Turn Off Ads?
Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 263

Thread: Strike out = to any other out?

  1. #136
    Thread Killer
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Logan, Ohio
    Posts
    314

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    Ahh, I did forget to factor in 1st and 3rd, 2nd and 3rd..... I'll up my original guess to 5% then....but I'd be happy to see the numbers.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #137
    Vavasor TRF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Amarillo, TX
    Posts
    13,456

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    Quote Originally Posted by DoogMinAmo
    Sorry TRF, but wouldn't his avg. be .333? I digress ...
    why yes, yes it would. let's make him K 3 times then.
    Suck it up cupcake.

  4. #138
    Member SteelSD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    9,366

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    But when you set out to prove or disprove something you create "test conditions" which aren't necessarily intended to mirror the real world.
    True scientific method doesn't set out to prove or disprove anything. It's goal is to find information regardless of where that information takes us. Your goal, however, is not the acquisition of information. You're not starting with a hypothesis. You're positioning a belief system.

    Let's examplify...

    We're testing a new cancer treatment on a group of 100 patients, all of whom have the same type of cancer. The type of cancer is 100% fatal.

    We give 50 of the patients a placebo (our "control" group) and 50 of those patients the real treatment. All of the control group patients die from their illness. All but two who received the real treatment survive.

    There appears to be a correlation of "test treatment" and "survival".

    Fast forward to your methodology...

    BF is testing a new cancer treatment. He selects 100 subjects, none of whom are actually suffering from cancer. He gives all the subjects the test treatment and none expire due to cancer.

    In testing a competitor's cancer treatment, he selects 100 subjects, all of whom are suffering from the same type of terminal cancer. BF gives each test subject a placebo treatment and none of them the test treatment prescribed by his competition. All 100 subjects in this study pass away from their disease.

    BF then declares his treatment a roaring success because his test allowed all 100 of his subjects to live while all 100 subjects he tested for the purposes of invalidating his competitor's study died. Nevermind that the test was set up to "prove" BF's treatment and to "disprove" his competitor's.

    That is, in a nutshell, what you've been doing this entire thread BF. You still haven't found a single real-life example of offensive K's being a real-life statistically significant production driver. Instead, you've created a scenario where your reasoning can't possibly fail because you set up your "test" to succeed.

    Fact is, that no one on this thread has ever ever stated that every K is equal in every situation to every out. What has been communicated, quite clearly, is that no statistically significant correlation can be found between offensive strikeouts and negative offensive production.

    If you want someone to say that a deep fly ball to right field is prefereable to a strikeout with a speedy runner on third in the bottom of the ninth with a score tied, I'll completely agree. However, just because Hitter A puts the ball into play more than Hitter B over time, that doesn't mean they have the ability to generate the requisite fly ball to that exact spot on the field at will. That fly ball being hit there is a random event.

    Your over-emphasis on Out "type" stems from your misconception that hitters can control the kind of Outs created on balls hit into play. Certainly, different hitters may have a natural predisposition for Ground Outs or Fly Outs, but they cannot control the direction or distance of the ball consistently over time from situation to situation. Nor are hitters who have more of a propensity to put the ball into play in ANY situation automatically more valuable in any situation versus those who do not.

    Instead, you should be focusing on non-Out event ratio and quality. Hitters who make fewer Outs and acquire more Bases simply advance their teams past the point of having to rely on rare random situations where trading an Out for a base would be meaningful. Simply put, Jim Thome/Adam Dunn type hitters are preventative in nature. Because hitters like that contribute more offensive value to teams at all times, teams who have more high OBP/high SLG weapons are able to more consistently avoid scenarios in which one Run is going to make a difference late in a game.

    Very simply, for Hitters who make fewer Outs and acquire more Bases, Out type is particularly insignificant. Yet, you continue to beat the drum that hitters should be evaluated by Out events rather than non-Out events when exactly the opposite is true.
    Last edited by SteelSD; 12-16-2004 at 11:15 AM.
    "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

  5. #139
    Vavasor TRF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Amarillo, TX
    Posts
    13,456

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    Steel, well said. That brings this discussion to a close. I'd like to thank the panel (Steel, MWM, Raisor, M2 and even BF and of course all others that contributed) for their participation in this discussion. I believe more was explained about K's and outs in general than ever before in the history of this board. I hope the new people that may have come over from MBL boards due to the Dunn trade rumor gained not only a new understanding of offense, but a realization of not only how intelligent this board's community is, but also how civil. Even when we disagree.

