Red in there), Brett, Rose (another), Bonds, ....etc.. etc.......

and again, as a matter of principle, (see Newton) you can't have strikeouts GOOD for a pitcher but not BAD for a hitter.




Great stuff Steel, but it's kind of like being forced to defend walking upright. You're 100% right and yet you have no hope of winning the argument.

FWIW, Mike Schmidt led the league in Ks four times, finished in the top three in the NL in Ks nine times, led his team in Ks nine times. Tony Perez, famed for his consistency in RBI situations, led the BRM in strikeouts almost every season (except when Johnny Bench nudged him in 1975 and 1976) and finished in the league top 10 in Ks 1969-1975, 77-78, 80. He drove in 1,017 runs in those 10 seasons.

NJReds
12-14-2004, 06:17 PM
Of course.

You and I may never agree about what the numbers tell us but I bet we do agree that baseball is something of a "numbers" game.

What do Marty and Joe talk about "if you have a bat you're dangerous" ?? Well, unless you don't hit ANYTHING with the bat.

You give yourself no "chance" of reaching base (other than BB) if you don't hit anything. Situationally and in late innings (things that don't show up when you view the SEASON on a whole with just cumulative numbers) - the moments that separate winning TEAMS from losing teams - is when offensive strikeouts kill you the most.

You know Rose...after having this same argument for you over the last half of the baseball season on the mlb.boards , I'll just sit this one out.

It is amusing to watch though...and at least on this board they have this :dflynn: :dflynn: :dflynn: ...which is pretty much how I felt all Summer.

MWM
12-14-2004, 06:18 PM
Hey BAF, these close and late situations you talk about, you know, the argument you're using to hate on Dunn. Just for your information, in case you were concerned, Dunn had the following stats in 106 PAs in 2004:

BA - .323
OBP - .417
SLG - .720
OPS - 1.137 :eek: :eek: :eek:
K - 34
BB - 13
H - 30
2B - 4
RBI - 22

So whay you're telling me is that you actually think Adam Dunn is a GREAT hitter in close and late situations.

BadFundamentals
12-14-2004, 06:23 PM
ha ha.... :D :D :thumbup:

after football games all the players and coaches talk about "big plays", making or not making the "big plays"

The baseball equivalent is making the most of "situations".... Lou Pinella constantly talks of getting the big hits etc... etc.....

Fundamentally Sound hitters are most capable of big situational at bats. Fundamentally Sound hitters don't strikeout too too much.




You know Rose...after having this same argument for you over the last half of the baseball season on the mlb.boards , I'll just sit this one out.

It is amusing to watch though...and at least on this board they have this :dflynn: :dflynn: :dflynn: ...which is pretty much how I felt all Summer.

BadFundamentals
12-14-2004, 06:24 PM
right........... pick his career year and make a case based on 30 hits??

His lifetime avg. with RISP (important situations) is less than .210




Hey BAF, these close and late situations you talk about, you know, the argument you're using to hate on Dunn. Just for your information, in case you were concerned, Dunn had the following stats in 106 PAs in 2004:

BA - .323
OBP - .417
SLG - .720
OPS - 1.137 :eek: :eek: :eek:
K - 34
BB - 13
H - 30
2B - 4
RBI - 22

So whay you're telling me is that you actually think Adam Dunn is a GREAT hitter in close and late situations.

MWM
12-14-2004, 06:24 PM
How do you account for the fact that the Red Sox struck out the 3rd most in the majors, let scored more runs than anyone else?

Also, how do you account for the fact that there is ZERO correlation in a team's strike outs to the number of runs they score?

BadFundamentals
12-14-2004, 06:26 PM
see "payroll"


How do you account for the fact that the Red Sox struck out the 3rd most in the majors, let scored more runs than anyone else?

Also, how do you account for the fact that there is ZERO correlation in a team's strike outs to the number of runs they score?

SteelSD
12-14-2004, 06:27 PM
I think this is more of a "conceptual" argument.

And I think this is more of a "you being wrong" argument.

wheels
12-14-2004, 06:27 PM
He can't. The only statistic he has is his .210 average over his career.

Blechhh.

MWM
12-14-2004, 06:27 PM
His lifetime avg. with RISP (important situations) is less than .210

I thought it only mattered late in close games? Are you saying that these things matter the entire game?

And I was basing it on 106 plate appearances. Trying to wittle that down to 30 hits is a nice attempt at drawing attention away from the fact that you make no sense.

wheels
12-14-2004, 06:28 PM
payroll?

Hah!

BadFundamentals
12-14-2004, 06:28 PM
It would be nice to not have to bat your SS or Jason LaRue etc.. etc...instead..... just bat 9 left fielders in a row - you'd win alot of games.

On a shoestring budget, you're unlikely to ever have the top to bottom talent of a Bosox or Yankees.

TRF
12-14-2004, 06:29 PM
see "payroll"

how many times did payroll strike out?

SteelSD
12-14-2004, 06:30 PM
how many times did payroll strike out?

C'mon man.

If you're paid more, strikeouts don't count as much. Get with the program.

BadFundamentals
12-14-2004, 06:31 PM
You didn't post the "at bats" or "plate appearances". (sigh)


but ..."nice attempt" to jack up sample size by using PAs rather than ABs




And I was basing it on 106 plate appearances. Trying to wittle that down to 30 hits is a nice attempt at drawing attention away from the fact that you make no sense.

MWM
12-14-2004, 06:32 PM
see "payroll"

Huh? That makes no logical sense whatsoever. You're making the argument that strike outs reflect poor fundamental hitting. How much a team strikes out has nothing to do with payroll. I showed you a team that stuck out more than almost anyone else, yet they scored more runs than anyone else. The Yankees were 22nd in strike outs and 2nd in runs scored. San Francisco struck out more than anyone else, yet they were 7th in the big leagues in runs scored.

TRF
12-14-2004, 06:33 PM
sorry steel. what was i thinking.

So if your payroll is over, say 95 mil then each strikeout is only counted as a third of a strike?

does that mean it takes more pitches to strikeout Manny Ramirez?

TRF
12-14-2004, 06:34 PM
You didn't post the "at bats" or "plate appearances". (sigh)


but ..."nice attempt" to jack up sample size by using PAs rather than ABs

because walks suck. and getting on base means nothing, cuz a walk isn't as good a a single.

just kill me.

MWM
12-14-2004, 06:34 PM
You didn't post the "at bats" or "plate appearances". (sigh)


but ..."nice attempt" to jack up sample size by using PAs rather than ABs

Uh.......why should I use ABs? What's important is the outcome every time he walks to the plate. You're making less sense the more you speak.

I posted the plate appearances and listed walks. Is that not enough.

TRF
12-14-2004, 06:37 PM
:censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored:

BadFundamentals
12-14-2004, 06:38 PM
what makes no "logical sense whatsoever" (again) ,and is the point of this thread, is that you'll acknowledge strikeouts are GOOD for pitchers but you contend they are not BAD for hitters.

You're trying to say that there is a positive correlation between a hitter's strikeouts and his offensive contribution??

Don't forget to include pitchers and their at bats.

Your Bosox fact is what it is. But strikeouts is NOT the only variable at work with that example.




Huh? That makes no logical sense whatsoever. You're making the argument that strike outs reflect poor fundamental hitting. How much a team strikes out has nothing to do with payroll. I showed you a team that stuck out more than almost anyone else, yet they scored more runs than anyone else. The Yankees were 22nd in strike outs and 2nd in runs scored. San Francisco struck out more than anyone else, yet they were 7th in the big leagues in runs scored.

M2
12-14-2004, 06:38 PM
You know Rose...after having this same argument for you over the last half of the baseball season on the mlb.boards , I'll just sit this one out.

It is amusing to watch though...and at least on this board they have this :dflynn: :dflynn: :dflynn: ...which is pretty much how I felt all Summer.

NJ, we've got another feature on the board that can end your pain altogether. Go to User CP and find the "ignore" list on the left scrollbar. Took me all of one evening to decide this guy's LP was one endless skip.

Then I read the words, "I'd go along with giving him one more year to make me eat crow and prove that I don't know what the he11 I'm talking about." That's when I decided not to put off until next year what I could do today.

BadFundamentals
12-14-2004, 06:40 PM
I looked at your "bulleted list" (scroll up). You posted NEITHER plate appearances or at bats in that list.

But I stand corrected that you did cite the 106 PAs in the text..........




Uh.......why should I use ABs? What's important is the outcome every time he walks to the plate. You're making less sense the more you speak.

I posted the plate appearances and listed walks. Is that not enough.

westofyou
12-14-2004, 06:40 PM
Here is the list of teams that struck out the most from 1970-1979


CAREER
1970-1979
EXTRA BASE HITS vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
RUNS CREATED/GAME vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
WALKS vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
AVERAGE vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria

STRIKEOUTS SO EBH RC/G BB AVG
1 Reds 9222 339 0.38 549 -.001
2 Padres 9117 -678 -.82 -705 -.022
3 Phillies 9017 5 -.18 -304 -.007
4 Giants 8927 -156 -.20 196 -.012
5 Brewers 8906 7 -.18 -136 -.007
6 A's 8801 -211 -.24 -6 -.012
7 Mets 8685 -712 -.77 -106 -.019
8 Expos 8632 -387 -.55 -314 -.016
9 Orioles 8626 91 0.11 525 -.004
10 Pirates 8577 278 0.12 -1038 .005

TRF
12-14-2004, 06:41 PM
what makes no "logical sense whatsoever" (again) ,and is the point of this thread, is that you'll acknowledge strikeouts are GOOD for pitchers but you contend they are not BAD for hitters.

You're trying to say that there is a positive correlation between a hitter's strikeouts and his offensive contribution??

Don't forget to include pitchers and their at bats.

Your Bosox fact is what it is. But strikeouts is NOT the only variable at work with that example.

you are so close to getting it.

psst. the key isn't strikeouts.

it's on base percentage. Dunn gets on base 38% of the time. When your team has a high OBP, they tend to score a lot of runs.

And guys like Dunn are rare. High OBP, monster power.

get it?

MWM
12-14-2004, 06:43 PM
what makes no "logical sense whatsoever" (again) ,and is the point of this thread, is that you'll acknowledge strikeouts are GOOD for pitchers but you contend they are not BAD for hitters.

Why do I need to just re-type what M2, D-Man, and Steel have already laid out quite nicely. It's not my fault that it's beyond your comprehension


You're trying to say that there is a positive correlation between a hitter's strikeouts and his offensive contribution??

OK. That has to qualify as one of the funniest statements ever uttered here on RedsZone. What I'm arguing is that stike-outs have NEXT TO NO correlation to offensive contribution. It's actually YOU who are arguing that strikeouts correlate to offensive contribution.


Your Bosox fact is what it is.

OK. You've got me here. I really can't argue with this point.

TRF
12-14-2004, 06:47 PM
NJ, we've got another feature on the board that can end your pain altogether. Go to User CP and find the "ignore" list on the left scrollbar. Took me all of one evening to decide this guy's LP was one endless skip.

Then I read the words, "I'd go along with giving him one more year to make me eat crow and prove that I don't know what the he11 I'm talking about." That's when I decided not to put off until next year what I could do today.

m2, please do not put this guy on your ignore list.

i too walked on the dark side. and with help from you steel and raisor i learned that i can learn.

mebbe he can too.

M2
12-14-2004, 06:59 PM
m2, please do not put this guy on your ignore list.

i too walked on the dark side. and with help from you steel and raisor i learned that i can learn.

mebbe he can too.

TRF, you never walked in here for the sole purpose of arguing in favor of lunacy. I don't even remember what we've disagreed about in the past, but I never got the sense you were impervious to logic or dead-set against considering anything but your own point of view. Post long enough and we're all wrong about something at some point.

In short, I never saw you as being on a "dark side."

But I can tell you that my forehead's going unslapped a lot the past few days thanks to that little ignore function. In fact, from my perspective this has been a fairly enjoyable thread ... though I suspect that's because I chose to be selective about what I read.

Red_BlueDevil
12-14-2004, 07:21 PM
You're trying to say that there is a positive correlation between a hitter's strikeouts and his offensive contribution??


No thats not what he's saying at all.

Listen, Here's the point and its a simple one:

1. for some reason X, if you plug all of the variables that we can measure regarding a pitcher's performance into a predictive equation, a variable that is highly correlated (read: predictive) with how "good" he is, is the number of Strikeouts he gets.

2. for some reason Y, if you plug all of the variables that we can measure regarding a batter's performance into a predictive equation, a variable that is not correlated at all (to a point of having probably NO correlation - read: no predictive value) with how good he is, is his number of strikeouts.

Those are the facts BF, they are what they are. Now we can argue until we're blue in the face (as I'm sure you must be by now) what reason X is and what reason Y is, BUT what we can't argue about is what the numbers tell us.

Unless, a predictive value of greater than 95 % isn't impressive to you. ;)

BadFundamentals
12-14-2004, 08:08 PM
not "blue in the face" but approaching the "agree to disagree" point at least for now......

I don't dispute your point #1. It is very believable to me that there is a correlation between the # of strikeouts a pitcher gets and how "good" he is. I expect that would hold up for several different methods of quantifying "good" (era, whip, etc. etc...)

I dispute #2. A most obvious and extreme example, take "pitchers". I guarantee you that generally they strikeout alot (relatively) and generally they are not "good" hitters by any measure.

More importantly, in a macro sense.....

If (your point #1), a high strikeout rate for an individual pitcher is GOOD, that means that a strikeout MUST be better than other outs (popouts and flyouts). You have a finite number of outs, we've both agreed the more strikeouts the better, strikeouts are better than other outs.

Given that assumption, the converse is also true. A team OFFENSE is in direct opposition to an opposing team's PITCHING/DEFENSE (a pitcher being a component part of that team PITCHING/DEFENSE). At a conceptual level, better to have less team strikeouts because this suggests your getting a lower level of quality from your direct opposition - the opposing team's PITCHING/DEFENSE.




No thats not what he's saying at all.

Listen, Here's the point and its a simple one:

1. for some reason X, if you plug all of the variables that we can measure regarding a pitcher's performance into a predictive equation, a variable that is highly correlated (read: predictive) with how "good" he is, is the number of Strikeouts he gets.

2. for some reason Y, if you plug all of the variables that we can measure regarding a batter's performance into a predictive equation, a variable that is not correlated at all (to a point of having probably NO correlation - read: no predictive value) with how good he is, is his number of strikeouts.

Those are the facts BF, they are what they are. Now we can argue until we're blue in the face (as I'm sure you must be by now) what reason X is and what reason Y is, BUT what we can't argue about is what the numbers tell us.

Unless, a predictive value of greater than 95 % isn't impressive to you. ;)

SteelSD
12-14-2004, 08:18 PM
I dispute #2. A most obvious and extreme example, take "pitchers". I guarantee you that generally they strikeout alot (relatively) and generally they are not "good" hitters by any measure.

Runs Created- 97.3% correlation with actual Runs Scored (higher than any metric you've ever used)

I'll post this again:

However, of the top 10 MLB Strikeout Batting Title qualifiers since 2000, only three seasons came in at under 5.00 RC/27 Outs. Only 14 player-seasons in that time span ended up under 6.00 RC/27 Outs.

That tells us that the high K rate players not only put up well above average Run values, but that 94% of the highest K seasons since 2000 would have outscored your average 2004 MLB team per game. 72% of those hitters would have outscored the 2004 Boston Red Sox per 27 Outs.

If 94% of the seasons from the top 10 Strikeout leaderboard from 2000-2004 would outscore the MLB average team and 72% of the season on that list would have outscored the highest scoring team in baseball from last season, they're "good" hitters by every definition of the word "good".

The reason you think they're not "good" is that you think offensive players who Strike Out often are "bad". That's it in a nutshell. No more, no less. You think they're "bad", therefore they must be- in defiance of all the information that says those players are "good".

Now you're simply adding in the concept that because pitchers are generally bad hitters and that they strike out a lot then every hitter who strikes out a lot is a bad hitter.

All dogs do not have spots.

MWM
12-14-2004, 08:20 PM
If a high strikeout rate for an individual pitcher is GOOD, that means that a strikeout MUST be better than other outs (popouts and flyouts).

No it doesn't. The very premise of your argument is false. A strikeout is "GOOD" for a pither because it correlates highly with a pitcher being good. One thing you've flat out ignored is the data. And we're not talking subjective data. We're talking about something as basic as correlation. The point that you've dodged this whole thread is that a pitcher who strikes out a lot of hitters tend to be "good" pitchers regardless of the measurement (ERS, WHIP, etc...). In other words there's a correlation between the ability to strike hitters out and the ability get hitters out period.

