What might happen if the Reds had became "enlightened" and told Adam Dunn to put the ball into play at all costs and quit striking out so much?
This is an important question because clearly these things shouldn't be talked about in a vacuum.
What might happen if the Reds had became "enlightened" and told Adam Dunn to put the ball into play at all costs and quit striking out so much?
This is an important question because clearly these things shouldn't be talked about in a vacuum.
"This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
I read it on the Internet so it must be true.
All kidding aside, the sabre circle may have decided that Ks are worth -0.31 runs and other outs are worth -0.30 runs, but there are some people who don't necessarily believe that every formula that circle created is gold.
And even if those numbers could be proven factual and true to a non-partisan crowd, it still doesn't change the theory that when comparing a K to a ball in play, one of those choices has no chance of being productive.
Maybe this is actually two separate debates, because it seems pretty black and white to me.
A flute with no holes is not a flute. A doughnut with no holes is a danish. -- Zen Philosopher Basho
remdog (09-14-2013),_Sir_Charles_ (09-14-2013)
You are telling me that a fielders choice play is the same as a strikeout or flyball? You sure about that? How about a situation with a runner on 3rd base and nobody out. The batter hits the ball to the third baseman who then throws home to erase the lead runner, leaving the offense with only a runner on first base and one out. If the batter had struck out there would be a man on third base with one out. That is a huge difference.
I am glad I don't share your version of common sense.
You have to factor in all the outcomes that occur in real games and account for the same frequency they occur in real games. You can't just cherry pick the scenarios that fit your preconceived (and disproven) narrative.
You have already acknowledged that high strikeout hitters produce at a much better level than low strikeout hitters, so why try to deny one of the foundations of sabremetrics?
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
xsteve1 (09-14-2013)
Putting the ball in play has a chance to be counterproductive, even extremely counterproductive. Do you acknowledge that?
The productive and counter-productive results have been definitively proven to cancel each other out, whether you believe it or not.
If making contact is so clearly better, then how do you account for the fact that high strikeout hitters have significantly outperformed low strikeout hitters? The on-field results of real MLB games clearly show that your belief is misguided.
Homer Bailey (09-15-2013)
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but isn't a game a small sample size? And don't they counts wins in each game towards total record and that's what they count towards the playoffs every year? So in each small sample size a strikeout in a bad situation seems like it can loom large in the outcome. If they counted total production and runs of the whole season to determine team success, then strikeouts seem like they could be mitigated over the whole but each small sample size, a game, is what goes into total record and team success. Sure I know there are theories that say that the teams that score the most generally have the best record, but it seems each game is a small sample size so strikeouts can matter in each game then, the total record can be effected by strikeouts because total record is a compilation of small sample sizes not a picture of the total sample size. Maybe I'm misunderstanding but idk it seems that strikeouts do matter in the course of each game and those count towards record, not a macro overall production total.
Last edited by Old school 1983; 09-14-2013 at 09:05 PM.
Brutus (09-14-2013)
A flute with no holes is not a flute. A doughnut with no holes is a danish. -- Zen Philosopher Basho
No it isn't a strawman. The whole point people are making is that it's not just about productive outs versus strikeouts. It's that when you put the ball in play, you have the chance of getting a hit, an error, a productive out, etc. When you make a strikeout, you have a chance at none of those things. It's cherry-picking to ignore all that can and does happen when a hitter puts the ball in play.
That's not a strawman. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!
Last edited by Brutus; 09-14-2013 at 08:58 PM.
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
I personally find it offensive to still hear people say that "strikeouts are just another out". I couldn't give a darn what any formula tells you it it completely contradicts simple common sense.
Man on 2nd or third. Less than 2 outs. Outside of a double play, a strikeout is your worst possible outcome IMO and it's not even close. An out via contact...yes, it MAY have the same result as the strikeout (an out without any runners advancing), but it also may have many, many, MANY other possibilities. And this example is only one of MANY that can be described the same darned way. Yes, a strike out is an out. But it's not "JUST" another out. It's an out with zero chance of anything positive occurring. My comment earlier about it being worse than a DP, my point was that while it's also a negative outcome, it does have at least a possibility of a positive outcome attached to it...but the extra out still makes it worse than a K IMO.
I'm sorry, but I'll never be able to wrap my head around a formula (no matter how much data it's based on) that tells me that a K isn't worse than an out from a ball put into play.
Put the ball into play and you FORCE the defense to make a play. If the opponent makes the play...tip your cap.
Last edited by _Sir_Charles_; 09-14-2013 at 09:00 PM.
Brutus (09-14-2013)
One can't get a hit without making contact.
One can't record a fly out without preventing the ball from hitting the ground.
Alright now that we've gotten those earth shattering issues out of the way, let's actually discuss the issue of contact, K's and run scoring perhaps in something more than broad generalities that have limited utility or offer little insight.
"This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
Homer Bailey (09-15-2013),Larkin Fan (09-14-2013),Raisor (09-14-2013),RedEye (09-14-2013)
I think walks are valuable.
Sometimes it works out that a K is better than an alternate outcome (DP.)
That said, it seems that the sabre crowd has fallen in love with walks and strikeouts. One of those I understand, the other I do not. So honestly, I'm not kidding when I say I think there are some people that would like batters to never swing the bat. Either take a walk or strike out. At least that way you will never hit into a double play.
Or maybe they only think this way if there is a runner on base.
"That was a sweet grand slam, but man, he took quite a risk swinging at a pitch with the bases loaded. He could have hit into a quadruple play!"
A flute with no holes is not a flute. A doughnut with no holes is a danish. -- Zen Philosopher Basho
And you are already given full credit in the charts for those hits and errors and productive outs. Fortunately the charts also factor in the negative outcomes that you want to ignore. Accounting for all outcomes proves that strikeouts are no worse than contact outs.
You seem to subscribe to the theory that a hitter can get a do-over on his strikeouts. You can't change the outcome of the strikeouts alone without changing your approach on all the plate appearances. You don't know in advance when you are going to strike out.
Once again, the proof is in the pudding. High strikeout hitters produce more than low strikeout hitters. It is insane to conclude that you should tell your best hitters to change their approach so they can be more like your worst hitters.
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |