PDA

View Full Version : Krivsky will be on XM at 8:30



Pages : [1] 2

RFS62
02-13-2006, 09:08 AM
Just announced, Wayne Krivsky will be on the morning show in about 20 minutes.

Jpup
02-13-2006, 09:09 AM
Just announced, Wayne Krivsky will be on the morning show in about 20 minutes.

thanks for the heads up, i'll go to the truck and get the receiver now. :thumbup:

Jpup
02-13-2006, 09:26 AM
he's on.:thumbup:

how great is it to hear Marty calling a FeLo grand slam?

Jpup
02-13-2006, 09:42 AM
-He's excited.
-He's impressed with the Reds FO.:eek:
-He's confident that the orgranization will be one that people want to work for.
-Ownership has given him the leeway to do things the right way.
-It all starts with scouting and player development.
-We have to build from the bottom up, i.e. having excellent drafts.
-TOO MANY STRIKOUTS IN THE LINEUP:thumbdown
-The pitching is bad:p:
-EdE needs to learn better strikezone management, needs to work on making the routine plays. He included a lot of positives about him and generally was up on him.
-On Kearns, called him Sunday, Austin sees this as a big year to step and be that guy we all expected.
-Scoring runs isn't the problem. :thumbup:
-Might have to take away from the strength(offense) to improve the pitching. Will wait until Spring Training to evaluate the players.
-Praising Mike Radcliff of the Twins. "as good as it gets."
-The fan response has been tremendous since his hiring.
-Cast wants to get the Reds back to elite status in MLB. It's going to take time, but they will get there. Cast wants to win yesterday, but knows it will take time.
-Praising Gene Bennett and Wilma Mann, Chief Bender and others.
-"I'm a guy that sometimes believes the old way is the best way. Not that we don't use computers and the new technology."
-"I'm really happy with what we have done in the last 4 days."

traderumor
02-13-2006, 10:13 AM
There are too many strikeouts in the lineup. An individual player striking out a lot is not the same as a team that strikes out a lot.


-TOO MANY STRIKOUTS IN THE LINEUP :thumbdown

SteelSD
02-13-2006, 10:18 AM
There are too many strikeouts in the lineup. An individual player striking out a lot is not the same as a team that strikes out a lot.

tr, you know there's no correlation between team strikeout numbers and Runs Scored.

The fact that Krivsky doesn't know it is not a mark in his favor.

RANDY IN INDY
02-13-2006, 10:27 AM
Here we go again.:devil:

I agree with traderumor. There are too many strikeouts in the lineup for my liking, combined with all the other outs that a lot of the same guys are making. I can live with the Dunn strikeouts, (still don't like them, and feel that he will eventually cut them down) but some of the Reds players don't need to be striking out as much as they are.

TRF
02-13-2006, 10:37 AM
tr, you know there's no correlation between team strikeout numbers and Runs Scored.

The fact that Krivsky doesn't know it is not a mark in his favor.

No, but it does make you easy prey for good K pitchers. Over 162, maybe it translates to a handful of losses, but this team cannot afford a handful of losses.

I wasn't against moving Casey if the return was good young pitching. Last year's GIDP were IMO an aberration in his career, and I expect he'll rebound from that this year. But guys that get on base at a .380+ clip AND hit .320+ are a good balance for a team that has Dunn, Pena and LaRue. JMO.

SteelSD
02-13-2006, 10:38 AM
Here we go again.:devil:

I agree with traderumor. There are too many strikeouts in the lineup for my liking, combined with all the other outs that a lot of the same guys are making. I can live with the Dunn strikeouts, (still don't like them, and feel that he will eventually cut them down) but some of the Reds players don't need to be striking out as much as they are.

Yeah, well...we've had this conversation before and I believe we sorta' figured out that strikeouts don't really matter so I guess I'm not exactly sure why the hiring of Wayne Krivsky changes that.

SteelSD
02-13-2006, 10:41 AM
No, but it does make you easy prey for good K pitchers. Over 162, maybe it translates to a handful of losses, but this team cannot afford a handful of losses.

I wasn't against moving Casey if the return was good young pitching. Last year's GIDP were IMO an aberration in his career, and I expect he'll rebound from that this year. But guys that get on base at a .380+ clip AND hit .320+ are a good balance for a team that has Dunn, Pena and LaRue. JMO.

You're regressing.;)

RANDY IN INDY
02-13-2006, 10:41 AM
Yeah, well...we've had this conversation before and I believe we sorta' figured out that strikeouts don't really matter so I guess I'm not exactly sure why the hiring of Wayne Krivsky changes that.

Krivsky hasn't changed my view on the strikeout issue, any more than he has changed yours. I think we should just leave it at that.

How ya been, Steel? I haven't been posting much lately.;) :beerme:

SteelSD
02-13-2006, 10:45 AM
Krivsky hasn't changed my view on the strikeout issue, any more than he has changed yours. I think we should just leave it at that.

Yeah. The Reds didn't really lead the NL in Runs Scored while leading the world in Strikeouts last year.

This should already be beyond settled.

letsgojunior
02-13-2006, 10:46 AM
I'm glad he's cognizant of the strikeout issue, and I'm hoping that's something he's planning on addressing.

flyer85
02-13-2006, 10:50 AM
I saw a atricle last year and there litle correlation between Ks and runs scored. WHat it did show was high K teams scored more runs than low K teams.

Worrying about too many Ks is the least of the Reds problems. I would be worrying about the lack of pitching and poor defense if I was the GM.

Jpup
02-13-2006, 10:53 AM
I saw a atricle last year and there was a loose correlation between Ks and runs scored. WHat it showed was high K teams scored more runs than low K teams.

Worrying about too many Ks is the least of the Reds problems. I would be worrying about the lack of pitching and poor defense if I was the GM.

he did, but the strikeouts came first on Krivsky's list during the interview.

SteelSD
02-13-2006, 10:53 AM
I saw a atricle last year and there was a loose correlation between Ks and runs scored. WHat it showed was high K teams scored more runs than low K teams.

God, don't say THAT.

Wayne Krivsky just got hired so somehow water doesn't appear to be wet anymore.

bigredmachine1976
02-13-2006, 10:56 AM
The fact that the Reds led the league does not mean that there's no room for improvement. He thinks they strike out too much, it's a valid opinion.

flyer85
02-13-2006, 10:58 AM
He thinks they strike out too much, it's a valid opinion.How is it a valid opinion? Where is the objective data to show that more Ks lead to less runs?

Jpup
02-13-2006, 10:58 AM
The fact that the Reds led the league does not mean that there's no room for improvement. He thinks they strike out too much, it's a valid opinion.

but wrong.:)

traderumor
02-13-2006, 10:58 AM
Yeah, well...we've had this conversation before and I believe we sorta' figured out that strikeouts don't really matter so I guess I'm not exactly sure why the hiring of Wayne Krivsky changes that.

I'm settled on the player level, not the team level. I know we've been down this road before, but simply saying that since the 2005 Reds led the league in Ks and RS means that Ks are irrelevant at the team level is not exactly a scientific conclusion.

flyer85
02-13-2006, 11:00 AM
but simply saying that since the 2005 Reds led the league in Ks and RS means that Ks are irrelevant at the team level is not exactly a scientific conclusion.so is saying they are relevant a scientific conclusion?

SteelSD
02-13-2006, 11:03 AM
The fact that the Reds led the league does not mean that there's no room for improvement. He thinks they strike out too much, it's a valid opinion.

Cutting down on K's has nothing to do with scoring more Runs.

It's an invalid opinion.

SteelSD
02-13-2006, 11:05 AM
I'm settled on the player level, not the team level. I know we've been down this road before, but simply saying that since the 2005 Reds led the league in Ks and RS means that Ks are irrelevant at the team level is not exactly a scientific conclusion.

This link has been posted before:

http://www.thediamondangle.com/marasco/opan/kfile.html

TRF
02-13-2006, 11:08 AM
Yeah. The Reds didn't really lead the NL in Runs Scored while leading the world in Strikeouts last year.

This should already be beyond settled.

Am not. :)

But they also had Casey and Randa for the first half. RA didn't K alot either. (you have no idea how much it hurt me to type that.) And though they were all world in K's and Runs Scored, they did have tremendous balance too.

In my mind it can't be as simple as "strikeouts don't matter, they are just another out." It's also about giving the opposing pitcher a different look too. Pitchers approach a healthy Sean Casey differently that they do Adam Dunn. Casey makes that defense work more. And that has an effect on the game too. And no I am not talking about possibly reaching on an error. The simple fact is nine healthy Caseys makes a defense move more than nine healthy Dunn's. I honestly don't know if that impacts a game or not, but i think it does to some extent.

traderumor
02-13-2006, 11:08 AM
God, don't say THAT.

Wayne Krivsky just got hired so somehow water doesn't appear to be wet anymore.

One thing has nothing to do with the other.

Jpup
02-13-2006, 11:10 AM
Don't confuse me with the facts, I already have my mind made up. :)

Chip R
02-13-2006, 11:11 AM
Do they strike out a lot? Yeah. They also ground out a lot and pop out a lot. The only reason I'm interested in reducing the number of strikeouts is so they avoid less outs. If Dunn cuts down his strikeouts by 50 but increases his groundouts by the same number, I don't see how that helps the Reds or makes him into a better player. Maybe he advances a few more runners or gets a guy home with a ground ball but he'll more than likely hit into more double plays thus nullifying the runners moved up and the runs batted in.

flyer85
02-13-2006, 11:13 AM
I guess we will have to see what Krivsky does.

If low Ks leads to better outcomes and more runs than trading Casey was very bad for the Reds offense.

flyer85
02-13-2006, 11:16 AM
Do they strike out a lot? Yeah. They also ground out a lot and pop out a lot. The only reason I'm interested in reducing the number of strikeouts is so they avoid less outs. If Dunn cuts down his strikeouts by 50 but increases his groundouts by the same number, I don't see how that helps the Reds or makes him into a better player. Maybe he advances a few more runners or gets a guy home with a ground ball but he'll more than likely hit into more double plays thus nullifying the runners moved up and the runs batted in.Dunn decreased his Ks by 25 last year and yet by most statistical measures 2004 was clearly superior to 2005. He cut his Ks by 13% and yet was less productive. How did that happen?

traderumor
02-13-2006, 11:16 AM
This link has been posted before:

http://www.thediamondangle.com/marasco/opan/kfile.html

Not sure if I commented another time this was posted, but "K's are not bad at the team level" is based on a strawman premise in the first place, that "A high strikeout team should score fewer runs than a low strikeout team if K's are so bad." Oversimplification of the issue.

traderumor
02-13-2006, 11:17 AM
Do they strike out a lot? Yeah. They also ground out a lot and pop out a lot. The only reason I'm interested in reducing the number of strikeouts is so they avoid less outs. If Dunn cuts down his strikeouts by 50 but increases his groundouts by the same number, I don't see how that helps the Reds or makes him into a better player. Maybe he advances a few more runners or gets a guy home with a ground ball but he'll more than likely hit into more double plays thus nullifying the runners moved up and the runs batted in.
But that's at the level of the individual.

Jpup
02-13-2006, 11:19 AM
But that's at the level of the individual.

please explain your theory, it's not making any sense to me. :dunno: It's sounding like DanO talk. I hope you are being sarcastic.

Chip R
02-13-2006, 11:19 AM
Dunn decreased his Ks by 25 last year and yet by most statistical measures 2004 was clearly superior to 2005. He cut his Ks by 13% and yet was less productive. How did that happen?

I don't know. Did he ground out or pop up 13% or more?

traderumor
02-13-2006, 11:20 AM
Don't confuse me with the facts, I already have my mind made up. :)

There's a difference between being an obscurantist and thinking that the burden of proof for concluding that "there is no correlation between strikeouts and runs scored" by simply graphing strikeouts vs. runs scored has not been met.

flyer85
02-13-2006, 11:23 AM
Not sure if I commented another time this was posted, but "K's are not bad at the team level" is based on a strawman premise in the first place, that "A high strikeout team should score fewer runs than a low strikeout team if K's are so bad." Oversimplification of the issue.The issue is that K and runs scored don't have much to do with each other where things like OBP, SLG% and runs scored do.

I think it is then safe to conclude that worrying about Ks is just chasing your tail. If you really want to improve the offense then forget about Ks and try to improve your OBP and SLG%. This is exactly what makes Womack(low K, low OBP, extremely low SLG%) less than an offensive zero and I don't think Reds management see it.

bigredmachine1976
02-13-2006, 11:24 AM
I'm sure my baseball knowledge as well as Mr. Krivsky's is inferior to many of you who post here on a daily basis, but it almost sounds like the more you strike out the more runs you'll score.

flyer85
02-13-2006, 11:25 AM
I don't know. Did he ground out or pop up 13% or more?Does it matter? I know Shandler's Baseball Forecaster could provide that info in terms of percentages.

bigredmachine1976
02-13-2006, 11:27 AM
Wouldn't cutting strike outs have the possiblity of raising you obp?

flyer85
02-13-2006, 11:28 AM
I'm sure my baseball knowledge as well as Mr. Krivsky's is inferior to many of you who post here on a daily basis, but it almost sounds like the more you strike out the more runs you'll score.The point is that Ks and runs just don't seem to be correlated in a meaningful way but if you look in recent years the high scoring teams tend to be high K teams.

So why pay worry about Ks when there is a ton of evidence that things like OBP and SLG% have a very strong correlation to runs scored?

traderumor
02-13-2006, 11:29 AM
The issue is that K and runs scored don't have much to do with each other where things like OBP, SLG% and runs scored do.

I think it is then safe to conclude that worrying about Ks is just chasing your tail. If you really want to improve the offense then forget about Ks and try to improve your OBP and SLG%. This is exactly what makes Womack(low K, low OBP, extremely low SLG%) less than an offensive zero and I don't think Reds management see it.
Reasonable statement. However, a high K lineup may be symptomatic of an overall flawed collection of players.

Jpup
02-13-2006, 11:29 AM
I'm sure my baseball knowledge as well as Mr. Krivsky's is inferior to many of you who post here on a daily basis, but it almost sounds like the more you strike out the more runs you'll score.

something like that. :evil:

just because someone has an opportunity to do a job doesn't mean that person is more qualified than the person that hasn't had that same opportunity. keep that in mind when you generalize people.

Chip R
02-13-2006, 11:32 AM
Does it matter? I know Shandler's Baseball Forecaster could provide that info in terms of percentages.

If you want to look at that and bring those percentages in here, have at it. All I'm saying is that the Reds - and any other baseball team if they want to be successful - should avoid outs. Last I checked a strikeout is an out. As is a ground out or a foul out or a line out or a pop out. I don't think it's any worse than any one of those. It can be better than one of those since it's awfully hard to strike out into a double play. But it's still an out.

flyer85
02-13-2006, 11:32 AM
Wouldn't cutting strike outs have the possiblity of raising you obp?sure if replaced by a walk or a hit. But then isn't a double better than a single?

The point is that there is an obvious tradeoff between being free swinging and putting the ball in play(Womack being a great example) versus a selective hitter who swings hard and misses quite a bit.

If low Ks is important and just putting the ball in play is critical then obviously Tony Womack is a very valuable offensive commodity.

RANDY IN INDY
02-13-2006, 11:33 AM
Reasonable statement. However, a high K lineup may be symptomatic of an overall flawed collection of players.

:beerme:

flyer85
02-13-2006, 11:34 AM
Reasonable statement. However, a high K lineup may be symptomatic of an overall flawed collection of players.I think having a really bad defensive team is a better indication of an overall flawed collection of players. The caveat being unless you have a pitching staff that misses lots of bats.

Jpup
02-13-2006, 11:35 AM
I'll take a high K lineup everyday of the week if they score the most runs in the league.

bigredmachine1976
02-13-2006, 11:35 AM
Becasue it's one way to raise obp? And the chances of scoring a run are better when the ball is in play.

SteelSD
02-13-2006, 11:37 AM
Not sure if I commented another time this was posted, but "K's are not bad at the team level" is based on a strawman premise in the first place, that "A high strikeout team should score fewer runs than a low strikeout team if K's are so bad." Oversimplification of the issue.

There is no issue, so it's pretty darn tough to oversimply anything.

Don't make the mistake of thinking this is a debate, tr. This is me explaining to you what baseball tells us. It's that clear if you can get beyond the flawed nature of intuition and focus on what IS.

Pythag tells us that when Runs are scored doesn't really matter.

That link I just gave you tells us that there's no correlation between K's and Runs Scored at a team level.

Because both of the above statements are true, you have no "issue" to discuss.

Cyclone792
02-13-2006, 11:38 AM
I don't know. Did he ground out or pop up 13% or more?

BABIP

Dunn 2001: .298
Dunn 2002: .316
Dunn 2003: .241
Dunn 2004: .321
Dunn 2005: .281

Dunn Career: .294

Dunn's lousy 2003 season was because his BABIP was lousy. His outstanding 2004 season was because his BABIP was excellent.

Dunn's LD% was 19.3 percent in 2004 and dropped to 17.5 percent in 2005. That likely accounts for some of the 40 point drop in BABIP, but probably not all of it. I have some theories on how a hitter can maybe control his BABIP that I hope to test later on this week with some research, but I'm not prepared to make those claims yet without the data.

flyer85
02-13-2006, 11:40 AM
Reasonable statement. However, a high K lineup may be symptomatic of an overall flawed collection of players.point it like you pointed at earlier it has to be looked at on an individual level. Do those high K guys have a low OBPs or a low SLG%? From an offensive standpoint the best offensive skill to have is to not make outs. So an overall flawed collection of offensive players is not defined by a group with high Ks but a group with a low OBP.

wheels
02-13-2006, 11:41 AM
How did that flawed group of players score more runs than anyone in the National League?

creek14
02-13-2006, 11:41 AM
-TOO MANY STRIKOUTS IN THE LINEUP

-Might have to take away from the strength (offense) to improve the pitching.


I hope those two don't equal a Dunn trade...

Jpup
02-13-2006, 11:43 AM
I hope those two don't equal a Dunn trade...

He wasn't asked, but I highly doubt it. He didn't act like a trade was at the top of his list of things to do. Just the feel I got.:beerme:

rdiersin
02-13-2006, 11:44 AM
I'm sure my baseball knowledge as well as Mr. Krivsky's is inferior to many of you who post here on a daily basis, but it almost sounds like the more you strike out the more runs you'll score.


The main reason I've seen for this is that high isolated power usually correlates with more strikeouts. Its this element that drives the more strike outs more you'll score, as you stated it. Its not the strikeouts themselves, its that they seem to be a byproduct of more power. Regardless, even though there is a positive correlation between strikeouts and runs scored, its small enough that no conclusion could ever be drawn from it, other than they are not a major significance to a teams runs scored.

bigredmachine1976
02-13-2006, 11:45 AM
I don't want to argue, but I'm still confussed. There has to be a point where more strike outs leads to less runs. I'm pretty sure that could be mathmatically proven.

flyer85
02-13-2006, 11:45 AM
I hope those two don't equal a Dunn trade...we know why you think that. If a Dunn trade would bring a windfall of talent I would be for it. However, I don't see that happening.

If I was the GM they easiest way to help the 2006 pitching would be to improve the defense. Having said that the defensive black holes for this team in 2005 were SS and CF. Hmmm. What to do with Lopez and Jr?