    This is quite possibly the greatest fan forum on the internet.
    Suck it up cupcake.

  6. #140
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    833

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    TRF I too will give you your due for civil participation.
    However, as for being "brought to a close" ? ...maybe for you.......

    Frankly, I have to differ with your "well said" comment regarding Steel's last passage. I found it extremely confusing, difficult to follow etc..etc...(on several attempts). I don't understand his point nor do I see how it addresses my relatively simple argument.

    I too have lost some steam with this debate however and this thread. And unless there are new participants or yet to be raised points I suspect I too shall now move on. I don't move on with same closure you have though.

    Regardless.......regarding, your civil contribution



    Quote Originally Posted by TRF
    Steel, well said. That brings this discussion to a close. I'd like to thank the panel (Steel, MWM, Raisor, M2 and even BF and of course all others that contributed) for their participation in this discussion. I believe more was explained about K's and outs in general than ever before in the history of this board. I hope the new people that may have come over from MBL boards due to the Dunn trade rumor gained not only a new understanding of offense, but a realization of not only how intelligent this board's community is, but also how civil. Even when we disagree.

    This is quite possibly the greatest fan forum on the internet.

  7. #141
    Member ochre's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    4,266

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    Quote Originally Posted by BadFundamentals
    TRF I too will give you your due for civil participation.
    However, as for being "brought to a close" ? ...maybe for you.......

    Frankly, I have to differ with your "well said" comment regarding Steel's last passage. I found it extremely confusing, difficult to follow etc..etc...(on several attempts). I don't understand his point nor do I see how it addresses my relatively simple argument.

    I too have lost some steam with this debate however and this thread. And unless there are new participants or yet to be raised points I suspect I too shall now move on. I don't move on with same closure you have though.

    Regardless.......regarding, your civil contribution
    Summary of steels analogy:

    You have some basic fallacies in your premise.

    The scientific method is not used to prove points, but to reveal truths. By tuning your "statistics" to validate your own beliefs you are not using anything scientific in your method.
    4009



  8. #142
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    833

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    please brief elaborate?

    Hypothesis: All outs are NOT Equal (strikeout not equal to any other out)

    -I proposed plausible albeit "extreme" (not uncommon for test conditions) hypothetical test conditions
    -I reached a conclusion based on those test conditions which could be expected to carryover at some level to real world circumstances

    Please tell me the "basic fallacies" in the premise.



    Quote Originally Posted by ochre
    Summary of steels analogy:

    You have some basic fallacies in your premise.

    The scientific method is not used to prove points, but to reveal truths. By tuning your "statistics" to validate your own beliefs you are not using anything scientific in your method.

  9. #143
    Pagan/Asatru Ravenlord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Williamsburg, OH and the wilds.
    Posts
    8,994

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    Please tell me the "basic fallacies" in the premise.
    it defies logic and every single bit of charted evidence, and in some of your posts, you're contradicting your own conclusion.
    the store for all your blade, costuming (in any regard), leather (also in any regard), and steel craft needs.www.facebook.com/tdhshop


    yes, this really is how we make our living.

  10. #144
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    833

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    As I noted previously at one point, I have some issue with the previously "charted evidence" I presume you elude to.

    Studies I've seen have concluded "such and such" but based that on data subject to many different variables not just the "strikeout" per se. If you have a cleaner, more convincing study to cite I'd like to see it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ravenlord
    it defies logic and every single bit of charted evidence, and in some of your posts, you're contradicting your own conclusion.

  11. #145
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42,836

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?


  12. #146
    Pagan/Asatru Ravenlord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Williamsburg, OH and the wilds.
    Posts
    8,994

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    the store for all your blade, costuming (in any regard), leather (also in any regard), and steel craft needs.www.facebook.com/tdhshop


    yes, this really is how we make our living.

  13. #147
    Member SteelSD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    9,366

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    Hypothesis: All outs are NOT Equal (strikeout not equal to any other out)
    Basic fallacy #1. That isn't a hypothesis. It's a conclusion. When you begin a "study" with a conclusion, you've poisoned it from the start.

    -I proposed plausible albeit "extreme" (not uncommon for test conditions) hypothetical test conditions
    Proposing hypothetical "test" conditions that cannot possibly exist is not "plausible". Fallacy #2.

    -I reached a conclusion based on those test conditions which could be expected to carryover at some level to real world circumstances
    No, you began with a conclusion and, instead of using actual performance data to gain knowledge, you used non-existant and unrealistic data in an effort to support a conclusion that conflicts with real-life performance data.

    What you've done is put together a "control" group of Dalmations to prove that all dogs have spots because you believe that only Dalmations are really dogs.

    As I noted previously at one point, I have some issue with the previously "charted evidence" I presume you elude to.
    What issue could you possibly have with researching what actually happens on during real baseball games?
    "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

  14. #148
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    833

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    Thank you RavenLord and WestofYou for the link. I read it once and I assure you I'll be reading that article many times.

    Here are my problems with the study on first read. And the reason why (for now) I will still hold to my view.

    1. It compares strikeouts to runs per game but it does NOT follow the scientific method of "all other things held equal".

    A "better" study would be to find 100 or 1000 games where the number of Hits and BBs for a given team were the same (and the types of hits). Then for those 100 games make the same graph. You would then have a better and less cloudy measure of the impact of strikeouts on Runs Scored.


    2. Secondly, the second part of the study (for pitchers) contradicts the conclusion of the first part. I quote the "more strikeouts mean fewer balls in play. Fewer balls in play mean (on average) fewer hits surrendered. And with fewer hits surrendered come fewer runs allowed. " All you need to do is make that same statement from a hitting/offensive point of view and you have:

    "more strikeouts mean fewer balls in play. Fewer balls in play mean (on average) fewer hits. And with fewer hits come fewer runs SCORED. "


    Please do take a moment to consider my issues. I ASSURE you I will be re-reading that study several times. And again, thank you for the link.

  15. #149
    Member SteelSD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    9,366

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    "more strikeouts mean fewer balls in play. Fewer balls in play mean (on average) fewer hits. And with fewer hits come fewer runs SCORED. "
    That's another invalid premise.

    In 2004, Baltimore posted the most Hits in MLB and scored 107 fewer Runs than the Boston Red Sox. The Chicago White Sox posted 133 fewer Hits than Baltimore and scored thirteen more Runs.

    You have, again, begun your argument with a conclusion (More Hits= More Runs) that you can't support.
    "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

  16. #150
    Pagan/Asatru Ravenlord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Williamsburg, OH and the wilds.
    Posts
    8,994

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    Quote Originally Posted by BadFundamentals
    A "better" study would be to find 100 or 1000 games where the number of Hits and BBs for a given team were the same (and the types of hits). Then for those 100 games make the same graph. You would then have a better and less cloudy measure of the impact of strikeouts on Runs Scored.
    i'm not sure that's possible. even if it is, it presents the problem of how fast the baserunners are.

    "more strikeouts mean fewer balls in play. Fewer balls in play mean (on average) fewer hits. And with fewer hits come fewer runs SCORED. "
    this, in part, this is where BABIP comes from. btw, OBP is where runs are scored, which is not driven by hits alone.

    but really, what is the difference between a K, a GO, and FO? there isn't one. if you're using the logic of a Sac Fly, you've hit onto another misconception. right now, part of the problem is, both POVs are looking in very isolated territory. when you do the research on Sac Flys and Sac Bunts, you get a better idea as to why a batter striking out is pretty irrelavent.

    all outs are equal. the reason why Ks are important to pitchers is that it suggests innate unhittability.
    the store for all your blade, costuming (in any regard), leather (also in any regard), and steel craft needs.www.facebook.com/tdhshop


    yes, this really is how we make our living.


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