Turn Off Ads?
Page 12 of 18 FirstFirst ... 28910111213141516 ... LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 263

Thread: Strike out = to any other out?

  1. #166
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42,326

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    This thread is getting the official Rabbit Hole Trophy.


  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #167
    Vavasor TRF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Amarillo, TX
    Posts
    13,281

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    i am nearly convinced this has been either steel or raisor messing with our heads.
    Suck it up cupcake.

  4. #168
    15 game winner Danny Serafini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Sultanes de Monterrey
    Posts
    4,183

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    Quote 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.
    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.

  5. #169
    Member NJReds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    5,432

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    Quote Originally Posted by TRF
    i am nearly convinced this has been either steel or raisor messing with our heads.
    Sadly, I can all but assure you that this is not the case. BF, DH, PRose14...whatever name you choose...has been carrying on this argument for more than one baseball season.

    He was flying high off of Dunn's 2003.
    He wrote off Dunn's early 2004 season success with predictions of complete second half collapse.
    He finally relented that Dunn's 2004 was an abberation, and as good as it will ever get.

    His best prediction was that Dunn will get bored playing baseball and retire before his 30th birthday. He also mentioned non-tendering the Donkey after this year.

    Just some of the gems from the "Adam Dunn Strikeout Thread" on the mlb.boards.

  6. #170
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    833

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    Quote Originally Posted by TRF
    Gah!
    BF refuses to believe that OBP and SLG is superior to BA
    TRF, I have no problem with OBP or SLG. I like them both. My "problem" is if when they come together and make OPS - the OPS stat is then treated as the end all be all stat. I prefer my apples (OBP) and oranges (SLG) separately.

    I want to give more weight to SLG for an "rbi type" guy and more weight to OBP for the non "rbi types" who I will count on for bat control, speed etc. and hopefully to score my runs.

    I like Juan Pierre but I'd like him even more if he'd take a few more walks. He'll make you pay on the bases. I don't care that his SLG is not that high.

    I also don't get too excited about a guy batting 5,6 or 7 who is overly content with taking BBs. I don't want the onus shifted to 7,8,9 hitters who ARE more likely to make outs and kill rallies.
    - - - - - - - - -

    I think my K vs. other out position is already clear and reasonable. For now, I much prefer my conceptual/logic-based argument which concludes Ks are worse to the "real world" stat-based arguments I have seen which conclude they are just outs. Those arguments/studies have far too many fluctuating variables to expect any clear correlations.

  7. #171
    Member SteelSD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    9,322

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    As for the K vs. other outs, I'm sticking to my position for now. I will be checking out that study in greater detail but my first impression is the plot graph thing is a "bad study" - far too many variables.
    So you're saying that because the graph notes no correlation between Strikeouts and Runs scored, it's because other variables actually drive Run Scoring from an offensive perspective?

    Well, darn. You're right. Strikeouts don't drive offensive Run Scoring. Non-Out events do.

    What that author is telling you is that from an offensive perspective, K's do not matter. From a pitching perspective K's do matter because high K-rate pitchers tend to allow fewer non-Out events and thus are impacted less by them.

    That's not at all counter-intuitive. Make few Outs and acquire many Bases and you're a good hitter regardless of how many times you Strike Out. Aquire many Outs and allow few Bases and you're a good pitcher regardless of how many Hitters you Strike Out.

    It just so happens that Strikeouts are NOT indicative of negative Hitter performance. We can see that in the real-world examples of high-K hitters and teams who do a very good job of avoiding Outs and acquiring Bases.

    If your contention was correct (ie. that Strikeouts are a negative offensive performance driver) we'd see very convincing evidence in that graph (ie. the RS plotting would very closely follow the line that charts K rate). But we don't. In fact, some of the top offensive MLB seasons are those in which the highest K rates occur.

    But Strikeouts ARE indicative of positive Pitcher performance- but not because of the effect of Strikeouts on performance, but because high K pitchers tend to do a better job of acquiring Outs and preventing Bases.