That same relationship doesn't exist for a hitter. No matter how much you OPINE that it does, the data, in it's most basic and indisputable form completely contradicts what you say. The amount that a hitter strikes out doesn't at all correlate with the hitter's overall offensive contribution measured by any reliable metric (and yes, I'm excluding batting average).

I understand when things are just differences of opinion. But this isn't a matter of opinion, it's cold hard fact. Any attempt to say otherwise is just wrong.

Answer me this, which AB is more pressure-filled: an AB with a man on second and two outs in the 5th inning of a 7 run blowout; or an AB in the bottom of the ninth in a tie game or down 1 run with nobody on base? Which one has more pressure. Because BA with RISP considers the first as a pressure situation while the second one isn't considered to be a pressure AB. how do you explain that?

MWM
12-14-2004, 08:24 PM
I dispute #2. A most obvious and extreme example, take "pitchers". I guarantee you that generally they strikeout alot (relatively) and generally they are not "good" hitters by any measure.


Pitchers also don't walk or hit for power. Would you agree? So you could also say that those hitter who don't walk or hit for power are generall "bad" hitters. I have a hard time believing you can't see that as an astronomical leap in logic.

Raisor
12-14-2004, 09:54 PM
you are so close to getting it.

psst. the key isn't strikeouts.

it's on base percentage. Dunn gets on base 38% of the time. When your team has a high OBP, they tend to score a lot of runs.

And guys like Dunn are rare. High OBP, monster power.

get it?


I feel like a proud father at graduation time :mhcky21:

BadFundamentals
12-14-2004, 10:05 PM
A pitcher and a batter are in DIRECT opposition to one another.

They are each component parts of their respective team PITCHING/DEFENSE and team OFFENSE which are also in DIRECT opposition to one another.

A game begins in equilibrium (0-0) - by the end one of the opposing forces (teams) is victorious.

- - - - - - - - - -

A single by a batter (good) has an equal and opposite negative (bad) impact on the opposing team and its pitcher. The same can be said for a "double" however since a double is relatively better for the offense than a "single" we can also say that it has a relatively greater negative (bad) impact on the opposing team and its pitcher.

It works the other way as well. ALL outs are good for pitching/defense but we all agree that "generally speaking" strikeouts are RELATIVELY better outs than flyouts or lineouts or groundouts (similar to a double vs. single but less variance). Any out by pitching/defense has an equal and opposite negative impact on the opposing offense. Since a strikeout is RELATIVELY better for a pitcher/offense than other outs it can also be said that "generally speaking" the equal and opposite negative impact of a strikeout to opposing offense is also greater. Conclude strikeouts are worse than other outs for a hitter/offense.

Stats are great but no match for Isaac Newton.

westofyou
12-14-2004, 10:08 PM
Stats are great but no match for Isaac Newton

Newton couldn't take a walk.

MWM
12-14-2004, 10:13 PM
Still ignoring the data and not addressing it directly. Instead, just summarily dismissing stats altogether because you have no answer. If you can't see the difference between batting and pitching, i can't help you. Also, if looking at correlation doesn't sway at all, I give up.

Raisor
12-14-2004, 10:15 PM
I give up.

I'm hoping there are lurkers reading this thread and learning what BF refuses to even try to learn.

Raisor
12-14-2004, 10:16 PM
Newton couldn't take a walk.


He did, however, lead the league is Hit By Apples one year.

SteelSD
12-14-2004, 10:45 PM
Newton couldn't take a walk.

Is he the guy who invented the Double Play?

Gets fuzzy in here sometimes.

RedlegJake
12-15-2004, 02:13 AM
Newton couldn't take a walk.

Actually he took a walk - then got hit by the apple, thus the gravity of this situation.

Ravenlord
12-15-2004, 02:51 AM
this is how many runs a lineup of each of these players would have scored in 2004...keep in mind, the Reds scored 750 runs:

Dunn: 1283
Casey: 1186
Griffey: 998
Pena: 915
Freel: 883
Jimenez: 823
LaRue: 803
Larkin: 790
Lopez: 742
Valentin: 609
Castro: 513

Top 10 K
Dunn: 1283
Wilson: 999
Patterson: 842
Jenkins: 829
Wilkerson: 1090
Edmonds: 1588
Cabrera: 1040
A. Jones: 860
Thome: 1304
Cameron: 879

and with that happy note, i'm done with this.

ochre
12-15-2004, 03:43 AM
this is how many runs a lineup of each of these players would have scored in 2004...keep in mind, the Reds scored 750 runs:

Dunn: 1283
Casey: 1186
Griffey: 998
Pena: 915
Freel: 883
Jimenez: 823
LaRue: 803
Larkin: 790
Lopez: 742
Valentin: 609
Castro: 513

Top 10 K
Dunn: 1283
Wilson: 999
Patterson: 842
Jenkins: 829
Wilkerson: 1090
Edmonds: 1588
Cabrera: 1040
A. Jones: 860
Thome: 1304
Cameron: 879

and with that happy note, i'm done with this.

and of course the obvious counter to that is "sure 1283 runs are nice at $400k, but who wants to pay $4mil for that on a bad team?"

BCubb2003
12-15-2004, 04:01 AM
I've been thinking of the at-bat as a zero-sum game, where what's good for the pitcher is bad for the hitter and vice versa, and I guess it is. But I've been comparing the batter's on-base ability to the pitcher's strikeout ability as if they mirrored each other. I guess the batter's on-base ability, which includes more than one element, should be compared to the pitcher's out ability, which includes strikeouts among others. I've been comparing a bag of apples to a single orange.

I'm intrigued by the 1960 season of Sandy Koufax. He led the league in strikeouts per 9 innings, and was tied for first in fewest hits per 9 innings, but he went 8-13 with a WHIP of 1.33. He was fourth in most walks per 9 inning. But I guess our Saber guys were right. Where there's a lot of strikeouts, there's likely to be good pitching. The next year, Koufax kicked in.

I appreciate the patient schooling. Now if someone can tell me where Carl Lindner is hiding all the profits, I'll know just about everything there is to know about baseball.

M2
12-15-2004, 04:09 AM
Now if someone can tell me where Carl Lindner is hiding all the profits, I'll know just about everything there is to know about baseball.

Hello? Cayman Islands.

BadFundamentals
12-15-2004, 07:56 AM
RE: the zero-sum game, what you're thinking about there is what I'm also suggesting. And they do conceptually mirror one another.

But the variables (for simplicity) I think should be the batter's "on-base ability" (as you noted) vs. the pitcher's "out ability" - not JUST the strikeout ALL outs. Then the respective pecking orders would be something like:

HR > 3B > 2b > 1b > BB for "on base ability" for HITTER/OFFENSE

K > (popout and lineout and flyout etc.) for "out ability" for PITCHER/DEFENSE

Once you accept that, you can see that the HR has a positive impact on hitter/offense and equal and opposite negative impact on pitcher/defense. (greater than that of a 2b, 1b etc..)

Similarly a K has a positive impact on pitcher/defense and equal and opposite neative impact on hitter/offense (greater than other out).

As for Sandy Koufax, I've always loved those numbers. That guy must have been he11 to try and hit. As for your "Where there's a lot of strikeouts, there's likely to be good pitching." Let me ask you, if you accept that and you accept that pitching and hitting are in DIRECT opposition to one another. Why would the opposite of your statement NOT hold true?



I've been thinking of the at-bat as a zero-sum game, where what's good for the pitcher is bad for the hitter and vice versa, and I guess it is. But I've been comparing the batter's on-base ability to the pitcher's strikeout ability as if they mirrored each other. I guess the batter's on-base ability, which includes more than one element, should be compared to the pitcher's out ability, which includes strikeouts among others. I've been comparing a bag of apples to a single orange.

I'm intrigued by the 1960 season of Sandy Koufax. He led the league in strikeouts per 9 innings, and was tied for first in fewest hits per 9 innings, but he went 8-13 with a WHIP of 1.33. He was fourth in most walks per 9 inning. But I guess our Saber guys were right. Where there's a lot of strikeouts, there's likely to be good pitching. The next year, Koufax kicked in.

I appreciate the patient schooling. Now if someone can tell me where Carl Lindner is hiding all the profits, I'll know just about everything there is to know about baseball.

BadFundamentals
12-15-2004, 08:15 AM
clarification......

as for "ability to get outs", probably better to show "approximate" order there as well: K is the worst, probably followed by the "popout" - nothing good is going to happen on a popout. groundout vs. flyout would be sticker but go with this for now:

K > popout > groundout > flyout > lineout (lineout best because most likely to be or have been a hit)


so as it impacts the offense, hitters who k and popout alot are likely not very good hitters. If you lineout and flyout alot though you're proably a relatively better hitter and likely to cash in on an HR or two.................

DoogMinAmo
12-15-2004, 08:40 AM
clarification......

K > popout > groundout > flyout > lineout (lineout best because most likely to be or have been a hit)


so as it impacts the offense, hitters who k and popout alot are likely not very good hitters. If you lineout and flyout alot though you're proably a relatively better hitter and likely to cash in on an HR or two.................

Wow, now this is hard to follow... I can see how a slap hitter might not turn in the same quality major leaguer as one with more power (Ichiro excluded apparently), but to say that Ks and popouts reflect poorer hitters than those who hit lineouts and flyouts. Holy situational statistics Batman!

Pokey hit a ton of flyouts on his quest to become the Reds greatest power hitter of all time, that makes him better than Dunn, who Ks a lot?

Am I following correctly, I would hate to misunderstand your theory, but you have to admit, that IS hard to swallow.

TRF
12-15-2004, 10:45 AM
Let me try one last time.

player A has 676 plate appearances in a single season.
that same player strikes out 195 times, has 151 hits, and 108 walks. He also hit 45+ HR's, so he has power as wells as good plate discipline.

By your standard, this guy had a bad year, and is a tweener. your exact words.

Player B is a high K pitcher. 265 K's in 228 ip. His K's are an indicator of just how good he is. Why? because he removes possibilities on his own. The ball does not go into play as often as other pitchers because he takes care of them on his own. Also, guys that K a lot of batters have a secondary effect of fooling the hitter more. Balls that are put in play less often due to high k pitcher usually mean fewer men on base.

For a pitcher, K's are good.

But for a hitter? If player A goes 1 for 5 with 4 strikeouts, did he have a bad day? What if that one hit was a HR? with runners on?

What if he went 0 for 1 with a double 3 walks and a strikeout?

1 for 2 with a strike out, HR and 3 walks?

and what if in each of the above scenarios, he scored a run at least once due to his BB's?

the strikeout is just another out, and often a better out than say no outs, GB to second with Casey on first.

I think most people here would agree that Dunn could cut down on the strikeouts, but never at the expense of his walk totals, or his power approach at the plate.

I can certainly live with AD hitting .265 if his OB is around .400, and his SLG is over .550.

quite frankly I can see his SLG approaching .600 this season, with his OB aroun .410-.415.

If he stays healthy, he's a HOF player in the making.

Yet he got on base 38% of the time.

BadFundamentals
12-15-2004, 10:56 AM
ha ha.... :gac:

I guess that is why I'd favor looking at this at a conceptual level with a strikeout viewed as a component part of the TEAM pitching/defense. Then on the flip side view the strikeout as component part of the TEAM hitting/offense in direct opposition to the pitching/defense.

Otherwise, you can list player exceptions like Ichiro, Reese, Schmidt etc. etc...etc..or team exceptions till blue in the face.

And MWM I don't mean to not acknowledge your statistical argument. We agree that it is easy to show stats that demonstrate K rate is good for a pitcher/pitching. You have then shown some stats to suggest that this doesn't hold for a "given" hitter or a given "team" of hitters. But there are more variables at work there regarding hitting/scoring runs. A strikeout is only one factor impacting RUNS SCORED.

At a conceptual level using the zero-sum I don't see how it can be said it can hold for one but not the other.




Holy situational statistics Batman!

.

westofyou
12-15-2004, 10:58 AM
When you guys are done with this thread let me know.

I can fill up my time watching my cat chase his tail, or maybe I'll read Chariot of the Gods.

MWM
12-15-2004, 12:00 PM
You have then shown some stats to suggest that this doesn't hold for a "given" hitter or a given "team" of hitters. But there are more variables at work there regarding hitting/scoring runs. A strikeout is only one factor impacting RUNS SCORED.

I'm now convinced you either haven't read a single thing I, nor anyone else in this thread have said. Either that or you have no idea what the meaning of "correlation" is. If there was ANY correlation whasoever to strikeouts and offensive production or runs scored, then the numbers would bear it out. That's my point. You say "a strikeout is only one factor impacting RUNS SCORED" where several people have shown without a single counterargument that strikeouts ARE NOT a factor AT ALL in runs scored.


At a conceptual level using the zero-sum I don't see how it can be said it can hold for one but not the other.

Well, when you CAN see it, then maybe it makes sense to continue this conversation. As long as you can't see that and hold to this zero-sum "conept", you're not going to get it. You're the only one who seems to buy into this "zero zum" idea. Why that doesn't hold true has been laid out iin this thread about as good as it possibly can by folks like M2, Steel, and D-Man all with baseball IQs about as high as they get. If BCubb, one of the most intelligent people we have on this board, can learn from it and grasp the concept, then you should be able to. The only thing I've gathered from your responses is that you really don't understand the arguments given that debunk your belief system.

It's OK to learn from others and question your own belief system. That's how you learn. There are people on this board who have been following baseball a long time and have spent a heck of lot more time than you or I leanring, reading, and evaluating old and new baseball ideas. You're only cheating yourself if you don't take advantage. I've learned more in the few years I've been on this board than I had in the previous 27 years of my life. If you're willing to listen and learn and face the fact that you don't have to be the smartest guy in he room, then you'll walk away fom this site understanding the game at levels you never knew before. But seriously, and I don't mean for this to be personal, but the arguments you're laying forth make absolutely no sense to anyone capable of evaluating a rational or logical argument. You've contradicted your own arguments more times than one. You're only digging yourself a bigger hole the more you continue to talk in circles. These are intellient people here. You need to swallow your pride and learn. Because in this instance, you couldn't be more off base with the silly arguments you're making and you're just making yourself look silly be your insistence on holding fast to them when they've been systematically and undeniably debunked here by very smart baseball minds.

That's just my $.02 and you can take it or leave it. With that, I'm going to move on.

BadFundamentals
12-15-2004, 12:25 PM
There's nothing wrong with just letting it go and appears that's where you and I are at MWM which is ok :thumbup:


On many occasions Runs Scored and Runs Created have been referenced in this thread to presumably show no correlation between strikeouts and Runs. (offense)

Theoretically though, If a team's hitters struck out every at bat in every game you would end up with 0 Runs Scored and 1:1 correlation.

This suggests to me that strikeouts do impact Runs Scored - they are a factor. However, there are just too many other factors at work which also impact Runs Scored to draw any direct correlation between Ks and Runs for an offense at a numbers/stat level. Which is why I would favor and go along with the conceptual level argument which would suggest there is a correlation.

westofyou
12-15-2004, 12:28 PM
This has been an issue since the 60's.

Am I the only one who remembers the protests?

http://www.deadballart.com/redszone/protest.jpg

TRF
12-15-2004, 12:28 PM
Theoretically though, If a team's hitters struck out every at bat in every game you would end up with 0 Runs Scored and 1:1 correlation.

This suggests to me that strikeouts do impact Runs Scored - they are a factor. However, there are just too many other factors at work which also impact Runs Scored to draw any direct correlation between Ks and Runs for an offense.

:dflynn:

ok, so what if they all went 0 for 2 with 2 K's and 2 walks each?

psst, it's all about the OBP.

it begins and ends there. not BA, OBP. And once you figure this out....

BadFundamentals
12-15-2004, 12:35 PM
"walks" then are bad for a pitcher and good for offense ( raises OBP etc....leads to runs) ok
"strikeouts" are good for a pitcher and bad for offense ( lowers OBP ...leads to less runs)

to benefit from OBP runners have to be "moved up" and scored. K is relatively worse than other outs because they don't move runners.




:dflynn:

ok, so what if they all went 0 for 2 with 2 K's and 2 walks each?

psst, it's all about the OBP.

it begins and ends there. not BA, OBP. And once you figure this out....

TRF
12-15-2004, 12:46 PM
Again you are comparing apples to oranges.

I compared your nine guys all striking out to nin guys striking out twice and walking twice.

