"No matter what the stat boys say, you put the ball in play." - Dusty

[RedEye]

In ANY context....

A strikeout always sucks.

It does suck. Situationally. But it doesn't really suck that much when considered in the overall context of run production that has been cited multiple times on this very thread.

[RedEye]

Only a few people keep resorting to the "strawman" response, and it only happens when someone actually has a common sense argument they know can't be refuted.

The "common sense" argument you keep suggesting is not actually the argument that the other parties are making. Hence the strawman keeps popping up.

[AtomicDumpling]

You haven't debunked anything. All you've managed to do is proven is that you're obsessed with the word strawman.

It's a simple concept: if you strike out, you can't score. Yet here you are stil arguing with people making that point even though you claim not to be arguing that point.

Thus, you still haven't explained how it's better to strike out than put the ball in play.

There you go again, lying about my opinion. You seem to be obsessed with my opinion. Refer to my earlier post in bold text when you get confused about my opinion next time. Maybe you should print it out and tape it to your computer screen. Then maybe you will be able to stop misrepresenting my arguments. Better yet, don't try to express my opinion at all. Stick to yours, which keeps shifting as your latest version gets blown to smithereens.

I never once said it was better to strike out than put the ball in play. That is just downright dishonest to claim that I did.

I said strikeouts are no worse than contact outs on average over the course of the season. And I thoroughly proved it!

I also gave plenty of examples of specific situations where strikeouts would have been preferable to double plays and certain fielder's choices (which you confused for force outs), and explained how those scenarios serve to fully cancel out the positive value of "productive outs".

Good night sir!

[Roy Tucker]

Seems that a lot of people use Dusty's words to promote their viewpoint.

I think most hitting coaches say to attack a pitch if its in your zone. If its out of your zone, if it's a pitcher's pitch, then its a bad one to attack. Let it go.

I think most hitting coaches tell you to not hit a pitcher's pitch, i.e. when its not the one you're expecting or it's one you can't handle.

A lot of people here seem to thing MLB hitters and coaches and managers are imbeciles and don't know how to hit or play. I think it's a whole lot harder than what people think.

[_Sir_Charles_]

OK good points.

I will just add that the Reds most productive hitters are the ones that strike out the most. The least productive hitters strike out the least. I don't think it is wise to encourage your best hitters to be more like your worst hitters.

He's not, and I'm not. We're talking about 2 strike counts. That's it. How is wanting ALL of your hitters swinging at strikes in 2 strike counts making ANY hitter worse?

IMO Joey Votto is the best hitter in the NL. Guess what he does? He chokes up and shortens his swing with 2 strikes to increase his odds of making contact. Yes, he has alot of strikeouts. If they're strikeouts swinging...I've got zero issue with it. If they're strikeouts looking...then we can talk. Fantastic pitchers pitch on the black...very little problem with it (you tip your cap to the pitcher), but if there are men in scoring position and it's close enough to be borderline...it's probably close enough to swing at to protect the plate.

[Brutus]

This is not the perspective from which AD is arguing the topic. At all. If you keep refusing to see that, you will keep talking past him.

Please offer some data -- ANY data -- that refutes the Tango tables he posted earlier, and then we will have a conversation about this.

Dusty says he wants his guys putting the ball in play.

If you strike out, you don't score. How can any other perspective make sense? Explain it. It hasn't been explained.

All I've seen is a narrow explanation that strike outs are only marginally worse than "productive" outs... except, that conveniently ignores that if you put the ball in play, the options aren't just double plays or productive outs; you also add in hits, errors and extra bases taken.

[kaldaniels]

Seems that a lot of people use Dusty's words to promote their viewpoint.

I think most hitting coaches say to attack a pitch if its in your zone. If its out of your zone, if it's a pitcher's pitch, then its a bad one to attack. Let it go.

I think most hitting coaches tell you to not hit a pitcher's pitch, i.e. when its not the one you're expecting or it's one you can't handle.

