Originally Posted by TRF
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) ?
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) ?
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?
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.
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.
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 that’s over the plate three times better than a great hitter with a ball in a tough spot.”
--Ted Williams
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
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.
Bingo.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.
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 that’s over the plate three times better than a great hitter with a ball in a tough spot.”
--Ted Williams
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 that’s over the plate three times better than a great hitter with a ball in a tough spot.”
--Ted Williams
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
Great article. (may be the first and last time ever Steel and I will agree)
Pulled out a few snippets:
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 ChampionsCode: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.
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...
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.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.
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
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
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
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.
Posting Permissions
|
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. |