Outs are a part of the game. if in the very strictest sense you want to say strikeouts impact offense, well then yeah, but no more than GO's, FO's or DP's.

an out is an out. all outs detract. it's why the defense gets to come back off the field.

but a strikeout doesn't detract any more from runs scored than a GO or FO does, in fact in some situations (your favorite term it seems) it is preferrable. (Casey on 1st, Dunn grounds to 2B, nobody out)

It's about a players OBP. And his total bases.

You cannot compare pitching to hitting, because they do not have the same goals.

A pitcher wants 27 outs while allowing the fewest baserunners possible.

A hitters goal is to aquire the most bases possible, by whatever means; hit, BB, HBP.

See the difference?

If a hitter K's twice per game, but also homers and walks, his BA is .250, but his OBP is .500 (he also just hit 162 HR's, but i think the point is made.)

See?

BadFundamentals
12-15-2004, 12:54 PM
TRF, I addressed your OBP point in this post (below). I would be curious about your response to this if you care to.

(not meaning any animosity with any of this...........I would be curious about your response to below. :thumbup: :)


Relatively worse, because (except in an extreme case <missed third strike> ) a K has no chance of moving up runners - other outs do.



"walks" then are bad for a pitcher and good for offense ( raises OBP etc....leads to runs) ok
"strikeouts" are good for a pitcher and bad for offense ( lowers OBP ...leads to less runs)

to benefit from OBP runners have to be "moved up" and scored. K is relatively worse than other outs because they don't move runners.

SteelSD
12-15-2004, 12:56 PM
However, there are just too many other factors at work which also impact Runs Scored to draw any direct correlation between Ks and Runs for an offense.

And with that one passage, you just contradicted everything nasty you've ever said about Adam Dunn.

Well, at least that's one mission accomplished.

BadFundamentals
12-15-2004, 01:03 PM
That was a nice piece of handy work to extract that out of my passage. Out of context it suggests something different than intended but nonetheless, nice handy work to feed that back to me............

I'll throw you an "olive branch" for a peace offering..................




And with that one passage, you just contradicted everything nasty you've ever said about Adam Dunn.

Well, at least that's one mission accomplished.

TRF
12-15-2004, 01:03 PM
TRF, I addressed your OBP point in this post (below). I would be curious about your response to this if you care to.

(not meaning any animosity with any of this...........I would be curious about your response to below. :thumbup: :)


Relatively worse, because (except in an extreme case <missed third strike> ) a K has no chance of moving up runners - other outs do.

again apples and oranges.

pitchers that K a lot of batters also do not walk a lot of batters. for the most part.

If AD walks, hits a HR, and K's three times, is that a good game? he just went 1-4, his BA was .250, but his OBP was .400.

You are are taking what a pitcher does to an entire team and comparing it to what an individual hitter does to a pitcher.

apples and oranges.

and while that strikeout didn't advance a runner, it also kept them out of an inning ending DP.

SteelSD
12-15-2004, 01:17 PM
Relatively worse, because (except in an extreme case <missed third strike> ) a K has no chance of moving up runners - other outs do.

A Strikeout also has no chance of causing a Double Play. There were 3784 baserunners erased in 2004 because of balls hit into play. Excluding Outs of choice (Sac Bunts), there were 3977 Runners advanced by balls hit into play in 2004 using ESPN's "Productive Outs" tracking.

Considering that losing a baserunner to a Double Play is actually a far worse event than any other Out event (due to the nature of causing BOTH an Out AND erasing a base), your contention that Strikeouts are far worse events than Outs created on balls hit into play is a non-starter. Also, considering the fact that many runners advanced on non-K Outs would have scored from their original basepath positions on the following event, it's a wash at best.

Example:

Sean Casey produced 18 "Productive Outs" in 2004. He erased 16 Runners already on base by hitting into Double Plays. Considering that those 16 GIDP erased gains already posted AND knowing that Outs are more valuable than bases, what we're left with is net negative event value.

Simply put, the Outs and Bases erased by Casey's GIDP's were more valuable to the Reds than the random bases gained by Out-event balls hit into play.

MWM
12-15-2004, 01:26 PM
Also, walks advance runners in many cases without sacrificing an out.

TRF
12-15-2004, 01:32 PM
MWM....

i agree completely. with everything you said.

westofyou
12-15-2004, 01:35 PM
BPA--Bases per plate appearance.

The formula is (TB+BB+HBP+SB-CS-GIDP)/(AB+BB+HBP+SF)


CINCINNATI REDS
SEASON
2004
PLATE APPEARANCES displayed only--not a sorting criteria
OUTS displayed only--not a sorting criteria
RUNS CREATED/GAME vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
STRIKEOUTS vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
AVERAGE vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria

BPA BPA PA OUTS RC/G SO AVG
1 Adam Dunn .636 681 426 2.92 94 -.004
2 Sean Casey .548 633 408 2.29 -61 .054
3 Ryan Freel .488 592 390 0.14 -5 .008
4 Jason LaRue .472 445 306 -.32 35 -.018
5 D'Angelo Jimenez .458 652 438 -.20 -5 .000


CINCINNATI REDS
SEASON
1950-2004

BPA YEAR BPA PA OUTS RC/G SO AVG
1 Joe Morgan 1976 .728 599 344 7.10 -17 .057
2 Eric Davis 1987 .719 562 350 4.55 61 .024
3 Eric Davis 1986 .717 487 320 3.57 34 .016
4 Kal Daniels 1987 .699 430 260 5.37 8 .065
5 Joe Morgan 1975 .692 639 354 6.61 -8 .062
6 Frank Robinson 1962 .660 701 428 5.19 -19 .071
7 Ted Kluszewski 1954 .660 659 405 4.74 -22 .052
8 Frank Robinson 1961 .657 636 397 4.39 -8 .053
9 Reggie Sanders 1995 .656 567 363 3.49 37 .035
10 Joe Morgan 1974 .648 641 387 4.36 2 .031
11 Bernie Carbo 1970 .643 467 266 5.05 24 .043
12 Barry Larkin 1996 .641 627 400 3.31 -43 .028
13 George Foster 1977 .637 689 447 3.80 24 .051
14 Adam Dunn 2004 .636 681 426 2.92 94 -.004
15 Frank Robinson 1960 .633 562 357 3.87 0 .034
16 Joe Morgan 1973 .632 698 443 3.37 -20 .027
17 Ron Gant 1995 .626 493 322 2.49 33 .005
18 Joe Morgan 1977 .623 645 391 3.52 -15 .019

M2
12-15-2004, 01:53 PM
WOY, next thing you're going to tell me is that in 1977 George Foster (who turns out to be the closest BPPA equivalent for Dunn's 2004) did something special.

BadFundamentals
12-15-2004, 02:06 PM
Some good points there....very good. And some good numbers. And comparing the value added of moving up runners with the "risk" of losing value through a double play I think is also a fair comparison.

We have to go back to the original pecking order.

We agree that strikeouts and a high strikeout rate are good for a pitcher and relatively better outs than flyouts, groundouts etc...(taken on a whole). The question then is: Is there enough to be gained from "the double play" (or the groundout) on a large scale to say that it is a better out on a whole than the strikeout?

The key lies in that pecking order: K > GO > FO > LO etc. ... The double play and any other intangibles would need to be factored in here. If after factoring in intangibles we still say that on a large scale we like the K as the best out for the pitcher (defense). Then it would have to be true that on a large scale the K is the worst out for a hitter (offense).




A Strikeout also has no chance of causing a Double Play. There were 3784 baserunners erased in 2004 because of balls hit into play. Excluding Outs of choice (Sac Bunts), there were 3977 Runners advanced by balls hit into play in 2004 using ESPN's "Productive Outs" tracking.

Considering that losing a baserunner to a Double Play is actually a far worse event than any other Out event (due to the nature of causing BOTH an Out AND erasing a base), your contention that Strikeouts are far worse events than Outs created on balls hit into play is a non-starter. Also, considering the fact that many runners advanced on non-K Outs would have scored from their original basepath positions on the following event, it's a wash at best.

Example:

Sean Casey produced 18 "Productive Outs" in 2004. He erased 16 Runners already on base by hitting into Double Plays. Considering that those 16 GIDP erased gains already posted AND knowing that Outs are more valuable than bases, what we're left with is net negative event value.

Simply put, the Outs and Bases erased by Casey's GIDP's were more valuable to the Reds than the random bases gained by Out-event balls hit into play.

ochre
12-15-2004, 02:21 PM
We agree that strikeouts and a high strikeout rate are good for a pitcher and relatively better outs than flyouts, groundouts etc...(taken on a whole). The question then is: Is there enough to be gained from "the double play" (or the groundout) on a large scale to say that it is a better out on a whole than the strikeout?

not really. We agree that SOs can indicate that a pitcher is good. Good pitchers usually perform well. When evaluating them as outs they are really just part of the 27 that a pitcher needs to get per game. Odd isn't it?

TRF
12-15-2004, 03:28 PM
10-12 stikeouts for a pitcher in a single game is indicative of how well he pitched.

10 K's indicates the following:
at least 4 innings pitched but likely 6-8 innings
10 out's were recorded by the pitcher
10 times the opposing hitters failed to reach base
Those K's are also indicative of how effective that pitcher was. 10K's 6-8 IP will likely reveal a low opponent score.


3K's for a batter indicates 3 outs. It doesn't indicate a single thing about how he did other than he made three outs.

Red Heeler
12-15-2004, 03:42 PM
Some good points there....very good. And some good numbers. And comparing the value added of moving up runners with the "risk" of losing value through a double play I think is also a fair comparison.

We have to go back to the original pecking order.

We agree that strikeouts and a high strikeout rate are good for a pitcher and relatively better outs than flyouts, groundouts etc...(taken on a whole). The question then is: Is there enough to be gained from "the double play" (or the groundout) on a large scale to say that it is a better out on a whole than the strikeout?

The key lies in that pecking order: K > GO > FO > LO etc. ... The double play and any other intangibles would need to be factored in here. If after factoring in intangibles we still say that on a large scale we like the K as the best out for the pitcher (defense). Then it would have to be true that on a large scale the K is the worst out for a hitter (offense).

Not true at all. All outs are equal from a pitcher's standpoint as well. In any given game, there are 27 outs that a pitcher needs to get. His success in any one game depends upon getting those 27 outs without giving up enough baserunners to allow a bunch of runs to score. How those outs are recorded has little basis on the number of runs scored.

On the other hand, a high K/9 with a low BB/9 is an indicator of the SUSTAINABILITY of a pitcher's success. A pitcher who K's few, gives up a lot of walks, and allows a lot of homeruns can luck into a good season occasionally if a lot of the balls he allows in play go toward a fielder. However, the chances of him repeating such success is little.

BadFundamentals
12-15-2004, 08:34 PM
ok then....well let's try it this way, forget the strikeout.

You get 10 hits and 5 walks in a game (and 27 outs).

Scenario #1 = All 27 outs are infield popouts
Scenario #2 = All 27 outs are deep flyouts to right field

Which scenario can be expected to yield more runs? Clearly it would NOT be Scenario #1. They "may" yield the same number of run but if one would yield more it would clearly be Scenario #2.

If you accept this, then we can say that a deep flyout to right is a relatively better out for a hitter than an infield popout (not a stretch). This proves all outs are not equal. It only remains to determine a hierarchy of the relative worth of outs.

Bringing back the strikeout now for the moment. Effectively, infield popouts and strikeouts are equal. Neither has a chance of advancing runners and neither results in double plays. Based on above, a Strikeout is worse than a deep flyout to right.



Not true at all. All outs are equal from a pitcher's standpoint as well. In any given game, there are 27 outs that a pitcher needs to get. His success in any one game depends upon getting those 27 outs without giving up enough baserunners to allow a bunch of runs to score. How those outs are recorded has little basis on the number of runs scored.

On the other hand, a high K/9 with a low BB/9 is an indicator of the SUSTAINABILITY of a pitcher's success. A pitcher who K's few, gives up a lot of walks, and allows a lot of homeruns can luck into a good season occasionally if a lot of the balls he allows in play go toward a fielder. However, the chances of him repeating such success is little.

wheels
12-15-2004, 08:54 PM
wow.

gonelong
12-16-2004, 12:11 AM
Bringing back the strikeout now for the moment. Effectively, infield popouts and strikeouts are equal. Neither has a chance of advancing runners and neither results in double plays. Based on above, a Strikeout is worse than a deep flyout to right.

A fly ball does result in two outs when guys tag up and get tossed out. Its infrequent, but it does happen.

A fly ball leading off an inning is no better than a stikeout, and neither is one for the 3rd out. Most players get out 65%+ of the time, so 65%+ of the time the second batter in the inning would not even have a chance of advancing a runner with a fly ball.

You are talking about only a small portion of possible outs, and the probability that a runner is on, has some speed, and a fly ball is deep enough to move him up doesn't happen a significant amount of the time, even if all the outs where long fly balls. Given that they are not all long fly-balls, its even less significant.

GL

BadFundamentals
12-16-2004, 08:11 AM
There are 24 different men on base "situations" possible in a given inning.
(8 combinations of baserunners x 3 outs)
Examples:

man on first 0 outs
man on first 1 out
man on first 2 outs
men on first and second 0 outs
men on first and second 1 out
etc etc....

Clearly to be more precise you would have to do a weighted average to arrive at an exact number/frequency but for this discussion just showing the "possibilities" is enough to make the point.

In the eight 2-out situations, the deep flyout to right and popout would be equal. However that still leaves 14 (toss out the 2 bases empty) other situations where a team could stand to benefit (advance runners) from the flyout more than the popout.

14 of a possible 24 situations (58%) I'd say is significant.

Furthermore, you could assume a "very conservative" position on taking the extra base to address the "tag up and get tossed out" exception (never try to take second, never try with a very slow runner etc.) - that would lower the 58% number but still the difference would remain. A flyout to right remains a relatively better out than an infield popout. All outs are not equal.




A fly ball does result in two outs when guys tag up and get tossed out. Its infrequent, but it does happen.

A fly ball leading off an inning is no better than a stikeout, and neither is one for the 3rd out. Most players get out 65%+ of the time, so 65%+ of the time the second batter in the inning would not even have a chance of advancing a runner with a fly ball.

You are talking about only a small portion of possible outs, and the probability that a runner is on, has some speed, and a fly ball is deep enough to move him up doesn't happen a significant amount of the time, even if all the outs where long fly balls. Given that they are not all long fly-balls, its even less significant.

GL

baseballPAP
12-16-2004, 08:43 AM
Reading this, I keep going back to something Bill James said regarding evolution of all things, but also people who refuse to "believe" in sabremetrics........

"Anyway, the "dispute" isn't a disagreement about the evidence, but a disagreement between people who are looking at the evidence and people who aren't. It's like asking a naturalist why he doesn't do a complete, once-and-for-all study on the evidence of evolution and creationism. The evidence is already conclusive; it's just that there are people who don't intend to accept it unless the hand of God appears in the sky one afternoon and writes "ALL RIGHT! I CONFESS! I DID IT BY EVOLUTION! IT TOOK ME YEARS! I'SE JUST KIDDING ABOUT THE SEVEN DAYS! AND BY THE WAY, MILWAUKEE COUNTY STADIUM IS A PITCHER'S PARK ... BE BACK NEXT MILLENNIUM. LOVE, GOD."

No offense meant to all the anti-evolutionists here(that would be another thread). BF, what does this quote say to you?

DoogMinAmo
12-16-2004, 09:09 AM
This has been an issue since the 60's.

Am I the only one who remembers the protests?

http://www.deadballart.com/redszone/protest.jpg

:MandJ: :MandJ:

Woy, buddy, entertaining as you are with these pics, if you are using Photoshop, try : Edit: Transform: Perspective. If you are already aware of this, and were making an artistic decision, I apologize in advance for the tip.

DoogMinAmo
12-16-2004, 09:13 AM
If a hitter K's twice per game, but also homers and walks, his BA is .250, but his OBP is .500 (he also just hit 162 HR's, but i think the point is made.)

See?


Sorry TRF, but wouldn't his avg. be .333? I digress ...

DoogMinAmo
12-16-2004, 09:15 AM
Simply put, the Outs and Bases erased by Casey's GIDP's were more valuable to the Reds than the random bases gained by Out-event balls hit into play.

But were they clutch outs? :mhcky21:

BadFundamentals
12-16-2004, 09:18 AM
BF, what does this quote say to you?

I'll tell you what that quote says to me - specifically the "a disagreement between people who are looking at the evidence and people who aren't." That says he believes his interpretation of the facts/evidence is correct. And when offered another way of looking at those SAME facts/evidence, rather than giving an alternate view consideration, he is dismissing that view as not being fact-based.