Kc61
02-13-2006, 11:46 AM
This is a complex subject. For example, the Reds tend to play high scoring games in which their pitchers give up tons of runs. Would the Reds' run scoring prowess continue if they played tighter games with better pitching?

After-the-fact, strikeouts are irrelevant. An out is an out.

Before-the-fact, however, a high strikeout hitter is less likely to produce because he doesn't make contact. Swings and misses too much. Except in the rare case, like a Dunn, where a high K guy also walks a lot.

I would rather have more guys that make contact.

Except that on the Reds high strikeout totals are less of a problem. This is because they play in a home run stadium. So you want guys with power, even if they tend to strike out more.

Or something.

traderumor
02-13-2006, 11:47 AM
There is no issue, so it's pretty darn tough to oversimply anything.

Don't make the mistake of thinking this is a debate, tr. This is me explaining to you what baseball tells us. It's that clear if you can get beyond the flawed nature of intuition and focus on what IS.

Pythag tells us that when Runs are scored doesn't really matter.

That link I just gave you tells us that there's no correlation between K's and Runs Scored at a team level.

Because both of the above statements are true, you have no "issue" to discuss.
Four years of data in one league in a high strikeout, high ERA era. Case closed? I'm not sure that would meet the standard of credible scientific research (certainly wouldn't reach the level of SABR research) to prove the author's hypothesis "that low K teams should score more than high K teams."

flyer85
02-13-2006, 11:47 AM
I don't want to argue, but I'm still confussed. There has to be a point where more strike outs leads to less runs. I'm pretty sure that could be mathmatically proven.It would be the point when OBP and SLG% start to decrease. That should tell you all you need to know.

traderumor
02-13-2006, 11:47 AM
How did that flawed group of players score more runs than anyone in the National League?They also played defense.

flyer85
02-13-2006, 11:48 AM
I would rather have more guys that make contact.a vote for Casey and Womack.

rdiersin
02-13-2006, 11:49 AM
TR,
Your statement that you are convinced that strikeouts mean nothing for a individual player, but high strikout totals for a team may be bad, really confuses me. Respectfully, I would have to question your thinking. If anything it would be the reverse. There is data to look at team strikeouts, and looking back at 50 years worth of data shows that there is no significant correlation of runs scored with strikeouts. This is measurable, unlike player performance. Player performance has to be estimated, but team performance is certainly measurable. So I really can't understand why you say that its ok to have a player that strikeouts, but a team with high strikeout totals, but still scores, could be a bad thing.

flyer85
02-13-2006, 11:49 AM
They also played defense.not much of it.

rdiersin
02-13-2006, 11:51 AM
I don't want to argue, but I'm still confussed. There has to be a point where more strike outs leads to less runs. I'm pretty sure that could be mathmatically proven.

I'm sure that there is. But its not necessarily the strikeout, but the making of more outs that leads to less runs. This leads to bad isolated power, bad obp, etc.

traderumor
02-13-2006, 11:54 AM
not much of it.
Yup. A collection of clods that can mash homers. Pardon me if I'm ready to watch something else.

GoReds
02-13-2006, 11:55 AM
This stuff is beyond ridiculous and a large part of why I find myself visiting less and less.

The subject of the thread was "Krivsky will be on XM at 8:30". The first page covered the interview. The resulting six pages - thus far - have reverted back to the Adam Dunn/strikeout argument.

Can someone get this thing out of first gear? Please?

:rolleyes:

flyer85
02-13-2006, 11:56 AM
Yup. A collection of clods that can mash homers. Pardon me if I'm ready to watch something else.the defensive killers for the team in 2005 were Lopez at SS(nobody wants to talk about that) and Jr in CF.

ochre
02-13-2006, 11:57 AM
They also played defense.
I'm starting to feel that the poor defense card is being played a bit too much. Pitching and defense is such a symbotic relationship. I think at some point pitching can be bad enough that it will make an average defense look even worse. There aren't as many easy balls to field. So many of the balls put in play are done so with such authority as to either put them out of reach of the fielders, or at least put the fielders under higher pressure.

If Krivsky addresses the defense as a major deficiency, given the condition of the offense he has inherited I believe we will be chasing our tails for years to come. The problem is historically significant bad pitching. Sure we should look for improvements in other areas, but the 80/20 rule would indicate the cost to improve those areas would far outway the marginal improvement seen from those changes. The problem is the pitching.

Hatteberg and Perez should be insignificant acquisitions. They are all we have to go by at this stage though. Seeing the statement "too many strike outs" in conjunction with the acquisition of 2 horrible hitters that happen to not strike out all that often does nothing to ease my concerns that the wrong focus is being applied here.

traderumor
02-13-2006, 11:58 AM
TR,
Your statement that you are convinced that strikeouts mean nothing for a individual player, but high strikout totals for a team may be bad, really confuses me. Respectfully, I would have to question your thinking. If anything it would be the reverse. There is data to look at team strikeouts, and looking back at 50 years worth of data shows that there is no significant correlation of runs scored with strikeouts. This is measurable, unlike player performance. Player performance has to be estimated, but team performance is certainly measurable. So I really can't understand why you say that its ok to have a player that strikeouts, but a team with high strikeout totals, but still scores, could be a bad thing.Looking for more rounded players that can play consistent baseball on offense, including do more than play station to station three run homer ball, and defense. I'll gladly give up some of those runs that led the league if it comes in conjunction with taking strides toward the other team scoring less, much less.

As for what you don't understand, it is simply the difference between having one or two high strikeout type hitters vs. 5-6 in the lineup on a daily basis.

flyer85
02-13-2006, 12:00 PM
The resulting six pages - thus far - have reverted back to the Adam Dunn/strikeout argument.What the argument is about is not Dunn specifically, but rather if the Reds could be improved offensively by striking out less.

I would say it will have more to do with giving an everyday job to WMP. WMP is a high K(higher than Dunn), low OBP, high SLG% guy who is seemingly a defensive black hole no matter where he plays(although his "best" position seems to be CF).

Might this team do better to trade WMP, move Jr to left(where lack of speed is not nearly as important) and find a real CF?

bigredmachine1976
02-13-2006, 12:01 PM
It would be the point when OBP and SLG% start to decrease. That should tell you all you need to know.

Wouldn't they both decrease the first time a guy strikes out?

flyer85
02-13-2006, 12:03 PM
Pitching and defense is such a symbotic relationship. I think at some point pitching can be bad enough that it will make an average defense look even worse. and the converse is true, really poor defense can make the pitching look even worse.

An easy way to help the pitching without getting new pitchers to to shore up the defense. The problems areas would seem to be up the middle(2b(maybe),ss,cf) which are by far the most important defensive positions.

RedsManRick
02-13-2006, 12:04 PM
Has anybody on the board honestly looked not just at our runs scored total but the run distribution? A team with a lot of strikeouts and a lot of power will surely score a lot of runs over the course of the season. However, my guess is that we have a greater standard deviation than do most squads. The advantage of "smart/small ball" is that when you need to score just one run in a specific instance, it's frequently the best way to do it.

If you have a roster than is unable to manufacture that 1 run at the appropriate time then you are hurting yourself. Of course, if they ability to do that comes at the expense of the power/obp types generally speaking, then you're losing ground. Let's just hope they understand this means it's good to have a Dave Roberts ready to pinch run, rather than have a Tony Womack start everyday.

Steel, do you happen to have any links to articles which speak specifically to pythag. of teams with extreme tendencies? (ie. high K teams consistently under (or over) performing their pythag.) When you start to look at things in the aggregate you can often hide meaningful variation at the tails of the distribution by incorrectly assuming it's simply random chance variation.

rdiersin
02-13-2006, 12:05 PM
Looking for more rounded players that can play consistent baseball on offense, including do more than play station to station three run homer ball, and defense. I'll gladly give up some of those runs that led the league if it comes in conjunction with taking strides toward the other team scoring less, much less.

As for what you don't understand, it is simply the difference between having one or two high strikeout type hitters vs. 5-6 in the lineup on a daily basis.

Mike Cameron was a strikeout type guy, but played good defense. As for consistent offense, that's another thing. I think there was article in BP last year talking about the White Sox and "consistent" offenses. I will try and find it, you may find it interesting.

flyer85
02-13-2006, 12:05 PM
Wouldn't they both decrease the first time a guy strikes out?Do you think there may be a tradeoff between swinging hard(and sometimes missing) and extra base hits?

Is there a point where swinging hard brings diminishing returns? (BTW, this is the real question that you want answered).

ochre
02-13-2006, 12:06 PM
Looking for more rounded players that can play consistent baseball on offense, including do more than play station to station three run homer ball, and defense. I'll gladly give up some of those runs that led the league if it comes in conjunction with taking strides toward the other team scoring less, much less.

As for what you don't understand, it is simply the difference between having one or two high strikeout type hitters vs. 5-6 in the lineup on a daily basis.
If those 5-6 don't make outs any more frequently than players that strikeout less, what difference does it make what types of outs they are?

traderumor
02-13-2006, 12:06 PM
This stuff is beyond ridiculous and a large part of why I find myself visiting less and less.

The subject of the thread was "Krivsky will be on XM at 8:30". The first page covered the interview. The resulting six pages - thus far - have reverted back to the Adam Dunn/strikeout argument.

Can someone get this thing out of first gear? Please?

:rolleyes:
How to win friends and influence people ;)

flyer85
02-13-2006, 12:07 PM
The advantage of "smart/small ball" is that when you need to score just one run in a specific instance, it's frequently the best way to do it.Is it really or does it just seem like it "ought to be true"?

I don't think you really want to go there.

ochre
02-13-2006, 12:08 PM
and the converse is true, really poor defense can make the pitching look even worse.

An easy way to help the pitching without getting new pitchers to to shore up the defense. The problems areas would seem to be up the middle(2b(maybe),ss,cf) which are by far the most important defensive positions.
I'm not entirely sure that this is true. If the defense were such the problem the Harang's of the world would struggle just as much as the other starters wouldn't they? Perhaps the Reds RF and ZR deficiencies are functions of how hard other teams are hitting the ball?

ochre
02-13-2006, 12:09 PM
Wouldn't they both decrease the first time a guy strikes out?
exactly the same amount as a groundout to second.

GoReds
02-13-2006, 12:12 PM
How to win friends and influence people ;)

Just provin' my point.

traderumor
02-13-2006, 12:12 PM
If those 5-6 don't make outs any more frequently than players that strikeout less, what difference does it make what types of outs they are?
Can they play defense? I'm talking about the whole ballplayer, including the one's we have and the lineup construction we have watched, which includes picking up a glove and playing defense. Now, of course, high strikeout mashers doesn't necessarily mean poor defense, but in our case, the ballplayers we have are high strikeout mashers who play average defense at best (Dunn, Lopez), and poor defense at their worst (Pena, Griffey).

bigredmachine1976
02-13-2006, 12:12 PM
a ground out to second scores a man on third with less than two outs. A strike out does not.

flyer85
02-13-2006, 12:13 PM
If the defense were such the problem the Harang's of the world would struggle just as much as the other starters wouldn't they? Where is the data to say he wasn't affected by the poor defense as much as the others? He did have a higher K rate, lower walk rate and lower HR rate than the others. Maybe that was why his ERA was better? Something to do with being better at the things a pitcher can actually control(his three rates listed above) versus the things he can't(like what happens to the ball after it is put in play).

traderumor
02-13-2006, 12:15 PM
Just provin' my point.My point is that there are some folks who willingly are participating in a discussion that came from something that took place in the interview. I'm not sure why you see the need to belittle folks that desire to have that discussion. I'm sorry this discussion is beneath you. So ignore it.

flyer85
02-13-2006, 12:15 PM
a ground out to second scores a man on third with less than two outs. A strike out does not.A HR scores the batter, a ground out to second does not.

Creating straw men is not getting you anywhere.

westofyou
02-13-2006, 12:16 PM
-Might have to take away from the strength (offense) to improve the pitching.
This is a given IMO, but it also doesn't mean the end of the world, the give and take could and and can be shaped without moving Dunn.

In a year this team could be without Griffey, LaRue, WMP, Kearns or Dunn.

Lose 2 of those and the K totals drop, move three and it goes even further.

All thses debates on K's don't approach the thought of improving the K to walk ratio of the team or the slg% production of the players who K.

Cruz essentially lost his spot yesterday, he k'd 2 times to every 1 walk, Hatteberg has a 1-1 ratio for his career. I can stomach the lack of power from SH because his payoff is not making outs. It's harder to stomach the guy with a .377 slg% K'ing 1/2 the time he comes to bat.

Replace guys who K too much like WMP (whose only payback is power) and that's not a bad idea, but replace the guys who K too much but make outs only 63% of the time than that's just stupid.

One more thing on the team K's totals, it really is a recent trend across the league, of the top 20 team K totals only the 68 Mets are in there from another era other than Post Strike.

Of those 20 teams the last 3 Reds teams are in the top 5. Also in that top 20 are the 2004 Red Sox, the only team to average more than than a run better than the whole league. Odf the other 19 teams only 3 of them averaged better than the league in Runs Created, among them was last years Reds.. but only .039 better.

The three teams that posted positive RC totals did it mostly by being able to take a walk, hit for power and hover somewhere close to the league batting average. It looks like a crapshoot, one that leans on everyone hitting the ball all time and hitting it hard.

Red are the teams that were in the Playoffs, Only the 2000 Cardinals won their division.


SEASON
WALKS displayed only--not a sorting criteria
ISOLATED POWER vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
SECONDARY AVERAGE vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
AVERAGE vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
RUNS CREATED/GAME vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
STRIKEOUTS YEAR SO BB ISO SEC AVG RC/G
1 Brewers 2001 1399 488 .003 -.014 -.017 -.59
2 Reds 2004 1335 599 .000 .005 -.019 -.36
3 Reds 2003 1326 524 -.012 -.020 -.024 -.70
4 Brewers 2004 1312 540 -.028 -.022 -.022 -.89
5 Reds 2005 1303 611 .026 .034 -.007 0.39
6 Padres 2001 1273 678 -.024 .005 -.017 -.44
7 Cubs 2002 1269 585 .010 .004 -.020 -.39
8 Tigers 1996 1268 546 -.003 -.016 -.022 -.92
9 Cardinals 2000 1253 675 .012 .018 -.003 0.26
10 Brewers 2000 1245 620 -.015 -.024 -.028 -1.08
11 Diamondbacks 1998 1239 489 -.009 -.027 -.022 -.89
12 Cubs 1998 1223 601 .013 .011 -.004 0.03
13 Brewers 2003 1221 547 .000 .000 -.012 -.37
14 Mets 1968 1203 379 -.016 -.029 -.025 -.74
15 Cardinals 1999 1202 613 -.005 -.006 -.013 -.33
16 Pirates 1999 1197 573 -.008 -.018 -.016 -.54
17 Cardinals 1997 1191 543 -.013 -.013 -.015 -.63
18 Dodgers 1996 1190 516 -.020 -.029 -.018 -.74
T19 Red Sox 2004 1189 659 .027 .042 .011 1.03
T19 Giants 1996 1189 615 -.017 -.010 -.017 -.44

traderumor
02-13-2006, 12:18 PM
A HR scores the batter, a ground out to second does not.

Creating straw men is not getting you anywhere.In fairness to brm1976, he seems to be trying to get up to speed on the concepts being discussed, not win an argument.

RedsManRick
02-13-2006, 12:23 PM
Is it really or does it just seem like it "ought to be true"?

I don't think you really want to go there.

Without looking at intent, I'm not sure you can accurately measure this one. However, by looking at run expectancy charts, you can looking at the likelihood of scoring a single run and how that would change in different situations (ie. runner on 1st, no out vs. runner on 2nd, 1 out). I don't have the time to do it now, but I'm 99% certain there are circumstances when sacrifices actually increase your odds of scoring a single run, even if they lower your average run expectancy because they lower the odds of a big inning.

And the larger point here is that in a circumstance where the sacrifice is beneficial, that guy who K's a ton and doesn't walk. The power is great, obviously the most productive outcome, but less reliable in any one given at bat. If you look at all the potential outcomes of an at bat and multilpy those by the rate at which they occur for a given batter, the low K is more likely to have a positive outcome, even if that just means a grounder to 2b rather than the K.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge proponent of power over contact in most cases. But you need to have guys on your roster (not necessarily starters) who you can put in to those situations where the K actually is a worse outcome than a contact based out and the outcome of that at bat could determine the game. To me, that's the value of Hatteberg over Cruz.

traderumor
02-13-2006, 12:29 PM
This is a given IMO, but it also doesn't mean the end of the world, the give and take could and and can be shaped without moving Dunn.

In a year this team could be without Griffey, LaRue, WMP, Kearns or Dunn.

Lose 2 of those and the K totals drop, move three and it goes even further.

All thses debates on K's don't approach the thought of improving the K to walk ratio of the team or the slg% production of the players who K.

Cruz essentially lost his spot yesterday, he k'd 2 times to every 1 walk, Hatteberg has a 1-1 ratio for his career. I can stomach the lack of power from SH because his payoff is not making outs. It's harder to stomach the guy with a .377 slg% K'ing 1/2 the time he comes to bat.

Replace guys who K too much like WMP (whose only payback is power) and that's not a bad idea, but replace the guys who K too much but make outs only 63% of the time than that's just stupid.

One more thing on the team K's totals, it really is a recent trend across the league, of the top 20 team K totals only the 68 Mets are in there from another era other than Post Strike.

Of those 20 teams the last 3 Reds teams are in the top 5. Also in that top 20 are the 2004 Red Sox, the only team to average more than than a run better than the whole league. Odf the other 19 teams only 3 of them averaged better than the league in Runs Created, among them was last years Reds.. but only .039 better.

The three teams that posted positive RC totals did it mostly by being able to take a walk, hit for power and hover somewhere close to the league batting average. It looks like a crapshoot, one that leans on everyone hitting the ball all time and hitting it hard.

Red are the teams that were in the Playoffs, Only the 2000 Cardinals won their division.


SEASON
WALKS displayed only--not a sorting criteria
ISOLATED POWER vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
SECONDARY AVERAGE vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
AVERAGE vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
RUNS CREATED/GAME vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
STRIKEOUTS YEAR SO BB ISO SEC AVG RC/G
1 Brewers 2001 1399 488 .003 -.014 -.017 -.59
2 Reds 2004 1335 599 .000 .005 -.019 -.36
3 Reds 2003 1326 524 -.012 -.020 -.024 -.70
4 Brewers 2004 1312 540 -.028 -.022 -.022 -.89
5 Reds 2005 1303 611 .026 .034 -.007 0.39
6 Padres 2001 1273 678 -.024 .005 -.017 -.44
7 Cubs 2002 1269 585 .010 .004 -.020 -.39
8 Tigers 1996 1268 546 -.003 -.016 -.022 -.92
9 Cardinals 2000 1253 675 .012 .018 -.003 0.26
10 Brewers 2000 1245 620 -.015 -.024 -.028 -1.08
11 Diamondbacks 1998 1239 489 -.009 -.027 -.022 -.89
12 Cubs 1998 1223 601 .013 .011 -.004 0.03
13 Brewers 2003 1221 547 .000 .000 -.012 -.37
14 Mets 1968 1203 379 -.016 -.029 -.025 -.74
15 Cardinals 1999 1202 613 -.005 -.006 -.013 -.33
16 Pirates 1999 1197 573 -.008 -.018 -.016 -.54
17 Cardinals 1997 1191 543 -.013 -.013 -.015 -.63
18 Dodgers 1996 1190 516 -.020 -.029 -.018 -.74
T19 Red Sox 2004 1189 659 .027 .042 .011 1.03
T19 Giants 1996 1189 615 -.017 -.010 -.017 -.44




So it seems that it is more likely that a high K team will be under the league RC average, which does not seem to be consistent with the data shown in the link Steel provided that allowed for a conclusion that K's and RS are not correlated.

westofyou
02-13-2006, 12:37 PM
So it seems that it is more likely that a high K team will be under the league RC average, 303 seasons with a team K total above 1000, 98 of them with positive RC vs the league... so 1 in 3.

flyer85
02-13-2006, 12:38 PM
So it seems that it is more likely that a high K team will be under the league RC average, which does not seem to be consistent with the data shown in the link Steel provided that allowed for a conclusion that K's and RS are not correlated.These are the worst K teams in history. If there was a correlation they should all be awful in RC/G to league average. Instead some are and some decidely are not. That would seem to suggest that there are other factors that are more closely related to RC/G versus the league average.

