Turn Off Ads?
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 76 to 81 of 81

Thread: Report: Butch Wynegar candidate for Reds Hitting Coach

  1. #76
    Churlish Johnny Footstool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Olathe, KS
    Posts
    13,792

    Re: Report: Butch Wynegar candidate for Reds Hitting Coach

    K's are the by-product of an approach that tries to maximize the number of bases accumulated.

    In non-froofy-sounding speak, guys generally strike out because they're trying to hit the ball hard. "Shortening up your swing" and "trying to put the ball in play" work great in little league, but in the big leagues, a huge percentage of those balls-in-play become outs anyway.

    So if the risk is the same (or pretty much the same) and the reward is greater, take a shot. Try to make *quality* contact.

    As for a groundout or sac fly scoring a runner from third, those are extremely rare occurrances. Memorable, but extremely rare. I don't have the numbers, but I'll wager batters have a better chance of hitting a double than of hitting a ground ball or lofting a fly to precisely the right spot to allow the runner to score.
    "I prefer books and movies where the conflict isn't of the extreme cannibal apocalypse variety I guess." Redsfaithful

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #77
    Mon chou Choo vaticanplum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    7,193

    Re: Report: Butch Wynegar candidate for Reds Hitting Coach

    Quote Originally Posted by TC81190 View Post
    Yeah. No one ever said sacrifice all the walks for more hits.

    A good offense will balance the hits and walks. But the attitude on this board, of hits ~ walks (or even in some cases, walks > hits), is laughably absurd. Many on here seem to forget, the game is really played. Case in point, the argument that a strikeout is another out. Sure, maybe that's what the numbers will tell you. But they can't tell you the variables of the physical game. Numbers wise, if a player K's or pops-out, it's the exact same thing. But there is a difference between K'ing with a runner on 2B and hitting a screamer that dies at the warning track to move the runner over. But because it's not in the numbers, it's not important.
    No one ever states that what's not in the numbers is not important. I think there is a real misinterpretation regarding "statheads" on this board. Stats are helpful information because they a) show us how certain aspects of the game affect other aspects, and how they don't as well, and b) give us a pretty good, if imperfect, indicator of how things will progress in the future.

    Why do we use them here, and we do people so adamantly defend them? Mostly because it is quantifiable information. We're on a message board. While I don't want to speak for the "statheads", my guess is that if they were baseball managers, they would take into account things that we cannot see or argue from our current perspective. We can speculate on this board how tired Ryan Freel is or how injured EdE is, and it's fun to speculate, but that's all it is. We don't know for sure. We do know stats for sure. So it is a worthwhile and educational thing to look at them here.

    I personally have never gotten the impression from any statshead here that they think that numbers are the only important thing. If that were the case they'd all be statistics professors, not baseball fans who watch every game. I've simply gotten the impression that stats are what they talk about here because we are here to analyze what we know, and that's a good way to do it, and sometimes it's shockingly enlightening.

    Because of the nature of baseball, stats are imperfect. Defensive statistics in particular (and defense is probably the most fascinating and exciting part of baseball to me) and underdeveloped and unreliable. Every single stat has pretty much at least one drastic flaw of something that cannot be taken into account. That's why there are so many of them, to complement each other. That's also why they're so interesting to me, even though I'm not particularly good with stats myself and often need to have them explained to me 15 times. It's a constant pursuit of molding them to be as helpful as they can be. In the process, understanding of the very game itself increases, and that is thrilling to me. But I have no doubt that every single purported stathead on the board understands this, that we will never have all the stats and they will never tell us everything. If you study the stats and point out the flaws, you will see this; they will agree with you. But if you push the stats aside completely, then you ignore the valuable information that they DO provide, and that, of course, is foolish and angers the stats gods, who of course continue to try to point out what you're missing.

