Turn Off Ads?
Page 15 of 18 FirstFirst ... 51112131415161718 LastLast
Results 211 to 225 of 263

Thread: Strike out = to any other out?

  1. #211
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    833

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    Quote Originally Posted by TRF
    :dflynn: :dflynn: :dflynn:

    no. the problem with the reds was the pitching staf gave up 5 runs per game.

    apples and oranges.

    Then keep "The Reds" out of it. How can you contend "It's about ..... total bases." but not also acknowledge that 200 Productive outs (200 exta bases) is better than 200 strikeouts (0 extra bases) ?

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #212
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    833

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    And this one, we probably all agree Dunn was productive last year.

    Wouldn't you agree he'd have had even a more productive year last year if (keep OBP, SLG etc.. the same) instead of 195 strikeouts he only struck out 100 times?

  4. #213
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Posts
    4,237

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    Quote Originally Posted by BadFundamentals
    Wouldn't you agree he'd have had even a more productive year last year if (keep OBP, SLG etc.. the same) instead of 195 strikeouts he only struck out 100 times?
    100 K's? Screw that, Iwant all 195 K's to be replaced with Sac Flies in 2005. Then we'll be on to something.

  5. #214
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    3,416

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    Some outs are worse than others. And strikeouts are the worst. If you put the ball in play a lot can happen- errors, bad bounce, move runners along, etc...

    How many times late in the game with guys on have you heard the announcer say that the pitcher is really needing a strikeout? That's because it is the worst kind of out one can make.

  6. #215
    Member SteelSD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    9,333

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    Quote Originally Posted by BadFundamentals
    TRF, You stated earlier:



    A "Productive Out" is basically just a "base" for your team. That's a base you don't get if you strikeout.

    The teams that did well with "Productive Outs" last year were up over 200. Teams that didn't (like the Reds) were ~150. An extra 50-75 bases in "critical" situations would mean some "critical" Runs and certainly more WINS.
    Yet another incorrect assumption.

    The Boston Red Sox ranked 27th in MLB in Productive Outs. They ranked first in Runs Scored.

    Go fish.
    "The problem with strikeouts isn't that they hurt your team, it's that they hurt your feelings..." --Rob Neyer

    "The single most important thing for a hitter is to get a good pitch to hit. A good hitter can hit a pitch thatís over the plate three times better than a great hitter with a ball in a tough spot.Ē
    --Ted Williams

  7. #216
    Pre-tty, pre-tty good!! MWM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    12,324

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    Quote Originally Posted by BadFundamentals
    Wouldn't you agree he'd have had even a more productive year last year but (keep OBP, SLG etc.. the same) if instead of 195 strikeouts he only struck out 100 times?
    BR, I can't agree entirely with statement because it's based on a false premise. You're assuming that he would be replacing those strikeouts without making other outs and without changing the type of hitter he is. If he were to cut down on his strikeouts, he would have to change his approach to an AB, which would probably result in a lot less power and a less agressive approach to batting. So he wouldn't be sacrificing strikeouts solely with positive results, he would be sacrificing strikeouts at the expense of power and potentially walks. It's not worth it.

    But it seems like you're changing your argument from strikeouts are detrimental to run creation to Adam Dunn would be a better player if he struck out less without changing anything else. No one has ever suggested Adam Dunn is without flaw. What we've argued is that his strikeouts don't detract from the amount of runs he creates in a baseball season. Even WITH the strikeouts, he's still a GREAT offensive player. Would he be even better if he were able to replace some strikeouts with OBP? Of course. But any player would be better if they replaced outs with non-outs. It's not the stikeouts that's the problems. It's the outs.

    You'd be just as wise to say: wouldn't a player be more productive if he were to only ground out 100 times instead of 200. It's all about not being on base.
    Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David

  8. #217
    Charlie Brown All-Star IslandRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, FL
    Posts
    4,847

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?


  9. #218
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    833

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    MWM, love the Kramer

    No, I wasnt' meaning to switch and target Dunn. He just happens to be an easy example on a team we're all familiar with.

  10. #219
    Member SteelSD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    9,333

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    BR, I can't agree entirely with statement because it's based on a false premise. You're assuming that he would be replacing those strikeouts without making other outs and without changing the type of hitter he is.
    Bingo.

    See: 2004 Montreal Expos

    Struck out less than all but two MLB teams.