I see is a correlation between Isolated Power and Secondary Average to Runs Created.

M2
02-13-2006, 12:40 PM
tr, except Ks aren't the correlating factor. If they were then you'd expect to see the RC/G drop as the Ks rose. Instead it jumps all over the place.

IMO, every offense needs variety for matchup reasons, but if you get on base and hit for power then fretting about what types of outs you make completely misses the point.

As for strikeouts = bad defense, I was raised on Mike Schmidt so I always thought it was just the opposite.

It's possible that what Krivsky figures is the Reds don't need to add more high K mashers because the club already has that covered, which is why he can simultaneously claim that the offense is fine.

ochre
02-13-2006, 12:40 PM
the lesson I took from that was teams with good ISO and SEC have a better RC/9 than average.

rdiersin
02-13-2006, 12:41 PM
So it seems that it is more likely that a high K team will be under the league RC average, which does not seem to be consistent with the data shown in the link Steel provided that allowed for a conclusion that K's and RS are not correlated.

Or it could be the ISO, SEC, etc that are the reasons for the team scoring. I've looked at data for 50 years and calculated the correlation coefficients between runs scored and strikeouts, obp, etc. The correlation between strikeouts and runs scored simply is not significant, either for or against. They simply aren't significant, i.e. they are just another out. Its the obp, the iso, RC, etc that correlated with runs scored. That list that WOY gave says alot, you reached the wrong conclusion. The conclusion from that and much larger lists is the the iso, obp, rc are what show a good offense, the strikeouts mean nothing. Hey, I don't care if the Reds go get people who don't strikeout, as long as they don't lose obp, slg, and things that matter.

Cyclone792
02-13-2006, 12:47 PM
Reading material regarding the negative effect of strikeouts vs. other outs ... enjoy :)

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3857

http://www.all-baseball.com/fourthof/archives/018615.html

bigredmachine1976
02-13-2006, 12:54 PM
A HR scores the batter, a ground out to second does not.

Creating straw men is not getting you anywhere.

If you're thinking I was saying a ground out to second is better than a two run tater I'm not that stupid. But it does share the characteristic of being a ball put into play by the batter that the strike out does not. If my team only needs one run to win the game I'll take either the 4-3 or the homerun. The batter gets the job done in either instance.

Traderumor thanks for the kind words.

flyer85
02-13-2006, 01:00 PM
If you're thinking I was saying a ground out to second is better than a two run tater I'm not that stupid. and if you think I am saying that with a runner on third and less than two out that a K is better than a ground ball to 2nd, I'm not that stupid.

I already posed the real question you want an answer to


Is there a point where swinging hard brings diminishing returns?

I would say the 2nd article linked by Cyclone covers it very well.

westofyou
02-13-2006, 01:08 PM
Here are the Reds top 20 K's the past 2 seasons, it's pretty easy to see who K's alot and what else they bring to the table at the plate from this. to the right of the K's are the total number of outs the guy made. WMP upped his K ratio of outs from 42% to 48% last year, LaRue stayed steady at 35%.

But it's what they did with their other at bats that make the RC/27 numbers move. LaRue had better secondary skills and hit the ball harder in 2005 than 2004.

10 points on his batting average didn't up him .080 a run every 27 outs. Just like K'ing 35% of the time didn't effect him, it's taking a walk and hitting the ball hard that coupled with some luck to make things easier to swallow when it comes to K's.


SEASON
2004-2005
OUTS displayed only--not a sorting criteria
SECONDARY AVERAGE vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
ISOLATED POWER vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
AVERAGE vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
RUNS CREATED/GAME vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria

STRIKEOUTS YEAR SO OUTS SEC ISO AVG RC/G
1 Adam Dunn 2004 195 426 .218 .135 -.004 2.92
2 Adam Dunn 2005 168 419 .236 .134 -.022 2.66
3 Wily Mo Pena 2005 116 241 .034 .079 -.014 -.14
4 Felipe Lopez 2005 111 436 .045 .036 .023 1.12
T5 Wily Mo Pena 2004 108 258 .063 .100 -.011 0.29
T5 Jason LaRue 2004 108 306 -.039 .012 -.018 -.32
7 Austin Kearns 2005 107 307 .062 .053 -.028 0.12
8 Jason LaRue 2005 101 282 .030 .032 -.008 0.48
9 D'Angelo Jimenez 2004 99 438 .008 -.043 .000 -.20
10 Ken Griffey Jr. 2005 93 360 .111 .116 .033 2.73
11 Ryan Freel 2004 88 390 .012 -.076 .008 0.14
12 Felipe Lopez 2004 81 205 -.024 -.005 -.027 -.65
13 Austin Kearns 2004 71 176 .042 .021 -.039 -.96
T14 Rich Aurilia 2005 67 318 -.021 .003 .013 0.36
T14 Ken Griffey Jr. 2004 67 234 .125 .093 -.016 0.97
16 Edwin Encarnacion 2005 60 170 .039 .045 -.036 -.78
17 Ryan Freel 2005 59 291 .062 -.059 .003 0.12
18 Joe Randa 2005 52 243 .027 .043 .021 1.37
19 Juan Castro 2004 51 240 -.102 -.034 -.025 -2.11
20 Sean Casey 2005 48 396 -.068 -.048 .043 0.25

ochre
02-13-2006, 01:10 PM
Is there a point where really bad pitchers can make a defense look worse than it is? I'm really curious as to whether any of you think that's possible. I'm trying to put some numbers together from the splits I have available that I know of. Of course I know that a defense can and should make pitching look better or worse than what it really is, but is the inverse also a possibility. What I'm getting at is that the marginal pitching improvements that might come from upgrading the defense would not outweigh the loss of offensive production incurred by this action. I honestly don't know and am just trying to determine what others think/know.

The Reds devoted 690 innings to pitchers with negative VORP last year (led by Milton's -25 VORP for 186 innings). That seems to be telling to me. How much of an improvement could be expected to those types of numbers by upgrading the defense?

Player G GS IP H9 BB9 SO9 HR9 ERA RA RA+ VORP
Ramon Ortiz 30 30 171.3 10.82 2.68 5.04 1.79 5.36 5.78 0.79 -3.3
Ben Weber 10 0 12.3 14.59 6.57 5.84 0.00 8.03 8.03 0.57 -3.5
Ryan Wagner 42 0 45.7 11.04 3.35 7.69 0.79 6.11 6.50 0.70 -5.1
Ricky Stone 23 0 30.7 14.09 2.05 4.40 2.35 6.75 7.04 0.65 -5.3
Joe Valentine 16 0 14.3 11.30 6.91 5.65 2.51 8.16 9.42 0.49 -6.2
Chris Booker 3 0 2.0 27.00 18.00 9.00 9.00 31.50 36.00 0.13 -6.8
Danny Graves 20 0 18.3 14.73 5.89 3.93 1.96 7.36 8.84 0.52 -6.8
Elizardo Ramirez 6 4 22.3 13.30 4.03 3.63 2.01 8.46 8.87 0.52 -8.1
Luke Hudson 19 16 84.7 8.82 5.31 5.63 1.49 6.38 6.59 0.69 -9.4
Randy Keisler 24 4 56.0 10.29 4.50 6.91 1.61 6.27 7.23 0.63 -10.6
Paul Wilson 9 9 46.3 13.21 3.30 5.83 1.94 7.77 7.96 0.57 -12.2
Eric Milton 34 34 186.3 11.45 2.51 5.94 1.93 6.47 6.81 0.67 -25.0

Caveat Emperor
02-13-2006, 01:12 PM
If this team had even mediocre pitching over the past few seasons, all of these statements would be moot. Instead, the pitching on this team is so enormously bad, the debate turns to finding hitters more perfect than the ones responsible for burning the house down last season.

It's funny, and classic slacker mentality - ignore the huge paper that is really hard to write, and instead concentrate on deciding what font looks best to write it with.

It all comes back to pitching with this team, plain and simple.

KearnsyEars
02-13-2006, 01:13 PM
anything said about Adam Dunn? or no dialogue on our best player?

ochre
02-13-2006, 01:15 PM
anything said about Adam Dunn? or no dialogue on our best player?

I don't think you'll see him mentioning specific players, at least not at this stage.

TRF
02-13-2006, 01:17 PM
I still think this comes down to balance.

All things being equal, if you have 2 players:

Player A: .324 .381 .534
Player B: .266 .388 .569

does it matter if you have 9 of A or 9 of B?

Now some would say, I'll take 9 of B, but because of the SLG difference. The OBP's are close enough to make it a wash.

But I'll take player A. Player A is making the defense behind the pitcher work more. The other side is player B is likely making the pitcher throw more pitches, and I see the benefit there too.

Overall, I prefer hits to walks. If a guy like Dunn trades walks for hits, I'm ok with that as long as he doesn't change his approach. If he trades strikeouts for hits, He's Barry Bonds. Because if that happens, He'll walk 150+ times a year.

westofyou
02-13-2006, 01:17 PM
It's funny, and classic slacker mentality - ignore the huge paper that is really hard to write, and instead concentrate on deciding what font looks best to write it with.

Actually in the interview he said the pitching stinked and the turnaround was going to be harder than BC expected, but he was patient that it could be done.

rdiersin
02-13-2006, 01:18 PM
Has anybody on the board honestly looked not just at our runs scored total but the run distribution?

Yes. Count is the number of games that many runs have been scored, i.e. the Reds scored no runs in 8 games, the Cards 6, and the Braves 6.

Reds Cards Braves
RS RS RS
Total 820 805 769
Mean 5.03 4.97 4.75
St_dev 3.37 2.90 2.88
Avg-std 1.66 2.07 1.87
Avg+std 8.41 7.87 7.62
K 1303 947 1084

Distribution
Runs/G Count Count Count
0 8 6 6
1 13 14 13
2 23 15 16
3 23 14 21
4 15 27 29
5 13 24 25
6 18 18 15
7 15 14 10
8 7 12 8
9 10 5 10
10 3 4 2
11 10 7 3
12 2 1 2
13 1 0 1
14 1 0 0
15 0 1 0
16 0 0 1
17 1 0 0


A team with a lot of strikeouts and a lot of power will surely score a lot of runs over the course of the season. However, my guess is that we have a greater standard deviation than do most squads. The advantage of "smart/small ball" is that when you need to score just one run in a specific instance, it's frequently the best way to do it.

Yes, but if you score more that other teams, you are naturally going to have a larger standard deviation, because there is a larger range.


If you have a roster than is unable to manufacture that 1 run at the appropriate time then you are hurting yourself. Of course, if they ability to do that comes at the expense of the power/obp types generally speaking, then you're losing ground. Let's just hope they understand this means it's good to have a Dave Roberts ready to pinch run, rather than have a Tony Womack start everyday.

Steel, do you happen to have any links to articles which speak specifically to pythag. of teams with extreme tendencies? (ie. high K teams consistently under (or over) performing their pythag.) When you start to look at things in the aggregate you can often hide meaningful variation at the tails of the distribution by incorrectly assuming it's simply random chance variation.

One article you may be interested in is this one from BP that I mentioned in a different post, and I have found it now.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4125

traderumor
02-13-2006, 01:23 PM
Is there a point where really bad pitchers can make a defense look worse than it is? I'm really curious as to whether any of you think that's possible. I'm trying to put some numbers together from the splits I have available that I know of. Of course I know that a defense can and should make pitching look better or worse than what it really is, but is the inverse also a possibility. What I'm getting at is that the marginal pitching improvements that might come from upgrading the defense would not outweigh the loss of offensive production incurred by this action. I honestly don't know and am just trying to determine what others think/know.

The Reds devoted 690 innings to pitchers with negative VORP last year (led by Milton's -25 VORP for 186 innings). That seems to be telling to me. How much of an improvement could be expected to those types of numbers by upgrading the defense?

I'm not sure anyone is advocating that defense is the problem with the pitching. But defense is an area needing dramatic improvement that is not going to come from within.

Cyclone792
02-13-2006, 01:24 PM
Is there a point where really bad pitchers can make a defense look worse than it is? I'm really curious as to whether any of you think that's possible. I'm trying to put some numbers together from the splits I have available that I know of. Of course I know that a defense can and should make pitching look better or worse than what it really is, but is the inverse also a possibility. What I'm getting at is that the marginal pitching improvements that might come from upgrading the defense would not outweigh the loss of offensive production incurred by this action. I honestly don't know and am just trying to determine what others think/know.

The Reds devoted 690 innings to pitchers with negative VORP last year (led by Milton's -25 VORP for 186 innings). That seems to be telling to me. How much of an improvement could be expected to those types of numbers by upgrading the defense?

Player G GS IP H9 BB9 SO9 HR9 ERA RA RA+ VORP
Ramon Ortiz 30 30 171.3 10.82 2.68 5.04 1.79 5.36 5.78 0.79 -3.3
Ben Weber 10 0 12.3 14.59 6.57 5.84 0.00 8.03 8.03 0.57 -3.5
Ryan Wagner 42 0 45.7 11.04 3.35 7.69 0.79 6.11 6.50 0.70 -5.1
Ricky Stone 23 0 30.7 14.09 2.05 4.40 2.35 6.75 7.04 0.65 -5.3
Joe Valentine 16 0 14.3 11.30 6.91 5.65 2.51 8.16 9.42 0.49 -6.2
Chris Booker 3 0 2.0 27.00 18.00 9.00 9.00 31.50 36.00 0.13 -6.8
Danny Graves 20 0 18.3 14.73 5.89 3.93 1.96 7.36 8.84 0.52 -6.8
Elizardo Ramirez 6 4 22.3 13.30 4.03 3.63 2.01 8.46 8.87 0.52 -8.1
Luke Hudson 19 16 84.7 8.82 5.31 5.63 1.49 6.38 6.59 0.69 -9.4
Randy Keisler 24 4 56.0 10.29 4.50 6.91 1.61 6.27 7.23 0.63 -10.6
Paul Wilson 9 9 46.3 13.21 3.30 5.83 1.94 7.77 7.96 0.57 -12.2
Eric Milton 34 34 186.3 11.45 2.51 5.94 1.93 6.47 6.81 0.67 -25.0

I think it's certainly possible enough that it's worth looking into more in order to come up with some sort of relatively solidified conclusion. Two pieces of data that could assist the study are dERA and line drive percentage. I can post Reds pitchers dERA when I get home later on today if you'd like. Line drive percentage can be found at Fan Graphs (www.fangraphs.com).

Note: The league average for line drive percentage seems to hover just over the 20 percent clip so using a mark of 20.5 percent or 21 percent as league average should probably work.

ochre
02-13-2006, 01:28 PM
I'm not sure anyone is advocating that defense is the problem with the pitching. But defense is an area needing dramatic improvement that is not going to come from within.

I guess that ties into what I'm trying to say. The cost of improving the defense enough to make a significant impact on the atrocious pitching could very well be high enough to not make it worth it from an aggregate run totals perspective. That's where I was trying to apply the 80/20 rule. The first 80% is pretty easy to get cost-wise (not necessarily measured in dollars in this case it could be runs). The next 20% is exponentially more expensive. We already have an offense that is out in probably the 90th percentile. Taking away from that to gain marginal improvements in the bad pitching through upgrading the defense might not net the Reds a better RS/RA ratio.

bigredmachine1976
02-13-2006, 01:30 PM
So in that instance (runner on third) the ground out is better than the K, but over the course of a full season you're better off swinging harder and striking out more to hit more home runs?

I guess I understand your theory, still don't agree with it, hope you're ok with that. It's been fun discussing it anyhow.

Maybe that where the pitch to contact thing came from. O'Brien was afraid that if our picthers struck out to many guys the other team would score too many runs. Just kidding don't throw anything at me.

BRM
02-13-2006, 01:42 PM
When a runner scores from third on a groundout, it sometimes happens because the defense allowed it to happen. Meaning the out at first was more valuable at the time than the run scoring. Just something else to consider.

RedsManRick
02-13-2006, 02:12 PM
Yes. Count is the number of games that many runs have been scored, i.e. the Reds scored no runs in 8 games, the Cards 6, and the Braves 6.

Reds Cards Braves
RS RS RS
Total 820 805 769
Mean 5.03 4.97 4.75
St_dev 3.37 2.90 2.88
Avg-std 1.66 2.07 1.87
Avg+std 8.41 7.87 7.62
K 1303 947 1084

Distribution
Runs/G Count Count Count
0 8 6 6
1 13 14 13
2 23 15 16
3 23 14 21
4 15 27 29
5 13 24 25
6 18 18 15
7 15 14 10
8 7 12 8
9 10 5 10
10 3 4 2
11 10 7 3
12 2 1 2
13 1 0 1
14 1 0 0
15 0 1 0
16 0 0 1
17 1 0 0



Yes, but if you score more that other teams, you are naturally going to have a larger standard deviation, because there is a larger range.



One article you may be interested in is this one from BP that I mentioned in a different post, and I have found it now.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4125


Thanks for the numbers. For the sake of example, if we could assume that the opposing team scored 4.50 runs every single game those teams would have the following records:

Reds: 81-82 (odd....)
Cards: 86-76
Braves: 77-85

Obviously that's a ridculous assumption, but the point is that generally speaking, 3 games of 5 runs gives you a better winning percentage (3-0) than games of 10, 5, and 0 (2-1). There are all kinds of things wrong with this simple of an analysis, but you look at our run distribution you see that we score 2 or 3 runs more frequently than anything else and it tells you that our variation is not due solely to a larger tail on the right side, but because of a non-normal distribution across the board.

We score a lot of runs more often than most teams, but we also score fewer runs more often. We can conjecture about why this is, but I would posit that it has something to do with the inability to "manufacture" runs and that power, because it has a lower frequency of occurance generally speak, is more variant and thus prone to large spikes and valleys in any 1 game.

Generally speaking, you want power and obp over out-based run production. But a team that is overly reliant on power is prone to lose low scoring games and have a greater proportion of their runs be "extra". That is, power based run production creates a run distribution that is not optimal. If you could score equal amounts of runs with a small ball approach, you would want to. However, because you simply cannot do so, you need a balance (this does NOT mean 50/50 or even 80/20) in order to maximize your wins.