    And as far as walks and hits go, sure, they'll both show up as 1 total base. But I'd guess that a large majority of posters on here would lose it if someone suggest that Adam Dunn replace 50 BBs with 50 singles (just an example.) Why? Yes, they both count as one base. But you can't drive a runner on 3B home with a walk (unless the bases are loaded, but c'mon.) When the ball's in play, there are so many variables not considered here that really are the basics to the game. But again, it doesn't count because it's not on the statsheets. That's kinda how this board's like a double-edged sword to me now; I enjoy talking with other Reds fans who happen to also share in common one thing I hold dear to me, but this board just sucks all of the fun, human elements out of the game and turns it into a cold, 'robotic', if you would, jumbled mess of numbers.
    To each his own. As I said, my limited understanding of stats has made the game more interesting to me. I understand a bit better why things happen as they do, and I have stronger opinions about what this team needs to do to make itself better...and let's face it, starry eyes aside, the most thrilling thing about following a baseball team is the constant hope that it will get better. I guarantee there's not a fan on this board who didn't get a three-day adrenaline rush of joy when Dunn hit his grand slam against Cleveland, and according to statistics, there was approximately a frozen sun's chance of survival in a volcano that that was going to happen. Did the "statheads" get irritated that Dunn proved them wrong? I suspect not. Because they realize that there's always a sliver of possibility in anything, hence the imperfection in the numbers.

    Yes walks are good. Sure strikeouts aren't the end of the world, and I would never advise a player to simply stop striking out. But the idea of putting the ball into play, well, how else are you gonna score runs? A lineup of .230/.380 hitter probably would not fae all too well, I'd be willing to bet. Sure, you have runners on base and what have you, but who's gonna drive them in? A successful offense needs at least one 300 hitter.
    I don't think it's meant as a blanket statement. I think it's relating to a particular player on a team with a particular makeup and the absolute, quanitfiable result you can see from the possibilities. And that is the all-or-nothing mentality that I think trips some people up around here. Everything is situational, and every situation has a trillion variables. Stats simply give us the most likely result of any particular situation, any particular hitter or pitcher. There are always exceptions, and everyone knows that. Far from being black and white, I think stats HELP us to find a middle ground and paint the most complete picture. You see a weakness here, you can supplement it with a strength there. You see that you're likely to benefit from "small ball" at this park rather than another park, so you prepare your lineup as such.

    Again, I'm not really a stats person myself, and I see the basis of a lot of arguments like yours. But more often than not, those arguments are presented as "but this is the way baseball works" or "but I don't think that's very productive," rather than "I see what those numbers say, but don't you think that is also negated by x and y?" (x and y being quantifiable things: the defense behind him, the number of times strikeouts negatively affected the outcome, whatever). There are arguments against every stat. But more often than not, with some notable exceptions, I don't see them; I just see people who claim stats are "cold, robotic, jumbled mess of numbers" and dismiss them. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's a middle ground here, and a logical and viable one if only people would put in the effort to present it. And some do, to be sure; I'm just going to extremes for the sake of argument.
    Last edited by vaticanplum; 10-27-2006 at 06:15 PM.
    There is no such thing as a pitching prospect.

  4. #78
    2009: Fail Ltlabner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    7,441

    Re: Report: Butch Wynegar candidate for Reds Hitting Coach

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny Footstool View Post
    As for a groundout or sac fly scoring a runner from third, those are extremely rare occurrances. Memorable, but extremely rare.
    I'd agree about the ground out scoring the runner from 3B being rare but sac flies scoring the runner? That *seems* like a common occurance. I'd love to see the numbers because my perception is that sac flies to score the runner happen often.
    a super volcano of ridonkulous suckitude.

    I simply don't have access to a "cares about RBI" place in my psyche. There is a "mildly curious about OBI%" alcove just before the acid filled lake guarded by robot snipers with lasers which leads to the "cares about RBI" antechamber though. - Nate

  5. #79
    Member LINEDRIVER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    1,975

    Re: Report: Butch Wynegar candidate for Reds Hitting Coach

    from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
    FRIDAY, Oct. 27, 2006, 4:18 p.m.
    By Tom Haudricourt

    Brewers hire Skaalen as hitting coach

    The Brewers announced today they have hired Jim Skaalen, their minor league hitting coordinator, as their new hitting coach.

