and of course the obvious counter to that is "sure 1283 runs are nice at $400k, but who wants to pay $4mil for that on a bad team?"Originally Posted by Ravenlord
and of course the obvious counter to that is "sure 1283 runs are nice at $400k, but who wants to pay $4mil for that on a bad team?"
4009
I've been thinking of the at-bat as a zero-sum game, where what's good for the pitcher is bad for the hitter and vice versa, and I guess it is. But I've been comparing the batter's on-base ability to the pitcher's strikeout ability as if they mirrored each other. I guess the batter's on-base ability, which includes more than one element, should be compared to the pitcher's out ability, which includes strikeouts among others. I've been comparing a bag of apples to a single orange.
I'm intrigued by the 1960 season of Sandy Koufax. He led the league in strikeouts per 9 innings, and was tied for first in fewest hits per 9 innings, but he went 8-13 with a WHIP of 1.33. He was fourth in most walks per 9 inning. But I guess our Saber guys were right. Where there's a lot of strikeouts, there's likely to be good pitching. The next year, Koufax kicked in.
I appreciate the patient schooling. Now if someone can tell me where Carl Lindner is hiding all the profits, I'll know just about everything there is to know about baseball.
Hello? Cayman Islands.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
RE: the zero-sum game, what you're thinking about there is what I'm also suggesting. And they do conceptually mirror one another.
But the variables (for simplicity) I think should be the batter's "on-base ability" (as you noted) vs. the pitcher's "out ability" - not JUST the strikeout ALL outs. Then the respective pecking orders would be something like:
HR > 3B > 2b > 1b > BB for "on base ability" for HITTER/OFFENSE
K > (popout and lineout and flyout etc.) for "out ability" for PITCHER/DEFENSE
Once you accept that, you can see that the HR has a positive impact on hitter/offense and equal and opposite negative impact on pitcher/defense. (greater than that of a 2b, 1b etc..)
Similarly a K has a positive impact on pitcher/defense and equal and opposite neative impact on hitter/offense (greater than other out).
As for Sandy Koufax, I've always loved those numbers. That guy must have been he11 to try and hit. As for your "Where there's a lot of strikeouts, there's likely to be good pitching." Let me ask you, if you accept that and you accept that pitching and hitting are in DIRECT opposition to one another. Why would the opposite of your statement NOT hold true?
clarification......
as for "ability to get outs", probably better to show "approximate" order there as well: K is the worst, probably followed by the "popout" - nothing good is going to happen on a popout. groundout vs. flyout would be sticker but go with this for now:
K > popout > groundout > flyout > lineout (lineout best because most likely to be or have been a hit)
so as it impacts the offense, hitters who k and popout alot are likely not very good hitters. If you lineout and flyout alot though you're proably a relatively better hitter and likely to cash in on an HR or two.................
Wow, now this is hard to follow... I can see how a slap hitter might not turn in the same quality major leaguer as one with more power (Ichiro excluded apparently), but to say that Ks and popouts reflect poorer hitters than those who hit lineouts and flyouts. Holy situational statistics Batman!
Pokey hit a ton of flyouts on his quest to become the Reds greatest power hitter of all time, that makes him better than Dunn, who Ks a lot?
Am I following correctly, I would hate to misunderstand your theory, but you have to admit, that IS hard to swallow.
Let me try one last time.
player A has 676 plate appearances in a single season.
that same player strikes out 195 times, has 151 hits, and 108 walks. He also hit 45+ HR's, so he has power as wells as good plate discipline.
By your standard, this guy had a bad year, and is a tweener. your exact words.
Player B is a high K pitcher. 265 K's in 228 ip. His K's are an indicator of just how good he is. Why? because he removes possibilities on his own. The ball does not go into play as often as other pitchers because he takes care of them on his own. Also, guys that K a lot of batters have a secondary effect of fooling the hitter more. Balls that are put in play less often due to high k pitcher usually mean fewer men on base.
For a pitcher, K's are good.
But for a hitter? If player A goes 1 for 5 with 4 strikeouts, did he have a bad day? What if that one hit was a HR? with runners on?
What if he went 0 for 1 with a double 3 walks and a strikeout?
1 for 2 with a strike out, HR and 3 walks?
and what if in each of the above scenarios, he scored a run at least once due to his BB's?
the strikeout is just another out, and often a better out than say no outs, GB to second with Casey on first.
I think most people here would agree that Dunn could cut down on the strikeouts, but never at the expense of his walk totals, or his power approach at the plate.
I can certainly live with AD hitting .265 if his OB is around .400, and his SLG is over .550.
quite frankly I can see his SLG approaching .600 this season, with his OB aroun .410-.415.
If he stays healthy, he's a HOF player in the making.
Yet he got on base 38% of the time.
Dubito Ergo Cogito Ergo Sum.
ha ha.... :gac:
I guess that is why I'd favor looking at this at a conceptual level with a strikeout viewed as a component part of the TEAM pitching/defense. Then on the flip side view the strikeout as component part of the TEAM hitting/offense in direct opposition to the pitching/defense.