It would be interesting to pair this table with the runs allowed distribution and make some observations about that... How do you design a pitching staff that makes the "best" use of runs allowed?

BCubb2003
02-13-2006, 02:39 PM
What worries me about small ball is that you can work real hard to get one runner around the bases, then all that work will be wiped out in the bottom of the inning by your bad pitcher who gives up three or four runs. Most teams that are built around small ball have lights-out pitching and they resorted to small ball because they didn't have any real offense. It sounds like most people here agree that a well-rounded lineup is good, and you might need some small-ball guys especially from the bench. If you have a league-leading offense and bad pitching, and you can't make the moves right away to upgrade your pitching, then the answer is not to turn your league-leading offense into a lineup of half-hearted bunters.

ochre
02-13-2006, 02:48 PM
What worries me about small ball is that you can work real hard to get one runner around the bases, then all that work will be wiped out in the bottom of the inning by your bad pitcher who gives up three or four runs. Most teams that are built around small ball have lights-out pitching and they resorted to small ball because they didn't have any real offense. It sounds like most people here agree that a well-rounded lineup is good, and you might need some small-ball guys especially from the bench. If you have a league-leading offense and bad pitching, and you can't make the moves right away to upgrade your pitching, then the answer is not to turn your league-leading offense into a lineup of half-hearted bunters.
I wholeheartedly agree. Small ball is only viable if the pitching component is already there at well above league average performance levels.

osuceltic
02-13-2006, 02:52 PM
Yes. Count is the number of games that many runs have been scored, i.e. the Reds scored no runs in 8 games, the Cards 6, and the Braves 6.

Reds Cards Braves
RS RS RS
Total 820 805 769
Mean 5.03 4.97 4.75
St_dev 3.37 2.90 2.88
Avg-std 1.66 2.07 1.87
Avg+std 8.41 7.87 7.62
K 1303 947 1084

Distribution
Runs/G Count Count Count
0 8 6 6
1 13 14 13
2 23 15 16
3 23 14 21
4 15 27 29
5 13 24 25
6 18 18 15
7 15 14 10
8 7 12 8
9 10 5 10
10 3 4 2
11 10 7 3
12 2 1 2
13 1 0 1
14 1 0 0
15 0 1 0
16 0 0 1
17 1 0 0



Yes, but if you score more that other teams, you are naturally going to have a larger standard deviation, because there is a larger range.



One article you may be interested in is this one from BP that I mentioned in a different post, and I have found it now.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4125

Thank you. I've been looking for this kind of information for a while, and it confirms exactly what I expected. The Reds scored three runs or fewer 67 times. The Braves did it 56 times, the Cards 49 times. Meanwhile, the Reds scored 9 or more runs 28 times. The Braves did that 19 times. The Cards did it 18 times.

What does this mean? It means the Reds had a pretty strong element of feast or famine to them. Yes, they scored a large total number of runs. But how useful were those runs in the 28 occasions where they scored 9 or more? They certainly add to the runs total, but all those extra runs didn't really help the winning percentage.

Meanwhile, when they weren't clubbing three-run homers, they weren't scoring many runs. With their pitching staff, how many times can they win while scoring 3 runs or less? And yet they did that 67 times. Wouldn't you say the offense was a bit of a problem in those 67 games?

The Reds scored a lot of runs, but did it very inconsistently. Baseball isn't about scoring the most runs over the course of the season. It's about scoring more runs than the other team in a given game. The Reds had a problem doing that, and it wasn't just because the pitching stunk. You have to be able to manufacture runs when you're not getting the three-run homers.

Now ... clearly, you need the mashers. No one is saying you don't. But you have to be able to do the other things, too. When you're trailing 4-3 late in a game, you have to be able to get a run. However you do it. Sometimes that means not swinging as hard as you can in order to try to hit a home run. Sometimes that means punching the ball to the right side to score a runner from third, or advance a runner from second. It's called good baseball -- not "smallball."

It really is all about balance. Balance between power and contact. Balance between offense and pitching. Balance between offense and defense. The Reds are far too one-dimensional -- power. They can't manufacture runs, can't pitch, can't play defense. Krivsky has a ton of work to do.

M2
02-13-2006, 02:56 PM
osu, pretty arbitrary spot to pick three runs. In the modern game you need to average better than four if you want to win much. Take that slice and you get the figures RedsManRick listed, with the Reds falling between the Cardinals and Braves.

I believe at one point this winter someone on this board showed that, outside of the Cardinals, the Reds actually had the most consistent offense in the NL for scoring 5+ runs last year.

ochre
02-13-2006, 02:59 PM
It really is all about balance. Balance between power and contact. Balance between offense and pitching. Balance between offense and defense. The Reds are far too one-dimensional -- power. They can't manufacture runs, can't pitch, can't play defense. Krivsky has a ton of work to do.
and almost none of that work has anything to do with the offense.

2005 Reds. 690 innings of pitching put forth by pitchers that performed below replacement value.

osuceltic
02-13-2006, 03:04 PM
and almost none of that work has anything to do with the offense.

2005 Reds. 690 innings of pitching put forth by pitchers that performed below replacement value.

So you think a team that scored 3 or fewer runs 67 times last season doesn't have at least SOME issues offensively?

RedsManRick
02-13-2006, 03:06 PM
Thank you. I've been looking for this kind of information for a while, and it confirms exactly what I expected. The Reds scored three runs or fewer 67 times. The Braves did it 56 times, the Cards 49 times. Meanwhile, the Reds scored 9 or more runs 28 times. The Braves did that 19 times. The Cards did it 18 times.

What does this mean? It means the Reds had a pretty strong element of feast or famine to them. Yes, they scored a large total number of runs. But how useful were those runs in the 28 occasions where they scored 9 or more? They certainly add to the runs total, but all those extra runs didn't really help the winning percentage.

Meanwhile, when they weren't clubbing three-run homers, they weren't scoring many runs. With their pitching staff, how many times can they win while scoring 3 runs or less? And yet they did that 67 times. Wouldn't you say the offense was a bit of a problem in those 67 games?

The Reds scored a lot of runs, but did it very inconsistently. Baseball isn't about scoring the most runs over the course of the season. It's about scoring more runs than the other team in a given game. The Reds had a problem doing that, and it wasn't just because the pitching stunk. You have to be able to manufacture runs when you're not getting the three-run homers.

Now ... clearly, you need the mashers. No one is saying you don't. But you have to be able to do the other things, too. When you're trailing 4-3 late in a game, you have to be able to get a run. However you do it. Sometimes that means not swinging as hard as you can in order to try to hit a home run. Sometimes that means punching the ball to the right side to score a runner from third, or advance a runner from second. It's called good baseball -- not "smallball."

It really is all about balance. Balance between power and contact. Balance between offense and pitching. Balance between offense and defense. The Reds are far too one-dimensional -- power. They can't manufacture runs, can't pitch, can't play defense. Krivsky has a ton of work to do.


This is great and you seem to be agreeing with me. I think we run in to problems when GM's managers mis-use this arguement as justification for sitting a Wily Mo Pena for a Tony Womack. The basic premise of a more normal run distribution is correct, but too often it seems that the defenders of small ball underestimate the impact the their small has on the avg runs/game. If you can score 4.7 or 4.8 runs a game and keep a normal distribution that's probably the best of both worlds. But too often we see managers small-balling their way to 4 runs a game, every game, and at the end of the day, 5 runs on average, even with a skewed distribution because of a reliance on power, produces more wins.

A good read on the topic (it may have been posted already):
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/runs-per-game/

flyer85
02-13-2006, 03:07 PM
Basically the Cards and Reds were similar.

scored 4 or less
Reds 82 Cards 76

What would be most interesting is to see what the records were for each team in the games when they scored 4 or less. Did the Cards win more games when they scored less than 4?

The Reds problems are pitching and defense related. Worrying about the offense is an exercise in futility.

The problem the Reds have was with the state of their pitching even attempting to play small ball is stupid. I am pretty sure they needed to score at least 5 runs to be competetive in a game. The Reds were in a bunch of games where there was no reason to play for one run late in a game. Until the pitching improves it is all moot.

ochre
02-13-2006, 03:11 PM
So you think a team that scored 3 or fewer runs 67 times last season doesn't have at least SOME issues offensively?
not when contrasted with the number of runs the pitching gave up.

RedsManRick
02-13-2006, 03:23 PM
Basically the Cards and Reds were similar.

scored 4 or less
Reds 82 Cards 76

What would be most interesting is to see what the records were for each team in the games when they scored 4 or less. Did the Cards win more games when they scored less than 4?

The Reds problems are pitching and defense related. Worrying about the offense is an exercise in futility.

The problem the Reds have was with the state of their pitching even attempting to play small ball is stupid. I am pretty sure they needed to score at least 5 runs to be competetive in a game. The Reds were in a bunch of games where there was no reason to play for one run late in a game. Until the pitching improves it is all moot.


I'm not sure anybody is saying that the Reds should be worrying about their offensive composition ahead of pitching; that obviously needs to be the #1, 2, and 3 priorities right now. That doesn't mean it's not a place that can be improved.

Along those lines, the idea of improving defense as part of the pitching discussion doesn't make much sense. Any defensive change would have much greater OFFENSIVE effects than pitching effects. Long term, this is a fundamental issue of roster construction and player types. Our power/obp makeup is linked with our poor defense in part because of the types of players who tend to fit those categories. Long term, replacing Junior with a great defensive contact/obp CF (Juan Pierre type) and finding a similar guy for 2B would seem to be a good balance of our issues. But nothing along these lines is likely to happen this year nor should it if it any any way detracts from fixing our pitching.

bigredmachine1976
02-13-2006, 03:25 PM
The problem the Reds have was with the state of their pitching even attempting to play small ball is stupid. I am pretty sure they needed to score at least 5 runs to be competetive in a game. The Reds were in a bunch of games where there was no reason to play for one run late in a game. Until the pitching improves it is all moot.

Now that I can agree with.

Chip R
02-13-2006, 03:32 PM
Yes. Count is the number of games that many runs have been scored, i.e. the Reds scored no runs in 8 games, the Cards 6, and the Braves 6.

Reds Cards Braves
RS RS RS


Distribution
Runs/G Count Count Count
0 8 6 6
1 13 14 13
2 23 15 16
3 23 14 21
4 15 27 29
5 13 24 25
6 18 18 15
7 15 14 10
8 7 12 8
9 10 5 10
10 3 4 2
11 10 7 3
12 2 1 2
13 1 0 1
14 1 0 0
15 0 1 0
16 0 0 1
17 1 0 0


Can we turn this around and show the distribution of runs these teams gave up?

Red Thunder
02-13-2006, 03:33 PM
Strikeouts do matter and there is a corelation to runs scored (see example below).

Example:
Player on third with no out.

If the next batter(s) strike out, no run will score.

Otherwise the first batter might even hit into a double play to score a run. And a ground out or fly out might still get the job done with one out. With a strikeout there is a zero chance that the runner on third scores.

In late innings of tie games, this can be a key factor.

rdiersin
02-13-2006, 03:36 PM
Can we turn this around and show the distribution of runs these teams gave up?


Yea, I was going to put this on before but didn't.


Reds Cards Braves
RA RA RA
Total 889 634 674
Mean 5.45 3.91 4.16
St_dev 3.16 2.83 2.99
Avg-std 2.30 1.08 1.17
Avg+std 8.61 6.75 7.15

Runs/G Count Count Count
0 1 14 12
1 11 21 23
2 20 24 22
3 18 24 18
4 24 18 23
5 18 19 17
6 19 14 14
7 13 10 8
8 6 5 11
9 11 6 3
10 9 2 3
11 4 3 5
12 6 1 3
13 2 1 0
14 1 0 0
15 0 0 0
16 0 0 0
17 0 0 0

RFS62
02-13-2006, 03:39 PM
Again, your offense should maximize the skills of your personnel.

If none of your guys are contact hitters and can't bunt, smallball is not going to work. If none of your guys are mashers, you can't play for the three run homer.

Maximize the skill set of your players to get the most out of your offense.

ochre
02-13-2006, 03:42 PM
Again, your offense should maximize the skills of your personnel.

If none of your guys are contact hitters and can't bunt, smallball is not going to work. If none of your guys are mashers, you can't play for the three run homer.

Maximize the skill set of your players to get the most out of your offense.
Smallball's not going to work period when your pitching gives up, on average, 5.45 runs per game.

Doc. Scott
02-13-2006, 03:44 PM
I still think this comes down to balance.

All things being equal, if you have 2 players:

Player A: .324 .381 .534
Player B: .266 .388 .569

does it matter if you have 9 of A or 9 of B?

Now some would say, I'll take 9 of B, but because of the SLG difference. The OBP's are close enough to make it a wash.

But I'll take player A. Player A is making the defense behind the pitcher work more. The other side is player B is likely making the pitcher throw more pitches, and I see the benefit there too.

Overall, I prefer hits to walks. If a guy like Dunn trades walks for hits, I'm ok with that as long as he doesn't change his approach. If he trades strikeouts for hits, He's Barry Bonds. Because if that happens, He'll walk 150+ times a year.

So you personally prefer Player A. That's fine. I like watching hits more than walks as well.

But Player B is, all other things being equal, a better offensive player than Player A. Beyond that, you're talking about what you like as a baseball fan or coach or player or whatever.

gm
02-13-2006, 03:47 PM
When you're trailing 4-3 late in a game, you have to be able to get a run. However you do it. Sometimes that means not swinging as hard as you can in order to try to hit a home run. Sometimes that means punching the ball to the right side to score a runner from third, or advance a runner from second. It's called good baseball -- not "smallball."

It's called situational hitting. If a batter is approaching an AB in a late/close game situ with a runner on 3rd and less than 2 outs the same way as if he's in a bases-empty situ earlier in the game...he's hurting his team's chances of winning

Opposing pitchers have remarked that they'd rather face Dunn than Casey in the close/late situ...why? Because they knew if they made the "right" pitch to Adam they could get a whiff. But Sean would foul that same pitch off

Sometimes contact matters

M2
02-13-2006, 03:57 PM
Again, your offense should maximize the skills of your personnel.

If none of your guys are contact hitters and can't bunt, smallball is not going to work. If none of your guys are mashers, you can't play for the three run homer.

Maximize the skill set of your players to get the most out of your offense.

Well, that's just right on the mark, isn't it?


So you think a team that scored 3 or fewer runs 67 times last season doesn't have at least SOME issues offensively?

Every team has SOME issues offensively. Even when you lead the league in scoring there's room for improvement. Though it's not something the Reds can afford to worry about at the moment ... and even in the subset of ways to make the offense better, shifting the outs from Ks to something involving contact shouldn't register. For the reasons RFS just listed, it gets a giant "who cares" from me.

Matt700wlw
02-13-2006, 03:58 PM
There are too many strikeouts in the lineup. An individual player striking out a lot is not the same as a team that strikes out a lot.

There are too many strikeouts in the lineup...even if most of them are by a couple people.

flyer85
02-13-2006, 03:59 PM
Opposing pitchers have remarked that they'd rather face Dunn than Casey in the close/late situ...why? all depends on the situation. Runner on second or third they would rather face Dunn, runner on first or bases empty they would rather face Casey.

TRF
02-13-2006, 04:01 PM
So you personally prefer Player A. That's fine. I like watching hits more than walks as well.

But Player B is, all other things being equal, a better offensive player than Player A. Beyond that, you're talking about what you like as a baseball fan or coach or player or whatever.

No I'm not. IMO Player A causes the defense to work more. And that can lead to things happening. And because the two player are so close to each other in both OBP and SLG, to me those extra hits (around 40) mean alot.

Basically, What it means is simple. Adam Dunn trades K's for Hits, without negatively affecting his walk rate, then he is Albert Pujols.

If Casey, when healthy, had Dunn's power, he'd be Albert Pujols.

Anyone wanna tell me having Pujols is a bad thing.

rdiersin
02-13-2006, 04:03 PM
No I'm not. IMO Player A causes the defense to work more. And that can lead to things happening. And because the two player are so close to each other in both OBP and SLG, to me those extra hits (around 40) mean alot.

Basically, What it means is simple. Adam Dunn trades K's for Hits, without negatively affecting his walk rate, then he is Albert Pujols.

If Casey, when healthy, had Dunn's power, he'd be Albert Pujols.

Anyone wanna tell me having Pujols is a bad thing.

Conversley, the player that walks more, more often makes the pitcher throw more pitches, thereby wearing him down. Sure seems like its 6 one way, half dozen another

M2
02-13-2006, 04:08 PM
Opposing pitchers have remarked that they'd rather face Dunn than Casey in the close/late situ...why? Because they knew if they made the "right" pitch to Adam they could get a whiff. But Sean would foul that same pitch off

Sometimes contact matters

Yep, and that's why they treat the strikezone like it's the Black Hole of Calcutta when Dunn steps to the plate in key situations ... because they don't fear him all. They can say whatever they like, but what they do belies it. Anyone who'd like to carve up the numbers on Dunn vs. Casey with runners on, RISP, RISP w/ 2 outs and close/late over the past five years is welcome to do it. I can tell you right now it turns into a landslide for Dunn.

red-in-la
02-13-2006, 04:09 PM
I saw a atricle last year and there litle correlation between Ks and runs scored. WHat it did show was high K teams scored more runs than low K teams.

Worrying about too many Ks is the least of the Reds problems. I would be worrying about the lack of pitching and poor defense if I was the GM.

I am sure there are plenty of GM's out there willing to trade a ton of Ryan Freels for WMP and Adam Dunn.

The only one I have always been all over for his K's is LaRue. The guy strikes out 100 times year after year so that he can hit 14 HR's? I don't get it. Somebody needs to point out to LaRue that he is a punch-and-judy hitter and he needs a really SHORT swing.

But to worry about the strike outs of a couple of guys who are probably going to deliver 70 plus HR's between the is ridiculous.....period.

ochre
02-13-2006, 04:12 PM
Yep, and that's why they treat the strikezone like it's the Black Hole of Calcutta when Dunn steps to the plate in key situations ... because they don't fear him all. They can say whatever they like, but what they do belies it. Anyone who'd like to carve up the numbers on Dunn vs. Casey with runners on, RISP, RISP w/ 2 outs and close/late over the past five years is welcome to do it. I can tell you right now it turns into a landslide for Dunn.
I think Steel has Dunn's "late and close" numbers on his rolodex.

TRF
02-13-2006, 04:12 PM
Does that matter when facing a strikeout pitcher?

I realize that this isn't an all that frequent occurrance anymore, but the reds don't fare too well against K pitchers like Oswalt. Pedro dominated the reds on opening day, his bullpen let him down.

I'm not on the strikeouts are bad wagon. but anyone that doesn't think the reds had a balanced offense last year is focusing on Dunn to an extreme. Casey was and is as hard to K as any player in baseball. That balance is what allowed the reds to score a ton of runs. Otherwise, someone would have put all high SLG, high OBP guys at every position, and even the Yankees with all their money haven't managed that.

It's about being more than one dimensional. not small ball or K's. there is a balance that allows the .280 hitter to excel and be valuable. If Pokey Reese could have OBP'd .350-.360, with his defense, he could have been considered a candidate for the Hall of Fame.

Balance.