    Skaalen replaces Butch Wynegar, who was dismissed after the 2006 season after four years on the job. Behind coordinating the hitting in the Brewers' farm system the last seven years, Skaalen previously managed in the San Diego and Texas farm systems.

    "When it came down to it, there were a lot of people in other organizations that were roving types (in the minors) that didn't know our players as much as Jim does," said general manager Doug Melvin.

    "He has been around for a number of years and is very familiar with our young players. There's more to it than just our young players, but they are the core we're trying to build around."

    The Brewers still must find a replacement for first base coach Dave Nelson, who also was dismissed after the '06 season.
    Last edited by LINEDRIVER; 10-28-2006 at 12:04 AM.

  6. #80
    THAT'S A FACT JACK!! GAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Bellefontaine, Ohio
    Posts
    26,671

    Re: Report: Butch Wynegar candidate for Reds Hitting Coach

    We've all had these discussions before over strikeouts. I have always been one who doesn't get all worked up, overall, over strikeouts.

    IMO, there is valid points on both sides of this argument.

    I understand the logic behind "an out is an out", and as SD has once stated "all strikeouts do is hurt your feelings".

    Here is the thing that bugs (really eats at me) concerning strikeouts. And in my "traditional, old school kind of way" it's a position I will never relinquish, and has nothing to do, as much, with swinging K's....

    But it is the way strikeouts are achieved (a type of).

    When I see a batter, during an A/B.... and I saw this alot with Red's hitters this year, and it is simply an observation on my part.... getting themselves behind in the count by looking at solid pitches right over the plate, and then taking a called 3rd strikes w/ RISP - that bugs the crap out of me. To me, that just isn't another out. Nor does it come to mind afterwards - "Well, I guess that wasn't so bad because after all, he could have hit into a DP or something really bad."

    That doesn't soothe my anger bringing up possible other dire results that could have been worse.

    During that gametime situation, when we're all keyed up with a cold one in our hands wanting something to happen here with RISP, and I see that player slinking back to the dugout with his "hurt feelings", I don't care, nor want, to consider what some statistic or correlation might show me in this situation. I want to take that bat out of his hand and help him forget that "emotional" hurt. But that's just me.

    And I am not referring to, or advocating, with RISP, that a batter should be up there hacking away either. I'm talking about looking at quality, and very hittable, pitches - and you're standing up there looking at two, maybe three, go right by you while you've got the bat on your shoulders.

    Yes, I understand that there are many variables, both good and bad, that can happen if he does "put the bat on the ball" and puts it in play. The point is - you'll never know until he does make contact. That's the chance you take. But you already know what the result is gonna be when he's standing up there with the bat on his shoulders.

    IMO... in that situation, you are easily conceding and giving up something precious (an out), and it's a wasted A/B.

    And I can "live with" a FO or GO, and even hitting into a DP (though that obviously is not a desired result anyone wants), because you are trying to make something happen with RISP.
    Last edited by GAC; 10-28-2006 at 07:17 AM.
    "panic" only comes from having real expectations

  7. #81
    Churlish Johnny Footstool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Olathe, KS
    Posts
    13,792

    Re: Report: Butch Wynegar candidate for Reds Hitting Coach

    Quote Originally Posted by Ltlabner View Post
    I'd agree about the ground out scoring the runner from 3B being rare but sac flies scoring the runner? That *seems* like a common occurance. I'd love to see the numbers because my perception is that sac flies to score the runner happen often.
    You can see Sac Flies (SF) on page 2 the MLB team stats page at ESPN.com.

    The White Sox led the majors with a whopping 57. The AL Champion Detroit Tigers were dead last with 36.

    They count for a tiny percentage of run scoring, and they're random. Don't worry about them.
    "I prefer books and movies where the conflict isn't of the extreme cannibal apocalypse variety I guess." Redsfaithful


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