Otherwise, you can list player exceptions like Ichiro, Reese, Schmidt etc. etc...etc..or team exceptions till blue in the face.
And MWM I don't mean to not acknowledge your statistical argument. We agree that it is easy to show stats that demonstrate K rate is good for a pitcher/pitching. You have then shown some stats to suggest that this doesn't hold for a "given" hitter or a given "team" of hitters. But there are more variables at work there regarding hitting/scoring runs. A strikeout is only one factor impacting RUNS SCORED.
At a conceptual level using the zero-sum I don't see how it can be said it can hold for one but not the other.
When you guys are done with this thread let me know.
I can fill up my time watching my cat chase his tail, or maybe I'll read Chariot of the Gods.
I'm now convinced you either haven't read a single thing I, nor anyone else in this thread have said. Either that or you have no idea what the meaning of "correlation" is. If there was ANY correlation whasoever to strikeouts and offensive production or runs scored, then the numbers would bear it out. That's my point. You say "a strikeout is only one factor impacting RUNS SCORED" where several people have shown without a single counterargument that strikeouts ARE NOT a factor AT ALL in runs scored.
Well, when you CAN see it, then maybe it makes sense to continue this conversation. As long as you can't see that and hold to this zero-sum "conept", you're not going to get it. You're the only one who seems to buy into this "zero zum" idea. Why that doesn't hold true has been laid out iin this thread about as good as it possibly can by folks like M2, Steel, and D-Man all with baseball IQs about as high as they get. If BCubb, one of the most intelligent people we have on this board, can learn from it and grasp the concept, then you should be able to. The only thing I've gathered from your responses is that you really don't understand the arguments given that debunk your belief system.At a conceptual level using the zero-sum I don't see how it can be said it can hold for one but not the other.
It's OK to learn from others and question your own belief system. That's how you learn. There are people on this board who have been following baseball a long time and have spent a heck of lot more time than you or I leanring, reading, and evaluating old and new baseball ideas. You're only cheating yourself if you don't take advantage. I've learned more in the few years I've been on this board than I had in the previous 27 years of my life. If you're willing to listen and learn and face the fact that you don't have to be the smartest guy in he room, then you'll walk away fom this site understanding the game at levels you never knew before. But seriously, and I don't mean for this to be personal, but the arguments you're laying forth make absolutely no sense to anyone capable of evaluating a rational or logical argument. You've contradicted your own arguments more times than one. You're only digging yourself a bigger hole the more you continue to talk in circles. These are intellient people here. You need to swallow your pride and learn. Because in this instance, you couldn't be more off base with the silly arguments you're making and you're just making yourself look silly be your insistence on holding fast to them when they've been systematically and undeniably debunked here by very smart baseball minds.
That's just my $.02 and you can take it or leave it. With that, I'm going to move on.
Last edited by MWM; 12-15-2004 at 11:05 AM.
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
There's nothing wrong with just letting it go and appears that's where you and I are at MWM which is ok
On many occasions Runs Scored and Runs Created have been referenced in this thread to presumably show no correlation between strikeouts and Runs. (offense)
Theoretically though, If a team's hitters struck out every at bat in every game you would end up with 0 Runs Scored and 1:1 correlation.
This suggests to me that strikeouts do impact Runs Scored - they are a factor. However, there are just too many other factors at work which also impact Runs Scored to draw any direct correlation between Ks and Runs for an offense at a numbers/stat level. Which is why I would favor and go along with the conceptual level argument which would suggest there is a correlation.
Last edited by BadFundamentals; 12-15-2004 at 11:28 AM.
This has been an issue since the 60's.
Am I the only one who remembers the protests?
:dflynn:
ok, so what if they all went 0 for 2 with 2 K's and 2 walks each?
psst, it's all about the OBP.
it begins and ends there. not BA, OBP. And once you figure this out....
Dubito Ergo Cogito Ergo Sum.
"walks" then are bad for a pitcher and good for offense ( raises OBP etc....leads to runs) ok
"strikeouts" are good for a pitcher and bad for offense ( lowers OBP ...leads to less runs)
to benefit from OBP runners have to be "moved up" and scored. K is relatively worse than other outs because they don't move runners.
Again you are comparing apples to oranges.
I compared your nine guys all striking out to nin guys striking out twice and walking twice.
Outs are a part of the game. if in the very strictest sense you want to say strikeouts impact offense, well then yeah, but no more than GO's, FO's or DP's.
an out is an out. all outs detract. it's why the defense gets to come back off the field.
but a strikeout doesn't detract any more from runs scored than a GO or FO does, in fact in some situations (your favorite term it seems) it is preferrable. (Casey on 1st, Dunn grounds to 2B, nobody out)
It's about a players OBP. And his total bases.
You cannot compare pitching to hitting, because they do not have the same goals.
A pitcher wants 27 outs while allowing the fewest baserunners possible.
A hitters goal is to aquire the most bases possible, by whatever means; hit, BB, HBP.
See the difference?
If a hitter K's twice per game, but also homers and walks, his BA is .250, but his OBP is .500 (he also just hit 162 HR's, but i think the point is made.)
See?
Dubito Ergo Cogito Ergo Sum.
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. |