    That's not at all counter-intuitive, nor does Wilkins' study contradict itself in any way, shape or form. In fact, Wilkins' has used proper scientific method, has included over 50 years of real life performance data. He hasn't made up any wild scenarios or attempted to position a conclusion as his hypothesis.

    But because his finding's don't match your belief system, it's a "bad study".
    "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

  8. #172
    Member NJReds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    5,432

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelSD
    But because his finding's don't match your belief system, it's a "bad study".
    That about sums it all up...

  9. #173
    Member SteelSD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    9,322

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    I like Juan Pierre but I'd like him even more if he'd take a few more walks. He'll make you pay on the bases. I don't care that his SLG is not that high.
    You should care. Because if Juan Pierre's SLG was better, he wouldn't need to risk Outs to advance himself into scoring position and he'd be far more valuable to his team.

    The best leadoff hitter of our era was Rickey Henderson. But not because of BA . And not because of Strikeouts. But because Rickey Henderson combined his "apples to oranges" better than just about anyone AND threw in a whole ton of cherries (see: speed) to complete the package.

    The point of baseball from an offensive perspective is not "Few Outs or Many Bases". It is "Few Outs and Many Bases".

    They are the two great tastes that go great together.
    "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

  10. #174
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    833

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    Quote Originally Posted by NJReds
    That about sums it all up...
    nj, don't come in here and start taking cheap shots and drag down what has been "civil" debate.... :allovrjr: :thumbdown

    You get "lifeless blob" results in a study for at least two reasons:
    1) there truly is no correlation or
    2) as in this case, there may or may not be a stronger correlation but the study itself has too many fluctuating variables to produce more telling results.

    The study I suggested which would have number of hits, BBs and as many other variables as possible all equal (re: scientific method "all other things held equal") would be a far better study for measuring impact of strikeouts on runs scored.

  11. #175
    Vavasor TRF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Amarillo, TX
    Posts
    13,281

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    BF, you have had six pages of posts showing you are wrong.

    and you haven't budged an inch.

    I admire the tenacity, however wrong your conclusions, and they are wrong.

    Simply put, you started with a conclusion not a hypothesis.

    You put out hypothetical situations, that can never happen to support your conclusion. This is now the second time i have stated this.

    You have yet to refute a single point any of us have made, and you have contradicted yourself on numerous occasions.

    The worst part is, I don't think you really learned anything over the last two days.

    Now for my last question, who had the better year?

    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
    According to everything you have posted, you would select the first player. High BA, Low strikeouts.

    And you would be wrong.
    Suck it up cupcake.

  12. #176
    Member NJReds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    5,432

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    Quote Originally Posted by BadFundamentals
    nj, don't come in here and start taking cheap shots and drag down what has been "civil" debate.... :allovrjr: :thumbdown
    No cheap shots BF, DH, PRose14...just the truth.

    You and I have been through all this stuff before, you're right, I shouldn't say anything here, I've had my piece.

    I'll keep the rest of my comments to your new thread on MLB. oke:

  13. #177
    Score Early, Score Often gonelong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    Quote Originally Posted by BadFundamentals
    There are 24 different men on base "situations" possible in a given inning.
    (8 combinations of baserunners x 3 outs)
    Examples:

    man on first 0 outs
    man on first 1 out
    man on first 2 outs
    men on first and second 0 outs
    men on first and second 1 out
    etc etc....
    Code:
    out 1	67.00	100	
    out 2	45.00	100	
    out 3	100.00 100	
    	   212.00  300	70.7%
    2004 MLB OBP = .330
    1st out occurs 67% of the time with no chance to move runner.
    2nd out therefore occurs 45% of the time with noone even on base.
    3rd out fails to advance a runner 100% of the time.

    Therefore at the absolute minimum, 71% of the time a player has no opportunity to advance a runner with an out. Given that walks and singles are much more likely than 2bs or 3bs, the opportunity to advance a runner happens in a very small percentage of ABs. Double plays happen often enough to effectively cancel out those relatively few times a runner is moved up.

    On top of that, moving runners up doesn't actually mean they have scored. Given the few times that moving a runner up INCREASES actual scoring, in the macro view of things a K = any other out.