So let me ask you PAP and I stand with an open mind for your response. Where is the flaw in this conceptual logic/argument (as opposed to a stat based RC-type argument) I have layed out that the deep flyout to right is a relatively better out than the popout or strikeout ? How is this argument not based on facts?

DoogMinAmo
12-16-2004, 09:31 AM
So let me ask you PAP and I stand with an open mind for your response. Where is the flaw in this conceptual logic/argument (as opposed to a stat based RC-type argument) I have layed out that the deep flyout to right is a relatively better out than the popout or strikeout ? How is this argument not based on facts?

To play devil's advocate, first of all, all fly outs are not deep to right...
Usually it is a left handed hitter who hits deep to right, and there are more right handers in the majors than left handers. If you are going to use the situations you mentioned, 24 possibilites of men on base etc.,then you should also factor in the different results of where the ball is hit. With the K, the ball goes no where, with a hit, the ball can go anywhere. Anywhere is not always good. If you say that, and I am being very generous, that half the hit balls are "productive," then that 58-42 advantage has fallen to 29-42. Needless to say, no longer an advantage.

On the flip side, I used to be a big anti-K guy, just cause it hurts so much when it happens, especially in key situations in a game. And at least with contact, you feel there is a chance that the runner may advance or score. So high Ks are bad in that sense, but what our peers are pimping is not just high Ks, but a high walk rate to correspond, which Adam has, and can therefore help just as much in those late situations.

It may or may not be "clutch," in those late game situations, but it does not hurt, and may help.

BadFundamentals
12-16-2004, 10:01 AM
To play devil's advocate, first of all, all fly outs are not deep to right...

But when you set out to prove or disprove something you create "test conditions" which aren't necessarily intended to mirror the real world. They are intended to isolate/reduce the variables (in this case the type of outs). Yes, it is unlikely to have a game where all 27 outs would be deep flyouts to right. But by using the hypothetical, you can reduce variables to just those two types of outs and prove that they are not equal.

As a slight digression, this is my issue with some of the stat-based SABRE conclusions I have seen. In some cases, I've seen conclusions which suggest correlations exist or don't exist but there are many statistical variables at work in those studies - no attempt to adhere to the "Scientific Method" of isolating variables with "all other things held equal".

baseballPAP
12-16-2004, 10:24 AM
You want to talk statistical variables? I don't have the numbers(I bet RavenLord or Steele do though), but where are you figures in your math that represent the % of time within each of your 24 conditions? For instance, bases empty with any number of outs would constitute the largest %, and a runner on 1st is likely next. Runner on 3rd, less than 2 outs is the only situation where your deep fly to right is better than any other out. OK, I'll concede the remote possibility of a runner advancing 2nd to 3rd on the first out, then scoring on the second. Or, even more unlikely, scoring from 2nd on a single deep fly out.

As for the quote, I said it reminds me of you. Meaning, someone who would rather, just for the sake of taking up the opposite opinion, ignore all facts presented and keep to their single point, regardless of any and all contrary evidence.

I had a college roommate like that....he flunked out because he refused to admit that evolution was even a possibility, and thus failed his freshman biology class at OSU.... Absolutely brilliant stand on his part.

Ravenlord
12-16-2004, 10:28 AM
i could get the numbers, but it would require me to either go through every single game log for the last few years, or check every single player in MLB (pitchers too) situational hitting stats for the last few years too. i'm not willing to the work for that though. Steel might have the numbers already, or may know of a site that already has them up or something. one things for sure, i haven't found them on ESPN.com or at BP.

BadFundamentals
12-16-2004, 10:31 AM
I acknowledged your point from the outset (scroll up) - that to be more precise you'd have to have weighted averages to "represent the % of time within each of your 24 conditions". But not necessary to have weighted averages to make/prove the point.

As for your second comment, I'd suggest you look in the mirror.




You want to talk statistical variables? I don't have the numbers(I bet RavenLord or Steele do though), but where are you figures in your math that represent the % of time within each of your 24 conditions? For instance, bases empty with any number of outs would constitute the largest %, and a runner on 1st is likely next. Runner on 3rd, less than 2 outs is the only situation where your deep fly to right is better than any other out. OK, I'll concede the remote possibility of a runner advancing 2nd to 3rd on the first out, then scoring on the second. Or, even more unlikely, scoring from 2nd on a single deep fly out.

As for the quote, I said it reminds me of you. Meaning, someone who would rather, just for the sake of taking up the opposite opinion, ignore all facts presented and keep to their single point, regardless of any and all contrary evidence.

I had a college roommate like that....he flunked out because he refused to admit that evolution was even a possibility, and thus failed his freshman biology class at OSU.... Absolutely brilliant stand on his part.

baseballPAP
12-16-2004, 10:32 AM
OK..hours of searching aside, I think we can agree that runner on 3rd, less than 2 outs is a minor player in the total whole of the 24 situations.....maybe 3% ?

Ravenlord
12-16-2004, 10:36 AM
just gleaning over my box scores from last year, probably 3-8%

baseballPAP
12-16-2004, 10:36 AM
As for your second comment, I'd suggest you look in the mirror.

Hmmmm, now we're going to insult each other, because your argument hit a wall? Pass.

All I mean is that some people would rather ignore all evidence and stick to their own platform, no matter how termite infested it becomes.

I am of the type that says "Hmmm, that platform looks like its about to fall in, and look, ALL those other people are over there on the nice shiny new one. I think I'll go with them".

baseballPAP
12-16-2004, 10:38 AM
Ahh, I did forget to factor in 1st and 3rd, 2nd and 3rd..... I'll up my original guess to 5% then....but I'd be happy to see the numbers.

TRF
12-16-2004, 10:42 AM
Sorry TRF, but wouldn't his avg. be .333? I digress ...
why yes, yes it would. let's make him K 3 times then.

SteelSD
12-16-2004, 12:13 PM
But when you set out to prove or disprove something you create "test conditions" which aren't necessarily intended to mirror the real world.

True scientific method doesn't set out to prove or disprove anything. It's goal is to find information regardless of where that information takes us. Your goal, however, is not the acquisition of information. You're not starting with a hypothesis. You're positioning a belief system.

Let's examplify...

We're testing a new cancer treatment on a group of 100 patients, all of whom have the same type of cancer. The type of cancer is 100% fatal.

We give 50 of the patients a placebo (our "control" group) and 50 of those patients the real treatment. All of the control group patients die from their illness. All but two who received the real treatment survive.

There appears to be a correlation of "test treatment" and "survival".

Fast forward to your methodology...

BF is testing a new cancer treatment. He selects 100 subjects, none of whom are actually suffering from cancer. He gives all the subjects the test treatment and none expire due to cancer.

In testing a competitor's cancer treatment, he selects 100 subjects, all of whom are suffering from the same type of terminal cancer. BF gives each test subject a placebo treatment and none of them the test treatment prescribed by his competition. All 100 subjects in this study pass away from their disease.

BF then declares his treatment a roaring success because his test allowed all 100 of his subjects to live while all 100 subjects he tested for the purposes of invalidating his competitor's study died. Nevermind that the test was set up to "prove" BF's treatment and to "disprove" his competitor's.

That is, in a nutshell, what you've been doing this entire thread BF. You still haven't found a single real-life example of offensive K's being a real-life statistically significant production driver. Instead, you've created a scenario where your reasoning can't possibly fail because you set up your "test" to succeed.

Fact is, that no one on this thread has ever ever stated that every K is equal in every situation to every out. What has been communicated, quite clearly, is that no statistically significant correlation can be found between offensive strikeouts and negative offensive production.

If you want someone to say that a deep fly ball to right field is prefereable to a strikeout with a speedy runner on third in the bottom of the ninth with a score tied, I'll completely agree. However, just because Hitter A puts the ball into play more than Hitter B over time, that doesn't mean they have the ability to generate the requisite fly ball to that exact spot on the field at will. That fly ball being hit there is a random event.

Your over-emphasis on Out "type" stems from your misconception that hitters can control the kind of Outs created on balls hit into play. Certainly, different hitters may have a natural predisposition for Ground Outs or Fly Outs, but they cannot control the direction or distance of the ball consistently over time from situation to situation. Nor are hitters who have more of a propensity to put the ball into play in ANY situation automatically more valuable in any situation versus those who do not.

Instead, you should be focusing on non-Out event ratio and quality. Hitters who make fewer Outs and acquire more Bases simply advance their teams past the point of having to rely on rare random situations where trading an Out for a base would be meaningful. Simply put, Jim Thome/Adam Dunn type hitters are preventative in nature. Because hitters like that contribute more offensive value to teams at all times, teams who have more high OBP/high SLG weapons are able to more consistently avoid scenarios in which one Run is going to make a difference late in a game.

Very simply, for Hitters who make fewer Outs and acquire more Bases, Out type is particularly insignificant. Yet, you continue to beat the drum that hitters should be evaluated by Out events rather than non-Out events when exactly the opposite is true.

TRF
12-16-2004, 12:48 PM
Steel, well said. That brings this discussion to a close. I'd like to thank the panel (Steel, MWM, Raisor, M2 and even BF and of course all others that contributed) for their participation in this discussion. I believe more was explained about K's and outs in general than ever before in the history of this board. I hope the new people that may have come over from MBL boards due to the Dunn trade rumor gained not only a new understanding of offense, but a realization of not only how intelligent this board's community is, but also how civil. Even when we disagree.

This is quite possibly the greatest fan forum on the internet.

BadFundamentals
12-16-2004, 01:12 PM
TRF I too will give you your due for civil participation. :thumbup:
However, as for being "brought to a close" ? ...maybe for you.......

Frankly, I have to differ with your "well said" comment regarding Steel's last passage. I found it extremely confusing, difficult to follow etc..etc...(on several attempts). I don't understand his point nor do I see how it addresses my relatively simple argument.

I too have lost some steam with this debate however and this thread. And unless there are new participants or yet to be raised points I suspect I too shall now move on. I don't move on with same closure you have though.

Regardless.......regarding, your civil contribution :thumbup:




Steel, well said. That brings this discussion to a close. I'd like to thank the panel (Steel, MWM, Raisor, M2 and even BF and of course all others that contributed) for their participation in this discussion. I believe more was explained about K's and outs in general than ever before in the history of this board. I hope the new people that may have come over from MBL boards due to the Dunn trade rumor gained not only a new understanding of offense, but a realization of not only how intelligent this board's community is, but also how civil. Even when we disagree.

This is quite possibly the greatest fan forum on the internet.

ochre
12-16-2004, 01:14 PM
TRF I too will give you your due for civil participation. :thumbup:
However, as for being "brought to a close" ? ...maybe for you.......

Frankly, I have to differ with your "well said" comment regarding Steel's last passage. I found it extremely confusing, difficult to follow etc..etc...(on several attempts). I don't understand his point nor do I see how it addresses my relatively simple argument.

I too have lost some steam with this debate however and this thread. And unless there are new participants or yet to be raised points I suspect I too shall now move on. I don't move on with same closure you have though.

Regardless.......regarding, your civil contribution :thumbup:

Summary of steels analogy:

You have some basic fallacies in your premise.

The scientific method is not used to prove points, but to reveal truths. By tuning your "statistics" to validate your own beliefs you are not using anything scientific in your method.

BadFundamentals
12-16-2004, 01:29 PM
please brief elaborate?

Hypothesis: All outs are NOT Equal (strikeout not equal to any other out)

-I proposed plausible albeit "extreme" (not uncommon for test conditions) hypothetical test conditions
-I reached a conclusion based on those test conditions which could be expected to carryover at some level to real world circumstances

Please tell me the "basic fallacies" in the premise.




Summary of steels analogy:

You have some basic fallacies in your premise.

The scientific method is not used to prove points, but to reveal truths. By tuning your "statistics" to validate your own beliefs you are not using anything scientific in your method.

Ravenlord
12-16-2004, 01:31 PM
Please tell me the "basic fallacies" in the premise.


it defies logic and every single bit of charted evidence, and in some of your posts, you're contradicting your own conclusion.

BadFundamentals
12-16-2004, 01:47 PM
As I noted previously at one point, I have some issue with the previously "charted evidence" I presume you elude to.

Studies I've seen have concluded "such and such" but based that on data subject to many different variables not just the "strikeout" per se. If you have a cleaner, more convincing study to cite I'd like to see it.




it defies logic and every single bit of charted evidence, and in some of your posts, you're contradicting your own conclusion.

westofyou
12-16-2004, 01:49 PM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2617

Ravenlord
12-16-2004, 01:53 PM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2617


dang woy, beat me to it. :)

SteelSD
12-16-2004, 02:04 PM
Hypothesis: All outs are NOT Equal (strikeout not equal to any other out)

Basic fallacy #1. That isn't a hypothesis. It's a conclusion. When you begin a "study" with a conclusion, you've poisoned it from the start.


-I proposed plausible albeit "extreme" (not uncommon for test conditions) hypothetical test conditions

Proposing hypothetical "test" conditions that cannot possibly exist is not "plausible". Fallacy #2.


-I reached a conclusion based on those test conditions which could be expected to carryover at some level to real world circumstances

No, you began with a conclusion and, instead of using actual performance data to gain knowledge, you used non-existant and unrealistic data in an effort to support a conclusion that conflicts with real-life performance data.

What you've done is put together a "control" group of Dalmations to prove that all dogs have spots because you believe that only Dalmations are really dogs.


As I noted previously at one point, I have some issue with the previously "charted evidence" I presume you elude to.

What issue could you possibly have with researching what actually happens on during real baseball games?

BadFundamentals
12-16-2004, 02:07 PM
Thank you RavenLord and WestofYou for the link. I read it once and I assure you I'll be reading that article many times.

Here are my problems with the study on first read. And the reason why (for now) I will still hold to my view.

1. It compares strikeouts to runs per game but it does NOT follow the scientific method of "all other things held equal".

A "better" study would be to find 100 or 1000 games where the number of Hits and BBs for a given team were the same (and the types of hits). Then for those 100 games make the same graph. You would then have a better and less cloudy measure of the impact of strikeouts on Runs Scored.


2. Secondly, the second part of the study (for pitchers) contradicts the conclusion of the first part. I quote the "more strikeouts mean fewer balls in play. Fewer balls in play mean (on average) fewer hits surrendered. And with fewer hits surrendered come fewer runs allowed. " All you need to do is make that same statement from a hitting/offensive point of view and you have:

"more strikeouts mean fewer balls in play. Fewer balls in play mean (on average) fewer hits. And with fewer hits come fewer runs SCORED. "


Please do take a moment to consider my issues. I ASSURE you I will be re-reading that study several times. And again, thank you for the link.

SteelSD
12-16-2004, 02:15 PM
"more strikeouts mean fewer balls in play. Fewer balls in play mean (on average) fewer hits. And with fewer hits come fewer runs SCORED. "

That's another invalid premise.

In 2004, Baltimore posted the most Hits in MLB and scored 107 fewer Runs than the Boston Red Sox. The Chicago White Sox posted 133 fewer Hits than Baltimore and scored thirteen more Runs.

You have, again, begun your argument with a conclusion (More Hits= More Runs) that you can't support.

Ravenlord
12-16-2004, 02:15 PM
A "better" study would be to find 100 or 1000 games where the number of Hits and BBs for a given team were the same (and the types of hits). Then for those 100 games make the same graph. You would then have a better and less cloudy measure of the impact of strikeouts on Runs Scored.i'm not sure that's possible. even if it is, it presents the problem of how fast the baserunners are.


"more strikeouts mean fewer balls in play. Fewer balls in play mean (on average) fewer hits. And with fewer hits come fewer runs SCORED. " this, in part, this is where BABIP comes from. btw, OBP is where runs are scored, which is not driven by hits alone.

but really, what is the difference between a K, a GO, and FO? there isn't one. if you're using the logic of a Sac Fly, you've hit onto another misconception. right now, part of the problem is, both POVs are looking in very isolated territory. when you do the research on Sac Flys and Sac Bunts, you get a better idea as to why a batter striking out is pretty irrelavent.

all outs are equal. the reason why Ks are important to pitchers is that it suggests innate unhittability.

westofyou
12-16-2004, 02:19 PM
You have, again, begun your argument with a conclusion (More Hits= More Runs) that you can't support.


Once again I remember my youth.