TRF
02-13-2006, 04:14 PM
Yep, and that's why they treat the strikezone like it's the Black Hole of Calcutta when Dunn steps to the plate in key situations ... because they don't fear him all. They can say whatever they like, but what they do belies it. Anyone who'd like to carve up the numbers on Dunn vs. Casey with runners on, RISP, RISP w/ 2 outs and close/late over the past five years is welcome to do it. I can tell you right now it turns into a landslide for Dunn.

Health had a lot to do with that.

Compare Dunn to Pujols, that's a better comp.

flyer85
02-13-2006, 04:18 PM
Pedro dominated the reds on opening dayexcept for the three run HR Dunn hit off of him.

CincyRedsFan30
02-13-2006, 04:20 PM
You know, you realize how good Dunn and the rest of the offense is when their negative comparisons involve the performance of Albert Pujols.

deltachi8
02-13-2006, 04:24 PM
I'm a guy that sometimes believes the old way is the best way. Not that we don't use computers and the new technology."


just something else i found interesting in the interview...

now back to your strik out debate (which never really gets dull for me at least)

TRF
02-13-2006, 04:31 PM
except for the three run HR Dunn hit off of him.

you just made my point for me. Except for that first inning Pedro dominated the Reds that day. He gave up 3 runs in 6 innings, while striking out 12. had his bullpen not let him down he'd have won that game easily. Had Looper not been atrocious, the Mets win that game 6-4.

That's what a strikeout pitcher does for a team, he removes any uncertainty about balls in play, because he doesn't allow balls in play. And a team that is prone to strikeouts is easy pickings for pitchers like that.

flyer85
02-13-2006, 04:31 PM
... Wayne calculates the odds furiously on his slide rule ...

:help:

RFS62
02-13-2006, 04:32 PM
I'm a guy that sometimes believes the old way is the best way. Not that we don't use computers and the new technology."



just something else i found interesting in the interview...




I just don't believe you're going to see many, if any, scouts or baseball men with a scouting background who will ever say he values computers (short for sabermetrics) over his subjective judgment.

The most you're going to get is admitting that he uses statistical analysis extensively, but still relies on subjective judgment.

You're not going to see many guys say that you can tell from stats that a 20 year old guy in an aluminum bat league hitting against 85 mph fastballs 3 games a week is projectable.

It takes more than that. It takes someone who knows what he's looking at to make the call. The stats are important, but the lower the level of play you're projecting, the less weight they should get.

TRF
02-13-2006, 04:33 PM
You know, you realize how good Dunn and the rest of the offense is when their negative comparisons involve the performance of Albert Pujols.

I'm not making a negative comparison. I've been a Dunn backer for a long time. But I think he can be better, and if he trades K's for hits without affecting his walk rate, then he becomes Barry Bonds elite.

flyer85
02-13-2006, 04:33 PM
That's what a strikeout pitcher does for a team, he removes any uncertainty about balls in play, because he doesn't allow balls in play. And a team that is prone to strikeouts is easy pickings for pitchers like that.and a team without power is even more susceptible. The Reds got three with one swing of the bat, it took just one mistake, not an entire series of them.

Don't be deceived, must hits(HRs or otherwise) are off of mistake pitches. That is why there are really good pitches like Martinez, they have great stuff and are prone to few mistakes.

TRF
02-13-2006, 04:37 PM
funny game baseball. The Mets had as many HR's that day as the Reds did, but the Reds had to have a little help from the complete implosion of Looper.

BRM
02-13-2006, 04:37 PM
you just made my point for me. Except for that first inning Pedro dominated the Reds that day. He gave up 3 runs in 6 innings, while striking out 12. had his bullpen not let him down he'd have won that game easily. Had Looper not been atrocious, the Mets win that game 6-4.

That's what a strikeout pitcher does for a team, he removes any uncertainty about balls in play, because he doesn't allow balls in play. And a team that is prone to strikeouts is easy pickings for pitchers like that.

Pedro dominated his share of non strikeout prone teams last year as well. The Marlins only struck out 918 teams last year, only the Giants struck out fewer times in the NL. Pedro went 2-1 with a 1.67 ERA in four starts against them. Pitchers like Pedro and Oswalt tend to dominate everyone, not just teams like the Reds.

TRF
02-13-2006, 04:38 PM
Pedro dominated his share of non strikeout prone teams last year as well. The Marlins only struck out 918 teams last year, only the Giants struck out fewer times. Pedro went 2-1 with a 1.67 ERA in four starts against them. Pitchers like Pedro and Oswalt tend to dominate everyone, not just teams like the Reds.

True but the Reds had a lot of balance last year as an offense that I don't think they have going into this year.

flyer85
02-13-2006, 04:40 PM
True but the Reds had a lot of balance last year as an offense that I don't think they have going into this year.all because they lost Sean Casey?

BRM
02-13-2006, 04:40 PM
True but the Reds had a lot of balance last year as an offense that I don't think they have going into this year.

I can agree with that I suppose. Casey and Randa did provide the Reds with a couple of "bat on ball" hitters to mix in with mashers.

flyer85
02-13-2006, 04:41 PM
I can agree with that I suppose. Casey and Randa did provide the Reds with a couple of "bat on ball" hitters to mix in with mashers.What about all the speed they gain by having EE and WMP in the lineup instead of slow and slower?

IslandRed
02-13-2006, 04:45 PM
As a rule, I'm on board with the "strikeout is just another out" principle. Yes, whiffs are just a byproduct of power, of which we have considerable. Yes, it makes little difference in the macro sense.

But not all K-prone players are equal.

Exhibit A: I have no problem with Adam Dunn's strikeouts. He swings hard but he's selective. His approach is fine and he generally has good at-bats. He strikes out a lot, but for the power production and high on-base percentage, it's well worth the price.

Exhibit B: Wily Mo Pena, on the other hand, is a guy being held back by his propensity for whiffing. Not only does he strike out at an extreme rate, he doesn't draw many walks to offset the Ks. Too many of his Ks are just bad at-bats. He's never going to realize his full power potential as long as all of MLB knows they don't need to come over the plate to get him out. If you're a legendary bad-ball hitter like Vladimir Guerrero, you can get away with that. Pena isn't.

With WMP and perhaps a few others, when I think to myself "they strike out too much," it isn't because I'd rather they ground out instead. It's because I wish they'd tune up their strike-zone judgment, which would result in higher OBPs.

BRM
02-13-2006, 04:45 PM
What about all the speed they gain by having EE and WMP in the lineup instead of slow and slower?

I like the new lineup personally. I was just trying to say I can see where TRF was coming from with his "balanced offense" comment.

flyer85
02-13-2006, 04:50 PM
I like the new lineup personally. I was just trying to say I can see where TRF was coming from with his "balanced offense" comment.doesn't adding a more speed help balance the lineup and manufacture runs? I was simple pointing out there are two sides to the situation. :devil:

RFS62
02-13-2006, 04:52 PM
As a rule, I'm on board with the "strikeout is just another out" principle. Yes, whiffs are just a byproduct of power, of which we have considerable. Yes, it makes little difference in the macro sense.

But not all K-prone players are equal.

Exhibit A: I have no problem with Adam Dunn's strikeouts. He swings hard but he's selective. His approach is fine and he generally has good at-bats. He strikes out a lot, but for the power production and high on-base percentage, it's well worth the price.

Exhibit B: Wily Mo Pena, on the other hand, is a guy being held back by his propensity for whiffing. Not only does he strike out at an extreme rate, he doesn't draw many walks to offset the Ks. Too many of his Ks are just bad at-bats. He's never going to realize his full power potential as long as all of MLB knows they don't need to come over the plate to get him out. If you're a legendary bad-ball hitter like Vladimir Guerrero, you can get away with that. Pena isn't.

With WMP and perhaps a few others, when I think to myself "they strike out too much," it isn't because I'd rather they ground out instead. It's because I wish they'd tune up their strike-zone judgment, which would result in higher OBPs.



Outstanding post.

:beerme:

M2
02-13-2006, 05:05 PM
Health had a lot to do with that.

Compare Dunn to Pujols, that's a better comp.

Everyone save Barry Bonds pales in comparison to Albert Pujols. He's not a comp for anyone. The guy's unreal.

TeamBoone
02-13-2006, 05:18 PM
The fact that the Reds led the league does not mean that there's no room for improvement. He thinks they strike out too much, it's a valid opinion.

True, but it certainly shouldn't be a priority. It doesn't hurt the team much, so why not prioritize the stuff that does.

MWM
02-13-2006, 05:28 PM
If the "making the defense work" argument was significant determinant of runs scored, it would show up in data, because it would show some correlation to runs scored - even if it's small. And do people realize that the overall major league fielding percentage is something like 97%. That means the "putting the ball in play hoping something good will happen"argument is based on somethig good happening 3 times every 100 ABs, and also hoping that this good thing happening happened in a situation where a run could be generated. And if the standard deviation argument was significant, pythagorus wouldn't work.

Almost ALL statistical arguments are limited in what they tell you because so many factors can't be quanitified and it's hard to correlate some things to runs scored or runs allowed. It's rare where the data is simple and fairly cut and dry. The strikeout argument is one of the few exceptions. In a statistical sense, it's as simple a question as there is, whether it's baseball, business, or any thing else where statistics are employed to help answer questions. There's a simple hypothesis: high levels of strikeouts lead to less runs scored. From my standpoint, it really is that simple. And because it's such a simple question and the data is readily available, you can easily answer the question. And the answer is a resounding no. If all of these other factors came into play in a significant manner, it would have to show a correlation. Bu ZERO correlation exists as far as what I've read.

And all of the other hypotheses are invalidated because pythagorus is so accurate. It wouldn't work if the "when" or "situational" runs were a significant determining factor.

I can only think of one other explanation. If there's a level of strikeouts that's so high that it DOES affect a team's ability to score runs, those teams are so rare that they don't skew the data enough to show a correlation. If that's the case, then there's no way to validate which team falls into this category. If all of these theories people are espousing are a factor in runs scored, teams that are influenced significantly by these factors are exceptions. That's the only explanation for the lack of correlation and for the consistency of pythagorus.

Understand, that if you're a believer in the negative impact of strikeouts, you're doing so based on intuition and faith, not based on evidence. That's perfectly fine, because baseball isn't completley understood through numbers. Just realize that it's a faith based argument, not a data driven one.

ochre
02-13-2006, 05:45 PM
Pointing out Wily Mo strikes out too much is no different than pointing out that Tony Womack grounds out too much. They both, at this stage of their careers, one waxing, one waining, make too many outs, regardless of how those outs are made. Of course Pena's slg to some degree makes up for the amount of outs he makes.

reds44
02-13-2006, 05:58 PM
There are too many strikeouts in the lineup. An individual player striking out a lot is not the same as a team that strikes out a lot.
Krivsky comments just keep leading me to believe that Dunn,AK,WMP, or Junior will be delt.

KronoRed
02-13-2006, 06:38 PM
If he hates K's that much maybe we can get Pitt to take Dunn for Casey ;)

SteelSD
02-13-2006, 06:52 PM
osu, pretty arbitrary spot to pick three runs. In the modern game you need to average better than four if you want to win much. Take that slice and you get the figures RedsManRick listed, with the Reds falling between the Cardinals and Braves.

I believe at one point this winter someone on this board showed that, outside of the Cardinals, the Reds actually had the most consistent offense in the NL for scoring 5+ runs last year.

Yeah. That was me.

There was nothing wrong with the Reds offensive Run distribution pattern in 2005 that a good pitching staff wouldn't fix.

lollipopcurve
02-13-2006, 07:53 PM
that a good pitching staff wouldn't fix.

But offense must be sacrificed, and probably painfully, for the pitching staff to get good.

flyer85
02-13-2006, 07:57 PM
But offense must be sacrificed, and probably painfully, for the pitching staff to get good.probably not. The Reds don't have a lot of trading chips, certainly not anywhere near enough to fix the pitching while remaining a quality offensive team. There are left with little choice other than develop some of their own pitching.

ochre
02-13-2006, 08:02 PM
probably not. The Reds don't have a lot of trading chips, certainly not anywhere near enough to fix the pitching while remaining a quality offensive team. There are left with little choice other than develop some of their own pitching.
That's kind of my take on it too. Won't do much good to move the real commodities right now. The effect would be to shift the run totals with out changing the overall differential.

Keep in mind, until Berkman came back from his injury last season the Astros were the Bizarro-Reds. Nearly the same records up until the too.

Raisor
02-13-2006, 08:36 PM
Sweet fancy Moses! A strikeouts argument thread and nobody texted me at work. I could have gotten "sick" and come home to get in on this.

Doc. Scott
02-13-2006, 08:41 PM
No I'm not. IMO Player A causes the defense to work more. And that can lead to things happening. And because the two player are so close to each other in both OBP and SLG, to me those extra hits (around 40) mean alot.

Basically, What it means is simple. Adam Dunn trades K's for Hits, without negatively affecting his walk rate, then he is Albert Pujols.

If Casey, when healthy, had Dunn's power, he'd be Albert Pujols.

Anyone wanna tell me having Pujols is a bad thing.

A) Quantify "the defense working more" or "more things happening". (I think Steel said this already, oops.)

B) "To me those extra hits..." ... right. My point exactly. To you. Not to the data.

Look, strikeouts are a divisive thing because they can be painful to watch on a game-to-game or inning-by-inning anecdotal basis. But you have to look at the big picture, which is that they don't affect runs. I think one of the fundamental reasons why we have these micro vs. macro arguments on this forum time and time and time again is because it's seemingly always fluid as to what arena we're working in. Some of us are always in one and some of us are always in the other.

And some, like me, just change hats depending on whether we're sitting in a bar watching Adam Dunn bat with two on and two out or in front of the PC playing Out of the Park Baseball.

gm
02-13-2006, 08:43 PM
It sounds like most people here agree that a well-rounded lineup is good, and you might need some small-ball guys especially from the bench.

Contact hitters coming off the bench makes sense to me. Pinch hitters will usually face the opponent’s toughest strikeout pitchers (closers, etc.) Let’s say you had Pena/LaRue/Encarnacion coming up against Lidge in the 9th. Unless Brad makes a fat mistake pitch it’s “lights out, game over, thanks for playing, drive home safely, etc.” But if you mix in a patient/contact hitter like Hatteberg you’ve got a shot at a baserunner, Lidge pitching out of the stretch, organ music and high drama. So start the mashers and give them the majority of the ABs, but when the game is on the line, insert the contact hitters.

Raisor
02-13-2006, 08:48 PM
Yeah. That was me.

There was nothing wrong with the Reds offensive Run distribution pattern in 2005 that a good pitching staff wouldn't fix.


Yep,
They scored 5 runs or more more then anyone else in the NL, except STL (by a couple) and the Phils (both teams 81) and they scored four or less runs less then any NL team (aside from the Cards and Phils again, and by about the same margins).

Me, I'm hoping they K even more in 2006, and score more runs. Makes people crazy, which I enjoy watching.

westofyou
02-13-2006, 08:55 PM
Me, I'm hoping they K even more in 2006, and score more runs. Makes people crazy, which I enjoy watching.
What if they K like 2004 and score less runs, will you enjoy that too?

ochre
02-13-2006, 09:03 PM
What if they K like 2004 and score less runs, will you enjoy that too?
Sure as long as they give up less than 5 runs a game.

Spitball
02-13-2006, 09:28 PM
If a batter digs himself into a two strike hole and then strikes out by waving at a ball out of the strike zone, that's a b-a-a-d out. Batters who work themselves into holes that give the pitchers the advantage are making bad outs, be they K's or otherwise. That said, I haven't seen too many batters whiff in good at bats.

RFS62
02-13-2006, 09:34 PM
If a batter digs himself into a two strike hole and then strikes out by waving at a ball out of the strike zone, that's a b-a-a-d out. Batters who work themselves into holes that give the pitchers the advantage are making bad outs, be they K's or otherwise. That said, I haven't seen too many batters whiff in good at bats.


Yeah, "professional at bats" got to be a dirty word since Bob Boone used the phrase so much.

But I've seen K's in very good at bats. A hitter fouls off tough pitch after tough pitch and finally gets beat with a good pitch, I can easily live with that.

But when you put yourself in a hole immediately swinging at junk, a la Wily Mo a couple of years ago, that's not a professional at bat. That's a quick ticket to selling cars for a living.

"Professional at bat" and "squaring up" are two phrases that pros use a lot, and are the way they judge their efforts.

As counterintuitive as it may sound, a real hitter would rather square it up and make an out than dribble one through the infield sometimes. You don't take it hard when you square it up. You always want to help the team win, but you also judge yourself and your performance and you know when you got lucky and you know when you hit it hard and got unlucky. And you know when you were overmatched and didn't have a professional at bat.

M2
02-13-2006, 09:38 PM
LaRue Ks a lot, but, IMO, he's been the team's best good AB guy the past two years.

membengal
02-13-2006, 10:15 PM
I heard the Krivsky interview on replay about an hour ago on 175. I was surprised at how long the interview was, a good solid 15 minutes. To echo a few others in here, I heard his comments as him being very VERY open to dealing Wily Mo. Which will make me sad, as I am a Wily Mo supporter, but if it gets this team pitching (or gets Eric Milton off this team), then that is the price to pay.

He mentioned the Hatteberg, Perez and Gosling signings as simply being there to give Narron "more to choose from" in the spring, and it clearly sounded like they were envisioned simply as bench filler at best. No surprise with Perez, but given the hand-wringing in here over Hatteberg, perhaps that will soothe a person or two. He said that there is only so much that can be done now, but they will keep their ears open into the spring and, of course, into the season.

he was indeed quick to praise holdovers in the front office, although I heard that be more of a politic thing to say. He is working with them for now, no need to burn those bridges before you have to kind of thing.

Actually, a fairly interesting interview.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled strikeout/ground out discussion. By the way, I have come to understand that each are outs.

TeamBoone
02-13-2006, 10:18 PM
I know this probably doesn't amount to a hill of beans to anyone, but a whole lot of Adam Dunn's strike outs (looking) can be attributed to the plate umpires who shrink his h-u-g-e strikezone.

Spitball
02-13-2006, 11:39 PM
Yeah, "professional at bats" got to be a dirty word since Bob Boone used the phrase so much.

But I've seen K's in very good at bats. A hitter fouls off tough pitch after tough pitch and finally gets beat with a good pitch, I can easily live with that.

But when you put yourself in a hole immediately swinging at junk, a la Wily Mo a couple of years ago, that's not a professional at bat. That's a quick ticket to selling cars for a living.

"Professional at bat" and "squaring up" are two phrases that pros use a lot, and are the way they judge their efforts.

As counterintuitive as it may sound, a real hitter would rather square it up and make an out than dribble one through the infield sometimes. You don't take it hard when you square it up. You always want to help the team win, but you also judge yourself and your performance and you know when you got lucky and you know when you hit it hard and got unlucky. And you know when you were overmatched and didn't have a professional at bat.

Good points. I'm saying the second strike, rather than the third, is the true culprit. When a batter allows that second strike, he has handicapped himself so that his likelyhood of getting on base has been greatly diminished. So, the second strike is really a key pitch.

The following data was compiled from five years of NCAA Division I baseball but is applicable to major league baseball.

Count/Batting average
0-2/.118
1-2/.151
2-2/.169
0-0/.186 (first pitch)
3-2/.192
0-1/.199
3-0/.267
1-1/.269
2-1/.290
3-1/.329
1-0/.342
2-0/.386



LaRue Ks a lot, but, IMO, he's been the team's best good AB guy the past two years.

