Re: Strike out = to any other out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRF
m2, please do not put this guy on your ignore list.
i too walked on the dark side. and with help from you steel and raisor i learned that i can learn.
mebbe he can too.
TRF, you never walked in here for the sole purpose of arguing in favor of lunacy. I don't even remember what we've disagreed about in the past, but I never got the sense you were impervious to logic or dead-set against considering anything but your own point of view. Post long enough and we're all wrong about something at some point.
In short, I never saw you as being on a "dark side."
But I can tell you that my forehead's going unslapped a lot the past few days thanks to that little ignore function. In fact, from my perspective this has been a fairly enjoyable thread ... though I suspect that's because I chose to be selective about what I read.
Re: Strike out = to any other out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadFundamentals
You're trying to say that there is a positive correlation between a hitter's strikeouts and his offensive contribution??
No thats not what he's saying at all.
Listen, Here's the point and its a simple one:
1. for some reason X, if you plug all of the variables that we can measure regarding a pitcher's performance into a predictive equation, a variable that is highly correlated (read: predictive) with how "good" he is, is the number of Strikeouts he gets.
2. for some reason Y, if you plug all of the variables that we can measure regarding a batter's performance into a predictive equation, a variable that is not correlated at all (to a point of having probably NO correlation - read: no predictive value) with how good he is, is his number of strikeouts.
Those are the facts BF, they are what they are. Now we can argue until we're blue in the face (as I'm sure you must be by now) what reason X is and what reason Y is, BUT what we can't argue about is what the numbers tell us.
Unless, a predictive value of greater than 95 % isn't impressive to you. ;)
Re: Strike out = to any other out?
not "blue in the face" but approaching the "agree to disagree" point at least for now......
I don't dispute your point #1. It is very believable to me that there is a correlation between the # of strikeouts a pitcher gets and how "good" he is. I expect that would hold up for several different methods of quantifying "good" (era, whip, etc. etc...)
I dispute #2. A most obvious and extreme example, take "pitchers". I guarantee you that generally they strikeout alot (relatively) and generally they are not "good" hitters by any measure.
More importantly, in a macro sense.....
If (your point #1), a high strikeout rate for an individual pitcher is GOOD, that means that a strikeout MUST be better than other outs (popouts and flyouts). You have a finite number of outs, we've both agreed the more strikeouts the better, strikeouts are better than other outs.
Given that assumption, the converse is also true. A team OFFENSE is in direct opposition to an opposing team's PITCHING/DEFENSE (a pitcher being a component part of that team PITCHING/DEFENSE). At a conceptual level, better to have less team strikeouts because this suggests your getting a lower level of quality from your direct opposition - the opposing team's PITCHING/DEFENSE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red_BlueDevil
No thats not what he's saying at all.
Listen, Here's the point and its a simple one:
1. for some reason X, if you plug all of the variables that we can measure regarding a pitcher's performance into a predictive equation, a variable that is highly correlated (read: predictive) with how "good" he is, is the number of Strikeouts he gets.
2. for some reason Y, if you plug all of the variables that we can measure regarding a batter's performance into a predictive equation, a variable that is not correlated at all (to a point of having probably NO correlation - read: no predictive value) with how good he is, is his number of strikeouts.
Those are the facts BF, they are what they are. Now we can argue until we're blue in the face (as I'm sure you must be by now) what reason X is and what reason Y is, BUT what we can't argue about is what the numbers tell us.
Unless, a predictive value of greater than 95 % isn't impressive to you. ;)
Re: Strike out = to any other out?
Quote:
I dispute #2. A most obvious and extreme example, take "pitchers". I guarantee you that generally they strikeout alot (relatively) and generally they are not "good" hitters by any measure.
Runs Created- 97.3% correlation with actual Runs Scored (higher than any metric you've ever used)
I'll post this again:
However, of the top 10 MLB Strikeout Batting Title qualifiers since 2000, only three seasons came in at under 5.00 RC/27 Outs. Only 14 player-seasons in that time span ended up under 6.00 RC/27 Outs.
That tells us that the high K rate players not only put up well above average Run values, but that 94% of the highest K seasons since 2000 would have outscored your average 2004 MLB team per game. 72% of those hitters would have outscored the 2004 Boston Red Sox per 27 Outs.
If 94% of the seasons from the top 10 Strikeout leaderboard from 2000-2004 would outscore the MLB average team and 72% of the season on that list would have outscored the highest scoring team in baseball from last season, they're "good" hitters by every definition of the word "good".
The reason you think they're not "good" is that you think offensive players who Strike Out often are "bad". That's it in a nutshell. No more, no less. You think they're "bad", therefore they must be- in defiance of all the information that says those players are "good".
Now you're simply adding in the concept that because pitchers are generally bad hitters and that they strike out a lot then every hitter who strikes out a lot is a bad hitter.
All dogs do not have spots.