CAREER
1970-1979
WALKS vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
RUNS vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
STRIKEOUTS vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria

HITS DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE BB R SO
1 Twins 623 14799 14176 29 315 167
2 Redsox 539 14579 14040 169 830 465
3 Pirates 375 15031 14656 -1038 261 694
4 Yankees 327 14366 14039 -170 173 -875
5 Royals 254 14404 14150 -21 271 -527
6 Whitesox 31 14146 14115 -255 -165 247
7 Cardinals 12 14726 14714 -727 -313 28
8 Reds -136 14406 14542 549 566 1400
9 Mariners -170 4215 4385 -111 -221 -60
10 Dodgers -251 14405 14656 -185 -55 232

STRIKEOUTS DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE BB R SO
1 Reds 1400 9222 7822 549 566 1400
2 Padres 1177 9117 7940 -705 -1315 1177
3 Phillies 1140 9017 7877 -304 -290 1140
4 Brewers 1086 8906 7820 -136 -298 1086
5 Giants 1058 8927 7869 196 -218 1058
6 A's 972 8801 7829 -6 -230 972
7 Orioles 856 8626 7770 525 156 856
8 Expos 728 8632 7904 -314 -751 728
9 Mets 717 8685 7968 -106 -1053 717
10 Pirates 694 8577 7883 -1038 261 694

BadFundamentals
12-16-2004, 02:24 PM
RE: A "better" study would be to find 100 or 1000 games where the number of Hits and BBs for a given team were the same (and the types of hits). Then for those 100 games make the same graph.


i'm not sure that's possible. even if it is, it presents the problem of how fast the baserunners are.


I'm sure it is possible however, it would I agree take some work. Yes, you'd still have variables (speed of baserunners, outs other than strikeouts, wild pitches, errors etc... etc....) but the fewer the variables the better. I was not at all surprised to see the "lifeless blob" graph because with that study a game with 4 strikeouts and 20 hits and who knows what else?? is the same as an error free game with 4 strikeouts and 2 hits.

NJReds
12-16-2004, 02:24 PM
2. Secondly, the second part of the study (for pitchers) contradicts the conclusion of the first part. I quote the "more strikeouts mean fewer balls in play. Fewer balls in play mean (on average) fewer hits surrendered. And with fewer hits surrendered come fewer runs allowed. " All you need to do is make that same statement from a hitting/offensive point of view and you have:

"more strikeouts mean fewer balls in play. Fewer balls in play mean (on average) fewer hits. And with fewer hits come fewer runs SCORED. "


Let's look at your point practically? You don't like Dunn -- KRISP, etc. is just a way to make that point -- let's turn the tables.

Would you want the pitching equivalant of Dunn in your rotation? A guy that leads the league in strikouts, but also among the league leaders in walks and HRs allowed? I don't think so.

SteelSD
12-16-2004, 02:30 PM
Let's look at your point practically? You don't like Dunn -- KRISP, etc. is just a way to make that point -- let's turn the tables.

Would you want the pitching equivalant of Dunn in your rotation? A guy that leads the league in strikouts, but also among the league leaders in walks and HRs allowed? I don't think so.

Cliff Lee circa 2004.

Ravenlord
12-16-2004, 02:31 PM
Would you want the pitching equivalant of Dunn in your rotation? A guy that leads the league in strikouts, but also among the league leaders in walks and HRs allowed? I don't think so.that got me thinking. approximately, what would that the stat line of RHP Adam Dunn look like? well, it'd look something like this for 2004:


ERA IP WHIP K/BB BB/9 K/9 H/9 HR/9
8.03 139 1.86 1.81 6.99 12.63 9.78 2.98


amazingly bad pitching eh?

surprisngly enough, it wasn't as difficult as i thought it'd be to turn Dunn's counting stats into a pitching line.

BadFundamentals
12-16-2004, 02:34 PM
NJ, c'mon don't derail us on this now. No, I'm not Dunn's biggest fan but this is not about Dunn it is about "the strikeout" (I'll resist a cheap shot there) :D

I'm also not the biggest fan of Reggie Kaylor, Krussel Kranyan, Brandon Larson, Lopez and others.......

But I'm not going to let you drag me down................ :thumbup: :gac:

BadFundamentals
12-16-2004, 02:37 PM
that got me thinking. approximately, what would that the stat line of RHP Adam Dunn look like? well, it'd look something like this for 2004:

Interesting Ravenlord, do me a favor please if spreadsheet still handy, use career numbers for Dunn rather than just last year.


But interesting.... regardless. Thems alot of Ks there but not too shabby in the hits, bbs, hrs etc. departments either.........

MWM
12-16-2004, 02:40 PM
Yeah, let's ignore the fact that Dunn is 24 years old and still on a learning curve because that helps make my point stronger. Brilliant.

Ravenlord
12-16-2004, 02:43 PM
Dunn's pitching stats expanded:

Year ERA IP WHIP K/BB BB/9 K/9 H/9 HR/9
2004 8.03 139 1.86 1.81 6.99 12.63 9.78 2.98
2003 6.06 101 1.54 1.70 6.59 11.23 7.31 2.41
2002 6.98 135.1 1.93 1.33 8.51 11.31 8.85 1.80
2001 7.65 60 1.70 1.95 5.70 11.10 9.60 2.85
career 7.19 435.1 1.79 1.62 7.19 11.68 8.89 2.44

logically speaking, this is the numbers all pitchers have put up against Adam Dunn. in other words, these rates are what happen when an average MLB pitcher faces Dunn.

SteelSD
12-16-2004, 02:44 PM
Yeah, let's ignore the fact that Dunn is 24 years old and still on a learning curve because that helps make my point stronger. Brilliant.

Time to just sit back and wait for woy's post on where Dunn's OPS stands historically for all MLB players who posted 2000 PA by age 24.

MWM
12-16-2004, 02:49 PM
Time to just sit back and wait for woy's post on where Dunn's OPS stands historically for all MLB players who posted 2000 PA by age 24.

Who cares about OPS. What's more important is his BA with runners on second base with two outs in the 9th in night games played east of the Mississippi River on even numbered months and odd numbered days with a crescent moon and partly cloudy skies. Oh yeah, that and their KRISP.

BadFundamentals
12-16-2004, 03:10 PM
Interesting....(thanks).....certainly better than I'd have expected. Duly noted. :thumbup:

As for the K vs. other outs, I'm sticking to my position for now. I will be checking out that study in greater detail but my first impression is the plot graph thing is a "bad study" - far too many variables. And again, their second (pitching) conclusion refutes the first.




Dunn's pitching stats expanded:

Year ERA IP WHIP K/BB BB/9 K/9 H/9 HR/9
2004 8.03 139 1.86 1.81 6.99 12.63 9.78 2.98
2003 6.06 101 1.54 1.70 6.59 11.23 7.31 2.41
2002 6.98 135.1 1.93 1.33 8.51 11.31 8.85 1.80
2001 7.65 60 1.70 1.95 5.70 11.10 9.60 2.85
career 7.19 435.1 1.79 1.62 7.19 11.68 8.89 2.44

logically speaking, this is the numbers all pitchers have put up against Adam Dunn. in other words, these rates are what happen when an average MLB pitcher faces Dunn.

M2
12-16-2004, 03:28 PM
I don't get all this Krisp talk. It's Coco Crisp, not Koko Krisp (who'd be the bastard DNA mix of Koko B. Ware and Kettle Krisp Cheese Balls).

TRF
12-16-2004, 03:51 PM
Gah!

I am really having trouble adding anything new to convince you.

I doubt anyone here can.

But here are a few facts from this thread alone.


152 of his 195 strike outs took place with either no one on base (thus no way to advance a runner) or with runners on but with 2 outs (also, no way to advance a runner).

At least 78% of his K's meant nothing more then a "regular" out.

BF has stated that strikeouts are bad, while everyone else in this thread has said, no worse than any other out, even prefferable to some (runner on 1st, 1 out, GO to 2B)

BF has created impossible scenarios (27 FO's vs 27K's with a few walks thrown in for baserunners) to prove that K's are the worst kind of out?

Find me a game in the history of MLB that had 27 FO's is my response.

BF refuses to believe that OBP and SLG is superior to BA, so I am dragging out Raisor's mantra:

If we all agree that a double is better than a single, and a triple is better than a double, and a HR is better than a triple, why give weight to a stat that treats them all equally?

NJReds
12-16-2004, 03:52 PM
NJ, c'mon don't derail us on this now. No, I'm not Dunn's biggest fan but this is not about Dunn it is about "the strikeout" (I'll resist a cheap shot there) :D

I'm also not the biggest fan of Reggie Kaylor, Krussel Kranyan, Brandon Larson, Lopez and others.......

But I'm not going to let you drag me down................ :thumbup: :gac:

Who are you kidding, this has always been about Dunn.

But I know. You don't like Thome or Reggie Jackson, either. Or any other "KRISPY" players, for that matter. Just give you Alex Sanchez and Juan Castro at the top of your lineup...Brandon Inge batting cleanup and you'll be a happy fan. :allovrjr:

westofyou
12-16-2004, 03:57 PM
This thread is getting the official Rabbit Hole Trophy.

http://www.bedtime-story.com/bedtime-story/alice-rabbithole.jpg

TRF
12-16-2004, 04:03 PM
i am nearly convinced this has been either steel or raisor messing with our heads.

Danny Serafini
12-16-2004, 04:11 PM
A Strikeout also has no chance of causing a Double Play. There were 3784 baserunners erased in 2004 because of balls hit into play. Excluding Outs of choice (Sac Bunts), there were 3977 Runners advanced by balls hit into play in 2004 using ESPN's "Productive Outs" tracking.

If nothing else I'm glad I waded through this whole thread for that stat, since I didn't know if or where "Productive Outs" we tracked by anyone. I would've guessed the gap between the two would've been greater, that does a lot to remove the advantage a runner-moving GO would have over a K.

NJReds
12-16-2004, 04:12 PM
i am nearly convinced this has been either steel or raisor messing with our heads.

Sadly, I can all but assure you that this is not the case. BF, DH, PRose14...whatever name you choose...has been carrying on this argument for more than one baseball season.

He was flying high off of Dunn's 2003.
He wrote off Dunn's early 2004 season success with predictions of complete second half collapse.
He finally relented that Dunn's 2004 was an abberation, and as good as it will ever get.

His best prediction was that Dunn will get bored playing baseball and retire before his 30th birthday. He also mentioned non-tendering the Donkey after this year.

Just some of the gems from the "Adam Dunn Strikeout Thread" on the mlb.boards.

BadFundamentals
12-16-2004, 04:17 PM
Gah!
BF refuses to believe that OBP and SLG is superior to BA

TRF, I have no problem with OBP or SLG. I like them both. My "problem" is if when they come together and make OPS - the OPS stat is then treated as the end all be all stat. I prefer my apples (OBP) and oranges (SLG) separately.

I want to give more weight to SLG for an "rbi type" guy and more weight to OBP for the non "rbi types" who I will count on for bat control, speed etc. and hopefully to score my runs.

I like Juan Pierre but I'd like him even more if he'd take a few more walks. He'll make you pay on the bases. I don't care that his SLG is not that high.

I also don't get too excited about a guy batting 5,6 or 7 who is overly content with taking BBs. I don't want the onus shifted to 7,8,9 hitters who ARE more likely to make outs and kill rallies.
- - - - - - - - -

I think my K vs. other out position is already clear and reasonable. For now, I much prefer my conceptual/logic-based argument which concludes Ks are worse to the "real world" stat-based arguments I have seen which conclude they are just outs. Those arguments/studies have far too many fluctuating variables to expect any clear correlations.

SteelSD
12-16-2004, 04:18 PM
As for the K vs. other outs, I'm sticking to my position for now. I will be checking out that study in greater detail but my first impression is the plot graph thing is a "bad study" - far too many variables.

So you're saying that because the graph notes no correlation between Strikeouts and Runs scored, it's because other variables actually drive Run Scoring from an offensive perspective?

Well, darn. You're right. Strikeouts don't drive offensive Run Scoring. Non-Out events do.

What that author is telling you is that from an offensive perspective, K's do not matter. From a pitching perspective K's do matter because high K-rate pitchers tend to allow fewer non-Out events and thus are impacted less by them.

That's not at all counter-intuitive. Make few Outs and acquire many Bases and you're a good hitter regardless of how many times you Strike Out. Aquire many Outs and allow few Bases and you're a good pitcher regardless of how many Hitters you Strike Out.

It just so happens that Strikeouts are NOT indicative of negative Hitter performance. We can see that in the real-world examples of high-K hitters and teams who do a very good job of avoiding Outs and acquiring Bases.

If your contention was correct (ie. that Strikeouts are a negative offensive performance driver) we'd see very convincing evidence in that graph (ie. the RS plotting would very closely follow the line that charts K rate). But we don't. In fact, some of the top offensive MLB seasons are those in which the highest K rates occur.

But Strikeouts ARE indicative of positive Pitcher performance- but not because of the effect of Strikeouts on performance, but because high K pitchers tend to do a better job of acquiring Outs and preventing Bases.

That's not at all counter-intuitive, nor does Wilkins' study contradict itself in any way, shape or form. In fact, Wilkins' has used proper scientific method, has included over 50 years of real life performance data. He hasn't made up any wild scenarios or attempted to position a conclusion as his hypothesis.

But because his finding's don't match your belief system, it's a "bad study".

NJReds
12-16-2004, 04:20 PM
But because his finding's don't match your belief system, it's a "bad study".

That about sums it all up...

SteelSD
12-16-2004, 04:26 PM
I like Juan Pierre but I'd like him even more if he'd take a few more walks. He'll make you pay on the bases. I don't care that his SLG is not that high.

You should care. Because if Juan Pierre's SLG was better, he wouldn't need to risk Outs to advance himself into scoring position and he'd be far more valuable to his team.

The best leadoff hitter of our era was Rickey Henderson. But not because of BA . And not because of Strikeouts. But because Rickey Henderson combined his "apples to oranges" better than just about anyone AND threw in a whole ton of cherries (see: speed) to complete the package.

The point of baseball from an offensive perspective is not "Few Outs or Many Bases". It is "Few Outs and Many Bases".

They are the two great tastes that go great together.

BadFundamentals
12-16-2004, 04:48 PM
That about sums it all up...

nj, don't come in here and start taking cheap shots and drag down what has been "civil" debate.... :allovrjr: :thumbdown

You get "lifeless blob" results in a study for at least two reasons:
1) there truly is no correlation or
2) as in this case, there may or may not be a stronger correlation but the study itself has too many fluctuating variables to produce more telling results.

The study I suggested which would have number of hits, BBs and as many other variables as possible all equal (re: scientific method "all other things held equal") would be a far better study for measuring impact of strikeouts on runs scored.

TRF
12-16-2004, 05:01 PM
BF, you have had six pages of posts showing you are wrong.

and you haven't budged an inch.

I admire the tenacity, however wrong your conclusions, and they are wrong.

Simply put, you started with a conclusion not a hypothesis.

You put out hypothetical situations, that can never happen to support your conclusion. This is now the second time i have stated this.

You have yet to refute a single point any of us have made, and you have contradicted yourself on numerous occasions.

The worst part is, I don't think you really learned anything over the last two days.

Now for my last question, who had the better year?



G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG TB SH SF IBB HBP GD
162 678 100 221 22 12 3 49 45 24 45 35 .326 .374 .407 276 15 2 1 8 9
161 568 105 151 34 0 46 102 6 1 108 195 .266 .388 .569 323 0 0 11 5 8



According to everything you have posted, you would select the first player. High BA, Low strikeouts.

And you would be wrong.

NJReds
12-16-2004, 05:14 PM
nj, don't come in here and start taking cheap shots and drag down what has been "civil" debate.... :allovrjr: :thumbdown


No cheap shots BF, DH, PRose14...just the truth. :rolleyes:

You and I have been through all this stuff before, you're right, I shouldn't say anything here, I've had my piece.

I'll keep the rest of my comments to your new thread on MLB. :poke:

gonelong
12-16-2004, 05:38 PM
There are 24 different men on base "situations" possible in a given inning.
(8 combinations of baserunners x 3 outs)
Examples:

man on first 0 outs
man on first 1 out
man on first 2 outs
men on first and second 0 outs
men on first and second 1 out
etc etc....



out 1 67.00 100
out 2 45.00 100
out 3 100.00 100
212.00 300 70.7%


2004 MLB OBP = .330
1st out occurs 67% of the time with no chance to move runner.
2nd out therefore occurs 45% of the time with noone even on base.
3rd out fails to advance a runner 100% of the time.

Therefore at the absolute minimum, 71% of the time a player has no opportunity to advance a runner with an out. Given that walks and singles are much more likely than 2bs or 3bs, the opportunity to advance a runner happens in a very small percentage of ABs. Double plays happen often enough to effectively cancel out those relatively few times a runner is moved up.