May be true, but LaRue batted only .174 after falling to two strikes in 184 at bats last year.

Cyclone792
02-14-2006, 12:00 AM
2005 Hitter's Counts: .305/.470/.509 for a .979 OPS
2005 Pitcher's Counts: .216/.226/.322 for a .547 OPS

I've recently done quite a bit of research on this very topic, which I hope to put together and post here in the next few days. In a nutshell, Bill James was absolutely correct: the strike zone is the heart of the game, the single most important space on the entire field. Average hitters who work the count in their favor turn into HOF caliber hitting machines, while average hitters who get stuck behind the count turn into your run of the mill hitting pitcher.

KronoRed
02-14-2006, 12:41 AM
I know this probably doesn't amount to a hill of beans to anyone, but a whole lot of Adam Dunn's strike outs (looking) can be attributed to the plate umpires who shrink his h-u-g-e strikezone.
Yep

K's at his ankles were common

TeamBoone
02-14-2006, 12:44 AM
I think I said that wrong; should I have said that they stretched his strike zone?

I'm too tired and too happy to reason it out. Anyway, you know what I mean.

TRF
02-14-2006, 10:45 AM
Ok, let me set a few things straight.


I do not think strikeouts are bad. I just prefer hits to strikeouts.
Adam Dunn is a good comp for Pujols if he converts K's to hits without sacrificing his walk rate or his power.
Yes, by definition, a player that gets 40+ more hits than another player makes the defense work more. How this translates to wins and losses, I am not sure, but it certainly has to be a factor.
I refuse to believe a walk is more valuable than a hit. Now I don't think anyone has ever said that, but I'll trade 50 walks for 50 hits. Of course I'd rather trade 50 K's for 50 hits. Walks really aren't part of the discussion.
I like this lineup too, in fact when some people were ok with Randa last year, I wasn't. I thought Freel could man 3B with DJ at second until EE was ready. But make no mistake, I firmly believe the balanced lineup was a big reason the Reds scored so many runs.

ochre
02-14-2006, 11:09 AM
Ok, let me set a few things straight.

I do not think strikeouts are bad. I just prefer hits to strikeouts.
Strikeouts are out events not non-out events. Naturally one would prefer a non-out event to an out event should one be at bat. I prefer walks to ground outs to second. Chances are, if its a pitch a hitter doesn't think he can handle, or literally can not catch up with, that pitch would end up as an out event (particularly if hitter has 2 strikes already) should said hitter swing at it whether it results in a strikeout or not.

buckeyenut
02-14-2006, 11:11 AM
I think the key for a guy like Adam Dunn is keeping the same swing and same patience while making better contact on the pitches he swings at, especially with 2 strikes.

If you don't change the plate approach, then # of walks should stay the same. If you convert 30Ks to making contact on the ball, and you use a league average .300 BABIP (or whatever it might be), that will mean 9 more hits on the year, which ought to mean a 10-15 pt jump in batting average. Since Dunn hits 1 home run appx every 3.5 hits, it will also mean another 2-3 HRs.

The key is as an individual, you can do think to improve your contact rate but keep your plate approach the same. As a team, that is far more difficult to do.

If I look at plate approaches, I will take a plate approach that leans towards high strikeouts overs low strikeouts all the time, because the implicit understanding between the plate approaches is that higher strikeouts are correlated with a high power plate approach.

Bottom line is, I don't want Adam Dunn to swing more, I want him to make solid contact more when he chooses to swing, which he can do by choosing better pitches to hit. That said, the other thing that happens is that if you make more contact, you do so both early and late in the count, which typically means, you will on occasion trade a large opportunity for a walk for a smaller opportunity for a hit. (extrapolate out the idea of when to swing when it is 3-0)

ochre
02-14-2006, 11:32 AM
I think the key for a guy like Adam Dunn is keeping the same swing and same patience while making better contact on the pitches he swings at, especially with 2 strikes.

If you don't change the plate approach, then # of walks should stay the same. If you convert 30Ks to making contact on the ball, and you use a league average .300 BABIP (or whatever it might be), that will mean 9 more hits on the year, which ought to mean a 10-15 pt jump in batting average. Since Dunn hits 1 home run appx every 3.5 hits, it will also mean another 2-3 HRs.

The key is as an individual, you can do think to improve your contact rate but keep your plate approach the same. As a team, that is far more difficult to do.

If I look at plate approaches, I will take a plate approach that leans towards high strikeouts overs low strikeouts all the time, because the implicit understanding between the plate approaches is that higher strikeouts are correlated with a high power plate approach.

Bottom line is, I don't want Adam Dunn to swing more, I want him to make solid contact more when he chooses to swing, which he can do by choosing better pitches to hit. That said, the other thing that happens is that if you make more contact, you do so both early and late in the count, which typically means, you will on occasion trade a large opportunity for a walk for a smaller opportunity for a hit. (extrapolate out the idea of when to swing when it is 3-0)
Good points. I think he will. He's just now coming into his prime years. He typically hit for a better average in the minors than he has so far for the Reds. Lock him into the 2 or 3 slot and put some legit hitters around him and lets see if he doesn't get more to work with.

SteelSD
02-14-2006, 01:36 PM
I refuse to believe a walk is more valuable than a hit. Now I don't think anyone has ever said that, but I'll trade 50 walks for 50 hits. Of course I'd rather trade 50 K's for 50 hits. Walks really aren't part of the discussion.

Of course no one has ever said that a Walk is more valuable than a Hit. Of course, a BB with none on is exactly as valuable as a Single- sometimes moreso if it makes the pitcher work harder.

That being said, Walks have to be part of the discussion because the most likely result of a highly disciplined hitter cutting down on K's isn't a K-for-Hit swap. It's a K-for-BB swap.


5.I like this lineup too, in fact when some people were ok with Randa last year, I wasn't. I thought Freel could man 3B with DJ at second until EE was ready. But make no mistake, I firmly believe the balanced lineup was a big reason the Reds scored so many runs.

The Reds produced the following RPG by month in 2005:

April- 4.29 RPG
May- 5.00 RPG
June- 5.44 RPG
July- 5.68 RPG
August- 5.11 RPG
Sept./Oct.- 4.70 RPG

Joe Randa- July 2005: .239 BA/.298 OBP/.389 SLG
Sean Casey- July 2005: .287 BA/.374 OBP/.386 SLG

Randa was ineffective from July until the end of his Reds tenure. Casey's OBP was good and that helped but OBP is independent of K rate. After Randa left, the Reds were still scoring over five Runs per game on average (and we can hardly point to his assisting the Reds highest offensive output month). Then Griffey went down and the Run production dropped to just under 5 RPG.

Make no mistake- the "balance" in the lineup that allowed the Reds to score a bunch of Runs was Adam Dunn and Ken Griffey Junior. Combined, those two players had only one month during the entire season in which one of the two produced neither a .380 OBP or a .500 SLG (Griffey- April 2005).

And all independent of K rate. It's just another case of intuition being incorrect.

Doc. Scott
02-14-2006, 02:44 PM
May be true, but LaRue batted only .174 after falling to two strikes in 184 at bats last year.

I'm surprised anyone would mention Jason LaRue as someone who would consistently have "good at-bats". For that guy's entire career I've watched him get in 0-2 counts more than any other player I have ever seen. He's acquired the nickname "Oh-and-Two LaRue" in my head.

I recognize his value and he brings some good things to the table, but no one gets in a count-hole like Jason does.

lollipopcurve
02-14-2006, 02:52 PM
I recognize his value and he brings some good things to the table, but no one gets in a count-hole like Jason does.

Agreed. Seems like all that pine tar on his helmet gums up the gray matter sometimes.

Raisor
02-14-2006, 02:55 PM
Something to think about (re: Strikeouts)

The Reds K'd 356 more times then the Cards last season, yet outscored them by 15 runs. Thats more then 2 more times a game.

The two teams had the exact same team OBP. The Reds had a 20 point lead in SLG.
So what's the more important factor? The K's or the SLG?

Seems like the SLG to me.

M2
02-14-2006, 02:58 PM
I'm surprised anyone would mention Jason LaRue as someone who would consistently have "good at-bats". For that guy's entire career I've watched him get in 0-2 counts more than any other player I have ever seen. He's acquired the nickname "Oh-and-Two LaRue" in my head.

I recognize his value and he brings some good things to the table, but no one gets in a count-hole like Jason does.

He gets a bit wayward when it's a bases-empty situation early in the game, but the guy's a situational hitting demon. When I find myself thinking a Reds player has just put together a dynamite AB, more often than not that guy is LaRue.

TRF
02-14-2006, 03:23 PM
Something to think about (re: Strikeouts)

The Reds K'd 356 more times then the Cards last season, yet outscored them by 15 runs. Thats more then 2 more times a game.

The two teams had the exact same team OBP. The Reds had a 20 point lead in SLG.
So what's the more important factor? The K's or the SLG?

Seems like the SLG to me.

Help me here, cuz I want to get it. Let me k=make it clear, that I don't think the following represents AD, just need some questions answered.

Can a player have the following? high OBP say, .390, High SLG, .590 and a sickly BA say, .200? Think Machado with ungodly power.

Now while said player is getting on base, and killing the ball when he does make contact, he K's 160+ times a year.

Obviously his SLG would have to be HR driven. But does his overall lack of hits hurt his team? And would 9 of these guys be especially susceptible to good K pitchers despite the fact that his OPS is near 1.000?

Raisor
02-14-2006, 03:40 PM
Help me here, cuz I want to get it. Let me k=make it clear, that I don't think the following represents AD, just need some questions answered.

Can a player have the following? high OBP say, .390, High SLG, .590 and a sickly BA say, .200? Think Machado with ungodly power.

Now while said player is getting on base, and killing the ball when he does make contact, he K's 160+ times a year.

Obviously his SLG would have to be HR driven. But does his overall lack of hits hurt his team? And would 9 of these guys be especially susceptible to good K pitchers despite the fact that his OPS is near 1.000?


TRF,

Check out the stats for Casey & Dunn in 2004. Check out BA, OBP, SLG, OPS, K's. Then check their RC's.

ochre
02-14-2006, 03:41 PM
I'd take a team of guys that only made an out ~60% of the time. Everybody's susceptible to the good k pitchers. Players that see more pitches (inferred from walk more) tend to cut into those good K pitchers innings pitched, which should limit the team's exposure to that pitcher.

Its not the hits that matter its the outs.

TRF
02-14-2006, 03:46 PM
TRF,

Check out the stats for Casey & Dunn in 2004. Check out BA, OBP, SLG, OPS, K's. Then check their RC's.

Yeah, I've done that, but the funny thing is formulas are only sound until the next formula comes along to replace it. I know how accurate it is. But I remain a firm believer in lineup construction, and giving pitchers and defenses different reads. It's to me the one flaw of a formula that says "9 of player A will..." The thing is there will never be a lineup like that. Barring cloning of course.

Last year the Reds had a very balanced lineup. This year's lineup will be SLG heavy with fulltime roles for AK,WMP and possibly EE. The balance has shifted. will it mean fewer runs? I don't know. I am curious to find out.

Raisor
02-14-2006, 03:54 PM
Yeah, I've done that, but the funny thing is formulas are only sound until the next formula comes along to replace it. I know how accurate it is. But I remain a firm believer in lineup construction, and giving pitchers and defenses different reads. It's to me the one flaw of a formula that says "9 of player A will..." The thing is there will never be a lineup like that. Barring cloning of course.

.


I'm not talking about RC/27.

I'm talking about while Casey's BA was 60 points higher and he K'd something like 150 less times, their Runs Created were very close, and that's because their OBP were so close (and to a lesser degree their SLGs).

They both contributed about the same to the offense (about 110 per 600 PA, if my memory's correct..too lazy to actually look), they just got there in different ways.

M2
02-14-2006, 03:57 PM
TRF, my take is that as long as your OB and SLG are good, then so are you.

The batting average might affect how I'd deploy a guy however. For instance, the lower the BA the higher in the order you might want to bat that guy. In general it's good to get SLG and hits behind your OB, it gets everyone moving. A guy like you described would do a good job of getting on base in front of others and of scoring himself.

It's one of the reasons I've always liked the notion of Dunn in the #2 slot. His OB is even more dangerous there and it forces pitchers to come to him for fear of setting up a big inning for the guys behind him. Mind you, I'm cool with Dunn at #3 or #4 too. Lower than that is where I think you begin to squander his talents.

TRF
02-14-2006, 04:04 PM
Hey my question about LeCure and Wood was just read on MLB RADIO!

now back to the topic.

Yeah, i get the the point. But I am curious Is there any analysis that determines how players do against certain types of pitchers? not just L/R splits, but K vs. finesse? Opening day was a good example. The reds threw guys with no stuff against the Mets, and NY dropped 6 on the Reds. Now while I don't know how good Loopers stuff is, I am a little familiar with Martinez, and after the first inning, he dominated the Reds.

Is a high K team more susceptible to High K pitchers? And if K's are a good thing for pitchers how can we discount them completely for hitters? I know we can if said hitters have high OBP's, but if they don't, then the K's are a problem.

See, this isn't about Adam Dunn. It's about EE, WMP and Kearns. It's about whoever is manning 2B that isn't Freel. And to a lesser extent LaRue.

So, help me out on this. At a team level.

Raisor
02-14-2006, 04:09 PM
Yeah, i get the the point. But I am curious Is there any analysis that determines how players do against certain types of pitchers? not just L/R splits, but K vs. finesse? Opening day was a good example. The reds threw guys with no stuff against the Mets, and NY dropped 6 on the Reds. Now while I don't know how good Loopers stuff is, I am a little familiar with Martinez, and after the first inning, he dominated the Reds.

ESPN.com has the numbers for vs power and finesse pitchers. Gotta hunt around for them.

TRF
02-14-2006, 04:18 PM
If you do it for me, I'll keep you updated on Fit Finlay. :)

http://www.wwe.com/superstars/smackdown/finlay/

SteelSD
02-14-2006, 07:47 PM
And if K's are a good thing for pitchers how can we discount them completely for hitters? I know we can if said hitters have high OBP's, but if they don't, then the K's are a problem.

No. If a player makes a lot of Outs, his problem is that he makes a lot of Outs. HOW he makes them is immaterial.


So, help me out on this. At a team level.

You've been assisted thusly.

Red Thunder
02-15-2006, 06:00 PM
No. If a player makes a lot of Outs, his problem is that he makes a lot of Outs. HOW he makes them is immaterial.


Situation: Runner on third, batter up with one or no out.

Strikeout = no run will score

Ground out / fly out = chance that the runner scores

With no out even a double play might win a game which is tied at that time.

How can you keep saying that how a player makes outs is immaterial? Don't you normally try to argue without a personal bias? Just take it as a fact that strikeouts can't score runners from third whereas other outs can result in a RBI.

westofyou
02-15-2006, 06:30 PM
Just take it as a fact that strikeouts can't score runners from third whereas other outs can result in a RBI.

Dropped 3rd strike rolls to backstop runner scores. ;)

KronoRed
02-15-2006, 06:38 PM
Yeesh..just have the guy on 3rd steal home

:evil:

SteelSD
02-15-2006, 06:43 PM
Situation: Runner on third, batter up with one or no out.

Strikeout = no run will score

Ground out / fly out = chance that the runner scores

With no out even a double play might win a game which is tied at that time.

How can you keep saying that how a player makes outs is immaterial? Don't you normally try to argue without a personal bias? Just take it as a fact that strikeouts can't score runners from third whereas other outs can result in a RBI.

You're going to try ripping me for "personal bias" while at the same time not understanding what we've been discussing here?

Over the course of a season how a player makes Outs is immterial. Doesn't matter.

Broken down to your micro point (i.e. the Runner on Third < 2 Outs) when extended to multiple scenarios throughout the season- a batter who strikes out less will not necessarily be more productive across his sample than will a batter who strikes out more. Why? Because baseball is driven by not making Outs rather than how Outs are made. Period. Factual. Inarguable.

Even when isolated to your lone scenario we have problems with your contention- primarily because your assumption is that balls in play are obviously preferable to a strikeout. That's not accurate. Some balls in play are preferable, of course. However, some aren't. Balls in play that result in the lead runner being cut down for example. Flying out into a DP is another.

And your contention that a strikeout can't score a runner from third is erroneous. A third strike that gets away from a catcher CAN score a Runner from third. So can a Wild Pitch that occurs because the hitter fights to extend the count rather than just make low-level contact with a pitch. Are those events numerous? No. Is the hitter in control over creating those events? Well, he's at least as much in control of those events as he is a Sac Fly in that scenario.

But the real point is that baseball isn't played in a vacuum. For a hitter to focus on just putting the ball in play during your random isolated event, it takes a concerted effort to change behavior across all of those event types. Because of this, his approach is going to be altered. You wrongly assume that his behavior alteration is for the better. Instead, maybe the hitter produces a BIP event that plates a Run THIS time, but his behavior adjustment robs the team of a Run he would have produced without changing his behavior. Maybe he swings at the first "hittable" pitch he sees without waiting for "his" pitch. Maybe he turns a HR into a ground out to 2B because of that behavior adjustment. Maybe he does it the next time. Or the next. Or the next.

See, baseball doesn't work the way you seem to think it does. It's much more complex than that. It's not just an either/or proposition. It's action/reaction. Behavior changes that produce what we might consider to be a positive result in isolation may produce negative results over time when applied to similar scenarios.

I can keep saying that HOW a player makes Outs is immaterial because I understand the how the tiny snapshot relates to the composition of the big picture. Baseball tells me this. History demonstrates it. In short, I can say that over and over and over again because it's the truth with a capital "T".

TRF
02-15-2006, 06:59 PM
Steel, of course baseball isn't played in a vacuum. But at the same time, pitchers that K 12+ guys don't allow a lot of runs in that game. doesn't happen. well, it rarely does. And as the number of K's in a single game go up, fewer runs are scored, at least off the starting pitcher. So it stands to reason, taking OBP out of the arguement for a moment, Teams prone to high strikeouts are susceptible to high K pitchers. OBP then becomes the key stat, not SLG. A team of Casey's from 2005 will beat a team of WMP's from 2004. But a big reason that Casey's OBP is where it is, is his bat control. He does trade K's for hits.

red-in-la
02-15-2006, 07:39 PM
Not trying to argue here, but what happned to "productive outs?" Are they a media invention?

Not arguing, just confused.

Another whacky scenario here, since I have seen it happen MANY times in 40 years of watching baseball.

First guy up walks, next guy hits into DP. Next guy hits a single. Next guy up makes an out.

Now,

First guy up walks, second guy hits into FC with the runner taking second. Next guy up singles. Next guy up makes an out. Next guy up hits a double. Next guy up hits a HR. Next guy up makes an out.

Difference is that second guy up....difference is between zero runs and 3 runs. Same number of outs.

Even if you leave out the guys who come up becasue of no double play, it is still the difference between zero and one run.

As to not making outs......nobody wins the game until 54 outs are recorded (short a rain-out or such). Somebody has to make outs.

CrackerJack
02-15-2006, 08:29 PM
Yeah I don't think looking at an isolated situation where only a positive outcome can occur, more often than not, is a fair way to judge whether more K's as a whole are a good or bad thing - they are irrelevant as it relates to the other important variables that make a player ideal.