A lot of people here seem to thing MLB hitters and coaches and managers are imbeciles and don't know how to hit or play. I think it's a whole lot harder than what people think.

Forget every other word that was said by Dusty. The minute he said "stat-boys" it was going to get nuclear in here.

Now if you'll excuse me I have another bag of popcorn to heat up.

[Brutus]

There you go again, lying about my opinion. You seem to be obsessed with my opinion. Refer to my earlier post in bold text when you get confused about my opinion next time. Maybe you should print it out and tape it to your computer screen. Then maybe you will be able to stop misrepresenting my arguments. Better yet, don't try to express my opinion at all. Stick to yours, which keeps shifting as your latest version gets blown to smithereens.

I never once said it was better to strike out than put the ball in play. That is just downright dishonest to claim that I did.

I said strikeouts are no worse than contact outs on average over the course of the season. And I thoroughly proved it!

I also gave plenty of examples of specific situations where strikeouts would have been preferable to double plays and certain fielder's choices (which you confused for force outs), and explained how those scenarios serve to fully cancel out the positive value of "productive outs".

Good night sir!

LOL so you got sick of the "strawman" response so now you're just sinking to outright accusing me of lying because you can't answer a simple question?

You still haven't explained how teams score runs without putting the ball in play. I've asked several times, and you say you're not arguing that, but yet that's the point. The point is, if you strike out, you won't score runs.

If you'd like to explain how to score runs while striking out, please feel free. If you agree you can't score runs while striking out, then you've made the point people, including Dusty, are making.

[jojo]

Only a few people keep resorting to the "strawman" response, and it only happens when someone actually has a common sense argument they know can't be refuted.

Wait for it......wait for it.......wait or it............Shenanigans!

[dubc47834]

I think we are at the point where this isn't a debate anymore, just mudslinging across the bows of each other!

[kaldaniels]

So lets pretend AD admits you can't score runs if you always strikeout. It is obvious you are waiting for that Brutus.

What is your "a-ha" comeback you are waiting to deliver? Forgive me as I am throughly confused.

[Brutus]

The "common sense" argument you keep suggesting is not actually the argument that the other parties are making. Hence the strawman keeps popping up.

Yet that's the subject being discussed. The subject brought up by Dusty is that you can't score if you're striking out.

He was criticized for saying that, but yet people haven't been able to explain how you score by striking out.

[Brutus]

So lets pretend AD admits you can't score runs if you always strikeout. It is obvious you are waiting for that Brutus.

What is your "a-ha" comeback you are waiting to deliver? Forgive me as I am throughly confused.

It's not an a-ha. It's just simple recognition that putting the ball in play is, in fact, better than a strike out. Seems pretty simple. You can't score if you don't make contact. You can if you do.

Not really an a-ha, just simple 2+2=4

[SteelSD]

Only a quarter of Jay Bruce's career home runs have been with two strikes.

Shortening up with two strikes and making contact would not significantly hurt his power.

I am amazed at how hard it is for people to wrap their head around the concept of shortening up one's swing with two strings. It doesn't have to be a holistic approach.

Ah, now I see the primary gap; the assumption that changing one's approach will not negatively impact performance. Even if a player could cut down on their K's by choice and not have it impact the remainder of his plate behavior, we can't simply assume that changed behavior would result in better performance.

While changed situational behavior may result in fewer strikeouts, it's faulty logic to then believe that it would then result in better performance. What we're seeing here is conclusion-first analysis; ie. that strikeouts inhibit offensive performance versus other out types, therefore reducing K's would enhance performance. The problem is that the former isn't factual, leading to a secondary conclusion based on an erroneous assumption.

[jojo]

A lot of people here seem to thing MLB hitters and coaches and managers are imbeciles and don't know how to hit or play. I think it's a whole lot harder than what people think.

Exactly which is why it's surreal to hear someone argue the modern hitter lacks common sense while making an argument suggesting a guy like Dunn is stubborn for not changing his whole approach at the plate.