Strike out = to any other out?

[MWM]

BF, "conceptual" arguments are relevant ONLY in the absence of reliable data, which makes all of your "conceptual" arguments meaningless. There is TONS of reliable data. Actually, it's about 97% reliable. Why you refuse to acknowledge that is beyond me. And these "other factors" you keep talking about DO exist. That's exactl what explains the extra 3%. It Math 101 my man. We're not talking differential equations here.

[BadFundamentals]

Originally Posted by MWM

BF, "conceptual" arguments are relevant ONLY in the absence of reliable data, which makes all of your "conceptual" arguments meaningless. There is TONS of reliable data. Actually, it's about 97% reliable. Why you refuse to acknowledge that is beyond me. And these "other factors" you keep talking about DO exist. That's exactl what explains the extra 3%. It Math 101 my man. We're not talking differential equations here.

There is no shortage of "data" out there. The challenge is to construct that data in a "meaningful" way.

We're not talking about Correlating HITS w RUNS. What we're talking about is far more subtle and not necessarily easy to create a statistically significant study for.


I am scheming though. The table WestofYou posted got me thinking. At a minimum, you'd have to hold Hits, BBs (OBP) constant. If you could get to the level of types of Hits that would be even better. I'm going to see if I can come up with some Team vs. Team comparison. It wouldn't be ideal but it would be far better than the Prospectus study.

If I'm able, obviously I'll post results. :gac:

[TRF]

If you could get to the level of types of Hits that would be even better.

This i believe is taken care of by SLG.

again, to paraphrase steel and everyone else, all outs are bad. It's what you do with the non out events that is important.

Adam Dunn was the ninth best player in baseball last year in terms of offense.

you have called him a tweener.

it boggles the mind.

A couple of days ago when word broke oth the trade rumor about Dunn, i was so incredulous i said it out loud. My 15 year old daughter said "they are idiots for even thinking about trading him."

she gets it.

[SteelSD]

The Baseball Prospectus study/article http://www.baseballprospectus.com/a...?articleid=2617 has a nice Intro paragraph but the first/main study is BADLY flawed. It compares Strikeouts to Runs Scored but leaves hits, BBs, errors etc. etc...(all variables which affect Runs Scored) fluctuating.

Gee...you think that's maybe because Strikeouts have nothing to do with offensive Run Scoring and that it's all those other things that really count?

You think that it's maybe not making Outs and acquiring Bases that do count?

I did a study too. I made up a game where all 27 hitters struck out. Zero Runs were scored. Then I made them all Ground Out. Zero Runs were scored. I did the same thing with Ground Outs and Pop Outs. Guess what? Zero Runs were scored.

But then I took the team who struck out 27 times and gave them 10 Hits- all Home Runs. And I put them up against the team that grounded out 27 times and gave them 10 Hits- all singles.

Y'know what I found out? By gosh, the team with 27 Strikeouts outscored the team with 27 Ground Outs.

How did that happen???

[BadFundamentals]

Originally Posted by TRF

This i believe is taken care of by SLG.
.

ok...here's an early X-mas present for a couple/few of you (maybe)... :dflynn:

I took the last 10 years of the national league (by team) and threw them all into a spreadsheet. I did some team by team by year comparisons. For the mostpart I went with methodology of holding OPS constant then examined variances in Runs and Strikeouts looking for trends.

I pretty much came up empty. :thumbdown :gac:

I don't want to plaster all 100+ rows on here but just for anyone who is curious I'm pasting the Reds.

For now, I'll admit defeat regarding being able to make a statistical/quantifiable argument against strikeouts as they relate to RUNS SCORED on a large scale.

I'm going to hold to my logic-based/conceptual opinion about the impact of the strikeout on game intangibles (including human element), game "situations" and regarding its impact on TEAM WINS AND LOSSES. But for now, I'll keep that quietly to myself Maybe another day I'll take a run at seeing if I can make a quantifiable stat-based argument regarding that.

cheers all :gac:

(hmmmm...not pasting too well...If I figure a way to put it in a table I'll edit later...)

Yr	Team	R	H	AB	HR	2B	3B	BB	SO	OBP	SLG	OPS
2004	CIN	750	1380	5518	194	287	28	599	1335	0.331	0.418	0.749
2003	CIN	694	1349	5509	182	239	21	524	1326	0.318	0.395	0.713
2002	CIN	709	1386	5470	169	297	21	583	1188	0.33	0.408	0.738
2001	CIN	735	1464	5583	176	304	22	468	1172	0.324	0.419	0.743
2000	CIN	825	1545	5635	200	302	36	559	995	0.343	0.447	0.79
1999	CIN	865	1536	5649	209	312	37	569	1125	0.339	0.451	0.79
1998	CIN	750	1441	5496	138	298	28	608	1107	0.336	0.402	0.738
1997	CIN	651	1386	5484	142	269	27	518	1113	0.317	0.389	0.706
1996	CIN	778	1398	5455	191	259	36	604	1134	0.33	0.422	0.752
1995	CIN	747	1326	4903	161	277	35	519	946	0.34	0.44	0.78

(hmmmm...not pasting too well...If I figure a way to put it in a table I'll edit later...)


formatted above...