Re: Strike out = to any other out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadFundamentals
If a high strikeout rate for an individual pitcher is GOOD, that means that a strikeout MUST be better than other outs (popouts and flyouts).
No it doesn't. The very premise of your argument is false. A strikeout is "GOOD" for a pither because it correlates highly with a pitcher being good. One thing you've flat out ignored is the data. And we're not talking subjective data. We're talking about something as basic as correlation. The point that you've dodged this whole thread is that a pitcher who strikes out a lot of hitters tend to be "good" pitchers regardless of the measurement (ERS, WHIP, etc...). In other words there's a correlation between the ability to strike hitters out and the ability get hitters out period.
That same relationship doesn't exist for a hitter. No matter how much you OPINE that it does, the data, in it's most basic and indisputable form completely contradicts what you say. The amount that a hitter strikes out doesn't at all correlate with the hitter's overall offensive contribution measured by any reliable metric (and yes, I'm excluding batting average).
I understand when things are just differences of opinion. But this isn't a matter of opinion, it's cold hard fact. Any attempt to say otherwise is just wrong.
Answer me this, which AB is more pressure-filled: an AB with a man on second and two outs in the 5th inning of a 7 run blowout; or an AB in the bottom of the ninth in a tie game or down 1 run with nobody on base? Which one has more pressure. Because BA with RISP considers the first as a pressure situation while the second one isn't considered to be a pressure AB. how do you explain that?
Re: Strike out = to any other out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadFundamentals
I dispute #2. A most obvious and extreme example, take "pitchers". I guarantee you that generally they strikeout alot (relatively) and generally they are not "good" hitters by any measure.
Pitchers also don't walk or hit for power. Would you agree? So you could also say that those hitter who don't walk or hit for power are generall "bad" hitters. I have a hard time believing you can't see that as an astronomical leap in logic.
Re: Strike out = to any other out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRF
you are so close to getting it.
psst. the key isn't strikeouts.
it's on base percentage. Dunn gets on base 38% of the time. When your team has a high OBP, they tend to score a lot of runs.
And guys like Dunn are rare. High OBP, monster power.
get it?
I feel like a proud father at graduation time :mhcky21:
Re: Strike out = to any other out?
A pitcher and a batter are in DIRECT opposition to one another.
They are each component parts of their respective team PITCHING/DEFENSE and team OFFENSE which are also in DIRECT opposition to one another.
A game begins in equilibrium (0-0) - by the end one of the opposing forces (teams) is victorious.
- - - - - - - - - -
A single by a batter (good) has an equal and opposite negative (bad) impact on the opposing team and its pitcher. The same can be said for a "double" however since a double is relatively better for the offense than a "single" we can also say that it has a relatively greater negative (bad) impact on the opposing team and its pitcher.
It works the other way as well. ALL outs are good for pitching/defense but we all agree that "generally speaking" strikeouts are RELATIVELY better outs than flyouts or lineouts or groundouts (similar to a double vs. single but less variance). Any out by pitching/defense has an equal and opposite negative impact on the opposing offense. Since a strikeout is RELATIVELY better for a pitcher/offense than other outs it can also be said that "generally speaking" the equal and opposite negative impact of a strikeout to opposing offense is also greater. Conclude strikeouts are worse than other outs for a hitter/offense.
Stats are great but no match for Isaac Newton.
Re: Strike out = to any other out?
Quote:
Stats are great but no match for Isaac Newton
Newton couldn't take a walk.
Re: Strike out = to any other out?
Still ignoring the data and not addressing it directly. Instead, just summarily dismissing stats altogether because you have no answer. If you can't see the difference between batting and pitching, i can't help you. Also, if looking at correlation doesn't sway at all, I give up.
Re: Strike out = to any other out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MWM
I give up.
I'm hoping there are lurkers reading this thread and learning what BF refuses to even try to learn.
Re: Strike out = to any other out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by westofyou
Newton couldn't take a walk.
He did, however, lead the league is Hit By Apples one year.
Re: Strike out = to any other out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by westofyou
Newton couldn't take a walk.
Is he the guy who invented the Double Play?
Gets fuzzy in here sometimes.
Re: Strike out = to any other out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by westofyou
Newton couldn't take a walk.
Actually he took a walk - then got hit by the apple, thus the gravity of this situation.
Re: Strike out = to any other out?
this is how many runs a lineup of each of these players would have scored in 2004...keep in mind, the Reds scored 750 runs:
Dunn: 1283
Casey: 1186
Griffey: 998
Pena: 915
Freel: 883
Jimenez: 823
LaRue: 803
Larkin: 790
Lopez: 742
Valentin: 609
Castro: 513
Top 10 K
Dunn: 1283
Wilson: 999
Patterson: 842
Jenkins: 829
Wilkerson: 1090
Edmonds: 1588
Cabrera: 1040
A. Jones: 860
Thome: 1304
Cameron: 879
and with that happy note, i'm done with this.