    Yet made a higher percentage of Outs than all but one MLB team.

    Aquired fewer bases than all but one MLB team.

    Finished 28th in Runs Scored.

    <Edit: I should also note that, of Productive Out opportunities, Montreal advanced the highest % of Runners. Lowest % advanced was...you guessed it...the Boston Red Sox, who led MLB in Runs Scored>

    A bunch of slap-happy low-power "move-the-runners along" hitters who don't strike out very often but don't do much actual damage when they do hit balls into play. That's the Expos in a nutshell.

    Use BF's logic and the 2004 Montreal Expos are an excellent hitting team. But reality tells us they're one of the worst offensive units in baseball.

    Fantasy versus reality once more.
    Last edited by SteelSD; 12-18-2004 at 06:22 PM.
    "The problem with strikeouts isn't that they hurt your team, it's that they hurt your feelings..." --Rob Neyer

    "The single most important thing for a hitter is to get a good pitch to hit. A good hitter can hit a pitch thatís over the plate three times better than a great hitter with a ball in a tough spot.Ē
    --Ted Williams

  11. #220
    Member SteelSD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    9,333

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    Great article.

    If that doesn't slam the door AND nail this discussion shut, I don't know what will.

    And why is it that I get nauseated whenever I read the words "Buster Olney"?
    "The problem with strikeouts isn't that they hurt your team, it's that they hurt your feelings..." --Rob Neyer

    "The single most important thing for a hitter is to get a good pitch to hit. A good hitter can hit a pitch thatís over the plate three times better than a great hitter with a ball in a tough spot.Ē
    --Ted Williams

  12. #221
    Pre-tty, pre-tty good!! MWM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    12,324

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    Here's a raking of MLB teams in 2004 based on runs scored. It also has their respective total bases, strikeouts, and strikeouts vs the league average. I tink I see a trend.

    Code:
    2004-2004
    TOTAL BASES displayed only--not a sorting criteria
    STRIKEOUTS displayed only--not a sorting criteria
    STRIKEOUTS vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
    
    RUNS                             R       TB       SO       SO     
    1    Redsox                      949     2702     1189      163   
    2    Yankees                     897     2530      982      -42   
    3    Whitesox                    865     2529     1030        5   
    4    Rangers                     860     2564     1099       73   
    5    Indians                     858     2520     1009      -34   
    6    Cardinals                   855     2553     1085       57   
    7    Giants                      850     2429      874     -161   
    8    Orioles                     842     2476      949      -93   
    9    Phillies                    840     2499     1133       87   
    10   Angels                      836     2435      942      -86   
    11   Rockies                     833     2536     1181      148   
    12   Tigers                      827     2526     1144      114   
    T13  Braves                      803     2415     1158      125   
    T13  Astros                      803     2385      999      -28   
    15   A's                         793     2478     1061       14   
    16   Cubs                        789     2579     1080       35   
    17   Twins                       780     2425      982      -59   
    18   Padres                      768     2306      910     -118   
    19   Dodgers                     761     2345     1092       56   
    20   Reds                        750     2305     1335      296   
    21   Royals                      720     2201     1057       23   
    22   BlueJays                    719     2231     1083       58   
    23   Marlins                     718     2230      968      -64   
    24   Devil Rays                  714     2221      944      -75   
    25   Mariners                    698     2268     1058        4   
    26   Mets                        684     2260     1159      110   
    27   Pirates                     680     2199     1066       36   
    28   Expos                       635     2144      925     -121   
    29   Brewers                     634     2122     1312      270   
    30   Diamondbacks                615     2177     1022      -26
    Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David

  13. #222
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    833

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    Great article. (may be the first and last time ever Steel and I will agree)

    Pulled out a few snippets:

    Code:
    I found that, indeed, Anaheim and Florida did very well in making their outs productive
    in the past two postseasons. Anaheim's POP in 2002 was .388, 
    while Florida's was .369 in 2003. Both teams, 
    however, ranked third in this category among all playoff teams each season, Anaheim 
    behind St. Louis (.526) and San Francisco (.393) in 2002, Florida behind Atlanta (.500) and 
    San Francisco (.450) in 2003.
    