On top of that, moving runners up doesn't actually mean they have scored. Given the few times that moving a runner up INCREASES actual scoring, in the macro view of things a K = any other out.

GL

Raisor
12-16-2004, 06:57 PM
so I am dragging out Raisor's mantra:

If we all agree that a double is better than a single, and a triple is better than a double, and a HR is better than a triple, why give weight to a stat that treats them all equally?


I'll expect my check in the mail anyday now.

:mhcky21:

BadFundamentals
12-16-2004, 06:58 PM
I follow your argument (at least initially):

Your arguing to start an inning that 67% of the time you'll have one out right out of the box. Leaves you only one more out before there is no such thing as a "productive out". True.

Of course the flip of that is 33% of the time or (9 innings X 162 games X .333) = 481 (call it ~450 factoring out a number for leadoff homers) or 450 times during the course of the year a leadoff batter gets on base to start inning. And since (use the Reds for simplicity) the Reds were only victims of ~125 double plays last year, once that leadoff batter is on your likely to follow that up with many more productive out opportunities.

Additionally, (of course overlap here with above but another way of looking at it) 313 of the Reds 1375 hits last year (23%) were either doubles or triples. By definition, if not with 2 outs, and two thirds of them wouldn't be, that's 200+ productive out opportunities created.

Your "Double plays happen often enough to effectively cancel out those relatively few times a runner is moved up. " I see as opinion - fair enough (But the Reds averaged far less than one DP a game last year)

Also, I differ with your "Given the few times that moving a runner up INCREASES actual scoring" comment. Maybe the Reds (who by my research set the #2 and #3 team strikeout marks in baseball history in 2003 and 2004) don't fancy and benefit much from moving runners up but other teams do and I can only hope that one day the Reds will too.







out 1 67.00 100
out 2 45.00 100
out 3 100.00 100
212.00 300 70.7%


2004 MLB OBP = .330
1st out occurs 67% of the time with no chance to move runner.
2nd out therefore occurs 45% of the time with noone even on base.
3rd out fails to advance a runner 100% of the time.

Therefore at the absolute minimum, 71% of the time a player has no opportunity to advance a runner with an out. Given that walks and singles are much more likely than 2bs or 3bs, the opportunity to advance a runner happens in a very small percentage of ABs. Double plays happen often enough to effectively cancel out those relatively few times a runner is moved up.

On top of that, moving runners up doesn't actually mean they have scored. Given the few times that moving a runner up INCREASES actual scoring, in the macro view of things a K = any other out.

GL

SteelSD
12-16-2004, 07:26 PM
Also, I differ with your "Given the few times that moving a runner up INCREASES actual scoring" comment.

Swapping an out for a base may increase the potential for A Run to be scored but, over time, decreases the potential to score multiple Runs in an Inning. Very simply, trading Outs for Bases is a net Run Value loss proposition.

Non-choice Productive Outs (meaning we're excluding bunts) occurred at a rate of only 2.1% of all Plate Appearances in 2004. Knowing that Base Hits PLUS Sac Flies were the result of only 24.3% of all PA in 2004, we can use that information to understand that a random ball hit into play Productive Out to move a Runner is truly beneficial AT MOST in 0.05% (yeah, half of one percent) of all MLB Plate Appearances. We also know that Productive Out behavior decreases the overall number of Runs scored by an Offense over time.

Now again, that's AT MOST 0.05% of all PA. Considering that not all Base Hits score runners advanced by a "Productive Out", you've got yourself a big bunch of nothing.

And knowing THAT, it's not at all surprising that three sabrmetric-driven teams (Toronto, Boston, Oakland) finished with three of the lowest four slots in all of MLB in "Productive Outs". They've figured it out.

The other team that finished in the bottom 4? The Cincinnati Reds, who finished 20th in MLB in Runs Scored even though they had fewer Base Hits than all but three MLB teams and led all of MLB in Strikeouts.

Seriously, if Strikeouts and swapping Outs for Runners were primary offensive drivers then why did the Reds finish 9-10 spots higher in the MLB Runs Scored standings than you'd think they would?

Because neither K's nor Productive Outs have pretty much nothing to do with Run Scoring over time.

gonelong
12-16-2004, 09:56 PM
Additionally, (of course overlap here with above but another way of looking at it) 313 of the Reds 1375 hits last year (23%) were either doubles or triples. By definition, if not with 2 outs, and two thirds of them wouldn't be, that's 200+ productive out opportunities created.

Out of those 200 opportunities, 33% are off the rack right away as a guy gets on base somehow (not an out). That leaves about 140 outs a season that can move a guy up.

162 * 27 = 4374 outs in a seaons (roughly)
so 140/4374 = 3%

So in all the outs in a season, only roughly 3% even have the opportunity to advance a runner. Its just not a significant as one would expect.

I used to think the same way, however, not anymore. I have seen the light. Next season take any 10 game stretch and count how many times a runner gets advanced on an out and scores. I have done it several times, and it is very illuminating. Pick any team, either league.

GL

BadFundamentals
12-17-2004, 07:09 AM
I used to think the same way, however, not anymore. I have seen the light. Next season take any 10 game stretch and count how many times a runner gets advanced on an out and scores. I have done it several times, and it is very illuminating. Pick any team, either league.

GL

There's another way of framing this conceptually. I'm not expecting this to go over too well but I'll offer it nonetheless.

Assume as MANY of you have suggested that the STRIKEOUT is NOT bad for a given HITTER (as an attribute or statistically). He11, for a given hitter let's say the numbers (removing pitchers) show a positive correlation with strikeouts and SLG/OPS. (quite possible) By taking the big swing EVERY swing yes you'll strikeout more but what you gain by hitting more homeruns outweighs the Ks. Let's frame it that way. Fine.

Here is where the problem is. Its not "necessarily" the impact on the given hitter that makes the strikeout so bad it is the impact on the hitter's TEAM. If situational hitting meant nothing you would make your batting order from 1-9 starting with highest OPS and descend from there. This would maximize at bats for highest OPS hitters and presumably maximize Runs. Teams don't do this ! ! ! Conclusion: situational hitting DOES matter. It is critical.

In fact situational hitting matters so much that teams take great pains to attempt to construct an order which will maximize scoring opportunities and runs given its mix of players. If the impact of the K is NOT showing up in the stats for the individual hitter well there is a reason - it is because that LOSS is being SHIFTED/PASSED ON to his TEAM.

BadFundamentals
12-17-2004, 08:28 AM
I thought interesting too. But remember although "A Strikeout also has no chance of causing a Double Play. " also, A strikeout has no chance of allowing the hitter to reach base on an ERRROR.

You'd really have to factor errors in here as well. Better to equate
double plays with BOTH productive outs AND errors. Benefitting from ONE error (where hitter reaches base) right there would erase the negative impact of a double play.




If nothing else I'm glad I waded through this whole thread for that stat, since I didn't know if or where "Productive Outs" we tracked by anyone. I would've guessed the gap between the two would've been greater, that does a lot to remove the advantage a runner-moving GO would have over a K.

<<<<Originally Posted by SteelSD
A Strikeout also has no chance of causing a Double Play. There were 3784 baserunners erased in 2004 because of balls hit into play. Excluding Outs of choice (Sac Bunts), there were 3977 Runners advanced by balls hit into play in 2004 using ESPN's "Productive Outs" tracking. >>>>>

sacred_donkey
12-17-2004, 09:04 AM
Here is where the problem is. Its not "necessarily" the impact on the given hitter that makes the strikeout so bad it is the impact on the hitter's TEAM. If situational hitting meant nothing you would make your batting order from 1-9 starting with highest OPS and descend from there. This would maximize at bats for highest OPS hitters and presumably maximize Runs. Teams don't do this ! ! ! Conclusion: situational hitting DOES matter. It is critical.

In fact situational hitting matters so much that teams take great pains to attempt to construct an order which will maximize scoring opportunities and runs given its mix of players. If the impact of the K is NOT showing up in the stats for the individual hitter well there is a reason - it is because that LOSS is being SHIFTED/PASSED ON to his TEAM.

Funny you should mention that, because there have been studies done that have concluded that teams should arrange their batting order in exactly that manner (high OBP/OPS to low OBP/OPS) because they'd score more runs that way. They don't do it because the baseball establishment is mired as deeply in denial as you are. :dflynn:

BadFundamentals
12-17-2004, 11:01 AM
Funny you should mention that, because there have been studies done that have concluded that teams should arrange their batting order in exactly that manner (high OBP/OPS to low OBP/OPS) because they'd score more runs that way. They don't do it because the baseball establishment is mired as deeply in denial as you are. :dflynn:

If the "studies" you refer to are constructed similarly to the Strikeouts vs. Runs Scored study referenced in this thread I'd suggest not betting the house.

That study compared Strikeouts to Runs Scored "all other things held VARIABLE" That's ridiculous. Of course you get mish mash results.

TRF
12-17-2004, 11:10 AM
how many double plays were there last year?

how many times did a hitter reach on an error?

how many times was a runner advanced on an out?

BF, all outs are bad, but honestly a strikeout is no worse than any other out.

now please answer the question i laid out earlier. Who had the better year?



G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG TB SH SF IBB HBP GD
162 678 100 221 22 12 3 49 45 24 45 35 .326 .374 .407 276 15 2 1 8 9
161 568 105 151 34 0 46 102 6 1 108 195 .266 .388 .569 323 0 0 11 5 8

BadFundamentals
12-17-2004, 11:23 AM
now please answer the question i laid out earlier. Who had the better year?



G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG TB SH SF IBB HBP GD
162 678 100 221 22 12 3 49 45 24 45 35 .326 .374 .407 276 15 2 1 8 9
161 568 105 151 34 0 46 102 6 1 108 195 .266 .388 .569 323 0 0 11 5 8




Have to get back to you on the stat inquiries, as for who had better year?

Based solely on what you have provided me I'd say they both had productive years (yes, even Adam). I wouldn't begin to say which is better without more info because I don't believe in the "one-man team" OPS all-inclusive school of appraising.

No player exists in a vacuum. Their role on respective team has to be factored in.

I don't like Allen Iverson despite all the points he scores. All his missed shots and his mere presence on court has many trickle down effects on teammates. I may not be able to shoot as well as Iverson but if I'm going to rebound and play defense I want some shots too.

baseballPAP
12-17-2004, 11:53 AM
BF, I suppose you're of the opinion that Rickey Henderson was a bad leadoff hitter, because he struck out a good amount, and hit all those pesky HRs?
How about Wade Boggs...he couldn't possibly lead off for your team, he WAY too slow.

A couple of the best leadoff hitters of the 80s/90s......

NJReds
12-17-2004, 11:54 AM
I don't believe in the "one-man team" OPS all-inclusive school of appraising.

Theo Epstein does (to some extent) and it's seemed to work for him. The Red Sox led the AL in K's...but they also ranked 2nd in walks and led in OBA, SLG, OPS and Runs Scored.

The Sox high number of Ks didn't seem to have a negative effect on their offense.

The Angels had the same BA (and almost an identical number of hits) as the Sox and had over 240 less Ks (last in the AL in Ks, BTW)...but also had 200 fewer walks (lower OBA, SLG and OPS) and over 100 less runs scored.

SteelSD
12-17-2004, 12:07 PM
Seven pages of this thread and still not one real-world example to support BF's case. Not one.


No player exists in a vacuum.

None of the very accurate arguments made by others on this thread are drawn from a "vacuum". However, a vacuum IS the place where every one of your arguments exist.

100+ years of professional baseball tell us what we know. You still haven't been able to tie a single one of your theories to actual baseball.

And there is no "one-man-team OPS all-inclusive school of appraising". That's a myth you've conjured up in order to box your opponent and denigrate their "position". It's a position that does not, and never has existed.

And I can completely understand why you don't want to answer TRF's very valid question. So let me provide some help:

We'll use Runs Created. At a 97.3% correlation to actual Runs Scored, it's a statistic you simply can't contest:

2004 Runs Created:

Juan Pierre- 104.3
Adam Dunn- 124.9

A player's "role" on his respective team is driven by his two primary functions to aid his team's efforts to score Runs, regardless of batting order position (which is not within his ability to control). Those functions are:

1. To avoid Outs
2. To acquire as many Bases as possible

Using your logic, Juan Pierre had the better season. But, alas, it was actually Adam Dunn who performed both his functions better and, thus, aided his team in scoring 20 more Runs in 2004. He did so not because of what he did when making Outs. He did so because of what he did when he was not making Outs.

TRF
12-17-2004, 12:11 PM
wrong thinking BF.

fielding 8 "Adam Dunn's" will beat 8 "Juan Pierre's" nearly every time.

He scored more runs, despite a difference of 60 points of batting average.

How did he accomplish this miraculous feat? Well it seems AD aquired 47 more bases last year than Mr. Pierre. It seems that despite the disparity in their BA's, Dunn also was on base more; .388 to .374. And of course there is his SLG. Dunn's was 162 points higher.

Now how did three stats, OBP, SLG and TB affect the more commonly used counting stats? Well despite the 60 point difference in their BA's, Dunn actually scored 5 more runs than Pierre. This is a direct result of two of the above stats OBP and TB.

The differences in their RBI is also quite astounding. Admittedly Pierre is a leadoff hitter, RBI opportunities are somewhat limited, yet Dunn's HR's alone account for 46 RBI's, 3 less than Pierre's total. Not all of Dunn' shots were solo shot obviously.

Oh but you say Pierre was more valuable because as a leadoff hitter, he aquired 45 SB's? well, he was caught 24 times negating 1/3 of his attempts.

One of the things that made Barry Larkin a great base stealer was his percentage of successful attempts. By age 40, Larkin was CS 77 times. At age 26 Pierre has been caught 76 times. Quite frankly, his CS negate much of his SB value.

So i will break it down even more.

Juan Pierre reached base 221 time with a hit, and another 45 times with a walk.
Adam Dunn reached base 151 times with a hit, and 108 times with a walk.

Pierre was the tablesetter, and should have scored more runs, yet that didn't happen.

How ever is this possible?

BadFundamentals
12-17-2004, 12:28 PM
BF, I suppose you're of the opinion that Rickey Henderson was a bad leadoff hitter, because he struck out a good amount, and hit all those pesky HRs?
How about Wade Boggs...he couldn't possibly lead off for your team, he WAY too slow.

A couple of the best leadoff hitters of the 80s/90s......

I love Boggs and Rickey. Boggs was a great hitter and loved his DOUBLES - he can bat anywhere in the lineup he wants. They talk of K's as an attribute for judging pitchers. I'd argue Ks and DOUBLES are also good attributes to consider when looking at hitting. If you're hitting alot of doubles you're hitting the ball hard and that usually means something good can happen. I don't mind a stirke out but if you K too too much that is a sign of some hitting issues.

I love those Rickey walks, stolen bases and the power too.

MWM
12-17-2004, 12:35 PM
I don't mind a stirke out but if you K too too much that is a sign of some hitting issues.


Kinda like McGwire and Sosa in 1998?

BadFundamentals
12-17-2004, 01:03 PM
wrong thinking BF.

fielding 8 "Adam Dunn's" will beat 8 "Juan Pierre's" nearly every time.



You said alot there TRF, let me just say yes, Dunn had a productive year last year - no disputing that. I didn't like the Ks but no disputing that 46 HRs and 34 doubles will help a team. No argument there.

And by not taking more walks and by not having all that great a success pct. with stealing, Pierre hurts his case.


Regardless, I have yet to see a well constructed convincing "stat-based" study concluding that Strikeouts are no different than other outs.

The Baseball Prospectus study/article http://www.baseballprospectus.com/a...?articleid=2617 has a nice Intro paragraph but the first/main study is BADLY flawed. It compares Strikeouts to Runs Scored but leaves hits, BBs, errors etc. etc...(all variables which affect Runs Scored) fluctuating.

Observation in game situations of the negative impact of "strikeouts" AND the Logic-Based, Conceptual, Cost-Benefit, Zero Sum gain etc.. etc... arguments against the Strikeout are much more convincing to me.

Ravenlord
12-17-2004, 01:05 PM
y'know, if you really want to figure out how errors, walks, hits, etc. figure into runs scored, you can go to www.retrosheet.org and look at the box scores, pick about 1000 or so at random, and start the study there.


fixed the link.