    GL

  14. #178
    RaisorZone Raisor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Charlotte, Nc
    Posts
    15,123

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    Quote Originally Posted by TRF
    so I am dragging out Raisor's mantra:

    If we all agree that a double is better than a single, and a triple is better than a double, and a HR is better than a triple, why give weight to a stat that treats them all equally?

    I'll expect my check in the mail anyday now.

    :mhcky21:
    "But I do know Joey's sister indirectly (or foster sister) and I have heard stories of Joey being into shopping, designer wear, fancy coffees, and pedicures."

  15. #179
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    833

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    I follow your argument (at least initially):

    Your arguing to start an inning that 67% of the time you'll have one out right out of the box. Leaves you only one more out before there is no such thing as a "productive out". True.

    Of course the flip of that is 33% of the time or (9 innings X 162 games X .333) = 481 (call it ~450 factoring out a number for leadoff homers) or 450 times during the course of the year a leadoff batter gets on base to start inning. And since (use the Reds for simplicity) the Reds were only victims of ~125 double plays last year, once that leadoff batter is on your likely to follow that up with many more productive out opportunities.

    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.

    Your "Double plays happen often enough to effectively cancel out those relatively few times a runner is moved up. " I see as opinion - fair enough (But the Reds averaged far less than one DP a game last year)

    Also, I differ with your "Given the few times that moving a runner up INCREASES actual scoring" comment. Maybe the Reds (who by my research set the #2 and #3 team strikeout marks in baseball history in 2003 and 2004) don't fancy and benefit much from moving runners up but other teams do and I can only hope that one day the Reds will too.




    Quote Originally Posted by gonelong
    Code:
    out 1	67.00	100	
    out 2	45.00	100	
    out 3	100.00 100	
    	   212.00  300	70.7%
    2004 MLB OBP = .330
    1st out occurs 67% of the time with no chance to move runner.
    2nd out therefore occurs 45% of the time with noone even on base.
    3rd out fails to advance a runner 100% of the time.

    Therefore at the absolute minimum, 71% of the time a player has no opportunity to advance a runner with an out. Given that walks and singles are much more likely than 2bs or 3bs, the opportunity to advance a runner happens in a very small percentage of ABs. Double plays happen often enough to effectively cancel out those relatively few times a runner is moved up.

    On top of that, moving runners up doesn't actually mean they have scored. Given the few times that moving a runner up INCREASES actual scoring, in the macro view of things a K = any other out.

    GL

  16. #180
    Member SteelSD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    9,322

    Re: Strike out = to any other out?

    Also, I differ with your "Given the few times that moving a runner up INCREASES actual scoring" comment.
    Swapping an out for a base may increase the potential for A Run to be scored but, over time, decreases the potential to score multiple Runs in an Inning. Very simply, trading Outs for Bases is a net Run Value loss proposition.

    Non-choice Productive Outs (meaning we're excluding bunts) occurred at a rate of only 2.1% of all Plate Appearances in 2004. Knowing that Base Hits PLUS Sac Flies were the result of only 24.3% of all PA in 2004, we can use that information to understand that a random ball hit into play Productive Out to move a Runner is truly beneficial AT MOST in 0.05% (yeah, half of one percent) of all MLB Plate Appearances. We also know that Productive Out behavior decreases the overall number of Runs scored by an Offense over time.

    Now again, that's AT MOST 0.05% of all PA. Considering that not all Base Hits score runners advanced by a "Productive Out", you've got yourself a big bunch of nothing.

    And knowing THAT, it's not at all surprising that three sabrmetric-driven teams (Toronto, Boston, Oakland) finished with three of the lowest four slots in all of MLB in "Productive Outs". They've figured it out.

    The other team that finished in the bottom 4? The Cincinnati Reds, who finished 20th in MLB in Runs Scored even though they had fewer Base Hits than all but three MLB teams and led all of MLB in Strikeouts.

    Seriously, if Strikeouts and swapping Outs for Runners were primary offensive drivers then why did the Reds finish 9-10 spots higher in the MLB Runs Scored standings than you'd think they would?

    Because neither K's nor Productive Outs have pretty much nothing to do with Run Scoring over time.
    "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


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