    What does this tell us? Nothing conclusive, only that the past two World Champions made 
    productive outs at a good rate. It doesn't tell us that's why 
    they won, and the fact that two teams with astonishingly great productive out rates
    were knocked out in the first round last season casts some doubt on that theory.
    I have to disagree with his concluding paragraph. He gives Anaheim and Florida credit for making their productive outs - then says other playoff teams did even better. He continues "the past two World Champions
    made productive outs at a good rate." But then CONCLUDES, "what does
    that tell us? nothing conclusive". Maybe not "conclusive" but it does tells us that ALL of the aforementioned "playoff teams" did well with their productive outs and implies there were 20+ other non-playoff teams out there who do relatively worse .


    Another one...

    Code:
    Atlanta only got on base 20% of the time in their opportunities, 
    so that could explain their defeat, but San Francisco had an on-base 
    percentage of .444 in those opportunities. The reasons for San Francisco's
     defeat can probably be found in their ability to drive home runners rather
     than just get on, and in making two-out hits, two things that go beyond the
     scope of this study.
    That passage, points out one of the many "additional variables". If a team (or player) does well with getting hits in "productive out" opportunities, then the productive outs themselves become relatively less important.

    Again, (truly just for an easy example) that is where a guy like Dunn or a team like the Reds really struggle. If not driving in runs (hitting with RISP) well and NOT making productive outs well and NOT able to bunt that is kind of triple whammy in a bad way for situational hitting.


    Finally....

    Code:
    This last statistic indicates that making productive outs is not an
     important part of winning ballgames. The correlation to winning 
    percentage drives the nail in the coffin: POP has a .463 correlation to
    winning percentage, OBP in those situations has a .750 correlation, 
    while the rate of productive outs has a mere .283 correlation.
    
    Overall, OBP, SLG, OPS and GPA correlate even better: 
    OBP -- .841, SLG -- .855, OPS -- .874, GPA -- .877. Of course, 
    these are in very small samples, but if the strategy of making 
    productive outs doesn't work in a small sample, then how is it a useful
     substitute to the "Moneyball" style of play, which emphasizes 
    playing in a fashion that will be more effective over the long haul?
    
    There is a very small value to tracking productive outs,

    I like how he correlates all his variables with WINNING. I don't think any of us would expect that ability to make "productive outs" is MORE important than OBP, SLG or OPS. Nor would would we expect that it would be more highly correlated. But again, (as with the Baseball Prospectus) study when comparing a RELATIVELY MINOR (to OPS) attribute (like productive outs) to WINNING, OPS should be held constant. He makes no mention of holding OPS constant. He just tosses out the .283 correlation and dismisses it. Not surprising that there isn't a stronger correlation - OPS smothers it.
    Last edited by BadFundamentals; 12-18-2004 at 07:02 PM. Reason: format exerpts

  14. #223
    Pre-tty, pre-tty good!! MWM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    12,324

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    I asked this before and didn't get an answer. If a player comes up in the fifth inning of a 5 run blowout with 2 outs and a man on second, that counts toward his BA with RISP. Yet, if he comes up with none on and no outs in the 9th inning of a tie game, it doesn't get recorded in "RISP." How do you reconcile that, BF?
    Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David

  15. #224
    Pre-tty, pre-tty good!! MWM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    12,324

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    Quote Originally Posted by BadFundamentals
    But again, (as with the Baseball Prospectus) study when comparing a RELATIVELY MINOR (to OPS) attribute (like productive outs) to WINNING, OPS should be held constant. He makes no mention of holding OPS constant. He just tosses out the .283 correlation and dismisses it. Not surprising that there isn't a stronger correlation - OPS smothers it.
    I have no idea what this means, and I've had a good amount of statistical training. It seems like he's saying that if you take a team's POP and line it up with wins, there isn't any correlation. It has nothing to do with OPS. OPS wouldn't be involved at all. If I looked an independent variable and found that it only correlated by a factor of .283, I'd throw it out as well.
    Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David

  16. #225
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    833

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    Yes, MWM a nice Total Base v Runs Trend.

    What I did was took that same data over 10 years. Then, held Total Bases (OPS) constant and looked for recognizable trends between Runs v Ks.

    As an example, in your list look at Twins and Giants (similar Total Bases) but significantly different Runs Scored and Ks. Those TWO teams would support the theory that MORE Ks = LESS Runs.

    However, something like that was the exception. I couldn't find any significant QUANTIFIABLE correlation on a whole.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

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.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25