[TRF]

I have expanded on Steels study, and had a team strikeout 27 time while also walking 10 times and hitting 10 HR's. They outscored the team that GO 27 times while hitting 10 singles.

It is amazing. The correlation between getting on base and scoring runs.

It is amazing. The correlation between the accumulation of bases and scoring runs.

it's almost like OBP and SLG might just mean something. I wonder if we could somehow put those two stats together in order to guage a players offensive prowess?

[BadFundamentals]

Originally Posted by TRF

I have expanded on Steels study, and had a team strikeout 27 time while also walking 10 times and hitting 10 HR's. They outscored the team that GO 27 times while hitting 10 singles.

It is amazing. The correlation between getting on base and scoring runs.

It is amazing. The correlation between the accumulation of bases and scoring runs.

it's almost like OBP and SLG might just mean something. I wonder if we could somehow put those two stats together in order to guage a players offensive prowess?

:biggun: :biggun: :biggun: :bigboom:


:graves: Danny Graves Happens and happens and happens.....

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by TRF

I have expanded on Steels study, and had a team strikeout 27 time while also walking 10 times and hitting 10 HR's. They outscored the team that GO 27 times while hitting 10 singles.

It is amazing. The correlation between getting on base and scoring runs.

It is amazing. The correlation between the accumulation of bases and scoring runs.

it's almost like OBP and SLG might just mean something. I wonder if we could somehow put those two stats together in order to guage a players offensive prowess?

No nonononono...that's "bad study".

I've created a new stat called Systematic Lazy Intuitive Metric Equalization ("SLIME" for short). And SLIME tells me that each of those ten Walks occurred after each of those ten HR but none before another HR. That means that those ten Walks led to no additional Run Scoring whatsoever.

Walks are exceptionally overrated.

[TRF]

ok, one last parting shot.

I looked at the data you posted, and i noticed something.

In 1997, the reds scored 651 runs, while striking out 1113 times.
In 1996, the reds scored 778 runs, while striking out 1134 times.

In 1996 the Reds OBP was 13 points higher, and the SLG was 33 points higher.

yeah. that's just 2 years worth of data, but for the most part when a team gets on base a lot, and a team hits for power, that team scores a bunch of runs. regardless of how many times they strikeout.

[BadFundamentals]

Originally Posted by TRF

ok, one last parting shot.

I looked at the data you posted, and i noticed something.

In 1997, the reds scored 651 runs, while striking out 1113 times.
In 1996, the reds scored 778 runs, while striking out 1134 times.

In 1996 the Reds OBP was 13 points higher, and the SLG was 33 points higher.

yeah. that's just 2 years worth of data, but for the most part when a team gets on base a lot, and a team hits for power, that team scores a bunch of runs. regardless of how many times they strikeout.

yeah....there's alot of that. A couple times I thought I had a trend (that I might like ), then I'd compare a few other teams and see just the opposite. All in all just not enough solid trend either way...........

[Raisor]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

:

2004 Runs Created:

Juan Pierre- 104.3
Adam Dunn- 124.9

.

It's not even as close as this might suggest. If you correct for the difference in TPA (Pierre had 67 more PA's then Dunn did), Dunn created 30 more runs then Pierre:

Adjusting for PA's.

(Assuming 700 TPA for each player)

Juan Pierre 97.6
Adam Dunn 128.4

(Some of the following is a rehash of previous points, but hopefully in a slightly different light)

Now, let's take a look at it using RC/27 (as has been pointed out by others, RC/27 shows us how many runs a game a team of 9 Adam Dunns or 9 Juan Pierres would score).

Dunn 7.92 (162 game season=1,283)
Pierre 5.55 (162 game season=899)

Now, if we plug those numbers into the handy dandy Pythagorean Theorem of Baseball (and assume that both the Dunns and the Pierres had NL average pitching staffs) then the Dunns would go 120-42 while the Pierres would go 92-70.
That's right, a lineup of 9 Adam Dunns would win 28 more games then a lineup of Pierres. So who the heck cares if the Dunn K's alot?

[Raisor]

I killed the Strike Out thread!

[BadFundamentals]

TRF, You stated earlier:

Originally Posted by TRF

It's about a players OBP. And his total bases.

A "Productive Out" is basically just a "base" for your team. That's a base you don't get if you strikeout.

The teams that did well with "Productive Outs" last year were up over 200. Teams that didn't (like the Reds) were ~150. An extra 50-75 bases in "critical" situations would mean some "critical" Runs and certainly more WINS.

[TRF]

:dflynn: :dflynn: :dflynn:

no. the problem with the reds was the pitching staf gave up 5 runs per game.

apples and oranges.

[MWM]

Originally Posted by BadFundamentals

TRF, You stated earlier:



A "Productive Out" is basically just a "base" for your team. That's a base you don't get if you strikeout.

The teams that did well with "Productive Outs" last year were up over 200. Teams that didn't (like the Reds) were ~150. An extra 50-75 bases in "critical" situations would mean some "critical" Runs and certainly more WINS.

BF, you're almost implying that those bases were FREE. They weren't. They came at the cost of an out. An out is almost ALWAYS more valuable than the base acquired by sacrificing that out if you look at total run value.