MWM
12-17-2004, 01:09 PM
BF, "conceptual" arguments are relevant ONLY in the absence of reliable data, which makes all of your "conceptual" arguments meaningless. There is TONS of reliable data. Actually, it's about 97% reliable. Why you refuse to acknowledge that is beyond me. And these "other factors" you keep talking about DO exist. That's exactl what explains the extra 3%. It Math 101 my man. We're not talking differential equations here.

BadFundamentals
12-17-2004, 02:10 PM
BF, "conceptual" arguments are relevant ONLY in the absence of reliable data, which makes all of your "conceptual" arguments meaningless. There is TONS of reliable data. Actually, it's about 97% reliable. Why you refuse to acknowledge that is beyond me. And these "other factors" you keep talking about DO exist. That's exactl what explains the extra 3%. It Math 101 my man. We're not talking differential equations here.

There is no shortage of "data" out there. The challenge is to construct that data in a "meaningful" way.

We're not talking about Correlating HITS w RUNS. What we're talking about is far more subtle and not necessarily easy to create a statistically significant study for.


I am scheming though. The table WestofYou posted got me thinking. At a minimum, you'd have to hold Hits, BBs (OBP) constant. If you could get to the level of types of Hits that would be even better. I'm going to see if I can come up with some Team vs. Team comparison. It wouldn't be ideal but it would be far better than the Prospectus study.

If I'm able, obviously I'll post results. :gac:

TRF
12-17-2004, 03:19 PM
If you could get to the level of types of Hits that would be even better.

This i believe is taken care of by SLG.

again, to paraphrase steel and everyone else, all outs are bad. It's what you do with the non out events that is important.

Adam Dunn was the ninth best player in baseball last year in terms of offense.

you have called him a tweener.

it boggles the mind.

A couple of days ago when word broke oth the trade rumor about Dunn, i was so incredulous i said it out loud. My 15 year old daughter said "they are idiots for even thinking about trading him."

she gets it.

SteelSD
12-17-2004, 03:59 PM
The Baseball Prospectus study/article http://www.baseballprospectus.com/a...?articleid=2617 has a nice Intro paragraph but the first/main study is BADLY flawed. It compares Strikeouts to Runs Scored but leaves hits, BBs, errors etc. etc...(all variables which affect Runs Scored) fluctuating.

Gee...you think that's maybe because Strikeouts have nothing to do with offensive Run Scoring and that it's all those other things that really count?

You think that it's maybe not making Outs and acquiring Bases that do count?

I did a study too. I made up a game where all 27 hitters struck out. Zero Runs were scored. Then I made them all Ground Out. Zero Runs were scored. I did the same thing with Ground Outs and Pop Outs. Guess what? Zero Runs were scored.

But then I took the team who struck out 27 times and gave them 10 Hits- all Home Runs. And I put them up against the team that grounded out 27 times and gave them 10 Hits- all singles.

Y'know what I found out? By gosh, the team with 27 Strikeouts outscored the team with 27 Ground Outs.

How did that happen???

BadFundamentals
12-17-2004, 04:46 PM
This i believe is taken care of by SLG.
.


ok...here's an early X-mas present for a couple/few of you (maybe)... :dflynn:

I took the last 10 years of the national league (by team) and threw them all into a spreadsheet. I did some team by team by year comparisons. For the mostpart I went with methodology of holding OPS constant then examined variances in Runs and Strikeouts looking for trends.

I pretty much came up empty. :thumbdown :gac:

I don't want to plaster all 100+ rows on here but just for anyone who is curious I'm pasting the Reds.

For now, I'll admit defeat regarding being able to make a statistical/quantifiable argument against strikeouts as they relate to RUNS SCORED on a large scale.

I'm going to hold to my logic-based/conceptual opinion about the impact of the strikeout on game intangibles (including human element), game "situations" and regarding its impact on TEAM WINS AND LOSSES. But for now, I'll keep that quietly to myself :D Maybe another day I'll take a run at seeing if I can make a quantifiable stat-based argument regarding that.

cheers all :gac:

(hmmmm...not pasting too well...If I figure a way to put it in a table I'll edit later...)


Yr Team R H AB HR 2B 3B BB SO OBP SLG OPS
2004 CIN 750 1380 5518 194 287 28 599 1335 0.331 0.418 0.749
2003 CIN 694 1349 5509 182 239 21 524 1326 0.318 0.395 0.713
2002 CIN 709 1386 5470 169 297 21 583 1188 0.33 0.408 0.738
2001 CIN 735 1464 5583 176 304 22 468 1172 0.324 0.419 0.743
2000 CIN 825 1545 5635 200 302 36 559 995 0.343 0.447 0.79
1999 CIN 865 1536 5649 209 312 37 569 1125 0.339 0.451 0.79
1998 CIN 750 1441 5496 138 298 28 608 1107 0.336 0.402 0.738
1997 CIN 651 1386 5484 142 269 27 518 1113 0.317 0.389 0.706
1996 CIN 778 1398 5455 191 259 36 604 1134 0.33 0.422 0.752
1995 CIN 747 1326 4903 161 277 35 519 946 0.34 0.44 0.78




(hmmmm...not pasting too well...If I figure a way to put it in a table I'll edit later...)


formatted above...

TRF
12-17-2004, 04:49 PM
I have expanded on Steels study, and had a team strikeout 27 time while also walking 10 times and hitting 10 HR's. They outscored the team that GO 27 times while hitting 10 singles.

It is amazing. The correlation between getting on base and scoring runs.

It is amazing. The correlation between the accumulation of bases and scoring runs.

it's almost like OBP and SLG might just mean something. I wonder if we could somehow put those two stats together in order to guage a players offensive prowess?

BadFundamentals
12-17-2004, 04:53 PM
I have expanded on Steels study, and had a team strikeout 27 time while also walking 10 times and hitting 10 HR's. They outscored the team that GO 27 times while hitting 10 singles.

It is amazing. The correlation between getting on base and scoring runs.

It is amazing. The correlation between the accumulation of bases and scoring runs.

it's almost like OBP and SLG might just mean something. I wonder if we could somehow put those two stats together in order to guage a players offensive prowess?


:biggun: :biggun: :biggun: :bigboom:


:graves: Danny Graves Happens and happens and happens.....

SteelSD
12-17-2004, 05:00 PM
I have expanded on Steels study, and had a team strikeout 27 time while also walking 10 times and hitting 10 HR's. They outscored the team that GO 27 times while hitting 10 singles.

It is amazing. The correlation between getting on base and scoring runs.

It is amazing. The correlation between the accumulation of bases and scoring runs.

it's almost like OBP and SLG might just mean something. I wonder if we could somehow put those two stats together in order to guage a players offensive prowess?

No nonononono...that's "bad study".

I've created a new stat called Systematic Lazy Intuitive Metric Equalization ("SLIME" for short). And SLIME tells me that each of those ten Walks occurred after each of those ten HR but none before another HR. That means that those ten Walks led to no additional Run Scoring whatsoever.

Walks are exceptionally overrated.

TRF
12-17-2004, 05:01 PM
ok, one last parting shot.

I looked at the data you posted, and i noticed something.

In 1997, the reds scored 651 runs, while striking out 1113 times.
In 1996, the reds scored 778 runs, while striking out 1134 times.

In 1996 the Reds OBP was 13 points higher, and the SLG was 33 points higher.

yeah. that's just 2 years worth of data, but for the most part when a team gets on base a lot, and a team hits for power, that team scores a bunch of runs. regardless of how many times they strikeout.

BadFundamentals
12-17-2004, 05:46 PM
ok, one last parting shot.

I looked at the data you posted, and i noticed something.

In 1997, the reds scored 651 runs, while striking out 1113 times.
In 1996, the reds scored 778 runs, while striking out 1134 times.

In 1996 the Reds OBP was 13 points higher, and the SLG was 33 points higher.

yeah. that's just 2 years worth of data, but for the most part when a team gets on base a lot, and a team hits for power, that team scores a bunch of runs. regardless of how many times they strikeout.


yeah....there's alot of that. A couple times I thought I had a trend (that I might like :thumbup: ), then I'd compare a few other teams and see just the opposite. All in all just not enough solid trend either way...........

Raisor
12-17-2004, 10:34 PM
:

2004 Runs Created:

Juan Pierre- 104.3
Adam Dunn- 124.9

.


It's not even as close as this might suggest. If you correct for the difference in TPA (Pierre had 67 more PA's then Dunn did), Dunn created 30 more runs then Pierre:

Adjusting for PA's.

(Assuming 700 TPA for each player)

Juan Pierre 97.6
Adam Dunn 128.4

(Some of the following is a rehash of previous points, but hopefully in a slightly different light)

Now, let's take a look at it using RC/27 (as has been pointed out by others, RC/27 shows us how many runs a game a team of 9 Adam Dunns or 9 Juan Pierres would score).

Dunn 7.92 (162 game season=1,283)
Pierre 5.55 (162 game season=899)

Now, if we plug those numbers into the handy dandy Pythagorean Theorem of Baseball (and assume that both the Dunns and the Pierres had NL average pitching staffs) then the Dunns would go 120-42 while the Pierres would go 92-70.
That's right, a lineup of 9 Adam Dunns would win 28 more games then a lineup of Pierres. So who the heck cares if the Dunn K's alot?

Raisor
12-18-2004, 05:14 PM
I killed the Strike Out thread!

BadFundamentals
12-18-2004, 06:11 PM
TRF, You stated earlier:


It's about a players OBP. And his total bases.

A "Productive Out" is basically just a "base" for your team. That's a base you don't get if you strikeout.

The teams that did well with "Productive Outs" last year were up over 200. Teams that didn't (like the Reds) were ~150. An extra 50-75 bases in "critical" situations would mean some "critical" Runs and certainly more WINS.

TRF
12-18-2004, 06:19 PM
:dflynn: :dflynn: :dflynn:

no. the problem with the reds was the pitching staf gave up 5 runs per game.

apples and oranges.

MWM
12-18-2004, 06:21 PM
TRF, You stated earlier:



A "Productive Out" is basically just a "base" for your team. That's a base you don't get if you strikeout.

The teams that did well with "Productive Outs" last year were up over 200. Teams that didn't (like the Reds) were ~150. An extra 50-75 bases in "critical" situations would mean some "critical" Runs and certainly more WINS.

BF, you're almost implying that those bases were FREE. They weren't. They came at the cost of an out. An out is almost ALWAYS more valuable than the base acquired by sacrificing that out if you look at total run value.

BadFundamentals
12-18-2004, 06:24 PM
:dflynn: :dflynn: :dflynn:

no. the problem with the reds was the pitching staf gave up 5 runs per game.

apples and oranges.


Then keep "The Reds" out of it. How can you contend "It's about ..... total bases." but not also acknowledge that 200 Productive outs (200 exta bases) is better than 200 strikeouts (0 extra bases) ?

BadFundamentals
12-18-2004, 06:41 PM
And this one, we probably all agree Dunn was productive last year.

Wouldn't you agree he'd have had even a more productive year last year if (keep OBP, SLG etc.. the same) instead of 195 strikeouts he only struck out 100 times?

Steve4192
12-18-2004, 06:48 PM
Wouldn't you agree he'd have had even a more productive year last year if (keep OBP, SLG etc.. the same) instead of 195 strikeouts he only struck out 100 times?
100 K's? Screw that, Iwant all 195 K's to be replaced with Sac Flies in 2005. Then we'll be on to something.

Phoenix
12-18-2004, 06:50 PM
Some outs are worse than others. And strikeouts are the worst. If you put the ball in play a lot can happen- errors, bad bounce, move runners along, etc...

How many times late in the game with guys on have you heard the announcer say that the pitcher is really needing a strikeout? That's because it is the worst kind of out one can make.

SteelSD
12-18-2004, 06:52 PM
TRF, You stated earlier:



A "Productive Out" is basically just a "base" for your team. That's a base you don't get if you strikeout.

The teams that did well with "Productive Outs" last year were up over 200. Teams that didn't (like the Reds) were ~150. An extra 50-75 bases in "critical" situations would mean some "critical" Runs and certainly more WINS.

Yet another incorrect assumption.

The Boston Red Sox ranked 27th in MLB in Productive Outs. They ranked first in Runs Scored.

Go fish.

MWM
12-18-2004, 06:53 PM
Wouldn't you agree he'd have had even a more productive year last year but (keep OBP, SLG etc.. the same) if instead of 195 strikeouts he only struck out 100 times?

BR, I can't agree entirely with statement because it's based on a false premise. You're assuming that he would be replacing those strikeouts without making other outs and without changing the type of hitter he is. If he were to cut down on his strikeouts, he would have to change his approach to an AB, which would probably result in a lot less power and a less agressive approach to batting. So he wouldn't be sacrificing strikeouts solely with positive results, he would be sacrificing strikeouts at the expense of power and potentially walks. It's not worth it.

But it seems like you're changing your argument from strikeouts are detrimental to run creation to Adam Dunn would be a better player if he struck out less without changing anything else. No one has ever suggested Adam Dunn is without flaw. What we've argued is that his strikeouts don't detract from the amount of runs he creates in a baseball season. Even WITH the strikeouts, he's still a GREAT offensive player. Would he be even better if he were able to replace some strikeouts with OBP? Of course. But any player would be better if they replaced outs with non-outs. It's not the stikeouts that's the problems. It's the outs.

You'd be just as wise to say: wouldn't a player be more productive if he were to only ground out 100 times instead of 200. It's all about not being on base.

IslandRed
12-18-2004, 06:54 PM
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-truth-about-productive-outs/

BadFundamentals
12-18-2004, 07:02 PM
MWM, love the Kramer :thumbup:

No, I wasnt' meaning to switch and target Dunn. He just happens to be an easy example on a team we're all familiar with.

SteelSD
12-18-2004, 07:06 PM
BR, I can't agree entirely with statement because it's based on a false premise. You're assuming that he would be replacing those strikeouts without making other outs and without changing the type of hitter he is.

Bingo.

See: 2004 Montreal Expos

Struck out less than all but two MLB teams.

Yet made a higher percentage of Outs than all but one MLB team.

Aquired fewer bases than all but one MLB team.

Finished 28th in Runs Scored.

<Edit: I should also note that, of Productive Out opportunities, Montreal advanced the highest % of Runners. Lowest % advanced was...you guessed it...the Boston Red Sox, who led MLB in Runs Scored>

A bunch of slap-happy low-power "move-the-runners along" hitters who don't strike out very often but don't do much actual damage when they do hit balls into play. That's the Expos in a nutshell.

Use BF's logic and the 2004 Montreal Expos are an excellent hitting team. But reality tells us they're one of the worst offensive units in baseball.

Fantasy versus reality once more.

SteelSD
12-18-2004, 07:16 PM
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-truth-about-productive-outs/

Great article.

If that doesn't slam the door AND nail this discussion shut, I don't know what will.

And why is it that I get nauseated whenever I read the words "Buster Olney"? :barf:

MWM
12-18-2004, 07:31 PM
Here's a raking of MLB teams in 2004 based on runs scored. It also has their respective total bases, strikeouts, and strikeouts vs the league average. I tink I see a trend.


2004-2004
TOTAL BASES displayed only--not a sorting criteria
STRIKEOUTS displayed only--not a sorting criteria
STRIKEOUTS vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria

RUNS R TB SO SO
1 Redsox 949 2702 1189 163
2 Yankees 897 2530 982 -42
3 Whitesox 865 2529 1030 5
4 Rangers 860 2564 1099 73
5 Indians 858 2520 1009 -34
6 Cardinals 855 2553 1085 57
7 Giants 850 2429 874 -161
8 Orioles 842 2476 949 -93
9 Phillies 840 2499 1133 87
10 Angels 836 2435 942 -86
11 Rockies 833 2536 1181 148
12 Tigers 827 2526 1144 114
T13 Braves 803 2415 1158 125
T13 Astros 803 2385 999 -28
15 A's 793 2478 1061 14
16 Cubs 789 2579 1080 35
17 Twins 780 2425 982 -59
18 Padres 768 2306 910 -118
19 Dodgers 761 2345 1092 56
20 Reds 750 2305 1335 296
21 Royals 720 2201 1057 23
22 BlueJays 719 2231 1083 58
23 Marlins 718 2230 968 -64
24 Devil Rays 714 2221 944 -75
25 Mariners 698 2268 1058 4
26 Mets 684 2260 1159 110
27 Pirates 680 2199 1066 36
28 Expos 635 2144 925 -121
29 Brewers 634 2122 1312 270
30 Diamondbacks 615 2177 1022 -26

BadFundamentals
12-18-2004, 07:57 PM
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-truth-about-productive-outs/

Great article. (may be the first and last time ever Steel and I will agree)

Pulled out a few snippets:


I found that, indeed, Anaheim and Florida did very well in making their outs productive
in the past two postseasons. Anaheim's POP in 2002 was .388,
while Florida's was .369 in 2003. Both teams,
however, ranked third in this category among all playoff teams each season, Anaheim
behind St. Louis (.526) and San Francisco (.393) in 2002, Florida behind Atlanta (.500) and
San Francisco (.450) in 2003.