Yeah sure it sucks to have WMP whiff with 1 out and a man on 3rd.

But it doesn't suck to have him hit a 3 run dinger the next inning, that Sean Casey might've hit into a DP to end an inning and lose the game. There are just too many variables involved, in "how" an out is achieved. The only thing that matters is the out itself, and even more importantly, how he produces over time regardless of how he "gets" outs.

You can't just look at a K rate and lower the value of a player - if his OBP, SLG, and OPS are all where they should be or better, that is.

Maybe I'm missing something but that seems pretty common sensical and stuff.

It's like saying a QB's TD/INT ratio is a negative because most of his INT's are returned for touchdowns, even though he has 35 TD's and 10 INT's. So you'd rather have the guy who throws 23 INT's and 25 TD's a year because 10 of those won't be returned for TD's. But you are not considering all of the other factors involved.

Sure it's something you want to cut down on if possible - but ONLY to increase all of his other important production stats. Any other result is not worthwhile.

Caveat Emperor
02-15-2006, 08:36 PM
Not trying to argue here, but what happned to "productive outs?" Are they a media invention?

Not arguing, just confused.

Another whacky scenario here, since I have seen it happen MANY times in 40 years of watching baseball.

First guy up walks, next guy hits into DP. Next guy hits a single. Next guy up makes an out.

Now,

First guy up walks, second guy hits into FC with the runner taking second. Next guy up singles. Next guy up makes an out. Next guy up hits a double. Next guy up hits a HR. Next guy up makes an out.

Difference is that second guy up....difference is between zero runs and 3 runs. Same number of outs.

Even if you leave out the guys who come up becasue of no double play, it is still the difference between zero and one run.

As to not making outs......nobody wins the game until 54 outs are recorded (short a rain-out or such). Somebody has to make outs.

Yes, but there's a huge difference between a 27 ABs producing 27 outs (persumably, a perfect game for the pitcher) and, say, it taking 45 ABs to produce those same 27 outs. Every out-avoided is an additional man on base and/or an additional run. The goal of any productive player is to avoid making outs in his ABs. Every player will make outs, but the best players do it less frequently than the poor ones.

As to the issue of productive outs, others have articulated it much better in the past, but in any case a non-out is better than any out. Outs are the most precious commodity that a team possesses -- when the Outs run out, the game is over. I would prefer to have players that post high OBPs and consistently avoid outs than a player that posts a middling OBP but occasionally lucks into situations where his playing style (say, contact hitter) results in a baserunner moving in some manner. The "productive out" stat is also semantically misleading, in not every situation where a runner is moved into scoring position, etc. via an out turns out to be "Productive." If Batter #1 makes an out, Batter #2 gets a hit, Batter #3 sacrafices an out to move a guy to 2nd or move a guy to 3rd and Batter #4 makes an out, then the inning ends despite a "productive out" occuring.

TRF
02-15-2006, 08:42 PM
Yeah I don't think looking at an isolated situation where only a positive outcome can occur, more often than not, is a fair way to judge whether more K's as a whole are a good or bad thing - they are irrelevant as it relates to the other important variables that make a player ideal.

Yeah sure it sucks to have WMP whiff with 1 out and a man on 3rd.

But it doesn't suck to have him hit a 3 run dinger the next inning, that Sean Casey might've hit into a DP to end an inning and lose the game. There are just too many variables involved, in "how" an out is achieved. The only thing that matters is the out itself, and even more importantly, how he produces over time regardless of how he "gets" outs.

You can't just look at a K rate and lower the value of a player - if his OBP, SLG, and OPS are all where they should be or better, that is.

Maybe I'm missing something but that seems pretty common sensical and stuff.

Here is what I think is missing.

We keep getting dragged back to the individual player, and not the team dynamic. If strikeouts are important for a pitcher, but unimportant to a batter in the context that it is just another out, then why are they important to the pitcher?

Because it removes options for the offense.

Remember, I am talking about team level/game level situation, not the value of a player over the course of a season.

Teams loaded with players prone to K's are susceptible to High K pitchers. Now if said team was stocke with 9 Jr.'s or 9 Dunn's then that is muted by the fact (somewhat) that they get on base at a decent clip. But if said player is only getting a hit (any kind of hit) 21% of the time, then this does not bode well for the team on this day. The type of out matters here because of the type of pitcher on the mound. Again, Dunn isn't the problem. Kearns, WMP and LaRue are. EE might be. See, these guys K a ton, without getting on base via the walk. Now there aren't a ton of high strikeout pitchers right now, but the Reds are especially susceptible to them.

Now is this a truly bad thing? The Reds still led the league in runs scored, but their offense was a bit more balanced last year. There are some unknowns going into this season. Will EE progress or regress? Who is the 2B? How much PT will Freel get? (This one is crucial IMO)

I doubt the Reds score as many runs this year as last year, but sadly I bet they give up even more runs than they did last year.

Yachtzee
02-15-2006, 08:43 PM
As to not making outs......nobody wins the game until 54 outs are recorded (short a rain-out or such). Somebody has to make outs.

Yes, 54 outs will be recorded eventually. When a player makes fewer outs, it means that he and everyone else in the line up has more chances to score runs between the outs.

TOBTTReds
02-15-2006, 09:27 PM
Steel, of course baseball isn't played in a vacuum. But at the same time, pitchers that K 12+ guys don't allow a lot of runs in that game. doesn't happen.

That is because when he is not getting K's, the batters are barely making contact and hitting weak grounders and flies. That's the art of a K pitcher, hitters dont hit the ball on the sweet spot.

TRF
02-15-2006, 09:39 PM
That is because when he is not getting K's, the batters are barely making contact and hitting weak grounders and flies. That's the art of a K pitcher, hitters dont hit the ball on the sweet spot.

But that is putting the outcome squarely on the pitcher's ability to get K's. You have to add the batters tendency to K a lot into the equation.

Both play into that 15 strikeout game.

Like I said, over the course of the season, this likely levels out, but in that single game, the likely hod of a WMP beating a Pedro or Schilling are smaller. Partially because of the OBP, partially because of the propensity to K without the getting on base via the hit.

ochre
02-15-2006, 11:47 PM
Ks are important to a pitcher because that is the only way they are fully in control of the situation. Its an indication that they can miss a bat. The ability to miss bats with some regularity for a pitcher is huge. Ks measure that for a pitcher to a large degree.

SteelSD
02-16-2006, 01:33 AM
Steel, of course baseball isn't played in a vacuum. But at the same time, pitchers that K 12+ guys don't allow a lot of runs in that game. doesn't happen. well, it rarely does.

High K rates are an important stat to project pitcher performance. However, if said pitcher's only attribute is a high K rate, he's not going to be as effective.


And as the number of K's in a single game go up, fewer runs are scored, at least off the starting pitcher.

Again, you're attempting to produce a correlation between K rate and Run Scoring that doesn't exist.


So it stands to reason, taking OBP out of the arguement for a moment...

No, it's doesn't "stand to reason". And you can't take OBP out of any discussion- even for a moment- because OBP isn't tied to K rate.


Teams prone to high strikeouts are susceptible to high K pitchers.

Depends on what you mean by "susceptible". If you mean that high K-rate teams may strike out more than normal versus high K-rate pitchers, you may be right. Problem is you can't tie that you're still trying to tie K-rate directly to offensive Run Scoring.


OBP then becomes the key stat, not SLG.

You think that Pedro Martinez types get beat by hoping to nail together a few singles and then moving those guys over and/or in with groundouts? Uh-uh. You want to beat a guy like that, you're better off marching patience and sledgehammers to the plate.

Take a look at Martinez' game log from last year. Martinez posted 7 starts in which he gave up 4 ER or more. He gave up 11 of his 19 HR in those 7 starts. In only one of those games did Martinez allow more Hits than IP while also allowing zero HR.

Slugging Percentage is an exceptionally important piece against a high K-rate pitcher like Martinez. Why? Because a Pedro Martinez makes EVERYONE worse. Everyone. You're not going to produce multi non-Out Run scoring event chains against him very often. Because of that, one cannot underestimate the impact of having the ability to produce quick-strike events.


A team of Casey's from 2005 will beat a team of WMP's from 2004. But a big reason that Casey's OBP is where it is, is his bat control. He does trade K's for hits.

Wily Mo Pena 2004 RC/27 Outs- 5.65
Sean Casey 2005 RC/27 Outs- 5.30

Well, a team of Wily Mo Pena circa 2004 would outscore a team of Sean Casey circa 2005. And before you go all weird about how you don't like RC/27 as a performance metric, you should note that it's also impossible for 9 Sean Caseys or Wily Mo Penas to play together.

And Sean Casey trades a lot of stuff for other stuff. Trades K's for Hits. Trades K's for Double Plays too. Trades Hits for Outs. Trades Walks for Outs, Doubles for Singles, etc. etc. Why? Because Sean Casey has a knack for swinging at pitches he CAN hit rather than waiting for pitches he SHOULD hit.

In fact, if Sean Casey had traded every one of his Strikeouts for Outs of other types last season at a rate consistent with his Out type rates, Sean Casey would have actually been LESS valuable to the Reds because of the additional Double Plays he would have hit into.

Sorry man, but you're all twisted up on this because your brain is telling you that what you're thinking somehow makes sense. But it doesn't.

SteelSD
02-16-2006, 02:07 AM
Teams loaded with players prone to K's are susceptible to High K pitchers.

In the hopes that you won't keep posting that...

2005 Reds Splits:

Vs. Power Pitchers: .325 OBP (9th), .434 SLG (2nd)- .759 OPS (NL Rank- 5th)

Cincinnati led the NL in Runs Scored versus Power Pitchers in 2005 while putting up only the 5th most PA verus Power Pitchers. The Reds also struck out about 100 more times versus PP than did the next highest K club. They struck out 147 more times than did the NY Mets in the same amount of PA vs. PP and still outscored that team by 19 Runs- and even though the Mets had higher team BA, OBP, and SLG numbers versus PP than did the Reds.

How'd the Reds do that? They hit 120 Home Runs versus Power Pitchers.

Hopefully, that's "team" enough for ya'.

BCubb2003
02-16-2006, 03:57 AM
Arguing with Steel is like digging in against Drysdale or Gibson. If you keep crowding the plate, he's going to drill you. I used to have a hard time with the strike out thing because I kept thinking that the hitter's strikeout matches the pitcher's strikeout in equal though opposite consequences. But here's my extremely simple-minded view of it now:

Let's say there are three possibilities in any at-bat: strikeout, other out, or non-out.

If the batter avoids a strikeout, he hasn't eliminated the possibility of an out.

If the pitcher gets a strikeout, he has eliminated all other possibilities, (with the rare exception of the passed-ball/wild-ptich strikeout.)

That's why in my mind at least, strikeouts are lopsided for the pitcher compared with the hitter.

And that doesn't really even get into the different set of skills for hitters and pitchers.

If big strikeout hitters were never big home run guys, or there were a lot of high-strikeout pitchers who gave up a lot of runs and lost a lot games, it might be different. But it almost never works that way.

Caveat Emperor
02-16-2006, 04:33 AM
Arguing with Steel is like digging in against Drysdale or Gibson. If you keep crowding the plate, he's going to drill you. I used to have a hard time with the strike out thing because I kept thinking that the hitter's strikeout matches the pitcher's strikeout in equal though opposite consequences. But here's my extremely simple-minded view of it now:

There's the long answer and the short answer to this question (as has been told to me by people more knowladgeable about the game than I):

The short answer is that strikeouts have no correlation (statistically) with other performance metrics for hitters -- you can be a great hitter but strike out a ton, as players like Adam Dunn prove. However, there IS a correlation between various strikeout numbers (especially K/9 and K/BB) and other performance metrics for pitchers. Good pitchers tend to strike out more batters, bad pitchers tend to strike out fewer batters.

I'll defer the longer answer to smarter people like Steel, M2 and the gang, because it involves things like BABIP and luck.

TRF
02-16-2006, 10:19 AM
I like arguing with Steel... I end up learning things. :)


you should note that it's also impossible for 9 Sean Caseys or Wily Mo Penas to play together.

Hence what I have been saying about balance. now sprinkle in a Dunn and Griffey, a healthy Kearns, progress from FeLo and EE, and 600 AB's from Freel, and that is a helluva offense. But when you remove him, all of a sudden there are a ton of questions. Will WMP walk enough? Will Kearns hit enough? What in the world will EE do, and if he doesn't start out hot, does RA take his place? Will Womack start over Freel? Now some of these have no Bearing on Casey, but if he were still here (and I prefer him to Dave Freaking Williams) then the open OF spot goes to the best guy out of ST. And I think those two, AK and WMP need some kind of jumpstart. And while the whole infield is a concern, EE is going to be throwing to Dunn now instead of Casey. And right now, Casey is better defensively than Dunn, though AD's height will help.


Trades K's for Hits. Trades K's for Double Plays too.

This I am a little tired of. Before last year Casey averaged 14 GIDP's a season. Last year was an aberration. In fact, the guy's only real problem other than a complete lack of speed has been health. That's it. When he's healthy, he's got decent power, good gap power, and can hit anything. Health is his biggest enemy.

osuceltic
02-16-2006, 10:36 AM
Statistically, it's pretty clear that over the course of a season, strikeouts -- statistically speaking -- aren't that significant when it comes to scoring runs.

BUT ... When it's September, and you're playing the Cardinals, and you're a game behind in the standings, and a runner is on third with one out in the eighth inning of a tie game ... a strikeout can be pretty devastating.

Now, you certainly can argue that the advantages gained over the course of the season outweigh that one at-bat. That's fair and reasonable. Doesn't change the fact that it would be nice to have a guy at the plate in that situation who can get that runner home.

The key is balance. In individual games throughout the season you're going to face dozens of situations like the one I described above. If your lineup is full of swing-and-miss types, you're not going to cash in on those situations as much as if you have some contact hitters in there.

It isn't about how many runs you score over the season. It's about how many runs you score in a given game. The key is scoring more runs than the opponent in a given game. And strikeouts can be damaging during the course of a game. Anyone who watches the games can tell you that. You can comfort yourself by saying over the long haul it evens out, and if you're OK with that, great. Wouldn't we all prefer a guy who puts up all the same numbers, but whose outs aren't strikeouts? Isn't that just common sense? Sure, you can say strikeouts are statistically insignificant in the big picture, but if you can pick from two guys whose numbers are exactly the same, only one guy makes his outs by striking out a lot and the other guy makes his outs by making contact ... aren't we all choosing the contact guy? Doesn't that say something?

Chip R
02-16-2006, 10:52 AM
BUT ... When it's September, and you're playing the Cardinals, and you're a game behind in the standings, and a runner is on third with one out in the eighth inning of a tie game ... a strikeout can be pretty devastating.


So can a foul pop to the catcher or a ground ball to 3rd with the infield pulled in or a line drive to the SS or a pop fly to 2nd. What's the difference between a strikeout and any of those scenarios?

ochre
02-16-2006, 10:54 AM
Its not as simple as that. OBPs being equal I look at slugging next to see which player I would prefer. That's where the funny part kicks in. There is some correlation with higher strikeout hitters having higher SLG.

As to your late in the season scenario, I want the guy up there that is least likely to make an out. As the games become more important, the value of each individual out becomes that much more important too.

bigredmachine1976
02-16-2006, 11:02 AM
So can a foul pop to the catcher or a ground ball to 3rd with the infield pulled in or a line drive to the SS or a pop fly to 2nd. What's the difference between a strikeout and any of those scenarios?

If they make the play there would be no difference, but with the strike out there is no if.

osuceltic
02-16-2006, 11:04 AM
Its not as simple as that. OBPs being equal I look at slugging next to see which player I would prefer. That's where the funny part kicks in. There is some correlation with higher strikeout hitters having higher SLG.

As to your late in the season scenario, I want the guy up there that is least likely to make an out. As the games become more important, the value of each individual out becomes that much more important too.
OBP and slugging are the same. Which do you choose -- the contact guy or the strikeout guy? That's all I'm asking. All things being equal, which do you choose? In that late-season scenario, which do you choose?

Red Thunder
02-16-2006, 11:09 AM
So can a foul pop to the catcher or a ground ball to 3rd with the infield pulled in or a line drive to the SS or a pop fly to 2nd. What's the difference between a strikeout and any of those scenarios?

Chance of an error by the defense. Best example: Bill Buckner with the Red Sox. There you can see how much influence a ball put in play can have.

Chip R
02-16-2006, 11:13 AM
If they make the play there would be no difference, but with the strike out there is no if.

OK, let's say they don't make the play. On a foul pop to the catcher, if he drops it, the run won't score. On a ground ball to 3rd with the infield pulled in, the runner on 3rd is probably not going to go home if the 3rd baseman bobbles the ball and if he does, he's probably dead at the plate. Of course if the ball goes between the 3rd baseman's legs the run would score but the run would score if the catcher let the ball go to the backstop on a 3rd strike. Runner will not score from 3rd on a dropped pop to 2nd since he has to tag anyway and the 2nd baseman could easily throw him out at the plate. Same thing on a liner to SS.

TRF
02-16-2006, 11:14 AM
If they make the play there would be no difference, but with the strike out there is no if.

But the sample size of them not making the play is too small. It's almost negligible.

When you have a group of guys with low OBP's (like the Reds just might be trotting out there this year, WMP, Womack are certain to have low OBP, Kearns and EE might.) then their K's make a difference because that is the type of out they make. With Dunn it doesn't matter because he still gets on base via the walk.

But looking at 2004, I prefer Casey's .381 OBP to Dunn's .388 because his OBP was hit driven. I feel better knowing a player has more than one way to reach base. Maybe that is wrong, but a .380 OBP that is walk driven as much as hit drive, doesn't do it for me at the skillset level. I think Dunn is a monster player, but he'd be better trading about 40 K's for 40 hits. I'd be happy with around 170 Hits for the season. It's the potential those hits bring with Dunn's power that is what is so tantalizing.

In 2005 that's what the Reds had: more than one way to reach base. They had balance. This year's squad I am less sure of. I still think they will be among the league leaders in runs scored, but I am less certain about leading the league. In fact they might just be middle of the road.

bigredmachine1976
02-16-2006, 11:23 AM
That's what the "if" gives you. More than one way to get on. The strikeout does not give you that "if" factor. I think we're in agreement on that.

Chip R
02-16-2006, 11:30 AM
That's what the "if" gives you. More than one way to get on. The strikeout does not give you that "if" factor. I think we're in agreement on that.

Actually we're not. If the catcher lets the 3rd strike go by him far enough the runner scores from 3rd, does he not?

bigredmachine1976
02-16-2006, 11:32 AM
Runner will not score from 3rd on a dropped pop to 2nd since he has to tag anyway and the 2nd baseman could easily throw him out at the plate. Same thing on a liner to SS.

You make assumptions here that work in your favor, I could make different assumptions that work in mine.

If there are two outs he scores easily on the dropped pop up.

If there are less than two outs and the pop up is dropped and the ball does not not stay near the 2nd baseman as you assume it will again he could score.

bigredmachine1976
02-16-2006, 11:36 AM
Actually we're not. If the catcher lets the 3rd strike go by him far enough the runner scores from 3rd, does he not?

I was trying to agree with TRF. Not you, but yes You can score on a wild pitch or passed ball, I hope you already knew that.

westofyou
02-16-2006, 11:52 AM
But looking at 2004, I prefer Casey's .381 OBP to Dunn's .388 because his OBP was hit driven.

