Thread: Strike out = to any other out?

1. Re: Strike out = to any other out?

Additionally, (of course overlap here with above but another way of looking at it) 313 of the Reds 1375 hits last year (23%) were either doubles or triples. By definition, if not with 2 outs, and two thirds of them wouldn't be, that's 200+ productive out opportunities created.
Out of those 200 opportunities, 33% are off the rack right away as a guy gets on base somehow (not an out). That leaves about 140 outs a season that can move a guy up.

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

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

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

GL

2. Re: Strike out = to any other out?

Originally Posted by gonelong

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

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

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

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

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

3. Re: Strike out = to any other out?

I thought interesting too. But remember although "A Strikeout also has no chance of causing a Double Play. " also, A strikeout has no chance of allowing the hitter to reach base on an ERRROR.

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

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

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

4. Re: Strike out = to any other out?

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

In fact situational hitting matters so much that teams take great pains to attempt to construct an order which will maximize scoring opportunities and runs given its mix of players. If the impact of the K is NOT showing up in the stats for the individual hitter well there is a reason - it is because that LOSS is being SHIFTED/PASSED ON to his TEAM.
Funny you should mention that, because there have been studies done that have concluded that teams should arrange their batting order in exactly that manner (high OBP/OPS to low OBP/OPS) because they'd score more runs that way. They don't do it because the baseball establishment is mired as deeply in denial as you are. :dflynn:

5. Re: Strike out = to any other out?

Originally Posted by sacred_donkey
Funny you should mention that, because there have been studies done that have concluded that teams should arrange their batting order in exactly that manner (high OBP/OPS to low OBP/OPS) because they'd score more runs that way. They don't do it because the baseball establishment is mired as deeply in denial as you are. :dflynn:
If the "studies" you refer to are constructed similarly to the Strikeouts vs. Runs Scored study referenced in this thread I'd suggest not betting the house.

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

6. Re: Strike out = to any other out?

how many double plays were there last year?

how many times did a hitter reach on an error?

how many times was a runner advanced on an out?

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

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

7. Re: Strike out = to any other out?

Originally Posted by TRF

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

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

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

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

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

8. Re: Strike out = to any other out?

BF, I suppose you're of the opinion that Rickey Henderson was a bad leadoff hitter, because he struck out a good amount, and hit all those pesky HRs?

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

9. Re: Strike out = to any other out?

I don't believe in the "one-man team" OPS all-inclusive school of appraising.
Theo Epstein does (to some extent) and it's seemed to work for him. The Red Sox led the AL in K's...but they also ranked 2nd in walks and led in OBA, SLG, OPS and Runs Scored.

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

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

10. Re: Strike out = to any other out?

Seven pages of this thread and still not one real-world example to support BF's case. Not one.

No player exists in a vacuum.
None of the very accurate arguments made by others on this thread are drawn from a "vacuum". However, a vacuum IS the place where every one of your arguments exist.

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

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

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

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

2004 Runs Created:

Juan Pierre- 104.3

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

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

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

11. Re: Strike out = to any other out?

wrong thinking BF.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So i will break it down even more.

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

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

How ever is this possible?

12. Re: Strike out = to any other out?

Originally Posted by baseballPAP
BF, I suppose you're of the opinion that Rickey Henderson was a bad leadoff hitter, because he struck out a good amount, and hit all those pesky HRs?

A couple of the best leadoff hitters of the 80s/90s......
I love Boggs and Rickey. Boggs was a great hitter and loved his DOUBLES - he can bat anywhere in the lineup he wants. They talk of K's as an attribute for judging pitchers. I'd argue Ks and DOUBLES are also good attributes to consider when looking at hitting. If you're hitting alot of doubles you're hitting the ball hard and that usually means something good can happen. I don't mind a stirke out but if you K too too much that is a sign of some hitting issues.

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

13. Re: Strike out = to any other out?

I don't mind a stirke out but if you K too too much that is a sign of some hitting issues.
Kinda like McGwire and Sosa in 1998?

14. Re: Strike out = to any other out?

Originally Posted by TRF
wrong thinking BF.

fielding 8 "Adam Dunn's" will beat 8 "Juan Pierre's" nearly every time.
You said alot there TRF, let me just say yes, Dunn had a productive year last year - no disputing that. I didn't like the Ks but no disputing that 46 HRs and 34 doubles will help a team. No argument there.

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

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

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

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

15. Re: Strike out = to any other out?

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