What does this tell us? Nothing conclusive, only that the past two World Champions made
productive outs at a good rate. It doesn't tell us that's why
they won, and the fact that two teams with astonishingly great productive out rates
were knocked out in the first round last season casts some doubt on that theory.


I have to disagree with his concluding paragraph. He gives Anaheim and Florida credit for making their productive outs - then says other playoff teams did even better. He continues "the past two World Champions
made productive outs at a good rate." But then CONCLUDES, "what does
that tell us? nothing conclusive". Maybe not "conclusive" but it does tells us that ALL of the aforementioned "playoff teams" did well with their productive outs and implies there were 20+ other non-playoff teams out there who do relatively worse .


Another one...


Atlanta only got on base 20% of the time in their opportunities,
so that could explain their defeat, but San Francisco had an on-base
percentage of .444 in those opportunities. The reasons for San Francisco's
defeat can probably be found in their ability to drive home runners rather
than just get on, and in making two-out hits, two things that go beyond the
scope of this study.

That passage, points out one of the many "additional variables". If a team (or player) does well with getting hits in "productive out" opportunities, then the productive outs themselves become relatively less important.

Again, (truly just for an easy example) that is where a guy like Dunn or a team like the Reds really struggle. If not driving in runs (hitting with RISP) well and NOT making productive outs well and NOT able to bunt that is kind of triple whammy in a bad way for situational hitting.


Finally....


This last statistic indicates that making productive outs is not an
important part of winning ballgames. The correlation to winning
percentage drives the nail in the coffin: POP has a .463 correlation to
winning percentage, OBP in those situations has a .750 correlation,
while the rate of productive outs has a mere .283 correlation.

Overall, OBP, SLG, OPS and GPA correlate even better:
OBP -- .841, SLG -- .855, OPS -- .874, GPA -- .877. Of course,
these are in very small samples, but if the strategy of making
productive outs doesn't work in a small sample, then how is it a useful
substitute to the "Moneyball" style of play, which emphasizes
playing in a fashion that will be more effective over the long haul?

There is a very small value to tracking productive outs,



I like how he correlates all his variables with WINNING. I don't think any of us would expect that ability to make "productive outs" is MORE important than OBP, SLG or OPS. Nor would would we expect that it would be more highly correlated. But again, (as with the Baseball Prospectus) study when comparing a RELATIVELY MINOR (to OPS) attribute (like productive outs) to WINNING, OPS should be held constant. He makes no mention of holding OPS constant. He just tosses out the .283 correlation and dismisses it. Not surprising that there isn't a stronger correlation - OPS smothers it.

MWM
12-18-2004, 08:06 PM
I asked this before and didn't get an answer. If a player comes up in the fifth inning of a 5 run blowout with 2 outs and a man on second, that counts toward his BA with RISP. Yet, if he comes up with none on and no outs in the 9th inning of a tie game, it doesn't get recorded in "RISP." How do you reconcile that, BF?

MWM
12-18-2004, 08:10 PM
But again, (as with the Baseball Prospectus) study when comparing a RELATIVELY MINOR (to OPS) attribute (like productive outs) to WINNING, OPS should be held constant. He makes no mention of holding OPS constant. He just tosses out the .283 correlation and dismisses it. Not surprising that there isn't a stronger correlation - OPS smothers it.

I have no idea what this means, and I've had a good amount of statistical training. It seems like he's saying that if you take a team's POP and line it up with wins, there isn't any correlation. It has nothing to do with OPS. OPS wouldn't be involved at all. If I looked an independent variable and found that it only correlated by a factor of .283, I'd throw it out as well.

BadFundamentals
12-18-2004, 08:12 PM
Yes, MWM a nice Total Base v Runs Trend.

What I did was took that same data over 10 years. Then, held Total Bases (OPS) constant and looked for recognizable trends between Runs v Ks.

As an example, in your list look at Twins and Giants (similar Total Bases) but significantly different Runs Scored and Ks. Those TWO teams would support the theory that MORE Ks = LESS Runs.

However, something like that was the exception. I couldn't find any significant QUANTIFIABLE correlation on a whole.

BadFundamentals
12-18-2004, 08:15 PM
I have no idea what this means, and I've had a good amount of statistical training. It seems like he's saying that if you take a team's POP and line it up with wins, there isn't any correlation. It has nothing to do with OPS. OPS wouldn't be involved at all. If I looked an independent variable and found that it only correlated by a factor of .283, I'd throw it out as well.

I think that IS what he is saying. What I was saying is that in the background if OPS is NOT held constant then he's comparing different POPs to Wins but the different OPS levels of the teams are driving the results and smothering any relatively more subtle impact of POP.

MWM
12-18-2004, 08:19 PM
I think that IS what he is saying. What I was saying is that in the background if OPS is NOT held constant then he's comparing different POPs to Wins but the different OPS levels of the teams are driving the results and smothering any relatively more subtle impact of POP.

So what you're saying is that OPS drives runs scored and things like productive outs have a very small (subtle) impact on runs?

MWM
12-18-2004, 08:23 PM
As an example, in your list look at Twins and Giants (similar Total Bases) but significantly different Runs Scored and Ks. Those TWO teams would support the theory that MORE Ks = LESS Runs.

However, something like that was the exception. I couldn't find any significant QUANTIFIABLE correlation on a whole.

You said that, not me.

BadFundamentals
12-18-2004, 08:23 PM
I asked this before and didn't get an answer. If a player comes up in the fifth inning of a 5 run blowout with 2 outs and a man on second, that counts toward his BA with RISP. Yet, if he comes up with none on and no outs in the 9th inning of a tie game, it doesn't get recorded in "RISP." How do you reconcile that, BF?

I agree that is a shortcoming of the RISP stat. On a whole I DO like the RISP stat though because I've always bought into the baseball cliche "Winning is about good defense, solid pitching and TIMELY hitting". I believe in the "timely". And if not getting the "timely" then better at least get productive outs or be able to give self up in sacrafice when situation demands it.

MWM
12-18-2004, 08:23 PM
BTW, I still don't know what you're talking about with this "holding OPS constant" stuff.

BadFundamentals
12-18-2004, 08:25 PM
ha ha.... :D I smell you're trying to corner me. I did say those things - I didn't say "very small" though ! ! !

How about subtle/situational? etc..etc......but we also know that the difference between winning and losing in anything is often the little things.

MWM
12-18-2004, 08:27 PM
I agree that is a shortcoming of the RISP stat. On a whole I DO like the RISP stat though because I've always bought into the baseball cliche "Winning is about good defense, solid pitching and TIMELY hitting". I believe in the "timely". And if not getting the "timely" then better at least get productive outs or be able to give self up in sacrafice when situation demands it.

That whole idea hinges on the notion that hitting is somehow different under different situations, and it really isn't. There are VERY LIMITED things guys can do in certain situations to increase the chance of a single run scoring. But those situations don't happen that often and I'm still not convinced the players have much control over it. In other words, I don't think "timely" hitting is a discernable skill you can identify in a player. Hitting is so reactionary based solely on physics, that it's pretty much impossible to try to hit certain balls one way and other balls another.

BadFundamentals
12-18-2004, 08:29 PM
BTW, I still don't know what you're talking about with this "holding OPS constant" stuff.

I'm saying when comparing Ks to Runs scored or POP to Wins, hold the sample teams OPS constant. Use test teams with similar total OPS. That way you are "better" measuring the impact of JUST the Ks or JUST the POP..........still lots of other fluctuating variables but at a minimum, hold the OPS constant.


(you're better isolating "types of outs")

BadFundamentals
12-18-2004, 08:31 PM
That whole idea hinges on the notion that hitting is somehow different under different situations, and it really isn't.


That may be the crux of our conceptual differences. I contend that hitting is dramatically different in different situations. And not just hitting, PITCHING too. ! ! !

MWM
12-18-2004, 08:33 PM
ha ha.... :D I smell you're trying to corner me. I did say those things - I didn't say "very small" though ! ! !

How about subtle/situational? etc..etc......but we also know that the difference between winning and losing in anything is often the little things.

You're still stuck on the idea that runs only count late in games when it's close. No one's denying that in some individual games, it's nice to have the ability to get a run in at a particular juncture of the game. But you need to realize, and I don't think you have yet, that the key is to score more runs over the course of the entire game, and scoring lots of runs throughout the entire game is the best way to do that.

Steve4192
12-18-2004, 08:48 PM
I agree that is a shortcoming of the RISP stat. On a whole I DO like the RISP stat though because I've always bought into the baseball cliche "Winning is about good defense, solid pitching and TIMELY hitting". I believe in the "timely".
Adam Dunn 2004 - Close & Late Situations:

323 BA, 417 OBP, 720 SLG, 1137 OPS

Is that what you mean by 'timely hitting'?

MWM
12-18-2004, 08:48 PM
That may be the crux of our conceptual differences. I contend that hitting is dramatically different in different situations.

Professional hitters might be good, but they aren't good enough to change the way they are going to hit based on all kinds of situations. Remember, these balls are coming at 90+ MPH. The hitters have no idea if it's going to be high, low, straight, curvy, inside, outside, etc... And then they have to determine not only whether or not they are going to swing, but they then have to execute that swing on the exact plane the ball is coming in at. And they have less than a half second to go through this entire proces. Now you're trying to tell me that taken all these variables that they can decide all this AND add a factor for the situation? I'm not buying it. Hiting is almost ALL instinct.

The only thing a player can do to really change his approach at the plate is to shorten his swing to make sure he makes contact. The problem with this is that most of the time they're going to make an out in trying to "just make contact." That might be OK in certain situations where any ball in play will result in a win. But the times any individual hitter comes to the plate in that particular situation is so rare that it shouldn't even be a factor in evaluating a player's contribution. And even in that situation, I'm still not convinced they aren't better off just hitting like they normally do. And I'm also not convinced that this is something they can just do at will successfully to the point that it represents a discernable skill.

The only other thing a hitter can do is to adjust their swing to try to pull it or hit it to the opposite field. And just like shortening the swing, the situation where this is needed is so rare that it doesn't really matter. And also like above, I'm still not sure this is something that "should" be attempted in that situation.

There are players who can't handle pressure. I don't doubt that. But those guys probably aren't going to last long in the majors anyway. I think it's BCubb who has said that he believes "clutch" is just the absence of choke. I tend to agree with that notion.

BadFundamentals
12-18-2004, 08:50 PM
You're still stuck on the idea that runs only count late in games when it's close. No one's denying that in some individual games, it's nice to have the ability to get a run in at a particular juncture of the game. But you need to realize, and I don't think you have yet, that the key is to score more runs over the course of the entire game, and scoring lots of runs throughout the entire game is the best way to do that.

I do realize that. And that's why a team with huge offensive talent (relative to other teams) will score lots of runs and win lots of games regardless of any stikeouts, productive outs etc...But I'm a Reds fan. I've accepted the shoestring budget. Reds aren't going to out-talent teams top to bottom. Reds will need to score enough runs to stay in the game but then count on doing little things to squeeze out wins.

Remember in 2003 when the Reds shocked baseball by being near the top at All Star Break? Remember all the walk off homers? 1 run game wins.....?.....

MWM
12-18-2004, 08:57 PM
Riddle me this. How do you explain the following splits for Dunn in 2004?

With runners on base, his split was .265/.423/.527/.950

With RISP .239/.438/.514/.952

On second base only .237/.517/.316/.833

On first and second .318/.424/.636/1.070

RISP w/ 2 out .264/.459/.556/1.015

What do you make of the fact that there's such a discrepancy between runners on 2nd as opposed to runners on 1st and 2nd? How can that be? What is it about the "situation" of having a runner being on first base that all of the sudden makes him so much better than if a runner is only on second? Explain that one to me.

Also, did you take a look at RISP with 2 outs? Why is that so different that his normal RISP numbers? Is there something about the situation that makes it easier to hit with 2 outs as opposed to 0 or 1 out? If all situations are so different to hit in, tell me what makes these situations so different.

BadFundamentals
12-18-2004, 08:59 PM
Adam Dunn 2004 - Close & Late Situations:

323 BA, 417 OBP, 720 SLG, 1137 OPS

Is that what you mean by 'timely hitting'?


I haven't posted this in a long time and I'll ONLY do it because you made me do it. :devil: :devil:



Year BA BA with RISP
2004 0.266 0.239
2003 0.215 0.170
2002 0.249 0.208
2001 0.262 0.203



That's an average of .43 points LOWER in rbi situations than an already low batting average.

MWM
12-18-2004, 09:01 PM
Reds will need to score enough runs to stay in the game but then count on doing little things to squeeze out wins.

But if they focus on getting players who excel at these little things at the expense of doing the things that score "lots" of runs (ala Adam Dunn), then they're going to be so far behind in every game that it won't matter. Surely you see that!

And if you're point is that they need players who do all the things that Adam does, yet still possess those "little things" you think are so important, then how much are those guys going to cost? And how many are there? Give me a few examples of these types of players you want to the Reds to have on their team.

Raisor
12-18-2004, 09:01 PM
I haven't posted this in a long time and I'll ONLY do it because you made me do it. :devil: :devil:



Year BA BA with RISP
2004 0.266 0.239
2003 0.215 0.170
2002 0.249 0.208
2001 0.262 0.203



That's an average of .43 points LOWER in rbi situations than an already low batting average.

Since you've asked for it, and ignored it last time...

Do you agree with the following?

Double > Single

Triple > Double

Home Run > Triple

Well, do you?

BadFundamentals
12-18-2004, 09:12 PM
Riddle me this. How do you explain the following splits for Dunn in 2004?
With runners on base, his split was .265/.423/.527/.950

With RISP .239/.438/.514/.952

On second base only .237/.517/.316/.833

On first and second .318/.424/.636/1.070

RISP w/ 2 out .264/.459/.556/1.015




Again, I couldn't disagree more with you on you post where you are skeptical about situational adjustments hitters can make. HOWEVER, I will say this, that fundamentally sound hitters don't necessarily "consciously" have to make the adjustments. They already hit the ball where it is pitched and do countless other little things in every at bat that predisposes them to be better situationally. Hitters with bad fundamentals just the opposite.

As for your RISP stats, since those are only based on ONE season we're really only talking about 34 hits spread over the various situations. The .318 is the only one that would really catch my eye - the others for that small a sample size could just be expected variance.

How many actual hits/ABs make up that .318?

Raisor
12-18-2004, 09:15 PM
Here are Dunn's RC/27 with RISP since 2002 (don't have 2001, sorry)

2002- 6.39 (vs 6.73 overall)
2003- 5.54 (vs 5.95 overall)
2004- 8.79 (vs 7.92 overall)

Not much of a difference one way or the other..

BadFundamentals
12-18-2004, 09:20 PM
MWM, I'm on record, I want Dunn on the team at the right price. I have a hunch about his ceiling as a player but it is just MY "hunch".

I want him on the team batting SIXTH in the order, playing left field, hopefully hitting 40+ homers and hopefully knocking some doubles IF he can be had at $$$ you'd expect to pay for a guy you're intending to bat 6th.

That is where I'm skeptical. I suspect in today's game with its emphasis/value on the "Homerun" and OBP that the Reds will have to overpay to keep him.

BadFundamentals
12-18-2004, 09:21 PM
Since you've asked for it, and ignored it last time...

Do you agree with the following?

Double > Single

Triple > Double

Home Run > Triple

Well, do you?


Yes.

Raisor
12-18-2004, 09:22 PM
Since you've asked for it, and ignored it last time...

Do you agree with the following?

Double > Single

Triple > Double

Home Run > Triple

Well, do you?


ahem...is this thing on?

Raisor
12-18-2004, 09:24 PM
Yes.


If you agree with that, then why on earth would you continue to use a stat (BA) that ignores the fact that single<double<triple<homerun AND ignores other ways to get on base, especially when we DO have easy to find and understand stats that do do those things?

There, I feel better.

TRF
12-18-2004, 09:25 PM
Yes.
raisor, i got this one.

then why give so much weight to a stat that measures them equally?

Raisor
12-18-2004, 09:27 PM
raisor, i got this one.

then why give so much weight to a stat that measures them equally?


Too late, my Padawan.