But that ignores the result when the ball is hit.

Casey made an out 63.3% of the time he came to bat, Dunn 62.4%

Dunn had an EBH every 7 times he came to bat, Casey evey 13 times

Everytime Dunn didn't K, walk or get HBP he had an EBH every 4.8 ab's whenever Casey hit the ball in the same situation he got an EBH every 11.7 ab's.

Personally I'll take the payoff that Dunn gives over the illusion of the one Casey gives out especially since his DP rate sits at 1 every 17 ab's that he doesn't K vs Dunn's 1 time every 66 ab's that he doesn't K.

ochre
02-16-2006, 11:54 AM
OBP and slugging are the same. Which do you choose -- the contact guy or the strikeout guy? That's all I'm asking. All things being equal, which do you choose? In that late-season scenario, which do you choose?
they effectively make the same number of outs. In this realistically unlikely scenario though, the contact guy is more likely to hit into more double plays, as when the other guy hits it, he apparently hits it further, or has greater speed. This can be inferred from the fact he puts the ball in play less often yet ends up with a similar number of total bases from these ball in play events.

I want the guy that hits it further, given that they both make outs at approximately the same rate.

Chip R
02-16-2006, 11:57 AM
You make assumptions here that work in your favor, I could make different assumptions that work in mine.

If there are two outs he scores easily on the dropped pop up.

If there are less than two outs and the pop up is dropped and the ball does not not stay near the 2nd baseman as you assume it will again he could score.

And we could go round and round on this. But the chances of those things happening is about is great as the catcher having a passed ball on a 3rd strike. You act like errors happen all the time with a runner on 3rd and all the batter has to do is put the bat on the ball and the infielder he hits it to will turn into Brandon Larson and let the ball go between his legs.

The original question I asked was what was the difference between a strikeout and some other scenarios in which an out happens in which a run doesn't score. You said if they make the play there's no difference. And that's all I'm trying to say here. If the play is made on a strikeout or a foulout or a groundout or a popout or a lineout it's still an out and the runner is still on 3rd. If it isn't, anything could happen.

bigredmachine1976
02-16-2006, 12:01 PM
they effectively make the same number of outs. In this realistically unlikely scenario though, the contact guy is more likely to hit into more double plays, as when the other guy hits it, he apparently hits it further, or has greater speed. This can be inferred from the fact he puts the ball in play less often yet ends up with a similar number of total bases from these ball in play events.

I want the guy that hits it further, given that they both make outs at approximately the same rate.

Explain how you know which guy hits it farther, if there slugging the same and on base the same aren't their total bases the same? I think the only thing that can be inferred is that they make the same number of outs.

bigredmachine1976
02-16-2006, 12:08 PM
You act like errors happen all the time with a runner on 3rd and all the batter has to do is put the bat on the ball and the infielder he hits it to will turn into Brandon Larson and let the ball go between his legs.

When did I act like errors happen all the time? That's your attempt to make me look silly because you disagree with me.

I just like my chances better when the ball is in play as opposed to in the catcher's mitt, unless of course as you say it goes between his legs on the 3rd strike. I'll take that as well.

ochre
02-16-2006, 12:14 PM
Explain how you know which guy hits it farther, if there slugging the same and on base the same aren't their total bases the same? I think the only thing that can be inferred is that they make the same number of outs.
with OBP constant and one of them getting more "hit" events, the only way the one of them with fewer "hit" events could have the same SLG would be if his "hit" events resulted, on average, in more bases per occurence.

Cyclone792
02-16-2006, 12:33 PM
If you want to see the value of Productive Outs, then this Hardball Times article isn't a bad place to start ... (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/yet-another-productive-outs-article/)

If you want to see the relationship between strikeouts and regular outs, then the following BP article isn't a bad place to start. All text and graphs below from http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2617

----------------------------------------------

As we've stated on a number of different occasions throughout the Baseball Prospectus Basics series, one of the goals of performance analysis is to separate perception from reality. Sometimes that means interpreting numbers, and sometimes that means interpreting events with our eyes. Either way, it's about collecting information, and getting a little bit closer to the truth.

Evaluating the importance of strikeouts, especially for hitters, is something that has traditionally fallen into the second category. And it's easy to understand why: baseball is a game that centers around the ongoing conflict between batter and pitcher, and there are few outcomes that capture the drama of that conflict better than a mighty whiff, followed by a long walk back to the bench. On the surface at least, a strikeout appears to be the ultimate failure for a hitter—infinitely worse than a Texas-leaguer or a flyout to center.

From a quantitative perspective, however, there is little evidence to suggest that a strikeout is "worse" than a groundout, popout, or any other means of making an out, with respect to generating runs. Sure, it might look bad—not even being able to put the ball in play—but the fact is that error rates, in this era of improved equipment, are as low as they’ve ever been. Granted, putting the ball in play, whether in the air or on the ground, can sometimes enable a hitter to advance a runner, but it also increases the chance of hitting into a double-play—a far greater rally-killer than a strikeout.

As a result of all that, the value of "just putting the ball in play" is as low as it's ever been. The following graph illustrates the correlation—or lack thereof—between team strikeouts and team run scoring from 1950-2002 [see attached graph below titled relationship between team strikeout rate and run scoring]:

As you can see by the round, lifeless blob in the middle of the graph, there is virtually no positive correlation between a team's strikeout totals and its runs-scored totals. When it comes to offense, an out is an out is an out.

On an individual level, the evidence against strikeouts as the scourge of the earth only gets more damning. Check out the correlation between Ks and the various elements of offensive production:

Correlation of SO/PA with (all players 1950-2002, 300+ PA)



Metric Correlation
----------------------
ISO +0.388
SLG +0.198
BB/PA +0.125
OBP -0.100
AVG -0.290

OPS +0.106
MLVr +0.005

While it might not be overwhelming, there is a distinct, positive correlation between an individual's strikeout rate and a number of useful attributes: hitting for power—as represented in this case by isolated power (ISO, or slugging percentage minus batting average) and slugging percentage (SLG)—as well as drawing walks—as represented by walk-rate (BB/PA). Of course, causation is a sticky subject, so try not to misinterpret the above data as "proof" that increased strikeouts cause an improvement in a player's secondary skills. It's just that where one group shows up, often so does the other.

Notice, also, the virtually non-existent (albeit positive) correlation between strikeout rate and "complete" measures of offensive performance like on-base plus slugging (OPS) and Marginal Lineup Value Rate (MLVr). No matter how you slice it, it just doesn't appear that strikeouts have much of an effect on a team's—or an individual's—ability to produce runs.

But those are hitters. Pitchers, on the other hand, are a completely different story.

Where the value of "just putting the ball in play" has often been overstated for hitters, the opposite has long been the case for pitchers. In their case, a strikeout is most definitely not "just another out." In fact, the ability to create outs for one's self is among the most important skills a pitcher can possess.

Why? There are a number of reasons, but mainly it's because 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. The steps aren't perfect, mind you, but on a macro level they hold up. The following graph illustrates the correlation between individual strikeout rate and ERA from 1993-2002 [see attached graph below titled ERA vs. strikeout rate]:

Or, to perhaps give this conclusion some real-world resonance, look at the disparity in ERA between those pitchers with the highest strikeout rates in the league in 2003 and those at the bottom of the barrel:



Pitcher SO/9 ERA
------------------------------------
Kerry Wood 11.35 3.20
Mark Prior 10.43 2.43
Curt Schilling 10.39 2.95
Pedro Martinez 9.93 2.22
Javier Vazquez 9.40 3.24


Pitcher SO/9 ERA
------------------------------------
Joe Mays 3.46 6.30
Danny Graves 3.20 5.33
Aaron Cook 3.12 6.02
Kirk Rueter 2.51 4.53
Nate Cornejo 2.13 4.67

The difference isn't accidental. In a nine-inning complete game, Kerry Wood is roughly 30% less reliant upon his defense to convert batted balls into outs than someone like Kirk Rueter or Nate Cornejo would be. That's not just a huge difference, that's a Marlon-Brando-pulling-up-a-chair-to-the-buffet difference.

Strikeout rate also has predictive value. According to a study conducted by Keith Woolner, pitchers with high strikeout rates age better than comparable pitchers (i.e., pitchers who posted similar park-adjusted ERAs at the same age) with low strikeout rates. Bill James also gave this subject some treatment in his most recent edition of the Historical Baseball Abstract when discussing Mark Fidrych, and came to a similar—if slightly hyperbolic, as Tommy John can attest—conclusion: "There is simply no such thing as a starting pitcher who has a long career with a low strikeout rate."

The prominence of the strikeout in Major League Baseball has been increasing steadily over the past 130 years, and it may continue to grow as teams begin to let go of their macho attachment to "just putting the ball in play" on offense, while further valuing pitchers who are self-sufficient on the mound. Like many other developments in baseball, this will be a sign of evolution, and a better game overall will be the result.

Don't fear the strikeout. In many ways it is a harbinger of better things to come.

SteelSD
02-16-2006, 12:36 PM
This I am a little tired of. Before last year Casey averaged 14 GIDP's a season. Last year was an aberration. In fact, the guy's only real problem other than a complete lack of speed has been health. That's it. When he's healthy, he's got decent power, good gap power, and can hit anything. Health is his biggest enemy.

An aberration?

Or was it the culmination of a very slow ground ball hitter (1.72 GB/FB rate) swatting at pitched balls he shouldn't swing at while batting behind (3rd and 5th) lineup slots that produced .352 (leadoff), .360 (2-slot), and .351 (cleanup) OBP's?

Flashback to 2004. Casey hit third for the vast majority of that season and the two lineup slots directly in front of him produced .351 (leadoff) and .300 (2-slot) OBP numbers respectively. He bounced into 16 Double Plays while producing a GB/FB ratio of 1.33. Hmn.

In 2003, Casey produced 19 twin killings. GB/FB rate was 1.71.

Seems to me that if you couple slow-as-molasses speed with high Ground Ball contact rates and high teammate OBP numbers (i.e. more opportunity), you end up getting more Double Play events. A guy like Casey should be on the GIDP leaderboard for many seasons to come regardless of his health. You'd think that with bat control being Casey's primary offensive weapon, he'd be able to stay off those lists. But alas, he can't.


But looking at 2004, I prefer Casey's .381 OBP to Dunn's .388 because his OBP was hit driven. I feel better knowing a player has more than one way to reach base. Maybe that is wrong, but a .380 OBP that is walk driven as much as hit drive, doesn't do it for me at the skillset level. I think Dunn is a monster player, but he'd be better trading about 40 K's for 40 hits. I'd be happy with around 170 Hits for the season. It's the potential those hits bring with Dunn's power that is what is so tantalizing.

TRF, Adam Dunn reduced his 2005 Strikeout totals by 27 versus 2004. Did it translate to 27 more hits? Nope. In fact, he acquired 17 fewer hits versus 2004.

A reduction in K rate simply doesn't have the kind of positive Hit acquisition correlation you think it does. I told people all last offseason that if Dunn cuts down on his K rate, it didn't mean that he'd get more Hits. Folks scoffed at that concept. Then came 2005. Dunn's K rate dropped. He acquired fewer Hits and more Walks (and HBP) while his OBP remained virtually the same.

If Adam Dunn reduces his Strikeout numbers by another 40, you're likely going to be very disappointed in the results. And if you see a corresponding increase in BA, that'll be due to either a random BABIP fluctuation or the fact that he's taking a higher percentage of balls yard that he's already hitting into play. He's a different animal. If he ever produces the kind of BA numbers folks will go ga-ga over, it'll most likely happen while he's not increasing his gross Base Hit totals.

Secondly, it makes little sense to "prefer" a .381 OBP to a .388 OBP unless we take into account the quality of events that contribute to both. That's called Secondary Average.

Dunn- .506 SECA
Casey- .206 SECA

While Casey's OBP might look sexy to you because it's more Hit-driven, Dunn's OBP is the monster because of the event quality associated with producing said OBP. Basically, when Dunn isn't producing Outs he's doing much much more. Has nothing at all to do with Out type.

Ditto at the team level. In 2005, the Florida Marlins produced the same OBP as did the Reds (.339). They led the NL in team Batting Average. The stuck out fewer times than all but one NL team (San Fran). But there's no possible way to prefer that Florida OBP because their OBP events led to 103 fewer Runs scored than did the Reds' OBP events. Had nothing to do with Hit totals, Hit rate, or K rate. Had everything to do with OBP event quality as Cincinnati led the NL in Secondary Average (.304 SECA) while Florida finished 13th (.241 SECA) and Isolated Power (Cincinnati crushed the rest of the NL with a .185 IsoP).

Power and patience. That's the ticket.

bigredmachine1976
02-16-2006, 12:55 PM
with OBP constant and one of them getting more "hit" events, the only way the one of them with fewer "hit" events could have the same SLG would be if his "hit" events resulted, on average, in more bases per occurence.

Does "hit" event = a hit

or

Does "hit" event = a ball put into play

M2
02-16-2006, 12:57 PM
ESPN provided definitive proof that productive outs make for sucky hitters in 2004.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/productive

They kept count because Buster Olney insisted that productive outs are really valuable. Once the evidence came it the subject got dropped like a radioactive potato and the stat wasn't counted for 2005.There isn't a human alive who wouldn't take the bottom 50 over the top 50.

westofyou
02-16-2006, 01:13 PM
Since the strike there has been 931,545 NL ab's.

Out of those there were 11,920 Sacs and 7535 Sac Flys, those are definitive "Productive Outs"

1.2% of the AB's were sacrifices, .08% Sac Flies

In the AL 1995-2005: Sacs .07%, Sac Flies .09% (853,117 ab's)

MLB since 1954 when Sac Flies started to be counted

1.2% of ab's resulted in Sacs

.08% of them were Sac Flies.

Productive outs do exist, but the instances of their occurance are such a small part of the total of AB's that fretting about them can be nothing but time consuming and counterproductive to building a potent offense.

Red Thunder
02-16-2006, 01:56 PM
Out of those there were 11,920 Sacs and 7535 Sac Flys, those are definitive "Productive Outs"

I would consider any out a "productive out" which results in a RBI or scores a run. Even a double play can be a productive out in contrast to a strikeout, when it wins a tied game in the ninth inning.

ochre
02-16-2006, 01:59 PM
Does "hit" event = a hit

or

Does "hit" event = a ball put into play
a ball put in play in this context.

M2
02-16-2006, 02:05 PM
I would consider any out a "productive out" which results in a RBI or scores a run. Even a double play can be a productive out in contrast to a strikeout, when it wins a tied game in the ninth inning.

Consider it anything you want. The guys who do it with the greatest frequency tend to be lousy offensive players.

Caveat Emperor
02-16-2006, 02:38 PM
That's what the "if" gives you. More than one way to get on. The strikeout does not give you that "if" factor. I think we're in agreement on that.

I lack the time and energy to research this as well as some of the brighter baseball minds on this board, but here's a rough indication of what you're debating.

In 5711 ABs against the Reds, 889 total runs were scored on the. Of those 889 runs, 69 were "unearned," and although that could mean many things, generally speaking they were a result of someone putting the ball into play and that "What if" occuring. This completely discounts those situations where the error was NOT as a result of a ball being put into play (throwing error on an SB) or when the error was incidental to a base hit that would've already had a runner on base. In actuality, your "what if" event probably works out to contributing to fewer than those 69 runs

But, 5711 ABs against the Reds produced 69 "unearned" runs -- 1.2% of the ABs. Extrapolate that out, and even against one of the worst pitching staffs (featuring pitchers who'd struggle strike a little leaguer out) and worst defenses in the majors, a batter facing nothing but Reds pitching would only (in a 550 AB season) see 6.6 (7) ABs per season where their ability to put the ball into play results (directly or indirectly) in a run scoring.

And, like I said, this is assuming every error resulted from a "bat on ball" scenario that everyone envisions when they cite the conventional Joe-ism "If you swing the bat, you're dangerous."

Personally, I don't see the value in measuring a metric that impacts the game that infrequently.

bigredmachine1976
02-16-2006, 02:53 PM
they effectively make the same number of outs. In this realistically unlikely scenario though, the contact guy is more likely to hit into more double plays, as when the other guy hits it, he apparently hits it further, or has greater speed. This can be inferred from the fact he puts the ball in play less often yet ends up with a similar number of total bases from these ball in play events.

I want the guy that hits it further, given that they both make outs at approximately the same rate.


a ball put in play in this context.

Thanks for the clarification.

Based on that definition a "hit" event and a strikeout would have the same effect on SLG% and OB%. So the contact hitter and the high strikeout guy would have the same number of total bases. The strike out guy would not have more long hits. They would be the same or at least total to the same number of bases.
So you cannot infer how far either guys hits the ball, Is that correct?

TRF
02-16-2006, 02:53 PM
I wasn't talking about productive outs. They factor in to a game but over the course of a season, i would prefer hits in their place.

In 2005 despite Caseys sharp increase in GIDP (and yes Steel an increase of 13 over his average prior to 2005 is an aberration) theReds had a balanced lineup. 2006 will see 500+ PA's from AK, WMP and EE. All three have questionmarks about their performance. Project AK all you like, he hasn't been the same since he got Rafiki'd by Ray King. You could project him off of 2005 as easily as 2003. And that ain't too pretty.

Please do not misunderstand. I get that balls in play and what happens is either an out or a hit. But with a K there is only an out. (excluding the silly dropped third strike Chip seems enamored with in this thread.)

I don't want AD to trade Walks for K's. I don't want WMP or AK to either. I want them to hit the pitches they are supposed to hit. I want 30 more hits from Dunn. 30. I want him to hit the ball fairly and reach base about 180+ times a year. With his walk rate and power, that puts him in Pujols territory.

bigredmachine1976
02-16-2006, 03:03 PM
I lack the time and energy to research this as well as some of the brighter baseball minds on this board, but here's a rough indication of what you're debating.

In 5711 ABs against the Reds, 889 total runs were scored on the. Of those 889 runs, 69 were "unearned," and although that could mean many things, generally speaking they were a result of someone putting the ball into play and that "What if" occuring. This completely discounts those situations where the error was NOT as a result of a ball being put into play (throwing error on an SB) or when the error was incidental to a base hit that would've already had a runner on base. In actuality, your "what if" event probably works out to contributing to fewer than those 69 runs

But, 5711 ABs against the Reds produced 69 "unearned" runs -- 1.2% of the ABs. Extrapolate that out, and even against one of the worst pitching staffs (featuring pitchers who'd struggle strike a little leaguer out) and worst defenses in the majors, a batter facing nothing but Reds pitching would only (in a 550 AB season) see 6.6 (7) ABs per season where their ability to put the ball into play results (directly or indirectly) in a run scoring.

And, like I said, this is assuming every error resulted from a "bat on ball" scenario that everyone envisions when they cite the conventional Joe-ism "If you swing the bat, you're dangerous."

Personally, I don't see the value in measuring a metric that impacts the game that infrequently.

I never said it had great value, only that a ball in play has a chance, however slight that might be, of making something happen. I make that statement and all of the sudden I'm getting all this attention. If it's not worth talking about don't reply. If you disagree with me I'm ok with that. I just think all those statistics can be misleading. After all a hit, which I'm sure you'd agree is better than a strikeout, starts with the ball being put into play by the batter.